Running head: VOLCANIC DISASTER
Volcanic Disaster Management Plan Evaluation
Michael Sibal
COH 440-Preparedness & Disaster Management
May 2nd, 2015
Sibal 2
Volcanic Disaster
Volcanic Disaster Management Plan Evaluation
Amid the many types of disasters that happen in our world today, volcanic eruptions are
perhaps one of the most dangerous natural events that have the potential to threaten the public’s
health, infrastructure, and the environment. According to the United States Geological Survey
(USGS), since the 1980’s, volcanic activity worldwide has caused more than 29,000 fatalities,
forced an estimated 1,000,000 families to flee from their homes, and has contributed to millions
of dollars in economic losses (USGS, 2005). One of the most well known volcanic eruptions
ever recorded is the Mt. Pinatubo eruption of 1991, which occurred in the Philippines (Asian
Disaster Reduction Center, n.d.). While the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo amounted to 657 mortalities
and 184 injured individuals, the preparedness plans that were implemented during this event
successfully saved 75,000 people in evacuation centers before its climactic June 15 eruption
(USGS, 2005). For the purposes of this paper, the successful disaster management efforts made
during the Mt. Pinatubo eruption will be referenced, in order to thoroughly evaluate the
processes and outcomes of a new volcanic disaster management plan that was used during the
recent Mt. Miguel eruption in the Philippines. Moreover, this paper will discuss the various data
collection methods that were used during the volcanic emergency, while also explaining how the
disaster management team presented the evaluation results to all stakeholders involved in this
event.
Process Evaluation
Based on the risk assessment done at the location of the volcanic eruption, it is evident
that the most life loss, injuries, and infrastructural/environmental damages recorded were within
the three provinces that border Mt. Miguel. In these provinces, program evaluators conducted
key informant interviews with the mayors of each city, in order to attain accurate, primary
Volcanic Disaster
Sibal 3
accounts of the overall status of evacuation efforts within each town. In addition to conducting
key informant interviews, program evaluators also assessed the effectiveness of the protective
interventions/strategies that took place before and during the eruption. Like the Mt. Pinatubo
eruption, the most significant protective intervention carried out by the disaster management
team during the Mt. Miguel eruption was the opening of evacuation centers at safe distances
from the volcano.
In order to evaluate the effectiveness and progression of evacuation
procedures and relocation to shelters, program evaluators conducted surveys with various focus
groups made up of evacuees from each shelter. Within each survey, participants were asked 20
questions based on the overall process, organization, and helpfulness of disaster management
personnel. Aside from key informant interviews and focus group surveys, program evaluators
also reached out to a panel of experts made up of volcano specialists from the USGS, visiting
representatives from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and respiratory
disease specialists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). From this
collaborative group of experts, program evaluators were able to receive feedback of how they
can improve their evacuation strategies in future volcanic emergencies. Moreover, based off the
responses from the surveys given, FEMA offered suggestions of how evacuees can gather into
shelters in more organized, and timely procedures. Additionally, FEMA suggested that disaster
management planners in the Philippines create more awareness about family emergency kits.
According to FEMA, preparing a disaster supply kit along with a family disaster plan will help
Filipino families to be more prepared, knowledgeable, and calm in the event of another volcanic
eruption (FEMA, 2015). Lastly, the CDC, in collaboration with the Republic of the Philippines
Department of Health (DOH), actively observed the respiratory health conditions of individuals
at each shelter. This was done in order to determine which medications, medical supplies and
Volcanic Disaster
Sibal 4
personnel are needed to treat adverse health conditions caused by inhalation of toxic volcanic
ash. In addition, UNICEF Philippines also stepped in to provide clean water, sanitation and
hygiene resources to evacuation centers, based on observations made by the DOH reporting a
lack of overall sanitation at shelters and make shift clinics.
Data Collection
As with any emergency, data collection is extremely important and necessary for
gathering information on disease surveillance, mortality rates, structural damage reports, evacuee
counts, and other forms of statistical information that will be useful for evaluation purposes. In
the case of the Mt. Miguel eruption, the first data that was collected by the Department of Social
Welfare and Development (DSWD) was the number of displaced families after the eruption.
