Full Thesis

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Flood is considered as the most common and destructive natural hazard. It is the
natural disaster that has perennially hit the Philippines where rainfall could pour in large
volumes, filling up streets in just minutes which could have been normally attained in a
month or few and overwhelming rivers especially those with small basins. This usually
happens when rainfall lasts for extended periods of time causing river banks to overflow,
affecting large areas downstream, even those that did not experience rain themselves.
Flooding in a large-basin river like Tagoloan river take time however it is not impossible for
heavy rainfall to flood them, considering the tributaries that will contribute to the volume of
water to be accommodated. Gradually, water level will rise until the bank is overflowing,
flooding the low-lying areas nearby. In cases of fluvial floods, residences that live in areas
with very low elevations near river banks hold the highest level of risk.
Tagoloan River is ranked by the National Water Resources Board as the 13 th river
with the largest watershed in the Philippines. According to the Integrated River Basin
Management and Development Master Plan (2014) of the University of the Philippines Los
Baños-College of Forestry and Natural Resources in partnership with the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources-River Basin Control Office, the river has an estimated
drainage of 1577 square kilometers and a length of 106 kilometers, winding right up from
Can-ayan, Malaybalay, Bukidnon, passing through Malaybalay City, Impasug-ong, Sumilao,
Manolo Fortich, Malitbog, all the way down to Tagoloan, Misamis Oriental where it meets
1
the sea and discharges its basin to Macajalar Bay. Located between 8°07” and 9°39”
North latitude and 124° 44” and 125°122” East longitude in the provinces of Misamis
Oriental and Bukidnon, its tributaries include Malitbog River, Siloo River, Titian River,
Mangima River, Alulum River, Amusig River, and Dila River.
Despite the fact that large-basin rivers can hold considerable volumes of water, they
still hold a great potential for leaving large-scale disasters in the wake of river floods,
especially flashfloods which give little time if not none for the people that are vulnerable to
evacuate. River flooding is the most common type of flood that affects the residences in
Tagoloan due to the floods in Tagoloan River. During extreme rain events, the water level
rises and overflows to places near the river with lower elevation. Houses, livestock, and
crops especially are damaged.
The local government of Tagoloan has provided some solutions to mitigate flooding
such as the construction of dikes. The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)
allocated millions for the Flood Risk Management Project of Tagoloan River which is
composed of structural and non-structural measures on the critical portions of the river. This
project is said to be completed in 2019.
The lack of public information about flooding could be a great factor that could
contribute to massive destruction. People living near the Tagoloan River should know the
risk they are facing in the event of large-scale floods. Knowing and identifying the level of
vulnerability is very important to avoid further damages and to provide public awareness.
Identifying the places where flood will most likely occur is not enough to know the risk of
flooding. Flood vulnerability assessment is the basis for mitigating flood hazards. By this,
2
defining flood physical vulnerability could reduce the impact and avoid future losses given
enough awareness and preparation in the face of flood disasters.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
A large portion of the municipality of Tagoloan is located in the floodplain of
Tagoloan River Basin. Barangay Natumolan in particular, faces problems due to flooding and
typhoons. Floods due to typhoons cause damage to roofs and walls of residences, building
collapse and worst is death. There have been many actions conducted in the municipality of
Tagoloan and its broader areas in order to deal with the flood and typhoon problems.
However, the level of vulnerability in the physical aspect has not been clearly defined.
This research intends to incorporate the knowledge and participation of the local
people as one of the means for data collection. From this, the vulnerability of the selected
zones in Barangay Natumolan will be assessed. Specifically, the study aims to answer the
following questions:
 What is the level of flood physical vulnerability in the selected zones of Barangay
Natumolan?
 What structural type of buildings are the most vulnerable?
 What are the mitigating measures of the people to reduce the impact of floods?
1.3 Aims and Objectives of the Study
The main aim of this research is to assess the flood physical vulnerability of the
selected zones of Barangay Natumolan.
To achieve this, the following objectives are defined:
3
1. To determine the level of flood physical vulnerability on the selected zones of
Barangay Natumolan
2. To determine the mitigating measures conducted by the people to reduce the
impact of floods
3. To create a vulnerability map using Geographic Information System (GIS)
1.4 Significance of the Study
Conducting a flood physical vulnerability assessment plays an important role in
creating an effective disaster management plan and is a requirement to disaster risk reduction
management. The result of the study can give reliable data to the concerned Local
Government unit of Tagoloan Municipality to come up with solutions and develop important
preparedness plans and strategies. The data gathered will be used in providing important
information in order to develop policies that would help reduce flood impacts in the study
area. By determining which areas of Barangay Natumolan are more susceptible to flood that
can bring serious damage to property and life, effective planning strategies can be
established. The study can also be replicated among other barangays particularly those that
are prone to flood.
1.5 Scope and Delimitation
The flood physical vulnerability of the selected zones of Barangay Natumolan is
primarily focused on the impacts of river flooding to the community and thus only bounds
the commonly affected areas of Zones 1, 4, 6A and 6B. For the scope, the study conducted
data gathering, from inspections and oral accounts through field survey. Vulnerability map is
produced out of the actual field data and from the different flood return period. (10 year, 25
year, 50 year, and 100 year).The study of flood physical vulnerability depends very much on
4
the quality of input data for the analysis. The detailed data of building is very important in
this research. However, due to the absence of the detailed satellite imagery of Barangay
Natumolan in this research, no classifications of building could be made prior field visit.
1.6 Conceptual Framework
The presented conceptual framework outlines the key factors and variables as well as
their presumed relationship and together provides a basic understanding of what the
researchers wanted to undertake and achieve.
The conceptual framework in Figure 1 shows that the interaction of exposure of the
elements at risk, and the people’s coping mechanism of the affected community results to
vulnerability which means that vulnerability cannot be defined without the consideration of
the said components.
INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT
* Topographic Map * Flood Vulnerability

