ARTICLE IN PRESS

Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 360377

www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

Perceived economic factors inuencing the

sustainability of integrated coastal management
projects in the Philippines
Robert S. Pomeroya,, Enrique G. Oracionb, Richard
B. Pollnacc, Demberge A. Caballesb
a

Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Connecticut Sea Grant Program,
University of Connecticut-Avery Point, 1080 Shennecossett Road, Groton, CT, 06340 USA
b
Silliman University, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental, Philippines
c
Department of Marine Affairs, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, USA
Available online 12 May 2005

Abstract
The use of integrated coastal management (ICM) has a long history in the Philippines.
Despite all this effort, however, most ICM efforts in the Philippines have not been sustainable.
If ICM is to be fully accepted and integrated by the Philippine government into its natural
resource management efforts, than the issue of sustainability of ICM must be addressed. An
understanding of the factors that inuence ICM sustainability will contribute to improving the
design of ICM for more sustainable efforts. This paper examines factors inuencing the
sustainability of ICM projects in the Philippines. Specically, the study focused on two
locations in the country, Bais Bay area of Negros Oriental Province and Mabini-Tingloy
(known as Anilao) area of Batangas Province, where a number of ICM projects have been
implemented since the mid-1980s. Indicators for ICM project impacts are developed and
analyzed to determine their relationships with ICM project sustainability.
r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 860 405 9215; fax: 1 860 405 9210.

E-mail address: robert.pomeroy@uconn.edu (R.S. Pomeroy).

0964-5691/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2005.04.010

ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.S. Pomeroy et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 360377

361

1. Introduction
The use of integrated coastal management (ICM) has a long history in the
Philippines. A review of ICM projects in the Philippines identied over 100 ICM
projects implemented from the early 1980s to the present [1]. This includes some of
the earliest projects such as the Coastal Resources Management Project in the
Lingayen Gulf which was implemented by the Philippine government and the
International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management between 1984 and
1992 with funding from the United States Agency for International Development, to
one of the newest, the Coastal Resources Management Project implemented in
several sites in the Visayas and Mindanao regions by the Philippine government
which was successful in mainstreaming coastal resources management issues with
municipal governments. Despite all this effort, however, most ICM efforts in the
Philippines have not been sustainable. For example, the majority of marine protected
areas established with good intentions are not maintained for any appreciable
amounts of time after external support is withdrawn [2,3]. Carlos and Pomeroy [4]
found that the majority of community-based coastal resource management
(CBCRM) projects in the Philippines were not maintained after the project funding
and external technical assistance was terminated.
If ICM is to be fully accepted and integrated by the Philippine government into its
natural resource management efforts, than the issue of sustainability of ICM must be
addressed. An understanding of the factors that inuence ICM sustainability will
contribute to improving the design of ICM for more sustainable efforts.
To address the issue of ICM sustainability, a multidisciplinary group of
researchers, led by the University of Washington, undertook a 2-year project in
ICM sustainability. The objective of the project was to focus on the question of
sustainability of ICM in the Philippines and Indonesia through empirical research,
assisting ongoing ICM efforts in these countries, and improving human and
institutional capacity. The project analyzed different aspects of what inuences
sustainability of ICM through several cells of research (legal, socio-cultural,
institutional, economic, biophysical). Different research team members focused on
individual cells and these ndings were later integrated and compared across cells.
The rst year of the project focused on the Philippines. The initial ndings from the
Philippines research were tested in Indonesia in the second year of the project. More
detailed background information on the project, denition of ICM, the study sites
and site selection are presented in Christie [5].
Sustainability of ICM projects by local residents depends on a number of factors
including acceptance of project activities, level of participation in project design and
implementation, compliance with regulations, level of economic benets received,
and how equitably the economic benets are distributed in the community. Clearly,
if local residents believe that the ICM project does not address local concerns or has
no positive impact on their well-being, they will be unlikely to support or become
involved in project activities. They will be even less likely to sustain project activities
into the future after ICM project funding ceases. This paper will examine factors
inuencing the sustainability of ICM projects in the Philippines. Specically, the

ARTICLE IN PRESS
362

R.S. Pomeroy et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 360377

study focused on two locations in the country, Bais Bay area of Negros Oriental
Province and Mabini-Tingloy (known as Anilao) area of Batangas Province, where a
number of ICM projects have been implemented since the mid-1980s. Indicators for
ICM project impacts are developed and analyzed to determine their relationships
with ICM project sustainability.

