FACTORS IN THE DA AGRI-KALIKASAN PROGRAM COMMUNICATION STRATEGY INFLUENCING FARMERS’

ADOPTION STAGE OF THE MODIFIED RAPID COMPOSTING (MRC) TECHNOLOGY IN LEYTE, PHILIPPINES

EULA MARIE DELA CRUZ MANGAOANG

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

(Educational Communication)

APRIL 2010

ii

This undergraduate research titled FACTORS IN THE DA AGRI-KALIKASAN PROGRAM

COMMUNICATION STRATEGY INFLUENCING FARMERS’ ADOPTION STAGE OF

MODIFIED RAPID COMPOSTING (MRC) TECHNOLOGY IN LEYTE, PHILIPPINES,

prepared and submitted by Eula Marie DC. Mangaoang in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree Bachelor of Science in Development Communication

(Educational Communication), is hereby accepted.

______________________ MA. STELLA C. TIROL

Adviser

April 10, 2010 _______________________

Date

Accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

Bachelor of Science in Development Communication

(Educational Communication)

_______________________ EDMUND G. CENTENO

Chair

Department of Educational Communication College of Development Communication University of the Philippines Los Baños

College, Laguna

April 10, 2010 __________________________________

Date

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

“And, when you want something, all the universe conspires in helping you to

achieve it.”—Paulo Coelho, The Alchemist. Almighty God, I thank you so much for

having laid a wonderful path for me, for being everywhere and in everything, and for the

people who have unknowingly conspired to help me finish my thesis on time:

Mr. Rogelio Portula, for granting me the permission to conduct my study and for

offering support.

Ms. Dina Gaviola-Pitao for the much needed contacts and providing me secondary

data on the progress of the program.

Ms. Evangeline S. Garing, for contacting the farmer-cooperators, agricultural

technicians, and municipal agriculturists, and for accompanying me to the different techno-

demo sites around Leyte. The stories you have shared along the way will always be

remembered.

The municipal agriculturists and the municipal agricultural technicians in the

different techno-demo sites of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program in Leyte, for the assistance

you gave me in reaching out to my survey respondents.

To the farmer-cooperators of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program, for the much-needed

time and cooperation in participating in the survey and for the farming expertise you shared.

Your hardwork, patience and perseverance will always be admired.

Mr. Mario Tabinas and Eugene Val Mangaoang—I can’t imagine just a week-long

data gathering period without you.

Ms. Josiefer Jesusco of ACIAR, for having worked so hard running statistical tests

for my data, and for providing suggestions for interpreting and discussing the results of my

study. My study would be meaningless without your help.

iv

My thesis adviser, Ma’am Teya Tirol, for patiently checking and re-checking my

thesis manuscript, and for helping us advisees finish our thesis on time. You remind me that

difficult isn’t impossible. Many thanks, Ma’am!

Ma’am Mia Cabral-Castillo, my DEVC 199 instructor, for giving the much-needed

comments and suggestions for the improvement of my thesis.

Ma’am Duday de Villa, my DEVC 197 instructor, for helping me to start on my

thesis and for patiently helping me to improve on it.

Ma’am Moni Escalada, for helping me to bring out ideas for my thesis topic. You

inspire me and all other budding dev com practitioners and researchers.

My classmates in DEVC 197, 198 and 199, thank you for the moments we’ve

shared in class, for the thesis-related angst, and for the comments, suggestions, and

motivation. With you, I know I’m not alone in the last and hardest leg of the college life.

My dear DevCom batchmates, for the “chikahan”, “kulitan”, and for having been

there to share in my joys and pains during my stay in college. I want you to know that

you’ve been the coolest people I’ve ever met, and I will miss all of that coolness. Thank

you!

My brods and sisses at the UPLB Development Communicators’ Society, for

giving me the chance to prove my worth, for the lessons and troubles we’ve been in together,

and for believing in what I can do. I would never have come out of the shell if not for you

guys. Thank you! I LOVE DEVCOMSOC! My Soc ninang Hannah & my inaanak

Yhen, you inspire me to aim high and do my best, and at the same time to keep my feet on

the ground. I wish we could spend some time hanging out together.

Great bands Paramore, Up Dharma Down, and K-pop groups SNSD and Super

Junior, I thank you for the music.

Pearl, Melai, and Rak, for being great friends while I was still in Demarses. I’m

sorry we hadn’t spent the time together since I moved out. I want you to know that I’m still

watching all the fun vids we had. Haha!

v

Leila, my NF (and forever) best friend, for being there for me at the start and for

sticking it out until the end. Keep being a sister to me. Thank you bispren!

My ever-supportive titos, titas, and insans: Tita Em, Tita Ninil, Tito Jun, Tita

Edit, Tita Aning, Tito Toti, Tita Carina, Tita Mel, Tito Ompong, Tito Nick, Tita Helen,

Ninong Jopel, Ninong Tony, Tita Babes, Tita Glo, Ate Regh, Ate Maricris, Paolo,

Andrew, and Ate Janice, for being my second family here, and for all the love and support

you’ve given me. I will forever be indebted to you guys.

Charina Mae Boñaga, Melo Jean Mata, Jared Paragas, Mabel Fetalvero, and

Regina Lyn Mondez, for unknowingly teaching me how hard yet fun it is to grow up as a

person. You are the best friends ever and I love you.

Eugene Val, Eurice Ed, and Eulaine Marie, for bearing with my faults as a sister,

for listening to my needless ranting, and for giving me all the advice. Keep being one of the

sweetest people in the world. I love you!

Mommy and Daddy, you know I’m not that fond of thanking you for everything you

did for me. But, for all the kinds of support you’ve given me during the conduct and writing

of my thesis, for believing in my strengths despite my weaknesses, for just loving me and

caring for me along the way, I THANK YOU. You always inspire me to do my best. I love

you so much!

Daghang Salamat!

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE i ACCEPTANCE SHEET ii ACKNOWLEDGMENT iii TABLE OF CONTENTS vi LIST OF TABLES Ix LIST OF FIGURES xiii LIST OF APPENDICES xiv ABSTRACT xv

CHAPTER PAGE

1 INTRODUCTION 1 Structure and Rationale of the Study 1 Statement of the Problem 2 Objectives of the Study 2 Significance of the Study 4 Scope and Limitations of the Study 5 Operational Definition of Terms 6 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 13 Rice Production and Agricultural Wastes 13

Rice Straw Management Practices and Their Effects 13 Policies and Programs on Rice Straw Management 15 The DA Agri-Kalikasan Program 15 Factors Affecting Change in Farming Practices 17 Factors Leading to Non-Adoption of Farming Practices 20 Role of Communication in Environmental Programs 20 Strategic Communication 21 Functions of Strategic Communication 22 Developing Strategic Communication Interventions 23 Communication Strategy 25 Functions of Communication Strategies 25 Forms of Communication Strategies 26 Designing Communication Strategies 27 Information Sources 29 Communication Methods 29 Communication Messages 31 Communication Approaches 32 Related Studies 34 Synthesis of Literature Reviewed 38 Theoretical Framework 39 Conceptual Framework 43 Statement of Hypotheses 45 3 METHODOLOGY 47 Research Design 47

vii

CHAPTER PAGE 3 Location and Respondents of the Study 47 Variables of the Study 49 Sampling Procedure 50 Research Instrument 50 The Survey Questionnaire 50 Interview Guide for Key Informants 52 Data Collection 52 Data Analysis Procedure 53 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 56 Socio-demographic Characteristics of Respondents 56 Age, Sex, Household Size, and Civil Status 56 Educational Attainment and Number of MRC-related

Trainings Attended 56

Tenurial Status, Farm Size, and Length of Farming Experience

56

Annual Yield in Rice Production, Annual Income in Rice Production, and Support Services

57

Communication Strategy of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program 59 Source variables 59 Message variables 64 Channel variables 71 Receiver variables 75 Stage of Technology Adoption 77 Knowledge Stage 77 Persuasion Stage 81 Decision Stage 83 Implementation Stage 86 Confirmation Stage 89 Relationships between Communication Variables and

Adoption Stage of MRC Technology 92

Communication Variables and the Knowledge Stage 92 Communication Variables and the Persuasion Stage 98 Communication Variables and the Decision Stage 103 Communication Variables and the Implementation

Stage 106

Communication Variables and the Confirmation Stage 110 Summary of the Communication Variables Influencing

Adoption Stage of MRC Technology 117

Problems Encountered and Suggestions for Improvement 125 Problems Experienced with Farmers 125 Problems in Inputs and Resources 126 Problems with Funding and Discontinuation of the

Program 126

Suggestions for Improvement of Communication Strategy 127

viii

CHAPTER PAGE 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 129 Summary 129 Objectives 129 Methodology 130 Findings 130 Conclusions 142 Recommendations 143 LITERATURE CITED 146 APPENDICES 151 Appendix A: Letters of Correspondence 151 Appendix B: Survey Questionnaire for Farmer-Cooperators 155 Appendix C: Interview Guide for Key Informants 164 Appendix D: List of Key Informants and Interview

Transcriptions 166

Appendix E: Cross-Tabulation of Communication Variables and Adoption Levels

180

Appendix F: Basic Concepts and Steps in Using MRC 199

ix

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE

PAGE

1 List of municipalities in Leyte province where MRC technology demonstration sites have been set up and the number of farmer cooperators per site

49

2 Socio-demographic characteristics of farmer-cooperators of the DA Agri-Kalikasan program in Leyte province

57

3 Sources of information about the MRC technology 59

4 Weighted mean scores and qualitative interpretation of the respondents’ ratings of source credibility and frequency of access to source

61

5 Respondents’ reasons for their rating of perceived credibility of information sources on the MRC technology

62

6 Respondents’ reasons for frequency of access to information sources on the MRC technology

63

7 Weighted mean scores and qualitative interpretation summarizing the respondents’ ratings on different message variables

68

8 Respondents’ reasons for their rating of perceived clarity of messages about the MRC technology

69

9 Respondents’ reasons for their perceived degree of comprehensibility of messages about the MRC technology

69

10 Respondents’ reasons for their rating of perceived completeness of messages about the MRC technology

70

11 Respondents’ reasons for their perceived degree of interest on messages about the MRC technology

70

x

TABLE

PAGE

12 Channel used to disseminate messages about the MRC technology

71

13 Weighted mean scores and interpretation of the respondents’ ratings of their exposure to and degree of interest in the channel used

74

14 Respondents’ reasons for their rating of frequency exposure to the channels used in disseminating messages about the MRC technology

74

15 Respondents’ reasons for their rating of perceived degree of interest in the channels used to disseminate information about the MRC technology

75

16 Respondents’ rating of perceived need for the MRC technology

75

17 Respondents’ perceived attitude towards the MRC technology

76

18 Distribution of respondents based on variables in the knowledge stage of technology adoption

80

19 Respondents’ reasons for their level of recall of messages about the MRC technology

80

20 Distribution of respondents based on variables in the persuasion stage of technology adoption

82

21 Respondents’ perception of the reasons of their personal networks’ approval and non-approval of the MRC technology

83

22 Distribution of respondents based on variables in the decision stage of technology adoption

85

23 Respondents’ reasons for their intention to consult and not to consult technology providers on the use of the MRC technology

86

24 Respondents’ reasons for their intention to use and not to use the MRC technology

86

xi

TABLE

PAGE

25 Distribution of respondents based on variables in the decision stage of technology adoption

87

26 Respondents’ reasons for their current use and non-use of the MRC technology

88

27 Distribution of respondents based on variables in the confirmation stage of technology adoption

91

28 Drawbacks or problems on the use of MRC technology as perceived by the respondents

91

29 Respondents’ reasons for their advocacy and non-advocacy of the use of MRC technology

95

30 Summary of the relationships between communication variables and the knowledge stage of technology adoption

96

31 Summary of the relationships between communication variables and the persuasion stage of technology adoption

101

32 Summary of the relationships between communication variables and the decision stage of technology adoption

105

33 Summary of the relationships between communication variables and the implementation stage of technology adoption

109

34 Summary of the relationships between communication variables and the confirmation stage of technology adoption

114

35 Communication variables influencing the knowledge stage of MRC technology adoption

119

36 Communication variables influencing the persuasion stage of MRC technology adoption

120

37 Communication variables influencing the decision stage of MRC technology adoption

121

xii

TABLE

PAGE

38 Communication variables influencing the implementation stage of MRC technology adoption

122

39 Communication variables influencing the confirmation stage of MRC technology adoption

123

40 Respondents’ suggestions for improvement of the communication strategy of the DA Agri-Kalikasan program

128

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE

PAGE

1 Variables affecting change in agricultural practices for a farm family household (Lionberger & Gwin, 1982)

19

2 The P Process: Stages Involved in Developing Strategic Communication Programs (Piotrow, et al., 1997, p. 27)

24

3 Conceptual model of the Diffusion of Innovations theory

42

4 Framework showing the conceptualized relationship of variables in the study

44

5 Map showing the different techno-demo sites in Leyte 48

xiv

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX

PAGE

A Formal Letters

151

B Survey Questionnaire for Farmer-Cooperators

155

C Interview Guide for Key Informants

164

D List of Key Informants and Interview Transcriptions

166

E Cross-tabulation of Communication Variables and Adoption Levels

180

F Basic Concepts and Steps in Using MRC 199

xv

ABSTRACT

MANGAOANG, EULA MARIE DC. University of the Philippines Los Baños. April

2010. “Factors in the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program Communication Strategy

Influencing Farmers’ Adoption Stage of the Modified Rapid Composting (MRC)

Technology in Leyte, Philippines.”

Adviser: Ma. Stella C. Tirol

This study determined the factors in the communication strategy of the DA Agri-

Kalikasan program which influenced the farmer-cooperators’ adoption stage of the MRC

technology in Leyte. Specifically, it was conducted to:1) determine the socio-demographic

profile of the DA Agri-Kalikasan farmer-cooperators in Leyte; 2) describe the characteristics

of the source, message, channel and receiver variables of the Agri-Kalikasan communication

strategy used in promoting MRC technology among farmer-cooperators in Leyte; 3) describe

the characteristics of the farmer-cooperators’ adoption stage of the MRC technology; 4) find

out if a relationship exists between the source, message, channel and receiver variables of the

communication strategy and the farmer-cooperators’ adoption stage of the MRC technology;

and 5) find out the problems that the DA Agri-Kalikasan farmer-cooperators and program

staff encounter in implementing the communication strategy for the MRC technology.

A survey was conducted among 49 farmer-cooperators assigned in the 17 techno-

demo sites of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program in Leyte using a pretested questionnaire in the

local dialect. Key informant interviews were likewise carried out to complement the survey

results. Quantitative data were organized using frequency counts and percentages, and

weighted mean scores. The relationships between communication variables and stages of

adoption of the MRC technology were tested using the chi-square test of independence.

The farmer-cooperators were mostly married males aged 48 to 69 years old with

secondary schooling and training on MRC. They owned or tended small parcels of rice land

which they had been farming for 3 to 24 years and from which they earned less than PhP

100,000 pesos annually. The farmer-cooperators acquired support services such as fertilizer

and seed subsidies.

xvi

Results showed that agricultural technicians were the most common, most credible

and most frequently accessed information source. Messages on the steps in preparing and

applying the MRC-based compost and the practical and environmental benefits of the MRC

technology were found to be very clear, very understandable, almost complete, and

interesting. Frequency of exposure to interpersonal channels, particularly personal visits by

agricultural technicians and seminars or trainings, was often. There was a high need for the

MRC technology among the farmer-cooperators who developed positive attitudes towards its

different features and benefits.

The farmer-cooperators had generally undergone most of the stages in adopting the

MRC technology (i.e. knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation and confirmation).

However, in the confirmation stage, only one third of them were able to recognize the

benefits or drawbacks of the technology.

The results of the chi-square tests showed that a relationship exists between certain

factors of the communication strategy of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program and some of the

factors in the farmers’ adoption stages of the MRC technology.

The problems in the program implementation included lack of resources, institutional

support, and the discontinuation of the program in some areas. The study recommended

improvement of communication methods and approaches in the program, empowerment of

the program staff and technicians, and further evaluation of other communication programs.

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Structure and Rationale of the Study

According to Quebral (1973), development communication involves systematically

applying communication strategies, processes and principles to bring about positive social

change. In particular, communication programs and projects can in many ways contribute to

increase knowledge, change attitudes and enable action and mutuality, which are in turn

important goals towards societal well-being (Cornejo and Silva, 2004).

However, a number of past government programs have failed to address certain

development problems because determinants of behavior change associated with these

problems have not been fully understood. Therefore, in designing effective communication

strategies or plans that would effectively influence ones’ knowledge, attitudes and practices,

it is important to understand the different factors which influence behavioral change

(Committee on Communication for Behavior Change in the 21st Century, 2002).

Rice farming is one of the primary sources of livelihood in Leyte province, aside

from fishing and growing coconuts, abaca, and sugarcane. Leyte has136, 000 rice farms

covering 258,000 hectares of agricultural land. Hundreds of rice fields run across the

northern and eastern parts of the province. Here, rice straw burning has been commonly

practiced.

Leyte farmers believe that rice straw burning is one of the fastest, cheapest, and

easiest ways of getting rid of rice straw in the field. Rice straw is burned in order to sterilize

the field and kill the harmful micro-organisms left by diseased plants in the previous

cropping season.

2

Rice straw burning, however, also brings with it adverse effects on health and

environment. This includes a number of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases in humans,

soil degradation due to nutrient loss, decreases in crop yield, and environmental pollution

that may harbor climate change and global warming (Asenso, 2007; Dobermann & Fairhurst,

2002; Altaf Hossain, 1994).

Recognizing the ill effects of rice straw burning on health and environment, various

groups and agencies have developed measures to discourage this practice. In Leyte, the

provincial government implemented a provincial ordinance prohibiting the open burning of

rice straw. The province, being one of the major rice-producing provinces in the country

(http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/sr04126tx.html), was also named as one of the 15

target provinces of the Agri-Kalikasan Program under the Department of Agriculture (DA)

(http://www.bswm.da.gov.ph/web/programs/index.php?sel=2). The program aims to help

Leyte farmers engage in organic agriculture to address different environmental problems.

One of the rice straw management practices promoted in the DA Agri-Kalikasan

program is the modified rapid composting (MRC) technology. The program has engaged

farmer-cooperators in setting up technology demonstration or techno demo farms on MRC in

most of the municipalities of Leyte in 2007. Likewise, the program carried out its

communication strategy to inform, promote, and train the farmer-cooperators on MRC

technology.

The greater challenge, however, that faces the Agri-Kalikasan Program is improving

its strategy not only to make the farmers in Leyte aware of the alternative rice straw

management practices that are safe and environment-friendly, but also to align these

practices with the farmers’ interests and needs. Furthermore, considering the farmers’ needs

and interests in program implementation helps ensure a participatory and multi-

sectoral/stakeholder approach in addressing problems and issues related to rice straw

burning, and at the same time, protects the socio-cultural welfare of the farmers (Lasco et al.,

2008).

3

Since the DA Agri-Kalikasan program was implemented in 2007, no formal

evaluation of its communication strategy was carried out. Specifically, the program has no

empirical data on what factors in its communication strategy facilitate farmers’ adoption of

the MRC technology. Thus, this study looked into the factors in the DA Agri-Kalikasan

communication strategy that can influence farmers’ level of adoption of the MRC technology

in Leyte.

Statement of the Problem

The study tried to address the general research problem: “What factors in the

communication strategy of the DA Agri-Kalikasan program influence the adoption stage of

the modified rapid composting (MRC) technology among its farmer-cooperators in Leyte?”

It sought to answer the following specific research questions:

1. What are the socio-demographic characteristics of the farmer-cooperators of the

DA Agri-Kalikasan program in Leyte?

2. What are the characteristics of the Agri-Kalikasan communication strategy in

terms of source, message, channel, and receiver variables used in promoting the

MRC technology among the farmer-cooperators?

3. What are the characteristics of the farmer-cooperators’ adoption stage of the MRC

technology?

4. Does a relationship exist between the source, message, channel and receiver

variables of the DA Agri-Kalikasan communication strategy and farmer-

cooperators’ adoption stage of MRC technology?

5. What problems do the Agri-Kalikasan farmer-cooperators and program staff

encounter in implementing the communication strategy for MRC technology?

Objectives of the Study

The study determined the factors in the communication strategy of the DA Agri-

Kalikasan program which influence the farmer-cooperators’ adoption stage of the MRC

technology in Leyte. Specifically, it tried to:

4

1. Determine the socio-demographic profile of the DA Agri-Kalikasan farmer-

cooperators in Leyte;

2. Describe the characteristics of the source, message, channel and receiver variables

of the Agri-Kalikasan communication strategy used in promoting MRC

technology among farmer-cooperators in Leyte;

3. Determine the characteristics of the farmer-cooperators’ adoption stage of the

MRC technology;

4. Determine if a relationship exists between the source, message, channel and

receiver variables of the communication strategy and farmer-cooperators’

adoption stage of the MRC technology; and

5. Find out the problems that the DA Agri-Kalikasan farmer-cooperators and

program staff encounter in implementing the communication strategy for MRC

technology.

Significance of the Study

This study will contribute a new set of empirical-based knowledge on the factors in a

communication strategy that influence the farmers’ adoption stage of an environment-

friendly rice farming technology such as the Modified Rapid Composting (MRC) technology.

The results of this study may be used in getting ideas that will be useful in designing

future communication strategies that would better cater to the needs and interests of multi-

stakeholders, encourage their participation, and influence change in knowledge, attitude, and

practice on waste management.

The key change factors in the DA Agri-Kalikasan communication strategy could

serve as potential variables in evaluating and improving the communication strategies of

existing programs that deal with environmental management. Development communication

practitioners can derive ideas from the findings of the study in selecting and identifying

methods, messages, and approaches of a communication strategy that will best cater to the

needs and interests of multi-stakeholders involved in alternative rice management practices.

5

The findings of the study on the problems encountered in the implementation of a

communication strategy may generate potential problem indicators that should be avoided in

the context of communicating rice straw management practices. Furthermore,

communication planners may learn lessons on how strategic communication works in a farm-

based environment.

The results of the study may help development communicators find better ways on

how farmers can be encouraged to participate in environmental interventions and how

farmers can reconcile new, environmentally sustainable farming practices with their old,

traditional practices. New communication interventions to effectively promote other rice

straw management technologies and facilitate the adoption of environmentally sound

agricultural activities may also be conceived and developed.

Scope and Limitations of the Study

This study focused on the factors in the communication strategy of the DA Agri-

Kalikasan Program which could influence farmer-cooperators’ stage of adoption of the

modified rapid composting (MRC) technology. This technology is only one among several

other rice straw management practices of the Agri-Kalikasan program. The results of this

study may only be generalized for the MRC technology. A different set of findings may

emerge in the case of other rice straw management practices.

The farmer-cooperators surveyed in the study comprised only those who were based

in towns where the technology demonstration (techno demo) sites are located and who

volunteered part of their rice farm for tech demo of the MRC technology. Therefore, the

influence of the communication strategy on the stages of adoption of the MRC technology

that the farmer-cooperators underwent may not be applicable to farmers who were not part of

the program.

6

The factors such as source, message, and channel, and receiver that have been

identified to influence farmers’ adoption stage of the MRC technology in this study may be

different from the communication strategies used in other rice straw management practices of

the DA Agri-Kalikasan program.

Furthermore, the farmer-cooperators’ reasons or explanations for their various

quantitative responses in the survey were not statistically analyzed to find out if they also

influence the adoption stage of the MRC technology.

Operational Definition of Terms

Communication strategy – Mefalopulos and Kamlongera (2004) defines it as a well-

planned series of actions aimed at achieving certain objectives through the use of

communication methods, techniques and approaches. In this study, it refers to a well-

planned series of actions combining communication methods and approaches to facilitate the

adoption of the Modified Rapid Composting (MRC) technology.

Factors in the communication strategy – refer to communication variables (e.g. source,

message, channel, and receiver) which are present in the communication strategy of the DA

Agri-Kalisan program in influencing farmer-cooperators’ adoption stage of the modified

rapid composting (MRC) technology; the following factors in the Agri-Kalikasan

communication strategy were included in this study:

Source variable – refers to the individual, group, or mass medium from which

information on MRC technology is acquired. In McGuire’s Input/Output Persuasion

model (1989), the attributes of a source include the socio-demographic characteristics

and perceived credibility of the source. In this study, the following attributes were

measured:

a) Source of information on MRC technology – the farmer-cooperators’ specific

source(s) of information about MRC such as neighbor, relative, DA Agri-

7

Kalikasan staff, farm technician, print media, radio program, and TV; the

most common information source was identified by the highest frequency

among the responses of the farmer-cooperators.

b) Perceived degree of credibility of information source on MRC technology –

the farmer-cooperators’ rating of how believable their MRC information

sources are to them; this was measured using a five-point scale (5- very

credible, 4- credible, 3- can’t say, 2- not credible, or 1- not very credible); the

weighted mean scores of their ratings were obtained to determine which type

of information source had the highest degree of credibility among the farmer-

cooperators.

c) Frequency of access to information source on MRC technology – refers to

how often the farmer-cooperators get information about MRC from their

source(s) as measured by using a five-point scale (5- always, 4- very often, 3-

sometimes, 2- not often, or 1- not always); the weighted mean scores of their

ratings were also obtained to determine which information source had the

highest frequency of access.

Message variable – refers to an attribute of the information on the MRC technology

which is brought to the farmer-cooperators through the DA Agri-Kalikasan program.

In this study, the following attributes were measured:

a) Perceived degree of clarity – the farmer-cooperators’ rating of how well-

defined or how well-described are the specific messages on the MRC

technology that were brought to them; degree of clarity was measured using a

five-point scale (5- very clear, 4- clear, 3- can’t say, 2-not clear, or 1- not very

clear); the weighted mean scores of their rating of clarity of the message was

computed to determine which specific message had the highest degree of

clarity among farmer-cooperators.

b) Perceived degree of comprehensibility – the farmer-cooperators’ rating of

how understandable are the messages on the MRC technology; degree of

comprehensibility was measured using a five-point scale: (5- very

8

understandable, 4- understandable, 3- can’t say, 2- not understandable, or 1-

not very understandable); the weighted mean scores of their ratings of

message comprehensibility were computed to determine which message had

the highest degree of comprehensibility.

c) Perceived degree of completeness – the farmer-cooperators’ rating of how

much information of detail is given in the messages on MRC technology

brought to them; degree of completeness was measured with a five-point scale

(5- 100% complete, 4- 80% complete, 3-60% complete, 2- 40% complete, or

1- 20% complete); the weighted mean scores of their ratings were computed

to determine which message had the highest degree of completeness; and

d) Perceived degree of interest – the farmer-cooperators’ rating of the extent to

which they find the message on MRC technology appealing; degree of interest

was measured using a five-point scale (5- very interesting, 4- interesting, 3-

can’t say, 2- not interesting, or 1- not very interesting); the weighted mean

scores of the ratings were obtained to determine which message had the

highest degree of interest among the farmer-cooperators.

Channel variable – the means by which information about MRC technology is

brought by the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program to the farmer-cooperators such as

seminar/training, personal visit, field demonstration, reading material, print, radio,

and television. In this study, the following attributes of a channel were studied:

a) Frequency of exposure to channel – the farmer-cooperators’ rating of how

often the Agri-Kalikasan program exposed them to channels of information on

MRC technology; this was measured using a five-point scale (5- always, 4-

very often, 3- sometimes, 2- not often, or 1- not always); the weighted mean

scores of the ratings were obtained to determine which channel had the

highest frequency of exposure among farmer-cooperators.

b) Perceived degree of interest in channel – the farmer-cooperators rating of the

extent to which they find the channel appealing as measured using a five-point

scale (5- very interesting, 4- interesting, 3- can’t say, 2- not interesting, or 1-

9

not very interesting); the weighted mean scores of the ratings were obtained to

determine which channel held the highest degree of interest among farmer-

cooperators.

Receiver variable – refers to the characteristics of the farmer-cooperators to whom

the DA Agri-Kalikasan program brings and promotes the MRC technology. In this

study, the receiver variables that were determined were:

a) Perceived degree of need for MRC technology – the extent to which the

farmer-cooperators think they need the MRC technology; degree of need was

rated in terms of highly needed, needed, and not needed.

b) Perceived attitude towards MRC technology – the farmer-cooperators’ feeling

toward MRC technology – whether positive or negative, favorable or

unfavorable; attitude was measured by the farmer-cooperators’ rating of five

attitude statements about MRC technology using a five-point scale – strongly

agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, or strongly disagree.

Stages of adoption – refer to the five phases that farmer-cooperators undergo in deciding

whether to adopt the MRC technology, namely: 1) knowledge; 2) persuasion; 3) decision; 4)

implementation; and 5) confirmation (adapted from Rogers, 1983); also used interchangeably

with adoption stage. The study integrated variables from Rogers (1983) and Sisteberio (2001)

in order to measure farmer-cooperators’ level of adoption within each stage of adoption:

Knowledge stage – the phase during which the farmer-cooperator recognizes

and understands what the MRC technology is and how it works. Three factors

or variables were used to describe the adoption stage of the MRC technology

as follows:

1. Level of message recall – the extent to which the farmer-

cooperator is able to remember messages about MRC using the

following scale:

10

a. No recall – does not remember any message at all

b. Low recall – can remember 1-2 messages

c. Moderate recall – can remember 3-4 messages

d. High recall– can remember 5 or more messages

2. Extent of knowledge about MRC technology – how well the

farmer-cooperator is able to describe or explain what MRC

technology is; this was measured using the following scale:

a. Low – can describe MRC technology to a little extent (can

correctly describe a little aspect of MRC technology)

b. Moderate – can describe MRC technology to some extent (can

correctly describe some aspect of MRC technology)

c. High – can describe MRC technology to a great extent (can

correctly describe most aspect of MRC technology)

3. Extent of knowledge about steps in MRC – the capacity of the

farmer-cooperator to name or list correctly the steps in using MRC

technology; this was measured using the following scale:

a. Low – can name or list 1-2 steps

b. Moderate – can name or list 3-4 steps

c. High – can name or list 5-7 steps

Persuasion stage – the phase during which the farmer-cooperator forms an

opinion of the MRC technology and becomes convinced about its usefulness;

the factors or variables used to describe the persuasion stage were measured in

terms of the following:

1. Discussion of MRC technology with personal network – whether

or not the farmer-cooperator talks about the MRC technology with

his personal network of family, friends, and fellow farmers in order

to form an opinion and be convinced about MRC

2. Approval of MRC technology by personal network – whether or

not the farmer-cooperators’ personal network approve or like the

MRC technology

11

3. Personal approval of MRC technology – whether or not the farmer-

cooperator himself/herself mentally approves or likes the MRC

technology

Decision stage – the phase during which the farmer-cooperator eventually

decides to adopt or reject the MRC technology. Two variables that would

describe and measure the decision stage were the following:

1. Consultation with technology providers – whether or not the

farmer-cooperator seeks advice on use of MRC technology

2. Intention to use MRC technology – whether or not the farmer-

cooperator plans to use or adopt the MRC technology

Implementation stage – the phase during which the farmer-cooperator

actually puts into practice the MRC technology on the farm; the factors or

variables to describe the implementation stage included the following:

1. Acquisition of materials for MRC technology – whether or not the

farmer-cooperator acquired the materials needed for the MRC

technology

2. Application of MRC technology – whether or not the farmer-

cooperator is currently using or practicing the technology on the

farm

Confirmation stage – the last phase during which the farmer-cooperator

affirms his/her adoption of the MRC technology; the factors or variables used

to describe the confirmation stage were as follows:

1. Recognition of benefits or drawbacks of MRC technology –

whether or not the farmer-cooperator experiences or acknowledges

the benefits or limitations of the MRC technology

2. Continuous use of MRC technology – whether or not the farmer-

cooperator continues to use or to practice MRC in the future

12

3. Advocacy for MRC technology – whether or not the farmer-

cooperator encourages others to adopt or use MRC technology on

the farm

Department of the Agriculture (DA) – Agri-Kalikasan Program – one of the programs

implemented by the Department of Agriculture (DA) which seeks to address the farmers’

need for inexpensive fertilizers and to mitigate the adverse effects of open burning farm

wastes such as rice straw. It specifically promotes the Modified Rapid Composting (MRC)

technology to augment farm produce through maximized farm waste recycling in areas with

farmers having limited capital for rice farming.

Modified Rapid Composting (MRC) – a form of rice straw management technology

developed by the Bureau of Soils and Water Management (BSWM) and promoted by the DA

Agri-Kalikasan Program. This involves incorporating the fungus Trichoderma sp. to the rice

straw compost to increase the rate of its decomposition from 3 months to 3 weeks

Farmer-cooperator – a participant of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program who served as

respondent of the study. According to the protocols set by the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program,

the farmer-cooperator must:

a. commit his/her identified rice area for the three-year project duration;

b. agree to provide free labor needed in project implementation;

c. provide assistance to the local government units (LGUS) at the provincial, city

and municipal levels in data gathering;

d. agree to hold a field day and allow use of his/her field for field day activities;

and

e. be willing to act as one of the speakers during field days and willing to

disseminate the MRC technology.

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Rice Production and Agricultural Wastes

Rice is a staple food crop of the Filipinos and is abundantly produced in the country.

Rice production accounts for 33 per cent of the total farming land. Rice contributes 16 per

cent of the total crop yield and 66 per cent of the grain production. The labor force in rice

production consists of 2.5 million Filipino farmers, yielding about 21 per cent of the gross

value in agriculture (Genilo, 2005).

With the pressing need to produce rice as food, high-end rice production technologies

were developed. This increased the yield of the crop (Hossain et al., 1994). However, crop

wastes from rice production also became increasingly available through harvest, trimming or

pruning, or run-off of materials in the field (PhilRice, 2004). According to Pearce (1983), one

of the most abundant agricultural wastes from rice production is rice straw. Moog (1990)

estimated an average of 1.6 million tons of rice straw produced in a year in major rice-

producing regions such as Central Luzon and Cagayan Valley.

Aside from intensive rice production, a number of factors have contributed to the

accumulation of rice straw in fields. One of these is the shortened time gap between harvest

and re-sowing, which allows more than one cropping season in a year. This would entail

shorter time for land preparation, forcing the farmer to quickly dispose rice straw that was

produced from the previous cropping season (Pearce, 1983).

Rice Straw Management Practices and Their Effects

Conventional rice straw management practices have been done to hasten the disposal

of rice straw in fields. Some farmers use rice straw as additive to livestock and poultry feeds,

thus replacing the more expensive commercial feeds (PhilRice, 2004; Gerpacio, 1990). Rice

14

straw is also used as mulch for the next cropping season and is therefore dumped or left to rot

in the fields.

In India and Bangladesh, rice straw is literally removed from the fields to be made as

fuel, bedding, or industrial material (Dobermann & Fairhurst, 2002). In the Philippines,

however, rice straw is commonly burned. After harvest, piles of rice straw are heaped in

threshing areas at the middle of the field and burned (Dobermann & Fairhurst, 2002;

PhilRice, 2004). According to the Industrial Technology Development Institute of the

Department of Science and Technology (ITDI - DOST), about five million tons of rice straw

and rice hull are burned in a year (UMAsenso Bulletin, 2007).

Rice straw burning harbors a number of environmental and health consequences. It

results in significant nutrient losses and soil degradation in the farm field (Dobermann &

Fairhurst, 2002). According to Hossain and his colleagues (1994), advanced farm

technologies may have increased crop yield, but unsound waste management practices have

resulted in farm land degradation, which in turn, led to minimum increases in crop

productivity.

Rice straw burning also contributes to pollution. A recent DOST study found that

frequent rice straw burning produces more harmful air pollutants and carcinogens than

vehicle emissions. Fumes from burned rice straw may bring in or worsen a host of illnesses

such as cough, allergic rhinitis, asthma, and other cardiovascular and respiratory diseases

(UMAsenso Bulletin, 2007). The toxic substances from these wastes are not easily

degradable, and people may take them in through breathing, food or water contamination

(Brul, 2008).

Francisco (2003) explained that farm practices contributing to pollution can create an

environmental and economic backflow both to farmers and other sectors in society. He

points out that excessive waste production can lead to pollution, loss of environmental

services, damage to other organisms, and impaired natural resource capital. This is because

15

the stability and sustainability of agricultural production highly depends on the

environmental conditions in the farm (Hossain, 1994).

There is a need to manage rice straw efficiently and improve the use of rice straw as

animal feed, fertilizer, handicraft material, and other products. Alternative rice straw

management practices which alleviate environmental problems have to be developed.

Likewise, policies encouraging the use of these practices should be enforced and

implemented (Pearce, 1983).

Policies and Programs on Rice Straw Management

The Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act of 1997 encourages advanced

agricultural and fishing practices that address the problems of climate change. The proposed

Senate Bill 1890 or the Philippine Climate Change Act aims to bring climate change

mitigations in the form of local, regional, and national projects and activities. These

government laws are established to address the growing problem of rice straw burning and

other agricultural activities detrimental to the environment (Lasco et al., 2008).

However, the policies have somehow failed to solve the problems concerned with

climate change and environmental degradation. Lasco and his colleagues (2008) gave some

recommendations to address these problems, namely: 1) aggressive yet systematic information,

education, and communication (IEC) campaigns about climate change, climate variability, and risks;

2) participatory and multi-sectoral/stakeholder approaches; 3) climate change technology and policy

impact assessment; and 4) regular fund source and intensified fund generation for climate change-

related activities.

The DA Agri-Kalikasan Program

The Agri-Kalikasan program of the Department of Agriculture (DA) focuses on the

efficient use of rice straw and other farm wastes. Launched on August 11, 2005, it aims to

help small farmers minimize their fertilizer expenses and, at the same time, address the need

16

to increase crop production yield. Agri-Kalikasan advocates organic-based farming through

its various projects. The “Tipid Abono” project promotes the use of a combination of

chemical and organic fertilizers to reduce costs in fertilizer application. The “Huwag Sunugin

ang Dayami” campaign discourages rice straw burning. The modified rapid composting

(MRC) technology project, in cooperation with the Bureau of Soils and Water Management,

advocates the use of Trichoderma sp. fungus to hasten the decomposition of rice straw

compost. The MRC technology was claimed to reduce the decomposition time from three

months to three weeks (UMAsenso, 2007).

The DA Agri-Kalikasan program is implemented in 56 target provinces. One of these

is Leyte. The Bureau of Soils and Water Management (BSWM) and the Office of the

Provincial Agriculturist (OPA) of the DA Regional Office VIII spearhead the Agri-Kalikasan

program in Leyte. The provincial government also supports the program by implementing

Provincial Ordinance No. 07-05, which bans rice straw burning and other farm wastes. The

Agri-Kalikasan program in Leyte was initially funded by the Japanese government.

Currently, it is funded by the OPA, resulting in its limited implementation.

Forums and technology demonstrations on rice straw management technologies such

as the MRC are conducted in selected municipalities in Leyte to facilitate information

dissemination among farmers involved in the program. Farmers in nearby communities are

also informed of the technology through the conduct of field days.

