FISHERFOLKS’ PERCEPTION ON THE COMMUNICATION STRATEGY USED BY THE LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT

AUTHORITY - JANITOR FISH PROJECT TEAM IN COMMUNICATING RISKS OF JANITOR FISH PROLIFERATION IN LAGUNA DE BAY

DWIGHT JASON MAGRO RONAN

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE COLLEGE OF DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LOS BAÑOS

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION (COMMUNITY BROADCASTING)

OCTOBER 2008

This undergraduate research titled FISHERFOLKS’ PERCEPTION ON THE

COMMUNICATION STRATEGY USED BY THE LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT

AUTHORITY - JANITOR FISH PROJECT TEAM IN COMMUNICATING RISKS OF

JANITOR FISH PROLIFERATION IN LAGUNA DE BAY, prepared and submitted

by Dwight Jason M. Ronan in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

Bachelor of Science in Development Communication (Community

Broadcasting), is hereby accepted.

___________________________ JULIENNE V. BARIUAN

Adviser

___________________________ Date

Accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

Bachelor of Science in Development Communication

(Community Broadcasting)

___________________________ JULIENNE V. BARIUAN

Chair

Department of Development Broadcasting and Telecommunication College of Development Communication University of the Philippines Los Baños

College, Laguna

___________________________ Date

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author expresses his profound gratitude to the following people, for without their

unyielding help and support, this research could not have been written:

To Prof. Julienne V. Bariuan, my adviser, for sparing her valuable time and effort in

going over my thesis proposal and this manuscript and for her guidance

throughout the conduct of this study.

To Jose K. Cariño III and Haidee C. Piniero of the Community Development

Division of the Calauan Office of the Laguna Lake Development Authority

for allowing the conduct of this study with the Janitor Fish Project Team and

for providing vital information and materials.

To the fisherfolks of Bay, Biñan, Siniloan, and Cardona, the unsung heroes of

Laguna de Bay, for giving their valuable insights and responses needed for

this research.

To the different FARMCs and MAO personnel, specifically to Ka Anong

Gutierrez of Biñan, Ka Lorenzo Madrid of Bay, Ka Cesar Sta. Maria, Ka

Dionisio Badel, and Mr. Carlo Realeza of Siniloan, and Ka Sonny and Mrs.

Lerrilinda Torrecampo of Cardona, for their hospitality and for assisting me

while gathering data from their respective municipalities.

To Ka Boy, Kuya Bernie, Kuya Andy, and my data gathering buddy Teenay

Villagracia, for painstakingly accompanying me while gathering the needed

data.

To UPLB Development Communicators’ Society for the unrelenting support and

for molding me into a better person. No words could truly express my deepest

gratitude being a part of this family. Padayon! I LOVE DEVCOMSOC!

To the College of Development Communication Student Council AY 2007-2008,

UP Resideños, and the Elite Circle of Wizards for honing my skills and for

the various memorable moments and experiences.

To my family, for the emotional (and financial) support I surely needed to finish this

research.

And above all, to our Creator, who made all things possible.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE i ACCEPTANCE SHEET ii ACKNOWLEDGMENT iii TABLE OF CONTENTS v LIST OF TABLES vii LIST OF FIGURES viii LIST OF APPENDICES ix ABSTRACT x CHAPTER PAGE

1 INTRODUCTION Structure and Rationale of the Study 1 Statement of the Problem 4 Objectives of the Study 5 Significance of the Study 6 Limitations of the Study 6 Operational Definition of Terms 6 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Communicating Environmental Issues 10 Sources of Environmental Information 11 Communication Strategies 12 Using Communication Strategies 12 Effectiveness of Communication Strategies 14 Level of Awareness on Communication Interventions 15 Protecting the Laguna de Bay 16 Theoretical Framework 17 Conceptual Framework 18 Hypotheses of the Study 19 3 METHODOLOGY Research Design 20 Location of the Study 20 Respondents and Sampling Method 20 Research Instrument 21 Data Collection 22 Data Analysis 23 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Communication Strategies Used in Communicating the Janitor

Fish Proliferation 24

Communication Messages 26

Communication Channels 28 Communication Approaches 29 Profile of the Survey Respondents 32 Awareness of LLDA-JFPT’s Communication Activities and

Materials 33

Interpersonal Channels 35 Group Media 35 Mass Media 36 Preferred Communication Channel and Approach 37 Knowledge Level on the Janitor Fish Proliferation in Laguna de

Bay 39

Perceived Effectiveness of the Communication Strategy of LLDA-JFPT

43

Relationship between Level of Awareness and Knowledge Level

48

Relationship between Level of Awareness and Perceived Effectiveness

49

5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary 50 Conclusions 57 Recommendations 59 BIBLIOGRAPHY 61 APPENDICES 68

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1 Sample distribution from the sample municipalities 21

2 Data gathering schedule 23

3 Summary of the communication strategy of LLDA-JFPT 31

4 General socio-demographic characteristics of survey respondents 33

5

Fisherfolks’ level of awareness on communication channels used by LLDA-JFPT

34

6 Awareness of interpersonal channels used by LLDA-JFPT 35

7 Awareness of group media used by LLDA-JFPT 36

8 Awareness of mass media used by LLDA-JFPT 37

9 Fisherfolks’ communication channel preferences 38

10 Fisherfolks’ communication approach preferences 39

11 Fisherfolks’ knowledge level on the janitor fish proliferation 39

12 Mean scores of fisherfolks on the ten-point knowledge level 40

13 Scores of the respondents per item in the ten-point knowledge test 42

14

Fisherfolks’ perceived effectiveness of the communication strategies

43

15

Weighted scores for the perception of effectiveness of fisherfolks on the communication strategies used by LLDA-JFPT

46

16

Contingency table for the relationship between level of awareness and knowledge level

48

17

Contingency table for the relationship between level of awareness and perception of effectiveness

49

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1 The conceptual framework 18

2 Location of Biñan, Bay, and Siniloan, Laguna 89

3 Location of Cardona, Rizal 89

4 Cover page of LLDA-JFPT’s Final Project Report 94

5

CD cover of LLDA-JFPT’s video-documentary entitled Biyaya ng Salot

95

6 Streamer used by LLDA-JFPT 95

7 Exhibit materials on janitor fishmeal making used by LLDA-JFPT 96

8

Exhibit materials on janitor fish information and laboratory results used by LLDA-JFPT

97

9

Exhibit materials on different programs on janitor fish proliferation management used by LLDA-JFPT

98

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX PAGE

A Focus Group Discussion Guide 69

B Focus Group Discussion Transcription 71

C Letters of Correspondence 79

D Sample Survey Questionnaire 84

E Location of the Study 88

F Fisherfolk Population in the Provinces of Laguna and Rizal 90

F.1. Total number of fisherfolks per municipality/city in the

Province of Laguna 91

F.2. Total number of fisherfolks per municipality/city in the

Province of Rizal 92

G

Communication Materials Used by Laguna Lake Development Authority – Janitor Fish Project Team

93

ABSTRACT

RONAN, DWIGHT JASON M. University of the Philippines Los Baños. October 2008.

“Fisherfolks’ Perception on the Communication Strategy Used by the Laguna Lake

Development Authority – Janitor Fish Project Team in Communicating Risks of

Janitor Fish Proliferation in Laguna de Bay.”

Adviser: Julienne V. Bariuan

This undergraduate study primarily assessed the effectiveness of the communication

strategy used by LLDA-JFPT in communicating the risks of the janitor fish proliferation in

Laguna de Bay, as perceived by the fisherfolks. Specifically, this study aimed to: (a)

enumerate and describe the communication strategies (messages, channels, and approaches)

used by LLDA-JFPT; (b) identify the respondents’ awareness level on the communication

materials and activities used; (c) describe their preferred communication channel and

approach; (d) determine their knowledge level about the janitor fish proliferation in Laguna

de Bay; (e) evaluate the effectiveness of the communication strategy used as perceived by the

fisherfolks; (e) determine whether a relationship exists between the level of awareness of

fisherfolks and their knowledge level on the janitor fish problem; and (f) determine whether a

relationship exists between the level of awareness of fisherfolks and their perception of

effectiveness of the communication strategy used.

This study used a focus group discussion (FGD) with LLDA-JFPT and a survey with

130 Laguna de Bay fisherfolks as its research instruments. The focus group discussion data

was used to enrich the survey data, which were analyzed through frequency counts,

percentages, and a scoring system. The relationship between the level of awareness and the

knowledge level was determined using the Pearson’s chi-square test of independence. The

same test was used for the relationship between the level of awareness and perceived

effectiveness.

The study found out that the communication messages disseminated by LLDA-JFPT

include: (a) the beneficial uses of the janitor fish; (b) results of the LLDA-JFPT’s researches;

and (c) janitor fish as food. Alongside these, several interpersonal channels, group media,

and mass media were used. On the other hand, the informing, educating, and motivating

communication approaches were likewise used.

On the average, the fisherfolks of Laguna de Bay have a moderate knowledge level

on the janitor fish proliferation. Results also showed that the fisherfolks have a low level of

awareness of the communication materials and activities used by LLDA-JFPT. From the 13

communication materials and activities used, only individual consultations with fisherfolks

yielded a moderate awareness level.

The respondents prefer interpersonal channels than group and mass media. Meetings,

television, and individual consultations were the most preferred channels and the informing

approach is the most preferred approach.

Majority of the fisherfolks have a neutral perception on the overall effectiveness of

the communication strategies used by LLDA-JFPT. However, using the different criteria on a

communication strategy’s effectiveness, the overall weighted mean score of the respondents

computed signified that the respondents view the communication strategies used as

ineffective.

Results showed that there is a significant relationship between the fisherfolks’ level of

awareness on the communication strategy used and their knowledge level on the janitor fish

proliferation. On the other hand, results showed that there is no significant relationship

between the fisherfolks’ level of awareness on the communication strategies and their

perception on the effectiveness of these strategies.

Keywords: communication strategy, level of awareness, knowledge level, perceived

effectiveness

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Structure and Rationale of the Study

Laguna de Bay, ranked as one of the largest inland bodies of water in Southeast Asia,

has been a hotspot for rapid socio-economic activities for the past few years. People from

cities and municipalities surrounding the lake consider it as a primary source of food,

irrigation, transportation, floodwater reservoir, and industrial cooling, among others (Laguna

Lake Development Authority, 2007).

At present, fishery is the lake’s most dominant function. It is estimated that the lake

currently has a potential yield of approximately 85,000 million tons of fish (Laguna Lake

Development Authority and Federation of River Basin Councils, 2005). It supports almost 13

million people, approximately 28,000 of which are fisherfolks who depend on the lake as

their source of livelihood (Laguna Lake Development Authority as cited by de la Cruz,

2005). The potential yield of the lake increased due to the introduction of the Fish pen

Technology in 1970, which then led to the growth of the lake fishery production in the

region.

However, Laguna de Bay is faced with a dilemma, albeit the rapid socio-economic

developments. According to the Laguna Lake Development Authority (2007), “the

conflicting interests of various stakeholders, rapid population growth, and expanding

economic activities continue to become the major threats in the sustainable development of

the lake’s region.” In 2007, LLDA General Manager Edgardo Manda declared that the lake

could be biologically dead in five years time if the rate of its current deterioration continues

(Drastic Measures Needed to Save Laguna de Bay, 2007).

One of the major threats that currently plague Laguna de Bay is the rising population

of armored suckermouth catfishes, popularly known as ‘janitor fish.’ Cariño (2007) attributes

the proliferation of the janitor fish in Laguna de Bay “to the deliberate release or accidental

escape from ponds where they were being bred.” News reports of janitor fish being caught in

the waters of Laguna de Bay were first published in 2002 (Chavez, de la Paz, Manohar,

Pagulayan, and Carandang, 2006). Janitor fish, which is very popular among aquarium

hobbyists, is now considered as an invasive exotic species as it competes with other fishes for

food and space in Laguna de Bay. Furthermore, the janitor fishes’ sharp fins destroy fishing

nets making them lake pests (LLDA, 2007). In 2002, fishpond owners in Siniloan, Laguna

complained that 10 to 38% of their total fish catch are janitor fish (Santiago, 2007). Carino

(2007) also reported that in 2005, janitor fish constitutes 70% of the total volume of fish

caught in some open areas in the lake.

Several studies and projects have been launched by different government agencies

and non-government organizations to address the janitor fish problem. As proof, there is a

pending Senate bill addressing the said problem. Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago (2007)

declared that Senate Bill 1763 or the Anti-Injurious Animals Act of 2007 “aims to prohibit

the importation of mammals, birds, fish (including mollusks and crustaceans), amphibians,

and reptiles that may be injurious to the ecosystem” just like the janitor fish. Moreover, the

Marikina City government also launched an ordinance approving a P50,000 fund to serve as

cash incentives to people who will catch janitor fish. Since 2005, the “Oplan Alis Janitor

Fish” campaign pays fisherfolks 50 centavos per janitor fish caught (Villas, 2007).

Moreover, the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), LLDA, and several

Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Councils (FARMCs) in the Laguna de Bay

region launched the “Swap-A-Gear” program, where tilapia fingerlings and fishing

paraphernalia were given to municipal FARMCs that catch large volumes of janitor fish

(Cariño, 2007).

In 2007, the Bureau of Animal Industry found out that janitor fish is high in protein

while the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of the Department of Environment and

Natural Resources said that it may be considered as a component of fish feeds (LLDA,

2007). Marikina student Raymond Joseph Amurao also discovered the potential of the oil

from the janitor fish as a biodiesel. His project ranked third in the Intel International Science

and Engineering Fair competition in the United States (Villas, 2007). Other studies have

indicated that the janitor fish can also be used as source of organic fertilizer and leather.

Moreover, after being one of 30 winners of the Development Marketplace global

grant-making competition in 2005, LLDA implemented the project “Benefiting from the

Dreaded Janitor Fish”. With this, the Janitor Fish Project Team (JFPT) was created in May

2005. Among the cooperating agencies of the project were the Siniloan River Rehabilitation

and Management Foundation, Inc. (SRRMFI), experts from the University of the Philippines

(UPLB) College of Agriculture – Animal and Dairy Sciences Cluster, hog raisers of Siniloan,

Laguna, and FARMCs of each municipality surrounding the lake (Cariño, 2007).

This project was primarily conceptualized “to create an economic demand” for the

janitor fish which, in turn, could lessen the fish’s invasiveness and add income for the

fisherfolks. Moreover, the project also tried to assess the janitor fish’s potential as a main

ingredient for fish and hog feeds. However, because of time constraints and of the effects of

Typhoon Milenyo on their equipments, the team opted to experiment on the potential of

janitor fishmeal as feeds for chickens and pigs (Cariño, 2007).

