Disaster awareness in three low risk coastal communities in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, Philippines

Journal Pre-proof Disaster awareness in three low risk coastal communities in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, Philippines Ven Paolo B. Valenzuela, Miguel Esteban, Hiroshi Takagi, Nguyen Danh Thao, Motoharu Onuki PII:

S2212-4209(19)30137-2

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101508

Reference:

IJDRR 101508

To appear in:

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

Received Date: 2 February 2019 Revised Date:

2 September 2019

Accepted Date: 25 January 2020

Please cite this article as: V.P.B. Valenzuela, M. Esteban, H. Takagi, N.D. Thao, M. Onuki, Disaster awareness in three low risk coastal communities in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, Philippines, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101508. This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. © 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1

Disaster Awareness in Three Low Risk Coastal Communities in Puerto Princesa City,

2

Palawan, Philippines

3 4

Ven Paolo B. Valenzuela, Graduate Program in Sustainability Science Global Leadership Initiative, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

5

Miguel Esteban, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan

6

Hiroshi Takagi, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan

7 8

Nguyen Danh Thao, Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

9 10

Motoharu Onuki, Graduate Program in Sustainability Science Global Leadership Initiative, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

11 12

ABSTRACT

13

The Philippines as a country is at high risk of suffering from natural hazards and has an

14

extensive national hazard database on the different types of risk. However, some

15

communities are in relatively low risk zones, such as those in Puerto Princesa City in

16

Palawan (with many inhabitants of the city believing it to be safe). The present research seeks

17

to ascertain how disaster risk is understood in coastal areas that are only slightly susceptible

18

to natural hazards, in order to provide strategies that can improve disaster risk governance.

19

The study validated national data on hazard risks through a topographical survey,

20

questionnaire surveys, and group interviews (in March 2016 and 2017) to understand whether

21

residents understood the actual risks they are exposed to. The research found that the national

22

data reflects well local conditions, though community members do not have a clear

23

understanding of the risks, particularly coastal hazards. Moreover, the research found that

24

there has been a recent disaster event, though it was not properly archived and transmitted to

25

the next generation. Thus, there is a need to raise awareness and correctly explain and

26

transmit knowledge about potential hazards even in communities that have relatively lower

27

disaster risk.

28 29

1. INTRODUCTION

30

Due its geographical location, the Philippines is one of the most disaster-prone countries

31

in the planet, being exposed to both seismic activity and intense tropical cyclones [1–4].

32

Within the country, the island of Palawan is usually believed by most people to be the safest

33

area from disasters [5–7]. Tropical cyclone tracks in the Philippines have two distinctive

34

patterns: (a) those moving westward in a course that is nearly parallel to the equator, and (b)

35

moving westward and then turning north-eastward due to the influence of westerlies blowing

36

around N30° [8]. Palawan is on the outskirts of the former group, and thus is almost free

37

from the influence of strong typhoons.

38

However, historical storm tracks and tsunami maps from IBTrACS and the United

39

States of America’s NGDC/WDS Global Historical Tsunami Database show that Palawan

40

has experienced storms and is at risk to nearby tsunami sources [9,10]. A study using 2013

41

Typhoon Haiyan scenarios found that if a similar event occurs in Palawan, coastal areas

42

would be at high risk of suffering from storm surges [11]. While the area is free from seismic

43

activity, it is still exposed to tsunamis. These hazards may impact Puerto Princesa City,

44

Palawan’s capital and only urban area. PHIVOLCS stated that the city is at risk from a

45

nearby fault that can generate a 4 m tsunami wave [12]. This is summarized in Figure 1,

46

along with population density data from the 2015 national census [13].

47

This study adopts the findings of previous research and assumes that, under the right

48

conditions, Puerto Princesa City can be at risk to coastal hazards. On the other hand, the

49

authors acknowledge that most people outside the academe perceive that the area is safe. This

50

contradiction between science and societal perception is the focus of this research. In areas

51

that are perceived not to be particularly at risk to storm surges and tsunamis (despite studies

52

that say otherwise), how do communities understand their local risk and implement disaster

53

preparedness activities? This is particularly crucial when it comes to extreme events, as their

54

effects on coasts have a high degree of uncertainty, and areas currently at low risk might

55

become more hazardous in the future due to the influence of climate change. This risk is

56

further exacerbated by potential development opportunities in coastal areas.

57

Disaster experience promotes disaster awareness [14]. For tropical cyclones with shorter

58

return periods, experience often leads to higher preparedness, including increased information

59

and safer infrastructure against future events [15–17]. For tsunamis, disaster experiences

60

suffered by previous generations are an integral component of present disaster preparedness,

61

particularly when correlating an earthquake with a tsunami [18–20]. Moreover, major

62

disasters such as the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami

63

and the 2013 Typhoon Haiyan have increased awareness on coastal hazards [21,22]. However,

64

studies on disaster awareness have yet to been carried out in communities that have no

65

disaster experience.

66

Increased population density can result in settlements encroaching into hazard prone areas,

67

increasing exposure [23–25]. Lack of pre-impact awareness of hazards by residents in such

68

communities may lead them to underestimate their severity or impact [26,27]. Hazard

69

knowledge through media can sometimes be inadequate as it does not directly influence

70

planning and evacuation [28,29]. People without disaster experience can often misunderstand

71

the risks they are exposed to, and typically the most devastating hazards have return periods

72

that are beyond a person’s lifetime.

73

Understanding disaster risk must consider how hazards interconnect and compound

74

existing socio-economic and environmental vulnerability [30,31]. Countries that emphasize

75

disaster risk reduction also address low probability hazards (1 in 1000 or more years events)

76

to protect development gains. Japan invests heavily in preventative structures to protect

77

people against tsunamis that can occur in a lifetime (typically 1 in 60 to 100 years), while

78

encouraging preparedness for those that occur once every 1000 years [18,32]. Essentially,

79

disaster prevention addresses frequently occurring hazards, while disaster preparedness aims

80

to prevent deaths from rarer but more devastating disasters. Following the 2011 tsunami,

81

emphasis on how physical infrastructure and emergency management should complement

82

each other has been highlighted, as communities realized the importance of participatory

83

governance [18]. Lindell and Prater (2010) argue that in coastal areas at risk to disasters,

84

emergency management should focus on “agency notification and mobilization, protective

85

action selection and timing, warning and evacuation, and risk communication and perception”

86

[33]. These can be enabled through community-based disaster risk management, which

87

enables communities to engage different internal and external stakeholders to invest in

88

disaster risk reduction [34].

89

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction highlights rapid urbanization as an

90

underlying risk driver [35]. Coastlines are identified as high risk areas, as they enable access

91

to resources and trade, which increases exposure to coastal hazards [36,37]. Frequent hazards

92

can focus attention, but current low risk coastal areas might become increasingly hazardous

93

in the future as the population density increases [37,38]. However, disaster studies are often

94

biased towards high probability events in highly populated areas. This has led to a preference

95

in physical infrastructure and relocation solutions that are inadequate when addressing the

96

rapidly changing socio-economic dynamics of urban communities [39]. There is a need to

97

understand how disaster risk management can be improved in all areas, taking into

98

consideration unplanned development.

99

The present research seeks to ascertain how disaster risk is understood in areas that are

100

only slightly susceptible to natural hazards but may be potentially be at risk in the future,

101

with the aim to facilitate disaster risk governance and reduce risks. The study was conducted

102

in three informal settlements of Puerto Princesa, which served as representations of the

103

consequences of rapid urbanization.

104

The 3 communities are in varying locations within the bay, which could be affected by

105

storm surges and tsunamis, though the extent of exposure may be different. Barangay

106

Pagkakaisa is deep inside the bay area, north of the town proper, while Barangay Mandaragat

107

is also in the bay but west of the town. Barangay Bagong Sikat is at the mouth of the bay,

108

south of the main part of the town. Wind-induced surges may affect Barangay Bagong Sikat

109

more, though pressure induced surges will affect all communities. Tsunamis may also affect

110

all communities, with Barangay Bagong Sikat being the first to experience it.

