SURVEY REPORT ON PLASTIC POLLUTION · swr 2018-iii - survey report for greenpeace | gsssabio i...

SURVEY REPORT ON PLASTIC POLLUTION Third Quarter 2018 Social Weather Survey September 15-23, 2018

Copyrighted material/Strictly confidential. For information of Greenpeace Philippines only.

A non-stock, non-profit social research organization

52 Malingap Street, Sikatuna Village, Quezon City, 1101 Philippines Telephone Nos. (632) 926-4308, (632) 924-4458, (632) 924-4458, (632) 924-4465 Fax (632) 920-2181 E-mail Address: [email protected] Homepage: http://www.sws.org.ph

08 November 2018

MS. WILHELMINA PELEGRINA Country Director Greenpeace Philippines 302 JGS Building, 30 Scout Tuason St., 1103 Quezon City, Philippines Tel: +63 2 3321807 ext. 119; Fax: +63 2 3321806

Dear Ms. Pelegrina,

We are pleased to provide you the Survey Report on Plastic Pollution which you commissioned and was implemented within the SWS’s Third Quarter 2018 Social Weather Survey.

The survey was asked of 1,500 adults for an error margin of ±2.5% at the national level, at the 95% confidence level. The survey utilized face-to-face interviews using a structured questionnaire with visuals.

The results are embargoed until September 30, 2021. This means that without the Survey Sponsor’s permission, SWS may not make any public statement about the commissioned module before that date. However, in the event that the Survey Sponsor releases some portion of the commissioned module to the public before the embargo expires, SWS shall be at liberty to make the following information available to the public upon request: sponsorship of the survey; dates of interviewing; methods for obtaining the interview; population that was sampled; size and description of any sub-samples referred to; complete wording of the questions upon which the release is based; and, percentages upon which conclusions are based.

Should you have any questions or need clarifications, please do not hesitate to contact us. My e-mail address is [email protected]. For more information about SWS, you could visit our Webpage at www.sws.org.ph.

Thank you very much and best wishes.

Sincerely yours,

VLADYMIR JOSEPH LICUDINE

Deputy Director for Survey Design and Analysis

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.sws.org.ph/

SWR 2018-III - Survey Report for Greenpeace | Gsssabio i

COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL/STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL. NOT AUTHORIZED FOR QUOTATION, PUBLICATION OR RELEASE.

FOR INFORMATION OF GREENPEACE PHILIPPINES ONLY.

SURVEY REPORT ON PLASTIC POLLUTION

SWS THIRD QUARTER 2018 SOCIAL WEATHER SURVEY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 1

1. Survey Background .......................................................................................................... 3

2. Socio-Demographic Profile of Adult Respondents ........................................................ 4

3. Survey Results ................................................................................................................. 10

3.1. Single-use Plastics That One Usually Received or Used ......................... 10

3.2. What One Usually Did with Discarded Single-Use Plastics .................... 13

3.3. Opinion on Proposed Bill Prohibiting Use/Provision of Non- Biodegradable Plastic Bags ...................................................................... 17

3.4. Probability of Voting a Candidate Who Advocate for Specific Issues .... 20

3.5. Perceived Causes of Plastic Pollution ...................................................... 27

3.6. Opinion on Which Has More Responsibility in Reducing Plastic Pollution ........................................................................................ 30

ANNEXES A. Technical Details of the Survey B. Question Items C. Primary Data Tables

SWR 2018-III - Survey Report for Greenpeace | Gsssabio ii



LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 AREA, LOCALE, SEX, AGE, CLASS, EDUCATION, AND CIVIL STATUS OF ADULTS, SEP 2018 ..........................................................................4

Table 2 FREQUENCY OF WATCHING TV, LISTENING TO RADIO, AND READING NEWSPAPERS, SEP 2018 ...................................................................5

Table 3 LANGUAGE USED AT HOME AND ETHNIC GROUP, SEP 2018 ...................6

Table 4 RELIGION, ATTENDANCE AT RELIGIOUS SERVICES, AND CHARISMATIC GROUP MEMBERSHIP, SEP 2018 ...........................................7

Table 5 JOB STATUS AND TYPE OF EMPLOYER OF ADULTS, SEP 2018 ................8

Table 6 VOTER REGISTRATION, VOTING RECORD IN MAY 2016 AND MAY 2013, INTEREST AND PARTICIPATION IN THE COMING MAY 2019 ELECTIONS, SEP 2018 ..........................................................................................9

Table 7 SINGLE-USE PLASTICS THAT ONE USUALLY RECEIVES OR USES, BY CLASS, SEP 2018 ...........................................................................................11

Table 8 SINGLE-USE PLASTICS THAT ONE USUALLY RECEIVES OR USES, BY EDUCATION, SEP 2018 ................................................................................11

Table 9 SINGLE-USE PLASTICS THAT ONE USUALLY RECEIVES OR USES, BY AREA AND LOCALE, SEP 2018 ..................................................................12

Table 10 SINGLE-USE PLASTICS THAT ONE USUALLY RECEIVES OR USES, BY SEX AND AGE, SEP 2018 .............................................................................12

Table 11 WHAT ONE USUALLY DOES WITH DISCARDED SINGLE-USE PLASTICS, PHILIPPINES, SEP 2018 ..................................................................13

Table 12 WHAT ONE USUALLY DOES WITH DISCARDED SINGLE-USE PLASTICS, BY CLASS, SEP 2018.......................................................................14

Table 13 WHAT ONE USUALLY DOES WITH DISCARDED SINGLE-USE PLASTICS, BY EDUCATION, SEP 2018 ............................................................15

Table 14 WHAT ONE USUALLY DOES WITH DISCARDED SINGLE-USE PLASTICS, BY AREA AND LOCALE, SEP 2018 ..............................................15

Table 15 WHAT ONE USUALLY DOES WITH DISCARDED SINGLE-USE PLASTICS, BY SEX AND AGE, SEP 2018.........................................................16

SWR 2018-III - Survey Report for Greenpeace | Gsssabio iii



Table 16 REASONS THAT CAUSE PLASTIC POLLUTION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES LIKE THE PHILIPPINES, BY CLASS, SEP 2018 ......................28

Table 17 REASONS THAT CAUSE PLASTIC POLLUTION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES LIKE THE PHILIPPINES, BY EDUCATION, SEP 2018 ............28

Table 18 REASONS THAT CAUSE PLASTIC POLLUTION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES LIKE THE PHILIPPINES, BY AREA AND LOCALE, SEP 2018 ........................................................................................................................29

Table 19 REASONS THAT CAUSE PLASTIC POLLUTION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES LIKE THE PHILIPPINES, BY SEX AND AGE, SEP 2018 .........29

SWR 2018-III - Survey Report for Greenpeace | Gsssabio iv



LIST OF CHARTS Chart 1 SINGLE-USE PLASTICS THAT ONE USUALLY RECEIVES OR USES,

PHILIPPINES, SEP 2018 ......................................................................................10

Chart 2 APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED BILL THAT SEEKS TO PROHIBIT GROCERIES, PUBLIC MARKETS, FAST FOOD CHAINS, AND OTHER SIMILAR ESTABLISHMENTS FROM USING OR PROVIDING NON-BIODEGRADABLE PLASTIC BAGS, BY CLASS AND EDUCATION, SEP 2018 .............................................................................17

Chart 3 APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED BILL THAT SEEKS TO PROHIBIT GROCERIES, PUBLIC MARKETS, FAST FOOD CHAINS, AND OTHER SIMILAR ESTABLISHMENTS FROM USING OR PROVIDING NON-BIODEGRADABLE PLASTIC BAGS, BY AREA AND LOCALE, SEP 2018.....................................................................................18

Chart 4 APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED BILL THAT SEEKS TO PROHIBIT GROCERIES, PUBLIC MARKETS, FAST FOOD CHAINS, AND OTHER SIMILAR ESTABLISHMENTS FROM USING OR PROVIDING NON-BIODEGRADABLE PLASTIC BAGS, BY SEX AND AGE, SEP 2018 ............................................................................................19

Chart 5 PROBABILITY OF VOTING FOR A CANDIDATE WHO WILL ADVOCATE FOR SPECIFIC ISSUES IN THE MAY 2019 ELECTIONS, PHILIPPINES, SEP 2018 ......................................................................................20

Chart 6 PROBABILITY OF VOTING FOR A CANDIDATE WHO WILL ADVOCATE FOR SPECIFIC ISSUES IN THE MAY 2019 ELECTIONS: STRICT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAWS ON WASTE MANAGEMENT, BY CLASS AND EDUCATION, SEP 2018 ..........................21

Chart 7 PROBABILITY OF VOTING FOR A CANDIDATE WHO WILL ADVOCATE FOR SPECIFIC ISSUES IN THE MAY 2019 ELECTIONS: STRICT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAWS ON WASTE MANAGEMENT, BY AREA AND LOCALE, SEP 2018 ...................................22

Chart 8 PROBABILITY OF VOTING FOR A CANDIDATE WHO WILL ADVOCATE FOR SPECIFIC ISSUES IN THE MAY 2019 ELECTIONS: STRICT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAWS ON WASTE MANAGEMENT, BY SEX AND AGE, SEP 2018 ..............................................23

SWR 2018-III - Survey Report for Greenpeace | Gsssabio v



Chart 9 PROBABILITY OF VOTING FOR A CANDIDATE WHO WILL ADVOCATE FOR SPECIFIC ISSUES IN THE MAY 2019 ELECTIONS: ADVOCATING FOR THE ENACTMENT A LAW PROHIBITING GROCERIES, PUBLIC MARKETS, FAST FOOD CHAINS, AND OTHER SIMILAR ESTABLISHMENTS FROM USING OR PROVIDING NON BIODEGRADABLE PLASTIC BAGS IN THE WHOLE COUNTRY, BY CLASS AND EDUCATION, SEP 2018 ...............................................................24

Chart 10 PROBABILITY OF VOTING FOR A CANDIDATE WHO WILL ADVOCATE FOR SPECIFIC ISSUES IN THE MAY 2019 ELECTIONS: ADVOCATING FOR THE ENACTMENT A LAW PROHIBITING GROCERIES, PUBLIC MARKETS, FAST FOOD CHAINS, AND OTHER SIMILAR ESTABLISHMENTS FROM USING OR PROVIDING NON BIODEGRADABLE PLASTIC BAGS IN THE WHOLE COUNTRY, BY AREA AND LOCALE, SEP 2018 .........................................................................25

Chart 11 PROBABILITY OF VOTING FOR A CANDIDATE WHO WILL ADVOCATE FOR SPECIFIC ISSUES IN THE MAY 2019 ELECTIONS: ADVOCATING FOR THE ENACTMENT A LAW PROHIBITING GROCERIES, PUBLIC MARKETS, FAST FOOD CHAINS, AND OTHER SIMILAR ESTABLISHMENTS FROM USING OR PROVIDING NON-BIODEGRADABLE PLASTIC BAGS IN THE WHOLE COUNTRY, BY SEX AND AGE, SEP 2018....................................................................................26

Chart 12 REASONS THAT CAUSE PLASTIC POLLUTION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES LIKE THE PHILIPPINES, PHILIPPINES, SEP 2018 ..................27

Chart 13 OPINION ON WHICH HAS MORE RESPONSIBILITY IN REDUCING PLASTIC POLLUTION IN OUR COUNTRY, BY CLASS AND EDUCATION, SEP 2018 .......................................................................................30

Chart 14 OPINION ON WHICH HAS MORE RESPONSIBILITY IN REDUCING PLASTIC POLLUTION IN OUR COUNTRY, BY AREA AND LOCALE, SEP 2018 ................................................................................................................31

Chart 15 OPINION ON WHICH HAS MORE RESPONSIBILITY IN REDUCING PLASTIC POLLUTION IN OUR COUNTRY, BY SEX AND AGE, SEP 2018 ........................................................................................................................32

SWR 2018-III - Survey Report for Greenpeace | Gsssabio 1





EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the results of the survey module on Plastic Pollution implemented within the SWS’s Third Quarter 2018 Social Weather Survey.

The survey module covers the following topics: (1) single-use plastics that one usually receives or uses, (2) what one usually does with discarded single-use plastics, (3) opinion on proposed bill prohibiting use/provision of non-biodegradable plastic bags, (4) probability of voting a candidate who advocate for specific issues, (5) perceived causes of plastic pollution, and (6) opinion on which has more responsibility in reducing plastic pollution.

The key findings are summarized as follows:

1) Single-use plastics that one usually received or used. Majority of Filipinos usually received or used single-use plastics in form of container or wrapper of food item (66%) and container or wrapper of personal care items (61%). Across all socio-demographics, container or wrapper of food item was the most cited type of single-use plastics.

2) What one usually did with discarded single-use plastics. Among those who used/received single-use plastics, the largest proportion (34%) said they usually disposed single-use plastics in trash bins together with other types of trash. This was also the top response across nearly all demographics.

3) Opinion on proposed bill prohibiting use/provision of non-biodegradable plastic bags. Eight of ten Filipinos approved of the proposed bill that seeks to prohibit groceries, public markets, fast food chains, and other similar establishments from using or providing non-biodegradable plastic bags. Net approval rating was extremely strong1 at +69 (79% approve minus 10 % disapprove, correctly rounded). Net approval scores were extremely strong across all demographics.

1 SWS terminology for Net Approval: +50 and above, “Extremely Strong”; +30 to +49, “Very Strong”; +10 to +29, “Moderately Strong”, +9 to –9, “Neutral”; –10 to –29, “Moderately Weak”; –30 to –49, “Very Weak”; –50 and below, “Extremely Weak”.




4) Probability of voting a candidate who advocate for specific issues. Majorities said they would probably vote for a candidate who will advocate for strict implementation of the laws on waste management (82%) and a candidate advocating for the enactment of a law prohibiting groceries, public markets, fast food chains, and other similar establishments from using or providing non-biodegradable plastic bags in the whole country (73%). Across all demographics, majorities would probably vote for a candidate advocating these two issues.

5) Perceived causes of plastic pollution. Majority (65%) mentioned people’s recklessness in throwing and disposing their garbage as the cause of plastic pollution. This was also the top response across all demographics.

6) Opinion on which has more responsibility in reducing plastic pollution. Seven of ten said the Filipino citizens themselves have more responsibility in reducing plastic pollution in the country. On the other hand, three of ten believed that companies which produce plastics have more responsibility. Across all demographics, majorities picked Filipino citizens as their answer.






