44
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND RELATED STUDIES
Disaster preparedness is both a condition and a choice. While the knowledge of
disasters is a condition for learning their eventual management, the choice of capacities
to build is directly proportional to the degree of disaster risk reduction which the
researchers may deem acceptable or tolerable to a certain community. In being so,
disaster preparedness may yet prove to be the one, single factor which finally would
institute the much-needed resilience as well as change – internal and external – for the
social development of the City of Manila, or of any other city, for that matter. For the
selected barangay of this study, it could well be the framework in its need to transform its
own condition of vulnerability into capability and turn its own choice of mere selfpreservation into managed self-livelihood. Thus, the PDRRM Act of 2010 have sought to
take into account all the comprehensiveness and sensitiveness, complexities and
perplexities, improvements as well as impediments which are all involved in the
preparation of a highly-exposed urban community to all kinds of disaster.
A review of literature and related studies, therefore, is of primary concern to the
researchers so they will be able to understand more about the problems stated in this
45
study, and through a steady process of elimination and validation, learn how to later on
proceed with the search for a credible set of summary of findings, conclusions and
recommendations. It is, should the researchers say, a vital organ of this research’s own
development plan.
This review, therefore, shall present the legal basis, local and foreign literature,
related studies, as well as a synthesis. It is the fervent prayer of the researchers that the
great amount of literature gathered for this study shall not only work for the end-result of
answering the problems presented in this research, but also as a great source of
additional knowledge which could be developed for the advancement of disaster
management as an academic subject or course, in general, and for the enhancement of
community disaster preparedness, in particular.
LOCAL LITERATURE
Logically, this is how the researchers may begin this review: with a plan. The
National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan (NDRRMP) is first mentioned in
(e), Section 3-Declaration of Policy of the IRR of R.A. No. 10121:
46
“It is the policy of the State to develop, promote and implement a comprehensive
National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan (NDRRMP) that aims to
strengthen the capacity of the national government and local government units (LGUs),
together with partner stakeholders, to build the disaster resilience of communities, and –
to institutionalize the arrangements and measures for reducing disaster risks, including
projected climate change risks, and enhancing disaster preparedness and response
capabilities at all levels.”
In the No. 2 Priority Area of the NDRRMP, disaster preparedness is set to
“establish and strengthen capacities of communities to anticipate, cope and recover from
the negative impacts of emergency occurrences and disasters.”
This priority area, more or less, summarizes the 4 C’s the researchers have
indicated in the Introduction.
For the study at hand, the NDRRMP establishes the approach the researchers
can use to answer many, if not all, of the problems stated in Chapter I-Introduction,
Statement of the Problem. In using similar profiling techniques and methodologies, the
researchers can put in place the following in relation to the set of questions the
47
researchers posed as a result of the implementation of R.A. No. 10121 in Barangay No.
649, Zone 68, Manila.
Disaster Preparedness
Outcome
In-Charge
Communities are equipped with necessary According to National Disaster Risk
skills and capability to cope with impacts of Reduction and Management Plan
disasters
Department of Interior and Local
Government, or DILG (to coordinate)
Office of the Civil Defense, or OCD (to
implement)
Timely response and vigilance of men and According to Manila Disaster Risk
women well-equipped for emergency Reduction and Management Plan
situations that spells the difference
between life and death in these situations
Manila Disaster Risk Reduction and
Management Council (see Executive
Order No. 09, series of 2013, Office of
the Mayor, Manila)
Includes, but not limited to, the following:
According to the concerned barangay’s
1. Barangay Profile,
Barangay Disaster Risk Reduction and
2. Land Area, Boundaries and Management Plan
Waterways
Barangay Disaster Risk Reduction and
3. Barangay Income
4. Business, Schools, Hospitals and Management Committee of the
Barangay Development Council
Other Establishments
5. Risk/Hazard/Vulnerability Map
6. Contingency and Evacuation
Plan/s
7. Early Warning Systems
8. BDRRMC Priority Projects
9. Barangay Disaster Readiness
Profile
10. Barangay Disaster Readiness
48
Checklist
11. Directory of BDRRMC Officers
and Members
12. Resolution
Adopting
the
BDRRMP
According to a joint study participated in by Dr. Doracie B. Zoleta-Nantes in 2004
(pre-Hyogo Framework for Action World Conference), there are different types of
approach in the scientific research of hazard-related human behaviors. One such
approach mentioned has directly associated disaster preparedness with age-related
demographic variables (e.g., age, civil status), socio-economic related demographic
variables (e.g., highest educational attainment, income, home ownership) and psychosocial-behavioral variables (e.g., training, risk assessment).
