Assessment of Pillars of Sustainability

ASSESSMENT OF PILLARS OF SUSTAINABILITY: BASIS FOR THE
FORMULATION OF LOCAL SUSTAINABLE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT

PLAN
A Thesis Proposal Presented to
The Faculty of Hospitality Management
J.H CERILLES STATE COLLEGE
Pagadian City
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT
By:
Cuizon, Charmaine Rose A.

Lipi, Kent Bryan R.
Ortiz, Edwin Jr. C.
Parojinog, Hannah Mariane C.
Approval Sheet
In partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Bachelor in Science

in Hospitality Management, this thesis paper entitled “IMPACT STUDY ON THE
THREE PILLARS OF SUSTAINABILITY AS BASIS FOR THE
PLAN.” Prepared and submitted by Cuizon, Charmaine Rose A., Lipi, Kent Bryan
R., Ortiz, Edwin Jr. C., and Parojinog, Hannah Mariane C., is hereby;
CLEOFE A. BATERNA, PH.D.

Date Adviser
Approved in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree, Bachelor of

Science in Hospitality Management.
____________________
Date Panel Member
____________________
Date Panel Member
____________________
Date Panel Member
Accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Bachelor of

Science in Hospitality Management.
JULITO V. MANDAC JR., DM

Chairperson
BSHM Program Coordinator
Date
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
All the way through this research, we have found it to be a frustrating but
exciting and worthwhile experience. In the course of writing a book such as this, the
many journeys which have been undertaken in order to bring it to fruition have
necessarily resulted in assistance from many people along the way. To all the friends
who are always there behind us, their comments, criticisms, and suggestions were
invariably stimulating and contributed more to the final outcome than perhaps they
realize.
To Dr. Julito V. Mandac Jr. who served as our mentor, whom a special debt is
owed and guided this work along the way through a crucial period in its formative
stages. Nevertheless, he provided truthful assistance with his academic and moral
support and permission to carry out this research. His professional guidance and
productive comments were critical in intensifying our ideas and refining our writing.
We also feel sincere gratitude to the Hospitality Management teachers who
lent their ears and provided us with vital pieces of information. Words could not
express our deepest and most sincere thanks and gratitude.
To Dr. Cleofe A. Baterna Jr. (the authors' research adviser) are reserved the
greatest thanks. It would have been impossible without the advice, assistance, and
support of this special person. He was able to keep the intellectual fires burning, to
raise spirits when they were flagging, to turn a mundane explanation into a more
stimulating analysis through his acute questioning, and to counsel patience when the
authors had evaporated. We are more than thankful enough to him for providing us
with crucial and vital information to support our research.
All of whom have provided us with valuable information sources. One can
only say, simply but profoundly, Thank you.

Most especially, we would like to express frank appreciation and deepest love
for our parents and our dear family for their emotional support and incontestable love.
For providing significant assistance in many ways. They were constant sources of
support and encouragement. Without them, our research would not have been feasible
and completed successfully.
Finally, a wish for all the research contributors to have a wonderful life! May
you all succeed in your living, working, and loving. Without whom this book would
not have been written. May the Lord our God find great favor to all of you. To God be
all the glory!
-The Researchers
C.C
E.O
K.L
H.P
DEDICATION
This study is wholeheartedly dedicated to our beloved parents, who have been our
source of inspiration and gave us strength when we thought of giving up, who
continually provide their moral and financial support. They have given us
the drive and the discipline to tackle any task with determination.
Without their love and support, this research would not have
been made possible. To our relatives, mentors, families,
friends, and classmates who have supported us
throughout the process and shared their words
of advice and encouragement to finish this
study. And lastly, we dedicated this book
to the almighty God who gave us
wisdom and the power of the
mind, and for giving us a
healthy life. All
of these we
offer to
you.
- The Researchers
C.C
E.O
K.L
H.P
ABSTRACT
Charmaine Rose C., Kent Bryan L., Edwin O., & Hannah Mariane P., Hospitality
Management of J.H Cerilles State College Pagadian Campus, Balangasan Dist., Pagadian
City, Zamboanga del Sur December 2021 “IMPACT STUDY ON THE THREE PILLARS
OF SUSTAINABILITY AS BASIS FOR THE FORMULATION OF LOCAL
SUSTAINABLE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT PLAN”.
CLEOFE A. BATERNA, Ph.D.
Adviser
The purpose of this study is to determine the levels of Sustainable
Development anchored in the three pillars of sustainability namely: Social,
Environmental, and Economic as the basis for the formulation of Local Sustainable
Tourism Development Plan as well as to determine whether there are different local
residents in the local communities of Pagadian City who have different levels of
support for sustainable actions in tourism development. This study will also attempt to
provide a sociodemographic profile for each group. These results will prove useful for
addressing the changes needed to keep tourism viable in the studied areas. By
understanding what factors of sustainable tourism development are seen as most
important by the residents, and who feels that they are most important. This study
focuses on the factors that gave rise to the development of tourist destinations in this
town, as well as on opportunities and barriers to further development. Its results will
also aid in developing a broader understanding of residents’ attitudes toward
sustainable tourism development. This study aims to improve the process of
organizing community participation by identifying subgroups within the community

who may be considered stakeholders in the tourism development process and their
attitudes towards tourism development.
The 120 respondents participated in a descriptive and correlational methods
of research were employed in this study as this was considered to be the most
appropriate research design. Since the present facts are concerning on the three pillars
of sustainable development as the basis for the formulation of the sustainable tourism
development plan. The study uses different methods such as descriptive survey with
comparative and correlational secondary analysis to understand and describe our
behavioral data. The study will be using Pearson R Correlation to determine the
significant relationship between social and the following cognates; Social,
Environmental, and Economic. Not only describing the three pillars of sustainability
but also comparing these variables in order to come up into a benchmark for a basis in
making a sustainable tourism development plan.
Key words: sustainable tourism development, environmental, social, economic.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Title Page……………………………………………………….…....………………. i
Approval Sheet……………………………………………………….…………….... ii
Acknowledgment……………………………………………………………………. iii
Dedication…………………………………………………………………………… iv
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………. v
Table of Contents………………………………………………………………….….vi
Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………….……………….1
1.1 The problem…………………………………………….….………........ 1
1.2 Conceptual Framework……………………………………….………… 5
1.3 Statement of the

Problem……………………………………………................................. 5
1.4 Hypothesis…………………………….………………………………... 7
1.5 Significance of the Study…………….…………..................................... 7
1.6 Scope and Limitation of the Study……………………………………… 8
1.7 Definition of Terms Used……………………………………………...... 9
Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature and Studies……………………………

10
2.1 Related Literature………………………………………………………...10
2.2 Related Studies…………………………………………………………...10
Chapter 3: Research Methodology………………………………………………...

16
3.1 Research Design………………………………………………………….16

3.2 Research Setting………………………………………………………….16
3.3 Research Respondents……………………………………………………17
3.4 Research Instruments.......................................................................…......18
3.5 Data Collection Procedure…………………………………………….... 28
3.6 Ethical Consideration.........................................................................…... 29
3.7 Data Analysis………………………………………………………….... 30
Chapter 4: Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Data………………….

31
4.1 Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Data……………………......

31
Chapter 5: Summary of Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations……… 60
5.1 Summary of Findings…………………………………….………………

60
5.2 Conclusions………………………………………………………………
34
5.3 Recommendations………………………………………………………. 35
References…………………………………………………………………………... 36
Appendices
Appendix A. Validity Test Results………………..........................................…........63
Appendix B. Letters ....................................................................................................73

Appendix C. SPSS Results...........................................................................................79
Appendix D. Questionnaire………………………………………………………......91
Appendix E.
Documentation………………………………………………………...100
Curriculum Vitae…………………………………………………………………....102
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
Table 1. Descriptive levels of the Social Pillar of Sustainability (n=120) …………..26
Table 2. Descriptive levels of the Environmental Pillar of Sustainability
(n=120) ……………………….………………………………………………...……29
Table 3. Descriptive levels of the Economic Pillar of Sustainability (n=120) …..…..31
Table 4. Descriptive levels of the Three Pillars of Sustainability based on Age…….32
Table 5. Test of significant difference (One-way ANOVA) on the Three Pillars of
Sustainability with respect to Age………………………...………………………….34
Table 6. Descriptive levels of the Three Pillars of Sustainability based on
Gender………………………………………………………….……………..….…..35
Table 7. Test of significant difference (Independent-samples t test) on the Three
Pillars of Sustainability with respect to Gender………………………………….…..35
Table 8. Descriptive levels of the Three Pillars of Sustainability based on Family
Status…………………………………….…………………………………………...36
Table 9. Test of significant difference (One-Way ANOVA) on the Three Pillars of
Sustainability with respect to Family Status……………………………………..…..37
Ethnicity/Tribe……………………………..………………………………….…..…38
Educational Level………………………………………………………………….…39
Sustainability with respect to Educational Level…..….……………………………..41
Employment Status…………………………………………………………….…….42
Sustainability with respect to Employment Status……………………………...……43
Household Income………………………...…………….……………………………44
Sustainability with respect to Household Income……………………………...…….45
Table 17. Correlation matrix among The Three Pillars of Sustainability………........46
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
Figure 1. Illustration of the Conceptual Framework……………………………….….3
Figure 2. Typical representation of sustainability as three intersecting
circles………..12
Figure 3. Age……………………………………………………………….………...21
Figure 4. Gender……………………………………………………………………...22
Figure 5. Family Status…………………………………………………………..
…...23
Figure 6. Ethnicity/Tribe…………………………………………………………… .23
Figure 7. Educational Level…………………………………………….….…..…….24
Figure 8. Employment Status………………………………………..………....…….25
Figure 9. Household Income……………………………………………….…..…….25

1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
The Concept of Sustainability
Concerns about sustainability have emerged as an increasingly important
subject in tourism, academic settings, and in many kinds of literature. Residents are
critical stakeholders in the tourism development process, as they must regularly
contend with the impacts of tourism. Tourism comprises the activities of persons
traveling to and staying in places outside their usual environment for not more than
one consecutive year for leisure, business, and other purposes not related to the
exercise of an activity remunerated from within the place visited (TOURISM
Guidebook FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS, Revised Edition).
There are many theories that may be used to examine tourism development.
Stakeholders may be considered full-time residents, second homeowners, business
owners, political leaders, activist groups, and tourists. As for this study, it focuses on
the local residents due to the evidence that suggests that understanding residents’
attitudes towards tourism allows tourism to be developed in a more sustainable way.
Those residents may also be more deeply involved in the community as business
owners, members of environmental groups, or may serve in a political office.
Therefore, it would be important to gain an understanding of their attitudes towards a
potential change such as sustainable tourism development. Past studies such as the
work of Andereck and McGehee (2008) examined personal characteristics such as,
gender, age, education, and length of residency to determine if these variables were
related to residents’ perceptions of the impact of tourism. They also examined the
effect of personal benefits such as employment in tourism. The most common

2
framework used by countries in developing indicators of sustainable development
starts from the idea of the three pillars of sustainability, namely; Economic,
Environmental and Social. Indicators are then defined for each of these three areas
(Hass, et. al., 2002).
The National Tourism Act of 2009 (RA 9593) encourages LGUs to ensure
they prepare and implement a tourism development plan, enforce standards and
collect statistical data for tourism purposes. Local tourism development plans should
integrate zoning, land use, infrastructure development, the national system of
standards for tourism enterprises, heritage and environmental protection imperatives
in a manner that encourages sustainable tourism development. The plans should also
take into account gender considerations as well as disaster risk reduction and climate
change adaptation principles (TOURISM Guidebook FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
UNITS, Revised Edition).
Communities play an important role in the process of tourism development
and their support is essential for the development, planning, and successful operation
of tourism development, and for the attainment of sustainable livelihoods.
Community-driven tourism projects are supposed to benefit the community and
contribute to their livelihoods. However, the majority of community-driven tourism
projects ultimately do not benefit communities because of poorly or mismanaged
institutional structures.
Tourism development and promotion are among the functions of Local
Government Units (LGUs) as mandated by the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA
7160). As local governments shifted to more participatory forms of development
governance, they were also encouraged to enjoin other stakeholders in local tourism
3
development and promotion (TOURISM Guidebook FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
UNITS, Revised Edition). In developing countries, most, if not all, development of
the tourism sector is a product of central planning. This approach has its limitations,
particularly related to considerations of community involvement in the development
process.
Beyond this, the Tourism Act emphasizes that tourism development is a
shared responsibility of both the national and local governments. Thus, the DOT,
DILG, and LGUs shall integrate and coordinate local and national plans for tourism
development. The role of TPB and the TIEZA is also vital in that they are mandated
to promote and assist LGUs which successfully adopt and implement their tourism
development plans (TOURISM Guidebook FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS,
Revised Edition).
The City of Pagadian is centrally located and offers various natural tourism
development opportunities. It has an aesthetic value that is ready for development.
Commerce and industry play a significant role in the economic structure of the city.
During the conduct of the research study, it was found out that the City of
Pagadian never had a City Tourism Development Plan ever since, up to this date. And
for any reasons, the city was not able to come up with a Sustainable Tourism
Development Plan due to the following reasons; The financial costs in making a City
Tourism Plan, the time frame and man power needed, and most importantly the level
of support by the Local Government Unit. However, the Pagadian City is now on the
process of making a Sustainable Tourism Development Plan making this research
study timely and relevant.

4
The purpose of this study is to determine the levels of Sustainable
Development anchored in the three pillars of sustainability namely: Social,
Environmental, and Economic as the basis for the formulation of Local Sustainable
Tourism Development Plan as well as to determine whether there are different local
residents in the local communities of Pagadian City who have different levels of
support for sustainable actions in tourism development. This study will also attempt to
provide a sociodemographic profile for each group. These results will prove useful for
addressing the changes needed to keep tourism viable in the studied areas. By
understanding what factors of sustainable tourism development are seen as most
important by the residents, and who feels that they are most important. This study
focuses on the factors that gave rise to the development of tourist destinations in this
town, as well as on opportunities and barriers to further development. Its results will
also aid in developing a broader understanding of residents’ attitudes toward
sustainable tourism development. This study aims to improve the process of
organizing community participation by identifying subgroups within the community
who may be considered stakeholders in the tourism development process and their
attitudes towards tourism development.
The conceptual framework of this study is illustrated in a graphical
illustration. As shown in figure 1, the input is the tourist destination in the City of
Pagadian leading to the three pillars of sustainable development with the following
cognates: Environmental, Social and Economic as the basis for the formulation of the
city’s sustainable development tourism plan as an output.

