ABSTRACT

Zambales as the largest province in Central Luzon covering an area of 361,103

hectares, is rimmed by the crystal clear water of vast China Sea and filled with varied
marine animals. But the rapid expansion of human activities threatens the biodiversity.
Numerous marine animal populations have declined, yet it remains unclear whether these
trends are symptomatic of a chronic accumulation of global marine extinction risk.
Moreover, not all marine animals are protected by the law. The law only protects marine
wildlife that is generally classified as threatened such as sharks, rays and sea turtles.
With this current situation, researchers conducted this study to determine the level
of awareness of Zambaleos on existing laws and prohibition about protected and
threatened marine animals such sharks, rays and sea turtles. Further, it aimed to identify
the significant relationship of the awareness and the demographic profile of respondents.
The study made use of random purposive sampling of one hundred eighty (180)
respondents categorized as consumers, fishermen and vendors in the six municipalities of
the Province of Zambales, namely: Sta Cruz, Masinloc, Iba, San Narciso, San Antonio
and Subic. Percentage, mean, and Anova were utilized for data interpretation.
Findings revealed that endangered species such as manta ray and sharks are being
sold in the market. Although means generated from data suggest of least chances that the
endangered species can be seen, catch and sold in the market.
Analysis of data as per municipality shows a significant differences on how
frequent consumers saw endangered species being sold and on how frequent fish vendors
sold the same in the market. It suggests that information drive and ordinances passed,
1 | Page

made and implemented by every municipality affects the treatment of the subject
endangered species in the perspective of consumers and fish vendors.
Furthermore, data analysis as per respondents profile variables revealed that there
is a significant level of awareness of the respondents towards the cited Specific
Environmental Laws and General Accepted Guidelines when grouped according to
highest educational attainment and family income profile variables.
Improved management of fisheries and trade is urgently needed to avoid
extinctions and promote population recovery. Moreover, each municipality should
strengthen the preservation and conservation of these threatened animals. Further, an
urgency of conducting an info-dissemination drive is encouraged as well as proper
reporting to authorities of any violation committed.

2 | Page

Chapter I
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Introduction
Despite the overwhelming abundance in marine and aquatic resources of
Zambales, the marine environment is enduring the problems and risk of degradation,
declining fish catch and poverty in the coastal communities due to excessive abuse.
Hence, these results in catching, killing and selling of prohibited and threatened marine
wildlife such as species of rays, sharks and sea turtles.
Not all marine wildlife is protected by the law. The law only protects marine
wildlife that is generally classified as threatened. Threatened species are species with a
conservation status ranging from VU (Vulnerable), EN (Endangered), to CR (Critically
Endangered). Manta birostris (manta ray); rhincodon typus (whale shark), carcharhinus
longimanus (oceanic whitetip shark); sphyrna zigaema (smooth hammerhead shark) and
manta alfredi (reef manta ray) belong to vulnerable threatened species; sphyrna lewini
(scalloped hammerhead shark) and sphyrna mokarran (great hammerhead shark, green
turtle, loggerhead turtle, olive ridley turtle, leatherback turtle are classified as endangered
species and hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate) as critically endangered.
Shark and ray populations in many parts of the worlds oceans are in decline.
These include coastal (Shepherd and Myers 2005; Dudley and Simpfendorfer 2006),
open-ocean (Dulvy et al. 2008), deep-sea (Simpfendorfer and Kyne 2009; Kyne and
Simpfendorfer 2010), estuarine (Simpfendorfer 2000) and freshwater (Thorson 1982;
Compagno and Cook 1995) populations. These populations face a variety of threats, most
notably from fishing (Bonfil 1994), habitat degradation (Jennings et al. 2008), pollution
3 | Page

(Gelsleichter et al. 2005) and climate change (Chin et al. 2010). These declines are
exacerbated by their life history slow growth, late maturity and small numbers of young
relative to most other aquatic taxa (Musick 1999) and as a result, populations have less
potential to sustain fishing or to recover from depletion than do most teleost fish or
invertebrates (Simpfendorfer 2000). Although no species of shark or ray are known to
have become extinct in the wild, several species have been extirpated from large parts of
their range (Dulvy and Forrest 2009), and 67 species are currently listed as Critically
Endangered or Endangered on the IUCN Red List (www.iucnredlist.org, accessed 20
April 2011). Despite the well documented serious declines in some species, many others
have not declined, or have not declined to unsustainable levels, with 373 species on the
IUCN Red List being listed as Least Concern or Near Threatened.
Sea turtles are long-lived marine reptiles that spend the majority of their lives at
sea. They have survived for millions of years but recently they have succumbed to
anthropogenic threats that could lead to their eventual extinction . Traditionally harvested
by local fishermen for their rich meat, sea turtles provided a valuable source of income to
fishermen, and an important food source to island people. Overexploitation and habitat
loss has caused all four species to be recognized as endangered or critically endangered,
and subsequently listed on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
(IUCN) Red List.
In response to these severe declines in population numbers of protected and
prohibited threatened species of sharks, rays and sea , laws were implemented declaring
that it is illegal to harvest, buy or sell of these marine animals including its byproducts.

4 | Page

Conceptual Framework
Independent Variable
I.

Demographic Profile of
Respondents:
I.1 Age
I.2 Sex
I.3 Highest Educational
Attainment
I.4 Marital Status
I.5 Family Monthly Income

II.

Correlation Between
Respondents Profile and
their Awareness in Existing
Laws and Prohibition
Regarding Protected and
Threatened Species such as
Sharks, Stingrays and Sea
Turtles

III. Correlation on the instances saw

and bought endangered
species being sold in the
market, on the instances the
fishermen caught/take
endangered species and on the
instances fish vendor sold
endangered species in the
market when consumers,
fishermen and fish vendors
are grouped according to
municipality profile variables

Dependent Variable

A Better
Understanding on the
Level of Awareness of
Zambaleos on Existing Laws
and Prohibition Regarding
Protected and Threatened
Species such as Sharks,
Stingrays and Sea Turtles

Figure 1. The Research Paradigm of the Study

In Figure 1, the Paradigm shows the conceptual framework and cycle on the level
of their awareness on existing laws and prohibition about protected and threatened marine
5 | Page

animals such sharks, rays and sea turtles which follows the Independent VariablesDependent Variables (IV-DV Model).
For the Independent Variable, composed of age, sex or gender, marital status,
family monthly income and highest educational attainment. Part 2 dealt on the correlation
between the respondents demographic profile and its level of awareness.
For the dependent variable the level of awareness of Zambaleos in existing laws
and prohibitions regarding protected and threatened species such as sharks, rays and sea
turtles.

Statement of the Problem

The study was conducted to determine the level of awareness of consumers,
vendors and fishermen in the province of Zambales on existing laws and prohibition and
its corresponding punishment and penalty on the taking or catching, selling, purchasing,
processing, transporting and exporting of sharks, rays and sea turtles.
Specifically, this study sought to provide answers to the following question:
1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of the following variables:
1.1 age;
1.2 Sex
1.3 highest educational attainment;
1.4 monthly family income
1.5 marital status
2. What is the level of awareness of consumers, vendors and fishermen in the
province of Zambales on existing laws regarding the prohibition and its
corresponding punishment and penalty on the taking or catching, selling,
purchasing, processing, transporting and exporting of sharks, stingrays and
pawikan?
6 | Page

3. Is there a significant difference on the knowledge and awareness of respondents

on specific environmental laws and general accepted guidelines when grouped
according to profile variables?
4. Is there a significant relationship on the instances consumers saw and bought
endangered species being sold in the market, on the instances the fishermen
caught/take endangered species and on the instances fish vendor sold endangered
species in the market when consumers, fishermen and fish vendors are grouped
according to municipality profile variables

Null Hypotheses
1. There is no significant difference on the knowledge and awareness of
specific environmental laws and general accepted guidelines when
grouped according to profile variables.
2. There is no significant difference on the instances consumers saw and
bought endangered species being sold in the market, on the instances
the fishermen caught/take endangered species and on the instances fish
vendor sold endangered species in the market when consumers,
fishermen and fish vendors are grouped according to municipality
profile variables.
Importance of the Study
The present study attempted to assess the level or extent of awareness of the
following entities:

7 | Page

Law Students. The results of the study would give them idea of conducting a
seminar, training or info-dissemination drive regarding laws and statutes relevant to the
protection and preservation of marine wildlife.
Fishermen. The result of the investigation would provide better perspective or
understanding on existing national and local laws relative to the prohibition on catching,
selling and eating manta rays, sharks, turtles and the like.
Consumers, Vendors. This study would provide an insight not to buy and sell
prohibited, threatened and endangered species which are helpful in the balance of marine
ecosystem.
Public Officials. The findings of the study would provide insights for basis in
decision making and policy formulation towards strengthening the level of awareness
regarding endangered species. Moreover, it will give them ideas to conduct livelihood
projects that would help alleviate constituents lives living along the coastal areas.

Scope and Limitation of the Study

The study made use of Random Purposive Sampling of one hundred eighty
(180) respondents categorized as consumers, fishermen and vendors in the six
municipalities of the Province of Zambales. The main purpose was to identify the level
of level of awareness of consumers, vendors and fishermen in the province of Zambales
regarding the prohibition and its corresponding punishment and penalty on the taking or
catching and selling of sharks, rays and pawikan. It dealt to determine the profile of the
consumers/fish vendors/fishermen-respondents as to their sex, age, highest educational
8 | Page

attainment, monthly family income and marital status. The study identified the urgency of
informing the public about the laws and statutes prohibiting and protecting sharks, rays
and sea turtles; level of threat and their possible sources of information.
The study is limited only to six (6) municipalities lying along the coastal areas
such as Sta Cruz, Masinloc, Iba, San Narciso, San Antonio and Subic.

Operational Definitions of Terms

A. Terms:
For lucidity and clarity of the study, several terms that were used were provided
with meaning and define operationally as it is used in the study.
Coastal areas. Commonly defined as the interface or transition areas between
land and sea, including large inland lakes.
Critically endangered species [CR].

It is facing extremely high risk of

extinction in the wild in the immediate future

Endangered (EN) species. These refer to species which has been categorized by
the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List as to be facing a
very high risk of extinction in the wild
Environmental law. It is also called as environmental and natural resources law
which is a collective term describing the network of treaties, statutes, regulations, and
common and customary laws addressing the effects of human activity on the natural
environment.
Rays. It is also known as batoids, a cartilaginous fish related to sharks.