Mapping
* Hydrological Data * Vulnerability
* Assessing community Assessment
* Demographic Data
Exposure, and Resilience
* Vulnerability Map
* Study Area Map (Coping Mechanism) to
flood events.
Figure 1- Scheme of the Conceptual Framework
5
1.7 DEFINITION OF TERMS
Flood - an overflowing of water onto land that is normally dry.
Geographic Information System (GIS) - is a system designed to capture, store, manipulate,
analyze, manage, and present all types of geographical data.
Hazards - is an agent which has the potential to cause harm to a vulnerable target.
Insurance – a thing providing protection against a possible eventuality.
Management – the process of dealing with or controlling things or people.
Risk - A probability or threat of damage, injury, liability, loss, or any other negative
occurrence that is caused by external or internal vulnerabilities, and that may be avoided
through preemptive action.
River Flood - the rise of a river to an elevation such that the river overflows its natural banks
causing or threatening damage.
Susceptible – easily influenced or harmed by something.
Topography - a detailed description or representation on a map of the natural and artificial
features of an area.
Vulnerability – the extent of harm which can be expected under certain condition of
exposure, susceptibility and resilience.
6
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Messner and Meyer (2005) conducted a study about the relationship of flood damage,
vulnerability, and risk perception. They claimed that a larger area affected by flooding may
represent a great amount of damage and considered the vulnerability aspects in estimating
potential damages. They also identified the vulnerability factors that have the highest impact
on the level of damages during floods. Factors were derived from empirical data on the
damages of flood and represented on a scale with zero as least damage and one as greatest
damage. In an area of low flood risk perception, they considered the existence of flood
protections such as dikes and levees which made the people think that they will not be
affected by floods. They stated that regions with low levels of perception and preparedness
are more susceptible to greater damages.
A study about the flood vulnerability assessment of downstream area in Thach Han
river basin located at Quang Tri Province was conducted by Dinh Kha et al (2011). They
claimed that vulnerability assessment was greatly affected by the interaction of flood hazards
and human activities. The economic development, increase of population, existence of
deforestation, and urbanization of the area can make the community more susceptible to
flood hazards. Absence of mitigative measures may increase the impact of floods on people.
They established the vulnerability map of the downstream area of Thach Han river basin by
identifying the resisting capability of the local communities and combining it with the land
use map of the area. A flood exposure map was also produced by classifying the type of soil
where flood occurs. The degree of exposure of the affected area was ranked into five levels.
7
They developed a flood vulnerability matrix comparing the level of exposure and the level of
coping capacity of the people. Some areas located downstream of Thach Han river had a
higher degree of flood risk but medium degree of vulnerability due to the effectiveness of
their mitigative measures before and after extreme flood events.
Lang et al (2016) introduced a method of producing a flood vulnerability map using
the historical information of the affected area. Their study focused on the two cities of
France, Besançon and Moissac. The study areas were greatly affected by extreme flood
events. Historical flood data was analyzed by the researchers to map the use of land and
occupancy within the areas affected by floods to provide insights of the evolution of flood
risk. They provided two particular steps in assessing the flood risk. First step is to evaluate
the number of structures exposed to the existing hazard. Second step consists of determining
the vulnerability of the assets. They adopted some indicators such as the number of affected
residents and the number of single-storey infrastructures. Historical land use data was
analyzed to allow the mapping of land use and occupation within the areas affected by the
selected floods, both in past and present contexts, and to provide an insight of the complexity
of flood risk evolution on a local scale.
An assessment of Flood Vulnerability Zones in the Niger Delta region using a
Hydrological Technique based on some measurable physical characteristics of flooding and
vulnerability factors was carried out by Ologunorisa and Abawua (2004). With regards to the
factors introduced, 18 settlements were the result of a random selection on the three
ecological zones in the region for the assessment. Three flood risk zones emerged from the
analysis: severe flood risk zones, moderated flood risk zones and low flood risk zones, thus
strategies for mitigating the hazard of flooding in the region are recommended.
8
A study conducted by Blond (2003) on Damage Index aimed to introduce a new
damage index which would serve as a tool in estimating the quantitative amount spent by the
people for the replacement or repair of damage buildings due to hazards. The study showed
the development and construction of the damage index in an Australian context. The result of
the values ranged from 1 to 20 which can be compared on a time-independent scale to assess
the impact of damages to buildings resulting from natural hazards.
In the study of Mazzorana (2014) on the Physical Approach on Flood Risk
Vulnerability of Building followed a more technical and non-social approach, the researchers
quantified the vulnerability of the buildings that were exposed to floods. The group started by
conducting a desk research on vulnerability. Then they studied and analyzed the loss
generation mechanisms of buildings that were exposed to hazard. The procedure they used
followed the Eurocode normative framework. Their conceptual and methodological setup
determined the triggers that magnify the damage. Incorporating their study with the existing
empirical studies, the researcher of the said study was able to present a clearer understanding
on the triggers that are accountable for vulnerability which is a useful additional planning
tool concerned on risk management.
The study of Flax et al (2002), which focused on Community Vulnerability
Assessment Tool Methodology, aimed to develop a risk and vulnerability assessment
methodology. Community Vulnerability Assessment Tool (CVAT) provides assistance to
managers and planners to help reduce hazard vulnerabilities through hazard mitigation,
comprehensive land use, and development planning.
In the study of Thi Phuong Dung Le (2012), the flood vulnerability of households
was assessed by analyzing vulnerability-poverty relationship. The data used in the research
9
was gotten from a household survey conducted in Nghe An, Province of Vietnam. Through
the said survey, the study assessed the household vulnerability to flood risk using
Vulnerability as Expected Poverty (VEP) Approach. The said approach was was used since it
allowed the researchers to analyze vulnerability-poverty relationship. The approach was
founded in the concept that vulnerability is present when the loss due to hazard causes the
economical status of the household to dip lower than the poverty threshold. The
determination of vulnerability was measured using Feasible Generalized Lease Squares
(FGLS) Method. In their study, the researchers compared the level of vulnerability between
households that were flooded and the ones that were not. The result of the study showed that
households that were flooded were negatively affected. Therefore, flooded households were
more vulnerable than non-flooded households and were poorer. The study suggested that
flooding yields economic damages to the flooded households. It offered information that can
help in making policies that would mitigate floods and reduce poverty. It could help the
makers of the policies to protect vulnerable people.
A study of Nasiri et al (2016) on the methods in assessing flood vulnerability
discussed about the different methods that can be applied when studying flood vulnerability
assessment. According to the researcher, assessing flood vulnerability can be categorized in
four groups: curve method, disaster loss data method, computer modeling methods and
indicator based methods. The main purpose of the study was to review the different methods
and make a comparison of their advantages and disadvantages. They further added that
vulnerability is the main component in flood risk management and flood vulnerability
assessment aims to make a clear association between the theoretical conceptions of flood
vulnerability and the daily administrative process. At the end of the study, it was concluded
10
that in general, the indicator-based approach gives more reliable and precise outcome of
overall flood vulnerability in each area rather than the other approaches.
The Disaster Risk Studies of Sakijege et al (2014) aimed to provide an answer on the
vulnerability of people and properties in informal settlements that were located on high risk
areas (low-lying lands and on river banks). The situation is caused by poverty and the
inability of authorities to supply planned plots for building and to meet demands of the
growing urban populations, the informal settlements have triggered disaster risks, flooding is
just one of them. The residents resorted to the use of structural adaptation strategies as a way
of reducing impacts of flooding. This was done by assessing and comparing the technical
suitability of adaptation strategies to flooding in the informal settlements of Sangkrah and
Keko Machungwa and recommending measures for improvement. Household interviews,
physical observation (visual inspections of signs of damage and deterioration), measurements
of height of physical adaptation strategies, mapping, photographing, and in-depth interviews
were the key methods employed. Generally, it was determined that flood mitigation and risk
minimization measures through structural adaptation strategies that were hardly achieved at
the household level as adaptation strategies, were constructed with less or no attention to
acceptable technical considerations.
A study related to flood physical vulnerability with a case study in Bangkok, Thailand
south-East Asia was done by Dutta and Tingsanchali (2003). The study was conducted in two
different areas in Bangkok. It aimed to produce a macro picture of floods to present an
overview of the severity of flooding under the projected sea-level rise (SLR) conditions. The
study was based on field surveys and household interviews. The damage on the structural
type of building was recorded as well as the damage on building contents and outside
11
properties. From the relationship of flood water depth and the damage converted into
currency flood depth-damage curve was produced.
Uwakwe (2015) conducted a study on the Assessment of Physical Vulnerability to
Flood in Saint Lucia which focused on assessing the exposure and vulnerability of the
elements at risk to floods in Castries old Central Business District (CBD) and Dennery
Village, in Saint Lucia. Voluntary mapping was used in acquiring the required data. Local
people in the study area were consulted for the purpose of voluntary mapping. Exposure
analysis was carried out to assess the exposure of buildings and population in Dennery
Village during the December 2013 flood event. The result from the exposure analysis showed
that the buildings and population had a low exposure during the event. Depth-damage
method and Spatial Multi-Criteria Evaluation (SMCE) were used to perform the physical
vulnerability assessment of buildings. Depth-damage method was used to assess the
vulnerability of building structures of the households that were affected during the December
2013 flood event in the area. There were eight different structural types found during the
building inventory. However, out of these eight types, some of the interviewed households
had four structural types. A vulnerability curve was made out of the relationship between
flood depth and damage for the four structural types. It was observed from the assessment
report that structural type of building composed of wood wall; wood floor and galvanized
iron sheet roof were the most vulnerable. While structural type made of concrete wall,
ceramic tiles floor, and painted steel sheet roof found to be less vulnerable.
An experimental study was conducted by Aglan et al (2004) about Field Testing of
Energy- Efficient Flood-Damage- Resistant Residential Envelope Systems. The study was
conducted in Tennesse, United States. The study aimed to measure the flood damage of a
12
building and its contents when it is exposed to floodwater. The effects of floodwater to wall,
floor, doors, and windows for different flood durations were assessed. Then, the relationship
between duration and damage were created which form a vulnerability curve. This type of
research needs a lot of money to be conducted and knowledge in civil engineering is
necessary to understand the performance of building before and after the flooding. Smith and
Ward (1998) on their study about Physical Processes and Human Impacts developed a
method to determine flood physical vulnerability. Their method was based on the amount of
losses acquired from a certain flood event in relation to flood characteristics and physical
damage. However, the study had some drawbacks; its result tended to be synthetic rather than
actual. According to them, realizing that unmodified synthetic losses can be higher than
actual recorded losses is important since the assessments tend to ignore the damage reducing
actions that the floodplain residents take in a flood event.
Another method to determine flood physical vulnerability was introduced by
Penning-Rowsell and Chatterton (1997) on his study about The Benefits of Flood
Alleviation. The study was conducted in two different areas, the United States and United
Kingdom. The method developed was based on the collection of actual flood damage
information which was reported after the event. It was based on the actual field survey. The
results very much depend on the responses of the respondents. Studies about the effect of
flood damages focus more in the developing countries, like for the cases in US, Germany and
UK. Less discussion had been made about the physical vulnerability of flood of these
developed countries, particularly in South East Asian Countries.
White (1964) was believed to be the first to conduct a case study about the damages
of flood and represent the relationship between damage and stage height. He used several
13
occurrences of flood to establish flood records and the damage that happened. Flood damages
were converted into currency and flood depths were measured in centimetres. Each type of
houses represents different damages during flood events. He used three occurrences of flood
events at Tennessee, USA: the maximum probable flood, the regional flood, and the 1950
flood to measure flood depths. Similarly, Penning-Rowsell and Chatterton (1977) were
believed to be the first to develop the relationship of stage height and damage due to floods
in the United Kingdom their method was known as Blue Manual. Instead of studying the
elements at risk as a whole it was divided into several detailed elements at risk: classification
of house was divided in detached, semi-detached, industry, commercial shop, and others. A
questionnaire was allotted for each of the elements at risk, and household interview was
carried out to acquire the necessary flood depth (stage height) data. Flood depth-damage
curves were created by defining the relationship of depth-damage that happened to particular
elements at risk. The concept was tested on two case studies in Bristol Flood and Ashton
Vale flood to acquire the flood damage data in two areas. The purpose of the test was to
calculate the possible damage they suffered and to help municipalities in calculating and
assessing the possible damage in the future.
Adeloye (2015) conducted a study on the Metric-based Assessment of Flood Risk and
Vulnerability of Rural Communities in the Lower Shire Valley, Malawi in which
vulnerability was scaled through analyzing exposure, susceptibility and capacity and linking
them to social, economic, environmental and physical points of view. The data were
primarily collected from interviews conducted in the concerned communities. Through
Geographic Information System (GIS), they were able to visualize the spatial variability of
flood risk in the case study area. In the results, the vulnerability was majorly governed by
14
high to very high susceptibility. Economic and physical capacities were low while social
capacity was high, yielding an average medium level of vulnerability in terms of capacity.
The study measured and mapped the vulnerability of rural communities in Lower Shire
Valley, Malawi. The vulnerability to flooding in the case study area was medium to very
high however there were considerable discrepancies in its three elements. The result of the
study helped to develop policies that aimed to address the recurrent flooding in the area. The
paper, through the information it contained, offered the necessary advantage in reducing risk
in the area of concern.
In the research of Albano (2014) on the systematic approach to evaluate flood
vulnerability conducted in Potenza, Southern part of Italy, a model was created which
assesses the structural damages due to direct impact and looks into the possible conditions in
the case of flood events was made through GIS. The said model can direct towards a
universal understanding of strengths and weaknesses of an urban community. By taking into
account the relationship between the elements and assessing the connection between
vulnerability and these elements, the model analyzed the urban system. Using spatial
analysis, it determined the most and the least crucial parts of the urban system. Its aim was to
give planners an additional tool to evaluate the weakest parts of the whole urban system. It
was able to prove that a criticality is present through quantitative indicators which were
evaluated by GIS. The said indicators were used to formulate a hierarchy among structures
and infrastructures according to the weights of their operations and efficiency which are
necessary to be preserved for rescue and assistance in the face of disasters. The study
provided insights on potential interruptions due to possible impact.
15
According to Peck (2007), flood vulnerability is comprised of four elements:
physical, economic, infrastructure and social. It evaluated the effect on the vulnerability of
infrastructure. The components were then joined to find out the overall vulnerability. The
study introduced new concepts and approaches in analyzing flood vulnerability. It took a
large area for the case study which was subdivided into six main damage canters in the
watershed of Upper Thames River. In the study, the impact of floods on important facilities
such as roads and bridges were analyzed in terms of vulnerability. Exposure was also
considered as one of the elements of flood vulnerability. However, it was considered as
separate from vulnerability analysis. Exposure was only used as basis in the computation of
quantified risk that is obtained from the product of vulnerability, exposure and hazard. Also,
using the customary formula of vulnerability standardization, minimum and maximum values
were standardized. The study was dedicated to the general public, decision makers, and
professionals working in the water management field.
The study of Blanco and Schanze (2014) focused on the conceptual and
methodological frameworks of assessing the physical flood susceptibility of buildings on a
large scale. The study made use of the modules which refer to all relevant aspect influencing
the physical flood susceptibility of buildings. The first module was the building taxonomy for
settlements that is dedicated to set up a building typology in the way of building taxonomy.
This is based on the extraction of parameters from GIS analysis and remote sensing data. The
second module was physical susceptibility of buildings which refers to the assessment of
representative buildings from each building type, having an aim of deriving principal depth
physical impact functions. This relates to building components including their heights,
dimensions, and their materials at different water levels which were relevant. The third
16
module was the technological integration which provides the computer and mobile tools for
the operation and automation of major methods. Thus, the tools for the integration of the
building taxonomy and the depth physical impact functions of the representative buildings
were developed to support the automatic processing. These modules set the frame for the
methodological requirements and can deal with alternative methods.
Okoduwa (1999) predicted the urban flooding in Benin City, Nigeria through
applying GIS. This was achieved by creating a digital database of selected variables such as
land use, land cover and soil strength. The software used was Arcview 3.1 and overlay
techniques in GIS was used for analysis. The result of the analysis showed high flood prone
areas, medium flood prone areas, and low prone areas.
Blistanova et al (2016) conducted a case study about the flood vulnerability in Bodva
river basin, Slovakia. The study focused on the factors that caused flood events to the areas
adjacent to the river such as land use, slope of the river basin, soil type, and rainfall
distribution. They analyzed the vulnerability of the area using two basic phases; they
identified all the factors that causes floods in the area first and evaluated them using
Multicriteria Analyses (MCA) and GIS. Each factor that was potential source of flooding was
divided into classes. Acceptable, moderate, undesirable, and unacceptable were the four
classes used by the researchers to identify the vulnerability of their study area. After
evaluating the results of their study, GIS was used in producing, analyzing, managing, and
combining data. A flood vulnerability map was produced. Each area was categorized
regarding their flood vulnerability level. The researchers used yellow and red colours on their
map to indicate a higher degree of flood vulnerability which requires mitigation actions.
17
Behanzini et al (2015) created a flood vulnerability map of Benin Niger river valley
using GIS. A study was conducted by the researchers concerning the flood risk and
vulnerability of the affected areas near the river. Almost 90% of the community was located
on the flood prone areas and highly exposed to flood risk. The researchers claimed that the
level of vulnerability was greatly affected by higher poverty rates.
Rimba et al (2017) conducted a research on Physical Flood Vulnerability Mapping
Applying Geospatial Techniques in Okazaki City Prefecture, Japan. The study was
conducted through the aid of GIS which was used to identify the physical flood vulnerability
of the areas in Okazaki City. Determining the areas that are vulnerable to flood was
considered as one of the elements used to create flood hazard map which relates to disaster
management for urban development. The research evaluated the physical parameter of flood
vulnerability such as slope map, drainage density, rainfall intensity, infiltration rate, and land
cover. The said parameters were used as an input to predict flood affected areas. The research
provided an important approach for the effectiveness of disaster mitigation and urban
planning.
Sagala (2006) stated that “vulnerability assessment is a crucial input to comprehend
the degree of loss that the built environment suffers as a result of the occurrence of natural
disaster”. The research examined Flood Physical Vulnerability and People’s Coping
Mechanisms in Flood-Prone Residential Areas in Naga City, Philippines. The study was
conducted through building inventory with the aid of mobile GIS equipment and a digital
camera to record detailed attributes of each building in the study area. The study aimed to
determine the level of vulnerability of the residential areas in Naga City. Vulnerability curves
were made from the relationship of flood depth and damage. It was found out that the
18
vulnerability of the building varies differently when it comes to its structural type. The result
indicated that the structural type with plywood walls and wooden floors are the most
vulnerable buildings to flooding, while the structural type with hollow block walls and
concrete floors are the least vulnerable. The study concluded that flood awareness and coping
mechanism play a vital role in reducing the damage to structural type of building and its
contents.
2.1 STUDY AREA
Figure 2. Map of Barangay Natumolan, Tagoloan
Barangay Natumolan is located near the heart of the town of Tagoloan municipality.
It is within the geographical coordinates 8˚31᾿00” to 8˚33᾿00” North Latitude and
124˚44᾿00” to 124˚52᾿00” East Longitude. Barangay Natumolan covers a land area of
approximately 622 hectares.
19
2.2 URBAN HOUSEHOLD AND POPULATION
In 2016, Tagoloan recorded a total population of 73,911. A population of 13,459 or
almost twenty two percent of the total population resides in the urban Barangay Sta. Cruz.
The second most populated urban barangay is Poblacion with 11,511 populations. The third
urban populated is the coastal barangay Casinglot with 10,488 and followed by barangay
Baluarte with 9,540 populations. The barangay Sta. Ana with 9,170 populations is an upland
area and barangay of Natumolan which is near to the heart of the town had 8,146. The
barangay with the least population registered was the upland barangay of Rosario with 1,107
inhabitants.
Tagoloan’s urban population was 62,314 representing 84.31 percent of its total. This
consisted of population from Poblacion, Sta. Cruz, Casinglot, Baluarte, Natumolan and Sta.
Ana. Its rural population numbered 11,597 representing 15.69 percent comprising the
combined population of the rural barangays of Gracia, Mohon, Rosario and Sugbongcogon.
Table 1 - Population, Household Population and number of Household by Barangay CY 2016
Barangay Population Number of Household

A. Urban Barangay
1. Poblacion 11,511 2,401
2. Sta. Ana 9,170 1,789
3. Natumolan 8,146 1,685
4. Baluarte 9,540 1,962
5. Sta. Cruz 13,459 3,058
6. Casinglot 10,488 2,360
Sub-Total 62,314 13,255
B. Rural Barangay
1. Gracia 1,814 456
2. Sugbongcogon 4,240 894
3. Mohon 4,436 995
4. Rosario 1,107 230
Sub-Total 11,597 2,575
20
2.3 TYPHOON HISTORY
The Municipal Disaster Risk Management Office had identified six tropical typhoons
that had brought severe destruction on the infrastructures of the area. Typhoon Henry had
affected 60 families and a total 50 damaged houses. Typhoon Pablo had caused a massive
evacuation of 13,245 individuals and affected a total of 1,093 families. It had caused the
destruction of 24 houses and 184 partially damaged houses. Typhoon Agaton affected 1,093
families and causes evacuation to a number of 3,575 people. Typhoon Yolanda had 4,497
individuals evacuated and 1,464 affected families. The Typhoon Sendong which had caused
a large number of death and a wide destruction in Cagayan de Oro had also affected the
Tagoloan area. It damages a total number of 73 houses and 885 partially damaged houses
especially those located near the Tagoloan River. The tropical storm Seniang is the last
typhoon to hit the Philippines in 2014. Seniang had delivered an intense torrential rains over
a prolonged period and caused a widespread landslides and flood events in Northern
Mindanao and Visayas. During the typhoon a number 3,088 affected families in Tagoloan
and a total of 60 damage houses and 53 partially damage houses. The death toll reached two.
Sensors in Tagoloan River registered a water level of eight meters. The overflowing of
Tagoloan River had generated flood events that turn out into disasters.
21
2.4 DISASTER HITS
Six typhoons have struck the municipality namely: Henry, Pablo, Agaton,
Yolanda, Sendong and Seniang.
Table 2- Damages due to typhoons
Number of
Number of Number of Number of
Partially
Typhoon Affected Affected Totally Damaged
Damaged
Families Individuals Buildings
Buildings
Henry 60 268 50 14
Pablo 1093 13245 24 184
Agaton 1093 3575 ------ ------
Yolanda 1464 4497 ------ ------
Sendong ------ ------ 73 885
Seniang 3088 13564 60 53
22
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This chapter explains the methodology that was used in this research. The research
was conducted to assess the physical vulnerability of elements at risk in flood affected areas
of Barangay Natumolan, Tagoloan. The research methodology was conducted in three
different stages: Pre-Fieldwork, Fieldwork, and Post-Fieldwork.
3.1 Research Approach
This study started off with desk research. Prior to any field work, an intensive review
of related literature was carried out, especially on the subject of flood physical vulnerability
assessment. Tagoloan river, its characteristics and history, were also topics of interest. These
pieces of information are essential for the definition of the context of the research. After this,
flood physical vulnerability assessment was defined and method to carry it out was identified
and selected, meanwhile, a list of to-be-collected data was also composed. After all these, the
researchers consulted the main contact persons (Tagoloan Local Government Unit-Municipal
Risk Management Office and Barangay Natumolan Officials). Through the selected method
and the acquired data, the researchers were able to generate flood map for different return
periods (10, 25, 50 and 100), analyzed the elements at risk and flood exposure, and were able
to come up with flood physical vulnerability maps. By the end, conclusions and
recommendations were formulated.
23
I
Pre-Fieldwork
(Desk Research) Definition of Research Content
Identification of Necessary
Data
Fieldwork
Fieldwork (Data Collection) Secondary Data
a. Building Inventory Hazard Intensity

b. Household Interview
c. Classification of Buildings 5 and 10 Years
Return Period
25 Years Return
Damage Assessment of
Period
Inundated Areas
50 Years Return
Period
Depth-Vulnerability Method
Post Fieldwork
100 Years Return
Period
Flood Hazard
Map (GIS)
Flood Physical
Vulnerability
Assessment
Conclusion and Discussion Vulnerability Map

