ECONOMIC VALUATION OF AND DESIGN OF PAYMENT FOR

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (PES) SCHEME FOR BUCARI PINE

FOREST

JAM LOUISSE B. NATAN

ANNE MARY LOUISE L. ONGSUCO

An Undergraduate Thesis Presented

to the Division of Social Sciences
College of Arts and Sciences
University of the Philippines Visayas

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of
Bachelor of Science in Economics

JUNE 2018
 CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

The undergraduate thesis attached hereto, entitled “Economic Valuation of

and Design of Payment for Environmental Services (PES) Scheme for Bucari Pine

Forest” prepared and submitted by Jam Louisse B. Natan and Anne Mary Louise L.

Ongsuco, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Bachelor of Science

in Economics, is hereby accepted.

___________________________________

GAY D. DEFIESTA, PhD.

Adviser
Date signed:___________________

Accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of

Science in Economics

__________________________________

PROF. ELMER L. JOVER

Chair, Division of Social Sciences
College of Arts and Sciences
Date signed:___________________
i
 ABSTRACT

The Bucari Pine Forest in Leon, Iloilo is a tourist destination that has become vulnerable
to environmental degradation. Being prone to damage and degradation, this study was
conducted to estimate the Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) of the residents of Leon for the
conservation of the natural park.

A survey was conducted among 369 study participants from eight barangays in Leon,
Iloilo. Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) was used to analyse the residents’
willingness-to-pay for the conservation of Bucari Pine forest which served as a basis
for a Payment for Environmental Services (PES) scheme for the natural park. Results
show that the mean WTP was 33.88 PHP per month when adjusted to certainty. It was
found further that when adjusted to certainty, there were two significant variables that
affected an individual’s WTP: age and monthly electricity bill. Taking into account
these variables including willing to pay of the study participants, a PES Scheme was
proposed. The porposed program involves three agents: the buyers, the sellers, and the
intermediaries. Residents who are qualified will pay 30.00 PHP per month as
contribution for the natural park and tourists will pay 40.00 PHP upon entering the
natural park. On the other hand, the sellers, who are exempted from the contribution
should have a household income no more than 8,000.00 PHP per month. The
intermediaries will serve as a link between the two.

Keywords: Contingent valuation method, Payment for environmental services (PES),

Economic valuation, Willingness-to-pay (WTP).

i
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, we would like to thank the One up above for guiding us throughout
this study. We are eternally grateful for the patience and strength that we have held
because of Him during the times when we are too exhausted to function. All our efforts
and endeavours are dedicated to You, for being with us every step of the way and for
making this possible.

To our beloved thesis adviser, Dr. Gay Defiesta, thank you for becoming our mother in
the process of it all, for the knowledge and wisdom you have partaken, for the guidance
and patience with our shortcomings, for allowing us to learn, and for helping us grow
not only as students but also as individuals. We will always be grateful to have you as
our adviser.
We would also like to thank the municipality of Leon, Iloilo for allowing us to conduct
our study in their community. We would also like to extend our gratitude to the council
of eight local barangays for the warm welcome when we were on your place for our
research study.

We personally thank MENRO-Leon, especially Engr. Feljean Cagape, for the guidance
and patience from the very beginning. For accommodating us and the never ending
assistance in order for us to finish gathering what are necessary in our study. Our
research would not be possible without your help. We are sincerely grateful for having
encountered your team in Leon. Also to Nong Mon, Nong Junnel, and Nong Johnrel,
for extending your time and service in order to assist us in the field. You all never failed
to motivate us to finish our work after a strenuous trek and tiring day of going back and
forth to the mountains of Leon.
To our 369 study participants, thank you for welcoming two unknown strangers into
your home and for the time you spent. We are beyond grateful for your hospitality and
eagerness to participate. You have been crucial for this success and you made our
research possible.

To the third years, Maureen, Jessa, Arianne, Cassie, Clarisse, and Pia who were willing
and happy enough to serve as our enumerators in our study, we will always remember
this favour you have done for us and we are thankful to be your ates. Always do well
in school.
To Batch Virgins and Oeconomicus family, thank you for the four years of ups and
downs.

Sincerely, Jam and Anne

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To thank the people who have been with me throughout this journey is a difficult task as one cannot
simply put into words how grateful I am for the ones worth mentioning.

To my family who have been a constant source of encouragement despite the physical distance. I
owe my life to them and I could not have been blessed with a better family. To you, my family,
thank you for understanding my hopes and dreams and for providing me with all that you can and
for welcoming me with open arms whenever I return home. I’m finally coming back with a sablay
dedicated to you. I love you!

To my friends in high school: Racine, Kathleen, Manuela, Princess, Marielle, Bea, and Iah who
have seen parts of me that other people can only imagine: thank you for existing and co-existing
with me. My memories with you are kept in my heart and within the walls of my room that have
seen and heard everything from us. Thank you for the constant reminders and notes of
encouragement. I love you to the moon and back and I will always be grateful for you.

To Razel, Christell, Jonathan, and Oscar: words are not enough to express how thankful I am for
you. Thank you for being a source of joy, laughter, and love in this university despite the endless
load of work. You have been pillars for me and rainbows after the rain that I look forward to always.
This is for us, for finally making it!

To my thesis partner, Jam, thank you for being the best partner I could ask for. Somehow, your
unbelievably high-pitched voice has been something I’ve become accustomed to and have actually
looked forward to in making our thesis. I could not have gotten a better partner and now the fruit of
our labour has finally arrived, cheers to us!

To my Peer Facilitators family, I’m sorry if you’ve ever felt left behind by me, but do know that I
am eternally grateful for being a part of this family. Thank you for always welcoming me in the
uncalled for visits and never forgetting about me. My experience and memories with you will be
cherished.

To my DUCES utods, thank you, for giving me a sense of a family outside of my home and for
teaching me lessons I would have never thought of. My memories with all of you, especially my
fellow WALFGEEKS, are memories that will forever be etched in my heart.

To myself, you’ve worked hard. Thank you for holding on.

Much love, Annie.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There seems to be a lot of people I needed to thank in my four years of college. No words are enough
to utter how much I appreciate every encouragement and effort you have shown me.

To my mom, dad, and ate, I owe you everything I have. Thank you for being patient with me since
day one, for spoiling the brat in me by providing me with more than what is essential. The person I
am today is the product of your sacrifices and hard work no matter the distance between all of us. I
am beyond grateful to have you as my constant foundation of love. Thank you for respecting my
space and for letting me grow at my own phase. I hope I made you proud.

To Mommy and Lolo, for being the reasons why giving up was and will never be an option. You
two are the light at the end of my tunnel, the light that opened my eyes to the world. Seeing the grin
drawn in your faces are the motivation why going home is worth counting the days for.

To Mikkha and Claire, for being the best friends that I could ever ask for, for tolerating me and all
my shenanigans. Also, Janzen and Kim, for making me feel appreciated, for the emotional support
you have aided me when I was so inferior about myself. You four are beyond special.

To my thesis partner, Anne, this is not possible if not for your tolerance and patience whenever I
am around. For being the strong one, for complementing my shortcomings, and for everything.

To Carly, you have seen me in my absolute worst and literally saved me from the chaos I created
myself. You are the best roommate anyone could ever have. We made it through alive, imagine?

To Ate Syd and Ira, for the long distance love, support, and understanding, for taking care and
putting me back in one piece during the times when I could not even love and stand for myself.

To Grace, Whayne, Khreng, Shennie, and Stat friends, you guys are one tough system. For putting
up with me and my dramas, thank you. Senior year is best shared with people like you.

To Sir Hanny, Maam Em, Tita Vyel and Oecon upclass, for the guidance, direction, knowledge, and
inspiration. I do not know what I did to deserve such people like you in this University.

For braving the current, for not giving up, for having faith that you can go beyond your comfort, for
not letting externalities consume you, for growing, you made it through, Jam. You got you.

Always, Jam

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................... i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................ ii

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................ v

LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................... viii

LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................... ix

CHAPTER .................................................................................................. PAGE

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1

Background of the Study .................................................................... 1

Statement of the Problem .................................................................... 4

Objectives of the Study ....................................................................... 4

Scope and Limitations......................................................................... 5

Hypothesis of the Study ...................................................................... 5

Significance of the Study .................................................................... 6

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE...................................... 7

Biodiversity ......................................................................................... 7

Biodiversity Conservation .................................................................. 7

Protected Area ..................................................................................... 8

Ecosystem Services ............................................................................. 9

Impact of Importance of Ecosystem Services ..................................... 11

Economic Valuation............................................................................ 13

Economic Value of Natural Parks....................................................... 15

Willingness-to-Pay .............................................................................. 17

Payment for Environmental Services.................................................. 19

PES as a Framework for Conservation ............................................... 20

v
 III. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK .................................................... 25

Welfare Economics ............................................................................. 25

Demand and Supply of Environmental Services ................................ 25

Total Economic Value ........................................................................ 26

Willingness-to-Pay .............................................................................. 27

Payment for Environmental Services .................................................. 28

IV. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................... 30

Locale of the Study ............................................................................. 30

Study Participants ............................................................................... 32

Sampling Technique ........................................................................... 34

Research Design.................................................................................. 35

Empirical Model of Willingness-to-Pay ............................................. 36

Electricity Consumption as a Proxy Variable for Income .................. 36

Interval Regression Analysis .............................................................. 38

Estimation of WTP ............................................................................. 38

Research Instruments .......................................................................... 40

V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS .................................................... 43

Socio-economic Characteristics of Study Participants ....................... 43

Problems Faced by the Country According to Study Participants ...... 51

Views on Environmental Conservation .............................................. 54

Knowledge and Use of the Bucari Pine Forest ................................... 56

Knowledge on the Definition of PES.................................................. 61

WTP of Study Participants.................................................................. 63

Service to be Rendered by Protest Bidders ......................................... 67

Regression Results .............................................................................. 69

vi
 Reasons for WTP ................................................................................ 75

Preferred Payment Vehicle ................................................................. 76

Estimation of WTP ............................................................................. 78

Trust and Perception of PES Program ................................................ 80

Perceived Benefits from the Program ................................................. 81

Participation on Current Environmental Implementation ................... 82

PES Design Scheme ............................................................................ 83

VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 89

REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 93

APPENDICES................................................................................................... 99

vii
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NAME PAGE

4.1 Definition of Variables for Equation Determining Sample Size 33

4.2 Population Size of Selected Barangays in Leon, Iloilo, 2018 34

4.3 Summary of Dependent and Independent Variables 39

5.1 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Study Participants by 43

Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018

5.2 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Age and Sex of Study 44

Participants by Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018

5.3 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Occupation of Study 46

Participants by Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018

5.4 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Educational Attainment and 47

Years of Education of Study Participants by Location in Leon, Iloilo,
2018

5.5 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Household Size and

Income-Earning Members of Study Participants by Location in Leon, 48
Iloilo, 2018

5.6 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Household Monthly Income 49

of Study Participants by Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018

5.7 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Type Household, Materials 50

Used, and Water Source of Study Participants by Location in Leon,
Iloilo, 2018

5.8 Distribution of Study Participants’ Monthly Household Electricity 51

Consumption by Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018

5.9 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of National Issues According 53

to Study Participants by Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018

5.10 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Environmental Issues 54

According to Study Participants by Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018

5.11 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Study Participants’ Views 56

on Conservation by Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018

5.12 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Participants’ Knowledge 58

and Use on the Bucari Pine Forest by Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018

5.13 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Participants’ Perceived 60

Benefits from the Bucari Pine Forest by Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018

5.14 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Participants’ Knowledge 62

and Perceived Importance of PES by Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018

v
5.15 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Willingness-to-Pay Choices 64
of Study Participants by Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018

5.16 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Participants’ Reason for 66

Zero WTP Choice by Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018

5.17 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Participants’ Willingness to 67

Render Services for the Natural Park and Time Willing to Offer by
Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018

5.18 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Participants’ Reasons for

Willingness to Offer Services in place of Financial Payments by 68
Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018

5.19 Summary Statistics for the Variables included in the Regression 70

Analysis for Economic Valuation of the Bucari Pine Forest, Leon,
Iloilo, 2018

5.20 Regression Results (without adjustment to certainty) for the Economic 72

Valuation of the Bucari Pine Forest, Leon, Iloilo, 2018

5.21 Regression Results (with adjustment to certainty) for the Economic 74

Valuation for the Economic Valuation of the Bucari Pine Forest,
Leon, Iloilo, 2018

5.22 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Participants’ Reasons for 76

Willingness to Pay by Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018

5.23 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Participants’ Preferred 78

Payment Vehicle by Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018

5.24 Mean WTP (without adjustment to certainty) based on the Survey 79

Results in Leon, Iloilo, 2018

5.25 Mean WTP (with adjustment to certainty) based on the Survey Results 80
in Leon, Iloilo, 2018

5.26 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Participants’ Perception of

the PES Program by Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018 81

5.27 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Participants’ Perceived

Benefits from the Program by Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018 82

5.28 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents’ Participation

in the Current Management Scheme for Bucari Pine Forest in Leon, 83
Iloilo, 2018

vi
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO. AND NAME ..................................................................... PAGE

3.1 General Structure of a PES Mechanism ................................................ 29

4.1 Map of Leon, Iloilo, 2018 ..................................................................... 31

4.2 Satellite View of Bucari, Leon, Iloilo, 2018 ......................................... 31

5.1 PES Design Structure for Bucari Pine Forest ........................................ 88

vii
 LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX ............................................................................................... PAGE

A Interview Schedule: English ................................................................. 100

B Interview Schedule: Hiligaynon ........................................................... 113

C Letter of Request for the Municipal Mayor .......................................... 126

D Letter of Request for Pre-testing and Data Gathering .......................... 128

viii
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Geographically located at 10o 45” North Latitude and 122o 13’ to 122o 15” East

Longitude with a total land area of 16,397.00 hectares, Leon is settled in the eastern

side of Panay Island and is 28 kilometers west-southwest of Iloilo City. With a total of

49,875 population as of 2015 census, Leon prides itself as the “Summer Capital of

Iloilo” for its cool climate, aesthetic views, and highland attractions. Ecosystem

services such as ecotourism as source of income generating activity and projects of the

municipality, agriculture such as food security, and habitat for the endangered wildlife

such as animals who depend on the forest, are abundant and are being provided by the

natural park. Some people of the Municipality, most especially those who live within

and near the Bucari area are dependent on the supply of resources it boundlessly

provides. However, these supply of resources do not only limit to and cater the needs

of the local residents but also those of the tourists who visit the natural park.

The popular tourist destination is nestled in the mountains of Leon in Iloilo.

Brgy. Bucari, named as the “Little Baguio” of the province, is a place to be in order to

experience the life away from the busy streets of the city. The Pine Forest and campsite

in Bucari is particularly located in Sitio Tabionan. Another important role of the forest

is that it is home to a number of threatened and endangered wild flora and fauna.

Bucari Pine Forest is considered as a protected area by the virtue of local

ordinance no. 2017-005 implemented last October 30, 2017. The forest is valuable for

services it can offer such as tourism, air quality regulation, etc. hence, it has to be

1
protected. Further, there is a need to determine whether the local residents are aware of

the value of the forest and the natural asset together with the amenities it provides.

The demand for environmental services provided by the Pine Forest increases

as more and more people from outside the locality discover and hear about the place.

The services the environmnt provides in turn needs to be maintained, protected, and

conserved. Similar to other protected areas, Leon also charges an environmental fee to

enter the Bucari Pine forest to help finance conservation of wildlife in the area.

In the case of the Municipality of Leon, this is known as “An Ordinance

Prescribing Eco-Tourism Environmental Fee and Imposing Penalties for Violations

Thereof in the Municipality of Leon, Iloilo”. The ordinance was for the purpose of

promoting, conserving, and ensuring sustainable and equitable utilization of the forest

areas and its resources. This is in line with the Republic Act 7161 or also known as the

“Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines”.

Another purpose of the ordinances is to ensure the benefit and enjoyment of the

local people residing in Leon; while ensuring sustainable utilization, protection,

conservation, and management of the natural resource. It also emphasizes the

maintenance of sound and ecological balance and protecting and enhancing the quality

of the environment. Another is for the promotion of sustainable tourism activities in the

Municipality. The ordinance stipulates that sustainable tourism development plans and

projects must be for promoting and nurturing the cultural and ecological values of Leon.

Through safe-guarding tourist-friendly destination, it will help the local

government of Leon to generate funds and revenues to further finance other

environmental and tourism plans, activities, and projects or provide and improve the

much needed amenities and facilities.

2
 It became mandatory for all non-resident tourists, excursionists, and visitors of

the tourism spot to pay as much as thirty pesos (30.00 PHP) as an ecotourism

environmental fee while twenty pesos (20.00 PHP) for the local people residing in

Leon, Iloilo.

The role of biodiversity conservation in providing, safeguarding, and

maintenance of the aesthetic, scenic, and serene attractions is becoming essential in

national and international levels of environmental management. It is a much needed

activity in natural environment in order to make sure that the resources are not exploited

to its depletion. Many species thriving in Bucari are dependent on the environment thus

harming the surroundings will further lead into endangering a lot of natural resources

that it provides. Both the conservation and protection of the environment should be

pursued through upright management and participation of the legitimate inhabitants.

The major reason of conserving the biodiversity is for the sustainability of the resources

which means “Not causing permanent or long term diminishment or qualitative

degradation of biological and natural resources extracted or disturbed” (RA No. 9154

of 2001).

This research question was pursued to determine the true compensating value

of the natural park from the point of view of the local residents of the Municipality of

Leon in Iloilo. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) of the residents will be used as basis in

designing Payment for Environmental Services (PES) program. The PES scheme is the

most prevalent method in estimating the compensation value of the environmental

services to ensure sustainability and conservation. Sustainability is the ability to uphold

rates of renewable and nonrenewable resources to make sure the production will

continue indefinitely. While on the other hand, conservation is protection and

restoration of the resources.

3
1.2 Statement of the Problem

The study aims to address the main question: What is the appropriate PES

scheme for the conservation and preservation of the Bucari Pine Forest in Leon, Iloilo.

Specifically, the goal is to answer the following questions below:

1. What ecosystems services does the Bucari natural park provide?

2. What are the benefits that can be derived from the natural park?

3. What is the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of the residents for the conservation

and preservation of the natural park?

4. What is the appropriate scheme for Bucari Pine forest?

5. What management scheme is currently being implemented to maintain

natural park?

1.3 Objectives of the Study

Generally, this study intends to propose a suitable design for a PES scheme

based on residents’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) for the conservation of their Natural

Park. Specifically, the researchers aim to achieve the following objectives:

1. To determine the ecosystems services the Natural Park can provide

2. To identify the benefits that can be derived from the natural park

3. To determine the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of the residents for the conservation

and preservation of the Natural Park

4. To determine the factors that can affect an individual’s willingness to pay

5. To analyze the existing management scheme implemented for the maintenance

of the Natural Park

4
1.4 Scope and Limitations

This study deals with the conservation value of the Bucari Pine Forest. The

objective is to propose an appropriate PES scheme for the tourist destination based on

the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of the respondents. The respondents of the study are

residents of Leon, Iloilo. They were chosen based on the accessibility of their area and

financial constraints of the researchers. Results of the study, especially willingness-to-

pay (WTP) is dependent on respondent’s awareness and understanding of the

Contingent Valuation question. Respondents’ lack of knowledge can lead to

information bias, which arises when they are forced to value attributes with which they

have little or no experience (Tietenberg and Lewis, 2012).

The study also aims to analyze the existing environmental payment scheme

presently implemented in the Natural Park. This analysis however, is limited by the

availability of data in the municipality for the research.

1.5 Hypothesis of the Study

1. The residents of Leon are willing to pay for the conservation and protection of

Bucari Pine Forest.

2. WTP can be affected by household income, age, sex, knowledge on PES,

household size, proximity, and number of income-earning members.

5
1.6 Significance of the Study

This study estimated the WTP for the Bucari Pine Forest. The researchers of

this study intend not only to design PES scheme for the Natural Park but also to help

and provide useful data such as WTP of participants.

It is important that the locality’s government should be able to maintain the park

and uphold its reputation as a popular tourist spot that can attract visitors. The results

of this study can provide information such as residents’ WTP which could help in the

conservation and maintenance of the Natural Park and in turn can maintain the park’s

well-advertised reputation of being a natural resource that is bound to attract tourists.

This study would also be of significance to various stakeholders of the natural

park. These stakeholders include the beneficiaries and workers who would be part of

the PES scheme. With a proper scheme proposed, these stakeholders who are directly

involved in the scheme will have clear knowledge on the incentives they can derive

from the natural park. This study can also serve as an avenue for awareness for their

environmental conservation and the importance of the natural park.

Moreover, this study is significant for researchers who plan to conduct studies

in the field of environmental economics in the future. Future researchers may make use

of this research study as empirical basis for studies related to PES, economic valuation

and conservation.

6
 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Biodiversity

Attaining a good balance of biodiversity is challenging when resources are not

being taken into careful consideration. In FAO (2017), it was iterated that biodiversity

is a vital regulator of ecosystem functions in satisfying living organism insatiable needs

and the society at large.

The need for sustainability calls for attention to further conserve biodiversity as

a whole in order to enjoy the services it provides in the long run. This research study is

concerned about the worth of the biodiversity or ecosystem to the people who depend

on the services the natural resource provides.

2.2 Biodiversity Conservation

Studies often take ‘biodiversity conservation’ as the object of valuation, using

this as a surrogate for the (vague) concept of ‘naturalness’ (Farnsworth, 2015). The

increase and development of many human daily activities across the planet brought

about a large loss of areas of the natural ecosystems, hasty surge of all kinds of

pollution, overexploitation of plant and animal populations, and the spread of hostile

and harmful species (Adhikari et al., 2017). The combination of these factors has

generated a global biodiversity crisis, characterized by rates of species extinction that

are about a thousand times higher than the estimated historical extinction rate caused

by natural processes (Pimm et al. as cited in Da Silva and Chennault, 2017).

7
 In addition, the loss of sorts of species decreases the health and stability of

ecosystems and limiting the services that can be provided which are necessary and

important for the humanity and their well-being. Also, according to FAO (2010) and

WWF (2014), the loss of biodiversity is altering ecosystem functions and services that

are of high value to human well-being.

Conservation of biodiversity is a challenging step in helping maintain a natural

resource. This study is about the conservation and protection of a natural park which is

a source of amenities that are beneficial not only for the residents of the locale, but also

for those who wish to visit the site.

2.3 Protected Area (PA)

Protected Areas (PAs) are the main strategy or approach to conserve natural

resources and decrease biodiversity damage and loss. The creation of PAs for

conserving nature over the long term was one of the defining features of the 20 th century

(Jepson et al., 2011). Being adopted by every country as a policy stratagem, PAs’

increased in number each year since the start of 20 th Century. Non-human forms of life

have intrinsic value and a right to continued ecological existence (Jepson et al., 2017).

The idea behind the establishment of PA has been one of the most important

interventions to protect diversity from the threat of human activities.

Protected Areas in their various forms have influenced societies across the globe

and are the cornerstone of efforts to sustain the earth’s biodiversity and ecosystems.

Despite their key role in biodiversity conservation and protection, PAs are under

increasing pressure to justify their existence in the face of competition with other land

uses, especially in the field of agriculture (Laurance and Balmford, 2013; Smith et al.,

8
2010). This is because PAs can indirectly influence regional economies through land

opportunity costs and/or the cost of mitigating the effects of linear infrastructure

development (Symes et al., 2015).

All of the risks when developing a PA should be taken into account. One

example is the trade-off of the opportunity cost of agriculture. There is a big trade-off

in developing a PA when agriculture also needs to be put into consideration, whether

the land will be protected or will be used for cultivation which provides opportunities

for work. Although PAs have achieved success in terms of biodiversity conservation,

the effectiveness of PAs is largely threatened by local development (Duan and Wen,

2017). A key question for conservation policy and management is: how to increase the

resilience of PAs in the changing and increasingly volatile socio-economic landscapes

of the 21st Century (Jepson et al., 2017).

As Jepson et. al (2011) has mentioned, the declaration of PAs was used as a

conservation tool for nature and has been a defining feature of the 20 th century. The

natural resource in this study was declared as a PA which implies that there are

approaches and methods being implemented and should be implemented to conserve

and sustain the sound ecosystem of the resource.

2.4 Ecosystem Services

Ecosystem is the community of organisms in the environment or surroundings

interconnected in complicated ways that function as an ecological unit in the natural

world (Nelson et. al, 2009). Ecosystems are responsible for a variety of services and

amenities that living individuals enjoy. These services include provisioning services,

regulating services, cultural heritage services, and provide support of the systems that

9
uphold, preserve and sustain life on Earth or the habitat services (Millennium

Ecosystem Assessment, 2005a, 2005b). These environmental services are also referred

to as Ecosystem Services (ES), which are all the goods and services provided by the

physical world, not made by the people, other than direct extractive values that the

natural environment is bringing into being to provide for the necessities of the general

public (Scheufele and Bennet, 2017).

The demand for these Ecosystem Services (ES) has been constantly increasing

over the years, this is in accordance with the growing levels of wealth across many

countries. Now the question of why should one value the environment still spins a huge

debate between economists and other people, may it be in authority or not (Verma et

al., 2017). Ecosystem Services (ES) need to be valued in order to measure and estimate

the benefits it provides and the costs it incur for by natural resources damage

measurements. Not to mention that the environment not only provide use values or

direct use of the service, but also nonuse values or those less tangible ecosystem

services (Zhang, 2016).

The importance of ecosystem goods and services is progressively being

recognized and documented in terms of their socio-economic benefits and their

contributions to other aspects of the well-being of the people that depend and rely on

their assistance (Costanza et al., 2014, 1997). Often these amenities cannot be easily

measured through monetary terms, especially the protection it provides from natural

hazards or its impact on the provisions and cultural distinctiveness of an individual

(Verma et. al, 2017).

Many consider that imposing a price on natural amenities and consequently

making it as a commodity is either not possible and not manageable or ethically

10
unsound. However, in reality, if natural ecosystems are providing these services, people

tend to mine the resources to the point that it cannot replenish itself leaving it at risk of

being total depletion. It also makes the economic analysis and decision-making

regarding this matter likewise difficult to contest (Kallis et al., 2013). Ignorance of these

Ecosystem Services (ES) have a huge influence and massive impact on their protection

status with serious implications on human well-being and everything that depends on

the services being provided by the natural environment.

This research study aims to identify the ecosystem services that the natural

resource provide for the people. So to answer the query as to why there is a need for

commodifying ecosystem services, one of many reasons is that it can help in

determining the quantity of a good allowed to be extracted by doing an economic

analysis. Also, many services are an umbrella specie whereby its protection also

safeguards other habitats of a number of other species. In this way, it ensures stability

of natural evolutionary developments in the environment. Additionally, it conserves a

varied kind of such environment and delivers social, economic and cultural benefits.

(Badola et al., 2010).

2.5 Impact of Importance of Ecosystem Services

In order to align the provision of ecosystem services with the expectation of

human society, the strategic importance of ecosystem service valuation as an

operational basis for policy decisions on natural restoration has been increasingly

recognized (Chen et al., 2014). The rapid degradation of ecosystem health and

escalation of the expectation of the society from the provision of these ecosystems gives

rise to the attention of natural restoration. Hence, analyzing the preference of the society

11
from economic services might be improved through optimizing policy decisions about

natural restoration and spreading critical information regarding the policy and lastly,

managing soundly the natural resources. Despite the challenges and issues of valuating

an ecosystem service, numerous schemes have been developed to assimilate ecological

and economic outcomes.

According to Stone et al. (2008) and Buijs (2009), as more and more

governmental and non-governmental organization (NGOs) around the planet adopt

ecosystem service strategies to restore ecologically vibrant riparian ecosystems,

firsthand knowledge of the societal expectation that promotes or hinders restoration

efforts is needed. There is a rising concern that, when valuing the benefits of natural

restoration, only the functional attributes of ecosystems or certain services that are

preferred were considered and some attributes might be lost in the process (Chen,

2014). The result of Chen’s study in 2014 demonstrates that people attached a high

level of importance to the overall ecosystem service outcomes of the proposed

restoration project and direct experience might enhance people’s perception of

ecosystem services. In addition to the result, the study finds a probable link between

people’s perception of the flow of restored ecosystem services and payment timeline:

when paying recurrently, over a certain long period of time, people rationally pay more

attention to future benefits, as a substantial proportion of the payments occur far off in

the future.

The external threat in the environment is a matter to be addressed; this is to

mitigate the outcomes when unfortunate event might happen in the environment. It goes

to show that there is a need for conservation and protection of a natural resource

especially when people deem its importance. This research study shows the impact of

12
the natural resource, especially the ecosystem services that it gives to the people who

reside in the locale.

2.6 Economic Valuation

A strong economy is not only the determinant of the quality of life being lived.

Natural environment can also be one of the factors regarding the matter. Biodiversity

or the environment is one of the most important provider and producer to the economy

in a way that ecosystems are the sources of many provisions and amenities that supply

a human-being’s needs and wants (World Wide Fund, 2013).

Now, why is there a need to make the value of the environment to be measurable

in monetary terms? Through Economic Valuation (EV) of Ecosystem Services (ES), it

is shown that enhanced investment in these services is economically rational (Loureiro

and Loomis, 2017).

Ecosystem Services (ES) are not measured in monetary terms. Many of the

goods and services produced by the environment and ecosystems are essential and vital,

difficulties arise because these particular goods and services cannot be easily quantified

in monetary terms especially when they are traded in the market (Marre et. al, 2016).

When these services are left unpriced, the decision-making process may favor results

which do not reflect the proper value of these goods and services. So the development

for a process to derive these values is greatly needed to start with (Loureiro and Loomis,

2017).

It is clearly agreed that much additional work will be required before a complete

understanding of this phenomenon take place. After careful analysis of the obtained

data and information, economists developed a kind of valuation or assessment to

13
address the need of these Economic Services (ES) to impose values on them. This

particular method is known as Economic Valuation (EV). Economic Valuation (EV) is

known and is widely used as a tool to quantify the values originating from the natural

ecological unit (Coggan et al., 2010

Uncertainties arise when Ecosystem Services (ES) are poorly defined and

defended (Coggan et al., 2010). For an instance, people in this field know that ES

represent the characteristics of a public good or common-pool resources. Property

rights in this case are weakly defined because of the supply of the resources. In addition,

another uncertainty is the case of “free-riding”. Free-riders are those people who benefit

from the goods and services without bothering to pay for it. In this situation, the

suppliers bear all the cost of producing the ES without gaining back any profit to

compensate for the biodiversity or ecosystem. When market fails in this field, the true

social costs or benefits of a good is not being fully reflected in the market (Coggan et

al., 2010).

It is hoped that by doing Economic Valuation (EV), it will help stimulate the

true value of the ecosystem and manage the effects of market failures. Economic

Valuation has a well-established method and procedures for assessing this kind of

exertion (Coggan et al., 2010).

In assessing Economic Valuation (EV), further investigations in this field led to

a summary of three (3) methods to integrate ecosystem valuation into economics. These

techniques are: market-based techniques, revealed preference techniques, and lastly,

stated preference techniques (Marre et al., 2016).

The market-based techniques are where the extraction of the resources from the

ecosystem if being directly sold and consumed in the market. While the revealed

14
preference techniques happen when the market has data and information available of

the goods and services to the consumers. And lastly, the stated preference techniques

are techniques that reflect limited values of the ecosystem (Marre et al., 2016).

Generally, there are two types of method when valuing the ecosystem. These

are by using choice modelling method (CMM) and contingent valuation method

(CVM). The former, choice modelling method (CMM), is the most recently discovered

stated preference technique. It is similar to CVM but this method is simply ranking

options without totally focusing on its monetary terms. While contingent valuation

method (CVM), which is the method that will be used in this study, is the first stated

preference technique developed. It is used to estimate and measure both use values and

non-use values provided by the environment. In this method, respondents are asked for

their total willingness-to-pay (WTP) for certain goods and services (Marre et al., 2016).

Economic Valuation (EV) in this research study was carried out through

Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) which is a type of stated-preeference technique.

The researchers used this economic method to value the Natural Park since it services

it provides cannot be easily monetized.

2.7 Economic Value of Natural Parks

Numerous kinds of landforms like mountains are at risk of disappearing if they

are not protected well. Ignorance of their values may lead to their depletion and along

with this are the services that these natural resources provide for the well-being of the

people (Dumitras et. al, 2011). Human beings harm the environment by polluting the

surroundings and excessively exploit the services it provides.

15
 Humans cannot avoid to face crises due to loss of biodiversity. They are directly

affected when an ecosystem fails to provide its services. Generally, it is because of the

activities that people make and the consequences of their actions are the reasons why

resources from the environment are on the verge of extinction. The decline of natural

provisions serves as a threat to the present generation to conserve and protect the

environment for the future.

According to the World Wide Fund for Nature in 2013, Natural Parks are

comparatively large reserve areas where a number of species are establishing their

particular community for survival. It is a protected and dedicated place for conservation

of ecosystems and can serve as sanctuary for many wildlife and other living organisms.

With these natural treasures, extractive activities are prohibited.

Development of a natural park helps the economic growth of the place where it

is located (Dumitras et al., 2011). It can also provide employment opportunities.

Ecotourism is considered as an ideal mechanism for attaining economic and ecological

sustainability. However, many natural destinations including natural parks are

confronting unreasonable decrease in budgetary allocation for its maintenance like its

assets and amenities. This shortage of budget together with shocking influx of tourists

intimidates the existence, conservation and sustainability of the sites.

Costs of decreasing biodiversity are felt at local level but often unnoticed at

higher national and international levels because due to weaker policies. Putting

economic value on a resource means measuring the benefit provided as a good or

service by the environment (Adhikari et. al, 2017). It is often measured relative to units

of currency of the locale. It answers the question “What is the maximum amount of

money a consumer is willing and able to pay for the good and service provided by the

16
environment?” and also takes into consideration the opportunity cost of one service to

another.

Economic value of natural parks considers all the services it can provide. The

value of doing recreational activities, the food produced by the biodiversity of the

natural park, the job opportunities, and et cetera, which can be considered as a resource

from the environment. This research study is also about valuing the natural park located

in Leon, Iloilo.

2. 8 Willingness-to-Pay

Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) is the amount one is willing to sacrifice for a good

or service. This type of monetary valuation is often elicited using contingent valuation

(Grutter et al., 2008). According to Grutter et al., (2008), in this process, respondents

are directly asked how much they would be willing to pay for hypothetical intervention.

The amount elicited reflects the value the respondent assigns for the intervention to take

place.

Zhang Tao, Haiming Yan, Jinyan Zhan (2011) estimated the economic

value of forest ecosystem services in the Heshuie Watershed, Jiangxi province, China

using the contingent valuation method. In their paper, they stated that an explicit linkage

between the economic market price and non-market goods is not needed, rather, a

hypothetical situation was presented to the respondents to reveal their value on services.

There were 80 reliable WTP results from the retrieved 186 surveys. They excluded

WTPs that were too high claiming it to be “invalid.”

17
 In the study by Tae Dong Cho (2013), the factors biological sex, educational

attainment, and income level reflected a positive coefficient, while age had a negative

coefficient.

According to Lopez et. al (2014), residents who belong to urban areas also

reflected a positive relationship with WTP which implies that upland residents have

lower WTP and would result to a negative coefficient in the regression. Household size,

on the other hand, is expected to have a negative coefficient based on the study of

Ismael Maloma on WTP for air pollution of residents in a low-income settlement in

South Africa.

Langford (1998) showed how knowledge on awareness and programs the

environment could affect individual’s WTP. The study found that knowledge on

environmental programs and their definitions reflected a positive coefficient in their

regression analysis which indicated that the more knowledgeable the respondent, the

higher the WTP choice.

Household income is understood as the summation of earning provided by work

and other sources (IBGE, 2003 as cited in Francisco, et. al). With that definition, it is

assumed that an increase in the number income-earning members increases income as

well. Since income is expected to have a positive coefficient (Cho, 2013), the number

of income-earning members per household is also expected to reflect a positive

coefficient.

In this study for Bucari Pine Forest, contingent valuation was used to elicit WTP

of the study participants which is a type of a stated-preference method. Similar to the

study of Grutter, the respondents were asked directly the amount they are willing to pay

for the natural park. A hypothetical situation was also used similar to the study of Tao,

18
et. al. to see the value respondents give the natural park. Protest bids were also excluded

from the regression as they were considered invalid WTP answers. The results of the

regression of previous studies were also used to determine the expected signs of the

variables for this study.

2. 9 Payment for Environmental Services (PES)

According to Sven Wunder (2005), PES is a voluntary transaction where a well-

defined service (or land-use likely to secure that service) is being ‘bought’ by (minimum

one) ES buyer from a (minimum one) ES provider if and only if the ES provider secures

ES provision (conditionality). Basically, PES is a combination of a user fee with a

targeted, conditional subsidy.

PES may be user-financed or government-financed. The difference being very

evident in the names themselves. User-financed PES schemes consider the ES Buyer to

be the direct end-users of the conserved resource while government-financed PES

schemes have the public administration in charge of finances in behalf the private sector

end-user (Pagiola, 2005).

In Adhikari’s paper on financial compensation for conservation in Ba Be

National Park of Northern Vietnam, PES is defined as an incentive-based instrument to

foster biodiversity conservation by providing an economic incentive to local actors

(Engel, Pagiola, & Wunder, 2008). This paper’s aim was to estimate financial

compensation for conservation in Protected Areas of Ba Be National Park. Financial

compensation is a form of positive incentive to landowner for their opportunity costs

(e.g. luxury of having other forms of livelihood).

19
 Gabriela Scheufele and Jeff Bennett (2017) defined PES schemes as

mechanisms that can perform the role of a ‘market’ for ecosystem services in

circumstances where such a market would otherwise fail to develop.

Generally, literatures on PES describe it as an incentive-based financial or non-

financial compensation scheme for providers of environmental services to assure and

promote conservation based on the demands of end-users (Engel, Pagiola, & Wunder,

2008). Understanding the concept of a PES scheme is important as this is a widely used

method for biodiversity and ecosystem conservation. It could lead to better

opportunities for conservation.

This study aims to propose a PES scheme for the Bucari Pine Forest for its

conservation and protection. The scheme proposed is user-financed which, as defined

above, is when the beneficiary pays for the services for the natural park. A user-financed

PES involves buyers and sellers which is involved in making the PES scheme since it

would perform the role of a market for environmental services.

2. 10 Payment for Environmental Services as a Framework for Conservation

According to Sven Wunder (2015), a sound and desirable PES scheme must

possess key features. First of which is being consistent and precise enough for

generating empirical knowledge. It should be clear and definitions stated within the

proposed scheme should not be vague. Second, it should be distinctive in function from

indirect positive incentives. It should be easily distinguished and different from the

umbrella of other positive environmental incentives. Third, the PES scheme should be

robust to intertemporal variations in implementation. It should be able to withstand

minor time-bound variations. Lastly, a desirable PES scheme should be simple to

20
remember. When proposing a desirable PES scheme, one must avoid redundancy and

complexity and assure that it is simple enough to understand.

The forerunner of PES schemes in developing countries is Costa Rica with their

National PES Program in 1997 (Malavasi and Kellenberg, n.d). It established a formal

country-wide program of payments known as the Pago por Servicios Ambientales, or

simply, the PSA program. The PSA program remains largely a “supply side” PES

program (Pagiola, 2007) since the program is not fully financed by its users since its

major financing comes from fuel tax. According to Dr. Edgar Malavasi and Dr. John

Kellenberg (n.d.), the PSA program’s main goal is set on private land users with the

aim of incorporating environmental considerations in landscapes outside protected

areas. Landowners present a sustainable forest management plan prepared by a regente

or a licensed forester to participate in the said program. Their plans must include their

proposed land use and information on tenure and physical access.

Once approved, landowners commence adaptation of their practices and receive

payments in return. However, there is no way to identify the extent to which the

program was able to produce environmental services (Malavasi and Kellenberg, n.d).

Despite its strong system to monitor land user compliance with payment contracts it

still seems weak in monitoring its effectiveness in generating the desired services

(Pagiola, 2007). The program revealed to have very little additionality included in its

scheme (Wunder, 2015). This raises the question whether additionality is something

relevant in making a desirable PES scheme.

Ram Kumar Adhikari’s (et. al) study (2016) focused on financial compensation

system for conservation in Ba Be National Park in Northern Vietnam. With biodiversity

loss ongoing globally, they have establish protected areas and used a financial

21
compensation scheme to promote biodiversity conservation. Compensation in estimates

in the program were based on the net present values of the different land-use options.

The scheme included risk aversion among farmers. Risk aversion refers to the

landowner’s preference to avoid any unknown risks and is the most common behaviour

and proper risk attitude for a rational decision-maker (Adhikari et. al, 2016). The study

showed that strongly risk averse farmers required lower price compensation than those

who were weakly risk averse.

Under Decree No. 99/2010 (Vietnamese PES Law): provincial or central

governments facilitate the distribution of funds to local people which classifies their

scheme as government-financed. The study concluded that financial incentives were

necessary to for local people to avoid biodiversity loss in and around protected areas.

They found that compensation payments will increase when considering mutually

exclusive land use options and/or strict protection level. The authors also recommended

to analyse the effect of site conditions, farm sizes and local market prices on

compensation in order to devise a scheme that would be effective and desirable.

In 2009, Fred Nelson et al. conducted their study on using PES as a framework

for community-based conservation in Northern Tanzania. The aim has been to develop

financial mechanisms that create sufficient incentives for local communities to protect

of all of the Simajiro plains in Sukuro, Emboreet and Terrat villages (Nelson et. al,

2009). Its initial concept was to develop a conservation grant in Terrat Village as a pilot

initiative that would eventually lead to coverage of areas with key wildlife habitats.

Although maintenance was already present through the locals’ traditional land-use

rules, the PES scheme or contract reinforces and formalizes these assuring greater

livelihood for their community (Nelson et. al, 2009).

22
 Notably, Fred Nelson et. al (2009) mentioned that a central role in establishing

a PES arrangement is the involvement of the central village government which luckily

in Tanzania, was not an issue. Local communities in Tanzania possess a clear statutory

and corporate form thus, village councils, their accountability to the village assembly

and the formal rights of villages over defined land areas contribute to the establishment

of the PES scheme that was based on land-use criteria. In exchange for the service locals

provided to maintain and protect their properties, the Wildlife Conservation Society

agreed to provide salaries and equipment for four village scouts requiring

approximately US$300 in additional expenditures per month. The researchers

concluded the paper by declaring PES as realistic option for community-based

conservation (Nelson et. al, 2009). Its initiatives provide a potential mechanism for

mitigating the consequences of entrenched policy and market failures and associated

biodiversity losses (Engel et. al, 2008). The experience in Tanzania implies that PES

approaches may be cost-effective and may serve as a method to develop negotiated and

acceptable conservation frameworks to local communities for biodiversity

conservation.

In 2017, Gabriela Scheufele and Jeff Bennett tackled the issue whether PES

schemes can mimic markets. Their aim was to analyse examples of PES schemes that

have attempted to mimic market mechanisms into their design. This was also to propose

a PES scheme to mimic competitive markets for otherwise non-marketed

environmental services. There have been no previous accounts of PES schemes

proposed by these researchers. They stated that if benefits are lower than costs then

society would bear the loss and without having information on the monetary value of

demand and supply, it remains unknown if this type of scheme generates a social net

23
benefit or loss. Also, they state that cost-effectiveness of a scheme does not guarantee

an economically efficient outcome.

Overall, there is no particular scheme that researchers conclude to be the best

PES scheme. Many considerations should be taken into account to implement an

appropriate PES scheme (e.g. location, government participation, community

participation, etc.). As mentioned by Scheufele and Bennett (2017), it is not universal.

For this study, the general PES Mechanism by Pagiola (2005) served as the main

framework for the proposed scheme for the Bucari Pine Forest. To create an effective

PES scheme, this study took note of how Sven Wunder (2015) described a good PES

scheme: simple and precise. This is to make sure that the framework and design of the

scheme will be easy to understand by the stakeholders. The simpler and more precise

the PES scheme, the easier to understand and to implement. The respondent’s views of

their local government and preferred payment vehicles were taken into consideration in

the design as this could affect community participation such as the abovementioned

case of Tanzania.

24
 CHAPTER III

THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

3.1 Welfare Economics

Welfare economics is the economic study of the definition and the measure of

the social welfare; it offers the theoretical framework used in public economics to help

collective decision-making (Baujard, 2013). It involves the methods of increasing

economic well-being and welfare. Considering policy questions for conservation of the

environment should trace back to welfare economics before proceeding. The economic

concept of value is based on an anthropocentric, utilitarian approach in defining value

based on individual preferences (National Academies Press, n.d.) which when used in

economic valuation, increases welfare of consumers.

