A Typology of Rural Households in Relation to Small-Scale Forestry

Transcription

1 An Investigation of the Social and Economic Factors Affecting the Development of Small-Scale Forestry By Rural Households in Leyte Province, Philippines: A Typology of Rural Households in Relation to Small-Scale Forestry A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy at The University of Queensland August 2004 Nicholas F. Emtage School of Natural and Rural Systems Management. i

2 Candidate's Statement of Originality The work contained in this thesis is solely that of the author, Nicholas F. Emtage. Nicholas F. Emtage Dr John L. Herbohn ii

3 Acknowledgements Many people helped support the author in the production of this thesis. First thanks must be given to the people from the communities involved in the survey. Their patience, hospitality and willingness to share their experiences made it possible to undertake the research. I trust that we can apply their stories to help them and others in their situation to further their dreams. A huge thank you to all the people from Leyte State University and the Faculty of Forestry. Everyone there has been very welcoming and assisted me greatly in the design, application and interpretation of the research. Particular thanks go to Dr Eduardo Mangaoang, Head of the Faculty, for fantastic work setting-up and maintaining the contacts with the communities and government agencies, organising a great research team, organising great parties, and generally making things happen. Thanks you to the President of Leyte State University Dr Milan, and the Director of Research Dr Bacusmo who both provided a very warm welcome to Leyte and were very generous with their time and interest in the progress of the project. Special thanks also go to Edwin and Janet Cedamon who, with great humour, provided excellent research assistance throughout the project. A number of Forestry faculty members at Leyte State University provided useful feedback about the research project including Dennis Peque, Arturo Pasa, Renezit Sales, Nestor Gregorio, and Antonio Polonar. Dr Vega and others at the Centre for Social Research at Leyte State University provided excellent feedback about the proposed methods for the research and also helped greatly in the interpretation of the results. Trips to LSU were always enjoyable and I thank those who befriended me there with whom I spent many pleasant evenings, including Scott, Odelyn, Lynlon, Farrah, Gundi, Melvin, Elisabeth, Kristen, Benny, Marco, Fernando, Mira, Jerome and Peter. My Karaoke skills are slowly improving. People throughout the Philippines are obliging and friendly. The personnel from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the Department of Agriculture and those from the Local Government Units in Matalom, Innopacan, Babatgnon and Isabel also assisted greatly in the research project through their introductions to the communities, and insightful discussions about the prospects for forestry development in Leyte. Another huge thank you to my supervisors Drs Herbohn, Harrison and Chamala. Particular thanks to John and Steve for their faith in me over the last eight years, for encouraging me to undertake the PhD program, and for the kind guidance and comradeship they have always shown me. The Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research provided funding for this research through the project Redevelopment of the timber industry following extensive land clearing in Leyte Province, Philippines and Far North Queensland Australia, also known as the UQ/LSU ACIAR Smallholder Forestry Project. Thank you also to the School of Natural and Rural Systems Management for their support in nominating me for the Graduate School Award, a scholarship award. Thanks to Meryl for helping me get through the mountain of paperwork to travel to and from the Philippines. Thanks as well to Geoff and Lee-Jay, Tim and Nicki, and Morgan and Emily who have all put me up for the night on more than a few occasions in Brisbane and Gatton. Thanks to Bob for helping to print out and bind the thesis as well. And last but definitely not least, thanks to my family: Eleanor, Tasman and JJ. Thank you all for your love, patience and support. iii

4 Publications by the Candidate Relevant to this Thesis Emtage, N.F. (2003) Landholder Types in Leyte, the Philippines: A Review of Literature and Proposals for Methods to Extend Understanding. Annuls of Tropical Research 25(1): pp Emtage, N.F. (2004) Typologies of Landholders in Leyte, Philippines, and Implications for Development of Policies for Smallholder and Community Forestry. In D. Baumgartner (ed.) Proceedings of Human Dimensions of Farm, Family and Community Forestry International Symposium. March 28 - April Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA. Washington State University Extension MISC0526: pp Emtage, N. F. (in press) Segmentation Techniques used to Develop Resource Management Programs. Chapter 7 in Harrison S.R. and Herbohn, J.L. (eds.) Wholefarm and agroforestry decision support systems. Canberra: Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC). iv

5 ABSTRACT This thesis investigates the social and economic factors affecting small-scale forestry development in Leyte Province, the Philippines, and in particular, the potential to use typologies of rural households to aid the description and interpretation of the diversity of households in relation to forestry development. Data for the analysis of the relationships between socioeconomic factors and tree management behaviour and intentions and the construction of a typology of rural households in Leyte was gathered from four case study communities on the Island. Following focus group discussions in each of the participating communities to gather background data and populate the structured interview schedule, representative samples of 50 households were selected and interviewed in each of the four communities. Analysis of the present tree management activities of households in the four communities revealed that most households surveyed (approximately 80%) indicated that they are presently managing at least a few trees, the primary purpose of most tree management activities being to supply timber for the households own needs. Only 10% of respondents indicated that they intend to sell trees they are presently managing, and 25% stated that they intend to plant and manage trees for the production of timber for sale in the future. Approximately 60% of responding households indicated an interest in developing commercial tree farming on the land they manage. Thus it is concluded that small-scale commercial tree growing is uncommon in the communities involved in the survey, and that many households are interested in developing their tree planting and management activities but feel constrained from participation by various factors. The first level of exploration of the socioeconomic factors affecting rural households tree management behaviour involved univariate analyses of the relationships between households tree management behaviour and intentions, their socioeconomic characteristics and their attitudes to forestry. The level of resources controlled by the household, in terms of the area of the land managed by the household, their tenurial security and their cash income, are correlated with higher levels of participation in forestry activities, and greater intentions to plant higher numbers of trees in the future. Some farming system variables are also related to higher levels of tree planting and management activity, including the management of livestock v