111

The research thus attempted to compare the existing local disaster risk profile of the three

112

coastal communities (as also shown in Figure 1) by determining the hazards and exposure

113

through an analysis of historical storms in the area, a topographical survey, a questionnaire

114

survey of residents, and the use of GIS tools. To validate and assess local government and

115

community response capability to rarely experienced hazards, group interviews with

116

government officials and community leaders were also conducted.

117 118 119 120

Figure 1. Location of Puerto Princesa City and the 3 communities studied. Storm surge inundation levels 1-4, corresponding wave heights, and tsunami inundation scenarios are also shown

121

2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

122

2.1. TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY

123

A topographical survey was conducted at the three barangays (the smallest administrative

124

division in the Philippines) where the questionnaire surveys were distributed, in order to

125

establish their relative height and how high a storm surge would reach in them. [40,41]. The

126

survey measured ground elevation and/or the level of houses at each point, using a GPS

127

[GPSMAP; Garmin Ltd.], a laser ranging instrument [TruPulse 360; Laser Technology, Inc.]

128

and prism (see Figure 2). Each survey started at the sea and proceeded towards the nearest

129

highest ground. Tide levels were corrected using the XTIDE software.

130 131

Figure 2. Topographical survey conducted by the authors in March 2016.

132

A topographic map of the community was also generated using ArcGIS 10.5, which was

133

overlaid with the storm surge and tsunami scenario inundation scenarios gathered. The GPS

134

points from the topographical surveys were then plotted on the map.

135

136

2.2. QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY

137

The research employed five local enumerators to conduct structured questionnaire

138

surveys with residents amongst the three coastal barangays to ascertain their awareness of

139

tsunamis and storm surges. The surveys were conducted on 15-16th March 2016, which

140

resulted in a sample of 155 respondents (n=155), from 155 completed questionnaires. The

141

questionnaire was drafted in English and then a modified version (in both English and

142

Filipino) was administered to individuals randomly encountered at the survey locations on an

143

opportunistic basis (typically those enjoying their free time outdoors, and who were willing to

144

participate in the survey). The questionnaire survey took about 10 minutes per individual to

145

complete. The survey questions were closed-ended, in order to rapidly appraise their

146

awareness to hazards. The data was encoded into the Statistical Package for the Social

147

Sciences (SPSS) to provide descriptive statistical analysis of the results. A chi-square test, a

148

one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) or a Kruskal-Wallis Test, whenever applicable, were

149

used to determine statistical significance. A significance level of 0.05 was adopted for this

150

study. The information generated was then validated through group interviews with

151

government officials and community leaders.

152

2.3. GROUP INTERVIEWS

153

Group interviews were conducted during two different time periods: 17 March 2016, and

154

15-16 March 2017 (see Figure 3). The first interview was conducted the day after the

155

topographical surveys were carried out, and only involved members of the City Disaster Risk

156

Reduction and Management Office (CDRRMO). The second set of interviews were

157

conducted a year after, and involved the remaining stakeholders listed in Table 1 below.

158

During these set of interviews, preliminary findings from the questionnaire surveys with

159

residents were discussed with the informants for validation. The group interviews were

160

designed in order to provide narratives of the survey results, as well as to understand the

161

perception of disaster risk by residents and authorities.

162

Table 1. List of Group Interviews Stakeholder Provincial Government City Government

Office Provincial Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office Puerto Princesa City Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office

Community Leaders

Barangay Pagkakaisa

Community Leaders

Barangay Mandaragat

Community Leaders

Barangay Bagong Sikat

Affected Community

Barangay Bagong Sikat

Position of Informants Media and Officer

Information

City Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Officer Research and Training Officer Barangay Captain Barangay Councilor Barangay Secretary Barangay Treasurer Barangay Councilors Barangay Secretary Barangay Treasurer Barangay Captain Barangay Councilor Barangay Secretary Barangay Treasurer Residents

Number of Informants 2

3

4

4

4

5

163

164 165 166

Figure 3. Group interviews. Discussions with City Disaster Management Officials (left) and interviews with local community leaders (right)

167

The group interviews followed a semi-structured format to ensure that participants could

168

express their thoughts in a free-flowing manner. The following is a list of the guide questions

169

employed:

170

•

Are you aware of your community being at risk to storm surges or tsunamis?

171

•

Has your community experienced coastal disasters in the past?

172

•

What is the primary hazard that your community is concerned with?

173

•

How do you provide residents with hazard information?

174

•

Do you have an emergency management system in place?

175

In addition to the above, the following questions were also asked during the group

176

interview with the residents of Barangay Bagong Sikat:

177

•

Have you experienced a disaster before? What was it and when did it happen?

178

•

Where were you during the event?

179

•

Can you describe the sequence of events during the disaster?

180

•

How did you respond to these events?

181 182 183

3. RESULTS 3.1. TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY 3.1.1. BARANGAY PAGKAKAISA

184

Barangay Pagkakaisa has a population of 1,131 people. The field survey started in the

185

morning on 16th March 2016. Figure 4 shows a summary of the points surveyed, and a

186

diagrammatic representation of their elevation.

187 188 189 190 191

Figure 4. Map of Brgy Pagkakaisa, showing areas at risk of storm surge and a diagrammatic representation of its cross-sectional elevation profile. Basemap Sources: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA FSA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

192

Houses in Points C and D are 2.26 m above sea level when corrected by XTIDE. If the

193

Highest High-Water Level (HHWL) is considered (which was +1.8 m in 2016, the year the

194

topographical survey was conducted) the houses are only 0.46 m above sea level. All

195

surveyed points are within all hazard zones, and even small storm surges or tsunamis would

196

flood them. Point E, the highest elevation surveyed, is still at risk to a 4 m storm surge or

197

tsunami.

198

3.1.2. BARANGAY MANDARAGAT

199

Barangay Mandaragat is the most populous amongst the 3 communities surveyed, with

200

9,210 residents. The survey was carried out on the 16th March 2016, with Figure 5 detailing

201

its outcome.

202 203 204 205 206

Figure 5. Map of Brgy Mandaragat, showing areas at risk of storm surge and a diagrammatic representation of its cross-sectional elevation profile. Basemap Sources: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA FSA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

207

Point D, the best representative of the floor level of the houses in this community, is 1.5

208

m above sea level (when corrected by XTIDE). The community would be at risk in the event

209

of a 2 m storm surge. When considering the HHWL, the houses would be at an elevation of -

210

0.3 m, which means that high tides may inundate the houses each year. The houses in this

211

community are therefore at risk to storm surges and tsunamis, with points F and G being the

212

only safe areas (in the nearest hill to the community).

213

3.1.3. BARANGAY BAGONG SIKAT

214

Barangay Bagong Sikat has 7,497 residents and is located to the south of the city proper,

215

near the opening of the bay. Figure 6 outlines the summary of the points surveyed and its

216

cross-sectional diagrammatic representation. The survey started at 16th March 2016 at 16:48.

217 218 219 220 221

Figure 6. Map of Brgy Bagong Sikat, showing areas at risk of storm surge and a diagrammatic representation of its cross-sectional elevation profile. Basemap Sources: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA FSA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

222

Point C represents the floor level of the houses in this community. It is in the middle of

223

the settlement and is 2.78 m above sea level when corrected by XTIDE. Considering HHWL,

224

the houses are at 0.96 m above sea level. The houses in this community can be inundated by a

225

storm surge and tsunami of more than 3 m high in normal circumstances. During the highest

226

tide of the year, a weak storm surge of 2 m may inundate the houses (to a depth of 1.04 m).

