Asian Fisheries Science 30 (2017):1-16
Asian Fisheries Society
ISSN 0116-6514
E-ISSN 2073-3720
https://doi.org/10.33997/j.afs.2017.30.1.001

Role of Extension Services with Special Reference toLivelihood Projects for Supporting a Community-based
Marine Protected Area in Northern Luzon, Philippines
EMMA LEGASPI BALLAD1,3*, YOSHINORI MOROOKA2 and TERUYUKI SHINBO1
1

Laboratory of Environmental Change and Sustainable Society, Graduate School of Kuroshio Science, Kochi University,
2-5-1 Akebono-cho, Kochi 780-8520, Japan
2
Kochi University, 2-5-1 Akebono-cho, Kochi 780-8520, Japan
3
DA- Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Regional Office No. 02, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, Philippines

Abstract
Community-based management of marine protected areas (MPAs) is widely carried out in thePhilippines as a coastal resource management initiative. However, the restrictions to areas used forthis conservation programme have caused loss of job opportunities to villagers who mainly dependon coastal resources for a living. As an alternative, extension services with livelihood projects (e.g.
aquaculture and hog raising) have been provided to the villagers. For investigating the role ofextension services specifically as a support policy to the participation of villagers in MPA
management, a household survey in the Casitan village in Cagayan Province, Philippines was
carried out in March 2015 through one-on-one interviews facilitated by trained enumerators. A totalof 100 respondents were selected by random sampling from the List of Registered Household
Heads. Key informants’ interviews were also conducted to harness the information gathered. The
study revealed that support policies such as extension services with livelihood projects increase thetendency of villagers to participate in MPA management activities. The results imply that there is aneed to strengthen strategies and programmes such as livelihood projects which can motivate thevillagers’ willingness to participate in MPA activities.
Keywords: Cagayan, coastal resource management, community-based marine protected areas,
extension activities, livelihood project_______________________________________________*

Corresponding author. E-mail address: elballad@gmail.com

2

Asian Fisheries Science 30 (2017):1-16

Introduction
Coastal and marine resources, being a common-pool resource, are subjected to continuous
overexploitation which leads to degradation of resources. The Philippine coasts are not spared fromthis condition as most of the residents depend on the coastal resources for a living. To respond to thedecline of fisheries productivity and coastal habitat destruction, the establishment of marine
protected areas (MPAs) as a coastal management initiative has been practised in the country for thelast three decades (White et al. 2002). By virtue of the Local Government Code of 1991, the local
government units (LGUs), particularly the municipal or city governments, were authorized topromote the establishment of MPAs (e.g. reserves, sanctuaries and parks) as a way to manage theresources in the coastal areas where coral reefs and seaweed beds widely exist. A typicalcommunity-based MPA model established by the LGUs is a marine reserve with a fish sanctuary or“no-take” zone. A marine reserve is an area where fishing and other activities are allowed, but
regulations are set to control access while a sanctuary is a zone where all extractive practices, suchas fishing, shell collection, seaweed gleaning, collection of anything else, as well as human access,are prohibited (DENR et al. 2001). Due to these circumstances, many villagers were deprived offishing opportunities for generating a daily income. To guarantee the interest and involvement of thecommunity, a MPA is basically managed by the residents in a voluntary manner with the support of
LGUs through a community-based approach. Crawford et al. (2000) defined community-based as a
co-management scheme participated in by the residents and LGUs or other external agents working
together in the planning and implementation phases. Several studies in the country have highlighted
the importance of rural people’s involvement for the success of MPA programmes (Pomeroy andCarlos 1997; Uychiaoco et al. 2000; Pollnac et al. 2001). Further, some researchers documented theeffect of selected socio-economic factors on the perceptions of fishers towards MPAs in the country(Launio et al. 2010; Hamilton 2012; Fernandez and Subade 2015).
Since residents take part in managing the MPA (i.e. monitoring of the MPA, enforcement ofregulations, dissemination of information, sourcing of funds), it is indispensable to assure extensive
support from the LGUs and the national government agencies through the provision of extension
support services. In many cases, payao (fish aggregating devices) are set up in anticipation of thespill-over effects (net movement of juvenile fishes into adjacent fishing grounds) of MPAs, but thecoastal areas in Northern Luzon, Philippines situated at the sides of the Babuyan Channel endurestrong water currents in addition to being located in a typhoon path, hence the establishment of
payao is not always effective. Instead, extension services with special reference to livelihood
projects (e.g. aquaculture and hog raising) have been provided to the villagers. Alternative andsupplemental livelihood projects work towards the provision of subsidiary and diversified income tofishers thus contributing to the success of the protected area. However, the role of extension services
specifically as a support policy to the participation of villagers in MPA management is not yet
clearly investigated. This study, therefore examines the role of extension services with specialreference to livelihood projects to clarify their effect in encouraging the involvement of villagers in
MPA management.