2. Study sites and methods

It was not possible with the resources available in this project to study the entire
over 100 ICM projects in the country. The research team decided (using site selection
criteria such as number and types of ICM projects in the area and length of time
since project completion) to focus on two areas in the Philippines: Bais Bay area of
Negros Oriental Province and Mabini-Tingloy (known as Anilao) area of Batangas
Province.
The Bais Bay area has a diversity of coastal habitats and is used for a variety of
purposes including residential, aquaculture, shing, recreation, and mangrove
harvest. Bais Bay is surrounded by three municipalitiesManjuyod, Tanjay, and
Bais City. There have been several ICM projects in Bais Bay dating back to 1984.
This research focused on three of the four ICM projects which have been
implemented in the area (Table 1). These projects are: Central Visayas Regional
Project (CVRP), Environmental and Resource Management Project (ERMP), and
Coastal Resources Management Project (CRMP). All three of these projects
emphasized resource management and enterprise/alternative livelihood activities.
The Anilao area, located on Balayan Bay, is utilized for residential, transportation
and recreational purposes. Mabini and Tingloy are two municipalities bordering the
Bay. The Anilao area has a history of tourism activities, dating back to the 1960s.
Table 1
ICM projects studied in Bais Bay area
Year

Project

Lead agency

Funding source

Major activities

19841992

Central Visayas
Regional ProjectI
(CVRP)

Central Visayas
Regional Project
Ofce

World Bank

19901992

Environmental and
Resource
Management
Project (ERMP)
Coastal Resources
Management
Project (CRMP)

Silliman University

Canadian
International
Development
Agency
US Agency for
International
Development

Marine reserve,
mangrove
reforestation,
articial reefs, sh
aggregating devices
Marine and
watershed
management

19962002

Department of
Environment and
Natural Resources

Mangrove
rehabilitation,
enterprise
development,
technical assistance

ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.S. Pomeroy et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 360377

363

Table 2
ICM projects studied in the Anilao area
Year

Project

Lead agency

Funding source

Major activities

19901995

Community-based
Coastal Resource
Management Project
(CBCRM-H)

Haribon
Foundation

US Agency for
International
Development;
Government of the
Philipppines

19971999

Balayan Bay
Integrated Coastal
Management Project
(BBICM)

WWF/KKP

WWF-US

1999

Community-based
Coastal Resources
Management Project
(CBCRM-S)

Sulu Fund

Community
organizing; organized
cooperative; marine
protected areas;
organized resort
owners association
Community
organizing; coastal
area development
council; coastal
clean-up; surveillance
equipment; organized
local NGO
Marine conservation

This is mainly due to its geographical closeness to Manila. There have been several
ICM projects in the Anilao area dating back to 1990. This research focused on three
of the ve ICM projects which have been implemented in the area (Table 2). These
projects are: CBCRM Project of the Haribon Foundation, Balayan Bay Integrated
Coastal Management Project of WWF/KKP, and the Community-based Coastal
Resources Management Project of the Sulu Fund. These three projects emphasized
community organizing and resource management activities.
Structured interviews were conducted with a random sample of project
participants and non-participants in the Bais Bay area and in the Anilao area. A
sample of 60 people were interviewed (40 project participants and 20 nonparticipants) in each area. The sample size was carefully selected on the basis of:
(a) consideration of the operational denition of the dependent variable,
sustainability; (b) the degree of difference between participants and non-participants
with respect to the dependent variable that is deemed signicant; and (c) the desired
power of the statistical research design [6]. More information on the sampling and
methodology used can be found in Pomeroy et al. [7].
It should be noted that two of the authors, Pomeroy and Pollnac, have used a
similar methodology to study the success of CBCRM projects in the Philippines [7,8].
This current project differs from the previous work in that it focuses specically on
factors that inuence the sustainability of ICM projects, which are broader in scope
and scale than CBCRM projects.
Interviews were conducted in two municipalities and four barangays around Bais
Bay (Table 3). Project participants were involved in one or more of the following
projectsCVRP, ERMP, and CRMP.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.S. Pomeroy et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 360377

364

Table 3
Sample size by Municipality and Barangay in Bais Bay area
Participants

Non-participants

Bais City municipality

Manjuyod municiapality
Campuyo barangay
Balisong barangay
Okiot barangay
Capinahaw barangay

20
20
10
10
17
3

10
10
5
5
7
3

Total

40

20

Table 4
Sample size by Municipality and Barangay in Anilao area
Participant

Non-participant

Mabini
Tingloy
San Teodoro
Sto. Tomas
Bagalangit

34
6
33
6
1

19
1
6
1
13

Total

40

20

Interviews were conducted in two municipalities and three barangays in the Anilao
area (Table 4). Project participants were involved in one or more of the following
projectsCBCRM Project of the Haribon Foundation, Balayan Bay Integrated
Coastal Management Project of WWF/KKP, and the Community-based Coastal
Resources Management Project of the Sulu Fund.
The questionnaire used in the survey had 81 questions divided into 10 sections:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

location of respondent,
demographics of respondent,
project information,
project benets,
resource conditions,
occupation,
income,
community,
enforcement,
ICM sustainability indicators.

