ππππππβπ£π£πππ£π£ = πΌπΌ+ π½π½1πππ£π£ππππ.π‘π‘.+π½π½2ππππππππππ.π‘π‘.+ π½π½3ππππππππππππππππ.π‘π‘.+π½π½4π’π’πππ’π’π£π£πππ£π£πππ£π£ππ.π‘π‘.
+ π½π½5π’π’πππ’π’πππ£π£ππππ.π‘π‘.+π½π½6πππ£π£ππππππππππππ.π‘π‘. +π½π½7πππ£π£ππππππππππππ.π‘π‘.+ π½π½8πππ£π£ππππππππππππ.π‘π‘.
+π½π½9π’π’π£π£ππππππ1ππ.π‘π‘.+π½π½10π’π’π£π£ππππππ2ππ.π‘π‘.+ π½π½11π’π’π£π£ππππππ3ππ.π‘π‘.+ π½π½12π’π’π£π£ππππππ4ππ.π‘π‘.
+ π½π½13π’π’π£π£πππππ£π£ππ2ππ.π‘π‘.+ π½π½14π’π’π£π£ππππ_π£π£ππππππ.π‘π‘.+ π½π½15π’π’π£π£πππππππ£π£πππ£π£ππππππ.π‘π‘.
+ π½π½16πππππ’π’ππ1ππ.π‘π‘.+ π½π½17πππππ’π’ππ2ππ.π‘π‘.+ π½π½18πππππ’π’ππ3ππ.π‘π‘.+π½π½19πππππ’π’ππ4ππ.π‘π‘.
+ π½π½20πππππ’π’ππ5ππ.π‘π‘.+ π½π½21πππππ’π’ππ6ππ.π‘π‘.+ π½π½22πππππ’π’ππ7ππ.π‘π‘.+ π½π½23πππππ’π’ππ8ππ.π‘π‘.
+π½π½24πππππ’π’ππ_πππ£π£ππππππ.π‘π‘.+π½π½25πππππ’π’πππππ£π£ππππ.π‘π‘.+π½π½26ππππππ1ππ.π‘π‘.+ π½π½27ππππππ2ππ.π‘π‘.
+ π½π½28ππππππ3ππ.π‘π‘.+π½π½29ππππππ4ππ.π‘π‘.+ π½π½30ππππππ5ππ.π‘π‘.+ π½π½31ππππππ6ππ.π‘π‘.
+ π½π½32ππππππ7ππ.π‘π‘.+ π½π½33ππππππ8ππ.π‘π‘.+π½π½34ππππππ9ππ.π‘π‘.+π½π½35ππππππ10ππ.π‘π‘.
+π½π½36ππππππ11ππ.π‘π‘.+ π½π½37ππππππ_πππ£π£ππππ.π‘π‘.+ π½π½38ππππππ_πππ£π£π’π’ππβππ.π‘π‘.+ π½π½39πππππ£π£ππππ.π‘π‘.
+ π½π½40πππππππππ£π£ππππ.π‘π‘.+ π½π½41πππππ π πππ£π£ππ+ π½π½42π£π£ππππππππππππππ.π‘π‘.+ π½π½43π’π’π’π’π£π£π’π’ππππππππππ.π‘π‘.
+ π½π½44πππππππππππ£π£ππππ.π‘π‘.+ π½π½45πππ£π£π£π£ππππππππππππππππππππ.π‘π‘.+π½π½46ππππππππππ.π‘π‘. + ππππ.π‘π‘.
Source: Authorsβ compilation
Site selection
The Philippine National Framework for Physical Planning for 2001-2030 identified 12 metropolitan areas in the country (Baguio, Dagupan, Olongapo, Angeles, Metro Manila, Batangas, Naga, Iloilo, Bacolod, Cebu, Cagayan de Oro, and Davao) as primary hubs for industrial, financial, and technological centers. The study used these areas as reference points for the cluster sampling of both peri-urban and island communities. The metropolitan areas and the province they were located in were overlaid on top of provincial base map in QGIS; from here, 12 peri-urban and 12 island provinces were identified based on proximity.
