Revitalizing Local Tourism

thru the DOT Subnational Tourism Analytics and Reporting (STAR) Hub

A Capstone Project
Presented to the Faculty of the
Public Management Development Program
Development Academy of the Philippines

Basuel, Ramil S.
Department of Tourism

October 2021
 COPYRIGHT STATEMENT

This paper is an official document of the Development Academy of the Philippines.

Reproduction and distribution of the paper or parts thereof are prohibited except with
permission from the copyright owners: the author, Development Academy of the
Philippines, and the author's agency.

The author and publisher make no representation or warranties concerning the

accuracy, applicability, fitness, or completeness of the contents of this publication. The
information contained in this report is strictly for educational purposes.

Proper acknowledgment and citation should be accorded to information obtained

from this material.

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND DEDICATIONS

The scholar would like to thank God and his parents for giving him the talent and
the opportunity to experience life. Without them, unquestionably, he could not imagine
being part of a prestigious community of learners and being guided by masters of
development and public service.
The scholar is also indebted to his family, headed by my partner, Ms. Cecille Purog,
for being understandable and supportive when he has to be busy with the program's
requirements and work. All these the scholar dedicates to them. Domus Ante Omnia.
The scholar also acknowledges the trust given to him by his institution, the
Department of Tourism. Special thanks go to the following upper management and the
scholar’s direct superiors: Secretary Bernadette Puyat, Undersecretary Benito Bengzon, Jr.,
OIC-Undersecretary Reynaldo Ching, Director Carlos Magnaye, OIC Director Warner M.
Andrada, Ms. Manette T. Reyes, Ms. Sophia Pagsuyuin, and Mr. Wilson Telig. The scholar
also acknowledged the assistance of the understanding staff under the good offices of these
honorable officials.
The scholar would like to thank the DAP management and the program managers
for allowing him to be part of their community. He would also like to thank their faculty
and resource persons for their patience with adult learners such as him.
The scholar would like to thank his excellent and understanding capstone project
panel led by Ms. Nanette Caparos, Dr. Melinda Lumanta, Mr. Warner Andrada, and Ms.
Manette Reyes.
The scholar also recognizes the unique and resilient batch of fighting scholars of
MMC23 – Matatag. These are the pilot of the new normal, the new benchmark for DAP
graduate classes, and the scholar would not want to be with any other group to finish this
program. Thank you for reinventing groupworks and late night online drinking.
The scholar also would like to thank Prof. Aurma Manlangit and the team that
managed the MMC23. Their continuous support and efforts to push us to reach our goal
were reasons he finished the program.
The scholar would also like thank Ms. Danae Pantano, for her ideas, designs, and
agreeing to style-copyedit the scholar’s work, not knowing that it would be one #&@$ of
a document.
Finally, the scholar would like to thank the capstone team for their tireless and
valuable contribution to the projects, most especially Ms. Faeroe Fontanilla, Mr. Sherwyn
Ramirez, Mr. Paul Lao, and Ms. Rey Jean Almazan. The scholar accepts that all the
successes so far of the capstone would not be possible without the team. For the whole list
of the capstone members, which I am truly indebted, please see Part III of this paper.

iii
 ABSTRACT

The Department of Tourism is the premier planning, implementing, and regulating

arm of the government in travel and tourism. To do that, the Department should develop
and maintain tourism databases that will support decisions and policymaking. On the other
hand, tourism development is mainly done by the local government units and the private
sector in local destinations.

Looking at the tourism information system, almost all of the data produced by DOT
and its partner national government agencies refer to are national aggregates. Furthermore,
there is no information linking the visitors with local destinations' tourism products and
services. Subnational tourism information lacks the depth and adequacy needed to support
subnational tourism development planning.

If the goal of everyone is sustainable tourism development, especially during crises,

there should be available data where they could base their decisions and policies. Following
the Diffusion of Innovation Theory of E. M. Roger's framework, there is more chance of
sustainable tourism development if all stakeholders have access to information they can
replicate in their backyards. It is easier to do on a national scale due to the advent of faster
and more accessible information and communications technology.

While the LGUs may have the prerogative to develop their tourism system, it is best
that DOT developed a national standard on data reporting and sharing to encourage
reliability and enable comparability. It also encourages the building of databases relevant
to users by offering technical knowledge on international standards.

The scholar assessed what is needed by the local destination stakeholders and
developed innovations for more reliable data reporting and information sharing. When the
innovations are fully launched, they will be conducive to the decision-makers at the ground
level of the tourism industry. The project is also advantageous to DOT in the long run. It
expands the body of knowledge that the Department produced, especially on subnational
tourism, thereby making national plans more inclusive, realistic, and sustainable.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page, Inner ………………………………………………………………………… i

Copyright Statement ……………………………………………………………………. ii

Acknowledgments and Dedications ……………….……………………………….….. iii

Abstract …………………………………………………………………………………. iv

Table of Contents ………………………………………………………………………… v

List of Tables …….……………………………………………………………………... vii

List of Figures …………………………………………………………………………… ix

List of Appendices ……………………………………………………………………..... xi

List of Acronyms …………………………………………………………..………….. xiii

Chapter 1. The Problem and its Context …………………………………………………. 1

1.1. Background of the Study ……………………………………………………. 1

1.2. Statement of the Problem …………………………………………………... 10

1.3.Significance of the Study ………………………………………………….... 11

1.4.Scope and Limitation ……………………………………………………….. 12

Chapter 2. Project Conceptual Framework ……………………………………………… 13

2.1. Review of Related Literature ………………………………………………. 13

2.2. Synthesis and Gaps ………………………………………………………… 36

2.3. Conceptual Design …………………………………………………………. 37

Chapter 3. Methodology ………………………………………………………………… 47

3.1. Research Design ………………………………………………………….... 47

3.2. Implementation Plan …………………………………………………….…. 61

Chapter 4. Result and Analysis …………………………………………………………. 74

4.1. Results ……………………………………………………………………... 74

4.2. Analysis …………………………………………………………………... 105

v
 4.3. Challenges ……………………………………………………………….. 116

Chapter 5. Conclusion and Recommendations ………………………………………… 118

5.1 Summary and Conclusions ……………………………………………….. 118

5.2 Recommendations ………………………………………………………... 122

5.3 Strategic Implications to Development Management …………………….. 123

5.4 Sustainability Plan ……………………………………………………...… 124

Chapter 6. The Leadership and Management Journey ………………………………… 127

6.1 Leadership and Management Competencies

or Styles Demonstrated ………………………………………………….... 127

6.2 Key Lessons as a Leader and Public Manager ………………………….... 128

6.3 What Went Well and Why ……………………………………………….. 128

6.4 Areas for Improvement …………………………………………………... 129

6.5 How does your journey Inspire You

as a Leader and a Public Manager? ……………………………………… 129

References ………………………..…………………………………………………… 132

Glossary ...……………………………………………………………………………... 141

Annexes ………………………………………………………………………….……. 145

Biographical Sketch of the Scholar …………………………………………………… 315

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Regional Distribution of Overnight Travelers

in Accommodation Establishments (2019 – 2020)
(Partial Report) ………………...………………………………………… 8

Table 2. 2019 Top Philippine Visitor Market

Average Length of Stay (ALOS),
Daily Expenditure (ADE) and Per Capita Expenditure ……………..……. 9

Table 3. UNWTO / UNEP 12 Aims of Sustainable Tourism ……………………. 24

Table 4. The number of AE and Rooms per Region …………………………. 42

Table 5. Capstone Project Core Management and Core Team Composition …….. 48

Table 6. Number of LGUs, Actual Respondents,

And Sample Size Quota ……………………….…………………….… 53

Table 7. Number of Establishments, Actual Respondents,

And Sample Size Quota ……………………….…………………….…. 53

Table 8. 1st Phase Action Plan and Project Matrix Part 1 …………………….…. 66

Table 9. 1st Phase Action Plan and Project Matrix Part 2 …………………….…. 67

Table 10. 1st Phase Action Plan and Project Matrix Part 3 …………………….…. 68

Table 11. 2nd Phase Action Plan and Project Matrix ……..…………………….…. 70

Table 12. 3rd Phase Action Plan and Project Matrix ……..…………………….…. 72

Table 13. SLTSS Training Attended by FGD (17 September 2021)

Survey Respondents …………………….……..………………...….… 102

Table 14. Frequency of Data Submission by FGD (17 September 2021)

Survey Respondents .………………….……..…………………….…. 103

Table 15. Tourism Data Needs and Concerns by FGD (17 September 2021)
Survey Respondents ………………….……..…………………….…. 103

Table 16. Most Useful Tourism Data in All SDNA Surveys ……………….…... 105

Table 17. Dupeyras and MacCallum's List of Core, Support,

and Future Competitive Tourism Indicators ...…………………….…. 107

Table 18. Needed Tourism Data in All SDNA Surveys and

during the FGD for Manual Revision ….……..……………………… 108

vii
Table 19. Top Current Methodologies Used by
Respondents of the SDNA Surveys …….……..……………………… 109

Table 20. Factors Affecting Reporting Data ..…….……..…………………….… 110

Table 21. Average Rates of Identified Common Issues on

Tourism Data Reporting ………….…….……..…………………….… 110

Table 22. Average Rates of Preferred Reporting Modalities ………………….… 111

Table 23. Expected Characteristics of the New TIS ……….………………….… 112

Table 24. Expected Data on the New TIS ………………….…………………… 112

Table 25. Expected Data Analytics on the New TIS ………………….………… 113

Table 26. Expected Features on the New TIS ………..……………….………… 113

Table 27. Sustainability Plan Matrix …………..……..……………….………… 126

viii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Current DOT Organizational Structure ………………….………….…. 5

Figure 2. Top Philippine Visitor Market 2019 …………………….…………….. 9

Figure 3. D. Styne's Tourism Impact Framework ………………………………. 16

Figure 4. Scholtz and Slabbert's Framework on Social Impact of Tourism ……. 19

Figure 5. Szromek's Sustainable development

and the tourism area life cycle (TALC) ………………………………. 20

Figure 6. Tourism Stakeholders Relationship Model …………………………… 24

Figure 7. DOI Adopter Categories ……………………………………………… 28

Figure 8. Novilla's Conceptual Framework on Knowledge Management ……… 30

Figure 9. Customer Experience Journey ………………………………………… 31

Figure 10. Smart Tourism Design Model ……………………………………………….. 33

Figure 11. Generic Agile Development Process ………………………………………… 34

Figure 12. Philippine Visitor Arrivals 2009 – 2019 ……………………………… 37

Figure 13. Philippine Visitor Receipt 2014 – 2019 ………………………………. 38

Figure 14. The SLTSS Capacity Building Program ……………………………… 41

Figure 15. Tourism Direct Gross Value Added,

Gross Domestic Product at Current Prices
in Billion PHP and Percentage Share 2019 …………………………… 43

Figure 16. Conceptual Framework ……………………………………………….. 46

Figure 17. Sample Size Formula and Z-Score

Equivalents of Confidence Level Desired …………………………….. 51

Figure 18. GIS Dashboard GUI, as of 22 July 2021 ..…………………………….. 91

Figure 19. GIS Dashboard GUI, as of 12 August 2021.……………………….….. 91

Figure 20. GIS Dashboard GUI, as of 17 August 2021.…………………………... 92

ix
Figure 21. GIS Dashboard GUI, as of 19 August 2021.…………………………… 92

Figure 22. GIS Dashboard GUI, as of 1 September 2021.………………….……… 93

Figure 23. GIS Dashboard GUI, as of 20 September 2021.………………………… 93

Figure 24. GIS Dashboard GUI, as of 1 October 2021…..………………………… 94

Figure 25. MATTA Survey123 Page 1 GUI, as of 1 October…………………….. 95

Figure 26. MATTA Survey123 Page 1 GUI, as of 1 October…………………….. 96

Figure 27. OTDPRIM Tourism Statistics Framework …………………….….….. 99

Figure 28. PLL-DOT Shared Drive for SLTSS Manual Revision ……………….. 100

Figure 29. Diffusion of Innovation Adopter

Category Ratings per Island Group ………………….…………….….. 114

Figure 30. The Scholar's Experience and Learning …………….…………….…... 131

x
 LIST OF ANNEXES

Annex 1. Stakeholders Data Needs Assessment for LGU Survey Form ……….. 146

Annex 2. Stakeholders Data Needs Assessment for TE Survey Form …………. 148

Annex 3. Stakeholders Data Needs Assessment for DOT Survey Form ……….. 150

Annex 4. Market Assessment Tool for Tourist Attractions …………..…………. 152

Annex 5. Tourism Product Market Survey ……………………………………… 159

Annex 6. Training Evaluation Survey …………………………………………... 166

Annex 7. User Acceptance Survey for the DOT STAR Hub …………………… 167

Annex 8. Email Correspondence with Professor Arnold Lund

for his USE Survey Model …………………………………………… 170

Annex 9. Memorandum, Support for the Implementation of the

Capstone Project ……………………………………………………… 172

Annex 10. Memorandum to TRCRG Undersecretary, Re: SDNA ……………… 175

Annex 11. Memorandum to RO, Re: SDNA ..…………………………………… 176

Annex 12. SDNA Introductory Letter to LGUs ….……………………………… 177

Annex 13. SDNA Introductory Letter to TEs, …..….……………………….…… 178

Annex 14. SDNA SendinBlue Campaigns Screenshots …………………….…… 179

Annex 15. Revised Manual FGD Guide Questions and Flow …………………… 180

Annex 16. CP Progress Report June 2021 …………………….…………………… 181

Annex 17. CP Progress Report July 2021 …………………….……………………. 182

Annex 18. CP Progress Report August 2021 ..……………….……………………. 184

Annex 19. TOR SDNA ………………………...……………….……………………. 188

Annex 20. TOR MATTA ….…………………...……………….……………………. 191

Annex 21. NTP MATTA ….…………………...……………….…………………….. 194

Annex 22. TOR TPMS …….…………………...……………….……………………. 198

Annex 23. NTP TPMS …….…………………...……………….…………………… 202

xi
Annex 24. TOR Manual Revisions ….………...……………….…………………… 207

Annex 25. TOR TIS…….…………………...……………….……………………… 208

Annex 26. Tables for the Stakeholder Data Needs Assessment (SDNA)
for Local Government Units (LGUs)
conducted from July 25 – September 11, 2021 ..…………….……… 215

Annex 27. Tables for the Stakeholder Data Needs Assessment (SDNA)
for Tourism Enterprises (TE)
conducted from July 25 – September 11, 2021 ..…………….……… 231

Annex 28. Tables for the Stakeholder Data Needs Assessment (SDNA)
for DOT and other National Government Agencies (NGA)
conducted from July 25 – September 11, 2021 ..……………….…… 245

Annex 29. SAA for CAR re TPMS/MATTA Pilot Implementation …………… 250

Annex 30. Travel Order (TO) for TPMS Pretest Baguio ………….…………… 251

Annex 31. TO Amendment for TPMS Pretest Baguio ………….……………… 253

Annex 32. TPMS/MATTA Letter to Pilot LGUs ……………….……………… 254

Annex 33. TPMS/MATTA Pilot Implementation 2021

Proposed Schedule ……………….………………………..………… 257

Annex 34. TPMS/MATTA Training Modules ….……………….……………… 258

Annex 35. GIS Dashboard, Geodata ArcGIS,

as of 1 October 2021 ….……………….………………………..…… 264

Annex 36. Revised Manual Proposed Outlines ….……………….……………… 270

Annex 37. Proposed SLTSS Module Updates ..….……………….……………… 275

Annex 38. SLTSS List of Proposed Updated Templates …..…….……………… 284

Annex 39. Revised Manual Consultant Contract …………..…….……………… 285

Annex 40. Manual Revision Proposed Schedule of Deliverables .……………… 287

Annex 41. FGD 17 Sep 2021 Report and Documentation ……….……………… 289

Annex 42. TIS HDMS Module Project Brief …………………….……………… 304

Annex 43. TIS TPMS Module Project Brief …………………….……….……… 310

Annex 44. TIS STAR Hub Project Brief ………………..……….…….………… 312

xii
 LIST OF ACRONYMS

AIM Asian Institute of Management

APEC Asia – Pacific Economic Cooperation

ACS Accommodation Capacity Survey

ADCPC Arrival Departure Cards Processing Center

ADE Average Daily Expenditure

ALOS Average Length of Stay

APP Annual Procurement Plan

ASTP Applied Statistics in Tourism Planning

ATOP Association of Tourism Officers of the Philippines

ATST Advanced Tourism Statistics Training

AVSS Annual Visitor Sample Survey (Inbound)

BI Bureau of Immigration

BSP Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas

BTST Basic Tourism Statistics Training

CAGR Cumulative Annual Growth Rate

CAR Cordillera Administrative Region

CGE Computable General Equilibrium

CMS Customer Management System

COVID-19 Corona Virus Disease 2019

DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources

DILG Department of Interior and Local Government

DMIA Diosdado Macapagal International Airport

DOH Department of Health

DOI Diffusion of Innovation

xiii
 DOT Department of Tourism

DOT – RO/s / RO/s Department of Tourism Regional Offices

DOT – FO/s / FO/s Department of Tourism Foreign Offices

ECQ Enhanced Community Quarantine

f Total Frequency

FAGR Fitted Average Growth Rate

GDM Growth Decomposition Method

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GIS Geographical Information System

GUI Graphical User Interface

HSDV Household Survey on Domestic Visitors

IATF – MEID Inter-Agency Task Force for the Management of Emerging

Infectious Diseases

IRR Implementing Rules and Regulations

IRTS International Recommendations on Tourism Statistics

ICT Information and Communications Technology

ITD Information Technology Division

JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency

JO Job Order

LGU/s Local Government Units

LVSS Local Visitor Sample Survey

MATTA Marketing Assessment Tool for Tourism Attractions

MCIA Mactan – Cebu International Airport

MGM2 Money Generation Model 2

MICE Meetings, Incentives, Conventions, and Exhibitions

xiv
MIMAROPA Region 4B: Mindoro (Oriental and Occidental),
Marinduque, Romblon, and Palawan

n Total Respondents

NAIA Ninoy Aquino International Airport

NEDA National Economic and Development Authority

NGA National Government Agency

NSCB National Statistics Coordination Bureau

NTDP National Tourism Development Plan

OPAA Office of Public Affairs and Advocacy

OPMD Office of Product and Market Development

OSEC Office of the Secretary (DOT)

OTDPRIM Office of Tourism Development Planning, Research, and

Information Management

PD Presidential Decrees

PDP Philippine Development Plan

PFICD Policy Formulation and International Cooperation Division

PMS Property Management System

POS Point o
PSA Philippine Statistics Authority

PTSA Philippine Tourism Satellite Accounts

RA Republic Act

SAA Sub-Allotment Advice

SDNA Stakeholders' Data Needs Assessment

SEAIMD Statistics, Economic Analysis, and Information

Management Division

SLTSS Standard Local Tourism Statistics System

SNA System of National Accounts

xv
 STAR Hub Sub-national Tourism Analytics and Reporting Hub

STEP Survey of Tourism Enterprises in the Philippines

TGVA / GVATI Goods Value Added of Tourism Industries

TA(s) Tourist Attractions

TDA Tourism Development Area

TDC Tourism Development Cluster

TDPD Tourism Development Planning Division

TDS Tourism Development Sector

TE/s / TRE/s Tourism Enterprise / Tourism-related Enterprise

TIS Tourism Information System

TOO Tourism Operations Officer

Ranking: CTOO – Chief, SpvTOO – Supervising, STOO –
Senior, TOOII/2, TOO1/1

TPMS Tourism Product Market Survey

TRC Tourism Resource Center

TRCRG Tourism Regulation, Coordination, and Resource

Generation

TSA Tourism Satellite Accounts

TSA: RMF Tourism Satellite Accounts: Recommended Methodological

Framework

TSCBP Tourism Statistics Capacity Building Program

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNSC / UNSD United Nations Statistics Commission / Statistics Division

UNWTO United Nations World Tourism Organization

VA Visitor Arrivals

WEF World Economic Forum

xvi
 WFP Work and Financial Plan

WTTC World Travel and Tourism Council

xvii
 Chapter 1

The Problem and its Context

This chapter discusses the background and rationale, the specific problems and
issues it seeks to address, its significance, scope, and limitations.

1.1 Background of the Study

The year 2020 has been a devastating year for tourism in the Philippines. It
started with the Taal volcanic eruption1 that prematurely stopped the tourism season
of Southern Luzon (Rappler, 2020); more so, it was also when the country experienced
the COVID-19 pandemic that the world started suffering in the 1st quarter of the year.
By March 16, 2020, almost all of the economic activities of the Philippines came to a
halt. Travel and even going out of one's domicile were severely restricted (Santos,
2020).

Not only did the government limit the movement of Philippine residents, but it
also stopped inbound travelers (IATF - MEID, 2020). The first two months of the
quarantine were chaotic. Nobody knows about the virus conclusively. Data on the local
tourism sector was incomplete, which affected the response of stakeholders to the
pandemic.

In July 2020, the World Economic Forum (WEF) reported that the effects
would likely extend to more than 18 months. Most of them agreed that it would be
catastrophic to the economy, especially those relying on imports and exports, including
travel and tourism (Ghosh, 2020).

According to WEF, the Philippines stands to lose more than any country as the
tourism sector supports more or less 10 million jobs. They recognized that the
Philippines were one of the countries most reliant on tourism (Neufeld, 2020). The

1
The Taal volcano started erupting in January 12,2020 and ended 8 days after.

1
Philippine Tourism Satellite Accounts (PTSA) for 2019 presented a 13.5% share of
tourism employment to the whole country's total employment (PSA, 2020).

The Philippine Statistics Authority emphasized the tourism sector's importance

by reporting that its share of the Philippines' gross domestic product (GDP) for 2019
was 12.7%. It showed that it is one of the fastest-growing sectors, with an 18.5%
cumulative average growth rate (CAGR) for the past five years (PSA, 2020) It is an
essential contributor to employment and investment generation and one of the sectors
that provide the engine for foreign currency exchange (RA 9593, 2009). It was then
understandable why tourism stakeholders in different local destinations in the
Philippines clamored for help (Lucas, 2020).

However, policymakers cannot find any appropriate data to assess the effects
of the pandemic at the subnational tourism sector level. In formulating foregone
revenue of tourism in April 2020 for the economic assessment of the COVID-19
pandemic effects, the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) used the
2018 Regional Distribution of Visitors and the 2017 average daily expenditure of
foreigners, both produced by DOT (NEDA, 2020). While it provided an indicative
figure on tourism losses, it was not a reliable assessment of the situation because it did
not use appropriate data for each region and the right segment of visitors. The average
daily expenditure used was only reliable at the national level and only for foreign
visitors. The data on tourist arrivals used was composed of foreign and domestic
visitors, the latter being the majority.

Data for employment in subnational tourism industries also had no reliable

source. The employment estimation made by the PSA on the PTSA refers only to
national estimates (PSA, 2020). There were no specific data that could describe the
nature of tourism jobs and the employees. Hence, the policymakers took a while to
know where and how to assist those who need it (Cordero, 2021).

The economic significance of the tourism sector has been the battle cry of the
Department of Tourism for decades. Lawmakers finally gave the sector the recognition
it deserved by enacting the Tourism Act of 2009 (Republic Act 9593), which
reorganized the sector's government arm and emphasized the state's policy on tourism.
Section 2 of RA 9593 states that the sector is an indispensable element of the economy,
hence must be treated with interest and importance.

2
 While the government has done well in monitoring the economic impact of
tourism at the national level, the monitoring system for the subnational level is still
weak and too reliant on the efforts of the local government units (LGUs). The Tourism
Act of 2009 mandated the LGUs to submit tourism data, including the performance of
tourism enterprises, to analyze the local tourism sector (Section 38). However, reports
coming from local destinations remain incomplete, inconsistent, and sometimes
unreliable. No mechanism penalizes non-submission nor incentivizes submission.

According to thesurvey conducted by AIM in May 2020, the respondents

indicated that domestic tourism should be the first to recover in the travel industry.
Almost 50% of them expressed their willingness to travel for leisure after lifting the
travel ban. In contrast, only 26% of respondents expected to travel internationally even
after lifting the travel ban (DOT, AIM. & Guide to the Philippines, 2020).

The survey results led the DOT to prioritize domestic tourism as part of its
recovery program and policy direction. The Department created the Task Force on
Domestic Tourism Product and Market Development with the primary objective to
assess domestic tourism products and prepare policies on opening local destinations to
domestic tourists (DOT, 2020b). Local destination stakeholders supported the policy,
as they were all trying hard to adjust and recover from the pandemic. The LGU tourism
officers deemed it essential to discuss moving forward as tourism destinations (ATOP,
2020).

The need for subnational data to support the assessment made by DOT and its
stakeholders was apparent. The Department issued an order that created a validation
team to support the assessment of local tourism destinations (DOT, 2020c). The Task
Force on Domestic Tourism also requested the statistics arm of DOT for data support,
which led to an ad hoc project that centered on domestic tourism monitoring.

Information is the currency of the new normal as the sector is struggling to

market local destinations to target customers and attract new investments both from
the private and public sectors. However, domestic tourism monitoring could only do
so much with the inherent lack of statistical tools and underdeveloped tourism data
sharing culture. Policy support lacks the teeth to develop it further, and no other venue
encourages data sharing, especially during the pandemic.

Who should be spearheading the development of tourism data sharing?

3
 As the premier government arm on tourism, the Department of Tourism (DOT)
is mandated to be the "planning, programming, coordinating, implementing and
regulatory government agency in the development and promotion of the tourism
industry, both domestic and international, in coordination with its attached agencies
and other government instrumentalities" (DOT, 2009). Its Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR-RA9593) state that the Department should provide, among other
things, an integrated market development program as well as national tourism
development plans, programs, and policies. However, to do this, all local destinations
must participate in the national tourism development planning and share their
assessment of their respective local tourism sectors. Hence to make this happen, the
Department also implements programs where proper venues and tools are given to
local stakeholders to assess their tourism sector. DOT is also mandated to evaluate and
monitor the management of local destinations by local government units and
stakeholders' compliance to specific national standards such as specified in the DOT
accreditation (Section 5).

In the current National Tourism Development Plan 2017 – 2022 (NTDP 2017-
2022), the DOT's vision is to "develop a globally competitive, environmentally
sustainable and socially responsible tourism industry that promotes inclusive growth
through employment generation and equitable distribution of income thereby
contributing to building a foundation for a high-trust society" (Department of
Tourism, 2016). The vision supports "Pagbabago," or change, in which the
government loosely translated into a policy of "reducing inequality," one of the thrusts
of Ambisyon Natin 2040 included in the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) 2017 –
2022. (NEDA, 2016). DOT's goal is to see that services and economic opportunities
in the industry expanded for the sector.

At the frontline of such policy and program-making is the Office of Tourism

Development Planning and Information Management (OTDPRIM) under the Tourism
Development Sector (TDS) of DOT (See Figure 1).

4
 Figure 1. Current DOT Organizational Structure (DOT, 2018)

According to the IRR – RA9593, the OTDPRIM is responsible for formulating,

implementing, and monitoring the National Tourism Development Plan (NTDP), the
current administration's platform rooted in the Philippine Development Plan (PDP). It
formulates and monitors the implementation of tourism policies and plans based on
international agreements and conduits to other laws related to or affecting the tourism
sector. It also provides technical advisories and evaluations in the development of local
tourism development plans. Moreover, it also conducts and supports research and data
gathering that is instrumental to the tourism sector’s marketing and product
development plans.

Increased arrivals, tourism receipts, and tourism employment, the DOT’s target
outcome, is processed and facilitated by the OTDPRIM. In support of this, OTDPRIM
engages in programs, projects, and activities that provide satisfactory technical
advisories to LGUs and other stakeholders (output indicators), seeking to increase the
number of strategies, plans, and policies implemented (outcome indicators).

The office is composed of four divisions: Information Technology Division

(ITD), Policy Formulation and International Cooperation Division (PFICD),
Statistics, Economic Analysis, and Information Management Division (SEAIMD),
and Tourism Development Planning Division (TDPD). In addition, it also manages the
Tourism Resource Center (TRC).

5
 SEAIMD is mainly responsible for developing and maintaining the tourism
information systems of DOT. The division collaborates with other national
government agencies like the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) and the Bureau of
Immigration (BI) to update national-level tourism indicators. The division manages
the Processing Center (ADCPC) for arrival/departure cards accomplished at
international airports, and the sea manifests from international ports: the two sources
of foreign visitor arrivals. It also coordinates data gathering at the regional level with
the help of the DOT regional offices (DOT-ROs) and the LGUs. To do this more
effectively, SEAIMD conducts tourism statistics capacity-building programs (TSCBP)
for LGUs and stakeholders to advocate using reliable, comparable, and relevant data
to analyze local destinations and teach how to capture and report data for national
aggregation.

SEAIMD, with the help of Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA),

Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), and pilot LGUs in three
regions (Central Visayas, Western Visayas, and MIMAROPA), formulated the
Standard Local Tourism Statistics System (SLTSS) in 2009. To establish a unified
system of collecting and compiling local tourism data from tourism establishments in
the local destinations, they implemented the SLTSS in 2011 (DOT & JICA, 2012).
Considering the average sources of implementing LGUs, the system is divided into
three phases: 1. Basic Tourism Statistics Training (BTST); 2. Advanced Tourism
Statistics Training (ATST); 3. Applied Statistics in Tourism Planning (ASTP)
Workshops2 (see Figure 14 in Chapter 2). LGUs can implement a standard ladderized
data compilation according to their capability and resources. This initiative, however,
emphasizes the weakness of the program, as it is highly reliant on the willingness and
capacity of LGUs to implement data gathering.

The current primary programs and activities of SEAIMD aim to maintain data
sources needed to upkeep national tourism indicators. Hence, currently, the priority
phase for implementation and compilation is the Standard Basic Data Gathering

2
In the original training modules based on the DOT – JICA Tourism Manuals (DOT & JICA,
2012b), the ASTP is called Tourism Development Planning Training (TDPT). The Scholar
proposed the change in 2014 since it was deemed that the training name was a misnomer as it only
covers statistical methods in preparation for a tourism development plan, and did not delve on actual
formulation of a tourism development plan nor on the process of planning. There was also a capacity
building being done by TDPD that is based on the Tourism Guidebook for LGUs (DOT, DILG,
DENR, & DAP, 2014)

6
 Methodologies. The methodologies under the subsequent phases, ATST and ASTP,
are only implemented to varying extents by some LGUs in six regions: Ilocos, Central
Luzon, Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR), and the three pilot regions of the
SLTSS. There is no established reliable compilation of local visitor survey data, nor
are there any regular surveys done by any LGUs under DOT's standard visitor survey
format. It is then difficult for the Department to provide and maintain a comparative
analysis of local destinations survey data.

The restrictions brought by the pandemic also hampered the compilation of

local tourism data. Although tourism activities stopped only during the community
quarantine period, data from last year and the months before the quarantine were still
not gathered and compiled. Since most of the implemented methods required a manual
and face-to-face interface, it was difficult for gatherers like the LGUs and DOT-ROs
to complete the task of data gathering. Even the SEAIMD data gathering activities like
the visitor surveys and administrative data compilation have stopped.

The issue raised only exacerbated the difficulties posed by the pandemic. DOT
implemented a standard methodology set to provide visitor profile and travel
characteristics for domestic and internal tourism. However, it has not succeeded in
convincing most of the stakeholders to institutionalize it. Domestic and internal
tourism are the forms of tourism that describe visitors' movement and travel
characteristics inside the country of interest and in the local or subnational destination.
The only report on the local destination consistently updated nationwide is the
Regional Distribution of Travelers3 (see Table 1).

3
The Regional Distribution of Travelers does not include data from BARMM as the aforementioned
region is not under the supervision of DOT. It is worthwhile to note that be that as it may, BARMM-
DOT has been invited during statistical conferences, and DOT’s training team have already
conducted BTST for BARMM in 2018.

7
 Table 1. Regional Distribution of Overnight Travelers in Accommodation Establishments
(Partial Report). Source: DOT
JANUARY - DECEMBER 2020 JANUARY - DECEMBER 2019
As of May 14, 2021 As of August 17, 2020
REGION
Foreign Overseas Domestic Foreign Overseas Domestic Total
Total
Travelers Filipinos Travelers Travelers Filipinos Travelers 2019
NCR (National Capital Region) 458,951 28,909 1,184,459 1,672,319 1,709,157 877 1,327,066 3,037,100
CAR (Cordillera Administrative Region) 12,335 40 322,653 335,028 85,066 285 1,930,049 2,015,400
Region I (ILOCOS REGION) 2,316 39 118,283 120,638 80,133 39 2,182,102 2,262,274
Region II (CAGAYAN VALLEY) 7,817 - 140,784 148,601 158,074 197 1,079,050 1,237,321
Region III (CENTRAL LUZON) 174,231 702 1,143,794 1,318,727 672,372 3,367 3,410,635 4,086,374
Region IV-A CALABARZON 49,165 908 1,087,231 1,137,304 244,111 4,565 8,670,201 8,918,877
Region IV-B MIMAROPA 70,768 51 190,362 261,181 862,426 5,418 1,638,595 2,506,439
Region V (BICOL REGION) 6,222 - 631,490 637,712 360,804 28,783 2,890,848 3,280,435
Region VI (WESTERN VISAYAS) 173,300 17,171 882,505 1,072,976 1,245,960 82,299 4,558,864 5,887,123
Region VII (CENTRAL VISAYAS) 616,596 9,291 1,175,132 1,801,019 4,267,590 40,636 5,116,084 9,424,310
Region VIII (EASTERN VISAYAS) 7,994 86 225,887 233,967 51,864 2,928 1,582,776 1,637,568
Region IX (ZAMBOANGA PENINSULA) 1,387 114 165,012 166,513 12,114 13,373 1,147,770 1,173,257
Region X (NORTHERN MINDANAO) 1,007 18 62,702 63,727 60,799 - 2,736,274 2,797,073
Region XI (DAVAO REGION) 33,350 7,266 1,350,744 1,391,360 216,219 45,850 4,911,419 5,173,488
Region XII (SOCCSSARGEN) 3,218 - 438,933 442,151 25,368 1 1,935,116 1,960,485
Region XIII (CARAGA) 22,569 141 273,948 296,658 105,302 1,486 1,262,058 1,368,846
GRAND TOTAL 1,641,226 64,736 9,393,919 11,099,881 10,157,359 230,104 46,378,907 56,766,370

While it is apparent that internal tourism is a vast market to assess, equally

significant with the total visitors to the Philippines, there are no complete and
comparable visitor profiles and travel characteristics of the visitors that fall under
domestic and internal tourism at the subnational level. Also, no data and analysis
systems are focused on helping local tourism enterprises, and attractions assess and
manage. Most of the tourism data compiled by DOT serves to provide data for the
Philippine Tourism Satellite Accounts, contributing to the tourism sector's macro-
economic analysis. Monitoring visitor arrivals to the Philippines and their travel
characteristics is a national aggregate and unusable in analyzing a subnational or a
local destination (See Figure 2 and Table 2).

8
 Figure 2. Top Philippine Visitor Market 2019. Source: DOT

Table 2. 2019 Top Philippine Visitor Market Average Length of Stay

(ALOS), Daily Expenditure (ADE) and Per Capita Expenditure.
Source: DOT

Market ALOS ADE Exp. per Capita

Korea (South) 4.3 $304.25 $1,314.36
China 9.5 $140.57 $1,336.82
U. S. A. 12.3 $92.19 $1,135.78
Japan 5.2 $132.59 $684.16
Taiwan 7.7 $100.30 $770.30
Australia 11.1 $85.45 $948.50
Canada 13.3 $85.70 $1,143.24
United Kingdom 11.5 $97.95 $1,128.38
Singapore 6.0 $105.98 $633.76
Malaysia 6.9 $120.39 $828.28

Overall Average 9.5 $128.35 $1,218.04

For a sector that badly needed a lift to recover, DOT must find a way to assess
the situation on the local tourism level rapidly. DOT must establish a strategy in
implementing a proper system that can provide the much-needed information to help
the sector return to its glory.

9
1.2 Statement of the Problem

Tourism is a fast-dynamic sector that needs innovation to maximize its

benefits. Hence, local destination stakeholders need to understand their visitors to cope
with constantly evolving market demands; otherwise, sustainability may not be
guaranteed, and the success rate may be low.

Currently, no office regularly builds local visitor profiles and travel

characteristics databases and standard market analysis methods for visitors in local
destinations. Therefore, there is no holistic analysis of subnational tourism.

Given the situation, the capstone project sought to help the stakeholders of
local or subnational destinations by providing new and resilient methods and
modalities of monitoring their tourism sector and sharing information among local and
national tourism stakeholders.

The action research sought to answer the following questions:

1. What data are being monitored by stakeholders that support analysis of the
subnational tourism sector? What data should be monitored by stakeholders to
allow local tourism stakeholders to have sustainable development and competitive
tourism? What data do they need about these visitors to allow them to develop and
manage their local destinations sustainably?
2. What are the methodologies available and being implemented in local
destinations?
3. What are the factors that affect the compilation of local data?
4. How can the DOT ensure that the local stakeholders commit to data-sharing that
would enable them to learn from each other and provide input to national tourism
analysis?

10
1.3 Significance of the Study

The problem required a specific action because institutionalizing a method will

provide a more citizen-centered information system that ensures a more sustainable
local tourism destination.

The intervention is significant, especially now in the "new normal," because it

shall contribute to the efforts of keeping the destinations alive by focusing on domestic
tourism before the Philippines is open to foreign visitors again. Local stakeholders
must strategize to target the right market in subnational destinations and have the data
and platform to do so. The “new normal” facilitated digital connectivity and
transformation, promoting innovations in data compilation and sharing.

The solutions proposed would also significantly improve the DOT offices and
services. It will provide an opportunity to help the local destinations that greatly need
technical advisories that happen to be found only within their area and not directly
with DOT.

Once the capstone becomes successful and feasible for upscaling, both DOT
and the local stakeholders will have a new modality of understanding the local tourism
system and help them develop products and plans that will be more suitable and more
engaging to customers or visitors. On the other hand, if the problem is left unsolved,
DOT and its stakeholders will fail to optimize benefits from tourism as it churns
projects void of understanding the market it wants to serve, the products they are
marketing, and worst, who should be benefitting at all.

The capstone project is an important practical application of participatory

governance and the development and implementation of citizen-centric policies. With
the stakeholders' needs in mind and not only in compliance with international
standards of country tourism accounting, which has been the focus of DOT for the last
four decades, but it also sought to give new ways of monitoring tourism.

11
1.4 Scope and Limitation

Implementation for the research with the capstone project is limited to three
months. Hence, the capstone is divided into three phases:

1. Preparatory and Prototyping Phase.

2. Pilot Implementation Phase
3. Upscaling and Implementation Phase

The action research covers preparatory and prototyping in a major tourist

destination in at least one region during the first phase. It includes stakeholder
consultations and data gathering method prototyping and testing during this period.
Depending on the procurement process, the tourism information systems component
is implemented either in the 2nd or 3rd phase.

The capstone only covers the institutionalization of a data-sharing modality

with the overarching goal of supporting policymaking and destination management.
It did not cover the implementation of tourism policies.

Specifically, it proposes an online system to consolidate all subnational

tourism data accessible to local stakeholders, eliminating or minimizing bureaucratic
documentary requirements. However, the system depends on the quality of
participation from the local stakeholders. Therefore, the project also aims to provide
an innovation that could capture the interest of the stakeholders.

The focus of this capstone project is the local stakeholders and subnational
tourism data. Hence, it proposes changes that affect only the subnational tourism
sector but consider national and international data an integral component of tourism
analysis.

12
 Chapter 2

Project Conceptual Framework

This chapter shall discuss relevant studies, research, and concepts related to the
tourism sector analysis. It shall also include applicable theories and their possible role in
the sustainability of a tourism destination.

2.1 Review of Related Literature

a. Basis of Tourism Statistics Concept and Methodology
The basis for the data gathering on tourism was formally presented by the
United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) more than a decade ago in
2008. However, the development that led to that milestone was designed even
decades earlier than that. In the early 1990s, international organizations like the
World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), United Nations Statistics Commission
/ Division (UNSC / UNSD), United Nations Development (UNDP), among others,
prototyped statistical methodologies that can measure the economic impact of
tourism. The Philippine Department of Tourism has been a willing participant in
developing international standards For monitoring travel and tourism.

(1) UNWTO. Some DOT systems have existed even before their creation as a
separate cabinet department in 1973 (PD 189, 1973). The Department has been
rigorously following international methods practiced by most countries,
counting non-residents as visitors. DOT has participated in international tourism
monitoring policies that standardize how countries understand tourism progress
globally.
In 2008, the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO)
released two landmark documents that sought to standardize the data
compilation and indicators used in tourism officially:
1. International Recommendations on Tourism Statistics 2008 (IRTS
2008),

13
 2. Tourism Satellite Account: Recommended Methodological
Framework 2008 (TSA: RMF 2008).

These two documents replaced the Recommendations on Tourism Statistics

1994 of the United Nations Statistical Commission (UNSC).

The IRTS 2008 is the foundation of methodological and operational

principles and procedures of the international compilation of tourism statistics
of UNWTO. For most countries that have already established an official tourism
statistics system, the IRTS 2008 reaffirmed the reliability of their methods. In
truth, the IRTS only expressed condensed forms of concepts that tourism
practitioners had universally accepted even before UNWTO began to address
what it meant to become a visitor, a tourist, and a same-day visitor. It contains
the essential indicators or data that need to be captured by each destination to
come up with an analysis of their tourism sector, including visitor profiles and
travel characteristics (UNWTO, 2008a). It also contains definitions of tourism
terms used in the compilation of tourism statistics. These terms help limit the
scope of the data gathering and clean the existing historical data if possible.
Some of the critical terms highlighted and defined in the glossary are tourism,
visitors, the different forms of tourism, tourists, Same-day visitors, and
Tourism-related establishments.
The IRTS 2008, however, did not prescribe a standard method to
monitor subnational tourism statistics. It only provided standard concepts that
users could apply in the compilation of subnational statistics. Hence, countries
monitor their local destinations differently.
Perhaps the most critical tourism indicator standardized by the IRTS is
the computation of tourism or visitor receipts. It estimates the gross income
received from visitors using the volume of visitors, the average length of stay,
and the average daily expenditure as parameters. It is an important economic
indicator vastly used by policymakers to understand and present the country's
industry's importance. It uses a simple framework that tourism statisticians
could generate quickly provided that the parameters exist, unlike the economic
indicators described by the other landmark document of the UNWTO.
On the same note, the TSA: RF 2008 describes essential requirements
in compiling a country's tourism satellite account (TSA). The TSA estimates the

14
 contribution of the tourism sector to national wealth based on the gross domestic
product. It also includes a compilation of tourism elements like employment
compared to the overall employment. (UNWTO, 2008b)
The book also covers the concepts described by the IRTS 2008 but
examines them in relation to the whole economy. It recommends the adoption
of the classification of the elements of the tourism industry to compile data
needed to create the recommended TSA tables. The framework of the TSA
provides a more complex representation of tourism's economic impact as it
places tourism within the national economic indicators. Hence, it must use data
compatible with the computation of the national economic accounts such as
gross domestic product (GDP) and total employment.
The UNWTO recognized the TSA as the responsibility of a national
statistics office. It is directly connected with the system of national accounts
(SNA) (UNWTO, 2008b), the country’s economic growth indicators. In the
Philippines, the PSA, formerly the National Statistical Coordination Board
(NSCB), developed the estimations since they are the ones who estimated the
national economic indicators. After reorganizing the statistics-producing
agencies in 2013, NSCB became part of the newly created PSA under Republic
Act 10625 or the Philippine Statistical Act of 2013. (Virola, 2016)

b. Frameworks Used for Tourism Analysis

What are the frameworks being used by policymakers, planners, and
researchers to analyze the tourism sector? This section discusses robust
frameworks, which could help develop new ways to assess the subnational tourism
situation and create a knowledge co-creation and networking system.

