I started this project after overhearing a conversation between two university professors about the burgeoning garbage problem of Cebu City. Their voices were a bit fuzzy at first because I was busy preparing for my next class. Then, my interest was sparked over a story that one of the professors shared about his friend who accidentally strayed on the streets of Barrio Luz. As I remembered, what seized the visitor was the absence of rubbish on the gutters of Barrio Luz, very atypical of Philippine urban slums that have been depicted by popular culture to be “ghetto-ish,” or even “dirty.”
While the professors were enmeshed in their conversation, a memory struck me about how some urban poor leaders described their predicament in the early 1990s. As a young student activist then, I hear them speak of vendors being “swept out of the sidewalk like garbage.” Interestingly, this was during the height of the implementation of the city beautification campaign under the Clean and Green program. Another memory invoked by the protesters was when Imelda Marcos put walls around the urban slums of Manila because some foreign dignitaries were on a visit; and that these communities were not “nice to look at.” Recently, the government had done the same method whenever so-called “important visitors” are on a State visit.
Taking a cue from what I overheard from the professors and my own remembering, I set out to see the rationale of the Cebu City Government’s urban solid waste management and locate this in the practice of Barrio Luz residents. This is therefore an attempt at looking into the experiences of some Barrio Luz residents concerning garbage and recycling. Of particular importance here is the interface between the LGU-led solid waste management program, particularly the Kwarta sa Basura (Money in Garbage) campaign, and the residents’ practices.
My concern here is to map out the terrain of the rationale of State-initiated intervention on solid waste management and understand its impact on people. I believe that government programs are informed by practical reason or the utilitarian logic (Sahlins 1976). In the book, Culture and Practical Reason, Marshall Sahlins argues that many social science practitioners tend to see people a priori as economistic or governed by what he called as practical reason. Practical reason, he contends, happens when culture is seen merely as the “maximization of means-end relations” (Sahlins 1976: vii) and that people are governed by self-interest. I further contend that the policymakers construct the pasts of the urban slum dwellers as the absence of Practical Reason, and thus the need for intervention. The interventions seek to reduce “waste at its source.” Of particular importance is the “successful” Kwarta sa Basura project, which had been touted as a model that needs to be replicated in other areas. The experience of Barrio Luz residents will serve as the counterpoint of this so-called success.
Marshall Sahlins’ book, Culture and Practical Reason (1976), is instructive in studying contemporary garbage because it argues for an approach that is nuanced to culture. Despite the anthropologists’ disagreement over what culture is, the “official view holds that all human conduct is culturally mediated… (P) eople act in relation, not to brute reality, but to culture-specific modes of perceiving and organizing the world” (Rosaldo 1988:78). Culture is a symbolic scheme that organizes practical experience.
The main theme of the book is his critique on the privileging of the utilitarian logic in much of social science research. The utilitarian logic—or what he called as practical reason—tends to view human societies as governed by the economistic logic. All human phenomena have to be explained by looking into its articulation with the economy. In the case of some variants of Marxism, culture is seen as a reflection of the mode of production while in anthropology, culture is the ideological residue of its subsistence patterns. Thereby, many development programs—even how well meaning it is—tend to frame the interventions in terms of “means-end maximization” (see Sahlins 1976).
What is particularly poignant in Sahlins’ book is how he uses standard anthropological methods revolving around the culture concept in understanding capitalism. Traditionally, anthropology’s locale had been the “traditional,” the “primitive,” and the “native” found in the remote corners of the world. Yet in the case of Sahlins, he shows that the fieldwork site is not in some distant area but is in the here and now of the anthropologists’ locale—the urban area, the locus of capitalism. Thus, he contends that “Not even capitalism, despite its ostensible organization by and for pragmatic advantage, can escape this cultural constitution of an apparently objective praxis” (Sahlins: 169).
To illustrate this, Sahlins maintains that culture rather than the economistic logic of market dynamics inform urban residents’ choices . For example, he presented food taboos and preferences of Americans where what is considered as food is “organized by specific valuations of edibility and non-edibility, themselves quantitative and in no way justifiable by biological, ecological, or economic advantage” (Sahlins 1976:171). Thus, a horse is not food even in times of great crisis such as in the spring of 1973 when food prices were so inflated (Sahlins 1976:172).
In this context therefore, I present that interventions of the modern State are biased towards practical reason or the utilitarian logic. And practical reason here is seen as a motive force in transforming communities, particularly concerning urban solid waste management. Practical reason or the utilitarian logic presents urban residents as homo economicus, merely following or supporting state-initiated intervention because of the corresponding price tag attached to a certain action, be they penalties, fines, or monetary rewards.
