PAWEESIT | PALAWAN UNDERGROUND RIVER, PUERTO PRINCESA
IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES Case Study on USAID Support for the Philippines’ Tourism Road Infrastructure Program
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Meliza Agabin and Robert Travers of Chemonics International under the Asia and Middle East Economic Growth Best Practice Project, Task Order AID-OAA-M- 12-00008. The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States government.
CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 I. INTRODUCTION 8 II. BACKGROUND 10 III. MECHANISMS FOR SUCCESSFUL COORDINATION BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENTS OF TOURISM AND PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS 14 IV. USAID SUPPORT FOR PHILIPPINES TRIP 17 V. MECHANISMS FOR SUCCESSFUL IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORITIZATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS 18 VI. TRIP HIGH-LEVEL RESULTS AND LESSONS LEARNED 21 VII. SPECIFIC TRIP INTERVENTIONS AND IMPACTS IN PALAWAN 27 ANNEX A: PHILIPPINE TOURISM COMPETITIVENESS RANKINGS 40 ANNEX B: ADDITIONAL INDICATORS OF GENERAL TOURISM GROWTH IN PALAWAN (2012-2016) 41 ANNEX C: INDICATORS OF NATIONAL TOURISM GROWTH (2012-2016) 42 ANNEX D. TOURISM ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA, 2016 43 ANNEX E: FIELD TRIP ITINERARY 50 ANNEX F. PALAWAN TRIP PERCEPTION SURVEY 51
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This case study aims to: 1) document the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Advancing Philippine Competitiveness (COMPETE) Project support for the Tourism Road Infrastructure Program (TRIP) implemented by the Philippines Department of Tourism (DOT) and Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH); and 2) estimate impacts of specific TRIP interventions on the Philippine Province of Palawan.
According to a detailed annual study undertaken for the World Economic Forum, the Philippines ranks most competitively in terms of its (1) Price Competitiveness, (2) Natural Resources, and (3) Labor. The Philippines is ranked least competitive in terms of (1) Safety and Security, (2) Environmental Sustainability, and (3) Ground Infrastructure and Ports. In each of these three areas the country is in the bottom quadrant of scorings worldwide. The Philippines had one of the lowest investments in infrastructure at less than three percent of GDP in 2011. This low level of investments, along with a strict division of responsibility and budgets for national versus local roads, left a great majority of local roads that connect to important tourist destinations unpaved.
TRIP was created in 2012 out of a formal Convergence Program between the Philippines’ Departments of Tourism and Public Works and Highways to increase government investments in roads to support tourism development in priority destination areas defined in the National Tourism Development Plan. Three factors facilitated the establishment of the Convergence Program: 1) The Tourism Act of 2009 provided the legal basis for the collaboration; 2) A newly crafted National Tourism Development Plan prioritized eight destinations in which to implement the Tourism Act; and 3) national roads nearing completion coupled with a robust DPWH budget enabled the agency to focus on building local roads to tourism destinations.
The TRIP program aimed to “promote access to and from, airports and seaports, Tourism Enterprise Zones (TEZ) and other tourism destinations, in accordance with the priorities of the National Government.” This included increasing infrastructure investments, improving the quality of infrastructure, and enhancing monitoring and evaluation (M&E) through geographic information systems (GIS) video mapping.
At the core of the TRIP system and structure are the TRIP Prioritization Criteria (TRIPPC), the Technical Working Groups (TWG) at the central (CTWG) and regional (RTWG) levels, and the Secretariat of the CTWG. TRIP TWGs are central to the selection and vetting process for road project proposals.
USAID SUPPORT FOR TRIP The USAID-funded COMPETE project (2012-2017) extended technical assistance to the Department of Public Works and Highways and the Department of Tourism through the Research, Education, and Institutional Development (REID) Foundation to implement TRIP. Specifically, COMPETE helped develop systems to identify, evaluate, prioritize, and implement tourism road infrastructure across the country, in support of the goals and targets of the National Tourism Development Plan. COMPETE crafted, piloted, and refined TRIP Prioritization Criteria (TRIPPC) that standardized and facilitated the selection of projects with potential economic benefits to tourist destination sites. In addition, COMPETE provided supervision, technical guidance, capacity building, and policy inputs to the CTWG Secretariat. COMPETE supported the Secretariat to formulate a Multi-Year and Annual Tourism Road Infrastructure Program.
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 3 Moreover, COMPETE provided the Secretariat with research assistance and specific policy studies supporting reforms, such as the Right of Way Law passed in 2016.
MECHANISMS FOR SUCCESSFUL COORDINATION BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENTS OF TOURISM AND PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS Formalized agreements for the TRIP Convergence set the structure, roles, and working relationship. TRIP was created as the vehicle to implement the Convergence Program between the DOT and DPWH, with the key elements of implementation clearly defined: structure, roles, and responsibilities of the parties to the agreement; and guidance on the working arrangements for identifying, evaluating, prioritizing, and vetting project proposals.
Designation of middle-level champions in the planning service of the two departments. Undersecretaries and/or assistant secretaries involved in the planning, programming, and policies were delegated authority for the execution of TRIP while providing advocacy and support, internally and externally, for the convergence principles and reforms introduced.
Technical Working Groups at the central and regional levels. This interagency mechanism served as the forum and venue to work closely together, discuss issues, plan, review, validate and endorse project proposals. The TWG mechanism fostered close working relationship and served to break down silos, which characterized the past. COMPETE provided capacity building training and provided technical guidance to Technical Working Groups.
MECHANISMS FOR SUCCESSFUL IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORITIZATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS The shared goals of economic growth and employment generation through better roads and tourism development prompted collaboration at the highest levels of the DOT and DPWH. Strong political will enabled major reforms to decision-making and budgeting, and moved processes from politically-oriented to objective, rational, cost effective, and criteria-based systems.
The set of multi-level TRIP prioritization criteria is the master key to the systemic reforms in the process from the identification to approval of road project proposals. Every project proposal must go through the process and pass the prioritization criteria and requirements with a passing rate of 60 percent. TRIPPC is an objective, standardized, and disciplined system for choosing the right project for the right place and right cost.
This rationalized system also recognizes the important role of stakeholders, including the local government units (LGUs), the private sector, the Regional Development Councils (RDC) of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), the congressional district representatives, and senators. For example, endorsement by the RDC of the proposed road project is required for all projects; support of one or more of the other stakeholders – with proof of consultation or letter support – increases a project’s chance for inclusion in DPWH program and budget planning.
TWGs, with assistance from the COMPETE-supported Secretariat moved the planning process along to synchronize with the budget cycle.
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 4 TRIP HIGH LEVEL RESULTS Quantitative results. COMPETE’s support to TRIP resulted in the successful programming of funds for paved tourism roads in 15 regions of the country. In addition to increasing public investment in road infrastructure from three percent of GDP to five percent, TRIP facilitated a 300-fold increase in road infrastructure funding from $1.5 million in 2010 to $452 million in 2016. Over the four years from 2012- 2016, TRIP programmed more than $1.659 billion of government funds, resulting in 852 road projects completed (out of 881 projects with approved funding) and adding 2,080 kilometers (km) total nationwide. Out of every 10 km constructed, seven km were local roads.
Qualitative results. In qualitative terms, TRIP convergence brought about systemic reforms that have made significant improvements to road infrastructure planning and budgeting processes, such as:
• TRIP Prioritization Criteria significantly “de-politicized” the planning and budgeting process and instituted objective, standardized, transparent, and disciplined systems for planning and budgeting new roads nationwide.
• Programmatic budgeting for tourism road replaced piece meal and non-targeted road projects.
• National budgets now include local roads, which is a significant breakthrough from past concentration on national roads.
• Governance and management improvements resulting from inter-department collaboration, the prioritization criteria for project selection and decision-making, and the synchronization of the planning process with budgeting cycle.
• TRIP convergence created a successful and replicable partnership model that works not only on a pilot test, but on a nationwide scale. The application of the approach has expanded to a DPWH- Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) convergence.
LESSONS LEARNED FOR OTHER GOVERNMENTS AND USAID MISSIONS IN THE REGION The TRIP convergence program demonstrates many lessons for designing or supporting inter-ministerial coordination mechanisms to facilitate increased investment in tourism or other sectors. Key lessons from the TRIP experience include:
• A common policy framework, a shared vision and goal are the key foundations to inter- departmental collaboration.
• The championship, commitment, support, and political will at the top are vital to making partnerships work, introducing needed reforms, and achieving objectives.
• Middle-level champions serve as critical links for developing a community of practice and advocates for convergence within each partnering agency as well as for preserving the gains from positive systemic reforms.
• Formalized partnerships with well-defined roles and responsibilities, structure and mechanisms at the outset are essential for guiding implementation and charting the way forward.
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 5 • Technical working groups, as the working mechanisms at central and regional levels, serve as the venue and forum for discussions, screening and vetting of proposals at the national and regional levels with multi-sector participation.
• Technical Working Groups need strong technical Secretariat support to effectively and efficiently function well; a technical secretariat must be developed as an organic part of the organization for long-term sustainability.
• Prioritization Criteria that are objective, standardized, and applied consistently are a powerful assessment and decision-making tool for road project budgeting and an effective shield to minimize external pressure.
• Support of the Budget Department for TRIP program budgeting process and involvement of private sector stakeholders in proposal review and vetting projects is a facilitating factor in the adoption of programmatic budgeting for tourism roads.
SPECIFIC TRIP INTERVENTIONS AND IMPACTS IN PALAWAN Palawan province possesses superb coastal and marine environments around which providers center their leisure tourism products. The fastest growth is taking place in Busuanga where room supply has increased from 70 to 322 (360 percent) in just five years. In Puerto Princesa room supply has tripled. In most other locations room supply has doubled since 2012.
While detailed industry consultations indicate that increases in visitors are due to other factors – including increased air access, positive social media presence, and extensive international television coverage – TRIP has contributed to easing travel within Palawan and to spreading tourism to farther reaches of the islands. The experts observed that TRIP has also significantly improved the competitiveness of tourism in Palawan by:
• Making more destinations within the province more accessible, both physically and financially • Increasing Government investment in Palawan ground infrastructure • Increasing business sector willingness to invest in Palawan • Increasing employment in transport and other sectors • Improving access to airports, and reducing costs of investment in redeveloping and expanding Palawan’s airports • Facilitating inward immigration to tourism destinations as people seek jobs and enterprise opportunities, facilitated by TRIP • Reducing travel times in Palawan for tourists and locals • Reducing visitor dissatisfaction about road conditions in Palawan • Reducing the cost of imports (i.e. foodstuffs, hotel fixtures, and cement for construction) • Bringing rural communities closer to the national road network • Reducing dust pollution along TRIP roads • Facilitating improved access to local vegetable and fish markets for tourism industry buyers • Improving access for tourists and locals to the beauties of nature in Palawan.
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 6 In order to isolate TRIP’s impact from general tourism growth, the municipality of San Vicente (which is newly linked by TRIP road and a new tourism destination) was examined as a detailed case study. Its tourism growth rates during the Program were then applied to the Province as a whole, based on the kilometers of TRIP road handed over to 2015.1 The resulting economic model suggests that TRIP technical assistance regarding Palawan may have facilitated:
• 109,000 additional arrivals • 171,500 more rooms • Over 700 more jobs • Over 280 new businesses • Increased investment of USD 1.3 million.
These figures should be treated with caution. The Program’s main achievement was in stimulating increased funding for road construction through technical assistance, rather than directly stimulating tourism growth.
1 2016 data was not available
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 7 I. INTRODUCTION The objectives of this case study are to: 1) document the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Advancing Philippine Competitiveness (COMPETE) Project support for the Tourism Road Infrastructure Convergence Program (TRIP) implemented by the Philippines Department of Tourism (DOT) and Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH); and 2) estimate impacts of TRIP interventions on the Philippine Province of Palawan.
This case study highlights how the TRIP program facilitated government investments in economic roads to support tourism development and built relationships with key government officials. It highlights mechanisms developed for successful coordination between the Departments of Public Works and Tourism as well for successful identification and prioritization of infrastructure investments.
The study also discusses some of the high-level results of the TRIP program, and then attempts to examine the extent to which the project goal and objectives have been achieved, the ability of local partners to sustain activities introduced by the project team.
It aims to capture lessons learned and best practices for other USAID Mission and governments in the region for designing or supporting inter-ministerial coordination mechanisms to facilitate increased investment in infrastructure, tourism, or other sectors.
Finally, the report attempts to estimate the impacts of TRIP support for improved infrastructure on the competitiveness of the tourism industry in Palawan and the economic, social and environmental outcomes and impacts of the project. The report examines whether the new TRIP investments to date facilitated by COMPETE in Palawan have:
• Reduced travel time and/or costs between key municipalities for the tourism sector? • Increased the number of tourists visiting the connected areas annually? • Enhanced tourism (and/or other business) sales in connected areas? • Increased employment in tourism or related (i.e. services) sectors? • Increased the dollar value of investments in the tourism sector?
METHODOLOGY To document the TRIP story and high-level impacts, the USAID Asia and Middle East Economic Growth Best Practices (AMEG) project team conducted:
• Desk research and analysis of secondary local and national data • Extensive interviews with national level officials, past and present, at DPWH and DOT who were actively involved in the Convergence Program and TRIP implementation • Focus group discussions with the project implementer, the REID Foundation • Interviews with COMPETE leadership and staff, REID Foundation senior officers, and representatives of the Regional Development Council (RDC) and the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) • Interviews with representatives of the Palawan Provincial Government’s Special Project Unit, Municipalities of San Vicente, Rizal, El Nido, and Coron, and the private sector • Site visits to impacted tourism destinations in Palawan province
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 8 • Focus group discussions with local businesses (i.e. hotels, visitor attractions, tour/activity providers, etc.).
