Content uploaded by Leomarich Casinillo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Leomarich Casinillo on Oct 26, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Scientific Papers Series Management, Economic Engineering in Agriculture and Rural Development
Vol. 22, Issue 3, 2022
PRINT ISSN 2284-7995, E-ISSN 2285-3952
177
MODELING FARMERS’ INVOLVEMENT IN THE PARTICIPATORY
COCONUT PLANTING PROJECT OF THE PHILIPPINE COCONUT
AUTHORITY
Virgelio C. DARGANTES JR.*, Milagros C. BALES*, Leomarich F. CASINILLO**
Visayas State University, *Department of Agricultural Education and Extension, **Department of
Mathematics, Visca, Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines; E-mail:virgelio.dargantes@vsu.edu.ph,
milagros.bales@vsu.edu.ph, leomarichcasinillo02011990@gmail.com
Corresponding author: leomarichcasinillo02011990@gmail.com
Abstract
Participatory Coconut Planting Project (PCPP) is one of the programs implemented by the Philippine Coconut
Authority (PCA) that aims to achieve the increasing productivity and income of coconut farmers. The study was
conducted to find out the level of involvement of 145 coconut farmers, from the three selected municipalities of
Northwestern Leyte, in the PCPP and determine the factors that influenced their participation. Descriptive statistics
like percentages, frequency counts, means, and ranges were employed. Moreover, regression analysis was used to
determine the relationship between the socio-demographic/economic characteristics and other factors that
influenced farmers' involvement in PCPP. Findings revealed that most of the respondents were middle-aged, males,
and married. They had low educational levels and annual income and the majority of them did not attend pieces of
training. They were land owners cultivating an average area of 1.5 hectares. Moreover, the majority of the
respondents had fully taken part in the overall activities of PCPP which indicates genuine participation. Factors
that have a high level of significance to the level of involvement were the following: educational attainment, number
of training attended, benefit satisfaction, and perceived satisfaction towards the project. Other significantly related
factors were sex, age, benefits awareness, and effectiveness of the Coconut Development Officer (CDO) in the
delivery of services. Apparently, the most common problem encountered by the farmers was coconut pest infestation.
Hence, regular monitoring from the CDO staff and provision by PCA of sufficient pesticides to control infestations
are hoped to prove the productivity of coconut farms.
Key words: Coconut farmers’ participation, extension services, perceived satisfaction, benefits
INTRODUCTION
The coconut industry in the country
Philippines plays a vital role in national
economic development [18]. In fact, this
industry is one of the top ten exports as
exhibited by the good export performance of
both traditional and non-traditional coconut
products in the country. The Philippines is the
second-largest producer of coconuts globally,
ranking directly behind Indonesia [6].
Coconut provides a sustainable income source
for many Filipinos by giving service through
its many programs [21].
Coconut (Cocos Nucifera L.) is considered the
lifeblood of Philippine agriculture because of
the assortment of products and by-products
made from the coconut tree utilized for food
and in industry. Coconut is one of the
country’s most important crops that has
played a relevant role in global
competitiveness and the country’s primary
agricultural export. Indeed, the Philippines
remain the uppermost producer and exporter
of coconut throughout the world [17],[21].
Although there are numerous coconut
plantations in the Philippines, still the
productivity levels remain relatively low [4].
The low productivity of the coconut
plantations can be attributed to the lack of
information on appropriate technologies for
coconut farming; fruit-bearing trees are senile
and need replanting [6]. Seemingly, there is
low participation of farmers in the decision-
making process, especially in marketing
which they do not have much control over.
This results in a major problem in the export
of coconut commodities due to a declining
quantity of production [18]. Moreover, when
Typhoon Haiyan (topically known as
Yolanda) affected the Philippines on
November 8, 2013, an estimated 33 million
Scientific Papers Series Management, Economic Engineering in Agriculture and Rural Development
Vol. 22, Issue 3, 2022
PRINT ISSN 2284-7995, E-ISSN 2285-3952
178
coconut trees were battered or damaged,
negatively impacting around 1 million
coconut farmers [6], [25].
The devastation brought by the calamity was
deeply felt by the workers in the agricultural
sector, especially the coconut farmers in
Eastern Visayas who were badly hit. The
region experienced a significant decline in
coconut production, which gravely affected
demand at local and national levels. Some
provinces like Leyte and Samar have suffered
setbacks due to massive infestation [25]. More
significantly, despite the adverse impact on
the industry’s contribution to the economy
and its vast economic potential, coconut
farmers are considered poor in the country.
Their poverty can only be explained by the
inability of producers to reinvigorate the
production [22].
The Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA), an
attached agency under the Department of
Agriculture (DA), is mandated to revitalize
the coconut industry by increasing coconut
production and farm productivity to ensure
economic stability among the coconut farmers
[22]. PCA leads the farmers to help them be
adequately trained, motivated, and challenged
to transform coconut farms into
entrepreneurial entities. PCA enhances the
farmers' capability to identify demand-driven
crops that should be planted in greater volume
to generate more income. Moreover, farmers
are also taught about marketing to be able to
sell their crops at a competitive price [13],
[22].
To achieve the increasing productivity and
income of coconut farmers, one of the
programs implemented by PCA is the
Participatory Coconut Planting Project
(PCPP). PCPP aimed to uplift the living
standard of coconut farmers and the coconut
industry. Participation implies a widening
redistribution of opportunities among the
people to involve them in all the phases of
development activities, especially in the
coconut replanting and plantation
rehabilitation program. It asserts one's right to
establish through their involvement in the
development processes since it also affects
them and ultimately the community.
Furthermore, it emphasized that the user's
perspective is vital in sustainable development
programs. Although the PCA personnel has
done their best for the coconut farmers to get
involved in the PCPP, the extent of their
participation in this program is not yet well
studied. The farmers' involvement in
rehabilitating and improving productivity
could be influenced by various factors which
can affect their full participation. This study
was anchored on the Ladder of Citizen
Participation Theory [3] adapted and
developed by Farshid Aref [2]. Citizen
participation is a kind of procedure that
provides reclusive individuals a chance to
impact the public decision-making
process.Thus, it was hypothesized that the
participation of farmer-beneficiaries in the
PCPP was influenced by four major variables:
1) socio-demographic and economic
characteristics of the farmer respondents, 2)
other selected factors that are associated with
farmers' involvement in the project, 3) the
perceived satisfaction of farmers towards
PCPP and 4) the effectiveness of CDOs in
delivery of extension services. The results of
this study could provide valuable insights to
rural development planners and policymakers
in planning and implementing policies and
strategies that would improve the mobilization
of farmers in any development project. The
information would be useful for guiding the
future policies that shall form the guidelines
to improve the present programs. It can also
be useful to program implementers and
frontline extension agents to analyze and
improve extension strategies and
methodologies, find solutions to whatever
problems they will encounter in implementing
the project, and determine the course of action
to make farmers more actively involved in the
project for their development and benefits.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study site and respondents
The study covered three municipalities of
Northwestern Leyte under the Participatory
Coconut Planting Project, namely: Mahaplag,
Inopacan, and Hilongos, Leyte (Map 1).
These municipalities are also the coconut top
growers in Northwestern Leyte and have the
Scientific Papers Series Management, Economic Engineering in Agriculture and Rural Development
Vol. 22, Issue 3, 2022
PRINT ISSN 2284-7995, E-ISSN 2285-3952
179
most significant number of farmers involved
in PCPP.
Map 1. The location where the survey was conducted.
Source: [8].
The following barangays in these
municipalities were selected using purposive
sampling: Brgy. Sta. Cruz and San Isidro in
Hilongos, Brgy. Caminto and Hinabay in
Inopacan, and Brgy. Mabuhay and Palanogan
in Mahaplag, Leyte. The respondents of the
study were the coconut farmers involved in
the PCPP from the year 2015 to 2017. A total
enumeration of respondents from the selected
barangays in three municipalities was used to
elicit a response. The distribution of the
respondents by municipalities is shown in
Table 1.
Table 1. Distribution of farmers by municipality
Municipality
Barangay
Farmers
Mahaplag
Mabuhay
16
Palanugan
14
Hilongos
Sta. Cruz
20
San Isidro
19
Inopacan
Caminto
40
Hinabay
36
Total
145
Source: Source: Authors’ owntally (2022).
Data Gathering and Research Instrument
A list of coconut farmers involved in the
PCPP was obtained from the Provincial
Office of the Philippine Coconut Authority-
Northwestern Leyte. Personal interviews were
conducted by the researcher in the
respondents’ respective residences and were
kept confidential to protect their privacy.
During the interviews, the interview schedule
was translated into the Cebuano dialect to
make the conversations more understandable.
To substantiate the data gathered, three Focus
Group Discussions (FGDs), one for each
municipality, were also conducted.
A research’s developed structured
questionnaire adapted from the study by Aref
[2] and Arnstein [3] was employed for the
scheduled interview. The interview schedule
was pretested among selected coconut farmers
who were not included in the research
coverage. A five-part interview schedule was
used in data gathering.
Part I dealt with the socio-demographic and
economic characteristics of farmer
respondents.
Part II included other selected factors that
could affect their participation and
involvement in the project.
Part III focused on the perceived satisfaction
towards the PCPP (7 areas) and the
effectiveness of CDO staff in the delivery of
extension services (5 areas). This part is
considered a 5-point rating scale.