9 | Page

Sharks. Group of fish characterized by a cartilaginous skeleton, five to seven gill

slits on the sides of the head, and pectoral fins that are not fused to the head.
Sea turtles. Sometimes called marine turtles or pawikans are reptiles of the order
Testudines. There are five species of sea turtles: the green, loggerhead, olive ridley,
hawksbill and leatherback of which olive ridleys are commonly found and seen along the
coastal areas of Zambales.
Vulnerable species [VU]. It is a species considered to be facing a high risk of
extinction in the wild
Take or catch. It includes the killing, capturing, trapping, snaring and netting of
whale shark and manta rays.
Sell. It refers barter, exchange, or offering or exposing for sale.
Possess. It means to have actual or constructive possession or control thereof.
Transport. It refers to carry or move or cause to be carried or moved.
Export. It means to send or ship out of the country.

B.

ACRONYMS:

AO

- Administrative Order

BFAR

- Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources

CBD

- Convention on Biological Diversity

CITES

- Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna

and Flora

CMS

- Convention on Migratory Species

DAO

- DENR Administrative Order

10 | P a g e

DENR

- Department of Environment and Natural Resources

FAO

- Fisheries Administrative Order

IOSEA

- Indian Ocean and South-East Asia

IUCN

- International Union for Conservation of Nature

MoU

- Memorandum of Agreement

NGO

- Non-Governmental Organization

RA

- Republic Act

UNEP

- United Nations Environment Programme

QDPI

- Queensland Department of Primary Industries

Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

11 | P a g e

This chapter presents related laws and studies that were undertaken both locally
and abroad which have a common goal of conserving species that are at the brink of
extinction.
International Agreements
The Philippine government has signed agreements with other countries for the
conservation of marine wildlife.
1. CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora)
An international agreement between governments aimed at ensuring that the trade
of wild animals worldwide does not threaten their survival. Appendix I shall include all
species threatened with extinction which are or may be affected by trade. Trade in
specimens of these species must be subject to particularly strict regulation in order not to
endanger further their survival and must only be authorized in exceptional circumstances.
Appendix II shall include (a) all species which although not necessarily now threatened
with extinction may become so unless trade in specimens of such species is subject to
strict regulation in order to avoid utilization incompatible with their survival; and (b)
other species which must be subject to regulation in order that trade in specimens of
certain species referred to in sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph may be brought under
effective control. Whereas, Appendix III shall include all species which any Party
identifies as being subject to regulation within its jurisdiction for the purpose of
preventing or restricting exploitation, and as needing the co-operation of other Parties in
the control of trade.
2. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development & Agenda 21
12 | P a g e

SECTION 2, CHAPTER 17 Protection of the oceans, all kinds of seas,

including enclosed and semi-enclosed seas, and coastal areas and the protection, rational
use and development of their living resources.
3. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
Article 6 Develop national strategies, plans or programmes for the
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity or adapt existing strategies for this
purpose.
4. Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) Appendix I, II
It is an intergovernmental treaty, concluded under the guidance of the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), concerned with the conservation of wildlife
and habitats on a global scale. It aims to conserve terrestrial, aquatic and avian migratory
species throughout their range.
5. CMS MoU Turtles IOSEA
The

IOSEA Marine

Turtle

Memorandum

of

Understanding

is

an

intergovernmental agreement concluded under the auspices of the UNEP / Convention on

Migratory Species (CMS). It aims to protect, conserve, replenish and recover marine
turtles and their habitats of the Indian Ocean and South-East Asian region, working in
partnership with other relevant actors and organizations.
Under this agreement, States of the Indian Ocean and South-East Asian region,
as well as other concerned States, can work together to conserve and replenish depleted
marine turtle populations for which they share responsibility.
6. CMS MoU Sharks

13 | P a g e

A legally non-binding international instrument that aims to achieve and

maintain a favorable conservation status for migratory sharks based on the best available
scientific information and taking into account the socio-economic value of these species
for the people in various countries.
7. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature)
It helps the world find pragmatic solutions to our most pressing environment and
development challenges. Our work focuses on valuing and conserving nature, ensuring
effective and equitable governance of its use, and deploying nature-based solutions to
global challenges in climate, food and development. IUCN supports scientific research,
manages field projects all over the world, and brings governments, NGOs, the UN and
companies

together

to

develop

policy,

laws

and

best

practice.

IUCN is the worlds oldest and largest global environmental organization, with
almost 1,300 government and NGO Members and more than 15,000 volunteer experts in
185 countries. Our work is supported by almost 1,000 staff in 45 offices and hundreds of
partners in public, NGO and private sectors around the world.
Its vision is a just world that values and conserves nature. Its mission is to
influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity
and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and
ecologically sustainable.
Members of the IUCN are Non-Governmental Organizations in the Philippines
namely, Ecological Societies of the Philippines, Foundation for the Philippine
14 | P a g e

Environment, Haribon

Foundation for the

Conservation of Natural Resources and

Worldwide Fund for Nature Philippines.

LOCAL
List of National Laws Relevant to the Protection of Marine wildlife:
Under the State Ownership of Natural Resources (Regalian Doctrine), it states
that all lands of the public domain, waters, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural
resources are owned by the state. (Const. Art. XII, Sec. 2, par.1) and;
Under the State Responsibility it states that, the State shall protect the nations
marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and
reserve its use and enjoyment to Filipino citizens. (Const. Art. XII, Sec. 2, par 2) Thus,
the Philippine government passed varied laws ensuring the protection of marine wildlife.

1. RA 7586: NIPAS (NATIONAL INTEGRATED PROTECTED AREAS SYSTEM)

Cognizant of the profound impact of mans activities on all components of the
natural environment particularly the effect of increasing population, resource exploitation
and industrial advancement and recognizing the critical importance of protecting and
maintaining the natural biological and physical diversities of the environment notably on
areas with biologically unique features to sustain human life and development, as well as
plant and animal life, it is hereby declared the policy of the State to secure for the Filipino
people of present and future generations the perpetual existence of all native plants and
15 | P a g e

animals through the establishment of a comprehensive system of integrated protected

areas within the classification of national park as provided for in the Constitution.
It is hereby recognized that these areas, although distinct in features, possess
common ecological values that may be incorporated into a holistic plan representative of
our natural heritage; that effective administration of this area is possible only through
cooperation among national government, local government and concerned private
organizations; that the use and enjoyment of these protected areas must be consistent with
the principles of biological diversity and sustainable development.
2. RA 8550: The Philippine Fisheries Code as Amended by RA
10654
This code protects endangered species as provided in
Section

11.

Protection

of

Rare,

Threatened

and

Endangered

Species

The Department shall declare closed seasons and take conservation and
rehabilitation measures for rare, threatened and endangered species, as it may determine,
and shall ban the fishing and/or taking of rare, threatened and/or endangered species,
including their eggs/offspring as identified by existing laws in concurrence with
concerned government agencies.
Section 97. Fishing or Taking of Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species
It shall be unlawful to fish or take rare, threatened or endangered species as
listed in the CITES and as determined by the Department.
3. RA 9147 (2001) Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection
Act

16 | P a g e

[Chap. 3, Art. 2-5] It is dedicated to the conservation of the countrys

wildlife resources and their habitat for sustainability.
In general, the law prohibits the

killing and destroying of

wildlife

species, except: for religious rituals of established tribal or indigenous

communities, if the wildlife species is afflicted with an incurable
communicable disease, if it is necessary to end the misery that the
wildlife is going through, to prevent a danger to the life or limb of a
human being, and if wildlife is killed or destroyed after being used in
authorized research or experiment; inflicting of injury that will impair the
reproductive system of the wildlife; dumping waste, squatting or
otherwise occupying, burning, quarrying, logging, or extracting minerals
in a critical habitat;

introducing, reintroducing, or restocking wildlife

resources; trading wildlife; collecting, hunting, or possessing wildlife and

their derivatives; gathering or destroying active nests, nest trees, host
plants, and the like; maltreating or inflicting injuries to wildlife species
and transporting wildlife.
Penalties range from 6 months to 12 years with fines ranging
from Php10, 000 P1, 000,000 depending on the status of the
population of the threatened species:
4. RA 7160 (1991) Local Government Code
It

covers

the

governments

17 | P a g e

implementation

of

fishery

laws

in

local

Administrative Orders:
Acts of the President which relate to particular aspect of governmental
operations in pursuance of his duties as administrative head shall be promulgated
in administrative orders. Administrative Code of 1987, Book III, Chapter 2,
Section 3.
1. FISHERIES ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 208 , Series 2001
Subjection: Conservation of Rare, threatened, and endangered fishery species
C.) ENDANGERED SPECIES: ( WHALES)
Melon headed whale lumod
Pygmy killer whale lumod
Short-finned pilot whale pakatang ambuhatan
False killer whale balyena
Killer whale balyena
Pygmy sperm whale balyena
Dwarf sperm whale balyena
Blainvilles beaked whale balyena
Cuviers beaked whale balyena
Sperm whale balyena
Humpback whale balyena
Byrdes whale balyena
Fin whale balyena
Sec. 3. Penalty Violation of this order shall hold the offender liable to the penalty of
imprisonment from twelve years or a fine of one hundred and twenty thousand pesos, or
18 | P a g e

both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court, including forfeiture of the
catch subject of the offense and cancellation of his fishing permit, if applicable.