To provide USAID with an economic model for TRIP’s specific impact across Palawan, the team applied the average increases in tourism per kilometer for San Vincente – an emerging cluster where TRIP played the greatest role in connectivity – to Palawan province as a whole. This calculation model, described in detail in Section VII, provides a very rough estimate of TRIP’s economic, employment and investment impact on the province.
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 9 II. BACKGROUND The World Economic Forum (WEF) examines tourism competitiveness bi-annually and ranks 136 tourism economies WEF Philippines Tourism Competitiveness 2016 rankings (out of 2 by common indicators of tourism competitiveness. The latest 136 countries): ranking for the Republic of the Philippines for 2016 indicates • Business environment: 82 th that it is the 79 most competitive of 136 countries for • Safety and security: 126 tourism. Since 2014, the country has dropped five places in • Health and hygiene: 92 terms of competitiveness. This reduced score for tourism • Human resources and labor: 50 • competitiveness performance was due to a more restrictive ICT readiness: 86 • Prioritization of travel and tourism: 52 visa policy that reduced the Philippines openness to tourism • International openness: 60 (60th), a reduction of the government budget dedicated to the • Price competitiveness: 22 development of the sector by almost half, and reduced • Environmental sustainability: 118 • Air transport infrastructure: 65 efficiency of ground transport (dropped 14 places to 107th). • Ground infrastructure & ports: 107 The WEF notes that in addition, security concerns remain high • Tourist service infrastructure: 87 (126th). Diminished protection of property rights, less effective • Natural resources: 37 judicial system, and stricter rules on foreign direct investment • Cultural resources: 60 have also reduced the conduciveness of the business environment (82nd). At the same time, environmental policy has improved but remains low (118th), risking undermining natural resources which are the country’s key assets for attracting tourists.
Based on these rankings, the Philippines ranks most competitively in terms of its (1) Price Competitiveness, (2) Natural Resources, and (3) Labor. The Philippines is ranked least competitive in terms of (1) Safety and Security, (2) Environmental Sustainability and (3) Ground Infrastructure and Ports. In each of these three areas the country is in the bottom quadrant of scorings worldwide. The sub criteria for Ground Infrastructure and the Philippine scores for roads are as follows:
• Quality of roads overall (104 of 136) • Road density as percent of total territorial area (42 of 136) • Paved road density as percent of total territorial area (72 of 136).
ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE PHILIPPINES
Macro level. The Philippines has had very low public investment in infrastructure, less than three percent of GDP in 2011, as compared to an international benchmark of five percent. Among her Asian neighbors, the Philippines ranked second lowest in terms of infrastructure investment. The Government target is to increase investments to at least five percent of GDP.
2 WEF (2017) Tourism & Travel Competitiveness Index: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_TTCR_2017_web_0401.pdf
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 10 TABLE 1. PHILIPPINE ROAD NETWORK CONDITION
Total Land Area (sq.km) 311,031 Total Overall Road Network (km) 210,229
Total National Road Length (km) 32,633
Road Density (km/sq.km) 0.68
Paved Road Density (km/sq.km) 0.20
Overall Paved Road Ratio 0.30 Total National Paved Road Ratio 0.89
Source: USAID COMPETE
Local versus national roads. By mandate and long-held practice, there had been a strict division between national and local roads in terms of public investment support. The Philippines’ total road network measures 210,229 kilometers (see Table 1 above). These consist of roads classified as national roads and local roads. The latter is composed of provincial, municipal, city, and barangay roads (see Table 2 below). National roads totaling over 32,500 kilometers make up 15.5 percent of the total road network. Nearly 90 percent of national roads are completed and paved. The principal agency for road infrastructure, DPWH, oversees national roads and their maintenance as its principal mandate.
TABLE 2. PHILIPPINE ROAD: PAVED VERSUS UNPAVED
Road Network Total (km) Paved (km) Percent Paved
National 32,633 28,919 88.6 Primary 7,067 7,059 99.9 Secondary 14,118 12,653 89.6
Tertiary 11,448 9,207 80.4
Local Road 177,595 33,479 18.9% Provincial 30,151 10,703 35.5% Municipal 15,349 5,375 35.0% City 15,311 9,458 61.7%
Barangay 116,765 7,943 6.8%
TOTAL 210,229 62,398 29.7%
Source: USAID COMPETE
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 11 On the other hand, local roads make up close to 85 percent of total road length, but less than 20 percent are paved. Prior to TRIP, construction of local roads was the responsibility of local government units (LGUs), whose budget for infrastructure depended largely on small internal revenue allotments distributed annually by the national government.
The Philippines’s abundant natural beauty is its tourism’s competitive edge. However, most of the arterial roads leading to tourism destination areas and service centers are local roads that are generally unpaved. This situation and a lack of budget posed the greatest challenge in boosting the tourism industry.
Infrastructure planning and budgeting prior to TRIP had been a highly politicized process. External pressures for political and other ends diminished the role of roads as public goods critical for economic growth. This situation created a flawed system that thrived on external pressure and influence, disconnected planning from budgeting, and fostered less efficient use of limited resources.
TOURISM ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
A confluence of factors facilitated a Convergence Program between DOT and DPWH in 2012 (see box). The Tourism Act of 2009 was a key enabling factor. It became the legal anchor for the convergence program and for many “firsts” to happen. The law mandated that the two departments should collaborate. More significantly, the law also provided the legal basis for DPWH to go beyond national roads and increase budget support for local roads (and bridges).
As the agency responsible for the development of the Enabling Factors That Facilitated DOT-DPWH country’s tourism sector, the Department of Tourism Collaboration leads the implementation of the Tourism Act of 2009 along with the development and implementation of Policy Framework. The Tourism Act of 2009 provided the medium-term tourism sector plan. The DOT’s the legal basis for collaboration between the two National Tourism Development Plan, 2011-2016 laid national agencies, and DPWH’s budget support for out the road map for priority destination areas and tourism infrastructure, 70 percent of which involves strategies for development, and targeted six million local roads. tourist arrivals by 2015. National Tourism Development Plan. The NTDP 2011- As the national agency responsible for paving and 2016 guided the implementation of the Tourism Act at maintaining national roads, DPWH controls most of both the national and local government levels. The Plan the national budget for road infrastructure building. prioritized eight tourism destination areas, and created The DPWH was at a crossroads in in FY2011: The tourism officer positions at the provincial and construction of national roads was nearing municipal levels. completion when, during the budget year 2010-2011, Public Works received “almost half of the total Government Budget. A favorable fiscal space provided a national budget appropriations for infrastructure.” large budget to DPWH in 2010-2011. National roads Although it posed a dilemma for DPWH, it created (spanning over 32,500 kilometers) were nearing the opportunity to advance the cause for funding local completion; the large budget for DPWH provided an roads. opportunity to turn attention to local roads of which only 25 percent were paved.
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 12 The top leadership at DOT and DPWH championed the idea of economic roads and partnership for a common goal. The DOT “Both secretaries were and DPWH Convergence Program rested on the hypothesis thinking of economic that increasing investments to improve road networks and growth and employment connectivity from gateways to tourism destinations to facilitate tourist arrivals will catalyze investments in tourism-related generation.” businesses, and stimulate inclusive growth, including increased employment and income. They formalized the Convergence ~DPWH Undersecretary Program, known as the Tourism Road Infrastructure Program Maria Catalina Cabral (TRIP). TRIP sought to:
• Increase infrastructure investments, • Improve the quality of infrastructure, and • Enhance the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) for TRIP through geographic information systems (GIS) video mapping.
More specifically, the TRIP program aimed to “promote access to and from, airports and seaports, Tourism Enterprise Zones (TEZ) and other tourism destinations, in accordance with the priorities of the National Government.”
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 13 III. MECHANISMS FOR SUCCESSFUL COORDINATION BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENTS OF TOURISM AND PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS A Memorandum of Understanding signed on January 19, 2012, marked the first opportunity for the DOT and DPWH to “work together toward a common goal of prioritizing tourism road infrastructure.”3 The agreement established the framework and defined a multi-sectoral and multi-level approach for identifying and screening road projects.
The agreement also created TRIP’s implementation and coordination structure. It clearly defined the roles and commitments of parties to the agreement. Moreover, it established a working arrangement between DOT and DPWH for jointly undertaking the identification, evaluation, prioritization, and implementation of tourism infrastructure in priority Tourism Destination Areas (TDAs) and sites. Each Department’s Planning Service Unit designated champions to lead development plans, programs, projects, and policies under TRIP.
At the core of the TRIP system and structure are the TRIP Prioritization Criteria (TRIPPC), the Technical Working Groups (TWG) at the central (CTWG) and regional (RTWG) levels, and the Secretariat of the CTWG (Figure 2 next page). The Technical Working Groups are interagency mechanisms for working together and provide a forum for discussing and fleshing out ideas articulated at FIGURE 1. NTDP DEVELOPMENT PLAN FRAMEWORK
3 DPWH & REID Foundation, “DOT-DPWH Convergence Program on Enhancing Tourism Access: Status of Tourism Road Infrastructure Projects.” Submitted to USAID/Philippines; December 31, 2013.
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 14 the top, sorting out and reaching agreements on issues of policies and/or implementation, conducting research and iterative planning, and ensuring that agreements and plans are implemented. TRIP TWGs are central to the selection and vetting process for road project proposals.
Central Technical Working Group. At the national level, the REID Foundation was assigned to develop the business case for road projects and complete the project evaluations.4 REID also established a Technical Working Group was established and drafted multi-year programs (Annual Tourism Road Infrastructure Program).
Technical Working Group Secretariat. The TWG can only be as strong and effective as the Secretariat that supports it. The Secretariat, provided by REID Foundation, reached as many as 20 staff members, holding office at the DPWH.
FIGURE 2. TRIP PROGRAM STRUCTURE
4 REID Foundation is a not-for-profit civil society organization (CSO) and one of the consortium partners of The Asia Foundation (TAF), the principal implementer for the COMPETE project. REID has expertise in process change, training, research, and advocacy work. Prior to COMPETE, REID Foundation implemented a USAID-supported 3-year project called Partnership for Better Infrastructure (PBI). This project pilot-tested an approach to broaden participation in the allocation and implementation of infrastructure investments by involving private sector groups whose economic and political influence could help re-direct road expenditures to more deserving infrastructure projects. These groups included business clubs, chambers of commerce, tourism development councils – which helped in the prioritization of road projects and courting the support of key political personalities.
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 15 FIGURE 3. TRIP PROJECT MANAGEMENT CYCLE
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 16 IV. USAID SUPPORT FOR PHILIPPINES TRIP USAID ADVANCING PHILIPPINE COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT
COMPETE is a USAID/Philippines project under the Partnership for Growth (PFG), a bilateral initiative National Tourism Development Plan 2011-2016 through which the United States Government and the The NDPT is the primary guiding document for the TRIP program and outlines national policy on tourism Government of the Philippines work together to development. Three strategic directions have been improve economic growth and development in the proposed to address the core constraints and to Philippines. COMPETE seeks to increase domestic achieve the NTDP vision, goals, and related international and domestic visitor targets, as follows: and foreign investment levels, creating more employment opportunities and infrastructure. Its 1. Develop and market competitive tourist products and destinations objectives are to: 2. Improve market access, connectivity, and destination infrastructure • Improve quality of crucial infrastructure, particularly for transport and energy 3. Improve tourism institutional, governance, and industry manpower capabilities. • Enhance competitiveness of key industries, such
as tourism and agri-business • Improve access to credit through direct and indirect programs in the capital markets.5
Under COMPETE, USAID extended technical assistance to the Department of Public Works and Highways and the Department of Tourism through the Reid Foundation. COMPETE assisted the government agencies identify, evaluate, prioritize, and implement tourism road infrastructure across the country, in support of the goals and targets of the National Tourism Development Plan 2011 – 2016 (see box above). COMPETE also helped craft and pilot TRIP Prioritization Criteria (described in the following section) that standardized the system and facilitated the selection of projects with potential economic benefits to tourist destination sites. In addition, COMPETE provided supervision, technical guidance, and inputs to the TWG Secretariat.
USAID-COMPETE Project Technical Assistance • Assist the DOT-DPWH TWG, initiate the drafting of TRIP Prioritization Criteria (TRIPPC), its pilot test, subsequent review and revisions, adoption and implementation; • Formulation of Multi-Year and Annual Tourism Road Infrastructure Programs; • Organize training programs for TWG members, regional directors of DOT and DPWH, select leaders of business associations, civil society organizations to capacitate them on the use of the TRIP Prioritization Criteria; • Compile the necessary guidelines of DPWH and DOT concerning TRIP roads; • Collect all submitted proposals, documents; • Participate in the validation of proposed road projects; • Document the meetings activities and outputs of TWG; • Prepare the report and proposal of TWG to the Tourism Coordinating Council;
• Support Regional and National annual conferences and consultation workshops for proposal evaluation and vetting; and • Provide full time research assistance, and undertake specific policy studies supporting legislation.
