Mixed-methods analysis reveals significant socio-economic challenges for marginalized groups near the park, highlighting the need for equitable conservation efforts.
The Las Piñas–Parañaque Wetland Park (LPPWP), a critical ecological refuge within Metro Manila, faces mounting environmental pressures and complex socio-economic dynamics. This study examines the socio-economic impacts of LPPWP’s conservation policies on neighboring communities through a mixed-methods design, integrating quantitative survey data (n = 2,235) with qualitative insights from interviews and focus group discussions. Results indicate marked disparities in well-being across demographic groups, with lower-income, less-educated, and informally housed populations reporting significantly poorer health outcomes and heightened food insecurity. Chi-square and Spearman correlation analyses reveal statistically significant relationships between education, income, tenure security, and socio-economic vulnerability, affirming that marginalized groups are disproportionately affected. Unexpectedly, geographic proximity to the wetland park did not consistently correlate with positive perceptions of its benefits; in some instances, residents of more distant barangays reported more favorable impacts than those living closer. Additionally, perceptions of community participation in conservation efforts were inversely associated with views of the park’s socio-economic benefits—suggesting potential disillusionment with existing participatory mechanisms. These findings highlight the need for inclusive and equitable conservation strategies that prioritize participatory planning, benefit-sharing, sustainable livelihoods, and strengthened education and waste management systems. The study contributes to broader discourses on urban environmental justice, sustainable development, and the socio-ecological governance of protected areas, offering practical recommendations for aligning biodiversity conservation with local development imperatives.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Daileg et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: