Books - Non-fiction

Willingness to exit the artisanal fishery as a response to scenarios of declining catch or increasing monetary incentives

Description
Willingness to exit the artisanal fishery as a response to scenarios of declining catch or increasing monetary incentives
Published
of 8
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  FisheriesResearch 111 (2011) 74–81 ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect Fisheries   Research  j   ournal   home   page:www.elsevier.com/locate/fishres Willingness   to   exit   the   artisanal   fishery   asa   response   to   scenarios   of    decliningcatch   or   increasing   monetary   incentives Richard   N.   Muallil a , b , c , ∗ ,Rollan   C.   Geronimo a , b ,   Deborah   Cleland d ,Reniel   B.   Cabral b , e ,Maria   Victoria   Doctor b ,   Annabelle   Cruz-Trinidad b , f  ,Porfirio   M.   Ali˜no a , b , ∗ a MarineScienceInstitute,UniversityofthePhilippinesDiliman,1101QuezonCity,Philippines b MarineEnvironmentandResourcesFoundation,Inc.,MarineScienceInstitute,Universityof    the   PhilippinesDiliman,1101QuezonCity,Philippines c MindanaoStateUniversity–Tawi-TawiCollegeofTechnologyandOceanography,7500Bongao,Tawi-Tawi,Philippines d FennerSchoolofEnvironmentandSociety,Collegeof    Medicine,Biology&Environment,AustralianNationalUniversity,Canberra,A.C.T.0200Australia e NationalInstituteofPhysics,UniversityofthePhilippinesDiliman,1101QuezonCity,Philippines f   ADBKnowledgeManagementProject,c/o   PRIMEX,Rm.504ManilaLuxuryCondominium,PearlDrive,OrtigasComplex,1605PasigCity,Philippines a   r   t   i   c   le   inf   o  Articlehistory: Received24February2011Receivedinrevisedform20June2011Accepted22June2011 Keywords: Small-scalefishersPovertyFishingpressureSocioeconomicfactorsAlternativelivelihood a   b   s   t   ra   ct Thecoastal   ecosystems   of    the   Philippines   are   among   the   most   heavily   fished   areasinthe   world.   Highdependencyon   fishery   resourcesby   an   expanding   populationhaveresulted   inoverexploited   anddeteri-oratedfish   stocks,perpetuating   widespread   poverty   infishing   communities.   Reducing   fishing   pressurethroughlivelihood   support   provision   for   fishers   could   potentially   alleviate   poverty   andmitigate   deterio-rating   fisheries   atthe   same   time.   However,   thisrequires   understanding   fishers’behavior   toward   exitingthefishery   and   how   different   socioeconomicfactors   affectthis   behavior.Wedetermined   fishers’will-ingnessto   exitthe   fishery   for   differentcatch   and   monetary   incentive   scenarios   in   6   coastaltownsintheSouth   China   Seabiogeographic   region   of    the   Philippines.   Half    the   fishers   surveyedwould   continuefishingevenwhen   catchesfall   to   0.5kg   aday.   This   translates   to   lessthanUS$1grossincome   which   is   only   about15%   of    thedailyfishers’   household   expensesinthe   studiedtowns.   Formonetary   incentives,   18%   of    fish-erswere   already   willing   toexit   the   fishery   at   US$111   monthly   incentives.   This   proportionincreased   to51%   when   the   offer   wasincreasedtoUS$222   which   isabout   the   sameasthe   fishers’   monthly   householdexpenses.   When   the   offer   wasincreasedtoUS$333,   18%   of    fishers   stillsaid   they   would   prefer   to   continuefishing.Fisherswho   werenewer   to   the   fishery   and   exerting   lessfishingeffort   showed   morewilling-ness   toexit   the   fishery   forboth   catch   andmonetary   incentivescenarios.Ageand   educational   attainmentalso   influenced   fishers’exit   decision.These   findings   demonstrate   high   heterogeneity   in   fishers’   behaviortowardexitingthe   fishery   and   that   properly   targeting   thosewhoaremore   willing   toexit   the   fishery   inlivelihood   programs   might   botheffectivelyreduce   fishing   pressure   andgive   fish   stocksand   other   marineecosystemsachance   torecover   while   improving   the   fishers’   well-being. © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. 1.Introduction FishstocksinthePhilippine’smajorfishinggroundshavebeendrasticallyreducedtolessthan10%of1950slevels(Greenetal.,2003).Signsofoverfishingareevidentin   manyfishingareas(AlcalaandRuss,2002;Ali˜no   etal.,2004;Lavidesetal.,2010).Ifnot   mit-igated,thecurrenttrendin   fisherydeclinewilleventuallyleadtofisherycollapse(Newtonetal.,2007).Increasingdemandforfish producebyanexpandingpopulation,destructiveandunsustain-ablefishingpracticesandpoormanagementareamongthemajorcausesattributedto   thisdecline(Hanna,2001;Jacksonetal.,2001; ∗ Correspondingauthorsat:MarineScienceInstitute,UniversityofthePhilippinesDiliman,1101QuezonCity,Philippines.Tel.:+6324331806;fax:+6324331806. E-mailaddresses: rnmuallil@gmail.com(R.N.Muallil),pmalino@upmsi.ph(P.M.Ali˜no). Paulyetal.,2002;Newtonetal.,   2007).Asanimportantlivelihood,fisherydeclinehasperpetuatedwidespreadpovertyamongfishingcommunities(Limetal.,   1995;Bene,2003;Hamilton,2003).FishinghouseholdsinthePhilippineshada   povertyincidencerateof    49.9%whichistwicetheoverallpovertyincidencerateinthecountrybasedonthe2006reportoftheNationalStatisticalCoordinationBoardofthePhilippines(Castro,2009).Thefisherysectorin   thecountryis   composedofnearlytwomillionsmallscale(alsoartisanalormunicipal),largescale(orcommercial)andaquaculturefishers.Amongthethree,smallscalefishersmakeup   85%of    thefishingpop-ulation(BFAR,n.d.)andarebyfar   thepoorest(Greenetal.,2003).Moreover,governmentsubsidiesaremostlygrantedtoaquacul-tureandcommercialfishersinorderto   increaseproduction(Greenetal.,   2003;JacquetandPauly,2008).Forcapturefisheries,thispro-videscommercialfishersevengreateradvantagein   competingforresourcesresultinginfurthermarginalizationof    thepoorersmallscalefishers(Pauly,1997;JacquetandPauly,2008).Smallscale 0165-7836/$–seefrontmatter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2011.06.013  R.N.Mualliletal./    FisheriesResearch 111 (2011) 74–81 75 fishersindevelopingcountrieshavelimitedoptionsoutsidethefisherysector(Sobhee,2004;Jentoftetal.,2010).In   addition,thepooreducationalattainmentoffisherslimitstheiropportunitiestoengageinsuchlivelihoodsevenwheretheyareavailable(Limetal.,1995;Pauly,1997).DespitethenominallyfreeelementaryandhighschooleducationprovidedinthePhilippines,fishers’chil-drenarestillstructurallyexcludedduetolimitedfinancialmeanstobuyschooluniforms,booksandotherschool-relatedexpenses.Itiscommonforthemtostayathometohelpin   fishvendingandotherfishingactivitiestosupplementthefamilyincome(Sobhee,2004; Jentoftetal.,2010).Capitalizingforgearimprovement,however,couldmakeexitfromthefisheryevenmoredifficultasfishersneedtoincreasefishingeffortin   