When the project ended in 2007, results of these experiments showed that the janitor

fish could be a good fishmeal substitute for chickens and pigs. Moreover, the addition of the

janitor fishmeal to the diets of chickens and pigs improved their growth and performance at a

lower cost than commercial feeds. The project also found out that there is high mercury and

other heavy metal content, not just in janitor fish, but also in tilapia and dalag, caught in the

waters of Laguna de Bay (Cariño, 2007).

In its project completion report submitted to Development Marketplace (2007), the

LLDA-JFPT indicated that several communication materials were distributed during exhibits

and forums conducted. In addition, orientation meetings and public disclosure forums for the

different sectors and groups were planned in order to communicate the results of the project.

Other information materials on the uses of janitor fish and the proper disposal of hazardous

wastes were also developed for distribution.

In this regard, this study wished to assess the effectiveness of the communication

strategy used by LLDA-JFPT, as perceived by the fisherfolks, in communicating the risks of

the janitor fish proliferation in Laguna de Bay.

Statement of the Problem

This study answered the general question: How effective is the communication

strategy used by Laguna Lake Development Authority - Janitor Fish Project Team (LLDA-

JFPT) in communicating the risks of the janitor fish proliferation to the fisherfolks of Laguna

de Bay?

Specifically, this study answered the following questions:

1. What communication strategies (messages, channels, and approaches) were

used by LLDA-JFPT in communicating the risks of janitor fish proliferation

to the fisherfolks of Laguna de Bay?

2. How aware are the respondents of the different communication materials and

activities used by the LLDA-JFPT?

3. What communication channel and approach do the respondents prefer the

most in receiving information about the risks of janitor fish proliferation?

4. How knowledgeable are the respondents about the janitor fish proliferation in

Laguna de Bay?

5. How did the respondents perceive the communication strategy’s effectiveness

in communicating the risks of janitor fish proliferation to the fisherfolks of

Laguna de Bay?

6. Is there a relationship between the level of awareness of fisherfolks and their

knowledge level on the janitor fish problem?

7. Is there a relationship between the level of awareness of fisherfolks and their

perception of the effectiveness of the communication strategy of LLDA JFPT?

Objectives of the Study

This study assessed the effectiveness of the communication strategy used by LLDA-

JFPT in communicating the risks of the janitor fish proliferation to the fisherfolks of Laguna

de Bay.

Specifically, this study:

1. Enumerated and described the communication strategies (messages, channels,

and approaches) used by LLDA-JFPT in communicating risks of janitor fish

proliferation to the fisherfolks of Laguna de Bay;

2. Identified the respondents’ level of awareness of the different communication

materials and activities used by the LLDA-JFPT;

3. Described the communication channel and approach preferred by the

respondents in receiving information about the risks of janitor fish

proliferation;

4. Determined the respondents’ knowledge level about the janitor fish

proliferation in Laguna de Bay;

5. Evaluated the effectiveness of the communication strategy used by the LLDA-

JFPT as perceived by the fisherfolks;

6. Determined whether a relationship exists between the level of awareness of

fisherfolks and their knowledge level on the janitor fish problem; and

7. Determined whether a relationship exists between the level of awareness of

fisherfolks and their perception of effectiveness of the communication

strategy of LLDA-JFPT.

Significance of the Study

Generally, this study determined the effectiveness of a communication strategy in

communicating an environmental risk, in this case, the janitor fish proliferation in Laguna de

Bay. The results of this study can therefore serve as a guide for LLDA in improving their

communication strategies in terms of communication channel, communication approach, and

the communication materials.

In addition, this study can shed light on how fisherfolks perceive the effectiveness of

LLDA’s public communication campaigns. This study may provide vital information on

LLDA’s effectiveness in communicating environmental issues.

Limitations of the Study

The study only measured the effectiveness of the communication strategy used by

LLDA-JFPT as perceived by one major audience segment, the fisherfolks. No other audience

segment was studied and actual effectiveness was not measured.

Operational Definition of Terms

Communication strategy – a plan, which includes communication messages, channels, and

approaches, formulated to influence the thinking, action, and feelings of others

(Lionberger and Gwin, 1982). In this study, this refers to the communication

messages, channels, and approaches used by LLDA-JFPT in communicating the risks

of the janitor fish proliferation to the fisherfolks of Laguna de Bay.

Communication approaches – the methods used by LLDA-JFPT in communicating

risk of the janitor fish proliferation to the fisherfolks of Laguna de Bay. In this

study, these were classified as motivating, persuading, entertaining,

informing, and/or educating.

Communication channels - the media used by LLDA-JFPT in communicating the

risks of the janitor fish proliferation to the fisherfolks of Laguna de Bay. In

this study, these were categorized as either interpersonal, group, or mass

media channels.

Interpersonal channels - refer to face-to-face interactions of the LLDA-JFPT

in communicating the risks of janitor fish proliferation to the Laguna

de Bay fisherfolks. This includes house-to-house campaigns and

individual interviews.

Group media - refer to mass interpersonal interactions of the LLDA-JFPT

with the Laguna de Bay fisherfolks, which includes symposiums,

trainings, alliance-building sessions, and seminars.

Mass Media channels- refer to print, broadcast, audiovisual, and new media

used by the LLDA-JFPT in communicating the risks of janitor fish

proliferation to the Laguna de Bay fisherfolks.

Communication messages – the topics on the risks of the janitor fish proliferation

that LLDA-JFPT communicates to the fisherfolks of Laguna de Bay. In this

study, focus group discussion with the LLDA-JFPT staff was conducted in

order to enumerate the specific messages/information communicated by

LLDA-JFPT to the fisherfolks.

Effectiveness – refers to how the communication programs and projects causally affect the

persons who received the services (Flay and Cook, 1982). In this study, it was

measured based on how the respondents perceived the communication strategies’

effectiveness. In the study’s survey questionnaire, ten statements with regard to the

communication strategies’ effectiveness were presented. A five-level Likert scale was

used to gauge the fisherfolks’ perceived effectiveness and weighted scores were

classified into effective, neutral perception and/or not effective.

Fisherfolks – refers to full-time and part-time fisherfolks who actually engage into

commercial fishing within Laguna de Bay. The respondents of this study were

identified with the help of LLDA and the respective FARMCs of the respondent

municipalities.

Knowledge Level – refers to the degree by which the fisherfolks of Laguna de Bay

understand the issue on janitor fish proliferation and its corresponding effects and

solutions. In this study, respondents answered a 10-point self-administered

questionnaire containing questions about the janitor fish proliferation in Laguna de

Bay. Respondents whose score are 0 to 3 are classified as having low knowledge

level, those with scores 4 to 7 with moderate knowledge level, and those with 8 to 10

points with high knowledge level.

Level of Awareness - refers to how well the fisherfolks perceive or are conscious of the

communication activities and materials on the janitor fish proliferation used by

LLDA-JFPT in sharing information about the issue. In this study, a list of the

communication strategies used by LLDA-JFPT was given to the respondents. The

respondents were asked to identify which of the communication materials and

activities listed were used by LLDA-JFPT in their area. Respondents who have 0 to

30 percent awareness of the communication materials and activities are classified as

having low level of awareness; those with 31 to 70 percent are moderate level of

awareness, while those with 71 to 100 percent as high level of awareness.

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Laguna de Bay, the largest lake in the Philippines, has been a major source of

livelihood of citizens living in the provinces of Laguna, Rizal, Cavite, Batangas, Quezon, and

in Metro Manila. However, despite the lake’s critical role to its surrounding provinces, much

human-induced deterioration has occurred to it in the past few years. According to Cariño

(2007), these human activities include rapid population growth, deforestation, indiscriminate

land conversion, widespread urban sprawl, intense fisheries, and industrialization. Aside

from these, one major threat that Laguna de Bay faces today is the alarming population of

janitor fish in the lake.

Communicating Environmental Issues

At present, much buzz has been ensued in the field of communication, especially in

the mass media, by the different environmental issues. As Severino (1998) related, “the

environment has become a page-one story, reflecting higher public awareness, an increasing

number of citizens’ groups doing environmental work, enormous government and donor

resources being poured into the field, and the widespread realization that environmental

problems pose a threat to the future of communities and the planet.”

In the Philippine media context, Stuart and Fernandez (1992) investigated the extent

of media coverage on different environmental problems and policies in the Philippines. A

study conducted by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, a German non-government organization,

noted that Philippine print media outfits before have not comprehensively pursued

environmental topics. Moreover, environmental reporters that time lacked enough

background and necessary skills in writing stories about the environment. In radio and

television, the study pointed out that only a few radio and television stations in Philippines

venture into environmental broadcasting.

According the Revilla (1992), several studies have shown that public awareness on

the different environmental issues can be “attributed to media’s environmental coverage and

the people’s direct experience of the problems concerning the environment.” Drabek (as cited

by Revilla, 1992) also believes that mass media serves as the primary source for

environmental information, while relatives, friends, and other primary group members serve

as secondary sources. However, Stuart (as cited by Ambrosio, 1994) pointed out that

interpersonal communication has been recognized as a potential channel for environmental

communication.

Sources of Environmental Information

Several studies have been conducted with regard to the sources of information about

the environment. In a study conducted by Bonilla (1994), results have indicated that San

Pablo City residents use television, radio, newspaper, and group discussion as their sources

of environmental information. The same is true with Calamba City residents having radio as

the most preferred source of environmental information, followed by television, newspaper,

magazine, and peer discussion (Cedillo, 1996).

In the case of three fishing communities in Los Baños, namely Barangay Bayog,

Malinta, and Mayondon, majority of the respondents (82.22%) considered interpersonal

communication as the most widely used source of information. However, results also showed

that television was the most available type of communication media while radio, television,

and printed materials are the most preferred (Glorioso, 1996).

Communication Strategies

Lionberger and Gwin (1982) defines communication strategy as “a plan, which

includes communication messages, channels, and approaches, formulated to influence the

thinking, action, and feelings of others.”

According to Jerusalem (as cited by Bonilla, 1994), a good information dissemination

campaign can influence a change in a person’s attitude. In addition to that, the information

must be presented using the different types of media, which includes mass media,

interpersonal communication, and direct observation, in order to achieve a certain level of

awareness. As Flor and Matulac (as cited by Cedillo, 1996) furthers, “communication

campaigns should not be limited to mainstream communication media, but should explore

tried and true interpersonal and alternative channels as well.” Flor (2004) also emphasized

that effective environmental communication should “make use of indigenous media” and

should “proceed at its own pace.”

Ineffective information dissemination campaigns have been attributed as the reason

why past government programs fail (Supetran as cited by Tolentino, 2002). According to

Stuart (as cited by Cedillo, 1996), participation, empowerment, and sustainability are the

major indices of a project’s success. In addition, “an intervention program will elicit a

favorable response from the people only if they know about and understand the program”

(Adan as cited by De Guzman, 2003).

Using Communication Strategies

A study on the communication strategies used by the Laguna Lake Development

Authority - Janitor Fish Project was conducted in 2007. In the study, the risk communication

strategies employed by LLDA-JFPT were determined. It specifically determined the topics

communicated, communication channels and approaches used, the risk communication

principles followed by the LLDA-JFPT, and the communication problems encountered in

communicating these risks. Key informant interviews with the two assistant project managers

and two research assistants of the LLDA-JFPT were conducted.

The study revealed that the topics communicated were about the environmental risks

of janitor fish overpopulation. Using either Tagalog or English, the messages were

communicated to the stakeholders using two-sided treatment of the perceived risks and

benefits. The study also found out that the common communication approaches used are

information, education, and communication (IEC), science communication, and risk

communication, which are usually conducted through interpersonal communication channels

such as seminars, trainings, forums, and lectures. In addition, the JFPT followed the

principles of risk communication such as involving the stakeholders, working with credible

sources or scientists, and maintaining good rapport with the stakeholders. Among the

problems cited includes lack of communication resources, lack of interest among the

fisherfolks, and perceived lack of communication-related skills on JFPT members (dela Cruz,

2007).

Bonilla (1994) studied the environmental awareness and the attitude towards an

environmental communication campaign of San Pablo City residents. Among the 166

household surveyed, 98% of the respondents yielded a positive attitude towards an

environmental communication campaign. Moreover, they have also indicated that they are

willing to participate in any campaign.

Two separate studies were conducted in 2007 exploring the communication strategies

used by the Teens Healthquarters – Sta. Rosa and by the Laguna Provincial Library. It was

determined that the Teens Healthquarters – Sta. Rosa primarily used interpersonal channels

in promoting reproductive health-related messages and that there is insufficient production of

IEC materials (Tejada, 2007). The Laguna Provincial Library, on the other hand, “made use

of individual, group, and mass methods to communicate how the library could be used and

the benefits of reading” (Teope, 2007). Both studies also found out that both institutions use

the informing, educating, persuading, entertaining, and motivating communication

approaches.

Effectiveness of Communication Strategies

Several studies have also looked into the effectiveness of the communication

strategies. In 2002, Tolentino studied the youth’s level of awareness on environmental

sanitation in Tanauan. The study specifically tried to identify the communication strategies

used by the Tanauan City Government, evaluate the effectiveness of these communication

strategies, determine the relationship between the socio-demographic characteristics and

their level of awareness, and determine the relationship of the number of communication

strategies to their level of awareness. Based on a survey of 700 high school students, there is

a high level of awareness on environmental issues and majority of the respondents ranked

attending school seminars as the most effective communication strategy. The study also

found out that there is a significant relationship between the number of communication

strategies and the level of environmental awareness.

Bernardo (2006) evaluated the effectiveness of the communication strategies used by

the barangay health workers (BHWs) in promoting reproductive health practices to the Iraya

Mangyans in Mindoro. The effectiveness was measured “in terms of their acceptability,

comprehensibility, and adoption of reproductive health practices.” After three key informant

interviews with the local BHWs and a survey of 95 Iraya Mangyans, the results of the study

posit that the respondents perceived BHWs as credible sources of reproductive health

information. Moreover, the different communication strategies (i.e. Filipino message code,

individual channels, and group channels) were highly preferred by the respondents. However,

the study found out that the respondents “have generally low knowledge, recall, and

understandability levels of reproductive health information” and that they have “a very low

intent to adopt any of the family planning methods” (Bernardo, 2006).