The Impact of Urbanization on Fishing Communities in the Philippines 23 Efforts were undertaken to acquire municipal-level data however, the fisheries datasets of PSA were only up to the provincial level, and there were time constraints in requesting for municipal-level figures.
Table 2. List of study sites
Peri-urban Province Island Province
Ilocos Sur Oriental Mindoro
Bulacan Catanduanes
Bataan Marinduque
La Union Romblon
Cavite Masbate
Quezon Palawan
Albay Biliran
Capiz Guimaras
Negros Oriental Leyte
Bohol Siquijor
Lanao del Norte Camiguin
Davao del Norte Dinagat Islands
Source: Authorβs calculation
The Impact of Urbanization on Fishing Communities in the Philippines 24 Figure 2. Map of study sites
Source: Authorβs rendering in QGIS
Fisheries value exhibited increasing trend from 1980s to 2020, but it experienced drastic dips in 2016 and 2020, the latter evidently caused by logistical difficulties during the COVID-19 pandemic.
All subsectors followed the general increase with aquaculture garnering the highest revenues (PHP 114.38 billion), municipal fisheries second (PHP 98.01 billion), and commercial fisheries last (PHP 61.09 billion) in 2020. Their respective shares also followed at 41.82 percent, 35.84 percent, and 22.34 percent. While aquaculture had the biggest contribution, it also had the most contractions across the years.
Figure 3. Fisheries production value, 1980-2020
The Impact of Urbanization on Fishing Communities in the Philippines 26 Source of basic data: PSA Openstat
Fisheries volume generally increased over the years; it peaked in 2009 but waned thereafter, reaching only 4.40 million MT in 2020. Aquaculture is responsible for almost half of the volume with 52.79 percent share, followed by municipal fisheries with 25.05 percent share, and commercial fisheries with 22.16 percent share. This comparison was evident as well in the second figure, with all three exhibiting decreasing trends.
Figure 4. Fisheries production volume, 1980-2020
The Impact of Urbanization on Fishing Communities in the Philippines 27 Source of basic data: PSA Openstat
A.2. Production value
Minimal differences were observed between the average municipal fishery values of island and periurban, even exhibiting the same peaks in 1984 and the eventual decline by 1992 within the four-decade period. On average, the mean of island fisheries amounted to PHP 1.58 billion while periurban fisheries clocked in PHP 1.139 billion. While this appeared contrary to expectations, the difference in values may be driven by species value. Island catch may fetch higher prices compared to periurban fish catch due to a number of reasons: fish quality, freshness, size.
The Impact of Urbanization on Fishing Communities in the Philippines 28 Figure 5. Fisheries production value of island and periurban communities, 1980-2020
Source of basic data: PSA Openstat
A.3. Production volume
The average volume for periurban fisheries in 2020 was pegged at 10,189.01 MT while island fisheries had a higher volume of 16,330.04 MT. The latterβs overall figures were twice as high as the formerβs. This could be attributed to a variety of factors. One could be the distance from direct sources of pollution in comparison to periurban fishing areas. Residential and industrial pollution increase water temperature (eutrophication in the long run) and foster growth of algae, thus leading to seasonal fish kills (Petriki et al., 2021; Nicavera, 2020; Simeon, 2019). Another factor could be the weight of fish catch which may be indirectly affected in terms of trophic levels; island species tended to be heavy whereas periurban species would depend on mussels, crustaceans, and tilapia, among others.
The Impact of Urbanization on Fishing Communities in the Philippines 29 Figure 6. Fisheries production volume of island and periurban communities, 1980-2020
Source of basic data: PSA Openstat
Summary descriptive statistics provided below showed that periurban communities have a higher minimum, first quintile, and median in production value and volume, but island took over with mean, third quintile, and maximum figures. While minimum values were high for the former, the range was limited.
