See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/316845498

Knowledge and practices of small-scale fishermen in achieving sustainable

coastal resources management in two selected fishing communities

Conference Paper · November 2011

CITATIONS READS

0 3,999

3 authors, including:

Jomar Lozano Aban Jan Ramel Abrenica Tumbaga

Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology
67 PUBLICATIONS 70 CITATIONS 6 PUBLICATIONS 11 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jomar Lozano Aban on 12 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 *FULL PAPER FOR POSTER PRESENTATIONS

KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICES OF SMALL-SCALE FISHERMEN IN ACHIEVING

SUSTAINABLE COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT IN TWO SELECTED
FISHING COMMUNITIES

Jomar Aban1, Jan Ramel Tumbaga1 and Maria Reilina Villacarlos1

1
Saint Louis University – Baguio City
Email: jomar_d2@[Link]

ABSTRACT
Fishing is one of the major contributors to the economy. It has tremendous contribution
to the country’s Gross Domestic Products (GDP). In connection to the issues raised on and
destructive fishing techniques, coastal resource management has been the most significant topic
for environmentalists and conservation biologist, particularly in aquatic resources. This study
tries to determine the level of knowledge and extent of practice of the respondent fishermen on
sustainable fishing and coastal management and the significant differences in the level of
knowledge and extent of practice when the respondents are grouped according to (a) age, (b)
household size, (c) monthly income. The purposive sampling of research was used for this study.
Fifty fishermen were utilized as respondents from two selected fishing communities. It was found
that the fishermen respondents have moderate knowledge on the concepts of coastal resource
and sustainability and that the older the fisherman is, the more experience he has when it comes
to fishing and in the concepts of coastal resources and sustainability. Likewise, the two
communities involved seldom practice unsustainable fishing methods.

HOW TO CITE: Aban, J. L., Tumbaga, J. and Villacarlos, M. (2011). Knowledge and
practices of small-scale fishermen in achieving sustainable coastal resources management in two
selected fishing communities. 5th Annual Scientific Conference of the Philippine Society for the
Study of Nature (PSSN)-CAR Chapter, Benguet1State University. November 19, 2011. pp. 1-17.
 INTRODUCTION

The Philippines is rich in aquatic resources because of its location and geography. The
main aquatic resources from the country are small pelagic fishes like anchovies, sardines and
mackerels, large pelagic fishes like tuna, swordfish and marlin and demersal or bottom dwelling-
fishes like slipmouth, spadefish and catfishes. It also includes invertebrates like crabs, squid and
shrimp (Fishery Country Profile: Philippines, 2005).
Our country is one of the highest producers of fishes in the world. In 2006, the country
ranked 9th among the top fish producers in the world with its total production of 3.93 million
metric tons of fish, molluscs, crustaceans and aquatic plants including seaweed. (BFAR Fisheries
Profile, 2006). In 2007 and 2008, the Philippines was ranked the 8th among the top fish
producing countries in the world with its total production of 4.41 (2007) and 4.71 (2008) metric
tons of fishes, crustaceans, molluscs and aquatic plants. This leads to the conclusion that the
fishing industry is flourishing (BFAR Fisheries Profile, 2007-2008.)
However, the condition of the fisheries in the Philippines is bleak due to overfishing,
illegal fishing and habitat destruction combined with increasing population growth and
increasing demands for fish continues to drive fishery production at its lowest. In addition, the
following critical issues affect fish production: (1) open access; (2) overfishing and excessive
fishing pressure (3) lack of management (4) inappropriate exploitation patterns (5) post-harvest
losses (6) small- and large scale fisheries conflicts (7) lack of research information (8)
inadequacy of technical and human resource capabilities, particularly among managers and the
agencies concerned in analysing fisheries. (F.I.S.H., 2010)
Destructive fishing methods may vary from overfishing to the actual destruction of the
resource and its environment. The most common examples of these methods are: poisons,
explosives, muroami, inadequate practices, beach seining, bottom trawling, large-scale pelagic
fishnets. (FAO, 2011)
All fishing methods have impact in the ecosystem and target source. But the normal
effect of exploitation should not be equated to the destructive methods of fishing that brings
adverse effects not only to the marine ecosystem but also to the ones who are completely
dependent on these resources for their survival. (FAO, 2011)