5 https://www.usaid.gov/philippines/partnership-growth-pfg/compete
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 17 V. MECHANISMS FOR SUCCESSFUL IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORITIZATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
TOURISM ROAD PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA Multi-level prioritization criteria, developed with COMPETE support, lay out the step-by-step process and standard requirements that every TRIP project proposal must go through, including proposals that are submitted directly to DOT/DPWH secretaries. The process (depicted in Figure 4) is divided into three major compliance steps: 1) Pre-Qualification, which requires proponent’s compliance with five basic requirements; 2) Basic Criteria Compliance, at which step the rating score must satisfy at least 60 percent in order to move to the next step, and 3) Technical Readiness.
The present set of criteria, which took effect late 2016, is the product of the most recent modifications developed at the annual consultation workshop. This annual workshop hosts all regional DOT and DPWH and private sector representatives to review the set of criteria, receive feedback and recommendations from participants, and announce new policies and changes. The prioritization criteria, outlined in an annex to the amended Memorandum of Agreement (January 21, 2012) clearly outline tourism performance goals:
• Does the road directly connect a gateway with a tourism service center? • Does it connect a service center to an attraction? • Does it connect one tourist service center to another within a tourism development area?
More detailed criteria relate to the scale of tourism involved and its economic significance (i.e. number of rooms, number of visitors, extent of tourism cluster, etc.). Scores are given for the extent of consultation (i.e. Congressional District Representative, Local Government Units, business sector, community organizations). TRIP was required to retain annual geo-tagged photographic records annually relating to start and end points, and of the tourism destinations at the end of each road project. A monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system was planned in conjunction with the World Bank, but was not implemented.
Guided by COMPETE, the latest changes further streamlined and simplified the criteria, the requirements and process, and made access and compliance easier and faster. The Secretariat’s technical assistance facilitated the system’s shift from a manual to an electronic platform. More detail on the latest set of guidelines can be found in Annex E.
FIGURE 4. STEPS, REQUIREMENTS, AND CRITERIA FOR TRIP PROJECT PROPOSAL
PRE-QUALIFICATION Proposal must comply with TECHNICAL 5 requirements: READINESS • Maps TOURISM 1. Concept Study • >90 km from IMPORTANCE (minimum required) gateway/service center 2. Pre-Feasibility Study Proposal must meet the • Existing road with existing 60% cut-off 3. Feasibility Study ROWA 4.Preliminary Engineering • Concept study consulted Design • RDC-endorsed
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 18 PROCESS FOR IDENTIFYING, EVALUATING, AND VETTING INVESTMENTS The identification of infrastructure projects ideally starts from the local government units (LGUs), which submit the list and requirements to the DOT and DPWH regional offices for screening and validation of road conditions and sites. An important LGU responsibility is to certify that there is no right of way problem affecting the proposed road. The Public Works district offices participate in the initial validation of proposed roads. Project proposals that pass the first validation and are compliant with the requirements go through the process of evaluation and vetting by the Regional TWG. The Regional TWG is co-chaired by the regional heads of DOT-DPWH, with LGUs and private stakeholder representatives as members that participate in the review and vetting phase.
The Central TWG reviews all road proposals submitted by the regions. At this stage, a second validation is conducted randomly, which can result in the exclusion of some proposed projects either because good roads already exist, or the tourist attraction is non-existent. Within the budget ceiling for DPWH, project proposals that pass the TRIP Prioritization Criteria merit inclusion in the agency’s annual programmed budget (Figure 5). When a proposal is submitted by a proponent directly to the Office of the Secretary of either DOT or DPWH, Figure 6 shows that the same review and vetting process must be followed. FIGURE 5. EVALUATION & APPROVAL PROCESS: PROPOSALS SUBMITTED TO REGIONAL TWG
Proposals Submitted to Submission to Central DOT-DPWH Regional TWG for Validation, Road Project Proponents TWG for Evaluation & Review, Consolidation, Vetting Programming
CTWG Prepares Annual Tourism Road Infrastructure Program as Part of Multi-Year Program: DOT Secretary endorses DOT-DPWH CTWG the annual road program endorse the annual road 1. Results of Evaluation to DPWH Secretary infrastructure program to a. Proposals that are in DPWH regular Tourism Coordinating program Council for approval b. Proposals that meet the criteria in the order of priority ranking 2. Multi-year program & forward estimates
DPWH Secratary approves the annual budget of the Department for submission to DBM
Source: COMPETE, DR. Henry Basilio’s (Chief of Party) DOT-DPWH Convergence Program on Enhancing Tourism Access- TRIP
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 19 FIGURE 6. EVALUATION AND APPROVAL PROCESS: PROPOSALS SUBMITTED TO DOT/DPWH OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Proponents submits DOT/DPWH Secretaries OSECs transmit the request proposal/ requests receive request/proposal to DOT-DPWH TWG for evaluation
TWG consolidates and ranks TWG evaluates the proposal all evaluated proposals against the criteria
TWG prepares the following: 1. Results of Evaluation of Tourism Road Proposals a. List of proposals that are already in the regular DPWH program b. List of Proposals that meet the criteria in order of priority ranking i. Within the budget constraint (fiscal space) ii. To be considered when there is additional fiscal space c. List of proposals that do not meet the criteria DPWH Secretary includes the 2. Multi-year program and forward estimates TCC approval to the annual 3. Annual tourism road infrastructure program budget of the Department
Tourism Coordinating DOT Secretary sends letter Council approves the DOT Secretary transmits regret to the proponent annual tourism road the approved annual tourism road program to DPWH infrastructure program Secretary
Copy furnished with the proponents
Source: MOA DPWH TRIPPC and Implementation Guidelines
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 20 VI. TRIP HIGH-LEVEL RESULTS AND LESSONS LEARNED The COMPETE Project’s technical support for TRIP is a success in both qualitative and quantitative terms. TRIP helped to address the WEF Ground Infrastructure competitiveness indicators detailed in Section I, and so addressed a small but important part of one of the fourteen global indicators for international tourism competitiveness. COMPETE’s facilitation helped bring about transformative results in many other ways described below.
QUALITATIVE RESULTS Improved governance and management. COMPETE’s “DPWH did not want to touch local facilitation helped improved overall governance roads before. . . but Secretary and management for tourism roads, strengthening Singson argued for building the trunk the link between planning and budgeting process, lines as well.” and improving the operational and professional relationships among partner agencies breaking ~Tourism Undersecretary A. Canizal away from silos and turfs.
Programmatic budgeting for tourism roads established. A Tourism Development Program budget is in the annual national budget appropriation that the Congress approves yearly. This is a change from what ysed to used to be “budgeting on an as needed basis.”
Cost of local roads included in national budget. Seventy percent of the budget for tourism roads from 2012 to 2016 had been for local roads. Local roads funded by the national budget must meet the DPWH quality standard for paved roads at a cost averaging PhP25 million per kilometer length. LGUs are required to commit to the maintenance of local roads in their jurisdiction.
TRIP Prioritization Criteria significantly “de-politicized” the process to an objective, standardized, transparent, and disciplined one. The “Road is and should be review and evaluation of project proposals by the Regional apolitical.” TWGs and Central TWG ensured compliance with TRIP criteria and funding for the right projects. The TRIP criteria ~ Former DPWH Secretary and review processes minimized external pressures in the allocation of limited resources “to a manageable level,” according to a DPWH officer.
Right of Way Law (2016) addressed major causes of delays in road construction. COMPETE’s policy research provided assistance in crafting a bill on Right of Way (ROWA) and shepherding its passage. This enabled for market valuation as opposed to zonal valuation, and provided fairer and more accurate estimates of value.
Successful partnership model tested and reapplied in the Philippines. Based on the successful DOT-DPWH Convergence Program, the TRIP template is now being rolled out to support the DPWH and the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) convergence program called “Road Leveraging Linkages for Investment and Trade (ROLL IT). This program will improve or pave new roads connecting to industrial centers, economic zones, and agribusiness areas.
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 21 QUANTITATIVE RESULTS COMPETE’s support to TRIP resulted in the successful programming of funds for paved tourism roads in 15 regions of the country. In addition to increasing public investment in road infrastructure from 3 percent of GDP to 5 percent, TRIP facilitated a 300-fold increase in road infrastructure funding from $1.5 million in 2010 to $452 million in 2016. Over the four years from 2012-2016, TRIP programmed more than $1.659 billion of government funds, resulting in 852 road projects completed (out of 881 projects with approved funding) and adding 2,080 kilometers (km) total nationwide. Out of every 10 km constructed, seven km were local roads.
FIGURE 7. CORON-BUSUANGA, PALAWAN: BEFORE AND AFTER
TABLE 3. TRIP BUDGET, 2012-2016
Year Budget (PhP Billion) Equivalent (USD Billion)
2012-2015 52.0 1.183
2016 22.6 0.476
Total (2012-16) 74.6 1.659
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 22 TABLE 4. TRIP PROGRAMMED BUDGET 2012-2015, PROJECTS STATUS AS OF JUNE 2017
YEAR PROGRAMMED TOTAL Estimated AMOUNT NO. OF Length (Php'000) ACTIVE (in NUMBER OF PROJECTS STATUS PROJECTS P25M/Km) COMPLETED ON- ACTUAL GOING ACCOM. %
2012 9,386,335 165 375.5 165 - 100.00
2013 11,698,470 215 467.9 211 4 99.54
2014 14,733,368 217 589.3 213 4 99.59
2015 16,181,353 284 647.3 263 21 95.91
TOTAL 51,999,525 881 2080.0 852 29 97% (PhP)
USD $1,183,188
Source: DPWH Project Monitoring Division (as of Jun 2017)
LESSONS LEARNED A common policy framework, shared vision and goal provide the solid foundation for institutional multi-sector collaboration. Having a legal anchor, a national plan for tourism development, and improved fiscal space were helpful in igniting the convergence program.
The championship, commitment, and political will at the top are key to make partnerships work. Strong leadership at DOT and DPWH and their advocacy for economic roads under TRIP pushed forward changes to accepted culture and practices surrounding infrastructure budgeting. They provided hands-on leadership at the conceptual stage, participated in the final screening of project proposals, presented the TRIP program to the Budget Department, and defended the same at Congressional hearings.
Middle-level champions are a vital link for developing a community of practice and advocates for convergence within each partner agency. Identifying and developing champions at the middle executive level at the planning and policy units and regional offices is an important strategy to embed and manage the change process and institute new practices.
Formalize the partnership. A formal agreement that defines the roles of key partners and lays out the structure and system to follow is exemplified by the convergence agreement between DOT and DPWH.
The Technical Working Ggroup is a mechanism that can be effective with a technically capable secretariat to support it. As a platform for discussing technical matters, issues, problems, updates, plans, and policies among parties to an agreement, work silos can give way to work collaboration. TWG’s success and effectiveness rests on the work of a technical secretariat behind it. The experience of the TRIP Convergence program testifies to this. COMPETE’s support at the Secretariat level with senior advisors to guide staff was a crucial facilitating factor in the success of TRIP.
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 23 TRIP Prioritization Criteria provided a system for objectively assessing road project proposals, minimizing external pressures, and “leveling the playing field.” After nearly five years, the TRIP prioritization system has gained traction and acceptance, as well as respect for its criteria-driven process. The prioritization criteria and change process shielded the technocrats and career officers from unbearable external pressures. “Pressure on us has been much reduced because of the criteria,” an officer of Region IV-B shared.6
Various activities and events keep participants engaged, informed, and trained. Workshops, roadshows, training, annual conferences, project proposal review and validation activities, and annual conference that gathers regional DPWH and convergence partner/s are some of the activities which offer opportunities for learning, sharing experiences, reflecting, and getting updates.
SUSTAINABILITY: TRANSITIONS AND PROGRAM EXPANSION Transitioning from one administration to the next. The Philippine presidential election happens every six years, with the last one held in May 2015. Because the country’s Constitution limits presidential terms to six years, a new leader must be voted into office. It is normal for a new president to change the heads of key offices under the executive branch. It is reasonable to accept that the new administration will modify or do away with the previous administration’s programs all together.
Fortunately, TRIP has successfully transitioned from the previous administration to the present one which commenced in July 2016. The new secretaries of the Departments of Tourism and Public Works, both new to the government service, had signed a MOU to continue the TRIP convergence program. A much bigger budget has been programmed for 2018. Since the eight priority destination areas have been served or already have their TRIP budget, TRIP has opened proposals from potential and emerging tourist areas that enlarged the scope and scale of TRIP coverage.
Mainstreaming adoption within DPWH. The idea of inter-departmental convergence has also started between DPWH and Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) for the provision of industrial roads to business centers, economic zones, and agribusiness areas. The expansion of formal and structured convergence is now deeply embedded within the DPWH approach.
Non-appointive career officials are key to program continuity. Career officials from the undersecretaries down to the regions will provide continuity to the program, protect, and preserve the gains in systemic reforms, and continue use of the prioritization criteria to guide decision-making. These career officials have been involved in the TRIP implementation and have found the confidence to push on. As DPWH Undersecretary Maria Catalina Cabral explained: “The know-how in assessing and evaluating were difficult before. But now the processes have been simplified, and the team has gotten used to it.” At the
6 Interviewed on September 21, 2017 during the DOT-DPWH and DTI-DPWH Conference and Workshop of all regional heads of DOT, DPWH, and DTI.
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 24 same time Undersecretary Cabral expressed more confidence in the convergence program and selection of the right projects because of the prioritization criteria.
