TOURISM, HOUSING AND COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION: THEIR NEXUS IN GAWAD KALINGA COMMUNITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES
Rowena Santos Delgado
Submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
October 2014
Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning
The University of Melbourne
Produced on Archival Quality Paper
Dedication
To travellers around the world, especially those who visited the Philippines and helped its people.
Abstract
This thesis explores the relationship between tourism and housing in the development of poor communities in the Philippines, arguing that tourism can be made more sustainable when a participatory approach to housing delivery is integrated in plans and policies for tourism development. Although the centrality of community participation in the sustainability of tourism has been established in existing research, participatory housing processes were not overtly incorporated as an essential component in tourism. Literature on sustainable tourism lacks an exploration of participatory housing processes in addressing problems that develop from mass tourism such as social displacement and alienation. Utilising social capital as theoretical framework, this thesis investigates how community participation in housing influences their capacity to participate in the sustainability of tourism.
To demonstrate the relationship between participatory housing and sustainable tourism with particular focus on poor communities located in tourism regions, a case study on the bayanihan approach to housing provision by the Gawad Kalinga Community Development (GK) organisation in the Philippines was undertaken. Bayanihan, which is a traditional practice of participation motivated by philanthropy and nationalism, has been employed by GK in the simultaneous building of new communities and also the development of tourism. The case study employed four case communities located within the recently developing tourist region of Cam Sur Philippines: The GK Character Village, the GK Pona Village, Mambulo Nuevo Village, and the Sierra Homes Village.
Based on grounded theory and correlation analysis, the case study shows an uneven transfer of knowledge and practice of bayanihan which resulted in different levels of participation in the convergence of housing and tourism, namely, indifference, assimilation, adoption and integration. Moreover, the central role of the GK organisation in the accumulation of social capital through bayanihan has translated to diverse social and physical outcomes.
This thesis shows that examining community participation and its influence in generating social capital provides a platform for understanding the relationship between tourism development and housing provision and provides a basis for divergent social and physical outcomes in communities located in tourism regions. It also highlights that transferring local knowledge of bayanihan, most notably in the implementation of pro-poor tourism strategies needs to consider the following critical factors that are often overlooked: leadership and organisation, multi-sector collaboration, sweat equity, project delivery, community identity, and training and education. Furthermore, the failure to embed participatory housing provision in research, policy and practices of sustainable tourism results in the alienation of resident communities from tourism development, instead of their inclusion.
Declaration
This is to certify that
(1) The thesis comprises only my original work towards the PhD degree
(2) Due acknowledgement has been made in the text to all materials
(3) The thesis is less than 100,000 words in length, exclusive of tables, maps, bibliographies and appendices
Rowena Delgado
October 2014
Foreword: Research as a personal journey
My interest in investigating the influence of participatory housing on sustainable tourism began in 2004 when I completed my thesis for my Masters degree in Urban and Regional planning. My study was about ecotourism in Catigan, Davao City Philippines. During the course of my study, I reflected on the plight of long-term farmers and their families who have had to sell their land to pave the way for agri-tourism and ecotourism development. In 2005, a big portion of this town, the Habana Estate, became the development site of the GK Pueblo Antonio Village where 36 houses were built for the farmers through bayanihan. While I offered my commitment to work as a volunteer architect and planner, I also took this opportunity to integrate GK with the architecture courses I handled at the University of the Philippines Mindanao where I was a full-time faculty member of the Department of Architecture. I turned GK Villages into architecture laboratories where students got to experience hands-on teaching and learning with a social service component.
In 2007, I attended an international training course for self-help housing in San Jose Costa Rica – a country that is known for community-based tourism ventures. The training was hosted by the Swedish International Development Authority and Lund University in partnership with a non-profit organization for self-help housing projects called FUPROVI (Fundacion Promotora de Vivienda). FUPROVI – just like GK – also catered to local and international visitors who commit to the challenge of addressing poverty alleviation and slum eradication.
In 2009, I was awarded a scholarship grant for a PhD degree in The University of Melbourne which I commenced in 2010. I took this opportunity to further seek a contextual understanding of housing that is located in tourism regions. As I have selected GK communities in my case study, my fieldwork had been more manageable; my identity as a volunteer consultant for GK communities was an immense advantage particularly in establishing rapport with key informants and community leaders. While visiting GK villages in Cam Sur, the folks would request my comments on previous and proposed community projects. They allowed me to sit in their meetings and would parade me as one of the ―international‖ visitors as they did with other researchers – though I was essentially a Filipino who happens to study in Australia. I was also asked to write a few articles about my experiences in GK which was published in GK reports and websites. This was considerably important in the organisation‘s effort to project the international scope of GK influence.
In evaluating GK, I sought to unravel the socio-cultural influences that reflect global developments in addressing poverty particularly in rural areas akin to tourist developments. The way that GK uses slogans such as ‗walang iwanan‘ (no one left behind), and ‗isang milyong bayani‘ (one million heroes), entices participation not only among the communities but people from different sectors of society. I would like to explore how GK affects the discourse on sustainable tourism. By this research, I hope to contribute to the body of knowledge on community participation that integrates housing processes with tourism outcomes.
Acknowledgement
I extend my deepest gratitude to:
My supervisors: Sidh Sintusingha and Catherin Bull – from whom I obtained wisdom through their example of endurance and persistent drive towards excellence;
My mentor and panel adviser Lindy Joubert – with whom I was challenged to hone my skills in both academic and extracurricular pursuits, as well as established wonderful friendship through our journey with GK;
My panel adviser Dominique Hes – for believing in the research topic and her ability to challenge me to go beyond;
My mentor and statistical consultant, Sandy Clarke – for stirring in me that interest in statistics and tools for quantitative analysis;
Fellow researchers and staff of the ABP Faculty, especially Chris Heywood who gave me an opportunity to work as a research assistant; My colleagues in the Research for Higher Degree Department: Mojgan, Nafiseh, Ted, Kit, Wing, Leo, Pan, Ann, Marjan, Hingwah, Min and Chuan – for all the advice, the fellowship, and the precious companionship.
People behind Gawad Kalinga: Tito Tony, Tita Cecile, Tita Des, Tito Jun, Eena, Jaja, Eric, Angel and Nina – For inspiring me and for making it possible to conduct fieldwork and data collection.
The officials of the Local Government of Iriga, Libmanan and Cam Sur as well as the leaders and members of the GK Character Village, GK Pona Village, Sierra Homes and Mambulo Nuevo;
My dear beshie and colleague, Dr. Maureen, who lovingly motivates me to press on.
My beloved friends, prayer partners, and my LifeHouse family: Fiona, Katie, Leah, Rina, Giegie, Charisse, Benilda, Eva, Delia, Luchie, Ofel and Mardiana – for lifting me up in prayer throughout the duration of this thesis; I will treasure our friendship which I know will last a lifetime;
My loving family: my husband John and my children Kairus and Shari – who are my source of my joy and my passion.
Highest praise to our God Almighty, the Author of life, my Teacher and Provider; with you all things are possible.
TOURISM, HOUSING AND COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION Their nexus in Gawad Kalinga Communities of the Philippines
Table of Contents
Dedication ...... iii Abstract ...... v Declaration ...... vii Foreword: Research as a personal journey ...... ix Acknowledgement ...... xi Table of Contents ...... xiii List of Figures ...... xvii List of Tables ...... xx
1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1. Research Questions ...... 5 1.2. Overview of the thesis ...... 6 2. Sustainable Tourism and the Significance of Community Participation ...... 10 2.1 Concepts and issues of sustainable tourism and ecotourism...... 10 2.1.1 Ecotourism and social tourism ...... 13 2.1.2 Issues arising from tourism infrastructure on local communities ...... 18 2.2 The significance of community participation and social capital...... 22 2.3 Conclusion ...... 31 3. Community Participation: The link ...... 34 3.1 Participatory housing provision ...... 34 Million Houses Programme (MHP) ...... 38 The People‘s Housing Process (PHP) ...... 39 The Kampung Improvement Programme (KIP) ...... 40 3.2 Tourism development in housing environments ...... 45 3.2.1 Homestay ...... 45 3.2.1 Service Learning ...... 47 3.2.2 Volunteer Tourism ...... 48 3.3 Gawad Kalinga and bayanihan ...... 51 3.3.1 Bayanihan and GK‘s housing provision ...... 55 3.3.2 Bayanihan and tourism development in GK Communities ...... 57 3.4 Conclusion ...... 59
4. Research Design ...... 62 4.1 The conceptual framework ...... 62 4.1.1 Macro-level assessment: Social Capital as an analytical framework ...... 63 4.1.2 Micro-level assessment: Community participation as an analytical framework 65 4.2 The case study research methodology, selection of case study areas and methods of data collection ...... 68 4.2.1 Selection of the case study area ...... 72 4.2.2 Data collection strategies ...... 75 4.3 Methods of analysis ...... 82 4.3.1 Grounded theory coding analysis ...... 83 4.3.2 Correlation analysis ...... 88 4.4 Limitation of the study ...... 90 4.5 Summary ...... 91 5. Causal conditions, contextual conditions, and action strategies ...... 92 5.1 Category 1 – The causal conditions: GK social movement and bayanihan ...... 93 5.1.1 Concepts of ‗poverty‘, ‗the poor‘ and ‗the slums‘ in the Philippines ...... 93 5.1.2 The relationship of housing to poverty ...... 96 5.1.3 The challenges of housing in the Philippines ...... 98 5.1.4 The emergence of Gawad Kalinga (GK) ...... 101 5.1.5 The revitalisation of bayanihan ...... 103 5.1.6 Attracting volunteers for nation-building ...... 107 5.2 Category 2 – The contextual conditions: Tourism development in Cam Sur ...... 109 5.2.1 Ecotourism and sustainable tourism development in the Philippines...... 110 5.2.2 Tourism development in Cam Sur ...... 112 5.2.3 The Development of GK Cam Sur and the four case communities...... 117 5.2.4 Community participation in tourism in the four case communities...... 138 5.3 Category 3 – The action strategies: Bayanihan as a housing strategy ...... 149 5.3.1 Organisation ...... 150 5.3.2 Cultural Factors ...... 153 5.3.3 Skills Development ...... 155 5.3.4 Funding ...... 158 5.3.5 Hard and soft infrastructure ...... 161 5.3.6 Technology ...... 163 5.3.7 Summary: Community participation in housing ...... 167 5.4 Conclusion ...... 172
6. The Phenomenon and the Consequence ...... 174 6.1 Category 4 – The phenomenon: Convergence of housing and tourism ...... 175 6.1.1 Appropriating social tourism in bayanihan ...... 176 6.1.2 An evaluation of bayanihan from a visitor-oriented perspective ...... 179 6.1.3 Role of facilitators in social capital creation ...... 183 6.1.4 The rise of multi-sector relations ...... 185 6.1.5 Barriers to cooperation ...... 188 6.1.6 A statistical exploration of resident participation ...... 191 6.2 Category 5 – The consequence: Diverse community participation in the convergence of housing and tourism ...... 195 6.2.1 Evaluating the degree of resident participation ...... 195 6.2.2 Classifying the four case communities ...... 211 6.2.3 A comparison of 3 types of communities ...... 217 6.3 Conclusion ...... 227 7. Discussion of findings ...... 228 7.1 Revisiting the research questions ...... 228 1. What are the factors that influence the creation of social capital formed from bayanihan in GK communities? ...... 229 2. To what extent does community participation in housing influence community participation of residents in tourism development? ...... 230 7.2 Developing a contemporary definition of bayanihan ...... 232 7.3 The significance of facilitation ...... 233 7.4 Factors that influence the creation of social capital ...... 235 7.5 Social capital in GK communities ...... 240 7.6 The convergence of housing provision and tourism development ...... 243 7.7 Empirical model of community participation ...... 245 Classification 1: Level of indifference ...... 248 Classification 2: Level of assimilation ...... 248 Classification 3: Level of adoption ...... 249 Classification 4: Level of integration ...... 250 8. Conclusions ...... 252 8.1 Review of the research findings ...... 253 8.2 Revisiting sustainable tourism literature ...... 260 8.3 Concluding remarks ...... 263
REFERENCES: ...... 266 Appendix A: GK Key Programs and Goals ...... 280 Appendix B: GK Enchanted Farm, GK Amazing Village, and GK Pueblo Antonio Village ...... 282 Appendix C: Semi-structured guide for focus groups...... 285 Appendix D: Tabulation of Resident Survey ...... 286
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 GK Character Village overlooking Mt. Iriga, Iriga City Cam Sur ...... 3 Figure 1-2 GK Pona Village overlooking Shell Farm in Libmanan Cam Sur ...... 4 Figure 1-3 Thesis Outline ...... 8 Figure 2-1 Graphical representation of the response of tourists and hosts on tourism development ...... 21 Figure 2-2 Graphical representation of the response of hosts and tourists on participatory housing development (Source: Author) ...... 22 Figure 2-1 Model for community-based tourism ...... 28 Figure 2-2 Model for evaluating implications for community-based tourism development..... 29 Figure 3-1 Kampung Improvement Programme (KIP) in Jakarta ...... 42 Figure 3-2 Guesthouses in Lijang, China...... 46 Figure 3-3 Conceptual overlaps between service learning, homestays and volunteer tourism. 51 Figure 3-4 Traditional image of bayanihan rendered in oil painting by Joselito Barcelona (1993) ...... 54 Figure 3-5 Collaboration of people from various sectors ...... 57 Figure 3-6 The GK Mabuhay promotional slogan: “Building communities to end poverty" ..... 58 Figure 3-7 Conceptual Framework Diagram: The tourism-housing nexus in GK Communities . 61 Figure 4-1 Conceptual Framework Diagram: The tourism-housing nexus in GK Communities . 63 Figure 4-2 Map of the Philippines ...... 72 Figure 4.3 – Map of Cam Sur ...... 73 Figure 4-4 Promotional brochures for tourism in Iriga and Libmanan featuring GK villages .... 74 Figure 4-5a,b The case communities in Iriga: GK Character Village (left) and Sierra Homes (right) ...... 75 Figure 4-6a,b The case communities in Libmanan: GK Pona Village (left) and Mambulo Nuevo (right) ...... 75 Figure 4-7 Focus groups in Libmanan and Iriga in 2011 ...... 78 Figure 4-8 Samples of MSC sheets where participants wrote their experiences of the Bayani Challenge 2012 (Source: Author) ...... 82 Figure 4-9 Evaluation workshop using most significant change (MSC) technique for GK Bayani Challenge ...... 82 Figure 4-10 Grounded Theory Coding Paradigm ...... 84 Figure 5-1 Self-rated poverty: Households who are 'mahirap' (poor) in the Philippines, 1985- 2009...... 95 Figure 5-2 Map of the Philippines highlighting Cam Sur Province in the Bicol ...... 112 Figure 5-3 Tourist volume in major destinations in the Philippines, 2009 ...... 114 Figure 5-4 Map of Cam Sur indicating tourist attractions...... 115 Figure 5-5 Tourist Arrivals in Cam Sur Province...... 116 Figure 5-6 Map of Cam Sur Province indicating location of GK Villages ...... 120 Figure 5-7 Promotional brochures for tourism in Iriga and Libmanan featuring GK villages .. 121 Figure 5-8 Visitor arrivals in the four communities...... 122
Figure 5-9 Map of Cam Sur ...... 123 Figure 5-10 Sierra Homes duplex housing units ...... 125 Figure 5-11 Sierra Homes duplex housing units ...... 125 Figure 5-12 GK Character Village Site Plan 2003 ...... 127 Figure 5-13 Sierra Homes Site Plan 2004 ...... 128 Figure 5-14 a,b Start of building construction with participation from private and public sectors in 2004 ...... 129 Figure 5-15 a,b The destruction brought about by typhoon Reming in 2006 ...... 130 Figure 5-16 a,b GK Shell Farms ...... 130 Figure 5-17 a,b View of site from the top of 120 steps overlooking colourful facades of houses (2007) ...... 130 Figure 5-18 View of the GK Character Village from its entrance showing playground and row houses, 2011 ...... 130 Figure 5-19 Site Map of GK Pona Village, Libmanan ...... 131 Figure 5-20 Meeting of volunteers and beneficiaries with Government representatives in 2005 ...... 133 Figure 5-21 a,b Bayanihan chain formed at the ground-breaking of the GK Pona Village, 2006 ...... 133 Figure 5-22 a,b Completion of facades of single-detached units; landscape, drainage and paved road, 2007 ...... 134 Figure 5-23 a,b Beautification of the façade and landscape in 2007 ...... 134 Figure 5-24 Site Map of Mambulo Nuevo, Libmanan ...... 135 Figure 5-25 Road leading to Mambulo Nuevo ...... 136 Figure 5-26 Facades of Mambulo Nuevo housing units ...... 136 Figure 5-27 View of main alley in Mambulo Nuevo ...... 136 Figure 5-28 View of makeshift multipurpose area ...... 136 Figure 5-29 Mambulo Nuevo duplex housing units ...... 136 Figure 5-30 Landscaped garden in the front yard of a housing unit ...... 136 Figure 5-31 Participation in tourism activities based on Principle #1: ...... 140 Figure 5-32 Participation in tourism activities based on Principle #2: ...... 142 Figure 5-33 Participation in tourist-related activities based on Principle #3: ...... 144 Figure 5-34 Participation in in tourist-related activities based on Principle #4: ...... 146 Figure 5-35 Participation in tourist-related activities based on Principle #5: ...... 147 Figure 5-36 Participation in tourist-related activities based on Principle #6: ...... 148 Figure 5-37 The GK Working Structure ...... 150 Figure 5-38 KB-centred Community Development Roadmap Overview ...... 152 Figure 5-39 Participation in activities related to ‘leadership and organisation’ ...... 153 Figure 5-40 Participation in activities related to ‘cultural factors’...... 155 Figure 5-41 Participation in activities related to ‘skills development’ ...... 158 Figure 5-42 Participation in activities related to ‘funding’ ...... 160 Figure 5-43 Participation in activities related to ‘service and infrastructure’ ...... 162 Figure 5-44 ‘Bayanihan chain’ or the manual hauling of construction materials ...... 164 Figure 5-45 Volunteer students in bayanihan ...... 164
Figure 5-46 Skilled residents providing training to other residents ...... 164 Figure 5-47 Skilled residents providing training to other residents ...... 164 Figure 5-48 Partially completed single-detached dwellings ...... 165 Figure 5-49 Studio-type interior showing kitchen sink and combined toilet and bath...... 165 Figure 5-50 Groundbreaking, staking and “bayanihan chain” ...... 165 Figure 5-51 Manual clearing and hauling of construction materials ...... 165 Figure 5-52 Gardening and landscape beautification by women volunteers ...... 165 Figure 5-53 Concrete steps leading to flower garden and gazebo deck...... 165 Figure 5-54 Painting of house exterior and gardening by volunteers and beneficiaries ...... 166 Figure 5-55 Partially completed row-house ...... 166 Figure 5-56 Participation on activities related to ‘technology’ ...... 167 Figure 5-57 Outline of the grounded theory coding analysis...... 173 Figure 6-1a,b Evaluation Workshop for the GK Bayani Challenge. Masbate Bicol Region ...... 179 Figure 6-2 GK Bed & Breakfast in GK Character Village, overlooking Mt. Iriga ...... 188 Figure 6-3 Promotional website of GK Bed & Breakfast in GK Pona Village, Libmanan ...... 188 Figure 6-4 Correlation Analysis ...... 194 Figure 6-5 Participation in activities related to ‘leadership and organisation’ ...... 199 Figure 6-6 Boxplot showing participation in activities related to ‘leadership and organisation’ ...... 200 Figure 6-7 Participation in activities related to ‘multi-sector collaboration’ ...... 201 Figure 6-8 Boxplot showing participation in activities related to ‘multi-sector collaboration’. 202 Figure 6-9 Participation in activities related to ‘sweat equity’ ...... 203 Figure 6-10 Boxplot showing participation in activities related to ‘sweat equity’ ...... 204 Figure 6-11 Participation in activities related to ‘project delivery’ ...... 205 Figure 6-12 Boxplot showing participation in activities related to ‘project delivery’ ...... 206 Figure 6-13 Participation in activities related to ‘community identity’ ...... 207 Figure 6-14 Boxplot showing participation in activities related to ‘community identity’ ...... 208 Figure 6-15 Participation in activities related to ‘training and education’ ...... 209 Figure 6-16 Boxplot showing participation in activities related to ‘training and education’ .... 209 Figure 6-17 Statistical generalisation of participation in the convergence of housing and social tourism ...... 210 Figure 6-18 Boxplot Summary of resident participation in the four communities, ...... 212 Figure 6-19 Boxplot characterising the level of participation in SIERRA HOMES...... 213 Figure 6-20 Boxplot characterizing the level of participation in MAMBULO NUEVO...... 215 Figure 6-21 Boxplot characterizing the level of participation in GK PONA VILLAGE...... 216 Figure 6-22 Boxplot characterizing the level of participation in GK CHARACTER VILLAGE...... 216 Figure 7-1 A model for community-based tourism ...... 245 Figure 7-2 Model for evaluating implications for community-based tourism development... 246 Figure 7-3 Empirical model of participation ...... 247 Figure 8-1 Empirical model of community participation ...... 256
List of Tables
Table 2-1 Ecotourism principles as a tool for conservation and sustainable development ...... 15 Table 3-1 Summary of GK achievements as of April 2008 ...... 53 Table 4-1 Four views of social capital ...... 65 Table 4-2 The Research Framework ...... 83 Table 4-3 Summary of results of grounded theory coding analysis ...... 87 Table 5-1 Number of Households in Occupied Housing/Dwelling Units by Year, Region ...... 95 Table 5-2 Millennium development goal for primary education ...... 96 Table 5-3 Dimensions of housing poverty ...... 96
Table 5-4 Projected housing need per region, 2005–2010 ...... 100 Table 5-5 Summary of GK achievements as of April 2008 ...... 102 Table 5-6 GK Development Framework ...... 105 Table 5-7 GK1MB Volunteer programs ...... 108 Table 5-8 The 2009 Official Poverty Statistics (Provincial) ...... 113 Table 5-9 List of GK sites in Cam Sur and number of shelter units on site ...... 119 Table 5-10 Funding partners and accomplished units ...... 159 Table 5-11 Summary of housing components: Comparing the four case communities ...... 168 Table 5-12 Grounded theory coding analysis ...... 171 Table 6-1 Outcome of the Bayani Challenge Most Significant Change (MSC) Evaluation ...... 180 Table 6-2 Measurement of correlational interaction ...... 192 Table 6-3 One-way ANOVA of the four communities ...... 211 Table 6-4 Resident participation and physical development associated with LEADERSHIP AND ORGANISATION ...... 220 Table 6-5 Resident participation and physical development associated with MULTI-SECTOR COLLABORATION ...... 221 Table 6-6 Resident participation and physical development associated with SWEAT EQUITY 222 Table 6-7 Resident participation and physical development associated with PROJECT DELIVERY ...... 223 Table 6-8 Resident participation and physical development associated with COMMUNITY IDENTITY ...... 224 Table 6-9 Resident participation and physical development associated with TRAINING AND EDUCATION ...... 225 Table 7-1 How GK and the Government of Cam Sur contribute to social bridging...... 242
1. Introduction
Community participation is widely argued as a core component of sustainable tourism development (Barkin, 2000; Choi & Sirakaya, 2006; Ryan & Montgomery, 1994; Simmons, 1994; Sirakaya, Teye, & Sonmez, 2002; Tosun, 2000). While sustainability in tourism depends on government policies that address social and environmental issues, strategies will only be effective in as far as they are adopted and sustained by the participation of local populations (Barkin, 2000). But this approach can be challenged when the residents are forced out of their habitats, or experienced homelessness and social displacement (Oracion & Hiponia, 2009) as well as alienation towards governmental decision-making (Tosun, 2000). This is due to the propensity to prioritise tourist arrivals over the needs of the local population, making it difficult for planners and politicians to obtain public support for development strategies and implementation. There is however, inadequate knowledge of how the residents themselves, through housing provision, can effectively contribute to the sustainability of tourism in their regions.
This thesis explores the significance of a participatory approach to housing in advancing tourism development in poor communities. By investigating a local practice of participation called bayanihan in Gawad Kalinga (GK) communities in Cam Sur Philippines, I explore the significance of a participatory housing provision in advancing tourism development in poor communities that are located in tourism regions.
Participatory housing provision has drawn the attention of interested tourists to development because of opportunities to experience enriching interactions among people from various sectors involved in the process, particularly the residents (Stoddart & Rogerson, 2004). However, the ways by which various stakeholders collectively implement housing provision for the community are seldom considered for their potential to resolve issues of sustainability that are brought about by tourism.
Furthermore, the explicit relationship between housing provision and the sustainability of tourism development has hardly been explored. There is, however, growing evidence to suggest that housing environments, as an expression of a community‘s intrinsic needs and local conditions, influence its residents to engage in the responsible planning and management of their natural resources (Pinijvarasin & Sunakorn, 2007; Ryan & Montgomery, 1994), and also in the preservation of communities‘ vernacular identities (Sofield, 1993; Turker & Dincyurek, 2007). Several studies also suggest how community-based tourism has evolved to enhance social and cultural interactions that occur especially in the homes of local hosts (Campbell, 1999; Honey, 2009; Kariel & Kariel, 1982; MacCannell, 1973; Oracion & Hiponia, 2009; Sofield, 1993). Moreover, the impacts of tourism development on socio-cultural and natural environments including housing issues have also been investigated (Assante, Wen, Lottig, & Hotels, 2010; Briassoulis, 2002; Sirakaya, et al., 2002). Nonetheless, the implications of a participatory housing approach as part of tourism development has rarely been evaluated.
Thus, this thesis seeks to address the aforementioned gap by investigating participatory housing provision in the light of its implication to the sustainability of tourism. For this purpose, I take into account the significance of social capital in housing provision and tourism development. The concept of social capital, which was popularized by Putnam (1995) generally refers to the synergies between stakeholders which establish cooperation for mutual benefit (Evans, 1996; Lang & Hornburg, 1998; Putnam, 1995). In this study, the synergy view of social capital (Woolcock & Narayan, 2000) as well as the two dimensions of social capital – complementarity and embeddedness (Evans, 1996) – are applied to evaluate community participation in both housing and tourism sectors. It also stresses the view of Lang & Hornburg (1998), that housing in low- income neighborhoods is a ―major foundation for building social capital‖ (p.5), and enables residents to ―gain confidence to engage the world outside‖ (p.10).
In the Philippines, the NGO, Gawad Kalinga (GK) adopted bayanihan as a strategy for housing provision for poor communities, as well as to mobilise communities to
Chapter 1 – Introduction 2
participate in an ambitious social-networking model of nation building (Brillantes & Fernandez, 2011, Habaradas & Aquino, 2010, Villanueva, 2010). Bayanihan is the traditional Filipino practice of cooperation that is motivated by philanthropy and nationalism.
GK developed ways to engage both residents and people from various sectors in the housing delivery process, including tourists seeking volunteering experiences. At the same time, it also ―redefined tourism spots by shifting focus from the history and material attractions of a place to the people themselves‖ (Villanueva, 2010: p.270). However, while GK has been recognised by the Philippines Department of Tourism for its ―sustainable housing practices in places worth visiting‖ (DOT, 2010), there has been no assessment of its bearing on tourism development.
Figure 1-1 GK Character Village overlooking Mt. Iriga, Iriga City Cam Sur Source: GK Archives, Cam Sur 2011
This thesis focuses on bayanihan as the strategy for housing provision adopted by GK for poor communities located in tourism regions, with reference to the definitions of community participation in housing described by Choguill (2007). Participatory housing provision in this study refers to the multi-sector engagement in housing for the poor communities, particularly those located in tourism regions. In relation to the synergy view of social capital, this study will explore how bayanihan characterises the voluntary and collective contribution of different actors in building and developing communities, particularly through housing. Brillantes and Fernandez (2011: 27) assert that GK has revitalised the traditional practice of bayanihan and has ―brought about good citizenship values of the Filipinos […] serving as a converging point for sectors of
Chapter 1 – Introduction 3
society‖ (p.27). Thus the participation of different sectors in building GK communities through bayanihan potentially reflects the synergy view of social capital. As mentioned earlier, the concepts of community participation and social capital provides a framework by which to evaluate the community participation in both housing provision and tourism development.
While this thesis is not about GK, the experience of GK supports the proposition of this thesis, which is, that a participatory approach to housing provision – in this case through bayanihan – has a bearing on the participation of residents in tourism. This in turn contributes to tourism‘s sustainability.
Figure 1-2 GK Pona Village overlooking Shell Farm in Libmanan Cam Sur Source: GK Archives, Cam Sur 2011
Sustainable tourism development in this study refers to the kind of tourism development that cultivates socially and environmentally responsible travel, ensuring the involvement of different stakeholders. This definition is useful in the understanding of the role that community participation can play in accomplishing the social and environmental goals of sustainability (Tazim Jamal & Getz, 1995; Sautter & Leisen, 1999; Sproule, 1996). Although the relationship of tourism and housing is rarely explored in literature, there is one particular study that examined the experience of volunteer tourists in building houses for the poor. Stoddart and Rogerson (2004) investigated volunteer tourism for the Habitat for Humanity program in South Africa. He described volunteer tourists who ―learn about important principles such as self-help and sweat equity‖ (p.313); they are the kind of tourists who search for an ―experience beyond that offered by mass tourism‖
Chapter 1 – Introduction 4
(p.317). These tourists identify social values, particularly their interaction with the host population, as their prime motivation for volunteering.
There are several other studies that scrutinise volunteer tourism (Broad, 2003; Holmes, Smith, Lockstone-Binney, & Baum, 2010; Lyons & Wearing, 2012; Palacios, 2010). These are mostly concerned with the development of education, livelihood, health and other community services. In this thesis however, I examine tourism development particularly for housing delivery and processes. Also, unlike mainstream sustainable tourism literature which often focuses on the implication of tourism development on host communities, I examine the implication of the participation of host communities on the sustainability of tourism development.
1.1. Research Questions
The objective of the research is to understand the relationship between participatory housing provision and sustainable tourism development by asserting the primacy of community participation and social capital formed from applying bayanihan in the Philippines. For this purpose, a case study is adopted in order to answer the question „How does bayanihan, as a strategy for housing provision, influence the sustainability of tourism in GK communities in Cam Sur in the context of community participation and social capital creation?”
The questions that will aid in responding to the main question are: (1) What are the factors that influence the creation of social capital formed from bayanihan in GK communities? (2) To what extent does community participation in housing provision influence community participation in tourism development? Using community participation and social capital theory as an evaluative and analytical framework, it will be possible to understand the tourism-housing nexus created from the practice of bayanihan in Gawad Kalinga communities.
The research applied a combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods to a case study of four communities in the City of Iriga and the Municipality of Libmanan in
Chapter 1 – Introduction 5
the Cam Sur, Philippines. These case communities were selected based on the similarity of their housing processes (self-help and participatory) and their location in Cam Sur province, which is regarded as one of the leading tourist provinces in the country (DOT 2010).
This thesis draws data gathered during two periods of fieldwork: 5 weeks fieldwork and immersion in January-February 2011, and 2 weeks participatory research in April 2012. The analysis of data involves two methods: (1) A qualitative approach that uses grounded theory coding analysis involving five categories of grounded theory coding, and (2) A quantitative approach that uses correlation analysis and descriptive statistics to explore the relationship between the participation of residents in housing and the participation of residents in tourism. Evidence of the accumulation of social capital is determined by comparing and contrasting the communities according to two indicators: (1) the physical development and (2) community participation in the development process. These two indicators mirror the two themes of social capital proposed by Lang & Hornburg (1998): the role of place and the relationships between individuals and community respectively; they also provide a reference for determining the case communities‘ uniqueness, similarities and differences.
1.2. Overview of the thesis
This thesis consists of 7 other chapters, as illustrated in Figure 1-3. Chapter 2 reviews the literature on sustainable tourism and asserts the centrality of community participation in addressing the impacts of tourism on people residing near tourism destinations. The emergence of ecotourism as a host-centred tourism strategy is first discussed, followed by a review of how tourism spawned issues of social displacement and alienation. I then present the literature that emphasise the significance of community participation and social capital creation in addressing social issues brought about by mass tourism.
Chapter 3 reflects on the existing knowledge and practices of community participation which will provide a conceptual framework for understanding the relationship of
Chapter 1 – Introduction 6
tourism and housing particularly in poor communities. Firstly, I elaborate participatory housing development, particularly self-help housing. Secondly, I explore tourism development in housing environments, including homestay accommodation, service learning and volunteer tourism that promote interactions and create mutual benefits among hosts and tourists. Finally, I introduce GK communities and their practice of bayanihan as the participatory strategy for both housing provision and tourism development in the Philippines. The potential of bayanihan to generate social capital and to demonstrate the link between housing and tourism will also be argued.
Chapter 4 lays down the conduct of the study in detail, and explains the data collection methods and data analysis process. It shows how the theoretical background informs the case study research method. While the theoretical emphasis is on the principles of community participation and social capital theory, the grounded theory method is applied in order to determine underlying factors that enhance or constrain the creation of social capital generated from bayanihan in the four case communities. The thesis draws qualitative and quantitative data that were derived from archival research, interviews, participant observations, survey questionnaires and photo documentation. These were analysed using grounded theory coding analysis which is supported by statistical exploration, and correlation analysis.
Chapter 5 and 6 present a two-part grounded theory analysis based on the five categories of grounded theory coding (Böhm, 2004). The process of applying grounded theory coding in the case study provides a rigid structure for describing and understanding the relationship of housing and tourism in the context of community participation and social capital theory.
Chapter 1 – Introduction 7
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND CHAPTER SUSTAINABLE TOURISM AND THE COMMUNITY Sustainable tourism, ecotourism, and issues arising from tourism 2 The significance of community participation and social capital
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION: THE LINK Housing Domain: Participatory housing provision
Tourism Domain: Tourism development in housing environments 3 Gawad Kalinga and bayanihan Bayanihan and Gawad Kalinga
Case Study Research Methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative research strategies 2 Case Communities in the 2 Case Communities in Municipality of Libmanan: the City of Iriga: GK Pona Village GK Character Village 4 Mambulo Nuevo Sierra Homes
Causal Conditions, Contextual Conditions and Action Strategies The Phenomenon (Interviews, Focus groups, Participant The Consequences Observation, Photos, Archives) (Focus Groups and Social Survey) 5
GROUNDED THEORY ANALYSIS CORRELATION ANALYSIS
6 To what extent does community What are the factors that influence the creation of social capital formed participation in housing provision from bayanihan in GK communities? influence community participation in tourism development?
How does bayanihan influence the sustainability of tourism in GK communities in the context of community participation 7 and social capital creation?
Implications of research findings Future research direction 8
Figure 1-3 Thesis Outline
Chapter 1 – Introduction 8
Chapter 5 presents the first part of the grounded theory analysis: (1) the causal conditions, (2) the context conditions, and (3) the action strategies pertaining to bayanihan. This chapter identifies the factors that support or constrain the creation of social capital generated from bayanihan and provides a background for understanding the phenomenon for investigation, which is, the convergence of housing and tourism in GK communities.
Chapter 6 presents the second part of grounded theory analysis: (4) the phenomenon and (5) the consequences. These categories highlight social tourism in Cam Sur as the alternative form of tourism emerging from bayanihan. The statistical relationships derived through correlation analysis are presented, as well as the diverse views of bayanihan in relation to theories of resident participation and social capital creation. Also, in this chapter, I compare and contrast the four communities using the six factors that influence bayanihan that was determined in the previous chapter.
The answers to the research questions are discussed in Chapter 7. Organisational synergies between the Government of Cam Sur and GK in Iriga and Libmanan are framed by the indicators of social capital – particularly, community participation and physical development. Herein I articulate the divergent physical and social outcomes on the convergence of housing provision and tourism development. The overlaps and variations between these indicators are presented as evidence of the uneven transfer of current knowledge and practice of bayanihan. An empirical model is presented to illustrate the different levels of community participation portrayed in each of the case communities.
In Chapter 8, I assert how the knowledge and practice of bayanihan contributes to an understanding of the tourism-housing nexus in GK communities. Major themes and limitations of bayanihan are synthesised and compared with practices of participatory housing provision and tourism development in different contexts discussed in Chapter 3. Finally, I elaborate the contribution of this research to the current body of knowledge on community participation.
Chapter 1 – Introduction 9
2. Sustainable Tourism and the Significance of Community Participation
This chapter sets out the theoretical background of the study. It explores the literature on sustainable tourism and asserts the centrality of community participation in addressing the impacts of tourism on people residing near tourism destinations. This chapter is divided in two sections: (1) the concepts and issues of sustainable tourism and ecotourism; and, (2) the significance of community participation and social capital in tourism development. The first section elaborates the core concepts of sustainable tourism as well as the emergence of ecotourism as a host-centred tourism strategy. It also reviews the failure of ecotourism in practice to address negative impacts of tourism such as issues social displacement and alienation. The second section explores the significance of community participation in addressing issues of sustainability in tourism, and also, social capital, which in this case is described as the synergies between stakeholders.
2.1 Concepts and issues of sustainable tourism and ecotourism
The emerging discourse on sustainability in tourism has been driven by a concern for socio-cultural and environmental issues related to unsustainable tourism practices. The core concepts of sustainability revolve around the need to manage the preservation of the ecological systems, the sustained growth of economic activities, and the distribution of costs and benefits among various stakeholders (Alampay, 2005; Briassoulis, 2002; Choi & Sirakaya, 2006; Joppe, 1996; Neto, 2003). The World Tourism Organisation (WTO) in 2001 refers to the concept of sustainable tourism as tourist activities ―leading to the management of all resources in such a way that economic, social, and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled while maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological
processes, and biological diversity and life support systems‖ (WTO 2001, as cited in United Nations 2001 Report1).
Studies show how tourism can be a vital driving force for economic development of less developed countries (Barkin, 2000; Becker & Bradbury, 1994; Neto, 2003; Ross, 1992; Scheyvens & Momsen, 2008; Spenceley & Meyer, 2012), particularly in contributing to export earnings, government tax revenues and employment generation. Spencely & Meyer (2012) assertes how tourism in less economically developed countries (LEDCs) have grown significantly faster. With 40% of international tourist arrivals accrued to LEDCs; these countries developed a striking dependence on this industry, whereas: … in 2005, it accounted for 80% of total goods and services exports for Samoa, 70% for the Maldives, 56% for Sao Tome and Principe, and 43% for Vanuatu. Between 2000 and 2005, both annual international visitor arrivals and revenues for LEDCs have grown significantly, by 8.2% and 12.0%, respectively (Meyer, 2010; UNWTO, 2006)
Yet, while tourism has offered economic advantages for many countries, it has also been responsible for adverse environmental and socio-cultural impacts. Many regions favoured by tourists have suffered severe problems for being unable to conserve their local ecosystems against excessive consumption of resources. In ―Sustainable tourism and the question of the commons‖, Briassoulis (2002) identified common pool resources (CPRs) which are shared by resident communities and tourism consumers. CPRs are often overused and misused, sometimes causing irreversible damage on the environment and depleting the self-sufficiency of communities. The author stresses how the formulation of tourism development policies should aim ―to balance the interests of multiple uses and users; to acknowledge and accommodate the spatial and temporal variability of the commons [resources]; and to encourage wide local participation and autonomy in decision making‖ (p.1080).
Scholars contend that the environmental goals for sustainable development should not be pursued at the expense of poor communities. Barkin (2000) argues that while the prevailing approach of sustainable resource management has been to stimulate
1 United Nations, 2001a. Sustainable development of tourism. Report of the Secretary-General. E/XN.17/2001/PC/21. United Nations New, York.
Chapter 2 – Sustainable tourism and the significance of community participation 11
economic growth, it has actually enriched only a few. The problem with prioritising environmental conservation is that ―the very accumulation of wealth actually happens at the expense of the poor‖ (2000: 2). Such strategies do not address most people‘s needs. While the degradation of the environment can be attributed to both rich and poor societies, it is the richer societies that promote biodiversity conservation, such as preserving endangered species and regenerating forests, biospheres and natural landscapes. The declaration of areas as protected zones prohibits traditional forestry and other livelihood activities, making it difficult for poor rural producers to survive. Poor societies end up being forced out of their natural habitats without compensation, their ability to create their own solutions undermined. He also argues that sustainability, first and foremost should be about the survival of the planet across all living forms, including humans and their living conditions. Poor communities resort to depleting the natural resources simply because they have no other choice. But when local communities can strengthen their organisation and create ways to utilise their resources in a sustainable way, they are more likely to establish positive roles in resource management and environment protection.
Research shows that one reason that the perception of residents in tourism regions regarding the significance of environmental conservation is so low is that their survival and the provision of social infrastructure are deemed more important for them (Ap, 1992; Sirakaya, et al., 2002). Residents are less concerned about the natural environment than they are about their daily subsistence. Environmental consciousness is thus regarded as a luxury in poor communities.
Thus Barkin (2000) argues that sustainable tourism should attempt to address the struggle by humans to survive external threats by defending their identities, their rights, and their capabilities to survive. The powerful economic groups that shape the policies for tourism development have the responsibility to enable various social sectors to participate in the productive exchange of goods and services as part of development process. The poor – more than other social groups – directly and actively engage in environmental stewardship when they are given the chance to access and utilise their own local resources.
Chapter 2 – Sustainable tourism and the significance of community participation 12
Pro-poor tourism strategies are advocated in the literature as the means to reduce poverty and enhance the welfare of residents and workers in poor areas (Ashley, Boyd, & Goodwin, 2000; Hall & Brown, 2006; Neto, 2003). Neto (2003) argues that poverty alleviation need to be prioritised over environmental protection. Thus, a major shift in development should occur. He recommends: (1) placing poverty alleviation at the center of tourism development strategies, (2) increasing access of poor segments to economic benefits of tourism, even in niche markets such as ecotourism, (3) promoting partnerships among community associations, non-governmental associations and the private sector, and (4) greater recognition of the importance of pro-poor efforts in the international agenda for sustainable tourism. The challenge especially for developing countries is that efforts in the ―international agenda for sustainable tourism development should move beyond purely environmental objectives‖ (Neto, 2003: 222)
2.1.1 Ecotourism and social tourism
Notions of the term ‗ecotourism‘ have evolved through time. While the term ―ecotour‖ was introduced by Parks Canada in the 1960‘s (Fennell, 1999), a formally agreed definition was set some four decades later during the International Year of Tourism in 2002 (The Ecotourism Society, 2004). Ecotourism was then defined as ―responsible travel to natural areas which conserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people‖. Notwithstanding the diverse contexts within which ecotourism is studied, sustainability has been an underlying theme (Boo, 1990; Campbell, 1999; Cater & Lowman, 1994).
Ecotourism is generally recognised in the literature as a form of nature-based tourism that links the economic benefits of tourism with nature conservation (Ceballos- Lascurain, 1996; Krüger, 2005; Luo & Deng, 2008; Weaver, 2002b). In the book, ―Ecotourism principles and practices‖ (Buckley, 2009), an analysis of ecotourism literature reveals that however critical issues arise, the criterion that distinguishes ecotourism from tourism is its association with conservation of the natural environment,
Chapter 2 – Sustainable tourism and the significance of community participation 13
where enterprises generate not just social and financial advantages but also, positive environmental impacts.
One aspect that tourism and ecotourism share however, is an expectation of economic benefits (Becker & Bradbury, 1994; Foucat, 2002; D. Pearce & Butler, 1999; Ross, 1992; Whelan, 1991). While economic benefits can be expected from ecotourism, however, such benefits are generally small-scale (Boyd & Butler, 1996; Foucat, 2002). That difference in scale may be attributed to the fact that while traditional tourism is usually established in urban or developed areas, ecotourism is ―established mostly in remote areas public lands, where the potential for public sector intervention control and management is higher than in the case of multinational large-scale mass tourism‖ (Boyd & Butler, 1996:565).
Moreover, the definition of ecotourism used by the World Tourism Organisation in 2002 includes ‗the well-being of local people‘ (Nelson, 2004: 3), setting it apart from mass tourism which is frequently associated to leisure and recreational development (Ross, 1992). Although ecotourism is generally associated with nature conservation, its emphasis however is on its ethical values and practices particularly concerning the residents. Ecotourism is travel to relatively undisturbed natural areas for study, enjoyment or volunteer assistance. It is travel that concerns itself with the flora, fauna, geology and ecosystems of an area as well as people (caretakers) who live nearby, their needs, their culture and their relationship to the land. It views natural areas both as ‘home to all of us’ in a global sense (‘eco’ meaning home), but specifically, ‘home to nearby residents‟. (Wallace, 1996: 112)
Ecotourism is expected to be environmentally and culturally sustainable which makes ecotourism ―theoretically superior to more traditional forms of tourism‖ (Weaver, 2002a: 154). As Wallace (1996) puts it, ―what distinguishes ecotourism from nature, cultural or adventure tourism is not its degree of specialisation, as much as emphasis on its ethical values and principles‖ (p.119) He also argued that the potential to negatively impact natural and cultural systems was greatest in relatively remote areas usually sought by tourists. Thereby, a refined definition of ecotourism was needed to support a
Chapter 2 – Sustainable tourism and the significance of community participation 14
principled evaluation of ecotourism ventures. He thus specified six principles for evaluating ecotourism, as outlined in Table 2-1 below.
Table 2-1 Ecotourism principles as a tool for conservation and sustainable development Wallace (1996: 122-128) Principles of ecotourism as a tool for conservation and Description sustainable development 1. Entails a type of use that minimises negative Ecotourism should minimize impacts of wildlife, soil, impacts to the environment and to local people. vegetaion, water and air quality, and emphasise respect for the cultural activies of local people. Efforts are made to be less consumptive, produce less waste, and be conscious of one’s effect on the environment and on the lives of those living nearby. 2. Increases the awareness and understanding of an Learning about nature and other cultures is a primary area’s natural and cultural systems and the motivator; Visitors should be able to experience truly subsequent involvement of visitors in issues representative and intact ecosystems; They should also affecting those systems. be able to experience authentic two way interaction with local residents. 3. Contributes to the conservation and management of Strengthening the management capability, personnel legally protected and other natural areas (including volunteers) and stature of units that are part of a national and local systems of parks and protected areas. 4. Maximizes the early and long-term participation of The early establishment and continued functioning of local people in the decision-making process committees, partnerships, and other mechanism that provide local input to public and private interests that operate in the area. Ideally, locals will also belong to those interest groups. 5. Directs economic and other benefits to local people Local economies will be more robust if they are diverse that complement rather than overwhelm or replace and if local people are not asked to make wholesale traditional practices (farming, fishing, social changes away from traditional activies (not to be systems, etc.) construed as retarding the desire for increases in income and standard of living. Benefits should be diverse and should contribute to various aspects of quality of life. 6. Provides special opportunities for local people to Similar to number 2, but emphasises making both also utilise natural areas and learn more about the visitors and local people comfortable as visitors to any wonders that other visitors come to see. given natural area. Some authors specifically point out the need for ‘biocultural restoration’ via educational and recreational activities for locals and employees.
There are two differing perspectives of ecotourism: some scholars view ecotourism as a strategy to achieve community development while others view it as the outcome or goal of community development:
The first view is primarily concerned with how ecotourism is promoted in countries where populations rely heavily upon their natural resources to survive. Ecotourism is thus perceived as a strategy in order to achieve collective community benefits for those that reside within nature tourism destinations (Campbell, 1999; Cusack & Dixon, 2006; Hawkins & Holtz, 1998; Nelson, 2004). This view has been driven by the perceived
Chapter 2 – Sustainable tourism and the significance of community participation 15
increase in social benefits and economic opportunities, particularly the attainment of basic needs for residents. Studies show that locals tend to be supportive of ecotourism when they are aware that the programs that they are engaged in yield personal and collective benefits for themselves or for their community (Fallon & Kriwoken, 2003; Jones, 2005; Okazaki, 2008; Oviedo-Garcia, Castellanos-Verdugo, & Martin-Ruiz, 2008; Ryan & Montgomery, 1994; Sirakaya, et al., 2002; Tovar & Lockwood, 2008). Yet, problems associated with ecotourism policies and practices appear to persist. Studies documenting the negative impacts and perceived risks arising from ecotourism are extensive (Becker & Bradbury, 1994; Hussey, 1989; Ross, 1992; Sirakaya, et al., 2002; Tovar & Lockwood, 2008; Wearing & Larsen, 1996). These issues are often attributed to insufficient and ineffective participation by residents which hinder the effective implementation of ecotourism as a strategy for development. The lack of participation of the host community tends to limit conservation efforts in ecotourism development.
The second view is that ecotourism is an outcome or goal of community development, rather than the reverse. In obtaining the support of the locals for tourism, it is essential to first fulfill the basic needs of the host community. Although there arises differences in perceptions of tourism impacts, there is in general, a willingness by various stakeholders to support ecotourism initiatives especially when the community‘s expectations of personal and collective community benefits are satisfactorily met first (Campbell, 1999; Oviedo-Garcia, et al., 2008; Tovar & Lockwood, 2008). Understanding ecotourism as an outcome of development explains the need to first ―include social and economic benefits for the community who could either gain or lose from ecotourism‖ (Buckley, 2009 p.218). Prioritising community benefits boosts the potential success of ecotourism ventures.
Ecotourism, whether as a strategy for, or an outcome of community development, has brought much hope that the interests of host communities will be served by tourism ventures. A few studies on ecotourism ventures have provided evidence of acceptability among residents, including cases in regions such as in Costa Rica (Horton, 2009; Trejos & Chiang, 2009) and Thailand (Kontogeorgopoulos, 2005). These studies outline the
Chapter 2 – Sustainable tourism and the significance of community participation 16
economic advantages that result in terms of expanded opportunities for salaries and self employment. Although there have been trade-offs, the benefits of ecotourism still outweigh its costs in terms of community development (Gurung & Scholz, 2008; Kontogeorgopoulos, 2005; McAlpin, 2008; Okazaki, 2008).
In ―Social tourism in rural communities: An instrument for sustainable resource management‖, Barkin (2000) evaluated both ecotourism ventures and social tourism ventures. He described social tourism as a form of sustainable tourism that offers more opportunities for residents, than ecotourism. He contended that prevailing discourse on sustainable development created seemingly impossible strategies that troubles policy makers and planners. While sustainable approaches have created opportunities for wealth accumulation, however, they have also aggravated poverty. This is because in the attempt to minimise degradation, the poor are prevented from using the very resources they need to ameliorate their situation. They are then forced out of their communities and are denied the opportunity to develop solutions. Barkin thus clarifies that sustainability is not just about the concern for biodiversity – encompassing flora and fauna – but also the ―survivability of these humans as stewards of the natural environment and as producers‖ (p. 3). However, he argues that in an effort to support equality, the influential global policy makers and economic groups thwarted human diversity by breaking down individual or regional traits. The challenges of sustainability must then respond to insulating these communities from encroachments to their individuality and giving them their rights and ability to survive.
The importance of sustainability has been widely addressed in tourism studies (Cater & Lowman, 1994; Choi & Sirakaya, 2006; Medina, 2005). The studies present numerous possibilities of implementation that involves participation in different stages of development. In Barkin‘s evaluation of touristic approaches in Mexico (2000), he contrasted ecotourism against social tourism ventures. He pointed out that ecotourism is widely harbingered as ―the perfect economic activity to promote social being and sustainability‖ (p.4), which is in contrast to mass tourism that is an abhorrence to sustainability and quality of life. But the problem is that the people have been particularly affected by conservation measures which cut them off from traditional
Chapter 2 – Sustainable tourism and the significance of community participation 17
practices, and sources of income that has become unprofitable. They find the environment protection measures as prohibitive; hence, they resort to leave their regions to seek jobs elsewhere.
Barkin (2000) thus suggested that social tourism 2 in rural communities is a more promising approach than ecotourism which was widely opposed, in favour of grassroots efforts to promote tourism in various forms. Creative programs like the Maya Echo project in the area south of Cancun provide evidence of how small-scale efforts can have dramatic impacts in promoting community and its area of influence. For instance, relationships between groups of foreigners and community members in implementing development programs have illustrated perseverance and commitment. This created a network, forging a development path that values cooperation and relationships.
These rural communities can become well equipped to receive small groups and ensure respect for the ecosystems they visit. Various forms of tourism catering to niche markets of foreign visitors and low-income travellers from within are proving most attractive to communities searching for ways of promoting profitable avenues to generate income and employment opportunities while sacrificing as little of their traditions and inherited production systems. (Barkin, 2000: 2)
2.1.2 Issues arising from tourism infrastructure on local communities
Studies documenting the problems and threats of tourism infrastructure3 are extensive (Becker & Bradbury, 1994; Briassoulis, 2002; Deller, Marcouiller, & Green, 1997; Hussey, 1989; Loffler & Steinicke, 2006; Oracion & Hiponia, 2009; Pinijvarasin & Sunakorn, 2007; Ross, 1992; Turker & Dincyurek, 2007). Typically, infrastructure for tourism produces problems such as government expenditure, rises in home prices, loss of traditional housing and local characteristics, transportation issues, and degradation of common resources.
2 Minnaert, Maitland & Miller (2006) contends how scholars define social tourism as that which involves a variety of tourism types, target groups and destinations that are designed to assisting social aspects or goals. Chapter 6 elaborates social tourism including the formation of social networks.
3 Literature enumerated herein refers to various types of tourism infrastructure including visitor centres, transportation networks, accommodation facilities and leisure amenities.
Chapter 2 – Sustainable tourism and the significance of community participation 18
Majority of these studies of tourism infrastructure focus more on the socio-economic and environmental impacts of tourism development. Scholars have examined the ill effects of tourism at a local scale, such as, social displacement in Negros Oriental, Philippines (Oracion & Hiponia, 2009); the undesirable transformation from village character to town-ills in Kuta, Bali, (Hussey, 1989); and a growing concern over the lack of supply of affordable housing in Branson, Missouri (Becker & Bradbury, 1994). Likewise, as argued by Tosun (2000), tourism ventures and policies can alienate the local citizens in planning and policy-making processes, especially when investment- related pressures take priority over their needs and local identities.
While these studies cited above usually investigate the negative impacts there is yet little emphasis on how these impacts might be resolved at community level. In particular, though there is an expanding literature that exposes the positive and negative impacts of tourism in terms of its social and cultural aspects, there is hardly any research that focuses on housing provision for the local community at the tourism destination. Nevertheless, some tourism scholars explore the traditional forms of houses and settlements in tourism regions and reveal the deterioration of existing urban patterns and inappropriate infrastructure development. These authors argue the need for the preservation of cultural and architectural heritage through the conservation of traditional housing, such as in Bafra North Cyprus and Northern Thailand (Pinijvarasin & Sunakorn, 2007; Turker & Dincyurek, 2007). They argue that plans for tourism programs should not only require the preservation of natural and cultural resources, but reflection of the people‘s past, for the fabric to be sustained. Strategies to create positive impacts from infrastructure development include conserving of heritage and identity in buildings (Pinijvarasin & Sunakorn, 2007; Turker & Dincyurek, 2007); and creating greater financial opportunities for the residents (Ross, 1992); a ―resident- responsive tourism‖ (Ryan & Montgomery, 1994); and what is called ‗policy communities‘ or local management interventions that guide tourism growth and development (Laslo, 2003).
Chapter 2 – Sustainable tourism and the significance of community participation 19
Another study conducted in Sierra Nevada USA (Loffler & Steinicke, 2006) has also identified issues related to housing, as a setback resulting from tourism. The provision and development of amenities related to tourism development there have attracted a growing number of urban refugees. This resulted in amenity migration or inward migration which is described as the movement of urban migrants to rural areas that possess natural characteristics ideal for residence. Low crime rate, high quality of life, and high leisure values were the factors that pulled residents from urban centres to rural tourism destinations and resulted in increase in housing prices there. The consequent process called counter-urbanisation changed demographic and economic structures and created social conflicts, between lower middle class residents and wealthy urban refugees.
Tosun (2000) argues that one of the issues that have affected tourism development is ―elite domination‖ in which ―the interest of the dominant class at the expense of the vast majority‖ (p.622) is prioritised at the expense of the residents. For example, there exists a shortage of stocks to meet the needs of increased number of people; the loss of opportunity for residents to use the beaches as the resort owners did not allow non- guests to enter their facility; and the irregularity of public transportation due to the irregular arrival and movement of tourists. There is also wider evidence of allocation of public funds used for building luxury accommodation and leisure facilities instead of houses, schools and irrigation systems.
Decision-makers at central level and elitist bodies who are exogenous to communities in tourist destinations target to control local communities and their resources upon which they depend. Decisions affecting their daily life, future and many local matters are normally made without considering these local people. (Tosun, 2000: p.622)
For Tosun (2000), the loss of local‘s control over resources in favour of the elites in participatory processes increases risks in tourism development including feelings of discontent and ―alienation towards governmental decision-making‖ (p.615).
Counter-urbanisation and elite domination manifest how tourism projects and policies can take priority over the local resident‘s needs and desires, pushing them aside and
Chapter 2 – Sustainable tourism and the significance of community participation 20
triggering social displacement and alienation. Tourism development, even in vulnerable housing environments usually focuses infrastructure provision in favor of tourists who are usually not held accountable for their use and consumption on a permanent basis, unlike the residents. The graphical representation in Figure 2-1 below illustrates how the introduction of tourism infrastructure leads to an increase in the population of tourists – which in turn encourages migration to tourism destinations. As a consequence, locals find housing unaffordable and inappropriate (Loffler & Steinicke, 2006; Ryan & Montgomery, 1994). They are forced out of their properties, whether or not they gain economic benefits from tourism.
1 Tourist facilities are constructed
2 Tourists increase
3 Locals are displaced Tourism regions
Figure 2-1 Graphical representation of the response of tourists and hosts on tourism development (Source: Author)
On the other hand, tourism development in housing environments which consider intrinsic local needs and conditions increases the capacity of the residents to be involved in planning and management of its infrastructure resources (Pinijvarasin & Sunakorn, 2007; Ryan & Montgomery, 1994). As shown in Figure 2-2 and as argued in the literature, the development of settlements preserving the vernacular identities of communities (Sofield, 1993; Turker & Dincyurek, 2007), draws tourists into tourism development not only to experience the natural characteristics of the site, but more importantly, for its unique social and cultural experiences.
Chapter 2 – Sustainable tourism and the significance of community participation 21
1 Locals participate in the preservation of settlements
2 Locals get involved in tourism 3 Tourists increase Tourism regions
Figure 2-2 Graphical representation of the response of hosts and tourists on participatory housing development (Source: Author)
Unique socio-cultural experiences are made available to tourists within homestay programs where infrastructure resources accommodate both locals and tourists. Studies focused on homestays (Kershaw, 2009; Nathan, 2002; Walter, 2009), demonstrate how tourists are attracted to an experiential learning of local culture and in the process, contribute to the sustenance of host communities. The provision of tourist accommodation within the domestic environment becomes a mainstream attraction, along with its natural and environmental setting. Public and private organisations alike show support for the development of homestay in various forms of tourism development (Nathan, 2002; Zeppel, 2006). Homestay, service learning and volunteer tourism are concepts that provide evidence of the role of resident communities in developing their domestic environments into tourist destinations; these concepts are elaborated in Chapter 3.
2.2 The significance of community participation and social capital
The concept of community participation is constantly evolving as it may take different forms and operations based on a range of socially desirable expectations. It may be easy to see however that scholars designate the community as the main actor in the development process. Tosun (2000) define community participation as a voluntary act in which ―individuals confront opportunities and responsibilities of citizenship‖ (p.615). It is an empowering process in which people identify problems and needs, and assume responsibility for necessary action (Askew, 1989). It allows those who traditionally do
Chapter 2 – Sustainable tourism and the significance of community participation 22
not have a role in decision-making to reassert themselves upon those who do ―in order to prevent manipulation of a community, usually by developers or the local authority‖ (Tosun, 2000: p.615).