Section 10 of the questionnaire included a number of ICM sustainability

indicators. The sustainability of ICM is based in part on the participants reactions

ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.S. Pomeroy et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 360377

365

to the project. In turn, their reactions are based on user perceptions of impacts,
which are not always in accord with objective, quantiable evidence. Hence, if there
is interest in understanding the sustainability of ICM, it is essential to understand
perceptions of the present impacts of the project. Perceptions of impacts may explain
some of the variance in long-term, as well as short-term, project sustainability. ICM
impact indicators used in this study are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

participation in community affairs in general,

participation in coastal resource and sheries management,
inuence over community affairs in general,
inuence over coastal resource and sheries management,
access to resources,
control over coastal resource and sheries,
fair allocation of access rights to coastal and shery resources,
overall quality of life of the household,
household income,
income from coastal resources,
employment,
overall quality of sheries resources,
compliance with coastal resource and shery rules,
ease of collective decision-making on barangay problems,
quickness of resolving community conicts on coastal resource and sheryrelated issues,
16. knowledge of coastal resource and shery management.
Ideally the method used to measure the indicators will take advantage of the human
ability to make graded ordinal judgments concerning both subjective and objective
phenomena. Human behavior is based on graded ordinal judgments, not simply a
dichotomous judgment of present or absent. This level of measurement allows one to
make more rened judgments concerning ICM sustainability project impacts, as well as
permitting the use of more powerful statistical techniques to determine the relationships
between perceived impacts and potential predictor variables. The technique chosen for
use in this study is a visual, self-anchoring, ladder-like scale which allows for making
ner ordinal judgments, places less demand on informant memory, and can be
administered more rapidly [8]. Using this technique, the subject is shown a ladder-like
diagram with 10 steps. The subject is told that the rst step represents the worst
possible situation. For example, with respect to coastal resources, the subject might be
informed that the rst step indicates an area with no sh or other resources, that the
water is so foul nothing could live in it. The highest step could be described as rich,
clean water, lled with sh and other resources. The subject would then be asked where
the situation was before the ICM project and where it is today.
Analysis of the data on ICM sustainability indicators involved rst calculating
mean values for the differences between each indicator for today (T2) and the preproject time period (T1). A paired comparison t-test was calculated to determine
whether the mean differences between the two time periods are statistically signicant.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
366

R.S. Pomeroy et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 360377

As the next step in the analysis, the 16 indicators for both areas were combined
and were submitted to a principal component (with varimax rotation) analysis to
determine whether relationships between the indicators were such that they could be
reduced to fewer, composite indicators for further analysis. A number of
components were selected based on the scree-test. Component scores representing
the position of each respondent on each component were created for each
respondent. We refer to these scores as Project Impact Indicator Component Scores
(PIICS). They are standardized scores with a mean of zero and a standard deviation
of one. The relationship of the PIICS was intercorrelated with a set of independent
variables. A stepwise regression analysis was conducted to determine the relative
importance of the predictor variables in terms of their individual and combined
ability to account for variance in the PIICS.
Further analysis of ICM project activities indicators was conducted using
principal component analysis with varimax rotation. The nal analysis concerned
how the project activities and impacts and project sustainability. This analysis was
conducted by calculating zero-order correlations between six project activities
and impacts components and the sustainability indicators. The relative importance
of the independent variables in terms of their individual and combined ability to
account for variance in the project sustainability scale was analyzed with stepwise
regression.

3. Results
3.1. Demographics
The average age, education, years living in the community, and household size for
the respondents are presented in Table 5.
3.2. Project participation
In Bais Bay, 13 of 40 participants felt that they had any inuence on project
planning, and only 11 of 40 felt that they had inuence on the project after it began.
All 40 participants in Bais Bay contributed time and/or money to the project, and 37
Table 5
Demographic characteristics of respondentsBais Bay and Anilao area

Age
Education
Years living in community
Household size

Bais Bay

Anilao Area

48
6
37
5.2

43
8.3
35.8
6

(12.64)
(2.53)
(16.50)
(2.24)

N 60
Standard deviation in parentheses.

(10.55)
(3.25)
(11.3)
(2.8)

n 60

ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.S. Pomeroy et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 360377

367

of 40 still contribute time and/or money after the project ended. Eighteen of 40
participants said that the project completion affected their participation, with 11
having less participation, 6 the same, and only 1 having more. Those with less or the
same level of participation reported that the reason was that:
a.
b.
c.
d.

no one manages the project now so I stopped participating,

there was no follow-up so I stopped participating,
there is no more leader for our group,
the marine sanctuary was not really supported by community residents.