1. Survey Background

Summarized in this report are the results of the survey module on Plastic Pollution which was implemented within the SWS’s Third Quarter 2018 Social Weather Survey.

The survey was asked of 1,500 Filipino adults divided into random samples of 300 each in Metro Manila, North Luzon, South Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao (sampling error margins of ±2.5% for national percentages, and ±6% each for Metro Manila, North Luzon, South Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao). The survey utilized face-to-face interviews using a structured questionnaire with visuals. SURVEY BACKGROUND

Copyrighted material. Not authorized for quotation, publication or release.For information of Greenpeace Philippines only.

Third Quarter 2018 Social Weather ReportSeptember 15-23, 2018 National Survey2

Third Quarter 2018Social Weather Survey

Fieldwork Sample ErrorDates Sizes Margins

PHILIPPINES : Sep 15-23 1,500 ± 2.5%Metro Manila : Sep 16-23 300 ± 6

Balance Luzon : Sep 16-22 600 ± 4North Luzon : Sep 16-22 300 ± 6South Luzon : Sep 16-22 300 ± 6

Visayas : Sep 15-18 300 ± 6 Mindanao : Sep 15-18 300 ± 6




2. Socio-Demographic Profile of Adult Respondents

Applying census weights, 14% of the respondents were from Metro Manila, 44% from Balance of Luzon, 19% from Visayas, and 23% from Mindanao. Forty-two percent were from urban areas and the majority of 58% were from rural areas. [Table 1]

Male and female respondents were alternately sampled, and thus, had a 1 to 1 ratio.

By age group, 12% were youth (18-24), 21% were intermediate youth (25-34), 21% were middle-aged (35-44), 17% were 45 to 54 years old, and 28% were 55 years old and above.

The distribution by socio-economic class was: 4% classes ABC, 81% class D, and 15% class E.

Sixteen percent had at most some elementary education; 30% finished elementary education/had some high school education; 44% finished high school/completed vocational school/attended some college, and 10% graduated from college or took post-graduate studies.

The majority 62% were married, 22% were single or without a spouse or live-in partner, and 16% were living-in with a partner.

Table 1 AREA, LOCALE, SEX, AGE, CLASS, EDUCATION, AND CIVIL STATUS OF ADULTS, SEP 2018



AREA, LOCALE, SEX, AGE, CLASS, EDUCATION, AND CIVIL STATUS OF ADULTS, SEP 2018

Economic ClassABC 4%D 81E 15

EducationNone/Some elem. 16Elem. grad./Some HS 30HS/Voc. grad./Some coll. 44Coll. grad./Post coll. 10

Civil StatusNo spouse/partner 22Married 62With partner 16

Area (Weighted)NCR 14%Balance Luzon 44Visayas 19Mindanao 23

Locale (ascertained)Urban 42Rural 58

Sex (pre-determined)Male 50Female 50

Age18-24 1225-34 2135-44 2145-54 1755 and above 28




Thirty-six percent of respondents watched television for 3 hours or more daily, 19% for 1-2 hours daily, 8% less than an hour daily, 6% a few days per week, and 29% seldom. The remaining 1% said they never watched television. [Table 2]

For radio, 9% said they listened to it for 3 hours or more daily, 7% 1-2 hours daily, 4% less than an hour daily, 5% a few days per week, and the majority 70% seldom. The remaining 6% said they never listened to radio.

Two percent said they read the newspapers daily, 1% a few times a week, and 2% weekly. The majority 80% said they read newspaper not even once a week, and the remaining 15% said they never read newspapers.

Table 2 FREQUENCY OF WATCHING TV, LISTENING TO RADIO, AND READING NEWSPAPERS, SEP 2018



FREQUENCY OF WATCHING TV, LISTENING TO RADIO AND READING NEWSPAPERS, SEP 2018

Frequency of reading newspapersDaily 2%A few times a week 1Weekly 2Not even once a week 80Never 15

Frequency of watching TV3+ hours daily 36%1-2 hours daily 19Less than an hour daily 8A few days per week 6Seldom 29Never 1

Frequency of listening to radio3+ hours daily 91-2 hours daily 7Less than an hour daily 4A few days per week 5Seldom 70Never 6




Nearly two-fifths (39%) spoke Filipino in their homes, 20% Cebuano, and 10% Iluko. Those who spoke other languages at home were 8% or less nationwide. [Table 3]

As regards to ethnic group, 26% considered themselves Tagalog, 19% Cebuano, 13% Ilocano, and 10% Ilonggo. Other ethnic groups were 8% or less nationwide.

Table 3 LANGUAGE USED AT HOME AND ETHNIC GROUP, SEP 2018



LANGUAGE USED AT HOME AND ETHNIC GROUP, SEP 2018

Ethnic groupTagalog 26%Cebuano 19Ilocano 13Ilonggo 10Bicolano 8Kapampangan 4Tausug 3Maguindanao 3Waray 2Boholano 2Surigaonon 2Kaulo 1Manobo 1Bisaya 1Pangasinense 1Others 4

Language used at homeFilipino 39%Cebuano 20Iluko 10Hiligaynon 8Bicol 6Tausug 3Kapampangan 3Maguindanaon 3Waray 2Surigaonon 2Kaulo 1Boholano 1Manobo 1Others 2




Four-fifths (81%) were Roman Catholics, 7% were Muslims, 3% were Born Again, 3% were Protestant, 2% were Iglesia ni Cristo, 1% were Aglipayan, 1% were Baptist, and 2% constituted other religions. [Table 4]

Nearly half of adult respondents (45%) were weekly attendees of religious services, of which 15% attended several times a week and 30% attended once a week. A third (34%) were monthly attendees, of which 19% attended religious services 2-3 times a month and 16% attended once a month. A fifth (20%) were occasional attendees, of which 5% attended several times a year, 4% attended once a year, and 11% attended less frequently. Meanwhile, 0.6% never attended religious services.

Two percent were Couples for Christ members and 2% belonged to other charismatic groups. Almost all (95%) did not belong to any charismatic group.

Table 4 RELIGION, ATTENDANCE AT RELIGIOUS SERVICES, AND CHARISMATIC GROUP MEMBERSHIP, SEP 2018



RELIGION, ATTENDANCE AT RELIGIOUS SERVICES, AND CHARISMATIC GROUP MEMBERSHIP, SEP 2018

Religion at PresentRoman Catholic 81%Islam 7Born Again 3Protestant 3Iglesia ni Cristo 2Aglipayan 1Baptist 1Others 2

Attendance at Religious ServicesSeveral times a week 15%Once a week 302-3 times a month 19Once a month 16Several times a year 5Once a year 4Less frequently 11Never 0.6

Charismatic Group MembershipNot a Member 95Couples For Christ 2Others 2




Majority (54%) had a job at the time of the survey, 34% did not have a job but had one before, and 12% never had a job. Among those who had jobs, 35% were private employees, 56% were self-employed, 9% were government employees, and 0.1% were unpaid family workers. [Table 5]

Table 5 JOB STATUS AND TYPE OF EMPLOYER OF ADULTS, SEP 2018



JOB STATUS AND TYPE OF EMPLOYER OF ADULTS, SEP 2018

Job StatusHas a job, includes unpaid family worker 54%Does not have a job now but had a job before 34Never had a job 12

Type of Employer (Base: those who have a job)Private enterprise 35Registered: formal 27Not registered: informal 8

Self-employed* 56Registered: formal 19Not registered: informal 37

Government 9Unpaid family worker 0.1

*Includes property owners




Ninety-four percent of adult respondents in September 2018 were registered voters. [Table 6]

In the May 2016 elections, 85% voted, 5% were registered but did not vote, 5% were not registered but of voting age, and 5% were not yet of voting age.

In the May 2013 elections, 79% voted, 6% were registered but did not vote, 6% were not registered but of voting age, and 9% were not yet of voting age.

Half (50%) had much interest in the May 2019 Elections, 42% had moderate interest, 6% had little interest, and 2% had no interest.

Eighty-six percent will surely vote in the May 2019 Elections, 10% will probably vote, 1% will probably do something else, while 2% will definitely not be able to go to the precinct.

Table 6 VOTER REGISTRATION, VOTING RECORD IN MAY 2016 AND MAY 2013, INTEREST AND PARTICIPATION IN THE COMING MAY 2019 ELECTIONS, SEP 2018



VOTER REGISTRATION, VOTING RECORD IN MAY 2016 AND MAY 2013, INTEREST AND PARTICIPATION IN THE COMING

MAY 2019 ELECTIONS, SEP 2018Is a Registered Voter

Yes 94%No 6

Voting Record in the May 2016 elections

Voted 85Registered but did not vote 5Not registered but of voting age 5Not yet of voting age 5

Voting Record in the May 2013 elections

Voted 79Registered but did not vote 6Not registered but of voting age 6Not yet of voting age 9

Interest in the upcoming May 2019 elections

Much 50%Moderate 42Little 6None 2

Participation in the upcoming May 2019 elections

Surely vote 86Probably vote 10Probably do something else 1Definitely not be able to go to the

precinct 2




3. Survey Results

3.1. Single-use Plastics That One Usually Received or Used

Majority of Filipinos said they usually received or used single-use plastics in form of container or wrapper of food item (66%) and container or wrapper of personal care items (61%). Smaller proportions mentioned plastic straw (34%), plastic spoon and fork (30%), and container or wrapper of received parcel or delivered items (13%). Six percent answered none. [Chart 1]

Chart 1 SINGLE-USE PLASTICS THAT ONE USUALLY RECEIVES OR USES, PHILIPPINES, SEP 2018

Container or wrapper of food item was the top response across all socio-demographics (ranging from 62% to 70%). [Table 7 to Table 10]



SINGLE-USE PLASTICS THAT ONE USUALLY RECEIVES OR USES, PHILIPPINES, SEP 2018

Noted: % Refused is not shown. Q142: Alin po sa mga sumusunod na minsanang-gamit na plastic o single use plastics ang karaniwan ninyong natatanggap o ginagamit sa tuwingkayo ay bumibili ng mga produkto? Bukod sa mga nakalista sa ibaba, anu-ano pa po ang ibang minsanang-gamit na plastic single use plastics nainyong natatanggap o ginagamit? (ALLOW MULTIPLE RESPONSES) PLASTIC NA STRAW, PLASTIC NA KUTSARA AT TINIDOR, PINAGLALAGYAN O PAMBALOT NG PAGKAIN, PINAGLALAGYAN O PAMBALOT NG MGA GAMIT SA PANGANGALAGA SA KATAWAN (KAGAYA NG SABON, SHAMPOO, AT IBA PA), PINAGLALAGYAN O PAMBALOT NG MGA NATATANGGAP NA PACKAGE O NADELIVER NA GAMIT, o IBA PA, PAKITUKOY

66 6134 30

13 6Container orwrapper offood item

Container orwrapper of

personal careitems (like

soap,shampoo, etc.)

Plastic straw Plastic spoonand fork

Container orwrapper ofreceivedparcel ordelivered

items

None

% who usually receive or use…




Table 7 SINGLE-USE PLASTICS THAT ONE USUALLY RECEIVES OR USES, BY CLASS, SEP 2018

Table 8 SINGLE-USE PLASTICS THAT ONE USUALLY RECEIVES OR USES, BY EDUCATION, SEP 2018



SINGLE-USE PLASTICS THAT ONE USUALLY RECEIVES OR USES, BY CLASS, SEP 2018

Container or wrapper of food item 66% 65% 66% 70%Container or wrapper of personal care

items (like soap, shampoo, etc.) 61 51 61 65Plastic straw 34 52 32 38Plastic spoon and fork 30 51 29 29Container or wrapper of received

parcel or delivered items 13 24 12 13None 6 6 6 5

PH ABC D E




SINGLE-USE PLASTICS THAT ONE USUALLY RECEIVES OR USES, BY EDUCATION, SEP 2018

Container or wrapper of food item 66% 66% 67% 67% 65%Container or wrapper of personal care

items (like soap, shampoo, etc.) 61 63 61 60 63Plastic straw 34 23 30 39 38Plastic spoon and fork 30 20 25 34 37Container or wrapper of received

parcel or delivered items 13 12 9 15 18None 6 10 7 5 6

None/some Elem HS College

PH elem grad grad grad





Table 9 SINGLE-USE PLASTICS THAT ONE USUALLY RECEIVES OR USES, BY AREA AND LOCALE, SEP 2018

Table 10 SINGLE-USE PLASTICS THAT ONE USUALLY RECEIVES OR USES, BY SEX AND AGE, SEP 2018



SINGLE-USE PLASTICS THAT ONE USUALLY RECEIVES OR USES, BY AREA AND LOCALE, SEP 2018

Container or wrapper of food item 66% 63% 70% 63% 66% 65% 68%Container or wrapper of personal

care items (like soap, shampoo, etc.) 61 47 62 66 63 58 63Plastic straw 34 48 31 37 26 39 30Plastic spoon and fork 30 46 30 26 23 36 26Container or wrapper of received

parcel or delivered items 13 19 7 17 18 17 10None 6 2 6 8 8 5 7

BalPH NCR Luz Vis Min Urban Rural




SINGLE-USE PLASTICS THAT ONE USUALLY RECEIVES OR USES, BY SEX AND AGE, SEP 2018

Container or wrapper of food item 66% 66% 67% 62% 67% 68% 70% 65%Container or wrapper of personal

care items (like soap, shampoo, etc.) 61 60 62 59 63 62 57 62

Plastic straw 34 32 35 40 36 34 31 30Plastic spoon and fork 30 30 30 34 29 31 26 30Container or wrapper of received

parcel or delivered items 13 14 12 12 16 11 13 13None 6 6 6 5 5 5 8 7

55 &PH Male Female 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 above





3.2. What One Usually Did with Discarded Single-Use Plastics

Among those who used/received single-use plastics, the largest proportion (34%) said they disposed single-use plastics in trash bins together with other types of trash. Some usually did these with discarded single-use plastics: segregated and collected by garbage collector (25%), segregated for recycling or reuse (21%), and burned in the yard (14%). [Table 11]

Smaller proportions did these with discarded single-use plastics: brought them to a Material Recovery Facility or MRF (2%), disposed or left them behind anywhere (1%), buried them in the ground (1%), brought them to the junk shop (1%), and others (1%).