2
 In connection to the issues raised on and destructive fishing techniques, coastal resource
management has been the most significant topic for environmentalists and conservation
biologist, particularly in aquatic resources. According to Aswani and Lauer (2006), we can
incorporate fishermen’s local knowledge and behaviour in protecting our coastal resources.
Coastal Resources Management (CRM) in the Philippines was a relatively new concept.
The country’s experience with CRM dates back in the early 1980’s when various sectors alerted
to the growing problem of environmental degradation in the coastal areas began projects
designed to promote sustainability in the management and use of coastal resources. (F.I.S.H,
2010).
Lingayen has been selected as the study site because it has been one of the major sources
of fish in the northern region. However, according to Silvestre et. al., (1989) the Lingayen Gulf
Coastal Area, located in the northwestern part of Luzon island, illustrates in microcosm the
depletion and degradation problems resulting from unplanned and competing resources
utilization in the country.
Lingayen Gulf covers approximately 2,085 km2 of water area with a 160-km
semicircular coastline bounded by the provinces of Pangasinan and La Union. The people of
these two provinces were mostly involved in agriculture, forestry, fisheries and mining. Some
810,000 people resided in the coastal municipalities bordering the gulf which has an aggregate
land area of 1,755 km2. The average income for a family of six in the two provinces was only
slightly higher than the poverty threshold of P2,400 per month for the region. (Chua, 1989)
Miclat (1989) added that the issues in the Lingayen Gulf that are subject of increasing
concern in the area include, among others, the following: (1) overexploitation and/or depletion of
natural resources; (2) use of destructive fishing methods; (3) mangrove and forest denudation;
(4) siltation and sedimentation; (5) coral reef degradation; (6) potential pollution from mining,
aquaculture and agriculture runoff; (7) flooding; and (8) the consequences of these on
socioeconomic well-being of the people.

Objectives
The objective of this research is to answer these specific questions:
1. What is the level of knowledge of the respondent fishermen on sustainable fishing and coastal
management?

3
2. Are there significant differences in the level of knowledge when the respondents are group
according to the following variables?
a. age
b. household size
c. monthly income
3. What is the extent of practice of the fishermen respondents in sustainable fishing and coastal
resource management?
4. Are there significant differences in the extent of practice of the respondents in terms of:
a. age
b. household size
c. monthly income
5. Are there significant differences between the two fishing communities in terms of
a. level of knowledge
b. extent of practices

Conceptual Framework
This study focuses more on the knowledge and practices of small-scale fishermen in two
coastal barangays in Lingayen, Pangasinan.
For knowledge, it would be based from the fishermen’s awareness on the concepts of
coastal resource management and sustainability. Aside from this, their familiarity with fishing
practices will be measured based on age, household size and monthly income. These variables
would be one of the bases if knowledge and practices are related to sustainable coastal resource
management.

4
Research Paradigm
Independent Variables Dependent Variables Expected Output
Concepts on coastal Knowledge and Extent of knowledge
resource management and Practices of and practices
sustainability Fishermen

Common fishing practices

Moderating Variables

Age
Household size
Income

Scope and Delimitation

The study was only limited on two selected barangays in Lingayen, Pangasinan. The
small-scale fishermen respondents on the two selected communities would be evaluated based on
their knowledge on coastal resource management and sustainability, as well as their fishing
practices in relation to fishing techniques.

Significance of the Study

Environmentalists and concerned teams would have this study serve as a guide to
determine the solutions for sustainable coastal resource management problems and also to
prevent destructive fishing practices that would adversely affect the environment and the people
depending on fishing as a main source of livelihood.
This research can also be utilized by government officials and agencies particularly those
connected to fisheries as they would be able to determine what policies and guidelines to make.
This is also important to fishermen themselves as they would be aware on what is
considered to be sustainable and not sustainable practice in fishing. This can be used as a basis
on Coastal Resource Management in other coastal areas in the country.