5
Fig. 1 Conceptual framework for the Assessment of Pillars of Sustainability: Basis for
the Formulation of Local Sustainable Tourism Development Plan
3 Pillars of Sustainable Development
Social
Sustainable
Tourism
Tourist destination Environmental Development
Plan
Economic
Statement of the Problem
In the past, tourism development focused on maximizing profits for business
owners with little regard for the natural resources and residents of the community
influenced by tourism. Recently however a new paradigm in tourism development has
taken on growing importance, that of sustainable tourism development. Choi and
Sirakaya (2005) address this paradigm shift, explaining that sustainable tourism
development ―seems to enhance the existing conceptual frameworks on tourism
planning and development by making the residents its focal point (Choi & Sirakaya,
2005, p. 381).
This study will attempt to address four research questions. Specifically, the
researchers sought to answer the following questions:

6
1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of?
1.1 Age,
1.2 Gender,
1.3 Family Status,
1.4 Ethnicity/Tribe
1.5 Educational Level
1.6 Employment Status and
1.7 Household Income?
2. What is the level of sustainable development in terms of the following indicators;
2.1 Environmental,
2.2 Social and
2.3 Economic?
3. Is there a significant difference in the environmental, social, and economic aspects
with respect to age, gender, address, family status, income, and employment status?
4. Is there any significant relationship between Social and the following tenets:
4.1 Environmental; and
4.2 Economic?
The answers to these research questions provide useful information to tourism
planners who are attempting to incorporate sustainable actions into tourism
development in their communities. The answers will also contribute to the field by
7
providing further information about the need for resident involvement in tourism
development.
In this study, additional knowledge gained would prove useful to tourism
planners and will help to create a better understanding of how tourism can be
developed in a sustainable manner.
Hypothesis
The hypothesis will be tested in this study using the 0.05 level of significance.
1. There is no significant relationship between Social and the following tenets;
1.1. Environmental, and
1.2 Economics.
Significance of the Study
The significance of the study manifested in its ability to reveal insights on the
perception of local residents as a basis for the formulation of the sustainable
development tourism plan. As a whole, the study greatly contributes to the existing
body of knowledge in education.
Specifically, this study is beneficial to the following individuals and groups
who shall serve as the direct beneficiaries of the results of this investigation.
Hospitality Management students. To give them insights about sustainable
tourism development so as to let to them know how truly important tourism is, in the
local community.
Local residents. To encourage them to preserve, protect and take good care of
the tourist destinations in the local community. To help them know how valuable is
8
protecting as well as promoting tourist destinations which can impact greatly to the
local community.
The tourists. To encourage them to visit and experience the best places in the
City of Pagadian.
The local government. To help them improve, further develop, and promote
the tourist destinations in Pagadian City as well as to gain more profit for the City of
Pagadian. The profit gained will benefit not only the local government but also the
local people living in the specific area.
The Tourism Office. The findings of the study will benefit greatly the tourism
office as it will be truly helpful particularly in the area of tourism planning. It will
surely add their insights based on the findings and evidence presented. The study will
also contribute to the field by providing further information about the need for
resident involvement in tourism development. The knowledge gained throughout the
study would prove useful to tourism planners and will help to create a better
understanding of how tourism can be developed in a sustainable way.
For future researchers. This study will serve as a guide for future researchers
who want to further their knowledge about sustainable tourism development planning.
It will give future researchers information about developing the tourism industry in
the local community in a sustainable way.
Scope and Limitations
The most significant research limitation of this study was that it was
conducted at this time of pandemic where several health protocols must be observed
which may eventually lead to a lack of cooperation with the respondents. Therefore,
the collection of data may rather be more challenging. Another limitation was the
9
amount of time consumed in order to carry out the study as well as selecting the most
suitable and appropriate tourist destinations to conduct the study. Lastly, the financial
cost for conducting the research as well as the resources needed.
Definition of Terms (Operational Definition)
Local sustainable development - The development of a specific community in
terms of economy, environment, and society and its capacity to meet their needs in the
long run.
Sustainable tourism development plan – It is an orderly arrangement of parts
of an overall objective in tourism particularly with the three pillars of sustainability
(environmental, social, and economic).
Tourism – It is a social, cultural, and economic phenomenon that entails the
movement of people to countries or places outside their usual environment for
personal or business/professional purposes.
DOT - Department of Tourism
DILG - Department of the Interior and Local Government
DENR - Department of Environment and Natural Resources
LGU - Local Government Unit

10
Chapter II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
Sustainability is an integrative concept that considers environmental, social,
and economic aspects as three fundamental dimensions. These three dimensions have
been denoted as pillars of sustainability, which reflect that responsible development
requires consideration of natural, human, and economic capital or colloquially
speaking the planet, people, and profits (Elkington, 1997; Kajikawa, 2008; Schoolman
et al., 2012). From this perspective, the main challenge of sustainable development as
defined in the Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987) would be to fulfill the needs of
current and future generations through simultaneous environmental, social, and
economic improvement (Mieg, 2012). The view that an encompassing positive
integration of the three sustainability pillars is needed to effectively facilitate
sustainable development has, for example, been expressed in the sustainability
strategy of the Government of Western Australia (2003). It states that sustainability
requires ‘new synergies to be identified as well as “systems thinking” to produce
simultaneous outcomes for the economy, community and environment’ (Government
of Western Australia, 2003), and ‘economic, social and environmental factors be
integrated (Government of Western Australia, 2003).
Throughout the past two decades, several documents have come to shape the
definition of sustainability and sustainable tourism. This has both helped and hindered
the field; by providing multiple interpretations that lead to confusion among
researchers, visitors, residents, businesses, and local governments alike (Berry &
Ladkin, 1997, p. 437), but also allowing for many applications of the sustainable
approach. Though multiple definitions of sustainable tourism have been provided, all
11
tend to have a common theme of community support. Such an intention harkens back
to the original justification of tourism development providing increased economic
support for a community.
As the demand for tourism grew, supplying the infrastructure and amenities
to accommodate tourists became an economic development strategy for many
communities. The economic contributions that tourism provides, such as increased tax
flow and jobs have benefited communities around the world (Sirakaya, Jamal & Choi,
2001). The economic benefits of tourism reach many parties including residents,
members of the industry, developers, and regional governments. These groups are
positively influenced by the direct and indirect revenues that tourism generates
(Weaver, 2006, p. 5). Residents may benefit directly through employment in the
tourism industry or indirectly through the use of commodities and services supported
by the tax that tourism generates.
Sustainable development has been adopted by the United Nations as a
guiding principle for economic, environmental, and social development that aspires to
meet ‘the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs and an ‘equitable sharing of the environmental costs and
benefits of economic development between and within countries (United Nations,
1987). Van der Merwe & Van der Marwe (1999) add that Sustainable development is
a program for changing the process of economic development so that it ensures a
basic quality of life for all people and at the same time protects the ecosystems and
community systems that make life possible and worthwhile.

12
Fig. 2 Typical representation of sustainability as three intersecting circles
Social
Sustainability
Environmental Economic
Despite the relative dearth of literature probing ‘sustainability’ and
‘sustainable development’ conceptually, one conceptualization, that of ‘three pillars’,
environmental, economic, and social, has gained widespread traction (Purvis, et al.,
2018). Sustainable development is also understood as one that is socially just and
ethically acceptable. Sustainability has thus been acknowledged as a major normative
regulation principle for a contemporary society which includes a long-term ethical
relationship of present generations with those of the future (Laws et al., 2004; Scholz,
2011). Nevertheless, there is a certain consensus in the scientific community that
sustainable development is determined by a dynamic balance between the three pillars
of the development of civilization: economic, social, and environmental (Nate, et. al.,
2018).
13
Tourist destinations are the central elements of the tourism system (Kozak
and Rimmington, 1999). A tourist destination is composed of attractions,
infrastructure, transportation and hospitality (Mill and Morrison, 1992). Hence,
Tourism planning is an ordered sequence of operations and actions conceived by the
public sector to organize and control development in destination areas according to
established political objectives (Mason, 2003); participative tourism planning is
required (Kiper, 2011). In support to this, tourism authorities need to understand that
successful tourism promotion is dependent on a broad range of external influences
(Govers, et. al., 2007). Destination competitiveness has become a significant part of
tourism literature (e.g., Goodrich, 1977; Heath and Wall, 1992; Ahmed, 1991; Haahti
and Yavas, 1983; Pearce, 1997). Proactive planning is to anticipate or bring about
change, to look to the future, to find optimal solutions and to predict results (Simão
and Partidário, 2010). Tourism is a highly complex activity and thus requires tools to
assist in effective decision-making to come to terms with the competing economic,
social, and environmental demands of sustainable development (Fadahunsi, 2011).
There has been a growing recognition in many tourist destinations that current
management practices may lead to undesirable impacts on the environment and
society, which, in turn, can threaten both tourism development itself and the economic
viability of host communities and nations (WTO, 1996; Huyber and Bennett, 2003).
Tourism development is a system that has many impacts and benefits and can
be created in many forms and therefore must be treated holistically. The rapid growth
of tourism led to change which without proper planning and management strategies
can cause negative economic, environmental, social, and cultural impacts (Choi &
Sirkaya, 2005 p. 383). For residents of a destination who are employed in the tourism
industry additional negative economic impacts caused by tourism, such as inflation

14
and increased land prices (Sirakaya et al., 2001) may be especially challenging. Jafari
(2001) describes the concerns raised by those interested in the protection of natural
and cultural resources who observed the negative impacts of tourism in the 1970’s. As
a way of addressing the negative impacts of tourism but also recognizing the potential
for positive effects, another movement in tourism development was initiated in the
1980’s. Jafari’s (2001) Adaptancy Platform seeks to promote alternative forms of
tourism development such as agritourism, community-based tourism, ecotourism,
nature tourism, rural tourism, and sustainable tourism. This position seeks to
minimize the negative impacts of tourism development by keeping the development
community-centered, utilizing local resources, and improving the relationships
between hosts and guests (Jafari, 2001)
(Sharpley and Sharpley, 1997) suggest that sustainable tourism can establish
a symbiotic relationship between tourism and the environments it relies upon. Over
the course of the past twenty years, it can be observed that tourism development is
warming to this new approach and it has emerged as the best-known alternative to
conventional mass tourism (Choi & Sirkaya, 2005). At the epicenter of the sustainable
tourism, paradigm is the fair distribution of economic benefits among community
residents (Choi & Sirakaya, 2005). With the application of the sustainable tourism
paradigm in tourism development communities may be able to realize such goals.
However, the successful implementation of sustainable tourism requires as Choi and
Sirakaya suggest (2005) vision, policy, planning, management, monitoring, and social
learning processes‖ and full community participation in the development process.
Whatever the position, a common theme among these perspectives is that sustainable
tourism development includes a focus on attaining some level of harmony among

15
stakeholder groups to develop a desirable quality of life that lasts (Ahn, Lee, &
Shafer, 2002).
Choi and Sirkaya (2005) suggest that community participation is required in
the sustainable tourism development process. Others (Jamieson & Jamal 1997, Hunter
1997) suggest that resident participation in the planning process is the very foundation
of the sustainability paradigm. However, identifying who should be involved in the
planning process can be a challenge for decision-makers. The community
involvement theme found in many definitions of sustainable tourism development
suggests that all community members should participate in planning processes. Thus,
decision-makers should be prepared for community members to hold a variety of
perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs about tourism development. The community may
not speak with one unified voice, as the members may have different levels of
economic dependence on tourism or varying degrees of attachment to the surrounding
environments and culture.
Indeed, sustainable development is recognized as a potential pathway to
reorient development towards a more inclusive model, which aims to achieve a
symbolic relationship among desirable economic, social, and environmental systems
for both present and future generations (Folke et al., 2002; Cobbinah et al., 2011).
16
Chapter III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter deals with the essential elements of the research process. The
following topics discuss:
Research Design
The descriptive and correlational methods of research was employed in this
study as this was considered to be the most appropriate research design, since the
present facts are concerning on the three pillars of sustainable development as the
basis for the formulation of the sustainable tourism development plan.
Research Locale
The study was conducted in the 10 Barangays of Pagadian City which has
tourist destinations that was identified by the Pagadian City Tourism Office, namely;
Brgy. Poloyagan (Dao-Dao Daku Island), Brgy. White Beach (Puting Balas White
Sandbar), Brgy. Bulatok (Rotonda), Brgy. Palpalan (Mt. Palpalan), Brgy. Dumagoc
(Dao-Dao Gamay Island/Green Island), Brgy. Santiago (Boulevard), Brgy. Alegria
(Alegria Falls), Brgy. Datagan (Kendis Cave), Brgy. Manga (Manga Falls), and Brgy.
Gatas (Plaza Luz).
Pagadian City is a 2nd class component city and the capital of the province of
Zamboanga del Sur, Philippines. It is the regional center of Zamboanga Peninsula and
17
the second-largest city in the region. In the course of its local history, waves of
different kinds of people came to stay, and eventually called among themselves
"Pagadianons". Pagadian is on the northeastern side of the Western Mindanao region,
bordering on Illana Bay. It is bounded by the municipalities of Tigbao and Dumalinao
on the southwest, Lakewood on the west, Labangan on the east and northwest, and
Midsalip on the north.
Research Respondents
The respondents of the study were the local residents residing in the ten (10)
tourist destinations of Pagadian City which was identified by the Pagadian City
Tourism Office, namely; Brgy. Poloyagan, Brgy. White Beach, Brgy. Bulatok, Brgy.
Palpalan, Brgy. Dumagoc, Brgy. Santiago, Brgy. Alegria, Brgy. Datagan, Brgy.
Manga, and Brgy. Gatas. As such, the researchers selected 12 local residents each
Barangays as a research respondent for a total of 120 respondents. Meanwhile, the
research respondents were the local residents for the reason that the local residents
18
play an important role in the process of tourism development and their support is
essential for the development, planning, and successful operation of tourism
development, and for the attainment of sustainable livelihoods. Whereas, residents are
critical stakeholders in the tourism development process, as they must regularly
contend with the impacts of tourism.
This study will focus on permanent residents due to evidence that suggests
that understanding residents’ attitudes towards tourism allows tourism to be
developed in a more sustainable way.
Research Instrument
For this research, a survey questionnaire was adopted as it is a practical means
of collecting information on the participants to obtain responses from the respondents.
The primary purpose of the questionnaire was to generate comprehensive information
as this basic approach seemed to be appropriate. The survey questionnaire was
adopted from the study of (Knollenberg, 2011) entitled Stakeholders’ Attitudes
Towards Sustainable Tourism Development in Coastal Communities and modified by
Cuizon, C., Lipi, K., Ortiz, E., & Parojinog., H. Additionally, by administering a
standard set of questions, attitudinal information is also obtainable (McLafferty,
2003).
Data Gathering Procedures
Throughout the study, the researchers undertook several steps and data
gathering procedures in gathering the data. Thus, ensuring that ethical considerations
are observed. First, the researchers seek approval in the City Tourism Office to
conduct the study within the 10 Barangays of Pagadian City which have tourist
destinations identified by the City Tourism Office. Second, the researchers also seek
19
approval in the Barangay Affairs Office to conduct the study within these particular
Barangays namely; Brgy. Poloyagan, Brgy. White Beach, Brgy. Bulatok, Brgy.
Palpalan, Brgy. Dumagoc, Brgy. Santiago, Brgy. Alegria, Brgy. Datagan, Brgy.
Manga, and Brgy. Gatas. As such, the researchers have sent letters to the Barangay
Captains for approval in conducting the study in the respective barangay and which
respectively, their names were given by the Barangay Affairs Office.
In conducting the research study, the researchers collect the data through a
survey questionnaire by collecting the results hereby assuring it is accurate and
reliable. In addition, the researchers provided individually one sanitized ballpen per
respondent to ensure that health and safety protocol is followed along with the
wearing of face mask and bringing along disinfectants, like alcohol, during the
conduct of the study.
After all, a series of follow ups and visitations from the different offices were
done by the researchers and thus working in collaboration, with the purpose of
gathering additional data and relevant information to ensure the effectiveness of the
research study.
Ethical Considerations
In carrying out the study, first, the researchers started by briefly introducing
ourselves to all participants and offering information about our background, as
students. Second, researchers provided approval sheets in the participation of the
study and thus provided information sheets to all participants to ensure they had a
clear understanding of the title and the purpose of the research. Third, the researchers
carefully explain to all participants regarding with their rights which states that a
research participant has a basic right to:

20
 Ask any questions about the study at any time during participation
 Withdraw from the study at any time
 Provide information on the understanding that his or her name will not be used
unless permission is given to the researcher.
By doing this, the researchers are able to help participants feel comfortable
about taking part in the research. Most importantly, a consent form will be signed by
participants before commencing the study. In conducting the research, it is significant
to consider the decision of the respondents. As such, participants will not be forced to
fill in the survey questionnaire. After which, the dissemination of the research
questionnaires was done. Also, the researchers asked for permission to take down
notes and take photos prior to conducting any form of data collection. We have also
reminded all the participants that all the information we had collected was to be used
only for academic purposes, and would not be used to bring any harm to the
participants. The respondents were given the option for their anonymity and that
researchers kept the confidentiality of the result of the survey.
Data Analysis
The study used descriptive survey with secondary analysis on comparative
correlational method of research to understand and describe the behavioral data. The
study also used pearson R correlation to determine the significant relationship
between social and the following cognates; Environmental, Social and Economic. Not
only describing the three pillars of sustainability; economic, social and environmental
but also comparing these variables in order to come up into a benchmark for a basis in
making a sustainable tourism development plan.