Table 11 WHAT ONE USUALLY DOES WITH DISCARDED SINGLE-USE PLASTICS, PHILIPPINES, SEP 2018



WHAT ONE USUALLY DOES WITH DISCARDED SINGLE-USE PLASTICS, PHILIPPINES, SEP 2018

Note: No answer, Don’t know, and Refused responses are not shown. Q143: Ano po ang kadalasan ninyong ginagawa sa mga minsanang-gamit na plastic o single use plastics pagkatapos itong gamitin o pagkataposgamitin ang produkto na laman nito? (ONE ANSWER ONLY) ITINATAPON SA BASURAHAN KASAMA NG IBA PANG URI NG BASURA, HINIHIWALAY AT BINIBIGAY SA BASURERO, HINIHIWALAY UPANG I-RECYCLE O MAGAMIT MULI, DINADALA SA MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY O MRF, ITINATAPON O INIIWAN LANG SA TABI-TABI, SINUSUNOG SA BAKURAN, o IBA PA, PAKITUKOY

Dispose in trash bins together with other types of trash 34%Segregate and collected by garbage collector 25Segregate to recycle or reuse 21Burned in the yard 14Bring to a Material Recovery Facility or MRF 2Dispose or left behind anywhere 1Buried in the ground 1Brought to the junk shop 1Others 1

(Base: Those who use/receive single-use plastics)




Disposed single-use plastics in trash bins together with other types of trash was the top response across nearly all demographics (ranging from 26% to 53%), except among college graduates (top response was segregated and collected by garbage collector at 30%). Both responses (disposed in trash bins together with other types of trash and segregated and collected by garbage collector) obtained the largest proportions among those aged 45-54 (both at 29%). [Table 12 to Table 15]

Table 12 WHAT ONE USUALLY DOES WITH DISCARDED SINGLE-USE PLASTICS, BY CLASS, SEP 2018



WHAT ONE USUALLY DOES WITH DISCARDED SINGLE-USE PLASTICS, BY CLASS, SEP 2018

Dispose in trash bins together with other types of trash 34% 42% 35% 26%

Segregate and collected by garbage collector 25 30 25 22

Segregate to recycle or reuse 21 22 21 21Burned in the yard 14 2 14 18Bring to a Material Recovery Facility

or MRF 2 2 2 2Dispose or left behind anywhere 1 0 1 2Buried in the ground 1 0 1 2Brought to the junk shop 1 2 1 1Others 1 0 1 3

PH ABC D E






Table 13 WHAT ONE USUALLY DOES WITH DISCARDED SINGLE-USE PLASTICS, BY EDUCATION, SEP 2018

Table 14 WHAT ONE USUALLY DOES WITH DISCARDED SINGLE-USE PLASTICS, BY AREA AND LOCALE, SEP 2018



WHAT ONE USUALLY DOES WITH DISCARDED SINGLE-USE PLASTICS, BY EDUCATION, SEP 2018

Dispose in trash bins together with other types of trash 34% 28% 33% 37% 28%

Segregate and collected by garbage collector 25 12 25 27 30

Segregate to recycle or reuse 21 22 21 18 29Burned in the yard 14 24 14 11 8Bring to a Material Recovery Facility

or MRF 2 1 2 2 2Dispose or left behind anywhere 1 3 1 1 0Buried in the ground 1 3 1 1 1Brought to the junk shop 1 0 1 1 1Others 1 2 1 1 1







WHAT ONE USUALLY DOES WITH DISCARDED SINGLE-USE PLASTICS, BY AREA AND LOCALE, SEP 2018

Dispose in trash bins together with other types of trash 34% 53% 32% 28% 30% 45% 26%

Segregate and collected by garbage collector 25 32 27 22 17 29 22

Segregate to recycle or reuse 21 13 22 25 20 17 24Burned in the yard 14 0 14 14 21 5 20Bring to a Material Recovery Facility

or MRF 2 0 2 4 1 1 2Dispose or left behind anywhere 1 0 0.4 3 3 0.4 2Buried in the ground 1 0 1 1 3 1 1Brought to the junk shop 1 0.3 1 1 0 1 1Others 1 0 0.4 2 2 1 1







Table 15 WHAT ONE USUALLY DOES WITH DISCARDED SINGLE-USE PLASTICS, BY SEX AND AGE, SEP 2018



WHAT ONE USUALLY DOES WITH DISCARDED SINGLE-USE PLASTICS, BY SEX AND AGE, SEP 2018

Dispose in trash bins together with other types of trash 34% 35% 32% 40% 36% 36% 29% 30%

Segregate and collected by garbage collector 25 26 24 25 19 22 29 28

Segregate to recycle or reuse 21 17 24 18 24 23 16 22Burned in the yard 14 14 14 11 16 13 16 12Bring to a Material Recovery

Facility or MRF 2 2 1 1 1 1 4 2Dispose or left behind anywhere 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2Buried in the ground 1 1 1 2 1 0.4 1 1Brought to the junk shop 1 1 1 0 0.2 1 2 1Others 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1







3.3. Opinion on Proposed Bill Prohibiting Use/Provision of Non-Biodegradable Plastic Bags

Seventy-nine percent of Filipinos approved (57% strongly approved plus 21% somewhat approved, correctly rounded) of the proposed bill that seeks to prohibit groceries, public markets, fast food chains, and other similar establishments from using or providing non-biodegradable plastic bags. On the other hand, 10% disapproved (5% somewhat disapproved plus another 5% strongly disapproved, correctly rounded), while 11% were undecided. Net approval rating was extremely strong2 at +69 (% approved minus % disapproved, correctly rounded). [Chart 2]

Net approval scores were extremely strong across all socio-demographics (ranging from +54 to +86).

By class, net approval was highest among classes ABC (+86), followed by class E (+75), and class D (+67).

Net approval was directly related to educational attainment: +84 among college graduates, +73 among high school graduates, +62 among elementary graduates, and +60 among those with none or up to some elementary education.

Chart 2 APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED BILL THAT SEEKS TO PROHIBIT GROCERIES, PUBLIC MARKETS, FAST FOOD CHAINS, AND OTHER SIMILAR ESTABLISHMENTS FROM USING OR PROVIDING NON-BIODEGRADABLE PLASTIC BAGS, BY CLASS AND EDUCATION, SEP 2018

2 SWS terminology for Net Approval: +50 and above, “Extremely Strong”; +30 to +49, “Very Strong”; +10 to +29, “Moderately Strong”, +9 to –9, “Neutral”; –10 to –29, “Moderately Weak”; –30 to –49, “Very Weak”; –50 and below, “Extremely Weak”.



APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED BILL THAT SEEKS TO PROHIBIT GROCERIES, PUBLIC MARKETS, FAST FOOD CHAINS, AND OTHER

SIMILAR ESTABLISHMENTS FROM USING OR PROVIDING NON-BIODEGRADABLE PLASTIC BAGS, BY CLASS AND EDUCATION, SEP 2018

Note: No answer, Don’t know, and Refused responses are not shown. *Strongly/somewhat approve minus strongly/somewhat disapprove, correctly roundedQ144: May panukalang batas na naglalayong ipagbawal sa mga grocery, palengke, fast food chains, at iba pang katulad na establisimyento sa paggamit o pamimigay ng mga plastic bag na non-biodegradable o hindi nabubulok. Sa pangkalahatan, kayo po ba ay sang-ayon o hindi sang-ayon sa panukalang batas naito? TALAGANG SUMASANG-AYON, MEDYO SUMASANG-AYON, HINDI TIYAK KUNG SANG-AYAN O HINDI SANG-AYON, MEDYO HINDI SUMASANG-AYON, o TALAGANG HINDI SUMASANG-AYON

5771

5661

5052

6169

2119

2221

2322

2119

116

1111

1412

99

52

55

76

4

0.5

53

62

6643

Total PHABC

DE

None/some elemElem grad

HS gradCollege grad

Net*

Strongly + somewhat approve Undecided

Somewhat + strongly

disapprove

+69+86+67+75+60+62+73+84




By area, net approval of the proposed bill was highest in Balance Luzon (+76), followed by NCR (+71), Visayas (+68), and Mindanao (+54). [Chart 3]

It was higher among urban dwellers (+71) than rural dwellers (+67).

Chart 3 APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED BILL THAT SEEKS TO PROHIBIT GROCERIES, PUBLIC MARKETS, FAST FOOD CHAINS, AND OTHER SIMILAR ESTABLISHMENTS FROM USING OR PROVIDING NON-BIODEGRADABLE PLASTIC BAGS, BY AREA AND LOCALE, SEP 2018




SIMILAR ESTABLISHMENTS FROM USING OR PROVIDING NON-BIODEGRADABLE PLASTIC BAGS, BY AREA AND LOCALE, SEP 2018


57

59

64

56

44

59

56

21

22

21

21

22

21

21

11

8

6

13

21

9

12

5

6

5

6

2

6

4

5

4

4

4

10

4

6

Total PH

NCR

Bal. Luzon

Visayas

Mindanao

Urban

Rural

Net*


Somewhat + strongly

disapprove

+69

+71

+76

+68

+54

+71

+67




Net approval of the proposed bill was slightly higher among males (+70) than females (+68). [Chart 4]

Net approval ratings were highest among age groups 35-44 and 55 and above (both at +70), followed by age groups 25-34 and 45-54 (both at +68) and age group 18-24 (+66).

Chart 4 APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED BILL THAT SEEKS TO PROHIBIT GROCERIES, PUBLIC MARKETS, FAST FOOD CHAINS, AND OTHER SIMILAR ESTABLISHMENTS FROM USING OR PROVIDING NON-BIODEGRADABLE PLASTIC BAGS, BY SEX AND AGE, SEP 2018




SIMILAR ESTABLISHMENTS FROM USING OR PROVIDING NON-BIODEGRADABLE PLASTIC BAGS, BY SEX AND AGE, SEP 2018


5760

545556

6158

56

2119

232123

181924

1110

12131012148

5554644

5

55565555

Total PHMale

Female18-2425-3435-4445-54

55 & above

Net*


Somewhat + strongly

disapprove

+69+70+68+66+68+70+68+70




3.4. Probability of Voting a Candidate Who Advocate for Specific Issues

Majority (82%) would probably vote for a candidate who will advocate for strict implementation of the laws on waste management (82%), while 9% would probably not vote for him/her. Eight percent would not be affected. [Chart 5]

Likewise, majority (73%) would probably vote for a candidate advocating for the enactment of a law prohibiting groceries, public markets, fast food chains, and other similar establishments from using or providing non-biodegradable plastic bags in the whole country, while 16% would probably not vote for him/her. Ten percent would not be affected.

Chart 5 PROBABILITY OF VOTING FOR A CANDIDATE WHO WILL ADVOCATE FOR SPECIFIC ISSUES IN THE MAY 2019 ELECTIONS, PHILIPPINES, SEP 2018



PROBABILITY OF VOTING FOR A CANDIDATE WHO WILL ADVOCATE FOR SPECIFIC ISSUES IN THE MAY 2019 ELECTIONS,

PHILIPPINES, SEP 2018

Note: No answer, Don’t know, and Refused responses are not shown.Qs145-146: Kung sakali po na ang isang kandidato ay magsusulong ng [SHUFFLE CARDS OF ISSUES] sa halalan sa Mayo 2019 MALAMANG PO BA NA INYONG IBOBOTO, HINDI IBOBOTO, o WALANG MAGIGING EPEKTO ang isyung ito sa inyong magiging boto sa Mayo 2019?

82

73

9

16

8

10

Strict implementation of the laws on wastemanagement

Advocating for the enactment of a lawprohibiting groceries, public markets, fast

food chains, and other similar establishmentsfrom using or providing non-biodegradable

plastic bags in the whole country

Probably vote for

Will not be affected

Probably not vote for




Across all demographics, majorities (ranging from 75% to 94%) would probably vote for a candidate who will advocate for strict implementation of the laws on waste management. [Chart 6 to Chart 8]

By class, proportion who would probably vote for such candidate was highest among classes ABC (94%), followed by classes D and E (both at 82%). [Chart 6]

Proportion who will probably vote for a candidate advocating the said issue was highest among college graduates (85%), followed by high school graduates (84%), elementary graduates (81%), and those with none or up to some elementary education (78%).

Chart 6 PROBABILITY OF VOTING FOR A CANDIDATE WHO WILL ADVOCATE FOR SPECIFIC ISSUES IN THE MAY 2019 ELECTIONS: STRICT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAWS ON WASTE MANAGEMENT, BY CLASS AND EDUCATION, SEP 2018



8294

8282

78818485

94

109

1410

86

82

898989

Total PHABC

DE


HS gradCollege grad

PROBABILITY OF VOTING FOR A CANDIDATE WHO WILL ADVOCATE FOR SPECIFIC ISSUES IN THE MAY 2019 ELECTIONS: STRICT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAWS ON WASTE MANAGEMENT,

BY CLASS AND EDUCATION, SEP 2018

Note: No answer, Don’t know, and Refused responses are not shown.Q145: Kung sakali po na ang isang kandidato ay magsusulong ng MAHIGPIT NA PAGPAPATUPAD NG BATAS SA PANGANGASIWA NG BASURA O WASTE MANAGEMENT sa halalan sa Mayo 2019 MALAMANG PO BA NA INYONG IBOBOTO, HINDI IBOBOTO, o WALANG MAGIGING EPEKTO angisyung ito sa inyong magiging boto sa Mayo 2019?

Probably vote for






By area, proportion who would probably vote for a candidate advocating strict implementation of the laws on waste management was highest in NCR and Balance Luzon (both at 86%), followed by Visayas (80%), and Mindanao (75%). [Chart 7]

Proportions were nearly identical among urban and rural dwellers (83% and 82%, respectively).

Chart 7 PROBABILITY OF VOTING FOR A CANDIDATE WHO WILL ADVOCATE FOR SPECIFIC ISSUES IN THE MAY 2019 ELECTIONS: STRICT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAWS ON WASTE MANAGEMENT, BY AREA AND LOCALE, SEP 2018



82

86

86

80

75

83

82

9

7

7

13

13

7

11

8

6

7

6

12

9

8

Total PH

NCR

Bal. Luzon

Visayas

Mindanao

Urban

Rural


BY AREA AND LOCALE, SEP 2018


Probably vote for






Proportions who would probably vote for a candidate advocating strict implementation of the laws on waste management hardly varied among males and females (83% and 82%, respectively). [Chart 8]

Proportions by age group were as follows: 84% among those aged 35-44, 83% among age groups 25-34 and 55 and above, 81% among those aged 45-54, and 79% among those aged 18-24.

