Initiating an Education-Based Sustainable Development Framework in Aurora Province, Philippines

ASCOT Research International Journal, Volume 3, December 2010

1

Initiating an Education-Based Sustainable Development Framework in

Aurora Province, Philippines

Macose1, F.E., Roxas

2 S.K., Fuentes

3, R. O.,

Angara

4, E. V and Watts

5, P. D.

ABSTRACT

The initiation of a community based approach to sustainable development

that includes a focus on assessing ecosystem capacity is reported. The project

design had a focus of providing a framework for the continued expansion of the

Aurora State College of Technology Extensions Program. Preliminary results of

key hypotheses are reported to assist other Philippine institutions and possibly

those in other countries to consider similar programs for development and poverty

alleviation.

INTRODUCTION

The 21st century requires new configurations in organizations as cultural

environmental scenarios are becoming more and more different, in part due to

global challenges associated with poverty alleviation, human rights and climate

change. New situations offer new opportunities as well as new problems for

management and require new mindsets, skills and competencies. To deal with

challenges of the uncertain future there is a need to be prepared and proactive

regarding change management. Schools being the responsible agent for the

preparation of the young should engage in planned change. There is a need for

education programs and institutions to move away from simply responding or

reacting. The ability to manage change is in large dependent upon establishing the

appropriate organizational processes. Many of the most important policy issues

facing the planet today demand a central focus on the sustainability of

development. A widely-used and accepted international definition of Sustainable

Development (SD) given by Doyle (2007) and adopted by the United Nations is: a

development often called the foundation of environmental policy, with a view that

development should meet the needs of the current generation without leaving

behind a compromised or damaged environment that cannot meet the needs of

future generations. This implies both limitations imposed by the present state of

technology and social organizations on environmental resources, and the ability of

the biosphere to absorb the effects of human activities.

We suggest that SD efforts need to be directed at community level

empowerment which is in part, the process of enabling people to improve their


2

own lives. For this, Bass et al. (1995) strongly recommended networking within

and between countries on implementing appropriate participation strategies.

Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO), is an international (sustainable) development

organization with partners in national offices in the United Kingdom, the

Netherlands, Kenya, Canada and the Philippines provides international assistance

through deployment of workers in several parts of the country, including Aurora

Province and are working towards food security and related development of

environmental management strategies. VSO promotes volunteering to fight global

poverty by bringing people together to share skills, creativity and learning to build

a fairer world as they link rural poverty to dependence upon the environment for

food (Santos & Schneider, 2001).A review of SD by a national assembly of

volunteers through Volunteer Services Overseas concluded that enhanced public

participation is critical for the Philippines (Aekester et al. 2007). Further, it is

important, if not critical that least developed countries understand and present the

integral components of their own development to stimulate synergistic

international exchange. Every unit is a subunit of a larger system and global SD

involves functional dialogue, local action and strategic collaboration. Hopefully,

an enhanced participatory approach to SD will convince local leaders in

government, civil society, and the academe to undertake new efforts which can

unite the people in the building of a new Aurora and a new Philippines; one where

human, societal and ecological development are sustained. The education

institutions hold the key to this development for future generations and the current

work is focused on the development of an SD mandate within ASCOT’s

Extension Services. The project was initiated by the first author as part of his

doctoral thesis (Macose 2008).

Situational Analysis

For the purpose of providing a focus on specific aspects of the

development challenge, we here provide a brief situational analysis of related

global, national and local contexts or perspectives. Situational analysis

corresponds to the identification of the primary problems that are the underlying

causes of the organization’s desire for change in a holistic fashion.


3

The Realities of Global System

A primary challenge facing the world today and in the future is to meet the

needs of human food security and ensure that the natural resource base remains

productive for the future. According to Bjonnes (2003), ―the current global model

of development is unsustainable‖. This was more recently confirmed by the

United Nations Environment Program Report (Brahic, 2007) on the state of

Earth's natural resources. Brahic concluded the environment is being sucked dry

by unsustainable development. For example, areas other than the Philippines with

great biodiversity resources, such as Latin America are also suffering from

ecosystem and protected area destruction. Valente (2007) warns that the model of

economic development there is based on intensive exploitation and export of

natural resources and that the governments are nothing to halt the destruction.

There are similar examples from elsewhere in the world.

As damage to rivers and land is evident in Southern Australia, Spokesman Barry

Traill (2006) of the Northern Australia Environment Alliance is very worried

when he posed the question "When are we going to start thinking about

development for sustainable pastoralism, for tourism, for the things that really

work for the north?" Miliband, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth

Affairs also made a strong signal that unless the government starts to make real

progress toward reconciling these contradictions, UK government faces a future

that is less certain and less secure (DEFRA, 2007). Another problem raised by

Steele et al (2007) is balancing both ecosystem, health, and promoting economic

growth. They reported further that the challenge of poverty alleviation, promoting

the conditions for human health, securing for rural livelihoods and conserving the

environment is particularly acute in Asia and the Pacific. However, participatory

grass roots actions are having positive effects as in the case of the international

recognition of PAMANA, the Philippine grassroots alliance of fisherfolk marine

protected area (MPA) Managers as Ecohealth Practitioners (Anabieza et al. IN

PRESS). This is a response to one of the major challenges which is to link public

participation to ecological capacity.

Ecological footprint analysis compares human demand on nature with the

biosphere's ability to regenerate resources and provide services. It does this by

assessing the biologically productive land and marine area required to produce the

resources a population consumes and absorb the corresponding waste, using the

ecological footprint concept and calculation method which was developed as the

PhD dissertation of Mathis Wackernagel, under William Rees at the University of


4

British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, from 1990-1994 (Wikepedia, 2008). The

human economy now exerts a larger Footprint than the planet has biocapacity

(Wackernagel, 2007). The Earth’s biologically productive area is approximately

11.2 billion hectares or 1.8 global hectares per person in 2002 (assuming that no

capacity is set aside for wild species). However, the global Ecological Footprint in

2002 was 13.7 global hectares or 2.2 global hectares per person. Thus, in 2002,

humanity’s Ecological Footprint exceeded global biocapacity by 0.4 global

hectares per person, or 23 percent. This finding implies that the human economy

is in ecological overshoot: the planet’s natural resource capital stock is being

depleted, thus eroding future supply of natural resources and operating at risk of

environmental collapse (Wackernagel, 2007 & EEA, 2005). This is also

considered true for both the open oceans (Pauly and Alder 2005) and coastal areas

(Agardy and Alder 2005).