Recommendation
Figure 3. Flowchart Showing Research Methodology
24
3.2 Research Design
Combination of qualitative and quantitative method of research was used in this
study. The researchers conducted field visits and interviews to the residences of Barangay
Natumolan to assess the flood physical vulnerability of the area. The data gotten from field
survey and secondary data then underwent statistical analysis. The results of the study were
based on the combination of flood physical vulnerability assessment from secondary data and
the December 2014 flood event typhoon Seniang.
3.3 Research Setting
The study was conducted on the selected zones of Barangay Natumolan, particularly
zones 1, 4, 6A, and 6B. Barangay Natumolan is located at Tagoloan, Misamis Oriental and
one of the communities encompassing the Tagoloan River Basin.
3.4 Pre-Fieldwork
Prior any fieldwork, the group consulted the Local Government Unit of Tagoloan-
Municipality Risk Management Office for data related to Tagoloan River such as flood
history. The Barangay Hall of Natumolan was also visited for the purpose of acquiring the
demographic data of the barangay and discussion with officials present at the time, on the
scenario during fluvial floods in the barangay. After, an intensive desk research was done on
the review of related literature and studies that were relevant to flood physical vulnerability
assessment.
25
3.5 Secondary Data Collection
In this research, secondary data from the study of Disaster Risk and Exposure
Assessment for Mitigation (DREAM) Program of the University of the Philippines about the
Tagoloan river was utilized.
3.5.1 Tagoloan River Discharge
The calculated discharge values of different return periods from an existing study by
the University of the Philippines in collaboration with Department of Science and
Technology was used as an input in simulating the flood inundation map of the study area.
3.5.2 Manning’s Coeffecient
The roughness coefficient, also called Manning’s coefficent, represents the resistance
to flood flows in channels and flood plains. In identifying the roughness coefficient, the land
cover and soil characteristics are important parameters. For the Tagoloan flood plain which is
mostly composed of rice fields have a Manning’s coeffecient of 0.15. For the streams, a
Manning’s coeffecient value of 0.03 was assigned.
3.6 Fieldwork (Data Collection)
The fieldwork activities is composed of building inventory and interviews with the
household. Fieldwork activities aim to collect data of elements at risk, coping mechanisms of
the people, and damages due to flood.
26
3.6.1 Building Inventory
Building inventory was carried out to identify the location of each element at risk. It
was done by visiting the buildings in the study area. A total of 201 household was recorded
during the building inventory. Each points was geo-referenced using Global Positioning
System (GPS) for accurate mapping projection. Lastly, the classification of buildings was
done. The data gathered from the building inventory was used to make a classification of
buildings, their structural type, and the materials used in constructing the buildings.
3.6.2 Interview
Household interviews were also conducted after the building inventory. In the
household interview, the whole population was considered for more accurate results.
Household interviews was done to determined the damages to roof, wall, and floor for every
household during typhoon Seniang.
3.7 Preparation of Triangulated Irregular Network (TIN)
The LiDAR data provided by the Department of Public,Works, and Highways
(DPWH), cross section data & spot height data was used for Triangulated Irregular Network
generation. ArcMap was used to generate TIN which was used as Digital Elevation Model
(DEM) required in GeoRAS in order to prepare data sets required as input to the HEC-RAS
simulation.
3.8 Generating Flood Map for 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100-year Return Period
A flood inundation map was produced for 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100-year return period.
Discharge values for different return periods were acquired from secondary data and were
used as an input in order to generate flood map using Geographic Information System (GIS).
27
The flood water data was manipulated with the GIS software incorporated with HEC-
GEORAS extension for flood inundation procedure in HEC-RAS software.
3.9 Steps in Floodplain Analysis Using ArcGIS and HEC-RAS
PreRAS, postRAS and GeoRAS menus of HEC-GeoRAS extension in ArcView GIS
environment were used for creating required data sets, making import file for model
simulation in HEC-RAS. (a) Pre GeoRAS application: The preRAS menu option was used
for creating required data sets for creating import file to HEC-RAS. Stream centerline, main
channel banks (left and right), flow paths, and cross sections were created. A three-
dimensional layer of stream centerline and cross section was also created. Thus, after
creating and editing required themes, RAS GIS import file was created. (b) HEC RAS
application: this is the major part of the model where simulation is done.The general method
adopted for floodplain analysis and flood vulnerability assessment in this study basically
consists of five steps: (a) Preparation of TIN in ArcMap GIS, (b) running of HEC-RAS to
calculate water surface profiles, (c) postprocessing of HEC-RAS results and floodplain
mapping, and (d) vulnerability assessment. The flood discharge for different return periods
(10, 25, 50, 100) were entered in steady flow data. Reach boundary conditions were also
entered in this window. Then, water surface profiles were calculated in steady flow analysis
window. After finishing simulation, RAS GIS exported file was created. Water surface
profiles were computed from one cross section to the next. The flow data were entered in the
steady flow data editor for five return periods as 5-year, 10-year , 25-year, 50-year and 100-
year. Boundary condition was defined as critical depth for both upstream and downstream.
Subcritical analysis was done in steady flow analysis. Then after, water surface profiles were
computed. The result was exported creating the RAS GIS export file.
28
3.10 Analysis of Elements at Risk
The database of the elements at risk was from the data collected from two sources:
building inventory and household interviews in Barangay Natumolan. The building inventory
was carried out to provide general information of the structural types of buildings in the
study area. In this section, the type of wall material, roof and floor material were taken into
consideration to analyze the elements at risk.
3.11 Vulnerability Assessment
Vulnerability assessment of the study area was carried out through participatory
approach tools where household survey form was utilized.
3.12 Vulnerability of Structural Type of Building to Flooding
In this research, the definition of structural type of building refers only to the damage
of wall, roof, and floor parts of a building, without considering other parts of building.
Vulnerability means the degree of loss of a given element at risk or a set of such elements
resulting from the occurrence of a natural phenomenon of a given magnitude and expressed
on a scale from 0 (No damage) to 1 (Total Loss), (UNDRO, 1991). Based on this definition,
the value of vulnerability for structural type of building is made on scale between 0 and 1.
29
Table 3. Working Definition for Vulnerability of Structural Type of Building
Vulnerability Description
0 (No Damage or Nothing Happen to Wall, * If the wall, floor and roof materials were not
Floor, and Roof Materials) damaged (Nothing Happen) due to certain level
of flood depth.
0.2 * If two materials were not damaged ( Nothing
Happen) and one material has half damage (
Half Collapse) due to certain level of flood
depth; and repairing cost is needed.
0.4 * If two materials were not damaged (Nothing
Happen) and one material has total damage
(Collapse) due to certain level of flood depth;
and replacement is needed.
* If one material is not damaged (Nothing
Happen) and two materials have half damage
(Half Collapse) due to certain level of flood
depth; and repairing cost is needed.
0.6 * If one materials is not damaged (Nothing
Happen), one material has half damage (Half
Collapse), and one material has total damage
and repairing or replacement cost is needed.
0.8 * If one material is not damaged (Nothing
Happen) and two materials have total damage
and replacement cost is needed.
1 (Collapse or Total Damage to Wall, Floor, * If three materials have total damage
and Roof Materials) (Collapse) due to certain level of flood depth;
and total replacement is needed.
Table 4. Vulnerability Class for Structural Type of Building
Vulnerability Class Vulnerability Value

No Vulnerability 0
Low Vulnerability < 0.3
Moderate Vulnerability < 0.6
High Vulnerability <1
30
3.13 Generating Flood Physical Vulnerability Map through Geographic Information
System (GIS)
After analyzing all the necessary data, flood physical vulnerability map for different
return periods were produced. The degree of damage that a certain structural type of building
experienced was taken into consideration to create the vulnerability scale in order to plot and
create flood physical vulnerability map. The values of flood physical vulnerability gathered
from the participatory approach during field interview were used in creating vulnerability
map through regression analysis. A point shapefile was made in order to input the flood
depth and the corresponding vulnerability value to each corresponding points in the map
based on the interviewed households. After filling in the needed data an interpolation was
made using regression analysis. Thus, the vulnerability map for the different return period (5,
10, 25, 50 and 100) was made from the raw data gathered from participatory approach
interview.
3.14 Depth-Damage Method
In this study, the relationship between the flood physical vulnerability and flood
depth was analyse. During the typhoon Seniang, some houses in Brgy. Natumolan was totally
damaged. However, for this study damages on the roof, wall, and floor was the the only
structural part of the building that was considered. After determining the damages of each
houses, the level of vulnerability will be identified. Flood depths for 5-year return period,
10-year return period, 25-year return period, 50-year return period, and 100-year return
period was determined for every structural type. For a certain flood depth, a corresponding
level of flood physical vulnerability was obtain for each structural type of building.
31
3.15 Regression Analysis
The regression analysis was used to identify the relationship between the two
variables: flood physical vulnerability and flood depth. The flood physical vulnerability acts
as the dependent variable while the flood depth was considered as the independent variable.
The regression analysis estimates the average value of the flood physical vulnerability when
the flood depth is varied or fixed. The flood physical vulnerability depends on the value of
flood depth. A regression function of the independent variable was estimated to characterize
the variation of dependent variables. To statistically measure the accuracy of the data, a
coeffecient of determination or R-squared is derived. The value of R-squared varies between
0% and 100%. It represents the difference between the fitted values and observed data. The
higher the value of R-squared indicates how well the values fit the data. However, lower
value of R-squared still represents the mean change value of dependent variable when the
independent variable was held constant.
32
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Flood Frequency Analysis
In the prediction of design flood, the flood discharge from 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100-year
return period acquired from secondary data as illustrated in the (table 4) was used to generate
flood inundation map.
Table 5. Flood Frequency Analysis in Various Return Periods
Return Period (years) Peak Outflow (cms)
5 5267.4
10 7205.5
25 9958.5
50 12207.8
100 14420.2
4.2 Flood Plain Analysis
33
To be able to assess the flood physical vulnerability of the study area, one of the
prerequisites is to map out its flood inundation map. In this analysis, hydraulic features such
as the hydraulic geometry, slope gradient and the corresponding Manning’s roughness
coefficients were considered. These were input in the Hydrologic Engineering Center-River
Analysis System (HEC-RAS) for the computations needed in the flood inundation mapping.
In this research, secondary data were utilized for the topography of Barangay Natumolan and
the Bathymetry of the Tagoloan River for the definition of the river. These data were used in
the flood inundation which was done using the Geographic Information System (GIS) for the
production of the floodplain analysis shown below.
Figure 4. A snapshot of the river, river banks, flowpath centerlines, and cross-section
overlaid on top of geo-referenced Google Earth image of Tagoloan Municipality
4.3 Flood Modeling in HEC-RAS
34
In flood simulation, HEC-RAS software was used to model the acquired hydraulic
parameters into water surface profiles. For the modeling, the inputs were: the stream
discharge, cross-sectional area of the flow including the river channel and flood plain,
Manning’s roughness coefficient, and boundary conditions. For this study, the roughness
coefficient of the channel and overbank areas are 0.03 and 0.15 respectively, based on the
secondary data. An assumption was made such that the flow of the discharge was steady,
which suggests that there will be no change in water flow over time. The flow data consists
of five return periods: 2-year, 5-year, 10-year, 25-year, 50-year and 100-year. Both upstream
and downstream cross-sections have critical depth as in the boundary conditions. The
resulting profiles were then exported to GeoRAS.
4.4 Tagoloan River Flood Hazard Map
The estimates of the peak outflow retrieved from secondary data for different storm
recurrence interval are used in hydraulic model built in HEC-RAS. The RAS model was then
simulated to obtain water elevation results. The extent of the inundation can be calculated
and modeled in HEC-GeoRAS using the RAS model results.
The hazard aspect of the flooding is related to the hydraulic and the hydrological
parameters. The flood hazard maps of the study area for 5-year, 10-year, 25-year, 50-year,
and 100-year return periods were prepared by overlaying flood grid depths with the TIN.
35
Figure 5 . TIN for Inundation Model
36
Figure 6. 5-year flood depth
37
38
39
40
41
The result shows that as water increases, flood cover a greater area on the left bank of
the river. Based on the hydraulic model result, flooding considerably starts at a flood event
with a 5-year return period. Inundation map shows that the left side of the river will most
likely be overwhelmed by floods with 5-year or greater return periods. These areas must have
immediate measures since their hazard level is high. The Local Government Unit of
Tagoloan may impose mitigation measures by establishing policies that would help in the
face of flood disasters especially during typhoons.
4.5 Combination of wall-floor-roof material
Physical vulnerability of buildings to floods is influenced by the type of material that
was used in constructing the building. In this research, vulnerability assessment of buildings
using statistical tools will be conducted by analyzing the extent of damage to the wall, floor
and roof material.
Table 6. Six common structural types from building inventory
Structural Type Floor Wall Roof

Type I Concrete CHB Wall GI
Type II Concrete Amakan GI
Type III Concrete Wood GI
Type IV Earth Tarp/Wood/GI GI
Type V Wood Wood GI
Type VI Wood Amakan GI
The structural type that contains the highest number of buildings from the building
inventory in Barangay Natumolan is structural type I while the least is structural type II (see
appendix A).
42
(Type I) (Type II)
(Type III) (Type IV)
(Type V) (Type VI)
Figure 11. Common Structural Types from Building Inventory
43
4.6 Wall material
Four types of wall material were found during the building inventory in the study
area: Concrete Hollow Block Wall, Amakan, Wood, Tarp/Wood/Galvanized Iron Sheet
(Table 7).
Table 7. Wall material from building inventory
Wall Material Frequency Percentage
CHB Wall 79 39.30
Amakan 23 11.44
Wood 70 34.83
Tarp/Wood/G.I 29 14.43
Total 201 100
From 201 households, the researchers classified the wall material into four categories;
CHB Wall, Amakan, Wood, and Tarp/Wood/G.I Sheet. CHB Wall is the most common wall
material in the study area which consist 79 or 39.30%, 23 or 11.44% for Amakan, 70 or
34.83% for Wood, and 29 or 14.43% are made of a combination of Tarp/Wood/G.I. sheet.
The latter combination type of wall material can be found in the areas near the river bank,
this most probably is due to the reason that people living near the river are hesitant to build
concrete and other strong structures, based on the field interview. According to the
respondents they are not ready to invest and gamble on building their houses out of
expensive materials since their areas are prone to flooding and the buildings might still be
destroyed in the face of extreme deluge.
44
4.7 Floor Material
There are three types of floor material in the study area: concrete, earth, and wood.
The predominant floor type in Barangay Natumolan is concrete with 53.73% of the
buildings. Most people use concrete floor since it is easier for them to clean up after flood
event. Wood type of floor material is the next predominant type with 31.84% of the buildings
and earth floor with 14.43% of the buildings.
Table 8. Floor material from building inventory
Floor Material Frequency Percentage
Concrete 108 53.73
Earth 29 14.43
Wood 64 31.84
4.8 Roof Material
Galvanized iron sheet is the predominant roof material type in the study area with
100% of the total buildings using the said material. During the inventory, some of the roof
showed signs of decay. According to the respondents, some of their roofs are remnants of the
rate typhoon Seniang (2014), the storm that caused the worst fluvial flooding in the area.
They used those roofs in their own houses, without considering the fact that it may
deteriorate over time.
Table 9. Roof material from building inventory
Roof Material Frequency Percentage
G.I Sheet 201 100
45
4.9 People’s Coping Mechanism
Coping mechanisms are measures done by the people to reduce the damage caused by
flood. In the interview conducted by the group in the area and based on the site observations,
there were several coping mechanisms carried out or done by poeple for flood mitigation.
There were some ways that the residents of Barangay Natumolan conducted for their
buildings to be able to resist flood. The first measure is using materials like concrete and
hardwood which possess strength adequate to withstand flood water. However, with greater
material strength comes greater monetary value. Not all households can afford high-strength
materials. The inventory showed that roughly 39% only of the houses are constructed using
reinforced concrete and concrete hollow blocks.
The second measure is increasing the elevation of the floor, either by a thick earth fill
for the first floor or by constructing the first floor on wooden pillars. As far as price is
concerned, house elevated on pillars are cheap. Some houses in the study area were built this
way, usually more than 750 millimeters above the natural ground line. There were also
houses which were built with masonry at the lower portion and the rest with wood or
bamboo, possibly a resort at fortifying the base of the buildings which is most vulnerable
during floods. Through this means, damage can be mitigated but only for floods of very low
depth.
46
Figure 12. House with Pillars Figure 13. House with Hollow Block
4.10 Assessing Vulnerability of Buildings using Depth-Damage Method
Kelman and Spence (2004) noted that damage to buildings from flood water includes
wall failure, glass breaking, roof collapsing, foundations being undermined, or doors being
forced open. Therefore, in assessing the physical vulnerability of buildings, it is important to
consider parts of the building structure such as wall, floor, doors, windows, and roof that
could be damaged by flood.
In this research, depth-damage assessment of building structure was examined
considering only the wall, floor, and roof material. The vulnerability of structural type of
buildings was expressed as the percentage of damage to the wall, floor, and roof at different
flood depths on a scale of 0 (no damage) to 1(total damage).
47
4.10.1 Structural Type 1
1.2
V
1
U
L
0.8 y = 0.0242x2 - 0.0618x + 0.0095
N
E 0.6
T
R Series1
Y
A 0.4
Poly. (Series1)
B
I 0.2
L
0
I
0 2 4 6 8
-0.2
FLOOD DEPTH
Figure 14. Structural Type 1 Depth-Damage Curve
Houses with structural type 1 are made from the combination of concrete floor,
concrete hollow block wall, and galvanized iron sheet roof material. A water depth at
approximately 2.49 meters, damage to this structural type starts, and at water depth of 7
meters vulnerability reaches 1 (total damage).
1.2
V y = 0.1002x
1.0
U
L 0.8
N
E 0.6
T Series1
R
Y 0.4
A Poly. (Series1)
B 0.2
I
L 0.0
I 0 5 10 15
FLOOD DEPTH
48
Houses with structural type 2 are made from the combination of concrete floor,
amakan wall, and galvanized iron sheet roof. At water depth of approximately 10 meters,
damage to structural type starts and vulnerability reaches 1 (total damage). Based on the
participatory approach and actual survey most of the interviewed households do not suffer
heavy damage, since most of the houses with structural type 2 are located out of the flood
prone area during typhoon Seniang.
1.2
y = -0.016x2 + 0.2552x + 4E-15
V 1.0
U
L 0.8
N
E 0.6
Series1
R
A 0.4 Poly. (Series1)
B
I 0.2
L
I 0.0
T 0 2 4 6 8 10
Y FLOOD DEPTH
Houses with structural type 3 are made from the combination of concrete floor, wood
wall, and galvanized iron sheet roof material. At water depth of approximately 7 meters,
damage to this structural type starts, and vulnerability reaches 1 (total damage).
49
1.2
V
y = -0.0158x2 + 0.2526x + 4E-05
1.0
U
L 0.8
N
E 0.6
T Series1
R
Y 0.4 Poly. (Series1)
A
B 0.2
I
L 0.0
I 0 2 4 6 8 10
FLOOD DEPTH
Houses with structural type 4 are made from the combination of earth floor,
tarp/wood/galvanized iron sheet wall, and galvanized iron sheet roof material. A water depth
at approximately 7.2 meters, damage to this structural type starts, and vulnerability reaches 1
(total damage).
1.2
1 y = 0.0065x2 + 0.0575x - 0.0009
0.8
0.6 Series1
0.4 Poly. (Series1)
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
-0.2
50
Houses with structural type 5 are made from the combination of wood floor, wood
wall, and galvanized iron sheet roof material. A water depth at approximately 5 meters,
damage to this structural type starts, and vulnerability reaches 0.4 (half damage).
1.2
V y = 0.0149x2 + 0.0044x + 3E-16
U 1
L
N 0.8
E
R 0.6
Series1
A
B 0.4 Poly. (Series1)
I
L 0.2
I
T 0
Y 0 2 4 6 8 10
FLOOD DEPTH
Houses with structural type 6 are made from the combination of wood floor, amakan
wall, and galvanized iron sheet roof material. A water depth at approximately 3.6 meters,
damage to this structural type starts, and vulnerability reaches 0.2 (partially damage).
4.11 Vulnerability Comparison
Comparing the vulnerability line for the six common structural types indicates that
houses with structural type 4 are the most vulnerable with 1 (total damage) vulnerability
value, from the household interview data, the vulnerability of houses with structural type 1
falls under the average of 0.2 vulnerability value which means partially damage considered
as the least vulnerable among all structural types of houses in the study area.
51
4.12 Vulnerability Map
The following images are the vulnerability maps for 5, 10, 25, 50, 100-year return
storm scenarios of the Tagoloan river basin.
Figure 20. 5-Year Flood Vulnerability Map
52
53
54
55
After the final flood physical vulnerability maps were derived, an analysis was
performed to calculate the percentage of buildings that have low, moderate and high
56
vulnerability to floods in the study area for 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100-year return periods. The
outcome of the analysis is presented in Figures 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29.
30.39, 30%
No Vulnerability
Low Vulnerability
Moderate Vulnerability
57.84, 58%
2.94, 3% High Vulnerability
8.82, 9%
Figure 25. Vulnerability of Building Structures for a 100-Year Return Period
25.49, 25% No Vulnerability

Low Vulnerability
7.84, 8%
61.76, 62%
High Vulnerability
4.9, 5%
57
17.65, 17%
No Vulnerability
Low Vulnerability
14.71, 15%
63.73, 64%
High Vulnerability
3.92, 4%
14.71, 15%
No Vulnerability
10.78, 11% Low Vulnerability
7.84, 8%
58
14.71, 15%
1.96, 2%
No Vulnerability
Low Vulnerability
14.71, 15%
A higher percentage of structural buildings lie in no vulnerability class, most of the
houses located away from the river have lower vulnerability class. For 100-year storm return
period, 57.84% of the house will have no vulnerability, 30.39% high vulnerability, 2.94%,
moderately vulnerable and 8.82%, low vulnerability. A bigger percentage of households have
no vulnerability with the rate 61.76%. For a 50-year storm return period, 25.49% of
structures have high vulnerability, 7.84%, moderate vulnerability and 4.9% only of the
structures in the area will experience low vulnerability. For 25 year return period, 63.73% of
the households fall under no vulnerability class, 17.65% with high vulnerability, 14.71% with
moderate vulnerability and 3.92% with low vulnerability. For 10 year return period, 66.67%
of the households fall under no vulnerability class, 14.71% with high vulnerability, 10.78%
with moderate vulnerability and 7.84% with low vulnerability. For 5 year return period
68.63% of the households falls under no vulnerability class, 14.71% with high vulnerability,
1.96% with moderate vulnerability and 14.71% with low vulnerability.
59
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusions
Based on the findings, the following conclusions were made:
1. Assessment of the physical vulnerability of buildings in the study area was
conducted using depth-damage method. Different level of flood physical vulnerability was
discovered upon finishing the flood physical vulnerability map of the study area. It was
found out that for 100-year storm return period, the vulnerability value of the study area
ranges from 0 (no damage) to 1 (totally damage), with 30.39% of high vulnerability, 2.94%
of moderate vulnerability, and 8.82% of low vulnerability. For 50-year storm return period,
the vulnerability value still ranges from 0 (no damage) to 1 (totally damage), but unlike 100-
year storm return period, the percentage of households exposed to vulnerability value 1
(totally damage) is much lesser, only 25.49% of households are highly vulnerable compared
to the 30.39% vulnerability value of 100-year storm return period. For 25-year return period,
a bigger portion of the area have vulnerability value that ranges from 0.2 (partially damage)
to 0.5 (half damage) and a small portion of the area have high vulnerability value of 1 (totally
damage). It was found out that 17.65% of the households in the study area have high
vulnerability, 14.71%, moderate vulnerability, and 3.92%, low vulnerability. For 10 year
return period, 14.71% of the households in the study area have high vulnerability, 17.28%,
moderate vulnerability, and 7.84%, low vulnerability. For a 5-year return period, the level of
vulnerability value decreases, only 14.71% are exposed to high vulnerability value, 1.96%,
moderate vulnerability, and 14.71%, low vulnerability class.
60
2. Based on the different flood scenarios, the most vulnerable to flood is structural
type 4 which is made from the combination of earth floor, tarp/wood/galvanized iron sheet
for wall, and galvanized iron sheet roof material. From the vulnerability assessment, the
vulnerability of the structural types to flood is influenced by the materials (such as wall,
floor, and roof material) of the house.
Houses with structural type 4 are considered as the most vulnerable; since most of the
materials used in their houses were made of scrap materials or remnants of typhoon Seniang.
Given that most of these materials were already damaged, the vulnerability will be greater.
However, houses with structural type 1 made from the combination of concrete floor, CHB
wall, and galvanized iron sheet roof material is less vulnerable than structural type 4. From
the vulnerability curves (see Figure 17), structural type 4 is totally damaged, with a
vulnerability value of 1 (totally damage) at a water depth of around 7.2 meters.
3. The approach employed by the residents to mitigate the impact of floods and to
reduce the disaster risk from flooding is by building houses on pillars. It was found out that
building houses on pillars is not a common approach since only few of the houses adopt this
method. From the household interview, it was observed that most of the houses near the river
did not take on any flood mitigating measures. According to one respondent, it would be a
waste of time and money if they were to build their houses on top of pillars since the flood
might damage their houses even if they elevate them. The comments of the respondents make
sense since an average of 14 meters of flood is found out in the flood inundation map. It
would be costly and irrelevant if they tried to elevate their homes 14 meters high. However,
for houses located far away from the river, approximately 4% or only 8 out of the 201
households are built on top of pillars (see appendix E).
61
5.2 Recommendations for further research
Recommendations for further research are as follows:
1. In order to test the results of this research, further case study in other part of Barangay
Natumolan need to be done. Consequently, this will bring better understanding of the
elements of risk involved and the flood physical vulnerability of the elements at risk.
2. Coping mechanism that has been applied by the few households should be taken into
account. Having information that those coping mechanisms are useful, the next step
to be done is to implement it in wider area and inform other flood-affected areas.
3. More research should be done on improving the result of the vulnerability values in
the study area through the inclusion of more representative data of the entire
structural type of buildings. Furthermore, addition of the data on damage to building
contents should be included to arrive to a better result, because during the fieldwork
according to the interviewed households they suffer great damage on their properties.
4. One of the challenges encountered during this research was time constraint, during
fieldwork. Consequently, some data that could have been used for the various
analyses were not collected. In future studies, enough time should be allocated during
the data collection phase.
5. For future studies, field survey should be undertaken to determine the cross-section of
the river, since the rivers cross-section used in this study was generated using Lidar
data with 1 meter by 1 meter Digital Elevation Model (DEM).
62
REFERENCES
Adeloye, A. J. (2015). A Metric-based Assessment of Flood Risk and Vulnerability of Rural
Communities in the Lower Shire Valley, Malawi. Riccarton, Edinburgh: Heriot Watt
University.
Aglan, H., Wendt, R and Livengood, S., (2004). Field Testing if Energy-Efficient Flood
Damage-Resistant Residential Envelope Systems: from
http://www.floods.org/Committees /fldrf_links_references.asp,Oak Ridge National
Laboratory Tennessee.
Albano, R., Sole A., Sdao F., Giosa L.,Cantisani A., and Pascale S. (2014). A Systemic
Approach to Evaluate the Flood Vulnerability for an Urban Study Case in Southern
Italy. Potenza, Italy: University of Basilicata, School of Engineering.
Behanzini, I., Thiela, M., Szarzynski, J., and Boko, M. (2015): GIS-based Mapping of
Flood Vulnerability and Risk in the Bénin Niger River Valley. International Journal
of Geomatic and Geosciences.Vol. 6.
Blanco-Vogt, and J. Schanze (2014) .Assessment of the physical flood susceptibility of
buildings on a large scale – conceptual and methodological frameworks, retrieved
from: https://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/14/2105/2014/nhess-14-2105-
2014.pdf.
Blond, R., (2003). A New Damage Index, Natural Hazards, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Netherlands, 30, 1-23.
63
Blistanova, M., Zelenakova, M., Blistan, P., and Frenc,V. (2016). Assessment of Flood
Vulnerability in Bodva River Basin, Slovakia. In Production Management and
Engineering Sciences. Leiden, CRC Press/Balkema,Volume 21, No. 1, 19-28.
College of Forestry and Natural Resources University of the Philippines Los Baños
(2015). Development of Climate-Responsive Integrated River Basin Master Plan For
the Mindanao River Basin. Manila: Woodfields Consultants, Inc.
Dinh Kha, D., Ngoc Anh, T., and Thanh Son., N. (2011). Flood Vulnerability Assessment
of Downstream Area in Thach Han River Basin, Quang Tri Province. Hanoi: Hanoi
University of Science.
Dutta, D. and Tingsanchali, T., (2003). Development of Loss Functions for Flood Urban
Flood Risk Analysis in Bangkok, New Technologies for Urban Safety of Mega Cities
in Asia, Tokyo, Natural Hazards ,88(1), 623-649. doi:10.1007/s11169-018-2569-4.
Flax, L., Jackson, R., and Stein, D. (2002). Community Vulnerability Assessment Tool
Methodology, Natural Hazards Review, ASCE, 3(4), 163-176.
Kumar, R. (1996). Research Methodology. Sage Publication
Lang, M., Daniere, B., and Boudou, M. (2016). Assessing Changes in Urban Flood
Vulnerability Through Mapping Land Use from Historical Information. Villeurbanne,
France: Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
Mazzorana, B. (2014). A Physical Approach on Flood Risk-Vulnerability of Buildings.
Bolzano, Italy: Department of Hydraulic Engineering.
64
Messner, F. and Meyer, V. (2005). Flood Damage, Vulnerability and Risk Perception–
Challenges for Flood Damage Research. Nato Science Series. Springer Publisher.
Nasiri, H., Mohd Yusof, M., and Mohammad Ali, T. (2016). An Overview to Flood
Vulnerability Assessment Methods. Sustainable Water Resources Management, 2(3),
331-336. Doi:10.1007/s40899-016-0051-x.
Okoduwa, A. I. (1999). An Application of GIS to Flood Prediction: A Case Studyof Benin
City, Nigeria. Unpublished B. Sc. Dissertation, Department of Geography and
Planning University of Benin, Nigeria.
Ologunorisa, T. E and Abawua, M. J., (2005).Flood Risk Assessment:
AReview,retrievedfrom:https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/6419/1/ja05
010.pdf.
Peck, A. (2007). Physical, Economical, Infrastructural and Social Flood Risk–Vulnerability
Analyses in GIS. Natural Hazard and Earth System Sciences.
Penning-Rowsell, E. and Chatterton, J. (1977). The Benefits of Flood Alleviation. London,
Earth Scan.
Rimba, A., Setiawati, M., Sambah, A., and Miura, F. (2017). Physical Flood Vulnerability
Mapping Applying Geospatial Techniques in Okazaki City, Aichi Prefecture, Japan.
Urban Science, 1(1), 7-7. Doi:10.3390/urbansci101007.
Sakijege, T., Sartohadi, J., Marfai, M.A., Kassenga, G.R. and Kasala, S.E., (2014).
Assessment of adaptation strategies to flooding: A comparative study between
informal settlements of Keko Machungwa in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Sangkrah
65
in Surakarta, Indonesia, Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies 6(1), Art. #131, 10
pages.
.
Sagala, S A.H. (2006). Analysis of Flood Physical Vulnerability in Residential Area Case
Study: Naga City, the Philippines. Master of Science Theses. International Institute
for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation . Retrieved from
http://www.itc.nl/library/papers_2006/msc/upla/sagala.pdf
Smith, K., and Ward, R. (1998). Floods: Physical Processes and Human Impacts. London,
John Wiley and Sons.
Thi Phuong Dung Le. (2012). Assessment of Household Vulnerability to Flood Risk. Nghe
An, Vietnam.
Uwakwe, A., (2015). Assessment of Physical Vulnerability to Flood in Saint Lucia. Case
Studies: Castries Old Central Business District and Dennery Village. Master of
Science Theses. International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth
Observation.Retrievedfromhttp://www.charim.net/sites/default/files/handbook/otherp
ages/MSC/Anne%20Chinyere%20Uwakwe-s6012345.pdf.
White, K., (1964). Assessing Urban Vulnerability and Social Adaptation to Risk.
International Development Planning Review, 24(1):59-76
Undro (1991). Mitigating Natural Disasters: Phenomena and Options. United Nations, New
York, 164pp.
66
University of the Philippines & Department of Science and Technology (2015). Tagoloan
River Basin: DREAM Flood Forecasting and Flood Hazard Mapping. UP Training Center for
Applied Geodesy and Photogrammetry. Quezon City, Philippines.
67
Appendix A. Structural Type Combination
Combination Floor Wall Roof Frequency Percentage

I Concrete CHB Wall GI 79 39.30
II Concrete Amakan GI 7 3.48
III Concrete Wood GI 22 10.95
IV Earth Tarp/Wood/GI GI 29 14.43
V Wood Wood GI Sheet 48 23.88
VI Wood Amakan GI Sheet 16 7.96
Total 201 100
Appendix B. Wall Material
Wall
Number Material Frequency Percentage
1 CHB Wall 79 39.30
2 Amakan 23 11.44
3 Wood 70 34.83
4 Tarp/Wood/GI 29 14.43
Total 201 100.00
Appendix C. Roof Material
Roof
1 Galvanized Iron 201 100.00
Appendix D. Roof Material
Floor
1 Concrete 108 53.73
2 Earth 29 14.43
3 Wood 64 31.84
Total 201 100.00
68
Appendix E. Houses Built with Pillars
House No. of Structural Mitigating
Floor Wall Roof Floors
X Y Type Measures
No.
1 Wood Wood GI Sheet 1 V W/Out

8˚32'14.53" 124˚45'42.40"

8˚32'14.45" 124˚45'42.73"

8˚32'14.54" 124˚45'42.80"

8˚32'14.48 124˚45'43.13"

8˚32'14.96" 124˚45'43.14"

8˚32'14.54" 124˚45'42.15"

8˚32'16.59" 124˚45'41.70"

8˚32'16.17" 124˚45'40.49"
9 Concrete CHB Wall GI Sheet 1 I W/Out

8˚32'16.66" 124˚45'42.84"

8˚32'18.47" 124˚45'43.90"

8˚32'18.48" 124˚45'44.30"

8˚32'18.40" 124˚45'44.51"

8˚32'18.43" 124˚45'44.73"

8˚32'18.43" 124˚45'45.00"
With
15 Wood Nipa GI Sheet 1 VI
8˚32'18.93 124˚45'44.52" Pillars

8˚32'16.16" 124˚45'44.88"

8˚32'19.12" 124˚45'44.57"

8˚32'19.31" 124˚45'44.76"

8˚32'19.05" 124˚45'45.50"

8˚32'18.59" 124˚45'45.65"

8˚32'18.43" 124˚45'45.66"
69
Floor Wall Roof Floors X Y Type Measures
No.