Chart 8 PROBABILITY OF VOTING FOR A CANDIDATE WHO WILL ADVOCATE FOR SPECIFIC ISSUES IN THE MAY 2019 ELECTIONS: STRICT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAWS ON WASTE MANAGEMENT, BY SEX AND AGE, SEP 2018



828382

798384

8183

99

914

99

98

889787

99

Total PHMale

Female18-2425-3435-4445-54

55 & above


BY SEX AND AGE, SEP 2018


Probably vote for






Across all demographics, majorities (ranging from 65% to 87%) would probably vote for a candidate who will advocate for the enactment of a law prohibiting groceries, public markets, fast food chains, and other similar establishments from using or providing non-biodegradable plastic bags in the whole country. [Chart 9 to Chart 11]

Proportion who would probably vote for such candidate was highest among classes ABC (87%), followed by class E (77%), and class D (72%). [Chart 9]

The corresponding proportions by education were as follows: 80% among college graduates, 74% among high school graduates, 72% among with none or up to some elementary education, and 71% among elementary graduates.

Chart 9 PROBABILITY OF VOTING FOR A CANDIDATE WHO WILL ADVOCATE FOR SPECIFIC ISSUES IN THE MAY 2019 ELECTIONS: ADVOCATING FOR THE ENACTMENT A LAW PROHIBITING GROCERIES, PUBLIC MARKETS, FAST FOOD CHAINS, AND OTHER SIMILAR ESTABLISHMENTS FROM USING OR PROVIDING NON BIODEGRADABLE PLASTIC BAGS IN THE WHOLE COUNTRY, BY CLASS AND EDUCATION, SEP 2018



PROBABILITY OF VOTING FOR A CANDIDATE WHO WILL ADVOCATE FOR SPECIFIC ISSUES IN THE MAY 2019 ELECTIONS: ADVOCATING FOR THE

ENACTMENT OF A LAW PROHIBITING GROCERIES, PUBLIC MARKETS, FAST FOOD CHAINS, AND OTHER SIMILAR ESTABLISHMENTS FROM USING OR

PROVIDING NON-BIODEGRADABLE PLASTIC BAGS IN THE WHOLE COUNTRY, BY CLASS AND EDUCATION, SEP 2018

Note: No answer, Don’t know, and Refused responses are not shown.Q146: Kung sakali po na ang isang kandidato ay magsusulong ng PAGSULONG NG PAGSASABATAS NG PAGBAWAL SA MGA GROCERY, PALENGKE, FAST FOOD CHAINS, AT IBA PANG KATULAD NA ESTABLISIMYENTO ANG PAGGAMIT O PAMIMIGAY NG MGA PLASTIC BAG NA NON BIODEGRADABLE O HINDI NABUBULOK SA BUONG BANSA.sa halalan sa Mayo 2019 MALAMANG PO BA NA INYONG IBOBOTO, HINDI IBOBOTO, o WALANG MAGIGING EPEKTO ang isyung ito sa inyongmagiging boto sa Mayo 2019?

7387

7277

727174

80

165

1713

201715

11

108

11108

1211

9

Total PHABC

DE


HS gradCollege grad

Probably vote for






By area, proportion who would probably vote for a candidate who will advocate for the enactment of a law prohibiting groceries, public markets, fast food chains, and other similar establishments from using or providing non-biodegradable plastic bags in the whole country was highest in Balance Luzon (77%), followed by NCR (76%), Visayas (72%), and Mindanao (65%). [Chart 10]

Proportion was slightly higher among urban dwellers compared to rural dwellers (74% and 72%, respectively).

Chart 10 PROBABILITY OF VOTING FOR A CANDIDATE WHO WILL ADVOCATE FOR SPECIFIC ISSUES IN THE MAY 2019 ELECTIONS: ADVOCATING FOR THE ENACTMENT A LAW PROHIBITING GROCERIES, PUBLIC MARKETS, FAST FOOD CHAINS, AND OTHER SIMILAR ESTABLISHMENTS FROM USING OR PROVIDING NON BIODEGRADABLE PLASTIC BAGS IN THE WHOLE COUNTRY, BY AREA AND LOCALE, SEP 2018





PROVIDING NON-BIODEGRADABLE PLASTIC BAGS IN THE WHOLE COUNTRY, BY AREA AND LOCALE, SEP 2018


73

76

77

72

65

74

72

16

14

14

19

20

14

18

10

10

9

8

15

11

10

Total PH

NCR

Bal. Luzon

Visayas

Mindanao

Urban

Rural

Probably vote for






Proportion who would probably vote for a candidate who will advocate for the enactment of a law prohibiting groceries, public markets, fast food chains, and other similar establishments from using or providing non-biodegradable plastic bags in the whole country was slightly higher among males (74%) than females (72%). [Chart 11]

Proportion was highest among age group 55 and above (76%), followed by age groups 25-34 and 45-54 (both at 74%), 35-44 (71%), and 18-24 (66%).

Chart 11 PROBABILITY OF VOTING FOR A CANDIDATE WHO WILL ADVOCATE FOR SPECIFIC ISSUES IN THE MAY 2019 ELECTIONS: ADVOCATING FOR THE ENACTMENT A LAW PROHIBITING GROCERIES, PUBLIC MARKETS, FAST FOOD CHAINS, AND OTHER SIMILAR ESTABLISHMENTS FROM USING OR PROVIDING NON-BIODEGRADABLE PLASTIC BAGS IN THE WHOLE COUNTRY, BY SEX AND AGE, SEP 2018





PROVIDING NON-BIODEGRADABLE PLASTIC BAGS IN THE WHOLE COUNTRY, BY SEX AND AGE, SEP 2018


7374

7266

74717476

161517

231520

1313

1010101111

81210

Total PHMale

Female18-2425-3435-4445-54

55 & above

Probably vote for






3.5. Perceived Causes of Plastic Pollution

When asked about their perceived reasons for plastic pollution, 65% answered people are reckless in throwing and disposing their garbage.

Some also mentioned these reasons: poor or inadequate waste management and infrastructure (36%), lack of education in every household concerning proper waste management (35%), corporations producing more and more products wrapped in single-use plastic and sachets (27%), and lack of recycling facilities (25%). A smaller proportion (11%) cited little or no alternative option for plastic packaging. [Chart 12]

Chart 12 REASONS THAT CAUSE PLASTIC POLLUTION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES LIKE THE PHILIPPINES, PHILIPPINES, SEP 2018

People are reckless in throwing and disposing their garbage was the top cited reason for plastic pollution across all socio-demographics (ranging from 50% to 76%). [Table 16 to Table 19]



REASONS THAT CAUSE PLASTIC POLLUTION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES LIKE THE PHILIPPINES,

PHILIPPINES, SEP 2018

Note: No answer and Don’t know responses are not shown. Q147: Sa inyong palagay, alin sa mga sumusunod ang dahilan kung bakit nagkakaroon ng polusyong dulot ng plastic sa isang papaunlad na mga bansa tulad ng Pilipinas? Maaari po kayong mamili ng hanggang tatlong dahilan. (ALLOW UP TO THREE RESPONSES) HINDI SAPAT NA PAMAMAHALA AT IMPRASTRAKTURA PARA SA BASURA, MGA KORPORASYON NA GUMAGAWA NG MARAMING PRODUKTO NA NAKABALOT SA MGA MINSANANG-GAMIT NA PLASTIC AT SACHET, ANG MGA TAO AY WALANG PAKUNDANGAN SA PAGTATAPON NG KANILANG BASURA, KAKULANGAN NG MGA PASILIDAD SA PAGRE-RECYCLE, KAKULANGAN NG EDUKASYON SA BAWAT SAMBAHAYAN TUNGKOL SA TAMANG PAMAMAHALA NG BASURA, MALIIT o WALANG ALTERNATIBONG PAMPALIT PARA SA PLASTIC NA LALAGYAN

6536 35 27 25 11

People arereckless in

throwing anddisposing their

garbage

Poor orinadequate

wastemanagement

andinfrastructure

Lack ofeducation in

everyhouseholdconcerning

proper wastemanagement

Corporationsproducing

more and moreproducts

wrapped insingle-useplastic and

sachets

Lack ofrecyclingfacilities

Little or noalternativeoption for

plasticpackaging

% who mentioned that…




Table 16 REASONS THAT CAUSE PLASTIC POLLUTION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES LIKE THE PHILIPPINES, BY CLASS, SEP 2018

Table 17 REASONS THAT CAUSE PLASTIC POLLUTION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES LIKE THE PHILIPPINES, BY EDUCATION, SEP 2018




BY CLASS, SEP 2018

People are reckless in throwing and disposing their garbage 65% 71% 66% 62%

Poor or inadequate waste management and infrastructure 36 30 34 47

Lack of education in every household concerning proper waste management 35 39 35 37

Corporations producing more and more products wrapped in single-use plastic and sachets 27 32 27 28

Lack of recycling facilities 25 31 25 24Little or no alternative option for

plastic packaging 11 15 10 13

PH ABC D E

Note: No answer and Don’t know responses are not shown. Q147: Sa inyong palagay, alin sa mga sumusunod ang dahilan kung bakit nagkakaroon ng polusyong dulot ng plastic sa isang papaunlad na mgabansa tulad ng Pilipinas? Maaari po kayong mamili ng hanggang tatlong dahilan. (ALLOW UP TO THREE RESPONSES) HINDI SAPAT NA PAMAMAHALA AT IMPRASTRAKTURA PARA SA BASURA, MGA KORPORASYON NA GUMAGAWA NG MARAMING PRODUKTO NA NAKABALOT SA MGA MINSANANG-GAMIT NA PLASTIC AT SACHET, ANG MGA TAO AY WALANG PAKUNDANGAN SA PAGTATAPON NG KANILANG BASURA, KAKULANGAN NG MGA PASILIDAD SA PAGRE-RECYCLE, KAKULANGAN NG EDUKASYON SA BAWAT SAMBAHAYAN TUNGKOL SA TAMANG PAMAMAHALA NG BASURA, o MALIIT O WALANG ALTERNATIBONG PAMPALIT PARA SA PLASTIC NA LALAGYAN




BY EDUCATION, SEP 2018


People are reckless in throwing and disposing their garbage 65% 63% 63% 67% 69%

Poor or inadequate waste management and infrastructure 36 37 33 37 41

Lack of education in every household concerning proper waste management 35 32 35 35 43

Corporations producing more and more products wrapped in single-use plastic and sachets 27 26 29 28 22

Lack of recycling facilities 25 18 22 29 23Little or no alternative option for

plastic packaging 11 12 9 10 16






Table 18 REASONS THAT CAUSE PLASTIC POLLUTION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES LIKE THE PHILIPPINES, BY AREA AND LOCALE, SEP 2018

Table 19 REASONS THAT CAUSE PLASTIC POLLUTION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES LIKE THE PHILIPPINES, BY SEX AND AGE, SEP 2018






People are reckless in throwing and disposing their garbage 65% 58% 76% 64% 50% 66% 65%

Poor or inadequate waste management and infrastructure 36 38 31 39 43 36 36

Lack of education in every household concerning proper waste management 35 37 39 36 27 37 34

Corporations producing more and more products wrapped in single-use plastic and sachets 27 21 26 40 22 27 27

Lack of recycling facilities 25 27 27 25 19 28 23Little or no alternative option for

plastic packaging 11 15 9 9 12 13 9







People are reckless in throwing and disposing their garbage 65% 65% 66% 68% 64% 62% 67% 67%

Poor or inadequate waste management and infrastructure 36 36 36 43 40 34 32 34

Lack of education in every household concerning proper waste management 35 35 35 33 35 34 35 37

Corporations producing more and more products wrapped in single-use plastic and sachets 27 27 27 28 25 28 25 29

Lack of recycling facilities 25 26 24 28 25 24 24 24Little or no alternative option

for plastic packaging 11 10 11 12 13 11 9 10





3.6. Opinion on Which Has More Responsibility in Reducing Plastic Pollution

Seven of ten Filipinos (69%) said Filipino citizens have more responsibility in reducing plastic pollution in the country. On the other hand, three of ten (30%) believed that companies which produce plastics have more responsibility. [Chart 13 to Chart 15]

Across all socio-demographics, majorities (ranging from 62% to 78%) said Filipino citizens have more responsibility in reducing plastic pollution in the country.

By class, proportion who answered Filipino citizens was highest among classes ABC (78%), followed by class D (69%), and class E (65%).

Proportion who answered Filipino citizens was highest among college graduates, (73%), followed by high school graduates (71%), elementary graduates (66%), and those with none or up to some elementary education (65%). [Chart 13]

Chart 13 OPINION ON WHICH HAS MORE RESPONSIBILITY IN REDUCING PLASTIC POLLUTION IN OUR COUNTRY, BY CLASS AND EDUCATION, SEP 2018



OPINION ON WHICH HAS MORE RESPONSIBILITY IN REDUCING PLASTIC POLLUTION IN OUR COUNTRY,

BY CLASS AND EDUCATION, SEP 2018

Note: No answer and Don’t know responses are not shown.Q148: Bukod sa gobyerno, alin sa mga dalawang ito ang mas may responsibilidad sa pagbabawas ng polusyon ng plastic sa ating bansa? (SHOWCARD) KOMPANYANG GUMAGAWA NG PLASTICS o MAMAMAYANG PILIPINO

3022

30353433

2825

6978

69656566

7173

Total PHABC

DE


HS gradCollege grad

Companies which produce plastics Filipino citizens




By area, proportion who said that Filipino citizens have more responsibility in reducing plastic pollution in the country was highest in NCR (74%), followed by Visayas (72%), Balance Luzon (69%), and Mindanao (62%). [Chart 14]

Proportions were identical among urban and rural dwellers (both at 69%).

Chart 14 OPINION ON WHICH HAS MORE RESPONSIBILITY IN REDUCING PLASTIC POLLUTION IN OUR COUNTRY, BY AREA AND LOCALE, SEP 2018






30

25

30

26

38

30

31

69

74

69

72

62

69

69

Total PH

NCR

Bal. Luzon

Visayas

Mindanao

Urban

Rural





Proportion who answered the Filipino citizens was slightly higher among males (70%) compared to females (68%). [Chart 15]

By age group, proportions who answered the Filipino citizens were as follows: 73% among age group 35-44, 71% among age group 18-24, 70% among age group 25-34, 68% among age group 55 and above, and 64% among age group 45-54.

