“Assessing the Safety, Sustainability & Accessibility (SSA) of Public Buildings for Disaster

Evacuation” - by Andres Winston Oreta. Co-authors: A.M. Arandia, J.A. Sy, and M.A. Valdez III.
AUN/SEED-Net 7th Regional Conference on Natural Disaster (RCND 2019) held at Zenith Hotel,
Putrajaya, Malaysia on November 25-26, 2019.

Assessing the Safety, Sustainability & Accessibility (SSA)

of Public Buildings for Disaster Evacuation

A.M. Arandia1, J.A. Sy1, M.A. Valdez III1 and A.W.C. Oreta*2
1
BSCE, Department of Civil Engineering, De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines
2
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines
*Corresponding author e-mail: andres.oreta@dslu.edu.ph

Abstract. In the Philippines, most people affected by disasters are evacuated and temporarily
moved to designated evacuation shelters or sites, which are usually public buildings and schools.
During a disaster, it is important to ensure that the evacuation shelters are safe, sustainable, and
accessible to the vulnerable people in the community. This paper presents a hazard-based
assessment on the safety, sustainability, and accessibility (SSA) of evacuation shelters. The
safety of the structure is to be assessed guided by existing rapid visual assessment tools with
respect to hazard and vulnerability to earthquakes, floods and extreme winds. The sustainability
of the structure is measured using sustainability metrics of resource management such as
sanitation, solid waste management, living space and basic needs like water, first aid, sleeping
mats and other basic supplies used for evacuation. The accessibility criteria is determined by
considering important factors that affect the accessibility to the evacuation shelters such as the
number of access roads, travel time and the characteristics of the evacuation plan and routes that
will allow evacuees to easily access the evacuation sites from around the community. The SSA
assessment was conducted on selected public buildings in one city in Metro Manila.

1. Introduction
The Philippines is highly susceptible to natural hazards like typhoons, floods and earthquakes and these
hazards can damage and destroy human properties and lives. According to the Global Facility for
Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) [1], since 1990, “the Philippines has been affected by 565
natural disaster events, which have claimed the lives of nearly 70,000 Filipinos and caused an estimated
$23 billion in damages, making it one of the most disaster-prone countries in the world.” Most people
affected by these disasters are evacuated and temporarily moved to pre-determined evacuation sites or
shelters (ES), which are usually public buildings in the community such as schools. Before, during and
after a disaster event, it is important to ensure that the evacuation sites are safe, sustainable, and
accessible to the community. Evacuation sites and temporary shelters must be appropriate to specific
hazards like floods, earthquakes or typhoons. Buildings located on flood prone areas should not be
designated as ES during flood-related disasters. Similarly, buildings near fault lines and unstable slopes
are not appropriate as ES during seismic disasters. For a building to be categorized as safe as an ES, the
site must not be highly susceptible to the hazard and the structure must not be highly vulnerable to the
hazard to assure safe occupancy to the evacuees. Aside from safety to specific hazards, the structures
should be sustainable within a time, and should be accessible to the community within a certain time
threshold especially during emergencies. Sustainability of evacuation shelters focus on the availability
of temporary living space, efficiency of resource use such as energy, water, sanitation while
simultaneously reducing building impacts on the environment and the occupants’ health [2].
Furthermore, these evacuation sites should be accessible to the affected community with safe pathways
and preferably with directions and lighted routes. This study presents a rapid hazard-based assessment
using parameters related to safety, sustainability and accessibility (SSA) of evacuation shelters (ES) that
can be used by local government units (LGUs) in assigning public buildings like schools, assembly
centers and gymnasiums as ES during disasters considering the type of natural hazard (e.g. earthquake,
flood, extreme wind).

