Benefit-Cost Analysis of Extension and Repair of Baybay Public
Market in Baybay City, Leyte
A Thesis OutlinePresented to the Faculty of theDepartment of
EconomicsCollege of Management and EconomicsVisayas State
UniversityVisca, Baybay City, Leyte
In Partial Fulfillmentof the Requirements for the Degree
ofBachelor of Science in Economics
Christopher A. LlonesApril 2015TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of ContentsiList of TablesiiList of Figuresiii
INTRODUCTION5Nature and Importance of the Study5Statement of the
Problem6Objectives of the Study7Scope and Limitation of the
Study7
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE8Public Market 8 Environmental Cost
of Public Market9 Public Market Projects Experienced in the
Philippines16 Benefit-Cost Analysis Methods 24Contingent Valuation
(CV) Method24Payback period28Benefit-Cost Ratio28Internal Rate
Return28
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK30
METHODOLOGY35Place of the Study35Sampling Procedure35Data
Collection38Data Analysis38
LITERATURE CITED39
APPENDICES40
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
TITLE
PAGE
1Muntinlupa Public Market Wastewater Treatment System Flow
18
2Diagram summary of Benefit-Cost Analysis of Extension and
Repair of Baybay City Public Market
34
iv
List of Tables
TABLE TITLEPAGE
1Proportional sample size allocation of Poblacion Baybay City,
Leyte37Benefit-Cost Analysis of Extension and Repair of Baybay
Public Market in Baybay City, Leyte
1/A Thesis outline presented in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for graduation with the degree of Bachelor of Science
in Economics from Visayas State University, Visca, Baybay City,
Leyte on ________. Contribution No. _____. Prepared in the
Department of Economics under the supervision and guidance of Prof.
Ernesto F. Bulayog
Christopher a. llones
INTRODUCTION
Nature and Importance of the Study
Public markets are unique economic and social institutions which
are increasingly being viewed as tools to achieve a wide variety of
goals. These goals include improved access to quality food, better
marketing opportunities for family farmers, improving social
interaction in urban neighborhoods, increasing social cohesion,
providing employment opportunities to local communities, creating
entrepreneurial environment to increase small business formation,
and enhancing community economic development (Econsult Corp,
February 2007).In the Philippines, the present state of public
market are however deplorable. A DlLG study in 1993 reports that
about ninety-four (94%) of public markets all over the country are
owned and controlled by the government, mostly through local
government units ( an excerpt from National Public Market Code of
the Philippines ). In Baybay City, problems of congestion, poor
sanitation, ill-kept and maintained structures threaten the safety
and health of people (and this includes a great majority of the
citizens of the country) who avail of the facilities of public
markets. To address this issues the local government unit of Baybay
City, Leyte employs an extension and repair project for the city
public market. However, the proponents of the project does not
account all economic cost associated with the project. Thus, this
study will evaluate the projects costs and benefits, both implicit
and explicit means, which the project will impose.
Statement of the ProblemBenefit-cost analysis is not commonly
practiced by the local government unit of Baybay to determine the
viability of their projects, like the extension and repair of
Baybay public market. It is true that extension and repair of the
public market would provide larger area to accommodate growing
number of vendors and centralized area for trading and various
market activities. However, aside from explicit cost of
implementing the project, ecological and environmental cost could
also be associated with the projects implementation.The catalyst
that motivated LGU Baybay to have an extension and repair of its
public market is due to the damage inflected by super typhoon
Yolanda (November 8, 2013) and the growing population of vendors in
the city. The general premise of this study will be that the
project would have a positive impact on the economy and the society
in general as a whole for the years to come.
Objectives of the Study:The study will attempt to analyze the
cost and benefits of extension and repair of Baybay public market
in Baybay City, Leyte. Specifically the objective of the study is
to:1. Determine the economic benefits of the extension and repair
of Baybay public market2. Determine the cost of the project3.
Provide insights for policy making from this analysis4. Serve as a
guide for future benefit-cost analysis of Baybay Citys
projectsScope and Limitation of the Study:The study will focused
more on the actual explicit cost of doing the extension and repair
of the public market of Baybay City, Leyte and will exclude
environmental cost associated with the project if the researcher
will encounter difficulties in establishing the environmental cost.
A contingent valuation method will be used to determine the peoples
value for better sanitation systems and utility management of the
public market. The contingent valuation method will revolve only on
the average willingness to pay per household for sanitation and
utility management improvement in the public market.
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Public Market Based on a 2012 Public Market Development essay a
public market is define as a powerful economic engines. Public
markets can become the heart and soul of a community; it is a
common ground, a place where people easily interact, alive with
social and economic activity. The potential economic impacts of
public markets and farmers markets include direct benefits (e.g.
profits to business owners in the market, job creation, sales and
real estate tax revenues, etc.) and indirect benefits (e.g.
stimulating development downtown, enhancing the park and waterfront
as a place, farmland preservation, etc.).One of the most obvious,
but perhaps least understood, methods of enhancing social
integration in public spaces and encouraging upward mobility are
public markets. Increasingly, community leaders and local
government see public markets as a means of addressing some of the
more vexing problems of cities (excerpt from Public Markets as a
Vehicle for Social Integration and Upward Mobility). A DlLG study
in 1993 reports that about ninety-four (94%) of public markets all
over the country are owned and controlled by the government, mostly
through local government units. Public markets are important in the
economic life of the country, because these provide the physical
venue where suppliers of basic commodities, mainly food are linked
together with buyers and consumers, making welfare-improving
exchange and trade transactions possible. Thus public markets
support the life of households in the surrounding area, open up
employment opportunities to vendors, and provide an indispensable
impetus to economic production in general. The present state of
public markets are, however deplorable. Problems of congestion,
poor sanitation, ill-kept and maintained structures threaten the
safety and health of people (and this includes a great majority of
the citizens of the country) who avail of the facilities of public
markets.
Environmental Cost of Public MarketAwareness of sanitation and
wastewater treatment issues is very low throughout the Philippines
and must be elevated to build support for pilot projects and
willingness to pay required users fees. Treating environmental
improvement as a business will lead to greater returns and lower
costs, for the environment as well as for the economy. To achieve a
truly sustainable environment, we must recognize that environmental
improvement and economic growth can and do go hand in handthat
environmental improvement is a market just like any other. Indeed,
if environmental improvement is approached as a market, then many
of its presumed conflicts with economic growth evaporate. For
businesses, environmental improvement can provide lower costs and
growing worldwide economic opportunity. For the public, it provides
trillions of dollars worth of benefits, plus significant insurance
against major disasters.The terminology used in national economic
accounts and policy dialogues often is seriously misleading.
National accounts neither recognize the lost values and actual
costs currently incurred by neither pollution nor measure and
offset returns from environmental improvements against the
investments that created them. Further, in political discussions,
attempts to force companies and users to bear the full costs of
their actions are generally termed taxes, not cost recovery. Those
who oppose internalization of such costs argue that environmental
improvements decrease national productivity and competitiveness and
hence reduce job opportunities and growth. But far from decreasing
competitiveness, environmental improvements have greatly reduced
costs for most businesses. A widely accepted Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) report, The Benefits and Costs of the Clean
Air Act of 1970 to 1990, estimated that every dollar spent on
depollution reduced health costs by $20, and that the U.S. economy
experienced gains of $6.4 trillion (with a credible range of $2.3
trillion to $14.2 trillion) as a result of the initial 1970 act
alone.Ignoring the real costs of existing environmental degradation
and the overwhelming contributions that improvements make to
productivity skews public perceptions and focuses the environmental
debate around wrong issues and data. Thinking and structuring data
in terms of environmental markets, where all parties internalize
their full costs and satisfy a real public demand, can enable a
more reasoned dialogue, make environmental investments easier for
the public and policymakers to comprehend, place alternative uses
of resources (that is, for environmental improvement versus product
manufacture or public transfer payments) on a sounder basis, and
help allocate national resources more effectively.Unfortunately,
the past practice of considering environmental conditions as
externalities has seriously distorted resource allocations through
implicit subsidies to producers and users of polluting systems.
Such subsidies encourage underpricing and overuse of the polluting
industrys products while discouraging innovation both in that and
competing industries. When market like structures and incentives
are used, innovation in these and supporting industries generally
creates environmental results that are higher than initially
expected at costs that are significantly lower than expected.
Entire new industriesfor advanced sensors, new fertilizers and farm
technologies, large-scale modeling, lightweight materials, and
high-performance engines, to name but a fewoften have been
stimulated, along with improved environmental outputs, most of
which are not captured by national account data.Recognizing
environmental improvement as a market dramatically changes the
calculus justifying environmental expenditures. Policy discussions
generally have demanded that environmental expenditures be
justified on the basis of lower costs for the society. But no
analyst would demand that the automobile, fashion, entertainment,
or furniture industries justify themselves in terms of cost
savings. These are merely valid demands calling for the resources
for their satisfaction, relative to other demands. Similarly,
environmental improvement satisfies real demands (for clean air,
water, etc.) and creates major new markets for supplier
industries.Indeed, environmental markets drive todays demand for
many new technologies. In many areas, environmental targets even
have replaced traditional consumer product, industrial process, or
military technological goals as drivers of scientific and
entrepreneurial endeavor. And these technologies will undoubtedly
create hosts of unexpected new free-standing market opportunities.
Properly developed, environmental markets stimulate real economic
growth.Any opportunity, public or private, that calls forth
previously uncommitted energies and resources can create growth.
The only difference between environmental markets and private
markets is that demand from many private individuals must be
aggregated to purchase environmental amenities. Joint purchases (or
public markets) create exactly the same growth opportunities as
private markets. For example, when an individual works harder to
buy an automobile, that private action stimulates growth. If he and
his neighbors jointly buy the same car for a carpool, they provide
an equal stimulus to the economy. If 1,000 citizens buy a vehicle
as a public school bus, they create the same direct sales and
jobs.Ecosystem services are natural processes, such as forests
absorbing pollutants or moderating rain runoff and erosion that
would have to be replaced artificially if natural habitats were
removed or degraded. The value of these environmental amenities can
be very large. For example, the market value to cities and farms of
clean water running out of the Sierra Nevada mountains in
California is approximately twice the value of the Sierra timber,
grazing, and tourist industries combined.As a result of public
market, between 1970 and 1990 the United States saw a 40 percent
emission reduction in sulfur oxide, a 45 percent reduction in
volatile organic compounds, and a 50 percent reduction in carbon
monoxide. Ozone concentrations decreased by 15 percent, airborne
lead by 99 percent, and primary suspended particles by 75 percent.
And largely because of other public market activities, such as the
adoption of improved automobile safety features and the
construction of superhighways, U.S. traffic fatalities dropped from
54,589 in 1972 to 40,115 in 1993even though the period saw an
increase of 60 million licensed drivers, collectively logging more
than a trillion more miles per year. These gains, mostly unmeasured
in national economic accounts, represented real benefits for
individuals. When regulations are proposed, the affected industries
tend to exaggerate potential hardships. Cost estimates based on
practices at the time of imposition are generally too high, as
innovations almost always quickly lower costs. If regulations use
flexibly designed market mechanisms and reward higher performance
achievementsas opposed to specifying particular technologies or
existing best practicesinnovators often create solutions that
generate both better outputs and lower costs than anyone could
forecast at the time.The town of Trenton, Michigan, presents a
classic example. In the early 1950s, when the town refused to allow
McLouth Steel to install Bessemer converters because they produced
too much air pollution, the company began a search for alternative
processes. This led to the first major U.S. installation of the
so-called basic oxygen process for making steel. When diffused
through the steel industry, the cost savings and value gains of
this innovation alone would more than pay for the industrys highly
touted air depollution costs, forcing further innovations in
competing processes as well.Large-scale studies have shown that
governments can promote economic growth by intervening to create
parity between environmental and other markets. How to optimize the
benefit in social, business, and economic growth terms is the
crucial issue. Many economists and policymakers are beginning to
stress market like incentive mechanisms to create environmental
markets. Special problems exist in this marketplace: Benefits may
be highly diffuse or not accrue directly to those who must make
needed expenditures; front-end costs appear measurably apparent
whereas benefits are often hard to quantify; and no one knows, at
the outset, what potential solutions really exist and how other
systems or the public may ultimately respond. Most of these (with
the exception of the lack of match-up between payers and
beneficiaries) are precisely the elements that markets handle best.
The major problem is understanding and aggregating the frequently
diffuse demands for environmental improvement in a way that
minimizes actual costs while optimizing their balance with
competing demands. Economists use two starting points to establish
demand potentials in a public market. The first approach is direct:
Economists ask and analyze preference questions. The simplest
questions are: How much money would you be willing to pay to have a
defined level of cleaner water, air, etc.? What amount of money
would you demand to allow someone else to decrease the quality of
that resource by a specified amount? The problems of achieving
accuracy in such surveys are well known, but most studies show that
people would demand between two and six times more to accept a loss
in current quality-of-life levels than they would be willing to pay
to achieve or improve these levels. The second approach is
indirect, but typically proves more precise: Economists try to
create a real-world market in which interested parties buy and sell
real or surrogate assets and solutions. In this way, economists can
analyze how people actually perform in trade-off market situations.