The ecological footprint quantifies the amount of land area that is required

to sustain the lifestyle of a population of any size—an individual, household,

community, city, country, or world. With the predicted increase in the world

population, the demand for marine resources will rise above the present supply

(Garcia and Newton 1994). Many of the important fish resources are already in a

state of full or overexploitation, and for these resources it is likely that further

increases in effort will result in stock collapses (Gislason et al. 2000). There are

several convergent approaches to determining the capacity of marine ecosystems

and planning. For example, UNESCO (2009) has taken a leadership role on

marine spatial planning with a focus on biodiversity units such as bioregions. This

approach has been linked to the use of marine ecological models such as

ECOPATH and ECOSIM (Christensen and Pauly 1995,1996). However, although

significant tools have been developed, we appear globally to live beyond our

means, in an ecological sense. In other words, we are eroding the supply of

ecological resources and services for future generations and posing the risk of

global environmental collapse. Although these consequences are made

unintentionally through human activity, we clearly must learn to better manage

our interaction within the ecological systems, particularly in the case of the

watersheds, marine and river basins, where individual approaches of protecting

the areas are unlikely to succeed on their own.

Increasingly it is perceived that these global issues cannot be addressed by

countries acting independently. Further, there is now a growing awareness that we

can no longer blindly trust in the regenerative capacity of ecosystems (Töpfer,

1998). This international perspective spawned the World Commission on


5

Environment and Development (WCED, 1987) which set three general objectives

to be addressed: 1) to re-examine the critical environmental and development

issues and formulate realistic proposals for dealing with them, 2) to propose new

forms of international co-operation on these issues that will influence policies and

events in the direction of needed changes; and 3) to raise the levels of

understanding and commitment to action of individuals, voluntary organizations,

businesses, and governments. We suggest that two decades later there is still a

need to meet these goals and that the educational system is important for this

process. Further, this may be particularly true for less developed countries such as

the Philippines with limited available economic resources. The enhancement of

public participation may be a key strategy in formulation and implementation of a

social-process that helps to meet these goals and this process can best begin at the

community level and then collaborate with other communities that share the

ecosystem services. The meeting of the United Nations Commission on

Sustainable Development (1996) on Innovative Approaches Towards

Environmentally SD on June 6-7, 1996, in Quezon City, Philippines resulted in

consensus on the need to promote innovative forward-looking approaches to SD,

and the need to collaborate on enhancing the capacity of our natural resources.

Other countries are also moving in this same direction.

In China, Mao Rubai reported that more than 10 provinces and

municipalities have already promulgated local regulations on the circular

economy, which served as reference in drafting the national circular economy law

for SD (Xinhua, 2006). The core of the circular economy is to maintain

friendliness to the environment in the process of economic development by

making a full and efficient use of resources and energies and minimize waste

discharge. It features low consumption of energy, low emission of pollutants and

high efficiency, through its 3-R principle: reduce, reuse, and recycle. In England,

Ward (2002) reported that government money is being made available under the

England Rural Development Programme (ERDP) which contributes to the

delivery of the Government's Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food by

helping farmers and foresters to respond better to consumer requirements. The

ERDP provides new opportunities to protect and improve the countryside, to

develop sustainable enterprises and to help rural communities to thrive by

safeguarding and enhancing their rural environment. Likewise, the Association of

Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN, 2003), disclosed that the business sector

continues to be involved in a number of programs to ensure that environmental

considerations are integrated in their activities. ASEAN cited the Private Sector

http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/docs/default.htm


6

Participation in Managing the Environment (PRIME) which ensures compliance

to Environmental Management Systems.

Despite all these efforts, the global society is continuously confronted with

the question of whether SD as a concept and practice has improved the lives of

the people. Globally, the failure of the various extension delivery approaches in

developing countries to effectively engineer significant and sustainable

agricultural growth has become a major concern to all stakeholders, including the

donor community (Madukwe, 2004). While it is hard to dismantle existing

structures and patterns of behavior established for centuries, it is also hard to

operate in a context unfamiliar, with tools one is just learning to operate. Much

has been written about SD with policies already in place at local, national and

international scales, but their implementation remains elusive. According to

Roxas (2004), the implementation of the new concern for the global SD and the

covenants reached in Rio de Janeiro embodied in Agenda 21 (UNESCAP, 1992)

dictate a formidable challenge to all of us. The task right now is implementation

on how to translate the imperatives into practical action.

Dealing with the same challenge, Thaman (2002) called for the

International Association of Universities as teaching and research organizations to

recognize and act upon a more culturally inclusive interpretation of SD. Segreda

(2002)

of University of Costa Rica emphasized the University's role in defining

a national perspective on sustainability starting in 1987. Segrada added that

scientists and economists are now promoting organic agriculture because they

now come to realize that the world’s wealth still relies on nature with our natural

ecosystems providing humans with food, water, air, shelter, food, clothing and

medicines. In the current work we look at the development of an enhanced

Extensions Services role for Aurora State College of Technology and an

integration of these participatory strategies with other aspects of the institution.

The Realities of the Philippine System

There is a growing global consensus that natural resources are under threat

everywhere. In the Philippines, the link between poverty and the environment

are continually in discussion, primarily because the consequences of

environmental degradation fall heavier on the poor. Poverty at the same time

drives people into environmentally degrading economic activities for their

survival. Then Vice President Estrada said: "Our resources are limited and even

declining. Our population is increasing rapidly far beyond our capability to


7

support and provide for the needs of our people in terms of food, shelter, social

services, and basic amenities" (Dañguilan, 2006).

The Ecological Footprint of the Philippines in year 2002 is 1.0 global

hectares per capita adding up the biologically productive land per capita in the

Philippines is only 0.6 global hectares per person (GFN, 2005). This finding

indicates that the country’s ecological stocks are being depleted faster than nature

can regenerate them by -0.4. This means that if we will not change our lifestyle

and consumer habits, we put danger to the natural systems that supports life

systems. In marine ecosystems, the Global Environmental Facility (GEF, 2004)

revealed that overfishing, destructive fishing methods, siltation and increases in

the human population have threatened the productivity of the coastal and marine

ecosystems in the Philippines. GEF estimated that only five percent of coral reefs

are in excellent condition while mangroves have decline by as much as 57 percent

in the last 23 years while Asian Development Bank (ADB, 2005) reported that sea

grass losses have been estimated at 30 -50 % over the last 50 years. During the

last three decades, 70% of old-growth mangrove swamps were destroyed. For the

larger forest ecosystems, the country had already reached the limits of its arable

lands in the early 60’s and 70’s, but since a lot of people still depend on

agriculture for livelihood and daily sustenance, forest lands are now being

converted to agricultural lands (HES Consortium, 2004). Only less than 10% of

primary forest, and 20% of total forest cover remains.