On the other hand, catch and income values in island fishing communities exhibited volatility. There would be instances where production was scarce, and other times when it would shoot up, hence reflecting the inherent yet adverse seasonality of island communities. The most glaring difference could be found in volume where these places can rack in as much as 200,000 metric tons annually.
The Impact of Urbanization on Fishing Communities in the Philippines 30 Table 3. Summary descriptive statistics of fisheries value and volume
Category Value (in β000 PHP) Volume (in metric tons)
Periurban Island Periurban Island
Min. 37,689.00 12,175.00 959.00 761.00
1st Qu. 328,551.75 224,666.99 3,482.50 3,302.24
Median 725,769.27 702,270.56 6,407.00 6,247.84
Mean 2,193,600.68 2,423,763.56 9,201.29 17,859.75 3rd Qu. 3,446,535.85 4,029,969.02 11,074.56 12,369.92 Max. 12,885,044.17 12,885,044.17 53,056.00 233,363.00 Note: Production values are in current prices.
Source: Authorβs calculation
A.4. Urbanization
Periurban fishing communities led in all variables save for area which was two times higher for island communities. Urban population alone numbered almost three million people while islands only have around 300,000, but the gap was not as drastic for urbanization level. In fact, island communities almost reached the 2015 level of urbanization at 51.2 percent, indicating that even these fishing areas were not exempted from this phenomenon and transition.
Table 4. Comparison of urbanization indicators
category statistics Pop area Density urblevel urbpop poprate
island
Min. 92,808.00 241.44 64.00 11.90 21,338.13 0.16 1st Qu. 166,513.25 592.91 196.25 23.20 49,560.82 0.58 Median 255,543.00 1,222.37 235.50 30.60 72,382.57 0.97 Mean 503,770.42 2,990.38 241.75 30.18 120,876.55 1.03 3rd Qu. 908,484.25 4,163.52 306.25 34.65 211,013.28 1.55 Max. 1,776,847.00 14,649.73 384.00 49.40 287,515.76 2.14
periurban
Min. 680,481.00 1,372.98 216.00 20.50 144,731.85 0.49 1st Qu. 784,439.50 2,004.56 270.00 34.38 315,881.31 1.02 Median 1,114,070.50 2,595.32 312.00 49.40 478,891.60 1.22 Mean 1,566,361.17 3,283.57 647.83 47.43 842,398.39 1.55 3rd Qu. 1,562,357.25 3,708.75 566.50 62.08 854,698.99 1.78 Max. 4,344,829.00 8,743.84 2,847.00 66.40 2,884,966.46 3.57 Note: pop = population, area = in square kilometer (2013 data), density = individuals per
sq.km. (2020 data), urbanization level = 2015 data; urban population = pop * urblevel, poprate
= 2015/2020 population Source: Authorβs calculation
The Impact of Urbanization on Fishing Communities in the Philippines 31 A.5. Demographic aspects
The following demographic variables (sex, age, education) in the discussion referred to individual municipal fishers presented per province in the dataset.
Sex
Males dominated the fisheries industry in the Philippines with a majority share of 97.62 percent while females got 2.38 percent. Among island fishing communities, 13,024 males and 442 females in average were engaged in fishing activities. These figures became smaller in periurban areas where males shrunk to barely a thousand while women struggled to reach 50 people. This finding implied higher dependence of island communities to fisheries than periurban, and people were more likely to be retained in the former.
Discussion of women roles in fisheries should be nuanced in approach as oftentimes, these contributions go uncaptured or given little significance despite being indispensable in the industry. In some municipalities, none of the women were reportedly accounted for hence the zero minimum. Womenβs catches were usually taken along the shoreline or using low technology to no gears at all (gleaning). The volume may just be enough for subsistence, but some women sold a portion to generate income for their households (Harper et al., 2020).