For example, how much do people pay to vacation in a national park
or fish in a clean wilderness area rather than fish or picnic
locally? Such studies can include aesthetic (noncost) factors and
provide initial baselines for reasonable environmental
expenditures. However, they do not measure the value nonusers might
place on the resource. Because of the very high potential values of
the environment and the tendencies of affected players to distort
their estimates of costs and effects of changes (up or down),
careful baseline data studies are crucial to sound analysis and
policy. Markets operate most effectively when data are abundant and
transparent. As in finance and trade, governments have a critical
role to play in providing a reliable and neutral framework of
environmental data under which private parties can appropriately
value resources, examine trade-offs, and evaluate trends.A more
market like alternative, which is particularly effective when the
impact of effluents is highly diffuse either in production or
consumption, is to tax undesired actions on a unit purchase (or
user fee) basis to increase their cost. A unit fee such as that on
fuels (set at a level where total revenue generated just offsets
total externalities created) makes the total market economy more
efficient as well as providing incentives for producers and
consumers to make more cost-effective decisions. In addition, unit
fees provide funds to monitor actions and to cover costs for
innocent parties injured by pollution. Such fees are most useful
when pollution moves from many diffuse sources toward many diffuse
recipients, as does auto air pollution, solid wastes created by
packaging, home fuels consumption, or runoff from farms. User fees
clearly are not appropriate for other situations involving point
sources of emissions or extremely intensive downstream
concentrations of damage from emissions (such as sewage or
smokestack toxins). In these cases, localized monitoring, effluent
fees, or release penalties may provide much more direct market
responses and match-ups of compensation versus injury.Unit charges
set at a level where total revenues just offset total externalities
make the total market more efficient and provide added incentives
for producer innovations and voluntary consumer choices of more
cost-effective products or services. Assessing fees or taxes on
those who are currently or potentially charging the society for
their support (for example, energy, water, fertilizer, or gasoline
consumers) makes more economic sense than do general sales or
income taxes, which affect those selling services or products at
full cost. Since relatively small environmental-use taxes, such as
carbon or gasoline taxes, can raise very large amounts of money,
they can be used to decrease the level of personal income taxes or
other sales taxes, thus encouraging further growth and
entrepreneurship in more socially responsible areas.An interesting
extension of marketlike approaches is to convert some component of
emissions into private property rights that can be bought or sold.
Individually tradable quotas for releasing certain classes of
pollutants are an example. Highly toxic pollutants must, of course,
be absolutely prohibited. For other pollutants, whose danger
increases with exposure, polluters receive a permit to release a
fixed quantity of the pollutant depending on a combination of their
current production of the effluent and an aggregate standard that,
if implemented, would achieve desired health effects in a
reasonable cost-benefit fashion. If the producer can reduce its
emissions, it can sell the balance of its quota to another party.
If it wishes to increase pollution, it must buy rights from a
willing seller. New entrants must purchase quotas from existing
holders.The net result is that the amount of pollution is, at a
minimum, held constant at current cost-benefit ratios. But each
party has an incentive to improve performance. Those who can reduce
performance inexpensively have an incentive to do so and to sell
the amount saved at a higher price to someone whose reduction costs
are high. The government, aggregating the demands of consumers, can
decide on the total level of pollution by adjusting quotas over
time. Participants in the market decide on the value of rights and
seek the least expensive way to reach goals. Although at first
attacked as granting rights to pollute, tradable permits are
gaining wide acceptance among business and environmental
interests.Similar approaches are being taken to develop markets for
privatized environmental amenities. Water supply, particularly in
the arid U.S. West, has long relied on a system in which
individuals own the rights to use certain amounts of water from
rivers and reservoirs. Until recently, however, it was difficult
for an owner to sell low-cost water rights to other users who
wanted it for more valuable purposes. For example, farmers who sold
such rights might lose them, since the sale would show that they
did not need all they were allocated. But in the past several
years, the U.S. Department of the Interior has begun to promote
public water right purchases as a solution for developing adequate
water supplies for cities and for wildlife, including in the San
Francisco estuary, where the department assured farmers that the
government would purchase water in an effort to help preserve some
threatened fish species. Farmers responded by planting crops, such
as wine grapes, that had higher value and required less water and
by installing efficient drip irrigation systems. Together, such
steps have led to the release of more than a million acre-feet of
water for sale to urban and environmental users.There also are
other ways to assign property rights, each of which has substantial
economic consequences. A well-known example is the assignment of
ownership rights for potential pharmaceutical products discovered
in nature but developed privately. But under current U.S. law,
naturally occurring chemicals cannot be patented, meaning that if a
cure for cancer were discovered in a rainforest, it could be freely
copied, making it difficult for those protecting the rainforest to
profit from any new products made available through that
protection. The Convention on Biodiversity calls for countries of
origin to own rights to natural products found within their
borders, which assists conservation but removes the incentives for
drug companies to undertake the expensive task of isolating
potential drugs and bringing them to market. In one effort to
bypass this problem, Costa Rica has agreed to facilitate
bioprospecting by the U.S. drug company Merck in exchange for
royalties from any marketable drugs developed. However, it is
unclear what protection either will have for natural products
developed in the partnership.Ideally, private parties, not the
government, would provide environmental insurance. For example,
company A could anticipate external costs (increased pollution or
local species losses) that might be caused by its planned
expansions and prepurchase offsetting reductions from company B.
Company A then has an incentive to invest in environmental benefits
early, before they become of regulatory concern and the price
rises. Company B, which has set aside the land, has an interest in
stronger regulation, which would increase the value of its
environmental assets. Governments role in such transactions would
be in agreeing that the insurance meets regulatory requirements in
preventing collusion or misrepresentation by the companies and in
ensuring that adequate sanctions exist in the event of either
partys failure, perhaps in the form of reinsurance by third
parties. Because of the distractions and costs of having
governments directly stimulate and enforce the terms of
environmental markets, there is a growing political consensus that
bypassing centralized regulatory approaches and fostering more
direct conflict resolution among stakeholders (such as landowners,
local businesses, local governments, and environmentalists) at
ecologically relevant scales (such as watersheds) is the wave of
the future. Of course, some regulatory involvement will remain
critical: The incentive for warring local interest groups to
negotiate is often that if they cannot reach a consensus, a distant
bureaucrat will impose rules on them. For example, the 1995 San
Francisco Bay-Delta Accord launched the 30-year, multibilion-dollar
CalFed effort to restore water quality and fisheries in the San
Francisco estuary. The agreement was signed by often-warring water
interests only hours before a deadline set by the federal EPA,
after which EPA was prepared to impose its own water-quality plan
to protect threatened fish under the auspices of the Clean Water
Act. Unfortunately, in most localities there often is insufficient
objective information or technical expertise to balance in a
comprehensive way the costs and benefits of land use, water
quality, rare species, population growth, chemical pollution, risks
of flood and fire, and so on. To the degree that this information
exists at all, it is likely to be held at multiple levels and
points within different government units and in different formats.
Recognizing that stakeholder negotiations typically get nowhere
until industry, environmentalists, and government agree on common
facts, the Clinton administration has been active in developing
shared standards for environmental data sets and in requiring
agencies to make their data available over the Internet. For
example, the Federal Geographic Data Committee, representing all
environmental research and land management agencies, has set
mandatory standards for remote federal sensing and mapped data. In
addition, access to biological data is being centralized under the
National Biological Information Infrastructure, and most agencies
have extensive Web sites permitting the public to browse their data
holdings. Unfortunately, data collection has not kept pace with
improvements in access. Over the past decade, the federal
government has substantially curtailed field monitoring by major
environmental data collection agencies such as EPA and the U.S.
Geological Survey.But at the very heart of the matter, parties on
all sides must work to create a new intellectual framework and
terminology: that environmental improvement is a valid market whose
demands and satisfaction ought to compete fairly with all other
consumer and commercial markets. Properly managed, that market can
create great economic growth opportunities for the future.
Public Market Projects Experienced in the PhilippinesPublic
markets in the Philippines and around Asia pose significant
challenges for wastewater treatment due to the relatively high
strength of the discharges and variability of flows. The Muntinlupa
Public Market, located in Muntinlupa City in the southern part of
Metro Manila, is one of the largest public markets in the
metropolitan area with 1,448 stalls and 24 hours a day operation.
With support from the U.S. Agency for International Development for
planning and design, the city constructed a treatment facility
which began operating in February 2006. The wastewater treatment
system is an innovative combination of anaerobic and aerobic
treatment coupled with filtration using cocopeat media to meet
local discharge standards. It also includes a water recycling
system that will allow re-use of the treated effluent for flushing
toilets, watering plants and street cleaning. This technology is
being applied elsewhere in the Philippines and is suitable for
other locations in the region.Wastewater from public markets is
generated from distinct sources and activities. These include:
Meat, poultry, fish preparation and sales Fruit and vegetable
(produce) sales Prepared food stalls Public restroomsWhen combined
into a common outfall, the resulting wastewater mixture typically
contains high levels of organic material, suspended solids, fats,
oils and grease. It commonly contains two to three times the
organic matter and solids typically found in residential
wastewater, classifying market sources as high strength.To
effectively manage high-strength wastewater, treatment
infrastructure must be designed and sized not only to address
hydraulic loading in terms of volume (cubic meters per day), but
also organic loading, which is expressed in terms of kilograms of
BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) per day, and solids loading, which
is expressed in terms of Total Suspended Solids (TSS).
Additionally, appropriate pre-treatment devices are required to
remove fats, oils and grease from prepared food stalls, and the
high percentage of solids associated with butchering and produce
preparation and sales activities. Such devices typically include
septic tanks, grease interceptors, grit chambers and bar
screens.
Figure 1.0 Muntinlupa Public Market Watsewater Treatment System
Flow
The full cost to construct the wastewater system was 6.8 million
pesos (approximately US$136,000). During the first year of
operations, O&M costs for operations staff, electricity, repair
parts and consumables were approximately 27,000 pesos per month
($540). The reuse of the treated effluent resulted in a savings of
15,000 pesos per month ($300) in electricity costs because less
water needed to be pumped from underground. This partially offset
the O&M costs. To recoup the capital costs of the system, the
City has implemented a full cost recovery plan in which stall
owners are charged a user fee of 5 pesos ($0.10) per day per stall.
This will cover the O&M costs and result in full cost recovery
in approximately 3 years. The user fee has been collected since
June 2006 and there have been no complaints, presumably because the
market is well run and the project has been thoroughly discussed
with the market vendor association.Since the commissioning of the
treatment system on February 24, 2006, there have been several
lessons learned. These include:1. The constraints with the site at
the Muntinlupa Public Market, while considerable, are not atypical
of public markets in the Philippines and elsewhere in Asia,
especially those located in densely populated city centers. As word
of the success of the Muntinlupa project spreads, several other
Philippine cities are replicating it for their markets and two
resorts have already built similar systems based on the design.
Many are experiencing similar constraints including very limited
land area, unstable or seasonally saturated soils, and the need for
raw wastewater pumping. Considering these factors during the
initial stages of project development is advisable.2. It is
possible for local government units to develop wastewater treatment
systems using their own resources to meet stringent effluent
discharge standards.3. Full cost recovery of public investments in
wastewater treatment infrastructure is an achievable goal when
low-cost, low-maintenance systems are used.4. Public participation.
A key factor to the success of the project is believed to be the
significant effort in public participation driven by an intensive
social marketing campaign. This effort, lead by the LINAW project,
included a multimedia outreach effort to increase awareness of
wastewater issues and demand for treatment facilities and increase
willingness to pay user fees.The Muntinlupa Public Market
wastewater project is a functioning model of low-cost,
low-maintenance treatment technologies that are combined to provide
sustainable wastewater treatment for high-strength flows. Using a
combination of public outreach to drive the demand, and full cost
recovery mechanisms to pay for the system, this approach brings the
technology within the reach of many communities within the
Philippines and throughout the region.Another public market related
experienced in the Philipiine, according to a published report on
government projects entitled Philippines Small-Scale Wastewater
Treatment Systems for 3 Markets USAID Philippine Sanitation
Alliance Projects in the Philippines, the country do not have an
access to an improved sanitation and the country does not have any
sanitation treatment infrastructure which is a major issue facing
the Philippines and other Southeast Asian countries. 2008 data
estimated that 24% of the Philippine population still did not have
access to personal improved sanitation, 15% of which rely on shared
sanitary facilities and 9% of which rely on open defecation or the
use of unimproved sanitation. Given the large population of the
Philippines, this means that around 10 million Filipinos still
defecate in the open on a daily basis, with serious consequences to
their local environment and their health, dignity, and human
development. In addition, even those people that have access to
improved sanitation are very likely using a basic form of improved
sanitation such as a septic tank-connected toilet since only 4% of
the countrys residents/businesses are connected to a sewerage
system with proper treatment. Since septic tanks, even at their
very best, do not in themselves provide adequate wastewater
treatment, this means that the Philippines is grappling with a
serious problem of groundwater and surface water pollution, with
all of the resulting health consequences that this entails. It is
estimated that 55 Filipinos die every day as a result of poor
sanitation and that it poses economic losses exceeding $1.4 billion
yearly.The small-scale wastewater treatment system for the San
Fernando Public Market, in San Fernando City, La Union. As the main
city market with about 700 stalls (up to 900 on the market days of
Wednesday/Saturday/Sunday), it was discharging all of its sewage,
grease, and washings from the meat and fish areas to a septic tank
and then to a drainage canal. This was posing a significant threat
to the Citys coastline (the City borders the ocean), as the
wastewater was polluting the nearby beaches and threatening the
health of nearby citizens. With technical assistance from the
USAID-funded Environmental Cooperation-Asia project, the City
constructed a sewage treatment system for all of the markets
wastewater to clean up the Citys coastline. Another project is the
small-scale wastewater treatment system for the Sta. Ana Public
Market, in Manila City, Metro Manila. Situated alongside the Pasig
River, known infamously as one of the worlds most polluted rivers,
the bustling market of 220 stalls was discharging all of its
wastewater, including sewage, grease, and washings from the meat
and fish areas, into an inadequate and rarely desludged septic
tank, which then proceeded to discharge this partially treated
effluent directly to the river. Inputs like these all along the
river, in addition to domestic wastewater, are the reason why the
river is considered biologically dead. Thus, as part of a larger
effort to start cleaning up the river, the PSA and Rotary worked
with the city government and MMDA to construct a sewage treatment
system for all of the markets wastewater, as a model for other
markets and facilities along the rivers length. These three
projects were implemented using the following process: 1) initial
consultations and outreach, 2) IEC (information, education,
communication) activities on the project and on improving hygiene
and sanitation in general, 3) construction of the facilities, and
4) follow-up IEC and training on O&M responsibilities. The
purpose of these tasks was to build effective wastewater treatment
systems for the markets that would positively impact the sanitation
situation of the establishment and its surrounding community.