6 and of farm plots distant from their house. While control over higher than average levels of productive resources are, in general, positively correlated to the active management of trees on their land, there are patterns of exceptions to this trend. The exploration of the interrelationships between socioeconomic factors and attitudes affecting households tree management behaviour was undertaken through the definition of a typology of rural households in relation to forestry. Five types were defined, each having different attitudes to forestry activities. The interpretation of the types was undertaken by describing and comparing the socioeconomic and behavioural characteristics of the types in the typology. The types were characterised by differences in their control of productive resources, differences in their present and intended levels and types of forestry activity, and by differences in their participation in training activities run by development programs. The characteristics of the types were found to correspond highly with descriptions of the socioeconomic factors affecting forestry activities of smallholder households reported by previous studies into and theories about the socioeconomic factors affecting smallholder forestry development. The typology of rural households does help to describe and interpret the variation within each of the four communities in terms of households attitudes to forestry development and their socioeconomic characteristics. It is concluded that these variations between households mean that the various types of households will be affected in different ways by forestry development programs. It is also concluded that the present state of forestry policies and the market for timber products is such that substantial increase in the level of forestry activity by smallholders is unlikely without comprehensive land use planning, policy reform in regards to tree registration and transport permits, and market development. Recommendations for further research and policy development arising from the thesis focuses on the need to create enabling conditions in which forestry activities can occur and on ways to address the differing needs of the various types defined in the typology. vi

7 Abbreviations Used in the Thesis A & D Alienable and Disposable Land ADB - Asian Development Bank CBFMA Community-Based Forest Management Agreement CBFMP Community-Based Forest Management Program CBRMA Community-Based Resource Management Agreement CO Community Organisation DA Department of Agriculture DAR Department of Agrarian Reform DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources FAR Family Approach to Reforestation Program FGD - Focus Group Discussions GDP Gross Domestic Product GTZ German Tropical Ecology Program ISFP Integrated Social Forestry Program KAHOI Kapunungan sa mga Yanong Mag-uuma sa Kakahoyan sa Inopacan LGU Local Government Unit LSU Leyte State University NGO Non-Government Organisation NSO National Statistics Office NSCB National Statistics Coordination Board of the Philippines PEOPLE Partnership for Ecological Orientation and Preservation of Leyte s Environment Inc. PO Peoples Organisation PRA Poting Bato Reforestation Association PROFEM 1 Communal Tree Farming Program/ Program for Forest Ecosystem Management RISFFA Rizal Integrated Social Forestry Farmers Association RUDA Rizal Upland Developers Association SPSS Statistical Program for Social Sciences TLA Timber License Agreement UDWG Uplands Development Working Group USAID United States Agency for International Development USDA United States Department of Agriculture UQ University of Queensland VALUES Visayan Association for Livelihood and Upliftment of Ecological Systems WALLTREBA Waterloo, Anahaw, Lunas, Lowan, Tigbao Reforestation Beneficiary Association (Inc.) vii

8 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter THESIS INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW INTRODUCTION RESEARCH PROBLEM ADDRESSED BY THIS THESIS JUSTIFICATION FOR THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY THESIS OVERVIEW...8 Chapter FOREST MANAGEMENT AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ISSUES IN THE PHILIPPINES AND LEYTE PROVINCE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ISSUES IN THE PHILIPPINES NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT IN THE PHILIPPINES A HISTORY OF FORESTRY IN THE PHILIPPINES AN EXAMINATION OF COLONIAL INFLUENCES ON THE STATUS OF SMALL- SCALE FORESTRY IN THE PHILIPPINES THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY PROGRAMS IN THE PHILIPPINES DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND POLITICAL ADMINISTRATION OF LEYTE PROVINCE LAND CLASSIFICATION AND LAND USE ON LEYTE ISLAND CLIMATIC, ECONOMIC AND AGRICULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF LEYTE PROVINCE SUMMARY...34 Chapter THE USE OF FARMER AND HOUSEHOLD TYPOLOGIES TO ASSIST THE DESIGN AND DELIVERY OF NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS: AN INTRODUCTION THE RATIONALE FOR DEVELOPING LANDHOLDER TYPOLOGIES CRITERIA USED TO CREATE TYPOLOGIES OF FARMS, FARMERS AND RURAL HOUSEHOLDS THEORIES AND METHODS USED TO CREATE TYPOLOGIES OF RURAL HOUSEHOLDS METHODS USED TO VALIDATE TYPOLOGIES THEORIES OF FACTORS AFFECTING FORESTRY DECISIONS ON PRIVATE LANDS SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...56 Chapter A REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES USING TYPOLOGIES TO AID NATURAL AND RURAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT A TYPOLOGY OF TYPOLOGIES USED TO ASSIST RURAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS ANTHROPOLOGICAL TYPOLOGIES OF RURAL HOUSEHOLDS AND COMMUNITIES PARTICIPATORY METHODS AND WEALTH RANKING STUDIES USED TO DEVELOP TYPOLOGIES FARMING SYSTEM AND SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOOD ANALYSES AND THE USE OF TYPOLOGIES TYPOLOGIES OF FARMERS DEVELOPED ACCORDING TO THEIR ATTITUDES TO FORESTRY...73 vi

