20

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND RELATED STUDIES

This chapter presents the review of related literature and studies which

the researchers have thoroughly searched and read to shed light on the topic

under study. This chapter also includes ideas, conclusions or generalizations, and

finished thesis. Those included in this chapter are information relevant to the

study. The research primarily presents different investigations, information, and

other pieces of literature gathered from both local and foreign researchers which

have significant bearings on the variables included in the study. This research is

generally concentrating on the socio-economic analysis which inputs to a disaster

resilient community. The subject has been an essential part of recent studies

with regards to DRR (disaster risk reduction) and most likely the disaster

management. With the goal of introducing disaster resiliency, this would entail

citing some literature and other studies done by scholars that would give further

understanding of concepts with relevance to the subject at hold.

Related Literature

Prior to the content of the research topic, disaster resiliency of a

community based on the socio-economic factors will be the topmost focus of the

study. The subject has been a vital topic for the past decades locally and
 21

internationally for researches having the same study with regards to disaster risk

reduction, disaster preparedness of a community, disaster management, and

socio-economic resilience to natural disasters.

The pragmatic understanding of socio-economic resilience is limited regardless of

it being recurrently used in the current policy dissertation and its overriding

dominance in the multifaceted agreement on global and national disaster risk

management frameworks. The content was based on the understanding of

Gallopi’n (2006) and Cutter (2008).

Furthermore, the handful of empirical studies that addressed socio-

economic resilience to natural disasters have confined themselves to the study of

adaptive strategies (Sharma et al., 2009) and the effectiveness of coping

capacities (Van den Berg et al., 2010). Similarly, Cutter (2008) discussed that an

enhanced and in-depth understanding of the dynamics of socio-economic

resilience and the new paradigm of disaster risk management that centers on

building resilient societies are becoming increasingly well-known all over the

world in the context of the increased risk of natural disasters.

For the narrower outlook of the content, the Munich Personal RePEc

Archive (MPRA) lend three questions that deserve immediate attention:

(1) What is the current state of socio-economic resilience to natural disasters?

(2) What are the drivers of resilience or the lack of it?

(3) How does resilience interact with poverty and socio-economic vulnerability?
 22

The questions simply ask which climate change induced hazard risks are

going to impact the lives of the communities that live on low-lying flood plains

and coastal deltas. It also questions about understanding how resilience varies

across the socio-economic groups living within a community and what type of

policy adjustment would eliminate the disparity by better preparing them to

adjust to the changes invoked by a hazard.

It has been confirmed by various researchers that socioeconomic

resilience to natural hazards may impact to disaster risk management, disaster

resilience, and also the disaster preparedness of a community and vice versa.

This categorically puts this thesis in a position of credibility. Like the

matter of risk perception briefly implied in the earlier portion of this study, it

validated the direct relationship between the socio-demographic profiles of the

respondents.

The interdependent activities initiated by these abovementioned human

behaviors are then developed and categorized as belonging to one of the

different schools of thought in management (Zulueta, F.M., De Lara, G.M.C., and

Nebres, A.M., 1999). This is an essential linkage since the researchers are

evaluating the implementation of R.A. No. 10121 in Barangay 649 while keeping

in sync how the law provides that disaster preparedness be carried out within the

context of disaster management. Thus, it is clear that the study of disasters and

disaster preparedness also requires a grasp of basic management concepts and

principles.
 23

In being so, the researchers observed that disaster preparedness belongs

to the social systems school of management (Zulueta, et. al, 1999). This school

views management as a “social system” and considers the organization as a

social organism which is subject to pressures and conflicts coming from the

social environment.

For Martires, C.R. (2011), a social system is “a complex and dynamic set

of relationships among its actors interacting with one another.” Thus, R.A. No.

10121 acknowledges the need to “adopt a disaster risk reduction and

management approach that is holistic, comprehensive, integrated and proactive

in lessening the socio-economic and environmental impacts of disasters including

climate change, and promote the involvement and participation of all sectors and

all stakeholders concerned, at all levels, especially the local community.” Disaster

preparedness, aside from being a multilevel system (global, regional, national,

community, individual), becomes also multi-relational (physical, social, economic,

environmental). Within the social system of the community, there are still various

subsystems interdependent with each other.

