Content uploaded by Lief Erikson Diocampo Gamalo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lief Erikson Diocampo Gamalo on Mar 17, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
J. Bio. & Env. Sci.
2018
160 | Gamalo et al.
RESEARCH PAPER OPEN ACCESS
Awareness and perception on wildlife and conservation of
teachers and college students in Los Baños, Laguna Philippines
Lief Erikson Gamalo1, Al John Cabañas*1, Kristian James Suetos1, Josefa Isabel Tauli1,
Neil John Vegafria1, Frances Mae Tenorio1, Michael Galapon1, Juancho Balatibat2
1Animal Biology Division, Department of Biological Sciences University of the Philippines Los Baños,
College, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines
2Department of Forest Biological Sciences, College of Forestry and Natural Resources,
University of the Philippines Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines
Article published on February 28, 2018
Key words: Awareness, Conservation, Perception, Wildlife, Philippines
Abstract
The Philippines is considered as a biodiversity hotspot, however, different threats could cause the demise of its
biological treasures. One of these threats could be the lack of awareness and the negative perception of the
people towards wildlife and conservation. In this study, 303 students and 52 teachers from Laguna State
Polytechnic University-Los Baños Campus (LSPU-LBC) were randomly selected to answer a questionnaire
designed to assess their awareness and perception towards wildlife and conservation in the Philippines. The
results of the study showed that the respondents have poor to intermediate awareness and knowledge about
Philippine wildlife and conservation. Moreover, the students have a higher familiarity of randomly selected
wildlife species compared to the teachers (T-test; p=0.741), and students enrolled under the College of Fisheries
have the highest familiarity of the wildlife species (ANOVA; p=0.000) compared to students enrolled in other
colleges. However, despite the poor awareness of most of the respondents towards Philippine wildlife, the results
show that they have a generally positive perception towards the conservation of these animals. This could further
mean that the respondents have concern and willingness to conserve the remaining biodiversity in the country.
*Corresponding Author: Al John Cabañas accabanas@up.edu.ph
Journal of Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences (JBES)
ISSN: 2220-6663 (Print) 2222-3045 (Online)
Vol. 12, No. 2, p. 160-167, 2018
http://www.innspub.net
J. Bio. & Env. Sci.
2018
161 | Gamalo et al.
Introduction
The Philippines is rich in terms of its biodiversity. The
endemism of the wildlife species in the country is very
high relative to its land area. Out of the 928 species of
vertebrate animals inhabiting the country, 529 of
these are endemics (Galang, 2004), and the number
is still increasing due to the discoveries of new
species. The high diversity could be attributed to
different factors such as the high diversity of the
vegetation types, most especially the forests.
However, the country’s biological treasures are
disturbed by different threats such as deforestation,
the introduction of the exotic organisms, mining and
others. A number of legislations are currently in place in
the country for the protection of wildlife and their
habitat, including Republic Act 9147 or the Wildlife
Resources Conservation and Protection Act of 2001, and
Republic Act 7586 or the National Integrated Protected
Areas System (NIPAS) Act of 1992 (Senga, 2001).
Aside from the threats mentioned above, the lack of
awareness and wrong perceptions of the people
towards wildlife could result in the lack of concern for
their conservation (Oliver and Heaney, 1996). The
lack of local concern could further result in a very low
government action against environmentally-
degrading human activities. Thus, it is important to
assess the awareness and perception of the people
towards wildlife. According to Brandon (1995),
conservation depends on the local people’s perception
and attitudes to conservation. Moreover, knowing the
perception and attitudes of the people could give
insights on how they would comply with the existing
wildlife laws and their willingness to co-exist with
wildlife species (Mir et al., 2015). Although there are
already existing studies on the attitudes or perception
of students towards the environment and biodiversity
in the Philippines, such as by Lagbas and Habito
(2016) and Ricaforte (2012), there are still very
limited studies about the awareness and perception of
college students and university teachers towards
wildlife and conservation in the country.
In line with this, the study aimed to (1) assess the
awareness of the graduating college students and
teachers in the Laguna State Polytechnic University- Los
Baños (LSPU-LB) on the wildlife species in the
Philippines, their habitats, and current programs/laws
to conserve them. Moreover, the study also aimed to (2)
compare the familiarity on wildlife between students and
teachers, and differences between the student’s
specializations, and (3) to determine the respondents’
perception towards wildlife use and conservation.
Assessing awareness and perception of wildlife and
wildlife concepts is important in management. The
results of this study will be able to pinpoint strengths
and weaknesses of current information and education
programs regarding wildlife, which aspects of these
programs to improve upon, and which concepts to
emphasize in information dissemination.