8˚32'19.53" 124˚45'45.12"

8˚32'19.75" 124˚45'45.07"
24 Wood Wood GI Sheet 1 VI W/Out

8˚32'19.03 124˚45'45.83"

8˚32'18.60" 124˚45'45.80"

8˚32'19.02" 124˚45'45.88"

8˚32'19.12" 124˚45'46.57"

8˚32'19.52" 124˚45'46.61"
29 Wood Nipa GI Sheet 1 VI W/Out

8˚32'20.61" 124˚45'46.03"

8˚32'20.02" 124˚45'45.14"

8˚32'19.01" 124˚45'46.08"

8˚32'18.73" 124˚45'46.06"

8˚32'19.03" 124˚45'46.18"

8˚32'18.72" 124˚45'46.18"

8˚32'18.59" 124˚45'46.04"

8˚32'18.42" 124˚45'46.03"

8˚32'18.62" 124˚45'46.45"

8˚32'18.44" 124˚45'46.45"

8˚32'18.57" 124˚45'46.61"

8˚32'18.48" 124˚45'47.14"

8˚32'18.62" 124˚45'47.11"

8˚32'18.76" 124˚45'47.13"

8˚32'18.86" 124˚45'47.13"
70
X Y Type Measures
No.

8˚32'19.02" 124˚45'47.15"
With
8˚32'19.19" 124˚45'47.16" Pillars

8˚32'19.39" 124˚45'47.18"

8˚32'13.12" 124˚45'45.97"

8˚32'12.92" 124˚45'46.35"

8˚32'11.34" 124˚45'49.90"
With
8˚32'11.35" 124˚45'50.24" Pillars

8˚32'10.50" 124˚45'50.16"

8˚32'10.41" 124˚45'50.29"

8˚32'11.18" 124˚45'50.59"

8˚32'11.40" 124˚45'50.93"

8˚32'11.75" 124˚45'51.48"

8˚32'11.18" 124˚45'52.11"

8˚32'12.10" 124˚45'51.36"
With
8˚32'11.19" 124˚45'51.01" Pillars

8˚32'12.22" 124˚45'50.85"

8˚32'12.43" 124˚45'51.14"

8˚32'13.02" 124˚45'51.72"

8˚32'13.33" 124˚45'51.65"

8˚32'13.23" 124˚45'52.07"

8˚32'12.19" 124˚45'52.35"

8˚32'12.36" 124˚45'52.28"
71
X Y Type Measures
No.
66 Wood Wood GI Sheet 1 VI W/Out

8˚32'12.49" 124˚45'52.49
With
67 Wood Nipa GI Sheet 1 V
8˚32'12.38" 124˚45'52.58" Pillars
With
68 Wood Nipa GI Sheet 1 V
8˚32'12.30" 124˚45'52.59" Pillars
69 Wood Nipa GI Sheet 1 V W/Out

8˚32'12.19" 124˚45'52.63"
70 Wood Nipa GI Sheet 1 V W/Out

8˚32'12.01" 124˚45'52.69"

8˚32'12.19" 124˚45'52.84"

8˚32'11.86" 124˚45'52.77"

8˚32'12.23" 124˚45'53.14"

8˚32'09.86" 124˚45'51.33"

8˚32'09.78" 124˚45'51.16"

8˚32'09.65" 124˚45'51.01"
With
8˚32'09.20" 124˚45'51.31" Pillars
78 Concrete CHB Wall Corrugated 1 I W/Out

8˚32'09.07" 124˚45'53.06"

8˚32'08.10" 124˚45'53.11"

8˚32'07.71" 124˚45'53.06"

8˚32'07.49" 124˚45'53.11"

8˚32'07.10" 124˚45'53.15"

8˚32'07.83" 124˚45'53.29"

8˚32'07.38" 124˚45'53.46"

8˚32'08.01" 124˚45'53.26"
With
8˚32'07.44" 124˚45'53.97" Pillars

8˚32'07.87" 124˚45'54.56"
72
X Y Type Measures
No.

8˚32'08.53" 124˚45'54.22"

8˚32'09.83" 124˚45'53.64"

8˚32'08.97" 124˚45'54.57"

8˚32'09.49" 124˚45'54.26"

8˚32'10.52" 124˚45'53.68"
93 W/Out
CwoF Concrete GI 1 8˚ 32' 7.54" 124˚ 46' 2.06" I
94 W/Out
CwF Tiled GI 1 8˚ 32' 8.17" 124˚ 46' 1.81" I
95 W/Out
CwF Concrete GI 1 8˚ 32' 7.87" 124˚46' 1.82" I
96 W/Out
Amak Concrete GI 1 8˚ 32' 8.47" 124˚ 46' 1.74" II
97 W/Out
CwoF Earth GI 1 8˚ 32' 8.73" 124˚ 46' 1.60" IV
98 W/Out
Wood Concrete GI 1 8˚ 32' 9.12" 124˚ 46' 1.83" III
99 W/Out
Amak/Conc Concrete GI 1 8˚ 32' 9.08" 124˚ 46' 2.09" II
100 W/Out
Wood Concrete GI 1 8˚ 32' 8.90" 124˚ 46' 1.84" III
101 W/Out
102 W/Out
103 W/Out
Conc/Wood Concrete GI 2 8˚32' 9.90" 124˚ 46' 0.95" I
104 W/Out
Open Concrete GI 1 8˚32' 7.99" 124˚ 46' 4.32" III
105 W/Out
CWSF Concrete GI 1 8˚ 32' 8.14" 124˚ 46' 4.64" I
106 W/Out
Bamboo/Ply Earth GI 1 8˚ 32' 8.72" 124˚46' 4.06" III
107 W/Out
108 W/Out
Amakan Concrete GI 1 8˚ 32' 9.04" 124˚ 46' 4.96" II
109 W/Out
Amakan Concrete GI 1 8˚32' 9.57" 124˚ 46' 4.62" II
73
X Y Type Measures
No.
110 W/Out
CwSF Tiled GI 1 8˚32' 10.0" 124˚ 46' 5.81" I
111 W/Out
CwoF Conc GI 1 8˚32' 10.1" 124˚ 46' 6.07" I
112 W/Out
Ply Conc GI 1 8˚ 32.172' 124˚ 46.097' III
113 W/Out
Bamboo Earth GI 1 8˚32' 11.5" 124˚ 46' 6.7" IV
114 W/Out
CwoF Conc GI 1 8˚32'11.36’ 124˚ 46' 6.35" I
115 W/Out
Conc/GI Conc GI 1 8˚ 32' 9.68" 124˚ 46' 7.25" I
116 W/Out
Ply Conc GI 1 8˚32'11.07" 124˚ 46' 7.03" III
117 W/Out
Wood Earth/Wood GI 1 8˚32'17.73" 124˚ 46' 6.85" IV
118 W/Out
Ply Conct GI 1 8˚32'17.96" 124˚ 46' 6.81" III
119 W/Out
Bamboo Earth GI 1 8˚32'17.84" 124˚ 46' 6.25" IV
120 W/Out
Wood/Conc Concrete GI 1 8˚32'18.20" 124˚ 46' 6.05" I
121 W/Out
Trapal Earth GI 1 8˚32'18.54" 124˚ 46' 6.19" IV
122 W/Out
Wood Wood GI 1 8˚32'18.56" 124˚ 46' 5.95" III
123 W/Out
Wood Conc GI 1 8˚32'18.58" 124˚ 46' 5.81" III
124 W/Out
Conc/Wood Conc GI 1 8˚32'18.27" 124˚ 46' 5.56" III
125 W/Out
Bamb/Wood Conc GI 2 8˚32'18.60" 124˚ 46' 5.56" III
126 W/Out
Amak Conc GI 1 8˚32'18.61" 124˚ 46' 5.29" II
127 W/Out
Conc/Hardi Conc GI 1 8˚32'18.56" 124˚ 46' 5.09" III
128 W/Out
Wood Earth/Conc GI 1 8˚32'18.33" 124˚ 46' 5.15" III
129 W/Out
Tarp/Wood/GI Earth GI/Tarp 1 8˚32'18.40" 124˚ 46' 4.86" IV
130 W/Out
131 W/Out
74
X Y Type Measures
No.
132 W/Out
133 W/Out
134 W/Out
135 W/Out
136 W/Out
137 W/Out
138 W/Out
139 W/Out
Tarp/Wood/GI Earth GI/Tarp 1 8˚ 32' 18.9" 124˚ 46' 2.92" IV
140 W/Out
141 W/Out
142 W/Out
Tarp/Wood/GI Earth GI/Tarp 1 8˚ 32' 19.0" 124˚ 46' 2.46" IV
143 W/Out
CwoF Conc GI 1 8˚ 32' 7.30" 124˚ 46' 1.82" I
144 W/Out
CwoF Conc GI 1 8˚ 32' 6.85" 124˚ 46' 1.60" I
145 W/Out
CwSF Conc GI 1 8˚ 32' 6.83" 124˚ 46' 1.34" I
146 W/Out
CwSF Conc GI 1 8˚ 32' 7.49" 124˚ 46' 1.36" I
147 W/Out
Amak Earth/Wood GI 2 8˚ 32' 7.76" 124˚ 46' 1.29" IV
148 W/Out
CwoF Conc GI 1 8˚ 32' 8.07" 124˚ 46' 1.12" I
149 W/Out
Conc/Hardi Smooth/Wood GI 2 8˚ 32' 8.36" 124˚ 46' 1.09" I
150 W/Out
CwoF Conc GI 1 8˚ 32' 8.70" 124˚ 46' 0.96" I
151 W/Out
CwoF Conc GI 1 8˚ 32' 8.74" 124˚ 46' 1.30" I
152 W/Out
CwF Tiled GI 1 8˚ 32' 6.63" 124˚ 46' 1.16" I
153 W/Out
CwF Conc GI 1 8˚ 32' 6.61" 124˚ 46' 0.83" I
75
X Y Type Measures
No.
154 W/Out
CwoF Conc GI 1 8˚ 32' 6.85" 124˚ 46' 0.94" I
155 W/Out
CwoF Conc GI 1 8˚ 32' 7.48" 124˚ 46' 1.0" I
156 W/Out
CwF Tiled GI 1 8˚ 32' 7.58" 124˚ 46' 0.66" I
157 W/Out
CwF Conc GI 1 8˚ 32' 7.21" 124˚ 46' 0.74" I
158 W/Out
CwoF Conc GI 1 8˚ 32' 6.98" 124˚ 46' 0.45" I
159 W/Out
CwoF Conc GI 1 8˚ 32' 6.57" 124˚ 46' 0.41" I
160 W/Out
C C GI 1 8˚ 32' 7.67" 124˚ 46' 0.93" I
161 W/Out
CwoF C GI 1 8˚ 32' 6.4" 124˚ 46' 0.4" I
162 W/Out
CwoF/Ply Conc GI 2 8˚ 32' 6.9" 124˚46' 0.2" I
163 W/Out
Ply Earth GI 1 8˚ 32' 7.42" 124˚ 46' 0.01" IV
164 W/Out
Wood Earth Trapal 1 8˚ 32' 7.05" 124˚45'59.76" IV
165 W/Out
Amak Wood GI 1 8˚ 32' 7.72" 124˚45'59.93" IV
166 W/Out
Wood Earth GI 1 8˚ 32' 7.93" 124˚45'59.83" IV
167 W/Out
Amak Earth/Wood GI 1 8˚ 32' 8.08" 124˚46' 0.15" IV
168 W/Out
Amak Wood GI 1 8˚ 32' 8.09" 124˚45'59.85" III
169 W/Out
Wood Earth/Wood GI 1 8˚32' 8.03" 124˚46' 0.06" IV
170 W/Out
CwoF Conc GI 1 8˚ 32' 8.72" 124˚46'59.94" I
171 W/Out
Wood Wood GI 1 8˚ 32' 8.55" 124˚45'59.57" III
172 W/Out
Wood Wood GI 1 8˚ 32' 8.54" 124˚45'59.39" III
173 W/Out
Amak Wood GI 1 8˚ 32' 8.59" 124˚46'59.75" IV
174 W/Out
CwoF Conc GI 1 8˚ 32' 8.78" 124˚46'59.69" I
175 W/Out
CwSF Conc GI 1 8˚ 32' 8.96" 124˚46'59.85" I
76
X Y Type Measures
No.
176 W/Out
CwSF Conc GI 1 8˚ 32' 8.68" 124˚46'59.91" I
177 W/Out
CwoF Conc GI 1 8˚ 32' 6.48" 124˚45'59.94" I
178 W/Out
CwSF Conc GI 1 8˚ 32' 6.24" 124˚45'59.70" I
179 W/Out
Ply Conc GI 1 8˚ 32' 8.88" 124˚45'59.40" II
180 W/Out
CwSF Conc GI 1 8˚ 32' 8.14" 124˚45'59.01" I
181 W/Out
Wood Conc GI 1 8˚ 32' 9.09" 124˚45'58.81" III
182 W/Out
Hardi Conc GI 1 8˚ 32' 9.46" 124˚45'58.51" III
183 W/Out
CwoF Conc GI 1 8˚ 32' 9.81" 124˚45'58.95" I
184 W/Out
CwSF Conc GI 1 8˚ 32' 9.66" 124˚45'59.29" I
185 W/Out
CwoF Conc GI 1 8˚32'11.77" 124˚45'58.65" I
186 W/Out
CwoF/Ply Conc GI 2 8˚32'10.66" 124˚45'57.87" III
187 W/Out
CwoF Conc GI 1 8˚32'11.34" 124˚45'57.58" I
188 W/Out
Conc/Amak Conc GI 1 8˚32'11.50" 124˚45'57.39" II
189 W/Out
CwoF Conc GI 1 8˚32'12.07" 124˚45'57.92" I
190 W/Out
CwoF Conc GI 1 8˚32'11.82" 124˚45'58.60" I
191 W/Out
Wood Wood/Earth GI 1 8˚32'12.41" 124˚45'58.63" IV
192 W/Out
Conc Conc GI 1 8˚32'12.54" 124˚45'58.38" I
193 W/Out
Wood Conc GI 1 8˚32'12.75" 124˚45'58.40" III
194 W/Out
Hardi Conc GI 1 8˚32'12.92" 124˚45'58.17" III
195 W/Out
CwoF Conc GI 1 8˚32'12.74" 124˚45'57.29" I
196 W/Out
Amak Bamb GI 1 8˚32'12.80" 124˚45'57.72" III
197 W/Out
Amak Earth GI 1 8˚32'13.13" 124˚45'57.31" IV
77
X Y Type Measures
No.
198 W/Out
Conc/Wood Conc GI 1 8˚ 32' 7.84" 124˚45'54.60" I
199 W/Out
Conc Conc GI 1 8˚32' 8.48" 124˚45'54.26" I
200 W/Out
Conc Conc GI 1 8˚32' 8.00" 124˚45'54.03" I
201 W/Out
Conc Conc GI 1 8˚ 32' 8.09" 124˚45'54.57" I
202 W/Out
Conc Conc GI 1 8˚ 32' 9.37" 124˚45'54.30" I
203 W/Out
Conc Conc GI 1 8˚ 32' 9.79" 124˚45'53.60" I
204 W/Out
Conc Conc GI 1 8˚32'19.14" 124˚46' 1.81" I
205 W/Out
Conc Conc GI 1 8˚32'19.14" 124˚ 46' 1.49" I
APPENDIX F. FLOOD DEPTH WITH VULNERABILITIES