15
(1) Impact Assessment. Frameworks for tourism analysis always start with the
assessment of its impact on its stakeholders. Most works of literature speak
about the economic impact assessment of tourism because, foremost, it affects
a country's economic development through its highly-regarded overall
multiplier effect. In his article, Stynes (n.d.) outlined the importance of an
economic impact assessment and how assessment is done in tourism. Professor
Stynes of Michigan University identified primary and secondary effects
classified into direct, indirect, and induced. Direct or primary effects refer to
tourism's benefits to tourism products and service providers like income. In
contrast, indirect effects refer to tourism growth to the industries supporting the
tourism characteristic industries like agriculture, manufacturing, or linen
industry (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. D. Styne’s Tourism Impact Framework

Meanwhile, induced effects refer to behavior change of the individuals

working in the industry directly or indirectly. For instance, the increased income
of tourism professionals changes their spending patterns affecting the economic
activities in a community in the destination. The identification of impact as such
illustrates the multiplier effect tourism has in many industries. Hence, there is a
need to estimate the economic multiplier value to ascertain the overall impact
of tourism. Of course, it is also essential to assess the existence of tourism
leakages, as this will define how much visitor receipt is channeled back outside

16
the destination. It brings us back to the notion of how broad the economic impact
of tourism is not only to the destination but to other areas that input materials
and services to the destination.
The UNWTO (2008a) defines a tourism establishment as having a
tourism activity as its primary source of income. Hence, an establishment in any
industry might be included in the tourism industry because it fits that criterion.
Furthermore, an establishment would need the output of different industries to
operate. The success of such a tourism establishment would also affect the
operations of ancillary service and product providers.
According to Hussain and Kumar (2014), the models used by
governments and researchers to estimate tourism impacts have been mostly
unable to provide a good picture of the impact of tourism on the whole economy.
Among these are Fletcher’s input-output analysis (1994), the subsequent
improvements like Wagner’s social accounting matrix (1997), the Keynesian
models as discussed by Schaffer (1999), among others. It is because of the
possible leakages along the supply and consumer chains that significantly affect
the overall reliability of the estimation. The often-singular lens of the input-
output model needs improvement to reflect the situation at every level of the
consumer's consumption and services. The two authors also cited that
Copeland's Computable General Equilibrium or CGE (1991) and the Money
Generation Model 2 or MGM2 (Stynes, Propst, Chang, and Sun, 2000) might
be more appropriate in assessing the impact of tourism in the regional or
subnational setting. These methods use a regional pre-determined economic
multiplier. While CGE has successfully integrated other industry's input into the
tourism sector, MGM2 utilizes spending patterns of visitors on developing
economic multipliers for specific destinations (Hussaine & Kumar, 2014).
Nevertheless, it needs more adjustments on how assumptions can be
made more reflective of what is happening in the region. According to Ivanov
and Webster (2007), much like the compilation of tourism satellite accounts
developed by the WTTC, the CGE and other similar methods are suitable for
analysis and forecasting. However, it does not offer any descriptive analysis or
historical or holistic context of the tourism sector. Instead, they proceeded to
take the methodologies further by looking at the economic impact of tourism in
the context of the whole economy. They coined their method as the growth
17
decomposition method (GDM), which dichotomizes the economy into tourism
and other sectors (Ivanov & Webster, 2007). The authors then understood the
impact of tourism on the whole economy but left the regional analysis to
methods utilizing regional economic multipliers. The release of UNWTO
(2008b) TSA: RMF 2008 superseded the former and became the foremost guide
on economic impact analysis on tourism.
Pascariu and Ibanescu (2018) affirmed that using tourism multipliers is
a crucial indicative tool in defining the indirect contribution of tourism in the
economy, as it tries to estimate tourism revenue outside its identified tourism
characteristic industries or as illustrated by Professor Stynes (n.d.). The authors
recognized that tourism has a broad reach in terms of its effect. It is then
essential to measure tourism impact adjusted to its multiplier effect to estimate
the secondary effect of tourism. Equally important, however, is the
determination of the right factors that affect the value of the multiplier effect,
particularly on how it affects job generation in the whole economy (Pascariu &
Ibanescu, 2018)
Discussing the impact of tourism might give the readers the impression
that the only important aspect of the subject is the economic impact. It is only a
part of the impact of tourism along with environmental, cultural, and social. Its
effect can be classified further to its impact on governance themes like taxation,
services provision to all individuals, crowding and congestion, and community
attitude. (Kreag, 2001)
The importance of other theories utilized by other researchers is seen in
this context. Scholtz and Slabbert (2018) used the social exchange theory in
analyzing the social impact of tourism in a host community. Citing half a dozen
authors (Gursoy et al. [2002]; Devan [2006], among others) that developed the
theory, they applied that theory in a framework of analysis that identified
tangible and intangible impacts which affect the perception and reaction of the
communities to tourism in South Africa. (Scholtz & Slabbert, 2018) This is a
significant development, as it is one of the few studies that dealt with the "soft"
impacts of tourism. It also gives credence to the unique aspect of each tourism
community that is significant in determining the value of tourism other than the
monetary or financial impact it gives. (see Figure 4)

18
 Figure 4. Scholtz and Slabbert’s Framework on Social Impact of Tourism

The master's degree dissertation of Laurent (2015) also includes the

social exchange theory as one of the frameworks used in impact analysis that
could explain the different reactions of host communities to the growth of the
tourism industry in their area. He also includes applying the tourism
development cycle as an essential supporting framework in understanding
tourism impact, as the cycle pertains to the stages of tourism development and
the community's carrying capacity. However, the results of his study show a
negative correlation between a perceived economic impact and tourism
development. Nonetheless, it was able to show that the environmental and
historical-cultural impacts are direct effects of tourism. It showed that there
might be other factors other than tourism that brought the impact to the
community (Laurent, 2015).

19
 The tourism area life cycle was also the framework followed by the work
of Szromek (2019). He improved on the theories and applications of other
authors and developed an analytical framework for describing the stages of
tourism destination development and the impact on the host communities. He
factored in all the direct, indirect, and induced impacts on tourism and
superimposed it on the life cycle. (see Figure 5). It allows users, especially the
DMOs, to adjust decisions according to the needs of all stakeholders in different
stages. (Szromek, 2019)

Figure 5. Szromek’s Sustainable development and the tourism area life cycle
(TALC)

Meanwhile, Jalani's (2012) study regarding ecotourism activities in

Sabang, Puerto Princesa, suggests that tourism positively impacts the lives of
the communities around the area. According to the author, tourism activities
have led to economic activities from purely agricultural to ecotourism-related
as it is more profitable than traditional agricultural activities. It also led to the
spike of migrants to the area for better opportunities, leading people and the
economy toward tourism development. (Jalani, 2012)
The studies on tourism impact on communities suggest differences in
local impacts due to environmental and cultural factors intensifying the need to
establish a better subnational tourism statistics system. While tourism as
advantageous to the economy at a national level might be easier to see, it might

20
 be a different scenario at the local level in all aspects of its impact: economic,
socio-cultural, and environmental.

(2) Market Analysis. The Department has established historical data on inbound
visitors' profiles and travel characteristics. It has been the monitoring priority
vital in the upkeep of national economic accounts, particularly on income.
DOT's regular conduct of the Annual Visitor Sample Survey (AVSS)
assures data users of updated and relevant data on inbound tourism, including
Average Length of Stay (ALOS), Average Daily Expenditure (ADE), decision
factors, the purpose of travel, activities done by visitors, satisfaction ratings for
products and services, among others. The wealth of data helps market the
Philippines as a whole. The scholar would like to reiterate that it is only
applicable on the national level as a destination due to the limitation in the
methodology. It is, however, a good start in understanding who our visitors are
and their preferences in the Philippines.
The data allows users to segment our visitors in many ways, for
example, disaggregation by country or region of residence and their purpose of
visit. It is used to measure the success of the marketing missions of DOT and
helps the project officers adjust strategies. For top management, this is useful in
planning priority markets to target. Dolnicar (2004) mentioned the importance
of data-driven segmentation. She cited three critical factors contributing to such
a marketing model: Socio-demographic criteria, behavioral information, and
benefits variables—all present in the DOT regular survey. According to the
study, any segmentation from a survey needs to be validated to be of value. In
this case, the author did include two separate sets of questions in the survey that
may result in associations of responses. Based on product preference, the other
is on destinations traveled for that travel purpose in the study. Illustrating
association made the derived results a stronger case for a desired strategy or
policy (Dolnicar, 2004).
On a different note, the narrative review done by Cohen, Moital, and
Prayag (2013) provides a fascinating, comprehensive look at tourism consumer
behavior. Consumer behavior is one of the most important aspects considered
in strategic marketing. The authors listed and assessed 512 research papers and
classified them according to the fundamental concepts under consumer
21
behaviors. Their study is a good start if one is interested in developing models
in studying travel customer behavior. Most studies assess an individual's
behavior and decision-making, not of the impact of groups such as households,
friends, or business associates. Group analysis is often limited to the behaviors
of a traditional essential family towards travel and tourism. Other tourism
segments also lack representation in the number of studies. What was evident,
though, was the shift of studies throughout the years. It may mean that studies
respond to the need for analysis of the sector. The study they made is an
essential contribution in identifying needs to be addressed in consumer
behaviors by researchers (Cohen, Prayag, & Moital, 2014).
Market segmentation is one of the critical approaches in developing and
sustaining a tourism destination. By careful and thorough analysis of the current
visitor segment a destination has, managers can predict the behavior of visitors,
thereby preparing for the needs of the visitors. Johns and Gyimothy (2002) made
a study on this for Bornholm Island, Denmark. The authors contended that
behaviors and not demographic data are the best predictor of consumer
behavior. By showing different sets of survey data, they derived that promoting
activities rather than the facilities of the island's attraction is more likely to bring
in visitors (Johns & Gyimothy, 2002).
Professors Stynes and White (2006) also emphasized using segments to
estimate visitor spending better. The authors said that the biases that occur
during surveys or in simple analyses of the tourism industry could be lessened
if parameters used in the computation are taken from different segments. The
segments can be by market, visitor purpose, or by area even. A more reliable
estimate of the visitor expenditure can be made thru careful evaluation and
validation of survey output (Stynes & White, 2006). The paper proved the need
to have disaggregated data to analyze the tourism sector better and further
understand how local tourism destinations can be developed.
Citing the studies by Huybers (2003) and Duman, Erkaya, and
Topaluglo (2020), domestic tourism has been observed as the primary driver of
tourism, more than international or inbound tourism. However, there is a lack
of research that talks about the impact of domestic tourism inspiring them to
develop choice modeling analysis (Huybers, 2003) and their renewed interest to
study vacation interests of Austrians amidst the profusion of travel technology
22
 and evolved lifestyles (Duman, Erkaya, & Topaloglu, 2020). Huybers' study of
Austrian local tourism destinations recognizes that domestic tourism is a force
that is not easily affected by international crises.4 It is then vital to emphasize
that all stakeholders can understand the domestic market to benefit from them.
(Huybers, 2003)
Another rare example of a market analysis literature that talked about a
subnational or domestic destination of the Philippines was the research done by
Vizconde and Felicen (2012). Their research focused on the tourism industry of
Batangas. The authors deemed it essential that the Batangas tourism destination
managers understand their visitors' preferences to maximize the benefits from
tourism. Development should be guided partly by the market. According to their
research, Batangas visitors preferred beaches, water activities, and resorts
(Vizconde & Felicen, 2012). Through this, Batangas can strengthen these
tourism products to capture markets that share the same sentiments and retain
their current market or strengthen other tourism products the markets are not
keen to experience at the moment.

c. Relevant Tourism-Applicable Development Theories

While the frameworks of analysis reviewed above lead to analytical models
of understanding tourism, a missing piece is the need to understand the tourism
sector. It also leads to the question of why the scholar proposed these innovations.
The following studies were then selected to guide the conceptual framework.
Research in this field must always be undertaken because tourism helps alleviate
the lives of the people.

4
That is before the onset of the COVID19 pandemic, that clearly showed how to put a stop to all
types of economic activities.

23
(1) Sustainable Tourism as a Development Tool. According to the UNWTO (2013),
tourism has become a necessary economic force for many countries. Data shows
that tourism is a significant service traded and has been a big source of foreign
exchange income. Tourism is involved in many and diversified industries, which
makes it adaptable to any economic situation. However, it is not without
disadvantages. While its main products utilize natural, historical, and cultural
heritage, it has also endangered them. Tourism can also abuse human resources,
mainly when enterprises are managed by those who do not care about the host
communities and the front liners. Hence, destination management offices (DMO)
and the government offices must involve different stakeholders in the development
planning and, ideally, in the tourism site's operation (UNWTO, 2013). For tourism
to become a long-term driving force for development in a locality genuinely, it must
embrace the principles of sustainable development (See Table 3).

Table 3. UNWTO / UNEP 12 AIMS OF SUSTAINABLE

TOURISM
Economic Viability Visitor Fulfilment Physical Integrity
Local Prosperity Local Control Biological Diversity
Employment Community Resource Efficiency
Quality Wellbeing
Social Equity Cultural Richness Environmental Purity

In sustainable tourism, decision-makers must look into the relationship

between the four main tourism stakeholders: host communities, local
environment, employees of business establishments, and the tourist or visitors
(see Figure 6). They should measure the levels of interaction, awareness, and
dependency amongst the stakeholders (APEC Tourism Working Group, 2013).

Figure 6. APEC Tourism Stakeholders Relationship Model.

24
 In 2017, UNWTO conducted the Sixth International Conference on
Tourism Statistics, which emphasized the measurement of sustainable tourism.
(UNWTO, 2017). During the conference, ministers and different organizations
talked about the effects of tourism on development and how it can be harnessed
to benefit sustainable development. The UNWTO (2013) defined sustainable
tourism as a condition that tourism must have; it considers its impact to all
stakeholders, must be beneficial to all, and must consider the needs of the future.
The Conference in Manila produced a critical report highlighting the
development of an international framework for measuring sustainable tourism.
The report also highlighted the importance of tourism in the economy and has
become a development tool for many. Thereby, it is essential that countries
develop a way of monitoring and measuring its impact. (UNWTO, 2017b).
Fortunately, the Philippines as a tourism destination has been gearing
towards sustainable tourism. According to Pilapil-Anasco and Lizada (2014),
the Philippines has nurtured more sustainable tourism than before. They divided
the tourism progress from 1900 to 2012 into four significant periods and
examined differences in tourism development and visitor arrivals. They also
claimed that the 1987 Philippine Constitution supported sustainable tourism by
including the concept of the right to have a healthy ecology as a guiding
principle in any development plan opening up opportunities for sustainable
tourism products like ecotourism. In the 1990s, ecotourism took center stage
(Pilapil-Añasco & Lizada, 2014).
The first years of the millennium gave the Philippines a development
map of a national ecotourism strategy with the document's release with the same
title (National Ecotourism Steering Committee and Ecotourism Technical
Working Group, 2002) of the Department of Tourism and Department of
Environment and Natural Resources in 2002. There was no national law on
tourism aside from executive orders enabling DOT and other attached agencies
to manage national tourism back then. Hence, it was one of the milestone
policies on tourism and the earliest country to do so on a national scale. The
government emphasized environmental policies in sustainable tourism and their
importance as a development tool with the document. It also listed the issues
the involved organizations have been experiencing that hamper the growth of
25
ecotourism and outlined the market trends for the current ecotourism products
back then. The most important part related to this capstone of that document is
the inclusion of a monitoring system to implement the ecotourism strategies
included in the document.
The National Ecotourism Strategic planning continues today, with DOT
and DENR taking turns as flagship agencies for ecotourism. In 2014, they
jointly released the document National Ecotourism Strategy and Action Plan
2013 – 2022 (National Ecotourism Steering Committee and Ecotourism
Technical Working Group, 2014), which updated the plans from the previous
years. One of the strategies to achieve the overall goal of a globally competitive
site by 2022 is monitoring impacts and outcomes. It meant identifying a set of
indicators and providing the mechanism and organization to do the monitoring
regularly. The plan also gave each LGU leeway on how to develop their
indicators guided by the principle outlined by the document and following
national policies related to the environment.
Begum and their fellow authors believed that decision-makers should
consider all stakeholders when planning and marketing sustainable tourism
development. Their study of Malaysian tourism saw that tourists' perceptions
gave clues on to what extent the stakeholders were involved in the tourism
sector and how it affects the services they offer and the satisfaction everyone
gets from tourism. It is also equally important to look into the needs of the
stakeholders to participate more positively in the sector (Begum, et al., 2014)
According to PSA, 60% of Filipinos travel twice every quarter, roughly
more than 60 million domestic trips every quarter (PSA, 2017). Data from
DOT's Distribution of Regional Travelers would also show that almost all local
destinations reported that 80% of their visitors are domestic travelers (see Table
1) (DOT-SEAIMD, 2020). Even with the absence of foreign visitors, local
destinations thrive and have always shown vigor. It supported what Seckelmann
(2001) has observed on domestic tourism in Turkey. According to the author,
domestic tourism might be the key to sustaining tourism development at the
regional level, as not all are ready or accessible yet to foreign tourists at that
time. It is relatively easier to set up and does not need complicated
infrastructure. He then proposed that regional destinations be promoted to the

26
 domestic market and provide incentives in developing local destinations that
cater to domestic visitors (Seckelmann, 2001).
Dela Santa (2014) pointed out that tourism policymaking has developed
substantially throughout the decades. Although, social and political structures
hamper implementation. The situation was the same, whether national or local.
Good policies may be legislated or made, but many times, interests prevailed
during its implementation. He recognized that tourism policies have been
leaning toward sustainable development due to recognizing the importance of
preserving the natural environment or ecology and conserving cultural heritage
(Dela Santa, 2014).

(2) Knowledge Creation, Innovation, and Diffusion. In any form of planning and
management, research and data analysis are keys to its effectiveness. Decision
users must have the correct information at the right time to make the right
decisions. It is required in goal setting, especially when the management or
project teams monitor the implementation of strategies and activities up to the
twilight stage (Thakur, n.d.).
Decisions are affected by information and data. It is true in tourism, as
visitors face tons of information due to its availability on free mediums that are
more accessible than before. Webpages and online social media compete with
traditional ways of marketing mediums. In fact, at the time of this publication,
most of UNWTO's key trends in technology and consumer behaviors listed in
their publication in 2014 are still applicable. According to the UNWTO,
information that people can access has increased exponentially and the time
needed to access it has decreased. Consumers now decide what information to
search for and what information is beneficial. Therefore, products compete even
with the dispersal of their information. It becomes part of the strategy to attract
the most consumers (UNWTO, 2014).
Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) Theory comes into mind when
examining how authors used tourism development and marketing information.
According to Rogers, ideas and products are diffuse over time and are adopted
as standard, replacing old ideas and products. The key, however, is that it must
be made known and seen as something new or innovative (La Morte, 2019).

27
 Pilapil-Anasco and Lizada (2014) described the timeline of the
development of the tourism sector as evidence that the sector has adopted
innovations in time. The authors’ observations in developing local destinations
confirm this—innovative products do not stay too long as something unique to
a local destination; they are copied and adopted by other local destinations (e.g.,
the proliferation of zip-lines).
Hence, the nature of tourism stakeholders, including the destination and
enterprise managers, the host communities, and the market they serve, must be
understood. In the five established adopter categories of the DOI, where do they
belong? Identifying where they belong can be critical in developing a feasible
strategy for information dissemination (See Figure 7).

Figure 7. DOI Adopter Categories (Rogers, 1962)

Source: https://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/mph-modules/sb/behavioralchangetheories/behavioralchangetheories4.html

Savery (2008) successfully developed a way of classifying stakeholders,

in her case, public relations practitioners, into adopter categories. By asking
them a series of questions regarding innovation adoption, she was able to
classify their sector using their perceptions about innovation and how they used
it in decision-making and in adopting innovations.
For innovations to be adopted, this would also depend on the five main
factors identified by Rogers: Relative Advantage, Compatibility, Complexity,
Trialability, and Observability (La Morte, 2019). The scholar must point out
that decision-makers can only verify observations regarding adopter categories
with historical data. It would then be advantageous to decision-makers to build
up a tourism database to apply Roger's factors adaptability.
Tourism innovation, and information in general, must therefore be
accessible to become an example for all. Braun (2005) spoke about the

28
advantages of tourism networks, especially small-to-medium (SME)
enterprises. By having access to information which are sometimes only
available to large corporations, tourism enterprises can adopt innovations that
can help them increase productivity and would be able to compete in their
destinations. Included in the information sharing would be market data and
supply chain (Braun, 2005). While advantages are evident in tourism enterprises
formally in a local area network or associations with everyday activities, this
can also be highly effective for destination management in general, wherein
decision-makers regard best practices highly.
One can see the diffusion paradigm in the development of tourism
destinations. Introducing a novel tourism product or a tourism establishment or
facility has often attracted other investments and infrastructure similar or in
support to the catalyst (Andriotis & Vaughan, 2009). Dela Santa (2014)
mentioned networking and diffusion in the formulation and implementation of
policies. On the same note, the works of Rowley (1997) speak on the role of
diffusion in his network theory as applied in stakeholders engagement.
Diffusion and adoption legitimize innovations into what is standard. (Rowley,
1997)
In her capstone paper for the PMDP-MMC, Novilla (2019) emphasized
that developing the culture of knowledge sharing in an organization often leads
to better results. When goals and objectives are communicated well to internal
and external stakeholders, everyone can participate and contribute to the
development process. Innovations are encouraged since there is the transfer of
knowledge on which they can build. The organization's development relies on
how well they manage knowledge through institutionalized frameworks such as
the one proposed by the author (Novilla, 2019). (See Figure 8)

29
 Figure 8. Novilla’s Conceptual Framework on Knowledge Management
(2019)

(3) Information and Communication Systems. Nobody can deny the effects of
information and communications technology (ICT) on the tourism industry.
With the application of ICT, the world has become more transparent and easier
to access and navigate. Using ICT applications has become an integral part of
traveling and, consequently, tourism.
Dexeus (2019) likened the digital revolution's impact on the tourism
sector as a spiral of feedback trends that grow exponentially per year. Internet
became a primary information source, more so due to mobile smartphones and
connectivity advances. Almost all travelers base their decisions on what they
see on the internet. Meanwhile, tourism product developers and marketing
managers based their strategies on data from people's online footprints. There
has been a growth in the use of big data. Algorithms are being read and applied
whenever a person views, connects or clicks on things online. The continuous
feedback between consumers and producers goes on and on, affecting the shape
of the tourism industry (Dexeus, 2019).
The UNWTO (2014) discussed the advantages of DMO engaging in e-
marketing in one complete manual, indicating how robust ICT is in travel and
tourism. Information, when found online, has the advantage of having high
accessibility, faster analytics, and feedback is easier to attain. Hence, DMOs

30
must develop online platforms, a content management system (CMS), curate
data content, and share it with all stakeholders.
When DMOs or even individual tourism enterprises develop online
platforms, they should deliver information covering the whole customer
experience journey (see Figure 9). Their decisions should be based on what
strategies work for target markets to ensure that tourism becomes a sustainable
sector.

Figure 9. Customer Experience Journey (UNWTO, 2014)

Many works of literature support the use of ICT to effect changes in the
management of a destination or a tourism enterprise. Dietz, Roy, and Worndl
(2019) discussed using social media platforms in determining travel behaviors.
By mining check-ins in online social media, they have determined the type of
trips travelers are most likely to be in, and therefore they were able to categorize
the travelers (Dietz, Roy, & Worndl, 2019).
The presented method is valuable for determining the target market
according to the local destination's product. It can also work the other way. By
determining the travel characteristics and behaviors, local destinations can
anticipate the market and create products and services that attract visitors.
In October 2018, two researchers presented data mining on social
networks to determine domestic visitor behaviors in a statistics forum at the
University of the Philippines Los Banos. One of the researchers used the tools
available on the programming language software "R" on tourism statistics. They

31
 were able to develop visitor preferences that are somehow similar to the 2017
HSDV of PSA.5
The ICT community and the marketing people have firmly stated that
information is the new gold, and big data is the new information stream. Big
data refer to the vast network of quick-growing information found in online
networks like the internet or subscription communication lines. It stores a
variety of behaviors of consumers, which leads to an algorithm, relationship
models, and patterns, which stakeholders could use in marketing plans and even
product development (SAS, n.d.).
There is a growing interest in using big data in tourism, especially how
big tourism-related enterprises run their businesses. It helps them prioritize and
target markets and curate products catered to a specific market (bismart, 2017).
According to Heikinheimo et al. (2017), management could use data from
online social media and traditional visitor surveys to validate each data, extend
the coverage of information monitoring, and fill in the logistical gap on data
gathering. Their study compared the results of a previous visitor survey with
data that got from social media. Although there are differences in the
demographics of the respondents and samples, the two data were both able to
describe the visitor profile of the destination (Heikinheimo, et al., 2017).
There are, however, risks and limitations with the use of big data. With
the advent of the Data Privacy Act of 2012, Users must be able to assess first
what is legally allowable in the international and Philippine settings. It protected
individuals, groups, and corporations against the use of data that may be very
personal, sensitive, or proprietary. (Data Privacy Act of 2012, 2012).
Nevertheless, the possible advantages of mixing big data with other data
sources cannot be denied. Data Analytics is all about gathering and compiling
data and using them to either develop the consumer's voice or the visitor and
relate them to the development of tourism products. By building the
infrastructure on data management, decision-makers might see what could
happen and strategize. It can help local destinations become more efficient in
implementing development programs and projects. (Lotame, 2019)

5
Unfortunately, this scholar lost the contact information and have failed to get access to the great
research work of the two academicians of University of the Philippines – Los Banos.

32
 Lim, Mostafa, and Park (2017) have proposed designing information
systems for tourism that they call the Smart Tourism Design Model (See Figure
10). The authors based their model on the socio-technical systems theory, which
emphasized social interactions even in an automated information system. They
argued that visitors gave value to actual human interactions, even when using
modern tourism-related ICT systems. A paradigm shift to more interactive
information systems against fully automated information systems void of how
the visitor/user values them must happen. Tourism experience should be at the
center of the tourism information system. (Lim, Mostafa, & Park, 2017)

Figure 10. Smart Tourism Design Model (Lim, Mostafa, & Park, 2017)

The model emphasized the different aspects that affect the development
of an information system for tourism. In the ideation of the design, the
information system proponents must identify what is needed or valued by the
system's users. They should also define the relationship between these needs—
how one solution affects the other problems. Organizations could then interpret
it as things that could be designed into their systems. Essentially it is about

33
fulfilling what the stakeholders want to see on the system the proponents are
designing (Lim, Mostafa, & Park, 2017).
Buhalis, Law, and Leung (2011) mentioned that it is vital for the travel
and tourism industry to make sure that they use the most appropriate ICT to
capture data, analyze the sector, and communicate with the stakeholders. More
importantly, to the target market. The design must always be with the customer
experience journey in mind. The idea was to provide information to the target
market during the most crucial part of their journey—the purchase decision
process. On the other hand, the DMOs must also capture the market's behavior
while they are in the destination and post-purchase behavior when they are back
at their homes. Hence, the application of any ICT must take care of these factors:
interoperability, usability, accessibility, and interactivity (Buhalis, Law, &
Leung, 2011). The system must be able to connect and collect data concerning
the travels of the market.
Agile software development or agile project management (APM) is the
standard model in the software development industry. According to Keith
(2002), the agile development model do away with the rigid waterfall
framework of software development project management and instead relies on
an adaptable process with multiple iterations towards the significant outcome.
As provided by the manifesto for agile software development, the focus should
be on interaction, collaboration, change management, and the working software
(Keith, 2002).

Figure 11. Generic Agile Development Process (Serena, 2007)

34
 Figure 11 illustrates that the most work process is primarily in the
iteration phase wherein the software is prototyped, tested, assessed, adjusted,
and tested again. Each iteration will produce a complete product that developers
must redesign according to the client's needs or objectives. The process will still
have to follow a schedule, of course, but milestones of the project are all
complete but not finalized as it enters iterations. (Serena, 2007).
In Permana's (2015) study, the scrum process, which builds on agile
software development principles, works well to increase software development
speed and flexibility. Scrum emphasized not only in a sprint of solving project
issues it calls backlogs but also emphasized teamwork. It also made it possible
to have live testing of the software after each alteration or sprint. According to
the author, in the scrum process, not only is the development team involved, but
it is also the management or decision-makers and the stakeholders who will be
using the software (Permana, 2015).
For any software development, it is essential to measure the usability
and acceptability of data users. Assila et al. (2016) studied user acceptance
survey tools and concluded that it is an excellent technical information and
application source. The authors assessed each published and non-published user
acceptance test and how they measure human-computer interaction. It is also
important to consider acceptability as measured by international standards like
ISO (Assila, et al, 2016)

35
2.2. Synthesis and Gaps
The literature reviewed by the scholar presents an opportunity for the
Department of Tourism and its stakeholders to take advantage of the new normal,
where information is the fuel for innovation and sustainability.
The UNWTO framework of monitoring tourism statistics has provided a
more flexible way of establishing a subnational tourism statistics framework.
Hence, the room for improvement is limited only by the interoperability of
statistical frameworks. Any framework developed must follow the official
statistics principles established by United Nations Statistical Commission,
particularly on coherence and international participation (UNSD, 2014).
It is crucial to identify the sector's impact on local destinations’ sustainable
tourism development. Understanding tourism impact can only be made with a
rigorous compilation of tourism data. Planning for the future will also need
analysis of the current and target markets, which can only be possible with reliable
segmentation of data particular to a place being assessed.
The study reveals a considerable absence of accessible literature on the
Philippine subnational tourism analysis. Be it destination, market, or product-wise.
Tourism research also tends to concern itself with national analysis; hence no
standard methods have been substantially implemented to support a
comprehensive and holistic subnational analysis.
DOT has tried to establish a standard subnational tourism data gathering
system. Unfortunately, it has failed to capture more involvement from data sources
in the local destinations. As pointed out in the reviewed literature on ICT
application in tourism, developing systems must consider how their users value it.
Still, the system is yet to replicate such a framework's advantages. The DOT must
explore data analytics to develop more information suitable for a fast-paced
industry like tourism.

36
2.3. Conceptual Design
Before the scholar proceeds with the concept design, it must be emphasized
that DOT is not entirely void of helpful tourism information systems (TIS). It has
many running systems that are sometimes overlapping. It is best to understand DOT
implements' current tourism information systems to avoid duplication and look for
ways to integrate the proposed innovation into the system.

a. DOT Standard Methods.

As stated in the introduction, the priority data gathering in the past
decades has been monitoring inbound tourism or foreign visitors. Hence, most
of the TIS in-place serve to monitor it. Inbound tourism is one of the primary
forms of tourism, referring to non-residents visiting another country. (UNWTO,
2008a)
DOT agreed with the Bureau of Immigration (BI) that the Department
would handle the encoding and processing of the arrival/departure cards that
passengers fill manually on their entry and exit in international airports. It is one
of the two sources of visitor arrivals (VA) to the Philippines (See Figure 12).
The other source is the sea manifests which is also under the authority of the BI.
DOT collects from various BI field offices in seaports where international ships
had their first port of call.

8.26

7.17
6.62
5.97
5.36
4.68 4.83
4.27
3.92
3.52
3.02

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Figure 12. Philippine Visitor Arrivals 2009 - 2019. Source: DOT

Meanwhile, the processed departure cards are the source of the outbound
tourism data. Outbound tourism refers to residents of the Philippines going out

37
of the country temporarily for purposes other than employment and migration.
(UNWTO, 2008a). The data assess the propensity of Filipinos to travel outside
the Philippines.
DOT regularly conducts the Annual Visitor Sample Survey (AVSS) for
inbound visitor profiles and travel characteristics. Depending on the volume of
international flights in an airport, it is implemented monthly (as with the case
of Ninoy Aquino International Airport [NAIA]), quarterly or bi-semestral (as
with the case of Mactan – Cebu International Airport [MCIA], Diosdado
Macapagal International Airport [DMIA], and the rest of the airports with
international flight outside Manila).
Some of the crucial indicators from this regular survey are the average
daily expenditure (ADE), the average length of stay (ALOS), and overall
experience satisfaction ratings (See Table 2 in Chapter 1). Note that this is only
applicable to foreign visitors, and only the Annual Report is officially used and
published by the Department. The report is also only applicable as a national-
level aggregate. The significant indicators from the abovementioned TIS are
crucial in estimating the tourism receipts, the estimated expenditure of inbound
visitors (Index Mundi, n.d.) using the VA, ADE, and ALOS. The tourism receipt
is computed annually by DOT (see Figure 13). It is also a national estimation
and cannot be disaggregated per region or port of entry to the Philippines due
to the limitation of data.

9.3

7.7

6.8

4.8 5.0 4.9

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Figure 13. Philippine Visitor Receipt 2014 - 2019. Source: DOT

38
 Another tourism information system is the Meetings, Incentives,
Convention, and Exhibition (MICE) Surveys—Convention Utilization survey
and MICE Expenditure Survey. MICE is a grouping of business tourism events
considered highly profitable due to the volume of visitors it can bring and the
extent of products and services it can consume in just one event. Due to the
limitation of the data, the indicators from the surveys can only be suitable as a
national aggregate. The data come from establishments that have facilities that
can cater to small meetings to big conferences. DOT asks the LGUs to gather
data from their area, but primarily these are collected by the DOT Central and
regional offices.
DOT encourages LGUS to compile data from two major tourism
enterprises to build the Regional Travelers Distribution in the destinations:
Accommodation establishments (AEs) and Tourist attractions (TAs). (DOT &
JICA, 2012) These are the basic methods included in the Standard Local
Tourism Statistics System (SLTSS). The tourism indicators captured from these
basic methodologies are the following:
1. the volume of tourists (in AEs) and visitors (in TAs) by country
or type of residence
2. number of rooms available in AEs
3. number of employees in AEs
4. Average room occupancy
5. Average Person per room
6. The average length of stay

The quality and coverage of data always depend on the efforts of LGUs
in compiling data. Hence, accompanying the collection from them is the
advocacy and capacity-building training associated with the methodology
(DOT, 2020).

Other LGUs interested in additional tourism indicators were also trained

by the DOT on visitor surveys. It would give them average daily expenditures
and other essential visitor profiles and travel characteristics. (DOT, 2018)
However, it is difficult to compile. No LGU has ever institutionalized the visitor
surveys and implemented them regularly, much like what the DOT-SEAIMD is
doing with their AVSS. Like the basic administrative data gathering, the

39
conduct of a visitor survey depends on the commitment of LGUs. The DOT
cannot require them to do so because most LGUs cannot do it themselves or
refuse to do it even if the surveys are simplified to contain only the most basic
indicators from a visitor survey to encourage them to do so. LGUs can add more
parameters, but they will have to consider if the questionnaire can still feasibly
capture enough respondents due to its length (DOT, 2018).

Currently, DOT uses the data gathering manual for internal tourism
published by the DOT – JICA Technical Cooperation on the Development of
Tourism Statistics Systems of Local Government Units from 2009 – 2012. First
is the Tourism Statistics Manual for Local Government Units 2012, which
revised the manual released by DOT and JICA in 2007. The manual is the basis
of essential data captured by the subnational level, both administrative and
survey data. (DOT & JICA, 2012) All of the methodologies included were
implemented first by LGUs of eleven (11) provinces:

1. Aklan, Western Visayas

2. Antique, Western Visayas
3. Capiz, Western Visayas
4. Guimaras, Western Visayas
5. Iloilo, Western Visayas
6. Negros Occidental, Western Visayas
7. Bohol, Central Visayas
8. Cebu, Central Visayas
9. Negros Oriental, Central Visayas
10. Siquijor, Central Visayas
11. Palawan, MIMAROPA

These were the provinces that belong to the super region cluster primed
for tourism by the Arroyo Administration. Hence, DOT chose them to become
the pilot provinces (PACET Corp, 2012). The decision was not necessarily
because they were the only performing tourism destinations during that time.
Destinations in Luzon and Mindanao have also been booming around that time.

The second manual produced by that project was the DOT – JICA
Tourism Development Planning Guidebook for Local Government Units. It

40
continued the discussion on statistics as applied in the preparation of a local
tourism development plan. It also limited the methodology to the analysis using
the data capture in the previous manual on statistics, then only added rapid
assessment tools for tourist attractions and local destinations. The main output
of the manual was to create a tourism development planning digest that will
serve as an overview of the local tourism destination for tourism planners and
investors. (DOT & JICA, 2012b) The guidebook covered the 3rd phase of the
DOT – JICA project. Only those that remained in the laddered program were
the ones who got to receive the third phase. These participants were consistent
in implementing the assignments and the methodology in between training
Participants learned how to estimate visitor arrivals using the indicators from
the methodologies discussed in the first and second phases. In addition, the
guidebook and the accompanying training also taught them destination mapping
and marketing.

The DOT – JICA Technical Cooperation is the basis for the ongoing
SLTSS Tourism Statistics Capacity Building Program (TSCBP) of DOT
SEAIMD. However, the scholar and his former Statistics chief, Director
Milagros Y. Say, revised the training given during that program, adjusting it
according to what is more effective for stakeholders over the years. It retained
the three learning phases. There were some statistical templates and processes
that were improved. However, there were no significant changes in the captured
data or indicators. It also followed the policy established during the DOT – JICA

Figure 14. The SLTSS Capacity Building Program. Source: DOT

41
 program that LGUs must implement phases 1 and 2 of the SLTSS (See Figure
14). As of this writing, only a few LGUs have reached Phase 3 or fully
implemented a regular local visitor sample survey.

Another DOT information system is the Accommodation Capacity

Survey (ACS). As the name suggests, it is a census of all the accommodation
establishments in the Philippines. SEAIMD does it every two to three years with
the help of the regional offices, the last one being in 2019. It has covered around
80% of the municipalities during the last conduct. The significant indicators
produced by the activity are the volume of establishments and rooms per
municipality (See Table 4). These are essential indicators to analyze a local
destination's readiness to accept visitors and forecast room requirements for
projected arrivals.

Table 4. Number of AE and Rooms per Region. Source: DOT

Regions AE Rooms Employees
Ilocos Region 951 12,961 10,329
Cagayan Valley 524 8,003 4,618
Central Luzon 792 20,021 13,622
Calabarzon 1,080 19,350 14,340
MIMAROPA 1,364 19,875 13,256
Bicol Region 871 13,844 9,477
Western Visayas 1,063 18,873 11,278
Central Visayas 2,053 44,346 27,022
Eastern Visayas 647 9,962 5,172
Zamboanga Peninsula 349 7,341 4,528
Northern Mindanao 402 8,848 5,110
Davao Region 558 13,582 8,086
Soccsksargen 577 9,173 4,832
Caraga 455 5,555 3,561
National Capital Region 444 48,882 29,897
Cordillera Administrative Region 661 10,239 6,503
GRAND TOTAL 12,791 270,855 171,631

b. PSA Tourism Related Data Gathering and Compilations.

DOT partnered with the PSA in data gathering and statistical table
compilations to develop national-level data for the national economic accounts.

The Philippine Tourism Satellite Account is the estimation table of the

contribution of the tourism sector in the national economy, particularly its share

42
in the gross domestic product in the form of gross value added (GVA) by
tourism characteristic activities, employment, consumption of both inbound and
domestic visitors, among others (See Figure 15).

Figure 15. Tourism Direct Gross Value Added, Gross Domestic Product at Current
Prices in Billion PHP and Percentage Share (PTSA 2019) Source: PSA

The TSA: RMF 2008 is the basis for the current system. In developing
the TSA: RMF 2008, the Philippines supported it and tested it as early as the
late 1980s. (PSA, 2020)
PSA is officially responsible for producing the PTSA. However, DOT
instead hired a consultant to lead the estimations regularly due to the constraints
in the human resources of PSA. As of this publication, the consultant, Ms.
Andrea Morales, a retired officer of the former NSCB, has been part of the pilot
PTSA tables team. It is the arrangement until PSA can train somebody to replace
the consultant's services to focus on the PTSA.
To come up with the estimations, PSA sourced its data from DOT,
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), and the economic-related databases from
various surveys of PSA. It also includes the ones DOT is sponsoring, such as
the Household Survey on Domestic Visitors (HSDV) and the Survey of Tourism
Establishments of the Philippines (STEP).
HSDV is a rider to the quarterly Labor Force Survey of PSA. It is a joint
project of PSA and DOT that started in 2005, implemented ideally every three
or four years. The last survey was in September 2016 (PSA, 2017). The HSDV
is an essential source of indicators on the volume of domestic travelers and their

43
 travel behaviors, including their expenditures (Garcia, 2017). According to the
PSA, due to the limitation of samples, the data is only reliable as national
aggregates. Hence, data users cannot use the expenditures and other indicators
to describe travelers from specific local origins. The design's output is the
visitors' overall travel behavior and not their behavior or expenditure in specific
destinations. (PSA, 2005)

Another cooperation of PSA and DOT is the Survey of Tourism

Establishments in the Philippines (STEP). It is a rider to PSA's regular conduct
of the Annual Survey of Philippine Business and Industry (ASPBI). PSA
conducted it last 2014, expanded to include ancillary tourism service providers.
The survey provides indicators on the businesses that participate in the tourism
sector like their income on tourism-related services, employment generation,
and invested capital on facilities and services provided (PSA, 2014).

c. Analysis of the Current Tourism Statistics System.

DOT has developed a reliable tourism system that mainly supports
determining tourism impact, overall visitor profile, and travel characteristics at
the national level. Hence, it is limited. It cannot describe what is happening at
the ground level – in the local or subnational destinations, wherein the benefits
of tourism are directly received.
Fortunately for the tourism sector, OTDPRIM and its statistics division,
SEAIMD, have been at the forefront of developing a standard tourism statistics
system for subnational destinations as early as 2007. It was fully realized and
formally launched in 2012 as the Standard Local Tourism Statistics System.
However, the system is incomplete and has been slow in making the local
government units adopt the system.
While it has succeeded in coming up with indicators connecting the local
tourism area with the market it serves, it lacks specific indicators that describe
the connection between the tourism product and the market. Developing a
marketing strategy is still limited to the access of data that are area-based and
not product-based. The system monitors limited travel characteristics.
One of the usual reasons LGUs and data sources for not committing to
the SLTSS implementation is the lack of more appropriate modalities and

44
 venues for data reporting, compilation, and sharing. DOT still relies on offline
compilation and manual data gathering. Even the surveys of the Department
have not embraced the use of online tools and systems. Although, few LGUs
have religiously followed the recommendations of DOT in terms of tourism data
building, and therefore, are capable of reporting sub-national indicators.
Implementing data systems has been too reliant on the resources and capabilities
of the subnational DMOs, the LGUs, and the private sector.
It resulted in the lack of reliable and uniform analytical reports on the
subnational tourism sector. It also affected the estimations made by PSA due to
the lack of data from the subnational level. Most of the PSA tourism indicators
cannot be disaggregated at the regional or provincial level.

d. The Conceptual Framework of the Proposed Innovation

As mentioned in Chapter 1, the capstone project seeks to improve the
sustainability of local destinations by providing a platform wherein tourism
information can be shared and accessed.
The problem lies within two variables. One is the participation of entities
who are data sources and first-level compilers. The identified entities are the
tourism stakeholders in the local destinations: LGUs and tourism enterprises.
Without the cooperation of the data sources and first-level compilers, tourism
information is not reliable, holistic, and complete. Hence, tourism data
managers should give ample reasons for them to buy into the data gathering
process. The second variable is the platform and the methodologies that allow
the sharing and exchange of information. It may be the factor why stakeholders
do not participate in the exchange. The information and analysis tool must be
improved to allow easier participation and more accessible venues for sharing
tourism data (See Figure 16).

45
 Figure 16. Conceptual Framework

The scholar assessed what information is of interest to the data sources

and first-level compilers to participate in the upkeep of subnational tourism
information. Consequently, the author identified information tools and
technology that will most likely feed their interest and make these stakeholders
willing participants of the system.
By increasing the value of these two variables, local decision-makers will
likely participate in the upkeep of subnational tourism information. It, in turn, will
enable them to create feasible subnational tourism policies and plans that can help
improve and sustain tourism development. Sustainable subnational tourism
development will decrease dependence on national plans that ironically depend
on the execution of local product development.
Accordingly, the improvement of subnational tourism information will
also expand the scope of national tourism data. It will increase the value of the
sustainability of national tourism development and marketing plans.

46
 Chapter 3

Methodology

This chapter shall talk about the methods deployed to implement the capstone
project. It includes the research design, the survey templates, and the implementation plan.

3.1 Research Design

The capstone project is an action research that employs qualitative and
quantitative methods to explore a problem. It is geared towards fulfilling its primary
goal of innovation. This new online platform will enable users to collect, compile, and
generate reports using subnational statistics, and at the same time, share local tourism
destination information. The project also aims to provide new ways of determining
subnational tourism indicators to leverage sustainable tourism development—refining
and improving existing strategies and interventions to reach the project's goal.
As an initial step, the project conducted a stakeholders’ data needs assessment
(SDNA) survey to determine essential data and tools. In addition to this, the team also
conducted a focused group discussion (FGD) on the revision of the Standard Local
Tourism Statistics System Manual.
To get inputs that would help develop the ICT innovation on DOT Subnational
Tourism Analytics and Reports Hub, including its visualizations and dashboards, a pilot
visitor survey and data compilation tool are included as new methodologies to
determine their effectiveness and improve the template and implementation plan.
The development of the system is two-pronged: the GIS dashboard and the
online database building modules and central hub. The former is an online dashboard
development and data-gathering tool that the team can integrate with the central
Tourism Information System. Once the system goes online, a user acceptance survey
on the pilot stakeholders will be implemented. These surveys shall enable the delivery
of a final product acceptable to most stakeholders and provide relevant services.
The capstone project also developed training modules to orient enumerators
with the new data-gathering tools. The team shall implement these modules for selected

47
participants from DOT and LGU during the pilot implementation. As with every
capacity-building activity, evaluation surveys to assess the implementation of the
training program will also be conducted.
Since the nature of action research is cyclic (Sacred Heart University, n.d.), the
development of monitoring and evaluation tools to enable the project to progress and
adjust to any situation are included and will be incorporated regularly into the work
program of the Office to ensure sustainability. The scholar proposed that the tools used
will be part of the standard operating procedures of the office.
Parallel to the development of the innovation was updating the manual on the
Standard Local Tourism Statistics System. The Revised SLTSS Manual shall
institutionalize the system and methodologies of the action research.
On 16 June 2021, Tourism Development Undersecretary Benito C. Bengzon,
Jr. approved the capstone project and created the Capstone Project Team (see Annex
9).