2. Safety Assessment – Hazard and Vulnerability

Safety of an evacuation shelter is dependent on the type of natural hazard. Safety has an inverse
relationship to disaster risk. The lower the disaster risk, the higher the safety and vice versa. Disaster
risk, on the other hand is related to the hazard and vulnerability to the hazard. The effect of a natural
hazard like flood, wind or earthquakes depends on the magnitude or strength of the hazard. The stronger
the wind speed, the higher the earthquake magnitude or the higher the rainfall intensity, the larger will
be the disaster risk at the site. Thus, a site hazard assessment should first be conducted to determine
whether a public building at a site is appropriate to be an evacuation shelter for specific natural hazards.
Shown in Table 1 are the parameters used for the site hazard assessment with specific semi-quantitative
and qualitative rating. A rapid visual screening (RVS) at the site and available references like the
National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP 2015) [3], seismic hazard maps from Philippine
Institute for Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS) and flood hazard maps from NOAH [4] can
determine the hazard parameters at the site for each natural hazard. Weights are assigned for each
parameter based on its importance or effect of the specific hazard to the site. The Hazard index (Hi) for
each hazard is obtained as:

Hi=  (whj x Fhj) (1)

where whj= weight for hazard parameter j and Fhj= score for each hazard parameter j (5 for High; 3 for
Medium; 1 for Low).

Table 1. Site Hazard Parameters and Rating

Flood Hazard Parameter Low (1) Medium (3) High (5) Weight
1. Flood Susceptibility Low Medium High 0.4
(Flood hazard map) Susceptibility Susceptibility Susceptibility
2. Distance to water body Above 1 km 0.5 km to 1 km Below 0.5 km 0.4
(RVS, Google map)
3. Presence of slopes at vicinity No slopes There are some Multiple slopes 0.2
(RVS) slopes
Wind Hazard Parameter Low (1) Medium (3) High (5) Weight
1. Wind Speed (NSCP wind Below 150 kph 150 kph to 250 Above 250 kph 0.4
contour map) kph
2. Building Vicinity Urban, many Open, minimum Flat, 0.6
(RVS) obstruction obstruction unobstructed
Seismic Hazard Parameter Low (1) Medium (3) High (5) Weight
1. Peak Ground Acceleration ES lies on ES lies on orange ES lies on red 0.4
(PHIVOLCS PGA maps) yellow areas areas areas
2. Distance to Nearest Fault Greater than 15 5 to 15 km Less than 5 km 0.4
(PHIVOLCS Fault Finder) km
3. Seismic Source (NSCP) M < 6.5 M bet. 6.5 & 7.0 M > 7.0 0.2
The vulnerability of the structure or building also depends on the natural hazard. Hence, both
structural and non-structural vulnerability assessment should follow the site hazard assessment.
Although a detailed structural safety assessment is most appropriate, an RVS based on hazard specific
vulnerability parameters is presented. An RVS is appropriate to use during a preliminary screening
especially if there is big number of structures to assess. After an RVS, a more detailed inspection
which is time consuming and costly can be conducted. In an RVS, vulnerability parameters specific to
the hazard are identified and weights are assigned for each parameter based on its importance or effect
of the vulnerability parameter to the safety of the structure and components.
For flood vulnerability assessment, the parameters considered are the presence of basements, the
location of the utility systems including heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), the location
of electrical panels and the past flood experiences of the structure as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Flood Vulnerability Parameters and Rating

Vulnerability Parameter Low (1) Medium (3) High (5) Weight
1. Presence of building spaces No building N/A There are 0.4
below-grade (basements) spaces below- building spaces
grade/no below-
basements grade/basements
2. Location of Utility Systems Utility Systems Utility Systems and Utility Systems 0.2
and HVAC & HVAC located HVAC located a and HVAC are
at higher floors little higher above located very close
the ground to the ground
3. Location of Electrical Panels Electrical Panels Electrical Panels Electrical Panels 0.2
located at higher located a little located very near
floors or ceilings higher above the to the ground
ground
4. Past Flood Experiences The ES has not N/A The ES has 0.2
experienced experienced a
flooding before. flooding before

The vulnerability parameters in Table 3 for wind hazard are based on FEMA 424 [5], Yu, and Oreta
[6]. For wind, metal decks and shingles would be able to resist wind loads as well though not as high
and as good as roofs with concrete cement finish. Roofs made from glass and tile would fare very
badly against high wind loads expected from typhoons. The roof type like hip or hip gable roof design
are less vulnerable to wind. The structural frame properties like framing system, number of floors and
structural condition will affect the vulnerability to extreme wind. Wind pressure on the building also
depends on the openings in the building envelope. Open structures will be subjected to wind pressures
inside and outside the building. Moreover, if the structure is not fully enclosed and has multiple
openings and holes, the evacuees and objects inside the building may be susceptible to the strong
winds.

