ASEAS 15(1) | 87 Trash or Treasure? A Qualitative Exploration of Gleaning By-Products in Tourism Supply Chains in Remote Filipino Fishing Communities Brooke A. Portera , Mark B. Oramsa , Michael Lücka & Enrico Maria Andreinib a Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand; b Legacoop Agroalimentare, Italy Received: 25 January 2021 / Accepted: 30 October 2021 / Published: 13 December 2021 ► Porter, B. A., Orams, M. B., Lück, M., & Andreini, E. M. (2022). Trash or treasure? A qualitative explora- tion of gleaning by-products in tourism supply chains in remote Filipino fishing communities. Advances in Southeast Asian Studies, 15(1), 87-102. Souvenirs have become an integral part of consumptive tourism with marine curios being a common offering in coastal destinations. The Philippines, an emerging coastal destination is also a large exporter of marine shells. There is some overlap in the species exported as shell souvenirs and those that serve as an important protein source for coastal residents. In some such communities, following consumption of the mollusc, the shell by-products are discarded. Given the state of poverty common to many remote artisanal fishing commu- nities coupled with the tourism demand for shell curio and handicraft, it is expected that potential opportunities exist for small-scale revenue generation from the sale of discard- ed shells. Using supply chain theory, this paper investigates the post-consumption use of shells obtained via gleaning activities in four remote Filipino fishing communities. Quali- tative interviews revealed potential gaps and breakages in the supply chain that currently limit the potential for transitioning shells as waste/by-products to souvenir products in the tourism sector. The findings are discussed in terms of potential applications for envi- ronmental management and social development. The results suggest the potential for the transformation of an existing practice – gleaning and its by-products – into an in-demand curio product as a supplemental livelihood for impoverished fishing communities. Keywords: Gleaning; Shell Handicrafts; Souvenir; Supplemental Livelihoods; Tourism Development  INTRODUCTION In the Philippines, a rapidly growing population and increasing illegal, unreport- ed, and unregulated (IUU) fishing places Filipino fisher-folk among the most economically vulnerable (Castro & D’Agnes, 2008; Green et al., 2003). The inci- dence of poverty among fishing households in the Philippines is twice that of the national rate (Castro & D’Agnes, 2008), though it is noted that income-associated challenges cannot necessarily be equated to quality of life and occupation sat- isfaction (cf., Knudsen, 2016; Pollnac, 2001; Porter & Orams, 2014). As fishing households struggle to meet their daily needs, resource over-exploitation becomes common (Turner et al., 2007). Globally, near-shore fisheries are already Current Research on Southeast Asia w w w .s ea s. at 10 .1 47 64 /1 0. A SE A S- 00 56 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6806-7891 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8183-9662 88 | ASEAS 15(1) Trash or Treasure? in decline (FAO, 2018) and previous research suggests that the degradation and decline of capture fisheries will continue (Belton & Thilsted, 2014). In the Philippines, the use of by-products for economic gain has been pushed to extremes. Especially in cities, it is common for poorer families to survive on pagpag, or food scraps scavenged from trash piles or waste facilities that are recooked and resold (cf., Pilario, 2014). While surviving on pagpag is less common in coastal areas where residents can sup- plement their diet with leftover catches or through gleaning, pagpag is an example of the use of by-products to, albeit grossly, extend or add value to a market supply chain. In coastal areas of the Philippines, gleaning, the collection of small molluscs for consumption purposes, is practiced by many households. Some of the same spe- cies used for consumption can also be found as parts of shell souvenirs throughout the country, and in other coastal locations across the globe. For those dependent on marine resources for livelihoods, the continued degradation of the near shore marine environment will likely result in the pursuit of alternative economic activities. The Philippines is an example of a country with a highly developed shell trade (Floren, 2003). In the context of remote artisanal fishing communities, small marine molluscs obtained from gleaning practices are currently valued as protein or sold intact as a source of financial revenue for local members of fishing communities (Porter, 2014). The potential use of the discarded shells in the curio trade has been largely overlooked. This paper explores practices related to the harvest of small, shelled invertebrates from coastal communities in the Philippines. Supply chain theory is used to examine the potential overlap of gleaning of small marine-shelled organisms as a sustenance fishery and the potential for the shell by-products to be used in the souvenir trade. This research seeks to uncover issues impacting the cur- rent lack of engagement with the shell souvenir and handicraft production and trade in coastal communities where economic resources and opportunities are marginal. In doing so, it aims to address a current gap in the literature on poverty alleviation through souvenir production (Thirumaran et al., 2014), as well as the social implica- tions and potential benefits of tourism development as they relate to production of souvenirs (cf., Swanson & Timothy, 2012). OVERVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE Significance of Souvenirs Research on souvenirs, though not new, continues to be sporadic. Swanson and Timothy’s (2012) comprehensive review of literature on souvenirs identified three major themes: “souvenirs as holders of meaning, souvenirs as tradable commodities, and souvenirs as products of commodification” (p. 491). Trihnh et