227

This community was affected by a storm surge event in 2008, though data on the exact

228

inundation height could not be found by the authors. Inferring from group interviews, the

229

waves should have been more than 1 m, but less than 3 m. Points A, B, C, and D are all

230

within the storm surge and tsunami inundation areas. Point E is located at the edge of the area

231

that could be potentially flooded by a tsunami. Traversing from Point D to Point E requires a

232

sudden uphill climb which may hinder mobility during an actual evacuation. Fishing boats

233

are anchored along the coastline, which explains why many of these were damaged during

234

the disaster event in 2008.

235

3.1.4. EXPOSED POPULATION IN THE 3 COMMUNITIES

236

The topographical survey indicates that the communities would be exposed to even weak

237

storm surges and tsunamis, and there is thus a need to determine the population at risk. To do

238

so, the authors determined that the population of each community would be equally spread

239

over its area (from the 2015 Census of Puerto Princesa City, see Table 2), and then

240

determined the exposure to each inundation level through GIS (see Table 3). Table 2. Total Population and Total Land Area of the 3 Communities Community Pagkakaisa

241 242

Mandaragat

Bagong Sikat

Total Population

1131

9210

7497

Total Land Area (in km2)

0.11

0.619

0.367

Table 3. Exposure to storm surge and tsunami scenarios in each community Community Pagkakaisa Coastal Hazards

Mandaragat

Bagong Sikat

Area (km2)

% of Area*

# of persons exposed

Area (km2)

% of Area

# of persons exposed

Area (km2)

% of Area

# of persons exposed

Level 1

0.039

35.45%

401

0.163

26.33%

2425

0.030

8.17%

613

Level 2

0.049

44.55%

504

0.227

36.67%

3377

0.037

10.08%

756

Level 3

0.067

60.91%

689

0.278

44.91%

4136

0.042

11.44%

858

Level 4

0.072

65.45%

740

0.344

55.57%

5118

0.047

12.81%

960

0.110

100.00%

1131

0.314

50.73%

4672

0.075

20.44%

1532

Storm Surge

Tsunami *Represents the percentage of the total land area of the community that may be inundated by each coastal hazard scenario

243

3.2. QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY

244

The results of the questionnaire surveys are outlined below.

245

3.2.1. DEMOGRAPHICS

246

The study surveyed 155 respondents in 3 coastal communities (Barangays) in Puerto

247

Princesa City, Palawan. There were 57 respondents in Barangay Pagkakaisa, 52 in Barangay

248

Mandaragat, and 46 in Barangay Bagong Sikat. 101 (65.2%) respondents were female, 52

249

(33.5%) were male, and 2 (1.3%) did not indicate any gender. A chi-square test indicated that

250

the gender does not vary by location (p-value = 0.58). Table 4 outlines the gender distribution

251

per community. Table 4. Distribution of Male and Female Respondents by Community

Male Location

Barangay Pakakaisa Barangay Mandaragat Barangay Bagong Sikat Total

Count Count Count Count Subtable N %

23 15 14 52 33.5%

Gender No Answer 34 0 36 1 31 1 101 2 65.2% 1.3%

Female

Total 57 52 46 155 100.0%

252 253

Part of the reason for the gender imbalance may be due to the survey being conducted

254

during daytime. Most respondents were housewives or store owners in the area, whereas the

255

men were either at sea or at work. Figure 7 shows that respondents were mostly women

256

within the working age bracket of 20 to 59 years old. 35 30

Count

25 20 15 10 5 0 No Answer

19 and below

20 to 29

30 to 39

40 to 49

50 to 59

60 to 69

70 to 79 Above 80

Age of Respondents Female

Male

No Answer

257 258

Figure 7. Distribution of respondent's age according to gender

259

This emphasizes the role of women in disaster preparedness, as they are more exposed to

260

disasters in these areas. As the questionnaire survey was conducted during daytime, the high

261

number of female respondents indicates that they are less likely to have an occupation that

262

requires travel outside of the community. Figure 8 shows the gender distribution per

263

occupation of the respondents.

Count

Distribution of Occupation by Gender 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Occupation

264 265

Female

Male

No Answer

Figure 8. Distribution of occupation by gender

266 267

Most of the respondents indicated that they were housewives (27.7%), self-employed or

268

small store owners (19.4%), fisherfolk (16.1%), and unemployed (11.6%). Aside from fishing,

269

the next 3 top occupations in the community were dominated by women (who usually

270

contribute to their families by engaging in home-based businesses [42]. This is typical of an

271

informal settler community, which are typically characterised by the high number of women

272

dominating the local economy [43]).

273

3.2.2. DISASTER EXPERIENCE

274

Respondents were asked about their experiences regarding flooding from the nearby coast

275

or a river. While the researchers were not able to determine whether respondents could

276

discern the difference between coastal or fluvial flooding, most perceived that their area was

277

at little to no risk to floods (See Table 5). A Kruskal-Wallis test determined that the

278

perception of the possibility of flooding was the same across gender and age (asymptotic p-

279

values = 0.330 and 0.441, respectively). During the group interviews participants stated that

280

Palawan rarely experienced strong storms, as it was outside the usual typhoon paths.

281

Table 5. Respondent's perception of possibility of flooding from seas or rivers per Barangay Pakakaisa

Mandaragat

Bagong Sikat

Total

Barangay’s name Count Perception of Possibility of Flooding from Seas or Rivers

No Answer Not at all Little Moderate Strongly Very Strongly Total

0 30 19 5 0 3 57

% Count 0.0% 2 52.6% 29 33.3% 16 8.8% 2 0.0% 2 5.3% 1 100.0%

52

% Count 3.8% 1 55.8% 13 30.8% 18 3.8% 8 3.8% 2 1.9% 4 100.0%

46

% Count 2.2% 3 28.3% 72 39.1% 53 17.4% 15 4.3% 4 8.7% 8 100.0%

155

% 1.9% 46.5% 34.2% 9.7% 2.6% 5.2% 100.0%

282 283

However, there is a significant difference (p= 0.004) amongst communities when it

284

comes to the perception of possibility of flooding. Table 5 shows that more respondents in

285

Bagong Sikat answered that there was a moderate to very strong threat of flooding in their

286

vicinity (though overall most respondents had never experienced any prior damage, see

287

Figure 9). This was clearly higher than in the other 2 barangays.

Stacked Bar of Percentage of Respondents per Community with Previous Disaster Experience

3%

35%

62%

288 289 290 291

Previous Disaster Experience Yes No No Answer

% Respondents per Community

Previous Disaster Experience (N=155)

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Barangay Pakakaisa (n=57)

No Answer

Barangay Mandaragat (n=52) Community No

Barangay Bagong Sikat (n=46)

Yes

Figure 9. Pie chart of previous disaster experience with stacked bar of percentage of respondents per community

292

An ANOVA test yielded there is a highly significant difference (p-value = .000) on past

293

disaster experience amongst communities. Figure 9 also shows that most respondents who

294

responded positively were from Barangay Bagong Sikat. Respondents who have previous

295

disaster experience were asked about the extent of the damage (see Table 6). Most of those

296

who reported total damage were from Barangay Bagong Sikat. Residents stated that a storm

297

surge event occurred in the area, as will be discussed later in the section regarding the group

298

interview findings.

299

Table 6. Extent of damage from previous disaster experience by community (n=54) Extent of Damage Minor (small cracks, Major (large cracks, slightly torn roofs, slightly torn walls, Total (Totally etc.) etc.) Destroyed) Barangay Count % Count % Count % Pakakaisa 5 26.3% 6 42.9% 1 4.8% Mandaragat 9 47.4% 0 0.0% 1 4.8% Bagong Sikat 5 26.3% 8 57.1% 19 90.5% Total 19 100.0% 14 100.0% 21 100.0%

Total Count 12 10 32 54

% 22.2% 18.5% 59.3% 100.0%

300 301 302

3.2.3. STORM SURGE AND TSUNAMI RISK PERCEPTION Respondents were also asked about their perception of storm surge and tsunami risk (see

303

Table 7).

304

Table 7. Storm surge and tsunami knowledge by community Storm Surge Knowledge Yes Barangay Pakakaisa

No

Tsunami Knowledge

No Answer

Yes

No

No Answer

Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % 41 71.9% 16 28.1% 0 0.0% 52 91.2% 5 8.8% 0 0.0%

Mandaragat

30 57.7%

21 40.4%

1 1.9%

45 86.5%

6 11.5%

1 1.9%

Bagong Sikat

36 78.3%

9 19.6%

1 2.2%

42 91.3%

3 6.5%

1 2.2%

107 69.0%

46 29.7%

2 1.3%

139 89.7%

14 9.0%

2 1.3%

Total

305 306

69% of the respondents knew what a storm surge is, while 89.7% knew what a tsunami is.

307

The reason for such relatively high level of awareness probably resides in media coverage of

308

the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami and 2013 Typhoon Haiyan, respectively (as

309

reported during the interviews). ANOVA tests indicate that there is no significant difference

310

between locations about knowledge of storm surges (p-value = 0.095) and tsunamis (p-value

311

= 0.677). It is interesting to note that the understanding on storm surge (69%) among

312

population in the study site is higher than that in previous studies in neighbouring countries,

313

such as Jakarta, Indonesia (46%) and Mekong delta, Vietnam (55%) [26,44]. Thus, it appears

314

that the term ‘storm surge’ became more prevalent in the aftermath of the 2013 typhoon,

315

which destroyed large sections of the eastern part of the Philippines [21,45].

316

Table 8 shows the perceived level of danger that storm surges represent. The total

317

percentage of those who answered from “not at all” to “moderate” (64.5%) and the sum of

318

the percentages of those who answered from “moderate” to “very strongly” (64.5%) are

319

roughly equal. This means that, overall, respondents are not clear about the threat posed by

320

storm surges. When asked during the interviews informants stated that while storm surges are

321

dangerous, they do not represent a serious threat to them as tropical storms do not regularly

322

pass close to Palawan.

323

Table 8. Count and percentage of perceived storm surge danger by community

No Answer Not at all Little Moderate Strongly Very Strongly Total

Pakakaisa Count % 0 0.0% 12 21.1% 12 21.1% 20 35.1% 5 8.8% 8 14.0% 57 100.0%

Community Mandaragat Count % 1 1.9% 4 7.7% 17 32.7% 13 25.0% 8 15.4% 9 17.3% 52 100.0%

Bagong Sikat Count % 1 2.2% 1 2.2% 7 15.2% 14 30.4% 5 10.9% 18 39.1% 46 100.0%

Total Count % 2 1.3% 17 11.0% 36 23.2% 47 30.3% 18 11.6% 35 22.6% 155 100.0%

324 325

Figure 10 shows that a majority (80.4%) of those from Barangay Bagong Sikat responded

326

that storm surges represent at least a moderate danger to them, compared with much lower

327

percentages in Barangay Pagkakaisa (57.9%) and Barangay Mandaragat (57.7%). A

328

Kruskall-Wallis Test between communities and their perception of storm surge danger

329

yielded a statistically significant result (asymptotic p-value = 0.003). Group interviews

330

revealed that residents in this community recognize that they are at risk of suffering from

331

these events due to this relatively recent disaster experience. However, conducting the same

332

test on age and gender does not yield any significant difference (asymptotic p-values of 0.580

333

and 0.456 respectively). 100% 90%

% Respondents

80% 70%

No Answer

60%

Not at all

50%

Little

40%

Moderate

30%

Strongly

20%

Very Strongly

10% 0% Barangay Pakakaisa

Barangay Mandaragat Barangay Bagong Sikat Community

334 335

Figure 10. Perceived level of storm surge threat by community

336

The perceived threat that tsunamis present, on the other hand, is different (see Table 7).

337

Respondents emphasize that the sudden nature of the hazard is what makes it dangerous.

338

According to interviews with the local disaster managers and village leaders, warnings from

339

national government agencies about the possible risks of a tsunami taking place have been

340

provided to them.

341

342

Table 9. Count and percentage of perceived tsunami danger by community

Perception of No Answer Tsunami Danger Not at all Little Moderate Strongly Very Strongly Total

Pakakaisa Count % 1 1.8% 6 10.5% 5 8.8% 14 24.6% 9 15.8% 22 38.6% 57

100.0%

Community Mandaragat Count % 1 1.9% 5 9.6% 5 9.6% 9 17.3% 15 28.8% 17 32.7% 52

100.0%

Bagong Sikat Total Count % Count % 1 2.2% 3 1.9% 0 0.0% 11 7.1% 5 10.9% 15 9.7% 6 13.0% 29 18.7% 4 8.7% 28 18.1% 30 65.2% 69 44.5% 46

100.0%

155

100.0%

343 344

More than half of respondents stated that they strongly feel that a tsunami would be

345

dangerous for their community (See Figure 11). Despite this higher overall perception of

346

danger (compared to storm surges), a Kruskall-Wallis test determined that there is also

347

statistically significant difference amongst the communities (asymptotic p-value = 0.014).

348

Again, Barangay Bagong Sikat’s higher perception of tsunami danger is probably also a

349

reflection of their increased level of awareness as a result of a relatively recent disaster

350

experience. 100% 90%

% Respondents

80% 70%

No Answer

60%

Not at all

50%

Little

40%

Moderate

30%

Strongly

20%

Very Strongly

10% 0% Barangay Pakakaisa

Barangay Mandaragat Barangay Bagong Sikat Community

351 352

Figure 11. Perceived level of tsunami danger by community

353 354

3.2.4. MONITORING AND WARNING Respondents detailed their sources of hazard information by choosing from several

355

possible responses (multiple choices were allowed, with Table 10 summarizing the answers).

356

Table 10. Count of disaster information and warning source by community

Barangay Pakakaisa Disaster Information and Warning Source

TV, Radio Print Media (Newspapers, Pamphlets, Brochures) Public Address System (Fixed Loudspeakers, Mobile Loudspeakers, etc.) Internet Family, relatives Neighbors Authority Figures (Village Leaders, Police, Firefighters, etc.)

Community Barangay Barangay Mandaragat Bagong Sikat 52 50 44 4

6

3

4

0

1

6 5 11 16

2 4 11 3

4 7 14 11

NGOs and other aid organizations Self-taught or understood by observation (after seeing or hearing the sea)

3

1

2

3

0

1

Others No Answer

0 3

0 1

0 2

357 358

Almost all respondents (146) rely on TV and Radio as their source of disaster information,

359

as they are convenient and readily available. It is also through this that the Philippine Public

360

Storm Warning System (PPSWS) is relayed, which provides relevant information regarding

361

tropical cyclones such as track, wind speed, possible time of earliest impact, and recently,

362

storm surges (shown in Table 11) [46,47]. Despite the proliferation of personal mobile

363

phones, the dependency on the internet, including SNS, is still far below that of traditional

364

media.

365

366

Table 11. The Philippine Public Storm Warning System [46,47] Storm Signal Number Wind Speed 30 km/h to 60 km/h 1 60 km/h to 100 km/h 2 100 km/h to 185 km/h 3 185 km/h to 220 km/h 4 Above 220 km/ 5

Hours before Earliest Impact 36 24 12 12 12

367 368 369

Respondents were also asked whether they have knowledge of any existing local tsunami warning system in the area (see Figure 12).

3%

37%

60%

Yes

No

No Answer

370 371

Figure 12. Knowledge of existing tsunami warning systems in the area

372

While the majority stated that they have no knowledge of any local tsunami warning

373

system, 37% answered that they believe that there is one installed in their community.