21
Chapter IV
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter presents the analysis and interpretation of data gathered from the
foregoing study which aimed to provide the necessary data to help the tourism
planners incorporate actions into tourism development and the resident’s involvement.
The data found in this chapter were arranged according to the problems treated in this
study.
The collected data among the respondents from the different barangays
featuring the different tourist destinations in Pagadian City. The data presented
through tables and figures, analyzed and interpreted to attained the result. The tables
and figures below show the number and the percentage of the respondents who
participated on this study.
Fig. 3 Age
age
7 5 a n d o l d e r 1.7
6 5 -7 4 y ear s o l d 3.3
5 5 -6 4 y ear s o l d 12.5
3 5 -4 4 y ear s o l d 15.8
4 5 -5 4 y ear s o l d 17.5
2 5 -3 4 y ear s o l d 19.2
2 5 an d u n d er 30
22
Based on the conducted survey, as shown in fig. 3, result shows that out of 120
respondents, majority of the respondents were age 25 and under, which constitutes
30% of the total sample size followed by 25 - 34 years old having 19.2 %. About
17.5% of the total sample size were 45 - 54 years old, 15.8% belongs to the
respondents who were 35 - 44 years old ,55 - 64 years old constitutes 12.5 % of the
total sample size. About 3.3% were 65-74 years old and only 1.7% were 75 and older.
Fig. 4 Gender
The result shows in fig. 4 that females mostly participated the study, which
constitutes 65% of the total sample size and only 35% of males who participated out
23
of 120 respondents. The findings revealed that most of the female respondents are
fond of going to the local tourist destinations of Pagadian City compared to males.
Fig. 5 Family Status
Family Status
44.2
26.7
18.3
6.7
2.5 1.7
The results in fig. 5 revealed that married, with children at home make up the
44.2% of the total sample size followed by single, with no children which composed
of 26.7%. About 18.3% of the total sample size were single, with children at home
while married, with children no longer at home make up the 6.7% of the total sample
size and other having the lowest remaining percentage of 1.7% of the total sample
size.
24
Fig. 6 Ethnicity/Tribe
Ethnicity/Tribe
5%1%
8%
Christian
Muslim
Subanen
Other
87%
As shown in fig. 6, the results of the study revealed that out of 120
respondents Christians mostly participated the survey which constitutes 86.7% of the
total sample size, followed by Muslims with 7.5%, while Subanens make up the 5%
of the total sample size and only 0.8% belongs to other.
Fig. 7 Educational Level

25
As shown in fig. 7, it was found out that 37.5% out of 120 respondents were
High school level making it the group who mostly participated the survey. About
28.3% were 4-year college, followed by less than high school with 18.3%. Some
college but no degree got 10% while 5% make up the 2-Year College/Technical
School and only 0.8% were post-graduate.
Fig.8 Employment Status
Employment Status
Retired 3.3
Own my own 7.5

business
Looking for work 10
Working part-time 13.3
Working full-time 27.5
Other 38.3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
26
Based on the survey conducted as shown in fig. 8, the result shows that the
group with other mostly participated in the survey which constitutes 38.3% of the
total sample size, followed by the respondents who were working full-time which
make up the 27.5%. Nonetheless, there were 13.3% respondents were working part-
time. About 7.5% of the total sample size were respondents who own their own
business while 10% were looking for work and the remaining 3.3% were respondents
who are retired.
Fig. 9 Household Income
As shown in fig. 9, it was found out that respondents with household income
of P0 - 4,999 mostly participated the study with 50% of the total sample size. About
24.2% belongs to respondents with household income of P5,000-9,999. Meanwhile,
P10,000 - 14,999 and P15,000 - 19,999 brackets both got 6.7% while 5% belongs to
27
P20,000 - 24,999 bracket. About 3.3% of the total sample size falls on the P50,000
and above bracket while P30,000 - 34,999 as well as P35,000-39,999 and P40,000-
44,999 brackets got the lowest percentage of 0.8%.
_________ f p
Total: 120 100
Table 1. Descriptive levels of the Social Pillar of Sustainability (n=120)
M SD QD
The amount of tourism commercial development 3.63 0.59 d
The amount of resident development 3.98 0.69 d
Peacefulness 3.88 0.72 d
Cleanliness 3.79 0.90 d
Availability of museums, tribes, or agritourism attractions 3.04 0.78 d
Promotion of cultural and historical resources 3.36 0.73 d
Interactions between visitors and property owners 3.71 0.85 d
Availability of public parking during tourist season 3.66 0.85 d
The quality of parks, greenways, and bike lanes 3.61 0.81 d
The management of traffic generated by tourists 3.58 0.84 d
The range of housing styles and designs 3.78 0.79 d
Affordability of housing 3.78 0.72 d
Availability of quality healthcare services 3.96 0.54 d
Availability of quality recreational opportunities 3.60 0.88 d
Current air quality 4.20 0.69 d
Current water quality 4.23 0.73 d
I feel that I can really be myself here 4.50 0.72 d
I really miss I when I am away too long 4.58 0.63 d
This is the best place to do the things I enjoy 4.40 0.70 d
My home here reflects the type of person I am 4.23 0.84 d
It is important to be a member of local civic organizations 4.03 0.78 d
28
I feel that I have political influence on community decisions 3.21 1.12 d

Recreational resources are overused by tourist 2.95 0.90 d
There is overcrowding due to tourism development 2.92 0.93 d
Tourism increases traffic problems 2.85 0.87 d
Tourism increases the amount of crime in the local community 2.63 0.84 d
Tourism development unfairly raises real estate values 3.08 0.73 d
Tourism in the local community is growing too fast 3.59 0.69 d
My quality of life has deteriorated because of tourism 2.98 0.96 d
Tourism holds great promise for the local community’s future 4.07 0.55 d
I support tourism having a vital role in the local community 4.30 0.56 d
The local community should plan and manage tourism’s growth 4.10 0.67 d
The local government should provide tax incentives to encourage private
3.68 0.84 d
development in the tourism
I support new facilities that will attract more tourists to the local community 4.04 0.68 d
We need to take a long-term view when planning for tourism development 4.23 0.76 d
Tourism development should embrace the values of all community residents 4.24 0.80 d
I personally receive social benefits from tourism (e.g., improved quality of
3.53 0.95 d
life, meeting interesting people)
Overall, I benefit from tourism in our local community 3.53 0.78 d
Overall 3.72 0.32 d
Note: M=mean, SD= Standard deviation, QD= Qualitative description: 1.00 - 1.79 = Very
Low (VL), 1.80 - 2.59 = Low(L), 2.60 - 3.39 = Moderately High (M), 3.40 - 4.19 = High
(H), 4.20 - 5.00 = Very High (VH) b
As shown in table 1, the result of the study reveals that the highest weighted
mean of the social pillar has a value of 4.8 goes for I really miss when I am away too
long having a standard deviation of 0.63. Consequently, the study revealed that the
lowest weighted mean has a value of 2.63 belongs to tourism increases the amount of
crime in the local community with a standard deviation of 0.84. Nonetheless, the data
shows that the social pillar of sustainability have an overall weighted mean result of
3.72. Having a high verbal interpretation. This means that the level of sustainable
development of these identified local communities particularly (Brgy. Poloyagan,

29
Brgy. White Beach, Brgy. Bulatoc, Brgy. Palpalan, Brgy. Dumagoc, Brgy. Santiago,
Brgy. Alegria, Brgy. Datagan, Brgy. Manga, and Brgy. Gatas) in terms of the social
pillar is High. Indicating that the local community is peaceful, clean, having good
current air and water quality and that tourism holds great promise for the local
community’s future having a high verbal interpretation to a very High verbal
interpretation. Meanwhile, this indicates that tourism, having a vital role in the local
community. The result reveals that the availability of quality recreational
opportunities is present as well as the availability of quality health care services. Also,
the amount of resident development, promotion of cultural and historical resources,
availability of public parking during tourist season are present. This also means that
interactions between visitors and property owners are evident. The result of the study
shows that the participants support new facilities that will attract more tourist to the
local community. And that the local community should plan and manage tourism’s
growth. Nevertheless, it directly implies that we need to take a long- term view when
planning for tourism development. Otherwise, tourism development should embrace
the values of all community residents.
Table 2. Descriptive levels of the Environmental Pillar of Sustainability (n=120)
M SD QD
0.6
Reducing and managing greenhouse gas emissions 4.20 d
2
30
0.6
Managing, reducing, and recycling solid waste 4.40 d
9
0.8
Reducing consumption of freshwater 4.17 d
3
0.7
Managing wastewater 4.40 d
0
0.6
Being energy efficient 4.49 d
5
0.6
Conserving the natural environment 4.51 d
9
0.7
Protecting our community’s natural environment for future generations 4.44 d
0
0.5
Protecting air quality 4.50 d
9
0.7
Protecting water quality 4.53 d
1
1.0
Reducing Noise 4.04 d
5
0.7
Preserving culture and heritage 4.21 d
9
Training and educating employees and clients on sustainable practices 0.6
3.99 d
9
Full access for everyone in the community to participate in tourism 0.5

3.99 d
development decisions 9
Weather and climate conditions were important in deciding to own property in 0.7
3.73 d
the local community. 6
Weather conditions have changed enough in the local community that I would 0.8
3.00 d
not consider buying property here in the future. 2
0.8
Tourism should be developed in harmony with the natural environment 4.25 d
1
0.9
Unique attraction – one of a kind (natural/man-made/cultural) 3.67 d
6
Beauty – how does it appeal? (nice to see, hear, feel) 0.7
3.68 d
2
0.8
Tourist destination in the local community is accessible 3.50 d
7
0.8
Regular/Commercial transport service available 3.56 d
0
Clean water supply 3.58 0.8 d

31
0.9
Communications (i.e., internet, telephone) 3.61 d
8
Drainage/sewerage system 0.9

3.31 d
2
0.9
Good accommodation facilities 2.87 d
7
0.9
Clean and quality food service 2.98 d
2
Other activity facilities (picnic huts, pool, sports facilities, etc.) 0.8
3.21 d
6
1.0
Directional and information signage 3.35 d
4
0.3
Overall 3.86 d
3
(H), 4.20 - 5.00 = Very High (VH)
From the table 2 above, the results shows that the highest weighted mean for
environmental pillar has a value of 4.53 belongs to protecting water quality having a
standard deviation 0.71 on the other hand, the study revealed that the lowest weighted
mean comprising a value of 2.87 belongs to good accommodations facilities having
standard deviation of 0.97. In addition, the data shows that the environmental pillar of
sustainability has an overall weighted mean result 3.86. Having a high verbal
interpretation. This means that the level of sustainable development of these identified
local communities particularly (Brgy. Poloyagan, Brgy. White Beach, Brgy. Bulatoc,
Brgy. Palpalan, Brgy. Dumagoc, Brgy. Santiago, Brgy. Alegria, Brgy. Datagan, Brgy.
Manga, and Brgy. Gatas) in terms of the environmental pillars is high. The results reveals
that the tourist destination in the local community is accessible with a clean water supply,
good communications and having available regular/commercial transport service with a

32
high verbal interpretation. Moreover, the study shows that the local communities are
energy efficient with a one-of-a-kind and unique attraction that was appealing for its
natural beauty having a very high verbal interpretation. The findings suggests that tourism
should be developed in harmony with the natural environment. And protecting air quality,
protecting water quality, reducing noise, preserving culture and heritage, conserving the
natural environment, managing wastewater, reducing consumption of fresh water,
reducing and managing greenhouse gas emissions and managing, reducing and recycling
solid waste were the primary concern having a very high verbal interpretation.
Table 3. Descriptive levels of the Economic Pillar of Sustainability (n=120)
M SD QD
Tourism is a strong economic contributor to the local community 4.15 0.60 d
Tourism creates new markets for our local products
4.22 0.62 d
Tourism benefits other industries in the local community 4.04 0.79 d

Growth in tourism will create jobs for local residents 4.16 0.83 d
Tourism brings new income to the local community 4.12 0.82 d
Tourism helps preserve the cultural and historic identity of the local
3.98 0.81 d
community
Tourism improves the image of the local community’s culture 3.90 0.84 d
Promoting the tourist destination created service jobs for the residents (ex:
vendor, pump boat operator, sari-sari, souvenir shop, food service, drivers, 3.47 0.65 d
etc.)
The price of food ingredients sold in the village has significantly increased
3.79 0.80 d
Only a few households have benefited from tourist destinations 4.20 0.98 d
Cost of living 3.98 0.69 d
Employment opportunities 3.77 0.80 d

33
Number of tourism businesses 3.41 0.80 d

I personally receive economic benefits from tourism (e.g., income,
3.20 0.89 d
employment)
Overall 3.88 0.37 d
(H), 4.20 - 5.00 = Very High (VH)
The table 3 displays the descriptive levels of sustainable development particularly
on the economic pillar. The findings revealed that the highest weighted mean has a value
of 4.22 that tourism creates new markets for local products comprising a standard
deviation of 0.62 otherwise, the study revealed that the lowest weighted mean has a role
of 3.20 which states that I personally receive economic benefits from tourism such as
income & employments having a standard deviation of 0.89. Hence, the findings of this
variable that the economic pillar of sustainability has an overall weighted mean result of
3.88. Having a high verbal interpretation. This means that the levels of sustainable
development of these identified local (Brgy. Poloyagan, Brgy. White Beach, Brgy.
Bulatoc, Brgy. Palpalan, Brgy. Dumagoc, Brgy. Santiago, Brgy. Alegria, Brgy. Datagan,
Brgy. Manga, and Brgy. Gatas) in terms of the economic pillar is high. Indicating that
tourism is a strong economic contributor to the local community with it having a very
high verbal interpretation. As such the findings revealed that growth in tourism will create
jobs for the local community not only that it creates new market for local products but it
also benefits other industries in the local community’s culture and also helps preserve the
cultural and historic identify of the local community. Most importantly, the findings of
this variable show that promoting the tourist destination created service jobs for the
residents such as vendors, pump boat operators, sari-sari stores, souvenir shop, food
service, drivers and etc. having a high verbal interpretation. In contrast to this finding,
result shows that the price of the food ingredients sold in these identified local
34
communities has significantly increased due to the growth in tourism in these localities.
Also, the findings of this variable manifested that only few households have benefited
from tourist destinations having a very high verbal interpretation.
Table 4. Descriptive levels of the Three Pillars of Sustainability based on Age
Social Environmental Economic

Age
M SD M SD M SD
25 and under 3.68 0.32 3.80 0.36 3.85 0.32
25-34 years old 3.70 0.29 3.86 0.29 3.85 0.41
35-44 years old 3.75 0.30 3.90 0.22 4.00 0.37
45-54 years old 3.79 0.40 3.91 0.38 3.85 0.42
55-64 years old 3.66 0.29 3.76 0.37 3.88 0.40
65-74 years old 4.00 0.29 4.02 0.25 4.13 0.11
75 and older 3.71 0.07 4.20 0.34 3.61 0.25
Total 3.72 0.32 3.86 0.33 3.88 0.37
An analysis of the results in table 4 displays the descriptive levels of the three
pillars so sustainability based on age. The result shows that majority of the
respondents on social Pillar based on age were 65-74 years old consisting a weighted
mean of 4.00. Next to it were 45-59 years old with a weighted mean 3.79, followed by
35-44 years old having a weighted mean of 3.75, 75 and older with a weighted mean
of 3.71, 25-34 years old with a weighted mean of 3.70, 25 and under having a
weighted mean of 3.68, and 55- 65 years old who least participated the survey.
Moreover, the findings manifested that majority of the respondents on
environmental pillar based on age 4.20 were 75 and older with a weighted mean of
4.20. Next to it were 65-74 years old having a weighted mean of 4.02, followed by
45-54 years consisting of a weighted mean of 3.91, 35-44 years old comprising a
weighted mean of 3.90, 25-34 years old having a weighted mean of 3.86, 25 and
35
under consisting of a weighted mean of 3.80, and 55-64 years old who least
participated the survey comprising a weighted mean of 3.76.
Meanwhile, the results revealed that majority of the respondents on economic
pillar based on age were 65-74 years old having a weighted mean of 4.13. Next to it
were 35-44 years old consisting a weighted mean of 4.00, followed by 55-64 years old
with a weighted mean of 3.88 while 25 and under, 25-34 years old as well as 45-54
years old comprising a weighted mean of 3.85, and 75 and older who least
participated the survey with a weighted mean of 3.61.
Table 5. Test of significant difference (One-way ANOVA) on the Three Pillars of

Sustainability with respect to Age
Sum of Mean
df F p-value
Squares Square
Social * Age Between Groups 0.567 6 0.095 0.92 0.483
Within Groups 11.611 113 0.103
Total 12.178 119
Environmental *
Between Groups 0.686 6 0.114 1.043 0.401
Age
Total 13.063 119
Economic * Age Between Groups 0.725 6 0.121 0.874 0.516
Total 16.337 119
The testing result of the test of significant difference on the three pillars of
sustainability with respect to age are indicated in the table 5. As shown, the testing
36
yielding for social and age having a probability value of 0.483 that is higher than 0.05
level of significance which is accepted the null hypothesis & established a no
significant relationship of social & age.
Furthermore, the result shows that the testing yielding for environmental &
Age having a probability value of 0.401 that is higher than 0.05 level of significance
which is accepted the null hypothesis & established a no significant relationship of
environmental and age.
Consequently, the testing yielding for economic and age having a probability
value of 0.516 that is higher than 0.05 level of significance which is accepted the null
hypothesis & established a no significant relationship of Economic & Age.
Table 6. Descriptive levels of the Three Pillars of Sustainability based on Gender

Gender
M SD M SD M SD
Male 3.66 0.31 3.80 0.34 3.88 0.38
Female 3.76 0.32 3.89 0.33 3.89 0.37
Total 3.72 0.32 3.86 0.33 3.88 0.37
Analysis of the results in table displays the descriptive levels of the three
pillars of sustainability based on gender. The results shows that majority of the
respondents on the social pillar based on gender were female consisting of 3.76
weighted mean while male comprising a 3.66 weighted mean. Furthermore, the results
revealed that majority of the respondents on the environmental pillar based on gender
were female consisting of a weighted mean of 3.89 while male, comprising a
weighted mean of 3.80.