9 4.6 COMPARING THE METHODOLOGIES USED TO CREATE TYPOLOGIES OF FARMS AND RURAL HOUSEHOLDS COMPARING THE FINDINGS OF PREVIOUS TYPOLOGIES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES FOR ALL PURPOSES COMPARISON OF THE FINDINGS OF PREVIOUS TYPOLOGIES IN RELATION TO FORESTRY WHAT IS THE POTENTIAL ROLE FOR A TYPOLOGY OF RURAL HOUSEHOLDS IN LEYTE PROVINCE, THE PHILIPPINES? SUMMARY...90 Chapter METHODS USED TO COLLECT DATA AND ANALYSE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN RURAL HOUSEHOLDS SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS AND THEIR FORESTRY PRACTICES OVERVIEW OF SURVEY METHODS PREPARATION FOR THE HOUSEHOLD AND COMMUNITY SURVEYS FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS USED TO GENERATE BACKGROUND DATA HOUSEHOLD INTERVIEWS SURVEY DESIGN, SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS STRATEGIES ADDRESSING THE RESEARCH QUESTION SUMMARY Chapter CURRENT APPROACHES USED TO GUIDE THE MANAGEMENT OF FOREST RESOURCES TO FACILITATE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IN THE PHILIPPINES SOURCES OF SUPPLY FOR THE PHILIPPINE TIMBER INDUSTRY CURRENT PHILIPPINES FORESTRY PROGRAMS STAKEHOLDER ROLES IN COMMUNITY FORESTRY PROGRAMS CONSTRAINTS TO THE SUCCESS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY PROGRAMS AND SMALL-SCALE FORESTRY ACTIVITIES SUMMARY Chapter PREVIOUS STUDIES OF LANDHOLDERS FORESTRY AND AGROFORESTRY PRACTICES IN THE PHILIPPINES OVERVIEW OF THE PREVIOUS STUDIES ON FORESTRY DEVELOPMENT IN THE PHILIPPINES VARIATIONS IN THE CHARACTERISTICS OF INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE RELATED TO DIFFERENCES IN LAND MANAGEMENT BEHAVIOUR FACTORS EXTERNAL TO HOUSEHOLDS THAT RELATE TO DIFFERENCES IN LAND MANAGEMENT BEHAVIOUR SUMMARY OF FACTORS AFFECTING LAND MANAGEMENT BEHAVIOUR OF SMALLHOLDERS IN THE PHILIPPINES IMPLICATIONS OF THE PREVIOUS STUDIES FOR THE CURRENT RESEARCH Chapter FINDINGS FROM THE FOCUS GROUPS DISCUSSIONS USED TO GATHER BACKGROUND DATA AND PROVIDE CONTEXT FOR THE STRUCTURED HOUSEHOLD INTERVIEWS COMMUNITY HISTORY INDICATORS OF WELL-BEING CATEGORIES STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS (SWOT) ANALYSES vii

10 8.4 REASONS FOR AND CONSTRAINTS TO TREE PLANTING AND MANAGEMENT SPECIES OF TREES PREFERED BY PARTICIPANTS PREVIOUS EXPERIENCES WITH COMMUNITY FORESTRY PROGRAMS IN THE COMMUNITIES PARTICIPATING IN THE RESEARCH SUMMARY Chapter SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES OF RURAL HOUSEHOLDS IN LEYTE PROVINCE DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF RURAL HOUSEHOLDS IN LEYTE PROVINCE HOUSEHOLD CASH INCOME LEVELS OF FOOD SELF-SUFFICIENCY TYPES OF HOUSE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS LANDHOLDING AND FARMING CHARACTERISTICS USE OF MATERIALS FROM PUBLIC LANDS TRAINING UNDERTAKEN BY HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS DEVELOPMENT ATTITUDES AND PRIORITIES FOR DEDVELOPMENT SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN THE SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE COMMUNITIES SUMMARY Chapter HOUSEHOLDS TREE MANAGEMENT BEHAVIOUR AND PERCEPTIONS OF REASONS FOR AND CONSTRAINTS TO TREE MANAGEMENT TREE MANAGEMENT BEHAVIOUR ON PRIVATE LAND AVERAGE RATINGS OF IMPORTANCE FOR VARIOUS REASONS FOR PLANTING AND MANAGING TREES ON PRIVATE LANDS AVERAGE RATINGS OF IMPORTANCE FOR VARIOUS POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS TO MANAGING TREES FACTOR ANALYSIS OF THE RATINGS OF IMPORTANCE FOR VARIOUS POTENTIAL REASONS FOR MANAGING TREES FACTOR ANALYSIS OF THE RATINGS OF IMPORTANCE FOR VARIOUS POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS TO MANAGING TREES CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SCALES OF REASONS FOR AND CONSTRAINTS TO TREE PLANTING AND MANAGEMENT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN TREE MANAGEMENT ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOUR PRESENT AND INTENDED TREE PLANTING AND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES OF RURAL HOUSEOLDS IN LEYTE PROVINCE SUMMARY Chapter RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN HOUSEHOLDS ATTIUDES TO TREE MANAGEMENT AND THEIR SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS TESTS BETWEEN HOUSEHOLDS ATTITUDES TO TREE PLANTING AND MANAGEMENT AND CATEGORICAL SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES TESTS BETWEEN HOUSEHOLDS ATTITUDES TO TREE PLANTING AND MANAGEMENT AND CONTINUOUS SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES IMPLICATIONS OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ATTIUDES TO TREE PLANTING AND MANAGEMENT AND SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES SUMMARY Chapter viii