374

However, interviews with local disaster managers indicate that there are no tsunami early

375

warning systems in the area. Tsunami Detection and Early Warning Systems are only

376

installed in a few selected areas of the Philippines, and this does not include Palawan [48,49].

377

3.2.5. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

378

The respondents were asked if they had participated in any evacuation drill in the last 5

379

years, as well as their knowledge on where to evacuate in the case of storm surges and

380

tsunamis. Figure 13 shows the respondent’s reported participation in evacuation drills,

381

indicating how most (65% of all respondents, n=155) had not participated in any evacuation

382

drill in the past 5 years.

Yes (5 or more times) Barangay Bagong Sikat

Yes (4 times) Yes (3 times)

Barangay Mandaragat

Yes (2 times) Yes (1 time)

Barangay Pakakaisa No 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

% of respondents

100%

No, but I know the evacuation route No Answer

383 384 385 386

Figure 13. Bar chart of participation of respondents to evacuation drills and stacked bar percentage of respondents per communities who participated in evacuation drills in the last 5 years

387

50% of the respondents from Barangay Bagong Sikat stated that they participated in at

388

least 1 evacuation drill in the last 5 years, compared to around 30% in the other communities.

389

Kruskal-Wallis Test determined that participation in these drills is significantly different

390

according to location (asymptotic p-value = 0.022), and previous disaster experience clearly

391

resulted in a higher participation in evacuation drills.

392

Evacuation drills provide those participating with knowledge of where, when, and how to

393

evacuate. The respondents were asked whether they know where to evacuate to for each of

394

the hazards (See Table 12).

395

Table 12. Knowledge of storm surge and tsunami evacuation area by community

Storm Surge Evacuation Knowledge Tsunami Evacuation Knowledge

Community Pakakaisa Mandaragat Bagong Sikat Totals Count % Count % Count % Count Total % Yes 47 82.5% 34 65.4% 35 76.1% 116 74.8% No 10 17.5% 17 32.7% 10 21.7% 37 23.9% No Answer 0 0.0% 1 1.9% 1 2.2% 2 1.3% Total 57 100.0% 52 100.0% 46 100.0% 155 100.0% Yes 46 80.7% 33 63.5% 37 80.4% 116 74.8% No 10 17.5% 17 32.7% 8 17.4% 35 22.6% No Answer 1 1.8% 2 3.8% 1 2.2% 4 2.6% Total 57 100.0% 52 100.0% 46 100.0% 155 100.0%

396

About three quarters of the respondents stated that they do know where to evacuate to in

397

the event of a storm surge or tsunami. Interestingly, this knowledge level is almost the same

398

for storm surge and tsunamis, implying that they could perceive that these two coastal

399

hazards are similar types of physical phenomenon. However, it is important to note that for

400

most Filipinos an evacuation shelter is typically the nearest Barangay Hall, Church, or school,

401

which are not necessarily safe during a disaster, and the physical impact due to a tsunami and

402

storm surge is not necessarily the same.

403 404

3.3. GROUP INTERVIEWS AND THE CASE OF TROPICAL STORM NUOL (2008)

405

Respondents from Barangay Bagong Sikat had experienced damage during a previous

406

disaster but could not identify the year in which it occurred. The range of responses was

407

between 2007 and 2010, which the group interviews narrowed to an event in 2008: tropical

408

depression Nuol, (locally known as “Tonyo”, which affected the Philippines from 13 – 16

409

November 2008). At its peak, it was a tropical storm with 75 km/h (45 mph) 10-min

410

sustained winds and a central pressure of 994 hPa, though this was after it had passed the

411

country. For the Philippines, this was a relatively weak storm. Authorities did provide

412

warnings about the storm (which passed 60 km south of Puerto Princesa City) and the

413

possibility of landslides, flash flooding, and storm surges [50,51].

414

Respondents confirmed that Barangay Bagong Sikat experienced a storm surge event.

415

Three large waves slammed into the community, destroying houses and boats. Residents also

416

feared that the fire that broke out in the community could be carried by winds towards a

417

nearby petroleum depot. Barangay leaders indicated that 600 families were affected, 150

418

small fishing boats were destroyed, and 100 houses were destroyed or sustained damage.

419

However, interviews yielded different interpretations of the phenomena. The respondents

420

were confused as to what had caused the disaster. Most informants stated that it was caused

421

by a weather system that affected the Philippines, though many believed that it was in

422

mainland Luzon.

423

Further literature review found that the disaster was not archived properly. The event

424

happened in 2008, when most local news did not have their own websites, though

425

information was detailed in blogs by local journalists. According to them, 2 barangays were

426

hit, 1050 families were affected, 600 houses were destroyed and 278 partially damaged

427

[52,53]. One of these communities was Barangay Bagong Sikat. The event was also reported

428

nationally, though there was some discrepancy in the information published. ABS-CBN

429

News (2008) quotes an unnamed Red Cross report that the storm damaged 4 barangays, with

430

3 people reported missing, and 213 families being evacuated [54]. They further reported that

431

a fire and a storm surge had affected Purok Sampaguita and a couple of other communities

432

within Barangay Bagong Sikat. Puerto Princesa City declared a state of calamity as a

433

response to this event [55]. There was thus a discrepancy in the number of communities

434

affected, with local news stating 2 while the national news indicated 4. The news sites also

435

stated that the residents affected evacuated within and outside the affected community [54].

436

4. DISCUSSION

437 438

4.1. EXPOSURE TO COASTAL HAZARDS IN URBAN COASTAL COMMUNITIES RESIDING IN “LOW RISK” AREAS

439

The topographical survey showed that the highest elevation amongst the houses in the

440

three communities is +2.68 m, and the lowest is at +1.5 m. All houses are significantly below

441

the worst tsunami or storm surge scenario (potentially up to 4.0 m – 5.0 m in height). If

442

corrected by HHWL, which was 1.8 m in 2016, the lowest houses are -0.3 m below HHWL,

443

meaning they could experience tidal flooding. Thus, even in the minimum 2.0 m scenario for

444

storm surges the communities would clearly be flooded. Based just on this physical

445

assessment, the communities surveyed are exposed to even weak coastal hazards.

446

The Puerto Princesa City case can be compared to other urban communities in Southeast

447

Asia that are experiencing the effects of rapid development and urbanization. Impoverished

448

communities in Jakarta, for instance, would experience potential increased flooding in the

449

next few decades and will be challenged to cope with these hazards [26,56,57]. Communities

450

in Vietnam would likewise be at a higher risk in the future [44,58,59]. Moreover, given that

451

there is a prevailing perception that Puerto Princesa is at low risk, there is no immediate need

452

to invest in physical defences against coastal flooding, potentially exposing their inhabitants

453

to future danger.

454 455

4.2. DISASTER AWARENESS AND EXPERIENCE IN LOW RISK COASTAL COMMUNITIES

456

Coastal disaster events reported in the news, mainly the 2013 Typhoon Haiyan and the

457

2011 Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami, were identified during the group interviews as the

458

primary examples of storm surge and tsunami events. Clearly, media reports on major coastal

459

disaster events have had an impact on local people’s knowledge about different types of

460

hazards [21,32,60]. This is despite the prevailing perception in 2 out of 3 communities that

461

their settlements are not at risk. While tsunamis are viewed by the communities as

462

threatening (due to the limited warning that precedes them), the inaccurate perception that

463

storms do not pass through the province creates a miscalculation their exposure to storm

464

surges. This is similar to the case of Typhoon Haiyan, were residents did not know what a

465

storm surge was, which clearly had an impact on casualty rates [16,17,21]. Thus, there is a

466

limit to the amount of awareness that the media can create, highlighting the importance of

467

disaster experience (and its transmission across generations).

468

As stated earlier, only residents of Barangay Bagong Sikat appeared to have a different

469

opinion, due to a prior disaster experience, even though respondents were not exactly sure

470

when this had taken place. The group interviews highlighted this prior disaster experience,

471

though the event was neither properly explained to the community members nor archived

472

properly for local transmission of knowledge from one generation to another, or to other parts

473

of the city.

474

Disaster awareness decays over time, with those who experienced it having high

475

awareness about future events, while if there are no programs to keep the memory of the

476

disaster alive then it will be forgotten by the 3rd generation [21]. Low understanding of

477

previous events lead to a lack of basic disaster awareness, as in the case of four communities

478

in Trinidad and Tobago [61]. The storm surge event in Barangay Bagong Sikat is now in its

479

2nd generation, as 10 years have passed since the disaster, though this information is not being

480

transmitted effectively, and that awareness is now decaying. The narratives and the

481

information gathered from secondary sources is thus important in preserving the memory of

482

the disaster event alive. Moreover, the fact that this event took place in an area that is thought

483

of to be safe from coastal disasters can be important to raise disaster awareness in Puerto

484

Princesa City.

485

When communities are aware of previous disasters, it will be more likely that individuals

486

will attempt to seek information regarding the potential hazards that could affect them. At

487

present, communities in Puerto Princesa City mostly rely on the TV and radio to obtain

488

information, as information regarding storms is mostly transmitted using such medium. On

489

the other hand, for the case of tsunamis most respondents stated that they do not know

490

whether there is a tsunami warning system in the vicinity. Effective disaster governance

491

requires a multi-stakeholder engagement in decision making, which in turn, requires multiple

492

sources of reliable information [62,63]. The lack of multiple sources of information and the

493

lack of awareness about coastal hazards can undermine preparedness efforts, as in the case of

494

Typhoon Haiyan in 2013 [16]. This is reflected in participation in evacuation drills where

495

most respondents had not participated in any in the past 5 years, and thus few knew where to

496

evacuate to in the event of a storm surge or tsunami.

497

4.3. CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR DISASTER GOVERNANCE

498

IN COASTAL COMMUNITIES THAT CONSIDER THEMSELVES TO BE

499

AT LOW RISK

500

Puerto Princesa City is susceptible to coastal hazards, though they have a lower

501

probability of happening than in other parts of the Philippines. Nevertheless, while the

502

possibility is low, there is still the need to inform residents about the risks, as many live very

503

near or directly above the shoreline. This increases exposure to even weak coastal hazards,

504

that would not otherwise result in a disaster (if people lived in areas that were higher or

505

further away from the coast).

506

Disaster awareness is vital for effective disaster governance, and low awareness will

507

undermine efforts to improve disaster risk reduction. In order to protect development gains,

508

the case of the three communities in Puerto Princesa City highlights the need to increase

509

disaster awareness in areas with a perception low susceptibility to natural hazards. Thus,

510

awareness is a component that may initiate investments towards implementing effective

511

disaster governance strategies.

512

5. CONCLUSION

513

The research sought to ascertain how disaster risk is understood in areas that are only

514

slightly susceptible to natural hazards, in order to improve disaster risk governance in coastal

515

areas that may be potentially at risk in the future. The three communities studied in Puerto

516

Princesa City were used as a representative of communities that are at lower risk of suffering

517

from natural hazards than other parts of a disaster-prone country. The authors found that

518

incomplete understanding of risks, particularly the interplay of hazard, exposure and

519

vulnerability, increases the possibility of disasters happening in areas where the population

520

has the perception that they have a low susceptibility to certain types of events. As population

521

increases and takes up residence in coastal areas, exposure to the hazard also increases. This

522

means that beyond the threat of the loss of life due to disasters, livelihoods and other

523

economic opportunities can also be affected.

524

In order to address this and potentially decrease hazard exposure, there is a need to

525

increase disaster awareness by properly looking at an area’s disaster history. Disaster risk

526

managers must learn about previous events within their region and use these as examples for

527

the communities they oversee, in conjunction with using case studies of larger events

528

elsewhere. Media coverage of the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami and 2013 Typhoon

529

Haiyan has already increased the awareness about storm surges and tsunamis in many

530

communities around the planet. This knowledge can further be solidified with a local

531

example, as residents who have experienced a previous coastal disaster typically show a

532

higher participation in disaster preparedness activities.

533

Finally, disaster risk assessments, especially at the local level, should be retrospective,

534

introspective, and prospective. The case of 2008’s Tropical Storm Nuol represents an event

535

that can be used to illustrate the point that disasters can take place in areas that rarely

536

experiences coastal hazards. This exemplifies the problem that disasters typically affect most

537

those who are least prepared and most vulnerable. Such events should be taken into

538

consideration in current planning and preparedness activities, and long-term plans on disaster

539

prevention should consider increased exposure and vulnerability due to urban development.

540

6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

541

The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of the AUN/SEED-Net for their

542

support of this research through the “Coastal disasters and climate change in Southeast Asia:

543

An assessment and countermeasures for sustainable development of the fast-growing coastal

544

areas” project. Also, the Global Program on Sustainability Science, Graduate Leadership

545

Initiative, supported by the Japanese Ministry of Education (MEXT) provided support for the

546

questionnaires that were conducted. A part of the present work was performed as a part of

547

activities of Research Institute of Sustainable Future Society, Waseda Research Institute for

548

Science and Engineering, Waseda University. HT was also funded by the grant for Tokyo

549

Institute of Technology (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, 16KK0121).

550

7. REFERENCES

551

[1]

M. Garschagen, M. Hagenlocher, M. Comes, M. Dubbert, R. Sabelfeld, Y.J. Lee, L.

552

Grunewald, M. Lanzendörfer, P. Mucke, O. Neuschäfer, S. Pott, J. Post, S. Schramm,

553

D. Schumann-Bölsche, B. Vandemeulebroecke, T. Welle, J. Birkmann, World Risk

554

Report 2016, United Nations Univ. – Inst. Environ. Hum. Secur. (2016).

555

doi:9783946785026.

556

[2]

S.R.G. Jose, Preliminary Examination of Existing Methodologies for Allocating and

557

Tracking National Government Budget for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) in the

558

Philippines, Geneva, Switzerland and Mandaluyong City, Philippines, 2012.

559

https://www.preventionweb.net/files/32378_32378philippinesdraftdrrinvestmentt.pdf.

560

[3]

T.A. Cinco, R.G. de Guzman, A.M.D. Ortiz, R.J.P. Delfino, R.D. Lasco, F.D. Hilario,

561

E.L. Juanillo, R. Barba, E.D. Ares, Observed trends and impacts of tropical cyclones in

562

the Philippines, Int. J. Climatol. (2016). doi:10.1002/joc.4659.

563

[4]

I. Wong, T. Dawson, M. Dober, Evaluating the Seisimic Hazards in Metro Manila,

564

Philippines,

565

0109.PDF.

566

[5]

567 568

Rappler.com,

Iitk.Ac.In.

MAP:

(2013).

Strongest

http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/14_07-

earthquakes

in

the

Philippines,

(2015).

https://www.rappler.com/science-nature/33807-map-strongest-earthquakes-in-ph. [6]

Manila Observatory, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Climate- and

569

Weather-Related Risk Maps, Mapp. Philipp. Vulnerability to Environ. Disasters.

570

(2005). http://vm.observatory.ph/cw_maps.html (accessed December 18, 2017).

571

[7]

Manila Observatory, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Geophysical

572

Risk

573

http://vm.observatory.ph/geophys_maps.html (accessed December 18, 2017).

574

[8]

Maps,

Mapp.

Philipp.

unusual

576

doi:10.1007/s11069-015-1965-6. [9]

to

Environ.

Disasters.

(2005).

H. Takagi, M. Esteban, Statistics of tropical cyclone landfalls in the Philippines:

575

577

Vulnerability

characteristics

of

2013

Typhoon

Haiyan,

Nat.

