2013 University of the Philippines

National College of Public Administration and Governance

Diliman, Quezon City

University of the Philippines

Diliman, Quezon City

Assessment and Evaluation of

National College of Public Administration and Governance

the Implementation of
The Philippine Disaster Risk
In fulfillment of the requirements in

Reduction
PA 199.2: Research Methods in Public and Management
Administration II

Act of 2010 or RA 10121in the

Municipalities of
Assessment and Evaluation of the Implementation of
Maria Aurora and Dipaculao
in the Province of Aurora
The Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010

in the Municipalities of Mariain relation to

Aurora and Dipaculao
Communitys Knowledge
in the Province of Aurora in relation to
Management
Communitys Knowledge Management

Submitted by:
PA 199.2:
Damazo, Frances Grace P.
Submitted by:
Research Methods in Estrella, Raymond R.
Damazo, Frances Grace
Public Administration II Nadal, Eveanne Seneca
Estrella, Raymond
Pagdanganan, Jasmin Y.
Nadal, Eveanne Seneca
Plomillo, Rea Chill C.
Pagdanganan, Jasmin

Plomillo, Rea Chill

Submitted to:

Prof. Noriel Christopher Tiglao 0

 ABSTRACT

Natural and human-induced disasters are rampant in certain areas around the globe,

especially in disaster-prone and risk-vulnerable countries. In the Philippines, where most of the

provinces are susceptible to both natural and human-induced disasters, disaster risk management

acquires gradually more crucial to governments interference. This paper briefly discusses the

Philippine Disaster Risk and Management Act (PDRMA) of 2010 and how it is being

implemented and operationalized. After reviewing the main ideas of the PDRMA, e.g. adaptation

of a holistic, comprehensive, integrated, and proactive disaster risk reduction and management

approach that will eventually help lessen the socio-economic and environmental impacts of

disasters including climate change, and promote the involvement and participation of all sectors

and all stakeholders concerned, at all levels, especially the local community; this paper assesses

the current state of the implementation and operationalization of the PDRMA in the

municipalities of Maria Aurora and Dipaculao in the province of Aurora to ascertain whether the

objectives of the law were successfully met in relation to Community Knowledge Management.

The study will employ both quantitative and qualitative techniques in gathering the data and then

will evaluate the findings in coastal and land locked areas respectively.

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Our group would like to extend our deepest gratitude to the following institution and

people who helped in making this research study possible and successful: our parents for their

unconditional love and for being our source of inspiration to pull this research off; to the local

governments of Maria Aurora and Dipaculao in Aurora for uncomplainingly providing us the

necessary information about the provinces DRRM programs and for determinedly helping us

identify the key variables that helped us understand the subject matter even more; to the 200

respondents for sharing us their knowledge, time, effort, concerns and as well as great stories; to

our thesis adviser, Professor Noriel Christopher Tiglao, for unwaveringly directing us in every

step of the way and for stanchly providing us pertinent information about our research topic; to

our Ate, Ms. Vivian Rose Villadolid Velasco, for solidly supporting and helping us in every

way she can and truthfully, at the end of the day, we just want to make her loud and proud; to our

friends, Jazelle Anne, Christine Joy, Patricia Anne, Karen, Fatima Ayesha, Mark Gil, Sigrid, Cez

Martina and the rest of UP NCPAG batch 2013 for continuously giving us contagious optimism

to finish this research study strong; and last, but not the least, our Almighty God for giving us

spiritual strengths.

2
 Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction .. 8

1.1 Background of the study

8

1.2 Statement of the problem

10

1.3 Research objectives .

12

1.4 Significance of the study .

13

1.5 Scope and limitation

14
Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature ...................................................................... 15
2.1 Brief history . 15
2.2 Review . 15
Chapter 3: Method .. 34
3.1 Purpose 34
3.2 Paradigm .. 34
3.3 Study design 35
3.4 Population and Sample 37
3.5 Investigative techniques .. 39
3.6 Instrumentation 39
3.7 Data Collections .. 41
3.8 Data Analysis Plan .. 42
3.9 Ethical Consideration .. 42
3.10 Bias 43
3.11 Assumptions .. 44
3.12 Limitations . 44

3
Chapter 4: Results and Discussions 45
Chapter 5: Inference 103
Bibliography .

Annex

LIST OF TABLES

1: Data Collection Schedule

2: Case Process Summary

3: Age Municipality Cross Tabulation

4: Age Barangay Cross Tabulation

5: Eduation Barangay Cross Tabulation

6: Frequency Distribution Table (FDT) Respondents

7: FDT Age

8: FDT Education

9: Percentage per Municipality

10: Percentage per Barangay

11: FDT Housing - Knowledge on the topography of land where the house is built

12: FDT Housing - Knowledge on the over-all house safety in case of disaster

13: FDT Housing - Knowledge on the safety of appliances/furniture at home

14: FDT Housing - Knowledge on safety of the houses in their community in case of
disaster

15: FDT Storage - Preparedness (Emergency kits)

16: FDT Storage - Preparedness (Emergency stocks)

17: FDT Storage - Preparedness (Adequacy of emergency kits and stocks)

4
18: FDT Storage - Preparedness (Adequacy of emergency kits, stocks & rescue equipment at
the community level)

19: FDT Shelter/Evacuation - Knowledge on the presence of the evacuation/shelter site

20: FDT Shelter/Evacuation - Knowledge on the location of the evacuation site

21: FDT Shelter/Evacuation - Knowledge on the safety of the evacuation site (Physical
structure)

22: FDT Shelter/Evacuation - Knowledge on the safety of the evacuation site

(Topography)

23: FDT LGU Support - Knowledge on LGU support in case of disasters

24: FDT LGU Support - Knowledge on suitability of LGU support in case of disasters

25: FDT LGU Support - Knowledge LGU DRRM programs

26: FDT LGU Support - Knowledge on the adequacy of LGU DRRM efforts

27: FDT Community Linkage - Level of personal participation in DRRM programs of

the LGU

28: FDT Community Linkage - Level of community participation in DRRM programs of the
LGU

29: FDT Community Linkage - Community participation on DRRM issues

30: FDT Community Linkage - Knowledge on the importance of community efforts to

LGU DRRM programs

31: Materials used at home

32: Housing Descriptive

33: Housing Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

34: Storage Descriptive

35: Storage ANOVA

36: Shelter/Evacuation Descriptive

37: Shelter/Evacuation ANOVA

38: LGU Support Descriptive

5
39: LGU Support ANOVA

40: Community Linkage Descriptive

41: Community Linkage ANOVA

42: Dipaculao Calamity Critical Routes

43: Dipaculao Evacuation Centers for each Barangay in the Municipality

44: Dipaculao Contingency Plan on Flooding

45: Dipaculao Contingency Plan on Landslide

LIST OF FIGURES

1: National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Framework

2: Research Structure

3: Maria Aurora and Dipaculao Maps

4: Survey Process: Designing and Integrating a Survey

5: Age Distribution per Municipality Bar Chart

6: Age Distribution per Barangay Bar Chart

7: Education per Municipality Bar Chart

8: Education per Barangay Bar Chart

9: Dipaculaos Incident Command System

10: Hazard Map of Dipaculao for Floods

11: Hazard Map of Dipaculao for Rain-induced Landslides

6
 ACRONYMS

ADB Asian Development Bank

ADRC Asian Disaster Reduction Center

ANOVA Analysis of Variance

APSEMO Albay Public Safety, Emergency and Management Office

CBDRM Community-Based Disaster Risk Management

DRRM Disaster Risk Reduction and Management

FDT Frequency Distribution Table

HFA Hyogo Framework for Action

ICS Incident Command System

LGUs Local Government Units

LDRRMC Local Disaster Risk Reduction Management Councils

MDGs Millennium Development Goals

NDCC National Disaster Coordinating Council

NDRRMC National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council

NDRRMF National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Framework

NGO Non-government organization

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation Development

7
PHIVOLCS Philippine Institute on Volcanology and Seismology

UNESCAP United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

The Philippines is an archipelagic country situated in the Pacific Ring of Fire. Because of

its geographic location, the country is prone to almost all types of natural hazards like

earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, typhoons and landslides. In addition to these natural disasters

which became heightened because of Climate Change, there is also the prevalence of man-made

catastrophes.

It was estimated that from 1994-2003, almost 2.5 billion people were affected worldwide

by natural disasters alone, with Asia as the continent most affected. Based from its geology, the

Philippines is also home to three hundred (300) volcanoes, twenty-two (22) of which are active.

According to the Philippine Institute on Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS), the

Philippines experience an average of five (5) earthquakes per day. In addition to earthquakes and

volcanic eruptions, the Philippines is also along typhoon path. In the Philippines alone, the

average number of typhoons that hit the country every year is twenty (20), half of these are

destructive. For the periods 1997-2007, eighty-four (84) tropical cyclones entered the Philippine

Area of Responsibility which left a total of 13,155 human casualties. An estimated Php15 Billion

8
or US $ 300 Million was spent by the Philippine Government from 1970-2000 for the annual

damage brought about by these calamities. Every year the government has an estimated spending

of Php 20 Billion on direct damages. A study made by the Hazard Management Unit of the

World Bank in 2005 listed the Philippines as among the countries whose large percentage of its

population reside in disaster prone areas. In 2011, the World Risk Report published by United

Nations University and the Institute of Environment and Human Security ranked the Philippines

as the third most disaster risk country worldwide. Disasters, whether natural or human-made,

affect everyone, especially the poor, children, women and the elderly who have the least

capability to deal with disasters. (Duque, 2005) The Philippine Government, in recognition of the

critical state of the country in terms of hazards and calamities, has put into place various

mechanisms to address the issue at hand.

The Philippine Disaster Management System is carried out by the National Disaster Risk

Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC), formerly called the National Disaster

Coordinating Council (NDCC). It is under the Department of National Defense and acts as the

top coordinator of disaster management in the country. Disaster Risk Management has been

defined as the:

systematic process of using administrative decisions, organization, operational skills and

capacities to implement policies, strategies and coping capacities of the society and

communities to lessen the impacts of natural hazards and related environmental and

technological disasters. This comprises all forms of activities, including structural and

non- structural measures to avoid (prevention) or to limit (mitigation and preparedness)

adverse effects of hazards. (NDCC, 2009)

9
 In 2005, the Philippines is among the one hundred sixty-eight (168) states that adopted

the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) which serves as a global blueprint on disaster risk

reduction. In the same light, in the year 2010, RA 10121 otherwise known as the Philippine

Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010 was put into place. The act aims to

strengthen institutional capacity for Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) which

includes local government units (LGUs), communities, vulnerable and marginalized groups. The

act includes mechanisms for risk assessment and early warning, knowledge building and

awareness raising, reduction of underlying risk factors, and preparedness. The act has served as a

paradigm shift from having a reactive stance to a more proactive attitude towards disasters.

The province of Aurora, due to its geographical location and physical environment, is

considered as one of the most disaster- prone provinces in the Philippines. It is susceptible to

various types of natural hazards particularly to flood and landslides. It is the northernmost

province of the Southern Tagalog political division (Region IV); while it is located in the north-

eastern part of Central Luzon (Region III). Aurora is bounded on the north by the provinces of

Isabela and Quirino, on the east by the Pacific Ocean, on the south by Bulacan and Quezon, and

on the west by Nueva Ecija and Nueva Viscaya. It is generally mountainous with 30% coastal

flatlands and six river drains namely the rivers of Aguang, Calabgan, Ditale, Dibatuan, Ibuna and

Sinagnuan.

This study focused in the municipalities of Dipaculao and Maria Aurora. Maria Aurora is

the only land-locked, largest and most populous municipality in the province. It is bounded by

Baler and Dipaculao on the east and San Luis on the south. On the other hand, Dipaculao is a

coastal third class municipality and it is the centre point connecting the northern towns with the

central municipalities.

10
1.2 Statement of the Problem

The enactment of RA 10121 or the Philippine Risk Reduction and Management Act of

2010 has laid the ground for a more institutionalized DRRM plan. As a result, it has given local

government units authority to design their DRRM plans while keeping in mind their own

vulnerabilities. Aurora, being one of the most calamity-prone provinces in the Philippines needs

an effective operationalization of RA 10121.

This research aimed to answer the following research questions:

1. How do the governments of Maria Aurora and Dipaculao implement the Philippine

Disaster Risk Management Act?

What are the existing policies or management approaches related to the

implementation of the RA 10121? How is it implemented?

Do these municipalities have the capacity to implement the said Act vis-a-viz the

national standards, policies and guidelines by looking at the present conditions of

the municipalities resources?

2. What are the present conditions of these municipalities that affect the implementation of

RA 10121 in the province of Aurora?

3. What is the knowledge (perception and behavior) of the LGU on Disaster Risk Reduction

and Management (DRRM)?

4. What is the knowledge (perception and behavior) of the community on DRRM?
5. Is there a difference between the knowledge of the government and the local citizens

when it comes to DRRM?

6. Is there a difference in the implementation of RA 10121 between a land-locked and

coastal municipality?
7. What is the significance of the LGU and community knowledge management in the

assessment of the implementation of RA 10121?

11
 8. What are the significant experiences, setbacks and achievement the LGU and community

have gained in key areas such as capacity building, community preparedness, emergency

response and disaster relief recovery respectively?

9. What are the appropriate recommendations and suggested strategies that may help the

Municipality of Dipaculao and Maria Aurora in implementing RA 10121?

1.3 Research Objectives

This study aimed to assess and evaluate the implementation of RA 10121 or known as the

Philippine Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010 in the province of Aurora particularly

looking at the municipalities of Maria Aurora and Dipaculao through community knowledge

management.

This research has the following objectives:

Assess the present capacity of the municipalities of Maria Aurora and Dipaculao in

implementing RA 10121 through community knowledge management

Analyzing the budget of the LGU for RA 10121
Evaluating existing policies
Evaluating the coordination of the LGU with various internal and external

institutions
Identifying the gaps among policies and arrangements
Identify the significance of knowledge management in the assessment of the

implementation of RA 10121
Identify the communitys knowledge management on disaster risk reduction and

preparedness
Identify the difference of the implementation of RA 10121 between a landlocked and

coastal municipality based on the communitys knowledge management

Identify the gap between the LGU and communitys knowledge management on the

implementation of RA 10121

12
1.4 Significance of the Study

Given the vulnerabilities that the Philippines are exposed to, a proper implementation and

operationalization of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management is needed. Because of the

countrys geographic location, there is a great need to institutionalize and strengthen local

governments and equip them with the proper knowledge, skills and resources for DRRM. The

province of Aurora is identified to be one of the most exposed to calamities because of its

topography

Consequently, the huge damage induced by natural disasters on the locality, particularly

on its people and property runs into billions of pesos. And unfortunately, the effects fall worse on

the poor and on areas which have low level in growth and development. On the other hand, it is

fortunate that local officials, together with the national government and other institutions, are

aware of the problem and initiate in building local capacities for disaster risk reduction and

management. The Republic Act 10121 calls for the capacity of the local government among its

government personnel, local people and other stakeholders for early recovery and rehabilitation

of affected people and areas.

The study of the problem offered a wide-range assessment of the recognition of

appropriate policies and institutional framework in dealing with natural disasters and climate

change by looking into knowledge of the government and the local citizens. The problem also

called for the development of policies and plans that will lessen socio- economic and

environmental impacts of disasters and will promote the involvement and participation of all

sectors and stakeholders at the local level.