Asian Fisheries Science 30 (2017):1-16

3

Materials and Methods
Cagayan Province, located in northern Philippines, has established seven municipal and one
national marine protected areas since 1994 following its developmental process. The Casitan MPA
was selected as a case study as it is situated in a typical village with condensed and compact
population with an economy that is highly dependent on fishing and farming.
The Casitan MPA (Fig. 1) is located in the municipality of Gonzaga, Cagayan. It is situated in
Casitan village, which is one of the 11 coastal villages of the municipality. The village lies along theriverbank and the mouth of the Mission River and along the shores of the Babuyan Channel. It has aland area of about 949 ha and is about 9.5 km away from the town proper.
Based on the strong consensus of and appeal from the villagers, the Municipal Ordinance No.
09 s. 1999 was enacted for the establishment of the MPA. However, the developmental process was
only completed and the MPA finally launched in 2007. The MPA has a total area of 146 ha with asanctuary of 42.32 ha. It is managed by the Casitan MPA Development Association (CAMPADA)
in coordination with the village council and the Municipal Agriculture Office (MAO). CAMPADA
is a registered rural association with 41 members at present.

Fig. 1. Map showing the location of the Casitan MPA in Gonzaga, Cagayan, Philippines.

A questionnaire was carefully developed to acquire information about the respondents’demographic structure, household income sources, fishing activities, knowledge and awareness on
the MPA, participation in MPA management activities and extension activities relating to MPA.
Participation in MPA management means taking part in one or more of these activities: (1)overseeing the security of the MPA from illegal activities and enforcement of the laws; (2)conducting monitoring and assessment of the coastal and marine resources inside and outside the
MPA; (3) assisting in sourcing of funds for the sustainable management of the MPA; and (4)organising an information drive in the community on MPA concepts and guidelines.

4

Asian Fisheries Science 30 (2017):1-16

One hundred respondents were randomly selected through methodical sampling of 171
registered households. The sample size was calculated using the formula:where n = sample size; N = total household number; e = acceptable error; z = normal distribution
point corresponding to the confidence level and P = ratio to the population. For this calculation, theacceptable error is set at 5%, 95% confidence level; hence z = 1.96 and expected population rate at20%.
Face-to-face individual interviews were conducted in March 2015 with the assistance of
trained enumerators. The interviews were conducted in the local dialect (Ilocano) for coherence andcomprehensibility among the respondents. To supplement and confirm the information gathered, key
informants such as village officials, officers of the CAMPADA and technical experts from theMAO, Provincial Agriculture Office (PAO) and Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR)
were consulted. Documents related to the legal basis and processes of the establishment of the MPA
were also gathered to heighten the accuracy and quality of knowledge acquired from the survey.
The response data were structured as binary: 1 if a respondent participates in any of the four
MPA management activities and 0 if there is no participation at all. Interrelationship of variables
was evaluated by probit regression analysis whereby the dependent variable (y), participation in
MPA management, is a function of several explanatory variables (x). Following Wooldridge (2006),
the probit model was derived from an underlying latent variable model:y*= β0 + βx + u

where y* is the unobserved, but what we do observe is,y = 0 if y* ≤ 0,
= 1 if y*> 0
β is the observable component which is a function of measurable factors and u are certain
unobservable factors. Assuming that u is normally distributed across observations, we normalize themean and variance of u to 0 and 1, and we can calculate the response probability for y* is less thanor equal to y from the standard normal cumulative distribution function.
For the individual independent variable coefficients (βx), the sign conditions were used forinterpretation. A positive coefficient means that an increase in the predictor leads to an increase in
the predicted probability while a negative coefficient means that an increase in the predictor leads toa decrease in the predicted probability.

Asian Fisheries Science 30 (2017):1-16

5

It is postulated that the conceptual relationship among factors that influence the participationof respondents to community-based MPA management is shown in Fig. 2. It is contemplated that
limiting factors (demographic characteristics, personal commitment and dependency on marine
resources) and support policy (capability building and alternative livelihood project) affect theparticipation of respondents in MPA management. It is hypothesized that respondents who haveaccess to the support policy activities of the government are more likely to participate in MPA
management.

