• Tidak ada hasil yang ditemukan

Regression results

Dalam dokumen university of the philippines (Halaman 44-52)

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: Author’s 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 communities.

Equation 3. Models for fisheries production volume and value for island communities

π‘“π‘“π‘“π‘“π‘“π‘“β„Žπ‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘£π‘£ π‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Ž π‘“π‘“π‘“π‘“π‘“π‘“β„Žπ‘£π‘£π‘£π‘£π‘£π‘£

= 𝛼𝛼+ 𝛽𝛽1π‘’π‘’π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘’π‘’π‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘£π‘£π‘–π‘–.𝑑𝑑.+𝛽𝛽2π‘π‘π‘£π‘£π‘π‘π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘‘π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘–π‘–.𝑑𝑑.+ 𝛽𝛽3π‘’π‘’π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘’π‘’π‘π‘π‘£π‘£π‘π‘π‘–π‘–.𝑑𝑑.

+ 𝛽𝛽4π‘’π‘’π‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘‘π‘£π‘£π‘‘π‘‘2𝑖𝑖.𝑑𝑑.+ 𝛽𝛽3π‘’π‘’π‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘‘π‘“π‘“4𝑖𝑖.𝑑𝑑.+𝛽𝛽4π‘’π‘’π‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘‘_π‘£π‘£π‘œπ‘œπ‘‘π‘‘π‘–π‘–.𝑑𝑑.

+ 𝛽𝛽5π‘π‘π‘£π‘£π‘£π‘£π‘“π‘“π‘‘π‘‘π‘’π‘’π‘“π‘“π‘‘π‘‘π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘‘π‘’π‘’π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘–π‘–.𝑑𝑑.+𝛽𝛽6π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘‘π‘’π‘’π‘’π‘’_π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘’π‘’π‘–π‘–.𝑑𝑑. +𝛽𝛽7π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Ž_π‘‘π‘‘π‘£π‘£π‘’π‘’π‘‘π‘‘β„Žπ‘–π‘–.𝑑𝑑.

+ 𝛽𝛽8π‘’π‘’π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘–π‘–.𝑑𝑑.+𝛽𝛽9π‘“π‘“π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘’π‘’π‘“π‘“π‘‘π‘‘π‘£π‘£π‘‘π‘‘π‘–π‘–.𝑑𝑑.+𝛽𝛽10π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘–π‘–.𝑑𝑑.+ πœ€πœ€π‘–π‘–.𝑑𝑑.

Where urblevel = urbanization level; poprate= population rate; boats4 = fishers with no boats;

boat_own = municipal fishers with boats owned; povincidence = poverty incidence; educ_elem

= total municipal fishers who reached until elementary; age_youth= fishers within 15-29 years old; male = male municipal fishers; facitot = brgys with landing facilities and bulungan centers;

gear = number of gears

Equation 4. Models for fisheries production volume and value for periurban communities

π‘“π‘“π‘“π‘“π‘“π‘“β„Žπ‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘£π‘£ π‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Ž π‘“π‘“π‘“π‘“π‘“π‘“β„Žπ‘£π‘£π‘£π‘£π‘£π‘£

= 𝛼𝛼+ 𝛽𝛽1π‘’π‘’π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘’π‘’π‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘£π‘£+𝛽𝛽2π‘π‘π‘£π‘£π‘π‘π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘‘π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘–π‘–.𝑑𝑑.+ 𝛽𝛽3π‘’π‘’π‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘‘_π‘£π‘£π‘œπ‘œπ‘‘π‘‘π‘–π‘–.𝑑𝑑.

+𝛽𝛽4π‘π‘π‘£π‘£π‘£π‘£π‘“π‘“π‘‘π‘‘π‘’π‘’π‘“π‘“π‘‘π‘‘π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘‘π‘’π‘’π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘–π‘–.𝑑𝑑.+ 𝛽𝛽5π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘‘π‘’π‘’π‘’π‘’_π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘’π‘’π‘–π‘–.𝑑𝑑.+𝛽𝛽6π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Ž_π‘‘π‘‘π‘£π‘£π‘’π‘’π‘‘π‘‘β„Žπ‘–π‘–.𝑑𝑑.

+𝛽𝛽7π‘’π‘’π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘–π‘–.𝑑𝑑.+ 𝛽𝛽8π‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘‘π‘‘π‘‘π‘“π‘“π‘‘π‘‘π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘–π‘–.𝑑𝑑.+ πœ€πœ€π‘–π‘–.𝑑𝑑.

Where urblevel = urbanization level; boat_own = municipal fishers with boats owned;

povincidence = poverty incidence; educ_elem = total municipal fishers who reached until elementary; age_youth= fishers within 15-29 years old; male = male municipal fishers; landing

= brgys with landing facilities

The Impact of Urbanization on Fishing Communities in the Philippines 37 B.1. Island fishing community, fishing value

The following variables are significant at 0.1 percent: number of operators who owned boats, number of fishers with no boats, male, fishers within the range of 15 to 29 years old, and number of gears. The rest are significant at one percent: urbanization level, population rate, poverty incidence, educational level, and number of facilities.

For every percentage increase in urbanization level, fishery values are expected to increase by PHP 7,129,000. On the other hand, population rate has a negative value with the dependent variable. For every one percent increase in population rate, the fisheries value will decrease by PHP 134,900,000. Poverty incidence also has the same negative relationship; for every one percent increase in poverty incidence, fisheries value will decrease by PHP 33,370,000.

In terms of socio-demographic, educational level and age positively affect fisheries values. When a thousand more fishers reach at least elementary level of schooling, this will result to a yield of PHP 89,720,000 and PHP 1.28 billion if fishers are between 15 and 29 years of age. An increase of a thousand male fishers will bring down the value however to PHP 1.35 billion.

Additional presence of both fish landing and bulungan will drive down values to PHP 1.35 billion while increase in gears will have a commensurate decrease of PHP 3,219.

The Impact of Urbanization on Fishing Communities in the Philippines 38 The model has a multiple and adjusted R-squared of 1 which means all variables account for the variation in fishery values. It also has an overall value of 0.0001845 which is a good indicative level of fit.

Figure 7. Regression results for fishing value of island communities

Source: Author’s calculation

Equation 5. Regression equation for fishing value of island communities π‘“π‘“π‘“π‘“π‘“π‘“β„Žπ‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘£π‘£ = 6.130𝐸𝐸+ 05βˆ—βˆ—+7.129𝐸𝐸+ 03π‘’π‘’π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘’π‘’π‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘£π‘£ βˆ—βˆ— βˆ’1.349𝐸𝐸+ 05π‘π‘π‘£π‘£π‘π‘π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘‘π‘Žπ‘Ž βˆ—

βˆ—+5.650𝐸𝐸+ 05π‘’π‘’π‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘‘π‘“π‘“4βˆ—βˆ—βˆ— +6.704𝐸𝐸+ 05π‘’π‘’π‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘‘_π‘£π‘£π‘œπ‘œπ‘‘π‘‘ βˆ—βˆ—βˆ— βˆ’3.337𝐸𝐸 + 04π‘π‘π‘£π‘£π‘£π‘£π‘“π‘“π‘‘π‘‘π‘’π‘’π‘“π‘“π‘‘π‘‘π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘‘π‘’π‘’π‘Žπ‘Ž βˆ—βˆ— +8.972𝐸𝐸+ 04π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘‘π‘’π‘’π‘’π‘’_π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘’π‘’ βˆ—βˆ—βˆ—+1.276𝐸𝐸 + 06π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Ž_π‘‘π‘‘π‘£π‘£π‘’π‘’π‘‘π‘‘β„Ž βˆ—βˆ—βˆ— βˆ’7.816𝐸𝐸+ 05π‘’π‘’π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Ž βˆ—βˆ—βˆ— βˆ’1.344𝐸𝐸 + 06π‘“π‘“π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘’π‘’π‘“π‘“π‘‘π‘‘π‘£π‘£π‘‘π‘‘

βˆ—βˆ— βˆ’3.219𝐸𝐸+ 03π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Ž βˆ—βˆ—βˆ—

B.2. Island fishing community, Fishing volume

Urbanization level still has a positive effect on volume with a 55.85 additional metric ton while a 100,000-increase in urban population will bring down the volume by 2,865 metric tons. Poverty incidence also exhibits the same negative relationship; a one percent increase would contract the volume by 188.2 metric tons.

The Impact of Urbanization on Fishing Communities in the Philippines 39 Educational level and age have a positive relationship with catch. If a thousand municipal fishers would study elementary at most and are the range of 15 and 29 years of age, the volume would increase by 2,102 and 3,654 metric tons. respectively. If there are additional one thousand male fishers however, the volume would decrease by 4,005 metric tons.

An addition of landing facilities and bulungan combined will drive down volume by 14,370 metric tons, but an increase in the following technology and equipment will evidently increase the catch quantity. Fishers with more boats will increase the quantity by 49.59 metric tons while ownership of these will help volume rise by 3,248 metric tons. Use of gears will also increase catch by 16.37 metric tons. These indicate that use of boats and gears for fishing can marginally increase catch, but ownership will have a larger benefit in terms of volume. This also highlights the importance of capital in magnifying fishing efforts.

The Impact of Urbanization on Fishing Communities in the Philippines 40 Figure 8. Regression results for fishing volume of island communities

Source: Author’s calculation

Equation 6. Regression equation for fishing volume of island communities π‘“π‘“π‘“π‘“π‘“π‘“β„Žπ‘£π‘£π‘£π‘£π‘£π‘£= 4.369𝐸𝐸+ 03βˆ—βˆ—+5.585𝐸𝐸+ 01π‘’π‘’π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘’π‘’π‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘£π‘£ βˆ—βˆ— βˆ’2.865𝐸𝐸+ 03π‘’π‘’π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘’π‘’π‘π‘π‘£π‘£π‘π‘ βˆ—

βˆ—+ 4.959𝐸𝐸+ 01π‘’π‘’π‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘‘π‘£π‘£π‘‘π‘‘2βˆ—βˆ— +3.248𝐸𝐸+ 03π‘’π‘’π‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘‘_π‘£π‘£π‘œπ‘œπ‘‘π‘‘ βˆ—βˆ—βˆ— βˆ’1.882𝐸𝐸 + 02π‘π‘π‘£π‘£π‘£π‘£π‘“π‘“π‘‘π‘‘π‘’π‘’π‘“π‘“π‘‘π‘‘π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘‘π‘’π‘’π‘Žπ‘Ž βˆ—βˆ— +2.102𝐸𝐸+ 03π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘‘π‘’π‘’π‘’π‘’_π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘’π‘’ βˆ—βˆ—+3.654𝐸𝐸 + 03π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Ž_π‘‘π‘‘π‘£π‘£π‘’π‘’π‘‘π‘‘β„Ž βˆ—βˆ— βˆ’4.005𝐸𝐸+ 03π‘’π‘’π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Ž βˆ—βˆ—βˆ— βˆ’1.437𝐸𝐸+ 04π‘“π‘“π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘’π‘’π‘“π‘“π‘‘π‘‘π‘£π‘£π‘‘π‘‘

βˆ—βˆ— +1.637𝐸𝐸+ 01π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Ž βˆ—βˆ—

B.3. Periurban fishing community, fishing value

Urbanization level has a positive relationship with fishery value; a one percent increase will result to PHP 73 million addition to the community’s average fishing value. However, an increase in population rate will drastically contract the value to PHP 1.33 billion. Poverty incidence will negate fishery value by PHP 22 million for every percent increase. Among the socio- demographic variables, male gender is the only one positive, significant at five percent level; an increase in male fishers will drive up values by PHP 3.67 billion.

The Impact of Urbanization on Fishing Communities in the Philippines 41 Figure 9. Regression results for fishing value of periurban communities

Source: Author’s calculation

Equation 7.Regression equation for fishing value of periurban communities π‘“π‘“π‘“π‘“π‘“π‘“β„Žπ‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘£π‘£ = βˆ’3186215βˆ— +73065π‘’π‘’π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘’π‘’π‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘£π‘£ βˆ— βˆ’1328640π‘π‘π‘£π‘£π‘π‘π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘‘π‘Žπ‘Ž

βˆ— βˆ’207246π‘’π‘’π‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘‘_π‘£π‘£π‘œπ‘œπ‘‘π‘‘ βˆ’22631π‘π‘π‘£π‘£π‘£π‘£π‘“π‘“π‘‘π‘‘π‘’π‘’π‘“π‘“π‘‘π‘‘π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘‘π‘’π‘’π‘Žπ‘Ž

βˆ’2811663π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘‘π‘’π‘’π‘’π‘’_π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘’π‘’ βˆ—βˆ— βˆ’7770580π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Ž_π‘‘π‘‘π‘£π‘£π‘’π‘’π‘‘π‘‘β„Ž βˆ— +3666367π‘’π‘’π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Ž

βˆ—βˆ— βˆ’21399728π‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘‘π‘‘π‘‘π‘“π‘“π‘‘π‘‘π‘Žπ‘Ž βˆ—

B.4. Periurban fishing community, fishing volume

For fishing volume, the most significant are education, age, and male gender. A thousand more fishers reaching elementary level will decrease volume by 25,610 metric tons. If fishers fall between 25 and 29 years old, the volume will decrease by 114,800 metric tons.

Presence of landing facilities will also decrease volume by 106,900 metric tons while an increase of a hundred individuals per square kilometer will marginally contract catch volume by 675.4 metric tons.

The Impact of Urbanization on Fishing Communities in the Philippines 42 Figure 10. Regression results for fishing volume of island communities

Source: Author’s calculation

Equation 8. Regression equation for fishing volume of periurban communities π‘“π‘“π‘“π‘“π‘“π‘“β„Žπ‘£π‘£π‘£π‘£π‘£π‘£= βˆ’6.512𝐸𝐸+ 03βˆ’6.754𝐸𝐸+ 02π‘‘π‘‘π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘‘π‘“π‘“π‘“π‘“π‘‘π‘‘π‘‘π‘‘+ 8.167𝐸𝐸+ 02π‘π‘π‘£π‘£π‘π‘π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘‘π‘Žπ‘Ž

βˆ’6.705𝐸𝐸 + 00π‘’π‘’π‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘‘π‘£π‘£π‘‘π‘‘2βˆ’1.200𝐸𝐸+ 02π‘π‘π‘£π‘£π‘£π‘£π‘“π‘“π‘‘π‘‘π‘’π‘’π‘“π‘“π‘‘π‘‘π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘‘π‘’π‘’π‘Žπ‘Ž βˆ’2.561𝐸𝐸 + 04π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘‘π‘’π‘’π‘’π‘’_π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘’π‘’ βˆ—βˆ— βˆ’1.147𝐸𝐸 + 05 π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Žπ‘Ž3βˆ—βˆ—+2.942𝐸𝐸+ 04π‘’π‘’π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Ž βˆ—

βˆ— βˆ’1.069𝐸𝐸+ 05π‘£π‘£π‘Žπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘‘π‘‘π‘‘π‘“π‘“π‘‘π‘‘π‘Žπ‘Ž βˆ—

The Impact of Urbanization on Fishing Communities in the Philippines Chapter Five

DISCUSSION

Dalam dokumen university of the philippines (Halaman 44-52)
Unduh sekarang "university of the phil..."

Garis besar

Dokumen terkait