1.5 Scope and Limitation

13
 The researchers studied the province of Aurora, with focus on its most vulnerable

municipalities, specifically in Maria Aurora and Dipaculao and see how these municipalities

operationalize the Philippine Disaster Risk and Management Act of 2010 through community

knowledge management. The researchers looked at the effectiveness of the implementation of

RA 10121 on the said municipalities. Moreover, it reviewed and assessed the various existing

capacity development initiatives and practices of the localities. It also identified and analyzed

current capacity building efforts and gaps in the operation of the Disaster Risk Reduction and

Management.

The study gathered primary data through conducting focus group discussions with key

informants who are knowledgeable of the topic at hand and are hands-on in implementing the

Act. In addition, to provide a deeper understanding of the study, supplementary data is drawn

from various analyses and reviews of annual reports and other literature.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Brief history

The Philippines is one of the most disaster-prone countries in the world. It is located in

South-eastern Asia, an archipelago between the Philippine Sea and the South China Sea. It is

very prone to natural hazards such as astride typhoon belt, usually affected by 15 and struck by

14
five to six cyclonic storms each year; landslides; active volcanoes; destructive earthquakes;

tsunamis (CIA, 2012)

Presently, the world is faced with the threat of the atypical change of climate which leads

to disasters and has fetched apprehensions to the different countries in the world especially those

countries located in disaster prone areas of the globe.

These issues have obviously called the attention of national government. Different

interventions have been formulated to address the issue on Disaster Risk Management in the

country. The Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010 is one of the most

primary and significant mechanisms to strengthen the disaster risk management in the country by

providing the national framework and management plan.

2.2 Review

This study was conducted to assess and evaluates the implementation of Philippine

Disaster Risk Management of 2010 (RA 10121) in the municipalities of Maria Aurora and

Dipaculao in the province of Aurora in relation to its Citizens Perception and Behaviour. The

related topics to be discussed are divided into two: local and foreign studies. The local studies are

Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010, National Disaster Risk

Reduction and Management Framework (NDRRMF), Monitoring and Reporting Progress on

Community-Based Disaster Risk Management in the Philippines, and Innovative Humanitarian

Response within a Disaster Risk Reduction Approach: "Learning from the 2009 Mayon volcano

Eruption, presented how Albay province attained a "Zero Casualty.

Moreover, the foreign studies include Risk, Vulnerability and Asset-based Approach to

Disaster Risk Management (Krishna Vatsa, 2004), Disaster Risk Management in Southeast Asia:

15
A Developmental Approach (Benjamin Loh, 2005), Disaster Reconstruction and Risk

Management for Poverty Reduction (Margaret Arnold, 2006), Japans Jishu-bosai-soshiki

community activities: analysis of its role in participatory community disaster risk management

(Robert Bajek et.al., 2007), Community Diagnosis for Sustainable Disaster Preparedness

(Matsuda et.al., 2006) and Disaster Risk Management in a Global World (Pranee Chitakornkijsil,

2010)

The aforementioned studies are relevant to our research studies because they fully delved

into the root causes of the problem and suggested different ways on how to solve the main

problem Disaster Vulnerability. Also, the measures applied in the studies adapted to the

geographical features of the countries involved.

Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010

Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed the Republic Act 10121 or the

Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction Management Act of 2010 which would primarily reorganize

the National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC) The law recognized the need to adopt a

disaster risk reduction and management approach that is holistic, comprehensive, integrated,

and proactive in lessening the socio-economic and environmental impacts of disasters including

climate change, and promote the involvement and participation of all sectors and all

stakeholders concerned, at all levels, especially the local community.

This Act provides for the development of policies and plans and the

implementation of actions and measures pertaining to all aspects of disaster risk

reduction and management, including good governance, risk assessment and early

16
 warning, knowledge building and awareness raising, reducing underlying risk factors,

and preparedness for effective response and early recovery, according to the law.

The NDCC has been renamed and now called the National Disaster Risk Reduction and

Management Council (NDRMC). It is primarily empowered with policy-making, coordination,

integration, supervision, monitoring and evaluation functions. One of the most important

functions of NDRMC is the development of a national disaster risk reduction and management

framework, which shall provide for comprehensive, all-hazards, multi-sectoral, inter-agency and

community-based approach to disaster risk reduction and management.

At the local level, Barangay disaster coordinating councils are now abolished and its

functions have been transferred to the local disaster risk reduction management councils

(LDRRMC). LDRRMC is mainly responsible to endure the integration of disaster risk reduction

and climate change adaptation into local development plans, programs and budgets as a strategy

in sustainable development and poverty reduction.

RA 10121 is aimed to mainstream disaster risk reduction and climate change in

development processes such as policy formulation, socio-economic development planning,

budgeting, and governance, particularly in the areas of environment, agriculture, water, energy,

health, education, poverty reduction, land-use and urban planning, and public infrastructure and

housing and for the integration of disaster risk reduction education into the school curricula and

Sangguniang Kabataan program and mandatory training for public sector employees.

It can also be employed for relief, recovery, reconstruction and other work or services in

connection with natural or human-induced calamities, which may occur during the budget year

or those that occurred in the past two years from the budget year. Thirty percent of the overall

17
appropriated fund for NDRRM shall be allocated as Quick Response Fund or standby fund for

relief and recovery programs in order that living conditions of people in communities or areas

stricken by disasters, calamities, epidemics, or complex emergencies, may be normalized as

quickly as possible (Marvin Sy, 2010)

National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Framework (NDRRMF)

The Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Framework aims to elevate awareness and

understanding among the national government, local governments and the people on the

countrys DRRM goal. A national framework for DRRM is essential to guide national and local

efforts in DRRM because it provides the overall set of priorities and delineates the fundamental

elements and components of disaster risk reduction and disaster risk management in the country.

The DRMM framework is designed to provide common direction towards addressing underlying

causes of vulnerability to help reduce and manage the risks to disasters. The DRRM framework

will also show the DRR and DRM efforts are inevitably linked to the development process and

not just merely set of activities and should come together and contribute towards attaining

sustainable development.

The NDRRM Framework is together a set of criteria for the benchmarking the

effectiveness of disaster risk reduction measures and a tool for monitoring and evaluating the

progress. Chiefly, the Framework provides a basis for political advocacy as well as practical

action and implementation. It also emphasizes the areas where capacities need to be developed

and provide a basis for setting goals, objectives and targets adapted to various circumstances,

against which progress can be measured and gaps identified.

18
 The Philippine National DRRM Framework is an important component to ensure the

countrys sustainable development as an essential part of the development process. Clearly, its

success relies heavily on strongly supported national ownership and leadership of the DRR

process.

This national framework is based on the subsequent principles on disaster risk reduction

and disaster risk management or DRRM: it is about addressing the underlying causes of

vulnerability; it is a national responsibility within a sustainable development approach; it stresses

the need for community empowerment and shared responsibilities; it is about good responsive

governance and mutually reinforcing partnerships; it needs strong and responsive political will,

commitment and leadership; and it is best done through local and customized adoption (and

adaption). (National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Framework, 2011)

Figure 1. National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Framework

Monitoring and Reporting Progress on Community-Based Disaster Risk Management in

the Philippines

19
 The National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC) undertook a collaborative project

entitled Learning for Good Practices: Case Study on Community-Based Disaster Risk

Management in the Philippines. One of the activities was spearheaded by Oxfam Great Britain

and last August 10, 2007, the Workshop on the Selection Criteria for Community-Based Disaster

Risk Management Case Studies was conducted. Representatives from NGOs and national

government agencies identified the following key elements of CBDRM: (1) Community

Ownership, (2) Use of Local Knowledge about Hazards, (3) Communities as Ultimate

Beneficiaries, (4) Multi-stakeholder Participation, (5) Education and Capacity Building, (6)

Gender Sensitivity, (7) Cultural Appropriateness, (8) Sensitivity to Local Structures, (9)

Harmonization of Local, Indigenous, and Scientific Knowledge, (10) Complementation of

Community-based and Top-down approaches, (11) Demonstrated Potential for Building

Economic Resilience, (12) Demonstrated Transparency in Procedures and Processes, (13)

Commitment and Accountability of Stakeholders, (14) Communication Design and (15) Exit

Strategy (sustainability mechanism).

At the national level, Asian Disaster Preparedness Center is among the several

International NGOs collaborating with the NDCC/OCD on various CBDRM projects and

programs. Another international organization is the Oxfam Great Britain that supports NDCCs

CBDRM thrust which collaborated with NDCCs Learning from Good Practices: Case Studies

on Community-Based Disaster Risk Management in the Philippines.At the local level, there are

international and local non-government organizations that have implemented CBDRM-related

activities in 55 provinces and cities, 43 are identified as at-risk provinces and targeted by the

READY project.

20
 In 2005, the first 27 provinces identified are Benguet, Abra, Ilocos Norte, Ilocos Sur,

Cagayan Valley, Isabela, Nueva Viscaya, Quirino, Pampanga, Zambales, Aurora, Cavite, Laguna,

Rizal, Catanduanes, Antique, Iloilo, Bohol, Leyte, Southern Leyte, Eastern Samar, Northern

Samar, Zamboanga del Sur, Zamboanga Sibugay, Agusan del Sur, Surigao del Norte, and Surigao

del Sur. And in 2007, the next 16 provinces were identified with specific target cities or

municipalities and these are Cebu (Metro Cebu), Pangasinan (Dagupan City), Bulacan (Dona

Remedios Trinidad and San Miguel), Agusan del Norte (Butuan City), Camarines Norte (Daet),

Quezon (Lopez-Caluag), Oriental Mindoro (Calapan), Aklan (Kalibo), Batanes (Basco),

Zamboanga del Norte (Dipolog City, Bukidnon (Malaybalay City), Davao Oriental (Mati),

Mountain Province (Bontoc), and Lanao del Sur (Malabang).

At present, the READY Project has been implemented in nine (9) of the identified at-risk

provinces, namely: Benguet, Cavite, Pampanga, Aurora, Bohol, Leyte, Southern Leyte, Surigao

Del Norte, and Surigao Del Sur. This number comprises 21 percent of the total identified at-risk

provinces. Most of the CBDRM activities in the Philippines are framed on a holistic approach to

disaster preparedness and mitigation and not just merely on disaster preparedness and mitigation

measures. The combination of activities in disaster preparedness and mitigation has been aptly

called as disaster risk reduction (DRR).

In the Philippines, NGO activities are gearing towards the concept of DRR as an

approach to CBDRM, which covers both humanitarian action and socio-economic development

activities. Furthermore, there appears to be a wide recognition that disasters can be reduced or

prevented by enhancing the capabilities of at-risk groups or communities to cope with hazards or

disasters and resist its impact on them. (Monitoring and Reporting Progress on Community-

Based Disaster Risk Management in the Philippines, 2008).

21
Innovative Humanitarian Response within a Disaster Risk Reduction Approach: "Learning

from the 2009 Mayon volcano Eruption, presented how Albay province attained a "Zero

Casualty"

In the course of the institutionalization of the Albay Public Safety, Emergency and

Management Office (APSEMO) the province has achieved the "Zero Casualty" goal during Mt.

Mayon eruptions in 2001, 2006 and 2009.

The province DRRM had an effective and efficient system in monitoring and evaluation

in implementing disaster operation, back up with adequate logistical and legislative policy

support. The study also credited the APSEMO's DRM model for making the province become a

landmark of and a voice in the international discourse of DRM. With the DRRM the province

was able to institutionalize disaster responses within the risk management framework designed to

build a resilient and safe community towards sustainable development.

According to Albay Gov. Joey Salceda, DRR model institutionalized by the province is

an innovation where in stakeholders where put together working for a common cause.

Snehal Soneji, Oxfam Country Director was impressed of Albay's DRRM model saying

"this is a unique model where you can see how partnership played a great role in disaster

operation." "I have seen other models but the uniqueness of Albay's DRRM is the partnership

and innovation made in performing its respective task," Soneji said.

Cedric Daep, APSEMO director said the research study was a follow up of the first DRR

study made and subsequently published last year entitled "Building a resilient DRR." (Philippine

Information Agency, 2010)

22
Risk, Vulnerability and Asset-based Approach to Disaster Risk Management

The impacts of disasters across the globe are unevenly distributed. Vulnerability is the

key factor which explains how risk outcome is spread across the households. It is fundamental to

disaggregate the impact of disasters on people, on their habitats and livelihoods to understand

how households and communities are affected by disasters.

The paper suggests that the probability of being affected by disasters depends upon (1)

the frequency and severity of the impact and (2) the peoples resilience to a given shock.

Social class generally marks peoples capacity to cope and recover.

Oftentimes, the poor and the vulnerable sector are left open to disasters and risks. The

low- income people find it difficult to recover after disaster due to lack of financial resources and

technical skills. While the upper and middle classes recover faster from a disaster through the

help of stable employment, insurance and assets. These assets are the means of resistance that

households can mobilize when fronted with calamities. Assets play a central role in reducing

vulnerability. It covers the stock of wealth (tangible and intangible) in a household. The

vulnerability of a household can be determined by its asset endowment, like welfare losses and

risk management strategy.

While access through financial resources can help households recover from disasters,

social protection measures like housing can help reduce the risk of floods and earthquakes. The

government should be effective in implementing such safety net strategies and encourage the

sharing of information among communities and building of networks (Vatsa, Krishna S)

Disaster Risk Management in Southeast Asia: A Developmental Approach

23
 According to the report of UNESCAP and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in the

year 2000, about 75% of the worlds major natural catastrophes between 1970-1997 occurred in

the Asia-Pacific Region, with most poverty-ridden countries as those gravely affected.

Oliver Smith (1999) suggested that in most disaster examination, time was reduced to a

relatively shallow duration in which only conditions immediately prior to the calamity were

probed and only individual, group, and societal behavior in moments of threat or short-term

aftermath was explored. Indeed it has been observed that the dominant response and action on

response action on disaster management in Southeast Asia had been on post-disaster activities

and particularly on emergency response. (Bildan 2003;Jegillos 2003)

Gurenko (2004), however, identified different drawbacks from this kind of post-

emergency reconstruction. First, it is reactive by nature. Because of this, it provides little

incentive for countries to engage in active risk management to reduce their vulnerabilities to

natural disasters before they occur. Disaster-prone countries are unprepared to deal with the

devastating consequences of natural catastrophes when they occur. The main thrust of

government is likely to be focused on the physical reconstruction of destroyed assets, with little

attention paid to the development of forward-looking catastrophe risk- management solutions.

Second, even when multinational development banks and donor agencies can finance a

significant percentage of government reconstruction work in the aftermath of natural disasters,

the funding comes with a significant delay, jeopardizing government efforts. At the end, post-

emergency lending tends to produce little visible improvement in countries economic and fiscal

vulnerabilities to future natural disasters, leaves countries with higher debt burdens, and dampens

the incentives for active, forward-looking risk management.

24
 The heart of a countrys strategy for managing disaster risk should not be loss-financing.

Instead, it should be development-enhancing to optimize post-loss funding capacity and

budgetary discipline to protect and sustain current and future development projects. (Benjamin,

2005)

A major consequence of this is that modeling in many countries is very dependent on

expert opinion, and extrapolation from developed world models (Walker 2004; Evers and

Menkhoff 2004) As a result, the models may not be completely relevant. Walker (2004)

suggested that a solution was to foster local public-research-based activities with the objective of

producing national standard assumptions for modeling vulnerability and hazard risk, which could

be used freely by any disaster modellers. This means that it is based on local costs. As a result

local researchers have the ownership of local disaster management models, which serves as

driving force for the continual upgrading of the models. (Benjamin, 2005)

Walker (2004) further notes that there is a need to establish or strengthen institutional

frameworks for disaster preparedness and mitigation at national, regional, district and

community levels.