In the Anilao Area, 29 of 40 participants felt that they had an inuence on project
planning before it began, and 29 of 40 participants felt that they had an inuence on
the project after it began. All 40 participants contributed time and/or money to the
project, and half of the participants still contribute time and/or money after the
project ended. Those with less participation reported that the reason was that:
a. those in charge had left and they lost interest,
b. they were no longer consulted by Haribon and lost interest,
c. they had lost interest in the cooperative store due to problems.
3.3. Project benefits
In Bais Bay, over half of participants (24 of 40) reported that receiving a benet
from the project inuenced their decision to participate in the project. The
participants were asked to rank the top two most important benets of being
involved in a CRM project. The most important benets of being involved in a CRM
project were more sh catch, more income, better mangroves and corals, improved
law enforcement, and access to capital for business (Table 6).
In Bais Bay, 21 of 40 participants reported that benets were shared by all
involved in the project. Twenty of 21 participants reported that benet sharing was
important for their continued involvement in the project.

Table 6
Benets of involvement in CRM project
Benet

Response 1

Response 2

More sh catch
More income
Better mangrove
Better job
Better corals
Improved law enforcement
Capital for business

25
11
1
1

15
3
4
2
7
3

n 40:

ARTICLE IN PRESS
368

R.S. Pomeroy et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 360377

Table 7
Benets of involvement in CRM project
Benet

Response 1

Response 2

More sh catch
More income
Better catch
Improved law enforcement

26
8
4
2

2
15
17
6

In the Anilao Area, 27 of 40 participants reported that receiving a benet from the
project inuenced their decision to participate in the project. The participants were
asked to rank the top two most important benets of being involved in a CRM
project. The most important benets were more sh catch, more income, better
corals, and improved law enforcement (Table 7).
Only 9 of 40 participants reported that benets of the project were shared by all
involved in the project. Seven of 9 reported that benet sharing was important for
their continued involvement in the project.
3.4. Occupation/income
In Bais Bay, only 4 of 40 participants reported that their occupation has changed
as a result of the project. Seventeen of 40 participants reported a decrease in
household income from 5 years ago. Over half of the participants (24 of 40) reported
no impact on their standard of living as a result of the project. In the Anilao Area,
only 6 of 40 participants reported that their occupation has changed as a result of the
project. Twenty-two of 40 participants reported an increase in household income
from 5 years ago. Twenty-seven of the 40 participants reported no impact on their
standard of living as a result of the project.
3.5. ICM sustainability indicators
In Bais Bay, for the overall sample, there was a statistically signicant increase in
perceived levels of 10 of the 16 indicators (po0:01). There were large positive
changes perceived in participation in community affairs in general, participation in
coastal resource and sh management, inuence over community affairs in general,
inuence over coastal resource and sh management, control over coastal resource
and sheries, compliance with coastal resource and shery rules, ease of collective
decision-making on barangay problems, quickness of resolving community conicts
on coastal resource and shery-related issues, and knowledge of coastal resource and
shery management. There was a large negative change perceived in overall quality
of shery resources. All other indicators showed no statistically signicant changes
in perceived level of indicators (Table 8)
The results of this analysis indicate that household income, employment
opportunities and overall quality of life have declined or not improved since the

ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.S. Pomeroy et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 360377

369

Table 8
Perceived pre-project and post-project changes in indicators for all respondents, Bais Bay
Indicator

T1

T2

T2T1

Participation in community affairs-general

Participation in resource and sh mgt
Inuence over community affairs-general
Inuence over resource mgt
Access to resources
Control over resources
Fair allocation of access rights
Overall quality of life of HH
HH income
Income from coastal resources
Employment
Overall quality of sh resources
Compliance with rules
Ease of collective decision-making on barangay problems
Quickness of resolving community conicts on resource
Knowledge of coastal resource and sh mgt.