3.2 Demand and Supply for Environmental Services

In daily market economics, markets determine the price and quantities of

products and services and according to the theory of supply and demand, an optimal

mix of products and services is demanded and supplied which leads to the highest

possible welfare for consumers (Jantzen, 2006). Jantzen, year also explains that for

products and services not available in a regular market such as environmental services

and biodiversity, there is no direct market price which makes it difficult to optimise the

demand supply of such services. Nevertheless, a lack of a direct market price does not

mean that there is no desire for it.

25
 Jantzen (2006) also stated that when both demand and supply curves are known,

one can theoretically estimate the optimal quantity of the resource a consumer is willing

to pay. As far as this study is concerned, the researchers will be focusing on the demand

of environmental services since it focuses on WTP of the residents of Leon.

3.3 Total Economic Value

Total Economic Value (TEV) is the total value of the benefits derived from a

marginal change in an ecosystem, expressed in monetary terms (Admiraal, et. al, 2012).

When one fails to place a quantitative value on the environment, it is assigned a default

value of zero in calculations for policy-making. According to Tietenberg (2012),

leaving a resource at the default value of zero eventually leads to significant

environmental degradation that cannot be justified by economic valuation. TEV

provides a framework for analysing and evaluating natural resources. The framework

of TEV is based on the presumption that individuals can hold multiple values for

ecosystems.

TEV can be decomposed into three main components: use value, option value

and nonuse value (Tietenberg and Lewis, 2012). Tietenberg and Lewis (2012) explains

further that use value refers to the value derived from the direct use of the resource. An

example would be the scenic beauty of a resource. Option Value refers to a consumer’s

willingness to pay to preserve an environmental resource for the possibility of use in

the future despite not currently using it. It reflects a desire to make use of the resource

in the future. Nonuse value refers to a value or satisfaction derived from preserving a

natural resource without planning to ever use it. Nonuse values can be further divided

into two: bequest values and existence values. Bequest values refer to a consumer’s

26
willingness to pay to conserve a resource to ensure its existence for future generations

while existence values refer to one’s willingness to pay to assure that a resource

continues to exist without any interest for future use of the consumer (Tietenberg and

Lewis, 2012).

In this study, the natural park’s value will be based on the willingness-to-pay

(WTP) of the residents of Bucari to preserve and conserve the natural park. WTP can

be taken from a method known as contingent valuation method (CVM). CVM would

reflect the value of nature to the residents who would act as rational actors (Bockstael

as cited in Admiraal, et. al, 2012).

3.4 Willingness-to-Pay

Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) is defined as the highest amount a consumer is

willing to forego for a certain good or service (Le Gall-Ely, 2009). It is the theoretical

construct of economic benefits that contingent valuation questions are designed to

measure (Whitehead and Haab, 2013). WTP can be elicited through direct surveys

wherein respondents are asked to state the amount they would be willing to pay for the

resource. WTP is the foundation of the economic theory of value (Whitehead and Haab,

2006), creating the idea that if something is worth having, it is worth paying for. The

value elicited through WTP is how individuals value the environment and the resource.

WTP is important for policy making and benefit valuation for non-traded sectors.

In this study, WTP was elicited through Contingent Valuation Method (CVM).

This a type of stated preference method wherein the study participant is asked directly

the amount he or she is willing to pay for the natural park.

27
3.5 Framework for Payment for Environmental Services

The framework of a PES scheme revolves roughly around the theory of demand

and supply wherein there are buyers and sellers of a product, in this case: environmental

services.

In a user financed PES program, the buyers are the actual users of the

environmental service. Pagiola and Platais (as cited in Engel, 2008) argue that this kind

of PES program is likely to be efficient since the actors with the most information about

the value of the service are directly involved and have a clear incentive to ensure that

the mechanism is functioning well. This is referred to as the “Coasian” PES program

as it resembles the negotiated solution in the Coase Theorem (Pagiola and Platais as

cited in Engel, 2008).

On the other hand, in a government-financed PES program, the buyers are a

third party acting in behalf of the service users. The third party is normally a

government agency or a conservation institution. Since the buyers in this case are not

the direct user, they have no first-hand information on its value and have no direct

incentive to ensure that the program is working efficiently (Engel et. al, 2008).

Although government-financed PES schemes are more inefficient, they may also be

more cost-effective because of economies of scale in transaction costs. The distinct

feature of PES is revolved around its focus on the ‘beneficiary pays principle’ rather

than the ‘polluter pays principle.’ This is especially attractive for circumstances where

environmental service providers are poor, marginalized landholders or powerful group

of actors (Engel et. al, 2008).

By directly compensating environmental service providers for the opportunity

costs of conservation, PES was conceived as a theoretically cost-effective instrument

28
for maximizing impact of scarce conservation funds (Ferraro and Kiss as cited in

Borner, 2017). PES thus provides the opportunity to put a price on a resource and

bringing it into a wider economy. According to the United Kingdom Department for

Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (2013), there are four principal groups involved

in PES schemes: buyers, sellers, intermediaries and knowledge providers.

Buyers are those individuals or consumers willing to pay for the resource.

Sellers are those whose actions affect the resource directly. Intermediaries refer to those

who can serve as links between the buyers and sellers while knowledge providers are

those who can provide knowledge vital for the scheme development.

This study adopted the following framework in designing the PES scheme for

Bucari Pine Forest:

Figure 3.1 General Structure of a PES Mechanism. Adopted from Pagiola, S. (2005)

29
 CHAPTER IV

METHODOLOGY

4.1 Locale of the Study

Leon is a second class municipality located in the second district of the Province

of Iloilo in Panay Island. The municipality has a total population of 49,875 as of August

2015 with a density of 360 inhabitants per square kilometer or 930 inhabitants per

square mile and is subdivided into 85 barangays.

Leon is surrounded by the municipalities of Tigbauan and Tubungan on the

South, Alimodian on the North, San Miguel on the East, and lastly, San Remegio in

Antique Province on the West. According to Republic Act No. 9593 or the “Tourism

Act of 2009” the Bucari Pine Forest of the province comprises of 14 barangays namely:

Bucari, Bobon, Camandag, Ingay, Danao, Cagay, Lampaya, Cabolo-an, Banagan,

Ticuan, Gines, Tunguan, Bacolod, and Maliao (Figure 4.1) located in Leon and seven

located in the Municipality of Alimodian. The town proper of Leon is the area

considered an urban zone since this is where everyday business takes place in the

municipality.

The town was chosen as the study site due to the presence of Bucari Pine Forest

where PES can be applied. The natural park has become a commonly visited site among

tourists and has grown vulnerable to environmental degradation and overexploitation.

This makes the site a possible location for a PES scheme to be imposed.

30
 The study was conducted within the months of February 2018 to March 2018.

Secondary data was gathered during November 2017 through consultation with people

and local barangay officials involved in the study.

Figure 4. 1 Map of Leon, Ilollo

Figure 4. 2 Satellite View of Bucari (source: Google Maps)

31
4.2 Study Participants

The participants of the study are residents of Leon, Iloilo and particularly those

who are residents of the barangays chosen for the research. In line with this, officials

and representatives from the respective offices of the chosen locality were also

contacted in order to have access to relevant data and information needed for the

completion and analysis of the research study. The barangays surrounding the natural

park were chosen as the study sites.

Quota sampling was used for the study to assure that the household was well-

represented. The participants were chosen through basic criterion: resided in the

barangay, at least 18 years old or knowledgeable enough of their household conditions.

Residency in the barangay was important because it will affect the WTP of the study

participant. Also, the researchers made sure that representatives of the household were

knowledgeable of their household which means they had to be aware of basic

information of their household: monthly household income, monthly electricity bill,

household members, and number of income-earning members of the household. This

was to assure that the respondents could represent their households well for the study.

Quota sampling is an example of a statistical method to choose representative

of a group to be the participant in the research study as long as the essential

characteristics of the represented group are being taken into account. Quota sampling

method is a non-probability sampling that gathers data from a representative of a group.

The underlying reasoning behind quota sampling is that if the sample effectively

represents the population characteristics that have a greater correlation with the study

variable, this will also be correctly represented (Universitat Pompeu Fabra, 2011). This

type of sampling method was used in the eight barangays surveyed.

32
 The list of residents for the chosen barangays was requested from the municipal

office. This was used as basis in determining the sample size. The sample of 369 was

computed using the formula below:

𝑧2 [𝑝(1−𝑝)]
𝑒2
n= 𝑧2 [𝑝(1−𝑝)]
1+
𝑒2 𝑁

Where:

Table 4.1 Definition of Variables for Equation Determining Sample Size

Variable Description Value

n Sample size -
N Population 9,899
Z Confidence Interval 95%
Z-score: 1.96
e Margin of Error 1% or 0.01
p Maximum Variation 0.5

To get the sample size per barangay, the researchers used the following equation

𝑛
𝑛𝑛 = (𝑁 )
𝑁 𝑛

Where:

nn - Sample size for the barangays

Nn – Population size of the barangay

n – Sample Size of the Study

N – Total Population

33
Table 4.2. Population and Sample Size of Selected Barangays in Leon, Iloilo 2018
Upland Barangay Population Sample Size
Bucari 1,448 58
Danao 320 13
Bobon 544 22
Dusacan 352 14
Lowland Barangay
Poblacion 5,511 220
Tina-an Sur 287 11
Jamog Gines 306 12
Panginman 487 19
TOTAL POPULATION 8,655 369

4.3 Sampling Technique

The researchers chose eight barangays in Leon, Iloilo. Four barangays within

the Timberland area of Bucari which were categorized as upland barangays and four

lowland barangays. For the upland barangays, only those near the pine forest were

considered as study sites. For safety reasons, only the barangays recommended by the

municipal personnel were included. The first four upland barangays were adjacent to

the Natural Park itself thus first-hand information gathered from these particular

residents of these barangays are vital in the research study. The same is true for the four

lowland barangays chosen. The urban barangay was included since this is where

population of the municipality is mostly concentrated. The researchers subdivided into

upland and lowland the results of the data and information gathered in order to

distinguish the difference between the answers of the study participants in particular

barangays included in the study. This is to show the difference of the answers the study

34
participants and their perspective regarding the importance of the Natural Park in their

opinions.

Out of 85 barangays, the researchers identified four barangays namely: Brgy.

Bucari, Brgy. Danao, Brgy. Bobon, and Brgy. Dusacan as the upland barangays situated

within the timberland area to be part of the sample population of the conducted research

study. Another four barangays that are classified as lowland areas by the municipality

were included in the study: Brgy. Poblacion, Brgy. Tina-an Sur, Brgy. Jamog Gines,

and Brgy. Panginman. These eight barangays were surveyed with permission from their

local officials.

4.4 Research Design

The study is mostly quantitative, making use of contingent valuation method

(CVM) to attain the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of the residents for the preservation and

conservation of Bucari Pine Forest or the Natural Park. The study analyzes the socio-

economic factors that affect an individual’s WTP for the Natural Park. The study also

aims to devise an appropriate Payment for Environmental Services (PES) scheme of

the Natural Park. Lastly, the research study was designed to identify and determine

further ecosystem services that the Bucari Pine Forest can provide.

The study used Contingent Valuation Method – Willingness-to-pay (CVM-

WTP) to evaluate the importance of the value of the natural park. It also determined the

true value of the natural park by analyzing the respondents’ WTP choices.

35
4.5 Empirical Model of Willingness-to-Pay

Socioeconomic factors that affect WTP for environmental services have been

identified to attain the true WTP of residents the following factors were considered:

WTP = f (X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6, X7, X8)

Where:

Dependent Variable:

WTP – Willingness-to-Pay for the preservation of Bucari Pine Forest

Independent Variables:

X1 – Income Level

X2 – Age

X3 – Sex

X4 – Knowledge on PES

X5 – Educational Attainment

X6 – Proximity

X7 – Household Size

X8 – Number of Income-earning Members

4.6 Electricity Consumption as a proxy variable for household income

Household is considered as a group of relatives or people living the same

household unit and are dependent of each other (Francisco, et al, 2006). Income is

36
understood as the summation of earning provided by work and other sources (IBGE,

2003 as cited in Francisco, et. al). This concept is applicable to both households and

individuals. However, in eliciting household income in stated preference methods and

surveys, it is often altered to the favour of the respondent during the interview thus

making it a risky variable and can often times be unreliable.

To capture income without risking the possibility of unreliable data, expenditure

of the household was considered. Expenditure of a respondents reflects purchasing

power which in turn reflects their household income. One crucial variable in household

expenditure is electricity consumption. According to Francisco (2006), electricity

distribution companies often use income predictions to develop their market. The paper

by Francisco is compelled to the assumption that the higher the energy consumption,

the higher the income. In his paper, he explains that the higher the energy consumption

in a household, the more appliances and household items require the use of energy

which reflects the income classification of a household and how consumption of

electricity denotes a high usage of high-valued goods. He concludes that if the number

of residents living in the household is included as a variable, then monthly electricity

bill may be used for household income estimates.

In this study, it is highly possible for respondents to either overstate or

understate their household income to how they find it favourable for them especially

those whose jobs do not have a fixed income such as informal business owners, farmers,

etc. This makes their income an unreliable variable. Electricity consumption of the

respondents was used as a predictor of their income level with the assumption that the

higher the expenditure on electricity, the higher the income level.

37
4.7 Interval Regression Analysis

In order to identify the determinants of an individual’s true WTP, this studyused

interval regression analysis. According to the University of California Institute for

Digital Research and Education (n.d.), Interval Regression is used to model outcomes

that have interval censoring. The dependent variable in this study is an interval. The

individual’s lower bound WTP is the highest amount study participant is sure to pay

while the upper bound WTP of an individual the lowest amount the study participant is

not willing to pay (Breffle et. al, 1996). For an ascending payment card system,

respondents’ lower bound WTP is their chosen bid price while their higher bound WTP

is the lowest bid price in which they are unwilling to pay. The model for an interval

regression model is as follows:

𝑦𝑙 < 𝑦 < 𝑦𝑢 = 𝛼 + 𝛽1 𝑋1 + 𝛽2 𝑋2 + ⋯ + 𝛽𝑛 𝑋𝑛 + 𝑒

Where:

yl = lower bound WTP

yu = upper bound WTP

y = respondent’s true WTP

β = set of parameters to be estimated

X = explanatory variables that affect WTP

e = error term

4.8 Estimation of Willingness-to-Pay

For the research study, mean WTP of the participants will be calculated through

Turnbull’s lower bound Mean WTP formula which calculates the lower bound WTP

38
means and confidence intervals for each option (Haab and McConell as cited in Agapito

and Guadalupe, 2011).

Mean WTP = ∑tj f*j + 1

Where: Fj = Nj/Tj

Nj = number of yes responses

Tj = number offered in the specific bid

tj = bid prices

f * j = Turnbull estimate of Nj/Tj

Table 4.3 Summary of Dependent and Independent Variables to determine WTP for
Bucari Pine forest, Leon, Iloilo, 2018.
Variable Description Measurement Expected Sign
Dependent Variable
WTP Willingness to Pay In Philippine Peso
Independent Variables
Electricity
β1 Elec_month Consumption per In Philippine Peso +
month
Age of respondent
Β2 Age as of last celebrated In years -
birthday
Β3 Sex Biological sex of 1 = Male +
respondent 0 = Female

Β4 Know_pes1 Non-familiarity on 1 = not familiar -

the concept of PES with the concept of
PES
0 = otherwise

Β5 Know_pes2 Familiarity on the 1 = familiar with +

concept of PES the concept of PES
0 = otherwise

Β6 Educ Number of years +

respondent has In Years
attended school

39
 1 = Upland
Β7 Prox Proximity of resident -
respondent’s home 0 = Lowland
to the resources resident

Β8 hh_size Household size of Specify number of -

the respondent people

Β9 hh_work Members of the Specify number of +

household with people
work/income

4.9 Research Instruments

The main data-gathering tool of the study was a structured interview schedule.

The instrument used consisted of a set of questions done by the researchers in order to

gather essential data and information.

There were four sections in questionnaire. Section A was the participant’s

general attitude towards conservation. This section was to see if the participant would

consider environmental degradation as an urgent problem that should be attended to in

their municipality. This was also to see how the participant acknowledges their

responsibility towards the problem of environmental degradation.

Section B was on the knowledge and use of the Bucari Pine Forest. This was to

see the benefits derived from the natural park as well as to see if the participants are

aware that the natural park exists.

Section C was for the participants’ willingness-to-pay which was to elicit the

WTP choices of the participants as well the reasons behind their choices. This was also

40
to identify zero WTP choices and the motives for their choice of a zero WTP. This

section was also to see the possibility of the participants offering an alternative to a

monetary contribution if they were not willing to pay. The alternative specified in the

survey was through offering services to conserve the natural park with incentives rather

than contributing for the conservation of the park. Also, in this section, the respondents

were asked of their knowledge on the definition of PES. This is crucial as it is one of

the variables that could affect their WTP for the natural park.

Section D was for the socio-economic characteristics of the participants. This

included the factors to be analyzed for the participant’s WTP. Included in this section

were the following: participant’s sex, age, household size, number of income-earning

household members, monthly income bracket, occupation, and monthly electricity bill.

Before proceeding with the questions of the survey, the respondent was shortly

briefed on what the study and survey would be about and informed of the structure of

the survey and explained the objective so as not to alarm the respondent. The

respondents were also informed that they could choose to stop the interview anytime

they wish to.

Photo-cards were used for visual representation of the natural park to address

any information bias that could be present and for those who have not visited the park

recently or at all. For questions that required explanations, photo-cards were used to

give them ample information, there were also cards that contained the definition of PES

to be read by either the respondent or the interviewer which depended on the

respondent’s preference.

The respondents were also reminded of how important this study was through

cheap talk. This refers to explicit warnings about the problem of hypothetical bias

41
provided prior to respondents’ valuation of the good (Cummings and Taylor, 1991 as

cited in Aadland and Caplan, 2003). Cheap talk is in the form of a short script where in

the interviewers give a warning or a reminder to the respondent of the possibility or

misstating their WTP because of the knowledge that they are given a possible

hypothetical situation rather than an actual occurrence.

Secondary data was gathered and collected from the local government of the

municipality and review of related literature was done with help of reputable sources

on the internet and the library. Secondary data includes municipal profile, maps, etc.

With these tools used, the researchers were able to come up with the decision on how

to do the research study step by step.

42
 CHAPTER V

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 Socio-Economic and Demographic Profile of the Study Participants

5.1.1 Distribution of Study Participants by Location

The researchers used quota sampling in eight barangays and obtained a total of

369 study participants that reside in both upland and lowland zones of Leon. For upland

barangays: 58 (15.71%) of study participants were from Bucari, 13 (3.53%) were from

Danao, 22 (5.96%) were from Bobon, and 14 (3.79%) were from Dusacan. The total

study participants from upland barangays is 107 (29.00%) residents.

For lowland barangays: 220 (59.62%) of study participants were from

Poblacion which was considered the only urban barangay of the Municipality of Leon

because it is where most number of the residents are situated and concentrated, 11

(2.98%) were from Tina-an Sur, 12 (3.25%) were from Jamog Gines, and 19 (5.15%)

were from Panginman respectively. There were a total of 262 (71.00%) participants

from lowland barangays (Table 5.1).

Table 5.1 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Study Participants by Location in Leon, Iloilo,
2018
UPLAND LOWLAND TOTAL
No. % No. % No. %
Location

Upland 107 29.00 0 0.00 107 90.00

Lowland 0 0.00 262 71.00 262 71.00

43
5.1.2 Age and Sex of Study Participants by Location

The average age of the study participants in the upland barangays is 42 years

old and in lowland barangays is 44 years old. For both upland and lowland barangays,

the average age is 43 years old. Among 369 participants, 114 (30.89%) were male

respondents and the 255 (69.10%) were female respondents. Comprising more than half

of the study participants were female. During data gathering most of the male residents

were out working especially in the middle of the day. Mostly only the wife were home

to answer the interview (Table 5.2).

Table 5.2 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Age and Sex of Study Participants by Location
in Leon, Iloilo, 2018
UPLAND LOWLAND TOTAL

Average Age 42 years old 44 years old 43 years old

No. % No. % No. %

Sex

Male 22 0.27 92 24.93 114 30.89

Female 85 20.04 170 46.07 255 69.10

5.1.3 Occupation of Study Participants by Location

All 369 study participants were grouped according to their occupation. A total

of 73 (19.78%) study participants were unemployed, 21 (19.63%) came from upland

barangays and 52 (19.84%) from lowland barangays. Some of the participants that were

unemployed were stay-at-home spouse or grandparent who is in charge of taking care

of the dependent members and the family in a household. 27 (7.31%) study participants

44
work as sellers in the public market of Leon, six (5.61%) from upland barangays and

21 (8.02%) from lowland barangays. There were 64 (12.44%) identified farmers, 40

(37.38%) from upland barangays and 24 (9.16%) from lowland barangays.

Additionally, another 64 (12.44%) of the study participants, 18 (9.35%) from

upland barangays and 46 (17.56%) from lowland barangays, own and run a business as

their source of income and livelihood. 26 (7.05%) of the study participants were private

business/company employees, 11 (10.28%) from upland barangays and 15 (5.73%)

from lowland barangays. There were only 20 (5.42%) study participants that are

employed by the government, three (2.80%) coming from upland barangays and 17

(6.49%) from lowland barangays.

Furthermore, there were only five (1.36%) senior citizens that depends on

pension or retired from work that were interviewed, one (0.93%) from an upland

barangay and four (1.53%) from lowland barangays. Lastly, 90 (24.39%) of the study

participants do not belong in the given particular categories (Table 5.3). Most of these

participants were identified as students currently on their secondary or tertiary levels of

education.

45
Table 5.3 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Occupation of Study Participants by Location in
Leon, Iloilo, 2018
UPLAND LOWLAND TOTAL
No. % No. % No. %

Occupation

Unemployed 21 5.69 52 14.09 73 19.78

Market Seller 6 1.63 21 5.69 27 7.31
Farmer 40 10.84 24 6.50 64 13.44
Business Owner 18 4.89 46 12.47 64 13.44
Private Employee 11 2.98 15 4.07 26 7.05
Government Employee 3 0.81 17 4.61 20 5.42
Retired/Depends on Pension 1 0.27 4 1.08 5 1.36
Others 7 1.90 83 22.49 90 24.39

5.1.4 Educational Attainment and Years of Education of Study Participants by Location

For the participants’ educational attainment, only six (1.6%) study participants

did not have any formal schooling. There are 57 (12.45%) study participants who had

primary education, 31 (28.97%) study participants from upland barangays and 26

(9.92%) from lowland barangays. About 145 (39.30%) study participants attended

secondary level of education, 52 (48.60%) came from upland barangays and 93

(34.50%) from lowland barangays.