Mitigation measures can be of different kinds, ranging from physical measures such as

flood defenses or safe building design, to legislation, training, and public awareness. Mitigation

is an activity which can take place at any time: before a disaster occurs; during an emergency; or

after a disaster, during recovery or reconstruction. (Benjamin, 2005)

25
Disaster Risk Management and Poverty

Disaster risk management, as defined by the Asian Disaster Reduction Center (ADRC), is

the systematic management of administrative decisions, organization, operational skills and

capacities to implement policies, strategies and coping capacities of the society and communities

to lessen the impacts of natural hazards and related environmental and technological disasters.

This comprises all forms of activities, including structural and non-structural measures to avoid

(prevention) or to limit (mitigation and preparedness) adverse effects of hazards.

The disaster experienced by the United States in 2005 brought about by the hurricane

Katrina serves as a reminder that any city or country, no matter how rich or abundant it is, can be

caught unprepared for disaster. It also reminds us of the level of poverty that exists in parts of

one of the world's wealthiest nations.

Natural disasters are a major source of risk for poor people. However, this vulnerability

also happens to be one of the most overlooked dimensions of poverty. One possible reason is

that disasters have traditionally been considered a humanitarian assistance issue rather than one

of development. Relief and development were viewed as two different "industries" with very

separate mandates, actors and sources of funds.

This shows that there is an undeniable link between poverty and the impacts of disasters.

The main reason why the disaster risk management is an integral part of the World Banks

mission the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to fight poverty. To achieve the

MDGs, the disaster risk reduction must also be addressed.

26
 The World Bank, as the largest provider of reconstruction and development assistance,

bears a responsibility to promote a more developmental approach to reducing disaster risk. The

World Bank established a central unit, the Hazard Risk Management team (formerly called the

Disaster Management Facility) to focus on disaster risk management in 1998 which changed this

conception of being an orphan sector. The unit's objectives are to facilitate a more strategic

response to disaster emergencies and to enhance the World Bank's poverty alleviation efforts by

integrating effective disaster risk reduction into development activities.

The World Bank worked and extracted lessons with external partners to tap into the wide

array of disaster risk management expertise around the globe and to improve its disaster

emergency response. This was done through the ProVention Consortium which was launched in

2000. It is a global coalition of governments, international organizations, academic institutions,

the private sector and civil society organization dedicated to increasing the safety of vulnerable

communities and to reducing the impact of disasters in developing countries focusing on relief,

recovery and development. Current World Bank policy is very clear that it is not a relief

organization, but rather supports the restoration of "assets and production levels in the disrupted

economy."

For relief, the World Banks direct support for community subsistence is through

mechanisms such as cash payments, food or cash for work programs. However, the World Bank's

policy on financing cash payments has been waived many times and

recent reconstruction projects increasingly include livelihoods components. World Bank policy

on emergency lending is currently under revision, and the new policy will likely incorporate this

change. Another major feature of the World Banks relief programs is housing reconstruction, a

27
top priority for disaster-affected communities. However, this relief program is quite problematic

in terms of viability due to incidence of incomplete or sub-standard housing projects.

In Margarette Arnolds Reconstruction and Risk Management for Poverty Reduction, she

stated that the promotion of gender equality is another important area that can often be addressed

easily and speedily in the recovery process. Recovery programs also need to be pro-poor and can

be able to provide an effective vehicle for poverty reduction given that natural disasters have

wide-reaching impacts and since the poor are the hardest hit by disasters.

The newer disaster recovery projects prepared by the World Bank have an increasing

focus on supporting the livelihoods of the poor, unfortunately the impact of recovery programs

on the poor has not been systematically tracked and needs more quantitative analysis.

Mainstreaming disaster risk management into development requires the incorporation of

hazard risks into policy frameworks, and allocating the necessary resources to manage those

risks. It also requires an understanding of the relationship between poverty and disasters, and

how they reinforce each other. From a practical point of view, there is clearly a need for both top-

down and bottom-up approaches in reducing disaster impacts in developing countries.

For its part, the World Bank is increasing efforts on a number of fronts to

manage disaster risk in a more proactive way through working with partners to develop tools and

training for mainstreaming disaster risk into design and implementation of investments. It is

working with several partners to identify global disaster risk "hotspots" in order to inform the

development planning efforts of aid agencies and governments. The World Bank is also

exploring more efficient and effective mechanisms for financing disaster risk.

28
 Much more remains to be done, and each actor has a critical role to play. More donors,

civil society actors and governments need to shift from a reactive to a preventative approach in

order to protect lives and avoid losses. The technologies for risk reduction are well-known and

must be applied. We also need to better acknowledge the global economic forces that contribute

to the vulnerability of the poor, and strengthen local capacity for managing risk. At the national

and international levels, we need to find the right incentives and rewards for effective risk

management, as there is still too much to gain politically, both for donors and governments, from

making disaster response an apparent aspect of the development agenda. Until this happens, the

cycle will continue, and disasters will continue to widen the gap between rich and poor-

seemingly, but erroneously, with no one but nature to blame.

Participatory disaster-risk governance in Japan

In Japan, disaster risk management starts at the community-level. The government

established links with the local citizens associations like Jishubo which plays a crucial role in

participatory disaster risk in Japan. Jishu-bosai-soshiki, or Jishubo for short, literally means

autonomous organization for disaster reduction is a neighborhood association for disaster

preparedness and rescue activity at the community level in Japan. (Bajek, Matsuda and Okada,

2007).

In this strategy, the Chonaikai, a traditional Japanese community governance system, is

incorporated to the disaster risk framework to mobilize households to participate in disaster risk

workshops and trainings. Jishubo members organize disaster drills, educate residents, patrol their

residential area and maintain rescue tools during normal times and guide refugees to a shelter,

rescue residents, provide the initial first-aid and supply food and water during emergencies. This

29
implies that the decision-making and responsibility during emergencies is vested on the

residents. However, in reality, local governments provide a subsidy for purchasing emergency

foods and rescue tools to encourage residents to participate in the Jishubo system.

The theory behind the central and local government fostering the Jishubo system is

grounded on the Basic Law on Natural Disasters. This was brought about by the 1995 Kobe

earthquake where community-based disaster risk was found to be important. Since then, the

government started promoting Jishubo under slogans such as Mutual assistance is necessary

since the public rescue service is not perfect. and Community linkage saves lives in an

emergency (Bajek, et.al, 2007).

Another theory that this framework emphasized is the Fairness and Competence theory

of participatory management (Renn et al. 1995), which was primarily been implemented in the

field of environmental management. According to this theory, Fairness should characterize

participatory processes such that every person interested in the issue at stake should be given an

equal opportunity to take an active part in the participatory process. Every person should also

have some manner of influencing the agenda and rule-making as well as participating in

moderation and discussion of the decisions.

The increasing number of Jishubo households showed that mobilized participation seems

to work by instilling a sense of belongingness among its member households. This was proven in

a study conducted by Bajek et al. (2007) in Kishiwada, Osaka, where they found that member

participatory motivation in workshops and trainings did not necessarily rely on perceived

practical use of knowledge from workshops but on the sense of belonging to the group by being

treated as a partner, even though their influence to the participatory process is limited.

30
 The incorporation of the traditional Chonaikai to the Jishubo system also contributed to

the effectivity of the participatory process. The Chonaikai has long served as an institution to

transmit and implement policy awareness and dissemination among residents. Despite being

influenced by new streams of governance, the Chonaikai community governance unit is still very

sound and stable, and thus indispensable in community governance. There is an assertion,

therefore, that attitude of members are more passive rather than proactive, such that their

motivation to join activities are not derived from their interest on disaster risk management but

instead from their obligation and subordination toward their Chonaikai leader.

Community Diagnosis for Sustainable Disaster Preparedness

The paper focuses on Community Diagnosis method which deals with the need for

sustainable disaster preparedness at the community level with the help of the disaster experts and

key person involved. Disaster preparedness is viewed as a participatory community management

process, where all key stakeholders are expected and needed to share knowledge. Knowledge

creation model is classified into two phases: knowledge externalization and knowledge

combination.

Knowledge externalization is designed as a diagnostic survey to determine the need to be

checked of a particular community; it uses survey questionnaire. On the other hand, Knowledge

combination is designed as a prescriptive workshop for the citizens and community officials to

enhance community preparedness through face-to-face communication. The Knowledge

externalization is aimed at collecting knowledge directly to the people concerned using different

instrument such as survey questionnaire while Knowledge combination is the integration of the

key stakeholders familiarity about community disaster preparedness.

31
 Okada et.al, 2001 defined community diagnosis as a tool to externalize tacit knowledge

(including ideas, opinions and attitudes) about common space related social problems. The paper

discussed the ongoing research of community diagnosis for disaster preparedness.

Disaster Risk Management in a Global World

The study identified the disasters and crisis factors and as well as the various

international risks and risk management perspective including emerging international risks in a

global context. It also discussed the domestic crisis management as an augmented international

activity and considered international crises and their role in potential domestic threats.

The study identified the disasters and crisis factors and as well as the various

international risks and risk management perspective including emerging international risks in a

global context. It also discussed the domestic crisis management as an augmented international

activity and considered international crises and their role in potential domestic threats.

Risk Management is defined as the process of identifying, treating, and evaluating risk

can be applied to enhance the success of new projects, assist organizations in accomplishing their

objectives, and to ensure continued service should a crisis occur. It is a complex process that is

influenced by the specific cultural, political, economic, and social circumstances of the country.

Geographical location can determine whether loss or damage from tornadoes, hurricanes,

32
drought, flood, forest fires, or tsunami is possible. Cultural and ethical factors can influence the

nature and the application of bribes necessary in some countries in order to obtain services or

gain certain permissions from the public sector. The political and economic situation may

encourage theft for political and financial gain by disaffected groups, which poses a particularly

higher risk for employees working overseas. Religious and political problems may cause war,

terrorist activity, and general unrest.

There is an emerging International Risk and the nature of risk is always changing.

Emerging risks are phenomena whose effects and nature cannot even be guessed at in term of

loss within a specified time period. And emerging risks have significant impacts. Five large and

serious threats have been identified: technological accidents, natural disasters, terrorism-related

risk, food safety, and infectious diseases. The OECD proposes four critical contexts that are

related to management of emerging risks: demography, environment, technology and socio-

economic structures.

Conclusion

The significance and call for a holistic disaster risk management in the Philippines can be

emphasized more in these studies. Nevertheless, in the aforementioned discussions, for the

program or a law to effectively impact its recipients, not only must the disaster risk management

law or different mechanisms, but also to provide effective and useful mechanisms that allow the

people to actively participate and the government to aggressively respond to the needs of the

people especially those who live in disaster-prone areas. Furthermore, the disaster risk

management mechanisms must aim for a strong government-citizen relationship.

33
 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Purpose

The primary purpose of this study is to assess and evaluate the implementation of the

Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) Act (R.A. 10121) in the

municipalities of Maria Aurora and Dipaculao in the Province of Aurora in relation to

community knowledge management. The researchers aim to identify the present efforts of the

Local Government Unit and evaluate the degree of congruence and effectiveness of these efforts

with specific provisions in the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act while

taking into consideration the communitys knowledge in relation to it.

3.2 Paradigm

Disaster Risk Reduction and Management in the Philippines is the result of a paradigm

shift from a purely disaster response approach into a humanitarian, relied and response approach.

The latter was brought into public policy application due to scientific and technological

innovations that made possible the forecasting and modeling of natural hazards such as

earthquake and floods, thus reducing the impact of natural hazards to humans. These lead to the

channeling of resources into hazards education, disaster risk reduction and management

trainings, humanitarian assistance, disaster aid, and relief operations. These efforts, together with

the aggregate of other efforts designed to adapt to weather and socio-political conditions, were

formalized into one comprehensive law on Disaster Risk Reduction and Management.

34
 For the purposes of this study, the researchers primarily used the Structural Functionalist

approach to explore how the municipalities of Maria Aurora and Dipaculao in the Province of

Aurora comply with the current framework of the Philippine National Disaster Risk Reduction

and Management. In consistent with the provisions of the R.A. 10121, the researchers gauge how

far the paradigm shift have decentralized its efforts to local public administration. The

researchers also looked into the functions and efforts of the provincial and municipal government

and the residents of the municipalities and how these different sectors contribute to the

implementation of the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act.

3.3 Study Design

The researchers are doing an exploratory study with a mixed method approach by using

both qualitative and quantitative method for the research. Mixed method research is formally

defined as the class of research where the researcher mixes or combines quantitative and

qualitative research techniques, methods, approaches, concepts or language into a single study

(Johnson & Onwuegbuzie 2004: 17).

The rationale for mixing is that neither quantitative nor qualitative methods are sufficient

by themselves to capture the details and information needed to study both the dependent and

independent variables identified in this study to answer the research questions. This also allows

the employment of more techniques to be able to convey a more in-depth account of the

phenomenon being studied. When used in combination, quantitative and qualitative methods

complement each other and allow for more complete analysis (Green, Caracelli, & Graham,

1989, Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998)

35
Figure 2. Research Structure

36
3.4 Population and Sample

The sample population the researchers interviewed for the interviewer-administered

survey are people from the municipalities of Maria Aurora and Dipaculao in the province of

Aurora. The sample population is aging from 15 years and above. There are 200 respondents in

the sample population with 100 respondents from the municipality of Dipaculao and the other

100 from the municipality of Maria Aurora. The 100 participants from each municipality are

taken from 3 barangays, having 34, 33 and 33 respondents from each barangay. The barangays in

the municipality of Maria Aurora are Diome, Sta. Lucia, and Cabituculan. In the municipality of

Dipaculao, the barangays are Salay, Dinadiawan, and Ipil. For the interview, the researchers

interviewed a population of 1 to 2 officers each from the local government units (LGUs) of the

two municipalities.

The sampling plan the researchers used is the purposive sampling. Purposive sampling is

a form of non-probability sampling in which decisions concerning the individuals to be included

in the sample are taken by the researcher, based upon a variety of criteria which may include

specialist knowledge of the research issue, or capacity and willingness to participate in the

research. Some types of research design necessitate researchers taking a decision about the

individual participants who would be most likely to contribute appropriate data, both in terms of

relevance and depth.

The researchers also used purposive sampling because there are specific and limited

people who are qualified to be the respondents for the research study. Since the study only needs

survey respondents from the two municipalities, Maria Aurora and Dipaculao, the researchers

limited the sample to these places; for the interview, the researchers will need 1 to 2 officials or

37
people who have knowledge and authority in the LGUs in the two municipalities to be

interviewed.

Figure 3. Maria Aurora and Dipaculao Maps

38
3.5 Instrumentation and Investigative Techniques

For this study, the researchers collected data by using an interviewer-administered survey

questionnaire and interviewing as their investigative techniques.

The researchers designed and implemented a survey by following a systematic process of

gathering information on a specific topic by asking questions to individuals and then

generalizing the results to the groups represented by the respondents.

Figure 4. Survey Process: Designing and Implementing a Survey

The questionnaires have structured questions with a formal list of questions asked to all

respondents in the same way with a direct approach. The structured questions for the collection

of data constitute both open and closed-ended type. For the survey questionnaire, questions that

can be rated from a scale of 1 to 10 were structured and open-ended questions for the interview.