The 1970s saw the modernization of agriculture in the Philippines with the

introduction of High Yielding Varieties (HYVs) of rice which led to loss of

genetic diversity (HES Consortium, 2004). From the country’s 5,000 indigenous

rive varieties, only a few remain in the farmer’s field today because these original

varieties have already been cross-bred with HYVs. To achieve increase in yield,

farmers later found out that these HYVs require higher dosages and highly

dependent of modern inputs. Between 1973 and 1983, the annual fertilizer

consumption increased by an average of 4 % while pesticide use increased by

three-fold between 1980 and 1987. Bridges (2007) informed that despite of high

average rainfall, the Philippines was estimated to have the second to lowest per

capita freshwater rates in Asia as of 2000 due to over-extraction of groundwater,

water pollution, and denuded forests and watersheds. Solid waste generation in

Metro Manila is estimated at 5,345 tons per day, which is expected to double by

2010. Only about 65-75% of total waste generated in Metro Manila is collected


8

and about 13% recycled. The 25-35% of uncollected waste is disposed of

improperly, especially in creeks resulting in health problems and flooding.

All components of our ecosystem, both living and non-living, have distinct

and unique functions and are interconnected creating a balance necessary for

sustaining life, thus destruction of one has repercussions on all. Hence there is an

urgent need to properly manage natural resources and protect the environment to

improve the quality of life of the present as well as that of future generations. To

meet this challenge, the operational strategy of ADB (2005) for the Philippines

focuses more on poverty reduction, social development and environmental

improvement and strengthening the LGUs.

It is interesting to note that the Philippines was the first country that

established a national Agenda 21 called the Philippine Agenda 21 (CADI, 2000).

It provides for the creation of an enabling environment which would assist various

stakeholders to integrate SD in their decision-making processes. Executive Order

No.15 created the Philippines Council for Sustainable Development (1992) which

is tasked to establish guidelines and mechanisms that will expand, concretize, and

operationalize SD principles and incorporate them in the preparation of the

development plans at the national and local levels. One strategy being pursued by

The Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan 2001-2004 – Philippines (ILO,

1996-2008) is the employment of clean production technologies and more

environment-friendly materials. This strategy shall be intensively promoted in

consultation with the private sector and civil society.

First among the eight overarching goals of the Philippines’ Millennium

Development Goals (NEDA, 2005) is to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger by

2015. The National Physical

Framework Plan (2001-2030) of the

Philippines embodies the country’s land

use policy agenda towards the

utilization of land and other physical

resources to obtain the maximum

possible social and economic benefits

for the people. For Non-Government

Organizations (NGOs), one

environmental management strategy

being employed in the country is the

Plans

Projects

Implemented

Development

Indicators

Results

Figure 1. The old and existing

paradigm of Analytical

Framework


9

direct community-based actions implemented by the Environmental Legal

Assistance Center (ELAC, 2000) in Rizal and Quezon towns. Their activities

include: 1) information gathering, 2) core team organizing of community

members who participate in the actual implementation of the community direct

action, 3) processing of information gathered and laying out a case-specific

implementation plan, 4) re-echoing of implementation plan with the organized

core of participants. 5) arresting persons committing or assisting illegal logging

activities and seizing and confiscating paraphernalia used and turning over to

local officials or mandated government agencies for custody, and 6) ELAC takes

over the case for litigation.

In academic institutions, Segovia and Galang (2002) of Miriam College

said that for SD to happen it must take root in the consciousness and cultures of

society, a task in which education plays a very important part. On their part,

Miriam College has integrated environmental education in its programs as part of

its mission and commitment to produce a genuine "steward of creation". The Old

and Existing Paradigm in the Philippines: (Taken from power point

presentation titled The State of The Nation produced by Susan Roxas for

FCOMT, n.d.). Over the past 50 years, each administration (From Macapagal to

Macapagal) has applied the same prescription and measure of progress to the

development process. The prescriptions through investments and the indicators of

development (GNP) are products of a world view formed by the Industrial

Revolution of the 19th century. At best, the paradigm is inadequate in managing

the increasing complexity of a postmodern nation. At worst, the results (economy

growth, GNP etc) are devastating. Thirty two million Filipinos live on less than

23 pesos a day. More than 1 in 3 children are malnourished. The land can no

longer support a population growing faster than the world average. At least 2,600

Filipinos leave the country each day to find work promising their families a better

future that should reduce our unemployment by 1% a year.

The pathology lies in the analytical framework of our approach to

development as shown in Figure 1. If the indicators (economy growth, GNP etc)

do not reflect reality, the solutions compound the problem. The serious mistake

was to treat the country as if it were a single, homogeneous territory inhabited by

an equally homogeneous community with a uniform psychological, mental and

cultural base Roxas (n.d.). Roxas added that any framework for development must

consider the diversity of the country and must be tailored-made for the people


10

living in communities that draw subsistence from diverse habitats and

ecosystems.

A central message is clear: SD as a concept is offered as the solution to

most problems associated with human interaction with the natural environment.

Specifically, it may mean that there is a need for a shift in the approach to

organization and management at a variety of levels. The current initiative is

intended to conduct a pre-feasibility study on a proposed paradigm shift to the

Ecosystem Centered Community Based Organization and Management (ECSOM)

Protocol within the Province and Municipality framework of Aurora as well as

Aurora State College of Technology.

The Realities of Aurora Province

Aurora is considered as one of the last forest frontiers of Northern Luzon

and the country of the Philippines. It is envisioned as a model of environmental

and bio-diversity conservation in the Asia-Pacific Region and to be a partner in

the Sierra Madre Biodiversity Corridor Program of the Conservation

International-Philippines (SD-Enhanced PPFP 2004).

However, Aurora is one of the poorest provinces in the Luzon and among

the 20 poorest provinces in the country. Aurora Province itself is a victim of

environmental denudation as manifested by frequent landslides and flashfloods

and it has been confirmed that protection areas are subjected to various degrees of

misuse (PPFP, 1993-2002). Mass wasting commonly result to sedimentation of

rivers and flooding of low lying areas and these affect the watersheds’ support to

agricultural areas. Most if not all existing Watershed Forest Reserves have no

effective on-site management putting these areas into an open access protected

forestlands where illegal encroachers or forest resource users can come and go at

the expense of the resources therein. Individual families who are primarily

focused on food security, characteristically moving from ecosystem to ecosystem

worsens settlement development through illegal logging, slash and burn farming

and charcoal-making activities (PPFP, 1993-2002).

Wetlands which are mostly found in Baler and Casiguran and serve as a

sanctuary of indigenous birds and some migratory birds are now being converted


11

to riceland areas and fishponds. The province’s remaining mangrove areas of 459

hectares mostly found in Dilasag and Casiguran are continuously depleted and

converted to other land using activities such as fishponds and prawn farming.