Chart 15 OPINION ON WHICH HAS MORE RESPONSIBILITY IN REDUCING PLASTIC POLLUTION IN OUR COUNTRY, BY SEX AND AGE, SEP 2018

#






302932

2929

2636

32

697068

7170

7364

68

Total PHMale

Female18-2425-3435-4445-54

55 & above


Annex A: Technical Details of the Survey

C:\Users\GSSSABIO\Downloads\SWR 2018-III Technical Details (Portrait)-Final (1).doc i

SOCIAL WEATHER STATIONS

TThhiirrdd QQuuaarrtteerr 22001188 SSoocciiaall WWeeaatthheerr SSuurrvveeyy

((SSWWRR 22001188--IIIIII)) SSeepptteemmbbeerr 1155 –– 2233,, 22001188

TTEECCHHNNIICCAALL DDEETTAAIILLSS

1. Location

The Third Quarter 2018 Social Weather Survey covered the entire Philippines and had five major study areas: National Capital Region (NCR), North Luzon, South Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao.

2. Timetable Fieldwork: National Capital Region - September 16-23, 2018 North Luzon - September 16-22, 2018 South Luzon - September 16-22, 2018 Visayas - September 15-18, 2018 Mindanao - September 15-18, 2018 3. Respondents

Data was gathered through face-to-face interviews of voting-age adults (18 years old and above). It asked a host of questions about political, social and economic issues, some undertaken as regular indicators monitored over time and others reflective of current concerns as well as specific personal information. It also obtained information and background characteristics about the household, the household head and family members.

4. Sampling Method

Sample Sizes and Error Margins. An indicator of data quality is the standard error of the estimate, on which the margin for sampling error is based. As survey statistics are mostly proportions, the key measure of data precision is the standard error of a proportion taken from a sample. It is computed as follows:

Where Z, at 95% confidence level is 1.96; p is the sample proportion estimate and n is the sample size. The overall sample size of 1,500 voting-age adults gives a maximum error margin of ±2.53% at the 95% confidence level, assuming a simple random sampling design. The sampling error is at its highest when the true proportion being estimated is close to 50%.

+ _ z

Z * p(1-p) n

C:\Users\GSSSABIO\Downloads\SWR 2018-III Technical Details (Portrait)-Final (1).doc ii


The following approximate 95%-confidence margins for sampling error should be made when aggregating data at various levels:

Sample Size Error margin Philippines 1500 ±3% National Capital Region 300 ±6% North Luzon 300 ±6% South Luzon 300 ±6% Visayas 300 ±6% Mindanao 300 ±6%

However, somewhat higher error margins should be expected since multi-stage cluster sampling was used; this design-effect is not readily measurable through established statistical software. Sampling scheme. The Philippines was divided into five study areas: National Capital Region (NCR), North Luzon, South Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. Multi-stage probability sampling was used in the selection of sample spots. The allocation of sample units in each stage was as follows:

Sample Sample Probability Prov. Mun. Spots Respondents National Capital Region -- 15 60 300 North Luzon 10 43 60 300 South Luzon 10 38 60 300 Visayas 5 45 60 300 Mindanao 6 32 60 300 --- -------- ----- ------ 31 173 300 1500 For the National Capital Region Stage 1. Selection of Sample Spots (Barangays)

For NCR's first stage, 60 spots are selected from all the barangays in the 15 NCR cities and municipalities. Each spot was selected with probability proportional to size (PPS).

Stage 2. Selection of Sample Households

In each sample barangay, five households were established by systematic sampling. Designated starting points were randomly assigned - it was either: 1) a municipal/barangay hall, 2) a school, 3) the barangay captain's house, 4) a church/chapel/mosque, 5) a health facility, or 6) a basketball court. A random start from 1-6 was also randomly generated for each spot. Thus, if a particular spot has a random start of 4, the first sample household should be the 4th household from the designated starting point. Subsequent sample households were chosen using a fixed interval of 5 households in between the sampled ones; i.e. every 6th household was sampled.

C:\Users\GSSSABIO\Downloads\SWR 2018-III Technical Details (Portrait)-Final (1).doc iii


Stage 3. Selection of Sample Adult For the third stage, in each selected household, a respondent is randomly chosen among the household members who were 18 years of age and older, using a probability selection table. Male and female respondents are alternately sampled, and thus, have a 1 to 1 ratio. In selecting the probability respondent of a household, only male family members were pre-listed in the probability selection table of odd-numbered questionnaires; only female family members were pre-listed for even-numbered questionnaires. A respondent not contacted during the first attempt was visited for a second time. If the respondent remained unavailable, or in cases where there was no qualified probability respondent of a given gender, the interval sampling of households would continue until five sample respondents were identified.

For the rest of the Philippines Stage 1. Allocation and Selection of Sample Provinces

North Luzon was further divided into 3 regions: Region I, CAR+Region II and Region III; South Luzon into 3 regions: Region IV-A, Region IV-B and Region V; Visayas into 3 regions: Region VI, Region VII and Region VIII; and Mindanao into 6 regions; Region IX, Region X, Caraga, Region XI, Region XII and ARMM. Using probability proportional to population size (PPS) of the region, the allocation of 5 provinces in North Luzon, 5 provinces in South Luzon, 5 in Visayas and 6 in Mindanao were as follows:

NORTH LUZON SOUTH LUZON VISAYAS MINDANAO Region I 1 Region IV-A 3 Region VI 2 Region IX 1 CAR+Region II 1 Region IV-B 1 Region VII 2 Region X 1 Region III 3 Region V 1 Region VIII 1 Caraga 1 Region XI 1 Region XII 1 ARMM 1 ---- ---- ---- ---- TOTAL 5 5 5 6

The non-quota provinces were selected without replacement using probability proportional to their remainders. The remainders are fractions derived when the proportion of the regions (based on their respective study area) are multiplied by 10 for Luzon, and 5 for Visayas and 6 for Mindanao. For instance, if 1.28 is obtained for Region I, then 1 province is assigned to this region and remaining fraction of 0.28 is included for the allocation of the non-quota province. Given the target number of provinces for each region, sample provinces were then selected by PPS, without replacement. An additional provision is that each region must receive at least one province.

C:\Users\GSSSABIO\Downloads\SWR 2018-III Technical Details (Portrait)-Final (1).doc iv


Stage 2. Allocation and Selection of Sample Spots

Within the study areas of North Luzon, South Luzon, Visayas, Mindanao, 60 spots were selected within each sample province with probability proportional to population size, without replacement.

NORTH LUZON SOUTH LUZON VISAYAS MINDANAO Region I 14 Region IV-A 37 Region VI 23 Region IX 9 CAR+Region II 15 Region IV-B 8 Region VII 23 Region X 12 Region III 31 Region V 15 Region VIII 14 Caraga 7 Region XI 12 Region XII 11 ARMM 9 ---- ---- ---- ---- TOTAL 60 60 60 60

Sample barangays were then classified as urban or rural based on the latest Philippine Statistics Authority classification (2010).

Stage 3. Selection of Sample Households

For the third stage, within each sample spot, five households were established by systematic sampling. In urban barangays as well as in rural barangays, designated starting points were randomly assigned - it was either: 1) a municipal/barangay hall, 2) a school, 3) the barangay captain's house, 4) a church/chapel/mosque, 5) a health facility, or 6) a basketball court. A random start from 1-6 was also randomly generated for each spot. Thus, if a particular spot has a random start of 4, the first sample household should be the 4th household from the designated starting point. The sampling interval for urban barangays was six, while for rural barangays, it was two.

Stage 4. Selection of Sample Respondents

For the fourth and final stage, as discussed earlier, a respondent was randomly chosen from among the voting-age adults in each selected household using a probability respondent selection table. A respondent not contacted during the first attempt was visited for a second time. If the respondent remained unavailable, or in cases where there was no qualified probability respondent of a given gender, the interval sampling of households would continue until five sample respondents were identified.

C:\Users\GSSSABIO\Downloads\SWR 2018-III Technical Details (Portrait)-Final (1).doc v


5. Research Methodology a. Preparation (1) Questionnaire

The definitive language version of the questionnaire, Filipino, was translated into English, Iluko, Cebuano, Hiligaynon, Bicol, Tausug and Maguindanaon by language experts. Then the language translation underwent cognitive pretests to make sure that the messages were conveyed accurately.

(2) Reviewing and Finalizing the Questionnaire The questionnaire underwent cognitive review in order to:

- Determine the time length of the interview - Improve the wording of the questions, if necessary - Eliminate unnecessary questions or add new items, as the case may be

- Test question sequence and identify bases - Correct and improve translation - Change open-ended questions into multiple-choice questions - Find out which items are conceptually vague - Check accuracy and adequacy of the questionnaire instructions - Determine whether the focus of the question is clear - Identify interviewer's recording difficulties

(3) Training

(a) Training was conducted in several strategic locations with interviewers assigned to

cover specific areas being trained near their area assignments. (b) Training time – The minimum training time for group supervisors and interviewers

was 2 days prior to field implementation. The third day was the start-off, where the field supervisor observed the field interviewers on their first interviews.

C:\Users\GSSSABIO\Downloads\SWR 2018-III Technical Details (Portrait)-Final (1).doc vi


(c) Training Activities – These mainly consisted of: One or two days office training to learn the basics of the project. Mock interviews

among participants, i.e. field interviewers interviewing supervising anchors as respondents are done to get accustomed to the flow of interviewing and questionnaire format.

Interviews were practiced with a supervisor around until the interviewer could be left on her own.

(d) Evaluation of interviewer’s work – All first interviews of each field interviewer were

observed by her field supervisor, and then evaluated. Only after meeting a certain evaluation criteria was an interviewer left to interview on her own, although her field supervisor always stayed within the vicinity of the sample spot to conduct checks.

b. Field Work

(1) Workers on Hand

For this project, a total of 130 field staff were deployed.

(2) Supervision Supervisors reporting to the field manager monitored the study full-time. They observed field interviewers (at least 10% of each interviewer’s assigned interviews were observed by supervisors), followed-up and did surprise checks on the interviewers. They also ensured that field logistics were received promptly and administered properly.

(3) Quality Control

Part of quality control was to make sure at least 30% of each interviewer’s output was spot-checked and back-checked (10% were spot-checked, 10% were back-checked thru phone, and 10% were back-checked in person). Once an incomplete or inconsistent answer was spotted in the questionnaire, the field interviewer went back to the respondent’s house to re-ask the question for verification.

c. Field Editing

(1) After each interview, the interviewer was asked to go over her own work and check for consistency.

(2) All accomplished interview schedules were submitted to the assigned group supervisor who, in turn, edited every interview.

C:\Users\GSSSABIO\Downloads\SWR 2018-III Technical Details (Portrait)-Final (1).doc vii


d. Data Processing

(1) Office editors conducted final consistency checks on all interviews prior to coding.

(2) A data entry computer program verified and checked the consistency of the encoded data before data tables were generated.

(3) Encoded data were validated (90%) by a group separate from the encoders. (4) All data tables generated were checked.

6. Weighting Procedure

To yield representative figures at the national level, census-based population weights are applied to the survey data. The weight projection is computed by dividing the projected population in the area by the sample size of the same area. Appropriate projected factors were applied so that original population proportions were reflected in the data tables using this formula.

Population Projection factors = ----------------------- (Weight) No. of Interviews

For questions answered by the sample voting-age adults, the following projection factors were used:

2018 NSO Total Projection factor Projected Population Sample for 1 probability Age 18 and above Size Respondent (1200) (000) NCR 8,885,216 300 29.6173871948 North Luzon 14,126,827 300 47.0894242259 South Luzon 14,193,912 300 47.3130394430 Visayas 12,438,291 300 41.4609703354 Mindanao 14,443,023 300 48.1434095965 -------------- ------- TOTAL 64,087,269 1,500

C:\Users\GSSSABIO\Downloads\SWR 2018-III Technical Details (Portrait)-Final (1).doc viii


For questions pertaining to household (HH), the following projection factors were used: 2018 PSA Total Projection Projected Sample factors HH Population Size (000) NCR 3,167,161 300 10.5572043270 North Luzon 5,063,443 300 16.8781421117 South Luzon 5,277,252 300 17.5908402620 Visayas 4,486,508 300 14.9550260876 Mindanao 5,316,123 300 17.7204101289 -------------- ------- TOTAL 23,310,487 1,500

The SPSS version of the datafile is already weighted according to the above projection factors. As the data are weighted, the total number of cases that appear is 64,087. The figure is in thousands, i.e., 64,087,269 persons representing PSA’s projected number of adults (18 years old and above) for year 2018. Researchers who are defining data using the ASCII files should apply these projection factors.

Annex B: Question Items

Annex B Question Items\8-Nov-18\5:28 PM/Gsssabio 1




SWR 2018-3rd Quarter Survey Question Items for Greenpeace Philippines

AA. PLASTIC POLLUTION Pag-usapan naman po natin ang minsanang-gamit na plastic (single-use plastic) o mga plastic na isang beses lamang ginagamit bago itapon o i-recycle, tulad ng mga straw sa inumin, mga lalagyan o pambalot kagaya ng sachet at plastic bag, o kahit ano mang gawa sa plastic. Let's talk about the single-use plastic or plastics that are used only once before they are thrown away or recycled, like straws for drinking, containers or wrappers like sachet and plastic bag, or any plastic material. 142. Alin po sa mga sumusunod na minsanang-gamit na plastic o single use plastics ang karaniwan ninyong natatanggap o

ginagamit sa tuwing kayo ay bumibili ng mga produkto? Bukod sa mga nakalista sa ibaba, anu-ano pa po ang ibang minsanang-gamit na plastic single use plastics na inyong natatanggap o ginagamit? (ALLOW MULTIPLE RESPONSES)

Which of the following single-use plastics do you usually receive or use every time you buy products? Aside from the items

enumerated below, what are the other single-use plastics that you receive or use? (ALLOW MULTIPLE RESPONSES)

PLASTIC NA STRAW (Plastic straw) .................................................................................. 01

PLASTIC NA KUTSARA AT TINIDOR (Plastic spoon and fork) .......................................... 02

PINAGLALAGYAN O PAMBALOT NG PAGKAIN (Container or wrapper of food item) ...... 03

PINAGLALAGYAN O PAMBALOT NG MGA GAMIT SA PANGANGALAGA SA KATAWAN (KAGAYA NG SABON, SHAMPOO, AT IBA PA) (Container or wrapper of personal care items (like soap, shampoo, etc.)) .......................... 04

PINAGLALAGYAN O PAMBALOT NG MGA NATATANGGAP NA PACKAGE O NADELIVER NA GAMIT (Container or wrapper of received parcel or delivered items) ...... 05

IBA PA, PAKITUKOY (Others, please specify) ______________________ ....................... ( )

WALA (None) ....................................................................................................................... 95 Î GO TO Q144





AA. PLASTIC POLLUTION 143. Ano po ang kadalasan ninyong ginagawa sa mga minsanang-gamit na plastic o single use plastics pagkatapos itong gamitin o

pagkatapos gamitin ang produkto na laman nito? (ONE ANSWER ONLY) What do you usually do with discarded single-use plastics? (ONE ANSWER ONLY)

ITINATAPON SA BASURAHAN KASAMA NG IBA PANG URI NG BASURA (Dispose in trash bins together with other types of trash) .................................................... 01 HINIHIWALAY AT BINIBIGAY SA BASURERO (Segregate and collected by garbage collector) .................................................................. 02 HINIHIWALAY UPANG I-RECYCLE O MAGAMIT MULI (Segregate to recycle or reuse) ........................................................................................... 03 DINADALA SA MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY O MRF (Bring to a Material Recovery Facility or MRF) .................................................................... 04 ITINATAPON O INIIWAN LANG SA TABI-TABI (Dispose or left behind anywhere) ........... 05 SINUSUNOG SA BAKURAN (Burned in the yard) .............................................................. 06 IBA PA, PAKITUKOY (Others, please specify) ______________________ ....................... ( )

144. May panukalang batas na naglalayong ipagbawal sa mga grocery, palengke, fast food chains, at iba pang katulad na

establisimyento sa paggamit o pamimigay ng mga plastic bag na non-biodegradable o hindi nabubulok. Sa pangkalahatan, kayo po ba ay sang-ayon o hindi sang-ayon sa panukalang batas na ito?