37
Meanwhile, the results of the study shows that majority of the respondents on
the economic pillar based on gender were female having a 3.89 weighted mean while
male, consisting a 3.88 weighted mean.
Table 7. Test of significant difference (Independent-samples t test) on the Three Pillars of

Sustainability with respect to Gender
95% Confidence
Mean Std. Error Interval of the
t df p-value Difference
Difference Difference
Lower Upper
Social -1.646 118 0.102 -0.10 0.06 -0.22 0.02
Environmental -1.417 118 0.159 -0.09 0.06 -0.21 0.04
Economic -0.175 118 0.862 -0.01 0.07 -0.15 0.13
sustainability with respect to gender are indicated in table 7. As shown, the testing
yielding for social and gender having a probability value of 0.102 that is higher than
0.05 level of significance which is accepted the null hypothesis and established a no
significant relationship of social and gender.
Meanwhile, the testing yielding for environmental and gender having a
probability value of 0.159 that is higher than 0.05 level of significance which is
accepted the null hypothesis and established a no significant relationship of
environmental and Gender.
Consequently, the testing yielding for economic and gender having a
probability value of 0.862 that is apparently higher than 0.05 level of significance
which is accepted the null hypothesis and established a no significant relationship of
economic and gender.
Table 8. Descriptive levels of the Three Pillars of Sustainability based on Family Status
38

Family Status
M SD M SD M SD
Single, no children 3.62 0.27 3.77 0.35 3.78 0.36
Single, children at home 3.76 0.33 3.88 0.29 3.97 0.27
Married, no children 3.53 0.27 3.60 0.83 3.79 0.21
Married, children at home 3.78 0.35 3.89 0.31 3.91 0.40
Married, children no longer at home 3.76 0.28 3.98 0.27 3.90 0.44
Other 3.55 0.11 3.85 0.21 4.00 0.51
Total 3.72 0.32 3.86 0.33 3.88 0.37
As shown in table 8, descriptive levels of the three pillars of sustainability
based on family status. The results revealed that majority of the respondents on social
pillar based on family Status were married, children at home having a 3.78 weighted
mean, followed by Single, children at home and married, children no longer at home
comprising a 3.76 weighted mean. Next to it were single, no children with a 3.62
weighted mean, other, consisting of 3.55 weighted mean and married, no children
who least participated the study with a weighted mean of 3.53.
Moreover, the findings revealed that majority of the respondents on
environmental pillar based on family status were married, children no longer at home
comprising 3.98 weighted mean. Next to it were married, children at home consisting
of .89 weighted mean, followed by single, children at home with 3.88 weighted mean,
other, having a 3.85 weighted mean, single, no children having a weighted mean of
3.77 and married, no children, comprising a weighted mean of 3.60 who least
participated the survey.
Meanwhile, the findings of this variable shows that majority of the
respondents on economic pillar based on family status were other comprising a 4.00
weighted mean. Next to it were single, children at home having 3.97 weighted mean
39
followed by married, children at home with 3.91 weighted mean, married, children no
longer at home with 3.90 weighted mean, married, no children comprising 3.79
weighted mean, and single, no children who least participated the survey comprising a
weighted mean of 3.78.

Sustainability with respect to Family Status
Mean p-
Sum of Squares df F
Square value
Social * Family 1.41
Between Groups 0.71 5 0.142 0.225
Status 1
Total 12.178 119
Environmental * 1.17
Between Groups 0.641 5 0.128 0.325
Family Status 6
Total 13.063 119
Economic * 0.91
Between Groups 0.631 5 0.126 0.474
Family Status 6
Total 16.337 119
sustainability with respect to family status are indicated in table 9. As shown, the
testing yielding for social and family status having a probability value of 0.225 that is
higher than 0.05 level of significance which is accepted the null hypothesis and
established a no significant relationship of social and family status.
Subsequently, the testing yielding for environmental and family status having
a probability value of 0.325 that is higher than 0.05 level of significance which is
environmental and family status.

40
Meanwhile, the testing yielding for economic and family status having a
accepted the null hypothesis and established a no significant relationship of economic
and family status.
Table 10. Descriptive levels of the Three Pillars of Sustainability based on Ethnicity/Tribe
Ethnicity/Tribe
M SD M SD M SD
Christian 3.72 0.32 3.86 0.33 3.89 0.38
Muslim 3.61 0.18 3.67 0.23 3.67 0.17
Subanen 3.95 0.44 4.19 0.25 4.14 0.34
Other 4.00 . 3.67 . 3.86 .
Total 3.72 0.32 3.86 0.33 3.88 0.37
An analysis of the results in table 4 displays the descriptive levels of three
Pillars of sustainability based on ethnicity/tribe. The results of the study manifested
that majority of the respondents on social pillar based on ethnicity/tribe were other,
consisting of 4.00 weighted mean. Next to it were Subanen comprising 3.95 weighted
mean, followed by Christian having 3.72 weighted mean and Muslim who least
participated the survey with a 3.61 weighted mean.
The findings of this variable shows that majority of the respondents on
environment pillar based on ethnicity/tribe were Subanen with a weighted mean of
4.19 followed by Christian having a weighted mean of 3.86. Next to it were Muslim
and other who least participated the survey comprising a weighted mean of 3.67.
Meanwhile, the results revealed that majority of the respondents on economic
pillar based on ethnicity/tribe were Subanen having a weighted mean of 4.14 followed
41
by Christian with 3.89 weighted mean. Next to it were other, comprising 3.86
weighted mean, and Muslim who least participated the survey consisting of 3.67.
Table 11. Descriptive levels of the Three Pillars of Sustainability based on Educational Level

Educational Level
M SD M SD M SD
Less than high school 3.76 0.32 3.89 0.42 3.96 0.37
High School 3.69 0.34 3.87 0.28 3.86 0.36
2-year college/ Technical
4.04 0.40 3.83 0.61 3.89 0.58
School
Some college, but no degree 3.66 0.26 3.85 0.17 3.93 0.28
4-year college 3.71 0.28 3.82 0.34 3.86 0.39
Post Graduate 3.42 . 4.07 . 3.79 .
Total 3.72 0.32 3.86 0.33 3.88 0.37
From the table 12 above, the data shows the descriptive levels of the three
pillars of sustainability based on educational level. The results revealed that majority
of the respondents on social pillar based on educational level were 2-year college/
technical school having a weighted mean of 4.04 followed by less than high school
with 3.76 weighted mean. Next to it were 4-year college consisting 3.71 weighted
mean, high school with 3.69 weighted mean, some college, but no degree having 3.66
weighted mean and post-graduate being least answered with 3.42 weighted mean.
Furthermore, the result shows that majority of the respondents on
environmental pillar based on educational level were post-graduate having a weighted
mean of 3.89. Next to it were high school having 3.87 weighted mean, some college,
but no degree with 3.85 weighted mean, 2-year college/technical school with a
weighted mean of 3.83 and 4-year college being the least answered by the respondents
with a weighted mean of 3.82.

42
Meanwhile, the result of the study revealed that majority of the respondents on
economic pillar based on educational level were less than high school with a weighted
mean of 3.96. Next to it were some college, but no degree having 3.93 weighted mean
followed by 2-year college/technical school with a weighted mean of 3.89. On the
other hand, high school and 4-year college both got 3.86 weighted mean and post-
graduate were the least answered by the respondents consisting of 3.79 weighted
mean.
Sustainability with respect to Educational Level
Sum of Mean
df F p-value
Squares Square
Social *
Between Groups 0.834 5 0.167 1.676 0.146
Educational Level
Total 12.178 119
Environmental *
Between Groups 0.122 5 0.024 0.215 0.955
Educational Level
Total 13.063 119
Economic *
Between Groups 0.221 5 0.044 0.313 0.904
Educational Level
Total 16.337 119
43
sustainability with respect to educational level are indicated in table 13. As shown, the
testing, yielding for social and educational level having as probability value of 0.146
that is higher than 0.05 level of significance which is accepted the null hypothesis and
established a no significant relationship of social and educational level.
Subsequently, the testing yielding for environmental and educational level
having a probability value of 0.955 that is higher than 0.05 level of significance which
is accepted the null hypothesis and established a no significant relationship of
environmental and educational level.
Meanwhile, the testing yielding for economic and educational level having a
economic and educational level.
Table 13. Descriptive levels of the Three Pillars of Sustainability based on Employment
Status

Employment Status
M SD M SD M SD
Working full-time 3.66 0.34 3.82 0.32 3.94 0.39
Working part-time 3.71 0.31 3.80 0.34 3.83 0.35
Own my own business 3.76 0.26 3.86 0.29 3.69 0.49
Looking for work 3.66 0.33 3.85 0.31 3.76 0.36
Retired 3.67 0.18 3.97 0.25 3.71 0.37
Other 3.78 0.32 3.89 0.36 3.95 0.33
Total 3.72 0.32 3.86 0.33 3.88 0.37
An analysis of the results in table 6 shows the descriptive levels of the three
pillars of sustainability based on employment status. The results revealed that

44
majority of the respondents on the social pillar based on employment status were
other having a weighted mean of 3.78 followed by respondents who own their own
business with a weighted mean of 3.76. Next to it were working part-time having a
weighted mean of 3.71, retired having a 3.67 weighted mean while looking for work
and working full-time were the least answered with a weighted mean of 3.66.
The results of the study revealed that majority of the respondents on the
environmental pillar based on employment status were retired, consisting a weighted
mean of 3.97 followed by other, having a weighted mean of 3.89. Next to it were
respondents who own their own business with 3.86 weighted mean, looking for work
with a weighted mean of 3.85, working full-time having a weighted mean of 3.82 and
working part-time with a weighted mean of 3.80 were the least answered.
The study shows that majority of the respondents on the economic pillar based
on employment status were other, having a weighted mean of 3.95. Next to it were
working full-time with a weighted mean of 3.83, looking for work comprising a
weighted mean of 3.76, retired with a weighted mean of 3.71 while the least answered
were respondents who own their own business having a weighted mean of 3.69.
Sustainability with respect to Employment Status
Sum of Mean
df F p-value
Squares Square
Social *
Employment Between Groups 0.392 5 0.078 0.758 0.582
Status
Total 12.178 119
Environmental *
Status
45

Total 13.063 119
Economic *
Status
Total 16.337 119
sustainability with respect to employment status are indicated in table 15. As shown,
the testing yielding for social and employment status having a probability value of
0582 that is higher than 0.05 level of significance which is accepted the null
hypothesis and established a no significant relationship of social and employment
status.
Furthermore, the testing yielding for environmental and employment status
environmental employment status.
Meanwhile, the testing yielding for economic and employment status having a
probability value of 0.873 that is accepted the null hypothesis and established a no
significant relationship of economic and employment status.
Table 15. Descriptive levels of the Three Pillars of Sustainability based on Household Income
Environmenta
Social Economic
Household Income l
M SD M SD M SD
P0-P4,999 3.70 0.31 3.85 0.34 3.87 0.33
P5,000-P9,999 3.72 0.38 3.83 0.37 3.86 0.45
P10,000-P14,999 3.58 0.22 3.75 0.21 3.95 0.50
P15,000-P19,999 3.83 0.35 3.94 0.26 3.96 0.39

46
P20,000-P24,999 3.83 0.31 4.01 0.29 3.87 0.28

P25,000-P29,999 3.71 0.30 3.94 0.18 3.68 0.45
P30,000-P34,999 3.76 . 3.70 . 3.79 .
P35,000-P39,999 3.68 . 3.56 . 3.93 .
P40,000-P44,999 3.95 . 3.81 . 3.50 .
P50,000 and above 3.91 0.23 4.12 0.32 4.21 0.15
Total 3.72 0.32 3.86 0.33 3.88 0.37
As shown in the 16, descriptive levels of the three pillars of sustainability
based on household income. The result of the study shows that majority of the
respondents on social pillar based on household income answered ₱40,000- ₱ 44,999
having 3.95 weighted mean followed by ₱50,000 and above with 3.91 weighted mean,
₱15,000-₱19,999 and ₱20,000-₱24,999 consisting of 3.83 weighted mean, ₱35,000-
₱39,999 with 3.68 weighted mean and ₱10,000-₱14,999 comprising 3.58 weighted
mean that respondents answered the least.
Hence, that results revealed that majority of the respondents on environmental
pillar based on household income answered ₱50,000 and above having 4.12
weighted mean, ₱15,000-₱19,000 and ₱25,000-₱29,999 comprising 3.94 weighted
mean, ₱0-₱4,999 with 3.85 weighted mean, ₱5,000 - ₱9,999 consisting 3.83
weighted, ₱40,000-₱49,999 having 3.81 weighted mean, ₱10,000 - ₱14,999
comprising 3.75 weighted mean and ₱30,000 - ₱ 34,999 with 3.20 weighted mean that
respondents answered the least.
Moreover, the results revealed that majority of the respondents on economic
pillar based on household income answered by ₱50,000 and above having a weighted
mean of 4.21 followed by ₱15,000-₱19,999 comprising 3.96 weighted mean. Next to
it, were ₱10,000-₱14,999 consisting of 3.95 weighted mean, ₱35,000-₱39,999 with

47
3.93 weighted mean, ₱0-₱4,999 and ₱20,000-₱24,999 having 3.87 weighted mean,
₱5,000-₱9,999 having 3.86 weighted mean, ₱30,000-₱34,999 having 3.79 weighted
mean, ₱25,000-₱29,999 consisting 3.68 weighted mean and ₱40,000-₱44,999
comprising 3.50 weighted mean that respondents answered the least.
Sustainability with respect to Household Income
Sum of Mean
df F p-value
Squares Square
Social * Household
Between Groups 0.54 9 0.06 0.568 0.821
Income
Total 12.178 119
Environmental *
Between Groups 0.732 9 0.081 0.726 0.684
Household Income
Total 13.063 119
Economic *
Between Groups 0.791 9 0.088 0.622 0.777
Household Income
Total 16.337 119
sustainability with respect to household income having a probability value of 0.821
that is higher than 0.05 level of significance which is accepted the null hypothesis and
established a no significant relationship of social and household income.
Furthermore, the testing yielding for environmental and household income
environmental and household income.