Table 3. Wind Vulnerability Parameters and Rating

Vulnerability Parameter Low (1) Medium (3) High (5) Weight
1. Roof Material Concrete, Metal deck, Glass, tiles 0.17
cement finish shingles
2. Structural System Material RC, Steel Reinforced Glass, wood, 0.17
Masonry URM
3. Type of Structural Framing Braced, SMRF Shear Wall with Ordinary Moment 0.17
Lateral Force Resisting Frame
Resisting System
4. Type of Roof Design Hip, Hip Gable Gable Mono Slope 0.17
5. Number of Floors 1 to 2 Floors 3 to 4 Floors 5 Floors and 0.17
above
6. Building Envelope Building is fully- Building partially- Building is fully- 0.08
enclosed enclosed with some exposed/open with
openings multiple openings
 7. Presence of Cracks and Holes No cracks and There are some Multiple cracks 0.08
in the Structural Elements holes are cracks and holes and holes are
observed seen

The seismic vulnerability parameters in Table 4 are based on the Yu and Oreta [7], Oreta and Brizuela
[8], and FEMA 424 [5]. In the Philippines, buildings designed and constructed after 1992, when the
NSCP was updated with seismic provisions, are rated less vulnerable to earthquakes. Buildings made
designed before 1972 are based on old structural code with no seismic provisions, hence are rated
highly vulnerable. For earthquakes, construction materials have the opposite effect compared to wind.
Light materials like wood are less vulnerable than heavy materials like concrete and masonry. The
presence of vertical and plan irregularities contribute to seismic vulnerability. Other vulnerability
parameters considered for earthquake ground shaking are type of structural framing, number of floors
and structural condition. Non-structural components like emergency routes, security of utility systems,
partitions and ceilings are also important in seismic vulnerability assessment since these will affect the
safety of the occupants.

Table 4. Seismic Vulnerability Parameters and Rating

Vulnerability Parameter Low (1) Medium (3) High (5) Weight
1. Construction Date 1992 & beyond 1972 - 1992 before 1972 0.125
2. Plan Irregularities Regular shapes, Irregular shapes, Irregular shapes, 0.125
uniform uniform structure non-uniform
structure plan plan structure plan
3. Vertical Irregularities Similar height Slightly similar Different height 0.125
(Soft Story) stories (< 5% height stories stories (>20%
difference) (>5%, <20% difference)
difference)
4. Structural System Material Light Steel, RC, Steel Masonry 0.125
Timber
5. Type of Structural Framing Special Moment Lateral Force Ordinary Frame 0.125
Resisting Frame Resisting System System (Non-
with Shear Wall moment Resisting)
6. Number of Floors 1 to 3 4 to 6 7 and above 0.125
7. Security of Utility Systems Most Utility Some utility Most Utility 0.0625
Systems are systems are not Systems are not
tightly secured, secured and highly secured and
braced properly exposed highly exposed
and not much
exposed
8. Security of Partitions and Partitions and Partitions and Partitions and 0.0625
Ceilings Ceilings are Ceilings are Ceilings are not
braced properly. braced properly. braced properly.
Ceilings are free Ceilings contain Ceilings contain
from objects that some objects that many objects that
might fall might fall may fall.
9. Safety of Exit Routes Exit Routes in Exit Routes in case Exit Routes in 0.0625
case of of emergency case of emergency
emergency are contains little contains
free from obstacles that may numerous
obstacles that hinder evacuation obstructions and
may hinder walkways/stairs
evacuation are narrow
10. Presence of Cracks and Holes No cracks and There are some Multiple cracks 0.0625
in the Structural Elements holes are cracks and holes and holes are
observed seen
The Vulnerability index for each hazard is obtained as:

Vi=  (wvj x Fvj) (2)

where wvj= weight for vulnerability parameter j and Fvj= score for each vulnerability parameter j (5
for High; 3 for Medium; 1 for Low).