orderforthemtomeetthenecessaryfinancialrequirements(Guest,2003).Fisherydeclineandworseningpovertyamongsmall-scalefishersareglobalconcernsandvariousinterventionmeasureshavebeenproposedandimplementedtoaddresstheproblem(Hamilton,2003;Smithetal.,2006;Brander,2007;Moraetal.,2009;Anticamaraetal.,2011).However,manyof    theearlierinterventionswereresource-focused,suchasestablishingmarineprotectedareas(MPAs)andregulatingfishinggearsandeffort(Whiteetal.,2007),or   production-focused,suchasimprovingfishingefficiencybyintroducingadvancedfishingtechnologyandincreasingaccesstothefisheryresources(Cycon,1986;AllisonandEllis,2001).UnintendedconsequencesofMPA   establishmentinclude:(i)reductionoffishinggroundsleadingtocongestionof fishersintheremaining“unprotected”areasresultinginincreasedcompetitionandimmediatelowcatchuntilhopefully(butoftennotactually)catchesareoffsetbyspill-overeffectsfromtheMPAand(ii)conflictsandincreasingriskandcosts,especiallyiffish-ersneedtogotofartherfishinggrounds(Allisonetal.,1998;BlountandPitchon,2007;Jones,2009).Improvingfishingeffi- ciency,ontheotherhand,resultsin   evenhigherextractionintensityofthefishstocks,furtherunderminingsustainability(AllisonandEllis,2001;Paulyetal.,2002;McClanahanetal.,   2009).RecentdevelopmentsinconservationpracticesuchasEcosystem-BasedManagement(EBM)andlivelihoodapproacheshavebeenexploredinordertoaddresstherelatedissuesof    decliningfisheriesandpoverty(WhiteandVogt,2000;AllisonandEllis,2001;Christieetal.,2007).Infisheries,EBMemphasizestheroleoflocalcommu-nitiesinthestewardshipandconservationof    resources(Christieetal.,2007),whilelivelihoodapproachesaremorefocusedonshift-ingfishersintoalternativelivelihoods(AllisonandEllis,2001).Bothapproachesaimtominimizefishingpressurebyreducingdependencyonfisheryresources,therebyallowingthemtorecover(AllisonandEllis,2001;McClanahanetal.,   2005;Wormetal.,2009)andbecomemoreresilienttoclimatechangeandotherecologi-caldisturbances(Turneretal.,2007;Paulyetal.,   2002).However,convincingfisherstogiveupthefisheryorevenreduceeffortwithoutincentivesis   a   verychallengingtask,giventheirpovertyandminimalaccessto   alternativelivelihoods,asdescribedabove(Greenetal.,2003).Therefore,understandingfishers’behaviorand determiningthedrivingfactorsthatinfluencefishers’decisioninexitingthefisheryis   animportantguideinmanagementplanning(Hanna,2001;Salasetal.,2004;Matiyaetal.,2005;Cinneretal.,2009).Earlystudiesshowedthatthebalancebetweenfishingcost   andrevenue(bioeconomicequilibrium)isanimportantdrivingfactor,whereinfisherswouldstayinthefisheryforaslongasfishingremainscosteffective.However,mostof    thesestudies(see,forexample,WardandSutinen,1994;PradhanandLeung,2004)were basedoncommercialfishersin   developedeconomies.Thesitua-tionisvastlydifferentinlessdevelopedcountries,wherechronicemploymentproblemsmakeitdifficultfortheoftenpoorlyedu-catedfisherstogainentryintotheindustriallabourmarket(CabralandAli˜no,2011;Launioetal.,2010).Inaddition,theyusuallycan-notaffordtoupgradetheirfishinggear,makingincreasingfishingeffortthemostcommoncopingmechanismin   responsetofallingcatches(Cinneretal.,2009,2011;IkiaraandOdink,2000).Furthermore,fishingis   not    justasourceof    livelihoodbutalsoassociatedwithculturalidentityandthereforeanimportantwayoflifeinmanyfishingcommunities(Pollnacetal.,2001;Greenetal.,2003).It   providesa   “satisfactionbonus”,animportantaspectof    whichis   ‘beingtheirown   boss’.Thesenon-economicfactorsare   criticaltounderstandingthefishers’attachmenttothefishery(GatewoodandMcCay,1990;Pollnacetal.,2001).Cinneretal.(2009,2011)studiedhowdifferentsocioeconomicfactorsaffectsmall-scalefishers’decisionsinexitingthefisherywhenthefishers’catchesfall(inpercentage)relativeto   theirnor-mal   catch.Giventhenaturalhighvariabilityofcatchratesinthefishery,theirstudydidnot   capturetheeconomicperspectiveof fishers’exitbehavior.For   example,a50%catchdeclinemightstillbeeconomicallyprofitableforsomefishers,especiallyifnosuitablealternativesareavailable.Inourstudy,we   usedabso-lutevaluesfordifferentlowcatchscenarios.Wealsodeterminedthefishers’willingnessto   exitthefisheryinresponsetodiffer-entmonetaryincentives.Ourstudysitesincludecoastaltownswithvaryinglevelsoffisherydependency.Theinfluenceof    differ-entsocioeconomicfactorsin   theexit-behaviorof    thefisherswasdetermined.Theresultsof    thisstudycanbeusedasa   guidelineforpolicyandmanagingbodiesin   planning,particularlyin   target-ingrecipientsforlivelihoodandcapacitybuildingprogramsthatcanpotentiallyreducefishingpressurewhileimprovinghumanwell-being. 2.Materialsandmethods  2.1.Studysites Wesurveyedsixcoastaltowns/municipalitieswithinfourprovincesin   theSouthChinaSeabiogeographicregionofthePhilippines(Ali˜noandGomez,1994)(Fig.1).   ExceptforElNido,allthestudysitesaresituatedalongtheVerdeIslandPassage,whichis   knowntoharborthehighestmarineshorefishdiversityin   theworld(CarpenterandSpringer,2005).Ourstudysiteshavevarying levelof    demographicandsocioeconomicsettingssuchas(i)avail-abilityof    non-fishinglivelihoodoptionsparticularlyfromtourismandindustries,(ii)numberofpopulationand(iii)monthlyhouse-holdexpenses(Table1).Despitethemeso-scalesocio-economic differencesamongthetowns,thefisheryislargelysubsistenceinnature.Populationdatawas   obtainedfromthePhilippineNationalStatisticsOffice(NSO)website(http://www.census.gov.ph/data/census2007/index.html).   Informationonfisherpopulation,majoroccupationsin   thecommunityandthetown’smajorsourceofincomewereobtainedfromtheLocalGovernmentUnit(LGU)of eachtown.Wecomputedhouseholdexpensesof    eachtownduringfocusgroupdiscussionswithfishersandtheirwives,accountingonlyforbasichouseholdneedssuchasfood,water,electricity,medicines,fuel,elementaryeducationforonechildandsecondaryeducationforonechild.  2.2.Datacollection InterviewswereconductedfromApril2009to    January2010with662malefishers,with465includedin   dataanalysisaftercullingincompleteresponses.Inatown,thesamplesizewasdividedproportionatelyto   thedominantfishing barangays orvil-lagesbasedonfisherpopulation.Ineachstudysite,interviewsweredonebyat   leastfivecontractedlocalinterviewers,whoweremostlylocalgovernmentunitpersonnelorpeoplewithpre-  76  R.N.Mualliletal./FisheriesResearch 111 (2011) 74–81 Fig.1. ThegeographiclocationofthesixstudysitesandtheVerdeIslandPassage.