Finally, a total of 161 (43.63%) study participants attended tertiary level of

education, only 21 (19.63%) from upland barangays while there were 140 (53.44%)

study participants who were able to attain college level of education in upland

barangays. Most of the study participants in upland barangays finish either primary or

secondary level of education (Table 5.4).

Educational attainment is higher in lowland compared to upland barangays due

to poverty. Proximity of residents from school is also a factor since upland barangays

do not always have easy access to schools that offer higher levels of education. The

46
average years of formal education found in upland barangays is ten years, 12 years in

lowland barangays, and average of 11 years for both barangays.

Table 5.4 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Educational Attainment and Years of Education
of Study Participants by Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018
UPLAND LOWLAND TOTAL
No. % No. % No. %
Highest Educational Attainment

None 3 0.81 3 0.81 6 1.63

Elementary Level 31 8.40 26 7.05 57 15.45
High School Level 52 14.09 93 25.20 145 39.30
College Level 21 5.69 140 37.94 161 43.63

Average Years of Formal 10 years 12 years 11 years

Education

5.1.5 Average Household Size and Income-Earning Members of Study Participants by

Location

The average members in a household is six in upland barangays, five in lowland

barangays, and an average of five members per household for both barangays. In every

household, there is an average of two members who were earning income to support

the family. Most of the members who are working are males, especially in upland

barangays where the head, mostly the husband, of the family is the one who is earning

in the household (Table 5.5).

47
Table 5.5 Frequency Distribution of Household Size and Income-Earning Members of Study
Participants by Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018

UPLAND LOWLAND TOTAL

Average Household Size 6 members 5 members 5 members

Average Income-Earning 2 members 2 members 2 members

Members

5.1.6 Households’ Monthly Income of Study Participants by Location

For the study participants’ monthly household income, there were a total of 59

(16.00%) study participants that are earning and spending not more than 2,000 PHP a

month. There were 35 (32.71%) households from upland barangays and 24 (9.16%)

households from lowland barangays, correspondingly. These particular participants

who earn and spend below 2,000 PHP a month either do not earn much, depend on

other household members and how much they provide them, have their own available

sources of food in their backyard, or are living alone in their household thus explaining

the lesser money expenditures for themselves. Mostly people in upland barangays have

lesser income because of their respective jobs and spending in their respective areas are

lower relative to people who live in lowland barangays of the municipality because they

have sources of edible food in their backyard (Table 5.6).

This is also true with the next two higher income brackets of 2,001 PHP - 4,000

PHP and 4,001 PHP - 6,000 PHP a month with a total of 52 and 72 households

respectively. For the next two higher income brackets, 6,001 PHP - 8,000 PHP and

8,001 PHP - 10,000 PHP, these households have higher number of members who have

work or businesses that help them with the earnings and expenditures. Also, these

48
households have a higher number of dependent members (e.g. students and senior

citizens) as a result, money spending is more of a concern.

Table 5.6 Frequency and Percent Distribution of Household Monthly Income of Study Participants
by Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018
UPLAND LOWLAND TOTAL
No. % No. % No. %
Household Monthly Income

1,000 PHP - 2,000 PHP 35 9.49 24 6.50 59 16.00

2,001 PHP - 4,000 PHP 25 6.78 27 7.32 52 14.09
4,001 PHP - 6,000 PHP 28 7.59 44 11.92 72 19.51
6,001 PHP - 8,000 PHP 7 1.90 51 13.82 58 15.72
8,001 PHP- 10,000 PHP 9 2.44 45 12.20 55 14.91
10,001 PHP- 40,000 PHP 2 0.54 71 19.24 73 19.78

5.1.7 Type of Household, Materials Used, and Water Source of Study Participants by

Location

Out of 369, 270 (73.17%) of the study participants live in compound-type

households which is a type of household where there are multiple families included.

Only 79 (21.41%) household live in a nuclear family type of household and 20 (5.42%)

live together with their extended family members in a single household. As for the

materials used in each study participants’ household, 98 (26.56%) study participants

identified their household materials as concrete, while 120 (32.52%) study participants

have light household materials, and finally, a total of 151 (40.92%) study participants

live in a household of mixed, light and concrete, kind of materials (Table 5.7).

For the utility consumption of every study participants’ household, 85 (23.04%)

households use ground water as their water source, 72 (19.51%) households use private

connection of water, 47 (12.74%) households use shared connection that came directly

49
from the barangay’s water source, only 11 (2.98%) households use communal tap

connection, 84 (22.76%) households get their water from deep well, and 70 (18.97%)

households use other kinds of water source.

Table 5.7 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Type of Household, Materials Used, and Water
Source of Study Participants by Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018
UPLAND LOWLAND TOTAL
No. % No. % No. %

Type of Household

Nuclear Family 29 7.86 50 13.55 79 21.41

Extended Family 3 0.81 17 4.61 20 5.42
Compound-type 75 20.33 195 52.85 270 73.17

Household Materials

Concrete 14 3.79 84 22.76 98 26.56

Light Materials 48 13.01 72 14.51 120 32.52
Mixed Materials 45 12.20 106 28.71 151 40.92

Water Source

Ground Water 1 0.27 84 22.76 85 20.34

Private 21 5.69 51 19.51 72 19.52
Shared Connection 33 8.94 14 3.79 47 12.74
Communal Tap 0 0.00 6 1.63 11 2.98
Deep Well 5 1.36 76 20.60 84 22.76
Others 39 10.60 31 8.40 70 18.97

5.1.8 Monthly Household Electricity Consumption of Study Participants by Location

For electricity consumption, a total of 365 (98.92%) households use electricity

and the other four (1.08%) households do not have electricity. The average monthly

electricity consumption of the households that use electricity for both upland and

lowland barangays is 910.74 PHP, 489.35 PHP for upland barangays and 1082.84 PHP

for lowland barangays (Table 5.8). Finally, among all the study participants

50
interviewed, 107 (29%) out of 369 study participants were residing in upland barangays

and the rest or the 262 (71%) study participants were from lowland barangays.

Table 5.8 Distribution of Study Participants’ Monthly Household Electricity Consumption by

Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018

UPLAND LOWLAND TOTAL

No. % No. % No. %

Electricity

Yes 105 28.46 160 70.46 365 98.92

No 2 0.54 2 0.54 4 1.08

Average Monthly Electricity

₱489.35 ₱1082.84 ₱910.74
Consumption

5.2 Problems Faced by the Country According to Study Participants by Location

The section discusses the views and opinions of the study participants regarding

the problems they think the country is facing as of the moment. The set of questions

were divided into two subsections both tackled general problems in the Philippines and

environmental problems in the country. Study participants were asked to rank their

answers from one, being the most important issue for them up to three, being the lesser

issue they consider. Every answer was recorded, as seen in tables 5.9 and 5.10.

5.2.1 National Issues According to Study Participants by Location

As for the first set of issues queried from study participants, 85 (23.04%) study

participants identified the lack of environmental protection as the major problem in the

Philippines (Table 5.9), 11 (10.28%) out of 85 are from upland barangays and 74

(28.24)% from lowland barangays. For the 66 (17.89%) study participants, they

51
perceive the quality of education as the major issue that should be addressed, 33

(30.84%) of the study participants each for both upland and lowland barangays.

Another seven (6.54%) study participants from upland barangays and 19 (7.25%) from

lowland barangays, or a total of 26 (7.05%) study participants identified rapid

population growth as the major problem of the country.

Additionally, 121 (32.52%) or roughly one-third of the study participants

identified poverty as the biggest problem of the country. The lack of agricultural

programs that were implemented were acknowledged by 39 (10.60%) study

participants as the major problem. Only two (0.54) thought economic crisis as the major

problem. Finally, 30 (8.13%) of the study participants recognized other national issues

that were not on the list of choices. It varied from the problem of corruption, inflation,

drugs, and many more issues to be considered.

In terms of the location, both considered poverty as the topmost problem faced

by the country. Moreover, there were 113 (30.62%) study participants who considered

the quality of education as the second major problem, and lastly, in accordance with the

rank, the third major problem the study participants considered was the lack of

environmental protection. The results were consistent with some studies that were

compared with the research outcomes.

The results gathered in this section show that residents from the chosen locale

experience the same difficulty in their households and that year after year, poverty is

still the top concern of the country. In line with this, other major issues arise together

with poverty.

52
Table 5.9 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of National Issues According to Study Participants
by Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018
UPLAND LOWLAND TOTAL
National Issues
No. % No. % No. %

Lack of Environmental Protection 11 2.98 74 20.05 85 23.04

Quality of Education 33 8.94 33 8.94 66 17.89
Rapid Population Growth 7 1.90 19 5.15 26 7.05
Poverty 41 1.11 81 21.95 121 32.79
Lack of Agricultural Programs 10 2.71 29 7.86 39 10.60
Economic Crisis 0 0.00 2 0.54 2 0.54
Others 17 4.61 13 3.52 30 8.13

* note: Respondents may have more than one answer

5.2.2 Environmental Issues According to Study Participants by Location

For environmental issues faced by the country (Table 5.10), 68 (18.43%) of

study participants acknowledged air pollution as the major problem faced by the

environment, 14 (13.08%) from upland barangays and 54 (20.61%) from lowland

barangays. They view air pollution as the biggest problem since transportation by

vehicle increases through time, not to mention other factors that contribute to the

problem. Meanwhile, only 35 (9.49%) of the study participants acknowledged water

pollution, six (5.61%) from upland barangays and 29 (11.07%) from lowland

barangays.

As many as 110 (29.81%) study participants identified the lack of proper waste

disposal as the major component or factor that harm the surroundings out of many other

environmental problems, 43 (33.86%) from upland barangays and 67 (25.57%) from

lowland barangays. Another 64 (13.44%) study participants believed that the lack of

calamity contingency plans is a major environmental issue to be addressed.

Additionally, another 81 (21.95%) participants both from upland and lowland

53
barangays identified illegal logging as the major environmental problem. Lastly, 11

(2.98%) study participants identified issues regarding the environment that were not on

the list provided. It includes the problems regarding soil erosion, climate change, etc.

In terms of location, the results from both upland and lowland barangays were

consistent in ranking the problem in proper waste disposal as number one. The second

identified environmental issue according to 64 study participants is illegal logging, and

lastly, the third would be the problems brought about by air pollution.

Table 5.10 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Environmental Issues According to Study
Participants by Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018
UPLAND LOWLAND TOTAL
Environmental Issues
No. % No. % No. %

Air Pollution 14 3.79 54 14.63 68 18.43

Water Pollution 6 1.63 29 7.86 35 9.49
Proper Waste Disposal 43 11.65 67 18.16 110 29.81
Lack of Calamity Contingency Plans 23 6.23 41 1.11 64 13.44
Illegal Logging 18 4.89 63 17.07 81 21.95
Others 3 0.81 8 2.17 11 2.98

* note: Respondents may have more than one answer

5.3 Study Participants’ Views on Environmental Conservation by Location

Study participants were asked regarding their personal opinions on the topic of

environmental conservation (Table 5.11), 270 (73.17%) study participants strongly

agreed that had to take part in protecting the environment. 72 (19.52%) study

participants only agreed, 15 (4.07%) study participants had no opinion about the

question being asked, three (0.81%) disagreed, and nine (2.44%) strongly disagreed.

For the second question regarding the use of natural resources, study

participants were asked whether these resources should be used properly for future

54
generations, 296 (80.22%) study participants strongly agreed, 56 (15.18%) study

participants agreed, six (1.63%) study participants had no opinion, five (1.36%)

disagreed, and lastly, six (1.63%) study participants strongly disagreed.

The third question was about whether the government of Leon should make use

of the natural resources they have to increase job opportunities for the local residents

regardless of its negative effects on the environment, for example jobs like mining. 151

(40.92%) study participants strongly agreed to environment-related work even though

they might harm the surroundings, 72 (19.51%) study participants agreed, 37 (10.03%)

study participants had no opinion, 29 (7.86%) study participants disagreed, and 80

(21.68%) study participants strongly disagreed with the query.

For the fourth question, the study participants were asked whether they agree to

offer help for the protection of the environment, 275 (74.53%) study participants

strongly agreed to offer help, 75 (20.33%) study participants agreed, 11 (2.98%) study

participants had no opinion, and a total of eight (2.17%) did not want to offer help, two

(0.54%) study participants disagreed, and six (1.63%) strongly disagreed.

For the last question, study participants were asked whether in their opinion,

there were more important problems that should be addressed aside from environmental

issues, a total of 108 (29.27%) study participants strongly agreed, 116 (31.44%) study

participants agreed, 51 (13.82%) study participants had no opinion, 63 (17.03%) study

participants disagreed, and 31 (8.40%) study participants strongly disagreed.

55
Table 5.11 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Study Participants’ Views on Conservation by
Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018
UPLAND LOWLAND TOTAL
No. % No. % No. %

Strongly Agree 85 20.34 185 50.14 270 73.17

I have a
Agree 19 5.15 53 14.36 72 19.52
responsibility to
No Opinion 2 0.54 13 3.52 15 4.07
protect the
Disagree 0 0.00 3 0.81 3 0.81
environment
Strongly Disagree 1 0.27 8 2.17 9 2.44

Natural resources Strongly Agree 92 24.93 204 55.28 296 80.22

should be used Agree 14 3.79 42 11.38 56 15.18
properly in No Opinion 0 0.00 6 1.63 6 1.63
consideration of Disagree 1 0.27 4 1.08 5 1.36
future generations Strongly Disagree 0 0.00 6 1.63 6 1.63

The municipality of
Leon should make
use of natural Strongly Agree 27 7.31 124 33.60 151 40.92
resources to create Agree 21 5.69 51 19.51 72 19.51
more job No Opinion 9 2.44 28 7.59 37 10.03
opportunities despite Disagree 11 2.98 18 4.89 29 7.86
having a negative Strongly Disagree 39 10.60 41 1.11 80 21.68
effect on the
environment

Strongly Agree 83 22.49 192 52.03 275 74.53

I agree to offering
Agree 23 6.23 52 14.09 75 20.33
help for the
No Opinion 0 0.00 11 2.98 11 2.98
protection of the
Disagree 0 0.00 2 0.54 2 0.54
environment
Strongly Disagree 4 1.08 5 1.36 6 1.63

There are more Strongly Agree 31 8.40 77 20.87 108 29.27

important problems Agree 39 10.60 77 20.87 116 31.44
that should be No Opinion 8 1.63 43 11.65 51 19.51
addressed over the Disagree 22 5.96 41 1.11 63 17.03
environment Strongly Disagree 6 1.63 23 6.23 31 8.40

5.4 Knowledge and Use of Bucari Pine Forest

The respondents were also asked of their prior knowledge on the natural park

as well as the benefits their use of the natural park. This is to see how aware the

56
respondents are of the existence of the current natural park and if they derive any

benefits from the natural park.

5.4.1 Knowledge on the Existence of Bucari Pine Forest

The results show that in total, 365 (98.92%) of 369 respondents were fully aware

and had knowledge on the existence of the site. On the other hand, there were four

(1.08%) respondents who have only heard of the site when the researchers presented

them with information and photographs. To further break down, it can be seen that only

one (0.93%) respondent from upland barangays had no knowledge on the Bucari Pine

Forest, and three (1.15%) respondents from lowland barangays had no knowledge of

the natural park. This implies that the Tourism Office, which handles the maintenance

of the park, has spread information and promoted the site well enough for majority of

the respondents to know about the site (Table 5.12).

The results also show that there are a total 78 (21.24%) respondents who have

never visited the forest. There was a total of 12 (11.21%) respondents who had never

visited the site and 66 (25.19%) from lowland barangays. The respondents who have

not visited the site have mentioned their lack of concern and excitement for the tourist

site. Upland respondents expressed their lack of interest because of how near they were

to the site. Lowland respondents have expressed their lack of interest towards the site

because of the travel required to get there (e.g. habal habal). This gives an idea of how

proximity may affect an individual’s WTP.

The study participants were also asked of any chances of visiting the site in the

next three (3) years. Out of the 369 respondents, 331 (89.70%) expressed desire to visit

the site while the remaining 38 (10.30%) claimed that they had no interest in visiting

57
the site or assumed that there was no possibility of them visiting Bucari Pine Forest.

This implies the lack of option value for these respondents as it reflect their lack of

interest to use the site in the near future.

Table 5.12 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Participants’ Knowledge and Use on the Bucari
Pine Forest by Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018
UPLAND LOWLAND TOTAL
No. % No. % No. %

Have Heard of the Bucari Pine

Forest

YES 106 99.07 259 98.85 365 98.92

NO 1 0.93 3 1.15 4 1.08

Have been to the Bucari Pine Forest

YES 95 88.79 196 74.81 291 78.86

NO 12 11.21 66 25.19 78 21.14%

Respondents with the possibility or

expressed desire to visit the site in
the next three (3) years

YES 103 96.26 228 87.02 331 89.70

NO 4 3.74 34 12.98 38 10.30
*note: the one ‘no’ answer from those who have heard of the Bucari Pine Forest may be due to the
respondent’s lack of knowledge of its formal name

5.4.2 Benefits Derived from the Bucari Pine Forest

After providing the respondents with a brief background of the site, including

its benefits, the respondents were asked to name the benefits they could derive from the

natural park. Of the 369 respondents, there were only four (1.08%) who believed no

benefits can be taken from the resource (see Table 5.13). This implies that the survey

was useful as an educational tool for environmental awareness on the natural park.

Overall, most respondents acknowledged Bucari’s climate condition as a benefit they

58
can derive from the resource (284 or 76.69% of 369 respondents). Recreation was also

a benefit many respondents chose claiming that their main purpose for going to the site

was to relax and mostly for vacation purposes.

Majority for both upland and lowland residents chose climate condition or the

prevailing cool weather condition in Bucari as a benefit derived from the forest: 86

(80.37%) and 198 (75.57%), respectively. This implies that their visit to the natural

park is because of the cool climate that is present in the natural park. It also implies the

absence of strong deforestation problems as cool climate can be maintained through the

presence of pine trees and its maintenance. However, only majority of lowland residents

chose products of vegetation as a benefit derived. It can be concluded from the result

that upland residents need not rely on the conditions of Bucari for crops as they may

cultivate their own while lowland residents may be vulnerable to any sudden changes

in the cultivation and harvesting done by those who produce in Bucari.

From both upland and lowland areas, 81 (75.70%) and 187 (71.73%)

respectively, chose recreation as a benefit they could derive from the forest. This shows

a possible avenue for the management of the natural park to add activities that could be

enjoyable for all and not harmful to the resources of the park. From the results above,

there was also a big percentage of respondents from both upland and lowland barangays

who found aesthetic values to be a benefit. 76 (71.03%) upland respondents and 198

(75.57%) lowland residents identified aesthetics as a benefit derived from the park. This

suggests that the park has been well-maintained enough for visitors to identify its beauty

as a benefit they can strongly get from the park.

However, only few respondents acknowledged job opportunities as benefit they

may get from the natural park: 124 (33.60%) of total respondents. Only 36 (33.64%)

59
from upland respondents and 88 (33.59%) from lowland participants. This implies that

very few see the possibility of work and income from the natural park, in both upland

and lowland areas. If a program were to be pursued, job opportunities may become a

strong benefit residents can gain from. There were 28 also (7.59%) of respondents who

identified other benefits which were not presented in the interview schedule such as

calamity prevention and tourism for the municipality. This implies that if well-

maintained, the natural park can offer more services to the residents and visitors.

Table 5.13 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Participants’ Perceived Benefits from the
Bucari Pine Forest by Location, Leon, Iloilo, 2018

UPLAND LOWLAND TOTAL

No. % No. % No. %

No Benefits 2 1.87 2 0.76 4 1.08

Job Opportunities 36 33.64 88 33.59 124 33.60

Products (fruits,
60 56.07 198 75.57 258 69.92
vegetables, etc.)

Recreation 81 75.70 187 71.37 268 72.63

Aesthetic values 76 71.03 191 72.90 267 72.36

Climate Condition 86 80.37 198 75.57 284 76.96

Others 23 21.50 5 1.91 28 7.59

60
5.5 Knowledge on the Definition of Payment for Environmental Services

Payment for Environmental Services (PES) is defined as an incentive-based

instrument to foster biodiversity conservation by providing an economic incentive to

local actors (Engel, Pagiola, & Wunder, 2008). In simpler terms, it is a system to

provide financial compensation for actors that may serve as caretakers for the

conservation of Bucari Natural Park. There must be buyers who would provide payment

or contribution for the conservation of the park and sellers who will willingly serve the

park and will receive financial compensation for the services they will offer. This type

of program was introduced to the respondents to see if they fully understood the concept

of the survey presented to them and the purpose of the study. It was difficult to grasp

for some since it was unfamiliar to them.

The respondents were presented with a brief explanation of the definition of

PES, its benefits and why it is used to preserve natural resources. As seen in Table 5.14,

only 35 (9.49%) of the 365 respondents had full knowledge of what PES was. There

were 240 (65.04%) respondents who had only heard about it during the interview, and

the remaining 94 (25.47%) respondents expressed familiarity with PES.

It is expected that respondents with prior and full knowledge on the definition

of PES to have higher WTP choices. In terms of percentage, there were more lowland

residents who were at least familiar with the concept of PES: 72 (27.48%) versus 22

(20.56%) of upland residents. This implies that lowland residents have more knowledge

of conservation and possible environmental programs.

When presented with a hypothetical situation and the definition of PES, they

were asked how important they found the implementation of a PES scheme be. They

were asked to rank the scheme’s importance on a scale of one to ten. These values were

61
averaged to see the general perception of the residents on the importance of having a

program to protect the natural resource. For all 369 responses, there was a total average

of 8.62 (Table 5.14). This implies that respondents from both upland and lowland

barangays acknowledge the importance of implementing a program to conserve the

natural park.

This question was asked to see if having prior knowledge on this particular type

of program affects an individual’s WTP choice. After being presented with the

information, the respondents were asked whether PES was new to them, if they have

any idea of it, or if they are fully aware of what PES is.