In another study, Sayritan (2006) evaluated the risk communication strategies of the

Albay Public Safety and Emergency Management Office (APSEMO) in communicating risks

posed by Mayon Volcano on Albay residents. Sixty randomly selected household heads were

surveyed and two key informant interviews with the Department Head of APSEMO and the

resident volcanologist of PHIVOLCS were conducted. The results of the study showed that

the topics communicated were advisories and about disaster preparedness. Different

channels, such as radio, television, print, seminars, meetings, were also used and the

communication approaches employed were informing and educating. The respondents of the

study suggested that information dissemination regarding volcanic alerts should be more

frequent and that the coordination between APSEMO and the community officials should be

improved (Sayritan, 2006).

Level of Awareness on Communication Interventions

Several studies have shown that awareness level on different communication

interventions are influenced by different factors.

In 1994, Ambrosio studied the awareness of upland farmers in Barangay Bagong

Silang, Los Baños on agroforestry. Results showed that level of awareness is significantly

related to the respondents’ age, annual income, mass media exposure, membership to

organization, cosmopoliteness (frequency of coming to town), use of mass media as

information source, and use of seminars and other people as information source. These

findings were based on the responses of 65 fulltime upland farmers.

Conversely, the study also found out that awareness level is independent with

educational attainment, exposure to television, contact with extension worker, use of

television as information source, and use of UPLB, government agencies, and non-

government organizations as information source.

Bonilla (1994), on the other hand, concluded that San Pablo residents’ level of

awareness on various environmental issues is not related with their attitude towards

environmental communication campaigns conducted. In 2002, Tolentino found out that there

is a significant relationship between the youth’s awareness level on environmental sanitation

and the number of communication strategies utilized. This indicates that the level of public

awareness is related with the number of communication strategies used by the local

government of Tanauan City.

Moreover, several studies conducted showed that the awareness on environmental

issues is influenced by the public’s sources of environmental information. Among the

researches that have this finding are the studies on the awareness and attitudes on

environmental issues of Calamba City residents (Cedillo, 1996), Pagsanjan, Laguna residents

(Llamoso, 1995), and Bay, Laguna residents (Revilla, 1992).

Protecting the Laguna de Bay

Several studies on the level of environmental awareness have also looked into the

willingness of the respondents on protecting Laguna de Bay.

Asis (1996) surveyed 300 residents in nine barangays in Sta. Cruz, Laguna, and

majority of them expressing a positive attitude towards the protection of the environment.

This research found out that 98% of the respondents strongly agree with the call to protect

Laguna de Bay. In Lumban, Laguna, majority of the respondents expressed a positive attitude

towards environmental conservation; with 83% of them strongly agreeing in the importance

of protecting Laguna de Bay (Benavente, 1999). Moreover, all (100%) of the respondents in

a study in Calamba City favored the idea of saving Laguna de Bay (Cedillo, 1996). Tandang

(2007) also indicated that most of the respondents of her study are “in favor of taking care of

Laguna Lake and preventing further damage and contamination of its water.”

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This study followed Everett Rogers’s Diffusion of Innovations Theory, which posits

that the diffusion of innovations “goes through a predictable sequence of stages” (Straubhaar

and LaRose, 2000). As defined by Rogers (1962), diffusion of innovations is “the spread of a

new idea from its source of invention or creation to its ultimate users or adopters.”

In general, this theory claims that any decision-making unit (individual, group,

society, or country) when exposed to an innovation, passes through the so-called innovation-

decision process. Rogers outlined this innovation-decision process into five stages, (1)

knowledge of the innovation, (2) formation of attitude towards the innovation, (3) decision to

adopt or reject, (4) implementation of the new idea, and (5) confirmation of the decision

made (Newsland, 2006). Furthermore, Rogers highlighted the types of knowledge needed in

the first stage of the innovation-decision process. These types of knowledge are (a)

awareness knowledge or the “information that an innovation exists”, (b) how-to knowledge

or the “information necessary to use an innovation properly”, and (c) principles knowledge or

the “information dealing with the functioning principles underlying how the innovation

works” (Newsland, 2006).

Lindell and Perry (2004) suggested that the processes involved in the diffusion of

innovations “need not necessarily be driven by an explicit motivation of one person to

change the beliefs, values, attitudes, or behaviors of another” and that behavior change can

be achieved through observation and imitation of others’ behavior. Rogers (1962) also

emphasized that perception is “a key dimension in understanding” to the diffusion of any

innovation.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

In this study, the fisherfolks’ level of awareness on the communication strategy,

which include the communication messages, channels, and approaches, used by the LLDA-

JFPT served as the independent variable. The dependent variables, on the other hand, is the

knowledge level of the fisherfolks on the janitor fish problem in Laguna de Bay and their

perception of the effectiveness of the communication strategies employed by the LLDA-

JFPT. In this line, this study determined whether there is an existing relationship between the

fisherfolks’ level of awareness on the communications strategies of LLDA-JFPT with their

present knowledge level on the janitor fish problem and their perception on the effectiveness

of the communication strategies used.

Figure 1. The conceptual framework

HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY

Using the Pearson’s chi-square test of independence, this study determined the

relationship between the fisherfolks’ level of awareness on the communication strategy of

LLDA-JFPT with their present knowledge level on the janitor fish problem and with their

perception on the effectiveness of the communication strategy used.

In line with these, the following sets of hypotheses were formulated:

1. Test of independence between the level of awareness and knowledge level.

Ho: Level of Awareness and Knowledge Level are independent.

Ha: Level of Awareness and Knowledge Level are related.

2. Test of independence between the level of awareness and perception of

effectiveness.

Ho: Level of Awareness and Perceived Effectiveness are independent.

Ha: Level of Awareness and Perceived Effectiveness are related.

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

This study used the survey research design. According to Babbie (1975), the survey

research design is an “excellent vehicle for the measurement of attitudes and orientations

prevalent within a large population.” As Mercado (1999) puts it, the communication research

study can be used to measure changes in awareness, perception, knowledge, attitude, and

behavior brought about by the information received through any communication

intervention.

Location of the Study

This study was conducted in four municipalities surrounding Laguna de Bay: Biñan,

Bay, and Siniloan in Laguna and Cardona in Rizal (Appendix E). These municipalities are

strategically located on the lake’s four corners: Cardona in the North, Bay in the South,

Biñan in the West, and Siniloan in the East. In addition, at the start of the implementation of

the project “Benefiting from the Dreaded Janitor Fish”, existing FARMCs in lakeshore

municipalities of Laguna de Bay were invited to act as collaborators of the project and these

four municipalities were the first to be oriented by the LLDA-JFPT about the project.

Respondents and Sampling Method

For the focus group discussion (FGD), three members of the Janitor Fish Project

Team were purposively sampled, namely the JFPT Project Leader, the JFPT Assistant Project

Leader and a project staff.

On the other hand, stratified proportional sampling of fisherfolks from the four

municipalities mentioned was conducted to come up with the survey sample. One hundred

thirty fisherfolks were chosen as the respondents of the study out of the total population of

5,062. The following table shows the distribution of the sample sizes from each sample

municipality.

Table 1. Sample distribution from the sample municipalities

MUNICIPALITY TOTAL

POPULATION SAMPLE RESPONDENTS

Bay, Laguna 510 13 Biñan, Laguna 535 14 Siniloan, Laguna 518 13 Cardona, Rizal 3499 90

TOTAL 5062 130

Research Instrument

For the FGD with the LLDA-JFPT, an interview schedule was used in order to

determine the communication messages, channels, and approaches used by LLDA-JFPT in

communicating the risks of janitor fish proliferation to the fisherfolks of Laguna de Bay

(Appendix A).

Based on the information gathered from the FGD, a self-administered survey

questionnaire (SAQ) was formulated. Information regarding the communication messages,

channels, and approaches used by LLDA-JFPT were used as basis in formulating the

questions that were used to measure knowledge level on the janitor fish proliferation and

awareness level on the LLDA-JFPT’s communication strategy. Other pertinent documents

from the LLDA-JFPT were also used for the formulation of the SAQ, specifically

information on the background and objectives of the Janitor Fish Project Team.

The SAQs is divided into five parts (Appendix D) namely: (1) fisherfolks’ socio-

demographic characteristics; (2) knowledge level of janitor fish proliferation; (3) level of

awareness on the communication materials and activities; (4) preferred communication

channel and communication approach; and (5) perceived effectiveness of the communication

strategies. The portion that measured the respondents’ perceived effectiveness of the

communication strategy was based on the following effectiveness parameters: acceptability,

comprehensibility, attractiveness, self-involvement, persuasion, and information source’s

credibility. The questionnaire was in Filipino.

Data Collection

The researcher coordinated with the LLDA-JFPT at the Community Development

Division of the LLDA Calauan Office in conducting the study. A focus group discussion

with the members of the LLDA-JFPT was first conducted. This was recorded and the

gathered data was used to formulate the SAQs for the fisherfolk survey.

The SAQ was pretested on 15 fisherfolks from Barangays Mayondon and Bayog in

Los Baños. The SAQ was revised according to the pretest results.

The FARMCs of the respondent municipalities (Biñan, Bay, and Siniloan in Laguna

and Cardona in Rizal) were then contacted for the distribution of the questionnaires. The

distribution and collection of questionnaires were individually scheduled by respondent

FARMCs. Two hundred SAQs were distributed to the four municipalities. However, only

130 SAQs were returned, satisfying the number of respondents needed for the study.

Data gathering was done from July to September 2008 (Table 2).

Table 2. Data gathering schedule DATA GATHERING DATE

Coordination with Community Development Division, LLDA Calauan Office

July 28 to August 1

Focus Group Discussion with JFPT August 4 Coordination with MFARMCs

Bay Biñan Siniloan Cardona

August 27 to 29 August 28 August 28 August 29 August 29

Pre-testing of SAQs (Los Baños fisherfolks) August 30 to September 1 Distribution/Collection of SAQs

Bay Biñan Siniloan Cardona

September 2 to 19 September 2 September 5 September 3

September 3 to September 19

Data Analysis

The focus group discussion transcription was used to enrich the interpretation of the

data from the survey. The data gathered from SAQs were analyzed using frequency counts

and percentages. Responses on knowledge level, awareness level and preferred

communication channel and approach were tallied.

On the other hand, a scoring system was used to determine the aggregate responses

on perceived effectiveness of the communication strategies. In this part, ten value-laden

statements were used, five of which are positive statements and another five are negative. For

the positive statements, 5 points was given to those who answered strongly agree, 4 for

agree, 3 for neutral, 2 for disagree, and 1 for strongly disagree. The inverse is used for the

negative statements.

The relationship between the respondents’ level of awareness on the communication

strategies of LLDA-JFPT and their knowledge on the janitor fish problem was determined

using the Pearson’s chi-square test of independence. The same test was used to determine the

relationship between the fisherfolks’ level of awareness on the LLDA-JFPT communication

strategies and the perceived effectiveness of these communication strategies.

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Data were gathered to assess the effectiveness of the communication strategy used by

the Laguna Lake Development Authority – Janitor Fish Project Team (LLDA-JFPT) in

communicating the janitor fish problem to the fisherfolks of Laguna de Bay. The focus group

discussion with the members of the LLDA-JFPT determined the communication strategies

used in addressing the janitor fish proliferation. On the other hand, the fisherfolk survey from

four lakeshore municipalities indicated the following information: (a) the fisherfolks’ socio-

demographic characteristics; (b) their knowledge level on the janitor fish proliferation; (c)

their level of awareness on the communication materials and activities used by LLDA-JFPT;

(d) their preferred communication channel and communication approach, and (e) their

perceived effectiveness of the communication strategies.

Discussion of the results of the FGD and survey is structured as follows: (a) LLDA-

JFPT’s strategies in communicating the janitor fish proliferation issue; (b) the socio-

demographic characteristics of the survey respondents; (c) their level of awareness on the

communication channels used by LLDA-JFPT; (d) their preferred communication channel

and approach; (e) their knowledge level on the issue; (f) their perceived effectiveness of the

communication strategy used; (g) the relationship between their level of awareness and

knowledge level; and (h) the relationship between their level of awareness and the perceived

effectiveness.

Communication Strategies Used in Communicating the Janitor Fish Proliferation

Primarily aimed “to create an economic demand” for the janitor fish in Laguna de

Bay, the Laguna Lake Development Authority established the Janitor Fish Project Team

(JFPT) to implement the project “Benefiting from the Dreaded Janitor Fish” in May 2005.

Funding the project was the Development Marketplace, a global grant making competition,

where the project was chosen as one of the 30 winners from a pool of 2,700 proposals from

different parts of the world.

JFPT Project Leader Jose Cariño (2007) explained that the project’s main objective is

“to identify a beneficial use leading to the creation of an economic demand for the janitor

fish such that it would be actively harvested by the community of fishers in the Laguna de

Bay region.” The project specifically hoped (Cariño, 2007):

1. To address the invasiveness of the janitor fish thereby reducing its impacts on the

local ecosystem;

2. To establish the viability of processing the janitor fish into fish meal and using it

as basic raw material or ingredient for fish and livestock animal feed and promote

its utilization as such among the fish farmers, hog raisers or feed millers in the

region; and

3. To help create the conditions whereby marginalized fishermen and backyard scale

hog raisers are capacitated to undertake their livelihood activities in a sustainable

manner.

In implementing the project from 2005 to 2007, the team coordinated with different

agencies. Its cooperating agencies include the Siniloan River Rehabilitation and Management

Foundation, Inc., UP Los Baños, and several municipal FARMCs (Cariño, 2007). The Janitor

Fish Project Team was composed of a project leader, an assistant project leader, two research

assistants, four project staffs, and an auditor.

As indicated in the completion report submitted to the Development Marketplace

(2007), a total of $143,746.51 (around P6 million) was received by the LLDA-JFPT for the

overall preparation and implementation of the project. Furthermore, it was reported in the

completion report that the project’s overall achievement is “above expectations” because “all

original objectives were achieved plus significant additional ones.”

Among the listed achievements in the Development Marketplace completion report

(2007) are: (a) the mobilization of several fisherfolk organizations to continuously catch

janitor fish; (b) gathering of conclusive data on janitor fish’s potential as fishmeal for pigs

and chickens; (c) improved growth and performance of the janitor fish-feeded pigs and

chickens in lower production costs; and (d) conduct of laboratory tests showing high mercury

and other heavy metal content, not just in janitor fish, but also in tilapia and dalag caught in

Laguna de Bay.

Communication Messages

The LLDA-JFPT communicated three main topics regarding the janitor fish

proliferation to the Laguna de Bay fisherfolk, namely: (a) the beneficial uses of the janitor

fish, (b) results of the team’s researches, and (c) janitor fish as food.

Various beneficial uses were said to be communicated to the fisherfolks of Laguna de

Bay. These include the following:

a. the potential of the janitor fish extract as an organic fertilizer;

b. the potential use of its oil content for biofuel;

c. the potential use of its exoskeleton for leather;

d. its potential as fishmeal for pigs and chickens.