The Risk index per hazard is obtained as a product of the hazard and vulnerability indices:

Ri= (Hi x Vj) (3)

The safety rating has an inverse relationship to the risk index. A low risk index corresponds to high
safety rating while a high-risk index corresponds to a low safety rating. The safety rating is associated
with a star rating as shown in Table 5. A structure with a high safety rating correspond to a 5-star
rating while a low safety rating is assigned with 1-star rating. Depending on the decision maker,
structures with a three star rating and higher may be considered as possible EC based on the safety
requirement.

Table 5. Safety Rating and Risk Index for each hazard

Safety Rating High Med-High Medium Med-Low Low

Risk Index Ri ≤ 2.0 2.0 < Ri< 6.0 6.0 < Ri< 12.0 12.0 <Ri< 20.0 Ri ≥ 20.0

Star Rating

3. Sustainability Assessment

It is very important for evacuation shelters to be sustainable in order to serve their purpose in meeting
the needs of the people within a specific time period. In terms of the building’s sustainability as an ES,
the following metrics such as the living space, sanitation and solid waste management at the ES must
be assessed. The living space capacity is assessed based on the floor area and the number of usable
rooms. The minimum floor area per person of 3.5 square meters per person based on SPHERE
Handbook [9] is used as a benchmark. In terms of sanitation, the data required is the number of usable
toilets in the shelter and the number of evacuees that will use these facilities, which result to the toilet-
person ratio. The toilet-person ration for evacuees varies from 1:40 for US CDC standards according
to Aquino [10] to 1:20 from SPHERE Handbook [9]. In terms of the solid waste management, the
criteria here is whether the evacuation shelter can sustain the 24-hour waste generation of the
evacuees. The needed data are the number of garbage bins and the corresponding capacity or volume,
per bin, the garbage density (in kg per cubic meter) and the average amount of solid waste generated
per evacuee in a day (in kilograms per person-day). The average solid waste generation per evacuee is
around 0.4 kg per person in a day and the garbage density ranges from 151 to 211 kg per cubic meter
with an average of 181 kg per cubic meter [10]. The total waste (TW) generation can be estimated
using the garbage density and the amount of waste generated per person. The total solid waste (TW)
generated is compared to the total capacity (TC) of the waste bins within a day. Basic needs such as
water facilities, sleeping mats, blankets, first aid and medicines should always be provided during the
evacuation of the people in the shelters. The local government unit in charge of the evacuation should
be able to provide these basic needs to ensure the safety and welfare of the evacuees. According to
FEMA 453 [11], lighting facilities and emergency lighting tools such as flashlights and candles should
always be provided in times of evacuation of people during disasters.
The summary of the metrics or parameters for the sustainability assessment and their corresponding
ratings are shown in Table 6. The weights per metric were derived from an Analytic Hierarchy Process
(AHP) survey of about 30 respondents. The Sustainability index is obtained as:

Si= (wsj x Fsj) (4)

where wsj= weight for sustainability parameter j and Fvj= score for each sustainability parameter j (5
for High; 3 for Medium; 1 for Low). The sustainability index ranges from 1 to 5. The star rating for
sustainability corresponds to the sustainability index.

