THE COMPARISON OF NORMAL BARRIER

AND PORTABLE DAM AS AN ALTERNATIVE BARRIER

S.Y.2018-2019

A Research Paper
Present to the

Senior High School Faculty

STI College Calamba

Calamba City

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

in Practical Research II

By

Cale, Carl S.
Chua, April Joy O.
Cruz, Charles Christian B.
Laguerta, Aira Faye A.
Ramos, Denise M.

October 2018

i
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The researchers would like to express their special thanks of gratitude to the

people who helped them to makes this research possible. The researchers would like to

extend their heartfelt gratitude to the following person:

Ms. Joyce Orbigo, their Practical Research 2 teacher and research statistician for

guiding them in any way possible in order to accomplish this research paper, and for

helping them analyze and interpret the accumulated data.

Ms. Ramona Marcelo, their research grammarian, for patiently handling and

improving the works of the researchers.

Ms. Florissa Calinagan, their adviser, for cheering them up in any way possible

and for advising them in improving their work.

The researchers’ parents, for being understanding and supportive which motivates

the researchers to do this research paper.

The researchers’ friends and classmates, for cheering the researchers up that keeps

them going, telling them that they should not give up and for helping the researchers to

be informed about the essentialities needed for this research.

Last but definitely not the least, to God for giving the researchers strength and

wisdom for the fulfilment of this paper.

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page ....................................................................................................................... i

Acknowledgment ........................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................... iii
Chapter 1 – The Problem and its Background
Background of the Study ...................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................... 3
Hypothesis ............................................................................................................ 4
Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................... 5
Significance of the Study ...................................................................................... 6
Definition of Terms .............................................................................................. 7
Chapter 2 – Review of Related Literature and Studies
A. Literature
Foreign .......................................................................................................... 8
Local ............................................................................................................. 10
B. Studies
Foreign .......................................................................................................... 11
Local ............................................................................................................. 13
Synthesis ........................................................................................................................ 14
Chapter 3 – Methodology and Procedure
Research Design ................................................................................................... 15
Locale of the Study ............................................................................................... 15
Population of the Study......................................................................................... 16
Sampling Method/Technique ................................................................................ 16
Research Instrument ............................................................................................. 16
Data Gathering Procedure ..................................................................................... 17
Statistical Treatment of Data ................................................................................ 17

iii
Chapter 4 – Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Data ..................................... 19
Chapter 5 – Summary of Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation
Summary of Findings ..................................................................................................... 29
Conclusions........................................................................................................... 31
Recommendation .................................................................................................. 31
References ...................................................................................................................... 33
Appendices .....................................................................................................................
Sample Questionnaire ........................................................................................... 34
Documentation ...................................................................................................... 35
Letter of request to conduct the study ............................................................................
Curriculum Vitae .................................................................................................. 38

iv
 Chapter 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

This chapter focuses on the introduction of the study about The Comparison of

Normal Barrier and Portable Dam as an Alternative Barrier. This chapter includes the

Background of the Study, Statement of the Problem, Hypothesis, Conceptual Framework,

Significance of the Study, Scope and Limitations and the Definition of Terms.

Background of the Study

Philippines is a country composed of 7,107 beautiful islands. Foreigners often

visit our country for its famous beaches and surroundings. They feel delighted to walk

around these beautiful paradise. Nevertheless, Philippines is also known as one of the

risky countries in the world. Different types of hazard happen in our country such as

earthquake, landslide, storm surge and especially flooding.

Floods are the overflowing water submerges the land. According to BBC (2014), a

famous news page, the main cause of flood is heavy rain. “The faster the rainwater

reaches the river channel, the more likely it is to flood.” The kind of landscape around

the bodies of water will be triggered if the flood water reaches the passage that leads to

the rural areas and cities. There are different factors that can triggered flooding. One of

these is a lack of vegetation or wood land. If there is an insufficiency of vegetation in the

drainage basin then surface run-off will be high. The second factor is when the drainage

basin consist of impassable rocks, means that the water will not able to pass that can

cause the water to run faster.

1
 Flood barriers can be placed temporarily or permanently around buildings or at

building entrances and around houses to keep floodwaters from entering those kind

buildings. An example of temporary barrier is a wall constructed of sandbags. A

reinforced concrete wall is also an example of a permanent barrier.

Dam breaking is also cause if the barrier or dam cannot handle the pressure of

water. To prevent this ideology, excess water will be immediately release and it can cause

flood to the areas around it. Strong wind from the coastal areas carried sea waters and can

it can bring storms or hurricanes to the dry land that can cause flooding. Occasionally,

this sea waves can cause tsunami that can drift to the inland and cause some heavy

damage to the people and community.

Dam has a great help to us especially when there’s a rapid rain or a storm surges.

It controls the flow of water in different rivers or any bodies of water and it is one of the

reason why there is a least possibility of having flood. As most of the people knew, most

of the Filipino people suffers when there is a flood. It can cause death and damage to

properties especially to the poor one’s who lives at the low lying area.

Dam is a kind of barrier that prevents the flow of water to raises its level.

Normally, dams are used for irrigation and industrial purposes, but it can also utilize to

prevent flood water. One example of it is gravity dam. It hold the force and push forward

the water against Earth’s gravity that is pulling down.

The study aims to make a design of portable dam, an alternative way to prevent

stream of water. The researchers aim to create a portable dam design to know if it is

applicable to use than a normal barrier. Normal barrier such as concrete barrier, one of

2
the most common type of barrier most of the Filipino used, is cheaper but it does not have

a long time span. Normal barriers are often hinders the pathway of the residence of

getting in and out of their houses. It also cost mild accident such as tripping that can lead

to a bigger incident. Instead of building a temporary barrier all the time, they can learn an

alternative way of building and preventing flood waters. This design will be evaluated by

the random selected household and citizens in Barangay Milagrosa, Calamba City.

Statement of the Problem

This study aims to know how a portable dam can be used to prevent flood water

to enter home. The following are the questions that the researchers are trying to answer:

1. What are the perception of the respondents on the normal barrier in terms of:

1.1 Quality

1.2 Susceptibility

1.3 Design

2. What are the perception of respondents in portable dam in terms of:

1.1 Quality

1.2 Susceptibility

1.3 Design

3. What are the significant difference between the perception of the respondents on the

normal barrier and the portable dam in terms of:

1.1 Quality

1.2 Susceptibility

3
1.3 Design

4. What implications can be derived from the study?

Hypothesis

In conducting the research, the following assumption is made by the researchers to

defend the study:

Ho: There is no significant difference between the proposed portable dam and the

normal barrier in terms of:

a. Quality

b. Design

c. Susceptibility

4
 Conceptual Framework

INPUT

1. Perception of the PROCESS OUTPUT

respondents between the
portable dam and normal
barrier in preventing  Survey
floodwater in entering the
 Data Gathering
house in terms of: Derived Implications of the
Procedure
a. Quality Study
 Data Analysis
b. Design
c. Susceptibility
2. What are the significant
difference between the
perception of the
respondents on the normal
barrier and the portable
dam in terms of:
a. Quality
b. Susceptibility
c. Design

Feedback

Figure 1.1 Research Paradigm

The conceptual framework describes the concepts and ideas of the research. On

this study, the researchers showed the concept by using the IPO format. In the first part

the researchers shows the main question that should be answered. The second part consist

the process that will be use to gather data. Lastly, the output shows the result of the

process which will bear the implications of the study.

5
Significance of the Study

The result of the study will be of great benefit to following:

Consumer. The people who are often affected by flood on rainy days will also

benefit in this research. This research will help the people to have an idea regarding to a

kind of barrier that will protect their home on flood waters during rainy days.

Future Researchers. The future researchers can use this study for reference on

improving the device and study in order to make it easier, functional and more affordable.

This study will provide knowledge and facts that will help their research to be improve

further.

Engineers. The Engineers can help solve the problems with their intellect and

experiences to make it possible so that the device can operate.

Businessman. The businessmen can gain profit on the device that can help the

homeowners and establishments from floods entering the vicinity of the houses and/or

buildings. Businessmen can further advertise and sell the device to know the

effectiveness of it.

Scope and Limitations

This study will focus on the design of the portable dam that can prevent flood water

to enter home. This research will let the engineers or the future engineers to create an

idea that will help the community to prevent flood to enter home. In addition, the

researchers’ considered working on this study to help the community especially the ones

that lives at the low lying areas.

6
 This research will also involves survey and which will elicit responses as to how the

portable dam is convenient. The selection of the participants on the survey will be choose

randomly at Brgy. Milagrosa, Calamaba City for the reason that the selected participants

occasionally experience flood in their community.

Definition of terms

The following terms are defined based on how the researchers used the terminologies

in the study.

Dam. It is a barrier constructed to hold back water and raise its level, the resulting

reservoir being used in the generation of electricity or as a water supply.

Drainage. It is the act or process of removing water or liquid from a place or thing.

Fiber glass. It is a common type of fiber-reinforced plastic using glass fiber.

Gravity Dam. It is constructed from concrete or stone masonry and designed to hold

back water by primarily utilizing the weight of the material alone to resist the horizontal

pressure of water pushing against it.

Portable dam. It is a portable water-inflated temporary dam.

Portable. It is the ability to be carried or moved, especially because of being a lighter and

smaller version than usual.

River bank. It is the land above the edge of a river.

Susceptibility. It likely or liable to be influenced or harmed by a particular thing.

Vegetation. It is the plants that cover a particular area.

7
 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter gives an account of the literature and studies, which are reviewed and

utilized by the researchers to provide deeper insights in this study.

Related Literature

Foreign

Based on Ravikiran, G. (2016), the residents of Jaladanki village from Udayagiri

from India used fiberglass as an alternative check dam. The 6-ft height check dam is

made of top quality, multi-layered fiber glass in which German technology is used. The

fiberglass plates are rust-proof and they can be manually lifted by two persons even when

there are floodwaters overflowing the check dam.