Table 5.14 Frequency and percentage Distribution of Participants’ Knowledge and Perceived
Importance of PES by Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018
UPLAND LOWLAND TOTAL

No. % No. % No. %

Knowledge of the definition of PES

All information is new to me 77 71.96 163 62.21 240 65.04

Has some idea of PES 22 20.56 72 27.48 94 25.47
Full knowledge on PES 8 7.48 27 10.31 35 9.49

Perceived importance of the

implementation of PES 8.89 8.52 8.62
(average)

62
5.6 Willingness-to- Pay of the Study Participants

5.6.1 Willingness-to-pay for the Conservation and Protection of Bucari Pine Forest

From the answers on WTP choices, it can be seen in Table 5.15 that the most

frequented bid price by respondents was 20 PHP. 154 (41.73%) of 369 respondents had

20 PHP as their WTP bid price. There were also respondents who gave their personal

WTP choices that were not present in the payment card. There was a total of 50

(13.55%) of 369 respondents who gave their own bid price. The bid prices given by the

respondents ranged from 150 PHP to 500 PHP. These values should give a rough idea

of what the mean WTP would be by the end of the study.

The respondents were asked how certain they were that they would be able and

willing to pay their chosen bid price on a scale of one to ten. This question was to assess

how willing the respondents were to contribute a monetary amount for a conservation

program. The values elicited were once again averaged to observe how willing the

general population who answered “yes” were to pay. The total average for 369

responses was 8.46. Responses from upland barangays elicited an average 8.83 while

lowland barangays gave responses with an average of 8.33.

This implies that if a program were to be pursued, there is high assurance from

respondents that they would be willing to pay and contribute.

63
Table 5.15 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Willingness-to-Pay Choices of Study
Participants by Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018
UPLAND LOWLAND TOTAL
No. % No. % No. %

Respondent is willing to pay for

the conservation of the Pine
Forest

87 81.31 232 88.55 319 86.45

YES
20 18.69 30 11.45 50 13.55
NO

Participant’s WTP

0 21 19.63 29 11.07 50 13.55

20 51 47.66 103 39.31 154 41.73
40 8 7.48 23 8.78 31 8.40
60 16 14.95 36 13.74 52 14.09
80 1 0.93 7 2.67 8 2.17
100 8 7.48 47 17.94 55 14.91
120 0 0.00 11 4.20 11 2.98
Others 1 0.93 7 2.67 8 2.17

Lowest WTP elicited

20 20 20
(in Philippine Pes)

Highest WTP elicited

300 500 500
(in Philippine Peso)

Average WTP 41.84 58.19 51.13

Certainty level (average) 8.83 8.33 8.46

5.6.2 Protest Bids

In a contingent valuation survey, it is inevitable that there would be respondents

who would provide a zero WTP. However, while some zero bids are a true reflection

of preferences, others are motivated by protest behavior (Strazzera, et al., n.d.).

Respondents who elicit such responses may have reacted to the hypothetical situation

in conceptual rather than economic grounds. According to Stazzera, et al. (n.d.), the

64
presence of protest responses in the estimation process may produce biased estimates

of welfare benefits. With that, to identify the determinants of willingness to pay without

biased estimates caused by protest bids, they were considered invalid answers and were

excluded from the regression. Out of 50 zero WTP responses, 16 were considered valid

responses: those whose reason were the lack of income. This left the researcher with a

valid sample of 335 respondents: 319 with a positive WTP and 16 with a zero WTP.

The remaining 34 zero WTP responses were considered protest bids as they were

motivated by protest behavior.

5.6.3 Reasons for Non-Willingness-To-Pay

Out of 369 respondents from the eight barangays, there were a total of 50 “no”

responses which are equivalent to zero WTP choices (Table 5.16). For those who were

not willing to pay any bid price, they were asked for a reason as to why they are

unwilling to contribute. The participants were presented with possible reasons for non-

willingness to pay. There were two (4.00%) respondents who refused to choose from

the presented reasons as well as giving a personal reason.

Of the 50 respondents, 16 (32.00%) individuals who were unwilling to pay

because of lack of income. Also, there were 13 (26.00%) respondents who were

unwilling to pay because they believed that if a program were to be implemented, the

budget for the maintenance and conservation of the park should be the government’s

responsibility and not theirs. There were also six (12.00%) respondents who gave other

reasons such as having only the tourism office handle monetary concerns of the park,

implementing only an entrance fee for tourists rather than having residents contribute,

and not implementing one at all since people pay for other services the park offers

65
(lodging, environmental fee, etc.). Other options and answers are presented in the Table

5.16.

For the respondents of these protest bids there were exactly 13 (26.00%) of the

50 who were not willing to pay who believed that the government should take

responsibility for the conservation of the park. This suggests that if a program were to

be implemented, mistrust with the government may occur because of respondents’

doubts of the validity of the project. To treat such problems, strict implementation and

transparency should be present in the duration of a possible program pursued.

Table 5.16 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Participants’ Reasons for Zero WTP Choice
by Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018
UPLAND LOWLAND TOTAL
No. % No. % No. %
No Answer 2 10.00 0 0.00 2 4.00
Lack of Income 9 45.00 7 23.33 16 32.00
I do not believe the new
1 5.00 1 3.33 2 4.00
system will change anything
It is the government’s
3 15.00 10 33.33 13 26.00
responsibility
Protecting the Forest is not 0 0.00 2 6.67 2 4.00
important
I do not understand the 1 5.00 0 0.00 1 2.00
question
The forest can improve 2 10.00 1 3.33 3 6.00
without my help
Services offered for the 1 5.00 4 13.33 5 10.00
environment are priceless
Others 1 5.00 5 16.67 6 12.00

66
5.7 Service to be rendered by Respondents who were not Willing to Pay

5.7.1 Study Participants who are willing to render Service

For the 50 respondents who were not willing to pay, regardless of their reason,

they were asked whether they would be willing to offer services rather than paying a

monetary amount for the conservation of the park. This question was treated as an

alternative to the WTP question. There were 37 (74.00%) of the 50 respondents who

agreed and said they would rather provide services for the site rather than contribute.

However, the remaining 13 (26.00%) remained firm upon their decision of not helping

in any form for the site.

Table 5.17 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Participants’ Willingness to Render Service for
the Natural Park and Time Willing to Offer by Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018
UPLAND LOWLAND TOTAL
No. % No. % No. %
Respondent is willing to
provide services rather than
paying

YES 16 80.00 21 70.00 37 74.00

NO 4 20.00 9 30.00 13 26.00

Hours respondent is willing to

19.89 25 25.89
give for the site (average)

5.7.2 Hours of Service the Study Participants are willing to render

For those who were willing to serve the natural park, they were asked how many

hours of the month they were willing to sacrifice for the services they were to offer.

The total average of the 37 responses were 25.89 hours per month (Table 5.18). This

suggests that although they are willing to offer services for the maintenance of the park,

67
it is still with little provision from them as the average number of hours equates to

roughly one day per month.

The 37 respondents who preferred to offer services rather than paying were

asked of their reason as to why. Out of the 37 asked, there were 16 (36.36%) who did

not specify their main reason for offering services. This question in the interview

schedule was open-ended, hence, the researchers generalized their reasons as most of

them were very similar in nature. Most respondents, 19 (43.18%), had said that this was

their form of compensation for not being able to pay.

The 19 respondents had mentioned that this was how they wanted to help since

money was not something they were willing to give for nature. The reasons and number

of respondents who chose them can be found in Table 5.18. This implies that if a PES

scheme were to be implemented, there would be residents who would be willing to offer

services in exchange for monetary benefits and to help in conserving the site. The

results also imply that more residents from lowland residents would be willing to offer

services than those who reside in upland areas.

Table 5.18 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Participants’ Reasons for Willingness to Offer
Services in place of Financial Payments by Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018
UPLAND LOWLAND TOTAL
No. % No. % No. %
Only form of help 9 56.25 10 35.71 19 43.18
To help protect the
0 0.00 3 10.71 3 6.82
resource
To help promote tourism 1 6.25 1 3.57 2 4.55
To avoid payment 2 12.50 1 3.57 3 6.82
Improvements 0 0.00 1 3.57 1 2.27
Not specified 4 25.00 12 42.86 16 36.36

68
5.8 Regression Results of the Research Study

There were eight explanatory variables included in the interval l regression

model. These were proximity to study site, the monthly electricity bill, formal years of

education, household size, total number of income-earning members, age, biological

sex, and lastly, the level of knowledge regarding payment for environmental services.

The results of the eight variables are as follows: the Proximity has an average

value of 0.29 and is 0.45 units away from the mean with a minimum value of 0 and

maximum of 1. The monthly electricity bill has an average value of 907.99 and is

1001.14 units away from the mean with minimum value of 0 and maximum of 10,000.

Formal years of education had an average value of 11.48 with a standard variation of

3.99, which is also its distance away from the mean and a minimum value of 0 and

maximum of 20. The total household size has an average value of 5.38 and is 2.59 units

away from the mean with a minimum value 1 and maximum of 20. The Income-Earning

Members variable has an average value of 1.99 and is 1.45 units away from the mean

with a minimum value of 0 and maximum of 11. The Age variable has an average value

of 42.84 and is 16.58 units away from the mean with a minimum value of 13 and

maximum of 81. Sex had an average value of 0.30 and is 0.46 units away from the mean

with minimum value of 0 and maximum of 1. Lastly, for knowledge on PES, those who

were not familiar had an average value of 0.65 with a standard variation of 0.48 and

0.25 for those who were familiar had a standard variation of 0.44, both having minimum

value of 0 and maximum of 1.

69
Table 5.19 Summary Statistics for the Variables included in the Regression Analysis for Economic
Valuation of the Bucari Pine Forest, Leon, Iloilo 2018

Dependent Variables

Variables Mean Standard Min Max

Deviation
Lower 51.19 51.69 0 500
Upper 71.19 52.69 20 520

Independent Variables

Proximity 0.29 0.45 0 1

Monthly 907.99 1001.14 0 10000
Electricity Bill
Formal Years of 11.48 3.99 0 20
Education
Total Household 5.38 2.59 1 20
Size
Income-Earning 1.99 1.45 0 11
Members
Age 42.84 16.58 13 81
Sex 0.30 0.46 0 1
Knowledge on PES

Not Familiar 0.65 0.48 0 1

Familiar 0.25 0.44 0 1

5.8.1 Regression Result without Adjustment to Certainty

Based on the expected signs, all variables except educational attainment were

consistent with their respective expected signs in the regression analysis, both without

and with adjustment to certainty.

From the regression of the data without adjustment to uncertainty, four variables

were found to be significant. These variables were the proximity of the study

participants, the amount of their monthly electricity bill, number of income-earning

70
members, and the age of the study participants respectively. All three variables are

significant at five percent level of significance and one at ten percent level of

significance.

Both proximity and age were negative. Proximity indicates that study

participants in upland barangay increases their willingness-to-pay by -14.32779 at 0.05

level of significance or simply put, study participants in upland barangays have lower

amount regarding their willingness to pay for the conservation of the natural park,

ceteris paribus.

Meanwhile the negative sign for age indicates that the older the study

participant, the lower their willingness to pay. When the age of the study participant

increases by one unit, willingness-to-pay of the study participants increases by -

0.4965074 at 0.05 level of significance, ceteris paribus. Therefore, the younger study

participants were more willing to pay for higher amount for the conservation and

protection of the natural park because they perceive more benefits years from now

compared to much older study participants considering the years they have lived.

Number of income-earning members in a household is positively significant. It

shows that when there is a one additional income-earning member in the household,

WTP increases by 3.768484 at 0.05 level of significance, ceteris paribus. Also, the

proxy variable for household income which was the study participants’ monthly

electricity bill was significant and positive. It indicates that the higher the monthly

electricity bill in the household of the study participants, the higher their willingness to

pay. Specifically, an increase in the monthly electricity bill of the participant’s

household by 1.00 PHP increases their willingness-to-pay by 0.0066657 at 0.10 level

of significance, ceteris paribus.

71
 On the other hand, four variables show no significant relationship with the

independent variables. It shows that the educational attainment of the study participant

has no effect with their willingness to pay as well as their total household size, total

household member who has work, their biological sex, and their knowledge regarding

payment for environmental services. These variables whether they increase or decrease

will have no significant effect with the study participants’ true willingness-to-pay for

the natural park.

The higher the value of Log Likelihood in a regression indicates that the model

is more accurate compared to the other. In this regression without certainty, with 335

number of observations, Log Likelihood is at -778.1171

Table 5.20 Regression Results (without adjustment to certainty) for the Economic Valuation of the
Bucari Pine Forest, Leon, Iloilo, 2018
Standard
Variables Coefficient z p>|z|
Error
Proximity -14.32779 6.519641 -2.20 0.028**
Monthly
0.0066657 0.0028656 2.33 0.020**
Electricity Bill
Formal Years of
-0.0183427 0.864588 -0.02 0.983
Education
Total
-1.94808 1.244737 -1.57 0.118
Household Size
Income-Earning
3.768484 2.242982 1.68 0.093*
Members
Age -0.4965074 0.1967491 -2.52 0.012 **
Sex 4.622661 6.022629 0.77 0.443
Non-familiarity
on the concept 11.76073 9.618314 1.22 0.221
of PES
Familiarity on
the concept of 15.26674 10.3462 1.48 0.140
PES
Note: * denotes 0.1 level of significance; ** denotes 0.05 level of significance; *** denotes 0.01 level
of significance

Log likelihood -778.1171

Number of observations 335

72
5.8.2 Regression Result with Adjustment to Certainty

Respondents who were willing to pay for the conservation of the natural park

were asked to rate their certainty of willingness to pay. This was to determine how

confident the respondent is that he or she is willing to contribute for a program that

would ensure maintenance and conservation of the natural park. Those who gave ratings

that were deemed uncertain were considered not willing to pay.

When adjusted to level of certainty, slight changes occurred to the regression

analysis of the data. With level of certainty incorporated into the regression; the

significant variables have reduced. With the new regression analysis, proximity and

number of income-earning members in household were no longer identified as

significant variables. Age and monthly electricity bill both resulted to being significant

variables at 0.01 level of significance, ceteris paribus. The respondents’ electricity bill

reflected a positive coefficient, which indicated that when electricity bill increases,

willingness to pay increases as well. Since respondents’ monthly electricity bill was

used a proxy variable for income, the results imply that the higher the income of the

respondent, the higher their willingness to pay.

Specifically, an increase in income by 1.00 PHP, leads to an increase in WTP

by 0.0080546 at 0.01 level of significance, ceteris paribus. On the other hand, age

reflected a negative coefficient. This indicates that the older the study participant, the

lower the willingness to pay. This also implies that respondents of older age cared little

for conservation of the natural park. The variable ‘age’ shows that an increase in age

by one year, leads to a decrease in WTP by 0.5587658 PHP, ceteris paribus.

73
 The remaining variables remained insignificant. This shows that the remaining

independent variables, when adjusted to certainty of respondents have no effect on the

dependent variables.

Comparing the two models, it can be seen that there is a higher value for Log

Likelihood in the model without adjustment to certainty which implies that it is a better

model compared to the regression with certainty. Log-likelihood for 335 observations

in the regression adjusted to certainty is -798.10335 which is less compared to -

778.1171.

Table 5.21 Regression Results (with adjustment to certainty) for the Economic Valuation of the Bucari
Pine Forest, Leon, Iloilo, 2018
Variables Coefficient Standard z p>|z|
Error
Proximity -10.92097 6.919455 -1.58 0.114
Monthly 0.0080546 0.0030413 2.65 0.008 ***
Electricity Bill
Formal Years of -.8134263 0.9176103 -0.89 0.375
Education
Total -1.325277 1.321069 -1.00 0.316
Household Size
Income-Earning 3.619951 2.380533 1.52 0.128
Members
Age -0.5587658 .2081912 -2.68 0.007***
Sex 4.269378 6.391984 0.67 0.504
Non-familiarity
on the concept 8.735746 10.20816 0.86 0.392
of PES
Familiarity on
the concept of 11.67014 10.98064 1.06 0.288
PES
Note: * denotes 0.1 level of significance; ** denotes 0.05 level of significance; *** denotes 0.01 level
of significance

Log likelihood -798.10335

Number of observations 335

74
5.9 Reasons for Willingness to Pay of Study Participants

The 319 respondents who gave a positive WTP choice were also asked of their

reason for their willingness to pay. There was one (0.31%) respondent who did not give

any reason for their choice (Table 5.22). Out of the 369 respondents, there were 236

(73.98%) who were willing to pay because they believed that PES will help protect the

site. This reason was followed by 42 (13.17%) respondents who were willing to pay

because of their fear for the forest’s existence. There were also 16 (5.02%) respondents

who cited other reasons to pay for the conservation of the forest such as helping the

community, conserving for future generations, and to see improvements in the natural

park. There were also those who would be willing to pay merely because the program

would require them to.

Majority of both upland and lowland residents identified their reason for a

positive WTP to be the belief that a PES scheme would be of help to the natural park.

This reflects the majority of respondents’ trust in their government and locality to create

a scheme to protect the natural park. This also implies that residents would be willing

to pursue a program for the betterment of the natural park.

In upland barangays, the reason of I am uncertain if I can afford but I would like

to pay follows as the second top reason for a positive WTP with three (3.45%) of

respondents answering so. This implies that there could be more chances of sellers

coming from upland residents rather than buyers since there could be a problem of

financial constraint. With that in mind, if a program were to be pursued, income of

residents should be taken into account as it could affect the respondents’ willingness to

pay.

75
 On the other hand, in lowland barangays, following the top reason is the

respondents’ fear for the forest’s existence. There were exactly 40 (17.24%) of lowland

respondents who identified such as their reason. This implies an existence value within

the residents and how they wish to maintain the natural park merely for its existence.

Table 5.22 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Participants’ Reasons for Willingness to Pay by
Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018
UPLAND LOWLAND TOTAL
No. % No. % No. %
No specified reason 0 0.00 1 0.43 1 0.31
I believe that the PES
system will help protect 69 79.31 167 71.98 236 73.98
the forest
I fear for the forest’s
existence 2 2.30 40 17.24 42 13.17
I can afford the
contribution 1 1.15 2 0.86 3 0.94
I am unsure if I can afford
but I want to offer help 3 3.45 18 7.76 21 6.58

Others 12 13.79 4 1.72 16 5.02

*note: other reasons include: contributing help for the community, future generations,
improvements for the site, and as compliance for the program

5.10 Preferred Payment Vehicle of Study Participants

Payment vehicles in CV studies are compulsory when valuing a good to be

incentive compatible (Carson and Groves as cited in Ivehammar, 2009). A payment

vehicle is a key component of a CV market study which represents a mechanism

through which respondents will be expected to pay for the policy or project (Bann,

1999). The respondents were presented with options for a payment collection method

as well as a payment collector and were asked to choose their preferred option.

For the payment collection method, 135 (36.59%) respondents chose the option

“Tourism Office Collection.” If such program were to be pursued in Leon, the

76
respondents expressed desire for the tourism office to take charge of the collection since

(to their knowledge) the site was under their care and protection. This also implies that

the tourism office has been maintaining the natural park well and there are no evident

problems with the park under the management of the Tourism Office.

The next preferred option was through a tax collection with 94 (25.47%) of all

respondents choosing this as their preferred option. These respondents chose this

method as they believed it would be a more convenient way. They said it would also be

easier to assure that all residents would pay. The third most preferred collection method

was a collection from the municipality: 66 (17.89%) respondents chose this option.

These respondents mentioned that the municipal office would be the best way to collect

the contribution since they overlooked everything that happened within the area of

Leon. This result implies that the residents trust their local government enough to

entrust them with contributions for the natural park.

For the payment collector, the most preferred option based on the answers of

the respondents is through the municipal official with 135 (36.59%) of respondents who

chose this option. They preferred higher officials from the municipal hall as they

perceived officials to be more trustworthy. The next preferred option was to have a

tourism officer collect the contribution as they viewed the site to be a strong tourism

site and should be under the care of the tourism office. The third option most

respondents chose was the choice of having a barangay official collect the money. They

preferred a barangay official as they were more familiar with their officials in their local

areas and have established closer relationships with them.

77
Table 5.23 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Participants’ Preferred Payment Vehicle by
Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018

UPLAND LOWLAND TOTAL

No. % No. % No. %

Payment Collection Method

No answer 1 0.93 6 2.29 7 1.90

Tax Collection 20 18.69 74 28.24 94 25.47
Collection in the Municipality 29 27.10 37 14.12 66 17.89
Collection in the Barangay 22 20.56 38 14.50 60 16.26
Tourism Office Collection 34 31.78 101 38.55 135 36.59
Others 1 0.93 6 2.29 7 1.90

Payment Collector

No answer 1 0.93 8 3.05 9 2.44

Municipal Official 41 38.32 94 35.88 135 36.59
Barangay Official 34 31.78 44 16.79 78 21.14
Tourism Officer 26 24.30 106 40.46 132 35.77
NGO Representative 5 4.67 6 2.29 11 2.98
Others 0 0.00 4 1.53 4 1.08

5.11 Estimation of Willingness-to-Pay

5.11.1 Estimation of Willingness-to-Pay without Adjustment to Certainty

Aggregating the results of data gathering, the calculated mean willingness-to-

pay of the study participants without adjustments to level of certainty was amounted to

be 42.98 PHP per month and 515.77 PHP per year. On the other hand, the social mean

willingness-to-pay is 4,559,585 PHP every year.

78
Table 5.24 Mean WTP (Without adjustment to certainty) based on the Survey Results in Leon, Iloilo,
2018
Lower bound Upper bound Number of yes Probability Change in
of interval of interval responses Density
0 20 369 1.0000 0.135501
20 40 319 0.864499 0.417344
40 60 165 0.447154 0.084011
60 80 134 0.363144 0.140921
80 100 82 0.222222 0.02168
100 120 74 0.200542 0.149051
120 120+ 19 0.051491 0.051491

Mean WTP = 0 (0.135501) + 20 (0.417344) + 40 (0.084011) + 60 (0.140921) + 80

(0.02168) + 100 (0.149051) + 120 (0.051491) = 42.98 PHP per month
= 42.98 PHP (12) = 515.77 PHP per year
Social Mean WTP = (0.907859) (9,823) (515.77 PHP) = 4,559,585 PHP per year

5.11.2 Estimation of Willingness-to-Pay with Adjustment to Certainty

To get the Mean Willingness-to-Pay of to study participants, certainty level of

the respondents should be taken into account. With that, when adjusted to level of

certainty, the Mean WTP of the study participants totaled to 33.88 PHP per month or

406.50 PHP annually. Taking into account the total number of households in the

barangays surveyed, social mean WTP amounted to 3,625,126 PHP annually.