al. (2014) found similar themes regarding souvenirs when researching the perspectives of the retail- ers. Decrop and Masset (2014) proposed a typology of souvenirs defining four types of souvenirs and their associated role or function: (1) tourist trinkets: categorisa- tion; (2) destination stereotypes: self-expression; (3) paper mementoes: connection; and (4) picked-up objects: self-creation. As general examples, these four categories incorporate cheap souvenir mugs or t-shirts, models of the place (e.g., a miniature Eiffel Tower), ticket stubs, and shell artefacts (e.g., gifted piece of coral), respectively ASEAS 15(1) | 89 Brooke A. Porter, Mark B. Orams, Michael Lück & Enrico Maria Andreini (Decrop & Masset, 2014). Cater and Cater (2007) noted that even rubbish, such as washed-up flip-flops, is being converted into innovative souvenirs such as key rings, bracelets, necklaces, cushions and mosaic pictures. More recently, Haldrup (2017) explored the ‘magic’ of the souvenir, noting that anything can become a souvenir; he describes the souvenir as an actant or ‘shape-shifter’ with the ability to transform, integrate, perform, and even manipulate spaces. Shifting from the importance of the souvenir in the tourism experience, there is increasing support from the literature on the role of souvenir development as it relates to host communities. For example, Swanson and Timothy (2012) suggest the need to better understand how commu- nities may benefit from participation as souvenir producers. Similarly, Thirumaran et al. (2014) push for the inclusion of souvenirs in larger scale tourism development plans, suggesting souvenirs as a means of [economically] supporting rural handicraft producers. Despite its existence since the concept of ‘travel’, the souvenir remains a complex phenomenon (Thirumaran et al., 2014). Marine Organisms as Souvenirs The ideas presented by Decrop and Masset (2014), Cater and Cater (2007), and Haldrup (2017) postulate that any object found by a visitor can become a souvenir. This idea is especially relevant to the discussion of marine shells as souvenirs and souvenir materials given the popularity of beachcombing as a tourist activity (Kenchington, 1993). Just as collected shell specimens can become a treasured souvenir to a beachcomber, they also serve as materials in the production of more complex handicrafts (see Figure 1). Figure 1. Shell chandeliers being sold at a souvenir booth on White Beach, Bolinao, Pangasinan, Luzon, Philippines. Bottles of small shells are also being sold as souvenirs (bottom right of photo). The shells used to craft these souvenirs are representative of the different shell organ- isms consumed by many coastal residents. (photo by Brooke Porter). 90 | ASEAS 15(1) Trash or Treasure? The use of marine organisms and by-products (e.g., sea turtle shells) for handi- crafts have a long history as souvenirs and have been traded for centuries (Gössling et al., 2004). Mollusc shells are a predominant source of these ‘curio’ and souvenir prod- ucts (Grey et al., 2005; Salvador et al., 2015; Wood & Wells, 1995). New and emerging coastal destinations have responded to significant tourism growth, and resulting increased demand for souvenirs and handicrafts, with an increased harvest of marine shells (Dias et al., 2011; Gössling et al., 2004; Shyam et al., 2017). Other research has indicated souvenir-related markets, such as the shell trade, offer direct access oppor- tunities for members of fishing communities (Shyam et al., 2017). In addition, coastal areas that are not currently considered tourism destinations are taking advantage of the economic opportunities through the export of shells and shell-based products to be sold in other locales where tourism is present (cf., Dias et al., 2011). Notably, many of today’s souvenirs are sourced from regions where the shells, labour, and other sup- plies involved in creating the souvenir products are affordable (Notar, 2006). Given that the economic utilisation of marine shells for the purpose of the sou- venir/curio trade often extends well beyond the initial harvest site, there has been an associated commodification of shells. Such a use of ‘foreign’ marine resources, resulting from the globalisation of shell-based souvenirs, has an obvious environ- mental footprint; however, it may also impact the authenticity of the touristic experience. An example of this begins in the Philippines and ends in Hawai’i. The shells used in the iconic ‘Hawai’ian’ shell lei (necklace) are commonly imported from the Philippines (e.g., Natural Shell Jewelery, n.d.). The idea of being greeted with a lei is part of the iconic Hawai’ian tourist experience (Linnekin, 1997); yet these imported shell lei, manufactured in the Philippines (or elsewhere), are neither authentic nor representative of the host culture. This example of shell lei, beginning in Southeast Asia and ending in Hawai’i is indicative of what Chutia and Sarma (2016) refer to as sponsored commercialisation; in other words, the intermediaries are responsible for the decisions related to the product rather than the artisans. Similarly related to the context of souvenir out-sourcing, Notar (2006) describes this loss of authenticity, explaining that “a souvenir should carry the spirit of the place where it was purchased (or found, or taken)” (p. 65). It is important to note that in the wake of a global pan- demic, communities are reconsidering their roles in creating tourism. Considering previously overlooked aspects of communities’ roles in tourism, such as pride in place and product (see also, Porter et al., 2014), may become increasingly important. Finally, in addition to the loss of destination-associated authenticity, and negative environmental impacts of out-sourced souvenirs (Appukuttan & Ramadoss, 2000; Kowalewski et al., 2014; Newton et al., 1993; Notar, 2006), the removal of mollusc species may impact the food security of coastal residents in lesser-developed regions. Souvenirs or Sustenance? Some of the