48
Consequently, the testing yielding for economic and household income having
a probability value of 0.777 that is higher than 0.05 level of significance which is
accepted the null hypothesis and established a no significant relationship of economic
and household income.
Table 17. Correlation matrix among The Three Pillars of Sustainability

Social Pearson Correlation -
Sig. (2-tailed) -
Environmental Pearson Correlation .676** -
Sig. (2-tailed) <.001 -
Economic Pearson Correlation .585** .519** -
Sig. (2-tailed) <.001 <.001 -
Note: Cell contains Correlation coefficient (above) and p-values (below),* Correlation is
significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). r is interpreted using Cohen’s Scale: -0.3 to +0.3 =
weak, -0.5 to -0.3 or +0.3 to +0.5 = moderate relationship, -0.9 to -0.5 or +0.5 to +0.9 =
strong relationship, -1.0 to -0.9 or +0.9 to +1.0 = very strong relationship.
An analysis of the results in table 18 displays the correlation matrix among the
three pillars of sustainability have shown a Pearson R correlation value of .676 with
the R2 value of 45% has an effect towards environmental, towards social. Meanwhile,
consisting a probability value of .001 that is less than 0.05 level of significance
allowing the rejection of the null hypothesis and established a significant relationship
between environmental and social.
Furthermore, the results revealed a Pearson R correlation value of .585 having
an R2 value of 34% has an effect towards economic, towards social. Meanwhile,
comprising a probability value of .001 that is less than 0.05 level of significance
between economic and social.

49
In addition, the results of the study manifested a Pearson R correlation value
of .519 with an R2 value of 26% has an effect towards economic, towards
environmental. Meanwhile, consisting a probability value of .001 that is less than 0.05
level of significance allowing the rejection of the null hypothesis and established a
significant relationship between economic and environmental.
Chapter V
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter contains the summary of findings on the variables treated in this
study, the conclusions reached by this thesis writers were based on the outcome of
this study, and the recommendations that the researchers proposed were the results
generated for the variables.
Summary of Findings
The findings of the study were summarized according to the statement of the
problems stated in Chapter 1. Specifically, the researchers sought to answer the
following questions:
50
1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of?
1.1 Age,
1.2 Gender,
1.3 Family Status,
1.4 Ethnicity/Tribe
1.5 Educational Level
1.6 Employment Status and
1.7 Household Income?
The result shows in fig. 4 that females mostly participated the study, which
constitutes 65% of the total sample size and only 35% of males who participated out
of 120 respondents. The findings revealed that most of the female respondents are
fond of going to the local tourist destinations of Pagadian City compared to males.
Based on the conducted survey, as shown in fig. 3, result shows that out of 120
respondents, majority of the respondents were age 25 and under which constitutes
30% of the total sample size, followed by 25 - 34 years old having 19.2 %. About
17.5% of the total sample size were 45 - 54 years old, 15.8% belongs to the
respondents who were 35 - 44 years old ,55 - 64 years old constitutes 12.5 % of the
total sample size. About 3.3% were 65-74 years old and only 1.7% were 75 and older.
2. What is the level of sustainable development in terms of the following indicators;
2.1 Environmental,
2.2 Social and
2.3 Economic?
51
The study revealed that the social pillar of sustainability has an overall
weighted mean result of 3.72. Having a high verbal interpretation. This means that the
level of sustainable development of these identified local communities particularly
(Brgy. Poloyagan, Brgy. White Beach, Brgy. Bulatoc, Brgy. Palpalan, Brgy.
Dumagoc, Brgy. Santiago, Brgy. Alegria, Brgy. Datagan, Brgy. Manga, and Brgy.
Gatas) in terms of the social pillar is High. Indicating that the local community is
peaceful, clean, having good current air and water quality and that tourism holds great
promise for the local community’s future. Meanwhile, this indicates that tourism,
having a vital role in the local community. The result reveals that the availability of
quality recreational opportunities is present as well as the availability of quality health
care services. Also, the amount of resident development, promotion of cultural and
historical resources, availability of public parking during tourist season are present.
This also means that interactions between visitors and property owners are evident.
The result of the study shows that the participants support new facilities that will
attract more tourist to the local community. And that the local community should plan
and manage tourism’s growth. Nevertheless, it directly implies that we need to take a
long- term view when planning for tourism development. Otherwise, tourism
development should embrace the values of all community residents.
In addition, the data shows that the environmental pillar of sustainability has an
overall weighted mean result 3.86. Having a high verbal interpretation. This means that
the level of sustainable development of these identified local communities particularly
(Brgy. Poloyagan, Brgy. White Beach, Brgy. Bulatoc, Brgy. Palpalan, Brgy. Dumagoc,
Brgy. Santiago, Brgy. Alegria, Brgy. Datagan, Brgy. Manga, and Brgy. Gatas) in terms of
the environmental pillar is high. The results reveals that the tourist destination in the local
community is accessible with a clean water supply, good communications and having
available regular/commercial transport service with a high verbal interpretation.

52
Moreover, the study shows that the local communities are energy efficient with a one-of-
a-kind and unique attraction that was appealing for its natural beauty having a very high
verbal interpretation. The findings suggests that tourism should be developed in harmony
with the natural environment. And protecting air quality, protecting water quality,
reducing noise, preserving culture and heritage, conserving the natural environment,
managing wastewater, reducing consumption of fresh water, reducing and managing
greenhouse gas emissions and managing, reducing and recycling solid waste were the
primary concern having a very high verbal interpretation.
The results of the study revealed that the economic pillar of sustainability has an
overall weighted mean result of 3.88. Having a high verbal interpretation. This means that
the levels of sustainable development of these identified local (Brgy. Poloyagan, Brgy.
White Beach, Brgy. Bulatoc, Brgy. Palpalan, Brgy. Dumagoc, Brgy. Santiago, Brgy.
Alegria, Brgy. Datagan, Brgy. Manga, and Brgy. Gatas) in terms of the economic pillar is
high. Indicating that tourism is a strong economic contributor to the local community with
it having a very high verbal interpretation. As such the findings revealed that growth in
tourism will create jobs for the local community not only that it creates new market for
local products but it also benefits other industries in the local community’s culture and
also helps preserve the cultural and historic identify of the local community. Most
importantly, the findings of this variable show that promoting the tourist destination
created service jobs for the residents such as vendors, pump boat operators, sari-sari
stores, souvenir shop, food service, drivers and etc. having a high verbal interpretation.
3. Is there a significant difference in the environmental, social, and economic aspects
with respect to age, gender, address, family status, income, and employment status?
sustainability with respect to age are indicated in the table 5. As shown, the testing
yielding for social and age having a probability value of 0.483 that is higher than 0.05
53
level of significance which is accepted the null hypothesis & established a no
significant relationship of social & age.
sustainability with respect to gender are indicated in table 7. As shown, the testing
yielding for social and gender having a probability value of 0.102 that is higher than
0.05 level of significance which is accepted the null hypothesis and established a no
significant relationship of social and gender.
Meanwhile, the testing yielding for environmental and gender having a
environmental and Gender.
Consequently, the testing yielding for economic and gender having a
economic and gender.
4. Is there any significant relationship between Social and the following tenets:
4.1 Environmental; and
4.2 Economic?
An analysis of the results in table 18 displays the correlation matrix among the
three pillars of sustainability have shown a Pearson R correlation value of .676 with
the R2 value of 45% has an effect towards environmental, towards social. Meanwhile,
consisting a probability value of .001 that is less than 0.05 level of significance
54
between environmental and social.
Furthermore, the results revealed a Pearson R correlation value of .585 having
an R2 value of 34% has an effect towards economic, towards social. Meanwhile,
comprising a probability value of .001 that is less than 0.05 level of significance
between economic and social.
In addition, the results of the study manifested a Pearson R correlation value
of .519 with an R2 value of 26% has an effect towards economic, towards
environmental. Meanwhile, consisting a probability value of .001 that is less than 0.05
level of significance allowing the rejection of the null hypothesis and established a
significant relationship between economic and environmental.
Conclusions
The results of the study revealed that the level of sustainable development of
these identified local communities particularly (Brgy. Poloyagan, Brgy. White Beach,
Brgy. Bulatoc, Brgy. Palpalan, Brgy. Dumagoc, Brgy. Santiago, Brgy. Alegria, Brgy.
Datagan, Brgy. Manga, and Brgy. Gatas) in terms of the Social, Environmental, and
Economic pillar is High. Indicating that the local community is peaceful, clean,
having good current air and water quality and that tourism holds great promise for the
local community’s future.
The results of the study revealed that the tourist destination in the local
community is accessible with a clean water supply, good communications and having
available regular/commercial transport service. Moreover, the study shows that the local
communities are energy efficient with a one-of-a-kind and unique attraction that was
55
appealing for its natural beauty having a very high verbal interpretation. It was found out
that tourism is a strong economic contributor to the local community. As such the
findings revealed that growth in tourism will create jobs for the local community not only
that it creates new market for local products but it also benefits other industries in the
local community’s culture and also helps preserve the cultural and historic identity of the
local community.
Meanwhile, this indicates that tourism, having a vital role in the local
community. In addition, the local residents play an integral part in contributing to
local sustainable development if local residents are equipped in terms of economic
and political empowerment. The results of this research revealed that positive impact
on the environment, economy, social conditions, and culture was shown to be more
significant than its negative consequences. This is because the development of
tourism has come to be viewed as a key means for protecting the environment,
bringing in additional income, enhancing social well-being for most people, and
maintaining the culture of the area.
Nevertheless, it directly implies that we need to take a long- term view when
planning for tourism development. Otherwise, tourism development should embrace
the values of all community residents. Tourism should be developed in harmony with
the natural environment and that protecting air quality, protecting water quality, reducing
noise, preserving culture and heritage, conserving the natural environment, managing
wastewater, reducing consumption of fresh water, reducing and managing greenhouse gas
emissions and managing, reducing and recycling solid waste should the primary concerns.
Recommendations
While the overall progress of Pagadian City tourism projects has been strongly
positive, there are areas that could benefit from specific ideas and recommendations.
56
In drawing from the results of this research to propose the recommendations outlined
below. The researchers’ goal in presenting them is to offer insight into a way forward
that will make further development of the future tourism projects of the City of
Pagadian that would make it more effective. These recommendations are therefore
meant to simply build on the success that have already been accomplished in order to
continue with the growth of the tourism industry of Pagadian City.
This involves addressing the primary concerns of the local population,
including support from the local government and income issues, ensuring that they
have a voice in the decision-making processes, and improving the quality of life. The
ultimate effect of sustainable tourism development planning, projects on the social,
environmental and economic well-being of local inhabitants and that, continuity of
their culture should be prioritized. Only then sustainable tourism development was
achieved.
In addition, sustainable tourism should be constructed within the community
itself in order to ensure that benefits gained from tourism have been delivered fairly,
equally, and regularly among community members. This could be done by setting up
a meeting among locals with the aim of meeting internal requirement and agreement.
Doing this will play an important part in creating harmony among local residents and
reducing conflicts, because every local resident will be able to access the benefits of
tourism.
Moreover, external regulation should be created for both government agencies
and outside-owned private businesses in order to provide them with the means for
demonstrating their commitment to sharing some tourism benefits with the local
people. This could be done by the collaboration among government and private
57
bodies as well as locals in order to decide the percentage of tourism income to be
shared with locals. This regulation is a reasonable step to take, since these external
participants gain benefits from the local assets while at the same time, the local people
are the ones who provide a key element of the tourism experience and serve as the
primary protectors of the environment. If locals receive sufficient income from
tourism, they will not harm wildlife or the environment; instead, they will become
committed to helping protect the environment that supports ecotourism.
Consequently, the community-based sustainable tourism development
planning should be adopted. This involves taking such steps as ensuring that any local
administrative board or committee includes local residents, because community
participation in administrative roles is key to the success of tourism development.
This also ensures that the voices of those most affected by the tourism projects are not
lost, but rather become a significant factor in decision-making. After all, tourism
advocates and researchers should never take for granted the right to speak on behalf of
communities and prescribe top-down solutions for them.
Eventually, upon conducting the study prevalent issues of the Social, Environmental and the
Economic pillar have emerged and was thereby identified which needs prompt actions and thus calls
for an immediate concern. These are the prevalent issues that came out, indicating a very low
weighted mean:
For Social; Recreational resources are overused by tourist which has a weighted mean of
(2.95), There is overcrowding due to tourism development (2.92), Tourism increases traffic
problems (2.85), Tourism increases the amount of crime in the local community (2.63) and My
quality of life has deteriorated because of tourism (2.98). From the findings, it is inferred that
maybe because of the lack of sustainable tourism development plan which have resulted in tourist
destinations having no total control in receiving tourists/visitors to the point or to the extent that the
58
local resources have been overused and eventually ran out and that the quality of life of the local
residents have deteriorated because there is lack of a local sustainable tourism development plan.
The overcrowding due to tourism, increases traffic problems and increases the amount of crime in
the local community. To address these major concerns, we strongly suggest or recommend that the
city should make a local sustainable tourism development plan in order for the local society to thrive
and prosper.
For Environmental; Good accommodation facilities which has a weighted mean of (2.87)
and Clean and quality food service with a weighted mean of (2.98). The results of the study
revealed that there really is a lack of infrastructures in the identified tourist destinations of
Pagadian City such as good accommodation facilities, comfort rooms and urinals available
as well as clean and quality food services. With this, we recommend that the local
government of Pagadian City in cooperation with the City Tourism Office should provide
good accommodation facilities and should focus on building more infrastructures in the
identified tourist destinations of Pagadian City as this will not only promote the tourism
industry of Pagadian City but this will also help the local residents of the specific local
community and increases profitability of our local tourism industry thus improving our
local economy. Supporting our local tourist destinations would really be a great help for
local communities.
For Economic; the findings revealed that the price of food ingredients sold in the
village has significantly increased with a weighted mean of (3.79), there is a very low
employment opportunities (3.77) in the local tourist destinations of Pagadian City and only
few residents receive economic benefits from tourism (e.g., income, employment) with a
weighted mean of (3.20). These prevalent issues have emerged maybe because of the lack of
local sustainable tourism development plan. With this matter, we recommend that the City
Tourism Office should make or formulate a local sustainable tourism development plan as
this will directly address these concerns. With the development of the local destination is also
59
the increase of employment opportunities in the local community. We also recommend that
there should be a balance and equal distribution of economic benefits from tourism and that
everyone should have benefited from tourism. Therefore, we recommend that the City
Tourism Office should monitor the economic flow of the tourist destinations as this will
ensure the stability of the local economy by identifying these major concerns/problems
occurring with the economic aspects of the local tourist destination.
REFERENCES
https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tourism.gov.ph%2FGuideboo
k_Manual%2FTourismGuidebook.pdf%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR3GKssuWR0Hz4-
KBbqQbi86UTxn_NIvWUmptkZpVy8_P6wXXAYXPyMXHZ0&h=AT08R9
x43ha0-hzv-tfhmwlfM5Gss-
hbnwRNzjgbf5pvM7SfAg3QNrbkls7lUtsqtxXZdGKHPCKYQthIVW3ukMed
ciGh_0jvuoc2-Kwl3uVZyQCesdyLR5wu2yAUVJ5k1fr4Sw
Ahn, B.Y. Lee, B. R., & Shafer, C.S. (2002). Operationalizing sustainability in
regional tourism planning: an application of the limits of acceptable change
framework, Tourism Management 23(1), 1-15.
Barbier,E. (1987) The Concept of Sustainable Economic Development.