A. Demographic features• Household income• Years of residency inthe village• Education• Gender• Job opportunity

B. Personal commitment• Village official• Consciousness to thecoastal environment• Membership inorganization/s• Expectation to payao

Limiting factors toparticipation

Community-based
MPA Management

C. Dependence on marine
resources• Fishers• Boat and gear
owner
• Fish vendor• Beach seine
members

D. Extension support policy
D. 1
Capability- building(Trainings/
Seminar/Meetings)
D.2
Alternative
Livelihood Projects
 Aquaculture Hog raisingFig 2. Conceptual relationships by category among factors that influence participation of villagers towards MPA
management.

Three models were then specified using (1) all respondents’ and (2) fisher respondents’ data
sets. Using all respondents’ data set, the dependent variable (y) is regressed on all theoretically andexploratory important predictors (x) (Model 1). Non-correlated variables (not significant at 5%
level) were deleted and regression analysis was shown as Model 2. Using the same set of variables
which showed strong correlation, fishers’ data set were analysed as Model 3. Data sets were
examined using the statistical software R.

6

Asian Fisheries Science 30 (2017):1-16

Results
Socio-economic and demographic characteristics of respondents
The demographic characteristics of the respondents are shown in Table 1. With respect toeconomic situations, average annual household income of respondents was ₱114,500 (US$1 =₱44.64 in March 2015). Income in the village was 51% lower than the national (₱235,000) and 41%
lower than the regional average (₱195,000) (FIES 2012) with income disparity of 0.3983. The
Philippines has a Gini coefficient of 0.4605 while Cagayan Valley has 0.4096 (FIES 2012).
Table 1. Demographic profile of respondents from Casitan Village who participatedin the one-to-one interviews
Parameters

Value

Gender (%)
Male

77

Female23

Average household size

4-5

Average age (years)

45

Educational attainment (%)
No education

1

Elementary graduate and below

47

High school level and higher
In-migrants (%)

52
19

Average years in the village (years)

41

Fishing profile and practices
Table 2 summarizes the profile of fisher-respondents. Among the fishers, 37.14% worked on afull-time basis while the rest had other part-time jobs to supplement their earnings, but at least 38%
of household income came from fishing. Only 18.57% of them owned fishing boats and 32.86%
possessed fishing gears such as beach seine, gill net, cast net, single and multiple hook and line andspear. Boats used were either motorized (73.3%) or non-motorized (26.7%). Motorized boats were
equipped with 3-12 HP gasoline or diesel powered engines while non-motorized boats used thepaddle as a means of propulsion. Seventy percent of the fisher-respondents also worked with beachseine owners in the community. A beach seine (“daklis” in the local dialect) is an active gear, but
considered as a traditional fishing gear in the community hence its operation is authorized. The
beach seine was used by several people in the village, hence close and cooperative relationships
were developed among residents. A total of seven beach seine units were operating from the village
with permits to fish in municipal waters (15 km from the shoreline) of Gonzaga outside its MPA andnearby municipalities.

Asian Fisheries Science 30 (2017):1-16

7

The number of fishers involved in single beach seine operation ranged from 30 to 40 including
the people needed for towing the seine to the shore. Beach seine fishing became a tradition andfostered cooperation as well as collective action among villagers as many of them joined the activity
for their source of income. The gear owners even developed patron-client relationship among theirworkers. Credit tying or advance payment (“bale” in the local dialect) had been a part of this system.
The fishers felt that the increase in fish catch was due to the spill-over effect of the MPA. The
results of this survey revealed that around 69% of the fisher-respondents opined that the fish catchbecame better; 67% agreed that fish catches improved and 54% observed that fish diversity wasenhanced. In totality, 63% of the fisher-respondents felt that fish production became better with theestablishment of the MPA. The major species caught, based on the know-how of the respondents,
included big-eyed scad (Local Name (LN): Mataan; Family (F): Carangidae), short mackerel (LN:
Kabalyas; F: Scombridae), trevally (LN: Talakitok; F: Carangidae), anchovies (LN: Dilis; F:Engraulidae), tuna (LN: Dumadara/Butnugan; F: Scombridae), mackerel scad (LN: Galunggong;
F: Carangidae), slip mouth (LN: Sapsap; F: Leiognathidae), moonfish (LN: Cadis; F: Menidae)
and largehead hairtail (LN: Espada; F: Trichiuridae).
Table 2. Profile of fisher-respondents from Casitan.Village who participated in the one-to-one
interviews.
Parameters