Mangrove areas, which are classified protection area (P.D. 705) are continuously

titled to private individuals. With mangrove depletion, coral reefs as breeding and

feeding grounds of various species of fish and crabs, and natural breakwater of

coastlines from sea waves also diminish (PPFP, 1993 – 2002).

Poverty incidence in the province has increased between 1994 and 2000

from 43% to 64% according to surveys (PPFP, 1993 – 2002). The Human

Development Index (HDI) based on the National Statistical Coordination Board

2002 Report is 0.585, lowest amongst the provinces in Central Luzon. Out-

migration shown by the decrease of the Indigenous Peoples (IP) population in

Aurora between 1998 and 2000 from 12,000 to about 8,500 indicates that this is

associated with enhanced economic opportunities in neighboring provinces.

Although the jurisdictions are dedicated to development in their municipalities

and across the province, these results indicate that an organization and

management paradigm shift may be required.

On March 2, 2006 the Honorable Governor Bellaflor Angara J. Castillo

indicated her desire to engage the broader community, creating a multi-sectoral

approach towards purposive linkaging and network building to pave the way for

effective and coordinated efforts across various sectors for development

undertakings. She added further that community participation in planning is

extremely important to Aurora’s development. The commitment of the Province

of Aurora to SD within their participatory planning process is being combined

with the vision of ASCOT to create a SD network. In the current work, this

commitment was further facilitated by the involvement of all eight Municipalities

of Aurora, Civil Society (CS), People’s Organizations (POs), Cooperatives, and

other academic institutions’ participation in the consortium. These synergistic

potential of these stakeholders have the potential to be used for the development a

full proposal on the implementation of ECSOM, but also focus on the institutional

relationship of ASCOT with the province.


12

ASCOT, in part is focusing on the great potential of education to have its

share in the Philippine drive for SD. The College is moving to institutionalize a

Marine Science undergraduate and adult education program (Watts et al. this

volume). These efforts form part of the initiative on the conservation of marine

resources in the Province of Aurora to ―make provincial planning work for the

poor‖ and implement a Marine Biodiversity Program that assists in balancing

development between ecosystems; encompassing research, education and

governance, strategically for sustainability. The Office of Extension and Training

at ASCOT has a vision of enhancing programs based upon the needs of the

people; a sustainable participatory approach at the community level. One

developmentis the Farmers' Information and Technology Service (FITS) - one-

stop information shops located at the LGUs where technologies for increased food

production, information on conservation of natural resources etc. can be accessed.

METHODS

Maximo T. Kalaw Insitute of Sustainable Develppment (MTKISD) funded

and conducted a country-wide survey on interests and opportunities for an

operational approach to SD. Three (3) areas including Aurora were selected based

not only the presence of worthy biodiversity resources, but also on clear needs for

poverty reduction/sustainable livelihoods and most importantly both political and

institutional commitment (Roxas and Imson 2007). This preliminary step is seen

as a Pre-feasibility installation (PFI) study for implementing the full ECSOM

(Ecosystem-centered Community-based Organization and Management) Protocol.

Background and Objectives

The PFI was required in the planning and problem identification phase of

project cycle to ensure all possible problems were anticipated and identified,

alternative solutions were appraised and the preferred solution met the

sustainability criteria. The overarching goals of the endeavor was ―to facilitate the

consciousness of the stakeholders on the factors that influence their general

welfare; motivate and capacitate them to own and manage development

processes; and empower them to sustain it through local efforts for local


13

progress.‖ The primary objective of PFI is thus to provide local stakeholders with

the scientific impetus for proceeding with the mobilization for a full piloting of an

ECSOM system making every process participatory. This was carried out in three

distinct phases:

PHASE I: Groundworking (Organizing)

Objectives:

1. To assess and build-up local and institutional support and capacity for

the undertaking.

PHASE II: Participatory Situational Assessment

Objectives:

1. To undertake comprehensive community scanning to establish a sound

understanding of the development situation being addressed;

2. To involve the stakeholders in the undertaking and facilitate their

consciousness-raising on their development situation including the

resources of and within the community, thereby building a local

constituency.

PHASE III: Selection of Entry Points and Preliminary Designing of an

ECSOM Application (Identification of Interventions)

Objectives:

1. To undertake a detailed analysis of the obtained development situation

and constraints that ECSOM is to address;

2. To identify opportunities and key considerations (such as legislative

frameworks, projects, trends, etc.) that point to or in themselves serve

as entry points for ECSOM.

3. To identify and define the linkages between an ECSOM application

and poverty reduction.

To prevent the rapid destruction of life systems, the development

paradigm had also to change. With the PFI process, the limitation posed by the

previously used SD-Enhanced PPFP (2004) on participatory situational

assessment was avoided. With the priority of poverty and environmental

degradation as a global, national and provincial concern, the change in focus

becomes paramount, our concerns and commitments also need to change.

The Research Main Objective


14

The symptoms of some environmental disorder at global, national and

local levels are evident This study aims to test a PFI (Pre-feasibility installation)

as an initiating intervention in addressing the widening poverty in the rural areas

in the rural areas and give Aurora the benefits of an SD approach to facilitate

community transformation and ensure SD.

The Research Specific Objectives:

1. To establish the difference on Organizational and Management and

Ecology-based Community-centered Planning (OMECP) with respect to

an enhanced planner role paradigm before and after the PFI as a

preliminary approach to ECSOM installation in Aurora Province.

2. To establish the difference on OMECP with respect to an enhanced

community participation paradigm before and after the PFI as a


3. To establish the difference on OMECP with respect to an enhanced

individual participatory action paradigm before and after PFI as a


4. To identify the strengths and weaknesses of the Provincial infrastructure

as a result of PFI as preliminary approach to ECSOM installation in

Aurora Province.

5. To establish the difference in the ruling paradigm for OMECP in the

Province thus making ECSOM installation a feasible strategy for SD as a

result of the PFI.

Research Questions

1) What constitutes a new environmental planning paradigm?

2) What ECSOM planning practice shows evidence of adoption of the new

paradigm?

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

The domain of this action research method was characterized by a social

setting where the researcher covered the entire Province of Aurora during the

period of the study in the year 2007. The development of grassroots leadership is

a long-term process and the ultimate impact of this study may only be felt and

understood over a longer period of time. Thus, rather than concentrating on the


15

impact of the initiating intervention, this study was centered on how the

stakeholders participated in the initiating interventions, the organization of the

community and the planners and how they facilitated the PFI.