Another objective was for all three markets to meet the national
governments effluent discharge standards, which was not possible
with septic tanks. The specific objectives for the San Fernando
City Market project were to reduce pollution inputs to the Citys
coastline and contribute to the Citys overall goal of becoming a
leader in the Philippines for effective sanitation management (the
City has also implemented several other sanitation projects). The
specific objectives for the Sta. Ana Public Market project were to
reduce pollution flowing into the Pasig River and to build a model
wastewater treatment plant that can be replicated in other
establishments along the river. The San Fernando City Market
project ran from March 2005 until Dec. 2005. The project activities
included: 1) Consult with the City of San Fernando and stakeholders
to develop an action plan for addressing water pollution in the
city, 2) Design the treatment system for the market and associated
infrastructure, 3) Consult with market vendors and other
stakeholders to determine how to fund the project (a 10% increase
in rent per stall, but not technically a users fee), 4) Renovate
the toilet facilities of the market, 5) Undertake IEC in
cooperation with the market vendors association to promote the
project and promote overall hygiene improvements among the vendors
and local community, 6) Construct the facility, and 7)
Determination of O&M responsibilities and training.
USAID-Rotary assistance to the Sta. Ana Public Market began in
mid-2009 and the wastewater treatment plant was constructed from
March to October 2010. The project activities included: 1) Consult
with project stakeholders to obtain funding and in-kind support,
namely from the City of Manila, the Metro Manila Development
Authority (MMDA), USAID and Rotary (the Foundation and
International District 3810), 2) Hold focus group discussions and
workshops for market vendors, local officials, neighboring schools
and churches, and other neighboring establishments, to inform and
involve them in project activities, 3) Undertake education
campaigns, via a local community organization (the Lola Grande
Foundation), on improving hygiene and sanitation in the market and
surrounding communities, 4) Decide on treatment technology and
prepare the design, 5) Undertake the construction, and 6) Follow-up
IEC on the project and determine O&M responsibilities. To
ensure that garbage and grease would not clog up the treatment
plant, the USAID-Rotary project hired the Solid Waste Management
Association of the Philippines (SWAPP) to help the vendors
association develop and implement a solid waste management program
and a grease management program. The project also repaired the
public toilets and sinks in the market, encouraged the local
barangay to pass an ordinance requiring soap in all public
restrooms and is currently developing a system that will pipe
treated water to the restrooms to address water shortages. For the
Muntinlupa Market project, the wastewater generated from the 1445
stalls, their vendors, and their customers are now covered by the
project. In additional, the IEC activities performed by the project
partners educated many people of the market and surrounding
community on the benefits of proper hygiene and sanitation. For the
San Fernando Market project, the wastewater generated from the
700-900 stalls, their vendors, and their customers are now covered
by the project. In addition, the IEC activities performed by the
project partners educated many people of the market and surrounding
community on the benefits of proper hygiene and sanitation. For the
Sta. Ana Market project, the wastewater generated from the 220
stalls, their vendors, and their customers are now covered by the
project. In addition, the IEC activities performed by the project
partners, especially the Lola Grande Foundation, educated many more
people of the surrounding community on the benefits of proper
hygiene and sanitation. These projects are now complete and being
operated and maintained by market staff. All three are still
functioning properly and serving as models for small-scale
wastewater treatment in the Philippines. Muntinlupa Market,
especially, is serving as a significant model, as it was the first
plant of its kind in the Philippines, and also had the innovative
feature of being built entirely underground due to space
constraints at the project site. These treatment systems are also
low cost for O&M compared to conventional systems, as they
utilize mainly non-mechanized processes (other than the pumps and
SBRs) that are low maintenance. As an example of the O&M costs,
the Muntinlupa Market the project with the largest wastewater load
incurs approximately 27,000 pesos (~ 620 USD) a month in O&M
fees, which includes the salary of its two maintenance personnel.
Considering the volume of wastewater treated (210m3 per day), this
is a very reasonable sum. As well, the Muntinlupa Market
implemented with the agreement of the market vendors a users fee of
5 pesos per stall per day, which allowed the City to recover its
costs for the project in merely 3 to 4 years. By reusing the
effluent for toilet flushing (for one year) and street cleaning,
the Muntinlupa Market also saves money on water bills. The San
Fernando Market also implemented an indirect cost-recovery measure
by increasing rental rates for stalls by 10%, though the additional
revenue collected also goes to other market maintenance and
initiatives in general. In both cases, the IEC performed by the
project teams allowed market vendors to be engaged in the projects
and agree to paying these additional fees in exchange for doing
their part to clean up their surrounding waterways and meet
national government regulations. All of the projects faced
challenges. As mentioned earlier, the reuse system for the public
toilets broke down and was not repaired. In San Fernando, the
system quickly got clogged up with trash and grease due to poor
design and construction. This was remedied, and the lesson was
incorporated into the design and management of the Sta. Ana system.