The Impact of Urbanization on Fishing Communities in the Philippines 32 Table 5. Comparison of sex variables
statistics Island periurban
male female male female
Min. 1,700 - 36 - 1st Qu. 3,941 32 398 14 Median 7,812 383 651 31 Mean 13,024 442 954 45 3rd Qu. 14,390 575 938 77 Max. 45,091 1,591 4,558 142 Source: Authorβs calculation
Age
Bulk of Philippine fishers were within the age bracket of 25 to 54, peaking between 40-44, after which the number starts to dwindle. Around four percent would remain once they reach 65 years and older. Youth entering the industry between the ages of 15-24 only comprised around nine percent. A greater entry percentage was observed in the same age bracket for island communities but greater retention for periurban.
Table 6. Comparison of age groups
category statistic
15 - 19 20 - 24 25 - 29 30 - 34 35 β 39 40 - 44 45 - 49 50 - 54 55 - 59 60 - 64 65 & over
island
Min. 1.46% 4.55% 8.62% 12.94% 11.36% 14.57% 14.39% 10.90% 8.86% 6.82% 5.54%
1st Qu. 1.45% 4.49% 9.12% 11.39% 13.70% 14.11% 13.45% 11.40% 8.35% 6.23% 6.29%
Median 2.52% 4.87% 9.02% 12.60% 14.16% 14.38% 12.47% 11.28% 8.27% 5.76% 4.67%
Mean 3.29% 7.02% 10.63% 13.21% 13.45% 13.45% 12.07% 10.12% 7.30% 4.89% 4.56%
3rd Qu. 3.77% 6.33% 9.52% 12.31% 12.74% 13.80% 12.68% 11.02% 7.91% 5.02% 4.91%
Max. 3.61% 9.18% 12.89% 14.74% 13.98% 12.93% 10.80% 8.63% 5.80% 3.74% 3.70%
periurban
Min. 0.90% 3.62% 8.06% 10.21% 12.01% 15.18% 14.45% 13.58% 9.94% 6.99% 5.07%
1st Qu. 1.92% 5.79% 9.72% 12.60% 13.20% 14.36% 12.02% 11.77% 8.35% 5.65% 4.63%
Median 2.20% 6.14% 9.45% 12.38% 12.97% 13.44% 12.61% 11.95% 8.17% 5.36% 5.33%
Mean 2.18% 5.96% 9.53% 12.41% 13.04% 14.07% 12.72% 11.52% 8.28% 5.54% 4.75%
3rd Qu. 2.00% 5.23% 8.69% 12.24% 12.44% 14.07% 13.13% 12.23% 9.01% 5.99% 4.97%
Max. 2.61% 7.56% 10.84% 13.21% 13.31% 13.56% 11.96% 10.25% 6.94% 4.84% 4.92%
PH total 2.54% 6.44% 10.51% 13.22% 13.73% 13.92% 12.39% 10.53% 7.45% 4.87% 4.40%
Source: Authorβs calculation
Education
More than half of the municipal fishers reached elementary (57.29%), followed by high school (31.86%), no grade (4.15%), and college (3.55%).
There was a drastic drop from secondary to tertiary level; youths among
The Impact of Urbanization on Fishing Communities in the Philippines 33 agriculture, fishery, and forestry industries tended to exchange school hours for full time work at this juncture. This was in comparison to 2015-2016 national out-of-school-children rates (UNESCO, 2021) -- 4.55 percent at the primary level, 7.32 percent at lower secondary, and 20.23 percent at upper secondary.
Majority of the sample may still be assumed to have basic literacy after primary level completion. This alone could have improved their bargaining power and leverage in the market.