Since the enactment of the Republic Act No. 9003 or the Philippine Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000, the Cebu City Government has been spearheading its implementation in all the barangays of Cebu City. The City Ordinance No. 1361 instructs that it is the “citizens’…primary responsibility to achieve and maintain cleanliness in their places of abode or work while the government shall suffer the ultimate responsibility of establishing and maintaining an orderly and modern program for the collection and disposal of garbage, rubbish, swill, trash, and other forms of waste and waste materials.” The City Government then issued Executive Order No. 00-33 which created the Solid Waste Management Board in 2003.
The concern for the strict implementation of RA 9003 is reflective of the amount of solid waste generated in the city. With a population of 0.72 million, Cebu province produces 511 tons per day of solid waste with an estimated 0.71 kg per person per day. Accordingly, the sources of waste are mostly residential (57%) while the non-residential accounts for 43% of the total volume of waste in the province. In Cebu City, the volume of garbage in 2001 was 186,505 tons per year with residential sources accounting for 392 tons/day and the non-residential 219 tons/day. The City Government projects that by 2010, the volume of the garbage will be 275, 573 tons per year or 399 tons/day from residential sources and 356 tons/day for nonresidential.
Confronted with this modern problem, the city government combines various approaches in stemming the garbage “problem.” In the brief for the Kitakyushu Initiative Network (Mayors’ Segment), Cebu outlined the following steps to overcome these challenges: a) institutional capability building through various training programs, b) public information and awareness by involving NGOs, c) waste segregation at source, d) improvement in the practices of waste separation and recycling at disposal, e) management of medical waste by the private sector and industrial waste management with the involvement of Chambers of Commerce, f) promotion of composting and recycling with the help of agricultural department, g) energy conservation and construction of biogas digester, and lastly h) efficient garbage collection system by acquiring new equipment and vehicles.
Incorporated in what is outlined above, the City government also used the mechanism of fees, penalties and fines to encourage the observance of RA 9003 and its enabling city ordinances. Since its implementation, the City government earned P280, 000.00 in fines for 3,968 violators in June to September of 2005 (Martel 2005: A31). As for total actual revenue from garbage fees in 2000, the city government earned P7.97 million with P6.69M from garbage collection fees, P1M from market garbage fees and P.28M from penalties (Cebu City Government 2005:5).
At the barangay level, the city government demands that barangay local government units should establish its own local-level solid waste management committees. The task of this committee is reflected in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Administrative Order No. 2001-34 (or the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9003) and City Ordinance No 1361. This is in response to what the city government sees as the main issues in the garbage “problem”: the bulk of solid wastes generated are from residential sources. Thus, the barangay LGU has to be the main actor in “reducing waste at its source.”
Given the state interventions in urban solid waste management, I tried to look into how the barangays’ past, especially that of urban slums, is represented in the policymakers’ discourse. I highlight this here because I find it important to trace the rationale of the interventions introduced at the barangay level. Sahlins (1976:75) reminds us that the researchers’ “etic is his/her own society’s emic.”
The 1996 case study report, Community Participation in Urban Solid Waste Management in Metro Manila and Metro Cebu, the Philippines, for the Urban Waste Expertise Program (UWEP) highlights how the slum dwellers’ past is constituted by policy makers. The locale of the study is in Barangay Basak-San Nicolas in Cebu City and Barangay Pitogo in Makati, Metro Manila. I will highlight the Lapid et al’s data on Barangay San Nicolas-Basak, particularly Section 2.2 on the waste situation of the barangay.
Lapid et al’s data (1996:5) indicate that the said barangay used to be a “dirty barangay.” As a qualifier for what “dirty” means, they said that “residents compare (San Nicolas) with Carbon”—the city’s central flea market—and that there is “indiscriminate throwing and dumping of wastes… (and these were) seen scattered along the streets, and thrown into canals.” They further added that “interior sitios were dirty and coastal areas were even foul-smelling due to unattended garbage.”
Similarly in another report for the upland barangays of Cebu City, Magno (2004:16-17) said, “eighty percent of the population in the area do not practice proper waste disposal of both solid and liquid wastes… (and) about 83 percent of the upland barangay residents did not even have sanitary toilets.” Furthermore, he added that “household, domestic wastes were generally dumped in creeks or river channels and carried away during heavy floods into the sea” (Magno 2004:17). Residents also dispose of their wastes “anywhere” (Magno 2004:17).