(V.I.P.) viousexperienceindoingsimilarsurveys.All   theinterviewerswerebriefedwellaboutthequestionnairepriortointerviewtostandardizeinterpretationanddeliveryofquestionsasmuchaspossible.Interviewerscollectedbasicdemographicandcatchinfor-mationfromeachfisher.Willingnesstoexitthefisherywasdeterminedbyaskingif    fisherswouldexitthefisheryin   responsetoeachofthreehypotheticaldailycatch(2kg,   1kgand0.5kg)andthreehypotheticalmonthlymonetaryincentive(US$111,US$222andUS$333) 1 scenarios.Theinfluenceof    socioeconomicfactorssuchasdailycatch(inkg),age,numberofchildren,lengthof    stay(inyears)inthefishery,numberoffishingdayspermonth,priceofmajorspeciescaught,educationalattainment,andothersourcesoflivelihoodtofishers’exitdecisionwastestedforeachcatchandmonthlyincentivescenarios.FishinginthePhilippinesis   highlyaffectedbyseasonalstrongmonsoonalwindsandvariationin   fishstockbiomassof    differenttargetspecies.Catchseasonalitywasaccountedforin   thecom-putationofdailycatch.Eachrespondentwasaskedto   categorizeeachcalendarmonthaspeak,averageandleanfishingseasonbasedonhisexperienceforthepastfewyears.Normalcatch(inkg)foreachseasonwasalsoobtained.Formonthswherefishersdonotusuallygooutfishing,mostlydueto   badweatherassociatedwithstrongmonsoonalwinds,zerodailycatchwasassigned.Dailycatchperfisherwasthencomputedastheaveragecatchacrossthe12monthsdividedbythenumberoffishersworkingtogether,assum-ingcatchesaredividedequallyasiscustomaryamongsmallscalefishersinourstudysites.Wealsoconductedaseriesof    focusgroupdiscussionsrepre-sentedbyfishersandtheirwives,representativesfromthelocalgovernmentunit,non-governmentorganizations,people’sorgani-zationsandsomelocalleadersto   validateresultsfromoursurveyandtogatherotherrelatedinformationsuchasmonthlyhouseholdexpenses.  2.3.   Statisticalanalysis Binarylogisticregressionanalysiswasusedtodeterminethedifferentsocioeconomicfactors(predictors)we   hypothesized 1 Thecurrencyusedduringtheinterviewwas   Philippinepesos(PhP).ThemonthlyincentivescenarioswerePhP5000,PhP10,000andPhP15,000.The   conversionrateusedwas   US$1=PhP45. wouldaffecttheexit-decisionofthefishers(Table2).Lowvaluesof  varianceinflationfactors(maximumis1.54)ofthepredictorsindi-cateno   multi-collinearityamongthepredictorsthatwouldaffectmodelestimates.Thusallpredictorswereincludedintheanalysis.Nestedbinarylogisticregressionwas   doneforeachcatchandmon-etaryincentivescenarios.Townsweretreatedasrandomeffects.Thefinalbinarylogisticregressionmodelwasselectedonthebasisof    Akaikeinformationcriterion(AIC).DiagnostictestsparticularlyHosmer–Lemeshowandareaunderthereceiveroperatingcharac-teristicscurve(AUC)werealsoperformed.AllstatisticalanalysesweredoneusingRstatisticalanalysissoftwareversion2.13.0(R DevelopmentCoreTeam,2011). 3.Results Table2presentsthewidesocioeconomiccharacteristicsoftherespondents.Themajorityreceivedminimumformaleducationwith69%notfinishinghighschoolandonlylessthan2%werecol-legegraduates.Sixtypercentwerefulltimefisherswithnoothersourceof    livelihoodapartfromfishing.Theproportionof    fishersthatwouldexitthefisheryincreasedwithhypotheticaldecliningcatchorincreasingmonetaryincen-tives(Fig.2).Inresponsetodecliningcatchscenarios,the proportionoffishersexitingthefisheryincreasedfrom24%at2kgdailycatchscenarioto37%and50%whendailycatchesfallto1kgand0.5kg,respectively.Formonetaryincentives,18%,51%and82%saidtheywerewillingto   exitthefisherywhenofferedUS$111,US$222andUS$333monthlyincentives,respectively.Theeffectofsocioeconomicfactorsonfishers’exit-decisionvariedbetweeneachcatchandmonetaryincentivescenarios(Tables3aand3b). Willingnessoffishersto   exitfromthefisheryforbothmonetaryincentiveandcatchscenariosalsovariedamongtownsasshownbythedifferencein   theoutputcoefficientvaluesderivedfromthebinarylogisticregressionmodel(Table4).Fora   