Home⇛Annals of Tropical Research⇛vol. 44 no. 1 (2022)

Surfacing development needs of a marginal upland community through participatory tools: The case of village in Samar, Philippines

Editha G. Cagasan | Milagros C. Bales | Elvira E. Ongy | Rotacio Gravoso | Ernesto F. Bulayog | Flordelaine T. Alao

 

Abstract:

Efforts to alleviate the productivity of marginal uplands necessitate the use of participatory approaches to identify development needs of the community. However, despite the popularity of participatory methods for assessing community resources and needs, the literature lacks information on how it works, especially in the Philippine setting. This study aimed to determine the needs of a marginal upland community and demonstrate the use of the participatory tools. Data were gathered in a marginal upland community in Samar, Philippines whose primary source of livelihood of the residents is farming. Rice is the staple food. The people's livelihood activities are beset by some threats, including scarcity of water in the area, declining soil fertility of their farms, extreme weather events, and the occurrence of pests and diseases. To augment their livelihood, the people identified livelihood projects, including food processing, vegetable farming, and animal raising. However, results of the resources vulnerability analysis indicate that the assistance needed by the community should go beyond training workshops on crop production, food processing, and animal raising. The assistance should also consider the rehabilitation of the environment, which is now highly degraded. The implementation of a Rainforestation project may be considered to raise food crops and rehabilitate the watershed of the community to address its serious problem of water scarcity. There may also be a need to identify other crops that would survive in the area given its current condition so that the people will have food sources aside from rice. This study has demonstrated that use of participatory tools allows for the collection of in-depth information on community needs and promotes active participation among the participants.



References:

  1. Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2004. Effectiveness of participatory approaches: Do the new approaches offer an effective solution to the conventional problems in rural development projects?                                   https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/evaluation- document/35012/files/ses-effectiveness.pdf
  2. Asio VB. 2017. Rainforestation farming to rehabilitate marginal uplands: History of its development. Annals of Tropical Research 39 (Supplement A):125-133
  3. Bales M. 2015. Rehabilitating coco-based farms and communities in Yolanda-Hit municipalities of Eastern Samar through capacity building and enhancement of resilient agri-based livelihoods. Project Report for OXFAM. Visayas State University, Leyte, Philippines
  4. Bird DK. 2009. The use of questionnaires for acquiring information on public perception of natural hazards and risk mitigation e a review of current knowledge and practice. Natural Hazards and Earth Systems Sciences 9(4):1307-1325
  5. Cagasan UA, Alcober EAL, Gerona MGB, & Prado GMM. 2017. Evaluation of different croppins systems for marginal uplands in Barangay Caticugan, Sta. Rita, Samar. Annals of Tropical Research 39 (Supplement A):20-30
  6. Castillo GT. 1983. How participatory is participatory development? A review of Philippine experience. Philippine Institute for Development Studies
  7. Charmaz K. 2006. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications
  8. Citizens’ Disaster Response Center (CDRC). 2013. Philippines. http://cdcr- phil.com/super-typhoon-yolanda-slams-central-philippines
  9. Comiso JC, Sarigumba TI, Lansigan FP, Birosel RC, Cruz, RO, Guerrero RD, Perez RT, Tibig LV, Blanche CA, Espaldon MVO, Baguinon NI, Coladilla JO, Lasco RO, & Pulhin JM. 2014. Changing Philippine climate: Impacts on agriculture and natural resources. University of the Philippines Press, Manila, Philippines
  10. Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE). 2009. Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis Handbook. CARE, Inc., Merrifield, Virginia
  11. Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE). 2019. Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis Handbook. Version 2. CARE, Inc., Merrifield, Virginia
  12. Coronese M, Lamperti F, Keller K, Chiaromonte F & Roventini A. 2019. Evidence for sharp increase in the economic damages of extreme natural disasters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) 116 (43):21450- 21455
  13. Finch H & Lewis J. 2003. Focus groups. In Ritchie J & Lewis J (eds) Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (pp170-198). London: Sage
  14. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2015. Typhoon Haiyan: Portraits of resilience. FAO Representation in the Philippines, Manila, Philippines.
  15. Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR). nd. Philippines. http://gfdrr.org/ctrydrmnotes/Philippines.pdf
  16. Gregorio NO, Herbohn J, Tripoli R & Pasa A. 2020. A local initiative to achieve global forest and landscape restoration challenge-Lessons learned from al community-based forest restoration project in Biliran Province, Philippines. Forests 11(4):475
  17. Göltenboth Fand Hutter CP. 2004. New options for land rehabilitation and landscape ecology in Southeast Asia by “rainforestation farming”. Journal for Nature Conservation 12:181-189
  18. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2017. Government of the Philippines: Risk resiliency and sustainability program Phase I (2018-2022). https://climatechange.denr.gov.ph/images/DL_Files/RRSP_SPCR%20Docum ent.pdf
  19. Kumar C, Begeladze S, Calmon M & Saint-Laurent C. 2015. Enhancing food security through forest landscape restoration: Lessons from Burkina Faso, Brazil, Guatemala, Vietnam, Ghana, Ethiopia, and Philippines. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for the Conservation of Nature
  20. Macnaghten P & Myers, G. 2004. Focus groups: The moderator’s view and the analyst’s view. In Gobo G., Gubrium J, Seale C & Silverman, D. (eds) Qualitative Research Practice (pp65-79). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
  21. Metcalfe J. 2004. Landcare in the Philippines: Stories of people and places. ACIAR Monograph 112. ACIAR, Canberra, Australia
  22. Mishra L. 2016. Focus group discussion in qualitative research. TechnoLEARN 6(1):1-5
  23. Oraiz K and Asio VB. 2017. Properties of soils in the marginal upland of Sta. Rita, Samar, Philippines. Annals of Tropical Research 39 (Supplement A):1-19
  24. Taylor SJ and Bogdan R. 1998. Introduction to qualitative research methods: A guidebook and resource. NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc
  25. Thomas V and Lopez R. 2015. Global increase in climate-related disasters. ADB Economics Working Paper Series No. 466. Asian Development Bank, Metro Manila, Philippines
  26. Van Heck B. 2003. Participatory development: Guidelines on beneficiary participation in agricultural and rural development (2nd edn). Rural Institutions. and Participation Service, Rural Development Division, FAO, Rome, Italy

Tools


Copyright © 2025  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic