Removed from thesis
Table 2.5
Extent of Compliance of the Respondents
N=156
Areas of DRRM
SD
Mean
Description
1.
Disaster, Prevention and Mitigation
0.79
3.70
Well Implemented
2.
Disaster Preparedness
0.75
3.73
Well Implemented
3.
Disaster Response
0.78
3.68
Well Implemented
4.
Disaster Rehabilitation and Recovery
0.70
3.59
Well Implemented
Composite
0.76
3.68
Well Implemented
This section presents the extent of compliance of the respondents to the
aforementioned indicators based on the four thematic areas of disaster risk reduction
management program implementation.
According to the study, the disaster risk reduction management program's
implementation status in terms of disaster preparedness has a weighted mean of 3.73,
which is verbal equivalent to "extremely effective" program implementation. Additionally,
the subject areas of disaster response, recovery, and rehabilitation each received
composite means of 3.70, 3.68, and 3.59, which are all characterized as extremely good
program implementation and a correspondingly high degree of compliance. Additionally,
as evidenced by the data in the table, it was found that, of the four risk reduction
management indicators on the area of implementation, disaster preparedness has the
highest mean of 3.95, indicating "very effective" program implementation descriptive
equivalent rating, while the area on disaster rehabilitation and recovery obtained the
lowest rating of 3.59. These results unmistakably showed that teachers and
administrators are more concerned with disaster preparedness than with carrying out their
responsibilities for response, recovery, and rehabilitation management. This idea is
supported by Campilla (2016), who claimed that increased emphasis on preparedness
has decreased casualties during the occurrence of disasters. These management
strategies and tactics were designed to reduce the number of potential casualties
whenever a disaster strikes.
Additionally, the idea of disaster preparedness encompasses actions that allow
various units—including people, households, communities, organizations, groups, and
institutions—to effectively respond and recover in the event of a disaster. Among the
commonly combined activities and programs with disaster preparedness are the
development of the planning process to ensure readiness, disaster plan formulation,
storage of the resources needed for an effective response, skills and competency
development to ensure an effective response, and skills and competency development to
ensure an effective performance of disaster-related tasks. The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) and FEMA define disaster preparedness as "a continuous cycle of
planning, organizing, training, equipping, exercising, evaluating, and taking corrective
action in an effort to ensure effective coordination during incident response" in order to
reduce risk. Disaster preparedness can also be used to reduce risk (DHS, 2015).
As a result of everyone's responsibility for disaster readiness, not just the
government, it has been determined that disaster preparedness is the most effective of
the four theme areas or indicators of the disaster risk reduction management program
execution. According to UNESCO (2007), a community's knowledge and readiness and
their resiliency in the face of calamities are positively correlated (Rambau et al., 2012).
It's crucial to get involved and take responsibility for one's role in one's own and their
family's readiness (Brooks, 2012). Responsibility is crucial at all levels of government, as
well as for people, families, the commercial sector, and communities to increase disaster
preparedness and resilience (Cutter, 2013).
The next subject area, disaster prevention and mitigation, received the highest
weighted mean of 3.70, indicating a "very effective" program implementation. By
mitigating, preventing, and preparing for an event through the development and
application of policies, strategies, and practices known as disaster risk reduction (DRR),
communities, states, and nations are attempting to prevent the effects of a natural hazard
from becoming a disaster (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction) (UNISDR,
2010). The UNISDR defines disaster risk reduction (DRR) as "the concept and practice
of lowering disaster risks via systematic efforts to evaluate and minimize the cause
components of catastrophes" (UNISDR).
In order to prevent, mitigate, prepare for, or recover from disasters, identify
hazards, evaluate risks, design methods to do so, and put them into practice. It also
reviews the efficacy of the programs and strategies in place at the time (Cutter, 2013).
The DRR strategy requires a focus on a community's vulnerabilities. The DRR approach
is used to take steps to minimize or diminish that disaster risk through mitigation or
preventative measures after the disaster risk has been recognized and assessed
(Tuladhar et al., 2015).
Furthermore, according to the teachers and administrators, disaster response, with
a weighted mean of 3.68, has been the least adopted thematic area or indicator in the
DRRM program. This can be explained by the way that communities' attempts to advance
themselves are impeded when they are required to spend money on disaster response
and recovery. These funds are utilized to rebuild, sometimes only to the level of the preexisting status that was already fragile; as a result, these communities' efforts to improve
and try to leave poverty are routinely halted.
Livelihoods are lost, community resources and services need to be rebuilt, poverty
has worsened, and repopulation of already high-risk regions goes on without any
resources or strategies to help them transform into more effective or resilient
communities. Many towns are working to recover and get back to their regular selves
following the calamity (Cutter, 2013).
Many scholars are advocating a new way of thinking about how societies will view
resilience in the future and are working toward "bouncing forward not bouncing back" in
order to establish a new sense of normal in response to this conundrum (O'Brien et al.,
2009; Manyena et al., 2011).
Table 3.6
LEVEL OF CAPABILITIES OF TEACHERS AND COORDINATORS TO RESPOND
DISASTERS
N=156
Areas of DRRM
SD
Mean
Description
1.
Human Resource
0.72
3.60
Very Capable
2.
Material Facilities
0.69
3.59
Very Capable
3.
Knowledge, Innovation and Education
0.67
3.61
Very Capable
4.
Policies, Plans and Procedures
0.69
3.64
Very Capable
5.
Capacities and Mechanisms
0.74
3.62
Very Capable
Composite
0.70
3.61
Very Capable
Policies, Plans and Procedures garnered the highest mean percentage of 3.64 and
a standard deviation of 0.69. In accordance with this, it is crucial to determine whether
students and teachers are aware of the safety procedures and are well equipped to deal
with any crisis outbreaks (Mamogale, 2011). Preparedness plans are dynamic endeavors
that require routine assessment, modification, updating, and testing, according to
UNESCO (2010). To ensure the timely appropriate and effective delivery of relief, active
disaster preparedness includes developing comprehensive response plans, monitoring
hazards and threats, training emergency personnel, and educating members of the
communities at risk. Lastly, the area on material facilities, which is ranked lowest, appears
to be the most important because it requires funding to provide the necessary equipment
in the school contexts (Ardalan, 2015; Merchant, 2015). Given that not enough money is
being allocated to the DRRM program, particularly for the provision of necessary DRRM
facilities, equipment, and materials, in comparison to other Department of Education
(DepEd) programs, activities, projects, and governance in terms of access, quality and
relevance, and governance (Sala, 2019).
Similar to disaster preparedness, disaster awareness entails choosing tasks to
carry out related to catastrophe risk reduction. Schools that are prepared for disasters
effectively manage the risks. The entire school community must actively participate in
learning about disaster preparedness and coming up with ways to safeguard the schools
(Kay, 2013). Additionally, according to Grant (2012), disaster awareness in schools can
be incorporated into the institution by strategically posting safety rules, installing
firefighting equipment, evacuation exits, maintaining buildings, conducting disaster
awareness seminars and involving peer education between children, using songs,
electronic and print media, action learning, and using science education as a means to
introduce studies of disaster risk.
The third highest weighted mean among the indicators of the respondents' degree
of capability was achieved by knowledge, innovation, and education. Therefore, greater
knowledge and education can help individuals discover strategies to reduce the dangers
of a disaster. Planning is one strategy for reducing risk. Disaster awareness draws the
idea of beginning with a goal that will bring about change or profit from educational
preparation. Therefore, the educational planner creates a road map that will aid in bringing
about the desired transformation.
4. Difference between the status of implementation of DRRM and the capacity of the
public schools