The immediate advantages of these dams are that the use of fiber glass is far less

costly and it is rust-proof and usable for over 40 years with easy maintenance. The fiber

glass gates can be fitted into the vents and lifted manually by two persons easily. The

people of the village came from this solution because the iron gates rust easily which can

lead to a bad health because the villagers used the water came from the flood as their

source of drinking water. The fiberglass dam is also convenient because of the facility for

easy management, it can be easily lifted and taken away when there are high floods. This

prevents silt formation in the backwaters area thus keeping the storage capacity of the

check dam undisturbed for longer durations when compared to iron gates technology. Mr.

Rama Rao, one of the observer of the study of the fiberglass dam expressed his

8
satisfaction of the scheme. He believed that the said scheme regarding to the fiberglass

dam would prove to be an ideal model for the future dams.

The Cajun crew of Louisiana, Houston as stated by Mozends, P. (2017), install a

unique way of flood protection, an invention called the Aqua dam. The Aqua dam is

made on rubber and it will allow emergency vehicles to safely travel without fear of

being washed away in the time of floods or rainy days. The Aqua dam is made of

irrigation-grade tubing on the inside and a thick, woven geotextile on the outside, the

Aqua dam is designed to keep flood waters three-quarters of its height at bay. That means

a 1.3-metre-high dam will protect from a meter of water. Installing the barrier requires

pumping the rubber interior full of and it will helps on protecting the things around it

against the flood waters.

Acknowledge by The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica (2018), fibreglass or

fiberglass is a fibrous form of glass used as insulation and a substance combined with

plastics to improve the quality. These were widely used in the 30s when methods for

producing glass filaments were made. Glass filaments and yarns add strength and

electrical resistivity to molded plastic products, such as pleasure boat hulls, automobile

body parts, and housings for a variety of electronic consumer products. Glass fabrics are

used as electrical insulators and as reinforcing belts in automobile tires. It is also cheaper

and more flexible than carbon fiber, it is stronger than many metals by weight, and can be

molded into complex shapes. Unlike glass fibers used for insulation, for the final

structure to be strong, the fiber's surfaces must be almost entirely free of defects to reach

tensile strengths.

9
Local
Philippines is one of the country in Asia that suffers from heavy rains and floods.

Filipino often make a makeshift barrier to keep flood water to enter house. There are

different types of flood water a normal Filipino household use. Lamudi (2014) once

documented in his journal that there are 4 ways to flood proof the house when there is

flood. Lamudi says that there are different types of barriers which can be made of earth,

sandbags, concrete masonry, or even steel that can prevent floodwaters from entering an

area, hence, this measures can protect more than one structure. In high-density urban

areas, concrete floodwalls are used as they take up less room and they can protect

multiple homes. However, the effectiveness of barriers depends on the quality of

materials used and their maintenance over the years.

As stated by Hidalgo, V. (2018), the National Risk Reduction and Management

Council or NDRRMC said that the typhoons that lashed our country bring big rains and

flooding that caused around 63,000 people to evacuate their homes. Protecting once home

comes with a hefty price that can lead to our empty pockets. But by having flood barriers

that can control the flow of floods away from your home is a great benefit. Hidalgo

elaborate the different types of the possible alternative barrier any Filipino can use. One

of this is the traditional or the most likable type of barrier, the sand bag. The sand bags

absorbed moisture and stop the water from entering your home. But these kind of barrier

can only use once. The door is the main entry point of the flood waters. Building a flood

resistant door is even more convenient especially if the door is made of rubber sealing

systems, because it prevents flood waters to enter home. Swing hinged door that made of

metal or fiberglass is also an alternative choice.

10
 Diangson (2013) suggested that rubber can also be an alternative barrier. This one is

called inflatable rubber dam. These are cylindrical rubber fabrics that are installed in the

path of incoming water to divert the flow or prevent water intrusion. These dams come in

different sizes and are pumped with water, air or both. Other example is what they called

“Flood Barriers”. It is custom-made installed that can be put in doors, windows or

garages. It’s basically an easy to install watertight wall that one can put up to prevent

floods from coming in to one’s house.

Related Studies

Foreign

As discussed on the study of Ogunyoye, F., et al (2011) regarding to the types of

dam, there are three types of flood barriers, these includes temporary, demountable and

permanent. A temporary flood protection is formed by a removable flood protection

products that are position during a flood event and can be removed completely when the

flood waters had cleared. A demountable flood protection system is a moveable flood

protection system that is fully pre-installed and requires operation during a flood event.

Lastly, a permanent flood protection system is one that is fully in place and does not

require operation during a flood event in order to close the pathway for flooding. The

purpose of this study is to give awareness to the people on how can they protect not just

themselves but also their house.

Ogunyoye, F., et al. (2011) also emphasized, that the increasing of other forms of

temporary protection products or things other than sandbags, flood gates and planks led

to the development of the Interim Guidance for temporary and demountable flood

11
protection by the Environment Agency in 2002. During the past eight years there has

been a lot more use of these products as parts of the barriers and guidelines that helps to

prevent floods. This included formal trials by the Environment Agency on the River

Severn as well as formal schemes developed by the Environment Agency, local

authorities, utility companies and private organizations. Despite these increased use,

major flood events, in particular the 2007 floods highlighted the untapped potential that

still remained. It also provided significant lessons on the appropriate use of these

systems.