In connection to this, the content about disaster resiliency will be given its

significance based on some studies respectively cited and this disaster resiliency

ought to define both “disaster” and “resilience”. With regards to the research
 24

conducted by the Hyogo Framework for Action Guidance and Indicator Package

(2008) which was cited in the study of Mercader and Sesio (2014), “disaster is a

‘serious disturbance of the functioning of a community or society causing

extensive material, human, economic, or environmental losses which surpass the

capability of the affected community or society to handle using its own

resources.

A disaster is a function of the risk process. It results from a combination

of hazards, conditions of vulnerability and insufficient capacity or measures to

diminish the potential negative consequences of risk”. In addition to this,

Kuleshov (2012) mentioned that the most destructive weather systems that

impact the coastal areas are tropical cyclones associated with strong winds, high

waves, and storm surges.

According to the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (2007),

disasters are first and foremost a “local” phenomenon. Local communities are on

the frontlines of both the immediate impact of a disaster and the initial,

emergency response, which, experience has shown, is crucial for saving the most

lives. It is therefore altogether fitting that we focus our energies on improving

local communities’ resilience to natural hazards. Local communities are the

essential cornerstone in our effort to make the Hyogo Framework for Action a

practical tool for saving lives and livelihoods. Basically, the destructive systems

mentioned by Kuleshov is indeed true because, for the past centuries, the earth
 25

has been experiencing disasters and these so-called disasters have been

worsening due to climate changes and man-made hazards.

In connection with the statement, Filipinos have already surpassed these

kinds of disasters and have conditioned themselves for some more disasters to

come each year, this was according to a research done by Gubalane (2015). He

also mentioned that in the light of those horrifying disaster that struck the

country, it seems that in terms of preparedness, mitigation and response efforts,

there were still gaps in which the government has to realize improvements.

A desk study was conducted by the Swiss NGO DRR (2014) and they

came to a conclusion wherein the Philippine Government has enforced a

comprehensive legal framework on DRR, however, in general the capacity for

disaster risk reduction at the level of local governments units (LGUs) is still low.

The inadequacy of the Philippine Government to cope with vigilance to these

hazards are inevitably distracting to each community and is therefore alarming

because the country is prone to the following hazards/risk that includes tropical

cyclones/typhoons that occurs from May to October for Southwest Monsoons and

November to February for Northwest Monsoons. On an average of twenty

typhoons, five to seven of these are destructive that occurs from the months

between June to December. The potential impact of selected hazard/risk are

high wind speeds, rainfall, storm surges, flooding, and landslides may result to

loss of lives, economic losses, damage to property, houses, livelihoods,

infrastructure, and may also lead to displacement and migration.

 26

For G. Tyler Miller, Jr. (1990), formal risk assessment is difficult, imprecise

and controversial. It involves determining the types of hazards involved,

estimating the number of people likely to be exposed to the hazard and the

number likely to suffer serious consequences, and estimating the probability of

each hazard occurring. He explained that one way to improve system reliability is

to move more of the potentially fallible elements from the human side to the

technical side, making the system more fool-proof or “fail-safe.” But chance

events such as a lightning bolt can knock out automatic control systems. And no

machine or computer program can replace all the skillful human actions and

decisions involved in seeing that a complex system operates properly and safely.

On the subject of disaster preparedness in the context of capacity-

building, resilience is the effect sought by such process and activity. Resilience is

defined by Miller (1990) as the “ability of a living system to restore itself to

original condition after being exposed to an outside disturbance that is not too

drastic.” Taken in the context of disaster management, the researchers now infer

that community resilience can only be raised and built once the concerned

organization reaches an acceptable or tolerable level of risk.