2. FISHERIES ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.193 Series of 1998

Section 2: Prohibition. It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or juridical, to take
or catch or cause to be taken or caught the following fishery/aquatic species.
Section 3: Penalty. Violation of this order shall hold the offender liable to the penalty
of imprisonment from twelve years to twenty years or a fine of one hundred and twenty
thousand pesos , or both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court,
including forfeiture of the catch subject of the offense and cancellation of his fishing
permit , if applicable.
3. FISHERIES ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.193 Series of 1998
SUBJECT: Ban on the taking or catching, selling, purchasing and possessing,
transporting and exporting of Whale Sharks and Manta Rays
SEC. 2. Prohibition. - It shall be unlawful to take or catch whale shark and manta rays in
Philippine waters or to sell, purchase, possess, transport, or export the same whether dead
or alive, in any state or form whether raw or processed.
It shall likewise, be unlawful to wound or to kill whale shark and manta rays in the course
of catching other species of fish. Whale shark and manta rays which are accidentally
included in the catch by any gear shall immediately be released unharmed in the sea;
otherwise the liability shall be deemed to still exist. Dead whale shark and manta rays
which are drifted to the seashore shall be surrendered to the nearest Department of

19 | P a g e

Agriculture (DA) Regional Field Unit or Bureau of Fisheries Regional or Provincial

Fishery Office, as the case may be for proper disposition.
SEC. 3. Issuance of Permit to Conduct Research and/or Collect Specimens for
Research/Scientific Purposes. - The Secretary or his duly appointed representative,
upon the recommendation of the Director of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic
Resources (BFAR), may issue a Special Permit in favor of any government or private
institution engaged in purely research work on whale shark and manta rays, subject to
such terms and conditions as the DA Secretary may deem wise to impose.
SEC. 4. Penalty. - Violation of this Order shall subject the offender to a fine of not less
than five hundred (P500.00) pesos to not more than five thousand (P5,000) pesos or
imprisonment from six (6) months to four (4) years, or both such fine and imprisonment
depending on the discretion of the court: Provided, That the Director of Fisheries and
Aquatic Resources is hereby empowered to impose upon the offender an administrative
fine not more than five thousand (P5,000.00) pesos or to cancel his permit or license or to
impose such fine and to cancel his permit or license at his discretion including the
confiscation of the whale shark and/or manta rays for proper disposition/documentation
of the government.
4. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 282
Subject: Intensifying the protection of the whale shark (Rhincodon Typus), popularly
known as Butanding in the Philippine Waters
The 1987 Constitution mandates that the State shall protect and advance the right of the
Filipino people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and
harmony of nature; Republic Act No. 9147 (Wildlife Resources Conservation and
20 | P a g e

Protection Act of 2001), Republic Act No. 8550 (Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998), and
Executive Order No. 578 have enshrined as a State policy the conservation and protection
of wildlife species and their habitats to promote ecological balance and maintain
biological biodiversity, and to ensure and secure the well-being of present and future
generations of Filipinos; the presence of the whale shark in Philippine waters
demonstrates the richness of the countrys marine biodiversity, and affirms studies that
identify the Philippines as one (1) of the eighteen (18) mega-biodiverse countries in the
world; the whale shark as the largest fish is considered not only one of most charismatic
animals of the sea but also one of the most endangered due to commercial and artisanal
fishing; the whale shark is listed in both Appendix II of the CITES considering that trade
in the species is strictly regulated, and Appendix II of the Convention on Migratory
Species (CMS) since the species has an unfavorable conservation status and would
benefit significantly from international cooperation aimed at conserving them; the whale
sharks that thrive in Philippine waters continue to be threatened and killed despite
existing legal measures for their protection; the recent incident of whale shark killing last
February 15, 2010 in Tingloy, Batangas was a direct affront to the Philippine government
as host to the meeting of experts that crafted the Conservation Plan for Migratory Sharks
and as signatory to the MOU to achieve and maintain a favorable conservation status for
migratory sharks based on the best available scientific studies; the need to further
intensify international and national protection efforts to conserve the species and to
sustain the ecotourism development in certain coastal communities in the country has
become manifest;

21 | P a g e

Section 2. Mandatory Rescue of Wounded Whale Sharks. Concerned Local Government

Units (LGUs) are hereby enjoined to render mandatory rescue efforts to any wounded
whale shark found within their area of jurisdiction. Upon sighting of a wounded whale
shark, the LGUs concerned shall immediately coordinate with any unit of the Philippine
Navy, Coast Guard, PNP Maritime Command, DA and DENR for proper care, treatment
and eventual release.
Section 3. Investigation and Prosecution of Suspected Violators. The National Bureau
of Investigation (NBI) and National Prosecution Service (NPS) of the Department of
Justice (DOJ) shall intensify their respective efforts in the investigation, filing, and
prosecution of criminal cases involving violation of laws, rules and regulations on the
protection of whale sharks;
Section 4. Reward or Incentive. A person who provides information leading to the arrest
of any person harming or killing a whale shark, or who leads to the rescue or protection
of a wounded whale shark, shall receive a reward or incentive from the government. The
DA and DENR are hereby directed to draft the implementing rules hereof.

STUDIES
Foreign Studies
One third of the sharks, rays and skates on Earth are threatened with extinction,
according to International Union for Conservation of Nature.
The dramatic numbers are part of a larger, comprehensive IUCN study of the state
of the planet's vertebrate populations. The study found that roughly one-fifth of
22 | P a g e

vertebrates are threatened. Among those are cartilaginous fishes, a group that includes
sharks, rays and skates.
Previously, more localized shark studies indicated that along the U.S. eastern
seaboard alone, populations of some shark species have been cut in half, and some have
dropped by a staggering 90 percent.
The newly issued reports are based on an ongoing appraisal of the IUCN Red
List, the worldwide standard for assessing the conservation status of species. Red List
categories run from "least concern" to "near threatened," "vulnerable," "endangered,"
"critically endangered," "extinct in the wild" and "extinct."
Due to the low numbers of sea turtles involved, there is no guarantee that sea turtles
will be encountered. Although sea turtles have been listed as being endangered by CITES and
protected by individual countries, illegal consumption of turtle meat and eggs is widespread
in almost all developing countries where this resource is available (Wilson Clevo, et.al.)
Apart from this, the threats to sea turtles appear to be much larger than to whales.
Therefore, while whales are showing an increase, sea turtles are recording a decrease. There
are many consequences resulting from this. If sea turtle numbers continue to decline, then
present nature-based tourism would not be sustainable as shown in Tisdell and Wilson

(forthcoming). However, at present, both these nature-based tourism activities are not
only popular, but also provide economic and conservation benefits for the protection of
sea turtles and whales.

23 | P a g e

According to the study on Management of Elasmobranch Fisheries conducted by

Queensland Department of Primary Industries (QDPI) Fisheries Group of Case, the
effectiveness of the shark control programme on bathing beaches in Queensland was
done through a number of operational policies and policy options such as policy of
mixed gear, drumlines plus nets, for the local reduction of large dangerous sharks at
bathing beaches; minimizing by catch and of maximizing the survival of incidental
captures that are released, particularly vulnerable and endangered species caught; not
selling shark products that result from the programme; reducing, or changing, the type of
shark control gear at any beach, based on scientific advice as to the potential risk to
swimmers; and open consultation with local communities through local focus groups and
with concerned organizations through an annual contractors conference. Moreover, shark
carcasses cannot sold for profit and no contractor can hold a commercial shark fishing
license to avoid conflict of interests
Stevens and Last (1994) report that there is a large recreational shark fishery near
Sydney and that many of the sharks caught are killed, although tag-and-release is
growing in popularity (Pepperell 1992).

Local Studies

24 | P a g e

Having survived natural hazards for millennia, sea turtles are now under severe
threat from human activity. They are caught in nets through trawl and long-line fishing.
Dynamite fishing blows up their food sources. They are deprived of nesting sites when
sandy areas are converted into beachside condominiums, and their eggs are harvested
indiscriminately, leaving few to hatch and replace the current population. (Turtle Islands,
Resources and Livelihood Under Threat: A Case Study on the Philippines)
Turtles are not the only inhabitants of the rich marine ecosystem of the Turtle
Islands, however. The Sulu Sea is among the most abundant fishing areas in the country
an abundance that has put the area under threat. The islands are magnets for
commercial fishermen from both Malaysia and the Philippines who often practice
destructive fishing methods. Large vessels ply the area at all times, ignoring the invisible,
often indistinguishable international boundaries set in the water. Small scale fishermen,
taking advantage of the erratic law enforcement in the area, also practice dynamite and
cyanide fishing. Although there are regulations on turtle egg harvesting, the trade
continues to flourish. But in an effort to save the decreasing population, the Turtle
Islands Heritage Protected Area (TIHPA) was established and significant new
developments have taken place. Since the breakdown of management of the turtle egg
collection, the municipal government signified openness to co-management.
Studies conducted by the Thresher Shark Research and Conservation Project
estimates that approximately 80% of the municipal economy of Daanbantayan is fueled
by scuba diving, providing employment and supporting livelihoods of local communities
and its neighboring municipalities. Hence. Oplan Palwis was launch to
25 | P a g e

further

strengthen Cebus existing ordinance that protects sharks and rays, incorporating science
and using the updated and revolutionary Philippine Fisheries Code. This is to ensure that
the countrys first shark and ray sanctuary will be effective especially in reversing fish
decline due to decades of overfishing.
According toDennis Bryan Bait-it, the coordinator of Daanbantayans Bantay
Dagat Migo sa Iho, Protecting sharks and rays is not only economically beneficial to
local fisherfolk, but also to our marine ecosystems. Many shark species are indicators of a
healthy marine ecosystem. This ensures fish are spawning and thriving so there would be
more fish to catch by the local fishermen.

26 | P a g e

Chapter 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter includes discussion of general research methodology that will be
employed in the study, the subject involved in the study, the instrument that will be used
in gathering the needed data and the statistical method and techniques apply for data
analysis and interpretation.

Research Design
The study made use of descriptive - correlational method of research and
documentary analysis of data.
This was a descriptive study. According to Jacobs (2008), descriptive studies
collect data to answer questions about a subject or topic of study. Descriptive research
makes use of instruments such as surveys to explore individuals preferences, attitudes,
interests, practices, and concerns. One major benefit of such methodology is that it posits
expertise with the participants, rather than with the researcher (J.B. Burns, Personal
Communication, September 8, 2009).
The descriptive method according to Gonzales, et.al. (1993), gives a better and
deeper understanding of a phenomenon on the basis of an in-depth study of the
phenomenon. It reveals problems or abnormal conditions so that remedial measures may

27 | P a g e

be instituted. It reveals to us what we do not want, what we want, and how to acquire
what we want. It also provides a basis for decision-making.

Research Locale
The study was conducted in the six (6) municipalities in the Province of
Zambales, namely: Sta. Cruz, Masinloc, Iba, San Narciso, San Antonio and Subic.

28 | P a g e

Figure 2
Map of Zambales, showing the Location of Coastal Areas
The Subject/Respondents of the Study

29 | P a g e

The respondents were one hundred eighty (180) participants categorized as

consumers, vendors and fishermen randomly surveyed in the province of Zambales. Each
category had 10 participants. Table 1 shows the distribution of consumers, vendors and
fishermen used as participants in the study.