As mentioned on the study of Treleborg Slovenija (2008), the rubber dam is a

rubber that is filled with water or air, attached to the concrete sill. In the upright full

position it serves as a barrier which impounds water. In this study, Treleborg Slovenijia

used hydroelectric power plant Soteska and observe it on how will it react to the water

pressure to mainly focused on the advantages of rubber dam to their community. Based

on their research, if water gets too high, the rubber weir reacts quickly by lowering and

enabling high water to pass. In this way it prevents damage and possible flooding to the

engine room of the plant. No rusting nor maintenance will be necessary and the rubber is

expected to be used for almost 2 years or more. The rubber dam is also convenient for it

does not need electrical power and it is able to withstand high pressure of water.

Mavideniz’ (2018) Inflatable Rubber Dam Barrier is designed to solve numerous

water problems, such as drinking water supply, hydroelectric power, irrigation, water

cooling, recreational, groundwater recharging, navigation channels, agriculture, industry,

wastewater, separation of fresh and seawater, tidal sea problems and especially flood

control. The use of rubber dam barrier seems to be feasible in the central plains for

12
management and use of rivers, increasing the storage capacity of concrete dams and

diversion and storage of water. Due to the unique condition and circumstance of the

mountainous area, rubber dams are a practical replacement for other methods of water

management systems. Since the dam is mostly made of rubber, its life expectancy is

around 30 to 40 years according on the various international applications.

Local

The cities of Caloocan, Malabon, Navotas and Valenzuela are aware of high risk of

rain falling because of typhoons that can cause floods. Because the Canarava Cities, in

the Philippines, sit on prime of centuries of prehistoric alluvial deposits build up by the

water of the Pasig stream and onto land rescued from naval battle. The Pasig stream

bisects town of Manila and options sizable land reclamation on the waterfronts. Flood

risk within the space is high Associate in Nursing increasing to start with an calculable

twenty typhoons impact upon the Philippines each year from the pacific.in addition the

coastal plains around Manila, but therefore low and flat that the one meter elevation

extends 10-20 kilometers midland and traditional spring tides only one. 25 meters high

extend several kilometers midland. According to the study of Bloth, et al. (2011), flood

defenses are needed to lessen the effects of flood waters. It helps to reduce risk of people

in their health and to their environment. Flood barriers are constructed to protect one’s

house or structure from flood events in different magnitude.

In accordance with the study of Ollet E.J. (2008), about floods, recent flashflood

and landslide in Philippines caused many fatalities, loss of livelihood, breaking down in

restructure, detriment in natural resources and displace of several communities.

13
Observation in five disaster cases of flash flood and landslide are undertaken to gain

understanding about cause behavior distribution and biophysical impact about these

current natural hazard. Sustaining healthy, strong community and protecting the

environment from natural hazard is a key in development goals. He also stated that

communities at risk are needed to be good enough to prepare, respond, and recover from

the effect of natural Disaster.

Synthesis
Based on Ravikiran (2016), the immediate advantages of dams are that the use of

fiber glass as the main material and it is far less costly and it is rust-proof and usable for

over 40 years with easy maintenance. Because of the facility for easy management, the

fiber glass plates can be easily lifted and taken away when there are high floods.

Treleborg Slovenija’s (2008), study stated that using rubber as an alternative is

convenient for it does not rust nor need a maintenance and the rubber is expected to be

used for almost 2 years or more. Based on their research, if water gets too high, the

rubber weir reacts quickly by lowering and enabling high water to pass. The rubber dam

is also convenient for it does not need electrical power and it is able to withstand high

pressure of water. Through the related studies and literature that were presented by the

researchers, it is claimed that the design of portable dam that prevents flood water to

enter home is possible. The studies and literature presented were the proof and evidence

that claims that the researchers claim are nothing but the truth.

14
 Chapter III

METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE

This chapter gives information about the methods and procedures employed by

the researchers. It includes the research methodology, research design, population and

sample of the study, research locale, and data gathering procedures, instrument, and

data analysis

Research Design

In this research, the researchers used causal comparative method of research

design in the study entitled Comparison of Normal Barrier and Portable Dam as an

Alternative Barrier. Casual comparative method of research is a type of non-experimental

research design which relies on how variables exist in the environment and how they

interact with one another. The researchers choose causal comparative design to identify

the similarities or differences in getting the right type of data and to know if the

hypotheses are valid or if it display truthfulness. Since the present study was concerned

with the present status of the alternative dam in preventing flood from home, the causal

comparative research design was the most appropriate method to use.

Research Locale

The survey was conducted in Brgy. Milagrosa, Calamba City, formerly known as

Brgy. Tulo, Calamba City. The estimated population of the said barangay is around 5,500

and is under the supervision of Randy Sulit, the current barangay captain. The chosen

locale has been prone to flood waters ever since the population grew, back at the year

2014 and also because the locale is located at a low lying area. Aside from this, the

15
researchers choose Brgy. Milagrosa since one of the researchers lives there and know that

the people in the said barangay suffers from flood occasionally.