Environmental Conservation, 14(02):101 - 110
DOI:10.1017/S0376892900011449
60
Candrea, A. & Ispas, A. (2010) Promoting tourist destinations through sport events.
The case of Braşov, Vol. 61-6
Choi, H. S. C., & Sirakaya, E. (2005). Measuring residents’ attitude toward

sustainable tourism: development of sustainable tourism attitude scale, Journal of
travel research Vol. 43. (4), DOI:10.1177/0047287505274651.
Cobbinah, P. B., Black, R., & Thwaites, R. (2011). Reflection on six decades of the
concept of the development: Evaluation and future research. A Journal of
sustainable development in Africa, 13(7), 134-149.
Dodds, R.,Holmes, M. (2011) Sustainability in Canadian B&Bs: Comparing the East

versus West. International Journal of Tourism Research 13(5),482-495,2011
Elkington,D.,Kajikawa, L.,& Schoolman,K. (2012) Principal Sustainability

components:Empirical analysis of synergies between the three pillars of
Sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World
Ecology 19 (5), 451-459,2012
Fadahunsi, J.T. (2011). Application of geographical information system (GIS) t

echnology to tourism management in ile-life, osun state, Nigeria. The pacific
journal of science and technology,12, 274-283.
Folke, C. Carpenter, S., & Elmavist, T., Gunder, L. (2002). Resilience and sustainable
development: building adaptive capacity in a world of transformation. A
journal of the human environment. 31(5), 437-440.
Grovers, G.,Merckx, R.,Wesemael, B., & Oost, K.(2017) Soil Conservation in the
21st Century:Why we need smart agricultural intensification. Soil 3(17), 45-
59,2017
Govers, R., Go, F.M., & Kumar, K. (2007) Promoting Tourism Destination Image.
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 15-23
Hansmann, R., Mieg, H. & Frischknecht, P. (2012) Principal sustainability

components: empirical analysis of synergies between the three pillars of
sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World
Ecology, 19 (5), 451-459, 2012
61
Hansmann, R., Mieg, H. & Frischknecht, P. (2012) Principal sustainability

components: empirical analysis of synergies between the three pillars of
sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World
Ecology, 19 (5), 451-459
Hass, J., Brunvoll, F. & Houie, H (2002) Overview of sustainable development

indicators used by national and international agencies. oecp statistics
working papers, http://dx. doi.org/10.1787/838562874641
Hunter, C., (1997). Sustainable tourism as an adaptive paradigm. Annals of tourism

research 24(4), 850-867.
Huybers, T., & Bennett, J. (2003). Environmental management and the

competitiveness of nature-based tourism destination. Environmental and
resource economics.
Jafari, J. (2001). The scientific of tourism in L.V. Smith and M. Brent (Eds.) host and
guest revisited: Tourism issues of 21st century. (28-50).
Jamieson, W., & Jamal, J., (1997). Tourism planning and destination management. In
international tourism, pp. 321-370
Jenkins, B., Annandale, D., & Saunders, H. (2003) The Evolution of a Sustainability
Assessment Strategy for Western Australia. Environmental and Planning
Law Journal 20(1) 56-65,2003
Kiper, T. (2011) Land use planning regarding sustainable development through

agritourism. Journal of Agricultural Biotechnology and Sustainable
Development 3(8),171-181,2011
Kozak, M. & Rimmington M. (1999) Measuring tourist destination competitiveness:

conceptual considerations and empirical findings. International Journal of
Hospitality Management 18 (3), 273-283, 1999
Mackelworth, P. & Carić, H. (2010) Gatekeepers of island communities: exploring

the pillars of sustainable development. Environment, development and
sustainability, 12 (4), 463-480
Mason, W., Lodge, G., Allen, C., Andrew, M., Johnson, T., Russell, B. & Simpson, I.
(2003) An appraisal of Sustainable grazing systems:the program,the triple
62
bottom line impacts and the sustainability of grazing systems. Australian

Journal of Experimental Agriculture 43(8), 1061-1082, 2003
McLafferty, S. L. (2003). Conducting questionnaire survey, key methods is

geography 1(2),87-100.
Mieg, H. (2012) Sustainability and Innovation in Urban Development:Concept and

Case. Sustainable Development 20(9) 251-263,2012
Munangsinghe, M. (1993) Environmental issues and economic decisions in

developing countries. World Development, Vol. 21, No.11 pp. 1729-1748
Nate, S., Bilan, Y., Cherevats, D., Kharlamova, G., Lyakh, O., Wosiak, A. (2021) The
Impact of Energy Consumption on the Three Pillars of Sustainable
Development. Energies 14(5),1372,2021
Purvis, B., Mao, Y. & Robinson, D (2018) Three pillars of sustainability: in search of
conceptual origins, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5
Purvis, B., Mao, Y. & Robinson, Y. (2019) Three pillars of sustainability: in search of
conceptual origins. Sustainability Science, 14 (3), 681-695
Purvis, L., Ciccullo, F.,Pero, M.,Caridi, M.,& Gosling, J.(2018) Integrating the
Environmental and Social Sustainability Pillars into the lean and agile supply
chain management paradigms: A literature review and future research
directions. Journal of Clearer Production 172, 2336-2350,2018
Sabrine, D. & Anis, O. (2018) Entrepreneurship Contribution to the Three Pillars of

Sustainable Development: What Does the Evidence Really Say?
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/84504/
Sharpley, R., & Sharpley, J. (1997). Rural tourism: An introduction. London:

international thomson business press.
Shiroyama, H., Yarime, M., Matsuo, M., Schroeder, H., Scholz, R. & Ulrich, H.
(2012) Governance for Sustainability: Knowledge Integration and Multi-actor
dimensions in Risk Management. Sustainability Science 7(1), 45-55,2012
Simao, J. & Partidario, M. (2012) How does tourism destination Planning Contribute
to Sustainable Development? DOI: 10.1002/sd.495 20 (6), 372-385,2012
63
Sirakaya, E., Jamal, T., & Choi, H. (2001) Developing indicators for Destination
Sustainability. The encyclopedia of ecotourism, 411-432,2001
Sirakaya, E., & Choi, H. S. (2005). Forecasting gaming referenda. Annals of tourism
Research, Vol.32, No.1, DOI:10. 1016/j. annals. 2004.05.002.
Sirakaya, E. Jamal, T. B., & Choi, H.S. (2001). Developing indicators for destination
sustainability. The encyclopedia of ecotourism, 411-432.
Weaver, P., & Rotmans, J. (2006) Integrated Sustainability Assessment: What is it,
why do it and how? International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable
Development 1(4), 284-303,2006
WCED (1987) World Commission on environment and development. Our common

future 17 (1),1-91,1987
64
APPENDICES
Appendix A
VALIDITY TEST RESULTS
Table 1. Validity Test Results
No. of
expert expert expert experts I-
PC k* Evaluation
1 2 3 giving 3 CVI
or 4
I was born
4 4 4 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
here
65
To be with
4 4 4 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
family & friends
Recreational
4 4 4 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
opportunities
More
affordable than 4 4 4 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
other local areas
Because of job
4 4 4 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
opportunities
I like the
community 4 4 4 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
atmosphere
The amount of
tourism
4 4 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
commercial
development
The amount of
resident 3 4 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
development
Peacefulness 4 4 2 2 0.67 0.375 0.47 Fair
Cleanliness 4 4 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
Availability of
museums, tribes,
4 3 2 2 0.67 0.375 0.47 Fair
or agritourism
attractions
Promotion of
cultural and
4 3 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
historical
resources
Interactions
between visitors
4 3 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
and property
owners
Availability of
public parking
4 3 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
during tourist
season
The quality of
parks,
4 3 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
greenways, and
bike lanes
The 4 2 3 2 0.67 0.375 0.47 Fair

66
management of
traffic generated
by tourists
The range of
housing styles 4 2 3 2 0.67 0.375 0.47 Fair
and designs
Affordability of
4 3 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
housing
Availability of
quality
4 3 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
healthcare
services
Availability of
quality
4 2 3 2 0.67 0.375 0.47 Fair
recreational
opportunities
Current air
4 3 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
quality
Current water
4 3 4 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
quality
I feel that I can

really be myself 4 4 4 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
here
I really miss
when I am away 4 4 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
too long
This is the best

place to do the 4 4 4 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
things I enjoy
My home here
reflects the type 4 3 4 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
of person I am
It is important to
be a member of
4 4 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
local civic
organizations
I feel that I have

political
influence on 4 4 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
community
decisions
Recreational 4 4 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent

resources are
67
overused by
tourist
There is
overcrowding
4 3 2 2 0.67 0.375 0.47 Fair
due to tourism
development
Tourism
increases traffic 4 4 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
problems
Tourism
increases the
amount of crime 4 4 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
in the local
community
Tourism
development
unfairly raises 4 4 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
real estate
values
Tourism in the
local community
4 4 4 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
is growing too
fast
My quality of
life has
deteriorated 3 3 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
because of
tourism
Tourism holds
great promise
for the local 4 3 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
community’s
future
I support
tourism having a
4 3 2 2 0.67 0.375 0.47 Fair
vital role in the
local community
The local
community
should plan and
4 4 2 2 0.67 0.375 0.47 Fair
manage
tourism’s
growth
The local 4 4 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent

68
government
should provide
tax incentives to
encourage
private
development in
the tourism
I support new
facilities that
will attract more 4 3 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
tourists to the
local community
We need to take
a long-term
view when
4 3 2 2 0.67 0.375 0.47 Fair
planning for
tourism
development
Tourism
development
should embrace
4 3 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
the values of all
community
residents
I personally
receive social
benefits from
tourism (e.g.,
improved 4 4 4 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
quality of life,
meeting
interesting
people)
Overall, I
benefit from
4 4 4 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
tourism in our
local community
Reducing and
managing
4 4 4 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
greenhouse gas
emissions
Managing,
reducing, and
3 3 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
recycling solid
waste
Reducing 4 4 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent

69
consumption of
freshwater
Managing
3 3 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
wastewater
Being energy
4 4 4 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
efficient
Conserving the
natural 4 4 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
environment
Protecting our
community’s
natural
3 3 4 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
environment for
future
generations
Protecting air
3 3 4 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
quality
Protecting water
4 4 4 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
quality
Reducing Noise 3 3 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
Preserving
culture and 3 3 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
heritage
Providing
economic -
2 2 3 1 0.33 0.375 Poor
benefits from 0.07
tourism to locals
Purchasing from
companies with -
2 2 2 0 0.00 0.125 Poor
certified green 0.14
practices
Training and
educating
employees and
3 3 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
clients on
sustainable
practices
Full access for 3 3 4 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent

everyone in the
community to
participate in
tourism
development
70
decisions
Weather and
climate
conditions were
important in
3 3 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
deciding to own
property in the
local
community.
Weather
conditions have
changed enough
in the local
community that 3 3 2 2 0.67 0.375 0.47 Fair
I would not
consider buying
property here in
the future.
I feel the climate

conditions here
-
are ideal to 2 2 3 1 0.33 0.375 Poor
0.07
attract new
property owners.
I feel I am
adequately
prepared for a
severe weather -
2 2 2 0 0.00 0.125 Poor
event (e.g., 0.14
hurricanes,
floods, heavy
rainfall).
Climate change
will have a
noticeably
-
negative impact 2 2 3 1 0.33 0.375 Poor
0.07
on my property
values in the
next 25 years.
Changing
climate
conditions will
-
make the local 2 2 3 1 0.33 0.375 Poor
0.07
community no
longer attractive
to new residents.
Impacts of 2 2 3 1 0.33 0.375 - Poor

71
climate change
are evident in
0.07
the local
community.
Tourism should
be developed in
harmony with 4 4 4 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
the natural
environment
Unique
attraction – one
of a kind 3 3 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
(natural/man-
made/cultural)
Beauty – how
does it appeal?
3 3 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
(nice to see,
hear, feel)
Natural/ -
2 2 2 0 0.00 0.125 Poor
Undisturbed 0.14
Tourist
destination in
the local 3 3 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
community is
accessible
Regular/
Commercial
3 3 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
transport service
available
Distance from
-
the service 2 2 3 1 0.33 0.375 Poor
0.07
center
Distance from -
2 2 3 1 0.33 0.375 Poor
the town center 0.07
Clean water
3 3 2 2 0.67 0.375 0.47 Fair
supply
Sufficient power -
2 2 2 0 0.00 0.125 Poor
supply 0.14
Communication
s (i.e., internet, 4 4 2 2 0.67 0.375 0.47 Fair
telephone)
72
Drainage/
3 3 2 2 0.67 0.375 0.47 Fair
sewerage system
Solid waste
-
management 2 2 3 1 0.33 0.375 Poor
0.07
system
Clean and safe

-
restrooms for 2 2 3 1 0.33 0.375 Poor
0.07
women and men
Good
accommodation 3 3 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
facilities
Clean and
quality food 3 3 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
service
Other activity
facilities (picnic
huts, pool, 3 3 2 2 0.67 0.375 0.47 Fair
sports facilities,
etc.)
Directional and
information 3 3 4 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
signage
I personally
receive
environmental
benefits from -
2 2 2 0 0.00 0.125 Poor
tourism (e.g., 0.14
use of public
lands, recycling
programs)
Tourism is a
strong economic
contributor to 3 4 4 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
the local
community
Tourism creates
new markets for
3 4 4 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
our local
products
Tourism
benefits other
3 3 4 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
industries in the
local community
Growth in 3 3 4 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent

73
tourism will
create jobs for
local residents
Tourism brings
new income to
3 4 4 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
the local
community
Tourism helps
preserve the
cultural and
2 3 3 2 0.67 0.375 0.47 Fair
historic identity
of the local
community
Tourism
improves the
image of the
2 3 3 2 0.67 0.375 0.47 Fair
local
community’s
culture
Promoting the
tourist
destination
created service
jobs for the
residents (ex:
2 3 3 2 0.67 0.375 0.47 Fair
vendor, pump
boat operator,
sari-sari,
souvenir shop,
food service,
drivers, etc.)
The price of
food ingredients
sold in the
3 3 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
village has
significantly
increased
Only a few
households have
benefited from 3 3 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
tourist
destinations
Cost of living 4 3 4 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
Employment
4 3 4 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
opportunities
74
Number of
tourism 3 3 3 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
businesses
I personally
receive
economic
benefits from 4 3 4 3 1.00 0.125 1.00 Excellent
tourism (e.g.,
income,
employment)
The researchers undergo validity test for the survey questionnaire. Among
these questions that we undergo pilot testing rated by three expert per pillar. There
were 4 different values that came out. That there were 68 questions having a value of
1.00. About 17 questions having a value of 0.67 while 9 questions having a value of
0.33, and 5 questions having a value of 0.00, total of 99 questions. According to the
results, only questions having a remark of Excellent and Fair should be included in
the survey questionnaire while questions with a Poor remark should be eliminated or
not included in the survey questionnaire. Subsequently, it is also through with the
other pillars of sustainability.
Appendix B
LETTERS
J.H Cerilles State College – Pagadian City Campus

West Capitol Road, Balangasan District, 7016 Pagadian City
JULITO V. MANDAC JR., DM.

Program Coordinator
J.H. Cerilles State College – Pagadian City
Balangasan District, 7016 Pagadian City
Dear Sir;
75
Greetings! We, the undersigned is a Bachelor of Science in Hospitality Management

student of this institution presently conducting a study entitled “AN IMPACT
STUDY ON THE THREE PILLARS OF SUSTAINABILITY: AS BASIS FOR
THE FORMULATION OF LOCALSUSTAINABLE TOURISM
DEVELOPMENT PLAN” as part of the requirements of the program.
In this regard, the undersigned request the approval from your good office to
conduct the data gathering and collection.
Thank you so much for your favorable approval and endorsement of the
request.
Respectfully yours,
CHARMAINE ROSE A. CUIZON
EDWIN C. ORTIZ JR.
HANNAH MARIANE C. PAROJINOG
KENT BRYAN R. LIPI
Researchers
Approved by:
JULITO V. MANDAC JR., DM.

Research Instructor and Program Coordinator
J.H. Cerilles State College

West Capitol Road, Balangasan District, 7016, Pagadian City
October 22, 2021
GERRARDO C. SAN PABLO

OIC, City Tourism Officer
City Hall Complex, Gatas District
Pagadian City, Zamboanga del Sur
76
Dear Mr. San Pablo;
Good day!
We, the undersigned taking Bachelor of Science in Hospitality Management of this

institution are presently working on a research study entitled "AN IMPACT STUDY
ON THE THREE PILLARS OF SUSTAINABILITY: AS BASIS FOR THE
PLAN" and is expected to finish this December 2021. The research will use the
quantitative method which will use a questionnaire checklist for local sustainable
tourism development. The respondents will be the local residents who are randomly
selected that include, students, businessman, drivers, educators, farmers and other
respondents in the local community. We are very much interested to gather data that
could help the locality prosper and venture on the long-term goals.
With this, we would like to request for a copy of the city tourism plan as well as the
list of the recognized tourist destinations of Pagadian City by the City Tourism Office
for the selection of area where we can conduct the study. We are hoping that we can
be an avenue in helping our city create future plans for the people and for the city as a
model for change in the country. We are willing to visit your office for any
clarifications on our request. In case of queries, you can contact us in our mobile
numbers 09064721171/09166201172.
Hoping for your favorable approval on this request.
Thank you and more power!
Very truly yours,
EDWIN C. ORTIZ JR.