Table 1
Distribution of the Consumers/Vendors/Fishermen-Respondents per
Municipality

MUNICIPALITY

CONSUMERS

VENDORS

FISHERMEN

Sta. Cruz

10

10

10

Masinloc

10

10

10

Iba

10

10

10

San Narciso

10

10

10

San Antonio

10

10

10

Subic

10

10

10

60

60

60

Total

30 | P a g e

The Instrument
The questionnaire was the main instrument used in gathering the data
supplemented by documentary analysis. The questionnaire was divided in three (3) parts.
Part I dealt with the profile of the consumers/vendors/fishermen-respondents as to their
age, sex, economic status as reflected in their family monthly income and highest
educational attainment. Part 2 dealt with the consumers, vendors and fishermens
perceptions on knowledge and awareness on the prohibition the prohibition and its
corresponding punishment and penalty on the taking or catching, selling, purchasing,
processing, transporting and exporting of sharks, stingrays and pawikan. Part 3 dealt on
the frequency on how often these fishes were being seen and sold in the market, bought
from the fishermen and or from the market and took, caught, killed, possessed and being
eaten by consumers/vendors/fishermen.
The questionnaire made use of the popular Likert type scale which is commonly
used in survey research. It consisted of 5-point scale ranging from (1) not at all aware, (2)
slightly aware, (3) somewhat aware, (4) moderately aware and (5) extremely aware; 5
pointscale of frequency starting from (1) never, (2) rarely, (3) sometimes, (4) often and
(5) always.

Data Gathering Procedure

Both the International and Philippine law and municipal ordinances were used as
primary sources of information. Any related articles from the website of CITES, Marine
Wildlife Watch of the Philippines, European Union, Bureau of Fisheries and Department
of Tourism were collected to assess the level of awareness of the consumers, fish vendors
and fishermen.

31 | P a g e

The secondary means of data collection was through a structured interview. It was
structured in that the subjects worked through a questionnaire during the interview.
The subjects were asked to complete the questionnaire in front of the researcher.
They were encouraged to verbalize the reasons for their particular choice, or any other
comments, opinions that they may have. After the questionnaire was completed the
researcher made follow up with any additional questions necessary to clarify or elucidate
the reasons behind the subject's particular choice of communication media.
A questionnaire instrument was used to give structure to the interview rather than
a series of verbal questions for two main reasons. First, this maintained consistency
across all subjects and hence facilitated comparison. Second, the answers to the
questionnaire itself provided an important source of data.
It is acknowledged that a questionnaire alone is unable to of identify the reasons
behind the choice. However, this limitation is mitigated by two additional features of this
research design: (i) the presence of a comprehensive framework, and (ii) the interview
structure that permits the subjects to state their reasons and opinions during and after the
questionnaire. The latter added substance to the data collected from the questionnaire
alone and made the result more concrete.

Statistical treatment of Data

32 | P a g e

The following statistical method was employed to answer specific questions

stated in the Statement of the Problem.
1. Percentage was used to determine the frequency counts and percentage
distribution on the related factors as age, sex, educational level and monthly income of
participants using the formula as shown below.
f
Percentage (%) = --------- X 100
N
Where:
% = percentage
N = total number of respondents
f = Frequency
2. The Mean Weighted Average mean was used to determine the level where the
identified threatened species of sharks, rays and sea turtle were seen and sold in the
market; took, caught, possessed, killed and being eaten by the respondents and bought
from the fishermen and market by fish vendors and consumers
(f x Re)

WX =----------------------n
Where: WX = weighted mean
n = number of respondents
f = frequency
Re = response equivalent
3. Likert Scale. This was used to determine the individual responses of the respondents
in the level of awareness. The weight points value and their options are as follows:

33 | P a g e

Perception on Knowledge and Awareness of Respondents

Arbitrary Values Equivalent
5
4
3
2
1

Statistical Limits
4.20 5.00
3.40 4.19
2.60 3.39
1.80 2.59
1.00 1.79

Descriptive Equivalent
Extremely Aware
Moderately Aware
Somewhat Aware
Slightly Aware
Not at all Aware

Perception on the Frequency of Being Sold, Bought, Killed, Caught,

Possessed and Ate those Prohibited Species of Sharks, Rays and Seaturtle
Arbitrary Values Equivalent
5
4
3
2
1

Statistical Limits
4.20 5.00
3.40 4.19
2.60 3.39
1.80 2.59
1.00 1.79

Descriptive Equivalent
Always
Often
Sometimes
Seldom
Never

4. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to measure the significant differences on

the perception towards level of awareness when grouped according to profile variables of
the respondents and the instances consumers saw and bought endangered species being
sold in the market, on the instances the fishermen caught/take endangered species and on
the instances fish vendor sold endangered species in the market when consumers,
fishermen and fish vendors are grouped according to municipality profile variables . The
researcher had utilized the Data Analysis in Microsoft Excel. The researchers were
guided on the decision rule in rejecting and accepting the null hypothesis.
Decision Rule
If the computed significant value is greater than (>) 0.05 Alpha Level of
Significance, the Null Hypothesis is Accepted, hence there is no significant difference but
34 | P a g e

if the computed Significant Value is less than (<) 0.05 Alpha Level of Significance, the
Null Hypothesis is Rejected, hence there is significant difference

Chapter 4
PRESENTATION, INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
This chapter presents the findings in the study, analysis and interpretation of the
data gathered from the consumers/vendors/fishermen-respondents.

1. Profile of the Consumers/Vendors/Fishermen-Respondents

Table 2
35 | P a g e

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents

Profile Variables
Profile Variables

FISH VENDORS
Frequency
(f)

Age
Mean = 38.44 Years Old

Sex

Marital Status

Highest Educational
Attainment

Monthly Income

Less than 20
21-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
41-45
46-50
More than 51
Male
Female
Single
Married
Widow
Separated
Grades 1-6
Elementary Graduate
First Year High School
Second Year High School
Third Year High School
Fourth Year High School
High School Graduate
First Year College
Second Year College
Third Year College
Fourth Year College
College Graduate
1000 2500
2501 5000
5001 7500
7501 10000
10001 12500
12501 15500
15501 - 17500
17501 20000
20001 and above

0
0
0
5
20
16
13
6
21
39
1
49
10
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
32
2
3
0
6
12
26
19
9
6
0
0
0
0
0

Percentage
(%)

0
0
0
3%
11%
9%
7%
3%
12%
21%
1%
26%
6%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
3%
17%
1%
2%
0%
3%
7%
14%
11%
5%
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

FISHERMEN
Frequency
(f)

0
10
8
2
21
13
6
0
53
7
7
43
5
3
6
24
7
2
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
1
47
12
0
1
0
0
0
0
0

Percenta
ge
(%)

0
6%
4%
1%
12%
7%
3%
0%
29%
4%
4%
24%
3%
2%
3%
13%
2%
1%
0%
0%
11%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
26%
7%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

CONSUMERS
Frequency
(f)

0
5
13
16
12
7
0
7
30
30
11
39
9
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
19
2
2
4
3
28
2
10
14
12
8
7
4
0
3

Perce
ntage
(%)

0
3%
7%
9%
7%
4%
0%
4%
17%
17%
6%
22%
5%
1%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
11%
1%
1%
2%
2%
16%
1%
5%
8%
7%
4%
4%
2%
0%
2%

Table 2 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of the consumers/fish

vendors/fishermen-respondents profile variables.
Age. Out of one hundred eighty (180) respondents, there were 53 or equivalent to
30% from age group of 36-40 years old; 36 or 20%, from 41-45 years old; 23 or 13%,
from 31-35 years old; 21 or 11%, 26-30 years old; 19 or 10%, 46-50 years old and 15 or
36 | P a g e

equivalent to 9% from age group of 21-25 years old; 13 or 7%, above 51 years old and o
participants belonging to age group of less than 20 years old. The computed weighted
mean of the respondents was 38.44 years old. The table suggests that respondents were
on their middle adulthood which ranges from 40 to age of retirement.
Sex. Out of one hundred eighty (180) respondent, there were 104 or equivalent to
58 % who are male and 76 or equivalent to 42%, are females. The data implies that
majority of the respondents are male as this could be ascribed that most fishermen are
males.
Highest Educational Attainment. Out of one hundred eighty (180) respondents,
there were 6 or equivalent to 3 % who reached elementary level; 26 or 14% have attained
elementary graduate; 14 or 7%, high school level; 71 or 39%, high school graduate; 22 or
13 % reached college and 41 or 24%, who have finish college education. The table
simply suggests that respondent have attained high school education and accounted on
the government thrust of providing free elementary and secondary education to Filipino
children. Attaining college education is hardly attainable for some families because of
high cost of tuition fees and miscellaneous.
Family Monthly Income. Out of one hundred eighty (180) respondents,
there were 75 or equivalent to 41% who have family income of Php1,000 and below; 41
or 23%, Php2,501-Php5,000; 23 or 13%, Php5,001-Php7,500; 19 or 11%, Php7,501Php10,000; 8 or 4%, Php10,001-Php12,500; 7 or 4% Php12501 15500; 4 or 2%
Php15501 17500; zero percent Php17501 20000 and 3 or 2% with family income of
Php20,001 and above. The computed weighted mean of family monthly income was Php
13,235.08 monthly. The table reveals that majority of the respondents have an adequate
37 | P a g e

income and classified below poverty level. It validates the truth where majority where
housekeepers and rely on their husband income from being tricycle drivers, construction
workers, government job order employees and operating small sari-sari stores.
Marital Status. Out of one hundred eighty (180) respondents, there were 19 or
equivalent to 11% who are single; 131or 72%, Married; 24 or 14%, Widow; and 4 or 3%,
separated. The data reveals that respondents are generally married and working hard to
earn a living for their own family.

2. Frequency of instances the consumers saw the endangered species being sold in
the market.
Table 3 shows the frequency the consumers saw the endangered species being
sold in the market. Out of sixty consumers-respondents in the selected six municipality of
Zambales, theres none or equivalent to 0.00% who saw the subject endangered species
being sold to the market often and always respectively; 22 or equivalent to 12.22% who
said they sometimes saw; 50 or equivalent to 27.78%, Rarely; 108 or equivalent to
60.00%, Never. The computed weighted mean was 1.52 interpreted as Rarely Seen.
Table 3
Frequency of seeing the endangered species being sold by consumers
Likerts Scale

Frequency (f)

Percentage (%)

Never (1)
Rarely (2)
Sometimes (3)
Often (4)
Always (5)

108
50
22
0
0

60.00
27.78
12.22
0.00
0.00

180

100.00

Total

Mean = 1.52 Rarely Seen

3. Frequency of instances the consumers bought the endangered species.

38 | P a g e

Table 4 shows the frequency the consumers saw the endangered species being
sold in the market. Out of sixty consumers-respondents in the selected six municipality of
Zambales, theres none or equivalent to 0.00% who bought the subject endangered
species often and always respectively; 6 or equivalent to 3.33% who said they sometimes
bought; 51 or equivalent to 28.33%, Rarely; 122 or equivalent to 67.78%, Never. The
computed weighted mean was 1.09 interpreted as Least Chance of Buying.