5
 METHODOLOGY

Overview
This research was conducted to determine the knowledge and practices of small-scale
fishermen in achieving sustainable coastal resources management in two selected fishing
communities. The two communities were selected because of their popularity as fishing grounds
in the Northern part of the Philippines. These communities were also known to supply fishing
goods to the people of Baguio City, Benguet. Fishermen were selected as the primary
respondents to obtain first-hand information about their knowledge and practices towards
sustainable coastal resource use.

Research Design
The purposive sampling of research was used for this study. To define purposive
sampling, Keyton (2006) stated that purposive sampling is a form of nonprobability sampling
which is used when researcher wants to select cases that are typical of the population of interest
and when sensitive topics are of research interest or when very specialized populations are
sought. The research is using fifty (50) fishermen as respondents from the two selected
communities in order to gather relevant data. In this study, purposive sampling method was
employed so as to intentionally selecting the fishermen respondents to allow a focused review to
identify patterns or trends regarding their knowledge and practices in achieving sustainable
coastal resource management.
The questionnaire was the main tool for gathering most of the information, supplemented
with structured interview. Part I of the questionnaire was used to gather demographic profile
of the respondents. Part II of the questionnaire was used to determine the knowledge of small-
scale fishermen towards sustainable coastal resource use. Part III was used to determine the
practices of the selected respondents in line with the achievement of sustainable coastal resource
management.
In order to ascertain the validity of the survey questionnaires, it was first submitted to the
Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Division (BFAR) and the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR). At the same time, the validity of the respondents’ answers to the
survey questionnaire has been achieved through additional interview with at least one (1) local
government unit (LGU) representative under each fishing community’s jurisdiction. A focus

6
group discussion (FGD) has been conducted after the interview to altercate and explain the right
practices in achieving sustainable coastal resource management. To determine the reliability of
the questionnaire twenty (20) fishermen were asked to answer after which the data were
subjected to comparison. With the use of the survey questionnaire supplemented with structured
interviews, this study took on the combined quantitative and qualitative approach of research.
The main point of the quantitative research method is that measurement is valid, reliable and can
be generalized with its clear anticipation of cause and effect (Cassell & Symon, 1994). Contrary
to the quantitative method, qualitative approach generates verbal information rather than
numerical values (Polgar & Thomas, 1995).

Statistical Tools
To determine the level of knowledge, the percent (%) of correct answers per respondent
was determined. Item analysis was also done to determine the specific aspects where the
fishermen are knowledgeable and also where they lack knowledge. The percent (%) of correct
answer were interpreted using the table below:
Percent (%) Correct Answer Descriptive Interpretation
76 – 100 Highly knowledgeable
51 – 75 Moderately knowledgeable
26 – 50 Fairly knowledgeable
0 – 25 Not knowledgeable
The extent of practice was determined using weighted mean. The means were interpreted
using the following scale:
Mean Scale Descriptive Interpretation
3.25 – 4.00 Always
2.50 – 3.24 Sometimes
1.76 – 2.49 Seldom
1.00 – 1.75 Never

7
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 1. Percent of knowledge of fishermen respondents based on the coastal resource

concepts.