Materials and methods
Study Area
The study was conducted in the Laguna State
Polytechnic University- Los Baños Campus (LSPU-LBC)
(14°11'14"N 121°13'52"E) in Barangay Mayondon –
Malinta, located in the municipality of Los Baños,
Laguna, Philippines, during the month of April 2017.
The campus is known for its fishery-related courses;
however, other courses such as education, tourism,
accounting, business management, criminology and
computer science are also offered.
Data Collection
Before gathering the needed data, a permit was
requested from and approved by the campus director
of LSPU-LBC, and the respondents were then
communicated to the researchers through the Deans’
offices with their consent. Only respondents who were
18 years old and above participated in the study.
Privacy and confidentiality of the answers were
maintained throughout the study.
A total of 355 respondents composed of 303 non-
wildlife major college students (50% of the graduating
students in the university) and 52 non-wildlife major
teachers (approximately 50% of the teacher’s
population) were randomly selected to participate in
this study. The study was not limited to students
engaged in science-related courses, but to all
graduating students who had already taken basic
biology subject/s.
J. Bio. & Env. Sci.
2018
162 | Gamalo et al.
The questionnaire was designed to assess the
awareness and perception of non-wildlife major
teachers and college students towards the randomly
selected wildlife species, and conservation in the
country. The questions were designed with simplicity
for the comfort of the respondents, and most were
“yes” and “no” questions. The total response time of
answering the questionnaire was 7-10 minutes.
Statistical Analysis
The first part of the questionnaire was designed to
have multiple responses, thus the data were
represented as a percentage (%) of the total score.
Chi-square was used to know the differences between
the percentages of the answers by the respondents.
This enabled the researchers to know if an answer is
more common than the others. Moreover, T-test and
ANOVA were used to determine if there are
significant mean differences in the number of known
wildlife species between teachers and students, and
among the student’s field of specialization,
respectively. All statistics are significant if p<0.05. All
statistical tests were analyzed using IBM Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).
Results
Wildlife and Conservation Awareness
From the multiple-response questions, most of the
respondents (more than 80%) were aware of the
existence of the Philippine eagle, Philippine crocodile,
Philippine cobra, sea turtles, Philippine tarsiers,
Philippine warty pig, and tamaraw. However, out of
22 randomly listed wildlife species in the
questionnaire, 12 were assessed to be least known
wildlife species by the respondents (less than 50%),
which includes cloud rats, bleeding hearts, monitor
lizards, etc. (Fig. 1). Moreover, most of the
respondents answered that they have seen those
animals from television programs and from the
internet or social media only, and less have witnessed
these animals from the wild (Fig. 2).
Most of them estimate that 26-50% of the wildlife
species in the Philippine are endemic (n=167; df=3;
chi-square p=0.000). When the respondents were
asked what are the threatened species listed in Fig. 3,
most of the respondents have answered the
Philippine Eagle and tarsier. Other wildlife animals
listed were assessed by the respondents as not
threatened animals. Most of the respondents
estimated that 51-75% of the wildlife species in the
Philippines are facing the threat of extinction (n=157;
df=3; chi-square p=0.000). Meanwhile, most of the
respondents believe that there are only 26-50% of
remaining primary forests in the Philippines (n=193;
df=3; chi-square p=0.000) and most of them
answered that the deforestation is the main cause of
the decline of the number of Philippine wildlife
(n=122; df=4; chi-square p=0.000).
Fig. 1. Percentage of the respondents familiar with the randomly selected Philippine wildlife species listed above.
J. Bio. & Env. Sci.
2018
163 | Gamalo et al.
Fig. 2. Percentage of each places/media where the respondents saw the wildlife species listed in Fig. 1.
Fig. 3. Percentage of respondents who believe that the wildlife species listed above are threatened by extinction.
In terms of conservation agencies and laws, most of
the respondents are not familiar with the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature
(IUCN) (n=265; df=1; chi square p=0.000),
Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (n=252;
df=1; chi square p=0.000) and National Integrated
Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act (n=241; df=1;
chi square p=0.000). However, most of them said
that they know the Philippine Wildlife Act (n=285;
df=1; chi square p=0.000). Many of the respondents
were also not aware of the principle of protected area
(n=175; df=1; chi square p=0.445) and buffer zones
(n=302; df=1; chi square, p=0.000).
Differences in the Awareness of Philippine Wildlife
It was observed that from the list of Philippine
wildlife species in Fig. 1, the students have higher
familiarity compared to the teachers (Fig. 4);
however, there was no statistical difference detected
(T-test; p=0.741). From the same list, it was observed
that the students under the College of Fisheries (COF)
got the highest mean number of known Philippine
wildlife (Fig. 5), while the College of Food Nutrition and
Dietetics (CFND) got the least (ANOVA; p=0.000).
Fig. 4. Difference between students and teachers’
familiarity on the Philippine wildlife species listed in
Fig. 1. T-test; p=0.741.