Hazards.

(2016).

K.R. Knapp, M.C. Kruk, D.H. Levinson, H.J. Diamond, C.J. Neumann, The

578

International Best Track Archive for Climate Stewardship (IBTrACS), Bull. Am.

579

Meteorol. Soc. 91 (2010) 363–376. doi:10.1175/2009BAMS2755.1.

580 581

[10] National Geophysical Data Center / World Data Service, Global Historical Tsunami Database, 2100 BC to Present, (2018). doi:10.7289/V5PN93H7.

582

[11] J.P. Lapidez, J. Tablazon, L. Dasallas, L.A. Gonzalo, K.M. Cabacaba, M.M.A. Ramos,

583

J.K. Suarez, J. Santiago, A.M.F. Lagmay, V. Malano, Identification of storm surge

584

vulnerable areas in the Philippines through the simulation of Typhoon Haiyan-induced

585

storm surge levels over historical storm tracks, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 15 (2015)

586

1473–1481. doi:10.5194/nhess-15-1473-2015.

587 588 589

[12] DOST-PHIVOLCS,

Tsunami

Hazard

Map:

Puerto

Princesa

City,

(2007).

https://www.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph/index.php/gisweb-hazard-maps. [13] Philippine Statistics Authority, Total Population by City, Municipality, and Barangay

590

of

Region

IV-B,

Quezon

City,

591

https://www.psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/attachments/hsd/pressrelease/R04B.xlsx.

n.d.

592

[14] R. Hoffmann, R. Muttarak, Learn from the Past, Prepare for the Future: Impacts of

593

Education and Experience on Disaster Preparedness in the Philippines and Thailand,

594

World Dev. 96 (2017) 32–51. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.02.016.

595

[15] F. Thomalla, H. Schmuck, “We all knew that a cyclone was coming”: Disaster

596

preparedness and the cyclone of 1999 in Orissa, India, Disasters. (2004).

597

doi:10.1111/j.0361-3666.2004.00264.x.

598

[16] M. Esteban, V.P.B. Valenzuela, N.Y. Yun, T. Mikami, T. Shibayama, R. Matsumaru,

599

H. Takagi, N.D. Thao, M. De Leon, T. Oyama, R. Nakamura, Typhoon Haiyan 2013

600

Evacuation Preparations and Awareness, Int. J. Sustain. Futur. Hum. Secur. 3 (2015)

601

37–45. doi:10.24910/jsustain/3.1/3745.

602

[17] N. Leelawat, C.M.R. Mateo, S.M. Gaspay, A. Suppasri, F. Imamura, Filipinos’ Views

603

on the Disaster Information for the 2013 Super Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, Int.

604

J. Sustain. Futur. Hum. Secur. (2015). doi:10.24910/jsustain/2.2/1628.

605

[18] V.P.B. Valenzuela, S.M.S. Ratnayakage, A.H.T.S. Kularathna, G.C.C. Perez, N.

606

Furukawa, R.N. Crichton, M. Quiroz, R. Yavar, I. Ikeda, R. Aranguiz, M. Onuki, M.

607

Esteban, Comparative Analysis of Tsunami Recovery Strategies in Small Communities

608

in Japan and Chile, Geosciences. 9 (2019). doi:10.3390/geosciences9010026.

609

[19] B.G. McAdoo, A. Moore, J. Baumwoll, Indigenous knowledge and the near field

610

population response during the 2007 Solomon Islands tsunami, Nat. Hazards. (2009).

611

doi:10.1007/s11069-008-9249-z.

612

[20] M.K. Lindell, C.S. Prater, C.E. Gregg, E.J.I. Apatu, S.K. Huang, H.C. Wu, Households’

613

immediate Responses to the 2009 American Samoa Earthquake and Tsunami, Int. J.

614

Disaster Risk Reduct. (2015). doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.03.003.

615

[21] M. Esteban, V.P.B. Valenzuela, R. Matsumaru, T. Mikami, T. Shibayama, H. Takagi,

616

N.D. Thao, M. De Leon, Storm Surge Awareness in the Philippines Prior to Typhoon

617

Haiyan: A Comparative Analysis with Tsunami Awareness in Recent Times, Coast.

618

Eng. J. 58 (2016). doi:10.1142/S057856341640009X.

619

[22] A. Suppasri, K. Goto, A. Muhari, P. Ranasinghe, M. Riyaz, M. Affan, E. Mas, M.

620

Yasuda, F. Imamura, A Decade After the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami: The Progress in

621

Disaster Preparedness and Future Challenges in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand and the

622

Maldives, Pure Appl. Geophys. (2015). doi:10.1007/s00024-015-1134-6.

623

[23] J.C. Gaillard, Alternative paradigms of volcanic risk perception: The case of Mt.

624

Pinatubo

in

the

Philippines,

625

doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2007.12.036.

J.

Volcanol.

Geotherm.

Res.

(2008).

626

[24] J.C. Gaillard, C.C. Liamzon, J.D. Villanueva, “Natural” disaster? A retrospect into the

627

causes of the late-2004 typhoon disaster in Eastern Luzon, Philippines, Environ.

628

Hazards. (2007). doi:10.1016/j.envhaz.2006.11.002.

629 630

[25] R. Yonson, I. Noy, J.C. Gaillard, The measurement of disaster risk: An example from tropical cyclones in the Philippines, Rev. Dev. Econ. (2018). doi:10.1111/rode.12365.

631

[26] M. Esteban, H. Takagi, T. Mikami, A. Aprilia, D. Fujii, S. Kurobe, N.A. Utama,

632

Awareness of coastal floods in impoverished subsiding coastal communities in Jakarta:

633

Tsunamis, typhoon storm surges and dyke-induced tsunamis, Int. J. Disaster Risk

634

Reduct. (2017). doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.04.007.

635

[27] H.L. Wei, H.C. Wu, M.K. Lindell, C.S. Prater, H. Shiroshita, D.M. Johnston, J.S.

636

Becker, Assessment of households’ responses to the tsunami threat: A comparative

637

study of Japan and New Zealand, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. (2017).

638

doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.09.011.

639

[28] M. Esteban, J. Bricker, R. San Carlos Arce, H. Takagi, N.Y. Yun, W. Chaiyapa, A.

640

Sjoegren, T. Shibayama, Tsunami awareness: a comparative assessment between Japan

641

and the USA, Nat. Hazards. (2018). doi:10.1007/s11069-018-3365-1.

642

[29] R.S.C. Arce, M. Onuki, M. Esteban, T. Shibayama, Risk awareness and intended

643

tsunami evacuation behaviour of international tourists in Kamakura City, Japan, Int. J.

644

Disaster Risk Reduct. (2017). doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.04.005.

645

[30] G. Pescaroli, D. Alexander, Understanding Compound, Interconnected, Interacting,

646

and

Cascading

Risks:

647

doi:10.1111/risa.13128.

A

Holistic

Framework,

Risk

Anal.

(2018).

648

[31] A. Cavallo, V. Ireland, Preparing for complex interdependent risks: A System of

649

Systems approach to building disaster resilience, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. (2014).

650

doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.05.001.

651

[32] T. Shibayama, M. Esteban, I. Nistor, H. Takagi, N.D. Thao, R. Matsumaru, T. Mikami,

652

R. Aranguiz, R. Jayaratne, K. Ohira, Classification of Tsunami and Evacuation Areas,

653

Nat. Hazards. 67 (2013) 365–386. doi:10.1007/s11069-013-0567-4.

654 655

[33] M.K. Lindell, C.S. Prater, Tsunami Preparedness on the Oregon and Washington Coast:

Recommendations

for

Research,

Nat.

Hazards

Rev.

(2010).

656 657

doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2010)11:2(69). [34] S.K. Kafle, Z. Murshed, Community-Based Disaster Risk Management for Local

658

Authorities,

659

https://www.unisdr.org/files/3366_3366CBDRMShesh.pdf.