With regards to the information stated above, the Leyte chapter has been

through a lot including a town called Tolosa. An example to this is the

devastating disaster named Typhoon Haiyan. It has affected communities which

resulted into potential impacts of the selected hazards/risks listed above. The

Local Government Unit of both premise has weakened and has not come up with
 27

a plan yet on how to resolve these gaps in order to provide the public a good

service in times of disasters. Understanding approaches including local coping

mechanisms, recognizing them and strengthening community capacities is

important in the process of disaster risk reduction (Pandey, 2018).  In relation to

the content, the overall reviews of respondents and survivors cannot guarantee

the satisfaction that the socioeconomic resiliency to natural disasters has been

improved for the past years due to the traumatizing storm surge that had once

hit the premise.

Again, a factor that comprises with the characteristics and circumstances

of a community is the vulnerability of a system or asset that make it susceptible

to the damaging effects of a hazard. (UNISDR Terminology 2009). For instance,

Tolosa is a hazard prone area and the entire population of the municipality is

affected by tropical cyclone. According to the Municipality of Tolosa and their

Enhanced Comprehensive Land Use Plan, there are actually six hazards lurking in

the perimeter and are observed to frequently or potentially occur affecting the

entire municipality. This includes the Fire Hazard, Flood Hazard, Ground Shaking

Hazard, Soil Liquefaction Hazard, Landslide, and Storm Surge Hazard.

This leads to a conclusion wherein the said municipality is indeed exposed

to these risks and may affect the socioeconomic resilience to natural disasters.

Tolosa has been growing for the past years but the majority cannot guarantee

that they are safe in their situation because they are most abundant to disasters

and these disasters are able to hit them without further notice.
 28

Related Studies

Among the most difficult challenges that governments currently face is the

accelerated need to increase the resilience of communities to disasters, and the

ability to respond effectively and recover from them when disasters occur.

Resilience building may thus include improvements in the ability to prevent

shocks, to absorb them when they occur (Timmerman, 1981; Birkmann, 2006),

to respond effectively and quickly contain their damage, to have the capacity to

effect quick recovery (Bruneau et al.,2003) and to promote learning (UNISDR,

2005; Cutter et al.,2008).

The communication system of disaster preparedness is likened to the

human circulatory system with regards to the role it plays in contingency

planning. Within the communication structure, the researchers find such

activities as coordinating and facilitating all the available resources to its priority

users in a timely and appropriate manner. Also, the system unifies the chain of

command necessary to the entire disaster management cycle of prevention,

mitigation and adaptation; alertness and preparedness; response; and recovery.

Filipino values also affect the communication process, especially in

disaster preparedness. Martires, C.R. (2011) explains that one’s need to belong

to a group is stronger than the need to assert one’s individual identity. This is

reflected in behavior that shows pakikisama (togetherness), smooth

 29

interpersonal relationship (SIR), tayo-tayo (us and we-ness), and bayanihan

(unity and cooperation). Using a go-between in the communication process

facilitates the transaction for a positive feedback. Herein lies the value of

community-based development project management in disaster management.

The government has a lot to face in terms of promulgating disaster

resilient community activities and further specific actions to train the public on

what to do before and after a disaster and also the actions of preparedness

taken by the government, communities, and individuals to mitigate the impact of

hazards. The content has been researched a lot of times because preparedness

not only comes at a time of the disaster, it comes before and after the calamity.

According to The Strategy (COAG, 2011) the following are the seven

groups of actions to build community disaster resilience in a community. First is

leading change and coordinating effort. Second would be understanding risks.

Third implies communicating with and educating people about risks. Fourth is

partnering with those who effect change. Fifth concludes empowering individuals

and communities to exercise choice to take responsibility. Sixth is reducing risks

in the built environment, and lastly, supporting capabilities for disaster resilience.

Dr. Rene N. Rollon (2010), Associate Professor and Director, Institute of

Environmental Science and Meteorology, U.P. Diliman, has a view on disaster

preparedness which is much more realistic. He averred that, on the management

side, prevention is always an ideal strategy. For instance, human settlements in

coastal areas should be avoided unless some aggressive measures are in place
 30

(high and expensive dikes, retaining walls, etc.). Obviously, such incongruence

between natural processes and the human use of physical resources have been

demonstrated on many occasions. Indeed, especially for urban centers like Metro

Manila, preventive measures (e.g. relocation, job generation, easement areas, no

settlement zones, etc.) may be very expensive. However, the annual cost of lives

and properties attributed to the “disrespect” for these natural processes is not

cheap either, and, is, in fact increasingly frustrating.