There is a proposed bill that seeks to prohibit groceries, public markets, fast food chains, and other similar establishments from using or providing non-biodegradable plastic bags. In general, do you approve or disapprove of this proposed bill?

TALAGANG SUMASANG-AYON (Strongly approve) ................................................................................ 1 MEDYO SUMASANG-AYON (Somewhat approve) .................................................................................. 2 HINDI TIYAK KUNG SANG-AYAN O HINDI SANG-AYON (Undecided if in approve or disapprove) ....... 3 MEDYO HINDI SUMASANG-AYON (Somewhat disapprove) ................................................................... 4 TALAGANG HINDI SUMASANG-AYON (Strongly disapprove) ................................................................ 5





AA. PLASTIC POLLUTION

145-146.

KUNG SAKALI PO NA ANG ISANG KANDIDATO AY MAGSUSULONG NG [SHUFFLE CARDS OF ISSUES] SA HALALAN SA MAYO 2019 MALAMANG PO BA NA INYONG IBOBOTO, HINDI IBOBOTO, O WALANG MAGIGING EPEKTO ANG ISYUNG ITO SA INYONG MAGIGING BOTO SA MAYO 2019? In case a candidate will advocate for [SHUFFLE CARDS OF ISSUES] in the May 2019 elections, would you PROBABLY VOTE FOR, NOT VOTE FOR, or your votes in May 2019 WILL NOT BE AFFECTED by this issue?

Qs 145-146

(SHUFFLE CARDS – Qs145-146) (RATING BOARD)

MALAMANG NA IBOBOTO

MALAMANG NA HINDI IBOBOTO

WALANG MAGIGING EPEKTO

145. MAHIGPIT NA PAGPAPATUPAD NG BATAS SA

PANGANGASIWA NG BASURA O WASTE MANAGEMENT (Strict implementation of the laws on waste management)

1 2 3

146. PAGSULONG NG PAGSASABATAS NG PAGBAWAL SA MGA GROCERY, PALENGKE, FAST FOOD CHAINS, AT IBA PANG KATULAD NA ESTABLISIMYENTO ANG PAGGAMIT O PAMIMIGAY NG MGA PLASTIC BAG NA NON-BIODEGRADABLE O HINDI NABUBULOK SA BUONG BANSA. (Advocating for the enactment a law prohibiting groceries, public markets, fast food chains, and other similar establishments from using or providing non-biodegradable plastic bags in the whole country)

1 2 3





AA. PLASTIC POLLUTION 147. Sa inyong palagay, alin sa mga sumusunod ang dahilan kung bakit nagkakaroon ng polusyong dulot ng plastic sa isang

papaunlad na mga bansa tulad ng Pilipinas? Maaari po kayong mamili ng hanggang tatlong dahilan. (ALLOW UP TO THREE RESPONSES) In your opinion, which of the following do you think causes plastic pollution in developing countries like the Philippines? You

may choose up to three reasons. (ALLOW UP TO THREE RESPONSES)

HINDI SAPAT NA PAMAMAHALA AT IMPRASTRAKTURA PARA SA BASURA (Poor or inadequate waste management and infrastructure)............................................... 1 MGA KORPORASYON NA GUMAGAWA NG MARAMING PRODUKTO NA NAKABALOT SA MGA MINSANANG-GAMIT NA PLASTIC AT SACHET (Corporations producing more and more products wrapped in single-use plastic and sachets) ................................. 2 ANG MGA TAO AY WALANG PAKUNDANGAN SA PAGTATAPON NG KANILANG BASURA (People are reckless in throwing and disposing their garbage) ........ 3 KAKULANGAN NG MGA PASILIDAD SA PAGRE-RECYCLE (Lack of recycling facilities) .................................................................................................. 4 KAKULANGAN NG EDUKASYON SA BAWAT SAMBAHAYAN TUNGKOL SA TAMANG PAMAMAHALA NG BASURA (Lack of education in every household concerning proper waste management) ................. 5 MALIIT O WALANG ALTERNATIBONG PAMPALIT PARA SA PLASTIC NA LALAGYAN (Little or no alternative option for plastic packaging) ............................................................ 6

148. Bukod sa gobyerno, alin sa mga dalawang ito ang mas may responsibilidad sa pagbabawas ng polusyon ng plastic sa ating

bansa? (SHOWCARD) Aside from the government, which of these two has more responsibility in reducing plastic pollution in our country?

(SHOWCARD)

KOMPANYANG GUMAGAWA NG PLASTICS (Companies which produces plastics) ........... 1 MAMAMAYANG PILIPINO (Filipino citizens) ........................................................................... 2

Annex C: Primary Data Tables

64087 8885 28321 14127 14194 12438 14443 26855 37232 2879 51774 9435 32044 32044 7898 13432 13741 11208 17809 10259 19254 28205 6370100.00% 13.86% 44.19% 22.04% 22.15% 19.41% 22.54% 41.90% 58.10% 4.49% 80.79% 14.72% 50.00% 50.00% 12.32% 20.96% 21.44% 17.49% 27.79% 16.01% 30.04% 44.01% 9.94%100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

21482 4265 8819 6075 2744 4644 3755 10425 11057 1483 16448 3551 10198 11285 3193 4816 4615 3441 5417 2369 5733 10988 239233.52% 48.00% 31.14% 43.00% 19.33% 37.33% 26.00% 38.82% 29.70% 51.51% 31.77% 37.64% 31.82% 35.22% 40.43% 35.85% 33.59% 30.70% 30.41% 23.09% 29.78% 38.96% 37.55%

19086 4087 8395 5698 2697 3234 3370 9583 9503 1478 14852 2756 9633 9453 2655 3959 4274 2931 5267 2101 4900 9713 237129.78% 46.00% 29.64% 40.33% 19.00% 26.00% 23.33% 35.68% 25.52% 51.33% 28.69% 29.22% 30.06% 29.50% 33.62% 29.47% 31.10% 26.15% 29.57% 20.48% 25.45% 34.44% 37.23%

42605 5598 19729 10124 9605 7795 9484 17433 25172 1875 34158 6572 21250 21356 4867 8961 9365 7823 11590 6791 12868 18812 413566.48% 63.00% 69.66% 71.67% 67.67% 62.67% 65.67% 64.92% 67.61% 65.13% 65.98% 69.66% 66.31% 66.65% 61.62% 66.72% 68.15% 69.80% 65.08% 66.20% 66.83% 66.70% 64.91%

39153 4146 17698 9371 8327 8209 9099 15551 23602 1467 31560 6126 19172 19981 4679 8478 8543 6382 11070 6510 11695 16942 400561.09% 46.67% 62.49% 66.33% 58.67% 66.00% 63.00% 57.91% 63.39% 50.95% 60.96% 64.93% 59.83% 62.36% 59.25% 63.12% 62.17% 56.95% 62.16% 63.45% 60.74% 60.07% 62.87%

8379 1688 1983 801 1183 2156 2552 4547 3832 681 6446 1251 4523 3856 956 2138 1572 1447 2266 1261 1802 4200 111713.07% 19.00% 7.00% 5.67% 8.33% 17.33% 17.67% 16.93% 10.29% 23.67% 12.45% 13.26% 14.11% 12.03% 12.11% 15.92% 11.44% 12.91% 12.72% 12.29% 9.36% 14.89% 17.53%

3994 148 1702 235 1467 1037 1107 1222 2772 165 3357 472 2058 1936 368 691 725 880 1330 990 1331 1271 4036.23% 1.67% 6.01% 1.67% 10.33% 8.33% 7.67% 4.55% 7.45% 5.74% 6.48% 5.01% 6.42% 6.04% 4.65% 5.15% 5.28% 7.85% 7.47% 9.65% 6.91% 4.51% 6.32%

30 30 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 30 0 0 30 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 30 0.05% .33% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .11% .00% .00% .06% .00% .00% .09% .00% .22% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .11% .00%

Base - Total interviews (wtd)

Plastic straw

Plastic spoon and fork

Container or wrapper of food item

Container or wrapper of personal careitems (like soap, shampoo, etc.)

Container or wrapper of receivedparcel or delivered items

None

Refused

TOTAL PH TOTAL

NCR

TOTALNORTHLUZON

SOUTHLUZON

BALANCE LUZON

TOTAL

VISAYAS

TOTAL

MINDANAO

AREA

URBAN RURAL

ASCERTAINED LOCALE

ABC D E

ECONOMIC CLASS

MALE FEMALE

SEX

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-5455 &

ABOVE

AGE GROUP

NONE/SOMEELEM

ELEMGRAD/SOME

HS

HS GRAD/SOME

VOC/VOC/SOME

COLLEGECOLLEGE

GRAD/POST

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

Q142. Single-use plastics that one usually receives or uses

Q142. Pag-usapan naman po natin ang minsanang-gamit na plastic (single-use plastic) o mga plastic na isang beses lamang ginagamit bago itapon o i-recycle, tulad ng mga straw sa inumin, mga lalagyan o pambalot kagaya ng sachet at plastic bag, o kahit ano mang gawa sa plastic. Alin po sa mgasumusunod na minsanang-gamit na plastic o single use plastics ang karaniwan ninyong natatanggap o ginagamit sa tuwing kayo ay bumibili ng mga produkto? Bukod sa mga nakalista sa ibaba, anu-ano pa po ang ibang minsanang-gamit na plastic single use plastics na inyong natatanggap o ginagamit? (Plastic nastraw, Plastic na kutsara at tinidor, Pinaglalagyan o pambalot ng pagkain, Pinaglalagyan o pambalot ng mga gamit sa pangangalaga sa katawan (kagaya ng sabon, shampoo, at iba pa), Pinaglalagyan o pambalot ng mga natatanggap na package o nadeliver na gamit) [Let's talk about the single-use plasticor plastics that are used only once before they are thrown away or recycled, like straws for drinking, containers or wrappers like sachet and plastic bag, or any plastic material. Which of the following single-use plastics do you usually receive or use every time you buy products? Aside from the items enumeratedbelow, what are the other single-use plastics that you receive or use? (Plastic straw, Plastic spoon and fork, Container or wrapper of food item, Container or wrapper of personal care items (like soap, shampoo, etc.), Container or wrapper of received parcel or delivered items)] (Allow multiple responses)

PROJECT SWR 2018-III, SEPTEMBER 15 - 23, 2018 FIELDWORK[WEIGHTED AND PROJECTED IN '000]

[EMBARGOED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 30, 2021]

PART I. PROBABILITY RESPONDENTAA. PLASTIC POLLUTION

E:\WORK FILES\SWR 2018-III GREENPEACE\SWR18-III AA. PLASTIC POLLUTION.spo 11/8/2018 5:19:06 PM

60093 8737 26619 13891 12727 11402 13336 25633 34460 2713 48417 8962 29986 30108 7530 12740 13016 10327 16480 9269 17923 26934 5967100.00% 14.54% 44.30% 23.12% 21.18% 18.97% 22.19% 42.66% 57.34% 4.52% 80.57% 14.91% 49.90% 50.10% 12.53% 21.20% 21.66% 17.19% 27.42% 15.42% 29.83% 44.82% 9.93%100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

20308 4620 8541 4850 3690 3151 3996 11409 8899 1146 16841 2320 10629 9678 3027 4552 4738 3026 4966 2626 6002 10015 166433.79% 52.88% 32.09% 34.92% 29.00% 27.64% 29.96% 44.51% 25.83% 42.25% 34.78% 25.89% 35.45% 32.15% 40.20% 35.73% 36.40% 29.30% 30.13% 28.33% 33.49% 37.19% 27.89%

14834 2814 7270 3390 3880 2488 2263 7330 7504 810 12012 2012 7685 7149 1909 2424 2928 2954 4620 1154 4499 7396 178424.69% 32.20% 27.31% 24.41% 30.48% 21.82% 16.97% 28.59% 21.78% 29.86% 24.81% 22.44% 25.63% 23.74% 25.35% 19.03% 22.49% 28.60% 28.03% 12.45% 25.10% 27.46% 29.90%

12517 1155 5805 3108 2697 2861 2696 4408 8109 586 10022 1909 5234 7283 1343 3026 2963 1619 3566 2052 3840 4892 173420.83% 13.22% 21.81% 22.37% 21.19% 25.09% 20.22% 17.20% 23.53% 21.59% 20.70% 21.30% 17.46% 24.19% 17.84% 23.75% 22.76% 15.68% 21.64% 22.13% 21.42% 18.16% 29.05%

983 0 472 235 237 415 96 332 651 47 793 143 704 278 83 95 89 361 355 47 308 533 951.64% .00% 1.77% 1.69% 1.86% 3.64% .72% 1.29% 1.89% 1.74% 1.64% 1.59% 2.35% .92% 1.10% .75% .68% 3.50% 2.15% .51% 1.72% 1.98% 1.60%

763 0 95 0 95 332 337 96 667 0 578 185 489 275 41 137 90 144 352 317 179 267 01.27% .00% .36% .00% .74% 2.91% 2.53% .38% 1.94% .00% 1.19% 2.06% 1.63% .91% .55% 1.07% .69% 1.39% 2.13% 3.42% 1.00% .99% .00%

8193 0 3777 1742 2034 1576 2840 1202 6991 47 6567 1579 4124 4069 800 2094 1714 1683 1903 2230 2553 2904 50613.63% .00% 14.19% 12.54% 15.99% 13.82% 21.30% 4.69% 20.29% 1.74% 13.56% 17.61% 13.75% 13.51% 10.62% 16.44% 13.17% 16.29% 11.55% 24.06% 14.24% 10.78% 8.48%

478 30 283 283 0 166 0 212 266 47 301 130 230 248 0 30 136 171 141 0 136 254 89.80% .34% 1.06% 2.03% .00% 1.45% .00% .83% .77% 1.74% .62% 1.45% .77% .82% .00% .23% 1.04% 1.66% .86% .00% .76% .94% 1.48%

173 0 0 0 0 124 48 0 173 0 90 83 131 41 0 83 41 48 0 0 90 83 0.29% .00% .00% .00% .00% 1.09% .36% .00% .50% .00% .19% .93% .44% .14% .00% .65% .32% .47% .00% .00% .50% .31% .00%

610 0 141 94 47 83 385 192 418 0 465 144 282 327 137 96 48 95 233 282 143 138 471.01% .00% .53% .68% .37% .73% 2.89% .75% 1.21% .00% .96% 1.61% .94% 1.09% 1.82% .76% .37% .92% 1.42% 3.04% .80% .51% .79%

239 0 94 94 0 0 144 190 48 0 96 142 95 143 96 0 0 95 47 142 0 48 48.40% .00% .35% .68% .00% .00% 1.08% .74% .14% .00% .20% 1.59% .32% .48% 1.28% .00% .00% .92% .29% 1.54% .00% .18% .81%

179 0 0 0 0 83 96 0 179 0 96 83 90 90 0 0 96 41 41 41 48 90 0.30% .00% .00% .00% .00% .73% .72% .00% .52% .00% .20% .93% .30% .30% .00% .00% .74% .40% .25% .45% .27% .33% .00%

215 30 47 0 47 41 96 126 89 30 185 0 96 118 47 78 48 0 41 41 48 125 0.36% .34% .18% .00% .37% .36% .72% .49% .26% 1.09% .38% .00% .32% .39% .63% .61% .37% .00% .25% .45% .27% .46% .00%

544 30 94 94 0 83 337 78 466 0 311 233 137 407 47 96 126 90 185 336 48 160 0.90% .34% .35% .68% .00% .73% 2.53% .30% 1.35% .00% .64% 2.60% .46% 1.35% .63% .76% .97% .87% 1.12% 3.62% .27% .59% .00%

59 59 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 0 59 0 59 0 0 30 0 0 30 0 30 30 0.10% .68% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .23% .00% .00% .12% .00% .20% .00% .00% .23% .00% .00% .18% .00% .17% .11% .00%

Base - Total who receive or use single-use plastics (Codes1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and others in Q142) (wtd)

Dispose in trash bins together with other types of trash

Segregate and collected by garbage collector

Segregate to recycle or reuse

Bring to a Material Recovery Facility or MRF

Dispose or left behind anywhere

Burned in the yard

Ibinibenta sa junkshop

Compose pit

Binabaon sa lupa

Susunugin para panluto

Iniipon

No answer

Don't know

Refused

TOTAL PH TOTAL

NCR

TOTALNORTHLUZON

SOUTHLUZON

BALANCE LUZON

TOTAL

VISAYAS

TOTAL

MINDANAO

AREA

URBAN RURAL

ASCERTAINED LOCALE

ABC D E

ECONOMIC CLASS

MALE FEMALE

SEX

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-5455 &

ABOVE

AGE GROUP

NONE/SOMEELEM

ELEMGRAD/SOME

HS

HS GRAD/SOME

VOC/VOC/SOME

COLLEGECOLLEGE

GRAD/POST


Q143. What one usually does with discarded single-use plastics

Q143. Ano po ang kadalasan ninyong ginagawa sa mga minsanang-gamit na plastic o single use plastics pagkatapos itong gamitin o pagkatapos gamitin ang produkto na laman nito? (Itinatapon sa basurahan kasama ng iba pang uri ng basura, Hinihiwalay at binibigay sa basurero, Hinihiwalay upang i-recycle omagamit muli, Dinadala sa Material Recovery Facility o MRF, Itinatapon o iniiwan lang sa tabi-tabi, Sinusunog sa bakuran) [What do you usually do with discarded single-use plastics? (Dispose in trash bins together with other types of trash, Segregate and collected by garbage collector, Segregate to recycle orreuse, Bring to a Material Recovery Facility or MRF, Dispose or left behind anywhere, Burned in the yard)] (One answer only)





64087 8885 28321 14127 14194 12438 14443 26855 37232 2879 51774 9435 32044 32044 7898 13432 13741 11208 17809 10259 19254 28205 6370100.00% 13.86% 44.19% 22.04% 22.15% 19.41% 22.54% 41.90% 58.10% 4.49% 80.79% 14.72% 50.00% 50.00% 12.32% 20.96% 21.44% 17.49% 27.79% 16.01% 30.04% 44.01% 9.94%100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

50421 7197 24072 12055 12018 9619 9532 21717 28704 2589 40134 7697 25546 24875 5997 10587 10811 8653 14372 7501 14362 22996 556178.68% 81.00% 85.00% 85.33% 84.67% 77.33% 66.00% 80.87% 77.09% 89.95% 77.52% 81.59% 79.72% 77.63% 75.94% 78.82% 78.68% 77.21% 80.70% 73.12% 74.60% 81.53% 87.30%

36762 5272 18170 9653 8516 6965 6355 15974 20788 2057 28948 5758 19311 17451 4363 7479 8320 6548 10051 5153 10076 17152 438157.36% 59.33% 64.16% 68.33% 60.00% 56.00% 44.00% 59.48% 55.83% 71.45% 55.91% 61.03% 60.27% 54.46% 55.25% 55.68% 60.55% 58.43% 56.44% 50.23% 52.33% 60.81% 68.77%

13659 1925 5903 2402 3501 2654 3177 5743 7916 533 11186 1940 6235 7424 1634 3108 2491 2105 4321 2348 4286 5844 118121.31% 21.67% 20.84% 17.00% 24.67% 21.33% 22.00% 21.38% 21.26% 18.50% 21.61% 20.56% 19.46% 23.17% 20.69% 23.14% 18.13% 18.78% 24.26% 22.89% 22.26% 20.72% 18.53%

6973 711 1605 753 852 1576 3081 2389 4584 165 5733 1074 3174 3798 1042 1336 1622 1552 1421 1407 2319 2645 60110.88% 8.00% 5.67% 5.33% 6.00% 12.67% 21.33% 8.90% 12.31% 5.74% 11.07% 11.39% 9.91% 11.85% 13.19% 9.94% 11.81% 13.84% 7.98% 13.72% 12.05% 9.38% 9.43%

6342 859 2596 1271 1325 1202 1685 2535 3807 124 5604 615 3138 3205 811 1479 1182 1003 1869 1350 2399 2385 2089.90% 9.67% 9.17% 9.00% 9.33% 9.67% 11.67% 9.44% 10.23% 4.31% 10.82% 6.52% 9.79% 10.00% 10.26% 11.01% 8.60% 8.94% 10.49% 13.16% 12.46% 8.46% 3.27%

3079 533 1511 659 852 746 289 1499 1580 47 2571 461 1517 1562 309 830 544 432 965 689 1160 1201 304.80% 6.00% 5.33% 4.67% 6.00% 6.00% 2.00% 5.58% 4.24% 1.64% 4.97% 4.89% 4.73% 4.88% 3.91% 6.18% 3.96% 3.85% 5.42% 6.72% 6.02% 4.26% .46%

3263 326 1085 612 473 456 1396 1037 2227 77 3033 154 1621 1642 502 650 638 571 903 661 1239 1184 1785.09% 3.67% 3.83% 4.33% 3.33% 3.67% 9.67% 3.86% 5.98% 2.66% 5.86% 1.63% 5.06% 5.12% 6.35% 4.84% 4.64% 5.09% 5.07% 6.45% 6.44% 4.20% 2.80%

245 59 0 0 0 41 144 107 138 0 197 48 126 119 48 0 126 0 71 0 96 149 0.38% .67% .00% .00% .00% .33% 1.00% .40% .37% .00% .38% .51% .39% .37% .61% .00% .92% .00% .40% .00% .50% .53% .00%

47 0 47 47 0 0 0 47 0 0 47 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 47 0 47 0 0.07% .00% .17% .33% .00% .00% .00% .18% .00% .00% .09% .00% .00% .15% .00% .00% .00% .00% .26% .00% .24% .00% .00%

59 59 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 0 59 0 59 0 0 30 0 0 30 0 30 30 0.09% .67% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .22% .00% .00% .11% .00% .18% .00% .00% .22% .00% .00% .17% .00% .15% .11% .00%

44078 6338 21476 10783 10693 8417 7847 19182 24897 2465 34530 7082 22408 21670 5187 9108 9630 7651 12503 6151 11963 20611 535368.78% 71.33% 75.83% 76.33% 75.33% 67.67% 54.33% 71.43% 66.87% 85.64% 66.69% 75.07% 69.93% 67.63% 65.67% 67.81% 70.08% 68.27% 70.21% 59.96% 62.13% 73.08% 84.04%


Approve

Strongly approve

Somewhat approve

Undecided if approve or disapprove

Disapprove

Somewhat disapprove

Strongly disapprove

No answer

Don't know

Refused

NET

TOTAL PH TOTAL

NCR

TOTALNORTHLUZON

SOUTHLUZON

BALANCE LUZON

TOTAL

VISAYAS

TOTAL

MINDANAO

AREA

URBAN RURAL

ASCERTAINED LOCALE

ABC D E

ECONOMIC CLASS

MALE FEMALE

SEX

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-5455 &

ABOVE

AGE GROUP

NONE/SOMEELEM

ELEMGRAD/SOME

HS

HS GRAD/SOME

VOC/VOC/SOME

COLLEGECOLLEGE

GRAD/POST


Q144. Approval or Disapproval of the proposed bill that seeks to prohibit groceries, public markets, fast food chains, and other similar establishments from using or providing non-biodegradable plastic bags

Q144. May panukalang batas na naglalayong ipagbawal sa mga grocery, palengke, fast food chains, at iba pang katulad na establisimyento sa paggamit o pamimigay ng mga plastic bag na non-biodegradable o hindi nabubulok. Sa pangkalahatan, kayo po ba ay sang-ayon o hindi sang-ayon sa panukalang batas na ito?(Talagang sumasang-ayon, Medyo sumasang-ayon, Hindi tiyak kung sang-ayan o hindi sang-ayon, Medyo hindi sumasang-ayon, Talagang hindi sumasang-ayon) [There is a proposed bill that seeks to prohibit groceries, public markets, fast food chains, and other similar establishments from using or providingnon-biodegradable plastic bags. In general, do you approve or disapprove of this proposed bill? (Strongly approve, Somewhat approve, Undecided if in approve or disapprove, Somewhat disapprove, Strongly disapprove)]





64087 8885 28321 14127 14194 12438 14443 26855 37232 2879 51774 9435 32044 32044 7898 13432 13741 11208 17809 10259 19254 28205 6370100.00% 13.86% 44.19% 22.04% 22.15% 19.41% 22.54% 41.90% 58.10% 4.49% 80.79% 14.72% 50.00% 50.00% 12.32% 20.96% 21.44% 17.49% 27.79% 16.01% 30.04% 44.01% 9.94%100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

52711 7671 24264 11584 12680 9992 10784 22335 30376 2701 42279 7731 26556 26155 6213 11181 11501 9049 14767 8000 15519 23772 542082.25% 86.33% 85.68% 82.00% 89.33% 80.33% 74.67% 83.17% 81.59% 93.84% 81.66% 81.94% 82.87% 81.62% 78.67% 83.24% 83.70% 80.74% 82.92% 77.98% 80.60% 84.29% 85.09%

5956 622 1888 989 899 1617 1829 1962 3995 118 5005 833 2931 3025 1101 1153 1239 1054 1409 1439 1989 2148 3809.29% 7.00% 6.67% 7.00% 6.33% 13.00% 12.67% 7.30% 10.73% 4.10% 9.67% 8.83% 9.15% 9.44% 13.94% 8.59% 9.02% 9.40% 7.91% 14.03% 10.33% 7.62% 5.96%

5224 533 2122 1507 615 788 1781 2404 2820 59 4294 871 2407 2817 584 1068 953 1063 1556 778 1669 2207 5708.15% 6.00% 7.49% 10.67% 4.33% 6.33% 12.33% 8.95% 7.57% 2.06% 8.29% 9.23% 7.51% 8.79% 7.40% 7.95% 6.93% 9.48% 8.74% 7.59% 8.67% 7.82% 8.95%

90 0 0 0 0 41 48 48 41 0 90 0 90 0 0 0 48 41 0 41 0 48 0.14% .00% .00% .00% .00% .33% .33% .18% .11% .00% .17% .00% .28% .00% .00% .00% .35% .37% .00% .40% .00% .17% .00%

47 0 47 47 0 0 0 47 0 0 47 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 47 0 47 0 0.07% .00% .17% .33% .00% .00% .00% .18% .00% .00% .09% .00% .00% .15% .00% .00% .00% .00% .26% .00% .24% .00% .00%

59 59 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 0 59 0 59 0 0 30 0 0 30 0 30 30 0.09% .67% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .22% .00% .00% .11% .00% .18% .00% .00% .22% .00% .00% .17% .00% .15% .11% .00%

46755 7049 22376 10595 11781 8375 8955 20373 26382 2583 37274 6897 23625 23130 5112 10027 10262 7995 13358 6560 13529 21625 504172.95% 79.33% 79.01% 75.00% 83.00% 67.33% 62.00% 75.86% 70.86% 89.73% 71.99% 73.11% 73.73% 72.18% 64.73% 74.65% 74.68% 71.34% 75.01% 63.95% 70.27% 76.67% 79.13%


Probably vote for



No answer

Don't know

Refused

NET

TOTAL PH TOTAL

NCR

TOTALNORTHLUZON

SOUTHLUZON

BALANCE LUZON

TOTAL

VISAYAS

TOTAL

MINDANAO

AREA

URBAN RURAL

ASCERTAINED LOCALE

ABC D E

ECONOMIC CLASS

MALE FEMALE

SEX

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-5455 &

ABOVE

AGE GROUP

NONE/SOMEELEM

ELEMGRAD/SOME

HS

HS GRAD/SOME

VOC/VOC/SOME

COLLEGECOLLEGE

GRAD/POST


Q145. Probability of voting for a candidate who will advocate for specific issues in the May 2019 elections: Strict implementation of the laws on waste management

Q145. Kung sakali po na ang isang kandidato ay magsusulong ng [Mahigpit na pagpapatupad ng batas sa pangangasiwa ng basura o waste management] sa halalan sa mayo 2019 Malamang po ba na inyong iboboto, Hindi iboboto, o Walang magiging epekto ang isyung ito sa inyong magiging boto sa mayo 2019? [Incase a candidate will advocate for [Strict implementation of the laws on waste management] in the May 2019 elections, would you Probably vote for, Not vote for, or your votes in May 2019 Will not be affected by this issue?]