Table 7. Comparison of educational attainment
category statistics No grade Preschool Elementary High School Post secondary College Degree holder Post graduate
island Min. 0.65% 0.00% 37.06% 51.99% 1.96% 5.83% 2.50% 0.00%
1st Qu. 0.71% 0.32% 56.37% 33.24% 2.37% 4.47% 2.52% 0.00%
Median 1.08% 0.39% 56.19% 34.50% 2.22% 3.44% 1.99% 0.19%
Mean 2.39% 0.16% 59.81% 30.89% 1.63% 3.38% 1.66% 0.08%
3rd Qu. 2.93% 0.19% 54.83% 34.67% 1.74% 3.45% 2.10% 0.09%
Max. 2.94% 0.07% 61.59% 29.53% 1.25% 3.49% 1.10% 0.03%
periurban Min. 0.85% 0.34% 49.03% 44.65% 1.53% 2.58% 1.02% 0.00%
1st Qu. 0.91% 0.57% 51.37% 40.17% 1.82% 3.37% 1.58% 0.21%
Median 1.28% 0.46% 55.27% 35.36% 2.00% 3.64% 1.76% 0.23%
Mean 1.16% 0.27% 58.76% 33.59% 1.42% 3.15% 1.53% 0.11%
3rd Qu. 1.25% 0.29% 63.97% 28.21% 1.46% 3.30% 1.39% 0.14%
Max. 1.25% 0.09% 58.10% 34.83% 0.96% 2.74% 1.98% 0.05%
PH Total 4.15% 0.07% 57.29% 31.86% 1.42% 3.55% 1.62% 0.04%
Source: Authorβs calculation
A.6. Socio-economic factors Boats
Island fishers tended to travel farther for more volume and heavier catch hence the higher average for boats weighing three gross tons and less, and use of raft, but they have a greater percentage composition for those with no
The Impact of Urbanization on Fishing Communities in the Philippines 34 boats. This implied options to catch along the shoreline or further out. In terms of capital, island fishers owned more boats than periurban.
Table 8. Comparison of boat types and ownership
Category statistics boats1 boats2 boats3 boats4 owned not owned
island
Min. 1,578 - - 138 1,395 258
1st Qu. 3,684 - 2 439 3,325 753
Median 5,302 2 5 1,411 4,315 1,408
Mean 11,228 18 118 2,114 9,939 2,562
3rd Qu. 11,341 9 176 2,218 10,360 3,548
Max. 42,854 150 684 8,620 40,371 7,965
periurban
Min. 2,307 - 25 71 3,805 691
1st Qu. 4,272 2 47 542 4,078 985
Median 5,313 8 113 931 4,830 1,160
Mean 9,068 46 333 1,265 8,074 2,252
3rd Qu. 9,831 26 222 1,509 8,736 2,451
Max. 30,711 350 1,794 4,726 23,390 9,430
Notes: unit = number of municipal fishing operators; boats1 = all boats three gross tons or less, boats2 = boats three gross tons or less and raft, boats3 = raft only, boats4 = no boat used
Source: Authorβs calculation
Facilities
The country has a total of 3,564 landing facilities and 3,172 for bulungan (trading centers). Fish landing is defined by FAO as centers or sites where sorting and first point of sale typically occur after a catch or harvest. Mostly associated with small-scale and island fisheries, landing centers are closely associated with local communities. Apart from sales, provisionary services are also present. On the other hand, PSA described bulungan facilities as host of trading or private purchases and sale; bidding also typically takes place in these trading centers. Pictures for each are provided in the annex. The country has a total of 3,564 landing facilities and 3,172 for bulungan. Each province has an average of 42 for the former and 36 for the latter. Between the two categories, island communities have higher mean counts for either facility.
The Impact of Urbanization on Fishing Communities in the Philippines 35 Table 9. Comparison of facilities
statistic fish landing bulungan
all provinces island periurban all provinces island periurban
Min. 0 10 12 0 4 15
1st Qu. 12 17 18 16 11 22
Median 27 47 30 29 17 29
Mean 42 42 60 36 28 40
3rd Qu. 59 60 54 46 46 43
Max. 289 140 78 140 78 99
Source: Authorβs calculation
Poverty incidence
The national average for poverty incidence was 12.1 percent based on the 2018 FIES with a range of 2.10 percent minimum and 75.30 maximum.
Island communities have a higher mean at 14.93 percent while periurban communities only have 9.32 percent, an effect of a wider variety of jobs and lesser reliance on the industry.
The Impact of Urbanization on Fishing Communities in the Philippines 36 retained variables are 10 for island communities and only eight (8) for periurban