There is a certain diversity of academic definitions and concepts that can

be confusing at times and the function of this may seem to comply with its

usefulness to work with broad definitions and commonly understood

characteristics. By using the said approach, the community resilience or system

may be understood as the capacity to absorb stress or destructive forces through

opposition or adaptation. In connection to community resilience, the word

resilience has been deliberated from numerous disciplines and as a result, there

is no universally agreed definition of the term.

According to Maguire and Cartwright (2008) in their book “Assessing a

community’s capacity to manage change: A Resilience approach to social

assessment”, the term has been applied in engineering to refer to the ability of a

material to return to its pre-existing state after being subject to stress.

Moreover, disaster resiliency may be enhanced through regular and vigorous

disaster training and education, resource intermixing, and disaster preparedness.

While the study mostly focuses on the capability of a community to adapt to

 31

disaster resiliency there is an instance wherein ‘Capacity’ and ‘Resiliency’ differ

with one another. The latter is generally seen as a larger concept than that of

capacity because it encroaches the behavior and the strategies and measures for

risk reduction management that are normally confined as capacities. A focus on

resilience means allocating greater emphasis on what communities can provide

and do for themselves and how to apply robustness towards their capacities,

rather than concentrating on their susceptibility to disasters or their needs in an

emergency.

Dr. Guillermo Q. Tabios (2010), Professor, Institute of Civil Engineering,

and Director, National Hydraulic Research Center, U.P. Diliman, summarized the

role the community plays in disaster management related to preparedness,

adaptation and mitigation. He started by saying that there is a long list of what

the community can do in disaster management, especially in relation to

preparedness, adaptation and mitigation. The community should establish and

organize planning and response teams during pre-disaster and emergent post-

disaster phases. A basic requirement is to develop emergency or evacuation

plans such as routes, protective shelters, and food provisions in case of disaster.

The multi-hazard maps in particular are very useful for this purpose.

Tabios (2010) further explained that to ensure preparedness for the

response phase of disaster management, the community organization should

also train and organize quick response volunteer teams to provide rescue as well

as logistic and psychosocial support. For large scale community-based planning,

 32

long-term and sustainable programs should be developed in partnership with the

local government and even private organizations to reduce poverty by providing

affordable shelter, food, and water for resettled or relocated communities to

reduce their disaster vulnerability. Communities frequently exposed to extreme

climatic events and hazards can also develop adaptation measures such as

encouraging water management and waste management practices that are

resilient to climate extremes and hazards.

Having to cope up with hazards and natural disasters prowling within the

perimeter is essential to every individual to be aware of their socio-economic

stand amongst all other factors that may be damaged by an unlawful whirl of

tragedies.

With regards to the information taken from Mileti (1999), White, Kates,

and Burton (2001), disaster losses have been increasing exponentially, and many

researchers argue that the increasing trend is unsustainable and that eventually,

the costs of disasters will become more than we can afford.

Continuing to the subject, Resilience Alliance (2005) confirmed a definition

of resilience as a process-based approach. The process-based approach uses

pre-disaster socio-economic conditions as measures of resilience. It defines

resilience as a mechanism of self-organization, the capacity to learn from

experience, to process information and adapt accordingly (Resilience Alliance,

2005).
 33

As the content focuses on socio-economic profiling, there are certain

factors that should be considered in this case and upon doing so, Mayunga

(2007) acclaimed and discovered a framework that combines the pre-disaster

states of five major forms of household/community capital: social (trust, norms,

networks); economic (income, savings and investment); human (educational,

health, skills. Information/knowledge); physical (housing, public facilities,

business/industry); and natural (resources stocks, land and water, ecosystem).