In the field of tourism, while several studies focus on the impacts of community-based tourism (Horton, 2009; Nelson, 2004; Trejos & Chiang, 2009; Wearing & Larsen, 1996), there are a few studies which examine the actual process or stages of tourism development (Boyd & Butler, 1996; Cusack & Dixon, 2006; Jones, 2005; Laslo, 2003; Li, 2002; Wearing & Larsen, 1996; Wearing & McDonald, 2002). These studies highlight the formation and role of community organisations in the development process. Policy frameworks and social networks enable community organisations to have a collective commitment to the management of projects. In the Philippines for example, there are a number of studies that demonstrate the advantages of a community approach to the management of natural resources, particularly those related to the coastal resources (Hawkins & Holtz, 1998; Li, 2002; Okazaki, 2008; White, Christie, D'Agnes, Lowry, & Milne, 2005). Community-based ecotourism, in particular, involves the local community by organising it as part of the governance structure (Trejos & Chiang, 2009), referring to a collaborative approach to development, not just for ecotourism but for the management of natural resource in general.
Scholars argue how sustainable tourism approaches are essentially community-based (Garrod, 2003; Simmons, 1994; Walter, 2009). The importance of involving the local community in sustainable tourism has been argued, emphasising how members of local communities can significantly contribute not only to the planning and management of tourism resources, but also to rectifying problems. The participation of residents who have a direct role in providing the atmosphere of hospitality in a tourism region can generate incentives for them and without folk knowledge there is no basis for cultural learning and conservation. Hence, community participation is identified as one of the prerequisites to sustainable tourism, with the condition that participation has to be thoroughly assessed and actively promoted prior to developing any region for that purpose (Okazaki, 2008).
Chapter 2 – Sustainable tourism and the significance of community participation 23
Hence, from a broader perspective, tourism development approaches promote the kinds of planning tools that attribute success for development projects to community participation in planning at the local level, rooting empowerment in collaborative strategies (Hamin E, 2007; Okazaki, 2008; Trejos & Chiang, 2009). In essence, different forms of tourism can promote community involvement, including nature tourism, wildlife and adventure tourism, and cultural tourism. A participatory approach is closely associated with collective action and is, in these studies, viewed as both a factor contributing to – and an outcome of – successful development (Cusack & Dixon, 2006; Jones, 2005). As Barkin (2000) explains, Ecotourism in particular is widely heralded as the perfect economic activity to promote both sustainability and wellbeing…. [However] Even ecotourism projects need not guarantee support for local communities or provide employment and income; such programs can even threaten the ecology of the region. The outcomes will depend not on any magic formula but rather on the process of design and implementation, on the way in which the local communities and their resource base become participants in the project or objects of trade and exchange. (Barkin, 2000: 4)
According to Barkin then, strategies for sustainable tourism including ecotourism can contribute to the eradication of poverty when marginalised communities are involved more productively in the organisational structures that affect them.
There are a growing number of scholars who argue for the value of community participation to create sustainable options for tourism development (Butcher, 2008; Drake, 1991; Garrod, 2003; Sproule, 1996). Nonetheless, there has been little analysis of the extent to which participation has actually been demonstrated. There is little evidence to show how much residents engage in tourism development and how their involvement affects the natural and built environments on which they rely for their survival and their livelihood.
Notwithstanding their homogenous nature, the structural complexities of communities comprising external and internal members must also be acknowledged. External community relationships exist between residents and interest groups tied to politics, religion, kinship and even advocacies – all of them are intrinsic members, but external. Yet, the disadvantaged poor and the landless – who comprise the internal members of
Chapter 2 – Sustainable tourism and the significance of community participation 24
the community – are the ones who tend to be excluded from participation. Butcher (2007) asserts that community participation is in fact shaped externally and diminishes the value of empowerment since external members tend to collaborate out of economic compulsion, not out of genuine commitment to communities.
Yet, Simmons (1994:p.106) argues that meaningful participation of members – whether external or internal – is possible when it is based on, first, knowledge or awareness of sustainable goals to aid in informed decision-making; and, second, perceptions of how input will influence the shaping of decisions. While community participation emphasises the engagement and contribution of local residents, creating partnerships with other sectors must also be considered in the delivery of tourism products and services. As such, the methods or strategies to achieve participation must be acknowledged as important as the desired outcomes of sustainable development.
Community participation in tourism planning and development is regarded by scholars as the involvement of stakeholders in decision making and a fair share in costs and benefits (Garrod, 2003; Simmons, 1994; Sproule, 1996). Crucial to establishing linkages is the identification of partners in the process. Sproule (2009, p. 235) defines a community as, ―a group of people often living in the same geographic area, and who identify themselves as belonging to the same group.‖ Successful community-based enterprises are those that are supported by a network – among government agencies, NGOs, public and private sectors. Such networks are necessary to achieve effective policy and planning frameworks. The role of NGOs, in particular, organising and training community residents to develop and manage sustainable tourism projects becomes central to success. When projects are collaboratively managed to prevent or minimise the degradation of natural areas and cultures, they become sustainable (Cusack & Dixon, 2006).
The notion of community participation is embedded in the concept of social capital, where emphasis is placed on the value of social network or linkages. This value enables ―shared norms, trust and reciprocity, that in turn foster cooperation to achieve common
Chapter 2 – Sustainable tourism and the significance of community participation 25
ends‖ (Ecclestone and Field, 2003 as cited Jones, 2005, p. 306), and foster synergy within the community and amongst stakeholders (Selin & Chavez, 1995).
Woolcock and Narayan (2000) identify four views of social capital that are essential to develop poor communities: First, the communitarian view stresses the value of social ties especially in helping the poor to be members of highly integrated communities. Second, the networks view stresses the challenges harnessing the many aspects of intra- community ties (bonding) in poor communities, simultaneously strengthening extra- community networks (bridging) and in the process helping the poor gain access to formal institutions. Third, the institutional view argues the dependence of a community‘s vitality upon the political, legal and institutional context which becomes either a means or an impediment to prosperity. Fourth, the synergy view argues for the integration of both networks view and institutional view, and is based on mutually supportive relations between public and private sectors.
Woolcock and Narayan (2000) describe the synergy view as promoting economic prosperity and social order in societies where there is complementarity between state and society. A high level of social capital is achieved when public and private institutions establish common goals among representatives of the state, corporate sector and the civil society. Efforts to establish partnerships can reap benefits that cannot be established by either powerful institutions or even by poor associations alone. As Uphoff (1992: 273) points out,
Paradoxical though it may seem, „top-down‟ efforts are usually needed to introduce, sustain and institutionalize „bottom-up‟ development. We are commonly constrained to think in “either-or” terms – the more of one the less of the other – when both are needed in a positive way to achieve our purposes. (Uphoff, 1992, p.273)
In a case study of communities in Palawan, Philippines, Okazaki (2008) reviews the theories of participation including the ‗ladder of citizen participation‘ (Arnstein, 1969; Selin & Chavez, 1995) as a basis for defining a community-based tourism model. The model describes the situation in an indigenous community where community-based ecotourism was initiated, but here conflicts later developed among stakeholders. The
Chapter 2 – Sustainable tourism and the significance of community participation 26
findings of the study revealed the need to foster relationships and ensure collaboration among members of the community as well as the government. The manifestation of the people‘s commitment to collective action provides evidence of how social capital is instrumental to the development of ecotourism. Findings also revealed that social capital should be nurtured through community participation, power redistribution and collaboration process. The author thus acceded to the synergistic view of social capital by Woolcock and Narayan (2000). He likewise agreed that NGOs are expected ―to foster informal networks in order to grow bridging capital, build partnerships and collaborate towards achieving the successful development of tourism in the island‖ (Okazaki, 2008, p. 526).
Okazaki‘s ‗model of community-based tourism development‘ (2008) illustrates how the levels of resident participation are influenced by the stage in the collaboration process the community occupies. As shown in Figure 2-1 Okazaki suggests the integration of the two models of participation involving conditions and steps in participation as argued by Arnstein (1969) and Selin & Chavez (1995). This integrated model was used to assess a community-based ecotourism project in the Philippines. The results of the assessment revealed problems and conflicts that arose between planning officials and the community. Despite efforts of government and NGOs, community engagements remained at the third level (informing) level of participation, and the first stage (antecedents stage) of the collaboration process.
Chapter 2 – Sustainable tourism and the significance of community participation 27
Figure 2-1 Model for community-based tourism Integration of the two theoretical models of participation by Arnstein (1969)and Selin & Chavez (1995) As suggested by Okazaki (2008)
With these findings, the author suggests that fostering relationships between communities and other sectors prior to collaboration would promote community participation. The author thus recommends another model of the participatory process: as shown in Figure 2-2. This model would facilitate the synergistic view of social capital. Linking and bridging communities and governments results in four implications: (1) Socio-economic well-being, (2) Exclusion, (3) Conflict, (4) Coping. These four implications are generalised into two conditions: First is complementarity, which is the mutual relationship between governments and communities, and second is substitution, which is the delivery of services through the initiative and management of the informal sectors themselves. This integrated model explains how social capital is essential in evaluating community based tourism development
Chapter 2 – Sustainable tourism and the significance of community participation 28
Figure 2-2 Model for evaluating implications for community-based tourism development Integration of the two theoretical models of social capital by Woolcock& Narayan (2000) and Sato (2001) As suggested by Okazaki (2008)
Yet while Okazaki‘s study explored how social capital is a prerequisite to tourism development, Jones (2005) however asserted how social capital was manifested not only as a factor but also an outcome of development. Her study applied the concept of social capital to understand the social processes leading to and resulting from the development of an ecotourism venture in Gambia. Community solidarity and cooperative work appear to have been the criteria for the allocation of support from external organisations. Jones questioned however how long this harmonious image would be maintained; as the vision of village solidarity and collective action had been passed on by elders may not be shared by other family members, putting the existing social capital at risk. Nonetheless the study argues that the concept of social capital can be used to provide an analytical framework ―in such a way as to avoid making assumptions about communities as homogenous and static entities‖ (Jones, 2005: 321)
Lang & Hornburg (1998) however stressed that the foundation of social capital is built within low-income neighborhoods. While the concept of social capital is applicable to almost any social condition, this connectedness is more established in decent and affordable housing environments. It is in housing which anchors people and places
Chapter 2 – Sustainable tourism and the significance of community participation 29
together and stabilizes communities; thus it ―becomes a major foundation for building social capital‖ (1998, p. 5). The challenge for governments and philanthropies then is to develop a better understanding of social capital as one of the most valuable tools for achieving government housing policy.
Lang and Hornburg (1998), in a study of the impact of housing and community development have generated two themes that convey how residents generate and spend social capital: first is ‗the role of place‘, and second is ‗the relationship between the individuals and the community‘:
Firstly, the ‗role of place‘ is an essential theme in examining how the built environment affects the formation of social capital (Bothwell, Gindroz, & Lang, 1998) and how the design and physical patterns of villages shape the nature of personal interaction and social networks (Temkin & Rohe, 1998). Social contacts or personal interaction, as well as social networks are shaped by the patterns of housing development and design of buildings. The role of place is evident in the use of spaces and the resemblance of public housing with local market housing. Living in respectable-looking homes, where physical design goes beyond basic shelter provision, builds up a community‘s pride as well as social capital. As such, residents find confidence in engaging themselves not only with people in their neighbourhood, but also with people outside. Nonetheless, as Temkin and Rohe (1998) argue, the physical aspects of housing should not be emphasised more than a concern for social capital. Harmonious neighbourhood relationships are not to be disregarded by decision-makers.
Secondly, the ‗relationship between the individual and community‘ is also essential in understanding social capital discourse. Social capital enables the interdependence of networks and sectors. However, it is possible that connectivity would insulate communities from outside contacts and opportunities. While social glue benefits communities in many ways, it also results in isolation, discrimination and sheer neglect of other external sectors (Lang and Hornburg, 1998). It is thus important to recognise that the same connectivity motivates individuals to help or support others, whether they come from within or outside his own community. For instance, Servon (1998) notes
Chapter 2 – Sustainable tourism and the significance of community participation 30
how external organisations advocating social networks help establish job creation and income generation such as in microenterprise programs. Although such economic development programs are important, linking residents with each other and with outside world – training them and helping them access resources – was often overlooked. De Souza Briggs (1998) likewise contended how social capital enhances the mobility of poor youth. He considers how the social networks established by the poor are more important than the type of neighbourhood, whether they live in affluent diverse areas, or in low-income urban areas. Briggs thus emphasised the importance of relationships in facilitating the upward mobility of people.
Lang and Hornburg (1998) assert that one way to gauge social capital is to determine the rate of civic participation; active volunteer and civic networks can mostly be found in places that have high social capital. But the lack of such networks in several communities is a concern for policy makers. The role of participation in building and managing social spending, which shall later be presented as a research framework for this thesis will be discussed further in the succeeding chapter.
2.3 Conclusion
This chapter provided an overview of the centrality of community participation in sustainable tourism development, as discussed in the literature. It stresses how little research has been undertaken to assess the extent of community engagement and how that engagement has or has not affected the management of natural resources and the built environment in tourism regions. While most studies are focused on the impacts of mass tourism, and are often driven by macroeconomics, there are only a few that emphasise the micro-scale of local communities, households and community activities.
Sustainable development strategies, according to literature, have so far failed to address the socio-economic impacts of some tourism development, particularly in response to
Chapter 2 – Sustainable tourism and the significance of community participation 31
the issue of social displacement and alienation. The challenge then is for national and international strategies for tourism to go beyond environmental sustainability, and aim at a pro-poor tourism that aims to alleviate poverty through active community participation in the development process. It is argued that such participation empowers people to have greater control over their destiny (Butcher, 2008). Yet, literature on sustainable tourism has little to show about how poor resident communities participate to achieve socio-cultural and economic benefits.
Some studies however reveal the influence of a harmonious engagement of different stakeholders in tourism development (Hamin E, 2007; Okazaki, 2008; Trejos & Chiang, 2009). Engaging the community to participate towards goals of conservation entails a more pragmatic approach where there is a direct relationship between internal and external members of the community. A symbiotic relationship between residents and other stakeholders is promoted as a key resource for sustainable tourism development.
As soon as communities are given opportunities to access their resources and establish linkages with other stakeholders, they are enabled to acknowledge their role in development. Even though control and decision-making for tourism are shaped by external parties such as NGO‘s and government, when the participatory process and social capital is already embedded among the community members, this increases their potentials to move ahead and achieve greater community goals (Okazaki, 2008).
Central to the assessment of the capacity for community participation is the concept of social capital, which manifests as active volunteer and civic networks. Although found in various social conditions, social capital is primarily formed in low income neighborhoods particularly through the provision of decent and affordable housing which serves as its foundation (Lang & Hornburg, 1998).
While infrastructure and housing provision are normally not included as fundamental to concepts of community-based tourism, certain studies assert their impact on locals‘ wellbeing, particularly the preservation of their heritage and identity in buildings. Studies on social tourism in particular demonstrate how interaction between
Chapter 2 – Sustainable tourism and the significance of community participation 32
communities and tourists encourages experiential learning of local cultures and contributes to their sustainability. Consequently, the following chapter explores how such interactions among various stakeholders are encouraged in both participatory housing provision and participatory tourism development. It also explores how social capital that is generated from a local practice of community participation called bayanihan can bridge the gap between housing and tourism development.
Chapter 2 – Sustainable tourism and the significance of community participation 33
3. Community Participation: The link
The previous chapter provided a background for understanding the centrality of community participation, and its potential to generate social capital needed to address issues of social displacement and alienation caused by tourism. This chapter reflects on the existing knowledge and practices of community participation in both housing and tourism development in poor communities. It seeks to provide a conceptual framework for understanding the relationship of housing provision and tourism development. The first section of this chapter elaborates participatory housing provision, and argues how social networking is indispensable in housing programs for the poor, particularly self- help housing. The second section explores tourism development in housing environments, including homestay, service learning and volunteer tourism that promote interactions with, and mutual benefits for both hosts and tourists. In the third section I present a preliminary investigation of bayanihan, which was adopted as a strategy for both housing provision and tourism development in GK communities. The potential of bayanihan to generate social capital and to demonstrate the link between housing and tourism will also be argued.
3.1 Participatory housing provision
Earlier development reports from the 1950s to the 60s show that the lack of housing was becoming a worldwide concern and that ―there was no country that has no housing problem‖ (Weissmann, 1960: 321). In housing policy, the main challenge has always been to satisfy the need for a decent shelter at an affordable price. Hence, the goal has been to alleviate housing shortage through economic cooperation and mutual aid.
The notion of self-help surfaced in the 1960s. Cost-effective housing construction through active community participation was introduced as a major strategy for providing housing for low-income families (Davis, 1967). The idea was popularised in 1972, through Turner‘s concept of ‗freedom to build‘. Turner proposed that ―when dwellers control the major decisions and are free to make their own contribution to the design, construction and management of their housing, both the process and the environment produced stimulate individual and social wellbeing‖ (Turner, 1972)
Choguill (2007) identifies three phases of housing policy development over the latter decades of the 20th century, based on the programs for housing provision which emerged over time: The first phase is the introduction of public housing from the end of World War II up to the early 70s. However, permanent houses required a rental fee that was generally above the median income capacity of residents. Governments and institutions reacted, and the second phase emerged in the 1970s, that is the adoption of the self-help housing. This is a strategy whereby governments provided plots of urban land and support services, and then let the poor build their own houses on the plots. In the mid-1980s, the World Bank, who had initiated this ‗sites and services‘ concept4, realised that self-help was unlikely to meet the scale of housing shortage then. The third phase then resulted with a shift to what is known as the enabling environment5 for housing, which was directed at providing economic and institutional support to expand the search for housing solutions at a national level.
After analysing the strengths and problems of housing policy that had evolved over 5 decades, Choguill (2007) contends that strategies for the sustainability of housing processes should prioritise ―the involvement of the community in all steps concerned with planning, constructing and maintaining planned improvement‖ (2007:147). He argues that the benefit resulting from the involvement of the community through self-
4 Self-help housing is characterised by a sites and services concept wherein ―governments should provide tracts of urban land divided into plots and basic support services and then let the poor build their own houses on those plots.‖ (Choguill, 2007: p.146).
5 With the creation of an ‗enabling environment‘, ―attention was directed toward devising ways of providing the economic, financial, legal and institutional environment that was needed to support the housing sector.‖ (UNHSP, 2005, p. 25, as cited by Choguill, 2007:p.146)
Chapter 3 – Community Participation: The Link 35
help is more than cost savings; it results in resident satisfaction and a feeling of self- worth. When people realise how they themselves have contributed in satisfying their housing needs, other goals, including household improvement and people empowerment will also be met.
The notion of self-help housing revolves around the value of mutual help between and among residents. It is typically described in studies as an approach that involves active local participation (Gilbert, 2000; Marais, Van Rensburg, & Botes, 2003; Mathey, 1991; Turner, 1972). It implies a consensus among residents in implementing program objectives through personal effort to be contributed by nuclear families to help meet its own needs (Astrand & Rodriguez, 1996). The self-help housing approach, aside from being applied in alleviating housing shortage and even poverty (Gilbert, 2000; Macaloo, 1999), ensures a larger degree of people‘s participation in the decision-making and building process, which allows more flexibility and control by the residents themselves (Marais, et al., 2003). Mathey (1991) argues that the self-help approach has encouraged ‗co-managing programs‘ among residents in order to create livelihood opportunities and in the process, preserve traditional environments as well as social heritage (Hudson, 1997; Steinberg, 1992).
Within the concept of self-help housing is resident satisfaction. Marais, et al. (2003) contends that self-help housing programs has been successful in ―ensuring a larger degree of community involvement [and at the same time] revealing a higher level of satisfaction with the quality of living‖ (2003:362). On the other hand, Grillo et al. (2010) asserts that civic engagement in housing is actually determined by the people‘s sense of satisfaction; in other words, those who become more civically engaged are ―people who are happy with the place they live and what it has to offer them‖ (p.456). Resident satisfaction, particularly in terms of social, educational and basic infrastructure services, is a determinant for community engagement in self-help housing.
Miceli et al. (Miceli, Sazama, & Sirmans, 1994) argues that one way to respond to issues housing affordability housing is the formation of Limited Equity Cooperatives (LECs). They require residents to contribute ―sweat equity‖ by working or providing
Chapter 3 – Community Participation: The Link 36
manual labour to construct or rehabilitate their units, asserting that this requirement ―not only lowers the dollar cost of construction but also induces self-selection of residents who will take pride in their units and therefore maintain them over time‖ (p.474).
However, an increasing number of studies assert that community participation can also bring negative outcomes in participatory housing provision (Davidson, Johnson, Lizarralde, Dikmen, & Sliwinski, 2007; Lizarralde & Massyn, 2008). A South African case study, for example, identified negative outcomes of housing such as social tension, disillusion, conflict and social fragmentation as a result of inadequate socio-cultural and historical knowledge of the community (Mafukidze & Hoosen, 2009). The authors argue that the tensions that influence the trajectory of community participation in housing can be minimised by well-informed tactical drivers, knowledge of multiple identities, and by partnering with local leadership and influential members of the community (Mafukidze & Hoosen, 2009).
In other words, to improve outcomes, self-help housing should strengthen community organisation and its ―ability to command support and loyalty from members as well as the respect of agencies‖ (Steinberg, 1992: 375). Sheng (1990) examined community participation in various low income housing projects in developing countries and argued that community participation in housing refers to the involvement by communities as a whole, as well as of individual members. In most cases, public housing agencies lack the skills to organise communities. At the same time, social welfare departments employ social workers and community organisers but lack the technical knowledge. Hence in several instances, the responsibility of organising communities to participate is better handled by NGOs who have more flexible capabilities to address the housing needs of poor families collaboratively (Sheng, 1990).
The following section presents three case studies of self-help and aided self-help programs that demonstrate how participatory housing processes facilitate the cooperation of various participating sectors. Consistent with the case study undertaken in this thesis, these programmes are supported by Government and NGOs, namely, the
Chapter 3 – Community Participation: The Link 37
Million Houses Program in Sri Lanka, the People‘s Housing Process in Africa and the Kampung Improvement Program in Indonesia.
Million Houses Programme (MHP)
Research into programs delivering aided self-help housing in Sri Lanka has highlighted the contribution made not only by the beneficiaries who put their labour into housing construction, but also by the facilitators who help develop more effective strategies for housing provision. Joshi and Sohail Khan (2010) describe how an enabling environment involved a ‗multi-pronged support through facilitators‘ (p.306) to increase housing access. Their analysis of the Million Houses Programme (MHP) offers insights into effective strategies for aided self-help.
The MHP became the program to deliver the national housing policy in 1983. The program has been emphasising collaboration in programs providing new house construction, upgrading of existing houses and development of sites and services. A number of local government organisations contributed in the process: In 1985, 12 Municipal Councils and 39 Urban Councils launched sub-programmes for urban housing with the assistance of the Government who institutionalised the Community Development Council (CDC) to facilitate a participatory decision process and implementation of Urban Basic Services Improvement Programme (UBSIP). The UBSIP provided the mechanism for decision-making to improve the physical and social environment of a settlement; working with and maintaining relationships with NGOs and civil society groups. The success of the MHP‘s approach in the 1980s became a leading example for other developing countries.
However, as the involvement of key decision-makers in monitoring and managing the programme reduced over time, the momentum of the MHP rapidly decelerated. As the CDC was highly politicised, it was eventually phased out. Analysis of the MHP processes reveals that at the core of participatory housing projects lies ―the role of different actors working towards a vision and action that were supported at national level‖ (p.313). It demonstrates the importance of an organisation – in this case, the
Chapter 3 – Community Participation: The Link 38
CDC – explicitly supporting participatory processes. This case study shows that the successful implementation of housing programmes can be achieved through the participation of political decision-makers, professionals and NGOs. They can also be assisted by informal facilitation at the field level where local needs and opportunities are identified and problems can be resolved in a pragmatic way.
The People‟s Housing Process (PHP)
In South Africa, Landman and Napier (2010) reveal that programs that aim to support self-help models has not been fully implemented in the country. The authors argue that the small uptake of the self-help approach could mainly be attributed to the role of the state, combined with ―consideration of the local market, land supply patterns, land values and housing mix‖ (p.299).
The People‘s Housing Process (PHP) was identified as one of the South Africa‘s national housing strategies in 1994 and officially launched in 1998. It comprised a state support programme to assist people who wished to build their homes themselves by providing serviced site and a small core shelter with basic services. The post-apartheid government proposed self-help housing as a solution to the high level of poverty especially after the shelter crisis in 1994. The PHP provided a mechanism to allow people to collectively pool their resources and build homes by contributing their labour in both rural and urban areas. While owner-built housing in rural areas was a relatively new form of settlement in South Africa, self-development in urban areas tended to be a process of consolidation or upgrading of existing homes.
Although a government-led program, the PHP was promoted by many non- governmental organisations in South Africa. The Homeless People‘s Federation, for example, created a revolving fund to provide credit to the poor and proposed what they termed ‗people-centred development‘, an approach that aimed to build community trust and transfer skills, arguing for a ―progressive improvement of the housing environment‖ (p.300). Other NGOs also supported the self-help mechanism of the PHP, including the Development Action Group (DAG), the Planact, and the Afesis-corplan. But
Chapter 3 – Community Participation: The Link 39
despite this support and that from international organisations, PHP projects have faced competition with the so called ‗give-away houses‘ that are delivered at a faster pace than self-built options. This is inherently because of the political pressure of delivering quantity, rather than quality, for electoral reasons. Only 1% of state-provided houses had been delivered using this aided self-help (Napier, 2003). The low-income housing landscape remains dominated by state-allocated housing that do not require sweat equity or physical input under the PHP.
Aided self-help housing nonetheless deserves more attention as a housing mechanism in South Africa. Newton (2013) highlights the value of intangible and symbolic meanings of house and home as a central factor for housing provision. Significantly, the author argues the importance of obtaining the support of government and NGOs in developing the aided self-approach.
One of the greatest challenges in this regard is to assist both communities and local governments in gaining an insight in the functioning of the PHP, as it is a complex system when it is put to practise, and here NGOs are important. […] In this way an assisted self-help housing approach can take on a more hybrid form, one in which both NGOs and local government work closely together (Newton, 2013:p.650).
For Newton, the PHP has been advocated as a more satisfying program that enables the people to realise their housing needs and aspirations. However, the collaborative support of both NGOs and local government is necessary to overcome challenges in implementing the self-help housing program in South Africa.
The Kampung Improvement Programme (KIP)
Village communities, known as kampong 6 or kampung in Indonesia have been developed through the self-help approach. Tunas and Peresthu (2010) explain how
6 A kampong (or kampong in other literature) is ―a self-initiated urban settlement characterised not only by informality, irregularity and illegality, but also by its flexibility and its resilience Tunas, D., & Peresthu, A. (2010). The self-help housing in Indonesia: The only option for the poor? Habitat International, 34(3), 315-322.
Chapter 3 – Community Participation: The Link 40
residents in low-cost and self-managed areas rely on their own efforts as well as their social networks to form a kampung ―where family connections and neighbourly assistance are elements of the important social networks‖ (p.316).
The Kampung Improvement Programme (KIP) was designed to upgrade squatter housing and came into effect in 1972 under the UNDP/World Bank Development Project in Indonesia. The goal of the programme was to improve not only the ―infrastructure and living conditions, but also the socio-economic situation‖ (Silas, 1996 as cited in Tunas & Peresthu, 2010: 318). It was based on the site-and-services concept where land and basic services are provided. A subsequent report by the World Bank identified problem areas with the program including limited housing improvement; lack of guaranteed security of tenure; lack of skilled project facilitator; poor organisation and management; and, no integration between projects and city development in general (World Bank, 2003 as cited in Tunas & Peresthu, 2010).
The production of subsidised housing was reduced after the World Bank shifted towards neo-liberalism in the 1980s (Tunas & Peresthu, 2010). Under the neo-liberal policy, the government aimed to increase the participation of the private sector instead of spending on public housing construction. By the start of the 1990s, the deregulation of public infrastructure and privatisation of large areas had resulted in a real estate boom in Jakarta. Housing development took place at the urban periphery, far from the urban core. Traveling between housing areas and the city centres resulted in traffic congestion, air pollution and increased fuel consumption. The conversion of fertile agricultural land sites for housing development resulted in local social tensions as well as unbalanced food chain supply at a national level (Peresthu 2005, as cited in Tunas & Peresthu, 2010).
Despite such problems, the authors conclude that because of the low-income of most kampung users, self-help housing, which could be associated with the neo-liberal agenda, remains the only option for the poor in the short term. It should be encouraged ―to establish a formal and permanent status in terms of legal rights and to promote economic, social and cultural viability‖ (Tunas & Peresthu, 2010: 321)
Chapter 3 – Community Participation: The Link 41
As shown in Figure 3-1 below, the rapid scale and breadth of urbanisation will continue to expand informally in Jakarta and other secondary cities. As economic prospects are expected to drive people to the city, they argue the need to find a well-planned development concept that will ensure quality of life for low-income families in Indonesia in the long term.
Figure 3-1 Kampung Improvement Programme (KIP) in Jakarta Photo by: Aga Khan Development Network. (Source: http://www.akdn.org/architecture/project.asp?id=1. Accessed: 21 August 2013)
In another study of kampung development in Surabaya and Jakarta, Steinberg (1992) identified some of the disadvantages and highlighted the potentials of the KIP. As the program concentrated on providing facilities in public space at the time of analysis, there had been no significant household improvements there and community participation had been limited to meetings and consultations; there was no strategic action taken. Residents expected government to maintain infrastructure, although many utilities were hardly maintained. Thus, Steinberg suggests that efforts to rediscover the traditional practice of participation, gotong royong must be promoted in kampung development, particularly in the upgrading of infrastructure and services. He argues
Chapter 3 – Community Participation: The Link 42
how gotong royong, being one of the country‘s national principles, must be considered as the basis for undertaking housing activities in kampongs in Indonesia. Gotong royong is a traditional participation model which places high recognition on the community interest above the individual interests... Gotong royong, especially in the former principalities and in areas ruled by the colonial government, also refers to cooperative activity between large numbers of community members in completing a project considered useful for the sake of the public… It is deemed to be the very basis of the Indonesian way of life. (Steinberg, 1992: 358)
Case studies on self-help housing, as cited in the literature above highlight how prioritising support from the government, NGOs, and the private sector mobilises the end users to participate. The causality between participation and effectiveness of projects is yet unclear; however, there has been theoretical assumptions of how self-help housing and the role of enabling environments, as asserted by Joshi and Sohail Khan (2010), are expected to improve the quality and sustainability of housing programs.
Mansuri and Rao (2004) argue that key concepts in participation ―need to be detailed in a ―context-specific manner to avoid unintended outcomes‖ (p.1). The need to coordinate people‘s planning with state planning requires ―reorienting policies to include community participation and self-help‖ (Steinberg, 1992, p. 37), and staying within the ambiguous boundaries that separate social practices from political space and tolerance.
Indigenous populations in particular do not fit easily within mainstream housing policies. However, there are very few studies that adopt a contextual analysis of remote area housing using specific criteria. One of such studies is done by Minnery et al. (2000) who analysed housing provision for remote Indigenous populations in Australia. Using a ‗best practice‘ framework, the authors applied a different approach beyond mainstream housing provision. Essentially, this involves treating housing as a dynamic system which incorporates needs assessment, design and development, implementation and post-construction.
Incorporating various studies in relation to indigenous housing provision, the authors prescribed a model incorporating six crucial components. These are: (1) funding, (2)
Chapter 3 – Community Participation: The Link 43
the availability of appropriate skills, (3) technology, (4) the organisational structure, (5) the cultural context, and (6) the supporting hard and soft infrastructure (p.245-247).7 While the analysis of best practice tends to be subjective, Minnery et al. (2000) relates some underlying trends: Among the six elements of housing practice, funding is apparently a weak area. The adoption of flexible approaches is hindered by the multiplicity of funding agencies and channels; Considerable effort has been expended for skills transfer, although only a institutions could be self-sufficient and independent of government support; Lack of linkage between companies offering conventional building technology is also a problem, particularly the dissemination of appropriate building solutions to be implemented by the community.
The analytical model adopted by Minnery et al. was applied to Indigenous Housing located in Australia. However, the authors concluded how the model could be used more widely, citing for example, its application to the community housing sector. The components of housing provision (funding, skills, organisation, technology, culture, infrastructure) are also widely applicable, in, for example the community housing sector. Given the links developed in the study to the overarching conceptual paradigms used in housing studies… wider application seems both possible and useful.
It is in this premise that this framework – as will be discussed in the research design in Chapter 4 – will be used to assess community participation in housing provision in GK communities.
7 Minnery et al. (2000) enumerates references for determining the six components of housing provision: Indigenous Housing and National Housing Policy (1996c), ―Land of Promises‖ (Coombs et al, 1989), Dept of Health, Housin, Local Government and Community Services (1993), House of Representaties Standing Committee (1992), ―Housing Needs of Indigenous Australians‖ (Jones, 1991), ―Aboriginal housing: The state of the art. Architecture Australia (Memmot, 1988), Uses or Abuses: Aboriginal usage of conventional housing (Ross, 1984), ―Homeswest management support program‖ (Seller, 1997).
Chapter 3 – Community Participation: The Link 44
3.2 Tourism development in housing environments
Certain housing environments provide opportunities for tourism development. This is manifested in the development of tourism programs such as homestays, service learning and volunteer tourism. The following review of tourism development within housing environments examines how tourism creates mutual benefits and interactions between hosts and tourists in a way that provides a richer and more meaningful tourist experience.
3.2.1 Homestay
Several studies define homestay as a form of tourist accommodation that provides an opportunity for tourists to gain informal learning of the locals‘ daily life (Harun, Hassan, Razzaq, Rasid, & Mustafa, 2012; Kontogeorgopoulos, Churyen, & Duangsaeng, 2013; Razzaq et al., 2011). These studies highlight the interactions between hosts and tourists that are created in direct or indirect ways depending on the types of accommodation and immersion. Tourists stay as guests in local homes to learn the community‘s way of life from the host family and local tourist guides. The hosts exercise their capacity to transfer information to visitors about their culture and livelihood activities.
The involvement of communities in homestay programs stimulated the transformation of the design of the landscape as well as built environments in tourist destinations. For instance, in Kerala, India, some owners of heritage homes have participated in a tourism program called Heritage Home Protection Scheme where heritage houses are utilised as tourist accommodations. Baker (2008) documents how local community members supported the scheme and were encouraged to undergo home improvements in order to cater to international and domestic tourists who want to experience the Kerala culture. In the years that follow, homestays in Kerala were not merely seen as a rural tourism program, rather, it has become a ―strategy for rural development‖ (Subash, 2014, p. 1) Likewise, physical developments in homestay accommodations in Botiza Romania, demonstrate how the locals engage in intense design and building activities for tourism
Chapter 3 – Community Participation: The Link 45
purposes, such as decorating facades, building gates, and decorating gardens (Cipollari, 2008). Such improvements were done without compromising their customs and traditions, and to ―transform local architecture […] into valuable objects synonymous to tradition and authenticity‖ (Cipollari, 2008) p.132.
Paradoxically, the challenge to display authenticity has encouraged a customisation of guesthouses. In Lijang China, for example, the hosts initiated improvements using local resources and building technology such as in the installation of flush toilets, telephones, soundproofing, and new large windows (Wang, 2007). Wang (2007) argues that these developments must not suggest the loss of authenticity. The improvements done on guesthouses are rather the result of the hosts‘ incorporation of the tourist‘s tastes and preference that entails material and imagined work; it is a creative product constructed with effort from different individuals in the community. Parallel to this is how tourism is also part of the local culture. That all cultures continually reinvent themselves explains why authenticity is customised (Greenwood, 1982, as cited in Prins & Webster, 2010, p. 27).
Figure 3-2 Guesthouses in Lijang, China (Source: http://www.ghcasia.com/en/industry-insights/luxe-lijang.html)
Homestay programs in Malaysia is yet another example of how guest houses helped maintain the unique cultural practices in the region, and developed village tourism (M. Bhuiyan, Aman, Siwar, Ismail, & Mohd-Jani, 2014; M. A. H. Bhuiyan, Siwar, & Ismail, 2013; Zeppel, 2006). For Zeppel (2006), the locals find it easy to engage in homestay programs as it enables them to carry out their household responsibilities while they perform hospitality services to augment their family income. The process was
Chapter 3 – Community Participation: The Link 46
perceived as liberating, especially for women, as it promises economic opportunities for their region‘s poorest villages. In Kelantan Malaysia in particular, the provision of homestay accommodation has increased local participation in tourism development particularly in terms of ―hospitality, entrepreneurship development, small scale investment, [conservation of] tourism resource, and cultural and social benefits‖ (M. Bhuiyan, et al., 2014, p. 239).
3.2.1 Service Learning
Service learning programs, as defined in literature, integrates volunteering with active and experiential learning (2000; Lyons & Wearing, 2012; Prins & Webster, 2010; Sin, 2009, 2010). In particular, volunteering is encouraged by sending organisations and incorporated into the academic curriculum. These programs aim to develop the roles of students as insiders, and not just visitors or tourists (Baker, 2008; Kershaw, 2009; Mekawy, 2012; Nathan, 2002; Prins & Webster, 2010; Walter, 2009; Wang, 2007).
Studies show evidence of how International Service Learning (ISL) programs not only have the ability to enhance cultural understanding, build cultural competencies, and increase intercultural communication. They also foster a sense of multicultural and intercultural education between students and the community (Berry & Chisholm, 1999 and 2002; Tonkin & Quiroga, 2004, as cited in Prins & Webster, 2010, p. 7). However, when students are confined to visitor centres only, they have less opportunities to interact with local people and so remain in a ―staged‖ tourist platform (Rios, 2005). For this, MacCannel (1973) suggests that in order to maximise host-tourist interactions, participants should move from the ―front region‖ to the ―back region‖, a place where they can experience a wider slice of the community life of the locals by being around their normal daily routines.
That service learning produces mutual benefits for both the hosts and participants can be a primary motivation for schools, universities and other institutions to incorporate engage pedagogy into their educational programs (Tazim Jamal, Taillon, & Dredge, 2011; McMillan & Stanton, 2014; Pless, Maak, & Stahl, 2012). Through volunteering,
Chapter 3 – Community Participation: The Link 47
―tourists learn to understand and appreciate local knowledge, and in the process contribute to the sustenance of the community‖ (Walter, 2009, p. 513). While participants experience rich and meaningful nature tours combined with a social contribution, the hosts develop their communication and hospitality skills. Environmental adult education, as described by Walter (2009), is better acquired from interactions with the hosts, who are equally capable of caring and educating tourists. Thus, service learning programs have in fact increased the competitive advantage of tourism operators.
3.2.2 Volunteer Tourism
The growing interest in volunteer tourism, is evident in the increasing number of studies which explore the potentials and challenges of this alternative form of tourism involving volunteering (Broad, 2003; Brown, 2005; Brown & Morrison, 2003; Halpenny & Caissie, 2003; Holmes, et al., 2010; McIntosh & Zahra, 2007; Raymond & Hall, 2008; Sin, 2009; S. Wearing & N. G. McGehee, 2013).
To better understand the concept of volunteer tourism, Sally Brown (2005) identifies the four major motivational themes of individuals who volunteer while on a leisure trip. First, volunteering while vacationing enables one to physically and emotionally immerse in the local culture and community. Second, participants desire to give back to the less privileged in order to feel that they do well in life. Third, trips bring together people who share common interests and values. Fourth, the experience can create family-bonding opportunities, where parents can teach their children the value of giving as well as understanding of the world and the environment. In essence, volunteer tourism gave rise to a new dimension in tourism phenomenon which involves a sense of place and spirituality; an altruistic theme which focuses on ―how participants make a difference in helping others‖ (Brown, 2005, p. 493).
Likewise, based on the experience of 11 volunteers who travelled to South Africa, Harng (2010) summarises the four major expressions of volunteer tourists: (1) ―I want to travel‖, which refers to the desire to go to a place that is far-away and exotic; (2) ―I
Chapter 3 – Community Participation: The Link 48
want to contribute‖, which refers to the desire to do community work; (3) ―I want to see if I can do this‖, which refers to wanting to see how one does with a highly adventurous challenge; and, (4) ―It‘s more convenient this way‖, which refers to wanting to go on a trip with a group. These expressions typically emphasise personal motivations that do not directly imply a concern for the community, and thus reflect the ambiguities in volunteer tourism as argued by Lyon (2012). Ambiguities particularly occur where tourists come either as service learners or coerced volunteers, or both, revealing thus that volunteer tourism may not be primarily altruistic at all, rather, mandatory.
Sin (2010) nonetheless contends how problems were created as a result of the influx of tourism, such as tensions and unhappiness, ―because of insensitivities on the part of volunteer tourists‖ (2010: 988). For example, in the Gibbon Rehabilitation project in Thailand, Broad (2003) documents the experience of volunteer participants who lived in shared accommodation in a small village on the island. While the volunteers have attested to the positive personal outcomes of their immersion in the Thai culture and way of life, they have also expressed how they have created cultural assumptions. For instance, they assumed that local people don‘t have any capacity to improve their situation as they tend to be satisfied with their poor circumstances (Broad, 2003). As this was not the case, the author suggested that well-designed social activities must be put in place in order to avoid misleading cultural assumptions.
Without proper planning, volunteer programs can create ―cultural misunderstandings‖ and reinforce ―cultural stereotypes‖ Raymond & Hall (2008, p. 530), unless sending organisations develop and manage cross-cultural understandings between the participants and the local community. Wearing & Mcgehee (2013) suggests that setting standards would ―bring about less market-based and more genuine local community projects… grounded in the cultures and daily lives of local communities‖ (p.1.).
Despite the risks involved, Sin (2010) argues that volunteer tourism is supposed to be better than nothing at all. He asserts that, “… those centred around community homestays where tourists live and learn from the locals, rather than those that attempt to go and help the
Chapter 3 – Community Participation: The Link 49
poorest of the lot, may in fact be more sustainable forms and models - at least in providing an income through tourism.” (Sin, 2010: 991).
In America, findings of a study on tourism-reliant communities stress how social movements, which has often emerged out of economic uncertainties, has cultivated ―consciousness-raising, networking and self-efficacy‖ (McGehee, Kline, & Knollenberg, 2014, p. 1).
The benefits of volunteer tourism are likewise manifested in the Habitat for Humanity (HFH)8 in South Africa. Stoddart & Rogerson (2004) reveals how the International Global Village Work Camp organised by the HFH demonstrates the potential of self- help housing to provide tourism experiences to their volunteers. This self-help housing program has engaged local and international volunteers to participate. As such, For the groups of volunteers involved in building houses in some of South Africa‟s poorest urban settlements the focus was squarely upon forming a link with local people in a manner that enables volunteers to have a tourism experience that does incorporate social value into identity. (Stoddart & Rogerson, 2004, p. 317: 317)
Volunteer tourism in the HFH is defined by the participants‘ ―educational and spiritual experience within a cross-cultural environment‖ (Stoddart & Rogerson, 2004: 313). By working alongside beneficiaries in building affordable housing, volunteers acquired an awareness and understanding of the value of helping and sharing9.
From the aforementioned review of literature, conceptual overlaps between these three programs are revealed. First, homestays are motivated by education and tourism; second, service learning programs are motivated by education and community service; third, volunteer tourism programs are motivated by education and tourism. Nonetheless, as illustrated in the diagram in Figure 3-3 below, these three programs
8 Habitat for Humanity, an international housing organisation operating in 87 countries, was started by a small Christian Organisation in the USA (Stoddart & Rogerson, 2004).
9 The HFH is founded upon the Christian faith and follows Christian ethics of helping and sharing, especially the poverty-stricken communities around the world. The HFH mobilises residents to participate in the construction of their own homes with the support of the national and local partners, producing what is known as ―sweat equity‖ which supplements mortgage payments paid into a revolving fund to sustain building more low-cost houses.
Chapter 3 – Community Participation: The Link 50
have a common objective, which is, to create mutual benefits for both the hosts and the visitors.
Figure 3-3 Conceptual overlaps between service learning, homestays and volunteer tourism (Source: Author)
In summary, tourism development in housing environments such as in homestays, service learning and volunteer tourism demonstrate the significance of local participation in community development. However, despite this, the relationship between housing and tourism remained relatively undeveloped. In particular, little is known about the capacity of residents to be involved in collective action for both sectors of development.
3.3 Gawad Kalinga and bayanihan
This section introduces Gawad Kalinga (GK) and the application of bayanihan as GK‘s strategy for housing provision and tourism development for poor communities in the Philippines. While little is known of bayanihan in the existing literature; however, I present herein an overview of bayanihan pertinent to its contribution to participatory housing provision and tourism development in GK communities. The argument herein forms a basis for the conceptual framework for this research.
Chapter 3 – Community Participation: The Link 51
The Gawad Kalinga10 (GK) Community Foundation is a non-profit organisation that was founded in 1995 as an outreach project of the Couples for Christ (CFC) Movement for slum areas in the Philippines. Essentially, the various programs of GK focus on poverty eradication through housing provision that is ―innovative, liveable and prosperous‖ (Habaradas and Aquino, 2010:1).
Villanueva (2010) relays GK‘s beginnings: The first GK community building project in 1995 was organised by the CFC is in Bagong Silang11 in Caloocan City. Bagong Silang is the largest barangay 12 (population-wise) and the biggest government-sponsored relocation site for squatters. But because of the lack of social services, government assistance, poor infrastructure, unemployment and unsafe and poor living conditions, the government had to abort the project. Yet, through the support of public and private sectors, GK organised the self-help building of community facilities including 5 basketball courts, 8 deep wells, 6 schools, and 2 libraries. Succeeding years marked the increase of housing and community activities out of which GK created social networks needed to establish itself as a non-profit NGO in 2003. It has since then formed numerous partnerships and housing initiatives for poor communities. In 2010, GK accomplished over 2,000 communities in various stages of development including access to education, health, training, livelihood and capacity building services (GK Monitoring Report, 2011). Although GK is a recognised NGO, Brillantes & Fernandez (2011) argues that with its goal of ―integrated, holistic and sustainable communities‖ (p.12), GK has become a national movement for social quality and civic engagement that brings together various government, business sectors, and civil society.
10 Gawad Kalinga comes from two Filipino words which mean ―give‖ and ―care‖ respectively. www.urbandictionary.com
11 Bagong Silang is derived from two Filipino words: bago (which means new); and silang (which means birth). www.urbandictionary.com
12 Barangay is the smallest geopolitical unit in the Philippines. Several barangays make up municipalities or cities. The term is from the Malay word balangay (sailboat). It referred to well-established villages that existed prior to the Spanish colonization of the Philippines. As of December 2007, the Philippines have 41,995 barangays in 1,497 municipalities and 135 cities that comprise 81 provinces (NSCB 2007).
Chapter 3 – Community Participation: The Link 52
Table 3-1 below provides an overview of GK‘s achievement in 2008.
Table 3-1 Summary of GK achievements as of April 2008 (Source: Villanueva, 2010) Aspects Results Villages 1,700 + in various stages of development Homes Close to 30,000 Schools At least 300 SIBOL,SAGIP, and SIGA 385 villages have one or a combination of the three programs Community farms 420,107 farms produced 75 metric tons of vegetables in 2009 For 17,000 families Community health Established in 384 GK sites programs Partners 360+ mayors, over 150 schools and universities, over 100 corporations, tens of thousands of volunteers (expatriate and local). Partnerships with UCLA Public Health, Yale, Harvard, among others. Resources generated Anecdotal estimates is at least PhP6 Billion pesos in the first four years Awards The GK founder has won a number of other awards: Ramon Magsaysay Award 2006; Ozanam Award (Ateneo de Manila University), 2003; Manuel L. Quezon Award, 2006; Gawad Haydee Yorac, 2006; Jose P. Laurel Award 2006; TOFIL 2006, People of the Year, Philippine Star 2006; Filipino of the Year, Philippine Daily Inquirer 2006; Mabuhay Awards- American Field Service Awards 2007; Service Above Self Award, Rotary International District 3780 Quezon City 2007; Paul Harris Fellow, Rotary Foundation 2007
Rating Charity Navigator 4 – star rating Expansion Villages set up or in organisation stage in Papua New Guinea, E.Timor, India, Cambodia, South Africa, and Vietnam. Regional hub office established in Singapore.
For Brillantes & Fernandez (2011) GK is essentially a radical form of citizenship which ―follows the old-fashioned Filipino philosophy called bayanihan‖ (p.24). The painting shown in Figure 3-4 is an image that represents bayanihan as a traditional Filipino practice of cooperation. Historically, it refers to a community event (Baldazo, 1991) where people gather and help fellow members of their community to relocate, by manually carrying their dwellings from one location to another. In contemporary times
Chapter 3 – Community Participation: The Link 53
however, the local understanding of bayanihan has constantly evolved as various forms of cooperation have been practised in different settings. 13
Figure 3-4 Traditional image of bayanihan rendered in oil painting by Joselito Barcelona (1993) (Source: http://tonyocruz.com. Accessed 15 August 2013)
The concept of community participation in the Philippines is defined within its culture of cooperation and community relationships called bayanihan. Bayanihan (translated as ‗cooperative undertaking‘)14 is a demonstration of a traditional and cultural form of cooperation in the Philippines in what GK calls a ―nation-building movement‖ (Habaradas & Aquino, 2011: 1). It is a conglomeration of different cultural practices and traits including pagtulong (helping), pakikisama (comradeship), pakikitungo (pleasant dealing), and pakikipagkapwa-tao (sharing with humanity). Traditionally, bayanihan is performed by community members helping a friend or family to relocate their houses, by manually carrying nipa (grass) huts from one location to another (Baldazo, 1991). In contemporary times however, the concept of bayanihan has evolved to imply any kind of collaboration meant for different purposes and approaches, such as for web-based volunteer computing systems (Sarmenta & Hirano, 1999) and for strategies in counselling children (Salvador, et al., 1997). Nonetheless its concept as a
13 Bayanihan has evolved for many years. It refers to any kind of collaboration intended for different purposes and approaches, such as for web-based volunteer computing systems Sarmenta, L., & Hirano, S. (1999). Bayanihan: building and studying web-based volunteer computing systems using Java. Future Generation Computer Systems, 15(5–6), 675-686. and for strategies in counselling children Salvador, D., Omizo, M., & Kim, B. (1997). Bayanihan: Providing effective counseling strategies with children of Filipino ancestry. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 25(3), 201-209..
14 Tagalog-English Dictionary. www.bansa.org/dictionaries/tgl/
Chapter 3 – Community Participation: The Link 54
housing strategy remains undeveloped in research and development policy even in the Philippine literature. This thesis thus seeks to address this gap.
3.3.1 Bayanihan and GK‟s housing provision
While other participatory housing studies emphasise self-help as active participation of the local population (Gilbert, 2000; Marais, et al., 2003; Mathey, 1991; Turner, 1972), the focus of GK in applying bayanihan is on the strengthening of relationships between individuals and their community (Villanueva, 2010). In this regard, GK‘s development paradigm is parallel to Lang & Hornburg‘s concept of building social capital (1998) through social bonding (internal relationships) and social bridging (external relationships) in development processes, as argued in Section 2.1.
Firstly, social bonding is manifested in the establishment of the GK community organisation known as Kapitbahayan (KB). The KB takes a lead role in getting resident beneficiaries to participate in the various community development programs, including education, health, environment and agriculture, and child and youth programs. With these programs, residents are empowered such that ―instead of looking at members of the poor communities as […] mere recipients of donation or as beneficiaries of support programs, GK considers them as active participants in the development process‖ (Habaradas & Aquino, 2011:p.50)
Secondly, social bridging is reflected in the active involvement of people from diverse sectors of society in poverty eradication through housing provision. The founder of GK, Antonio Meloto asserts that GK has ―spawned immense generosity and massive volunteerism‖ (Meloto, 2009: 6) where thousands of volunteers from different sectors all come together in a spirit of bayanihan. The practice of bayanihan in GK Communities characterises the multi-sector dimension of development which was pointed out in Section 3.1 as crucial to implementing participatory housing provision. As Abueva (2009) puts it, ―the ultimate end of bayanihan is to promote patriotism,
Chapter 3 – Community Participation: The Link 55
societal renewal and nation building for a just and caring society‖ (Brillantes & Fernandez, 2011:24, quoting Abueva 2009).
Funding for any GK development involved resource-build up strategies to sustain the partnerships and resource requirements of the GK operation (Habaradas 2010). This includes (1) donation of land from both private entities and government referred to as land banking; (2) formation and training caretaker teams; (3) engaging other sectors to volunteer, such as those from the educational and corporate institutions, civic and religious groups, and private individuals including tourists; (4) engaging local government units for township development; and, (5) qualifying and preparing potential KB members. The resource build-up is primarily handled by the regional or provincial units of GK.
The development of GK communities thus embodies the synergistic view of social capital creation described by Woolcock & Narayan (2000), as discussed in Section 2.2, in that while the basic principle of bayanihan is simply helping one‘s neighbour (Brillantes & Fernandez, 2011), it is also characterised by ―relationships built from social trust‖ (Habaradas, 2010, p. 14). The success of the early GK communities, which were achieved largely through the hard work and sacrifice of the kapitbahayan [neighbourhood], and the dedication of the pioneering volunteers, led to the exponential growth of GK. […] Today, local government executives from across the political spectrum have brought in GK into their provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays‟ corporate donors have poured in millions of pesos to build entire villages and to support the various programs of GK; […]; Filipino expatriates, and even foreigners) have contributed their time, talent and treasure to support the GK mission. (Habaradas, 2010: 14)
Chapter 3 – Community Participation: The Link 56
Figure 3-5 Collaboration of people from various sectors GK Calaanan relocation sites. (Source: http://cagayandeorocityinformationoffice.wordpress.com. Accessed: 16 August 2013)
From the review of literature, an operational definition of bayanihan is revealed. Bayanihan is the multi-sector participation that facilitates community building for the poor communities in the Philippines. Its application as a housing approach by GK is particularly motivated by philanthropy and patriotism among the members of the different sectors involved, including the residents themselves. Bayanihan is a Filipino culture of cooperation in what GK calls a ―nation-building movement‖ (Habaradas & Aquino, 2011:p.1). GK posits that it follows a holistic program that empowers communities. Yet there is yet little evidence of the extent in which communities have engaged in bayanihan activities, as well as the nature and attributes of bayanihan and how it contributes to the effectiveness of community participation; both points are addressed in this thesis.
3.3.2 Bayanihan and tourism development in GK Communities
GK claims that one of the social impacts of the GK villages is the development of tourism (Villanueva, 2010). Its tourism program, GK Mabuhay was established in 2005 to promote Filipino culture by undertaking bayanihan activities. GK emphasised the potential of all sites to become tourist destinations because of the uniqueness of the villages and the ―inherent warmth and generosity of the GK residents‖ (GK Website
Chapter 3 – Community Participation: The Link 57
2010). In 2010, the Department of Tourism partnered with Gawad Kalinga in ―building sustainable houses in places worth visiting‖ (DOT, 2010).
GK Mabuhay is one of eight community development programs as listed in the GK Field Manual.15 Mabuhay is a Filipino expression for ―live‖ or ―long life‖16. It also means ―welcome‖, and is commonly used as a formal way of greeting. Villanueva (2010) describes how the term ‗mabuhay‘ mirrors how GK villages are supposed to be welcoming to visitors and partners who are interested in participating in bayanihan activities. Through the GK Mabuhay program, the GK villages are promoted as tourist destinations .
Figure 3-6 The GK Mabuhay promotional slogan: “Building communities to end poverty" (Source: http://www.gk1world.com/HomeDevModel. Accessed: 16 August 2013)
The development of GK communities thus provides opportunities for tourism. Just like the concept of homestay, service learning and volunteer tourism discussed in Section 3.2, bayanihan activities in GK communities aim to benefit both host communities and their visitors. Volunteering in particular stimulates tourist activities that create livelihood opportunities and other tourism benefits for the GK residents who participate in host-tourist interactions. Homes and community infrastructure in the village serve as ―accommodations for volunteers and visiting partners who want to be immersed in
15 GK Field Manual is used as a template for developing 8 development programs in all the GK Villages throughout the country, namely, the GK Community Infrastructures Program (CIP), the Child and Youth Development (CYD) Sibol, Child and Youth Development (CYD) for Sagip and Siga, the Community Health (Gawad Kalusugan), Community Empowerment (Kapitbahayan), Tourism (Mabuhay), Environment (Green Kalinga), Productivity (Bayan-anihan). The manual is also used as a guide for volunteer activities called GK 1MB (1 Million Bayani).
16 www.urbandictionary.com
Chapter 3 – Community Participation: The Link 58
performing bayanihan activities‖ [Interview with GK Founder, Meloto 22/2/11] and in ―helping people and communities to become sustainable‖ (p.270).
Among the villages that are recognised by GK Mabuhay for its contribution in tourism development in their respective regions are the GK Pona Village in Libmanan and the GK Character Village in Iriga [GK website 2009]. These two communities, which are both located in the province of Cam Sur are included in the case study investigation in this thesis and will be elaborated in the succeeding chapters. While the aim of the GK organisation is ―to develop houses for low-income and marginalised communities‖ [GK Website 2009], this thesis argues that the host-tourist interactions in GK communities has induced social activities which combine meaningful tourism experiences with social responsibility.
Fundamentally, the few studies on GK highlight its accomplishments in quantitative terms particularly in establishing community building programs and house construction as shown on Table 3.1. Yet, the dearth of literature on GK and bayanihan shows a lack of knowledge on GK‘s qualitative success (or challenges), particularly in terms of resident participation. While GK communities have been associated with development processes in both housing and tourism, there is little evidence of its effectiveness in increasing the capacity of residents to be involved in these. Such qualitative gap is what this thesis aims to reinforce, through an investigation of bayanihan.
3.4 Conclusion
This chapter provided a basis for formulating the conceptual framework of this thesis. The review of literature reveals the growing importance of community participation in housing and tourism literature. It also revealed the potential of bayanihan in generating social capital and in establishing the link between housing provision and tourism development in GK communities.
Research on participatory housing provision, in particular self-help housing, highlights how housing processes promote people empowerment (Gilbert, 2000; Marais, et al.,
Chapter 3 – Community Participation: The Link 59
2003; Mathey, 1991; Turner, 1972). Self-help housing is most effective when it involves the participation of political decision makers, professionals and NGOs. In the Philippines, bayanihan was adopted by the NGO Gawad Kalinga as a strategy for housing provision. From the few studies pertaining to GK, Villanueva (2010) and Brillantes & Fernandez (2011) reveal evidences of the participation of various sectors in bayanihan activities in GK communities.
The operational definition of bayanihan as revealed from the review of literature is: Bayanihan is the multi-sector community participation that facilitates housing provision for the poor communities in the Philippines. Its application as a development strategy in GK communities is particularly motivated by philanthropy and patriotism among the members of the different sectors involved, including the residents themselves. The practice of bayanihan reflects tourism development in housing environments typically found in homestay, service learning and volunteer tourism programs. GK communities are promoted as tourism destinations, in as much as bayanihan activities have provided opportunities for direct host-tourist interactions and mutual benefits for both residents and visitors. Furthermore, the review of literature reveals the potential of bayanihan to characterise Woolcock & Narayan‘s synergistic view of social capital (2000), particularly in establishing and strengthening social networking and enabling environments. However, the causality between community participation in housing relevant to tourism development in GK Communities is unclear.
The conceptual framework diagram in Figure 3-7 below illustrates notions of bayanihan emerging from the review of literature presented in this chapter. The diagram presents a tourism-housing nexus wherein the focal point is community participation within the context of bayanihan, out of which social capital is generated and applied in housing provision and tourism development. This conceptual framework can be explored further in this thesis in order to extend the body of knowledge on tourism, housing and community participation.
Chapter 3 – Community Participation: The Link 60
Figure 3-7 Conceptual Framework Diagram: The tourism-housing nexus in GK Communities
As little is known of the concept and application of bayanihan in literature, there is a need to generate empirical data that will allow a rigid definition and characterisation of bayanihan to emerge and consequently ascertain this tourism-housing nexus as a development phenomenon. The analysis needs to be pursued in two levels: one is a macro-level exploration of causal, contextual and strategic factors affecting the development in GK communities, and the other looks at the micro-level exploration on the forms and extent of community participation in both housing provision and tourism development.
The next chapter elaborates the research framework and methods employed in this thesis for investigating bayanihan and its tendency to juxtapose housing and tourism in the context of community participation and social capital creation.
Chapter 3 – Community Participation: The Link 61
4. Research Design
In previous chapters, I presented the theoretical background and set out the conceptual framework for this study. I highlighted community participation in the context of bayanihan and presented the need to ascertain how bayanihan generates social capital as applied in both housing provision and tourism development.