This categorically puts this thesis in a position of credibility. Like the matter of
risk perception briefly implied in the earlier portion of this study, it validated the direct
relationship between the socio-demographic profiles of the respondents.
This lead premise serves as a link chain which now connects the study of human
behavior in terms of preparation to a disaster by both as individual person and as
member of an organization. For instance, the individual behavior to disaster
49
preparedness of the barangay constituents as respondents and the organizational
behavior to the same variable of the BDRRMC as another group of responses.
The interdependent activities initiated by these abovementioned human
behaviors are then developed and categorized as belonging to one of the different
schools of thought in management (Zulueta, F.M., De Lara, G.M.C., and Nebres, A.M.,
1999). This is an essential linkage since the researchers are evaluating the
implementation of R.A. No. 10121 in Barangay 649 while keeping in sync how the law
provides that disaster preparedness be carried out within the context of disaster
management. Thus, it is clear that the study of disasters and disaster preparedness also
requires a grasp of basic management concepts and principles.
In being so, the researchers observed that disaster preparedness belongs to the
social systems school of management (Zulueta, et. al, 1999). This school views
management as a “social system” and considers the organization as a social organism
which is subject to pressures and conflicts coming from the social environment. Its
doctrines, Zulueta & company continued, include the concepts of cooperation,
adaptation, segregation and differentiation. Cooperation is the primary thrust in the
50
organization of the social systems school where people work together for a common
good.
This, in effect, validates the two elements of a disaster risk, vulnerability and
capacity, as having social aspects (Lomerio-Ondiz, R. Ph. D. & Redito, B.M., 2009).
For Martires, C.R. (2011), a social system is “a complex and dynamic set of
relationships among its actors interacting with one another.” Thus, R.A. No. 10121
acknowledges 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.” Disaster preparedness, aside from being a multilevel
system (global, regional, national, community, individual), becomes also multi-relational
(physical, social, economic, environmental). Within the social system of the community,
there are still various subsystems interdependent with each other.
On the other hand, Tomas D. Andres (1992) pointed out that teambuilding is an
advantageous approach to the complex task of disaster preparation. He believed that
51
“the best results are obtained when people work together with a sense of commitment to
one another as well as to the organization.” His approach is similar to the social system
model since he defined a team as organic – made up of components in the person of its
members, but these come together to form a cohesive whole which is greater than the
sum of its parts. It is also interdependent. Each member supports each other. Andres
(1992) concluded that if the team succeeds, they all succeed; if it fails, they all fail.
He also emphasized that, in taking teambuilding as a management approach,
one must be concerned with the innate social values each and every member has in
order to minimize their input of efforts while maximizing their output of productivity. This,
of course, is equally and generally important to disaster management in terms of
efficiency and to disaster preparedness, in particular. According to him, the Filipino is an
expert in human relationships. He can create systems to make relationships serve his
purpose.
The works of F. Landa Jocano, Jaime Bulatao, Lourdes R. Quisumbing and Ma.
Leonora V. De Jesus on Filipino values (Martires, C.R., 2011) provide management
some insights that will help them understand why Filipinos think, feel, act and perform in
52
certain ways. This, in turn, would help us understand the resilience of Filipino urban
communities in terms of disaster risk reduction.
On the subject of Community Risk Assessment, the researchers felt that in order
to have a firm handle on what risk assessment is, there must first be a clear meaning of
what disaster risk is. Disaster risk (Lomerio-Ondiz & Redito, 2009) may be synonymous
with the so-called disaster equation, but it has manageability factors to reduce the
negative effect of hazards. This manageability could be associated with capacity. This
can be illustrated by the formula:
Disaster Risk = Hazard x Vulnerability
Capacity
Manageability, Lomerio-Ondiz & Redito continued, is the degree to which a
community can intervene and manage a hazard.
Meanwhile, the two explained that assessment is a critical examination and
estimation of the object or phenomenon (Bernhat, 1987). It is a process of collecting,
interpreting and analyzing information from various sources.