smaller mollusc species harvested and removed for trade into the sou- venir market are considered an important source of sustenance for many coastal residents in lesser-developed regions (Dias et al., 2011; Wood & Wells, 1995). While such marine by-products may provide an important trade/economic activity in the tourism sphere or elsewhere, the sale of marine by-products is influenced by the ASEAS 15(1) | 91 Brooke A. Porter, Mark B. Orams, Michael Lück & Enrico Maria Andreini comparative economic value of their potential as a source of food (Wood & Wells, 1995). In the Philippines, the shell trade is a well-established and important econ- omy (Dolorosa & Dangan-Galon, 2014; Floren, 2003), with over 1,000 documented species of molluscs being exported (Woods & Wells, 1995). Similarly, in India, Shyam et al. (2017) found that small molluscs as bycatch generated an important product for fishers. In addition to providing economic opportunities, many of the described smaller molluscs also serve as an essential food and protein source for coastal res- idents (Appukuttan & Ramadoss, 2000; Floren, 2003). In the Philippines, as well as other coastal areas, smaller-shelled invertebrates are gathered in coastal fishing referred to as ‘gleaning’. Gleaning is considered a subset of artisanal fishing (see Figure 2) and is practiced commonly by both women and men in coastal areas of the Philippines and in other coastal communities in the Coral Triangle region (Kleiber et al., 2014; Nieves et al., 2015; Weeratunge et al., 2010). In remote artisanal fishing communities in the Philippines, it is common for coastal residents to utilise gleaning activities as an important food source (cf., Porter, 2014). Despite this widespread practice of gleaning and the associated by-products of shells and an established market for them (Dolorosa & Dangan-Galon, 2014), it is unclear why more coastal residents do not participate in the sale of these shells, as previous research suggests that members of such fishing communities consider their situation as impoverished (Porter & Orams, 2014). Figure 2. Women gleaning on the coast of Dimipac Island, Coron, Philippines. (photo by Brooke Porter). 92 | ASEAS 15(1) Trash or Treasure? RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS USED A Supply Chain Lens Both formal and informal economies are important in the lesser developed regions (Bacchetta et al., 2009). Bacchetta et al. (2009) estimated that up to 60% of workers in lesser-developed regions are employed in informal economies. Fisheries and other artisanal-level activities (e.g., handicrafts, souvenirs) often go undocumented and, thus, are considered informal activities. Swanson and Timothy (2012, p. 493) define the souvenir supply chain, saying that: The souvenir supply chain represents the flow of goods from point of produc- tion to point of consumption, or the distribution of the souvenir product from producer/manufacturer to final tourist consumer. The supply chain includes producers who convert raw materials into souvenir products; manufacturers who mass produce souvenir products on a large-scale; wholesalers who facil- itate distribution by buying larger quantities of souvenir goods and reselling smaller quantities to other suppliers; and retailers who sell products to con- sumers-tourists who derive personal benefits from the object and the experi- ences it represents. Thus, we approach this study through a supply chain lens with emphasis on the producers while noting the relevance of supply chain theory, which applies to and often com- bines both formal and informal economies (e.g., Holt & Littlewood, 2014). In addition, supply chain theory is a well-understood and commonly applied concept in small- scale rural markets and entrepreneurial processes in lesser-developed nations (Holt & Littlewood, 2014); it is also a common approach used by international development and aid agencies (cf., e.g., Chorn et al., 2015). Rural product supply chains may be established opportunistically or may occur in a more organised manner. A common characteristic of these supply chains are the opportunities at each stage for value extraction (see Figure 3). Marine resource- based product Sold on to another seller in same area Sold by fisher directly on roadside Truck driver Individual customers passing by Sold from roadside stands Sold en route to roadside stallholders Brought into town and sold to market sellers Sold on to small shops and roadside stands Individual customers Figure 3. Example of a marine product supply chain. The product journeys through varied and multiple stages before arriving at the consumer/customer. (adapted from Holt & Littlewood, 2014, p. 203). ASEAS 15(1) | 93 Brooke A. Porter, Mark B. Orams, Michael Lück & Enrico Maria Andreini This paper explores such scenarios associated with gleaning in four coastal fishing communities in the Philippines. It has been argued that fisher-folk should be consid- ered central persons in coastal and fisheries research (Grafton et al., 2006), because they are permanent residents, have familiarity with their local resources, and are able to accurately describe the fisheries and accompanying processes (Bunce et al., 2000; Turner et al., 2007). Building on this idea of fisher-folk as gatekeepers of important fisheries and environmental knowledge, semi-structured group interviews were used to collect qualitative data. Members of fishing households from four coastal communities in the Luzon region of the Philippines were interviewed by the pri- mary researcher (see Figure 3). The locations were chosen out of convenience based on availability of local guides, translators, and in-kind support (e.g., accommoda- tion). In all locations, interviews were supported by the help of translators and local guides. Interviewee responses were immediately translated from Bolinay, Visaya, or Tagalog to English. Due to the larger sizes of group interviews at Natipuan (fourth research site), the recorded interviews were transcribed by a native Tagalog speaker. Semi-structured interviews are considered important in social fisheries research to generate detailed qualitative information (cf., Bunce et al., 2000). In all locations, purposive and snowball sampling were used to recruit participants. Participation was voluntary and confidentiality was maintained. Participation in the group interviews was restricted to persons at least 16 years of age residing in a household where fish- ing was an important activity undertaken by themselves or other members of that household. Group interviews occurred in two main stages. The first stage of data col- lection included three research sites bound primarily by barangays, which are the smallest administrative divisions in the Philippines: (1) Barangay Victory; (2) Barangay Decabobo; and (3) Dimipac Island (Barangay Quezon) (see Figure 4). The first stage of fieldwork focused primarily on understanding fishing activ- ities and livelihoods. As part of these interviews, participants were asked about their gleaning activities and their prac- tices using shell by-products. Data from the first stage revealed the discarding of shell by-products as a frequent practice. As a consequence, the second stage of interviews was designed to gain a better understanding of why shell by-products were often being discarded rather than used in the shell souvenir industry. The second stage of fieldwork was conducted Figure 4. Map of the research sites. The research sites are indicated by black dots. The entire region of Luzon has been shaded light grey, while the provinces of the re- search sites appear in a darker shade of grey. (authors’ compilation). 94 | ASEAS 15(1) Trash or Treasure? in the coastal community of Natipuan, in the Luzon region (see Figure 4). During this stage, interview questions were developed to collect exploratory data on gleaning activities and to investigate in more detail the community members’ use or non-use of shell by-products in the shell souvenir trade. Results from the two stages of field- work are presented below. Table 1 provides a summary of the interviews undertaken at the four study sites. RESULTS Gleaning was considered a ‘way of life’ for most participants. In total, 49 participants reported they regularly undertook gleaning for gastropods (see Figure 5). Participants reported eating the meat (average size 1 cm3) collected from these shells using a small pin or needle. During the interviews from Stage 1 of the study, it was common to observe large piles of discarded shells (primarily small gastropods) near or around participants’ homes. At each of the research sites, the majority of, and in some cases all, residents reported discarding the shells collected from their gleaning activities as opposed to selling them into the souvenir trade (see Figure 5). Research site Number of participants Total number of interviews Victory 21 12 Decabobo 7 4 Dimipac 16 3 Natipuan 12 2 Total 56 21 Table 1. Summary of interviews undertaken. (authors’ compilation). Figure 5. Gleaning activities and shell economies in four Philippines coastal communities. The stacked bars in each column are representative of the four research sites/communities. (authors’ compilation). ASEAS 15(1) | 95 Brooke A. Porter, Mark B. Orams, Michael Lück & Enrico Maria Andreini The gender representation in gleaning was near equal with slightly more male (n = 27) than female gleaners (n = 22). In Natipuan, participants specified that gleaning is done by both genders: “It can be either men or women. There are also children”. Figure 5 highlights the number of respondents participating in gleaning. Nearly 90% of respondents reported participation in gleaning activities. Only 14% of gleaners reported active or partial participation in the sale of empty shells. A com- mon response was that gleaning catches were “only for meat”. It was slightly more common for participants to sell shells with meat for profit (22%). A representative statement of this was, “sometimes we eat the meat, sometimes sell it [shell with meat]. But [when we eat the meat] we throw away the shells”. It is also worth noting that most of the respondents participating in the sale of shells related to souvenirs came from Barangay Victory. Likewise, the majority of those selling shells with meat came from Victory; however, two similar cases were reported in Decabobo and two in Natipuan. Whereas most participants stated that their gleaning catches were for “eating only”, two women from Victory declared an active participation in the souve- nir trade, with one of these women stating the buying and selling of shells for shell craft as her primary occupation (see Figure 6). She stated, “I sell the shells and eat the meat”. The other woman, who identified her primary occupation as a housewife, reported sometimes making shell crafts saying that “I use them [the leftover shells] for crafts.” Natipuan Interview questions in Natipuan focused on better understanding gleaning waste. Barangay Natipuan community is a coastal town situated in close vicinity to tourist resorts. Many of its members actively participate in the fisheries to supplement their Figure 6. Barangay Victory resident (woman with hand on chair) selling shell necklaces to visitors. (photo by Brooke Porter). 