Table 2 shows the range of scores in
perceived satisfaction and effectiveness of
CDO staff.
Table 2. Scoring guidelines for Part III
Perception
scores
Adjectival rating
Satisfaction
Effectiveness
1.00 – 1.80
Very
unsatisfied
Highly ineffective
1.81 – 2.60
unsatisfied
Ineffective
2.61 – 3.40
Undecided
Uncertain
3.41 – 4.20
Satisfied
Effective
4.21 – 5.00
Very Satisfied
Highly effective
Source: Authors’ ownguidelines (2022).
Part IV was on the level of farmers’
involvement in the different activities (7
activities involved, two phases) of PCPP. In
each activity, each farmer has to choose the
following options: 1-Not at all, 2-Partially
taken part, 3-Fully taken part.
Table 3 presents the scoring guidelines for
farmers’ involvement.
Scientific Papers Series Management, Economic Engineering in Agriculture and Rural Development
Vol. 22, Issue 3, 2022
PRINT ISSN 2284-7995, E-ISSN 2285-3952
180
Table 3. Scoring guidelines for Part IV
Perception scores
Level of involvement
1.00 – 1.80
Not at all
1.81 – 2.60
Partially taken part
2.61 – 3.40
Fully taken part
Source: Authors’ own guidelines (2022).
Lastly, Part V dealt with the problems
encountered in relation to the project and
suggested solutions and recommendations to
solve these problems.
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics such as percentages,
frequency counts, means, and ranges were
used to describe farmer respondents' socio-
demographic characteristics, including their
perceived satisfaction and participation in the
program. The data gathered through selected
farmer interviews were presented in
descriptive form and tables. Linear regression
analysis was employed using a specified
model (ordinary least square (OLS)) to
elucidate the influencing determinants (socio-
demographic, economic characteristics, and
other personal factors of farmer-respondents)
of farmers’ involvement in PCPP. For the
dependent variable, the total farmers'
perception scores (summed up) in
involvement in the different activities were
computed. Data were coded and analyzed
using the STATA version 14.0 and employed
some diagnostic test that is subjected to a 5%
level of significance.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Profile of the PCPP Respondents
Almost half of the farmers (45%) were
middle-aged, where the average age is 55.
These findings indicate that age does not limit
individuals in doing farm activities. The
majority of the respondents were males
(66%). This result confirmed Nnadi and
Akwiwu's [19] study that males are usually
the decision-makers and, therefore, are well
placed to involve in agricultural projects. A
majority (79%) of the farmers were also
married: Most respondents had low education,
with one to four household members.
Most of the farmers (53%) were members of
one or more organizations in their respective
barangays. A majority (70%) of them have not
attended training for the following reasons:
they were either not informed or aware of the
training, busy on their farm/work, or had no
training conducted for them. However, some
had attended one or more coconut-related
training such as on PCA-PCPP Program
(21%), PCA- Planting/replanting and
Integrated Pest Management (8%), and other
related training.
The majority of the respondents (74%) were
landowners/heirs who were more involved in
PCPP. According to Philippine Statistics
Authority [21], Eastern Visayas currently pegs
the poverty threshold at Php9,063.75 a month
for a family of five or Php108,765.00 income
in a year. This reveals that the coconut
farmers in the study sites were below the
poverty line, further indicating that their
income cannot provide all the basic needs for
their families. Although all of the respondents
(100%) were mainly dependent on farming,
some of them had other sources of income
coming from small-scale businesses (17%), as
a driver (5%), government/private
employment (13%), relied on the remittance
from their family/relatives (5%), and other
sources.
On average, the respondents cultivated 1.5
hectares which ranged from 0.25 to 6.0
hectares which shows that the majority of the
farmers qualified on the requirements of
PCPP to cultivate an area of 0.5-5.0 hectares.
However, there were farmers (60) who did not
qualify based on this requirement but were
allowed to participate in the program. On the
other hand, the same percentage of
respondents (23%) have a long farming
experience, between 13- 23 years and 24- 34
years. Generally, the respondents had an
average farming experience of 28 years.
Factors Influencing Participation
Most of the respondents (77%) got
information about the PCPP from personal
sources. The study revealed that they got more
reliable information from the CDO staff. This
shows that the CDOs assigned in the
respective areas effectively disseminated
reliable information about the project.
Although the PCPP did not use radio,
television, and printed materials, a few
respondents (9%) availed the mass media
Scientific Papers Series Management, Economic Engineering in Agriculture and Rural Development
Vol. 22, Issue 3, 2022
PRINT ISSN 2284-7995, E-ISSN 2285-3952
181
where they considered the radio as an
effective source of information over television
(4%) and printed materials (0.7%).
One of the influencing factors why people
participate in government/private activities is
the benefit they receive from their
involvement [24], [27]. Almost all (95%) of
the respondents were aware of the benefits
gained from joining the project. Seventy
percent (70%) indicated satisfaction since
they perceived that the program helped them
financially.
Perceived satisfaction toward PCPP
Project
The FGD results affirmed that the project
positively affected farmers' lives because
these were very useful in their livelihood.
Generally, the respondents rated the project
satisfactorily, as indicated in the grand mean
score of 4.12.Among the favored areas listed,
the project's effect and usefulness in their
livelihood had the highest mean scores (4.28),
indicating farmers' high satisfaction with these
aspects (Table 4).
Table 4. Perceived satisfaction of the farmers
Areas
M
SD
Adjectival
ratinga
General assessment
of the project
4.20
0.760
Satisfied
Sourcing own seed
nuts
4.25
0.769
Satisfied
Usefulness in their
livelihood
4.28
0.768
Satisfied
Dissemination of
the concept of the
program
3.97
0.931
Satisfied
Relevance to their
needs
4.21
0.754
Satisfied
Process of
application in the
access to the project
3.63
1.296
Satisfied
Effect of the project
on their lives
4.28
0.750
Satisfied
Grand Mean and Std
dev(M±SD)
4.12±0.
86
Satisfied
Note: a-See Table 2 for details.
Source: Authors’ own analysis based on data gathered
(2022).
The process of application for the access to
the project and dissemination of the concept
of the program was still satisfactory, although
with low mean scores of 3.63 and 3.97,
respectively. The respondents favored other
areas such as sourcing their seed nuts,
relevance to their needs, and general
assessment of the project.
Effectiveness of CDO staff
The CDOs’ performance in the delivery of
extension services in specific project areas
was effective, with an overall grand mean of
3.98 as preferred by the respondents (Table
5).
This implies their trust in the CDO staff for
the reliability of the information they received
from a sense of responsibility, seriousness,
and dedication to services has been rated
highest (4.20).
Although the implementation of a monitoring
system (3.68) was low, it was understandable
because of the wide coverage of responsibility
and lack of CDO staff responsible for the
regular monitoring of the project.
This result is consistent with the study of
Aguda et al. [1] that the agricultural project's
staff in Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines has
room for improvement to satisfy the
participation of farmers.
Table 5. Effectiveness of the CDO staff
Areas
M
SD
Adjectival
ratinga
Technical
capability of CDO
staff
4.11
0.746
Effective
Sense of
responsibility,
seriousness, and
dedication to
services
4.20
0.742
Effective
Giving clear
instructions to
participants
4.14
0.782
Effective
Implementation of a
monitoring system
3.68
1.033
Effective
Settling/handling
problems
effectively
3.79
0.980
Effective
Grand Mean and Std
dev(M±SD)
3.98±
0.85
Effective
Note: a-See Table 2 for details.
Source: Authors’ own analysis based on data gathered
(2022).
Level of involvement of Farmers
PCPP had seven activity areas which were
divided into two phases (Table 6).
Scientific Papers Series Management, Economic Engineering in Agriculture and Rural Development
Vol. 22, Issue 3, 2022
PRINT ISSN 2284-7995, E-ISSN 2285-3952
182
Farmers’ level of participation was measured
using a 3- point attitudinal scale with 3- fully
taken part, 2-partially taken part, and 1-not at
all. This 3 -point attitudinal scale was derived
from Arnstein’s [3] ladder of citizen
participation theory, adapted and developed
by Farshid Aref [2], which categorized
participation into three levels only. In the
Phase 1 activities, half of the respondents
(50%) did not attend the awareness seminar
and partially took part based on the overall
level of involvement (1.82). Findings revealed
that some of the respondents were not
aware/informed of the PCPP seminar because
no formal pieces of training/seminars were
conducted in their respective areas. However,
the rest of Phase 1 activities were fully taken
part by the majority of the respondents. This
reveals that the participants had made
conscious decisions to participate in these
activities and were not influenced by others.
Table 6. Respondents' rating on their level of
participation in various PCPP activities
ACTIVITIES
MEAN
(±SD)
Over-all responsea
Phase I Activities
a.Awareness
seminar
1.82
(±0.23)
Partially taken part
b.Seed nuts
selection
2.35
(±0.43)
Fully taken part
c.Nursery
preparation
and establishment
2.37
(±0.37)
Fully taken part
d.Seedbed
preparation
2.39
(±0.24)
Fully taken part
e.Sowing and
propagation of
seed nuts
2.38
(±0.43)
Fully taken part
Phase II Activities
a.Production of
good quality
seedlings
2.38
(±0.29)
Fully taken part
b. Field planting
of coconut
seedlings
2.39
(±0.35)
Fully taken part
Note: a - See Table 3 for details.
Source: Authors’ own analysis based on data gathered
(2022).
The same results were also revealed in Phase
2 activities, wherein most respondents at
varying levels of participants took part in the
production of good quality seedlings (61%)
and field planting (62%). This was also
stressed in the findings of Aguda et al. [1] and
Red et al. [24] that farmer-beneficiaries have
varying levels of participation at the different
stages of the project.
The results of Phase 1 and 2 were affirmed by
the respondents during the conducted FGD as
they expressed satisfaction with the different
activities of PCPP because they have received
monetary benefits from participating in the
project. For every seedling they have planted,
they received Php40.00. Their participation
was largely influenced by the monetary
incentives they received. Although their
participation appeared to be a token passion
because it was extrinsically motivated, they
claimed that their involvement in the project
would benefit them [20], [14], [26].
Factors that Influenced the Level of
Involvement of Farmers in PCPP
Table 7 depicted that the regression model
(Fc=3.77, p-value<0.001) is significant at a 1%
level of significance. Additionally, the R-
squared (goodness-of-fit) shows that (R2=0.16)
there are significant predictors that influence
the farmers' level of involvement in the
project. The diagnostic test for the model
suggests that the model does not suffer from
heteroskedasticity, multicollinearity problems,
and non-normality of residuals. The model
showed that only age (p-value=0.077), sex (p-
value=0.018), and education (p-value=0.007)
significantly influenced the respondent's level
of involvement in the PCPP. Other factors
showed no significant relationships (Table
5).Among the three factors mentioned above,
the respondent’s education showed high
significance at a 1% level, indicating that the
more educated the farmer, the more likely
they will participate in agricultural
development projects.This result conforms
with Nnadi and Akwiwu’s [19] notion that
farmers participate in order to apply the
knowledge they learn. If the farmer is more
knowledgeable, then farmers possess a good
attitude in practicing innovative production
technologies in agriculture [24]. Moreover,
based on the number of beneficiaries
participating in PCPP activities, males were
predominant, which revealed high
Scientific Papers Series Management, Economic Engineering in Agriculture and Rural Development
Vol. 22, Issue 3, 2022
PRINT ISSN 2284-7995, E-ISSN 2285-3952
183
significance at a 5% level. This result is
parallel to the findings of Rahman et al. [23],
that farming is a masculine work and
dominated by male workers. On the other
hand, age was negatively correlated with the
level of involvement at a 10% level which
means that the older the farmer, the lesser
they will participate in these kinds of
activities. It is worth noting that farming is
exhausting work, hence most of the farmers
are young and motivated [10].
Table 7. Regression analysis (Model 1) for farmers’
level of involvement in PCPP
Determinants
Coefficient
Std
Error
p-value
Age
-0.067*
0.038
0.077
Sex
2.221**
0.926
0.018
Civil Status
0.429ns
1.022
0.675
Tenurial status
0.372ns
1.067
0.728
Education (in
years)
0.856***
0.313
0.007
Household size
0.156ns
0.206
0.449
Farm size
0.298ns
0.317
0.348
No. of years in
farming
0.040ns
0.038
0.290
Constant
16.427***
3.282
<0.001
N
145
F-computed
3.77
P-value
<0.001
R-squared
0.160
Note: ns- not significant; * - significant at 10%;
** - significant at 5%
*** - highly significant at 1%.
Source: Authors’ own analysis based on data gathered
(2022).
Table 8 reveals that the second constructed
model (Fc=3.77, p-value<0.001) is highly
significant. It can be shown also in the R-
squared of the model (R2=0.617) that there are
several strong predictors that influenced the
farmers' involvement in coconut farming.
Plus, the diagnostic test declares that the
model is not heteroskedasticity, no
multicollinearity problem among predictors,
and the residuals are closed to
normality.Interestingly, among the eight (8)
other selected factors subjected to regression
analysis on their influence on the level of
involvement of PCPP beneficiaries, five (5)
showed significant relationships with training
attended, benefit satisfaction, and perceived
satisfaction towards the project indicating
high significance at 1% level (Table 8).
Table 8. Regression analysis (Model 2) for farmers’
level of involvement in PCPP
Determinants
Coefficient
Std
Error
p-value
Annual income
-1.74e-06ns
2.65e-06
0.513
Training
attended
2.959***
0.647
<0.001
Members in
Organization
-0.689ns
0.590
0.245
Information
sources
0.058ns
0.102
0.572
Benefits
awareness
2.318*
1.367
0.092
Benefits
Satisfaction
2.504***
0.468
<0.001
Perceive
satisfaction
0.237***
0.081
0.004
Effectiveness
of CDOs
0.161*
0.095
0.094
Constant
-2.629ns
2.816
0.352
N
145
F-computed
26.01
P-value
<0.001
R-squared
0.617
Note: ns- not significant; * - significant at 10%;
** - significant at 5%
*** - highly significant at 1%.
Source: Authors’ own analysis based on data gathered
(2022).
