Environmental Management

Cross-stage service delivery review across awareness, availment, satisfaction, and need for action.

5 indicators

Service Area Region LGU

Avg Awareness

72.42%

Avg Availment

78.64%

Avg Satisfaction

93.61%

Avg Need for Action

51.08%

Stage Overview

Service Gaps

This view highlights indicators where citizens may know about a service but do not use it, use it but are not satisfied, or still need government action. For filtered Region/LGU views, results are descriptive evidence for local planning and should be validated with LGU records or field review.

iii · Need for Action

Solid Waste Management

54.7% highest concern signal

Citizens who used the service still indicate a need for government action.

Awareness86.9%
Availment83.0%
Satisfaction89.9%
Need for Action54.7%

Suggested guide: Prioritize follow-up validation with the service office and compare findings with LGU service records.

i · Need for Action

Community-based greening projects

52.4% highest concern signal

Citizens who used the service still indicate a need for government action.

Awareness76.8%
Availment65.6%
Satisfaction95.3%
Need for Action52.4%

Suggested guide: Prioritize follow-up validation with the service office and compare findings with LGU service records.

v · Need for Action

Clean-up Programs/Projects

52.3% highest concern signal

Citizens who used the service still indicate a need for government action.

Awareness82.5%
Availment86.6%
Satisfaction96.0%
Need for Action52.3%

Suggested guide: Prioritize follow-up validation with the service office and compare findings with LGU service records.

iv · Awareness Gap

Waste Water Management

50.2% highest concern signal

Citizens may not yet know enough about this service.

Awareness49.8%
Availment74.6%
Satisfaction93.8%
Need for Action46.1%

Suggested guide: Strengthen information campaigns, barangay-level announcements, and direct citizen orientation.

ii · Need for Action

Air Pollution Control Program

49.9% highest concern signal

Citizens who used the service still indicate a need for government action.

Awareness66.1%
Availment83.4%
Satisfaction93.2%
Need for Action49.9%

Suggested guide: Prioritize follow-up validation with the service office and compare findings with LGU service records.

Frequency Count

This view shows compact Yes/No frequency counts and percentages for each service indicator across awareness, availment, satisfaction, and need for action.

Community-based greening projects

Aware Yes 76.78% · No 23.22%

Availed Yes 65.63% · No 34.37%

Satisfied Yes 95.26% · No 4.74%

Action Needed Yes 52.37% · No 47.63%

View counts

Stage	Yes	Yes %	No	No %
Aware	3340	76.78	1010	23.22
Availed	2192	65.63	1148	34.37
Satisfied	2088	95.26	104	4.74
Action Needed	1148	52.37	1044	47.63

Air Pollution Control Program

Aware Yes 66.06% · No 33.94%

Availed Yes 83.43% · No 16.57%

Satisfied Yes 93.15% · No 6.85%

Action Needed Yes 49.9% · No 50.1%

View counts

Stage	Yes	Yes %	No	No %
Aware	2378	66.06	1222	33.94
Availed	1984	83.43	394	16.57
Satisfied	1848	93.15	136	6.85
Action Needed	990	49.9	994	50.1

iii

Solid Waste Management

Aware Yes 86.94% · No 13.06%

Availed Yes 82.95% · No 17.05%

Satisfied Yes 89.86% · No 10.14%

Action Needed Yes 54.67% · No 45.33%

View counts

Stage	Yes	Yes %	No	No %
Aware	3782	86.94	568	13.06
Availed	3137	82.95	645	17.05
Satisfied	2819	89.86	318	10.14
Action Needed	1715	54.67	1422	45.33

Waste Water Management

Aware Yes 49.75% · No 50.25%

Availed Yes 74.6% · No 25.4%

Satisfied Yes 93.76% · No 6.24%

Action Needed Yes 46.11% · No 53.89%

View counts

Stage	Yes	Yes %	No	No %
Aware	1567	49.75	1583	50.25
Availed	1169	74.6	398	25.4
Satisfied	1096	93.76	73	6.24
Action Needed	539	46.11	630	53.89

Clean-up Programs/Projects

Aware Yes 82.55% · No 17.45%

Availed Yes 86.58% · No 13.42%

Satisfied Yes 96.04% · No 3.96%

Action Needed Yes 52.33% · No 47.67%

View counts

Stage	Yes	Yes %	No	No %
Aware	3591	82.55	759	17.45
Availed	3109	86.58	482	13.42
Satisfied	2986	96.04	123	3.96
Action Needed	1627	52.33	1482	47.67

Finding 1

Citizen segment evidence

Available

The clustering result identifies citizen segments and shows whether any segment has lower awareness, lower availment, lower satisfaction, or higher need for action.