53
The duo pointed out that risk assessment is the systematic and logical process
used to determine disaster risk reduction priorities by evaluating and comparing the
levels of risk (high or intolerable, medium or tolerable, low or minimal). This comprises
the process by which individuals, communities and societies cope with hazards. Disaster
risk assessment deals with the Hazard, Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment (HVCA)
and people’s perceptions of risks. The researchers have already slightly touched on
HVCA in Chapter I. The implication that is observed by the two DRRM analysts is that
disaster risk will be based on people’s perception. Thus, they will be the one to make
decisions to adapt, to modify or to ignore the risk.
The researchers of this study concluded that community risk assessment is of
major importance to the design of disaster preparedness the concerned organization will
plan and undertake.
In contingency planning, Lomerio-Ondiz & Redito averred that advanced
planning and execution is the key to protection. They offered some tips to follow, such
as, but not limited to:
a. Knowledge of barangay disaster plan.
b. Posting of hazard/risk map.
54
c. Access to updated information on the daily weather advisory.
d. Understanding of Early Warning Signals (EWS), such as the Public Storm
Warning Signal (PSWS).
e. The dissemination strategy of standard warning information.
f.
Designation of evacuation for families & livestock.
g. Inspection of evacuation routes and protecting them with sandbags, if possible,
and signage to ensure safe passage to the camp.
h. The availability and accessibility to emergency response equipment as well as
trained volunteers with a prepared search and rescue plan.
i.
A community protection plan for potable water supply sources.
j.
The cleaning and unclogging of drainages through people’s cooperation and
initiative.
k. Inspection and preparation of a Survival Kit, and re-supply if necessary.
l.
Ensuring that each family member understands the danger of a disaster and its
associated risks.
The three (3) main objectives of warnings are (Lomerio-Ondiz & Redito, 2009):
1. To inform, advise and instruct the population of the impending threat.
55
2. To call those in the danger areas for action by explaining precautionary
measures that should be taken by the families, and,
3. To be alert, prepared, and stand by for possible worse events.
The communication system of disaster preparedness is likened to the human
circulatory system with regards to the role it plays in contingency planning. Within the
communication structure, the researchers find such activities as coordinating and
facilitating all the available resources to its priority users in a timely and appropriate
manner. Also, the system unifies the chain of command necessary to the entire disaster
management cycle of prevention, mitigation and adaptation; alertness and preparedness;
response; and recovery.
Filipino values also affect the communication process, especially in disaster
preparedness. Martires, C.R. (2011) explains that one’s need to belong to a group is
stronger than the need to assert one’s individual identity. This is reflected in behavior that
shows pakikisama (togetherness), smooth interpersonal relationship (SIR), tayo-tayo (us
and we-ness), and bayanihan (unity and cooperation). Using a go-between in the
communication process facilitates the transaction for a positive feedback. Herein lies the
value of community-based development project management in disaster management. In
56
the long run, communication may yet prove to be the enduring factor in any study of
disaster preparedness efficiency.
In the introduction to his book, Alwin B. De Leon, Ph. D. (2010) stated that
community-based development projects are participatory in nature. Thus, communication
not only serves as the lifeblood of the organization, it is also its major linkage to the
organization’s environment. This is the rationale for tapping the Civil Society
Organizations (CSOs) as regular members of the BDRRMC since they serve as the link
chain which brings about the necessary balance between the top-down and bottom-up
approach of managing community development plans and projects.
Finally, the management concept of leadership affects the triumvirate variables
of disaster preparedness, namely, contingency planning, communication system and
capacity-building. While contingency planning is considered in R.A. No. 10121 as a
distinct management process replete with its own set of concepts and principles, and
disaster communication is institutionalized as one of the powers and functions ((h),
Section 9 of the PDRRM Act of 2010) of the implementing arm of the NDRRMC, which is,
the Office of Civil Defense (OCD), capacity involves collective attributes such as social
relationships, leadership and management. Flora Generalao (1984) of the University of
57
the Philippines (U.P.) conducted a study wherein she pitted task-oriented leadership
against relationship-oriented leadership relative to situational control in a leadership
contingency model. The results of the study showed that: democratic leadership behavior
elicits highest member satisfaction than autocratic leadership. This, in turn, will reflect on
the effectiveness and sustainability of contingency planning, communication system and
capacity-building in disaster preparedness.
In contrast, however, of the local literature the researchers have presented in
this study, the researchers opted to keep things in perspective and set the balance by
presenting not necessarily opposing viewpoints, but, rather, critical ones the researchers
may later on find significant to the research.