64087 8885 28321 14127 14194 12438 14443 26855 37232 2879 51774 9435 32044 32044 7898 13432 13741 11208 17809 10259 19254 28205 6370100.00% 13.86% 44.19% 22.04% 22.15% 19.41% 22.54% 41.90% 58.10% 4.49% 80.79% 14.72% 50.00% 50.00% 12.32% 20.96% 21.44% 17.49% 27.79% 16.01% 30.04% 44.01% 9.94%100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

46856 6753 21808 10689 11119 8956 9340 19964 26892 2518 37092 7245 23776 23080 5199 10000 9823 8277 13558 7376 13644 20742 509373.11% 76.00% 77.00% 75.67% 78.33% 72.00% 64.67% 74.34% 72.23% 87.48% 71.64% 76.80% 74.20% 72.03% 65.82% 74.45% 71.49% 73.85% 76.13% 71.90% 70.86% 73.54% 79.95%

10380 1214 3824 1789 2034 2405 2937 3781 6599 136 9014 1230 4787 5593 1817 1974 2751 1490 2347 2051 3310 4311 70816.20% 13.67% 13.50% 12.67% 14.33% 19.33% 20.33% 14.08% 17.72% 4.71% 17.41% 13.03% 14.94% 17.45% 23.01% 14.70% 20.02% 13.30% 13.18% 19.99% 17.19% 15.29% 11.11%

6656 859 2642 1601 1041 1037 2118 2956 3700 225 5471 960 3332 3323 882 1428 1120 1399 1827 790 2223 3073 56910.39% 9.67% 9.33% 11.33% 7.33% 8.33% 14.67% 11.01% 9.94% 7.81% 10.57% 10.17% 10.40% 10.37% 11.16% 10.63% 8.15% 12.48% 10.26% 7.70% 11.55% 10.90% 8.94%

90 0 0 0 0 41 48 48 41 0 90 0 90 0 0 0 48 41 0 41 0 48 0.14% .00% .00% .00% .00% .33% .33% .18% .11% .00% .17% .00% .28% .00% .00% .00% .35% .37% .00% .40% .00% .17% .00%

47 0 47 47 0 0 0 47 0 0 47 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 47 0 47 0 0.07% .00% .17% .33% .00% .00% .00% .18% .00% .00% .09% .00% .00% .15% .00% .00% .00% .00% .26% .00% .24% .00% .00%

59 59 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 0 59 0 59 0 0 30 0 0 30 0 30 30 0.09% .67% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .22% .00% .00% .11% .00% .18% .00% .00% .22% .00% .00% .17% .00% .15% .11% .00%

36476 5538 17984 8900 9084 6551 6403 16183 20294 2383 28078 6016 18989 17488 3381 8026 7072 6786 11211 5325 10334 16431 438556.92% 62.33% 63.50% 63.00% 64.00% 52.67% 44.33% 60.26% 54.51% 82.77% 54.23% 63.76% 59.26% 54.57% 42.81% 59.75% 51.47% 60.55% 62.95% 51.91% 53.67% 58.26% 68.84%


Probably vote for



No answer

Don't know

Refused

NET

TOTAL PH TOTAL

NCR

TOTALNORTHLUZON

SOUTHLUZON

BALANCE LUZON

TOTAL

VISAYAS

TOTAL

MINDANAO

AREA

URBAN RURAL

ASCERTAINED LOCALE

ABC D E

ECONOMIC CLASS

MALE FEMALE

SEX

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-5455 &

ABOVE

AGE GROUP

NONE/SOMEELEM

ELEMGRAD/SOME

HS

HS GRAD/SOME

VOC/VOC/SOME

COLLEGECOLLEGE

GRAD/POST


Q146. Probability of voting for a candidate who will advocate for specific issues in the May 2019 elections: Advocating for the enactment a law prohibiting groceries, public markets, fast food chains, and other similar establishments from using or providing non-biodegradable plastic bags in the wholecountry

Q146. Kung sakali po na ang isang kandidato ay magsusulong ng [Pagsulong ng pagsasabatas ng pagbawal sa mga grocery, palengke, fast food chains, at iba pang katulad na establisimyento ang paggamit o pamimigay ng mga plastic bag na non-biodegradable o hindi nabubulok sa buong bansa.] sa halalan sa mayo2019 Malamang po ba na inyong iboboto, Hindi iboboto, o Walang magiging epekto ang isyung ito sa inyong magiging boto sa mayo 2019? [In case a candidate will advocate for [Advocating for the enactment a law prohibiting groceries, public markets, fast food chains, and other similar establishments from using orproviding non-biodegradable plastic bags in the whole country.] in the May 2019 elections, would you Probably vote for, Not vote for, or your votes in May 2019 Will not be affected by this issue?]





64087 8885 28321 14127 14194 12438 14443 26855 37232 2879 51774 9435 32044 32044 7898 13432 13741 11208 17809 10259 19254 28205 6370100.00% 13.86% 44.19% 22.04% 22.15% 19.41% 22.54% 41.90% 58.10% 4.49% 80.79% 14.72% 50.00% 50.00% 12.32% 20.96% 21.44% 17.49% 27.79% 16.01% 30.04% 44.01% 9.94%100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

23040 3347 8639 4144 4495 4892 6162 9800 13240 871 17702 4467 11387 11653 3373 5408 4728 3543 5988 3749 6312 10347 263135.95% 37.67% 30.50% 29.33% 31.67% 39.33% 42.67% 36.49% 35.56% 30.25% 34.19% 47.35% 35.53% 36.37% 42.71% 40.26% 34.41% 31.61% 33.62% 36.55% 32.78% 36.69% 41.31%

17479 1866 7502 4379 3123 4934 3177 7289 10190 934 13886 2659 8682 8797 2232 3380 3836 2807 5224 2623 5491 7987 137927.27% 21.00% 26.49% 31.00% 22.00% 39.67% 22.00% 27.14% 27.37% 32.44% 26.82% 28.18% 27.09% 27.45% 28.26% 25.16% 27.92% 25.04% 29.33% 25.56% 28.52% 28.32% 21.65%

41949 5153 21524 10642 10882 8002 7270 17617 24333 2039 34057 5853 20708 21241 5344 8658 8488 7528 11931 6439 12210 18899 440065.46% 58.00% 76.00% 75.33% 76.67% 64.33% 50.33% 65.60% 65.35% 70.85% 65.78% 62.03% 64.62% 66.29% 67.67% 64.46% 61.77% 67.17% 66.99% 62.77% 63.42% 67.01% 69.08%

15934 2429 7741 3908 3832 3068 2696 7413 8520 882 12759 2293 8176 7758 2199 3322 3353 2707 4354 1892 4258 8288 149524.86% 27.33% 27.33% 27.67% 27.00% 24.67% 18.67% 27.61% 22.88% 30.63% 24.64% 24.30% 25.52% 24.21% 27.84% 24.73% 24.40% 24.15% 24.45% 18.45% 22.12% 29.39% 23.46%

22584 3258 10997 5745 5252 4478 3851 9887 12697 1110 17947 3527 11288 11296 2575 4753 4678 3925 6652 3261 6770 9825 272835.24% 36.67% 38.83% 40.67% 37.00% 36.00% 26.67% 36.82% 34.10% 38.55% 34.66% 37.38% 35.23% 35.25% 32.61% 35.39% 34.04% 35.03% 37.35% 31.79% 35.16% 34.83% 42.82%

6872 1333 2597 1177 1419 1161 1781 3485 3387 444 5230 1197 3259 3613 921 1717 1485 982 1767 1194 1747 2892 103910.72% 15.00% 9.17% 8.33% 10.00% 9.33% 12.33% 12.98% 9.10% 15.42% 10.10% 12.69% 10.17% 11.27% 11.66% 12.79% 10.81% 8.76% 9.92% 11.64% 9.07% 10.25% 16.30%

30 30 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 30 0 0 30 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 30 0.05% .33% .00% .00% .00% .00% .00% .11% .00% .00% .06% .00% .00% .09% .00% .00% .00% .26% .00% .00% .00% .11% .00%

379 237 142 47 95 0 0 332 47 77 272 30 290 89 89 0 183 30 77 47 77 195 59.59% 2.67% .50% .33% .67% .00% .00% 1.23% .13% 2.67% .53% .31% .90% .28% 1.13% .00% 1.33% .26% .43% .46% .40% .69% .93%


Poor or inadequate waste management and infrastructure

Corporations producing more and more products wrapped insingle-use plastic and sachets

People are reckless in throwing and disposing their garbage

Lack of recycling facilities

Lack of education in every household concerning properwaste management

Little or no alternative option for plastic packaging

No answer

Don't know

TOTAL PH TOTAL

NCR

TOTALNORTHLUZON

SOUTHLUZON

BALANCE LUZON

TOTAL

VISAYAS

TOTAL

MINDANAO

AREA

URBAN RURAL

ASCERTAINED LOCALE

ABC D E

ECONOMIC CLASS

MALE FEMALE

SEX

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-5455 &

ABOVE

AGE GROUP

NONE/SOMEELEM

ELEMGRAD/SOME

HS

HS GRAD/SOME

VOC/VOC/SOME

COLLEGECOLLEGE

GRAD/POST


Q147. Reasons that cause plastic pollution in developing countries like the Philippines

Q147. Sa inyong palagay, alin sa mga sumusunod ang dahilan kung bakit nagkakaroon ng polusyong dulot ng plastic sa isang papaunlad na mga bansa tulad ng Pilipinas? Maaari po kayong mamili ng hanggang tatlong dahilan. (Hindi sapat na pamamahala at imprastraktura para sa basura, Mga korporasyon nagumagawa ng maraming produkto na nakabalot sa mga minsanang-gamit na plastic at sachet, Ang mga tao ay walang pakundangan sa pagtatapon ng kanilang basura, Kakulangan ng mga pasilidad sa pagre-recycle, Kakulangan ng edukasyon sa bawat sambahayan tungkol sa tamang pamamahala ng basura, Maliit owalang alternatibong pampalit para sa plastic na lalagyan) [In your opinion, which of the following do you think causes plastic pollution in developing countries like the Philippines? You may choose up to three reasons. (Poor or inadequate waste management and infrastructure, Corporations producing more andmore products wrapped in single-use plastic and sachets, People are reckless in throwing and disposing their garbage, Lack of recycling facilities, Lack of education in every household concerning proper waste management, Little or no alternative option for plastic packaging)]





64087 8885 28321 14127 14194 12438 14443 26855 37232 2879 51774 9435 32044 32044 7898 13432 13741 11208 17809 10259 19254 28205 6370100.00% 13.86% 44.19% 22.04% 22.15% 19.41% 22.54% 41.90% 58.10% 4.49% 80.79% 14.72% 50.00% 50.00% 12.32% 20.96% 21.44% 17.49% 27.79% 16.01% 30.04% 44.01% 9.94%100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

19513 2251 8588 4803 3785 3234 5440 8053 11460 644 15584 3286 9343 10170 2279 3948 3603 3987 5697 3511 6408 7988 160630.45% 25.33% 30.32% 34.00% 26.67% 26.00% 37.67% 29.99% 30.78% 22.36% 30.10% 34.83% 29.16% 31.74% 28.86% 29.40% 26.22% 35.57% 31.99% 34.23% 33.28% 28.32% 25.22%

44195 6605 19591 9277 10314 8997 9003 18595 25601 2235 35853 6107 22488 21708 5571 9412 10050 7138 12024 6700 12775 20039 468168.96% 74.33% 69.17% 65.67% 72.67% 72.33% 62.33% 69.24% 68.76% 77.64% 69.25% 64.73% 70.18% 67.74% 70.55% 70.07% 73.14% 63.69% 67.51% 65.31% 66.35% 71.05% 73.48%

284 30 47 47 0 207 0 113 171 0 243 41 118 166 0 71 89 83 41 0 71 130 83.44% .33% .17% .33% .00% 1.67% .00% .42% .46% .00% .47% .44% .37% .52% .00% .53% .64% .74% .23% .00% .37% .46% 1.30%

95 0 95 0 95 0 0 95 0 0 95 0 95 0 47 0 0 0 47 47 0 47 0.15% .00% .33% .00% .67% .00% .00% .35% .00% .00% .18% .00% .30% .00% .60% .00% .00% .00% .27% .46% .00% .17% .00%


Companies which produces plastics

Filipino citizens

No answer

Don't know

TOTAL PH TOTAL

NCR

TOTALNORTHLUZON

SOUTHLUZON

BALANCE LUZON

TOTAL

VISAYAS

TOTAL

MINDANAO

AREA

URBAN RURAL

ASCERTAINED LOCALE

ABC D E

ECONOMIC CLASS

MALE FEMALE

SEX

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-5455 &

ABOVE

AGE GROUP

NONE/SOMEELEM

ELEMGRAD/SOME

HS

HS GRAD/SOME

VOC/VOC/SOME

COLLEGECOLLEGE

GRAD/POST


Q148. Opinion on which has more responsibility in reducing plastic pollution in our country: Companies that produce plastic or Filipino citizens

Q148. Bukod sa gobyerno, alin sa mga dalawang ito ang mas may responsibilidad sa pagbabawas ng polusyon ng plastic sa ating bansa? (Kompanyang gumagawa ng plastics, Mamamayang pilipino) [Aside from the government, which of these two has more responsibility in reducing plastic pollution in our country?(Companies which produces plastics, Filipino citizens)]





SURVEY REPORT ON PLASTIC POLLUTION · swr 2018-iii - survey report for greenpeace | gsssabio i...

Documents

Transcript of SURVEY REPORT ON PLASTIC POLLUTION · swr 2018-iii - survey report for greenpeace | gsssabio i...