givenmodel,largerpositivecoefficientvaluesindicatemorewillingnesstoexitfromthefishery.Forthemonetaryincentivescenarios,fisherswho   werespend-ingfewerfishingdayspermonthweremorewillingtoexitthefisherywhenofferedUS$111monthlyincentive.Fisherswhowerespending15–21fishingdays( Fishingdays 2)and21fishingdaysandabove( Fishingdays 3)are   about0.868timesand0.403timeslesslikelyto   exitfromthefisherythanfishersspendinglessthan15fishingdayspermonth( Fishingdays 1)(seeTables2and3a).Whentheofferwasincreasedto   US$222,lesseducatedandnewerfishersweremorewillingto   exitthefishery.At   US$333monthlyincentive,fisherswhohavebeenfishingupto   10yearsweremorewillingto   exitfromthefisherythanthosewhohavebeenfishingforover10years.Thenumberof    yearsfishingandtheeffortexertedbyfishersintermsof    fishingdaysarestronglyrelatedtothedecisionoffisherstoexitthefisheryespeciallywiththecatchscenarios.Forallcatchscenarios,fisherswhowerenewerinthefisheryandthosespend-ingfewerfishingdayspermonthweremorewillingtoexitthefishery.Forthe1kgdailycatchscenario,agebecameanimportantpredictorof    fisherresponsewithfishersaged36–50respondingmorepositivelytoexitingthefisherycomparedtoyoungerfishersandolderones.Catchrates,priceof    majorspeciescaught,engage-mentin   alternativelivelihoodandnumberofchildrendidnothaveasignificanteffectonfishers’decisiontoexitfromthefisheryforalltheexitscenariosconsidered.Nonsignificantpvalues( P  >   0.05)of    Hosmer-Lemeshowstatis-ticsforallmodelssuggestgoodfitof    themodelsto   thedata(Tables3aand3b).TheAUCvaluesof0.652–0.768indicatethatthe modelscanpredictbetterthanpurerandomchancewhichwouldhaveanAUCvalueof0.5.  R.N.Mualliletal./    FisheriesResearch 111 (2011) 74–81 77  Table   1 Demographicandsocioeconomicsettingsofthestudysites.TownProvince n a Fishers’monthlyhouseholdexpensesMajorsourceofincomePopulation(asof    2007)Fisherpopulation b Mabini Batangas 69US$308IndustryandTourism40,6291.90%BatangasCity Batangas50US$236Industry295,2310.38%PuertoGaleraOriental83US$246Tourism28,0351.19%MindoroLubang   Occidental88US$182FisheryandAgriculture28,2672.95%MindoroLooc Occidental 103 US$177 Fishery 11,310 7.85%MindoroEl   Nido Palawan72US$210TourismandFishery30,24910.70% a Numberof    respondents. b Theproportionof    fisherpopulationto   thetotalpopulation. 4.Discussion Ourstudyrevealedvaryingdegreesoffishers’willingnesstoexitthefisheryasa   responsetodecliningcatchorincreasingmonetaryincentivesscenarios.Somefishers(18%)weremotivatedto   exitthefisheryforamonthlyincentiveof    onlyUS$111whichisonlyabouthalfthemonthlyhouseholdexpensesin   thestudiedtowns.Ontheotherhand,thesameproportiondidnot   willinglygiveupfishingevenwhenofferedUS$333monthlyincentives,a   relativelylargeamountin   thePhilippines.Inaddition,50%   of    thefisherssaidtheywouldstayin   thefisheryevenwhendailycatchisreducedtoameager0.5kgperdaywhichtranslatestolessthanUS$1,just15%oftheaveragefishers’dailyhouseholdexpenses.Thepersis-tenceoffishersinthefisheryin   thefaceof    verylowcatchesandevenwhenofferedrelativelyhandsomemonetaryincentiveshigh-lightsourpreviouspoint:fishingis   importantnot    justasasourceof livelihoodbutasa   historicallyandculturallysignificantoccupation(Greenetal.,2003;BlountandPitchon,2007).Therefore,theidea that   fishingastheoccupationof    thelastresort(Pauly,1997)does notseemto   holdin   thiscaseandfishingoffershighjobsatisfactionatleastforsomefishers(Pollnacetal.,2001).Thepersistenceof    