Fortunately, following the positive example of Mt. Pinatubo’s evacuation efforts, the DSWD was
able to successfully evacuate 60,705 individuals from the three mainly affected provinces.
According to DSWD reports, 28 individuals were reported as missing or displaced two months
after the event. In order to collect this data, the DSWD utilized both primary and secondary
information gathered by the DOH on evacuee admission, while also using data gathered by the
Philippine National Police Department from families who have reported missing loved ones. In
addition to collecting data on missing individuals, the DOH in partnership with the CDC actively
practiced disease surveillance methods to keep track of the various health complications, disease
outbreaks, and injuries that resulted from the incident. In order to collect accurate, active
surveillance data, the DOH made sure to constantly communicate with all health care providers,
laboratories, and pharmacies working with each shelter, hospital, and clinic that housed
evacuees. Surveillance information was then used to monitor rising disease trends, identify
possible epidemics, plan for new treatments/protocol, and evaluate existing disaster management
Volcanic Disaster
Sibal 5
interventions. According to the DOH, the leading diseases found within evacuation centers
included acute respiratory infections, diarrhea, and mosquito related diseases such as dengue and
malaria. Aside from disease surveillance, the National Disaster Coordinating Council in
partnership with the Philippine Department of Agriculture also used data collection methods in
order to assess the amount of damages to houses, public buildings, agriculture, and natural
resources such as local rivers and forests. Infrastructural, agricultural, and environmental damage
data was collected via “classification of damage” techniques, which categorized the damages
into 3 categories: total damage, severe damage, and partial damage (United Nations
Development Program, 2014). Data collected from each category was then totaled and reported
to the United Nations Development Program in the Philippines for further study and evaluation.
Outcome Evaluation
After the process evaluation and data collection have been completed, it is important for
program evaluators to thoroughly assess the overall effectiveness of the volcanic disaster
management plan by conducting an outcome evaluation. According to the World Health
Organization (WHO), the first step program evaluators must do is choose the type of design that
will be used to evaluate any changes and improvements made by the disaster management plan
(WHO, 2000). In the case of the Mt. Miguel eruption, program evaluators have utilized a
randomized experimental design. A randomized experimental design was chosen by evaluators
in order to avoid any potential biases or judgments that may interfere with the data. Moreover, by
using an experimental design, evaluators have a stronger control over confounding variables,
while still producing defensible evidence of effectiveness. This particular design focused on the
responses of multiple groups of evacuees, comparing the initial surveys taken at various shelters
during the mitigation and response phase, to multiple groups of evacuees who took the survey
Volcanic Disaster
Sibal 6
during the recovery phase. Based on the comparison of survey responses recorded during the
mitigation and recovery phase, it is evident that a majority of evacuees were satisfied with the
disaster management personnel in both phases. According to a question on the survey asking
participants to rate the overall helpfulness and care of the disaster management team from a 1-10
(10 being the best), 70% of surveys produced an average rating of 8.5. Contrastingly, the
mitigation phase surveys convey that evacuees at centers felt as though the evacuation process
was very disorganized and hectic, giving an average approval rating of 3. Additionally, recovery
phase surveys make it clear that the various medical treatments and services given to evacuees
during the response phase were very effective, and “comforting”. While results from the two
random groups of evacuees differed from one another, both groups agreed that the disaster
management team could improve its disaster warning strategies, in addition to its relocating
procedures. Other suggestions made by both groups included choosing larger and cleaner
evacuation centers, establishing better partitions in restroom areas, providing more food options
to accommodate individuals with allergies, and bringing in electric fans or portable air
conditioners into the shelters in order to avoid heat stroke. Lastly, program evaluators have also
began to evaluate the effectiveness of relief efforts initiated in each province. Based off reports
given by the Philippine Red Cross, program evaluators have seen successful allocation of relief
goods/donations based on the specific needs of each community. Further supporting the
successful outcome of relief efforts, the Catholic Relief Services (CRS) has also been
instrumental at donating funds for building temporary shelters for disaster stricken areas.
According to program evaluators, the CRS in partnership with the Philippine Red Cross, Action
Against Hunger, and GlobalGiving have been the top contributors of funds, food, fuel, clean
water, hygiene products, rehabilitation services and spiritual support to Mt. Miguel victims.