Aside from the potential of janitor fish as fishmeal, other research results were

communicated to the fisherfolks. In the Project Leader’s words:

“Nung natapos ‘yung project, it was part of the project design ‘yung [public]

disclosure. So, talagang requirement ‘yun that we disclose the results of the

project to a big gathering of different people – experts from UPLB,

environmentalists, fisherfolks, local government officials. And we did not hold

anything back. We presented the results as the project showed.”

(At the end of the project, the public disclosure was part of the project

design. So, it is required that we disclose the results of the project to a big

gathering of different people – experts from UPLB, environmentalists,

fisherfolks, local government officials. And we did not hold anything back. We

presented the results as the project showed.)

--- JFPT Project Leader

Among the other project results communicated by the LLDA-JFPT are:

a. the effects of feeding janitor fishmeal to broilers and hogs. Based on the

results of two UPLB undergraduate researches, the use of janitor fishmeal

improved the growth and performance of both chickens and pigs. Moreover, these

studies also found out that using janitor fishmeal is more economical since there

is lower production cost as compared to commercial feeds.

b. the discovery of the high heavy metal content, not just in janitor fish, but also

in tilapia and dalag, caught from Laguna de Bay. It was discovered that janitor

fish, tilapia, and dalag “exhibited high traces of heavy metals, such as mercury,

cadmium, lead, arsenic, and chromium” (Jose Cariño, Community Development

Division, August 4, 2008, personal communication). This discovery highly

affected the conduct and the dissemination of the project results. According to

Cariño:

“It was made more controversial by the fact that we sampled

other species of fish and not just janitor fish. [We also sampled]

dalag and tilapia, and [we got] the same results. There were even

instances when heavy metals of these different species were

much higher than those found in janitor fish which puts into

question whether it was safe to eat the fish from the lake.”

--- JFPT Project Leader

The janitor fish’s viability as food was also communicated by the Janitor Fish Project

Team. According to Cariño (2008), “our research showed that it was eaten in its original

habitat, which is the Amazon River Basin.” However, “a complication arose because

probably in its original habitat [the waters weren’t] polluted. In the case of Laguna de Bay,

it’s a polluted environment. Needless to say, whatever lives in such a polluted environment

absorbs such pollution.”

Communication Channels

Interpersonal, group, and mass media channels were used by LLDA-JFPT in

communicating the janitor fish proliferation to the fisherfolks. However, the team stressed

that group channels were used more than others.

Among the interpersonal channels used by the LLDA-JFPT were: (a) individual

consultations with the fisherfolks, and (b) house visits. Individual consultations were done

whenever fisherfolks visit the Municipal Agriculture Office (MAO) of their respective

municipalities. Conversely, LLDA and MAO also regularly conduct house visits to discuss

the janitor fish problem with the fisherfolks.

Among the group media used were: (a) several orientation meetings, (b) trainings, (c)

a public disclosure forum and (d) other meetings and seminars. The orientation meetings

were conducted prior to the implementation of the project to inform and consult the

fisherfolks about the project and the source of its funds. Several hands-on trainings,

meetings, and seminars were also organized in order to demonstrate how the fish is

transformed into fishmeal. And finally, a public disclosure forum with different stakeholders,

including the fisherfolks, was conducted on July 13, 2007. The project results were

communicated in this activity.

Mass media channels were also used in communicating about janitor fish

proliferation in Laguna de Bay. These include: (a) print media in the form leaflets, brochures,

and fliers distributed at the different forums, advisories and statements printed in different

newspapers, and the Final Project Report; (b) visual media in the form of exhibits and

through the development of a website; (c) audio media through several radio interviews; and

(d) audio-visual media in the form of video-documentaries such as Biyaya ng Salot.

Communication Approaches

The LLDA-JFPT used the informing, educating, and motivating communication

approaches. According to the JFPT Assistant Project Leader:

“Para sa akin, [ang ginagamit namin ay] informing. Tapos in-e-educate din

sila based on our findings, tapos mi-no-motivate to engage [with our

program] or to use this as fishmeal.”

(For me, we use the informing approach. Then, we educated them based on

our findings and motivate them to engage with our program or to use this as

fishmeal.)

--- JFPT Assistant Project Leader

In de la Cruz’s (2007) study, which used a different operational definition for

“communication approaches”, the following were identified as Janitor Fish Project Team’s

approach in communicating the janitor fish issue: information, education, and

communication (IEC); science communication; networking/linkaging and alliance building;

advocacy; community organizing; and risk communication. Furthermore, the study also cited

that the IEC approach “seemed to be appropriate in creating awareness and motivating the

fisherfolks to cooperate with them in achieving JFPT’s goals” (de la Cruz, 2007).

The different beneficial uses of the janitor fish was communicated using various

group and mass media (Table 3). Using the informing, educating, and motivating approaches,

these data were communicated during the orientation meetings and hands-on trainings

conducted. The LLDA advisories, the JFPT Final Project Report, and the websites also

communicated this information.

The results of JFPT’s researches, on the other hand, were communicated using

interpersonal, group, and mass media. In order to fully disseminate the project’s results,

LLDA-JFPT utilized individual consultations and house visits. Furthermore, several hands-

on trainings and seminars and a public disclosure forum were organized. During these

activities, the participants were allowed to witness and participate in the fishmeal-making

process. Also, most of the mass media used by LLDA-JFPT contained the project’s results.

In communicating the project results, LLDA-JFPT used the informing, educating, and

motivating approaches. Lastly, the information regarding janitor fish as food was

communicated during the orientation meetings and using the Final Project Report and LLDA

advisories.

Table 3. Summary of the communication strategy of LLDA-JFPT COMMUNICATION

MESSAGES COMMONLY

USED CHANNEL COMMONLY

USED APPROACH Beneficial uses of the janitor fish

a. As organic fertilizer b. Oil content as biofuel c. Exoskeleton for leather d. As fishmeal for pigs and

chickens

Group Media • Orientation meetings

• Hands-on trainings Mass Media

• LLDA Advisories

• JFPT Final Project Report

• Website

Informing Educating Motivating

Results of the team’s researches a. Effects of janitor fishmeal to

broilers and hogs b. High heavy metal content of

Laguna de Bay fishes

Interpersonal Channels • Individual consultations

• House visits Group Media

• Hands-on trainings

• Public disclosure forum Mass Media

• Leaflet, brochure, or flyers

• LLDA Advisories

• Final Project Report

• Exhibit

• Website

• Radio Interviews

• Video

Informing Educating Motivating

Janitor fish as food Group Media • Orientation meetings

Mass Media • LLDA Advisories

• Final Project Report

Informing Educating

Profile of the Survey Respondents

This study surveyed a total of 130 fisherfolks from four municipalities surrounding

Laguna de Bay. The respondents were proportionally sampled from the total population of

fisherfolks as tallied by the Laguna Lake Development Authority in 2007.

Probably due to the nature of their work, majority (88%) of the respondents are male.

Only ten percent of the respondents are female, all coming from the municipality of Cardona,

Rizal.

Moreover, many of the respondents are middle-aged with almost one-third of the

respondents belonging to the 41 to 50 years old age bracket. It is followed by the 31 to 40 age

bracket (20%) and the 30 and below age bracket (18%). Only 30 respondents were more than

50 years old.

Almost all of the respondents (85%) are married. Meanwhile, only 12 respondents

(9%) indicated that they are single and three (2%) as widowed.

Many (41%) of the respondents had a household size of more than five members. Of

these, most (33%) reported that their household is made up of 6 to 8 members. Almost one-

third (30%) reported having a 3 to 5 household size and only 8% have a 2 or less household

size.

Table 4. General socio-demographic characteristics of survey respondents

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS FREQUENCY

n = 130 PERCENTAGE

Sex

Male Female No answer

115 13

2

88 10

2

Age

30 and below 31 – 40 41 – 50 51 – 60 61 and above No answer

23 26 41 20 10 10

18 20 32 15

8 8

Civil Status

Single Married Widow/Widower Separated No answer

12 111

3 0 4

9 85

2 0 3

Household Size

≤ 2 3 – 5 6 – 8 9 – 11 12 and above No answer

10 39 43

9 1

28

8 30 33

7 1

22

Awareness of LLDA-JFPT’s Communication Activities and Materials

Based on the data gathered from the focus group discussion with the LLDA-JFPT, 13

specific communication activities and materials were identified and were grouped into either

interpersonal, group, and mass media channels. In order to measure their level of awareness,

the survey respondents were asked to identify which of these communication activities and

materials were used by the LLDA-JFPT in their area.

Respondents who identified 0 to 4 communication materials and activities were

classified as having a low level of awareness, those who identified 5 to 9 were classified as

having a moderate level of awareness, and those who identified 10 to 13 communication

materials and activities were classified as having a high level of awareness.

Based on this measurement scheme, it was found that there is a low awareness of

LLDA-JFPT communication strategy (Table 5). A big majority of the respondents (94%)

have a low level of awareness on the communication materials and activities employed by

LLDA-JFPT. Six out of the 130 respondents (5%) were classified as having moderate level

of awareness. Only two of the 130 respondents (2%) were deemed to have high level of

awareness.

Table 5. Fisherfolks’ level of awareness on communication channels used by LLDA-JFPT

LEVEL OF AWARENESS FREQUENCY

n = 130 PERCENTAGE

Low Moderate High

122

6 2

94

5 2

To determine the respondents’ awareness level per communication activities or

materials, the respondents’ responses were tallied and the levels of awareness on each

activity were classified. Respondents have a low awareness of a particular communication

activity or material if it was identified by 0 to 30% of the respondents. Respondents have a

moderate awareness of a particular communication activity or material if it was identified by

31 to 70% of the respondents. Lastly, respondents are highly aware of a particular

communication activity or material if it was identified by 71 to 100% of the respondents.

Interpersonal Channels

Two of 13 communication channels identified from the focus group discussion were

classified as interpersonal channels. These were individual meetings/consultations with the

fisherfolks and the house visits.

Results showed that the individual meetings/consultations yielded a moderate level of

awareness from the fisherfolks (Table 6). House visits, on the other hand, yielded a low level

of awareness from the fisherfolks. About one-third (36%) of the survey respondents were

aware of the individual meetings while only a few (18%) of fisherfolks were aware of the

house visits. Interestingly, 45 percent of the respondents indicated that none of the two

activities was employed. Furthermore, 12 respondents (9%) reported that other interpersonal

channels were used by LLDA-JFPT. However, they did not specify what particular activity

was implemented.

Table 6. Awareness of interpersonal channels used by LLDA-JFPT

INTERPERSONAL CHANNELS* FREQUENCY

n = 130 PERCENTAGE

LEVEL OF AWARENESS

Individual meetings House visits None of the above Others No answer

47 24 59 12 8

36 18 45 9 6

Mod LOA Low LOA

*multiple responses and percentages based on total sample (n=130).

Group Media

From the 13 communication channels identified, four of these were classified as

group media. These include several orientation meetings, training-workshops, a public

disclosure forum, and other meetings and seminars. Once again, the respondents’ responses

were tallied and the awareness level was classified as high, moderate, or low.

The respondents generally have low level of awareness with the group media used

(Table 7). Among the four channels, the orientation meetings had the highest level of

awareness (23%). It is followed by other meetings and seminars (19%), public disclosure

forum (16%), and the training-workshops (15%). Furthermore, 42 percent of the respondents

indicated that none of these media was used by the LLDA-JFPT and three respondents (2%)

reported that other group media were used although they did not specify what particular

media was used.

Table 7. Awareness of group media used by LLDA-JFPT

GROUP MEDIA* FREQUENCY

n = 130 PERCENTAGE

LEVEL OF AWARENESS

Orientation meetings Other meetings/seminars Training-workshops Public disclosure forum None of the above Others No answer

30 25 21 20 55 3

13

23 19 16 15 42 2

10

Low LOA Low LOA Low LOA Low LOA

*multiple responses and percentages based on total sample (n=130).

Mass Media

Several mass media channels were used by LLDA-JFPT in communicating the risks

of the janitor fish proliferation. As identified from the FGD, these include the leaflets,

brochures, flyers distributed at the forums, the Final Project Report, LLDA advisories and

statements in different newspapers, website, exhibits, video-documentaries, and several radio

interviews. The fisherfolks’ level of awareness on each communication materials was again

classified as high, moderate, or low.

All the mass media used by the LLDA-JFPT yielded a low level of awareness from

the fisherfolks (Table 8). Among these, the radio has the highest level of awareness with 26

percent. It is followed by the LLDA advisories and statements in newspapers (22%), videos

(14%), the Final Project Report (13%), leaflets, brochures, and flyers (12%), the internet

(5%), and exhibits (3%). However, 38 percent of the respondents indicated that none of these

media was used by the JFPT while two percent reported other unspecified mass media

materials were used.

Table 8. Awareness of mass media used by LLDA-JFPT

MASS MEDIA * FREQUENCY

n = 130 PERCENTAGE

LEVEL OF AWARENESS

Radio interviews LLDA advisories and statements Videos (Biyaya ng Salot) Final Project Report Leaflets, brochures, and flyers LLDA-JFPT Website Exhibit None of the above Others No answer

34 29 18 17 16 6 4

49 3

15

26 22 14 13 12 5 3

38 2

12

Low LOA Low LOA Low LOA Low LOA Low LOA Low LOA Low LOA

*multiple responses and percentages based on total sample (n=130).

Preferred Communication Channel and Approach

The fisherfolk respondents were also asked to indicate their preferences with regard

to the communication channels and approaches.

Based on the results (Table 9), the respondents mostly prefer receiving information

through meetings (66%), television (64%), and individual consultations (54%). Conversely,

the internet (7%) and exhibit (5%) were the least preferred channels of communication. The

data also showed that the respondents mostly prefer interpersonal channels than group media

and mass media.

Table 9. Fisherfolks’ communication channel preferences

COMMUNICATION CHANNELS* FREQUENCY

n = 130 PERCENTAGE

INTERPERSONAL CHANNELS

Individual consultations House visit Others No answer

70 55 12 17

54 42 9

13

GROUP MEDIA

Meeting Seminar, forum Training-workshop Others No answer

86 54 26 4

14

66 42 20 3

11

MASS MEDIA

Television Newspaper and tabloid Radio Video Leaflet, brochure, and flyer Internet Exhibit Others No answer

83 52 35 31 30 9 6 5

17

64 40 27 24 23 7 5 4

13

*multiple responses and percentages based on total sample (n=130).

Moreover, results also showed that the respondents mostly (73%) preferred to be

informed (Table 10). Only a little over one-third (38%) of the respondents wanted to be

educated on the Laguna de Bay janitor fish proliferation. Very few wished to be persuaded

(16%), motivated (11%), or entertained (9%). This indicates that the respondents only want

straight-forward information about the issue and only a select few are interested in further

details or elaboration. This may indicate the need to promote the significance and relevance

of receiving additional information on the issue. If people see the importance of getting more

in-depth information so that they can make more informed decisions, their attitude towards

getting details and elaboration may change.

Table 10. Fisherfolks’ communication approach preferences

COMMUNICATION APPROACHES*

FREQUENCY n = 130

PERCENTAGE

Informing Educating Persuading Motivating Entertaining Others No answer

95 50 20 14 12 11 12

73 38 15 11 9 8 9

*multiple responses and percentages based on total sample (n=130).

Knowledge Level on the Janitor Fish Proliferation in Laguna de Bay

Using the data gathered from the focus group discussion with the LLDA-JFPT

members, a ten-point knowledge test was formulated in order to measure the fisherfolks’

knowledge level on the janitor fish proliferation in Laguna de Bay. Respondents were

classified as having: low knowledge level if they scored 0 to 3 points; moderate knowledge

level if they scored 4 to 7 points; and high knowledge level if they scored 8 to 10 points.

Majority of the respondents (71%) have a moderate knowledge level on the janitor

fish problem (Table 11). Meanwhile, nine percent of the respondents scored zero to three in

the ten-point knowledge test and only seven percent of all the respondents scored eight to ten.

This distribution of scores can be further confirmed by mean scores of respondents per

municipality (Table 12).

Table 11. Fisherfolks’ knowledge level on the janitor fish proliferation

KNOWLEDGE LEVEL FREQUENCY

n = 130 PERCENTAGE

Low Moderate High

29 92

9

22 71

7

The total mean average of scores in the knowledge test is 4.96 indicating that most of

the respondents have a moderate knowledge level (Table 12). From the four municipalities,

Siniloan, Laguna has the highest mean score of 5.31 followed by Bay, Laguna (4.92), Biñan,

Laguna (4.86) and Cardona, Rizal (4.74).

Table 12. Mean scores of fisherfolks on the ten-point knowledge level MUNICIPALITY MEAN SCORE

Bay, Laguna Biñan, Laguna Siniloan, Laguna Cardona, Rizal TOTAL MEAN AVERAGE

4.92 4.86 5.31 4.74

4.96

The knowledge test used was a ten-point true-or-false exam. As indicated by their

itemized scores (Table 13), majority of the respondents know about the physical

characteristics of the janitor fish (98%), that this proliferation is affecting Laguna de Bay

negatively (85%), and that there is the janitor fish population in Laguna de Bay is high

(81%). These data is indicated by their scores in Statements 3, 10, and 2, respectively.

Conversely, many of the respondents did not know that fishes from Laguna de Bay

have high heavy metal content (61%) and that the janitor fish can be eaten (54%), as

indicated in their scores for statements 7 and 5, respectively. In the FGD, the JFPT expected

such answers from the fisherfolks. According to the JFPT Assistant Project Leader:

“I expect [na] ‘yung mga makakausap mong fisherfolks [ay] may mga

nalilito. May magsasabing hindi totooo ‘yung results nung study [about heavy

metal content] kasi kabuhayan nila ‘yan.”

(I expect that some your respondent-fisherfolks would be confused. Some will

say that the results of the study about the heavy metal content is not true

because it is their livelihood.)

--- JFPT Assistant Project Leader

Many of the respondents also indicated that they didn’t know that the janitor fish can

be used as organic fertilizer (53%); that the janitor fish skin can be used as leather (48%);

and whether janitor fish from Laguna Lake is safe to eat (41%), as indicated by their scores

in statements 8, 9 and 6, respectively.

Table 13.

Sco

res o

f th

e r

esp

on

de

nts

pe

r item

in

the

ten

-po

int

kno

wle

dge

te

st

STATEMENTS

CORRECT

WRONG

DON’T KNOW

NO ANSWER

N = 130

(%)

N = 130

(%)

N = 130

(%)

N = 130

(%)

1. Ang natural na tirahan ng janitor fish ay ang

Laguna de Bay. (Laguna de Bay is the natural

habitat of janitor fishes.)

(F

AL

SE

) 57

44

40

31

33

25

0

0

2. Maunti lang ang bilang ng janitor fish sa

Laguna de Bay. (Laguna de Bay only has a

small population of janitor fishes.)

(F

ALS

E)

105

81

7

5

17

13

1

1

3. Matigas ang balat at matulis ang kaliskis ng

janitor fish. (Janitor fishes have tough ang spiky

scales.)

(T

RU

E)

128

98

2

2

0

0

0

0

4. Ang janitor fish ay pwede gawing pakain o

feeds sa m

anok at baboy.

(Janitor fishes can be

used as fishmeal for hogs and chickens.)

(T

RU

E)

63

48

21

16

46

35

0

0

5. Ang janitor fish ay m

aaaring lutiin at kainin.

(Janitor fishes can be cooked and are edible.)

(T

RU

E)

20

15

70

54

39

30

1

1

6. Ligtas kainin ang janitor fish m

ula sa Laguna

de Bay.

(It is safe to eat janitor fishes from

Laguna de Bay.)

(F

AL

SE

) 58

45

18

14

53

41

1

1

7. Ang m

ga isda m

ula sa Laguna de Bay, gaya

ng janitor fish, tilapia, at dalag, ay ng m

ataas

na antas ng naglalaman nakalalasong m

etal.

(Laguna de Bay fishes, such as janitor fish,

tilapia, and dalag, have high heavy metal

content.)

(TR

UE

)

18

14

79

61

33

25

0

0

8. Hindi pwedeng gamiting pampataba ng lupa

ang janitor fish. (Janitor fishes cannot be used

as fertilizer.)

(FA

LS

E)

31

24

30

23

69

53

0

0

9. Ang balat ng janitor fish ay pwedeng gawing

leather.

(Janitor fishes can be used as leather.)

(TR

UE

) 37

28

31

24

62

48

0

0

10. Ang janitor fish ay walang m

asamang epekto

sa Laguna de Bay. (The janitor fishes have no

negative impact for Laguna de Bay.)

(F

AL

SE

) 111

85

5

4

14

11

0

0

Perceived Effectiveness of the Communication Strategy of LLDA-JFPT

In this study, ten statements were used to measure the effectiveness of the communication

strategy used by the LLDA-JFPT. Using a five-level Likert scale, the respondents’ weighted

scores were classified as effective, neutral perception and not effective. A weighted score of 0.00

to 2.99 is classified as not effective, weighted score of 3.00 to 3.99 as neutral perception, and

weighted score of 4.00 to 5.00 as effective.

Majority (62%) of the respondents perceives the LLDA-JFPT’s communication strategy

as neither effective nor ineffective (Table 14). On the other hand, 38% of the respondents believe

that the communication strategies used were not effective and only one respondent (1%)

perceived it as effective.

Table 14. Fisherfolks’ perceived effectiveness of the communication strategies

PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS FREQUENCY

n = 130 PERCENTAGE

Not Effective Neutral Perception Effective

49 80

1

38 62

1

Although majority of the respondents have a neutral perception on the communication

strategies used by LLDA, many fisherfolks expressed their dismay over LLDA-JFPT’s

implementation of the project. As proof, according to some fisherfolks, LLDA-JFPT did not

consult them regarding the project and that there is still a large janitor fish population in the lake.

According to the respondents:

“Hindi epektibo ang programa dahil karamihan sa mga mangingisda ay

problema pa rin ang janitor fish. Dahil [sa] halip na isda ang nahuhuli nila, mas

marami pa ang huli nilang janitor fish kaya gutom ang pamilya. [May]

konsultasyon dapat sa bawat barangay.”

(The program is not effective because janitor fish still is a problem for many

fisherfolks. Instead of catching other fishes, they still have a large catch of janitor

fish that is why they cannot provide food for their families. There should be

consultations for every barangay.)

--- Fisherfolk-respondent

“Epektibo ang pagbibigay nila ng kaalaman ngunit hindi nila mabigyan ng

solusyon kung paano ito mauubos o mawawala sa Laguna de Bay. Sapagkat, ito

ang napakalaki naming problema ng mangingisda.”

(The dissemination of information is effective. However, they still haven’t given

any concrete solution on how to lessen o eradicate the janitor fish population in

Laguna de Bay, because this is a big problem for us fisherfolks.)

--- Fisherfolk-respondent

The ten statements used in measuring perceived effectiveness are based on the different

criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of a communication strategy namely, acceptability,

comprehensibility, attractiveness, self-involvement, persuasion, and information source’s

credibility.

Using the weighted mean scores of the fisherfolks’ responses, nine of the ten statements

indicate that majority of the respondents perceives LLDA-JFPT’s communication strategy as

ineffective (Table 15). Only Statement 1 yielded a neutral perception score from the fisherfolks.

This statement reflects the respondents’ perception on the LLDA’s credibility as a source of

information regarding the janitor fish proliferation.

The nine statements where the fisherfolk indicated an ineffective perception are about:

the acceptability of the message code and treatment used by the LLDA-JFPT (Statement 2); the

comprehensibility of the communication messages in interpersonal channels used (Statement 3);

the efficient use of communication materials (Statement 4); LLDA-JFPT’s persuasive capability

(Statement 5); the attractiveness of mass media used (Statement 6); the acceptability of the

message code and treatment in mass media used (Statement 7); the comprehensibility of the

communication messages in the mass media channels used (Statement 8 and 9); and the

distribution of communication materials (Statement 10).

Table 15. W

eig

hte

d s

co

res f

or

the

pe

rcep

tio

n o

f eff

ective

ne

ss o

f fishe

rfo

lks o

n t

he

com

mu

nic

atio

n s

trate

gie

s u

se

d b

y

LL

DA

-JF

PT

STATEMENTS

STRONGLY

AGREE

AGREE

NEUTRAL

DISAGREE

STRONGLY

DISAGREE

WEIGHTED

MEAN

N =

130

(%)

N =

130

(%)

N =

130

(%)

N =

130

(%)

N =

130

(%)

1. Kapani-paniwala ang m

ga tauhan ng LLDA sa

pagbibigay kaalaman ukol sa problema sa

janitor fish tuwing ito’y m

ay seminar, training,

o forum. (During seminars, trainings, or forums,

LLDA personnels are credible as sources of

inform

ation on the janitor fish problem.)

10

8

24

18

63

48

24

18

9

7

3.02

2. Ang m

ga imporm

asyo

ng ibinahagi sa m

ga

seminar, training, o m

ga forum ay masyadong

teknikal. (During seminars, trainings, or forums,

inform

ation disseminated are too technical.)

2

2

34

26

64

49

23

18

7

5

2.99

3. Madaling m

aintindihan ang m

ga tinuturo sa

mga seminar, training, o m

ga forum. (During

seminars, trainings, or forums, inform

ation

disseminated are easy to understand.)

6

5

29

22

59

45

24

18

12

9

2.95

4. Hindi kumpleto ang gamit ng LLDA kapag m

ay

seminar, training, o m

ga forum. (During

seminars, trainings, or forums, materials used by

LLDA are not complete.)

4

3

26

20

77

59

18

14

5

4

2.95

5. Nahihikayat ng m

ga seminar, training, o forum

ng LLDA ang partisipasyon ng m

ga

mangingisda. (The seminars, trainings, or forums

encourage the participation of the fisherfolks.)

11

8

23

18

60

46

21

16

15

12

2.95

Table 15. W

eig

hte

d s

co

res f

or

the

pe

rcep

tio

n o

f eff

ective

ne

ss o

f fishe

rfo

lks o

n t

he

com

mu

nic

atio

n s

trate

gie

s u

se

d b

y

LL

DA

-JF

PT

(co

ntin

ued)

STATEMENTS

STRONGLY

AGREE

AGREE

NEUTRAL

DISAGREE

STRONGLY

DISAGREE

WEIGHTED

MEAN

N =

130

(%)

N =

130

(%)

N =

130

(%)

N =

130

(%)

N =

130

(%)

6. Maganda o kaaya-aya ang m

ga leaflet, poster,

video, exhibit na ginamit ng LLDA. (The

leaflets, posters, videos, and exhibits used by

LLDA are attractive.)

4

3

23

18

69

53

27

21

7

5

2.92

7. Ang m

ga imporm

asyo

ng nasa m

ga leaflet,

poster, video, exhibit na ginamit ng LLDA ay

masyadong teknikal. (Inform

ation in the leaflets,

posters, videos, and exhibits used by LLDA are

too technical.)

3

2

31

24

77

59

13

10

6

5

2.91

8. Hindi sapat ang m

ga imporm

asyo

ng

ibinabahagi ng m

ga leaflet, poster, video,

exhibit na ginamit ng LLDA sa pagbibigay

imporm

asyon ukol sa problema sa janitor fish.

(Inform

ation in the leaflets, posters, videos, and

exhibits used by LLDA are not enough or

incomplete.)

5

4

32

25

72

55

12

9

9

7

2.91

9. Madaling m

atandaan ang m

ga imporm

asyo

ng

ibinibigay ng m

ga leaflet, poster, video, exhibit

na ginamit ng LLDA. (Inform

ation in the leaflets,

posters, videos, and exhibits used by LLDA are

easy to recall.)

3

2

16

12

79

61

29

22

3

2

2.90

10. Ang m

ga leaflet, poster, video, exhibit at iba

pang m

ga ginamit ng LLDA ay hindi maiging

naipamahagi/naipaalam sa m

ga m

angingisda

ng Lawa ng Laguna. (The leaflets, posters,

videos, exhibits and other mass media used are

properly distributed/discussed to the fisherfolks.)

9

7

25

19

69

53

23

18

4

3

2.91

Relationship between Level of Awareness and Knowledge Level

In order to determine if there is a significant relationship between the level of awareness

of the fisherfolks on the communication strategies of LLDA-JFPT and the knowledge level of

the fisherfolks on the janitor fish problem, the Pearson’s chi-square test of independence was

used. A contingency table for the level of awareness and the knowledge level was prepared for

the computation of the chi-square value.

Results show that most (63%) of the respondents have a moderate knowledge level and a

low awareness level of the LLDA-JFPT’s communication activities and materials (Table 16).

Moreover, twenty-six of the fisherfolk respondents (20%) scored low in the knowledge level test

and have low awareness level of the communication channels used.

Based from these results, it was found that the respondents’ level of awareness is

significantly related to their knowledge level. The computed value of chi-square is 18.11, at 95%

confidence level and with the degree of freedom of 4. On the other hand, the critical chi-square

value at 95% confidence level with the degree of freedom of 4 is 9.49 (Freund, Williams, and

Perles, 1993). Since 18.11 is greater than 9.49, the null hypothesis is rejected.

Table 16. Contingency table for the relationship between level of awareness and knowledge level

LEVEL OF AWARENESS KNOWLEDGE LEVEL

High Moderate Low TOTAL N = 130 (%) N = 130 (%) N = 130 (%)

High 2 2 1 1 1 1 4 Moderate 3 2 10 8 2 2 15

Low 4 3 81 62 26 20 111 TOTAL 9 7 92 71 29 23 130

Degree of Freedom = 4 Confidence Level = 95% Alpha = 0.05

Relationship between Level of Awareness and Perceived Effectiveness

The relationship between the level of awareness on the communication strategies and the

perceived effectiveness was also determined using the Pearson’s chi-square test of independence.

A contingency table was again prepared for computation of the chi-square value of the level of

awareness and the perceived effectiveness.

Results show that many (53%) of the respondents have a low level of awareness of the

communication materials and activities and have a neutral perception of their effectiveness

(Table 17). In addition, a significant number of respondents (32%) have low level of awareness

of the communication materials and have a negative perception of their effectiveness.

It was found that the respondents’ level of awareness of the communication materials and

activities has no significant relationship with their perception of their effectiveness. The

computed value of chi-square is 8.00 at 95% confidence level and with the degree of freedom of

4. The critical chi-square value at 95% confidence level with the degree of freedom of 4 is 9.49

(Freund, Williams, and Perles, 1993). Since 8.00 is less than 9.49, we accept the null hypothesis

that the level of awareness and perception of effectiveness are independent.

Table 17. Contingency table for the relationship between level of awareness and perception of effectiveness

LEVEL OF AWARENESS PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS

Effective Neutral Not Effective TOTAL N = 130 (%) N = 130 (%) N = 130 (%)

High 0 0 2 2 2 2 4 Moderate 1 1 9 7 5 4 15

Low 0 0 69 53 42 32 111 TOTAL 1 1 80 62 49 38 130

Degree of Freedom = 4 Confidence Level = 95% Alpha = 0.05

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

Due to the continuous proliferation of the janitor fish population in Laguna de Bay, the

Laguna Lake Development Authority created the Janitor Fish Project Team in May 2005 to

implement the World Bank-funded project Benefitting from the Dreaded Janitor Fish. For two

years, the LLDA-JFPT sought various ways “to create an economic demand” for the janitor fish

in Laguna de Bay. At the end of the project, the team consequently concluded that the janitor fish

can be used as fishmeal for pigs and chickens and that laboratory tests showed high heavy metal

contents from fishes caught in Laguna de Bay.

In this regard, this undergraduate study primarily assessed the effectiveness of the

communication strategy used by LLDA-JFPT in communicating the risks of the janitor fish

proliferation in Laguna de Bay, as perceived by the fisherfolks.

Specifically, this study aimed to answer the following questions:

1. What communication strategies (messages, channels, and approaches) were used

by LLDA-JFPT in communicating the risks of janitor fish proliferation to the

fisherfolks of Laguna de Bay?

2. How aware are the respondents of the different communication materials and

activities used by the LLDA-JFPT?

3. What communication channel and approach do the respondents prefer the most in

receiving information about the risks of janitor fish proliferation?

4. How knowledgeable are the respondents about the janitor fish proliferation in

Laguna de Bay?

5. How did the respondents perceive the communication strategy’s effectiveness in

communicating the risks of janitor fish proliferation to the fisherfolks of Laguna

de Bay?

6. Is there a relationship between the level of awareness of fisherfolks and their

knowledge level on the janitor fish problem?

7. Is there a relationship between the level of awareness of fisherfolks and their

perception of the effectiveness of the communication strategy of LLDA JFPT?

This study used focus group discussion (FGD) and survey as its research instruments.

The FGD was conducted with the LLDA-JFPT in order to determine the communication

strategies used in communicating the risks of janitor fish proliferation to the Laguna de Bay

fisherfolks. On the other hand, self-administered survey questionnaires (SAQs) were formulated

in order to determine the: (1) fisherfolks’ socio-demographic characteristics; (2) their knowledge

level of janitor fish proliferation; (3) their level of awareness on the communication materials

and activities; (4) their preferred communication channel and communication approach; and (5)

their perceived effectiveness of the communication strategies.

The survey was conducted in four lakeshore municipalities: Biñan, Bay, and Siniloan in

Laguna and Cardona in Rizal. One hundred-thirty fisherfolks were proportionally sampled as the

respondents of the study.

The focus group discussion was used to enrich the survey data, which were analyzed

through frequency counts, percentages, and a scoring system. The relationship between the level

of awareness and the knowledge level was determined using the Pearson’s chi-square test of

independence. The same test was used in determining the relationship between the level of

awareness of the fisherfolks and their perceived effectiveness of these communication strategies.

Communication Strategies Used in Communicating the Janitor Fish Proliferation

The Laguna Lake Development Authority established the Janitor Fish Project Team to

implement the project “Benefiting from the Dreaded Janitor Fish” in May 2005. This project

primarily aimed “to identify a beneficial use leading to the creation of an economic demand for

the janitor fish such that it would be actively harvested by the community of fishers in the

Laguna de Bay region” (Cariño, 2007).

Composed of a project leader, an assistant project leader, two research assistants, four

project staffs, and an auditor, the LLDA-JFPT coordinated with different agencies for the

implementation of the project from 2005 to 2007. When the project ended, the completion report

submitted to the Development Marketplace stated that the project’s overall achievement is

“above expectations.”

According to the Development Marketplace completion report (2007), the project

achieved the following: (a) the mobilization of several fisherfolk organizations to continuously

catch janitor fish; (b) gathering of conclusive data on janitor fish’s potential as fishmeal for pigs

and chickens; (c) improved growth and performance of the janitor fish-feeded pigs and chickens

in lower production costs; and (d) conduct of laboratory tests showing high mercury and other

heavy metal content, not just in janitor fish, but also in tilapia and dalag caught in Laguna de

Bay.

Communication Messages

From the focus group discussion with LLDA-JFPT members, the following themes were

identified: the beneficial uses of the janitor fish, results of the team’s researches, and janitor fish

as food.

According to the LLDA-JFPT, the beneficial uses of the janitor fish were communicated

to the fisherfolks. Some of the benefits communicated were the potential of the janitor fish for

organic fertilizer, biofuel, leather, and, more importantly, as fishmeal for pigs and chickens.

Aside from these, LLDA-JFPT’s researches also discovered the high heavy metal content, not

just in janitor fish, but also in tilapia and dalag caught in Laguna de Bay. Lastly, because of the

deteriorating state of Laguna de Bay, janitor fish caught here were advised not to be eaten.

Communication Channels

In communicating the janitor fish problem to the Laguna de Bay fisherfolks, the LLDA-

JFPT used various interpersonal channels, group media, and mass media. Interpersonal channels

used include the individual meetings/consultations with the fisherfolks and house visits. Among

the group media used were orientation meetings, trainings, a public disclosure forum, and other

meetings and seminars. The mass media used by the LLDA-JFPT include: (a) leaflets, brochures,

flyers; (b) LLDA advisories and statements; (c) the Final Project Report; (d) exhibits; (e)

websites; (f) several radio interviews; and (g) video-documentaries.

Communication Approaches

The communication approaches used by the JFPT in communicating the risks of the

janitor fish proliferation were identified as informing, educating, and motivating.

Profile of the Survey Respondents

Majority of the respondents are male (88%) and are married (85%). Moreover, the 41 to

50 years old age bracket had the most number of respondents with 32 percent and that almost

one-third of the respondents (33%) have a 6 to 8 household size.

Awareness of LLDA-JFPT’s Communication Activities and Materials

In order to determine the level of awareness of the fisherfolks on the communication

channels used by LLDA, the respondents were asked to identify which of the given

communication channels used by the JFPT were they aware of. These data were tallied and

categorized into three: high level of awareness, moderate level of awareness and low level of

awareness.

Overall, almost all of the respondents (94%) have a low level of awareness on the

communication materials and activities, signifying that majority of the respondents are aware of

0 to 4 channels from the 13 given communication channels. Only five percent of the respondents

have a moderate level of awareness and another two percent for the high level of awareness.

Interpersonal Channels

Results showed that the individual consultations yielded a moderate level of awareness

while house visits yielded a low level of awareness. Almost half of the respondents (45%)

indicated that none of the two activities was employed by the JFPT.

Group Media

All communication activities categorized as group media yielded a low level of

awareness from the respondents. Only 23 percent were aware of the orientation meetings, 19

percent for other meetings, 16 percent for the public disclosure forum, and 15 percent for the

training-workshops. Forty-two percent of the respondents indicated that none of these activities

was used by the JFPT.

Mass Media Channels

Similar to the group, the mass media channels used by the JFPT also yielded low level of

awareness scores from the fisherfolks. Among these channels, the radio has the highest level of

awareness with 26 percent. Conversely, the fisherfolks were least familiar with the website and

exhibits used by LLDA-JFPT.

Preferred Communication Channel and Approach

This study also determined the fisherfolks’ preference of communication channel and

approach when it comes to receiving information regarding the janitor fish proliferation in

Laguna de Bay.

The respondents mostly prefer interpersonal channels than group media and mass media.

Majority of the respondents prefer receiving information through meetings (66%), television

(64%), and individual consultations (54%). The internet (7%) and exhibit (5%) were the least

preferred channels of communication. This indicates that the respondents only want straight-

forward information about the issue and only a select few are interested in further details or

elaboration.

For the communication approach preferences, 73 percent preferred the informing

communication approach. Aside from this, almost one-third (38%) of the respondents wanted to

be educated and a very few wished to be persuaded (16%), motivated (11%), or entertained

(9%).

Knowledge Level on the Janitor Fish Proliferation in Laguna de Bay

To measure the fisherfolks’ knowledge level of the janitor fish proliferation in Laguna de

Bay, a ten-point knowledge test was given to the respondents. The respondents’ scores on the

knowledge test were tallied and categorized into high knowledge level, moderate knowledge level

and low knowledge level.

Majority of the respondents (71%) have a moderate knowledge level on the janitor fish

problem. Meanwhile, 22 percent of the respondents have low knowledge and only seven percent

have high knowledge level on the janitor fish proliferation in Laguna de Bay. Overall, the

respondents’ knowledge score averaged at 4.96, still under the moderate knowledge level.

Perceived Effectiveness of the Communication Strategy of LLDA-JFPT

The respondents’ perceived effectiveness of the communication strategies used by the

JFPT was measured using a five-level Likert scale. Ten value-laden statements were given and

the respondents’ weighted scores were classified into three: effective, neutral perception and not

effective.

Majority (62%) of the respondents have a neutral perception of the effectiveness of the

communication strategies used by the LLDA. Furthermore, 38 percent of the respondents

perceived the communication strategies used by the LLDA-JFPT as ineffective and only one

percent had an effective perception of the communication strategies.

Overall, the respondents have an ineffective perception on the different criteria on the

communication strategy’s effectiveness. The only statement that yielded a neutral perception

score from the fisherfolks is the statement on LLDA-JFPT’s credibility as a source of

information regarding the janitor fish proliferation.

Relationship between Level of Awareness and Knowledge Level

Using the Pearson’s chi-square test of independence, the relationship between the level of

awareness of the fisherfolks on the communication strategy of LLDA-JFPT and the knowledge

level of the fisherfolks on the janitor fish problem.

Based from the gathered data, the computed value of chi-square is 18.11. This is at 95%

confidence level and with the degree of freedom of 4. This chi-square value is greater than the

critical value of the chi-square of 9.49. By rejecting the null hypothesis, the data signifies that the

level of awareness has a significant relationship with the knowledge level.

Relationship between Level of Awareness and Perceived Effectiveness

The Pearson’s chi-square test of independence was also used to determine the

relationship between the level of awareness on the communication strategies and their perceived

effectiveness.

From the given data, at 95% confidence level and with the degree of freedom of 4, the

computed value of chi-square is 8.00. This chi-square value is less than the critical value of the

chi-square of 9.49. This means that we accept the null hypothesis that the level of awareness has

a no significant relationship with the fisherfolks’ perception of effectiveness.

Conclusions

Based on the results of this study, the following can be concluded:

1. The communication messages disseminated by the Janitor Fish Project Team include: (a)

the beneficial uses of the janitor fish; (b) results of the team’s researches; and (c) janitor

fish as food. Alongside these, LLDA-JFPT also used several interpersonal channels,

group media, and mass media to disseminate these messages. Interpersonal channels used

include the individual consultations with the fisherfolks and house visits. Group media

used were orientation meetings, trainings, public disclosure forum, and other meetings

and seminars. Moreover, mass media channels used include leaflets, brochures, and

flyers, the Final Project Report, LLDA advisories and statements, a website, exhibits,

video-documentaries, and several radio interviews. The informing, educating, and

motivating communication approaches were used by the LLDA-JFPT.

2. In general, the fisherfolks have a low level of awareness on the communication materials

and activities used by LLDA-JFPT. In fact, only the individual consultations yielded a

moderate level of awareness. All other channels have low awareness level. This indicates

that the respondents were mostly not able to avail of the communication materials used or

attend the communication activities conducted by LLDA-JFPT. This further indicates the

need to widen the distribution and/or reach of these communication materials/activities in

order to increase visibility.

3. The respondents prefer interpersonal channels than group and mass media. Meetings,

television, and individual consultations were highly preferred. As with the

communication approaches, the informing communication approach is the most

preferred. This may indicate the need to promote the significance and relevance of

receiving additional information on the issue. If people see the importance of getting

more in-depth information so that they can make more informed decisions, their attitude

towards getting details and elaboration may change.

4. On the average, the fisherfolks of Laguna de Bay have a moderate knowledge level on

the janitor fish proliferation. According to the data gathered, the fisherfolks are highly

knowledgeable on the following information: (a) the janitor fish’s physical

characteristics; (b) the janitor fish’s detrimental effects on Laguna de Bay; and (c) the

presence of large population of janitor fish on the lake. Conversely, majority of the

respondents have wrong notions regarding the janitor fish’s viability as food and on the

high heavy metal content of Laguna de Bay fish. It is also important to note that majority

of the respondents have no idea about the janitor fish’s potential as organic fertilizer and

leather.

5. The overall weighted mean score of the respondents on their perception of the LLDA-

JFPT’s communication strategy effectiveness signified that they perceive the

communication strategies used as ineffective.

6. There is a significant relationship between the fisherfolks’ level of awareness on the

communication strategies and their knowledge level on the janitor fish proliferation.

Thus, the wider the scope and/or distribution of communication materials/activities, there

is a higher probability of creating greater awareness regarding an issue.

7. Results also showed that there is no significant relationship with the fisherfolks’ level of

awareness on the communication strategies with their perception on the effectiveness of

these strategies. Thus, regardless of degree of exposure, the respondents perceived the

communication strategy used by LLDA-JFPT as ineffective.

Recommendations

Based from the results of this study, the following recommendations are suggested.

For the Laguna Lake Development Authority

1. Since there is a low awareness level on LLDA-JFPT’s communication materials and

activities, LLDA should try to come up with another project or program that will address

the need to disseminate information on the janitor fish proliferation in Laguna de Bay.

There should be proper coordination and consultation with the different FARMCs and

MAO in order to ensure maximum participation from the fisherfolks.

2. The use of interpersonal channels and group media should be continued since these

channels were highly preferred by the fisherfolks. As with the mass media, LLDA should

consider using the television, radio, and newspapers as means of disseminating

information on the janitor fish proliferation.

3. The Laguna Lake Development Authority should also try to coordinate with the different

MFARMCs within the Laguna de Bay region and clarify the standing issues with regard

to the results of the project “Benefiting from the Dreaded Janitor Fish”. Among the

issues to be clarified is the issue on the high heavy metal contents of the fishes caught in

Laguna de Bay and janitor fish’s viability as food. In addition, the dissemination of

information about the beneficial uses of the janitor fishes should also be intensified.

For further studies

1. Since this study is limited in measuring the effectiveness of the communication strategy

employed by LLDA-JFPT about the janitor fish proliferation as perceived by the

fisherfolks, studies should also be conducted on the perception of other

stakeholders/participants of the project. These include local government units, members

of the academe, hog and chicken raisers, and even citizens living within the lake region.

2. Other studies may also be conducted on the effectiveness of the communication strategies

on other issues or problems addressed by the Laguna Lake Development Authority.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ambrosio, R. F. (1994). Information Sources and Awareness of Agroforestry by Upland Farmers in Barangay Silang, Los Bańos, Laguna. Unpublished undergraduate research, College of Development Communication, UP Los Baños.

Asis, L. E. (1996). Environmental Awareness, Attitudes, Practices and Sources of Environmental Information in Sta Cruz, Laguna. Unpublished undergraduate research, College of Development Communication, UP Los Baños.

Babbie, E. R. (1975). The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc.

Banos, M. (2006, June 5). Janitor Fish Threatens Asia's Largest Marshland. Retrieved January 30, 2008, from the World Wide Web: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/10714.

Baran, S. J. & Davis, D. K. (2000). Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future (2nd Ed.). Belmont, California: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Benavente, J. B. (1999). Environmental Awareness, Attitudes, Practices and Sources of Environmental Information in Lumban, Laguna. Unpublished undergraduate research, College of Development Communication, UP Los Baños.

Bernardo, E. B. (2006). Evaluation of the Communication Strategies Used By Barangay Health Workers in Promoting Reproductive Health to the Iraya Mangyans of Abra de Ilog, Occidental Mindoro. Unpublished undergraduate research, College of Development Communication, UP Los Baños.

Bonilla, R. G. (1994). Environmental Awareness among Barangay Residents in San Pablo City and thier Attitude towards an Environmental Communication Campaign. Unpublished undergraduate research, College of Development Communication, UP Los Baños.

Cardona, R. M. (1990). Mass Media and Views On Solutions To Environmental Problems. Unpublished graduate research, College of Development Communication, UP Los Baños.

Cariño, J. K. III. (2007). Benefiting from the Dreaded Janitor Fish Final Report. Quezon City: Design Plus.

Cedillo. M. L. G. B. (1996). Levels of Awareness and Attitudes on Environmental Issues and Garbage Disposal Practices of Calamba, Laguna Residents. Unpublished undergraduate research, College of Development Communication, UP Los Baños.

Chavez, J. M., de la Paz, R. M, Monahar, S. K., Pagulayan, R. C. & Carandang, J. R. (2006, January 17). New Philippine record of South American sailfin catfishes (Pisces: Loricariidae). Retrieved February 6, 2008, from the World Wide Web: http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2006f/zt01109p068.pdf.

De Guzman, A. A. B. (2003). Inter-Organizational Flow in a Fishing Community with a Marine Protected Area, Baliangao, Misamis Occidental. Unpublished undergraduate research, College of Development Communication, UP Los Baños.

de la Paz, V. J. A Briefing on Risk Communication. In D. G. Fernandez & V. B. Valez (Eds.). (1999). Risky Ventures: Readings on Communication Health and Environmental News and Issues. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University.

DeFleur, M. L. & Dennis, E. E. (1991). Understanding Mass Communication (4th Ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

dela Cruz, M. A. R. (2007). Communicating Environmental Risks: The Case of Laguna Lake Development Authority’s (LLDA) Janitor Fish Project. Unpublished undergraduate research, College of Development Communication, UP Los Baños.

Development Marketplace. (2007, June 30). DM 2005 Completion Report. Retrieved April 3, 2008, from Development Marketplace website: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEVMARKETPLACE/Resources/05dm3765CompletionReportJFP.doc.

Drastic Measures Needed to Save Laguna de Bay. (2007, November 18). Retrieved February 6, 2008, from Mundong Noypi [Filipino World] website: http://mundongnoypi.blogspot.com/2007/11/drastic-measures-needed-to-save-laguna.html.

Fernandez, D. G. & Valez, V. B. (Eds.). (1999). Risky Ventures: Readings on Communication Health and Environmental News and Issues. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University.

Flay, B. R. & Cook, T. D. (1982). Evaluation of Mass Media Prevention Campaigns. In R. E. Rice and W. J. Paisley (Eds.), Public Communication Campaigns (pp. 239-264). California: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Flor, A. G. (2004). Environmental Communication: Principles, Approacches and Strategies of Communication Applied to Environmental Management. Quezon City: UP Open University.

Freund, J. E., Williams, F. J., & Perles, B. M. (1993). Elementary Business Statistics: The Modern Approach. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Glorioso, Norberto B. Jr. (1996). Communication Profile of Three Fishing Communities in Los Bańos, Laguna. Unpublished undergraduate research, College of Development Communication, UP Los Baños.

Laguna Lake Development Authority. (2007, February 7). Retrieved February 6, 2008, from the World Wide Web: http://www.llda.gov.ph

Laguna Lake Development Authority. (2007, October 2). Socio-Economic Features. Retrieved February 6, 2008, from the World Wide Web: http://www.llda.gov.ph/socio_eco_features.htm.

Laguna Lake Development Authority & Federation of River Basin Councils. (2005). Introduction. Retrieved February 9, 2008, from the World Wide Web: http://www.llda.gov.ph/ldbem/pdf/theme1.pdf.

Lapitan, J. C. (2004). Level of Environmental Awareness of Respondents from Three Selected Barangays in Bay, Laguna. Unpublished undergraduate research, College of Development Communication, UP Los Baños.

Lindell, M. K. & Perry, R. W. (2004). Communication Environmental Risk in Multiethnic Communities. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Lionberger, H. F. & Gwin, P. H. (1982). Communication Strategies: A Guide for Agricultural Change Agents. Danville, Illinois.

Llamoso, M. O. (1995). Public Awareness and Attitudes Towards Quarrying and Their Sources of Environmental Information. Unpublished undergraduate research, College of Development Communication, UP Los Baños.

Luna, I. G. & Mejia, A. (1998). The Legal Environment. In H. G. Severino (Ed.), The Green Guide: A Sourcebook on the Philippine Environment (2nd Ed.). Quezon City: Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism.

Mercado, C. M. (1999). Conducting and Managing Communication Survey Research: The Asian Experience. Quezon City: Development Consultants for Asia Africa Pacific.

McAlister, A. Antismoking Campaigns: Progress in Developing Effective Communications. In R. E. Rice & W. J. Paisley (Eds.), Public Communication Campaigns (pp. 239-264). California: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Newsland. (2006, July 1). Diffusion of Innovation Theory. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from Newsland: http://igrology.ru/files/27562/diffusion_of_innovation_theory_.pdf.

Office of Solid Waste & Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, US Environmental Protection Agency. (1990). Sites for our Solid Waste: A Guidebook for Effective Public Involvement. In D. G. Fernandez & V. B. Valez (Eds.). (1999). Risky Ventures: Readings on Communication Health and Environmental News and Issues. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University.

Quintos, C. R. (2007, October 23). Laguna Lake Development Authority Programs, Projects and Initiative. Retrieved February 6, 2008, from LLDA Presentation for the Bilateral Meeting with the Ministry of Environment, Japan. http://www.wepa-db.net/pdf/0710philippines/9_LLDA.pdf.

Revilla, R. DV. (1992). Public Awareness on Environmental Issues and thier Sources of Environmental Information. Unpublished undergraduate research, College of Development Communication, UP Los Baños.

Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.

Santiago, M. D. (2007, November 5). Explanatory Note on Senate Bill 1763. Retrieved February 6, 2008, from the World Wide Web: http://www.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/61485479!.pdf.

Sayritan, K. C. Q. (2006). An Evaluation of the Risk Communication Strategies of the Albay Public Safety and Emergency Management Office (APSEMO). Unpublished undergraduate research, College of Development Communication, UP Los Baños.

Severino, H. G. (1998). Investigating the Environment. In H. G. Severino (Ed.), The Green Guide: A Sourcebook on the Philippine Environment (2nd ed.). Quezon City: Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism.

Sly, P. G. (Ed.). (1993). Laguna Lake Basin, Philippines: Problems and Opportunities. College, Laguna: Delos Reyes Printing Press.

Sly, P. G. (1993). Major Environmental Problems in Laguna Lake, Philippines: A Summary and Synthesis. In P. G. Sly (Ed.), Laguna Lake Basin, Philippines: Problems and Opportunities (pp 304-330). College, Laguna: Delos Reyes Printing Press.

Straubhaar, J. & LaRose, R. (2000). Media Now: Communications Media in The Information Age (2nd Ed.). Belmont, California: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Stuart, T. H. & Fernandez, R. A. (1992). Media Coverage of Environmental Problems and Policies in the Philippines. Media Asia (An Asian Mass Communication Quarterly), 19, (2) 63-71.

Tandang, J. V. (2007). Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices of Los Baños Residents on Environmental Issues. Unpublished undergraduate research, College of Development Communication, UP Los Baños.

Teope, M. R. Jr. (2007). Assessing the Effectiveness of Communication Strategies and Services of the Laguna Provincial Library as an Information Service Provider. Unpublished undergraduate research, College of Development Communication, UP Los Baños.

Tejada, M. B. A. (2007). Communication Strategies Used By Teens Healthquarters – Sta. Rosa in Promoting RH-related Messages among its Clients. Unpublished undergraduate research, College of Development Communication, UP Los Baños.

Tolentino, F. G. (2002). Youth’s Perception on the Communication Strategies used by the Tanauan City Government in Creating Awareness on Environmental Sanitation. Unpublished undergraduate research, College of Development Communication, UP Los Baños.

Torres, M. Z. A. (1990). The Relationship between Exposure to the DENR TV Ads and the Views of MSEUF College Students on Environmental Issues. Unpublished undergraduate research, College of Development Communication, UP Los Baños.

Valdez, M. C. S. (1993). Exposure to RCBC TV Ads, Environmental Awareness and Knowledge of Third Year UPLB Rural High School Students. Unpublished undergraduate research, College of Development Communication, UP Los Baños.

Villas, A. L. T. (2007, February 21). Janitor Fish Eradication Drive Stepped Up. Retrieved February 6, 2008, from the World Wide Web: http://www.llda.gov.ph/news/rp_feb_21_janitor.htm.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE

1. What were the particular topics communicated to the fisherfolks regarding the janitor fish

proliferation in Laguna de Bay?

2. What were the communication channels used by the LLDA-JFPT in communicating the

risks of janitor fish proliferation in Laguna de Bay?

3. What were the communication approaches used by the LLDA-JFPT in communicating

the risks of janitor fish proliferation in Laguna de Bay?

APPENDIX B FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION TRANSCRIPTION

Focus Group Discussion Transcription August 2008 Attendance: Dwight Jason Ronan – Researcher Jose K. Cariño III – JFPT Project Leader Haidee C. Piniero – JFPT Assistant Project Leader Roman V. Corpuz – Project Staff DJRONAN: Magandang hapon. Ako po si Dwight Jason Ronan at nandito po kami ngayon sa Laguna

Lake Development Authority Office dito sa Calauan, Laguna. At kasama po natin ang

mga miyembro ng Janitor Fish Project Team para pag-usapan ang mga communication

strategies na ginamit ng LLDA-JFPT in communicating risks of the janitor fish

proliferation in Laguna de Bay. So, magpapakilala po muna tayo.

JCARIÑO: Ako si Jose Cariño, Division Chief ng Community Development ng LLDA. Ako ang naging

Project Leader ng Janitor Fish Project or Benefiting from the Dreaded Janitor Fish Project

which was funded by the Development Marketplace of the World Bank.

HPINIERO: I’m Haidee Piniero, Project Team Member.

RCORPUZ: Roman Corpuz, Project Staff.

DJRONAN: Magandang hapon po sa ating lahat. Sir Cariño, pwede niyo po ba kaming bigyan ng

brief backgrounder kung paano nagsimula ang Janitor Fish Project Team at ‘yung project

na Benifiting from Dreaded Janitor Fish?

JCARIÑO: Some time in the early 2001-2002, naging issue itong proliferation of the janitor fish in

the lake. So, there was a lot of clamor to address this problem. At that time, it was a

little understood phenomenon. Because it was something new, there was a lot of

concern, especially at the part of the fisherfolk, who understandably were the directly

affected sector. So, some time in 2005, early 2005, there was this opportunity to secure

some funding. So, we wrote a proposal and submitted this to a grant-making competition

program of the World Bank on a global level. Fortunately, the proposal was chosen as

one of the 71 finalists. Out of over 2700 entries, only 71 were chosen as finalists. The

finalists were required to submit a full-blown proposal and go to Washington, D.C. to

defend the proposals at the World Bank headquarters, which we did in May 2005. We

participated in that event and fortunately we were chosen only one among 30 recipients

of the grant for that year. But, as even the title of the program will tell you, this is an

invasive species that has been introduced into a local ecosystem.

-more-

FGD Transcription...222

JCARIÑO: This species did not have any value at the time, whether for aquaculture or for food, for

whatever, only as an ornamental fish. So, the project sought to establish a beneficial use

for this invasive species.

DJRONAN: Nung nagsimula ‘yung project, what were the specific topics ‘yung ikinomunicate natin

and what were the findings of the project na ikinomunicate natin specifically for the

fisherfolks?

JCARIÑO: Among other things, we tried to look for a beneficial use. So, we tried looking at various

uses, consulted people, find out what possible use this could be put to. At the end, it was

determined na ang most beneficial use was as fishmeal, as substrate for fishmeal, kasi

it’s not a poisonous fish. In fact, our research showed that it was eaten in its original

habitat, which is the Amazon River Basin. So, I recall one man, ‘yung sinabi nung co-

finalist namin sa Washington, D.C. Sabi niya, “Joey, all you have to do is to teach the

people how to eat this fish,” because it is eaten and it is made into fishmeal wayback in

South America, from where it originates. Now, a complication arose because probably in

its original habitat hindi polluted ‘yung waters. In the case of Laguna de Bay, it’s a

polluted environment. Needless to say, whatever lives in such a polluted environment

absorbs such pollution

DJRONAN: Sir, does this have something to do with the heavy metal content of the fishes?

JCARIÑO: Yes. From the very beginning, it was determined that the janitor fish, specifically at that

time, exhibited high traces of heavy metals. We have five types actually, cadmium,

mercury, lead, arsenic, and chromium.

DJRONAN: Sir, ‘yung heavy metal content po ba ay specifically na-communicate po natin sa ating

mga municipal FARMCs natin?

JCARIÑO: Nung natapos ‘yung project, it was part of the project design ‘yung disclosure. So,

talagang requirement ‘yun that we disclose the results of the project to a big gathering of

different people – experts from UPLB, environmentalists, fisherfolks, local government

officials. It was a big gathering right here in this conference room.

And we did not hold anything back. We presented the results as the project showed. Yes,

I would say na-communicate ito.

DJRONAN: Aside from the heavy metal content, what other information were communicated to the

fisherfolk specifically? May mga information ba regarding its beneficial use?

JCARIÑO: Yes.

-more-

FGD Transcription...333

DJRONAN: Specifically, ano po ‘yung mga na-communicate natin on the specific use of the janitor

fish?

JCARIÑO: Nakausap namin ‘yung mga proponents of various uses ng janitor fish. There was

someone who was studying the oil content. Some study the use of the fish for its oil

content and then transforming this into fuel.

DJRONAN: Biodiesel po, sir?

JCARIÑO: Parang ganun. And then, another one as sillage. Another one for organic fertilizer. Some

with its skin into leather. Of course, what we thought was the best use was as fishmeal.

Because, like for example we use the bones, carbonize it, and use it as filter to water,

activated carbon, that would take out the cost. For leather, you use only the skin. For oil,

you do away with the oily parts, you allow it to be processed so that you are able to

extract the oil. In this case as fishmeal, you use to whole fish – scales, inedible or edible

parts. Those were communicated.

DJRONAN: Kasama rin po ba dito sir ‘yung janitor fish for production for chickens and pigs?

JCARIÑO: When we talk of fishmeal, it’s a raw material or ingredient for animal feeds, formulated in

different ways for poultry. Definitely, you have to mix it with other ingredients in the

right proportion so that it’s fit for hogs or for fish itself.

DJRONAN: Sir, na-communicate din po ba na edible ang mga janitor fishes dun sa mga mangingisda

po natin?

HPINIERO: Kasi when we did the orientation meetings, hindi lang na-mention ni sir, ‘yung first part

talaga nung project namin, after consulting with the experts in really what to do with it,

nagkaroon din kami ng series of orientations sa different towns. Actually ‘yung nabanggit

mong bayan, ‘yun mismo ang mga bayan ang pinuntahan namin. Tapos, most of these

are FARMCs. So, what we conveyed to them are actually, na hindi na naman nila

kailangan talaga dahil alam na nila, ‘yung problem about janitor fish, ‘yung effects nito.

They volunteered the information to us, tapos ano ‘yung mga experiences nila with the

janitor fish. So with that, kami naman on our end, ang ipinakita namin is just the

powerpoint presentation na ano ‘yung mga pwedeng mangyari within the project, kasi

nag-uumpisa pa lang. Tapos, ‘yung paano nagkaroon ng funds, para maniwala sila na

maki-engage talaga sila sa amin. Dun na lumabas ‘yung question mo. Sila na ang

nagsabi na, “Kinakain nga namin ‘yan dito.”

JCARIÑO: Pang-inuman daw. Pampulutan.

-more-

FGD Transcription...444

DJRONAN: Ma’am, nabanggit niyo po kanina na nagkaroon ng mga orientation meetings. Gusto ko

lang po matanong kung ano po ‘yung mga communication channels na ginamit po ng

Janitor Fish Project Team in communicating these risks sa janitor fish. ‘Yung

communication channels po ay mahahati sa dalawa, meron po tayong tinatawag na

interpersonal channels at meron din po tayong mass media channels. ‘Yung interpersonal

channels, dito po napapaloob ‘yung mga orientation meetings, seminars, trainings,

symposia, mga face-to-face interviews. At sa mass media naman po, dito po napapaloob

‘yung mga brochures, leaflets, newsletters, powerpoint presentations, streamers. Anu-

ano po specifically ‘yung mga ginamit po ng Janitor Fish Project Team dun sa pag-ko-

communicate about the issue on the janitor fish?

RCORPUZ: Combination.

DJRONAN: Ano po ‘yung mga specific?

RCORPUZ: Pag ka-organize ng meetings, and then powerpoint presentation.

HPINIERO: May parang binigay po tayong parang one-page leaflet.

RCORPUZ: In the middle of the project, kailangan i-advise ‘yung mga fisherfolk, may visits din.

Because of the heavy metal contamination, naglabas ng advisories.

JCARIÑO: Naging persistent ‘yung clamor for the LLDA to really come up and say was it edible, was

it safe, etc? What effects did it have? So, in the middle of the project, we drafted a

statement which we released to the media. It was printed somewhere. Pero, siyempre

DENR (INAUDIBLE) then I think it was reported in the radio.

DJRONAN: Sa interpersonal channels, nagkaroon po ba tayo ng face-to-face?

JCARIÑO: ‘Yun nga ‘yung marami. ‘Yun ‘yung sa tingin kong main na interpersonal channel in

communicating the results of the project, as well as the orientation meetings.

HPINIERO: Parang ‘yung orientation namin dun pwedeng training. After nung face-to-face namin,

parang pinag-decide namin sila kung sino, kasi we cannot accomodate all for the

training. Kumuha lang ng 50 members from the group na maari namin i-train as project

partner nung project.

DJRONAN: Nagkaroon po ba tayo ng mga seminars?

HPINIERO: Oo. May actual pa.

DJRONAN: May training po or hands-on training?

HPINIERO: Oo.

-more-

FGD Transcription...555

JCARIÑO: To demonstrate how the fish is transformed into fishmeal. For example, we fabricated

equipments and then we allowed the particiapants during the training-seminar to really

witness.

HPINIERO: We invited the experts. Hindi kami ang nagbigay ng mga lectures.

DJRONAN: How about the mass media channels po, ano po ‘yung specific na ginamit? Leaflet?

HPINIERO: Leaflet, nagbigay kami nun. Nung latter part na, dun sa trainings may binigay rin kami ng

parang mga kits. Hindi ko lang ma-recall, pero lagi naman kaming may ganun.

JCARIÑO: The main is the project reports, we handed out to those interested.

RCORPUZ: Development of a website.

JCARIÑO: Ah, yes.

HPINIERO: Tapos may coverage din, nung ininterview kayo.

JCARIÑO: Sa radio.

HPINIERO: Hindi sa TV, ‘yung pinaglakad pa kayo sa (INAUDIBLE) (LAUGHS_

JCARIÑO: This generated a lot of controversy especially nung dinisclose ‘yung results.

HPINIERO: We also joined an exhibition sa UP parang Syensaya din.

JCARIÑO: That was in 2007.

DJRONAN: Ano po ba po ‘yung naging approach ng Janitor Fish Project Team sa pagpapaalam dun

sa mga mangingisda tungkol sa janitor fish? Meron po kasi tayong limang approach –

educating, informing, motivating, persuading, and entertaining.

HPINIERO: Sa tingin ko sir, ‘yung tatlo.

JCARIÑO: Ano?

HPINIERO: Para sa ‘kin, informing. Tapos ine-educate din sila based on our findings, tapos mono-

motivate to engage or to use this as fishmeal. Kasi after nung forum namin, nagkaroon

ng series of meetings ulit, pero ito hindi lang fisherfolk, kasama na ‘yung DOH.

JCARIÑO: Municipal health officers.

HPINIERO: Para ilabas ‘yung resulta.

JCARIÑO: After that, we disclosed this to a big group, this created a lot of interests, a lot of

concern. So, few months after, we received requests for us to go to that specific town

and make a presentation on the results of the project. Specifically, Siniloan, Pangil, Pakil.

(INAUDIBLE) Kasi partners namin ‘yung Siniloan River Council. I was interviewed several

times sa radio. But at the same time, we were trying to assess kasi we had very clear

recommendations that it can be used as fishmeal.

-more-

FGD Transcription...666

JCARIÑO: We tried to reach out to pontetial investors.

DJRONAN: As of now, wala pa pong...

JCARIÑO: May sumubok, pero they encountered the heavy metal problem. Talagang, they were not

able to address that problem.

DJRONAN: Looking back on the over-all project, from the planning to the implementation to the

presentation of the project results, ano po ‘yung masasabi regarding the Janitor Fish

Project? What are your assessments?

HPINIERO: Sa totoo lang, (INAUDIBLE). Everybody got interested, kasi pagkain na tao ‘yung naging

issue. (LAUGHS) Kahit anong public disclosure, we were advised not to emphasize or not

invite to media people because of the heavy metal content. Being an agency na related

dun sa Laguna Lake, parang mahirap din for us para sabihin na ito ‘yung naging resulta

ng study. What we did, kasi talagang nasa project agreement, where we really have to

disclose everything. We put up a website. Tapos ‘yan nilabas namin, hindi namin siya

pinagdadamot whoever wants it. Kung mababasa mo sa dyaryo, may mga conflicting

statements. Naglabas ang BFAR na safe na kainin ‘yung fish. So, maraming pang mga

bagay ng dapat (INAUDIBLE).

JCARIÑO: You know why is this controversial? Because it was made more controversial by the fact

that we sampled other species of fish and not just janitor fish. Nag-sample din kami ng

dalag and tilapia, and the same results. There were even instances when heavy metals of

these different species, with tilapia and dalag, were much higher than those found in

janitor fish which puts into question whether it was safe to eat the fish from the lake. I

think, that’s the controversial aspect. And so, there are other government agencies

concerned with this and they were flooded with queries and (INAUDIBLE) some

statements. Sinabi nila na safe na kainin, and I don’t know what the basis of that was.

DJRONAN: From the BFAR?

JCARIÑO: Yes. They said they sampled fishes, when we know when you really have undertake

comprehensively...

HPINIERO: I expect ‘yung mga makakusap mong fisherfolk, may mga nalilito. May magsasabing

hindi totooo ‘yung results nung study kasi kabuhayan nila ‘yan.

JCARIÑO: I think what should not be disregarded is the fact that heavy metals is a neurotoxin so it

affects intelligence. So, if accumulated in the body it reduces the intelligence level. It’s

not like cancer, for example, that you see the effects dramatically.

-more-

FGD Transcription...777

DJRONAN: Kumbaga matagal siyang mag-manifest in people.

JCARIÑO: In fact, in other areas, years bago they found out before they found out that it is was

effect of mercury poisoning. I don’t know how to make people understand that

something like that. It’s like smoking. People still keep on smoking even if they are being

told that it’s harmful to the health.

DJRONAN: Maraming salamat po dun sa information na binigay niyo po sa akin.

-end-

APPENDIX C LETTERS OF CORRESPONDENCE

APPENDIX D SAMPLE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX E LOCATION OF THE STUDY

LOCATION OF THE STUDY

Figure 2. Location of Biñan, Bay, and Siniloan, Laguna

Figure 3. Location of Cardona, Rizal

APPENDIX F FISHERFOLK POPULATION IN

THE PROVINCES OF LAGUNA AND RIZAL

Appendix F.1. Total number of fisherfolks per municipality/city in the Province of Laguna

TOTAL FISHERFOLKS PER MUNICIPALITY / CITY

PROVINCE OF LAGUNA

AS OF 2007

Municipality / City Part Time Full Time Total

1. Bay 125 385 510

2. Biñan 190 345 535

3. Cabuyao 230 370 600

4. Calamba 335 490 825

5. Calauan

6. Kalayaan 90 320 410

7. Los Baños 150 377 527

8. Lumban 140 265 405

9. Mabitac 120 340 460

10. Paete 140 355 495

11. Pakil 225 420 645

12. Pangil 175 360 535

13. Pila 250 410 660

14. San Pedro 160 390 550

15. Sta. Cruz 280 440 720

16. Sta. Rosa 190 375 565

17. Siniloan 230 288 518

18. Victoria 120 290 410

TOTAL 3,150 6,220 9,370

Appendix F.2. Total number of fisherfolks per municipality/city in the Province of Rizal

TOTAL FISHERFOLKS PER MUNICIPALITY / CITY

PROVINCE OF RIZAL

AS OF 2007

Municipality / City Part Time Full Time Total

1. Angono 188 272 460

2. Baras 143 196 339

3. Binangonan 1,521 2,564 4,085

4. Cainta 93 137 230

5. Cardona 1,398 2,101 3,499

6. Jalajala 409 1,059 1,468

7. Morong 206 302 508

8. Pililla 254 658 912

9. Tanay 310 711 1,021

10. Taytay 186 213 399

TOTAL 4,708 8,213 12,921

APPENDIX G COMMUNICATION MATERIALS USED BY

LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – JANITOR FISH PROJECT TEAM

Figure 4. Cover page of LLDA-JFPT’s Final Project Report

Figure 5. CD cover of LLDA-JFPT’s video-documentary entitled Biyaya ng Salot

Figure 6. Streamer used by LLDA-JFPT

Figure 7. Exhibit materials on janitor fishmeal making process used by LLDA-JFPT

Figure 8. Exhibit materials on janitor fish information and laboratory results used by LLDA-JFPT

Figure 9. E

xh

ibit m

ate

ria

ls o

n d

iffe

ren

t p

rogra

ms o

n jan

ito

r fish p

rolif

era

tio

n m

an

agem

ent u

se

d b

y L

LD

A-J

FP

T