J. Bio. & Env. Sci.
2018
164 | Gamalo et al.
Perception on Wildlife and Use
Most of the respondents did not agree to wildlife
breeding for the purpose of pet trading (n=320; df=1;
chi square p=0.000) as shown in Fig. 6. Moreover,
most of the respondents also did not agree to wildlife
hunting/capturing for the purpose of food
consumption (n=268; df=1; chi square p=0.000), as
pets (n=228; df=1; chi square p=0.000) and for
selling in the market (n=327; df=1; chi square
p=0.000). It was also observed that most of the
respondents would not buy wildlife products such as
furcoats (n=289; df=1; chi square p=0.000),
alternative medicines (n=224; df=1; chi square
p=0.000) and decorations for their houses (n=308;
df=1; chi square p=0.000).
Aside from wildlife use of humans, majority of the
respondents also did not agree to the introduction of
exotic wildlife species to control pests (n=192; df=1;
chi-square p=0.027). It was also found out that most
of them are not in favor of killing potentially
dangerous wildlife species, such as crocodiles, even if
present or near in their households (n=289; df=1; chi-
square p=0.000).
Discussion
From the results of the study, it can be said that the
respondents have poor to intermediate knowledge
and awareness to the Philippine wildlife. According to
Galang (2004), most Filipinos are more familiar with
wildlife species from other countries. Although most
of them know the iconic species such as the
Philippine eagle and Philippine crocodile, most of the
listed wildlife species are relatively unknown to them.
This could be because crocodiles and the Philippine
eagle are often featured on social media and television
as representatives for conservation programs, in
connection with existing environmental campaigns
for the species (van der Ploeg et al., 2011; Salvador
and Ibanez, 2006).
Furthermore, most of the respondents are not aware
that the endemism in the country is more than 50%
(Galang, 2004). Most of them know that most of
these species are threatened; however, it was
observed from the result that most of them are not
aware what are those threatened species.
Similarly, most are not aware that the Philippines
have less than 10% remaining natural forests (Posa et
al., 2008). Aside from the Philippine Wildlife Act,
most of the respondents are not familiar with IUCN,
CITES and NIPAS Act. This is probably because there
are no subjects focusing on Philippine wildlife in the
campus. Moreover, the results of the study could be
attributed to the low participation of the respondents
to biodiversity-related campaigns (Gandiwa et al.,
2014) as there are no or very limited student
organizations which focus on biodiversity and
conservation in the site.
Environmental education in the Philippines is mostly
incorporated into different subjects, and not a separate
distinct subject (Reyes, 2014). However, the government
has already taken some steps to address this, such as the
formation of two national networks involved in
environmental education: the Environmental Education
Network of the Philippines, Inc. (EENP) and the
Philippine Association of Tertiary Level Educational
Institutions in Environmental Protection and
Management (PATLEPAM) (Reyes, 2014). These
programs could help elevate the knowledge and
awareness of students and teachers in the country.
On the other hand, the familiarity of students on the
Philippine wildlife was higher compared to that of the
teachers but not statistically different (T-test;
p=0.741). This could be the result of the higher use
rate of the internet or social media by the students
compared to their teachers, which was reported in
this study to provide higher information (Fig. 2)
about the Philippine wildlife species listed in Fig. 1.
Today, the internet has already changed the
awareness of the people on biodiversity and
conservation by providing easy access to videos,
photographs and other materials featuring wildlife
issues, trades, and conservation practices (Bisby,
2000). Additionally, there was a significant difference
(ANOVA; p=0.000) on the number of wildlife species
the students are familiar with in relation to the
college they are connected. It was observed that the
students under the College of Fisheries have higher
familiarity on the wildlife species (Fig. 5) from the list
given in Fig. 1.
J. Bio. & Env. Sci.
2018
165 | Gamalo et al.
This might be because the students in the college are
more inclined to science-related topics, which makes
them familiar to animals in the Philippines. However,
this should be further investigated. The result could
imply that the educational affiliation and background
of students could affect their awareness and
knowledge of wildlife and conservation.
Despite the poor to intermediate awareness and
knowledge of the respondents towards Philippine
wildlife and conservation, it was observed that most
of them have a generally positive perception towards
wildlife and conservation (Fig. 6). This was also
observed in the study of Sia Su (2008) where there
was a positive perception of college students towards
the environment. Studies from outside the country
show the same positive perception of local people
towards wildlife and conservation, such as in
Zimbabwe (Gandiwa et al., 2014) and in Kashmir
Valley, India (Mir et al., 2015). This is an encouraging
result for conservationists as the respondents have
already developed concern for the survival of our own
wildlife. The positive results could be the outcome of
the lesser human-wildlife conflict in the area of
LSPU-LBC or from the respondents’ respective
hometowns. From other studies where the conflict is
intense, negative perception to wildlife has been
reported (Ebua et al., 2011), thus making it hard to
achieve a successful conservation management plan
for the wildlife species in those areas.