Table 5. CP Management and Core Team Composition (Approved in

Memorandum dated 16 June 2021 signed by Usec. Bengzon, Jr.)
Project Approval and Adviser Usec. Benito C. Bengzon, Jr.
Undersecretary, Tourism Development
Project Endorser and Adviser Director Warner M. Andrada
Scholar’s Institutional Partner OIC-Director, OTDPRIM
Project Endorser and Adviser Ms. Manette T. Reyes
Scholar’s Alternate Institutional OIC-Chief, SEAIMD
Partner
Project Team Leader The Scholar
Assistant Project Team Leaders and Major Tasks:
Implementation of Surveys, Ms. Faeroe Jeanne Fontanilla
Capacity Building, General TOOII, SEAIMD
Preparatory Logistical Requirement
Process
SLTSS Manual Revision Mr. Sherwyn Ramirez
TOOII, SEAIMD
DOT STAR Hub Development (as Mr. Paul Brian Lao
part of the DOT Tourism OIC-Chief, Information Technology
Information System) Division
Core Team Members and Major Tasks:
Implementation of Surveys and Mr. Ryan R. Carlos, SrTOO - SEAIMD
Capacity Building Mr. Keith Irvin Purqued, TOOI - SEAIMD
Ms. Khemille Alterado, TOOII – SEAIMD
SLTSS Manual Revision Ms. Rey Jean Almazan, TOOII – SEAIMD
Ms. Faeroe Jeanne Fontanilla, TOOII,
SEAIMD

48
 DOT STAR Hub Development Mr. Emmanuel Alfaro, SpvTOO – SEAIMD
Ms. Faeroe Jeanne Fontanilla, TOOII,
SEAIMD
Mr. Sherwyn Ramirez, TOOII, SEAIMD
Mr. Jocel Banas, IT Programmer and
Database Manager - SEAIMD
Mr. Kenneth Ruedas, TOOI - TDPD
Mr. Erwin Umandal, ITA - ITD
Mr. Ryan Hizon, ITA – ITD

Additional assignments and staff from SEAIMD were made during the
implementation. The scholar reassigned Mr. Carlos to the Manual Revision Team, and
Ms. Russell dela Cruz of SEAIMD also augmented the Manual revision team. More
staff from SEAIMD were included as part of the survey supervising team: Ms. Paula
Regine Tanchoco, Ms. Sharlynne Balitaan, and Mr. Ramirez. For the STAR Hub
development, Ms. Rey Jean Almazan and Mr. Keith Irvin Purqued were assigned to the
sub-project team.
The approval of the action research implementation was instrumental in the
preparation and implementation of the components of the project. The SEAIMD
conducted the action research with the help of other divisions of the Office of Tourism
Development Planning, Research and Information Management (OTDPRIM) (see
Figure 1 in Chapter 1 for DOT's Organizational Structure). OTDPRIM, as its name
suggests, handles tourism development planning, including infrastructure development
and policymaking. The OPMD handles marketing strategies for tourism products which
are also beneficial in advancing specific product development (DOT, 2009).
OTDPRIM has four divisions responsible for the different elements of tourism
development. SEAIMD data gathering and analysis and capacity building for database
building; PFICD, policymaking, and setting the standard on policymaking in the
Philippines; TDPD is responsible for the development plans and the standards in
development planning. The fourth division has a broader scope, the ITD, which handles
the whole Department's ICT infrastructure and procurement and supports the
development of ICT-related systems concerning tourism development planning and
statistics.
In consideration of office organizational structure and tasking, the scholar chose
the members of the CP core team from the different divisions of the OTDPRIM. The
assistance of selected DOT regional offices (RO) was also requested to validate
identified local government units ready to help pilot the tools. During the second and
49
third phases, the RO will also help coordinate the implementation of the new data-
gathering tools and promote the online system. Once the online system is up and
running, the team planned to ask various offices like the DOT's foreign offices (FO)
and the Tourism Promotions Board (TPB) to help evaluate the system.

a. Locale of the Study

The application of the output of the action research is national. However,
due to the limitation on the capstone implementation, at least one Regional Office
and selected constituent LGUs will be involved in the pilot implementation of the
proposed data gathering methodologies and the innovation developed. The
capstone report timeline covered the implementation of at least one pilot in the
three tentative pilot sites: Baguio City, Ilocos Region, and Boracay. The first two
local destinations have always been committed to implementing the data-
gathering projects under the DOT SLTSS. On the other hand, Boracay is a
primary local destination that needs updated monitoring tools to maintain its
popularity with domestic and foreign visitors. These destinations were also part
of the few areas that opened up for the domestic market as early as 2020.
For the SDNA for LGU and TE, the target respondents were
representatives of LGUs and TEs nationwide.
For the FGD of the Manual Revision, the team identified qualified regions
to participate in an online live video forum. They also asked the regions to invite
representatives from some LGUs to participate in the said online FGD.
As abovementioned, once the system goes online, it will be implemented
gradually to local destinations starting with selected pilot regions, ideally from
two local destinations. The User Acceptance Survey shall then be implemented to
every participating region and LGU to gauge the effectiveness of the innovation
and improve it before it goes fully operational online.

b. Unit of the Study

The unit of the study is respondents and participants from the public and
private tourism stakeholder entities comprising the LGUs and TEs. It was the case
both for the SDNA and the FGD. The scholar also asked the Internal stakeholders
and other national government agencies to participate as respondents in one of the
SDNA surveys.
50
 For the TPMS pilot implementation, the unit would be the visitors of the
local destinations.

c. Proposed Sampling Design

For the SDNA, simple random sampling and convenient sampling were
used due to the restrictions made by the pandemic and the unavailability of actual
figures for one of the target population segments.
Given the finite number of provinces, cities, and municipalities in the
Philippines (DILG, 2020), all LGUs were given a chance to be part of the sample.
At the early stage of the sampling, the ideal sample size was identified using the
Cochran Formula adjusting for a finite population (see Figure 12) and adjusted
further by an Expected Response Rate (ERR).

Wherein:
N = population
e = margin of error {percentage, put into decimal form (for example, 5% = 0.05)}.
P = percentage picking a choice, usually the middle value
Z = z-score (confidence level)

Adjusted Sample Size = Sample Size / ERR

Figure 17. Sample Size Formula and Z-Score Equivalents of Confidence Level Desired

Cochran’s formula of determining sample size was used due to its

capability to be adjusted according to the size of the target population and its
consideration of the confidence level and margin of error desired. It works well
in any size. (Glen, n.d.). It enabled the scholar to define survey precision as early
as during the sampling determination and when he validated the actual sampling
size.
51
 The z-score is the number of standard deviations a given proportion is
away from the mean. To find the right z-score to use, refer to Figure 17. The z-
score is used as the critical value to the margin of error.
For standard purposes, the following parameters were used to determine
sample quota:
• e = 5%
• P = 50%
• Z = 1.96
• ERR = 80%
According to a survey website, an acceptable range of the margin of error
falls under 4% to 8% (Pollfish, n.d.). In market research, social studies, and polls,
95% is the most common value for confidence level (Sims, 2016). An ERR of
80% allowed the determination and discard of erroneous responses while
considering the desired sampling size quota.
For the SDNA-LGU, the project had two target sample quotas:
Computed sample size quota per region and Computed nationwide sample size,
distributed proportionally per region. While the first target was ideal for regional
disaggregation, the accomplishment of the second target was focused on as it was
more feasible given the modality and the time allotted for the research. The
scholar targeted 393 samples. (see Table 6)
For the SDNA-TE, the scholar chose convenient sampling since there is
no comprehensive database on tourism enterprises. However, the scholar used a
baseline population for accommodation establishments (AE) from DOT’S ACS
2019. Hence, it was possible to compute an ideal sample size. The scholar settled
for a nationwide target of 373 samples for accommodation establishments. For
other TEs, the scholar settled for voluntary response sampling to augment the
samples from the accommodation establishments. (see Table 7)

52
 Table 6. Number of LGUs, Actual Respondents, and Sample Size Quota
Number of LGUs Target Sample Size Actual Valid LGU Represented Sample Size Actual Pax Respondent Size
Regional
Ideal Actual Valid Actual
Region % Disaggregation Adjusted Total
Prov. Cities Mun. Total Regional Prov Cities Mun Total Representation Sample MOE (in
Share Using the Grand Targeted Respondents
Samples MOE Size %)
Total Quota
Luzon 38 74 697 809 47.2% 260.5 148.1 325.6 9 26 131 166 6.8% 185 6.3%
CAR 6 2 75 83 4.8% 68.3 15.2 2 2 11 15 22.9% 19 19.7%
MIMAROPA 5 2 71 78 4.5% 64.8 14.3 1 14 15 22.7% 15 22.7%
NCR 16 1 17 1.0% 16.3 3.1 6 6 32.2% 12 15.3%
Region I 4 9 116 129 7.5% 96.6 23.6 2 7 9 31.5% 10 29.8%
Region II 5 4 89 98 5.7% 78.1 17.9 2 6 8 33.2% 8 33.2%
Region III 7 14 116 137 8.0% 101.0 25.1 1 3 14 18 21.5% 20 20.3%
Region IVA 5 20 122 147 8.6% 106.3 26.9 2 5 43 50 11.3% 52 10.9%
Region V 6 7 107 120 7.0% 91.4 22.0 3 6 36 45 11.5% 49 10.8%
Visayas 16 39 369 424 24.7% 201.5 77.6 251.9 4 11 57 72 10.5% 78 10.0%
Region VI 6 16 117 139 8.1% 102.1 25.4 4 8 40 52 10.8% 58 9.8%
Region VII 4 16 116 136 7.9% 100.4 24.9 2 10 12 27.0% 12 27.0%
Region VIII 6 7 136 149 8.7% 107.4 27.3 1 7 8 33.7% 8 33.7%
Mindanao 27 33 422 482 28.1% 213.8 88.2 267.2 1 10 29 40 14.8% 41 14.6%
Region IX 3 5 67 75 4.4% 62.7 13.7 1 1 97.3% 10 28.9%
Region X 5 9 84 98 5.7% 78.1 17.9 3 7 10 29.4% 8 33.2%
Region XI 5 6 43 54 3.1% 47.3 9.9 3 4 7 34.6% 5 41.7%
Region XII 4 5 45 54 3.1% 47.3 9.9 1 4 5 41.7% 11 26.4%
Region XIII 5 6 67 78 4.5% 64.8 14.3 2 9 11 27.4% 6 38.4%
BARMM 5 2 116 123 7.2% 93.2 22.5 1 1 4 6 39.0% 1 97.6%
Grand Total 81 146 1488 1715 100.0% 313.9 313.9 392.3 14 47 217 278 5.4% 352 304 5.1%

Table 7. Number of Establishments, Actual Respondents, and Sample Size Quota

Target Sample Valid
Valid Valid
Size Per Adjusted Actual
Target Sample Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual
Other % Region Using Targeted Sample
Region AE Total Size for Regional Sample Sample MOE MOE Sample MOE
TE Share the Grand Sample Size for
Disaggregation Size Size for (in %) (in %) Size (in %)
Total Sample Size Other
AE Total
Size Quota TE
Luzon 6687 0 6687 51.5% 363.3 192.3 454.1 155 7.8% 75 11.3% 230 6.3%
CAR 661 661 5.1% 243.0 19.0 20 21.6% 9 32.4% 29 17.8%
MIMAROPA 1364 1364 10.5% 299.7 39.2 1 98.0% 1 98.0% 2 69.2%
NCR 444 444 3.4% 206.0 12.8 20 21.4% 6 39.7% 26 18.6%
Region I 951 951 7.3% 273.6 27.3 5 43.7% 6 39.9% 11 29.4%
Region II 524 524 4.0% 221.7 15.1 - - -
Region III 792 792 6.1% 258.7 22.8 18 22.8% 10 30.8% 28 18.2%
Region IVA 1080 1080 8.3% 283.4 31.1 91 9.8% 41 15.0% 132 8.0%
Region V 871 871 6.7% 266.6 25.0 - 2 69.2% 2 69.2%
Visayas 3946 0 3946 30.4% 350.1 113.5 437.6 174 7.3% 59 12.7% 233 6.2%
Region VI 1089 1089 8.4% 284.0 31.3 95 9.6% 51 13.4% 146 7.5%
Region VII 2210 2210 17.0% 327.3 63.6 76 11.0% 7 37.0% 83 10.6%
Region VIII 647 647 5.0% 241.0 18.6 3 56.4% 1 97.9% 4 48.8%
Mindanao 2341 0 2341 18.0% 330.0 67.3 412.5 79 10.8% 32 17.2% 111 9.1%
Region IX 349 349 2.7% 182.9 10.0 - - -
Region X 402 402 3.1% 196.4 11.6 19 21.9% 13 26.7% 32 16.6%
Region XI 558 558 4.3% 227.5 16.0 15 25.0% 9 32.4% 24 19.6%
Region XII 546 546 4.2% 225.5 15.7 17 23.4% 3 56.4% 20 21.5%
Region XIII 455 455 3.5% 208.3 13.1 28 17.9% 6 39.7% 34 16.2%
BARMM 31 31 0.2% 28.7 0.9 - 1 96.4% 1 96.4%
Grand Total 12974 0 12974 100.0% 373.1 373.1 466.4 633 408 4.8% 166 7.6% 574 4.0%
Share: 71.1% 28.9% Female 373 5.0%
Male 201 6.9%

53
 The scholar used a purposive and voluntary response method for the
SDNA for DOT and National Government Agencies since there was no targeted
population of specific NGA local tourism data users. Supposedly, the plan was to
survey only DOT offices. However, that DOT being the primary local tourism
data compiler and user, the survey would be more biased to its need. The survey
then was opened to other national agencies to look into the perceptions of other
data users when it comes to the subject.
For the FGD on the Manual Revision, the sampling design used a
purposive method. The team only invited participants from selected regions which
has been doing their part for the last five years to capacitate their LGUs with the
SLTSS. The participants were divided randomly into three groups during the
online FGD to solicit more responses for the time allotted for the discussions.
The TPMS was designed to follow a clustered sampling method using the
Cochran Formula to develop the sampling size for the period (month) it covers.
The team planned to follow this procedure once they implemented the pilot
survey. Target respondents are visitors or clients of tourism enterprises.
Respondents should represent specific periods and days to determine if there are
variances between the time of visit.
Similarly, the UAS also followed clustered sampling method once DOT
implemented the system in all regions. Once sampling size is determined, the team
could augment samples to disaggregate specific target population segments.
During the pilot stage, all users will be asked to participate in the UAS.

d. Data Collection Procedures

The scholar led the team to various processes before the data gathering.
The team digitized all surveys with the use of Google Forms. Google Form made
it possible to reach target respondents online and automatically encoded on a
centralized database.
For the TPMS, the team also listed paper-based encoding as one of the
modalities when it is possible to do actual or face-to-face interviews. The plan
was to encode it on the Google Form once the enumerators did the interview
survey missions.
For the SDNA, the Undersecretary of Tourism Development signed an
official memo requesting the regional offices to implement the survey. He also
54
 signed a letter of introduction for the survey tools to strengthen the study's
legitimacy and possibly increase the rate of return for the survey.
After the officials signed the Memorandums for ROs and the introductory
letters (see Annex 10 – 13), the capstone team asked the ROs to communicate the
survey links to the LGUs and TEs under their jurisdiction. Three SDNA surveys
were rolled out to target respondents beginning July 20, 2021, and closed by
September 11, 2021.

The team and the regional offices sent Google Form Links thru email to all
target respondents. Initially, the team gave respondents two to three weeks to
respond, but they eventually extended due to poor response rates. To augment the
survey campaign, the capstone team also utilized the free email campaign features
of a customer relationship management online system, sendinblue.com. (see Annex
14). The link was also posted on personal Facebook Accounts, considering active
connections with tourism officers. He also posted the link on chat groups with
members from the target population.

Once the survey was closed, the data was processed by downloading the
database to excel format. The scholar had to validate respondents, check for
errors, and utilize Excel's pivot features to generate reports.
For the TPMS, the scholar planned to do face-to-face interviews and
interactions with target respondents during the pretest and pilot surveys. The
scholar sought to capture perceptions regarding the survey during the pretest and
pilot. It would help make the tool better. The pilot LGUs were also asked to
evaluate the tool and made sure that the team considered the comments on the
design of the TPMS. A training participant evaluation form (see Annex 6) will
also be implemented during the Pilot Implementation orientation workshops to
gauge the effectiveness of the capacity-building tool.

Another data gathering tool used was the structured focus group
discussion. The FGD was one of the first activities of the Manual Revision
project. The consultant for the Manual Revision prepared the documentation for
the FGD last September 17, 2021. The team structured the FGD to solicit
comments from the selected participants regarding local data gathering and the
current SLTSS Manual.

55
 A User Acceptance Survey (UAS) (see Annex 7) was also developed and
will be used once the DOT STAR Hub is launched online. It will be sent to pilot
users both from data producers and users: DOT Regional Offices and Foreign
Offices, LGUs, TEs, and the general public through social media webpages. It
was modeled after the USE Framework of Professor Arnold Lund, who graciously
allowed the scholar to use his tool on the action research (See Annex 8).
The scholar's team also incorporated input made during consultations and
meetings, particularly while creating the content and user interface of the online
portal, STAR Hub, and the linked GIS dashboard. It was also the process followed
by the team on the revision of the DOT Statistics Manual.

e. Tools of Analysis
The team implemented a series of data gathering tools to launch the actual
online DOT STAR Hub and release the revised local tourism statistics manual.
The surveys included needs assessment questions and those that could help
identify which needs are essential. It made it possible to categorically gauge
DOT's actions as satisfiers, delighters, or the opposite (George, et al., 2012)
The SDNA Surveys were patterned from the Problem Statement (See
Chapter 1) of this action research. Ultimately it sought what data are interesting
and of concern for stakeholders and what could make them participate in the data
compilation. It also asked if they would be interested in being part of the
implementation of the online system. For the SDNA-LGU, the scholar included
questions designed to assess the respondents using the lens of the Diffusion of
Innovation Adopter Categories of E. M. Rogers. The scholar reframed the
questions from the tool Savery (2005) introduced in her study on understanding
the capacity of public relations practitioners to absorb innovations (Savery, 2008).
SDNA Survey Types:
1. Stakeholders Data Needs Assessment (SDNA) for LGU– its target
respondents were the LGU tourism office representatives. (See Annex 1)
2. Stakeholders’ Data Needs Assessment for TE – its target respondents
were the tourism enterprises (AE and TA) at the local level. (See Annex
2)

56
 3. Stakeholder Data Needs Assessment for DOT and NGA – its target
respondents were public sector data users at the national agencies. (See
Annex 3)

SDNA Google Form Link and QR Code:

1. For LGUs - https://forms.gle/vdaC9pxtNuGvQn618

2. For TEs – https://forms.gle/y77BC9PmFVnTxHAX7

3. For DOT Offices - https://forms.gle/PsSJ7xANThVbMT8MA

The stakeholders were also asked to evaluate the two data-gathering tools
that the capstone project will introduce. During the action research period, the
scholar had initial discussions with concerned stakeholders regarding the design
of the tools.

57
1. Market Assessment Tool for Tourist Attractions (MATTA) - is a rapid
assessment tool for tourist attractions. It emphasizes the capture of GIS data
be used in dashboards and serves as a template to organize administrative and
survey data, prepping them for analysis. The MATTA combines a compilation
form for standard administrative data and survey data recommended to local
destinations for monitoring by DOT and a rapid assessment of the tourist
attraction. The design is a mini portfolio for each tourism site (See Annex 4).

MATTA Google Form Link: https://bit.ly/DOTMATTA

MATTA Google Form QR Code:

2. Tourism Product Market Survey is a type of market research deploying

stratified or clustered random sampling of visitors of a tourist attraction,
activity, or event. The target respondents are those participating in the local
attraction or destination activities or exiting the establishments or local
destinations. In answering the survey, they must include all the existing
markets of a destination, including foreign and domestic, to capture a better
figure on what they have spent or how long they have been at the destination.
It is envisioned to enrich the literature on product-market matching as it
determines information from patrons of certain tourism products in the local
destinations. (See Annex 5)

58
 TPMS Google Form Link: http://bit.ly/3s7RG3a
QR Code:

As part of the monitoring and evaluation tools, the team also opted to
implement the standard Training Evaluation Survey to assess the orientation
modules' effectiveness during the orientations.
Another part of the evaluation tool is the User Acceptance Survey to assess
the usefulness of the online system once it goes online. It will also serve as a
survey to advance the system before upscaled implementation. The USE
(Usefulness, Satisfaction, and Ease of Use) Questionnaire developed by Professor
Arnold Lund (1998) was used due to its brevity and based on the review of Assila
et al. (2016).
The Focus Group Discussions were all structured. During the first FGD
last September 17, 2021, the team came up with guide questions that guided the
discussions to the required data concerning the revision of the Manual as well as
a validation for the elements of the innovation being designed (see Annex 15).
Aside from the FGD, the team treated each meeting as a semi-structured
focus group discussion that discussed design ideas and evaluated prototypes and
the capstone project's component activities.
The output of these surveys and discussions served as implementation
tests and content identification that helped finalize elements of the tourism
information systems and the online dashboards.

f. Framework of analysis
The output of the SDNA was assessed using simple frequency and
percentage distribution. Scales and Ratings were averaged and subjected to
standard deviation and variance tests to assess the average means' reliability. The

59
SDNA surveys' output was compared and matched similar questions for each
SDNA survey analyzing common themes and patterns.
The scholar also used simple frequency and percentage distribution using
common themes and patterns to assess the FGDs.
For the TPMS and MATTA tools, the team documented discussion points
and assessed common themes and patterns observed by pilot regional offices and
LGUs. Vague or erroneous questions for the survey tools were considered signals
for improvement for the tools. The meetings and discussion led to an analysis of
common themes and patterns. The team shall also practice process observation
during the pilot and continuing implementations of the TPMS and MATTA and
assess questions keen on errors for possible improvement or replacement.
The sampling design shall also be assessed for feasibility and signs of non-
sampling biases during the pilot survey.
Once implemented, the team shall use reliability tests, like the standard
deviation and variance on the User Acceptance Survey. The team will also subject
it to an analysis of common themes and patterns.

60
3.2. Implementation Plan
The scholar devised the capstone project into three phases of implementation
with specific schedules and activities. The following matrices guide the implementation
of the capstone. However, schedules and specific activities are adjusted depending on
situations and limitations experienced during the implementation. The adjustments
were all necessary to continue achieving the objectives of the capstone project. All these
are documented on the three progress reports submitted from June to August 2021(see
Annex 16 to 18). Some of the implemented activities and milestones were not covered
anymore by the progress reports submitted. The progress of the capstone project is
discussed in Chapter 4.

Proposed Implementation Plan:

1st Phase – Preparatory and Prototyping (May – October 2021)

2nd Phase - Pilot Implementation and Launch of Major Components (October

2021 – May 2022)

3rd Phase – Upscaling and Implementation (starting June 2022)

a. First Phase Action Plan (see Table 8 - 10)

The first objective for Phase 1 was getting support and approval for the
capstone project from the upper management of DOT. Initially, the scholar secured
a memorandum from the Undersecretary of Tourism Development Planning
formally supporting the capstone implementation and creating the core team to
manage the capstone project. The scholar also made sure that the projects under the
capstone are on the work and financial plan (WFP) and the annual procurement plan
(APP) of OTDPRIM. The scholar and his team also prepared the documents needed
to proceed and procure service providers. The documents were needed for funding
and fund transfers, travel documents, and other related government processes.

To ensure that the data gathering is legitimate and of utmost importance to

the industry, the Undersecretary signed a letter that briefly stated the purpose of the
data gathering and encouraged their participation.

61
 Under the preparatory stage, The CP Core Team transferred the templates
into the google forms once the survey tools were approved. They ensured that the
tools would capture the needed data orderly and that the online links were working.
They also prepared capacity-building modules for each survey during the
orientation of enumerators. Each training participant is evaluated using the DOT
QMS-approved Training Evaluation Survey (see Annex 6).

The team coordinated with pilot regional offices and local government units
to test the Tourism Product Market Survey (TPMS) and the Market Assessment
Tool for Tourist Attractions. The proposed first pilot local destinations are Baguio
City, Boracay, and Ilocos Region. However, only one of these destinations was
planned for the pilot implementation during the report phase of the capstone. The
Core Team selected two destinations that were highly likely to have visitors during
those periods. For MATTA, since this is an assessment of tourist attractions only,
other regions might be added by the team so long as the DOT regional office and
the local government units there are willing to implement the MATTA. However,
the team deemed it essential to consider the conduct of all the surveys and pilot
testing in at least one local destination, including the Stakeholders Data Needs
Assessment and the assessment of the developed online system. Doing so would
enable the scholar to evaluate the implementation of all the components of the
capstone project on one local destination, creating one cohesive network of data and
information.

OTDPRIM transferred the funds to the pilot regional offices for the
expenses incurred during the enumerators' orientation and the pilot survey's
implementation.

The Core Team planned to proceed first with the TPMS Pre-test on a local
destination to determine the quality of the survey tool and how to implement it
feasibly. After the pretest, the team can proceed with the pilot full survey
implementation on the same destination with adjustments considering the pretest
observations.

For the TPMS, SEAIMD included funds for the enumerators' 10-days
allowance, which will have to be hired by the regional office. The enumerators will
have about six to seven days to implement the survey.

62
 The orientation for the MATTA implementation will be conducted during
the TPMS. The participant LGU are given at least three weeks to conduct the
MATTA compilations for their tourist attractions. After three weeks, the team will
coordinate with the participants regarding their implementation, focusing on issues
and possible improvements. The participants will be invited again for a MATTA
data processing workshop. After the pilot implementation, the team will
recommend that the LGUs continue doing the MATTA compilation for their
tourism sites.

An integral part of the capstone is the Stakeholders Data Needs Assessment

(SDNA) Surveys. For the SDNA Survey for LGUs and TEs, the team requested the
regional offices through a formal memorandum to the TRCRG sector to disseminate
the links to the LGUs and TEs. In addition, email campaigns were also sent out
through sendinblue.com, a customer relationship management (CRM) system to all
LGUs. The regional offices supplied the emails; however, some were erroneous and
possibly not updated.

The team also sent out the SDNA survey for Tourism Enterprises to the list
of AEs with e-mails from the Accommodation Capacity Survey of 2017 and 2019.
It was also sent to the member organizations of the Tourism Congress of the
Philippines to share it with their members. An email campaign for DOT attached
agencies and other national government agencies was also sent using the
abovementioned CRM system to known officers of the agencies. In addition to all
these, the links were also posted to social media, as some of the tourism officers
and agencies are connected through these online social networks.

Respondents were given more than a month to respond (from July 25 –

September 11, 2021). The period was extended from three weeks due to the poor
responses. Target respondents were reminded constantly through messages and the
regional offices. Once the surveys were closed, responses were checked and
validated, and reports were generated.

For the First Phase, the team coordinated with the contracted service
provider for the GIS systems, which will be integrated into the central online system
and modules of the DOT STAR hub.

63
 Geodata developed the prototypes for the GIS dashboard and the online
survey tools. For the GIS dashboard, the Capstone team populated the database
schema proposed by Geodata. The team evaluated the graphic user interface (GUI)
of the developed prototypes. The GIS Dashboard will have to be integrated with the
Tourism Information System (TIS) developed in the latter phases of this capstone.
Hence, the team ensured that the schema could be populated automatically with that
TIS once completed.

The team, led by the Information Technology Division (ITD) Officer-in-

Charge Lao, prepared the terms of reference (TOR) for the procurement of a
consultant to develop the DOT Tourism Information System that includes the DOT
STAR Hub. OIC Director Andrada also took it as his responsibility to forge a TOR
consistent with what DOT needs and use the agile software development principles.
The development of the system shall be structured in an agile project management
framework, adjusting from one iteration to another in consideration of significant
observations and defined needs of the end-users in mind.

The scholar adjusted the TOR and the evaluation sheets for the TIS
according to the Bids and Awards Committee’s (BAC) recommendations and
requirement that the project is done by March 2022 due to the funding policies. To
comply, the TIS is targeted to be available for the pilot test by then. Since the
procurement and the development of the existing online system shall be concluded
after the required reporting period for the action research, the project brief for the
modules to be included on the TIS and the online dashboard for the STAR Hub that
would integrate the subnational tourism systems was prepared including a design
proposal for the STAR Hub dashboard.

The creation of the DOT Subnational Tourism Analytics and Reporting Hub
(DOT STAR Hub) shall be part of a more extensive effort of the department in
digitizing its information systems.

The last component of the capstone project is the revision of the existing
Tourism Statistics Manual for Local Government Units and its accompaniment
Tourism Development Planning Guidebook for Local Government Units, both
released by DOT - JICA in 2012. The current subnational tourism statistics
compilation and its capacity-building are based on these are the publications.

64
However, the templates, data gathering methods, and training modules have been
revised many times after its release. The Tourism Guidebook for LGUs (DOT,
DILG, DENR, & DAP, 2014) has superseded the inaptly named Tourism
Development Planning Guidebook for LGUs. However, the 2014 Guidebook is
void of the more rigorous statistical methodologies that the 2012 Guidebook
included, albeit updated already by the scholar many times for technical and
practical purposes. The team drafted the proposed outlines and the initial revision
writeups for the two books, releasing them as one volume, including all the changes
that have been implemented and will be implemented due to the capstone project.

The team successfully led the procurement of a consultant group last August
2021 to revise the manual. They required that the service provider be an expert on
statistics, tourism, and communication to ensure that its target users would easily
understand the new manual. The service provider shall continue discussing the
revised edition with the core team and will have at least 63 weeks to rewrite and
release a press proof copy by December 2021.

As part of the first phase, the scholar prepared the capstone reports and the
sustainability plan for the innovation.

65
Table 8. First Phase Action Plan and Project Matrix Part 1:

66
Table 9. First Phase Action Plan and Project Matrix Part 2:

67
Table 10. First Phase Action Plan and Project Matrix Part 3:

68
b. Second Phase Action Plan (see Table 11)

The second phase shall continue the pilot implementation of the TPMS and
MATTA in other local destinations. More importantly, it will also be when the DOT
STAR hub goes online for assessment.

To continue the database building in preparation for the launch of the online
system, the team shall expand the TPMS and MATTA pilot implementation with
other regions and LGUs. Much like the first phase, OTDPRIM shall provide the
funding for the orientation and the expenses for the enumerators. The proposed
pilots shall expand to other local destinations depending on the local stakeholders’
willingness to participate in the pilot implementation and the situation of the
community quarantine and local lockdowns with the COVID19 pandemic.

As aforementioned, the DOT STAR Hub might be ready at this time for soft
launching and assessment. The core team shall do the initial assessment, and after
necessary iterations, it will be introduced to end-users, both data producers and
users. The team shall identify local destinations where the accompanying surveys
can be done. However, these destinations must have complete reported basic
tourism data. The pilot users will be oriented by the core team and the service
provider. Data providers will be given ample time to accomplish the required data
that the online system will process. Once enough data is provided to generate
dashboards and reports, this will be introduced to data users and social media. A
user acceptance survey shall be done for both data providers and data users. (see
Appendix 7).

The assessment report shall be used for further iteration depending on what
shall be allowed by the service provider's contract and the capability of the data
system managers.

During the second phase, the Revised SLTSS Manual shall be finalized with
updates from the online system. It will then be proofread, published, and distributed
to pilot local destinations.

69
Table 11. Second Phase Action Plan and Project Matrix:

70
c. Third Phase Action Plan (see Table 12)

The project's third phase shall continue expanding the implementation of the
new surveys parallel to that of the established data gathering methodologies.

The OTDPRIM shall continue to fund the implementation of the TPMS until
such time that the LGUs have prepared themselves to implement the surveys
themselves. More resources should be available to the LGUs due to the Mandanas
Ruling (CORE Movement Ph, 2020).

The Core team shall invite other regions and local stakeholders to use the
DOT STAR Hub and provide orientation for its application.

As part of the capstone project, a monitoring and evaluation policy shall be

adopted to continue institutionalizing the new sub-national tourism statistics
system, including the STAR Hub's upkeep. It will be implemented, and regularly
scheduled reviews of the system shall be part of it. The SDNA survey, training
evaluation survey, and user acceptance survey will be part of the M & E tools to
advance the development of the statistical systems of DOT, including the
milestones of this capstone project.

d. Risk and Treatment

As enumerated by the action plan matrix (see tables 6 – 10), most of the
risk concerns the delay of approval due to the unavailability of signatories and
decision-makers or incapacity to do the work due to other workloads from other
assignments within the Department.

To address this issue, the team will have to process all documents early to
give ample time to decision-makers to approve and sign the documents and the
project components. Another is to create a policy scheduling follow-ups with target
respondents and participants.

The involvement of other staff aside from the core team would also benefit
the project. The data gathering methods introduced here would be regular activities
after its initial implementation.

71
Table 12. Third Phase Action Plan and Project Matrix:

72
e. Budgetary Requirement

The capstone project covered activities included in the 2020 and 2021 Work
plans of SEAIMD and ITD. The scholar anticipated it during its time on the PMDP–
MMC residency training last year, 2020. It was timely that the procurement of
services and project implementation was delayed due to the pandemic. It led to its
implementation at present, 2021.

The budget proposed are the following:

1. 2020 Continuing Budget and 2021 Proposed Budget –

PHP 32,675,600.00
2. 2022 Proposed Budget for TPMS – PHP 6,900,000.00

The bulk of the budget (PHP 28,250,000.00) is allotted for the Tourism
Information System development, including other systems besides those aligned to
the DOT STAR Hub. The service procured will cover all the tourism information
systems hence the absence of an itemized budget. Also, the budget did not reflect
the expenses incurred in procuring the GIS system and its service provider, which
was already awarded and is ongoing. The possible expenses incurred by the DOT
regional offices that will implement the tools are also not included.

73
 CHAPTER 4

RESULT AND ANALYSIS

This chapter discusses the data gathering results described in Chapter 3 and the
milestones achieved for the capstone project as of September 2021.

4.1. Results
a. Approval of Capstone Project and its component sub-projects
As of September 29, 2021, DOT management has approved and signed all
of the component Sub-projects’ TOR and NTP. The momentum started with the
endorsement and support of the capstone project and its capstone project team (see
Annex 9). Last June 2021, the TOR of the three data gathering tools (SDNA,
MATTA, and TPMS) were approved and cleared to proceed (see Annex 19 to 23
for respective TOR and NTP of the activities above).
The TOR entitled “Procurement of the Service of a Consultant for the
SLTSS Manual Revision” was approved for bidding in July 2021 (see Annex 24).
The Manual Revision Project Team deemed it essential that the project needs a
publishing house for consultants' manual and technical services on tourism statistics
and communications research. Hence, the Manual Revision team revised it after
consultation with the Bid and Awards Committee (BAC).
As for the Tourism Information System’ (TIS) TOR, Director Warner
Andrada approved it for transmittal to BAC last September 21, 2021 (see Annex
25). The TOR was redesigned by Director Andrada together with ITD-OIC Paul
Brian Lao and the scholar. While it may seem like a generic IT development project
brief, the new TOR is particular on the required features of the new TIS and a lot
more room to develop the system in an agile method. The scholar notes that it is
unusual for a government IT project reference to be written befitting only a service-
oriented or research project consultant. However, developing a new TIS may need
a few days of business assessment and project inception to understand what is
needed. It also fits the timeline for the capstone, as it has given time to consider the
outputs of this action research.

74
b. Conduct of the SDNA Surveys
(1) SDNA for LGU. (see Annex 1 for the SDNA-LGU Questionnaire and Annex
26 for the SDNA-LGU Tables)

i. Respondents. Out of 1,715 LGUs in the Philippines, only 278 were

represented by the respondents to the survey out of the expected 352
respondents. Upon validation, the scholar cannot include 48 respondents as
they are either individuals that do not belong to LGUs or duplicate entries.
With 5.4% MOE, it was closed to the national target sampling quota of 314
(on a MOE of 5% and the standard confidence level of 95%). Disaggregation
lower than the region is not reliable statistically as the survey yielded more
than 10% MOE on all regions. Luzon is statistically reliable for the island
groups disaggregation with 6.8% MOE, while the Visayas sits on the brink
with 10.5%. Mindanao, on the other hand, has high MOE (14.8%).
Statistically, disaggregation by the demographic may not be suitable in most
cases. Hence, a disaggregated analysis will not be done (see Table 6 in
Chapter 3).
For discussion purposes, 63% of respondents (n=304) are females.
61% of respondents are from Luzon, followed by Visayas (26%), then
Mindanao by 14% (see Table SDNA-LGU1).

ii. Tourism Data Used and Needed. The most utilized data can only be
answered with just one selection to emphasize which genuinely is the most
needed by LGUs. Asked for the top used tourism data, 49% of the
respondents (n=304) answered visitor volume. It is followed by programs
and projects (24%), tourism attractions and facilities inventory (12%), tourist
receipt (5.6%), and investments at 3.6% (see Table SDNA-LGU 2).
Pressed with the data they need, the top answers (n=267) are quite
the same as the data they answered in the previous question. On this
question, respondents are free to type in any answers they want to write. The
top needed data are programs and projects (16%), investments (9%),
employment (9%), Visitor volume (9%), and Inventory (8%). Next on the
top list is the visitor profile at 6.7%. Interestingly, many of the answers are
deemed essential tourism sector indicators (see Table SDNA-LGU3).
75
 Almost 100% of the respondents (n=304) have a positive perception
if DOT addresses data needs. Addressing Data needs has a very high rating
average of 3.83, satisfying and delighting the LGU stakeholders. Variance
(0.18) and standard deviation (0.42) supports the use of the mean as a
reliable indicator for the item (see Table SDNA-LGU4).

iii. Tourism Data Reporting. 91% of the respondents (n=304) reported tourism
data to DOT or higher level LGU (see Table SDNA-LGU5). For those that
answered “Yes,” almost all submit either quarterly (48%) or monthly (43%)
(see Table SDNA-LGU6).
For those that answered that they are not yet reporting (n=26), 96%
of them are interested in submitting tourism data (see Table SDNA-LGU7)
and preferred to submit quarterly (48%). The rest are distributed monthly,
by semester, and annually (see Table SDNA-LGU8).

iv. Factors Affecting Tourism Data Reporting. Those that are interested in
reporting data (n=19) rely on these factors for their decision to report data:
data gathering quality (26%), template provision (21%), and modality
preferred (16%). The rest are distributed evenly among other factors (see
Table SDNA-LGU9).
Faced with identified common issues that affect data reporting,
respondents (n=304) have rated manpower6 (2.9) and other tasks (2.9)
highly. Internal support (2.2) and external support (2.4) is the slightest
concern. They are affected more by budget (2.5) and their technical skills
(2.6). Except for budget, all issues listed have less than one (1) unit when
tested with standard deviation and variance (see Table SDNA-LGU10).
When asked how they would feel if DOT did not address the issues,
79% of the respondents (n=304) did not like it. Standard deviation (0.9) and
variance (0.8) shows that answers are not that far from the average mean
(see Table SDNA-LGU11).

6
The use of the word “manpower” is recognized by the Scholar as a lapse of judgment. He should have
used the “workforce”, as it more gender sensitive. However, as the survey is done already, he is forced to
use the word manpower throughout the whole document to be consistent with the questionnaire.

76
 v. Preferred Reporting Modality. On the preferred data reporting modality,
some items were not ranked by respondents. Emailed (n=301) and online
system (n=299) ranked high on the identified modality, with an average of
3.5 and 3.4, respectively. Face-to-face modalities were rated low on the list.
Respondents are distributed almost evenly for data reporting through
personal communications. The results are highly reliable, with standard
deviation and variance showing less than 1 unit (see Table SDNA-LGU12)

vi. Current Tourism Information Systems. Amongst current tourism data

systems (f=531), MS Office-based documents (38%) and DOT-sourced
templates (34%) ranked high. They are followed, however, by manual
systems (25%). Only a few mentioned dedicated or online systems (see
Table SDNA-LGU13).
According to the respondents (n=304), 74% of them have a tourism
data officer in the LGU (see Table SDNA-LGU14). According to those that
answered “No” (n=79) to the previous question, the reason for not having a
data officer is that there is no permanent staff (32%) and that they lacked
the manpower (30%) to designate one (see Table SDNA-LGU15).

vii. New Tourism Information System. Asked if they are interested in a new
tourism information system, almost all respondents (n=304) answered
positively (see Table SDNA-LGU16). All respondents (n=304) are also
interested in a new survey tool (See Table SDNA-LGU17).
Almost all respondents (n=304) answered positively when asked
how they would feel if DOT provided the new TIS (see Table SDNA-
LGU18).
Respondents enumerated about 375 items that they expected from
the new TIS. The scholar classified them into four groups with the following
percentage distribution: characteristic (19%), Data (55%), Data Analytics
(11%), and features (16%). For characteristics, respondents expect the new
TIS to be user-friendly (7%) and easy to understand (2%). Respondents
expect that it will contain a comprehensive set of data (12%). They also
expect the new TIS to be capable of various analytical reports, aside from

77
 an automated reporting system. For the complete list of expectations, see
Table SDNA-LGU19.

viii. Tourism Innovation Sources. Respondents were asked to choose where they
usually get their ideas for tourism programs and projects, and they can choose
multiple items (f=1,812). According to the items chosen by the respondents,
ideas usually come from multiple sources. Most come from local
stakeholders (12%) and internal brainstorming (12%). It is followed by
trends (10%) and local data gathering (9.4%). Finally, at 9% are technical
visits and online materials (see Table SDNA-LGU20).

ix. Being an Innovator. Respondents highly rated themselves as innovators

based on the questions they have answered.
When asked if they (n=304) are willing to be the first to try a new
program, 98% answered positively, and 78% of them said they will always
try a new one. The average rate is 3.76, with a standard deviation of 0.46
and a variance of 0.22 (see Table SDNA-LGU21a and 21b)
When asked if they (n=304) put an effort and look for new tourism
programs, 98% answered positively, with 81% of them saying they will
always look for new programs. The average rate is even higher than the
previous question (3.79), with a variance of 0.21 and a standard deviation
of 0.46 (see Table SDNA-LGU22a and 22b)

x. Being an Early Adopter of Innovation. Asked if they (n=304) will adopt a

tourism program from another area whether or not it is successful, again
98% of them answered positively, with 66% answering that they will always
adopt. The average rating is 3.64, with a standard deviation of 0.52 and a
variance of 0.27 (see Table SDNA-LGU23a and 23b)

xi. Being part of the Early Majority of Innovation Adopter. An essential

aspect of being on the early majority is adopting when innovation is certified
successful by a few. According to the respondents (n=304), 97% are
optimistic about adopting a successful tourism program while 61% will
always adopt successful innovation. Respondents' overall average rating is
78
 3.58, with a standard deviation of 0.56 and a variance of 0.31 (see Table
SDNA-LGU24a and 24b).

xii. Being part of the Late Majority of Innovation Adopter. For those classified
as the late majority, a program must become adopted by the majority of their
peers. According to respondents (n=304), 53% are optimistic about adopting
if most have done it. Only 15% of them will always do it. Respondent rating
average is 2.63, with a standard deviation of 0.8 and a variance of 0.64 (see
Table SDNA-LGU25a and 25b).

xiii. Being a laggard with regards to Innovations. According to the study of

Savery (2008), people or organizations that are fine with running old
effective programs are more likely to be laggards in adopting new programs.
According to the respondents (n=304), 80% are optimistic that they would
be more comfortable running the same effective programs, with 27%
answering always. The average rating is 3.07, with a standard deviation of
0.7 and a variance of 0.48 (see Table SDNA-LGU26a and 26b).

xiv. Perception about Formulating Innovation. With regards to formulating

innovative programs, respondents (n=304), 74% responded positively. Only
20% answered with Always. Respondents rating average is 2.92, with a
standard deviation of 0.76 and a variance of 0.58 (see Table SDNA-LGU28)

xv. Innovation Adoption Influencer. Respondents were asked what influenced

(f=1,963) them to adopt innovations. Highly influential is the effectiveness
of the program (13%) and when influenced by local stakeholders (12%).
They are followed by technical/training support (12%) and how innovative
the program is (11%). Also included is management support with a 10%
share (see Table SDNA-LGU29)

(2) SDNA for TE. (see Annex 2 for the SDNA-TE Questionnaire and Annex 27
for the SDNA-TE Tables)

79
 i. Respondents. As discussed in Chapter 3, target respondents for the SDNA
for Tourism Establishments are harder to define because there is no
definitive and actual compilation of the number of tourism establishments
in the country. It also follows that there is no database of their profiles or
demographics. What SEAIMD does have is the database on accommodation
establishments from the ACS 2017 and 2019. Correspondences were sent to
valid emails on the database. The team also relied on the coordination made
by the regional offices and the LGUs. The ROs are the ones that are in direct
contact with them, being deputized as the regional tourism accreditation
offices.
Basing the sample size determination on the number of
accommodation establishments alone, the target national sample quota is
373 on a MOE of 5% and the standard confidence level of 95%. According
to the records, there were 633 responses. After the validation, there are only
574 valid respondents for analysis, with 408 (71%) coming from the
accommodation sector. As a national aggregate, the estimated MOE of the
actual sample size is 4%, and for AE, it is close to 5% or just under the
sampling quota. Disaggregated assessment can be done for Luzon and
Visayas respondents both for AE and total TE, as their MOE fall below the
accepted 8% for social research. For Mindanao with a MOE of 9%,
respondents as an all TE aggregate may be considered with precautions. Sex
Disaggregation can also be done statistically as national aggregates as both
fall below the 8% MOE threshold (see Table 7 of Chapter 3).
Respondents (n=574) are distributed to the island groups as follows:
Luzon (40%), Visayas (41%), and Mindanao (19%). Most respondents
come from CALABARZON (23%) and Western Visayas (25%). The
majority of the respondents are females at 65% (see Table SDNA-TE1)

ii. Tourism Data Compilation. When respondents (n=574) were asked if they
were compiling tourism data in their establishments, 85% of them said:
“Yes” (see Table SDNA-TE2). For those that answered “No” (n=88) in the
previous question, 92% are interested in compiling tourism data (see Table
SDNA-TE3).

