“Evaluation System for Ranking the Potential Ecotourism Sites”
(a revised “Point Evaluation System for Prioritization of Tourist Attractions)

This system has been contrived for the purpose of evaluating potential ecotourism sites in terms of the following considerations:

1. Conservation of ecosystems and endangered/threatened species that may be present in the ecotourism sites
2. The need for ecotourism operators to understand the difference between mass tourism and ecotourism and elicit the appropriate response to this type of tourism
3. Possible involvement of the local communities especially those that exert pressure on the ecosytem/ecotourism attraction, that this project may provide an alternative livelihood for them. Likewise, achieve an understanding that this project can create an indirect benefit to the local communities if the ecosystem is conserved.

In using this evaluation system, the evaluator will assign the points that best correspond to the realistic assessment of the various criteria listed in the system. The points for each subcategory will be added. After adding the points, the percentage Importance Value (IV) will be computed by multiplying the subtotal points with the corresponding importance value (% in this case) as follows: 50% for A. Ecosystem Features, 20% for B. Tourism Facilities, and 30% for C. Other Considerations. These values will then be added and the Ecotourism attraction with the highest Importance Value will be ranked No. 1, the second as No. 2 and so on until all the potential sites have been ranked.

 

This evaluation system is a property of Dr. Emelina G.Regis of INECAR, Ateneo de Naga University. It has been revised and adapted from the Point Evaluation System for Ranking the Potential Ecotourism Attractions made earlier by the same author in connection with the Ecotourism project of Sorsogon, an ARD-Gold project, May 22, 2000. A modified version was also done for the “Development of a Visitor Management System for Mt. Isarog Natural Park (MINP)” in October, 2003. The current system is a combination of the first and second versions to cover both the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. October, 2004

 

 

 

General Information

Name of the Ecotourism attraction ________________________________________________________________
Location: Sitio: _____________________ Barangay ____________________Classification ________________________________
Municipality/City: ___________________________________ Province: __________________________________________
Ownership (pleasec heck): _____ Local Govt. _____Private person(s)/Company _____Private Corporation
Criteria for Ranking
A. Ecosystem Features
Corresponding points
1. Type of ecosystem (include only not more than 5 major ecosystem features)

Natural terrestrial Forest
5
Regenerated/Replanted terrestrial forest
5
Natural coastal forest (i.e. small trees growing on rocks)
5
Grassland/Shrubland
5
Cave
5
Volcanic cone
5
Hot Spring
4
Natural freshwater spring
5
Waterfalls
5
Creek
4
River
5
Lake
5
Lakelet
5
Estuary
5
Natural rock/mineral formation
5
Natural Mangrove Forest
5
Regenerated/Replanted Mangrove Forest
5
White/Golden beach
5
Seagrass Bed
5
Coral Reef
5
Artificial Reef
5
Fish Sanctuary
4
Island/Islet
5

Man-made Structure of historical/significant societal value

5

2. Ecological Status *
Very critical
1
Moderately critical
2
Critical
3
Low critical
4
Not critical
5

3. Attraction potential *
Low
1
Moderate but short-lived interest
2
Moderate and sustained interest
3
High but short-lived interest
3
High and sustained interest
5
* if Nos. 2 and 3 are given 1 point each, do not proceed with this evaluation. Remove from the list of ecotourism attractions

4. Historical / Interesting Infrastructure Value
Historical value low
3
Historical value high
5
Interesting feature low and common
1
Interesting feature high but common
3
Interesting feature high and unique
5

5. Unique/Endangered Species
Absence of unique/endangered species of plants and animals
2
Presence of few and small unique/endangered species of plants and animals
5
Presence of many, but small unique/endangered species of plants and animals
5
Presence of few, but large unique/endangered species of plants and animals
5
Presence of many and large unique/endangered species of plants and animals
5

6. Appearance of the unique/endangered species
Species present only during the rainy season
2
Species present only during summer in the Philippines (March/April/May)
4
Species present only as migratory animals
5
Species present at any time of the year
5

7. Existing unique species of interest
Species present are interesting but common in the Philippines
3
Species present are interesting and probably rare but are found also in nearby ecosystems
4
Species present are listed in the endangered/threatened species of the Philippines/World
5
Species present are probably endemic to the area
5

8. Level of Disturbance
Highly disturbed (more than 40 % of the ecosystem)
1
Moderately disturbed (20 – 40% )
2
Slightly disturbed (less than 20 %)
3
Seasonally disturbed (less than 20%)
3
Disturbed but being regenerated
4
Undisturbed
5

9. Disturbance from local industries
Industry uses materials gathered from the ecotourism site
1
Industry uses materials gathered from an adjacent critical ecosystem
1
Industry uses materials cultivated from a production area
5
No native materials are obtained from the site for the industry
5

B. Tourism facilities

1. Accessibility
Needs all types of transport facilities
1
Needs air transport also aside from land
2
Needs boat transport also aside from land
3
Needs land transport only but accessible by 2-wheeled vehicle also
4
Needs land transport only but accessible by foot
4
Accessible by all types of transport facilities
5