Population of the Study

The respondents of the study are the selected household of Brgy. Milagrosa,

Calamaba City. The researchers will only get 30 participants quota as a sample taken

from the accessible population. These contributors are chosen simply because they will

help the researchers to identify if the said study will be successful or not. This study will

helps those people to have an idea that can help the community to prevent flooding to

enter home.

Sampling Method

The sampling method used for this research is quota sampling, where the

researchers will select the respondents who knows that will correspond to the population

on terms of the same characteristics about research. The researchers choose this kind of

method to have a quota of 30 respondents that will be part of the conducted study. This

method is under non probability sampling; this technique is prone to bias due to the pre-

selection of respondents.

Research Instrument

The instrument used was a researcher-made questionnaire to gather the needed

data. It consists of two parts, namely: the profile of the participant and the questionnaire

that is being answered. The profile contains demographic characteristics such as name,

gender and location or address to identify the participants’ background. The questionnaire

16
on the other hand, contains two parts. The first part contains ten statements that are to be

answered by strongly agree (4), agree (3), disagree (2) and strongly disagree (1).

Data Gathering Procedure

In conducting a research, the researchers gave a letter of consent to the Brgy.

Captain at Brgy. Milagrosa, Calamba City. The researchers gather the data through the

use of a questionnaire. The researchers first conduct a pre-test survey to the respondents

and afterward the researchers will demonstrate the miniature design of the alternative

portable barrier. The same respondents will answer the post-test survey about their

perception about the design. The collected responses will support the research as it will

be a valid and reliable source of data.

Statistical Treatment

The following formulas are used as statistical treatment of the data gathered:

1. For computing the mean, the formula is:

Σx
X= 𝑛

Where:

x = Mean

Σx= sum of the result

N= number

17
 To determine the level of perception of the participants, the interpretation guide

below is used (Likert’s Scale):

Rating Scale Interpretation Symbols

3.51-4.00 Strongly Agree 1

2.51-3.50 Agree 2

1.51-2.50 Disagree 3

1.00-1.50 Strongly Disagree 4

18
 CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA

This chapter presents the presentation, analysis and the interpretation of the

gathered data from the participants of the design of portable dam as an alternative

barrier.

I. Mean perception of the respondents on normal barrier regarding to

quality, susceptibility and design.

The mean perception of the respondents regarding to the normal barrier in quality was

considered important for the study. Table 1.1 below presents mean perception of the

respondents towards the normal barrier. It is revealed that the majority of the 30

respondents agreed.

Table 1.1 Mean perception of the respondents regarding normal barrier in terms

of quality

QUALITY 4 3 2 1 MEAN INTERPRETATION

1. The barrier 3 26 1 0 3.06 Agree

can withstand
pressure.
2. The barrier 3 20 7 0 2.90 Agree
can last long.
3. The barrier 3 23 4 0 3.00 Agree
can solve the
problem
regarding to
the flood
waters that
enters home.
4. The barrier is 5 24 1 0 3.13 Agree
useful.

19
 14 93 13 0 3.01 Agree
Overall

In statement number one, it states if the barrier can withstand pressure that resulted to

agree with a mean of 3.06. In addition, statement number two which states the normal

barrier can last long accumulated a mean of 2.9 that resulted agree. Statement number

three states that the normal barrier can solve the problem regarding the flood waters that

enters home, on the other hand have a mean of 3 and falls to agree. Lastly, the fourth

statement, the normal barrier is useful got a mean of 3.13 and is under agree. The table

above shoes that the participants of the study agreed towards the quality of the normal

barrier.

The mean perception of the respondents regarding normal barrier in terms of

susceptibility was considered important for the study. Table 1.2 below presents mean

perception of the respondents towards the normal barrier. It is revealed that the majority

of the 30 respondents agreed.

Table 1.2. The mean perception of respondents in normal barrier terms of

susceptibility.

INDICATORS 4 3 2 1 MEAN INTERPRETATION

1. The barrier is 7 21 2 0 3.13 Agree
capable of
protecting
home.
2. The barrier can 3 24 3 0 3.03 Agree
lessen the
possibility of
water to enter
home.
3. The barrier 1 16 12 1 2.57 Agree

20
 does not give a
restriction to
the home
owners.
11 61 17 1 2.91 Agree
Overall

The data shows the mean perception of respondents in terms of susceptibility of

normal barrier. The first statement states that the normal barrier is capable of protecting

home and have mean of 3.033 and falls under the agreed bracket. In terms of the normal

barrier can lessen the possibility of water to enter home, it had a mean of 2.60 and

resulted to agreed. Lastly the third statement, the normal barrier does not give any

restrictions to the home owners is under agreed with a mean of 3. With an average of

2.91, the overall result regarding to susceptibility falls into agreed.

The mean perception of the respondents regarding to normal barrier in terms of

design was considered important for the study. Table 1.3 below presents mean perception

of the respondents towards the normal barrier. It is revealed that the majority of the 30

respondents agreed.

Table 1.3. The mean perception of respondents on normal barrier in terms of

design.

INDICATORS 4 3 2 1 MEAN INTERPRETATION

1. The barrier is 0 17 13 0 2.60 Agree
easy to remove
and assemble..
2. The barrier does 0 23 7 0 2.80 Agree
not consume a
large space..