80
iii. Tourism Data Usefulness to Business Operations. When asked if tourism
data is useful to the respondents’ (n=574) business operations, 98% are
positive. 59% of the respondents answered that tourism data is beneficial.
The average rating is 3.54, with a standard deviation of 0.63 and a variance
of 0.4 (see Table SDNA-TE4a and 4b).

iv. Most Useful and Most Needed Tourism Data. Respondents (n=574) mainly
chose the volume of visitors (38%) as the most useful tourism data. It is
followed by occupancy rates (24%), tourism programs/projects (13%),
client profile (11%), and Length of Stay at 3% (see Table SDNA-TE5).
Pressed on with what tourism data (f=303) they needed the most, on
top of the list are tourism programs/projects (13%), the volume of visitors
(11%), and visitor profile (10%. They are the same as the ones answered as
most useful. For the complete list, see Table SDNA-TE6.
According to the respondents (n=558), 96% perceived it positively
if DOT addressed the data needs of the tourism enterprises. 69% would like
it addressed, making the action a satisfier and possibly a delighter for
stakeholders. The average rating is 3.63, with a standard deviation of 0.62
and a variance of 0.38 (see Table SDNA-TE7a and 7b).

v. Tourism Data Reporting. When the respondents (n=574) were asked if they
were reporting their tourism data to DOT or LGU, 79% answered: “Yes”
(see Table SDNA-TE8). The majority of those who answered on the
affirmative (n=454) on the previous question reported monthly (71%), with
15% reporting quarterly, and those reporting annually at 14% (see Table
SDNA-TE9).
For those that answered “No” (n=120), 76% are interested in
reporting tourism data to DOT or LGU (see Tabler SDNA-TE10).

vi. Factors Affecting Tourism Data Reporting. There are many factors (f=99)
that can make respondents submit data. At the top of the list are the
following: communication (10%), visitor traffic (10%), mandated (9%),
template provision (7%), and if the reporting is done online (5%). For a
complete list, see Table SDNA-TE11.
81
 The respondents were all asked about specific issues that affect
tourism data reporting. Manpower (n=517) has the highest average rate
(2.75), with most respondents rating it 4 (39%). The standard deviation is
0.94, and the variance is 0.89. It is followed by Other Tasks (n=474) with
an average rate of 2.55. Most of the respondents rated 2 (37%). For Other
Tasks, the standard deviation is 0.91, and variance is 0.82. Budget Issues
(n=492) has an average of 2.38, with a standard deviation of 1.02 and a
variance of 1.03. Support issues were ranked low, with most respondents
rating it at 1 (39%). External Support (n=472) has an average of 2.24, with
a standard deviation of 0.99 and a variance of 0.98. Most respondents rated
2 (33%) for this issue. Internal support has an average rate of 1.99, with a
standard deviation of 0.97 and a variance of 0.94.
Asked about how they (n=574) would feel if DOT did not address
the issues, 63% did not like the idea. However, 27% expect that DOT will
not address the issues. The average rate is 3.27, meaning most are leaning
towards not liking it, with a standard deviation of 1.01 and variance of 1.01
(see Table SDNA-TE13a and 13b)
For preferred reporting modality, thru email (n=552), got the highest
average rating, 3.3, with a standard deviation of 0.7 and variance of 0.48. It
is followed by online systems (n=542) with an average rate of 3.2, a standard
deviation of 0.81, and a variance of 0.66. Face-to-face, client-service
provider engagements were rated low: a. on-site submission (n=528), with
an average of 1.9, a standard deviation of 0.93, and variance of 0.87; b.
Compiler visits (n=527) average rate of 2.3, a standard deviation of 0.93,
and variance of 0.87. Report that is personally communicated (n=538) thru
SMS or social media is rated 2.6, with a standard deviation and variance of
0.99 (see Table SDNA-TE14)

vii. Current Tourism Information Systems. When the respondents were asked
about the data monitoring system (f=795) that they are currently using, MS
Office and Manual accounting came on top, with each having a share of
37%. It was followed by the use of DOT–sourced templates at 21%. The
rest of the responses were a mix of online or automated systems (see Table
SDNA-TE15)
82
 Most of the respondents (n=574) have a designated data officer
(75%) (see Table SDNA-TE16).

viii. New Tourism Information System. 94% of the respondents (n=574) are
interested in a new TIS provided by DOT (see Table SDNA-TE17). Most
(95%) of the respondents (n=574) will also be interested in a new survey
tool (see Table SDNA-TE18).
Asked about their (n=574) perception of DOT providing a new TIS,
95% responded positively, with 80% saying they would like it. The average
rate is 3.76, a satisfier action, with a standard deviation of 0.62 and a
variance of 0.39 (see Table SDNA-TE19a and 19b).
Most of the expectations (f=760) of the respondents are categorized
as data requirements (60%), with arrivals (14%, market (7%), and visitor
profile (5%) as top data expected to be seen. Expectations on the
characteristics show that being comprehensive (6%) and easy to use (2%)
are essential. Respondents also expect that it will have data analytic
capabilities (8%). Respondents also expect that it would be a reporting
system (1%) and feature updated data (1%). A complete list of expectations
is outlined in Table SDNA-TE20.

(3) SDNA for DOT/NGA. (See Annex 3 for the SDNA-DOT Questionnaire and
Annex 28 for the SDNA-DOT Tables).

i. Respondents. As discussed in Chapter 3, the SDNA for DOT/NGA was

designed as convenience sampling, having no data on the number of
personnel in national agencies. It was also meant only to solicit ideas.
Respondents (n=56) are composed of employees of 16 National
Government Agencies. 59% are from the central offices, 2% from a foreign
office, and 39% from regional offices. Out of the agencies, 36% are from
Tourism Promotions Board (TPB), while DOT makes up 34%,
Notably, 71% of the respondents are female (see Table SDNA-
DOT1)

83
ii. Tourism Data Used and Needed. When asked about tourism data they used,
most respondents (n=56) answered visitor volume (34%), tourism
attractions/facilities inventory (20%), and tourism employment (14%) (see
Table SDNA-DOT2).
Respondents said that of all tourism data (f=57), visitor volume
(9%), ADE (7%), and MICE (7%) are the specific data that they need. It
should be noted, however, that “All Tourism Data” ranked high on the list
of needed data (18%) (see Table SDNA-DOT3).
Regarding respondents’ perception (n=56), if DOT addressed the
data needs, everyone responded positively, with 73% saying they would like
it. The average rating is a high 3.73, with a standard deviation of only 0.45
and a variance of 0.2 (see Table SDNA-DOT4).
Most respondents (n=22) needed data quarterly (42%) and monthly
(33%) (see Table SDNA-DOT6).

iii. Tourism Data Sources. When asked about the usual tourism data sources
(f=78), DOT Statistics Offices (53%) and PSA (23%) came up on the top
list. It is followed by LGUs (8%) and Tourism Enterprises at 5% (see Table
SDNA-DOT7).

iv. DOT/PSA Tourism Data Utilization. When asked if the respondents (n=56)
used DOT/PSA Produced tourism data, 93% said yes (see Table SDNA-
DOT5).
The respondents were asked about specific issues that affect the
utilization of DOT/PSA-produced tourism data. According to the
respondents, the unavailability of needed data (n=52) was rated high (2.94),
with 35% giving a rating of 4 and 3. The standard deviation is 0.98. with a
variance of 0.96. It is understandably followed with the issue that data is
from other sources (n=50) with an average rating of 2.9, a standard deviation
of 0.89, and a variance of 0.79. Another issue that ranked high is that they
produced their data (n=46), with an average rate of 2.6, a standard deviation
of 0.93, and a variance of 0.87. The inconsistent data release (n=48) was
rated 2.3, with a standard deviation of 0.8 and a variance of 0.64. The issue
of lacking technical expertise, with an average rating of 2.24, a standard
84
 deviation of 0.73, and a variance of 0.54. On the last are the issues on
Unreliability (n=45) and unawareness (n=48), which both have an average
of 2.0 (see Table SDNA-DOT8).
According to the respondents (n=56), if DOT did not address the
issues, 89% would not like it. 9% expected that situation. The average
perception is 3.77, putting the positive equivalent of this action as a satisfier.
(see Table SDNA-DOT9).

v. Preferred Data Access Modality. When asked about specific modalities of

accessing tourism data, email (n=54) and online dashboards (n=56) ranked
high with 3.57 and 3.66, respectively. For emailed access, the standard
deviation is 0.66 and a variance of 0.44. The online Dashboard test is even
lower, with a standard deviation of 0.61 and variance of 0.37. Respondents
rated indirect source at 2.8, with a standard deviation of 0.9 and variance of
0.8. Rated lowest is making personal inquiries thru text, calls, and social
media (n=52) with a rating of 2.42, with a standard deviation of 0.89 and
variance of 0.8. The 2nd lowest is researching on-site (n=53) with an average
rate of 2.8, with a standard deviation of 1.06 and a variance of 1.12.
Respondents rated this issue with 4 and 3, garnering 32% each (see Table
SDNA-DOT10).

vi. New Tourism Information System. Almost all respondents (n=56)

answered “Yes” (98%) when asked if they would be interested in accessing
a new TIS by DOT (see Table SDNA-DOT11). Same respondents (n=56)
rated the idea of DOT providing a new TIS very highly, 3.86 average with
a standard deviation of 0.35 and a variance of 0.12. All respondents rated
the idea positively, with 86% saying they would like it (see Table SDNA-
DOT12).
As for their expectations (f=81), 71% are about the data they expect
they see and most say they want to see all tourism data (22%). They would
like to see features like automatic updating (2%), database (1%) and
disaggregated data (1%), and data analytics (11%) on the new TIS. They
mentioned four characteristics (5%): easy to understand, enhanced data
reporting, timely reports, and user friendly (See Table SDNA-DOT13).
85
c. Implementation of the TPMS and MATTA Pretest and Pilot Survey
The capstone team and the scholar tried to schedule the TPMS Pretest as
early as July 2021. However, it was postponed many times due to the IATF-MEID
policies and the travel restrictions policies promulgated by the pilot LGUs.
The objective of the pretest was to evaluate how the tool was going to be
implemented. Instead of an actual face-to-face pretest with travelers, the TPMS
Google Form was evaluated by the target pilot LGUs, Baguio City of CAR and
Malay, Aklan, and Aklan Province of Western Visayas Region. A Series of
meetings was done alternately with the Baguio TPMS Group and the Boracay
TPMS Group. The meeting was initially a planning session for conducting the
pretest and the pilot test; instead, it became a venue to test the tools. The suggestions
of the pilot LGUs led to the final format of the TPMS today. During the discussions,
it was also decided that to give each LGU the independence to process and generate
reports of their TPMS in Google Form, without accessing each TPMS database, the
TPMS Google Form will have to be duplicated per LGU. SEAIMD will have to
integrate the database once the survey period is done for all areas.
Duplicating the TPMS Google Form also opens the idea of designing the
questions according to the area where they will be implemented. Since the database
will have to be compiled nationwide, questions must not be deleted from the TPMS.
Instead, questions that are not suited for areas are skipped.
As of October 1, 2021, the “Emailed TPMS Boracay” has already been
launched by Malay LGU and is currently being populated by responses of their past
guests. The link for the TPMS Aklan was also included already on the online
registration of travelers managed by the Provincial Government of Aklan,
The TPMS Google Form (the link given in Chapter 3) became the master
template. Right now, we have designed TPMS for three (3) areas: Baguio City,
Boracay, and Aklan:

86
 1. Baguio TPMS - https://bit.ly/baguiovisita

2. Boracay TPMS - https://bit.ly/boracayvisitor

3. Aklan TPMS - https://bit.ly/aklanvisit

The scholar also planned to process the TPMS Prototype version done in La
Union using the new forms. However, he would have to add questions specific to
that destination which were asked during the prototyping.

DOT internal users also evaluated the MATTA. The design and data
inclusions were synchronized with the data needs for the GIS dashboard's database
building. The plan was to implement both offline and online encoding systems. The
offline database consists of excel database structures and the paper format tool.

An alternative survey development application was introduced during the

development of the GIS Dashboard. The MATTA was chosen as a prototype for the
application, which the scholar will discuss in the next section, where he will discuss

87
the development of the GIS dashboard. It will be part of the future development of
the data gathering tools.

The team prepared a series of implementations for the TPMS/MATTA

pretest and pilot testing for this year. It was the basis for processing the documents
about travel orders and fund transfers to pilot regions.

As part of its preparation, the Survey Team, headed by Ms. Faeroe

Fontanilla, coordinated with the regional offices' CAR and the Western Visayas
regarding the logistical preparations for the pilot implementation. The team has
done the necessary first financial process for the CAR implementation to transfer
funds to the region. The Sub-Allotment Advice (SAA, see Annex 29) was released
to CAR for the TPMS Pretest and First Pilot Implementation for July and August.
It also includes the budget for MATTA Orientation.

The OIC Undersecretary for TD also signed the travel orders (see Annex
30) for the survey team and eventually signed the Amendment Order for the TO
(see Annex 31). However, the team’s travel did not push through since the
restrictions in Baguio City have been extended repeatedly.

Official letters addressed to the pilot LGUs were also sent by the team in
preparation for the conduct of the TPMS and MATTA (see Annex 32). The TPMS
Technical Working Group for each pilot LGUs have been asked to incorporate the
TPMS link on their official website and online registration applications. They were
also asked to send the survey link to their past visitors with listed emails. It will
become part of the survey methods for TPMS now that there are travel restrictions
yet.

The team finalized a schedule set for October to December 2021 for TPMS-
MATTA Pilot Implementation (see Annex 33). The pretest shall now be
incorporated into the first pilot implementation.

88
d. Development of the Training Module for the TPMS and MATTA
Implementation
The capstone team created the training modules for the TPMS and MATTA
Implementation. As aforementioned, the TPMS Pretest Survey was integrated
within the pilot implementation schedule.
The modules are a TPMS and MATTA Orientation configuration with a
regular SLTSS Training Module requested by the regions for their LGUs or TEs. It
was designed to line up three capacity-building programs in one run. The team will
have to implement the regular SLTSS training during the TPMS and MATTA Pilot
Implementation Orientation.
All the configurations are based on the 10-Days Pilot Implementation
Schedule of TPMS. The other tools were scheduled in between the days of the actual
TPM Survey. The plan was to let the enumerators do the survey, and the DOT Team
will supervise them. While the actual survey is ongoing, the training team shall
continue with the orientation with the participants for the other modules.
List of TPMS/MATTA Orientation Configuration (see Annex 34):
1. TPMS Orientation
2. TPMS and MATTA Orientation
3. TPMS, MATTA and TEF Orientation
4. TPMS and TEF Orientation
5. TPMS, MATTA, and BTST
6. TPMS, MATTA, and ATST1

There was also a suggestion from a regional pilot office that the TPMS –
MATTA Orientation will be configured to include ASTP lectures and other specific
topics. While the team is open to this request, they have pointed out that it might be
harder to do so as specific topics may require resource persons specializing in the
specific topic they are requesting.

e. Development of the DOT STAR Hub

The scholar’s innovation proposal is the development of the DOT STAR
Hub. Currently, it has two components. The team has been working with the third-

89
party developer for the first component since June 2021, while the second
component has just picked up the pace this September 2021. The FGD discussions,
LGU meetings, and the preliminary results of the SDNA have been instrumental
in conceptualizing the design of the innovation.

(1) Development of the GIS Dashboard and the Survey App. The GIS Dashboard
is an offshoot of ArcGIS procurement, a commercial GIS application capable
of creating online infographics, databases, and other tools. ArcGIS is a
comprehensive platform that provides a GIS framework to create, share, and
use spatial information. It also provides access to existing portals, maps and
scenes, layers, analytics, and apps. (ESRI, n.d.)
In tourism, ArcGIS is a valuable tool to integrate and monitor attribute
information in a particular location. Attribute information in tourism may
include visitor arrivals, number of rooms available and occupied, tourist
attractions, and many others in a specific area in a particular period.
This year, part of the current tourism information system development
involves integrating ArcGIS software with geospatial information, especially
sub-national tourism.
The Tourism Information System Team actively coordinated with the
ArcGIS service provider to develop the GIS Dashboard. From June – September
2021, the TIS team created the database following various schema proposed by
the ArcGIS Team. Each schema represents a tourism information system.
Unfortunately, no DOT online or automated system yet will process or update
a compatible database with ArcGIS. The development of such an automated
system is included in the tourism information system in line for 2021 and
includes the DOT Subnational Tourism Analytics and Reporting Hub. Hence,
the team must cull data from various systems and fill up the GIS database
schema manually. With the suggestions and comments of the team, Geodata,
the ArcGIS service providers, has successfully transformed the GUI into
something acceptable (see Figures 18 – 24).

90
 Figure 18. GIS Dashboard GUI, as of 22 July 2021

Figure 19. GIS Dashboard GUI, as of 12 August 2021

91
Figure 20. GIS Dashboard GUI, as of 17 August 2021

Figure 21. GIS Dashboard GUI, as of 19 August 2021

92
Figure 22. GIS Dashboard GUI, as of 1 September 2021

Figure 23. GIS Dashboard GUI, as of 20 September 2021

93
 Figure 24. GIS Dashboard GUI, as of 1 October 2021

As of 1 October 2021, the GIS dashboard has been scheduled for

presentation to DOT’s higher officials on 20 October 2021 (see Annex 35).
Currently, it is now deployed on DOT’s central server. It will still be subjected
to evaluation by direct management and internal stakeholders before it becomes
online.
Ironically, the GIS Dashboard is the front end of the DOT STAR Hub,
but it seems that it will become the first to be operational. Since the online
systems are still for development, the systems administrator and database
managers, including the scholar, must manually update the schema once it is
launched.
The GIS dashboard can filter and output infographics by year, region,
province, and city/municipality. The team considered the clamor of the
stakeholders during the data gathering concerning report customization on the
dashboards. However, the generated graphs will highly depend on the quality
of data submitted for DOT Central compilation and the upkeep of the database.
Geodata also prototyped the MATTA on the ArcGIS support
application, Survey123 (see Figures 25 and 26). It is one of the field apps of
ArcGIS that can replace or reduce paper forms and lessen errors and boost

94
productivity. The ArcGIS Survey123 is an electronic data collection survey
wherein data collected in the field can be accessed in real-time, and reports and
analyses can be created easily. (ESRI, n.d.). As the DOT conducts various
tourism surveys, this will be a valuable and efficient tool, especially when
moving towards digitization. The stakeholders expected DOT to deliver on its
new TIS on time.
Geodata configured both the MATTA in Survey123 and the GIS
Dashboard to benchmark the capability of the ArcGIS. The dashboard
administrator and database managers shall improve and create other dashboards
and tools once its management is fully transferred to DOT.

Figure 25. MATTA Survey123 Page 1 GUI, as of 1 October 2021

95
 Figure 26. MATTA Survey123 Page 3 GUI, as of 1 October 2021

(2) Development of the DOT STAR Hub TIS thru the DOT Central TIS Project.
With the leadership and guidance of OIC-Director Andrada, the TOR for the
DOT TIS Development was finalized and submitted for posting on September
2021. The BAC evaluated the proposed TOR and classified it urgent due to the
nature of its budget, being part of the 2020 allocation that was extended for
2021. It was also because the budget is substantially large that it needs to be
obligated before the year ends. Another consideration is that the project must
end and be paid before March 2022 since there is no assurance that the 2020
budget will be allowed extension again. According to the BAC Secretariat
during the meeting last 20 September 2021, the winning bidder is estimated to
be awarded its Notice to Proceed by the 1st Week of December 2021, following
the regular procurement process for large sums. That would mean less than 100
days to finish all work, including the training component, before the end of
March 2022.

96
 During the BAC Pre-Bidding Conference, one of the significant
concerns was that the TOR was generic for an IT development project. The team
and Director Andrada explained that getting the most out of the procured
consultants was necessary. In any case, all the features and deliverables were
already specified on the TOR. Admittedly, the scholar mentioned it is unusual
in an IT government project, but it followed the agile software management
frameworks. The development will come in bursts as the team, and the winning
consultants use the scrum method to deliver each milestone.
Mr. Lao, the OIC of ITD, and the scholar streamlined the TOR again to
fit the schedule and considered the elements suggested. From 180 days, the
project was shortened to 91 days. According to Mr. Lao, some developers could
do less, but the team has to take out some features like the android app
development. The Revised TOR was submitted to BAC for posting last 21
September 2021.
The TOR, entitled “Procurement of Services of a Consultancy Firm for
the Development of a Tourism Information with Visualization System Phase
1,” covers the development of an information system capable of integrating all
the current and future tourism information systems. It includes the development
of an online dashboard where data can be presented to the stakeholders in a
more organized, clear, and visually rich way. It should also be capable of
business analytics and forecasting. The development also covers the
digitalization of at least four manual systems of DOT. In order to make the
development more user-friendly, it was essential to include a phase where the
winning bidder should do a business assessment with internal stakeholders to
finalize the system (see Annex 25).
Three of the TIS modules proposed during the business assessment are
related to the DOT Subnational Tourism Analytics and Reporting Hub:
Accommodation (Hotel) Database Management System, the Tourism Product
Market Survey tool, and the Domestic Market Indicators Database System. The
fourth one, the Inbound Travelers System, though not related to subnational
tourism, can be used for correlation and baseline for foreign visitor
demographics in the local destinations.
In preparation for the business assessment, the team drafted the project
brief for the following modules and the DOT STAR Hub Dashboard:
97
1. Hotel Destination Management System –digitization of the standard basic
data gathering of the accommodation establishments. LGUs have been
clamoring for an online system that allows stakeholders to report, compile,
and process data. (see Annex 42)
2. TPMS System –digitization of the TPMS tool will allow enumerators to use
the survey tool online and offline. If possible, the tool should be
downloadable and installable on mobile devices. It shall also be capable of
processing data. Since it is centralized, there would be no need to submit
data to the upper level. All it needs is a digital certification from the lower
level of the survey completion and validation (see Annex 43).
3. DOT STAR Hub Dashboard and Multi-Database Analytics – an infographic
dashboard that is capable of user interaction. It should be able to generate
data reports specific to the needs of the user. It should be able to integrate
the HDMS and TPMS and the other tourism information systems of DOT.
It should also integrate the GIS dashboards and applications developed
through ArcGIS (see Annex 44). The scholar also created an initial GUI of
the dashboard, which will be proposed to the developer.

The development of the DOT STAR Hub and the entire TIS under
OTDPRIM will be based on the following statistics framework (see Figure 27).
The subsequent modules for digitization will come from this framework.
However, improvements on the framework will be arbitrarily integrated
whenever they are proposed and deemed necessary.
In the drafting of the proposed modules and main DOT STAR Hub
Dashboard and System, the scholar made sure that the results of the SDNA were
considered, especially the following: data needs, modality, and TIS
expectations.

98
 Figure 27. OTDPRIM Tourism Statistics Framework

f. Revising the SLTSS Manual

The Manual Revision Sub-team of the Capstone Project started working by
the end of July 2021. During the initial meeting, the scholar emphasized that the
Revised Manual shall be based on the 2007 Tourism Statistics Manual for Local
Government Units and its 2012 revision and the 2012 Tourism Development
Planning Guidebook for Local government Units. It will include all the updates
made this year with possible recommended improvements from the procured
consultants for the manual revision.
The Scholar recommended that the team be divided into pairs that worked
on different parts of the SLTSS manual: Part 1. Administrative Tourism Data
Gathering - Mr. Ramirez and Mr. Carlos; Part 2. Visitor Surveys – Ms. Fontanilla
and Ms. Almazan; and Part 3. The Scholar. The team also chose Ms. Dela Cruz, a
newly hired SEAIMD TOOI, to be the administrative officer for the Manual
Revision activities.
The scholar tasked everyone to start working on their proposed outline and
drafts while the team was waiting for the procurement of the Manual Revision
Consultants. The team had until the end of August to do that.

99
 The team came up with Draft Outlines (see Annex 36), Updated SLTSS
Training Modules (see Annex 37), Updated List of Current and Proposed SLTSS
Templates (see Annex 38), and initial rough drafts of some of the chapters.
By September 2021, DOT signed a contract with the procured consultant,
PLL Publishing (see Annex 39). The team had an initial meeting with them on 11
September 2021, wherein the scholar briefed them on the project's objectives. The
team, together with the consultants, discussed actions for moving towards
deliverables. On 16 September 2021, the team finalized the Proposed Schedule of
Work and Deliverables by PLL.
One of the first tasks the team did with PLL was the provision of all
materials concerning the manual revision. PLL set up a shared drive for all
documents and materials for easy access (see Figure 28).

Figure 28. PLL-DOT Shared Drive for SLTSS Manual Revision

The team and PLL agreed to set up small group meetings with persons in
charge of each part. The team for Part 1 met with PLL on 30 September 2021 and
agreed with their recommendations that the manual will be presented in an input-
process-output framework for easier recognition of the steps, requirements, and
roles in compiling tourism data.

100
(1) Focus Group Discussion on the Revision of the SLTSS Manual. Before
drafting the initial draft, the team organized the Focus Group Discussion on the
Manual Revision on 17 September 2021. The FGD was attended by 102
personnel from LGUs and DOT from preselected Regions 1, 4A, 6, 7, 12, and
CAR. They were selected based on their consistency in the implementation of
the SLTSS.
The team divided the participants into three discussion groups where the
team facilitated using the following:
FGD Guide Points and Questions
1. Are you implementing the SLTSS in your area? Why or why not?
a. What tourism data are you currently gathering?
b. Data Submission (ask technical to show results of the survey)
i. Question No. 3 and 4
2. What are the problems encountered in data collection and
compilation?
a. Is tourism data gathering institutionalized in your LGU? How
or why not?
3. Are you aware that there is a Tourism Statistics Manual that is the
basis for the SLTSS?
a. (Ask Technical Team to show the result of the survey)
i. Question No. 1
b. SLTSS Trainings attended (Ask Technical Team to show the
result of the survey)
i. Question No. 2
c. What methods do you remember? Like? Most Difficult? Most
useful?
d. Do you think it is important that there is a Standard Tourism
Statistics Manual? Why or Why not?
4. How do you think the manual can be user-friendly?
a. Is there anything that you want to include in the manual? What
are these things?
b. What should data gathering methods be included in the SLTSS
Manual?

101
 5. Are there data or tourism indicators that you want to be included in
the SLTSS?
a. (Ask Technical Team to show the result of the survey)
i. Question No. 5
6. What steps do you think must be taken to achieve efficient tourism
data collection?

The team also included some questions on the attendance registration

form.
According to the respondents (n=102) of the survey, 82% know the
SLTSS Manual since most have already received the BTST and the ATST (see
Table 13). Hence, explaining their awareness of the SLTSS Manual.

Most respondents (n=99) answered that they submit tourism data

Table 13. SLTSS Training Attended by FGD (17 September 2021)

Survey Respondents

SLTSS Training Participants % Share

ATST 5 4.9%
BTST 32 31.4%
BTST and ATST 50 49.0%
Did not receive any statistics trainings 15 14.7%
Grand Total 102 100.0%

monthly (43%), followed by those that submit quarterly (31%) (see Table 14).
Ask about their needs concerning data needs; on top of their answers (f=96) are
Basic data (20%), Visitor Volume (18%), and Capacity Building (12%). It is
also interesting that 9% of the answers pertain to having a data system (See
Table 15).

102
Table 14. Frequency of Data Submission by FGD (17 September 2021)
Survey Respondents

Frequency Participants % Share

Annually 3 3.0%
Monthly 43 43.4%
Monthly, Annually 6 6.1%
Monthly, Quarterly 1 1.0%
Monthly, Quarterly, Annually 4 4.0%
Monthly, Semiannual, Annually 1 1.0%
No regular schedule 5 5.1%
Quarterly 31 31.3%
Quarterly, Annually 3 3.0%
Quarterly, Semiannual, Annually 1 1.0%
Semiannual 1 1.0%
Grand Total 99 100.0%

Table 15. Tourism Data Needs and Concerns by FGD (17 September
2021) Survey Respondents

Tourism Data Needs Frequency % Share

Basic 19 19.8%
Volume 17 17.7%
Capacity Building 11 11.5%
System 9 9.4%
ADE 7 7.3%
Profile 7 7.3%
AE Data 4 4.2%
TA Data 3 3.1%
Templates 3 3.1%
Employment 2 2.1%
Plans/Programs 2 2.1%
Visitor Behaviors 2 2.1%
ATST 1 1.0%
Employees 1 1.0%
Forecasting 1 1.0%
Growth 1 1.0%
Incentives 1 1.0%
Inventory 1 1.0%
LGU Cooperation 1 1.0%
TO Status 1 1.0%
Travel Characteristics 1 1.0%
Trends 1 1.0%
Grand Total 96 100.0%

103
 During the FGD, most participants mentioned that they are following
the DOT SLTSS templates cascaded thru the regional offices. However, there
are still uncooperative TEs since most LGUs do not have any penalties for non-
submissions or incentives for submissions. There are areas like the Cebu
Province and General Santos City wherein data gathering has been included on
their local tourism ordinances, which states effects of non-compliance with
regards to their business license.
Another issue cited by the FGD participants affecting data compilation
and reporting is that most tourism officers and staff are designated or JO. Many
LGUs are still understaffed in their tourism offices due to budget constraints or
lack of prioritization for tourism. Aside from internal workforce problems, there
is also the problem of fast turnovers of staffing in the private sector. Often, the
situation leads to a lack of technical knowledge on tourism data compilation and
reporting.
There is also the problem of data reliability. Some stakeholders do not
report actual figures. They are hesitant to report since they fear it will be used
for taxation and reported to BIR. There are also problems in data compilation
as some reports are inconsistent and seem baseless.
Some of the issues were handled by the LGUs by conducting data
compilation orientation. However, issues and concerns linger amongst
stakeholders.
According to the participants, having a user-friendly manual is very
important. The templates should also be updated to add more methodologies for
data needs that are not covered by the current standard templates. There is also
a need to train trainers on the regional or provincial level to fast track
intervention at the local level.
Overall, the participants and the team felt that the FGD and the manual
revision were timely and relevant. It was also an excellent exercise to hear the
thoughts of the LGUs about the standard local tourism statistics system since
they are the ones that implement it on the ground level. All discussion points
will be considered in the revision of the manual. For more details, see Annex
41. The next milestone for the Manual Revision would be on October 15, 2021,
when PLL will submit the initial draft of the Revised Manual.

104
4.2. Analysis
Going back to the conceptual framework (see Figure 16 in Chapter 2), the scholar
hypothesized that increasing tourism information and information technology tools' added
value will increase tourism data contributors. It will, in turn, increase the reliability and
usefulness of tourism data in sustaining the subnational tourism sector.
Using standard deviation and variance to analyze the means of the questions with
assigned ordinals, the scholar deemed it statistically reliable as it showed very low to low
figures (as discussed in 4.1). It is then reliable to use results for comparative analysis using
simple percentage or frequency distribution with items similar to all surveys, including the
FGD.
The scholar also made sure that discernable themes and patterns during discussions
at any implementation point were noted down and used in the capstone.

a. What data are being monitored by stakeholders that support analysis of the
subnational tourism sector? What data should be monitored by stakeholders
to allow local tourism stakeholders to have sustainable development and
competitive tourism? What data do they need about these visitors to allow
them to develop and manage their local destinations sustainably?
The respondents of the SDNA were asked about data they used and needed
in their respective organizations. It was meant to show what data supports analysis
in the subnational tourism sector. The three SDNA Surveys have shown similar data
that are most useful to different stakeholders (see Table 16).

Table 16. Most Useful Tourism Data in All SDNA Surveys

Most Useful Tourism Data

Rank LGU TE NGA
volume of visitors (tourists, volume of visitors (tourists, volume of visitors (tourists,
1
same day visitors) same day visitors) same day visitors)
tourism programs and projects occupancy rate Inventory of tourism attractions
2
and facilities
inventory of tourism attractions tourism programs and projects tourism employment
3
and facilities
tourist receipt client profile (market M.I.C.E. data
4
countries, sales agents etc.)
5 tourism investments length of stay Daily Expenditure

105
 Moreover, when TE Respondents were asked if they think tourism data is
useful to their operations, their response was highly positive (Average Rate = 3.54),
as shown in the survey.
In order to give competitive context to the respondents’ identified Useful
data and Needed Data, the scholar used the indicators Dupeyras and MacCallum
(2013) have enumerated in their study measuring competitiveness in tourism (see
Table 17). Looking at the comparative listing of the top needed data of all
stakeholders (See Table 18), by identifying their tourism data needs, everyone
agreed to what data matters most in terms of analyzing the tourism sector. The
complete list (See Annex 26, 27, 28, and 41) also confirms that the stakeholders are
aware of indicators that can be included as Competitive Tourism Indicators.
Analyzing their awareness of these competitiveness indicators is recommended for
future research.

106
Table 17. Dupeyras and MacCallum’s List of Core, Support, and Future Competitive
Tourism Indicators (2013)

107
 Table 18. Needed Tourism Data in All SDNA Surveys and during the FGD for Manual
Revision
Tourism Data Needed
Rank LGU TE NGA FGD: Manual Revision
1 Tourism Programs/Projects Tourism Programs/Projects All tourism data Basic
2 Tourism Investment Visitor Volume Visitor Volume Volume
3 Tourism Employment Visitor Profile ADE Capacity Building
4 Visitor Volume All tourism data MICE System
5 Inventory ADE Tourism Employment ADE
6 Visitor Profile Occupancy Rate Tourism Establishments Profile
7 All tourism data Tourism Investment Tourism Programs/Projects AE Data
8 Tourist Receipt Visitor Preferences Tourist Receipt TA Data
9 ADE ALOS Foregone Revenue Templates
10 ALOS Visitor Market Tourism Investment Employment

The respondents also prove that stakeholders give value to data about impact
assessment indicators. Much like what APEC’s TWG (2013) reiterated in their
tourism stakeholder’s relationship model, respondents value understanding the
interactions among the four elements of tourism: local environments, host
communities, employees, and tourists.
The valued data also plays well into understanding tourism through the
frameworks of market segmentation. All respondents also perceived that addressing
these needs is a satisfier and possibly a delighter to all stakeholders. Hence, the
scholar believed that monitoring systems should consider the common data
identified by stakeholders, especially those categorized as indicators for
sustainability and competitiveness.

b. What are the methodologies available and being implemented by local

destinations?
Many stakeholders still rely on offline manual or digitized systems (see
Table 19). Moreover, since LGUs and TEs have expressed affirmation that they
submit data (91% and 79% respectively) to LGU or DOT, it is understandable that
high up on their list are DOT-sourced documents. Some LGUs have even
institutionalized the standard systems using ordinances or executive orders as
expressed during the FGD.
It was also a common theme that most public and private sector respondents
have developed their systems. While this may signify interest in tourism data
banking, individual systems may make it harder to compile data as stakeholders

108
 familiarize themselves with their systems. DOT must then find a way to integrate
different systems or propose a centralized alternative to the stakeholders.

Table 19. Top Current Methodologies Used by Respondents of the SDNA Surveys

Current TIS
Rank LGU TE
1 MS Office based documents MS Office based documents
2 DOT - sourced templates Manual accounting
Manual accounting (logbook entries DOT - sourced templates
3
guest card/sheet data compilation etc.)
4 Own IT system PMS
Forms filled up from accommodation Hotel system
5
facilities.
mixed manual and DOT sourced IOS (Apple) - based document
6
templates system
Online tourism registration form via none
7
google forms
We have a Tourism Passport that is Booking platform
8 cloud-based and will give us real time
tourism statistics monitoring 24/7.
No consolidated data gathering for the Own system
9
tourism enterprises and LGU

c. What are the factors that affect the compilation of local data?
Common themes arose from public and private local tourism stakeholders
when asked about the factors affecting their decision to report tourism data.
Communication, preferred modality, and official mandates can be seen at the top of
both lists (see Table 20).
The scholar also looked into the frequency of reports as one of the factors
that can be considered since respondents are not in unison when it comes to their
preferences.
Interestingly, the common issues have the same perceived importance when
the average ratings given by both sectors are ranked (see table 21). It is not the lack
of support that affects data reporting but the manpower both sectors have. Budget,
which is classified as part of internal support, is rated higher than “lack of support,”
which might be translated as a management or policy support issue besides its
financial aspect.

109
 Table 20.
Factors Affecting Reporting Data
Rank LGU TE
1 Data Gathering Quality Communication
2 Template Provision Visitor Traffic
3 Preferred Modality Mandated
4 Add. Personnel Template Provision
5 Communication Preferred Modality: Online
6 Data Gathered Occupancy Rate
7 Documentation Orientation
8 Mandated Easier process
9 Stakeholder Cooperation Monitoring purposes

Table 21. Average Rates of Identified Common Issues on

Tourism Data Reporting

Common Issues LGU TE

Manpower 2.9 2.75
Other Tasks 2.9 2.55
Technical Capacity 2.6 2.42
Budget 2.5 2.38
External Support 2.4 2.24
Internal Support 2.2 1.99

When asked if they have designated personnel for statistics, respondents

from LGU (74%) and TE (75%) answered affirmatively. The scholar deduced that
due to the absence of additional manpower, existing personnel would be too busy
with other tasks to do the reports. It is especially the case since most tourism officers
and staff in the LGUs are not permanent or just designated to the position while
holding permanent positions simultaneously.
During the FGD, participants mentioned that one of the problems that
adversely affect data collection is the fast turnover of human resources in tourism
enterprises. Training a person is not a reassurance that they would stay in that
organization. Looking at the SDNA and the FGD, common themes can be identified
as factors affecting data compilation and reporting, most identified on the list from
SDNA.

110
d. How can DOT ensure that the local stakeholders commit to data-sharing that
would enable them to learn from each other and provide input to national
tourism analysis?
According to the SDNA responses, addressing the issues that affect data
reporting would satisfy DOT’s stakeholders. Since one of the concerns identified
by both public and private sectors is preferred modality, it would also be safe to
assume that DOT should design systems that can cater to the modality they prefer.
Much like the issues in the previous table, modalities valued are similar for
both sectors when the averages are ranked. Both LGUs and TEs preferred online
modalities, whether thru email or a dedicated online system for reporting. Face-to-
face modalities were ranked low (see Table 22).

Table 22. Average Rates of Preferred Reporting Modalities

Modality LGU TE
Emailed 3.5 3.3
Online System 3.4 3.2
Personally Communicated 2.7 2.6
Compiler Visits 2 2.3
On-site Submission 1.8 1.9

The ratings also confirmed the affirmative responses on the introduction of

new TIS and tools. Hence, it is safe to say that all stakeholders are clamoring for a
new TIS capable of online reporting and data generation.
The public and private sector respondents expect that the new TIS would be
user-friendly and easy to understand. It should be simplified and accessible – both
characteristics of an online automated system. DOT should ensure that the new TIS
gives accurate, valuable, and comprehensive data (see Table 23).

111
 Table 23. Expected Characteristics of the New TIS

Rank LGU TE
1 User Friendly Comprehensive
2 Easy to Understand Easy to Use
3 Accessible User Friendly
4 Beneficial to LGU New
5 Simplified Easy to understand
6 Systematic Simplified
7 Accurate Accessible
8 Effective data collection Accurate
9 Online System Useful
10 Realistic Convenient

DOT should also consider the common data expected by both sectors.
According to what they have identified, it would be easy to satisfy them
simultaneously (see Table 24).

Table 24. Expected Data on the New TIS

Rank LGU TE
1 Comprehensive Arrivals
2 Arrivals Market
3 Profile Visitor Profile
4 Receipt Occupancy Rates
5 Demographics Beneficial Data
6 Programs/Projects Visitor Preferences
7 ADE ADE
8 Data for planning Tourism Programs/Projects
9 Inventory Demographics
10 Preferences Accommodation Rates

LGUs and TEs both expect that the TIS should feature analytical capability.
It seems that stakeholders would want all the help they can get to assess their
respective tourism sector and help them decide what policy and strategy they will
have to commit to sustaining their operation and growth (see Table 25).
The new TIS would also help sustain their enthusiasm if the features they
expect can be incorporated into the design. This time, there are common themes
that are not quite the same. However, a more profound correlation would point to

112
the same direction, an integrated system capable of digitizing the current process
and possibly helping them digitalize their operations and services (see Table 26).

Table 25. Expected Data Analysis Tools on the New TIS

Rank LGU TE
1 Analytics Marketing Strategy
2 Comparative Analysis Analytics
3 Marketing Strategy Trends
4 Behavior Analytics Forecasting
5 Trends Target Market
6 Impact Accommodation Performance
7 Most visited attractions Tourism Growth
8 New analytics Business Assessment
9 Performance Industry Performance
10 Recommended Development Actions Business Financial Status
11 Sector Performance Evaluation Business Operations

Table 26. Expected Features on the New TIS

Rank LGU TE
1 Reporting System Reporting System
2 Automated Data Generation Updated Data
3 Guide Promotional Materials
4 Feedback Mechanism Data Gathering System
5 infographics Monitoring System
6 Best Practice and Methodology Sharing Data Reporting System
7 data sharing Automated System
8 Digital Platform for businesses Online Platform
9 Booked establishments Survey template
10 cultural mapping Unified System
11 Data Not covered by basic data gathering Benchmarking
12 Database System Digital Platform

The common themes identified by the SNDA respondents were also

mentioned during the FGD and the short survey they answered. The FGD
participants said the online and automated systems are an enhancement that should
be considered. However, there should still be room to integrate those that are not
capable of online participation.
Assessing one’s capacity to adopt innovations will also help absorb new
tools like TIS and new ideas for tourism programs and projects. According to the
SDNA, LGUs are generally quite enthusiastic about innovations, whether starting
a new one or adopting successful ones (see Annex 26, Table SDNA-LGU27). LGUs
are not anxious to be early adopters. They would run old effective programs than

113
 be part of the late majority (see Figure 29) which may be correlated with culture.
However, the cultural or social impact on innovations adoption is not part of the
scope of this study.

Figure 29. Diffusion of Innovation Adopter Category Ratings per Island Group

According to both the SDNA and the FGD, capacity building and the
support of local stakeholders are essential influencers of data compilation and the
adoption of systems.

e. Implications in the development of the Project Components

(1) New Data Gathering Tools. Developing the new tools, specifically the TPMS
and the MATTA, responded to the particular data needs of stakeholders that are
not covered by the current SLTSS. Informal discussions with internal and
external stakeholders even before the capstone project have guided the scholar
in creating the initial templates.

114
 The changes made during their implementation thru the capstone project
were direct observations of pilot stakeholders and internal stakeholders in DOT.
It was the need that drove its transformation as it is at the moment. Even the
modality of its delivery were direct reactions to the call of the times, which
LGUs expressed during discussions on the pilot implementation of the tools.
The SDNA results just cemented the need for such a tool and modality.
Stakeholders require indicators that can make them understand their clients
better. LGUs wanted to have more indicators that could help them decide the
appropriate policy and strategy. Furthermore, all stakeholders wanted increased
accessibility and modalities to do research.

(2) Revised SLTSS Manual. The development of the new manual was also
designed to integrate what the stakeholders need. It is for this reason that the
first activity in the project is an FGD. The team will apply what they have
learned during the FGD and the SDNAs to revise the manual.
The new manual should serve its purpose of being the local guide on
tourism statistics. One of the participants of the FGD pointed out that the manual
does not matter anymore because it is outdated and does not match current
practice, even the protocols of DOT SEAIMD, which implements the capacity
building for SLTSS.

(3) DOT STAR Hub. The most crucial component of the capstone, the DOT STAR
Hub, along with the GIS Dashboard and tools, is a game-changer innovation in
monitoring subnational tourism for DOT.
For the TIS to be adopted by target users, it has to consider the
expectations and needs of stakeholders on its design, which were clearly
expressed on the open question included in the needs analysis. It has to be able
to solve the issues and concerns of target users for them to commit to it.
The NGA stakeholders were also one with the local stakeholders in
expecting that the new TIS should be easy to understand, comprehensive, and
valuable in scope and should include features that would make sector
assessment easier and better (see Annex 28, Table SDNA-DOT13)
The scholar noted that online access was also the chosen modality of
stakeholders in NGA. Hence, creating the DOT STAR Hub according to the
115
 specifications expected by local stakeholders shall also satisfy their counterparts
at the national level.
It was clear to the scholar that for the innovation to be successfully
adopted, it must be based on the needs of stakeholders at all levels.

4.3. Challenges
During the implementation, the only recurring challenge for the capstone is the
effects of the pandemic policies and the restrictions imposed on travel and work.
The team has to postpone the implementation of the pilot runs of the TPMS
and MATTA a couple of times. There was no problem getting the support of
management as they have approved all travel and budget allocations. It was the
situation that led to the delay.
It was fortunate that the alternative option for implementing the tools was
suggested by a pilot LGU. The team decided to duplicate the option on another pilot
area. Pretesting the tools has become more of repeated evaluation with pilot LGUs and
regions, which was good to refine the tools further.
For now, the implementation is scheduled for October to December 2021.
It was also more challenging to work with the team while the working
arrangement allows only online engagement. It was also aggravated because it did not
stop other offices from conducting online activities that individual team members
needed to attend. There were times that the scholar handled three video calls at one
time. Other than activities, there were also other assignments that the scholar and his
team needed to do. Most of these assignments take most of their time, making it
difficult to do tasks related to the capstone project.
Other than that, the team has not encountered other issues that severely affected
the capstone implementation.
A deviation that the scholar considers suitable for the capstone is the revision
of the SDNA for LGUs. The scholar decided to include questions about the Diffusion
of Innovation. Fortunately, it was approved by the scholar’s immediate superior (his
alternate IP) and the OIC Director (the scholar’s IP).
A looming issue would be the approval of the Standard DOT Client
Satisfaction Survey (CSS), which may affect the implementation of the planned format
of the UAS. Being part of the QMS, all operational units will have to use CSS. The

116
scholar will have to seek the approval of the management if it is possible to integrate
questions not covered by the standard CSS.

117
 Chapter 5

Conclusion and Recommendations

This chapter summarizes the output of the action research while proving
conclusions and recommendations for future action. It shall also include activities that are
in line with the capstone even after the report presentation.

5.1 Summary and Conclusions

To create a tourism information system that could help jumpstart tourism in the
local destinations, the scholar sought stakeholders’ perceptions on more resilient
modalities and more innovative methods. One that could help make information easier
to share and more accessible to every stakeholder.
The project implemented quantitative and qualitative methods to answer the
research questions that supported the problem, including the development and how the
intended audience users could accept it.

a. Data Valued by Tourism Stakeholders

The SDNA and the FGD have addressed the question of what data is valued
by local stakeholders. Almost all the types of data given by the different sectors are
the same. There were no significant differences.
Stakeholders give the most weight to visitor travel behaviors and their
profiles. They want to know who their visitors are and understand their needs and
preferences. The process is essential in matching the products that they have with
the market that they serve. Hence, aside from information about the market, they
also seek information about tourism products in their area.
The result was congruent to what Dolcinar (2004) described as critical
factors in developing a marketing model: socio-demographic, behavioral
information, and benefits variables. It was also consistent with what Cohen, Moital,
and Prayag (2013) stated that it is essential to look into consumer behaviors in
strategic marketing in tourism. Knowing what visitor segments do makes it easier

118
 to predict what products will work and how they will perform in the future (Johns
& Gyimothy, 2002).
It was also vital for them to know the current programs, projects, and
policies on tourism since all of these affect their business operations and services.
There were instances that health and safety protocols were mentioned on the survey
and FGD. It was expected, as the tourism industry depends on the travel and
business restrictions brought about by the health situation worldwide. Naturally, the
stakeholders would want access to the most current plans and policies because their
operations and livelihood in the communities rely so much on these
pronouncements. Faster access means they could adjust their operations faster, too.
Another particular need is information on government support or DOT grants.
The stakeholders were also concerned about the economic impact of tourism
in the local destinations. It was evident on the data that they need: expenditure,
length of stay, visitor receipt, employment, sector performance, investments, among
others. The local destinations were all aware that to discern the benefits of tourism
and how to receive it optimally, they should have indicators on its impact, consistent
with what Stynes (1999) has been espousing more than two decades ago.
It was also evident that the stakeholders would appreciate it if DOT provided
the means to access tourism data, which led to the scholar's resolve to deliver an
innovation that could do just that.

b. Current Tourism Data Systems and Standards

The use of online systems is not yet widespread amongst tourism
stakeholders. Most are still confined to standalone applications like MS Office and
manual procedures. The research showed that the majority of stakeholders are
aware of DOT’s standard local tourism statistics system. It is for this reason that the
SLTSS covers most of the data needs they mentioned. It also showed that the
majority have been following the standard templates and the data compiled. The
DOT Standard templates are, unfortunately, a standalone system.
Any modality development will have to consider what stakeholders are
using right now and if they are willing to adopt such a modality.
There are a few of the LGU stakeholders that are transitioning to
digitalization. There were mentions of using online productivity tools like Google
Sheets and Google Forms. Some stakeholders have been using online registrations
119
 due to the advent of health protocols. This small-pocket digital revolution is
something that DOT can take advantage of in the improvement of the SLTSS.
For TEs, data systems depend much on the capital investments of the private
sector. Most tourism information systems, or what they call property management
systems, are capital extensive. That probably explains why most of the
establishments are still using manual or standalone computer systems. Most of these
TEs relied on the templates pushed by DOT thru the SLTSS.
However, the research also showed that some private sector stakeholders are
using automated or interactive systems, most probably those with the capital. DOT
must look into this as an indicator for possible digitalization. It is also an
opportunity for government intervention when most of the market cannot provide
for its members.

c. Factors Affecting Tourism Compilation

Awareness of the DOT-advocated SLTSS does not translate to
implementation of the SLTSS. According to the research, manpower is highly likely
the factor. It affects all of the issues predefined on the survey. With the lack of
manpower, both in the public and private sectors, other tasks more directly linked
to their immediate concerns will be prioritized. Workforce turnover also affects the
sustainability of any data compilation. Without prior knowledge of the standard
tourism data compilation, the local tourism stakeholders would probably stop
reporting until they are capacitated again.

Communication is also one of the critical factors affecting data reporting.

Local compilers might need to remind the establishments about the submission of
data constantly. During the FGD, it is one of the factors that affect data reporting.
They said the lack of communication facilities in some areas is a hindrance to faster
and easier reporting.
Modality is one of the factors that can affect data reporting, especially
during these times. Results show that stakeholders are not keen on face-to-face
modalities. They prefer to submit data thru email or an online system. The effort
made by some regions in digitizing the data compilation is something worth
emulating. Suppose the response to such compilation is good. In that case, any

120
 improvement to that effect will face the same response, especially if the innovation
is far better than what an online generic productivity tool can do.

d. Sustaining the Tourism Sharing and Compilation

Since most stakeholders are aware and interested in contributing to the
tourism compilation, the problem is sustaining such interest and improving it.
Understanding the reasons for compiling and how it can benefit tourism
stakeholders can be a value-added factor in addressing the problems of compiling
itself. Hence, regular capacity building and constant communication would make a
big difference in sustaining it.
The same is valid on the other side of the equation. DOT should listen to
what the stakeholders want to say. For instance, the stakeholders wanted analytics
or inferential statistics done to the data that they share. However, DOT has not been
successful in generating such analytical tools that the stakeholders can use.
Again, modality plays a role in sustaining and improving the local tourism
database building. As mentioned, online modalities are preferred. However, many
are not yet using them. It is not the issue of wanting that motivates them not to use
online modalities; it is the opportunity presented to them. If the stakeholders will
have access to online modalities, they will likely utilize these technologies.
According to the research, almost all are enthusiastic about DOT providing
a new Tourism Information System and a new online survey tool for local
destinations. The scholar recognizes this as a gate of interest for the development
of the STAR Hub. The team and the scholar will need to collate from the SDNA
and the FGD the needs, perceptions, preferences, and expectations of modalities on
tourism information systems. It should be noted that it was mentioned during the
FGD that there are areas that stakeholders still prefer manual forms instead of
digitized format. Hence, improvements and development should also consider this
in the design.
The scholar assessed that the responses were consistent with UNWTO
(2014) opined that online information will be more accessible, especially now that
every step of the customer experience journey is connected to online information.
Indeed, one cannot separate the value-added to tourism information from
tourism information tools. It is not a case of what is more important, the tool or the
output, since both are dependent on each other. The increasing value of tourism data
121
 to stakeholders' needs may increase tourism commitment to data sharing. Increasing
the value of data gathering tools may also increase data sharing commitment,
increasing data value itself. However, it will all depend on managing the
expectations and capacity of each locality. In order to sustain the drive on data
sharing, every factor must be considered.
It is of great importance that the DOI Adopter category Assessment results
showed that LGUs are more inclined to innovations, provided they can learn about
them. DOT can capitalize on this towards the creation of a data-sharing innovation.

e. Applications to the Capstone Project Innovation Component

This innovation project is heavily reliant on stakeholder engagement with
the final output geared towards addressing the needs of the stakeholders. For
instance, the created tabs of the proposed GIS dashboards reflect the needs of the
stakeholders as provided by the SDNA and FGD. The survey tools also address the
data gathering requirement for the indicators that they need. On the same note,
updating the Manual addresses the stakeholders' need for guidance towards building
a local tourism database. Meanwhile, the STAR Hub, when launched, will be an
integrated and interactive online system for local tourism stakeholders.
Consistent with the idea of a smart tourism system of Buhalis, Law, and
Leung (2011), the scholar envisions a fully developed TIS appropriate to the
stakeholders’ process of capturing data, interpreting data, and communicating it to
their stakeholders and clients.

5.2 Recommendations
Digitalization involves not only transferring data into a digitized format, and it
involves transforming the business process (TruQC, n.d.). Part of the business process
is communicating data needs to parties that need it at a specific time. As Buhalis, Law,
and Leung (2011) pointed out, the analysis of the sector must be communicated to the
stakeholders, even including the market. A smart tourism system must have these
values: functional, social, emotional, and epistemic (Lim, Mostafa, & Park, 2017). It is
about finding the system’s worth to the stakeholders before they even use it.
Upon reviewing the current results of the capstone, the scholar recommends the
following:

122
 a. Consultations as simple as the SDNA or FGD should be done regularly to
provide a platform for tourism statistics stakeholders to express themselves. It
should be used to develop systems that are more responsive to their needs and
less with the needs of the project officers.
b. The development of the data gathering tools for subnational tourism data should
always consider its implication to the users' processes.
c. Reviewing the Revised SLTSS Manual should always put into consideration its
adherence to the results of the research.
d. The development and improvement of the DOT STAR Hub should be subjected
to the proposed UAS and an evaluation of its adherence to the survey results.
e. Development of the Monitoring and Evaluation System should be incorporated
on the training modules for the SLTSS, the tools, the online systems, and as part
of the regular assessment of the system. It should include the invitation for an
external audit activity.
f. Creating a public sector IT project TOR should always use an agile development
framework and put business assessment as the first milestone to make the
project more attune to the needs of the owners and their stakeholders.

5.3 Strategic Implications to Development Management

Development management is the application of the management process in the

development life cycle. (Autin, 2020) In the development life cycle, data is one of the
essential elements and one that is needed in every stage. It is particularly needed during
the inception stage of development projects. As a development starting point, it
becomes rooted in what the stakeholders need and how they see it. The development
begins with sociological imagination. They value what individuals experience to create
something that can enhance what is good or deter what is terrible. Development
Managers must tap into the aspirations of the stakeholders to be able to build something
that is of value to them.

While there is a growing principle in marketing that the consumer does not
know what they want or need, this is not the case for tourism statistics database
building. Effective database management and infographic creation are about building a
database to generate information that stakeholders will want to use, not the other way
around.

123
 Development Management would be more rewarding when individuals are
considered towards the attainment of a common development goal. Stakeholder
consultation and engagement keep the development grounded and valued. A bigger
chance for development to be more sustainable depends on stakeholders when they feel
they own the development project rather than be subjected to it.

5.4 Sustainability Plan

As discussed in the previous chapter, the capstone project shall be implemented

by SEAIMD beyond the period allotted for the action research and has been included
on the Approved Work and Budget Program for 2021 and the Proposed Work and
Budget Program 2022.
The Revised SLTSS is under development through the service of a procured
consulting company. The target release of the final press copy of the SLTSS Manual
2021 is in December 2021. It will also be published and distributed to LGUs nationwide
in 2022. The regular Tourism Statistics Capacity Building Program of SEAIMD shall
rebuild itself around the revised Manual to ensure that intended stakeholders use it.
The TPMS and MATTA Pilot Implementation shall also continue and is
scheduled for October to December 2021. The scholar and his team shall travel on
October 20 – 29, 2021, to Boracay for the first pilot implementation of TPMS and
MATTA.
The scholar also proposed the TPMS to be part of the Annual Work and Budget
Program of SEAIMD for 2022, including the continuation of the TPMS Surveys in pilot
areas in 2022. The team planned to implement an expanded TPMS, especially since it
has become part of the Standard Local Tourism Statistics System; pilot surveys will
also be implemented. The MATTA shall be an accompanying tool during the TPMS
Pilot Implementations runs and be part of the regular ASTP1 of the SLTSS Trainings.
For those regions that have received the ASTP1 already, the MATTA will be part of
their next training module. The TPMS shall also replace the visitor surveys of the LVSS
in the regular ATST of SLTSS.
The team will continue the development of the DOT STAR Hub through its GIS
dashboards and survey tools, central database, and visualization system.
The GIS Dashboard shall be launched online within 2021. Members of the team,
including the scholar, shall train rigorously to develop new dashboard elements and its

124
support tools. Development of other dashboards and tools using the ArcGIS shall be in
line, along with the administrator and technical training.
The TIS and the DOT STAR Hub are scheduled for development in December
2021 and will be done by March 2022. After its initial launch, orientation will be
implemented gradually in the regions, improving the system as it is populated with data
and participation from the stakeholders.
For the complete Sustainability Matrix, see Table 27.

125
 Table 27. Sustainability Plan Matrix

Expected Responsible Support Needed from

Strategy PPA Key Performance Indicator Time Frame Resources Needed
Outcome Unit Identified Stakeholders

Improved Update the Finalize the Revised SLTSS Approved press-proof copy of October - December Approved Budget SEAIMD
subnational Standard Local Manual 2021 Tourism Statistics Manual 2021
tourism Tourism for LGUs
statistics system Statistics System
Conduct FGD for the Revised FGD Documentation Submitted January 2022 Approved Budget SEAIMD RO, LGUs
SLTSS Manual Standard Events Logistics

Publication of the 2021 Tourism Manual Published and March - May 2022 Approved Budget SEAIMD RO, LGUs
Statistics Manual for LGUs Disseminated

Conduct of TPMS/MATTA Pilot Submitted documents: October 2021 - October Approved Budget SEAIMD RO, LGUs
Tourism Product Implementation 1. Orientation Participant's List 2022 Standard Events Logistics
Market 2. Respondent Initial Summary Standard Survey Logistics
Survey/MATTA Report
Implementation 3. Terminal Report
Implement TPMS Continuing Submitted document: November 2021 - Approved Budget SEAIMD RO, LGUs
Survey 2. Respondent Initial Summary December 2022 Standard Events Logistics
Report Standard Survey Logistics
3. Terminal Report
Develop GIS Launch the Online GIS Launched Online GIS 2021 None ITD
Dashboard and Dashboard Dashboard
related Tools Update and develop elements Updated GIS Dashboard 2022 None SEAIMD/ITD
of the GIS dashboard elements
Develop/Digitize Survey Tools Launched Approved Survey 2022 None SEAIMD/ITD RO, LGUs
using ArcGIS Apps Tools
Develop TIS with Develop TIS and Modules Approved TIS and Modules December 2021 - Approved Budget SEAIMD/ITD
Visualization and February 2022
Modules Conduct Training for TIS Submitted Documentation: February - May 2022 Approved Budget SEAIMD/ITD
Database Project Officers 1. List of Training Participants Standard Events Logistics

Launch the TIS and Modules
Orient Pilot Local Destination
Users
Evaluate Conduct FGD for the Program
Program
Conduct SDNA Survey
Launched Live Online TIS and March - April 2022 None SEAIMD/ITD
Modules
Database of Pilot Local April - December 2022 Approved Budget SEAIMD/ITD RO, LGUs
Destination Users Standard Events Logistics
FGD Documentation Submitted November 2022 Approved Budget SEAIMD/ITD RO, LGUs
Standard Events Logistics
Survey Report October - November None SEAIMD RO, LGUs, NGA
2022

126
 Chapter 6

The Leadership and Management Journey

This chapter discusses the lessons learned by the scholar on his journey in the
implementation of his capstone project.

6.1 Leadership and Management Competencies or Styles Demonstrated

During the implementation of this multi-component project, the scholar
believed that he had demonstrated a situational leadership style. Situational leadership
entails fluidity and flexibility. The leader must assess team members to adjust
appropriately according to the maturity level of individuals on the team (Truex, 2019).
Since the capstone team comprises three sub-teams with different individuals with
varying maturity levels, recognizing that no one leadership style fits all, the scholar
needs to adjust according to the situation. Leadership styles usually fit a group or clique,
but harmony is not always assured when the team is created based on competencies and
expertise.
The scholar also dealt with different groups of stakeholders from different local
destinations. In his long years of interacting with various stakeholders all over the
country, he is aware that cultural attitudes and biases have to be considered, aside from
individuals' usual maturity level. As Szromek (2019) mentioned, destination managers
must adjust decisions according to the needs of all stakeholders and consider the
development stages of the destination and the maturity of their stakeholders. It was also
confirmed during the implementation of the capstone. The scholar must temper
engagement according to whom he was dealing with to achieve the capstone’s
objectives.
The scholar delegated the tasks to highly skilled team members and let the
project officers decide on strategies to achieve the objectives. There were also times
that the scholar would be authoritative, giving direct and specific guidance, especially
when things had to be done immediately. There were times that the scholar needed to

127
 set the pace and lead by example, especially when members were stressed with too
much workload. These are also times when the scholar needs to be affiliative to boost
interest and excitement.
Situational leadership is an excellent framework for a multi-faceted project,
with diverse stakeholders, and more possibly long-term in terms of benefits realization.

6.2 Key Lessons as a Leader and Public Manager

As a leader and a public manager, the scholar felt the need to assess situations
and prioritize tasks by assessing their risk if not resolved. Risk assessment was
necessary to manage the team's limited time to implement the capstone, especially
during uncertainty. The scholar juggled between tasks and assignments during the
implementation of the capstone. One needs to know how to handle stress and implement
excellent time management (not to mention device management).
The scholar also realized that being a leader does not mean being perfect, not
committing any mistakes and that a leader will not face any hardships if everything is
planned well. Risks will always be part of project implementation. Therefore,
assessment is needed to soften its blows.
As a public manager, the scholar felt no room to complain when things went
south publicly. A leader would always see situations as learning experiences. They must
always be focused on the goal and adjust strategies whenever possible to reach that
goal. Nevertheless, it helps to have a platform where one can let out frustrations about
situations. To borrow the word of Sir Nonong Llorin, one must learn how and when to
oscillate. Mr. Ojie Mendoza, also from MMC23-Matatag, summed it well when he said
there is a need to “step back to see more” (Mendoza, 2021). The scholar could not agree
more.
The scholar has done what he can to bring out the best in whatever situation and
the state of the resources.

6.3 What Went Well and Why?

The scholar believed that due to somewhat visionary planning from the
beginning of his PMDP MMC application, capstone project components have been
included in the Work Program of the division (SEAIMD) and the office (OTDPRIM)
from 2020 – 2022, and possibly beyond that. Hence, he did not have any problem
securing approval and budget allocation.
128
 Selecting team members and assigning them to specific components also went
well. The scholar values the competencies and the work attitudes of team members. He
needed to have a good relationship with them, no matter the level of professionality and
maturity. A good working relationship also mattered to the scholar’s superiors.
It was also imperative for the scholar to get the recommendations and ideas of
his superiors. The capstone project's central idea was borne out of the scholar’s
discussion with his IP and Director when he applied for the PMDP MMC.

6.4 Areas for Improvement

The scholar believes that he needs to improve on the delegation of tasks. Even
with the team, the scholar still did many tasks for the project, such as statistical reports
and other milestone documents that need to be done immediately. During these times,
the scholar just did the tasks himself to avoid giving instructions, mentoring, and
evaluating results that may cause further delay.
The scholar must also learn how to say NO. He admits that there were just too
many tasks outside the capstone project that he had to do during the implementation.
Too many postponements of the capstone activities have become a blessing in disguise;
it became time for the scholar to attend to his other obligations, especially those
connected to him being designated as the Interim President of the DOT Employees
Association for 2021.
The scholar also has to improve how to fast-tune key personnel for the eventual
transfer of assignments. Much like how he did with the capstone project, some tasks
can be transferred to the staff since they can be classified as administrative and do not
need hard decisions.

6.5 How does your journey inspire you as a Leader and a Public Manager?
One of the most memorable lines and facial expressions the scholar encountered
during this PMDP MMC is when somebody said, “Pinili niyo ‘yan. Kayanin niyo.”
(You chose it. Deal with it (loose translation)). It was not the words that irritated the
scholar. It was how it was said and the expression. Aside from this, the scholar felt it
was condescending to those taking the program like it was not an absolute master’s
degree or something not at par with a regular master’s degree. It motivated the scholar
to learn whatever he could in all the PMDP MMC can offer, even if it meant sleepless

129
nights and taking double roles as an employee of a national government agency and a
student.
The scholar believed that for him, the difficulties he encountered were probably
also his fault. The task of being a student again after years of work probably jolted his
brain to find the academic within desperately.
Despite it all, the scholar felt privileged to be included in such a program and
inspired to continue making himself better as a leader and public manager. The
experience inspired him to pursue higher learning before he retires from service: getting
a Ph.D., getting another Master’s Degree, or any other specialization. If it made the
service he provides better, it would be worthwhile, no matter the hardship.
To summarize the experience, the scholar framed it in a SWOT quadrant (see
Figure 30). The scholar’s strength is the practice of situational leadership, which was
further enhanced by the learning he had on the program. The scholar, however,
recognizes that to be an excellent leader, one must also be adept in delegating, a
weakness on his part, to be trusting to his team that they would do make the right
decision. While he has been delegating tasks to project officers, he admits that there are
things that he handled himself that should have been delegated as well. The capstone
project has shown that there is an excellent opportunity to increase stakeholder
engagement. There is an interest in innovations in data and data analytics amongst
stakeholders. However, a looming threat is coming next year, which would disturb the
political climate. Consequently, the perennial problem of political will on implementing
local tourism data gathering may resurface again, affecting the sustainability of this
project.

130
 Figure 30. The Scholar’s Experience and Learning

However, national government agencies like DOT are good at their unwavering
commitment to implementing good projects, waiting it out until climate change if they
had to, or taking the innovation elsewhere to whoever is ready and willing. The scholar
would have to navigate through this climate and continue to strive for excellence.
Although, in theory, people never stop learning, the project successfully woke
the academic within, and the scholar enjoyed the experience of learning and being a
student once again.

131
 References

Andriotis, K., & Vaughan, D. (2009). The pattern-matching approach and its application in
tourism development. Current Issues in Tourism, 12(4), 315 - 336.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500802346185
APEC Tourism Working Group. (2013). Sustainable Development of Tourism
Destinations. T & L Europraxis.
Assila, A., de Oliveira, K., & Ezzedine, H. (2016). Standardized Usability Questionnaires:
Features and Quality Focus. Electronic Journal of Computer Science and
Information Technology, 15 - 31. http://ejcsit.uniten.edu.my/index.php/ejcsit/arti
cle/view/96
Association for Project Management. (n.d.). What is Agile Project Management? Retrieved
May 18, 2021, from APM The Chartered Body for the Project Profession:
https://www.apm.org.uk/resources/find-a-resource/agile-project-
management/#:~:text=A
gile%20project%20management%20is%20an,project%20throughout%20its%20lif
e%20cycle.&text=Iterative%20approaches%20are%20frequently%20used,than%2
0following%20a%20linear%20path
Association of Tourism Officers of the Philippines. (2020). Home [Facebook Page].
Retrieved October 31, 2020, from Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/ATOP-
Association-of-Tourism-Officers-of-the-Philippines-101552494611332/?__tn__
=CH-R#_=_
Autin, G. (2020, November 26). What is Development Management?. Hospitalitynet.
https://www.hospitalitynet.org/explainer/4101737.html
Begum, H., Er, A.C., Ferdous Alam, A., & Sahazali, N. (2014). Tourist’s perceptions
towards the role of stakeholders in sustainable tourism. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 144, 313 - 321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.301
How Big Data Technologies Can Improve Tourism. (2017). bismart. Retrieved May 4,
2021. https://blog.bismart.com/en/big-data-technologies-tourism#:~:text=Players
%20in%20the%20tourism%20industry,in%20the%20trip%20planning%20proces
s.&text=Big%20data%20can%20even%20be,work%20well%20in%20their%20m
arket.
Braun, P. (2005). Creating value to tourism products through tourism networks and
clusters: uncovering destination value chains. OECD & Korea Conference on
Global Tourism Growth: A Challenge for SMEs. https://core.ac.uk/download
/pdf/213010746.pdf
Buhalis, D., Law, R., & Leung, D. (2011). ETourism: Critical Information and
Communication technologies for tourism destinations. In Y. Wang , & A. Pizam
(Eds.), Destination Marketing and Management; Theories and Application (pp. 205
- 224). CAB International. doi:https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845937621.0205

132
Cambridge. (n.d.). tourist attraction. In the Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved October 3,
2020 from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/tourist-attraction
Cohen, S. A., Prayag, G., & Moital, M. (2014). Consumer behaviour in tourism: concepts,
influences and opportunities. Current Issues in Tourism, 17 (10), 872-909.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2013.850064
Data Privacy Act of 2012, Republic Act No. 10173. (2012).
https://www.privacy.gov.ph/data-privacy-act/
Cordero, T. (2021, February 19). DOLE, DOT relax qualifications for displaced tourism
workers to get cash aid, avail cash-for-work. GMA News Online.
https://www.gmanetwork.co m/news/news/nation/776638/dole-dot-relax-
qualifications-for-displaced-tourism-workers-to-get-cash-aid-avail-cash-for-
work/story/
CORE Movement Ph. (2020, August 3). What is Mandanas Ruling?. CORE Constitutional
Reform. https://constitutionalreform.gov.ph/ufaqs/what-is-mandanas-ruling/
Dela Santa, E. (2014). The Evolution of Philippine tourism policy implementation from
1973 to 2009. Tourism Planning and Development, 12 (2), 155 - 175.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2014.913675
Dexeus, C. R. (2019). The Deepening Effects of the Digital Revolution. In E. Fayos-Sola,
& C. Cooper (Eds.), The Future of Tourism: Innovation and Sustainability (pp. 43
- 69). Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89941-1
Dietz, L. W., Roy, R., & Worndl, W. (2019). Characterization of traveller types using
check-in data from location-based social networks. In J. Pesonen, & J. Neidhardt
(Eds.), Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2019 (pp. 15 -
26). Nicosia: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05940-8_2
DILG. (2020, September 20). LGU Facts and Figures. Department of Interior and Local
Government. https://www.dilg.gov.ph/facts-and-figures/Regional-and-Provincial-
Summ ary-Number-of-Provinces-Cities-Municipalities-and-Barangays-as-of-30-
September-2020/32
Dollarhide, M. E. (2021, March 15). Social Media. Investopedia.
https://www.investopedia.co m/terms/s/social-media.asp
Dolnicar, S. (2004). Improved understanding of tourists' needs: cross-classification for
validation of data-driven segments. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and
Tourism, 5(2/3/4), 141-156. https://doi.org/10.1300/J162v05n02_08
DOT & JICA. (2012). Tourism Statistics Manual for Local Government Units (Revised
Edition). Department of Tourism.
DOT & JICA. (2012b). Tourism Development Planning Guidebook for Local Government
Units. Department of Tourism.
Implementing Rules and Regulations of R. A. 9593, otherwise known as Tourism Act of
2009. (2009). Department of Tourism.

133
Department of Tourism. (2016). National Tourism Development Plan (2017 - 2022).
Department of Tourism.
DOT. (2018a). Advanced Tourism Statistics Training Part 1: Introduction and Leveling Off
[Powerpoint Slides]. Department of Tourism.
DOT. (2018b). List of DOT Officials. http://www.tourism.gov.ph/key_officials.aspx
DOT. (2020a). Basic Tourism Statistics Training Introduction and Leveling [Powerpoint
Slides]. Department of Tourism.
Creating the Task Force on Domestic Tourism Product and Market Development, DOT
Department Order 2020 - 050. (2020b). Department of Tourism.
Creating an Inter-sectoral Team to Conduct Validation of Readiness of Local Tourism
Destinations. DOT Department Order 2020 - 068. (2020c). Department of Tourism
DOT, AIM, & Guide to the Philippines. (2020). The Philippine Travel Survey Report.
Makati City: DOT, AIM, and Guide to the Philippines.
https://guidetothephilippines.ph/ph-travel-survey
DOT, DILG, DENR, & DAP. (2014). Tourism Guidebook for Local Government Units.
Makati: Department of Tourism.
DOT-SEAIMD. (2020). Regional Distribution of Overnight Visitors in the Philippines for
2019. Department of Tourism.
Duman, T., Erkaya, Y., & Topaloglu, O. (2020). Vacation interests and vacation type
preferences in Austrian domestic tourism. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing,
37 (2), 217-245. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2020.1740135
Dupeyras, A., & MacCallum, N. (2013). Indicators for Measuring Competitiveness in
Tourism: A Guidance Document. OECD Tourism Papers, 2013 (02).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k47t9q2t923-en
ESRI. (n.d.). ARCGIS. Retrieved August 9, 2021 from https://www.esri.com/en-
us/arcgis/about-arcgis/overview
Garcia, R. (2017, June 19). 2016 Household Survey on Domestic Visitors: activities,
practices and updates [Powerpoint Slides]. United Nations Statistics Division .
https://unstats.un.org
/unsd/trade/events/2017/manila/presentations/day1/06%2011-15%20Philippines-
part2.pdf
George, M. L., Rowlands, D., Price, M., & Maxey, J. (2012). The Lean six sigma pocket
toolbook. Manila: McGraw Hill.
Ghosh, I. (2020, July 3). What's at Risk: An 18-Month View of a Post-COVID World. World
Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/07/covid19-future-
economic-societal-geopolitical-risks/

134
Glen, S. (n.d.). Sample Size in Statistics (How to Find it): Excel, Cochran’s Formula,
General Tips. StatisticsHowTo. Retrieved May 16, 2021 from
https://www.statisticshowto.c om/probability-and-statistics/find-sample-size/
Heikinheimo, V., Di Minin, E., Tenkanen, H., Hausmann, A., Erkkonen, J., & Toivonen,
T. (2017). User-Generated Geographic Information for Visitor Monitoring in a
National Park: A Comparison of Social Media Data and Visitor Survey.
International Journal of Geo-information, 6 (85). http:\\doi:10.3390/ijgi6030085
Huybers, T. (2003). Domestic Tourism Destination Choices - a choice modelling approach.
International Journal of tourism research, 5, 445-459.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.450
Inter-Agency Task Force for the Management of Emerging Infectious Disease. (2020, May
5). Omnibus Guidelines on the Implementation of Community Quarantine in the
Philippines. Official Gazette Republic of the Philippines:
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/downlo ads/2020/05may/20200522-omnibus-
guidelines-on-the-implementation-of-community-quarantine-in-the-
philippines.pdf
Index Mundi. (n.d.). International tourism, receipts (% of total exports). Retrieved
November 4, 2020, from
https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/ST.INT.RCPT.XP.ZS
Ivanov, S., & Webster, C. (2007). Measuring the impact of tourism on economic growth.
Tourism Economics, 13 (3), 379 - 388. https://doi:10.5367/000000007781497773
Jalani, J. O. (2012). Local people's perception of the impacts and importance of ecotourism
in Sabang, Palawan, Philippines. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 57,
247 - 254.
Johns, N., & Gyimothy, S. (2002). Market segmentation and the prediction of tourist
behavior: the case of Bornholm, Denmark. Journal of Travel Research, 40, 316-
327. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0047287502040003009
Keith, E. R. (2002). Agile Software Development Processes A Different Approach to
Software Design. University of Pittsburgh School of Computing and Information.
http://www.sis.pitt.edu/jjoshi/Devsec/agileSDMethod.pdf
Kenton, W. (2020, October 28). Input - Output Analysis. Investopedia: https://www.investo
pedia.com/terms/i/input-output-analysis.asp
Kreag, G. (2001). The Impacts of Tourism. University of Minnesota.
Kumar, J., & Hussain, K. (2014). Evaluating tourism's economic effects: Comparison of
Different Approaches. Procedia -Social and Behavioral Sciences 144, 360 - 365.
Elsevier Ltd.
La Morte, W. W. (2019, September 9). Diffusion of Innovation Theory. Behavioral Change
Models (Boston University School of Public Health): https://sphweb.bumc.bu.
edu/otlt/mph-
modules/sb/behavioralchangetheories/behavioralchangetheories4.html

135
Laurent, J. (2015). The impacts of tourism in local community wellbeing [Masteral
Dissertation, Open University of Tanzania].
Lim, C., Mostafa, N., & Park, J. (2017, November 25). Digital Omotenashi: Toward a
Smart Tourism Design Systems. Sustainability, 9.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122175
Lotame. (2019, September 23). What is data analytics? Lotame.
https://www.lotame.com/what-is-data-analytics/
Lucas, D. L. (2020, April 13). PH travel agencies plead for state aid as COVID-19
bludgeons tourism. Inquirer.net. https://business.inquirer.net/294652/ph-travel-
agencies-plead-for-state-aid-as-covid-19-bludgeons-tourism
Lund, A. (1998). USE Questionnaire Resource Page.
Knowledge creation – definition and meaning. (n.d.). Market Business News Retrieved
February 19, 2021 from https://marketbusinessnews.com/financial-
glossary/knowledge-creation/#
:~:text=Knowledge%20creation%20refers%20to%20the,users%20interact%2C%2
0practice%20and%20learn.&text=Knowledge%20creation%20is%20the%20form
ation,tacit%20knowledge%20in%20people's%20minds
Mendoza, R. (2021, October 18). Ojie Mendoza [Facebook Post]. Retrieved October 19,
2021 from
https://www.facebook.com/ojie.mendoza.1/posts/5113344185347888?comment_i
d=5115625701786403&notif_id=1634602706463608&notif_t=feedback_reaction
_generic&ref=notif
Merriam - Webster. (n.d.). subnational. Merriam - Webster Dictionary. Retrieved from
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subnational
MI News Network. (2020, December 10). What Does “Port of Call” Means?. Marine
Insight. Retrieved March 19, 2021, from https://www.marineinsight.com/life-at-
sea/what-does-the-term-port-of-call-
means/#:~:text=Port%20of%20call%20means%20an,taking%20on
%20supplies%20or%20fuel.&text=For%20the%20cruise%20ship%2C%20port,pa
sse ngers%20for%20their%20cruise%20holidays.
National Ecotourism Steering Committee and Ecotourism Technical Working Group.
(2002). National Ecotourism Strategy. Quezon City: DOT and DENR.
National Ecotourism Steering Committee and Ecotourism Technical Working Group.
(2014). National Ecotourism Strategy and Action Plan 2013 - 2022. Quezon City:
DOT and DENR. http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/phi179040.pdf
National Economic Development Authority. (2016). Philippine Development Plan 2017 -
2022. National Economic Development Authority.
NEDA. (2020, April). We Recover as One. National Economic and Development
Authority. http://www.neda.gov.ph/we-recover-as-one/

136
Neufeld, D. (2020, May 22). Visualizing the Countries Most Reliant on Tourism. Visual
Capitalist. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/countries-reliant-tourism/
Novilla, H. N. (2019). Strengthening the knowledge sharing culture in NEDA: Knowledge
Management for Results. Pasig: Development Academy of the Philippines.
Olavsrud, T. (2021, February 8). What is data analytics? Analyzing and managing data for
decisions. CIO ASEAN. https://www.cio.com/article/3606151/what-is-data-
analytics-analyzing-and-managing-data-for-
decisions.html#:~:text=Data%20analytics%20defi nition-
,Data%20analytics%20is%20a%20discipline%20focused%20on%20extracting
%20insights%20from,organization%2C%20and%20s
PACET Corp. (2012). JICA Technical Cooperation for Department of Tourism Statistics
System for Local Government Units Final Report .
Pascariu, G., & Ibanescu, B. (2018). Determinants and Implications of the Tourism
Multiplier Effect in EU Economies Towards a core-periphery pattern? Amfiteatru
Economic, 20 (Special No. 12), 982 - 997. https://doi:10.24818EA/2018/s12/982
Permana, P. (2015). Scrum Method Implementation in a Software Development Project
Management. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and
Applications, 6 (9), 198 - 204. http://dx.doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2015.060927
Pilapil-Añasco, C., & Lizada, J. C. (2014). Philippine Tourism: Evolution towards
Sustainability. SHS Web of Conferences, 12(01032). doi:http://DOI:
10.1051/shsconf/20141201032
Margin of Error & Sample Size Calculator. (n.d.). Pollfish. Retrieved May 17, 2021 from
https://www.pollfish.com/margin-of-error-
calculator/#:~:text=An%20acceptable%20ma
rgin%20of%20error,%2C%20population%20size%2C%20and%20percentage.
Presidential Decree No. 189, s. 1973. (1973, May 11). Official Gazette Government of the
Philippines: https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1973/05/11/presidential-decree-
no-189-s-1973/
Philippine Statistics Authority. (2004). Standard Definitions for Tourism Statistics Batch 1
Approved Series.
PSA. (2005). Household Survey on Domestic Visitors (HSDV). Philippine Statistics
Authority. https://psa.gov.ph/content/household-survey-domestic-visitors-hsdv
PSA. (2014). Survey of Tourism Establishments in the Philippines Field Operations and
Processing Manual. Philippine Statistics Authority.
PSA. (2017). Household Survey on Domestic Visitors (HSDV) All releases. Philippine
Statistics Authority. https://psa.gov.ph/hsdv
PSA. (2020, July). 2019 Philippine Tourism Satellite Accounts (PTSA) Reports. Philippine
Statistics Authority.

137
Rappler. (2020, January 16). TIMELINE: Taal Volcano's January 2020 Eruption.
https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/timeline-taal-volcano-eruption-2020
Tourism Act of 2009, Republic Act 9593. (2009). Congress of the Philippines.
Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving Beyond Dyadic Ties: A Network Theory of Stakeholder
Influences. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887 - 910.
https://doi.org/10.2307/259248
Rusu, S. (2011, June). Tourism Multiplier Effect. Journal of Economics and Business
Research, XVII (1), 70 - 76.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269630865_Tourism_mu ltiplier_effect
Sacred Heart University. (n.d.). Organizing academic research papers: types of research
designs. Sacred Heart University Library Retrieved March 15, 2021, from
https://library.sacredhea rt.edu/c.php?g=29803&p=185902#s-lg-box-wrapper-
626719
Santos, A. P. (2020, March 16). Coronavirus: Philippines quarantines island of 57 million
people. Aljazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/3/16/coronavirus-
philippines-quarantin es-island-of-57-million-people
SAS. (n.d.). Big data. What is it and why it matters. SAS Institute. Retrieved February 8,
2016, from https://www.sas.com/en_ph/insights/big-data/what-is-big-data.html
Savery, C. A. (2008). Communication Innovators or Laggards? Diffusion of Innovation by
US public relations practitioners. Berlin: VDM Verlag Dr. Mueller E.K.
Scholtz, M., & Slabbert, E. (2018). A remodelled approach to measuring the social impact
of tourism in a developing country. Development Southern Africa.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2018.1461609
Seckelmann, A. (2001, January 4). Domestic tourism - a chance for regional development
in Turkey. Tourism Management, 23, 85 - 92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-
5177(01)00066-8
Serena. (2007). serena.com An Introduction to Agile Software Development [Web
Document]. Docplayer. Retrieved November 2016, from
https://docplayer.net/2823006-Serena-com-an-introduction-to-agile-software-
development.html
Sims, D. (2016, December 9). A/B Testing Basics: Confidence Level. The Daily Egg.
Retrieved May 17, 2021, from:
https://www.crazyegg.com/blog/glossary/confidence-level/#:~:t
ext=The%20most%20commonly%20selected%20confidence,95%25%20is%20th
e%20default%20value.&text=A%2095%25%20confidence%20level%20means,v
alue%2095%25%20of%20the%20time.
Stynes, D. J. (1999). Economic Impacts of Tourism. The Pennsylvania State University.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.541.2793&rep=rep1&ty
pe=pdf

138
Stynes, D. J., & White, E. M. (2006). Reflections on measuring recreation and travel
spending. Journal of Travel Research, 45(1).
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287506288873
Szromek, A. R. (2019). An Analytical Model of Tourist Destination Development and
Characteristics of the Development Stages: Example of the Island of Bornholm.
Sustainability, 11(24). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11246989
Thakur, D. (n.d.). Role of Information in Decision Making. Computer Notes, A Complete
Guide. Retrieved February 24, 2021, from
https://ecomputernotes.com/mis/decision-making/role-of-information
International Tourism Receipts. (n.d.). Tilatokeskus Retrieved October 9, 2020, from
https://www.stat.fi/meta/kas/kv_matktulo_en.html
Truex, L. (2019, March 5). How to Develop Situational Leadership. The balance small
business https://www.thebalancesmb.com/how-to-develop-situational-leadership-
skills-4588341
Digitization vs. digitalization: Differences, definitions and examples. (n.d.) TruQC.
Retrieved September 2021, from https://www.truqcapp.com/digitization-vs-
digitalization-differen ces-definitions-and-examples/
SDLC - Waterfall Model. (n.d.). tutorialspoint. Retrieved May 18, 2021, from
https://www.tutorialspoint.com/sdlc/sdlc_waterfall_model.htm
United Nations Statistics Division. (2014). Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics.
UN Statistics Division. https://unstats.un.org/unsd/dnss/gp/FP-New-E.pdf
UNWTO & ETC. (2009). Handbook on Tourism Destinations Branding. Madrid: United
Nation World Tourism Organization and European Travel COmmission.
United Nations World Tourism Organization. (2008a). International Recommendations for
Tourism Statistics 2008. UNWTO.
UNWTO. (2008b). Tourism Satellite Account: Recommended Methodological Framework
2008.
UNWTO. (2013). Sustainable Tourism for Development Guidebook. Madrid: UNWTO.
UNWTO. (2014). Handbook on E-Marketing for Tourism Destinations. Madrid: UNWTO.
UNWTO. (2017, June 20). 6th International Conference on Tourism Statistics: Measuring
Sustainable Tourism. https://www.unwto.org/archive/asia/event/6th-internatio nal-
conference-tourism-statistics-measuring-sustainable-tourism
UNWTO. (2017b). Measuring Sustainable Tourism: A call for Action – Report of the 6th
International Conference on Tourism Statistics, Manila, Philippines, 21 – 23 June
2017. https://doi.org/10.18111/9789284418954
UNWTO. (n.d.). Glossary of Tourism Terms. Retrieved July 18, 2020, from
https://www.unwto.org/glossary-tourism-terms

139
Virola, R. A. (2016). The Philippine Statistical System After Almost 3 Years of Transition:
The Data Users’ Perspective. 2016 National Conference on Statistics. Philippine
Statistics Authoruty. https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/Final-2016NCS-
PSSReorg.pdf
Vizconde, A. L., & Felicen, S. S. (2012, January). Tourism Industry of Batangas Province:
Basis for Improved Tourism Program. IAMURE: International Association of
Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 3.
http://dx.doi.org/10.7718/iamure.2011.3.1.317334

140
 Glossary

Accommodation Establishments – “any establishment, which on a regular basis, provides

for a fee, facilities for overnight stays as its main business. It includes not only
hotels, resorts and similar traditional forms of accommodation but also non-
traditional forms of accommodation such as resorts, tourist complexes, camping
sites, youth hostels, private apartments, villas and furnished rooms in private
houses, and the likes”. Adapted from A Glossary of Selected Tourism Terms
(1980).DOT Rules and Regulations to govern the accreditation of hotels, tourist
inns, motels, apartels, resorts, pension houses, and other accommodation
establishments ( (PSA (Formerly NSCB), 2004)

Agile project management – “is an iterative approach to delivering a project throughout

its life cycle. Iterative or agile life cycles are composed of
several iterations or incremental steps towards the completion of a project.
Iterative approaches are frequently used in software development projects to
promote velocity and adaptability since the benefit of iteration is that you can
adjust as you go along rather than following a linear path”. (Association for Project
Management, n.d.)

Big data – “refers to data that is so large, fast or complex that it is difficult or impossible to
process using traditional methods. The act of accessing and storing large amounts
of information for analytics has been around a long time”. (SAS, n.d.)

Data analytics – “is a discipline focused on extracting insights from data. It comprises the
processes, tools, and techniques of data analysis and management, including the
collection, organization, and storage of data”. (Olavsrud, 2021)

Department – for this paper, refer to the Department of Tourism.

Diffusion of Innovation – “developed by E.M. Rogers in 1962, is one of the oldest social
science theories. It originated in communication to explain how, over time, an idea
or product gains momentum and diffuses (or spreads) through a specific population
or social system. The end result of this diffusion is that people, as part of a social
system, adopt a new idea, behavior, or product”. (La Morte, 2019)

Digitalization – “transforming business processes by leveraging digital technologies,

ultimately resulting in opportunities for efficiencies and increased revenues.”
(TruQC, n.d.)