The questions from the survey questionnaire are mostly self-evaluation questions. The set

of questions asks a respondent to evaluate their self and their communitys preparedness for

disasters, specifically for floods and landslides on a scale of 1 to 10. The questions are divided

into five indicators: Housing, Shelter, Storage, LGU support and Community linkage. The

response for each question is converted to a score with a scoring system of a 3-point scale

questions. 3-point scale questions are scored 1, 5 or 10, depending on the respondents choice. A

rating between 1 to 3 is scored as 1 and is classified as not aware, a rating between 4 to 7 is

39
scored as 5 and is classified as fairly aware, and a rating between 8 to 10 is scored as 10 and is

classified as very aware.

The open-ended questions on the other hand, are those that allow respondents to write in

or speak their answer freely, without having to choose a predetermined response category. The

researchers used structured interviews with open-ended questions for gathering data from the

officials in the LGUs. This involves questions which are set out and followed thoroughly.

Secondary data will also be collected as an investigative technique to augment

the studies. Before the actual data collection from the citizens and officials, the researchers

collected data from the provinces official website and other studies conducted to gain more

information and knowledge for the study.

The independent variables the researchers identified for this study are: (1) Status of

national and provincial DRRM and (2) Community Knowledge Management on DRRM. For the

dependent variables, the researchers identified are: (1) Relationship between statutory provisions

and actual implementation and (2) Level of knowledge (perception, preparedness and

participation) of citizens on DRRM strategies, programs and issues at individual and community

levels.

For these variables, the levels of measurement the researchers used are nominal and

scale. At the nominal level of measurement, numbers or other symbols are assigned to a set of

categories for the purpose of naming, labeling, or classifying the observations. The scale level of

measurement is used in the survey questionnaire where the respondents answers are rated in a

40
scale of 1 to 10. These levels of measurement are important especially because the researchers

used survey and interview as their investigative technique.

3.6 Data Collections

The research instrument the researchers used, interviewer and researcher-administered

survey questionnaires, are distributed in the households in the two municipalities identified. The

researchers distributed this house to house or by personally visiting the households in these

municipalities that are prone to disasters such as flood and landslide. And because the respondents

will be guided by the researchers while they are answering the questionnaires, the instruments

were accomplished on the same day. The timetable for data collection is shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Data Collection Schedule

Week 1 Participants
Day 1 to Interview officials from the 1 to 2 officials from the LGU

Day 2 municipality of Dipaculao 100 respondents from the

Administer survey in Municipality; 33 to 34 respondents
households in the 3 from each of the 3 barangays
barangays of the municipality
of Dipaculao
Day 3 to Interview officials from the 1 to 2 officials from the LGU
municipality of Maria Aurora
Day 4
100 respondents from the
Administer survey in
Municipality; 33 to 34 respondents
households in the 3
each from 3 barangays
barangays of the municipality
of Maria Aurora

41
3.7 Data Analysis Plan

For the data analysis, the researchers used both univariate or descriptive statistics and

inferential statistics to analyze their data. Univariate data analysis is the analysis of a single

variable as opposed to conducting data analysis using two or more variables. The term

descriptive statistics is most often associated with summarizing the characteristics of a

variable or a set of variables.

For the levels of measurement, a measure of central tendency is used as a reference to

the statistical procedures associated with describing the distribution of values of the responses

to a single variable. This includes the mode, median, and mean. Other information about the

distribution of scores in a variable that further assist with describing the variable include the

range, upper and lower limits, variance, standard deviation, and confidence interval.

Generally, for the data analysis, the researchers will use a qualitative analysis of data,

interpretation of interviews, content analysis and descriptive analysis, and quantitative analysis,

to be able to present the summary data.

3.8 Ethical Consideration

There were no major ethical issues in the research study. The methods of the study did

not incorporate complicated techniques of data gathering that might result to violation of the

ethical standards of research. The researchers did not need to deceive respondents regarding any

part of the study; the researchers informed the participants of the objectives of the study they are

participating in.

42
 In conducting the study, the researchers has employed the basic elements of informed

consent.This involves providing each respondent a consent form explaining the purpose,

objectives, procedures, minimal risks and benefits of their participation in the research study. The

researchers also issued a statement assuring the respondents that all data collected for the study

will remain confidential and anonymous to ensure the participants safety and to protect their

rights. If a respondent refuses to participate or wishes to terminate his involvement in the study,

they were also allowed to do so.

Before conducting interviews, the researchers provided a copy of the questionnaires to

each respondent for their personal briefing and assessment of possible responses. The researchers

also acquired informed consent from those in authority to perform data gathering at the LGUs at

the two municipalities identified.

The results of this study will also be presented with honesty and integrity, and proper

acknowledgement and accreditation of all sources used will be given.

3.9 Bias

One possible bias that the researchers might exercise in the study is the use of the

National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Framework as criteria for the effectiveness

of the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management measures implemented by municipalities of

Maria Aurora and Dipaculao in Aurora Province. The researchers, being Public Administration

majors, did not look at the psychological and ethical effects of the efforts and initiatives of the

LGUs disaster risk reduction and management and only focused on its effectiveness based on

the criteria and the community knowledge management.

43
 Due to the limitation of the study to only two municipalities, the study will not generally

reflect the Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management efforts of the whole province, but

will only serve as a reflection and representative of the possible efforts conducted by local

government units in coastal and land lock areas.

3.10 Limitations

The study limits itself to the assessment and evaluation of the disaster risk reduction and

management efforts of only two municipalities in the province of Aurora. Although the whole

country is frequently affected by natural hazards especially by floods and landslides, the

researchers have chosen the municipalities of Maria Aurora and Dipaculao to identify and assess

the difference in the operationalization of the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act

between a land lock and a coastal area. The results of the study are also limited by the honesty

and non-biased participation of the participants.

Another major limitation is the use of the National Disaster Risk Reduction and

Management Framework as criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of the Local Government

Unit in terms of implementing its local disaster risk reduction and management initiatives. This

study will not reflect the perceived satisfaction of the stakeholders in terms of the

implementation of the law; the perceived learning in the workshops conducted; and the perceived

practical use of learning in meetings and workshops related to local disaster risk reduction and

management. It will only reflect the relative compliance of the LGUs in the municipalities of

Maria Aurora and Dipaculao to R.A. 10121.

44
 CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Community Knowledge Management (Questionnaire)

POPULATION PROFILE

Table 2. Case Processing Summary

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Percent N Percent N Percent

Age * Municipality 198 99.0% 2 1.0% 200 100.0%

Age * Barangay 198 99.0% 2 1.0% 200 100.0%

Education * 200 100.0% 0 .0% 200 100.0%

Municipality

Education * Barangay 200 100.0% 0 .0% 200 100.0%

45
 Table 3. Age - Municipality Cross tabulation

Municipality

Maria
Dipaculao Aurora Total

Age <15 2 2 4

15-20 38 4 42

21-25 10 16 26

26-30 7 10 17

31-35 4 16 20

36-40 6 13 19

41-45 9 8 17

46-50 2 4 6

51-55 4 12 16

56-60 5 4 9

>60 14 10 24

Total 100 100 200

Figure 5. Age Distribution per Municipalities Bar Chart

46
47
 Table 4. Age Barangay Cross tabulation

Barangay

Salay Dinadiawan Ipil Diome Sta. Lucia Cabituculan Total

Age <15 0 0 1 0 1 1 3

15-20 4 29 5 1 1 1 41

21-25 3 4 3 4 5 10 26

26-30 4 0 3 4 4 2 17

31-35 2 0 2 5 8 3 20

36-40 2 0 4 7 1 5 19

41-45 4 0 5 1 5 2 17

46-50 2 0 0 2 1 1 6

51-55 1 0 3 4 4 4 16

56-60 3 0 2 1 1 2 9

>60 9 0 5 5 3 2 24

Total 34 33 33 34 33 33 200

48
Figure 6. Age Distribution per Barangay Bar Chart

Table 5. Education Municipality Cross tabulation

49
 Municipality

Maria
Dipaculao Aurora Total

Education 0 6 6

College 13 21 34

Elementary 13 21 34

High 74 52 126
School

Total 100 100 200

Figure 7. Education per Municipality Bar Chart

50
51
 Table 5. Education - Barangay Cross tabulation

Barangay

Salay Dinadiawan Ipil Diome Sta. Lucia

Education 0 0 0 4 1

College 7 0 6 7 8

Elementary 8 0 5 5 8

High 19 33 22 18 16
School

Total 34 33 33 34 33

cont.

Barangay

Cabituculan Total

Education 1 6

College 6 34

Elementary 8 34

High 18 126
School

Total 33 200

Figure 8. Education per Barangay Bar Chart

52
 FREQUENCY DISTIBUTION TABLE

Table 6. Respondents

Knowledge
on the Knowledge
topography on the over-
of land all house
Educatio Municipali where the safety in case
Age n ty Barangay house is built of disaster

N Valid 200 200 200 200 200 200

Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0

53
 Knowledge
on safety of
Knowledge on
the houses in Preparedness
the safety of Preparedness
their (Adequacy of
appliances/ (Emergency
community Preparedness emergency
stocks)
furniture at in case of (Emergency kits and
home disaster kits) stocks)

N Valid 200 200 200 200 200

Missing 0 0 0 0 0

Preparedness
(Adequacy of
emergency
kits, stocks & Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge
rescue on the on the on the safety on the safety
equipment at presence of location of of the of the
the the the evacuation evacuation
community evacuation/s evacuation site (Physical site
level) helter site site structure) (Topography)

N Valid 200 200 200 200 200

Missing 0 0 0 0 0

54
 Knowledge Level of
Knowledge on suitability Knowledge personal
on LGU of LGU on the participation
support in support in Knowledge adequacy of in DRRM
case of case of LGU DRRM LGU DRRM programs of
disasters disasters programs efforts the LGU

N Valid 200 200 200 200 200

Missing 0 0 0 0 0

Knowledge
on the
Level of importance
community of
participation Community community
in DRRM participation efforts to Materials
programs of on DRRM LGU DRRM used in the
the LGU issues programs house

N Valid 200 200 200 200

Missing 0 0 0 0

55
 Table 7. Age

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent

Valid <15 3 1.5 1.5 1.5

15-20 41 20.5 20.7 22.2

21-25 26 13.0 13.1 35.4

26-30 17 8.5 8.6 43.9

31-35 20 10.0 10.1 54.0

36-40 19 9.5 9.6 63.6

41-45 17 8.5 8.6 72.2

46-50 6 3.0 3.0 75.3

51-55 16 8.0 8.1 83.3

56-60 9 4.5 4.5 87.9

>60 24 12.0 12.1 100.0

Total 198 99.0 100.0

Missing System 0 0

Total 200 100.0

56
 Table 8. Education

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent

Valid 6 3.0 3.0 3.0

College 34 17.0 17.0 20.0

Elementary 34 17.0 17.0 37.0

High 126 63.0 63.0 100.0

School

Total 200 100.0 100.0

Table 9. Percentage per Municipality

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent

Valid Dipaculao 100 50.0 50.0 50.0

Maria 100 50.0 50.0 100.0

Aurora

Total 200 100.0 100.0

57
 Table 10. Percentage per Barangay

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent

Valid Salay 34 17.0 17.0 17.0

Dinadiawan 33 16.5 16.5 33.5

Ipil 33 16.5 16.5 50.0

Diome 34 17.0 17.0 67.0

Sta. Lucia 33 16.5 16.5 83.5

Cabituculan 33 16.5 16.5 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

HOUSING

58
 Table 11. Knowledge on the topography of land where the house is built

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent

Valid NA 1 .5 .5 .5

Not Aware 10 5.0 5.0 5.5

Fairly 68 34.0 34.0 39.5

Aware

Very Aware 121 60.5 60.5 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

Table 12. Knowledge on the over-all house safety in case of disaster

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent

Valid Not Aware 13 6.5 6.5 6.5

Fairly 78 39.0 39.0 45.5

Aware

Very Aware 109 54.5 54.5 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

59
 Table 13. Knowledge on the safety of appliances/furniture at home

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent

Valid Not Aware 12 6.0 6.0 6.0

Fairly 110 55.0 55.0 61.0

Aware

Very Aware 78 39.0 39.0 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

Table 14. Knowledge on safety of the houses in their community in case of

disaster

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent

Valid NA 2 1.0 1.0 1.0

Not Aware 27 13.5 13.5 14.5

Fairly 142 71.0 71.0 85.5

Aware

Very Aware 29 14.5 14.5 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

The Housing indicator includes four sets of questions regarding land topography, over-all

house safety, and safety of community houses in case of disasters. The Table 11 shows that 60.5

percent of the respondents are Very aware, 34 percent are Fairly aware, and 10 percent are

Not aware about the topography of land where their house is built. Table 12 shows that more

60
than half of the respondents are Very aware (54 percent), less than half are Fairly aware (39

percent), and only a number of respondents are Not aware (6.5 percent) of their over-all house

safety. On the other hand, Table 13 shows medium community knowledge on the safety of

appliances or furniture in their own houses, with 55 percent of the respondents answering Fairly

aware, 39 percent Very Aware, and only 6 percent Not aware. Table 14 describes knowledge

of the respondents on community house safety. As shown in the table, 71 percent of the

respondents are Fairly aware about their community house safety, 14.5 percent are Very

aware, and 13.5 percent are Not aware.

STORAGE

Table 15. Preparedness (Emergency kits)

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent

Valid Not prepared 37 18.5 18.5 18.5

Fairly 78 39.0 39.0 57.5

prepared

Very prepared 85 42.5 42.5 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

61
 Table 16. Preparedness (Emergency stocks)

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent

Valid Not prepared 38 19.0 19.0 19.0

Fairly 78 39.0 39.0 58.0

prepared

Very prepared 84 42.0 42.0 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

Table 17. Preparedness (Adequacy of emergency kits and stocks)

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent

Valid Not prepared 34 17.0 17.0 17.0

Fairly 123 61.5 61.5 78.5

prepared

Very prepared 43 21.5 21.5 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

62
 Table 18. Preparedness (Adequacy of emergency kits, stocks & rescue
equipment at the community level)

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent

Valid Not prepared 36 18.0 18.0 18.0

Fairly 131 65.5 65.5 83.5

prepared

Very prepared 33 16.5 16.5 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

The Storage indicator includes preparedness and adequacy indices covering personal and

community emergency kits, emergency stocks, rescue and emergency population equipment. The

table 15 shows a very prepared and fairly prepared population in terms of personal preparation of

emergency kits, with 85 and 75 percent comprising each index, respectively. Only 18.5 percent

are not prepared or do not have emergency kits in their own houses. Corollary to the preceding

table, Table 16 also shows a very and fairly prepared respondent population in terms of personal

and household emergency stocks. Only 19 percent admitted not being prepared in terms of

stocking emergency goods for disasters. Despite having more respondents who rated themselves

Very prepared in the preceding indices, more respondents admitted being fairly prepared in

terms of adequacy of emergency kits and stocks. As shown in table 17, only 21 percent rated

Very prepared, and 17 percent admitted not having adequate emergency kits and stocks in their

own houses. This is also true in table 18 that describes Community preparedness in terms of

adequacy of emergency kits, stocks and emergency equipment. Only 16.5 percent rated the

community being Very prepared, 65.5 rated Fairly prepared, and 18 percent rated Not

prepared.