As for water quality, these combinations of anaerobic and aerobic
treatment processes allow these plants to be very effective at
reducing BOD, COD, and TSS values of the wastewater, and the
chlorination/filtration steps also help to remove pathogens. For
example, at the San Fernando Market project, influent BOD/COD/TSS
averages around 153, 439, and 148mg/L, respectively, with DENR
national standards of 100/200/150mg/L for markets. After treatment,
these values fall drastically to averages of around 11/27/11mg/L,
respectively far below the national requirements. The same applies
for Muntinlupa, which reduces its BOD from more than 300mg/L to
below 30mg/L (with a DENR standard for discharge to Laguna Lake at
50mg/L). These plants are therefore being very successful in
treating the water of these markets. Overall then, these projects
are successfully contributing to the improvement of the sanitation
situation in the Philippines, by essentially eliminating some of
the largest and highest strength inputs of wastewater into
important water bodies like the Pasig River, Laguna Lake, and the
countrys coastlines. While they have only a small impact in the
overall picture (Pasig River is still biologically dead), their
positive examples provide the groundwork for many more projects
like these in the future.Benefit-Cost Analysis Methods Contingent
Valuation (CV) MethodThe CV method essentially asks people what
value they give to a resource (use and non-use values). You can ask
people what they would be willing to pay to avoid some damaging
action or, alternatively, how much compensation they would require
to put up with it. The contingency part is a what if question,
describing some change in present circumstances, usually some new
development. The greatest advantage to this approach is that it can
be applied to any valuation problem, including those for which
other methods exist. The CV method is not problem-free, however:
numbers put into the questions may bias the answers; respondents
may get much of their information on the subject from the
interviewer (interview bias); respondents may be influenced by
their own perceived self-interest (strategic bias); and, the
(usually) hypothetical nature of the exercise can induce laziness
on the part of respondents. As a consequence, the results of these
surveys are often contested. Does this mean that the CV method is
not worth the effort? One of its earliest and best-known uses was
in connection with the proposed construction of a massive,
coal-burning electrical generating station upwind from the Grand
Canyon. The project went ahead despite strong expressions of value
on the part of respondents. Today, a clear day at the Grand Canyon
is a rarity, and the quality of the experience for millions of
visitors is significantly diminished. This example shows that the
CV method can provide useful information. An excerpt from
Benefit-Cost Analysis Guide(July 1998) of Treasury Board of Canada
Secretariat.Use and non-use valuesCVM can be used to estimate both
use and non-use economic values, and it is the most widely used
method for estimating non-use values. Use values are those values
which are derived from actual use of a good or service, such as
visiting a national park or using a beach for recreation. They also
involve non-consumptive uses like basic life-support functions
associated with ecosystem, health or biodiversity, the enjoyment of
a scenic vista, or event having an option to fish or watch birds in
the future. The non-use values do not involve direct use of a
resource or ecosystem service. They comprise several forms of
philanthropic relation to nature, e.g. existence value, the value
people place on simply knowing that giant pandas, whales, a certain
protected area or a beach exists, even though they will never see
or visit them. It also includes the bequest value, the satisfaction
of preserving the natural environment for future
generations.Willingness To Pay And Willingness To AcceptThe
contingent valuation method is applied through conducting a survey
in which people are directly asked how much they would be willing
to pay (WTP) for a (change in) specific environmental service. It
is also possible to ask people the amount of compensation that they
would be willing to accept (WTA) to give up an environmental
service. The first approach is called contingent valuation, because
people are asked to state their willingness to pay, contingent on a
particular scenario and the environmental service described to the
respondent.The first step is to define a (change in) a good or
service being valued (e.g. improving a lake water quality that
would lead to a 20 percent increase in fish stock). Then decisions
about the survey itself are made, such as whether it will be
conducted by mail, phone or in person, how large the sample size
will be and who will be surveyed (e.g. only visitors or both
visitors and non-visitors; individuals at the local, national or
international scale). Answers to questions regarding survey method
and sample size depend mainly on the size of the research budget,
while the choice of subjects will depend on (1) whether one decides
to estimate only use or both use and non-use values, and (2) on the
uniqueness of goods or services being valued (resources with unique
characteristics are likely to have higher non-use value and thus
the geographical scope of the survey should be larger). In-person
interviews are generally the most effective for complex questions,
because it is often easier to explain the information to
respondents in person. In addition, people are more likely to
complete a long survey when they are interviewed in person.
However, these are also the most expensive type of surveys. The
survey sample should be a randomly selected sample of the relevant
population (e.g. every tenth visitor of a national park).Survey
designA contingent valuation survey should include (1) a detailed
description of a good or service being valued and the hypothetical
change regarding the good or service, (2) questions about
willingness to pay for a good or service being valued and (3)
questions about respondents characteristics (age, income,
education, etc.) and preferably also their preferences regarding
the good or service. The willingness-to-pay question should also
define a way in which payment would be made (a general tax, a
voluntary donation or an entrance fee). For example, a question can
be formulated in the following way: Are you willing to pay EUR __
for the previously described improvement of the river water quality
in the form of a voluntary donation per year?. The valuation
question is usually followed by a question which identifies the
motivation of those respondents who state that they are not willing
to pay anything. This enables distinguishing between the so-called
protest votes (respondents who are not willing to pay anything,
because they protest against a scenario presented or a payment
method) and the people for whom the good indeed has no value.