In response to these perceived “dirtiness,” State intervention is seen as critical with communities adjusting to the State’s version of what is clean. The main technique here is to “educate the public” (Cebu City Government 2004:7) and attach economic incentives to efforts leading to the state-sanctioned “cleanliness.” In the case of UWEP, it encourages the generation of “employment in waste handling through small and micro-enterprises, and improving the environmental conditions of low income communities.” In another document, DENR DAO 2001-34 instructs that researches should be conducted on “economic instruments in solid waste management” (DENR 2002:108).
The practical reason behind this strategy is best summed up by Dr. Paul Cornett of the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA): “Economics is a strategy that may work best to mitigate the trash situation…In other words, we’re not just saying, this is good for the environment, we are saying this is good for the economy. If you do it the right way, you create jobs and you create businesses” (quoted in Rodriguez 2004:3).
The overriding framework of KSB is the community-based waste management approach, which aims to “improve the (communities’) quality of life by developing a more viable and sustainable mechanism for managing solid waste.” It seeks that projects need to be “sustainable…where the people realize that they are responsible for making society more livable by responding to the pressing issues and concerns in their own community” (Fernandez 2004).
For Barrio Luz residents, the process of making them “responsible” is through the internalization of the cleanliness precepts as defined by the policymakers. For example, seminars and training were conducted on proper solid waste disposal. These seminars are part of the larger information, education, communication campaign that seeks to see the waste problem as an urgent and serious issue. Correspondingly, the people are reminded of their community and household responsibilities as well as the penalties and fines as defined in City Ordinance 1361.
They were also informed that they should segregate their waste—separating the organic from the inorganic—or else face stiff penalties. The main enforcers of the implementation are the barangay tanods and volunteers of the local solid waste management board (in Barrio Luz parlance, tagabarangay; those working in the barangay). The tanods and the volunteers survey the entire barangay and penalize those that have been remiss in their “responsibilities.” In the interviews of one of the volunteers, she said that people who practice improper waste disposal are those that lack “discipline” or mga walay buot (can be translated literally as people with no consciousness). In 2005, 4,353 violators are set to render “community service” by cleaning up certain areas of Cebu City, including among others, Colon Street and Kawit Island (Sunstar 2005: A14).
A similar discursive strain can be gleaned from the data of Lapid et al (1996) where the people are seen as walay buot (lit. no manners) by the authorities and the only means to “discipline” them is for the LGU to exercise its “power.” In the case of Barangay San Nicolas, Lapid et al documented that “Capt. George Rama and the tanods once joined the ‘operation linis.’ The captain said that they were cleaning the front yard of the residents because the residents are not cleaning it. He threatened residents, however, saying that they will burn their houses should he find the place dirty on the next visit. From then on, the people in the area started cleaning their place” (Lapid et al 1996:10). In another instance, the barangay secretary, Mario Mariaga, and the tanods “used to check areas that are not kept clean…Using a megaphone, Mariaga reprimanded residents and heavily cursed them for not observing cleanliness.” In another incident, the barangay secretary also took his “gun out and threatened to shoot” a violator who was about to dump garbage into a creek (Lapid et al 1996:10).
Although the Barrio Luz LGU has no practice similar to that in Barangay San Nicolas, “tough,” or should we say “toughie,” approach are viewed by policymakers as obvious sign of political will. Even among some residents, they believe that the LGU should exercise its “power” and compel violators to abide by the rules and regulations related to garbage disposal.
Economistic strategy presupposes that people cannot comprehend “abstract” concepts, such as the environment. Efforts towards environmental conservation or health and sanitation need to be couched in instrumental terms in order to be effective. This is best illustrated in the Cebu City Government’s Kwarta sa Basura (Money in the Garbage) project, where urban residents are encouraged to recycle their trash in exchange for money. The project “seeks to minimize waste generation by encouraging residents to segregate garbage, reuse, and recycle” (Villarete 2003:4). According to Villarete (2003), the project began in the last quarter of 2002 with Barrio Luz as the pilot area. The “success” of the Kwarta sa Basura (KSB) project in Barrio Luz compelled the city government to replicate this in the other barangays, notably in Lorega San Miguel, Mabolo, and Hippodromo.
KSB in Barrio Luz buys the recycled materials from the residents. The materials that are bought are those that the junkshop owners traditionally collect: aluminum, plastic, tin, bottles, paper products, iron, and bronze wires, among others. The residents then bring their recyclable to the barangay hall every Saturday for collection.