In fact, training is vital in knowledge
acquisition and stimulating farmers'
involvement in the agricultural project [24],
[27]. Moreover, benefits awareness and
effectiveness of CDO’s performance were
found significant at 10%. These results
explained that the more they were exposed to
training, the more satisfied they were with
participating in the project because they were
more aware of the benefits derived from it
[27]. In the study of Aguda et al. [1], farmers
must be provided appropriate information and
the right training to fully comprehend the
benefits they can get. And this motivates the
farmer's eagerness to participate the
government projects. Furthermore,
respondents’ perceived satisfaction with the
project can be attributed to the effectiveness
of CDOs in the delivery of extension services.
These results were also expressed during the
FGDs conducted among selected groups of
PCPP participants stating that the CDOs’
Scientific Papers Series Management, Economic Engineering in Agriculture and Rural Development
Vol. 22, Issue 3, 2022
PRINT ISSN 2284-7995, E-ISSN 2285-3952
184
responsibility and dedication to the delivery of
extension services contributed to their
satisfaction with the project. It is worthy to
note that farmers' satisfaction is associated
with some indicators that include availability,
relevance, accessibility, and even
effectiveness [11], [15], [16]. However, the
other factors such as annual income,
membership in organizations, and information
sources did not influence the respondents’
level of involvement in PCPP significantly (p-
value>0.10).
Problems Encountered by the Farmers and
Suggested Solutions
The most common problem encountered by
the respondents who participated in PCPP was
pest infestation (58%) in their coconut
plantations. One of the reasons they
experienced this kind of problem was the lack
of knowledge on preventing pests/diseases
such as the Brontispa longissima Gestro, also
known as the coconut leaf beetle and
rhinoceros beetle. In addition, they could not
afford to buy pesticides for their farm. The
result is parallel to the studies in the literature
that one of the problems in coconut farming is
pests [5], [7], [9], [12]. This problem also
emerged during the FGD, stating that they did
not do something about it because they could
not afford to buy pesticides because of the
very low price of copra.The respondents
identified two distinct problems concerning
the implementation of PCPP. One was on the
application of the requirements of PCPP
(27%) due to the unavailability of proof of
land ownership where owners did not
authorize tenants to participate in the PCPP.
This happened because requirements in the
access of the project changed from time to
time. Although there were those (23%) who
never encountered problems in the PCPP
implementation, others (5%) claimed of
having encountered these problems: delay in
giving of cash incentives (5%) which caused
some frustrations on the part of the
beneficiaries, and the low market price of
copra (4%). To address the problems
identified by the respondents, they (74%)
recommended the following solutions: there
should be regular monitoring of their farms by
the CDOs to assist farmers in solving the pest
infestations, and the PCA should provide
enough pesticides so that they can have better
harvest and increase in their income.To
remedy problems of PCPP application
requirements, their suggested solutions were
to have easy access in getting requirement
forms and proper dissemination of
information on how to access the needed
requirements (36%). Other respondents
recommended that there should be a quick and
easy way of giving cash incentives so that
they will be encouraged to participate and be
motivated to join the project (6%).
On the other hand, only a few (5%) of the
respondents felt the need that the government
should take action on the low market price of
copra because this was one of their barriers to
participating in the coconut planting
project.As expressed by the respondents
during the FGD, regular monitoring of their
farms by the CDO and providing enough
pesticides were a big help to prevent or
control pest infestation, which was one of the
major problems besetting the coco-farms.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the data results presented, most of
the respondents in the selected municipalities
of Mahaplag, Hilongos, and Inopacan
belonged to the middle-age category, the
majority of which were males and married.
They have low educational levels, an average
of four household members, and low annual
income, and are below the poverty line. More
than half of them were members of one or
more organizations in their respective
barangays, and a majority of them have not
attended the training. Most of the respondents
were owners/heirs, cultivated an average area
of 1.5, and had an average farming experience
of 28 years. It was also revealed that coconut
farming was their primary source of income.
Using the Ladder of Citizen Participation, it
was found that the majority of the respondents
had fully taken part in the overall activities of
PCPP, which indicated genuine participation.
Highly significant factors influencing the
level of respondents' project involvement
were educational attainment, the number of
training attended, benefit satisfaction, and
Scientific Papers Series Management, Economic Engineering in Agriculture and Rural Development
Vol. 22, Issue 3, 2022
PRINT ISSN 2284-7995, E-ISSN 2285-3952
185
perceived satisfaction towards the project.
Other significantly related factors were sex,
age, benefits awareness, and effectiveness of
the CDO in the delivery of services. It was
found that the following variables have no
significant relationship to the level of
involvement in the project: civil status,
tenurial status, household size, farm size,
experience in farming, annual income,
membership in the organization, and
information sources. Coconut pest infestation
was the most common problem on the farm,
which requires regular monitoring of CDO
staff with the provision of enough pesticides
to address for farmers to better harvest and
increase their income.Hence, the government
should formulate policies to address the
volatile price of copra. Farmers should also be
encouraged to find alternative means like
engaging in crop diversification, processing
products and by-products of coconut, and
many others to increase their income and not
just depend on copra. A similarly
comprehensive study with more variables
covering broader scope in other parts of the
region in the Philippines may be conducted to
have more reliable results.
REFERENCES
[1]Aguda, M.I.D., Amestoso, N.T., & Casinillo, L.,
2022, Service Quality and Farmer-Beneficiaries’
Satisfaction on the Plant-Now-Pay-Later Program of
Baybay City Agriculture Office. Review of Socio-
Economic Research and Development Studies, 6(1): 1-
18.https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6542683, Accessed
on June 2, 2022.
[2]Aref, F., 2011, Barriers to community capacity
building for tourism development in communities in
Shiraz, Iran. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(3):
347-
359.https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2010.517314,
Accessed on June 1, 2022.
[3]Arnstein, S.R., 1969, A ladder of citizen
participation. Journal of the American Institute of
planners, 35(4): 216-
224.https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225,
Accessed on January 10, 2021.
[4]Caladcad, J.A., Cabahug, S., Catamco, M.R.,
Villaceran, P.E., Cosgafa, L., Cabizares, K.N., &
Hermosilla, M., 2020, Determining Philippine coconut
maturity level using machine learning algorithms based
on acoustic signal. Computers and Electronics in
Agriculture, 172:
105327.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2020.105327,
Accessed on June 9, 2022.
[5]Echoh, D.U., Nor, N.M., Gapor, S.A., & Masron, T.,
2017, Issues and problems faced by rural farmers in
paddy cultivation: A case study of the Iban paddy
cultivation in Kuala Tatau, Sarawak. Journal of
Regional and Rural Development Planning (Jurnal
Perencanaan Pembangunan Wilayah Dan
Perdesaan), 1(2): 174-182.
https://doi.org/10.29244/jp2wd.2017.1.2.174-182,
Accessed on June 13, 2022.
[6]Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the
United Nations, 2016, Restoring coconut farmers’
livelihoods in the Philippines. https://www.fao.org/in-
action/restoring-coconut-farmers-livelihoods-in-the-
philippines/en, Accessed on March 13, 2020.
[7]Fujisaka, S., 1994, Learning from six reasons why
farmers do not adopt innovations intended to improve
sustainability of upland agriculture. Agricultural
systems, 46(4): 409-425. https://doi.org/10.1016/0308-
521X(94)90104-N, Accessed on May 3, 2022.
[8]Google Map, 2022, Map of the Philippines showing
the map of Leyte.
https://www.google.com/maps/@10.7375736,124.7863
885,15z, Accessed on April 2, 2022.
[9]Gurbuz, I.B., Manaros, M., 2019, Impact of Coconut
Production on the Environment and the Problems faced
by Coconut Producers in Lanao del Norte Province,
Philippines. Scientific Paper Series Management,
Economic Engineering in Agriculture and Rural
Development, 19(3): 247-
258.http://managementjournal.usamv.ro/pdf/vol.19_3/
Art32.pdf, Accessed on July 20, 2021.
[10]Hariadi, S.S., Widhiningsih, D.F., 2020, Young
farmers' motivation and participation in horticultural
organic farming in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. International
Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable
Development (IJSESD), 11(1): 45-58.
https//doi.org/10.4018/IJSESD.2020010104, Accessed
on June 1, 2022.
[11]Hoang, H.G., 2018, Effectiveness of Extension
Program Delivery Methods as Perceived by the Central
Vietnamese Extension Workers. American Journal of
Rural Development, 6(2): 45-48.
https//doi.org/10.12691/ajrd-6-2-3, Accessed on April
2, 2022.
[12]Ishii-Eiteman, M.J., Ardhianie, N., 2002,
Community monitoring of integrated pest management
versus conventional pesticide use in a world bank
project in Indonesia. International journal of
occupational and environmental health, 8(3): 220-
231.https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/107
735202800338768, Accessed on May 25, 2022.