11 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN HOUSEHOLDS SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS AND THEIR PRESENT TREE MANAGEMENT BEHAVIOUR RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE VARIABLE IF PRESENTLY MANAGING TREES AND SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE VARIABLE TREES MANAGED CATEGORIES AND SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES PRESENTLY MANAGED BY THE HOUSEHOLD AND SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN TREE DENSITY ON HOUSEHOLD LAND AND SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN WHETHER PRESENTLY GROWING TREES FOR TIMBER FOR SALE AND SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY FORESTRY PROGRAMS AND SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES SUMMARY OF SOCIOECONOMIC DIFFERENCES ASSOCIATED WITH VARIATIONS IN PRESENT TREE PLANTING AND MANAGEMENT BEHAVIOUR Chapter RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN HOUSEHOLDS TREE MANAGEMENT INTENTIONS AND THEIR SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS HOUSEHOLDS TREE PLANTING AND MANAGEMENT INTENTIONS RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INTEND TO PLANT FOR TIMBER AND SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INTEREST IN COMMERCIAL TREE FARMING AND SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INTENTIONS TO PLANT TREES TO PRODUCE TIMBER FOR SALE AND SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES SUMMARY OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN TREE PLANTING AND MANAGEMENT INTENTIONS AND SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES Chapter A TYPOLOGY OF RURAL HOUSEHOLDS IN LEYTE PROVINCE IN RELATION TO THEIR FORESTRY ATTITUDES AND PRACTICES METHODOLOGY USED TO DEFINE A TYPOLOGY OF HOUSEHOLDS IN RELATION TO FORESTRY VARIATIONS IN ATTITUDES TO TREE PLANTING AND MANAGEMENT BETWEEN CLUSTER GROUPS VARIATIONS IN THE SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF CLUSTER GROUP MEMBERS DIFFERENCES IN PRESENT TREE MANAGEMENT BEHAVIOUR BETWEEN CLUSTER GROUPS THE PREDICTIVE VALIDITY OF THE CLUSTER ANALYSIS SOLUTION SUMMARY Chapter PROCEEDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ARISING FROM THE WORKSHOP HELD TO DISCUSS FORESTRY POLICIES IN LEYTE THE RATIONALE FOR THE POLICY WORKSHOP, THE PARTICIPANTS INVOLVED AND PROCEEDURES FOLLOWED COMMON THEMES OF THE FORESTRY POLICY WORKSHOP CONCLUSIONS AND RESOLUTIONS FROM THE WORKSHOP Chapter PATHWAYS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SMALL-SCALE FORESTRY IN THE ix

12 PHILIPPINES VARIATIONS IN TREE PLANTING AND MANAGEMENT BEHAVIOUR BETWEEN HOUSEHOLDS LAND MANAGEMENT CULTURE IN RELATION TO TREE PLANTING AND MANAGEMENT INTENTIONS THE SUCCESS OF COMMUNITY-BASED FOREST MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS THE POTENTIAL UTILITY OF TYPOLOGIES TO AID FORESTRY DEVELOPMENT PATHWAYS TO SMALL-SCALE FORESTRY DEVELOPMENT IN LEYTE PROVINCE: CREATING ENABLING CONDITIONS FOR RURAL HOUSEHOLDS TO PARTICIPATE IN FORESTRY ACTIVITIES SUMMARY OF THE POTENTIAL ACTIONS WHICH MAY INCREASE SMALLHOLDER FORESTRY ACTIVITY SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS...vi REFERENCES x List of Figures and Tables...xi REFERENCES APPENDICES x

13 List of Figures and Tables Table 2.1. Average annual income by region and provinces and poverty thresholds and incidence in Region 8 and Leyte Province...12 Figure 2.1: Political, economic and social processes that have led to reductions in forest cover in the Philippines...23 Table 2.2. Selected demographic details about region VIII and Leyte...28 Figure 2.2: Map of Leyte Province, Philippines...29 Table 2.3. Land areas in Region 8 and Leyte by classification types...31 Figure 2.3. Progressive erosion of the forest margins through expansion of cropping activities in the uplands to the west of Ormoc City...32 Table 2.4. Main commercial crops grown in Leyte...33 Figure 2.4. Coastal rice paddies backed by hillside farms of coconut palms, typical of the landscape of the western shore of Leyte Island...34 Figure 3.1. Representation of the relationships between resources, policies, livelihood and the environment in sustainable livelihoods theory (adapted from Dorward 2002)...43 Table 3.1. Stages and factors in the innovation adoption process...49 Figure 3.2. The S-curve of the adoption of new practices over time...50 Table 3.2. Landholder types as described by innovation adoption theorists...51 Figure 3.3. Factors affecting livelihood strategies employed by households...53 Figure 3.4. A model of decision making: The process and factors influencing it Table 4.1: A typology of typologies used to assist rural and natural resource management development programs...58 Table 4.2. Typology of Filipino indigenous ethnic groups...61 Table 4.3: Authors, objectives and methods adopted by studies that have used farm systems and sustainable livelihood analyses to define typologies of farmers...66 Table 4.4. Typologies of farmers developed using farm system and sustainable livelihoods analyses...68 Table 4.5: A Typology of US farms...71 Table 4.6: A Typology of Canadian farms...72 Table 4.7. Some criteria for defining the forest users and farm and community forestry clientele...74 Table 4.8: Selected characteristics of north Queensland landholder groups identified through the use of cluster analysis of ratings of importance for various reasons for and constraints to tree planting and management...76 Table 4.9. Typology of farm forestry landholders and industries...77 Table Combined typology of Danish forest owners...79 Figure 5.1. Overview of the elements and processes in the household and community survey...93 Table 5.1. Topics and variables included in the structured interviews of households Table 5.2: Number and proportion of households interviewed per community Figure5.2. Summary of the data analysis methodology used for the household survey data.106 Table 5.3. Variables computed for the household level analyses Table 6.1: Total area of public forest and forest lands covered by community forestry type agreements Table 6.2: Types of community based forest management programs currently operating in the Philippines Table 6.3: Stakeholders involved in community forestry programs in the Philippines, their roles and examples of existing institutions xi

14 Table 7.1: Previous studies of landholders attitudes to and practices in relation to tree farming and agroforestry in the Philippines Table 8.1. Common impressions of changes in the four barangays Table 8.2. Characteristics of various types of households described by participants in the focus group discussions Table 8.3. Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats as perceived by the FGD Participants of Barangay Conalum, Inopacan, Leyte Table 8.4. SWOT analysis of Barangay Poting Bato, Isabel Table 8.5. Results of a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis in barangay Rizal II Table 8.6. Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats of Barangay Tigbao, Matalom, Leyte Table 8.7. Reasons for and constraints to tree planting and management (All Sites) Table 8.8. Preferred tree species of participants in the initial focus group discussions Table 8.9: Origin and timber quality of tree species mentioned by participants at the initial community focus group discussions Table 9.1. Average number of people in each household age class in the participating communities Table 9.2: Household size and number of children not at school in the participating communities Table 9.3. Proportion of households in all participating communities with various categories of highest education in household Table 9.4. Proportion of households with various categories of highest education in the household in the participating communities Table 9.5. Proportion of respondents (sample) and population of Region VIII aged over five years with various levels of formal education a Table 9.6. Average household gross yearly income in the participating communities Table 9.7. Average income per capita by in the participating communities (Ph. Pesos) Table 9.8. Average annual income by region and provinces and poverty thresholds and incidence by region Table 9.9. Average and median levels of income per year per household from various sources in the participating communities Table Whether household receives remittances in the participating communities Table ANOVA tests for differences in income levels and income sources in the participating communities Table Frequency of types of main occupations of household members in the participating communities Table Other occupations undertaken by members of households in the participating communities Table Gini coefficients for household cash income in the participating communities..189 Table Proportion of staple food needs grown by the household by percentage of respondents in each community Table 9.16: Percent of households in each community who grow various proportions of total their total food needs Table Percent of respondents from each community whose house is constructed with various types of materials Table Number of farming plots used per household in the participating communities.191 Table Proportion of households in the community s who own some farm land Table Mean landholding size of various types in the participating communities Table Results of ANOVA tests for differences between participating communities in the mean size of land of various types managed by households xii

15 Table Gini coefficients for equality in the distribution of area of land owned and managed in the participating communities Table 9.23: Proportion of total farming land managed that is owned by the household in the participating communities Table Types of cropping activities undertaken by households in the participating communities Table Proportion of respondents of various communities undertaking various types of cropping Table Mean number of farming plots used per household in the participating communities Table Mean total and average distances to farm plots in the participating communities Table Results of ANOVA tests for differences in distance from houses to farm plot between the participating communities Table 9.29: Proportion of households that have some rice growing land in the participating communities Table Whether households use materials from public land in the participating communities Table Types of products gathered by households from public lands Table Whether household used public land resources in past in the participating communities Table Years since stopped using public lands by community Table Frequency of reasons for stopping use of public land resources by community.200 Table Proportion of households that have attended various types of training by communities Table Proportion of classified responses to open questions about ecological problems of the community by community Figure 9.1. Average ratings of importance for various potential forms of community development projects Table Proportion of classified responses to open questions about the community development needs in the participating communities Table Ratings of importance for various potential forms of community development projects in the participating communities Table Results of ANOVA tests for differences between communities in terms of their ratings for various potential development programs Table Percent of households who are presently managing trees in participating communities Table 10.2: Tree management activities of households in the participating communities Table 10.3: ANOVA tests for differences in the participating communities in total number of tree presently managed by households Table 10.4: Percentage of households from each participating community in various total trees planted categories Table 10.5: Frequency of use of trees for various functions in the participating communities Table Percentage of trees reported to fulfil various functions in the participating communities Table 10.7: Number of respondents intending to plant trees Table 10.8: Percentage of respondents who intend to plant trees in the participating communities Table 10.9: Whether household is presently growing timber for sale in the participating communities xiii

16 Table If intend to plant for timber in the participating communities Table Total number of trees intended to plant per household in the participating communities Table 10.12: Frequency of various reasons for not registering trees despite knowing how to do so Table Sources of seedlings used in the participating communities Table Source of advice about planting recoded Table 10.15: Mean ratings of importance for various potential reasons for tree planting and management Table Average ratings of importance for various potential constraints to tree management Table Results of ANOVA tests for differences in ratings of importance for various potential constraints to tree planting and management between the participating communities Table Rotated factor matrix for reasons for tree planting and management Table 10.19: Mean scale scores for reasons for planting and managing trees Table 10.20: Rotated factor matrix for constraints to tree management Table Mean scores for scales of constraints to tree planting and management Table Correlations between scales of various reasons for and constraints to tree management Table ANOVA test for differences in the mean score on the constraint scale of tenure and space issues by households who are and are not presently managing trees Table Mean score for the scale constraint to planting tenure and space by households who are and are not presently managing trees Table 10.25: Significant correlations between various tree management attitude scales and the tree density of the household land Table 10.26: Significant ANOVA test for differences between those who intend to establish trees and those who do not in their ratings of importance for scales of reasons for and constraints to tree management Table 10.27: Mean score for the scale constraint to planting tenure and space by If intend to plant trees Table 10.28: Significant correlation between the scale constraint to managing - financial viability issues and the number of trees the household intends to establish in the future Table If intending to plant for timber by scales of tree management attitudes Table Mean ratings of importance for scales of reasons for and constraints to tree management by households that intending to plant for timber or not Table 10.31: One way ANOVA tests between various scales for the importance of reasons for and constraints to tree management and if interested in commercial tree faming Table 10.32: Mean value of various scales of reasons for and constraints to tree management by if interested in commercial tree faming Table One way ANOVA tests for differences in ratings of importance for various scales of reasons for and constraints to tree management between those households who do and do not intend to plant for timber for sale Table Mean value of various scales of reasons for and constraints to tree management by if household intends to plant for timber for sale Table Correlation test between the scale constraint to managing planting support issues and the intended number of trees to be planted and sold for timber in the future Table Significant relationships between variables measuring tree planting and management behaviour and scales of constraints to tree planting and management xiv

17 Table Significant relationships between variables measuring tree planting and management behaviour and intentions and scales of reasons for tree planting and management Table 11.1: One-way ANOVA tests between various scales for the importance of reasons for and constraints to tree management and communities Table 11.2: Mean value of various scales of reasons for and constraints to tree management in the participating communities Table 11.3: One way ANOVA tests scales for the importance of reasons for tree management and proportion of staple food grown by the household Table 11.4: Mean value of various scales of reasons for and constraints to tree management by proportion of staple food grown by the household Table 11.5: One way ANOVA tests between various scales for the importance of reasons for and constraints to tree planting and management and proportion of total food grown by the household Table 11.6: Mean value of various scales of reasons for and constraints to tree management by proportion of total food grown by the household Table 11.7: One way ANOVA tests between the scale long-term reasons for tree management and household construction materials Table 11.8: Mean values of the scale long-term reasons for tree planting and management by types of household construction materials Table 11.9: One way ANOVA tests between various scales for the importance of reasons for tree management and if have lease contract Table 11.10: Mean value of various scales of reasons for and constraints to tree management by if have lease contract Table 11.11: One way ANOVA tests between various scales for the importance of reasons for and constraints to tree management and if use materials from public land Table 11.12: Mean value of various scales of reasons for and constraints to tree management by if use materials from public land Table 11.13: One way ANOVA tests between various scales for the importance of reasons for and constraints to tree management and if used materials from public land in the past 240 Table 11.14: Mean value of various scales of reasons for and constraints to tree management by if used materials from public land in the past Table 11.15: One way ANOVA tests between the scale of constraints to tree management tree protection issues and if know how to register trees Table 11.16: Mean scores for the scale of constraints to tree management tree protection for those households that do and do not know how to register trees Table 11.17: One way ANOVA tests between various scales for the importance of reasons for and constraints to tree management and if been a member of a community organisation Table 11.18: Mean value of various scales of reasons for and constraints to tree management by if been a member of a community organisation or not Table 11.19: One way ANOVA tests between various scales for the importance of the constraint scale for tree planting and management tenure and space and if participated in a community forestry project Table 11.20: Mean value of the scale of constraint to tree management tenure and space by if participated in community forestry project Table 11.21: One way ANOVA tests between various constraints to tree management and if have own land Table 11.22: Mean value of various scales of constraints to tree planting and management by if have own land Table 11.23: One way ANOVA tests between various scales for the importance of constraints xv