3.7
3.45
3.15
3.32
8.88
3.75
8.12
5.6
5.8
5.96
2.4
6.7
3.63
5.02
5.12
4.03

5.7
6.7
5.6
6.3
8.15
7.42
8.22
5.1
4.7
4.98
2.98
4.47
7.28
6.68
7.17
7.48

2
3.25
2.45
2.98
0.73
3.67
0.1
0.5
1.1
0.98
0.58
2.23
3.65
1.66
2.05
3.45

o0.01
o0.01
o0.01
o0.01
o0.01

o0.01
o0.01
o0.01
o0.01
o0.01

project and access to the resource has been restricted as a result of marine
sanctuaries. Respondents are participating more and having more inuence over
community affairs and resource management. Enforcement of rules has improved, as
has collective decision-making. Overall, shery resources have declined.
In the Anilao Area, for the overall sample, there was a statistically signicant
increase in perceived levels of 14 of 16 indicators (po0:01). There were large positive
increases in participation in resource and sh management, inuence over resource
management, control over resources, employment, compliance with rules, and
knowledge of coastal resource and sh management. There was a large negative
change perceived in access to resources and income from coastal resources (Table 9).
The results of the analysis indicate that the respondents participate in and have
inuence over coastal resource and sh management. However, the perception that
compliance with rules has improved is at odds with the nding above that violations
were the same. Access to the resource has been limited due to the marine sanctuary.
The ndings above indicate that income has improved more from alternative
livelihoods than from sh catch which supports the perceived negative change in
income from coastal resources.
3.6. Analysis of ICM project impact indicators
While it is interesting to examine each of the indicators, one at a time, it is possible
that there are relationships between the indicators which can be used to understand
changes in more general factors in the project communities. As a means of
discovering these more general factors, principal component analysis with varimax
rotation was used to elucidate patterns of relationships between the degrees of
change in the 16 indicators. The data for both project communities was combined for

ARTICLE IN PRESS
370

R.S. Pomeroy et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 360377

Table 9
Perceived pre-project and post-project changes in indicators for all respondents
Indicator

T1

T2

T2T1

Participation in community affairs-general

Participation in resource and sh mgt
Inuence over community affairs-general
Inuence over resource mgt
Access to resources
Control over resources
Fair allocation of access rights
Overall quality of life of HH
HH income
Income from coastal resources
Employment
Overall quality of sh resources
Compliance with rules
Ease of collective decision-making on barangay problems
Quickness of resolving community conicts on resource
Knowledge of coastal resource and sh mgt.

4.65
3.26
2.85
2.63
9.75
3.03
9.71
5.15
5.03
4.53
3
6.51
3.76
6.85
6.28
3.5

5.92
6.55
4
4.92
8.13
8.26
9.55
6.28
6.08
3.46
5.4
6.36
8.48
7.9
8.08
7.96

1.27
3.29
1.15
2.29
1.62
5.23
0.16
1.13
1.05
1.07
2.14
0.15
4.72
1.05
1.8
4.46

o0.01
o0.01
o0.01
o0.01
o0.01
o0.01
o0.01
o0.01
o0.01
o0.01
o0.01
o0.01
o0.01
o0.01

this analysis. The scree test was used to determine the number of components,
resulting in three components, which account for a total of 52% of the variance in
the data set. The results of this analysis are in Table 10. Items loading highest on the
rst component are clearly related to governance; thus, the component is named
Governance. On the second component items related to income and household
well-being load highly, resulting in identifying the component as indicating
livelihood. Finally, items loading highest on the third component are related to
access to the resource or access to community affairs; hence, the component is
named Access.
Component scores representing the position of each respondent on each
component were created for each respondent. The component scores are the sum
of the component coefcients times the sample standardized variables. These
coefcients are proportional to the component loadings. Hence, items with high
positive loadings contribute more strongly to a positive component score than those
with low or negative loadings. Nevertheless, all items contribute (or subtract) from
the score; hence, items with moderately high loadings on more than one component
(e.g., inuence on community affairs in the analysis presented here) will contribute at
a moderate level, although differently, to the component scores associated with the
governance and access components. This type of component score provides the
best representation of the data. In this paper, for this data we will refer to these
scores as PIICS. They are standardized scores with a mean of zero and a standard
deviation of one.
The three components clearly reect the goals of ICMimprovements in
governance, livelihood, and empowerment in terms of access to resources and
community decision-making. Empowerment is also reected in the governance
component (e.g., inuence and participation in management, control over resources,

ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.S. Pomeroy et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 360377

371

Table 10
Principal component analysis of impact indicators
Indicator

Governance

Livelihood

Access

Knowledge of management
Compliance with rules
Inuence on management
Control over resources
Participation in management
Conict resolution
Collective decision making
Household income
Household well being
Coastal income
Employment opportunities
Quality of sh resource
Inuence community affairs
Participate in community
Access to resources
Fair allocation of access

0.759
0.711
0.648
0.638
0.616
0.566
0.557
0.124
0.070
0.037
0.363
0.069
0.406
0.262
0.188
0.138

0.047
0.087
0.102
0.106
0.026
0.080
0.040
0.924
0.866
0.839
0.405
0.576
0.066
0.052
0.072
0.270