Modified rapid composting (MRC) is the main rice straw management technology

intervention promoted by the program. MRC encourages the use of hybrid palay seeds and

introduces balanced and judicious use of organic and inorganic fertilizers to minimize

fertilizer costs and to sustain the target yield for rice. It seeks to promote and expand the

cultivation of hybrid rice as a strategy to achieve sufficiency and to increase rice farming

productivity and profitability through establishment of a techno demonstration project.

The DA Agri-Kalikasan program is carried out in two phases. The pre-

implementation phase includes: 1) site selection; 2) farmer-cooperator selection; 3) rice

17

varietal selection; and technical briefing for farmer-cooperators. On the other hand, the

implementation phase consists of: 1) establishment and management of techno demo sites;

and 2) modified rapid composting procedures.

The end product is a compost equivalent to three bags of 14-14-14 commercial

fertilizer, five bags of urea, and eight bags of potash which cost about Php 20,000 per

hectare. Data from the corresponding tests on the rice plant varieties (soil, water, and plant

analysis, leaf color chart readings, agronomic and yield data, and production costs) are

gathered in the techno demo sites to monitor progress and effectiveness of the MRC

technology.

The DA Agri-Kalikasan program has collaborating agencies and individuals. These

are the local government units (provincial/city and municipal government unit), the

regional/provincial/city/municipal agricultural field coordinators, the BSWM, and the

farmer-cooperators.

The supplies needed in using the MRC technology, such as chicken dung and urea,

are given to farmer-participants for free. The Office of the Provincial Agriculturist (OPA),

together with the other agencies, continues to work and look for funds to support the

program.

Factors Affecting Change in Farming Practices

Lionberger and Gwin (1982) explained that a number of factors affect the farmers’

decision to adopt new ideas and practices. These include the following: 1) characteristics of

individuals; 2) situations the individuals are in, both real and imagined; 3) help they can get

from outsiders; 4) help from outside agencies available to them; 4) resources they have at

their disposal; 5) what their friends and relatives expect of them; 6) what the friends and

relatives will do if they make a change; 7) educational strategies they are exposed to; 8) how

they are treated by outsiders who try to influence their behavior; and 9) value they place on

18

changes. These factors come in complex patterns and combinations, and may be highly

variable through time and from one farmer or community to another. Furthermore, they

occur in a sequence as time passes, and are classified into different categories.

Figure 1 categorizes these variables and illustrates the ways by which they affect

farmer goals and decisions to adopt new practices. The farmer, with his household or farm

family, may agree on short-term or long-term farming goals, such as increased rice

productivity and yield, sustained income, or efficient agricultural production. The family

starts achieving the goals, first with the personal variables, which consists of their pre-

existing beliefs, practices, and experiences. This comes along with the situations or

conditions in which they must achieve their goals, such as the farm environment, socio-

economic institutions, and the family structure or nature. The means by which the farm

family acquires information, supplies from support agencies, and further assistance from

these and other agencies or groups, is affected by the following intervening variables:

a. support agency variables – which include the nature of supplies and

services offered by a support or extension agency;

b. communication variables – such as the use of different media and

messages to influence change in the practices of the farmers; and

c. behavioral change variables – which includes the ways by which the

farmer decides to change farming practices.

These variables eventually lead to the achievement of farm family goals, and they

may even lead to outcomes which the farm family did not plan or agree on. The variables

also affect one another. In the diagram, the communication variables are embedded in the

support agency variables. This illustrates that the support agency plays an important role in

planning and implementing communication interventions to influence the intentions of

farmers to adopt new farming practices.

The diagram also shows the “feedback” and “feed forward” processes among the

intervening variables, with focus on the feedback that comes from the behavioral change and

outcomes to the support agency and communication variables. This implies that

communication interventions, in the long run, build on how these were able to influence

intended change in practices among farmers.

19

Prior Condition

Variables (W

hat

the

fam

ily sta

rts w

ith)

Intervening Variables

Farm Family

Reaches Long Term

Goals

Personal

Variables

(bac

kgro

und,

bel

iefs

, hab

its)

Family Goals

Outcomes

(short ter

m,

long ter

m,

unin

tended

)

Situational

Variables

(soil, w

ater

,

gover

nm

ent,

fam

ily)

Support Agency

Variables (e

.g.

supplies

, se

rvic

es,

cred

it, ro

ads,

tran

sportat

ion,

info

rmat

ion, m

arkets,

stora

ge)

Communication

Variables

(e.g

. use

of

radio

, poster

s)

Behavioral

Change

Variables (e

.g.

adopt new

pra

ctic

es,

chan

ge

crops)

(What must happen in between)

Get

info

rmat

ion, get

cre

dit/s

upplies

, get

extra

help

; ar

range

tran

sportat

ion,

chan

ge

farm

pra

ctic

es, in

crea

se y

ield

s; fam

ily e

ats bet

ter—

pays its deb

ts, et

c.

FARM FAMILY

feed

bac

k

feed

fo

rwar

d

Figure 1. Variables affecting change in agricultural practices for a farm

family household

(Lionberger & Gwin, 1982)

20

Factors Leading to Non-Adoption of Farming Practices

There are also factors which hinder the farmer’s adoption of new farming

technologies or practices. Rola (2000) classifies these constraints as technical, socio-

economic, and institutional. Technical constraints include the inefficiency of the practice to

meet the nutrient needs of the crops, the adverse effects on the farm environment and on the

farmer’s health, and the uncertainty of the results from the practice or technology.

Socio-economic constraints may influence one’s decision not to adopt the new

practice or technology. One example is when the technology does not give immediate results,

or if it does, the farmer does not really see it. Other socio-economic constraints include

misalignment with the farmer’s traditional farming systems, delay in yield or income, and

inclusion of unnecessary work or labor (Less & Warni, 1989, in Rola, 2000). Rola also points

out that farmers may not be able to adopt a technology if it is more expensive to use or if they

lack knowledge on how to use it.

Non-adoption can also be due to institutional constraints. Rola explained that for a

technology to be sustainable and self-sufficient, it requires intensive knowledge base, long-

term benefits, and specificity of area or location where it is to be implemented. Thus,

support and extension agencies must have strategies that fit the nature of the practices that

they are going to promote to the farmers. There is also a need to guarantee the effectiveness

of these technologies through various agencies (e.g., patent offices, authorities, and

marketing companies).

Role of Communication in Environmental Programs

Communication has been considered essential in the implementation of

environmental programs (Flor & Gomez, 1993; Librero, 1996). It also educates people on

certain environmental issues and concerns through approaches and strategies that encourage

an enjoyable learning situation. People are also reminded of the implications and effects of

economic and industrial development on the environment (Padolina et al., 1995).

21

However, Librero (1996) noted that most of these programs were not that systematic

and organized. He recommended that for these to become more effective in addressing

environmental issues, research on environmental communication should be supported by

government agencies and other organizations. This would bring the issues to a national

scale, and may help in promoting environmentalism.

Librero (1996) also explained the concerns in environmental communication

research. One of these is the set of beliefs of indigenous peoples and other cultural

minorities. Reconciling traditional beliefs and science-based facts about the environment

allows these people to participate effectively in decision-making processes related to

environmental conservation and management. Success of community-based programs

should also be a concern of environmental communication research — it should assess the

effectiveness and impact of various environmental programs as communication processes.

Environmental problems should likewise be covered by the media to stimulate awareness

among different individuals. This brings awareness of community-level environmental

problems to the public/mass scale. Research methods in environmental communication

research should also fit the context in which it is to be conducted.

Strategic Communication

Strategic communication is defined as the “generation, analysis, interpretation,

packaging, and sharing with specific groups critically important information needed in

achieving objectives for various development concerns” (CDC, UPLB, 1993, in Velasco et

al., 2006).

Strategic thinking and planning is central to the success of communication programs

— it changes the course of these programs from being contingency plans when other means

of intervention fail. Some of the key elements of strategic communication are (Piotrow et al.,

1997):

22

1. scientific approaches based on theories and models in behavioral

sciences, social learning, persuasion, and social marketing to attain the

goals of the program;

2. stakeholder participation in the program planning, implementation, and

evaluation;

3. view of behavior change as both an individual and societal activity;

4. combination of mass media and interpersonal channels to inform and

influence behavior change in people;

5. use of the enter-educate approach to encourage people to learn in an

enjoyable way; and

6. maintenance of sustainable communication activities.

To be able to develop a strategy that involves the stakeholders, there is a need to

assert the need for strategic communication. This is done by closely looking at and analyzing

the message and content about a particular idea or point of view, and the needs and problems

of the stakeholders in acquiring such messages. However, certain socioeconomic factors

such as political systems and cultural beliefs may also affect the use of strategic

communication in programs (Lagnaoui, Santi, & Santucci, 2004).

Functions of Strategic Communication

Lagnaoui, Santi, and Santucci (2004) list some roles that strategic communication

plays in development projects and programs. One of these is in the diffusion of certain

development ideas and approaches. Strategic communication ensures that these ideas are

carefully evaluated by the stakeholders in the light of capacity building, market development,

and institutional reform. In the development and implementation of new ideas and

techniques, strategic communication reconciles the gap between local and scientific

knowledge by creating a two-way communication among communities and the experts that

builds on feedback and mutual respect.

This shift from “monologue” to “dialogue” (Piotrow et al., 1997) implies that the

stakeholders are the starting points from which the convergent and mutual communication

process begins. This role, however, may result in consequences such as lack of cooperation

among the units in an organization, which eventually leads to delays in the development of

these new ideas, and the decentralization of the organizations involved.

23

Policy implementation, which is essential in carrying out development programs from

the local level, to the regional or national level, also uses strategic communication to allow

planners, policymakers, and stakeholders to agree on their common goals toward

development. Communication programs, according to Backer, Rogers, and Sopory (1992),

may become more effective if they elicit participation of government and other policymaking

bodies. This would eventually increase the ability of the programs to mitigate the factors

contributing to problems on development in a larger scale, and at the same time, encourage

the government and other institutions to be involved in these issues.

In countries with higher consumption power, strategic communication is involved in

putting ideas and techniques into the market, particularly in persuading other people of the

benefits of a certain developmental idea or technique (Lagnaoui, Santi, & Santucci, 2004). In

this aspect, it builds on the concept of social marketing, developed by Kotler and Zaltman in

1971, which focuses on how ideas become accepted by the society through communication

programs based on “product, planning, pricing, communication, distribution, and marketing

research”(Piotrow et al., 1997). Backer, Rogers, and Sopory (1992) state that communication

programs become effective with the use of strategic communication based on these social

marketing principles.

Developing Strategic Communication Interventions

The Johns Hopkins School for Public Health outlined six stages by which strategic

communication programs are developed (Piotrow et al., 1997):

1. analysis – involves analyzing strengths and weaknesses of ongoing

programs and their components, the profile of the stakeholders, and the

communication resources to be involved;

2. strategic design – objectives are formulated, stakeholders are specified,

and messages are designed according to the nature of the stakeholders.

Media by which these messages are put across are also carefully chosen

in this stage, and action and evaluation plans are drawn.

3. development, pretesting, and production of the messages with the

involvement of the stakeholders;

24

4. management, implementation and monitoring – the organization

implementing the program is empowered, the action plan is executed,

and the communication processes (dissemination, transmission,

reception) within the program are monitored;

5. impact evaluation – focuses on the long-term effects on the stakeholders,

and may serve as grounds for improving incoming programs; and

6. planning for continuity – this strengthens and sustains the program under

different conditions.

Figure 2 shows the framework in which these stages proceed. Here, impact evaluation

may play a role in the strategic design stage. The framework also emphasizes the

sustainability and continuity of programs in the sixth stage, which will involve many series

of processes from analysis to impact evaluation in the long run.

Figure 2. The P Process: Stages Involved in Developing Strategic Communication Programs (Piotrow et al., 1997)

1

Analysis

2

Strategic

Design

3

Message

development,

pretesting,

production

4

Management,

implementation,

monitoring

5

Impact

evaluation

6

Planning for

continuity

25

This framework, called the “P Process”, has been applied in different communication

programs in many developing countries. It aids in designing and carrying out different

communication activities from a local level to national and even international levels.

Strategic communication can occur due to a range of technical, institutional,

economic, and socio-psychological factors. It can also occur at different levels, from

individual, to community or general public. This implies that strategic communication

holistically addresses the issues of development (Corcoran, 2007; Lagnaoui, Santi, &

Santucci, 2004).

Communication Strategy

According to Lionberger & Gwin (1982), a communication strategy is the ways or

techniques by which people communicate to affect the thoughts, feelings, and actions of

other people. Basically, it is a foundation for sharing new ideas with other people to change

their behavior. This also includes the ways and means by which human and non-human

communication resources are being maximized to achieve the intended behavioral change

(Rogers, 1973).

Functions of Communication Strategies

A communication strategy may function as an action framework. White (2003)

explained that without a communication strategy to function as a plan of action,

communication programs would heavily rely on chances, resulting in a waste in time and

effort in planning and implementation. According to Genilo (2005), a communication

strategy also serves to reconcile both knowledge and actions of the people; not only will they

be able to know about an idea or point of view, but they would also intend to act on it.

Communication strategies also play a role in effectively allocating communication

resources to elicit the intended change in behavior (Rogers, 1973). These resources may be

based on the pre-existing knowledge, attitudes, practices, and perceived needs of the people

26

(White, 2003). Thus, communication strategies should build on the local setting, the socio-

cultural context, and the perceived needs in the community where the strategy is to be

implemented (Lionberger & Gwin, 1982).

The development of a communication strategy also serves as a yardstick in

determining the effectiveness and relevance of communication programs. According to Flor

and Gomez (1993), the process of communication rooted in the communication strategy aids

in program planning and evaluation. In program planning, communication particularly helps

bring out and integrate the needs and interests of a community on a particular issue (e.g.

environmental problems), and in evaluation, it develops and maintains a feedback

mechanism whose output is eventually relayed for use in the planning stage.

An organized and unified communication strategy is critical to the success of

communication programs. Rogers has noted that “communication efforts… would be much

more effective if explicit attention were given to communication strategies” (in Piotrow et

al., 1997).

Forms of Communication Strategies

For several years, extension workers, development planners, and development

communication practitioners have developed different communication strategies to address

the needs of the farmers with regard to farming practices. Genilo (2005) categorized these

approaches into the following:

Media-based strategies. These flourished from the 1960s until the late 1970s and

were developed by social and extension workers. The strategies focus on how farmers are

able to adopt farming technologies and practices after receiving messages on their benefits

and advantages. Media-based strategies fall short in terms of stakeholder participation, since

communication at that time was seen as one-way from sender to receiver.

27

Participatory strategies. Strategies are decentralized and involve greater

participation and interaction from the stakeholders. Maintained from the late 1970s to the

early 1980s, these strategies still had pitfalls. Because the leadership in the program is

decentralized, it is not clear as to who leads what in the communication strategies. There is

also lack of a more systematic planning and implementation of the programs. In addition,

Boeren and Epskamp (1992) explained that cooperation, democracy, and other characteristics

of a participatory approach still cannot be guaranteed in some communities.

Communication technology strategies. These strategies focus on the use of new

technology or media to speed up information dissemination among different stakeholders.

New media allow people to communicate interactively and help address development issues.

According to Lin (2003), communication technology tools help reduce the time and effort

spent in human communication. However, their weakness lies on inaccessibility of the tools,

especially to the poor and illiterate.

Knowledge-based strategies. Developed in the 1990s, these strategies recognize the

innate ability and pre-existing knowledge of the farmers. It involves the integration of local,

traditional knowledge from the farmers, and scientific knowledge from the scientists and

researchers.

These strategies imply that there is no single perfect communication strategy that

answers all of the needs and problems in different contexts. Communication-related factors,

as well as socioeconomic considerations, are also important in determining which strategy is

to be used under a different setting.

Designing Communication Strategies

Piotrow et al. (1997) said that communication strategies are designed through the

following stages or steps:

1. formulating objectives to determine the intended changes in behavior that

must be achieved;

28

2. positioning the concepts, problems, or products so that it can best motivate

the stakeholders to act on the idea or product;

3. choosing means of implementation, or the activities and media that is most

accessible to the audience;

4. selecting partner organizations, which assist in developing and

implementing the strategy; and

5. planning how the communication strategy is to be documented or

evaluated.

Communication strategies, according to Rogers and Storey (in Backer, Rogers, &

Sopory, 1992), should be effects-oriented, with focus on influencing the people’s individual

behavior. Here, the emphasis is placed on the intended outcomes, or objectives. According

to White (2003), these objectives should be specific, measurable, and realistic, and should

have a definite time period. The timeframe should allow for the mobilization of different

communication resources, pre-testing, implementation, and evaluation of the communication

strategy (White, 2003).

In early communication programs, the presumed effects of communication on people

were considered narrow — communication programs either made them knowledgeable, or

aware of an idea or course of action. There was little regard on the role communication can

play in changing the overall behavior of individuals. As a result, design and implementation

of communication programs were only limited to the high-end production of communication

materials, and the development of a large number of messages. With the constant evolution

in communication paradigms and roles, the role of communication strategy has shifted from

eliciting knowledge and awareness to interacting with the people and eventually changing

their behavior (Piotrow et al., 1997). A communication is also bound within a specific time

period (Backer, Rogers, & Sopory, 1992).

Furthermore, communication strategies consist of a combination of variables (e.g.

source, message, channel, receiver) to form systematic communication interventions. These

variables make up the three aspects of communication strategies, namely: methods,

messages, and approaches (Sisteberio, 2001).

29

Information Sources

The farmers’ preferred sources of information mainly depend on the type of

information that they need. According to Lionberger & Gwin (1982), there are five kinds of

information that farmers need for them to be able to adopt new ideas or practices.

Notification, or the information involving the existence of an idea or practice, is usually

acquired by farmers from the mass media and government agencies. Operational

information, which tells the farmer how the idea or practice works for him/her, can be

obtained from fellow farmers and government agencies. Farmers, who are interested in

knowing the effects or risks of the idea or practice, or the judgmental information, usually go

to their trusted fellow farmers and other personal networks. Meanwhile, they learn how use

the idea or practice (application information) from how-to-do publications and government

agencies. They learn the actual results of using the idea or practice through their own

experience or that of others.

Selnow & Crano (1987) noted that one of the important characteristics of a source is

its credibility. When an information source is considered as prestigious and trustworthy by

the audience, they would likely change their attitude in accordance with the attitudes of the

source. On the other hand, credibility may result from the audience’s perception of the

information source’s intentions. It is also a direct result of the competence of a change agent.

However, expertise may be relative to the situation where the communication takes place.

Communication Methods

The methods of communication are classified based on how communication

processes take place at intrapersonal, interpersonal, organizational, community, or

public/mass levels (Corcoran, 2007):

1. At the intrapersonal level, methods may include inner thoughts or

feelings.

30

2. Interpersonal methods of communication may involve activities which

involve personal sending and response, such as one-on-one, small group

discussions, phone conversations, e-mails, etc.

3. Communication methods at the organizational level include lectures,

seminars, debates, meetings, workshops, newsletters, memos, and

displays.

4. In communities, radio, talks, seminars, debates, local or community

newspapers, billboards, and other methods are used.

5. Newspapers, television, digital television, Internet, national radio, and

mobile phone messaging are the common methods at the public/mass

communication level.

Sharing of innovations and technologies among farmers, on the other hand, involve

different communication methods. Formal farm organizations engage in meetings, demo

farms, and seminars, while informal organizations consult with other farmers and leaders,

observe farms of their fellow farmers, engage in informal discussions, and word-of-the-

mouth methods. The ways by which these farm organizations institutionalize or fully

implement the technologies also vary. Formal organizations formalize the activities through

assemblies and meetings, while informal organizations conduct traditional learning sessions

(Genilo, 2005).

Certain methods of communication have been recommended to facilitate community

development and technology transfer. Seminiano (1994) wrote on the potential of field trips

as one of the communication activities for community development. Aside from instilling an

enjoyable learning experience in the farmers, field trips were found to help invoke on them a

sense of cooperation and self-reliance. Meanwhile, trainings were considered as one of the

fundamental means for capacity building (Gesmundo, 1994). Forums in the Barangay

Development Council (BDC) meetings also encouraged technology transfer among farmers

as farmers are able to communicate with their personal networks and peers. Pulhin et al.

(2002) recommended that in attending seminars, meetings, and other related activities,

farmers should first be able to begin with simple technologies, and seek their effectiveness

before proceeding to the more complex ones.

31

Communication Messages

According to Selnow and Crano (1987), communicators may inundate more messages

than what they intend to tell their audience. Meanwhile, the audience tends to develop

defense mechanisms in response to these large volume and variety of messages. Selective

exposure occurs when a person avoids an entire message or simply chooses not to notice it.

Selective perception, on the other hand, happens when the audience tends to interpret

messages according to their pre-existing beliefs, values and experiences. They would only

retain what they wish to remember in a process called selective retention. These concepts

imply that messages should be audience-specific — those which have no appeal or do not

give any value or interest to the audience would most likely be ignored or forgotten.

According to Velasco et al. (2006), a message is made up of six areas: 1) appeal – the

value that one can get from the message; 2) approach – how the subject is shown or

portrayed in the message; 3) content – the central theme in the message; 4) text/image –

refers to the message form; 5) context – the environment or conditions in which the message

is being presented; and 6) source – where the message came from; affects credibility of the

message.

The way by which messages are considered in communication strategies varies along

with the way the process of communication is viewed and explained. The shift from one-

way linear models of communication to that of communication as a process toward mutual

understanding (i.e., Kincaid’s Convergence Model) allowed communication program

planners to design messages based on the thoughts and attitudes of the audience/stakeholders

(Piotrow et al., 1997).

Corcoran (2007) stated that aside from using communication and behavior change

theories to design messages, the social characteristics of the clients should be considered.

Doing this would help determine which of their thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, and/or values

affect their way of responding to the messages. This would eventually aid in designing

messages that are relatively simple and easy to understand for that particular group of clients.

32

Messages can also be effective if they encourage positive, rather than negative,

changes in behavior. Velasco et al. (2006) suggested that messages may have impact on the

stakeholders when they are able to see the benefits of the idea presented in the message. In

addition, new, interesting combinations of messages and the medium in which they are to be

delivered can be explored, such as designing informative, educational messages and giving

them an entertainment approach (Enter-Educate approach) (Backer, Rogers, & Sopory, 1992;

Corcoran, 2007).

Genilo (2005) stressed that for farmers to be able to practice or incorporate into their

knowledge new information on rice farming, the messages related to it should be consistent,

repeatable, accurate, and action-oriented. Consequently, the stakeholders should be

considerably exposed to the message that was formulated for it to have an effect on them

(Farrelly et al., 2003 in Corcoran, 2007).

Given that the quality of messages depends mostly on the stakeholders, there is a

need to design messages based on the profile of the stakeholders, and to pretest these

messages with the stakeholders (Piotrow et al., 1997). According to White (2003), this is to

avoid unnecessary effects on the clients and to keep stakeholders from being stigmatized or

offended. Furthermore, it makes sure that the stakeholders are able to understand the

messages in the way they were intended to be understood (Backer, Rogers, & Sopory, 1992).

Communication Approaches

Approaches also form an important part of a communication strategy. An approach is

somewhat related to positioning, which involves presenting the intended behavioral

outcomes to the stakeholders in the most persuasive way. Corcoran (2007) stressed the need

to think of approaches which focus on what aspects of a medium can work for the

stakeholders, and not on the effectiveness of the medium as a whole. This proactive, strategic

positioning will enable the different clients to understand the main point of the

communication strategy (Piotrow et al., 1997).

33

A communication strategy may inform, educate, persuade, or entertain (Sisteberio,

2001), or it may be a mix of the aforementioned approaches. The type of approach depends

on the socioeconomic and political factors (e.g. culture, religion), the theories on which the

strategy is built, the resources, and the clients themselves (Piotrow et al., 1997).

One of these approaches is the multi-channel or multi-media approach. This

approach works under the assumption that no single channel can best relay messages to the

clients by itself, and that a combination of different channels will be more powerful in

reinforcing and retaining messages (Lionberger & Gwin, 1982). According to Backer,

Rogers, & Sopory (1992), effective communication interventions use this type of approach.

First, even stakeholders who cannot access the message through a certain type of medium

will then be able to do so with the other channels included in the approach.

The bottom-up approach is another way by which programs are able to effectively

communicate messages to the stakeholders. In this approach, according to Boeren and

Epskamp (1992), the clients have the opportunity to air their conditions, and they are

motivated to solve their problems and attend to their needs by themselves. This, however,

remains to be a challenge for development communication practitioners, since the

participation of the clients is only limited to message design and media access (Genilo,

2005).

The entertainment-education (Enter-Educate) approach, on the other hand, a touch of

entertainment is incorporated in educational messages to stimulate appeal of the messages to

the clients. Many forms of entertainment, such as soap operas, pop music, television or radio

plugs, and the like, can be used for this approach. This, however, will be effective after

preferences of the clients are analyzed; decisions are made on the technicalities of the

approach (e.g. talents, script); and when media and materials are pre-tested, promoted,

monitored, and evaluated (Backer, Rogers, & Sopory, 1992; Piotrow et al., 1997).

Implementing effective communication strategies lead to communication programs

which: 1) clearly identify the problems to be solved and needs to be addressed; 2) include

34

creative ways of influencing change on the clients; 3) use appropriate channels for

influencing such change; 4) encourage participation of stakeholders in the communication

processes; and 5) focus on the results to be attained.

Related Studies

Custodio (1994) compared the perceptions of the participants in different

developmental programs implemented by two non-government organizations (NGOs) in the

province of Quezon. Results showed that the two NGOs were perceived by the participants

as effective in convincing residents to participate in their activities. This was because the

benefits of the program were clearly explained to them. Furthermore, the participants

preferred interpersonal channels in encouraging them to join the programs. However, one

program had difficulty maintaining the interest and cooperation of the participants in the

program. Participants attributed this to the teaching style used and the need to improve the

program as a whole. The study suggested that participants tend to adopt new ideas once they

see it as effective or beneficial to them.

Sisteberio’s (2001) study on communication strategies of the “Magsasaka-Siyentista”

(MS) program looked into the effectiveness of the methods, messages, and approaches used

in the program, and also examined the extent to which the agricultural technologies were

adopted by the farmers.

While the study noted two-way communication activity between the farmer

participants and the farmer-scientists, there was minimal communication between the farmer-

scientists and the program staff. Farmers were only able to participate in seminars and

trainings. They only had limited participation in the planning and decision-making processes

of the program.

Meanwhile, the farmers were highly interested on the activities of the MS program,

but they often are not able to attend the activities. The sources have high perceived

35

credibility. Approaches were usually informative and educational, and there was preferred

use of interpersonal communication.

Sisteberio also enumerated factors which influenced behavior change in the

participants of the program. The knowledge of the farmers was affected by their ability to

recall messages and their exposure to the idea or practice. Their approval, intention to

practice, and actual practice of the technology were influenced by the source credibility,

experiences with the technology, availability of resources, and applicability of the

technology. The benefits of the technology, and the desire of the farmers to participate in the

promotional activities, affected their advocacy of the technology. It was also noted that

personal networks did not influence the farmers’ decisions to adopt the technology.

Syafar’s (2000) study on communication variables associated with adoption of rice

farming practices in Indonesia revealed that socio-demographic characteristics such as age,

educational attainment, land ownership, and affiliation influence the adoption of these

farming practices. The study also stressed the importance of source credibility in motivating

farmers to adopt the practices.

Ronan (2008) studied the perceived effectiveness of fisher folk in Laguna with regard

to the strategies of the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) - Janitor Fish

Proliferation Team in communicating risks of janitor fish proliferation in Laguna de Bay.

Results pointed out that the fisher folk had low level of awareness about the janitor fish

proliferation issue, and in general, they viewed the strategies as ineffective. This was because

of lack of information dissemination activities and support from mass media groups and

socio-civic, development agencies. Ronan stressed the need for a closer look at people’s

awareness, attitudes, and practices in order to design effective communication programs on

environmental management.

A study conducted on an agroforestry project in Malabog, Davao City aimed to assess

the factors that led to adoption or non-adoption of agroforestry technologies (Sabban, 1993).

It first examined the multi-faceted strategy of the project in promoting these technologies.

36

The project used formal training sessions backed by field demonstrations and provision of

supplies and other inputs, and farmers were also trained to conduct seminars that further

promote the agroforestry technologies. Results showed that 80 per cent of the participants in

the project are agroforestry technology adopters, who believe that the technologies were

beneficial to them. The study pointed out that the important factor which influenced the

adoption of agroforestry technology was the farmer’s perceived value or benefit of the

technology to him/her. On the other hand, it also pointed out major constraints in the

adoption of the technology. These include lack of knowledge of the farmers of agroforestry

and labor-intensive use of the technology.

In a case study made on the Phase V Project, a communication campaign promoting

safe motherhood in Morocco (JHU/CCP, 2001), it was noted that initially, maternal mortality

reduction was not the priority of the program. The communication strategies that were

employed, however, contributed to the inclusion of this issue in the national agenda. This

concern became highly visible through media coverage. There was a gain in the access of

life-saving services because of consistent training and motivation in emergency obstetric

care. Furthermore, through outreach and public education, the women involved in the project

had learned that obstetric complications do not always mean death. In a way, the

communication strategies used in the project had come to influence not only the knowledge,

attitudes and practices of the Moroccan women, but it also changed the societal priorities in

that country. The study emphasized that the role of communication in changing behavior

would not only end to the adoption of an idea or practice.

In another case study made by Johns Hopkins University (JJU/CCP, 2004) in

Guatemala, it was observed that behavior change and community mobilization had

introduced changes in the health management strategies of women in a Guatemalan

community. These included the empowerment of the health committee, ability of the women

to formulate emergency plans, and ability of the committee to arrange for emergency

transportations in case of emergency. It recognized the long-term effects of behavioral

change due to communication interventions.

37

The importance of inter-agency collaboration and strong institutional partnerships

was stressed in a national health communication study made in Egypt (Howard, 2007). The

case study revealed that because of the cooperative inter-agency partnerships and

mechanisms formulated by different national offices and organizations, the country was able

to respond swiftly to the onset of the avian flu. Furthermore, the study also stressed the

changes in knowledge and behaviors of the people after their exposure to the quick

communication interventions formulated in line with avian flu. A large majority of the

respondents in the survey recalled messages about avian flu and the preventive measures to

avoid this disease. Furthermore, most of those who recalled the messages were also able to

practice at least one action to protect themselves and their family from avian flu.

Another important role of communication programs and strategies in addressing

constraints is in alleviation or minimizing the impact of these problems. Johns Hopkins

University (JJU/CCP, 2001), in its study on communication of safe motherhood in Morocco,

had identified constraints in the access or use of maternal health services, such as socio-

economic constraints, delay in providing maternal care, and remoteness from hospitals and

other health facilities. It was observed that the communication strategy used in the program

had strived to at least minimize these constraints through communication methods and

approaches. It is thus also important that communication strategies not only adapt to the

constraints to adoption of technologies, but these should also mitigate at least some of these

problems.

Meanwhile, Lubjuhn and Pratt’s (2009) study involved looking at the potential of

enter-education approach as a way of reaching out to lower and middle-class communities in

Germany with climate-friendly lifestyle messages. The paper suggested a somewhat sender-

oriented enter-educate approach, which was differentiated into government, business, and

NGO approaches. This was made under the assumption that these three institutions are the

ones formulating the media strategies in the country to come up with effective

communication campaigns for a climate-friendly lifestyle. This study, which looks at the

“senders” rather than the stakeholders of a communication program, implies that models of

38

communication for behavior change may differ from one country or context to another,

depending on how the planners and stakeholders are viewed.

Synthesis of Literature Reviewed

Conventional agricultural practices which are, on one hand, practical and beneficial to

the Filipino farmer, bring along with them environmental and health problems. In particular,

rice straw burning, one of the common rice farming activities in the country, entails a number

of adverse effects. The continued practice by Filipino farmers may be attributed to lack of

knowledge and awareness and existing beliefs and experiences which hinder them to change

their ways.

A number of natural resource policies and programs tackling on rice straw burning

problems, such as the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program, have been implemented to discourage

unsustainable agricultural activities and mitigate their effects on the environment.

Environmentally-sustainable agricultural technologies were promoted to adapt to the growing

issue of climate change and global warming. However, the lack of support from groups,

weak and unsystematic information, education, and communication (IEC) campaigns, and

limited stakeholder participation rendered these programs relatively useless.

In this regard, there is a need for communication strategies which systematize the

elements and aspects of communication interventions for promoting environment-friendly

agricultural technologies. In order to effectively promote these technologies and practices,

the key elements and dimensions of communication strategies should be considered in

designing and implementing environmental communication programs. These strategies

should address not only the environmental issues related to rice straw burning, but also to

cater to the individuality, needs, and interests of farmers involved in such issue.

Furthermore, the emergence of constraints to behavior change or adoption of technologies

such as socioeconomic, technical, and institutional concerns may somewhat be delayed or

mitigated by the use of proper communication strategies based on the context in which the

problem exists.

39

Theoretical Framework

The study seeks to determine what factors in the communication strategy used in the

DA Agri-Kalikasan program influence change in rice straw management practices of selected

Leyte farmers.

The diffusion of innovations theory provided the underpinnings of this study.

According to Piotrow et al. (1997), this theory traces the process through which new ideas

and practices are communicated using different media to people in a social system over time.

It focuses on the factors influencing adoption or non-adoption of a certain innovation or

technology.

Rogers (1995) defined diffusion as a “process by which an innovation is

communicated through certain channels over a period of time among members of the social

system.” He also described innovation as a concept, object or practice which an individual,

group, or organization sees as new.

Lagnaoui, Santi and Santucci (2004) suggested that innovation, from a

communication point of view, should be defined by the difference between what people

already know and what they had been practicing. They classified innovations as continuous,

semi-continuous, or discontinuous. Continuous innovations are the easiest to practice and

adopt since they are consistent with what people already know and practice, and because they

are practical. Semi-continuous innovations involve the need for people to know something

about the innovation, change a few practices and ideas, and invest time and money in using

the innovation. Discontinuous innovations may do away with the conventional or past

practices, and lead to developing entirely new ideas, practices and markets.

Rogers (1983) explained that an individual’s decision to adopt an innovation is a

process which consists of a series of events and actions that happen through time. This

innovation-decision process consists of five stages:

40

1. Knowledge. This happens when an individual recognizes and understands an

innovation and how it works. This is usually influenced by the characteristics of

the individual or group making the decision to adopt or reject the innovation.

These include socioeconomic attributes, personality, and communication behavior

2. Persuasion. The individual develops positive or negative attitudes about the

innovation. The attributes of the innovation usually influences one’s formation of

attitudes. These include: 1) relative advantage – the extent to which the

innovation is perceived by the farmer as beneficial or advantageous; 2)

compatibility – the extent to which the rice innovation coincides with the one’s

needs, values, beliefs, and past experiences; 3) complexity – refers to the

perceived difficulty of the individual or group to understand the innovation;

4) trialability – the degree to which one is able to test the innovation before

completely using it; and 5) observability – the visibility of the results of an

innovation to the individual or group.

3. Decision. The individual eventually decides whether to adopt or reject the

innovation. When the individual adopts an innovation, he/she makes the choice of

fully using the innovation. On the other hand, he/she may choose not to adopt

(reject) the innovation. Rejection may be active, wherein one previously intended

to adopt the innovation, and then chose not to adopt it. It can also be passive,

wherein one never considered adopting the innovation.

4. Implementation. At this stage, the individual or group uses the innovation. The

way by which one uses the innovation depends on the situation or context in

which he/she uses it. Re-invention, or the process by which one changes the

innovation upon its use or adoption, may occur as early as in this stage.

5. Confirmation. This occurs when the individual affirms his/her decision to adopt

or reject the innovation. He/She may encounter conflicting messages that may

affect innovation decisions. The aim of the individual or group in this stage is to

adapt to these conflicts in order to make long-term decisions to adopt or reject the

innovation.

Figure 3 illustrates the conceptual model of the diffusion process (Rogers, 1995). As

the figure shows, several factors influence the communication or diffusion of an innovation

among the members of the social system, and consequently, the adoption of that innovation.

Each of these factors specifically influences the stages of the diffusion process. For instance,

the knowledge of the individual about the innovation may be affected by the characteristics

of the individual, and the nature of the social system. In addition, the perceived

characteristics of the innovation affect the individual’s formation of attitudes toward the

innovation.

41

On the other hand, the model shows that communication variables such as the source

and channels through which the information about the innovation is shared exert influence on

the adoption/non-adoption of the innovation at each of the stages. These factors, together

with the type of innovation-decision, also determine the rate at which the innovation is

adopted (Rogers, 1983).

Windahl, Signitzer and Olson (1992) stated that the diffusion process is usually

related to behavior change. Furthermore, they assert that while the decision to adopt or reject

an innovation is made and confirmed, changes in knowledge and attitudes have to take place.

Innovation-decisions, according to Rogers (1983), may differ according to the

organizational level in which they are made. They can be either authoritative decisions,

which an absolute power imposes on individuals or groups. They can also be individual

decisions, or optional, independent of what the rest of the social system has decided. It can

also be collective, made through consensus. Contingent innovation-decisions, on the other

hand, are developed after a previous innovation-decision.

42

Receiver variables

1. Personality characteristics (e.g.

general attitude towards change)

2. Social characteristics (e.g.

cosmopolitanism)

3. Perceived need for the

innovation

4. Etc.

Social system variables

1. Social system

norms

2. Tolerance of

deviancy

3. Communication

integration

4. Etc.

Perceived characteristics of an

innovation

1. Relative advantage

2. Compatibility

3. Complexity

4. Trialability

5. Observability

Knowledge Persuasion Decision Implementation Confirmation

Adoption

Rejection

Continued

rejection

Later

adoption

Discontinuance

Continued

adoption

Communication sources

(Channels)

Time

Figure 3. Conceptual model of the Diffusion of Innovations theory (Rogers, 1983)

PROCESS CONSEQUENCES ANTECEDENTS

43

Conceptual Framework

Figure 4 illustrates the conceptualized relationship of the variables in the study. It

was assumed that a relationship exists between the characteristics of the communication

strategy of the DA Agri-Kalikasan program and the stage of adoption of the MRC

technology.

The independent variable is basically the DA Agri-Kalikasan communication strategy

which consists of the source, message, channel, and receiver variables. The source variables

are measured in terms of 1) source of information on modified rapid composting (MRC)

technology; 2) perceived credibility of information source; and 3) frequency of access to

information source. The message variables are: 1) perceived degree of clarity; 2) perceived

degree of comprehensibility; 4) perceived degree of completeness; and 5) perceived degree

of interest. The channel variables consist of 1) frequency of exposure to channel; and

2) perceived degree of interest in channel. Finally, the receiver variables include 1) perceived

degree of need for MRC technology; and 2) perceived attitude towards MRC technology.