77
KENT BRYAN R. LIPI

Researchers
Noted:
DR. JULITO V. MANDAC JR.

Research Adviser
Approved:
GERRARDO C. SAN PABLO

OIC, City Tourism Officer
J.H. Cerilles State College

West Capitol Road, Balangasan District, 7016, Pagadian City
November 15, 2021
HON. JUROFER P. PULMONES

Barangay Captain
Santiago, Pagadian City,
Zamboanga del Sur
Dear Brgy. Captain Pulmones;
Greetings of Peace and Solidarity!

78
We, the undersigned taking Bachelor of Science in Hospitality Management of this

institution and are presently working on a research study entitled "AN IMPACT
STUDY ON THE THREE PILLARS OF SUSTAINABILITY: AS BASIS FOR THE
PLAN" and is expected to finish this December 2021. The research will use the
quantitative method which will use a questionnaire checklist for local sustainable
tourism development. The respondents will be the local residents who are randomly
selected that include, students, businessman, drivers, educators, farmers, fisherman
and other respondents in the local community in different walks of life. We are very
much interested to gather data that could help the locality prosper and venture on the
long-term goals.
With this, we would like to formally ask permission from your office that we be
allowed to conduct our study in your local community as the respondents and research
setting. We have been coordinating with the Pagadian City Tourism Office which
have given their best and utmost support.
We are hoping that we can be an avenue in helping our city create future plans for the
people and for the city as a model for change in the country. We are willing to visit
your office for any clarifications on our request. In case of queries, you can contact us
in our mobile numbers 09064721171/09166201172.
Hoping for your favorable approval on our request.
Thank you and more power!
Very truly yours,
KENT BRYAN R. LIPI
EDWIN C. ORTIZ JR.

79

Researchers
Noted:
DR. JULITO V. MANDAC JR.

Research Instructor
Approved:
HON. JUROFER P. PULMONES

Barangay Captain
CONSENT FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE RESEARCH PROJECT AS

SURVEY RESPONDENT
Introductions: Below are descriptions of the research procedures and an explanation

of my rights as a respondent. I have been asked to read this
information carefully. If I agree to participate, I will sign in the space
provided to indicate that I have read and understood the information
furnished on this consent form. I am entitled to and will receive a
signed copy of this form.
Purpose: The purpose of this project is to gather data on the Three Pillars
of Sustainability as Basis for the Formulation of the Local
Sustainable Tourism Development Plan.
Procedure: During this study, I will be asked to answer each item accordingly.
Potential and
80
Discomforts: I understand that there are no known or anticipated risks associated

with my participation in this study.
Confidentiality: I understand the data collected in this study will be kept

confidential.
Compensation: I will receive no reimbursement for my participation in this study.
Right to Refuse or Withdraw: I understand that my participation is voluntary. I may

refuse to participate or discontinue my anticipation at any time; there will be no
penalty for doing so. Some details of this project may not be made known to me until
my session is completed. I also understand that the researcher has the right to
withdraw me from participation in the study at any time.
I have read and understood the explanation provided to me. I have had all my
questions answered to my satisfaction, and I voluntarily agree to participate in this
study.
If you have any questions about this project, feel free to ask MR. EDWIN C. ORTIZ
JR. Thank you for your assistance and help in this important endeavor.
Very truly yours,
EDWIN C. ORTIZ JR.
KENT BRYAN R. LIPI

Researchers
Respondent’s Signature: Date:

Appendix C
SPSS RESULTS
Frequencies
Frequency Table
Age
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 25 and under 36 30.0 30.0 30.0
25-34 years old 23 19.2 19.2 49.2
35-44 years old 19 15.8 15.8 65.0
45-54 years old 21 17.5 17.5 82.5
55-64 years old 15 12.5 12.5 95.0
81
65-74 years old 4 3.3 3.3 98.3

75 and older 2 1.7 1.7 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0
Gender
Cumulative
Valid Male 42 35.0 35.0 35.0
Female 78 65.0 65.0 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0
Family Status
Cumulative
Valid Single, no children 32 26.7 26.7 26.7
Single, children at home 22 18.3 18.3 45.0
Married, no children 3 2.5 2.5 47.5

Married, children at 53 44.2 44.2 91.7
home
Married, children no 8 6.7 6.7 98.3
longer at home
Other 2 1.7 1.7 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0
Ethnicity/Tribe
Cumulative
Valid Christian 104 86.7 86.7 86.7
Muslim 9 7.5 7.5 94.2
Subanen 6 5.0 5.0 99.2
Other 1 .8 .8 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0
Educational Level
Cumulative
Valid Less than high school 22 18.3 18.3 18.3
High School 45 37.5 37.5 55.8
82
2 year college/ Technical 6 5.0 5.0 60.8

School
Some college, but no 12 10.0 10.0 70.8
degree
4 year college 34 28.3 28.3 99.2
Post Graduate 1 .8 .8 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0
Employment Status
Cumulative
Valid Working full-time 33 27.5 27.5 27.5
Working part-time 16 13.3 13.3 40.8
Own my own business 9 7.5 7.5 48.3
Looking for work 12 10.0 10.0 58.3
Retired 4 3.3 3.3 61.7
Other 46 38.3 38.3 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0
Household Income
Cumulative
Valid P0-P4,999 60 50.0 50.0 50.0
P5,000-P9,999 29 24.2 24.2 74.2
P10,000-P14,999 8 6.7 6.7 80.8
P15,000-P19,999 8 6.7 6.7 87.5
P20,000-P24,999 6 5.0 5.0 92.5
P25,000-P29,999 2 1.7 1.7 94.2
P30,000-P34,999 1 .8 .8 95.0
P35,000-P39,999 1 .8 .8 95.8
P40,000-P44,999 1 .8 .8 96.7
P50,000 and above 4 3.3 3.3 100.0
Total 120 100.0 100.0
MEANS TABLES=Social Environmental Economic BY age Gender Fam_stat

Ethnicity educ_level emp_stat
income
/CELLS=MEAN STDDEV
/STATISTICS ANOVA.
Means
Case Processing Summary

Cases
Included Excluded Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
83
Social * Age 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0%

Environmental * Age 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0%
Economic * Age 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0%
Social * Gender 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0%
Environmental * 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0%
Gender
Economic * Gender 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0%
Social * Family Status 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0%
Environmental * 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0%
Family Status
Economic * Family 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0%
Status
Social * Ethnicity/Tribe 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0%
Environmental * 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0%
Ethnicity/Tribe
Economic * 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0%
Ethnicity/Tribe
Social * Educational 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0%
Level
Environmental * 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0%
Educational Level
Economic * 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0%
Educational Level
Social * Employment 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0%
Status
Environmental * 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0%
Employment Status
Economic * 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0%
Employment Status
Social * Household 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0%
Income
Environmental * 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0%
Household Income
Economic * Household 120 100.0% 0 0.0% 120 100.0%
Income
Social Environmental Economic * Age
Report
Age Social Environmental Economic
25 and under Mean 3.6769 3.8045 3.8532
Std. Deviation .31826 .35861 .31987
25-34 years old Mean 3.6979 3.8615 3.8509
Std. Deviation .28924 .29168 .40687
84
35-44 years old Mean 3.7452 3.9045 4.0000

Std. Deviation .30413 .22164 .36809
45-54 years old Mean 3.7920 3.9065 3.8503
Std. Deviation .39639 .37854 .42493
55-64 years old Mean 3.6596 3.7580 3.8810
Std. Deviation .28698 .37271 .40013
65-74 years old Mean 4.0000 4.0185 4.1250
Std. Deviation .29383 .25391 .10714
75 and older Mean 3.7105 4.2037 3.6071
Std. Deviation .07443 .34046 .25254
Total Mean 3.7211 3.8571 3.8839
Std. Deviation .31990 .33131 .37053
ANOVA Table
Sum of Mean
Squares df Square F Sig.
Social * Age Between (Combine.567 6 .095 .920 .483
Groups d)
Within Groups 11.611 113 .103
Total 12.178 119
Environmental Between (Combine.686 6 .114 1.043 .401
* Age Groups d)
Total 13.063 119
Economic * Between (Combine.725 6 .121 .874 .516
Age Groups d)
Total 16.337 119
Measures of Association
Eta Eta Squared
Social * Age .216 .047
Environmental * Age .229 .052
Economic * Age .211 .044
Social Environmental Economic * Gender
Report
Gender Social Environmental Economic
Male Mean 3.6560 3.7989 3.8759
Std. Deviation .31014 .33699 .38451
Female Mean 3.7561 3.8884 3.8883
Std. Deviation .32154 .32609 .36523
Total Mean 3.7211 3.8571 3.8839
Std. Deviation .31990 .33131 .37053
ANOVA Table
85
Sum of Mean
Social * Gender Between (Combin .273 1 .273 2.709 .102
Groups ed)
Total 12.178 119
Environmental * Between (Combin .219 1 .219 2.008 .159
Gender Groups ed)
Total 13.063 119
Economic * Between (Combin .004 1 .004 .030 .862
Gende Groups ed)
Total 16.337 119
Eta Eta Squared

Social * Gender .150 .022
Environmental * Gender .129 .017
Economic * Gender .016 .000
Social Environmental Economic * Family Status
Report
Family Status Social Environmental Economic
Single, no children Mean 3.6201 3.7708 3.7768
Std. Deviation .27027 .34978 .36184
Single, children at home Mean 3.7596 3.8822 3.9708
Std. Deviation .32952 .28680 .27414
Married, no children Mean 3.5263 3.6049 3.7857
Std. Deviation .26708 .83340 .21429
Married, children at home Mean 3.7771 3.8945 3.9111
Std. Deviation .34631 .30854 .40160
Married, children no Mean 3.7632 3.9815 3.9018
longer at home Std. Deviation .27564 .27217 .43689
Other Mean 3.5526 3.8519 4.0000
Std. Deviation .11165 .20951 .50508
Total Mean 3.7211 3.8571 3.8839
Std. Deviation .31990 .33131 .37053
ANOVA Table
Sum of Mean
Social * Family Between (Combine.710 5 .142 1.411 .225
Status Groups d)
86

Total 12.178 119
Environmental * Between (Combine.641 5 .128 1.176 .325
Family Status Groups d)
Total 13.063 119
Economic * Between (Combine.631 5 .126 .916 .474
Family Status Groups d)
Total 16.337 119
Eta Eta Squared
Social * Family Status .241 .058
Environmental * Family .221 .049
Status
Economic * Family Status .196 .039
Social Environmental Economic * Ethnicity/Tribe
Report
Ethnicity/Tribe Social Environmental Economic
Christian Mean 3.7153 3.8561 3.8874
Std. Deviation .31831 .33156 .37832
Muslim Mean 3.6053 3.6708 3.6746
Std. Deviation .17505 .23236 .17169
Subanen Mean 3.9474 4.1852 4.1429
Std. Deviation .44442 .25010 .33503
Other Mean 4.0000 3.6667 3.8571
Std. Deviation . . .
Total Mean 3.7211 3.8571 3.8839
Std. Deviation .31990 .33131 .37053
ANOVA Table
Sum of Mean
Social * Between (Combine .509 3 .170 1.687 .174
Ethnicity/Tribe Groups d)
Total 12.178 119
Environmental * Between (Combine .995 3 .332 3.187 .026
Total 13.063 119
Economic * Between (Combine .799 3 .266 1.987 .120
87
Total 16.337 119
Eta Eta Squared
Social * Ethnicity/Tribe .204 .042
Environmental * .276 .076
Ethnicity/Tribe
Economic * .221 .049
Ethnicity/Tribe
Social Environmental Economic * Educational Level
Report
Educational Level Social Environmental Economic
Less than high school Mean 3.7596 3.8906 3.9578
Std. Deviation .32131 .41503 .36797
High School Mean 3.6918 3.8667 3.8556
Std. Deviation .33582 .27506 .35924
2 year college/ Technical Mean 4.0439 3.8272 3.8929
School Std. Deviation .40037 .61203 .58336
Some college, but no Mean 3.6623 3.8549 3.9345
degree Std. Deviation .26047 .17043 .28156
4 year college Mean 3.7074 3.8224 3.8571
Std. Deviation .28423 .33942 .39004
Post Graduate Mean 3.4211 4.0741 3.7857
Total Mean 3.7211 3.8571 3.8839
Std. Deviation .31990 .33131 .37053
ANOVA Table
Sum of Mean
Social * Between (Combin .834 5 .167 1.676 .146
Educational Groups ed)
Level Within Groups 11.344 114 .100
Total 12.178 119
Environmental * Between (Combin .122 5 .024 .215 .955
Total 13.063 119
Economic * Between (Combin .221 5 .044 .313 .904

88

Total 16.337 119
Eta Eta Squared
Social * Educational Level .262 .068
Educational Level
Economic * Educational .116 .014
Level
Social Environmental Economic * Employment Status
Report
Employment Status Social Environmental Economic
Working full-time Mean 3.6571 3.8204 3.9416
Std. Deviation .34466 .31633 .38855
Working part-time Mean 3.7089 3.8009 3.8304
Std. Deviation .30651 .34343 .35367
Own my own business Mean 3.7632 3.8642 3.6905
Std. Deviation .26381 .28689 .49487
Looking for work Mean 3.6579 3.8549 3.7619
Std. Deviation .32773 .31166 .36080
Retired Mean 3.6711 3.9722 3.7143
Std. Deviation .17913 .25188 .37344
Other Mean 3.7838 3.8921 3.9457
Std. Deviation .32458 .36421 .32860
Total Mean 3.7211 3.8571 3.8839
Std. Deviation .31990 .33131 .37053
ANOVA Table
Sum of Mean
Social * Between (Combine .392 5 .078 .758 .582
Employment Groups d)
Status Within Groups 11.786 114 .103
Total 12.178 119
Environmental * Between (Combine .205 5 .041 .363 .873
Total 13.063 119
Economic * Between (Combine .961 5 .192 1.426 .220
89
Total 16.337 119
Eta Eta Squared
Social * Employment .179 .032
Status
Employment Status
Economic * Employment .243 .059
Status
Social Environmental Economic * Household Income
Report
Household Income Social Environmental Economic
P0-P4,999 Mean 3.6991 3.8469 3.8679
Std. Deviation .31330 .34296 .33265
P5,000-P9,999 Mean 3.7196 3.8289 3.8645
Std. Deviation .37536 .37016 .44539
P10,000-P14,999 Mean 3.5822 3.7454 3.9464
Std. Deviation .21538 .21270 .50036
P15,000-P19,999 Mean 3.8257 3.9444 3.9643
Std. Deviation .34938 .25584 .38560
P20,000-P24,999 Mean 3.8333 4.0062 3.8690
Std. Deviation .30674 .29389 .28000
P25,000-P29,999 Mean 3.7105 3.9444 3.6786
Std. Deviation .29773 .18332 .45457
P30,000-P34,999 Mean 3.7632 3.7037 3.7857
P35,000-P39,999 Mean 3.6842 3.5556 3.9286
P40,000-P44,999 Mean 3.9474 3.8148 3.5000
P50,000 and above Mean 3.9079 4.1204 4.2143
Std. Deviation .23291 .32341 .15430
Total Mean 3.7211 3.8571 3.8839
Std. Deviation .31990 .33131 .37053
ANOVA Table
Sum of Mean
Social * Household Between (Combined).540 9 .060 .568 .821
Income Groups
Total 12.178 119
Environmental * Between (Combined).732 9 .081 .726 .684
Household Income Groups
90

Total 13.063 119
Economic * Between (Combined).791 9 .088 .622 .777
Household Income Groups
Total 16.337 119
Eta Eta Squared
Social * Household .211 .044
Income
Household Income
Economic * Household .220 .048
Income
T-TEST GROUPS=Gender(1 2)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS
/VARIABLES=Social Environmental Economic
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).
T-Test
Group Statistics
Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Social Male 42 3.6560 .31014 .04786
Female 78 3.7561 .32154 .03641
Environmental Male 42 3.7989 .33699 .05200
Female 78 3.8884 .32609 .03692
Economic Male 42 3.8759 .38451 .05933
Female 78 3.8883 .36523 .04135
Independent Samples Test

Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. Mean Std. 95%

(2- Differen Error Confidence
tailed ce Differ Interval of the
) ence Difference
91
Uppe
Lower r
Social Equal .513 .475 -1.646 118 .102 -.10006 .0607 -.22044 .0203
variances 9 2
assumed
Equal -1.664 86.7 .100 -.10006 .0601 -.21958 .0194

variances 23 3 6
not
assumed
Enviro Equal .242 .623 -1.417 118 .159 -.08947 .0631 -.21451 .0355
nment variances 4 7
al assumed
Equal -1.403 81.7 .164 -.08947 .0637 -.21635 .0374

variances 07 7 0
not
assumed
Econo Equal .351 .555 -.175 118 .862 -.01243 .0712 -.15343 .1285
mic variances 1 8
assumed
Equal -.172 80.4 .864 -.01243 .0723 -.15634 .1314

variances 08 2 9
not
assumed
CORRELATIONS
/VARIABLES=Social Environmental Economic
/PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG
/MISSING=PAIRWISE.
Correlations
Correlations
92
Social Pearson Correlation 1 .676** .585**
Sig. (2-tailed) <.001 <.001
N 120 120 120
Environmental Pearson Correlation .676** 1 .519**
Sig. (2-tailed) <.001 <.001
N 120 120 120
Economic Pearson Correlation .585** .519** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) <.001 <.001
N 120 120 120
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Appendix D
QUESTIONNAIRE
ASSESSMENT ON THE THREE PILLARS OF SUSTAINABILITY

Adopted from the study entitled STAKEHOLDERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS
SUSTAINABLE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN COASTAL COMMUNITIES by
Whitney Knollenberg June, 2011 and Modified by Cuizon, C., Lipi, K., Ortiz, E., and
Parojinog, H., December, 2021.
Section A: Demographic Questions (Data will be reported in AGGREGATE form ONLY)
1. What is your age?
25 and under 45 - 54 75 and older
26 - 34 55 - 64
35 - 44 65 – 74
2. What is your Gender?