21
 3. The barrier is 4 25 1 0 3.10 Agree
highly
recommendable
for house
owners.
4 65 21 0 2.81 Agree
Overall

This data shows the perception of the respondents in terms of deign in normal

barrier. Agree ranges from 2.51- 3. 50 and the other one, strongly agree ranges from 3.51-

4. It is said that the normal barrier is easy to remove and assemble, it had 2.60 as the

mean and part of the agree bracket. Respondents also agreed that the normal barrier does

not consume a large space and had the mean of 2.80. When it comes to recommendation,

the respondents also agreed with a high mean of 3.1 resulting to the general average of

2.81 which answered agreed.

II. Mean perception of the respondents on the portable dam in terms of

quality, susceptibility and design.

The mean perception of the respondents regarding to the portable dam in quality was

considered important for the study. Table 2.1 below presents mean perception of the

respondents towards the portable dam barrier. It is revealed that the majority of the 30

respondents strongly agreed.

Table 2.1 Mean perception of the respondents on portable dam in terms of

quality

INDICATORS 4 3 2 1 MEAN INTERPRETATION

1. The barrier 16 13 1 0 3.50 Agree

can

22
 withstand
pressure.
2. The barrier 12 18 0 0 3.40 Agree
can last
long.
3. The barrier 17 13 0 0 3.60 Strongly Agree
can solve
the problem
regarding to
the flood
waters that
enters
home.
4. The barrier 21 9 0 0 3.70 Strongly Agree
is useful.
66 53 1 0 3.54 Agree
Overall

In statement number one, it states if the portable dam can withstand pressure that

resulted to agree with a mean of 3.5. On the other hand, in statement number two the

respondents also resulted to agree means that the portable can last long and is

accumulated a mean of 3.4. Statement number three states that the portable dam can solve

the problem regarding the flood waters that enters home, that leads to a positive outcome

that have a mean of 3.60. Lastly, the fourth statement, the portable dam is useful got a

mean of 3.7 and is under strongly agree. The table above shows that the participants of

the study agreed towards the quality of the normal barrier.

The mean perception of the respondents regarding portable dam in terms of

susceptibility was considered important for the study. Table 2.2below presents mean

perception of the respondents towards the portable dam. It is revealed that the majority of

the 30 respondents strongly agreed.

23
 Table 2.2 Mean perception of the respondents in portable dam in terms of

susceptibility.

INDICATORS 4 3 2 1 MEAN INTERPRETATION

1. The barrier is 12 17 1 0 3.33 Agree
capable of
protecting
home.
2. The barrier can 13 17 0 0 3.43 Agree
lessen the
possibility of
water to enter
home.
3. The barrier 15 14 1 0 3.50 Agree
does not give a
restriction to
the home
owners.
40 48 2 0 3.42 Agree
Overall

The data shows the mean perception of respondents in terms of susceptibility of

portable dam. Respondents are assumed to have a positive answer towards the

individual factors. The first statement states that the portable dam is capable of protecting

home and have mean of 3.33 and falls under the agreed bracket. In terms of the normal

barrier can lessen the possibility of water to enter home, it had a mean of 3.43 and

resulted to another agreed. Lastly the third statement, the portable dam does not give any

restrictions to the home owners is under agreed with a mean of 3.5 and with an average of

3.42, the overall result regarding to susceptibility falls into agreed.

24
 The mean perception of the respondents regarding to portable dam in terms of design

was considered important for the study. Table 2.3 below presents mean perception of the

respondents towards the portable dam. It is revealed that the majority of the 30

respondents strongly agreed.

Table 2.3 The mean perception of respondents on portable dam in terms of

design.

INDICATORS 4 3 2 1 MEAN INTERPRETATION

4. The barrier is 18 9 3 0 3.50 Agree
easy to remove
and assemble.
5. The barrier does 19 11 0 0 3.60 Strongly Agree
not consume a
large space.
6. The barrier is 20 9 1 0 3.60 Strongly Agree
highly
recommendable
for house
owners.
57 29 4 0 3.57 Strongly Agree
Overall

This data shows the perception of the respondents in terms of deign in portable

dam. Agree ranges from 2.51- 3. 50 and on the other one, strongly agree ranges from

3.51- 4. It is states that the normal barrier is easy to remove and assemble, it had 3.5 as

the mean and part of the agreed bracket. Respondents also strongly agreed that the

portable dam does not consume a large space and had the mean of 3.6. When it comes to

recommendation, the respondents also agreed with a high mean of 3.6 resulting to the

general average of 3.57 which answered strongly agreed.

25
 III. Mean significant difference between the perception of the respondents on

the normal barrier and the portable dam in terms of quality,

susceptibility and design.

The significant difference between the normal barrier and the portable dam. Table 3.1

below presents the significant difference between the two.

Table 3.1The significant difference of normal barrier and portable dam

regarding to quality.

Selected MEAN t- t- conclusion decision

respondents computed tabulated
of Brgy. Normal Portable -5.72 2 There is a Rejected
Milagrosa, barrier dam significant null
Calamba difference hypothesis
3.01 3.54

The table shows the significant difference between the normal barrier and portable

dam in terms of quality. It shows that there is a significant difference between the two

barriers. The respondents like the quality of the portable dam than the normal barrier.

Below, shows the significant difference of normal barrier and the portable dam in

terms of susceptibility. Table 3.1 presents the significant difference of the two.

Table 3.2 The significant difference of normal barrier and portable dam

regarding to susceptibility.

26
 Selected MEAN t- t- conclusion decision
respondents of compute tabulat
Brgy. Milagrosa, d ed
Calamba Norma Portabl -4.53 2 There is a Rejected
l e dam significant null
barrier difference hypothesis
2.91 3.42

Table 3.2 shows the significant difference between the normal barrier and portable

dam in terms of susceptibility. The table shows that there is a significant difference

between the two barriers. The respondents like the susceptibility of the portable dam than

the normal barrier.

The significant difference between the normal barrier and the portable dam regarding

to design shows in the table below.

Table 3.3 The significant difference of normal barrier and portable dam

regarding to design.

Selected MEAN t- t- conclusion decision

respondents computed tabulated
of Brgy. Normal Portable -7.49 2 There is a Rejected
Milagrosa, barrier dam significant null
Calamba difference hypothesis
2.81 3.57

Table 3.3 shows the significant difference between the normal barrier and portable

dam in terms of design. The table shows that there is a significant difference between the

two barriers. In terms of design, the respondents like the portable dam.

27
28
 CHAPTER V

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

This chapter presents the summary of findings, conclusion drawn from the

findings, the derived implication and the recommendations provided by the researchers.

Summary of Findings

The data gathered by the researchers which have been presented, analyzed, and

interpreted revealed the following:

1. The respondent’s perception towards the normal barrier in terms of quality:

1.1 Majority of the respondents agreed that the normal barrier has a good quality.

The respondent’s perception towards the normal barrier in terms of susceptibility:

1.2 Majority of the respondents agreed that the normal barrier has a good

susceptibility

The respondent’s perception towards the normal barrier in terms of design:

1.3 Majority of the respondents agreed that the normal barrier has a good design.

2. The respondent’s perception towards the design of portable dam in terms of quality:

2.1 Majority of the respondents agreed that the portable dam, an alternative flood

barrier has a good quality.

The respondent’s perception towards the portable dam in terms of susceptibility:

2.2 Majority of the respondents agreed that the portable dam, an alternative flood barrier

has a good susceptibility.

29
The respondent’s perception towards the portable dam in terms of design:

2.3 Majority of the respondents agreed that the portable dam, an alternative flood barrier

has a good design.

3. Significant difference between the perception of the respondents on the normal barrier

and the portable dam in terms of:

3.1 Quality

The results regarding to the significant difference between normal barrier and portable

dam regarding to quality showed that the respondents is likely choose the portable dam

with a mean of 3.54.

3.2 Susceptibility

Based on the researcher’s gathered data regarding to the significant difference

between the normal barrier and portable dam in terms of susceptibility shows that the

respondents prefer portable dam than the normal barrier.

3.3 Design

Based on the gathered data, the selected respondents at Brgy. Milagrosa, Calamba

City, the results showed that the household members prefer the portable dam with a mean

of 3.57.

4. Derived implications of the study:

The result of the study implies that the respondents perceived that the portable

dam is much convenient than the normal barrier. The first indicator gathered a positive

mean of 3.5 which means the respondents agreed to the quality of portable dam. The

30
second indicator, susceptibility, gathered an overall mean of 3.42 which means the

respondents also agreed. The third and last one is the design that have an overall result of

3.57 which means the respondents strongly agreed. Therefore, based on the mean

perception of the respondents gathered, the factors must be considered in making a

portable dam.

Conclusion

Based on the findings of the study, the researchers came up with the following

conclusions:

1. Normal barriers has good quality, susceptibility and design.

2. The prototype design of portable dam has a good quality, susceptibility and

design.

3. In terms of quality, the majority of respondents agreed to the portable dam.

4. From the gathered data, it shows that most of the respondents strongly agreed on

the design of the portable dam than the normal barrier.

Recommendation

In the light of the findings and conclusions drawn from the study, the researchers

recommend the following

1. The researchers recommend this to the businessman, for them to acquire new

ideas regarding to an alternative barrier that can prevent flood waters to enter home.

2. The researchers recommend this to the community, for this research will give

them idea and additional knowledge about the alternative flood barriers.

31
 3. The researchers recommend this to the future researchers, for this research

suggest further research on the portable dam. This may serve as their guide for further

research about this field.