The dependent variable is the farmer-cooperators’ stage of adoption of the MRC

technology. The adoption stages are 1) knowledge; 2) persuasion; 3) decision;

4) implementation; and 5) confirmation. The factors in the knowledge stage comprise of the

following: 1) recall of specific messages; 2) knowledge about MRC technology; and 3)

knowledge about steps in MRC technology. In the persuasion stage, the factors considered

are as follows: 1) discussion of MRC technology with personal network; 2) approval of MRC

technology by personal network; and 3) personal approval of MRC technology. The decision

stage factors are 1) consultation with technology providers and 2) intention to use the MRC

technology. Meanwhile, the implementation stage also has two factors that describe it,

namely: 1) acquisition of materials for MRC technology; and 2) application of MRC

technology in field. Lastly, the confirmation stage is measured in terms of: 1) recognition of

benefits or drawbacks of MRC technology; 2) continuous use of MRC technology; and

3) advocacy for MRC technology (See Figure 4).

44

Factors in DA Agri-Kalikasan Communication

Strategy for MRC Technology

Source Variable

• Source of inform

ation on M

odified Rapid

Composting (MRC) technology

• Perceived credibility of inform

ation source

• Frequency of access to inform

ation source

Message Variable

• Perceived degree of clarity

• Perceived degree of comprehensibility

• Perceived degree of completeness

• Perceived degree of interest

Channel variable

• Frequency of exposure to channel

• Perceived degree of interest in channel

Receiver variable

• Perceived degree of need for MRC

• Perceived attitude towards M

RC technology

Adoption Stage of MRC Technology

Knowledge stage

•

Recall of specific m

essages

•

Extent of knowledge about MRC technology

•

Extent of knowledge about steps in M

RC

Persuasion stage

•

Discussion of MRC technology with

personal network

•

Approval of MRC technology by personal

network

•

Personal approval of MRC technology

Decision stage

•

Consultation with technology providers

•

Intention to use M

RC technology

Implementation stage

•

Acquisition of materials for MRC technology

•

Application of MRC technology

Confirmation stage

•

Recognition of benefits or drawbacks of

MRC technology

•

Continuous use of MRC technology

•

Advocacy for MRC technology

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE

DEPENDENT VARIABLE

Figure 4. Framework showing the conceptualized relationship of variables in the study

45

Statement of Hypotheses

The study tried to determine what specific variables in the communication strategy of

the DA Agri-Kalikasan program significantly influenced the stages at which the farmer-

cooperators adopted the MRC technology. Thus, it tested the following hypotheses:

Source variables

Ho: No relationship exists between the source variables in the Agri-Kalikasan

communication strategy and farmer-cooperators’ adoption stage of the MRC

technology.

Ha: A relationship exists between the source variables in the Agri-Kalikasan

communication strategy and farmer-cooperators’ adoption stage of the MRC

technology.

Message variables

Ho: No relationship exists between the message variables in the Agri-Kalikasan

communication strategy and farmer-cooperators’ adoption stage of the MRC

technology.

Ha: A relationship exists between the message variables Agri-Kalikasan

communication strategy and farmer-cooperators’ adoption stage of the MRC

technology.

Channel variables

Ho: No relationship exists between the channel variables in the Agri-Kalikasan

communication strategy and farmer-cooperators’ adoption stage of the MRC

technology.

Ha: A relationship exists between the channel variables Agri-Kalikasan

communication strategy and farmer-cooperators’ adoption stage of the MRC

technology.

46

Receiver variables

Ho: No relationship exists between the receiver variables in the Agri-Kalikasan

communication strategy and farmer-cooperators’ adoption stage of the MRC

technology.

Ha: A relationship exists between the receiver variables in the Agri-Kalikasan

communication strategy and farmer-cooperators’ adoption stage of the MRC

technology.

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

The study used the survey research design to obtain relevant data from the farmer-

cooperators of the DA Agri-Kalikasan program. This design aims to give a description or

prediction as a framework for action by determining the existence, distribution, and

relationships of certain variables (Escalada and Heong ,1997). Specifically, surveys focus on

people’s attitudes, beliefs, opinions, inclinations, and behavior towards a phenomenon

(Mercado, 1999). Escalada and Heong (1997) also pointed out that the survey design is

especially useful in designing and evaluating extension and development programs.

Key informant interviews with the DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff were also

conducted to enrich the interpretation of the survey results (See Appendix C).

Location and Respondents of the Study

Leyte is one of the 56 major rice-producing provinces in the country targeted by the

nationwide DA Agri-Kalikasan program. With a total land area of 571, 280 hectares, the

province is the largest in the Eastern Visayas Region. It is bounded by the province of

Biliran in the north, Samar province and San Juanico Strait in the east, Cebu province in the

west, and Southern Leyte province in the south. Tacloban City is its provincial capital. Of its

40 municipalities, 17 served as technology demonstration (techno-demo) sites of the

Modified Rapid Composting (MRC) technology under the DA program. Each of these sites is

monitored by a farmer-cooperator, technician, and district coordinator. Figure 5 shows the 17

municipalities in Leyte which served as the sites of this study.

48

Figure 5. Map showing the different techno-demo sites in Leyte

49

The respondents of the study were male and female farmer-cooperators of the DA

Agri-Kalikasan program in Leyte, particularly those who were exposed to the Modified

Rapid Composting (MRC) technology. The key informants consisted of the DA Agri-

Kalikasan program staff in Leyte.

Table 1 lists the municipalities with MRC techno-demo farms and the number of

farmer cooperators per site.

Table 1. List of municipalities in Leyte province where MRC technology demonstration sites

have been set up and the number of farmer cooperators per site

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY BARANGAY NUMBER OF FARMER COOPERATORS

1 Palo Capirawan 3 Babatngon Pagsulhogon 5 Sta. Fe 4 Alang-alang Cavite 2 San Miguel Bairan 4 2 Barugo Bolod 5 Jaro Olotan 8 Mayorga Union 2 3 Leyte, Leyte Ugbon 3 4 Kananga Tugbong 4 5 Abuyog Balocauehay 2 Mahaplag Mahayag 3 Hindang Poblacion I 5

Hilongos Naval 2 Bato Alejos 4 Matalom Agbanga 3 Southern Leyte Maasin City Maria Clara 5

Total

64

Variables of the Study

The independent variable was the communication strategy for modified rapid

composting technology (MRC) of the DA Agri-Kalikasan program. The communication

strategy was measured in terms of source, message, channel, and receiver variables. On the

other hand, the dependent variable was the adoption stage of the MRC technology, namely:

50

1) knowledge stage; 2) persuasion stage; 3) decision stage; 4) implementation stage; and 5)

confirmation stage (See Figure 4, page 44).

Sampling Procedure

The study employed complete enumeration of 64 farmer-cooperators of the DA Agri-

Kalikasan Program in Leyte as survey respondents. However, only 49 farmer-cooperators

were surveyed because one farmer was already deceased and others had either moved to

Manila or were not available at the time of data gathering.

For the key informant interviews, the respondents were purposively selected based on

their designation as staff of the DA Agri-Kalikasan program and on their involvement in the

program. These included the program coordinator, the head of the Soils and Fertility Unit,

the regional coordinator of the Soil and Water Conservation Unit in DA Regional Office

VIII, and the municipal agricultural technicians (MATs) assigned in each municipality where

the techno-demo sites are located. Because some of the technicians were absent or busy

participating in other activities during the time of data gathering, not all of the technicians

were interviewed. The municipal agricultural officers (MAOs) in some towns agreed to be

interviewed in lieu of the technician. A total of 12 MATs and 4 MAOs were interviewed for

the study. The city agriculturist in Maasin City, Southern Leyte was also interviewed to

further verify information.

Research Instrument

The Survey Questionnaire

A structured questionnaire (Appendix B) using the interview-guided approach

(Appendix C) was used as the main research instrument. It contained a mix of close-ended

questions with choices and open-ended questions. In some parts, tables were used to facilitate

filling up and recording of responses. The six-part questionnaire was administered in

Tagalog, Cebuano, and Waray dialect.

51

The first part tackled the attributes of the source in the communication strategy of the

DA Agri-Kalikasan program. Data were elicited on sources of information about modified

rapid composting (MRC) technology, credibility of the sources, and frequency of access to

information sources.

The second part of the questionnaire focused on the message variables of the Agri-

Kalikasan communication strategy. Questions were asked on the following attributes of a

message: 1) specific messages brought to the farmer-cooperators by the DA Agri-Kalikasan

program; 2) clarity of the message; 3) understandability of the message; 4) completeness of

the message; and 5) how interesting the message is to the farmer-cooperators.

The third part dealt with the channels used in the communication strategy of the DA

Agri-Kalikasan program. The respondents were asked about the specific communication

channels used by the DA Agri-Kalikasan program to bring information about the MRC

technology to them, the frequency of their exposure to the channels, and how interesting the

channels were.

Data on the receiver variables of the Agri-Kalikasan communication strategy were

elicited in the fourth part of the questionnaire. These included the respondent’s perceived

level of need for the MRC technology and their rating of their attitude towards the MRC

technology using the Likert scale – strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disgree,

and strongly disagree.

The fifth part consisted of questions about the farmer-cooperators’ level of adoption

of the MRC technology in each of the following stages, namely: 1) knowledge; 2)

persuasion; 3) decision; 4) implementation; and 5) confirmation.

The last part of the questionnaire contained questions on the problems encountered in

the use of the MRC technology, the ways by which these problems were addressed, and

suggestions to improve the DA Agri-Kalikasan communication strategy. Towards the end of

52

the questionnaire, information was sought on the respondents’ socio-demographic and

farming characteristics.

Interview Guide for Key Informants

An interview guide was prepared with emphasis on key themes regarding the source,

message, channel, and receiver variables of the DA Agri-Kalikasan communication strategy.

Likewise, the qualifications of the key informants were identified.

Data Collection

Interviews with the key informants were arranged via a formal letter to the project

coordinator of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program. The MAOs and MATs were then contacted

through personal calls, text messaging, and referrals made by the project coordinator. Since

all of the key informants refused to be taped during the interviews, notes were taken to record

their responses. The results of the key interviews were used to reinforce the interpretation of

the survey results.

On the other hand, the structured guide questionnaire was formulated and pretested

with five farmers in Brgy. Tugas, Bato, Leyte. The outcomes of the pretest were used to

revise and improve the questionnaire. In coordination with the head of the Soils and Fertility

Unit of the Office of the Provincial Agriculturist (OPA) and the Municipal Agricultural

Office (MAO) in each of the techno-demo sites in the province, the survey respondents were

located and interviews arranged through personal visits and text messaging.

Data collection was done from October 28-30, 2009, and from November 3-4, 2009.

Here, the farmer-cooperators were interviewed personally using the survey questionnaire as a

guide. Key informant interviews were also done on the same dates, after the farmers’

surveys were conducted in each of the techno-demo sites.

53

Data Analysis Procedure

The data obtained from the survey were organized in frequency and percentage

tables. The weighted mean scores were obtained for each of the Likert scale results to

determine the most dominant response of the respondents regarding the source, message,

channel and receiver variables in the study. It was computed using the formula:

Weighted mean = Σ (Rating x Frequency)

n

Where:

Σ = summation of the products of ratings and frequencies

Rating = any of the ratings in the scale (Likert type index numerical equivalent

choices: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) given by the respondents

Frequency = number of respondents who gave that rating

The weighted mean intervals and their corresponding qualitative interpretation for

measuring each of the attributes of the source, message, channel and receiver variables are as

follows:

a. Perceived credibility of information source Mean Range Interpretation

0.50-1.49 Very credible

3.50-4.49 Credible

2.50-3.49 Can’t say

1.50-2.49 Not credible

0.50-1.49 Not very credible

b. Frequency of access to information source Mean Range Interpretation

4.50-5.00 Always

3.50-4.49 Often

2.50-3.49 Sometimes

1.50-2.49 Not often

0.50-1.49 Not always

c. Perceived degree of clarity of message Mean Range Interpretation

4.50-5.00 Very clear

3.50-4.49 Clear

2.50-3.49 Can’t say

1.50-2.49 Not clear

0.50-1.49 Not very clear

54

d. Perceived degree of comprehensibility of message Mean Range Interpretation

4.50-5.00 Very understandable

3.50-4.49 Understandable

2.50-3.49 Can’t say

1.50-2.49 Not understandable

0.50-1.49 Not very understandable

e. Perceived degree of completeness of message Mean Range Interpretation

4.50-5.00 100% complete

3.50-4.49 80% complete

2.50-3.49 60% complete

1.50-2.49 40% complete

0.50-1.49 20% complete

f. Perceived degree of interest in message Mean Range Interpretation

4.50-5.00 Very interesting

3.50-4.49 Interesting

2.50-3.49 Can’t say

1.50-2.49 Not interesting

0.50-1.49 Not very interesting

g. Frequency of exposure to channel Mean Range Interpretation

4.50-5.00 Always

3.50-4.49 Often

2.50-3.49 Sometimes

1.50-2.49 Not often

0.50-1.49 Not always

h. Perceived degree of interest in channel Mean Range Interpretation

4.50-5.00 Very interesting

3.50-4.49 Interesting

2.50-3.49 Can’t say

1.50-2.49 Not interesting

0.50-1.49 Not very interesting

i. Perceived attitude towards MRC technology Mean Range Interpretation

4.50-5.00 Strongly agree

3.50-4.49 Agree

2.50-3.49 Neither agree nor disagree

1.50-2.49 Disagree

0.50-1.49 Strongly disagree

55

In addition, the existence of a relationship between the communication (source,

message, channel, and receiver) variables, and the adoption level of the MRC technology was

tested using the chi-square test of independence. The statistical test would determine if the

communication variables significantly influenced the adoption of the MRC technology.

Meanwhile, data from the personal interviews with the staff of the DA Agri-Kalikasan

program were used to further enrich the discussion of the survey results.

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

Age, Sex, Household Size, and Civil Status

Forty nine farmer-cooperators of the DA Agri-Kalikasan program in Leyte,

Philippines served as respondents of the study. Table 2 shows their socio-demographic

characteristics.

Majority (61%) of the farmer respondents were aged 48 to 69 years old, indicating

they are relatively old and mature. There were more males (59%) than females (41%).

Majority (61%) belonged to relatively small households, with 1-5 members. Almost all

(90%) of them were married.

Educational Attainment and Number of MRC-related Trainings Attended

More than half (53%) of the farmers underwent secondary schooling. A little over one

fourth (27%) had received elementary education; the rest underwent college or had college

degrees (20%). Almost half (47%) of them had attended a training related to modified rapid

composting (MRC) technology. Nine out of 49 have not had any MRC-related training at all

(Table 2).

Tenurial Status, Farm Size, and Length of Farming Experience

Nearly half (45%) of the farmers had full ownership of the land while more than one

third (37%) were tenants. Majority (55%) had one hectare or less of rice land, followed by

those with 1.25-5.0 hectares (37%). On the other hand, one respondent owned more than 20

57

hectares of land. Majority (55%) had been farming their land from 3 to 24 years. Two

respondents had been tending their land for more than 50 years (Table 2).

Annual Yield in Rice Production, Annual Income in Rice Production, and Support Services

More than two fifths (44%) of the respondents said they produced 101-500 cavans of

rice in a year. An equal percentage (23%) each harvested an extreme rice yield in a year –100

cavans or less and 501-1000 cavans. Meanwhile, five farmers produced more than a thousand

cavans per year (Table 2). The five farmers were owners of huge hectares of land, or seed

growers who were given farm support by different institutions.

Table 2. Socio-demographic characteristics of farmer-cooperators of the DA

Agri-Kalikasan program in Leyte province

SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTIC

FREQUENCY (N=49)

PERCENTAGE (%)

Age 26-47 17 35 48-69 30 61 70-80 2 4

Sex Male 29 59 Female 20 41

Household size 1-5 30 61 6-10 18 37 11-14 1 2

Civil status Married 44 90 Single 3 6 Widowed 2 4

Educational attainment High school/High school graduate 26 53 Elementary/Elementary graduate 13 27 College/College graduate 10 20

Number of MRC-related trainings attended

One 23 47 Two 10 21 Three 3 6 Four and above 4 8 Did not attend any training 9 18

58

Table 2 continued.

SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTIC

FREQUENCY (N=49)

PERCENTAGE (%)

Tenurial status Full ownership 22 45 Tenant 18 37 Others (rented; conjugal ownership) 5 10 Leasee 3 6 Ownership under certificate of land transfer (CLT)

1 2

Farm size (hectares) Less than or equal to 1 27 55 1.25-5.00 18 37 6-10 2 4 16-20 1 2 More than 20 1 2

Length of farming experience (in years) 3-24 27 55 25-46 20 41 47-57 2 4

Annual yield in rice production (cavans/year)

101-500 22 44 Less than or equal to 100 11 23 501-1000 11 23 More than 1000 5 10

Annual income in rice production (PhP) Less than or equal to 100,000 28 57 100,001-300,000 12 25 300,001-500,000 6 12 More than 500,000 3 6

Support services* Fertilizer 36 73 Seeds 25 51 Technical support and training 8 16 Financial support (e.g. loans, discounts)

5 10

Maintenance (e.g. pesticides, plant medicine)

3 6

None 2 4 No answer 1 2

*Multiple responses

Majority (57%) of the farmer respondents earned about PhP 100,000 or less in a year

in rice production. Twelve (25%) farmers obtained between PhP 100,001 and 300, 000

annual income. The rest derived an income of more than PhP300, 000 annually from rice

production.

59

In terms of support services, most of the farmers received fertilizer or fertilizer

subsidies from the DA and other agencies (36 responses). The farmers were also able to avail

themselves of free or subsidized seeds (25 responses). Technical support and training, as well

as financial support in the form of loans or discounts, were provided to the farmers as support

services of the DA Agri-Kalikasan program (Table 2).

Communication Strategy of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program

Source Variables

Source of information about the MRC technology

Farm technicians were the most common source of information about the MRC

technology among the farmer respondents (46 responses). Next to the technicians, the DA

Agri-Kalikasan program staff was identified as source of information (14 responses) (Table

3). As experts in the field, the technicians shouldered the responsibility of regularly

monitoring the performance of the techno-demo sites together with the farmer-cooperators.

Hence, this could be the reason why the farmer-cooperators usually turned to the technicians

for information on the MRC technology.

Table 3. Sources of information about the MRC technology

INFORMATION SOURCE FREQUENCY (N=49)*

Technician 46 DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff 14 Neighbor/fellow farmer 3 Print 3 Radio 2 TV 2 Others 1

*Multiple responses

It can be observed that interpersonal sources of information were usually accessed.

This may be because the farmer-cooperators have regular interaction with the farm

technicians and Agri-Kalikasan staff who visit them at the farm when they carry out their

monitoring activities. Besides their availability, interpersonal sources could also have better

60

helped the farmers learn more about the MRC technology. According to Corcoran (2007),

these kinds of sources have an edge in helping individuals proceed from the knowledge of an

idea or product to more advanced stages of behavior change such as practice and advocacy.

Perceived credibility and frequency of access

Table 4 summarizes the weighted mean scores of the respondents’ rating of their

perceived credibility of and frequency of access to information sources. Among the

information sources identified by the respondents, the agricultural technician was perceived

as credible (4.41 mean score). On the other hand, the other information sources were

generally perceived as not very credible by the respondents.

According to Selnow and Crano (1979), factors such as expertise and constant

interaction with the source would affect the credibility of the information source. The

agricultural technicians, according to the project in-charge of the program, were trained in

farmer field schools (FFS), and were thus considered as experts on field activities. As field

experts who interact face to face directly with farmer-cooperators, they would likely be

perceived as more credible than a television or radio program.

The respondents also generally often accessed the agricultural technicians for

information on the MRC technology (3.96 mean score). Meanwhile, their frequency of

contact with the Agri-Kalikasan program staff was much lower at 1.06 mean score,

interpreted as ‘not always.’ Apparently, the farmers do not always seek out the Agri-

Kalikasan program staff. This may have something to do with the role of the program staff

in the promotion of MRC. Aside from choosing techno-demo sites and delegating tasks, they

basically provide funds, materials and logistics for MRC implementation. This does not

necessarily require direct interaction with the farmer-cooperators.

Furthermore, the respondents did not always access neighbors or fellow farmers as

well as mass media sources such as print, radio, and television (Table 4).

61

Table 4. Weighted mean scores and qualitative interpretation of the respondents’ ratings of source credibility and frequency of access to source

SOURCE

PERCEIVED DEGREE OF CREDIBILITY

FREQUENCY OF ACCESS TO SOURCE

WEIGHTED MEAN

SCORE

INTERPRETATION

WEIGHTED MEAN

SCORE

INTERPRETATION

Neighbor/Fellow farmer

0.18 Not very credible 0.31 Not always

DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff

1.33 Not very credible 1.04 Not always

Farm technician 4.41 Credible 3.96 Often Print 0.29 Not very credible 0.25 Not always Radio 0.27 Not very credible 0.16 Not always TV 0.18 Not very credible 0.10 Not always

When asked about the reason for their high rating of the source’s credibility, the

farmers explained that they could observe the benefits of the MRC technology on their

techno-demo farm as they are using it (25 responses) and, at the same time, they can discuss

and verify the benefits with the farm technicians when they visit regularly for monitoring and

data collection (Table 5). Farmers are usually known for their “wait-and-see attitude”

(Lionberger & Gwin, 1982), which means that they would not put their trust in a program or

project unless they looked at its benefits.

Trust was another reason for having credibility in the source. The farmers “personally

trusted” their information sources regardless of their qualifications (12 responses) (Table 5).

Constant interaction with the agricultural technicians may have built the farmer-cooperators’

trust in them. This could be because of the role or nature of work of the technicians in the

program. The technicians helped the farmer-cooperators gather pertinent data on plant and

soil samples and gave feedback on the implementation of the project. These required direct

interaction between the technician and the farmer-cooperator.

The respondents gave other explanations for their high credibility of the source such

as: 1) information source explains well the MRC technology; and 2) information source is a

direct provider of the technology.” (Table 5)

62

Meanwhile, the respondent’s low rating of the source’s credibility was attributed to

to the following reasons: 1) the information source does not meet needs of farmers; 2) the

information source is not really “perfect” or “know-it-all”; and 3) the source is indifferent

(Table 5). These findings imply that information sources should be sensitive to the needs of

their stakeholders if they are to establish credibility.

Table 5. Respondents’ reasons for their rating of perceived credibility of information sources

on the MRC technology

REASON FREQUENCY (N=49)*

For high credibility Benefits of MRC technology are seen during/after use 25 Information source is personally trusted 12 Information source explains well the MRC technology 8 Information source is a direct provider of the technology

1

For low credibility Information source does not meet needs of farmers 5 Information source is not really perfect 5 Source is indifferent 5

No response 1

*Multiple responses

The farmers sought out the agricultural technician when problems or needs about the

use of the MRC technology cropped up (11 responses). They acquired information about the

MRC technology when the source was available (9 responses), or when he/she was just

nearby and accessible (6 responses). They accessed the source because they trusted him/her

about the information on MRC (6 responses) (Table 6).

Other farmers exhibited low frequency of access to the information source because

they were busy with other farm activities (5 responses) (Table 6). On the other hand, it is

possible that the farmer-cooperators did ‘not always’ meet with the Agri-Kalikasan program

staff because the staff may have other techno-demo sites to visit and monitor besides their

MRC technology sites, or perhaps the staff may have a limited number of visits to the sites

due to lack of budget.

63

The results seem to point out that the farmer-cooperators tend to access their

information sources based on their needs about the technology, the time or availability and

accessibility of the source, and the trustworthiness of the source.

One of the municipal agricultural technicians (MATs) in Brgy. Alejos, Bato, Leyte,

mentioned in the key informant interview (KII) that fast communication through text

messaging facilitated farmers’ access to their information sources, particularly the

technicians. Other technicians cited the accessibility of the techno-demo sites which made it

easier for them to visit the areas and bring information to the farmer-cooperators.

The secretary to the municipal agriculture office (MAO) in Jaro, Leyte said that when

problems arise on the use of MRC technology, the farmers would simply send a text message

or personally call on the technicians to help them. The agricultural technicians thus play a

role not only in making information available to the farmers, but also in making it more

convenient for the farmers to obtain information. Text messaging and use of cell phones

emerged as important factors in farmers’ access to information sources in this study.

Table 6. Respondents’ reasons for frequency of access to information sources on the MRC technology

REASON FREQUENCY (N=49)*

For high frequency of access If related problems or needs arise 11 Information source is available 9 Information source is accessible 6 Information source is trusted 6 Networks, linkages, or connections are available 4 Consistent follow-up on the program 3 Relying on pre-existing knowledge 2 Benefits of the technology 2

For low frequency of access Busy with other farming activities 5

*Multiple responses

64

Message Variables

Perceived degree of clarity of message

The farmer respondents rated ‘very clear’ the messages on the steps in applying the

MRC compost to the field (4.67 mean score) and the practical benefits of the MRC

technology (4.55 mean score). The steps in preparing the compost (4.48 mean score) and the

environmental benefits of the MRC technology (4.29 mean score) were ‘clear’ to the farmers

(Table 7). The high clarity of the messages on MRC technology may be attributed to the

action-oriented learning style of the Agri-Kalikasan program which consists of interactive,

hands-on activities such as field demonstration (demo) and face-to-face consultations with

technicians.

It can also be deduced that using the MRC technology in the demo farm and

consequently enabling the farmers to see and observe its practical benefits to them and to the

environment helped a lot to clarify the messages about the technology. According to

Corcoran (2007), clarity is one of the factors which help the stakeholders of a program

understand what communication planners intend to have them understand.

The farmer respondents had three main reasons for perceiving the messages on MRC

technology to have high clarity. These were as follows: 1) the technology is used on the farm

and its benefits are seen (26 responses); 2) the message is well-explained (10 responses); and

3) additional information can be obtained from technology providers (5 responses) (Table 8).

These reasons support the value of action-oriented learning as an approach to promoting a

new technology among farmers.

Two respondents cited that their personal networks helped clarify the messages on

MRC technology. Other factors that contributed to make the messages clear were the

following: 1) the messages are repeatedly shared by the technician; 2) the use of MRC is

taught in Cebuano/Waray; and 3) the technician’s closely supervise the use of the

technology.

65

In contrast, the messages on the drawbacks of the MRC technology were not very

clear to some of the farmers. This was because only little information was given; English

was used in teaching the MRC technology; and there was lack of follow-up on the use of the

technology (Table 8).

According to the Soils and Water Coordinator of the Regional Soils Laboratory in

DA Region VIII, the information usually shared with the farmers about the MRC technology

were the MRC composting process, the benefits of the technology, and the prohibition of rice

straw burning. Information on safety precautions or possible drawbacks was rarely shared

with the farmers. An agricultural technician in Babatngon, Leyte, commented that “the

farmers were not particular about the drawbacks of MRC, so the technicians did not usually

discuss these with them.” This could be one reason why the messages on drawbacks of the

technology were not clear to the farmers.

The municipal agricultural technician (MAT) in Sta. Fe, Leyte emphasized that “the

program focused on teaching farmers how to use the MRC technology in their farms.

Contrary to the highly theoretical and technical information shared with the technicians, the

more practical applications of the technology were taught to the farmer-cooperators.”

Apparently, a different set of messages about the MRC technology are communicated to the

agricultural technicians and to the farmer-cooperators.

Perceived degree of comprehensibility of message

The farmers found the steps in applying the compost to the field (4.69 mean score) as

well as the practical benefits of the MRC technology (4.51 mean score) very understandable.

The steps in preparing the compost (4.47 mean score) and the environmental benefits from

the technology were understandable to them (Table 7). It appears that the messages which

were most understandable to the farmer-cooperators involved hands-on learning or

interaction. On the other hand, information about the drawbacks of the MRC technology

and safety precautions was not very understandable among the farmer-cooperators of the

Agri-Kalikasan program.

66

One of the important reasons why the farmer-cooperators found the messages

understandable was that they have used the MRC technology in their demo farms and

experienced its benefits (26 responses) (Table 9). Furthermore, the messages were well-

explained (14 responses). Some respondents pointed out that the agricultural technician was

helpful in making them understand the messages through constant field visits and supervision

(5 responses). Aside from them, media and communication activities such as meetings,

trainings, and seminars helped a few of the respondents gain more understanding of the MRC

technology (3 responses).

The drawbacks of the technology, on the other hand, were not understandable among

the respondents. According to them, this was due to: 1) lack of details about the technology

drawbacks; 2) technology is difficult to use; 3) English is used in teaching the technology;

and 4) benefits are not noticeable (Table 9).

Perceived degree of completeness of message

The set of messages about MRC technology that were perceived to be clear and

comprehensible was also perceived as 80 percent complete in content. As Table 7 again

shows, these messages were on: 1) steps in applying compost in the field (4.43 mean score);

2) steps in preparing the compost (4.20 mean score); 3) practical benefits of technology to

farmer (4.18 mean score); and 4) environmental benefits of technology (3.98 mean score).

While these messages were considered most complete, information on drawbacks of MRC

technology was thought to be only 20 percent complete, including safety precautions.

Table 10 shows the farmer-cooperators’ reasons for their rating of the perceived

completeness of messages on MRC. The farmer-cooperators considered the four sets of

messages about MRC technology as being 80 percent complete because they were able to see

the benefits and apply the technology on the farm (15 responses). In contrast, the messages

on drawbacks of the technology were perceived to be only 20 percent complete because

“there is still more information to be shared about the MRC technology” (13 responses)

(Table 10).

67

Perceived degree of interest in message

The farmer respondents found two sets of messages very interesting, namely: 1) the

steps in preparing the compost (2.55 mean score); and 2) the practical benefits of MRC

technology (2.53 mean score). Information on environmental benefits of the technology was

perceived as interesting (4.29 mean score) (Table 7). Again, these messages are mostly

hands-on or action-oriented messages. The results support the assertion that messages may

have impact on the stakeholders when they are able to see the benefits of the idea presented

in the message (Velasco et al., 2006; Custodio, 1994).

The farmers perceived these messages as interesting because they were able to see the

benefits of the technology (41 responses). Some of the respondents said that the messages

were ‘appealing’ (16 responses) and ‘valuable’ to them (11 responses) (Table 11).

Three messages were not very interesting to the respondents: 1) the drawbacks of the

MRC technology (1.14 mean); 2) the steps in applying compost to the field (0.94 mean); and

3) safety precautions (0.10 mean).

The steps in the application of the compost, drawbacks of the technology, and safety

precautions were of least interest to them. This was because the MRC technology was

difficult to use (4 responses). Another respondent claimed that the messages were not

presented repeatedly/consistently. One reasoned out that the messages focused on only one

topic or theme (Table 11).

Still, another respondent was uninterested in the steps, drawbacks, and safety

precautions of the technology since he relied on his pre-existing knowledge. One more

respondent cited that there was lack of monitoring on these messages by the technicians

(Table 11).

68

Table 7. W

eighted mean scores and qualitative interpretation summarizing the respondents’ ratings on different message

variables

M

ES

SA

GE

PE

RC

EIV

ED

DE

GR

EE

OF

C

LA

RIT

Y

PE

RC

EIV

ED

DE

GR

EE

OF

C

OM

PR

EH

EN

SIB

ILIT

Y

PE

RC

EIV

ED

DE

GR

EE

OF

C

OM

PL

ET

EN

ES

S

PE

RC

EIV

ED

DE

GR

EE

OF

IN

TE

RE

ST

WE

IGH

TE

D

ME

AN

S

CO

RE

INT

ER

PR

ET

AT

ION

W

EIG

HT

ED

M

EA

N

SC

OR

E

INT

ER

PR

ET

AT

ION

W

EIG

HT

ED

M

EA

N

SC

OR

E

INT

ER

PR

ET

AT

ION

W

EIG

HT

ED

M

EA

N

SC

OR

E

INT

ER

PR

ET

AT

ION

Steps in

applying

the

compost to

the field

4.67

Very clear

4.69

Very

understandable

4.43

80% complete

0.94

Not very

interesting

Practical

benefits of

the M

RC

technology

to the

farm

er

4.55

Very clear

4.51

Very

understandable

4.20

80% complete

4.55

Very

interesting

Steps in

preparing

the

compost

4.48

Clear

4.47

Understandable

4.18

80% complete

4.53

Very

interesting

Environmen-

tal benefits

of the MRC

technology

4.29

Clear

4.27

Understandable

3.98

80% complete

4.29

Interesting

Drawbacks

of the MRC

technology

0.98

Not very clear

1.04

Not very

understandable

0.95

20% complete

1.14

Not very

interesting

69

Table 8. Respondents’ reasons for their rating of perceived clarity of messages about the MRC technology

REASON FREQUENCY (N=49)*

For high degree of clarity The technology is used on the farm and its benefits were seen

26

Message is well-explained 10 Additional information is sought from technology providers

5

Personal networks help clarify messages 2 Personally feel that the technology is beneficial 1 Messages are repeatedly shared by the technician 1 There is supervision from the technician 1 Willingness to adopt the MRC technology 1 Use of the technology is taught in the dialect (e.g. Cebuano, Waray)

1

For low degree of clarity The program had stopped 2 Only little information was given on applying the compost

1

Lack of follow-up on the use of MRC 1 Cannot recall anymore the use of MRC 1 Technical language (i.e., English is used in teaching MRC technology)

1

No response 11

*Multiple responses

Table 9. Respondents’ reasons for their perceived degree of comprehensibility of messages

about the MRC technology

REASON FREQUENCY (N=49)*

For high degree of comprehensibility Technology is used and benefits are seen 26 Message is well-explained 14 Technicians supervise the use of MRC 5 Media and communication activities help understand the technology

3

Personal networks help in understanding MRC 1

For low degree of comprehensibility There should be more details on the drawbacks of MRC

2

Technology is difficult to use 2 Cannot recall the use of MRC 2 Benefits are not noticeable 1 Use of technology is taught in a technical language (i.e., English)

1

No response 10

*Multiple responses

70

Table 10. Respondents’ reasons for their rating of perceived completeness of messages about the MRC technology

REASON FREQUENCY (N=49)*

High degree of completeness Technology is used on the farm and benefits are seen 15 Message is well-explained 4 Personal networks help provide additional information about the MRC technology

3

Willingness to learn more about the MRC technology 2 Message is repeatedly shared 2 There is supervision from the technician 1 Satisfied with information given 1 Trust that information source can give complete information about MRC

1

Low degree of completeness There is still more information that needs to be shared about the MRC technology

13

Technology is not fully used 2 Message is explained too fast 1 Use of technology is laborious 1 Technical language, i.e. English, is used to teach the

MRC technology 1

No response 11

*Multiple responses Table 11. Respondents’ reasons for their perceived degree of interest on messages about

the MRC technology

REASON FREQUENCY (N=49)*

For high degree of interest Benefits of the technology are observable 41 Message is appealing 16 Message is valuable 11 Information source is trusted 3 Message is timely 2 Message presents benefits 2 Willingness to learn the technology 2 Assistance is provided by the technician 1

For low degree of interest Technology is difficult to use 4 Message is not presented repeatedly/consistently 1 Message focuses on only one topic/theme 1 Relying on pre-existing knowledge 1 There is lack of monitoring by the technician 1

No response 10

*Multiple responses

71

Channel Variables

Channel used for MRC technology

Most of the respondents said that personal visits from the agricultural technicians

were carried out to help them learn about the MRC technology (43 responses). Many have

also identified seminars or trainings (38 responses), as well as field demonstrations (27

responses) as one of the common channels used in the DA Agri-Kalikasan program. Print

materials such as leaflet, brochure, or flyer were also used as channel (22 responses). On the

other hand, only two respondents each claimed to have obtained information about the

technology through radio and television programs (Table 12). It was found later that these

programs were not really part of the program implementation.

It can be observed that the most commonly used channels are interpersonal in nature.

Personal visits from technicians, seminars/trainings, and field demonstrations allow

feedback, participation, and hands-on learning for the farmer-cooperators. Also, these

channels allow direct interaction particularly with the agricultural technicians and the DA

Agri-Kalikasan program staff.

Table 12. Channel used to disseminate messages about the MRC technology

CHANNEL FREQUENCY (N=49) *

Personal visit 43 Seminar/Training 38 Field demonstration 27 Print material (e.g. brochure, leaflet, flyer) 22 Radio programs 2 TV programs 2

*Multiple responses

According to the Soils and Water Coordinator at the Regional Soils Laboratory in the

DA Regional Office VIII, the techno-demo sites are the main avenues for the farmer-

cooperators to learn about the MRC technology. Here, the agricultural technicians visit at

each stage of rice growing season (e.g. mid-tillering, panicle-initiating, and maturity stages)

to monitor the yield and cost of maintaining an MRC techno-demo site. Data are then

72

compared with that of non-MRC farms and shared among farmer-cooperators for them to see

the benefits of the MRC technology. A municipal agricultural technician in Alang-alang,

Leyte said that these personal visits were held once a week. This may be one of the

important reasons why personal visits are one of the most common channels used among

farmer-cooperators.

The secretary to the MAO in Jaro, Leyte related that the farmers do not really avail

themselves of the MRC information from the MAO and technicians. Rather, they would

approach the municipal agricultural officer or technician to ask for seeds and other farm

inputs or to seek advice when their rice plants are struck down with disease. This means that

farmer-cooperators indirectly get information from technicians when they turn to these

technicians for inquiries or needs.

Meanwhile, the project officer in charge of the DA Agri-Kalikasan program

mentioned that tarpaulin signs were put up in each of the techno-demo sites so that other

farmers and passers-by can see for themselves how these sites are doing with the MRC

technology. In Maasin City, Leyte, the agricultural technician in charge of the MRC

technology distributed typewritten copies of the MRC composting process to farmer-

cooperators as well as other farmers so that they can learn how to use the technology. A

municipal agricultural technician in Sta. Fe, Leyte added that aside from the farmers’

interaction with agricultural technicians during their personal visits to the MRC techno-demo

sites, the farmer-cooperators attended the Municipal Agriculture and Fisheries Committee

(MAFC) meetings. Through their attendance and participation in the meetings, they were

kept abreast of the performance of the MRC technology in the area. Trainings and seminars

on the use of MRC technology were also conducted for the farmer-cooperators.

Frequency of exposure to channel

Table 13 shows how often the farmer-cooperators were exposed to the different

channels used to disseminate messages about the MRC technology. The respondents were

often exposed to personal visits by farm or agricultural technicians (4.29 mean score).

73

Seminars/trainings were also often attended by the respondents; however, it was

found that these seminars were held only once every cropping season. On the other hand,

mass media such as radio and television programs related to MRC technology were not

always used. This implies the farmers’ low frequency of exposure and confirms that radio

and TV are not really part of the program communication strategy.

Table 14 summarizes respondents’ reasons for their rating of frequency of exposure

to the channels used. Channel availability was the main reason for their “often” exposure to

the technicians’ personal visits and seminars/meetings (41 responses). Other reasons cited

were their need for information, trust in the channel used, and being influenced by personal

networks.

On the other hand, the respondents who were “not often” and “not always” exposed

to the channels claimed that seminars/meetings were not held regularly in their area (13

responses). They also attributed their low channel exposure to having little time available,

low participation in meetings/seminars, lack of interest in radio or TV, and irregular

distribution of reading materials (Table 14).

Perceived degree of interest in channel

Surprisingly, the farmer-respondents could not say if personal visits were interesting

or not interesting to them as information channels (3.43 mean score). This implies that the

personal visits from technicians were neither interesting nor uninteresting to them.