Having a mean WTP adjusted to certainty results to a more accurate and

confident WTP as respondents’ certainty in contributing for the program has now been

taken into account.

79
Table 5.25 Mean WTP (With adjustment to certainty) based on the Survey Results in Leon, Iloilo,
2018
Lower bound Upper bound Number of yes Probability Change in
of interval of interval responses Density
0 20 369 1.0000 0.352304
20 40 239 0.647696 0.295393
40 60 130 0.352304 0.062331
60 80 107 0.289973 0.105691
80 100 68 0.184282 0.01355
100 120 63 0.170732 0.121951
120 120+ 18 0.04878 0.04878

Mean WTP = 0 (0.352304) + 20 (0.295393) + 40 (0.062331) + 60 (0.105691) + 80

(0.01355) + 100 (0.121951) + 120 (0.04878) = 33.88 PHP per month
= 33.88 PHP (12) = 406.50 PHP per year
Social Mean WTP = (0.907859) (9,823) (406.50 PHP) = 3,625,126 PHP per year

5.12 Trust and Perception of the Proposed Program by the Study Participants

The respondents were asked whether they found this program to be the best

method for the protection and conservation of the site. This question was to see how

they would view if such program would be implemented in the municipality. There

were 327 (88.62%) respondents who had elicited a positive reaction saying that this

program would be the best type of method for the site, given that resources and funds

from the residents be allocated properly.

This should give the researchers an idea of how important conservation and

program implementation is for the respondents. However, there were 42 (11.38%) of

respondents who did not find this method to be a good system for the conservation of

the site (Table 5.26). The 42 respondents who did not find the method to be good for

80
conservation, preferred that the government take care of the resource rather than having

the residents pay for it.

Table 5.26 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Participants’ Perception of the PES program
by Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018

UPLAND LOWLAND TOTAL

No. % No. % No. %
Respondent agrees that PES
is the best possible program
for the conservation of the
Bucari Pine Forest

YES 102 95.33 225 85.88 327 88.62

NO 5 4.67 37 14.12 42 11.38

5.13 Perceived Benefits from the Program

The respondents were asked whether they found any direct benefits from the

program. There were 289 (78.05%) respondents who viewed the program as beneficial.

The other 81 (21.95%) participants did not believe that any benefits could be derived

from the program, if implemented. The results by location for this question can be found

in Table 5.30.

When asked for what benefits they would be able to elicit, 88 (23.85%)

respondents did not specify the benefits they could get from the program. There were,

however, 38 (10.30%) of total respondents who said they take pleasure in knowing that

they were able to help the community if this scheme were to be implemented. The same

number of respondents that there would be more job opportunities for them and their

children if this program were to be implemented. Other benefits that respondents

mentioned are found in Table 5.27.

81
Table 5.27 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Participants’ Perceived Benefits from the
Program by Location in Leon, Iloilo, 2018
UPLAND LOWLAND TOTAL
No. % No. % No. %
There are benefits that can
be derived from the
program
85 79.44 203 77.48 288 78.05
YES
22 20.56 59 22.52 81 21.95
NO

None 23 21.50 58 22.14 81 21.95

Communal Help 10 9.35 27 10.31 37 10.03
Job Opportunities 30 28.04 8 3.05 38 1030
Good Climate 1 0.93 9 3.44 10 2.71
Recreation 4 3.74 10 3.82 14 3.79
Tourism 21 19.63 35 13.36 56 15.18
Improvements 1 0.93 13 4.96 14 3.79
Products 3 2.80 9 3.44 12 3.25
Others 5 4.67 14 5.34 19 5.15
Not specified 9 8.41 79 30.15 88 23.85

5.14 Participation on Current Environmental Implementation

Lastly, the respondents were asked regarding their participation on the current

environmental fee scheme for the resource. This was to assess their knowledge on the

implementation of programs and fees regarding the site. Despite the recent

implementation of an environmental fee for the site, only 159 (43.09%) of respondents

had participated and paid the environmental or entrance fee for the site. There was also

a case of asymmetric information as there were few respondents who said that residents

of Bucari and Bobon were not required to pay the allotted fee, however, 9 (15.25%)

respondents from Bucari and 7 (31.82%) respondents from Bobon had said that they

participated in this scheme.

The respondents were also asked if they are currently members of the

organization that handles the maintenance of the park and the environmental fee. There

82
were only twelve (3.25%) of the respondents who were members of the organization;

eight of which were barangay captains as they were automatic members of the Land

Use Management plan of the municipality. The remaining four were those who worked

in the campsite and in the management of the resource (Table 5.28).

Table 5.28 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents’ Participation in the Current
Management Scheme for Bucari Pine Forest in Leon, Iloilo, 2018
UPLAND LOWLAND TOTAL
No. % No. % No. %

Has participated in the current

environmental fee implementation

YES 31 28.97 128 48.85 159 43.09

NO 76 71.03 134 51.15 210 56.91

Is a member of the current

organization that handles the
environmental fee

YES 3 2.80 9 3.44 12 3.25

NO 104 97.20 253 96.56 357 96.75

5.15 PES Design Scheme

The municipality of Leon currently implements an entrance fee to the natural

park which is 20.00 PHP for residents and 30.00 PHP for tourists from outside of Leon.

Based on the results of survey, it was seen that only 13.55% or total respondents

were not willing to pay for the natural park. However, there were 16 (32.00%) of the

respondents who were considered valid samples as they refused to pay because of a

lack of income, thus were excluded from the number of protest bidders. Given the

structure and valuation method the researchers pursued, the PES design scheme

proposed will be user-financed, which means the beneficiaries of the resource will

83
provide for the funds of the resource. As cited in Engel (2008), this structure is efficient

as the users of the resource are direct agents and have clear knowledge of their

incentives as users of the natural park. The researchers will adapt the general structure

of a PES scheme as seen diagram 3.1 by Pagiola (2005).

5.16 Agents Involved

For a user-financed PES structure to work, there are three (3) necessary agents:

buyer, seller, and intermediary. The buyers are the direct beneficiaries of the resource

and are those who will finance the program. The sellers are those who are directly

involved with managing the resource. The intermediaries are the agents that will serve

as links between the buyer and sellers.

5.16.1 The Buyers

As mentioned and described previously, the buyers are those who are

beneficiaries of the natural resource. The survey results were used as a basis for the

design scheme. For the proposed scheme, the researchers have branched out the buyers

into two categories: local residents and tourists.

Results of the survey showed that majority of study participants were willing

to pay for the conservation and protection of the natural park. With this positive result,

the researchers have deemed it possible and for a PES scheme to be implemented. As

the survey has shown, Mean WTP per month amounts to 33.88 PHP. Given the result,

the researchers have decided to set the amount the residents would pay at 30.00 PHP

per household. Since the regression results reflected age to have a negative significant

84
result, indicating that younger residents or members of the household were willing to

pay, the researchers have designed the scheme to accommodate that result: households

with at least one (1) resident that is at least 20 years old are required to pay the monthly

contribution of 30.00 PHP. However, it was also found that electricity expenditure per

month, which served as a proxy variable for household income, was positive and

significant. This indicates that the higher the household income, the higher the WTP of

the household. Thus, with this variable considered, household whose household income

was below 8,000.00 PHP per month are to be exempted from the said monthly

contribution, however were required to offer services for the natural park.

Regression results also showed that the number of income-earning members

was a significant variable that possesses a positive relationship with WTP. This

indicates that the more income-earning household members, the higher their WTP.

With this variable in consideration, buyers should also have at least one income-earning

members within their households given that this certain income-earning member is

earning at least 8,000 PHP a month. The residents who are paying the contribution are

also exempted from paying for the environmental fee or entrance fee upon visiting the

natural park. To ensure that the residents would not be asked to pay the entrance fee,

each household shall be given an identification card or “pass” to present to the

management as proof of their residency in Leon and their contribution.

The next type of buyers are the tourists. As expressed by the residents, they

would like the tourists to pay higher fees compared to them. This is upon the

assumption that since tourists are there to visit and make use of the services to be offered

by the natural park, any form of pollution is possible with their visit. They are to be

required to pay 40.00 PHP for their entrance or environmental fee. This fee is to be paid

per person who will wish to enter the natural park. Visitors ten years old and below,

85
senior citizens, and persons with disability shall pay only half of the said environmental

fee. This is with assumption that since they are much younger, older, and physically

weak, they will avail less of the services of the natural park as other activities such as

hiking require physical strength and abilities.

5.16.2 The Sellers

The sellers are the people who receive the incentives in return of the services

they offer from helping in the form of maintaining, conserving, and protecting the

natural park. For much higher positions like by managing and supervising the natural

park, employees for both positions should be hired by the local government unit. In line

with this, they should be competent and possess the qualities for such positions.

Manager will be the head of the whole office of the natural park and the supervisor will

be the one to overlook daily tasks of staff members. They will come hand-in-hand when

dealing with the activities and projects concerning the natural park particularly when

difficulties like environmental issues arise. On the other hand, people who work in the

natural park who are considered as sellers should work no less than eight hours a day.

These sellers will help in maintaining, cleaning, regulating, and conserving the natural

park as well as the natural resources it provides. Additionally, there will be staff who

will serve as patrol officers in the natural park. This is necessary especially since there

are campers who stay overnight in the tourist destination. These patrols will both have

morning and night shift for twelve hours each.

The people who are allowed to work in the natural park are the local residents

of the municipality who earn as much as 8,000 PHP a month for the whole household

and should have no more than one income-earning member in their household. This

86
particular socio-economic status of will be identified by the municipality supported by

the Income Tax Return (ITR) documents of the employee. Moreover, the household of

these sellers are excluded in paying the monthly payment for the protection, and

maintenance of the natural park but other household members are not exempted in

paying the entrance or environmental fee of 30.00 PHP in visiting the natural park.

5.16.3 The Intermediaries

The intermediaries will act as mediators between the buyers and sellers of the

good in the market. In the scheme, the intermediaries are the local government unit and

local tourism office of the Leon together with the Management Office of the Bucari

Pine Forest. The local government unit will be expected to create and impose an

ordinance concerning the enforcement of a monthly fee for the conservation and

protection of the natural resource found within the boundaries of their municipal.

From the data gathered, most of the study participants chose a municipal officer

to represent as the collector of the monthly payment for the conservation and protection

of the natural park. The designated municipal officer in every barangay will serve as

the person-in-charge for gathering the payment of 30.00 PHP a month. As chosen by

the study participants as well, the aggregate collection will be then turned over to the

tourism office which will be liable the office for safekeeping the money.

Also, the tourism office will be the one in-charge when it comes to handling the

allotment of the money for the projects and activities that will help for the improvement

of the natural park especially with the amenities in the place. Aside from the local

government unit and the tourism office, the Bucari Management Office itself serves as

a mediator. The office is in charge of managing and supervising all activities within the

87
natural park. The officers-on-duty are those who will collect the entrance fee which

serves as an environmental fee from the people who do not reside in Leon. This

environmental fee in turn will serve as the payment for the services provided by the

natural resource.

Figure 5.1 PES Design Structure for Bucari Pine Forest

88
 CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Bucari Pine Forest in Leon, Iloilo is making its way to become one of the

most looked-forward to tourist destinations not only by the residents but also by local

and international tourists who come to visit. In line with this, the influx of tourists make

the natural park prone to environmental destruction and degradation. Therefore, the

researchers conducted a study regarding the value of the natural park to the residents of

the locale itself to mitigate further damages.

The researchers interviewed a total of 369 study participants from different

households in eight different barangays in Leon – four upland barangays and four

lowland barangays including the urban barangay of the municipality. The barangays

were chosen by the researchers with the help and guidance of MENRO-Leon. There

were a total of 107 (29.00%) study participants interviewed in four upland barangays

and 262 (71.00%) in lowland barangays.

One of the objectives of this study was to determine the ecosystem services that

natural park can provide. It was found that the Natural Park provides ecosystem services

such as habitat for different species of living organisms and edible resources for

provisioning, tourism and knowledge about the site for cultural, giving off oxygen from

Pine trees and avoiding future landslide in elevated areas for supporting, and lastly,

helping regulate the quality of air in the environment for regulating.

Furthermore, there are a number of benefits that can be derived from the Natural

Park as identified by the study participants. The following are: more job opportunities

especially for residents of Leon, the quality of the food products from Bucari because

89
of the cool climate in the barangay, good place for recreation, and the view is

aesthetically pleasing for the people who wish to visit. One of the main reasons visitors

go to the park is because of its good climate condition especially during summer. This

implies that there is a need for the management to maintain and protect the park so that

these benefits will continue and more environmental activities can be conducted in the

park.

The researchers identified the factors that can affect the WTP of the residents.

The results show four significant variables namely: proximity, income level, age, and

number of income-earning members in a household. These factors should be taken into

consideration when creating an environmental scheme for the natural park.

Majority of the study participants agreed that a PES scheme is an appropriate

program for the conservation and protection of the natural park. Also, based on the

results, the researchers identified the preferred payment vehicle of the study

participants. It showed that they prefer the tourism office to keep the collected payment

and that an officer from the municipality should be the collector. This shows that

residents of Leon trust their government enough to create a conservation program for

the natural park.

The researchers aim to identify the perceived benefits of the respondents of the

program. Majority of the study participants believed that tourism for their municipality

is a major benefit from the program. In line with this, there is a recommendation to

increase the existing environmental fee for the natural park because of its increasing

number of visitors.

There were a total of 319 positive WTP responses elicited from the study

participants. Out of the 319 respondents, 236 (73.98%) stated that they would pay

90
because they have strong belief that the PES system can greatly help the natural park.

This implies that an implementation of a PES program will be supported by the

residents as they portrayed belief in the system that was introduced to them.

Based on the results, when adjusted to certainty rating of the study participants,

mean WTP amounted to 33.88 PHP per month or 406.50 PHP annually. Without

adjustment to certainty, mean WTP amounts to 42.98 PHP per month or 515.77 PHP

per year. These are results based off bid prices which were elicited from the study

participants.

Taking these results into account, the researchers recommend a PES Scheme for

the conservation of the natural park. This scheme involved three main agents: the

buyers the sellers, and the intermediaries. The regression models were used to

determine the criteria for the agents in the scheme.

The buyers are those who will contribute as a financial source for the program.

Residents will be required to pay 30.00 PHP per month given that they fit the criteria

mentioned in the previous chapter: at least one (1) income-earning member, income of

above 8,000.00 PHP, and has at least one (1) member of the household who is 20 years

old and above. On the other hand, tourists will be required to pay 40.00 PHP upon

entering the natural park. Visitors who are below ten years old, senior citizen, and

persons with disability shall pay only half of the entrance fee with the assumption that

their physical conditions give them less chances to avail of the activities in the natural

park such as hiking. These prices were based on the results of the WTP of the study

participants.

On the other hand, the sellers will be exempted from paying the monthly fee of

30.00 PHP, however, are required to render services to the natural park whether in the

91
form of maintaining or guarding the site. They must have no more than one (1) income-

earning member in the family whose monthly income is less than 8,000.00 PHP.

However, they are still required to pay an entrance fee of 30.00 PHP when entering the

natural park for recreational purposes.

The intermediaries which will be through the local tourism office and local

government unit, will serve as a link between the buyers and sellers. They will take

charge of the money that is would collected through the program. This is based on the

respondents’ preferred payment vehicle which was to have municipal officers collect

the money and have the tourism office handle the money.

In the case that the proposed PES scheme would not be implemented, the

researchers recommend increasing the current environmental fee. An amount of 30.00

PHP for local residents and 40.00 PHP for tourists is suggested by the researchers as

these were the amounts that resulted from the survey.

92
 REFERENCES

(LWA), L. a. (2005). Making economic valuation work for biodiversity conservation.

Snoy Mountains Engineering Corporation (SMEC).
Adamu, A., Yacob, M. R., Radam, A., Hashim, R., & Adam, S. U. (2015). Economic
valuation of ecotourism resources in Yankari game reserve, Bauchi Nigeria.
Procedia Environmental Services, 30, 139-144.
Adhikari, R. K., Kindu, M., Pokharel, R., Castro, L. M., & Knoke, T. (2017). Financial
Compensationf or Biodiversity Conservation in Ba Be National Park of
Northern VIetnam. Journal for Nature Conseration, 35, 92-100.
Alix-Garcia, J., de Janvry, A., & Sadoulet, E. (2005, August). An Assessment of
Mexico's Payment for Environmental Services Program. Roles of Agriculture
Project Environment Services.
Anaquita, A. H., & Santos, J. M. (2016). WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY FOR THE
CONSERVATION OF BUCARI PINE FOREST IN LEON, ILOILO. 1-118.
Asaad, I., Lundquist, C., Erdmann, M., & Costello, M. (2017). Ecological criteria to
identify areas for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation(213), 309-
316. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.007
Bai, R., Liu, X., Liu, X., Liu, L., Wang, J., Liao, S., . . . Li, Z. (2017). The development
of biodiversity conservation measures in China's hydro projects: A review.
Environmental International(108), 285-298.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2017.09.007

Bann, C. (1999). A Contingent Valuation of Benut, Johor State, Malaysia. Johor State
Forestry Department /DANCED/Darudec: Preparation of an Integrated.
BioCLimate Research and Development. (2010). Payment for Ecosystems Services
Literature Review: A review of Lessons Learned, and a framework for assessing
PES feasbility. Federal MInistry for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Borner, J., Baylis, K., Corbera, E., Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Honey-Roses, J., Persson, U.
M., & Wunder, S. (2017). The Effectiveness of Payments for Environmental
Services. World Development, 96, 359-374.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.03.020

Breffle, W., Morey, E., & Lodder, T. (1998). Using Contingent Valuation to Estimate
a Neighbourhood’ s Willingness to Pay to Preserve Undeveloped Urban Land.
Urban Studies, 35(4), 715-727.

Brouwer, R., & Georgiou, S. (2012). Economic Evaluation. Animal Waste, Water
Quality, and Human Health, 429-451.

93
Chen, W., Aertsens, J., Liekens, I., Broekx, S., & De Nocker, L. (2014). Impact of
Perceived Importance of Ecosystem Services and Stated Financial Constraint
on WIllingness to Pay for Riparian Meadow Restoration in Flanders, Belgium.
Environmental Management, 54, 346-359. doi:10.1007/s00267-014-0293-z
Chervier, C., & Coastedoat, S. (2017). Heterogenous Impact of a Collective Payment
for Environmental Services Scheme on Reducing Deforestation in Cambodia.
World Development, 98, 148-159.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.04.014

Cobbinah, P. B. (2015). Contextualising the meaning of ecotourism. Tourism

Management Perspectives(16), 179-189.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2015.07.015

Cook, C., Carter, B., & Hockings, M. (2014). Measuring the accuray of management
effectiveness evaluations of protected areas. Journal of Environmental
Management, 164-171. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.02.023
Dalberg. (2013). The Economic Value of Virunga National Park.
Donia, E., Mineo, A. M., Mascali, F., & Sgroi, F. (2017). Economic development and
agriculture: Managing protected areas and safeguarding the environment.
Ecological ENgineering(103), 198-206.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.04.010

Duan, W., & Wen, Y. (2017). Impacts if protected areas on local livelihoods: Evidence
of giant panda bioshpere reserves in Sichuan Province, China. Land Use
Policy(68), 168-178. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.07.015

Dumitras, D. E., Arion, F. H., & Merce, E. (2011). A Brief Economic Assessment on
the Valuation of National and Natural Parks: the case of Romania. Not Bot Hort
Agrobot Cluj, 39(1), 134-138.

Engel, S., Pagiola, S., & Wunder, S. (2008). Designing payments for environmental
services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecological
Economics, 65, 663-674.

Farnsworth, K., Adenuga, A., & Groot, R. d. (2015). The complexity of biodiversity:
A biologicala perspective on economic valuation. Ecological Economics(120),
350-351. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.003

Fletcher, R., & Buscher, B. (2017). The PES Conceit: Revisiting the Relationship
between Payments for Environmental Serices and Neoliberal Conservation.
Ecological Economics, 132, 224-231.

Florido, A. M. (n.d.). EDUCATIONAL PROFILE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND

BEST PRACTICES IN FILILPINO SCHOOLS AND CLASSROOMS.
Fripp, E. (2004). Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES): A practical guide to assessing
the feasiblity of PES projects. Bogor, Indonesia.
94
Gios, G., & Rizio, D. (2012). Payment For Forest Environmental Services: A Meta-
analysis of Successful Elements. Economic Issues and Policy Challenges, 1-18.

Ivanov, M. (2014). Beneficial mediated communicaion in cheap talk. Journal of

Mathematical Economics(55), 129-135.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmateco.2014.09.004

Ivehammar, P. (2009). The Payment Vehicle Used in CV Studies of Environmental

Goods Does Matter. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 34(3),
450-463.

Jepson, P., Caldecott, B., Schmitt, S., Carvalho, S., Correia, R., Gamarra, N., . . . Ladle,
R. (2017). Protected area asset stewardship. Biological Conservation(212), 183-
190. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.03.032

Kaffashi, S., Radam, A., Shamsudin, M. N., Yacob, M. R., & NOrdin, N. H. (2015).
Ecological COnservation, Ecotourism, and Sustainable Management: The Case
of Penang National Park. Forests, 6, 2345-2370. doi:10.3390/f6072345
Kajala, l. (2014). The Economic Value of a Natural Park. Understanding the Value of
Nature.
Kamri, T. (2013). Willingness to Pay for Conservation of Natural Resources in the
Gunung Gading National Park, Sarawak. Procedia-Social and Behvaioral
Sciences, 101, 506-515.

Khairiah, R. N., Prasetyo, L. B., Setiawan, Y., & Kosmaryandi, N. (2016). Monitoring
model of payment for environmental service (PES) implementation in Cidanau
Watershed with stands density approach. Procedia Environmental
Sciences(33), 269-278. doi:doi: 10.1016/j.proenv.2016.03.078
Kill, J. (2015). Economic Valuation and Payment for Environmental Services
Recognizing Nature‘s Value or Pricing Nature's Destruction? Ecology.q

Kolinjivadi, V., Grant, A. A., & Kosoy, N. (2015). Juggling multiple dimensions in a
complex socio-ecosystem: The issue of targeting in payments for ecosystem
services. Geoforum, 58, 1-13.

Langford, I. H. (1998). Determinants of individuals' willingness to pay for perceived

reductions in environmental health risks: a case study of bathing water quality.
Environment and Planning, 577-594.