0.160
0.094
0.526
0.049
0.388
0.129
0.230
0.035
0.002
0.109
0.220
0.149
0.760
0.617
0.458
0.423

Percent total variance

21.037

18.314

12.278

and collective decision-making). It is important to determine if degree of change in

these important indicators is related to project activities or some other variables. As
a rst step in investigating these relationships the PIICS are intercorrelated with a set
of independent variables (Table 11). Correlations in Table 11 indicate that
respondents with more years of residence in the community and a higher level of
project participation, as well as those participating in the CVRP and Haribon
projects tend to score higher on the Governance Component. Those from Bias City
and older respondents as well as those with lower levels of formal education tend to
score lower on the Livelihood Component. Finally, those from Bias City, those who
lived longest in the community and participated in the greatest number of projects as
well as participated in the ERMP and CRMP projects tend to have the highest scores
on the Access Component.
The next question concerns the relative importance of the predictor variables in
terms of their individual and combined ability to account for variance in the PIICS.
This can be accomplished with regression analyses, and most efciently with stepwise
regression analysis. In the application used here, all independent variables (the
predictor variables in Table 11) manifesting statistically signicant zero-order
correlations with a specic PIICS are intercorrelated with the dependent variable
(the specic PIICS). The one with the highest correlation (the one that explains the
most variance in the PIICS) is entered rst into the multiple regression equation.
Then the effects of the entered variable are controlled, and the variable with the
highest partial correlation with the PIICS is entered into the equation. The R2
(squared multiple correlation coefcient, which is equal to the amount of variance
explained in the resource beliefs component score) for the two independent variables

ARTICLE IN PRESS
372

R.S. Pomeroy et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 360377

Table 11
Correlations between independent variables and project impact indicator component scores for total
sample

Bias City
Gender female
Age
Education
Years Resid.
Household size
Total projects
CVRP
ERMP
CRMP
HARIBON
KKP
SULU FUND

Governance

Livelihood

Access

0.147
0.076
0.114
0.070
0.198*
0.003
0.381***
0.304**
0.071
0.013
0.222*
0.052
0.128

0.282**
0.140
0.315***
0.235*
0.046
0.043
0.034
0.127
0.015
0.144
0.139
0.095
0.001

0.382***
0.021
0.116
0.106
0.259**
0.036
0.331***
0.136
0.349***
0.474***
0.198*
0.005
0.056

N 120, *po0.05, **po0.01, ***po0.001.

and the dependent is then calculated. The next step enters the independent variable
that has the highest partial correlation with the PIICS controlling for variables
already entered. This stepwise procedure is continued until some pre-set criterion is
reached. In this case the criterion was that the variable to be entered has a po0:05.
Partial correlations were carefully examined at each step to insure that multicollinearity did not have an effect on the analysis. The results of these analyses for
the three PIICS can be found in Table 12.
The results in Table 12(A) indicate that the total number of projects participated
in and participation in the CVRP project together account for 17% of the variance in
the Governance Component Score (po0:001). Likewise in Table 12(B), not coming
from Bias City and being of a younger age account for 12% of the variance in the
Livelihood Component Score (po0:001). Finally in Table 12(C), the combined
effects of years resident in the community, and participating in the ERMP and
CRMP projects account for almost one-third (30%) of the variance in the Access
Component Score (po0:001), with participation in CRMP accounting for most of
the variance.

3.7. Analysis of ICM project activities indicators

An analysis is conducted to determine if there are interrelationships between
project participants responses to the 13 questions concerning project activities that
are suggestive of underlying dimensions of project activities. These dimensions are
more general than the individual scales and provide a more efcient and revealing
analysis of the data than comparing differences on the numerous individual
measures. As a means of discovering these more general factors, principal
component analysis with varimax rotation, as described above, was used to

ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.S. Pomeroy et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 360377

373

Table 12
Stepwise regression analyses for total sample
Independent variable
A. Dependent variable: governance component scorea
Total number of projects
CVRP
B. Dependent variable: livelihood component scoreb
Bias city
Age
C. Dependent variable: access component scorec
Year resident
ERMP
CRMP

Standardized b
coeff.

Prob.

0.32
0.20

o0.05
o0.05

0.20
0.25

o0.05
o0.05

0.19
0.18
0.42

o0.05
o0.05
o0.05

R 0:43, R2 0:18, Adj. R2 0:17, F 12:95, po0:001.

R 0:37, R2 0:14, Adj. R2 0:12, F 9:22, po0:001.
c
R 0:56, R2 0:31, Adj. R2 0:30, F 17:54, po0:001.
b

elucidate patterns of relationships between responses to the 13 indicator questions.