63
 SHELTER/EVACUATION SITE

Table 19. Knowledge on the presence of the evacuation/shelter site

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent

Valid Not Aware 48 24.0 24.0 24.0

Fairly 29 14.5 14.5 38.5

Aware

Very Aware 123 61.5 61.5 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

Table 20. Knowledge on the location of the evacuation site

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent

Valid NA 1 .5 .5 .5

Not Aware 45 22.5 22.5 23.0

Fairly 20 10.0 10.0 33.0

Aware

Very Aware 134 67.0 67.0 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

64
 Table 21. Knowledge on the safety of the evacuation site (Physical
structure)

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent

Valid NA 1 .5 .5 .5

Not Aware 44 22.0 22.0 22.5

Fairly 62 31.0 31.0 53.5

Aware

Very Aware 93 46.5 46.5 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

Table 22. Knowledge on the safety of the evacuation site (Topography)

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent

Valid NA 5 2.5 2.5 2.5

Not Aware 44 22.0 22.0 24.5

Fairly 58 29.0 29.0 53.5

Aware

Very Aware 93 46.5 46.5 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

The Shelter and Evacuation indicator covers personal knowledge on the presence,

location, and safety in terms of physical structure and topography of the evacuation site. All

tables show high awareness in all identified indices yet a higher percentage in low awareness is

also reflected. As shown in table 19, 61.5 percent of the respondents admitted being very aware

65
of having an evacuation within the barangay or municipality, 14.5 percent are Fairly aware, and

24 percent of the respondents are not aware of its existence. The same trend can also be observed

in table 20 that describes respondent knowledge on the location of the evacuation site. 67 percent

of the 200 respondents are Very aware, only 10 percent are Fairly aware, and 22.5 percent are

Not aware of the evacuation site location. On the other hand, both tables regarding evacuation

site safety (<PS> and <T>) reflect a more varied respondent knowledge in terms of the physical

structure and topography of the evacuation site. In table 21, 46 percent admitted having high

awareness, 32 percent have fair awareness, and 22 percent have low awareness. Table 22 shows

46 percent of the respondents having high awareness, 29 percent fair awareness, and only 22

percent have low awareness.

LGU SUPPORT

Table 23. Knowledge on LGU support in case of disasters

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent

Valid NA 1 .5 .5 .5

Not Aware 71 35.5 35.5 36.0

Fairly 91 45.5 45.5 81.5

Aware

Very Aware 37 18.5 18.5 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

66
 Table 24. Knowledge on suitability of LGU support in case of disasters

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent

Valid NA 1 .5 .5 .5

Not Appropriate 71 35.5 35.5 36.0

Fairly 102 51.0 51.0 87.0

Appropriate

Very 26 13.0 13.0 100.0

Appropriate

Total 200 100.0 100.0

Table 25. Knowledge LGU DRRM programs

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent

Valid NA 1 .5 .5 .5

Not Aware 81 40.5 40.5 41.0

Fairly 85 42.5 42.5 83.5

Aware

Very Aware 33 16.5 16.5 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

67
 Table 26. Knowledge on the adequacy of LGU DRRM efforts

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent

Valid NA 1 .5 .5 .5

Not adequate 79 39.5 39.5 40.0

Fairly 101 50.5 50.5 90.5

adequate

Very adequate 19 9.5 9.5 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

Local Government Support covers knowledge of LGU support in case of disasters, LGU

Disaster Risk and Reduction Management Programs, adequacy of LGU DRRM efforts, and

personal participation in LGU DRRM efforts. Table 23 shows that surprisingly, more

respondents are Fairly and Not aware of LGU support during disasters. Only 18.5 percent of the

population is Very aware. This data is also validated in Table 24 which shows a higher

percentage in respondents who rated Fairly Appropriate (51%) and Not Appropriate (35.5%).

Only 13 percent of the respondents rated Very Appropriate LGU support in case of disasters.

Moreover, respondent knowledge on LGU DRRM programs reflects little difference between

raters of Not aware and Fairly aware. As shown in table 25, 42.5 percent rated Fairly aware,

40.5 percent rated Not Aware, and only 16 percent rated high awareness in LGU DRRM

programs. This trend is further reflected in Table 26 where only 50.5 percent rated being Fairly

aware of the adequacy of LGU DRRM efforts, 39.5 percent rated being Not aware, and only

9.5 percent rated Very Aware.

COMMUNITY LINKAGE
68
Table 27. Level of personal participation in DRRM programs of the LGU

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent

Valid NA 1 .5 .5 .5

Not Active 44 22.0 22.0 22.5

Fairly 83 41.5 41.5 64.0

Active

Very 72 36.0 36.0 100.0

Active

Total 200 100.0 100.0

Table 28. Level of community participation in DRRM programs of the

LGU

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent

Valid NA 2 1.0 1.0 1.0

Not Active 44 22.0 22.0 23.0

Fairly 95 47.5 47.5 70.5

Active

Very 59 29.5 29.5 100.0

Active

Total 200 100.0 100.0

69
 Table 29. Community participation on DRRM issues

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent

Valid NA 1 .5 .5 .5

Not Active 49 24.5 24.5 25.0

Fairly Active 110 55.0 55.0 80.0

Very Active 40 20.0 20.0 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

Table 30. Knowledge on the importance of community efforts to LGU

DRRM programs

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent

Valid NA 3 1.5 1.5 1.5

Not Active 2 1.0 1.0 2.5

Fairly 41 20.5 20.5 23.0

Active

Very 154 77.0 77.0 100.0

Active

Total 200 100.0 100.0

The Community linkage indicator includes four sets of questions regarding level of

personal and community participation in LGU DRRM programs and issues, and importance of

community efforts to LGU programs. The table 27 shows that 36 percent of the respondents are

70
Very active, 41.5 percent are Fairly active, and 22 percent are Not active in the DRRM

programs of the LGU. In terms of community participation in DRRM programs of the LGY,

table 28 shows that 29.5 percent of the respondents think that the community is Very active,

47.5 percent rated Fairly active, and 22 percent thinks the community is Not active. On the

other hand, table 29 shows medium community involvement in DRRM issues, with 55 percent of

the respondents answering Fairly active, 20 percent Very Active, and 24.5 percent being Not

aware. Table 30 describes knowledge of the respondents on community efforts to LGU

programs. As shown in the table, 77 percent of the respondents are Fairly aware about their

community house safety, 20.5 percent are Very aware, and only one percent of the respondents

are Not aware.

Table 31. Materials used in the house

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent

Valid 8 4.0 4.0 4.0

Heavy 104 52.0 52.0 56.0

Iba pa 2 1.0 1.0 57.0

Light 48 24.0 24.0 81.0

Light and 38 19.0 19.0 100.0

Heavy

Total 200 100.0 100.0

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

71
 Hypothesis Testing
F-TEST
As stated in the section 3.5 (Population and Sampling) of Methodology, this study

focused on two populations (2 municipalities) and within each municipalities are six barangays.

The total sample size for both populations is 200 respondents. The researchers used the

Confidence Interval 1-.95 = .05, and computed the intersection between degrees of freedom (F-

statistic) to be 2.21.

HOUSING

72
 Table 32. Descriptives

Std.
N Mean Deviation Std. Error

Knowledge on the Dipaculao 100 8.12 2.675 .268

topography of land
where the house is Maria 100 7.48 3.037 .304
built Aurora

Total 200 7.80 2.873 .203

Knowledge on the Dipaculao 100 7.68 3.031 .303

over-all house safety
in case of disaster Maria 100 7.25 2.840 .284
Aurora

Total 200 7.47 2.938 .208

Knowledge on the Dipaculao 100 6.76 2.818 .282

safety of
appliances/furniture Maria 100 6.66 2.790 .279
at home Aurora

Total 200 6.71 2.797 .198

Knowledge on safety Dipaculao 100 5.79 2.575 .258

of the houses in their
community in case of Maria 100 4.48 2.158 .216
disaster Aurora

Total 200 5.14 2.459 .174

Table 32 shows that the population means for the variable Knowledge on the

topography of land where the house is built is 7.48 for Maria Aurora and 8.12 for Dipaculao.

In the variable Knowledge on the over-all house safety in case of disaster, Maria Aurora

scored 7.25 and 7.68 for Dipaculao. Knowledge on the safety of appliances/furniture at home

shows population means of 6.66 for Maira Aurora and 6.76 for Dipaculao, and Knowledge on

73
safety of the houses in their community in case of disaster shows population means of 4.48

for Maria Aurora and 5.79 for Dipaculao.

Table 33. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

Degrees
of
Sum of Freedom
Squares (df) Mean Square

Knowledge on the Between 20.480 1 20.480

topography of land Groups
where the house is
built Within Groups 1621.520 198 8.189

Total 1642.000 199

Knowledge on the Between 9.245 1 9.245

over-all house safety Groups
in case of disaster
Within Groups 1708.510 198 8.629

Total 1717.755 199

Knowledge on the Between .500 1 .500

safety of Groups
appliances/furniture
at home Within Groups 1556.680 198 7.862

Total 1557.180 199

Knowledge on safety Between 85.805 1 85.805

of the houses in their Groups
community in case of
disaster Within Groups 1117.550 198 5.644

Total 1203.355 199

74
 F Sig.

Knowledge on the Between 2.501 .115

topography of land Groups
where the house is
built Within Groups

Total

Knowledge on the Between 1.071 .302

over-all house safety Groups
in case of disaster
Within Groups

Total

Knowledge on the Between .064 .801

safety of Groups
appliances/furniture
at home Within Groups

Total

Knowledge on safety Between 15.202 .000

of the houses in their Groups
community in case of
disaster Within Groups

Total

Hypotheses testing and F-Statistic:

Knowledge on the topography of land where the house is built

2.501>2.21 = Reject Null

Ha: One or more citizens differ in the level of knowledge on the topography of land

where the house is built.

75
 Knowledge on the over-all house safety in case of disaster

1.071<2.21 = Accept Null

Ho: All citizens have the same level of knowledge on the over-all house safety in case of

disaster.

Knowledge on the safety of appliances/furniture at home

.064<2.1 = Accept Null

Ho: All citizens have the same level of knowledge on the safety of their

appliances/furniture at home.

Knowledge on safety of the houses in their community in case of disaster

15.202>2.21 = Reject Null

Ha: One or more citizens differ in the level of knowledge on the safety of the houses in

their community in case of disaster.

According to the Analysis of Variance, the F-ratio for the variable Knowledge on the

topography of land where the house is built (2.501) and Knowledge on safety of the houses

in their community in case of disaster (15.202) is greater than the F-statistic 2.21. Using this

data, the researchers reject the Null hypotheses and accept the hypotheses Ha: One or more

citizens differ in the level of knowledge on the topography of land where the house is built, and

Ha: One or more citizens differ in the level of knowledge on the safety of the houses in their

community in case of disaster.

The F-ratio for the variable Knowledge on the over-all house safety in case of disaster

is 1.071. This is less than the F-statistic of 2.21. Thus, the researchers accept the Null hypothesis:

76
All citizens have the same level of knowledge on the over-all house safety in case of disaster.

This is also true with the variable Knowledge on the safety of appliances/furniture at home

that has an F-ratio of 0.064. The researchers accept Null hypothesis: All citizens have the same

level of knowledge on the safety of their appliances/furniture at home.

STORAGE

77
 Table 34. Descriptives

Std.
N Mean Deviation Std. Error

Preparedness Dipaculao 100 6.25 3.465 .347

(Emergency kits)
Maria 100 6.52 3.395 .339
Aurora

Total 200 6.39 3.424 .242

Preparedness Dipaculao 100 6.31 3.271 .327

(Emergency stocks)
Maria 100 6.37 3.609 .361
Aurora

Total 200 6.34 3.436 .243

Preparedness Dipaculao 100 5.44 2.746 .275

(Adequacy of
emergency kits and Maria 100 5.34 2.917 .292
stocks) Aurora

Total 200 5.39 2.826 .200

Preparedness Dipaculao 100 5.19 2.452 .245

(Adequacy of
emergency kits, stocks Maria 100 5.02 2.846 .285
& rescue equipment at Aurora
the community level)
Total 200 5.11 2.651 .187

Table 34 shows that the population means for the variable Preparedness (Emergency

kits) is 6.25 for Dipaculao and 6.52 for Maria Aurora. In the variable Preparedness

(Emergency stocks), Dipaculao scored a mean of 6.31 and Maria Aurora scored a mean of 6.37 .

Preparedness in terms of Adequacy of emergency kits and stocks shows population means of

5.44 for Dipaculao and 5.34 for Maria Aurora, and Preparedness in terms of Adequacy of

78
emergency kits, stocks & rescue equipment at the community level shows population means

of 5.19 for Dipaculao and 5.02 for Maria Aurora.

Table 35. ANOVA

Sum of
Squares df Mean Square

Preparedness Between 3.645 1 3.645

(Emergency kits) Groups

Within Groups 2329.710 198 11.766

Total 2333.355 199

Preparedness Between .180 1 .180

(Emergency stocks) Groups

Within Groups 2348.700 198 11.862

Total 2348.880 199

Preparedness Between .500 1 .500

(Adequacy of Groups
emergency kits and
stocks) Within Groups 1589.080 198 8.026

Total 1589.580 199

Preparedness Between 1.445 1 1.445

(Adequacy of Groups
emergency kits, stocks
& rescue equipment at Within Groups 1397.350 198 7.057
the community level)
Total 1398.795 199

79
 F Sig.

Preparedness Between .310 .578

(Emergency kits) Groups

Within Groups

Total

Preparedness Between .015 .902

(Emergency stocks) Groups

Within Groups

Total

Preparedness Between .062 .803

(Adequacy of Groups
emergency kits and
stocks) Within Groups

Total

Preparedness Between .205 .651

(Adequacy of Groups
emergency kits, stocks
& rescue equipment at Within Groups
the community level)
Total

Hypotheses testing and F-Statistic:

Preparedness (Emergency kits)

.310<2.21 = Accept Null

Ho: All citizens have the same level of preparedness (emergency kits)

Preparedness (Emergency stocks)

80
 .015<2.21 = Accept Null

Ho: All citizens have the same level of preparedness (emergency stocks)

Preparedness (Adequacy of emergency kits and stocks)

.062<2.21 = Accept Null

Ho: All citizens have the same level of preparedness in case of disaster (emergency kits

and stocks)

Preparedness (Adequacy of emergency kits, stocks & rescue equipment at the

community level)

.205<2.21 = Accept Null

Ho: All citizens have the same level of preparedness on the over-all safety of their

community in case of emergency

The ANOVA table for Storage shows that all variables have F-ratios less than the F-

statistic 2.21. This leads the researchers to accept all Null hypotheses for each Storage variable.

Therefore, the preceding table implies that the majority of the citizens have almost the same level

of preparedness in terms of storing and the adequacy of emergency kits, emergency stocks (rice,

noodles, canned goods, medicines) and emergency rescue equipment in both personal and

community levels.

SHELTER/EVACUATION S ITE

81
 Table 36. Descriptives

Std.
N Mean Deviation Std. Error

Knowledge on the Dipaculao 100 6.90 3.878 .388

presence of the
evacuation/shelter site Maria 100 7.33 3.827 .383
Aurora

Total 200 7.12 3.849 .272

Knowledge on the Dipaculao 100 7.36 3.799 .380

location of the
evacuation site Maria 100 7.49 3.878 .388
Aurora

Total 200 7.43 3.830 .271

Knowledge on the Dipaculao 100 6.78 3.583 .358

safety of the
evacuation site Maria 100 6.06 3.698 .370
(Physical structure) Aurora

Total 200 6.42 3.650 .258

Knowledge on the Dipaculao 100 7.07 3.580 .358

safety of the
evacuation site Maria 100 5.57 3.793 .379
(Topography) Aurora

Total 200 6.32 3.755 .266

The Shelter and Evacuation site Descriptives table shows that the population means for

the variable Knowledge on the presence of the evacuation/shelter site is 6.9 for Dipaculao and

7.33 for Maria Aurora. In the variable Knowledge on the location of the evacuation site,

Dipaculao scored a mean of 7.36 and Maria Aurora scored a mean of 7.49. Knowledge on the

safety of the evacuation site (Physical structure) shows population means of 6.78 for

82
Dipaculao and 6.06 for Maria Aurora, and Knowledge on the safety of the evacuation site

(Topography) shows population means of 7.07 for Dipaculao and 5.57 for Maria Aurora.

Table 37. ANOVA

Sum of
Squares df Mean Square

Knowledge on the Between 9.245 1 9.245

presence of the Groups
evacuation/shelter site
Within Groups 2939.110 198 14.844

Total 2948.355 199

Knowledge on the Between .845 1 .845

location of the Groups
evacuation site
Within Groups 2918.030 198 14.738

Total 2918.875 199

Knowledge on the Between 25.920 1 25.920

safety of the Groups
evacuation site
(Physical structure) Within Groups 2624.800 198 13.257

Total 2650.720 199

Knowledge on the Between 112.500 1 112.500

safety of the Groups
evacutaion site
(Topography) Within Groups 2693.020 198 13.601

Total 2805.520 199

83
 F Sig.

Knowledge on the Between .623 .431

presence of the Groups
evacuation/shelter site
Within Groups

Total

Knowledge on the Between .057 .811

location of the Groups
evacuation site
Within Groups

Total

Knowledge on the Between 1.955 .164

safety of the Groups
evacuation site
(Physical structure) Within Groups

Total

Knowledge on the Between 8.271 .004

safety of the Groups
evacutaion site
(Topography) Within Groups

Total

Hypotheses testing and F-Statistic:

Knowledge on the presence of the evacuation/shelter site

.623<2.21 = Accept Null

Ho: All citizens have the same level of knowledge on the presence of their evacuation

center.

84
 Knowledge on the location of the evacuation site

.057<2.21 = Accept Null

Ho: All citizens have the same level of knowledge on the location of their evacuation

center.

Knowledge on the safety of the evacuation site (Physical structure)

1.955<2.21 = Accept Null

Ho: All citizens have the same level of knowledge on evacuation centers safety.

(physical structure)

Knowledge on the safety of the evacutaion site (Topography)

8.271.2.21 = Reject Null

Ha: One or more citizens differ in the level of knowledge on the safety of their

evacuation center. (topography)

According to the Analysis of Variance between the Shelter and Evacuation site indicator

responses of the two Municipalities, the F-ratio of the first three variables, namely, Knowledge

on the presence of the evacuation/shelter site (.623), Knowledge on the location of the

evacuation site (.057), and Knowledge on the safety of the evacuation site (Physical

structure) (1.955), is less than the F-statistic 2.21. Therefore, the researchers accept the Null

Hypotheses under each of these variables. On the other hand, the variable Knowledge on the

safety of the evacuation site (Topography) has an F-ratio greater than the F-statistic. This leads

85
to the rejection of the Null hypothesis: One or more citizens differ in the level of knowledge on

the safety of their evacuation center (topography).

LGU SUPPORT

Table 38. Descriptives

Std.
N Mean Deviation Std. Error

Knowledge on LGU Dipaculao 100 4.15 2.865 .287

support in case of
disasters Maria 100 4.81 3.478 .348
Aurora

Total 200 4.48 3.195 .226

Knowledge on Dipaculao 100 3.74 2.592 .259

suitability of LGU
support in case of Maria 100 4.67 3.140 .314
disasters Aurora

Total 200 4.21 2.910 .206

Knowledge LGU Dipaculao 100 3.68 3.088 .309

DRRM programs
Maria 100 4.68 3.206 .321
Aurora

Total 200 4.18 3.179 .225

Knowledge on the Dipaculao 100 3.26 2.321 .232

adequacy of LGU
DRRM efforts Maria 100 4.48 3.017 .302
Aurora

Total 200 3.87 2.753 .195

86
 The LGU support Descriptives table shows that the population means for the variable

Knowledge on LGU support in case of disasters is 4.15 for Dipaculao and 2.81for Maria

Aurora. Knowledge on suitability of LGU support in case of disasters shows population

means of 3.74 for Dipaculao and 4.67 for Maria Aurora, and Knowledge LGU DRRM

programs shows population means of 3.68 for Dipaculao and 4.68 for Maria Aurora. In the

variable Knowledge on the adequacy of LGU DRRM efforts, Dipaculao scored a mean of 3.26

and Maria Aurora scored a mean of 4.48.

87
 Table 39. ANOVA

Sum of
Squares df Mean Square

Knowledge on LGU Between 21.780 1 21.780

support in case of Groups
disasters
Within Groups 2010.140 198 10.152

Total 2031.920 199

Knowledge on Between 43.245 1 43.245

suitability of LGU Groups
support in case of
disasters Within Groups 1641.350 198 8.290

Total 1684.595 199

Knowledge LGU Between 50.000 1 50.000

DRRM programs Groups

Within Groups 1961.520 198 9.907

Total 2011.520 199

Knowledge on the Between 74.420 1 74.420

adequacy of LGU Groups
DRRM efforts
Within Groups 1434.200 198 7.243

Total 1508.620 199

88
 F Sig.

Knowledge on LGU Between 2.145 .145

support in case of Groups
disasters
Within Groups

Total

Knowledge on Between 5.217 .023

suitability of LGU Groups
support in case of
disasters Within Groups

Total

Knowledge LGU Between 5.047 .026

DRRM programs Groups

Within Groups

Total

Knowledge on the Between 10.274 .002

adequacy of LGU Groups
DRRM efforts
Within Groups

Total

Hypotheses testing and F-Statistic:

Knowledge on LGU support in case of disasters

2.145<2.21 = Accept Null

Ho: All citizens have the same level of knowledge on LGU support in case of disaster.

89
 Knowledge on suitability of LGU support in case of disasters

5.217.2.21 = Reject Null

Ha: One or more citizens differ in the level of knowledge on the suitability of LGU

support in case of disaster.

Knowledge LGU DRRM programs

5.47.2.21 = Reject Null

Ha: One or more citizens differ in the level of knowledge on LGU DRRM programs.

Knowledge on the adequacy of LGU DRRM efforts

10.274.2.21 = Reject Null

Ha: One or more citizens differ in the level of knowledge on the adequacy of LGU

DRRM efforts.

According to the ANOVA between the LGU support indicator responses of the two

Municipalities, the F-ratio of the variable Knowledge on LGU support in case of disasters is

less than the F-statistic 2.21. Therefore, the researchers accept the Null Hypotheses: All citizens

have the same level of knowledge on LGU support in case of disaster. On the other hand, the

next three variables, namely, Knowledge on suitability of LGU support in case of disasters

(5.217), Knowledge LGU DRRM programs (5.47), and Knowledge on the adequacy of LGU

DRRM efforts (10.274) has F-ratio greater than the F-statistic. This leads to the rejection of the

Null hypotheses and the acceptance of that indicator responses are more varied between the two

municipalities.

COMMUNITY LINKAGE

90
 Table 40. Descriptives

Std.
N Mean Deviation Std. Error

Level of personal Dipaculao 100 5.64 3.119 .312

participation in
DRRM programs of Maria 100 6.15 3.751 .375
the LGU Aurora

Total 200 5.90 3.450 .244

Level of communiy Dipaculao 100 5.46 3.122 .312

participation in
DRRM programs of Maria 100 5.63 3.486 .349
the LGU Aurora

Total 200 5.55 3.302 .233

Community Dipaculao 100 4.97 2.713 .271

participation on
DRRM issues Maria 100 5.03 3.292 .329
Aurora

Total 200 5.00 3.009 .213

Knowledge on the Dipaculao 100 8.51 2.376 .238

importance of
community efforts to Maria 100 8.96 2.457 .246
LGU DRRM Aurora
programs
Total 200 8.74 2.422 .171

The Community Linkage Descriptives table shows that the population means for the

variable Level of personal participation in DRRM programs of the LGU is 5.64 for

Dipaculao and 6.15 for Maria Aurora. Level of communiy participation in DRRM programs

of the LGU shows population means of 5.46 for Dipaculao and 5.63 for Maria Aurora, and

Community participation on DRRM issues shows population means of 4.97 for Dipaculao and

5.03 for Maria Aurora. In the variable Knowledge on the importance of community efforts to

91
LGU DRRM programs, Dipaculao scored a mean of 8.51 and Maria Aurora scored a mean of

8.96.

Table 41. ANOVA

Sum of
Squares df Mean Square

Level of personal Between 13.005 1 13.005

participation in Groups
DRRM programs of
the LGU Within Groups 2355.790 198 11.898

Total 2368.795 199

Level of communiy Between 1.445 1 1.445

participation in Groups
DRRM programs of
the LGU Within Groups 2168.150 198 10.950

Total 2169.595 199

Community Between .180 1 .180

participation on Groups
DRRM issues
Within Groups 1801.820 198 9.100

Total 1802.000 199

Knowledge on the Between 10.125 1 10.125

importance of Groups
community efforts to
LGU DRRM Within Groups 1156.830 198 5.843
programs
Total 1166.955 199

92
 F Sig.

Level of personal Between 1.093 .297

participation in Groups
DRRM programs of
the LGU Within Groups

Total

Level of communiy Between .132 .717

participation in Groups
DRRM programs of
the LGU Within Groups

Total

Community Between .020 .888

participation on Groups
DRRM issues
Within Groups

Total

Knowledge on the Between 1.733 .190

importance of Groups
community efforts to
LGU DRRM Within Groups
programs
Total

Hypotheses testing and F-Statistic:

Level of personal participation in DRRM programs of the LGU

1.093<2.21 = Accept Null

Ho: All citizens have the same level of participation in LGU DRRM programs.

(individual level)

93
 Level of communiy participation in DRRM programs of the LGU

.132<2.21 = Accept Null

Ho: All citizens have the same level of participation in LGU DRRM programs.

(community level)

Community participation on DRRM issues

.020<2.21 = Accept Null

Ho: All citizens have the same level of community participation on DRRM issues.

Knowledge on the importance of community efforts to LGU DRRM programs

1.733<2.21 = Accept Null

Ho: All citizens have the same level of knowledge on the importance of community

efforts to LGU DRRM programs.

The ANOVA table for Community Linkage shows that all variables have F-ratios is less

than the F-statistic 2.21. This leads to the acceptance of all Null hypotheses for each Storage

variable. The researchers therefore conclude that the majority of the citizens have the same level

of participation in LGU DRRM programs in both personal and community levels. Moreover, all

citizens have the same level of participation on DRRM issues and have the same level of

knowledge on the importance of community efforts to LGU DRRM programs.

LGU Response (interview)

Dipaculao, Aurora

94
Incident Command System

The Implementing Rules and Regulation of RA 10121, or the Philippine Disaster Risk

Reduction and Management Act, provided for the establishment of an Incident Command

System (ICS) as part of its disaster response. Section 3 of the Article defined Disaster Response

as:

..the provision of emergency services and public assistance during or immediately after

a disaster in order to save lives, reduce health impacts, ensure public safety and meet the

basic subsistence needs of the people affected. Disaster response is predominantly

focused on immediate and short-term needs and is sometimes called disaster relief.

The Incident Command System serves as a model tool for command, control and

coordination of a response. Dipaculao Municipal Disaster risk reduction management council

ICS is used on disasters, both natural and man-made, as well as accidents, search and rescue

operations, or any incidents that may involve multiple casualties. The chart below shows the

chain of command for Dipaculaos Incident Command System.

Figure. 9. Dipaculaos Incident Command System

95
 The Incident Commander is tasked to establish the Incident Command Post, approve and

authorize the implementation of Incident Action Plan, as well as coordinate activity for all

command and general staff. The Information Officer is in charge with information dissemination.

Anticipation, detection and correction of unsafe acts are the tasks of the Safety Officer. The

Liaison Officer becomes the contact point for representatives and cooperating agencies.

Search and Rescue Plan

The topography of the municipality of Dipaculao consists of majority of mountain areas

that have very steep slopes, which makes it highly susceptible to landslide and erosion.

Furthermore, it has been subjected to constant natural calamities like typhoons and earthquakes.

The search and rescue plan of the municipality of Dipaculao are carried out in two stages: the

preparatory stage and the implementation stage. The Preparatory Stage includes a risk mapping

assessment wherein areas that are prone to flooding, landslides and other calamities are

identified. Corresponding populace that may be affected are also included. Based on the 2007

NSO survey, the area to be most affected by floods in the municipality of Dipaculao is Brgy.
96
Dinadiawan, having an approximated population of 1,144. Furthermore, Brgy. Ipil and Brgy.

Salay are considered flood prone areas. In terms of landslide prone areas, Brgy. Salay and Brgy.

Dinadiawan are included in the list.

After a risk mapping assessment, the Dipaculao Municipal Disaster risk reduction

management council conducts an identification of search and rescue staging areas and critical

routes towards calamity prone spots. Table 42 shows the critical routes for the three barangays

chosen: Dinadiawan, Ipil, and Salay.

Table. 42. Dipaculao Calamity Critical Routes

LOCATION SEARCH AND RESCUE CRITICAL AREAS

STAGING

1.SALAY BRGY. HALL SALAY CREEK

2.IPIL BRGY. HALL RISE OF WATER LEVEL

ALONG CREEKS

LANDSLIDES ALONG
3.DINADIAWAN BRGY. HALL
TEMPOLISAN NATIONAL

ROAD

Hazard Maps are created for floods, rain-induced landslides, as well as storm surges,

tsunamis, and earthquakes. Figures 10 and 11 show the Hazard Map of Dipaculao for Floods and

Rain-induced Landslides. Figure 10 shows the areas most susceptible to floods as identified by

the LDRRMC. Likewise, the areas are categorized based on priority according to Search and

Rescue triage system. The same system applies to Figure 11 wherein landslide prone areas are

97
identified based on their susceptibility which can be classified as High, Moderate, or Low

Susceptibility.

Figure 10. Hazard Map of Dipaculao for Floods

Figure 11. Hazard Map of Dipaculao for Landslide

98
 Based on the LDRRMC, Brgys. Salay and Ipil are identified to be moderate in

susceptibility and were placed first in priority in terms of flood hazards. Meanwhile, Brgy.

Dinadiawan was placed second priority and identified to be in moderate susceptibility. Brgy.

Dinadiawan was identified as first priority by the Search and Rescue triage system because of its

high susceptibility to landslide. (See Annex C)

Another process in the Preparatory Stage is the dissemination of information on the

nature of the calamity. Precautionary measures are then taken. The MDRRMC, likewise,

prepares and publishes manuals and other related materials on disaster prevention and control.

Facilities and equipment for Search and Rescue are highly important. There are approximately

39 various equipments available in the municipality. (See Annex C) Identification of evacuation

areas for each barangay in the municipality is also undertaken.

Table 43. Evacuation Areas for each Barangay in the Municipality (Source: Dipaculao MDRRMC)

Name of Center Location Number of room Service area

Dinadiawan ES Dinadiawan 6 Purok 1,2,3,4,Sitio

Ngas, Sitio,Bulos,

Sitio Kipit, Sitio

Ismael

Dinadiawan DCC Dinadiawan 1 Dinadiawan Purok 4

Salay ES Salay 6 Purok 1 to Purok 4

Barangay Hall 1 Purok 5 to Sitio

Sugcong

99
 The implementation stage includes mobilization of Search and Rescue (SAR) teams and

equipage. This includes deployment of SAR teams and equipage at staging areas, establishment

of all types of communication networks and emergency operation center in the area. The

composition of team is based on the organization of the Municipal Disaster risk reduction

management council. It consists of the Chairman, the DRRM Officer, the Staff Team, and the

Operating Team. A complete list of tasks and responsibilities of parties concerned is indicated.

See Annex C.

Relief, Recovery and Rehabilitation Program and Contingency Plan

For the year 2012, the budget allotted for this type of program is Php 1,108,870.00.

Contingency Plans are also executed. Tables 44 and 45 show the municipalitys contingency plan

on flooding and landslide.

Table 44. Contingency Plan on Flooding (Source: Dipacualo MDRRMC)

Root Causes Early Warning Triggering Factor Risk Reduction Measures

Typhoons, monsoon Rain, rise of water Heavy rains, clogged 1. Flood control

rains level on creeks, creeks and water projects

2. Monitoring of
rivers systems, inundation,
flood warning
erosion, water
systems, rain gauge
overflow from creek 3. Identification of

channel, river, flood prone areas,

100
excessive surface low laying areas
4. Identification of
run-off coming from
safe evacuation
areas with higher
area and possible
elevation
evacuees
5. Pre-emptive

evacuation to all

low laying areas

6. Continuous

information to all

concerned about

status of weather

and warning

systems
7. Update of

evacuation route

map
8. Stock pile of relief

gods and other

related needs of

evacuees

/community
9. Setting up warning

systems,

communication

linkages in all

101
 prone areas
10. Promotion of

public awareness
11. Monitoring of

streams, rivers and

flood control

facilities for

possible rise of

water level
12. Strict

implementation of

solid waste

management

policies
13. Implementation of

land use plans

14. Reforestation and

DENR policies for

forest protection

implementation

Table 45. Contingency Plan of Landslides (Source: Dipacualo MDRRMC)

Root Causes Early Warning Triggering Factor Risk Reduction

Measures

Heavy rain fall, Falling of debris Shallow rooted 1. Structural

typhoons, earthquake, vegetation mitigation

-nets, shields,

102
strong winds, flood, Change of color of Weak soil and rock retaining walls
2. Non-structural
blasting water in rivers and materials
mitigation
creeks -hazard
Fractured rock
mapping
-use of rainfall
Sloping grounds
data as early
Deforestation
warning system
-reforestation
Construction of -proper

houses and others on implementation

steep slopes of DENR

policies
Poor drainage -establishing

Weakened slope toe evacuation map

and presenting
No vegetation
it to the

community
-Pre-emptive

evacuation to

areas affected

Local Disaster Risk Reduction Management Plan

The Local Disaster Risk Reduction Management Plan (LDRRMP) serves as a

comprehensive plan to integrate national, regional and provincial frameworks on disaster risk

reduction. It was formulated based on the provisions of RA 10121. The Municipal Disaster Risk

103
Reduction Management Council is also in close collaboration with other authorities, agencies,

and the Provincial Disaster Risk Reduction Management Council (PDRRMC). Some of the

programmes implemented in the municipality include Community-based disaster preparedness

and risk reduction. The capacity of the communities in the twenty-five (25) barangays to cope

with the effects of natural and man-made disasters is considered. Thus, basic training workshop

on Disaster Risk Management is employed through the formulation of a Barangay Disaster Risk

Reduction Management Plan. Some of the strategies employed include the reproduction and

distribution of hazard maps, recruitment of community volunteers to carry out disaster

preparedness and emergency response activities through capacity building and training. This

mechanism allows an increased capacity in disaster risk reduction by addressing vulnerability at

the local community level.

Issues and Concerns

In preparation of the Disaster Risk Reduction Management Plan, several issues and

problems were identified by the local government. These include:

1. Lack of heavy equipment

2. Insufficient training of the members of the LDRRMC-EOC
3. Lack of early warning equipment
4. Poor condition of some barangay roads
5. Improper solid waste disposal
6. Accumulation of river wastes
7. Poor drainage system
8. Absence of seawall and water breaker
9. Kaingin system
10. Poor awareness of the community on Disaster Management

Maria Aurora, Aurora

Latest and updated geo- hazard map

104
 The Geo-hazard map came from NAMRIA, multi-sectoral agencies, PHIVOLCS, DOST,

PAGASA, and DENR. A Geo-hazard map was made for the entire Philippines and the scale

being used is now 1:10,000.

Disaster Risk Preparedness Measures based on DRRM Act of 2010

105
 In Maria Aurora, they were able to start the CMDRR or the Community Manage Disaster

Risk Reduction. So far, Brgy. Sta. Lucia and Brgy. Dikildil already have the local version of the

DRRM plans. In October 2012, they have covered all 38 barangays and the pilot barangay was

Sta. Lucia. The reason why it wasnt implemented in the barangays of Cabituculan and Diome

was because of lack of funds. The plan was to administer the plan to five barangays per batch to

focus on the formulation of plans, especially the local geohazard maps of each barangay. There is

actually a hazard map of all the barangays but the problem is that it is not enhanced, thus not

accurate. Unlike what these multi-sectoral agencies do, which is mapping, what the MDRRM

does is community-based. The people in the community are the ones who identify the hazards

based on their experiences. They could identify which parts of their barangays are susceptible to

flooding and which areas are most affected. They put a premium on the communitys inputs and

that is what they are also putting in the map.

Local ordinances related to DRRM

So far, they do not have any local ordinances related to DRRM. What they have is the

creation of the Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction Office based on RA 10121 which mandates all

LGUs to create such office. In the level of barangays, the Sangguniang Bayan create BDRMC or

the Barangay Disaster Risk Management Council.

Local Budget Allocation

For the budget allocation, it is mandatory that they allocate 5% of the budget to DRRM fund.

106
 CHAPTER 5

INFERENCE

Community Knowledge Management is the main thrust of this research paper and on the

side of the citizens, for the Housing, the majority citizens have the same knowledge on the over-

all safety of their house in case of disaster and the safety of their appliances/furniture at home.

On the other hand, citizens differ in the level of their knowledge on the topography of land

where their houses are built and the safety of the houses in their community in case of disaster.

In general, the citizens just have a very basic knowledge about their houses and other details

such as the topography of land and the safety of houses in their community dont really matter

for them.

For the Storage, the majority of the citizens have almost the same level of preparedness in

terms of storing and the adequacy of emergency kits, emergency stocks (rice, noodles, canned

goods, medicines) and emergency rescue equipment in both personal and community levels.

Clearly, the citizens seemed to be prepared by having their basic needs in case of disaster

For the Evacuation Site/Shelter, the majority of the citizens have equal level of

knowledge on the presence, location and safety (physical structure) of the evacuation/shelter

sites. On the other hand, citizens differ in the level of knowledge on the topography of their

evacuation center. The citizens know where their evacuation sites are but they dont care much

about their safety.

107
 For the LGU support, the majority of the citizens have the same level of knowledge on

LGU support in case of disaster. On the other hand, citizens differ in the level of knowledge on

the sustainability of LGU support, LGU DRRM programs and the adequacy of LGU DDRRM

efforts in case of disaster. As we can see, the citizens are aware of the LGU disaster programs but

they feel that they are not sustainable, adequate and dont have a trickle-down effect.

For the Community Linkage, the majority of the citizens have the same level of

participation in LGU DRRM programs in both personal and community levels. Moreover, all

citizens have the same level of participation on DRRM issues and have the same level of

knowledge on the importance of community efforts to LGU DRRM programs.

For the both municipalities, one is a coastal and the other is a land-locked, despite having

totally different geographical locations, their knowledge on their Housing Strategy, Storage,

Evacuation Site/Shelter, LGU support and Community Linkage dont differ based on their

geographical locations. They differ greatly on their individual available knowledge on certain

things.

On the side of the LGU, the RA 10121 was their sole basis for the creation of Municipal

Disaster Risk Reduction Office at the municipal level and Barangay Disaster Risk Management

Council at the barangay level; implementing their Incident Command Systems (ICS); mandatory

budget allocation of the 5% of the budget to DRRM fund; and for the basis of the Hazards Maps.

In Dipaculao Municipal Disaster risk reduction management council ICS is used on disasters,

both natural and man-made, as well as accidents, search and rescue operations, or any incidents

that may involve multiple casualties. On the other hand, in Maria Aurora, they were able to start

the CMDRR or the Community Manage Disaster Risk Reduction. So far, Brgy. Sta. Lucia and

108
Brgy. Dikildil already have the local version of the DRRM plans. LGU efforts have always been

in line with what the law says and they are doing their best to deliver good public services to the

people.

Bibliography

Arnold, Margaret. (2006). Disaster Reconstruction and Risk Management for Poverty Reduction.
Journal of International Affairs 59.2. Spring 2006: 269-XII. New York City, USA.

Bajek, Robert, et.al. (2007). Japans Jishu-bosai-soshiki community activities: analysis of its role
in participatory community disaster risk management. Natural Hazards 44.2. February
2008: 281-292.

Chitakornkijsil, Pranee. (2010). Disaster Risk Management in a Global World. International

Journal of Organizational Innovation 3.2. Fall 2010: 97-113. Hobe Sound, USA.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method

Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Department of Interior and Local Government. (December 2011). The National Risk Reduction
and Management Plan.

Duque, P. P. (2005). Disaster Management and Critical Issues on Disaster Risk Reduction in the
Philippines. Internation Workshop on Emergency Response and Rescue (pp. 1-25).

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm
Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher.

Loh, Benjammin. (2005). Disaster Risk Management in Southeast Asia: A Developmental

Approach. Asian Economic Bulletin 22.2. August 2005: 229-239. Singapore, Singapore.

Matsuda, Yoko & Okada, Norio (2006). Community Diagnosis for Sustainable Disaster
Preparedness. Journal of Natural Disaster Science, Volume 28, November 1, 2006, pp
25-33.

109
National Disaster Coordinating Council. (2009) Strengthening Disaster Risk Reduction in the
Philippines : Strategic National Action Plan 2009-2019. Retrieved from http://www.adrc.
asia /countryreport/PHL/2009/PHL_attachment.pdf

National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council. (2011). National Disaster Risk
Reduction and Management Framework. Retrieved from http:// www.ndrrmc.gov.ph/
attachments/article/227/NDRRMFramework.pdf

Partnerships for Disaster Reduction-South East Asia Phase 4. (2008). Monitoring and Reporting
Progress on Community-Based Disaster Risk Management in the Philippines. Retrieved
from http://www.adpc.net/v2007/programs /CBDRM/INFORMATION% 20RESOURCE
% 20CENTER/CBDRM%20Publications/2008/final_crphilippineshires_23nov.pdf

Philippine Information Agency. (2010). Albay's disaster risk reduction practice ideal model in
disaster management, Bicol University study says. Retrieved from http://archives.pia.
gov .ph /?m=12&fi=p100723.htm&no=91

Porcil, J. T. (2009). The Philippine Disaster Management System. Asian Disaster Reduction
Center, (p.1- 62).

Sy, Marvin. (2010). Disaster Risk Reduction, Management law signed. The Philippine Star.
Retrieved from http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleid=583034

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and
Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Thanasegaran, G. (2009). Reliability and Validity Issues in Research. Putra, MY: Universiti Putra
Malaysia.

Vatsa, Krishna. Risk (2004), Vulnerability and Asset-based Approach to Disaster Risk
Management. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 24.10/11.
2004:1-48. Emerald Group Publishing. Patrington, United Kingdom.

110
 ANNEX A
HYPOTHESES:
Housing Strategy
1. Gaano ninyo kaalam ang katangian ng
lupa ng kinatatayuan ng inyong bahay?
2. Gaano ninyo kaalam ang kaligtasan ng
inyong bahay para sa mga posibleng
kalamidad? (pagpapasuri sa mga eksperto)
3. Gaano kaligtas ang posisyon/pagkakalagay
ng mga kagamitan/kasangkapan sa inyong
bahay?
4. Sa inyong palagay, gaano kaligtas ang mga
bahay sa inyong komunidad sa posibleng
kalamidad?
Hypotheses
Ho: All citizens have the same level
of knowledge on the topography of
land where the house is built.
Ha: One or more citizens differ in
the level of knowledge on the
topography of land where the house
is built.
Ho: All citizens have the same level
of knowledge on the over-all house
safety in case of disaster.
Ha: One or more citizens differ in
the level of knowledge on the over-
all house in case of disaster.
Ho: All citizens have the same level
of knowledge on the safety of their
appliances/furniture at home.
Ha: One or more citizens differ in
the level of knowledge on the safety
of their appliances/furniture at
home.
Ho: All citizens have the same level
of knowledge on the safety of the
houses in their community in case of
disaster.
111

Storage
1. Gaano kayo kahanda pagdating sa
paglalaan o pagbili ng emergency kits?
2. Gaano kayo kahanda sa pag-iimbak ng
emergency stock (bigas, de-lata, tubig
atbp.) bukod sa emergency kit?
3. Sa inyong palagay, gaano kasapat ang
inyong emergency kit at stock kung
sakaling magkaroon ng hindi inaasahang
kalamidad?
4. Sa inyong palagay, gaano kahanda ang
inyong komunidad kung sakaling
magkaroon ng hindi inaasahang
kaalamidad (emergency kit, stock at
equipements)?
Ha: One or more citizens differ in
the level of knowledge on the safety
of the houses in their community in
case of disaster.
Hypotheses
Ho: All citizens have the same level
of preparedness (emergency kits)
Ha: One or more citizens differ in the
level of preparedness (emergency
kits)
Ho: All citizens have the same level
of preparedness (emergency stocks)
Ha: One or more citizens differ in the
level of preparedness (emergency
stocks)
Ho: All citizens have the same level
of preparedness in case of disaster
(emergency kits and stocks)
Ha: One or more citizens differ in the
level of preparedness in case of
disaster (emergency kits and stocks)
Ho: All citizens have the same level
of preparedness on the over-all safety
of their community in case of
emergency
Ha: One or more citizens differ in the
level of preparedness on the over-all
safety of their community in case of
emergency
112
 Shelter/Evacuation Site
1. Gaano ninyo kaalam ang evacuation
site/shelter sa inyong lugar?
2. Gaano ninyo kaalam paano pumunta sa
site/shelter sa inyong lugar? (layo ng site)
3. Gaano kaligtas ang inyong evacuation
site/shelter? (pisikal na istruktura)
4. Gaano kaligtas ang inyong evauation
site/shelter? (kinatatayuan ng istruktura)
LGU support
1. Gaano ninyo nararamdaman ang
aksyon/programa ng pamahalaan tuwing
may pananalasa dulot ng natural na
kalamidad?
Hypotheses
Ho: All citizens have the same level
of knowledge on the presence of their
evacuation center.
Ha: One or more citizens differ in the
level of knowledge on the presence of
their evacuation center.
Ho: All citizens have the same level
of knowledge on the location of their
evacuation center.
Ha: One or more citizens differ in the
level of knowledge on the location
their evacuation center.
Ho: All citizens have the same level
of knowledge on evacuation centers
safety. (physical structure)
Ha: One or more citizens differ in the
level of knowledge on evacuation
centers safety. (physical structure)
Ho: All citizens have the same level
of knowledge on the safety of their
evacuation center. (topography)
Ha: One or more citizens differ in the
level of knowledge on the safety of
their evacuation center. (topography)
Hypotheses
Ho: All citizens have the same level
of knowledge on LGU support in
case of disaster.
Ha: One or more citizens differ in the
113