Digitization – “Converting data, documents and processes from analog to digital.” (TruQC,
n.d.)

Domestic Tourism – “comprises the activities of a resident visitor within the country of
reference, either as part of a domestic tourism trip or part of an outbound tourism
trip.” (UNWTO, 2008a)

Enumerators – survey or data gathering interviewers and frontline level implementers

141
Gross value added of tourism industries (GVATI) – “is the total gross value added of all
establishments belonging to tourism industries, regardless of whether all their
output is provided to visitors and the degree of specialization of their production
process” (UNWTO, n.d.)

Inbound Tourism – “comprises the activities of a non-resident visitor within the country of
reference on an inbound tourism trip” (UNWTO, 2008a)

Internal Tourism – “comprises domestic tourism and inbound tourism, that is to say, the
activities of resident and non-resident visitors within the country of reference as
part of domestic or international tourism trips.” (UNWTO, 2008a)

International Tourism – “comprises inbound tourism and outbound tourism, that is to say,
the activities of resident visitors outside the country of reference, either as part of
domestic or outbound tourism trips and the activities of non-resident visitors within
the country of reference on inbound tourism trips.” (UNWTO, 2008a)

I-O Impact model – “is a form of macroeconomic analysis based on the interdependencies
between different economic sectors or industries. This method is commonly used
for estimating the impacts of positive or negative economic shocks and analyzing
the ripple effects throughout an economy”. (Kenton, 2020)

Knowledge Creation – “refers to the continuous combination, transfer, and conversion of

different kinds of knowledge. This occurs as users interact, practice and learn. Put
simply; it is the creation of ideas, which is at the heart of a company’s competitive
advantage”. (Market Business News, n.d.)

Knowledge Sharing Culture – “is a set of behaviors which involves the exchange of
information or assistance to others.” Adapted from Connelly’s Predictors of
knowledge sharing in organizations, 2000. (Novilla, 2019)

Subnational – “existing or occurring below a national level: relating to or being a group

or region within a nation.” (Merriam - Webster, n.d.) Most of the time, it is
colloquially referring to what is local.

Destination- “Refers to a country, region or city specifically as a tourism destination: a

place that people wish to visit.” (UNWTO & ETC, 2009)

Market – “Market and segment refer to a group of potential customers who have been
identified as potentially interested in a particular product or destination.” (UNWTO
& ETC, 2009)

Multiplier effect – in tourism, these are the “economic impacts brought about by a change
in the level or pattern of tourism expenditure.” It is “often cited to capture the
secondary effects of tourism spending and show the wide range of sectors in the
community that may benefit from tourism.” (Rusu, 2011)

National Tourism – “comprises domestic tourism and outbound tourism, that is to say, the
activities of resident visitors within and outside the country of reference, either as
part of domestic or outbound tourism trips” (UNWTO, 2008a)

142
Outbound Tourism – “comprises the activities of a resident visitor outside the country of
reference, either as part of an outbound tourism trip or as part of a domestic tourism
trip” (UNWTO, 2008a)

Port of call - defined in all shipping documents “as the port of a country where cargo or a
passenger (cruise) ship halts to discharge or load the cargo or to embark or
disembark passengers.” (MI News Network, 2020)

Same-day visitors or excursionist - "A visitor (domestic, inbound or outbound) is classified

as a tourist (or overnight visitor) if his/her trip includes an overnight stay, or as a
same-day visitor (or excursionist) otherwise” (UNWTO, 2008a)

Scrum – “agile methodology commonly used in software development, where regular team
meetings review the progress of a single development phase (or Sprint).”
(Association for Project Management, n.d.)

Social media – “is a computer-based technology that facilitates the sharing of ideas,
thoughts, and information through the building of virtual networks and
communities. By design, social media is Internet-based and gives users quick
electronic communication of content. Content includes personal information,
documents, videos, and photos. Users engage with social media via a computer,
tablet, or smartphone via web-based software or applications”. (Dollarhide, 2021)

Tourism – “refers to the activity of visitors” (UNWTO, 2008a)

“is a social, cultural and economic phenomenon which entails the movement
of people to countries or places outside their usual environment for personal
or business/professional purposes. These people are called visitors (which may
be either tourists or excursionists; residents or non-residents) and tourism has
to do with their activities, some of which involve tourism expenditure”.
(UNWTO, n.d.)

Tourism characteristic industries – “are the activities that typically produce tourism
characteristic products. As the industrial origin of a product (the ISIC industry that
produces it) is not a criterion for the aggregation of products within a similar CPC
category, there is no strict one-to-one relationship between products and the
industries producing them as their principal outputs” (UNWTO, 2008a)

Tourism characteristic products—"are those that satisfy one or both of the following
criteria: (a) Tourism expenditure on the product should represent a significant share
total tourism expenditure (share-of-expenditure/demand condition); (b) Tourism
expenditure on the product should represent a significant share of the supply of the
product in the economy (share-of-supply condition). This criterion implies that the
supply of a tourism characteristic product would cease to exist in meaningful
quantity in the absence of visitors.” (UNWTO, 2008a)

Tourism expenditure— "refers to the amount paid for the acquisition of consumption goods
and services, as well as valuables, for own use or to give away, for and during
tourism trips. It includes expenditures by visitors themselves, as well as expenses
that are paid for or reimbursed by others” (UNWTO, 2008a)

143
Tourism industries – “comprise all establishments for which the principal activity is a
tourism characteristic activity. The term tourism industries is equivalent to tourism
characteristic activities and the two terms are sometimes used synonymously in the
IRTS 2008”. (UNWTO, 2008a) It also refers to enterprises or establishments in an
enterprise.

Tourism Satellite Account – “is the second international standard on tourism statistics that
has been developed in order to present economic data relative to tourism within a
framework of internal and external consistency with the rest of the statistical system
through its link to the System of National Accounts. It is the basic reconciliation
framework of tourism statistics”. (UNWTO, 2008a)

Tourism/Tourist/Visitor receipts – the estimation of expenditures of visitors in a

destination. At the international level, “International tourism receipts are defined
(by WTO) as expenditure of international inbound visitors including their payments
to national carriers for international transport. They also include any other payments
or payments afterward made for goods and services received in the destination
country. The definition is more extensive than that of the travel expenditure in the
Balance of Payments in which international passenger transport is not included”.
(Tilastokeskus, n.d.)

Tourism Sites – “are the specific places which tourists come to see and experience. A TS
may be an existing natural attraction (volcano); an area of natural scenic beauty
(national park); or man-made attraction (heritage structure, beach/golf resort). It can
also be a site or area for potential development or enhancement for tourism such as
a green field site for a new resort, or a coastal area, which could be designated as a
marine park”. (DOT, DILG, DENR, & DAP, 2014)

Tourist Attraction - is a place of interest where tourists visit, typically for its inherent or an
exhibited natural or cultural value, historical significance, natural or built beauty,
offering leisure and amusement. (Cambridge, n.d.)

Tourists - "A visitor (domestic, inbound or outbound) is classified as a tourist (or overnight
visitor), if his/her trip includes an overnight stay, or as a same-day visitor (or
excursionist) otherwise” (UNWTO, 2008a)

Visitor - “is a traveler taking a trip to a main destination outside his/her usual environment,
for less than a year, for any main purpose (business, leisure or other personal
purpose) other than to be employed by a resident entity in the country or place
visited” (UNWTO, 2008a)

Waterfall framework – “serial method for managing software development” (Serena,

2007). “It is also referred to as a linear-sequential life cycle model. It is very simple
to understand and use. In a waterfall model, each phase must be completed before
the next phase can begin and there is no overlapping in the phases”. (tutorialspoint,
n.d.)

144
ANNEXES

145
Annex 1. Stakeholders’ Data Needs Assessment Survey Form for LGU

146
147
Annex 2. Stakeholders Data Needs Assessment Survey Form for TE

148
149
Annex 3. Statistics Data Needs Assessment for DOT Survey Form

150
151
Annex 4. Market Assessment Tool for Tourist Attractions

152
153
154
155
156
157
158
Annex 5. Tourism Product Market Survey

159
160
161
162
163
164
165
Annex 6. Training Evaluation Survey

166
Annex 7. User Acceptance Survey:

167
168
169
Annex 8. Email Correspondence with Professor Arnold Lund for his USE Survey Model:

170
171
Annex 9. Memorandum, Support for the Implementation of the Capstone Project

172
173
174
Annex 10. Memorandum to TRCRG Undersecretary Re: SDNA Surveys

175
Annex 11. Memorandum to Regional Offices Re: SDNA

176
Annex 12. SDNA Introductory Letter to LGUs

177
Annex 13. SDNA Introductory Letter to TEs

178
Annex 14. SDNA SendinBlue Campaigns Screenshots

179
Annex 15. Revised Manual FGD Guide Questions and Flow

180
Annex 16. CP Progress Report June 2021

181
Annex 17. CP Progress Report July 2021

182
183
Annex 18. CP Progress Report August 2021

184
185
186
187
Annex 19 TOR SDNA

188
189
190
Annex 20. TOR MATTA

191
192
193
Annex 21. NTP MATTA

194
195
196
197
Annex 22. TOR TPMS

198
199
200
201
Annex 23. NTP TPMS

202
203
204
205
206
Annex 24. TOR Manual Revision

207
Annex 25. TOR TIS

208
209
210
211
212
213
214
Annex 26. Tables for the Stakeholder Data Needs Assessment (SDNA) for Local
Government Units (LGUs) conducted from July 25 – September 11, 2021

Table SDNA-LGU 1: Number of Respondents by Sex Per Region

Respondents
Regions
Female % Share Male % Share Total Total % Share
Luzon 120 39.5% 65 21.4% 185 60.9%
CAR 12 3.9% 7 2.3% 19 6.3%
MIMAROPA 9 3.0% 6 2.0% 15 4.9%
NCR 7 2.3% 5 1.6% 12 3.9%
R01 5 1.6% 5 1.6% 10 3.3%
R02 5 1.6% 3 1.0% 8 2.6%
R03 16 5.3% 4 1.3% 20 6.6%
R04A 31 10.2% 21 6.9% 52 17.1%
R05 35 11.5% 14 4.6% 49 16.1%
Mindanao 28 9.2% 13 4.3% 41 13.5%
BARMM 1 0.3% 0.0% 1 0.3%
R09 7 2.3% 3 1.0% 10 3.3%
R10 6 2.0% 2 0.7% 8 2.6%
R11 2 0.7% 3 1.0% 5 1.6%
R12 9 3.0% 2 0.7% 11 3.6%
R13 3 1.0% 3 1.0% 6 2.0%
Visayas 44 14.5% 34 11.2% 78 25.7%
R06 34 11.2% 24 7.9% 58 19.1%
R07 7 2.3% 5 1.6% 12 3.9%
R08 3 1.0% 5 1.6% 8 2.6%
Grand Total 192 63.2% 112 36.8% 304 100.0%

Table SDNA-LGU 2: Top Tourism Data Used

Tourism Data Respondents % Share
volume of visitors (tourists, same day visitors) 148 48.7%
tourism programs and projects 74 24.3%
inventory of tourism attractions and facilities 35 11.5%
tourist receipt 17 5.6%
tourism investments 11 3.6%
occupancy rate 8 2.6%
tourism employment 6 2.0%
length of stay 2 0.7%
client profile (market countries, sales agents etc.) 1 0.3%
daily expenditure 1 0.3%
M.I.C.E data 1 0.3%
Grand Total 304 100.0%

215
Table SDNA-LGU 3: Top Tourism Data Needed
Tourism Data Needs Frequency % Share
Tourism Programs/Projects 42 15.7%
Tourism Investment 25 9.4%
Tourism Employment 23 8.6%
Visitor Volume 23 8.6%
Inventory 20 7.5%
Visitor Profile 19 7.1%
All tourism data 16 6.0%
Tourist Receipt 14 5.2%
ADE 10 3.7%
ALOS 9 3.4%
Cultural Mapping 6 2.2%
Occupancy Rate 5 1.9%
Tourism Plan 5 1.9%
Tourism Attractions 4 1.5%
Infrastracture 3 1.1%
Tourism Grants 3 1.1%
Tourism Products 3 1.1%
Visitor Market 3 1.1%
Visitor Preferences 3 1.1%
Age 2 0.7%
Promo Materials 2 0.7%
Purpose of Visit 2 0.7%
Tourism Revenues 2 0.7%
Accuracy 1 0.4%
Attraction Ratings 1 0.4%
Business Opportunities 1 0.4%
Capacity Building 1 0.4%
Ecotourism 1 0.4%
Guidelines 1 0.4%
LGU Tourism Plantilla 1 0.4%
MICE 1 0.4%
Natural Resources 1 0.4%
Overnight Visitors 1 0.4%
Support Agencies 1 0.4%
Top Destinations 1 0.4%
Tourism Activities 1 0.4%
Tourism Benefits 1 0.4%
Tourism Establishments 1 0.4%
Tourism Income 1 0.4%
Tourism Manual 1 0.4%
Tourism Policy 1 0.4%
Tourism Protocols 1 0.4%
Tourism Toolkit 1 0.4%
Tourist Guide 1 0.4%
Traveler Type 1 0.4%
Visitors by Nationality 1 0.4%
Grand Total 267 100.0%

216
Table SDNA-LGU 4: Perception if Data Need is Addressed by DOT
Likert Scale Cumulative
Addressed Respondents % Share
Value % Share
1 I would like it. 4 257 84.54% 84.5%
2 I expect that they should have been doing that. 3 45 14.80% 99.3%
4 I do not like it. 1 2 0.66% 100.0%
Grand Total 304 100.00%
Average 3.83
Standard Deviation 0.42
Variance 0.18

Table SDNA-LGU 5: Reports Data to DOT or higher Level LGU

Answers Respondents % Share
No 26 8.6%
Yes 278 91.4%
Grand Total 304 100.0%

Table SDNA-LGU 6: Data Reporting Frequency for those that Answered Yes in Table
SDNA-LGU 5
Frequency Respondents % Share
annually 14 5.0%
every semester 12 4.3%
monthly 120 43.2%
quarterly 132 47.5%
Grand Total 278 100.0%

Table SDNA-LGU 7: Interest to Report by those that Answered No if Data Reporting in

Table SDNA-LGU 5
Answers Respondents % Share
No 1 3.8%
Yes 25 96.2%
Grand Total 26 100.0%

Table SDNA-LGU 8: Preferred Frequency of Data Reporting for those that Answered
Yes in Table SDNA-LGU 7
Frequency Respondents % Share
Annually 3 12.0%
Every 6 months 5 20.0%
Monthly 5 20.0%
Quarterly 12 48.0%
Grand Total 25 100.0%

217
Table SDNA-LGU 9: Factors that can Affect their Decision to Report Data for those that
Answered Yes and have Valid Answers in Table SDNA-LGU 7
Factors Considered Respondents % Share
Data Gathering Quality 5 26.3%
Template Provision 4 21.1%
Preferred Modality 3 15.8%
Add. Personnel 2 10.5%
Communication 2 10.5%
Documentation 1 5.3%
Mandated 1 5.3%
Stakeholder Cooperation 1 5.3%
Grand Total 19 100.0%

Table SDNA-LGU 10: Rating of Common Issues that Affects LGU’s Tourism Data
Reporting
Rating Manpower Budget Technical Capacity Internal Support External Support Other Tasks
Respondent 304 304 304 304 304 304
Average 2.9 2.5 2.6 2.2 2.4 2.9
Standard
0.99 1.00 0.95 0.94 0.96 0.92
Deviation

Variance 0.98 1.01 0.90 0.88 0.93 0.84

Rating Respondent % Share Respondent % Share Respondent % Share Respondent % Share Respondent % Share Respondent % Share
4 109 35.9% 56 18.4% 57 18.8% 26 8.6% 49 16.1% 83 27.3%
3 88 28.9% 93 30.6% 98 32.2% 94 30.9% 91 29.9% 118 38.8%
2 79 26.0% 96 31.6% 107 35.2% 103 33.9% 110 36.2% 78 25.7%
1 28 9.2% 59 19.4% 42 13.8% 81 26.6% 54 17.8% 25 8.2%
Total 304 100% 304 100% 304 100% 304 100% 304 100% 304 100%
Note: 4 Being the Highest

Table SDNA-LGU 11: Perception if Issues are Not Addressed by DOT

Likert Scale Cumulative
Respondents % Share
Not Addressed Value % Share
1 I would like it. 1 12 3.95% 3.95%
2 I kind of expected that. 2 48 15.79% 19.74%
3 I do not care. 3 3 0.99% 20.72%
4 I do not like it. 4 241 79.28% 100.00%
Grand Total 304 100.00%
Average 3.56
Standard Deviation 0.90
Variance 0.80

218
Table SDNA-LGU 12: Preferred Data Reporting Modality
Emailed Online System Personally Communicated On-site Submission Compiler Visits
Respondents 301 299 299 298 297
Average 3.5 3.4 2.7 1.8 2.0
Standard
0.70 0.81 0.99 0.93 0.97
Deviation

Variance 0.48 0.66 0.99 0.87 0.94

Rating Respondent % Share Respondent % Share Respondent % Share Respondent % Share Respondent % Share
4 186 61.8% 161 53.8% 81 27.1% 20 6.7% 28 9.4%
3 90 29.9% 94 31.4% 94 31.4% 46 15.4% 62 20.9%
2 20 6.6% 34 11.4% 87 29.1% 89 29.9% 103 34.7%
1 5 1.7% 10 3.3% 37 12.4% 143 48.0% 104 35.0%
Total 301 100% 299 100% 299 100% 298 100% 297 100%
Notes: a. 4 Being the Highest; Some items were not ranked by some respondents; Question in Google Form became a rating rather than
ranking as it was described on the paper format.

Table SDNA-LGU 13: Current Tourism Data Systems or Modalities Used by LGUs
Current Tourism Data Systems Frequency % Share
MS Office based documents (MS Word MS Excel) 202 38.0%
DOT - sourced templates 182 34.3%
Manual accounting (logbook entries guest card/sheet data compilation etc.) 133 25.0%
Own IT system 9 1.7%
Forms filled up from accommodation facilities. 1 0.2%
mixed manual and DOT sourced templates 1 0.2%
Online tourism registration form via google forms 1 0.2%
We have a Tourism Passport that is cloud-based and will give us real time tourism statistics monitoring 24/7. 1 0.2%
No consolidated data gathering for the tourism enterprises and LGU 1 0.2%
Grand Total 531 100.0%

Table SDNA-LGU 14: Presence of a Tourism Statistics/Data Officer or Designated

Personnel
Statistics Officer Respondents % Share
No 79 26.0%
Yes 225 74.0%
Grand Total 304 100.0%

219
Table SDNA-LGU 15: Reasons for No Local Tourism Statistics/Data Officer/Designated
Personnel
Reason for Having No Stats Officer Respondents % Share
No Permanent Staff 25 31.6%
Lack of Manpower 24 30.4%
Other Workload 6 7.6%
Lack of Competencies 4 5.1%
Lack of Resources 4 5.1%
Only Designated TO 4 5.1%
Lack of budget 2 2.5%
Not valid 2 2.5%
Personnel Designation Changed 2 2.5%
AE Submit Directly to DOT 1 1.3%
Future Plans 1 1.3%
No Office Designated 1 1.3%
No permanent TO 1 1.3%
Personnel Assigned Unavailable 1 1.3%
Task Rotated 1 1.3%
Grand Total 79 100.0%

Table SDNA-LGU 16: Interest on a New Tourism Information System (TIS)

Interest on New TIS Respondents % Share
No 1 0.3%
Yes 303 99.7%
Grand Total 304 100.0%

Table SDNA-LGU 17: Interest on a New Survey Tool

New Survey Tool Respondents % Share
Yes 304 100.0%
Grand Total 304 100.0%

Table SDNA-LGU 18: Perception on the Provision of New TIS by DOT

Likert Scale Cumulative
New System Provided Respondents % Share
Value % Share
1 I would like it. 4 269 88.49% 88.49%
2 I expect that they should have been doing that. 3 32 10.53% 99.01%
3 I do not care. 2 2 0.66% 99.67%
4 I do not like it. 1 1 0.33% 100.00%
Grand Total 304 100.00%
Average 3.87
Standard Deviation 0.38
Variance 0.15

220
Table SDNA-LGU 19: Expectations for the New TIS
Expectations Frequency % Share
Characteristic 70 18.67%
User Friendly 26 6.93%
Easy to Understand 9 2.40%
Accessible 5 1.33%
Beneficial to LGU 5 1.33%
Simplified 4 1.07%
Systematic 3 0.80%
Accurate 2 0.53%
Effective data collection 2 0.53%
Online System 2 0.53%
Realistic 2 0.53%
Area Appropriate 1 0.27%
Good format 1 0.27%
hybrid IT 1 0.27%
Important 1 0.27%
Mobile Friendly 1 0.27%
Necessary 1 0.27%
Relatable 1 0.27%
Seamless Input 1 0.27%
Streamlined 1 0.27%
Transparent 1 0.27%
Data 205 54.67%
Comprehensive 46 12.27%
Arrivals 28 7.47%
Profile 16 4.27%
Receipt 11 2.93%
Demographics 8 2.13%
Programs/Projects 8 2.13%
ADE 6 1.60%
Data for planning 6 1.60%
Inventory 6 1.60%
Preferences 6 1.60%
Updated Data 5 1.33%
ALOS 4 1.07%
Same Data 4 1.07%
Accredited TE 3 0.80%
Attractions 3 0.80%
Investment 3 0.80%
Opportunities 3 0.80%
Plans 3 0.80%
Satisfaction Rating 3 0.80%
Tour Packages 3 0.80%
Basic Data 2 0.53%
Growth rate of visitors 2 0.53%
Occupancy Rate 2 0.53%
Promotional Info 2 0.53%
Revenue 2 0.53%
Advanced level 1 0.27%
Contact details 1 0.27%
DOT assistance availment 1 0.27%
DOT-Needed Data 1 0.27%
Events 1 0.27%
Improvements 1 0.27%
Medical Clearances 1 0.27%
New Development 1 0.27%
New Resources 1 0.27%
Policies 1 0.27%
Prospects 1 0.27%
Risks 1 0.27%
Support 1 0.27%
TE carrying capacity 1 0.27%
Techniques 1 0.27%
Top Destinations 1 0.27%
Tourism Circuits 1 0.27%
Trainings 1 0.27%
vaccination data 1 0.27%
Visit Frequency 1 0.27%

221
 Expectations Frequency % Share
Data Analytics 41 10.93%
Analytics 13 3.47%
Comparative Analysis 9 2.40%
Marketing Strategy 6 1.60%
Behavior Analytics 3 0.80%
Trends 3 0.80%
Impact 2 0.53%
Most visited attractions 1 0.27%
New analytics 1 0.27%
Performance 1 0.27%
Recommended Development Actions 1 0.27%
Sector Performance Evaluation 1 0.27%
Features 59 15.73%
Reporting System 12 3.20%
Automated Data Generation 6 1.60%
Guide 5 1.33%
Feedback Mechanism 4 1.07%
infographics 4 1.07%
Best Practice and Methodology Sharing 3 0.80%
data sharing 2 0.53%
Digital Platform for businesses 2 0.53%
Booked establishments 1 0.27%
cultural mapping 1 0.27%
Data Not covered by basic data gathering 1 0.27%
Database System 1 0.27%
Destination management 1 0.27%
Downloadable forms 1 0.27%
Drop down menu 1 0.27%
FAQ 1 0.27%
forecasting 1 0.27%
Future ready data 1 0.27%
GIS Mapped Locations 1 0.27%
Health Emergency management plan 1 0.27%
Health Status 1 0.27%
Indicator Formulation Guide 1 0.27%
IT system 1 0.27%
Mentoring Platform 1 0.27%
Revenue management 1 0.27%
SPSS 1 0.27%
survey form fit for local situations 1 0.27%
Templates 1 0.27%
Unified Visitor Log-in System 1 0.27%
Grand Total 375 100.0%

222
Table SDNA-LGU 20: Sources of Ideas for Tourism Programs/Projects/Activities
Idea Source Frequency % Share
Local Stakeholders 220 12.1%
Internal brainstorming 215 11.9%
Tourism Product trends 189 10.4%
Local Data gathering 170 9.4%
Technical visits 160 8.8%
Online Materials 157 8.7%
Other LGUs 157 8.7%
Higher level tourism plans 153 8.4%
NGA Recommended 138 7.6%
Conferences/Fora 131 7.2%
Physically published materials 84 4.6%
Local Consultants 38 2.1%
Grand Total 1,812 100.0%

Table SDNA-LGU 21a: Try New Tourism Program/Project (Innovator)

Luzon Cumulative Mindanao Cumulative Visayas Cumulative Total Total Cumulative
Options
Respondents % Share % Share Respondents % Share % Share Respondents % Share % Share Respondents % Share % Share
1 Always 137 74.1% 74.1% 37 90.2% 90.2% 62 79.5% 79.5% 236 77.6% 77.6%
2 Sometimes 44 23.8% 97.8% 4 9.8% 100.0% 15 19.2% 98.7% 63 20.7% 98.4%
3 Not so much 4 2.2% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 1 1.3% 100.0% 5 1.6% 100.0%
Grand Total 185 100.0% 41 100.0% 78 100.0% 304 100.0%
Note: Part III Question 3

Table SDNA-LGU 21b: Try New Tourism Program/Project (Innovator)

Standard
Region Respondents Average Variance
Deviation
Luzon 185 3.72 0.50 0.25
CAR 19 3.63 0.60 0.36
MIMAROPA 15 3.47 0.64 0.41
NCR 12 3.83 0.39 0.15
R01 10 3.90 0.32 0.10
R02 8 3.75 0.46 0.21
R03 20 3.80 0.41 0.17
R04A 52 3.67 0.55 0.30
R05 49 3.78 0.42 0.18
Mindanao 41 3.90 0.30 0.09
BARMM 1 4.00
R09 10 3.90 0.32 0.10
R10 8 3.88 0.35 0.13
R11 5 3.80 0.45 0.20
R12 11 4.00 0.00 0.00
R13 6 3.83 0.41 0.17
Visayas 78 3.78 0.45 0.20
R06 58 3.83 0.42 0.18
R07 12 3.75 0.45 0.20
R08 8 3.50 0.53 0.29
Grand Total 304 3.76 0.46 0.22
Note: Part III Question 3

223
Table SDNA-LGU 22a: Looks for New Tourism Program/Project (Innovator)
Luzon Cumulative Mindanao Cumulative Visayas Cumulative Total Total Cumulative
Options
Respondents % Share % Share Respondents % Share % Share Respondents % Share % Share Respondents % Share % Share
1 Always 155 83.8% 83.8% 32 78.0% 78.0% 60 76.9% 76.9% 247 81.3% 81.3%
2 Sometimes 26 14.1% 97.8% 8 19.5% 97.6% 18 23.1% 100.0% 52 17.1% 98.4%
3 Not so much 3 1.6% 99.5% 1 2.4% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 4 1.3% 99.7%
4 Never 1 0.5% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 1 0.3% 100.0%
Grand Total 185 100.0% 41 100.0% 78 100.0% 304 100.0%
Note: Part III Question 5

Table SDNA-LGU 22b: Looks for New Tourism Program/Project (Innovator)

Standard
Region Respondents Average Variance
Deviation
Luzon 185 3.81 0.47 0.22
CAR 19 3.89 0.32 0.10
MIMAROPA 15 3.73 0.59 0.35
NCR 12 3.92 0.29 0.08
R01 10 3.80 0.42 0.18
R02 8 4.00 0.00 0.00
R03 20 3.75 0.44 0.20
R04A 52 3.75 0.59 0.35
R05 49 3.84 0.43 0.18
Mindanao 41 3.76 0.49 0.24
BARMM 1 4.00
R09 10 3.80 0.42 0.18
R10 8 3.63 0.74 0.55
R11 5 3.60 0.55 0.30
R12 11 4.00 0.00 0.00
R13 6 3.50 0.55 0.30
Visayas 78 3.77 0.42 0.18
R06 58 3.83 0.38 0.15
R07 12 3.67 0.49 0.24
R08 8 3.50 0.53 0.29
Grand Total 304 3.79 0.46 0.21
Note: Part III Question 5

224
Table SDNA-LGU 23a: Adopts a Tourism Program/Project of Other
Areas/Organizations (Early Adopter)
Luzon Cumulative Mindanao Cumulative Visayas Cumulative Total Total Cumulative
Options
Respondents % Share % Share Respondents % Share % Share Respondents % Share % Share Respondents % Share % Share
1 Always 121 65.4% 65.4% 27 65.9% 65.9% 52 66.7% 66.7% 200 65.8% 65.8%
2 Sometimes 62 33.5% 98.9% 10 24.4% 90.2% 26 33.3% 100.0% 98 32.2% 98.0%
3 Not so much 2 1.1% 100.0% 4 9.8% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 6 2.0% 100.0%
Grand Total 185 100.0% 41 100.0% 78 100.0% 304 100.0%
Note: Part III Question 2

Table SDNA-LGU 23b: Adopts a Tourism Program/Project of Other

Areas/Organizations (Early Adopter)
Standard
Region Respondents Average Variance
Deviation
Luzon 185 3.64 0.50 0.25
CAR 19 3.63 0.50 0.25
MIMAROPA 15 3.67 0.49 0.24
NCR 12 3.75 0.45 0.20
R01 10 3.30 0.82 0.68
R02 8 3.88 0.35 0.13
R03 20 3.70 0.47 0.22
R04A 52 3.63 0.49 0.24
R05 49 3.63 0.49 0.24
Mindanao 41 3.56 0.67 0.45
BARMM 1 4.00
R09 10 3.40 0.84 0.71
R10 8 3.25 0.89 0.79
R11 5 3.80 0.45 0.20
R12 11 3.73 0.47 0.22
R13 6 3.67 0.52 0.27
Visayas 78 3.67 0.47 0.23
R06 58 3.71 0.46 0.21
R07 12 3.58 0.51 0.27
R08 8 3.50 0.53 0.29
Grand Total 304 3.64 0.52 0.27
Note: Part III Question 2

225
Table SDNA-LGU 24a: Follows LGUs that Adopted a Successful Tourism
Program/Project of Other Areas/Organizations (Early Majority)
Luzon Cumulative Mindanao Cumulative Visayas Cumulative Total Total Cumulative
Options
Respondents % Share % Share Respondents % Share % Share Respondents % Share % Share Respondents % Share % Share
1 Always 119 64.3% 64.3% 26 63.4% 63.4% 41 52.6% 52.6% 186 61.2% 61.2%
2 Sometimes 61 33.0% 97.3% 14 34.1% 97.6% 33 42.3% 94.9% 108 35.5% 96.7%
3 Not so much 5 2.7% 100.0% 1 2.4% 100.0% 4 5.1% 100.0% 10 3.3% 100.0%
Grand Total 185 100.0% 41 100.0% 78 100.0% 304 100.0%
Note: Part III Question 4

Table SDNA-LGU 24b: Follows LGUs that Adopted a Successful Tourism

Program/Project of Other Areas/Organizations (Early Majority)
Standard
Region Respondents Average Variance
Deviation
Luzon 185 3.62 0.54 0.29
CAR 19 3.63 0.50 0.25
MIMAROPA 15 3.67 0.62 0.38
NCR 12 3.75 0.45 0.20
R01 10 3.40 0.70 0.49
R02 8 3.75 0.46 0.21
R03 20 3.55 0.51 0.26
R04A 52 3.62 0.57 0.32
R05 49 3.61 0.53 0.28
Mindanao 41 3.61 0.54 0.29
BARMM 1 4.00
R09 10 3.40 0.70 0.49
R10 8 3.50 0.53 0.29
R11 5 4.00 0.00 0.00
R12 11 3.64 0.50 0.25
R13 6 3.67 0.52 0.27
Visayas 78 3.47 0.60 0.36
R06 58 3.53 0.57 0.32
R07 12 3.17 0.58 0.33
R08 8 3.50 0.76 0.57
Grand Total 304 3.58 0.56 0.31
Note: Part III Question 4

226
Table SDNA-LGU 25a: Follows if majority of LGUs Adopted a Successful Tourism
Program/Project of Other Areas/Organizations (Late Majority)
Luzon Cumulative Mindanao Cumulative Visayas Cumulative Total Total Cumulative
Options
Respondents % Share % Share Respondents % Share % Share Respondents % Share % Share Respondents % Share % Share
1 Always 31 16.8% 16.8% 6 14.6% 14.6% 9 11.5% 11.5% 46 15.1% 15.1%
2 Sometimes 63 34.1% 50.8% 21 51.2% 65.9% 30 38.5% 50.0% 114 37.5% 52.6%
3 Not so much 78 42.2% 93.0% 13 31.7% 97.6% 37 47.4% 97.4% 128 42.1% 94.7%
4 Never 13 7.0% 100.0% 1 2.4% 100.0% 2 2.6% 100.0% 16 5.3% 100.0%
Grand Total 185 100.0% 41 100.0% 78 100.0% 304 100.0%
Note: Part III Question 6

Table SDNA-LGU 25b: Follows if majority of LGUs Adopted a Successful Tourism

Program/Project of Other Areas/Organizations (Late Majority)
Standard
Region Respondents Average Variance
Deviation
Luzon 185 2.61 0.85 0.72
CAR 19 2.32 0.58 0.34
MIMAROPA 15 2.67 0.90 0.81
NCR 12 2.75 1.06 1.11
R01 10 2.40 0.70 0.49
R02 8 2.75 0.89 0.79
R03 20 2.40 0.88 0.78
R04A 52 2.88 0.90 0.81
R05 49 2.47 0.77 0.59
Mindanao 41 2.78 0.72 0.53
BARMM 1 3.00
R09 10 2.90 0.57 0.32
R10 8 2.38 0.52 0.27
R11 5 2.60 1.14 1.30
R12 11 2.91 0.83 0.69
R13 6 3.00 0.63 0.40
Visayas 78 2.59 0.73 0.53
R06 58 2.64 0.74 0.55
R07 12 2.42 0.79 0.63
R08 8 2.50 0.53 0.29
Grand Total 304 2.63 0.80 0.64
Note: Part III Question 6

227
Table SDNA-LGU 26a: Runs Same Programs/Projects so Long as they are Working
(Laggards)
Luzon Cumulative Mindanao Cumulative Visayas Cumulative Total Total Cumulative
Options
Respondents % Share % Share Respondents % Share % Share Respondents % Share % Share Respondents % Share % Share
1 Always 48 25.9% 25.9% 13 31.7% 31.7% 21 26.9% 26.9% 82 27.0% 27.0%
2 Sometimes 98 53.0% 78.9% 23 56.1% 87.8% 41 52.6% 79.5% 162 53.3% 80.3%
3 Not so much 37 20.0% 98.9% 5 12.2% 100.0% 16 20.5% 100.0% 58 19.1% 99.3%
4 Never 2 1.1% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 2 0.7% 100.0%
Grand Total 185 100.0% 41 100.0% 78 100.0% 304 100.0%
Note: Part III Question 7

Table SDNA-LGU 26b: Runs Same Programs/Projects so Long as they are Working
(Laggards)
Standard
Region Respondents Average Variance
Deviation
Luzon 185 3.04 0.71 0.50
CAR 19 2.79 0.85 0.73
MIMAROPA 15 3.27 0.59 0.35
NCR 12 3.58 0.51 0.27
R01 10 3.10 0.74 0.54
R02 8 3.38 0.74 0.55
R03 20 3.00 0.46 0.21
R04A 52 2.96 0.77 0.59
R05 49 2.96 0.68 0.46
Mindanao 41 3.20 0.64 0.41
BARMM 1 4.00
R09 10 2.90 0.57 0.32
R10 8 3.00 0.53 0.29
R11 5 3.00 0.71 0.50
R12 11 3.55 0.52 0.27
R13 6 3.33 0.82 0.67
Visayas 78 3.06 0.69 0.48
R06 58 3.09 0.71 0.50
R07 12 3.17 0.72 0.52
R08 8 2.75 0.46 0.21
Grand Total 304 3.07 0.70 0.48
Note: Part III Question 7

228
Table SDNA-LGU 27: Diffusion of Innovation Adopter Category Ratings Per Region
Region Innovator 1 Innovator 2 Early Adopters Early Majority Late Majority Laggards
Luzon 3.7 3.8 3.6 3.6 2.6 3.0
CAR 3.6 3.9 3.6 3.6 2.3 2.8
MIMAROPA 3.5 3.7 3.7 3.7 2.7 3.3
NCR 3.8 3.9 3.8 3.8 2.8 3.6
R01 3.9 3.8 3.3 3.4 2.4 3.1
R02 3.8 4.0 3.9 3.8 2.8 3.4
R03 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.6 2.4 3.0
R04A 3.7 3.8 3.6 3.6 2.9 3.0
R05 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.6 2.5 3.0
Mindanao 3.9 3.8 3.6 3.6 2.8 3.2
BARMM 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0
R09 3.9 3.8 3.4 3.4 2.9 2.9
R10 3.9 3.6 3.3 3.5 2.4 3.0
R11 3.8 3.6 3.8 4.0 2.6 3.0
R12 4.0 4.0 3.7 3.6 2.9 3.5
R13 3.8 3.5 3.7 3.7 3.0 3.3
Visayas 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.5 2.6 3.1
R06 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.5 2.6 3.1
R07 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.2 2.4 3.2
R08 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 2.5 2.8
Grand Total Average 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.6 2.6 3.1

Table SDNA-LGU 28: Perception on Innovation Formulation (Part III Question 9)

Likert Rating Luzon Cumulative Mindanao Cumulative Visayas Cumulative Total Total Cumulative
Options
Equivalent Respondents % Share % Share Respondents % Share % Share Respondents % Share % Share Respondents % Share % Share
1 Always 4 45 24.3% 24.3% 8 19.5% 19.5% 9 11.5% 11.5% 62 20.4% 20.4%
2 Sometimes 3 91 49.2% 73.5% 25 61.0% 80.5% 46 59.0% 70.5% 162 53.3% 73.7%
3 Not so much 2 34 18.4% 91.9% 5 12.2% 92.7% 20 25.6% 96.2% 59 19.4% 93.1%
4 Never 1 9 4.9% 96.8% 2 4.9% 97.6% 2 2.6% 98.7% 13 4.3% 97.4%
No Answers 6 3.2% 100.0% 1 2.4% 100.0% 1 1.3% 100.0% 8 2.6% 100.0%
Grand Total 185 100.0% 41 100.0% 78 100.0% 304 100.0%

Average 2.96 2.98 2.81 2.92

Standard Deviation 0.80 0.73 0.67 0.76
Variation 0.64 0.54 0.45 0.58

229
Table SDNA-LGU 29: Influencers for Adopting Innovations (Part III Question 8)
Factors Frequency % Share
Effectiveness of Program/Project 249 12.7%
Local Stakeholders 228 11.6%
Technical / training support 226 11.5%
Innovativeness of Program/Project 208 10.6%
Management support 188 9.6%
Resource requirement 186 9.5%
Legal or Official Mandates 173 8.8%
Better Program/Project 146 7.4%
Access to information 140 7.1%
Learning and maintenance requirement 128 6.5%
Peer Competition 63 3.2%
Personal reasons 28 1.4%
Grand Total 1963 100.0%

230
Annex 27. Tables for the Stakeholder Data Needs Assessment (SDNA) for Tourism
Enterprises (TE) conducted from July 25 – September 11, 2021

Table SDNA-TE 1: Number of Respondents by TE Type, by Sex Per Region

Female Male Total % Total %
Total
Type / Regions % Share % Share by % Share % Share by Share by Share by
Respondents Respondents Respondents
by Row Column by Row Column Row Column
AE 264 64.71% 70.78% 144 35.29% 71.64% 408 100.00% 71.08%
Luzon 97 62.58% 26.01% 58 37.42% 28.86% 155 100.00% 27.00%
CAR 16 80.00% 4.29% 4 20.00% 1.99% 20 100.00% 3.48%
MIMAROPA 1 100.00% 0.27% 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.17%
NCR 11 55.00% 2.95% 9 45.00% 4.48% 20 100.00% 3.48%
R01 2 40.00% 0.54% 3 60.00% 1.49% 5 100.00% 0.87%
R03 16 88.89% 4.29% 2 11.11% 1.00% 18 100.00% 3.14%
R04A 51 56.04% 13.67% 40 43.96% 19.90% 91 100.00% 15.85%
Mindanao 54 68.35% 14.48% 25 31.65% 12.44% 79 100.00% 13.76%
R10 12 63.16% 3.22% 7 36.84% 3.48% 19 100.00% 3.31%
R11 10 66.67% 2.68% 5 33.33% 2.49% 15 100.00% 2.61%
R12 10 58.82% 2.68% 7 41.18% 3.48% 17 100.00% 2.96%
R13 22 78.57% 5.90% 6 21.43% 2.99% 28 100.00% 4.88%
Visayas 113 64.94% 30.29% 61 35.06% 30.35% 174 100.00% 30.31%
R06 62 65.26% 16.62% 33 34.74% 16.42% 95 100.00% 16.55%
R07 48 63.16% 12.87% 28 36.84% 13.93% 76 100.00% 13.24%
R08 3 100.00% 0.80% 0.00% 0.00% 3 100.00% 0.52%
Other TE 109 65.66% 29.22% 57 34.34% 28.36% 166 100.00% 28.92%
Luzon 50 66.67% 13.40% 25 33.33% 12.44% 75 100.00% 13.07%
CAR 6 66.67% 1.61% 3 33.33% 1.49% 9 100.00% 1.57%
MIMAROPA 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.50% 1 100.00% 0.17%
NCR 4 66.67% 1.07% 2 33.33% 1.00% 6 100.00% 1.05%
R01 2 33.33% 0.54% 4 66.67% 1.99% 6 100.00% 1.05%
R03 6 60.00% 1.61% 4 40.00% 1.99% 10 100.00% 1.74%
R04A 30 73.17% 8.04% 11 26.83% 5.47% 41 100.00% 7.14%
R05 2 100.00% 0.54% 0.00% 0.00% 2 100.00% 0.35%
Mindanao 21 65.63% 5.63% 11 34.38% 5.47% 32 100.00% 5.57%
BARMM 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.50% 1 100.00% 0.17%
R10 11 84.62% 2.95% 2 15.38% 1.00% 13 100.00% 2.26%
R11 3 33.33% 0.80% 6 66.67% 2.99% 9 100.00% 1.57%
R12 2 66.67% 0.54% 1 33.33% 0.50% 3 100.00% 0.52%
R13 5 83.33% 1.34% 1 16.67% 0.50% 6 100.00% 1.05%
Visayas 38 64.41% 10.19% 21 35.59% 10.45% 59 100.00% 10.28%
R06 33 64.71% 8.85% 18 35.29% 8.96% 51 100.00% 8.89%
R07 4 57.14% 1.07% 3 42.86% 1.49% 7 100.00% 1.22%
R08 1 100.00% 0.27% 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.17%
Grand Total 373 64.98% 100.00% 201 35.02% 100.00% 574 100.00% 100.00%

Table SDNA-TE 2: Compiling Data by Sex Per Region

No Yes Total % Total %
Total
Demographic % Share % Share by % Share % Share by Share by Share by
Respondents Respondents Respondents
by Row Column by Row Column Row Column
Female 60 16.09% 68.18% 313 83.91% 64.40% 373 100.00% 64.98%
Luzon 30 20.41% 34.09% 117 79.59% 24.07% 147 100.00% 25.61%
Mindanao 8 10.67% 9.09% 67 89.33% 13.79% 75 100.00% 13.07%
Visayas 22 14.57% 25.00% 129 85.43% 26.54% 151 100.00% 26.31%
Male 28 13.93% 31.82% 173 86.07% 35.60% 201 100.00% 35.02%
Luzon 12 14.46% 13.64% 71 85.54% 14.61% 83 100.00% 14.46%
Mindanao 5 13.89% 5.68% 31 86.11% 6.38% 36 100.00% 6.27%
Visayas 11 13.41% 12.50% 71 86.59% 14.61% 82 100.00% 14.29%
Grand Total 88 15.33% 100.00% 486 84.67% 100.00% 574 100.00% 100.00%

231
Table SDNA-TE 3: Interested to Compile Data for those that Answered No in Table
SDNA-TE 2
No Yes Total % Total %
Total
Demographic % Share % Share by % Share % Share by Share by Share by
Respondents Respondents Respondents
by Row Column by Row Column Row Column
Female 5 8.33% 71.43% 55 91.67% 67.90% 60 100.00% 68.18%
Luzon 1 3.33% 14.29% 29 96.67% 35.80% 30 100.00% 34.09%
Mindanao 0.00% 0.00% 8 100.00% 9.88% 8 100.00% 9.09%
Visayas 4 18.18% 57.14% 18 81.82% 22.22% 22 100.00% 25.00%
Male 2 7.14% 28.57% 26 92.86% 32.10% 28 100.00% 31.82%
Luzon 0.00% 0.00% 12 100.00% 14.81% 12 100.00% 13.64%
Mindanao 0.00% 0.00% 5 100.00% 6.17% 5 100.00% 5.68%
Visayas 2 18.18% 28.57% 9 81.82% 11.11% 11 100.00% 12.50%
Grand Total 7 7.95% 100.00% 81 92.05% 100.00% 88 100.00% 100.00%