96 | ASEAS 15(1) Trash or Treasure? incomes. A total of 12 community members were interviewed in two interview groups. All participants were female as this research was combined with a separate inquiry. The all-female sample was thought to have positively impacted the data as it is gener- ally women who are responsible for shell handicraft production. Interview questions related to gleaning and shells as by-products focused on participation in the gleaning fishery, the use and sale of gleaning catches, and participation (or lack thereof) in the souvenir trade/industry. All of the Natipuan participants reported being mem- bers of gleaning households who regularly relied upon gleaning catches for protein sustenance. None of these participants reported active participation in the souvenir trade, including the processing or selling of shells leftover from gleaning catches. One woman reported the occasional and opportunistic sale of shells stating that she will sell the shells as souvenirs, “if someone will buy it”. However, in Natipuan, it was com- mon for participants to decorate their homes with the shell by-products. Participants described the various uses, mostly as outdoor decor, of washed shells post-consump- tion: “We put it [the shells] in the plants, … in the garden, … inside a vase, … in the pots, … on the side of the pots”. Still others recognised that, although shell handicraft was not common in Natipuan, “in other places they are doing that [creating souve- nirs] … they are creating lamps, curtains”. When asked why this does not happen in Natipuan, some felt there were only enough shells for consumption: “We don’t have enough shells here … only enough for food”, or that the shells were too small and too few: “We don’t have much shells here”. Other participants, responding to the question as to why they don’t make handicrafts to sell with the shells post-consumption (e.g., shell chandeliers, necklaces), felt they did not have the knowledge or skill necessary to produce shell handicrafts or souvenirs. A consistent response regarding knowl- edge-base was, “we don’t know how”, accompanied by embarrassed laughter. DISCUSSION The combined data sets from face-to-face, semi-structured interviews showed that many participants were reliant upon gleaning as a staple food and protein source. Despite a large and globally significant shell trade in the Philippines, many partic- ipants (43 in total) reported discarding rather than selling the leftover shells. While some reported selling gleaning catches (shells with meat) for supplemental income, few regularly sold empty shells post consumption. Specific to Natipuan, some par- ticipants reported washing and using the shells post consumption as decorative ornaments for personal households. The results from Natipuan, where the practice of decorating gardens and houses with shells was common, suggest that, in some cases, participants are associating an aesthetic value with shelled organisms used for sustenance. This finding is loosely supported by Swanson and Timothy (2012) who described the utilitarian uses of handicrafts in traditional societies; however, their research found that in many places ‘kitsch’ items desired by tourists, despite their lack of relevance to the host culture, were being produced due to a demand by tour- ists (e.g., carved masks). Remarkably, the consumption of the gastropods requires the removal of meat, resulting in a ‘clean’ and potentially market-ready shells. Thus, it could be argued that they are missing supplemental livelihood opportunities associ- ated with the production of handicraft and souvenirs. ASEAS 15(1) | 97 Brooke A. Porter, Mark B. Orams, Michael Lück & Enrico Maria Andreini The souvenir industry is worth billions of dollars globally, and souvenirs have become an inseparable part of the consumptive tourism experience (Swanson & Timothy, 2012; Thiruaman et al., 2014). Previous research has documented the impor- tance of the shell souvenir industry in the Philippines (cf., Floren, 2003). Participant responses demonstrated the existence of rural supply chains for marine resource- based products, such as gleaning catches (meat included), with some selling catches; however, the supply chain typically ends post-consumption. The data from the sec- ond stage of the research provide insight into such potential issues. In general, there are numerous factors that may influence the efficacy of a supply chain. We simplify these into two broad categories: product-related and market-related. Examples of the first category include product quality and available quantities. Examples of the latter category include market saturation and market linkages. Data from this study indi- cate particular issues with market linkages. Factors are discussed individually below. Product-Related Issues With regard to product-related factors, product quality, both structure and colour, are concerns within the shell trade (Nijman et al., 2015). However, the smaller sizes of the shells collected by gleaners (e.g., cikad) makes them less susceptible to breakage and colour-type imperfections. Thus, quality, in the case of gleaning by-products, is considered to have a negligible influence on the supply chain. Further, given that the shells under discussion are the result of a subsistence practice and an existing by-product, it would be possible for participants to discard poor quality shells while still building up a stock of premium-quality specimens. This suggestion is further supported by researcher observation: During the first stage of fieldwork, metre- high piles of discarded shells, seemingly suitable for shell handicrafts, were observed around participants’ homes. Kleiber et al. (2014) demonstrated the frequency and importance of gleaning as a fisheries subset and, similar to this study, they showed that both women and men frequently participated in gleaning. Given the importance of gleaning for sustenance and the frequency with which it occurs (Floren, 2003; Kleiber et al., 2014), a surplus of shell by-products would be expected at a collective community level. Again, given the establishment of the gleaning as a mostly subsist- ence fishery, it is unlikely that fishing effort would need to change to utilise discarded shells as handicrafts for what would be a theoretically supplemental livelihood. Thus, our findings and interpretations indicate that product-related factors are unlikely to impact the participation of remote artisanal fishers in the shell souvenir trade. Market-Related Issues Although product-related issues were not apparent, it is likely that there are potential issues with market-related factors. The Philippines has a substantial influence on the global shell trade; however, despite