Protest votes are in most cases excluded from the statistical
analysis, as they do not reveal peoples real economic value for the
good.Some authors (such as Sagoff (1988), in The Economy of the
Earth) have interpreted protest answers as refusals to act as
consumers when deciding public policies. He believes that the
economic approach, which treats individuals as consumers with
certain preferences, is limited and that policy issues should be
decided by rational deliberation among citizens. Thus, he plausibly
argues that people refuse to give a price, because they want to act
as citizens (deciding upon policy matters by voting in parliament
or in a referendum, demonstrating and/or debating) and not as
consumers in a fictitious market.The next step is to conduct the
survey, which is followed by statistical analysis and reporting of
the results. The main result derived from the CVM is the average
willingness to pay per person. This figure is then multiplied by
the relevant population (all visitors of a beach or all residents
of a country, for instance) in order to derive total economic value
of a good or service. For example, if the average willingness to
pay of surveyed people for establishing a protected marine area is
EUR 20 per person per year, and the relevant population amounts to
200,000 (e.g. annual visitors of the site), then the total benefits
of such a project would be EUR 4 million.LimitationsAlthough CVM
has been widely used in cost-benefit analysis and environmental
impact assessment for several decades, it has been subject to many
critiques. The main concern relates to the reliability and validity
of its results due to a number of errors or biases that can occur
when applying CVM. The most important biases are: When respondents
are asked about their willingness to pay hypothetically, they tend
to give higher values than what they would actually pay in a real
situation. Rather than expressing value for the good or service,
the respondents might sometimes actually be expressing their
feelings about the scenario or the valuation exercise itself (they
do not believe that a described change is feasible or that it will
really take place). Respondents may give different
willingness-to-pay amounts, depending on the specific form of
payment chosen (e.g. if the form of payment is voluntary donation
respondents may give higher values than if asked to pay through
higher taxes). Starting value in the willingness-to-pay question
tends to imply a value for the good (e.g. Are you willing to pay
EUR 5 for?), so that a starting value well above the respondents
true willingness-to-pay amount will increase the stated
willingness-to-pay amount, while starting value well below it will
tend to decrease it. Strategic bias arises when the respondent does
not provide a true answer in order to influence a particular
outcome, i.e. provision of a good. Non-response bias is a concern,
because individuals who do not participate in the survey are likely
to have different values than individuals who do take part in
it.Payback PeriodThe length of time required to recover the cost of
an investment. The payback period of a given investment or project
is an important determinant of whether to undertake the position or
project, as longer payback periods are typically not desirable for
investment positions.Calculated as:Payback Period = Cost of Project
/ Annual Cash InflowsBenefit-Cost RatioA ratio attempting to
identify the relationship between the cost and benefits of a
proposed project. Benefit cost ratios are most often used in
corporate finance to detail the relationship between possible
benefits and costs, both quantitative and qualitative, of
undertaking new projects or replacing old ones. As mentioned, the
ratio is used to measure both quantitative and qualitative factors,
since sometimes benefits and costs cannot be measured exclusively
in financial terms. In cases where at all possible however,
qualitative factors should be translated to quantitative terms in
order for the results to be easily understandable and
tangible.Internal Rate Of Return IrrThe discount rate often used in
capital budgeting that makes the net present value of all cash
flows from a particular project equal to zero. Generally speaking,
the higher a project's internal rate of return, the more desirable
it is to undertake the project. As such, IRR can be used to rank
several prospective projects a firm is considering. Assuming all
other factors are equal among the various projects, the project
with the highest IRR would probably be considered the best and
undertaken first. IRR is sometimes referred to as "economic rate of
return (ERR)."
42
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKFor a project to be accepted, it must
undergo various criterions to determine its viability in the
community as a whole. In welfare economics, a project can only be
accepted if those who will gain from the activity can fully
compensate those who will lose and still be better off or
pareto-efficiency occurs. In Kaldor-Hicks criterion pareto
efficiency occurs when one party benefits from a decision, but the
other arent made worse off, which is one of policy making
consideration; as long as the policy generates positive net
benefits to enable losers be compensated to achieve pareto
improvement (Perkins, 1998; Boardman et.al. 1996).In the absence of
market prices, other means must be used to attribute values to
these non-market or intangible benefits (cost). The principle is
straightforward: benefits should be valued at the
willingness-to-pay, that is the amount of consumptions or real
income that households will be willing to forgo in order to receive
the benefits (Broadway, 2006).Cost benefit analysis is a tool to
help decision making by the public sector about allocation of
resources. It is conducted to evaluate the present value of a
project. The net present criterion involves rating of the projects
and aggregating the social benefits and cost into a single measure.
Net present value was computed by getting the difference between
the sum of the discounted gross benefit and the sum of discounted
gross cost. Thus, the formula used in calculating NPV is as
follows:
Where:Bi= BenefitsCi= Costt = time of cash flows= the discount
factor (r is the discount rate issued)A project is financially
viable if NPV is greater the 0 or it is positive. Otherwise reject
the project. In the case of two or more competing investment
projects, select the project with the highest NPV result (Aragon,
Corazon T.). Since NPV shows the cumulative net benefits expressed
in present value throughout the project life, it is useful to
determine how much profit is generated per year to have an annual
comparison throughout the project life. The used of annuity formula
converts NPV into equal annual net benefits throughout the project
life. Annualized net benefit expressed in present value can be
calculated using the following annuity formula:
Where:A= annualized net benefit in present valuer= discount
ratet= project life= capital recovery factorAnnualized net benefit
enables the analyst to compare the profitability of two or more
investment project and determine how much net income or benefits
annually through the estimated project life. On the other hand, in
order to determine how much benefit is generated for each unit cost
of the project benefit-cost (B/C) can be used. This is the ratio of
the sum of the present value (or discounted value) of gross
benefits to the sum of the present value (or discounted value) of
gross cost (Aragon, Corazon T.) This (B/C) ratio can be computed
using the following formula:
The decision rule is to accept investment projects with (B/C)
ratio greater than 1. Reject if otherwise. In the case of two or
more competing investment projects, select the project with the
highest (B/C) ratio.The break-even point of a project is important
to find the maximum rate of return that an investment project could
pay if all resources were borrowed or to recover the investment and
operating costs and still break-even. FIRR (Financial Internal Rate
of Return) is the discount rate that equates the present value of
the projects benefits and costs, so NPV is equal to zero or (B/C)
ratio is equal to 1 and to determine also the point of break-even.
In equation form, FIRR is the r where:
So that,
It can also be computed through program like excel. Any projects
or investments with an FIRR greater than the opportunity cost of
capital would be a profitable investment. Otherwise, reject the
project. In the case of two or more computing investment project,
select the project with the highest FIRR.All proposed project are
associated with risk and uncertainty, sensitivity analysis method
is a straightforward to measure the effects of risks and
uncertainties in investment analysis. The analyst will alter prices
of input, outputs and other associated factors and look what would
happen to NPV or FIRR if prices and costs were different and find
out of which factors is the project is sensitive most.Another
method is the payback period which identifies the number of years
it takes to recover all the capital invested.
The payback period method does not measure profitability of a
project; it merely measures of how quick the investment will
contribute to the liquidity of the project.The analysis of repair
and expansion project of Baybay public market can be illustrated
below.
Figure 2.0 Diagram summary of Benefit-Cost Analysis of Extension
and Repair of Baybay City Public Market
METHODOLOGY
Place of the Study:The study will be conducted in Baybay City,
Leyte. Baybay is a city located in the province of Leyte,
Philippines. It is often called by the locals as the City of Baybay
and it is preferred by the local government officials. It is the
2nd largest city in the province in terms of land area. Covering an
area of 46,050 hectares, Baybay is composed of 92 barangays, 23 of
which are in the poblacion. The remaining 69 are rural barangays.
It is situated on the western coast of the province of
Leyte.Sampling Procedure:The survey will use the household
population situated within Poblacion of Baybay City. Three hundred
sixty seven (367) household will be randomly selected using Slovins
formula:n= where:n= the sample size N= the total number of sampling
units in the populatione= the margin errorA 95 % confidence
interval or 5 % margin error is set to determine the sample size.