Value/Information

No of fisher-respondentsa (%)
With fishing boatb
Motorized fishing boatc
Non-motorized boatc
With fishing gearsb
Full time fishersb

70
18.57
73.30
26.70
32.86
37.14

Part time fishersb
Average years in fishingb
Average household income fromfishingb (₱)
Minimum
Maximum

62.86
20
62,4001,600
420,000afrom all respondents
from fishers respondentscfrom fishers with fishing boatsb

MPA management activities and participation of respondents
An implementing structure was established at the village level to guarantee the operation of
the MPA goals and objectives in the area. Components of the structure were defined and precise
roles and functions were explicated. To achieve this end, four components within the MPA
management board were formed.

8

Asian Fisheries Science 30 (2017):1-16

These committees include: (1) Law Enforcement Team; (2) Core Monitoring Group; (3)Income Generating Project (IGP) Unit and (4) Information Education Campaign (IEC) Team.
Community members participated in MPA management by taking part in any of these groups
voluntarily (i.e. non-mandatory and non-compulsory participation).
The Law Enforcement Team comprised of the members of CAMPADA and village officials
who were deputized as fish wardens and therefore acted as Bantay Dagat (BD). Bantay Dagat or sea
guards, is a term coined to describe the participatory approach of coastal law enforcement, which
has existed in the Philippines since the 1970s (Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ)
2003 as cited in Rosales 2009). In the case of Casitan MPA, the LGU provided a patrol boat andcovered the cost of fuel, but members did the patrolling voluntarily as no payment is provided. They
grouped themselves into small teams of 4-5 members with a specific schedule of 3–5 h for land
surveillance or seaborne patrolling. However, membership of the committee was not sustained and a
gradual withdrawal of fish wardens from their duty was observed. Despite this circumstance andabsence of monetary incentives, active BD members determinedly perform their jobs. The Core
Monitoring Group on the other hand, assisted the technical experts from the MAO and BFAR in the
conduct of periodic monitoring and assessment of the coastal and marine resources within the MPA.
They were also in the forefront of the implementation of conservation activities such as stockenhancement. The IGP Unit was in-charge of the formulation of mechanisms for income generation
to support the implementation of the MPA (e.g. ecotourism activity, collection of membership or
user’s fee) while the IEC Team led the conduct of the information drive in the community.
Ninety three percent of the respondents mentioned that they have knowledge of the conceptsof MPA and 99% were aware of the presence of the MPA in the village. Eighty one percent of the
respondents affirmed support for the establishment of the MPA in the community because they
believed it would facilitate the increase of fisheries production and maintenance and conservation of
the resources; 6% were undecided as they were not aware of the concept of the MPA and 13%
disagreed because they claimed that MPA caused reduction of fishing grounds and only selectedfishers benefited in the programme causing some social conflicts. Despite the high level of supportshown by the villagers to the establishment and the presence of the MPA, only 19% of the
respondents participated in any of the committees of the MPA management. They disclosed that
understanding the long-term benefits of the resource management initiatives which translated to theadvantage of the future generations stimulated them to participate in MPA management.
Extension services as MPA support policy
MPA management was principally undertaken in a voluntary manner by villagers in thecommunity. However, to ensure that the MPA meets its management objectives, the LGU promoted
and facilitated community participation by providing necessary support. Extension services in theform of capability building programmes (e.g. trainings, seminars, meetings) and livelihood projects
were presumed as key strategies to ensure the realization of MPA programmes.

Asian Fisheries Science 30 (2017):1-16

9

Table 3 records the extension services provided to the villagers during the planning andestablishment of the MPA, including continuous support in its implementation phase. These weredone to increase the interest and motivation of the community in resource management and to help
them understand the concepts and benefits of MPA programmes. Experts from BFAR, Departmentof Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), PAO and MAO incessantly rendered extension
services for the establishment and maintenance of livelihood projects in support of MPA.
Table 3. Extension services conducted by external agents in relation to Casitan MPA.
Extension Activities
Phase I: Initial and establishment stage
1. Consultative meeting and presentation of Coastal
Resource Management Project

Lead Agency

Remarks

Provincial Local
Government Provincial Agriculture
Office (PLGU - PAO)

Organized the Casitan Fisherfolk
Association which was later named
as Casitan MPA Development
Association (CAMPADA)