consistent collection efforts, reported catches are in decline (Floren, 2003). This decline in catch indicates that stock depletion is more likely to influence the supply chain than market saturation. Thus, we attribute that market-related issues such as gaps in market linkages may be present. For example, the geographical remoteness of a location may affect participation in a supply chain; 98 | ASEAS 15(1) Trash or Treasure? another potential limiting factor is economic capability (Holt & Littlewood, 2014). Geographical remoteness is an issue for many remote fishing communities; given that the four research sites could be considered remote, location may impact the abil- ity of a community to participate in the shell souvenir trade. However, participation in other fisheries-related supply chains (e.g., live reef fish trade, aquarium trade, food fisheries) found in the four communities surveyed present evidence of efficient and functioning options for the transportation of goods. Economic capability was not thought to be a limiting factor as the ‘supplies’ necessary to participate are already on-hand as by-products of an existing practice. Instead, our findings suggest that the most likely limiting factor is a lack of awareness of market opportunities and a lack of perceived skill (Palmer, 2007; Thirumaran et al., 2014). This was emphasised by participants indicating their lack of knowledge and skill in transforming shell by-products into desired souvenirs (e.g., necklaces, chandeliers, lamps, and sculp- tures). Participant responses explaining this lack of knowledge, such as “We don’t know how to [create curtains or lamps]”, were often marked by embarrassed laughter. Indeed, while souvenirs such as shell chandeliers require some skill to create (see Figure 1), the skills needed to create many types of shell souvenirs are basic (e.g., the single-strand necklaces being sold in Figure 6). Figure 7 focuses on issues within the first stage of the supply chain (expanded upon from Figure 3). The first stage, marine resource-based products, has been expanded to include product- and market-related issues based on our findings. The results from this study indicate the presence of problems in the first stage of this rural supply chain. Many participants simply did not have the knowledge and/or confidence to transform the shells from gleaning by-products into shell handicrafts or souvenirs. It is noted that some participant responses indicate market-related issues (e.g., finding a buyer); however, it is likely that problems with the creation and production of shell products are more pressing. Thus, on-the-ground efforts, as well as future research, should focus on education and training in handicraft produc- tion. Whereas learning exchanges with communities actively involved in the shell souvenir trade may seek to resolve some market-related issues (Dolorosa & Dangan- Galon, 2014), previous research suggests that market-related issues be successfully addressed through the inclusion of souvenir development in broader tourism plan- ning (cf., Thirumaran et al., 2014). !"#$%"&'()"*+ ,-.#*'/0'1 2"+'$ 3"()-'$('+.4(5'12"+'/$ 6(./45& 7.*/$ .-$&.$ "-.&8'($ +'**'($ )-$ +"%'$ "('" 7.*/$ 29$ :)+8'($ /)('5&*9$ .-$ (."/+)/' ;(45<$/()='( >-/)=)/4"*$ 54+&.%'(+$ 6"++)-0$ 29 7.*/$ :(.%$ (."/+)/'$ +&"-/+ 7.*/$ '-$(.4&'$ &.$(."/+)/'$ +&"**8.*/'(+ ?(.408&$ )-&.$ &.#-$ "-/$ +.*/$ &.$ %"(<'&$ +'**'(+ 7.*/$ .-$&.$ +%"**$ +8.6+$ "-/$(."/+)/'$ +&"-/+ >-/)=)/4"*$ 54+&.%'(+ Figure 7. A closer look at the product and production in a marine resource-based supply chain. The dashed lines indicate issues impacting the supply chain. (authors’ compilation). ASEAS 15(1) | 99 Brooke A. Porter, Mark B. Orams, Michael Lück & Enrico Maria Andreini CONCLUSIONS The importance of the souvenir in travel is unlikely to wane. This research explored issues related to production in the shell-souvenir supply chain in four impover- ished coastal fishing communities in the Philippines. In doing so, it provided an interdisciplinary look at the economic, environmental, and social role of souve- nirs. The findings contribute to previously identified gaps in the literature, such as rural/souvenir supply chain (Swanson & Timothy, 2012) and the nexus of tour- ism souvenir development (Swanson & Timothy, 2012; Thirumaran et a., 2014). In addition, this research advances the discussion on the potential for tourism and tourism-associated activities, such as shell-handicraft production, as a potential supplemental livelihood for fishing communities (Porter & Orams, 2014; Shyam et al., 2017; Swanson & Timothy, 2012; Thirumaran et al., 2014; Trihnh et al., 2014). Finally, it also provides insight on potential future response strategies for the deg- radation of near-shore marine resources associated with souvenir-related shell harvest (Floren, 2003). With the notable existing market for shell souvenir products originating from the Philippines, our data revealed a lack of participation in this sector from the four com- munities. This was attributed to a poor understanding of market opportunities in the souvenir supply chain, rather than a lack of desire to engage in the sector. Feasible efforts, such as training and knowledge sharing (Dolorosa & Dangan-Galon, 2014), may address these market-related issues by creating a value-added benefit to an existing waste product of gleaning. Such skills trainings, combined with a change in current practices from discarding shell by-products to building raw product reserves, have the potential to provide sufficient stock, both in quantity and quality, for partic- ipation at a cottage industry level in the shell souvenir tourism trade. On a larger scale, the issues revealed in this research may be addressed at various governmental levels through future inclusion of souvenir development in tourism planning efforts (Thirumaran et al., 2014). The findings of this study also suggest a lack of linkage between commercial and sustenance fisheries in the context of mol- luscs (shelled organisms). While, currently, the fisheries are functioning in separate capacities, a continued decline in commercial harvest coupled with a consistent or increased demand in shell souvenirs may force stakeholders to source products from communities, such as the ones described in this research. We agree with previous scholars that issues surrounding souvenir production are in need of more research (Swanson & Timothy, 2012; Thirumaran et al., 2014). The results from this study emphasise a need to better understand if and how edu- cation (e.g., artisanal skills to create shell souvenirs) impacts participation in the shell souvenir supply chain at a rural level. An additional area of consideration for those working on ecosystem management and resilience would be exploring how the use of post-consumption waste from gleaning could serve to alleviate some direct commercial fishing pressure on shelled marine invertebrates through the use of any already harvested resources. Souvenirs, in general, are a consumptive part of the tourism experience. Ideally, this sector needs to be formally recognised and subsequently organised to promote social, economic, and environmental ben- efits, especially at the cottage level. This research demonstrated the potential of 100 | ASEAS 15(1) Trash or Treasure? transforming existing post-consumption (by-product) waste from a coastal fish- ery into a consumptive souvenir product that is synonymous with the tourism experience.  REFERENCES Appukuttan, K. K., & Ramadoss, K. (2000). Edible and ornamental gastropod resources. In V. N. Pillai & N. G. Menon (Eds.), Marine fisheries research and management (pp. 525-535). Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute. Bacchetta, M., Ernst, E., & Bustamante, J. P. (2009). Globalization and informal jobs in developing countries: International Labour Organization and the World Trade Organization. WTO Secretariat. Belton, B., & Thilsted, S. H. (2014). Fisheries in transition: Food and nutrition security. Global Food Security, 3(1), 59-66. Bunce, L., Townsley, P., Pomeroy, R., & Pollnac, R. (2000). Socioeconomic manual for coral reef management. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2000-086.pdf Castro, J., & D’Agnes, L. (2008). Fishing for families: Reproductive health and integrated coastal management in the Philippines. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/ECSP_Focus_Apr08Castro.pdf Cater, C., & Cater, E. (2007). Marine ecotourism: Between the devil and the deep blue sea. CAB International. Chorn, B., Sisco, C., & Pruzan-Jorgensen, P. M. (2015). Supply chain sustainability – a practical guide for continuous improvement. United Nations Global Compact & BSR. Chutia, L. J., & Sarma, M. K. (2016). Commercialization of traditional crafts of South and South East Asia: A conceptual model based on review of literature. IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review, 5(2), 107-119. Decrop, A., & Masset, J. (2014). “This is a piece of coral received from captain Bob”: Meanings and functions of tourist souvenirs. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 8(1), 22-34. Dias, T. L., Leo Neto, N. A., & Alves, R. R. (2011). Molluscs in the marine curio and souvenir trade in NE Brazil: Species composition and implications for their conservation and management. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20(11), 2393-2405. Dolorosa, R. G., & Dangan-Galon, F. (2014). Species richness of bivalves and gastropods in Iwahig River-Estuary, Palawan, the Philippines. International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies, 2(1), 207-215. FAO. (2018). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2018: Meeting the sustainable development goals. UN, New York. https://doi.org/10.18356/8d6ea4b6-en Floren, A. S. (2003). The Philippine shell industry with special focus on Mactan, Cebu. https://www.oneocean. org/download/db_files/philippine_shell_industry.pdf Gössling, S., Kunkel, T., Schumacher, K., & Zilger, M. (2004). Use of molluscs, fish, and other marine taxa by tourism in Zanzibar, Tanzania. Biodiversity & Conservation, 13(14), 2623-2639. Grafton, R. Q., Kirkley, J., Kompas, T., & Squires, D. (2006). Economics for fisheries management. Ashgate. Green, S. J., White, A. T., Flores, J. O., Carreon III, M. F., & Sia, A. E. (2003). Philippine fisheries in crisis: A framework for management. Coastal Resources Management Project of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Cebu City, Philippines. https://oneocean.org/download/db_files/philippines_ fisheries_in_crisis.pdf Grey, M., Blais, A.-M., & Vincent, A. C. (2005). Magnitude and trends of marine fish curio imports to the USA. Oryx, 39(4), 413-420. Haldrup, M. (2017). Souvenirs: Magical objects in everyday life. Emotion, Space and Society, 22, 52-60. Holt, D., & Littlewood, D. (2014). The informal economy as a route to market in sub-Saharan Africa – observations amongst Kenyan informal economy entrepreneurs. In S. Nwanko & K. Ibeh (Eds.), The Routledge companion to business in Africa (pp. 198-217). Routledge. Kenchington, R. (1993). Tourism in coastal and marine environments – a recreational perspective. Ocean & Coastal Management, 19(1), 1-16. ASEAS 15(1) | 101 Brooke A. Porter, Mark B. Orams, Michael Lück & Enrico Maria Andreini Kleiber, D., Harris, L. M., & Vincent, A. C. (2014). Gender and small‐scale fisheries: A case for counting women and beyond. Fish and Fisheries, 16(4), 547-562. Knudsen, M. (2016). Poverty and beyond: Small-scale fishing in overexploited marine environments. Human Ecology, 44(3), 341-352. Kowalewski, M., Domènech, R., & Martinell, J. (2014). Vanishing clams on an Iberian beach: Local conse- quences and global implications of accelerating loss of shells to tourism. PLoS ONE, 9(1), e83615. Linnekin, J. (1997). Consuming cultures: Tourism and the commoditization of cultural identity in the island Pacific. In M. Picard & R. E. Wood (Eds.), Tourism, ethnicity, and the state in Asian and Pacific societies (pp. 