Table 6. Summary of Sustainability Metrics and Ratings

Sustainability Parameter Low (1) Medium (3) High (5) Weight
1. Living Space Capacity per < 3.5 sq. m = 3.5 sq. m > 3.5 sq. m 0.11
person in sq. m
2. Sanitation > 1:40 Toilet- = 1:40 Toilet- < 1:40 Toilet- 0.11
Person Ratio Person Ratio Person Ratio
3. Solid Waste Generation TW > cap TW= cap TW < cap 0.13
4. Water Facilities Inadequate Tap water is Tap water, water 0.19
water facilities readily available pumps, water
but with limited containers and
supply to drinking drinking water
water are readily
available in the
shelter
5. Other Supplies (sleeping Inadequate Some of these All these supplies 0.20
mats, blankets, first aid, emergency supplies are are readily
medicines) supplies for the available available
evacuation
shelter
6. Electricity/Lighting Facilities Inadequate All rooms are All rooms are 0.26
lighting facilities adequately lighted adequately lighted
and supplies in and with an and with
the shelter electricity electricity
connection connection plus
emergency
lighting supplies
like flashlights
and candles

4. Accessibility Assessment

Accessibility assessment starts with identifying and locating the evacuation shelters using a map (e.g.
Google Maps)... Using Google Maps the travel time from any specific point to the ES by foot can be
determined. The next step is to count how many access roads are present from the specific point before
reaching the ES. Next is to assess the characteristics of the evacuation plan of the Local Government Unit
(LGU) selected. The LGU can be consulted on the designated evacuation shelters and the evacuation
routes. The location of the evacuation shelter with respect to the LGU office is also important especially
with respect to communication and relief support. The quality of the evacuation routes that lead to the
shelter is also an accessibility parameter. A visual inspection of the vicinity on the evacuation routes to
check any obstructions and unsafe objects and hazardous conditions (e.g. flood prone, slopes, and holes)
must be conducted.

The summary of the metrics or parameters for accessibility assessment and their corresponding ratings
are shown in Table 7. The weights per metric were derived from an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
survey of about 30 respondents. The Accessibility index is obtained as:
 Ai=  (waj x Faj) (4)

where waj= weight for accessibility parameter j and Faj= score for each accessibility parameter j (5 for
High; 3 for Medium; 1 for Low). The accessibility index ranges from 1 to 5. The star rating for
accessibility corresponds to the sustainability index.

Table 7. Summary of Accessibility Metrics and Ratings

Accessibility Parameter Low (1) Medium (3) High (5) Weight
1. Number of access roads 1 access road 2 access roads 3 or more access 0.28
leading to the ES roads
2. Travel Time by Walking Greater than 20 5 to 20 min Less than 5 min 0.25
(mobility) min
3. Evacuation Plan Details No Evacuation Evacuation Plans Evacuation Plans 0.09
Plans prepared have designated with designated
at the area the evacuation the evacuation
shelter only shelter and routes
4. Location of ES within the ES located near ES located ES located near 0.17
barangay the edge between the and the center of the
boundaries of edge boundaries of barangay
the barangay the barangay
5. User Information No reliable N/A There is reliable 0.08
information on information on
evacuation are evacuation area
known by the known by the
people in the people in the area
area
6. Quality of Evacuation Routes Evacuation Evacuation routes Evacuation routes 0.13
routes have have some have minimum
multiple obstructions and obstructions and
obstructions and the access roads the access roads
the access roads have 2 lanes have more than 2
have 1 lane only lanes

5. Case Study

The safety, sustainability and accessibility (SSA) assessment was applied on selected evacuation
shelters in Pasig, city in Metro Manila, Philippines. Data were obtained from the Command Center
Office (C-3) at the Pasig City Hall. A map of Pasig City with the designated evacuation shelters,
which consists of public schools, multi-purpose halls, covered courts and sports complex, was
obtained as shown in Figure 1 [12].
 Figure 1. Map of Designated Evacuation Shelters in Pasig City [12]

The SSA assessment is illustrated in one school in Pasig City designated here as Pinagbuhatan
Elementary School (PES). Table 7 and Figures 2 and 3 show the seismic hazard and vulnerability
assessment for PES. The seismic risk index of 6.875 corresponds to a three star safety rating based on
Table 5.