660 661 662 663

Bangkok,

Thailand,

2006.

[35] UN-General Assembly, Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, Third United Nations World Conf. Disaster Risk Reduct. (2015). doi:A/CONF.224/CRP.1. [36] W. Kron, Coasts: The high-risk areas of the world, Nat. Hazards. (2013). doi:10.1007/s11069-012-0215-4.

664

[37] B. Neumann, A.T. Vafeidis, J. Zimmermann, R.J. Nicholls, Future coastal population

665

growth and exposure to sea-level rise and coastal flooding - A global assessment,

666

PLoS One. (2015). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118571.

667

[38] United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division,

668

World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision (ST/ESA/SER.A/420), (2019).

669

https://population.un.org/wup/Publications/Files/WUP2018-Report.pdf.

670

[39] M.A. Miller, M. Douglass, Disaster Governance in an Urbanising World Region, in:

671

M.A. Miller, M. Douglass (Eds.), Disaster Gov. Urban. Asia, First, Springer Singapore,

672

Singapore, 2016: pp. 1–12. doi:10.1007/978-981-287-649-2_1.

673

[40] T. Mikami, T. Shibayama, H. Takagi, R. Matsumaru, M. Esteban, N.D. Thao, M. De

674

Leon, V.P.B. Valenzuela, T. Oyama, R. Nakamura, K. Kumagai, S. Li, Storm Surge

675

Heights and Damage Caused by the 2013 Typhoon Haiyan Along the Leyte Gulf Coast,

676

Coast. Eng. J. 58 (2016). doi:10.1142/S0578563416400052.

677

[41] M.L. Jamero, M. Onuki, M. Esteban, X.K. Billones-Sensano, N. Tan, A. Nellas, H.

678

Takagi, N.D. Thao, V.P.B. Valenzuela, Small-island communities in the Philippines

679

prefer local measures to relocation in response to sea-level rise, Nat. Clim. Chang. 7

680

(2017). doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE3344.

681 682 683 684

[42] D.J. Edelman, Managing the Urban Environment of Manila, Adv. Appl. Sociol. 06 (2016) 101–133. doi:10.4236/aasoci.2016.63010. [43] M.P. Frianeza, Women in the Informal Sector in the Philippines: A Situationer, Rev. Women’s Stud. 13 (2003) 179–185.

685

[44] L.T. Anh, H. Takagi, N.D. Thao, M. Esteban, Investigation of Awareness of Typhoon

686

and Storm Surge in the Mekong Delta - Recollection of 1997 Typhoon Linda, J. Japan

687

Soc.

688

doi:10.2208/jscejoe.73.I_168.

689

Civ.

Eng.

Ser.

B3

Eng.

73

(2017)

I_168-I_173.

[45] Y. Jibiki, S. Kure, M. Kuri, Y. Ono, Analysis of early warning systems: The case of

690

super-typhoon

691

doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.12.002.

692

(Ocean

Haiyan,

Int.

J.

Disaster

Risk

Reduct.

(2016).

[46] CNN Philippines, Understanding PAGASA’s public storm warning system, rainfall

693

advisories,

694

http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2016/07/08/PAGASA-typhoon-public-storm-warning-

695

system-rainfall-advisories.html (accessed July 3, 2018).

696

CNN

Philipp.

(2016).

[47] Republic of the Philippines, The Philippine Public Storm Warning Signals, Off. Gaz.

697

(n.d.).

http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/laginghanda/the-philippine-public-storm-

698

warning-signals/ (accessed July 3, 2018).

699

[48] e2s Warning Signals, Local Tsunami Early Warning System for High Risk Coastal

700

Communities of the Philippines, E2s Website. (2015). http://www.e2s.com/case-

701

studies/tsunami-early-warning-system-in-philippines (accessed July 3, 2018).

702

[49] A. De Leon, DOST’S Tsunami Warning System Makes Coastal Communities Safer,

703

DOST

704

news/213-dost-s-tsunami-warning-system-makes-coastal-communities-safer.html.

705

Website.

(2012).

http://dost.gov.ph/knowledge-resources/news/35-2012-

[50] GMA News Online, Tonyo Accelerates Slightly Crosses Palawan, (2008).

706

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/133802/tonyo-accelerates-slightly-

707

crosses-palawan/ (accessed March 25, 2018).

708

[51] Philippine

Star,

Tonyo

Might

Become

a

Storm,

Philipp.

Star.

(2008).

709

https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2008/11/16/415466/tonyo-might-become-storm

710

(accessed December 10, 2017).

711

[52] J.G. Andal, Coastal Area Hit by Double Whammy, A Dose Palawan News. (2008).

712

https://jhelyn.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/coastal-area-hit-by-double-whammy/

713

(accessed July 3, 2018).

714

[53] C.R. Formoso, Coastal fire, typhoon Tonyo left hundreds homeless in Puerto Princesa,

715

(2008). https://barangayrp.wordpress.com/2008/11/20/coastal-fire-typhoon-tonyo-left-

716

hundreds-homeless-in-puerto-princesa/ (accessed November 27, 2017).

717

[54] ABS-CBN News, “Tonyo” leaves 3 missing in Palawan, ABS-CBN News. (2008).

718

http://news.abs-cbn.com/nation/regions/11/17/08/tonyo-leaves-3-missing-palawan

719

(accessed January 7, 2018).

720

[55] GMA News Online, Puerto Princesa City under state of calamity, GMA News Online.

721

(2008). http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/regions/133904/puerto-princesa-city-

722

under-state-of-calamity (accessed November 28, 2017).

723 724

[56] H. Takagi, M. Esteban, T. Mikami, D. Fujii, Projection of coastal floods in 2050 Jakarta, Urban Clim. (2016). doi:10.1016/j.uclim.2016.05.003.

725

[57] T. Firman, I.M. Surbakti, I.C. Idroes, H.A. Simarmata, Potential climate-change

726

related vulnerabilities in Jakarta: Challenges and current status, Habitat Int. (2011).

727

doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2010.11.011.

728

[58] M. Esteban, N.D. Thao, H. Takagi, V.P.B. Valenzuela, T.T. Tam, D.D.T. Trang, L.T.

729

ANH, Storm Surge and Tsunami Awareness and Preparedness in Central Vietnam, in:

730

N.D. Thao, H. Takagi, M. Esteban (Eds.), Coast. Disasters Clim. Chang. Vietnam,

731

First, Elsevier, London, 2014: pp. 322–336. doi:10.1016/B987-0-12-800007-6.00015-0.

732

[59] J.E. Neumann, K.A. Emanuel, S. Ravela, L.C. Ludwig, C. Verly, Risks of coastal

733

storm surge and the effect of sea level rise in the Red River delta, Vietnam, Sustain.

734

(2015). doi:10.3390/su7066553.

735

[60] E.L. Quarantelli, Lessons from research: findings on mass communication system

736

behavior in the pre, trans, and postimpact periods of disasters., in: Newark, NJ, 1991.

737

http://dspace.udel.edu/bitstream/handle/19716/532/PP160.pdf?sequence=3.

738

[61] L.D.K. Kanhai, D. Singh, B. Lauckner, K.L. Ebi, D.D. Chadee, Knowledge, attitude

739

and practices of coastal communities in Trinidad and Tobago about tsunamis, Nat.

740

Hazards. (2016). doi:10.1007/s11069-015-2138-3.

741 742

[62] K.J. Tierney, Disaster Governance: Social, Political, and Economic Dimensions, 2012. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-020911-095618.

743

[63] J. Lassa, Disaster Governance, in: K.B. Penuel, M. Statler (Eds.), Encycl. Disaster

744

Reli., SAGE Publications, Inc., 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks California 91320

745

United States, 2011: p. 114. doi:10.4135/9781412994064.n49.

746