To begin with, Prof. Kenneth Cardenas (2010) of the U.P. Department of
Sociology deftly described the relationships which now exist in the so-called “culture of
disasters.” He said that adding to this complex tangle of social systems, social values,
self-styled management concepts and ecosystems, Filipinos are only beginning to learn
the rules of disaster risk reduction and management. Urban people, he reiterated, are
less sensitive to the ecosystems. Beyond that the researchers are not equipped to
58
handle the problems in urban areas because the researchers do not have any
experience dealing with them.
Dr. Rene N. Rollon (2010), Associate Professor and Director, Institute of
Environmental Science and Meteorology, U.P. Diliman, has a view on disaster
preparedness which is much more realistic. He averred that, on the management side,
prevention is always an ideal strategy. For instance, human settlements in coastal areas
should be avoided unless some aggressive measures are in place (high and expensive
dikes, retaining walls, etc.). Obviously, such incongruence between natural processes
and the human use of physical resources have been demonstrated on many occasions.
Indeed, especially for urban centers like Metro Manila, preventive measures (e.g.
relocation, job generation, easement areas, no settlement zones, etc.) may be very
expensive. However, the annual cost of lives and properties attributed to the “disrespect”
for these natural processes is not cheap either, and, is, in fact increasingly frustrating.
According to Fernando P. Siringan (2010), Ph. D. Professor, Maritime Science
Institute, U.P. Diliman, there are places that can be avoided, places where relocation
might be necessary, or places where mitigation for certain hazards may still be possible.
59
On the other hand, Dr. Minerva SD. Olympia (2010), Associate Professor and
Coordinator for Research College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, U.P. Visayas,
shares that risk reduction measures are community-specific. Countries with long
coastlines such as the Philippines are considered naturally high-risk since exposure and
vulnerabilities are high.
Dr. Guillermo Q. Tabios (2010), Professor, Institute of Civil Engineering, and
Director, National Hydraulic Research Center, U.P. Diliman, summarized the role the
community plays in disaster management related to preparedness, adaptation and
mitigation.
He started by saying that there is a long list of what the community can do in
disaster management, especially in relation to preparedness, adaptation and mitigation.
The community should establish and organize planning and response teams during predisaster and emergent post-disaster phases. A basic requirement is to develop
emergency or evacuation plans such as routes, protective shelters, and food provisions
in case of disaster. The multi-hazard maps in particular are very useful for this purpose.
With these disasters or emergency plans, communities can conduct periodic drills and
60
exercises for the safe evacuation of households, schools and commercial and industrial
establishments.
Tabios (2010) further explained that to ensure preparedness for the response
phase of disaster management, the community organization should also train and
organize quick response volunteer teams to provide rescue as well as logistic and
psychosocial support. For large scale community-based planning, long-term and
sustainable programs should be developed in partnership with the local government and
even private organizations to reduce poverty by providing affordable shelter, food, and
water for resettled or relocated communities to reduce their disaster vulnerability.
Communities frequently exposed to extreme climatic events and hazards can also
develop adaptation measures such as encouraging water management and waste
management practices that are resilient to climate extremes and hazards.
LOCAL RELATED STUDIES
One of the key findings of a qualitative study completed recently by the Institute
of Philippine Culture (IPC) based at the Ateneo de Manila University stated that many
residents in poor communities that were heavily affected by Typhoons Ondoy and
61
Pepeng in 2009 are still struggling to recover due to lack of assets and working capital to
restore their livelihood lost to the floods. Using focus group discussions and key
informants interviews, the study titled “The Social Impact of Tropical Storm Ondoy and
Typhoon” probes into the long-term effects of the twin disasters that hit the country in
2009. The study was supported by a trust fund from the Australian Agency for
International Development (AusAID) administered by the World Bank. The study says
that since 2009, these communities reported overall reduction in incomes due to loss of
assets and working capital.
The study notes that affected residents’ assets, savings and working capital for
livelihood activities were dissipated.
In another study, the observations made in the book printed and published by
the Department of Health, Republic of the Philippines, entitled “RESPONDING TO
HEALTH EMERGENCIES AND DISASTERS: The Philippine Experience” (2005), about
a fire which broke out at the locale of this study, Barangay 649 (BASECO), on January
11, 2004 in the evening, the last two directly related to communication system in disaster
management:
62
1. There are no rules and regulations that guide the DOH (Department of Health), CHDNCR (City Health Department-National Capital Region), and NCR Health Emergency
network with regards to when each agency should respond (aside from the general
rule that all should respond when LGUs request assistance)
2. The existing health emergency management system among the different agencies in
NCR needs a review to improve networking, coordination, cooperation, and
collaboration.
