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 24
Fish Proliferation
Communication Messages 26
 Communication Channels 28
Communication Approaches 29
Profile of the Survey Respondents 32
Awareness of LLDA-JFPT’s Communication Activities and 33
Materials
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 39
Bay
Perceived Effectiveness of the Communication Strategy of 43
LLDA-JFPT
Relationship between Level of Awareness and Knowledge 48
Level
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 34
by LLDA-JFPT
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 43
strategies
15 Weighted scores for the perception of effectiveness of fisherfolks 46
on the communication strategies used by LLDA-JFPT
16 Contingency table for the relationship between level of awareness 48
and knowledge level
17 Contingency table for the relationship between level of awareness 49
and perception of effectiveness
 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 95
Salot
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 97
used by LLDA-JFPT
9 Exhibit materials on different programs on janitor fish 98
proliferation management used by LLDA-JFPT
 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 91
Province of Laguna
F.2. Total number of fisherfolks per municipality/city in the 92
Province of Rizal
G Communication Materials Used by Laguna Lake Development 93
Authority – Janitor Fish Project Team
 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

TOTAL
MUNICIPALITY SAMPLE RESPONDENTS
POPULATION
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,
July 28 to August 1
LLDA Calauan Office
Focus Group Discussion with JFPT August 4
Coordination with MFARMCs August 27 to 29
Bay August 28
Biñan August 28
Siniloan August 29
Cardona August 29
Pre-testing of SAQs (Los Baños fisherfolks) August 30 to September 1
Distribution/Collection of SAQs September 2 to 19
Bay September 2
Biñan September 5
Siniloan September 3
Cardona 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 COMMONLY COMMONLY
MESSAGES USED CHANNEL USED APPROACH
Beneficial uses of the janitor Group Media Informing
fish • Orientation meetings Educating
a. As organic fertilizer • Hands-on trainings Motivating
b. Oil content as biofuel Mass Media
c. Exoskeleton for leather • LLDA Advisories
d. As fishmeal for pigs and • JFPT Final Project Report
chickens • Website
Results of the team’s researches Interpersonal Channels Informing
a. Effects of janitor fishmeal to • Individual consultations Educating
broilers and hogs • House visits Motivating
b. High heavy metal content of Group Media
Laguna de Bay fishes • Hands-on trainings
• Public disclosure forum
Mass Media
• Leaflet, brochure, or flyers
• LLDA Advisories
• Final Project Report
• Exhibit
• Website
• Radio Interviews
• Video
Janitor fish as food Group Media Informing
• Orientation meetings Educating
Mass Media
• LLDA Advisories
• Final Project Report
 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
FREQUENCY
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS PERCENTAGE
n = 130

Sex
Male 115 88
Female 13 10
No answer 2 2

Age
30 and below 23 18
31 – 40 26 20
41 – 50 41 32
51 – 60 20 15
61 and above 10 8
No answer 10 8

Civil Status
Single 12 9
Married 111 85
Widow/Widower 3 2
Separated 0 0
No answer 4 3

Household Size
≤2 10 8
3–5 39 30
6–8 43 33
9 – 11 9 7
12 and above 1 1
No answer 28 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
FREQUENCY
LEVEL OF AWARENESS PERCENTAGE
n = 130

Low 122 94
Moderate 6 5
High 2 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

FREQUENCY LEVEL OF
INTERPERSONAL CHANNELS* PERCENTAGE
n = 130 AWARENESS

Individual meetings 47 36 Mod LOA

House visits 24 18 Low LOA
None of the above 59 45
Others 12 9
No answer 8 6

*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

FREQUENCY LEVEL OF
GROUP MEDIA* PERCENTAGE
n = 130 AWARENESS

Orientation meetings 30 23 Low LOA

Other meetings/seminars 25 19 Low LOA
Training-workshops 21 16 Low LOA
Public disclosure forum 20 15 Low LOA
None of the above 55 42
Others 3 2
No answer 13 10