Meanwhile, the indicators of social vulnerability are race, age and

economic status and the structural vulnerability indicators are factors such as

construction materials of housing units; the number of commercial

establishments; and the availability of lifelines such as the number of hospitals,

schools, and electric power facilities. (Cutter et al., 2008)

In this case, the public would be able to identify the forms that will be

greatly affected by these hazards. This is to publicly inform the community that

upon these disasters entering, the pre-disaster states mentioned will be the most

likely to be affected and impaired at the very least.

Recently, upon viewing and citing some information regarding socio-

economic resilience to natural disasters, Walsh and Hallegatte (2019) came up

with a study that deals with Measuring Natural Risks in the Philippines

(Socioeconomic Resilience and Wellbeing Losses), the content of the study has

given information about how the Philippines is able to cope up with disasters and

natural hazards in connection with its social, economic, natural, physical, and
 34

environmental aspects. In this section, we present the main insights focusing on

how individual households’ socioeconomic characteristics can mitigate or magnify

the impact of disasters.

The existence of this study has three main goals in order to provide vital

information to Filipinos and other researchers willing to gather data and adhere

to the same content and scope of the study. The goals of the Global Facility for

Disaster Reduction and Recovery, Climate Change Group with the Social are as

follows. First and foremost, there is a close link between natural disasters and

poverty. On average, the estimates suggest that almost half a million Filipinos

per year face transient consumption poverty due to natural disasters. Nationally,

the bottom income quintile suffers only 9 percent of the total asset losses, but 31

percent of the total wellbeing losses. Next is the regions identified as priorities

for risk-management interventions differ depending on which risk metric is used.

Cost-benefit analyses based on asset losses direct risk reduction investments

toward the richest regions and areas.

A focus on poverty or wellbeing rebalances the analysis and generates a

different set of regional priorities. Last but not least, measuring disaster impacts

through poverty and wellbeing impacts allows the quantification of the benefits

from interventions like rapid post-disaster support and adaptive social protection.

Although these measures do not reduce asset losses, they efficiently reduce their

consequences for wellbeing by making the population more resilient.

 35

The analysis has moved from asset to income, consumption, infrastructure

manifestation, and wellbeing losses, incorporating additional relevant household-

level socioeconomic characteristics at each stage. Income losses provide new

insight into disaster impacts and are closer than asset losses to the actual impact

on people. However, they still do not take into account a range of characteristics

and coping mechanisms that can mitigate the effects of disasters on individual

households.

On average, inclusive of all hazards and regions, we estimate that almost

half a million Filipinos per year face transient consumption poverty due to natural

disasters. This is equivalent to 2.2% of national poverty incidence, though the

sub-national results indicate significant regional variation and considering

Philippines as one of the middle income country takes a toll on its poverty rate

locally which was considered to be 26.5%. Of the estimated half million Filipinos

pushed into transient consumption poverty by disasters each year, some 25,000

will still be in poverty 10 years later which was according to the World Bank

Group (2019) and a study conducted by Walsh and Hallegatte (2019). In total,

this complex picture suggests that the costs of natural disasters are far-reaching

for certain households, communities, and regions. Alternatively, we can say that

the socioeconomic resilience of the Philippines is 37%.

The average annual damage caused by disasters amounts to an average

of 0.5 percent of GDP each year. Economic vulnerabilities manifest themselves,

for instance, when poor households lack the assets or resources to repair, rebuild
 36

or replant their livelihoods or workers in informal employment with no access to

social safety nets face immediate or on-going loss of incomes. When disasters

damage or destroy the assets on which individuals rely for their livelihood

including not only their own shop or field but also somebody else’s factory,

affected households face income losses.

The above content has been focusing on the socio-economic resilience of

the Philippines and its capacity to adhere to poverty because of natural disasters

occurring one after another. Furthermore, disaster resiliency, disaster risk

management, and disaster preparedness are yet to be discussed in the following

pages.

Disaster preparedness takes a toll to each individual but needs it in order

to mitigate and rig oneself out. According to Julie Dekens (2007), preparedness

means activities and measures taken in advance to ensure an effective response

to the impact of hazards, including the issuance of timely and effective early

warning and the temporary evacuation of people and property from threatened

locations.