FOREIGN LITERATURE
The Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) came out of the World Conference for
Disaster Reduction held in Kobe, Hyogo, Japan, from 18 to 22 January 2005.
It is the first plan to explain, describe and detail the work that is required from all
different sectors and actors to reduce disaster risk – governments, informational
agencies, disaster experts and many others – bringing them into a common system of
coordination. The HFA outlines five priorities for action, and offers guiding principles and
practical means for achieving disaster resilience. Its goal is to substantially reduce
disaster losses by 2015 by building the resilience of nations and communities to
63
disasters. This means reducing the loss of lives and social, economic, and environmental
assets when hazard strikes.
Disaster preparedness is considered as Priority Action 5: STRENGTHEN
DISASTER PREPAREDNESS FOR EFFECTIVE RESPONSE AT ALL LEVELS. The
HFA rationale states: At times of disaster, impacts and losses can be substantially
reduced if authorities, individuals and communities in hazard-prone areas are wellprepared and ready to act and are equipped with the knowledge and capacities for
effective disaster management.
Fortunately, the Philippines’ National progress report on the implementation of
the Hyogo Framework for Action (2009-2011) – interim, is made available online.
The progress report for Priority for action 5, Strengthen disaster preparedness
for effective response at all levels, is hereby summarized:
64
Core Indicator 1 – Strong policy, technical and institutional capacities and
mechanisms for disaster risk management, with a disaster risk reduction perspective are
in place.
Level of Progress Achieved: 4. Substantial achievement attained but with
recognized limitations.
National programmes or policies to make schools and health facilities safe in
emergencies: YES.
Means of Verification:
1. Policies and Programmes for School and Hospital Safety: YES
2. Training and Mock Drills in Schools and Hospitals for Emergency
Preparedness: YES.
Core Indicator 2 – Disaster preparedness plans and contingency plans are in
place at all administrative levels, and regular training drills and rehearsals are held to test
and develop disaster response programmes.
65
Level of Progress Achieved: 4. Substantial achievement attained but with
recognized limitations.
The contingency plans, procedures and resources in place to deal with a major
disaster: YES.
Means of Verification:
1. Contingency Plans with Gender Sensitivities: YES
2. Operations and Communications Centre: YES
3. Search and Rescue Teams: YES
4. Stockpiles of Relief Supplies: YES
5. Shelters: NO
6. Secure Medical Facilities: YES
7. Dedicated provision for women in relief, shelter and emergency medical
facilities: NO.
Core Indicator 3 – Financial reserves and contingency mechanisms are in place
to support effective response and recovery when required.
66
Level of Progress Achieved: 4. Substantial achievement attained but with
recognized limitations.
Financial arrangements in place to deal with major disaster: YES.
Means of Verification:
1. National Contingency Funds: YES
2. Catastrophe Insurance Facilities: YES
3. Catastrophe Bonds: NO
Core Indicator 4 – Procedures are in place to exchange relevant information
during hazard events and disasters, and to undertake post-event reviews.
Level of Progress Achieved: 4. Substantial achievement attained but with
recognized limitations.
Agreed method and procedure has been adopted to assess damage, loss and
needs when disasters occur: YES.
67
Means of Verification:
1. Damage and loss Assessment Methodologies and Capacities Available:
YES
2. Post Disaster Need Assessment Methodologies: YES
3. Post Disaster Needs Assessment Methodologies include Guidance on
Gender Aspects: NO
4. Identified and Trained Human Resources: YES
The progress report puts into position the questions this study is going to try to
answer by bringing about the different management concepts and principles which the
researchers could use in DRRM as well as a review of DRRM programs and researches
of other countries.
Similar to the review of the local literature, the researchers begin by asserting
the relevance of the study of hazard-related human behaviors (“The Impact of Risk
Perception xxx,” a joint study by a grant from local and foreign research institutes, 2004).
