International Urban Partnership Program (I‐UPP) of the Canadian Urban Institute (CUI) Philippines
Primary Research on Public Perception on the State of the Tigum‐Aganan Watershed Metro Iloilo‐Guimaras Sustainable Bioregion Initiative Alia Cynthia G. Luz, Knowledge Management Intern
Table of Contents Rationale ............................................................................................................................................. 2 Review of Related Literature ................................................................................................................ 3 Scope and Limitations of the Research ................................................................................................. 4 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Socio‐Economic Demographics ............................................................................................................. 6 Discussion of Survey Results ................................................................................................................ 8 A. Watershed Characterization ............................................................................................................ 8 1. What is the watershed spanning the eight municipalities and the city? .......................................... 8 2. What is the composition of this watershed? .................................................................................... 8 3. What is the state of the watershed? ................................................................................................ 9 4. What is the overall measure of the state of the watershed? ......................................................... 10 5. What practices/events are detrimental to the watershed? ........................................................... 11 6. What are people’s sources of information on the watershed? ...................................................... 12 Geographic Focus ................................................................................................................................ 12 B. Perception ..................................................................................................................................... 17 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 18 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 19 Annex ................................................................................................................................................ 21
Primary Research on Public Perception on the State of the Tigum‐Aganan Watershed Rationale The Tigum‐Aganan watershed (TAW) is one of the Philippines’ proclaimed critical watersheds, whose geographic coverage spans nine municipal local government units, namely: Maasin, Alimodian, Leon, Cabatuan, Santa Barbara, San Miguel, Pavia, Oton and the City of Iloilo. The Tigum‐Aganan Watershed Management Board (TAWMB) is gearing towards establishing a new management plan for the next three years. With an overarching bioregional perspective, this management plan will be focusing on the sustainable management, utilization, and preservation of the Tigum‐Aganan Watershed Region (TAWR), including a possible starting point for disaster risk management plan. The preliminary step towards this plan is establishing a State of the Watershed Report (SoWR), which will serve as the benchmark for the current state, a basis for this three‐year plan, and an essential foundation for future researches and management plans. This research is one part of the SoWR, along with several other activities and objectives of the Canadian Urban Institute in partnership with the TAWMB. These other activities are: the secondary research on the biophysical, socio‐economic, and institutional data on the watershed; and the primary research on community engagements. The waters of the Tigum River, the Aganan River, Jaro River, and their tributaries provide water to roughly 330,000 people, including the City of Iloilo. This is the target population for the Tigum‐Aganan Watershed management’s plan, including those directly within the TAW region. The TAWMB considers this population as important stakeholders in the management of the TAW; thus, surveying their knowledge and perceptions on the watershed is a vital aspect of the SoWR. This research is primarily an assessment of public perception, issues, and concerns on the state of the TAW, which includes the biological, social, and economic state and activities that affect the watershed and its sustainable use. The specific objectives of the survey are as follows: identify gaps pertaining to watershed knowledge in order to provide a basis for a communications and education plan; help identify focus areas for the watershed management plan; identify sensitive or at‐risk areas and/or threats arising from particular events/practices; determine a general, overall rating of the state of the watershed as a benchmark for future primary public perception surveys; identify the source of knowledge of the watershed for a specific mode of information dissemination; provide some measure of personal responsibility towards the watershed and participation in watershed/environmental projects; and evaluate the use of climate change as a tool in changing attitudes towards and participation in watershed/environmental projects. 2| Public Perception on State of TAW
Review of Related Literature
Most of the background of the research was based on Joëlle Rondeau’s Tigum‐Aganan Watershed Stakeholder Mapping Analysis, which was also prepared for the CUI‐IUPP.This document details the background of the watershed, the organizational profile of the TAWMB, the history of the watershed management in the TAW, the specific concerns of each stakeholder municipality (i.e. historical, ecological, and socio‐economic relevance to the TAW, institutional role and map, projects related to the watershed management, interests in the TAW, and vulnerabilities), the spheres of influence operating within the TAW, and a bioregional analysis of the issues and concerns that stakeholders are facing due to climate change. This document serves as a starting point for the preliminary indicators and initial background/hypothesis used in the formulation of the survey instrument. In addition to this, the Annual Work Plan of the CUI – IUPP in Iloilo was also used as a framework for the length of the research conduct. Other materials used include the Handbook for the State of the Watershed Reporting Alberta, wherein possible indicators for the watershed are discussed. This was used mostly as a reference for the questions in measuring the state of the watershed. Social statistics websites were also consulted to ascertain that academically‐sound methodologies are applied.i Two research papers found online were also used as a basis for some of the methods and practices in social research on public perception pertaining to environmental attitudes. These are as follows: the Environmental Attitudes, Knowledge, and Behavior of Surveyed Residents of Pickens County, SC; and Public Perception of Environmental Issues in a Developing Setting. ii The former is a simple, descriptive statistical analysis of attitudes and knowledge of residents in a county concerning stormwater management and the environment, which is geared specifically towards an information and education campaign. The latter’s main objective is to measure the quintessential question of public’s valuation of economic vs. environmental importance, including their relationships between various socio‐economic factors and their corresponding effect. It is also geared towards implementing this type of research in a developing country setting. Though the latter is more academically appropriate, the former’s techniques were followed because the public perception research required more sophisticated analysis and tools, which were not readily available to the project. However, future researches can greatly benefit from reviewing these two researches. Lastly, the TAWMB, its partner institutions, and its Technical Working Group were also consulted for clarity of the survey instrument, including the Central Philippine University’s and the University of the Philippines‐Visayas’s Social Research departments. For more information, their recommendations and suggestions can be found in the Annex.
3| Public Perception on State of TAW
Scope and Limitations of the Research This research is limited to the analysis of the areas under consideration, entailing only the municipalities and the corresponding barangays located within them that are within the TAW. Analysis of a holistic view of the knowledge of the TAW, the state of the watershed, and detriments to the watershed are limited to upland, lowland, and urban geographic divisions. Analysis is subject to the framework of the Canadian Urban Institute (CUI) and the specific objectives provided in the rationale; suggestions, possible data gaps, and any further analysis shall be determined and recommended after the conclusion. Lastly, analysis is also limited to what the public perceives is the state of the watershed. Though certain interesting trends will be pointed out, the research will not be establishing any particular relationships between variables. The research is based solely on public perception. In order to have a focused and effective management plan, these should be triangulated with the bio‐physical, socio‐economic, institutional research and other primary researches within the databank of the Canadian Urban Institute and its partners. There are some methodological issues that may have an impact on the sample size. No responses in any of the socio‐demographic characteristics and inclusions of ages below and beyond the age range, which is 13.8% of the whole sample size, could affect the opinions and knowledge given, and thus the accuracy of the data given the rationale. The research is also subject to various types of biases, which the researcher(s) have attempted to minimize. However, a particular bias to keep in mind is that people may tend to portray themselves in the best light and answer the questions according to what is socially acceptable or desirable. The enumerators (barangay service point officers, barangay health workers, barangay kagawads, barangay captains, and other barangay officials) are well‐versed in surveys. Therefore, given proper conduct of survey administration, the sample population is random and representative, with the accepted sampling error as basis for inference to the general populace. Focus group discussion notes will be included in the appendix and analysis to triangulate the results. However, these samples were usually selected from convenience – they are usually made up of the enumerators themselves who had conducted the survey. The urban focus group discussion has been foregone due to lack of sufficient time. This report, the results, and other data pertaining to the research are under the jurisdiction of the CUI, made specifically for the State of the Watershed Report (SoWR) to aid the Tigum‐Aganan Watershed Management Board (TAWMB) and other partners in the formulation of their TAW management plan spanning the next three years. Additional uses of the research are subject to CUI I‐UPP’s approval.