Table SDNA-TE 4a: Tourism Data Usefulness to Business

Female Male Total % Total %
Total Cumulative
Perception % Share % Share by Cumulative % Share % Share by Cumulative Share by Share by
Respondents Respondents Respondents % Share
by Row Column % Share by Row Column % Share Row Column
1 very helpful 225 66.18% 60.32% 60.32% 115 33.82% 57.21% 57.21% 340 100.00% 59.23% 59.23%
Luzon 92 65.25% 24.66% 62.59% 49 34.75% 24.38% 59.04% 141 100.00% 24.56% 61.30%
Mindanao 51 70.83% 13.67% 68.00% 21 29.17% 10.45% 58.33% 72 100.00% 12.54% 64.86%
Visayas 82 64.57% 21.98% 54.30% 45 35.43% 22.39% 54.88% 127 100.00% 22.13% 54.51%
2 helpful 141 64.09% 37.80% 98.12% 79 35.91% 39.30% 96.52% 220 100.00% 38.33% 97.56%
Luzon 55 63.22% 14.75% 100.00% 32 36.78% 15.92% 97.59% 87 100.00% 15.16% 99.13%
Mindanao 24 63.16% 6.43% 100.00% 14 36.84% 6.97% 97.22% 38 100.00% 6.62% 99.10%
Visayas 62 65.26% 16.62% 95.36% 33 34.74% 16.42% 95.12% 95 100.00% 16.55% 95.28%
4 not helpful 7 50.00% 1.88% 100.00% 7 50.00% 3.48% 100.00% 14 100.00% 2.44% 100.00%
Luzon 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 2 100.00% 1.00% 100.00% 2 100.00% 0.35% 100.00%
Mindanao 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1 100.00% 0.50% 100.00% 1 100.00% 0.17% 100.00%
Visayas 7 63.64% 1.88% 100.00% 4 36.36% 1.99% 100.00% 11 100.00% 1.92% 100.00%
Grand Total 373 64.98% 100.00% 201 35.02% 100.00% 574 100.00% 100.00%

Table SDNA-TE 4b: Tourism Data Usefulness to Business

Average Standard
Demographic Respondents Variance
Rating Deviation
Female 373 3.57 0.60 0.36
Luzon 147 3.63 0.49 0.24
Mindanao 75 3.68 0.47 0.22
Visayas 151 3.45 0.73 0.53
Male 201 3.50 0.68 0.46
Luzon 83 3.54 0.63 0.40
Mindanao 36 3.53 0.65 0.43
Visayas 82 3.45 0.74 0.55
Grand Total 574 3.54 0.63 0.40

232
Table SDNA-TE 5: Most Useful Tourism Data
Luzon Mindanao Visayas Total % Total %
Total
Data / Indicators % Share % Share by % Share % Share by % Share % Share by Share by Share by
Respondents Respondents Respondents Respondents
by Row Column by Row Column by Row Column Row Column
volume of visitors 83 37.90% 36.09% 43 19.63% 38.74% 93 42.47% 39.91% 219 100.00% 38.15%
occupancy rate 43 30.71% 18.70% 29 20.71% 26.13% 68 48.57% 29.18% 140 100.00% 24.39%
tourism programs and projects 39 54.93% 16.96% 12 16.90% 10.81% 20 28.17% 8.58% 71 100.00% 12.37%
client profile (market countries, sales agents etc.) 24 38.71% 10.43% 8 12.90% 7.21% 30 48.39% 12.88% 62 100.00% 10.80%
length of stay 7 35.00% 3.04% 8 40.00% 7.21% 5 25.00% 2.15% 20 100.00% 3.48%
inventory of tourism attractions and facilities 10 52.63% 4.35% 3 15.79% 2.70% 6 31.58% 2.58% 19 100.00% 3.31%
daily expenditure 8 57.14% 3.48% 3 21.43% 2.70% 3 21.43% 1.29% 14 100.00% 2.44%
M.I.C.E. Data 7 58.33% 3.04% 2 16.67% 1.80% 3 25.00% 1.29% 12 100.00% 2.09%
tourism employment 5 62.50% 2.17% 1 12.50% 0.90% 2 25.00% 0.86% 8 100.00% 1.39%
tourism investments 3 50.00% 1.30% 2 33.33% 1.80% 1 16.67% 0.43% 6 100.00% 1.05%
tourist receipt 1 33.33% 0.43% 0.00% 0.00% 2 66.67% 0.86% 3 100.00% 0.52%
Grand Total 230 40.07% 100.00% 111 19.34% 100.00% 233 40.59% 100.00% 574 100.00% 100.00%

233
Table SDNA-TE 6: Tourism Data Needs
Data / Indicators Frequency % Share
Tourism Programs/Projects 40 13.20%
Visitor Volume 34 11.22%
Visitor Profile 30 9.90%
All tourism data 20 6.60%
ADE 13 4.29%
Occupancy Rate 12 3.96%
Tourism Investment 12 3.96%
Visitor Preferences 11 3.63%
ALOS 10 3.30%
Visitor Market 9 2.97%
Tourism Establishments 8 2.64%
Tourism Policy 6 1.98%
Demographics 5 1.65%
MICE 5 1.65%
Promo Materials 5 1.65%
Safety Standards 5 1.65%
Tourism Attractions 5 1.65%
Tourism Employment 5 1.65%
Tourism Protocols 5 1.65%
Trends 5 1.65%
Capacity Building 4 1.32%
Purpose of Visit 4 1.32%
Visitor Experience/Feedback 4 1.32%
Inventory 3 0.99%
Survey 3 0.99%
Tourism Benefits 3 0.99%
Tourism Grants 3 0.99%
Accuracy 2 0.66%
Coordination 2 0.66%
Infrastructure 2 0.66%
Satisfaction rating 2 0.66%
Tourism Activities 2 0.66%
Tourism Plan 2 0.66%
Tourism Products 2 0.66%
Visitor Health Information 2 0.66%
Big data 1 0.33%
Business Opportunities 1 0.33%
Connectivity Types 1 0.33%
Daily Updated Data 1 0.33%
Data Analytics 1 0.33%
Destination Health Info 1 0.33%
Ecotourism 1 0.33%
Job opportunities 1 0.33%
Online Registration 1 0.33%
spa 1 0.33%
TE Performance 1 0.33%
Top Destinations 1 0.33%
Tourism accreditation 1 0.33%
Tourism Toolkit 1 0.33%
Tourism Transportation 1 0.33%
Tourist Receipt 1 0.33%
Visitor Personal Information 1 0.33%
zonal tarrif 1 0.33%
Grand Total 303 100.00%

234
Table SDNA-TE 7a: Perception if Data Need is Addressed by DOT
Female Male Total % Total %
Total Cumulative
Descriptive Answers % Share % Share by Cumulative % Share % Share by Cumulative Share by Share by
Respondents Respondents Respondents % Share
by Row Column % Share by Row Column % Share Row Column
1 I would like it. 255 66.06% 70.83% 70.83% 131 33.94% 66.16% 66.16% 386 100.00% 69.18% 69.18%
Luzon 100 64.52% 27.78% 72.46% 55 35.48% 27.78% 68.75% 155 100.00% 27.78% 71.10%
Mindanao 53 66.25% 14.72% 70.67% 27 33.75% 13.64% 75.00% 80 100.00% 14.34% 72.07%
Visayas 102 67.55% 28.33% 69.39% 49 32.45% 24.75% 59.76% 151 100.00% 27.06% 65.94%
2 I expect that they should
have been doing that. 93 62.42% 25.83% 96.67% 56 37.58% 28.28% 94.44% 149 100.00% 26.70% 95.88%
Luzon 36 61.02% 10.00% 98.55% 23 38.98% 11.62% 97.50% 59 100.00% 10.57% 98.17%
Mindanao 18 66.67% 5.00% 94.67% 9 33.33% 4.55% 100.00% 27 100.00% 4.84% 96.40%
Visayas 39 61.90% 10.83% 95.92% 24 38.10% 12.12% 89.02% 63 100.00% 11.29% 93.45%
3 I do not care. 9 64.29% 2.50% 99.17% 5 35.71% 2.53% 96.97% 14 100.00% 2.51% 98.39%
Luzon 1 100.00% 0.28% 99.28% 0.00% 0.00% 97.50% 1 100.00% 0.18% 98.62%
Mindanao 2 100.00% 0.56% 97.33% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 2 100.00% 0.36% 98.20%
Visayas 6 54.55% 1.67% 100.00% 5 45.45% 2.53% 95.12% 11 100.00% 1.97% 98.25%
4 I do not like it. 3 33.33% 0.83% 100.00% 6 66.67% 3.03% 100.00% 9 100.00% 1.61% 100.00%
Luzon 1 33.33% 0.28% 100.00% 2 66.67% 1.01% 100.00% 3 100.00% 0.54% 100.00%
Mindanao 2 100.00% 0.56% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 2 100.00% 0.36% 100.00%
Visayas 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 4 100.00% 2.02% 100.00% 4 100.00% 0.72% 100.00%
Grand Total 360 64.52% 100.00% 198 35.48% 100.00% 558 100.00% 100.00%

Table SDNA-TE 7b: Perception if Data Need is Addressed by DOT

Standard
Demographics Respondents Average Variance
Deviation
Female 360 3.67 0.57 0.32
Luzon 138 3.70 0.52 0.27
Mindanao 75 3.63 0.67 0.45
Visayas 147 3.65 0.56 0.31
Male 198 3.58 0.69 0.48
Luzon 80 3.64 0.62 0.39
Mindanao 36 3.75 0.44 0.19
Visayas 82 3.44 0.82 0.67
Grand Total 558 3.63 0.62 0.38

Table SDNA-TE 8: Tourism Data Reporting to DOT/LGU

No Yes Total % Total %
Total
Demographic % Share % Share by % Share % Share by Share by Share by
Respondents Respondents Respondents
by Row Column by Row Column Row Column
Female 81 21.72% 67.50% 292 78.28% 64.32% 373 100.00% 64.98%
Luzon 38 25.85% 31.67% 109 74.15% 24.01% 147 100.00% 25.61%
Mindanao 8 10.67% 6.67% 67 89.33% 14.76% 75 100.00% 13.07%
Visayas 35 23.18% 29.17% 116 76.82% 25.55% 151 100.00% 26.31%
Male 39 19.40% 32.50% 162 80.60% 35.68% 201 100.00% 35.02%
Luzon 17 20.48% 14.17% 66 79.52% 14.54% 83 100.00% 14.46%
Mindanao 8 22.22% 6.67% 28 77.78% 6.17% 36 100.00% 6.27%
Visayas 14 17.07% 11.67% 68 82.93% 14.98% 82 100.00% 14.29%
Grand Total 120 20.91% 100.00% 454 79.09% 100.00% 574 100.00% 100.00%

235
Table SDNA-TE 9: Report Frequency of those that Answered Yes in Table SDNA-TE 8
Luzon Mindanao Visayas Total % Total %
Total
Frequency % Share % Share by % Share % Share by % Share % Share by Share by Share by
Respondents Respondents Respondents Respondents
by Row Column by Row Column by Row Column Row Column
annually 17 26.98% 9.71% 13 20.63% 13.68% 33 52.38% 17.93% 63 100.00% 13.88%
every semester 2 50.00% 1.14% 1 25.00% 1.05% 1 25.00% 0.54% 4 100.00% 0.88%
monthly 138 42.99% 78.86% 64 19.94% 67.37% 119 37.07% 64.67% 321 100.00% 70.70%
quarterly 18 27.27% 10.29% 17 25.76% 17.89% 31 46.97% 16.85% 66 100.00% 14.54%
Grand Total 175 38.55% 100.00% 95 20.93% 100.00% 184 40.53% 100.00% 454 100.00% 100.00%

Table SDNA-TE 10: Interest to Report Tourism Data by those that Answered No in Table
SDNA-TE 8
No Yes Total % Total %
Total
Demographic % Share % Share by % Share % Share by Share by Share by
Respondents Respondents Respondents
by Row Column by Row Column Row Column
Female 20 24.69% 68.97% 61 75.31% 67.03% 81 100.00% 67.50%
Luzon 7 18.42% 24.14% 31 81.58% 34.07% 38 100.00% 31.67%
Mindanao 2 25.00% 6.90% 6 75.00% 6.59% 8 100.00% 6.67%
Visayas 11 31.43% 37.93% 24 68.57% 26.37% 35 100.00% 29.17%
Male 9 23.08% 31.03% 30 76.92% 32.97% 39 100.00% 32.50%
Luzon 4 23.53% 13.79% 13 76.47% 14.29% 17 100.00% 14.17%
Mindanao 1 12.50% 3.45% 7 87.50% 7.69% 8 100.00% 6.67%
Visayas 4 28.57% 13.79% 10 71.43% 10.99% 14 100.00% 11.67%
Grand Total 29 24.17% 100.00% 91 75.83% 100.00% 120 100.00% 100.00%

236
Table SDNA-TE 11: Factors that can make those that Answered No in Table SDNA-TE 8
to Report Tourism Data
Luzon Mindanao Visayas Total % Total %
Total
Factors % Share by % Share by % Share by % Share by % Share by % Share by Share by Share by
Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency
Row Column Row Column Row Column Row Column
Communication 2 20.00% 4.00% 1 10.00% 7.14% 7 70.00% 20.00% 10 100.00% 10.10%
Visitor Traffic 5 50.00% 10.00% 2 20.00% 14.29% 3 30.00% 8.57% 10 100.00% 10.10%
Mandated 5 55.56% 10.00% 1 11.11% 7.14% 3 33.33% 8.57% 9 100.00% 9.09%
Template Provision 1 14.29% 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6 85.71% 17.14% 7 100.00% 7.07%
Preferred Modality: Online 5 100.00% 10.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 100.00% 5.05%
Occupancy Rate 0.00% 0.00% 2 50.00% 14.29% 2 50.00% 5.71% 4 100.00% 4.04%
Orientation 3 75.00% 6.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 25.00% 2.86% 4 100.00% 4.04%
Easier process 2 66.67% 4.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 33.33% 2.86% 3 100.00% 3.03%
Monitoring purposes 3 100.00% 6.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3 100.00% 3.03%
Normalcy of Operations 0.00% 0.00% 2 66.67% 14.29% 1 33.33% 2.86% 3 100.00% 3.03%
Visitor Profile 2 66.67% 4.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 33.33% 2.86% 3 100.00% 3.03%
Customer Referral 2 100.00% 4.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 100.00% 2.02%
Data Privacy Clause 1 50.00% 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 50.00% 2.86% 2 100.00% 2.02%
Incentive 1 50.00% 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 50.00% 2.86% 2 100.00% 2.02%
Local Data Gathering 1 50.00% 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 50.00% 2.86% 2 100.00% 2.02%
None 1 50.00% 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 50.00% 2.86% 2 100.00% 2.02%
Preferred Modality: Email 0.00% 0.00% 1 50.00% 7.14% 1 50.00% 2.86% 2 100.00% 2.02%
Program Improvement 2 100.00% 4.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 100.00% 2.02%
Promotions 2 100.00% 4.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 100.00% 2.02%
Safety and guidelines policy 2 100.00% 4.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 100.00% 2.02%
Support 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2 100.00% 5.71% 2 100.00% 2.02%
Accuracy of Data System 1 100.00% 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 1.01%
Data Inventory 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 2.86% 1 100.00% 1.01%
Easier Accreditation 1 100.00% 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 1.01%
Efficiency 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 2.86% 1 100.00% 1.01%
Incentives 1 100.00% 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 1.01%
Less Frequency 1 100.00% 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 1.01%
Less requirement 1 100.00% 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 1.01%
Local Tourism Significance 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 7.14% 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 1.01%
MICE data 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 7.14% 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 1.01%
Monthly Submissions 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 7.14% 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 1.01%
Not Decided 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 7.14% 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 1.01%
Planning Purposes 1 100.00% 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 1.01%
Preferred Modality: Manual 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 2.86% 1 100.00% 1.01%
Provision of Report 1 100.00% 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 1.01%
Responsiveness of government 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 7.14% 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 1.01%
Revenue Submission 1 100.00% 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 1.01%
Systematic 1 100.00% 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 1.01%
Unified Online System 1 100.00% 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 1.01%
Grand Total 50 50.51% 100.00% 14 14.14% 100.00% 35 35.35% 100.00% 99 100.00% 100.00%

237
Table SDNA-TE 12: Issues Affecting Tourism Data Reporting
Rating Manpower Budget Technical Capacity Internal Support External Support Other Tasks
Respondent 517 492 493 469 472 474
Average 2.75 2.38 2.42 1.99 2.24 2.55
Standard
0.94 1.02 0.92 0.97 0.99 0.91
Deviation
Variance 0.89 1.03 0.84 0.94 0.98 0.82
Rating Respondent % Share Respondent % Share Respondent % Share Respondent % Share Respondent % Share Respondent % Share
4 123 23.8% 82 16.7% 65 13.2% 37 7.9% 58 12.3% 78 16.5%
3 199 38.5% 138 28.0% 159 32.3% 108 23.0% 126 26.7% 165 34.8%
2 137 26.5% 158 32.1% 187 37.9% 139 29.6% 157 33.3% 173 36.5%
1 58 11.2% 114 23.2% 82 16.6% 185 39.4% 131 27.8% 58 12.2%
Total 517 100% 492 100% 493 100% 469 100% 472 100% 474 100%
Note: 4 Being the Highest

Table SDNA-TE 13a: Perception if DOT does not Addressed Issues Affecting Tourism
Data Reporting
Female Male Total % Total %
Total Cumulative
Descriptive Answers % Share % Share by Cumulative % Share % Share by Cumulative Share by Share by
Respondents Respondents Respondents % Share
by Row Column % Share by Row Column % Share Row Column
1 I would like it. 13 50.00% 3.49% 3.49% 13 50.00% 6.47% 6.47% 26 100.00% 4.53% 4.53%
Luzon 3 42.86% 0.80% 2.04% 4 57.14% 1.99% 4.82% 7 100.00% 1.22% 3.04%
Mindanao 8 66.67% 2.14% 10.67% 4 33.33% 1.99% 11.11% 12 100.00% 2.09% 10.81%
Visayas 2 28.57% 0.54% 1.32% 5 71.43% 2.49% 6.10% 7 100.00% 1.22% 3.00%
2 I kind of expected that. 98 62.82% 26.27% 29.76% 58 37.18% 28.86% 35.32% 156 100.00% 27.18% 31.71%
Luzon 36 60.00% 9.65% 26.53% 24 40.00% 11.94% 33.73% 60 100.00% 10.45% 29.13%
Mindanao 17 65.38% 4.56% 33.33% 9 34.62% 4.48% 36.11% 26 100.00% 4.53% 34.23%
Visayas 45 64.29% 12.06% 31.13% 25 35.71% 12.44% 36.59% 70 100.00% 12.20% 33.05%
3 I do not care. 16 55.17% 4.29% 34.05% 13 44.83% 6.47% 41.79% 29 100.00% 5.05% 36.76%
Luzon 5 71.43% 1.34% 29.93% 2 28.57% 1.00% 36.14% 7 100.00% 1.22% 32.17%
Mindanao 2 33.33% 0.54% 36.00% 4 66.67% 1.99% 47.22% 6 100.00% 1.05% 39.64%
Visayas 9 56.25% 2.41% 37.09% 7 43.75% 3.48% 45.12% 16 100.00% 2.79% 39.91%
4 I do not like it. 246 67.77% 65.95% 100.00% 117 32.23% 58.21% 100.00% 363 100.00% 63.24% 100.00%
Luzon 103 66.03% 27.61% 100.00% 53 33.97% 26.37% 100.00% 156 100.00% 27.18% 100.00%
Mindanao 48 71.64% 12.87% 100.00% 19 28.36% 9.45% 100.00% 67 100.00% 11.67% 100.00%
Visayas 95 67.86% 25.47% 100.00% 45 32.14% 22.39% 100.00% 140 100.00% 24.39% 100.00%
Grand Total 373 64.98% 100.00% 201 35.02% 100.00% 574 100.00% 100.00%

238
Table SDNA-TE 13b: Perception if DOT does not Addressed Issues Affecting Tourism
Data Reporting
Standard
Demographics Respondents Average Variance
Deviation
Female 373 3.33 0.98 0.96
Luzon 147 3.41 0.93 0.86
Mindanao 75 3.20 1.13 1.27
Visayas 151 3.30 0.95 0.89
Male 201 3.16 1.05 1.11
Luzon 83 3.25 1.03 1.07
Mindanao 36 3.06 1.12 1.25
Visayas 82 3.12 1.05 1.10
Grand Total 574 3.27 1.01 1.01

Table SDNA-TE 14: Preferred Modality of Tourism Data Reporting

Emailed Online System Personally Communicated On-site Submission Compiler Visits
Respondents 552 542 538 528 527
Average 3.3 3.2 2.6 1.9 2.3
Standard
0.70 0.81 0.99 0.93 0.97
Deviation
Variance 0.48 0.66 0.99 0.87 0.94
Rating Respondent % Share Respondent % Share Respondent % Share Respondent % Share Respondent % Share
4 285 51.6% 253 46.7% 136 25.3% 61 11.6% 88 16.7%
3 179 32.4% 191 35.2% 163 30.3% 109 20.6% 157 29.8%
2 62 11.2% 67 12.4% 113 21.0% 100 18.9% 113 21.4%
1 26 4.7% 31 5.7% 126 23.4% 258 48.9% 169 32.1%
Total 552 100% 542 100% 538 100% 528 100% 527 100%
Notes: a. 4 Being the Highest; Some items were not ranked by some respondents; Question in Google Form became a rating rather
than ranking as it was described on the paper format.

239
Table SDNA-TE 15: Current Tourism Data Monitoring System/Procedure Utilized
Total Total %
Data Monitoring Procedures
Frequency Share by
MS Office based documents 294 36.98%
Manual accounting 291 36.60%
DOT - sourced templates 165 20.75%
PMS 10 1.26%
Hotel system 6 0.75%
IOS (Apple) - based document system 6 0.75%
none 5 0.63%
Booking platform 4 0.50%
Own system 3 0.38%
Front office software 2 0.25%
Google Forms 2 0.25%
Google Sheets 2 0.25%
accounting system 1 0.13%
Evaluation after tour 1 0.13%
Guests registration form 1 0.13%
Kloud system 1 0.13%
Not Familiar 1 0.13%
Grand Total 795 100.00%

Table SDNA-TE 16: Presence of a Data Officer or Designated Personnel in TE

No Yes Total % Total %
Super Total
% Share % Share by % Share % Share by Share by Share by
Region Respondents Respondents Respondents
by Row Column by Row Column Row Column
Luzon 63 27.39% 44.68% 167 72.61% 38.57% 230 100.00% 40.07%
Mindanao 15 13.51% 10.64% 96 86.49% 22.17% 111 100.00% 19.34%
Visayas 63 27.04% 44.68% 170 72.96% 39.26% 233 100.00% 40.59%
Grand Total 141 24.56% 100.00% 433 75.44% 100.00% 574 100.00% 100.00%

240
Table SDNA-TE 17: Interest on New TIS
No Yes Total % Total %
Total
Demographic % Share % Share by % Share % Share by Share by Share by
Respondents Respondents Respondents
by Row Column by Row Column Row Column
Female 15 4.02% 40.54% 358 95.98% 66.67% 373 100.00% 64.98%
Luzon 7 4.76% 18.92% 140 95.24% 26.07% 147 100.00% 25.61%
Mindanao 1 1.33% 2.70% 74 98.67% 13.78% 75 100.00% 13.07%
Visayas 7 4.64% 18.92% 144 95.36% 26.82% 151 100.00% 26.31%
Male 22 10.95% 59.46% 179 89.05% 33.33% 201 100.00% 35.02%
Luzon 4 4.82% 10.81% 79 95.18% 14.71% 83 100.00% 14.46%
Mindanao 2 5.56% 5.41% 34 94.44% 6.33% 36 100.00% 6.27%
Visayas 16 19.51% 43.24% 66 80.49% 12.29% 82 100.00% 14.29%
Grand Total 37 6.45% 100.00% 537 93.55% 100.00% 574 100.00% 100.00%

Table SDNA-TE 18: Interest on New Survey Tool

No Yes Total % Total %
Total
Demographic % Share % Share by % Share % Share by Share by Share by
Respondents Respondents Respondents
by Row Column by Row Column Row Column
Female 13 3.49% 43.33% 360 96.51% 66.18% 373 100.00% 64.98%
Luzon 3 2.04% 10.00% 144 97.96% 26.47% 147 100.00% 25.61%
Mindanao 2 2.67% 6.67% 73 97.33% 13.42% 75 100.00% 13.07%
Visayas 8 5.30% 26.67% 143 94.70% 26.29% 151 100.00% 26.31%
Male 17 8.46% 56.67% 184 91.54% 33.82% 201 100.00% 35.02%
Luzon 6 7.23% 20.00% 77 92.77% 14.15% 83 100.00% 14.46%
Mindanao 0.00% 0.00% 36 100.00% 6.62% 36 100.00% 6.27%
Visayas 11 13.41% 36.67% 71 86.59% 13.05% 82 100.00% 14.29%
Grand Total 30 5.23% 100.00% 544 94.77% 100.00% 574 100.00% 100.00%

Table SDNA-TE 19a: Perception if DOT Provided a New TIS

Female Male Total % Total %
Total Cumulative
Descriptive Answers % Share % Share by Cumulative % Share % Share by Cumulative Share by Share by
Respondents Respondents Respondents % Share
by Row Column % Share by Row Column % Share Row Column
1 I would like it. 307 67.03% 82.31% 82.31% 151 32.97% 75.12% 75.12% 458 100.00% 79.79% 79.79%
Luzon 123 66.49% 32.98% 83.67% 62 33.51% 30.85% 74.70% 185 100.00% 32.23% 80.43%
Mindanao 55 63.95% 14.75% 73.33% 31 36.05% 15.42% 86.11% 86 100.00% 14.98% 77.48%
Visayas 129 68.98% 34.58% 85.43% 58 31.02% 28.86% 70.73% 187 100.00% 32.58% 80.26%
2 I expect that they should
have been doing that. 52 57.78% 13.94% 96.25% 38 42.22% 18.91% 94.03% 90 100.00% 15.68% 95.47%
Luzon 20 52.63% 5.36% 97.28% 18 47.37% 8.96% 96.39% 38 100.00% 6.62% 96.96%
Mindanao 15 75.00% 4.02% 93.33% 5 25.00% 2.49% 100.00% 20 100.00% 3.48% 95.50%
Visayas 17 53.13% 4.56% 96.69% 15 46.88% 7.46% 89.02% 32 100.00% 5.57% 93.99%
3 I do not care. 6 50.00% 1.61% 97.86% 6 50.00% 2.99% 97.01% 12 100.00% 2.09% 97.56%
Luzon 1 50.00% 0.27% 97.96% 1 50.00% 0.50% 97.59% 2 100.00% 0.35% 97.83%
Mindanao 3 100.00% 0.80% 97.33% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 3 100.00% 0.52% 98.20%
Visayas 2 28.57% 0.54% 98.01% 5 71.43% 2.49% 95.12% 7 100.00% 1.22% 97.00%
4 I do not like it. 8 57.14% 2.14% 100.00% 6 42.86% 2.99% 100.00% 14 100.00% 2.44% 100.00%
Luzon 3 60.00% 0.80% 100.00% 2 40.00% 1.00% 100.00% 5 100.00% 0.87% 100.00%
Mindanao 2 100.00% 0.54% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 2 100.00% 0.35% 100.00%
Visayas 3 42.86% 0.80% 100.00% 4 57.14% 1.99% 100.00% 7 100.00% 1.22% 100.00%
Grand Total 373 64.98% 100.00% 201 35.02% 100.00% 574 100.00% 100.00%

241
Table SDNA-TE 19b: Perception if DOT Provided a New TIS
Standard
Demographics Respondents Average Variance
Deviation
Female 373 3.76 0.58 0.34
Luzon 147 3.79 0.55 0.30
Mindanao 75 3.64 0.69 0.48
Visayas 151 3.80 0.55 0.31
Male 201 3.66 0.68 0.46
Luzon 83 3.69 0.62 0.39
Mindanao 36 3.86 0.35 0.12
Visayas 82 3.55 0.82 0.67
Grand Total 574 3.73 0.62 0.39

Table SDNA-TE 20: Expectations for New TIS

Expectations Frequency % Share
Characteristic 130 17.11%
Comprehensive 42 5.53%
Easy to Use 15 1.97%
User Friendly 8 1.05%
New 7 0.92%
Easy to understand 5 0.66%
Simplified 5 0.66%
Accessible 4 0.53%
Accurate 3 0.39%
Useful 3 0.39%
Convenient 2 0.26%
Detailed 2 0.26%
Effective 2 0.26%
Exceeds expectations 2 0.26%
Fast 2 0.26%
Intuitive 2 0.26%
Nice 2 0.26%
Organized 2 0.26%
Reliable 2 0.26%
Appropriate 1 0.13%
Brief 1 0.13%
Clear 1 0.13%
Concise 1 0.13%
Consistent 1 0.13%
Current 1 0.13%
direct 1 0.13%
Fair 1 0.13%
Flexible 1 0.13%
Honest 1 0.13%
Non-confusing 1 0.13%
Not Complex 1 0.13%
Not Problematic 1 0.13%
Not Redundant 1 0.13%
Professional 1 0.13%
Proper 1 0.13%
Realistic Compliance 1 0.13%
Resilient 1 0.13%
responsive 1 0.13%
Transparency 1 0.13%

242
 Expectations Frequency % Share
Data 458 60.26%
Arrivals 104 13.68%
Market 43 5.66%
Visitor Profile 39 5.13%
Occupancy Rates 24 3.16%
Beneficial Data 15 1.97%
Visitor Preferences 15 1.97%
ADE 13 1.71%
Tourism Programs/Projects 13 1.71%
Demographics 11 1.45%
Accommodation Rates 10 1.32%
ALOS 10 1.32%
Tourism Protocols 10 1.32%
Purpose of Visit 9 1.18%
Any Related Data 8 1.05%
Events 6 0.79%
Health and Safety Protocols 6 0.79%
Tourism Ideas 6 0.79%
Visitor Interests 6 0.79%
Activities 5 0.66%
Attractions 5 0.66%
Tourism Plans 5 0.66%
Visitor Types 5 0.66%
Destinations 4 0.53%
Strategies 4 0.53%
Tourism Policies 4 0.53%
Visited destinations 4 0.53%
Guidelines 3 0.39%
Improvement 3 0.39%
Operations Recommendation 3 0.39%
Recommended Plans 3 0.39%
Accommodation Est 2 0.26%
Business Organizations 2 0.26%
Business Profile 2 0.26%
Innovative Ideas 2 0.26%
Inventory 2 0.26%
MICE 2 0.26%
Revenues 2 0.26%
Tourism Impact 2 0.26%
Tourism Sector Status 2 0.26%
Tourism Services 2 0.26%
Travel Characteristics 2 0.26%
Visitor Health Status 2 0.26%
Accessible Tourism Areas 1 0.13%
Accident Reports 1 0.13%
Accommodation Profile 1 0.13%
Age 1 0.13%
Amenities 1 0.13%
Barangay Disaggregation 1 0.13%
Best Practices 1 0.13%
Business Opportunities 1 0.13%
Business Strategies 1 0.13%
Capacity Building 1 0.13%
Current bookings 1 0.13%
Demand Data 1 0.13%
DOT Supports 1 0.13%
Environmental Projects 1 0.13%
Facilities 1 0.13%
General Information 1 0.13%
Government Grants 1 0.13%
Information on PMS 1 0.13%
Investments 1 0.13%
Local Data 1 0.13%
Pictures 1 0.13%
Port of Entry Data 1 0.13%
Preferred Reservation System 1 0.13%
Room Nights 1 0.13%
Safety and Health Related Data 1 0.13%
Same 1 0.13%
Skills Improvement 1 0.13%
Success Stories 1 0.13%
Support Plan 1 0.13%
TE Improvement 1 0.13%
TE Ratings 1 0.13%
Tour agency 1 0.13%
Tourism Benefits 1 0.13%
Tourism Enterprises 1 0.13%
Tourism Products 1 0.13%
Tourism Resources 1 0.13%
Tourist Transport 1 0.13%
Visit Frequency 1 0.13%

243
 Expectations Frequency % Share
Data Analytics 64 8.42%
Marketing Strategy 18 2.37%
Analytics 9 1.18%
Trends 7 0.92%
Forecasting 6 0.79%
Target Market 5 0.66%
Accommodation Performance 3 0.39%
Tourism Growth 3 0.39%
Business Assessment 2 0.26%
Industry Performance 2 0.26%
Business Financial Status 1 0.13%
Business Operations 1 0.13%
Comparative Analysis 1 0.13%
Correlations 1 0.13%
Demand Analysis 1 0.13%
Graphs/Charts 1 0.13%
Market gaps 1 0.13%
Performance 1 0.13%
Potential Market 1 0.13%
Features 108 14.21%
Reporting System 11 1.45%
Updated Data 11 1.45%
Promotional Materials 8 1.05%
Data Gathering System 6 0.79%
Monitoring System 6 0.79%
Data Reporting System 5 0.66%
Automated System 4 0.53%
Online Platform 4 0.53%
Survey template 4 0.53%
Unified System 3 0.39%
Benchmarking 2 0.26%
Digital Platform 2 0.26%
Experience/Feedback Platform 2 0.26%
Hotel Check-in/Check Out System 2 0.26%
Report Generation 2 0.26%
Report Sharing 2 0.26%
Uniformed System 2 0.26%
Accounting Procedures 1 0.13%
Bookings 1 0.13%
Client Cancellations 1 0.13%
Client Referrals 1 0.13%
Contact Tracing 1 0.13%
Data Encoding 1 0.13%
Data Processing Enhancement 1 0.13%
Data Sharing 1 0.13%
Database 1 0.13%
Destination Management 1 0.13%
Encoding System 1 0.13%
Engagement 1 0.13%
Evaluation System 1 0.13%
Guest Handling 1 0.13%
Help Desk 1 0.13%
Multiple Platform-Ready 1 0.13%
No Establishment Data 1 0.13%
Office Support 1 0.13%
Orientation 1 0.13%
Realtime Data 1 0.13%
Recommendations 1 0.13%
Recording System 1 0.13%
Recording Templates 1 0.13%
Report Urgency 1 0.13%
Search Feature 1 0.13%
Signature 1 0.13%
Solution features 1 0.13%
Solutions Enhancement 1 0.13%
Statistical Procedures 1 0.13%
Systematic 1 0.13%
Tour Guides 1 0.13%
Updated Templates 1 0.13%
Grand Total 760 100.00%

244
Annex 28: Tables for the Stakeholder Data Needs Assessment (SDNA) for DOT and
other National Government Agencies (NGA) conducted from July 25 – September 11,
2021

Table SDNA-DOT 1: Respondents by Office per Sex

Female Male Total Total %
Offices
Respondents % Share Respondents % Share Respondents Share
Central / Main Office 26 46.43% 7 12.50% 33 58.93%
BSP 0.00% 1 1.79% 1 1.79%
CHED 1 1.79% 0.00% 1 1.79%
DFA 1 1.79% 0.00% 1 1.79%
DILG 1 1.79% 0.00% 1 1.79%
DOLE 2 3.57% 0.00% 2 3.57%
DOT 2 3.57% 0.00% 2 3.57%
DOTr 1 1.79% 0.00% 1 1.79%
MIAA 1 1.79% 0.00% 1 1.79%
NCCA 0.00% 1 1.79% 1 1.79%
NPDC 0.00% 1 1.79% 1 1.79%
TESDA 1 1.79% 0.00% 1 1.79%
TPB 16 28.57% 4 7.14% 20 35.71%
Foreign Office 0.00% 1 1.79% 1 1.79%
DOT 0.00% 1 1.79% 1 1.79%
Regional Office 14 25.00% 8 14.29% 22 39.29%
Comelec 0.00% 1 1.79% 1 1.79%
Deped 0.00% 1 1.79% 1 1.79%
DOT 12 21.43% 4 7.14% 16 28.57%
MARINA 2 3.57% 0.00% 2 3.57%
PSA 0.00% 2 3.57% 2 3.57%
Grand Total 40 71.43% 16 28.57% 56 100.00%

Table SDNA-DOT 2: Top Tourism Data Used

Data/Indicators Respondents % Share
volume of visitors (tourists, same day visitors) 19 33.93%
Inventory of tourism attractions and facilities 11 19.64%
tourism employment 8 14.29%
M.I.C.E. data 6 10.71%
Daily Expenditure 4 7.14%
tourism programs and projects 4 7.14%
client profile (market countries, sales agents etc.) 3 5.36%
tourist receipts 1 1.79%
Grand Total 56 100.00%

245
Table SDNA-DOT 3: Top Tourism Data Needed
Data/Indicators Frequency % Share
All tourism data 10 17.54%
Visitor Volume 5 8.77%
ADE 4 7.02%
MICE 4 7.02%
Tourism Employment 3 5.26%
Tourism Establishments 3 5.26%
Tourism Programs/Projects 3 5.26%
Tourist Receipt 3 5.26%
Foregone Revenue 2 3.51%
Tourism Investment 2 3.51%
ALOS 1 1.75%
Budget Utilization 1 1.75%
Capacity Building 1 1.75%
Demographic 1 1.75%
Health Related Data 1 1.75%
Labor Market Study 1 1.75%
Niche Market Arrivals 1 1.75%
None 1 1.75%
Purpose of Visit 1 1.75%
Safe Destinations 1 1.75%
Tourism Attractions 1 1.75%
Tourism Perks 1 1.75%
Tourism Revenue 1 1.75%
Tourism Sector Skills Needed 1 1.75%
Tourism Situationer 1 1.75%
TSA 1 1.75%
Visitor Activities 1 1.75%
Visitor Profile 1 1.75%
Grand Total 57 100.00%

Table SDNA-DOT 4: Perception if DOT Addressed Tourism Data Needs

Cumulative
Descriptive Answers Respondents % Share
% Share
1 I would like it. 41 73.21% 73.21%
2 I expect that they should
have been doing that. 15 26.79% 100.00%
Grand Total 56 100.00%
Average 3.73
Standard Deviation 0.45
Variance 0.20

246
Table SDNA-DOT 5: Utilization of DOT/PSA Tourism Data
DOT/PSA Data Utilization Respondents % Share
No 4 7.14%
Yes 52 92.86%
Grand Total 56 100.00%

Table SDNA-DOT 6: Frequency of Tourism Data Need

Frequency Respondents % Share
annually 11 21.15%
every semester 2 3.85%
monthly 17 32.69%
quarterly 22 42.31%
Grand Total 52 100.00%

Table SDNA-DOT 7: Usual Tourism Data Sources

Tourism Data Source Frequency % Share
DOT Statistics office (Central and Regional Offices) 41 52.56%
PSA 18 23.08%
LGUs 6 7.69%
Tourism Enterprises 4 5.13%
ICCA 2 2.56%
Online sites 2 2.56%
Desk Research 1 1.28%
DOT Website 1 1.28%
Members 1 1.28%
NHCP 1 1.28%
PSRC 1 1.28%
Grand Total 78 100.00%

Table SDNA-DOT 8: Issues Affecting Utilization of DOT/PSA Tourism Data

DOT/PSA Tourism
Data Needed Not Lacks Technical Data Needed from DOT/PSA Tourism
Produced Own Data Data Inconsistent Unawareness
Available Expertise Other Sources Data Unreliable
Release
Respondents 52 46 41 50 45 48 48
Average 2.94 2.61 2.24 2.90 2.00 2.29 1.96
Standard Deviation 0.98 0.93 0.73 0.89 0.80 0.80 0.90
Variance 0.96 0.87 0.54 0.79 0.64 0.64 0.81
Rating Respondents % Share Respondents % Share Respondents % Share Respondents % Share Respondents % Share Respondents % Share Respondents % Share
4 18 34.62% 7 15.22% 1 2.44% 13 26.00% 1 2.22% 2 4.17% 4 8.33%
3 18 34.62% 21 45.65% 14 34.15% 23 46.00% 11 24.44% 18 37.50% 6 12.50%
2 11 21.15% 11 23.91% 20 48.78% 10 20.00% 20 44.44% 20 41.67% 22 45.83%
1 5 9.62% 7 15.22% 6 14.63% 4 8.00% 13 28.89% 8 16.67% 16 33.33%

247
Table SDNA-DOT 9: Perception if DOT Does Not Addressed Issues Affecting Tourism
Data Utilization
Cumulative
Descriptive Answers Respondents % Share
% Share
1 I would like it. 1 1.79% 1.79%
2 I kind of expected that. 5 8.93% 10.71%
4 I do not like it. 50 89.29% 100.00%
Grand Total 56 100.00%
Average 3.77
Standard Deviation 0.69
Variance 0.47

Table SDNA-DOT 10: Preferred Modality of Accessing Tourism Data

Emailed Online Dashboards Personal Inquiries Research On-site Indirect Source
Respondents 54 56 52 53 50
Average 3.57 3.66 2.42 2.81 2.82
Standard Deviation 0.66 0.61 0.89 1.06 0.90
Variance 0.44 0.37 0.80 1.12 0.80
Rating Respondents % Share Respondents % Share Respondents % Share Respondents % Share Respondents % Share
4 35 64.81% 40 71.43% 6 11.54% 17 32.08% 11 22.00%
3 16 29.63% 14 25.00% 18 34.62% 17 32.08% 24 48.00%
2 2 3.70% 1 1.79% 20 38.46% 11 20.75% 10 20.00%
1 1 1.85% 1 1.79% 8 15.38% 8 15.09% 5 10.00%

Table SDNA-DOT 11: Interest on New TIS

New TIS Respondents % Share
No 1 1.79%
Yes 55 98.21%
Grand Total 56 100.00%

Table SDNA-DOT 12: Perception if DOT Provided a New TIS

Cumulative
Descriptive Answers Respondents % Share
% Share
1 I would like it. 48 85.71% 85.71%
2 I expect that they should
have been doing that. 8 14.29% 100.00%
Grand Total 56 100.00%
Average 3.86
Standard Deviation 0.35
Variance 0.12

248
Table SDNA-DOT 13: Expectations on New TIS
Expectations Frequency % Share
Characteristic 4 4.94%
Easy to understand 1 1.23%
Enhanced Data Reporting 1 1.23%
Timely Reports 1 1.23%
User-Friendly 1 1.23%
Data 58 71.60%
All Tourism Data 18 22.22%
Arrivals 5 6.17%
Business Profile 1 1.23%
Improvements 1 1.23%
Inventory 1 1.23%
Labor Market Study 1 1.23%
Local Tourism Data 1 1.23%
Market 2 2.47%
MICE 3 3.70%
Preferences 1 1.23%
Profile 1 1.23%
Recommended Plans 1 1.23%
Tourism Benefits 1 1.23%
Tourism Employment 5 6.17%
Tourism Establishments 1 1.23%
Tourism Indicators 1 1.23%
Tourism Inventory 1 1.23%
Tourism Investments 3 3.70%
Tourism Programs/Projects 4 4.94%
Tourism Research Studies 1 1.23%
Tourism Situationer 2 2.47%
Updated Data 2 2.47%
Useful Data 1 1.23%
Data Analytics 9 11.11%
Analytics 6 7.41%
Behavior Analytics 1 1.23%
Comparative data 1 1.23%
Tourism Growth 1 1.23%
Features 10 12.35%
Automatic Updates 2 2.47%
Database 1 1.23%
Disaggregated Data 1 1.23%
Forecasting 2 2.47%
Health and Safety Protocols 1 1.23%
Health Issue Impact on Tou 1 1.23%
Report System 1 1.23%
Templates 1 1.23%
Grand Total 81 100.00%

249
Annex 29. SAA for CAR re TPMS/MATTA Pilot Implementation

250
Annex 30. Travel Order (TO) for TPMS Pretest Baguio

251
252
Annex 31. TO Amendment for TPMS Pretest Baguio

253
Annex 32. TPMS/MATTA Letter to Pilot LGUs

254
255
256
Annex 33. TPMS/MATTA Pilot Implementation 2021 Proposed Schedule

Date Pilot Destination Implementation Type Budget

Oct 20 - 29, 2021 Boracay Pilot TPMS/MATTA

Nov 3 - 12, 2021 Baguio Pilot TPMS/MATTA

Nov 17 - 26, 2021 Boracay Continuing TPMS/MATTA
Nov 24 - Dec 3, 2021 Region 1 Pilot TPMS/MATTA
Dec 1 - 10, 2021 Region 10 Pilot TPMS/MATTA
Dec 12 - 19, 2021 Boracay Continuing TPMS/MATTA
Dec 16 - 23, 2021 Baguio Continuing TPMS/MATTA

257
Annex 34. TPMS/MATTA Training Modules

258
259
260
261
262
263
Annex 35. GIS Dashboard, Geodata ArcGIS, as of 1 October 2021

264
265
266
267
268
269
Annex 36. Revised Manual Proposed Outlines

270
271
272
273
274
Annex 37. Proposed SLTSS Module Updates

275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
Annex 38. SLTSS List of Proposed Updated Templates
Item Form_Code Descriptive_Name OldManual_Code Form_Type Data_Type Transmitted SLTSS_Level SLTSS_Or
Start Level-User
1 CUS MICE Facilities Utilization Survey Data Capture Admin Yes BTST/TEF 1 LGU
2 CUS-11 MICE Total Events and Participants Report Admin No BTST/TEF 1 LGU
3 DAE3 Demand Database for AE Database Admin Yes BTST/TEF 1 LGU
4 DAE3B Regional Distribution of Overnight Visitors in AE Form A Data Compilation/Report Admin Yes BTST/TEF 1 LGU
5 DAE3B.2 Regional Distribution of Overnight Domestic Visitors in AE Data Compilation/Report Admin Yes BTST/TEF 1 LGU
6 DAE3-BaseData Automated Computations of Base Data for Encoding to DAE3 Data Processing Admin No BTST/TEF 1 LGU
7 DAE3-Errors DAE3 Automated Checking of Typo/Technical Errors and Missing Data Data Assessment Admin No BTST/TEF 1 LGU
8 DAE4 Monthly Summary of AE Indicators Report Admin No BTST/TEF 1 LGU
9 DAE-Estimate Estimated Indicators per Type of AE Report Admin No BTST/TEF 1 LGU
10 DTA2 TA Visitor Report VAR2 Data Compilation/Report Admin Yes BTST/TEF 1 LGU
11 LGU-DAF1 Available Data Assessment Form Assessment Form 1 Data Assessment Admin No BTST/TEF 1 LGU
12 LGU-DAF2 Required (Not Yet Available) Data Assessment Form Assessment Form 2 Data Assessment Admin No BTST/TEF 1 LGU
13 SAE1 Supply Database for AE Database Admin Yes BTST/TEF 1 LGU
14 SAE2 Annual Supply Data Report for AE Report Admin No BTST/TEF 1 LGU
15 SDAE1 Annual Report for AE Report Admin No BTST/TEF 1 LGU
16 STA1 Supply Database for TA Database Admin Yes BTST/TEF 1 LGU
17 STA2 TA Inventory Report Report Admin No BTST/TEF 1 LGU
18 STE1 Supply Database for TE Database Admin Yes BTST/TEF 1 LGU
19 STE2 TE Inventory Report Report Admin No BTST/TEF 1 LGU
20 TA-Type Standard Type and Categories of Tourist Attractions Info Sheet Admin No BTST/TEF 1 LGU
21 DAE1 Demand Database for AE Data Capture Admin Yes BTST/TEF 1 TE
22 DAE1B.2 Regional Distribution of Overnight Domestic Visitors in AE Data Capture Admin Yes BTST/TEF 1 TE
23 DAE2 AE Monthly Summary Report for Essential Indicators Report Admin No BTST/TEF 1 TE
24 DTA1 TA Visitor Report VAR1 Report Admin Yes BTST/TEF 1 TE
25 TPMS Tourism Product Market Survey VAS Data Capture Survey Yes ATST1 2 LGU
26 Tourism Indicator Assessment Matrix ATST2 3 LGU
27 TPMS Reports ATST2 3 LGU
28 Annex J Tourism Circuit Cluster Worksheet ASTP-DRF3 Data Compilation/Report Admin No ASTP1 4 LGU
29 ASTP-DAF1 SDAE Sampling Percentage and Augmentation Tool Data Assessment Admin No ASTP1 4 LGU
30 ASTP-DAF2 LGU Submission Percentage Tool Data Assessment Admin Yes ASTP1 4 LGU
31 ASTP-DAF3 LGU Document Submission Tool Data Assessment Admin No ASTP1 4 LGU
32 ASTP-DAF4 LGU Survey Implementation Inventory Tool Data Assessment Admin Yes ASTP1 4 LGU
33 ASTP-DAF5 LGU Survey Assessment Tool Data Assessment Admin Yes ASTP1 4 LGU
34 ASTP-DPF1-Growth Toolkit for Computing Growth and Seasonality ASTP-DRF1 Data Processing Admin No ASTP1 4 LGU
35 ASTP-DRF2-Conditions Required Indicators and Report Summary Template and Guides per LGU Report Mixed Yes ASTP1 4 LGU
36 MATTA Market Assessment Tool For Tourist Attractions Data Compilation/Report Mixed Yes ASTP1 4 LGU
37 TRA Tourism Rapid Assessment per LGU ASTP-DCF1 Data Compilation/Report Admin Yes ASTP1 4 LGU
38 MATTA Processing template ASTP1 4 LGU
39 Visitor Estimation Template ASTP2 5 LGU
40 Forecasting and Targeting Template ASTP2 5 LGU
41 Target Marketing Matrix ASTP3 6 LGU
42 Subnational TSA Data Requirement Assessment Form ASTP4 7 LGU

284
Annex 39. Revised Manual Consultant Contract

285
286
Annex 40. Manual Revision Proposed Schedule of Deliverables

287
288
Annex 41 FGD 17 Sep 2021 Report and Documentation

289
290
291
292
 I. Preliminaries

The Focus Group Discussion (FGD) was held on September 17, 2021, via Zoom, and was attended
by representatives from LGU Tourism Offices and DOT Regional Offices. There were 102
attendees in total, coming from Regions I, IVA, VI, VII, XII and CAR. The FGD was emceed by
Ms. Rey Jean Almazan of the Statistics, Economic Analysis, and Information Management
Division.