2. Gaano ka-angkop ang mga tulong na
binibigay ng pamahalaan sa inyo tuwing
may kalamidad?
3. Gaano ninyo kaalam ang mga programa o
tulong ng pamahalaan?
4. Sa inyong palagay, sapat ba ang ginagawa
ng pamahalaan ukol sa usapin ng Disaster
Preparedness and Mitigation?
Community Linkage
1. Gaano kayo ka-aktibo sa paglahok sa
mga programang may kinalaman sa
Disaster Preparedness sa inyong
komunidad?
2. Gaano ka-aktibo ang mga tao sa inyong
komunidad pagdating sa usapin ng
Disaster Preparedness? (Komunikasyon
ng mga residente at ng mga awtoridad)
level of knowledge on LGU support
in case of disaster.
Ho: All citizens have the same level
of knowledge on the suitability of
LGU support in case of disaster.
Ha: One or more citizens differ in the
level of knowledge on the suitability
of LGU support in case of disaster.
Ho: All citizens have the same level
of knowledge on LGU DRRM
programs.
Ha: One or more citizens differ in the
level of knowledge on LGU DRRM
programs.
Ho: All citizens have the same level
of knowledge on the adequacy of
LGU DRRM efforts.
Ha: One or more citizens differ in the
level of knowledge on the adequacy
of LGU DRRM efforts.
Hypotheses
Ho: All citizens have the same level
of participation in LGU DRRM
programs. (individual level)
Ha: One or more citizens differ in the
level of participation in LGU DRRM
programs. (individual level)
Ho: All citizens have the same level
of participation in LGU DRRM
programs. (community level)
Ha: One or more citizens differ in the
level of participation in LGU DRRM
114

3. Gaano ninyo pinag-uusapan ang Disaster
Preparedness sa inyong komunidad?
4. Sa inyong palagay, gaano kahalaga ang
pagiging aktibo at pakikilahok ng mga
mamamayan sa mga programa ng
pamahalaan ukol sa Disaster Risk
Preparedness and Mitigation?
programs. (community level)
Ho: All citizens have the same level
of community participation on
DRRM issues.
Ha: One or more citizens differ in the
level of community participation on
DRRM issues.
Ho: All citizens have the same level
of knowledge on the importance of
community efforts to LGU DRRM
programs.
Ha: One or more citizens differ in the
level of knowledge on the importance
of community efforts to LGU DRRM
programs.
115
 ANNEX B

Magandang araw po! Kami ay mga estudyante ng Pambansang Dalubhasaan ng Pamahalaang

Pambayan, Unibersidad ng Pilipinas. Kami ay kasalukuyang kumukuha ng kursong PA 199.2:
Research Methods in Public Administration II. Kaugnay po sa mga hinihiling ng kursong ito, kami
po ay magsasagawa ng pagsusuri sa Disaster Risk Management, Preparedness and Mitigation ng
Maria Aurora at Dipaculao. Upang ito ay maisakatuparan, hinihiling po namin ang inyong
pakikilahok sa pamamagitan ng pagsagot ng sarbey na ito. Aming sinisigurado na ang anumang
impormasyon na aming makukuha ay gagamitin namin sa pang-akademikong layunin lamang at ang
inyong identidad ay mananatiling pribado.

DIAGNOSTIC SURVEY

Community Diagnosis for Sustainable Disaster Preparedness (Response of the Citizens)

Name (optional) and Age: __________________

Address: ________________________________ Elementary High School College

Preparedness and Awareness Indices

Housing Strategy
(10-highest and 1-lowest)
5. Gaano ninyo kaalam ang katangian ng lupa ng
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
kinatatayuan ng inyong bahay?
6. Gaano ninyo kaalam ang kaligtasan ng inyong
bahay para sa mga posibleng kalamidad? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(pagpapasuri sa mga eksperto)
7. Gaano kaligtas ang posisyon/pagkakalagay ng mga
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
kagamitan/kasangkapan sa inyong bahay?
8. Sa inyong palagay, gaano kaligtas ang mga bahay sa
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
inyong komunidad sa posibleng kalamidad?
Storage
5. Gaano kayo kahanda pagdating sa paglalaan o
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
pagbili ng emergency kits?
6. Gaano kayo kahanda sa pag-iimbak ng emergency
stock (bigas, de-lata, tubig atbp.) bukod sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
emergency kit?
7. Sa inyong palagay, gaano kasapat ang inyong
emergency kit at stock kung sakaling magkaroon ng 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
hindi inaasahang kalamidad?
8. Sa inyong palagay, gaano kahanda ang inyong 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
komunidad kung sakaling magkaroon ng hindi

116
 inaasahang kaalamidad (emergency kit, stock at
equipements)?
Shelter/Evacuation Site
5. Gaano ninyo kaalam ang evacuation site/shelter sa
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
inyong lugar?
6. Gaano ninyo kaalam paano pumunta sa site/shelter
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
sa inyong lugar? (layo ng site)
7. Gaano kaligtas ang inyong evacuation site/shelter?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(pisikal na istruktura)
8. Gaano kaligtas ang inyong evauation site/shelter?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(kinatatayuan ng istruktura)
LGU support
5. Gaano ninyo nararamdaman ang aksyon/programa
ng pamahalaan tuwing may pananalasa dulot ng 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
natural na kalamidad?
6. Gaano ka-angkop ang mga tulong na binibigay ng
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
pamahalaan sa inyo tuwing may kalamidad?
7. Gaano ninyo kaalam ang mga programa o tulong ng
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
pamahalaan?
8. Sa inyong palagay, sapat ba ang ginagawa ng
pamahalaan ukol sa usapin ng Disaster 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Preparedness and Mitigation?
Community Linkage
5. Gaano kayo ka-aktibo sa paglahok sa mga
programang may kinalaman sa Disaster 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Preparedness sa inyong komunidad?
6. Gaano ka-aktibo ang mga tao sa inyong komunidad
pagdating sa usapin ng Disaster Preparedness?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(Komunikasyon ng mga residente at ng mga
awtoridad)
7. Gaano ninyo pinag-uusapan ang Disaster
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Preparedness sa inyong komunidad?
8. Sa inyong palagay, gaano kahalaga ang pagiging
aktibo at pakikilahok ng mga mamamayan sa mga
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
programa ng pamahalaan ukol sa Disaster Risk
Preparedness and Mitigation?

Saan gawa ang inyong bahay?

Light materials (kahoy, nipa, bamboo)
Heavy materials (semento, matibay na kahoy, bakal) Iba pa
ANNEX C

Response of LGU

117
 Interview
Questions:
Latest and updated geo-hazard map of Aurora (basis and how accurate)
Disaster risk preparedness measures (Check if they're in line with the law DRM Act of
2010 and NDRRMF Framework)

- Identify local ordinances related to disaster risk preparedness. Also highlight

budget allocation.

Ways of disaster-related information disseminating (LGU-citizen relationship)

Mitigating measures (How responsive to the needs of the citizen and the geographical
location of Aurora?)

-Highlight local approaches and strategies that address local conditions.

ANNEX D

ANOVA: Confidence Interval

118
 Housing

95% Confidence Interval for

Mean

Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum

Knowledge on the Dipaculao 7.59 8.65 0 10

topography of land
where the house is Maria 6.88 8.08 1 10
built Aurora

Total 7.40 8.20 0 10

Knowledge on the Dipaculao 7.08 8.28 1 10

over-all house safety
in case of disaster Maria 6.69 7.81 1 10
Aurora

Total 7.06 7.87 1 10

Knowledge on the Dipaculao 6.20 7.32 1 10

safety of
appliances/furniture Maria 6.11 7.21 1 10
at home Aurora

Total 6.32 7.10 1 10

Knowledge on safety Dipaculao 5.28 6.30 1 10

of the houses in their
community in case of Maria 4.05 4.91 0 10
disaster Aurora

Total 4.79 5.48 0 10

Storage

119
 95% Confidence Interval for
Mean
Minimu
Lower Bound Upper Bound m Maximum

Preparedness Dipaculao 5.56 6.94 1 10

(Emergency kits)
Maria 5.85 7.19 1 10
Aurora

Total 5.91 6.86 1 10

Preparedness Dipaculao 5.66 6.96 1 10

(Emergency stocks)
Maria 5.65 7. 09 1 10
Aurora

Total 5.86 6.82 1 10

Preparedness Dipaculao 4.90 5.98 1 10

(Adequacy of
emergency kits and Maria 4.76 5.92 1 10
stocks) Aurora

Total 5.00 5.78 1 10

Preparedness Dipaculao 4.70 5.68 1 10

(Adequacy of
emergency kits, stocks Maria 4.46 5.58 1 10
& rescue equipment at Aurora
the community level)
Total 4.74 5.47 1 10

Shelter/Evacuation Site

120
 95% Confidence Interval for
Mean
Minimu
Lower Bound Upper Bound m Maximum

Knowledge on the Dipaculao 6.13 7.67 1 10

presence of the
evacuation/shelter site Maria 6.57 8.09 1 10
Aurora

Total 6.58 7.65 1 10

Knowledge on the Dipaculao 6.61 8.11 0 10

location of the
evacuation site Maria 6.72 8.26 1 10
Aurora

Total 6.89 7.96 0 10

Knowledge on the Dipaculao 6.07 7.49 0 10

safety of the
evacuation site Maria 5.33 6.79 1 10
(Physical structure) Aurora

Total 5.91 6.93 0 10

Knowledge on the Dipaculao 6.36 7.78 0 10

safety of the
evacutaion site Maria 4.82 6.32 0 10
(Topography) Aurora

Total 5.80 6.84 0 10

LGU Support

121
 95% Confidence Interval for
Mean
Minimu
Lower Bound Upper Bound m Maximum

Knowledge on LGU Dipaculao 3.58 4.72 0 10

support in case of
disasters Maria 4.12 5.50 1 10
Aurora

Total 4.03 4.93 0 10

Knowledge on Dipaculao 3.23 4.25 0 10

suitability of LGU
support in case of Maria 4.05 5.29 1 10
disasters Aurora

Total 3.80 4.61 0 10

Knowledge LGU Dipaculao 3.07 4.29 0 10

DRRM programs
Maria 4.04 5.32 1 10
Aurora

Total 3.74 4.62 0 10

Knowledge on the Dipaculao 2.80 3.72 0 10

adequacy of LGU
DRRM efforts Maria 3.88 5.08 1 10
Aurora

Total 3.49 4.25 0 10

Community Linkage

122
 95% Confidence Interval for
Mean
Minimu
Lower Bound Upper Bound m Maximum

Level of personal Dipaculao 5.02 6.26 1 10

participation in
DRRM programs of Maria 5.41 6.89 0 10
the LGU Aurora

Total 5.41 6.38 0 10

Level of communiy Dipaculao 4.84 6.08 1 10

participation in
DRRM programs of Maria 4.94 6.32 0 10
the LGU Aurora

Total 5.08 6.01 0 10

Community Dipaculao 4.43 5.51 1 10

participation on
DRRM issues Maria 4.38 5.68 0 10
Aurora

Total 4.58 5.42 0 10

Knowledge on the Dipaculao 8.04 8.98 1 10

importance of
community efforts to Maria 8.47 9.45 0 10
LGU DRRM Aurora
programs
Total 8.40 9.07 0 10

ANNEX E

MDRRMCC List of Available Equipments

Flood Prone Area (NSO SURVEY 2007)

LOCATION POPULATION (APPROX.)

123
 1. BAYABAS 289
2. BORLONGAN
3. BUENAVISTA 737
4. DIARABASIN
5. DIBUTUNAN 150
6. DINADIAWAN
7. DITALE 132
8. GUPA
202
9. IPIL
10. LABOY 1,144
11. LIPIT
12. LOBBOT 311
13. MIJARES
14. PUANGI 285
15. NORTH POBLACION
16. PUANGI 329
17. SALAY
18. SOUTH POBLACION 118

247

126

291

128

477

298

390

493

LANDSLIDE PRONE AREAS

LOCATION POPULATION (APPROX.)

1. BORLONGAN 753
2. CALAOCAN

124
 3. DIAMANEN 348
4. DIANED
5. DARABASIN 130
6. DIBUTUNAN
7. DIMABUNO 276
8. DINADIAWAN
9. DITALE 755
10. GUPA
213
11. LOBBOT
12. MIJARES 708
13. PUANGI
14. SALAY 1,044
15. SAPANG KAWAYAN
16. TOYTOYAN 342

600

98

107

198

102

105

125

FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Action Officer

a. Develops an emergency plan for the community

b. Coordinates the planning with the next higher DCC
c. Selects, organizes and train members to conduct emergency operations
d. Maintains liaisons with the Mayor and other barangays
e. Initiates/conduct training courses for disasters

125
STAFF TEAMS

1. Intelligence and Disaster Analysis

a. Evaluates information and advice the member agencies of the Municipal Disaster
Emergency Operation Center of impending disaster
b. Makes recommendation on how to prevent disaster if possible and/or suggest
precautionary measures to minimize the effects of disasters.
c. Submits recommendation for all allocations of needed resources
d. Prepares appropriate recommendations to proper authorities for possible declaration
of the existence of a state of calamity in affected areas. It shall serve as a basis for the
request for the release of calamity funds to ameliorate the sufferings of the disaster
victims.

2. Plans and Operations

a. Determine courses of action to be taken based on the recommendation of the
intelligence and disaster analysis section
b. Recommends implementation of existing plans
c. Determine the type of service units to be utilized in disaster areas
d. Maintains and/or supervises programs of operations and determines the necessity of
utilizing additional service units
e. Prepares appropriate reports upon termination of operations

3. Resource Management
a. Undertake a survey of urgent items needed in helping the victims of the
disaster/calamities and gathers the statistics of resources such as:
Food, Clothing, Construction materials, medical supplies, transportation, other
rehabilitation items,
b. Surveys will also include the names and addresses of the dealers, agencies or persons
who may donate, contribute or make available such resources

OPERATING TEAMS

a. Provide logistics to the head of MDCC (Municipal Disaster Coordinating Council)

b. Coordinate the activities and functions of various agencies and instrumentalities, private
institutions and civic organizations within the municipality concerning disaster operations
c. Prepare and disseminate disaster control manuals and other publications related to
measures on disaster prevention and mitigation
d. Conduct training on Disaster Coordinating Councils, Disaster Control Groups and
Reaction Teams in coordination with other agencies

1. Fire and Police Service

126
 a. Maintain peace and order and the safeguarding of essential facilities during war or
national emergency and natural disaster
b. To assist existing fire departments in fire control prevention
2. Warning/Transportation/Communication and Public Information
a. To provide, operate, and maintain continuous and reliable communications and
adequate warning system throughout the period of impending and/or existing
disasters
b. To provide for the movement of rescue teams and equipment, rescued persons and/or
evacuees, medical and health teams, casualties, engineering and utility crew, and
emergency labor parties and to coordinate the transport needs of other disaster action
teams
c. To provide civilian population accurate information arising from natural and man-
made causes.
3. Disaster Relief/Rehabilitation and Welfare
a. To minimize human suffering in times of disaster and civil emergencies, pertains to
the immediate provision of basic needs which have become unavailable to the people
in affected areas
b. To provide for rapid restoration of morale of persons affected by disasters and
emergencies
4. Engineering/Rescue and Evacuation
a. To remove victims and casualties from areas likely to be affected or are being affected
by disaster and undertakes emergency repair on damaged structures, utilities and
facilities
b. To evacuate the populace and properties systematically
5. Health and Medical Services
a. To protect life through health and medical care
b. To preserve life through proper medical aid and provision of medical facilities
c. C. To minimize casualties through proper information and mobilization of all
medical resources

127