4| Public Perception on State of TAW
Methodology One of the most important components of the primary research is sampling. The main consideration for inferential statistics is to get a random, representative sample of the whole TAW bioregion, covering upland, lowland, and urban populations. Per municipality, a number of respondents will be assigned according to the share of its sample population relative to the target population. The number is then rounded to the nearest five. Correspondingly, the number of barangays relative to the population within the TAW region is calculated.Below is the distribution of respondents per barangay per municipality. Corres. No. No. of Corres. No. of Relative of No. of Barangays Municipality Population Barangays (for Population Interviewees Barangays in TAW selection on 320) (320) Area Upland Maasin
With a margin of error of 5.5% on a 95% confidence interval, asample size of 320 respondents of the population was determined. This was calculated using the following population proportion formula:
where i s the sample population size, ²is the confidence interval, and ² is the margin of error. Randomness exists in every single statistical sample. Given that random sampling is conducted stringently, this means that this single sample exists within the 95% interval of the distribution surrounding the mean of all the possible samples that could have been taken from this single sampling. And this mean also exists within the 5.5% deviation from the mean of any possible mean that could be taken from the overall sample population. 5| Public Perception on State of TAW
The selectio on of participants wassmultistage: cluster sam mpling for barangays within each h municipality, and sim mple, random m sampling ffor participants. Given properly‐cond ducted rando om selection n ublic opinion n can be made. To ensurre this, the eenumeratorss of particcipants, geneeralizations aabout the pu brought either of tw wo lists of the constituen nts of the barangay: a baarangay hall, street‐based household d mes of the heead of the ho ouseholds arre listed acco ording to theeir distance ffrom the hall; list, wheerein the nam and an aalphabetical list. Every fiffth household or name o on either list was used to o select whicch household d to visit. In each hou usehold, the recent birth h date method was used d to ensure random sele ection of thee respond dents. The biirthdays of the t househo old memberss present (w whose ages aare within th he 18‐65 agee range) are listed, an a nd the perso on whose birrthday is clo osest to the interview daate is chosen n. Given anyy complicaations (i.e. p people absent from thee house; lackk of somebo ody within tthe age‐rangge; etc.), thee enumerators move o on to anotheer household d, and condu uct the same selection prrocess.
So ocioEconomic De emograp phics Here are the results of the survey sample pop pulation’s basic socio‐demographics. 57.8% (185 5 respond dents) of the sample pop pulation consists of respondents from m the lowlan nd, while 26 6.6% (85) aree from the e urban and 15.6% (50) are from th he upland. Th he sex distribution is 41.6% (133) fo or males and d 58.1% (1 186) for fem males, with a a 0.3% (1) no response (only one an nswer). The number of respondentss who may have a holistic, basic id dea of the TA AW area is about 41.9% (134), while 55.3% (177)) do not, and d 2.8% (9)) have no response. Thee percentagee of frequenccy of employyed people iis 47.2% (151), while forr the unem mployed is 5 52.2% (167), and the no rresponse is 0 0.6% (2). Thee graph belo ow depicts th he sources off income of the sample population n:
Employyment D Distribu ution
Farm mer 27% %
Vendor 2% Teaacher Laborer 2% 3%
Baarangay Co ouncilor 8%
ore owner Sari‐sari sto 5% % Drriver Baran ngay Government Carpenteer Office 4% 4 Entrep preneur Secretary employeee employee 4% % 3% 3% 4% 4%
6| Publlic Perception oon State of TAW W
“Other” here repressents types o of employmeent that onlyy have aboutt one or two o respondents. The mostt n employment type is farrming, which h constitutess about 29.8% % (45 respon ndents). common The nextt graph repreesents the breakdown off educationaal attainmentt of the respondents: College graduates co onstitute the e highest num mber of resp pondents (29 9%).
H Highest LLevel off Educattional A Attainmeent in Percenttage Vocational graduate V Vocational levvel 4% 1%
MS/PhD Graduate 1% No respo onse 1% Elementary level 7% Ellementray G Graduate 7%
High scho ool level 13% %
College graduate 29%
High school graduate 17%
College level C 20%
7| Publlic Perception oon State of TAW W
Discussion of Survey Results The following analyses are based on descriptive statistics of the current knowledge of the TAW’s general populace and how they perceive the state of the watershed to be. The statements in the survey instrument all measure the positive – in other words, whether something is good or present. Given that the sample is representative, it is possible to infer these statistics to the rest of the population. Most of the generalizations or parameters made are in terms of 25% or 33% relative to 100% of the population. Therefore, concluding what the ratio in the population is for each statement will be in terms of four out of four (25%) or three out of three (33%) people. The sections are subdivided according to their titles under ‘B. Watershed Characterization’ part of the survey instrument. However, ‘Perception’ is a different part entirely.
A. Watershed Characterization 1. What is the watershed spanning the eight municipalities and the city? The first section after the socio‐demographic questions and under watershed characterization serves to establish the context of where the respondent is operating from in terms of what s/he considers is the watershed coverage. A respondent indicates a basic level of knowledge if s/he chooses any of the following choices: Tigum River, Aganan River, Jaro River, or any river in the area that is not part of the aforementioned three. A respondent with an incomplete level of knowledge would choose the Tigum and Aganan Rivers.Lastly, a respondent who chooses Tigum, Aganan, and Jaro Rivers indicates a complete level of knowledge. Given this framework, the respondent will answer the subsequent questions with a basic picture of their definition of the watershed. A good percentage, 24.1%, of the population is aware of the entirety of the TAW. 21.9% of the population knows only the Tigum River and Aganan River. However, 75.9% of the sample population has basic or no knowledge of the TAW. Therefore, only one in four people is fully aware of the totality of TAW.iii 2. What is the composition of this watershed? The second section relates in more depth to the watershed’s composition wherein the management plan will have a significant impact. The following sub‐sections are considered compositions of the watershed: small bodies of water connected to the watershed (76.9%); bigger bodies of water such as the coast (54.4%); vegetation (83.1%); wildlife (64.1%); settlement areas (36.3%); agricultural areas (64.1%); the communities and constituents of the barangays within the TAW (58.1%); land masses
8| Public Perception on State of TAW
supporting the watershed (67/2%).1 The respondents show whether they consider such areas as parts of the watershed, thereby establishing a more in depth definition of what they perceive the watershed is. Relative to the rest of the population, more than half of the respondents said that the above areas are part of the watershed; however, only 36.3% think that settlement areas are included in the TAW. In general, the mean of all these subcategories’ false, unknown, or no response answers is 37%, which implies that approximately two of three people have a complete knowledge of the watershed composition.ivThis low knowledge can potentially throw the rest of the analysis in question, since it is unknown whether the respondents are actually aware of the entirety of the watershed. For the rest of the questions, they are operating based only on their framework of what the watershed is. However, the subsequent questions can also be taken separately, and the answers can still be justifiably used for the management plan. 3. What is the state of the watershed? The third sectionassesses the current state of the watershed as the respondent perceives it. In particular, it details whether the respondents see the statements as ‘true’. These are the percentages of true answers: safe and potable water (28.4%); water good for irrigation (51.6%); water good for household use (87.2%); water good for farming and agricultural use (91.3%); sufficient quantity of water (32.8%); good vegetation around the watershed (47.5%); absence of illegal logging/ tree poaching (32.2%); good forest state (60.6%); natural erosion (53.1%); absence of changes in land composition (37.2%); wildlife and biodiversity is protected (50%); river is garbage‐free (21.9%); presence of a solid waste management program in the community (78.4); presence of natural changes in the area (84.1%). In the above, some of the statements serve as checks and balance of each other, but with subtle differences that can also be taken as a separate statement. For example, the use of water in irrigation may be similar to the use of water in farming and other agricultural purposes. However, the latter is more general and can also be interpreted in various ways, such as use in raising livestock, personal farming, mining, etc. For more detailed examples, please refer to the survey instrument. The statements for ‘natural erosion’ and ‘absence of changes in land composition’ can be interpreted in the same way. The statement for the ‘presence of natural changes in the area’has been discarded since the Hiligaynon interpretation does not fully capture the essence of the question being asked. This is true for all subsequent discussions. These state of the watershed tables show that water is generally perceived as good for agricultural uses and irrigation. Three out of four people believe that water can be used for the household and that there is a solid waste management program in the community.v This indicates visibility of involvement of the municiplality in environmental projects. 1
For a more detailed picture of how these areas are described to the respondents, please refer to the survey instrument in the appendix.