Lapeyre, R., Pirard, R., & Leimona, B. (2015). Payments for environmental servies in
Indonesia: What if economic signals were lost in translation? Land Use Policy,
46, 283-291.

Le Velly, G., & Dutilly, C. (2016). Evaluating Payments for Environmental Services:
Methodoligcal Challenges. PLos ONE, 11(2). doi:e0149374.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0149374

95
Lera-Lopez, F., Faulin, J., Sanchez, M., & Serrano, A. (2014). Evaluating factors of
the willingness to pay to mitigate the environmental effect of freight
transportation crossing the Pyrenees. Transportation Research Procedia, 3,
423-432.
Lourieiro, M., & Loomis, J. (2017). How Sensitive are Environmental Valuations to
Economic Downturns. Ecological Economics, 140, 235-240.
Malavasi, E. O., & Kellenberg, J. (n.d.). Program of Payments for Ecological Services
in Costa Rica.

Marre, J.-B., Thebaud, O., Pascoe, S., Jennings, S., Boncoeur, J., & Coglan, L. (2016).
Is economic valuation of ecosystem services useful to decisionmakers? Lessons
learned from Australian coastal and marine management. Journal of
Enviromenal Management, 178, 52-62.
Mclelland, G., Schulze, W., Lazo, J., Waldman, D., Doyle, J., Elliott, S., & Irwin, J.
(1992). Methods for Measuring Non-use Values: A Contingent Valuation Study
of Groundwater Cleanup. Innovative Approaches for Valuing Percieved
Environmental Quality.
National Economic and Development Authority. (2011-2016). Conservation,
Protection, and Rehabilitation of the Environment and Natural Resources.
Philippine Development Plan, 303-337.

Nelson, F., Foley, C., Foley, L., Leposo, A., Loure, E., Peterson, D., . . . Williams, A.
(2009). Payment for Ecosystem Services as a Framework for Community-Based
Conservation in Northern Tanzania. Conservation Biology, 24(1), 78-85.
doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01393.x
Nicolle, S., & Leroy, M. (2017). Advocacy coalitions and protected areas creation
process: Case study in the Amazon. Journal of Environmental
Management(198), 99-109.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.04.035
Pagiola, S. (2006). Payments for Environmental Services in Costa Rica.

Pham, T. T., Loft, L., Bennett, K., Phuong, V. T., Dung, L. N., & Brunner, J. (2015).
Monitoring and evaluation of Payment for Forest Environmental Services in
Vietnam: From myth to reality. Ecosystem Services, 16, 220-229.

Prokofevia, I., Wunder, S., & Vidale, E. (2012). Payments for Environmental Services:
A Way Forward for Mediterranean Forests? EFI Policy Brief 7.
Resources, D. o. (2014). Sustainable Financing of Protected Areas Project Final
Report. Resources, Environment, and Economics Center for STudies, Inc. .
Rodrigues-de-Francisco, J., & Budds, J. (2015). Payments for environmental services
and control over conservation of natural resources: the role of public and private

96
 sectors in the conservation of the NIma Watershed. Ecological Economics, 117,
295-302.

Saura, Bastin, Battistella, Mandrici, & Dubois. (2017). Protected areas in the world's
ecoregions: How well connected are they? Ecological Indicators(76), 144-158.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.12.047

Scheufele, G., & Bennett, J. (2017). Can payments for ecosystem services schemes
mimic markets? Ecosystem Services, 23, 30-37.
Siegenthaler, S. (2017, November). Meet the lemons: An experiment on how cheap-
talk overcomes adverse selection in decentralized markets. Games and
Economic Behavior(102), 147-161.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2016.11.001

SIlva, J. D., & Chennault, C. (2017). NGOs and Biodiversity COnservation in the
Anthropocene. Encyclopedia of the ANthropocene, 1-6.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.09871-7
Sommerville, M., Jones, J. P., Rahajaharison, M., & Milner-Gulland, E. (2010). The
role of fairness and benefit distribution in community-based Payment for
Environmental Services interventions: A case study from Menabe, Madagascar.
Ecological Economics, 69, 1262-1271.
Suich, H., Lugina, M., Muttaquin, M. Z., Alviya, I., & Sari, G. K. (2016). Payments for
ecosystem services in Indonesia. Onyx.
Tao, Z., Yan, H., & Zhan, J. (2012). Economic Valuation of Forest Ecosystem Services
in Heshui Watershed using Contingent Valuation Method. Procedia
Environmental Services, 13, 2445-2450.
Thang, T., & Duong, D. (2017). Payment for Environmental Services in Lam DOng
and Local Forest Governance. In Redefining Diversity and Dynamics of Natural
Resources Management in Asia (pp. 189-204). Hue, Vietnam: Elsevier Inc.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805452-9.00013-8
Tietenberg, T., & Lewis, L. (2011). Environmental and Natural Resource Economics.
New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
To, P. X., Dressler, W., Mahanty, S., Pham, T. T., & ZIngerli, C. (2012). The Prospects
for Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) in Vietnam; A Loot at Three
Payment SChemes. Hum Ecology, 40, 237-249.
Velley, G. L., & Dutilly, C. (2016). Evaluating Payments for Environmental Services:
Methodological Challenges. doi:DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0149374

Verma, M., Negandhi, D., Khanna, C., Edgaonkar, A., David, A., Kadekodi, G., . . .
Kumar, S. (2017). Making the hidden visible: Economic valuation of tiger
reserves in India. Ecosystem Services(26), 236-244.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.006
97
Villa, F., Ceroni, M., & Krivov, S. (2007). Intelligent Databases Assist Transparent and
Sound Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services. Environemtal Management,
39, 887-899. doi:10.1007/s00267-006-0269-8
Wedgwood, A., & Sanson, K. (WEDC). Willingness-to-Pay surveys - A streamlined
approach: Guidance notes for small town water services. 2003.

World Wide Fund. (2013). The Economci Value of Virunga Natural Park. Gland,
Switzerland: WWF Internatinal.
Wunder, S. (2015). Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services.
Ecological Economics, 117, 234-243.
Zhang, D. (2016). Payments for forest-based environmental services: a close look.
Forest Policy and Economics, 72, 78-84.

Zhang, L., Luo, Z., Mallon, D., Li, C., & Jiang, Z. (2017). Biodiversity conservation
status in China's growing protected areas. Biological Conservation, 89-100.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.005

98
APPENDICES

99
 APPENDIX A. INTERVIEW SCHEDULE (ENGLISH)

University of the Philippines Visayas

Economics 199.2
BUCARI PINE FOREST CONSERVATION SURVEY
Informed Consent Form

Good day! We are fourth year undergraduate students from the University of the Philippines
Visayas, Miagao, Iloilo. We are currently conducting a survey to create a Payment for
Environmental Services scheme for the conservation and maintenance of Bucari Pine Forest,
Leon, Iloilo under the supervision of Dr. Gay Defiesta.
To fulfil our research requirements, we are required to survey residents in your barangay. We
would like to request your help in order for us to graduate. The survey we are about to conduct
is not difficult and is based on your opinions which we will use to see the perception of the
residents on the protection and conservation of the natural park. We would like to ask for 10 to
15 minutes of your time.
Please do not hesitate to ask us questions for parts of the survey you cannot understand. We
will be happy to entertain your questions.
Rest assured that all information and data gathered will be kept under full confidentiality.

Thank you!

___________________________ ___________________________

JAM LOUISSE B. NATAN ANNE MARY LOUISE L. ONGSUCO

Participant’s Copy

Name: ___________________________________ Age: _________ Date: _____________

Address: __________________________________________________________________

I agree to answer the questions truthfully and trust the researchers regarding this study. I
understand that:
 This study’s aim is to elicit our willingness-to-pay (WTP) or willingness-to-accept
(WTA) for the conservation of the natural park.
 I should be able to answer the questions with my own opinion and not through the
influence of others.
 My participation for this study is voluntary.
 I can ask questions regarding this study and should be given appropriate answers

_____________________________ _______________________
Signature Household Position

100
 University of the Philippines Visayas
Economics 199.2
BUCARI PINE FOREST CONSERVATION SURVEY
Informed Consent Form

Good day! We are fourth year undergraduate students from the University of the Philippines
Visayas, Miagao, Iloilo. We are currently conducting a survey to create a Payment for
Environmental Services scheme for the conservation and maintenance of Bucari Pine Forest,
Leon, Iloilo under the supervision of Dr. Gay Defiesta.
To fulfil our research requirements, we are required to survey residents in your barangay. We
would like to request your help in order for us to graduate. The survey we are about to conduct
is not difficult and is based on your opinions which we will use to see the perception of the
residents on the protection and conservation of the natural park. We would like to ask for 10 to
15 minutes of your time.
Please do not hesitate to ask us questions for parts of the survey you cannot understand. We
will be happy to entertain your questions.
Rest assured that all information and data gathered will be kept under full confidentiality.

Thank you!

__________________________ __________________________

JAM LOUISSE B. NATAN ANNE MARY LOUISE L. ONGSUCO

Interviewer’s Copy

Name: ______________________________________ Age: _________ Date: ____________

Address: ___________________________________________________________________

I agree to answer the questions truthfully and trust the researchers regarding this study. I
understand that:
 This study’s aim is to elicit our willingness-to-pay (WTP) or willingness-to-accept
(WTA) for the conservation of the natural park.
 I should be able to answer the questions with my own opinion and not through the
influence of others.
 My participation for this study is voluntary.
 I can ask questions regarding this study and should be given appropriate answers.

_____________________________ _______________________
Signature Household Positio

101
 INTERVIEW SCHEDULE IDENTIFICATION

CODE:
Interview Schedule #: Barangay #: Household #:

INFORMATION

Date of the Interview:

Month Day Year

Name of the Interviewer: _______________________________________________

Name of the Field Guide: _______________________________________________
Time of the Interview: Start: ______________ End: ________________

Place of the Interview: __________________________________________________

102
SECTION A: PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS CONSERVATION
General Attitudes Towards Conservation

A1. If the government will provide fund to address the problems below, among the
listed problems, what do you think is the most important? Kindly choose three and rank
according to importance.
PROBLEM ✓ RANK
Lack of environmental
protection
Quality of Education
Rapid Population Growth
Poverty
Lack of agricultural programs
Others, please specify:______

A2. What environmental problems do you think should be given primary attention?
Kindly choose three and rank according to importance.
PROBLEM ✓ RANK
Air Pollution
Water Pollution
Proper Waste Disposal
Lack of Calamity
Contingency Plans
Illegal Logging
Others, please specify:______

A3. Below are statements that requires your opinion whether you agree or disagree in
every situation presented. There is no wrong answer. (1 = strongly disagree;
5=strongly agree)
STRONGLY DISAGREE NO AGREE STRONGLY
DISAGREE OPINION AGREE
I have a
responsibility to
1 2 3 4 5
protect the
environment
Natural resources
should be used
properly in 1 2 3 4 5
consideration of
future generations

103
 The municipality
of Leon should
make use of
natural resources
to create more job 1 2 3 4 5
opportunities
despite having a
negative effect on
the environment
I agree to offering
help for the
1 2 3 4 5
protection of the
environment
There are more
important
problems that
1 2 3 4 5
should be
addressed over the
environment

SECTION B: INFORMATION AND USE BUCARI PINE FOREST

Use of the Natural Park and Background Information
B1. Have you heard about the Bucari Pine Forest? Kindly mark your answer

YES NO

Bucari Pine Forest

The Bucari Pine Forest is known as the “Little Baguio” because of its good weather
and cool climate. The Pine Forest and the camp site are both located in Sitio Tabionan
in Brgy. Bucari. This natural resource in Leon, Iloilo is known as an attractive site
for tourists, both local and foreign.

104
 Benefits that can be provided by the Bucari Pine Forest
.
Aside from the tourists it attracts, there are also a number of services the Pine
Forest in Bucari provides.

PROVISIONING CULTURAL SUPPORTING REGULATING

 Habitat for  Tourism that  Give off  Help regulate
different can help the oxygen from the quality of
species of municipality all the plants air in the
living  Provide in the environment
organisms in education for Natural Park
the Natural the people  Avoid
Park with regards landslide
 Edible to the especially in
resources that importance of the elevated
can be provided the Natural areas
by the Natural Resources
Park provided by
the
environment

B2. Have you been to Bucari Pine Forest?

YES NO

B3. What benefits will you get from the Bucari Pine Forest?

Livelihood from the Bucari Pine Forest

Fruits and Vegetables
Place for Leisure and Recreation
Experiencing the Scenic View
Good Weather and Cool Climate
Others, please specify:__________

B4. Will you be able to visit Bucari Pine Forest in the next three (3) years?
Yes
No

105
 Payment for Environmental Services

Payment for Environmental Services is a system where there is a buyer and a seller
of the services provided by the environment for free. The buyer is the one who pays
for the services of the seller who help protect and conserve the environment. This
system is used to help in the protection of the environment to provide compensation
for the services it offers. Also, it helps mitigate the negative effects of overexploitation
of the natural resources.

B5. Is the information mentioned about PES new to you?

All information is new to me 1
Has some idea of PES 2
I know all these information 3

Example Situation:

The system used by the local government of Leon to protect the Bucari Pine Forest
is by making every tourist pay a monetary contribution amounting to 20 PHP if you
are a native of Leon and 30 PHP if you are not from the municipality, every time
you enter the borders of the campsite.

According to the local government, a system of Payment for Environmental Services

is not yet implemented. Putting into perspective that the Municipality of Leon will
implement such program to address and help maintain the Bucari Pine Forest
whenever an unfortunate incident will happen.

What is the program about?

PES is a program to give incentives to the people who help in maintaining the site.
This is for the purpose of developing the Bucari Pine Forest to continue the services
and benefits it provides. This system will be needing monetary contribution that will
go directly to the trust fund. There will be officers that will help in collecting the
contribution every month. The said officer will list down and make sure that everyone
has participated to the system and that the collection will go directly to the activities
concerning the Pine Forest.

Benefits of the Program

 protecting the products from the Pine Forest, for example, vegetables, fruits,
trees, flowers, and many more
 increase the livelihood opportunities for the residents of Leon where they can
work within the campsite, help in patrolling the area, or serve as a tour guide
and assistance to the visitors
 add facilities needed in the camp site
 increase the attractions for the tourists who visit the Pine Forest

106
 What are the expected results from the Program?
Aside from the aforementioned benefits above, the program will also help in:
 mitigating the pollution brought by the tourists
 conducting activities like seminars regarding the development,
beautification, and maintaining the camp site
 giving the Bucari Pine Forest the attention it deserves
 ensuring the future of the Pine Forest

B6a. How important do you think that the system of Payment for Environmental
Services should be implemented? (1= not important, 10=important)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

SECTION C: WILLINGNESS TO PAY

Payment for Environmental Services can help in protecting and maintaining the
environment but the implementation of the system will require monetary amount from
the people who benefit from the amenities in order to continue the resources to provide
its services.
PES Trust fund
A trust fund is a collection of monetary contributions with a purpose of transforming
the collected amount into a favorable activity of a particular community for their
benefit. In line with this, the PES trust fund is a collection of money to help protect
and maintain the Bucari Pine Forest. The PES trust fund can be useful for the
following:
 add more people who manage and maintain the Pine Forest
 will be useful for the conservation of the Pine Trees in the area
 continue the development of the facilities needed for the campsite
 increase personnel who are knowledgeable when it comes to managing the
Pine Forest
 will be used to further educate the workers and staffs regarding the protection
and conservation of the Pine Forest

When a disturbing situation arise that there is a need to protect and maintain properly
the Bucari Pine Forest, the local government of Leon will implement a PES trust fund
where there is a need to collect monetary contribution every month per household. Bear
in mind that this implementation of such trust fund will help in mitigating unfortunate
effects when negative event occur in the tourist destination and will also help in
maintaining the benefits it provides for the people who depend on its services.
* If the interviewee will hesitate, present the benefits that the PES can provide and the
benefits they will be getting from the system. Also, present the possible avoidable
situation if a trust fund regarding the Natural Park will not be implemented

107
PAYMENT LADDER
Please bear in mind that the answers in the given situation are important and will have
effect in result of this research study
The collected amount will be the source of fund of the program mentioned earlier. This
program will help in the protection and conservation of the Bucari Pine Forest. This
will be a good program for the next generation since it will help in conserving the
environmental resources of the Municipality of Leon
C1a. In your opinion, given a situation that there will be collection for the protection
and maintenance of the Bucari Pine Forest, what will be the best way for the fund to be
collected?
Through tax
Through Barangay Collection
Through Municipal Collection
Through the collection of tourism office
Others, please specify:

C1b. In your opinion, who will be the best suitable officer to manage the collection of
the fund to assure that it will go to the program?
Municipal Official
Barangay Official
Tourism Officer
Officers from Non-Government Organization
Others, please specify:

C1c. PAYMENT LADDER

We would like to know whether your household is willing to pay for the program
presented. Kindly encircle your answer.
YES NO
Listed in this payment card are different amount of prices of money starting from 0
PHP until 120 PHP. Now, ask yourself, are you willing to pay for the protection and
conservation of the Bucari Pine Forest? From 120 PHP, will you be able to pay this
certain amount?

108
Mark (✓) the prices that you are willing to pay and mark (✗) if you are not willing to pay
for the prices presented (If their WTP is 0 PHP, proceed to C2. If higher than 0 PHP
proceed to C4.)
PHP ✓/ ✗
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Others, please specify:

*If willing to pay, proceed to C4a

C2. Only answer this if WTP is 0
What will be your reason why you do not want to pay for the protection and
maintenance of the Pine Forest?
I am willing to pay but my income is not enough
I do not believe the new system will change anything
It is the government’s responsibility
Protecting the Forest is not important
I do not understand the question
The forest can improve without my help
Services offered for the environment are priceless
Others, please specify:

C3. Instead of giving monetary means for the program, are you willing to give your
services to help the natural park by:
(i) Help disseminate information about the Bucari Pine Forest to tourists
(ii) Help the protecting and maintaining the surroundings in Bucari Pine
Forest
(iii) Others…
Yes: ___ (proceed to C3a)
No: ___ (proceed to C7)
C3a. How many hours are you willing to render as a service for the Natural Park?
None
Number of Hours
I am not certain

109
C3b. Why are you willing to help in protecting and maintaining the Natural Park?
_____________________________________________________________________
*proceed to C7
C4a. From the prices marked (✓), how certain are you that you will be able to pay? (1=not
certain 10=very certain, kindly encircle your answer)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

C4b. Why are you willing to pay? Choose one reason only
I believe that the PES system will help protect the forest
I fear for the forest’s existence
I can afford the contribution
I am unsure if I can afford but I want to offer help

C5. Are you willing to pay higher than your previous amount?
If yes, how
much?
If no, why?
C6. If you will transfer away from Leon, given that your way living is still the same,
are you still willing to pay for the protection of the Bucari Pine Forest?
If yes, how
much?
If no, why?

* Should be answered by interviewee

C7. Do you think the PES Trust Fund is the best system to be implemented by the
government?
Yes
No

If no, what do you

think will be the best
system?

C8. In your opinion, what benefits will you benefit from the system of PES?
Yes

If yes, what benefits?

None

110
C9. In your opinion, the information presented about PES,
Are helpful in making Payment for Environmental Services
understandable
Have no effect
Are not enough

C10a. Do you participate in the system of paying for the entrance fee of 20 PHP for the
residents of Leon when entering the premises of the Bucari Pine Forest?

Yes
No

C10b. Are you a member of the organization that helps manage the Bucari pine Forest?
Yes
No

111
SECTION D: SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE

Age: Sex: Male Household Size:

Female Number of Income-Earning

Members:
Occupation: Household Monthly Income
1 Unemployed 1 ₱2,000 and below
2
Small Informal Business
2
₱2,001-₱4,000
Owner
3 Seller in market 3 ₱4,001-₱6,000
4 Government employee 4 ₱6,001-₱8,000
5 Government official 5 ₱8,001-₱12,000
6 Private company employee 6 ₱12,001 and above
Small formal business
7
owner
8 Large business owner
9 Freelance worker
10 Retired/Depends on pension
11 Subsistence farmer
12 Commercial Farmer
13 Shop/attendant employee
14 Other, please specify:
Highest Educational Attainment and Years of Formal Education
1 None
2 Elementary
3 High School
4 College
5 Others, please specify:
Household Materials Type of Household
1 Concrete Materials 1 Extended Family
2 Light Materials 2 Compound
Mixed of Concrete and Nuclear Family
3 3
Light
Water Source
1 Water Pump
2 Motor/Private Connection
3 Shared Connection
4 Communal tap
5 Deep Well
6 Other, please specify::
Electricity
1 Yes Monthly Electricity Consumption
2 No ₱_____

112
 APPENDIX B. INTERVIEW SCHEDULE (HILIGAYNON)

University of the Philippines Visayas

Economics 199.2
BUCARI PINE FOREST CONSERVATION SURVEY
Informed Consent Form

Maayong adlaw! Mga estudyante kami na manug gradweyt sa University of the Philippines
Miagao, Iloilo. Subong, naga pagtakos kami para sa pag protekta kag mintinar sang Bucari Pine
Forest sa Leon, Iloilo sa pagsayasat ni Dr. Gay Defiesta.
Mangayo kami tani bulig halin sa inyo para sa pagkumpleto sang amun mga kilanlan para sa
thesis namun. Ang amun nga thesis kilanlan matapos para maka graduate kami. Ang pagtakos
namun nga hiwaton ay hindi gid mabudlay. Mamangkot lang kami sang inyo nga mga opinyon
na amun gamiton para makita kung ano ang pagtanaw sang pumuluyo sang Leon sa pagprotekta
sang Bucari Pine Forest. Gapangayo kami tani bisan kinse or bente minutos lang sang inyo nga
oras para diri.
Kung may ara kamo hindi ma inchindihan parte sa mga pamangkot namun, hindi kamo mahuya
magpamangkot sa amun.
Masaligan gid ninyo kami nga tanan nga impormasyon nga ma kwa namun halin sa inyo hindi
gid mag guwa sa mga tao nga hindi namun upod.

________________________ _____________________________

JAM LOUISSE B. NATAN ANNE MARY LOUISE L. ONGSUCO

Kopya para sa naga Partisipar

Pangalan:______________________Edad:___________Petsa:__________________

Address______________________________________________________________

Ang papel nga ni ang palatandaan na sugot ako mag partisipar sa pagtakos nga ini

Naga sugot ako na mag sabat sang matuod sang tanan nga pamangkot sa akon. Ka intyende ko
nga:

 Ang tuyo sini kay maka kwa sang presyo nga sugot ako mag-amot para sa pagbulig
protekta sa Bucari Pine Forest.
 Dapat makasabat ako sang mga pamangkot nga hindi ma apektuhan sang iban nga tao.
 Ang akon pag intra diri ay boluntaryo lamang
 Pwede ako kapamangkot parte sa pagtukib nga ini kag dapat mahatagan ako sang husto
nga sabat.

_____________________ ____________________________
Pirma Posisyon sa Panimalay

113
 University of the Philippines Visayas
Economics 199.2
BUCARI PINE FOREST CONSERVATION SURVEY
Informed Consent Form

Maayong adlaw! Mga estudyante kami na manug gradweyt sa University of the Philippines
Miagao, Iloilo. Subong, naga pagtakos kami para sa pag protekta kag mintinar sang Bucari Pine
Forest sa Leon, Iloilo sa pagsayasat ni Dr. Gay Defiesta.
Mangayo kami tani bulig halin sa inyo para sa pagkumpleto sang amun mga kilanlan para sa
thesis namun. Ang amun nga thesis kilanlan matapos para maka graduate kami. Ang pagtakos
namun nga hiwaton ay hindi gid mabudlay. Mamangkot lang kami sang inyo nga mga opinyon
na amun gamiton para makita kung ano ang pagtanaw sang pumuluyo sang Leon sa pagprotekta
sang Bucari Pine Forest. Gapangayo kami tani bisan kinse or bente minutos lang sang inyo nga
oras para diri.
Kung may ara kamo hindi ma inchindihan parte sa mga pamangkot namun, hindi kamo mahuya
magpamangkot sa amun.
Masaligan gid ninyo kami nga tanan nga impormasyon nga ma kwa namun halin sa inyo hindi
gid mag guwa sa mga tao nga hindi namun upod.

________________________ ________________________________

JAM LOUISSE B. NATAN ANNE MARY LOUISE L. ONGSUCO

Kopya sang naga Interbyu

Pangalan:______________________Edad:___________Petsa:__________________

Address______________________________________________________________

Ang papel nga ni ang palatandaan na sugot ako mag partisipar sa pagtakos nga ini

Naga sugot ako na mag sabat sang matuod sang tanan nga pamangkot sa akon. Ka intyende ko
nga:

 Ang tuyo sini kay maka kwa sang presyo nga sugot ako mag-amot para sa pagbulig
protekta sa Bucari Pine Forest.
 Dapat makasabat ako sang mga pamangkot nga hindi ma apektuhan sang iban nga tao.
 Ang akon pag intra diri ay boluntaryo lamang
 Pwede ako kapamangkot parte sa pagtukib nga ini kag dapat mahatagan ako sang husto
nga sabat.

____________________ __________________________
Pirma Posisyon sa Panimalay

114
 INTERVIEW SCHEDULE IDENTIFICATION

CODE:
Interview Schedule #: Barangay #: Panimalay #:

IMPORMASYON

Petsa sang Pag-interbyu:

Bulan Adlaw Tuig

Pangalan sang Naga-interbyu: ___________________________________________

Pangalan sang Field Guide: _____________________________________________

Oras sang Pag-interbyu: Pagsugod: ____________ Pagtapos: ___________

Lugar sang Pag-interbyu: _______________________________________________

115
SEKSYON A: PAGTANAW SA KONERBASYON
General Attitudes Towards Conservation

A1. Kung ang gobyerno mag-butang sang puhunan para magbulig sa problema nga
nakalista, ano diri sa ila ang para sa imo pinakaimportante nga problema? Markahan
sang ✓ ang tatlo kag irangko base sa inyo opinion.
PROBLEMA ✓ RANGKO
Pagprotekta sang dunang
manggad
Kalidad sang edukasyon
Pagdasig nga pagdako sang
populasyon
Pagkapigado
Kulang nga programa parte sa
agrikultura
Iban pa:_____________________

A2. Ano nga problema sang dunang manggad ang para sa imo dapat tagaan atensyon?
Pili tatlo kag irangko.
PROBLEMA ✓ RANGKO
Polusyon sa hangin
Polusyon sa tubig
Problema sa basura
Kalamidad pareho sang
pagguho sang duta o baha
Ilegal nga pag-utod sang kahoy
Iban pa:_______________

A3. May ara ako basahon, palihog hambal sang imo opinion kung sang-ayon ka ukon
hindi sa mga gasunod. Wala man tsakto ukon sala nga sabat, opinyon lang ni nimo. (1
= hindi sang-ayon; 5 = sang-ayon gid)
STRONGLY DISAGREE NO AGREE STRONGLY
DISAGREE OPINION AGREE
May responsibilidad
ako sang pagprotekta 1 2 3 4 5
sa dunang manggad
Dapat gamiton sa
tsakto ang makuha
halin sa dunang
1 2 3 4 5
manggad para sa
sunod nga mga
henerasyon

116
 Kinanglan sang Leon
nga panamion ang ila
mga patakaran sa
paggamit sang dunang
maggad para 1 2 3 4 5
makadugang ini ubra
bisan may malain nga
epekto ang
pagpadamo sang ubra
Sugot ako magbulig
para sa pagprotekta 1 2 3 4 5
sang dunang manggad
May ara pa mas
importante nga dapat
unahon kaysa sa 1 2 3 4 5
pagprotekta sang
dunang manggad

SEKSYON B: IMPORMASYON KAG PAGGAMIT SANG BUCARI PINE

FOREST
Use of the Natural Park and Background Information
B1. Nakabati ka na bala sang Bucari Pine Forest? Palihog markahan ang sabat.

OO WALA PA

Bucari Pine Forest

Ang Bucari Pine Forest ang gina tawag sang mga turista kag pumuluyo nga “Little
Baguio” tungod sa iya mabugnaw nga klima. Ang Pine Forest kag ang campsite
naplastar sa Sitio Tabionan sa Brgy. Bucari. Isa ini sa mga sikat nga lugar nga pirmi
gina kadtuan sang mga turista sa Leon, Iloilo.

117
 Benepisyo na mahatag sang Bucari Pine Forest

Bukod sa ga dala ini sang turista sa Leon, madamo man nga serbisyo ang mahatag
sang Pine Forest sa aton.

PROVISIONING CULTURAL SUPPORTING REGULATING

 Panimalay sa  Turismo nga  Paghatag sang  Pagbulig
mga lain lain makabulig sa oxygen o ang panami sang
nga mga sapat munisipyo hangin nga kalidad sang
nga naga istar  Edukasyon gina ginhawa hangin
sa Pine Forest nga mapakita naton
 Pagkaon nga sa mga  Malikawan
makuha halin sa pumuluyo ang pagguho
mga produkto ang o paghulag
sa Bucari importansya sang duta
sang pag-
alaga sang
dunang
manggad

B2. Nakakadto ka na bala sa Bucari Pine Forest?

OO WALA PA

B3. Ano nga benepisyo, kung may ara man gid, ang imo makuha sa Bucari Pine
Forest?

Ubra nga mahatag sang Bucari Pine Forest

Mga utan kag prutas
Lagawan para mag pahuway
Nami nga talan-awon
Mayo nga klima
Iban pa:__________

B4. Para sa imo, makabisita ka bala sa Bucari Pine Forest sa sulod sang sunod nga
tatlo (3) ka tuig?
Oo, posible gid
Hindi, imposible gid

118
 Payment for Environmental Services

Ang Payment for Environmental Services kay isa ka sistema kung diin may ara sang
nagabakal kag may ara sang naga baligya sang serbisyo sang dunang manggad. Ang
nagabakal amu ang mga tao nga maga amot para ang naga baligya makahatag
serbisyo na mag atipan sang isa ka lugar. Ginagamit ini para sa pagprotekta sang
palibut naton para hindi sila maguba kag maka-hatag kompensasyon para sa mga
gabulig protekta sang palibut.

B5. Bag-o bala ang impormasyon nga ni sa imo?

Bag-o tanan 1
May ideya nako sang iban 2
Kabalo na ko ni sang 3
tanan

Halimbawa nga sitwasyon:

Ang sistema nga ginagamit subong sang gobyerno sang Leon para maprotektahan
ang Bucari Pine Forest ay ang pagbayad sa kada sulod sa campsite sang bente
(Php 20) kung taga Leon ikaw kag trenta (Php 30) kung hindi ikaw taga Leon.

Sa subong, wala pa sang Payment for Environmental Services nga sistema sa Bucari
Pine Forest. Ibutang ta abi nga ang munisipyo sang Leon maghimo sang programa
nga magbulig atipan sa Bucari Pine Forest kung may ara malain nga matabo diri
nga hindi ma antisipar sang mga pumuluyo.

Ano ang programa nga ini?

Programa ini para sa insentibo sa mga mabulig atipan sang site. Para ini sa
pagpamayo sang Bucari Pine Forest para mapadayun ang mga benepisyo na
mahatag ya nga nalista kagina. Ang sistema nga ini nagakilanlan nga magtipon
kwarta nga makadto sa trust fund. May ara pumuluyo nga magkolekta kada bulan
para mapatigayon ini. Tapos ilista kag siguraduhon nga ang tanan mag partisipar
sa sistema kag ang nakolekta kay magdiretso sa kung diin ini dapat gamiton.

Mga Benepisyo sang programa

 Pagprotekta sang mga produkto nga halin sa Pine Forest pareho sang utan,
prutas, kahoy, mga kabulakan, kag iban pa.
 Dugang ubra para sa mga pumuluyo sang Leon kung diin pwede sila ka
bantay sa campsite, kolekta sa basura, bulig patrol sa Pine Forest, ukon
makabulig sa mga turista nga maga bisita
 Makapadugang pasilidad na kinanlanon sa campsite
 Makadugang panami sa mga atraksyon nga gina kadtuan sang mga turista

119
 Ano ang mga resulta sang programa nga ini?
Wala labot sa mga nahambal na nga daan nga mga benepisyo makadugang pa gid
ang mga magasunod:
 Makabulig nga maiwasan ang polusyon nga posible madala sang mga turista
 Pagpahiwat sang mga aktibidades pariyus sa mga seminar ukol sa
pagpanami pa gid kag pag-atipan sang site
 Mahatagan ang Bucari Pine Forest sang atensyon na dapat makuha sini
 Magdugay pa kag magmayo buwas-damlag sang Pine Forest

B6a. Para sa imo, ano ka importante nga mapatigayon ang sistema sang Payment for
Environmental Services para diri? (1= hindi importante, 10 = importante)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

SEKSYON C: WILLINGNESS TO PAY

Ang Payment for Environmental Services makabulig para sa pagprotekta kag pag-
atipan sang palibut. Pero ang pagpatigayon sini kay may baylo nga pagbayad para sa
pagbulig padayon sang serbisyo nga mahatag sini kung gusto nimo nga makabenepisyo
sa mahatag sang Pine Forest.
PES Trust fund
Ang trust fund isa ka koleksyon sang kwarta nga pangapyutan sang mga tao na
saligan para sa isa ka benepisyo. Sa ini nga butang: ang PES trust fund ay koleksyon
sang kwarta para sa pagbulig protekta kag pag-atipan ka Bucari Pine Forest. Ang
PES trust fund ay pwede magamit sa mga maga sunod:
 Dugang sa ma bantay sang Pine Forest
 Magamit magdugang sa mga kahoy kag iban nga kailangan para sa pag
mintinar
 Pagpadayun sang panama sang facilities sa campsite
 Dugang sang mga tao nga makabalo mag mintinar sa Pine Forest
 Magamit sa pagtudlo sa mga pwede makabantay sang tsakto nga pag-atipan

Kung mag-abot ang sitwasyon na kailangan na gid protektahan kag atipanon sang
maayo ang Bucari Pine Forest, mapatukod PES trust fund ang gobyerno sang Leon
kung diin kailangan magkolekta kwarta kada bulan para idugang sa trust fund.
Panumduma nga ang pagpatukod sang trust fund nga ni ang makahatag protekta kag
mintinar sang Bucari Pine Forest pati ang mga benepisyo nga mahatag sang Bucari Pine
Forest.
*Kung magduda ang gina interbyu, ipakita ang mga benepisyo na mahatag sang PES
kag ipahibalo nga kuno abi maayo ang pagpatukod sang sistema kag maayo ang
pamalakad; Ipahibalo ang mga problema na pwede mag-abot kung hindi magpatukod
trust fund ang gobyerno para sa Pine Forest.

120
PAYMENT LADDER
Palihog panumdumon nga bisan hatag lamang ang sitwasyon nga ni kay ang sabat diri
importante gid kag makapaekto sa resulta sang thesis nga ginahiwat namun subong.
Ang koleksyon nga makuha kay ibutang para sa programa nga nahambal kagina. Ang
programa kay makabulig gid ini para sa pag-atipan kag protekta sang Bucari Pine
Forest. Mayo gid ini para sa sunod nga henerasyon kay mapreserba sini ang
agrikultura kag manggad sang Leon.
C1a. Para sa imo, kung kinanglan mag-amot para sa pagprotekta sa Bucari Pine Forest
sa ano dapat nga pamaagi ihatag ang amot?
Sa tax o buwis
Koleksyon sa barangay
Koleksyon sa munisipyo
Koleksyon sa tourism office
Iban pa:

C1b. Para sa imo, sino ang dapat nga magkolekta sang amot para masigurado ini nga
makadto sa programa?
Mga opisyal sa munisipyo
Mga opisyal sa barangay
Opisyal sa tourism office
Organisasyon nga hindi parte sang gobyerno
Iban pa:

C1c. PAYMENT LADDER

Karon gusto namon mabal-an kung ang inyo panimalay gusto mag-amot para sa mga
programa nga nahambal namon. Palihog bilugan ang sabat.
OO HINDI
Sa payment card nga ini may nakalista nga lain-lain nga presyo sang kwarta sugod sa 0
PHP asta sa 120 PHP. Pamangkota imo lawas, ma-amot bala ako ara sa pagprotekta
sang Bucari Pine Forest? Sugod sa 120 PHP, maka-amot bala ikaw sang amu ni nga
presyo para sa pagprotekta sa Bucari Pine ForestT

Markahi sang (✓) ang mga presyo nga kaya nimo amuton ang presyo kag markahan sang (✗)
kung hindi na kaya ma-amot ang presyo. (Kung ang ila WTP kay 0 PHP, palihog diretso
sa C2. Kung taas sa 0 PHP diretso sa C4)
PHP ✓/ ✗
0

121
 20
40
60
80
100
120
Iban pa: ____

*Kung sugot mag-amot diretso sa C4a

C2. Sabtan lang kung 0 ang iya nga WTP.
Ngaa para sa imo, hindi ka gusto mag-amot para magbulig protekta sa pag-atipan sa
Bucari Pine Forest?
Sugot ako mag-amot pero wala sobra sa sweldo ko
Wala pagbago nga matabo bisan may bago nga sistema
Responsilidad na sang gobyerno
Hindi importante ang pagprotekta sang Bucari Pine Forest
para sa akon
Hindi ko naintindihan sang maayo ang pamangkot
Maging mayo ang dunang manggad bisan hindi ako
magbulig
Hindi mabutangan presyo ang serbisyo para sa dunang
manggad
Iban pa:

C3. Imbis na mag-amot para sa PES, gusto mo bala magbulig na lang paagi sa imo
pagserbisyo pareho sang:
(iv) Pagpalapta impormasyon parte sa Bucari Pine Forest sa mga ga bisita
(v) Bulig atipan sa dunang manggad sang Bucari Pine Forest
(vi) Iban pa…
Oo: ___ (diretso sa C3a)
Hindi: ___ (diretso sa C7)
C3a. Pila ka oras sa isa ka bulan ang mahatag mo nga serbisyo?
Wala
Oras
Wala ko kabalo

C3b. Ngaa gusto mo maghatag oras bulig sa Bucari Pine Forest?

_____________________________________________________________________
*proceed to C7

122
C4a. Sa mga presyo nga gin markahan sang (✓), ano ikaw ka sigurado nga gusto nimo
magbayad
(1 = hindi sigurado, 10 = sigurado gid, palihog bilugan ang sabat)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

C4b. Ngaa gusto mo mag-amot? Pili lang isa.

Makabulig ang sistema sang PES sa Bucari Pine Forest
Gakabalaka ko sa lain nga matabo sa Bucari Pine Forest
Makasarang ko sang amot
Hindi ko sigurado kung makasarang ko sa pag-amot pero gusto ko

C5. Gusto mo bala pataasan ang imo amot?

Kung oo, pila?

Kung hindi,
ngaa?

C6. Kung ikaw mahalin sa Leon, pero imo pangabuhi amo man gyapun, gusto mo pa
bala mag-amot para magbulig sa protekta sang Bucari Pine Forest?

Kung oo, pila?

Kung hindi,
ngaa?

* Kailangan ini sabtan sang tanan nga gina-interbyu

C7. Para sa imo ang PES Trust Fund bala sang gobyerno ang pinakamayo nga sistema?
Oo
Hindi

Kung hindi, ano ang

gusto mo gamiton?

C8. Para sa imo, may benepisyo ka nga makuha sa sistema sang PES?
Oo

Kung oo, ano man

ang makuha mo?
Wala

C9. Para sa imo ang impormasyon nga ginpabalo:

123
 Makabulig pag-intindi parte sa Payment for Environmental
Services
Wala epekto
Kulang sa impormasyon

C10a. Sa subong, may ara sistema ang munisipyo para sa pagprotekta sang Bucari Pine
Forest. Ini ang pagbayad sang entrance free nga 20 PHP para sa mga pamuluyo sang
Leon. Ikaw bala naga partisipar sa amu ni nga sistema?

Oo
Hindi

C10b. Miyembro ka bala sang organisasyon nga nagapamalakad sini?

Oo
Hindi

124
Edad: Sex: Lalaki Tao sa panimalay:

Babayi Tao nga may ubra sa

panimalay:
Ubra: Sweldo kada bulan
1 Unemployed 1 ₱2,000 kag panubo
2
Small Informal Business
2
₱2,001-₱4,000
Owner
3 Seller in Market 3 ₱4,001-₱6,000
4 Government Employee 4 ₱6,001-₱8,000
5 Government Official 5 ₱8,001-₱12,000
6 Private Company Employee 6 ₱12,001 kag pataas
Small Formal Business
7
Owner
8 Large Business Owner
9 Freelance Worker
10 Retired/Depends on Pension
11 Subsistence Farmer
12 Commercial Farmer
13 Shop/Attendant Employee
14 Iban pa:
Tuig kag tinapusan sa pag-eskwela
1 Wala
2 Elementary
3 High School
4 College
5 Iban pa:
Ano nga materyales gamit sa inyo nga balay Type of Household
Konkreto Damo nga pamilya sa isa ka balay
1 1
(extended)
2 Light Materials 2 Compound
3 Mixed Materias 3 Single family
Gina kwaan sang tubig
1 Bomba
2 Motor/Pribado
3 Shared Connection
4 Communal Tap
5 Deep Well/bubon
6 Iban pa:
Kuryente
1 Oo Kung oo, pila gina bayran kada bulan?
2 Wala ₱_____

125
 APPENDIX C. LETTER OF REQUEST FOR THE MUNICIPAL MAYOR

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES VISAYAS

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
DIVISION OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
MIAGAO, ILOILO

Hon. Rolito C. Cajilig

Municipal Mayor
Municipality of Leon, Iloilo

Greetings!

We, the undersigned, are fourth year undergraduate students taking up a bachelor’s

degree in Economics at the University of the Philippines Visayas. This is regarding our

undergraduate thesis which we would like to conduct in Leon Natural Park. Our study

is tentatively entitled “ECONOMIC VALUATION OF AND PAYMENT FOR

BUCARI PINE FOREST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (PES) SCHEME” under

the supervision of Prof. Gay D. Defiesta, PhD. This is in partial fulfilment of our

requirements for the course Economics 199.1 (Economics Research I) and Economics

199.2 (Economics Research II). This study will last throughout the academic year.

Our study would like to tackle conservation and preservation of Bucari Pine Forest. Our

goal is to create an appropriate PES scheme which is a mechanism to effectively

maintain and conserve your natural treasure. A detailed description has been attached

to this letter for further information.

In line with this, we respectfully request access to information and data to complete our

study. There will be interviews to be conducted based on your convenient time. Rest

126
assured that all information and data gathered for this study will be kept under full

confidentiality.

Respectfully:

ANNE MARY LOUISE L. ONGSUCO

JAM LOUISSE B. NATAN

Signed:

PROF. GAY D. DEFIESTA, PhD

Professor, Division of Social Sciences
College of Arts and Sciences
University of the Philippines Visayas

Approved:

HON. ROLITO C. CAJILIG

Municipal Mayor
Municipality of Leon, Iloilo

127
 APPENDIX D. LETTER OF REQUEST FOR PRETESTING AND DATA
GATHERING

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES VISAYAS

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
DIVISION OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
MIAGAO, ILOILO

Hon. Rolito C. Cajilig

Municipal Mayor
Municipality of Leon, Iloilo

Greetings!

We, the undersigned, are fourth year undergraduate students taking up a bachelor’s

degree in Economics at the University of the Philippines Visayas. This is regarding our

undergraduate thesis which we would like to conduct in Leon Natural Park. Our study

is tentatively entitled “ECONOMIC VALUATION OF AND PAYMENT FOR

BUCARI PINE FOREST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (PES) SCHEME” under

the supervision of Prof. Gay D. Defiesta, PhD. This is in partial fulfilment of our

requirements for the course Economics 199.1 (Economics Research I) and Economics

199.2 (Economics Research II). This study will last throughout the academic year.

In lieu of our study (as approved previously), we would like to request permission to

conduct a house-to-house survey in the following barangays:

For Official Data Gathering

Brgy. Bucari Brgy. Tina-an Sur

Brgy. Danao Brgy. Jamog Gines

Brgy. Bobon Brgy. Panginman

Brgy. Dusacan Brgy. Poblacion

128
For Pretesting

Brgy. Talacuan

Brgy. Dorog

In relation to this, we would like to request two (2) or three (3) representatives or field

guides from each barangay to assist us while we survey throughout the area. This is for

safety and security purposes as well as to garner attention from the households.

Respectfully:

ANNE MARY LOUISE L. ONGSUCO JAM LOUISSE B. NATAN

Approved:

HON. ROLITO C. CAJILIG

Municipal Mayor
Municipality of Leon, Iloilo

129