215-250). University of Hawai’i Press. Newton, L. C., Parkes, E. V. H., & Thompson, R. C. (1993). The effects of shell collecting on the abundance of gastropods on Tanzanian shores. Biological Conservation, 63(3), 241-245. Nieves, P. M., de Jesus, S. C., Nieves, J. R., & Macale, A. M. B. (2015). Assessment of the fishery for macro-invertebrates gleaning in Lagonoy Gulf: Catanduanes side. Bicol University R&D Journal, 18(1), 1-16. Nijman, V., Spaan, D., & Nekaris, K. A-I. (2015). Marine mollusc shells from Java and Bali, Indonesia. PLoSONE, 10(12), e0140593. Notar, B. E. (2006). Authenticity anxiety and counterfeit confidence: Outsourcing souvenirs, changing money, and narrating value in reform-era China. Modern China, 32(1), 64-98. Palmer, R. (2007). Skills for work? From skills development to decent livelihoods in Ghana’s rural informal economy. International Journal of Educational Development, 27, 397-420. Pilario, D. F. E. (2014). Eucharist and human suffering: Retrieving “sacrifice” in the contemporary magiste- rium. Modern Theology, 30(2), 340-356. Pollnac, R. B., Pomeroy, R. S., & Harkes, I. H. T. (2001). Fishery policy and job satisfaction in three southeast Asian fisheries. Ocean & Coastal Management, 44(7-8), 531-544. Porter, B. A. (2014). Marine tourism as a supplemental livelihood: An exploration of remote fisheries-based com- munities in the Philippines. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand. Porter, B. A., & Orams, M. B. (2014). Exploring tourism as a potential development strategy for an artisanal fishing community in the Philippines: The case of Barangay Victory in Bolinao. Tourism in Marine En- vironments, 10(1-2), 49-70. Salvador, R. B., Ribeiro, G., & Cavallari, D. C. (2015). Molluscs on Brazilian postage stamps. Strombus, 22(1-2), 19. Shyam, S. S., Jagadis, I., Venkatesan, V., Kavitha, M., & Mohamed, K. (2017). Ornamental gastropod shell trade in India: A macroeconomic assessment. Marine Fisheries Information Service: Technical and Extension Series, 231, 11-13. Swanson, K. K., & Timothy, D. J. (2012). Souvenirs: Icons of meaning, commercialization and commoditi- zation. Tourism Management, 33(3), 489-499. Thirumaran, K., Dam, M. X., & Thirumaran, C. M. (2014). Integrating souvenirs with tourism develop- ment: Vietnam’s challenges. Tourism Planning & Development, 11(1), 57-67. Trihnh, T. T., Ryan, C., & Cave, J. (2014). Souvenir sellers and perceptions of authenticity – the retailers of Hôi An, Vietnam. Tourism Management, 45, 275-283. Turner, R. A., Cakacaka, A., Graham, N. A. J., Poulin, N. V. C., Pratchet, M. S., Stead, S. M., & Wilson, S. K. (2007). Declining reliance on marine resources in remote South Pacific societies: Ecological versus socio-economic drivers. Coral Reefs, 26(4), 997-1008. Weeratunge, N., Snyder, K. A., & Sze, C. P. (2010). Gleaner, fisher, trader, processor: Understanding gen- dered employment in fisheries and aquaculture. Fish and Fisheries, 11(4), 405-420. Wood, E., & Wells, S. (1995). The shell trade: A case for sustainable utilization. In E. A. Kay (Ed.), The con- servation biology of molluscs: Proceedings of a symposium held at the 9th International Malacological. International Union for Conservation of Nature. 102 | ASEAS 15(1) Trash or Treasure? ABOUT THE AUTHORS Brooke Porter is a specialist in conservation strategy with a focus on the human dimensions of management. She currently works with UNFAO as an instructional designer developing content supporting environmental management strategies in lesser-developed regions. Brooke has worked in various capacities with NGOs, international aid agencies, and educational insti- tutions across the globe. ► Contact: bporter@aut.ac.nz Professor Mark B. Orams is a researcher with a focus on marine recreation, tourism, and sport. He is currently Dean of the Graduate Research School at the Auckland University of Technology in Aotearoa, New Zealand. ► Contact: morams@aut.ac.nz Michael Lück is a professor at the School of Hospitality and Tourism at Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand. He is founding co-chair of the International Coastal & Marine Tourism Society. His research interests include (marine) wildlife tourism, the cruise industry, ecotourism, interpretation and education on wildlife tours, the impacts of tourism, and aviation. He has published in a number of international journals, is founding editor of the academic journal Tourism in Marine Environments, associate editor of the Journal of Ecotourism, and editorial board member of Marine Policy and Frontiers. ► Contact: mluecj@aut.ac.nz Enrico Andreini is an international expert in fisheries development and seafood supply chains. Enrico currently works with Legacoop Agroalimentare managing a fisheries development project in the Mediterranean. He has worked on fisheries development projects across the globe, focusing on the complexities in fisheries management and the importance of community voices in the development and design of fisheries projects. ► Contact: enrico.andreini@gmail.com ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research would not have been possible without the in-kind support of staff from the Coral Triangle Conservancy (ree.ph), namely Scott Countryman, who provided lodging, transporta- tion, and logistical support for fieldwork at three research sites. In addition, the authors would like to extend their thanks to Dr. Annette Menez and all of the Bolinao Marine Science Institute, who provided incredible logistical support, as well as acted as local guides for one field site; Joanne Garcia, who provided translations at two field sites, as well as helped care for the lead researcher’s child at two field sites; Beth Uy, who assisted with the interviews; Dr. Mianne Silvestre, who provided translations, as well as invaluable medical support to participants in Napituan; and finally, the respective Local Government Units of the four baranagays, who sup- ported the research and facilitated access to their esteemed community members.