Due to the short timeframe of the study, it was necessary to bring all the

stakeholders together to gather the issue of participation on planning, community

and individual participation, data base collection and over-all, the feasibility of

ECSOM installation. The focus was on the short-term development of planners

and community leaders for their individual and group leadership and attitudes.

The Hypothesis

Corollary to the foregoing concepts the following hypotheses were

advanced for statistical testing. Hypotheses 1 to 3 focus specifically on the effect

of the PFI as participatory action research in Aurora Province. Hypotheses 4 and 5

consider the viability and appropriateness of a full ECSOM installation in the

Province.

Hypothesis 1: As a result of a PFI as a preliminary approach to ECSOM

installation in Aurora Province; Organization Management and Ecology-based

Community Centered Planning (OMECP) advanced significantly with respect to

an enhanced planner role paradigm.


installation in Aurora Province; OMECP advanced significantly with respect to an

enhanced community participation paradigm.


installation in Aurora Province; OMECP advanced significantly with respect to an

enhanced individual participation paradigm.

Hypothesis 4: As a result of PFI as a preliminary approach to ECSOM installation

in Aurora Province, there was a significant change in the mode of situational

analysis which results to identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the

provincial infrastructure.

Hypothesis 5: As a result of PFI, there was a significant difference in the ruling

paradigm for OMECP in the province thus making ECSOM installation a feasible

strategy for sustainable development.


16

Research Design

The study was conceptualized as an action research which is primarily

applicable for the understanding of change processes in social systems. The

research is a typically cyclical process linking theory and practice (Baskerville,

1999). Action researchers are among those who assume that complex social

systems cannot be reduced for meaningful study. They believe that human

organizations can only be understood as whole entities. The fundamental

contention of action research is that complex social processes can be studied best

by introducing changes and observing the effects of these changes.

Action research is collaborative as it challenges the position of the social

scientist as privileged observer, analyst and critic where the researcher and the

practitioners come together to identify potential problems, their underlying causes

and possible interventions (Cronholm, S. & Goldkuhl, G, 2004). The problem is

defined after dialogue with the researcher and group so that the ideas may be

communicated and a mutual understanding is reached (Grundy and Kemmis,

1981). This paradigm shift becomes demand-driven wherein the needs of the

communities are addressed and priotorized.

Action research is characterized by intervention experiments that operate

on problems or questions perceived by practitioners within a particular context.

"It is based on the Lewinian proposition that causal inferences about the behavior

of human beings are more likely to be valid and enactable when the human beings

in question participate in building and testing them" (Argyris and Schon, 1991).

With the intervention of the researcher as Director for Extension and Training

Services of ASCOT, he becomes part of the study and becomes one of the study

subjects as implied by a process of participatory observation.

In summary, this action research adopts the four common characteristics

found through careful survey of the action research literature with widespread

agreement by research authorities: 1) collaboration among participants, 2) a

problem focus based on an action and change orientation; and 3) an "organic"

process involving systematic stages; Thus, the PFI design included 1) formation

of consortium; 2) information gathering; 3) participatory assessment, and 4)

identification of interventions.


17

Research Population and Sampling Technique

Stakeholders comprised the study population. This included the Planner

Stakeholders (PSs) and the General Community Stakeholders (GCSs). The PSs

were the Provincial Planning and Development Coordinator (PPDC), Provincial

Agriculturist (PA), Municipal Planning and Development Coordinators

(MPDCs), Municipal Environment and Natural Resources Officers (MENROs),

Municipal Social Welfare and Development Officers (MWDOs), Municipal

Health Officers (MHOs), Municipal Agrarian Reform Officers (MAROs) and the

Municipal Agricultural Officers (MAOs).

Since this study used a participatory approach among planners and community

leaders of the eight LGUs within Aurora Province, respondents were selected by

randomized sampling from planner stakeholders (PSs) and the general community

(GCSs). Two (2) sample PSs were taken from each municipality and four (4) from

the Provincial Office for a total of 20 PSs for the whole province. Thirty sample

GCSs were taken from GCSs.

Questionnaire as Research Instrument

In particular, this study used ECSOM designed prototype questionnaire for

customized data collection and processing. A pre-test and post test were given to

respondents. In particular, the design of the questionnaire was intended to find out

the influence of PFI on the levels of involvement of PSs and the GCSs towards

their participation in ECSOM. A separate questionnaire intended for planners and

another for GCSs were administered for the respondents but containing the same

set of questions. See Appendix A and B for the sample questionnaires. To get the

reliable answers from the respondents, particularly from the GCSs, the

questionnaires were translated into Tagalog by the late Dr. Benjamin P. Galban of

ASCOT who has a Ph. D. in Filipino-Linguistics.

For the post-test, the goal was to involve them in planning, to provide a

background on the proposed ECSOM and elicit their reactions. On a likert scale,

the respondents were asked to answer the questions.

OOnn aa ssccaallee ooff 11 ttoo 55 wwhheerree11 rreepprreesseennttss ""SSTTRROONNGGLLYY DDIISSAAGGRREEEE”” aanndd 55

rreepprreesseennttss ""SSTTRROONNGGLLYY AAGGRREEEE""..TThhee ffoolllloowwiinngg wweerree tthhee rreesseeaarrcchh oobbjjeeccttiivveess

eeaacchh wwiitthh aa ccoorrrreessppoonnddiinngg sseett ooff qquueessttiioonnss::


18

Objective 1 was set to establish the difference on organization

management and ecology-based community-centered planning (OMECP) with

respect to an enhanced planner role paradigm before and after PFI as preliminary

approach to ECSOM installation in Aurora Province. The PSs themselves and the

GCSs were asked eighteen questions. The questions focused on partnerships and

advocacy for organization and resource based management, collection of data,

planning, decision making, and partly on the implementation.

Objective 2 was laid to establish the difference on OMECP with respect to

an enhanced community participation paradigm before and after PFIPPP as

preliminary approach to ECSOM installation in Aurora Province. The PSs and

GCSs themselves were asked how did the GCS’s participation paradigm change

for which ten questions were asked:

The General Community Members…

11.. Participate in resource management plans/councils.

22.. Suggest possible solutions of minimizing or preventing environmental

problems..

33.. Take a role on education and information campaigns (EIC) on biodiversity

significance and the dangers of environmental damage on health..

4. See themselves as a steward of the environment.

5. Are involved in identifying environmental problems found within their

community.

6. Voice environmental concerns through letters and petitions.

7. Conduct barangay cleanups or join/start ecology/resource management groups.

8. Use resources sustainably with emphasis on the needs of future generations and

activities such as reforestation.