*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

FREQUENCY LEVEL OF
MASS MEDIA * PERCENTAGE
n = 130 AWARENESS

Radio interviews 34 26 Low LOA

LLDA advisories and statements 29 22 Low LOA
Videos (Biyaya ng Salot) 18 14 Low LOA
Final Project Report 17 13 Low LOA
Leaflets, brochures, and flyers 16 12 Low LOA
LLDA-JFPT Website 6 5 Low LOA
Exhibit 4 3 Low LOA
None of the above 49 38
Others 3 2
No answer 15 12

*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
FREQUENCY
COMMUNICATION CHANNELS* PERCENTAGE
n = 130

INTERPERSONAL CHANNELS
Individual consultations 70 54
House visit 55 42
Others 12 9
No answer 17 13

GROUP MEDIA
Meeting 86 66
Seminar, forum 54 42
Training-workshop 26 20
Others 4 3
No answer 14 11

MASS MEDIA
Television 83 64
Newspaper and tabloid 52 40
Radio 35 27
Video 31 24
Leaflet, brochure, and flyer 30 23
Internet 9 7
Exhibit 6 5
Others 5 4
No answer 17 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 FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
APPROACHES* n = 130

Informing 95 73
Educating 50 38
Persuading 20 15
Motivating 14 11
Entertaining 12 9
Others 11 8
No answer 12 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

FREQUENCY
KNOWLEDGE LEVEL PERCENTAGE
n = 130

Low 29 22
Moderate 92 71
High 9 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 4.92

Biñan, Laguna 4.86
Siniloan, Laguna 5.31
Cardona, Rizal 4.74

TOTAL MEAN AVERAGE 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. Scores of the respondents per item in the ten-point knowledge test
CORRECT WRONG DON’T KNOW NO ANSWER
STATEMENTS
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 57 44 40 31 33 25 0 0
habitat of janitor fishes.) (FALSE)
2. Maunti lang ang bilang ng janitor fish sa
Laguna de Bay. (Laguna de Bay only has a 105 81 7 5 17 13 1 1
small population of janitor fishes.) (FALSE)
3. Matigas ang balat at matulis ang kaliskis ng
janitor fish. (Janitor fishes have tough ang spiky 128 98 2 2 0 0 0 0
scales.) (TRUE)
4. Ang janitor fish ay pwede gawing pakain o
feeds sa manok at baboy. (Janitor fishes can be 63 48 21 16 46 35 0 0
used as fishmeal for hogs and chickens.) (TRUE)
5. Ang janitor fish ay maaaring lutiin at kainin.
(Janitor fishes can be cooked and are edible.) 20 15 70 54 39 30 1 1
(TRUE)
6. Ligtas kainin ang janitor fish mula sa Laguna
de Bay. (It is safe to eat janitor fishes from 58 45 18 14 53 41 1 1
Laguna de Bay.) (FALSE)
7. Ang mga isda mula sa Laguna de Bay, gaya
ng janitor fish, tilapia, at dalag, ay ng mataas
na antas ng naglalaman nakalalasong metal.
18 14 79 61 33 25 0 0
(Laguna de Bay fishes, such as janitor fish,
tilapia, and dalag, have high heavy metal
content.) (TRUE)
8. Hindi pwedeng gamiting pampataba ng lupa
ang janitor fish. (Janitor fishes cannot be used 31 24 30 23 69 53 0 0
as fertilizer.) (FALSE)
9. Ang balat ng janitor fish ay pwedeng gawing
leather. (Janitor fishes can be used as leather.) 37 28 31 24 62 48 0 0
(TRUE)
10. Ang janitor fish ay walang masamang epekto
sa Laguna de Bay. (The janitor fishes have no 111 85 5 4 14 11 0 0
negative impact for Laguna de Bay.) (FALSE)
 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

FREQUENCY
PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS PERCENTAGE
n = 130