The paper asserts that past U.S. studies have for the most part, employed an
68
adjustment/contextual paradigm (Burton, Kates, & White, 1978; Mitchell, 1999; Eraybat,
K., Okazaki, K., & Ilki, A., 2010). In such studies, hazard-related behaviors, risk
perception, disaster preparedness, and willingness to pay for governmental mitigation
were found to be associated with demographic variables (Turner, Nigg & Heller-Paz,
1986; Lindell & Perry, 1992; Edwards, 1993; Palm & Carroll, 1998; Tierney, Lindell, &
Perry, 2001; Tierney, 2001; Wachtendorf & Sheng, 2002).
In the study, the concepts and principles between human behavior and
motivation are also relevant. In Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs theory (Martires, C.R.,
2011), he saw human needs in the context of hierarchy and further concluded that when
one set of needs is satisfied, this kind of need ceases to be a motivation; one therefore
goes up the structure to satisfy the next set of needs. In disaster management, Maslow’s
concept is crucial since prioritization is a constant activity in disaster preparedness
whether in the contingency planning, communicating, or capacity-building stage.
Frederick Herzberg enhanced Maslow’s theory by identifying factors into two
subdivisions: the motivating factors and hygienic factors. The theory would have a direct
69
effect on how the researchers could measure the socio-demographic and disaster
profiles of respondents from Barangay No. 649, Zone 68, Manila.
B.F. Skinner went one step farther than Maslow and Herzberg by proposing that
“man learns from his environment and greater control of his environment improves his
development.” The operant conditioning theory is of major significance to the 4 C’s the
researchers have formulated as the key areas of concern in understanding the problems
the researchers have stated in the study.
The training and drill practices required to enhance disaster preparedness of
communities make use of Skinner’s principle in utilizing positive reinforcement with the
end in view of the occurrence of a desired response or behavior.
Numerous other studies have been conducted on the subject of motivation.
Among the most salient and pertinent to human resources management are those
conducted by Argyris, Hersey and Blanchard, Armstrong, White and Schachter (Marties,
2011).
70
For G. Tyler Miller, Jr. (1990), formal risk assessment is difficult, imprecise and
controversial. It involves determining the types of hazards involved, estimating the
number of people likely to be exposed to the hazard and the number likely to suffer
serious consequences, and estimating the probability of each hazard occurring. He
explained that one way to improve system reliability is to move more of the potentially
fallible elements from the human side to the technical side, making the system more foolproof or “fail-safe.” But chance events such as a lightning bolt can knock out automatic
control systems. And no machine or computer program can replace all the skillful human
actions and decisions involved in seeing that a complex system operates properly and
safely.
On the subject of disaster preparedness in the context of capacity-building,
resilience is the effect sought by such process and activity. Resilience is defined by Miller
(1990) as the “ability of a living system to restore itself to original condition after being
exposed to an outside disturbance that is not too drastic.” Taken in the context of
disaster management, the researchers now infer that community resilience can only be
raised and built once the concerned organization reaches an acceptable or tolerable
level of risk. Herein lies the dilemma of having to develop, promote and implement
71
capacity-building strategies under the brunt of intolerable risk exposure, high degrees of
vulnerability and the preponderance of hazards.
Bert Metz, Ogunlade Davidson, Rob Swart and Jiahua Pan (2001) concurred
that there must be identification and assessment of mitigation technologies and
measures that are required to deviate from “business-as-usual” in the short term. This is
done so in order to raise the level of resiliency – and not the tolerance – of nations and
communities to all kinds of disaster. Thus, it is no longer unfamiliar to us to see on mass
media people who refuse to evacuate their homes in the face of impending danger
because they have misunderstood their sense of tolerance as a sense of security and
resiliency.
In terms of communication system as a DRRM strategy, M.K. Magunda (2010)
explained that public awareness activities foster changes in behavior leading towards a
culture of risk reduction. According to her, the over-all objective of the communication
strategy is to widely disseminate information on disasters and risk reduction and its likely
effects, in order to save lives and livelihood.
72
Magunda (2010) added that communication to the public in general should be
viewed three-ways:
1. This should act as an early warning strategy, communication on the
impending disasters and their effects is fundamental to raising
awareness, getting the population prepared and understanding of the
problem;
2. Targetted and strategic communication should be made locally, to
mobilize the donors, partners, civil society, and other stakeholders to
support implementation of the contingency plan; and
3. Local leaders and elders (or in the case of the Philippines, CSOs) are
very crucial in the society set-up, and should be involved in information
dissemination. They should also play key roles in the mitigation
measures.
Any discussion about disaster management would invariably lead it to the
subject of leadership. It is implied in (b), Section 1, RULE 2, Definition of Terms of the
IRR of R.A. No. 10121: “… capacity may include infrastructure and physical means,
institutions, societal coping abilities, as well as human knowledge, skills, tools, systems,
73
processes, appropriate technologies and collective attributes such as social
relationships, leadership and management.”
Treedy Heller (1982) believed that the essence of leadership is followership. This
renders the bottom-up and proactive approach in disaster risk reduction and
management as the most viable method currently available for communities, especially
those in the urban areas.
Fiedler’s model, on the other hand, claims that group performance depends on
the interaction of the leadership style and the favorableness of the situation. In practice,
leadership of a disaster situation requires another dimension. The researchers would like
to believe that they are in the right path in thinking that risk analysis, both as a policy and
as a decision-making tool, is this critical factor.
FOREIGN RELATED STUDIES
Magunda M. K. (PhD) published a study on August 2010 entitled “Study on
Disaster Risk Management and Environment for the Karamoja Subregion.” The study
focused on:
74
-
Assessment of environmental change as a parameter of disaster risk in the
Karamoja region
-
Assessment of environmental causes and the associated consequences
-
Assessment of the dynamics between disaster, environmental impacts and
the needs of the communities in Karamoja
Koos van Zyl (2006), meanwhile, discussed in his “A Study on a Disaster Risk
Management Plan for the South African Agricultural Sector” the dependent factors of
flood hazard such as the depth and velocity of the water, duration of the flood and the
load carried such as the sediment, salts, sewage and chemicals. He added that flood
events and impacts appear to be increasing on a global scale.
SYNTHESIS OF THE STUDY
As comprehensive and as well-researched as the literature and related studies
of local and foreign disaster risk reduction and management practices are today,
presently there is also a growing threat in the increasing magnitude and frequency of
disasters and disaster risks that the nations and communities of this world are painfully
beginning to realize.
75
As such, the level of preparedness of local communities must be evaluated in
terms of degree and direction with utmost urgency. Already, many countries-signatories
are hinting of new and updated strategies for the post-2015 Hyogo Framework for Action
wherein the entire planet’s disaster risk reduction and management master plan would
be up for thorough assessment.
Relative to the local literature, this study serves to verify a joint research project
participated in by a Filipina, Dr. Doracie B. Zoleta-Nantes, in 2004, regarding the
approaches in the scientific research of hazard-related human behaviors (e.g., risk
assessment, risk perception). The study stated that one approach mentioned has directly
associated disaster preparedness with age-related demographic variables (e.g., age, civil
status), socio-economic related demographic variables (e.g., highest educational
attainment, income, home ownership) and psycho-social-behavioral variables (e.g.,
training, risk assessment).
This study serves to amplify the association between demographic and disaster
preparedness variables, which is one of the specific questions under the statement of the
problem.
76
However, this study was constrained to exclude income from the socio-economic
related variables since the researchers feel it would be of great disservice if income
(along with assets and working capital) would not be given its own in-depth analysis visà-vis disaster preparedness outside of the scope of the study.
In a related matter, the findings involving the 2009 Institute of Philippine
Culture’s qualitative study stating that many residents in poor communities that were
heavily affected by Typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng are still struggling due to lack of assets
and working capital, this study serves as the stepping stone in establishing indicators for
public services, infrastructures and economic activities as elements of disaster risk. The
questionnaire would be tested for its validity and reliability in the treatment of data
regarding risk and risk analysis.
As the researchers have stated in the beginning of this chapter, disaster
preparedness is a matter of condition and of choice. Thus, this study has taken the
proper route in effectively measuring the level of disaster preparedness by using the twofold approach: evaluation of its strength as well as its direction.
77
The researchers would like to note that a holistic, integrated and results-based
approach could be formed by giving cognizance to a very vital factor in disaster
preparedness, which is, risk assessment. This study further notes that sound risk
analysis could be formed through the equally vital factor called common sense.
Community risk assessment, contingency planning, communication system, and
capacity-building are just some of the sub-components of a truly effective disaster
preparedness strategy, and with this in mind, the researchers believe they have covered
enough ground to put the framework of this study into play, and be able to achieve the
objective/s of the research.
It is with a great appreciation of the vast literature and related studies the
researchers have shown that, in the future, disaster risk reduction and management will
be completely hardwired to the educational system, be recognized as a regular subject
and – later on, may even be an enduring college course.