18 to tree management and if have own rice land Table 11.24: Mean value of various scales of constraints to tree management by if have own rice land Table 11.25: One way ANOVA tests between the scale immediate reasons for tree planting and management and if household below the poverty line Table 11.26: Mean value of various scales of reasons for and constraints to tree management by if below poverty line or not Table 11.27: Significant correlations between the scale constraint to managing tree protection issues and various socioeconomic variables Table 11.28: Significant correlations between the scale constraint to managing planting support issues and various socioeconomic variables Table 11.29: Significant correlations between the scale constraint to managing financial viability issues and various socioeconomic variables Table 11.30: Significant correlations between the scale constraint to managing tenure and space issues and various socioeconomic variables Table 11.31: Significant correlations between the scale reasons for managing immediate and various socioeconomic variables Table 11.32: Significant correlations between the scale reasons for managing long term and various socioeconomic variables Table 11.33: Significant relationships between scales of constraints to tree management and socioeconomic variables Table 11.34: Significant relationships between scales of reasons for tree management and socioeconomic variables Table 12.1: Chi Square tests between whether presently managing trees and socioeconomic categorical variables Table 12.2: Whether presently managing trees by types of cropping practiced Table 12.3: If ever household been a member of a community organisation by whether presently managing trees Table 12.4: Whether household owns some of the land managed by the household by whether presently managing trees Table 12.5: Whether household used public land resources in the past by whether presently managing trees Table 12.6: One way AVOVA tests between whether household presently manages trees and continuous socioeconomic variables Table 12.7: Proportion of farm land managed that is owned by households by whether presently managing trees Table 12.8: Mean size of all household land (ha) by whether presently manage trees Table 12.9: Chi Square tests between total trees presently managed categories and socioeconomic categorical variables Table 12.10: Proportion of each trees presently managed category with various types of house construction material Table 12.11: Percent of households in various trees presently managed categories by whether households have their own farm land Table 12.12: Proportion of households in various trees presently managed categories by whether they intend to plant more trees Table 12.13: Proportion of households in various trees presently managed categories that are presently growing timber for sale Table 12.14: Proportion of households in various total trees presently managed categories with various numbers of farm plots Table 12.15: One way AVOVA tests between total tree planting categories and continuous socioeconomic variables xvi

19 Table 12.16: Total area of land managed by households in various trees presently managed categories Table 12.17: Land area owned by the household by households in various trees presently managed categories Table 12.18: Number of farming plots used by households in various total trees presently managed categories Table 12.19: One way AVOVA tests between total trees currently managed per household and categorical socioeconomic variables Table 12.20: Mean total number of trees managed by the household by various categories of socioeconomic variables Table 12.21: Results of testing for correlations between the total number of trees presently managed by the household and other variables Table 12.22: Correlations between tree density and continuous socioeconomic variables Table 12.23: Tree density by various types of house construction materials Table 12.24: Tree management intensity by the proportion of staple food requirements that is produced by households Table 12.25: Whether presently growing timber for sale by categorical socio economic variables Table 12.26: Percentage of households presently growing timber for sale and those who are not in various categories of categorical socioeconomic variables Table 12.27: Proportion of households that are presently growing timber for sale and those who are not in various categories within categorical socioeconomic variables Table 12.28: One way ANOVA tests between whether presently growing timber for sale by socio-economic variables Table 12.29: Values of categorical socioeconomic variables with significant differences between those presently growing timber for sale and those who are not Table One-way ANOVA tests between the number of trees planned to be sold by households and socioeconomic variables Table Values of continuous socioeconomic variables with significant relationships with the number of trees planned to be sold by households Table 12.32: Proportion of households who have participated in a community forestry project Table 12.33: Participated in a community forestry program by categorical socioeconomic variables Table 12.34: If participated in community forestry programs by highest priority in community development needs Table 12.35: One way ANOVA tests between if participated in community forestry project by socioeconomic variables Table 12.36: Mean values for continuous variables significantly different between those households who have and have not participated in community forestry programs Table 12.37: Summary of correlations between the number of trees presently managed by the household and continuous socioeconomic variables Table 12.38: Categorical socioeconomic variables with significant relationships to continuous variables indicating present tree planting and management behaviour Table 12.39: Categorical socio economic variables with significant relationships to variables indicating present tree planting and management behaviour Table 12.40: Significant relationships between if presently managing trees, if presently growing timber for sale by socioeconomic variables Table 12.41: Correlations between household gross yearly income and other socioeconomic variables including households land area of various types, the proportion of income from farming and land owned xvii