Coastal Resource Concepts N Correct Answer

Percentage
1. Contamination of bivalves brings toxic chemicals into the food 45 88.64%
chain.
2. Fish caught in polluted bodies of water may cause human illnesses. 45 86.36%
3. Mangroves being rapidly depleted due to harvesting for charcoal- 45 82.22%
making may destroy fish habitat.
4. Dynamite fishing, muro-ami and using of cyanide may destroy 45 81.82%
coastal habitats.
5. Conversion of mangrove areas into aquaculture ponds may destroy 45 77.27%
coastal habitat.
6. Coral reef destruction leads to the reduction in fisheries 45 73.33%
productivity.
7. Overfishing does not cause environmental degradation. 45 66.67%
8. Low productivity and loss of marine and coastal biodiversity is due 45 66.67%
to habitat destruction such as pollution.
9. Using cyanide fishing is not harmful to human health. 45 64.44%
10. Mangrove destruction may decrease the quantity and variety of 45 62.22%
fishes.
11. Fish aggregating devices contributes to overfishing. 45 57.78%
12. The quantity of fishes is not affected by the extensiveness of 45 46.67%
corals.
13. The presence of settlements near coastal area has no effect on 45 43.18%
coastal resources.
14. Successful fishing will not reduce the abundance of fishes. 45 38.65%

It can be gleaned from the above table that majority of the coastal resource concepts were
answered correctly by more than half of the fishermen respondents. This implies that the
8
fishermen respondents are aware of the majority of the coastal resource management concepts
and they are equipped with the right knowledge on how to manage coastal resources. According
to Ferrer and Nozawa (n.d.), this growing awareness has been a search for new and more
participatory approaches to resource management. Out of this search has emerged to growing
interest in the concept of community-based resource management. Community-based resource
management takes as its point of departure, not the bureaucracy and its centrally mandated
development projects and programs, but rather the community itself: its needs, its capabilities,
and ultimately its own control over both its resources and its destiny.
On the other hand, data on Table 1 also shows that, more than half of the fishermen
respondents has not sought to understand that the quantity of fishes are not affected by the
extensiveness of corals. This indicates that they were not fully aware of the contribution of corals
which serve as food resource and shelter of marine animals especially fishes.
According to Aswani [Link]. (2007), one of the factors that have contributed to fisheries
mismanagement is the ignorance of the natural systems and even the complex interrelationships
between biological, economic, and socio-cultural system. With this ignorance and lack of
education among fishermen we can say that they do not know these concepts in relation to
aquatic ecosystems and biodiversity especially on the knowledge on the symbiosis of corals and
fishes.
It can also be observed that fishermen respondents are not aware that the presence of
settlements near coastal area has a significant effect to the coastal resources. This indicates that
they do not fully know how man-made infrastructures disrupt the equilibrium and eventually
cause a negative impact on the coastal resources. Lastly, Table 1 also indicates that majority of
the fishermen are not aware that coastal resources, if not managed correctly, may reduce the
abundance of their catch and would eventually affect their source of living.
Based on the fishery profile of the Philippines by FAO (2005) fishers’ households had
lower access rates to basic necessities like safe water, sanitary toilets and electricity than other
households, and were more likely to live in makeshift houses or were squatting.

9
Table 2. Percent of knowledge of fishermen respondents based on the sustainability
concepts.

Sustainability Concepts N Correct Answer

Percentage
1. Coastal resources have economic, social and biological 45 93.33%
importance.

2. Effective implementation of laws, rules, and regulations both in 45 79.54%

the utilization and management of coastal resources aid in
controlling industrial and domestic pollution.

3. Promoting community-based initiatives to rehabilitate, conserve 45 75.56%

and protect the coastal resources will help to diversify the sources
of income of small-scale fishers.

4. Coastal resource management will alleviate poverty. 45 73.33%

5. Coastal Resources are limited. 45 72.73%

6. Fishery can be managed effectively without the cooperation of 45 54.54%

fishers to make laws and regulations

7. Low income in coastal areas will not increase fishing activity and 45 37.78%
depletion of other resources in the fishing area.

It can be gleaned from the Table 2 that majority of the concepts on sustainability were
answered correctly by more than half of the fishermen respondents. This implies that the
fishermen respondents are aware and are equipped with the right knowledge about sustainability.
On the other hand, majority of the respondents were not able to fully understand that low
income in coastal areas will increase fishing activity and would eventually cause the depletion of
other resources in the fishing area. This indicates that the respondents lack knowledge that
depletion of resources may occur if they would not practice sustainable fishing.
10
Table 3. Level of Knowledge on Coastal Management and Sustainable Fishing

N Mean Qualitative Interpretation

Knowledge on Resources (%) 46 65.2174 Moderately Knowledgeable
Knowledge on Sustainability 46 68.6335 Moderately Knowledgeable

Total Knowledge Percent 46 66.3561 Moderately Knowledgeable

Table 3 shows the level of knowledge of the respondent fishermen on sustainable fishing
and coastal management in two selected communities in Lingayen, Pangasinan. As can be
gleaned from the table, the respondents are moderately knowledgeable in terms of management
in coastal resources and sustainability. Furthermore, we can also say that the respondents are
moderately knowledgeable on their total knowledge on both areas.

Table 4. Level of Knowledge on Coastal Management and Sustainable Fishing according to

Age, Household Size and Income

Age N Mean Qualitative Interpretation

Young 13 64.1026 Moderately Knowledgeable
Middle Age 22 67.3160 Moderately Knowledgeable
Senior Citizens 11 67.0996 Moderately Knowledgeable
Total 46 66.3561 Moderately Knowledgeable
Household Size
4 members and below 11 67.0996 Moderately knowledgeable
5 to 8 members 27 65.4321 Moderately knowledgeable
9 members and more 6 68.2540 Moderately knowledgeable
Total 44 66.2338 Moderately Knowledgeable
Income
Less than 2,000 28 67.8571 Moderately knowledgeable
P2,000 to less than P5,000 10 66.1905 Moderately knowledgeable
P5,000 to P8,000 6 64.2857 Moderately knowledgeable
Total 44 66.9913 Moderately knowledgeable

11
 Data on Table 4 reveals that the respondents in all age groups (young, middle age, and
senior citizens), all household sizes (4 members and below, 5 to 8 members, and 9 members and
more), and all income ranges (less than P2,000, P2,000 to less than P5,000, and P5,000 to
P8,000) are moderately knowledgeable on coastal resources and sustainability.
The ANOVA results show that there are no significant differences p<.05 in the level of
knowledge when the respondents are grouped into age [F(2,43) = .268, p =.766], household size
[F(2,41) = .140, p = .870], or income range [F(2,41) = .214, p =.808].
However, it can be gleaned from Table 4 that young-aged group has the least knowledge
on coastal management and sustainability with only a mean value of 64.1026, compared to the
middle-aged group (mean = 67.3160) or the senior citizen group (mean = 67.0996). It can be
correlated that older fishermen has more substantial knowledge about coastal management and
sustainability.
In terms of the household size, it can be noticed on Table 4 that fishermen that has 9 or
more family members are the most knowledgeable with a mean value of 68.2540, compared to a
family with only 4 members and below (mean = 67.0996) or 5 to 8 members (mean = 65.4321).
Since majority of the respondents have initially learned fishing from family members and
relatives, it signifies that the more people present in a certain household, the more knowledge
they share, and the more knowledgeable they become regarding coastal management and
sustainability.
Fishermen with an income of up to P8,000 are the least knowledgeable on coastal
management and sustainability with a mean value of 64.2857 compared to fishermen who only
generates up to P2,000 (mean =67.8571) and those who generates up to P5,000 (mean =
66.1905). These fishermen with income up to P8,000 are focused to a greater catch and a bigger
pay, rather than learning the concepts of coastal management and sustainability.
According to the fishery profile of the Philippines from FAO (2005) municipal fisherfolk
are considered the “poorest among the poor”. In 2000, households whose heads were fishers had
a significantly higher poverty incidence than households in general. Their daily income was
roughly the retail value of 2 kg of fish. Low incomes are due to declining fish catch, estimated to
be about 2 kg per day, down from the 20 kg per day that was the average catch during the 1970s.