All variables are dichotomies; hence, the analysis is conducted on a matrix where the
correlation coefcients are f. f is a proportion reduction of error measure; hence,
appropriate for this type of analysis. The scree test was used to determine the
number of components, resulting in four components, which account for a total of
70% of the variance in the data set. The results of the analysis are in Table 13.
The rst component in Table 13 is composed of items reecting the individuals
inuence on the project. The second component is composed of items that indicate
that the project had an impact on standard of living and income. The third
component includes items reecting an inuence on occupation and village
infrastructure. Finally, the fourth component includes items reecting participation
in the project. Villagers can work together to solve problems did not load highly on
any of the four components. Component scores representing the position of each
project participant on each component were created for each individual.
3.8. Analysis of factors influencing ICM sustainability
The nal analysis concerns how the project activities and impacts analyzed above
impact project sustainability. As a means of answering this question, zero-order
correlations were calculated between the six project activities and impact
components and the sustainability indicators among project participants. Summing
the values for each of the three distinct sustainability indicators forms an additional
sustainability indicator. This new variable is referred to as the sustainability scale.
The results of this analysis are in Table 14.
All the independent variables except for livelihood are statistically signicantly
correlated with sustained contribution of time and money to project activities after

ARTICLE IN PRESS
374

R.S. Pomeroy et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 360377

Table 13
Principal component analysis of project activities and benets indicators
Indicator

COMP1

COMP2

COMP3

COMP4

Inuenced project changes after implementation

Inuenced project planning
Project impacted standard of living
Project inuenced change in income
Benets continued after project ended
Project established new occupations
Project inuenced village infrastructure
Project activities inuenced occupation changes
Villagers can work together to solve problems
Termination of project inuenced participation
Contributed time to money to project
Participants shared in project benets
Project economic benets inuenced participation

0.957
0.941
0.092
0.038
0.394
0.046
0.242
0.035
0.246
0.053
0.479
0.025
0.461

0.094
0.072
0.872
0.811
0.542
0.107
0.058
0.295
0.003
0.251
0.129
0.422
0.478

0.070
0.080
0.014
0.135
0.238
0.870
0.751
0.618
0.379
0.252
0.064
0.306
0.153

0.081
0.130
0.141
0.095
0.487
0.130
0.132
0.010
0.286
0.693
0.671
0.624
0.593

Percent of total variance explained

19.496

17.791

16.286

15.982

Table 14
Correlations between sustainability indicators and project impacts and activities scale among project
participants

Governance
Livelihood
Access
COMP1
COMP2
COMP3
COMP4

Sustained
contribution

Economic benets
sustained
participation

Sharing of benets
sustained
participation

Sustainabilty
scale

0.288**
0.74
0.305**
0.302**
0.236**
0.215*
0.554**

0.094
0.017
0.421**
0.296**
0.458**
0.278**
0.533**

0.139
0.042
0.390**
0.021
0.466**
0.333**
0.548**

0.205*
0.023
0.427**
0.248**
0.439**
0.314**
0.629**

N 120, *po0.05, **po0.01.

project completion. Access, standard of living (COMP2), occupations (COMP3) and

participation (COMP4) are statistically signicantly correlated with responses that
economic benets sustained project participation and that sharing of benets
sustained participation. Six of the component scores (except for livelihood) are
statistically signicantly correlated with the sustainability scale.
The next analysis concerns the relative importance of the independent variables in
terms of their individual and combined ability to account for variance in the project
sustainability scale. This can be accomplished with stepwise regression analysis.
Once again, partial correlations were carefully examined at each step to insure that
multicollinearity did not have an effect on the analysis. The results of this analysis
are in Table 15.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.S. Pomeroy et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 360377

375

Table 15
Stepwise regression analysis of ICM project sustainability scale dependent variable: Project Sustainability
Scale
Independent variable

Standardized b Coeff.

Prob.

COMP4
COMP2
COMP3
COMP1
Access

0.584
0.419
0.306
0.248
0.120

o0.001
o0.001
o0.001
o0.001
o0.019*

R 0:872, R2 :760, Adj.R2 0:749, F 72:141, po0.001, *po0.02.

Table 15 indicates that ve of the independent variablesparticipation (COMP4),

standard of living/income (COMP2), occupation (COMP3), inuence on project
(COMP1), and accessaccount for almost 75% of the variance in the ICM project
sustainability score. All have positive b coefcients. The governance and livelihood
components have no signicant impact on the ICM project sustainability scale score.
These ve variables are component scores reecting some aspect of individual or
community inuence or participation in project activities and planning and of
receiving individual or community economic benets from the project through
improved incomes, new occupations or village infrastructure, and access to the
resource.