fishersin   thefisheryevenwhenofferedrelativelyhighmonetaryincentivesnecessitatescarefulselectionofrecipientsof    livelihoodsupporttoreducefishingpressurebyencouragingfisherstoshiftintonon-fishinglivelihoods.Our   studyshowedthatevenanincentiveof    US$222couldonlymotivate51%offisherstoexitfromthefishery.US$222monthlyincentiveis   alargesumin   thePhilippinesandisalreadyabovetheminimumwagesetbytheDepartmentof    LabourandEmploymentforagriculture-relatedoccupationsinthecountry(http://www.nwpc.dole.gov.ph/pages/statistics/statcurrentregional.html).   There-fore,itis   unlikelythatthegovernmentwouldprovideUS$222permonthto   eachof    themanysmallscalefishersinthecoun-try.On   theotherhand,US$111monthlyincentiveforeach  Table2 Descriptionof    variablesusedinbinarylogisticregressionagainstthe   decisionof    fisherswhethertostay(codedas“0”)orexit(codedas“1”)fromthefisheryinresponsetodifferentcatchandmonetaryincentivescenarios.Theproportionof    respondentsthatfell   undereachcategoryis   alsoshown.Variable Description LevelDescriptionCount(%)FixedeffectsAgeAgeof    respondent1 ≤ 35yearsold151(33%)236–50yearsold220(47%)3>50yearsold94(20%)Children Numberof    childrenof    therespondent10–2176(38%)23–5195(42%)35andabove94(20%)Years   infisheryNumberof    yearstherespondenthasbeeninthefishery1 ≤ 10years161(35%)211–20years137(29%)3 >20years167(36%)DailycatchAveragedailycatchof    the   respondent1 ≤ 2.0kg193(42%)22.1–5.0kg   169(36%)3>5.0kg103(22%)FishingdaysNumberof    dayspermonththerespondentspentfishing1 ≤ 14days147(32%)215–21days164(35%)3>21days154(33%)FishpriceAveragepriceof    thedominantcatchperkg1 ≤ US$1.00122(26%)2US$1.01–1.99255(55%)3 ≥ US$2.0088(19%)EducationWhetherthe   respondentgraduatedfromhighschool1Somehighschoolorlower323(69%)2Highschoolgraduate142(31%)AltlivelihoodWhetherthe   respondenthasalternativelivelihoodapartfromfishing1w/oalternativelivelihood279(60%)2Withalternativelivelihood186(40%)RandomeffectsTownTownwheretherespondentresides1Mabini69(15%)2   BatangasCity50(11%)3 PuertoGalera83(18%)4 Looc   103(22%)5Lubang88(19%)6 El   Nido72(15%)  78  R.N.Mualliletal./FisheriesResearch 111 (2011) 74–81 fisherexitingthefisherycouldbeareasonableamountthatcouldbeprovidedatleastonashort-termbasisthroughpro-gramssuchasthenewconditionalcashtransfer(CCT)schemeofthenationalgovernment.AlthoughourstudyshowedthatUS$111couldonlymotivate18%   ofthefisherstoexitthefishery(Fig.2),thisproportioncouldbemaximizedthroughstrategic selectionoftherecipients,takingintoaccountsomeofthesocio-economiccharacteristicsthatinfluencedchoiceinourstudy.Fisherswhowerenewtothefisheryshowedmorewilling-nesstoexitfromthefisheryatdifferentcatchandmonthlyincentivescenarios.Long-timefishersmighthavedevelopedasocio-psychologicalattachmenttofishingasawayof    life(Pollnacetal.,2001).However,attachmenttofishingdoesnotnecessar-ilyruninthefamily,asshownbyIkiaraandOdink(2000).   Wealsointerviewedthechildrenof    fishers( n =   205,acrossallsites)andaskedthemwhethertheywouldwanttobecomefishersliketheirfatherand65%ofthemansweredno,consistentwithIkiaraandOdink’s(2000).   