32
References
Blotch, R. e. (2012). Cities and Flooding: A Guide to Integrated Urban Flood Risk
Management for the 21st Century. Retrieved from
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/2241
Britannica, T. E. (2018, June 13). Fibreglass. Retrieved from Encyclopædia Britannica:
https://www.britannica.com/technology/fiberglass
Co., M. D. (2018). Inflatable Rubber Dam Barrier. Retrieved from
https://mavideniz.com.tr/our-production/dam-cleaner/inflatable-rubber-dam-
barrier/
Diangson, L. (2013). 5 high-tech small-scale flood control systems. Retrieved from
https://www.yugatech.com/toys-gadgets/5-high-tech-small-scale-flood-control-
systems/#sthash.mIUImEag.dpbs#YBkj6jHB9PPzRpDe.97
Hidaldo, V. (2018). Keeping floods by Bay. Retrieved from
https://www.pressreader.com/philippines/philippine-daily-
inquirer/20180721/282218011574853
Lamudi. (2014). Four Ways to Flood-Proof Your Home. Retrieved from
https://www.lamudi.com.ph/journal/4-ways-flood-proof-home-metro-manila/
Mozends, P. (2017). Portable dams becoming popular. Retrieved from
https://www.therecord.com/news-story/7542721-portable-dams-becoming-
popular/
Ogunyoye, e. a. (2011). Temporary and Demountable Flood Protection Guide. Retrieved
from
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attac
hment_data/file/290837/scho0711buak-e-e.pdf
Ollet, E. (2008). Flash flood and landslide disasters in the Philippines: reducing
vulnerability and improving community resilience. Retrieved from
https://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/uon:3548
Ravikiran, G. (2016). Fibreglass check dam a boon for people of Jaladanki. Retrieved
from https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/fibreglass-check-
dam-a-boon-for-people-of-jaladanki/article8538999.ece
Slovenija, T. (2008). THE USE OF A RUBBER DAM IN THE SYSTEM OF THE
HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT FUNCTION. Retrieved from
http://www.savatech.eu/environmental-protection-and-rescue/rubber-dam.html

33
 SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE

Name (optional): Gender:

Location: Age:
Directions: Kindly answer the following questions properly, note that there is no right or
wrong answer for these questions and answer it according to your own perspective.

Put a check (✔) on the box if it correspond with your answer.

Strongly Strongly
Statements Agree Agree Disagree Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
Quality
1. The barrier can withstand
pressure.
2. The barrier can last long.
3. The barrier can solve the problem
regarding to the flood waters that
enters home.
4. The barrier is useful.
Susceptibility
5. The barrier is capable of
protecting home.
6. The barrier can lessen the
possibility of water to enter home.
7. The barrier does not give a
restriction to the home owners.
Design
8. The barrier is easy to remove and
assemble.
9. The barrier does not consume a
large space.
10. The barrier is highly
recommendable for house owners.

34
 DOCUMENTATION

Miniature Making

35
Pre-test

36
Post-test

37
 CURRICULUM VITAE

Personal Data

Name : Carl Vincent S,Cale

Nickname : Carl
Age : 17 years old
Birthdate : January 7, 2001
Citizenship : Filipino
Mother : Rosalie S. Cale
Father : William Cale
Address : M.H Del Pilar Street Pasilyo 5

Email address : carl_cale@yahoo.com

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Senior High School : STI- College - Calamba

Junior High School : St.John Colleges

Personal Skills and Competence

•Multi-tasking
• Computer literate

38
 CURRICULUM VITAE

Personal Data

Name : April Joy O. Chua Buntiat

Nickname : April
Age : 17
Birthdate : April 26, 2001
Citizenship : Filipino
Mother : Adora S. Ortiaga
Father : Francisco Y. Chua Buntiat
Address : Bangyas Calauan, Laguna

Email address : apriljoyortiaga@gmail.com

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Senior High School : STI Calamba

Junior High School : Liceo de Bay

Personal Skills and Competence

 Committed to work
 Has critical thinking skills
 Can multi-task in doing things

39
 CURRICULUM VITAE

Personal Data

Name : Charles Christian B. Cruz

Nickname : Ching
Age : 17
Birthdate : April 28, 2001
Citizenship : Filipino
Mother : Marlot B.Cruz
Father : Michael M.Cruz
Address : Blk 13 Lot 1c Phase 1 Ext. San Isidro Heights, San Isidro, Cabuyao,
Laguna

Email address : Charleschristin_cruz@yahoo.com

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Senior High School : STI College Calamba

Junior High School : Pulo National High School

Personal Skills and Competence

 Computer literate
 Fiddling with Electronic Devices

40
 CURRICULUM VITAE

Personal Data

Name : Aira Faye A. Laguerta

Nickname : Aira
Age : 17 years old
Birthdate : February 13, 2001
Citizenship : Filipino
Mother : Leizy Aldovino-Laguerta
Father : Rene Laguerta
Address : Rizal Park Subdivision Brgy. Real Calamba City

Email address : airlaguerta@gmail.com

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Senior High School : STI- College - Calamba

Junior High School : Rizal College of Laguna

Personal Skills and Competence

• Drafting
•Critical thinking
•Multi-Task

41
 CURRICULUM VITAE

Personal Data

Name : Denise M. Ramos

Nickname : Denise
Age : 17 years old
Birthdate : November 30, 2000
Citizenship : Filipino
Mother : Ruth Catalina M. Ramos
Father : Edgardo M. Ramos
Address : #802 Purok 6, Brgy. Milagrosa, Calamba City

Email address : deniseramos611@gmail.com

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Senior High School : STI- College - Calamba

Junior High School : Immaculate Conception Catholic School - Calamba

Personal Skills and Competence

• Computer Literate
• Knows how to speak and write English
• Engaged in multi-tasking

42