9. Seek out livelihood alternatives to avoid over-exploitation of resources.

10. Focus on partnerships for strength and legitimacy in governance.

Objective 3 was put to establish the difference on OMECP with respect to

an enhanced individual participatory action paradigm before and after PFIPPP

as preliminary approach to ECSOM Protocol installation in Aurora Province.


19

Ten questions were asked for the PSs and GCSs which are as follows:

1. I participate in resource management group meetings.

2. I am involved in identifying environmental problems found within my

community.

33.. I am empowered to suggest ways or find possible solutions of minimizing or

preventing ecological/ environmental problems.

4. I see myself as a steward of the environment.

5. I voluntary participate in activities regarding environmental protection

6. I understand Aurora’s three environments: marine, forest and agriculture and

how they are linked.

7. I voice environmental concerns through letters and petitions.

8. I use resources sustainably with emphasis on the needs of future generations

and activities such as reforestation.

9. I seek out livelihood alternatives to avoid over-exploitation of resources.

10. I accept change on ecology based community centered management.

Objective 4 was intended to answer the objective of establishing the

difference in the mode situational analysis which results to identifying the

strengths and weaknesses of the Provincial infrastructure as a result of PFIPPP as

preliminary approach to ECSOM installation in Aurora Province, some of the

questions on Sets A, B and C were collated and analyzed. Specifically, questions

number 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 from set A (PSs’ participation), questions number 2, 4

and 9 from set B (GCSs’ participation) and questions number 2, 3 and 4 from set

C (individual participation) were collated and analyzed. These questions pertain

basically on situational analyis.

Objective 5 was meant to establish the difference in the ruling paradigm

for OMECP in the Province thus making ECSOM installation a feasible strategy

for SD as a result of PFI, all of the questions from sets A, B and C were collated

and analyzed because they all pertains to the overall perception of the PSs and

GCSs on the expected overall implementation of the PFIPP, hence the viability of

the project. It includes the organization, collection of data, planning and decision

making and partly on the implementation.


20

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The information reported herein is primarily intended to assist other

Philippine institutions in their assessment of how best to initiate a parallel or local

SD program. The findings and analysis of the study were discussed and

statistically analyzed to find out the effects of the initiating intervention on the

levels of participation of 20 sample PSs and 30 sample GCSs based on the

alternative hypotheses.

Research Question 1: What constitute a new environmental planning

paradigm?

In this study, hypotheses 1 to 3 were focused specifically on the effect of

the ECSOM PFI as participatory action research in Aurora Province. The

following variables were tracked down to determine its effects as environmental

planning:

1) planner role paradigm,

2) community participation paradigm, and

3) individual participation paradigm

The first hypothesis focused on the idea that after the PFI, Organizational

and Management and Ecology-based Community-centered Planning (OMECP)

will be advanced significantly with respect to an enhanced planner role paradigm.

The paradigm shift on the role of PSs as perceived by the PSs themselves and the

GCSs were taken (Table 2).

Table 2. t – test results for an enhanced planner role paradigm.

Stakeholders’

Opinion

Degree of

Freedom

t computed

value

t tabular values (two tailed

test)

5 % 1%

PSs 19 22 2.093 2.861

GCSs 29 4.7 2.045 2.756

Since the t –computed values are larger that their corresponding t – tabular

values both at 5% and 1% levels of significance, we accept the alternative

hypothesis that there is really a significant difference on the change in the PS’s

and GCS’s perspective on the way the planners participate in the ECSOM

program in the Province of Aurora. This study was able to show that the PFIPPP


21

becomes essential for planners to implement OMECP. Both stakeholders are

becoming positive the way planners in the government are participating in

environmental protection and developing appropriate environmental legislation.

Planners now shifted their focus on partnerships particularly on situational

assessment. They found that participatory assessment needs the contribution of

other stakeholders including the representation from the communities. . Likewise,

planners now contribute to a primary source data base that for validation of the

communities. By merely asking the validation of the community members gave

them the feeling that they are important.

The implementation of PFI gave the planners a realistic overview of the

possible challenges/opportunities in an area. Using the local consortium that was

set up, each discipline gave their role on education & information campaigns

(EIC) on biodiversity significance and the dangers of environmental damage

(over-fishing for over use of pesticides for DA, logging and pollution for DENR

and disposal of waste for DOH.

The second hypothesis was set to establish the impact of PFI on OMECP

with respect to an enhanced community participation paradigm before and after

PFI as preliminary approach to ECSOM installation in Aurora Province.

Community participation as designed in the implementation of the PFI refers to

active participation from the grassroots. But due to limited time as required by the

study and more on ECSOM which requires about five (5) months to complete the

study plus the wide coverage of the study, the community participation discussed

here also somewhat changed. Community participation refers to the limited

representation of the grassroots who were represented by their respective

barangay captains and some PO representatives during meetings and symposiums

which were conducted at their respective municipalities. The paradigm shift on

the level participation of the community as perceived by the PSs’ and GCS’s were

surveyed through questionnaires before and after PFI. Statistical results were

presented in Table 3.

Table 3. t – test results for an enhanced GCS’s role paradigm

Stakeholders’

Opinion

Degree of

Freedom

t computed

value

t tabular values at levels

of significance (two


22

tailed test)

5 % 1%

PSs 19 5.3 2.093 2.861

GCSs 29 0.7ns

2.045 2.756

The alternative hypothesis must be accepted that there is a significant

difference on the community participation paradigm shift before and after PFI as

preliminary approach to ECSOM installation in Aurora Province as perceived by

the PSs. However, the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference on the

community participation paradigm shift as perceived by the GCSs themselves

should also be accepted.

There seems to be conflicting answers here. While the planners foresee

that there was really a paradigm shift among the GCSs, the GCSs themselves

claimed there was none. This could be attributed by the fact that the planners

rated more the change in attitude of the leaders in the community on whom they

usually have more contact while the GCSs rated the overall participation of the

community-the grass root levels as a group.

With the planners perspective, they rated the very strong community

formation that was observed among ASCOT, the other planners and particularly

the general community leaders. Involvement of the community leaders in all parts

of the planning process was found to increase. Likewise, their level of

understanding and concern on environmental changes also increased significantly.

Since the motion was already set, planners expected it to be sustained thus rating

a paradigm change among the community leaders.

With the community leaders (barngay captains) perspective, they rated the

questionnaire on how the general community-the grassroots level looked at the

impact of the PFI. Involvement of the local people or the grassroots in all parts of

the planning process was very minimal because the researcher was able to

penetrate only some barangays in two municipalities. This is expected as these

results require a full ECSOM installation process.

Using the third hypothesis which sought to prove that ECP will be

advanced significantly with respect to an enhanced individual participatory action

paradigm before and after PFI. Individual here refers to the individual respondents


23

who answered the questionnaires. They represent all the planners and the overall

reactions of the barangay captains and PO representatives. The individual

involvement of the PSs and the GCSs were assessed before and after the

intervention. Statistical results are shown in Table 4.