Not Effective 49 38
Neutral Perception 80 62
Effective 1 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. Weighted scores for the perception of effectiveness of fisherfolks on the communication strategies used by
LLDA-JFPT
STRONGLY STRONGLY
AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE WEIGHTED
STATEMENTS AGREE DISAGREE
N= N= N= N= N= MEAN
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
130 130 130 130 130
1. Kapani-paniwala ang mga tauhan ng LLDA sa
pagbibigay kaalaman ukol sa problema sa
janitor fish tuwing ito’y may seminar, training,
10 8 24 18 63 48 24 18 9 7 3.02
o forum. (During seminars, trainings, or forums,
LLDA personnels are credible as sources of
information on the janitor fish problem.)
2. Ang mga impormasyong ibinahagi sa mga
seminar, training, o mga forum ay masyadong
2 2 34 26 64 49 23 18 7 5 2.99
teknikal. (During seminars, trainings, or forums,
information disseminated are too technical.)
3. Madaling maintindihan ang mga tinuturo sa
mga seminar, training, o mga forum. (During
6 5 29 22 59 45 24 18 12 9 2.95
seminars, trainings, or forums, information
disseminated are easy to understand.)
4. Hindi kumpleto ang gamit ng LLDA kapag may
seminar, training, o mga forum. (During
4 3 26 20 77 59 18 14 5 4 2.95
seminars, trainings, or forums, materials used by
LLDA are not complete.)
5. Nahihikayat ng mga seminar, training, o forum
ng LLDA ang partisipasyon ng mga
11 8 23 18 60 46 21 16 15 12 2.95
mangingisda. (The seminars, trainings, or forums
encourage the participation of the fisherfolks.)
Table 15. Weighted scores for the perception of effectiveness of fisherfolks on the communication strategies used by
LLDA-JFPT (continued)
STRONGLY STRONGLY
AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE WEIGHTED
STATEMENTS AGREE DISAGREE
N= N= N= N= N= MEAN
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
130 130 130 130 130
6. Maganda o kaaya-aya ang mga leaflet, poster,
video, exhibit na ginamit ng LLDA. (The
4 3 23 18 69 53 27 21 7 5 2.92
leaflets, posters, videos, and exhibits used by
LLDA are attractive.)
7. Ang mga impormasyong nasa mga leaflet,
poster, video, exhibit na ginamit ng LLDA ay
masyadong teknikal. (Information in the leaflets, 3 2 31 24 77 59 13 10 6 5 2.91
posters, videos, and exhibits used by LLDA are
too technical.)
8. Hindi sapat ang mga impormasyong
ibinabahagi ng mga leaflet, poster, video,
exhibit na ginamit ng LLDA sa pagbibigay
impormasyon ukol sa problema sa janitor fish. 5 4 32 25 72 55 12 9 9 7 2.91
(Information in the leaflets, posters, videos, and
exhibits used by LLDA are not enough or
incomplete.)
9. Madaling matandaan ang mga impormasyong
ibinibigay ng mga leaflet, poster, video, exhibit
na ginamit ng LLDA. (Information in the leaflets, 3 2 16 12 79 61 29 22 3 2 2.90
posters, videos, and exhibits used by LLDA are
easy to recall.)
10. Ang mga leaflet, poster, video, exhibit at iba
pang mga ginamit ng LLDA ay hindi maiging
naipamahagi/naipaalam sa mga mangingisda
9 7 25 19 69 53 23 18 4 3 2.91
ng Lawa ng Laguna. (The leaflets, posters,
videos, exhibits and other mass media used are
properly distributed/discussed to the fisherfolks.)
 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
KNOWLEDGE LEVEL
LEVEL OF AWARENESS High Moderate Low
N = 130 (%) N = 130 (%) N = 130 (%)
TOTAL
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
PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS
LEVEL OF AWARENESS Effective Neutral Not Effective
N = 130 (%) N = 130 (%) N = 130 (%)
TOTAL
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/05dm3765C
ompletionReportJFP.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. Exhibit materials on different programs on janitor fish proliferation management used by LLDA-JFPT