THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Figure 1. Vulnerability Framework

Figure 1 shows the framework for reducing vulnerability. It constitutes the sustainable
livelihood framework, especially in looking at the assets of vulnerable people and their linkages
with institutions, policies and processes. The core of the framework is people and their
livelihoods. The exposure of these people to hazards that results in increased risks of adversity.
However, the framework pointed on the underlying causes of why people are vulnerable beyond
the immediate threat or hazard. Disasters do not occur in isolation, but are affected by long term
trends in physical, social and economic factors, thus physical, social and political environment
were analyzed. The impact on people also depends crucially on the types of institutions, policies
and processes that affect their access and control of resources (Practical Action, 2014).

In the first box showing the vulnerable people, close connection between poverty and
vulnerability was perceived. Vulnerable people live in circumstances where they are liable to, or
live in fear of, a sudden, traumatic loss of their means of livelihoods and of their social or
physical environment that they are powerless to prevent. This loss may be caused by a range of
hazards including natural disasters or which affect many, or shocks such as sickness or injury
which may affect individual households. The resulting loss is hence push the vulnerable people
into a crisis situation where they are unable to cope with and continue with their old means of
livelihoods.
Meanwhile on the second box, hazards which may be natural or man-made or a
combination of the two was indicated. People have little or no control over natural disasters such
as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and typhoon, but other natural hazards such as floods,
landslides and diseases may be influenced by human activity and policies. In these cases the
hazard is not just an external factor, but is linked to long term trends, institutional structures and
people's livelihoods. Weather-related hazards are particularly important in many countries such
as the Philippines because the agricultural sector provides a high proportion of the national
income.
Finally, Policies, Institutions and processes, vulnerable people and hazards are all linked
to long term trends. Long term environmental, political and economic trends can impact people's
livelihoods directly through affecting their access and control over resources or more indirectly
by affecting the stability of their environment. Some of these trends, such as globalisation, will
be outside the control of local communities while others, such as environmental degradation, will
be influenced by both external and local factors. Environmental degradation leads to declining

productivity and therefore gradually reduces the value of natural assets available to people.
Changes in land use over time can also contribute to disasters which has led to conflict over the
remaining scarce natural resources (pasture, woodland and water), between different tribes and
between nomadic people and settled farmers. Long-term climate change, resulting in frequent
droughts has led to repeated loss of livestock and reduced ability of communities to recover from
natural hazards. The resultant dependency on food aid has led in turn to settlement.
Intensification of agriculture and a decline in biodiversity are trends that can increase the risks of
crop failure. Growing privatization of resources is one of the major political and economic trends
occurring in most countries. This includes privatization of natural resources such as land, forest
resources, and also of services such as education and health. Since the poor are more likely to
make use of communal resources and exchange relations than the rich, growing privatization is
likely to increase their vulnerability by effectively removing their access to the privatized
resources.
The social and political context in which people live is shaped by the structures formed
by the institutions, organizations, policies and legislation that affect people's livelihoods which is
evidently shown in the figure where almost all factors are linked. These structures operate at all
levels from the household and local community to the international level. Consideration of this
institutional and policy context is vital in analyzing vulnerability, because it determines how
people can access and control resources, what rights and entitlements they have and what say
they have over decisions affecting their livelihoods. Issues of social justice and human rights are
therefore part of the context of vulnerability. Although the institutional and policy context can act
as an enabling environment, making it easier for people to improve their livelihoods, all too often

it has the reverse effect, blocking and discouraging people from adopting strategies that would
help them cope with shocks.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Figure 2. PWD Vulnerability Framework

Figure 2 shows PWD Vulnerability Framework which specifically constitutes of the

policies, institutions and process with linkages on vulnerable people and hazard. The conceptual
framework of this study was based on the Vulnerability Framework by Practical Action (2014) as
shown in figure 1. Policies, institutions and process provided by the government, disaster-related
agencies such as NDRRMC, health-related agency such as Department of Health (DOH) and its

allied hospitals and institutions, communities and even Non-government Organizations (NGO)
were determined. It is vital to consider institutional and policy context in analyzing vulnerability,
because it determines the accessibility and control of resources, that may affect the people in
making decision especially in times of disaster such as flood and typhoon. These policies are
linked to vulnerable people through Information, Education and Communication (IEC) which is
the core of conceptual framework of this study. It was also specified in the figure its focus among
all the vulnerable people, people with disabilities which is under the four (4) categories in this
study, namely: (1) Chronic illnesses with disabilities, (2) Visual/ seeing disabilities, (3)
Orthopedic/moving, and; (4) Communications deficits. If people have few rights and lack control
over resources and decision-making, they are likely to be much more vulnerable to any threats to
their livelihoods. Governments and NGOs have tended to concentrate their activities on getting
prepared for, and responding to disasters rather than actively seeking to reduce risks of further
disasters. A longer term, more sustainable approach is required to build up the resilience of
people and the environment to cope with and manage the risks of future hazards. Hence, an
outcome will be realized, which is reduced risk of disasters.