12
Table 5. Extent of Practice of Fishing according to Age, Household Size and Income.

Age N Mean Qualitative Interpretation

Young 13 2.1787 Seldom
Middle Age 22 1.9842 Seldom
Senior Citizens 11 2.0028 Seldom
Total 46 2.0436 Seldom
Household size N Mean Qualitative Interpretation
4 members and below 11 2.1639 Seldom
5 to 8 members 27 2.0591 Seldom
9 members and more 6 1.8194 Seldom
Total 44 2.0526 Seldom
Income N Mean Qualitative Interpretation
Less than 2,000 28 1.9866 Seldom
P2,000 to less than P5,000 10 2.0833 Seldom
P5,000 to P8,000 6 1.9167 Seldom
Total 44 1.9991 Seldom

Data in Table 5 shows that the respondents in all age groups (young, middle age, and
senior citizens), all household sizes (4 members and below, 5 to 8 members, and 9 members and
more), and all income ranges (less than P2,000, P2,000 to less than P5,000, and P5,000 to
P8,000) seldom practice fishing.
The ANOVA results show that there are no significant differences at the p<.05 in the
extent of fishing practices when the respondents are grouped into age [F(2,43) = .647, p =.529],
household size [F(2,41) = .931, p = .402], or income range [F(2,41) = .269, p =.765].
It can be observed in Table 5 that middle-aged fishermen have the lowest mean value of
1.9842. This indicates that the middle-aged fishermen group have the least unsustainable fishing
techniques compared to young-aged fishermen (2.1787) or the senior citizen group (2.0028).
This result is parallel to the result obtained on Table 4 wherein the group has the greatest
knowledge in terms of sustainability and coastal resource management. It can therefore be
generalized that the greater knowledge you have in terms of sustainability and coastal
management, the more sustainable your extent of fishing practice are.

13
 According to FAO (1982) in order to ensure sustainable management of fisheries and to
enable social and economic objectives to be achieved, sufficient knowledge of social, economic
and institutional factors should be developed. It can therefore be assumed that the knowledge of
older and younger fishermen in social, economic and institutional factor is higher as compared to
middle-aged fishermen.
A household with 9 members or more has the lowest mean value (1.8194). This means
that this particular household size practices the most sustainable fishing techniques as compared
to the groups (4 or less, and 5 to 8 members). Comparison on the knowledge as shown in Table 4
clearly indicates that the household with the greatest knowledge on coastal management and
sustainability also has the most sustainable fishing practices.
The fishermen with the highest income range have the lowest mean value of 1.9167. This
means that they have the most sustainable practice amongst the two other income groups (up to
2,000 income group, and up to 5,000 income group). In contrast, the respondents that have the
lowest knowledge (Table 4) have the best sustainable practices (Table 5).

Table 6. Comparison on the level of knowledge on coastal resource management and

sustainability between the two fishing communities.

Barangay N Mean Qualitative Interpretations

Total Knowledge (%) Pangapisan 16 67.2619 Moderately knowledgeable

Maniboc 24 66.8651 Moderately knowledgeable

The results of the study revealed that both Pangapisan and Maniboc fishing communities
are moderately knowledgeable in terms of their knowledge on coastal resource management and
sustainability. An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the two communities.
There are no significant differences in Pangapisan (M=67.26, SD=11.78) and Maniboc
(M=66.87, SD=14.15) conditions; t(38)=.093,p=.927. These results suggest that there are no
significant differences in terms of the level of knowledge existing between two fishing
communities.

14
Table 7. Comparison on the extent of fishing practices between the two fishing
communities.

Barangay N Mean Qualitative Interpretations

Extent of practice Pangapisan 16 1.9039 Seldom

Maniboc 24 2.1299 Seldom

The results of the study revealed that both Pangapisan and Maniboc fishing communities
seldom practice unsustainable fishing techniques. An independent-samples t-test was conducted
to compare the two communities. There are no significant differences in Pangapisan (M=1.9039,
SD=.67) and Maniboc (M=2.13, SD=.41) conditions; t(38)=-1.313,p=.197. These results suggest
that there are no significant differences in terms of the extent of fishing practices existing
between two fishing communities.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusion
Based on the results of this study, the following conclusions were made:
1. The fishermen respondents have moderate knowledge on the concepts of coastal resource
and sustainability.
2. The older the fisherman is, the more experience he has when it comes to fishing and in
the concepts of coastal resources and sustainability.
3. Pangapisan and Maniboc seldom practice unsustainable fishing methods.
4. The larger the household size the less income the fishermen earned.
5. Fishing was the main source of livelihood for the majority of the respondents, very few
have other means of income outside fishing.