In this manner, we would be able to know what disaster preparedness is

by having first an overview of what preparedness means. Referring to a

literature review “Local Knowledge for Disaster Preparedness” of Julie Dekens

(2007), she stated that disaster preparedness denotes to a combination of short-

and long-term strategies that help reduce the negative effects of natural

hazards, prevent their impacts on assets, and escape certain peak values (e.g.,
 37

during periods of excessive rainfall, etc.) or their consequences. It is difficult to

isolate disaster preparedness from other components of disaster management

(e.g., disaster relief) as they are inter-related.

In order to provide the community socio-economic resilience, the Hyogo

Framework for Action and its Fifth Priority has lent some information with

regards to strengthening disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels

as cited in a local case study by Mercader and Sesio (2014), this includes disaster

management capacity: policy, technical and institutional capacities, dialogue,

coordination and information exchange between disaster managers and

development sectors, regional approaches to disaster response, with risk

reduction focus, review exercise preparedness and contingency plans,

emergency funds and, voluntarism and participation (HFA Guidance and

Indicator Package, 2008:50).

A community has its right to obtain and practice not just disaster

preparedness but also the Disaster Risk Management. Regarding the study of the

Swiss NGO DRR (2014), there are gaps and weaknesses of Philippines with

regards to this subject. The Philippines has a comprehensive regulative

framework for Disaster Risk Management, however, at the local level structures

and capacities are still weak. The results of a Disaster Preparedness Audit of

DILG in 2011 considering 8 major factors such as functionality of LDCCs,

availability of evacuation centres, appropriate equipment and quality of the

Disaster Risk Management Plan revealed that of LGUs surveyed, 33 % of the

 38

provinces, 34 % of cities and 60% of municipalities were not prepared properly.

Only 45 of 80 provinces, which includes Leyte and Tolosa, had DRRM

units/offices and no more than 23 of 80 provinces have permanent staff.

Most LGUs, particularly third and fifth class municipalities and less capable

cities, do not have sufficient capacities to prepare a comprehensive land use plan

that integrates risk factors as a basis for planning. Implementation of DRR

activities is still highly influenced by local political agenda and interests. Lack of

funds for DRR measures is another challenge. Tolosa is currently considered a

fifth class municipality which leads to a conclusion that this municipality has less

access to safety and is onsidered vulnerable and exposed to disasters.

With respect to the Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund

(LDRRMF), has to utilize the fund which amounting to not less than five percent

of the total estimated revenue from the regular sources shall be set aside as the

LDRRMF supports the LDRRMF activities such as, but not limited to, pre-disaster

preparedness programs including training, purchasing life-saving rescue

equipment, supplies and medicines, for post disaster activities, payments of

calamity insurance and construction of evacuation centers. (Gubalane, 2015)

Disaster events are unresolved issues and problems of development, as

defined by the Asian Development Bank (1996). This somehow creates a need in

the development process to have a great deal of concern in reducing disaster

risk of the community. Therefore, being resilient to disaster is a current

requirement as “it is clear that, in order to reduce the risk and impact of these
 39

threats and to increase the safety and wellbeing of their residents, cities, and

their communities must be more resilient and prepared to address the threats

head-on” (Jabareen, 2012).

As long as disasters and uneventful natural hazards lurk around the

corner, the socio-economic profile analysis of communities will be continuing and

be used further as studies for future use and for the benefit of the public.

The Philippines will continue to be on observation because it is naturally

prone to disasters – typhoons, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides,

floods, tsunamis, and others (Gubalane, 2015).

The Philippines is one of the top countries in the world at risk of climate-

related disasters. For populations prevailing at the poverty line in particular, but

also the nation as a whole, daily lives and wellbeing are routinely challenged.

Reducing population exposure and vulnerability and to build disaster capacity is

one of the devoted significant resources the government of the Philippines has

taken seriously. Therefore, each individual, the community, and the funded

infrastructures are at risk if the community resists and fails to understand what

vulnerability can bring if not understood well.