Mainstreaming of secretariat functions to DOT and DPWH: an issue to address. The sustainability challenge is at the level of the Technical Working Groups and Secretariat support as COMPETE Project support has ended. This is one area where preparation could have been done well in advance. Meanwhile, interim and ad-hoc solutions are being deployed to prevent any gap in the planning and budgeting process cycle. Mainstreaming TWG’s technical secretariat support as an organic part of DPWH would offer a long- term solution especially in the light of the TRIP model expansion to other economic sectors.
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 25
VII. SPECIFIC TRIP INTERVENTIONS AND IMPACTS IN PALAWAN
PALAWAN PROVINCE IN THE NATIONAL TOURISM DEVELOPMENT PLAN Nine key cluster development destinations are identified in the NDPT in order of importance: Palawan is ranked four nationally in terms of priority. Four Tourism Development Areas (TDAs) were identified in Palawan as follows: • CP-3A San Vicente-El Nido-Taytay • CP-3B Puerto Princesa • CP-3C Southern Palawan • CP-3D Busuanga-Coron-Culion / Calamian Islands.
In the NTDP Palawan is identified as a destination for domestic tourism and also as the fourth international gateway destination to the country. Existing clusters are to be given priority in investing in improved air access infrastructure and product development as they have the capacity to make immediate contributions to the NTDP’s domestic and international tourism targets. Existing clusters identified include Coron, El Nido, and Puerto Princesa. In existing clusters, the strategy involves: 1. Expanding and diversifying existing resort offerings to include medium to large-scale integrated resort development; 2. Increasing the capacity of existing facilities; and 3. Raising the standards of service and price competiveness through refurbishment and professional management.
San Vicente is identified as an emerging cluster. In emerging clusters the priorities are to: 1. Rapidly improve air, sea, and road access; 2. Develop the support infrastructure to sustain investment in resort facilities; and 3. Expand existing resort offerings and raise the standards of service and price competitiveness through refurbishment and application of professional management.
The NTDP gives priority for nature-based tourism including marine and land-based initiatives to: • Improve and diversify product offerings; • Improve facilities, maintenance and operation, and safety and security; and • Adopt more environmentally and socially responsible approaches.
For sun and beach tourism the Plan prioritizes: • Large to medium-scale integrated beach resort development at Puerto Princesa, San Vicente, El Nido, and Tay Tay; and • Small to medium-scale Island resort developments at Busuanga/Coron, El Nido, and Honda Bay.
Puerto Princesa is highlighted for leisure, entertainment, shopping and sports. Special interest resort developments focusing on health, spa and wellness, and retirement are recommended at Puerto Princesa.
The NDTP also seeks to develop “port-of-call” cruise ship facilities for large cruise ship calls as well as for pocket-cruise ship calls. Design capacity for up to 500 passengers with covered passenger terminals, parking, and support services are proposed at El Nido and Honda Bay in the Palawan cluster.
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 27 Diving and nautical tourism are recognized as existing products in Busuanga-Coron (coral and wreck diving), Puerto Princesa (Tubbataha), and El Nido. Priorities are to: 1. Improve safety and security, emergency medical, and evacuation services at dive and marine sports centers; 2. Undertake major refurbishment of existing diving and marine sport establishments and expand these to provide capacity for growth; and 3. Professionalize the diving and marine sports sector.
Under “Access” the Plan recommended: • Upgrading Puerto Princesa Airport to handle international traffic (completed) • Complete the development of San Vicente Airport and upgrades to Tay Tay and El Nido Airports (ongoing) • Upgrade Puerto Princesa Seaport to handle cruise ship calls (not completed) • Improve telecommunications facilities throughout cluster (not completed) • Upgrade road connections between Puerto Princesa and other TDAs (completed under TRIP).
TOURISM IN PALAWAN Tourism in Palawan is focused on the northern parts of the Province, in particular Coron and El Nido. Puerto Princesa, the Provincial capital, is also an important business and leisure tourism center and the main air gateway at present. Honda Bay is a nearby resort destination. Puerto Princesa is a port of call for larger cruise ships, and some dock at Coron. Puerto Princesa is the access point to two of the country’s World Heritage Sites7:
TUBBATAHA REEF MARINE PARK. Inscribed in 1993 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and covering 130,028 hectares, it is a unique example of an atoll reef with a very high density of marine species. The North Islet serves as a nesting site for birds and marine turtles. The site is an excellent example of a pristine coral reef with a spectacular 100-meter perpendicular wall, extensive lagoons, and two coral islands. It can be visited by boat or sea plane.
PUERTO PRINCESA SUBTERRANEAN RIVER NATIONAL PARK. Inscribed in 1999, it encompasses one of the world’s most impressive cave systems, featuring spectacular limestone karst landscapes, pristine natural beauty, and intact old-growth forests and distinctive wildlife. TRIP has improved access to this site.
As highlighted in the NTDP, the development of air access to the Province and its islands is a key driver of tourism growth. Puerto Princesa has a fine airport, but the other airports of San Vicente, Tay Tay, El Nido, and Busuanga/Coron still lack decent terminal buildings, and in some cases, basic runway facilities. The TRIP program is investing in improving road access to airports, in particular in Busuanga. This should help enable significant investment in redeveloping airports. Table 5 illustrates tourism trends in Palawan (air travel only).
7 World Heritage Site: http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/ph.
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 28 TABLE 5. VOLUME OF TOURIST ARRIVALS AND TREND PALAWAN (2012-2016) VOLUME OF YEAR DOMESTIC FOREIGN GROWTH RATE TOURIST ARRIVAL 2016 741,774 420,665 1,162,439 +15%
2015 670,602 338,306 1, 008,908 +9% 2014 680,408 281,724 962,132 +9% 2013 641,901 241,118 883,019 +6%
2012 640,394 192,201 832,595
Source: Provincial Government of Palawan: Provincial Tourism Promotions and Development Department: Taken from Departure Point Visitor Surveys (DPVS) conducted in Puerto Princesa City Alternate International Airport and Coron Airport
The Palawan leisure tourism product is centered on the superb coastal and marine environments which the Province possesses. The main tourism earners are the high-end resorts of Busuanga/Coron, El Nido, and Honda Bay. Coron offers world-famous SCUBA diving; dive shops are also opening up in El Nido and elsewhere. The towns of Coron and El Nido are important budget and domestic tourism destinations. They suffer at times from over-tourism due to lack of visitor management facilities, narrow congested streets, lack of central sewage treatment, and limited electricity, broadband Internet and water supply. Addressing these issues will be a key concern if the destination is to retain its reputation as “world’s best island.”8
Table 6 illustrates the top destinations in Palawan as ranked by the provincial government.
TABLE 6. TOP DESTINATIONS IN PALAWAN RANK 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 1st Puerto Princesa City Puerto Princesa City Puerto Princesa City Puerto Princesa City Puerto Princesa City 2nd El Nido El Nido Coron Coron Coron 3rd Coron Coron El Nido El Nido El Nido 4th San Vicente San Vicente Brooke’s Point Brooke’s Point Brooke’s Point 5th Brooke’s Point Brooke’s Point San Vicente San Vicente Tay Tay 6th Tay Tay Busuanga Busuanga Narra San Vicente Source: Palawan Tourism Promotions and Development Office of Palawan (2017).
The challenge of managing tourism responsibly will face Palawan’s more popular tourism destinations. These include the two Candidate World Heritage Sites nominated by the Government of the Republic of the Philippines in 2006:
EL NIDO-TAYTAY MANAGED RESOURCE PROTECTED AREA located on the north- western tip of the mainland of Palawan. In 1991, the Government of the Philippines proclaimed
8 For the second year in a row and the third time since 2013, Palawan, was voted the “world’s best island” by Travel + Leisure magazine readers. Travel + Leisure is a high end United States glossy weekly magazine with a circulation of over 800,000.
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 29 Bacuit Bay as a marine reserve. It is currently plagued however, by visible pollution. In 1998, the protected area was expanded to include terrestrial ecosystems and portions of the municipality of Tay Tay. The reserve covers over 36,000 hectares of land and 54,000 hectares of marine waters. Since 1989, several different government and non-government programs and projects were introduced in the area. There is an Environmental Fee collected by the local tourism authorities and is a useful indicator of tourism performance.
CORON ISLAND NATURAL BIOTIC AREA was also nominated to UNESCO’s Candidate List by the Government in 2006.9 Coron Island is wedge-shaped limestone island, encircled by giant walls of limestone cliffs and borders the beautiful and wide Coron harbor.
Apart from carefully managed sites like the Subterranean River National Park, the effective management of tourism on land to protect the environment appears largely absent in Palawan. For example, none of the Concept Notes submitted under TRIP considered that a new road and increased visitors might have negative environmental consequences on the marine or coastal environment, or lead to increased congestion in tourism centers.10 However it is clear that some of the bigger private sector investment projects currently underway in Palawan are committed to responsible tourism development, even if the local Government is largely ineffective in development control. The Ayala Lio Tourism Estate north of El Nido is a good example of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Here, in addition to laying sewerage and water mains while roads were being built, the development company sponsored the Guard, Respect, Educate El Nido initiative (“Be GREENER”) and is actively rehabilitating mangrove areas. Environmental initiatives are also being undertaken by luxury resorts on the West Coast of Busuanga.
San Vicente is identified as an Emerging Destination in the NTDP. Its main tourism center is at present the idyllic seaside village of Port Barton, and there are ambitious plans to develop large scale resort tourism at San Vicente’s Long Beach. A Master Plan for this development has been prepared under DOT for the Tourism Enterprise Zone (TEZ).11 Road access, facilitated by TRIP is very important to these locations if they are to develop. Indeed, access roads have the potential to fundamentally change the tourism dynamic of these locations. For example, Port Barton will increasingly become a day trip destination from Puerto Princesa, fundamentally changing its tourism character from a hidden get-away- from-it all destination. Long Beach will see more tourism as new airport and resort development takes place. Consultations with the TEZ Authority indicate that there is interest from local developers here that is stimulating land prices. The local authority is responsible for issuing building permits, and has been holding back on these to adopt a master planning approach.
9 http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/ph 10 Interview with REID staff. 11 The TEZ Master Plan was not complete when TRIP commenced. It specifies higher standards for tourism roads were specified under TRIP.
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 30 TOURISM ROAD INTERVENTIONS IN PALAWAN The ten largest TRIP interventions are listed below, table 7 shows them by cost and table 8 by length.
TABLE 7. TEN LARGEST TRIP ROAD PROJECTS IN PALAWAN BY COST (PHP ‘000) (2012-2017)
GAA GAA GAA GAA GAA GAA RANK ROAD NAME TOTAL 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Bacungan-Simpucan- Bagumbayan-Napsan 1. 300,000 300,000 200,000 800,000 Road, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan (Pancol)-El Nido 2. 300,000 150,000 237,250 687,250 Section, Palawan Coron-Busuanga Road leading to Busuanga Airport to 3. 206,000 150,000 250,000 606,000 Coron and Calauit Island in Busuanga, Palawan San Jose-Port Barton Road leading to Puerto Princesa 4. Airport, Port Barton, 100,000 160,000 171,650 100,650 532,300 and San Vicente Long Beach, San Vicente, Palawan Road Connecting Busuanga Airport- 5. Kiwit Road leading to 100,000 190,000 80,000 161,832 531,832 various beaches, Busuanga, Palawan Bacungan-Talaudyong 6. Road, Puerto Princesa 138,600 150,000 124,500 413,100 City, Palawan Balabac Circumferential Road (Catagpuan to 7. 40,000 124,000 200,000 364,000 Melville Lighthouse Road Section), Balabac, Palawan New Agutaya- Alimanguhan Tourism Road leading to San 8. 41,000 100,000 112,750 47,850 45,300 346,900 Vicente Long Beach and Port Barton, San Vicente, Palawan Access Road from 9. Puerto Princesa 100,000 168,000 268,110 Airport Access Road to 10. Tabon Cave, Narra, 134,110 76,000 210,110 Palawan Source: REID Foundation and based on the published General Appropriations Act (GAA) Note: 2016 data not available
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 31
TABLE 8. TOP 10 ROAD PROJECTS IN PALAWAN PER YEAR BY KILOMETER (2012-2015) RANK YEAR PROJECT ACTUAL ALLOCATION PHYSICAL STATUS DESCRIPTION COMPLETED (PHP ‘000) PROGRESS (KM) 1 2012 Bacungan-Talaudyong 14.18 277,200 100 Completed Road, Km 0+000 - Km 7+089 w/exception 2 2012 Coron-Busuanga Road 9.05 100,000 100 Completed Km 30+051.5 to Km
3 2015 San Jose-Port Barton 8.6 171,650 100 Completed Road leading to various resorts in Port Barton, San Vicente, Palawan* 4 2014 Puerto Princesa North 8.079 237,250 100 Completed Road (Tay Tay
5 2013 Puerto Princesa North 7.92 150,000 100 Completed Road, (Taytay-El Nido Section), Palawan 6 2014 Coron-Busuanga Road 7.4297 250,000 100 Completed leading to Busuanga Airport to Coron and Calauit Island in Busuanga, Palawan 7 2014 San Jose-Port Barton 6.2343 160,000.00 100 Completed Road leading to Puerto Princesa Airport, Port Barton, and San Vicente Long Beach, San Vicente, Palawan 8 2013 Access Road to Estrella 6.12 100,000 100 Completed Falls, Narra, Palawan
9 2013 Coron-Busuanga Road, 5.72 150,000 100 Completed Palawan
10 2015 Access Road to Jump- 4.9 150,000.00 100 Completed off point to Calauit
Source: REID Foundation: DPWH Project Monitoring Division Note: Significant further works have undertaken in 2016 & 2017 for which data is lacking.