Table 4
Frequency of bought by consumers the endangered species
Likerts Scale

Frequency (f)

Percentage (%)

Never (1)
Rarely (2)
Sometimes (3)
Often (4)
Always (5)

122
51
6
0
0

67.78
28.33
3.33
0.00
0.00

180

100.00

Total

Mean = 1.09 Least Chance of Buying

4. Frequency of instances the fishermen catch/take the endangered species.

Table 5 shows the frequency the fishermen catch/take the endangered species. Out
of sixty fishermen-respondents in the selected six municipality of Zambales, theres none
or equivalent to 0.00% who catch/take the endangered species often and always,
respectively; 17 or equivalent to 9.44% who said they sometimes cathc; 60 or equivalent
to 33.33%, Rarely; 103 or equivalent to 57.22%, Never. The computed weighted mean
was 1.15 interpreted as Least Chance of Catching.

Table 5
Frequency of instances the fishermen catch/take the endangered species
39 | P a g e

Likerts Scale

Frequency (f)

Percentage (%)

Never (1)
Rarely (2)
Sometimes (3)
Often (4)
Always (5)

103
60
17
0
0

57.22
33.33
9.44
0.00
0.00

180

100.00

Total

Mean = 1.15 Least Chance of Catching

5. Frequency of instances the fish vendor sells the endangered species in the market.
Table 6 shows the frequency the fishermen catch/take the endangered species. Out
of sixty fishermen-respondents in the selected six municipality of Zambales, theres none
or equivalent to 0.00% who sell the endangered species often and always, respectively;
25 or equivalent to 13.89% who said they sometimes sell; 52 or equivalent to 28.89%,
Rarely; 103 or equivalent to 57.22%, Never. The computed weighted mean was 1.29
interpreted as Least Chance of Selling.

Table 6
Frequency of instances the fish vendor sells the endangered species in the market
Likerts Scale

Frequency (f)

Percentage (%)

Never (1)
Rarely (2)
Sometimes (3)
Often (4)
Always (5)

103
52
25
0
0

57.22
28.89
13.89
0.00
0.00

180

100.00

Total

Mean = 1.29 Least Chance of Selling

The assessment of the frequency of the instances the consumers see and bought
the endangered being sold in the market, the frequency of the instances the fishermen
40 | P a g e

catch the subject endangered species and eventually sell by the fish vendor would show
that theres and actual violation of the cited specific laws. As can be glean from the
above tables, most of the mean generated from the data gather ranges from 1.52 to 1.09
which suggest of least chances the endangered species can be seen catch and sold in the
market. These findings agreed to the fact that the species are indeed endangered but the
minimal chance of their presence in our fluvial areas never hindered the fact that once
they were seen, they will be eventually presented in the market to be one of the
commodity being sold.
6. Analysis based on Municipality Profile.
Table 7
Analysis of Variance to test differences on the instances the consumers saw the
endangered species being sold in the market by Municipality.
Sources of Variations
Municipality

SS

Df

MS

Sig.

Decision

Between Groups

0.813333

0.162667

2.542

0.038820624

Within Groups

3.456

54

0.064

Reject Ho
Significant

Total

4.269333

59

Table 7 shows the Analysis of Variance to test the significant differences on the
instances the consumers saw the endangered species being sold in the market when
grouped according to Municipality profile.
Municipality profile variables obtained significant value of 0.038820624 which
are lower than (<) 0.05 Alpha Level of Significance, therefore the Null Hypothesis is
Rejected, hence there is significant difference on the instances the consumers saw the
endangered species being sold in the market when grouped according to Municipality
profile variables.
Table 8
Analysis of Variance to test differences on the instances the consumers bought the
endangered species being sold in the market by Municipality.
41 | P a g e

Sources of Variations
Municipality

SS

Df

MS

Sig.

Between Groups

4.125

0.516

1.394

0.222

Within Groups

18.858

51

0.370

Total

22.98

59

Decision
Accept Ho
Not Significant

Table 8 shows the Analysis of Variance to test the significant differences on the
instances the consumers saw the endangered species being sold in the market when
grouped according to Municipality profile.
The computed Significant Value of 0.222 which are higher than (>) 0.05 Alpha
Level of Significance, therefore the Null Hypothesis is Accepted, hence there is no
significant difference on the instances the consumers bought the endangered species
being sold in the market when grouped according to Municipality.
Table 9
Analysis of Variance to test differences on the instances the fishermen catch/take the
endangered species by Municipality.
Sources of Variations
Municipality

SS

Df

MS

Sig.

Between Groups

0.709333

0.1418

2.152

0.0731

Within Groups

3.56

54

0.0659

Total

4.269333

59

Decision
Accept Ho
Not Significant

Table 9 shows the Analysis of Variance to test the significant differences on the
instances the consumers saw the endangered species being sold in the market when
grouped according to Municipality profile.
The computed Significant Value of 0.222 which are higher than (>) 0.05 Alpha
Level of Significance, therefore the Null Hypothesis is Accepted, hence there is no
significant difference on the instances the consumers bought the endangered species
being sold in the market when grouped according to Municipality.
Table 10
Analysis of Variance to test differences on the instances the fish vendor sold the
endangered species in the market by Municipality.
Sources of Variations
Municipality

42 | P a g e

SS

Df

MS

Sig.

Decision

Between Groups

0.84

0.168

3.168

0.0140

Within Groups

2.864

54

0.053037

Reject Ho
Significant

Total

3.704

59

Table 11 shows the Analysis of Variance to test the significant differences on the
instances the consumers saw the endangered species being sold in the market when
grouped according to Municipality profile.
Municipality profile variables obtained significant value of 0.0140 which are
lower than (<) 0.05 Alpha Level of Significance, therefore the Null Hypothesis is
Rejected, hence there is significant difference on the instances the consumers saw the
endangered species being sold in the market when grouped according to Municipality
profile variables.
These four analyses, as presented in the above tables, suggests that information
drive and ordinances passed, made and implemented by every municipality affects the
treatment of the subject endangered species in the perspective of consumers, fishermen,
and fish vendors.
7.

Level of awareness of Specific Environmental Laws and General Accepted

Guidelines in the protection of endangered species.
7.1. Specific Environmental Laws
Table 12
Analysis of Variance to test differences on the level of awareness of Specific
Environmental Laws
Sources of Variations

Age

Sex

Highest Educational
Attainment

df

MS

4.9938077

0.832

Within Groups

113.61569

173

0.657

118.6095

179

Total
Between Groups

1.535428

1.535

Within Groups

113.0132

178

0.635

Total

89.691

312

63.4069

11

54.76838

168

118.1753

179

Between Groups
Within Groups
Total

43 | P a g e

SS

Between Groups

5.764
0.326002
238

Sig.

Decision

1.267

0.274

2.418

0.122

Accept Ho
Not Significant
Accept Ho
Not Significant

17.682

0.000000000000000
0000000563334

Reject Ho
Significant

Family Monthly
Income

Between Groups
Within Groups
Total

48.917

6.115

69.259

171

0.405

118.175

179

15.097

0.000000000000000
1201166

Reject Ho
Significant

Table 20 shows the Analysis of Variance to test the significant differences on the
level of awareness of the respondents towards of cited Specific Environmental Laws
when grouped according to profile variables.
The computed Significant Value of 0.274 and 0.122 which all are higher than (>)
0.05 Alpha Level of Significance, therefore the Null Hypothesis is Accepted, hence there
is no significant difference on the perception of the respondents towards cited
Environmental Laws when grouped according to age and sex profile variables. On the
other hand, highest educational attainment and cited Environmental Laws profile
variables

obtained

Significant

value

of

0.000000000000000000000056

and

0.00000000000000012 respectively which are lower than (<) 0.05 Alpha Level of
Significance, therefore the Null Hypothesis is Rejected, hence there is significant
difference on the perception of the respondents towards g cited Environmental Laws
when grouped according to highest educational attainment and cited Environmental Laws
profile variables.
This suggests that low education profile affects the level of awareness on the
Environmental Laws, viz:
a) Republic Act 10654 which amends Republic Act No. 8550 ("The Philippine
Fisheries Code of 1998.")
b) FAO Order 193 s. 1998, ban on the taking or catching, selling, purchasing and
possessing, transporting and exporting of Whale Sharks and Manta Rays)

44 | P a g e

c) CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna

and Flora)
d) REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9147 or Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection
Act, an act providing for the conservation and protection of wildlife resources and
their habitats, appropriating funds therefor and for other purposes
e) Existing Municipal Ordinance: Care for the Pawikan
Family monthly income that is mostly directly proportional to the educational
attainment of the respondents also suggest that level of awareness has significant
differences. Some of the respondents even revealed that they know the prohibition
regarding the subject endangered species however particularity on the laws that gave life
to that prohibition and the penalty attached to the violation of the said laws are vague on
their part.

7.2. General Accepted Guidelines in the protection of endangered species

Table 13
Analysis of Variance to test differences on the level of awareness of General
Accepted Guidelines
Sources of Variations
Age

Sex

Highest
Educational
Attainment
Family Monthly
Income

Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups

Df
6

0.877

74.10469

173

0.428

79.367166

179

0.014247

0.0142

79.21033

178

0.445

79.22458

179

31.27115

11

2.843
0.285437
081

47.95343

168

Total

79.22458

179

Between Groups
Within Groups

23.8450

Total

45 | P a g e

SS
5.2624758

55.3795
79.2245767

MS

2.9806

171
179

0.3239

Sig.

Decision

2.048

0.062

Accept Ho
Not Significant

0.032

0.858

Accept Ho
Not Significant

9.960

0.0000000000000807

Reject Ho
Significant

9.204

0.000000000167

Reject Ho
Significant

Table 13 shows the Analysis of Variance to test the significant differences on the
level of awareness of General Accepted Guidelines when grouped according to profile
variables.
The computed Significant Value of 0.062 and 0.858 which all are higher than (>)
0.05 Alpha Level of Significance, therefore the Null Hypothesis is Accepted, hence there
is no significant difference on the level of awareness of General Accepted Guidelines in
the protection of endangered species when grouped according to age, and sex profile
variables. On the other hand, highest educational attainment profile variable obtained
significant value of 0.0000000000000807 and family monthly income profile obtained
significant value of 0.000000000167 which is lower than (<) 0.05 Alpha Level of
Significance, therefore the Null Hypothesis is Rejected, hence there is significant
difference on the level of awareness of General Accepted Guidelines in the protection of
endangered species when grouped according to highest educational level and family
monthly income profile variable.
Because of the different educational attainment and family monthly income,
respondents have opposing and conflicting level of awareness. Some are pre-occupied on
other matters in coping with their day to day lives. and many others which church
attendance to meetings are inevitable and coming to school is not much given priority.