9| Public Perception on State of TAW
However, one out of four people believe that the river(s) are free of garbage. About one in three people believe that: the water is safe and potable; there is sufficient quantity of water; that illegal logging is absent; and that there are changes in land composition. About two out of four people believe the watershed’s surrounding area has good vegetation; wildlife is protected; and there is natural erosion. For natural erosion, since changes in land composition is a concern for people, this implies that erosion beyond that which is natural is noticeable. The most important aspects of the watershed that needs attention are the cleanliness of the river,potability of water, the quantity of water, illegal logging, and changes in land composition. The secondary attention should be directed to thestate of the watershed’s vegetation and wildlife protection. This section can also be taken holistically to measure the state of the watershed given the various ‘indicators’. The mean of the number of respondents who answered true is 51.7%.This means about half of the population believe that the watershed is in a good state. However, this statistic is risky since it does not directly give a value or measure to what the state of the watershed is. It merely measures the number of people who perceive it to be ‘good’. The next section affords a more accurate measurement for this state. 4. What is the overall measure of the state of the watershed? This section measures the ‘grade’ of the watershed according to a set of measurements.vi It uses a scale for a check‐and‐balance of the previous section, wherein the watershed is graded according to specific aspects. This grading scale is a more straightforward qualitative measure of the current state of the watershed, which is included specifically for bench‐marking and future measurement of the effectiveness of the management plans and/or efforts. The following are the criteria with the corresponding means of the scores’ distributions: a.
Statement The forests and vegetation surrounding this watershed is in a good state.
The quality of this watershed is in a good state (i.e.MIWD water or the water itself).
The quantity of this watershed for use in all areas of life is good.
The quality of any ground water around your area is in a good state.
The land (i.e. mountains, rocks, soil) around this watershed is in a good state.
Wildlife around this watershed is in a good state. g. Solid waste management in your area is good. Valid N (listwise)
10| Public Perception on State of TAW
In the table above, the means of the measurements range from 3.1 to 3.4, and the standard deviations from this mean range from 1.2 to 1.4. The standard deviation measures the average distance of each respondent’s score relative to the mean given the spread of valid observations (valid N) in the sample population. The overall score of the watershed’s state is 3.3 with a standard deviation of 1.3. The state of the watershed is average. 5. What practices/events are detrimental to the watershed? In section 5, respondents may choose as many answers among a selection of which are detriments to the watershed. The management plan may also focus on these specific detriments to the watershed for a more effective plan. Most of the general public perceives that the four prominent detriments to the watershed are natural calamities (94.7%), land pollution (90.3%), water pollution (89.4%), and river quarrying (83.1%), which is more or less four of four people. On the other hand, about three of four people perceive that timber poaching (76.3%), bamboo poaching (75.5%), air pollution (75.9%), and certain farming practices (74.7%) are detrimental to the watershed. Lastly, about two out of three people perceive that hunting wildlife (64.1%) is a detriment.vii Therefore, it is necessary to target the prominent ones specifically in the plan; however, since all of these are detrimental, taking note of and examining which ones are lower should be worthwhile (refer to Geographical Focus). Respondents also identified the��additional detriments in the qualitative sub‐section. Most of them are more specific aspects of the general ones identified. These are: disposing/dumping of garbage;disposing/dumping of dead animals in the river;cutting of trees inside the watershed;cutting of trees inside the watershed for charcoal‐making;overgrazing in the watershed;sand and gravel quarry;dumping of insecticides on the rivers;lack of reforestation efforts along the riverbanks;putting up of illegal structures along the river banks;disposing/dumping of broken bottles and dead animals on the watershed;illegal fishing activities such as use of electric currents;putting up of piggeries;mining;open burning of plastics;disposing of human wastes on the rivers;using the river as source of spring water;washing of clothes on the river;illegal farming; andoil spill. Some of them can be translated directly into an issue of perception, participation, and personal responsibility towards the watershed. These are: misuse/exploitation of water supplied by the watershed; irresponsible caretakers of the watershed; abuse of laws or the river; sustainable programs for proper watershed management are nonexistent; cleanliness in the area of the watershed is not being maintained; lack of concern by people;and lack of IEC for the constituents of the barangays in the watershed.
11| Public Perception on State of TAW
6. Whatt are people e’s sourcess of informa ation on the e watershed d? The multiple answeer section 5 details the ways w in which the respo ondents acq quire informaation on thee ommunicatio ons and information plan n. Three of fo our people rreceive information from m watershed for the co the television (76.3% %). About tw wo out of th hree people (68.8%) receeive informaation from raadios. Aboutt ugh barangaay (31.3%) or municipal (28.8%) announcementss one out of three peeople are infformed throu wspapers (27 7.8%). A lesseer number o of people acq quire information througgh the baran ngay projectss and new (19.1%),, school (16.9 9%), municip pal projects ((16.9%), possters (10.9%)), and pamph hlets (6.6%). viiiGenerally,, watershed information reaches more peoplee through the television and radio. de note, the section can c also be used to monitor m and evaluate th he effectiveness of anyy As a sid barangaay/municipal government’s education campaign or project. In this case, it is still low w (one out off three. There is also llow acquisitiion of inform mation through barangayy and municipal projects.. The schoolss’ n of this typee of information is also eeven lower. G Given that th he age rangee of the sample does nott inclusion include eelementary o or middle school studentts, this could d have been the reason ffor the latter result. aphic Focus Geogra A part o of this report will brieflyy discuss som me geograph hically relateed points forr focus in the watershed d report and a plan. In terms of knowledge, th he mean perrcentage of people p who answered true for each h ‘part’ off the watershed was calculated for tthe upland, lowland, and urban. The next graph h details thee results. Co omposition o of the Watershed (% Tru ue Answers)
56.90% of the e population n The mosst importantt target for aany education plan is thee urban area,, with only 5 knowingg the entirety of the wattershed com mposition. The secondaryy target is low wland (63.90 0%), and thee final tarrget is upland (70%). The ere is an interesting find ding in the ffocus group discussions done with aa 12| Publlic Perception oon State of TAW W
convenieence samplee of enumeraators in Oton n to triangulaate the surveey. Most of tthe residentss do not find d themselves as part o of the watersshed because they are end‐users. In addition to tthis, any kno owledge theyy hed, its statee, and its de etriments is referred bacck to what tthey perceive it is in thee have of the watersh ntly, their acttions do not affect the w watershed. TTherefore, it is importantt to focus on n uplands. Consequen n the knowle edge is loweest; howeverr, this measu urement may not reflectt the geoggraphic location wherein the truee knowledge of that locattion, and sho ould be invesstigated furth her.2 In termss of the statee of the wattershed, each geographic location haas different important taargets based d on public perception. For the e purposes of this research, these targets will be dettailed when n mately two o or more peo ople out of ffour perceive it to be ‘u untrue’. In th he upland, th hese are thee approxim following in order off the most n number of peeople answering other th han ‘true’: clleanliness off river, illegal c , erosion, su ufficient quaantity of waater, wildlifee logging, potable waater, changees in land composition, etation. For tthe lowland,, these are th he followingg: cleanlinesss of the river,, protection, and the state of vege w use of o water in the househ hold, wildlifee potable water, illeggal logging, sufficient quantity of water, v For the urb ban area: cleeanliness off water, pottable water,, protection, and thee state of vegetation. nt quantity of water, statte of the vegetation, illeggal logging, soil erosion, aand wildlife p protection. sufficien The nextt graph details the perceentage of thee population that answerred true:
Staate of th he Wate ershed ((% True Answeers) 55.4 53.0
Perceptiion of the sttate of the w watershed as ‘good’ is lo owest in thee urban (46.7 7%), next is the lowland d (53%), aand highest in the upland d (55.4%). Th his implies th hat more peo ople in the lo owland perce eive that thee watershed is not in n a good staate, so on an nd so forth. For a moree detailed discussion of the specificc ms in each geeographic fo ocus, please refer to thee Annex’s reccord of focu us group disccussions and d problem the grap phs on the reesults of the survey.
For morre information n, refer to thee Annex.
13| Publlic Perception oon State of TAW W
In termss of the detrriments, the most important targets for each geographical lo ocation are aalso detailed d in termss of the high hest percentaage of ‘true’’ responses. For the uplaand, from th he highest to o the lowest,, these arre: natural calamities, c laand pollution n, water pollution, and excessive farming practices. For thee lowland, these are: natural calamities, land pollution, w water pollutio on, river quaarrying, timber poaching,, mboo poaching. For the u urban area, tthese are: w water pollutio on, land pollu ution, naturaal calamities,, and bam air pollu ution, river quarrying, and a timber poaching. The T distributtion of the respondentts perceivingg detriments is as follo ows:
Perception P of Detriments (% True e Answers) 81.1
hest percenttage of resp pondents perrceiving morre detrimentts is in the u urban area (89.2%), ( and d The high then thee lowland areea (81.1%), aand the uplaand area (62..2%). Therefo ore, the urbaan respondeents perceivee more deetriments than the other two geograaphic locatio ons, which can be trianggulated with the state off the wateershed findin ngs. An interresting trend d to be perceeived in thesse results is that despitee the higher number of respondentss having kknowledge o of the watersshed in the upland relattive to the o other two loccations, therre is a lowerr perceptiion of detrim ments in the upland. Thesse compariso ons are detailed in the taable below:
Geogra aphical Locattion
Knowled dge of Comp position of the Watersh hed (% True Answers)
Perception of Detriments (% True Answers)
ded to see w which specificc detrimentss brought thee average do own for the u upland, and The reseearcher decid the follo owing graphss detail the m more noticeaable ones relative to lowlland and upland. 14| Publlic Perception oon State of TAW W
I Don't Know
No Response 88.2
4.9 5.9 1.1
4.7 5.9 1.2
Relative to the lowland and urban, about 30% less of the upland population perceive river quarrying as a problem. About half of the respondents don’t perceive it as a detriment. TRUE
I Don't Know
No Response 87.1
76.2 58.0 26.0 14.0 2.0
15.7 7.6 0.5
Timber poaching is perceived as a detriment by about half of the upland respondents, relative to three out of four in the lowland, and about four out of four people in the urban area. TRUE
I Don't Know
No Response 85.9
76.2 52.0 30.0 16.0 2.0
bamboo poaching Upland (n = 50)
bamboo poaching Lowland (n = 185)
126.96.36.199 bamboo poaching Urban (n = 85)
15| Public Perception on State of TAW
Bamboo poaching is similarly perceived as a detriment by about half only of the upland respondents, relative to about three out of four in the lowland, and about four out of four people in the urban area. The activities of the upland area’s constituents have been identified as primary reasons for some of the problems in the urban and lowland area. One possible hypothesis is that the questions could be leading, which could benefit from triangulation with a focus group discussion in each of the geographic locations. Another one is that if these respondents are participating in such activities and feel that their source of livelihood is threatened, then they will change their responses to prevent any policing of these activities. Though these results are not conclusive, it is important to take note of this for a more in depth future analysis.
16| Public Perception on State of TAW
B. Perception This final section measures the perception of people and their corresponding participation. The section should be used mostly for gauging and targeting the receptiveness of the constituents to community engagement and involvement in the watershed management. The following are the statistics for their perceptions: sense of responsibility (75.3%); watershed is important (97.5%); proper solid waste management is important (96.5%); recycling is important (95%); proper management is necessary (96.3%); proper protection is necessary (95.6%); awareness of environmental laws and ordinances (68.8%); watershed information seeker (52.2%); environmental projects participation (63.8%); SWM and recycling participation (60.6%); pre‐typhoon Frank participation (52.2%); barangay DRR implementation (70.9%); municipality DRR implementation (75.6%); necessity of DRR (89.1%); and post‐typhoon Frank participation (52.2%).ix The sense of responsibility is generally high in the sample (about three of four people) and the importance of all types of watershed‐related projects/activities is perceived to be important (about four of four people). However, beginning from knowledge of environmental laws to post‐typhoon Frank involvement in environmental activities, participation does not correspond to the professed perception. These high results are also inconsistent with the public’s low perception of settlements, communities, and constituents as part of the watershed. In terms of disaster risk management, about three in four people perceive programs or projects geared towards that in their area. On the other hand, the section dedicated to measuring the effect of typhoon Frank is tricky (pre and post Frank environmental project participation). Since the percentage of people participating is unchanged, using climate change in the education plan as a stimulus for a higher participation rate could be unproductive.
Conclusion Therefore, these are the conclusions most relevant to formulating the management plan. The measure of the state of the TAW is 3.3. In order to ‘improve’ this rating in the public’s eyes, the TAWMB’s responsibility is to target the specific concerns of the general public. According to public perception, the most important watershed concerns are the cleanliness of the river,potability of water, the quantity of water, illegal logging, and changes in land composition. The secondary attention should be directed to the state of the watershed’s vegetation and wildlife protection. Most of the general public perceives that the four prominent detriments to the watershed are natural calamities, land pollution, water pollution, and river quarrying. Geographically, the most important target for the management plan is the urban area since a smaller number of respondents perceive the state of the watershed as ‘good’; in addition, a higher percentage of urban respondents perceivemore detriments relative to the upland and lowland respondents. The secondary target is lowland and the final target is upland. Identifying the knowledge gaps included defining the knowledge of the public, and isolating which specific parts of the watershed definition are not as widely known. The results suggest that the general public’s knowledge of the TAW is low.About one out of four people are truly aware of the entire TAW; most of them only identify the rivers within their area. One out of three people are aware of the TAW’s composition. A lesser number of people perceive that the settlement areas, communities, and constituents are parts of the watershed. In taking a bioregional perspective of a ‘ridge‐to‐reef’ definition of the watershed, the coast as part of the watershed should be stressed any information campaign. More worrying is that most of the general public is unaware of their roles as stakeholders and participants in the management of the watershed. Given the low perception of settlements, communities and constituents as parts of the watershed, it is also important to stress this. Despite this previous finding, there is a high perception of responsibility towards the watershed; watershed and environmental projects are also given much importance. Therefore, the public should be receptive to being informed of the watershed and their part in managing it, regardless of their lower participation. Due to high perception of natural calamities as a detriment, educating them on climate change and linking the increase of natural calamities to the improper management of the TAW could be a possible catalyst for higher participation.Television and radio are the most effective ways for disseminating information on the watershed. Lastly, some results from the data show that certain activities in the upland (river quarrying, timber poaching, and bamboo poaching) bring down the perception of detriments in that area. Supplementary to focusing on the above concerns, these should also be investigated.
18| Public Perception on State of TAW
Recommendations The following recommendations are based on the conclusions of the survey and the logistical and methodological experiences of the researcher(s). For the TAWMB, it is necessary to focus on specific aspects of the watershed as stated in the conclusions above. However, the qualitative detriments should be taken into account when formulating the management plan, and subdivided into each geographic location of the targeted general detriment. In addition, a more in depth analysis of the focus group discussions (FGD), including a follow‐up FGD in the urban area should be conducted for a more thorough triangulation of results. In formulating an education plan and information campaign, please refer to the conclusions, but the target should be remedying the low level of knowledge in the geographic area.Investigating quarrying, timber poaching, and bamboo poaching in all areas is also necessary. For more conclusive results, t‐tests on the results from the upland, lowland, and urban should be conducted to determine whether they are justifiable reflections of the actual perception in these areas. In order to pinpoint the specific relationships between variables, correlations with the knowledge of the TAW (given the measurements) must be conducted using these variables: employment, sex, knowledge of the totality of TAW’s geographical area,age, and educational levels. Through these, the specific social groups needed to be targeted can be identified. In the survey instrument and analysis, the following weaknesses have been identified and may be rectified in future researches: limitation in terms of gauging effectiveness of national environmental programs due to its non‐inclusion; and having age divisions for the respondents for more sophisticated correlations. On the survey methodology and analysis, the biggest constraint in conducting an academically‐sound public perception research was time. A more appropriate pilot‐test could have been performed, with a proportionate pilot sample size. Some issues that came up during the survey included the following: clarity of the survey instrument’s questions; no answers for some questions;inclusion of ages above/below the age range; respondent non‐response (otherwise called no‐show); lack of sufficient number of enumerators to collect the data efficiently; problems with random selection since the constituent lists can be in alphabetical order or in terms of streets, or randomly recoded; respondent selection in the urban area could be tricky since in‐migration is high, and the respondent may not technically be part of the household and the geographic area. Therefore, taking these concerns into account is important for more reliable future surveys. Due to lack of time, the sample population’s holistic view of the knowledge and the state of the watershed answers were tabulated, the means calculated, and the resulting values weretaken as overall measures. In a sense, then, the total sample population and the geographically‐divided samples are also taken holistically to represent the overall perception of the sample and its sub‐divisions. Given that the sample is properly representative with an acceptable margin of error, the inferences in the analyses can 19| Public Perception on State of TAW
be taken. However, a more accurate measurement is to tabulate on an individual basis, and the results added and the mean taken for the overall measure. The data is available to make these analyses possible; however, a clearer guide for measurement must be outlined. The researcher suggests the measurement of knowledge and state in terms of “low”, “moderate”, and “high” levels, wherein each individual will be graded according to the number of “true” responses. The results can then be calculated and tabulated to measure the knowledge of the entire sample and to conduct any additional analysis. Several different conclusions can still be gleaned from the raw data. However, a last note on this research: bear in mind, that as it is, there were already too many specific objectives and/or information that needed to be determined according to the rationale. The next time the research is done, these objectives must be limited to three or four because of the risk of not being able to achieve them increases at you increase the number, especially for a very limited period of time. Specific survey questions (1‐3) must be formulated for each of the objectives. It is not easy to get the respondents, particularly the less literate, to focus if there are too many questions. This survey can be used as a benchmark for specific aspects to be targeted in the future researches.
20| Public Perception on State of TAW
Annex Survey Instrument
Survey Questionnaire No.:
Name of Interviewer:
A. Socio‐Demographic Information: Please ENCIRCLE only ONE answer if given choices. Edad:
Sex: (1) Lalaki (2) Babaye
Ikaw ang gasabat sang questionnaire? (1) Huo (2) Hindi. May nagabasa para sa akon. Ano imo natapusan?: (5) College level (0) No schooling (6) College graduate (1) Elementary level (7) Vocational level (2) Elementary graduate (8) Vocational graduate (3) High school level (9) MS/ PhD Graduate (4) High school graduate May ubra ka subong? (1) Yes (2) No Ano imo pangitan‐an? _______________________________ Nakakadto ka na sa TANAN nga lugar nga nasakop sang watershed kabahin ang mga banwa sang Maasin, Alimodian, Leon, Cabatuan, Sta. Barbara, San Miguel, Pavia, Oton, and Iloilo City? Do you go/have you been to the ENTIRE area covered by the watershed that includes the towns of Maasin, Alimodian, Leon, Cabatuan, Sta. Barbara, San Miguel, Pavia, Oton, and Iloilo City? (1) Huo (2) Wala B. Watershed Characterization 21| Public Perception on State of TAW
1. Para sa imo, ano ang ginatawag nga watershed? Palihog BILUGAN ang imo napilian nga sabat sa pililian sa dalom. Ano para sa imo ang pinakamaayo nga pagsaysay sa KABILUGAN nga watershed nga ginagamit sang mga banwa sang Maasin, Alimodian, Leon, Cabatuan, Sta. Barbara, San Miguel, Pavia, Oton, and Iloilo City? a. b. c. d.
Tigum River Aganan River Jaro River Any river in your area that is not part of Tigum, Aganan, or Jaro
e. Tigum and Aganan rivers f. Tigum, Aganan, and Jaro rivers
2. Para sa imo ano ang nayara/ara sa watershed? Palihog BILUGAN ang mapili nga sabat nga “MATUOD”ukon “HINDI MATUOD” para sa mga pamangkot sa idalom: a. Nasakop ang mga mga katubigan pareho sang suba kag sapa nga naga‐ula sa watershed (Matuod Hindi Matuod Wala ko kabalo) b. Nasakop ang mga dalagko nga katubigan pati na ang sa malapit sa baybayon (Matuod Hindi Matuod Wala ko kabalo) c. Nasakop ang mga kahoy, magagmay nag tanom, hilamonan (Matuod Hindi Matuod Wala ko kabalo) d. Nasakop ang mga sapat‐sapat/insekto kag tanan nga sahi sang kasapatan (Matuod Hindi Matuod Wala ko kabalo) e. Nasakop ang mga kabalayan, merkado, barangay halls, simbahan, kag iban pa nga lugar Hindi Matuod Wala ko kabalo) (Matuod
Nasakop ang mga talamnanan sang mais, humay, mga lugar nga ginalawigan sang baka, kanyugan, kamanggahan kag iban pa nga kakahuyan. (Matuod Hindi Matuod Wala ko kabalo) g. Nasakop ang mga komunidad kag mga katawhan sa siyam ka lugar nga direkta nagagamit sang tubig naghalin sa ini nga mga luga. (Matuod Hindi Matuod Wala ko kabalo)
h. Mga duta nga yara sa patag, banglid, bukid, kag iban pa Valleys, mountains, cliffs, and other land masses are included (Matuod Hindi Matuod Wala ko kabalo) 22| Public Perception on State of TAW
3. Sa inyo pamatyag, ano na subong ang estado sang watershed? Palihog BILUGAN ang mapili nga sabat. What is the state of this watershed? For the following items, please ENCIRCLE either true or false in relation to your answer to Section A and B concerning the “watershed”/ suba: a) Pwede mainom direkta ang tubig nga halin sa gripo nga ginasupply sang suba sa watershed Drinking water from the tap is safe and potable. (Matuod Hindi Matuod Wala ko kabalo) b) Pwede direkta magamit ang tubig nga halin sa suba sa watershed sa pagpaligo kag pagdigamo. The water can be used in the household, i.e. for bathing, for washing dishes, etc. (Matuod Hindi Matuod Wala ko kabalo) c) Pwede magamit ang tubig nga halin sa suba sa watershed para ipatubig sa irigasyon. The water can be used for irrigation. (Matuod Hindi Matuod Wala ko kabalo) d) Pwede magamit ang tubig nga halin sa suba sa watershed sa pagpamunyag sang mga panamon, sa pagpanguma kag sa pagpatubig sang mga talamnan. The water can be used for farming and other agricultural purposes. (Matuod Hindi Matuod Wala ko kabalo) e) Kasarang ang supply sang tubig sa tanan nga gusto maggamit. Generally, there is enough water for all uses. (Matuod Hindi Matuod Wala ko kabalo) f)
Madabong ang kakahuyan kag hilamunan sa palibot sang watershed. The vegetation surrounding this watershed is thick and diverse. (Matuod Hindi Matuod Wala ko kabalo)
g) Wala sang illegal nga nagapang‐utod sang kahoy ukon naga kaingin sa lugar nga nasakop sang watershed. There is no illegal logging or rampant kaingin in areas within the watershed. (Matuod Hindi Matuod Wala ko kabalo) h) Kun may ara nga kakahuyan sa sulod sang lugar nga nasakop sang watershed, gina protektahan gid ini kag ginamintinar. If there is a forest surrounding this watershed, it is protected from overharvesting. (Matuod Hindi Matuod Wala ko kabalo) i) Sa imo pagkahibalo natural lang ang paghulag/pag ab‐ab sang mga duta sa lugar nayara sa watershed. As far as you know, the movement of the soil/land in the area of the water is constant. (Matuod Hindi Matuod Wala ko kabalo) 23| Public Perception on State of TAW
Hindi masami nagabag‐o ang itsura sang duta sa lugar nasakop sang watershed. Frequent changes in the soil/land composition are generally not found. (Matuod Hindi Matuod Wala ko kabalo) k) Ang mga kasapatan nga nayara sa lugar sakop sang watershed ginaprotektahan kag ginahalungan nga indi maubos sang mga gapangayam. Wildlife around this “water” is protected from overhunting. (Matuod Hindi Matuod Wala ko kabalo) l) Wala ikaw sang may Makita nga basura sa suba sakop sang watershed. The river is free of any solid wastes/garbage. (Matuod Hindi Matuod Wala ko kabalo)
m) May ara programa ang gobyerno/barangay sa mga kabarangayan sakop sang watershed nahanugod sa ensakto nga paghaboy sang basura. There is a solid waste management program in communities around the rivers. (Matuod Hindi Matuod Wala ko kabalo) n) Base sa imo pag‐obserbar sa pila ka tuig mo nga istar sa inang lugar, madamo na ang nagbag‐o sa inyo nga barangay/purok. Other than what I have observed as natural throughout the years of my residency, there are changes taking place in the natural environment in the area where I live. (Matuod Hindi Matuod Wala ko kabalo) 4. Ano ang mga buluhaton nga makahalit sa watershed? Palihog BILUGAN ang mapili nga sabat. What is harmful to the watershed? Please ENCIRCLE true or false depending on which of the following you believe are harmful to this watershed/suba: a. Pagtiphag sang duta/landslide, gulpiyada nga pagbaha/flashflood, bagyo, linog, kag iban pa nga mga kalamidad. Landslides, flooding and flashfloods, storms, earthquakes, and other natural calamities. (Matuod Hindi Matuod Wala ko kabalo) b. Pag‐quarry sang suba nga sobra limit nga ginatugot sang laye. River quarrying beyond that allowed by the government. (Matuod Hindi Matuod Wala ko kabalo) c. Pagpangayam sang mga kasapatan sa lugar sakop sang watershed nga sobra sa limit nga ginatugot sang laye. Hunting wildlife beyond that allowed by the government. (Matuod Hindi Matuod Wala ko kabalo) d. Pag‐utod sang mga kahoy sa lugar nga sakop sang watershed nga sobra sa limit nga ginatugot sang laye. Timber poaching, or timber harvesting beyond that allowed by the government. (Matuod Hindi Matuod Wala ko kabalo) 24| Public Perception on State of TAW
e. Pag‐utod sang mga kawayan sa lugar nga sakop sang watershed nga sobra sa limit nga ginatugot sang laye. Bamboo poaching, or bamboo harvesting beyond that allowed by the government. (Matuod Hindi Matuod Wala ko kabalo) f.
Pagpanguma gamit sang madamo nga abono kag bulong. Farming practices with the excessive use of pesticides. (Matuod Hindi Matuod Wala ko kabalo) g. Polusyon/Paghigko sang hangin pareho sang aso halin sa mga factory. Air pollution, such as smoke from factories. (Matuod Hindi Matuod Wala ko kabalo) h. Polusyon/Paghigko sang tubig pareho sang paghaboy sang mga basura kag kemikal sa suba kag sapa. Water pollution, such as dumping of wastes and chemicals in the rivers. (Matuod Hindi Matuod Wala ko kabalo) i. Polusyon/Paghigko sang duta pareho sang paghaboy sang mga basura sa hindi ensakto nga lugar. Land pollution, such as dumping of garbage/solid wastes anywhere. Wala ko kabalo) (Matuod Hindi Matuod j. Iban pa nga buluhaton nga makahalit sa watershed: _________________________________________ If you know of others (please specify): 5. Sa diin ka masami nagakuha sang imo informasyon nahanungod sa watershed? Palihog BILUGAN ang TANAN nga mapili nga sabat. Where do you usually get your knowledge of the watershed? (MULTIPLE RESPONSE) Please ENCIRCLE sources of information: a. Newspaper b. Television/TV c. School d. Barangay announcements e. Barangay projects f. Municipal announcement g. Municipal projects h. Posters i. Pamphlets j. Radio k. Other (please specify): _________________
25| Public Perception on State of TAW
6.Palihog butang sang X sa dalom sang mapili‐an mo nga numero. Ang 1 ang may pinakanubo nga grado, ang 5 ang may pinakataas nga grado. For each statement, place an x under the number you identify with (with rating 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest) in relation to your answer in Section A and B. a. Ang mga kakahuyan kag tanom sa lugar sa palibot sang watershed sa maayo nga estado. The forests and vegetation surrounding this watershed is in a good state. b. Sa maayo nga kalidad ang watershed. The quality of this watershed is in a good state (i.e. MIWD water or the water itself). c. Ang kantidad sang tubig sa inyo nga lugar para sa inyo pang‐adlaw adlaw nga gamit wala ginakulang. The quantity of this watershed for use in all areas of life is good. d. Maayo ang kalidad sang tubig sa inyo nga lugar. The quality of any ground water around your area is in a good state. e. Ang kadutaan/kalupaan sa inyo nga lugar sa maayo nga estado. The land (i.e. mountains, rocks, soil) around this watershed is in a good state. f. Ang kasapatan sa lugar sakop sang watershed sa maayo nga estado. Wildlife around this watershed is in a good state. g. Ang mga basura sa inyo nga lugar ginahaboy sa ensakto nga bulutangan. Solid waste management in your area is good.
26| Public Perception on State of TAW
C. Perception 7. Palihog butang sang X sa dalom sang mapili‐an mo nga sabat. Magpili lang sang ISA. Place an x under the heading that best represents you. Please choose only one. a. Responsibilidad ko ang magtatap sang watershed. I have a sense of belonging and responsibility towards this watershed/suba. b. Importante gid ang katinlu‐on sang watershed. Cleanliness of the watershed/suba is important. c. Importante gid nga ang basura mahaboy sa ensakto nga lugar. I believe proper disposal of garbage through waste segregation is important. d. Nagapati ako nga importante gid ang pag‐recycle ukon pag‐usar liwat sang bagay nga pwede pa magamit. I believe recycling is important. e. Kinahanglan gid maatipan maayo ang watershed. Proper management of the watershed/suba is necessary. f. Kinahanglan gid nga maproteksyunan sing maayo ang watershed. Proper protection of the watershed/suba is necessary. g. Kabalo ako sang mga laye nahanungod sa pagtatap sang akon palibot. I am aware of the environmental laws and ordinances in my community. h. Nakaagi man ako nagaan oppotunidad magpartisipar sa mga proyekto sang akon barangay/purok nahanungod sa pagtatap sang akon palibot. I have had opportunities to participate in local environmental projects (such as tree planting or waste segregation, for example). i. Ako mismo ang nagapangita sang paagi para mahibal‐an ko ang mga impormasyon nahanungod sa pagtatap sang watershed. I actively seek out information about how the watershed/suba is managed. j. Nakaagi ako partisipar sa nga proyekto nahanungod sa pagtatap sang akon palibot. I participated in environmental projects. k. Nakaagi ako upod/partisipar sa pagpananom sang kahoy sa lugar sakop sang watershed. I participated in tree planting and/or waste segregation. l. Nakaagi ako upod/partisipar sa mga proyekto nahanungod sa pagtatap sang akon palibot ANTESpa matabo ang bagyo Frank sang 2008. I participated in environmental projects before Typhoon Frank in 2008.
27| Public Perception on State of TAW
Consultation with Local Statisticians Date:July 9, 2011 Place(s):Central Philippine University Start Time:2:00 pm Partner(s) Met/Engaged: Dr. Fely David, Dean of the School of Graduate Studies and Director Objective(s): •
Consultation about the survey process and instrument.
Salient Detail(s): •
Modify the first objectives and make them more specific. Group them into clusters according to certain criteria. Put the themes under the objectives.
Ascertain the heterogeneity of the population sample. They must represent the different characteristics of the area. The assumption is that the chosen barangays are homogeneous in the sense that each barangay has the same representation as the other. It is important to look at differences in characteristics.
The series of questions may have skewed distributions in certain areas.
Identify the main variables of correlation.
In using the Likert scale, use a list (i.e. 1‐20, and a certain score will rate awareness). Through this, knowledge gaps can be assessed.
Have one set of questions for attitude and knowledge.
Cross tabulate to know what the necessary intervention for knowledge deficiency.
Use a true/false question type, or which of the following is right or wrong.
It will most probably be a face‐to‐face engagement.
Probable challenges: availability of people; substitution of people in case unavailable; drop‐outs; refusal to answer surveys. 28| Public Perception on State of TAW
Use a multi‐stage sampling. The sample size should be around 370‐400 with a 95% confidence interval. Divide the population into upland, lowland, and urban. Proportionally distribute the sample size among the 3. From the three geographic distributions, also get a sample of barangays.
There is free software online to analyze the data.
Simplify the knowledge questions – expand the question range by being more specific with information to be used for the knowledge questions.
“Good state” is relative because of the diverse group.
One possible method is to have an operational definition (describe the watershed in the beginning).
Use specific questions – i.e. ask for an indicator (yes/no).Make the survey instrument longer but simpler.
Have a descriptive analysis of perception, and then triangulate with focus group discussions.
Comment(s): Due to time and budget constraints, most of these sound recommendations have been foregone in favor of more efficient and practical approaches. Date:July 12, 2011 Place(s):University of the Philippines, Visayas Start Time:9:00 am Partner(s) Met/Engaged: Objective(s): •
Consultation about the survey process and instrument.
Salient Detail(s): •
Have an age range of 18‐65.
Use 0 or 5 as an ending to the number of respondents.
Have 320 respondents – proven to have a margin of error of 5.5% in a 95% interval. Make the distributions proportional to the size of the municipality.
Guarantee of random, representative sampling makes inferential statistics.
Take at least 1 or 2 barangay council members. Per barangay, there should be 5 respondents. 29| Public Perception on State of TAW
Use the recent birth date method. The person whose birthday is closest to the date of the interview will be interviewed.
Do not include unimportant details (i.e. income and job).
Specific suggestions on certain sections.
Add a time frame for community engagement questions.
Comment(s): Most of the modifications to the survey methodology are based on the feedback from this visit. Focus Group Discussions This is a focus group discussion in Oton, using a convenience sample of enumerators for the survey. The researchers had already explained to them what a watershed is. a. What is a watershed? – NIA related, anything involved with it, source of water b. How they imagine the watershed in the upland/source? They perceive that Oton is not a part of the watershed because it is an end‐user. ‐ ‐ ‐
Has forest/trees Pamalay Communities c. Have you gone to all of the areas within the TAW? ‐ Some had gone to all places, others just Pavia ‐ Not all familiar with the place d. What is the role of Oton? Is Oton part of the watershed? – yes ‐ Because they are end users, they become beneficiaries now but they have no control on the quality and quantity of water. e. What actions/habits in the area affect the watershed? Now that they have learned that they are part of the TAW? ‐ Throwing of wastes 30| Public Perception on State of TAW
Program of the Mayor in education and awareness really gave it focus Their actions are contained in this area, not affecting TAW f. Did you think that Oton was part of the watershed? ‐ No, before we came, they did not think they are part of the watershed ‐ They thought it was NIA ‐ One of them attended seminars on the TAW, etc., but they still thought they were not active participants of the TAW ‐ g. What things are harmful (even from upland)? ‐ Disposal of garbage in the coasts ‐ Pipe water? – Poblacion, but the rest use deep wells (tasok or groundwater) ‐ Drying up of water in the summers – climbing of water in the farms (i.e. March) h. Is the situation same from 10 years ago? ‐ It is worse now, because of increase in population. In Mambog, the population increase is not significant, but the insufficient quantity is still a problem. ‐ In an area, there is still the same well (bobon), but after it dries up, it needs 2‐3 hours to replenish. ‐ In the rainy season, the quantity not affected, but the quality is.Rain mixes with the water – water from the farmlands seep into the wells (also has pesticides); therefore, it becomes brown (mud mixing). ‐ Before, they used to not drink from bottled water. Five to ten years ago, they used to just boil and drink; but not anymore now, since they forced to buy due to the dirty water. Some problems arising from drinking this water are: diarrhea, loss of strength, and lower immunity. ‐ Pesticides are used a lot here; organic farming being done (Abilay Sur) or being started, but only one barangay is doing this. ‐ Very small amount of quarrying (‘baras’ or sand and colored stones to be sold) are done by some people on the seashore for household use; however, it is illegal to get from the shore, regardless for volume.So the mayor organized them and gave them livelihood. The DSWD’s programs are usually sustainable, thoughparticular programs not certain right now. i. Are the constituents aware of environmental laws? ‐ They know, and they abide by the law which are they being passed. For example, there is a penalty for throwing garbage. Open burning is also prohibited in Abilay Sur. ‐ Fertilizer sacks – use it for the market – toxic, dangerous – passed this ordinance to stop people from throwing garbage everywhere and pesticide bottles (not bought by junk shops unless by manufacturer) – (medicine bottles) They thought that if they are cleaned well, they can be reused again (pesticide bottles) – thought it’s safe – especially the old/er farmers 31| Public Perception on State of TAW
How do people know these?
General assembly – for informing people (twice a year) – for general information (ordinance implementation) Information dissemination is by zone – posted in barangays (common areas and sari‐sari stores, places frequented by people) – depends on kagawad strategy House‐to‐house information dissemination k. How do you know (evaluation)? – follow‐up, ask people also – confirmation of information dissemination l. Is it challenging for the bgy kagawad to reach all? Divided, i.e. territory is small (Mambog), not that difficult – small enough population – and the houses are clustered (unlike in Poblacion) – easier to ‘penetrate’ Also the higher the income, the harder it is to make them participate m. What is the state of the watershed? ‐ Supply is not enough (irrigation cannot come in) ‐ Upper areas, farmlands satisfy their needs first, so that the more lowland, end users do not get as much water ‐ Improvise nalang – NIA: schedule upstream (5 days); low (5), end (5); but at the upland, the river still passes through the up, so they dam it – if bastante ang tubig, and the sched is followed, it’s fine – but since it’s not, then there’s a problem – start fighting – household use is okay, irrigation is the problem ‐ Tasok – itself is in the irrigation – cannot reach fields, irrigation ‐ Upstream, ‐ ‘irrigation by rain’ ‐ Dam in san Miguel, but they call it irrigation by rain – river ‘run‐off’ – sobra sang river Segue into the pollution question (Maasin) – they must not think it’s bad because it’s running water This is a focus group discussion in Alimodian, using a convenience sample of enumerators for the survey. The researchers had already explained to them what a watershed is. Participants (bgy): Ginumoy – beside the river Malamhay – 17 km pasaka sa bukid Bancal – road junction going to Leon – accessible Baguingin Lanot – boundary to Leon; sapa to bukid; Baguingin – creek of area, Lanot is the name if the bgy Cunsad – border to Leon also 32| Public Perception on State of TAW
1. Have you been to all the areas under consideration? Nakakdto na, but not explored (1) Maasin, Leon, Alimodian, but not all (3); other parts are too far away *Maasin, know of it because of activities of tree planting, project of the governor, the area should be preserved and forested; it is also where the drinking water of the area is from *MIWD is from Alimodian, Maasin – caters to Sta.B up to Iloilo – catered to by TAW *Pipe water is from there 2. What is a watershed for you(first thing that comes to your mind)? a. The outlet for water is not maintained; watershed should be developed (Ginumoy) – many creeks in their area, and use a pump – there’s pipe water there b. The only defense against flashfloods are forests and trees, because the soil may erode; forested area (imagined immediately (2) (Malamhay) c. Place preserved by the governor because it belongs to the government; that’s why Maasin is preserved; Coming from the MIWD, caters to Iloilo city; cutting trees and burning for charcoal (kaingin) should be stopped, follow the environmental ordinances because the environment and watershed is important, especially in terms of protecting against land erosion (Bancal) d. Hard to control people who do charcoal making, which is the main source of income there; “Yulo Ong” piggeries is also a problem – pollutes the river, private property, the smell and dirt is intense; carabaos bathe and use the creeks, but now can’t do this because the creek is too dirty, and no alternative but not to bathe them; erosion is really the biggest problem, and the only protection is trees; the creek becomes bigger, deeper, and harder to cross because of the erosion and lack of trees – turning into a mini‐river; the creek is the real problem; the main road is located near the creek, and the road is now showing signs of cracking and may erode and be impossible to cross (Baguingin‐Lanot) ‐‐‐ creek is not connected to TAW, could be connected to Tigbaoan river, coast diretso *creek dries up in the summer; almost all 3. What is the role of Alimodian in the watershed? (Bancal) Preservation of area, NAWASA going to Iloilo city from TAW ‐ Most schools, LGUs and officials, etc. go to the head of the river in Alimodian to do tree planting and other environmental projects ‐ i.e. last month, conducted tree planting in their barangay; (July)at least 20 seedlings must be planted in their barangay only, and by September, another batch – Pista sang kakahuyan (Feast of the Forest) – scheduled by governor to tap provincial offices like DENR, DILG, DAR, then municipal gov’t units (mayors), then bgy captains for dissemination and actual planning, and implemented to the bgys themselves – including schools ‐ Pista sang kakahuyan – synchronized activity for the whole province of Iloilo for the upland areas being reforested 33| Public Perception on State of TAW
4. What things are harmful from upland (other than kaingin and logging)? ‐ Charcoal‐making – by‐product of kaingin ‐ Kaingin – done to plant more crops, i.e. corn, kamatis (tomatoes), katumbal (sili), saging (banana) etc. – clear‐up and ‘araro’ – slash‐and‐burn farming ‐ Kaingin is usually done in the more upland areas, and then the cut wood is flowed downstream or taken by carabaos ‐ In the past 3 years, after typhoon Frank – it was the first time there was a flooding, and big trees uprooted or by illegal logging devastated the area ‐ There are forest rangers in the areas of the forest reserves to monitor them and keep kaingin and illegal logging down ‐ Forested areas that have been planted – are they protected or still uprooted? ‐‐‐ well, most people already know the penalties associated; however, accidents happen when they go burn in the uplands and the forest catch fire, but this is not often ‐ Forest rangers monitor these trees that have been planted (DENR) because these are usually planted in Maasin – beyond their boundary, not part of their jurisdiction ‐ But if they are planted in Alimodian, they are usually monitored by the above ‐ But if they are planted in their barangay, then the BO monitors these themselves – and they have all planted themselves ‐ Do these trees survive? The trees planted before have grown, and if a tree dies in a reforested area, then they replant it, but if it’s a program of the previous municipality that they do not know of, then they cannot monitor 5. What things are harmful from the lowland? What about the urban? ‐ Lowland and urban not as much; the real effect is really in the upland; the lowland has the brunt of the effects of the floods, i.e. Pavia, people died; Oton’s architecture and agricultural products were destroyed 6. What is the state of the watershed? ‐ Supply of water is not sufficient; where do they get – bubon sa suba – surface water ‐ In riverbanks, they dig a hole (well), shallow surface water, and that’s where they get their potable drinking water (safe) ‐ Areas with pipe water – potable, safe water for drinking – purified when it goes up ‐ No tasok (wells) – tube that directly goes down to the groundwater – depends on the barangay ‐ Awang – concrete tube – 25 ft. on top of each other until they create a deep well – most of the time, manually dug – there’s one in Lanot, where the water is a problem in the summer, water charges in a few minutes, water is still clear, no problems with clarity and safety ‐ Right after Frank, before there was so much kaingin and illegal logging, but now the ordinances and laws passed by the municipality, now it is much better ‐ Areas of watershed are now better protected 34| Public Perception on State of TAW
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
During the summer, no livelihood, so in the uplands, they really rely on charcoal‐making, kaingin, and illegal logging – may resort to stealing, etc. Projects minimize these Some people are now aware, and so they are minimizing the cutting of trees – and other people who see their neighbors, etc., cutting trees, they are reported Change of perception and attitude – even upland areas are still affected even though they did not experience the floods Forest cover is gone in some of the mountain areas – some big companies go in to log them State of the watershed is now better because the people are more aware (Cunsod) ‐ in the summer, they just find an area to get water from
7. Are the residents of Alimodian aware of environmental laws? What about laws protecting the watershed? ‐ Level of awareness of people in the barangays – following projects are implemented: open burning is prohibited, etc.; segregation, etc. – so most residents know about them (Bancal) ‐ (Lanot) MRF funded by LGU, segregation – no problem in the bukid in terms of biodeg due to composting; but non‐biodeg are just buried (?) ‐ (Ginumoy) – non‐biodegs are not as well‐monitored before, i.e. tin cans, bottles, etc. are thrown in bamboo areas (people don’t usually go there because of the thorns), but now the laws are more well‐known and so even little kids pick up garbage and keep the area clean; they also wait for the junk‐shop owners to collect and buy the waste; so now the bamboo areas are now clean ‐ Same in others, they are fully informed and are also very well‐monitored – it is also well‐ documented ‐ they directly send the photos to the governor as proof 8. Is your municipality enacting disaster risk reduction projects? What about your barangay? Your community? ‐ Each bgy has a disaster risk reduction program ‐ Members of the group that are not bgy officials but volunteers (tanods) – one group will be for rescue, evacuation, relief operation ‐ They know rescue teams, there’s a flood information radio – early warning through radio if given reports by PAGASA – transmitted to the base area, and then the information from this barangay is sent back to the municipality ‐ Then they will inform each other now (2‐way updating of bgy and municipality) 9. Sources of information on DRM: ‐ Television generally gives news and useful advice ‐ Radio (base) ‐ Connection with the Pavia radio, and other LGUs that affect the area – they verify the water level – inter‐LGU program 10. POs in the area: ‐ Religious – Bgy Apostolic Council – Catholic – BAC (Bids and Awards Committee), part of it 35| Public Perception on State of TAW
No youth program or KALAHI Sangguniang Kabataan – youth representation in the LGU – youth rep also has a term – responsible for providing youth programs in his community (15‐17 y.o.) – SK also has a LIGA, there’s a federation (reps from bgy to munic, munic to prov, prov to nat’l)
Bgy assemblies meet twice a year – March and October – regarding projects; problems in population, residents (and their desired priority projects, i.e. health, peace and order, water system – but water is not such a big problem here), and area; accomplishment report ‐ Some areas have tuburan – natural spring, ground water Is the watershed still the same from 10 years ago? ‐ The water before had a much even, continuous flow, much clearer and in better quality ‐ The river has become unpredictable – it dries up, and becomes very deep during the rainy season (too much water during rainy season, and less water in the summer) ‐ It was occurred to them that it might be because of climate change – their residents also know of it because of television, are also given lectures on climate change, and bgy officials also inform them ‐ (Lanot) experience is that the water used to be much shallower, but now it’s become deeper; sometimes now, there is too much water or not enough ‐ (Bancal) Before, every time it rained in the upland farms and mountains, the flood does not arrive until much later, maybe 2 day or so; water level rises, but is not forceful; before, the water could still be retained but now it only takes 2 hours for the water to really flood the area because of the force – flashfloods – perhaps because before, there used to be more trees, but because of the deforestation, now the flooding is much faster (no more absorption and stopping of the flood); landslide also occurs, which makes the flood much faster ‐ Even just light rain (not a storm) is worrisome because the flashflood occurs ‐ Weather cannot be predicted now (climate change) – the people who suffer most are the farmers, especially those in the rain‐fed areas ‐ In summers, they get a lot of rain Are there projects for these farmers? ‐ (Bancal) farmers usually rely on tasok – machine or motor (water) used for them, and the individuals themselves provide for it – just enough to water their vegetables but not enough for their irrigation How are volunteers gathered for environmental projects? Or are they usually just bgy officials? ‐ Twice a month – usually just bgy officials, and then the residents ‐ The residents are made to clean their own surroundings; depends also on the bgy official where they assign these residents/volunteers to the zones ‐ The bgy official (kagawad) is assigned to a zone, and then they get the volunteers from this area to clean that
36| Public Perception on State of TAW
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Always, a lot of volunteer workers don’t want to join – those who do not participate are usually not in favor of the bgy official Also, those who cannot participate sometimes just donate food, etc. Most residents rely on bgy officials, though, especially officials from the munic or prov gov. ‐‐‐ most people would rather work in terms of what they can get from it If they have an incentive, they will definitely join (Bancal) Sometimes, if they call for a general assembly and snacks are served, but only one household will attend; but if there is no snack/incentive, then they will just sign the attendance sheet and leave Comparison of the level of participation in the past – people tend to ask first what the incentive they can get is ‐‐‐‐ why? When did this change? Because now, there are programs or projects of the government that give incentive (i.e. Pantawid Pamilya, DA – free seedlings and inputs), then it becomes the reason for participation, and they rely on this (poor/indigent usually go to bgy.captains for sustenance and medicine, and if they are unable to give, then they will no longer participate) – if they are not provided dole‐outs, then the people will think that the government is not taking care of them; could be the reason for their dependence Dole‐out programs do not reach all of the indigents; they feel alienated and do not want to participate anymore Some infrastructure programs in the bgy, and require local employment – not all will be chosen, and they will feel bad and not participate – expertise in interpersonal relationships to build strong participation in bgy
15. What is the relationship between bgys in Maasin and Alimodian? ‐ Maasin will always be a target for general tree‐planting activities (even for schools) – for (NGOs, POs, etc.) agencies, LGUs, etc. – no more detailed planning ‐ They are helping the government support the programs for the Maasin watershed – don’t expect anything in return ‐ Usually, water from Maasin passes through Alimodian, and San Miguel and Oton have dams, so they benefit from it ‐ Aganan is impacted – so they take care of it i
37| Public Perception on State of TAW
38| Public Perception on State of TAW
39| Public Perception on State of TAW
40| Public Perception on State of TAW
41| Public Perception on State of TAW
Perceptions (1) No Response
awareness of environmental laws and ordinances proper protection is necessary
2.8 0.3 1.3
proper management is necessary
1.6 0.3 1.9
recycling is important
2.2 0.9 1.9
proper solid waste management is important
2.2 0.3 0.9
watershed is important
2.2 0.0 0.3
68.8 95.6 96.3 95.0 96.6 97.5
sense of responsibility
Perceptions (2) Agree watershed information seeker environmental projects participation SWM and recycling participation pre‐typhoon Frank participation barangay DRR implementation municipality DRR implementation necessity of DRR post‐typhoon Frank participation
No Response 52.2 63.8 60.0 52.2 70.9
14.7 4.4 10.0 13.4 4.16.9 2.85.6 2.5 4.1
75.6 89.1 52.2
42| Public Perception on State of TAW