According to the residents, the materials that they “deposited” are listed in their “bankbook. ” They said that they can “withdraw” the money anytime whenever they need it. There have been instances that residents “withdrew” what they “deposited” because of some family emergencies. Showing how the KSB had helped her, this mother relates:
“The Kwarta sa Basura really helped my family a lot. I do not have any work (wala koy trabaho) because I have to take care of the kids. One time, my husband’s salary was so delayed that I do not have any other option but to “withdraw my deposit.” So we were able to buy food, some rice and vegetables. I would have loved to save my deposit for Christmas.”
Ideally, the government seeks to reach a zero-waste output in communities; thus, the rationale for making the household unit as the main target for intervention (e.g., waste segregation and recycling). But what is happening on the ground however does not seem to fit into the policymakers’ economistic strategy of solving the garbage problem. For example, resident choices in selecting what are recyclables depend on his/her valuation of the item’s corresponding price tag. Most residents put more emphasis in storing high-priced items, such as aluminum and plastic bottles (mineral water, especially), than tin which is only valued at P0.10/kilo. Moreover, by the residents’ accounts, they seldom encounter aluminum or alo (a highly priced item) except for the bottle caps of one-liter soft drinks but most of them keep alo than the abundant tin (lata).
The residents maintained that the bulk of their garbage consists of cellophane and organic items—which are not bought in the KSB program. In my home visits, I examined garbage bags and found out that most of the trash are leftovers of food items (such as a used sardine can, stalks of kamunggay, some cooked rice grains, cellophane wrappers), papers, and dusts. But if one looks into what is stored as “recyclables,” these are consumer items not frequently used by the household owners. In their “storage area” one can see rum bottles, medicine bottles, but the bulk were empty mineral water bottles (consisting approximately 50% or more of the stored materials).
The majority of materials brought to the collection center are plastics (especially, empty mineral water bottles) and glass bottles. So I asked the residents: Why is there a disparity between items in the household trash and the recyclable? Where did they collect these recyclable? Here lies the “success story,” as the Cebu City Government puts it, of Barrio Luz.
By the residents’ own valuation, the KSB is a good project because it allows them to earn money and clean their surroundings (palibot). This fits nicely into the Cebu City Government’s vision of generating livelihood out of trash and reducing the volume of garbage at the source. Interestingly however, the KSB project practically laid the responsibility of cleaning the city on the urban slum dwellers who go to places outside of their palibot and barangay to collect recyclable materials.
Yet, the responsibility of cleaning the city seems to come matter-of-factly to the residents. Inscribed in the task of cleaning the household, for example, is the awareness that not all the garbage in the house is theirs. They call these kinds of trash as padpad nga basura (“vagabond” garbage; literally, wind-blown trash) that comes into their houses regularly from the streets. Telling me of her problem with “vagabond” household trash (basura), a housewife narrates:
Dili man jud mahuman ang akong pagpanglimpyo diri sa balay. Naa man gud na ang padpad nga basura. [Question: Ha? Unsay padpad nga basura] Padpad nga basura? Mao na ang basura nga dili ato nga kanunay mosulod sa balay. Huyupon man na sa hangin. Bisan unsaon og limpyo, mahugaw jud. Dili ato basura, pero maato na lang.
(Cleaning the house is a ceaseless task because of these padpad nga basura. [Question: Ha? What’s padpad nga basura?] Padpad nga basura? These are trash materials that are not mine but come to the house regularly. The wind blows it. No matter how regularly I clean my house, it still gets dirty. It is not our basura, but we are forced to own it up.)
While padpad nga basura is seen as regular nuisance, Barrio Luz residents view basura in general as a source of a variety of illnesses. They see the basura as the breeding ground of rats, flies, mosquitoes, and other vermin and therefore a producer of kagaw (germs). They said that the stenchl of the basura (baho sa basura) carries with it the kagaw (germs) that causes so many illnesses to the residents, especially the “vulnerable” ones—the children.
Despite this strong association between basura and illness, Barrio Luz residents still insist on collecting recyclable objects from outlying areas. Interestingly, they call the process of collecting these as pamasura—the root word being basura—and the recyclable as basura nga naay gamit (useful trash). When asked whether these recyclables might also be a source of illness, they said that these materials could be a breeding ground for mosquitoes, which could be vectors of dengue. They maintained that they do not store these materials for a long time (e.g., two weeks) especially because it has a smell (bahu) and the kagaw might thrive.