Volcanic Disaster
Sibal 7
Reporting
Following the completion of the process and outcome evaluations, program evaluators,
city mayors, members of various organizations, representatives from each community, and other
important governmental and non-profit stakeholders gathered for a large post-event meeting. At
this meeting, program evaluators presented a formally written “recovery report” packet to
stakeholders, which discussed all disaster management details on the Mt. Miguel eruption. Aside
from the general public who experienced the disaster first hand, additional important
stakeholders who attended this meeting included the Philippine Red Cross, UNICEF Philippines,
the CRS, the CDC, and the WHO. Within each packet, stakeholders were provided information
that covered the nature of the disaster, along with data explaining the extent of overall damage
on infrastructure, agriculture and human life. Furthermore, this report thoroughly discussed the
various methods used to process evaluate the disaster management plan, including a copy of the
survey questions given, documented versions of key informant interviews, and a list of
suggestions/comments made by the recruited expert panel. Additionally, the outcome evaluation
results were also included in this report for the purpose of conveying how effective and
beneficial evacuation centers were during the event. Included in this section of the report were
the concerns made by evacuees, in addition to feedback given by healthcare personnel on their
experiences working in the shelters. In order to make the data and results from both evaluations
more tangible, program evaluators constructed bar graphs, charts, and diagrams that illustrated
the conditions of the three affected provinces before, during, and after the eruption. Moreover,
colored photos of disaster damages, evacuation centers, and the disaster management team in
action were also included in this packet. Aside from the packet of information, each stakeholder
was given a clear and concise bulleted fact sheet, which briefly described the efforts, successes
Volcanic Disaster
Sibal 8
and weaknesses of the disaster management plan used during the event. Further supplementing
the recovery packet and Mt. Miguel disaster management fact sheet, program evaluators also
created a slide show presentation to engage stakeholders. Within this presentation, live footage
of the disaster was shown, in addition to moving interviews of evacuees who thanked the disaster
management team for all their services.
Conclusion
While volcanic eruptions are indeed public health emergencies that may greatly harm and
destroy entire communities, the events of Mt. Pinatubo and Mt. Miguel convey that disasters
such as these can certainly be addressed by effective disaster management planning. As with any
public health threat, prevention, preparedness and community awareness are keys to reducing the
amount of mortalities during an emergency, while also keeping populations safe and healthy
before, during, and after the event. In the case of the Mt. Miguel eruption, carefully planned
evacuation efforts helped the disaster management team evacuate more than 60,000 people, who
were then safely relocated to designated evacuation centers. Additionally, due to proper training,
protocol compliance, and genuine compassion for the victims of this disaster, medical personnel,
volunteers, and members of various organizations were able to feed, treat, cure, and shelter
families that make up three large provinces. After undergoing the appropriate program
evaluations, it is evident that the Mt. Miguel disaster plan was successful at saving lives and
keeping communities together in the midst of crisis. In conclusion, we as public health
practitioners must look to the incident of the Mt. Miguel eruption as a reminder that effective
disaster management is vital for ensuring that the populations we work with are protected,
healthy, and prepared for any disaster.
Sibal 9
Volcanic Disaster
References
ADRC. (n.d.). Eruption of mt. pinatubo . Retrieved April 25, 2015 from
http://www.adrc.asia/publications/recovery_reports/pdf/Pinatubo.pdf
FEMA. (2015). Volcanoes. Retrieved April 26, 2015 from http://m.fema.gov/volcanoes
United Nations Development Program. (2014). Detailed infrastructure damage assessment.
Retrieved April 25, 2015 from
http://www.ps.undp.org/content/dam/papp/docs/Publications/UNDP-papp-researchdammageassessment2014.pdf
USGS. (2005). Mobile response team saves lives in volcano crises . Retrieved April 25, 2015
from http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs064-97/
WHO. (2000). Outcome evaluations. Retrieved April 25, 2015 from
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CD0QFj
AE&url=http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_5869_EN_7_outcome_eval
uations.pdf&ei=MaNCVZ_vEY_EogSst4DoAQ&usg=AFQjCNGtEkH7R_06jCk1alp_k1
1M8pRaJQ&bvm=bv.92189499,d.cGU