4. Discussion and conclusions

Participation of community members in the ICM project design and implementation and real or perceived economic benets from the project inuence participants
to sustain project activities after project completion. This should come as no
surprise. Participation in project design and implementation provides community
members with a sense of ownership over the project. Since the community members
helped to create the ICM project, it provides a greater probability that aspects of the
project t the needs of community members. This sense of ownership over the ICM
project can come from either years of residency in the community or participation
and involvement in the project. Local level participation in project development and
implementation has long been recognized as a factor promoting desired change
[912] and coastal resource management projects are no exception [8,1315].
Participation and sustainability are also inuenced by economic benets and
sharing of benets in the community. Projects, such as the CVRP, ERMP, and
CRMP in the Bais Bay area, which combined resource management activities with
alternative livelihood activities that provided economic benets (improved income)
are important for ICM sustainability. For example, marine reserves in Bais Bay
established under the CVRP increased sh catch, subsequently raised income, and
were sustainable. Another example is seaweed farming in Bais Bay. Started by the
CVRP, it has provided income to households and been taken up by non-participants.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
376

R.S. Pomeroy et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 360377

In summary, involvement of community members in ICM project planning and

implementation appears to have inuenced participants to sustain project activities
after project completion. This was inuenced by actual and perceived economic
benets gained from the project. Empowering resource users to participate in
resource management is important to sustaining ICM. ICM projects should not just
focus on resource management, which may take many years to show benets.
Combining resource management (marine sanctuary, articial reef, rule enforcement)
with alternative livelihood activities that raise income or provide new occupations is
important. Project activities should raise income or provide new occupations of the
participants to be sustainable. Seaweed farming is a good example, as it has been well
received, has provided an income source, and has been taken up by non-participants.
Resource management activities, such as a marine sanctuary, that result in improved
resource conditions and raises income, either through an increase in sh catch or
tourism, are important. There should be shared economic benets for participants
and non-participants resulting from the project. Providing alternative livelihoods can
give more household income and reduce pressure on the resource.
Acknowledgements
This research was made possible with the nancial support of the David and
Lucile Packard Foundation (Grant no. 2000-14652) and National Science
Foundation (Grant no. DGE-0132132). The opinions expressed herein are those
of the author and do not necessarily reect the views of the David and Lucile
Packard Foundation or National Science Foundation.
References
[1] Project document. A review of ICM projects in the Philippines. Integrated coastal management
sustainability research project. School of Marine Affairs, University of Washington; 2001.
[2] Alcala A. Community-based coastal resources management in the Philippines: a case study. Ocean
and Coastal Management 1998;38:17986.
[3] Crawford B, Balgos M, Pagdilao C. Community-based marine sanctuaries in the Philippines: a report
on focus group discussions. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI
and Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research and Development: Los Banos, Laguna,
Philippines; 2000.
[4] Carlos MB, Pomeroy RS. A review and evaluation of community-based coastal resources
management projects and programs in the Philippines. Fisheries Co-Management Project RR no.
6, ICLARM, Manila, Philippines; 1996.
[5] Christie P. Is integrated coastal management sustainable? Ocean and Coastal Management 2005; this
issue, doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2005.04.001.
[6] Cohen J. Statistical power for analysis for the behaviorial sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates; 1988.
[7] Pomeroy RS, Pollnac RB, Katon BM, Predo CD. Evaluating factors contributing to the success of
community-based resource management: The Central Visayas Regional Project1, Philippines.
Ocean and Coastal Management 1997;36(13):97120.
[8] Pomeroy RS, Pollnac RB, Predo CD, Katon BM. Impact evaluation of community-based resource
management projects in the Philippines. Fisheries Co-management Research Project Research

ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.S. Pomeroy et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 360377

[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]

[15]

377

Report no. 3, International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Manila, Philippines;
1996.
Cernea MM, editor. Putting people rst: sociological variables in rural development. 2nd ed. New
York: Oxford University Press; 1991.
Chambers R. Rural development: putting the last rst. Essex, UK: Longman Scientic and Technical;
1983.
Morss ER. Strategies for small farmer development, vol. 2. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 1976.
Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations, 4th ed. New York: The Free Press; 1995.
Pomeroy RS, editor. Community management and common property of coastal sheries in asia and
the pacic: concepts, methods and experience. Manila: ICLARM; 1994.
White A, Hale LZ, Renard Y, Cortes L. The need for community-based coral reef management. In:
White A, Hale LZ, Renard Y, Cortes L, editors. Collaborative and community-based management of
coral reefs. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press; 1994. p. 118.
Pollnac RB, Crawford BR, Gorospe M. Discovering factors inuencing the success of communitybased marine protected areas in the Visayas, Philippines. Ocean and Coastal Management
2001;44:683710.