Perhaps, the residents’ insistence on collecting the basura of others despite the strong association of basura with illnesses is rooted in what constitutes basura. Basura are those that are hugaw (i.e., dirty) and ginamit (i.e., used) or wala nay gamit (cannot be of use anymore). Meaning, an object is not considered as garbage as long as it is “clean” and “useful” to the person. In the case of the recyclable, this basura is both “dirty” and “useful.” In effect, the recyclable is an allowable basura—they can be recovered from the dump and stored in the house or its vicinity. Perhaps, this meaning is what renders the recyclable as “acceptable.”
Recounting her experience in collecting garbage from areas outside of Barrio Luz, one of my interviewees said:
Namasura jud mi sa una. Dili mi mauwaw. Inig off sa amo duty, mamasura jud dala og sako. Naa mi sa Ayala permi. Dili man mi abugon sa gwardiya kay limpyo man mi og mga nawong. Ang ilang gibawal namo nga dili lang bungkagon ang trash can. Dili ikalat kay masuko man ang ilang dako-dako sa sulod. Daghan sad mi magkuyog. Abot mi og kapitolyo. Bisan asa lagi basta makakolekta lang. Karon, ang akong bana nga gatrabaho sa opisina, mao nay mangolekta sad. Ang plastik nga Coke sa Amerikano maoy iyang dalhon. Mao say akong tapukon.
(We collected recyclable materials before. We did not feel embarrassed. When we were on off-duty, we carried sacks to collect these materials. We frequented Ayala (i.e., a shopping mall near Barrio Luz). The security guard (of the mall) did not drive us away because our faces are clean. They do not allow us however to rummage through the trashcans because their boss might get mad. There are many of us in the group. We even reach the provincial capitol. We went to wherever we can get recyclable. Now, my husband who is employed as an office-worker is the one doing the collecting. He brings the plastic bottles of Coke that the American drinks. Then, I would store it (for KSB).)
Expectedly, the site where residents scavenge for recyclable materials are in the vicinity of malls. In Cebu City, malls have been instrumental in shifting the traffic of people from Colon Street (the old business district) to the uptown areas. As “cathedrals of consumption” (Fiske 1995:12), malls are sites of consumption and status display. Perhaps, bottled mineral water can be viewed not simply as a thirst-quenching drink but as a symboling artifact that conveys status differences. As Shields (1996:184) remarked, malls are “commodifying and objectifying environment for both objects and persons.”
While some residents scour the streets of other barangays, some collects recyclables from the trash of their neighbors. They would wait for the coming of the garbage truck with sack in hand. They would rummage through the pile of their neighbors’ trash before these are put into the waiting garbage truck. The recyclable materials collected are then stored and brought to KSB’s collection center. Some residents maintain that the ones who are doing the collecting in areas outside of Barrio Luz are children nowadays (“because they have more time”).
The Kwarta sa Basura is a “success” if we use the City Government’s practical reason as the analytic framework in understanding the Barrio Luz experience. If what we mean by success is the generation of “livelihood” from trash, as the government would have, then by all means the urban solid waste management program of Cebu City has achieved significant advances. But if we see the “success” in terms of how the residents experienced and embodied the government’s practical reason, then that is a different story.
Earlier I argued for the relevance of Sahlins’ critique on the practical reason in the social sciences. What we did here is to present that practical reason does not merely exist in the file cabinets of government offices nor in social science research reports but is embodied by urban residents. In fact, we could probably say that the logical given in many Philippine government plans is the reduction of people into Homo economicus. And as the stories of Barrio Luz residents indicate, the economistic strategy supports and replicates the social disparities in society and does not really delve into the very reasons of the existence of the modern urban trash.
Locating the producers of waste somewhere in the urban slums of Cebu is a fragmented reading of the modern trash phenomenon. Worse, this logical a priori tends to reinforce the aesthetic stereotype that urban slums are indeed “dirty.” Yet if we listen to what the Barrio Luz residents are saying, cleaning is never a new phenomenon. A barangay resident, for example, remarked that “Barrio Luz has always been a clean area. You seldom see litters on its streets even in the interior sitios. You could say that our place looks dirty before because the place is muddy. The sole difference between now and before is that the roads are paved—that is the only reason why it now looks clean.”
Perhaps, a way towards a more sensitive understanding of the trash phenomenon of Cebu is not to limit the analysis on statistics or evaluate the results of the programs merely on the basis of numbers. Axel Borchgrevink (2002) pointed out the need to understand local knowledges related to cleanliness because embedded within these are alternatives that might need to be enhanced or reinforced. In his study in Brgy. Ginopolan, Valencia, Bohol, he said that the hinlo concept is “a very moral discourse, focusing on the virtues and duties with respect to cleanliness, work, and cooperation” (Borchgrevink 2002:232). He further added that the farmers’ bunds “stand as physical monuments to the morality of their owners” (Borchgrevink 2002:232).
Going back to Sahlins, objects are not merely material products but are cultural objects as well. If we situate this precept in the context of Barrio Luz, a dissimilar rereading of the trash condition (from that of the government) will come out. For example, many Barrio Luz residents put their trash bags inside their houses and almost never outside because of kaikog (the most approximate English word is shame). They are particularly sensitive to neighbors’ comments about their personal morality. Perhaps, like Borchgrevink did, we can understand this behavior if we view the trash as “monuments” of the person’s morality.
The kaikog concept might also help explain why some government programs related to trash are resisted by urban residents. Say for example, the organic composting program did not fair well in Barrio Luz because many residents do not see it fit in their conditions (kahimtang). Living in a closely-spaced neighborhood, many residents fear that their composting area might smell and would only lead to fights with the neighbors.
> Marshall Sahlins (1976:207): There is no material logic apart from the practical interest, and the practical interest of men in production is symbolically constituted.
> Barangay Solid Waste Management Board functions: a) Formulate solid waste management program consistent with city municipal plan; b) Segregation and collection of biodegradable. compostable, reusable waste; c) Establish materials recovery facility; d) Allocate barangay funds and look for sources of funds; e) Organize core coordinators; and lastly f) Submit monthly report to city or municipality.
> George Rama is a scion of the Rama political clan of Cebu. He was a Cebu city councilor.
> The “bankbook” is a notebook that details the resident’s transactions with the KSB collection facility.
> Food leftovers (lamaw or pasaw) before were collected by some neighbors who are tending pigs. The lamaw are used as pig food. At present, the raising of pigs is discouraged in the barangay.
Borchgrevink, Axel. 2002. Clean and Green: Indigenous Knowledge and Cultural Models in a Philippine Community. ETHNOS, Vol. 67:2, 2002 (PP.223-244).
Cebu City Government
2005 (date accessed) Solid Waste Management Project Launched from http://www.cebucity.gov.ph/news_information/news_item/2003/solidmgmnt_launched.html
2005 (date accessed). Ordinance No. 1361: An Ordinance Establishing A System of Garbage Collection, Imposing Fees Therefore, and Expropriating Funds and for Other Related Purpose. April 1 1990. Cebu City Government.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2001. DENR Administrative Order No. 2001-34 Series of 2001: Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act 9003. A.V.B Printing Press: Sampaloc Manila.
Fernandez, Tessie. (date accessed) 2005. Community Waste Management (Power Point Presentation). Lihok Pilipina Foundation, Inc.
Fiske, John, 1995. Chapter 2: Shopping for Pleasure: Malls, Power, and Resistance. in Reading the Popular. Routledge: London.
Lapid, Danilo G., Munez, Ligaya U., Bongon, Lidel Lee I. 1996. Community Participation in Urban Solid Waste in Metro Manila and Metro Cebu, the Philippines. A Case Study Report for Urban Waste Expertise Programme (UWEP). WASTE: Netherlands.
Martel, Rene H. 2005. Waste Law Earns CH 280T. Sunstar Daily (October 9, 2005 issue). pp. A4.
Rodriguez, Ces. 2004. Solid Waste Management Act far from implemented—but there is good news. http://www.cyberdyaryo.com/features/f2004_1116_01.htm
Rosaldo, Renato. 1988. Ideology, Place, and People without Culture. Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 3, No. 1. Place and Voice in Anthropological Theory (Feb.1988), 77-87.
Sahlins, Marshall. 1976. Culture and Practical Reason. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago and London.
Shields, Rob. 1996. The Logic of the Mall.
Sunstar Daily (GAC). 2005. 20 Waste Law Violators Told To Clean Up Kawit. Sunstar Daily (October 15, 2005 issue). pp A14.
Villarete, Nigel Paul. 2003. Report to the Second Meeting of the Kitakyushu Initiative Network (Mayors’ Segment). Cebu City Government.
Borchgrevink, A. (2002). Clean and Green: Indigenous Knowledge and Cultural Models in a Philippine Community Ethnos, 67 (2), 223-244 DOI: 10.1080/00141840220136837