Table 1. Results of factor analysis on risk-benefit of consuming fish
Eigenvalue
|
Variance %
|
Factor
|
Item
|
Factor
Loading
|
2.33
|
15.55
|
Socio-demographic
|
Age
|
0.729
|
Occupation
|
0.666
|
Level of Education
|
-0.599
|
Number of children
|
0.664
|
1.82
|
12.13
|
Fish consumption behavior
|
Fish consumption
|
0.790
|
Fish contamination
|
0.635
|
Received information
|
0.500
|
1.57
|
10.47
|
Benefit
|
Fish benefit
|
0.538
|
Confused fish quality
|
-0.582
|
1.46
|
9.76
|
Economic dependency
|
Occupation
|
0.513
|
Income
|
0.647
|
1.12
|
7.49
|
Worry
|
Fish benefit
|
0.573
|
Water pollution
|
0.789
|
1.05
|
6.99
|
Risk
|
Fish consumption risk
|
0.574
|
Table 2: Results of the Multiple Regression Analysis for predicting consumers’ willingness to adopt fish consumption guideline.
Variables
|
Unstandardized Coefficients
|
Standardized Coefficients
|
t
|
Sig.
|
B
|
Std. Error
|
Beta
|
|
|
(Constant)
|
-0.710
|
0.469
|
|
-1.514
|
0.134
|
Level of fish consumption
|
0.823
|
0.066
|
0.761
|
12.500
|
0.000
|
Age
|
0.127
|
0.062
|
0.121
|
2.048
|
0.044
|
Occupation
|
0.028
|
0.062
|
0.027
|
.443
|
0.659
|
Education
|
0.076
|
0.050
|
0.087
|
1.517
|
0.133
|
Income
|
0.003
|
0.070
|
0.003
|
.047
|
0.962
|
No of children
|
-0.076
|
0.079
|
-0.053
|
-.958
|
0.341
|
Perception on fish consumption risk
|
0.056
|
0.046
|
0.063
|
1.230
|
0.223
|
Perception on fish consumption benefit.
|
-0.054
|
0.064
|
-0.044
|
-.838
|
0.405
|
Perception on fish contamination
|
0.195
|
0.062
|
0.185
|
3.125
|
0.003
|
Perception on water pollution
|
-0.007
|
0.052
|
-0.007
|
-.139
|
0.889
|
Availability of information
|
0.056
|
0.051
|
0.056
|
1.100
|
0.275
|
Confusion on quality of fish
|
0.023
|
0.057
|
0.021
|
.406
|
0.686
|
a Dependent Variable: willingness to adopt consumption advisory
Table 3: Independent samples T test indicating equality of Means
Metals
|
t-test for Equality of Means
|
df
|
Sig. (2-tailed)
|
Mean Difference
|
Std. Error Difference
|
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
|
Lower
|
Upper
|
As
|
30
|
0.001
|
0.245
|
0.065
|
0.110
|
0.379
|
Cr
|
30
|
0.066
|
0.063
|
0.033
|
-0.004
|
0.130
|
Pb
|
30
|
0.997
|
-0.002
|
0.506
|
-1.035
|
1.031
|
Hg
|
30
|
0.163
|
0.022
|
0.015
|
-0.009
|
0.053
|
Cd
|
30
|
0.767
|
-0.007
|
0.023
|
-0.055
|
0.041
|
Table 4 Risk-Benefit ratio (HQefa) of essential fatty acids vs. heavy metals for intake of Mudfish and Tilapia from the Laguna de Bay
Contaminants
|
Fish name
|
1A
|
1B
|
2A
|
2B
|
3A
|
3B
|
4
|
5
|
As
|
Mudfish
|
20.91
|
4.05
|
8.01
|
12.03
|
4.35
|
0.05
|
7.14
|
12.62
|
Tilapia
|
6.49
|
13.04
|
1.84
|
16.02
|
14.12
|
2.72
|
1.54
|
5.11
|
Cr
|
Mudfish
|
0.56
|
1.95
|
0.33
|
0.63
|
2.21
|
0.17
|
0.21
|
0.13
|
Tilapia
|
0.33
|
0.39
|
0.04
|
0.15
|
0.07
|
0.35
|
0.44
|
0.34
|
Pb
|
Mudfish
|
28.28
|
24.41
|
5.42
|
4.44
|
5.79
|
4.34
|
14.66
|
6.04
|
Tilapia
|
11.84
|
8.75
|
1.81
|
2.78
|
0.85
|
2.41
|
4.58
|
1.55
|
Hg
|
Mudfish
|
17.30
|
32.34
|
19.04
|
7.11
|
24.49
|
32.72
|
5.96
|
4.42
|
Tilapia
|
3.53
|
1.90
|
2.66
|
0.49
|
1.44
|
3.04
|
0.34
|
0.68
|
Cd
|
Mudfish
|
1.83
|
1.48
|
0.98
|
1.25
|
1.40
|
1.30
|
1.13
|
1.14
|
Tilapia
|
1.80
|
1.58
|
0.24
|
0.31
|
0.43
|
0.41
|
0.21
|
0.31
|
1A = Binangonan
1B = Taguig (Northern West Bay)
2A = Talim Island (Central West Bay)
2B = Sta Rosa (Central West Bay)
3A= Jala-Jala (Central Bay)
3B =Cardona (Central Bay)
4= Calamba (South Bay)
5= Pakil (East Bay)
Table 5: Fish Consumption Advisory for Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)
![](https://myfiles.space/user_files/69515_16346c490bab499e/69515_custom_files/img1629174604.png)
Table 6: Fish Consumption Advisory for Mudfish (Ophicephalus Straitus)