[13]Jamnadass, R.H., Dawson, I.K., Franzel, S.,
Leakey, R.R.B., Mithöfer, D., Akinnifesi, F. K.,
Tchoundjeu, Z., 2011, Improving livelihoods and
nutrition in sub-Saharan Africa through the promotion
of indigenous and exotic fruit production in
smallholders' agroforestry systems: a
review. International Forestry Review, 13(3): 338-
Scientific Papers Series Management, Economic Engineering in Agriculture and Rural Development
Vol. 22, Issue 3, 2022
PRINT ISSN 2284-7995, E-ISSN 2285-3952
186
354.https://doi.org/10.1505/146554811798293836,
Accessed on May 3, 2022.
[14]Johnson, N.L., Lilja, N., Ashby, J.A., 2003,
Measuring the impact of user participation in
agricultural and natural resource management
research. Agricultural systems, 78(2): 287-
306.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-521X(03)00130-6,
Accessed on June 10, 2022.
[15]Kassem, H.S., Alotaibi, B.A., Muddassir, M.,
Herab, A., 2021, Factors influencing farmers’
satisfaction with the quality of agricultural extension
services. Evaluation and Program Planning, 85:
101912.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2021.10
1912, Accessed on June 13, 2022.
[16]Kyveryga, P.M., 2019, On-farm research:
experimental approaches, analytical frameworks, case
studies, and impact. Agronomy Journal, 111(6): 2633-
2635.https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2019.11.0001,
Accessed on June 7, 2022.
[17]Lapiña, G. F., Manalo, N. A. Q., Dorado, R. A.,
Andal, E. G. T., Valientes, R. D. M., Cruz, M. B.,
2020, To Compete or Not? Revisiting the
Competitiveness of Banana, Mango, and Pineapple in
the Context of the ASEAN Economic
Community. Journal of Economics, Management &
Agricultural Development, 6(2390-2021-961), 35-52.
https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/310893/,
Accessed on May 2, 2021.
[18]Moreno, M.L., Kuwornu, J. K., Szabo, S., 2020,
Overview and constraints of the coconut supply chain
in the Philippines. International Journal of Fruit
Science, 20(sup2), S524-
S541.https://doi.org/10.1080/15538362.2020.1746727,
Accessed on June 7, 2022.
[19]Nnadi, F.N., Akwiwu, C.D., 2008, Determinants of
youthsparticipation in rural agriculture in Imo State,
Nigeria. Journal of Applied Sciences, 8(2): 328-333.
https://doi.org/10.3923/jas.2008.328.333, Accessed on
June 13, 2022.
[20]Neef, A., Neubert, D., 2011, Stakeholder
participation in agricultural research projects: a
conceptual framework for reflection and decision-
making. Agriculture and Human Values, 28(2): 179-
194.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10460-
010-9272-z, Accessed on March 1, 2022.
[21]Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), 2019, Data
on Coconut Production, Yield, and Area Planted.
Available at: http://countrystat.psa.gov.ph, Accessed on
April 30, 2020.
[22]Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA), 2018,
History of Coconut Industry in the Philippines.
Available at:
http://www.pca.da.gov.ph/index.php/2015-10-23-06-
25-48/programs, Accessed on December 3, 2021.
[23]Rahman, M., Palash, M., Jahan, H., Jalilov, S. M.,
& Mainuddin, M., 2020, An empirical investigation of
men’s views of women’s contribution to farming in
Northwest Bangladesh. Sustainability, 12(9):
3521.https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093521, Accessed on
June 13, 2022.
[24]Red, F.S., Amestoso, N.T., Casinillo, L.F., 2021,
Effect of Farmer Field School (FFS) on the
Knowledge, Attitude, Practices and Profitability of
Rice Farmers. Philippine Social Science Journal, 4(4):
145-154. https://doi.org/10.52006/main.v4i4.420,
Accessed on April 3, 2022
[25]Seriño, M.N.V., Cavero, J.A., Cuizon, J., Ratilla,
T.C., Ramoneda, B.M., Bellezas, M.H.I., Ceniza,
M.J.C., 2021, Impact of the 2013 super typhoon haiyan
on the livelihood of small-scale coconut farmers in
Leyte island, Philippines. International Journal of
Disaster Risk Reduction, 52:
101939.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101939,
Accessed on June 5, 2022.
[26]Thompson, L.J., Glewen, K. L., Elmore, R.W.,
Rees, J., Pokal, S., Hitt, B.D., 2019, Farmers as
researchers: in‐depth interviews to discern participant
motivation and impact. Agronomy Journal, 111(6):
2670-2680.https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2018.09.0626,
Accessed on January 2, 2022.
[27]Valenzona, R.M.P., Amestoso, N.T., & Casinillo,
L.F., 2020, Assessing the success of farmers’
associations: The case of Baybay City, Leyte,
Philippines. Journal of Agriculture and Technology
Management (JATM), 23(1): 14-
25.http://jatm.ctu.edu.ph/index.php/jatm/article/view/3
38, Accessed on June 11, 2021.