To determine the respondents, a stratified random sampling will be
used. The household will be grouped according to the zone or
barangay they belong. A proportional sample allocation formula
adopted from Marcolita (2006) cited by Tampus (December 2014) will
be used to determine the total number of samples per zone or
barangay.
Where:= sample size of the stratum = population size of stratum
= population sizeHousehold head or representative household member
18 years or older will be considered as respondent for the off-site
survey. On the other hand, 30 stall vendors will be randomly
selected for the on-site survey. Table 1.0 illustrates the
proportional sample size allocation of Poblacion Baybay City,
Leyte.
Table 1.0 Proportional sample size allocation of Poblacion
Baybay City, Leyte.
Name of Barangay (POBLACION)Total No. of HouseholdNumber of
Sample Household
ZONE 178864
ZONE 2998
ZONE 3917
ZONE 420116
ZONE 5696
ZONE 616914
ZONE 7796
ZONE 816814
ZONE 9817
ZONE 10504
ZONE 1112010
ZONE 1216313
ZONE 13474
ZONE 14393
ZONE 1516814
ZONE 1619816
ZONE 1711910
ZONE 1828323
ZONE 19575
ZONE 2013411
ZONE 2115012
ZONE 2223219
ZONE 2356746
STO. ROSARIO44336
TOTAL 4,515 367
Data Collection:The study will be conducted in Baybay City,
Leyte. Both primary and secondary data will be used for the
benefit-cost analysis. Primary data will be coming from the survey
on household both off-site and on-site survey. Secondary data will
be taken from the city project plan, publications, and various
documents from the government offices.Data Analysis:The study will
used descriptive statistics. The study will also employ
benefit-cost analysis tools such as payback period, contingent
valuation method, IRR, Benefit-Cost Ratio and others.
LITERATURE CITEDECONSULT, 2007. Estimating The Economic Impact
Of Public Markets Accessed on January 28, 2015 from
http://www.pps.org/pdf/pps_public_markets_eis.pdf
INTERVIEW SCHEDULE
Basic Information
Name:
_______________________________________________________________________Zone:
________________________________________________________________________Municipality/City:
___________________________ Interviewer:
_______________________Date of interview:
___________________________
Part I. Socio-Economic Background
1. Age: _______2. Gender: [ ] Male [ ] Female3. Civil Status: [
] Single [ ]Married [ ]Widower4. Educational
Attainment______________ No formal Schooling ______________
Elementary Level (indicate grade)______________ Elementary
Graduate______________ High School Level (indicate
year)______________ High School Graduate______________
Vocational______________ College Level (indicate
year)______________ College Graduate______________ Masters
Degree______________ Others, please specify
______________________________________
5. Occupation[ ] Unemployed[ ] Self-employed[ ] Government
Employee[ ] Private Sector Employee[ ] Others, please specify
6. Household Size[ ] Adults[ ] Children (15 years and below)
7. Ownership of the house[ ] Owned[ ] Rented[ ] Living with a
relative
8. Kindly check and specify monthly income where your household
belong including other members of the house. Rest assured that this
will be kept confidential.
Actual AmountMonthly Income BracketActual AmountMonthly Income
Bracket
[ ]_____________less than 1,000[ ]_____________50,001 -
55,000
[ ]_____________1,001 - 5,000[ ]_____________55,001 - 60,000
[ ]_____________5,001 - 10,000[ ]_____________60,001 -
65,000
[ ]_____________10,001 - 15,000[ ]_____________65,001 -
70,000
[ ]_____________15,001 - 20, 000[ ]_____________70,001 -
75,000
[ ]_____________20,001 - 25,000[ ]_____________75,001 -
80,000
[ ]_____________25, 001 - 30,000[ ]_____________80,001 -
85,000
[ ]_____________30,001 - 35, 000[ ]_____________85,001 -
90,000
[ ]_____________35, 001 - 40, 000[ ]_____________90,001 -
95,000
[ ]_____________40,000 - 45, 000[ ]_____________95,001 -
100,000
[ ]_____________45, 000 - 50,000[ ]_____________more than
100,000
Part II. Public Market Approach
1. Do you know about the LGU Baybay extension and repair on the
citys public market?
[ ] Yes[ ] No2. Are you satisfied with the proposed project?
[ ] Yes[ ] No
3. Check the reasons why you visit the market.
[ ] products[ ] place[ ] people[ ] price[ ] convenience[ ]
business transactions[ ] others, please specify
____________________
4. What is the greatest benefit of the public market for
you?
[ ] business opportunity[ ] price[ ] entertainment[ ] products[
] freshness[ ] bring people together[ ] convenience[ ] others,
please specify _____________________[ ] helps economy 5. Kindly
check among the choices what you dont like most about the public
market?
[ ] vehicle congestion[ ] poor sanitation[ ] poor garbage
management [ ] bad odor[ ] stall management system[ ] people[ ]
others, please specify
_________________________________________________
6. ( For on-site survey, question 6 and 7 is for vendors) How
much is your monthly rent? Kindly
specify.______________________________________
7. Kindly check the source of fund for your start-up capital in
erecting your business.
[ ] bank loan[ ] merchant association loan[ ] credit card[ ]
personal loan[ ] savings[ ] others, please specify
__________________
Part III. Willingness to Pay
1. At this status quo or condition of the public markets
sanitation and utility management, supposed the LGU Baybay will
collect 50 pesos per household for the improvement of sanitation
and utility management, are you willing to pay? If no, proceed to
no. 6.
[ ] Yes[ ] No
2. At this status quo or condition of the public markets
sanitation and utility management, supposed the LGU Baybay will
collect 75 pesos per household for the improvement of sanitation
and utility management, are you willing to pay? If no, proceed to
no. 6.
[ ] Yes[ ] No
3. At this status quo or condition of the public markets
sanitation and utility management, supposed the LGU Baybay will
collect 100 pesos per household for the improvement of sanitation
and utility management, are you willing to pay? If no, proceed to
no. 6.
[ ] Yes[ ] No
4. At this status quo or condition of the public markets
sanitation and utility management, supposed the LGU Baybay will
collect 125 pesos per household for the improvement of sanitation
and utility management, are you willing to pay? If no, proceed to
no. 6.
[ ] Yes[ ] No
5. At this status quo or condition of the public markets
sanitation and utility management, supposed the LGU Baybay will
collect 150 pesos per household for the improvement of sanitation
and utility management, are you willing to pay? If no, proceed to
no. 6.
[ ] Yes[ ] No
6. If you answered no, what are the reasons why you are not
willing to pay?
[ ] Im okay with the sanitation condition right now[ ] I have
other more important to pay for.[ ] I pay too much tax already[ ]
It should be only for high income earners[ ] Others, please
specify