2. Conducted training on MPA establishment andmanagement

DENR/ PLGU/LGUGonzaga

Training was participated in by 57
fisherfolk. MPA was assessed anddelineated

3. Conducted training on Fisheries Law
Enforcement

BFAR/PLGU

Training was participated in by 54
fisherfolk. Constitution and by-lawsof the CAMPADA were crafted

4. Conducted training on construction anddeployment of payao

BFAR/PLGU

Constructed and deployed 40 unitsof artificial reef modules

5. Installation of MPA signboards

LGU- Gonzaga

Installed signboards along the
highway

Phase II – Implementation stage
6. Conduct of various technology trainings forlivelihood projects (Mushroom culture; sea urchin
and lobster culture in cages; hog raising; sea
cucumber culture and milkfish culture in cages)

BFAR/ DENR/
LGU-Gonzaga

Established livelihood projects

7. Rendering of technical assistance for the
maintenance of MPA and livelihood projects

BFAR/DENR/
LGU-Gonzaga

Maintained MPA and livelihood
projects

Source: Casitan MPA Management Plan

Continuing advice from the implementing organization and continued engagement of outsidefacilitators or extension agents contributed to the success of the MPA (Crawford et al. 2000). Table
4 lists the kind and description of livelihood projects that were provided to support the community.
Initially, the PAO assisted in the provision of payao and mushroom culture. Payao, a kind of fish
aggregating device, was constructed for the purpose of facilitating the aggregation and attraction offish for harvest. However, the payao which were set up twice were at both times destroyed bytyphoons. The Integrated Coastal Resources Management Project, which aimed for sustainable
management of coastal resources and increased income for coastal communities, was implemented
by DENR and BFAR and paved the way for the establishment of projects on hog raising andfattening, sea cucumber culture and cage culture of milkfish.

10

Asian Fisheries Science 30 (2017):1-16

Earnings from these projects, although not yet conclusive, were expected to provide additional
income to household participants. Further, about 67% of livelihood beneficiaries claimed thatfishing activities remained the same and 78% affirmed to have increased their support to coastal
resource management due to these interventions.
Table 4. Livelihood projects provided in Casitan village from 2007- present in relation to theestablishment of MPA.
Name of Project

Project Duration (Year)

Payao Project

2007; 2011

Mushroom culture

Remarks
1 unit bamboo-payao with functional parts:
floater, mooring, anchor and attractant

2008

1 unit mushroom house with 2 units of seedlingbeds

Lying-in cage culture ofsea urchin and lobster
Hog raising and fattening

2012 - present

Stocked berried sea urchin and lobster in cages2012 - present

Constructed pig pen and started with 30 piglets

Sea cucumber culture

2013 - present

Collected stocks from wild and culture in cage

Marine fish cage culture

2014 - present

Milkfish; 1 unit cage 5m x 10m x 2m; 35 m-3

Source: Municipal Agriculture Office, LGU- Gonzaga

Factors influencing participation of respondents to MPA management
For assessing the effect of extension services, especially livelihood projects and influence ofother related variables, a probit regression analysis was applied. The results of all the data sets
(Models 1 and 2) and fisher-respondents’ data sets (Model 3) are shown in Table 5. Model 1
displays the results of the model with all necessary variables while Model 2 exhibits the result of
eliminating non-significant variables in Model 1. Variables from Model 2 were used to analyse thedetermining factors for fisher respondents (Model 3).
For all respondents’ data sets (Model 1 indicated better fitness), the result of the probit
analysis showed that income, years of residency, educational attainment, gender, village leader,
participation in extension services, members of livelihood projects and expectation from payao
displayed significant results. Annual total household income showed negative sign condition
implying that less affluent respondents tend to participate in MPA management. Eighty nine of the
respondents had a household income below the average of the sample respondents and 35% solely
depended on fishing. This denotes that respondents with meagre income tend to be more interested
to support conservation measures since they depend more on the coastal resources than better-off
respondents. The positive sign condition observed in respondents with longer years of residency inthe village implied that they developed a sense of attachment to the area and wanted to preserve it
for the future generations, hence they took part in coastal resource management. The result of thisresearch also disclosed that respondents with higher levels of education were inclined to participate
in MPA activities.

Asian Fisheries Science 30 (2017):1-16

11

With positive sign condition, male respondents displayed a higher probability of participatingin MPA activities compared with females in this village. This could be associated with theassumption that most fishers were male. This case study further showed that village officials
positively supported the MPA through participation in its management. Village officials wereinvolved in the MPA developmental process as key promoters of sustainable management of coastal
resources. Participation of the villagers seemed to increase as village officials supported theprogramme.
The positive sign condition of the participation in capability-building signifies that formal orinformal environmental education could be instrumental in increasing the disposition of villagers toparticipating in MPA activities. Recipients of livelihood projects showed a tendency to participate in
MPA management. The extension support system such as capability building and livelihood projects
appeared to increase the probability of villagers to support conservation programmes. Further,
respondents who recognised the necessity to keep payao in the area also showed positive reactions
to MPA management. Respondents who experienced fishing within the payao area claimed that its
presence made fishing easier for them as it lessened the time taken looking for fishing grounds.
On the other hand, boat ownership and consciousness to the coastal environment showed nosignificant difference in MPA participation. Although not significant, the negative sign condition inboat ownership manifested a lesser tendency of participation. A possible explanation could be mostboat owners either fished in farther fishing grounds and spent several days in the area, hence had notime to participate in MPA activities. The positive sign condition of the consciousness to the coastal
environment suggested an increasing tendency to participate, however, the result showed only little
evidence on this factor as it showed no significant difference. We think that income and genderserved as proxy variables for fishers in this model.
For fishers’ data set, Model 3 shows significant differences and positive sign conditions on
variable levels of education, participants in capability building, members of livelihood projects andexpectation from payao and negative sign condition on total household income. No significant
differences but positive sign conditions were observed on variables years of residency in the village,
gender and village leader.

12Asian Fisheries Science 30 (2017):1-16

Table 5. Probit estimates on the determinants of participation by villagers on MPA management.
VariableType of variable

Model 1Model 2Model 3-16.41(-0.029)-6.997***(-2.970)-6.834**(-2.574)-0.00001057*(-1.883)
0.08583**(2.498)1.399*(1.950)-0.00001125**(-2.312)0.0542**(2.104)
1.259*(1.792)-0.0000133**(-2.054)0.04695(1.584)
1.466*(1.898)2.517*(1.784)1.795(1.409)2.024(1.328)Dummy (1 = yes; 0= no)Dummy (1 = yes; 0= no)Dummy (1 = yes; 0= no)4.706**(2.454)5.697(0.010)2.683***(2.606)3.740**(2.368)-8.829(0.018)-2.831**(2.685)3.010**(2.496)

Dummy (1 = yes; 0= no)Dummy (1 = yes; 0
= no)

1.485
(1.606)-1.781(-1.545)

-

-

-

-

Dummy (1 = yes; 0= no)Dummy (1 = yes; 0= no)2.633***(2.838)2.803**(2.160)2.021**(2.515)3.212***(2.782)2.117**(2.445)3.383***(2.702)-13.5387
0.703
51.077100-16.5814
0.636251.163100-12.6454
0.652343.291
70

Intercept
A. Demographic feature
Total householdincome(peso/year)
Years of residency in thevillage
Educational attainment

GenderB. Personal commitment
Village official
Consciousness to coastal
environment
Expectation to payao
C. Dependency on marine
resources
Fishers
Fishing boat owner
D. Extension support policy
Participants in capabilitybuilding trainings
Recipients of livelihood
project

Numerical
Numerical
Dummy (1 = if at
least high schoollevel; 0 =Elementary
Graduate andbelow)
Dummy (1 = male;
0 = female)

Loglikelihood
McFadden’s R Square
AIC
Nos. of observations***Statistically significant at the 1% level or better; **at the 5% or better, * the 10% level or better.
value in parenthesis is z-value

Discussion
High marine and coastal resource reliance, low household income and apparent insufficient
livelihood opportunities characterized the study village. Despite the economic situation, villagers(both fishers and non-fishers) supported the establishment and the presence of the MPA in thecommunity. However, the level of participation is not yet fully achieved.