2. Accommodation facilities on site
Hotel
1
Rest house
2
Private house
3
Temporary huts only
2
Temporary huts with communal toilets & cooking area
2
Area for camping only
2
Area for camping with communal toilets & cooking area
2
None
5

3. Accommodation facilities off site
Hotel with recreational facilities
4
Private house
5
Rest house with food service
5
Clean restrooms/lodging house
5
Area for camping only
4
Area for camping with communal toilets & cooking area
5
None
1

4. Camping ground

Camping ground is within the ecotourism site
1
Camping ground is outside the boundary of the ecotourism site but near a body of water
1
Camping ground is outside the boundary of the ecotourism site and far from a body of water
5

5. Infrastructure near the site
Market place
1
Hotel and rest house with recreational facilities
1
Private homes with recreational facilities
1
Squatter area
1
Public recreational facilities
3
Temporary Picnic huts
4
None
5

6. Availability of freshwater for domestic use
Rain water
1
Deep well within the town/barangay center
1
Natural spring water within the town/barangay center
1
Deep well about 500 meters from the last cluster houses of the town/barangay
3
Natural spring water within the ecotourism site
3
Deep well about 500 meters from the last cluster houses of the town/barangay
3
Natural spring water within the ecotourism site
3
Natural spring water about 1 km. or more from the ecotourism site
4
Water is provided through a water system
5

7. Congestion problem on site (answer only 1 subcategory [7a or 7b])
7a. Beach Area (near coral reef, mangrove, seagrass beds, lake and river or creek)
Picnic huts occupy the beach area and are too close to each other *
1
Picnic huts are too close to each other but do not occupy the beach area*
2
Picnic huts are situated in accordance with the easement regulations but are too many and closed to each other*
2
Picnic huts are situated in accordance with the easement regulation and are few in number
5
No picnic huts are present
5
7b. Forest/Park area and related ecosystems
Large infrastructure in the ecotourism site
1
Restaurant/Food services present on site
1
Picnic huts are many and too close to each other*
1
Picnic huts are few but scattered on site
1
Picnic huts are few but far from the boundary of the ecotourism site
5
No picnic huts nor large infrastructure are present
5
* “too close” means less than 2 meters apart

C. Other considerations

1. Proximity to large population centers of the ecotourism attraction
Within the ecotourism site
1
1 – 3 km. from an ecotourism site
2
4 – 8 km. from the ecotourism site
3
9 – 15 km from the ecotourism site
4
16 – 50 km from the ecotourism site
5

2. Proximity of Indigenous peoples (IP)
IP settlement is within 1 – 5 km. of the ecotourism site but not an ecotourism attraction
1
IP settlement is within 6 – 10 km. from the ecotourism site
2
IP is more than 10 km. upland but visits the lowland area sometimes
3
IP is within the ecotourism site and part of the ecotourism attraction
5
IP settlement is more than 10 km. from the ecotourism site and not part of the ecotourism package
5

3. Proximity of garbage dumping site to the ecotourism site
Within 1 – 3 km. of the ecotourism site and adjacent to a water body
1
Within 4 – 6 km. of the ecotourism site and adjacent to a water body
1
More than 6 km. from the ecotourism site but adjacent to a water body that drains to the site
1
Waste disposal is efficiently managed in the Barangay/Municipal level using recycling, reducing and re-using system and is sanitary
5
More than 10 km. from the ecotourism site and not adjacent to a water body
5

4. Ecotourism site is already being used for mass tourism/resort
High frequency of visitations throughout the year
1
High frequency of visitations during certain times of the year but moderate the rest of the year
2
High frequency of visitations during certain times of the year, low the rest of the year
2
Moderately visited throughout the year
3
Moderately visited during certain times of the year, low the rest of the year
4
Low frequency of visitations throughout the year
5

5. General economic conditions of the local communities**
Most houses are concrete, more than 100 sq.m. and new
1
Most houses are concrete, more than 100 sq.m. but old
2
Most houses are concrete but less than 100 sq.m.
3
Most houses are of mixed materials but contain the necessary appliances for convenient living
3
Most houses are of mixed materials with few appliances for convenient living
4
Most houses are shanties owned by squatters
4
Most houses are shanties but in privately owned lot
5
** “most” means more than 50%

6. Ownership of ecotourism site
Under CARP
1
Ownership contested
1
Within strict protection zone
1
Privately owned
2
Within multiple use zone of a park / buffer zone
3
Privately owned but negotiable
3
Government (local)
4

7. Cooperation from the local government and appropriate agencies
LGU is not willing to venture into ecotourism
1
LGU has its own idea of ecotourism (which is mass tourism) and is not willing to accept changes in their plans
1
LGU and government agencies have conflict in local regulations and still unresolved
1
LGU is willing to venture into ecotourism but has no time to be part of the working group but will support regulations only
3
LGU is willing to venture into ecotourism giving minimal support but will be supported by other government agencies
4
LGU is willing to venture into ecotourism, will be supported by other gov’t agencies as well as give support (regulations, financial, marketing, etc.)
5

Prepared by:


EMELINA G. REGIS, Ph.D.
Director, INECAR
October, 2004