Fig. 5. Differences among students’ familiarity on the Philippine wildlife species listed in Fig. 1. ANOVA; p=0.000.
Legend: College of Food Nutrition and Dietetics (CFND), College of Business Management and Accountancy (CBMA),
College of Hospitality Management and Tourism (CHMT), College of Teacher Education (CTE), College of Computer
Studies (CCS), College of Criminal Justice Education (CCJE) and College of Fisheries (COF).
Fig. 6. The response of the students (in percentage) if they agree or disagree on the cases mentioned in the Fig.
J. Bio. & Env. Sci.
2018
166 | Gamalo et al.
Conclusion
In this study, most of the respondents have poor to
intermediate knowledge and awareness toward the
Philippine wildlife species listed in the questionnaire,
and most of them have seen them on television and
the internet only. It was also observed that the
students have higher familiarity on the wildlife
species from the given questionnaire compared to the
teachers, but the result was statistically insignificant.
Furthermore, students enrolled in the College of
Fisheries have the highest familiarity with the given
wildlife species. Most of the respondents are not
aware that the Philippines has more than 50%
endemic wildlife species, and there are only less than
10% remaining primary forests in the country. Aside
from these, most of the respondents are not familiar
with IUCN, CITES and NIPAS law, but are familiar
with the Philippine Wildlife Act. Even with the poor
to intermediate awareness and knowledge of the
respondents towards wildlife and conservation in the
Philippines, it was observed that they showed positive
perception of the wildlife species in the country.
Acknowledgement
The researchers would like to thank Dr. Daniel D.
Bunal, the campus director, for the permission to
conduct the study in the LSPU-LBC. The researchers
are also grateful to the respondents for sincerely
answering the questions.
References
Bisby FA. 2000. The quiet revolution: biodiversity
informatics and the internet. Science 289(5488),
2309-2312.
Brandon K. 1995. People, parks, forests or fields: a
realistic view of tropical forest conservation. Land
Use Policy 12(2), 137-144.
Ebua VB, Agwafo TE, Fonkwo SN. 2011.
Attitudes and perceptions as threats to wildlife
conservation in the Bakossi area, South West
Cameroon. International Journal of Biodiversity and
Conservation 3(12), 631-636.
Galang R. 2004. A critical review of wildlife
conservation in the Philippines. Philippine Spotted Deer
Conservation Foundation. Melbourne, Australia p. 7-17.
Gandiwa E, Zisadza-Gandiwa P, Muboko N,
Libombo E, Mashapa C, Gwazani R. 2014. Local
people’s knowledge and perceptions of wildlife
conservation in Southeastern Zimbabwe. Journal of
Environmental Protection 5(06), 475.
Lagbas AJ, Habito CD. 2016. Ecosystem services
of coastal and fisheries resources: Perspectives of
high school students in Municipality of Panukulan,
Polillo Island, Quezon, Philippines. Journal of Marine
and Island Cultures 5(2), 145-158.
Mir ZR, Noor A, Habib B, Veeraswami GG. 2015.
Attitudes of Local People Toward Wildlife Conservation:
A Case Study from the Kashmir Valley. Mountain
Research and Development 35(4), 392-400.
Oliver WLR, Heaney LR. 1996. Biodiversity and
conservation in the Philippines. International Zoo
News 43, 329-336.
Posa MRC, Diesmos AC, Sodhi NS, Brooks TM.
2008. Hope for threatened tropical biodiversity: lessons
from the Philippines. BioScience, 58(3), 231-240.
Reyes JAL. 2014. Environmental attitudes and
behaviors in the Philippines. Journal of Educational
and Social Research 4(6), 87.
Ricaforte BGR. 2012. An Investigation on
Biodiversity Perceptions of Students Enrolled in
Ecotourism at De La Salle-College of Saint
Benilde. Journal of Agricultural Science and
Technology A 2(11), 1245.
Salvador DJ, Ibanez JC. 2006. Ecology and
conservation of Philippine Eagles. Ornithological
Science 5(2), 171-176.
Senga RG. 2001. Establishing protected areas in the
Philippines. In The George Wright Forum 18, 56-65.
J. Bio. & Env. Sci.
2018
167 | Gamalo et al.
Sia Su GL. 2008. Environmental worldview and
concern of college students in the
Philippines. International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education 9(1), 39-47.
Van der Ploeg J, Cauillan-Cureg M, van Weerd
M, Persoon G. 2011. Why must we protect
crocodiles. Explaining the value of the Philippine
crocodile to rural communities. Journal of Integrative
Environmental Sciences 8(4), 287-298.