46 | P a g e

Chapter 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents the summary of the investigation conducted, the conclusions
arrived at and the recommendations offered by the researcher.

Conclusions
After the analysis of data yielded by the preceding tables, researchers arrived at
the following conclusions:
1. The respondent is a typical male, in his middle adulthood, high school
graduate, and whose family income is below poverty level.
2. There are least instances that endangered species such as rays, sharks and sea
turtles are being seen, catch, sold and bought in the market.
3. Effective implementation of the information drive and municipal ordinances
regarding the protection of subject endangered species affects the frequency of
instances of that the subject endangered species of being seen and sold in the
market.
4. There is significant difference on highest educational attainment and family
monthly income towards the level of awareness of cited Specific
Environmental Laws in the protection of endangered species.
5. There is significant difference on highest educational attainment and family
monthly income towards the level of awareness of General Accepted
Guidelines in the protection of endangered species.

47 | P a g e

Recommendations
Based on the findings and conclusions obtained in the study, the foregoing
recommendations are hereby recommended as follows:
1. At the early stage of learning, pupils should be equip with knowledge on how
to protect endangered species such as manta rays, sharks and sea turtles and be
informed of the punishment and penalties attached to violation of the law..
Educational level must not hinder the mankind to know what is just and right.
Ignorance of law excuses no one from compliance therewith.
2. Provide mechanism of giving information to constituents of every
municipality who cannot make to attend proper schooling for dissemination
purposes by:
a. Conducting seminars in barangay levels especially on coastal areas.
b. Provides pamphlets and brochure with photographic discussion of
Environmental Laws showing the causes and consequence of noncompliance therewith.
3. Passed an effective and efficient Municipal ordinances adapting and enforcing
cited Environmental Laws and the punishment and penalties that will hold the
violators liable.
4. Municipal management must conduct inspection of the market even thrice a
week to ensure that no prohibited endangered species will be sold in the their
market.
5. Encourage constituents to report any incident of violation of the
Environmental Laws to minimize the instances of catching, taking, selling and
buying of Engangered species.

48 | P a g e

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bonfil, R. (1994). Overview of world elasmobranch fisheries. FAO FisheriesTechnical
Paper 341, 1119.
Bonfil, R., Meyer, M., Scholl, M. C., Johnson, R., OBrien, S., Oosthuizen, H., Swanson,
S., Kotze, D., and Paterson, M. (2005). Transoceanic migration, spatial dynamics, and
population linkages of white sharks. Science 310, 100103.
doi:10.1126/SCIENCE.1114898
Chin, A., Kyne, P. M., Walker, T. I., and McAuley, R. B. (2010). An integrated risk
assessment for climate change: analysing the vulnerability of sharks and rays on
Australias Great Barrier Reef. Global Change Biology 16, 19361953.
doi:10.1111/J.1365-2486.2009.02128.X
49 | P a g e

Dudley, S. F. J. (1997). A comparison of the shark control programs of New South Wales
and Queensland (Australia) and KwaZulu-Natal (South
Africa). Ocean and Coastal Management 34, 127. doi:10.1016/S0964- 5691(96)000610
Dudley, S. F. J., and Simpfendorfer, C. A. (2006). Population status of 14 shark species
caught in the protective gillnets off KwaZulu-Natal
beaches, South Africa, 19782003. Marine and Freshwater Research 57, 225240.
doi:10.1071/MF05156
Dulvy, N. K., and Forrest, R. E. (2009). Life histories, population dynamics, and
extinction risks in chondrichthyans. In Sharks and Their Relatives II: Biodiversity,
Adaptive Physiology, and Conservation. (Eds J. C. Carrier, J. A. Musick and M. R.
Heithaus.) pp. 635676. (CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL.)
Dulvy, N. K., and Reynolds, J. D. (2009). Biodiversity: skates on thin ice. Nature 462,
417. doi:10.1038/462417A
Dulvy, N. K., Baum, J. K., Clark, S., Compagno, L. J. V., Cortes, E.Domingo, A.,
Fordman, S., Fowler, S., Francis, M. P., Gibson, C., Martnez, J., Musick, J. A., Soldo,
A., Stevens, J. D., and Valenti, S. (2008). You can swim but you cant hide: the global
status and conservation of oceanic pelagic sharks and rays. Aquatic Conservation
Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 18, 459482. doi:10.1002/AQC.975
Gelsleichter, J., Manire, C. A., Szabo, N. J., Cortes, E., Carlson, J., and LombardiCarlson, L. (2005). Organochlorine concentrations in bonnethead sharks (Sphyrna tiburo)
from four Florida estuaries. Archives of EnvironmentalContamination and Toxicology 48,
474483. doi:10.1007/
S00244-003-0275-2
Jennings, D. E., Gruber, S. H., Franks, B. R., Kessel, S. T., and Robertson, A. L. (2008).
Effects of large-scale anthropogenic development on juvenile lemon shark (Negaprion
brevirostris) populations of Bimini, Bahamas. Environmental Biology of Fishes 83, 369
377. doi:10.1007/
S10641-008-9357-3
Kyne, P. M., and Simpfendorfer, C. A. (2010). Deepwater chondrichthyans. In Biology
of Sharks and Their Relatives II. (Eds J. C. Carrier, J. A. Musick and M. R. Heithaus.)
pp. 37113. (CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL.) PONE.0016918
Musick, J. A. (1999). Ecology and conservation of long-lived marine
animals. In Life in the Slow Lane: Ecology and Conservation of
Long Lived Marine Animals. (Ed. J. A. Musick.) pp. 110. (American
Fisheries Society: Bethesda, MD.)
50 | P a g e

Shepherd, T. D., and Myers, R. A. (2005). Direct and indirect fishery effects on small
coastal elasmobranchs in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Ecology Letters 8, 10951104.
doi:10.1111/J.1461-0248.2005.00807.X
Simpfendorfer, C. A., and Kyne, P. M. (2009). Limited potential to recover from
overfishing raises concerns for deep-sea sharks, rays and chimaeras. Environmental
Conservation 36, 97103. doi:10.1017/ S0376892909990191
Simpfendorfer, C. A., Bonfil, R., and Latour, R. J. (2005). Mortality estimation. In
Elasmobranch Fisheries Management Techniques. (Eds J. A. Musick and R. Bonfil.) pp.
165185. (FAO: Rome.)
Simpfendorfer, C. A., Wiley, T. R., and Yeiser, B. G. (2010). Improving conservation
planning for an endangered sawfish using data from acoustic telemetry.
BiologicalConservation 143, 14601469. doi:10.1016/ J.BIOCON.2010.03.021
Simpfendorfer, C. A., Yeiser, B. G., Wiley, T. R., Poulakis, G. R., Stevens, P. W., and
Heupel, M. R. (2011). Environmental influences on the spatial ecology of juvenile
smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata): results from acoustic monitoring. PLoS ONE 6,
e16918. doi:10.1371/JOURNAL.
Thorson, T. B. (1982). The impact of commercial exploitation on sawfish and shark
populations in Lake Nicaragua. Fisheries (Bethesda, Md.) 7, 210. doi:10.1577/15488446(1982)007,0002:TIOCEO.2.0.CO;2

51 | P a g e

WEBLIOGRAPHY
www.cites.org
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf
http://www.un.org
www.cms.int
http://www.cms.int/en/legalinstrument/turtles
http://www.cms.int/en/legalinstrument/sharks
http://www.cms.int/en/legalinstrument/dugong
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/home/
www.iucn.org/
www.iucnredlist.org/
http://mwwphilippines.org/2013/08/06/philippine-and-international-laws-on-marinewildlife-protection/
www.gov.ph/1992/06/01/republic-act-no-7586/
www.gov.ph/.../implementing-rules-for-philippine-fisheries-code-signed/
www.bfar.gov.ph
www.lawphil.net
www.chanrobles.com
http://www.tanggolkalikasan.org/tanggolkalikasan/elawDOCs/denr/
http://www.bfar.da.gov.ph/
http://mwwphilippines.org/2013/08/06/philippine-and-international-laws-on-marinewildlife-protection/
www.gov.ph The Official Gazette
52 | P a g e

Appendix A
Republic of the Philippines
RAMON MAGSAYSAY TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
Iba, Zambales

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Dear Respondent,
This questionnaire is an attempt to gather important information about the
knowledge and awareness of buyers/consumers, vendors and fishermen in the province
of Zambales regarding the prohibition and its corresponding punishment and penalty on
the taking or catching, selling, purchasing, processing, transporting and exporting of
sharks, stingrays and pawikan.
As the main intention behind the survey is not to identify any individuals
response, but group responses, YOU SHOULD NOT WRITE YOUR NAME anywhere
on the questionnaire. As seen on this first page, at the top left-hand section, a CODE
NUMBER is provided for each individual; this is to conceal any individuals identity.
Your participation in this study is very important as it would help researchers
determine or identify the degree of awareness of Zambalenos on existing laws protecting
these endangered species.
There is no right or wrong answers to the questions asked or the statements made;
instead, what is desired of you is your truthful and honest responses. The time needed to
complete the questionnaire is approximately 10 minutes. Please note that the completion
of this questionnaire is entirely voluntary. All information gathered as a result of your
participating in this study will be treated with utmost confidentiality.
Your willingness to complete the questionnaire implies you have given consent to
participate.
Thank you for cooperating.
Researchers
Fourth Year LLB Students
SECTION A: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
Instruction: Please indicate your preferred answer by ticking ( / ) the appropriate space.
1. Sex:
2. Age:

53 | P a g e

Male

Female

Less than 20 years old

31 35 years old

21 25 years old

41 45 years old

26 30 years old

46 50 years old

36 40 years old

more than 51 years old

3. Monthly Family Income:

Php1000 2500

Php12501 15500

Php 2501 5000

Php 15501 17500

Php 5001 7500

Php 17501 20000

Php 7501 10000

Php

20000 and higher

Php10001 12500
4. Marital Status
Single

Married

Widow

Second Year

Third Year

Separated
5. Educational Level
Grade 1-6
Elementary Graduate
First Year

Fourth

Year
High School Graduate
First Year College

Third Year College

Second Year College

Fourth Year College

College Graduate
SECTION B: KNOWLEDGE and AWARENESS
Do you know about..
Extre
mely
aware
Republic Act 10654 which amends Republic
Act No. 8550 ("The Philippine Fisheries
Code of 1998.")
FAO Order 193 s. 1998, ban on the taking or
catching, selling, purchasing and
possessing, transporting and exporting of
Whale Sharks and Manta Rays)
54 | P a g e