Finding 2

Classification evidence

20 indicator models

The decision-tree classification uses citizen segment membership and profile variables as predictors. Most current indicator results are grouped as needs more predictors, which guides how strongly the result may be interpreted.

Finding 3

Association-rule evidence

Lift 1.04

The strongest repeated service-stage pattern is: Respondents who were aware of the environment, and felt a need for further action, and were satisfied with the environment had a 87% likelihood of also availed the environment (Lift: 1.04). This pattern was observed together 87.2% of the time for the eligible records.

Integrated research interpretation

For Environmental Management, the harmonized evidence identifies this service-stage concern: Need for Action in Solid Waste Management (54.7%). The recurring factor to check is MCA Dim2 (MCA profile dimension) appears in 16 model(s) across 4 stage(s). The repeated service-stage pattern is Availment pattern: 87.2% confidence, lift 1.04. Together, these findings show whether the service-stage, citizen-segment, classification, and association-rule evidence point toward the same analytical interpretation.

Evidence agreement: strong consensus. The findings should be checked against local service records and field context before they are used for planning. Proposed actions, responsible offices, and monitoring indicators are presented separately in the Decision Support module.

Supporting Evidence Views

Citizen Segments: View segment profile and statistical support
Classification: View predictor and model readiness evidence
Association Rules: View repeated service-stage patterns

Research Interpretation Guide

The result is not based on one model alone. Clustering contributes the citizen-segment lens, classification contributes predictor-based explanation, and association rules contribute repeated service-stage relationships. This supports the thesis claim that the portal implements a multi-model predictive analytics framework for evidence-based service evaluation.

Analytics → Harmonization → Human Review → Action

Harmonized Evidence Table Supporting Human Decision-Making

Cross-stage, clustering, classification, and association-rule results are integrated as evidence for LGU review. Recommended actions remain subject to local validation and approval.

5 action items

Priorities are generated from the active dataset's largest indicator-level service gaps. Segment labels identify the portal group with the strongest related concern signal.

Every evidence record includes: 1. Rank 2. Cross-Stage Result 3. Citizen Segment Summary 4. Decision Tree Evidence 5. Repeated Service-Stage Pattern 6. Recommended LGU Action 7. Evidence Audit 8. Implementation

Dynamic indicator flow

Solid Waste Management

Hover over each node for the complete generated result. The four analytical evidence sources are harmonized to support human review of the recommended action, validation requirement, and monitoring measure.