Table 7. Seismic Hazard & Vulnerability Assessment

Weight
Parameter Rating Factor (F) (w) Fxw
1. PGA High 5 0.4 2
2. Fault Distance High 5 0.4 2
3. EQ Source Type, M High 5 0.2 1
Seismic Hazard Index 5
1. Construction Date Low 1 0.125 0.125
2. Plan Irregularities Low 1 0.125 0.125
3. Vert. Irregularities Low 1 0.125 0.125
4. Structural Material Med 3 0.125 0.375
5. Structural Framing Low 1 0.125 0.125
6. Number of Floors Low 1 0.125 0.125
7. Utility Systems Low 1 0.0625 0.0625
8. Partitions & Ceilings Med 3 0.0625 0.1875
9. Safety of Exit Routes Low 1 0.0625 0.0625
10. Presence of Cracks Low 1 0.0625 0.0625
Seismic Vulnerability Index 1.375
Seismic Risk Index 6.875
 Figure 2. Ground Shaking Hazard Map for PES

Figure 3. Distance of the PES to the nearest fault using PHIVOLCS Fault Finder
Table 8, Figures 4 and 5 shows the flood hazard and vulnerability assessment. The flood risk index of
2.6 corresponds to a four-star safety rating based on Table 5.

Table 8. Flood Hazard & Vulnerability Assessment

Flood Hazard & Vulnerability Assessment
Weight
Parameter Rating Factor (F) (w) Fxw
1.Flood Susceptibility Low 1 0.4 0.4
2. Dist. to water body High 5 0.4 2
3. Slopes Low 1 0.2 0.2
Flood Hazard Index 2.6
1.Spaces below-grade Low 1 0.4 0.4
2. Utility Systems/HVAC Low 1 0.2 0.2
3. Electrical Panels Low 1 0.2 0.2
4. Past Flood Low 1 0.2 0.2
Flood Vulnerability Index 1.0
Flood Risk Index 2.6
Figure 4. Flood Susceptibility Map. PES located at blue area (low flood susceptibility)

Figure 5. Distance of PES to the nearest water body (56.11 m)

Table 9 presents the wind hazard and vulnerability assessment. The building is enclosed as shown in
Figure 6. The wind risk index of 9.0 corresponds to a three star safety rating based on Table 5.

Table 9. Wind Hazard & Vulnerability Assessment

Weight
Parameter Rating Factor (F) (w) Fxw
1.Wind Speed High 5 0.4 2
2. Building Vicinity Med 3 0.6 1.8
Wind Hazard Index 3.8
1.Roof Material Medium 3 0.17 0.51
2. Structural Material Low 1 0.17 0.17
3. Structural Framing Low 1 0.17 0.17
4. Type of Roof Design Med 3 0.17 0.51
5. Number of Floors High 5 0.17 0.85
6. Building Envelope Low 1 0.08 0.08
7. Presence of Cracks Low 1 0.08 0.08
Wind Vulnerability Index 2.37
Wind Risk Index 9.0

Figure 6. PES building with classrooms enclosed and safe corridors

The sustainability and accessibility assessments are shown in Tables 10 and 11, respectively. Figure 7
shows the maximum travel time by foot from the farthest point of the community.

Table 10. Sustainability Assessment

Weight
Parameter Rating Factor (F) (w) Fxw
1. Living Space Capacity Low 1 0.11 0.11
2. Sanitation Low 1 0.11 0.11
3. Solid Waste Low 1 0.13 0.13
4. Water Facilities High 5 0.19 0.95
5. Other Supplies High 5 0.2 1.01
6. Electricity/Lighting High 5 0.26 1.31
Sustainability Index 3.62

Table 11. Accessibility Assessment

Weight
Parameter Rating Factor (F) (w) Fxw
1. Access roads High 5 0.28 1.39
2. Travel Time Low 1 0.25 0.25
3. Evacuation Plan High 5 0.09 0.47
4. Location of ES High 5 0.17 0.83
5. User Information High 5 0.08 0.39
6. Evacuation Routes Med 3 0.13 0.40
Accessibility Index 3.73