Recommendations
1. Further research on assessing knowledge and practices of small-scale fishermen not only
in areas in Pangasinan but also in other coastal areas in the country.
2. To have more active involvement with different types of stakeholders for a more
sustainable management of coastal resources . This should not be limited to government

15
 agencies or NGO’s but also to include the fishermen themselves, especially small-scale
fishermen, as they are the ones who would be the most affected when there would be
problems in the environment or in the fishing industry.
3. To have coordination between the local government units and the fishermen to protect the
coastal areas and its resources from becoming further depleted or polluted.
4. To organize training seminars with the help of BFAR in terms of coastal resource
management, what are the correct concepts and what fishing methods should not be
practiced along with the proper management of the country’s coastal resources.
5. To organize seminars on alternative sources of income especially to those fishermen with
very little income but has large household size. This also to show that fishing is not the
only livelihood that they can depend on.

16
 REFERECES

1. ASWANI, S., & LAUER, M. (2006). Incorporating Fishermen’s Local Knowledge and
Behavior into Geographical Information Systems (GIS) for Designing Marine Protected
Areas in Oceania. Human Organization, Vol 65.
2. BRIDGEFIELD GROUP INC. (2006). Business Planning+Execution.
[Link]
3. CASSEL, C AND SYMON G. (1994): Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research:
A Practical Guide.
4. FERRER AND NOZAWA (N.D.). Community-Based Coastal Resources Management
in the Philippines: Key Concepts, Methods and Lessons Learned. Retrieved March 19,
2011 from: [Link]
5. FISH AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION (2011). Retrieved from:
[Link]
6. ISRAEL (2001). Review of Methods for Assessing Community-Based Coastal
Resources Management in the Philippines. Retrieved February 1, 2011 from:
[Link]
7. JENINGS, S., & POLUNIN, N. (1996). Impacts of fishing on tropical reef ecosystem.
Ambio Vol. 25 No. 1, 44-49
8. KEYTON J. (2006). Communication Research. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
[Link]
9. MORF, ANDREA (2005). Public Participation in Municipal Planning as a Tool for
Coastal Management: Case Study from Western Sweden, AMBIO: A Journal of the
Human Environment.
10. POLGAR S., AND THOMAS S. (1995) Thomas. Introduction to research in the health
sciences. Third Edition.
11. POMEROY (1995). Community-based and co-management institutions for sustainable
coastal fisheries management in Southeast Asia. Retrieved February 1, 2011 from:
[Link]
12. SILVESTRE, G., E. MICLAT & T-E. CHUA (1989). Towards sustainable
development of the coastal resources of the Lingayen Gulf, Philippines. Philippine
Council for Aquatic and Marine Research and Development.

17
 13. TANDAVANITJ (2003). Assessing the Socio-Economic Conditions of Small-Scale
Fisheries: Experience of Thailand in Implementing Development Projects. Retrieved
February 1, 2011 from:
[Link]
Economic+Conditions+of+Small-
Scale+Fisheries%3A+Experience+of+Thailand+in+Impleme&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&f
p=6f4c86819deae96f
14. UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY (2002). Conserving our Coastal Environment.
Retrieved February 2, 2011 from: [Link]
15. USAID (2008). Sustainable Coastal Communities and Ecosystems Program. A
Component of the Integrated Management of Coastal and Freshwater Systems Program
(IMCAFS). Retrieved: February 1, 2011 from
[Link]

18

View publication stats