I.1 Opening program

Before the FGD proper, an opening program was conducted. An audio-visual presentation
of a prayer and the National Anthem was presented.

I.2 House rules

Basic house rules and decorum was presented and discussed by the Emcee.

I.3 Opening Remarks

The opening remarks was delivered by Ms. Manette Reyes, OIC of the Statistics, Economic
Analysis, and Information Management Division. In her message, she welcomed everyone
and provided a brief background on the creation of the tourism statistics manual. She
emphasized that since 2012 no changes have been made and that now is the right time to
revise and improve. Highlighted that the insights and knowledge of users and stakeholders
are very important. Lastly, she encouraged everyone to actively participate.

II. Focus Group Discussion

II.1 Introduction
Before proceeding to the FGD, Mr. Ramil Basuel, Senior Tourism Operations Officer of
the Statistics, Economic Analysis, and Information Management Division firstly
acknowledged the participants and then provided an introduction on the Tourism Statistics
Manual.

He emphasized that the Tourism Statistics Manual is part of the umbrella project
Revitalizing Local Tourism through the DOT Subnational Tourism Analytics and

293
Reporting (STAR) hub. The project aims to have a better grasp of what is happening right
now, how to recover from the pandemic and plan ahead. However, the data that we have
now only speaks mostly about tourist arrivals. There is a lack of data on expenditure, length
of stay, activities, products, and services availed, profile of tourists, all of which are
essential towards better planning and decision making. The problem is that there is a need
for subnational or LGU level data to be able to assess and monitor tourism situations
especially in times of crises. The current local tourism data is not enough to assess tourism’s
sustainability. There is a need for all stakeholders to access data for planning and currently
there is no easy way to access data nor report data and information for compilation. The
proposed solution is to provide local stakeholders with new methods of monitoring their
tourism sector and provide a more resilient modality of sharing data and information on
tourism.

The new subnational tourism indicators and platform would mean more relevant plans and
more participative analysis, economic performance of tourism enterprises and local host
communities is known, and the gap on indicators, information sharing, and analytical
collaboration is bridged. The project based its framework on APEC’s Sustainable Tourism
Development, Diffusion of Innovation Theory, and Buhalis eTourism Mix. Lastly, Mr.
Basuel discussed the three components of the project namely the DOT STAR Hub (online
compilation and reporting systems, online tourism dashboard), New tourism data capture
systems (tourism product market survey, market assessment tool for tourist attractions),
and the Revised SLTSS Manual.

After the introduction, the participants were divided into three breakout groups, with the
following facilitators and documenters:
Breakout
Facilitators Documenters
Group
1 Ramil Basuel Tristan Lucson
Russel Dela Cruz

2 Ray Jean Almazan

Ryan Carlos

3 Faeroe Jeanne Fontanilla Camille De Castro

294
 Sherwyn Renzo Ramirez

II.2 Breakout Group 1

a. Are you implementing the SLTSS in your area? Why or why not? (Which data are
easy to gather?)
Data that are easy to gather include attraction data, AEs and TA, # of males and
females, same-day arrival and disaggregation of sex, origin municipality or
province, and inventory of sites.

Tupi LGU mentioned that they are conducting business profiling, based on
provincial form indicating what type of tourist destination. They also have a form
for data gathering of daytime arrivals indicating the total number of male and
female from the municipality, from other municipalities, or from any other
provinces, and foreigners.

Tagbilaran LGU shared that they conduct check inventory and added age, gender,
and nationality and if for leisure, business, and mix. Noted that business
classification is for tourists staying for investment or for meetings. There is a form
for this to be filled up by arrivals at the port area and airport. They also have data
upon leaving Tagbilaran facilitated by employees assigned at seaport, airport, bus
terminals. When it comes to final data, they are working with their IT to utilize QR
in the future which will access the questions, making it contactless. They pointed
out that arrival and departure surveys and data are separate/ different. Arrival
survey contains the gender, basic data, then the exit survey contains the
experiences, where they stayed.

Gensan LGU shared that they have an ordinance requiring all the establishments to
submit all the statistics, but the problem is more on the collection because of the
limitation and restrictions caused by COVID. They devised a plan submission to
google sheet, but again it’s still limited. They suggested that hopefully DOT can
consider this aspect of reporting. TREs have a hard time collecting data especially
in remote areas due to limited staff there. Another suggestion they want DOT to
consider is the conduct of studies on the impact of COVID19. They devised a plan
for a survey questionnaire, but out of 140 establishments only 20+ submitted. This
is more on the impact on revenue generation and employment.

DOT Region 12 noted that all forms utilized in the Region are already cascaded to
the LGUs and are also being utilized. The problem is on data collection especially
for AEs and attractions that are far and not easy to access. Difficulty in data
gathering and meeting report deadlines is due to lack in manpower and changes in
tourism officers requiring training on basic tourism statistics.

Cebu LGU noted that with regards to the tourism officers, the position is not
mandated and not organic. Some TOs are also assigned to other offices (Admins,
Health, etc.), there’s no specific TO assigned solely for tourism purposes. Some
destinations do not have internet access.

295
b. Issues in the implementation and data collection
Tupi LGU pointed out the issues on uncooperative tourist sites causing delays in
arrivals report. Tourism establishments are afraid that the figures will be used for
BIR taxation purposes, hence they give them assurance that the data to be provided
will only be used for the intended purposes, and not for BIR. But still, most are
hesitant. BIR sent a letter requesting for arrivals data of private establishments, but
they referred them to the LGU. It’s the LGU’s discretion whether they will provide
such data or not. Also mentioned are the wrong entries to the forms. Before the
release of the tourism code, the LGU already submitted a proposal that would
include tourism destinations and establishments in the business one stop shop same
as GenSan. They have to submit all their requirements like arrival report, data.
Provincial LGU sets deadlines for the submission of tourist arrivals and business
profiles every 10th day of the month.

General Santos LGU mentioned that they have an ordinance on the mandatory
submission of tourism data by all tourism related establishments, including
accommodations, destinations, even tour operators. So far in its implementation,
there are sanctions, but they still give leeway. The submission of complete yearly
data will be a basis for the renewal for the next year. Without such clearance from
the tourism office, establishments can’t secure their business licenses. Sanctions
for the 1st month are demand letters and fines but since last year, implementation
was halted but they encouraged establishments to submit data.

Cebu LGU mentioned that Gov. Gwen Garcia released an EO (provincial EO)
requiring them to submit, it was already adopted but enforcement should be
strengthened. All regulations at the provincial level are automatically being
adopted by the LGUs, some just have a few add-ons.

Batangas LGU noted that they are not that strict and there are no sanctions for non-
compliance in data submission. For some LGUs, they need to submit data first
before they can renew their license. And from time to time, the LGU conducts basic
statistics training to refresh knowledge of tourism officers since not all are
permanent. They also have a Provincial Tourism Code 2018 requiring the
submission of tourism data.

Carmen LGU also has a Provincial Ordinance in 2018 which mandates all tourism
related enterprises and tourism frontliners to secure a tourism compliance
certificate as a prerequisite for the renewal of business permit. No monthly statistics
report, no clearance certificate. For accommodation establishments there are
accreditation standards, and if not complied with, tourism compliance certificates
won’t be issued.

c. Issues on the Local Tourism Statistics Manual

Among the issues discussed were the lack of endorsement from the previous
tourism officer (Tupi LGU), plan to digitize the tourism statistics data system but
the funds were diverted towards COVID-19 instead (GenSan LGU), manual
downloading and encoding through email by excel and scanned paper and lack of
a mobile application for the system (GenSan LGU, Abra LGU).

296
 Tupi LGU mentioned that they previously conducted personal data gathering but
shifted to online due to COVID. However, since some areas don’t have signal,
submission of data is a challenge. Cebu province has also shifted to Google sheets.

GenSan LGU noted that even with google sheet, consolidation is still done
manually. This requires 2 personnel to accomplish. They suggested that reporting
could be improved. It would also be better if the consolidated report is presented
through graphs for easier understanding since not all are well versed in statistics.

d. How to improve the manual

DOT Region 12 noted that they start from the Basic Tourism Statistics but cannot
proceed to the Advanced thus not being able to get expenditure data. Sometimes
estimates are made instead of actual surveys. They suggested having a formula for
expenditure in the absence of surveys.

With regards to the conduct of Revenue Generation and Employment Studies, when
asked if it should be done by everyone, participants remarked that it should be done
during exit surveys.

Cebu LGU pointed out that surveys are not effective since they are not being
accomplished or submitted and sometimes thrown. They are thinking of using QR
Code for easier registration and for synchronized data.

GenSan LGU noted that for overnight guests, there’s no disaggregation of sex but
there is for daytrips. Bohol LGU suggested differentiating local tourists within
Bohol and outside the province. Source of data is still from accommodation
establishments. Form A for local and foreign only. Local tourists are not
categorized further whether from Bohol or another province.

e. Efficient Tourism Data Gathering Collection

For a more efficient system, it was suggested to use QR Code instead and to involve
barangays in data gathering. Tupi LGU noted that it is better if there is an available
system or application for the data gathering as it is easier, though most
establishments still prefer paper. GenSan LGU suggested the creation of a program
and the full implementation of Ordinance 22, and retooling. GenSan LGU also
noted that an orientation of the data gathering system for the TRE’s is planned
before January.

II.3 Breakout Group 2

a. Are you implementing the SLTSS in your Area? Why or why not?
DOT-CALABARZON noted that the provinces and municipalities in the region
implement the SLTSS as we receive a series of trainings of the SLTSS from the
DOT Central Office. Dauin, Bohol LGU collects data from accommodation
establishments. Tabuk, Kalinga LGU collects data from accommodation
establishments and submits to the province. La Union LGU collects and compiles
monthly from accommodation establishments and tourist attractions and submits
the report quarterly to the DOT regional office but needs follow-up from the
municipalities. Negros Oriental LGU collects and submits data but has a low turn-
out.

b. What are the problems encountered in data collection and compilation?

297
 Negros Oriental LGU mentioned the limited number of staff to collect and follow-
up municipalities of their submission and same issue for municipalities as they have
limited staff to collect the data from the AEs especially during the pandemic as
some of the tourism officers are also assigned to other jobs like coordination of the
LSIs.

Panglao, Bohol LGU cited the fast turn-over of staff in the hotels and some are not
that knowledgeable in the technical aspect, internet, google forms and even excel.
The same is true with Baguio City LGU with the fast turn-over in hotels that is why
asking is delayed and needs retraining. There is also an issue on the taxation as
perceived by the private data source. Sarangani LGU mentioned issues in
connectivity.

c. Are you aware that there is a Tourism Statistics Manual which is the basis for the
SLTSS?
DOT Region VII mentioned that they are aware but thinks that there are too many
forms needed to be accomplished which make the SLTSS difficult. The manual
will be a basis and guide of new staff/replacement staff, and this will help sustain
the submission of data. Baguio City LGU is also aware of the manual and devised
a manual for the accommodation establishments to help them accomplish the
forms, but AEs are not really reading the manual. Cebu Province considers the
manual important as this will be a guide in the accomplishment of the forms.
Sarangani Province noted that the manual will be useful together with the
instructional video of the SLTSS. Lastly, Maitum, Sarangani LGU pointed out that
the manual is important as this will guide them and their AEs.

d. How do you think the manual can be user-friendly?

DOT Region VII suggested including a sample of ordinances requiring data
collection and submission, integrate procedures, and if possible, devise a manual
for the private sector.

Saranggani LGU pointed out that the most difficult is the form on Country of Origin
so later when they revised that, they asked the RD if it is possible to use a standard
form. Political will of some LGUs is also a challenge. For establishments, trainings
differ, suggests revising approaches to motivate them such as simplified forms,
videos, and simplified manuals. For a simplified manual, it would be better to
lessen the number of required forms since some accommodation establishments
lack the manpower to accomplish many forms. There should be a guide and a
template for the reporting system.

Midsayap LGU noted that they have an improvised tourist arrival form simplified.
Before they reproduced it, they had a meeting and consulted the EEs and Tourism
establishments to address complaints/ issues. This highlights the importance of
stakeholders in the revision of forms. Ms. Sarah Chua suggested having a unified
national database system – if there is a unified database system at the national level,
encoding can be done directly. Midsayap LGU noted that they tried creating online
reporting for AEs, but it is difficult since not all have the knowledge to use
computers, aside from the internet availability (connectivity).

e. Are there data or tourism indicators that you want to be included in the SLTSS?

298
 It was suggested to include the satisfaction rating of the overall experience to see
the level of satisfaction of tourists. Tanay LGU suggested the inclusion of non-
revenue visitors (no taxes) in Barangay and LGU. They are adding it also but not
all were gathered. Same day and overnight but usually they gather tourist arrivals
in hotels and resorts and campsites. Non-revenue guests hosted by barangay or
LGU are not being reported, but they still get the data from them. Tanay consists
of 11 upland barangays, which is why data collection is a challenge.

f. What steps do you think must be taken to achieve an efficient tourism data
collection?
Tanay LGU noted the need for resolutions or ordinances that will be supported by
all municipalities. Some hotels and resorts are hesitant to provide actual data of
arrival. In Tanay, vehicle arrivals are also being monitored by TREs. Aside from
the data collection from resorts and hotels there are tourism staff from the LGUs to
monitor arrivals and vehicles.

II.4 Breakout Group 3

a. Are you implementing the SLTSS in your area? Why or why not?
All participants confirmed that they are implementing the SLTSS. The reasons
cited for using the manual and gathering tourism statistics were using it as the basis
of arrivals and business activity, to have evidence-based inputs for tourism
planning and development, for DOT compliance, to convince LCEs on the
importance of tourism in the local economy, to standardize tourism statistics
reports, and using it as data for project development.

DOT Region 12 mentioned that there have been lots of improvement on data
gathering and mentoring sessions with LGU helped a lot. Some LGUs have not yet
recognized the importance of tourism which is why tourism data can be used to
convince LCEs/ get the attention of decision makers and secure a proper budget to
improve tourism activities. There is a need for 5 years data in projecting for
programs/ projects, coming up with regulations on tourism and assessing the
tourism carrying capacity.

North Cotabato LGU noted that data gathering at the ground level is through the
technical assistance of DOT12. LGU is compliant with DOT and submits quarterly
reports which really helped in comparative analysis of tourist arrival reports.
Reports and data served as basis for providing assistance in the development of
businesses, helped in DOT12 tourism road infrastructure project, needing tourist
arrivals report, clear comparative data analysis and able to have projected
computations.

Capiz LGU shared their experience in leading all data gathering on the ground and
not relying on data merely being reported, which resulted in timely collection and
good turnout. One of the strategies is to incentivize training and data submission.
Tourism data also served as an attachment in the justification of the establishment
of the tourism office.

b. Issues in the implementation

Talisay LGU pointed out that assigned staff keeps on changing (casual, JOs), such
that the trained staff for reports leave and then the replacement staff will need

299
 another briefing. Internet connection is poor especially in remote areas, limiting
automated data collection and opting for manual data collection instead. There are
delays in reports which is why the DOT manual forms were made into a database
which automates data encoding for hotel staff. Noted that expenditure is not being
required. There is a difficulty in manual computation of tourist arrivals, occupancy
rate, length of stay, and suggested that data should be segregated to determine
specific data such as a hotel's occupancy rate. Some business establishments and
accommodations are not cooperative/ hesitant (Navarro, Siquijor).

South Cotabato LGU also mentioned manpower changes (establishments and LGU
in charge), needing to conduct training again. They personally conduct data
gathering from establishments and monthly submission to provincial LGU.
Tulunan LGU mentioned that some establishments and tourist spots didn't fill up
the given forms to tourists since it is time consuming, while North Cotabato LGU
cited poor internet connection.

DOT Region 12 pointed out the hesitancy of establishments to share data since it
might be used as a basis for taxation. They recently received an access letter from
BIR asking data on tourist arrival as their basis to expand the tax base. They also
mentioned the conduct of regular IEC for establishments in coordination with LGU
to disseminate info and to regularize conducting data gathering. There are also local
ordinances requiring all establishments to submit tourism data otherwise they will
have a hard time securing permits. Recently, received a letter from BIR asking
tourist arrivals of eco-tourism sites so BIR can expand their tax base. DOT12
referred BIR requests to LGUs, and only provided regional data. One of the
challenges is the taxation from BIR.

DOT-CAR also noted the fast turnover of manpower in charge of statistics

collection and recording in the LGUs and AEs. This year, LGU Baguio regularly
conducts orientation on SLTSS for their AEs on their level. South Cotabato LGU
questioned whether the data are accurately reported since sometimes
establishments over-report just to improve LGU/TRE status. Are they really
reporting the correct numbers? Is it under or overstated? Do we need to validate it?

DOT Region 12 noted that they don’t have any means to validate; sometimes
computations in the reports from LGUs do not match, causing over/under
reporting. To address this, aside from IEC and SLTSS training, establishments
must be taught how to fill out forms and templates. Noted that the template is not
strictly being followed, some adjustments were made to ensure easier reporting and
filling out and requested LGUs to submit and follow simplified templates.

South Cotabato LGU pointed out that in this pandemic, there is no time and
personnel are unavailable to collect data due to quarantine/isolation. Mr. Rufin
shared that they are also being asked by BIR for data to be used for taxation, but
given the confidentiality of data, compiled data/reports are the only ones provided.
To address possible over/understated data, they conduct spot inspections/ call the
one who provided the data to validate the report/ cross checking.

c. Local tourism statistics manual (knowledge that it exists, lapses in implementation,

Improving the manual, data to be included, how to make it more efficient, easier to
use and understand)

300
 All participants are aware that a statistics manual exists. However, DOT Region 12
noted that the templates are quite enormous and difficult to teach the automated
system due to manpower changes, thus manual methods are the ones usually being
taught. Regional office adjusted those that need to be reported and the forms and
templates to be used.

Ms. Rose pointed out that the 2012 manual and forms are outdated. In reporting
DAE3 and SAE1, for classification of AE (resort, hotel, pension houses, mabuhay)
LGU based the classification on inspection and accreditation. There is difficulty in
classifying AEs in mabuhay accommodation. It was also suggested to translate
CCTS data to get tourist arrivals, a system that can cull out data and can shift to
contactless/ paperless tourist arrival data gathering. Suggested inclusion of data
gathering of number of tourism workers per categories, in case of assistance and
support.

DOT Region 12 suggested capturing or considering camping sites, number of tents

allowed day tourists. Also consider daytrips and household stays/ balikbayan
families. DOT-CAR suggested to include in the manual the data on Average Daily
Expenditure for us to be able to compute for the tourism receipts and visitor’s
profile. Mr. Rufin suggested also considering cyclists/bikers itinerary i.e., eat in
restaurants, go to tourist attractions, buy souvenirs. Ms. Rose noted that domestic
tourism monitoring templates are not included in SLTSS standard templates.

Ms. Renea shared that they have already set up an automated database, but only
used as a basis and DOT forms are still being submitted. In monitoring the arrivals
of daytrips/ excursionists done by LGU, SLTSS forms are more for overnight trips
and then excursionists consider it a bit of a hassle to fill up long forms. Suggested
having a digital version to make it easier for them. Utilize expert IT for it not to be
too taxing to report.

South Cotabato LGU suggested changing the system. DOT Region 6 suggested the
inclusion of a standard PowerPoint for regional offices to be used in orientations
for tourism stakeholders. DOT-CAR suggested having an AVP explaining the
contents and processes for IEC/orientations. DOT Region 12 suggested publishing
it as a booklet which includes all templates and forms, which is readable in all
devices aside from printed copy, such as e-copy for desktop and mobile or mobile
app that would look like a book being flipped.

III. Plenary

III.1 Highlights of the discussions

After the FGD breakout rooms, the participants and facilitators went back to the main room
for plenary discussions. Each group facilitator shared the main points of their discussions.

Breakout group 1 facilitated by Mr. Ramil Basuel highlighted the ongoing efforts and
studies in collecting data and for indicators. Breakout group 2 facilitated by Mr. Ryan
Carlos noted the most common issue raised which are the fast turnover of the employees/
staff of LGUs and establishments affecting the continuity of data collection, analysis, and
reporting. Breakout group 3 facilitated by Ms. Faeroe Fontanilla shared the issues on the
process of data gathering namely cooperation of stakeholders, submission of reports, poor

301
 internet connection, manual collection of data, manpower changes/ fast turnover, and
difficulties in using the templates. She also shared the good practices discussed such as
using automated systems for easier data collection and access and using data to
institutionalize tourism offices. Lastly, she discussed the suggestions of participants on the
data to be included which are domestic monitoring templates, other types of
accommodations, and tourism sector employees/ employment data.

III.2 Other inputs

After the discussions and highlights of the breakout rooms, the participants were asked to
share their final thoughts and inputs on what was discussed. DOT Region 12 noted that to
address the fast turnover causing limited accumulation of knowledge, there should be a
trainer's training at the regional and provincial level and regular mentoring. DOT-CAR
agreed to having trainers training that would reach the provincial level and noted that not
all provinces submit correct forms since they are not that aware of such forms. She
reiterated that mentoring and coaching should be a regular activity. DOT Region 4A
remarked that it is good to hear inputs from LGUs and suggested that there should be
training for ROs in extracting data, statistics tables, and use of manual and forms. DOT
Region 6 noted that revisions to the manual are indeed very timely and agreed with other
regions on the conduct of regional and provincial level training. Lastly, DOT Region 7
shared that they launched a Google base reporting platform, easily determining lapses in
reports and that as of date there are 89 LGUs with the link to the Google base.

III.3 Wrap-up
As a wrap up, Mr. Ramil Basuel pointed out that the subnational tourism accounting really
requires very tedious data. He noted that the PSA does it for national level, but depends on
DOT for subnational data (employment, income generation, etc.). He discussed the
overview of SLTSS manual, providing context on the need to revise. He suggested
including expenditures in the basic statistics and highlighted that the FGD discussions will
serve as a very valuable input to the revision.

In closing, he restated that “statistics in the hands of activists have power”. He reiterated
the importance of data and thanked everyone for their active participation and very helpful
insights.

302
303
Annex 42. TIS HDMS Module Project Brief

DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM
Office of Tourism Development Planning, Research and Information Management
Statistics, Economic Analysis and Information Management Division

Project: Development of the Hotel (Accommodation) Data Management System

Brief:

The Hotel (Accommodation) Data Management System (HDMS) improves the current process of
compiling data from the accommodation establishments in regional destinations.

It considers the ease of submitting data from the hotels and other types of accommodation to the
DOT Central Office in any channels where the data transfer will not be impeded.

I. Background:
DOT Statistics, Economic Analysis and Information Management Division (SEAIMD) has been
compiling data from accommodation establishments since early 2000. It was, however mixed with
data from other sources like tourist attractions and events.

In 2009, under the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) Technical Cooperation
Program, DOT started developing standard methods to compile local tourism data. In 2012, under
the same program, DOT launched the Standard Local Tourism Statistics System (SLTSS). The
SLTSS encapsulates the compilation of data from accommodation establishments (AEs), tourist
attractions (TAs), and convention facilities (CFs) in separate databases, as well as the capacity
building for the data producers and users.

The methodologies developed involves the manual encoding and processing of data using MS.
Excel and internally developed data modules based on Foxpro. While submission through email
and automated workbooks was encouraged, there is no direct or online method of compiling or
encoding data.

There were efforts by SEAIMD and some regional offices to transfer to an online system that was
not fully realized.

II. Objective:
This project aims to develop an online system for encoding and to compile accommodation
establishment data wherein each data level user can benefit directly and immediately.

The project seeks to shorten the time and ease the method of compiling AE data.

III. Terms Used:

1. Supply Data – the type of data

2. Demand Data
3. Guest Arrivals (GA)

304
 4. Nationality7 – a person’s ethnicity or usually a person in the country where a person is
officially a citizen. They were determined by the country that issued the person’s passport8.
A person may have dual citizenship. In this case, that person will be counted according to
the passport they used when they entered the country or an establishment.
5. Country of Residence9 – is defined as the country where a person has or will have lived
continuously for more than 12 months. The person must have a dwelling in the country
concerned. A person may have more than one country of residence simultaneously
6. Guest Nights
7. Accommodation Establishment10 – any establishment that regularly provides for a fee,
facilities for overnight stays as its primary business. It includes hotels, resorts, and similar
traditional forms of accommodation and non-traditional forms of accommodation such as
resorts, tourist complexes, camping sites, youth hostels, private apartments, villas,
furnished rooms in private houses, and the likes.
8. Room Accommodation11 - A room in an accommodation establishment available for
occupancy by a visitor or guest for a specified period.
9. Available Room12 - A room in an accommodation establishment available for sale on a
given day.
10. Occupancy13 - The sale of an available room in an accommodation establishment on a given
day.
11. Occupancy Rate14 The proportion of occupancy to available rooms in an accommodation
establishment over some time.
12. Accommodation Type – initially should be based on DOT accreditation status. If
accreditation is Mabuhay Accommodation or not available, the type should be based on
LGU’s classification for the accommodation
13. Hotel
14. Resort
15. Motel
16. Serviced Residence
17. Tourist Inn
18. Pension House
19. Lodging House
20. Homestay
21. Mabuhay Accommodations
22. Vacation Units for Rent
23. Other types other than the specified
24. Philippine Residents
25. Overseas Filipinos
26. Non-Philippine Residents
27. Accreditation
28. Destinations

7
Cambridge Dictionary. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/nationality
8
Statistics Finland. https://www.stat.fi/meta/kas/kansalaisuus_en.html
9 Statistics Finland. https://www.stat.fi/meta/kas/asuinmaa_en.html
10 NSCB (currently PSA) Standard Definitions and Concepts for Tourism Statistics, Batch 1, Series of 2004, sourced from DOT’s

Accreditation Handbook: A Glossary of Selected Tourism Terms (1980).

11 NSCB (currently PSA) Standard Definitions and Concepts for Tourism Statistics, Batch 1, Series of 2004, sourced from DOT’s

Accreditation Handbook: A Glossary of Selected Tourism Terms (1980).

12 NSCB (currently PSA) Standard Definitions and Concepts for Tourism Statistics, Batch 1, Series of 2004, sourced from DOT’s

Accreditation Handbook: A Glossary of Selected Tourism Terms (1980).

13 NSCB (currently PSA) Standard Definitions and Concepts for Tourism Statistics, Batch 1, Series of 2004, sourced from DOT’s

Accreditation Handbook: A Glossary of Selected Tourism Terms (1980).

14 NSCB (currently PSA) Standard Definitions and Concepts for Tourism Statistics, Batch 1, Series of 2004, sourced from DOT’s

Accreditation Handbook: A Glossary of Selected Tourism Terms (1980).

305
 29. Sub-regions
30. Continents
31. Employees
32. Sex
33. Municipality / City
34. Province
35. Region
36. TDA
37. TDC

IV. Method
Data shall be compiled using the SLTSS established data flow:

A. Accommodation Establishment Level

LGUs and DOT shall ask accommodation establishments to submit the required data. Each
accommodation that will agree to submit data shall also generate reports regarding their
AE and will automatically be in the mailing list for the aggregate reports from LGUs and
DOT. They shall be asked to choose their method of submission, which they will have three
(3) options:

1. Hotel Online Logbook Entry – if AE does not have any accommodation management
system, they will be allowed to enroll and use the Hotel Online Logbook Entry (HOLE)
module. AE can use this online module to log daily guests. It shall contain all the usual
information entry points that hotel registration has:
a. Full Name
b. Sex
c. Birthdate
d. Address (City, Province, Country)

306
 e. Nationality
f. Contact Numbers
g. Email address
h. Room Companions (with Nationality, Birthdate, and Sex)
i. Check-in date
j. Room Assignment
k. Room Rate
l. Meals / Food Service
m. Other fees incurred
n. Check-out date
o. Electronic Signature (if applicable)
The HOLE Module shall save an offline database in the local AE machine or their cloud-
based drive. The data needed by DOT shall be saved automatically on the DOT server.
Only items b, c, d, e, h (not including names), I, j, and n shall be forwarded to the DOT
server.

If, during registration, HOLE goes offline, data requirements shall be sent when the
machine goes online again.

The use of the HOLE Module should be based on the availability of an internet connection
and dedicated machine for Hotel Registration.

2. Data Online Monthly Submission - AE management shall agree to fill up Data Online
Monthly Entry (DOME) module. During an agreed day after the month, AE should encode
monthly data in the online module:
a. Total Guest Arrivals and Guest Nights per Country of Residence (for foreign guests) /
per province (for Philippine residents guests) per Sex.
*Guest Nights for guests still occupying rooms during the reporting days shall only be
counted up to the last night of the month.
b. Total Rooms Occupied.

3. Manual Monthly Data Submission – AE shall submit data by encoding it on a prescribed

template that they can email or submit in-person to municipal or city tourism data compiler.
a. Total Guest Arrivals and Guest Nights per Country of Residence (for foreign guests) /
per province (for Philippine residents guests) per Sex.
*Guest Nights for guests still occupying rooms during the reporting days shall only be
counted up to the last night of the month.
b. Total Rooms Occupied.

B. Municipal / City Level

The Municipal tourism data compiling office, usually the Tourism Office, shall have an
account on the HDMS. They shall verify and complete submissions of AE at their level.
They shall certify completeness or end of the compilation period for the month or quarter.
They will have three (3) roles/assignments:
1. Verification of data – the municipal tourism data compiling office shall validate data
submitted by AE in their locality. They shall look for possible errors. They are also the
ones who will put the e-signature that shall certify completion and verification.
2. Encoding of manual monthly data submission of AEs

307
 3. Generation of City and Municipal Summary Reports.

C. Provincial Level

The Provincial tourism data compiling office, usually the Tourism Office, shall have an
account on the HDMS. They shall verify and complete submissions of municipalities and
cities in their province. They shall certify completeness or end of the compilation period
for the month or quarter. They will have three (3) roles/assignments:
1. Verification of data – the provincial tourism data compiling office shall validate data
submitted by municipalities and cities in their province. They shall look for possible
errors. They are also the ones who will put the e-signature that shall certify completion
and verification for the province
2. Encoding of manual monthly data submission of AEs in LGUs that did not agree to
submit data monthly.
3. Generation of Provincial, City, and Municipal Summary Reports.

D. Regional Level

The Statistics Officers in the DOT Regional Offices shall also have an account on the
HDMS. They shall verify submissions of the HUCs and provinces. They shall certify
completeness or end of the compilation period for the month or quarter. They will have
three (3) roles/assignments:
1. Verification of data – the regional office shall validate data submitted by the provinces
and HUCs in their region. They shall look for possible errors. They are also the ones
who will put the e-signature that shall certify completion and verification for the region.
2. Generation of Regional and LGU Reports.

E. National Level
SEAIMD HDMS Project officers shall also have an account on the HDMS. They shall
verify submissions of the regional offices. They shall certify completeness or end of the
compilation period for the month or quarter. They will have three (3) roles/assignments:
3. Verification of data SEAIMD shall validate data submitted by the provinces and HUCs
in their region. They shall look for possible errors. They are also the ones who will put
the e-signature that shall certify completion and verification for the national level.
4. Generation of National, Regional, and LGU Reports.

System Users/Level and User Type per Level:

1. Accommodation Establishment
a. AE Data Encoder – Encode, Edit
b. AE Data Verifier – Edit, Delete, Verify, Report Generation
2. Municipal / City Tourism Office
a. LGU Data Encoder – Encode, Edit
b. LGU Data Manager – Encode, Edit, Delete, Report Generation
c. LGU Data Verifier – Edit, Delete, Verify, Report Generation
3. Provincial Tourism Office
a. Provincial Data Encoder – Encode, Edit
b. Provincial Data Manager – Encode, Edit, Delete, Report Generation

308
 c. Provincial Data Verifier – Edit, Delete, Verify, Report Generation
4. DOT Regional Office
a. DOT Regional Data Encoder – Encode, Edit
b. DOT Regional Data Manager – Edit, Delete, Report Generation
c. DOT Regional Data Administrator – Edit, Delete, Verify, Report Generation
5. DOT SEAIMD
a. DOT SEAIMD Data Encoder - Encode, Edit
b. DOT SEAIMD Data Manager – Edit, Verify, Report Generation
c. DOT SEAIMD Data Administrator – Encode, Edit, Delete, Verify, Report
Generation

V. Reporting Schedule
Initially, it shall follow the established data reporting of the SLTSS and applicable
policies of DOT.
Data to compile Annually, or when necessary

1. Inventory of Accommodation Establishments.

Data to compile monthly:

1. Guest Arrivals
2. Guest Arrivals by Nationality/Residency
3. Guest Arrivals by Sex
4. Guest Nights
5. Rooms Occupied
6. Rooms Available for the Day/Month
7. Number of Employees by Sex
8. Total Guest Arrivals by Age or Age Groups
Indicators generated monthly and annually:

1. Total Guest Arrivals by Nationality/Residency by LGU

2. Total Guest Arrivals by Sex by LGU
3. Top Destinations (baseline: Province / HUC)
4. Average Length of Stay
5. Average Occupancy Rate
6. Average Guest per Room
7. Total Rooms Available
8. Total Accommodation Est. per Type
9. Total Employees by Sex
10. Average age by Nationality or Residency by LGU

309
Annex 43. TIS TPMS Module Project Brief

DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM
Office of Tourism Development Planning, Research and Information Management
Statistics, Economic Analysis and Information Management Division

Project: Tourism Product Market Survey System

I. Brief:
The project aims to develop an online automated system for the Tourism Product Market Survey
Tool.

The TPMS shall provide an analysis of Philippine tourism products through a regular visitor sample
survey in areas where tourism products are located. It seeks to fill up the information gap to assist
DOT and the stakeholders in assessing the tourism product portfolio.

II. Background:
DOT Statistics, Economic Analysis and Information Management Division (SEAIMD) is
developing an enhancement to its Local Visitor Sample Survey, including its Standard Local
Tourism Statistics System. The Tourism Product Market Survey will be piloted for 2021, but it will
initially use Google Forms and manual processing through MS Excel Pivot worksheets.

Conducting the TPMS this way would be tedious, as SEAIMD would need to manage multiple
accounts of the TPMS tools, duplicated according to the number of survey host regions or LGUs.

Developing a centralized system with multi-features will allow easier processing, assessment, and
analysis of data. It would also be possible to correlate it automatically with the HDMS, and the
Inbound Travelers System developed together with this tool.

Being part of the integrated tourism information system, it would be easier to navigate thru the
system and create more meaningful visualizations that could be shared in real-time.

III. Objective:
This project aims to develop an online and offline survey system capable of encoding, processing,
generating reports, doing analytics, and migrating data.

IV. Method
A. Data shall just digitize the process described in the TPMS TOR (see attached TOR).
The system should be able to do offline encoding and automatic uploading to the data server when
the system is online.

The system should have a survey application compatible with android or IOS that can be installed
on mobile devices.

The system will have to be accessible on any system or machine online and capable of downloading
data to machines for offline processing.

The system should be able to generate an integrative database for the DOT TIS.

B. System Users/Level and User Type per Level:

310
6. TPMS Survey Enumerator
a. Data Encoder – Encode, Edit
7. Municipal / City Tourism Office
a. LGU Data Encoder – Encode, Edit
b. LGU Data Manager – Encode, Edit, Delete, Report Generation
c. LGU Data Verifier – Edit, Delete, Verify, Report Generation
8. Provincial Tourism Office
a. Provincial Data Encoder – Encode, Edit
b. Provincial Data Manager – Encode, Edit, Delete, Report Generation
c. Provincial Data Verifier – Edit, Delete, Verify, Report Generation
9. DOT Regional Office
a. DOT Regional Data Encoder – Encode, Edit
b. DOT Regional Data Manager – Edit, Delete, Report Generation
c. DOT Regional Data Administrator – Edit, Delete, Verify, Report Generation
10. DOT SEAIMD
a. DOT SEAIMD Data Encoder - Encode, Edit
b. DOT SEAIMD Data Manager – Edit, Verify, Report Generation
c. DOT SEAIMD Data Administrator – Encode, Edit, Delete, Verify, Report
Generation

V. Reporting Schedule
Initially, it shall follow the established data reporting of the SLTSS and applicable
policies of DOT.

311
Annex 44. TIS STAR Hub Project Brief

DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM
Office of Tourism Development Planning, Research and Information Management
Statistics, Economic Analysis and Information Management Division

Project: DOT Subnational Tourism Analytics and Reporting (STAR) Hub Dashboard and
Database Analytics

VI. Brief:
Developing an online dashboard that can integrate and process data from multiple systems related
to the subnational tourism data shall enable stakeholders to access the data needed to assess their
tourism sector or even their business establishments.

VII. Background:
DOT has many tourism information systems that are still done manually or using outdated IT
infrastructure. The Department has to digitalize its business operations and digitize the critical data
systems in tourism development planning and policymaking.

DOT Statistics, Economic Analysis, and Information Management Division (SEAIMD), and the
Information Technology Division, are developing a tourism information system with visualization.
Many of the modules being developed are the digitization of systems involved in assessing the
subnational tourism sector.

Hence, these modules need a unifying system that would use all the data from these various systems
and present it quickly to the data users.

VIII. Objective:
This project aims to develop an online dashboard and business analytics system for subnational
tourism data.

IX. Method
A. The Online Dashboard

It should be an online dashboard with visualization of data from subnational tourism

systems. It should have the capacity to enable users to filter data and see the reports that
they need. Reports should be downloadable in multiple types of formats.

Business Analytics should be integrated with the dashboard capable of handling

forecasting, trend analysis, and others.

With the development of the GIS dashboard, the DOT STAR Hub Dashboard should
integrate itself with the applications and dashboards developed using ArcGIS.

The dashboard should feature micro web pages that regional offices will manage. Micro-
webpages will have to have common themes, but the regional offices should design their
own to showcase the information they want to highlight.

312
 The dashboard should also have a databank that would enable LGUS to submit articles or
media that can be considered by region or the central office for posting.

The dashboard should have a feedback mechanism for stakeholders.

B. System Users/Level and User Type per Level:

11. Guest/Public Account

12. Municipal / City Tourism Office
a. LGU Information Contributor
13. Provincial Tourism Office
a. Provincial Information Contributor
14. DOT Regional Office
a. DOT Regional Dashboard Encoder – Encode, Edit
b. DOT Regional Dashboard Manager – Edit, Delete, Report Generation
c. DOT Regional Dashboard Administrator – Edit, Delete, Verify, Report Generation
15. DOT SEAIMD
a. DOT SEAIMD Dashboard Encoder - Encode, Edit
b. DOT SEAIMD Dashboard Manager – Edit, Verify, Report Generation
c. DOT SEAIMD Dashboard Administrator – Encode, Edit, Delete, Verify, Report
Generation

313
C. Proposed Front End GUI

314
 Biographical Sketch of the Scholar

The DAP-PMDP-MMC Scholar, Ramil S. Basuel, is

currently a Senior Tourism Operations Officer in the
Department of Tourism Central Office, under Tourism
Development Planning, Research, and Information
Management. This year 2021, would be his 15 years
in the department, including when he humbly worked
as a JO staff member.
With DOT, the management tasked him to handle the
Tourism Statistics Capacity Building Program. He
was part of the DOT – JICA Technical Cooperation
from 2009 – 2012 that developed the Standard Local
Tourism Statistics System. He is now doing what he
can to update, improve, and advocates the system to
local stakeholders.
He also handles the estimation of essential economic
tourism indicators and the development of the
framework for its estimation. He has handled innovative projects that have become regular
data gathering activities in DOT. He is serving as the Interim President of the DOT
Employees Association for 2021.
The scholar is a graduate of BA Public Administration of UP NCPAG and OLLA, a small
Catholic school in Pangasinan, a drop-out of UPOU and UPM.
Hailing from Pangasinan, he now resides with his family of six plus four pets in Cavite,
with whom he shares his passion for travel and music.
Inspired by his DAP learning, he wishes to continue his academic journey to pursue higher
learning, if not more helpful technical certifications. He hopes to publish anything before
he leaves this world; his epitaph and last will are not counted as a publication.
Currently, he has no plans to leave the Department and commits himself to climb the ranks
until he retires. He also hopes to master the art of coaching and mentoring, as he sees
himself as someone who has something to share with people around him.
Should anyone wish to contact him, they may reach him thru his official email:
rsbasuel@tourism.gov.ph

315
316