Alternatives to fishing As a means of determining acceptable alternative
occupation of fishing. For example in Village 2, 81 percent of these males like fishing in contrast to only 31 percent of the others
χ
2
= 13.10, df = 1, p0.001. In Village 3, respective percentages are 89 and 33 χ
2
= 18.93, df = 1, p0.001, in Village 4, 85 and 52 χ
2
= 8.84, df = 1, p0.005, and in Village 7, 87 and 55
χ
2
= 9.36, df = 1, p0.005.
The only other response that
manifests a statistically
significant within village difference
is that in Village 7, males from
primarily fishing households are
more likely to state that they
would not change their occupation
than others 19 versus 3 percent, respectively; Yates corrected
χ
2
= 5.06, df = 1, p0.05. Table 47 examines percent distribution of the same
attitudes toward fishing in households where fishing is of either primary or secondary
importance. The differences in the distributions in tables 46 and 47 are minimal. The percentage of
fishers who would not leave fishing for an available alternative is much lower than reported
by similar fishers in the Philippines and Indonesia 84 and 64 percent, respectively; Pollnac, et al.
2001. Perhaps this difference can be attributed to changes in perceptions of the occupation of
fishing resulting from the tsunami.
Table 46. Percent distribution of selected attitudes towards fishing among males in households where fishing is of primary importance.
Village Attitude
towards fishing
1 2 3 4 7 Total N
Would advise a young person to go into fishing 32
44 33
30 19
30 114 Likes
fishing 58 81 89 85 87 81
111 Would
not change
job 18 38 17 19 19 21
114
Table 47. Percent distribution of selected attitudes towards fishing among males in households where fishing is of primary or secondary importance.
Village Attitude
towards fishing
1 2 3 4 7 Total N
Would advise a young person to go into fishing 31
42 33
28 24
31 144 Likes
fishing 68 84 79 81 86 80
140 Would not change job
13 37
21 19 16 20
143
Table 48. Percent distribution of attitudes towards the relative safety of fishing among
males in households where fishing is of primary importance.
Village Fishing
is safe
1 2 3 4 7 Total
Strongly disagree
52 31 39 59 52 49 Disagree
17 19 33 11 19 19 Slightly
disagree 17 06 00 11 10 10
Neither 04 00 06 04 00 03
Slightly agree
00 06 06 07 00 03 Agree
04 19 11 00 06 07 Strongly
agree 04 19 06 07 13 10
N=115
With regard to attitudes toward the relative safety of fishing, once again respondents in Village 2 seem to be less likely to disagree with the statement than respondents from the other villages table 48. This time,
however, differences across the 5 villages are not statistically significant Kruskall Wallace one-way analysis of variance coefficient=4.80, df=4, p0.05.