Unexpectedly, the respondents found the channels such as reading material (1.57 mean), field

demo(1.82 mean) and seminar/meeting (2.27 mean) not interesting. Meanwhile, radio (0.31

mean) and TV (0.14 mean) were not very interesting to them (Table 13).

Although the respondents were neither interested nor uninterested in the channels

used in the program, they explained that the uses and benefits of the MRC technology were

observed during the techno-demo and were well-explained in the seminar/training (35

responses) (Table 15). Furthermore, despite their indecision about their degree of interest in

the channels used, the respondents indicated that they trusted the channel (12 responses);

74

found the reading material helpful (8 responses); and were willing to learn about the MRC

technology (7 responses (2 responses) (Table 15).

The respondents who did not find the channels interesting gave these reasons: 1) they

are not fond of watching TV or listening to radio; 2) they have little time for accessing the

channel; and 3) they get bored with reading brochure/leaflet (Table 15).

Table 13. Weighted mean scores and interpretation of the respondents’ ratings of their exposure to and degree of interest in the channel used

CHANNEL

FREQUENCY OF EXPOSURE TO CHANNEL

PERCEIVED DEGREE OF INTEREST IN CHANNEL

WEIGHTED MEAN

SCORE

INTERPRETATION

WEIGHTED MEAN

SCORE

INTERPRETATION

Reading material

1.98 Not often 1.57 Not interesting

Radio program

0.31 Not always 0.31 Not very interesting

TV program 0.18 Not always 0.14 Not very interesting Seminar/ Training

3.53 Often 2.27 Not interesting

Personal visit 4.29 Often 3.43 Can’t say Field demo 2.57 Sometimes 1.82 Not interesting

Table 14. Respondents’ reasons for their rating of frequency exposure to the channels used in disseminating messages about the MRC technology

REASON FREQUENCY (N=49) *

For high frequency of exposure Channels are consistently available 41 Depends on the need 5 Have trust in information channel 3 Influenced by personal network 1

For low frequency of exposure Meetings/seminars not held regularly 13 Little time available 5 Low participation in meetings/seminars 3 Not fond of watching/listening to TV or radio programs 2 Reading materials seldom distributed 2 Field demonstration is expensive 1

No response 13

*Multiple responses

75

Table 15. Respondents’ reasons for their rating of perceived degree of interest in the channels used to disseminate information about the MRC technology

REASON FREQUENCY (N=49)*

For neither interesting nor uninteresting (can’t say; undecided) Actual use and benefit of technology observed and explained during techno-demo/seminar

35

Have trust in information channel 12 Reading materials very helpful 8 Willing to learn more about MRC technology 7 Channels provide entertainment 2 Watching videos is more convenient 1

For low degree of interest Not fond of watching to TV/listening to radio programs 3 Not all information is applied 2 Little time available for accessing channel 2 Get bored with reading brochure/leaflet 1 Technology is difficult to use 1

No response 11

*Multiple responses

Receiver Variables

Perceived need for the technology

Table 16 shows the distribution of the respondents based on their perceived need for

the technology. A big majority (69%) indicated that they highly needed the technology. More

than one fourth (29%) of the respondents answered that they needed the technology. Only

one respondent out of 49 did not need the technology (Table 16).

Table 16. Respondents’ rating of perceived need for the MRC technology

LEVEL OF NEED FREQUENCY (N=49)

PERCENTAGE (%)

Highly needed 34 69 Needed 14 29 Not needed 1 2

The results imply that the DA Agri-Kalikasan program was able to provide the

farmer-respondents a technology that they really needed in their farm. The MRC technology

seems to meet the need of the farmer-cooperators in the area. It can be said there is a match

between need and technology in the case of the Agri-Kalikasan program’s MRC technology.

76

Perceived attitude towards the technology

In general, the respondents strongly agreed with all the five attitude statements about

the MRC technology (Table 17). Their positive attitude towards the technology could be

attributed to how the MRC technology was taught to them. Velasco et al. (2006) and

Custodio (1994) had explained that messages which show the stakeholders the benefits of a

technology would likely bring about positive attitudes towards it.

Table 17. Respondents’ perceived attitude towards the MRC technology

ATTITUDE STATEMENT

WEIGHTED MEAN SCORE

INTERPRETATION

MRC improves soil condition, making it more fertile and productive.

4.86 Strongly agree

MRC helps address the problem of rice straw burning.

4.84 Strongly agree

MRC helps address the increasing cost of inorganic fertilizers and other farming supplies.

4.78 Strongly agree

In MRC, the time of composting is shortened from three months to around three weeks.

4.71 Strongly agree

When combined with inorganic fertilizers, MRC yields more rice than when using completely inorganic fertilizer.

4.71 Strongly agree

Some agricultural technicians expressed in the interviews that the “wait-and-see”

attitude prevails especially among the farmers who were not really receptive to new farming

methods. According to a municipal agricultural technician in Bato, Leyte, this attitude was

one of the factors hindering the adoption of the MRC technology, particularly because the

farmers were not easily convinced that the technology would bring benefits to them. The

municipal agricultural officer in Alang-alang, Leyte asserted that the technicians needed a lot

of patience in convincing the farmer-cooperators to use the technology.

Meanwhile, the secretary to the MAO in Kananga, Leyte shared her experiences

about the MRC technology. She said that some farmers in their area were too receptive, i.e.

they would only follow what the technicians would tell them to do. On the other hand, other

farmer-cooperators would be “hard-headed” – they would not follow the instructions and

77

guidelines in using the MRC technology. The farmer-cooperators would tend to veer away

from the guidelines if these did not suit their needs or interest, explained an agricultural

technician in Matalom, Leyte,

Stage of Technology Adoption

This section describes the different factors in each stage of technology adoption that

the farmer-cooperators in the DA Agri-Kalikasan program experienced with the modified

rapid composting (MRC) technology. The technology adoption stages were: 1) knowledge;

2) persuasion; 3) decision; 4) implementation; and 5) adoption.

Knowledge Stage

According to Rogers (1983), the adopters are said to be in the knowledge stage when

they recognize and understand an innovation and how it works. In particular, an individual is

in the knowledge stage of technology adoption if he/she:

1. Recalls messages about the technology;

2. Understands what the technology means; and

3. Can tell how the technology is used (Sisteberio, 2001).

In this study, the level of message recall about the MRC technology was measured

using the following scale:

1. High recall – can remember 5 or more messages

2. Moderate recall – can remember 3-4 messages

3. Low recall – can remember 1-2 messages

4. No recall – cannot remember any message; no response.

Knowledge about the MRC technology was measured by asking the respondents to

describe what MRC technology is and then rating their answers based on the following scale:

78

1. High – can describe MRC technology to a great extent (can correctly

describe most aspect of MRC technology)

2. Moderate – can describe MRC technology to some extent (can correctly

describe some aspect of MRC technology)

3. Low – can describe MRC technology to a little extent (can correctly

describe a little aspect of MRC technology)

The respondents’ extent of knowledge about the steps in using the MRC

technology was determined based on the following scale:

1. High – can name or list 5-7 steps

2. Moderate – can name or list 3-4 steps

3. Low – can name or list 1-2 steps

Level of message recall

Table 18 shows the distribution of respondents based on the three factors or variables

at the knowledge stage of technology adoption. Thirty three respondents moderately recalled

the messages (67%). These were farmers who could remember 3-4 messages about the MRC

technology.

More than one fourth (27%) of the farmer-respondents had high recall of the

messages. They were able to identify 5 or more messages about MRC. Only one respondent

could remember 1-2 messages about the MRC technology. He had low recall of the

messages.

Table 19 lists the respondents’ reasons for their recall of the messages. They said that

they recalled the messages about the MRC technology because they had been using the

technology and thus saw its benefits (30 responses). Other respondents said they were able to

recall the technology because they had consistently followed the steps in using it (4

responses). Three respondents attributed their recall of the technology to the well-explained

messages about MRC. Two respondents said they were regularly supervised or assisted by

79

the technicians in using MRC which helped facilitate their recall of the messages. Putting the

technology into practice also helped them recall messages about MRC (Table 19).

Meanwhile, the respondent who had low recall of the messages explained that he had

not been using the technology for a long time; hence, he failed to recall most of the

information about it (Table 19).

Knowledge about what MRC is

In terms of the respondents’ extent of knowledge about the MRC technology, more

than half (53%) of them had high knowledge of the technology. These respondents were able

to correctly describe most aspects of the technology. Meanwhile, more than one third (37%)

of the respondents had moderate knowledge. They were able to correctly describe some

aspects of the MRC technology. In contrast, five respondents registered low knowledge and

could only correctly describe very little aspect of the MRC technology (Table 18). Possibly,

these respondents may have stopped using the technology and thus, may have forgotten what

MRC is.

Knowledge about the steps in using the MRC technology

Majority (61%) of the respondents also had high knowledge of the steps in using the

technology (Table 18). They were able to list 5-7 steps of the MRC technology. On the other

hand, eighteen (37%) respondents showed moderate knowledge about the MRC steps by

naming 3-4 steps of the technology. Only one respondent listed 1-2 steps in using the MRC

technology, thus showing low knowledge about the steps.

It was observed from the data gathered that the respondents generally described the

technology either by the process in using it or by the benefits that it brought them. This

implies that farmers are more action-oriented learners and would favor messages which are

practical and do-able to them. Furthermore, the farmers’ utilization of the technology

apparently enhances their recall and knowledge about modified rapid composting (MRC).

80

Learning by doing or experiential learning such as techno-demo farm appears to be a suitable

approach in promoting adoption of the MRC technology.

Table 18. Distribution of respondents based on variables in the knowledge stage of technology adoption

KNOWLEDGE STAGE

FREQUENCY (N=49)

PERCENTAGE (%)

Level of message recall High recall 13 27 Moderate recall 33 67 Low recall 1 2 No response 2 4

Extent of knowledge about what MRC is

High knowledge 26 53 Moderate knowledge 18 37 Low knowledge 5 10

Extent of knowledge about steps in using MRC technology

High knowledge 30 61 Moderate knowledge 18 37 Low knowledge 1 2

Table 19. Respondents’ reasons for their level of recall of messages about the MRC technology

REASON FREQUENCY (N=49)*

For high recall Technology has been used and benefits are seen 30 Steps in using the technology are consistently followed 4 Messages are well-explained 3 Put the technology into practice 2 Consistent supervision from the technicians 2 Technology is easy to learn 1 Steps in the use of the technology are repeated in lectures 1 Consistent seminars and trainings 1

For low recall Personally experienced drawbacks in using the technology 2 Have not used the technology for a long time 1

No response 9

*Multiple responses

81

Persuasion Stage

At this stage of technology adoption, the individual develops a positive or negative

attitude toward the innovation (Rogers, 1983). Based on the conceptual framework of this

study, a farmer-cooperator is at the persuasion stage if he/she:

1. Discusses the technology with personal networks (e.g. family and friends);

2. Thinks that his/her personal networks approve of or reject the technology; and

3. Approves or rejects the technology himself/herself (Sisteberio, 2001).

Discussion of MRC technology with personal network

Table 20 shows the distribution of respondents based on the different variables under

the persuasion stage. It was found that almost all (96%) of the respondents discussed the

MRC with their personal network. They discussed it with their family, friends, and fellow

farmers. On the other hand, two farmers did not discuss the technology with their personal

network.

Approval of MRC technology by personal network

Generally, the farmers’ personal networks showed a positive reaction after the MRC

technology was discussed with them. Out of 47 respondents who discussed the technology

with their personal networks, 41 said their fellow farmers approved of it; 39 mentioned that

their family approved of the technology; and 34 indicated that their friends approved of

modified rapid composting (Table 20).

According to 28 respondents, their personal networks (fellow farmers, family, and

friend) approved of the MRC technology because they have used it on their farms and

realized its benefits (Table 21). The rest of the respondents cited the following reasons for

their personal networks’ approval of the technology: 1) the technology is valuable to them (6

responses); 2) they are informed about the technology (2 responses); 3) they are eager to use

82

the technology (2 responses); 4) they trust the implementers of the technology (1 response)

and 5) farm technicians help them understand the MRC technology (1 response) (Table 21).

On the other hand, a very small number of the respondents had personal networks that

disapproved the MRC technology: fellow farmers (5 responses); friends (5 responses); and

family (2 responses) (Table 20).

The rejection of the technology by their personal networks were attributed to the

following reasons: 1) the use of the technology requires a lot of resources such as time, labor,

farm, and supplies (8 responses); and 2) the technology does not fit in with their farming

principles (5 responses) (Table 21).

Sabban’s study (1993) found that labor-intensive use of a practice and lack of

resources hindered the adoption of agro-forestry practices.

Personal approval of MRC technology

Almost all (96%) of the respondents personally approved of the MRC technology just

like their personal networks approved of it (Table 20). Only two out of 49 respondents

rejected the technology. The respondents’ personal approval of the technology could be due

to their perceived relative advantage in the form of potential benefits from the technology

and their perceived trialability of the technology in the form of the techno-demo farm.

According to Rogers (1983), these are some of the attributes of an innovation that affect an

individual’s decision on its adoption.

Table 20. Distribution of respondents based on variables in the persuasion stage of

technology adoption

PERSUASION STAGE

FREQUENCY (N=49)

PERCENTAGE (%)

Discussed with personal network Yes 47 96 No 2 4

83

Table 20 continued.

PERSUASION STAGE

FREQUENCY (N=49)

PERCENTAGE (%)

Response of personal network* Approve technology

Family 39 80 Friends 34 69

Fellow farmers 41 84 Reject technology

Family 2 4 Friends 5 10

Fellow farmers 5 10 Personal approval

Approve technology 47 96 Reject technology 2 4

*Multiple responses

Table 21. Respondents’ perception of the reasons of their personal networks’ approval and non-approval of the MRC technology

REASON FREQUENCY (N=49)*

For approval Personal networks have used the technology and realized its benefits

28

Personal networks believe the technology is valuable to them

6

Personal networks are informed of the technology 2 Personal networks are eager to use the technology 2 Personal networks trust the program implementers 1 Technicians helped personal networks understand the technology

1

For non-approval Personal networks believe that MRC requires a lot of resources (time, labor, farm area, supplies)

8

Personal networks believe that MRC does not suit their farming principles

5

No response 6

*Multiple responses

Decision Stage

At this stage, the individual makes a choice to either fully use the innovation

(adoption), or otherwise not adopt it (rejection) (Rogers, 1983). In this stage, the individual

(Sisteberio , 2001):

84

a. Plans to approach the technology provider for consultations on the use of the

technology; and

b. Plans to use or not to use the technology.

Table 22 shows the distribution of the respondents based on the variables in the

decision stage of adoption. Meanwhile, Tables 22 and 23 give the reasons for their

consultation with technology providers and their intention to use the MRC technology.

Consultation with technology providers More than half (57%) of the respondents planned to approach individuals or groups

other than the DA Agri-Kalikasan staff for consultation regarding the use of the technology

(Table 22). These respondents consulted their technology providers mainly because they

trusted their providers (24 responses) (Table 23). This implies how source credibility can

affect an individual’s decision to adopt or reject a technology – people would most likely

consult individuals or groups who are credible and trusted (Lionberger and Gwin, 1982).

The respondents also gave other reasons for consulting with their technology

providers. These were as follows: 1) their need to know more about the MRC technology; 2)

the capacity of the technician or technology provider to explain well the use of the

technology; and 3) their interest in the technology (Table 23).

On the other hand, the respondents who did not plan to approach the technology

providers preferred to approach their fellow farmers who know how to use the technology

(Table 23).

One farmer said that he had no time to consult the technology providers. Another one

did not seek consultation on the use of the technology because the DA implemented the

MRC program well (Table 23).

85

Intention to use MRC technology

Nearly all (92%) of the respondents said they planned to use the MRC technology

(Table 22). Their intention to use the technology was based mainly on having seen the

technology or hearing about its benefits from agricultural technicians or fellow farmers (16

responses) (Table 24).

Other respondents viewed the MRC technology as valuable to their farming activities

(9 responses). Hence, they decided to use it on the farm.

The rest intended to use the MRC technology because they were willing to try it; they

had acquired sufficient knowledge to use it; and they felt it was their responsibility as farmer-

cooperator to use it (Table 24).

Meanwhile, the respondents who did not intend to use the technology cited four

reasons (Table 24). First, the technology does not suit the existing conditions in the farm.

Second, financial problems hindered the use of the technology. Third, insufficient knowledge

about modified rapid composting (MRC) discouraged the intention to use it. And fourth, lack

of readiness to use the technology (since the farmer was still learning how to use it)

underlined the decision not to use it.

Table 22. Distribution of respondents based on variables in the decision stage of technology adoption

DECISION STAGE

FREQUENCY (N=49)

PERCENTAGE (%)

Consultation with technology providers

Yes 28 57 No 21 43

Intention to use MRC technology Yes 45 92 No 4 8

86

Table 23. Respondents’ reasons for their intention to consult and not to consult technology providers on the use of the MRC technology

REASON FREQUENCY (N=49)*

For intentions to consult Trusted the information source 24 Need to know more about the MRC technology 5 Technician is able to explain well the use of the technology 2 Interest in the technology 1

For intentions not to consult Fellow farmers served as consultants 3 DA is able to implement the program well 1 No time for consultation 1

No response 9

*Multiple responses Table 24. Respondents’ reasons for their intention to use and not to use the MRC

technology

REASON FREQUENCY (N=49)*

For intention to use Saw/heard of the benefits of the technology 16 Value of technology 9 Willingness to try using the technology 3 Have acquired sufficient knowledge to use it 1 It is the responsibility of the farmer-cooperator to use the Technology

1

For intention to not use Use of technology does not fit the farm conditions 1 Financial problems hindered plans to use technology 1 No sufficient knowledge about the technology 1 Still learning the use of technology 1

No response 16

*Multiple responses

Implementation Stage

As the word suggests, it is at this stage that the individual or group uses the

innovation. Based on Sisteberio’s (2001) study, this stage is achieved if the individuals or

groups:

1. Go to the technology provider and support agencies (e.g. DA, NGOs) to avail

themselves of the technology; and

2. Use the technology.

87

Acquisition of materials for MRC technology

Table 25 shows the distribution of respondents in the implementation stage of

technology adoption based on acquisition of materials for the technology and its application

on the farm. Table 26 provides the reasons for the respondents’ current use and non-use of

the MRC technology.

Majority (61%) of the respondents availed themselves of the technology in terms of

materials and supplies from the technology providers. About two fifths (39%) did not avail

themselves of the materials for the MRC technology (Table 25).

Application of MRC technology

More than three fourths (76%) of the respondents have been currently using the MRC

technology. In contrast, 12 respondents (24%) have not yet applied it (Table 25).

Table 25. Distribution of respondents based on variables in the decision stage of technology adoption

IMPLEMENTATION STAGE FREQUENCY (N=49)

PERCENTAGE (%)

Acquisition of materials for MRC technology

Yes 30 61 No 19 39

Application of MRC technology Yes 37 76 No 12 24

The respondents had three main reasons why they are currently using the technology

on their farms. They could derive benefits from applying the MRC technology. They realized

the value of the technology. And, they recognized how the technology could substitute or

make up for the lack of farm inputs (Table 26).

Several reasons where pointed out by the respondents who did not apply the MRC

technology on their farm. They cited the lack of farming supplies required to use the

88

technology, particularly the Trichoderma sp. fungus activator (10 responses) (Table 26).

According to the respondents, they had to modify their use of the technology due to lack of

fungus activators. Instead of applying the fungus activator, they would sometimes use

bacteria from fermented kitchen wastes, or just do away with traditional composting. This

technique was suggested by the agricultural technicians to compensate for the lack of

Trichoderma supply.

Furthermore, the farmers said that the MRC technology was laborious. One farmer

did not see any difference between the MRC-based farming and use of inorganic fertilizer,

thus switching back to the inorganic one. The technology was not fully understood. One

respondent had already retired from farming so he was unable to use the technology. The

sustainability of the program likewise influenced the decision not to use the MRC

technology. Since the program on MRC technology was discontinued in their area, the

farmers stopped using the technology (Table 26).

Table 26. Respondents’ reasons for their current use and non-use of the MRC technology

REASON FREQUENCY (N=49)*

For currently using Saw/heard of the benefits of the technology 16 Value of the technology 8 Technology was reinvented due to lack of farming inputs 5

For currently not using Lack of farming supplies such as fungus activator 10 Using the technology is laborious 3 Technology is not fully understood 3 Stopped farming 1 Switched back to inorganic fertilizer 1 Program did not continue 1

No response 7

*Multiple responses

Most of the agricultural technicians involved in the program said that they had to

suggest ways to modify the MRC technology so that farmers would not switch back to rice

straw burning to dispose of their agricultural wastes. This finding supports Rogers’ (1983)

idea of re-invention, or changing the innovation while using it.

89

Confirmation Stage

This is the final stage of the innovation-decision process set by Rogers (1983).

Confirmation happens when the individual affirms his/her decision to adopt or reject the

innovation. This stage is a make-or-break process wherein an individual or group is prone to

messages in conflict with their personal experiences. At this level, the individual is able to:

1. Experience and acknowledge the benefits or disadvantages of the technology;

2. Continue the use of the technology; and

3. Advocate use of the technology to other farmers.

Recognition of benefits or drawbacks of MRC technology

Table 27 shows the distribution of the respondents based on the variables in the

confirmation stage, namely: 1) recognitions of benefits or drawbacks of the technology; 2)

continuous use of the technology; and 3) advocacy for MRC technology. Table 28 lists the

drawbacks of the technology that the farmers experienced. Table 29 cites the respondents’

reasons for advocating and not advocating the technology.

Majority (63%) of the respondents experienced benefits from using the MRC

technology. Only 35% of them claimed that using the technology has certain drawbacks or

problems (Table 27). It was mentioned earlier that the farmer-cooperators lacked information

on the drawbacks of MRC, which could be the reason why most of them did not recognize

the benefits of the technology.

Among those who experienced drawbacks or problems in using MRC, six

respondents identified the lack of farm inputs such as the fungus activator, chicken dung, and

supplementary fertilizers as well as the delay in their delivery (Table 28). Five respondents

found the technology to be laborious. Four respondents reported incidence of pest and

diseases. Three respondents opined that suitability of the technology depends on the time of

application and pre-existing situation on the farm. Two respondents commented on the lack

90

of monitoring on the technology. One respondent complained of skin allergies while

applying the fungus to the rice straw (Table 28).

Other drawbacks of the technology included financial problems, occurrence of weeds,

discontinuance of the technology, and inability to recall the steps in using the technology.

Continuous use of MRC technology

More than three fourths (76%) of the respondents said they would still continue using

the technology. This large percentage implies relatively high adoption of the MRC

technology in the techno-demo areas. The main reason for its adoption, as mentioned earlier,

was the benefits derived from using the technology. Other contributing factors in the

continuous use of the technology were its value and its potential to be modified under certain

circumstances.

Advocacy for MRC technology

Most (90%) of the respondents advocated or encouraged their fellow farmers to use

the MRC technology (Table 27). This reinforces the respondents’ favorable attitude towards

the technology and their belief in its benefits such that they wanted to advocate it to others.

Looking at Table 29, three main reasons emerge for the farmers’ advocacy of the MRC

technology. They encouraged others to use it mainly because 1) they wanted other farmers to

benefit from the technology (15 responses); 2) they wanted to help other farmers improve

their farming techniques (11 responses); and 3) they wanted to share information or

knowledge about the technology to other farmers (9 responses).

On the other hand, the reasons for non-advocacy were: 1) not wanting to force other

farmers to use MRC; 2) non-belief in the benefits of MRC; and 3) MRC is laborious (Table

29).

91

Table 27. Distribution of respondents based on variables in the confirmation stage of technology adoption

CONFIRMATION STAGE

FREQUENCY (N=49)

PERCENTAGE (%)

Recognition of benefits or drawbacks of MRC technology

Technology has advantages/benefits 31 63 Technology has drawbacks/problems 17 35 No response 1 2

Continuous use of MRC technology Yes 37 76 No 12 24

Advocacy for MRC technology Yes 44 90 No 5 10

Table 28. Drawbacks or problems on the use of MRC technology as perceived by the respondents

DRAWBACK OR PROBLEM

FREQUENCY (N=49)*

Lack/delay of farming supplies/inputs 6 Technology is labor-intensive 5 Pest and diseases 4 Technology highly depends on time and situation 3 Lack of monitoring of the technology 2 Human health problems (e.g. skin allergies) 1 Program was not continued 1 Financial problems 1 Weeds 1 Cannot recall steps in using the MRC technology 1

*Multiple responses

Table 29. Respondents’ reasons for their advocacy and non-advocacy of the use of MRC technology

REASON FREQUENCY (N=49)*

For advocacy Helping other farmers to gain benefits from MRC 15 Helping other farmers to improve farming techniques 11 Sharing knowledge with other farmers 9 Value of the technology 4

For non-advocacy Simply do not want to force farmers to use MRC 2 Other farmers do not believe in the benefits of MRC 1 Using the technology is laborious 1

No response 11

*Multiple responses

92

Relationships between Communication Variables and Adoption Stage of MRC Technology

Gaining a better understanding of the adoption of the MRC technology among the

farmer-cooperators allows the program implementers to assess their efforts in line with

sustainable agricultural production. This section sought to identify specific variables in the

communication strategy of the DA Agri-Kalikasan program which significantly influence the

stages of the farmer-cooperators’ adoption of the MRC technology.

Communication Variables and Knowledge Stage

Table 30 gives a summary of the relationships between communication variables and

the knowledge stage of technology adoption.

Source variables and knowledge

As shown Table 30, the perceived credibility of the print material had a highly

significant relationship with extent of knowledge about the steps in using the MRC

technology (p=0.000). This means that credibility of print media influences knowledge gain

on the MRC steps. The farmers could read the print materials many times until they have a

thorough understanding of the steps in the MRC technology.

The perceived credibility of the agricultural technician also had a highly significant

relationship with recall of messages about MRC technology (p=0.000). The more credible the

technician, the more likely the farmer will be able to recall messages about the technology.

The findings imply that the credibility of the print material and of the agricultural

technician influences the extent of technology adoption at the knowledge stage in terms of

recall and knowledge of the technology.

93

Message variables and knowledge

Table 30 shows that the perceived clarity of the messages on the steps in preparing

the MRC-based compost had a highly significant relationship with message recall (p=0.000)

knowledge of what MRC is (p=0.001), and knowledge of the steps in using MRC (p=0.000).

Similarly, the clarity of the steps in applying the MRC-based compost to the field had a

highly significant relationship with recall of messages (p=0.000), extent of knowledge about

MRC technology (p=0.006), and extent of knowledge of the steps in using MRC technology

(p=0.00). These findings indicate that clarity of the steps in the MRC-based compost and in

applying it to the field will likely increase recall and knowledge of the MRC technology.

Meanwhile, the perceived clarity of the message on the benefits of the MRC

technology was significantly related with knowledge about the steps in using the technology

(p=0.028) (Table 30). It appears that message clarity on the benefits of a technology will

likely enhance knowledge on how to use it. Since the benefits of the technology were clear to

the farmers, they were able to understand how to apply the MRC-based compost on the farm.

The respondents’ perceived degree of comprehensibility of the steps in preparing and

applying MRC-based compost had highly significant relationships with the number of

messages recalled and also their extent of knowledge about the steps in using MRC

technology (p=0.000). On the other hand, their perceived comprehensibility of the

environmental benefits of the technology was significantly related with their recall of the

message (p=0.018) and with their extent of knowledge about the MRC steps (p= .048) (Table

30). These results confirm that message comprehensibility does influence message recall and

knowledge of a technology like MRC.

The perceived degree of completeness of the message on the preparation of the MRC-

based compost (p=0.001) and on its application (p=0.004) had a highly significant

relationship with message recall as well as extent of knowledge about the steps in using

MRC technology (p=0.000) (Table 30). The more the message is complete, the more it can

facilitate message recall and knowledge among the farmer-cooperators.

94

On the other hand, the perceived degree of interest in the messages on the practical

benefits (p=0. 016) and on the environmental benefits (p=0.011) were significantly related to

message recall. Thus, interest in a message can influence its recall. The more interesting the

message, the greater is the recall. Almost similarly, the farmers’ interest on the practical

benefits of the MRC technology was significantly related with knowledge of the technology

and its steps (p=0.017) (Table 30). In addition to recall, the degree of interest in a message

can also influence knowledge about the steps in using the technology.

Channel variables and knowledge

Personal visits had a highly significant influence on the extent of knowledge about

steps in using MRC technology (p=0.000) (Table 30). Thus, the more the farmer-cooperators

are personally visited by the agricultural technicians, the more they will be able to learn

about the technology from such visits.

Furthermore, the frequency of exposure to print and seminars/trainings were found

highly related to extent of knowledge about the steps in using the MRC technology (p=0.012)

(Table 30). The more the exposure of the farmers to print media and seminars/trainings, the

more likely they will gain more knowledge about a technology.

Receiver variables and knowledge

The respondents’ positive attitude towards the shortened time in MRC-based

composting (p=0.022), towards the increased rice yield due to MRC (p=0.001), and towards

the capability of MRC technology to reduce rice straw burning (p=0.002) had high

significant relationship with message recall (Table 30). Thus, it can be deduced that attitude

towards a technology influences the number of messages recalled about it. Moreover, the

positive attitude towards increased yield due to MRC (p=0.041) was significantly related to

knowledge about MRC steps. These results farther confirm that positive attitudes can

influence recall of and knowledge about a technology.

95

Table 30. Summary of the relationships between communication variables and the knowledge stage of technology adoption*

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

N

VA

RIA

BL

E

KN

OW

LE

DG

E S

TA

GE

RE

CA

LL

OF

SP

EC

IFIC

M

ES

SA

GE

S

EX

TE

NT

OF

KN

OW

LE

DG

E

AB

OU

T M

RC

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

E

XT

EN

T O

F K

NO

WL

ED

GE

A

BO

UT

ST

EP

S IN

MR

C

χ 2

P

IN

TE

RP

RE

TA

TIO

N

χ 2

P

IN

TE

RP

RE

TA

TIO

N

χ 2

P

IN

TE

RP

RE

TA

TIO

N

SO

UR

CE

VA

RIA

BL

E

Perceived credibility

Print

0.933

0.920

Not significant

5.851

0.211

Not significant

23.128

0.000

Highly significant

Technician

35.529

0.000

Highly significant

0.750

0.386

Not significant

0.750

0.386

Not significant

ME

SS

AG

E

VA

RIA

BL

E

Perceived degree of

clarity of messages

Steps in preparing

the compost

51.773

0.000

Highly significant

18.339

0.001

Highly significant

24.987

0.000

Highly significant

Steps in applying

the compost to

the field

39.695

0.000

Highly significant

14.515

0.006

Highly significant

22.420

0.000

Highly significant

Practical benefits

of the MRC

technology to

the farm

er

7.111

0.068

Not significant

3.336

0.189

Not significant

4.840

0.028

Significant

Perceived degree of

comprehensibility

Steps in preparing

the compost

31.123

0.000

Highly significant

10.177

0.117

Not significant

47.857

0.000

Highly significant

Steps in applying

the compost to

the field

33.127

0.001

Highly significant

10.225

0.115

Not significant

50.383

0.000

Highly significant

Environmental

benefits of the

MRC technology

8.073

0.018

Significant

6.063

0.048

Significant

1.525

0.217

Not significant

*Only variables with at least one significant relationship were tabulated.

96

Table 30 continued.*

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

N

VA

RIA

BL

E

KN

OW

LE

DG

E S

TA

GE

RE

CA

LL

OF

SP

EC

IFIC

ME

SS

AG

ES

E

XT

EN

T O

F K

NO

WL

ED

GE

AB

OU

T

MR

C T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y

EX

TE

NT

OF

KN

OW

LE

DG

E A

BO

UT

S

TE

PS

IN

MR

C

χ 2

P

IN

TE

RP

RE

TA

TIO

N

χ 2

P

IN

TE

RP

RE

TA

TIO

N

χ 2

P

IN

TE

RP

RE

TA

TIO

N

ME

SS

AG

E

VA

RIA

BL

E

Perceived degree of

completeness of

messages

Steps in preparing

the compost

26.842

0.001

Highly significant

9.882

0.130

Not significant

48.122

0.000

Highly significant

Steps in applying

the compost to

the field

28.952

0.004

Highly significant

10.358

0.110

Not significant

50.209

0.000

Highly significant

Perceived degree of

interest in messages

Practical benefits of

the M

RC

technology to the

farm

er

10.386

0.016

Significant

8.135

0.017

Significant

5.677

0.017

Significant

Environmental

benefits of the

MRC technology

9.096

0.011

Significant

4.920

0.085

Not significant

3.699

0.054

Not significant

CH

AN

NE

L

VA

RIA

BL

E

Type of channel used

Personal visits

3.297

0.509

Not significant

3.654

0.161

Not significant

15.394

0.000

Highly significant

Frequency of

exposure to

channels

Print

6.242

0.397

Not significant

8.864

0.065

Not significant

8.839

0.012

Significant

Seminars/trainings

4.504

0.212

Not significant

0.405

0.817

Not significant

8.839

0.012

Significant

*Only variables with at least one significant relationship were tabulated.

97

Table 30 continued.*

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

N

VA

RIA

BL

E

KN

OW

LE

DG

E S

TA

GE

R

EC

AL

L O

F S

PE

CIF

IC M

ES

SA

GE

S

EX

TE

NT

OF

KN

OW

LE

DG

E A

BO

UT

M

RC

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

E

XT

EN

T O

F K

NO

WL

ED

GE

AB

OU

T

ST

EP

S I

N M

RC

χ 2

P

IN

TE

RP

RE

TA

TIO

N

χ 2

P

IN

TE

RP

RE

TA

TIO

N

χ 2

P

IN

TE

RP

RE

TA

TIO

N

RE

CE

IVE

R

VA

RIA

BL

E

Perceived attitude

towards MRC

technology

In MRC, the time of

composting is

shortened from three

months to around

three weeks.

17.902

0.022

Highly significant

4.382

0.357

Not significant

9.990

0.041

Significant

When combined with

inorganic fertilizers,

MRC yields m

ore rice

than when using

completely inorganic

fertilizer.

33.982

0.001

Highly significant

13.148

0.041

Significant

3.217

0.781

Not significant

MRC helps address

the problem of rice

straw burning.

24.613

0.002

Highly significant

2.493

0.646

Not significant

1.798

0.773

Not significant

*Only variables with at least one significant relationship were tabulated.

98

Communication Variables and Persuasion Stage

Table 31 presents a summary of the relationships between communication variables

of the DA Agri-Kalikasan communication strategy and the persuasion stage of technology

adoption.

Source variables and persuasion

The type of information source affects the personal approval of a technology at the

persuasion stage of technology adoption. As indicated in Table 31, the DA Agri-Kaliskasan

program staff was significantly related to the respondents’ personal approval of the MRC

technology (p=0.022). As a source of information, the farm technician had a highly

significant relationship with personal approval of MRC (p=0.008). Hence, it can be said that

the more interpersonal the sources of information are at the persuasion stage, the more likely

that the farmers will approve of the technology themselves.

The perceived credibility of the information sources also influences discussion of the

technology with personal networks. In this study, the credibility of the DA Agri-Kalikasan

staff (p=0.001) and of the farm technician (p=0.005) had a highly significant relationship

with the farmers’ discussion of the MRC technology at the persuasion stage of technology

adoption (Table 31). The more credible the information sources, the more likely individuals

will discuss a particular technology with them in order to be convinced of its adoption.

Results also showed that perceived credibility of the DA Agri-Kalikasan staff was

significantly related with personal approval of the technology at the persuasion stage

(p=0.039) (Table 31). Since the DA Agri-Kalikasan staff members were the program

implementers of the MRC technology, they had high credibility among the farmer-

cooperators. This high credibility of DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff facilitated the

personal decision to approve of the technology at the persuasion stage.

99

The credibility of the farm technician was also significantly related with approval of

the MRC technology by the respondents’ personal networks (p=0.012) (Table 31). It is

possible that the respondents’ fellow farmers, friends, and family have personally

encountered the farm technicians during their visits to the techno-demo farms. Through their

interaction, the respondents’ personal networks may have found them to be credible. Thus,

the greater the perceived credibility of the information source, the greater is the tendency of

personal networks to approve a technology at the persuasion stage.

Message variables and persuasion

As shown in Table 31, the perceived degree of clarity of the message on the

preparation of the MRC-based compost had high significant relationship with the

respondents’ discussion of the technology with their personal network and also with their

personal approval of MRC (p=0.004). On the other hand, the clarity of the message on the

application of MRC-based compost on the field was significantly related to discussion of

MRC with personal network (p=0.029) and with personal approval of the technology at the

persuasion stage (p=0.029). Based on these results, it can be stated that clarity of the message

affects the individual’s decision to discuss the technology with others and to be convinced of

the technology at the persuasion stage.

The degree of comprehensibility of the messages on the preparation and application

of the MRC technology was found to have high significant relationship with the respondents’

discussion of the technology with personal networks (p=0.000) (Table 31). Evidently,

message comprehensibility is one factor that influences the persuasion stage of technology

adoption.

The degree of completeness of messages about the preparation of MRC-based

compost was highly related with the farmers’ discussion of the MRC with personal networks

(p=0.000) (Table 31). Receiving the complete message apparently encourages the farmers to

discuss the new technology with their fellow farmers, friends, and family in order to get other

people’s opinions about the technology as bases for making decision on whether to approve it

100

or not at the persuasion stage of technology adoption. The degree of completeness of the

message on the preparation of the MRC-based compost was significantly related with

approval of the technology by personal networks (p=0.013). Thus, the completeness of the

message also influenced approval of the MRC technology by personal networks.

The degree of interest in the preparation of the MRC-based compost and in the

application of the technology influenced the respondents’ personal approval of the

technology (p=0.012 and p=0.027, respectively) (Table 31). The more interested the farmers

are in the message, the more likely they will tend to personally approve of the technology at

the persuasion stage.

Channel variables and persuasion

The frequency of exposure to field demonstrations significantly influenced the

respondents’ discussion of the technology with their personal networks (p=0.017) (Table 31).

After seeing the techno-farm demonstrations, the farmer-cooperators may have become

excited and interested enough about the technology to share it with others who belong to

their personal network. Thus, the frequency of exposure to a channel increases the likelihood

of discussing it with other people as bases for persuasion on the technology.

The perceived degree of interest in personal visits as information channel was highly

related to discussion of the technology with their personal networks (p=0.010) as shown in

Table 31. Thus, interest in the channel has influence on the persuasion stage.

Receiver variables and persuasion

The respondents’ attitude toward the ability of MRC technology to: 1) lower cost on

fertilizer expenses, 2) shorten composting time, and 3) increase yield had a highly significant

influence with the respondents’ personal approval of the MRC technology (p=0.002,

p=0.003, and p=0.000, respectively) (Table 31). The farmer-cooperators will personally

approve of the technology if they develop positive attitude towards it.

101

Table 31. Summary of the relationships between communication variables and the persuasion stage of technology adoption*

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

N

VA

RIA

BL

E

PE

RS

UA

SIO

N S

TA

GE

DIS

CU

SS

ION

OF

MR

C W

ITH

P

ER

SO

NA

L N

ET

WO

RK

A

PP

RO

VA

L O

F M

RC

T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y B

Y P

ER

SO

NA

L

NE

TW

OR

K

PE

RS

ON

AL

AP

PR

OV

AL

OF

MR

C

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

χ 2

P

IN

TE

RP

RE

TA

TIO

N

χ 2

P

IN

TE

RP

RE

TA

TIO

N

χ 2

P

IN

TE

RP

RE

TA

TIO

N

SO

UR

CE

VA

RIA

BL

E

Information source

DA Agri-Kalikasan

program staff**

0.469

0.493

Not significant

-**

- -

5.213

0.022

Significant

Farm

technician

0.136

0.712

Not significant

0.255 0.614

Not significant

6.984

0.008

Highly significant

Perceived credibility

DA Agri-Kalikasan

program staff**

14.000

0.001

Highly significant

-**

- -

6.514

0.039

Significant

Farm

technician

10.600

0.005

Highly significant

8.826 0.012

Significant

0.284

0.868

Not significant

ME

SS

AG

E V

AR

IAB

LE

Perceived degree of

clarity of messages

Steps in preparing the

compost

10.865

0.004

Highly significant

0.001 0.979

Not significant

10.865

0.004

Highly significant

Steps in applying the

compost to the field

7.084

0.029

Significant

0.211 0.900

Not significant

7.084

0.029

Significant

Perceived degree of

comprehensibility

Steps in preparing the

compost

23.177

0.000

Highly significant

1.880 0.391

Not significant

0.864

0.834

Not significant

Steps in applying the

compost to the field

24.148

0.000

Highly significant

1.558 0.459

Not significant

1.159

0.763

Not significant

Perceived degree of

completeness of

messages

Steps in preparing the

compost

23.523

0.000

Highly significant

7.422 0.024

Significant

0.205

0.977

Not significant

Steps in applying the

compost to the field

24.440

0.000

Highly significant

8.726 0.013

Significant

0.242

0.971

Not significant

*Only variables with at least one significant relationship were tabulated.

**No statistics were computed for some channels because they are constants, containing only one response for the two variables tested.

102

Table 31 continued.*

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

N

VA

RIA

BL

ES

P

ER

SU

AS

ION

ST

AG

E

DIS

CU

SS

ION

OF

MR

C

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

WIT

H P

ER

SO

NA

L

NE

TW

OR

K

AP

PR

OV

AL

OF

MR

C

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

BY

PE

RS

ON

AL

N

ET

WO

RK

PE

RS

ON

AL

AP

PR

OV

AL

OF

MR

C

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

χ 2

P

IN

TE

RP

RE

TA

TIO

N

χ 2

P

IN

TE

RP

RE

TA

TIO

N

χ 2

P

IN

TE

RP

RE

TA

TIO

N

ME

SS

AG

E V

AR

IAB

LE

Perceived degree of

interest in messages

Steps in preparing the

compost

1.302

0.522

Not significant

1.451 0.484

Not significant

8.820

0.012

Significant

Steps in applying the

compost to the field

0.927

0.629

Not significant

1.763 0.414

Not significant

7.203

0.027

Significant

CH

AN

NE

L V

AR

IAB

LE

Frequency of exposure

to channels

Field demonstration**

5.720

0.017

Significant

0.623 0.430

Not significant

-**

- -

Perceived degree of

interest in channels

Personal visits

13.317

0.010

Highly significant

2.041 0.564

Not significant

6.720

0.151

Not significant

RE

CE

IVE

R V

AR

IAB

LE

Perceived attitude

towards MRC

technology

MRC helps address

the increasing cost

of inorganic

fertilizers…

2.202

0.332

Not significant

0.457 0.796

Not significant

12.511

0.002

Highly significant

In MRC, the time of

composting is

shortened…

1.159

0.560

Not significant

1.558 0.459

Not significant

11.377

0.003

Highly significant

When combined with

inorganic fertilizers,

MRC yields m

ore

rice…

0.469

0.926

Not significant

3.897 0.142

Not significant

24.096

0.000

Highly significant

*Only variables with at least one significant relationship were tabulated.

**No statistics were computed for some channels because they are constants, containing only one response for the two variables tested.

103

Communication Variables and Decision Stage

The summary of the relationships between communication variables of the DA Agri-

Kalikasan communication strategy for promoting the MRC technology and the decision stage

of technology adoption is found in Table 32.

Source variables and decision

Based on Table 32, the type and credibility of the source of information have a

relationship with the intention to use the MRC technology at the decision stage of technology

adoption. As information source, the DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff was significantly

related with the respondents’ intention to use the MRC technology (p=0.032). Meanwhile,

the credibility of the farm/agricultural technician was also significantly related to the

respondents’ intention to use the technology (p=0.033).

The findings imply that the more interpersonal and the more credible the information

sources are, the more likely the farmer-cooperators will decide and plan to use the

technology.

Message variables and decision

Both the clarity of the steps in the preparation (p=0.000) and application of MRC-

based compost in the field (p=0.001) had high significant relationship with the respondents’

intention to use the MRC technology at the decision stage of technology adoption (Table 32).

The results confirm that the clarity of a message will likely influence the decision to use a

particular technology.

The respondents’ perceived comprehensibility of the steps in preparing the MRC-

based compost had a significant relationship with their intention to use the technology

(p=0.011) at the decision stage of technology adoption. Meanwhile, the comprehensibility of

the steps in the application of MRC-based compost in the field was highly significantly

104

related to the intention to use the technology (p=0.008) (Table 32). Indeed, message

comprehensibility affects the intention to use a technology at the decision stage of

technology adoption.

Interestingly, the comprehensibility of the environmental benefits of the MRC

technology was significantly related with the respondents’ consultation of the technology

with the technology providers (p=0.026) (Table 32). The more comprehensible are the

environmental benefits of the MRC technology, the more likely these benefits will be

consulted with the technology providers.

At the decision stage, the completeness of the message on the steps in the preparation

of the MRC-based compost and its application in the field was highly significant with the

intention to use the technology (p=0.010 and p=0.008, respectively) (Table 32). Thus,

completeness of the message is important in influencing the decision to use the technology.

According to Table 32, the perceived degree of interest in the practical benefits of the

MRC technology had highly significant relationship with the respondents’ intention to use it

(p=0.009). The more interested the farmers are in a new technology, the more they will

intend to make use of it.

Channel variables and decision

The frequency of exposure to print materials was found to be significantly

related with the respondents’ consultation with the technology providers on the use of MRC

(p=0.022) (Table 32). When farmer-cooperators are exposed to print materials on MRC, they

will likely consult about the technology with the technology providers. Perhaps after reading

about MRC, the farmers would like to get more information about it or confirm if it is

effective when applied in the field. The significant relationship also means that as frequency

of exposure to print materials increases, the farmers’ consultation about the technology with

technology providers will also increase, or vice versa. Thus, exposure to media contributes to

the individual’s consultation of the technology with technology providers.

105

Receiver variables and decision

It is shown in Table 32 that only the attitude of the respondents toward the ability of

MRC to increase yield had a highly significant influence (p=0.007) on their intention to use

the technology at the decision stage of adoption. If the farmers incur a positive attitude

toward a technology, then the more likely they will intend to use it. Attitude as a receiver

variable can affect the decision to use a new technology or innovation. It is important to

cultivate positive attitude towards a technology so that individuals will consider using it.

Table 32. Summary of the relationships between communication variables and the decision

stage of technology adoption*

COMMUNICATION VARIABLE

DECISION STAGE

CONSULTATION WITH TECHNOLOGY PROVIDERS

INTENTION TO USE MRC TECHNOLOGY

χ 2

P INTERPRETATION χ 2

P INTERPRETATION

SOURCE VARIABLE Information source DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff

1.633 0.201 Not significant 4.601 0.032 Significant

Perceived credibility

Farm technician 1.691 0.429 Not significant 6.815 0.033 Significant

MESSAGE VARIABLE

Perceived degree of clarity of messages

Steps in preparing the compost

1.441 0.487 Not significant 22.741 0.000 Highly significant

Steps in applying the compost to the field

2.842 0.241 Not significant 14.798 0.001 Highly significant

Perceived degree of comprehensibility

Steps in preparing the compost

5.533 0.137 Not significant 11.149 0.011 Significant

Steps in applying the compost to the field

3.664 0.300 Not significant 11.759 0.008 Highly significant

Environmental benefits

4.928 0.026 Significant 0.166 0.684 Not significant

Perceived degree of completeness of messages

Steps in preparing the compost

1.807 0.613 Not significant 11.347 0.010 Highly significant

Steps in applying the compost to the field

1.022 0.796 Not significant 11.738 0.008 Highly significant

*Only variables with at least one significant relationship were tabulated.

106

Table 32 continued.*

COMMUNICATION VARIABLE

DECISION STAGE

CONSULTATION WITH TECHNOLOGY PROVIDERS

INTENTION TO USE MRC TECHNOLOGY

χ 2

P INTERPRETATION

χ 2

P INTERPRETATION

MESSAGE VARIABLE

Perceived degree of interest in messages

Practical benefits of the compost to the farmer

6.835 0.009 Highly significant 0.215 0.643 Not significant

CHANNEL VARIABLE

Frequency of exposure to channels

Print** 7.598 0.022 Significant -** - - Receiver variables Perceived attitude towards MRC technology

When combined with inorganic fertilizers, MRC yields more rice…

0.919 0.821 Not significant 11.985 0.007 Highly significant

*Only variables with at least one significant relationship were tabulated. **No statistics were computed for some channels because they are constants, containing only one response for the two variables tested.

Communication Variables and Implementation Stage

Table 33 contains the summary of the relationships between communication variables

of the DA Agri-Kalikasan communication strategy and the implementation stage of MRC

technology adoption.

Source variables and implementation

The respondents’ frequency of access to the DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff for

information on the technology was significantly related to their application of the MRC

technology (p=0.013) (Table 33). This indicates that the more often the farmer-cooperators

turn to the program staff for MRC-related information, the more they will likely apply the

technology on their farm at the implementation stage of technology adoption.

107

Message variables and implementation

As shown in Table 33, the clarity of the steps in the preparation of the MRC-based

compost had significant relationship with the respondents’ application of the technology

(p=0.033) while the clarity of the steps in the application of the MRC-based compost had

high significant relationship with the application of MRC technology (p=0.006) (Table 33).

These results imply that message clarity influences technology application at the

implementation stage of technology adoption. The clearer the message is, the more likely a

technology will be implemented.

Surprisingly, clarity of the message on drawbacks of the technology was significantly

related with the acquisition of materials for MRC technology (p=0.049) (Table 33). If the

limitations or drawbacks of a technology are made clear to the farmers, the more they will

seek to avail themselves of the materials for the technology in order to overcome its

drawbacks on material supply.

The comprehensibility of the steps in the preparation of the MRC-based compost

turned out to be significantly related with the respondents’ acquisition of materials for the

technology (p=0.040). Message comprehensibility is a factor that can affect acquisition of

materials for a new technology.

The respondents’ perceived degree of interest in certain messages of a technology

influences the implementation stage of technology adoption. Table 33 shows that interest in

the steps in applying the MRC-based compost (p=0.039) and in the practical benefits of

MRC (p=0.017) had a significant influence on the acquisition of materials for the technology.

On the other hand, the respondents’ interest in drawbacks on the use of the technology had a

significant influence on their application of the MRC technology at the implementation stage

(p=0.032). An interest in the drawbacks or limitations of a technology apparently affects its

application on the farm. If such drawbacks can be overcome, then it is most likely that the

farmers will implement the technology.

108

Channel variables and implementation

Certain channel variables were found to affect technology implementation. For

instance, the type of channel such as print materials was significantly related with acquisition

of materials for the MRC technology (p=0.037) (Table 33). Meanwhile, the type of channel

such as personal visits significantly influenced the respondents’ application of the MRC

technology (p=0.010). Based on these findings, type of channel used in a communication

strategy affects technology application or implementation.

Besides the type of channel, the frequency of exposure to personal visits at the

techno-demo sites was significantly related with the application of MRC technology among

the respondents of the study (p=0.034) (Table 33).

The respondents’ perceived degree of interest in the channel such as the field

demonstration had a significant relationship with their application of the MRC technology

(p=0.038) (Table 33). If the farmers are interested in the channel used in a communication

strategy, then they will likely apply or implement the technology that is promoted.

Receiver variables and implementation

The positive attitude of the respondents towards the shortened time in MRC-based

composting was significantly related with their application of the technology (p=0.012)

(Table 33). The receiver’s attitude is indeed an influential variable in the implementation

stage of a technology.

109

Table 33. Summary of the relationships between communication variables and the implementation stage of technology adoption*

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

N V

AR

IAB

LE

IM

PL

EM

EN

TA

TIO

N S

TA

GE

AC

QU

ISIT

ION

OF

MA

TE

RIA

LS

FO

R M

RC

T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y

AP

PL

ICA

TIO

N O

F M

RC

T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y

χ 2

P

IN

TE

RP

RE

TA

TIO

N

χ 2

P

IN

TE

RP

RE

TA

TIO

N

SO

UR

CE

VA

RIA

BL

E

Frequency of access to information source

DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff**

-**

- -

10.733

0.013

Significant

ME

SS

AG

E V

AR

IAB

LE

Perceived degree of clarity of messages

Steps in preparing the compost

4.209

0.122

Not significant

6.823

0.033

Significant

Steps in applying the compost to the field

1.292

0.524

Not significant

10.215

0.006

Highly significant

Drawbacks of the MRC technology

7.879

0.049

Significant

2.136

0.545

Not significant

Perceived degree of comprehensibility

Steps in applying the compost to the field

4.008

0.261

Not significant

8.296

0.040

Significant

Perceived degree of interest in messages

Steps in applying the compost to the field

6.463

0.039

Significant

4.543

0.103

Not significant

Practical benefits of the compost to the farm

er

5.677

0.017

Significant

0.307

0.579

Not significant

Drawbacks of the MRC technology

1.420

0.701

Not significant

8.827

0.032

Significant

CH

AN

NE

L V

AR

IAB

LE

Type of channel used

Print

4.331

0.037

Significant

0.067

0.796

Not significant

Personal visits

0.085

0.770

Not significant

6.577

0.010

Significant

Frequency of exposure to channels

Personal visits

4.476

0.034

Significant

0.002

0.968

Not significant

Perceived degree of interest in channels

Field demonstration

7.932

0.094

Not significant

10.139

0.038

Significant

RE

CE

IVE

R V

AR

IAB

LE

Perceived attitude towards MRC technology

In MRC, the time of composting is shortened

from three m

onths to around three weeks.

4.691

0.096

Not significant

8.837

0.012

Significant

*Only variables with at least one significant relationship were tabulated.

**No statistics were computed for some channels because they are constants, containing only one response for the two variables tested.

110

Communication Variables and Confirmation Stage

Table 34 provides the summary of the relationships between the communication

variables and confirmation stage of technology adoption in the DA Agri-Kalikasan program

on MRC technology.

Source variables and confirmation

Source variables such as type of information source, credibility of the source, and

frequency of access to the information source were related with the confirmation stage of

technology adoption.

The types of information sources such as neighbors or fellow farmers (p=0.039), DA

Agri-Kalisan program staff (p=0.014), farm technicians (p=0.039), and print materials

(p=0.014) had significant relationships with advocacy for MRC technology (Table 34). If the

farmers learn about a technology from neighbors or fellow farmers, program staff members,

farm technicians, or print materials, then they will likely advocate its use to other farmers.

Such types of information sources affect advocacy for a new technology at the confirmation

stage of technology adoption.

The credibility of information sources such as the DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff

(p=0.039) and the farm technicians (p=0.014) was significantly related with advocacy for the

MRC technology (Table 34). The higher the credibility of information sources, the higher the

advocacy for a new technology to other individuals.

The frequency of access to the DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff had a significant

relationship with continuous use of the MRC technology (p=0.013) (Table 34). Therefore,

frequency of access to information sources affects the confirmation stage especially with

continuous use of the technology. In other words, if frequency of access to sources is high,

then the probability for continuous use of a new technology will also be high, and vice versa.

111

Message variables and confirmation

Message clarity, comprehensibility, completeness, and interest were related to the

confirmation stage in technology adoption.

The clarity of the steps in the preparation of the MRC-based compost was

significantly related with continuous use of the technology (p=0.033) and had high

significant relationship with advocacy of the technology (p=0.000) (Table 34).

Almost similarly, the clarity of the steps in the field application of MRC-based

compost had a high significant relationship with continuous use of and with advocacy of the

MRC technology (p=0.006 and p=0.000, respectively).

The clarity of the following messages showed high significant relationship with

advocacy for MRC technology: 1) practical benefits of MRC-based compost (p=0.001); 2)

environmental benefits of MRC (p=0.005); and 3) drawbacks of MRC technology (p=0.005)

(Table 34).

The above findings indicate that the clearer the messages about a new technology, the

more likely it will be used continuously and advocated to others.

Message comprehensibility was also related to the confirmation stage of technology

adoption. In particular, comprehensibility of the steps in the preparation of the MRC-based

compost had high significant relationship with advocacy of the technology (p=0.001).

Furthermore, comprehensibility of the steps in applying the MRC-based compost in the field

had a significant relationship with continuous use of the technology (p=0.040) and a high

significant relationship with advocacy of the technology (p=0.000). Lastly, comprehensibility

of the practical benefits of the MRC technology had a high significant relationship with

advocacy of the technology (p=0.000) (Table 34). If the message comprehensibility is high,

then the possibility for continuous use and advocacy of a technology will also be high.

112

Completeness is another message variable that has a relationship with the

confirmation stage of technology adoption. Message completeness of the steps in the

preparation of the MRC-based compost (p=0.012) as well as completeness of the drawbacks

of the MRC technology (p=0.038) have significant relationships with technology advocacy.

Completeness of the steps in applying the MRC-based compost in the field had a highly

significant relationship with advocacy for the technology (p=0.008) (Table 34). The more

complete the message is, then the more likely it will be advocated to others.

The degree of interest in a message also affected the confirmation stage of technology

adoption. In the study, the respondents’ interest in these messages showed highly significant

relationships with technology advocacy: 1) steps in preparing the MRC-based compost

(p=0.000); 2) steps in applying the MRC-based compost in the field (p=0.001); and 3)

drawbacks of the MRC technology (p=0.005).

There was a significant relationship between interest in the drawbacks of the MRC

technology and its continuous use (p=0.032) (Table 34). Apparently, knowing the drawbacks

of a technology affects its continuous use. If the technology has plenty of drawbacks, then

farmers will probably discontinue its use.

Channel variables and confirmation

The type of channel used, frequency of exposure to a channel, and interest in a

channel significantly affect the farmers’ confirmation stage of technology adoption.

Information channels such as seminars/training programs were significantly related

with the respondents’ recognition of the benefits and drawbacks of the MRC technology

(p=0.038) (Table 34). This implies that seminars or trainings may be valuable channels in

communicating the benefits and limitations of a new technology.

Meanwhile, the frequency of exposure to channels such as field demonstrations had a

highly significant relationship with technology advocacy (p=0.001) (Table 34). To encourage

113

the farmers’ advocacy of a technology to other people, they should be exposed to field

demonstrations.

The respondents’ interest in the field demo as information channel showed a

significant relationship with their continuous use of the technology at the confirmation stage

(p=0.038) (Table 33). It can be deduced that interest in field demonstrations tends to

encourage continuous use of a technology.

Receiver variables and confirmation

Unlike in the previous stages of technology adoption, the respondents’ perceived

degree of need for the MRC technology emerged to be significantly related with the

confirmation stage, particularly with advocacy for the technology (p=0.027) (Table 34). The

more the farmers have a need for technology, the greater the likelihood that they will

advocate the technology to other farmers.

The receiver’s attitude toward a technology affects the confirmation stage of the

technology, especially the recognition of the benefits and drawbacks and the advocacy for the

technology. Table 34 of this study shows a highly significant relationship between the

respondents’ positive attitude towards the MRC technology in addressing fertilizer costs and

advocacy of the technology to other farmers (p=0.001). The attitude towards shortened

MRC-based composting time was significantly related with recognition of the benefits and

drawbacks of the technology (p=0.012) while attitude towards increased rice yield from the

use of MRC was significantly related with technology advocacy (p=0.021) (Table 34).

As the results above indicate, the more positive the attitude of farmers towards a

technology, the more they will be able to recognize the advantages and disadvantages of a

technology, use the technology continuously, and advocate for it

114

Table 34. Summary of the relationships between communication variables and the confirm

ation stage of technology adoption*

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

N

VA

RIA

BL

E

CO

NF

IRM

AT

ION

ST

AG

E

RE

CO

GN

ITIO

N O

F

BE

NE

FIT

S/D

RA

WB

AC

KS

C

ON

TIN

UO

US

US

E O

F M

RC

TE

CH

A

DV

OC

AC

Y F

OR

MR

C T

EC

H

χ 2

P

IN

TE

RP

RE

TA

TIO

N

χ 2

P

IN

TE

RP

RE

TA

TIO

N

χ 2

P

IN

TE

RP

RE

TA

TIO

N

SO

UR

CE

VA

RIA

BL

E

Information source

Neighbors/fellow

farm

ers

0.006 0.938

Not significant

0.135

0.713

Not significant

6.514

0.039

Significant

DA Agri-Kalikasan

Program Staff

1.838 0.175

Not significant

1.335

0.248

Not significant

8.564

0.014

Significant

Farm

technician

0.006 0.938

Not significant

0.135

0.713

Not significant

6.514

0.039

Significant

Print

1.755 0.185

Not significant

0.135

0.713

Not significant

8.564

0.014

Significant

Perceived credibility

DA Agri-Kalikasan

Program Staff

2.333 0.311

Not significant

4.200

0.122

Not significant

6.514

0.039

Significant

Farm

technician

3.462 0.177

Not significant

4.779

0.092

Not significant

8.564

0.014

Significant

Frequency of access to

information sources

DA Agri-Kalikasan

Program Staff

5.133 0.162

Not significant

10.733

0.013

Significant

3.792

0.285

Not significant

ME

SS

AG

E V

AR

IAB

LE

Perceived degree of

clarity of messages

Steps in preparing the

compost

1.109 0.574

Not significant

6.823

0.033

Significant

20.410

0.000

Highly significant

Steps in applying the

compost to the field

1.448 0.485

Not significant

10.215

0.006

Highly significant

15.500

0.000

Highly significant

Practical benefits of the

compost to the farm

er

0.085 0.771

Not significant

0.426

0.514

Not significant

11.649

0.001

Highly significant

Environmental benefits

0.319 0.572

Not significant

1.243

0.265

Not significant

7.781

0.005

Highly significant

Drawbacks of the MRC

technology

6.102 0.107

Not significant

2.136

0.545

Not significant

13.000

0.005

Highly significant

*Only variables with at least one significant relationship were tabulated.

115

Table 34 continued.*

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

N

VA

RIA

BL

E

CO

NF

IRM

AT

ION

ST

AG

E

RE

CO

GN

ITIO

N O

F

BE

NE

FIT

S/D

RA

WB

AC

KS

C

ON

TIN

UO

US

US

E O

F M

RC

TE

CH

AD

VO

CA

CY

FO

R M

RC

TE

CH

χ 2

P

IN

TE

RP

RE

TA

TIO

N

χ 2

P

IN

TE

RP

RE

TA

TIO

N

χ 2

P

IN

TE

RP

RE

TA

TIO

N

ME

SS

AG

E V

AR

IAB

LE

Perceived degree of

comprehensibility

Steps in preparing the

compost

2.701

0.440

Not significant

6.668

0.083

Not significant

17.637

0.001

Highly significant

Steps in applying the

compost to the field

2.508

0.474

Not significant

8.296

0.040

Significant

18.530

0.000

Highly significant

Practical benefits of the

compost to the farm

er

2.085

0.353

Not significant

3.001

0.223

Not significant

22.587

0.000

Highly significant

Perceived degree of

completeness of messages

Steps in preparing the

compost

2.404

0.493

Not significant

3.952

0.267

Not significant

10.991

0.012

Significant

Steps in applying the

compost to the field

1.974

0.578

Not significant

4.119

0.249

Not significant

11.701

0.008

Highly significant

Drawbacks of the MRC

technology

5.829

0.120

Not significant

3.000

0.392

Not significant

8.444

0.038

Significant

Perceived degree of

interest in messages

Steps in preparing the

compost

3.023

0.221

Not significant

5.461

0.065

Not significant

15.727

0.000

Highly significant

Steps in applying the

compost to the field

2.680

0.262

Not significant

4.543

0.103

Not significant

14.570

0.001

Highly significant

Drawbacks of the MRC

technology

4.952

0.175

Not significant

8.827

0.032

Significant

13.000

0.005

Highly significant

*Only variables with at least one significant relationship were tabulated.

116

Table 34 continued.*

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

N

VA

RIA

BL

E

CO

NF

IRM

AT

ION

ST

AG

E

RE

CO

GN

ITIO

N O

F

BE

NE

FIT

S/D

RA

WB

AC

KS

CO

NT

INU

OU

S U

SE

OF

MR

C T

EC

H

AD

VO

CA

CY

FO

R M

RC

TE

CH

χ 2

P

IN

TE

RP

RE

TA

TIO

N

χ 2

P

IN

TE

RP

RE

TA

TIO

N

χ 2

P

IN

TE

RP

RE

TA

TIO

N

CH

AN

NE

L V

AR

IAB

LE

Type of channel used

Seminars/trainings

4.324 0.038

Significant

0.059

0.807

Not significant

0.019

0.890

Not significant

Frequency of exposure to

channels

Field demonstration

1.583 0.208

Not significant

0.821

0.365

Not significant

11.917

0.001

Highly significant

Perceived degree of

interest in channels

Field demonstration

9.344 0.053

Not significant

10.139

0.038

Significant

6.887

0.142

Not significant

RE

CE

IVE

R V

AR

IAB

LE

Perceived degree of need

for MRC

0.950 0.622

Not significant

3.489

0.175

Not significant

7.226

0.027

Significant

Perceived attitude

towards MRC technology

MRC helps address the

increasing cost of

inorganic fertilizers…

0.429 0.807

Not significant

2.417

0.299

Not significant

14.193

0.001

Highly significant

In MRC, the time of

composting is

shortened…

3.844 0.146

Significant

8.837

0.012

Significant

5.434

0.066

Not significant

When combined with

inorganic fertilizers,

MRC yields m

ore

rice...

2.095 0.553

Not significant

4.477

0.214

Not significant

9.711

0.021

Significant

*Only variables with at least one significant relationship were tabulated.

117

Summary of the Communication Variables Influencing Adoption Stage of MRC Technology

The factors in the communication strategy of the DA Agri-Kalikasan program which

influenced the knowledge stage of MRC technology adoption generally included the

following: 1) perceived credibility of the print materials and farm technicians; 2) perceived

degree of clarity, comprehensibility, completeness, and interest in the steps in preparing and

applying MRC-based compost in the field as well as the practical and environmental benefits

of the MRC technology; 3) personal visit as type of channel used and exposure to print

materials and seminars or trainings related to MRC; and 4) perceived attitude towards

shortened MRC-based composting time, towards increased rice yield with MRC technology,

and towards MRC technology addressing problem of rice straw burning (Table 35).

The communication factors that affected the persuasion stage of MRC technology

adoption were: 1) DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff and farm technician as information

source and their perceived credibility among the farmers; 2) perceived clarity,

comprehensibility, completeness, and interest in the steps in preparing and applying MRC-

based compost and in the environmental benefits of the MRC technology; 3) frequency of

exposure to field demonstrations and degree of interest in personal visits; and 4) perceived

attitude towards MRC technology in addressing increasing cost of inorganic fertilizers,

towards shortened MRC-based composting time, and towards increased rice yield with MRC

technology (Table 36).

At the decision stage, the factors influencing technology adoption consisted of: 1) the

DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff as information source and perceived credibility of the farm

technician; 2) the perceived clarity, comprehensibility, and completeness of the steps in the

preparation and application of MRC-based compost as well as the interest in the practical

benefits of MRC technology; 3) the frequency of exposure to print materials; and 4) the

perceived attitude towards increased rice yield with MRC technology (Table 37).

118

The implementation stage of MRC technology adoption were influenced by these

communication factors: 1) frequency of access to the DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff; 2)

perceived clarity of the steps in the preparation and application of MRC-based compost and

the drawbacks of the technology, comprehensibility of the steps in the preparation of MRC-

based compost, and interest in the steps in preparing MRC-based compost, in the practical

benefits of the MRC technology, and in the drawbacks of technology; 3) print material and

personal visit as type of channel used, frequency of exposure to personal visits, and degree of

interest in field demonstration; and 4) perceived attitude toward shortened MRC-based

composting time (Table 38).

The last stage of technology adoption, which is the confirmation stage, was found to

be influenced by a number of communication factors. The source factors were: 1) type of

information source such as neighbor/fellow farmer, DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff, farm

technician and print material; 2) credibility of the DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff and farm

technician; and 3) frequency of access to the DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff (Table 39).

The message factors influencing the confirmation station were: 1) perceived clarity of

the steps in the preparation and application of MRC-based compost and the practical and

environmental benefits of the MRC technology; 2) comprehensibility of the steps in the

preparation and application of MRC-based compost and the practical benefits of MRC

technology; 3) completeness of the steps in the preparing and applying MRC-based compost

and the drawbacks of the technology; and 4) interest in the steps in preparing and applying

MRC-based compost (Table 39).

Among the channel factors, the seminar/training as information source and the

frequency of exposure to and degree of interest in the field demo influenced the confirmation

stage. In terms of receiver factors, the farmers’ need for the technology and their attitude

towards the MRC technology in addressing increasing cost of inorganic fertilizers, towards

the shortened MRC-based composting time, and towards the increased rice yield with MRC

technology affected the confirmation stage of technology adoption (Table 39).

119

Table 35. Communication variables influencing the knowledge stage of MRC technology adoption

C

OM

MU

NIC

AT

ION

VA

RIA

BL

E

KN

OW

LE

DG

E S

TA

GE

RE

CA

LL

OF

SP

EC

IFIC

M

ES

SA

GE

S

EX

TE

NT

OF

KN

OW

LE

DG

E

AB

OU

T M

RC

E

XT

EN

T O

F K

NO

WL

ED

GE

A

BO

UT

ST

EP

S IN

MR

C

P

IN

TE

RP

RE

TA

TIO

N

P

INT

ER

PR

ET

AT

ION

P

IN

TE

RP

RE

TA

TIO

N

SO

UR

CE

VA

RIA

BL

E

Perceived credibility of print materials

- -

- -

0.000

Highly significant

Perceived credibility of farm

technician

0.000

Highly significant

- -

- -

ME

SS

AG

E V

AR

IAB

LE

Perceived degree of clarity of steps in preparing

MRC-based compost

0.000

Highly significant

0.001

Highly significant

0.000

Highly significant

Perceived clarity of steps in applying MRC-based

compost to the field

0.000

Highly significant

0.006

Highly significant

0.000

Highly significant

Perceived clarity of the practical benefits of the MRC

technology to the farm

er

- -

- -

0.028

Significant

Perceived degree of comprehensibility of steps in

preparing M

RC-based compost

0.000

Highly significant

- -

0.000

Highly significant

Perceived degree of comprehensibility of steps in

applying MRC-based compost to the field

0.001

Highly significant

- -

0.000

Highly significant

Perceived degree of comprehensibility of

environmental benefits of MRC technology

0.018

Significant

0.048

Significant

- -

Perceived degree of completeness of steps in

preparing M

RC-based compost

0.001

Highly significant

- -

0.000

Highly significant

Perceived degree of completeness of steps in

applying MRC-based compost to the field

0.004

Highly significant

- -

0.000

Highly significant

Perceived degree of interest in the practical benefits

of the MRC technology to the farm

er

0.016

Significant

0.017

Significant

0.017

Significant

Perceived degree of interest in the environmental

benefits of the MRC technology

0.011

Significant

- -

- -

CH

AN

NE

L V

AR

IAB

LE

Personal visits as type of channel used

- -

- -

0.000

Highly significant

Frequency of exposure to print materials

- -

- -

0.012

Significant

Frequency of exposure to seminars/trainings

- -

- -

0.012

Significant

RE

CE

IVE

R V

AR

IAB

LE

Perceived attitude towards shortened MRC-based

composting time

0.022

Highly significant

- -

0.041

Significant

Perceived attitude towards increased rice yield with

MRC technology

0.001

Highly significant

0.041

Significant

- -

Perceived attitude towards M

RC technology

addressing problem of rice straw burning

0.002

Highly significant

- -

- -

120

Table 36. Communication variables influencing the persuasion stage of MRC technology adoption

C

OM

MU

NIC

AT

ION

VA

RIA

BL

E

PE

RS

UA

SIO

N S

TA

GE

DIS

CU

SS

ION

OF

MR

C

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

WIT

H

PE

RS

ON

AL

NE

TW

OR

K

AP

PR

OV

AL

OF

MR

C

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

BY

P

ER

SO

NA

L N

ET

WO

RK

PE

RS

ON

AL

AP

PR

OV

AL

O

F M

RC

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

P

INT

ER

PR

ET

AT

ION

P

IN

TE

RP

RE

TA

TIO

N

P

INT

ER

PR

ET

AT

ION

SO

UR

CE

VA

RIA

BL

E

DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff as type of inform

ation

source

- -

- -

0.022

Significant

Farm

technician as type of inform

ation source

- -

- -

0.008

Highly significant

Perceived credibility of DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff

0.001

Highly significant

- -

0.039

Significant

Perceived credibility of farm

technician

0.005

Highly significant

0.012

Significant

- -

ME

SS

AG

E V

AR

IAB

LE

Perceived clarity of steps in preparing M

RC-based

compost

0.004

Highly significant

- -

0.004

Highly significant

Perceived clarity of steps in applying MRC-based

compost to the field

0.029

Significant

- -

0.029

Significant

Perceived degree of comprehensibility of steps in

preparing M

RC-based compost

0.000

Highly significant

- -

- -

Perceived degree of comprehensibility of steps in

applying MRC-based compost to the field

0.000

Highly significant

- -

- -

Perceived degree of completeness of steps in preparing

MRC-based compost

0.000

Highly significant

0.024

Significant

- -

Perceived degree of completeness of steps in applying

MRC-based compost to the field

0.000

Highly significant

0.013

Significant

- -

Perceived degree of interest in the steps in applying

MRC-based compost to the field

- -

- -

0.012

Significant

Perceived degree of interest in the environmental

benefits of MRC technology

- -

- -

0.027

Significant

CH

AN

NE

L V

AR

IAB

LE

Frequency of exposure to field demonstrations

0.017

Significant

- -

- -

Perceived degree of interest in personal visits

0.010

Highly significant

- -

- -

RE

CE

IVE

R V

AR

IAB

LE

Perceived attitude towards M

RC technology in

addressing increasing cost of inorganic fertilizers

- -

- -

0.002

Highly significant

Perceived attitude towards shortened MRC-based

composting time

- -

- -

0.003

Highly significant

Perceived attitude towards increased rice yield with

MRC technology

- -

- -

0.000

Highly significant

121

Table 37. Communication variables influencing the decision stage of MRC technology adoption

C

OM

MU

NIC

AT

ION

VA

RIA

BL

E

DE

CIS

ION

ST

AG

E

CO

NS

UL

TA

TIO

N W

ITH

T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y P

RO

VID

ER

S

INT

EN

TIO

N T

O U

SE

MR

C

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

P

IN

TE

RP

RE

TA

TIO

N

P

INT

ER

PR

ET

AT

ION

SO

UR

CE

VA

RIA

BL

E

DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff as type of inform

ation

source

- -

0.032

Significant

Perceived credibility of farm

technician

- -

0.033

Significant

ME

SS

AG

E V

AR

IAB

LE

Perceived clarity of steps in preparing M

RC-based

compost

- -

0.000

Highly significant

Perceived clarity of steps in applying MRC-based

compost to the field

- -

0.001

Highly significant

Perceived degree of comprehensibility of steps in

preparing M

RC-based compost

- -

0.011

Significant

Perceived degree of comprehensibility of steps in

applying MRC-based compost to the field

- -

0.008

Highly significant

Perceived degree of comprehensibility of

environmental benefits of MRC technology

0.026

Significant

- -

Perceived degree of completeness of steps in

preparing M

RC-based compost

- -

0.010

Highly significant

Perceived degree of completeness of steps in

applying MRC-based compost to the field

- -

0.008

Highly significant

Perceived degree of interest in the practical benefits of

the M

RC technology to the farm

er

0.009

Highly significant

- -

CH

AN

NE

L V

AR

IAB

LE

Frequency of exposure to print materials

0.022

Significant

- -

RE

CE

IVE

R V

AR

IAB

LE

Perceived attitude towards increased rice yield with

MRC technology

- -

0.007

Highly significant

122

Table 38. Communication variables influencing the implementation stage of MRC technology adoption

C

OM

MU

NIC

AT

ION

VA

RIA

BL

E

IMP

LE

ME

NT

AT

ION

ST

AG

E

AC

QU

ISIT

ION

OF

MA

TE

RIA

LS

FO

R M

RC

T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y

AP

PL

ICA

TIO

N O

F M

RC

T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y

P

IN

TE

RP

RE

TA

TIO

N

P

INT

ER

PR

ET

AT

ION

SO

UR

CE

VA

RIA

BL

E

Frequency of access to DA Agri-Kalikasan

program staff

- -

0.013

Significant

ME

SS

AG

E V

AR

IAB

LE

Perceived clarity of steps in preparing M

RC-

based compost

- -

0.033

Significant

Perceived clarity of steps in applying MRC-based

compost to the field

- -

0.006

Highly significant

Perceived clarity of drawbacks of the MRC

technology

0.049

Significant

- -

Perceived degree of comprehensibility of steps in

applying MRC-based compost to the field

- -

0.040

Significant

Perceived degree of interest in the steps in

applying MRC-based compost to the field

0.039

Significant

- -

Perceived degree of interest in the practical

benefits of MRC-based compost to the farm

er

0.017

Significant

- -

Perceived degree of interest in the drawbacks of

the M

RC technology

- -

0.032

Significant

CH

AN

NE

L V

AR

IAB

LE

Print material as type of channel used

0.037

Significant

- -

Personal visit as type of channel used

- -

0.010

Significant

Frequency of exposure to personal visits

0.034

Significant

Perceived degree of interest in field

demonstration

- -

0.038

Significant

RE

CE

IVE

R V

AR

IAB

LE

Perceived attitude towards shortened MRC-

based composting time

- -

0.012

Significant

123

Table 39. Communication variables influencing the confirm

ation stage of MRC technology adoption

C

OM

MU

NIC

AT

ION

VA

RIA

BL

E

CO

NF

IRM

AT

ION

ST

AG

E

RE

CO

GN

ITIO

N O

F

BE

NE

FIT

S/D

RA

WB

AC

KS

C

ON

TIN

UO

US

US

E O

F

MR

C T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y

AD

VO

CA

CY

FO

R M

RC

T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y

P

IN

TE

RP

RE

TA

TIO

N

P

INT

ER

PR

ET

AT

ION

P

IN

TE

RP

RE

TA

TIO

N

SO

UR

CE

VA

RIA

BL

E

Neighbor/fellow farm

er as type of inform

ation

source

- -

- -

0.039

Significant

DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff as type of

inform

ation source

- -

- -

0.014

Significant

Farm

technician as type of inform

ation source

- -

- -

0.039

Significant

Print material as type of inform

ation source

- -

- -

0.014

Significant

Perceived credibility of DA Agri-Kalikasan program

staff

- -

- -

0.039

Significant

Perceived credibility of farm

technician

- -

- -

0.014

Significant

Frequency of access to DA Agri-Kalikasan

program staff

0.162

Significant

0.013

Significant

- -

ME

SS

AG

E V

AR

IAB

LE

Perceived clarity of steps in preparing M

RC-based

compost

- -

0.033

Significant

0.000

Highly significant

Perceived clarity of steps in applying MRC-based

compost to the field

- -

0.006

Highly significant

0.000

Highly significant

Perceived clarity of the practical benefits of the

MRC technology to the farm

er

- -

- -

0.001

Highly significant

Perceived clarity of the environmental benefits of

MRC technology

- -

- -

0.005

Highly significant

Perceived clarity of drawbacks of the MRC

technology

- -

- -

0.005

Highly significant

Perceived degree of comprehensibility of steps in

preparing M

RC-based compost

- -

- -

0.001

Highly significant

Perceived degree of comprehensibility of steps in

applying MRC-based compost to the field

- -

0.040

Significant

0.000

Highly significant

Perceived degree of comprehensibility of practical

benefits of MRC-based compost to the farm

er

- -

- -

0.000

Highly significant

Perceived degree of completeness of steps in

preparing M

RC-based compost

- -

- -

0.012

Significant

Perceived degree of completeness of steps in

applying MRC-based compost to the field

- -

- -

0.008

Highly significant

Perceived degree of completeness of drawbacks

of the MRC technology

- -

- -

0.038

Significant

124

Table 39 continued.