Mode
rately
aware

Some
what
aware

Sligh
tly
awar
e

Not
at all
aware

CITES (Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora)
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9147 or Wildlife
Resources Conservation and Protection Act,
an act providing for the conservation and
protection of wildlife resources and their
habitats, appropriating funds therefor and for
other purposes
Existing Municipal Ordinance:
_____________________________________
_______________
Do you know that..
Extre Moder
mely
ately
aware aware
It is unlawful to take or catch whale
shark and manta rays in Philippine
waters or to sell, purchase, possess,
transport, or export the same whether
dead or alive, in any state or form
whether raw or processed
It is unlawful to wound or to kill whale
shark and manta rays in the course of
catching other species of fish
Whale shark and manta rays which are
accidentally included in the catch by any
gear should be immediately released
unharmed in the sea; otherwise the
liability shall exist
Dead whale shark and manta rays which
are drifted to the seashore should be
surrendered to the nearest Department of
Agriculture (DA) Regional Field Unit or
Bureau of Fisheries Regional or
Provincial Fishery Office, as the case
may be for proper disposition
Violation on the taking, selling
purchasing etc of manta rays and whale
55 | P a g e

Somewh
at aware

Slightl
y
aware

Not at all
aware

shark the fine is not less than five

hundred (P500.00) pesos to not more
than five thousand (P5,000) pesos or
imprisonment from six (6) months to
four (4) years, or both such fine and
imprisonment depending on the
discretion of the court
Manta birostris (manta ray); rhincodon
typus (whale shark), carcharhinus
longimanus (oceanic whitetip shark);
sphyrna zigaema (smooth hammerhead
shark) and manta alfredi (reef manta ray)
are classified as vulnerable threatened
species. Any unlawful act committed
against these vulnerable threatened
species will suffer penalty of
imprisonment of two (2) years and one
(1) day to four (4) years and/or a fine of
Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) to
Three hundred thousand pesos
(P300,000.00),
Sphyrna lewini (scalloped hammerhead
shark) and sphyrna mokarran (great
hammerhead shark) are classified as
endangered threatened species. Any
unlawful act against these sharks, the
offender will suffer imprisonment of
four (4) and one (1) day to six (6) years
and/or a fine of Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) to Five hundred thousand
pesos (P500,000.00)
Green turtle, loggerhead turtle, olive
ridley turtle, leatherback turtle are
classified as endangered threatened
species. Any unlawful act against these
sharks, the offender will suffer
imprisonment of four (4) and one (1) day
to six (6) years and/or a fine of Fifty
thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Five
56 | P a g e

hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00)

Any unlawful act committed against the
critically endangered species of
hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys
imbricate), the offender will suffer an
imprisonment of a minimum of six (6)
years and one (1) day to twelve (12)
years and/or a fine of One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to One
million pesos (P1,000,000.00)
CONSUMERS/BUYERS only
How frequent you see the following being sold in the market..
NEV RARELY SOME
ER
TIME
S
Manta birostris (manta ray); rhincodon
typus (whale shark), carcharhinus
longimanus (oceanic whitetip shark);
sphyrna zigaema (smooth hammerhead
shark) and manta alfredi (reef manta ray)
Sphyrna lewini (scalloped hammerhead
shark) and sphyrna mokarran (great
hammerhead shark)
Green turtle, loggerhead turtle, olive
ridley turtle, leatherback turtle
hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate)

OFT
EN

ALWAYS

FISH VENDORS only

How frequent you sell the following
NEVER

Manta birostris (manta ray); rhincodon typus

(whale shark), carcharhinus longimanus
(oceanic whitetip shark); sphyrna zigaema
(smooth hammerhead shark) and manta alfredi
(reef manta ray)
Sphyrna lewini (scalloped hammerhead shark)
and sphyrna mokarran (great hammerhead
57 | P a g e

RARE
LY

SOM
ETIM
ES

OFT
EN

ALWA
YS

shark)
Green turtle, loggerhead turtle, olive ridley
turtle, leatherback turtle
hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate)
FISHERMEN only
How frequent you take/caught/killed or sold the following
NEV RAR
ER
ELY
Manta birostris (manta ray); rhincodon typus
(whale shark), carcharhinus longimanus
(oceanic whitetip shark); sphyrna zigaema
(smooth hammerhead shark) and manta alfredi
(reef manta ray)
Sphyrna lewini (scalloped hammerhead shark)
and sphyrna mokarran (great hammerhead
shark)
Green turtle, loggerhead turtle, olive ridley
turtle, leatherback turtle
hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate)

58 | P a g e

SOMET
IMES

OFT
EN

ALWA
YS

Appendix

Documentary Analysis
NAME

LEVEL OF AWARENESS
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0

59 | P a g e

11
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7

Appendix
Table 2
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents
Profile Variables
Profile Variables

FISH VENDORS
Frequency
(f)

Age
Mean = 38.44 Years Old

Sex

Marital Status

Highest Educational
Attainment

60 | P a g e

Less than 20
21-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
41-45
46-50
More than 51
Male
Female
Single
Married
Widow
Separated
Grades 1-6
Elementary Graduate
First Year High School
Second Year High School
Third Year High School
Fourth Year High School
High School Graduate

0
0
0
5
20
16
13
6
21
39
1
49
10
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
32

Percentage
(%)

0
0
0
3%
11%
9%
7%
3%
12%
21%
1%
26%
6%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
3%
17%

FISHERMEN
Frequency
(f)

0
10
8
2
21
13
6
0
53
7
7
43
5
3
6
24
7
2
0
0
20

Percenta
ge
(%)

0
6%
4%
1%
12%
7%
3%
0%
29%
4%
4%
24%
3%
2%
3%
13%
2%
1%
0%
0%
11%

CONSUMERS
Frequency
(f)

0
5
13
16
12
7
0
7
30
30
11
39
9
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
19

Perce
ntage
(%)

0
3%
7%
9%
7%
4%
0%
4%
17%
17%
6%
22%
5%
1%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
11%

Monthly Income

First Year College

Second Year College
Third Year College
Fourth Year College
College Graduate
1000 2500
2501 5000
5001 7500
7501 10000
10001 12500

2
3
0
6
12
26
19
9
6
0

1%
2%
0%
3%
7%
14%
11%
5%
3%
0%

0
0
0
0
1
47
12
0
1
0

0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
26%
7%
0%
1%
0%

2
2
4
3
28
2
10
14
12
8

1%
1%
2%
2%
16%
1%
5%
8%
7%
4%

Municipality of San Narciso- Profile Variables of Respondents

Gender

Age

Fish Vendor
Male
31-35
Male
36-40
Male
41-45
Male
46-50
Female
36-40
Female
36-40
Female
36-40
Female
36-40
Female
46-50
Female
more than 51
Fishermen
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male

61 | P a g e

21-25
21-25
36-40
36-40
36-40

Highest Educational
Level

Family
Monthly
Income

MeanSpecific
Environ
mental
laws

MeanGeneral
Accepte
d
Guideli
nes

College Graduate
HS Graduate
HS Graduate
HS Graduate
College Graduate
College Graduate
Fourth Year College
HS Graduate
HS Graduate
Fourth Year HS

Php2501-5000
Php1000-2500
Php1000-2500
Php1000-2500
Php2501-5000
Php5001-7500
Php1000-2500
Php1000-2500
Php1000-2500
Php1000-2500

3.8
2.4
2.2
2
3.6
4.2
3.2
3.2
2.4
1.4

3.11
2.89
3.22
3
3.11
2.67
2.44
2
3.44
1.67

HS Graduate
First Year HS
HS Graduate
HS Graduate
College Graduate

Php1000-2500
Php1000-2500
Php1000-2500
Php2501-5000
Php2501-5000

2.8
1.6
2
2.2
3

2.89
2
2.44
1.89
3

36-40
41-45
41-45
46-50
36-40

Second Year HS
Elementary Graduate
Elementary Graduate
Grade I-VI
Elementary Graduate

Male

21-25

College Graduate

Male
Male
Male
Male

31-35
31-35
41-45
more than 51

College Graduate
College Graduate
HS Graduate
HS Graduate

Female

26-30

College Graduate

Female

26-30

College Graduate

Female
Female
Female

36-40
36-40

College Graduate
HS Graduate
Elementary Graduate

Male
Male
Male
Male
Female

Php1000-2500
Php1000-2500
Php1000-2500
Php1000-2500
Php1000-2500

2.4
1.6
1.4
1.8
1.4

3.44
2
2.56
1.89
1.89

4.2

3.56

3.8
3
3.2
2.2

3.44
4.11
4
3.22

3.8

2.56

2.8

2.4
2.2
1.6

2
2.89
2

Consumers

Gender

more than 51

Municipality of Sta Cruz- Profile Variables of Respondents

MeanSpecifi
Family
Highest Educational
c
Age
Monthly
Level
Enviro
Income
nment
al laws

Fish Vendor
Male
41-45
Male
41-45
Female
41-45
Female
41-45
Female
36-40
Female
46-50
Female
46-50
Female
46-50
Female
more than 51
Female
more than 51
Fishermen
62 | P a g e

Php1550117500
Php750110000
Php5001-7500
Php5001-7500
Php2501-5000
Php20000 and
higher
Php750110000
Php750110000
Php5001-7500
Php1000-2500

HS Graduate
Third Year HS
First Year College
First Year College
Second Year College
HS Graduate
HS Graduate
HS Graduate
Fourth Year HS
Fourth Year HS

Php2501-5000
Php2501-5000
Php5001-7500
Php5001-7500
Php5001-7500
Php2501-5000
Php1000-2500
Php2501-5000
Php1000-2500
Php2501-5000

3
2.8
3.2
4
3
2.4
2.2
1.4
1.6
1.8

MeanGeneral
Accepted
Guidelin
es
3.22
2.67
4
3.44
2.56
2.67
2
2.44
1.89
2

Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male

21-25
21-25
26-30
26-30
36-40
36-40
36-40
36-40
41-45
41-45

First Year HS
Grade I-VI
Second Year HS
Grade I-VI
First Year HS
Elementary Graduate
Grade I-VI
Elementary Graduate
Elementary Graduate
Elementary Graduate

Php1000-2500
Php1000-2500
Php2501-5000
Php1000-2500
Php2501-5000
Php1000-2500
Php1000-2500
Php1000-2500
Php1000-2500
Php1000-2500

1.4
2
2
1.8
1.6
2.2
2.4
1.8
2
1.4

1.67
2
2.89
2.44
2
2.67
3.11
2
2.89
2

Customer
s
Male
Male
Male

26-30
26-30
41-45

Second Year College

HS Graduate
HS Graduate

4
3.2
3

3.44
3.56
2.89

Male
Female
Female
Female
Female

more than 51
26-30
26-30
31-35
31-35

College Graduate
HS Graduate
HS Graduate
College Graduate
Elementary Graduate

5
2.4
2
4
1.6

4
2.44
2.67
4.11
1.67

Female

36-40

3.6

3.11

Female

more than 51

Php5001-7500
Php5001-7500
Php2501-5000
Php20000 and
higher
Php2501-5000
Php2501-5000
Php5001-7500
Php1000-2500
Php750110000
Php750110000

4.2

3.44

Gender

HS Graduate
College Graduate

Municipality of Masinloc - Profile Variables of Respondents

MeanSpecifi
Family
Highest Educational
c
Age
Monthly
Level
Enviro
Income
nment
al laws

MeanGeneral
Accepted
Guidelin
es

Fish Vendor
Male

31-35

College Graduate

Male
Male

36-40
41-45

Fourth Year College

HS Graduate

63 | P a g e

Php750110000
Php750110000
Php7501-

3.2

3.11

2.4
3

2.56
2.89

Male
Male
Female
Female
Female
Female
Female
Fishermen
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Female
Female
Customer
s
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male

more than 51

Fourth Year College

HS Graduate
College Graduate
Fourth Year College
Fourth Year College
College Graduate
HS Graduate

10000
Php1000-2500
Php5001-7500
Php5001-7500
Php1000-2500
Php2501-5000
Php2501-5000
Php1000-2500

4
2.2
2.4
4
4
2.8
1.6

1.89
2.11
2.44
1.89
2
3
1.89

21-25
26-30
36-40
36-40
41-45
41-45
41-45
46-50
36-40
36-40

HS Graduate
Elementary Graduate
HS Graduate
Elementary Graduate
HS Graduate
HS Graduate
Grade I-VI
Elementary Graduate
Elementary Graduate
Elementary Graduate

Php1000-2500
Php1000-2500
Php2501-5000
Php1000-2500
Php2501-5000
Php2501-5000
Php1000-2500
Php1000-2500
Php1000-2500
Php1000-2500

2.4
1.6
2
1.8
3
2.8
2.2
1.6
1.2
2

3
1.89
3
2.56
3.44
3.56
2.56
2
2
1.67

21-25
31-35
31-35
41-45
41-45

Third Year College

HS Graduate
First Year College
College Graduate
HS Graduate

Php2501-5000
Php2501-5000
Php5001-7500
Php5001-7500
Php2501-5000
Php1250115500
Php5001-7500
Php5001-7500
Php750110000
Php2501-5000

3.8
3
4
3.2
3

4
3.56
3.44
4.11
3.56

4.2
3.6
2.8

4.11
3
2.56

4
3

3.56
3.44

Municipality of Iba - Profile Variables of Respondents

Age
Highest Educational
Family
MeanLevel
Monthly
Specifi
Income
c

MeanGeneral
Accepted

41-45
41-45
36-40
36-40
41-45
46-50

Male
Female
Female

more than 51

36-40
36-40

College Graduate
HS Graduate
College Graduate

Female
Female

31-35
31-35

College Graduate
HS Graduate

Gender

64 | P a g e

Fish Vendor
Male
Male
Male

36-40
41-45
46-50

HS Graduate
HS Graduate
HS Graduate

Female

31-35

Fourth Year College

Female
Female
Female
Female
Female
Female
Fishermen
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Female

36-40
36-40
36-40
41-45
46-50

College Graduate
College Graduate
HS Graduate
HS Graduate
Fourth Year HS
HS Graduate

Php1000-2500
Php2501-5000
Php1000-2500
Php750110000
Php750110000
Php5001-7500
Php2501-5000
Php1000-2500
Php1000-2500
Php1000-2500

Elementary Graduate
HS Graduate
HS Graduate
Elementary Graduate
Grade I-VI
Elementary Graduate
HS Graduate
Elementary Graduate
HS Graduate
HS Graduate

Php1000-2500
Php2501-5000
Php1000-2500
Php2501-5000
Php1000-2500
Php1000-2500
Php2501-5000
Php1000-2500
Php1000-2500
Php1000-2500

more than 51

21-25
21-25
26-30
26-30
36-40
36-40
41-45
46-50
46-50
31-35

Enviro
nment
al laws

Guidelin
es

2.8
1.8
1.5

2.67
2.44
1.33

2.6

2.56

3
2.8
1.6
2.4
1.8
2

2.44
3
2
3.22
3
3.11

2.4
2.8
2
1.8
1.4
1.4
3
1.8
3
2

2.56
3.22
2.56
2
2
2
3.56
2.89
4
3

3
3.2

3.56
4

2.677

2.6

2.56

3.22

2.4
2.8

2.89
3.56

Customer
s
Male
Male

26-30
31-35

Third Year College

Third Year College

Male

31-35

College Graduate

Male

36-40

Fourth Year College

Male

36-40

College Graduate

Female
Female

31-35
31-35

College Graduate
First Year College

65 | P a g e

Php750110000
Php2501-5000
Php750110000
Php1000112500
Php1550117500
Php1000112500
Php7501-

Female

31-35

HS Graduate

Female
Female

36-40
36-40

College Graduate
HS Graduate

10000
Php1000112500
Php20000 and
higher
Php5001-7500

3.44

3.8
2.2

3.22
2.89

Municipality of San Antonio - Profile Variables of Respondents

MeanMeanSpecifi
Family
General
Highest Educational
c
Gender
Age
Monthly
Accepted
Level
Enviro
Income
Guidelin
nment
es
al laws
Fish Vendor
Male
31-35
College Graduate
Php2501-5000
2.2
2.56
Php7501Male
41-45
HS Graduate
10000
3
3.11
Female
36-40
College Graduate
Php2501-5000
2.4
2.89
Female
36-40
Second Year College
Php2501-5000
2.6
2.44
Female
36-40
HS Graduate
Php1000-2500
3
3.56
Female
36-40
Fourth Year HS
Php1000-2500
1.8
1.67
Female
41-45
HS Graduate
Php1000-2500
2.4
2.56
Female
41-45
HS Graduate
Php1000-2500
2
2.56
Female
46-50
College Graduate
Php5001-7500
4
4.11
more than
Female
51
HS Graduate
Php1000-2500
2.2
2.89
Fishermen
Male
21-25
HS Graduate
Php1000-2500
2.4
2.89
Male
21-25
Elementary Graduate
Php1000-2500
2.2
2.44
Male
26-30
First Year HS
Php2501-5000
2.6
2.56
Male
26-30
Elementary Graduate
Php1000-2500
2
2.44
Male
31-35
First Year HS
Php1000-2500
1.4
1.89
Male
36-40
HS Graduate
Php2501-5000
2
2.56
Male
36-40
Elementary Graduate
Php1000-2500
2.8
3
Male
41-45
HS Graduate
Php2501-5000
2.2
2.44
Male
41-45
HS Graduate
Php1000-2500
1.6
2
Male
46-50
Elementary Graduate
Php1000-2500
1.8
2
Customer
s
66 | P a g e

Male

21-25

College Graduate

Male

26-30

Third Year College

Male

31-35

College Graduate

Male

31-35

College Graduate

Male

36-40

College Graduate

Female

26-30

College Graduate

Female

31-35

Second Year College

Female

36-40

Fourth Year College

Female

41-45

College Graduate

Female

41-45

Fourth Year College

Gender

Fish Vendor
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Female
Female
Female
Female
Female
Fishermen
67 | P a g e

Php1250115500
Php750110000
Php1250115500
Php1550117500
Php1250115500
Php1000112500
Php750110000
Php1250115500
Php1000112500
Php750110000

3.4

3.56

2.4

2.89

4.11

3.6

3.56

2.6

2.89

2.4

2.56

3.44

3.8

3.11

2.2

2.89

Municipality of Subic - Profile Variables of Respondents

MeanSpecifi
Family
Highest Educational
c
Age
Monthly
Level
Enviro
Income
nment
al laws
31-35
36-40
41-45
41-45
46-50
36-40
36-40
36-40
46-50
46-50

HS Graduate
HS Graduate
HS Graduate
HS Graduate
HS Graduate
HS Graduate
HS Graduate
HS Graduate
Second Year College
HS Graduate

Php2501-5000
Php1000-2500
Php2501-5000
Php1000-2500
Php1000-2500
Php5001-7500
Php2501-5000
Php1000-2500
Php2501-5000
Php2501-5000

2.2
2
3
1.6
1.4
2.2
2.4
3
3.6
3.6

MeanGeneral
Accepted
Guidelin
es
2.56
2.89
3.11
2
2.89
2.44
2.56
3
4
2.89

Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Female
Female
Female

21-25
26-30
36-40
36-40
36-40
41-45
46-50
36-40
41-45
41-45

HS Graduate
HS Graduate
First Year HS
First Year HS
Elementary Graduate
Elementary Graduate
HS Graduate
Elementary Graduate
HS Graduate
Elementary Graduate

Php1000-2500
Php1000-2500
Php1000-2500
Php1000-2500
Php1000-2500
Php1000-2500
Php1000-2500
Php1000-2500
Php1000-2500
Php1000-2500

2.2
2.4
2
1.6
1.4
1.6
2.4
2.6
3
2

2.56
3
2.56
1.89
2
2.44
2.89
3
4
2.89

4.11

2.6
2

3.44
3

2.2

2.89

4
2.4

4.11
3.22

4.2

3.6

4.11

2.8

3.22

Customer
s
Male

26-30

College Graduate

Male
Male

26-30
31-35

College Graduate
HS Graduate

Male

41-45

HS Graduate

Male
Female

more than 51

26-30

College Graduate
HS Graduate

Female

36-40

College Graduate

Female

36-40

HS Graduate

Female

36-40

College Graduate

Female

more than 51

68 | P a g e

HS Graduate

Php1250115500
Php1250115500
Php2501-5000
Php750110000
Php1550117500
Php5001-7500
Php1000112500
Php750110000
Php1000112500
Php1000112500