Table 4. t – test results for an enhanced individual’s role paradigm.

Stakeholders’

Opinion

Degree of

Freedom

t computed

value

t tabular values (two tailed

test)

5 % 1%

PSs 19 11 2.093 2.861

GCSs 29 3.9

2.045 2.756

Since both the computed t-values for the planners and GCSs are larger

than the t tabular values, we accept the alternative hypothesis that there is a

significant difference on their individual participation (respondents) on the SD

program in the Province of Aurora. Therefore, there is change in the PSs’ and

GCSs’ (respondents) perspective on the way they individually participate in the

SD program.

There was a change on the way every respondent participates in resource

management group meetings and activities regarding environmental protection, in

the identification of environmental problems found within my community, in

suggesting ways or finding possible solutions of minimizing or preventing

ecological/ environmental problems and in the use resources sustainably with

emphasis on the needs of future generations and activities such as reforestation.

Likewise, they understand more Aurora’s three environments: marine, forest and

agriculture and how they are linked and see themselves environmental stewards.

They are more likely to seek out livelihood alternatives, avoid over-exploitation

of resources, and accept change on ecology based management.

With the evolving role of the LGUs, facilitation then played a key role on

the expansion of people’s participation in governance from planning to evaluation

through the organization structure espoused by the system—household

clustering—and diffuse situational assessment to the stakeholders. Facilitation

then played a key role. The processes were aligned (from groundwork,


24

community entry, data-gathering, and planning) with LGUs mandated processes

to build on these instead of competing and duplicating these efforts.

Significance of the Study

Data on this study could be used at the national and local levels, at Aurora

State College of Technology and other institutions.

1. ASCOT - The study has been a big step forward for the Office of Extension

and Training in terms of exploring the role of ASCOT in catering the needs of

Aurora Province in sustainable development or SD. Efforts to use the current

work in the development of SD and livelihood programs for residents of

Aurora is ongoing. Results of this study are also being integrated with

ASCOT’s other SD efforts currently under development. For example, the

ECSOM approach is a significant part of the approach to developing a Marine

Science program (Watts et al. this volume). Likewise, at ASCOT the hope is

that others will increasingly incorporate the results of the current study on

extension services and eventually curriculum for Agriculture and Forestry,

Environmental Science as well as on the organization and management

courses at the Masters level. The process itself is an educational experience

not only for the researcher, but also for the institution as it involves itself into

community synergy.

2. Local Level – the ECSOM Consortium would involve the development of a

primary data base in the Province of Aurora at the provincial, municipal, and

barangay level which could greatly enhance the secondary sources used in the

Provincial Physical Framework Development Plans, Municipal Physical

Framework Development Plans and Barangay Investment Plans. Data serve as

inputs for monitoring of the impact of programs undertaken by the national

and the LGUs in their respective communities.

3. National Level - through the PPFFII,, tthe current work attempts to provide

planners at the national level an intervention that could be used as a model for

Provincial SD program and. the linkages to the Philippine based MTKISD.

4. International level - The next step in applying the current study is to report

the details of the investigation through two distinct lines of international

communication: action research and sustainable development. This significant


25

step involves the reformulation of the thesis itself (Macose 2008) to provide

contributions that would fit with the international standards of these two

disciplines. This will involve some of the information above, as well as the

results for all hypotheses tests, requiring further discipline specific analysis and

background research.

REFERENCES

Agardy T, Alder J (2005) Coastal Systems. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,

Chapter 19, pp 513-549

Akester, R, J. Imson, Y. Matteau & P.D. Watts 2007. Sustainability:

environment, education, livelihoods. Dumaguete, 2006. International

conference on sustainable development in the Philippines. Volunteer

Services Overseas Philippines, 21 pages. Available on UNDP site:

www.pvpnetwork.net/index.cfm?module=Library&page=Document&DocumentI

D=6336.

Anabieza, M., M. Pajaro, G. Reyes,

F. Tiburcio and P. Watts IN PRESS

Philippine Alliance of Fisherfolk: Ecohealth Practitioners for Livelihood

and Food Security. EcoHelath:

Argyris, C. & Schon D. A. (1991). Participatory action research and action

science compared. Newbury Park, N.J.: Sage, p. 86.

ASEAN. (2003). Private sector participation in managing the environment.

Sisingamangaraja. Jakarta 12110.

Asian Development Bank. (2005). ADB study: Rural development for the

Philippines. ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong. PO Box 789 0980 Metro

Manila, Philippines.

Bass, S., Dallal-Clayton, B. & Pretty, J. (1995, May). Participation in strategies

for sustainable development. Environmental planning issues. No. 7,

http://www.pvpnetwork.net/index.cfm?module=Library&page=Document&DocumentI%09D=6336




26

International Institute for Environment and Development. 3 Endsleigh

Street, London, UK

Baskerville, R.L. 1999. Investigating information systems with action research.

Journal of Information Systems 2: Article 19.

Bjonnes, R. (2003). A New Vision of Development. Proutist Universal Global

Office. Proutist Universal. Denmark.

Brahic, C. (2007, Oct. 25,). Unsustainable development puts humanity at risk.

NewScientist.com.http://environment.newscientist.com/article.online-

news_rss20

Bridges, G. (2007). Water for all. Asia-Pacific water forum: Asian water

development water outlook. ADB. Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila,

Philippines.

Center for Alternative Development Initiatives. (2000, May). An overview on

poverty eradication through sustainable integrated area development:

Framework for the Localization of Philippine Agenda 21. WebRing Inc.

Center for Alternative Development Initiatives. (2001). Shaping

Globalization: Civil Society, Cultural Power and Threefolding

Christensen, V. and D. Pauly 1995. Fish production, catches and the carrying

capacity of the worlds oceans. Naga, the ICLARM Q. 18(3): 34-40.

Christensen, V. and D. Pauly 1996. Ecological modeling for all. Naga, the

ICLARM Q. 19(2) 25-26.

Cronholm, S. & Goldkuhl, G. (2004). Conceptualizing participatory action

research: Three different practices. Department of Computer and

Information Science, Linköping University, Sweden, Electronic Journal of

Business Research Methods Volume 2 Issue 2.


27

Dañguilan, M. J. (2006, July 16). On our own terms: Women in population,

environment, and development in the Philippines Committee on Women,

Population, and the Environment. Atlanta, USA.

DEFRA. (2007, March 27). Speech by Rt Hon David Miliband MP at the WWF

one planet living summit: One-planet security. London. Retrieved

December 2, 2007 from web page.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/ministers/speeches/david-

miliband/dm070327.htm.