Asian Fisheries Science 30 (2017):1-16

13

With a clear understanding of how support policies, particularly extension services withlivelihood projects, influence the involvement of villagers in MPA participation, resource managers
can attune their strategies towards this initiative. Results from this study can therefore provide
insights for better management of MPAs.
The first point relates to the effect of the level of household income to MPA management.
Income is distributed in an uneven manner among the village population with the small-scale fishers
as the low-income earners. As these fishers engage in daily fishing and fishing-related activities
such as fish vending, they felt that protecting the resource is a way to secure their means of
livelihood, thus they approved the MPA programmes. Villagers, especially artisanal fishers, who
mainly depended on marine resources, showed a higher tendency to participate in MPA
management activities. This is in contrast to the findings of Fox et al. (2012) which showed that
greater dependence leads to an increased likelihood that local people would not comply withrestrictions on marine resource extraction. Pollnac et al. (2001), however, pointed out that the more
important the fishing occupation is to the community, the more interested and committed they are inattaining fish production benefits by supporting MPA programmes. A sustainable source of income
for villagers is therefore necessary for their involvement in coastal resource initiatives.
Second, this study has clarified that the livelihood project played a major role in encouraging
local residents in MPA management. As the fishing grounds become selected as a sanctuary and/or
no-take zone due to the establishment of the MPA, fishers may temporarily lose their livelihood
opportunities in the area, hence the implementation of alternative livelihood projects is an importantconsideration. It should be noted that conservation policies, at the very least, should not adversely
affect and where possible should contribute to poverty alleviation (CBD 2008). Nevertheless,comprehension of the social dynamics and existing livelihood in the community are essential indesigning effective and acceptable livelihood projects. In this case study, the villagers showedstrong expectations for the setting up of payao in their municipal waters despite the difficulty ofmaintaining them due to geographical conditions. This implies that they preferred to work more in
the sea through their fishing activities under the sustainable use of the marine and coastal resources.
This preference was further demonstrated by a non-decrease of fishing activities despite thepresence of alternative livelihood projects. To cope with this situation and in addition to the present
livelihood projects, technology development for establishing a durable payao system is suggested.
However, the impacts of utilizing payao to prevent collapse of resources due to high fishing pressureneed to be verified in relation to the spill-over effects in the MPA. Further enhancement of thelivelihood projects in the village is expected by most of the dwellers.
Third, the findings from this study showed that capability building as an output of extension
services by external agents increased participation of the villagers in MPA management. Capability
building is essential to develop the skills and capacity of members and a clear understanding of
project objectives brings active participation among stakeholders (Christie et al. 1999).

14

Asian Fisheries Science 30 (2017):1-16

While analysing the governance of coastal resources in Southern Iloilo, Philippines, Boeh etal. (2013) suggested that strengthening of the community through capacity building andempowerment is needed in order to achieve a successful co-management arrangement. Educationand empowerment are potential ways to increase awareness and understanding of coastal resource
management. Leisher et al. (2012) demonstrated that investments in MPA education and outreachcan generate improvement in local knowledge and positive attitudes which contribute to long-term
compliance with MPA regulations. It is, however, vital to ensure a highly participatory procedurethat ensures maximum input from the community members to guarantee successful empowerment(Crawford and Kasmidi 2004).
Fourth, although MPA management was highly supported by the LGU as part of its devolved
duties and responsibilities to mainstream coastal resource management at the local level, sustaining
interest of key officials is important to ensure allocation of financial resources for supporting MPA
programmes. Strong political will and persistent funding are important considerations in MPA
implementation (Courtney and White 2000; Ibrahim 2013). Funding mechanisms (e.g. user fee
system in relation to eco-tourism development) for the sustainable management of the MPA is
therefore necessary to be taken into consideration.

Conclusion
A marine protected area is voluntarily managed by the local residents, however, standpoints
toward MPA management are still not fully affirmative, but rather moderate or conservative. The
local residents participate in the conservation initiatives under support policies such as extension
activities including livelihood projects. As a sustainable source of income is necessary for strong
support in MPA programmes, alternative livelihood projects should be in place to ensure longlasting involvement of the community. The results confirmed that livelihood projects boosted
support and participation of villagers to the MPA programme. However, in order to assure aneffective role for livelihood projects as an approach to conservation initiatives, it is suggested that(1) the economic viability of the livelihood projects be considered; (2) a participatory approach incareful selection of livelihood projects by the villagers be deliberated on and (3) a monitoring
scheme and continuous capability building be accessible. This study, though, was conducted in only
one village along the long coastline in Cagayan Province, hence, further investigation into thediverse ways in which MPAs are being implemented in other fishing villages along the Babuyan
Channel, is suggested to provide comparative studies.

Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the support, cooperation and invaluable assistance of the key
informants, enumerators, respondents, LGU-Gonzaga and BFAR-Region 02 in the conduct of thestudy. This work is supported by the JSPS KAKENHI Grant No. 26281062 and 2016 Sasakawa
Scientific Research Grant from the Japan Science Society.

Asian Fisheries Science 30 (2017):1-16

15

References
Boeh, W., R. Subade, L. Geganzo and A. Subade. 2013. Zooming-in co-management of coastal resources to communitylevel: a case in Southern Iloilo, Philippines. Asian Fisheries Science 26:183-197.
Christie, P., D. Buhat, L. Garces and A. White. 1999. The challenges and rewards of community based
coastalresources management: San Salvador Island, Philippines. In: Contested nature: promoting international
biodiversity and social justice in the twenty-first century (eds. S.R. Brechin, P.R. Wilshusen, C.L. Fortwangler
and P.C. West), pp. 231-250. New York: State University of New York Press.
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2008. Report of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity on the Work of its Ninth Meeting. Bonn, Germany, 241 pp.
Courtney, C. and A. White. 2000. Integrated coastal management in the Philippines: Testing new paradigms. Coastal
Management 28:39-53.
Crawford, B., M. Balgos and C. Pagdilao. 2000. Community-based marine sanctuaries in the Philippines: A Report on
Focus Group Discussions. Coastal Management Report #2224. PCAMRD Book Series No. 30. Narragansett RI,
USA and Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines: Coastal Resources Center and Philippine Council for Aquatic andMarine Research and Development, 40 pp.
Crawford, B.R. and M. Kasmidi, M., 2004. Factors Influencing Progress in Establishing Community based Marine
Protected Areas in Likupang sub-district of North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Working paper. Coastal Resource Center.
University of Rhode Island, USA, 23 pp.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of the
Department of Agriculture (BFAR-DA), and Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG). 2001.
Philippine coastal management guidebook No. 5: Managing Coastal Habitats and Marine Protected Areas.
Coastal Resource Management Project of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Cebu City,
Philippines, 106 pp.
Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES) Philippine Statistical Authority. 2012. https://psa.gov.ph/content/2012
fiesstatistical-tables. Accessed 3 October 2013.
Fernandez, C. and R. Subade. 2015. Perceptions of fishers towards marine reserves in Iloilo coastal communities,
Central Philippines. Asian Fisheries Science 28:198-212.
Fox, H.E., M.B. Mascia, X. Basurto, A. Costa, L. Glew, D. Heinemann, L.B. Karrer, S.E. Lester, A.V. Lombana, R.S.
Pomeroy, C.A. Recchia, C.M. Roberts, J.N. Sanchirico, L. Pet Soede and A.T. White. 2012. Re-examining thescience of marine protected areas: linking knowledge to action. Conservation Letters 5:1-10.
Hamilton, M. 2012. Perceptions of fishermen towards marine protected areas in Cambodia and the Philippines.
Bioscience Horizons 5:1-24.
Ibrahim, H. 2013. Towards an effective framework for coastal zone management: The Egyptian experience. Journal of
Coastal Conservation 17:601-613.

16

Asian Fisheries Science 30 (2017):1-16

Launio, C., Y. Morooka, H. Aizaki and Y. Iiguni. 2010. Perception of small-scale fishermen on the value of marine
resources and protected areas: case of Claveria, Northern Philippines. International Journal of Sustainable
Development and World Ecology 17:401-409.
Leisher, C., S. Mangubhaib, S. Hessc, H. Widodob, T. Soekirmanb, S. Tjoeb, S. Wawiyaib, S. N.Larsena, L. Rumetnab,
A. Halimb and M. Sanjayana. 2012. Measuring the benefits and costs of community education and outreach inmarine protected areas. Marine Policy 26:1005–1011.
Pollnac, R., B. Crawford and M. Gorospe. 2001. Discovering factors that influence the success of community-basedmarine protected areas in the Visayas, Philippines: Ocean and Coastal Management 44:683-710.
Pomeroy, R. and M.B. Carlos. 1997. Community-based coastal resource management in the Philippines: A review andevaluation of programs and projects, 1984-1994. Marine Policy 21:445-464.
Rosales, R.M.P. 2009. Costs in enforcing fishing rules and regulations in Verde Passage. Conservation
International
Philippines.http://www.conservation.org.ph/archive/philippines/publications/Documents/Costs%20of%20Enforce
ment.pdf. Accessed 10 December 2015.
Uychiaoco, A., P. Alino and A. Dantis. 2000. Initiatives in Philippine coastal management: An overview. Coastal
Management 28:55–63.
White, A.T., A. Salamanca and C.A. Courtney. 2002. Experience with marine protected area planning and managementin the Philippines. Coastal Management 30:1-26.
Wooldridge, J. 2006. Introductory Econometrics: A modern approach, 3rd edition. South Western College Publishing,
Ohio. 890 pp.

Received: 08/08/2016; Accepted: 24/02/2017 (MS16-52)