This chapter presents the methodology for this research starting with a discussion of the conceptual framework, followed by the research methodology and methods of analysis. In order to determine how bayanihan is applied in GK and to characterise whether and how social capital is generated in the process, four villages in the City of Iriga and the Municipality of Libmanan were chosen as case communities located in Cam Sur, a province enlisted as one of the leading tourist destinations in the Philippines. The case study utilises data, which are derived from qualitative and quantitative methods and analysed using grounded theory and correlation analysis. The chapter details the conduct of the study and explains the process of investigating the implications of the actual practice of bayanihan in increasing the capacity of residents in tourism development.
4.1 The conceptual framework
The significance of community participation and social capital as a contribution to the sustainability of tourism ventures, particularly those of ecotourism was discussed in Chapter 2. In Chapter 3, GK‘s adoption of bayanihan as a multi-sector strategy for housing provision was proposed as potentially manifesting social capital and influencing tourism development in GK communities. However, there is a need to ascertain this tourism-housing nexus by generating empirical data that will allow a rigid
definition and characterisation of bayanihan to emerge. The following conceptual framework diagram in Figure 4-1 was introduced. It illustrates the tourism-housing nexus wherein the focal point is community participation encapsulated in bayanihan out of which social capital is generated and applied in housing provision and tourism development in GK communities.
Figure 4-1 Conceptual Framework Diagram: The tourism-housing nexus in GK Communities (Source: Author)
This study seeks to conduct an investigation of bayanihan which needs to be pursued in two levels: The first one is a macro-level assessment of causal, contextual and strategic factors affecting the development of tourism in GK communities. Utilising grounded theory coding, which is discussed further in this chapter – the analysis looks at factors which support or constrain the practice of bayanihan based on the combined perspectives of social capital introduced by Woolcock & Narayan (2000), Lang and Hornburg (1998) and Okazaki (2008). The second one is a micro-level assessment of the forms and extent of community participation. This is measured according to the criteria for housing evaluation suggested by Minnery et al. (2000) and principles of ecotourism evaluation proposed by Wallace (1996). Utilising correlation analysis, which is also discussed further in later sections, the analysis looks at the relationship of community participation in tourism development and housing provision.
4.1.1 Macro-level assessment: Social Capital as an analytical framework
There are two domains of development in which social capital is deemed relevant in this study: housing and tourism. Firstly, in relation to housing, Lang and Hornburg (1998) view the enhancement of social capital as a crucial aspect in the improvement of low- income neighbourhoods. For the authors, social capital influences the socio-economic
Chapter 4 – Research Design 63
conditions of communities, and provides strategic frameworks particularly for housing and urban policies. Secondly, in relation to tourism, Jones (2005) found evidence that a high level of social capital was instrumental in the development of ecotourism; likewise, it also manifests as a development outcome. The studies of Lang & Hornburg (1998), and Jones (2005) both assert how social capital needs to be incorporated as an analytical framework, being an essential component in the effectiveness of development processes.
Woolcock and Narayan, in the book, ―Social capital: Implications for development theory‖ (2000), mention the applicability of social capital to development theory, research and policy. The authors‘ formal definition of social capital is: ―social capital refers to the norms and networks that enable people to act collectively‖ (p.226). This definition aids in identifying four perspectives of social capital: 1. The communitarian view equates social capital with a high level of solidarity among local organisations which nonetheless limits a community‘s welfare within informal groupings like clubs, associations or civic groups. 2. The networks view accounts for associations among organisational entities which can provide a sense of identity and common purpose for the community members. It differentiates (1) intra-community ties, also referred to as ‗bonding‘, which cuts across social divides based on religion, class, ethnicity, gender and socioeconomic status, and, (2) extra-community ties referred to as ‗bridging‘ that considers outcomes of social capital for another otherwise similar group. 3. The institutional view stresses the importance of good governance that encourages and makes local programs work, enabling groups to act in their own interest. This depends on the quality of the formal institutions under which they reside. Under this view, failures within systems of governance, including the securing of rights and liberties, become impediments to progress and development. 4. The synergy view proposes to integrate both the networks view and institutional view wherein the synergy between government and citizen action is based on the concepts of ‗complementarity‘ and ‗embeddedness‘ (Evans, 1996). Complementarity refers to mutually supportive relations between public and private sectors, which facilitate exchanges among associations such as the chambers of
Chapter 4 – Research Design 64
commerce. Embeddedness refers to the nature and extent of association, which connects citizens with public officials, such as the employment of community members as government officials; these members become enmeshed in social relations. According to Woolcock & Narayan (Woolcock & Narayan, 2000: 236), this approach works only within ―performance-oriented organisational environments that are competent, coherent and credible‖ (p.236).
The four views are summarised in Table 4-1 below:
Table 4-1 Four views of social capital (Woolcock & Narayan, 2000: 239)
Perspective Actors Policy prescriptions COMMUNITARIAN VIEW Community groups Small is beautiful Local associations Voluntary organisations Recognize social assets of the poor NETWORKS VIEW Entrepreneurs Decentralize Bonding and bridging Business groups Create enterprise zones community ties Information brokers Bridge social divides INSTITUTIONAL VIEW Private and public sectors Grant civil and political liberties Political and legal Institute transparency and institutions accountability SYNERGY VIEW Community groups, civil Coproduction, complementarity; Community networks and society, firms, states Participation, linkages; Enhance the state-society relations capacity and scale of local organisations
Although there are conceptual overlaps in the aforementioned 4 views, this research emphasises the synergistic view of social capital. Using this view enables an integrated assessment of both networks and institutions involved in the practice of bayanihan in GK villages. It also takes into account the aspect of complementarity and embeddedness that occurs within multi-sector social relations.
4.1.2 Micro-level assessment: Community participation as an analytical framework
At the core of the tourism-housing nexus is community participation. As discussed in Chapter 2, Tosun (2000) argues how policy makers view community participation as an evolving concept as it may take different forms and creates ―socially desirable expectations‖ that are not easy to accomplish (p.616). Nonetheless what is generally
Chapter 4 – Research Design 65
incorporated in the various definitions of community participation is the perspective that ―the community is the main actor in development‖ (p.616).
This thesis thus highlights the importance of local involvement in the sustainability of tourism and housing. Firstly, researchers have argued how members of local communities can significantly contribute not only to the planning and management of tourism resources, but also to rectifying problems (Garrod, 2003; Simmons, 1994; Walter, 2009). Community-based ecotourism in particular, involves the local community by organising it as part of the governance structure (Trejos & Chiang, 2009). Secondly, the importance of active local participation is strongly manifested in housing literature, particularly those involving mutual help among residents in self-help housing (Gilbert, 2000; Marais, et al., 2003; Mathey, 1991; Turner, 1972). Choguill (2007) contends that strategies for the sustainability of housing processes should prioritise ―the involvement of the community in all steps concerned with planning, constructing and maintaining planned improvement‖ (p.147).
As mentioned in Chapter 2, participatory housing provision is found to be a gap in tourism literature, necessitating an investigation of people‘s participation in housing in the context of tourism development. In particular, there is little evidence of the extent in which participation in housing influences tourism development.
Thus, in assessing community participation in GK Communities, there are two sets of measures that will be applied and correlated. Firstly, under tourism development, Wallace‘s ‗six principles of ecotourism‘ (1996) are used as criteria for gauging community participation in tourism activities. Secondly, under housing provision, Minnery et al.‘s ‗six components of housing‘ (2000) are used as criteria in evaluating community participation in housing activities.
Community participation in tourism activities in GK Communities
This thesis looks at the ethical principles of ecotourism as criteria for evaluating resident involvement in tourism. A primary reason for this is that ecotourism is
Chapter 4 – Research Design 66
expected to be environmentally and culturally sustainable which makes ecotourism ―theoretically superior to more traditional forms of tourism‖ (Weaver, 2002a: 154). This study essentially espouses the position of Wallace (1996) that ―what distinguishes ecotourism from nature, cultural or adventure tourism is not its degree of specialisation, as much as emphasis on its ethical values and principles‖ (p.119). Wallace‘s definition of ecotourism highlights the concern for residents – living near natural tourist destinations – as ―having the same priority as the destination itself‖ (p.112).
As discussed in Chapter 2, Wallace (1996:p.122-128) argued for a need to adopt a refined definition of ecotourism in order to support a principled evaluation of tourism ventures. Specifically, a principled practice of ecotourism: i. Entails a type of use that minimises negative impacts; ii. Increases awareness and understanding of an area‘s natural and cultural systems; iii. Contributes to the conservation and management of natural areas; iv. Maximizes early and long-term participation of local people in the decision process; v. Directs economic benefits to local people, which complement traditional practices; vi. Provides special opportunities for local people to utilise natural resources.
The principles listed above focus on ethical practices that benefit both the natural environment and also the residents. These shall be used as criteria for determining the involvement of residents in activities that reflect ethical tourism practices.
Community participation in housing activities in GK communities
This thesis also evaluates resident involvement in housing by applying a housing model outside mainstream housing policy. Minnery, Manicaros & Lindfield (2000) suggest a housing best practice model that considers socio-economic and cultural conditions in remote areas. Although the context of making such housing model was originally intended for Australian Indigenous housing, the authors strongly argue for its wider
Chapter 4 – Research Design 67
applicability. This model was developed ―within a conceptual framework relevant to wider housing studies‖ (p.244) and involves six housing components, namely: i. Organisation - this includes the coordination among public and private sectors, the structure of housing organisations, and the responsiveness to organisational requirements such as flexibility, accountability and innovation; ii. Cultural factors - this includes approaches to consultation, family and household relationships, housing and living activities, gender relationships, social mobility, and spiritual and social concerns; iii. Skills development - this includes the development of community skills and training for ongoing improvement, management; technical and construction skills, and abilities in relation to accountability of funding; iv. Funding - this includes sources of funding and the availability of funds (including leveraging), accountability procedures, housing and material costs, funding cycles and affordability; v. Hard and soft infrastructure - this includes transport and access, normal housing infrastructure such as electricity, water, sewerage systems, social services and business infrastructure; vi. Technology - this includes appropriate and innovative materials and construction techniques in terms of climate, cultural values, levels and kinds of skills required, transport accessibility and support infrastructure.
The components listed above are used in this thesis as criteria in determining the involvement of GK residents in housing. The research addresses the aforementioned housing components which relate to the research question and theoretical framework, particularly, the components of organisation, cultural factors and skills development.
4.2 The case study research methodology, selection of case study areas and methods of data collection
The objective of the research is to understand the nexus between housing provision and tourism development by asserting the primacy of community participation and social capital formed from applying bayanihan in the Philippines. In Chapter 3, bayanihan is
Chapter 4 – Research Design 68
revealed to be the multi-sector community participation that facilitates housing provision for poor communities in the Philippines. Its application as a development strategy in GK communities is particularly motivated by philanthropy and patriotism among the members of the different sectors involved, including the residents themselves
A case study is thus undertaken in order to answer the following question: How does bayanihan, as a strategy for housing provision, influence the sustainability of tourism in GK communities in Cam Sur, in the context of community participation and social capital creation?
The question seeks to generate a theoretical definition of bayanihan as a basis for understanding the tourism-housing nexus, which can be argued for wider applicability in housing provision and tourism development in other contexts. The questions that will aid in responding to the main question are: (1) What are the factors that influence the creation of social capital formed from bayanihan in GK communities? (2) To what extent does community participation in housing provision influence community participation in tourism development?
For this purpose, I adopted a case study for exploring bayanihan as a participatory strategy for housing provision in the context of tourism. The case study approach was used in this research because it can enable the building of theory (Böhm, 2004; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Yin, 2003a, 2003b). While this study argues for the influence of bayanihan as a site-specific socio-cultural factor, which is characteristic of ‗intrinsic case studies‘ (Stake, 2003), the study acknowledges volunteerism and cooperation as universal concepts. The practice of volunteerism cuts across different cultures – be it the Norwegian dugnad; the Indonesian gotong royong; the Irish meitheal; the Sudanese naffir; and the Finnish talkoot.17
17 Cultural practices in different countries pertaining to communal works: meitheal (englishirishdictionary.com); gotong-royong (Taylor & Aragon, 1991. Beyond the Java Sea: Art of Indonesia's Outer Islands. Abrams. p. 10. ISBN 0-8109-3112-5); dugnad (Brox, Bryden & Storey, 2006. The political economy of rural development: modernisation without centralisation?. Eburon Uitgeverij B.V. p. 79. ISBN 90-5972-086-5); naffir (Manger, 1987. Communal Labour in the Sudan.
Chapter 4 – Research Design 69
Notions of communal work in different countries may have variations in organisational structure, intensity and norms especially regarding the dynamics of fostering relationships with members of the community, yet, universally speaking, ―the desire to help others and the willingness to improve their own society is embedded in the human tradition of sharing‖ (Virola, Ilarina, Reyes, & Buenaventura, 2010, p. 2). The theory on bayanihan that will be generated in this study can then argue for wider applicability.
Under the umbrella case study, this thesis combines qualitative and quantitative methods. According to Yin, ―case studies are essentially multi-method‖ (Yin, 2003a). The research makes use of triangulation, which is the ―process of using multiple perceptions to clarify meaning‖ (Bersales, 2005: 147-148). Furthermore, a combination of research methods is appropriate for tourism research (Beeton, 2005; Decrop, 1999) where a multiplicity of research strategies is required to strengthen the validity and reliability of findings to challenge data and reconstruct theory (Belsky, 2005). Collecting data from a variety of sources will also ―reveal variations and confirm conceptualisations‖ (Dey, 1999: 6); it will also increase its potential to achieve ―convergence in order to make the propositions sound and valid‖ (Decrop, 1999, p. 160).
The qualitative methods used in this research are: archival research, focus groups, participant observation and interviews. This case study involves what Janesick (2000) refers to as ―minuets and improvisation‖ in the choreography of qualitative research (p.49); this begins with a prescribed set of steps which gradually reveal new ones, as the researcher reflects on social conditions and tries to find out more about the events and moments in the lives of the participants. When using a qualitative approach, especially as a participant observer, the gathering of data becomes simultaneous learning and participating in research settings. Establishing long-term relationships between the
University of Bergen. p.7); talkoot (Reuter, 2010. En/ett iögonfallande talko? (Swedish). Retrieved: 2010-10-04) [As reported in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communal_work]
Chapter 4 – Research Design 70
researcher and the subjects is important in allowing transparency and natural responses to everyday settings.
A quantitative method, in particular, social survey work was also used in this research. Although there are other forms of quantitative methods applied to tourism studies, the social survey method remain widely used in studies ascertaining the impact of tourism and balancing costs and benefits. The survey in this thesis applies the suggestion of Pearce and Moscardo (1999); they suggest that in order to avoid limiting the nature and content of community responses, surveys need to incorporate asking hosts to create a list of perceived variables such as tourism impacts. Thus, I have undertaken the survey in two stages: The first stage involved focus groups, the participants of these are GK caretakers and community leaders. Using the criteria for evaluating community participation in tourism development and housing provision discussed in Section 4.1.2, the participants collectively created a list of tourism and housing activities in their respective communities. The second stage is the use of a survey questionnaire. Using the list of tourism and housing activities derived from the focus groups, selected residents individually filled out a survey wherein they assign a rating for community participation in each of the activity.
The aforementioned two-stage survey strategy, supports the suggestion of Pearce & Moscardo (1999, quoting Cohen, 1991) that ―good tourism research should be emic in its design [and] that it should consider the perspectives of the participants, not necessarily the perspectives of the researchers‖ (p.41). The mechanics of the focus groups and the survey will be discussed further under data collection methods.
Chapter 4 – Research Design 71
4.2.1 Selection of the case study area
Cam Sur (more widely known as Camarines Sur) is one of the six provinces of the Bicol Region in the Philippines. It covers 549,703 hectares and has a population of 1,822,371.18 The City of Iriga and Municipality of Libmanan are among 2 cities and 35 municipalities in rural areas in Cam Sur. There are four case communities that were selected for this case study: two communities which are both located in the City of Iriga (1) GK Character Village and (2) Sierra Homes; and two communities which are located in the Municipality of Libmanan: (3) GK Pona Village, and (4) Mambulo Nuevo. These communities are remote from transportation and basic social services which are only available from towns that are located approximately 10 kilometres away.
Figure 4-2 Map of the Philippines Highlighting the Province of Cam Sur in the Bicol Region (Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org. Accessed 21 August 2013)
The selection of case study area was based on three considerations:
Firstly, the case study area is located in a tourism region wherein the scenario of engagement by various sectors has a potential to characterise the synergy view of social capital described by Woolcock & Narayan (2000). The two sites chosen in the case study, in particular, Iriga and Libmanan shown in Figure 4-3 below, are located in Cam Sur. In 2011, Cam Sur was identified by the Philippines Department of Tourism (DOT)
18 National Statistics Office (NSO) Annual Report 2010
Chapter 4 – Research Design 72
as a leading tourist destination. While GK Communities have been established in other leading tourism destinations in the country, including Davao, Cebu, Manila, and Palawan; however, the DOT has identified Cam Sur as the province with the highest tourism growth based on the volume of tourism arrivals in 2009 and 2010 (this is discussed in detail in Chapter 5). Furthermore, according to the 2007 Regional Term Development Plan, Cam Sur has become the country‘s ecotourism capital.19 In accord with the province‘s tourism agenda, particularly in Iriga and Libmanan, a partnership between the Government of Cam Sur and GK was established and supported by private sectors, particularly in the building of tourism infrastructure.
Figure 4.3 – Map of Cam Sur Highlighting the two communities in Iriga (GK Character Village and Sierra Homes) and two communities in Libmanan (GK Pona Village and Mambulo Nuevo). Source: https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com. Accessed 22 October 2011
Secondly, the case study area characterise tourism development in housing environments such as that offered by homestays, service learning and volunteer tourism discussed in Chapter 3. Correspondingly, Iriga and Libmanan have been promoted by their respective local government units as local tourist accommodations and attractions. GK Character Village and GK Pona Village in particular, are included in tourism
19 National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) 2007 Annual Report
Chapter 4 – Research Design 73
promotional materials, such as shown in Figure 4-6. The residents, who were already accustomed to having visitors around, have shared positive experiences in accommodating volunteer organisations, visiting students and researchers, as well as travellers from different regions and countries. Consequently, the fieldwork conducted in these areas provided opportunities to become a participant observer, a tourist, and a volunteer researcher at the same time.
Figure 4-4 Promotional brochures for tourism in Iriga and Libmanan featuring GK villages GK Character Village in Iriga City (left) and GK Pona Village Libmanan (right) (Source: City Planning Office of Iriga and Municipal Planning Office of Libmanan. Accessed: 2011)
Thirdly, the four communities in the case study area present variations in the manifestation of bayanihan. The variation within these case communities reflect the manner of differentiating four kinds of development outcomes suggested by Okazaki (2008) and Woolcock and Narayan (2000), namely: conflict, exclusion, coping, and socio-economic well-being. At the time of fieldwork in 2011, there were two communities that are adjacent to GK Character Village and GK Pona Village that have recently engaged in GK‘s strategic plans and programs. The development of these two communities, Mambulo Nuevo in Libmanan and Sierra Homes in Iriga were initiated by two other housing organisations that implement self-help housing processes; these are the Habitat for Humanity International and the Iriga City Federation of Urban Poor, respectively. These two communities were included in the case communities to represent communities who have, at a later stage, implemented bayanihan through GK.
Chapter 4 – Research Design 74
Figure 4-5a,b The case communities in Iriga: GK Character Village (left) and Sierra Homes (right) Source: GK archives, 2011.
Figure 4-6a,b The case communities in Libmanan: GK Pona Village (left) and Mambulo Nuevo (right) Source: GK archives 2011
4.2.2 Data collection strategies
The thesis draws upon field research data gathered within five consecutive weeks of immersion in Iriga (1.5 weeks) and Libmanan (3.5 weeks) from January to February 2011. Generally speaking, being a speaker of Tagalog, the national Filipino language was an advantage as direct communication with respondents was seldom a problem. Likewise, my previous experience with GK, as a volunteer consultant in one of previous GK housing projects since 2005, was helpful in getting key informants and respondents to bestow trust and share their significant experiences.
There are 5 main strategies employed for data collection that provided both macro-level and micro-level assessments of bayanihan: (1) archival reviews (2) focus groups, (3) social survey (4) participant observation and interviews, and (5) most significant change (MSC) evaluation workshop. While the first four strategies determine the perspectives of government officials, GK caretakers, community leaders and members, the fifth
Chapter 4 – Research Design 75
strategy, the MSC evaluation workshop was conducted to obtain the perspective of travellers and participants.
While the aforementioned methods have their own merits, they also exhibit certain issues and limitations which will also be included in the discussion, as follows.
Participant observation and interviewing
Participant observations combined with interviewing were performed to determine the process of collaboration between the local residents, the facilitating organisation, and the public and private sectors.
As emphasised by Belsky (2005), both participant observation and interviewing are suitable tourism research strategies, given the ―newness of alternative tourisms such as community ecotourism‖ (p.273). Though it has its share of criticisms as with other case study methods, greater opportunities are attained, in particular, ―an ability to gain an understanding of power dynamics and the politics of ecotourism from the perspective of different community members‖ (p.281). Interviews were also undertaken to ―corroborate certain facts that have been established‖ (Yin, 2003b) from the secondary data, i.e. policy documents, reports, narratives and newsletters. One of the reasons for carrying out interviews is to ascertain development processes, specifically, how the local communities were like, before and after GK implementation of GK programs through bayanihan.
Primarily, the following groups of people were interviewed in order to address the research questions: Representatives from Gawad Kalinga National and Regional units, including the GK founder; 2 GK regional heads; GK Caretakers: 3 GK caretakers for GK Pona Village, Libmanan; and 2 GK caretakers for GK Character Village, Iriga. Representatives from Local Government Units (LGU) including 2 officials from the Cam Sur Provincial Social Welfare & Development Department, 2 officials
Chapter 4 – Research Design 76
from Iriga City Planning Office and 1 from the Libmanan Municipal Planning Office
Throughout the 5-week field work and immersion, I availed of the bed-and-breakfast services and facilities operated by the 2 GK communities. Although I stayed longer in Libmanan (3.5 weeks) compared to Iriga (1.5 weeks), I have made weekly visits to the latter in order to introduce and familiarise myself with the respondents in both sites. I have also obtained permission to attend general assemblies and community events and activities in both.
Photos were used to assist the documentation of participant observation. While originally, the researchers‘ intent was to take as many photos as possible, this turned out to be difficult. This was because bringing along a camera created a negative impression upon the residents and interfered with establishing rapport. Although residents generally support my data collection, they are more concerned about building relationships; hence, taking pictures was done minimally and at a later stage of the fieldwork. Nonetheless, there are several photos of previous bayanihan activities that were obtained from the GK caretakers and leaders. These were collected and utilised in the presentation of findings.
Focus groups
Simmons (1994) argues how focus groups are considered as the most satisfactory participation mechanism in engaging communities, particularly in tourism planning. Compared to interviews and surveys, focus groups are perceived to make the most of ―two-way focused communication […] via contact with other members of the population‖ (Simmons, 1994: 106). For this purpose, two separate focus groups were conducted in Iriga and in Libmanan; these were composed of Kapitbahayan leaders and GK caretakers. Kapitbahayan (KB)20 is the official name given to the community association in GK communities. On the other hand, GK caretakers are private
20 Kapitbahayan is a Filipino term which means ‗neighbourhood‘. (urbandictionary.com)
Chapter 4 – Research Design 77
volunteers who assist the KB in the implementation of GK programs. In Iriga, the focus group was composed of 10 KB leaders and 4 GK caretakers; while in Libmanan, the focus group was composed of 12 KB leaders and 3 GK caretakers. Overall there are 22 KB leaders and 7 GK caretakers.
As mentioned earlier, the criteria for identifying community participation in housing and tourism activities were based on the six housing components (Minnery, et al., 2000) and six ecotourism principles (Wallace, 1996), respectively. Based on these criteria, the participants were asked to identify specific activities that they have undertaken in GK. The participants wrote these activities in display cards and attached them on the board under each of the corresponding criterion. What followed was an opportunity to simultaneously collaborate and corroborate their responses as participants explained what each activity meant and how it was significant or problematic to the community. The participants have the chance to review each other‘s responses such as if certain strategies have been missed out, or duplicated; or if some activities need to be reassigned under another criterion. In a few instances, there was a need to rephrase or consolidate. Some have noted how certain activities listed were performed on a regular basis, while some were performed sporadically. Writing the responses on paper was an advantage for those who have a problem in verbal expressions, although they usually allowed the more outspoken ones to explain or elaborate their responses for them.
Figure 4-7 Focus groups in Libmanan and Iriga in 2011 (Source: Author)
Chapter 4 – Research Design 78
Social survey
The outcome of the focus groups described above was used to formulate the survey questionnaire. The survey was conducted with 55 individual respondents21 representing the four case communities. The focus of the social survey is to ascertain the extent of community participation in quantitative terms. The community members were asked to rate their level of participation on a scale of 0 (for no participation) to 5 (for very high participation) in the activities which were identified in the focus groups.
The survey is comprised of: 20 respondents, representing 104 families residing in GK Character Village, Iriga 6 respondents, representing 24 families residing in Sierra Homes, Iriga 17 respondents, representing 67 families residing in GK Pona Village, Libmanan 12 respondents, representing 34 families residing in Mambulo Nuevo, Libmanan
The selection of community members as respondents were essentially based on convenience sampling, essentially prioritising those who would be at home on the days that the survey were scheduled. To stimulate respondents‘ cooperation and ensure the quality of the responses, I personally facilitated filling out the survey form in small groups of about 4 or 5 respondents. The surveys took around one hour and a half per group. I read the instructions to the respondents, and provided explanations to guide them in evaluating their level of community participation. Some residents relayed previous incidents, such as the time when they were unable to continue after participating for a while due to conflicts with neighbours; and also, the time when they were motivated to participate not because they had to, but because they have seen others do it. Certain issues were raised, for example inadequacies in leadership skills, as well as difficulties in dealing with non-active community members. The exercise gradually shifted from just a survey to a combination of survey and semi-structured interviews.
21 The total number of households in the 4 case communities is 229. The survey gathered only 55 respondents. Add this number to 22 KB leaders who participated in the focus groups, thus a total of 77 household representatives is achieved. This is above the targeted sampling size of 70. (Note: The sampling size was derived from ―Determining Sample size‖ [Israel, G. (1992). Determining sample size: University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agriculture Sciences, EDIS.] It was calculated that 70 is the ideal sample size for a population size of 225 (the number closest to 229, and this would result in +/-10% precision levels; 95% confidence level; and, P=0.5.)
Chapter 4 – Research Design 79
Furthermore, conducting this exercise inside the residents‘ homes turned out to be beneficial as this became an opportunity to perform observations and take photographs of the interiors of the house.
Some of the problems that were encountered in administering the survey included keeping certain respondents focused throughout the duration of the survey particularly when they were unable to recall their participation in certain activities. Some of the questions were generally left unanswered; in such cases these were deleted from the list, in order to avoid inconsistencies in the correlation analysis.
Archival reviews
Archival reviews were used to facilitate a macro-level assessment of bayanihan. For information pertaining to tourism and housing in Cam Sur and the Philippines, archival reviews include government reports and other public documents on housing and tourism such as regional, city and municipal development plans, government annual reports and statistics, brochures, profiles and newsletters. These were obtained from the Provincial, City and Municipal Planning Offices, the Office of the Mayor, the Office of the Governor, the Department of Social Welfare Office (DSWD), and the Department of Tourism Region 5 (DOT-V). The Internet was also a valuable resource where I obtained maps, demographics, statistical reports, development plans, brochures, programs and policies for both housing and tourism.
For information regarding the development of GK Communities in Libmanan and Iriga, archival reviews were obtained from the GK regional and site offices as well as the leaders and caretakers‘ personal files. Data gathered include reports, photo collection, newsletters, as well as logbooks and photos. The GK National Office in Manila also provided relevant documents including the GK field manual, yearly reports and photo files. The Internet was also a useful source of data such as narratives, reports, photo images and news articles written by GK volunteers as well as local and international participants. The GK website 22 in particular provided the history, vision, plans and
22 www.gk1world.com
Chapter 4 – Research Design 80
programs of the GK organisation, as well as events and testimonies of volunteers and participants. While the authors of news articles and blogs have had first-hand experiences in GK communities, however, their tendency to advocate for GK is indispensable; its accuracy as a source of information is therefore limited. This required an evaluation workshop to be conducted as part of the fieldwork; this will be discussed later in the following section.
Most significant change (MSC) technique
While the aforementioned focus groups and survey methods are concerned about exploring the experiences of the host community, the case study is also concerned with determining the point of view of the tourists or participants. This aligns with Barkin‘s view, as argued in Chapter 2 that sustainable tourism values how both visitors and community members forges a development path that values cooperation and relationships (Barkin, 2000). To assert this view, the most significant change (MSC) technique (Dart & Davies, 2003) was applied in order to obtain the tourist perspective of bayanihan, specifically in relation to the convergence of tourism and housing. I conducted an evaluation workshop applying the MSC technique in the Bayani Challenge which was held in April 2012 in Masbate. Bayani Challenge is an annual volunteer program that is focused in applying bayanihan involving the community, as well as public and private sectors. Considering the timing of the event and the participation of some residents and caretakers from GK Cam Sur, the Bayani Challenge in Masbate was chosen as a venue to undertake the evaluation workshop.
At the end of the week-long event, 10 participants who come from other countries and regions were invited to attend this evaluation workshop which became an opportunity for friendly exchange of experiences, ideas, and information. Following the dynamics of the MSC technique described by Dart & Davies (2003), the participants were asked to write their stories. The following questions were used as a guide in writing the essays: ―What are the significant activities that happened during the Bayani Challenge?‖, ―Why is it a significant activity?‖ and, ―What difference has it made and will make in the future?‖ After completing their essays, as shown in Figure 4-8,
Chapter 4 – Research Design 81
discussion groups of 3-4 participants were formed to encourage simultaneous sharing and learning experience. Finally, flash cards were used to write key words summarising their experiences. As shown in Figure 4-9, these cards were arranged on a wall map of phrases by grouping similar themes or concepts. In the analysis, these themes were treated as ―nodes‖ and made up the categories for data analysis on Nvivo software; the process is discussed further under Section 6.1.
Figure 4-8 Samples of MSC sheets where participants wrote their experiences of the Bayani Challenge 2012 (Source: Author)
Figure 4-9 Evaluation workshop using most significant change (MSC) technique for GK Bayani Challenge (Source: Author)
4.3 Methods of analysis
This thesis adopts 2 main methods of analysis: (1) grounded theory coding analysis, which primarily addresses the first research question and corresponds to the macro-level assessment of bayanihan; and, 2) correlation analysis, which primarily addresses the second research question and corresponds to the micro-level assessment of bayanihan.
Chapter 4 – Research Design 82
Nonetheless there are certain overlaps in the application of grounded theory analysis and correlation analysis in responding to both questions. Table 4-2 below presents the the research strategies, the analytical methods, and the corresponding responses to research questions: Table 4-2 The Research Framework (Source: Author) Data Collection Analytical Methods Responses to Research Strategies Questions ARCHIVAL REVIEWS PARTICIPANT GROUNDED THEORY CODING What are the factors OBSERVATION (Causal and Contextual that influence the INTERVIEWS Conditions and Action creation of social FOCUS GROUPS Strategies) capital formed from SOCIAL SURVEY bayanihan in GK communities? CORRELATION ANALYSIS PARTICIPANT (Descriptive Analysis and OBSERVATION General Regression) To what extent does INTERVIEWS community FOCUS GROUPS participation in SOCIAL SURVEY GROUNDED THEORY CODING: housing provision MSC TECHNIQUE (Phenomenon and influence community Consequence) participation in tourism development?
4.3.1 Grounded theory coding analysis
Grounded theory coding, as proposed by Bohm (2004) was employed as the analytical method in addressing the question: What are the factors that influence the creation of social capital formed from bayanihan in GK communities? Grounded theory is a method used for qualitative research that captures and discovers meaning once the researchers immerse themselves in data (Strauss, 1990). The emphasis is placed not on the method of collecting data, but on the analysis, in favour of the ―didactic orientation‖ of grounded theory (Böhm, 2004: 274). This study however deviates from the formal practice of grounded theory, in which theory is derived purely from data, towards emergent theory orientations. Emergent theory approaches build upon a basic understanding or knowledge of existing theoretical constructs in order to explain why people behave or think as they do (Jaccard & Jacoby, 2010); this approach emphasises patterns and connections in which ―the ultimate goal is to describe, predict, understand and explain behaviour in ways that help us make sense of our world and that allows us
Chapter 4 – Research Design 83
to derive benefits‖ (2010:p.259). In other words, a reliance on emergent theories enables the generation of themes, which collectively, builds new theories.
In this thesis, the primary and secondary data derived from qualitative research methods as outlined in Table 4-2 above were organised and analysed through ‗grounded theory coding‘. Such coding is described as the ―deciphering or interpretation of data‖ (Böhm, 2004: 270). Data was classified into themes and given the status of ‗coding references‘. As the number of coding references increases the more that the themes were elaborated. Thus a logical process or story was developed. In this study, the Nvivo software was used as a digital tool to aid in the systematic procedure required for this complex analysis. Following ―the basics of qualitative research‖ (Strauss, 1990), the first step in coding is open coding where coding references were classified or grouped into dominant themes or concepts. As for the second step in coding which is, axial or selective coding, Bohm (2004) suggests the application of ‗grounded theory coding‘ wherein themes are to be classified according to the category which best defines its character as well as how it related with other themes. The five categories in the grounded theory coding analysis are: (1) phenomenon, (2) causal conditions, Context and (3) contextual and Intervening Conditions intervening conditions, (4) action strategies, and Causal PHENOMENON Consequences (5) consequences. Conditions Figure 4-10 illustrates the relationship of these Action Strategies categories. Figure 4-10 Grounded Theory Coding Paradigm (Source: Bohm, 2004)
Both open coding and axial coding were applied in this thesis, the results of which are discussed in detail in Chapter 5. In open coding, various data derived from interviews, focus groups, archival reviews and participant observation notes were analysed and assigned into coding references. These coding references revealed particular themes which, in axial coding, were assigned into corresponding categories.
Chapter 4 – Research Design 84
As shown later in Table 4-3, the themes that were generated in the grounded theory analysis are: ―Revitalisation of bayanihan‖, as the causal condition (first category) ―Social capital creation‖, as the contextual and intervening condition (second category) ―Promoting bayanihan‖ as the action strategy (third category) ―Convergence of tourism and housing‖, as the phenomenon (fourth category) ―Diverse community participation‖ as the consequence (fifth category)
The causal conditions contribute to the occurrence or development of the phenomenon; either promoting or constraining the possibilities for action. In the conceptual framework discussed in previous chapters, GK‘s participatory approach facilitates multi-sector engagements, especially in poor communities in the Philippines. Bayanihan, which is the multi-sector community cooperation in GK communities, was employed as a strategy for housing provision.
The context conditions include aspects of time and place. It is a set of conditions within specific locations, also called background variables that influence the action strategies. As it is not clear how theorists distinguish context from intervening conditions (Borgatti, 2005), the context conditions incorporate intervening conditions whereas both variables either support or constrain the occurrence of the phenomenon under study. Among the context conditions we find the social, political and cultural environment in Cam Sur‘s tourism development, in particular the collaboration of public and private sector which is crucial in initiating social capital. The assessment of community involvement in tourism activities utilises the six principles for tourism evaluation proposed by Wallace (1996).
The action strategies are purposeful, goal-oriented activities that are performed in reaction to the phenomenon and intervening conditions. Action strategies lead to particular consequences, either intended or unintended. In GK communities, bayanihan was promoted to increase community participation in housing provision. Community
Chapter 4 – Research Design 85
participation in housing activities in GK communities is assessed using the six housing criteria suggested by Minnery et.al (2000) – namely: cultural factors, hard and soft infrastructure, technology, organisation, funding and skills development.
The phenomenon is a core event or fact; a central idea that holds the data together. All the actions and interactions in the data point to this phenomenon, which in turn leads to consequences. In this study, the conditions and strategies pointed to a convergence of tourism and housing in GK communities. The extent of participation in the simultaneous occurrence of housing provision and tourism development was established quantitatively, particularly through the correlation analysis.
The consequences are the implications of bayanihan on the community participation. The diverse participation of residents in housing provision and tourism development was ascertained by evaluating the four case communities according to the factors that influence bayanihan which was derived from the causal conditions, context conditions and action strategies as introduced above.
The grounded theory coding analysis is undertaken as follows: First, coding references were identified and categorised into research themes. Second, these research themes were assigned into the five categories in axial coding. Third, theoretical and analytical concepts were generated to define or explain the corresponding categories; these concepts then become the foundation for addressing the research questions. The tabulated summary in Table 4-3 below serves as an outline of the process and outcome of the coding analysis; there are elaborated in Chapters 5 and 6. It must be noted however that beyond the coding analysis, the phenomenon and consequence categories require correlation analysis; as will be elaborated in the succeeding section.
Chapter 4 – Research Design 86
Table 4-3 Summary of results of grounded theory coding analysis (as presented as research findings in Chapter 5) (Source: Author) Research Themes / Categories in Theoretical and Analytical Research Questions Open Coding is reflected back to relevant theories Elements in Open Coding Axial Coding Concepts Addressed and concepts (generated through open coding) GK’s participatory Revitalisation of bayanihan: (Brillantes & Fernandez, 2011; Habaradas & approach in solving CAUSAL CONDITIONS attracting volunteers for Aquino, 2010; Villanueva, 2010) poverty and community building in the homelessness Philippines Multi-sector Social capital creation within (Evans, 1996; Jones, 2005; Lang & Hornburg, 1998; collaboration in CONTEXTUAL tourism development Okazaki, 2008; Woolcock & Narayan, 2000) promoting ecotourism in CONDITIONS Cam Sur Organisation Leadership & Organisation (Arnstein, 1969; Butcher, 2008; M. Choguill, 1996; Garrod, 2003; Tazim Jamal & Getz, 1995; Keogh, 1990; Lang & Hornburg, 1998; Okazaki, 2008; What are the factors that Small, 2002; Steinberg, 1992) Funding Multi-sector collaboration influence the creation of (Choi & Sirakaya, 2006; Tazim Jamal & Getz, 1995; social capital formed from Sautter & Leisen, 1999) Technology Sweat Equity bayanihan in GK (Astrand & Rodriguez, 1996; Marais, et al., 2003; ACTION STRATEGIES communities? Sheng, 1990; Tait, 1997; Turner, 1972) Hard and soft Project delivery (Grillo, Teixeira, & Wilson, 2010; Oviedo-Garcia, et infrastructure al., 2008; Sucgang, 1964)
Cultural Factors Community Identity (Chang, 1999; Dovey & King, 2012; Gotham & Brumley, 2002; Horton, 2009; King & Idawati, 2010; MacCannell, 1973; Pinijvarasin & Sunakorn, 2007; Vale, 1995) Skills development Training and Education (2000; Astrand & Rodriguez, 1996; King & Idawati, 2010; Lyons & Wearing, 2012; Marais, et al., 2003; Price, 2003; Suyasinto, 1989; Walter, 2009) CONVERGENCE OF PHENOMENON THE CONVERGENCE OF TOURISM SECTORS AND HOUSING IN GK To what extent does COMMUNITIES participation in housing Manifold participation of influence participation in (Barkin, 2000; Evans, 1996; Lang & Hornburg, Community participation residents in the convergence of tourism? 1998; Neto, 2003; Okazaki, 2008; Woolcock & and social capital CONSEQUENCES housing and tourism Narayan, 2000)
4.3.2 Correlation analysis
Correlation analysis is employed as the analytical method in addressing the second research question: To what extent does participation in housing provision influence the participation of residents in tourism development?
Correlation studies are used herein to ―infer associations among variables of interest‖ (Mitchell, 1985: 192). In this study, correlation analysis is a statistical exploration, aiming to establish a relationship between two variables of study, which are: (1) the level of community participation in housing activities and (2) the level of community participation in tourism activities; these are discussed in detail in Chapter 6.
As mentioned in previous sections, the extent by which residents participate in tourism and housing activities was determined with the aid of a social survey. Respondents from the four case communities were asked to give a rating for community participation in their respective tourism and housing activities. The mean responses were calculated using One-Way ANOVA and presented in bar charts. Next, using general regression analysis, the relationship of participation in housing and participation in tourism was ascertained. This led to mathematical descriptions explaining the extent and diversity of participation in each of the four communities.
In discussing the consequence category of grounded theory, the activities identified in the focus groups and surveys have been re-classified according to the six factors that influence social capital creation, which were derived from the grounded theory coding. These are: leadership and organisation, multi-sector collaboration, project delivery, sweat equity, community identity, and training and education.
The varying degrees of participation calculated according to these factors were used to characterise each of the case communities. The perceived consensus and conflicts associated with community participation within members of each village were ascertained through scatter plots and box plots.
Integrating the results of the grounded theory and correlation analysis, there are four types of communities that were revealed according to the level of participation, namely: i) indifference ii) assimilation, iii) adoption and, iv) integration. This classification of communities, which accentuate the implications of the tourism-housing nexus, is elaborated by reflecting how residents generate and spend social capital from bayanihan. Firstly, resident participation was used to indicate the connectivity of the residents among each other and with other sectors of the community; this connectivity precipitated a desire for residents to participate further. Secondly, physical developments were laid out to assert how physical improvements (or the lack of it) have been either a factor or outcome of social capital creation (or both). Resident participation and physical developments are parallel to the two themes that convey social capital which are: ‗relationships between individuals and their community‘, as well as the ‗role of place‘ as argued by Lang & Hornburg (1998:p.8-11).
Finally, the process of inquiry entailed a mathematical model based on analytical functions described by Jaccard & Jacoby (2010). A mathematical model, involving ―descriptions of relationships between variables using mathematical concepts‖ 23 (p.177), was used to graphically illustrate the tourism-housing nexus in each of the four communities. An empirical model of community participation in GK communities was derived and presented in Chapter 7. The data derived from the four case communities were analysed and presented in box plots and scatter plots with the aid of the Minitab software. In particular, a nonlinear relationship, i.e. the polynomial function24 was adopted as a useful tool in effectively describing the empirical data derived from the research investigation.
23 In social sciences, the relationship of variables should accommodate random disparities from linearity, hence, non-traditional representations on the relationships of variable were applied to represent growth and change within the relationship. This emphasizes derivatives or rates of change expressed through polynomial functions, to build an intricate mathematical representation (Jacoby, 2010).
24 The most popular polynomial functions in the social sciences are the polynomial functions, i.e. quadratic and cubic (Jacoby, 2010).
Chapter 4 – Research Design 89
Caution regarding the amount of attention given to theorise is exercised, as generalising may draw the research ―away from features important for understanding the case itself‖ (Stake, 2003:p.141). Understanding the case requires reflecting on which issues demonstrate the case‘s compelling uniqueness and which issues bring out dominant themes. It is critical then to choose issues around which to organise the investigation, by focusing on determining intrinsic representations and descriptions of bayanihan within each of the cases, instead of putting emphasis on the comparisons. In the box plots derived from the correlation analysis, the consensus and differences of responses among residents within particular communities will be discussed more than the comparison of responses between communities, where comparison is also viewed as ―actually competing with learning about and from the particular case‖ (p.148). The outcome would hence be a description of the unique characteristics of each community.
4.4 Limitation of the study
A major limitation of this research was a lack of access to socio-economic profiles of the case communities. In particular, there was no proper recording of receipts of donations as well as profits from the operation of homestay and bed and breakfast services. Due to the lack of records management, economic benefits have been described in qualitative rather than quantitative terms. The non-availability of financial records can be understood as either a lack of organisational skill amongst community leaders and GK caretakers, or a lack of transparency indicating a propensity for manipulation. However, I attempted to deal with this by verifying other social and physical outcomes including visitor arrivals, forms of livelihood, community activities and infrastructure development.
Another limitation is related to the one-off gathering of data. Given that the interviews took place during the fieldwork in 2011, there was only one opportunity to ascertain the extent of community participation in housing and tourism through the social survey. The study recognises this as a limitation in that the level of community participation may either surge or decline and some other factors would have been incorporated in the process. It is possible that those who have higher participation in bayanihan activities
Chapter 4 – Research Design 90
at a longer period of time may have greater knowledge of it, as compared to those who have participated at a shorter period. However, I address this in the comparison of four communities, two of which were not initiated by GK. In this regard, I have demonstrated the varying perspectives of those who have experienced bayanihan at different durations and stages of development. In the case of GK Character and GK Pona Villages, the interviews took place between 6-7 years after engagement with GK; in Sierra Homes, it was 3-4 years after engagement, while in Mambulo Nuevo, it was only 2-3 years. Such time element is critical in understanding the level of participation and the amount of social capital generated from bayanihan. Yet, due to the limitation of this study which can only provide a short to medium-term snapshot of the case communities, future longitudinal research would be beneficial for determining how socio-cultural and economic well-being will continue in the long-term.
4.5 Summary
This chapter has detailed the conduct of this study, highlighting community participation and social capital in the exploration of the tourism-housing nexus in GK communities. A combined qualitative and quantitative research method is undertaken under the umbrella of case study research of four communities in Iriga and Libmanan in Cam Sur. The goal of the data analysis is to determine the factors that influence the generation of social capital from bayanihan, and also, determine the extent by which participation in housing provision influences participation in tourism development. Hence, the analysis of data applied two methods: (1) A qualitative approach using grounded theory coding analysis involving five coding categories: causal conditions, context conditions, action strategies, phenomenon and consequences; and, (2) A quantitative approach using correlation analysis which aims to establish the relationship between two variables: the participation of residents in housing vis-à-vis participation of residents in tourism. These two methods are combined to generate a mathematical model that would illustrate the tourism-housing nexus in GK communities. Consequently, the next chapter presents the first part of the grounded theory analysis presenting first, the causal conditions; second, the context conditions; and third, the action strategies.
Chapter 4 – Research Design 91
5. Causal conditions, contextual conditions, and action strategies
This chapter addresses the first research question: What are the factors that influence the creation of social capital formed from bayanihan in GK communities? It presents the first part of the grounded theory coding analysis consisting of three coding categories: the causal conditions, the context conditions and action strategies pertaining to bayanihan:
The first category (the causal conditions) provides a rationale and overview of GK and bayanihan GK communities in the Philippines. This overview is presented against the concepts of ‗poverty‘, ‗the poor‘ and ‗the slums‘ in the Philippines; followed by a discussion of the emergence and the expansion of GK as a social movement aimed at poverty alleviation in the Philippines. The second category (the contextual conditions) examines the socio-economic and environmental factors in Cam Sur‘s tourism development in view of community participation and multisector engagement. First, literature on sustainable development and ecotourism in the Philippines will be explored. This proceeds to a discussion of tourism development in Cam Sur. I then present the evaluation of community participation in tourism activities in the four case communities as prescribed by Wallace (1996). The third category (the action strategies) investigates housing provision in GK communities and provides an evaluation of community participation in housing activities based on the suggestion of Minnery et.al (2000).
Pursuing the aforementioned three categories creates a basis for defining and identifying factors that influence the creation of social capital formed from bayanihan in order to
ascertain the tourism-housing nexus in the context of community participation and social capital theory.
5.1 Category 1 – The causal conditions: GK social movement and bayanihan
This section presents a narrative of the emergence of Gawad Kalinga as a social movement in the Philippines and the application of bayanihan as a strategy for housing provision. The discussion is primarily built upon the combined perspectives of three existing studies on GK: first, the study of Villanueva (2010) on GK‘s emergence as a social movement; second, the study of Brillantes & Fernandez (2011) on GK‘s creation of a framework for active citizenship; and third, the study of Habaradas & Aquino (2010) on GK‘s practice of bayanihan as a housing approach that has evolved to support an innovative housing program for poor communities.
5.1.1 Concepts of „poverty‟, „the poor‟ and „the slums‟ in the Philippines
The issues related to poverty in the Philippines have placed pressure for productivity and growth in the country precipitating the loss of hope and dignity especially among the poor. Villanueva (2010) conceptualises poverty in the Philippines beyond statistical figures and incorporates a multi-dimensional perspective as prescribed by Anand & Sen (1997). This perspective describes poverty as the ―worst form of deprivation involving not only the sense of material well-being… but also of dignity, confidence and self- respect‖ (p.4). The limitations of measuring poverty through income alone provide a primary basis for developing Human Poverty Index (HPI)25. As poverty manifests itself in different important dimensions, the HPI then requires the use of a multi-dimensional procedure which varies with the specific social and economic conditions of the community or region. Issues of poverty, which are commonly experienced in
25 Anand and Sen (1997) argue for the need to pursue ―the possibility of reflecting in a usable and uncomplicated index the bearing of ‗human development‘ on the ‗deprivational perspective‘ – concentrating specifically on people who are particularly deprived. This requires the development of an index of “human poverty” which would focus exclusively on the specially deprived and impoverished.‖ (1997: p.3)
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions, and action strategies 93
developing countries include hunger, illiteracy, epidemics, and the lack of health service or safe water.
Anand & Sen (1997) enumerated three components of HPI that variably impact each other (p.6-10): (1) survival deprivation (2) deprivation of education and knowledge and (3) economic deprivation. First, the component of survival is determined through life expectancy. Second, the component of education is expressed from the proportion of illiteracy in the population. Third, the component of economic deprivation is associated with material deprivation in the form of hunger and undernourishment rather than just income in general. The estimates of prevailing undernourishment are used, as influenced by metabolic rates, climatic conditions, activity patterns and epidemiological circumstances. Having a multi-dimensional perspective26 enables an understanding of why poverty manifests itself in different ways in the lives of people.
The trend in self-poverty rates is generally above official poverty incidence measurements. Figure 5-1 below shows self-rated poverty in the Philippines wherein the extent of poverty based on self-assessment27 is likely to be worse than the available data, which are underestimated for a variety of reasons. Underestimation is argued by Mitlin and Satterthwaite (2004), particularly when costs of living are not accounted for in poverty line estimates. Most measures of poverty fail to consider living conditions,
26 A multi-dimensional perspective on poverty addresses the issue of having income-based measures which concentrate exclusively on deprivation in one variable in particular income. Anand & Sen (1997) argues that such a ―rudimentary approach cannot be used in developing an index of ―human poverty‖ since the lives of human beings can be blighted in quite different ways‖ (p.5). For example, a person with an above-poverty-line income may still be deprived in the sense of being illiterate, or being without crucial services such as safe water or health care. Hence he suggests the use of multi-dimensional procedure in assessing poverty.
27 Mitlin and Satterthwaite (2004) provide an example of discrepancies in self-poverty rates in the Philippines vis-à-vis World Bank estimates: The poor themselves assess urban poverty to be higher than the World Bank and official estimates (World Bank 2001a, 3). World Bank estimates of urban poverty are lower than the self-rated poverty assessments. Self-rated assessments suggest that poverty in urban areas (whilst still less than in rural areas) is higher than objective statistics. Non-income dimensions of poverty are put forward as a further explanation… information available for some health indicators, for example, suggests that controlling for incomes, urban residents are experiencing higher rates of infant and under five mortality. Similarly, sub-standard housing may be more of an urban than a rural problem. (World Bank 2001a, 3). (2004: p.8)
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions, and action strategies 94
asset bases, safety nets and civil and political rights. These are exemplified by the expenditure of 20-33 precent of income on housing rent and basic services.
Table 5-1 Number of Households in Occupied Housing/Dwelling Units by Year, Region (Source: National Statistics Officer (NSO), 2004) Being Occupied Being Occupied Owned/ Being for Free with for Free without Rented Not Reported Amortized Consent of the Consent of the Owner Owner 2000 Philippines 10,866,001 1,542,638 2,047,970 190,748 631,451 1990 Philippines 9,466,809 907,051 1,003,292 30,110 ..
SELF-RATED POVERTY: HOUSEHOLDS WHO ARE “MAHIRAP” (POOR) PHILIPPINES, 1983 TO 2009
1983 1986 1992 1998 2001 2004 2009
Figure 5-1 Self-rated poverty: Households who are 'mahirap' (poor) in the Philippines, 1985-2009. (Source: First Quarter 2009 Social Weather Report.; www.sws.org.ph/pr090421.thm)
Villanueva (2010:190) reiterates that poverty in the Philippines should ―include not only income inadequacy but also deprivation of access to assets‖. He emphasises that the level of education strongly influences poverty incidence. However, the deterioration of the country‘s public education system due to resource constraints and increasing student populations, as shown in Figure 5-2 below, has led to declining rates of participation and cohort survival. Ultimately, the deprivation of education impacts ―social capital, which is the social resources, networks, relationships that people can draw on is more robust in a healthier and more educated and productive community‖ (ADB 2005 as cited in Villanueva, 2010: p.190).
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions, and action strategies 95
Table 5-2 Millennium development goal for primary education (Source: www.nscb.gov.ph. Accessed 21 February 2013)
5.1.2 The relationship of housing to poverty
The relationship of land and housing, which is fundamental in understanding poverty, is increasingly recognised as multi-dimensional. The table below presents the intrinsic relationship between housing and poverty, as argued by Berner (2001):
Table 5-3 Dimensions of housing poverty (Source: Berner, 2001:229) Definition Two Dimensions Impacts Housing as a Lack of quality, • Quality of life affected by crowding, noise, dirt, pollution, factor of infrastructure, garbage, inadequate facilities poverty and services • Health affected by lack of sanitation, unsafe water supply • Future prospects affected by restricted access to Education Insecurity • Even households capable of coping at present may be thrown into emergency by evictions (loss of assets, inaccessibility of income sources): vulnerability Housing as an Lack of quality, • Reliability: only poor households can be expected to accept indicator of infrastructure the above conditions poverty and services Insecurity • But research reveals that not all residents of informal settlements are poor Housing as a Lack of quality, • Lack of infrastructure (electricity, water, accessibility) is a cause of infrastructure liability for enterprises poverty and services Insecurity • Bad reputation may put off potential customers • Investments, particularly in immobile assets and environmental upgrading, are prevented by the risk of demolition
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions, and action strategies 96
The definitions of housing as a ‗factor of poverty‘, ‗indicator of poverty‘ and ‗cause of poverty‘ draw upon two dimensions (Berner, 2001). The first dimension is lack of quality infrastructure or space, which is characterised by degraded physical space, unsafe and unclean facilities and restricted services that are common in poor households. This results in the second dimension, which is insecurity arising from poor reputation that turns off potential customers and investments, and increases vulnerabilities to evictions and demolitions. Even though not all of the residents of informal settlements are poor, the inadequate infrastructure and absence of services cuts off networks and other sources of assistance that would supposedly enable poor households to be more productive or initiate economic progress.
Worldwide, there are two extreme strategies in responding to the issue of land and housing. According to Berner (2002:p.230), governments view housing either as a commodity or as a human right. First, if housing is viewed as a commodity, without it, private or public rights are violated. Governments resolve illegal settlements by either formalising through purchase or demolition. They can also be upgraded to meet current building standards. However, as some literature suggests, these solutions are costly and unsustainable (Okpala, 1999), aside from being forceful, traumatic and violent. Informal settlers tend to fight back, and if evicted, often somehow manage to return and reoccupy their old areas.
Second, if housing is viewed as a human right, governments resolve the issue by producing social housing. However, this approach has proven to be neither efficient nor effective. Issues of graft and corruption, as well as rising expenditure on land and production have plagued social housing projects in developing countries. Moreover, the resulting products, which are unaffordable to the poor, often have inappropriate design and substandard construction quality and are purchased by other privileged groups rather than the households they were intended for. One of the case in point is in Tondo Manila, wherein over 25 years after a large-scale World-bank sponsored relocation (Rüland, 1982), huge squatter settlements still persist (Berner, 2001).
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions, and action strategies 97
The failure of these strategies can then be reflected in the growing number of slums in developing countries (Rondinelli, 1990), which further exacerbate poverty. In Kolkata for instance, Sengupta (2010) argues that whilst the undersupply of housing has made an exhibition of ‗housing poverty‘, the promise of government to provide ‗housing for all‘ ―remains a rhetoric‖ (2010: 330). Insufficient social and physical infrastructure even drives poverty and contributes to urban deterioration. Sengupta thus suggests that the self-help approach as a bottom-up, incremental and highly local in scope should be incorporated into housing policies.
Likewise, Berner (2001) asserts the limitations of the government‘s capacity and resources and recommends support for self-enabling approaches in the same level as any other public housing approach. Governments should abandon their role as provider and turn towards a truly enabling approach; ―they should just contribute to the ‗essential ingredient‘, namely land, and leave housing production as the people‘s initiative‖ (p.242).
5.1.3 The challenges of housing in the Philippines
Villanueva (2010) describes how the late 1960s to 1970s saw the adoption of a three- pronged strategy to housing issues under the Marcos administration. In 1975, the government established the National Housing Authority (NHA) to address the housing needs of the poorest 30% households of the Philippines. The first strategy was the construction of new housing units. However, for the first 10 years, an average of only 405 houses per year was constructed; most of these houses are located far from employment areas. The inhabitants endured inadequate services and infrastructure, and had difficulties in repayment. The second strategy was to criminalise squatting. This led to some of the most destructive and violent demolitions and mass evictions. Despite the lawlessness, many of the evicted settlers move back to the squatters‘ areas because that is where they sourced income. The third strategy was the on-site slum upgrading handled by the Ministry of Human Settlements which is headed by then First Lady Imelda Marcos. These projects had problematic programs, policies and regulations. The Ministry created a reputation for politicking, inefficiencies, corruption and housing
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions, and action strategies 98
establishment afforded only by the middle and upper middle classes, making politics a significant barrier to housing processes.
In 1986, the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC) was created through Executive Order 90 under the Aquino administration. The EO defined the function of the HUDCC as: (1) formulating the housing goals and strategies, (2) determining and monitoring the participation of key government housing agencies, and (3) recommending legislation, policies and guidelines in the implementation, disposal or development of existing assets of the key housing agencies.
In 1992, the Philippine congress enacted the RA 7279 or the ―Urban Development and Housing Act‖ to specifically address the housing problem in the country‘s urban areas. RA 7279 specifically aimed to ―uplift the conditions of the underprivileged and homeless citizens in urban areas and in resettlement areas by making available to them decent housing at affordable cost, basic services and employment opportunities‖. More importantly, the Act encouraged ―more effective people‘s participation in the urban development process‖. The first result of this enabling government housing strategy is the Community Mortgage Program (CMP) which was implemented under the Ramos Administration. Berner (2001) explains how the CMP offers squatters the opportunity to buy land without costly measures. This is done when beneficiaries organise themselves into associations to whom land titles are transferred to, rather than individuals. The land is paid for through a state credit which the beneficiaries pay back to the association over a period of 25 years. Throughout the process, NGOs are involved such as in informing the beneficiaries about the requirements, negotiating with the owners, and offering consultations.
Although the CMP worked for a few years, there were also unintended consequences, particularly on its divisive impact on the participating communities. After the transfer of the property rights, the beneficiaries not only have to pay for their own land but also for the non-active and non-paying members. This resulted into open and violent conflict (Berner 2001).
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions, and action strategies 99
Thus, in spite of the government strategies and initiatives of the private sector, the problem of housing backlog not only persisted, it has also become staggering (Habaradas & Aquino, 2010), with an estimated total backlog number of more than 3.7 million as shown in the 2004 HUDCC Report in Table 5-4. The rapid population increase, fast-paced urbanisation and the rise of land and housing prices especially in urban areas were expected to intensify the housing problem, requiring roughly 3,000 hectares of land if designed to accommodate single detached units.
Table 5-4 Projected housing need per region, 2005–2010 ( Source: HUDCC 2004)
Annual Housing Backlog Region Backlog 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total NCR 58,412 82,182 82,434 82,689 82,946 83,206 83,469 496,928 CAR 1,309 6,494 6,589 6,685 6,783 6,882 6,984 40,416 I 5,556 25,027 25,446 25,874 26,310 26,757 27,212 156,626 II 4,078 17,725 18,032 18,346 18,667 18,995 19,330 111,094 III 12,569 71,938 73,837 75,798 77,821 79,909 82,064 461,368 IV 23,827 127,872 131,742 135,757 139,920 144,239 148,718 828,248 V 12,267 28,288 28,557 28,830 29,109 29,392 29,679 173,855 VI 16,816 36,941 37,255 37,574 37,898 38,227 38,561 226,455 VII 10,578 45,880 46,865 47,877 48,918 49,988 51,087 290,616 VIII 7,281 18,766 18,940 19,116 19,294 19,476 19,660 115,252 IX 7,642 21,824 22,133 22,449 22,772 23,101 23,438 135,717 X 5,912 18,880 19,164 19,455 19,751 20,054 20,364 117,668 XI 11,158 41,922 42,722 43,542 44,384 45,248 46,134 263,952 XII 6,661 18,033 18,270 18,511 18,758 19,009 19,266 111,847 ARMM 5,126 22,800 23,482 24,190 24,926 25,691 26,484 147,574 Caraga 5,942 12,791 12,902 13,016 13,131 13,248 13,367 78,456 Total 195,133 597,362 608,370 619,708 631,389 643,422 655,821 3,756,072
Hence, Habaradas and Aquino (2010) argue that beyond just the provision of housing by the public sector, new approaches needed to be put in place to solve a problem of such magnitude. The various sectors of society should work together and perform critical roles. The roles of key government agencies, local government agencies, and private developers as specified under the Urban Development and Housing Act should be combined with the cooperation of other sectors of society including non-government organisations, concerned citizens and the informal settlers themselves. The following discussion presents the emergence and the expansion of the GK social movement as an attempt to address the failures of previous housing strategies through active multi-sector participation.
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions, and action strategies 100
5.1.4 The emergence of Gawad Kalinga (GK)
Gawad Kalinga is a combination of two Filipino words, which means ‗bestow‘ and ‗care‘28. GK started in 1995 as a home building project of the Couples for Christ (CFC) Movement. The volunteers of CFC initially set up a youth program for Bagong Silang in Caloocan City, the biggest government relocation site in the country then. In 1996, CFC established ANCOP (Answering the Cry of the Poor) Foundation to generate funding and resources. From then on, GK claims to have provided comfortable and secure houses (tenant-wise) that enables families to rebuild their lives from deprivation to dignity [GK website 2010], and in 2003, GK was officially registered as an official non-stock and non-profit organisation.
Having commenced the community development works in Bagong Silang, the founder of GK, Tony Meloto frequently stated in public that ―a slum environment creates slum behaviour‖ (Villanueva, 2010). Here, Meloto refers to slum behaviour as a form of ‗insecurity‘ in initiating progress as a consequence of inadequate services and poor infrastructure. In his visits to GK‘s supporters in the United States, he stresses how Filipinos working abroad are neither beggars nor squatters. To him, Filipinos who live in an environment where they can meet their physical needs and live in security and dignity can make the right choices. Hence there is a need to change the environment. This parallels Berner‘s view of housing as a ―cause of poverty‖ (2001: 229). The resilience and coping strategies of the poor allow them to become capable and adaptable, and to work collaboratively with other sectors in order to meet collective goals. However, the inadequate infrastructure and services result in insecurity and impact negatively on the poor‘s potentials and capacities to be productive and to initiate economic progress. In the message of Meloto, when introducing GK in several public and private occasions, he explains, The saying, „Give someone a fish and he will continue to ask for fish; but teach someone to fish and he will fish for himself‟ is not true in the Philippine setting. The poor already knows how to fish, but they ain‟t fishing! (Villanueva, 2010 quoting Tony Meloto:p.238)
28 Tagalog-English Dictionary. www.bansa.org/dictionaries/tgl/
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions, and action strategies 101
GK then supported the poor to implement programs within a seven-point community development model that includes: (1) community site and infrastructure development, (2) community organisation and values formation, (3) community-based health program, (4) child and youth development, (5) economic productivity, (6) environment, and, (7) tourist program. In 2006, both the founder and the GK organisation won the Ramon Magsaysay award for individual and organisational community leadership, as well as other awards. By 2008, there were a total of 33,439 houses in over 1,700 villages in various stages of development by GK, throughout the country. In 2010, GK- ANCOP has been operating in offices in 22 countries primarily to generate funding; ―it has extensive transnational links, avails of mostly free quad-media coverage, and received more than $20 million funding‖ (Villanueva, 2020, p.274). GK‘s achievement as of April 2008 is presented in Table 5-5 below.
Table 5-5 Summary of GK achievements as of April 2008 (Source: Villanueva, 2010, p.274) Aspects Results Villages 1,700 + in various stages of development Homes Close to 30,000 Schools At least 300 SIBOL,SAGIP, and SIGA 385 villages have one or a combination of the three Community farms 107prog fararmmss produced 75 metric tons of vegetables in 2009 For 17,000 families Community health programs Established in 384 GK sites Partners 360+ mayors, over 150 schools and universities, over 100 corporations, tens of thousands of volunteers (expatriate and local). Partnerships with UCLA Public Health, Yale, Harvard, among others. Resources generated Anecdotal estimates is at least PhP6Billion pesos in the first four years Awards The GK founder has won a number of other awards: Ramon Magsaysay Award 2006; Ozanam Award (Ateneo de Manila University), 2003; Manuel L. Quezon Award, 2006; Gawad Haydee Yorac, 2006; Jose P. Laurel Award 2006; TOFIL 2006, People of the Year, Philippine Star 2006; Filipino of the Year, Philippine Daily Inquirer 2006; Mabuhay Awards- American Field Service Awards 2007; Service Above Self Award, Rotary International District 3780 Quezon City 2007; Paul Harris Fellow, Rotary Foundation 2007 Rating Charity Navigator 4 – star rating Expansion Villages set up or in organisation stage in Papua New Guinea, East Timor, India, Cambodia, South Africa, Vietnam. Regional hub office established in Singapore.
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions, and action strategies 102
However, while the list in Table 5-5 above provides an overview of GK‘s achievement, little is known of the effectiveness or the quality of the participatory strategy involved in the process. These are the aspects that are elaborated in the following sections.
5.1.5 The revitalisation of bayanihan
GK originated as a social movement that attempts to mobilise active multi-sector collaboration. It was not conceived to solve the problem of homelessness in the country, rather it presents various forms of support for housing provision that came about as a result of ―mobilising donors, volunteers, and intended users‖ (Habaradas & Aquino, 2010: p.20). This engagement of various stakeholders, not just the residents, is what scholars argue as crucial in community participation (Garrod, 2003; Simmons, 1994; Sproule, 1996).
In Chapter 3, bayanihan (translated in Filipino as ‗cooperative undertaking‘) 29 was introduced as a demonstration of a traditional and cultural form of cooperation in the Philippines. Bayanihan is a conglomeration of different cultural practices and traits including pagtulong (helping), pakikisama (comradeship), pakikitungo (pleasant dealing), and pakikipagkapwa-tao (sharing with humanity). Traditionally, bayanihan refers to the act of helping one family relocate by moving their dwelling from one location to another (Baldazo, 1991). While its concept as a housing approach remains undeveloped in literature, through the years, the practice of bayanihan has evolved to imply different ways of helping and sharing, as well as different goals and purposes.30
The establishment of GK communities accounts for the revitalisation of bayanihan manifesting in cooperative efforts of different sectors of society (Habaradas & Aquino, 2010). GK encourages citizens to engage in revitalising bayanihan as a collaborative strategy towards helping the poor and underprivileged. GK revives the practice of
29 Tagalog-English Dictionary. www.bansa.org/dictionaries/tgl/
30 Among the few contemporary studies on bayanihan were those of Salvador et al., Salvador, D., Omizo, M., & Kim, B. (1997). Bayanihan: Providing effective counseling strategies with children of Filipino ancestry. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 25(3), 201-209., and Sarmenta & Hirano Sarmenta, L., & Hirano, S. (1999). Bayanihan: building and studying web-based volunteer computing systems using Java. Future Generation Computer Systems, 15(5–6), 675-686.
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions, and action strategies 103
bayanihan by working together and building relationships with neighbours and community, utilising the ―collective efforts of heroism in a community wherein people from different sectors are engaged in addressing poverty and homelessness towards community building‖ [Kapitbahayan Manual 2009]. Bayanihan activities are evident in efforts of GK to mobilise active multi-sector participation involving volunteers, donors (both local and international), as well as housing beneficiaries, in building houses and livelihood in several villages all over the country. Each volunteer is a bayani (hero) to one another, which leads to bayanihan.
GK‘s community development model attempts to emphasise the issues confronting poor communities in the Philippines through active participation. Despite the social, economic and both natural and man-made adversities, the GK development model is ―fuelled by a massive army of volunteers who are working together in bayanihan, to bring about change and to restore the dignity of the poorest of the poor‖ [GK website, 2010]. Logistical support initially came from its at least 100,000 core volunteers, mostly members of the Catholic lay ministry, Couples for Christ (CFC) with chapters in 160 countries. GK, from 2010 has offices in 20 countries. While its officers maintain that it does not actively solicit donations and leaves it to potential supporters to discern how they can help, it has received funding pledges for over one million homes and has ―land-banked‖ nearly enough land for the planned 7,000 communities. The past decade has seen GK as an emerging model of governance in the Philippines, becoming a movement for nation-building that ―brings together various stakeholders in the governance process, involving government, business and civil society‖ (Brillantes and Fernandez, 2011: 24).
In the first GK Global Summit held in Boston USA in 2009, GK unveiled its vision called GK2024, a 21-year roadmap towards a world class Philippines 31 . With a timeframe of 21 years beginning 2003, GK has set a three-phase journey to achieve social justice, social artistry, and social progress, being proposed to scale up and expand the influence of GK with support from key sectors of society. In 2011, House Bill 4374, ―Volunteerism for Nation Building‖ was created to encourage more sectors to
31 GK 2024 Roadmap.www.gk1world.com/2012
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions, and action strategies 104
participate in a call for nation-building. The bill 32 proposes the building of communities through (1) public-private partnerships; (2) simultaneous ground-up and top-down development initiatives; (3) rich and poor working together, bridging the social gap and (4) the principle of the ‗best for the least‘.
The GK Development Framework, as presented in Table 5-6 below highlights strengthening of networks and relationships of various sectors, as well as instilling values and shared vision towards community and country. This framework was set to scale up, sustain and mainstream the work of GK. GK‘s ‗values formation first‘ perspective indicates GK‘s take on the ‗insecurity‘ dimension of housing poverty argued by Berner (2001, p.209), which is, that the poor have developed insecurity that impacts negatively on the poor‘s potentials and capacities to be productive and to initiate economic progress due to inadequate infrastructure and housing services.
Table 5-6 GK Development Framework (Source: GK Field Manual, 2009: p.10) Values formation first GK’s housing and other programs are only strategies to transform the values of the residents, especially the men, and empower them to build on common values and shared vision for community and country. Poverty is behavioural, a product of compromised values. Holistic approach GK is not a housing program, but an anti-poverty initiative. It focuses on other critical development areas like health, education, productivity, culture and tourism, etc. Community building GK empowers the poor. Each GK village chooses their own set of community leaders based on principles of servant leadership and the village covenant. Multi-sectoral GK honours the greatness of the human spirit through a participation process of multi-sectoral solidarity and unity through concrete convergence in a GK village. We believe that everyone has the capacity to participate in this great work. Universal GK is culturally sensitive. It is now a global template and is adaptable to other developing countries.
32 This bill, which has yet to be finalised as of writing, emphasises GK’s multi-sectoral approach: GK as an emerging Philippine and Asian ‘Model of Development’ has been instrumental as a converging point for multi-sectoral partnerships in community building through shelter and other infrastructure programs; health; education; entrepreneurship; livelihood, food sufficiency, […] culture, ecotourism and environmental preservation and protection… all contributing to the development of 2,000 communities nationwide, to rise out of extreme poverty. (Montelibano, J. M. (2011). Volunteerism for Nation Building. Inquirer. Manila, www.Inquirer.net.)
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions, and action strategies 105
The programs of GK were carried out with the help of citizens and organisations who are willing to take part in in ensuring the sustainable building of GK communities. In motivating private and public sectors, GK uses slogan such as: ―Modern-day bayanihan is not just about building poor people‘s bahay (house) rather it is about building their buhay (life)‖ [GK Website 2010]. Such holistic image of GK programs was a major influence for the increase of donors and volunteers.
In Chapter 4, bayanihan is argued as having the potential to characterise Woolcock & Narayan‘s synergy view of social capital that is essential for effective policy and planning frameworks (1998). As discussed in Chapter 2, social capital refers to the networks of trust and synergy, enabling government and citizens to act collectively (Woolcock & Narayan, 2000). From the historical account of GK relayed by Habaradas & Aquino (2010), I outline the following pioneering groups of supporters, which the authors have identified:
1. Religious organisations Members of the Couples for Christ (CFC) Movement who started the first GK community in Bagong Silang in Metro Manila Members of Youth for Christ which built the 12 villages in Bagong Silang in 2001, leading to a local competition that recognised best practices in various GK programs; Muslim communities, for whom the first Muslim GK village was built in Maguindanao in 2005 under the GK Highway of Peace program;
2. Private Volunteers, civic organisations and institutions Some 2,000 private volunteers who built 16 homes in Dumaguete City in 2002, which inspired former President Gloria Arroyo to build 1,000 homes with PhP 30 Million from her presidential fund; Foreign partnerships established in 2007, in particular, local and national organisations in Singapore33; The Ateneo de Manila University who established GK Builders Institute (GKBI) in 2008 along with other universities and educational institutions who organised training programs in GK communities. Overseas Filipino workers (OFWs), academe, and corporations34 who embraced GK‘s vision of a slum-free Philippines after GK received numerous awards from various organisations in 2006;
33 Singaporean President Nathan launched feeding programs at GK Baseco in Tondo, Manila; the Canadian government who continued to provide financial support to build more GK villages; volunteers from Africa and the United States who later set up their own advocacy programs.
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions, and action strategies 106
3. Government Senators, governors, mayors, cabinet members and other politicians 35 who joined from around 2003 to 2004 particularly after President Gloria Arroyo‘s PhP 30M funding initiative; Local Government Units, with whom GK partnered to give care to typhoon victims in 2005, in particular, the National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCCC),the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) and 200 other local agencies;
As outlined above, various forms of support have been rendered in varying time intervals and intensities. Generally, the members of the government sector support GK and its beneficiaries on an occasionally (or one-time) basis, while the support from educational institutions, foreign volunteers, private and non-government organisations has been generally steady, or else increasing in the years that followed. As will be elaborated in the succeeding sections, the role of GK, particularly the caretakers, linking residents with public and private sector is a crucial factor in sustaining their engagements with the GK programs.
5.1.6 Attracting volunteers for nation-building
Following the involvement of local and international volunteers in bayanihan activities, GK communities became a destination for volunteer tourists. As discussed in Chapter 3, Brown (2005) identifies a number of motivations for volunteers to go on a leisure trip, including (1) participants‘ desire to give back to the less privileged, and (2) volunteering bring together people who share common interests and values. GK highlights that aspect of volunteer tourism which involves the sense of place and spirituality, particularly in the way ―participants make a difference in helping others‖
34 Among the more active corporations are Globe and Smart, Jollibee and McDonalds, Unilever, Procter & Gamble, and Nestle
35 Senators Aquilino Pimentel Jr, Manuel Villar, and Francis Pangilinan, Vice President Noli de Castro, Defense Secretary Avelino Cruz, Agriculture Secretary Luis Lorenzo, Environment Secretary Elisea Gozun, Social Services Secretary Dinky Soliman, Health Secretary Manual Dayrit, Agrarian Reform Secretary Rene de Villa, Budget Secretary Emilia Boncodin, Trade and Industry Secretary Johnny Santos, and Housing Secretary Mike Defensor
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions, and action strategies 107
(Brown, 2005, p. 493). In an interview with the GK Founder, Meloto, outlined some of the factors he considers as reasons to why visitors come to GK:
For private corporations, this is a new project for their employees to participate in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). For politicians, this is an event that has political value. For universities, this is a good place for immersion learning. For foreign tourists, it is social awareness combined with pleasure tours to nature destinations. For the residents and volunteer organisers, this is a holistic development that puts into practice not just the construction of houses and infrastructure, but also the programs geared towards social transformation and livelihood opportunities. More importantly, visitors witness how different sectors take part in addressing homelessness and poverty by establishing a holistic housing development. [Interview with GK founder, Meloto 22/02/2011]
In 2005, GK launched the GK1MB program, or GK Isang Milyong Bayani (one million heroes), the nationwide volunteer program of GK. Volunteers from the Philippines and other countries committed at least 4 hours a month to participate in any of the programs (listed in Table 5-7 below) and to work with and for the resident beneficiaries.
Table 5-7 GK1MB Volunteer programs [Source: GK Website 2010] GK Bayani Challenge Annual summer build weeklong event held every April GK Bayani Summit Gathering of partners and leaders held every February GK People Power Build Nationwide mass mobilisation of GK 1MB groups held every February GK Global Expo Gathering of partners, GK teams and residents in a 3 day affair Other GK1MB activities Camps, awareness weeks, concerts, fun runs, “make-over village”, lectures, bayanihan builds, village parties, “amazing race”.
The arrival of visitors precipitated the creation of GK Mabuhay in 2006, in order to kickstart tourism programs in several other GK communities that were regarded as ‗GK tourist zones‘. GK villages were then promoted as tourist destinations which showcase Filipino culture and values (Villanueva, 2010). Most of the GK villages which became popular tourist destinations36 are those located in areas that are also known for nature and adventure tourism such as the villages located in Cam Sur, Davao, and Cebu. The GK Enchanted Farm in Bulacan was also developed as the GK Centre for Social
36 see Appendix B
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions, and action strategies 108
Innovation that has offered service learning programs for various schools and universities in different countries.
While visitations to these communities were administered by GK Mabuhay particularly in terms of promotion, planning and management, caretakers and community leaders have the direct responsibility of looking after the volunteers and participants. This includes provision of accommodation, tours and hospitality services. Nonetheless, to date, no steps have been taken to ensure the involvement of the residents in the various tourism activities.
In summary, the revitalisation of bayanihan as an expression of nationalism and multi- sector collaboration is revealed in this study as the primary causal condition in the convergence of tourism and housing in GK communities throughout the country. The following section then reveals the contextual conditions around tourism development in the province of Cam Sur.
5.2 Category 2 – The contextual conditions: Tourism development in Cam Sur
This section examines the socio-economic and environmental conditions in Cam Sur‘s tourism development. As mentioned in Chapter 4, the contextual conditions are the aspects of time and place that influence the action strategies. The socio-economic and environmental conditions of Cam Sur circumscribe the tendency of community members to engage in activities related to tourism.
The analysis begins with a review of ecotourism and sustainable tourism development in the Philippines. This is followed by an overview of Cam Sur‘s tourism development highlighting ecotourism as the identified niche industry. The socio-physical development of the four case communities is also presented along with resident participation in tourism. The discussion reinforces the significance of social capital, according to the synergistic view, and along the dimensions of ‗complementarity‘ and ‗embeddedness‘ described by Evans (1996) and Woolcock & Narayan (2000).
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions, and action strategies 109
5.2.1 Ecotourism and sustainable tourism development in the Philippines
From the 1990s, the Philippine government has adopted ecotourism as a major strategy for economic development. As the country has since then been aggressively and actively marketed as a primary ecotourism destination (Ng, 2003), the government has intensified development plans and policies over tourism priority areas. The issuance of Executive Order 111 in 1999 has established an organisational structure for ecotourism in the country, and carried out the formulation of the Philippine National Ecotourism Strategy to promote sustainable development initiatives for ecotourism destinations especially in rural areas. Studies on ecotourism in the Philippines have focused on establishing an ecotourism development framework (Hawkins & Holtz, 1998), and a framework for the classification of ecotourism initiatives (Alampay & Libosada, 2003). These strategic frameworks aim to guide communities towards successful ecotourism implementation.
Nonetheless, Alampay (2005) describes the challenges to sustainable development in the Philippines in terms of economic stability, ecological sustainability and social equity which he argues, are determined by the roles of national government, private industry and local communities. One of the challenges he describes is that, in most cases, economic activity is viewed as the dominant factor in tourism, making it more lucrative than traditional activities, as indicated in a study on Bohol and Cebu (Bersales, 2005). Whereas the study of Bersales (2005) involves communities where income is generated largely from tourism activity, Dulnuan (2005) notes that economic gains, i.e. in Sagada are not experienced by all. Likewise, Evacitas (2001) argues that the economic conditions of communities in Bais City have not improved despite the establishment of whale watching as an ecotourism venture.
Alampay (2005) contends that the emphasis of tourism plans and policies in the Philippines have been the creation of a business climate that achieves ―immediate economic returns‖ (p.14). The resources and efforts of the Department of Tourism (DOT) are focused around key market segments that can be easily served, such as
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions, and action strategies 110
sightseeing and beach tourism. On the other hand, short-haul ecotourism and backpacker tourism have been classified as low-priority. The size of the market segment thus becomes a criterion. Tourism activities that are associated with low- impact and sustainable tourism are deemed to have lower economic potential, and are thus classified as a low priority of government.
Another challenge to sustainable tourism is the proper and responsible management of tourism ventures in a way that would produce less negative impacts on traditional activities like fishing, mining and forestry. As argued by Bersales (2005), the need to understand the types of social relations among sectors involved in tourism is crucial in enhancing the social equity dimension of sustainable tourism. After investigating two islands in the Philippines with varying levels of tourism development, he explains how everyday struggles and conflicts ensue at local level, along with community cohesion and social relations. In particular, he observes that in Mactan, tourism development was a result of the gradual ―erosion of local power‖; it is the island‘s economy [which] is now tied to global [international markets]‖ (p.269). A positive outcome of this condition is that there was an absence of conflict or contestation over land. On the contrary, in Panglao, the limited local decision-making and participation in tourism development has resulted in a struggle over the use of land and conflict between the foreign investors and the locals. Bersales thus maintains that social relations in each of the community are dependent to the local political understanding of tourism.
Alampay and Libosada Jr. (2003) describes economic and environmental trade-offs in sustainable tourism development by defining ecotourism projects according to how a community utilises natural and cultural tourism resources and whether it prioritises environmental or economic goals.
Ecotourism is defined as any project that is organised and designed to promote the observation and appreciation of nature through the provision of facilities and opportunities for visitor education in a manner that, where appropriate, fosters community involvement and seeks to ensure and sustain the integrity of the resources around which the tourism activity is based. (Alampay and Libosada Jr., 2003: iv)
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions, and action strategies 111
While most communities, developers and tourism officials assume that social benefits will arise if only tourism is managed responsibly, however for Alampay (2005) there is still little guarantee that the quality of life at destination will be improved. Thus the author argues that sustainable development requires the strengthening of public-private partnerships throughout the industry. An integrated approach among private industry, local governments and community groups, must be promoted to work together and address concerns; more importantly, ―local communities, LGU‘s and entrepreneurs will have to take the lead in ensuring that destinations are developed in a sustainable manner‖ (p.16).
5.2.2 Tourism development in Cam Sur
As discussed in Chapter 2, one crucial consideration in achieving the goals of sustainable tourism is its reliance on the society‘s political system (Choi & Sirakaya, 2006), fostering relationships and creating social capital (Okazaki, 2008). This perspective highlights the simultaneous roles played by public and private sectors in tourism development.
This section presents an overview of Cam Sur‘s tourism development. Cam Sur, which is Figure 5-2 Map of the Philippines highlighting formerly called Camarines Sur, is one of the six Cam Sur Province in the Bicol provinces in the Bicol Region located in central Philippines, with a total population of over 1.82 million in 2010.37 The province is a predominantly agricultural region, where close to 62 precent of its total land area was devoted to crop production.
The Bicol Region in general is prone to frequent typhoons and natural disasters, which result in the proliferation of blighted environments and villages particularly in low-
37 Source: National Statistical Coordination Board 2003. http://www.nscb.gov.ph/activestats/psgc/listprov.asp
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions, and action strategies 112
slung socio-economic conditions. 38 Such hostile conditions have contributed to immense poverty in Cam Sur. As highlighted in the 2009 provincial statistics shown in Table 5-8 below, Cam Sur province was ranked third in the total number of poor families, obtaining a percentage of 3.5% of the total number of poor families in the country in 2003. The poverty incidence was largely a result of the people‘s reliance on the agricultural industry, which has not been able to provide stable household income due to frequent natural calamities. 39 In 2006 however, the number of poor households had decreased to 3.3%, a figure maintained in the 2009 statistics.
Table 5-8 The 2009 Official Poverty Statistics (Provincial) [Source: 2009 Official Poverty Statistics of the National Statistical Coordination Board] Province Magnitude of Poor Families % Share to Total Poor Families 2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009 PHILIPPINES (Total) 3,29 3,096 3,670,791 3,855,730 100 100 100 Cebu 185,624 211,406 213,162 5.6 5.8 5.5 Negros Occidental 11 2 ,51 2 130,077 144,828 3.4 3.5 3.8 Camarines Sur 11 6 ,460 119,747 126,280 3.5 3.3 3.3 Pangasinan 92,191 128,396 114,400 2.8 3.5 3.0 Nueva Ecija 64,808 94,026 112,367 2.0 2.6 2.9 Leyte 9 9 , 0 82 104,260 110,214 3.0 2.8 2.9 Zamboanga del Norte 10 2 ,074 101,511 109,745 3.1 2.8 2.8 Bohol 9 0 , 7 35 104,032 102,522 2.8 2.8 2.7 Quezon 84,031 101,394 98,426 2.6 2.8 2.6 Davao del Sur 8 8 , 1 65 8 9,452 94,049 2.7 2.4 2.4
Despite the poverty incidence in the province however, a significant development occurred in Cam Sur‘s tourism industry. For the period 2000-2005, DOT-Region 5 statistics shows Albay as the leading province in terms of foreign and tourist arrivals in Bicol. Yet from 2006, there was a significant increase of visitor arrivals in Cam Sur. Three years later, in 2009, the Department of Tourism recorded Cam Sur as the top tourist destination with a tourism growth rate of 118 precent. Figure 5-3 shows that overall; Cam Sur ranked second to Cebu, and surpassed other popular destinations such as Manila, Boracay, Baguio, and Davao.
38 Source: National Economic Development Authority. NEDA Region V, 2009 Report.
39 ibid
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions, and action strategies 113
Figure 5-3 Tourist volume in major destinations in the Philippines, 2009 [Source: Department of Tourism http://www.tourism.gov.ph. Accessed 10 March 2012]
The increase of support for tourism has been a priority for the local and provincial government of Cam Sur that has initiated public and private investments in tourism infrastructure in the province. Sites of natural, historic and geographic significance as indicated in Figure 5-4 below were explored and promoted as potential tourism attractions including spectacular beaches, mountains, lagoons and waterfalls, and landscapes and gardens. The promotion of these sites for tourism led to infrastructure development projects in support for nature and adventure-based activities. This includes walk trails, tourist lodges, recreation facilities, visitor centres, service roads and utilities40.
The Official Website of the Provincial Government of Cam Sur identifies a number of tourist attractions as shown in Figure 5.4 below. This includes, among others: Natural wonders (Mt. Isarog, Mt. Asog, Lake Buhi, Lahuy Island, Animasola Island, Tayak Lagoon, Isla de Monteverde and Pinaglukaban Island); Parks and resorts (Cam Sur Watersports Complex, Gota Resort, Lago del Rey, Caramoan National Park, Tan-awan Park, Deer Farm, and Bamboo Farm); Monuments and landmarks (Nahulugan Kampana, Calvario Hill, and Kinuwartelan); Churches and heritage places (The Basilica Minore, the Quipayo Church, Naga Metropolitan Cathedral, Our Lady of Penafrancia Church, Nabua Lardillo Church, St. Joseph Parish Church and the Bombon Parish and Leaning Bell Tower)41
40 The Official Website of the Provincial Government of Camarines Sur. http://www.camarinessur.gov.ph/home. Accessed 15 March 2012.
41 The Official Website of the Provincial Government of Camarines Sur. http://www.camarinessur.gov.ph/home. Accessed 15 March 2012.
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions, and action strategies 114
Figure 5-4 Map of Cam Sur indicating tourist attractions. [Source: Cam Sur Provincial Capital, Cam Sur. 2011]
As presented in Figure 5-5 below, DOT records tourist arrivals growth rate of up to 52 precent and 260 precent in 2008 and 2009 respectively. In a number of newspaper sources42, this remarkable escalation in the tourism sector was largely attributed to a more aggressive marketing promotion and management, expanding infrastructure and tourism products, particularly in sports and adventure tourism facilities.
42 Articles featuring tourism in Cam Sur were published in newspapers such as: (1) Global Travel Industry News. 10 Aug 2009. “Philippine tourism sustaining growth in a challenging environment”. Source: http://www.eturbonews.com/10945/philippine-tourism-sustaining-growth-challenging-environment; and (2) Inquirer Global nation 08 Nov 2010 “The Cam Sur Model”. Source: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebudailynews/opinion/view/20101108-302112/The-Camsur-model
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions, and action strategies 115
1400000
1200000
1000000
800000 Foreign 600000 Domestic
400000
200000
0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure 5-5 Tourist Arrivals in Cam Sur Province. [Source: Department of Tourism Region V (2010); Graphed by: Author]
This advancement in the tourism industry coincided with growth in the overall economic sector. Reports showed 8.2% GRDP growth in 2009, twice its pace in 2008, and much faster than the 1.1% growth at the national level (NSCB 5, 2009). Cam Sur was then regarded as a model for other LGUs to harness local resources and advance economic development (Ordinario, 2010). Nonetheless, while Cam Sur prioritises tourism promotions and implementation of tourism ventures in the region 43, there is yet no record of the economic and environmental trade-offs. This reflects the country‘s challenge in ensuring social equity dimension of sustainable tourism sustainable tourism as argued by Alampay (2005).
The abrupt increase of visitors in Cam Sur has characterised mass tourism that prioritises the size of the market segment over low-impact visitation. Although tourism in Cam Sur made a major economic contribution to the Bicol Region, the proliferation of mass tourism is evident in the development of sports adventure and other leisure activities that do not require the reinforcement of traditional practices. The Cam Sur Watersports Complex (CWC) in particular necessitated the construction of large-scale infrastructure and facilities such as resort accommodations, food, road access and
43 “Generally, the increase in tourist arrivals is accounted to the strong marketing and promotion of the DOT, the LGUs and establishments involved in tourism”. (Updated Medium Term Regional Development Plan 2008-2010).
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions, and action strategies 116
transportation systems to cater to national and international events 44 which are not directly reliant on local resources and activities.
The significant development in the tourism industry however prompted the Regional Development Council to revise the Medium-Term Regional Development Plan (MTRDP) 2004-2010 to 2008-2010. The revised plan, which emphasised Bicol Region as a major tourism hub in the Philippines, aimed at changes, not only to infrastructure and physical aspects of tourism, but also to socio-economic progress. As such, one of the main objectives of the Bicol Region, as cited in the Regional Physical Framework Plan, is ―to become an ecotourism destination‖ (Preface of the MTRDP 2007). This aim is also reflected in the City Development Strategies Report of Iriga which identify ―agro-ecotourism‖ (2008:12) as the ―city‘s vision and city brand‖. Based on the perspective argued by Bersales (2005), the incorporation of the agricultural component seeks to reinforce local practices that enhance local understanding of tourism development and foster social relations in the process. This corresponds to the objective of the Philippine National Ecotourism Strategy which is to ―anticipate, preserve, conserve and sustain its resources‖ (Presilla, 2005, p. 139). However, while there was an attempt to respond to the challenge of global tourism sustainability, no specific implementation tactic was set in place.
5.2.3 The Development of GK Cam Sur and the four case communities
The updated Regional Medium-term Development Plan (MTRDP) describes changes and additions in the housing sector, as ―highly significant, because of its multiplier effects on other industries‖ (Salceda, 2007). 45 Aside from promoting the implementation of Housing for All and other housing programs of the National Housing Authority (NHA), the plan also presents strategies and accomplishments of Gawad
44 ―Cam Sur was the most visited province in Bicol with CWC and Caramoan islands as major destinations. The province hosted the Ultimate Wake Championship, Win or No Wind, International Dragon Boat Competition, National Kampo Kalikasan, Cobra Ironman 70.3 Triathlon, Cam Sur Water Summit Marathon and the famous survivors Challenge.‖ (Regional Development Council and National Economic and Development Authority. Bicol Regional Development Report 2011)
45Salceda, J. S. (2007). Updated Medium-Term Regional Development Plan 2008-2010 Chapter 9- Housing. R. D. C. R. 5. Legazpi City, Bicol Philippines.
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions, and action strategies 117
Kalinga (GK), which were identified as having contributed significantly in providing sustainable homes to the poorest families in Bicol. The other previous housing projects initiated by the Government and NGOs in Cam Sur involved either the building or the upgrading of houses for existing communities, such as those handled by the National Housing Authority, the US-AID, the UN Central Emergency Relief Fund, the International Organisation for Migration and the Philippine National Red Cross. On the other hand, the housing projects handled by GK were primarily intended for the relocation of the poor or homeless families, usually the victims of typhoons. The new communities created out of these housing projects were thus composed of families who come from different places in the province.
There were in 2007, 18 GK villages created in Albay, 17 in Camarines Norte, 26 in Cam Sur and 2 each in Masbate and Sorsogon, making Cam Sur the province with the highest number of GK communities in the country in 2007.
GK‘s partnership with the provincial government of Cam Sur has also increased, having accomplished the building of 1,769 housing units in 2010, for 26 villages that are spread out in various locations in Cam Sur, as shown in Figure 5-6. GK led the construction of houses for the poor through partnerships with the local government. In 2012, GK has accomplished 2,105 houses in 32 new villages, which was at the time, the highest number of accomplished units compared to other provinces throughout the country (see Table 5-9 below).
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions, and action strategies 118
Table 5-9 List of GK sites in Cam Sur and number of shelter units on site (The highlighted sites are the two GK communities selected for case study) [Source: GK provincial office, 2012] 1 Triangulo-Vienna GK Site 40 2 Del Rosario GK Site 37 3 San Lorenzo Ruiz GK Site 56 4 Balatas GK site 66 5 Expectacion Ziga Gk Site 71 6 Abanggayon GK Site 106 7 Tagontong GK Site 161 8 St. Peter Baptist GK Site 182 9 Gov. Felix Fuentebella Mem. GK Site 74 10 Kadahoman GK Site 84 11 Pagkamoot F. V. GK Site 37 12 Golden Knights GK Site 49 13 Pinaglabanan GK Site 109 14 Remidios Pervera GK Site 24 15 Leelin GK Site 20 16 Pura Obias Hernandez GK site 18 17 Familia Dy Tiak Pon (GK Pona Village) 78 18 Esteban GK Site 84 19 St Joseph the patriarch GK site 41 20 San Rafael GK Site 84 21 L Ray GK Site 56 22 Mantalisay GK Site 22 23 Ancop Australia GK -Site 28 24 Sta. Cruz Site 48 25 San Bernandino GK Site 23 26 Bonot GK Site 27 27 Ocean View GK Site 56 28 STMC-LGU GK site 198 29 Character Site (GK Character Village) 116 30 San Rafael IP GK site 72 31 Fulgers GK site 8 32 Ben Ray GK Site 30 TOTAL 2,105
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions, and action strategies 119
Figure 5-6 Map of Cam Sur Province indicating location of GK Villages The dashed area indicates the location of the case study communities. It can be noted how these villages are at varying proximities from the location of tourist attractions, as presented in Figure 5.4 presented earlier. However, most of these villages are usually associated with one or more tourist destinations. [Source: Environmental Disaster Management and Emergency Response Office (EDMERO), Cam Sur. 2011]
The two GK villages used in the case study – namely the GK Character Village in Iriga and GK Pona Village in Libmanan – were among the 32 new GK villages in the province that have been established with varying levels of collaboration between public and private sectors. With the partnership created between the GK organisation and the provincial and local government, as well as the active engagement of various sectors including the residents, these two sites were selected as GK designer villages in Cam Sur. Designer villages of GK are those that are highly regarded for its best practices and are typically included in the tourism promotions of the province (as shown in Figure 5-7 below). It is in these villages that the bed-and-breakfast units, farming facilities and other social infrastructure have been built.
Figure 5-7 Promotional brochures for tourism in Iriga and Libmanan featuring GK villages GK Character Village in Iriga City (left) and GK Pona Village Libmanan (right) (Source: City Planning Office of Iriga and Municipal Planning Office of Libmanan. Accessed: 2011)
Following the promotions of GK villages, there has been a significant increase of visitations in GK Character and GK Pona Villages, compared to the two villages which were also included in the case study adjacent villages – Sierra Homes and Mambulo Nuevo. As mentioned in Chapter 4, these latter two communities were selected to establish and compare the extent of participation in housing and tourism development, which shall be elaborated upon in succeeding sections.
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 121
The potential of villages to become tourist attractions prompted local government organisations to adopt the GK programs, such as in Sierra Homes and Mambulo Nuevo for Iriga and Libmanan respectively. The graph on Figure 5-8 below presents the recorded number of visitor arrivals for the four case communities between 2009 and 2012. The drop in the number of visitors in Mambulo Nuevo evidently coincides with the completion of house construction (details of construction development and completion are discussed in later sections). Nonetheless, the increase of visitations in GK Pona Village and GK Character Village is one of the factors that encouraged the leaders of Sierra Homes and Mambulo Nuevo to consider consolidating GK programs into their respective communities. Factors that may account for this discrepancy will be elaborated in later chapters.
500 GK Pona 400 Village
300 GK Character Site 200 Mambulo Nuevo 100 Sierra Homes 0 2009 2010 2011 2012
Figure 5-8 Visitor arrivals in the four communities [Source: Community visitor logbooks as of 2012; Graphed by: Author]
The four case communities in Iriga and Libmanan
This section provides an overview of the four case communities in Cam Sur, as relayed by participants in the focus groups, as well as interviews with government officials and GK representatives.
As mentioned in Chapter 4, GK Character Village and Sierra Homes in Iriga, and GK Pona Village and Mambulo Nuevo in Libmanan were chosen to represent communities that have utilised bayanihan as a housing strategy, aside from their
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 122
potential to reflect the two dimensions of social capital according to Woolcock & Narayan (2002). First, the dimension of complementarity is reflected in the mutual goal of government and community to address housing issues and poverty by developing GK villages as tourist destinations. Second, the dimension of embeddedness is evidenced in the appointment of community representatives to public office in order to monitor the implementation of GK programs and ensure cooperation among residents. Each of these four communities is composed of residents who submitted applications to the Government through the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) in their respective areas, and subsequently participated in bayanihan events. The beneficiaries who were selected are those who have lost their homes due to natural hazards and environmental risks. The eligibility was also income-tested, with higher consideration given to elderly as well as people with disabilities.
Figure 5-9 Map of Cam Sur Highlighting the two communities in Iriga (GK Character Village and Sierra Homes) and two communities in Libmanan (GK Pona Village and Mambulo Nuevo) Source: Cam Sur Provincial Office, 2011
While the residents of GK Character and GK Pona villages implemented GK programs at the start of project implementation, the residents of Sierra Homes and Mambulo Nuevo consolidated GK programs into their respective community associations at a later stage of development. The latter two communities are
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 123
resettlement housing projects that only later – post-settlement – participated in GK‘s bayanihan events.
The following are the four case communities, which are presented according to the year of commencement: 1. Sierra Homes in Iriga, which was commenced in 2003, 2. GK Character, which was commenced in 2004, 3. GK Pona Village, which was commenced in 2005, and, 4. Mambulo Nuevo, which was commenced in 2008.
Case community #1: Sierra Homes, Iriga
Sierra Homes is located in Sitio Perpetual Help, which is about 5 kilometres from the Iriga town proper. This 3.8-hectare property was intended for families who lived in illegal settlements in the city, as well as families living in dangerous areas. The construction of houses was started in 2003 under the Iriga City Social Housing Program, which was initiated by the former City Mayor, Emmanuel Alfelor.
Physical development. Out of the 3.8-hectare property, only a small portion was used for the development of the site. The site elements are very basic: a main road (which also serves as access road to GK Character Village); the dwelling units; a livelihood area, which is allotted mostly for fruit bearing trees and vegetable gardens. There are 37 residential lots occupied by 12 duplex buildings; these were distributed to 24 families who paid monthly amortisations. The typical design of the dwellings is very basic: a rectangular block made of concrete walls and posts, and a shared roof with exposed steel frame and metal sheets. Half of the space is used as an open living-dining-kitchen space while the other half is designated for 2 small bedrooms. While the lots surrounding the dwellings were intended for backyard farming and garden development, most of the families have used these spaces as extended living spaces. These spaces are then utilised primarily for domestic activities as well as for livelihood purposes. Consequently,
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 124
the additions to the basic dwelling structure, as shown in Figure 5-10 below, do not suggest any effort on the part of the residents to make it attractive for visitation purposes.
Figure 5-10 Sierra Homes duplex housing units Figure 5-11 Sierra Homes duplex housing units [Source: Sierra Homes archives, 2003] [Source: Author, 2011]
Resident Participation. Few residents participated in the development of their house and in other community activities in their village. In 2004, however, the remainder of the property was developed to become the GK Character Village through the partnership of the City government and GK. It was in this partnership that most of the residents in Sierra Homes decided to make improvements in their own houses, as well as that of their community, including repainting their houses such as in Figure 5-11 above, and upgrading their front yard to create a bright and landscaped façade which is typical of dwellings in the GK Character Village.
Social networks. In 2005, the City Government of Iriga facilitated the merging of Sierra Homes with GK Character Village. The residents of Sierra Homes have since then gained access to GK programs such as in health, education, livelihood and infrastructure support. One of the residents finds this beneficial for the community, saying that, We at Sierra Homes do not have our own community facilities so it is an advantage for us that we are able to use the GK school building and the GK Shell farm. [Focus group I5-06/02/2011]
Nevertheless, in exchange for this privilege, the residents of Sierra Homes have been required by the government and the GK caretaker team to participate in the implementation of other GK programs, particularly in bayanihan activities. As
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 125
will be discussed further in succeeding discussions, this scenario of collaboration with GK has developed diverse reactions from the residents.
Case community #2: GK Character Village, Iriga
The GK Character Village is located in the remainder of the Sierra Homes property that was left undeveloped by the Iriga City Social Housing Program. The village project was launched in 2004 through the partnership of GK and the City Government of Iriga and led by the City Mayor and the GK caretaker team leader, who later became head of the City Planning Office. In an interview with government officials in Iriga [Interview with City Planning Coordinator, Gonzales-17/02/2011], the City Planning head relayed that the city government donated the remaining portion of the land intended for Sierra Homes to accommodate families that were left homeless after a series of typhoons in 2004, and eventually, to initiate the merging of these two villages.
Physical development. There were two site plans developed by the housing officials of the City Government of Iriga, one in 2003 and another one in 2004. In the 2003 site plan, as shown in Figure 5-12, it can be observed that the spaces designed for Sierra Homes were allocated mostly for residential use. Open spaces were laid out along the boundaries of the property; these were intended for social events and livelihood activities. While this has been convenient to a few residents who live at close proximity to these spaces, the rest of the community who live farther would find this a problem. In this layout, social interaction is constrained, as there are insufficient pockets of open space within.
Nonetheless, out of the 23 blocks of land allocated for housing the residents, of Sierra Homes, only 7 blocks of land were used to build the existing 24 duplex units. This compelled the City Housing officials to revise the original plan in 2004, and to develop the GK Character Village in the remainder of the property
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 126
Figure 5-12 GK Character Village Site Plan 2003 (The area occupied by Sierra Homes is also shown) [Source: GK Cam Sur Archives. Redrawn and modified by: Author]
In the 2004 site plan as shown in Figure 5-13 below, the circulation areas and road networks have been retained but the area allocated for residential and social infrastructure was reduced. The row-house units have been laid out in such a way as to maximise the sloping land contour and vast landscape views of Mount Iriga. 116 row-house units are built; most of these were lined up along a series of steps leading to the flower gardens at the top. 104 of the 116 completed housing units were utilised as dwellings. The other units were allocated for communal uses such as the office, clinic, convenience store, assembly area and a storage area for rice and other crops. Other site elements are the access roads, a playground, bed and breakfast units, a Sibol preschool building, vegetable and fruit gardens, fishponds, livestock areas, flower gardens, water facilities and waste disposal
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 127
sites. The plan also indicates the residential area developed by Sierra Homes that was eventually integrated into the GK development
. Figure 5-13 Sierra Homes Site Plan 2004 (The rest of the property which was later developed for the GK Character Village, Iriga City) [Source: GK Cam Sur Archives. Redrawn and modified by: Author]
Resident Participation. In the revised site plan, the City Housing officials anticipated the provision of space that would be used to implement the GK programs. Hence it was essential for government to actively collaborate with the GK caretakers in negotiating improvements to the site plan. At that time, the resident-beneficiaries had not been identified yet. They had no opportunity to have a role in the allocation of spaces; not until a Memorandum of Agreement between the Government and GK was established for the turn-over and development of the 3.8 hectare property including the area occupied by Sierra Homes. The first major bayanihan event was organised in February 2005 with
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 128
about 400 volunteer participants working alongside the residents to build the houses and other infrastructure. Most of the participants were members of local government, the Couples for Christ Movement, non-government organisations, schools, parish councils, the youth and business sectors. This event was followed by successive activities where residents participated in the building process, with the help of volunteer participants who come from different places.
Social networks. As shown in Figures 5-14 to 5-18 below, bayanihan events were held; these attracted private sector to provide funding for materials to construct communal facilities such as the pre-school building, clinic, office, storage, and assembly halls that are also integrated into residential areas. The rest of the land was devoted for open spaces and livelihood areas, which are administered by the GK agricultural productivity program (GK Bayan-Anihan) and the GK social entrepreneurship program (Gkonomiks). The GK Farm has been developed for the production of crops, organic vegetables and fruits; livestock areas: chickens and goats; fish ponds; and botanical gardens. Simultaneously, the tourism program, GK Mabuhay, has facilitated the construction and operation of amenities for visitors who come to volunteer in house building, agricultural productivity and social entrepreneurship.
Figure 5-14 a,b Start of building construction with participation from private and public sectors in 2004 [Source: City Mayor's Office]
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 129
Figure 5-15 a,b The destruction brought about by typhoon Reming in 2006 (The damage triggered support from various sectors including tourists.) [Source: City Mayor's Office]
Figure 5-16 a,b GK Shell Farms (Sponsored by Shell Philippines composed of flower and vegetable gardens) [Source: City Mayor's Office]
Figure 5-17 a,b View of site from the top of 120 steps overlooking colourful facades of houses (2007) [Source: City Mayor's Office]
Figure 5-18 View of the GK Character Village from its entrance showing playground and row houses, 2011 [Source: City Mayor's Office]
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 130
Case community #3: GK Pona Village, Libmanan
Just like GK Character Village, the GK Pona Village was formed out of the multi- sector collaboration of government and private sector. Located in Sitio Pagara, Libmanan, the Village is a 2-hectare piece of land that was donated in 2004 by the family of Dy Tiak Pon to GK. The village is a joint project of GK and the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), who handled the selection of beneficiaries and the processing of applications.
Figure 5-19 Site Map of GK Pona Village, Libmanan [Source: GK Provincial Office, Cam Sur, 2011. Redrawn by: Author]
Physical development. The provision of spaces useful for the implementation of GK Programs was the priority in planning the GK Pona Village. The GK regional office and the Department of Social Welfare Development (DSWD) developed
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 131
the site plan for the 2 hectares of donated land. DSWD was the government agency that was also tasked to screen applications for housing beneficiaries. The following infrastructure has been constructed: 68 single detached units measuring 4 x 5 meters each, bed and breakfast units, Sibol preschool building, multipurpose hall, office, child and youth learning centres, a medical and dental clinic, a convenience store. There are also productivity areas such as flower and vegetable farms, livestock farms, citronella plantation, compost and livestock centres. Other facilities that have not yet commenced as of writing this research are the children‘s playground, the ball courts, the fishponds and vegetable farms.
Resident participation. Infrastructure was commenced in 2005 through the initiative of 14 members of the Couples for Christ Movement who volunteered as GK caretakers. The GK Project Director who is one of the volunteers led this caretaker team in facilitating the implementation of the GK programs, particularly the values formation program. The team‘s objective is to ensure the sustained cooperation of the beneficiaries, the support of funding agencies, as well as the engagement of the private sectors. One of the officers of the GK regional office comments, The active engagement of the GK caretakers in GK Pona Village has been beneficial to the promotion of the village as a tourist destination. Hence, whenever tourists want to go for a GK village tour, particularly for GK1MB activities organised by GK Mabuhay, we usually suggest that they first visit the GK Pona Village. [Interview Salvino-17/01/2011]
Social networks. ‗Complementarity‘ and ‗embeddedness‘ were reflected in the way that the local and provincial government supported these initiatives, including the construction of bed-and-breakfast facility and the promotion of the GK Pona Village as one of the tourist attractions in the municipality of Libmanan. Following the accomplishments at the GK Pona Village, the GK Project Director was elected in 2009 as the Kagawad (Councilor) for the Municipal Council of Libmanan. One of the GK caretakers explained,
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 132
The election of our GK Project Director into public office was an advantage in sustaining government support for plans and programs of our village [Focus Group L3-19/01/2011].
Figures 5-20 to 5-23 shows some of the highlights in the development process in the village, which motivated the DyTiak Pon family to donate an additional 2 hectares of land for GK in 2010. This area, which is adjacent to the existing village, has been allotted for the expansion of agriculture and livelihood development of the community.
Figure 5-20 Meeting of volunteers and beneficiaries with Government representatives in 2005 [Source: GK Pona Village archives]
Figure 5-21 a,b Bayanihan chain formed at the ground-breaking of the GK Pona Village, 2006 (With the participation of private and public partners before and during construction.) [Source: Pona Village archives]
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 133
Figure 5-22 a,b Completion of facades of single-detached units; landscape, drainage and paved road, 2007 [Source: Pona Village archives]
Figure 5-23 a,b Beautification of the façade and landscape in 2007 [Source: Pona Village archives]
Case community #4: Mambulo Nuevo Housing Association, Libmanan
Just like Sierra Homes, Mambulo Nuevo Village represents a non-GK community that has adopted GK programs and strategies at a later stage of development. The village was originally a joint project of the Department of Social Welfare and Development and the Habitat for Humanity Philippines. The construction of the houses was commenced in 2008 and the site became a relocation settlement for victims of the typhoon that hit the town early that year.
Physical development. The site development, as shown in Figure 5-24 includes access roads, riprap drainage, water pumping stations as well as the preschool building which was funded by the UNICEF. As shown in Figures 5-25 to 5-30,
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 134
certain areas have been allotted for farming, vegetable patches, and livelihood areas aside from service infrastructure. A centrally located multi-purpose open space was provided for social functions and bayanihan activities. Each family has been provided with the basic core of the house, that is, a rectangular concrete structure with a high-pitched roof to accommodate a loft on top of an open plan with a kitchen sink and bathroom. As with other GK case communities, the residents incrementally built other parts of the house including the interior walls, countertops, ceilings, and windows. Around each of the houses, spaces for vegetable and flower patches have also been provided; spaces at the rear have been used for the expansion of the kitchen and living space. The residents generally followed the typical house design and maintain them; however, there is little evidence of the collective efforts in developing communal facilities or social areas.
Figure 5-24 Site Map of Mambulo Nuevo, Libmanan [Source: Libmanan Municipal Office, Cam Sur, 2012. Redrawn by: Author]
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 135
Figure 5-25 Road leading to Mambulo Nuevo Figure 5-26 Facades of Mambulo Nuevo housing [Source: Author, 2011] units [Source: Author, 2011]
Figure 5-27 View of main alley in Mambulo Nuevo Figure 5-28 View of makeshift multipurpose area [Source: Author, 2011] [Source: Author, 2011]
Figure 5-29 Mambulo Nuevo duplex housing units Figure 5-30 Landscaped garden in the front yard of [Source: Author, 2011] a housing unit [Source: Author, 2011]
Resident participation. The self-help strategy applied in Mambulo Nuevo has required beneficiaries to render 50 days of manual labour, in order to build 17 duplex units which housed 34 families. The houses and other community infrastructure were jointly built by the residents, with the support of participants and student volunteers of Habitat for Humanity. When the houses were completed, the planning and management of the community have been handed over to the leaders of the community who established the Mambulo Nuevo
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 136
Community Association. Nonetheless as soon as the houses were built, resident participation has also stopped; since then there has been no considerable effort for residents to take part in developing other infrastructure. One of the community leaders explained: Since we relied on government to provide us with materials for building community facilities, such as our pre-school building, we stopped bayanihan as soon as construction was finished. [Focus Group L2-07/02/2011]
Social networks. The volunteer events and multi-sector collaboration and support in GK Pona Village (located approximately 2 kilometres away) have encouraged leaders of Mambulo Nuevo to consider the implementation of GK Programs in their village, which they believe would increase the promotion of their village as a destination for volunteers and prospect donors. In 2010, the leaders of Mambulo Nuevo commenced talks with the project director of GK Pona Village. [We] the leaders of the association have requested GK caretakers to conduct the values formation program and bayanihan activities so we can gain the cooperation and support of our fellow residents, GK, government and private volunteers. [Focus Groups L14- 07/02/2011]
The GK caretakers in Libmanan have positively responded by organising seminars, values formation programs and bayanihan events. Consequently, the conduct of these activities led to diverse reaction among the residents of Mambulo Nuevo, as will be discussed in succeeding sections.
In summary, the four case communities share a common strategy for development, which is, the practice of bayanihan in the building of houses and infrastructure. The communal work involved in achieving their housing goal has been widely understood by the beneficiaries of the different housing programs. Nonetheless, what is emphasised in GK Pona and GK Character Village is the role of GK caretakers not only in mobilising residents for housing construction but also in linking them with funding partners. This kind of involvement has been less evident in Sierra Homes and Mambulo Nuevo. Bayanihan in the latter two communities have stopped as soon as the construction of the houses was
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 137
completed. Thus, their leaders have considered the adoption of the GK programs as a way to sustain the development of the community. These programs will be elaborated further in succeeding sections.
Moreover, the establishment of the villages manifest the two dimensions of social capital, ‗complementarity‘ and ‗embeddedness‘. First, ‗complementarity‘ is demonstrated with the government‘s provision of bed and breakfast units in 2009 to accommodate visitors and volunteers. As ecotourism has been identified as the niche industry in the region46, government tourism bodies included the villages as a tourist destination. At the same time, the families opened their homes as homestay accommodation, which is usually ―preferred by guests who want to interact with the residents‖ [Focus Groups L6-19/01/2011]. Second, ‗embeddedness‘ is demonstrated by both the election and hiring of GK caretakers into government positions. From the perspective of both residents and politicians, the employment of GK caretakers into government is beneficial in sustaining public support for GK programs.
5.2.4 Community participation in tourism in the four case communities
In facilitating community building in Cam Sur through bayanihan, GK Mabuhay has been organising small-scale tourism activities, involving interactions between residents and visitors. Aside from house construction, there have been opportunities for both hosts and visitors to engage in other areas of development such as in agriculture, social work, arts and handicraft, and social entrepreneurship. Whether guests opt for a homestay experience in the residents‘ houses or the bed-and-breakfast facilities, the residents assume their role in enhancing the guests‘ interaction with the community, as well as with their natural environment. Such natural and social interactions through volunteer assistance in tourism development align with the perspective of Wallace (1996) on sustainable tourism, which focuses on ―not just the tourist place itself, but the practice of ethical values‖ (p.2).
46 City Government of Iriga (2007). City Strategic Plan. Iriga City Government. Iriga City
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 138
As mentioned in Chapter 4, the involvement of residents in tourism development was assessed using the six principles described by Wallace (1996). A social survey was undertaken in two stages. The first stage is the identification of activities that the community has direct involvement with. This was done through focus groups attended by community leaders and GK caretakers in Iriga and Libmanan. The participants in the focus groups were asked to reflect on the aforementioned principles and identify the tourism activities that relate to these principles. The second stage is the quantitative survey of resident participation in the activities identified in the first stage. The respondents were asked to rate their participation in these activities, ranging from 0 to 5 (5 being the highest)47.
The following section presents data derived from the survey and semi-structured interviews regarding tourism-related activities. Consequently, in Chapter 6, these activities will be correlated with housing-related activities that will aid in determining the relationship of housing and tourism.
i. Participation in tourism activities based on Principle #1: Entails a type of use that minimises negative impacts to the environment and to local people
GK‘s attempts to minimise negative impacts is reflected in the creation and proper implementation of standards on land use and zoning; house design and construction; maximising views and contour; and establishing waste disposal systems. The GK infrastructure development, in its goal to promote social equity, prioritises the construction of houses and other basic community facilities, regardless of negative environmental costs. Most of the basic infrastructures have been constructed using conventional reinforced concrete, although landscaped gardens, gazebos, archways, livelihood centres and other support facilities has been built using local materials [Focus groups L1-22/01/2014]. Waste management include recycling and composting was occasionally practised. The use of plastics and other disposable containers are still evident. Retaining walls,
47 The results of the survey are tabulated and presented in Appendix C and D.
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 139
footpaths and cut-and-fill areas have also been built to help prevent soil erosion. However, there have been certain areas wherein the soil has started to erode [Participant observation notes 25/01/2011].
Figure 5-31 below presents the activities that address negative impacts of housing development in the case communities. Most of the residents have adhered to design standards including the prohibition of exterior renovations, although some residents have expressed the need to extend the kitchen and utility areas. There have been a few reports of violations on design and spatial regulations, such as uncontrolled expansions and renovations, which have been a cause of disagreements among residents. For some it was understandable as changes had been necessary in adapting to evolving family needs [Survey CV11-26/01/2011]. However, these changes have contributed to the overall building footprint, which may have adverse environmental impacts in the community.
Mean Rating Scale: 0 (min); 5.0 (max) Setting layout of houses according to contour 4.6 1.3 4.7 0.1 Maximising landscapes and views 4.7 1.8 4.5 2.8 Monitoring implementation of standards 4.2 1.5 4.0 2.0 Standardisation of extension or improvements 4.3 0.7 4.8 4.9 Standardisation of housing design 4.0 0.3 4.8 4.7 Creation of waste disposal management 4.3 3.7 4.2 3.4 Observing zoning and land use 4.5 4.2 4.7 1.0 Maintaining cleanliness 4.4 4.8 4.8 4.5
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 GK CHARACTER VILLAGE SIERRA HOMES GK PONA VILLAGE MAMBULO NUEVO
Figure 5-31 Participation in tourism activities based on Principle #1: Entails a type of use that minimises negative impacts of housing [Source: Author]
One of the impacts of tourist visitations is that residents have become cognizant of visitors who come to their village. In GK Pona Village, one of the residents expressed,
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 140
“I want to maintain cleanliness and orderliness at all times as we usually don‟t know if and when visitors would come to visit our village” [Survey PV14-08/02/2011].
While the diversity of participation in each of the village is evident in the survey, the residents generally have a high level of participation in ‗the creation of waste management‘ and ‗maintaining cleanliness‘. However, there is less participation in ‗monitoring the implementation of set standards‘.
In general, the practice of bayanihan has contributed to improving their physical environment, making it conducive for tourism; nonetheless, one of the costs involved is uncontrolled infrastructure development, which is likely to generate conflicts with the conservation of the natural environment.
ii. Participation in tourism activities based on Principle #2: Maximises early and long-term participation of local people
As discussed in Section 2, the limited local-decision making in tourism development in the Philippines has been the result of conflicts between local and foreign investors (Bersales, 2003). On the contrary, local control of tourism in GK villages is not an issue among residents considering that tourism activities occur mostly in their own houses. Although the GK caretakers and the community leaders handle the promotions and planning for volunteer tours and visitations, the residents themselves usually assume their role as hosts whenever visitors come to their village [Focus groups L5-22/01/2014].
The visitors get the opportunity to experience bayanihan through the tourism program, GK Mabuhay. Trainings and seminars have been organised to develop skills in hospitality, restaurant management, bed & breakfast services, and the manufacture of souvenirs and other profitable items and services. One of the GK caretakers in Pona Village mentioned that their goal is ―to cultivate the capacity of residents to exercise openness and hospitality‖ [Focus groups L2-22/01/19], which were comprehended to enhance the visitors‘ experience.
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 141
While some residents find the rules set by their leaders to be difficult to adhere to, particularly in participating in bayanihan events; others however have learned to appreciate its outcome, thinking that ―if it was easy to get, it would have been easy to give up‖ [Focus groups L5-22/01/19]. More importantly, the arrival of visitors inspires them; one of the leaders mentioned ―I choose to do bayanihan even though many times I wanted to give up. It‘s because I believe that through cooperation with GK, progress is within reach‖ [Focus groups IC7-24/01/2011].
Figure 5-32 below presents the activities by which residents manifest their involvement in small-scale tourism activities. The establishment of homestay accommodations, particularly the bed-and-breakfast units have created opportunities for locals to interact with the visitors. In the focus groups, the community leaders elucidated that the residents feel special whenever people come to visit them. Having visitors in their village was regarded as a benefit in itself as it makes them proud to do something to make them come. The residents‘ interaction with foreigners made them more confident in communicating, in particular, Visitations became opportunities to learn and develop communication and hospitality skills especially whenever we serve guests as tour guides” [Focus groups L5-22/01/2011].
Mean Rating Scale: 0 (min); 5.0 (max) Giving everyone an opportunity to be a tour guide 4.3 2.5 4.7 2.9
Regular reporting of participation of each family 4.2 4.5 4.4
Involving residents in the plans and programs 4.3 2.0 4.6 4.6
Equal assignment of tasks and responsibilities 4.5 2.7 4.3 4.7
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
GK CHARACTER VILLAGE SIERRA HOMES GK PONA VILLAGE MAMBULO NUEVO
Figure 5-32 Participation in tourism activities based on Principle #2: Maximises early and long-term participation of local people in the decision process [Source: Author]
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 142
The community leaders in GK Pona Village also asserted that the implementation of GK strategies has enhanced their interest in making physical improvements in their village to make it suitable and attractive to visitors. From this development, the residents find value in attaining what was ―an outcome of their own sense of discipline and responsibility for their environment‖ [Focus groups IC6- 24/01/2011]. From the bar chart above, it shows that there is higher participation in ‗the equal assignment of tasks‘ and in ‗involving residents in the plans and programs‘.
iii. Participation in tourism activities based on Principle #3: Directs economic benefits to local people which complement traditional practices
Figure 5-33 below presents the tourism activities identified under this principle, specifically, the management and maintenance of tourist accommodation, communal services, access to basic commodities and the sustenance of farming. GK has organised seminars and trainings for skills development, specifically intended to create economic opportunities for the residents. Collective profit and savings, such as those derived from the use of accommodation facilities, the sale of organic products, and the distribution of communal utilities are managed by the KB.
Nonetheless, some of these programs have not been fully operational. In Sierra Homes for example, one of the residents complained that ―the amount of produce from backyard farming and livestock production is usually just enough for family consumption; hence the lack of participation of residents‖ [Survey CV10- 6/02/2011]. Nonetheless, the residents‘ patronisation of local convenience stores, also known as sari-sari stores sustains their access to affordable commodities and compensates for the inadequacies in farming produce.
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 143
Mean Rating Scale: 0 (min); 5.0 (max) Use of community funds for community 3.3 3.1 0.4 maintenance costs Income generation through tourist 2.6 3.7 0.1 accommodation Using savings from communal water distribution 3.8 0.9 for maintenance 0.4 Giving access to affordable commodies from 1.0 2.8 3.2 4.8 sari-sari stores Sharing profit from natural farming (e.g. from 2.3 1.2 organic produce) 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 GK CHARACTER VILLAGE SIERRA HOMES GK PONA VILLAGE MAMBULO NUEVO
Figure 5-33 Participation in tourist-related activities based on Principle #3: Directs economic benefits to local people which complement traditional practices [Source: Author]
As income from visitations is seasonal, in general, the residents have continued to rely on income generated outside of tourism. Most of the residents work as farmers, fishermen, and factory workers, drivers of public utility vehicles, food vendors, and construction labourers. Affordable commodities are made accessible through the sari-sari stores. With the construction of the GK bed-and-breakfast, one of the GK caretaker said that ―the residents have also created other businesses such as massage and wellness services, hair care and beauty products as well as citronella-based products‖ [Focus groups L1-22/01/2011]. These small-scale tourism-related activities generally complement rural and traditional practices.
Another advantage of setting up tourist accommodations is that the GK caretakers have managed to connect beneficiaries with potential donors and private volunteers. The direct interactions of residents with visitors have paved the way for enhanced partnerships. As one KB leader puts it, ―one of the benefits of visitations was the creation of donations, either in cash or in kind‖ that were made on a casual or regular basis [Focus groups L3-22/01/2011]. These funds have been managed by the GK caretakers to facilitate the maintenance of the facilities.
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 144
GK‘s funding operations are elaborated on a later discussion under the ‗action strategies‘ category.
iv. Participation in tourism activities based on Principle #4: Provides special opportunities for local people to utilise natural resources
The GK caretakers have organised trainings for residents to explore and utilise local available materials and natural resources. The residents have been exposed to different uses of local materials and resources such as food production, building construction, and the manufacture of local products that can be sold, such as for health and beauty, cleaning and household use as well as for decors and souvenirs.
Figure 5-34 below presents the activities that reflect how locals have been provided with opportunities to utilise natural resources, such as in the farming of vegetables and other organic produce, the production of handmade souvenirs and marketable items, and the use of natural materials for front yard landscaping. The leaders in Mambulo Nuevo mentioned however, that ―while more residents participated in vegetable farming and the use of natural materials for building, there are [however] fewer residents who participate in the production of native products‖ [Survey MN1-08/02/2011]. Locals have preferred to utilise natural resources for personal consumption, rather than have them wasted or traded for a just a small profit. This is evident in a high level of participation in vegetable farming and use of local materials for construction as shown in the graph below. Although – as with other tourism-related activities identified in the focus groups – there is a noticeable discrepancy not only between communities but also among residents within each of the communities itself. These discrepancies shall be elaborated in Chapter 6.
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 145
Mean Rating Scale: 0 (min); 5.0 (max)
Vegetable farming 3.8 1.7 4.1 4.3
Production of handmade souvenir items 1.4 0.5 2.7 4.3 Use of available soil, rocks and grass for 3.7 0.5 4.6 4.3 construction and landscaping
Growing ornamental plants, e.g.bonsai plants 2.0 0.6 4.9
Using natural materials to make native products 0.3 3.4
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 GK CHARACTER VILLAGE SIERRA HOMES GK PONA VILLAGE MAMBULO NUEVO
Figure 5-34 Participation in in tourist-related activities based on Principle #4: Provides special opportunities for local people to utilise natural resources [Source: Author]
v. Participation in tourism activities based on Principle #5: Increases awareness and understanding of the natural and cultural systems
Most tourism ventures in the province focus on nature tours or sightseeing. Yet, tourism activities in GK villages have highlighted social interaction; visitors have more interaction with the host community as they perform bayanihan activities. In the activities listed in Figure 5-35 below, GK has encouraged community building through religious activities, traditional livelihood practices, sports tournaments, and honing of cultural traits especially among the youth. Nonetheless, waste disposal management has also been practised as one of the activities geared towards preserving natural systems. Residents have had significant interactions with their visitors through activities wherein they are able to enhance the sense of community and develop domestic skills. As one GK caretaker resident puts it, ―we want visitors to experience bayanihan so they can understand what the poor people do to help themselves‖ [Focus groups L7 22/01/2011].
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 146
Mean Rating Scale: 0 (min); 5 (max)
Organisation of sports tournaments e.g.basketball 4.4 4.3 2.8 4.0 Participation in religious activities e.g. in prayer 4.6 1.7 4.0 4.3 meetings Preservation of cultural traits e.g.diligence, 3.9 3.7 4.5 3.2 assimilation Seminars for waste management 3.4 1.5 4.5 0.1
Seminars on health and sanitation 3.8 1.7 3.9 0.1
Livelihood training e.g.soap and candle making 3.1 1.5 3.4 0.1
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 GK CHARACTER VILLAGE SIERRA HOMES GK PONA VILLAGE MAMBULO NUEVO
Figure 5-35 Participation in tourist-related activities based on Principle #5: Increases awareness and understanding of the natural and cultural systems [Source: Author]
While there have been individual differences in the extent of participation of residents, the engagement of the community has generally equipped them in accommodating visitors. As mentioned in the focus groups, the visitors of GK, after staying in the villages for a few days tell the residents how ―their stay was made meaningful because of the people who share their homes and experiences with them‖ [Focus groups IC4 24/01/2011]. They concur that aside from nature attractions, the people‘s hospitality is a good reason for them to keep coming back. For several tourists, ―arriving as a visitor, and leaving as a family has created lasting impressions‖ [Focus groups L5-22/01/2011].
vi. Participation in tourism activities based on Principle #6: Contributes to the conservation and management of natural areas
The residents‘ direct contribution to the conservation and management of natural areas has not been covered in the focus groups and survey. This is mainly due to the large distance of the villages from the tourist places designated as protected areas. Hence, there is very little information about environment conservation
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 147
provided to the residents regarding the policies, as well as the use of protected areas in Cam Sur. Figure 5-36 however presents activities whereby residents take part in conservation activities initiated by the government within their respective vicinity. This includes tree-planting, prohibition of insecticides and hazardous fertilizers, recycling and waste disposal management, and attendance in environmental seminars and awareness campaigns.
Mean Rating Scale: 0 (min); 5 (max)
Tree-planting and reforestation 4.0 4.2 2.1 2.8
Livestock production and management 2.0 3.5 1.6 0.1
Prohibition of insecticides and artificial fertilizers 2.2 2.7 1.1 Use of recycled materials e.g.bottles, plastics, 1.9 3.0 3.6 0.2 steel Waste disposal management 2.7 1.7 4.0 0.2 Isolating domestic animals that litter the 1.0 2.8 0.4 2.1 landscape Prohibiting burning of waste 2.8 2.7 3.8 1.4
Learning how to care for the natural enviroment 2.9 1.7 4.5 3.8
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 GK CHARACTER VILLAGE SIERRA HOMES GK PONA VILLAGE MAMBULO NUEVO
Figure 5-36 Participation in tourist-related activities based on Principle #6: Contributes to the conservation and management of natural areas [Source: Author]
vii. Summary: Community participation in tourism
The survey findings point out how activities performed by residents concerning their housing environment – are relevant to tourism development in GK communities. Albeit, in contrast with ecotourism ventures that are more associated to nature-based tourism, this form of tourism is inclined towards enhancing host-tourist interactions as well as internal relationships among residents. The construction of houses and community infrastructure has not been limited to housing development; rather, the development has provided small-scale tourism opportunities for residents. Reflecting on the appropriateness of social
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 148
tourism as argued by Barkin (2000) in Chapter 2, the type of interaction and forms of tourism activities created in GK communities characterise social tourism; this will be further discussed in Chapter 6.
In particular, the following are significant observations in the evaluation of resident participation in tourism development in GK communities: i. Although constructing and expanding houses for the poor and other basic community facilities contribute to social equity, prioritising infrastructure development compromises the conservation of ecosystems and natural environments (this is indicated in the discussion of activities under Principles #1 and #6); ii. Tourism development in GK villages, which are relatively small-scale, provides opportunities for building social networks and host-tourist interactions more than nature interaction (this is indicated in the discussion of activities under Principles #2, #3 and #5); as such, the concept of social tourism in GK communities is brought to fore; iii. The locations of the sites, which are distant from nature attractions and protected areas, limits opportunities for residents to contribute to the conservation of protected natural environments (this is indicated in the discussion of activities under Principles #4 and #6).
5.3 Category 3 – The action strategies: Bayanihan as a housing strategy
This part of the grounded theory analysis investigates housing provision through bayanihan, and reveals the involvement of residents in housing activities based on the suggestion of Minnery et.al (2000). This will later be correlated against the residents‘ participation in tourism development presented in the previous section. As pointed out in Section 5.1, bayanihan is the multi-sector community participation motivated by philanthropy and patriotism. The goal of bayanihan is
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 149
not just the building of houses, rather the building up of a community of people, especially the poor. For GK, bayanihan hones the poor to become the ―country‘s greatest resource‖ (GK Field Manual 3, 2009: p.3).
As mentioned in Chapter 4, the involvement of residents in housing provision was evaluated based on the six components of housing, prescribed by Minnery et al. (2000). The authors have identified a range of components that need to be considered in housing provision , namely: (1) Organisation (2) Cultural Factors (3) Skills and development (4) Funding (5) Hard & soft infrastructure and, (6) Technology. (Minnery et al. 2000, p.245-246).
Further, tourism and housing activities, which were identified from the focus groups, are also presented in this section with corresponding perceived level of participation generated from the survey among the resident-respondents of the four communities48.
5.3.1 Organisation
Central to the development of GK villages is its ―framework of active citizenship that aims to put in place sustainable and successful governance reform and to enhance social quality‖ (Brillantes & Fernandez, 2011: p.1). As illustrated in Figure 5-37, GK envisions a simultaneous top-down and ground-up approach creating a virtuous cycle of ‗direction-driven‘ and ‗inspiration- driven‘ development composed of GK national, regional and provincial administrative bodies, caretaker teams Figure 5-37 The GK Working Structure and the Kapitbahayan (KB) community Source: GK Manual 2009. association (GK Manual 2009).
48 see Appendix C and D.
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 150
The GK Manual (2009) describes the process involved in developing GK Communities: First, the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) screens and selects eligible families of lowest economic status to become beneficiaries of GK‘s housing program. The rights and responsibilities for the use of donated land are then transferred to the Kapitbahayan (KB) community association of the respective GK villages. The security of tenure is specified in a ‗Usufruct‘ Agreement between the local government unit (LGU) and the beneficiaries. This agreement contains stipulations stating that the beneficiary agrees to the terms of GK and the KB. It also stipulates that the LGU is mandated to sustain the community building by way of infrastructure and manpower provision.
The vision of the GK development model is equipping the KB to govern their own community and to become caretakers of other communities themselves (GK Field Manual 3, 2009:p.3). There are three engagement stages in GK communities49 : The first stage is community social preparation where the main task of the caretaker is to build rapport with the KB, partners and volunteers, and other caretakers in order to set the stage for the implementation of the GK programs. In this stage, GK assigns volunteer caretakers who are to be responsible in establishing and strengthening community leadership.
The second stage is community build-up where the residents are equipped with the values, skills and resources that will prepare them for self-governance. The caretaker team conducts a 10-week values formation program attended by beneficiaries who would later become residents of GK villages. This program involves forums on demonstrating moral values such as integrity, discipline, diligence, and generosity, and applying them in bayanihan activities. This is held over a period of 2-3 weeks prior to house construction.
49 Sourced from The GK Field Manual: 2009
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 151
The third stage is community empowerment wherein the caretaker team shifts their role as leaders to supporters of the KB. The goal is to enable the KB to organise, plan and implement their regular activities and programs, as well as showcase GK programs to future GK communities. In this stage, the KB takes over the leadership role from the caretaker team (Habaradas & Aquino, 2011) as they are already equipped to establish their own established livelihood programs and cooperatives. Figure 5-38 illustrates the three stages of engagement in GK communities:
Figure 5-38 KB-centred Community Development Roadmap Overview Source: GK Field Manual 3, 2009.
Participation in housing activities based on Component #1: Organisation
In the focus groups, the community leaders asserted how their participation is greater when residents know that they are a significant part of the decision- making and implementation processes. Community participation in leadership and organisation has been demonstrated, particularly in organising regular meetings, in the creation of committees for bayanihan events, and even in making suggestions and in expressing opinions. The leaders also expressed that they are capable of initiating programs that aim to ―unite community members and provide solutions to conflicts‖ [Focus groups IC4-24/01/2011].
However, organising meetings and events has not been an easy task for the leaders. Many times they have resorted to conducting mandatory meetings by ―forcing uncooperative members to attend‖ [Focus groups IC3-24/01/2011]. As
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 152
such they are ―at times accused of being insensitive and oppressive‖ [Survey CV15 07/02/2011].
Figure 5-39 below presents the activities related to ‗organisation‟, and the corresponding levels of participation in the four communities.
Mean Rating Scale: 0 (min); 5 (max)
Exe-com meetings among community leaders 4.3 1.5 3.2 1.3
Co-management by GK caretakers 4.1 1.8 4.1 3.7
Allowing members to voice out ideas and opinion 4.2 1.8 3.4 3.8
Creation of committees for special projects 4.4 2.0 4.4 2.9
"Leadership by example" 3.9 1.7 3.6 4.1
Maintaining peaceful relationships 4.1 1.5 4.1 4.0
Formation of bayanihan (volunteer) groups 3.5 1.0 3.6 3.7 Recording of events and activities e.g. on a 3.5 1.5 4.2 2.6 logbook Call for regular meetings or assembly 4.0 2.7 3.6 4.3
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
GK CHARACTER VILLAGE SIERRA HOMES GK PONA VILLAGE MAMBULO NUEVO
Figure 5-39 Participation in activities related to ‘leadership and organisation’ [Source: Author]
5.3.2 Cultural Factors
Prior to participating in bayanihan, the GK caretakers organise values formation programs50 in order to ensure that residents understand their role in bayanihan
50 The values formation program is an essential part of the ―community-build up stage‖ that precedes the ―empowerment stage‖. Habaradas and Aquino (2011) elaborates the GK development stages as follows: Stage 1: Implement the four-track Kapitbahayan Membership Training (KBMT) as formal entry to membership in the KB; Stage 2: Implement formation tracks of the social ministries depending on the immediate need; Stage 3: Hold the 10-track KB Values Formation sessions weekly (or monthly) depending on the frequency of other formation courses; Stage 4: Implement the Christian Life program, if the caretaker team, based on its discernment, sees the need for it, and if there is clamour among the people.
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 153
activities. This program is required to advocate (1) the GK spirit, which is based on the Catholic practice of reaching out to poor communities regardless of religious beliefs51, and, (2) the spirit of love, which strives to bring total human development – a life of goodness, love and faith (GK Field Manual 1, 2009).
Through regular and consistent values formation and leadership seminars, the residents have been honed to become ―caretakers of their own communities‖ as well as that of others [Focus groups IC2-24/01/2011]. Such objective subscribes to the values of bonding and bridging within Woolcock and Narayan‘s (2000) synergy view of social capital. In facilitating values formation program that was made compulsory for all beneficiaries, one of the officials of the City of Iriga explained how the program has ―created a good foundation for the residents to exercise moral values and good habits in preparation for bayanihan‖ [Interview with City Planning Coordinator, Gonzales-15/01/2011]. Each beneficiary is viewed not as a static object, but a human being with emotional, intellectual, interpersonal and spiritual needs and capacities. This perspective is essential in upholding human dignity, as well as responsible stewardship; it also builds up a sense of identity in a social movement that says walang iwanan (no one left behind), and a sense of hope that everyone, poor or rich alike can make a positive contribution to society [GK Field Manual 3, 2009].
Participation in housing activities based on Component #2: Cultural factors
Culture-related activities affect cooperation and relationships in GK communities. Figure 5-41 presents activities related to ‗cultural factors‘, and the corresponding levels of participation in the four communities. Culture-related activities include holding community celebrations, practicing moral and cultural traits, i.e. displaying warmth and hospitality, participation in religious activities and values formation programs and promoting good relationships with one‘s family and
51 While GK was started by a religious organisation, Couples for Christ, it has diverted its focus away from spiritual formation, towards values formation that aims to reach out and engage with people from different faith and cultural backgrounds [GK Field Manual 2009].
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 154
community. In general, there has been a significantly high level of participation in all of the activities.
Mean Rating Scale: 0 (min); 5 (max)
Holding community celebrations, e.g.birthdays 4.0 2.0 3.6 4.8 festivals Practising bayanihan during events and 4.2 2.8 4.5 4.6 celebrations Teaching good values to children 4.4 4.3 4.6 4.9
Preservation of culture, e.g. diligence, hospitality 4.4 4.0 4.4 4.9 Making visitors feel welcome, e.g.food, tours, 4.4 2.2 4.7 4.7 shows Participation in religious activities 4.5 2.5 4.3 4.6
Promotion of good relationships with community 4.4 4.3 4.1 4.7
Promotion of good relationships with family 4.6 4.2 4.7 4.5
Participation in values formation programs 4.4 4.7 4.6 0.4
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
GK CHARACTER VILLAGE SIERRA HOMES GK PONA VILLAGE MAMBULO NUEVO
Figure 5-40 Participation in activities related to ‘cultural factors’ [Source: Author]
5.3.3 Skills Development
The KB community association organises bayanihan activities by forming working groups called the Bayanihan Action Team (BAT). Villanueva (2010) enumerates the following tasks performed by the BAT leaders: i. Kalinisan at kagandahan (Cleanliness and beautification) ii. Kasiyahan, kultura at turismo (Community socials, sports and recreation) iii. Kapatiran at bayanihan (Community Infrastructure) iv. Kapayapaan at kaayusan (Peace and order) v. Kalusugan (Health) vi. Kasaganahan at kabuhayan (Food sufficiency, livelihood and productivity) vii. Kaagapay (Social service) viii. Karunungan (Education and Values Formation)
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 155
In the focus groups, the community leaders and caretakers of the GK Character Village and GK Pona Village outlined the functions and accomplishments of the working groups. These are:
Skills for building houses and communal infrastructure. The GK Community Infrastructure Program has been organising training and skills development in house construction, landscaping, facilities improvement, and production of building materials. The residents who have gained the skills have likewise provided trainings to other residents in their village. Often times, those who have gained new skills, such as in painting, steel works and masonry, have volunteered to ―help in the building of other villages even in other provinces‖ [Focus groups IC9-24/11/2011].
Skills for self-sufficiency. The GK Bayan-anihan52 food sufficiency program has been implemented for household consumption, and also for swapping produce. Each family was assigned 1x10m farm plots that would accommodate vegetable plants to make produce for one kind of dish. The families have swapped their produce with other families who also produce vegetables for another type of dish.
Skills for livelihood. The GKnomics livelihood program has provided economic opportunities through growing organic vegetables, and manufacturing slippers, handicrafts, soaps, and organic fertilizers. Others, on the other hand, have engaged in waste management and beautification. All of these activities have augmented fishing and agricultural productivity.
Skills for environment conservation. The Green Kalinga environmental program (―Kalinga” means care) was established to help the community to become stewards of the environment. Residents have been encouraged to contribute to the conservation and beautification of their natural environments through the
52 Bayan-anihan is derived from the words ―bayan‖ which means nation and ―ani‖ which means harvest. This GK program aimed to ―eradicate hunger through backyard farming‖ and produce ―food-for-the-table‖ for each household Keng, A. (2009). GK Libmanan. http://madeinphilippines.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/gk-libmanan/
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 156
implementation of waste management programs, the promotion of tree-planting, the use of organic fertilizers, as well the development and maintenance of garden landscapes.
Participation in housing activities based on Component#3: Skills and development
Trainings and seminars that have been conducted by local government units in Iriga and Libmanan were primarily aimed at developing the residents‘ skills in housing construction. The residents who have obtained training have also developed the capability of transferring their skills to other members of the community [Focus groups L9-2/11/2011]. These trained residents are also the ones who have usually attended bayanihan activities in several other GK villages elsewhere.
Nonetheless, Figure 5-41 presents activities related to ‗skills development‘, which range from house building to waste management and cleanliness drives. GK has created standards for the proper implementation of community development programs through bayanihan. However one of the residents of Mambulo Nuevo pointed out that one of the setback is that ―the goal of achieving the required quantity of houses has compromised its quality‖ particularly in terms of construction safety and durability [Survey MN1-09/02/2011]. The tendency to focus on the amount of house production more than its quality will be elaborated in Chapter 6.
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 157
Mean Rating Scale: 0 (min); 5 (max)
Creation of policies for waste management 4.2 2.0 4.2 3.9 Trading/barter of farming produce 2.4 1.2 3.0 0.6 Backyard-farming for family consumption 4.2 2.5 4.1 4.8 Trainings for souvenir-making 3.2 1.0 3.8 4.0 Conducting trainings initiated by LGUs 4.0 1.8 3.7 1.7 Neighborhood cleanliness drives 4.7 2.7 4.5 4.5 Assignment of tasks for house building 4.3 4.3 4.6 4.3
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 GK CHARACTER VILLAGE SIERRA HOMES GK PONA VILLAGE MAMBULO NUEVO
Figure 5-41 Participation in activities related to ‘skills development’ [Source: Author]
5.3.4 Funding
Funds used for the construction of GK houses and other infrastructure have been generated through private and public partnerships, which have been handled by the GK Partnership Management Group (GKPMG). GKPMG was formed to institutionalise partnerships with corporations, local government units, government agencies and other groups who sustain the work of GK (Habaradas, 2010). Habaradas (2010) enumerates GK‘s partnership strategies, namely: (1) relationship building, where partnerships are based on mutual respect and adherence to a common vision; (2) inclusiveness, which looks at other organisations and individual‘s potential to participate in the task of nation- building; (3) leveraging53, where the resources given to GK are multiplied through various partnerships and human resource mobilisation; (4) co-branding which invests on the integrity of others to create a powerful synergy; and, (5) see-for- yourself results, where benefactors can visit the adopted villages to see visible and measurable results. (2010:30)
53[Figuratively speaking] One unit of labour from the beneficiaries and volunteers is leveraged with one unit of land donated by private donor, one unit of infrastructure from government resources and one unit of other forms of resource generated from firms and corporations. The idea of leveraging of resources hence reduces donor fatigue. [Interview with GK Founder Meloto- 22/02/2011]
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 158
In Iriga, funds used for establishing the GK Character Village have been generated through the ANCOP54, the Department of Social Welfare Development, the Rotary Club, Shell, Harvest International, the Government of Cam Sur, and other private donors and volunteers. On the other hand, in Libmanan, resources for the GK Pona Village have been generated from ANCOP Australia, the municipal and provincial government units, politicians, as well as public and private corporations. Table 5-10 below outlines major forms of support from GK‘s partners: Table 5-10 Funding partners and accomplished units [Source: GK provincial office. Cam Sur, 2012] Funding partners of Character Village, Iriga Funding partners of Pona Village, Libmanan ANCOP Chicago Shelter 28units Ancop Australia Shelter 30units Dept. of Social Welfare Shelter 18units Local Govt. Libmanan Site dev’t ANCOP Switzerland Shelter 20units Mark Heiman Shelter 1units ANCOP Pachamama Shelter 26units PGMA Shelter 30units Rotary Club of Iriga Sibol school Cong. Dato Arroyo Shelter 1units Province of Cam Sur Bed & Breakfast MIAA Shelter 16units Shell Productivity Philips Electronics Sibol School Harvest International Shelter 10units Shell Shell Farm Bed & Richard Quan Build Equipmt Province of Cam Sur Breakfast ANCOP New Jersey Village marker Bayanihan Build Shelter 1units Sen. Pangilinan Shelter 15units
Participation in housing activities based on Housing Component #4: Funding
GK residents have relied upon public and private donations in the form of land, infrastructure, construction materials, logistics and material support, including social services (medical, educational, and cultural services); as such, there have been no obligation for residents to pay monthly amortisations unlike most public housing programs. While this made GK programs even more attractive to the poor, this has also translated to stricter conditions and policies imposed by the KB. The donors and partners have periodically visited the site to see the actual
54 ANCOP (Answering the Cry of the Poor ) is the funding arm of GK which is based in different countries and regions including Chicago USA, Switzerland, and Pachamana.
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 159
progress; hence, residents felt ―obliged to participate in all bayanihan events, particularly in the maintenance of their houses and surroundings‖ [Focus groups L2-22/01/2011]; yet a few residents agree that ―keeping our surroundings clean and pretty is a regular responsibility‖, whether or not donors pay them a visit [Survey CV11-07/02/2011]. Figure 5-42 below presents the activities whereby residents have expressed their awareness of the contribution made by other sectors in terms of resource generation.
Mean Rating Scale: 0 (min); 5 (max)
Encouraging personal support from private sector 4.0 1.3 3.2 0.3
Support from schools and educational institutions 4.2 1.3 4.5 0.3
Management of finances by GK caretakers 4.2 1.5 3.2 0.3
Receiving pledges from visitors or tourists 3.9 1.3 2.6 0.3 Beautification of surroundings to increase 4.5 3.3 4.6 0.7 visitation Coordination and support from local government 4.6 2.8 4.2 5.0 Building up of partnerships from abroad through 4.5 0.7 5.0 4.6 GK 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
GK CHARACTER VILLAGE SIERRA HOMES GK PONA VILLAGE MAMBULO NUEVO
Figure 5-42 Participation in activities related to ‘funding’ [Source: Author]
The regular and constant monitoring of the progress of the communities by the GK national office, the GK caretakers, the government and the funding partners reveal how beneficiaries have been typically reliant upon external agents. Whereas this diminishes democratisation of the community association, this was rarely found to be an issue among residents. The residents expressed more their need for further support or improvement, particularly in the repair of housing, road networks and livelihood infrastructure, as well as in sustaining the salaries of full-time workers including teachers and community organisers.
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 160
The reliance of residents on external funding has raised important points on the co-existence of democracy and dependency in the actual participation of GK residents, which will discussed further in Chapter 6.
5.3.5 Hard and soft infrastructure
GK‘s Community Infrastructure Program (CIP) engages residents as well as different sectors of the community in the construction of houses, roads, drainage, multipurpose halls, schools and other community infrastructure. The program aims to build good quality but inexpensive houses and facilities for the poor. The houses and other social amenities are in close proximity to each other. This clustered development in GK villages reflects the community social bonding as an outcome of ―helping the beneficiary, [while] building up the whole community‖ (GK Field Manual 3 2009: 12).
A typical GK dwelling has a floor area of 20 square metres. The design is highly restricted to maximise the budget of Eighty Thousand Pesos (PhP 80,000, or approximately AUD 2,000) per dwelling. The studio-type layout included a 1m x 1m toilet, a concrete kitchen counter with sink and an outdoor cooking area. The size is considered a starter house or transition house in which the family can further improve on. The families have developed the interiors, but they have been discouraged to make external changes, in order to maintain uniformity throughout the village. In GK Character Village, row house units were developed, aiming to conform to the topography and maximise land allocated for housing. The community association however has encountered problems in maintaining the design and construction standards, particularly for service areas, which have had several alterations carried out by individual families. There have been reports of the ―use of dilapidated wood and metal sheets, and other fire-prone and impermanent materials‖ [Survey CV9-07/02/2011]. In GK Pona Village however, service areas are built at the rear. The provision of this extra space, which is unusual in other villages, has minimised conflicts with neighbours, as well as KB leaders who wanted to strictly maintain the housing standards.
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 161
The façades are notable for its vibrant colours and landscaped gardens. This is an important feature of GK houses; the use of bright colours and landscaped gardens symbolises the community‘s pursuit of beauty and life within each household [GK website 2009].
Participation in housing based on ‘hard and soft infrastructure’
Figure 5-43 below presents activities related to service and infrastructure. Although the residents have participated in bayanihan in the building of community infrastructure, especially school buildings, they have expressed their limited exposure to activities concerning utilities, such as power and water distribution, as this was primarily the responsibility of the local government. Nonetheless there has been more participation in activities related to farming and rice procurement in GK villages.
Mean Rating Scale: 0 (min); 5 (max) Self-help building of school and other 4.4 2.3 4.8 4.8 infrastructure Procurement of NFA (brand) rice for the 3.3 0.5 3.8 0.7 community
Providing affordable water distribution services 2.7 0.5 2.9 2.7
Use of organic fertilizers 3.7 2.8 4.6 0.3
Recording and monitoring of harvest 4.0 0.5 4.5 0.1
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 GK CHARACTER VILLAGE SIERRA HOMES GK PONA VILLAGE MAMBULO NUEVO
Figure 5-43 Participation in activities related to ‘service and infrastructure’ [Source: Author]
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 162
5.3.6 Technology
A review of the beneficiaries‘ profiles in Iriga City and Libmanan revealed that before moving into the GK villages, most of the families have squatted on private land or in areas that are mostly located in danger zones. They lived in barong- barong, (make-shift dwellings), which are made of old or dilapidated wood and scrap metal. Sweat equity or manual labour for a minimum of 400 hours has been required before dwelling units are awarded to the eligible families. The residents, who have attended construction training, have also developed their capacity to train others to become skilled workers themselves.
Meloto asserts that sweat equity involved in bayanihan has equipped residents to ―dismantle the ‗barong-barong 55 mentality, towards ‗stakeholder mentality‘ [Interview with GK Founder, Meloto-22/02/2011]; the former constitutes insecurity and lack of self-esteem as a result of poor housing conditions, resulting in complacency and apathy in helping one‘s self and others, while the latter constitutes a sense of ownership and an active contribution in improving the quality of life for self and others. The ‗barong-barong mentality‘ likewise corresponds to what Berner (2001: 229-242) points out in his argument of the relationship of housing and poverty. As discussed earlier in this chapter, the dimension of ‗housing is a factor of poverty‘ occurs when the lack of adequate and decent infrastructure exacerbates the poor‘s vulnerability to poverty due to the lack of quality of living. Yet, what ‗stakeholder mentality‘ conveys is that while there are limitations to the government‘s capacity to generate resources for the poor, house production can nonetheless be implemented through a self-enabling approach or people‘s initiative.
Bayanihan then emphasises the importance of sweat equity in restoring the dignity of the poor communities, and in building relationships among them and external sectors (Gawad Kalinga website, 2009).
55 Barong-barong is a Filipino term translated as makeshift dwelling or shanty. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 163
Figures 5-44 to 5-55 below present the activities involving manual labour contribution among beneficiaries and participants of the various GK1MB 56 volunteer programs.
Figure 5-44 ‘Bayanihan chain’ or the manual hauling of Figure 5-45 Volunteer students in bayanihan construction materials [GK Pona Village (2005). Source: GK Archives] [GK Pona Village (2005). Source: GK Archives]
Figure 5-46 Skilled residents providing training to other Figure 5-47 Skilled residents providing training to other residents residents [GK Pona Village (2005). Source: GK Archives] [GK Pona Village (2005). Source: GK Archives]
56 GK Isang Milyong Bayani (One Million Heroes)
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 164
Figure 5-48 Partially completed single-detached dwellings Figure 5-49 Studio-type interior showing kitchen sink and [GK Pona Village (2005). Source: GK Archives] combined toilet and bath. [GK Pona Village (2005). Source: GK Archives]
Figure 5-50 Groundbreaking, staking and “bayanihan Figure 5-51 Manual clearing and hauling of construction chain” materials [GK Character Village 2004. Source: GK Archives] [GK Character Village 2004. Source: GK Archives]
Figure 5-52 Gardening and landscape beautification by Figure 5-53 Concrete steps leading to flower garden and women volunteers gazebo deck. [GK Pona Village (2005). Source: GK Archives] [GK Character Village 2006. Source: GK Archives]
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 165
Figure 5-54 Painting of house exterior and gardening by Figure 5-55 Partially completed row-house volunteers and beneficiaries [GK Character Village 2006. Source: GK Archives] [GK Character Village 2006. Source: GK Archives]
As illustrated in Figures 5-44 to 5-55 above, the GK villages place considerable importance on the visual aspects of construction – in particular, the development of façade, landscaping and the amount of house production – rather than on the function nor the provision of spaces for expansion over time. As will be argued in succeeding chapters, such physical development has been beneficial in tourism development and in attracting funding for GK communities.
Resident participation in ‘technology’
The concept of sweat equity is a significant part in the technology of housing and support infrastructure. As shown in Figure 5-56, residents mostly expressed a high level of participation in activities involving technology. In all of the 4 communities, the residents complied with the minimum required number of actual manual labour in bayanihan events. However one of the residents views this as a disadvantage as ―the number of hours targeted for manual labour that was rendered by a mix of skilled and unskilled workers was compromised with the quality of building‖ [Survey CV9-09/02/2011]. There is a need therefore, especially in Sierra Homes and Mambulo Nuevo, not just to sustain the number of participation but to combine participation with appropriate skill or quality workmanship. Thorough ―monitoring and creation of alternative construction
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 166
strategies‖ must be set in place in order to minimise risks and negative consequences [Survey CV9-09/02/2011].
Mean Rating Scale: 0 (min); 5 (max) Setting the layout of houses according to land 4.5 2.7 4.8 1.4 contour Monitoring implementation of standards 3.6 0.5 4.8 2.0
Standardisation of extensions and improvements 4.1 0.5 4.9 4.3
Building structures that are typhoon-resistant 4.2 5.0 4.1 0.5
Standardisation of basic/core house 4.3 2.7 4.9 4.3
Skilled worker assigned to unskilled ones 3.3 1.3 2.7 2.9
Developing self-help construction skills 4.2 1.8 4.6 5.0 Setting up groundwork in preparation for Bayanihan 4.3 2.7 4.5 5.0 Day 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
GK CHARACTER VILLAGE SIERRA HOMES GK PONA VILLAGE MAMBULO NUEVO
Figure 5-56 Participation on activities related to ‘technology’ [Source: Author]
5.3.7 Summary: Community participation in housing
The aforementioned evaluation of resident participation in housing activities forms a basis for outlining the different ways in which the four case communities have been established and how bayanihan was practised as a strategy for housing provision.
Table 5-11 below summarises the comparison of the four communities according to the six components of housing:
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 167
Table 5-11 Summary of housing components: Comparing the four case communities [Source: Author] Housing GK Character Sierra Homes GK Pona Village Mambulo Nuevo Components 1. Organisation The GK Community The Sierra Homes The GK The Mambulo association was Housing Association Kapitbahayan Nuevo Housing formed by the GK was formed by the Community Association was organisation in Iriga City Urban association was formed by the 2004 Poor Social Housing formed by the GK Habitat for Program in 2003 organisation in Humanity in 2008 2005 2. Cultural Values formation There was no Values formation There was no factors program was specific program program was specific program (Community established for the established to cater established for the established to cater strengthening) strengthening of for community strengthening of for community community strengthening at community strengthening at members prior to the time of house members prior to the time of house house construction. construction house construction. construction 3. Skills Residents were Residents were Residents were Residents were development trained for initially trained for trained for trained for house community building house construction community building construction only – through various GK only – until the through various GK until the programs including consolidation with programs including consolidation with GK Mabuhay GK GK Mabuhay GK (tourism program) (tourism program) 4. Funding Funding was Funding was Funding was Funding was sourced from subsidised by the sourced from sourced from the donors and City Government of donors and Habitat for collected by either Iriga; collected by either Humanity the GK national or Residents were the GK national or organisation and GK regional required to pay GK regional the Department of organisation team; monthly organisation team; Social Welfare Residents were not amortization Residents were not Libmanan; required to pay required to pay Residents were not monthly monthly required to pay amortization and amortization and monthly exercised limited exercised limited amortization but transparency with transparency with exercised maximum residents residents transparency with residents 5. Hard & soft During construction During construction During construction During construction infrastructure implementation, implementation, implementation, implementation, there was a strong there was poor there was strong there was poor partnership with partnership with partnership with partnership with private and public private/public private and public private/public sector in the sectors in the sector in the sectors in the delivery of delivery of delivery of delivery of infrastructure infrastructure infrastructure infrastructure 6. Technology 400 hours manual There was no 400 hours manual 200 hours manual (implementatio labour was required minimum number was required from labour was required n of self-help from the of manual labour the beneficiaries, from, under the housing beneficiaries, under required, although under the supervision of approach) the supervision of majority of the supervision of the Humanity the GK caretaker residents applied GK caretaker team Organisation and team in Iriga self-help housing at in Libmanan the Department of their own Social Welfare discretion.
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 168
The survey of participation has thus elaborated how and to what extent is the participation of residents in both housing and tourism. In particular, the evaluation of the four case communities elaborates GK‘s adoption of bayanihan as the housing strategy.
Reiterating the analytical framework presented in Chapter 4, data emerging from Categories 1, 2 and 3 of grounded theory coding reveals theoretical and analytical concepts that are associated with, and supported by emergent theories on community participation and social capital. Both open coding and axial coding were applied in this thesis. In open coding, various data derived from interviews, focus groups, archival reviews and participant observation notes were analysed and assigned into coding references. These coding references revealed particular themes which, in axial coding, were assigned into corresponding categories. As shown in in Table 5-12, the themes that were generated in the grounded theory analysis are: ―Revitalisation of bayanihan‖, as the causal condition (first category) ―Social capital creation‖, as the contextual and intervening condition (second category) ―Promoting bayanihan‖ as the action strategy (third category) ―Convergence of tourism and housing‖, as the phenomenon (fourth category) ―Diverse community participation‖ as the consequence (fifth category)
The causal conditions highlights GK‘s participatory approach through bayanihan, which, was employed by GK as a strategy for housing provision. The context conditions include the social, political and cultural environment in Cam Sur‘s tourism development, in particular the collaboration of public and private sector which is crucial in initiating social capital. The action strategies focus on community participation in housing activities in GK communities and describes the six housing criteria suggested by Minnery et.al (2000) – namely: cultural factors, hard and soft infrastructure, technology, organisation, funding and skills development. The phenomenon points to a convergence of tourism and housing
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 169
in GK communities, which in turn leads to consequences; the consequences are the diverse participation of residents in housing provision and tourism development. Theoretical and analytical concepts that were generated to define or explain the corresponding categories then become the foundation for addressing the research questions.
Among the theoretical and analytical concepts, are ‗the six factors that influence the practice of bayanihan‟. In these six factors, the reliance of the residents on external agents – GK in particular – and other sectors is prevalent. The next chapter elaborates these in the discussion of Categories 4 and 5, namely, the Phenomenon and the Consequence.
Chapter 5 – Causal conditions, contextual conditions and action strategies 170
Table 5-12 Grounded theory coding analysis (Source: Author) Research Themes / Elements Categories in Theoretical and Analytical Concepts Research Questions Open Coding is reflected back to relevant theories in Open Coding Axial Coding (generated through open coding) Addressed and concepts GK’s participatory approach Revitalisation of bayanihan: (Brillantes & Fernandez, 2011; Habaradas & Aquino, in solving poverty and CAUSAL CONDITIONS attracting volunteers for 2010; Villanueva, 2010) homelessness community building in the Philippines Multi-sector collaboration in Social capital creation within (Evans, 1996; Jones, 2005; Lang & Hornburg, 1998; promoting ecotourism in CONTEXTUAL tourism development Okazaki, 2008; Woolcock & Narayan, 2000) Cam Sur CONDITIONS
Organisation Leadership & Organisation (Arnstein, 1969; Butcher, 2008; M. Choguill, 1996;
Garrod, 2003; Tazim Jamal & Getz, 1995; Keogh,
1990; Lang & Hornburg, 1998; Okazaki, 2008; Small,
2002; Steinberg, 1992) What are the factors that Funding Multi-sector collaboration (Choi & Sirakaya, 2006; Tazim Jamal & Getz, 1995; influence the creation of Sautter & Leisen, 1999) social capital formed from Technology Sweat Equity (Astrand & Rodriguez, 1996; Marais, et al., 2003; bayanihan in GK ACTION STRATEGIES Sheng, 1990; Tait, 1997; Turner, 1972) communities? Hard and soft infrastructure Project delivery (Grillo, et al., 2010; Oviedo-Garcia, et al., 2008; Sucgang, 1964) Cultural Factors Community Identity (Chang, 1999; Dovey & King, 2012; Gotham & Brumley, 2002; Horton, 2009; King & Idawati, 2010; MacCannell, 1973; Pinijvarasin & Sunakorn, 2007; Vale, 1995) Skills development Training and Education (2000; Astrand & Rodriguez, 1996; King & Idawati, 2010; Lyons & Wearing, 2012; Marais, et al., 2003; Price, 2003; Suyasinto, 1989; Walter, 2009) CONVERGENCE OF SECTORS PHENOMENON THE CONVERGENCE OF TOURISM AND HOUSING IN GK To what extent does COMMUNITIES participation in housing Manifold participation of residents influence participation in (Barkin, 2000; Evans, 1996; Lang & Hornburg, 1998; Community participation in the convergence of housing and tourism Neto, 2003; Okazaki, 2008; Woolcock & Narayan, and social capital CONSEQUENCES tourism 2000)
5.4 Conclusion
This chapter investigated the factors that influence the creation of social capital from bayanihan in GK communities. The first part of the grounded theory analysis, consisting of three categories was presented. These categories reveal the conditions and strategies that contribute to the convergence of tourism and housing.
Category 1 (The Causal Condition) – Revitalising bayanihan in Gawad Kalinga in addressing poverty and housing shortage: Fundamentally, GK embarked on the adoption of bayanihan as a holistic approach for addressing poverty and housing shortage in the country. Bayanihan, which was traditionally understood as a practice of cooperation among Filipinos, stirred multi-sector engagement in volunteer activities that were essentially motivated by patriotism and philanthropy. GK then emerged as a nation-building and community-building movement through bayanihan.
Category 2 (The contextual conditions) – Advancing tourism development in Cam Sur through multi-sector engagement: The GK development model confers with the promotion of tourism in Bicol, reflecting the social capital dimension of ‗complementarity‘ between GK and the government. In the context of mass tourism development in Cam Sur, ecotourism was used as development strategy by government in order to engage various sectors in the province. The government‘s ecotourism co- branding and ‗embeddedness‘ with GK communities was strongly manifested in Iriga and Libmanan through the government‘s support for social infrastructure, promotion of villages as tourist destinations, as well as formal engagements of GK caretakers into public office. The survey of participation also revealed how residents engage in bayanihan activities that create mutual benefits to hosts and tourists. These activities are nonetheless detached from broader definitions of ecotourism associated with nature- based tourism and more related to social tourism, which will be discussed in-depth in the next chapter.
Category 3 (The action strategies) – Employing bayanihan as a strategy for housing provision in GK villages in Cam Sur: The practice of bayanihan involved in the
implementation of housing provision highlight the role of GK caretakers in facilitating social capital by establishing social networks and linking residents with external sectors. From the grounded theory coding, the following factors which influence the creation of social capital generated from bayanihan have emerged – leadership and organisation, multi-sector collaboration, sweat equity, project delivery, community identity, and training and education. The development approach taken by GK therefore precipitated the convergence of tourism and housing in GK communities in Cam Sur.
The diagram in Figure 5-57 below outlines the relationship of the five categories of grounded theory coding. Consequently, the next chapter will identify and elaborate the fourth and fifth categories, namely, the phenomenon and its corresponding consequences.
Figure 5-57 Outline of the grounded theory coding analysis [Source: Author]
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 173
6. The Phenomenon and the Consequence
The previous chapter presented the first part of the grounded theory analysis, which consisted of the three coding categories: the causal conditions, the contextual conditions and the action strategies, pertaining to bayanihan. The analysis has revealed the conditions and strategies that contribute to the convergence of housing and tourism in GK villages: First, the causal conditions brought to fore the emergence of GK villages in seeking to address poverty and housing issues in the Philippines through the revitalisation of bayanihan. Second, the contextual conditions revealed tourism development in Cam Sur wherein ecotourism plans and programs were used by government as a catchphrase for engaging various sectors in the province. Third, the action strategies determined housing activities involving bayanihan and the extent in which residents participate in these. From these activities, the factors that influence the creation of social capital emerged. The six factors are: leadership and organisation, multi-sector collaboration, sweat equity, project delivery, community identity, and training and education.
This chapter addresses the second research question: To what extent does community participation in housing provision influence community participation in tourism development? It presents the second part of the grounded theory analysis, consisting of the fourth and fifth categories: The fourth category (the phenomenon) presents the development of a convergence of tourism and housing in GK communities. This highlights social tourism as a form of tourism that has emerged from bayanihan. It also presents the correlation analysis derived from the survey of resident participation as presented in Chapter 5. The fifth category (the consequences) assesses the participation of residents by employing the six factors that contribute to the creation of social capital, as criteria for assessment. The assessment determines the levels of participation, as well as the range of resident consensus which are used as basis for
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 174
comparing and classifying the four communities. The findings of this chapter provide the basis for the establishment of the empirical model of community participation in GK communities.
6.1 Category 4 – The phenomenon: Convergence of housing and tourism
The previous chapter discussed underlying aspects that explain the occurrence of two forms of development in GK villages: tourism and housing. The development of GK villages was supported by the government of Cam Sur as it complements with plans and programs for ecotourism that was adopted as a strategy to maintain the perception of being sustainable. GK programs are aimed at promoting green and sustainable practices, particularly through bayanihan activities that offer social interaction – a vital feature that is more commonly associated with social tourism.
While the four case communities were evaluated based on the six principles of ecotourism, the survey presented in Chapter 5 revealed certain attributes of development in GK that are incompatible with broader ecotourism principles, in particular: (1) the necessity of building houses and other infrastructure that generates conflicts with the conservation of ecosystems and natural environments, (2) the creation of small-scale tourism which emphasise two-way host-tourist interactions rather than just nature interaction; and, (3) the location of sites that are far from nature interactions and protected areas thereby diminishing opportunities for residents to contribute to the conservation of the natural environment.
GK‘s tourism development rather aligns more strongly with social tourism. As discussed in Chapter 5, GK communities attract visitors that are interested in alternative tourist experiences that provide mutual benefits for hosts and their visitors. Bayanihan activities in GK communities are primarily small-scale. It enables residents to utilise local resources, increasing the residents‘ capacity to engage in development and in the process, sustain synergies and social networks. In this regard, the development of social tourism supports the phenomenon of convergence of housing and tourism.
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 175
The following sections elaborate the convergence of housing and tourism manifesting in bayanihan in GK communities in Cam Sur. This entails a discussion of the following: (1) how social tourism is appropriated in bayanihan, (2) an evaluation of bayanihan from a visitor-oriented perspective, (3) the role of facilitators in social capital creation (4) the rise of multi sectoral relations, (5) barriers to cooperation and, (6) a statistical exploration of resident participation; these shall be the reference for formulating an empirical model of community participation in housing and tourism development. .
6.1.1 Appropriating social tourism in bayanihan
In Chapter 5, the exploration of contextual conditions highlighted ecotourism as the niche industry of both the regional government of Bicol and the provincial government of Cam Sur. However, most of the tourism products offered in the province have been criticised for its probable risks on the environment as well as its people.
In the group interview with planning officials in the City of Iriga, the Mayor pointed out that the environment-oriented goals of GK complement the region‘s vision for sustainable development [Interview with Iriga City Mayor Alfelor-17/02/2011]. GK has established the program for environmental awareness, the Green Kalinga Program, which promotes sustainable practices. For this reason, GK has been chosen as a primary beneficiary of government-initiated tourism projects. This aligns with GK‘s motto, which is, ―Save the poor, save the environment: save the environment, save the poor‖ [Interview with GK Founder, Meloto-22/02/2011],
However, the exploration of causal conditions and action strategies reveal that the participatory activities in GK villages are inconsistent with certain principles of ecotourism. The association (or lack for that matter) of sustainable tourism with poverty eradication indicates the need to revisit ecotourism as an approach for sustainability. Findings from Chapter 5 assert how bayanihan is more aligned with social tourism from which the phenomenon of convergence of tourism and housing has emerged.
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 176
Minnaert, et al. (2006) has a very basic definition of social tourism: it is ―tourism with an added moral value which aims to benefit either the host or the visitor in the tourism exchange‖(p.9). He describes social tourism into two classifications: (1) visitor-related and (2) host-related. Visitor-related social tourism focuses on tourism demand which provides everyone the opportunity for vacation, regardless of economic or social situation. It treats holiday travel as a human right, especially for low-income families and those who are experiencing physical, mental or emotional ailments. This puts a responsibility to government or social welfare programs to satisfy holiday travel as a human right.
In contrast, host-related social tourism focuses on the effects on the supply-side of tourism. The basic feature is interaction; ―a non-commercial form of tourism; cheap, and aimed to create friendships‖ (Åke Nilsson, 2002: 9). Highlighting local cultures and the daily lifestlyle of inhabitants could also be described as social tourism. For Minnaert et al. (2006) though, visitor-related social tourism is more complex than host- related social tourism; in the former, the effectiveness of tourism ventures in addressing social exclusion for visitors is hard to determine. But with host-related social tourism, ―the exclusiveness of the experience can make it rather sought after for a group who want to see things that are not yet discovered by mass tourism, and see the conditions in which people live without losing the pleasantness of a holiday‖ (p.15)
In the development of GK communities in Cam Sur, bayanihan was applied in a way that promotes mutual benefits for both hosts and visitors in social tourism. Bayanihan activities are centred on responsible citizenship and philanthropy not only among hosts but also among tourists and other sectors. This was manifest in community building activities involving skills development for small-scale ventures such as backyard farming, handicrafts, manufacturing organic products and building materials. As such, tourism in GK Villages manifests the Department of Tourism‘s partnership with GK nationwide, in ―building sustainable houses in places worth visiting‖.57 This is in
57 MANILA, Oct. 19 2010 — The Department of Tourism (DOT) and the Gawad Kalinga (GK) Community Development Foundation, Inc. signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to formalise partnership in the development of community-based tourism enterprise in selected key sites nationwide. Lily Ramos, 20 October 2010. http://balita.ph/2010/10/20/dot-and-gawad-kalinga-sign-mou/
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 177
contrast to commercial or mass tourism in Cam Sur as discussed in Chapter 5, wherein the size of the market segment is prioritised which is evident in the increase of tourist facilities and infrastructure such as for sports and leisure that are not necessarily dependent on local resources and manpower.
A number of news and online articles about Cam Sur affirm that aside from the more popular sites of nature and adventure tourism in the province, the GK villages became destinations for domestic and foreign tourists. The articles, which were published by travellers in newspapers, magazines and online blogs, indicate their positive perception of GK communities as a result of their visits. Some examples are as follows:
A perception of popularity, highlighting how GK has scaled up in terms of number of participants and the level of satisfaction attained. As one blogger says, ―Really, what I would like to focus on here is perhaps the most peculiar, unique and in the end, most rewarding experience that Cam Sur has to offer: the GK Villages. Lots of people go here to volunteer. Thousands of communities have already taken root in various sites in the Philippines […]There are actually a good number of tourists who visit the country to find volunteer opportunities in the Philippines. The GK program had been a great idea. GK is a new concept where tourists can immerse themselves in doing the daily routines in the community. Indeed social work and tourism can go hand in hand.‖58
A perception of how their experience of GK is unique. The tourists appreciate how ―GK welcomes local and foreign tourists who want a different kind of vacation, one that includes immersion.‖ 59 The community tourism in GK communities has pioneered a kind of community tourism ―using the villages of relocated squatters as a backdrop for curious travellers and hard-core volunteers alike, to experience provincial life untouched by tourism gimmicks.‖60
A perception of how GK combines tourism and meaningful social experience. As one traveller puts it, ―Most vacations are full of personal encounters, but this vacation transformed my life forever. Whether your interests are dolphin watching, historic cathedrals of Naga or wake boarding at the Cam Sur Watersports Complex, the GK villages make an excellent home for your stay. Where else can you arrive as a visitor but leave as family?‖ 61
58 Online blog by Pistonsfan (2009). ―Reasons why you need to travel to the Philippines: Cam Sur Gawad Kalinga. Source: http://vonblueguy.typepad.com/blog/2009/09. Accessed 21 February 2012. 59 Online blog by Dyeyk (2009). ―Only in Cam Sur‖. Source: http://philippinetravelstories.philippinehotelreservations.com/?p=229. Accessed 21 February 2012. 60 Online blog by David Celdran (2008). ―Off the beaten track in the Philippines: Cam Sur Top Picks‖. Source: http://davidceldran.blogspot.com.au/2008/11. Accessed 21 February 2012. 61 Online blog by ‗The Writer‘ (2011). ―Gawad Kalinga Experience in Cam Sur‖. Source: http://tourism- philippines.com/gawad-kalinga-in-camarines-sur/. Accessed 21 February 2012.
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 178
Such meaningful interactions are central to the concept of visitor-oriented social tourism as argued by Minnaert, et al. (2006). Nonetheless, as these perceptions were derived from secondary sources, an evaluation of the impact of visitations in GK villages was undertaken to produce primary data. This is presented in the following evaluation of bayanihan from the perspective of traveling volunteers who attended the Bayani Challenge in 201262.
6.1.2 An evaluation of bayanihan from a visitor-oriented perspective
An evaluation of bayanihan is presented to elaborate the motivations of participants, as well as the positive and negative outcomes of a bayanihan event, in particular, the annual GK Bayani Challenge. Utilising participant observation and focus groups, this researcher embarked on an evaluation workshop attended by 10 selected participants representing volunteers who have traveled from other regions or countries.
Figure 6-1a,b Evaluation Workshop for the GK Bayani Challenge. Masbate Bicol Region [Source: Author’s fieldwork April 2012]
The Bayani Challenge 2012 was attended by about one thousand participants, 50 of whom travelled from other countries. This became an opportunity to conduct an evaluation workshop wherein the visitor experiences and motivations for participation in the Bayani Challenge was explored and discussed. Applying the ‗Most Significant Change Technique‘ (Dart & Davies, 2003), five main themes were generated from their
62 As mentioned in Chapter 5, Bayani (Heroes) Challenge is one of the major events of the GK1MB (GK One Million Heroes), which aims to attract local and international visitors alike. It is national event held annually. It was conceptualised in 2006 out of the urgency of helping the victims of a landslide in Southern Leyte. From then on, a ―bayanihan event‖ was held every year in April, where participants build houses in 5 days. The GK tourism program, GK Mabuhay, handles the administration of events and visitations of the Bayani Challenge, which was made possible by collaborating with local government agencies and private donors who contribute in the provision of construction materials, communication and transportation, welfare and security, as well as promotion and advocacy.
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 179
response to the question: What did you get out of the Bayani Challenge? The conceptual themes that the participants themselves generated, defined groups of descriptors taken out of their individual evaluation, and analysed using the Nvivo software. Table 6-1 below identifies the five themes (referred in Nvivo as ‗nodes‘) and shows their respective sub-concepts and corresponding number of coding references, as well as the number of sources coded. The listing of the nodes was based on the number of coding reference in order to reflect its importance according to the participants‘ actual experience of the Bayani Challenge.
Table 6-1 Outcome of the Bayani Challenge Most Significant Change (MSC) Evaluation [Coding summary generated in Nvivo 10. Source: Author] NODES No. of coding Number of references sources coded Node 1\SPIRITUALITY & PASSION TO GIVE 58 11 1.1 Giving and making a difference 21 9 1.2 Heart condition/ Desire to help 17 7 1.3 Helping the poor 6 5 1.4 Humbling experience 2 2 1.5 Life-changing experiences 10 6 1.6 Spiritual and emotional experience 20 9 Node 2\COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIPS & NATIONALISM 37 11 2.1 Being in a group; relationship; bonding 13 6 2.2 Dealing with different people 8 4 2.3 Patriotism, i.e. being Filipino 6 4 2.4 Sense of equality and identity 3 2 2.5 Unity 10 5 2.6 Working alongside others 12 7 Node 3\VOLUNTEERING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE 30 9 3.1 Engaging the community to participate 5 2 3.2 Making the poor see that they can do something to help 4 2 themselves 3.3. Participating despite problems and difficulties 10 6 3.4 Serving community 7 5 3.5 Volunteerism 8 6 Node 4\MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGICAL PROBLEMS 20 5 4.1 Disregard for construction safety 9 3 4.2 Poor structural design 2 2 4.3 Lack of construction skill 5 4 4.4. Lack of sense of place, experiencing the place 1 1 4.5 Negative outcome of construction risks on organisation 2 2 4.6 Inadequate construction materials and equipment 2 2 4.7 Participation was not maximised 2 2 Node 5\LEARNING AND SELF-FULFILLMENT 16 6 5.1 Discovering people; experiencing cultural traits 11 5 5.2 Discovering room for improvement 2 2 5.3 Learning opportunity 6 2
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 180
The following coding summary presents the characteristics of the themes derived from the essay of experiences of the 10 participants. These themes are discussed with reference to the main nodes listed in Table 6.1 above:
1. Spirituality and passion to give This theme refers to the sense of awareness of God and the love of country, which drives the desire to help the needy. The participants, being aware of the high level of poverty in the country, found helping the poor families (Node 1.3) as one way of giving back to God and the country. The more that they meet other people who have the same desire of reaching out to others (Node 1.2), the more that they are inspired to travel and spend significant amount of time and effort to make this possible. By doing so, they believe that they will be rewarded in the end – in a spiritual way (Node 1.6). For them, Bayani Challenge is where people can come together in one place, so that together, they would attain spiritual satisfaction. There have been risks during the event, mostly physical, but the participants were willing to persevere knowing that they are giving and making a difference in communities (Node 1.1). Despite the unavoidable problems that were encountered, they were firm in the belief that God was there to help them (Node 1.6). The changes they experienced were not so much in the physical, rather in the spiritual aspect especially in developing better perspectives towards life (Node 1.5). The relationships created among the fellow participants, community residents and community organisers made them appreciate values of love and compassion they experienced through soul-enriching and ―life-changing‖ activities (Node 1.6).
2. Community relationships and nationalism The sense of community was strengthened during the Bayani Challenge where people from different backgrounds and expectations gathered with a common purpose. The event allowed people from various sectors to work together (Node 2.6) and build relationships (Nodes 2.1 and 2.2): the government representatives, the police and military, social workers, volunteers of different ages, cultural backgrounds and
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 181
economic status. A sense of unity and equality (Nodes 2.4 and 2.5) was attained in pursuing mutual goals. The participants created new friendships and strengthened old ones, through team-building exercises such as sharing stories with the youth volunteers and the local community (Node 2.2). The sense of nationalism or patriotism (Node 2.3) was developed especially when they realised that they were taking part in collective efforts that benefit not only the region, but the whole country as well.
3. Volunteering to make a difference Volunteering was a big challenge for most of the participants, who faced the inconvenience of travelling long distances and finding accommodation, enduring hot and high-risk working conditions, which resulted in physical problems such as, back aches, blisters and sunburn (Node 3.3). However, working alongside other volunteers who endured such hardship increased everyone else‘s level of motivation and enthusiasm in volunteering (Node 3.5). The Bayani Challenge was regarded as a good example of reviving bayanihan; the value of it was considerably found in its propensity to evoke positive energies and feelings expended for communities (Nodes 3.2 and 3.4).
4. Problems in management and (poor) construction implementation The planning and management of construction activities required major improvement. As some of the participants had a background in design and construction, the participants expressed concern that the construction implementation was poorly handled. The quality was compromised, as evidenced in its poor structural design (Node 4.2), unsatisfactory construction methodology, substandard materials and lack of construction training and monitoring (Nodes 4.3). The structures were not designed to withstand strong winds and typhoons, as such, the safety of the community and the reputation of the organisation are at risk (Node 4.5). Moreover, the amount of materials supplied in the project sites was not proportional to the number of volunteers. Because of the shortage of materials, participation was not maximised (Node 4.7); some of them did not have anything to work on and wasted significant amount of time in waiting (Node 4.6). Further, some of those who have travelled from distant places were disappointed at not being able to visit other places, supposedly in between the activities
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 182
(Node 4.4). The opportunity to experience nature and culture in the region – although it was included in the promotion of the Bayani Challenge – was compromised.
5. Learning and Self-fulfilment When asked what their primary motivation is for participating, a few of the participants who have come from other countries said that they have come to attain a sense of self- fulfilment. They wanted to see what they can improve in themselves, individually, and as a group (Node 5.2). After the event, all agreed that the experience of helping gave them a better understanding of their purpose and identity. It was this realisation that gave them the desire to come back when the next opportunity arises. Emphasis on learning about other people‘s culture and places (Node 5.1) honed participants‘ skills in conducting future training. They learned youth-engaging activities, which can also be applied in the communities where they come from. The event gave opportunities to find purpose and strength not only in themselves, but in other people as well (Node 5.3).
The findings derived from the above-mentioned evaluation workshop supports the notion that GK‘s call for an ‗army of volunteers‘ (Habaradas, 2010) was not intended solely for the building of houses for the poor communities. The invitation to participate in building GK communities is a call to engage in a social activity, focused on learning and experiencing bayanihan through the medium of social awareness and collective inter-personal and spiritual development. The Bayani Challenge 2012 was not free from criticisms though, particularly on the management and technological issues. Yet, overall, the tourists‘ meaningful experiences outweigh negative outcomes of their participation in bayanihan.
6.1.3 Role of facilitators in social capital creation
As discussed in Chapters 3 and 4, social capital refers to social trust and networks of social relationships (Daniere, Takahashi, & NaRanong, 2002; Jones, 2005) about which the role of external agents or facilitators is crucial. Social capital asserts how, aside from the quality, the quantity of groups is key to the community‘s ability to work for its own development (Mansuri & Rao, 2004; Marais, et al., 2003). The convergence of
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 183
housing and tourism in GK Cam Sur takes into account the significance placed on the role of agency in engaging communities and public sectors to contribute to sustainable development. The phenomenon of convergence thus elucidates the role of the facilitating NGO in generating social capital which is essential in the simultaneous housing and tourism development in Cam Sur.
In Chapter 3, the relationship between sustainable tourism and community participation is argued as imperative to maintain a region‘s resource base, such as suggested by Garrod (2003) and Taylor (1995). Garrod (2003) asserted that if ecotourism utilises cultural and natural resources, upon which residents rely for livelihood, the same people should also determine how ecotourism is developed in their region. Here, Garrod argues that ecotourism is not really ecotourism without sufficient community participation. While participation is not usually featured in ecotourism projects, it should be an essential component in the concept of ecotourism.
However, it is also necessary to consider that residents respond to tourism in many ways. Taylor (1995) argued that the development of tourism in a region diversifies a once homogenous community with the different responses of residents to touristic activities. While some members tend to participate actively, others – who are more aware of negative consequences – may not feel the desire to participate. Residents exhibit different views about their potentials and limitations. What the community approach may do is ―to stereotype a community, and reduce internal varieties into simplicity‖ (Taylor, 1995: 489). Internal variety coalesces through the ―careful selection and adaptation of local heritage and culture‖ (p.489). The sense of agreement on what local people value as heritage or culture marks the community as worth a visit. The knowledge of local heritage and culture would enable those in the community to sell themselves and others; the residents then become generally willing to take their share in the hospitality atmosphere. This approach would thus appear more appropriate and empowering than independence and democratisation especially in mass tourism practices that tend to disintegrate communities as a result of lack of awareness of heritage and culture.
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 184
This brings to fore the central role of agency, usually the NGO in community participation, as argued by Butcher (2008). In practice, community participation is often reduced as a ‗myth of agency‘. A critical perspective of community participation highlights the people‘s control. Development should enable people ―to shape their own lives and the kind of society in which they live‖ (France, 1997: 149 as cited in Butcher, 2008), towards self-sufficiency, self-determination and empowerment. However, community participation is sometimes determined to be merely instrumental. Butcher (2008) contends that as long as the community needs to manage resources and benefit from it, NGO facilitation may be required on a permanent basis. The agency then has two roles: one is to facilitate the opportunities that the community has, and the other is to create synergies with stakeholders. In most cases, control is linked to funding which is tied to the donor‘s interest. It is likely that the string that ties communities to the donors creates limits on development. In cases where requests emerge from the communities themselves or from government, the NGO‘s claim for facilitation may carry more weight. However still, their options can be constrained to funding priorities.
In the case of GK communities, the constraints brought about by funding sources were rarely an issue for the residents. Parallel to the perspective of Butcher (2008), while residents need to adhere to certain conditions in exchange for facilitation, the possibility of getting tied to the project is still far better than no assistance at all. Community participation then veers away from democratisation towards pragmatism of GK facilitation.
6.1.4 The rise of multi-sector relations
The inclination of GK towards pragmatic decision-making (rather than democratisation or independence) is manifested in the four case communities. In Cam Sur, a significant factor for resident participation is the high level of organisation and sense of accountability of GK caretakers. 63 GK caretakers, aside from encouraging the
63 As discussed in Chapter 5, caretakers are private volunteers who assist on a permanent basis, by conducting values formation programs and facilitating community activities towards these set objectives.
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 185
involvement of various sectors in bayanihan activities, determine ways to sustain it in their own neighbourhood, as well as in their wider natural and social environment. They replace the lack of existing leadership in GK villages particularly by encouraging residents to take on their share of taking care their neighbourhood and their environment while providing tourist hospitality. The GK Project Director in GK Pona Village [Interview with GK caretaker, Deomano-19/01/2011] relayed that caretakers are not salaried, but they spend substantial time and effort to ―uphold the values of caring and loving, rooted from the aspiration to see the poor accomplish their dreams‖. As discussed in the focus groups, ―when house construction was completed, certain members of the community has not been inclined to cooperate anymore‖; thus, the presence of GK caretakers in sustaining resident engagement was significant in sustaining community participation [Focus groups IC14-24/01/2011]. The commitment of the GK caretakers aim to solidify the values formation by sustaining community activities such as gardening, landscaping, livelihood, health, education, environment, and cleanliness programs. In response, most residents strive to cooperate with them by actively engaging themselves in these activities.
Whereas the dependence of residents on GK caretakers may result in a lack of self- sufficiency, the GK caretakers maintain that their facilitation is crucial in sustaining the community‘s relationship with stakeholders. The contribution of the GK caretaker teams was apparent, in their commitment to be involved, even after the houses were awarded to the residents. In the focus groups, one of the caretakers said that ―initially, critics of GK thought that they are just like the usual public housing programs in Cam Sur; but as more partnerships were created among other sectors, the residents also became more motivated to participate‖ [Focus groups L3-22/01/2011].
The presence of GK caretakers stimulated participation and generated other forms of support, creating a domino effect of cooperation and relationships among other stakeholders. Various contributions were made in the form of land donation, construction materials, design and planning, administrative work, and promotional campaigns. Through the initiative of the GK caretakers, partnerships were created between GK beneficiaries and Provincial, City and Municipal Government Units in
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 186
Iriga and Libmanan, and eventually, with the Department of Tourism in 2010. The revitalisation of bayanihan is then characterised by the involvement of various sectors, including educational institutions, environmentalists, commercial enterprises, international corporations, private individuals, as well as curious travellers who visited the sites to volunteer.
With long-term investments expended for tourism development, the government also envisaged the improvement of living conditions of the poor residents would positively impact the tourism image of the province. The provincial development plans of Cam Sur accentuated a tourism industry compelled by the need to address, in a sustainable way, the economy and the welfare of its communities. In 2008, the Provincial Governor, LRay Villafuerte launched infrastructure support, particularly for the GK bed-and-breakfast, which formalises GK‘s partnership with the provincial government as one of the tourist accommodations in Cam Sur. Although construction was carried out from the provincial funds and handled by the provincial government of Cam Sur, the management and maintenance of community infrastructure was turned over to respective KB community association.
While government participation in the development of GK communities may be politically motivated, nonetheless, the networks created an integration of housing and tourism sectors. Government views the benefits of bayanihan not only for shelter provision but also for promoting social responsibility through tourism. In the City of Iriga, GK has earmarked the building of sustainable communities through tourism [Interview with Iriga City Planning Coordinator, Gonzales 20/02/2011]. Cam Sur was regarded as the first ‗GK Designer Province‘ [GK website 2009] that offered alternative destination and accommodation for tourists in Libmanan and Iriga where tourists would have first-hand experience of Bicolano hospitality and warmth.64
64 Lim, C. (2011). Regional Rapid Appraisal of Decentralization, United States Agency for International Development (US-AID): 1-40.
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 187
Figure 6-2 GK Bed & Breakfast in GK Character Village, overlooking Mt. Iriga [Source: Author’s Fieldwork 2011]
Figure 6-3 Promotional website of GK Bed & Breakfast in GK Pona Village, Libmanan (Source: http://teambnb.wix.com/gknb. Accessed 21 February 2012)
6.1.5 Barriers to cooperation
Despite the cooperation and collaboration of various sectors, bayanihan as a housing strategy has several pitfalls. Differences of perceptions and motivations of residents have produced diverse degrees of participation in both housing and tourism. While community participation intensified, it was also not absolute. There were aspects that adversely affected the participation of residents. These problems were identified by the community leaders, the GK caretakers and the community residents during the focus groups and surveys:
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 188
Issues on paid work among community leaders. The success of mobilising communities in GK villages influenced local government officials to ―hire some KB leaders and GK caretakers into local government positions‖ [Survey PV6- 11/02/2011]. On one hand this was found to be beneficial in the management and monitoring of infrastructure and its maintenance. Yet one of the residents mentioned that he finds this detrimental as ―paid employment is not fair for non- salaried caretakers and KB leaders who are actively involved in the organisation‖ [Survey CV8-11/02/2011]. In general, this is inconsistent with values of volunteering that does not often involve monetary compensation.
Issues on non-compliance. It was difficult to maintain full compliance of regulations. Even after repeated participation in values formation, still ―there were several violations to the rules set by the KB (community association) such as policies concerning house improvements, waste disposal, and cleanliness‖ [Focus groups L2-22/01/2011]. In several houses for instance, residents installed dilapidated and fire-prone materials, such as metal sheets and discarded ply boards, in the front and rear yards [Participant observations notes - 13/02/2011]. While GK caretakers have managed to minimise these issues, such conflicts were indispensable and have been persisting, albeit in various levels.
Issues on non-cooperation. Residents have expressed uneven outcomes of the values formation program conducted by the GK caretaker teams. In the survey interviews, the household representatives indicated a perception that ―3 out of 10 community members remain uncooperative‖ [Survey MN3-09/02/2011]; they do not abide by the tenets set forth in the values formation programs as well as the regulations of the KB. Thus, it was necessary for the GK regional office to hire community organisers to resolve issues on non-cooperation particularly regarding contentious moral practices such as the occasional drinking, smoking and gambling which were prohibited in shared spaces in the village [Survey CV3-10/02/2011, Survey PV6-07/02/2011].
Issues in leadership. There were conflicts that emerged due to the lack of communication and organisational skills among community leaders; the
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 189
implementation of the programs and policies has not been properly handled. The residents reiterated that ―leaders need to improve the way that they handle policies‖ [Survey CV6-09/02/2011]. In certain instances, ―donations and profits from community income-generating activities were neither presented nor monitored by the leaders‖ [Survey CV11-09/02/2011]. Although residents were generally aware of how and when donations are received, not everyone knew how they were managed.
Issues in the use of utilities. The inadequate provision of communal facilities was another issue. The water system was unreliable in a number of communities throughout the province [Participant observation notes - 09/02/2011], affecting the irrigation of organic farms and flower gardens and reducing agricultural productivity. Moreover, in GK Character Village, the provision of free electricity by the local government was a problem, as it caused bickering among neighbours. Those who acquired house furnishings and appliances, which could have actually been perceived as a sign of economic progress, were instead ―accused of insensitivity and arrogance‖ [Survey CV11-10/02/2011]. Thus there was a tendency for some families to isolate themselves in order to avoid confrontation.
Issues on construction and farming. There was no guarantee that buildings can withstand 200-250kph-wind velocity which is common in Bicol Region. In 2009, the severe damage brought about by typhoon Reming destroyed a number of houses. This was attributed to ―construction implementation which compromised quality over quantity‖ [Survey CV15-10/02/2011]; this was also mentioned in the evaluation of Bayani Challenge in Table 6.1. In farming, ―bio-organic fertilizers were found unsuitable for certain soils in some areas‖ [Survey CV3-12/02/2011]; hence the use of synthetic fertilizers was unavoidable and became a potential environmental risk.
The GK organisers and KB leaders, though privy to the constraints of bayanihan, maintains that despite the negative outcomes, the participation of GK residents in public events has increased and has thus been sustained. This is evident in cultural festivals,
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 190
environment conservation, beautification and peace promotion. Nonetheless, the surveys reveal the variation of resident participation. The next section presents the results of the correlation which will describe the extent of consensus and diversities of residents, in quantitative terms.
6.1.6 A statistical exploration of resident participation
The correlation analysis focuses on determining the intensities and diversities of resident participation. The correlation is a statistical exploration of the relationship between housing provision and tourism development, derived primarily from the evaluation of community participation in bayanihan. In Chapter 5, the social survey presented the extent of resident participation in housing and tourism activities. In the analysis, the mean response for participation in housing activities (Figures 5-39 to 5-43 and 5-56) was correlated against the mean responses for each of the six groups of tourism activities (Figures 5-31 to 5-36).
The regression equation is used to correlate the mean response for community participation in housing versus the mean response for participation in tourism. The values in the Table 6-2 below indicate the coefficients representing the estimated change in the mean response (y) for each unit change in the predictor value (x). For example, the highlighted figure under the column, ‗GK Character Village‘, is interpreted as follows: For every increase of total housing activity by 1 unit, tourism activity under the first tourism activity group, namely, ‗Activities done to minimise negative impacts of housing‘ increases by +0.89. The correlational interaction shows all the coefficients to have a positive value, asserting the positive correlation of housing participation versus tourism participation.
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 191
Table 6-2 Measurement of correlational interaction Assessing Y activities for tourism activities, as a response to the overall X mean responses for housing activities. [Source: Author] Groups of Tourism Activities (aimed at GK GK Pona Mambul Sierra SUMMARY sustainability) Character Village o Nuevo Homes R-sq (adj) (response y-value) Village A. Activities done to minimise negative + 0.89 + 0.26 + 0.75 + 0.30 83.83% impacts of housing B. Activities done to maximise early and + 0.98 + 0.14 + 0.52 + 1.10 72.14% long-term participation of local people in the decision process C. Activities done to direct economic + 0.66 + 1.83 + 0.87 + 0.27 61.38% benefits to local people which complement traditional practices D. Activities that provide special + 1.02 + 1.40 + 0.67 + 0.47 78.54% opportunities for local people to utilise natural resources E. Activities done to increase the + 0.94 + 0.41 + 1.00 + 0.43 81.82% awareness and understanding of the natural and cultural systems F. Activities done to contribute to the + 0.69 + 0.63 + 1.09 + 1.72 56.86% conservation and management of natural areas OVERALL COEFFICIENT + 0.87 + 0.78 + 0.82 + 0.72 84.87%
The overall coefficient of participation (shown on the last row) obtained values ranging from 0.72 to 0.87. This means that for every 1-unit of increase in housing participation, there is an increase of 0.72 to 0.87 in tourism participation. The summary in the last column describes the amount of variation in the observed response value. The values under the six groups of tourism activities indicated a variation ranging from 56.86% to 83.83%. The highest two figures are that of ‗Activities done to minimise negative impacts‘ and, ‗Activities done to increase the awareness and understanding of the natural and cultural systems‘. A good summary of the model is expressed in the equation: R-Sq (adj) = 84.87%. This indicates that the model explains 84.87% of the variation of responses, noting that P value is 0.00 (which depicts that the coefficients in the equation are significantly different from each other). This also describes the amount of variation in the observed response value; the higher the percentage, the more reliable the model is.
Another way of expressing regression is to state how the response variable: „participation in tourism‟ changes, as the predictor variable: „participation in housing‟ changes as well. The regression equation for this correlation takes the standard form:
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 192
Response = constant + coefficient (predictor) + …coefficient (predictor). The regression equations for the four case communities are thus presented below, indicating a positive increase of participation in the response variable (note that the coefficients highlighted below match the results of the correlational interaction presented in Table 6.2 above; the statistical model is thus supported).
MAMBULO NUEVO Tourism participation = 0.25 + 0.82 Housing participation
SIERRA HOMES Tourism participation = 0.12 + 0.72 Housing participation
GK CHARACTER VILLAGE Tourism participation = - 0.19 + 0.87 Housing participation
GK PONA VILLAGE Tourism participation = 0.63 + 0.78 Housing participation
Figure 6-4 below illustrates the correlation of participation in housing and tourism. It shows how the increase in the ‗participation in housing‘ has a corresponding increase in ‗participation in tourism‘. However the graph also illustrates the different levels of disparity among residents in all four communities, particularly among the residents of GK Character Village which exhibited a higher variation in responses ranging from low to high mean values.
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 193
5 Group GK CHARACTER VILLAGE GK PONA VILLAGE MAMBULO NUEVO
4 SIERRA HOMES
m
s
i
r
u
o
t
n
i 3
n
o
i
t
a
p
i
c i
t 2
r
a P
1
1 2 3 4 5 Participation in Housing
Figure 6-4 Correlation Analysis Showing the positive relationship of participation in housing (x) and tourism (y) [Minitab graphics by: Author]
The correlation analysis revealed the extent of participation, as well as the variation of responses in each of the four communities. While the results of the correlation analysis assert a positive relationship, it also revealed the partialities or the lack of consensus among the residents of the four communities to participate. This is particularly evident in GK Character village and Sierra Homes that has exhibited a wide variation of responses.
This draws us to the question, what is the implication then of the degree of consensus of the residents with regards to their participation? In this regard, a discussion of the fifth category – the consequences – will be presented to elaborate the impact of the diverse degrees of participation. In this last category, the same activities derived in the focus groups and surveys are explored and categorised according to the six factors that influence community participation in bayanihan. These six factors were derived in the first part of the grounded theory analysis which was presented in Chapter 5. The reassessment of the activities will focus on the degree of participation and consensus, which will provide a basis for the classification of the four case communities.
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 194
6.2 Category 5 – The consequence: Diverse community participation in the convergence of housing and tourism
The previous sections pointed out how the impact of bayanihan mobilises resident participation not only in housing, but also in tourism. In lieu of ecotourism, findings in the study reveal how social tourism has emerged through bayanihan in GK villages. Moreover, the correlation analysis of resident participation also revealed a positive relationship between housing and tourism.
As discussed in Sections 6.1.3, the occurrence of the phenomenon of convergence was discussed and attributed to the creation of social capital, at the core of which is the GK caretakers, who act as facilitators. This aligns with the argument of Mansuri & Rao (2004) that the quantity (which in the case of GK, is manifested in the overlap of housing and tourism sectors among others) and the quality (which is manifested by the extent of participation), are key sources of the community‘s ability to be involved in community development. GK is then regarded by both public and private sectors as a template for housing and tourism development, extending its application to non-GK villages.
However, the differences in the residents‘ responses suggest a lack of consensus on their perceptions of, and motivations for adopting GK programs. The following section elaborates the consequence of the convergence of housing and tourism, which is revealed to be ‗the diverse participation of residents in the four communities‘.
6.2.1 Evaluating the degree of resident participation
Whereas the implementation of GK programs demonstrated the capacity of the community as a whole, to make vision a reality, the local government presumed that GK‘s participatory approach would support government plans and programs for sustainable tourism, as emphasised in interviews among government officials in 2011. The City Planning official of Iriga for instance, affirmed that with GK, ―there is now an increased community participation in public events such as in cultural festivals,
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 195
environment conservation, i.e. planting nurseries, waste management campaigns, agro- tourism programs, and organic farming, as well as beautification and peace promotion‖ [Interview with Iriga City Planning Coordinator, Gonzales-20/02/2011]. These engagements make the destination more marketable as a tourist attraction.
As discussed in previous sections, GK‘s claims of its influence in engaging communities and mobilising volunteers have resulted in the replication of villages in various provinces across the country.65 Likewise in Cam Sur, housing programs and government organisations actually used GK as a template for housing development, asserting that the implementation of GK programs are more successful in ―mobilising communities and addressing poverty issues than other public housing projects‖66.
In Iriga, the government has put in place the plans for the integration of the GK Character Village and Sierra Homes. Whilst the leaders were informed of the implications of integrating these two villages, the GK caretakers expressed a predicament in the participation of the Sierra Homes residents. For one, the residents of Sierra Homes would need to participate in values formation and sweat equity programs in order to groom them for the other GK development strategies; otherwise bayanihan cannot successfully take place in their villages. Likewise in Libmanan, the leaders of Mambulo Nuevo initiated trainings and values formation programs facilitated by the GK caretaker team, aiming to implement the rest of the GK programs in their own village. Although most of the leaders of Mambulo Nuevo find that this is feasible, especially where they already have an existing livelihood program in place, some of the residents feel that they are not equipped to strictly observe the regulations of GK, particularly the compulsory participation in bayanihan [Survey MN5-19/02/2011]. The lack of confidence in leadership and implementation is expected by the GK caretakers as the village is as yet at an early stage of implementation [Focus groups L1- 22/01/2011]. The residents of Mambulo Nuevo were yet to foster social relations and
65 As discussed in Section 5.1, the 30 Million-Peso Presidential Fund allotted for GK communities in 2000 by former President Arroyo initiated the implementation of GK programs in other ongoing public housing projects.
66 Interview with City Planning Coordinator, Benjamin Gonzales during a meeting with the City Mayor of Iriga (2011).
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 196
establish social networks with public and private sectors; this requires specialist facilitation skills among the members of the GK caretaker team. This reinforces the earlier argument regarding the importance of enhancing social networks in mobilising and sustaining resident involvement in development pursuits.
The rest of the section then presents an assessment of the degree of consensus of residents in the four communities. In the previous analysis, the activities were grouped according to two general categories: (1) tourism and (2) housing. However, in the assessment that follows, the activities are reclassified according to six factors that influence social capital creation. As derived from the grounded theory coding analysis and presented in Table 5-12, these are: 1. Leadership and organisation within a community centred development (facilitating data presented in Sections 5.2.4 and 5.3.1) 2. Multi-sector collaboration in sustaining resource generation and project implementation (facilitating data presented in Sections 5.2.4 and 5.3.4) 3. Sweat equity as the building technology adopted within the concept of self-help housing (facilitating data presented in Sections 5.2.4 and 5.3.6) 4. Project delivery for community building (facilitating data discussed in Sections 5.2.4 and 5.3.5) 5. Community identity through values formation programs (facilitating data discussed in Sections 5.2.4 and 5.3.2) 6. Training and education towards the implementation of GK programs (facilitating data discussed in Sections 5.2.4 and 5.3.3)
As presented in Chapter 4, this stage of the evaluation is presented in two parts: First, each of the participatory activities (both tourism-related and housing-related) were categorised under one of the above factors. Second, descriptive statistics (applied on Minitab 16 software) was applied to plot the corresponding level of participation and to graph the distribution, the location and the spread of the representative data.
One important consideration however is that, while the quantitative data matched the qualitative data gathered in focus groups and interviews, the results can only be
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 197
indicative rather than conclusive as they are mostly based out of perceived participation of respondents. The aim of the analysis is to classify the communities according to their degree of consensus (or non-consensus) on their responses. The results of the evaluation shall be the basis for the empirical model that will be presented in Chapter 7.
1. Leadership and organisation
The importance of leadership and organisation is defined by the capacity of leaders to sustain the strengthening of cohorts and community cohesion, as argued in community development studies (Garrod, 2003; Small, 2002; Steinberg, 1992). For GK, empowering the residents of GK villages entails the institutionalisation of the community association, the KB. However, one of the primary challenges to leadership and organisation is the nature of the formation of GK which is essentially, a ‗development of new communities‘ in contrast to the usual ‗development of pre-existing communities‘. The KB is responsible for establishing social bonding amongst members of this new community and ensuring their participation in the execution in GK programs. One of the leaders of the KB revealed that they have encountered difficulties, particularly in handling members who violate the rules and regulations [Focus groups IC5-24/01/2011]. In these instances, the GK caretaker team would intervene in order to resolve conflicts. However the caretakers themselves find that this practice undermines the KB‘s potential for independence; hence, they need to set certain limitations in their interventions.
Figure 6-5 presents the activities which reflect ‗leadership and organisation‘ in the four communities; the extent of participation in these activities are also indicated. The bar graph shows that the residents of GK Character and GK Pona expressed higher levels of involvement in activities related to ‗leadership and organisation‘. Social bridging is strong in these two communities compared to Mambulo Nuevo, which is not far behind and Sierra Homes, which is ranked very low.
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 198
100% Regular reporting of participation of each family
Equal assignment of tasks and responsibilities
Imposing of penalties for violations
Monitoring implementation of standards
Creation of waste disposal management
Recording and monitoring of harvest
Monitoring implementation of standards Community Participation Community Creation of policies for waste management
Exe-com meetings among community leaders % Level % Level of Allowing members to voice out ideas and opinion
Creation of committees for special projects
"Leadership by example"
Recording of events and activities e.g. on a logbook
Call for regular meetings or assembly
Figure 6-5 Participation in activities related to ‘leadership and organisation’ Facilitating data presented in Sections 5.2.4 and 5.3.1 [Source: Author]
However, as shown in the box plot in Figure 6-6 below, the residents and leaders of GK Pona and Mambulo Nuevo have a fair degree of consensus, compared to GK Character and Sierra Homes. Higher levels of consensus about community participation in the GK Pona and Mambulo Nuevo suggest stronger social bonding when it comes to activities related to ‗leadership and organisation‘, as compared to GK Character and Sierra Homes.
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 199
Legend:
5 Mean N
O
I
T Distribution
A Z
I 4 Spread N
A
G R
O 3
0 (min); 5 (max) 0 5 (min); (max)
&
P
I H
S 2
R
E
D
Rating Scale:Rating
A E
L 1
GK CHARACTER VILLAGE GK PONA VILLAGE MAMBULO NUEVO SIERRA HOMES N=17 N=20 N=12 N=7 Figure 6-6 Boxplot showing participation in activities related to ‘leadership and organisation’ [Minitab graphics source: Author]
2. Multi-sector collaboration
While literature on sustainable tourism focuses on the economic, social, cultural and ecological dimensions of tourism, Choi and Sirakaya (2006) emphasise the political dimension, involving stakeholder collaboration. Jamal and Getz (1995) also promote collaborative initiatives in community tourism and the application of collaboration theory to the planning and development of tourism destinations.
Similarly, in GK, the practice of bayanihan invokes participation that involves not only residents, but other stakeholders. Government officials, academic institutions, environmentalists, commercial enterprises, international corporations, private individuals as well as curious travellers, visit the sites to make their contribution in the form of land donation, volunteering for manual labour, construction materials, design and planning, administrative and promotional campaigns. Hence, the limited resources of GK and its residents are leveraged with other forms of support from other sectors.
Figure 6-7 presents the activities, which reflect ‗multi-sector collaboration‘ for the four communities. The extent of participation in these activities is also indicated. The bar graph shows that the factor of ‗multi-sector collaboration‘ is expressed higher in GK Character and GK Pona. This suggests how social bridging is stronger in these two communities compared to Mambulo Nuevo and Sierra Homes.
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 200
Use of community funds from profit for community maintenance 100% Income generation through tourist accommodation
Using savings from communal water distribution for maintenance costs
Sharing profit from natural farming (organics, etc)
Involving residents in the plans and programs
Personal support from private sector
Support from schools and educational institutions Community Participation Community Management of finances by GK caretakers
Receiving pledges from visitors and tourists % Level % Level of Coordination and support from local government
Building up of partnerships from abroad through GK
Promotion of good relationships with community
Co-management by GK caretakers
Maintaining peaceful relationships
Figure 6-7 Participation in activities related to ‘multi-sector collaboration’ Facilitating data presented in Sections 5.2.4 and 5.3.4 [Source: Author]
In contrast, as shown in the box plot in Figure 6-8 below, the two GK communities exhibited a relatively weaker consensus about participation, when compared to the other two. A higher level of consensus about community participation in Mambulo Nuevo and Sierra Homes suggest stronger social bonding in these communities when it comes to activities related to ‗multi-sector collaboration‘.
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 201
Legend: 5 Mean
Distribution 4
N Spread O
I T
A 3
R
O
0 (min); 5 (max) 0 5 (min); (max)
B
A L
L 2
O C
Rating Scale:Rating 1
GK CHARACTER VILLAGE GK PONA VILLAGE MAMBULO NUEVO SIERRA HOMES N=17 N=20 N=12 N=6
Figure 6-8 Boxplot showing participation in activities related to ‘multi-sector collaboration’. [Minitab Graphics Source: Author]
3. Sweat Equity
As mentioned in Chapter 3, self-help housing involves sweat equity which refers to the voluntary contribution for cost-effective construction project implementation. Self-help housing involves active participatory process where members influence the direction and execution of a development project (Astrand & Rodriguez, 1996; Sheng, 1990; Suyasinto, 1989). The active participation of residents in community building and programs has compounding effects on the residents‘ sense of pride and purpose. Compared to receiving ready-made or ready-to-use resources, the advantage of manual labour contribution is that the sense of ownership was obtained out of the development of discipline and responsibility, in lieu of receipt of charity.
In the focus groups (2011), the KB leaders recalled their contribution in transforming GK villages into places worth visiting, saying that ―it would be hard to give up something that they have already worked hard for‖ [Focus groups L6-22/01/2011].
Figure 6-9 below presents the activities which reflect ‗sweat equity‘ in the four communities. The extent of participation in these activities is also indicated. The bar graph shows that there is a relatively an even level of involvement of residents of GK
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 202
Character, GK Pona and Mambulo Nuevo in activities related to ‗sweat equity‘. This suggests high level of social bridging in these three communities. Sierra Homes however relatively attains little cooperation of residents in such activities, and thus weaker social bridging.
100% Maintaining cleanliness
Developing self-help construction skills Trading/barter of farming produce Backyard-farming for family consumption Assignment of tasks for house building Tree-planting and reforestation
Giving everyone an opportunity to be a tour guide Participation Community Beautification of surroundings to increase visitation
Self-help building of schools and other infrastructures Level of % % Participation in bayanihan events Skilled worker assigned to unskilled ones Setting up Bayanihan Day Neighbourhood cleanliness drives Formation of bayanihan (volunteer) groups
Figure 6-9 Participation in activities related to ‘sweat equity’ Facilitating data presented in Sections 5.2.4 and 5.3.6 [Source: Author]
In the box plot in Figure 6-10 below however, GK Pona and Mambulo Nuevo exhibited higher consensus about participation; as such there is stronger social bonding in these communities when it comes to activities related to ‗sweat equity‘.
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 203
5 Legend: Mean
Distribution 4
Y Spread T
I
U
Q E
3
0 (min); 5 (max) 0 5 (min); (max)
T
A
E
W S
2 Rating Scale:Rating
1 GK CHARACTER VILLAGE GK PONA VILLAGE MAMBULO NUEVO SIERRA HOMES N=17 N=20 N=12 N=6
Figure 6-10 Boxplot showing participation in activities related to ‘sweat equity’ [Minitab Graphics Source: Author]
4. Project Delivery
A number of studies suggest that resident satisfaction in the delivery of basic services is one of the motivating factors for resident engagement (Grillo, et al., 2010; Rios, 2005; Sucgang, 1964). Because of the involvement of political leaders and their agencies, opportunities for infrastructure development in the GK villages emerged. The partnerships created between GK and the public/private sector had a positive impact on resource generation as it hastened the delivery and monitoring of community infrastructure - such as the construction of roads, sanitary facilities, house repair and maintenance. Resident satisfaction involved a high value assigned to service offering and delivery, particularly related to basic needs such as housing, education and social amenities. The actual implementation of these projects and services has driven other housing projects to integrate housing programs of GK with theirs. Figure 6-11 below presents the activities which reflect ‗project delivery‘ in the four communities; the extent of participation in these activities is also indicated. The bar chart shows that GK Pona and GK Character expressed higher levels of involvement, in activities related to ‗project delivery‘ while in Mambulo Nuevo and Sierra Homes, participation is much lower. This indicates higher level of social bridging in the both GK-initiated communities. The configuration of the bar chart also appears to have some parallels with ‗multi-sector collaboration‘ in Figure 6-8.
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 204
Prohibition of insecticides and artificial fertilizers 100% Use of recycled materials, e.g.bottles, plastics, steel
Waste disposal management
Isolating domestic animals which litter the landscape Prohibiting burning of waste Giving access to affordable commodies through sari-sari stores
Setting layout of houses according to contour y Participation Maximising landscapes and views
Standardisation of extension/improvements Communit Standardisation of housing design Observing zoning and land use Procurement of NFA (brand) rice for the community % Level of Affordable communal water distribution services Use of organic fertilizers Setting the layout of houses according to land contour Standardisation of extensions and improvements Building structures that are typhoon-resistant Standardisation of basic/core house
Figure 6-11 Participation in activities related to ‘project delivery’ Facilitating data discussed in Sections 5.2.4 and 5.3.5 [Source: Author]
In the box plot below however, GK Pona and Sierra Homes didn‘t exhibit a high degree of consensus about participation, unlike GK Character and Mambulo Nuevo. This suggests lower level of social bonding in this community when it comes to activities related to ‗project delivery‘.
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 205
Legend: 5 Mean
Distribution
Y 4
R Spread E
V
I
L E
D 3
0 (min); 5 (max) 0 5 (min); (max)
T
C
E
J O
R 2
P Rating Scale:Rating
1 GK CHARACTER VILLAGE GK PONA VILLAGE MAMBULO NUEVO SIERRA HOMES N=17 N=20 N=12 N=6
Figure 6-12 Boxplot showing participation in activities related to ‘project delivery’ [Minitab Graphics Source: Author]
5. Community Identity
The sense of community identity typifies the process of using community development to generate a set of community values and practices (Chang, 1999; Hudson, 1997; King & Idawati, 2010; Sentosa, 2001). Community strategies that effectively express community identity provide opportunities for alternative forms of tourism that are not intrusive to a people‘s culture and beliefs (Horton, 2009; Hussey, 1989; Kontogeorgopoulos, 2005; MacCannell, 1973; Pinijvarasin & Sunakorn, 2007). In Cam Sur, bayanihan activities are what stereotypes communities as ‗GK communities‘ in the way that they manifest both physical (infrastructure building) and non-physical development (religion, sports, and cultural practices).
Figure 6-13 below presents the activities which reflect ‗community identity‘ in the four communities; the extent of participation in these activities is also indicated. The bar chart shows that GK Pona Village, GK Character Village and Mambulo Nuevo expressed a high level of participation in activities related to ‗community identity‘. This suggests high level of social bridging in these three communities.
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 206
Organisation of sports tournaments eg basketball 100% Participation in religious activities e.g.prayer mtgs
Preservation of cultural traits e.g.diligence, assimilation
Vegetable farming
Production of handmade souvenir items
Use of available soil, rocks and grass for construction and landscaping
Growing ornamental plants e.g. bonsai Community Participation Community Using natural materials to make native products
Holding community celebrations e.g.birthdays festivals % Level % Level of Teaching good values to children
Preservation of culture eg. diligence, hospitality
Making visitors feel welcome e.g. via food, tours, shows
Participation in religious activities
Promotion of good relationships with family
Participation in values formation programs
Figure 6-13 Participation in activities related to ‘community identity’ Facilitating data discussed in Sections 5.2.4 and 5.3.2 [Source: Author]
In Figure 6-14 below however, GK Pona Village exhibited a relatively higher degree of consensus about participation, compared to the other three. Therefore there is higher level of social bonding in GK Pona when it comes to activities related to ‗community identity‘.
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 207
Legend: 5 Mean
Y Distribution T
I 4
T Spread N
E
D
I
Y 3
0 (min); 5 (max) 0 5 (min); (max)
T
I
N
U M
M 2
O
C Rating Scale:Rating
1 GK CHARACTER VILLAGE GK PONA VILLAGE MAMBULO NUEVO SIERRA HOMES N=17 N=20 N=12 N=6 Figure 6-14 Boxplot showing participation in activities related to ‘community identity’ [Minitab Graphics Source: Author]
6. Training and Education
Studies on sustainable tourism (Frenzel & Koens, 2012; Steinbrink, 2012) argue that the degradation of social and natural environments may be eluded when the capacity to set a learning environment through active involvement is developed in an experiential approach. This includes cultural and environmental learning among locals, which as Walter (2009) argues, are supposedly transmitted to the visiting students or tourists. The concepts of social tourism, slum tourism, and poverty tourism (King & Idawati, 2010; Vale, 1995) open up opportunities to attain knowledge from exposure to physical environments through immersion and interactive learning.
In GK villages, the lack of training and education was revealed in the way residents and visitors execute house construction, agricultural production and tourism operation. Although there is a high level of participation in skills development, still there are very few activities associated with enhancing training and education for either visitors or residents. The inadequate offering of environmental awareness and skills development programs created negative repercussions on visitor satisfaction.
Figure 6-15 below presents the activities, which reflect ‗training and education‘, in the four communities; the extent of participation in these activities is also indicated. The bar chart shows GK Pona Village and GK Character Village expressed a high level of
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 208
participation in activities related to ‗training and education‘. Social bridging is strong in these two communities, compared to Mambulo Nuevo and Sierra Homes.
100% Learning how to care for the natural enviroment
Seminars for waste management
Seminars on health & sanitation Community Participation
Livelihood training e.g.soap and candle % Level % Level of making
Trainings for souvenir-making
Conducting trainings initiated by LGUs
Figure 6-15 Participation in activities related to ‘training and education’ Facilitating data discussed in Sections 5.2.4 and 5.3.3 [Source: Author]
However, in the bar chart in Figure 6-16 below; all four communities have varying levels of consensus. The variation of consensus about community participation in the four communities suggests diverse levels of social bonding on activities related to ‗training and education‘.
Legend: 5 Mean
N Distribution O
I 4
T Spread A
C U
3
D
E
0 (min); 5 (max) 0 5 (min); (max)
&
G 2
N
I
N I
A 1
R
Rating Scale:Rating T
0 GK CHARACTER VILLAGE GK PONA VILLAGE MAMBULO NUEVO SIERRA HOMES N=17 N=20 N=12 N=6 Figure 6-16 Boxplot showing participation in activities related to ‘training and education’ [Minitab Graphics Source: Author]
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 209
In summary, the graph in Figure 6-17 below illustrates how GK Pona Village and GK Character Village characterise high levels of community participation in all of the six factors. By contrast, Mambulo Nuevo and Sierra Homes characterise a mix of high and low levels of participation, Sierra Homes however characterise a relatively low level of participation in most factors. The statistical differences suggest variation in social bridging, the implication of which will be the basis for classifying the four communities which will be discussed in the succeeding section of this chapter.
GK Character GK Pona Mambulo RESIDENT PARTICIPATION Village Village Nuevo Sierra Homes Rating Scale: 0 (min); 5 (max) N=17 N=20 N=12 N=6 LEADERSHIP & ORGANISATION 4.04 4.11 3.14 1.57 COLLABORATION 3.84 3.47 1.72 1.33 SWEAT EQUITY 3.89 3.92 3.69 2.73 PROJECT DELIVERY 3.34 3.87 2.01 2.15 COMMUNITY IDENTITY 3.61 3.84 3.89 2.43 TRAINING & EDUCATION 3.36 3.95 1.63 1.53 MEAN LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION 3.68 3.86 2.68 1.96
4.50
4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 0 (min); 5 (max) 0 5 (min); (max) 2.00 GK Pona Village 1.50 GK Character
1.00 Village Rating Scale:Rating
EXTENT OF OF PARTICIPATION EXTENT 0.50 Mambulo 0.00 Nuevo Sierra Homes
Figure 6-17 Statistical generalisation of participation in the convergence of housing and social tourism [Source: Author]
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 210
6.2.2 Classifying the four case communities
The previous sections highlighted the convergence of tourism and housing in GK communities in Cam Sur. This phenomenon heralded cooperation among different sectors of the community in implementing GK programs. The harnessing of bayanihan towards nation-building was evident in the support of the private and public sectors, particularly for GK Pona Village and GK Character Village; this has compelled pre- existing communities, namely Sierra Homes and Mambulo Nuevo, to employ GK programs in their respective villages. The quantitative analysis generated two main results: First, there has been a higher level of participation in GK Character Village and GK Pona Village compared to Mambulo Nuevo and Sierra Homes. Second, there was a lack of consensus among residents in all four communities about their involvement in bayanihan.
Thus, this section will now present the implication of the variation of participation based on the statistical data presented earlier. Given the diverse levels of participation, and varied degrees of consensus, the four communities will be characterised and classified accordingly. The method used for this is One-way ANOVA, applying ―grouping information using the Fisher method‖ 67 . With reference to the overall comparison of the four case communities presented earlier, Table 6.3 below presents the three groupings of communities:
Table 6-3 One-way ANOVA of the four communities, grouping information using Fisher method (Groups which do not share a letter are significantly different.)
Case Community N Mean Grouping GK Pona Village 17 3.8532 A GK Character Village 20 3.6884 A Mambulo Nuevo 12 2.8569 B Sierra Homes 6 2.0599 C
67 The grouping information using the Fisher Method is applied in One-way ANOVA to group the variables with the same statistical attributes (Minitab 15 software index 2011)
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 211
Legend:
4.5
) Mean x
a
m (
4.0 Distribution
0 .
5
;
) Spread n i 3.5
m
(
0
:
N 3.0
O
I
T A
P 2.5
I
C
I
T R
A 2.0
P
T N
E 1.5
D
I
S E R 1.0 GK Pona Village GK Character Village Mambulo Nuevo Sierra Homes N=17 N=20 N=12 N=7
Figure 6-18 Boxplot Summary of resident participation in the four communities, showing location, spread and distribution of mean responses. Minitab Graphics Source: Author
The boxplot in Figure 6-18 above illustrates the overall comparison of the four case communities classified in terms of the location, spread and distribution of mean responses for participation. The three groupings of communities are thus described as follows: - Grouping A – is composed of two communities: GK Pona Village and GK Character Village which characterise high levels of participation; although GK Pona Village obtained greater degree of consensus than GK Character Village.
- Grouping B – is composed of one community: Mambulo Nuevo. There is a lower level of participation than in GK Character and GK Pona Village, and there is lesser degree of consensus than in Sierra Homes.
- Grouping C – is composed of one community: Sierra Homes which obtained the lowest mean score for participation compared to the other communities, although there is greater degree of consensus compared to Mambulo Nuevo.
As mentioned in Chapter 4, the classification of communities incorporates the results of the grounded theory and correlation analysis and reveals four types of communities that characterise four level of participation, namely: i) indifference ii) assimilation, iii) adoption, and, iv) integration. An elaboration of this classification reveals the implications of the tourism-housing nexus by reflecting how residents generate and spend social capital from bayanihan.
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 212
As presented in the preceeding sections, the overall response of residents in Sierra Homes is at a very low level of participation compared to the other three communities. This is attributed to the fact that, as mentioned in Chapter 5, the leaders of Sierra Homes collaborated with GK caretakers only after they were prompted by the local government agency in Iriga to commence the integration of the two villages. Given the support that GK Character Village received from private and public sectors, particularly through tourism development, their leaders and a few residents of Sierra Homes were amenable to their integration with GK Character, particularly in participating in bayanihan events. The residents of Sierra Homes are knowledgeable of GK‘s advantages over other housing projects, particularly in terms of delivery of services and infrastructure support from government, as well as the promotion of GK Villages as tourist places. However, the need to get income elsewhere in order to pay their monthly mortgage payments restricts their participation in bayanihan activities. As the responses in the survey indicate, most of the residents do not have a significant interest in participating in collective action for neither housing nor tourism initiatives.
As illustrated in Figure 6-19 below, Sierra Homes characterises a level of ―indifference‖. This is a condition of resident participation that displays a certain level of awareness of the benefits of bayanihan, usually by leaders and government sectors, but is rendered with a very low level of participation and a generally weak consensus amongst residents.
Legend:
s 5 Mean
e m o Distribution
H 4
a
r
r e
i 3 Spread S
n
0 (min); 5 (max) 0 (min);
i
n 2
o
i
t
a
p i
c 1
i
t
r
a Rating Scale: Rating
P 0
ty n ry n ty n ti io e io i io n t iv t u t e za l ra q ca d i e o E u I n D b t d y a t a a E it rg c ll e n je o w d u O o C S n & r a m P g m ip in o h n C rs i e ra d a T Le
Figure 6-19 Boxplot characterising the level of participation in SIERRA HOMES. [Minitab Graphics Source: Author]
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 213
In Mambulo Nuevo, the responses of the residents are relatively spread. It can be observed in the Boxplot Summary in Figure 6-18, shown previously, that the upper one-third of the responses was nearly equivalent to the overall response of GK Pona Village while the lower one-third of the responses was nearly equivalent to the overall response of Sierra Homes. This lack of consensus is attributed to the differences between the leaders and their members. The leaders of Mambulo Nuevo relayed to their members their intention to adopt the GK housing model, and invited GK caretakers to implement GK programs, primarily to entice visits to their community. However, their members remained complacent and sceptical, particularly in the aspect of ‗collaboration‘ and ‗project delivery‘. The sense of inhibition amongst the household members was expected by GK caretakers given that Mambulo is still ―in the early stage of developing relationships with GK caretakers‖ [Survey MN1-15/02/2011].
Nevertheless, as illustrated in Figure 6-20 below, the residents manifest a relatively high level of participation and consensus particularly on ‗sweat equity‘ and ‗community identity‘, but low in ‗collaboration‘, ‗training and education‘ and ‗project delivery‘.
Mambulo Nuevo thus manifests a level of „assimilation‟. This is a condition of resident participation that is characterised by the awareness and acknowledgement of the potentials of the community to take part in bayanihan activities for both housing and tourism. However, some residents were sceptical in collaborative strategies, such as in the aspect of ‗multi-sector collaboration‘, ‗project delivery‘ as well as ‗training and education‘. The enthusiasm among leaders, combined with certain inhibitions on the part of the household residents created diversities among residents.
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 214
Legend:
o 5 v
Mean e
u
N
o 4 Distribution
l u
b
m 3
a Spread M
n
i 0 (min); 5 (max) 0 (min);
2
n
o
i
t a
p 1
i
c
i
t r
a 0
Rating Scale: Scale: Rating P
ty n ry n ty n ti io e io i io n t iv t u t e za l ra q ca d i e o E u I n D b t d y a t a a E it rg c ll e n je o w d u O o C S n & r a m P g m ip in o h n C rs i e ra d a T Le
Figure 6-20 Boxplot characterizing the level of participation in MAMBULO NUEVO. [Minitab Graphics Source: Author]
In GK Pona Village and GK Character Village, the responses of the residents were found to be more closely related, as evidenced by the higher degree of consensus. In the box plot shown in Figure 6-21 and 6-22 below, the overall mean scores for both communities were significantly high, indicating a high level of participation in bayanihan. As discussed in previous sections, a primary factor that sets apart GK villages was the role of agency in the creation of social capital. Compared to Sierra Homes and Mambulo Nuevo, these two villages commenced bayanihan activities from the time the project began through partnerships with public and private sectors. Conflicts on the aspect of ‗project delivery‘ however became an impediment to the convergence of housing and tourism.
GK Pona Village and GK Character Village thus expressed a level of „adoption‟. This is a condition of resident participation that is characterised by the willingness and commitment of a majority of residents to cooperate; however, challenges in sustaining participation, even in one or more of the factors become a hindrance to its full and effective implementation.
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 215
Legend:
e 5
g Mean
a
l l
i V
4 Distribution
a n
o P Spread
K 3
G 0 (min); 5 (max) 0 (min);
n
i
n 2
o
i
t
a p
i 1
c
i
t
r
Rating Scale: Scale: Rating a
P 0
ty n ry n ty n ti io e io i io n t iv t u t e za l ra q ca d i e o E u I n D b t d y a t a a E it rg c ll e n je o w d u O o C S n & r a m P g m ip in o h n C rs i e ra d a T Le
Figure 6-21 Boxplot characterizing the level of participation in GK PONA VILLAGE. [Minitab Graphics Source: Author]
e Legend:
g
a 5 l
l Mean
i V
r
e 4
t Distribution
c a
r a
h 3 Spread
C
0 (min); 5 (max) 0 (min);
K G
2
n
i
n
o i
t 1
a
p
i
c
Rating Scale: Scale: Rating
i t
r 0
a P ty n ry n ty n ti io e io i io n t iv t u t e za l ra q ca d i e o E u I n D b t d y a t a a E it rg c ll e n je o w d u O o C S n & r a m P g m ip in o h n C rs i e ra d a T Le
Figure 6-22 Boxplot characterizing the level of participation in GK CHARACTER VILLAGE. [Source: Author]
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 216
6.2.3 A comparison of 3 types of communities
The investigation of the case communities suggests that residents have generated and spent social capital in varying ways. In order to establish the manifestation of social capital, there are the two indicators that were utilised in the summary of data findings which will be presented in this section: (1) resident participation and (2) physical development. Resident participation and physical developments reflect Lang & Hornburg‘s two central themes of social capital, namely relationship between individuals and community, and, role of place (2000, p.8-10), respectively. 68 Under the first theme, findings will assert how residents participate more in communal work when they have a good relationship among themselves and with other sectors. Under the second theme, findings will assert that improvements in the living environments or a lack of it become an outcome or a factor of social capital creation.
1. Resident participation.
Resident participation refers to the connectivity among the residents and with other sectors of their community which invokes residents to participate in bayanihan. Bayanihan embodies the kind of community approach that strengthens community relationships. Taylor (1995) describes how NGOs tend to unify communities through ―careful selection and adaptation of local heritage‖ (p.489). However, as residents essentially respond to development in many ways, this stereotyping of communities provides internal varieties. As such, in GK, the diverse participation of residents has become the consequence of the convergence of tourism and housing.
Findings presented in the previous sections also reveal the interdependence of the six factors that influence the generation of social capital. For instance, a high level of ‗multi-sector collaboration‘ is attributed to an increase in manual labour contribution, in
68 As discussed in Chapter 4, it is critical to choose issues around which to organise the study, by focusing on determining intrinsic representations and descriptions of bayanihan within each of the cases. Hence, physical developments and resident participation are two aspects that are used to signify the two themes which govern social capital discourse, in particular, the ‗role of place‘ and ‗relationships between people and communities‘ ( Lang and Hornburg, 1998:8-10).
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 217
particular, ‗sweat equity‘, which thereupon, affects the improvement of ‗project delivery‘. Similarly, an increase in a sense of ‗community identity‘ expands opportunities for ‗leadership and organisation‘, in other words, leaders are motivated to organise activities, such as those related to ‗training and education‘ particularly when residents exhibit a greater sense of community.
2. Physical development
Physical development highlights the sense of place and feelings of neighbourhood pride due to ―patterns of housing development and the design of buildings [that] shape the nature of personal interaction and social networks‖ (Lang & Hornburg, 2000:p.10). The kind of social networks and interaction formed for and within a community influences its physical development. Likewise, living environments affect the capacity of the community to build relationships among themselves and others.
Physical development is either the outcome or the factor of social networks; this emphasises the role of place in the building of social capital, as argued by Hornburg and Lang (1998). In Section 6.2.2, it was also discussed how the amount of participation in bayanihan events has encouraged donors to bring in funding and manpower support to build livelihood centres and bed-and-breakfast facilities – demonstrating how physical development is an outcome of community participation. Inversely, the development of community infrastructure in GK such as multi-purpose halls and visitor centres has attracted visitors and stimulated interest and participation amongst residents in building more community infrastructure – demonstrating how physical development is a factor of community participation. As Jones (2005) asserted, in a study assessing social capital in sustainable tourism in Gambia Tumani Tenda, residents ―have [developed] an interest in presenting a particularly harmonious image of their community, as it is something that they aspire to and have likewise benefitted from‖ (p.320).
The following tables present a summary of data describing the involvement of communities in both tourism development and housing provision. It focuses on the
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 218
implications of bayanihan on resident participation and physical developments, according to three groupings derived from the analysis presented in Chapter 6, namely:
i. Community Grouping 1: GK Character Village (N=20) and GK Pona Village (N=17)
ii. Community Grouping 2: Mambulo Nuevo (N=12) iii. Community Grouping 3: Sierra Homes (N=6)
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 219
Table 6-4 Resident participation and physical development associated with LEADERSHIP AND ORGANISATION Source: Author. Community Grouping 1 Community Grouping 2 Community Grouping 3 (GK Character Village, N=20, and GK Pona Village N=17) (Mambulo Nuevo, N=12) (Sierra Homes N=7) Resident participation Resident participation Resident participation As derived from Sections 5.3.1 and 6.2.1: As derived from Sections 5.3.1 and 6.2.1: As presented in Sections 5.3.1 and 6.2.1: - Leaders monitor the residents’ compliance of rules - There are no regular meetings. Bayanihan events - There are no regular meetings; a few residents join on house building and maintenance; although a are seldom organised since the time the houses bayanihan events held in GK Character few conflicts arise due to poor leadership skills. are completed. - There is a lack of commitment of leaders and GK - There is regular assignment of officers and - There is active participation among leaders and a caretakers in providing a clear understanding of committees especially during visitations and few members in housing and tourism; however the benefits and responsibilities involved in bayanihan events which are generally attended by some members tend to be complacent. bayanihan. As a result, there is also a lack of most residents. - As GK programs are still underway, there is weaker cooperation on tourism ventures despite the - There is a relatively high commitment by GK involvement by GK caretakers who are requested integration of their village with GK Character. caretakers in organising bayanihan although a few by leaders of Mambulo to initiate changes; hence, members are not convinced of the need to majority of the members are undecided to commit. cooperate. Physical Developments Physical Developments Physical Developments As derived from Sections 5.2.3 and 5.3.1: As derived from Sections 5.2.3 and 5.3.1: As derived from Sections 5.2.3 and 5.3.1: - Standards on house designs are generally followed, - House standards are generally followed; the size of - There are no standards set by the leaders prior to but expansions and changes in kitchen and service the houses allows for expansions and integration with Sierra Homes; hence houses do areas are mostly unavoidable. improvements. not have a typical design. - An office space is provided for committee - A multi-purpose hall (although unfinished) was - Sierra Homes has no office and no multi-purpose meetings and for reception areas for visitors; a used for assembly and as a reception area for halls. Officers meet in one of the houses; the multi-purpose hall is built for general assemblies. visitors; there is no office space, meetings are held school building in GK Character Village is - Common areas (paths, vegetable patches, flower either in the leaders’ homes or in the school sometimes used for large meetings and as gardens, open spaces) are generally maintained in building. reception area for visitors. anticipation of visitors; although in some houses, - Some of the common areas (paths, open spaces, - Common areas (paths, open spaces and gardens) the rear of the house is mostly untidy and gardens) are well maintained but some are not are not fully utilised. disorganised. fully utilised.
Table 6-5 Resident participation and physical development associated with MULTI-SECTOR COLLABORATION Source: Author Community Grouping 1 Community Grouping 2 Community Grouping 3 (GK Character Village, N=20, and GK Pona Village N=17) (Mambulo Nuevo, N=12) (Sierra Homes N=7) Resident participation Resident participation Resident participation As derived from Sections 5.3.4 and 6.2.1: As derived from Sections 5.3.4 and 6.2.1: As derived from Sections 5.3.4 and 6.2.1: - While GK caretakers maintain coordination with - Due to diminishing bayanihan practices, the - Due to the support given by the government and different sectors, the residents form and leaders collaborate with GK caretakers in GK Pona private sector to GK Character, some of the participate in bayanihan groups which created a to conduct values formation in the village, aiming residents participate in bayanihan events, bandwagon and attracted tourists (volunteers and to attract visitors, including potential donors into although majority of the residents have visitors) into the village. their village. reservations on their roles and responsibilities. Physical Developments Physical Developments Physical Developments As derived from Sections 5.2.3 and 5.3.4: As derived from Sections 5.2.3 and 5.3.4: As derived from Sections 5.2.3 and 5.3.4: - Aside from its location to access roads (approx. - Site has scenic views of hills and farms, although - Dwellings and surroundings are very basic, no 200-500m) its scenic views of landscapes, hills and located far from access roads (approx. 900m) effort is exerted to make it attractive to outsiders, farms, the dwellings and surroundings are - The village receives financial and manpower except for a repainting in a few houses to adapt to designed to entice visitors and prospect donors. support from various sectors for the building of the bright facades in GK Character. - The village receives financial and manpower dwellings, school building, multi-purpose hall, - The site is located close to access roads (approx. support from various sectors for the building of drainage and water station. 200m) dwellings, school buildings, farms, multi-purpose - The houses have well-maintained surroundings - There is no financial and manpower support for hall, playground facilities and road development ideal for volunteers. community facilities, except for the use of the GK beneficial for tourism purposes. school building and the GK Shell farm.
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 221
Table 6-6 Resident participation and physical development associated with SWEAT EQUITY Source: Author. Community Grouping 1 Community Grouping 2 Community Grouping 3 (GK Character Village, N=20, and GK Pona Village N=17) (Mambulo Nuevo, N=12) (Sierra Homes N=7) Resident participation Resident participation Resident participation As derived from Sections 5.3.6 and 6.2.1: As derived from Sections 5.3.6 and 6.2.1: As derived from Sections 5.3.6 and 6.2.1: - Residents are tasked to render manual labour - Residents are required to contribute manual - As houses are constructed from public funds, none (along with several other volunteers/visitors) in the labour in the construction of houses and multi- of the residents participate in the construction of construction of houses, schools, multi-purpose purpose hall with the help of a few volunteers. houses although they are required to pay monthly halls, and farms. - There are also opportunities to actively engage in amortisations. - Residents generally exhibit active participation in livelihood projects, but the leaders feel incapable - The integration with GK Character provide house building, community events and livelihood leadership-wise, and resort to external assistance, opportunities to participate in bayanihan for projects. mainly from caretakers of GK Pona who initiated community events and livelihood projects the values formation program, and later, bayanihan activities Physical Developments Physical Developments Physical Developments As derived from Sections 5.2.3 and 5.3.6: As derived from Sections 5.2.3 and 5.3.6: As derived from Sections 5.2.3 and 5.3.6: - The houses and infrastructure which were built by - The houses and infrastructure which were built by - The building of houses and infrastructure which the residents and volunteers are generally well- the residents and volunteers are generally well- were contracted by the government lack maintained except for a few houses of members maintained. There is also the tendency to maintenance and require monitoring who don’t cooperate. However, there is a compromise quality in a desire to build more - The area allocated for farm lots is shared with GK tendency to compromise quality in a desire to homes in the least possible time. Character; however most of the designated lots build more homes in the least possible time. - Community areas are not fully utilised, farm plots are not fully utilised. - Farm lots and community areas are mostly utilised are not provided. although there are times when only a few families attend to their garden plots.
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 222
Table 6-7 Resident participation and physical development associated with PROJECT DELIVERY Source: Author Community Grouping 1 Community Grouping 2 Community Grouping 3 (GK Character Village, N=20, and GK Pona Village N=17) (Mambulo Nuevo, N=12) (Sierra Homes N=7) Resident participation Resident participation Resident participation As derived from Section 5.3.5 and 6.2.1: As derived from Section 5.3.5 and 6.2.1: As derived from Section 5.3.5 and 6.2.1: - Residents support the delivery of hard and soft - The leaders who are aware of the advantages of - Awareness of services received by GK Character infrastructure basically through compliance with GK Pona village in terms of service are keen to Village motivates some residents to participate, rules and standards set by the KB. This includes participate in bayanihan; however the few although others, especially those who lack building and maintenance of infrastructure as well residents who don’t cooperate are those who are awareness tend to ignore bayanihan activities. as social services which support engagement in not aware of benefits. tourism-related activities such as food services, organic beauty and health products and native handicrafts. Physical Developments Physical Developments Physical Developments As derived from Sections 5.2.3 and 5.3.5: As derived from Sections 5.2.3 and 5.3.5: As derived from Sections 5.2.3 and 5.3.5: - Housing construction is supported with the - Housing development is supported with the - Dwellings, main external road access, concrete construction of the concrete major road or gravel construction of concrete major road, gravel minor major road gravel minor roads and paths are minor roads and paved footpaths, and community roads and paved footpaths, and a few community constructed. But there are no community infrastructure. The development is also enhanced infrastructures. This includes the school building, infrastructure provided; with the establishment of the organic farms, the GK unfinished multi-purpose hall, communal pumps - The community facilities in GK Character are used bed-and-breakfast and other tourism and drainages. by the residents for community activities such as infrastructure. - A few facilities related to education, health and the multi-purpose hall, school buildings and - Several facilities related to education, health and social well-being (school, multi-purpose hall, sports playgrounds. social well-being (school, multi-purpose hall, sports and playgrounds) are established and playgrounds) are established
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 223
Table 6-8 Resident participation and physical development associated with COMMUNITY IDENTITY Source: Author Community Grouping 1 Community Grouping 2 Community Grouping 3 (GK Character Village, N=20, and GK Pona Village N=17) (Mambulo Nuevo, N=12) (Sierra Homes N=7) Resident participation Resident participation Resident participation As derived from Section 5.3.2 and 6.2.1: As derived from Section 5.3.5 and 6.2.1: As derived from Section 5.3.5 and 6.2.1: - The residents generally conform to design - While the houses have identical designs, there are - A few residents participate in bayanihan events standards set by the KB. no efforts to establish standards on maintaining held in GK character Village - Residents actively participate in festivals and the uniformity of house designs - While houses have identical designs, there are no cultural events, as well as interact with visitors and - Festivals and cultural events are seldom held, standards on maintaining the uniformity of house volunteers in bayanihan events. hence there are few opportunities for participation design - The mandatory participation in values formation - As soon as GK caretakers started values formation - Very few residents participate in festivals and program develops perspectives on practicing the program, some of the residents become actively community events ‘caring and sharing’ attitude in bayanihan through engaged even though a few remain inactive. - There is very little perceived participation in values spiritually-based and culturally relevant activities formation programs handled by GK.
Physical Developments Physical Developments Physical Developments As derived from Sections 5.2.3 and 5.3.2: As derived from Sections 5.2.3 and 5.3.2: As derived from Sections 5.2.3 and 5.3.2: - Houses are generally identical with varying colours; - Houses have identical exterior appearance with - Houses are not identical. However, after these are characterised as bright colourful houses minimal exterior colour and treatment; there are integration with GK Character village, some of the and landscaped gardens with ornamental plants minimal landscaping features, with a few houses are repainted with bright colours and flowers. ornamental plants and flowers. - There is minimal participation in community - Community events suitable for touristic functions - Community events are held either in the events; there are no facilities to cater to are held in the multi-purpose halls and open unfinished multi-purpose hall or at the open community activities. spaces. spaces
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 224
Table 6-9 Resident participation and physical development associated with TRAINING AND EDUCATION Source: Author Community Grouping 1 Community Grouping 2 Community Grouping 3 (GK Character Village, N=20, and GK Pona Village N=17) (Mambulo Nuevo, N=12) (Sierra Homes N=7) Resident participation Resident participation Resident participation As derived from Section 5.3.3 and 6.2.1: As derived from Section 5.3.3 and 6.2.1: As derived from Section 5.3.3 and 6.2.1: - The seminars facilitated by GK caretakers in - There have been very few seminars and training - The KB leaders of GK Character encourage partnership with government agencies are organised by the GK caretakers and leaders, most residents of Sierra Homes to participate in generally attended by the majority of GK residents, of which are attended by residents; networking trainings and seminars, but the latter expressed there has been however certain issues in applying with GK caretakers provide more opportunities to very little interest. Despite efforts of the GK skills learned (such as entrepreneurship) due to attend skills development caretakers and their leaders, the attendance of funding constraints - Traditional practices that are detrimental to Sierra Homes residents is usually motivated by - Environmental awareness and waste management environment have persisted, i.e. burning and use what they can get from Government, rather than programs have been helpful in instilling sense of of synthetic fertilizers. what they can contribute. responsibility especially for tourism purposes, - There was minimal participation in socio- although there is little evidence that this is passed environment-related seminars. on by residents to the visitors; there are still issues - There is a lack of interest in tourism development on use of synthetic fertilizers among Sierra Homes residents as they know that visitors are usually less interested to visit their village compared to GK Character. Physical Developments Physical Developments Physical Developments As derived from Sections 5.2.3 and 5.3.3: As derived from Sections 5.2.3 and 5.3.3: As derived from Sections 5.2.3 and 5.3.3: - Through the GK Bayan-anihan program, farms - There are no infrastructure that would cater to - There is no infrastructure provided to (consisting of vegetable plots and poultry farms), seminars and training. Most of the residents accommodate seminars and training. and livelihood centres are provided to produce acquire skills individually and would train - Although the residents are allowed to use the food for the families and provide a venue for themselves usually in their own homes. Visitors facilities in the GK Character Village for training hands-on training for families and visitors. visit the homes and tend to become spectators purposes, majority of the residents are not - Through the GK Mabuhay program, the GK rather than co-participants in skills development. interested to initiate or participate in programs caretakers plan to develop the villages as the site - However, the training provided by GK supports related to skills development. for social and environmental service learning residents in learning more skills; the multi-purpose programs and for social entrepreneurships that areas serve as venue for this purpose, although would cater to educational institutions and other some of the residents indicate that they are not organisations interested in interactive learning. keen to participate.
Chapter 6 – The Phenomenon and the Consequences 225 The comparison of the three groupings of communities presented above is laid out according to the two main indicators of social capital: resident participation and its corresponding physical developments. It can be argued that all of the case communities generally have strong community cohesions or social bonding. However, not all of these have a strong social bridging. While there is a need for Mambulo Nuevo and Sierra Homes to enhance social networks, GK Pona Village and GK Character Village on the other hand, have already achieved stronger links with private and public sectors.
The comparison also reflects the reciprocities between resident participation and physical developments. First, resident participation is associated with the ‗relationship between the individual and community‘; referring to the connectivity that GK communities have created with other sectors. Second, physical developments are associated with the ‗role of place‘, which is one of the defining elements of community wherein changes in the living environments occur as a result of social capital, or a lack of it.69 The generation of social capital as manifested in resident participation and physical developments has influenced housing and tourism development in many ways. In general, resident participation has influenced either the enhancement, or lack of physical developments in the case communities. The amount of resident participation in bayanihan events is one of the requirements by which donors bring in funding and manpower support to build houses, livelihood centres, farm facilities and accommodation areas beneficial for its tourism pursuits. Likewise, there are instances when physical development affects the rise or decline of resident participation. The development of housing infrastructure and community facilities in GK, which has attracted visitors to participate in service learning programs and volunteer activities, stimulated the interest of residents to participate further.
Physical development is thus viewed as both the outcome and the factor of resident participation which, in the process, support the development of the tourism-housing nexus phenomenon in GK communities; this is further elaborated in Chapters 7 and 8.
69 The ‘relationship between the individual and community’ and the ‘role of place’ are two central themes that were identified to be essential in exploring the links in social capital (Lang and Hornburg, 1998).
6.3 Conclusion
By exploring the ‗phenomenon‘ and the ‗consequence‘ categories of the grounded theory coding analysis, this chapter provided a qualitative and quantitative exploration of the extent of influence of bayanihan on the participation of residents in tourism. In Chapter 3, I introduced GK as the building of communities involving members of different sectors who are motivated by philanthropy and nationalism. In this chapter, the role of GK caretakers as facilitator is identified as a crucial aspect in the creation of social capital from bayanihan in GK villages in Cam Sur, giving rise to the phenomenon of convergence of housing and tourism. While there is a positive correlation established between participation in housing and tourism activities, the consequences corresponded to disparities in the degree of consensus among residents. Such diversity conveys GK‘s challenges in sustaining participation.
In addressing the research question, ―To what extent does bayanihan influence the participation of residents in tourism development?‖ a quantitative assessment was undertaken identifying community participation as an effective tool for tourism development and housing provision. The six factors that influence bayanihan are applied as criteria for analysing the levels of resident participation and the degrees of consensus amongst residents. This provided a basis for classifying the four case communities according to three attributes, namely: (1) indifference, (2) assimilation and, (3) adoption.
Consequently, Chapter 7 presents a discussion of findings, which will explore the indicators of social capital generated through bayanihan, as well as the reciprocities created between housing and tourism development.
Chapter 6 – The phenomenon and the consequence 227 227 7. Discussion of findings
In previous chapters I presented various data sets which provide a basis for understanding bayanihan and how it influences the sustainability of tourism in GK communities. Using grounded theory coding analysis, I identified and outlined the relationships of the causal conditions, contextual conditions, and action strategies pertaining to bayanihan. I also ascertained the occurrence of the convergence of tourism and housing and its corresponding consequences through correlation analysis.
This chapter draws lessons from the four GK case communities in Cam Sur, and sets out the ways by which bayanihan, being their housing strategy, influences tourism development. Organisational synergies between the Government of Cam Sur and GK in Iriga and Libmanan are framed by the indicators of social capital – particularly, resident participation and physical development. Comparisons among the four case communities set out divergent social and physical outcomes as a result of the limitation of the current knowledge and practice of bayanihan. Finally, an empirical model is presented to illustrate the different levels of community participation portrayed in each of the case communities.
7.1 Revisiting the research questions
This study has investigated bayanihan as GK‘s strategy for housing provision involving members of different sectors who are motivated by philanthropy and nationalism. It focused on ascertaining how such participatory housing approach influences the sustainability of resident participation in tourism development, using a case study that addressed two research questions: (1) What are the factors that influence the creation of social capital formed from bayanihan in GK communities? (2) To what extent does
community participation in housing provision influence community participation in tourism development? The responses to these questions are summarised as follows:
1. What are the factors that influence the creation of social capital formed from bayanihan in GK communities?
In Chapters 3 and 4, bayanihan is argued as having the potential to build social capital and provide a connection between housing and tourism development. The investigation of bayanihan necessitated a determination of the conditions and strategies involved in the development of GK Communities. Hence, in Chapter 5 the GK communities are discussed in terms of the three categories of grounded theory, namely, the causal conditions, the contextual conditions and the action strategies. In summary: i. The causal conditions outlined incidences of poverty and slums in the Philippines which necessitated the revitalisation of bayanihan as a housing strategy adopted by GK, in order to respond to the issue of homelessness in the country (Brillantes & Fernandez, 2011; Habaradas & Aquino, 2011; Villanueva, 2010). ii. The contextual conditions highlighted how Cam Sur used to be ranked third in the total number of poor families in the country, yet experienced remarkable economic progress beginning 2006 through tourism development. Consequently, ecotourism was adopted as a catchphrase for establishing new tourism ventures throughout Cam Sur, although these ventures turned out to become more associated with mass tourism. Nonetheless, the effort to pursue ecotourism in the province stirred public and private sectors to engage in bayanihan activities related to tourism development in the region, especially in Iriga and Libmanan iii. The action strategies identified a crucial aspect of community participation in GK communities, which is the role of GK caretakers. The GK caretakers facilitate the implementation of various GK programs by linking the residents of GK communities with external sectors. In Cam Sur, the provincial government established partnership with GK, and provided infrastructure and manpower support. However, as the hiring of some GK caretakers and KB leaders precipitated a constant monitoring of implementation of the GK programs, a few residents felt they are being coerced into participating.
Chapter 7 – Discussion of findings 229
Essentially, the action strategies derived from the grounded theory coding revealed the six factors that influence the creation of social capital that is generated from bayanihan in housing and tourism development. These are:
1. Leadership and organisation within a Kapitbahayan community-centred community development 2. Multi-sector collaboration in sustaining resource generation and project implementation 3. Sweat equity as the building technology adopted within the concept of self-help housing 4. Project delivery for community building 5. Community identity through values formation programs 6. Training and education towards the implementation of GK programs
These are the six factors that influence the creation of social capital, a concept which was pointed out in Chapter 4 as instrumental in the development of both housing and tourism, as respectively argued in literature (Jones, 2005; Lang & Hornburg, 1998; Okazaki, 2008; Evans, 1996; and Woolcock & Narayan, 2000). These shall be elaborated in Section 7.4 later in this chapter.
2. To what extent does community participation in housing influence community participation of residents in tourism development?
In Chapter 6, the other two categories of grounded theory coding paradigm were presented, namely, the phenomenon and the consequence. The simultaneous development of tourism and housing through bayanihan provided a background for understanding the phenomenon under investigation, which is, the convergence of housing and tourism.
As discussed in Chapter 6, GK emphasises the ethical practice of tourism that concerns both nature and cultural interaction, as described in evaluative measures in ecotourism
Chapter 7 – Discussion of findings 230
ventures (Wallace, 1996) However, findings reveal that socio-cultural tourism interaction prevailed in GK communities, more than nature tourism interaction. While the province of Cam Sur is promoted as an ecotourism destination, bayanihan activities were rather determined to be more appropriately associated with social tourism. In consonance with principles of social tourism argued by Minnaert et al. (2006) 70 , tourism development in GK communities creates mutual benefits for both residents and visitors, in particular, visitor-oriented social tourism and host-oriented social tourism:
i. Visitor-oriented social tourism - For visitors, participation in bayanihan activities gives tourists the opportunity to interact with residents and to exercise social responsibility at the same time. The evaluation workshop conducted in GK Bayani Challenge ascertained that such are the general motivations of local and international volunteers to participate. Visitors signified the benefits they have attained out of immersions in GK communities. Volunteering in house construction, coastal clean-ups, environmental advocacies, and livelihood programs not only develop an awareness and understanding of others‘ needs. The spiritual and emotional experiences also satisfy their need for personal self- fulfilment. ii. Host-oriented social tourism - For residents, the primary benefit is a sense of pride and identity in engaging in the development of their communities. Meaningful interactions with visitors – tourists and volunteers alike – instil upon residents a sense of stewardship on their built and natural environment. Working alongside volunteers stir up their determination in participating in bayanihan events as they become aware of how their contribution affects the other sectors to engage as well. The presence of visitors has also made residents mindful of their physical environments; they have become cognizant of their responsibility in maintaining attractive surroundings.
70 Social tourism highlights two perspectives: visitor-related social tourism focuses on tourism demand, which provides everyone the opportunity for vacation, regardless of economic or social situation. In contrast, the host-related social tourism focuses on the effects on the supply-side of tourism. Highlighting local cultures and habits of its inhabitants could also be described as social tourism. (Minnaert, Maitland et al., 2006)
Chapter 7 – Discussion of findings 231
However, residents perceived the convergence of housing and tourism in different ways. The significant consequence as discussed in Chapter 6 is that: residents tend to exhibit diverse participation. From the surveys presented in Sections 5.2 and 5.3, the diversity of resident participation in the case communities is ascertained to establish two quantitative attributes: (1) the mean level of participation and (2) the degree of consensus on participation. These attributes are used as reference to the classification of the four communities into three groups, which shall be discussed further in Section 7.7 of this chapter.
7.2 Developing a contemporary definition of bayanihan
The application of bayanihan in the case communities revealed the conditions around and strategies for developing a participatory approach to housing in GK communities. These conditions and strategies involved the engagement of Government, the GK Organisation and the residents who worked together to collectively address problems related to poverty and social displacement. Bayanihan is – as defined in tradition – the Filipino practice of cooperation that is primarily applied in housing. However as discussed in Chapters 3 and 4, GK has enhanced its application and redefined bayanihan as: the building of communities involving members of different sectors who are motivated by philanthropy and nationalism.
Findings presented in Sections 5.2 and 5.3 highlight how bayanihan activities in GK villages essentially complements tourism plans and programs for the province of Cam Sur, as well as for the region of Bicol. Cam Sur, which is one of the rural regions in the Philippines that have resources suitable for tourism, used to be ranked as one of the poorest provinces in the country. Yet from their beginnings in 2006, successful tourism ventures in Cam Sur brought a remarkable economic improvement. The province became the highest-ranking tourist destination in the Philippines, surpassing tourist arrivals in all its other regions (DOT, 2009). Thus, in an effort to address sustainability issues, ecotourism was employed as the strategic basis of a plan for tourism development in Cam Sur and the rest of Bicol Region. To respond to its tourism pursuits, revisions were made in the 2007 Regional Development Plan, which
Chapter 7 – Discussion of findings 232
likewise incorporated government support for the development of the GK housing program. Consequently, in 2010, the Department of Tourism established partnership with GK in building sustainable housing approach in places it targeted as worth visiting. 71 But despite these developments, there was little evidence of resident engagement in tourism.
However, the findings in this study as presented in Section 6.2 demonstrate resident participation involved in bayanihan. As such, a more distinct theoretical definition of bayanihan is revealed; it is the Filipino practice of community participation that involves different societal sectors and generates social capital for the benefit of residents, especially the poor. The emphasis on participation and social capital in the definition aids in the understanding of how this housing practice has amalgamated with the development of tourism in GK villages in Cam Sur. In Chapters 5 and 6, social capital generation is attributed to the role of GK caretakers, which will be elaborated in the section that follows.
7.3 The significance of facilitation
As discussed in Section 6.1.3, the active involvement of GK caretakers who facilitated bayanihan activities was significant to the creation of social capital formed in GK communities. The organisation of Gawad Kalinga (gawad and kalinga are two Filipino terms for ‗give‘ and ‗care‘ respectively) essentially advocates the value of ‗caring and sharing‘. The GK caretakers have established their role of linking residents with government and the private sector, in effect, enhancing social capital. In several instances, GK caretakers became associated with government agencies, as many of the caretakers were either hired into government positions, or elected to sit as public officials. These conditions manifest the complementarity and embeddedness that
71 MANILA, Oct. 19 2010 — The Department of Tourism (DOT) and the Gawad Kalinga (GK) Community Development Foundation, Inc. signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to formalize partnership in the development of community-based tourism enterprise in selected key sites nationwide. Lily Ramos, 20 October 2010. http://balita.ph/2010/10/20/dot-and-gawad-kalinga-sign-mou/
Chapter 7 – Discussion of findings 233
characterise the synergistic view of social capital described by Evans (1996) and Woolcock and Narayan (2000).
However, as argued in Section 6.1.3, while GK caretakers aim to establish social networks that encourage the involvement of residents in bayanihan, a few residents also accuse them of being coercive and restrictive. GK caretakers, whose role is primarily pastoral in nature, emphasise the residents‘ mandatory participation in the GK ‗values formation programs‘. This formal training is – to a certain extent – viewed as a misappropriation of democracy in participation, which substantiates the ‗myth of participation‘ as argued by Butcher (2008).
Nonetheless, in the four case communities located in Iriga and Libmanan in Cam Sur Province, the residents share a common desire to be involved in bayanihan in both housing and tourism. Although compared to GK Character and GK Pona villages, there has been a significantly low involvement of residents in Sierra Homes and Mambulo Nuevo. These two communities have engaged with GK at a later stage of the housing development. Sierra Homes, which was developed by the Iriga Urban Poor Federation in 2003, was then integrated with the GK Character Village in 2005. Similarly, Mambulo Nuevo was started by Habitat for Humanity Philippines in 2008. Two years later, it partnered with GK Pona Village around the time that the provincial government allotted funding and manpower support for the latter‘s development and promotion as a tourist destination.
Being aware of increased access to donations and resources because of bayanihan, some of the residents of Sierra Homes and Mambulo Nuevo – mostly the leaders – expressed agreement with the integration. Most of the residents however were hesitant to abide by the rules and regulations that were set by the GK caretakers and the leaders of the KB community association. As elaborated in Section 5.3.7, most of them started the formal training and values formation program at a later stage of housing development. Their participation in subsequent housing and tourism activities were thus adversely affected.
Chapter 7 – Discussion of findings 234
On the other hand, the GK Character Village and the GK Pona Village has attracted the support of the Government and other sectors. These two villages were established in 2004 and 2005 respectively through the initiative of the GK caretakers. As stated in Section 5.3, social networks between government and the residents are established through bayanihan events related to house construction, cleanliness drives, livelihood and social services. Such events are attended by various volunteers including educational institutions, private corporations, and civic and religious organisations, some of them even provided monetary support for hard and soft infrastructure development.
Another aspect, in which GK caretakers have a role in, is addressing the inclination of residents to exhibit different views of themselves and their community. As argued by Taylor (1995), facilitators are equipped to achieve a sense of harmony by ―reducing internal varieties into simplicity‖ (p.489). As discussed in Section 6.2.3, in GK communities, a sense of harmony is attained through the adoption and acceptance of bayanihan as the community‘s local heritage and culture. The residents‘ consensus in engaging in bayanihan activities – albeit in varying degrees – earmarks the community as worth a visit, enabling residents to take their share in providing a hospitality atmosphere in the community.
7.4 Factors that influence the creation of social capital
This section discusses specific factors that set out opportunities and limitations for the effective implementation of bayanihan. The exploration of action strategies in the grounded theory coding analysis in Sections 5.3.1 to 5.3.7 revealed six prevailing factors that either support or constrain the creation of social capital in tourism and housing in Cam Sur. These factors are: (1) leadership and organisation, (2) multi-sector collaboration, (3) sweat equity, (4) project delivery, (5) community identity, and, (6) training and education.
Chapter 7 – Discussion of findings 235
The first factor is leadership and organisation. GK observes a community-centred development. Leaders of the KB Community Association 72 are tasked to organise meetings and disseminate responsibilities, particularly in monitoring compliance with design standards, house maintenance, visitation programs and bayanihan events. In general, the degree of leadership and organisation is higher in communities where GK caretakers have greater influence. However as indicated in the organisational structure in Figure 5-37, GK caretakers have an authority over residents which is higher than the KB. The power relations that govern GK communities are thus an example of ‗myth of participation‘ as argued by Butcher (2008), wherein community participation veers away from democratic decision-making towards pragmatism. Pragmatism is the tendency for leaders and members of communities to pursue the goals set for them by the facilitating NGO and its funding partners. However, while pragmatism undermines the independence of communities as compared to democratic decision-making, it was found in the case communities that the accountabilities of residents to the GK caretakers and funding partners were never an issue among majority of the GK residents; the interventions of GK caretakers especially in bayanihan activities were generally acceptable to most residents. Nevertheless still, there are a few residents who find GK caretakers and KB leaders to be coercive and restrictive, resulting in their resistance to commit. Issues in leadership and organisation have also resulted in conflicts between leaders and residents, and even among residents themselves. The survey of community participation presented in Section 5.3.1 and 6.2.1 provides evidence of these conflicting views.
The second factor is multi-sector collaboration. Multi-sector community participation is what defines bayanihan. As argued by Choi and Sirakaya (2006) the collaboration between various stakeholders constitutes the political dimension that is needed for effective tourism planning. In the case of GK communities in Cam Sur, different sectors have been contributing resources that are otherwise limited or inaccessible to poor communities, such as land development, social services, construction supply and technology, manpower, skills development and design and
72 KB stands for Kapitbahayan, a Filipino term for neighbourhood which was also used to refer to the community association of GK communities.
Chapter 7 – Discussion of findings 236
planning. Various resources have come from government agencies, public officials, commercial enterprises, educational institutions and private entities including private volunteers. Yet, while GK claims how the involvement of the residents is central to multi-sector collaboration in GK villages, this study finds inconsistencies in some aspects of implementation. Resident participation – which is an essential tool for tourism‘s sustainability (Barkin, 2000; Drake, 1991; Garrod, 2003; Jones, 2005; Simmons, 1994) – did not play a key role in the planning and design of their residential sites and infrastructure. There was minimal collaboration with residents during the planning stage, as either a volunteer professional planner for GK, or a government planner had produced the site development plans. Hence, the lack of input from the end users has contributed to subsequent problems in resident useability and adherence to policies related to house improvements and maintenance, which are necessary in sustaining tourism visitation.
The third factor is sweat equity. As discussed in Section 3.1, literature on self-help housing highlights the value of sweat equity. In self-help housing, the public sector, usually the government, provides construction materials for housing development while inhabitants are expected to contribute by rendering manual labour in the construction of houses and community infrastructure (Astrand & Rodriguez, 1996; Sheng, 1990; Suyasinto, 1989). Sweat equity contributes to a sense of ownership and responsibility, which is imperative, as such values would be hard to attain if houses were merely donated to its beneficiaries. As outlined in Section 5.3.6, the application of sweat equity in GK communities was not limited to the construction of houses. It includes the construction of livelihood centres and other community facilities, as well as the establishment of social services and livelihood projects. Manual labour, which is shared among residents and other sectors, is evident in bayanihan events. Visitors, particularly in GK Character and GK Pona Villages participated in the hands-on building of hard infrastructure such as the hauling of construction materials, masonry and concrete works, installing fixtures and partitions, painting and finishing works as well as landscaping. There were also opportunities to contribute to soft infrastructure such as initiating or participating in trainings for organic farming, environmental awareness programs, health and education services, social entrepreneurships, hospitality services
Chapter 7 – Discussion of findings 237
and youth development. Sweat equity was also incorporated in service learning programs organised by secondary and tertiary schools even those coming from far regions to immerse their students in GK communities. It is in these service learning programs where participants acquire interactive learning experiences.
The fourth factor is project delivery. A number of tourism studies assert how resident satisfaction in the delivery of infrastructure projects is related to participation and collaboration (Grillo, et al., 2010; Rios, 2005; Sucgang, 1964). In this case study, a consideration of basic needs – particularly housing-related needs – becomes a motivation for participating in tourism-related activities such as maintaining clean and attractive homes and communal spaces. This is particularly true in GK Pona and GK Character Village, which have received government support particularly for tourism- related infrastructure. The partnerships created between GK communities and other sectors greatly contributed to resource generation. Higher public officials who committed to support the GK programs hired some GK caretakers and leaders into government positions. They later played key roles in the coordination and monitoring of community projects, land donation, tourism infrastructure and other social services.
The synergy between Government and GK trickled down to Sierra Homes and Mambulo Nuevo. However, as there was less participation of residents in bayanihan in these two communities, there was also a low regard for their potential to contribute to tourism. On one hand, the range of infrastructure support as a result of the convergence encouraged residents to cooperate with caretakers and leaders. On the other hand, this also became an actual source of conflict. As mentioned in Section 6.1.5 for example, the residents of GK Character Village had the advantage of acquiring free communal electricity and water, which the residents of Sierra Homes did not have. This is inconsistent with social equity and justice advocated by GK.
The fifth factor is community identity. A number of studies argue how the preservation of cultural factors is significant for tourism‘s sustainability (Horton, 2009; Hussey, 1989; Kontogeorgopoulos, 2005; MacCannell, 1973; Pinijvarasin & Sunakorn, 2007). As discussed in Section 3.3, bayanihan is viewed as GK‘s expression of the
Chapter 7 – Discussion of findings 238
country‘s identity, which is applied as a housing strategy in GK communities. The issues of poverty and corruption experienced by Filipinos – who are predominantly Catholic – motivated the revitalisation of bayanihan practices in the Philippines. The members of the religious movement, Couples for Christ initiated and facilitated values formation programs that promote spiritually-based and culturally-relevant activities. GK sought to recuperate the practice of bayanihan and to address the issue of homelessness and poverty through patriotism and philanthropy. Literature provides a brief account of bayanihan‘s role in housing alone (Baldazo, 1991; Virola, et al., 2010). But with GK, this practice is applied across different programs including skills development, social events and resource generation. Bayanihan events and activities in GK villages were organised by GK Mabuhay and the GK1MB, particularly during official national holidays. As different sectors in the community got involved in the process, bayanihan then became a tourist activity for both local and foreign visitors.
The sixth factor is training and education. Sustainable tourism develops a learning environment for tourists in a way that would promote the conservation of social and natural environments (Walter, 2009). Such learning environments are central to the development of social tourism, slum tourism, and poverty tourism (King & Idawati, 2010; Vale, 1995); these provide socio-cultural experiences through immersion and interactive learning. The development of residents‘ skills is essential in implementing the various GK programs. The residents acknowledge that if they themselves have adequate training and education on socio-cultural conservation and development, the knowledge gained in the skills development programs can be effectively transmitted to tourists, hence a learning environment in bayanihan is cultivated. There are a number of seminars and trainings conducted relevant to improving community building skills. Nevertheless, the GK caretakers are concerned that while some residents were able to apply knowledge gained from training, others still resort to old practices such as the use of synthetic fertilizers, improper waste disposal and economic activities. As mentioned in the evaluation of the Bayani Challenge presented in Chapter 6, the lack of training and education was evident in the way residents executed community infrastructure, agricultural production and tourism operation. While the inadequacy in skills has not
Chapter 7 – Discussion of findings 239
been a major concern at the time of the research investigation, it is likely that its persistence will develop social and environmental risks.
In summary, while bayanihan in the four case communities have been adopted to enable residents to achieve and develop housing and tourism, certain limitations have been identified in getting residents to participate. These limitations stem from the uneven transfer of knowledge involved in the application of bayanihan, particularly in terms of the aforementioned six factors critical to housing provision and tourism development.
In the following section, the creation of social capital in the case communities is discussed according to the six factors that influence the practice of bayanihan in GK communities.
7.5 Social capital in GK communities
Examining the four communities showed how bayanihan has generated social capital, which is crucial to the development of tourism in GK communities. From the perspective of Woolcock and Narayan (2000), social capital is referred to as the ―norms and networks that enable people to act collectively‖ (p.226). Lang and Hornburg define social capital as ―the stocks of social trust, norms, and networks that people draw upon in order to solve common problems‖ (1998:p.4). The authors argue that social networks are critical in many low-income neighbourhoods confronted with various development issues as it gives people the connectedness they need especially whenever they experience social or economic difficulties. A typical indicator of social capital is the rate of community participation, particularly related to as volunteer networks. Lang and Hornburg also assert how the role of government housing policy becomes critical because ―housing is a major foundation for building social capital‖ (p.5).
Communities supposedly exercise power and social spending in housing; however, there are also instances when social capital becomes destructive to societies in general. This happens when there is too much ‗social glue‘ but no ‗social bridge‘ (1998:7) – the former concerns with the amount of trust and willingness when participating in a group,
Chapter 7 – Discussion of findings 240
while the latter are the links between groups. While social glue benefits communities in many ways, it also results in isolation, discrimination and sheer neglect of other external sectors (Lang & Hornburg, 1998). As such, the government needs to provide ways to build and sustain social bridges, which usually involve external civic organisations that form effective coalitions in communities.
As discussed earlier in Section 7.3, GK served as the organisation that facilitates social capital which is, in practice, the effective coalition or link between groups. The GK organisation is the social bridge that has emerged to link communities with government. as well as corporate organisations, private groups and individual volunteers. Nonetheless, it is both GK and the government which have explicit contributions to social bridging. Table 7-1 below outlines the contribution of GK and the government, as well as the Government in GK communities according to the six factors that influence social capital creation.
Chapter 7 – Discussion of findings 241
Table 7-1 How GK and the Government of Cam Sur contribute to social bridging in GK villages. [Source: Author] Six factors that GK Cam Sur Government of Cam Sur influence social capital 1. GK sets up a KB-centred community Government has established partnership LEADERSHIP AND through community social preparation, with GK; it has appointed government ORGANISATION community build-up and community officials to oversee program empowerment stages of development implementation, and employed KB leaders and GK caretakers to serve government positions 2. GK initiates and oversees networking with Government promotes GK villages as tourist MULTI-SECTOR government, private corporations, attractions suitable for local and foreign COLLABORATION educational institutions and private visitors (tourists and volunteers). individuals 3. GK requires resident participation for Government employees are mandatorily SWEAT EQUITY manual labour contribution for the engaged to participate in manual labour, building of houses and infrastructure alongside the residents and private (most residents render more than the volunteers in bayanihan events such as in required minimum of 400 hours). the Bayani Challenge, the annual bayanihan that attracts locals and foreigners 4. GK ensures that networking with Government provides funds and manpower PROJECT DELIVERY government agencies results in positive support for infrastructure development outcomes related to planning, funding, such as land acquisition/donation, road implementation and construction of construction, site development, and community facilities including tourism building of community facilities and tourism infrastructure. infrastructure. 5. GK caretakers and volunteers conduct GK promotes GK villages as ‘sustainable COMMUNITY values formation and community housing development’ that are worth IDENTITY programs, aiming to create communities visiting. GK was generally highly regarded that characterise the ‘spirit of caring and for the formation of values in new sharing’ in community–building through communities (rather than the usual spiritually-based and culturally relevant upgrading of existing ones) – this sets GK events. apart from other housing projects. 6. GK Mabuhay, the tourism program of GK Government agencies execute seminars and TRAINING AND initiates training for skills development, by trainings (i.e. by the DA, DENR, and DTI), EDUCATION partnering with government agencies who and monitors the evaluation of skills and would conduct seminars and training development acquired throughout the programs, i.e. the Dept of Agriculture training. (DA), Dept of Environment (DENR), and Dept of Trade and Industry (DTI)
The table above shows how GK and the Government collaboratively pursued community building strategies that help bridge the housing and tourism sectors through bayanihan. GK also seeks to facilitate the connection of resident communities with government as well as with other sectors, particularly in aspects concerning ‗multi- sector collaboration‘, ‗project delivery‘ and ‗training and education‘. The Government on the other hand sought to promote GK communities as tourist destinations and to engage different sectors in bayanihan events. The implication of such promotion is that the government has engaged not only its residents but also other sectors in
Chapter 7 – Discussion of findings 242
enhancing the tourism sector of the GK communities in Iriga and Libmanan. The development of GK communities was thus associated with the government‘s pursuit of tourism development in the province by way of social tourism.
7.6 The convergence of housing provision and tourism development
As discussed in Section 6.1.1, although the province of Cam Sur is promoted as an ecotourism destination, resident participation in bayanihan is found to be more associated with social tourism. Findings reveal that the socio-cultural tourism interaction prevailed more than nature tourism interaction. Although GK emphasises the ethical practice of tourism concerning the care of natural and social environments, it is in the social environment where mutual benefits for both residents and visitors are generated. This supports the two perspectives of social tourism, namely, visitor- oriented tourism and host-oriented tourism (Minnaert, et al., 2006).
Visitors of GK villages in Cam Sur signified the benefits they have attained from interactions with residents through bayanihan. As elaborated in Section 6.1.2, the emotional and spiritual experiences of participants in their immersions in the GK communities increased their understanding of social responsibility and satisfied their need for self-fulfilment. Bayanihan as a housing approach has become a tourist activity especially for those seeking social and cultural interaction through volunteering. As discussed in Section 5.2.4, residents attained meaningful interactions with visitors, which enhanced their skill and competencies in community development and in the process, developed their sense of pride and community.
The consequence of the convergence of housing and tourism however is that residents developed diverse attitudes towards participation. While there are both positive and negative implications of the convergence, residents tend to maintain cleanliness, orderliness, and attractiveness, being cognizant of visitors who want to observe their colourful and well-maintained houses. GK caretakers and KB leaders encourage residents as well as visitors to participate in bayanihan events. Likewise, some of the residents in GK Pona and GK Character Village take the opportunity of setting up
Chapter 7 – Discussion of findings 243
businesses that would cater to the needs of the travellers, such as organic health and beauty products, handicrafts and food services. Others became more engaged in social events such as festivals and sports, especially among the youth. Their interactions with visitors increased their self-esteem, enabling them to perform their roles well, for instance, as tour guides. Their capacity to practice openness and hospitality had been cultivated and was viewed to enhance visitor experience.
Nonetheless, there are a few of the residents of GK communities who expressed dissatisfaction, generally indicating their view of how bayanihan tends to impose certain unrealistic expectations upon them. From the discussion presented in Section 6.1.5, residents acknowledge that on the average, three out of ten residents do not abide by the tenets set forth in their values formation programs. Some of them find it hard to cooperate with the KB leaders and the GK caretakers. This is mainly due to problems in leadership and communication skills; in particular, the management of finances was not clearly relayed by the leaders to their members. There are reports on non- compliance with the design and construction standards, such as the use of dilapidated metal sheets, and other fire-prone and impermanent materials even for their service areas and front yards. There is also a problem on the free use of electricity, which has caused a sense of inequality with other communities, and incidences of bickering among neighbours particularly in GK Character Village and Sierra Homes. Residents, who are slowly attaining economic progress, are accused of arrogance and insensitivity whenever they acquire household appliances. In the annual bayanihan event, the Bayani Challenge, the volunteers expressed concerns for the poor construction quality, which is compromised in achieving the targeted number of houses at a very short time.
The following section articulates the opportunities and problems of bayanihan, by presenting an empirical model of community participation which illustrates the relationship of housing and tourism.
Chapter 7 – Discussion of findings 244
7.7 Empirical model of community participation
This section presents the empirical model derived from the case findings which is primarily informed by the conceptual framework adopted by Okazaki (2008). As previously discussed in Section 2.2, Okazaki details practical ways to promote and measure participation in the implementation of sustainable tourism, through a case study he conducted in Palawan, Philippines. Using the ‗ladder of citizen participation‘ (Arnstein, 1969) and the ‗model of collaboration process‘ (Selin & Chavez, 1995), Okazaki facilitates the ‗model of community-based tourism, as shown in Figure 7-1 below. He shows how this model is useful for assessing participation levels, relevant to (1) resident participation, (2) power redistribution, (3) collaboration processes and (4) social capital.
Figure 7-1 A model for community-based tourism (Okazaki, 2008) Integration of the two theoretical models of participation by Arnstein (1969)and Selin & Chavez (1995) As suggested by Okazaki (2008)
The findings of Okazaki‘s case study however revealed problems in the community- based ecotourism project in the Philippines, particularly, the conflicts between internal and external stakeholders. The author concludes that the dilemma of communities would be ―transformed from destructive conflict to constructive course by fostering relationships among stakeholders‖ (p.525). Without such networks or social capital, ―resident participation power redistribution and collaboration will not be further advanced‖ (p.525).
Chapter 7 – Discussion of findings 245
Okazaki concludes by facilitating another model which incorporates the synergistic view of social capital (Woolcock & Narayan, 2000) and the implications for development assistance (Sato, 2001 as cited in Okazaki, 2008). The model as shown in Figure 7-2 below shows four types of societies that emanate as a result of good governance and social capital: (1) social and economic well-being, (2) exclusion, (3) coping, and (4) conflict. First, ‗social and economic well-being‘ characterises conditions of high level of social capital, stemming from a complementary relationship among government and other sectors. Second, ‗exclusion‘ characterises a condition of high level of social capital with government, although pressured with social relations with other sectors that are usually dominated by private sectors with commercial interests. Third, ‗coping‘ characterises a condition where adequate social networks exist, but they are deprived from government services and benefits. Lastly, ‗conflict‘ characterises conditions in which neither government nor informal networks function effectively.
Figure 7-2 Model for evaluating implications for community-based tourism development(Okazaki, 2008) Integration of the two theoretical models of social capital by Woolcock& Narayan (2000) and Sato (2001) As suggested by Okazaki (2008)
Examining the practice of bayanihan through grounded theory coding analysis presented in Chapters 5 and 6 revealed six driving factors of social capital creation. These are leadership and organisation, multi-sector collaboration, sweat equity, community identity, project delivery, and training & education; such factors were not
Chapter 7 – Discussion of findings 246
considered in the models of community based participation facilitated by Okazaki (2008). Incorporating these with the result of correlation analysis, the empirical model is revealed. Figure 7-3 below reflects four levels of participation in GK villages, namely, indifference, assimilation, adoption and integration. Okazaki‘s second model in Figure 7-2 classified societies based on government services and social networks. In comparison, the empirical model in Figure 7-3 above is classified according to the actual participation of residents in housing and tourism activities. Essentially, the trajectory of community participation offers a clear challenge for GK communities to sustain their involvement in both housing and tourism development.
Figure 7-3 Empirical model of participation 73 Fitted line plot showing four classifications of communities [Minitab Graphics by: Author]
As mentioned in Chapter 4, the mathematical model based on analytical functions illustrates the tourism-housing nexus in each of the four communities. The fitted plot represents the trajectory of participation. Dashed lines delineate the four levels of
73 The fitted line plot model revealed a measure of R-SQ to be 81.5% which indicates a high proportion of variability of the responses, and a high reliability of the data. The curve, although slight, reflects the natural and less precise behaviour in the realm of social science.
Chapter 7 – Discussion of findings 247
participation. Such delineation should not be perceived to be rigid as some communities (in this case, Mambulo Nuevo) exhibit a mix of extremely high and poor levels of resident participation. The upper and lower ranges are marked by the light coloured horizontal lines. In particular, the four classifications of communities are described as follows:
Classification 1: Level of indifference
The level of indifference characterises a type of participation that prioritises housing provision in tourist regions, without direct consideration of sustainable tourism as an alternative approach to development. The community residents participate in sweat equity and community-based development strategies to improve infrastructure and other social services. However, the types of activities wherein residents participate are those that are constrained within the goals of basic shelter provision only. The construction of dwellings and access to roads and basic infrastructure would come as main priority.
There is nevertheless, recognition of the unique social and cultural identity as well as a sense of appreciation of tourism potential of the community. But due to a limited knowledge of tourism‘s benefits and issues, most of the residents would have very little interest to be involved in tourism-related pursuits. They would rather prioritise spatial and physical needs, including housing needs, which tend to restrain them from having opportunities for networking with other sectors in the community. This low level of participation may also be attributed to a weak community organisation and unharnessed leadership skill. Bayanihan activities would otherwise have increased their access to social capital not only for their own community, but for nearby communities as well.
Classification 2: Level of assimilation
The level of assimilation characterises a type of participation wherein majority of the residents have strong engagements, particularly in ‗leadership and organisation‘,
Chapter 7 – Discussion of findings 248
‗community identity‘ and ‗sweat equity‘. However, there is also a low regard for other aspects, such as in ‗training and education‘ and ‗multi-sector collaboration‘, which eventually deters social relations.
Even though the residents acknowledge that their location has potential for tourism, there is a lack of consensus in certain aspects of bayanihan. It is usually only the leaders who express interest to embark on self-help construction projects and volunteer programs, not just for building houses but also for improving social infrastructure. Such activities tend to assimilate their community to the tourist development in the region, albeit not in its entirety. Although there are efforts to incorporate visitations, however, the lack of involvements amongst a few other members of the community, particularly in the aspect of ‗project delivery‘ as well as ‗training and education‘, creates conflicting views of bayanihan. This signals the need to improve social networks with internal and external sectors.
Classification 3: Level of adoption
The level of adoption characterises a type of participation where there is strong synergy with other sectors, particularly in supporting the convergence of housing and tourism. Through active participation in housing, the residents tend to gain knowledge and appreciation of tourism development.
Physical developments in this kind of community highlight not just basic housing provision, but rather its development as a tourist attraction through multi-sector collaboration. Although some residents remain uncooperative, the majority of them regard their community as a tourist destination. Residents have gained a certain level of expectation and preparedness in attracting tourists who want to participate in bayanihan events such as in infrastructure, health, education, agriculture or socio-economic programs.
Chapter 7 – Discussion of findings 249
The level of engagement in housing-related and tourism-related activities is manifested in the development of homestay facilities, visitor centres, and multi-purpose halls that cater to both hosts and tourists. The linkage with public and private sectors also enhances project delivery, in particular, the improvement of social service and infrastructure. The level of community identity is increased through values formation and livelihood programs, as well as tourism-related skills. Nonetheless, the lack of consensus of residents limits social capital and affects the full manifestation of the convergence of housing and tourism.
Classification 4: Level of integration
While the four communities are classified under the first three levels, a fourth classification, namely ‗level of integration‘ was included in the graph. This corresponds to a condition of participation wherein residents have a high sense of awareness of opportunities in the convergence, and are thus inclined to be collectively engaged in all of the six factors that influence bayanihan. The level of integration involves a relatively high degree of community organisation as well as a very strong synergy among public and private sectors. Nevertheless, the possibility of attaining this ideal state of convergence is yet to be comprehended.
None of the communities in this investigation have exhibited this condition; although, this level of convergence is significant to the vision of GK in the implementation of tourist zones within sustainable housing development. GK aims to develop the GK communities as a landmark for social tourism itself where the natural and human resources are to be devoted for both housing and tourism development. The vision attempts to encourage tourists to engage in the community‘s tourism and hospitality service, as a major income generator or economic contributor. ‗Integration‘ is therefore indicative of the coexistence of housing and tourism development that is aspired in GK communities especially for regions with potentials for nature tourism.74
74 See Appendix A for some examples of GK communities with potentials for nature tourism.
Chapter 7 – Discussion of findings 250
The empirical model however does not suggest that integration is the ideal level of participation as much as is not applicable in different settings and contexts. What the findings in the study suggest is that, in regions where the government identifies tourism as a niche industry, the consideration of the factors that drive participatory housing likely ensures the involvement of the residents in tourism. This empirical model thus becomes a reference in determining the likely success of community mobilisation in both tourism and housing.
Nonetheless, a wider implication of the model necessitate the consideration of other factors such as economic, historical, political and environmental factors which were not explicitly identified in this study. It would even be more meaningful to undertake multiple surveys conducted at certain time intervals in order to reflect the tendency of communities to go up or down the trajectory of participation. It is for these reasons that the investigation of bayanihan is propelled towards future research opportunities. Consequently, significant findings and implications of the case study as well as future research directions would be elaborated in the following chapter – The Conclusions.
Chapter 7 – Discussion of findings 251 8. Conclusions
There are two terms that frame this research: ‗tourism development‘ and ‗housing provision‘. While the relationship between these two concepts is vague in existing literature, the central argument of this thesis is that these two sectors converge as a result of social capital that is generated through bayanihan. This thesis thus aimed to assert how the knowledge and practice of bayanihan contributes to an understanding of the tourism-housing nexus in GK communities. This was pursued by examining four GK communities in Cam Sur, Philippines. The residents of the case communities hold the view of bayanihan as a Filipino cultural practice of multi-sector community participation cooperation among residents. While the primary intention in undertaking bayanihan is housing provision, the application of this participatory approach by GK has amalgamated with Cam Sur‘s tourism context. The investigation reveals that when bayanihan is adopted by GK as a housing approach, the residents tended to increase their participation in activities related to tourism. Bayanihan was effective in involving the participation of residents in this brand of tourism that enables visitors to engage with residents in housing and tourism activities at the same time.
This thesis then expounds how the creation of social capital was formed from bayanihan. The synergy view of social capital in particular, is reflected in both sectors of development in that while resident participation precipitates the engagement of various stakeholders in the housing sector, the outcome of such engagement leads to resident participation – albeit diverse – in the tourism sector. This thesis thus introduced the ‗tourism-housing nexus‘ as a new development phenomenon in poor communities located in tourism regions.
8.1 Review of the research findings
In this thesis I juxtaposed tourism development and housing provision. Examining four case communities in Cam Sur, I determined the implications of applying bayanihan as a strategy for both housing provision and tourism development. First, using grounded theory analysis, I identified factors that influence the creation of social capital from bayanihan. These are: leadership and organisation, multi-sector collaboration, sweat equity, project delivery, community identity, and training and education. Second, the extent of participation in housing was correlated with the extent of participation in tourism in order to derive an empirical model of community participation. The research thus revealed an uneven transfer of knowledge and practice of bayanihan which was evident in the diverse social and physical outcomes of the convergence of tourism and housing.
Under leadership and organisation, the intervention of GK caretakers in facilitating the various GK programs was revealed. While more residents have expressed an acceptance of the involvement of GK caretakers, a few others have been unwilling to become dependent of them in terms of decision-making and implementation. This diversity has corresponding repercussions on internal and external relationships, eventually affecting the development of community infrastructure such as multi-purpose spaces, schools, clinics, livelihood areas and accommodation facilities. Findings show that communities with higher collaboration with GK caretakers have greater opportunities for social capital creation which leads to infrastructure development. This shows how transferring knowledge on NGO-supported leadership and organisation is crucial in generating social capital.
Multi-sector collaboration also influenced social capital creation. The contribution of various sectors in building poor communities has increased the motivation of residents to participate. Yet, while residents made various contributions in housing and tourism activities, they didn‘t have any role in the planning and design stage as it was volunteer and government planners who were more active in this stage. The lack of resident input resulted in problems related to usability, and implementation of construction guidelines
Chapter 8 – Conclusions 253
and policies. These shortcomings show how transferring knowledge of multi-sector collaboration in every stage of the planning process is to be considered as another critical factor in generating social capital.
Facilitating sweat equity, or the rendering of self-help construction of houses and community infrastructure has enhanced social bonding as well as the community‘s sense of ownership and responsibility. Aside from the residents, visitors were given the opportunity to participate in hands-on training in community development and infrastructure implementation. From these activities, service learning programs have emerged; these involved interactive learning experiences. However, in some cases, residents become more concerned with the required minimum number of hours; this has compromised the quality of building and social services. The lack of training also resulted in an uneven application of sweat equity principles. Thus, transferring knowledge of sweat equity not only in housing processes but also in other development programs is to be considered as another critical factor in generating social capital.
Government support in project delivery including community services and infrastructure was both a factor and an outcome of social capital creation. On one hand, the delivery of community infrastructure and services motivated multi-sector participation. Conversely, multi-sector participation has resulted in resource generation and infrastructure development. GK caretakers, some of whom were hired or elected in government positions, aided in monitoring and coordinating community projects, land donation, tourism infrastructure and other social services. However, as there was no control over the delivery of projects and services (some benefitted more than others), these also became a source of conflict among residents. Thus, transferring knowledge of the distribution of project delivery and the contributions of key stakeholders involved is to be considered as another critical factor in generating social capital.
Community identity also influenced social capital creation. In particular, the revitalisation of bayanihan, which is viewed as GK‘s expression of identity, promoted patriotism and philanthropy among various sectors. Social interaction occurred in spiritually and culturally-based activities. These activities have engaged visitors of GK
Chapter 8 – Conclusions 254
communities who view bayanihan as a unique tourist experience rather than a development strategy. Yet, there was a lack of consensus in resident participation in the case communities; this primarily stems from an absence of formal knowledge of bayanihan. Thus, transferring a sound knowledge of community identity, in relation to bayanihan as well as mechanisms to promote these, is to be considered as another critical factor in generating social capital.
Training and education has influenced social capital creation in a way that promotes learning environments for both residents and non-residents. As residents participate in skills development programs, they also set an environment for promoting cultural and environmental learning in an experiential approach. Yet, inadequate training in community infrastructure, agricultural production and tourism operation resulted in diverse attitudes towards the convergence of tourism and housing. Further, diverse social and physical outcomes stem from prioritising the production of houses, rather than the processes involved. Thus, transferring knowledge of strategies and benefits of training and education is to be considered as another critical factor in generating social capital.
From the statistical analysis presented in Chapters 6 and 7, there are three groupings of communities that can be identified, portraying different levels of participation in the tourism-housing nexus. First, the community of Sierra Homes portrays a level of indifference – this is a level of participation that prioritises housing provision in tourist regions, without clear regard for tourism as a suitable development. Second, the community of Mambulo Nuevo portrays a level of assimilation – this is a type of participation wherein majority of the residents acknowledge that their location has potential for tourism, nonetheless there is a lack of consensus among them in the implementation of bayanihan as a housing strategy. Third, the communities of both GK Pona and GK Character Villages portray a level of adoption – this is a type of participation where there is strong linkage with other sectors, in a way that aligns with the synergy view of social capital. Through active participation in different aspects of bayanihan, the residents tend to gain knowledge and appreciation of the simultaneous development of housing and tourism.
Chapter 8 – Conclusions 255
Figure 8-1 Empirical model of community participation Minitab graphics source: Author
The empirical model shown in Figure 8-1 above illustrates the three different levels of community participation in the case communities; a fourth level – the level of integration is also included. The level of integration is characterised as a condition of participation wherein residents have a high sense of awareness of opportunities in the convergence, and are thus inclined to be collectively engaged in all of the six factors of bayanihan. The level of integration involves a relatively high degree of community organisation as well as a very strong synergy of public and private sectors involved in housing provision and tourism development.
The above model provides insights into the trajectory of community participation in poor communities located in tourism regions; illustrating how the adoption of bayanihan was not able to generate equal access to social capital in the different communities. The following are the key lessons learned from this model, as well as implications drawn from grounded theory and correlation analysis.
Chapter 8 – Conclusions 256
Social capital creation formed from bayanihan in GK communities
In this thesis, I argue how the practice of bayanihan generates social capital that potentially links tourism and housing in GK communities. As discussed in the preceding section, the amount of social capital however depends on six factors that either supports or limits its accumulation. A number of lessons can be drawn from the results of the analysis:
First, the adoption of bayanihan, which is defined as multi-sector community participation in housing, plays a key role in giving residents access to social capital. While there is interplay of a number of factors, the generation of social capital is manifested in two aspects: complementarity and embeddedness. Firstly, in Cam Sur, the communities are at an advantage especially when the government has already envisioned the province as a tourist destination and established tourism infrastructure and services. Second, the hiring and election of GK caretakers into public service increases opportunities for GK communities to expand social networks compared to other communities who don‘t have such NGO facilitation.
Second, the adoption of bayanihan does not equally generate social capital for different communities. This is mostly a result of the uneven distribution of knowledge of the practice of bayanihan. In particular, social capital did not fully manifest in the communities who have engaged with GK programs at a later stage of development. Residents of these communities are more concerned about attaining material benefits rather than establishing networks. On the other hand, for most residents of communities who have engaged with GK from the start up stage, bayanihan is viewed as the building up of social relations necessary in attaining material or physical outcomes.
Third, the allocation of infrastructure and promotional support from Government was based on the affiliation of communities with GK caretakers, resulting in other communities being excluded or receiving less assistance than GK-initiated communities. The government was able to provide support for infrastructure development only to selected communities endorsed by the GK organisation. This
Chapter 8 – Conclusions 257
results in social inequity and raises questions on the integrity of bayanihan that is supposed to promote philanthropy and patriotism.
The nexus of tourism and housing
This thesis highlights that research and policies on tourism development cannot be isolated from housing provision. As poverty and homelessness pervades poor communities in Cam Sur, housing acquisition has been the principal priority of low- income families. In the absence of proper and decent housing, the capacity of families to participate in tourism development is often affected. In the four communities, participation in tourism activities occurs in their places of residence where they provide accommodation, organise cultural programs, perform hands-on livelihood training, and facilitate social interactions. Therefore, tourism development objectives cannot be achieved solely through tourism principles and policies rather; they should encompass participatory housing provision.
The adoption of bayanihan as a housing strategy is essentially an attempt to address housing issues by means of social capital creation. Instead of relying merely on government funding, social networking is what communities capitalise on, in order to implement housing and tourism programs simultaneously. In GK Cam Sur in particular, the effective implementation of participatory housing programs equipped GK communities to receive small groups of tourists, while ensuring respect for the social environments they visit. This is parallel to the concept of social tourism which was advocated by Barkin (2000). Social tourism is an alternative model of tourism that is more conducive for the economic needs of regions and their countries. In social tourism, communities attract tourists who are interested in their social and cultural values. The influx of tourists motivates residents to engage in tourism, especially when activities are performed within the residents‘ living environments such that their local practices are strengthened and diversified into income-generating activities. Thus, addressing housing needs has to be incorporated in plans and policies for tourism development.
Chapter 8 – Conclusions 258
There are however corresponding diversities in the convergence of tourism and housing. There is no guarantee that residents will be unanimous in the way they regard (or disregard) community participation in tourism and housing activities. As noted in the correlation analysis, certain communities tend to feel indifferent or excluded from tourism development. Although majority of residents are not against the nexus of tourism and housing, the possibility of attaining an integrated state of convergence is yet to be comprehended. Nonetheless, the lack of consensus among residents implies how convergence enables choice of involvement.
Physical development as both a factor and an outcome of community participation
In this thesis, I argue how physical development is both a factor and an outcome of community participation. One of the failures of literature and policies related to tourism and housing is the tendency to focus on physical transformations particularly the building of community facilities as the outcome of community participation. While the built environment in the case communities is often the outcome of community participation; conversely, the establishment of community infrastructure enables GK caretakers and leaders to engage their members in tourism and housing activities.
In the four case communities, the infrastructure in the community was used as a resource to facilitate community participation. School buildings, multi-purpose halls, sports facilities and the houses themselves have been utilised for meetings, performances, visitor reception and accommodation, training and communal livelihood. As such, infrastructure development is viewed as highly significant to development. Such finding is actually inconsistent with the view of several researchers who find that built infrastructure in tourism regions produces negative socio-cultural outcomes (Becker & Bradbury, 1994; Briassoulis, 2002; Deller, et al., 1997; Hussey, 1989; Loffler & Steinicke, 2006; Oracion & Hiponia, 2009; Pinijvarasin & Sunakorn, 2007; Ross, 1992; Turker & Dincyurek, 2007). On the other hand, this research suggests that physical development – the kind which emerges out of multi-sector community participation – have a positive impact to sustaining community engagement.
Chapter 8 – Conclusions 259
Assessing physical development as an outcome of community participation alone cannot capture the dynamics of the relationship of tourism and housing. Scrutinising resident engagement as a result of building facilities and infrastructure offers a basis for understanding the development of a tourism-housing nexus.
8.2 Revisiting sustainable tourism literature
This thesis explored the relationship between housing provision and tourism development, particularly in GK communities in Cam Sur. In this section I revisit the literature on sustainable tourism and participatory housing provision in the light of the research findings, and identify the contribution of the thesis to the existing literature.
Differentiating sustainable tourism and ecotourism
The focus on environmental strategies as a key component in sustainable tourism has been argued in several literature (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996; Choi & Sirakaya, 2006; Luo & Deng, 2008; Oracion & Hiponia, 2009; Weaver, 2002b), which led to the growing importance of ecotourism as a strategy for minimising environmental degradation. As such, ecotourism was adopted to address environmental risks in the mass tourism development in the region of Bicol, particularly in the province of Cam Sur. Compared to leading tourist provinces in the country, Cam Sur experienced the highest economic rise through an increase in tourist receipts within the last decade, although there is little evidence of whether and how ecotourism was successfully implemented thereafter.
However, there is a difference between sustainable tourism and ecotourism that should be made more explicit in literature, as well as in national and regional policy. As argued by Neto (2003), ecotourism is mostly associated with nature-based tourism, while sustainable tourism ―calls for adherence to the broad sustainability concept developed in all types of tourism activities and by all segments of the tourism industry‖ (p.219). Essentially, although tourism delivers economic benefits, government plans
Chapter 8 – Conclusions 260
and policies pay little attention to the quality of life at the destination (Alampay, 2005). While ecotourism may provide benefits economically, it is not necessarily aimed at providing housing needs in a way that prioritises poverty alleviation. A pro-poor tourism approach, as described by Neto (2003) emphasises the need to aim for poverty alleviation more than environmental sustainability. It includes ―specific mechanisms to enhance the participation of and opportunities for the poorest sectors of society‖ (p.220). In this research, I introduced the concept of tourism-housing nexus portraying a pro-poor approach to the sustainability of tourism within housing environments.
Tourism development in housing environments
Literature suggests how engagement in tourism is reflected in the way houses are altered just to conform to the needs and expectations of tourists (Cipollari, 2008; Keppel, 2006; Wang, 2007). Participating in bayanihan in building attractive houses, organic farms, built landscapes and social spaces stem from a willingness to engage in tourism development. Yet, while bayanihan is an expression of Filipino cultural heritage, it does raise a question of authenticity. Customised or staged authenticity – although highly pursued and embraced by tourists particularly in homestays is widely contentious (MacCannell, 1973, Wang, 2007). Similarly, there arises a speculation that spaces and design elements in GK villages serve merely for the purpose of attracting funding or other forms of resource generation; such motivation sets aside the spiritual and cultural values of bayanihan. Yet, if authenticity is indeed staged, will visitors find that unacceptable? On the other hand, is it possible that bayanihan is a constantly evolving cultural practice that is intended to cater to innovations in housing and tourism? Noting Greenwood‘s view that tourism is also part of the local culture and that all cultures continually reinvent themselves (Prins & Wester, 2010:27, quoting Greenwood, 1982), bayanihan‘s authenticity can then be another topic that can be further investigated.
The concept of tourism-housing nexus introduced in this research is thus a constantly evolving process that needs to be re-evaluated due to the changing goals, preferences, networks, and strategies of residents. The dynamics of tourism development in GK‘s
Chapter 8 – Conclusions 261
housing environments did not develop at a single period of time. There is therefore a need to perform further research to better understand strategies in different stages of development.
Addressing social displacement and alienation
As stressed at the beginning of this study, the issues of social displacement (Oracion & Hiponia, 2009) and alienation (Tosun, 2000) has not been particularly addressed in sustainable tourism literature. Due to the increase of land prices and living expenses in tourism destinations, one of the negative outcomes is that the locals who live near places of interest are pushed aside; their housing needs are neglected (Becker & Bradbury, 1994). As a result, problems of counter-urbanisation (Loffler & Steinicke, 2005) and elite domination (Tosun, 2000) resulting from tourism creates conflicts among various sector and thwarts the engagement of residents in sustainable tourism.
Nonetheless, this case study of GK communities provides evidence of how, through participatory housing, the residents develop a culture of cooperation that positively affects their involvement in tourism. While the evidence of their participation may be highly specific to the context of housing and tourism within the GK villages in particular, there are considerable indications that it indirectly augments tourism strategies in the province of Cam Sur in general.
It is necessary to develop policies that support the building of houses and community infrastructure through collaborative approaches which will simultaneously contribute to the inclusion of communities (rather than their alienation) in tourism development processes. The degree of resident participation as well as the nature of physical development in the GK communities reveals how bayanihan has the potential to become a solution in addressing the issue of homelessness and social displacement in areas susceptible to the detrimental impacts of tourism development. Hence, efforts for sustainability should be directed towards incorporating participatory housing strategies as an essential component of tourism development. Meeting housing needs for the poor, if done through cultural practices, such as bayanihan, is important in promoting a
Chapter 8 – Conclusions 262
positive response to sustainable tourism. National and regional policies for tourism should seriously consider the inclusion of participatory housing in tourism plans and strategies.
8.3 Concluding remarks
In examining bayanihan in four communities in Cam Sur, a clear positive relationship between tourism and housing was established. The findings of this research confirm how the multi-sector facet of community participation in housing has a direct relationship in sustaining resident participation in tourism in GK communities in Cam Sur Philippines. Using Woolcock and Narayan‘s synergistic view of social capital (2000), and Lang and Hornburg‘s view of housing as a foundation of social capital as analytical frameworks, this research sheds light on the implications of adopting bayanihan.
While the specificity of the case study implies that the empirical model of community participation can be applicable only within the peculiar context of the Philippines, investigating the wider implications of the model would entail a comparison of bayanihan with other cultural practices of cooperation in other countries. Future research initiatives should then aim to pursue collaborations with local communities, particularly in other developing countries. Local housing practices, such as gotong royong in Indonesia as discussed in Section 3.1, should then be explored to compare with bayanihan. While the case study of bayanihan focused on the socio-cultural factors, future explorations can also encompass other aspects, including the economic, ecological, political and technological dimensions described by Choi and Sirakaya (2006) as ‗sustainability indicators for managing community tourism‘. The output of this study – in particular the empirical model of community participation – can then be developed as a reference to establish a theoretical model that can be adopted in other contexts.
The experience of GK communities in Cam Sur demonstrate the idea of prioritising tourism‘s ‗back regions‘ over ‗front regions‘, as suggested by MacCannel (1973).
Chapter 8 – Conclusions 263
Front regions are the entry points of visitors – while back regions are the communities‘ living, recreation and working spaces. Experiencing a wider slice of the community life of the locals by being around their normal daily routines and participatory development processes has not been embedded into current tourism programs and practices; these policies are more concerned with minimising social and environmental implications of tourism rather than capacity building and network building with internal and external sectors.
The question that remains beyond this research is, what is the role of the government in maximising sustainable tourism in poor communities? As argued, achieving the ambitious tourism aims of government and local organisations should not focus so much on minimising social and environmental degradation but on maximising participatory development. Though sustainability must respond to insulating these communities from tourism encroachments to their cultural identity, yet they must also be allowed to responsibly access their rights and capabilities to survive. While environmental conservation remains an important goal, the quality of the environment becomes only one of the strategies for addressing the wider issue of homelessness and social displacement. Significantly, tourism in poor communities will not be sustained unless various sectors responsible for generating social capital will incorporate participatory housing processes for marginalised communities and guide their strategies towards sustainability.
Chapter 8 – Conclusions 264
Chapter 8 – Conclusions 265
REFERENCES:
______. (2000). Culture and Tourism in the Learning Age: A Discussion Paper. Paper presented at the LGA Culture and Tourism Conference, London.
______. (2008). Iriga City Development Strategies Report. Iriga City Planning Office, Iriga City
______. (2009). Regional Performance Report: Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC). Naga City, Bicol Philippines.
______. (2010). Tourist Arrivals by Province. Department of Tourism Region V. Rawis, Legazpi City Philippines.
Åke Nilsson, P. (2002). Staying on farms: An ideological background. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 7-24.
Alampay, R. (2005). The challenge of sustainable tourism development in the Philippines. In R. Alampay (Ed.), Sustainable tourism: Challenges for the Philippines (pp. 1-22). Makati City Philippines: Philippine APEC Study Center Network (PASCN) and the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS).
Alampay, R., & Libosada, C. (2003). Development of a classification framework on ecotourism initiatives in the Philippines. Smaller-Scale Active Ecotourism: Community-Based Sustainable Tourism at Ulugan Bay, 25-29.
Anand, S., & Sen, A. (1997). Concepts of human development and poverty: a multidimensional perspective. New York: UNDP United Nations Development Programme.
Ap, J. (1992). Residents' perceptions on tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(4), 665-690.
Arnstein, S. (1969). A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216.
Ashley, C., Boyd, C., & Goodwin, H. (2000). Pro-poor tourism: Putting poverty at the heart of the tourism agenda.
Askew, I. (1989). Organizing community participation in family planning projects in South Asia. Studies in Family Planning, 185-202.
Assante, L. M., Wen, H. I., Lottig, K., & Hotels, S. (2010). An empirical assessment of residents‘ attitudes for sustainable tourism development: a case study of O ‗ahu, Hawai ‗i. Journal of Sustainability and Green Business, 2-27.
Astrand, J., & Rodriguez, M. (1996). Organized Small-scale Self-help housing. [Analysis]. Building Issues, 8(4), 22.
Baker, K. (2008). Kerala's Strategy for Tourism Growth: a Southern Approach to Development and Poverty Alleviation. In P. Burns & M. Novelli (Eds.), Tourism
266
Development: growth, myths and inequalities (pp. 192 - 216). Wallingford, Oxfordshire: CABI.
Baldazo, P. (1991). Volunteerism, Filipino style. Heritage (08950792), p. 4. Retrieved from https://ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?dire ct=true&db=f5h&AN=9606302476&site=eds-live
Barkin, D. (2000). Social Tourism in Rural Communities: An instrument for promoting sustainable resource management. Paper presented at the Meeting of the Latin American Studies Association Miami, FL.
Becker, B., & Bradbury, S. L. (1994). Feedback on Tourism and Community Development: The Downside of a Booming Tourist Economy*. Community Dev J, 29(3), 268-276.
Beeton, S. (2005). Case Study in Tourism Research: A Multi-method Case Study Approach. In B. W. Ritchi (Ed.), Tourism Research Methods: Integrating Theory with Practice (pp. 37-47). Wallingford: CABI Publishing
Belsky, J. (2005). Contributions of qualitative research to understanding politics of community ecotourism. In P. J & L. Goodman (Eds.), Qualitative Research in Tourism (pp. 273-291). New York: Routledge.
Berner, E. (2001). Learning from informal markets: Innovative approaches to land and housing provision. Development in Practice, 11(2-3), 292-307.
Bersales, J. (2003). Contested space: tourism, power and social relations in Mactan and Panglao Islands. Makati City: Philippine APEC Study Center Network.
Bersales, J. (2005). Contested space: tourism, power, and social relations. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 239.
Bhuiyan, M., Aman, A., Siwar, C., Ismail, S., & Mohd-Jani, M. (2014). Homestay accommodation for tourism development in Kelantan, Malaysia. Theory and Practice in Hospitality and Tourism Research, 239.
Bhuiyan, M. A. H., Siwar, C., & Ismail, S. M. (2013). Socio-economic impacts of home stay accommodations in Malaysia: A study on home stay operators in Terengganu State. Asian Social Science, 9(3), p42.
Böhm, A. (2004). Theoretical coding: Text analysis in grounded theory, A companion to qualitative research B2 - A companion to qualitative research (pp. 270-275). London: Sage Publications.
Boo, E. (1990). Ecotourism: the potentials and pitfalls (Vol. 1 and 2): World Wildlife Fund.
Borgatti, S. (2005). Introduction to grounded theory. Retrieved May, 15, 2010.
Bothwell, S. E., Gindroz, R., & Lang, R. E. (1998). Restoring community through traditional neighborhood design: a case study of Diggs Town public housing. Housing Policy Debate, 9(1), 89-114.
267
Boyd, S., & Butler, R. (1996). Managing ecotourism: an opportunity spectrum approach. Tourism Management, 17(8), 557-566.
Briassoulis, H. (2002). Sustainable tourism and the question of the commons. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(4), 1065-1085.
Brillantes, A., & Fernandez, M. (2011). Good Governance, Social Quality, and Active Citizenship: Gawad Kalinga in the Philippines. International Journal of Social Quality, 1(2), 19-30.
Broad, S. (2003). Living the Thai Life -- A Case Study of Volunteer Tourism at the Gibbon Rehabilitation Project, Thailand. Tourism Recreation Research, 28(3), 63.
Brown, S. (2005). Travelling with a Purpose: Understanding the Motives and Benefits of Volunteer Vacationers. Current Issues in Tourism: Routledge, 8(6), 479-496.
Brown, S., & Morrison, A. M. (2003). Expanding Volunteer Vacation Participation An Exploratory Study on the Mini-Mission Concept. Tourism Recreation Research, 28(3), 73.
Buckley, R. (2009). Ecotourism Principles and Practices. Oxfordshire UK and Cambridge, MA USA: Cabi International.
Butcher, J. (2008). The Myth of Agency through Community Participation in Ecotourism. In J. Butcher, P. Burns & M. Novelli (Eds.), Tourism Development: Growths, Myths, and Inequalities (pp. 11-27).
Campbell, L. (1999). Ecotourism in rural developing communities. Annals of Tourism Research., 26(3), 534-553.
Cater, E., & Lowman, G. (Eds.). (1994). Ecotourism: a sustainable option? Great Britain: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1996). Tourism, ecotourism and protected areas: The state of nature-based tourism around the world and guidelines for its development. Gland, Sitzerland and Cambridge UK: IUCN, Gland Switzerland, and Cambridge UK in collaboration with the Commission of European Communities.
Chang, T. (1999). Local Uniqueness in the Global Village: Heritage Tourism in Singapore. The Professional Geographer, 51(1), 91-103.
Choguill, C. (2007). The search for policies to support sustainable housing. Habitat International, 31(1), 143-149.
Choguill, M. (1996). A ladder of community participation for underdeveloped countries. Habitat International, 20(3), 431-444.
Choi, H., & Sirakaya, E. (2006). Sustainability indicators for managing community tourism. Tourism Management, 27(6), 1274-1289.
Cipollari, C. (2008). Setting the Scene: Politics and Transformation and Narratives of Preservation in Botiza (Romania). In P. Burns & M. Novelli (Eds.), Tourism
268
development: growth, myths and inequalities (pp. 126-140). Wallingford, Oxfordshire: CABI.
Cusack, D., & Dixon, L. (2006). Community-Based Ecotourism and Sustainability: Cases in Bocas del Toro Province, Panama and Talamanca, Costa Rica. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 22(1/2), 157-182.
Daniere, A., Takahashi, L. M., & NaRanong, A. (2002). Social Capital, Networks, and Community Environments in Bangkok, Thailand. Growth and Change, 33(4), 453- 484.
Dart, J., & Davies, R. (2003). A dialogical, story-based evaluation tool: The most significant change technique. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(2), 137-155.
Davidson, C., Johnson, C., Lizarralde, G., Dikmen, N., & Sliwinski, A. (2007). Truths and myths about community participation in post-disaster housing projects. Habitat International, 31(1), 100-115.
Davis, T. L. (1967). Cooperative Self-Help Housing. Law and Contemporary Problems, 32(3), 409-415. de Souza Briggs, X. (1998). Brown kids in white suburbs: Housing mobility and the many faces of social capital. Housing Policy Debate, 9(1), 177-221.
Decrop, A. (1999). Triangulation in qualitative tourism research. Tourism Management, 20(1), 157-161.
Deller, S., Marcouiller, D., & Green, G. (1997). Recreational housing and local government finance. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(3), 687-705.
Dey, I. (1999). Grounding grounded theory : guidelines for qualitative inquiry / Ian Dey: San Diego : Academic Press, c1999.
Diamente, D. N. (2004). Ethnographic field schools, community service learning, and the homestay experience. National Association for the Practice of Anthropology, 22(1), 147-158.
Dovey, K., & King, R. (2012). Informal Urbanism and the Taste for Slums. Tourism Geographies, iFirst 2012, 1-19.
Drake, S. (1991). Local participation in ecotourism projects. In T. Whelan (Ed.), Nature Tourism: Managing for the Environment B2 - Nature Tourism: Managing for the Environment (pp. 132-163). Washington: Island.
Dulnuan, J. R. (2005). Perceived tourism impact on Indigenous communities: A case study of Sagada in Mountain Province. Sustainable Tourism, 161.
Evacitas, F. (2001). Impacts of whale watching on the cetaceans and coastal populations in Bais City, Philippines, 1999.
Evans, P. (1996). Government action, social capital and development: Reviewing the evidence on synergy. World Development, 24(6), 1119-1132.
269
Fallon, L., & Kriwoken, L. (2003). Community involvement in tourism infrastructure--the case of the Strahan Visitor Centre, Tasmania. Tourism Management, 24(3), 289-308.
Fennell, D. (1999). Ecotourism: An Introduction. London and New York: Routledge.
Foucat, V. (2002). Community-based ecotourism management moving towards sustainability, in Ventanilla, Oaxaca, Mexico. Ocean & Coastal Management, 45(8), 511-529.
Frenzel, F., & Koens, K. (2012). Slum Tourism: Developments in a Young Field of Interdisciplinary Tourism Research.
Garrod, B. (2003). Local Participation in the Planning and Management of Ecotourism: A Revised Model Approach. Journal of Ecotourism, 2(1), 33 - 53.
Gilbert, A. (2000). Financing Self-help Housing: Evidence from Bogotá, Colombia. International Planning Studies, 5(2), 165-190.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research: Aldine de Gruyter.
Gotham, K. F., & Brumley, K. (2002). Using Space: Agency and Identity in a Public– Housing Development. City & Community, 1(3), 267-289.
Grillo, M., Teixeira, M., & Wilson, D. (2010). Residential Satisfaction and Civic Engagement: Understanding the Causes of Community Participation. [Article]. Social Indicators Research, 97(3), 451-466.
Gurung, D. B., & Scholz, R. W. (2008). Community-based ecotourism in Bhutan: Expert evaluation of stakeholder-based scenarios. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 15(5), 397-411.
Habaradas. (2010). The Economic and Artistic Flows of Gawad Kalinga. Paper presented at the De La Salle University Arts Congress.
Habaradas, & Aquino. (2011). More than just a housing problem : learning from Gawad Kalinga's experience: DLSU Angelo King Institute for Economic and Business Studies, Manila, PH 2011-07-07T19:28:33Z 2011-07-07T19:28:33Z 2011.
Hall, D., & Brown, F. (2006). Pro-poor tourism? Tourism and welfare: ethics, responsibility and sustained well-being, 106-131.
Halpenny, E., & Caissie, L. (2003). Volunteering on Nature Conservation Projects: Volunteer Experience, Attitudes and Values. Tourism Recreation Research, 28(3), 25.
Hamin E, G. P., and Silka L, eds. (2007). Preserving and enhancing communities : a guide for citizens, planners, and policymakers Amherst :: University of Massachusetts Press.
Harun, H., Hassan, R., Razzaq, A., Rasid, A., & Mustafa, M. Z. (2012). Building local capacities towards sustaining community based tourism development (CBET): experience from Miso Walal Homestay, Kinabantangan Sabah, Malaysia.
270
Hawkins, D., & Holtz, C. (1998). Planning and management of community-based ecotourism in the Philippines. [article]. Teoros, Revue de Recherche en Tourisme, 17(3), 37-43.
Holmes, K., Smith, K. A., Lockstone-Binney, L., & Baum, T. (2010). Developing the Dimensions of Tourism Volunteering. Leisure Sciences, 32(3), 255-269.
Honey, M. (2009). Community conservation and early ecotourism: experiments in Kenya. Environment, 51(1), 46(11).
Horton, L. (2009). Buying Up Nature: Economic and social impacts of Costa Rica's ecotourism boom. Latin American Perspectives, 36(3), 93-107.
Hudson, B. (1997). Houses in the Caribbean: Homes and Heritage. In R. B. Potter & D. Conway (Eds.), Self-help housing, the poor, and the state in the Caribbean (pp. 14- 29): Kingston: The Press University of the West Indies; Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.
Hussey, A. (1989). Tourism in a Balinese Village. Geographical Review, 79(3), 311-325.
Israel, G. (1992). Determining sample size: University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agriculture Sciences, EDIS.
Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2010). Theory construction and model-building skills: a practical guide for social scientists. New York: Guildord Press.
Jamal, T., & Getz, D. (1995). Collaboration theory and community tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(1), 186-204.
Jamal, T., Taillon, J., & Dredge, D. (2011). Sustainable tourism pedagogy and academic- community collaboration: A progressive service-learning approach. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 11(2), 133-147.
Janesick, V. (2000). The choreography of qualitative research design: Minuets, improvisations, and crystallization. Handbook of qualitative research, 2, 379-399.
Jones, S. (2005). Community-based ecotourism: The Significance of Social Capital. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(2), 303-324.
Joppe, M. (1996). Sustainable community tourism development revisited. Tourism Management, 17(7), 475-479.
Joshi, S., & Sohail Khan, M. (2010). Aided self-help: the million houses programme– revisiting the issues. Habitat International, 34(3), 306-314.
Kariel, H., & Kariel, P. (1982). Socio-Cultural Impacts of Tourism: An Example from the Austrian Alps. Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography, 64(1), 1-16.
Keng, A. (2009). GK Libmanan. http://madeinphilippines.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/gk- libmanan/
Keogh, B. (1990). Public participation in community tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research, 17(3), 449-465.
271
Kershaw, G. (2009). Lighting Ladakh: using tourism to overcome crisis: in an area once threatened by conflicting struggles of conservation and livelihood, farmers in the Indian Himalayas have learned to make the most of local potential.(FORUM). International Trade Forum(1), 13(15).
King, R., & Idawati, D. E. (2010). Surabaya Kampung and Distorted Communication. [Article]. SOJOURN: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, 25(2), 213-233.
Kontogeorgopoulos, N. (2005). Community-Based Ecotourism in Phuket and Ao Phangnga, Thailand: Partial Victories and Bittersweet Remedies. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(1), 4-23.
Kontogeorgopoulos, N., Churyen, A., & Duangsaeng, V. (2013). Homestay Tourism and the Commercialization of the Rural Home in Thailand. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research(ahead-of-print), 1-22.
Krüger, O. (2005). The role of ecotourism in conservation: panacea or Pandora‘s box? Biodiversity and Conservation, 14(3), 579-600.
Landman, K., & Napier, M. (2010). Waiting for a house or building your own? Reconsidering state provision, aided and unaided self-help in South Africa. Habitat International, 34(3), 299-305.
Lang, R., & Hornburg, S. (1998). What is social capital and why is it important to public policy? Housing Policy Debate, 9(1), 1-16.
Laslo, D. (2003). Policy Communities and Infrastructure of Urban Tourism. American Behavioral Scientist, 46(8), 1070-1083.
Li, T. (2002). Engaging Simplifications: Community-Based Resource Management, Market Processes and State Agendas in Upland Southeast Asia. World Development, 30(2), 265-283.
Lizarralde, G., & Massyn, M. (2008). Unexpected negative outcomes of community participation in low-cost housing projects in South Africa. Habitat International, 32(1), 1-14.
Loffler, R., & Steinicke, E. (2006). Counterurbanization and Its Socioeconomic Effects in High Mountain Areas of the Sierra Nevada (California/Nevada). Mountain Research and Development, 26(1), 64-71.
Luo, Y., & Deng, J. (2008). The New Environmental Paradigm and Nature-Based Tourism Motivation. Journal of Travel Research, 46(4), 392-402.
Lyons, K., & Wearing, S. (2012). Reflections on the Ambiguous Intersections between Volunteering and Tourism. Leisure Sciences, 34(1), 88-93.
Macaloo, C. (1999). Book Reviews. Urban Studies (Routledge), 36(10), 1828.
MacCannell, D. (1973). Staged Authenticity: Arrangements of Social Space in Tourist Settings. [Article]. American Journal of Sociology, 79(3), 589-603.
272
Mafukidze, J., & Hoosen, F. (2009). Housing Shortages in South Africa: A Discussion of the After-Effects of Community Participation in Housing Provision in Diepkloof. Paper presented at the Urban Forum.
Mansuri, G., & Rao, V. (2004). Community-Based and -Driven Development: A Critical Review. World Bank Research Observer, 19(1), 1-39.
Marais, L., Van Rensburg, N., & Botes, L. (2003). An Empirical Comparison of Self-help Housing and Contractor-driven Housing: Evidence From Thabong (Welkom) and Mangaung (Bloemfontein). Urban Forum, 14(4), 347-365.
Mathey, K., ed. (1991). Beyond self-help housing. London ; New York :: Mansell.
McAlpin, M. (2008). Conservation and community-based development through ecotourism in the temperate rainforest of southern Chile. Policy Sciences, 41(1), 51-69.
McGehee, N. G., Kline, C., & Knollenberg, W. (2014). Social movements and tourism- related local action. Annals of Tourism Research, 48, 140-155.
McIntosh, A., & Zahra, A. (2007). A Cultural Encounter through Volunteer Tourism: Towards the Ideals of Sustainable Tourism? [Article]. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(5), 541-556.
McMillan, J., & Stanton, T. K. (2014). " Learning Service" in International Contexts: Partnership-Based Service-Learning and Research in Cape Town, South Africa. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 21(1), 64.
Medina, L. (2005). Ecotourism and Certification: Confronting the Principles and Pragmatics of Socially Responsible Tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(3), 281 - 295.
Mekawy, M. (2012). Responsible slum tourism: Egyptian experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(4), 2092-2113.
Meloto, A. (2009). Builder of dreams. Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Gawad Kalinga Community Development Foundation Inc.
Miceli, T. J., Sazama, G. W., & Sirmans, C. (1994). The role of limited‐equity cooperatives in providing affordable housing. Housing Policy Debate, 5(4), 469-490.
Minnaert, L., Maitland, R., & Miller, G. (2006). Social tourism and its ethical foundations. Tourism Culture & Communication, 7(1), 7-17.
Minnery, J., Manicaros, M., & Lindfield, M. (2000). Remote Area Indigenous Housing: Towards a Model of Best Practice. Housing Studies, 15(2), 237 - 258.
Mitchell, T. (1985). An Evaluation of the Validity of Correlational Research Conducted in Organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 10(2), 192-205.
Mitlin, D., & Satterthwaite, D. (2004). Addressing deprivations in urban areas. Empowering squatter citizen. Local government, civil society and urban poverty reduction, 245- 277.
273
Napier, M. (2003). Supporting the people‘s housing process. Housing policy and practice in post-apartheid South Africa, 321-362.
Nathan, J. (2002). Homestay on the Range: "My yurt is your yurt" in Krygyzstan. (Time Traveler). Time International, 160(16), 12.
Nelson, F. (2004). The Evolution and impacts of community-based ecotourism in Northern Tanzania. (131), 34.
Neto, F. (2003). A new approach to sustainable tourism development: Moving beyond environmental protection. Paper presented at the Natural Resources Forum.
Newton, C. (2013). The peoples housing process… getting the quality in the quantity? Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 1-13.
Ng, M. A. C. (2003). The Ethics and Attitudes towards Ecotourism in the Philippines. Manila Philippines: Eubios Ethics Institute.
Okazaki, E. (2008). A Community-Based Tourism Model: Its Conception and Use. [Article]. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(5), 511-529.
Okpala, D. (1999). Upgrading slum and squatter settlements in developing countries: is there a cost-effective alternative? Third World Planning Review, 21(1), 1.
Oracion, E., & Hiponia, M. (2009). Nature and People Matter: Conservation and Ecotourism in Balanan Lake, Negros Oriental. Philippine Studies, 57(1), 105-136.
Ordinario, C. (2010, December 20, 2010). Come one, come all, to CamSur Business Mirror.
Oviedo-Garcia, M., Castellanos-Verdugo, M., & Martin-Ruiz, D. (2008). Gaining Residents' Support for Tourism and Planning. [Article]. International Journal of Tourism Research, 10(2), 95-109.
Palacios, C. (2010). Volunteer tourism, development and education in a postcolonial world: conceiving global connections beyond aid. 861-878.
Pearce, D., & Butler, R. (Eds.). (1999). Tourism Development: contemporary issues London: Routledge.
Pearce, P., & Moscardo, G. (1999). Tourism Community Analysis. In D. G. Pearce & R. W. Butler (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Tourism Development (pp. 31-51). London: Routledge.
Pinijvarasin, W., & Sunakorn, P. (2007). Sustainable tourism for local identity: the hill-tribe villages of Northern Thailand. Cross-Cultural Urban Design. (pp. 119-123). New York: Routledge.
Pless, N. M., Maak, T., & Stahl, G. K. (2012). Promoting corporate social responsibility and sustainable development through management development: What can be learned from international service learning programs? Human Resource Management, 51(6), 873-903.
274
Presilla, M. (2005). Ecotourism: An alternative environment conservation in the Philippines International tourism, identity and globalization in the Philippines (pp. 129-171). Jakarta: Pusat Penelitian Sumberdaya Regional, LIPI.
Price, G. (2003). Ecotourism operators and environmental education: Enhancing competitive advantage by advertising environmental learning experiences. Tourism Analysis, 8(2- 4), 143.
Prins, E., & Webster, N. (2010). Student Identities and the Tourist Gaze in International Service-Learning: A University Project in Belize. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 14(1), 5-32.
Putnam, R. (1995). Robert D. Putnam. Bowling alone: America's declining social capital, Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65-78.
Raymond, E., & Hall, C. (2008). The Development of Cross-Cultural (Mis)Understanding Through Volunteer Tourism. 16.
Razzaq, A. R. A., Hadi, M. Y., Mustafa, M. Z., Hamzah, A., Khalifah, Z., & Mohamad, N. (2011). Local community participation in homestay program development in Malaysia. Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing, 7(12), 1418-1429.
Rios, M. (2005). Where Do We Go From Here? An Evaluative Framework for Community- Based Design. From the Studio to the Streets: Service-Learning in Planning and Architecture, American Association for Higher Education, 21, 47-58.
Rondinelli, D. A. (1990). Housing the Urban Poor in Developing Countries. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 49(2), 153-166.
Ross, G. (1992). Resident perceptions of the impact of tourism on an Australian city. Journal of Travel Research, 30(3), 13-17.
Rüland, J. (1982). Squatter relocation in the Philippines: the case of Metro Manila: Universität Bayreuth, Lehrstühle Geowissenschaften.
Ryan, C., & Montgomery, D. (1994). The attitudes of Bakewell residents to tourism and issues in community responsive tourism. Tourism Management., 15(5), 358-369.
Salceda, J. S. (2007). Updated Medium-Term Regional Development Plan 2008-2010 Chapter 9-Housing.
Salvador, D., Omizo, M., & Kim, B. (1997). Bayanihan: Providing effective counseling strategies with children of Filipino ancestry. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 25(3), 201-209.
Sarmenta, L., & Hirano, S. (1999). Bayanihan: building and studying web-based volunteer computing systems using Java. Future Generation Computer Systems, 15(5–6), 675- 686.
Sautter, E., & Leisen, B. (1999). Managing stakeholders a Tourism Planning Model. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2), 312-328.
275
Scheyvens, R., & Momsen, J. H. (2008). Tourism and poverty reduction: issues for small island states. Tourism Geographies, 10(1), 22-41.
Selin, S., & Chavez, D. (1995). Developing an evolutionary tourism partnership model. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(4), 844-856.
Sengupta, U. (2010). The hindered self-help: housing policies, politics and poverty in Kolkata, India. Habitat International, 34(3), 323-331.
Sentosa, L. (2001). Genius loci within Balinese dwellings environments: the unlikely scenarios of urban development in Bali. Habitat International, 255-272.
Servon, L. J. (1998). Credit and social capital: The community development potential of US microenterprise programs. Housing Policy Debate, 9(1), 115-149.
Sheng, Y. (1990). Community participation in low-income housing projects: problems and prospects. Community Development Journal, 25(1), 56-65.
Simmons, D. (1994). Community participation in tourism planning. Tourism Management, 15(2), 98-108.
Sin, H. L. (2009). Volunteer tourism - "Involve me and I will learn". [Article]. Annals of Tourism Research, 36, 480-501.
Sin, H. L. (2010). Who are we responsible to? Locals‘ tales of volunteer tourism. Geoforum, 41(6), 983-992.
Sirakaya, E., Teye, V., & Sonmez, S. (2002). Understanding Residents' Support for Tourism Development in the Central Region of Ghana. Journal of Travel Research, 41(1), 57- 67.
Small, M. L. (2002). Culture, Cohorts, and Social Organization Theory: Understanding Local Participation in a Latino Housing Project. American Journal of Sociology, 108(1), 1- 54.
Sofield, T. (1993). Indigenous tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 20(4), 729-750.
Spenceley, A., & Meyer, D. (2012). Tourism and poverty reduction: Theory and practice in less economically developed countries. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(3), 297- 317.
Sproule, K. (1996). Community-based ecotourism development: Identifying partners in the process, The Ecotourism Equation: Measuring the Impacts B2 - The Ecotourism Equation: Measuring the Impacts (pp. 233-250). New Haven: Yale University.
Stake, R. (2003). "Case Studies". In N. a. L. Denzin, Y (Ed.), Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry (pp. 134-164). California USA: Sage Publications.
Steinberg, F. (1992). People's participation and self-help in the Indonesian kampung Beyond self-help housing. Ed. K.Mathéy (Vol. Munich: Profil Verlag; London: Mansell, 1992, pp. 353-376). Munich: Profil Verlag; London: Mansell.
276
Steinbrink, M. (2012). ‗We did the Slum!‘ – Urban Poverty Tourism in Historical Perspective. [Article]. Tourism Geographies, 14(2), 213-234.
Stoddart, H., & Rogerson, C. (2004). Volunteer tourism: The case of habitat for humanity South Africa. GeoJournal, 60(3), 311.
Strauss, A. (1990). Basics of qualitative research : grounded theory procedures and techniques / Anselm Strauss, Juliet Corbin. Newbury Park, Calif. :: Sage Publications.
Subash, T. (2014). Community based tourism development in Kerala. Tactful Management Research Journal, 2(7).
Sucgang, R. (1964). Social Planning for Housing and Community Participation. [Article]. Philippine Sociological Review, 12(3/4), 178-184.
Suyasinto, P. (1989). Self-help slum redevelopment : a method for reaching the poor through the application of self-help and community self-reliance techniques by a combination of housing and commercial development / by Pote Suyasinto.
Tait, J. (1997). From self-help housing to sustainable settlement : capitalist development and urban planning in Lusaka, Zambia / John Tait. Aldershot, Hants, England ; Brookfield, Vt., USA :: Avebury.
Taylor, G. (1995). The community approach: does it really work? Tourism Management, 16(7), 487-489.
Temkin, K., & Rohe, W. M. (1998). Social capital and neighborhood stability: An empirical investigation. Housing Policy Debate, 9(1), 61-88.
Tosun, C. (2000). Limits to community participation in the tourism development process in developing countries. Tourism Management, 21(6), 613-633.
Tovar, C., & Lockwood, M. (2008). Social Impacts of Tourism: An Australian Regional Case Study. [Article]. International Journal of Tourism Research, 10(4), 365-378.
Trejos, B., & Chiang, L. (2009). Local economic linkages to community‐based tourism in rural Costa Rica. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 30(3), 373-387.
Tunas, D., & Peresthu, A. (2010). The self-help housing in Indonesia: The only option for the poor? Habitat International, 34(3), 315-322.
Turker, Z., & Dincyurek, O. (2007). Sustainable tourism as an alternative to mass tourism developments of Bafra, north Cyprus. [Article]. Open House International., 32(4), 107-118.
Turner, J. (1972). Freedom to build; dweller control of the housing process. Edited by John F. C. Turner and Robert Fichter. New York: Macmillan.
Uphoff, N. (1992). Learning from Gal Oya: Possibilities for participatory development and post-Newtonian social science: Cambridge Univ Press.
277
Vale, L. (1995). The Imaging of the City: Public housing and communication. Communication Research, 22(6), 646-663.
Villanueva, R. H. (2010). The human endeavor of intentional communities| The Gawad Kalinga movement. University of Arizona Library, Arizona USA.
Virola, R., Ilarina, V., Reyes, C., & Buenaventura, C. (2010). Volunteerism in the Philippines: Dead or Alive.
Wallace, G. N. (1996). Toward a principled evaluation of ecotourism ventures (Vol. 99, pp. 119-140).
Walter, P. (2009). Local knowledge and adult learning in environmental adult education: community-based ecotourism in southern Thailand. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 28(4), 513 - 532.
Wang, Y. (2007). Customized authenticity begins at home. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(3), 789-804.
Wearing, S., & Larsen, L. (1996). Assessing and managing the sociocultural impacts of ecotourism: revisiting the Santa Elena rainforest project. The Environmentalist, 16(2), 117-133.
Wearing, S., & McDonald, M. (2002). The Development of Community-based Tourism: Re- thinking the Relationship Between Tour Operators and Development Agents as Intermediaries in Rural and Isolated Area Communities. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(3), 191-206.
Wearing, S., & Mcgehee, N. (2013). Volunteer tourism projects: a proposed mechanism to improve working with local communities. International volunteer tourism: integrating travellers and communities, 84-104.
Wearing, S., & McGehee, N. G. (2013). International Volunteer Tourism: Integrating Travellers and Communities: CABI.
Weaver, D. (2002a). Asian ecotourism: Patterns and themes. Tourism Geographies, 4(2), 153-172.
Weaver, D. (2002b). Hard-core Ecotourists in Lamington National Park, Australia. Journal of Ecotourism, 1(1), 19 - 35.
Weissmann, E. (1960). Mutual Aid in Low-Cost Housing. [research-article]. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 107.
Whelan, T. (Ed.). (1991). Nature Tourism : managing for the environment. Washing , DC: Island Press.
White, A., Christie, P., D'Agnes, H., Lowry, K., & Milne, N. (2005). Designing ICM projects for sustainability: Lessons from the Philippines and Indonesia. Ocean & Coastal Management, 48(3-6), 271-296.
278
Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for development theory, research, and policy. The World Bank Research Observer, 15(2), 225-249.
Yin, R. (2003a). Applications of case study research / Robert K. Yin (2nd ed. ed.). Thousand Oaks :: Sage Publications.
Yin, R. (2003b). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd Ed (Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks * London * New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Zeppel, H. (2006). Indigenous Ecotourism: sustainable development and management. Wallingford: CABI.
279
Appendix A: GK Key Programs and Goals Source: Habaradas and Aquino (p.24-25)
Program Description Goals Community Building beautiful and brightly painted homes To restore the dignity of the Infrastructure and other infrastructure (e.g. multi-purpose poorest of the poor by providing Program (CIP) halls, Sibol schools, clinics) in clean and green them with a stable foundation environments, through sweat equity and where they can begin their lives with assistance from volunteers in a spirit of anew bayanihan (teamwork and cooperation) To inspire families, especially their children to dream of a beautiful future Community Organisation of GK community members To help GK villages become self- Empowerment under the Kapitbahayan (neighbourhood sustaining communities association), where strong values formation To inculcate stewardship is translated into concrete guidelines for To ensure unity, cooperation, and community living, which are agreed upon and accountability lived out by every member. To make model GK villages agents of change and transformation in their larger communities Gawad Kalusugan Careful monitoring of health profiles of GK To empower the poor to take care families through the assistance of volunteer of their communities: “health in doctors, nurses, and medical practitioners. the hands of the people” Health awareness and training workshops for To provide quality of life for the local leaders (neighbourhood and poorest of the poor who have been government) in health programs and previously deprived of quality practices that will benefit the whole health care community such proper nutrition, sanitation, disease prevention and first aid. Partnerships with medical schools and associations to provide basic medical and dental services (e.g. free consultation, immunization, minor surgical procedures, and nutrition programs). Child and Youth SIBOL, which means “to grow”, provides To develop the skills and talents of Development values-based education to pre-school the kids and youth of GK Program children from 3 to 6 years old. communities by inculcating values SAGIP, which means “to save a life", is a and providing opportunities that support program for children aged 7 to 13. bring out their fullest potential Children receive free academic tutorials, sports and creative workshops, and values formation classes. SIGA, which means “to light”, prepares the youth (teens) to become productive citizens through sports and creative activities. GK Bayan-anihan GK’s food sufficiency program – empowering To provide sufficient food for the communities to produce their food families in the GK communities through their own GK farms To eradicate hunger in the Launching of model farms in partnership with Philippines by establishing corporations – Selecta, Globe, Shell, Wyeth sustainable food sufficiency Training and assisting GK residents to care for programs through multi-sectoral their farms partnerships To transform lives towards a hunger-free nation
280
Program Description Goals Green Kalinga Environment advocacy through seminars and To inculcate love and care for the workshops environment among community Use of environment-friendly materials into residents GK infrastructure Use of renewable energy sources in communities Creating environment-friendly projects such as solid waste management GK Mabuhay GK sites as tourist destinations and cultural To showcase and preserve attractions – GK villagers welcome visitors Philippine culture and values in GK with warmth and hospitality brought about communities by a renewed sense of hope. Training Mabuhay ladies to be effective tour guides with good communication skills.
281
Appendix B: GK Enchanted Farm, GK Amazing Village, and GK Pueblo Antonio Village
I. THE GK ENCHANTED FARM, BULACAN (Source: http://www.gk1world.com/gk-enchanted-farm. Accessed March 2014)
The GK Enchanted Farm in Bulacan is envisioned to become three things: (1) a farm village university, (2) A ‘Silicon Valley’ for Social Entrepreneurship, and (3) a ‘Disneyland’ for Social Tourism.
1. A farm village university - Our country’s land area and tropical climate set us up to grow our own crops but instead we import 70% of our chocolate, milk and cheese demand, among others. If only we made productive use of our lands and started to hammer away and innovate on the structure that makes farming a discouraging venture, there’s no reason for any Filipino to be poor. The village aspect of the Enchanted Farm lies in the belief that it is our disconnectedness from our land, from the poor, and even from one another through artificial barriers such as economic status, 'public and private' distinctions, that sustains poverty in the country. GK EF is one physical space where we can all come together and plant seeds of goodness side by side with the very poor that we wish to help. Our current educational system can do better in instilling appreciation for the agricultural industry and love for the poor. Coupling these two with the courageous spirit of an entrepreneur, the possibilities for our country become endless. 2. A ‘Silicon Valley’ for social entrepreneurship - What Filipino entrepreneurs need today, especially young and rising ones, is an environment that will help bring their ideas to life and challenge them to aspire for greatest social impact. This means keeping connected to Community and gaining access to good mentoring, value-adding networking and basic facilities and resources – what the GK Enchanted Farm offers and even more! 3. A 'Disneyland’ for social tourism - The GK Enchanted Farm, true to its name, shall enchant its visitors from all over Philippines and the rest of the world through lived stories not only of successful enterprise but also of concrete acts of caring and sharing. It is gearing up to house pioneer centres and social enterprises for sustainable development, farm high value crops and gather a robust selection of plant species. See for yourself and rediscover the beauty of the Philippines and the magic of being Filipino!
GK Enchanted Farm Photo source: www.gk1world.com 2013
282
II. The GK Amazing Village, Cebu City (Source: www.gk1world.com/amazing-gk-village)
The beautiful Queen City of the South, Cebu, prides itself not only for its beautiful tourist destinations and booming economy but also for the culture of goodness shared among its people. Situated in the heart of Barangay Talamban and standing proof of the Cebuano’ beauty inside and out, progress and generosity of the Cebuanos are expressed through the Amazing GK Village. Through the efforts of Smart Telecommunications, the Philippine Long Distance Company (PLDT), the Sian Tian Temple, and many individual partners, this GK village has grown and bloomed. At present, the GK village holds a GK SIBOL pre-school, multi-purpose hall and basketball court. As a reflection of its progress and development, the Amazing GK village maintains cooperative and regular SIBOL-SAGIP activities for the children of the community. It continues to take a step forward through the cooperation of the various sectors that are more than willing to extend their time, treasure and talent to help the community grow to its fullest potentials. Many volunteers from universities in the province as well as NGOs hold activities to promote holistic development for the children, youth and the elders of the village. What once was a dream of a chosen few is now becoming a spark of hope for many. It is clear evidence that with passion and action, we can become the ripples of change we seek in the world.
The GK Amazing Village, Cebu City Photo Source: Author, 2011
283
III. GK Pueblo Antonio Village, Davao City (Source: www.gk1world.com/PuebloAntonio)
Pueblo Antonio GK Village is a legacy village of the Habana family, given as a symbol of gratitude to its original tenants (18 families) for their many years of loyal service. Each family was awarded a lot size of 300 square meters so they can also accommodate their extended families. Another family, Reyes- Munda was so inspired by this generous gesture, and they decided to add more homes to the community. A 1,000-square meter lot was also awarded per family to be used as their productivity area where they can grow vegetables or flowers and earn from selling these. There are plans to build a “hometel”, too, for tourists and guests.
GK Pueblo Antonio Village, Davao City Photo Source: Author, 2009
Appendix C: Semi-structured guide for focus groups
Background of housing project: Please give a background of how the housing program started.
A. Housing Development
1. What are the community’s activities related to organisation? (What is the structure of the housing organisation? What are the roles of the different sectors? How effective are the different sector in responsively carrying out the housing program?)
2. What are the community’s activities related to cultural factors? (What is the influence of family relationships in carrying out the housing program? What is the influence of other activities, e.g. livelihood, religious practices, in carrying out the housing program?)
3. What are the community’s activities related to skills and development? (Are there programs available for the community to develop their skills? Please identify/enumerate. How are these programs managed?)
4. What are the community’s activities related to funding? (How is funding sourced? How is the financial aspect managed?)
5. What is the community’s activities related to hard & soft infrastructure? (What are the utility services provided, e.g. water, electricity, and transport? What are the social services provided (e.g. education, recreation, business, institution)
6. What are the community’s activities related to construction technology? (Describe the materials and construction techniques applied in the housing program. How are the techniques selected to be appropriate for the housing program?)
B. Tourism Development
1. What are the activities done to “minimise negative impacts of the housing development” (e.g. number of visitors, mode of transportation, waste disposal, architectural Style, soil/water/vegetation impacts)?
2. What are the activities done to “increase the awareness and understanding of the natural and cultural systems” (e.g. exposure to community activities, developing interpretive activities, and opportunities to contribute to developing knowledge)?
3. What are the activities done to “contribute to the conservation and management of natural areas” (e.g. informing visitors about protected areas, developing conservation management plans)? What are the activities done to maximize early and long-term participation of local people in the decision process (e.g. ownership of tourist services, local training programs, improving local relations and attitudes)?
4. What are the activities done to “direct economic benefits to local people which complement traditional practices” (e.g. local employment, continuance of traditional activities, purchase of local products and services by the community)?
5. What are the activities done to provide special opportunities for local people to “utilise natural resources” (e.g. local participation in nature tour activities, use of area for special events hosted by the locals)?
285
Appendix D: Tabulation of Resident Survey
Sierra Homes: GK PONA VILLAGE: GK CHARACTER VILLAGE: MAMBULO NUEVO: Resident's Residents' rating ACTIVITIES Residents' rating for participation Residents' rating for participation rating for participation for participation
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6
I. HOUSING-DEVELOPMENT
A. Activities related to Organisation
1 Call for regular meetings or assembly 3 3 5 1 5 3 3 5 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 3 3 5 4 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 1 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 5 5 5 3 4 3 2 1 5 1 Recording of events and activities 2 (e.g. on a logbook 5 5 3 3 1 4 4 5 5 5 4 2 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 5 5 5 3 2 5 4 2 4 2 4 0 3 4 3 2 2 2 3 0 3 1 0 5 0
3 Formation of "bayanihan groups" 2 3 3 3 5 5 5 3 3 5 5 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 1 5 4 3 2 3 4 4 3 4 2 4 5 5 5 2 3 4 2 5 5 5 2 2 4 5 2 5 5 2 1 1 1 0 3 0
4 Maintaining peaceful relationships 5 5 5 1 5 3 3 4 5 5 5 4 5 3 4 5 3 3 4 3 5 5 3 4 5 5 4 3 5 2 4 5 5 5 4 4 3 4 5 5 5 3 5 4 2 2 5 5 3 1 0 3 0 5 0
5 "Leadership by example" 1 3 5 5 3 4 4 1 4 4 5 5 3 4 3 5 3 4 1 4 5 5 2 4 5 4 5 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 1 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 3 5 2 2 5 5 3 1 1 0 1 5 2 Creation of committees for special 6 projects 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 5 5 5 3 4 3 5 3 5 5 3 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 1 5 3 5 3 1 3 2 5 1 2 2 1 5 5 3 1 2 1 3 2 Allowing members to voice out ideas 7 and opinion 2 3 5 3 1 2 2 5 5 4 4 5 5 4 3 2 3 5 5 4 5 4 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 2 5 5 5 5 3 4 3 5 5 5 4 3 5 1 2 5 5 1 5 1 1 0 2 5 2
8 Co-management of GK caretakers 5 3 5 3 3 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 5 4 5 5 5 4 3 3 4 5 3 3 5 4 5 5 1 4 5 5 5 1 4 4 5 5 4 2 2 2 5 1 2 1 1 5 1 Exe-com meetings among 9 community leaders 3 4 1 0 5 3 5 1 2 1 3 5 5 5 5 3 4 0 2 3 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 2 4 5 5 5 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 5 1
B. Activities related to Skills and Development Assignment of tasks for house 1 building 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 5 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 4 5 3 3 5 5 5 5 1 4 3 4 4 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 1 5 5 5
2 Neighborhood cleanliness drives 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 4 4 3 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 2 5 3 5 5 5 5 3 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 1 3 1 1 5 5 Conducting trainings initiated by 3 LGUs 1 1 1 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 2 3 5 5 5 5 5 3 2 2 3 5 4 3 3 5 5 5 5 2 3 4 3 3 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 2 5 3 Trainings for souvenirs-making 4 (candles,vase, baskets) 3 3 4 1 4 2 2 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 3 5 4 4 5 5 3 1 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 5 5 5 5 3 0 4 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 1 0 1 0 4 0 Backyard farming for family 5 consumption 5 3 5 1 5 4 5 3 3 5 5 5 5 4 3 5 4 5 5 4 3 4 3 3 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 0 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 1 0 1 5 5 3
6 Trading/barter of farm produce 2 2 1 2 5 0 0 5 5 4 4 5 3 4 2 4 3 5 4 4 2 1 1 1 1 3 4 2 4 1 0 0 0 5 1 5 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 5 0 Creation of policies for waste 7 management 3 5 2 1 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 2 3 3 5 3 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 4 5 5 5 3 4 4 5 1 5 5 1 5 1 1 2 2 1
Sierra Homes: GK PONA VILLAGE: GK CHARACTER VILLAGE: MAMBULO NUEVO: Resident's Residents' rating ACTIVITIES Residents' rating for participation Residents' rating for participation rating for participation for participation
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 C. Activities related to House Construction
1 Setting up Bayanihan events 5 5 5 4 5 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 3 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 4 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 3 5 5 1 Develooping self-help construction 2 skills 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 3 4 4 3 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 1 4 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 2 5 1 Skilled worker assigned to unskilled 3 ones 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 3 5 4 4 3 5 4 2 3 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 1 4 3 5 4 2 5 2 1 1 1 5 4 2 3 1 2 1 2 0 2
4 Standardization of basic/core house 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 3 4 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 1 5 2 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 5 1 4 5 4 1 3 5 0 3 Building structures that are typhoon- 5 resistant 4 4 4 5 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 3 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 4 5 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 Standardization of extensions and 6 improvments 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 3 3 5 4 5 5 2 5 5 4 5 1 4 2 4 5 5 5 5 2 5 1 5 5 5 5 1 1 0 0 0 1 Monitoring implementation of design 7 standards 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 1 3 3 1 3 4 3 3 0 5 5 5 5 4 5 2 3 5 1 5 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 Setting the layout of houses 8 according to land contour 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 4 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 1 5 4 0 4 3 4 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 5 3 1
D. Activities related to Culture Participation in values formation, eg. 1 CLP 10 tracks 4 4 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 2 5 4 5 4 5 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 2 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 3 5 Promotion of good relationships with 2 family 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 1 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 3 2 5 5 Promotion of good relationships with 3 community 4 3 5 4 5 5 5 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 4 2 5 5 5 5 2 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 1 5 5 5 5 5
4 Participation in religious activities 4 5 5 5 3 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 5 5 5 5 1 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 0 5 0 0 5
5 Making visitors feel welcome 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 4 5 2 5 5 5 3 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 5 3 5 5 5 5 4 3 5 5 5 5 5 4 1 1 5 2 1 3 Preservation of culture, eg. diligence, 6 hospitality 5 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 4 5 3 5 5 4 3 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 5 5 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 5 3
7 Teaching good values to children 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 4 2 4 5 5 5 2 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 Practising bayanihan during events 8 and celebrations 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 3 5 5 5 2 3 5 5 5 5 2 5 5 5 5 1 5 2 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 4 3 5 1 1 0 5 5 5 Holding community celebrations, eg. 9 Birthdays and festivals 1 3 1 1 3 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 2 5 5 5 5 2 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 3 1 3 2 0 3
Sierra Homes: GK PONA VILLAGE: GK CHARACTER VILLAGE: MAMBULO NUEVO: Resident's Residents' rating ACTIVITIES Residents' rating for participation Residents' rating for participation rating for participation for participation
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 E. Activities related to Service & Infrastructure
1 Recording/monitoring of harvest 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 2 4 3 5 5 2 5 4 5 5 4 5 4 3 3 2 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
2 Use of organic fertilizers 5 5 5 5 2 2 3 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 5 5 5 5 3 2 3 0 3 4 3 3 2 0 3 4 5 5 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Affordable communal water 3 distribution 5 3 0 5 5 0 0 0 5 4 4 4 3 4 2 0 5 5 5 1 2 1 0 0 0 4 1 3 1 1 5 5 5 5 1 5 4 0 3 0 3 4 5 4 5 1 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 Procurement of NFA (socialized 4 brand) rice for the community 5 4 2 4 5 0 3 3 5 5 5 5 4 4 3 4 3 3 1 4 5 1 1 1 1 5 4 4 5 5 3 5 5 5 2 5 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 Building of school and other 5 infrastructure thru bayanihan 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 5 0 5 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 5 2 5 2
F. Activities related to Funding Building partnerships from from 1 abroad through GK 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 3 5 5 3 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 4 0 0 0 0 Coordination and support from local 2 government 4 3 3 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 3 5 5 4 5 4 3 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 5 5 4 Beautification of surroundings to 3 increase visitation 5 4 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 2 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 2 5 5 4 Receiving of donations from 4 visitors/tourists 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 3 4 3 4 5 5 5 2 5 4 3 3 4 5 4 5 5 4 1 5 3 5 0 5 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 3 Management of finances by GK 5 caretakers 1 3 0 5 1 1 1 0 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 3 2 5 4 3 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 1 5 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 0 3 Support from schools and 6 educational institutions 5 5 5 5 4 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 3 4 5 4 5 3 5 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 2 5 5 5 5 1 4 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 3
7 Personal support from private sector 0 1 0 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 1 1 3 3 4 5 3 5 3 3 5 5 5 4 3 4 2 4 5 5 5 1 5 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 3
II. TOURISM DEVELOPMENT A. Activities done to minimise negative impacts of the housing development
1 Maintaining cleanliness 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 3 5 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 1 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 2 5 3 4 5 5 5 5 5
2 Observing zoning and land use 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 4 4 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 4 4 1 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 4 1 5 5 5 5 Creation of waste disposal 3 management 4 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 2 5 5 5 3 5 4 5 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 1 5 3 3 5 5 5 3 2 0 1 5 4 5 3 3 1 5 3 5 5
Sierra Homes: GK PONA VILLAGE: GK CHARACTER VILLAGE: MAMBULO NUEVO: Resident's Residents' rating ACTIVITIES Residents' rating for participation Residents' rating for participation rating for participation for participation
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6
4 Standardization of housing design 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 3 5 4 5 4 4 3 4 5 2 4 4 4 5 5 2 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 1 0 0 0 0 1 Monitoring of implementation of 5 standards 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 3 5 3 2 3 4 5 4 5 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 0 0 0 0 1
6 Maximizing landscapes and views 5 4 5 5 5 3 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 3 3 2 3 3 1 4 1 3 3 4 3 1 1 3 3 0 3 Setting layout of houses according to 7 land contour/slope 5 4 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 4 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 2 0 1
B. Activities done to increase the awareness and understanding of the natural and cultural systems Equal assignment of tasks and 1 responsibilities 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 5 1 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 3 1 1 5 3 5 1 Involving residents in the plans and 2 programs 5 4 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 3 5 4 5 3 4 4 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 1 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 3 5 5 4 4 5 5 1 1 4 4 1 1 Regular reporting of participation of 3 each household 4 5 5 5 4 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 3 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 4 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 1 5 4 5 1 5 5 4 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Giving everyone an opportunity to be 4 a tour guide 4 5 5 5 4 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 3 3 2 5 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 1 4 2 4 2 4 1 5 1 5 3 3 1 1 4 1 5 3
C. Activities done to contribute to the conservation and management of natural areas Sharing profit from vegetable farming 1 and organic produce 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 5 2 0 3 5 3 0 3 1 2 2 2 1 3 1 1 4 2 2 4 5 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Giving access to affordable 2 commodities from sari-sari stores 5 0 0 0 5 5 5 0 5 4 4 5 4 4 3 4 3 1 0 0 5 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 3 3 3 0 5 0 5 0 0 2 0 3 1 3 5 0 3 Utilising savings from communal 3 water distribution 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 2 5 4 2 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 1 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Income generation from tourist 4 accomodation (Bed&Breakfast) 5 4 5 3 4 1 3 4 3 4 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 5 3 2 3 4 1 2 2 3 4 5 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Use of community funds for 5 community maintenance 4 2 3 3 4 0 0 0 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 2 5 4 3 2 2 5 4 4 4 1 4 3 5 3 1 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
D. Activities done to maximise early and long-term participation of local people in the decision process Using natural materials to make 1 native products 4 4 5 3 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 4 3 4 3 4 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 2 0 0 Growing ornamental plants eg. 2 bonsai 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 2 2 5 3 2 4 1 0 3 5 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sierra Homes: GK PONA VILLAGE: GK CHARACTER VILLAGE: MAMBULO NUEVO: Resident's Residents' rating ACTIVITIES Residents' rating for participation Residents' rating for participation rating for participation for participation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 Use of available soil, rocks and grass 3 for construction and landscaping
Production of handmade souvenir 5 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 3 5 1 5 4 3 5 3 2 4 0 4 4 5 5 3 5 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 4 items eg wallets, bags
1 1 1 1 2 1 2 4 3 5 5 4 2 4 3 4 3 3 2 0 5 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 4 5 5 5 3 3 5 5 5 4 4 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 5 Vegetable farming
5 4 5 5 5 3 3 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 5 5 5 2 3 5 5 4 5 4 5 3 5 5 0 5 0 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 1 5 5 5 3 0 0 3 3 4 0 E. Activities done to direct economic benefits to local people which complement traditional practices Livelihood training eg soap/candle 1 making 4 4 5 5 2 3 2 2 3 4 4 4 3 4 2 3 3 4 4 1 2 4 2 2 2 5 2 2 5 3 4 3 5 5 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 2 0 2
2 Seminars on health & sanitation 4 5 5 5 3 3 1 5 5 4 4 4 3 4 2 4 5 4 3 1 4 5 2 3 3 5 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 1 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 2 0 3 Seminars for waste 3 disposal/management 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 3 1 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 1 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 3 Practising of cultural traits (diligence, 4 assimilation) 5 4 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 1 4 4 3 4 3 5 3 4 5 3 3 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 3 0 4 3 2 3 4 4 4 4 2 1 5 3 5 5 3 Participation in religious activities eg 5 prayer mtgs 2 3 3 3 5 5 5 0 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 5 5 5 5 1 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 3 5 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 2 5 0 0 0 0 5 Organization of sports tournaments 6 eg basketball 3 3 3 5 0 0 0 5 0 5 5 0 3 4 3 4 4 5 4 1 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 3 5 3 0 5 5 5 5 5 2 3 5 3 5 5 5
F. Activities that provide special opportunities for local people to utilize natural resources Learning how to care for natural 1 environment 4 5 5 5 4 4 3 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 4 2 5 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 1 3 0 3 5 0 0 3 5 5 5 5 3 0 5 1 4 5 5 3 1 1 0 0 5 3
2 Prohibiting burning ie of waste 5 5 5 5 0 4 5 0 4 4 5 5 4 4 0 4 5 5 3 0 5 3 5 3 3 4 2 2 2 1 3 3 4 5 0 0 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 5 3 0 5 Isolating domestic animals which 3 litter landscape 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 2 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 4 5 1 2 2 1 5 4 0 5 Waste disposal management, 4 eg.segragation 5 4 5 5 2 3 4 2 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 1 4 2 4 5 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 3 0 4 4 3 5 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 3 Use of recycled materilas - eg. 5 bottles, plastics, steel 3 4 5 5 4 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 5 4 2 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 5 5 0 5 Prohibition of insecticides and 6 artificial fertilizers 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 0 5 3 0 2 2 3 2 2 0 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 1 5 0 0 5 Livestock production and 7 management 0 4 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 2 3 5 1 1 5 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 1 5 5 0 5
8 Tree-planting and reforestation 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 5 5 0 0 4 1 5 5 5 4 5 5 3 3 3 5 2 3 5 1 4 5 5 5 3 5 4 5 5 0 3 3 0 0 5 3 3 4 3 4 1 5 5 5 5
Minerva Access is the Institutional Repository of The University of Melbourne
Author/s: DELGADO, ROWENA
Title: Tourism, housing and community participation: their nexus in Gawad Kalinga communities of the Philippines
Date: 2014
Persistent Link: http://hdl.handle.net/11343/52748
File Description: Tourism, housing and community participation: their nexus in Gawad Kalinga communities of the Philippines