Doyle, K. (2007, March). Remake a living: Sustainable development in today’s

job market. Accessed at (web page).

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/12/133943/972

Environmental Legal Assistance Center. (2000). Community direct action in

Palawan, Philippines. Puerto Princesa City, Palawan 5300

European Environment Agency. 23 Nov 2005 The Ecological Footprint: A

resource accounting framework for measuring human demand on the

biosphere. European Environment Agency (EEA), © Copyright 1995-

2008. Copenhagen K, Denmark -

http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/Ann1132753060

Garcia, S. M., and Newton, C. H. 1994. Responsible fisheries: an overview of

FAO policy developments (1945–1994). Marine Pollution Bulletin, 29(6–

12): 528–536.

Gislason, H., Sinclair, M., Sainsbury, K., & O’Boyle, R. (2000). Symposium

overview incorporating ecosystem objectives within fisheries

management. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 57:476

Global Environmental Facility. (2004). Philippines and Indonesia: Marine

aquarium market transformation initiative (MAMTI). p1.

Global Footprint Netwok. (2005, Nov. 23). © 2003-2007

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/gfn_sub.php?content=footprint_hectares


28

Grazier, P. (1998, Jan.). Team Motivation Originally appeared in EI Network

January, 1998

Grundy, S. (1986) Action research and human interests. in M. Emery & P. Long

(eds) Symposium May 22-23 1986, Research Network of the Australian

Association of Adult Education.

http://www2.fhs.usyd.edu.au/arow/o/m01/rseymour.htm.

Human and Ecological Security Consortium. (2004). Human and ecological

security program for sustainable development. SD Learning Manual.

Module 3.

International Labour Organization. (1996-2008). Medium-term Philippine

development plan: 2001-2004. Accessed at

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/employment/skills/hrdr/init/phi_7.htm

Macose 2008. Initiating intervention: the preparation of a pre-feasibility

installation project proposal (PFIPP) for ecosystem-based community-

centered sustainable development organization and management

(ECSOM) in the Province of Aurora. Dr. of Philiosphy thesis SE Asia

Interdisciplinary Development Institute. 106 p.

Madukwe, M. C. (2004). Participatory approaches in ARD: Knowledge for

development, observatory on science and technology. Wageningen,

Netherlands.

National Physical Framework Plan. (2001-2030). National framework for

physical planning: 2001-2030. Executive Summary. p.7

NEDA. (2005, June). 2nd Philippines progress report on the

MDG. http://www.neda.gov.ph/Files/MDGReports/Pages1-23.pdf

Pauly D, Alder J (2005) Marine Fisheries Systems. Millennium Ecosystem

Assessment, Chapter 18, pp 477-511

PCSD. (1992). Primer on Philippine agenda 21. Philippine council for sustainable

development.


29

P.D. 705 (1975) Revisiting the Presidential Decree no. 389 otherwise known as

the forestry reform code of the Philippines.

PPFP. (1993 – 2002). Provincial Physical Framework Plan (PPFP). Aurora

Province.

PPFP 2004 Sustainable development enhanced PPFP for for Aurora Province

(2004-2014).

Roxas, S. K. (2004, Nov. 2). Bretton Woods Examination.

Roxas, S. K. & Imson, J. (2007, Aug. 21). PFIPP general outlines.

Roxas, Susan. (n.d.). The state of the nation. Power Point Presentation for the

Foundation for Community Organization and Management Technology

Santos, R. & Schneider, H. (2001, June 18- 29). Strategies in networking: the

experience of SPARK in Indonesia, Philippines and Thailand. Paper was

written for the International Conference on Protected Area Management

(ICPAM), June 18 to 20, 2001 at the Subic Bay Metropolitan Area

(SBMA), Olongapo, Philippines

SD-Enhanced PPFP. (2004-2014). Aurora Province Comprehensive Land user

Plan.

Segovia, V. &. Galang, A. P. (2002) . Sustainable development in higher

education in the Philippines: the case of Miriam College. Higher

Education Policy 15.

Segreda, A. M. (2002). Sustainability and peace in Costa Rica: The case of

University of Costa Rica. Elsevier Science Ltd. p.1

Steele, P., Everitt, R., Oviedo, G., & McCauley, D. (2007). Poverty, health, and

ecosystems: Experience from Asia. p7.

Thaman, K. H. (2002, June). Shifting sights: The cultural challenge of

sustainability. International Association of Universities. Higher Education


30

Policy Vol. 15, Number 2. Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. Houndmills,

Basingstoke, Hampshire, England.

Töpfer, K. (1998, July 29). United Nations task force on environment and human

settlements. Linkages Journal. Volume 3, Number 3.

Traill, B. (2006). Northern Territory environment alliance advocates sustainable

development. Northern Australia Environmental Alliance. November 18,

2006. ABC News Online. http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-

bin/common/printfriendly.pl?http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/htm

UNESCO 2009. Marine Spatial Planning. Manual and Guides no. 53.

United Nations Economic and Social Council for Asia and the Pacific. (1992,

June 3-14). United Nations conference on environment and Development

(UNCED): Agenda 21. Rio de Janerio, Brazil.

Valente, M. (2007, Oct. 1).Environment-Latin America: Unsustainable

development. Inter Press Service

Wackernagel, M. (Lead Author) & Russ, T. (Topic Editor). (2007). Ecological

footprint. Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler J. Cleveland (Washington,

D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science

and the Environment). [Published in the Encyclopedia of Earth January

23, 2007; Retrieved August 20, 2008].

<http://www.eoearth.org/article/Ecological_footprint>

Ward, N. (2002, Oct.). Europe’s rural features: The nature of rural development.

The UK National Report. p 8.

Wikepedia. (2008, Aug. 15). Ecological footprint. Accessed

at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint

World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our common future

(The Brundtland Report). Accessed at:

http://www.are.admin.ch/imperia/md/content/are/

nachhaltigeentwicklung/brundtland_bericht.pdf

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Ecological_footprint

http://www.are.admin.ch/imperia/md/content/are/%20nachhaltigeentwicklung/brundtland_bericht.pdf

http://www.are.admin.ch/imperia/md/content/are/%20nachhaltigeentwicklung/brundtland_bericht.pdf


31

Xinhua. (2006, November 17). China drafts law on circular economy.

People's Daily Online. China Daily. p.2.

http://english.people.com.cn/200611/16/eng20061116_321892.html.

Initiating an Education-Based Sustainable Development Framework in Aurora Province, Philippines

Documents

Transcript of Initiating an Education-Based Sustainable Development Framework in Aurora Province, Philippines