Figure 7. The maximum travel from the farthest point in the barangay to PES
Figure 8 shows the location of the Pinagbuhatan Elementary School (PES) building with the
corresponding SSA ratings. Shown also is the summary of the SSA ratings of another building,
Pinagbuhatan High School (PHS) building. Based on the star ratings for safety, sustainability and
accessibility, PES building is appropriates as an ES for flood, typhoons and earthquakes assuming that
a three star rating will the minimum criterion.
 Figure 8. Map of PES and PHS with corresponding ratings

6. Conclusion
This study identified hazard-based parameters related to safety, sustainability and accessibility (SSA)
of evacuation shelters to guide local government units (LGUs) in assigning public buildings like
schools, assembly centers and gymnasiums as evacuation shelters considering the type of natural
hazard (e.g. earthquake, flood, extreme wind). The SSA assessments provide star ratings based on
safety considering earthquake, flood and wind hazards, sustainability and accessibility. Using the star
ratings as a guide, (e.g. only buildings with three stars or higher), LGUs can designate specific
buildings appropriate as ES for specific hazards based on the safety assessment. Generally, evacuation
shelters at low-lying areas and prone to flooding should not be designated as an ES during flood and
typhoons. Similarly, building near faults and unstable slopes should not be designated as EC during
earthquake disasters. After determining the appropriateness of a building as an ES, sustainability and
accessibility must be considered. Again the criteria based on the star rating for sustainability and
accessibility can be decided by the LGU (e.g. only buildings with three stars or higher). Finally, LGUs
can show in a map the evacuation shelters with symbols of the hazards to inform the community that
evacuation shelters are hazard-based meaning not all ES can be used for all types of hazardous events.

References

[1] Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (2016). Country Profile: Philippines.
Retrieved from: https://www.gfdrr.org/sites/default/files/publication/PHILIPPINES2016.pdf
[2] Srinivas, Hari, "What is a green or sustainable building?” GDRC Research Output E-029. Kobe,
Japan: Global Development Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.gdrc.org/uem/green-
const/1-whatis.html
[3] National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP 2015). Published by the Association of
Structural Engineers of the Philippines, Inc. (ASEP), Quezon City, Philippines
[4] Nationwide Operational Assessment of Hazards (n.d.). Philippine Flood Hazard Maps. University
of the Philippines National Institute of Geological Science. Retrieved from: http://nababaha.com/
[5] FEMA 424 (2004). Design guide for improving school safety in earthquakes, floods, and high
winds.
[6] Yu, Kirk and Oreta, A.W.C. (2015). “Multi-hazard risk and asset value assessment of heritage
buildings (Case study in Iloilo City, Philippines),” International Association for Bridge & Structural
Engineering (IABSE) Conference, Nara, Japan on May 13-15, 2015. ISBN 978-3-85748-138-3,
Published by IABE, Printed in Japan
[7] Yu, Kirk and Oreta, A.W.C. (2014) “Seismic risk assessment of heritage buildings in Iloilo city,
Philippines,”Proc. 5th Asia Conference on Earthquake Engineering (5ACEE), Taipei, Taiwan, Oct 16-
18, 2014
[8] Oreta, A.W.C. and Brizuela, K. (2013). “Computer-Aided Semi-Quantitative Seismic Risk
Assessment Tool for Safe School Buildings,” Proc. 13th East Asia-Pacific Conference on Structural
Engineering and Construction (EASEC-13), Sapporo, Japan, Sept. 11-13, 2013
[9] SPHERE Handbook. (2018). Humanitarian charter and minimum standards in humanitarian
response. Rugby, Great Britain: Practical Action Publishing. https://spherestandards.org/wp-
content/uploads/Sphere-Handbook-2018-EN.pdf
[10] Aquino, D., Armendez, K. & Tanchuling, M. (2014). Evaluating the Sustainability of Public
School Buildings for Disaster Evacuation, PATLEPAM Conference, July 10, 2014
[11] FEMA 453. (2006). Design Guidelines for Shelters and Safe Rooms. (2006). London: HM
Government.
[12] Clarkson, M. (2014). Evacuation Centers in Pasig City. Retrieved from:
https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=0792d42622b245009d4949d3f4090e9b