C

OM

MU

NIC

AT

ION

VA

RIA

BL

E

CO

NF

IRM

AT

ION

ST

AG

E

RE

CO

GN

ITIO

N O

F

BE

NE

FIT

S/D

RA

WB

AC

KS

C

ON

TIN

UO

US

US

E O

F

MR

C T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y

AD

VO

CA

CY

FO

R M

RC

T

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y

P

INT

ER

PR

ET

AT

ION

P

IN

TE

RP

RE

TA

TIO

N

P

INT

ER

PR

ET

AT

ION

ME

SS

AG

E V

AR

IAB

LE

Perceived degree of interest in the steps in

preparing M

RC-based compost

-

- -

- 0.000

Highly significant

Perceived degree of interest in the steps in

applying MRC-based compost to the field

-

- -

- 0.001

Highly significant

Perceived degree of interest in the drawbacks of

the M

RC technology

- -

0.032

Significant

- -

CH

AN

NE

L V

AR

IAB

LE

Seminar/training as type of channel used

0.038

Significant

- -

- -

Frequency of exposure to field demonstration

- -

- -

0.001

Highly significant

Perceived degree of interest in field demonstration

- -

0.038

Significant

- -

RE

CE

IVE

R V

AR

IAB

LE

Perceived degree of need for MRC technology

- -

- -

0.027

Significant

Perceived attitude towards M

RC technology in

addressing increasing cost of inorganic fertilizers

- -

- -

0.001

Highly significant

Perceived attitude towards shortened MRC-based

composting time

0.146

Significant

0.012

Significant

- -

Perceived attitude towards increased rice yield

with M

RC technology

- -

- -

0.021

Significant

125

Problems Encountered in MRC Technology Adoption

Problems Experienced with Farmers

Most of the agricultural technicians who were interviewed said that farmers would

usually take a look first at the benefits or drawbacks of the technology before adopting it.

This “wait-and-see” attitude of the farmers hindered the promotion of the MRC technology.

The municipal agricultural officer (MAO) in Babatngon, Leyte narrated that it was

personally difficult to convince the farmers to adopt the technology. She suggested exploring

and trying out a variety of teaching-learning styles to help the farmers see and observe the

benefits of the technology. However, one municipal agricultural technician in Bato, Leyte

commented that it would be difficult to employ a variety of teaching-learning techniques

because the results of the MRC technology are not easily visible on the farm. To enhance

technology adoption, the MAO of Barangay Bato suggested that additional resources should

be provided to sustain technology promotion and adoption.

An agricultural technician in Alang-alang, Leyte realized that some farmers were very

difficult to contact. Furthermore, the secretary to the MAO in Kananga, Leyte voiced out the

sense of “passivity” among the farmer-cooperators. She said that the farmers would simply

accept what they are told. Meanwhile, the agricultural technician in Matalom, Leyte claimed

that the farmers were already used to dole-outs and spoon feeding that they would not

involve themselves much in the decision-making with the agricultural technicians. Another

problem was that sometimes the farmers would not properly follow the guidelines or protocol

in using the MRC technology.

This kind of “counter argumentation”, according to Selnow and Crano (1987), may

have resulted from the misalignment of certain guidelines with the needs of the farmers. One

farmer said during the survey that his use of the MRC technology did not meet his needs in

the farm. The secretary to the MAO in Kananga, on the other hand, observed that some

farmers in her area did not follow the desired fertilizer recommendations because they could

126

not afford to do so. Thus, the socio-economic constraints in the adoption of an innovation

would always come in (Rola, 2000).

Problems with Inputs and Resources

One of the technical constraints encountered by the farmers and DA Agri-Kalikasan

program staff was the lack of or delay in the supply of the compost fungus activator (CFA),

the Trichoderma sp. fungus. The project officer herself admitted that the supply of the

fungus was lacking, which delayed the project and resulted in the unsustainable

implementation of the program. The soils and water coordinator of the DA Regional Soils

Laboratory explained that Trichoderma is very difficult to mass-produce especially under

field condition. To ensure its growth in the rice straw, Trichoderma must be cultured in the

laboratory so that it will not be contaminated with other microorganisms. The project officer

mentioned they were not always successful in mass-producing the fungus; hence, they had to

buy it and other supplies from Manila. When the technicians could not provide the fungus,

they would encourage the farmers not to burn rice straw in the field. The farmers, on the

other hand, would simply let the rice straw rot in the field without the fungus.

The agricultural technicians from Barugo and Hilongos, Leyte identified irrigation

problems. The fungi required constant moisture or irrigation for its growth. However,

because the irrigation highly depended on the schedules set by the National Irrigation

Authority (NIA), water supply was limited in the techno-demo sites during certain months of

the year. The suggestion solution for the irrigation water problem was to set a schedule for

irrigation supply at the farm level, preferably depending on the convenience of the farmers

and also to improve irrigation system in the program sites.

Problems with Funding and Discontinuation of the Program

It was found that the DA Agri-Kalikasan Progra, which began in the province of

Leyte in 2006-2007, was discontinued in some techno-demo sites after two cropping seasons.

Supposedly, the program was to be operational for three years. However, because of the

127

constraints especially in the supply of Trichoderma, some municipal offices had to stop the

program or tap the LGUs for funds and resources to continue the program. The project

officer said that the funding of the MRC technology was good only for a year; after such a

period, the LGUs should take the initiative to look for funds for the MRC technology

program or to transfer the program to the MAOs.

According to the technician in Matalom, Leyte, since the MRC technology program

was discontinued, the farmer-cooperators would often ask her about the program. Some

farmers resumed their old practice of burning rice straw, while others implemented other

methods such as using traditional composting or using the indigenous microorganism (IM0).

She opined that the project should be continued so that farmers can see the long-term benefits

of the MRC technology.

Rola (2000) explained that an intensive knowledge base, long-term benefits, and

specificity of area or location are needed for a program to be sustained and self-sufficient. In

the case of the DA Agri-Kalikasan program, intensive information dissemination and

realization of benefits in the long run are important. However, these were affected by the

constraints in supply and resources, as well as institutional limitations at the local and

municipal level. Nevertheless, the agricultural technicians and the staff of the DA Agri-

Kalikasan program generally opted for the continuation of the program.

Suggestions for Improvement of the Communication Strategy

Table 40 summarizes the farmers’ suggestions to improve the communication

strategy of the DA Agri-Kalikasan program in promoting the use of MRC technology. Most

of them suggested implementing a more intensive information dissemination campaign (26

responses). Many also said that the farmer-cooperators should be trained more frequently (25

responses) and the use of the MRC technology should be monitored more often by the

technicians (17 responses).

128

Some farmers, meanwhile, suggested that the MRC technology should be taught in a

way that farmers would be able to see the technology. The provision of farm inputs and

support services was also stressed (9 responses). The teaching-learning approaches in the

training programs and seminars should be improved. Five respondents wanted more details

about the technology. Two respondents each suggested 1) organizing farmer groups to

strengthen the institutional framework of the program; 2) using the multimedia approach; 3)

making IEC materials more personalized and attractive; and 4) improving the technicians’

teaching style (Table 40). The farmer-cooperators should also be more involved in the

program.

An agricultural technician from Hindang, Leyte suggested that communication

materials such as posters and pamphlets should be distributed to facilitate farmers’ recall of

the MRC technology. Another technician in Hilongos, Leyte recommended using mass

media such as radio and TV programs to help widen the coverage of the information

dissemination throughout the province. Other technicians suggested continuous monitoring

of the program and making available the MRC inputs/supplies. These factors, according to

technicians, would help realize the impact of the MRC technology on the farmer-cooperators.

Table 40. Respondents’ suggestions for improvement of the communication strategy of the DA Agri-Kalikasan program

SUGGESTION FREQUENCY (N=49)* Information dissemination should be done more intensively 26 Seminars/trainings should be done more often 25 Use of MRC should be monitored more often 17 Program should be continued 11 Farmers should be able to see the technology 9 Support services and farm inputs should be provided 9 More detailed information about MRC should be provided 5 Technology providers should provide more support 2 IEC materials should be personalized and made more attractive 2 Improve teaching styles of farm technicians 2 Farmers should be organized into groups 2 Multimedia approach should be used 1 Monitoring should be done only during the farmers’ free time 1 Information should be shared in the local dialect 1 Farmer-cooperators should follow the guidelines in using MRC 1 Technicians should be trained 1 More participation/involvement of the farmers 1

*Multiple responses

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

Objectives

A number of past government programs have failed to address certain development

problems because determinants of behavior change associated with these problems have not

been fully understood. One of the problems that the local government in Leyte has been

trying to solve is rice straw burning, which does not only contribute to environmental

degradation but also risks the health of the people in the province. Thus, the DA Agri-

Kalikasan program was established in the area to promote environmentally-sound farming

technologies such as the Modified Rapid Composting (MRC) technology. Farmer-

cooperators were identified and tasked to help promote the technology through their techno-

demo sites or farms.

This study determined the factors in the communication strategy of the DA Agri-

Kalikasan program which influence the farmer-cooperators’ adoption stage of the MRC

technology in Leyte. Specifically, it was conducted to:1) determine the socio-demographic

profile of the DA Agri-Kalikasan farmer-cooperators in Leyte; 2) describe the characteristics

of the source, message, channel and receiver variables of the Agri-Kalikasan communication

strategy used in promoting MRC technology among farmer-cooperators in Leyte; 3) describe

the characteristics of the farmer-cooperators’ adoption stage of the MRC technology; 4) find

out if a relationship exists between the source, message, channel and receiver variables of the

communication strategy and the farmer-cooperators’ adoption stage of the MRC technology;

and 5) find out the problems that the DA Agri-Kalikasan farmer-cooperators and program

staff encounter in implementing the communication strategy for the MRC technology.

130

Methodology

Complete enumeration of 64 farmer-cooperators of the DA Agri-Kalikasan program

in Leyte was used for the survey. However, a total of 49 farmer-cooperators were personally

interviewed using a structured questionnaire since the others had either transferred to Manila,

were unavailable at the time of data gathering, or had already passed away.

Results of the survey were organized and analyzed using frequency counts and

percentages, and weighted mean. Furthermore, the relationships between communication

variables and the adoption stage of the MRC technology were tested using the chi-square test

of independence.

Key informant interviews were also conducted with the project officer of the DA

Agri-Kalikasan program, the municipal agricultural technicians (MATs), the municipal

agricultural officers (MAOs), and the secretary to the MAO. The interviews focused on the

source, message, channel, and receiver of the communication strategy of the DA Agri-

Kalikasan program, the limiting factors in implementing the program, and the perceived

needs and problems during the program implementation.

Findings Respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics Majority of the farmer-cooperators were aged 48 to 69 years old. Most of them were

male cooperators, married, and belonged to relatively small households. They had undergone

at least secondary schooling. Almost half of them had attended an MRC-related training.

Most of the farmer-cooperators owned a hectare or less of rice land. Nearly half were land

owners while one third of them were tenants. The farmer-cooperators generally earned less

than PhP 100,000 annually, and had farmed from 3 to 24 years. Subsidies in fertilizers and

seeds were the most common support services acquired by the farmer-cooperators.

131

Characteristics of the DA Agri-Kalikasan communication strategy

Source Variables. The agricultural technicians were the most common information

source accessed by the farmer-cooperators regarding the MRC technology (46 responses),

followed by the DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff (15 responses). The technicians were

perceived as credible (4.41 mean score) and were often accessed (3.96 mean score) about

problems on the use of the MRC technology mainly because the technicians regularly visited

the farm-demo sites to monitor performance of the technology. On the other hand, some

information sources had low credibility and frequency of access because the farming needs

were not met or the farmer-cooperators were busy with other farming activities.

Message Variables. The messages on the steps in applying the MRC compost in the

field (4.67 mean) and the practical benefits of the MRC technology (4.55 mean) were ‘very

clear’ and ‘very understandable’ (4.69 and 4.51 mean, respectively) to the farmer-

cooperators. Meanwhile, the steps in preparing the MRC-based compost (4.48 mean score)

and the environmental benefits of the MRC technology (4.29 mean score) were perceived as

‘clear’ and ‘understandable’ (4.47 and 4.27 mean, respectively). The same messages were

perceived as ‘almost complete (80%)’ with the following mean ratings: steps in applying

MRC compost in the field (4.43); practical benefits of MRC (4.20); steps in preparing MRC

compost (4.18); and environmental benefits of MRC (3.98). In terms of perceived degree of

interest, the practical benefits of MRC (4.55 mean) and the steps in preparing the MRC-based

compost (4.53 mean) had the highest ratings. The farmer-cooperators gave high ratings for

message clarity, comprehensibility, completeness and interest because they were able to use

the MRC technology in their farm-demo and see or experience its benefits. On the other

hand, they had low ratings for other messages because they felt that more information should

be shared about MRC, the technology is difficult to use, and information on drawbacks of

MRC is lacking.

Channel Variables. The farmer-cooperators generally learned about the MRC

technology through personal visits made by the agricultural technicians (3.53 mean score),

with the main reason being that these visits were consistent or regular (29 responses). Other

132

channels used were seminars/trainings, field demonstrations, and print materials, in this

order. The farmer-cooperators were ‘often’ exposed to personal visits (4.29 mean) and

seminars/trainings (3.53 mean). They perceived the channels as neither interesting nor

uninteresting (3.43 mean). The mass media were not commonly employed because there

were no mass media programs available and farmer-cooperators had little available time for

tuning in to these programs.

Receiver Variables. Majority (69%) of the farmer-cooperators highly needed the

MRC technology. They strongly agreed on the entire attitude statements about the

technology; hence they had positive attitude a) towards MRC which made soil fertile and

productive; b) towards MRC which addressed the problem of rice straw burning; c) towards

MRC which addressed the increasing cost of inorganic fertilizers; d) towards the shortened

MRC composting time; and e) towards increased rice yield due to MRC.

Characteristics of stage of technology adoption

Knowledge Stage. Majority of the farmer-cooperators had moderate recall (67%)

and high knowledge of the concept of MRC (53%) and the steps in using it (61%). They

could recall 3-4 messages about MRC, correctly describe most aspect of MRC, and

enumerate 5-7 steps of the MRC technology.

Persuasion Stage. Almost all (96%) of the farmer-cooperators have discussed MRC

with their personal network of family, friends, and fellow farmers. Most of them also said

that their personal networks approved of the MRC technology, especially their families (39

responses). Furthermore, almost all (96%) personally approved of MRC. Their common

reason was because they were able to see the benefits of MRC.

Decision Stage. More than half (57%) of the farmer-cooperators consulted with the

technology providers about MRC. Nearly all (92%) of them had intended to use it mainly

because they have seen its benefits (16 responses).

133

Implementation Stage. Majority of the farmer-cooperators were able to acquire the

materials for MRC (61%) and use them in preparing MRC compost (76%). One of the

limiting factors stated by the respondents was the lack of farming inputs in using the

technology (10 responses).

Confirmation Stage. Only a little over one third (35%) of the farmer-cooperators

recognized the benefits or drawbacks of the technology. This was mainly due to the lack of

information on the drawbacks of MRC. Most of them were able to continue using the MRC

technology (76%) and encouraged or advocated others to use it (90%).

In general, the farmers were able to pass almost all the stages in adoption of the MRC

technology. However, at the confirmation stage, they still had to learn more about the

advantages and disadvantages that come along with the use of MRC.

Relationships between communication variables and stage

of technology adoption

The results of the chi-square test of independence indicated highly significant to

significant relationships between selected variables of the source, message, channel, and

receiver of the DA Agri-Kalikasan communication strategy and selected variables of the

stages of technology adoption. Thus, the alternative hypotheses of the study were accepted:

1. A relationship exists between the source variables in the Agri-Kalikasan

communication strategy and farmer-cooperators’ adoption stage of the MRC

technology.

Source variables and knowledge stage

1.1. A highly significant relationship exists between credibility of farm technician

and recall of specific messages at knowledge stage.

1.2. A highly significant relationship exists between credibility of print materials

and extent of knowledge about the steps in MRC.

134

Source variables and persuasion stage

1.3. A highly significant relationship exists between credibility of DA Agri-

Kalikasan program staff and credibility of farm technician and discussion of

MRC with personal network.

1.4. A significant relationship exists between credibility of farm technician and

approval of MRC by personal network.

1.5. A significant relationship exists between DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff as

type of information source and credibility of Agri-Kalikasan program staff and

personal approval of MRC.

1.6. A highly significant relationship exists between farm technician as type of

information source and personal approval of MRC.

Source variables and decision stage

1.7. A significant relationship exists between DA Agri-Kalikasan program staff as

type of information source and credibility of farm technician and intention to

use MRC technology.

Source variables and implementation stage

1.8. A significant relationship exists between frequency of access to DA Agri-

Kalikasan program staff and application of MRC technology.

Source variables and confirmation stage

1.9 A significant relationship exists between neighbor/fellow farmer, DA Agri-

Kalikasan program staff, farm technician, and print material as type of

information source and advocacy for MRC technology.

2. A relationship exists between the message variables Agri-Kalikasan communication

strategy and farmer-cooperators’ adoption stage of the MRC technology.

Message variables and knowledge stage

2.1. A highly significant relationship exists between clarity of steps in preparing

MRC-based compost and applying it on the field and recall of specific

messages.

135

2.2. A highly significant relationship exists between comprehensibility of the steps

in preparing MRC-based compost and applying it on the field and recall of

specific messages.

2.3. A significant relationship exists between comprehensibility of the

environmental benefits of the MRC technology and recall of specific messages.

2.4. A highly significant relationship exists between completeness of the messages

on the steps in preparing MRC-based compost and applying it on the field and

recall of specific messages.

2.5. A significant relationship exists between interest in the practical and

environmental benefits of the MRC technology and recall of specific messages.

2.6. A highly significant relationship exists between clarity of steps in preparing

MRC-based compost and applying it on the field and extent of knowledge about

MRC. .

2.7. A significant relationship exists between comprehensibility of environmental

benefits of MRC and extent of knowledge about MRC.

2.8. A significant relationship exists between interest in the practical benefits of

MRC and extent of knowledge about MRC.

2.9. A highly significant relationship exists between clarity of steps in preparing

MRC-based compost and applying it on the field and extent of knowledge about

the steps in MRC.

2.10. A significant relationship exists between clarity of the practical benefits of

MRC and extent of knowledge about the steps in MRC.

2.11. A highly significant relationship exists between comprehensibility of the steps

in preparing MRC-based compost and applying it on the field and extent of

knowledge about the steps in MRC.

2.12. A highly significant relationship exists between completeness of the messages

on the steps in preparing MRC-based compost and applying it on the field and

extent of knowledge about the steps in MRC.

2.13. A significant relationship exists between interest in the practical benefits of the

MRC and extent of knowledge about the steps in MRC.

136

Message variables and persuasion stage

2.14. A highly significant relationship exists between clarity of steps in preparing

MRC-based compost and discussion of MRC with personal network.

2.15. A highly significant relationship exists between comprehensibility of steps in

preparing MRC-based compost and in applying it in the field and discussion of

MRC with personal network.

2.16. A highly significant relationship exists between completeness of steps in

preparing MRC-based and in applying it in the field and discussion of MRC

with personal network.

2.17. A significant relationship exists between clarity of steps in applying MRC-

based compost in the field and discussion of MRC with personal network.

2.18. A significant relationship exists between credibility of farm technician,

completeness of steps in preparing MRC-based compost and in applying it in

the field and approval of MRC by personal network.

2.19. A highly significant relationship exists between clarity of steps in preparing

MRC-based compost and personal approval of MRC.

2.20. A significant relationship exists between clarity of steps in applying MRC-

based compost in the field, interest in the steps in applying MRC-based compost

in the field, and interest in the environmental benefits of MRC and personal

approval of MRC.

Message variables and decision stage

2.21. A highly significant relationship exists between interest in the practical benefits

of MRC and consultation with technology providers.

2.22. A significant relationship exists between comprehensibility of environmental

benefits of MRC and consultation with technology providers.

2.23. A highly significant relationship exists between clarity of steps in preparing

MRC-based compost and applying it in the field and intention to use MRC

technology.

2.24.A significant relationship exists between comprehensibility of steps in preparing

MRC-based compost and intention to use MRC technology.

137

2.25. A highly significant relationship exists between comprehensibility of steps in

applying MRC-based compost in the field, completeness of steps in preparing MRC-

based compost and completeness of steps in applying MRC-based compost in the

field and intention to use MRC technology.

Message variables and implementation stage

2.26. A significant relationship exists between clarity of clarity of drawbacks of

MRC, interest in the steps in applying MRC-based compost in the field, and

interest in the practical benefits of MRC and acquisition of materials for MRC.

2.27. A highly significant relationship exists between clarity of the steps in MRC-

based compost in the field and application of MRC.

2.28. A significant relationship exists between clarity of steps in preparing MRC-

based compost, comprehensibility of steps in applying MRC-based compost in

the field, and interest in the drawbacks of MRC and application of MRC.

Message variables and confirmation stage

2.29. A significant relationship exists between clarity of the steps in preparing MRC-

based compost and comprehensibility of the steps in applying MRC-based

compost in the field and continuous use of MRC.

2.30. A highly significant relationship exists between steps in applying MRC-based in

the field and continuous use of MRC technology.

2.31. A significant relationship exists between interest in drawbacks of MRC and

continuous use of MRC technology.

2.31. A highly significant relationship exists between clarity of steps in preparing

MRC-based compose and applying it in the field, clarity of practical and

environmental benefits of MRC, and clarity of drawbacks of MRC and

advocacy for MRC.

2.33. A highly significant relationship exists between comprehensibility of steps in

preparing MRC-based compose and applying it in the field and

comprehensibility of practical benefits of MRC and advocacy for MRC.

2.34. A highly significant relationship exists between completeness of steps in

applying MRC-based compost in the field and advocacy for MRC.

138

2.35. A significant relationship exists between completeness of steps in preparing

MRC-based compost and completeness of drawbacks of MRC and advocacy for

MRC.

2.36. A highly significant relationship exists between interest in the steps in preparing

MRC-based compost and applying it in the field and advocacy for MRC.

3. A relationship exists between the channel variables Agri-Kalikasan communication

strategy and farmer-cooperators’ adoption stage of the MRC technology.

Channel variables and knowledge stage

3.1. A highly significant relationship exists between personal visit as type of channel

used and extent of knowledge of the steps in MRC.

3.2. A significant relationship exists between frequency of exposure to print

materials and to seminars/trainings and extent of knowledge of the steps in

MRC.

Channel variables and persuasion stage

3.3. A significant relationship exists between frequency of exposure to field

demonstration and discussion of MRC with personal network.

3.4. A highly significant relationship exists between interest in personal visits and

discussion of MRC with personal network.

Channel variables and decision stage

3.5 A significant relationship exists between frequency of exposure to print

materials and consultation with technology providers.

Channel variables and implementation stage

3.6. A significant relationship exists between print material as type of channel used

and acquisition of materials for MRC technology.

3.7. A significant relationship exists between frequency of exposure to personal

visits and acquisition of materials for MRC technology.

3.8. A significant relationship exists between personal visit as type of channel used

and application of MRC technology.

3.9. A significant relationship exists between interest in field demonstration and

application of MRC technology.

139

Channel variables and confirmation stage

3.10. A significant relationship exists between seminar/training as type of channel

used and recognition of benefits or drawbacks of MRC.

3.11. A highly significant relationship exists between frequency of exposure to field

demonstration and advocacy for MRC technology.

3.12. A significant relationship exists between interest in field demonstration and

continuous use of MRC.

4. A relationship exists between the receiver variables in the Agri-Kalikasan

communication strategy and farmer-cooperators’ adoption stage of the MRC

technology

Receiver variables and knowledge stage

4.1. A highly significant relationship exists between attitude towards shortened

MRC-based composting time, towards increased rice yield with MRC and

towards MRC addressing problem of rice straw burning and recall of specific

messages.

4.2. A significant relationship exists between attitude towards increased rice yield

with MRC and extent of knowledge about MRC.

4.3. A significant relationship exists between attitude towards shortened MRC-based

composting time and extent of knowledge about the steps in MRC.

Receiver variables and persuasion stage

4.4. A highly significant relationship exists between attitude towards MRC in

addressing increasing cost of inorganic fertilizer, towards shortened MRC-based

composting time, and towards increased rice yield with MRC and personal

approval of MRC technology.

Receiver variables and decision stage

4.5 A highly significant relationship exists between attitude towards increased rice

yield with MRC and intention to use MRC.

Receiver variables and implementation stage

4.6. A significant relationship exists between attitude towards shortened MRC-based

composting time and application of MRC technology.

140

Receiver variables and confirmation stage

4.7. A significant relationship exists between attitude towards shortened MRC-based

composting time and recognition of benefits or drawbacks of MRC and

continuous use of MRC technology.

4.8. A significant relationship exists between need for MRC technology and

advocacy for MRC technology.

4.9. A highly significant relationship exists between attitude towards MRC in

addressing increasing cost of inorganic fertilizer and advocacy for MRC

technology.

4.10. A significant relationship exists between attitude towards increased rice yield

with MRC and advocacy for MRC technology.

Communication factors influencing adoption stage

The factors in the communication strategy of the DA Agri-Kalikasan program which

influence the knowledge stage of MRC technology adoption included the following: 1)

credibility of information source; 2) clarity, comprehensibility, and completeness of and

interest in the message; 3) type of channel used and frequency of exposure to channel; and 4)

attitude towards technology.

The factors that affect the persuasion stage of MRC technology adoption were: 1)

type and credibility of information source; 2) clarity, comprehensibility, and completeness of

and interest in the message; 3) frequency of exposure to and interest in channel used; and 4)

attitude towards technology.

The factors influencing the decision stage of MRC technology adoption were as

follows: 1) type of and credibility of information source; 2) clarity, comprehensibility, and

completeness of and interest in the message; 3) frequency of exposure to channel used; and

4) attitude towards technology.

141

The factors influencing the implementation stage of MRC technology adoption were:

1) frequency of access to information source; 2) clarity and comprehensibility of and interest

in the message; 3) type of channel used, frequency of exposure to channel, and interest in

channel; and 4) attitude towards technology.

The factors influencing the confirmation stage were found to be: 1) type and

credibility of information source and frequency of access to source; 2) clarity,

comprehensibility, and completeness of and interest in the message; 3) type and frequency of

access to channel and interest in channel; and 4) need for and attitude towards technology.

Problems encountered in program implementation

The main problems were related to values and attitudes. There was lack of

cooperation and support from both program staff and farmer-cooperators. The “wait-and-see”

and passive attitude of the farmer-cooperators posed problems in technology promotion.

The other problems were technical and resource-related. The project guidelines were

misaligned with the farmers’ needs and interests such as fertilizer recommendations and

inappropriate soil conditions. The lack of and delay in the supply of materials, particularly

the Trichoderma sp. fungus which was necessary for the success of the MRC technology,

delayed the project implementation. The difficulty in mass producing the fungus under field

condition aggravated the problem on the supply of inputs. Irrigation problems also affected

the program implementation. As a result, some farmers had to discontinue use of the

technology in some project sites.

Suggestions for improvement of communication strategy

Both the staff and the farmer-cooperators wanted to continue the MRC technology

program in most of the techno-demo sites for other farmers to realize its long-term benefits.

They suggested more institutional support from local and provincial governments.

Meanwhile, the farmer-cooperators proposed for a more intensive information dissemination

142

strategy on the use of MRC technology. Print materials should be personalize and made more

attractive. Seminars/trainings should be done regularly and there should be consistent

monitoring of the performance and use of the MRC technology. Supplies and materials for

MRC should always be available and accessible.

Conclusions

Based on the results of the study, the following can be concluded:

1. The farmer-cooperators were mostly male, in their late middle age, and married with

small household size. They had secondary schooling and attended MRC-related

trainings. They owned or tended small parcels of rice land which they had farmed for

3 to 24 years and from which they earned less than PhP 100,000 pesos annually.

They acquired support services in the form of fertilizer and seed subsidies.

2. Agricultural technicians were the most common, most credible and most frequently

accessed information source. Among the messages, the steps in preparing and

applying the MRC-based compost as well as the practical and environmental benefits

of the MRC technology were very clear, very understandable, almost complete, and

interesting to the farmer-cooperators. Frequency of exposure to interpersonal

channels, particularly personal visits by agricultural technicians and seminars or

trainings was often. The farmer-cooperators had high need for the MRC technology

and developed positive attitudes towards its different features and benefits.

3. The farmer-cooperators generally had undergone most of the stages in adopting the

MRC technology. In the knowledge stage of adoption, they had high knowledge of

the concepts and steps in using MRC and moderate recall of the technology. In the

persuasion stage, almost all of the farmer-cooperators discussed the MRC technology

with personal networks, particularly their families, who approved of MRC.

Furthermore, the farmer-cooperators approved of the technology, too. During the

decision stage, they consulted the technology providers on the use of MRC and

143

expressed intention to use the technology. In the implementation stage, the farmer-

cooperators acquired materials for MRC and used the technology in their farm. As

regards the confirmation stage, they continued using the MRC technology and

advocated its use to other farmers. However, only a few farmer-cooperators were able

to recognize the benefits or drawbacks of the technology.

4. A relationship generally existed between some of the factors in the communication

strategy of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program and the farmers’ adoption stage of the

MRC technology.

5. The main problems encountered by both the staff and the farmer-cooperators of the

DA Agri-Kalikasan Program were: 1) the lack of cooperation and support from both

parties; 2) lack of or delay in the supply of the inputs for the use of MRC technology,

particularly the Trichoderma sp. fungus, which is deemed important for the success of

the composting technology; and 3) discontinuation of the program in some techno-

demo sites.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations are made for the

MRC technology program:

1. The DA Agri-Kalikasan Program staff should train and empower the municipal

agricultural officers (MAOs) and municipal agricultural technicians (MATs) to

allow their expertise to fit in the situations and problems of the techno-demo sites

in which they are assigned. This can help build their credibility and allow them to

align their teaching methods and approaches to the needs and interests of the

farmers.

2. The farmer-cooperators should further be trained not only to acquire additional

knowledge about the MRC technology, but also to encourage and train other

farmers on the use of the technology.

144

3. Action-oriented learning activities, such as field demonstrations and hands-on

trainings, should further be conducted so that more and more farmers would be

able to try out the MRC technology and see its benefits. The farmer-cooperators

would also be able to clarify and understand how to use the MRC technology

through hands-on and interpersonal activities.

4. The techno-demo sites should be made distinguishable through signs or posters,

so that other farmers are able to compare the conditions of techno-demo and non-

techno-demo farms.

5. The project staff should also tap local knowledge of the farmers so that the

messages on MRC technology would be consistent with the needs and conditions

of the community where they belong.

6. The use of mass media channels should be explored in the program not just to

widen the promotion of the MRC technology but also to reinforce certain

messages and develop positive attitudes regarding its use.

7. The program should have a well-developed feedback mechanism. In line with

this, personal visits in the techno-demo farms should be conducted regularly and,

if possible, these should involve a team of experts which would address the

specific needs of the farmer-cooperators.

8. The lack of inputs/supplies in the use of the MRC technology should be addressed

by the national office of the Department of Agriculture. The delivery of these

supplies should be monitored and tracked by the local and provincial offices of

the same agency. Moreover, there should be constant funding from the local

government units (LGUs) to avail of these supplies.

145

9. Communication programs related to the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program should be

constantly evaluated not only for the effectiveness, feasibility and sustainability of

their implementation, but also for their social acceptability. This is to ensure that

the innovation or idea being promoted is not only known, but also adopted, by

their intended stakeholders.

Studies that would determine whether the communication strategy would directly or

inversely affect each of the stages of technology adoption (i.e. knowledge, persuasion,

decision, implementation and confirmation) should be also be conducted.

Also, with enough resources, the impact of technology adoption on the farmer-

cooperator, on the family, and on the barangay should be explored. Participatory

communication and delivery systems should be tried out in the program and analyzed in

order to make the farmer-cooperators feel like they own the program. Communication and

technical factors that affect program sustainability should likewise be investigated in the

future.

146

LITERATURE CITED

A Review of the Agriculture Sector in Eastern Visayas. http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/sr04126tx.html (28 Mar 2009).

Backer, T. E., E. M. Rogers, & P. Sopory. (1992). Designing Health Communication

Campaigns: What Works? Newbury Park, California: SAGE Publications. Banatlao, P. R. (1994). BDC Meetings as Venue for Education. Agriculture at Los Baños.

Special Issue, Vol. 1 No. 2, 1994. Boeren, A. & K. Epskamp. (1992). The empowerment of culture: development

communication & popular media. The Hague: Center for the Study of Education in Developing Countries.

Briones, N. D. (2004). Environmental Sustainability Issues in Philippines Agriculture. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development. Vol. 2, Nos.1 & 2. Brul, R. (2008). Rice straw burning more lethal than car fumes. Bureau of Soils and Water Management (undated). National Agri-Kalikasan Program.

http://www.bswm.da.gov.ph/web/programs/index.php?sel=2 (16 Jan 2009). Committee on Communication for Behavior Change in the 21st Century (2002). Speaking of

Health: Assessing Health Communication Strategies for Diverse Populations. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

Cornejo, M.F.A. & R. B. Silva (2004). Culturally Appropriate Information, Education and

Communication Strategies for Improving Adolescent Reproductive Health in Cusco, Peru. US Agency for International Development (USAID).

Corcoran, N. (2007). Communicating Health: Strategies for Health Promotion. London:

SAGE Publications. Cox, R. (2006). Environmental Communication and the Public Sphere. Thousand Oaks,

California: SAGE Publications. Custodio, C. G. (1994). Project Participants’ Perceptions of NGO Communication Strategies

in Two Developmental Projects. Unpublished undergraduate thesis. College, Laguna: Institute of Development Communication, CA, UPLB.

Department of Agriculture RFU 5 (January-March 2007). Research: burning of agricultural wastes more hazardous than vehicle emissions. UMAsenso. Vol. 16, No.1.

147

Dobermann, A. & T.H. Fairhurst. (2002). Rice Straw Management. Better Crops International, Vol. 16. http://www.ipni.net/ppiweb/bcropint.nsf/$webindex/FB3AD2851347BE1F 85256BDC0072F3B5/$file/BCI-RICEp07.pdf. (3 Dec 2008).

Docto, R. M. (2002). Human-nature interactions in relation to protection and conservation of

Mt. Mantalingahan in Southern Palawan, Philippines. Ph. D. thesis. College, Laguna: School of Environmental Science and Management, UPLB.

Escalada, M. M. & K.L. Heong (1997). Methods for research on farmers’ knowledge, attitudes and practices in pest management. Pest Management of Rice Farmers in Asia. Los Baños, Laguna: International Rice Research Institute.

Flor, A. G. & E. D. Gomez. (1993). Environmental Communication in Curricular and

Delivery Systems Development. College, Laguna: Institute of Development Communication, CA, UPLB.

Francisco, H. A. (2003). Valuation of Environmental Resources and Services: Experiences

in the Philippines. New Frontiers in Research for Sustainable Development. College, Laguna: College of Public Affairs, UPLB.

Genilo, J. W. R. (2005). Community-Based Communication: A New Approach to Development Communication. Quezon City: Great Books Publishing.

George, T. & S. Morin. (2001). The Missing Last Mile in the Delivery of Knowledge to the

Rural Agricultural Sector. Asian Agriculture Congress Abstracts: Food Security and Environmental Protection in the New Millenium. Westin Philippine Plaza, Manila Philippines.

Gerpacio, A. L. (1990). Utilization by non-ruminants. Processing and utilization of crop

residues, fibrous agro-industrial by-products, and food waste materials for livestock and poultry feeding. Los Baños, Laguna: PCARRD-DOST.

Gesmundo, I. M. (1994). Farmers’ Training: An Alternative Approach Toward Human

Resource Development. Agriculture at Los Baños. Special Issue, Vol. 1 No. 2, 1994. Havelock, R.G. (1979). Planning for Innovation through Dissemination and Utilization of

Knowledge. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan. Hossain, S. M., et al. (1994). Farm Environment Assessment in the Context of Farming

Systems in Bangladesh. Abstracts of papers presented at the 3rd Asian Farming Systems Symposium. Manila: Department of Agriculture.

Johns Hopkins University/Bloomberg School for Public Health (2007). Communication for

Healthy Living’s Campaign Improves Response to Avian Influenza in Egypt. In

148

Communication Impact! February 2007, No. 22. Johns Hopkins University/Center for Communication Programs (2001). Communicating

Safe Motherhood in Morocco: The Family Planning/Maternal and Child Health Phase V Project: Final Report. Baltimore: JJU/CCP.

Lagnaoui, A., E. Santi, & F. Santucci. (2004). Strategic Communication for Integrated Pest

Management. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTDEVCOMMENG/ Resources/ strategiccommruralfinal.pdf. (16 Jan 2009).

Lasco, R. D., R. Gerpacio, P. A. J. Sanchez, & R. J. P. Delfino (2008). Philippines Policies in Response to a changing climate: A review of natural resource policies. Los Baños, Laguna: SEAMEO-SEARCA.

Librero, F. (1996). Synthesis of Environmental Communication Research in the Philippines: Some National Policy Implications. College, Laguna: Institute of Development Communication, CA, UPLB.

Lionberger, H. F. & P. H. Gwin. (1982). Communication Strategies: A Guide for Agricultural Change Agents. Danville, Illinois: The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc.

Lubjuhn, S. & N. Pratt (2009). Media communication strategies for climate-friendly

lifestyles–Addressing middle and lower class consumers for social cultural change via Entertainment-Education. Essen, Germany: University of Duisburg-Essen/ Institute for Communication Studies.

Mefalopulos, P. & C. Kamlongera (2004). Participatory Communication Strategy Design: A

Handbook. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (UN-FAO).

Mendoza, T.C. (undated). Nature Farming in the Philippines. University of the Philippines- Los Baños. PDF File. http://www.infrc.or.jp/english/KNF_Data_Base_Web/PDF%20KNF%20Conf%20Data/C1-4-011.pdf (28 Mar 2009).

Mercado, C. (1999). Conducting and Managing Communication Survey Research: The

Asian Experience. Quezon City: Development Consultants for Asia, Africa & the Pacific.

Miller, J. G. (1973). Alternative Communication Systems for Education in the Less Developed Countries. Washington, D. C.: Academy for Educational Development.

Ministry of Health and Public Assistance, Proyecto De Salud Materna Y Neonatal, Center for

Communication Programs at Johns Hopkins University (2004). Impact Evaluation: Community Mobilization and Behavior Change, Maternal and Neonatal Health Component, Ministry of Health and Public Assistance. Case Study. Baltimore: Johns

149

Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health. Center for Communication Programs.

Moog, F. A. (1990). Available crop residues and agro-industrial by-products. Processing

and utilization of crop residues, fibrous agro-industrial by-products, and food waste materials for livestock and poultry feeding. Los Baños, Laguna: PCARRD-DOST.

Padolina, M. C. D., et al. (1995). Enriching science education and communication strategies:

a terminal report. College, Laguna: College of Arts and Sciences, UPLB. Pearce, G. R. (1983). The Utilization of Fibrous Agricultural Residues. Canberra, Australia:

Australian Government Publishing Service. Philippine Rice Research Institute (2004). Integrated Farm and Household Waste Management. Rice Technology Bulletin, No. 49.

Piotrow, P. T., et al. (1997). Health Communication: Lessons from Family Planning and

Reproductive Health. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers. Pulhin, J. M., et al. (2002). Adoption of Soil and Water Conservation Technologies in an

Upland Community in Impasug-ong, Bukidnon, Philippines. Journal of Environmental Science and Management. Vol. 5, Nos. 1-2, 2002.

Quebral, N.C.Q. (1973). What Do We Mean by “Development Communication.” International Development Review, Vol. 15 (2): 25-28. Reyes, J. R. (1994). Technology Transfer is Not All Technology. Agriculture at Los Baños.

Special Issue, Vol. 1 No. 2, 1994. Rogers, E. M. (1973). Communication Strategies for Family Planning. New York: The Free

Press. __________. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. (3rd ed.) New York: The Free Press. __________. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.) New York: The Free Press. Rola, A. (2000). Research Program Planning for Natural Resource Management: A

Background Analysis. Discussion Paper Series No. 2000-09. Makati City: Philippine Institute for Development Studies.

Ronan, D.J.M. (2008). Fisherfolks’ Perceptions on the Communication Strategy Used by the

LLDA-JFPT to Communicate Risks of Janitor Fish Proliferation. Unpublished undergraduate thesis. College, Laguna: College of Development Communication.

Sabban, M.V.P.M. (1993). Assessment of Malabog II Agroforestry Project. http://serp-p.pids.gov.ph/details.php3?tid=1503 (29 Mar 2009).

150

Selnow, G.W. & W.D. Crano (1987). Planning, Implementing, and Evaluating Targeted Communication Programs: A Manual for Business Communicators. New York: Quorum Books.

Syafar, A. (2000). Communication variables and adoption of recommended practices by rice

farmers in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Unpublished M.S. thesis. College, Laguna: College of Development Communication.

White, L. (2003). Communication Strategies to Promote Behaviour Change in

HIV/AIDS/STI Programmes: A case study of Jamaica 1999-2003. Mona, Jamaica: University of West Indies.

Windahl, S., B. Signitzer & J.T. Olson (1992). Using Communication Theory: An Introduction to Planned Communication. USA: SAGE Publications.

151

APPENDIX A: LETTERS OF CORRESPONDENCE

October 21, 2009

Ms. Dina Gaviola-Pitao

Project In-Charge

DA Agri-Kalikasan Program

Dear Ma’am: Good day! I am Eula Marie DC. Mangaoang, a fourth year student taking up BS Development Communication at the University of the Philippines at Los Baños. As part of the requirements of the subject DEVC 198 (Undergraduate Research in Communication), I am going to conduct a research study entitled, “Factors in the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program Communication Strategy Influencing Farmers’ Adoption Level of the Modified Rapid Composting (MRC) Technology in Leyte, Philippines.” This study generally aims to determine what factors in the communication strategy of the program encouraged its farmer-participants to change their rice straw management practices. In this regard, I would like to ask for your support and assistance regarding the conduct of my research study. I would also like to ask permission from you to allow me to conduct a survey on the farmers participating in the program. Rest assured that the findings will solely be for academic purposes, and will be very helpful in the conduct of my study. For further inquiries, you may contact this number: 09286204768. I hope for you favorable response regarding this matter. Thank you very much. Sincerely yours, EULA MARIE DC. MANGAOANG Student

Noted: PROF. MA. STELLA C. TIROL Adviser

COLLEGE OF DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION

UNIVERSITY of the PHILIPPINES LOS BAÑOS

College, Laguna 4031, Philippines

Tels.: (63.49) 536–2446 (63.49) 536–2511 (63.49) 536–2433 (63.49) 536–3697 (63.49) 536–3356

TeleFax: (63.49) 536–2429

Email: mail@devcom.edu.ph or inquire@devcom.edu.ph Website: http://www.devcom.edu.ph

152

October 21, 2009

October 21, 2009

Mr. Rogelio O. Portula

Officer-in-Charge (OIC)

Provincial Agriculturist

Department of Agriculture Regional Office VIII

Dear Ma’am: Good day! I am Eula Marie DC. Mangaoang, a fourth year student taking up BS Development Communication at the University of the Philippines at Los Baños. As part of the requirements of the subject DEVC 198 (Undergraduate Research in Communication), I am going to conduct a research study entitled, “Factors in the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program Communication Strategy Influencing Farmers’ Adoption Level of the Modified Rapid Composting (MRC) Technology in Leyte, Philippines.” This study generally aims to determine what factors in the communication strategy of the program encouraged its farmer-participants to change their rice straw management practices. In this regard, I would like to ask from your good office support and assistance regarding the conduct of my research study. I would also like to ask permission from you to allow me to conduct a survey on the farmers participating in the program. Rest assured that the findings will solely be for academic purposes, and will be very helpful in the conduct of my study. For further inquiries, you may contact this number: 09286204768. I hope for you favorable response regarding this matter. Thank you very much. Sincerely yours, EULA MARIE DC. MANGAOANG Student Noted: PROF. MA. STELLA C. TIROL Adviser

COLLEGE OF DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION

UNIVERSITY of the PHILIPPINES LOS BAÑOS

College, Laguna 4031, Philippines

Tels.: (63.49) 536–2446 (63.49) 536–2511 (63.49) 536–2433 (63.49) 536–3697 (63.49) 536–3356

TeleFax: (63.49) 536–2429

Email: mail@devcom.edu.ph or inquire@devcom.edu.ph Website: http://www.devcom.edu.ph

153

October 21, 2009

Ms. Dina Gaviola-Pitao

Project In-Charge

DA Agri-Kalikasan Program

Dear Ma’am: Good day! I am Eula Marie DC. Mangaoang, a fourth year student taking up BS Development Communication at the University of the Philippines at Los Baños. As part of the requirements of the subject DEVC 198 (Undergraduate Research in Communication), I am going to conduct a research study entitled, “Factors in the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program Communication Strategy Influencing Farmers’ Adoption Level of the Modified Rapid Composting (MRC) Technology in Leyte, Philippines.” This study generally aims to determine what factors in the communication strategy of the program encouraged its farmer-participants to change their rice straw management practices. In this regard, I would like to arrange for a focus group discussion (FGD) with you and the program staff. This will tackle on the communication strategy of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program in promoting the modified rapid composting (MRC) technology. Rest assured that the findings will solely be for academic purposes, and will be very helpful in the conduct of my study. For further inquiries, you may contact this number: 09286204768. I hope for you favorable response regarding this matter. Thank you very much. Sincerely yours, EULA MARIE DC. MANGAOANG Student Noted: PROF. MA. STELLA C. TIROL Adviser

COLLEGE OF DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION

UNIVERSITY of the PHILIPPINES LOS BAÑOS

College, Laguna 4031, Philippines

Tels.: (63.49) 536–2446 (63.49) 536–2511 (63.49) 536–2433 (63.49) 536–3697 (63.49) 536–3356

TeleFax: (63.49) 536–2429

Email: mail@devcom.edu.ph or inquire@devcom.edu.ph Website: http://www.devcom.edu.ph

154

October 22, 2009

Mr. Rogelio O. Portula

Officer-in-Charge (OIC)

Office of the Provincial Agriculturist

Department of Agriculture Regional Office VIII

Tacloban City

Dear Sir: Good day! I am Eula Marie DC. Mangaoang, a fourth year student taking up BS Development Communication at the University of the Philippines at Los Baños. As part of the requirements of the subject DEVC 198 (Undergraduate Research in Communication), I am going to conduct a thesis research study entitled, “Factors in the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program Communication Strategy Influencing Farmers’ Adoption Level of the Modified Rapid Composting (MRC) Technology in Leyte, Philippines.” This study generally aims to determine what factors in the communication strategy of the program encouraged its farmer-participants to change their rice straw management practices. In this regard, I would like to ask from your good office support and assistance regarding the conduct of my research study, particularly coordination of prospective respondents for the conduct of the field survey and support staff from your office to provide guide and support in the conduct of the survey itself. Rest assured that the findings will solely be for academic purposes, and the final output of which your office will be provided a copy of for your reference. Attached herewith is a copy of the field survey itinerary for your reference and guide. For further inquiries, you may contact this number: 09286204768. Hoping for your favorable response regarding this matter. Thank you very much. Sincerely yours, EULA MARIE DC. MANGAOANG Thesis Research Student cc: Ms Dina Gaviola-Pitao Prof. Ma. Stella C. Tirol

COLLEGE OF DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION

UNIVERSITY of the PHILIPPINES LOS BAÑOS

College, Laguna 4031, Philippines

Tels.: (63.49) 536–2446 (63.49) 536–2511 (63.49) 536–2433 (63.49) 536–3697 (63.49) 536–3356

TeleFax: (63.49) 536–2429

Email: mail@devcom.edu.ph or inquire@devcom.edu.ph Website: http://www.devcom.edu.ph

155

APPENDIX B: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FARMER-COOPERATORS

FACTORS IN THE COMMUNICATION STRATEGY OF THE DA AGRI-KALIKASAN PROGRAM

INFLUENCING FARMERS’ ADOPTON STAGE OF THE MODIFIED RAPID COMPOSTING TECHNOLOGY IN LEYTE, PHILIPPINES

Survey Questionnaire for Farmer-Cooperators of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program PLACE OF INTERVIEW:________________________ DATE OF INTERVIEW:_____________ NAME OF FARMER-COOPERATOR:_____________________________

A. Information sources on the MRC technology

1. Where do you usually get technical information and skills on the use of the Modified

Rapid Composting (MRC) Technology? (You may choose more than one.) _____Neighbors/Fellow farmers _____Relatives _____Extension agent _____DA Agri-Kalikasan Program Staff _____Farm technician _____Mass media

_____Print _____Radio _____TV

_____Others (Pls. specify) ____________________

2. a. How credible is/are these source/s to you (5-very credible, 4- credible, 3- can’t say/no

idea, 2- not credible, 1- not very credible)? Please check the appropriate box under the number.

b. Why? (Please provide the reason on the column provided.)

Source Perceived credibility Reason

1 2 3 4 5

Neighbors/Fellow farmers

Relatives

Extension agent

DA Agri-Kalikasan Program Staff

Print

Radio

TV

Others(Pls. specify)

156

3. a. How often do you access these sources for technical information and skills on the MRC technology (5- always, 4- very often, 3- sometimes, 2-rarely, 1- never)? Please check the box under the number of your answer.

b. Why? (Please provide the reason on the column provided.)

Source of Information Frequency of access

Reason

1 2 3 4 5

Neighbors/Fellow farmers

Relatives

Extension agent

DA Agri-Kalikasan Program Staff

Print

Radio

TV

Others(Pls. specify)

B. Messages about MRC technology brought by DA Agri-Kalikasan program 1. Which of the messages about the MRC technology did you encounter from the DA Agri-

Kalikasan Program? (You may choose more than one.) _____ Steps in preparing the compost _____ Steps in applying the compost to the field _____ Practical benefits of the MRC technology to the farmer _____ Economic benefits of the MRC technology _____ Environmental benefits of the MRC technology _____ Drawbacks of the MRC technology _____ Others (Pls. specify) ________________________________________________

2. a. How clear are the messages about MRC technology to you (5- very clear, 4- clear, 3- can’t say, 2- not clear, 1- not very clear)? Please check on the box under the number of your answer. b. Why? (Please provide the reason on the column provided.)

Message Degree of clarity Reason

1 2 3 4 5

Steps in preparing the compost

Steps in applying the compost to the field

Practical benefits of the MRC technology to the farmer

Economic benefits of the MRC technology

Environmental benefits

157

of the MRC technology

Drawbacks of the MRC technology

Others(Pls. specify)

3. a. How understandable are the messages about MRC technology to you (5- very

understandable, 4- understandable, 3- can’t say, 2- not understandable, 1- not very understandable)? Please check on the box under the number of your answer.

b. Why? (Please provide the reason on the column provided.)

Message Degree of comprehension

Reason

1 2 3 4 5

Steps in preparing the compost

Steps in applying the compost to the field

Practical benefits of the MRC technology to the farmer

Economic benefits of the MRC technology

Environmental benefits of the MRC technology

Drawbacks of the MRC technology

Others(Pls. specify)

4. a. Were the messages about the MRC technology shared to you completely? On a scale

of 1 to 5, how would you rate the completeness of these messages? Please check on the box under the number of your answer that corresponds to the following scale:

1 – 20% complete 4 – 80% complete 2 – 40% complete 5 – 100% complete 3 – 60% compete .

b. Why? (Please provide the reason on the column provided.)

Message Degree of completeness

Reason

1 2 3 4 5

Steps in preparing the compost

Steps in applying the compost to the field

Practical benefits of the MRC technology to the farmer

Economic benefits of the MRC technology

158

Environmental benefits of the MRC technology

Drawbacks of the MRC technology

Others (Pls. specify)

5. a. How interesting are these messages to you (5- very interesting, 4- interesting, 3- can’t

say, 2- not interesting, 1- not very interesting)? Please check the box under the number of your answer.

b. Why? (Please provide the reason on the column provided.)

Message

Perceived degree of interest

Reason

1 2 3 4 5

Steps in preparing the compost

Steps in applying the compost to the field

Practical benefits of the MRC technology to the farmer

Economic benefits of the MRC technology

Environmental benefits of the MRC technology

Drawbacks of the MRC technology

Others(Pls. specify)

C. Channels used to disseminate information about MRC technology 1. What communication channel did the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program use to help you learn

more about MRC technology? (You may choose more than one.) _____Use of mass media _____Print ads _____Radio programs _____TV programs _____Others (Pls. specify)__________ _____Use of interpersonal channels

_____Seminars/Trainings _____Personal visits _____Field demonstrations _____Others (Pls. specify) _______________

2. a. How often do you turn to these channels to look for technical information and skills on

the MRC technology (5- always, 4- very often, 3- sometimes, 2- rarely, 1- seldom)? Please check on the box under the number of your answer. b. Why? (Please provide the reason on the column provided.)

Channel Frequency of access

Reason

159

1 2 3 4 5

Print ad

Radio program

TV program

Seminar/Training

Personal visit

Field demonstration

Others(Pls. specify)

3. a. How interesting are these channels to you (5- very interesting, 4- interesting, 3- can’t

say, 2- not interesting, 1- not very interesting)? Please check the box under the number of your answer. b. Why? (Please provide the reason on the column provided.)

Channel Perceived degree of interest

Reason

1 2 3 4 5

Print ad

Radio program

TV program

Seminar/Training

Personal visit

Field demonstration

Others(Pls. specify)

D. Receiver variables

1. To what extent do you think you need MRC technology? _____Highly needed _____Needed _____Not needed

2. How do you feel about the following statements regarding MRC technology?

Statements about the MRC technology

Strongly agree

Agree Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree Strongly disagree

a. MRC helps address the increasing cost of inorganic fertilizers and other farming supplies.

b. In MRC, the time of composting is shortened from three months to around three weeks.

c. MRC improves soil condition, making it more fertile and productive.

d. When combined with inorganic fertilizers, MRC yields more rice than when using

160

completely inorganic fertilizer.

e. MRC helps address the problem of rice straw burning.

E. Level of Technology Adoption (KNOWLEDGE STAGE) 1. a. Which of the following messages about the MRC technology do you recall? Please

check on the box under the number of your answer.

b. Why? (Please provide the reason on the column provided.)

Message Recalled message? Reason

Yes No

Steps in preparing the compost

Steps in applying the compost to the field

Practical benefits of the MRC technology to the farmer

Economic benefits of the MRC technology

Environmental benefits of the MRC technology

Drawbacks of the MRC technology

Others(Pls. specify)

2. Can you explain or describe what the MRC technology is? (Write the answer on the

space provided.) 3. Can you briefly describe the steps in using the MRC technology. (Write the answer on

the space provided.) (PERSUASION STAGE)

a. Do you discuss the MRC technology with others?

_____Yes _____No

b. If yes, with whom? ___family ___friends ___fellow farmers ___others, please specify______________________________ c. Why? __________________________________________________________________

161

4. a. Do they disapprove or approve of the technology? Why?

Approve Disapprove Reason

Family

Friends

Fellow farmers

Others(pls. specify)

5. a. Do you disapprove or approve of the technology?

_____ approve _____ disapprove b. Why? __________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________

(DECISION STAGE)

6. a. Did you plan to consult technology providers about the MRC technology? _____Yes _____No b. Why? ____________________________________________________________________

7. a. Did you plan to use the MRC technology?

_____Yes _____No b. Why? ___________________________________________________________________

(IMPLEMENTATION STAGE)

8. a. Did you approach the technology providers and support agencies (e.g. Department of

Agriculture, NGOs, etc.) to avail of the MRC technology? _____Yes _____No b. Why? ___________________________________________________________________

9. a. Are you currently using the MRC technology?

_____Yes _____No b. Why? ___________________________________________________________________

(CONFIRMATION STAGE)

a. What are the drawbacks or problems that you have encountered in using the technology? __________________________________________________________________________

10. a. Do you continue to use MRC technology? _____Yes _____No

162

b. Why? _______________________________________________________________________

11. a. Did you encourage other people to use the MRC technology?

_____Yes _____No b. Why? _______________________________________________________________________

F. Problems Encountered and Areas for Improvement

1. a. Did you encounter any problems regarding the use of the MRC technology? _____Yes _____No

b. If yes, what are these problems? ___________________________________________________________________

c. Have these problems been addressed? _____Yes _____No

d. If yes, how were these problems addressed by DA-Agrikalikasan Program implementers? Or if no, how do you think should these problems be addressed? _______________________________________________________________________

2. What can you suggest to DA Agri-Kalikasan Program implementers to help improve the promotion of the MRC technology?

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

G. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Farmers 1. Age: _____ 2. Sex:

_____Male _____Female 3. Household Size: _____ 4. Civil Status:

_____Single _____ Married _____ Separated _____ Widowed

5. Educational Attainment: _____ Elementary/elementary graduate _____High school/high school graduate _____College/College graduate

6. Number of MRC-related trainings attended: _____ 7. Tenurial Status:

_____Full Ownership _____Ownership under certificate of land transfer (CLT) _____Tenant _____ Leasee _____ Rent free _____ Others (Pls. specify)__________

8. Annual yield in rice production: __________ 9. Annual income in rice production: __________ 10. Number of years in farming: _____

163

11. Support Services Availed of (e.g. technical, financial, or information support from government agencies or NGOs) ____________________________________________________________

THANK YOU!

164

APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR KEY INFORMANTS

Interview Guide for DA Agri-Kalikasan Program Project Coordinator and Staff

Date: Location: Time (approx.): Name of Interviewee: Designation: A. Purpose of Interview:

1. To determine the general profile of the farmer-participants of the DA Agri-

Kalikasan Program;

2. To identify the information sources from which the farmer-participants of the DA

Agri-Kalikasan Program get technical knowledge and practical skills on the

Modified Rapid Composting (MRC) technology;

3. To determine the important messages or information on the Modified Rapid

Composting (MRC) technology used in the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program;

4. To find out what channels are commonly used in the DA Agri-Kalikasan

Program to disseminate messages about the MRC technology to the farmers;

and

5. Identify some problems encountered by the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program staff in

implementing the program and promoting the MRC technology.

B. Discussion Themes

1. General profile of the farmer-participants of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program

a. How did the farmer-participants join the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program?

Were there information campaigns done to encourage farmers to

participate in the program?

b. Are there any qualifications or requirements for a farmer to become a

participant in the program? What are these?

c. How are farmer-participants oriented with the DA Agri-Kalikasan

Program? Are there regular meetings and briefings held?

d. From what age brackets are these farmer participants? Are they

generally poor or well-to-do farmers?

2. Information sources of the farmer-participants of the DA Agri-Kalikasan

Program

a. Where do the farmer-participants usually get technical knowledge and

skills about the MRC technology? Do they get these from extension

agents, personal networks, or fellow farmers?

b. What do you think are the factors which make these sources easily

accessible to the farmer-participants?

165

c. What are the limiting factors which hinder their access to these

sources?

3. Messages about the MRC technology

a. What are the important features or characteristics of the MRC

technology which the program usually shares with the farmer-

participants?

b. What are the limitations or drawbacks of the MRC technology which the

program shares with the farmer-participants?

c. How are these messages designed to help farmers understand clearly

the benefits and drawbacks of the technology?

d. How often are the farmer-participants exposed to these messages?

e. How are these messages designed to arouse interest in farmers?

4. Channels used to disseminate messages about the MRC technology

a. How do the messages on the MRC technology usually get to the farmer-

participants? Are there activities conducted to help them acquire these

messages?

b. How often are these activities conducted?

c. What are the approaches used to help disseminate messages to the

farmers? Is the information, education, persuasion, or entertainment

approach used? Or do you use a combination of approaches?

5. Needs and problems on the implementation of the DA Agri-Kalikasan

Program

a. What do you think is the current status of the program in promoting the

MRC technology?

b. In what way are the farmer-participants able to use the MRC technology?

c. What do you think are the factors which encourage farmer-participants to

use the MRC technology?

d. What are the factors which hinder them from using the MRC technology?

e. What are the problems encountered by the project staff in implementing

the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program?

f. How are these problems addressed? Or if they are not yet addressed,

what do you think could be the possible solutions to these problems?

C. Summary of Discussion Points

166

APPENDIX D: LIST OF KEY INFORMANTS AND INTERVIEW

TRANSCRIPTIONS

NAME DESIGNATION

Dina Gaviola-Pitao Project In-Charge, DA Agri-Kalikasan Program

Evangeline S. Garing Head, Office of the Provincial Agriculturist – Soils and Fertility Unit

Armando B. Arcamo Regional Coordinator, Soil and Water Conservation Unit, DA Regional Office VIII

Amado P. Acasio City Agriculturist, Maasin City, Leyte

Asteria Songalia Municipal Agricultural Officer (MAO), Palo, Leyte

Teresita Lequin Municipal Agricultural Technician and OIC-MAO, Sta. Fe, Leyte

Luzviminda Bidua MAO, Alang-alang, Leyte

Elisa Canaber Secretary, Municipal Agriculturist’s Office, Jaro, Leyte

Glenn Calungsod Municipal Agricultural Technician (MAT), Municipal Agriculturists’ Office, Palo, Leyte

Maridel Sison MAT, Babatngon, Leyte

Nestor Patorza MAT, Alang-alang, Leyte

Rosenda Pajares MAT, San Miguel, Leyte

Roberto Modesto MAT, Barugo, Leyte

Rowena Lacandazo MAT, Kananga, Leyte

Emilinda Alabado MAT, Hindang, Leyte

Delia Gilionadastica MAT, Matalom, Leyte

Lydia Avanzado MAT, Hilongos, Leyte

Melissa Sia MAT, Mayorga, Leyte

Consuelo A. Mercado

MAT, Abuyog, Leyte

Flor Villar-Oraño MAT, Mahaplag, Leyte

Consuelo Balingkit MAT, Maasin, Southern Leyte

167

RESULTS OF PERSONAL INTERVIEWS WITH DA AGRI-KALIKASAN PROGRAM STAFF AND

IMPLEMENTORS

A. Glenn Calungsod, Agricultural Technician, MAO, Bato, Leyte

1. How farmers joined DA Agri-Kalikasan Program

Information campaigns were made through house-to-house scouting or personal visits by agricultural technicians and through meetings held by farmer leaders Interested farmers were identified

2. Criteria/requirements for joining the program

No specific requirements; legitimate rice farmer

3. Orientating farmer-cooperators involved in the program

Orientation held before implementing the program through meeting with agricultural technicians

4. Information sources of farmer-cooperators

Agricultural technicians, fellow-farmers, and the staff in the Municipal Agricultural Office (MAO) in Bato

5. Factors facilitating access to information sources

Convenient ways of communication such as texting Sites/areas were easily accessible since they were along the highways and near the municipal office

6. Factors hindering access to information sources

Passivity of farmers, “wait-and-see” attitude which affects their interest in using the technology

7. Messages about the benefits/features of MRC technology commonly shared with farmers

The MRC composting process itself

8. Drawbacks/problems of MRC technology commonly shared with farmers

Supply of the compost fungus activator (CFA) is not directly or commercially available

9. Channels facilitating the sharing of messages about MRC technology with farmers

Trainings, seminars and meetings are not regularly held, sometimes conducted when farmers need these or when they are interested in these activities Information and education approaches are used

10. Other factors which encourage farmers to use the MRC technology

Farmers become interested especially when they can try the technology Availability of resources would also encourage the farmers to use the technology

11. Other factors which hinder the use of MRC technology

Lack of resources or farming supplies Results of the technology are not immediately seen Farmers’ passivity or “wait-and-see” attitude

12. Current status of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program implementation

MRC per se is not practiced because of the lack of CFA (Trichoderma) supply; the farmers, however, have not burned rice straw anymore, and went to letting the rice straw rot in the field (traditional composting without CFA)

13. Suggestions for improvement Multimedia approach which could arouse interest in farmers More resources needed for MRC technology

B. Armand B. Arcamo, Soils and Water Quality Coordinator, Regional Soils Laboratory, DA Regional

Office VIII, Tacloban City, Leyte

1. Criteria/requirements for joining the program

Site selection: areas where rice straw burning is rampant and which had low yield were chosen as sites for the MRC technology

168

Farmers who were not usually capable of buying external inputs were chosen as farmer-cooperators or model farmers for the MRC technology; farmers should be willing to use a part of their farm as techno-demo sites and support the program as a whole

2. Orientating farmer-cooperators involved in the program

Before the cropping season, farmer-cooperators were briefed on the importance of the MRC technology and what it can give the farmers Aside from the farmers, agricultural technicians were also trained on Trichoderma production and soil sampling through the MAO conference held in each province

3. Information sources of farmer-cooperators

Agricultural technicians

4. Factors facilitating access to information sources

Farmers’ interest

5. Factors hindering access to information sources

Sites were far from the Central Office

6. Messages about the benefits/features of MRC technology commonly shared with farmers

The MRC composting process itself, and the benefits of the technology, which includes the amount of biomass material produced by composting, nutrient recycling, and hastened decomposition of rice straw Burning of rice straw is also highly discouraged Farmers are basically instilled with the “application”of the technology, contrary to the theoretical information shared with the technicians

7. Drawbacks/problems of MRC technology commonly shared with farmers

Precautions in applying Trichoderma

8. Channels facilitating the sharing of messages about MRC technology with farmers

Techno-demo sites, site visits made by technicians at each stage of rice growing: mid-tillering, panicle-initiating, and maturity stages Yield and cost analyses are conducted and compared between MRC and non-MRC farms, and data are shared with farmers so they could see the difference in yield and cost incurred

9. Other factors which encourage farmers to use the MRC technology

Cost-reduction, free inputs for using MRC technology

10. Other factors which hinder the use of MRC technology

Inputs were not always available because the sites were far from the Central Office and they usually came in late

11. Current status of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program implementation

Stopped due to lack of budget for inputs, but some towns still sustained the program (from national-led to LGU-led program) Project was implemented only in one cropping season, then the supply was stopped

12. Problems/Suggestions for improvement

Program should be sustained or continued More massive information and education campaign to discourage rice straw burning and encourage farmers to be

169

environment-friendly

C. Maridel Sison, Agricultural Technician, MAO, Babatngon, Leyte

1. How farmers joined DA Agri-Kalikasan Program

Sites should be adjacent and water-impounding, and farmers should be willing to adopt the technology

2. Criteria/requirements for joining the program

An orientation seminar for the farmers on the use of MRC technology was conducted at Visca (now Visayas State University or VSU) Aside from that, the technicians also conduct personal visits

3. Orientating farmer-cooperators involved in the program

Agricultural technicians, Reading materials

4. Information sources of farmer-cooperators

Farmers were convinced that the organic fertilizer from MRC is effective and is environment-friendly The research site or techno-demo site is also accessible to the farmers

5. Factors facilitating access to information sources

None

6. Factors hindering access to information sources

The MRC technology process, and the benefits of MRC such as less inorganic fertilizer and lesser expenses on farm inputs, and environmental benefits

7. Messages about the benefits/features of MRC technology commonly shared with farmers

Farmers were not much concerned with the drawbacks, so technicians did not usually discuss these with them

8. Drawbacks/problems of MRC technology commonly shared with farmers

Personal visits made by agricultural technicians when they periodically monitor the techno-demo sites These visits are part of the agricultural technicians’ job, so they are able to regularly visit the sites Information approach was used; farmers were not usually persuaded to use the technology

9. Channels facilitating the sharing of messages about MRC technology with farmers

The farmers themselves are interested about the technology because they could see the results

10. Other factors which encourage farmers to use the MRC technology

Different seed varieties are used in one site, even though only one variety should be used The sites also lacked irrigation or water supply

11. Other factors which hinder the use of MRC technology

Project was implemented only in one cropping season

12. Current status of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program implementation

Personally, it was difficult for the technicians to convince the farmers of the benefits of the MRC technology; ways should be explored to help them see these benefits Inputs should constantly be provided

14. Suggestions for improvement

170

D. Asteria Songalia, Municipal Agriculturist, MAO, Palo, Leyte

1. Criteria/requirements for joining the program

The farm should be compact and should have an area of at least 5 ha. Farm should be well-irrigated and certified seeds should be used Guidelines for implementing the MRC technology were also laid out

2. Information sources of farmer-cooperators

Agricultural technicians, provincial seed growers

3. Factors facilitating access to information sources

Farmers already have pre-existing knowledge on composting, which they believe could be enhanced if they avail of information about the technology

4. Factors hindering access to information sources

None

5. Messages about the benefits/features of MRC technology commonly shared with farmers

Free inputs upon the use of MRC technology to be provided by the program, technical assistance

6. Drawbacks/problems of MRC technology commonly shared with farmers

Materials for implementing the MRC technology were limited

7. Channels facilitating the sharing of messages about MRC technology with farmers

Personal visits made by agricultural technicians when they periodically monitor the techno-demo sites Visits were conducted once a week

8. Other factors which encourage farmers to use the MRC technology

The farmers had high educational attainment

9. Other factors which hinder the use of MRC technology

Different seed varieties are used in one site, even though only one variety should be used The sites also lacked irrigation or water supply

10. Current status of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program implementation

There was no significant problem on the implementation of the MRC technology among the farmer-cooperators

11. Problems/Suggestions for improvement

Program should be continued

E. Teresita Lequin, Agricultural Technician and OIC-MAO, Sta. Fe, Leyte

1. How farmers joined DA Agri-Kalikasan Program

Farmers were personally called on by the technicians

2. Criteria/requirements for joining the program

There was no specific criteria for choosing farmer-cooperators, as long as one is a farmer

3. Orientating farmer-cooperators involved in the program

Orientation was done once per cropping season

4. Information sources of farmer-cooperators

MAO, technicians

5. Factors facilitating access to information sources

Sites were easily accessible to the technicians

6. Factors hindering access to information sources

Farmers did not have difficulty accessing the technicians for information on MRC

171

7. Messages about the benefits/features of MRC technology commonly shared with farmers

Application of MRC technology, practical and environmental benefits in using MRC technology (e.g. less expenses, less pollution)

8. Drawbacks/problems of MRC technology commonly shared with farmers

None

9. Channels facilitating the sharing of messages about MRC technology with farmers

MAFC meetings which are attended by representatives from each barangay, personal visits Farmers are usually encouraged to use the technology (persuasion approach)

10. Current status of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program implementation

Other farmers are not easily convinced on the use of MRC, such as those who could afford the technology

11. Problems/Suggestions for improvement

There was no problem on the communication with farmers Promotion of the technology should be continued Results from the techno-demo sites should be seen by the farmers

F. Luzviminda Bidua, MAO, Alang-alang, Leyte

1. How farmers joined DA Agri-Kalikasan Program

Farmers saw the demonstration farms and were encouraged to join the program

2. Criteria/requirements for joining the program

No specific requirements; legitimate rice farmer

3. Information sources of farmer-cooperators

Agricultural technicians

4. Factors facilitating access to information sources

Technicians were assigned to monitor 5 barangays

5. Factors hindering access to information sources

Technicians could not easily get to the barangays, and the budget for their traveling and expense vouchers (TEV) were insufficient

6. Messages about the benefits/features of MRC technology commonly shared with farmers

Benefits of the MRC technology such as less expenses on inorganic fertilizer

7. Drawbacks/problems of MRC technology commonly shared with farmers

None

8. Channels facilitating the sharing of messages about MRC technology with farmers

Farmer classes, lectures, and hands-on trainings which were held once every cropping season

9. Other factors which encourage farmers to use the MRC technology

Farmers should be able to use the technology

10. Other factors which hinder the use of MRC technology

Farmers are a bit “lazy”; one has to have patience to convince them of the technology Technicians are not given enough budget for traveling and other expenses to carry out their job in sharing information with the farmers

172

11. Problems/Suggestions for improvement

Farmers should be self-reliant Monitoring should be constant; technicians should keep track of how the farmer-cooperators are doing

G. Nestor Patorza, Agricultural Technician, MAO, Alang-alang, Leyte

1. Messages about the benefits/features of MRC technology commonly shared with farmers

Steps in preparing and applying MRC, irrigating the MRC site, and the advantages of MRC

2. Drawbacks/problems of MRC technology commonly shared with farmers

Composting rice straw takes some time

3. Channels facilitating the sharing of messages about MRC technology with farmers

Personal visits are made by agricultural technicians once a week

4. Current status of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program implementation

The program did not continue because of lack of funds

5. Problems/Suggestions for improvement

Minor problems were encountered in communicating with farmers; others were difficult to contact The campaign for promoting MRC and discouraging rice straw burning should be continued More farmers should be encouraged to use MRC Inputs, especially the CFA, should be provided constantly

H. Elisa Canaber, Secretary, MAO, Jaro, Leyte

1. How farmers joined DA Agri-Kalikasan Program

Some farmers joined the program at their own discretion, while others were selected to become participants or cooperators Information campaigns through personal visits were made

2. Criteria/requirements for joining the program

Farm area should be at least 1 ha, and it should be located along the road

3. Orientating farmer-cooperators involved in the program

Meetings were constantly held before the planting season

4. Information sources of farmer-cooperators

MAO and agricultural technicians

5. Factors facilitating access to information sources

Agricultural technicians themselves visit the farms, so the farmers did not have problems consulting them

6. Factors hindering access to information sources

None

7. Messages about the benefits/features of MRC technology commonly shared with farmers

Free inputs upon availing MRC

8. Drawbacks/problems of MRC technology commonly shared with farmers

Diseases that come along with MRC

9. Channels facilitating the sharing of Personal visits and updates, techno-guides, pamphlets,

173

messages about MRC technology with farmers

personal visits by agricultural technicians, or personal visits to the office by farmers Farmers do not always avail of the information from the MAO and technicians, they would approach them for seeds and other inputs or when their rice plants are struck down with disease

10. Suggestions for improvement Farmers are hard to persuade or convince about using MRC Farmers and technicians alike should be trained well on new methods of farming There should be sustained financial support to be able to acquire supplies for MRC

I. Rosenda Pajares, Agricultural Technician, San Miguel, Leyte

1. How farmers joined DA Agri-Kalikasan Program

Information campaigns were made through house-to-house

scouting or personal visits by agricultural technicians and

through meetings held by farmer leaders

Interested farmers were identified

2. Criteria/requirements for joining the program

No specific requirements; legitimate rice farmer

3. Orientating farmer-cooperators involved in the program

Orientation held before implementing the program through

meeting with agricultural technicians

4. Information sources of farmer-cooperators

Agricultural technicians, fellow-farmers, and the staff in the

Municipal Agricultural Office (MAO) in Bato

5. Factors facilitating access to information sources

Convenient ways of communication such as texting

Sites/areas were easily accessible since they were along

the highways and near the municipal office

6. Factors hindering access to information sources

Passivity of farmers, “wait-and-see” attitude which affects

their interest in using the technology

7. Messages about the benefits/features of MRC technology commonly shared with farmers

The MRC composting process itself

8. Drawbacks/problems of MRC technology commonly shared with farmers

Supply of the compost fungus activator (CFA) is not directly

or commercially available

9. Channels facilitating the sharing of messages about MRC technology with farmers

Trainings, seminars and meetings are not regularly held,

sometimes conducted when farmers need these or when

they are interested in these activities

Information and education approaches are used

174

10. Other factors which encourage farmers to use the MRC technology

Farmers become interested especially when they can try the

technology

Availability of resources would also encourage the farmers

to use the technology

11. Other factors which hinder the use of MRC technology

Lack of resources or farming supplies

Results of the technology are not immediately seen

Farmers’ passivity or “wait-and-see” attitude

12. Current status of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program implementation

MRC per se is not practiced because of the lack of CFA

(Trichoderma) supply; the farmers, however, have not

burned rice straw anymore, and went to letting the rice straw

rot in the field (traditional composting without CFA)

13. Suggestions for improvement Multimedia approach which could arouse interest in farmers

More resources needed for MRC technology

J. Roberto Modesto, Agricultural Technician, MAO, Barugo, Leyte

1. How farmers joined DA Agri-Kalikasan Program

The program is downloaded from the LGUs and the Office of the Provincial Agriculturist (OPA). Information campaigns are being conducted

2. Criteria/requirements for joining the program

Farm should be irrigated, farmer should be innovative

3. Orientating farmer-cooperators involved in the program

Meetings, wherein protocol with guidelines is presented

4. Information sources of farmer-cooperators

Extension agents

5. Factors facilitating access to information sources

Personal visits of the agricultural technicians make it easier for farmers to access information from them Availability of sources

6. Factors hindering access to information sources

The limitations set by the protocol or guidelines

7. Messages about the benefits/features of MRC technology commonly shared with farmers

MRC as organic-based technology, combined with the principles of integrated pest management (IPM) and cultural practices of land preparation Rice straw should not be burned No drawbacks are shared with the farmers

8. Drawbacks/problems of MRC technology commonly shared with farmers

Problem with the terminal drainage—the supply of water is affected by drainage and irrigation schedules set by the National Irrigation Authority (NIA), thus affecting growth of Trichoderma

Lack of Trichoderma supply

9. Channels facilitating the sharing of messages about MRC technology with farmers

Interpersonal channels, discussions, groups Brochures and other supplementary reading materials are given during the discussions

175

Using the information, education and persuasion approach These are done with every growing stage of the rice plants (e.g. tillering stage, harvesting stage, etc.)

10. Other factors which encourage farmers to use the MRC technology

Free farm inputs for implementing MRC technology (e.g. CFA or Trichoderma, free seeds, chicken dung, etc.)

11. Other factors which hinder farmers from using the MRC technology

Attitude of farmers and their waning receptiveness to new farming technologies

12. Current status of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program implementation

Instead of 3 years with continuous supply, implementation of the project was cut short to only one cropping season

13. Suggestions for improvement Project should be continuous so that benefits of the technology would be seen even more by the farmers

K. Rowena Lacandazo, Agricultural Technician, Kananga, Leyte

1. How farmers joined DA Agri-Kalikasan Program

Technicians individually recruit farmers who are willing to participate in the project

2. Criteria/requirements for joining the program

One should be a legitimate rice farmer, whose farm is strategically located near the highways Land should be well-irrigated Farmer should be receptive or open for new technology

3. Orientating farmer-cooperators involved in the program

Group briefings with the farmers

4. Information sources of farmer-cooperators

Extension agents

5. Messages about the benefits/features of MRC technology commonly shared with farmers

The MRC composting process itself, the benefits that could possibly be obtained from using the technology, which would also make the farmers interested about the technology Rice straw burning is also strongly discouraged Messages are presented in dialect, and by giving examples and analogy to help farmers understand more Combination of approaches

6. Channels facilitating the sharing of messages about MRC technology with farmers

As the project progresses, agricultural technicians personally discuss with the farmers messages or information on the use of MRC; this was done weekly and on critical periods (e.g. panicle and tillering stages of rice growth)

7. Current status of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program implementation

MRC was only implemented in one cropping season in 2007 The impact made was that most of the farmers in the area did not burn rice straw anymore However, some burn rice straw to stop the spread of disease, such as the tungro virus, which can only be alleviated by burning Other farmers are “hard-headed” (“matigas ang ulo”)

176

There was problem with the fertilizer recommendation since some farmers could not afford to entirely apply MRC-based organic fertilizer in their fields—inorganic fertilizers such as complete and urea was to supplement the compost-based fertilizer Farmers were too receptive—they simply follow what the DA staff and technicians tell them to do

8. Suggestions for improvement MRC is better promoted when it is introduced personally to farmers and when they are able to see the results of the technology Continuous monitoring of the program should have been done

L. Emilinda Alabado, Agricultural Technician, MAO, Hindang, Leyte

1. How farmers joined DA Agri-Kalikasan Program

Information campaigns were made through house-to-house scouting or personal visits by agricultural technicians

2. Criteria/requirements for joining the program

Farmer should be willing to let his land be used for the implementation of the MRC technology Site should be at least 0.5 ha in size, should be accessible and visible along the roads, and should be compact so that it would be easy for the technicians to collect data (e.g. soil analysis samples, number of panicles and tillers, etc.) from the field

3. Orientating farmer-cooperators involved in the program

One-on-one and group meetings with the agricultural technician

4. Information sources of farmer-cooperators

Technicians, reading materials, activities such as farmers’ field days

5. Factors facilitating access to information sources

Farmer-to-farmer interaction makes it easier for fellow farmers to know more about MRC technology from their personal networks Pre-existing knowledge also helps farmers understand the basic principles behind MRC technology

6. Factors hindering access to information sources

Farmers usually didn’t have the time to visit the MAO since they are busy working in the fields

7. Messages about the benefits/features of MRC technology commonly shared with farmers

The MRC composting process itself, features of the MRC technology Free inputs await to those who would also practice MRC technology Messages are easily disseminated since they are presented through informal discussions, which are conversational, and because farmers are constantly asked for feedback

8. Channels facilitating the sharing of messages about MRC technology with farmers

Technicians conduct weekly monitoring in the sites, and personal visits are done regularly Demonstrations and field days are occasionally held, and

177

seminars were seldom conducted The problem with weekly monitoring was that the delay of the soil analysis results made it hard for the technicians to relay the results of the MRC technology to the farmers Education approach

9. Other factors which hinder the use of MRC technology

Lack of resources or farming supplies Results of the technology are not immediately seen One farmer shared that his skin got itchy while applying MRC-based fertilizer in his field

10. Current status of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program implementation

The project stopped because of lack of supplies Technician then shared a related technology with the farmers—the indigenous microorganism technology which, like MRC, hastens decomposition of rice straw The participant farmers, on the other hand, resorted to the traditional way of composting rice straw, although it took them longer to let the rice straw rot in the fields

11. Suggestions for improvement There should be easier access to communication materials such as posters, pamphlets and others, so that farmers could have better recall of the MRC technology Farmers can only be motivated to use the MRC technology if inputs are available and accessible

M. Delia Gillionadastican, Agricultural Technician, MAO, Matalom, Leyte

1. How farmers joined DA Agri-Kalikasan Program

There was first a meeting among the technicians and staff of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program on the mechanics of MRC implementation; what transpired during the meeting was discussed with the farmers who could be possible cooperators or participants in the program

2. Criteria/requirements for joining the program

Farmer should be willing to use his/her land for data collection and site of techno demonstrations Site should be at least 5 ha in size, and should be compact and maintained by one cooperator Site should be along the road for others to see

3. Orientating farmer-cooperators involved in the program

Briefing with the technicians

4. Information sources of farmer-cooperators

Agricultural technicians

5. Factors facilitating access to information sources

Constant monitoring and site visits made by the technicians

6. Messages about the benefits/features of MRC technology commonly shared with farmers

Features of the MRC technology, free inputs: 50 bags chicken dung; 15 bags urea; 20 bottles Trichoderma; guidelines in using the technology Farmers did not always abide by the protocol or guidelines for the use of the MRC technology because it did not suit their needs They also encountered a problem in applying the MRC-based fertilizer with urea supplement; some farmers did not

178

want to use urea, while others argued that they used the MRC-based fertilizer too early that the land could not have rest or fallow periods

7. Channels facilitating the sharing of messages about MRC technology with farmers

Personal visits by technicians

8. Other factors which hinder the use of MRC technology

Farmers were used to “dole-outs” or “spoonfeeding” so that they expected too much from the technicians

9. Current status of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program implementation

The implementation of the MRC came out too late, since most of the farmers have already started planting rice at the time it was implemented Project was stopped, and since then, the farmers kept looking for follow-ups of the MRC technology implementation

10. Suggestions for improvement Project should have been continued so that the farmers could clearly see the results of the MRC technology and they could digest the information given them by the technicians Techno demos should be consistent

N. Lydia Avanzado, Agricultural Technician, MAO, Hilongos, Leyte

1. How farmers joined DA Agri-Kalikasan Program

House-to-house scouting; technicians personally invited farmers to join the program

2. Criteria/requirements for joining the program

Site should be 1-2 ha in size and should be well-irrigated, and the farmer should be willing to have his/her land used in the program as a techno demo site

3. Orientating farmer-cooperators involved in the program

Orientation held before implementing the program through meeting with agricultural technicians

4. Messages about the benefits/features of MRC technology commonly shared with farmers

The MRC composting process itself, the materials to be used in the MRC composting process, the benefits that a farmer could get from the MRC technology

5. Channels facilitating the sharing of messages about MRC technology with farmers

Different media are used such as radio, reading materials, visual aids, and others

6. Other factors which hinder the use of MRC technology

Lack of resources or farming supplies Water supply cannot be controlled, so there are times when MRC fails because there is no water

7. Current status of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program implementation

Because the project was stopped, the technicians opted to teach the farmers about IMO, an alternative form of MRC There was no problem in terms of sharing information

8. Suggestions for improvement Radio, TV and other forms of mass media should be used to disseminate information on the MRC technology Irrigation should be improved To clearly see the fruits of the MRC technology, project should have been continued

179

O. Melissa Sia, Agricultural Technician, MAO, Mayorga, Leyte

1. How farmers joined DA Agri-Kalikasan Program

Some farmers were selected by the implementers of the program based on a set of criteria, while others were interested

2. Criteria/requirements for joining the program

As long as the farmer was interested in joining the program

3. Orientating farmer-cooperators involved in the program

An orientation was conducted by the Agricultural Training Institute (ATI)

4. Information sources of farmer-cooperators

Technicians

5. Messages about the benefits/features of MRC technology commonly shared with farmers

Benefits of the MRC technology, banning of open rice straw burning

6. Channels facilitating the sharing of messages about MRC technology with farmers

Trainings among farmers are conducted, and technicians also conduct weekly meetings

7. Other factors which encourage farmers to use the MRC technology

Farmers already have pre-existing knowledge about composting, and they are also given incentives to further encourage them to participate in the program

8. Current status of the DA Agri-Kalikasan Program implementation

Even if the project has stopped running, one farmer still practiced MRC technology, and was even awarded the Gawad Saka award for being a model farmer

9. Suggestions for improvement There was no problem with regards to communicating the MRC technology among the farmers, only that implementers should approach the farmers

180

APPENDIX E: CROSS-TABULATION OF COMMUNICATION

VARIABLES AND ADOPTION LEVELS

Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of clarity of messages with level or recall of messages about MRC technology

MESSAGE X 2

VALUE P

VALUE CATEGORY LEVEL OF RECALL OF MESSAGE

No response

Low recall

Moderate recall

High recall

Steps in preparing the compost

51.773 0.000** Very clear 0 0 27 9

Somewhat clear 0 0 6 3

Somewhat unclear

2 0 0 0

Steps in applying the compost

39.695 0.000** Very clear 0 1 28 10

Somewhat clear 0 0 4 3

Somewhat unclear

2 0 1 0

Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of comprehension of messages with level of recall of messages about MRC technology

MESSAGE X 2 value P value Category Level of recall of message

No response

Low recall

Moderate recall

High recall

Steps in preparing the compost

31.123 0.000** Very understandable

0 0 25 9

Somewhat understandable

1 0 8 2

No idea 0 0 0 1

Somewhat not understandable

1 0 0 0

Steps in applying the compost

33.127 0.001** Very understandable

0 1 26 10

Somewhat understandable

1 0 7 2

No idea 0 0 0 1

Somewhat not understandable

1 0 0 0

Environmental benefits

8.073 0.018* Very understandable

0 0 26 11

Somewhat understandable

0 1 5 0

181

Cross-tabulation of perceived completeness of messages with level of recall of messages about MRC technology

MESSAGE X 2

value P value Category Level of recall of message

No response

Low recall

Moderate recall

High recall

Steps in preparing the compost

26.842 0.001** 100% complete

0 0 15 8

80% complete

1 0 16 3

60% complete

0 0 2 1

40% complete

1 0 0 0

Steps in applying the compost

28.952 0.004** 100% complete

0 1 16 9

80% complete

1 0 15 3

60% complete

0 0 2 1

40% complete

1 0 0 0

Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of interest on messages with level of recall of messages about MRC technology

MESSAGE X 2

value P value Category Level of recall of message

No response

Low recall Moderate recall

High recall

Practical benefits of the compost to the farmer

10.386 0.016* Very interesting 0 0 26 12

Somewhat interesting

0 1 6 1

Environmental benefits

9.096 0.011* Very interesting 0 0 27 11

Somewhat interesting

0 1 4 0

182

Cross-tabulation of perceived attitude towards MRC technology with level of recall of messages

VARIABLE X 2

value P value

Category Level of recall of message

No response

Low recall

Moderate recall

High recall

In MRC, the time of composting is shortened from three months to around three weeks.

17.902 0.022* Strongly agree 0 1 25 11

Agree 1 0 7 2

Neither agree nor disagree

1 0 1 0

When combined with inorganic fertilizers, MRC yields more rice than when using completely inorganic fertilizer.

33.982 0.001**

Strongly agree 1 1 26 12

Agree 0 0 6 0

Neither agree nor disagree

1 0 0 0

Disagree 0 0 1 1

MRC helps address the problem of rice straw burning.

24.613 0.002**

Strongly agree 2 1 28 12

Agree 0 0 3 1

Neither agree nor disagree

0 0 1 0

Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of clarity of messages with extent of knowledge about MRC technology

MESSAGE X 2

value P value Category Extent of knowledge about

MRC

Low Moderate High

Steps in preparing the compost

18.339 0.001** Very clear 3 14 19

Somewhat clear 0 3 6

Somewhat unclear 2 0 0

Steps in applying the compost

14.515 0.006** Very clear 3 16 20

Somewhat clear 0 1 6

Somewhat unclear 2 1 0

Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of comprehension of messages with the extent of knowledge about MRC technology

MESSAGE X 2

value P value Category Extent of knowledge about

MRC

Low Moderate High

Environmental benefits

6.063 0.048* Very understandable 3 17 17

Somewhat understandable

0 0 6

183

Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of interest of messages and the extent of knowledge about MRC technology

MESSAGE X 2

value P value Category Extent of knowledge about MRC

Low Moderate High

Practical benefits of the compost to the farmer

8.135 0.017* Very interesting 3 18 17

Somewhat interesting 0 0 8

Cross-tabulation of perceived attitude towards MRC technology and extent of knowledge about MRC technology

VARIABLE X 2

value P value Category Extent of knowledge about MRC

Low Moderate High

When combined with inorganic fertilizers, MRC yields more rice than when using completely inorganic fertilizer.

13.148 0.041* Strongly agree 4 14 22

Agree 0 2 4

Neither agree nor disagree

1 0 0

Disagree 0 2 0

Cross-tabulation of perceived credibility of information sources with the Extent of knowledge on steps in MRC technology

INFORMATION SOURCE

X 2

value P value Category Extent of knowledge on steps

in MRC

Low Moderate High

Farm technician 23.128 0.000** Very credible 0 13 23

Somewhat credible 0 2 6

Somewhat uncredible 1 0 1

Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of clarity of messages with the Extent of knowledge on steps in MRC technology

MESSAGE X 2

value P value Category Extent of knowledge on steps in

MRC

Low Moderate High

Steps in preparing the compost

24.987 0.000** Very clear 0 15 21

Somewhat clear 0 2 7

Somewhat unclear 1 1 0

Steps in applying the compost

22.420 0.000** Very clear 0 16 23

Somewhat clear 0 0 7

Somewhat unclear 1 2 0

Practical benefits of the compost to the farmer

4.840 0.028* Very clear 0 17 22

Somewhat clear 0 0 7

184

Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of comprehension of messages with the Extent of knowledge on steps in MRC technology

MESSAGE X 2

value P value Category Extent of knowledge on steps in

MRC

Low Moderate High

Steps in preparing the compost

47.857 0.000** Very understandable 0 13 21

Somewhat understandable

0 5 6

No idea 0 0 1

Somewhat not understandable

1 0 0

Steps in applying the compost

50.383 0.000** Very understandable 0 13 24

Somewhat understandable

0 5 5

No idea 0 0 1

Somewhat not understandable

1 0 0

185

Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of completeness of messages with the Extent of knowledge on steps in MRC technology

MESSAGE X 2 value P value Category Extent of knowledge on steps in MRC

Low Moderate High

Steps in preparing the compost

48.122 0.000** 100% complete 0 9 14

80% complete 0 7 13

60% complete 0 2 1

40% complete 1 0 0

Steps in applying the compost

50.209 0.000** 100% complete 0 9 17

80% complete 0 7 12

60% complete 0 2 1

40% complete 1 0 0

Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of interest on messages with the Extent of knowledge on steps in MRC technology

MESSAGE X 2 value P value Category Extent of knowledge on steps in MRC

Low Moderate High

Practical benefits of the compost to the farmer

5.677 0.017* Very interesting 0 17 21

Somewhat interesting

0 0 8

Cross-tabulation of type of channel used with the Extent of knowledge on steps in MRC technology

CHANNEL X 2 value P value Category Extent of knowledge about MRC

Low Moderate High

Personal visits 15.394 0.000** Channel used 0 13 30

Channel not used 1 5 0

Cross-tabulation of frequency of exposure to channels with the extent of knowledge about MRC

CHANNEL X 2 value P value Category Extent of knowledge about MRC

Low Moderate High

Print 8.839 0.012* Always 0 7 4

Often 0 0 9

Sometimes 0 1 1

Cross-tabulation of attitudes towards MRC technology with the Extent of knowledge on steps in MRC technology

VARIABLE X 2

value P value Category Extent of knowledge about MRC

Low Moderate High

In MRC, the time of composting is shortened from three months to around three weeks.

9.990 0.041* Strongly agree 0 15 22

Agree 1 1 8

Neither agree nor disagree

0 2 0

186

Cross-tabulation of perceived credibility of information source with number of respondents who discussed or did not discuss the MRC technology with personal networks

INFORMATION SOURCE

X 2 value P value Category Discussed MRC with personal

networks

No Yes

DA Agri-Kalikasan Program Staff

14.000 0.001** Very credible 0 12

Somewhat credible

0 1

No idea 1 0

Farm technician 10.600 0.005** Very credible 1 35

Somewhat credible

0 8

Somewhat uncredible

1 1

Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of clarity of messages with number of respondents who discussed or did not discuss MRC with personal networks

MESSAGE X 2

value P value Category Discussed MRC with personal

networks

No Yes

Steps in preparing the compost

10.865 0.004** Very clear 1 35

Somewhat clear 0 9

Somewhat unclear 1 1

Steps in applying the compost

7.084 0.029* Very clear 1 38

Somewhat clear 0 7

Somewhat unclear 1 2

Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of comprehension of messages with number of respondents who discussed or did not discuss MRC with personal networks

MESSAGE X 2 value P value Category Discussed MRC with personal

networks

No Yes

Steps in preparing the compost

23.177 0.000** Very understandable 1 33

Somewhat understandable

0 11

No idea 0 1

Somewhat not understandable

1 0

Steps in applying the compost

24.148 0.000** Very understandable 1 36

Somewhat understandable

0 10

No idea 0 1

Somewhat not understandable

1 0

187

Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of completeness of messages with number of respondents who discussed or did not discuss MRC with personal networks

MESSAGE X 2 value P value Category Discussed MRC with personal

networks

No Yes

Steps in preparing the compost

23.523 0.000** 100% complete 1 22

80% complete 0 20

60% complete 0 3

40% complete 1 0

Steps in applying the compost

24.440 0.000** 100% complete 1 25

80% complete 0 19

60% complete 0 3

40% complete 1 0

Cross-tabulation of type of channel used with number of respondents who discussed or did not discuss MRC with personal networks

CHANNEL X 2 value P value Category Discussed MRC with

personal networks

No Yes

TV programs 11.230 0.001** Channel used 1 1

Channel not used 1 46

Cross-tabulation of frequency of exposure to channel with number of respondents who discussed or did not discuss MRC with personal networks

CHANNEL X 2 value P value Category Discussed MRC with

personal networks

No Yes

Field demonstration

5.720 0.017* Always 0 22

Often 1 3

Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of interest in channels with number of respondents who discussed or did not discuss MRC with personal networks

CHANNEL X 2 value P value Category Discussed MRC with

personal networks

No Yes

Personal visits 13.317 0.010** Very interesting 0 16

Somewhat interesting 0 15

No idea 0 7

Somewhat uninteresting

1 2

Not interesting at all 0 1

188

Cross-tabulation of perceived credibility of sources with number of respondents who think that personal networks approve or disapprove of MRC technology

INFORMATION SOURCE X 2

value P value Category Approve of technology

No Yes

Farm technician 8.826 0.012* Very credible 4 31

Somewhat credible 0 8

Somewhat uncredible 1 0

Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of completeness of messages with number of respondents who think that personal networks approve or disapprove of MRC technology

MESSAGE X 2 value P value Category Approve of technology

No Yes

Steps in preparing the compost 7.422 0.024* 100% complete 0 23

80% complete 5 14

60% complete 0 2

Steps in applying the compost 8.726 0.013* 100% complete 0 26

80% complete 5 13

60% complete 0 2

Cross-tabulation of usual information sources with personal approval or disapproval of MRC technology

USUAL INFORMATION SOURCE

X 2 value P value Category Approve of

technology

No Yes

DA Agri-Kalikasan Program Staff

5.213 0.022* Accessing information source

2 12

Not accessing information source

0 35

Farm technician 6.984 0.008** Accessing information source

1 45

Not accessing information source

1 2

Cross-tabulation of perceived credibility of information sources with personal approval or disapproval of MRC technology

INFORMATION SOURCE X 2 value P

value Category Approve of

technology

No Yes

DA Agri-Kalikasan Program Staff

6.514 0.039*

Very credible 1 11

Somewhat credible 0 1

No idea 1 0

189

Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of clarity of messages with personal approval or disapproval of MRC technology

MESSAGE X 2 value P value Category Approve of technology

No Yes

Steps in preparing the compost 10.865 0.004** Very clear 1 35

Somewhat clear 0 9

Somewhat unclear 1 1

Steps in applying the compost 7.084 0.029* Very clear 1 38

Somewhat clear 0 7

Somewhat unclear 1 2

Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of interest on messages with personal approval or disapproval of MRC technology

MESSAGE X 2 value P value Category Approve of technology

No Yes

Steps in preparing the compost

8.820 0.012* Very interesting 0 37

Somewhat interesting 2 7

Somewhat uninteresting 0 1

Steps in applying the compost 7.203 0.027* Very interesting 0 37

Somewhat interesting 2 9

Somewhat uninteresting 0 1

Cross-tabulation of type of channels used with personal approval or disapproval of MRC technology

CHANNEL X 2 value P value Category Approve of technology

No Yes

TV programs 11.230 0.001** Channel used 1 1

Channel not used 1 46

Cross-tabulation of perceived attitudes towards MRC technology with personal approval or disapproval of MRC technology

VARIABLE X 2 value P value Category Approve of technology

No Yes

MRC helps address the increasing cost of inorganic fertilizers and other farming supplies.

12.511 0.002** Strongly agree 0 40

Agree 2 5

Neither agree nor disagree

0 2

In MRC, the time of composting is shortened from three months to around three weeks.

11.377 0.003** Strongly agree 1 36

Agree 0 10

Neither agree nor disagree

1 1

When combined with inorganic fertilizers, MRC yields more rice than when using completely inorganic fertilizer.

24.096 0.000** Strongly agree 1 39

190

Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of comprehension of messages with intentions to consult or not consult the MRC technology provider on the use of technology

MESSAGE X 2 value P value Category Planned to consult

technology provider

No Yes

Environmental benefits 4.928 0.026* Very understandable 1 8

Somewhat understandable 1 5

Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of interest on messages with intentions to consult or not consult the MRC technology provider on the use of technology

MESSAGE X 2 value P

value Category Planned to consult

technology provider

No Yes

Practical benefits of the compost to the farmer

6.835 0.009** Very interesting 24 14

Somewhat interesting 1 7

Cross-tabulation of frequency of exposure to channel with intentions to consult or not consult the MRC technology provider on the use of MRC technology

CHANNEL X 2 value P value Category Planned to consult

technology provider

No Yes

Print 7.598 0.022* Always 8 3

Often 1 8

Sometimes 1 1

Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of interest in channel with intentions to consult or not consult the MRC technology provider on the use of MRC technology

CHANNEL X 2 value P value Category Planned to consult

technology provider

No Yes

Print 9.743 0.021* Very interesting 0 3

Somewhat interesting 1 6

No idea 8 3

Not interesting 1 0

Cross-tabulation of usual information sources with intentions to use the MRC technology

USUAL INFORMATION SOURCE

X 2 value P value Category Planned to use the MRC

technology

No Yes

DA Agri-Kalikasan Program Staff

4.601 0.032* Accessing information source

3 11

Not accessing information source

1 34

191

Cross-tabulation of perceived credibility of information sources with intentions to use the MRC technology

INFORMATION SOURCE X 2 value P value Category Planned to use the MRC

technology

No Yes

Farm technician 6.815 0.033* Very credible 2 34

Somewhat credible 0 8

Somewhat uncredible 1 1

Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of clarity with intentions to use the MRC technology

MESSAGE X 2 value P value Category Planned to use the MRC

technology

No Yes

Steps in preparing the compost 22.741 0.000** Very clear 2 34

Somewhat clear 0 9

Somewhat unclear 2 0

Steps in applying the compost 14.798 0.001** Very clear 2 37

Somewhat clear 0 7

Somewhat unclear 2 1

Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of comprehension of messages with intentions to use the MRC technology

MESSAGE X 2

value P value Category Planned to use the MRC

technology

No Yes

Steps in preparing the compost 11.149 0.011* Very understandable 2 32

Somewhat understandable

1 10

No idea 0 1

Somewhat not understandable

1 0

Steps in applying the compost 11.759 0.008** Very understandable 2 35

Somewhat understandable

1 9

No idea 0 1

Somewhat not understandable

1 0

Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of completeness with intentions to use the MRC technology

MESSAGE X 2 value P value Category Planned to use the MRC

technology

No Yes

Steps in preparing the compost 11.347 0.010** 100% complete 2 21

80% complete 1 19

60% complete 0 3

40% complete 1 0

Steps in applying the compost 11.738 0.008** 100% complete 2 24

80% complete 1 18

60% complete 0 3

40% complete 1 0

192

Cross-tabulation of type of channel used with intentions to use the MRC technology

CHANNEL X 2 value P value Category Planned to use the MRC

technology

No Yes

TV programs 4.868 0.027* Channel used 1 1

Channel not used 3 44

Cross-tabulation of perceived attitude towards the MRC technology with intentions to use the MRC technology

VARIABLE X 2 value P value Category Planned to use the MRC

technology

No Yes

When combined with inorganic fertilizers, MRC yields more rice than when using completely inorganic fertilizer.

11.985 0.007** Strongly agree 3 37

Agree 0 6

Neither agree nor disagree

1 0

Disagree 0 2

Cross-tabulation of perceived clarity of messages with number of respondents who availed or did not avail of MRC technology

MESSAGE X 2 value P value Category Availed of MRC technology

No Yes

Drawbacks 7.879 0.049* Very clear 0 7

Somewhat clear 0 2

Somewhat unclear 0 1

Not clear at all 2 1

Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of interest on messages with number of respondents who availed or did not avail of MRC technology

MESSAGE X 2 value P value Category Availed of MRC

technology

No Yes

Steps in applying the compost 6.463 0.039* Very interesting 17 20

Somewhat interesting 1 10

Somewhat uninteresting 1 0

Practical benefits of the compost to the farmer

5.677 0.017* Very interesting 17 21

Somewhat interesting 0 8

Cross-tabulation of type of channel used with the number of respondents who availed or did not avail of MRC technology

CHANNEL X 2 value P value Category Availed of MRC

technology

No Yes

Print 4.331 0.037* Channel used 5 17

Channel not used 14 13

193

Cross-tabulation of frequency of exposure to channels with number of respondents who availed or did not avail of MRC technology

CHANNEL X 2 value P value Category Availed of MRC

technology

No Yes

Personal visits 4.476 0.034* Always 16 18

Often 1 9

Cross-tabulation of frequency of access to information sources with number of respondents who used or did not use the MRC technology

INFORMATION SOURCE X 2 value P value Category Used MRC technology

No Yes

DA Agri-Kalikasan Program Staff 10.733 0.013* Always 0 5

Often 0 3

Sometimes 3 1

Rare 2 0

Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of clarity of messages with number of respondents who used or did not use the MRC technology

MESSAGE X 2 value P value Category Used MRC technology

No Yes

Steps in preparing the compost 6.823 0.033* Very clear 7 29

Somewhat clear 3 6

Somewhat unclear 2 0

Steps in applying the compost 10.215 0.006** Very clear 7 32

Somewhat clear 2 5

Somewhat unclear 3 0

Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of comprehension with number of respondents who used or did not use MRC technology

MESSAGE X 2 value P value Category Used MRC technology

No Yes

Steps in applying the compost 8.296 0.040* Very understandable 6 31

Somewhat understandable 5 5

No idea 0 1

Somewhat not understandable

1 0

Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of interest on messages with number of respondents who used or did not use the MRC technology

MESSAGE X 2

value P value Category Used MRC technology

No Yes

Drawbacks 8.827 0.032* Very interesting 1 8

Somewhat interesting 2 0

Somewhat uninteresting 0 1

Not interesting at all 1 0

194

Cross-tabulation of type of channels used with number of respondents who used or did not use the MRC technology

CHANNEL X 2 value P value Category Used MRC technology

No Yes

Personal visits 6.577 0.010** Channel used 8 35

Channel not used 4 2

Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of interest in channels with number of respondents who used or did not use the MRC technology

CHANNEL X 2 value P value Category Used MRC technology

No Yes

Field demonstration 10.139 0.038* Very interesting 0 8

Somewhat interesting

3 2

No idea 2 5

Somewhat uninteresting

2 0

Not interesting at all

1 3

Cross-tabulation of perceived attitudes towards MRC technology with number of respondents who used or did not use MRC technology

VARIABLE X 2 value P value Category Used MRC technology

No Yes

In MRC, the time of composting is shortened from three months to around three weeks.

8.837 0.012* Strongly agree 6 31

Agree 4 6

Neither agree nor disagree

2 0

Cross-tabulation of type of channel used with recognition of drawbacks in using MRC technology

CHANNEL X 2 value P value Category Recognized drawbacks

No Yes

Seminars/trainings 4.324 0.038* Channel used 21 16

Channel not used 10 1

Cross-tabulation of frequency of access to information sources with number of users who continued or discontinued use of MRC technology

INFORMATION SOURCE X 2 value P value Category Continued using MRC

No Yes

DA Agri-Kalikasan Program Staff 10.733 0.013* Always 0 5

Often 0 3

Sometimes 3 1

Rare 2 0

195

Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of clarity of messages with number of users who continued or discontinued use of MRC technology

MESSAGE X 2 value P value Category Continued using MRC

No Yes

Steps in preparing the compost 6.823 0.033* Very clear 7 29

Somewhat clear 3 6

Somewhat unclear 2 0

Steps in applying the compost 10.215 0.006** Very clear 7 32

Somewhat clear 2 5

Somewhat unclear 3 0

Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of comprehension with number of users who continued or discontinued use of MRC technology

MESSAGE X 2 value P value Category Continued using MRC

No Yes

Steps in applying the compost 8.296 0.040* Very understandable 6 31

Somewhat understandable

5 5

No idea 0 1

Somewhat not understandable

1 0

Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of interest on messages with number of users who continued or discontinued use of MRC technology

MESSAGE X 2 value P value Category Continued using MRC

No Yes

Drawbacks 8.827 0.032* Very interesting 1 8

Somewhat interesting 2 0

Somewhat uninteresting 0 1

Not interesting at all 1 0

Cross-tabulation of type of channels used with number of users who continued or discontinued use of MRC technology

CHANNEL X 2 value P value Category Continued using MRC

No Yes

Personal visits 6.577 0.010** Channel used 8 35

Channel not used 4 2

Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of interest in channels with number of users who continued or discontinued use of MRC technology

CHANNEL X 2 value P value Category Continued using MRC

No Yes

Field demonstration 10.139 0.038* Very interesting 0 8

Somewhat interesting 3 2

No idea 2 5

Somewhat uninteresting 2 0

Not interesting at all 1 3

196

Cross-tabulation of perceived attitudes towards MRC technology with number of users who continued or discontinued use of MRC technology

VARIABLE X 2 value P value Category Continued using

MRC

No Yes

In MRC, the time of composting is shortened from three months to around three weeks.

8.837 0.012* Strongly agree 6 31

Agree 4 6

Neither agree nor disagree

2 0

Cross-tabulation of perceived credibility of information source with number of respondents who encouraged or did not encourage use of MRC technology

INFORMATION SOURCE X 2

value P value Category Encouraged use

of MRC

No Yes

DA Agri-Kalikasan Program Staff 6.514 0.039* Very credible 1 11

Somewhat credible 0 1

No idea 1 0

Farm technician 8.564 0.014* Very credible 1 35

Somewhat credible 2 6

Somewhat uncredible 1 1

Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of clarity of messages with number of respondents who encouraged or did not encourage use of MRC technology

MESSAGE X 2

value P value Category Encouraged use

of MRC

No Yes

Steps in preparing the compost 20.410 0.000** Very clear 1 35

Somewhat clear 2 7

Somewhat unclear 2 0

Steps in applying the compost 15.500 0.000** Very clear 1 38

Somewhat clear 2 5

Somewhat unclear 2 1

Practical benefits of the compost to the farmer

11.649 0.001** Very clear 0 39

Somewhat clear 2 5

Environmental benefits 7.781 0.005** Very clear 0 38

Somewhat clear 1 4

Drawbacks 13.000 0.005** Very clear 0 7

Somewhat clear 2 0

Somewhat unclear 0 1

Not clear at all 0 3

197

Cross-tabulation of perceived comprehension of messages with number of respondents who encouraged or did not encourage use of MRC technology

MESSAGE X 2

value P value Category Encouraged use

of MRC

No Yes

Steps in preparing the compost 17.637 0.001** Very understandable 2 32

Somewhat understandable

1 10

No idea 1 0

Somewhat not understandable

1 0

Steps in applying the compost 18.530 0.000** Very understandable 2 35

Somewhat understandable

1 9

No idea 1 0

Somewhat not understandable

1 0

Practical benefits of the compost to the farmer

22.587 0.000** Very understandable 1 37

Somewhat understandable

0 7

No idea 1 0

Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of completeness of messages with number of respondents who encouraged or did not encourage use of MRC technology

MESSAGE X 2

value P value

Category Encouraged use of MRC

No Yes

Steps in preparing the compost 10.991 0.012* 100% complete 1 22

80% complete 2 18

60% complete 1 2

40% complete 1 0

Steps in applying the compost 11.701 0.008** 100% complete 1 25

80% complete 2 17

60% complete 1 2

40% complete 1 0

Drawbacks 8.444 0.038* 100% complete 0 6

80% complete 2 1

60% complete 1 0

20% complete 0 2

198

Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of interest on messages with number of respondents who encouraged or did not encourage use of MRC technology

MESSAGE X 2 value P value Category Encouraged use of

MRC

No Yes

Steps in preparing the compost 15.727 0.000** Very interesting 1 36

Somewhat interesting 3 6

Somewhat uninteresting 1 0

Steps in applying the compost 14.570 0.001** Very interesting 1 36

Somewhat interesting 3 8

Somewhat uninteresting 1 0

Drawbacks 13.000 0.005** Very interesting 0 9

Somewhat interesting 2 0

Somewhat uninteresting 1 0

Not interesting at all 0 1

Cross-tabulation of frequency of exposure to channels with number of respondents who encouraged or did not encourage use of MRC technology

CHANNEL X 2 value P value Category Encouraged use of

MRC

No Yes

Field demonstration 11.917 0.001** Always 0 22

Often 2 2

Cross-tabulation of perceived degree of need for MRC technology with number of respondents who encouraged or did not encourage use of MRC technology

RECEIVER VARIABLE X 2 value P value Category Encouraged use of

MRC

No Yes

Perceived degree of need 7.226 0.027* Highly needed 1 33

Needed 4 10

Not needed 0 1

Cross-tabulation of perceived attitudes towards MRC technology with number of respondents who encouraged or did not encourage use of MRC technology

VARIABLE X 2 value P value Category Continued using

MRC

No Yes

MRC helps address the increasing cost of inorganic fertilizers and other farming supplies.

14.193 0.001** Strongly agree 1 39

Agree 3 4

Neither agree nor disagree

1 1

When combined with inorganic fertilizers, MRC yields more rice than when using completely inorganic fertilizer.

9.711 0.021* Strongly agree 4 36

Agree 0 6

Neither agree nor disagree

1 0

Disagree 0 2

199

APPENDIX F: BASIC CONCEPTS AND STEPS IN USING MRC

Modified Rapid Composting

A technology intervention which promotes the use of hybrid palay seeds and introduces the balance

and judicious use of organic and inorganic combination of fertilizers to address the increasing cost of

fertilizers and the need to sustain the target yield for rice.

Objective: to promote and expand cultivation of hybrid rice as a strategy to achieve sufficiency and

increase rice farming productivity and profitability through establishment of techno demonstration

project.

Ano ang MRC kompos?

Ito ay pinaghalu-halo at binulok na dayami, damo, dahon ng ipil-ipil, asola, sesbanya, pinag-anihan

ng mais, munggo, soya (legumbre), at dumi ng hayop. Mayaman ito sa sustansiya na kailangan ng

palay at iba pang halaman. Hinaluan ito ng compost fungal activator (CFA) o Trichoderma upang

mapabilis ang pagkabulok ng kompos.

PARAAN NG PAGGAWA NG KOMPOS SA BUKID NA MAY IRIGASYON O PATUBIG

1. Ikalat ang mga dayami sa mga pinitak, na ang kapal ay depende sa dami ng tubig na

ilalagay. Tapak-tapakan ang mga dayami sa lugar na hindi nabasa o mataas pa upang

matiyak na nabababad ang mga ito sa tubig.

2. Papasukin kaagad ang tubig sa pinitak at hayaang mababad ang dayami ng labingdalawang

(12) oras at siguraduhinng sarado ang mga daanan ng tubig.

3. Isabog ang mga tuyong dumi ng hayop (manok, baboy, kalabaw o baka) at halamang

mayaman sa nitroheno tulad ng ipil-ipil, azolla, sesbania, mungo, mani cowpea, soybean,

kakawate (madre de cacao), acacia at iba pa. Maaari rin na gumamit ng patabang urea

bilang pamalit sa mga nabanggit na halamang mayaman sa nitroheno.

4. Idilig ang kinanaw na Trichoderma (Compost Fungus Activator or CFA)sa binasang dayami.

Inirerekomenda ang paggamit ng apat (4) na bote ng aktibeytor na ikinanaw sa isang dram

na tubig kada isang toneladang dami ng dayami.

5. Matyagan ang kalagayan ng kompos tuwing dalawang araw at tapak-tapakan ang ibabaw

upang makasipsip ng tubig.

6. Kapag natuyuan, papasukin muli ang tubig mula sa irigasyon at hayaang mababad ang mga

dayami upang mapabilis ang pagkabulok.

7. Pagkaraan ng tatlong (3) linggo, maaari nang simulan ang pag-aararo ng bukid. Bulok na

ang mga dayami at maaari na itong ihalo sa lupa.

Sources:

Department of Agriculture (1997). Rice Technology Bulletin No.17.

Office of the Provincial Agriculturist in Leyte (2007). DA Agri-Kalikasan Program Modified Rapid

Composting Protocol.