100 YEAR FLOOD
Structura Depth (100

Number Latitude (North) Longitudinal (East) Vulnerability
l Type year)
1 8˚ 32' 7.54" 124˚ 46' 2.06" I 0 0.0
2 8˚ 32' 8.17" 124˚ 46' 1.81" I 0 0.0
3 8˚ 32' 7.87" 124˚ 46' 1.82" I 0 0.0
4 8˚ 32' 9.02" 124˚ 46' 1.56" I 0 0.0
5 8˚ 32' 9.43" 124˚ 46' 1.40" I 0 0.0
6 8˚ 32' 9.90" 124˚ 46' 0.95" I 0 0.0
7 8˚ 32' 8.14" 124˚ 46' 4.64" I 0 0.0
8 8˚ 32' 8.47" 124˚ 46' 5.022" I 0 0.0
9 8˚ 32' 10.0" 124˚ 46' 5.81" I 6.06 0.2
10 8˚ 32' 10.1" 124˚ 46' 6.07" I 6.06 0.2
11 8˚ 32' 9.68" 124˚ 46' 7.25" I 1.15 0.0
12 8˚ 32' 18.20" 124˚ 46' 6.05" I 6.99 1.0
13 8˚ 32' 7.30" 124˚ 46' 1.82" I 0 0.0
14 8˚ 32' 6.85" 124˚ 46' 1.60" I 0 0.0
15 8˚ 32' 6.83" 124˚ 46' 1.34" I 0 0.0
16 8˚ 32' 7.49" 124˚ 46' 1.36" I 0 0.0
17 8˚ 32' 8.07" 124˚ 46' 1.12" I 0 0.0
18 8˚ 32' 8.36" 124˚ 46' 1.09" I 0 0.0
l Type year)
78
19 8˚ 32' 8.70" 124˚ 46' 0.96" I 0 0.0
20 8˚ 32' 6.63" 124˚ 46' 1.16" I 0 0.0
21 8˚ 32' 6.61" 124˚ 46' 0.83" I 0 0.0
22 8˚ 32' 6.85" 124˚ 46' 0.94" I 0 0.0
23 8˚ 32' 7.58" 124˚ 46' 0.66" I 0 0.0
24 8˚ 32' 7.21" 124˚ 46' 0.74" I 0 0.0
25 8˚ 32' 6.57" 124˚ 46' 0.41" I 0 0.0
26 8˚ 32' 7.67" 124˚ 46' 0.93" I 0 0.0
27 8˚ 32' 6.4" 124˚ 46' 0.4" I 0 0.0
28 8˚ 32' 6.9" 124˚ 46' 0.2" I 0 0.0
29 8˚32' 8.72" 124˚45' 59.94" I 0 0.0
30 8˚ 32' 8.78" 124˚ 45' 59.69" I 0 0.0
31 8˚ 32' 8.96" 124˚ 45' 59.85" I 0 0.0
32 8˚ 32' 6.48" 124˚ 45' 59.94" I 0 0.0
33 8˚ 32' 6.24" 124˚ 45' 59.70" I 0 0.0
34 8˚ 32' 8.14" 124˚ 45' 59.01" I 0 0.0
35 8˚ 32' 19.14" 124˚ 46' 1.49" I 6.72 1.0
36 8˚32'16.66" 124˚45'42.84" I 5.24 0.2
37 8˚32'12.92" 124˚45'46.35" I 4.39 0.2
38 8˚32'10.41" 124˚45'50.29" I 0 0
39 8˚32'11.18" 124˚45'50.59" I 0 0
40 8˚32'13.33" 124˚45'51.65" I 2.49 0.2
41 8˚32'13.23" 124˚45'52.07" I 2.49 0.2
42 8˚32'11.86" 124˚45'52.77" I 0 0
43 8˚32'12.23" 124˚45'53.14" I 0 0
44 8˚32'09.07" 124˚45'53.06" I 0 0
45 8˚32'07.83" 124˚45'53.29" I 0 0
46 8˚32'07.87" 124˚45'54.56" I 0 0.2
47 8˚ 32' 8.47" 124˚46' 1.74" II 0 0.0
48 8˚ 32' 9.08" 124˚46' 2.09" II 0 0.0
49 8˚ 32' 9.04" 124˚ 46' 4.96" II 0 0.0
50 8˚ 32' 9.57" 124˚ 46' 4.62" II 0 0.0
51 8˚ 32' 18.61" 124˚46' 5.29" II 9.98 1.0
52 8˚ 32' 11.50" 124˚45' 57.39" II 0 0.0
53 8˚ 32' 8.88" 124˚ 45' 59.40" II 0 0.0
54 8˚ 32' 9.12" 124˚46' 1.83" III 0 0.0
55 8˚ 32' 7.99" 124˚46' 4.32" III 0 0.0
56 8˚ 32' 8.72" 124˚46' 4.06" III 0 0.0
57 8˚ 32' 18.27" 124˚ 46' 5.56" III 6.99 1.0
58 8˚ 32' 18.56" 124˚ 46' 5.09" III 8.92 1.0
l Type year)
59 8˚ 32' 8.55" 124˚45' 59.57" III 0 0.0
60 8˚ 32' 8.54" 124˚45' 59.39" III 0 0.0
79
61 8˚ 32' 9.09" 124˚45' 58.81" III 0 0.0
62 8˚ 32' 8.73" 124˚46' 1.60" IV 0 0.0
63 8˚ 32' 18.40" 124˚46' 4.86" IV 8.92 1.0
64 8d 32' 18.67" 124˚46' 4.80" IV 8.92 1.0
65 8˚32' 18.70" 124˚46' 4.65" IV 8.92 1.0
66 8˚32' 18.76" 124˚ 46' 4.49" IV 8.92 1.0
67 8˚32' 18.58" 124˚46' 4.27" IV 8.92 1.0
68 8˚32' 18.61" 124˚46' 4.0" IV 8.52 1.0
69 8˚ 32' 18.62" 124˚ 46' 3.81" IV 8.52 1.0
70 8˚ 32' 18.66" 124˚ 46' 3.64" IV 8.52 1.0
71 8˚ 32' 18.78" 124˚ 46' 3.44" IV 8.52 1.0
72 8˚ 32' 18.84" 124˚46' 3.10" IV 8.52 1.0
73 8˚ 32' 18.9" 124˚ 46' 2.92" IV 8.52 1.0
74 8˚ 32' 18.97" 124˚ 46' 2.8" IV 8.52 1.0
75 8˚ 32' 7.76" 124˚ 46' 1.29" IV 0 0.0
76 8˚ 32' 7.42" 124˚ 46' 0.01" IV 0 0.0
77 8˚32' 8.59" 124˚45' 59.75" IV 0 0.0
78 8˚ 32' 13.13" 124˚ 45' 57.31" IV 0 0.0
79 8˚32'14.45" 124˚45'42.73" V 6.21 0.4
80 8˚32'14.54" 124˚45'42.80" V 6.21 0.4
81 8˚32'16.17" 124˚45'40.49" V 5 0.4
82 8˚32'18.43" 124˚45'44.73" V 7.52 0.8
83 8˚32'18.43" 124˚45'45.00" V 7.55 0.8
84 8˚32'19.31" 124˚45'44.76" V 7.55 0.8
85 8˚32'19.05" 124˚45'45.50" V 6.27 0.8
86 8˚32'19.53" 124˚45'45.12" V 8.57 1
87 8˚32'19.75" 124˚45'45.07" V 8.57 1
88 8˚32'19.52" 124˚45'46.61" V 7.6 0.8
89 8˚32'19.03" 124˚45'46.18" V 6.27 0.8
90 8˚32'18.72" 124˚45'46.18" V 6.27 0.8
91 8˚32'18.44" 124˚45'46.45" V 7.72 0.8
92 8˚32'18.57" 124˚45'46.61" V 7.72 0.8
93 8˚32'18.76" 124˚45'47.13" V 7.72 0.8
94 8˚32'18.86" 124˚45'47.13" V 7.72 0.8
95 8˚32'12.38" 124˚45'52.58" V 0 0
96 8˚32'12.30" 124˚45'52.59" V 0 0
97 8˚32'20.61" 124˚45'46.03" VI 8.05 1
l Type year)
98 8˚32'13.12" 124˚45'45.97" VI 3.52 0.2
99 8˚32'12.10" 124˚45'51.36" VI 0 0
100 8˚32'11.19" 124˚45'51.01" VI 0 0
101 8˚32'09.20" 124˚45'51.31" VI 0 0
80
102 8˚32'07.44" 124˚45'53.97" VI 0 0.2
FLOOD DEPTH WITH VULNERABILITIES

50 YEAR FLOOD
Longitudinal Structural Depth

Number Latitude (North) (East) Type (50year) Vulnerability
1 8˚ 32' 7.54" 124˚ 46' 2.06" I 0 0.01
2 8˚ 32' 8.17" 124˚ 46' 1.81" I 0 0.01
3 8˚ 32' 7.87" 124˚ 46' 1.82" I 0 0.01
4 8˚ 32' 9.02" 124˚ 46' 1.56" I 0 0.01
5 8˚ 32' 9.43" 124˚ 46' 1.40" I 0 0.01
6 8˚ 32' 9.90" 124˚ 46' 0.95" I 0 0.01
7 8˚ 32' 8.14" 124˚ 46' 4.64" I 0 0.01
8 8˚ 32' 8.47" 124˚ 46' 5.022" I 0 0.01
9 8˚ 32' 10.0" 124˚ 46' 5.81" I 5 0.31
10 8˚ 32' 10.1" 124˚ 46' 6.07" I 5 0.31
11 8˚ 32' 9.68" 124˚ 46' 7.25" I 0.86 0.03
12 8˚ 32' 18.20" 124˚ 46' 6.05" I 6.19 0.55
13 8˚ 32' 7.30" 124˚ 46' 1.82" I 0 0.01
14 8˚ 32' 6.85" 124˚ 46' 1.60" I 0 0.01
15 8˚ 32' 6.83" 124˚ 46' 1.34" I 0 0.01
16 8˚ 32' 7.49" 124˚ 46' 1.36" I 0 0.01
17 8˚ 32' 8.07" 124˚ 46' 1.12" I 0 0.01
18 8˚ 32' 8.36" 124˚ 46' 1.09" I 0 0.01
19 8˚ 32' 8.70" 124˚ 46' 0.96" I 0 0.01
20 8˚ 32' 6.63" 124˚ 46' 1.16" I 0 0.01
21 8˚ 32' 6.61" 124˚ 46' 0.83" I 0 0.01
22 8˚ 32' 6.85" 124˚ 46' 0.94" I 0 0.01

Longitudinal Structura Depth (100
Number Latitude (North) Vulnerability
(East) l Type year)
23 8˚ 32' 7.58" 124˚ 46' 0.66" I 0 0.01
24 8˚ 32' 7.21" 124˚ 46' 0.74" I 0 0.01
25 8˚ 32' 6.57" 124˚ 46' 0.41" I 0 0.01
81
26 8˚ 32' 7.67" 124˚ 46' 0.93" I 0 0.01
27 8˚ 32' 6.4" 124˚ 46' 0.4" I 0 0.01
28 8˚ 32' 6.9" 124˚ 46' 0.2" I 0 0.01
29 8˚32' 8.72" 124˚45' 59.94" I 0 0.01
30 8˚ 32' 8.78" 124˚ 45' 59.69" I 0 0.01
31 8˚ 32' 8.96" 124˚ 45' 59.85" I 0 0.01
32 8˚ 32' 6.48" 124˚ 45' 59.94" I 0 0.01
33 8˚ 32' 6.24" 124˚ 45' 59.70" I 0 0.01
34 8˚ 32' 8.14" 124˚ 45' 59.01" I 0 0.01
35 8˚ 32' 19.14" 124˚ 46' 1.49" I 6.1 0.53
36 8˚32'16.66" 124˚45'42.84" I 4.46 0.22
37 8˚32'12.92" 124˚45'46.35" I 3.6 0.1
38 8˚32'10.41" 124˚45'50.29" I 0 0.01
39 8˚32'11.18" 124˚45'50.59" I 0 0.01
40 8˚32'13.33" 124˚45'51.65" I 1.95 0.02
41 8˚32'13.23" 124˚45'52.07" I 1.95 0.02
42 8˚32'11.86" 124˚45'52.77" I 0 0.01
43 8˚32'12.23" 124˚45'53.14" I 0 0.01
44 8˚32'09.07" 124˚45'53.06" I 0 0.01
45 8˚32'07.83" 124˚45'53.29" I 0 0.01
46 8˚32'07.87" 124˚45'54.56" I 0 0.01
47 8˚ 32' 8.47" 124˚46' 1.74" II 0 0
48 8˚ 32' 9.08" 124˚46' 2.09" II 0 0

49 8˚ 32' 9.04" 124˚ 46' 4.96" II 0 0
50 8˚ 32' 9.57" 124˚ 46' 4.62" II 0 0
51 8˚ 32' 18.61" 124˚46' 5.29" II 9.21 0.92
52 8˚ 32' 11.50" 124˚45' 57.39" II 0 0
53 8˚ 32' 8.88" 124˚ 45' 59.40" II 0 0

(East) l Type year)
54 8˚ 32' 9.12" 124˚46' 1.83" III 0 0
55 8˚ 32' 7.99" 124˚46' 4.32" III 0 0
82
56 8˚ 32' 8.72" 124˚46' 4.06" III 0 0
57 8˚ 32' 18.27" 124˚ 46' 5.56" III 6.19 0.97
58 8˚ 32' 18.56" 124˚ 46' 5.09" III 8.24 1.02
59 8˚ 32' 8.55" 124˚45' 59.57" III 0 0
60 8˚ 32' 8.54" 124˚45' 59.39" III 0 0
61 8˚ 32' 9.09" 124˚45' 58.81" III 0 0
62 8˚ 32' 8.73" 124˚46' 1.60" IV 0 0
63 8˚ 32' 18.40" 124˚46' 4.86" IV 8.24 1.01
64 8d 32' 18.67" 124˚46' 4.80" IV 8.24 1.01
65 8˚32' 18.70" 124˚46' 4.65" IV 8.24 1.01
66 8˚32' 18.76" 124˚ 46' 4.49" IV 8.24 1.01
67 8˚32' 18.58" 124˚46' 4.27" IV 8.24 1.01
68 8˚32' 18.61" 124˚46' 4.0" IV 7.86 1.01
69 8˚ 32' 18.62" 124˚ 46' 3.81" IV 7.86 1.01
70 8˚ 32' 18.66" 124˚ 46' 3.64" IV 7.86 1.01
71 8˚ 32' 18.78" 124˚ 46' 3.44" IV 7.86 1.01
72 8˚ 32' 18.84" 124˚46' 3.10" IV 7.86 1.01
73 8˚ 32' 18.9" 124˚ 46' 2.92" IV 7.86 1.01
74 8˚ 32' 18.97" 124˚ 46' 2.8" IV 7.86 1.01
75 8˚ 32' 7.76" 124˚ 46' 1.29" IV 0 0
76 8˚ 32' 7.42" 124˚ 46' 0.01" IV 0 0
77 8˚32' 8.59" 124˚45' 59.75" IV 0 0
78 8˚ 32' 13.13" 124˚ 45' 57.31" IV 0 0
79 8˚32'14.45" 124˚45'42.73" V 5.44 0.5
80 8˚32'14.54" 124˚45'42.80" V 5.44 0.5
81 8˚32'16.17" 124˚45'40.49" V 4.24 0.36

82 8˚32'18.43" 124˚45'44.73" V 6.75 0.68
83 8˚32'18.43" 124˚45'45.00" V 6.75 0.68
(East) l Type year)
84 8˚32'19.31" 124˚45'44.76" V 6.75 0.68
85 8˚32'19.05" 124˚45'45.50" V 5.5 0.51
83
86 8˚32'19.53" 124˚45'45.12" V 7.78 0.84
87 8˚32'19.75" 124˚45'45.07" V 7.78 0.84
88 8˚32'19.52" 124˚45'46.61" V 6.89 0.7

89 8˚32'19.03" 124˚45'46.18" V 5.5 0.51
90 8˚32'18.72" 124˚45'46.18" V 5.5 0.51
91 8˚32'18.44" 124˚45'46.45" V 7 0.72
92 8˚32'18.57" 124˚45'46.61" V 7 0.72

93 8˚32'18.76" 124˚45'47.13" V 7 0.72
94 8˚32'18.86" 124˚45'47.13" V 7 0.72
95 8˚32'12.38" 124˚45'52.58" V 0 0
96 8˚32'12.30" 124˚45'52.59" V 0 0
97 8˚32'20.61" 124˚45'46.03" VI 7.29 0.82

98 8˚32'13.12" 124˚45'45.97" VI 2.73 0.12
99 8˚32'12.10" 124˚45'51.36" VI 0 0
100 8˚32'11.19" 124˚45'51.01" VI 0 0
101 8˚32'09.20" 124˚45'51.31" VI 0 0

102 8˚32'07.44" 124˚45'53.97" VI 0 0

25 YEAR FLOOD
Numbe Structura Depth Vulnerabilit

r Latitude (North) Longitudinal (East) l Type (25year) y
1 8˚ 32' 7.54" 124˚ 46' 2.06" I 0 0.01
2 8˚ 32' 8.17" 124˚ 46' 1.81" I 0 0.01
3 8˚ 32' 7.87" 124˚ 46' 1.82" I 0 0.01
4 8˚ 32' 9.02" 124˚ 46' 1.56" I 0 0.01
5 8˚ 32' 9.43" 124˚ 46' 1.40" I 0 0.01
6 8˚ 32' 9.90" 124˚ 46' 0.95" I 0 0.01
7 8˚ 32' 8.14" 124˚ 46' 4.64" I 0 0.01
Numbe Structura Depth (100
Latitude (North) Longitudinal (East) Vulnerability
r l Type year)
8 8˚ 32' 8.47" 124˚ 46' 5.022" I 0 0.01
9 8˚ 32' 10.0" 124˚ 46' 5.81" I 4.3 0.19
10 8˚ 32' 10.1" 124˚ 46' 6.07" I 4.3 0.19
84
11 8˚ 32' 9.68" 124˚ 46' 7.25" I 0.3 0.01
12 8˚ 32' 18.20" 124˚ 46' 6.05" I 5.3 0.36
13 8˚ 32' 7.30" 124˚ 46' 1.82" I 0 0.01
14 8˚ 32' 6.85" 124˚ 46' 1.60" I 0 0.01
15 8˚ 32' 6.83" 124˚ 46' 1.34" I 0 0.01
16 8˚ 32' 7.49" 124˚ 46' 1.36" I 0 0.01
17 8˚ 32' 8.07" 124˚ 46' 1.12" I 0 0.01
18 8˚ 32' 8.36" 124˚ 46' 1.09" I 0 0.01
19 8˚ 32' 8.70" 124˚ 46' 0.96" I 0 0.01
20 8˚ 32' 6.63" 124˚ 46' 1.16" I 0 0.01
21 8˚ 32' 6.61" 124˚ 46' 0.83" I 0 0.01
22 8˚ 32' 6.85" 124˚ 46' 0.94" I 0 0.01
23 8˚ 32' 7.58" 124˚ 46' 0.66" I 0 0.01
24 8˚ 32' 7.21" 124˚ 46' 0.74" I 0 0.01
25 8˚ 32' 6.57" 124˚ 46' 0.41" I 0 0.01
26 8˚ 32' 7.67" 124˚ 46' 0.93" I 0 0.01
27 8˚ 32' 6.4" 124˚ 46' 0.4" I 0 0.01
28 8˚ 32' 6.9" 124˚ 46' 0.2" I 0 0.01
29 8˚32' 8.72" 124˚45' 59.94" I 0 0.01
30 8˚ 32' 8.78" 124˚ 45' 59.69" I 0 0.01
31 8˚ 32' 8.96" 124˚ 45' 59.85" I 0 0.01
32 8˚ 32' 6.48" 124˚ 45' 59.94" I 0 0.01
33 8˚ 32' 6.24" 124˚ 45' 59.70" I 0 0.01
34 8˚ 32' 8.14" 124˚ 45' 59.01" I 0 0.01
35 8˚ 32' 19.14" 124˚ 46' 1.49" I 5.26 0.35
36 8˚32'16.66" 124˚45'42.84" I 3.6 0.1
37 8˚32'12.92" 124˚45'46.35" I 2.73 0.02
38 8˚32'10.41" 124˚45'50.29" I 0 0.01
39 8˚32'11.18" 124˚45'50.59" I 0 0.01
40 8˚32'13.33" 124˚45'51.65" I 1.37 0.03
r l Type year)
41 8˚32'13.23" 124˚45'52.07" I 1.37 0.03
42 8˚32'11.86" 124˚45'52.77" I 0 0.01
43 8˚32'12.23" 124˚45'53.14" I 0 0.01
44 8˚32'09.07" 124˚45'53.06" I 0 0.01
85
45 8˚32'07.83" 124˚45'53.29" I 0 0.01
46 8˚32'07.87" 124˚45'54.56" I 0 0.01
47 8˚ 32' 8.47" 124˚46' 1.74" II 0 0
48 8˚ 32' 9.08" 124˚46' 2.09" II 0 0
49 8˚ 32' 9.04" 124˚ 46' 4.96" II 0 0
50 8˚ 32' 9.57" 124˚ 46' 4.62" II 0 0
51 8˚ 32' 18.61" 124˚46' 5.29" II 8.3 0.83
52 8˚ 32' 11.50" 124˚45' 57.39" II 0 0
53 8˚ 32' 8.88" 124˚ 45' 59.40" II 0 0
54 8˚ 32' 9.12" 124˚46' 1.83" III 0 0
55 8˚ 32' 7.99" 124˚46' 4.32" III 0 0
56 8˚ 32' 8.72" 124˚46' 4.06" III 0 0
57 8˚ 32' 18.27" 124˚ 46' 5.56" III 5.3 0.9
58 8˚ 32' 18.56" 124˚ 46' 5.09" III 7.27 1.01
59 8˚ 32' 8.55" 124˚45' 59.57" III 0 0
60 8˚ 32' 8.54" 124˚45' 59.39" III 0 0
61 8˚ 32' 9.09" 124˚45' 58.81" III 0 0
62 8˚ 32' 8.73" 124˚46' 1.60" IV 0 0
63 8˚ 32' 18.40" 124˚46' 4.86" IV 7.27 1
64 8d 32' 18.67" 124˚46' 4.80" IV 7.27 1
65 8˚32' 18.70" 124˚46' 4.65" IV 7.27 1
66 8˚32' 18.76" 124˚ 46' 4.49" IV 7.27 1
67 8˚32' 18.58" 124˚46' 4.27" IV 7.27 1
68 8˚32' 18.61" 124˚46' 4.0" IV 6.93 0.99
69 8˚ 32' 18.62" 124˚ 46' 3.81" IV 6.93 0.99
70 8˚ 32' 18.66" 124˚ 46' 3.64" IV 6.93 0.99
71 8˚ 32' 18.78" 124˚ 46' 3.44" IV 6.93 0.99
72 8˚ 32' 18.84" 124˚46' 3.10" IV 6.93 0.99
73 8˚ 32' 18.9" 124˚ 46' 2.92" IV 6.93 0.99
r l Type year)
74 8˚ 32' 18.97" 124˚ 46' 2.8" IV 6.93 0.99
75 8˚ 32' 7.76" 124˚ 46' 1.29" IV 0 0
76 8˚ 32' 7.42" 124˚ 46' 0.01" IV 0 0
77 8˚32' 8.59" 124˚45' 59.75" IV 0 0
86
78 8˚ 32' 13.13" 124˚ 45' 57.31" IV 0 0
79 8˚32'14.45" 124˚45'42.73" V 4.57 0.4
80 8˚32'14.54" 124˚45'42.80" V 4.57 0.4
81 8˚32'16.17" 124˚45'40.49" V 3.4 0.27
82 8˚32'18.43" 124˚45'44.73" V 5.85 0.56
83 8˚32'18.43" 124˚45'45.00" V 5.85 0.56
84 8˚32'19.31" 124˚45'44.76" V 5.85 0.56
85 8˚32'19.05" 124˚45'45.50" V 4.63 0.4
86 8˚32'19.53" 124˚45'45.12" V 6.88 0.7
87 8˚32'19.75" 124˚45'45.07" V 6.88 0.7
88 8˚32'19.52" 124˚45'46.61" V 6.09 0.59
89 8˚32'19.03" 124˚45'46.18" V 4.63 0.4
90 8˚32'18.72" 124˚45'46.18" V 4.63 0.4
91 8˚32'18.44" 124˚45'46.45" V 6.18 0.6
92 8˚32'18.57" 124˚45'46.61" V 6.18 0.6
93 8˚32'18.76" 124˚45'47.13" V 6.18 0.6
94 8˚32'18.86" 124˚45'47.13" V 6.18 0.6
95 8˚32'12.38" 124˚45'52.58" V 0 0
96 8˚32'12.30" 124˚45'52.59" V 0 0
97 8˚32'20.61" 124˚45'46.03" VI 6.45 0.65
98 8˚32'13.12" 124˚45'45.97" VI 1.83 0.06
99 8˚32'12.10" 124˚45'51.36" VI 0 0
100 8˚32'11.19" 124˚45'51.01" VI 0 0
101 8˚32'09.20" 124˚45'51.31" VI 0 0
102 8˚32'07.44" 124˚45'53.97" VI 0 0

10 YEAR FLOOD

1 8˚ 32' 7.54" 124˚ 46' 2.06" I 0 0.01
87
2 8˚ 32' 8.17" 124˚ 46' 1.81" I 0 0.01
3 8˚ 32' 7.87" 124˚ 46' 1.82" I 0 0.01
4 8˚ 32' 9.02" 124˚ 46' 1.56" I 0 0.01
5 8˚ 32' 9.43" 124˚ 46' 1.40" I 0 0.01
6 8˚ 32' 9.90" 124˚ 46' 0.95" I 0 0.01
7 8˚ 32' 8.14" 124˚ 46' 4.64" I 0 0.01
8 8˚ 32' 8.47" 124˚ 46' 5.022" I 0 0.01
9 8˚ 32' 10.0" 124˚ 46' 5.81" I 3.2 0.06
10 8˚ 32' 10.1" 124˚ 46' 6.07" I 3.2 0.06
11 8˚ 32' 9.68" 124˚ 46' 7.25" I 0 0.01
12 8˚ 32' 18.20" 124˚ 46' 6.05" I 4.17 0.17
13 8˚ 32' 7.30" 124˚ 46' 1.82" I 0 0.01
14 8˚ 32' 6.85" 124˚ 46' 1.60" I 0 0.01
15 8˚ 32' 6.83" 124˚ 46' 1.34" I 0 0.01
16 8˚ 32' 7.49" 124˚ 46' 1.36" I 0 0.01
17 8˚ 32' 8.07" 124˚ 46' 1.12" I 0 0.01
18 8˚ 32' 8.36" 124˚ 46' 1.09" I 0 0.01
19 8˚ 32' 8.70" 124˚ 46' 0.96" I 0 0.01
20 8˚ 32' 6.63" 124˚ 46' 1.16" I 0 0.01
21 8˚ 32' 6.61" 124˚ 46' 0.83" I 0 0.01
22 8˚ 32' 6.85" 124˚ 46' 0.94" I 0 0.01
23 8˚ 32' 7.58" 124˚ 46' 0.66" I 0 0.01
24 8˚ 32' 7.21" 124˚ 46' 0.74" I 0 0.01
25 8˚ 32' 6.57" 124˚ 46' 0.41" I 0 0.01
26 8˚ 32' 7.67" 124˚ 46' 0.93" I 0 0.01
27 8˚ 32' 6.4" 124˚ 46' 0.4" I 0 0.01
28 8˚ 32' 6.9" 124˚ 46' 0.2" I 0 0.01
29 8˚32' 8.72" 124˚45' 59.94" I 0 0.01
30 8˚ 32' 8.78" 124˚ 45' 59.69" I 0 0.01
31 8˚ 32' 8.96" 124˚ 45' 59.85" I 0 0.01
r l Type year)
32 8˚ 32' 6.48" 124˚ 45' 59.94" I 0 0.01
33 8˚ 32' 6.24" 124˚ 45' 59.70" I 0 0.01
34 8˚ 32' 8.14" 124˚ 45' 59.01" I 0 0.01
35 8˚ 32' 19.14" 124˚ 46' 1.49" I 4.22 0.18
88
36 8˚32'16.66" 124˚45'42.84" I 2.43 0
37 8˚32'12.92" 124˚45'46.35" I 1.53 0.03
38 8˚32'10.41" 124˚45'50.29" I 0 0.01
39 8˚32'11.18" 124˚45'50.59" I 0 0.01
40 8˚32'13.33" 124˚45'51.65" I 0.51 0.02
41 8˚32'13.23" 124˚45'52.07" I 0.51 0.02
42 8˚32'11.86" 124˚45'52.77" I 0 0.01
43 8˚32'12.23" 124˚45'53.14" I 0 0.01
44 8˚32'09.07" 124˚45'53.06" I 0 0.01
45 8˚32'07.83" 124˚45'53.29" I 0 0.01
46 8˚32'07.87" 124˚45'54.56" I 0 0.01
47 8˚ 32' 8.47" 124˚46' 1.74" II 0 0
48 8˚ 32' 9.08" 124˚46' 2.09" II 0 0
49 8˚ 32' 9.04" 124˚ 46' 4.96" II 0 0
50 8˚ 32' 9.57" 124˚ 46' 4.62" II 0 0
51 8˚ 32' 18.61" 124˚46' 5.29" II 7.16 0.72
52 8˚ 32' 11.50" 124˚45' 57.39" II 0 0
53 8˚ 32' 8.88" 124˚ 45' 59.40" II 0 0
54 8˚ 32' 9.12" 124˚46' 1.83" III 0 0
55 8˚ 32' 7.99" 124˚46' 4.32" III 0 0
56 8˚ 32' 8.72" 124˚46' 4.06" III 0 0
57 8˚ 32' 18.27" 124˚ 46' 5.56" III 4.17 0.79
58 8˚ 32' 18.56" 124˚ 46' 5.09" III 6.12 0.96
59 8˚ 32' 8.55" 124˚45' 59.57" III 0 0
60 8˚ 32' 8.54" 124˚45' 59.39" III 0 0
61 8˚ 32' 9.09" 124˚45' 58.81" III 0 0
62 8˚ 32' 8.73" 124˚46' 1.60" IV 0 0
63 8˚ 32' 18.40" 124˚46' 4.86" IV 6.12 0.95
64 8d 32' 18.67" 124˚46' 4.80" IV 6.12 0.95
r l Type year)
65 8˚32' 18.70" 124˚46' 4.65" IV 6.12 0.95
66 8˚32' 18.76" 124˚ 46' 4.49" IV 6.12 0.95
67 8˚32' 18.58" 124˚46' 4.27" IV 6.12 0.95
68 8˚32' 18.61" 124˚46' 4.0" IV 5.82 0.93
89
69 8˚ 32' 18.62" 124˚ 46' 3.81" IV 5.82 0.93
70 8˚ 32' 18.66" 124˚ 46' 3.64" IV 5.82 0.93
71 8˚ 32' 18.78" 124˚ 46' 3.44" IV 5.82 0.93
72 8˚ 32' 18.84" 124˚46' 3.10" IV 5.82 0.93
73 8˚ 32' 18.9" 124˚ 46' 2.92" IV 5.82 0.93
74 8˚ 32' 18.97" 124˚ 46' 2.8" IV 5.82 0.93
75 8˚ 32' 7.76" 124˚ 46' 1.29" IV 0 0
76 8˚ 32' 7.42" 124˚ 46' 0.01" IV 0 0
77 8˚32' 8.59" 124˚45' 59.75" IV 0 0
78 8˚ 32' 13.13" 124˚ 45' 57.31" IV 0 0
79 8˚32'14.45" 124˚45'42.73" V 3.4 0.27
80 8˚32'14.54" 124˚45'42.80" V 3.4 0.27
81 8˚32'16.17" 124˚45'40.49" V 2.26 0.16
82 8˚32'18.43" 124˚45'44.73" V 4.64 0.41
83 8˚32'18.43" 124˚45'45.00" V 4.64 0.41
84 8˚32'19.31" 124˚45'44.76" V 4.64 0.41
85 8˚32'19.05" 124˚45'45.50" V 3.45 0.27
86 8˚32'19.53" 124˚45'45.12" V 5.66 0.53
87 8˚32'19.75" 124˚45'45.07" V 5.66 0.53
88 8˚32'19.52" 124˚45'46.61" V 5 0.45
89 8˚32'19.03" 124˚45'46.18" V 3.45 0.27
90 8˚32'18.72" 124˚45'46.18" V 3.45 0.27
91 8˚32'18.44" 124˚45'46.45" V 5.07 0.46
92 8˚32'18.57" 124˚45'46.61" V 5.07 0.46
93 8˚32'18.76" 124˚45'47.13" V 5.07 0.46
94 8˚32'18.86" 124˚45'47.13" V 5.07 0.46
95 8˚32'12.38" 124˚45'52.58" V 0 0
96 8˚32'12.30" 124˚45'52.59" V 0 0
97 8˚32'20.61" 124˚45'46.03" VI 5.3 0.44
r l Type year)
98 8˚32'13.12" 124˚45'45.97" VI 0.63 0.01
99 8˚32'12.10" 124˚45'51.36" VI 0 0
100 8˚32'11.19" 124˚45'51.01" VI 0 0
101 8˚32'09.20" 124˚45'51.31" VI 0 0
90
102 8˚32'07.44" 124˚45'53.97" VI 0 0

5 YEAR FLOOD

1 8˚ 32' 7.54" 124˚ 46' 2.06" I 0 0.01
2 8˚ 32' 8.17" 124˚ 46' 1.81" I 0 0.01
3 8˚ 32' 7.87" 124˚ 46' 1.82" I 0 0.01
4 8˚ 32' 9.02" 124˚ 46' 1.56" I 0 0.01
5 8˚ 32' 9.43" 124˚ 46' 1.40" I 0 0.01
6 8˚ 32' 9.90" 124˚ 46' 0.95" I 0 0.01
7 8˚ 32' 8.14" 124˚ 46' 4.64" I 0 0.01
8 8˚ 32' 8.47" 124˚ 46' 5.022" I 0 0.01
9 8˚ 32' 10.0" 124˚ 46' 5.81" I 2.25 0.01
10 8˚ 32' 10.1" 124˚ 46' 6.07" I 2.25 0.01
11 8˚ 32' 9.68" 124˚ 46' 7.25" I 0 0.01
12 8˚ 32' 18.20" 124˚ 46' 6.05" I 3.23 0.06
13 8˚ 32' 7.30" 124˚ 46' 1.82" I 0 0.01
14 8˚ 32' 6.85" 124˚ 46' 1.60" I 0 0.01
15 8˚ 32' 6.83" 124˚ 46' 1.34" I 0 0.01
16 8˚ 32' 7.49" 124˚ 46' 1.36" I 0 0.01
17 8˚ 32' 8.07" 124˚ 46' 1.12" I 0 0.01
18 8˚ 32' 8.36" 124˚ 46' 1.09" I 0 0.01
19 8˚ 32' 8.70" 124˚ 46' 0.96" I 0 0.01
20 8˚ 32' 6.63" 124˚ 46' 1.16" I 0 0.01
21 8˚ 32' 6.61" 124˚ 46' 0.83" I 0 0.01
22 8˚ 32' 6.85" 124˚ 46' 0.94" I 0 0.01
23 8˚ 32' 7.58" 124˚ 46' 0.66" I 0 0.01
r l Type year)
24 8˚ 32' 7.21" 124˚ 46' 0.74" I 0 0.01
25 8˚ 32' 6.57" 124˚ 46' 0.41" I 0 0.01
26 8˚ 32' 7.67" 124˚ 46' 0.93" I 0 0.01
27 8˚ 32' 6.4" 124˚ 46' 0.4" I 0 0.01
91
28 8˚ 32' 6.9" 124˚ 46' 0.2" I 0 0.01
29 8˚32' 8.72" 124˚45' 59.94" I 0 0.01
30 8˚ 32' 8.78" 124˚ 45' 59.69" I 0 0.01
31 8˚ 32' 8.96" 124˚ 45' 59.85" I 0 0.01
32 8˚ 32' 6.48" 124˚ 45' 59.94" I 0 0.01
33 8˚ 32' 6.24" 124˚ 45' 59.70" I 0 0.01
34 8˚ 32' 8.14" 124˚ 45' 59.01" I 0 0.01
35 8˚ 32' 19.14" 124˚ 46' 1.49" I 3.33 0.07
36 8˚32'16.66" 124˚45'42.84" I 1.03 0.03
37 8˚32'12.92" 124˚45'46.35" I 0 0.01
38 8˚32'10.41" 124˚45'50.29" I 0 0.01
39 8˚32'11.18" 124˚45'50.59" I 0 0.01
40 8˚32'13.33" 124˚45'51.65" I 0 0.01
41 8˚32'13.23" 124˚45'52.07" I 0 0.01
42 8˚32'11.86" 124˚45'52.77" I 0 0.01
43 8˚32'12.23" 124˚45'53.14" I 0 0.01
44 8˚32'09.07" 124˚45'53.06" I 0 0.01
45 8˚32'07.83" 124˚45'53.29" I 0 0.01
46 8˚32'07.87" 124˚45'54.56" I 0 0.01
47 8˚ 32' 8.47" 124˚46' 1.74" II 0 0
48 8˚ 32' 9.08" 124˚46' 2.09" II 0 0
49 8˚ 32' 9.04" 124˚ 46' 4.96" II 0 0
50 8˚ 32' 9.57" 124˚ 46' 4.62" II 0 0
51 8˚ 32' 18.61" 124˚46' 5.29" II 6.23 0.62
52 8˚ 32' 11.50" 124˚45' 57.39" II 0 0
53 8˚ 32' 8.88" 124˚ 45' 59.40" II 0 0
54 8˚ 32' 9.12" 124˚46' 1.83" III 0 0
55 8˚ 32' 7.99" 124˚46' 4.32" III 0 0
56 8˚ 32' 8.72" 124˚46' 4.06" III 0 0
r l Type year)
57 8˚ 32' 18.27" 124˚ 46' 5.56" III 3.24 0.66
58 8˚ 32' 18.56" 124˚ 46' 5.09" III 5.19 0.89
59 8˚ 32' 8.55" 124˚45' 59.57" III 0 0
60 8˚ 32' 8.54" 124˚45' 59.39" III 0 0
92
61 8˚ 32' 9.09" 124˚45' 58.81" III 0 0
62 8˚ 32' 8.73" 124˚46' 1.60" IV 0 0
63 8˚ 32' 18.40" 124˚46' 4.86" IV 5.19 0.89
64 8d 32' 18.67" 124˚46' 4.80" IV 5.19 0.89
65 8˚32' 18.70" 124˚46' 4.65" IV 5.19 0.89
66 8˚32' 18.76" 124˚ 46' 4.49" IV 5.19 0.89
67 8˚32' 18.58" 124˚46' 4.27" IV 5.19 0.89
68 8˚32' 18.61" 124˚46' 4.0" IV 4.9 0.86
69 8˚ 32' 18.62" 124˚ 46' 3.81" IV 4.9 0.86
70 8˚ 32' 18.66" 124˚ 46' 3.64" IV 4.9 0.86
71 8˚ 32' 18.78" 124˚ 46' 3.44" IV 4.9 0.86
72 8˚ 32' 18.84" 124˚46' 3.10" IV 4.9 0.86
73 8˚ 32' 18.9" 124˚ 46' 2.92" IV 4.9 0.86
74 8˚ 32' 18.97" 124˚ 46' 2.8" IV 4.9 0.86
75 8˚ 32' 7.76" 124˚ 46' 1.29" IV 0 0
76 8˚ 32' 7.42" 124˚ 46' 0.01" IV 0 0
77 8˚32' 8.59" 124˚45' 59.75" IV 0 0
78 8˚ 32' 13.13" 124˚ 45' 57.31" IV 0 0
79 8˚32'14.45" 124˚45'42.73" V 2.04 0.14
80 8˚32'14.54" 124˚45'42.80" V 2.04 0.14
81 8˚32'16.17" 124˚45'40.49" V 1.11 0.07
82 8˚32'18.43" 124˚45'44.73" V 2.93 0.22
83 8˚32'18.43" 124˚45'45.00" V 2.93 0.22
84 8˚32'19.31" 124˚45'44.76" V 2.93 0.22
85 8˚32'19.05" 124˚45'45.50" V 1.77 0.12
86 8˚32'19.53" 124˚45'45.12" V 3.92 0.32
87 8˚32'19.75" 124˚45'45.07" V 3.92 0.32
88 8˚32'19.52" 124˚45'46.61" V 3.5 0.28
89 8˚32'19.03" 124˚45'46.18" V 1.77 0.12
r l Type year)
90 8˚32'18.72" 124˚45'46.18" V 1.77 0.12
91 8˚32'18.44" 124˚45'46.45" V 3.54 0.28
92 8˚32'18.57" 124˚45'46.61" V 3.54 0.28
93 8˚32'18.76" 124˚45'47.13" V 3.54 0.28
93
94 8˚32'18.86" 124˚45'47.13" V 3.54 0.28
95 8˚32'12.38" 124˚45'52.58" V 0 0
96 8˚32'12.30" 124˚45'52.59" V 0 0
97 8˚32'20.61" 124˚45'46.03" VI 3.68 0.22
98 8˚32'13.12" 124˚45'45.97" VI 0 0
99 8˚32'12.10" 124˚45'51.36" VI 0 0
100 8˚32'11.19" 124˚45'51.01" VI 0 0
101 8˚32'09.20" 124˚45'51.31" VI 0 0
102 8˚32'07.44" 124˚45'53.97" VI 0 0
94

Full Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER 1

1.1 Background of the Study

Baños-College of Forestry and Natural Resources in partnership with the Department of

Can-ayan, Malaybalay, Bukidnon, passing through Malaybalay City, Impasug-ong, Sumilao,

Mangima River, Alulum River, Amusig River, and Dila River.

crops especially are damaged.

project is said to be completed in 2019.

enough awareness and preparation in the face of flood disasters.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

A large portion of the municipality of Tagoloan is located in the floodplain of

 What structural type of buildings are the most vulnerable?

1.3 Aims and Objectives of the Study

selected zones of Barangay Natumolan.

To achieve this, the following objectives are defined:

2. To determine the mitigating measures conducted by the people to reduce the

3. To create a vulnerability map using Geographic Information System (GIS)

1.4 Significance of the Study

Conducting a flood physical vulnerability assessment plays an important role in

are prone to flood.

1.5 Scope and Delimitation

The flood physical vulnerability of the selected zones of Barangay Natumolan is

1.6 Conceptual Framework

researchers wanted to undertake and achieve.

the said components.

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

* Topographic Map * Flood Vulnerability

Figure 1- Scheme of the Conceptual Framework

Flood - an overflowing of water onto land that is normally dry.

Geographic Information System (GIS) - is a system designed to capture, store, manipulate,

analyze, manage, and present all types of geographical data.

Insurance – a thing providing protection against a possible eventuality.

Management – the process of dealing with or controlling things or people.

through preemptive action.

causing or threatening damage.

Susceptible – easily influenced or harmed by something.

Topography - a detailed description or representation on a map of the natural and artificial

exposure, susceptibility and resilience.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

are more susceptible to greater damages.

and human activities. The economic development, increase of population, existence of

their mitigative measures before and after extreme flood events.

Lang et al (2016) introduced a method of producing a flood vulnerability map using

of flood risk evolution on a local scale.

An assessment of Flood Vulnerability Zones in the Niger Delta region using a

Hydrological Technique based on some measurable physical characteristics of flooding and

the impact of damages to buildings resulting from natural hazards.

In the study of Mazzorana (2014) on the Physical Approach on Flood Risk

tool concerned on risk management.

The study of Flax et al (2002), which focused on Community Vulnerability

Assessment Tool Methodology, aimed to develop a risk and vulnerability assessment

methodology. Community Vulnerability Assessment Tool (CVAT) provides assistance to

comprehensive land use, and development planning.

allowed the researchers to analyze vulnerability-poverty relationship. The approach was

determination of vulnerability was measured using Feasible Generalized Lease Squares

makers of the policies to protect vulnerable people.

A study of Nasiri et al (2016) on the methods in assessing flood vulnerability

assessment. According to the researcher, assessing flood vulnerability can be categorized in

suitability of adaptation strategies to flooding in the informal settlements of Sangkrah and

Keko Machungwa and recommending measures for improvement. Household interviews,

physical observation (visual inspections of signs of damage and deterioration), measurements

of height of physical adaptation strategies, mapping, photographing, and in-depth interviews

acceptable technical considerations.

different areas in Bangkok. It aimed to produce a macro picture of floods to present an