20 Table 13.1: Intend to plant by categorical socio-economic variables Table 13.2: Percentage of households intending to plant trees by categorical variables Table 13.3: Percentage of households in various categories of socioeconomic variables by if intend to plant trees Table 13.4: One way ANOVA tests between intend to plant trees and socio-economic variables Table 13.5: Means values of variables with significant differences between those intending to plant more trees and those that do not Table 13.6: One way AVOVA tests between total number of trees households intend to plant and socio-economic variables Table 13.7: Total number of trees households intend plant by households by various socioeconomic variables Table 13.8: Number of trees that households intend to establish by perception of the most important ecological problem facing the barangay Table 13.9: Correlations between Total number of trees intended to plant and continuous socioeconomic variables Table 13.10: Intend to plant for timber by categorical socio economic variables Table 13.11: Proportion of households intending to plant trees for timber by various socioeconomic variables Table 13.12: One way ANOVA tests between intend to plant for timber and socioeconomic variables Table 13.13: If intend to plant for timber by various socioeconomic variables Table 13.14: One-way ANOVA tests showing significant relationships between the number of trees households intend to harvest for timber from future plantings and various socioeconomic characteristics Table 13.15: Number of trees households intend to harvest from future plantings for timber by various socioeconomic variables Table 13.16: Correlations between the number of trees households intend to harvest for timber from future plantings and continuous variables Table 13.17: Interest in commercial tree farming by categorical socioeconomic variables Table 13.18: Proportion of households interested in commercial tree farming by various socioeconomic variables Table 13.19: One way ANOVA tests between interest in commercial tree farming by socioeconomic variables Table 13.20: Mean values for variables significantly different between those with and without an interest in commercial tree farming Table 13.21: Results of one-way ANOVA tests showing significant relationships between intentions to plant trees to produce timber for sale and categorical variables Table 13.22: Mean number of tree households intend to establish to produce timber for sale by various socioeconomic variables Table 13.23: Relationships between intentions to plant trees to produce timber for sale and categorical variables Table 13.24: Proportions of households that intend to plant trees that will be sold for timber and those that do not by various socioeconomic variables Table 13.25: Correlations between the number of trees intended to harvest for timber for sale and continuous variables Table 13.26: Summary of interactions between variables relating to intended tree planting behaviour and continuous variables Table 13.27: Summary of one way ANOVA tests between the variables total number of trees intended to grow, total number of trees intended to grow for timber and socioeconomic variables xviii

21 Table 13.28: Summary of one way ANOVA tests between the variables intend to plant trees, intend to plant for timber and socio-economic variables Table 13.29: Categorical socioeconomic variables with significant relationships to variables indicating intended tree planting and management behaviour Table Relationships between households socioeconomic characteristics, tree management behaviour and intentions, and households scores on scales of reasons for tree management Table Relationships between households socioeconomic characteristics, tree management behaviour and intentions, and households scores on scales of constraints to tree management Figure Stages of the methodology used to define a typology of rural households in Leyte Table 14.3: Comparison of the number of members in each group in various solutions using Wards method of cluster analysis Table Summary of the results of tests for socioeconomic differences between groups defined by various cluster analysis methods Table 14.5: Cluster seed points used for the K-means cluster analysis Table 14.6: Number and proportion of households in each cluster group Table 14.7: Final mean scores for scales of reasons for and constraints to tree management of groups defined by K-means cluster analysis Figure 14.2: Mean ratings of importance of scales relating to constraints to tree planting and management by groups clustered according to those ratings Figure 14.3: Mean ratings of importance of scales relating to reasons for tree planting and management by groups clustered according to those ratings Table Results of one-way ANOVA tests for differences in ratings of importance for various scales of reasons for and constraints to tree management by cluster groups Table 14.9: Tests of homogeneity of variances between cluster groups on the scales relating to the importance of various reasons for and constraints to tree planting and management Table 14.10: Tahmane tests for multiple differences between cluster groups in their ratings of importance for the scale constraint tree protection issues Table 14.11: Student-Newman-Keuls tests for multiple differences between cluster groups in their ratings of importance for the scale constraint - planting support issues Table 14.12: Student-Newman-Keuls tests for multiple differences between cluster groups in their ratings of importance for the scale constraint commercial viability Table 14.13: Tamhane tests for multiple differences between cluster groups in their ratings of importance for the scale constraint tenure and space issues Table 14.14: Student-Newman-Keuls tests for multiple differences between cluster groups in their ratings of importance for the scale reasons immediate Table 14.15: Tamhane tests for multiple differences between cluster groups in their ratings of importance for the scale reasons long-term Table14.16: Chi Square tests between cluster groups and socio economic categorical variables Table 14.17: One-way ANOVA tests showing significant differences between cluster groups in terms of various continuous socioeconomic variables Table Results of Bonferroni tests for multiple differences in the mean proportion of income gained from farming and fishing Table 14.19: Profile of cluster groups on various socioeconomic characteristics and tree planting and management behaviour Table 14.20: Percentage of each cluster group in the various communities xix