OVERALL INDICATORS OF TOURISM GROWTH In general, roads play a facilitating role in tourism, rather than a demand-generating role. Just as tourism competitiveness is not simply a matter of roads, so tourism growth is a function of many factors which are not related to roads. These include the following: • Destination profile and market interest, as well as economic conditions in main source markets • Air lift to the destination (the number of inbound seats available)
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 32 • The supply of accommodation available (an oversupply can drive tourism growth if it is large enough and market demand can be stimulated) • Quality of product designed to match market needs and ability to deliver visitor satisfaction • Standards of service and price (value for money) • Tourist dwell time (number of overnights the average visitor stays at a destination) • Marketing efforts and information available on the destination (especially online), and ease of booking.
Official room supply statistics have been used as a general indicator of tourism growth in Palawan over the period of TRIP. These are outlined in Annex B. The fastest growth took place in Busuanga where room supply has increased from 70 to 322 (360 percent) primarily due to large resort development. In Puerto Princesa room supply has tripled, primarily due to its being the provincial capital with increased air access. Puerto Princesa also has by far the largest volume of hotel rooms. In most other locations examined room supply has doubled.
These indicators need to be treated with caution as they are not stimulated by TRIP: Investment decisions regarding large hotel development in particular have a longer lead-in period and relate primarily to estimated future market demand. Increasing air access to Busuanga and Puerto Princesa are also key influencing factors.
ESTIMATING TRIP’S SPECIFIC IMPACT ON TOURISM GROWTH IN PALAWAN While TRIP developed monitoring and evaluation tools to track road construction, including photographic records, the program failed to implement a monitoring and evaluation system for its tourism impact as was originally planned.12 In addition, data for 2016 is not comprehensively available. This is a significant weakness and makes the assessment of actual tourism impact from TRIP very difficult.
Quantifying the precise tourism impact of TRIP’s technical support is therefore problematic and the estimates given should be treated with extreme caution. In addition, there is the difficulty of attributing growth to TRIP capacity development support on coordinating road construction decision-making, nor were detailed maps of where improvements were carried out throughout the program made available, so roadside tourism businesses could not be comprehensively surveyed.
As part of this assessment, AMEG therefore organized generalized field visits to main tourism sites to retrospectively gather tourism impact indicators. (See Annex D for the itinerary of field visits.) The most robust and reliable data relates to room supply by municipality, however even this may in some cases be not fully up to date. None the less we believe they give a reliable overall indicator of growth trends.
12 The concept was that M&E would be sub-contracted to the World Bank, which made sense as the bank regularly monitors road construction projects.
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 33 METHODOLOGY In order to reasonably and realistically assess the tourism impact of TRIP, it is necessary to isolate and estimate the project’s specific influence. To do this, the assessment team focused on a destination where new TRIP roads formed a significant percentage of the total roads linking tourism facilities (i.e. where TRIP was clearly a dominant factor).
Looking specifically at Palawan, as highlighted in the NTDP, the main tourism destinations are El Nido, Coron/Busuanga, and Puerto Princesa. These three leading locations have their own driving dynamic built up over many years: • Visitors are primarily attracted by positive word of mouth, or by business sector marketing, or Filipino national tourism marketing, and not by road conditions; • Investors are attracted by the existence of clear market demand and the availability of development sites.
These three destinations were being accessed by tourists well before TRIP. It is therefore not reasonable to attribute the growth in tourism in these locations to TRIP, nor is it possible to isolate TRIP’s contribution to their tourism growth.13
The location where TRIP played the greatest role in connectivity is the emerging cluster of San Vicente municipality. This includes the third largest TRIP intervention in terms of road length to 2015 (Table 7) and the fourth largest in terms of cost (Table 8). Further TRIP intervention has probably taken place in 2016 and 2017. Here TRIP is connecting the main tourism centers of Port Barton and Long Beach with the national north-south road and the new airport. The area is also Palawan’s first Tourism Enterprise Zone. San Vicente has not yet started serious marketing (a marketing strategy is being prepared) and the Tourism Enterprise & Investment Zone Authority (TEIZA) office in San Vicente is not yet operational. San Vicente airport has also only just begun to receive small (12-seater) scheduled aircraft in 2017. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that TRIP is a dominant factor in increasing traffic volumes in San Vicente.
The assessment team therefore selected San Vicente as the benchmark destination from which to gauge TRIP’s specific impact on tourism to date, isolated from other factors. The tourism data in San Vicente municipality was mined as part of a detailed Case Study to measure the following indicators for that region: • Number of additional visitors from 2012-2016 • Estimated tourism expenditure 2012-2016 • Increased room supply 2012-2016 • Increased employment 2012-2016 • Dollars of investment attracted since 2012-2016.
The team selected 2012 as the benchmark year as it was the first year of the TRIP project and only 46 km of road were completed; so, impact of the project that year was still minimal. Unfortunately, data on
13 Currently tourism has declined in some of these destinations due to security concerns and negative embassy Travel Advisories.
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 34 2016 road interventions has not been made available to the experts, but given the possible time lag between road completion and impact, we have used 2015 data regarding road upgrade.
To provide USAID with an economic model for TRIP’s specific impact across Palawan (factoring out other influences), the team applied the average increases in tourism per kilometer for San Vincente to Palawan province as a whole. This is reasonable, as San Vicente is one of the only destinations where TRIP’s impact can be isolated, however as 2016 data on roads constructed is lacking, the tourism impact per kilometer may be overstated.
This calculation model provides a very rough estimate of TRIP’s economic, employment and investment impact on the province. It is important to note that the resulting figures are indicative only and should be treated with great caution: In reality increases in tourism cannot be attributed to technical advice on road construction, because so many other factors are at play. The project’s technical assistance clearly facilitated a very significant increase in government investment in tourism roads, and this is its significant success.
It also should be noted that tourism has negative as well as positive impacts, and these also need to be managed. In addition, tourism always has socio-cultural and environmental impacts, as well as economic impacts. These other impacts are noted in the report and important recommendations arise.
SAN VICENTE CASE STUDY San Vicente offers significant coastal tourism attractions. It has the longest coastline in Palawan and almost all of it remains pristine. Current attractions include:
• The small resort town of Port Barton set in a beautiful crescent-shaped bay with sandy beaches and good shelter. It is popular with foreigners, being remote and undiscovered. • The Long Beach, one of the most spectacular in all the Philippines • The relaxed town of San Vicente • Island hopping (E.g. German Island, Exotic Island) • Marine sanctuary and reefs • Waterfalls.
San Vicente airport started operations in 2017 on a small scale. The main air access gateway is still Puerto Princesa, about three hours away. The Municipality commissioned a Tourism Master Plan (finalized in 2015) which gives strong direction for tourism development. There is strong Government commitment to support development, including the early designation of the TEZ. The TRIP project has removed a significant access constraint, but road safety and signage continue to present issues. Constraints remain in terms of making the airport safe for international flights, and – in particular – the lack of volume of hotel accommodation to make the airport viable for charter or scheduled flights. The San Vicente pier is very small and serves inter-island traffic. Access to boats from Port Barton is directly from the beach.
A waste water treatment plant is reported to be under construction for San Vicente town and the Long Beach, but overall the municipality lacks adequate systems for sanitation, waste disposal, and treatment. Piped water supply is limited, Internet access is poor, and electricity supply is very restricted with extensive reliance on diesel generators. There is no hospital at present although a site has been designated for one.
Significantly for tourism, a detailed Tourism Master Plan has been drawn up for parts of the destination. The Municipality is strongly committed to implementing it.
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 35 IMPACTS OF TRIP ON SAN VINCENTE Tourism to San Vicente is estimated to have been growing at a rate of 11.3 percent for the past five years.14 While this is below the national average growth rate for international and domestic tourism (annex C), it is a strong performance from a very small base. The gross increase between 2012 and 2016 can reasonably be attributed to better access, largely as a result of TRIP.
TABLE 9. TOURIST ARRIVALS IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF SAN VICENTE (2012 TO 2016) YEAR FOREIGN TRAVELERS DOMESTIC TRAVELERS TOTAL TOURIST ARRIVALS 2012 6,610 1,959 8,569 2013 7,474 2,084 9,558 2014 8,021 2,403 10,424 2015 12,412 2,855 15,267 2016 23,975 3,048 27,023 Source: Municipality of San Vicente Office of the Municipal Tourism
The average length of stay in the municipality since 2012 has varied between a high of 3.2 nights (2015) and a low of 2.7 nights (2016) – indicating that the length of stay may be getting shorter due to better roads. Taking the average length of stay for the past five years at 2.9 nights, and average visitor expenditure of PhP 3,500 per day,15 this gives us approximate tourist expenditure of PhP 126 million (USD 2.5 million).
Room supply has increased by 63 percent, mostly in Port Barton and San Vicente town. The total number of rooms available in the municipality in 2016 was 412. The average cost of rooms is modest as these mostly represent small scale hotel and guesthouse establishments to date. (Discussions with the Tourism Infrastructure and Enterprise Zone Authority indicate that while property prices are rising significantly and land holdings are being consolidated by possible investors – particularly near Long Beach – major hotel developments have not yet commenced). Assuming an average cost per room of USD 1,000 and an additional 196 rooms, this implies an additional investment of USD 196,000.
TABLE 10. ACCOMMODATION ESTABLISHMENTS AND TOURISM EMPLOYMENT OF SAN VICENTE (2012 TO 2016) YEAR TOTAL NUMBER OF TOTAL NUMBER TOTAL NUMBER ESTABLISHMENTS OF ROOMS OF EMPLOYEES (RESORTS/HOTELS/ CONDOTELS) 2012 33 216 145 2013 40 242 168 2014 48 279 209 2015 51 315 215 2016 76 412 252
Source: Municipality of San Vicente Office of the Municipal Tourism
14 Rcarro, M. and Domingo V (2016) TDA Assessment Report for San Vicente, El Nido & Taytay (CP-3A) DRAFT. 15 Rcarro, M. and Domingo V (2016) TDA Assessment Report for San Vicente, El Nido & Taytay (CP-3A) DRAFT.
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 36 Government expenditure in tourism infrastructure (for example a new sewage treatment plant for Long Beach and an expanded airport) is by far the largest source of investment at present. While this investment cannot be attributed to TRIP as it is part of the long-term vision for the destination, it is likely TRIP helped facilitate it.
Up to 2015, TRIP had handed over 22.574 kilometers of road in San Vicente. This figure is used to estimate tourism impact per km.
TABLE 11. TOURISM INDICATORS FOR SAN VINCENTE (2012-2016) 2012 2016 NET GROWTH PER KM GROWTH ATTRIBUTABLE TO TRIP
Visitor arrivals 8,569 27,023 18,454 722 Room nights sold 28,410 54,483 26,073 1,155 Tourist rooms available 51,052 83,081 32,028 1,419 Direct employment in accommodation 145 252 107 4.74 Accommodation businesses 33 76 43 1.9 Additional tourism investment in accommodations n/a $196,000 $196,000 $8,682 Source: Municipality of San Vicente Note: the total km completed in 2015 is being used, so the indicator probably overstates impact per km somewhat Note: It is particularly questionable to attribute large scale tourism investment to TRIP.
By extrapolating TRIP’s impact on the formerly isolated tourism destination of San Vicente to the whole Province, we get the following indicators of tourism impacts (Table 12).
TABLE 12. ESTIMATED TOURISM IMPACT PALAWAN AS A RESULT OF TRIP TRIP INDICATOR INDICATOR TOTAL TRIP INDICATIVE AMOUNT PER ROADS IN TOURISM IMPACT KM (TABLE 7) PALAWAN (2015)
Additional arrivals 722 151.1 109,094 Additional room nights 1,155 151.1 171,521 Additional room supply per km 1,419 151.1 214,411 Additional jobs per km (accommodation 4.74 151.1 716 sector) Additional accommodation enterprises 1.9 151.1 289 per km Additional investment in $8,682 151.1 $1.3 million accommodations per km Source: Author *2016 figure not available
The model developed therefore suggests that TRIP technical assistance regarding Palawan may have facilitated up to: • 109,000 additional arrivals • 171,500 more rooms • Over 700 more jobs • Over 280 new businesses • Increased investment of USD 1.3 million.
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 37 These figures may be overstated and should be treated with caution. The Program’s main achievement was in stimulating increased funding for road construction and this is just one factor of tourism competitiveness, and not a driving factor for overall growth.
IMPACTS OF TRIP ON TOURISM IN PALAWAN Economic impacts. According to consultations undertaken with industry figures (i.e. hoteliers), TRIP has significantly improved the competitiveness of tourism in Palawan by: • Reducing costs of imports (i.e. foodstuffs, hotel fixtures, and cement for construction) • Increasing labor supply by making destinations more accessible to experienced tourism workers and job seekers • Making more destinations within the province more accessible, both physically and financially.
Perception Survey results show that TRIP has increased employment in the transport sector, and has facilitated growth in other sectors of tourism. TRIP has in particular delivered increased government investment in Palawan infrastructure and helped to deliver some aspects of the NTDP. This commitment has increased business sector willingness to invest in Palawan. Inward immigration to tourism destinations will increase as people seek jobs and enterprise opportunities, facilitated by TRIP.
According to anecdotal evidence provided by interviewees, the cost of land for development is increasing close to TRIP linked roads.
Social impacts. TRIP is estimated to have significantly reduced travel times in Palawan. TRIP has brought benefits to many rural communities by bringing them closer to the national road network, and reducing dust pollution along TRIP roads. TRIP has facilitated improved access to local vegetable and fish markets for tourism industry buyers and local people. TRIP has probably also contributed to increased visitor satisfaction with road conditions in Palawan.
The number of road accidents increases and danger to children and other pedestrians on roads has increased. Trafficking in drugs may increase due to tourist demand. Over-tourism may occur in small communities as the number of tourists exceeds local populations and consumes local resources. Rising land prices may displace local populations in tourism areas.
Environmental impacts. Based on the evaluation mission, tourist and local access to the beauties of nature in Palawan has improved through better roads and fine views being afforded through TRIP. This may lead to a better appreciation of nature. The evaluation team also observed that there may be potential to improve waste disposal systems through easier access to designated landfill sites.
The evaluation team observed that environmental pressures on destinations lacking effective visitor management procedures and infrastructure exist and are likely to increase due to increased development and increased visitor numbers. For example, the team observed raw sewage and diesel being discharged into coastal waters near towns, as well as erosion of footpaths and roadside dumping in the countryside. In general, building control and urban planning appeared below the standards to be expected for a sustainable tourism destination.
Pollution from motor vehicles and traffic congestion in towns will also increase because of road development, particularly as most towns are not designed to cope with coaches and high volumes of cars. Road transport volumes between towns at present however, remain very modest. According to interviews conducted by the team’s infrastructure expert, examples of traffic volumes are currently as follows:
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 38 • To Port Barton – average of 20 cars, 15 vans, 2 buses and 50 motorcycles daily. • To San Vicente – average of 10 vans, 50 cars, and 100 motorcycles daily. • And for Batbatnon Puerto Princesa – average of 10 cars, 5 vans, 50 motorcycles daily.
RECOMMENDATIONS
There is a very limited understanding of responsible tourism development at many levels in Palawan. Tourism development is assumed to be positive and its negative impacts are not being anticipated or mitigated. More robust strategic planning which considers triple bottom line issues (economic, social & environmental) is required.
A welcome master planning approach has now been adopted in San Vicente, but this happened after the TRIP program was initiated. The Master Plan requires higher, more tourism-friendly standards of road design than were previously used under TRIP. The Plan also prioritizes different roads from those paved by TRIP to date. Consideration should be given to considering these as convergence issues in the future (i.e. that tourism master plan recommendations for higher standards of tourist roads are brought into convergence with government road construction practices).
Future projects of this scale and nature should put a robust M&E system into place, recording the actual impacts of the project on beneficiaries over time. Micro-businesses along the route (existing and new) need to be recorded. Before and after photographic records should be kept, including shots of roadside micro-businesses before and after. Records of the performance of these businesses and regular feedback should also be obtained and recorded. It is only through such detailed and periodic records that actual impacts can be accurately measured, particularly in situations where only parts of a road are being upgraded. In addition, data on completion of road projects might be made available in a more timely and user-friendly (i.e. mapped) format.
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 39 ANNEX A: PHILIPPINE TOURISM COMPETITIVENESS RANKINGS
Indicator Score of 136 Rank (1-7) Indicator Score of 136 Rank (1-7) Business environment 82 4.3 International Openness 60 3.4 Property rights 79 4.1 Visa requirements 0–100 (best) 41 47.0 Business impact of rules on FDI 99 4.2 Openness of bilateral Air Service Agreements 61 11.2 0–38 Efficiency of legal framework in settling disputes 108 3.0 (best) Efficiency of legal framework in challenging regs 82 3.2 Number of regional trade agreements in force number 56 14.0 Time required to deal with construction permits days 29 98 Price competitiveness 22 5.5 Cost to deal with construction permits % construction cost 46 Ticket taxes and airport charges 0–100 (best) 53 79.4 1.1 Hotel price index 45 110.8 US$ Extent of market dominance 112 3.1 Purchasing power parity PPP $ 49 0.4 Time to start a business 115 days 28.0 Fuel price levels US$ cents/litre 24 82.0 Cost to start a business % GNI per capita 96 15.8 Environmental sustainability 118 3.6 Effect of taxation on incentives to work 47 4.2 Stringency of environmental regulations 83 3.7 Effect of taxation on incentives to invest 91 3.3 Enforcement of environmental regulations 92 3.4 Total tax rate % profits 89 42.9 Sustainability of travel and tourism industry development 76 4.2 Safety and security 126 3.6 Particulate matter (2.5) concentration μg/m3 41 5.7 Business costs of crime and violence 108 3.7 Environmental treaty ratification 0–27 (best) 43 23 Reliability of police services 108 3.5 Baseline water stress 5–0 (best) 84 2.6 Business costs of terrorism 118 4.1 Threatened species % total species 134 20.0 Index of terrorism incidence 126 1.0 Forest cover change % change 49 0.0 Homicide rate 111 /100,000 pop. 9.9 Wastewater treatment % 91 2.6 Health and hygiene 92 4.8 Costal shelf fishing pressure tonnes/km2 66 0.2 Physician density /1,000 pop 82 1.2 Air transport infrastructure 65 2.7 Access to improved sanitation % pop. 93 73.9 Quality of air transport infrastructure 114 3.2 Access to improved drinking water % pop. 89 91.8 Available seat kilometres, domestic millions 19 329.0 Hospital beds /10,000 pop. 109 10.0 Available seat kilometres, international millions 28 878.9 HIV prevalence % adult pop. 1 0.1 Aircraft departures /1,000 pop. 72 2.8 Malaria incidence cases/100,000 pop. 90 16.1 Airport density airports/million pop. 74 0.9 Human resources and labour market 50 4.8 Number of operating airlines Number 49 44.0 Primary education enrollment rate net % 60 96.0 Ground and port infrastructure 107 2.5 Secondary education enrollment rate gross % 80 88.4 Quality of roads 104 3.1 Extent of staff training 31 4.6 Road density % total territorial area 42 - Degree of customer orientation 42 5.0 Paved road density % total territorial area 72 - Hiring and firing practices 73 3.7 Quality of railroad infrastructure 86 2.0 Ease of finding skilled employees 48 4.5 Railroad density km of roads/land area 88 0.2 Ease of hiring foreign labour 90 3.7 Quality of port infrastructure 111 2.9 Pay and productivity 37 4.5 Ground transport efficiency 120 2.4 Female participation in the labor force ratio to men 103 0.65 Tourist service infrastructure 87 3.4 ICT readiness 86 4.0 Hotel rooms number/100 pop. 125 0.1 ICT use for biz-to-biz transactions 66 4.7 Quality of tourism infrastructure 83 4.4 Internet use for biz-to-consumer transactions 65 4.6 Presence of major car rental companies 51 6 Internet users % pop. 91 40.7 Automated teller machines number/thousand adult pop. 95 Fixed-broadband Internet subscriptions /100 pop. 85 4.8 Natural resources 37 4.0 Mobile-cellular telephone subscriptions 70 115.8 /100 pop. Number of World Heritage natural sites number of sites 19 3 Mobile-broadband subscriptions /100 pop. 83 41.6 Total known species number of species 39 897 Mobile network coverage % pop. 65 99.0 Total protected areas 91 11.0 % total territorial area Quality of electricity supply 93 4.0 Natural tourism digital demand 0–100 (best) 34 36 Prioritization of Travel & Tourism 53 4.8 T Attractiveness of natural assets 36 5.7 Government prioritization of travel and tourism industry 48 5.2 Cultural resources and business travel 60 1.9 T&T government expenditure % government budget 74 3.1 Number of World Heritage cultural sites number of sites 61 3 Effectiveness of marketing and branding to attract tourists 49 Oral and intangible cultural heritage number of expressions 43 3 4.8 Sports stadiums number of large stadiums 97 2.0 Comprehensiveness of annual T&T data 0–120 (best) 53 73 Number of international association meetings 3-year average 48 Timeliness of providing monthly/quarterly T&T data 0–21 (best) 56.7 53 19.0 Cultural and entertainment tourism digital demand 0–100 (best) Country brand strategy rating 1–10 (best) 57 76.9 34 20
Source: WEF (2017)
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 40 ANNEX B: ADDITIONAL INDICATORS OF GENERAL TOURISM GROWTH IN PALAWAN (2012-2016) The fastest growth is taking place in Busuanga where room supply has increased from 70 to 322, (+360 percent) In Puerto Princesa room supply has tripled: The city has the largest accommodation supply due to its role as the Provincial capital and business centre. Increased air access is also a key growth driver. In most other locations room supply has doubled.
Indicator 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Puerto Princesa
Number of accommodation businesses 100 156 156 250 250
Rooms 1,540 2,766 2,766 4,184 4,670
San Vicente
Number of accommodation businesses 33 40 48 51 76
Rooms 216 242 279 315 412
El Nido
Number of accommodation businesses 55 81 81 147 147
Rooms 500 756 705 1,033 1,033
Coron
Number of accommodation businesses 43 46 59 75 109
Rooms 609 609 895 979 n/a
Busuanga
Number of accommodation businesses 15 15 22 26 n/a
Rooms 70 70 135 292 322
Source: Provincial Tourism Promotions and Development Department.
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 41 ANNEX C: INDICATORS OF NATIONAL TOURISM GROWTH (2012-2016)
TABLE 13: PHILIPPINES INTERNATIONAL TOURISM EXPENDITURE GROWTH (2012-2016)
YEAR INBOUND TOURISM GROWTH RATE (%) 2012 195,186 23.2
2013 225,300 15.4
2014 276,894 22.9 2015 306,576 10.7 2016 313,608 2.3
Source: Philippine Statistics Authority
TABLE 14: PHILIPPINES DOMESTIC TOURISM EXPENDITURE GROWTH (2012-2016)
YEAR DOMESTIC TOURISM GROWTH RATE (%) 2012 998,433 12.7
2013 1,136,995 13.9 2014 1,403,813 23.5 2015 1,770,749 26.1 2016 2,108,216 19.1
Source: Philippine Statistics Authority
It should be noted that domestic tourism expenditure is almost seven times as big as total international tourism expenditure, and that while international tourism growth rates are volatile, domestic tourism continues to grow.
16 Includes expenditure in the Philippines by Filipinos living abroad.
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 42 ANNEX D. TOURISM ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA, 2016 As shown below, the Automated TRIPPC Forms has three main sections: 1) Basic Project Information, 2) Project Evaluation Guidelines, and 3) Detailed Road Information.
In the “Basic Project Information” section, the following details are required:
• Project name • Funding year • Region, province, municipality/city barangay • Road classification • Project description • Proposed scope of work • Proposed budget • Total road length in kilometers (km) • Total road project length for funding (km) • Legislative district • District engineering office
Also included in this section are Tourism Information which include the following details:
• Grouping (whether Northern Philippines, Central Philippines, or Southern Philippines) • Cluster destinations • Tourism development area • Tourism sites and tourism destination types • Gateways and type of gateway
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 43 • Service centers
In the “Project Evaluation Guidelines” section, the following are required:
1) Pre-qualification criteria 2) Tourism information details, and 3) Project readiness.
PRE-QUALIFICATION CRITERIA The road project shall be evaluated by the Regional Technical Working Group (RTWG) using a simple checklist – on eight Basic Technical and Developmental Criteria (as shown in Table 1). The road project must pass ALL the criteria to complete the Pre-Qualification Stage. It is advised that the RTWG should not submit the project for approval until all the requirements have been fulfilled because it may be denied or subject to further evaluation.
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 44 TOURISM INFORMATION DETAILS The Purpose of the Road (Point A to Point B) must first be identified as to whether the road connects a (1) tourism site to tourism site, (2) tourism site to service center or vice versa, (3) tourism site to gateway (provincial bus terminal) or vice versa, (4) tourism site to gateway (seaport) or vice versa, (5) tourism site to gateway (airport) or vice versa (6) service center to gateway (provincial bus terminal) or vice versa, (7) service center to gateway (seaport) or vice versa, (8) service center to gateway (airport) or vice versa.
After determining the Purpose of the Road, the following Tourism Information Details, for BOTH Point A and Point B, are required:
4) No. of Tourist Accommodation Rooms (Indicate in the certification of data the number of rooms) 5) No. of Annual Day Visitors and Annual Overnight Visitors 6) No. of Primary Enterprises Excluding Accommodation Establishments.
For all of the above, the year that the submitted data was collected must be noted.
The following information details will then be scored based on the following guidelines:
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 45 TABLE 3: TOURISM IMPORTANCE FOR EVALUATION OF POINTS A AND B NOTE: PROVIDE DATA SEPARATELY FOR POINTS A AND B.
KEY TOURISM IINDICATORS SCORE
ACCOMODATION- Number of tourist accommodation rooms
Above 250 tourist accommodation rooms 25
Above 100 to 250 tourist accommodation rooms 20
Above 10 to 100 tourist accommodation rooms 15
10 and below tourist accommodation rooms 10
ARRIVALS- Number of annual day visitors or annual overnight visitors where the road will be directly connected (choose EITHER 2.1 or2.2 only, whichever is higher in score)
Annual day visitors
Above 100,000 annual day visitors 50
Above 50,00 to 100,000 annual day visitors 40
Above 5,000to 50,000 annual day visitors 30
Above 3,000 to 5,000 annual day visitors 20
3,000 and below annual day visitors 10
Annual overnight visitors
Above 200,000 annual visitors 50
Above 150,000 to 200,000 annual overnight visitors 40
Above 100,000 to 150,000 annual overnight visitors 30
Above 50,000 to 100,000 annual overnight visitors 20
50,000 and below annual visitors 10
PRIMARY ENTERPRISES excluding accommodation establishments-Number of primary tourism enterprises
Above 30 enterprises 25
Above 20 to 30 enterprises 20
Above 10 to 20 enterprises 15
10 and below enterprises 10
Highest Possible Score 100
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 46 PROJECT READINESS The Proponent Letters include letters from the LGU (Sangguniang Bayan, Sangguniang Panlungsod, Sangguniang Panlalawigan), Government Agencies (e.g., DPWH, DOT, DBM, DILG, OP), House of Representatives, and Senate. Other certifications may include minutes of consultation (Congressional District Representative, Local Government Officials, Business Groups/Tourism Private Sector, and Civil Society Organizations). The score sheet for consultations with key stakeholders is in Table 4. The Full/Pre-Feasibility Studies and Detailed/Preliminary Engineering Designs (both foreign assisted and locally funded), and Proponent Letters must be submitted by the RTWG if available. The score sheet for the submission of the technical road readiness documents is noted in Table 5.
DETAILED ROAD INFORMATION The following details are required:
• Whether the road covered by the project is already existing or not, • Type of road surface (gravel/asphalt/concrete), • Type of bridge material (timber/ bailey/ concrete/steel), • General road condition (Good/Fair/Bad/ No Assessment),
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 47 • Shoulder width in meters (m), and • Carriageway width (m).
The road condition should be rated based on the percentage of the road that falls under the following categories - Good/Fair/Bad/No Assessment - based on the DPWH Visual Road Condition Rating Standards (ROCOND) and evaluated by the designated Road and Bridge Information Application (RBIA) Coordinator.
In the case of unpaved roads, the carriageway width already includes the shoulder width.
DETAILED SCOPE OF WORK AND COSTS The following details with regard to the Road Components are also required:
• Total road project length (km) including bridges, i.e, sum of b and c below • Net road project length (km) • Bridge length (lm) • Scope of work and budget (see Table 5.) • Unit costs for the road and bridge, and the total cost of the road, bridge and the entire project.
SOFTSCAPES Aside from the regular TRIP projects, softscape infrastructure proposals shall be included for the purpose of enhancing the experience and convenience, as well as improving the safety of the tourists, and/or to improve the management of the tourism site.
With the DPWH’s support for the DOT’s NTDP and TRIP, the Central Technical Working Group (CTWG) shall evaluate proposals endorsed by the Regional Offices (ROs) of the DOT and the DPWH for the following softscape projects and tourism infrastructure:
• Streetlights • Tourism Informational Signage (locations of which shall be determined by the DOT RD) • Rest Rooms • Visitor Information Centers • Viewdeck
In submitting the softscape project proposal, the RTWG shall follow the file name format below:
(Name of Road Project)_(Type of Softscapes Project)_(Location)
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 48
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 49 ANNEX E: FIELD TRIP ITINERARY
ASSESSMENT OF IMPROVED INFRASTRUCTURE IN PALAWAN ON TOURISM & AGRIBUSINESS ITINERARY OF TRAVEL AUG. 6 TO 19, 2017
OBJECTIVE To conduct field work data gathering and interviews with regard to the following:
1. Names & contact info of tourist establishment owners (hotel, transport/tour operators, restos, shops for FGDs; 2. Fishermen/farm produce shops/suppliers/tourists; 3. Key informants from LGU (MPDO; Tourism officer, Mayor); 4. Data on tourist arrivals – 2010/2012 - 2016/17; 5. Data on establishments registered with LGU 2010 – 2016/17;
AREA COVERAGE AND PERIOD Arrival Manila-Puerto Princesa: Aug. 6 (Sun); Depart Busuanga-Manila: Aug 19 Puerto Princesa City (Aug. 6 to10) Rizal (Aug. 8 to 9) San Vicente (Aug. 11 to 12) El Nido (Aug. 13 to 15) Coron (Aug. 16-18) Busuanga (Aug. 17)
ACTIVITY TEAM COMPOSITION
USAID – Study Team Provincial Gov’t of Palawan Other Logistic Units Benjamin Quinones, Jr, Agriculture Carlo Buitizon (Government Field Civilian Security (2 from Provincial Specialist Coordinator) PNP) Vickie Corpuz, Infrastructure Specialist Mr. Aris Arzaga (I-HELP Asst. Manager) Joey Tubigan (Driver, Silver Toyota Hi- Ace) Meliza Agabin, Team Lead Aubrey Buitizon and April Caasi: Liaison and Central Support Unit – Ramil Adion – Back up (Driver, Silver Mike Monteleone – USAID**/ Capitol Toyota Grandia) Robert Travers, Tourism Specialist Mr. Arcel De Leon (Kenemer, Field Jana Coralde, RA Manager) John Avila, USAID***/
**/Aug. 5 (arrival) – 11 (departure) ***/Aug 7 (arrival) - 8 (departure)
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 50 ANNEX F. PALAWAN TRIP PERCEPTION SURVEY
METHODOLOGY To achieve the objectives of this study, the following methodology was applied:
IDENTIFICATION OF TARGET POPULATION The target population was defined as all categories that were affected by the TRIP roads in Palawan namely in the Municiplaities of: San Vicente, Puerto Princesa, and Roxas.
SAMPLE DEFINITION AND SAMPLING As with any survey, time constraints usually prohibit the investigation of an entire population. The sample size was 63 non-randomized respondents who were affected by the TRIP roads.
SURVEY TOOL DESIGN The Survey was a perception survey, which is often used when one is trying to find out how people understand or feel about their situations or environments. They are used to assess needs, answer questions, solve problems, establish baselines, analyze trends, and select goals. As it is the most appropriate survey design to be used in this study, for it analyzes the understanding of the people affected by the construction of the TRIP road.
GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT RESPONDENTS
TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS FROM EACH MUNICIPALITY
Municipality and Age Total Respondent Roxas 9%
Puerto Princesa City 22 Puerto Princesa San Vicente 18 San City Vicente 50% Roxas 4 41%
Grand Total 44
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 51 RESPONDENTS BY GENDER AND AGE RANGE
TOTAL RESPONDENT'S GENDER
15 Puerto Princesa San Grand City Roxas Vicente Total 10 female 5 6 11 5 male 11 4 7 22 0 female male no answer no answer 6 5 11
Puerto Princesa City Grand Total 22 4 18 44 Roxas
San Vicente
AGE RANGE OF RESPONDENTS Municipality Puerto San Grand AGE Princesa City Roxas Vicente Total
<20 or (blank) 7 4 11
50-59 5 1 2 8
40-49 4 2 6
20-29 3 2 5
30-39 3 2 7 12
60-70 1 1 2
Grand Total 22 4 18 44 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 <20 or 50-59 40-49 20-29 30-39 60-70 (blank) Puerto Princesa City 7 5 4 3 3 Roxas 1 2 1 San Vicente 4 2 2 2 7 1
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 52 OCCUPATION AND EDUCATION
TOTAL OCCUPATION OF RESPONDENTS
Occupation Puerto Princesa City Roxas San Vicente Grand Total
Businessman 8 6 14
Others (Tricyle Driver) 5 5
Gov't Employee/official 5 3 2 10
Tourist Foreign 1 1
Private Employee 1 3 4
no answer 1 1 2 4
Others 1 1 2
Others (self-employed) 1 1
Others (Retired) 1 1
Housewife 1 1
Others (boatman) 1 1
Grand Total 22 4 18 44
COUNT OF EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Puerto Princesa City Roxas San Vicente Grand Total
College Level 11 4 11 26
High School Level 4 4 8
Others (Masters Graduate) 2 2
no answer 2 2 4
Elementary Level 1 1 2
Others (Post Graduate) 1 1
Others (MPA) 1 1
Grand Total 22 4 18 44
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 53 LENGTH OF STAY
COUNT OF LENGTH OF STAY ON THE ROAD SIDE 12 OF PROJECT 10 10 Puerto Roxas San Grand 8 Princesa Vicente Total 8 City 7 6 6 Above 15 years 10 3 8 21 4 3 3 no answer 6 1 2 9 2 2 2 1 1 1 Less than 5 years 3 7 10
0 11 years to 15 years 2 2 Above 15 no answer Less than 511 years to 6 years to years years 15 years 10 years 6 years to 10 years 1 1 2 Puerto Princesa City Roxas San Vicente Grand Total 22 4 18 44
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 54 QUESTIONNAIRE (NOS. 1 TO 13)
1. Did you own a vehicle before the improvement of the road? If Yes, what type and if No what transport did you use?
COUNT OF 1.DID YOU OWN A VEHICLE BEFORE 16 THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE ROAD? (YES/NO) 14
12 Puerto Princesa Puerto Roxas San Grand City Princesa Vicente Total 10 City 8 Roxas 6 No 3 2 9 14 4 San Vicente 2 Yes 15 2 5 22 0
No Yes no answer no answer 4 4 8
Grand Total 22 4 18 44
COUNT OF IF YES, PLEASE CHECK THE TYPE COUNT OF IF NO, WHAT TYPE OF BELOW TRANSPORT DID YOU USE?
Puerto Roxas San Grand Puerto Roxas San Grand Princesa Vicente Total Princesa Vicente Total City City
Car/ Jeep 7 2 9 Bus 1 1 2
Car/ Jeep and Bus 1 1 Car/ Jeep 3 2 5
Car/ Jeep and 2 2 Jeepney 4 4 Motor Bike Motor Bike 1 4 5 Car/ Jeep and Truck 1 1 No answer 15 4 7 26 Car/Jeep and Motor 2 2 Bike Tricycle 2 2
Motor Bike 2 1 6 9 Grand Total 22 4 18 44
Truck 1 1
Tricycle 3 3 no answer 4 1 11 16
Grand Total 22 4 18 44
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 55 1a. Do you own a vehicle now? If yes what type and if No what type of transport do you use now?
COUNT OF DO YOU OWN A VEHICLE NOW? (YES/NO) 25
20 Puerto Roxas San Grand Princesa Vicente Total Puerto Princesa City 15 City Roxas Yes 21 2 10 33 10
5 San Vicente No 1 3 4 0 No answer 1 1 5 7 Yes No No answer
Grand Total 22 4 18 44
COUNT OF IF YES, PLEASE CHECK THE TYPE BELOW
Puerto Princesa Roxas San Vicente Grand Total City
Car/ Jeep 10 2 12
Car/ Jeep and Motor Bike 3 3
Motor Bike 1 1 8 10
Motor Bike and Others (Habal- 1 1 Habal)
Public Passenger Van 1 1
Truck 1 1
Habal- Habal 1 1
Tricyle 4 4
No answer 3 1 7 11
Grand Total 22 4 18 44
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 56 COUNT OF IF NO, WHAT TYPE OF TRANSPORT DID YOU USE?
Puerto Princesa City Roxas San Vicente Grand Total
Car/ Jeep 1 1 2
Motor Bika and Public Passenger Van 1 1
Motor Bike 1 2 3
Motor Bike and Others (Habal-Habal) 1 1
Public Passeger Van 1 1
Public Passenger Van 2 2
Public Passenger Van and Jeepney 1 1
No answer 20 2 11 33
Grand Total 22 4 18 44
2. Do you think that the project has increased the following? a) Job opportunities, if yes please give estimate
COUNT OF 2. DO YOU THINK THAT THE PROJECT HAS INCREASED THE FOLLOWING? JOB OPPORTUNITIES (YES/NO) Puerto Princesa City Roxas San Vicente Grand Total
Yes 20 4 16 40
6% 1 1
20% 1 1
50% 1 1
80% 1 1
90% 1 1
100% 1 1
4x 2 2
1 1 5 to 9 % 50-100% 1 1
5-8 % increased 1 1
Double 2 2
1 1 Double thru economics activities more easy to everyone to have emergency 1 1
no answer 17 8 25
no answer 2 2 4
no answer 2 2 4 Grand Total 22 4 18 44
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 57 b) Business opportunities, If yes please give estimate
COUNT OF BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES (YES/NO)
Puerto Princesa City Roxas San Vicente Grand Total
Yes 14 3 12 29
10% 1 1
50% 1 1 2
80% 1 1
10 % increased 1 1
Double 1 1
no answer 12 2 9 23
no answer 8 1 6 15
no answer 8 1 6 15
Grand Total 22 4 18 44
3. Do you think that the project has provided 24/7 access? If yes, by how much than before?
COUNT OF 3.DO YOU THINK THAT THE PROJECT HAS PROVIDED 24/7 ACCESS? (YES/NO)
Puerto Princesa Roxas San Grand City Vicente Total
Yes 21 4 14 39
A little bit 2 2
Fairly 3 1 2 6
no answer 5 3 8
Substantially 13 3 7 23
no answer 1 4 5
Grand Total 22 4 18 44
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 58 4. Do you think that the project has impact on increase of family income? If yes please give estimate?
COUNT OF 4. DO YOU THINK THAT THE PROJECT HAS IMPACT ON INCREASE OF FAMILY INCOME? (YES/NO)
Puerto Roxas San Grand Princesa City Vicente Total
Yes 19 3 15 37
11%-15% 2 1 3
16%-20% 2 1 3
21%-25% 1 2 3
6% -10% 1 1
6%-10% 4 1 5
6. 80 % 1 1
Greater than 26% 3 2 3 8
Less than 5% 4 1 1 6
no answer 3 4 7
No 1 1 2
no answer 1 1 2
no answer 2 3 5
no answer 2 3 5
Grand Total 22 4 18 44
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 59 5. Do you think that the project has impact in increase of product transported to markets? I yes, what products? And where do you sell it?
COUNT OF 5. DO YOU THINK THAT THE PROJECT HAS IMPACT ON INCREASE OF PRODUCTS TRANSPORTED TO MARKETS? (YES/NO) Puerto Roxas San Grand Princesa Vicente Total City Yes 16 4 12 32 Agricultural Product 7 1 4 12
Agricultural/ Handicrafts 1 1
Agricultural/ Handicrafts/ Processed Food Products 1 1
Agricultural/ Handicrafts/Wood Products 1 1
Agricultural/ Processed Food Products 2 2
Agricultural/ Processed/Manufactured Products 1 1
Agricultural/ Wood Products 1 1
Agricultural/ Wood/ Proccessed Food Products 2 2
Agricultural/Handicrafts/Processed Food/Manufactured Products 2 2
Agricultural/Handicrafts/Wood Products 1 1
Agricultural/Handicrafts/Wood/Processed Food Products 1 1
Agricultural/Processed Foood Products 2 1 3
Agricultural/Processed/ Manufactured Products 1 1
Others (Copras) 1 1
Wood/ Processed Food Products 2 2
No 2 2
no answer 2 2
no answer 6 4 10
Agricultural Product 3 3
Agricultural/ Manufactured Products 1 1
Handi Crafts Products 1 1
Manufactured Products 1 1
no answer 1 2 3
Others (Tourism) 1 1 Grand Total 22 4 18 44
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 60
COUNT OF WHERE DO YOU SELL YOUR PRODUCT?
Row Labels Puerto Princesa City Roxas San Vicente Grand Total
Market 5 2 7
Market 4 4
Market and Middlemen 2 1 1 4
Middlemen 1 1 2 4
no answer 14 2 9 25
Grand Total 22 4 18 44
6. Do you think that the projects have impacted on increased tourist arrival passing through in the area?
Count of 6. Do you think that the project has impacted on increased tourist arrival or passing throug in the area? (Yes/No)
Puerto Princesa City Roxas San Vicente Grand Total
Yes 19 4 15 38
no answer 3 3 6
Grand Total 22 4 18 44
a. If tourist have you visited area before the improvement of the road
COUNT OF 6A. IF TOURIST, HAVE YOU VISITED THE AREA BEFORE THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE ROAD? (YES/NO)
Puerto Princesa City Roxas San Vicente Grand Total
Yes 11 3 7 21
No 1 1 2
no answer 10 1 10 21
Grand 22 4 18 44 Total
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 61 b. If yes, and more than once, indicate number of days when not improved.
COUNT OF 6B. NUMBER OF DAYS SPENT IN THE AREA FIRST VISIT WHEN ROAD HAS NOT BEEN IMPROVED?
Puerto Roxas San Vicente Grand Total Princesa City
1 Day 2 2
1 Day 1 1 2. 2 Days
1 month 1 1
10 Days 1 1
3 Days 2 2
3 days 1 1 2. 5 days
Every month 2 2
Every month 2 2 2. Every month
no answer 17 3 12 32
Grand Total 22 4 18 44
c. If yes and more than once, indicate number of days visited when improved.
COUNT OF 6C. NUMBER OF DAYS SPENT IN THE AREA WHEN ROAD HAS BEEN IMPROVED?
Puerto Princesa Roxas San Grand City Vicente Total
1 Day 1 1 2
10 Days 1 1
2 Days 2 2
3 Days 2 2
Every month 1 1
no answer 17 3 16 36
Grand Total 22 4 18 44
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 62 7. Do you think that the project has impact on enhancement of accessibility to services?
COUNT OF 7. DO YOU THINK THAT THE PROJECT HAS IMPACTED ACCESSIBILITY TO :
Puerto Princesa City Roxas San Vicente Grand Total
Hospitals and tourist 1 1 destinations
Market, Shops, Trading 1 1 2 Centers
Market, Shops, Trading 1 1 Centers and Tourist Destination
Market, Shops, Trading 1 1 Centers, hospitals, and tourist destinations
Market, Shops, Trading 1 1 Centers, Social services such as schools, and tourist destinations
Market, Shops, Trading 2 2 Centers, Social Services such as schools, government offices
Market, Shops, Trading 6 3 9 Centers, Social Services such as schools, government offices, and tourist destinations
Market, Shops, Trading 1 1 Centers, Social Services such as schools, hospitals, and tourist destinations
Market, Shops, Trading 5 11 16 Centers, Social Services such as schools, hospitals, government offices, and tourist destinations
no answer 2 2 4
Social services such as 1 1 schools
Tourist Destinations 1 4 5
Grand Total 22 4 18 44
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 63 8. Do you think that the project has impact on shortening your travel/commute time? If yes by how many minutes from previous time?
COUNT OF 8. DO YOU THINK THAT THE PROJECT HAS IMPACT ON SHORTENING YOUR TRAVEL/COMMUTING TIME? (YES/NO)
Puerto Princesa City Roxas San Vicente Grand Total
Yes 21 4 15 40
1 Hour 2 2
1 Hour 5 4 9
1 to 2 Hours 1 1
2 Hours 1 1
3 hours 1 1
4 Hours 3 3
4 to 5 Hours 1 1
between 11 and 15 minutes 1 1
More than 21 minutes 8 4 5 17
no answer 2 2 4
No 1 1
no answer 1 1
no answer 1 2 3
no answer 1 2 3
Grand Total 22 4 18 44
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 64 9. Do you think that the project has impact on decrease of transport cost? If yes which of the savings was realized
COUNT OF 9. DO YOU THINK THAT THE PROJECT HAS IMPACT ON DECREASE OF TRANSPORT COST? (STRONGLY DISAGREE 1 2 3 4 5 STRONGLY AGREE)
0 3 4 5 Grand Total
Puerto Princesa City 1 2 4 15 22
Fuel 1 1
no answer 1 1
Vehicle Maintenance 2 2 4
Vehicle Maintenance and Fuel 1 2 12 15
Vehicle Maintenance, Fuel, and others 1 1
Roxas 3 1 4
no answer 1 1
Othes 1 1
Vehicle Maintenance and Fuel 1 1 2
San Vicente 3 4 11 18
Fuel 1 1
no answer 2 1 1 4
Others 1 1
Vehicle Maintenance 1 1 1 3
Vehicle Maintenance and Fuel 9 9
Grand Total 4 9 4 27 44
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 65 10. Do you think that the project has improved safety standards than before? Does it decrease traffic accidents than before?
COUNT OF 10. DO YOU THINK THAT THE PROJECT HAS IMPROVED SAFETY STANDARDS THAT WHEN IT WAS NOT IMPROVED/CONSTRUCTED (STRONGLY DISAGREE 1 2 3 4 5 STRONGLY AGREE)
0 1 2 3 4 5 Grand Total
Puerto Princesa City 2 2 7 4 7 22
San Vicente 2 1 1 3 4 7 18
Roxas 2 2 4
Grand Total 4 3 1 12 8 16 44
COUNT OF DECREASED THE NUMBER OF TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS THAN WHEN IT WAS NOT IMPROVED/CONSTRUCTED? (STRONGLY DISAGREE 1 2 3 4 5 STRONGLY AGREE)
0 1 2 3 4 5 Grand Total
Puerto Princesa City 3 7 2 5 3 2 22
San Vicente 6 1 2 3 2 4 18
Roxas 3 1 4
Grand Total 9 8 4 11 6 6 44
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 66 11. Was your private property affected by the project? If yes which of the following?
COUNT OF 11. WAS YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT? (STRONGLY DISAGREE 1 2 3 4 5 STRONGLY AGREE)
0 1 2 3 4 5 Grand Total
Puerto Princesa City 9 5 2 2 2 2 22
Business 1 1
House and Lot 1 1
House, Lot, Trees, and Business 1 1 2
Lot 1 1
no answer 9 5 1 1 1 17
Roxas 1 1 1 1 4
Lot 1 1 2
Lot and Trees 1 1
no answer 1 1
San Vicente 11 2 1 2 1 1 18
Business 1 1
Lot and Trees 1 1
no answer 9 1 2 1 13
Trees 1 1 1 3
Grand Total 20 7 4 5 4 4 44
COUNT OF 11A. WERE YOU COMPARED PROPERLY? (YES/NO) SPECIFY PROPERLY
Puerto Princesa Roxas San Grand City Vicente Total
Yes 1 1 2
No 2 2
no answer 21 2 17 40
Grand Total 22 4 18 44
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 67 12. Do you think it is now safer for travel?
COUNT OF 12. DO YOU THINK IT IS NOW SAFER FOR THE FOLLOWING TO TRAVEL (WOMEN)
Puerto Princesa Roxas San Grand City Vicente Total
Yes 20 3 15 38
No 1 2 3
no answer 2 1 3
Grand Total 22 4 18 44
COUNT OF 12. DO YOU THINK IT IS NOW SAFER FOR THE FOLLOWING TO TRAVEL (ELDERLY)
Puerto Princesa City Roxas San Vicente Grand Total
Yes 20 3 15 38
No 1 1
no answer 2 3 5
Grand Total 22 4 18 44
COUNT OF 12. DO YOU THINK IT IS NOW SAFER FOR THE FOLLOWING TO TRAVEL (CHILDREN)
Puerto Princesa City Roxas San Vicente Grand Total
Yes 20 3 13 36
No 1 1 2
no answer 2 4 6
Grand Total 22 4 18 44
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 68 13. What impacts does the project have on the following:
COUNT OF AIR QUALITY
0 1 2 3 4 5 Grand Total
Puerto Princesa City 4 3 3 6 3 3 22
Roxas 3 1 4
San Vicente 1 3 1 2 2 9 18
Grand Total 5 6 4 11 5 13 44
COUNT OF NOISE LEVEL
0 1 2 3 4 5 Grand Total
Puerto Princesa City 4 2 7 4 5 22
Roxas 4 4
San Vicente 6 4 5 3 18 Grand Total 4 6 2 15 9 8 44
COUNT OF WATER QUALITY
0 1 2 3 4 5 Grand Total
Puerto Princesa City 5 4 4 5 4 22
Roxas 2 1 1 4
San Vicente 3 2 6 1 6 18
Grand Total 5 9 7 11 2 10 44
COUNT OF PLANTS
0 1 2 3 4 5 Grand Total
Puerto Princesa City 5 2 5 5 1 4 22
Roxas 2 1 1 4
San Vicente 3 3 2 10 18
Grand Total 5 7 5 9 4 14 44
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 69 COUNT OF PERSONAL INCOME
0 1 2 3 4 5 Grand Total
Puerto Princesa City 5 2 7 2 6 22
Roxas 2 1 1 4
San Vicente 1 3 2 10 16
Grand Total 6 3 2 9 5 17 42
COUNT OF GOVERNMENT REVENUE
0 1 3 4 5 Grand Total
Puerto Princesa City 10 2 4 6 22
Roxas 2 2 4
San Vicente 4 3 4 7 18
Grand Total 14 3 2 10 15 44
COUNT OF SAFETY
0 1 2 3 4 5 Grand Total
Puerto Princesa City 5 3 5 3 6 22
Roxas 1 1 2 4
San Vicente 4 1 5 8 18
Grand Total 5 8 1 6 8 16 44
COUNT OF PEACE AND ORDER
0 1 2 3 4 5 Grand Total
Puerto Princesa City 3 1 5 4 9 22
Roxas 1 1 1 1 4
San Vicente 4 1 3 2 8 18
Grand Total 3 6 1 9 7 18 44
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 70 COUNT OF TOURISM
0 1 3 4 5 6 Grand Total
Puerto Princesa City 2 1 1 17 1 22
Roxas 1 3 4
San Vicente 2 2 1 13 18
Grand Total 4 2 2 2 33 1 44
COUNT OF OUT-MIGRATION
0 1 2 3 4 5 Grand Total
Puerto Princesa City 6 1 3 3 2 7 22
Roxas 1 2 1 4
San Vicente 4 3 2 1 8 18
Grand Total 10 5 5 4 4 16 44
COUNT OF IN-MIGRATION
0 1 2 3 4 5 Grand Total
Puerto Princesa City 4 1 1 3 4 9 22
Roxas 1 3 4
San Vicente 3 3 1 1 10 18
Grand Total 7 4 1 4 6 22 44
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 71
COUNT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
0 1 3 4 5 Grand Total
Puerto Princesa City 3 2 2 8 7 22
Roxas 4 4
San Vicente 2 4 2 10 18
Grand Total 5 6 2 10 21 44
COUNT OF BUSINESS
0 1 3 4 5 4,5 Grand Total
Puerto Princesa City 2 3 5 12 22
Roxas 4 4
San Vicente 1 3 2 11 1 18
Grand Total 3 3 3 7 27 1 44
COUNT OF OTHERS. PLEASE SPECIFY
0 5 Grand Total
Puerto Princesa City 22 22
Roxas 4 4
San Vicente 17 1 18
Grand Total 43 1 44
USAID.GOV IMPACTS OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ON TOURISM IN THE PHILIPPINES | 72