Rank	Cross-Stage Result	Citizen Segment Summary	Decision Tree Evidence	Repeated Service-Stage Pattern	Recommended LGU Action	Evidence Audit	Implementation
1	Solid Waste Management Need for Action (54.7%) Citizens who used the service still indicate a need for government action. Awareness 86.9%; availment 83.0%; satisfaction 89.9%; need for action 54.7%.	Young single student citizens (Segment B) (65.0%) Young single student citizens (Segment B) has the highest concern signal at 65.0% for this indicator. View detailed clustering results in Citizen Segments	Model quality Needs more predictors: F1 57.8%, ROC AUC 53.8%. The model has difficulty separating respondents based on ROC AUC, recall, or F1. Strongest feature MCA Dim2 (44.4% importance)	Respondents who were aware of the environment, and felt a need for further action, and were satisfied with the environment had a 87% likelihood of also availed the environment (Lift: 1.04). Support 32.5%, confidence 87.2%, lift 1.04.	Prioritize follow-up validation with the service office and compare findings with LGU service records.	Supports: Conflicts: Insufficient: Harmonized evidence statuses	Environment and Natural Resources Office Monitor: Reduction in need-for-action percentage Validate:
2	Community-based greening projects Need for Action (52.4%) Citizens who used the service still indicate a need for government action. Awareness 76.8%; availment 65.6%; satisfaction 95.3%; need for action 52.4%.	Married locally working men (Segment D) (54.6%) Married locally working men (Segment D) has the highest concern signal at 54.6% for this indicator. View detailed clustering results in Citizen Segments	Model quality Needs more predictors: F1 52.8%, ROC AUC 53.8%. The model has difficulty separating respondents based on ROC AUC, recall, or F1. Strongest feature Highest Educational Attainment (26.1% importance)	Respondents who were aware of the environment, and felt a need for further action, and were satisfied with the environment had a 87% likelihood of also availed the environment (Lift: 1.04). Support 32.5%, confidence 87.2%, lift 1.04.	Prioritize follow-up validation with the service office and compare findings with LGU service records.	Supports: Conflicts: Insufficient: Harmonized evidence statuses	Environment and Natural Resources Office Monitor: Reduction in need-for-action percentage Validate:
3	Clean-up Programs/Projects Need for Action (52.3%) Citizens who used the service still indicate a need for government action. Awareness 82.5%; availment 86.6%; satisfaction 96.0%; need for action 52.3%.	Young single student citizens (Segment B) (56.6%) Young single student citizens (Segment B) has the highest concern signal at 56.6% for this indicator. View detailed clustering results in Citizen Segments	Model quality Needs more predictors: F1 50.5%, ROC AUC 51.6%. The model has difficulty separating respondents based on ROC AUC, recall, or F1. Strongest feature Source of Information (28.7% importance)	Respondents who were aware of the environment, and felt a need for further action, and were satisfied with the environment had a 87% likelihood of also availed the environment (Lift: 1.04). Support 32.5%, confidence 87.2%, lift 1.04.	Prioritize follow-up validation with the service office and compare findings with LGU service records.	Supports: Conflicts: Insufficient: Harmonized evidence statuses	Environment and Natural Resources Office Monitor: Reduction in need-for-action percentage Validate:
4	Waste Water Management Awareness Gap (50.2%) Citizens may not yet know enough about this service. Awareness 49.8%; availment 74.6%; satisfaction 93.8%; need for action 46.1%.	Young single student citizens (Segment B) (40.8%) Young single student citizens (Segment B) has the lowest positive response at 40.8% for this indicator. View detailed clustering results in Citizen Segments	Model quality Needs more predictors: F1 52.4%, ROC AUC 52.2%. The model has difficulty separating respondents based on ROC AUC, recall, or F1. Strongest feature MCA Dim1 (26.5% importance)	Respondents who availed the environment had a 80% likelihood of also were aware of the environment, and were satisfied with the environment (Lift: 1.02). Support 66.9%, confidence 80.1%, lift 1.02.	Strengthen information campaigns, barangay-level announcements, and direct citizen orientation.	Supports: Conflicts: Insufficient: Harmonized evidence statuses	Environment and Natural Resources Office Monitor: Increase in awareness percentage Validate:
5	Air Pollution Control Program Need for Action (49.9%) Citizens who used the service still indicate a need for government action. Awareness 66.1%; availment 83.4%; satisfaction 93.2%; need for action 49.9%.	Young single student citizens (Segment B) (58.7%) Young single student citizens (Segment B) has the highest concern signal at 58.7% for this indicator. View detailed clustering results in Citizen Segments	Model quality Needs more predictors: F1 41.7%, ROC AUC 48.1%. The model has difficulty separating respondents based on ROC AUC, recall, or F1. Strongest feature MCA Dim1 (34.5% importance)	Respondents who were aware of the environment, and felt a need for further action, and were satisfied with the environment had a 87% likelihood of also availed the environment (Lift: 1.04). Support 32.5%, confidence 87.2%, lift 1.04.	Prioritize follow-up validation with the service office and compare findings with LGU service records.	Supports: Conflicts: Insufficient: Harmonized evidence statuses	Environment and Natural Resources Office Monitor: Reduction in need-for-action percentage Validate:

Priority method: Critical for satisfaction or need-for-action gaps of at least 50%; High for gaps of at least 40%; Medium for gaps of at least 20%; otherwise Low. Recommendations remain decision-support evidence and should be confirmed with service records, budget feasibility, field validation, and stakeholder review.

Showing 4500 of 4500 respondent records for All Mindanao records.