93
Male Female
3. What is your marital/family status?

Single, no children Married, no children Other
Single, children at home Married, children at home _
Single, children no Married, children no
longer at home longer at home

4. What is your ethnicity/tribe?
Christian Subanen
Muslim Ilocano
5. Please indicate the highest level of education you’ve completed.

Less than high school 2-year college/Technical school 4-year college
High School Some college, but no degree Postgraduate
6. What is your employment status?

Working full-time Own my own business Retired
Working part-time Looking for work Other_______________
7. Please indicate your annual household income:

₱0 - ₱4,999 ₱20,000 - ₱24,999 ₱40,000 - ₱44,999
₱5,000 - ₱9,999 ₱25,000 - ₱29,999 ₱45,000 - ₱49,999
₱10,000 - ₱14,999 ₱30,000 - ₱34,999 ₱50,000 +
₱15,000 - ₱19,999 ₱35,000 - ₱39,999
SOCIAL
Indicate your level of satisfaction with the following statements. (Please circle your answer).
Highly Neither Highly

Satisfied nor
Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
The amount of 5 4 3 2 1
tourism commercial
development
The amount of 5 4 3 2 1
resident development
Peacefulness 5 4 3 2 1
Cleanliness 5 4 3 2 1
94
Availability of 5 4 3 2 1
museums, tribes, or
agritourism
attractions
Promotion of cultural 5 4 3 2 1
and historical
resources
Interactions between 5 4 3 2 1
visitors and property
owners
Availability of public 5 4 3 2 1
parking during tourist
season
The quality of parks, 5 4 3 2 1

greenways, and bike
lanes
The management of 5 4 3 2 1
traffic generated by
tourists
The range of housing 5 4 3 2 1

styles and designs
Affordability of 5 4 3 2 1
housing
Availability of quality 5 4 3 2 1
healthcare services
Availability of quality 5 4 3 2 1
recreational
opportunities
Current air quality 5 4 3 2 1
Current water quality 5 4 3 2 1
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements regarding your attitude
about your local community home. (Please circle your answer).
Strongly Neither Strongly

Agree nor
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree
Disagree
I feel that I can really 5 4 3 2 1

be myself here
I really miss I when I 5 4 3 2 1

95
am away too long
This is the best place 5 4 3 2 1

to do the things I
enjoy
My home here reflects 5 4 3 2 1

the type of person I
am
It is important to be a 5 4 3 2 1
member of local civic
organizations
I feel that I have 5 4 3 2 1

political influence on
community decisions
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about the negative
impact of tourism on your local community. (Please circle your answer).

Agree Agree Disagree
Agree Disagree
nor
Disagree
Recreational resources are 5 4 3 2 1

overused by tourist
There is overcrowding due to 5 4 3 2 1

tourism development
Tourism increases traffic 5 4 3 2 1

problems
Tourism increases the amount 5 4 3 2 1

of crime in the local community
Tourism development unfairly 5 4 3 2 1

raises real estate values
Tourism in the local community 5 4 3 2 1

is growing too fast
My quality of life has 5 4 3 2 1

deteriorated because of tourism
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about your support for
further tourism development in the local community. (Please circle your answer).

Agree Agree nor Disagree
Agree Disagree
96
Disagree
Tourism holds great promise 5 4 3 2 1

for the local community’s
future
I support tourism having a vital 5 4 3 2 1

role in the local community
The local community should 5 4 3 2 1

plan and manage tourism’s
growth
The local government should 5 4 3 2 1

provide tax incentives to
encourage private development
in the tourism
I support new facilities that will 5 4 3 2 1

attract more tourists to the local
community
We need to take a long-term 5 4 3 2 1

view when planning for tourism
development
Tourism development should 5 4 3 2 1

embrace the values of all
community residents
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about the impact of
tourism on you personally. (Please circle your answer).

Agree Agree nor Disagree
Agree Disagree
Disagree
I personally receive 5 4 3 2 1
social benefits from
tourism (e.g.,
improved quality of
life, meeting
interesting people)
Overall, I benefit 5 4 3 2 1
from tourism in our
local community
ENVIRONMENTAL
97
How important is it to take action in the following areas to ensure that tourism in the local
community stays strong? (Please circle your answer).
Very Neither Not at all

Important nor important
Important Important Unimportant
Unimportant
Reducing and 5 4 3 2 1
managing
greenhouse gas
emissions
Managing, reducing, 5 4 3 2 1
and recycling solid
waste
Reducing 5 4 3 2 1
consumption of
freshwater
Managing 5 4 3 2 1
wastewater
Being energy 5 4 3 2 1
efficient
Conserving the 5 4 3 2 1
natural environment
Protecting our 5 4 3 2 1
community’s natural
environment for
future generations
Protecting air 5 4 3 2 1
quality
Protecting water 5 4 3 2 1
quality
Reducing Noise 5 4 3 2 1
Preserving culture 5 4 3 2 1
and heritage
Training and 5 4 3 2 1
educating
employees and
clients on
sustainable practices
Full access for 5 4 3 2 1

everyone in the
community to
participate in
tourism
98
development
decisions
How do climate and weather affect your life situation in the local community? (Please circle
your answer).
Strongly Agree Neither Agree Disagree Strongly

Agree nor Disagree Disagree
Weather and climate 5 4 3 2 1

conditions were important in
deciding to own property in
the local community.
Weather conditions have 5 4 3 2 1

changed enough in the local
community that I would not
consider buying property here
in the future.
Tourism should be developed 5 4 3 2 1

in harmony with the natural
environment

Satisfied nor
Dissatisfied
Unique attraction – one 5 4 3 2 1

of a kind (natural/man-
made/cultural)
Beauty – how does it 5 4 3 2 1

appeal? (nice to see,
hear, feel)
Tourist destination in the 5 4 3 2 1

local community is
accessible
Regular/Commercial 5 4 3 2 1
transport service
available
Clean water supply 5 4 3 2 1
Communications (i.e., 5 4 3 2 1
internet, telephone)
Drainage/sewerage 5 4 3 2 1
99
system
Good accommodation 5 4 3 2 1
facilities
Clean and quality food 5 4 3 2 1
service
Other activity 5 4 3 2 1
facilities (picnic huts,
pool, sports facilities,
etc.)
Directional and 5 4 3 2 1
information signage
ECONOMIC
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about the positive
impact of tourism on the local community. (Please circle your answer).

Agree Agree
Agree Disagree Disagree
nor
Disagree
Tourism is a strong economic 5 4 3 2 1

contributor to the local
community
Tourism creates new markets 5 4 3 2 1

for our local products
Tourism benefits other 5 4 3 2 1

industries in the local
community
Growth in tourism will create 5 4 3 2 1

jobs for local residents
Tourism brings new income to 5 4 3 2 1

the local community
Tourism helps preserve the 5 4 3 2 1

cultural and historic identity of
the local community
Tourism improves the image of 5 4 3 2 1

the local community’s culture
Promoting the tourist 5 4 3 2 1

100
destination created service jobs

for the residents (ex: vendor,
pump boat operator, sari-sari,
souvenir shop, food service,
drivers, etc.)
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about the negative
impact of tourism on the local community. (Please circle your answer).

Agree Agree
Agree Disagree Disagree
nor
Disagree
The price of food ingredients 5 4 3 2 1

sold in the village has
significantly increased
Only a few households have 5 4 3 2 1

benefited from tourist
destinations

Satisfied nor
Dissatisfied
Cost of living 5 4 3 2 1
Employment 5 4 3 2 1
opportunities
Number of tourism 5 4 3 2 1
businesses
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about the impact of
tourism on you personally. (Please circle your answer).
Neither Strongly
Agree nor Disagree
Strongly Agree Disagree
Disagree
Agree
I personally receive economic 5 4 3 2 1

benefits from tourism (e.g.,
income, employment)
101
Appendix E
DOCUMENTATION
Seeking approval at the City Tourism Approved by the City Tourism Office to
Office for conducting survey conduct the study
102
Approved by Brgy. Captain at Brgy.

Palpalan to conduct the survey Conducting the survey
Questionnaire at Barangay Datagan
Approved by Barangay Captain of

Approved by the Barangay Captain
Barangay Datagan to conduct the survey
at Barangay Alegria
questionnaire
Approved letter for conducting the Approved by the Barangay

survey questionnaire by the Captain at Barangay Manga
Barangay Captain at Brgy. Bulatok
103
Barangay White Beach Barangay Santiago
Barangay Dumagoc Barangay Alegria
Barangay Poloyagan Barangay Gatas Sanitized Ballpens

which serves as token
Curriculum Vitae
Name: Edwin C. Ortiz Jr.

Address: Purok Upper Lumboy, Tuburan
District, Pagadian City
Contact Number: 09166201172/09064721171
Email: ortizedwin10281995@gmail.com
104
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Nickname: Uno
Sex: Male
Civil Status: Single
Birthdate: October 26, 1995
Birthplace: Pagadian City
Religion: Born Again Christian
Nationality: Filipino
Languages Spoken: Cebuano, English
Father’s Name: Edwin C. Ortiz
Mother’s Name: Rodelia C. Ortiz
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Elementary: Tuburan Central Elementary School (Tuburan District, Pagadian

City)
Secondary: Zamboanga del Sur National Highschool (Sta. Maria District,
Pagadian City)
Tertiary: JH. Cerilles State College - Pagadian Annex (Balangasan District,
Pagadian City)
Name: Charmaine Rose A. Cuizon

Address: Purok Nazareno, Buenavista,
Pagadian City
Contact Number: 09556501979
Email: charmainerosecuizon20@gmail.com
105
Nickname: Sarmin
Sex: Female
Birthdate: February 20, 2000
Birthplace: Sta. Lucia, Pagadian City
Religion: Assembly of God
Language Dialects: Cebuano, English
Father’s Name: Rogen M. Cuizon
Mother’s Name: Myrna A. Cuizon
Elementary: Nazareth Elementary School (Nazareth, Buenavista, Pagadian City)

Secondary: Norberta Guillar Memorial National High School (Buenavista,
Pagadian City)
Tertiary: JH. Cerilles State College – Pagadian Annex (Balangasan Dist.,
Pagadian City)
Name: Hannah Mariane C. Parojinog

Address: Purok Madanihon, Munsinyor,
Balangasan Dist. Pagadian City
Email: marianeparojinog@gmail.com
106
Nickname: Han
Sex: Female
Birthdate: July 29,1999
Birthplace: Mahayahay, Iligan City
Religion: Latter-Day Saints (Mormons)
Language Spoken: Cebuano, English
Father’s Name: Marlou G. Parojinog
Mother’s Name: Emie L. Canggas
Elementary: Pagadian City Pilot School (San Jose District, Pagadian City)
Secondary: STI College Pagadian (Balangasan District, Pagadian City)
Tertiary: JH. Cerilles State College – Pagadian Annex (Balangasan District,
Pagadian City)
Name: Kent Bryan R. Lipi

Address: Purok 6, Manga, Pagadian City
Email: ringonkentkent@gmail.com
107
Nickname: Bryan
Sex: Male
Birthdate: June 12, 1999
Birthplace: Bobon Burgos, Ilocos Norte
Religion: Born Again
Languages Spoken: Ilocano, English
Father’s Name: Edimar G. Lipi
Mother’s Name: Vilma A. Lipi
Elementary: Nagabungan Elementary School (Brgy. 5 Davila, Pasuquin, Ilocos
Norte)
Secondary: Davila National High School (Ilocos Norte)
Tertiary: JH. Cerilles State College – Pagadian Annex (Balangasan Dist., Pagadian
City)

Assessment of Pillars of Sustainability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Assessment of Pillars of Sustainability

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessment of Pillars of Sustainability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASSESSMENT OF PILLARS OF SUSTAINABILITY: BASIS FOR THE

FORMULATION OF LOCAL SUSTAINABLE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT

A Thesis Proposal Presented to

The Faculty of Hospitality Management

J.H CERILLES STATE COLLEGE

of the Requirements for the Degree

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT

Cuizon, Charmaine Rose A.

In partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Bachelor in Science

CLEOFE A. BATERNA, PH.D.

Approved in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree, Bachelor of

Accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Bachelor of

JULITO V. MANDAC JR., DM

We also feel sincere gratitude to the Hospitality Management teachers who

express our deepest and most sincere thanks and gratitude.

with crucial and vital information to support our research.

only say, simply but profoundly, Thank you.

and completed successfully.

all the glory!

been made possible. To our relatives, mentors, families,

friends, and classmates who have supported us

throughout the process and shared their words

of advice and encouragement to finish this

study. And lastly, we dedicated this book

to the almighty God who gave us

wisdom and the power of the

mind, and for giving us a

healthy life. All

OF SUSTAINABILITY AS BASIS FOR THE FORMULATION OF LOCAL

SUSTAINABLE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT PLAN”.

CLEOFE A. BATERNA, Ph.D.

The purpose of this study is to determine the levels of Sustainable

Development anchored in the three pillars of sustainability namely: Social,

understanding what factors of sustainable tourism development are seen as most

also aid in developing a broader understanding of residents’ attitudes toward

sustainable tourism development. This study aims to improve the process of

organizing community participation by identifying subgroups within the community

attitudes towards tourism development.

The 120 respondents participated in a descriptive and correlational methods

comparative and correlational secondary analysis to understand and describe our

significant relationship between social and the following cognates; Social,

making a sustainable tourism development plan.

Key words: sustainable tourism development, environmental, social, economic.

1.1 The problem…………………………………………….….………........ 1

1.2 Conceptual Framework……………………………………….………… 5

1.3 Statement of the

1.5 Significance of the Study…………….…………..................................... 7

1.6 Scope and Limitation of the Study……………………………………… 8

1.7 Definition of Terms Used……………………………………………...... 9

Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature and Studies……………………………

2.1 Related Literature………………………………………………………...10

2.2 Related Studies…………………………………………………………...10

Chapter 3: Research Methodology………………………………………………...

3.1 Research Design………………………………………………………….16

3.3 Research Respondents……………………………………………………17

3.4 Research Instruments.......................................................................…......18

3.5 Data Collection Procedure…………………………………………….... 28

3.6 Ethical Consideration.........................................................................…... 29