Whetherornottheirambitionstoworkout-sidethefisheryarerealizedwillprobablydependonthesuccessof educationanddevelopmentinterventionsintheirregions,butthechildrendonotappeartobeattachedtothefishery.Theimportanceofadaptationto   lifestyleinthefisheryin   theexitbehavioroffishersis   alsodemonstratedbythegreaterwilling-nessoffisherswhospendfewerfishingdayspermonthatbothlowcatchandmonetaryincentivescenarios.Also,morefishingdayswouldmeanhigherincomeor   atleastensurethatfishers’householdswillhavesomethingtoeat   ona   dailybasisevenif dailycatchesfallto0.5kg.Duringfocusgroupdiscussions,fishersreportedthattheyallocateabout0.5–1kgoftheircatchfortheirownconsumption.Agealsoinfluencedexitbehaviorof    fishers,butonlyin   responsetodecliningcatch.Fishersaged36–50weremoreliketoexitthefisherythanfishersaged35yearsoldandbelow.However,fishers51yearsoldandaboveshowednosignificantdifferenceintheirwillingnesstoexitthefisheryfromtheyoungeragegroups.Thiscouldbeduetothelimitedoptionsforveryoldfishersinnon-fishingoccupationsavailableinthearea.Inaddition,middle-agedfishersarelikelytobeshoulderingthemostresponsibilitieswithregardstoeducatingchildrenandotherfamilialexpenses,andmay Fig.2. The   proportionof    fishersthatwouldexitthefisheryasa   responseto   differentlow   catchandmonthlymonetaryincentivescenarios. thereforebemoreopento   switchingtoa   stablealternativeliveli-hoodwhenfishingbecomeslessprofitable.Educationalattainmentinfluencedfishers’exitdecisionatUS$222monthlyincentivescenario.Fisherswhoweremorelikelytoexitarethosewhoarelesseducatedastheymightseethisofferasa   greatopportunity,consideringtheirloweducationalattainment.On   theotherhand,moreeducatedfisherscouldpassforthatofferandwouldrathercontinuefishingsincetheyhavehigheropportu-nitiesandcapacityto   engageinotherlivelihoodoptionsavailableinthearea(AllisonandEllis,2001;CinnerandBodin,2010)sothat theycouldfish   andengagein   analternativelivelihoodatthesametime.Dailycatch,numberofchildrenandengagementin   non-fishingalternativelivelihooddid   notinfluencefishers’exitdecisionsinallcatchandmonetaryincentivescenarios.Catchratesreportedbytherespondentsare   highlyseasonal.Duringpeakseason,catchratescouldreachanaverageof15(s.d.35;max   500)kg/fisher/dayamountingtoanaverageof    aboutUS$24dailyincome(basedontheaveragefishpriceof    US$1.58perkg   fromthisstudy).Thesepeakcatches,locallyreferredtoas“jackpot”catches,couldpartially  Table3a Logitresultsofthesocioeconomicfactorsthatinfluencedexit-behaviorof    fishersasaresponseto   monthlymonetaryincentivescenarios.Oddsratioindicateshowmuchmore   likelyagroupwillingtoexitthefisherycomparedtothereferencegroupwhichis   theoneassignedwiththelowestlevel.MonetaryincentivescenarioPredictorCoefficientS.E.Wald’s  X  2 Oddsratio P  US$111Constant − 1.4630.45410.398NA0.001 *** Fishingdays2 − 0.1420.3230.1930.8680.661Fishingdays3 − 0.9090.3646.2210.4030.013 ** DiagnostictestsHosmer–Lemeshow  X  2 =1.329df=8 P  =   0.995AUC a 0.768US$222Constant0.4290.2862.255NA0.133Education2 − 0.5260.2155.9520.5910.015 ** Yearsinthefishery2 − 0.3810.2442.4430.6830.118Yearsinthefishery3 − 0.4820.2414.0000.6170.046 ** DiagnostictestsHosmer–Lemeshow  X  2 =11.446df=8 P  =   0.178AUC a 0.676US$333Constant2.1760.29753.633NA0.000 *** Yearsinthefishery2 − 0.9650.3338.3980.3810.004 *** Yearsinthefishery3 − 0.9190.3277.9070.3990.005 *** DiagnostictestsHosmer–Lemeshow  X  2 =4.791df=8  P  =   0.780AUC a 0.652 a Areaunderthereceiveroperatingcharacteristicscurve. *** Significantat P  =0.01. ** Significantat P  =0.05. * Significantat P  =0.1.
Search
Tags
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks