Pre-Disaster Communication and Engagement in

Isolated Communities: Power, Relationships, and

Experiences in the Philippines

A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Dennis John F. Sumaylo

Master of Development Communication (University of the Philippines)

Bachelor of Arts in Communication Arts (University of the Philippines)

School of Media and Communication

College of Design and Social Context
RMIT University

January 2022
Declaration

I certify that except where due acknowledgement has been made, this research is that of the author
alone; the content of this research submission is the result of work which has been carried out since
the official commencement date of the approved research program; any editorial, paid or unpaid,
carried out by a third party is acknowledged; and, ethics procedures and guidelines have been
followed.

In addition, I certify that this submission contains no material previously submitted for award of any
qualification at any other university or institution, unless approved for a joint-award with another
institution, and acknowledge that no part of this work will, in the future, be used in a submission in
my name, for any other qualification in any university or other tertiary institution without the prior
approval of the University, and where applicable, any partner institution responsible for the joint-
award of this degree.

I acknowledge that copyright of any published works contained within this thesis resides with the
copyright holder(s) of those works.

I give permission for the digital version of my research submission to be made available on the web,
via the University’s digital research repository, unless permission has been granted by the University
to restrict access for a period of time.

Dennis John F. Sumaylo

14 January 2022

ii
Acknowledgements

Let me begin by showing gratitude to the traditional owners of the land where I studied:

I respectfully acknowledge the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin Nations as the traditional owners of
the land on whose unceded lands I temporarily lived and pursued my graduate studies. I
respectfully recognise their Elders past, present, and emerging.

First, I will not be able to complete this body of work without the guidance of my God. I give all
the glory and honour to Him.

Next, my sincerest appreciation to my supervisory team, Dr Marianne Sison, Dr Leah Xiufang Li,
and Dr Jenny Robinson, for their guidance, encouragement, and mentorship. I offer my lifelong
respect and gratitude to my panel members and chairs, Dr John Postill, Associate Professor Olivia
Guntarik, and Associate Professor Chris Hudson, for the feedback you shared to improve the
direction of this research. Thank you also to Dr Steve Farish and Kylee McDonagh, who took the
time to review my work, and to both Corliss Mui Suet Chan and Victoria Tzamouranis for all the
administrative assistance they provided.

Thank you to all my informants from the government and the GIDA communities. Your stories and
experiences deserve attention and action. Thank you also to Cj Salas and the entire Laid family for
accommodating my requests while I was doing my field work.

Thank you to the University of the Philippines (UP), RMIT University, and the Commission on
Higher Education (CHED) for allowing me to pursue this PhD overseas. Scholarships are
challenging to find, but your partnership with RMIT University opened this door for me.

Thank you to my colleagues and friends in the School of Media and Communication lab, who later
became the Pomodoro gang. Melbourne lockdowns would have been difficult without all of you.
William Yanko, Khiem Le, Hernan Espinosa, Paige Klimentou, Hope Sneddon, and Zainil
Dempsey—your picnics and barbies will not be the same without that clumsy someone who throws
red wine on white curtains. Xiaofei Yang and Divya Garg, let us invade the FANCONS soon! To
my little bro Gavin Xun Zhou, thank you for all the hot and cold drinks we shared over light and
sometimes late-night conversations. It made the last leg of my PhD journey bearable.

To my constants in Melbourne—Ate Salve, Ate Jhoe, Kuya Lance, Tere, and Karmela: thank you
for making my last two years in Melbourne memorable. To my fellow RMIT-CHED scholars,
Haerold and Perlie, Cheers! To Ivy and Dindi, many thanks.

Many thanks to the Filipino and other multicultural organisations that trusted my skills and
leadership capabilities. To the Filipino-Australian Student Council of Victoria (FASTCO)

iii
members: thank you for the opportunity to serve you. To the FASTCO Executive Committee 2020–
2021: I offer much admiration and gratitude for your trust, respect, and friendship. We were the
pandemic officers of the student council, yet, with your brilliance, hard work, and dedication, we
were able to serve our community despite having our hands tied and movements restricted.

To the Filipino-Australian Association of Student Councils for Empowerment towards National

Development (Filoz ASCEND): much respect to all of you. Thank you to my Philippine Consulate
General in Melbourne family, who gave me the opportunity to serve the Filipino community, albeit
miles away from the motherland. My gratitude to the Migrant Workers Centre for entrusting me
with the position of Multicultural Safety Ambassador.

Thank you to those who kept me grounded, prayed for me, and gave me opportunities to serve the
poor as a volunteer at the soup kitchen and women’s shelter. Thank you, I Thirst Movement
(Maureen, Kate, Johannes, Bernice, Cheryl, Stella, Melroy, Jason, and John), Sr Jovier, and the rest
of the Missionaries of Charity sisters. My gratitude to all the religious leaders I have met here in
Victoria: Fr Litoy, Fr Savino, Fr Aurelio, Fr John, Fr Junray, Fr Jose, Fr Fabio, and Sr Nelia.

Tamás Rédei, Dr Karen Joyce Cayamanda, Prof. Ma. Teresa Escano, and Sir Abe Garcia, who is
also completing his PhD in Brisbane, thank you for checking on me from time to time. Thank you
also to Prof. Marcy Dans-Lee for trusting my capabilities. To my colleagues in the Communication
and Media Arts program in UP, thank you.

Lastly, thank you to my family. Moving temporarily to Melbourne was a heavy burden for all of
you, especially at the onset of this pandemic. This thesis is for you.

Writing these acknowledgements is bittersweet. For me, it is more than showing gratitude to
people; it is also saying farewell to great friends. After the earthquake swarm in 2019 that destroyed
our house and pushed my family into tents, the pandemic hit in 2020; subsequently my work-from-
home setup gave me a spine problem, and a family member was lost to COVID-19 in 2021. Now
that I can finally submit my thesis to the School of Graduate Research, I feel this is a time to reflect
on who I was before this thesis and who will I become after it.

Ages ago, I wrote this in my blog:

There was a young man named denciojuan

Who had difficulty answering 1 + 1
He takes pictures of himself
And is proud as an elf
And he dreams of being as tall as 6’1”
After four years in this program, this is my takeaway:

I am still denciojuan

iv
But now an old padawan
Who still has difficulty answering 1 + 1
I still take pictures of myself
And am proud as an elf
And continue to dream of being as tall as 6’1”

But a little better, a little wiser, a little bolder one

v
Table of contents

Declaration ............................................................................................................................................ ii
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. iii
Table of contents ...................................................................................................................................vi
List of figures..........................................................................................................................................x
List of tables ..........................................................................................................................................xi
Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................................... xii
Glossary ............................................................................................................................................ xiiiii
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................................1
Chapter 1: Introduction ..................................................................................................................2
1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................................2
1.1.1 The ASEAN context ..........................................................................................................................5
1.1.2 The Philippine context .......................................................................................................................7
1.1.3 Mindanao: Land of Promise no more.................................................................................................9

1.2 The research context ..................................................................................................................11

1.3 Research problem and aims .......................................................................................................12
1.3.1 Significance of the study ..................................................................................................................17

1.4 Scope and relevance ..................................................................................................................18

1.5 Definition of terms.....................................................................................................................20
1.5.1 Disasters ...........................................................................................................................................20
1.5.2 There is nothing natural about disasters ...........................................................................................21
1.5.3 What are the four phases of disaster management? .........................................................................22
1.5.4 Pre-disaster communication for knowledge and capacity building .................................................22
1.5.5 Social inequalities exacerbate access issues ..................................................................................244
1.5.6 Differentiating community engagement, development and participatory communication,
and co-design/co-creation approaches...........................................................................................................24

1.6 Overview of the study ................................................................................................................27

1.7 Summary ....................................................................................................................................30
Chapter 2: When information is critical and access becomes difficult ...................................322
2.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................32
2.2 Access to pre-disaster information is a privilege .....................................................................322
2.2.1 Decentralisation and localisation of disaster communication ........................................................355

2.3 Community engagement as information access point .............................................................388

2.3.1 Community: a question of who or what .........................................................................................399
2.3.2 Vulnerability relates more to risk than to disaster risk communication...........................................42
2.3.3 What is community resilience? ......................................................................................................455
2.3.4 The rise of community engagement as a pre-disaster communication strategy.............................488

vi
2.4 Summary ....................................................................................................................................51
Chapter 3: Frameworks of engagement and precursors .........................................................522
3.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................522
3.2 It takes more than a communication tool to engage communities...........................................522
3.2.1 Frameworks of engagement ...........................................................................................................533
3.2.2 The 4Rs of community engagement ..............................................................................................588
3.2.3 Social power .....................................................................................................................................60
3.2.4 Experience as teacher .......................................................................................................................61
3.2.5 Relationships and community development ..................................................................................622

3.3 Research gap ............................................................................................................................655

3.4 The relevance of these frameworks to understanding GIDA communities .............................688
3.4.1 Understanding the political structure of the Philippines ................................................................688
3.4.2 DRRM in the Philippines .................................................................................................................71

3.5 Summary ....................................................................................................................................74

Chapter 4: Methodology .............................................................................................................777
4.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................777
4.2 Research design .......................................................................................................................777
4.3 Preliminary fieldwork considerations ......................................................................................788
4.3.1 Criteria for site selection ................................................................................................................788
4.3.2 GIDA and the field sites .................................................................................................................799
4.3.2.1 The field sites ........................................................................................................................822
4.3.3 Criteria for informant selection ........................................................................................................91

4.4 Data collection methods ............................................................................................................92

4.4.1 Semi-structured interviews.............................................................................................................933
4.4.1.1 Confidentiality .......................................................................................................................966
4.4.2 Document analysis .........................................................................................................................977
4.4.3 Field observations ..........................................................................................................................100

4.5 Analytical frameworks.............................................................................................................101

4.6 Scope of the study..................................................................................................................1033
4.7 Validity and reliability ......................................................................................................... 1044
4.7.1 Internal validity ............................................................................................................................1044
4.7.2 External validity ...........................................................................................................................1077
4.7.3 Internal reliability .........................................................................................................................1088
4.7.4 External reliability ........................................................................................................................1088
4.7.5 Sampling ......................................................................................................................................1099
4.7.6 Insider/outsider options ................................................................................................................1099

4.8 Summary ..................................................................................................................................110

Chapter 5: Results ...................................................................................................................11313
5.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................1133
5.2 One-way informative communication: Transactional engagement .......................................1144
5.2.1 Print and other visual materials ....................................................................................................1177

vii
 5.2.2 Road signage ..................................................................................................................................120
5.2.3 Television/video .........................................................................................................................12222

5.3 Two-way asymmetric communication: Transitional engagement .........................................1243

5.3.1 Radio ............................................................................................................................................1244
5.3.2 Social networking sites ................................................................................................................1255
5.3.3 Text messaging/blast and 911 hotline .......................................................................................... 1276

5.4 Face-to-face communication: Opportunities and pitfalls of transformative engagement......1288

5.4.1 Interpersonal communication and its issues ...............................................................................13131
5.4.2 Overreliance on drills and training, and trust issues ..................................................................13232
5.4.3 Denial of GIDA communities’ access to information..................................................................1344
5.4.4 Localisation of disaster risk information: Mere compliance........................................................1366

5.5 Political complications and leadership instability .................................................................1377

5.6 Summary ..............................................................................................................................14343
Chapter 6: Power, relationships, and experiences: bridging pre-disaster
communication and community engagement ................................................................................1455
6.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................1455
6.2 The multiple notions of community in DRRM......................................................................1466
6.3 Transposing the individual’s knowledge to a collective DRRM narrative............................1499
6.3.1 The concept of individuality in DRRM .........................................................................................150
6.3.2 The practical notion of individual in DRRM ...............................................................................1588
6.3.2.1 The individual as communication link ................................................................................1588
6.3.2.2 Consistency in information dissemination ............................................................................161
6.3.2.3 Cooperation and co-creation .................................................................................................162

6.4 Power, relationships, and experiences .................................................................................16363

6.4.1 The individual’s social power ....................................................................................................16363
6.4.1.1 The power to coerce or punish ............................................................................................1666
6.4.1.2 The power to give rewards ..................................................................................................1666
6.4.1.3 The power provided by position.......................................................................................... 1677
6.4.1.4 The power provided by expertise ........................................................................................1688
6.4.1.5 The power of social connections .........................................................................................1699
6.4.2 The individual’s (social) relationships ...........................................................................................171
6.4.2.1 Small audience approach .......................................................................................................172
6.4.2.2 Social similarities ..............................................................................................................17272
6.4.2.3 Trust in people and belief system ......................................................................................17373
6.4.2.4 Factors affecting social relationships ..................................................................................1766
6.4.3 The individual’s lived and simulated experiences .......................................................................1798
6.4.3.1 Experiences of GIDA communities ....................................................................................1799
6.4.3.2 Experiences of local DRRM councils ...................................................................................180
6.4.3.3 Traditional cultural beliefs and local wisdom .......................................................................181
6.4.3.4 Reevaluating actual and simulated disaster experiences ...................................................18282

6.5 Summary ..............................................................................................................................18484

Chapter 7: Discussion: The PRE Transformative Engagement (PRETE) Framework ......1855
7.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................1855

viii
7.2 Individuals in small groups or sectors ...................................................................................1866
7.2.1 The individual as the core of the PRETE Framework .................................................................1866
7.2.2 A targeted approach is ideal in pre-disaster communication .......................................................1877
7.2.3 Targeting individuals and the need to shift attention ...................................................................1888
7.2.4 Strengthening social linkages and using an individual’s experiences ...........................................190

7.3 Lived and simulated experiences as core.............................................................................19292

7.4 Trust is essential in pre-disaster communication ...................................................................1944
7.5 The impact of social network in community engagement .....................................................1966
7.6 The PRETE Framework ........................................................................................................1999
7.6.1 Bridging the gap between transitional and transformative engagement using the PRETE
Framework.................................................................................................................................................2000
7.6.2 The PRE Transformative Engagement (PRETE) Framework .......................................................200
7.6.3 The actors and other elements in the Framework ........................................................................2044

7.7 Summary ..............................................................................................................................21212

Chapter 8: Conclusion ...............................................................................................................2155
8.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................2155
8.2 Summary of findings .............................................................................................................2155
8.2.1 Disaster preparedness utilises multimodal communicative conditions ........................................2166
8.2.2 Transitional level of community engagement ..............................................................................2166
8.2.3 Spatial isolation—the biggest barrier: Identifying opportunities in dealing with GIDA
communities ..............................................................................................................................................2177

8.3 Implications for theory and practice ......................................................................................2188

8.3.1 Theoretical implications ...............................................................................................................2188
8.3.2 Practical implications .....................................................................................................................221

8.4 Future research.......................................................................................................................2244

8.5 Summary ................................................................................................................................2255
References.........................................................................................................................................2277
Appendix A .....................................................................................................................................24445
Appendix B .......................................................................................................................................2478
Appendix C .......................................................................................................................................2490
Appendix D .........................................................................................................................................251
Appendix E .....................................................................................................................................27273
Appendix F .....................................................................................................................................27275

ix
List of figures

Figure 1.1. Map of the island of Mindanao, and (inset) in respect of the whole of the
Philippines ...........................................................................................................................8
Figure 2.1. Visualisation of interlinked disaster phases and stages of disaster risk
reduction and management ..............................................................................................344
Figure 3.1. Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi and Herremans’ Community Engagement
Continuum .......................................................................................................................544
Figure 3.2. Dufty’s Community Engagement Framework ...................................................................56
Figure 3.3. Andres’ source of Filipino values ....................................................................................633
Figure 3.4. Researcher’s interpretation of Tomas Andres’s progression of Filipino
Values System .................................................................................................................644
Figure 3.5. Research gap ......................................................................................................................66
Figure 3.6. Organisational structure of the National Council .............................................................723
Figure 3.7. Simplified roles of each local DRRM council ...................................................................73
Figure 4.1. Geohazard map of the island province .............................................................................844
Figure 4.2. Local village houses near the shoreline..............................................................................86
Figure 4.3. Geohazard map of the upland province............................................................................888
Figure 4.4. Mode of transportation .......................................................................................................89
Figure 4.5. Detail of geohazard map of the upland village...................................................................90
Figure 4.6. 15-step research flow implemented per field site .............................................................111
Figure 7.1. Approaching pre-disaster communication at the individual level....................................195
Figure 7.2. Author’s visualisation of proposed intersection of PRETE Framework in the
existing CEC of Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi & Herremans ..........................................202
Figure 7.3. Proposed PRE Transformative Engagement (PRETE) Framework .................................203
Figure 7.4. Layers of influence of an individual’s value system ........................................................206
Figure 8.1. Sample strategy: classroom material grounded in learning through games .....................223
Figure 8.2. Sample strategy: drills and training material on visualising the impact of
earthquakes ......................................................................................................................224

x
List of tables

Table 3-1. Summary of basic services of LGUs based on RA 7160 ....................................................70

Table 4-1. Summary of informants’ profiles ........................................................................................91
Table 4-2. Summary of data collection procedures ..............................................................................93
Table 4-3. Distribution of informants for formal interviews ................................................................96
Table 4-4. Criteria used in assessing current communication tools and level of engaging
communities, based on the CEC ..........................................................................................99
Table 5-1. Assessment of communication tools vis-à-vis level of community
engagement based on the CEC ..........................................................................................115
Table 6-1. Summary of communication types used in communicating disaster risk
information ........................................................................................................................159
Table 7-1. Proposed application of Filipino Values System in pre-disaster
communication and community engagement ....................................................................209

xi
Abbreviations

4Ps Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino program (a conditional cash grant)

AADMER ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response
ASEAN Association for Southeast Asian Nations
BDRRMC Barangay Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council
BDRRMO Barangay Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Officer
CB-DRRM Community-based Disaster Risk Reduction and Management
CEC Community Engagement Continuum (Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi &
Herremans 2010)
CEF Community Engagement Framework (Dufty 2011)
CRED Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters
DRRM disaster risk reduction and management
EM-DAT The Emergency Events Database
GIDA geographically isolated and disadvantaged area
LGU local government unit (a collective term)
MDRRMC Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council
MDRRMO Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Officer
MGB Mines and Geosciences Bureau
NAMRIA National Mapping and Resource Information Authority
NDRRMP National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan
NHTS-PR National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction
NSED Nationwide Simultaneous Earthquake Drill
PAGASA Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services
Administration
PDRRMO Provincial Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Officer
PHIVOLCS Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology
PIO Public Information Officer
RA 10121 (Philippine) Republic Act 10121

xii
Glossary

barangay Filipino word for village; composed of 50–100 households; the words
village and barangay are used interchangeably throughout the document.
bayanihan Filipino word for collective action or communal unity.
communication tools Refers to various kinds of communication tools used under a specific
mode of communication.
dinagatnon Refers to the residents living in the island area.
in situ on site
island/upland area Discussion covers provincial, municipal, and village levels.
kanya-kanya Filipino word for her/his own, or each to their own; in some contexts this
word means ‘self-serving’.
listo (vernacular) ready or prepared
local government units Collective term; refers to provincial, municipal, and village government
units.
local DRRM offices Catch-all phrase for provincial, municipal, and barangay DRRM
/councils offices.
multimodal/multimodality Broad term that signifies the different types of communication tools
defined by Seiler, Beall and Mazer (2017) used to create meaning. These
are interpersonal, public, and mass communication.
municipal council municipal DRRM council
National Council National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council
National Plan National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan of the National
Government
provincial council provincial DRRM council
purok (vernacular) smaller unit in a village, composed of 20 households; also
refers to a zone or area; also used to refer to an open hut in the barangay
that is used as a public meeting place.
Republic Act 7160 Local Government Code of 1991
Republic Act 10121 Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010
village council barangay (village) DRRM council

xiii
Abstract

The current pre-disaster communication mechanism in the Philippines is characterised by a one-way

information dissemination approach that gives the community limited access to information and
restricts feedback. This study investigates this pre-disaster communication mechanism in the context
of geographically isolated and disadvantaged areas (GIDA), and seeks to establish communicative
conditions that are conducive to smooth information access between government and marginalised
communities. The study is grounded in combining the development communication approach with the
Community Engagement Continuum while also drawing on the participatory paradigm of
communication for development. The study was qualitative and used document analysis, semi-
structured interviews, and field observations for data triangulation. The research participants
comprised 11 representatives from the Philippine government and 11 residents from two different
GIDA communities. The findings confirm that the present communication setup in GIDA
communities is a top-down, informative, one-way model and features a transitional community
engagement style. In contrast, the communities in these areas consider interpersonal communication,
primarily face-to-face communication, the most effective mode of communication. The study also
uncovered that trust and access issues and overreliance on drills and training have been the by-
products of political complications and leadership instability. This study proposes the ‘PRE
Transformative Engagement (PRETE) Framework’ as a new theoretical model purposively designed
to bridge the gap between transitional and transformative levels of community engagement. This
framework underpins the design, production, and roll-out of communication modes and tools that are
grounded on the interplay of power, relationships, and experiences between the community and the
government actors. Practically, the empirical outcome of this study suggests that pre-disaster
communication and community engagement efforts should require the use of customisation,
localisation, and mainstreaming of pre-disaster communication for the purpose of strengthening the
current multimodal pre-disaster communication approaches, thereby serving the needs of GIDA
communities.

Keywords: communication for development, community engagement, disaster preparedness

1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Each year the world faces various natural hydrological and meteorological calamities and hazards that
cause loss of life and damage to the environment, as well as to homes, livelihoods, and wellbeing.
While natural hazards are inevitable, the way they are managed greatly affects the scope of the
ensuing damage they cause; poor management of these events can turn them into disasters. Proactive
management of their ecological, socioeconomic, and political impact is grounded in pre-disaster
communication efforts that can assist communities to develop individual proactive measures. The
7,100 islands of the Philippines suffer an average of 25% of the world’s total typhoon occurrences
(Santos 2021). That comprises as many as 20 severe weather events every year (Santos 2021), yet the
current top-down, one-way information dissemination approach in the Philippines limits access to
information and restricts feedback from communities living in geographically isolated and
disadvantaged areas (GIDAs), and thus corrals effective communication for pre-disaster management
in these vulnerable zones.

The field of communication research is multifaceted and diverse; I therefore confined the scope of this
investigation to pre-disaster communication by combining approaches from development
communication and community engagement. Interdisciplinary research approaches to pre-disaster
communicative conditions are becoming increasingly useful, as they can provide a broader
perspective of the risks, the role of organisations, and the impact to the public vis à vis hazardous
events. Even so, such pre-disaster communication research can be complex, as it taps into broad
streams of knowledge from multiple disciplines such as sociology, public relations, and human
resource management. Diversification and interdisciplinarity has resulted in nuanced definitions of
communicative processes. Development communication scholar Paolo Mefalopulos (2008, p. 32)
posits that communication can be viewed as a process and as a tool, while Linje Manyozo (2012)
upholds that the purpose of development communication is stakeholder participation, which he calls
community engagement. From these dominant (i.e., modernisation) and opposing (dependency)
paradigms in the area of development communication, the newly emerging paradigm of participation
is applicable to pre-disaster communication, since it can be used to target geographically isolated
communities (Tufte & Mefalopulos 2009; United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural
Organisation [UNESCO] 1980).

This study deals with both communication (the process) and communications (the tools) and
investigates the intersection between the communicative tools used in pre-disaster communicative
processes in the context of geographic isolation and social inequalities. The goal of this research is to

2
provide empirical evidence that may aid in building community resilience. I therefore position this
study as development communication using its participatory paradigm, knowing the goal of disaster
preparedness communicative efforts is towards building community resilience. To begin with,
however, a fundamental question needs to be answered: ‘How is pre-disaster information
communicated to others, and why?’ In the context of disaster risk reduction and management
(DRRM) in the Philippines, this interaction is often between the government and the community. I
argue that unless the answers are clear and contextually relevant, communication efforts, including
those that harness financial and human resources, may be wasted. I also pose this question from the
beginning because of the need for a thorough investigation of the human interactions that occur amid
a diversity of human and geographical setups. Sison (2017) observes that the narratives of diverse and
marginalised communities can provide impetus for communication practitioners to examine practice,
and this is my ultimate goal.

The Philippine context poses difficulty when it comes to cascading information to end users. Filipinos
are spread over more than 7,100 islands, and each area has its own communicative conditions that are
influenced by infrastructure, adoption of technology, socioeconomic conditions, language, and
cultural contexts. These influences can create inequalities by privileging certain areas and sectors.
With the aim of building resilient communities, the (Philippine) National DRRM Council (NDRRMC
2018b) indicates the need to make the building of resiliency community-based through various
community engagements.

Community-based DRRM often use community engagement as strategy (Foster 2013; Head 2007;
Paton et al. 2017). Supposedly ‘altruistic’, the concept of involving individuals in the process of
building their own resiliency is often used to describe community-based approaches, but this can be a
catch-all description of programs dealing directly with people (Titz, Cannon & Krüger 2018). Even
so, using a community engagement framework is considered the best way to build a resilient
community (Teo et al. 2019). Shaw and Goda (2004) highlight the significance of community life
experiences, associations, and economic incentives as drivers of a sustainable urban area in Kobe,
Japan. However, Teo and colleagues (2018), who observed vulnerable groups in the context of
Australia, observe that there can be barriers to using such an approach among vulnerable groups in
low socioeconomic contexts, where members are often culturally and linguistically diverse, since
passivity towards preparedness, emergencies, and disasters can be high in these communities.
Nevertheless, this finding does not nullify the importance of cooperation between government and
local community when it comes to disaster risk reduction and management (Shaw & Goda 2004).

Thus, the human and geographical diversity of the Philippines situates this study’s investigation into
the role and use of community engagement as a strategy in building disaster-resilient communities
living in GIDA in the Philippines. Owing to its roots in development communication, community
engagement focusses on organised programs that are designed to address social issues by looking into

3
the strategic communicative conditions employed in social processes. Moreover, in the spectrum of
DRRM, the focus of this study is pre-disaster, or disaster preparedness. This DRRM stage is
concerned with communicating information, providing education, and supporting knowledge adoption
prior to meteorological and hydrological (weather) hazards. Scholars continue to argue that
communication breakdown during the response phase is a result of a failed pre-disaster
communication efforts (Adila et al. 2017), making the pre-disaster phase critical.

Disaster preparedness, referred as pre-disaster in this study, demands both risk awareness and risk
acceptance (Paton et al. 2017) for affected communities to make informed decisions. Both of these
factors require strong pre-disaster communication strategies that engage people to act prior to a
calamitous event. For instance, people may reject the idea of risk because of either previous
experience with surviving natural hazards, or, equally, a lack of experience facing them at all. This is
particularly true when people are unaware of the historical record of calamities that have impacted
their area (Paton et al. 2017). In such a situation, especially when natural hazards have not occurred in
recent history, the idea of threat becomes so minimised in the community mind that it is effectively
forgotten, which hinders the development of the community for pre-disaster resilience. At this stage,
community engagement can be employed as a strategy, and, along with the communication conditions
it provides, can be examined as it intersects with the various differences of people within a locality. It
could be argued that the co-existence of government and community calls for inclusion, and the
government has a significant role to play in engaging communities in disaster preparedness (Teo et al.
2018).

In addition, by providing people with the ability to choose their own source of information (Teo et al.
2018) and creating ownership for action, social inclusion is arguably an approach that empowers the
poor and marginalised sectors of society (Sison 2017). Social inclusion is a by-product of
decentralising decision-making structures and processes (Manyozo 2012) and results in co-creation
approaches by community engagement with issues of the local context (Akama & Barnes 2011;
Rogers et al. 2016). In consideration of the dangers of natural calamities, community engagement is
arguably an essential strategy for DRRM in GIDA. In addition, engaging local communities in an
inclusive DRRM program develops mutual trust and respect in these communities (Astill et al. 2019),
which Howard et al. (2017) argue is a perceived need of vulnerable groups that value and respect
community sources of information (Teo et al. 2018). While disaster communication studies have been
appraised as falling into three categories (Sumaylo & Sison 2018), as a review of the relevant
literature (see sec. 2.2) shows, there has not been an extended study, especially in the Philippines, that
examines pre-disaster communication through the lens of spatial isolation and socioeconomic
inequalities. A thorough study on the use of community engagement and the communicative
conditions it requires is of considerable value to the establishment of essential strategy for disaster
preparedness in GIDA. Shifting the research focus from the reactive to the preventive centres on

4
developing and enhancing communication conditions and organisational structure—in this context,
the use of community engagement.

The current research suggests an investigation of the intersection between disaster preparedness and
community engagement in the context of GIDA communities. As such, this study offers a new
perspective on the effects of geographic isolation and other factors of potential disadvantage on pre-
disaster communication and community engagement practices between the Philippine Government
and GIDA communities. The findings of this study aim to contribute to the discussion on the
localisation and customisation of information and the mainstreaming of information into local
policies.

To provide context, the next section briefly introduces current practice in Southeast Asia in terms of
DRRM and looks at how the Philippines situates itself in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations’
(ASEAN) DRRM objectives in the region.

1.1.1 The ASEAN context

Disasters can be classified into two general groups, natural and technological. Natural disasters are
categorised by their different subgroups, namely: geophysical (earthquakes, volcanic activity, mass
movement); meteorological (storm, extreme temperature, fog); hydrological (flood, landslide, wave
action); climatological (drought, glacial lake outburst, wildfire); biological (epidemic, insect
infestation, animal accident); and extra-terrestrial (impact, space weather). Technological disasters are
classified into three types: industrial, transport, and miscellaneous accidents (EM-DAT 2018). For
this study, the term ‘natural disaster’ will not be used as a catch-all phrase for natural hazards.
Labelling disasters as ‘natural’ dismisses the role of people in creating that disaster (Cannon 1994;
Lizarralde, Johnson & Davidson 2009; O’Keefe, Westgate & Wisner 1976). This study adheres to the
argument that disasters are by-products of natural hazards, but not all kinds of natural hazards cause
disasters (Dombrowsky 1998; Gilbert 1998; Kreps 1998; Quarantelli 1998).

Most countries in Southeast Asia experience natural hazards that oftentimes turn into disasters due to
higher population densities (Shaw et al. 2022). In the geographical areas of the 10 member-states of
the ASEAN, almost 180 million people were affected by the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004, by
Cyclone Nargis in 2008, and by Super Typhoon Haiyan (local name Yolanda) in 2013 (Petz 2014).
According to Wallemacq and the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (Wallemacq
& CRED 2018), in 2017 alone, 318 natural hazards were recorded that affected 122 countries. Most of
the recorded natural hazards during this period across the globe were floods and typhoons; these two
natural hazards are rampant in the Philippines, and in 2017 they affected 4.87 million people.

Given these statistics, governments all over Southeast Asia are now paying attention to their disaster
preparedness efforts. In fact, the ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency
Response (AADMER), which came into force in December of 2009, highlights, inter alia, the

5
importance of upholding disaster preparedness by constantly maintaining and reviewing
communication networks for the timely delivery of information. The AADMER also highlights the
importance of technical cooperation and research. In particular, Articles 18 and 19 state that the
implementation of AADMER should include the ‘provision of trainings, awareness and education
campaigns that relate[…] to disaster prevention and mitigation’, and that it should also ‘promote and
support scientific and technical researches related to disaster and the means, methods, techniques and
equipment for disaster risk reduction’ (ASEAN 2010, pp. 18-19).

The Philippines’ National DRRM Plan (NDRRMP) stipulates the AADMER provision, that is, that
the Philippine Government should provide ‘trainings and other awareness campaigns’ to its people.
This directive also coincides with the ‘ASEAN Vision 2025 on Disaster Management’ (ASEAN
2016), which highlights three strategic elements that can be used as guide for the implementation of
AADMER until 2025 in all ASEAN member states. These are (a) institutionalisation and
communications, (b) finance and resource mobilisation, and (c) partnerships and innovations (ASEAN
2016, p. 1). In terms of the first strategic element, the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian
Assistance (2010) on disaster management acknowledges that communication is often overlooked in
disaster management, especially in terms of exchanges between stakeholders involved in the disaster
situation. In this regard, the current study especially recognises the fact that finding local and
contextually acceptable ways to effectively communicate the significance of DRRM to certain
stakeholders, such as those in GIDAs, is a continual challenge. Even so, communication with
government agencies about disaster management in these areas needs to happen in ways that have
veracity for their marginalised populations. Similar concern is also documented in other parts of
Southeast Asia (Amri et al. 2017; Djalante & Thomalla 2012), which both upholds the point of
ASEAN (2010) regarding communication in disaster management and highlights the need to
thoroughly investigate its challenges.

As part of its responsibilities in ASEAN under the AADMER, the Philippine Governments’
adherence to these agreements should ideally result in the strategic implementation of various ways
and means to localise DRRM plans across the country. As part of the entire disaster management
cycle, AADAMER stipulates that disaster preparedness needs to begin with knowledge building using
information, education, and communication programs in the context of GIDA communities. In theory,
the Philippine Government had already created a roadmap for their attention to these matters with the
creation and approval of Republic Act 10121 (RA 10121), the stated intention of which is to ‘act
strengthening the Philippine disaster risk reduction and management system, providing for the
national disaster risk reduction and management framework and institutionalizing the national disaster
risk reduction and management plan, appropriating funds therefor and for other purposes’ (Philippine
Government, 2010, para. 1). The implementation of the RA 10121 is in the NDRRMP, which
stipulates that DRRM should be community based. However, despite the relevance of community

6
engagement strategies in such a goal, the DRRM makes no concrete mention of strategies that
addresses the specific needs of GIDA communities, increasing the urgent need to scaffold such
practice for these vulnerable communities. This study thus focusses on the situation in GIDA
communities with the ultimate intention of enabling rollout of community based, information,
education, and communication -targeted pre-disaster communication modes and tools described in
this thesis via the catch-all phrase, ‘communicative conditions’.

1.1.2 The Philippine context

The Philippines is considered one of the leading ASEAN member states in disaster risk reduction and
management (Alcayna et al. 2016), and in plain terms, it needs to be. Its geographical area is that of
an archipelago of more than 7,100 islands that are divided into three island groups—Luzon, Visayas,
and Mindanao—and are located along the Ring of Fire. As such, the Philippines regularly experiences
earthquakes, typhoons, and tsunami. The country is also exposed to other hazards brought about by
climate change, such as flash floods and landslides. Although the country is rich in biodiversity and
minerals, its vulnerability to the ill effects of climate change is considered a priority by development
advocates, development communication practitioners and workers, and scholars. James Warren (2016,
p. 465), for example, notes that the country is already ranked first in the region in terms of being
hazard-prone, and has experienced a doubling of recorded physical destruction and loss of life since
the 1970s. This documented rate and extent of impact of natural hazard is currently considered
unprecedented (Warren 2016).

7
Figure 1.1.
Map of the island of Mindanao, and (inset) in respect of the whole of the Philippines

Note. Source: 'Mindanao Provinces,’ by CartoGIS Services, College of Asia and the Pacific, Canberra, 2021,
<https://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/mapsonline/base-maps/mindanao-provinces>. Copyright by Australian National
University 2021.

In the Philippines, developments in DRRM are often concentrated in urban locations, especially the
capital, Manila, despite the need for DRRM progress in other locations. Mindanao, for example (see
Figure 1.1. ), is the second largest island in the Philippines and is known to be the food basket of the
country, making issues of DRRM there arguably crucial to the country’s welfare. According to the
2020 census, the country’s population is at 109.035 million people and 26.25 million of this resides in
Mindanao (Arguillas 2021) where more than 40% of its villages are classified as GIDAs, which is
more per province than any other province in the country1. Yet despite its geographic and
socioeconomic conditions, Mindanao contributes more than 30% to the national food trade and
produces 40% of the country’s food requirements (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United
Nations 2017; Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development 2013) Its geographical

1 The three major islands of the Philippines are currently grouped into 17 regions and 81 provinces. Provinces are further
divided into smaller units called municipalities and these are further divided into villages.

8
location is one of the factors for its high productivity, as historically this island was not frequented by
the tropical storms (Montalvan 2014) and cold fronts that bring damaging amounts of rainfall
(PAGASA 2020). However, in recent years, the north-eastern and south-eastern parts of the island
have become entry points for typhoons (Montalvan 2014). What is even more alarming than the
recent frequency and magnitude of these natural calamities is their effects on low-lying areas that are
prone to floods, on coastal areas that are vulnerable to tsunamis, and on mountainous areas that are
under threat of landslides. Given these changes, people in Mindanao now face natural hazards they
have not historically experienced, and their lack of consistent hazard experience has created a false
sense of security which doubles the impact of these events when they occur (Rasquinho, Liu & Leong
2013). In addition, their lack of experience has contributed to a lack of interest in local communities
in Mindanao regarding pre-disaster information and other ways and means of disaster preparedness.

This lack of experience is not limited to local communities on the island. Local government
responders, too, have a dearth of experience in managing the impacts of natural hazards (NDRRMC
2018a). Unfortunately, these communication conditions are effectively disenfranchising vulnerable
people living in precarious situations. An example of a situation that may have led to an increase in
casualties from these events is the prevalence of what have been locally labelled as ‘new
terminologies’; these terms are not necessarily new but rather are technical terms that inexperienced
lay people do not understand (Lagmay et al. 2015). A specific example is the lack of response from
local communities to the use of the term ‘storm surge’ issued by the government and the media during
Super Typhoon Yolanda (Lagmay et al. 2015). Critically, it appeared that if they don’t understand the
real threat, people will fail to respond to disaster information, even when it contains a fear appeal
(Lagmay et al. 2015; Perreault et al. 2014). Connected to this is the reality that the Philippines has
around 120 languages as reported by Andrew Gonzalez in 1998 and is now at 130 based on the
records of the Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino (2021) in its 2016 studies.

In response to such communication complexities, and because the premise of my research centres on
pre-disaster communication in communities experiencing spatial isolation and socioeconomic
inequalities, I decided to focus my investigation on communities in the island of Mindanao.

1.1.3 Mindanao: Land of Promise no more

As noted, the number of typhoons hitting the island of Mindanao was previously insignificant
(Warren 2016), which is how it earned its moniker, the ‘Land of Promise’. However, due to severe
climate change, the island has become the entry way of most typhoons formed in the Pacific Ocean
(NDRRMC 2018a).

In December 2011, Tropical Storm Washi (local name Sendong) raged through Cagayan de Oro City
and the majority of Iligan City, both in Region X, while in December 2012, the Category 5 Typhoon
Bopha (local name Pablo) hit Region XI—specifically, the provinces of Davao del Sur, Davao del

9
Norte, Davao Oriental, and Surigao del Norte of Region XIII (NDRRMC 2018a). Washi raged
through 851 villages, affecting 1,168,726 people. However, these numbers are insignificant when
compared to the chaos caused by Bopha/Pablo, which affected 3,064 villages and 6,243,998 people.
According to Kathryn Reid (2018), Typhoon Bopha/Pablo was one of the deadliest and most
destructive typhoons ever to hit the Philippines, second only to Super Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda
(Montalvan 2014; NDRRMC 2018a). Then in November 2013, Super Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda
struck some parts of eastern Mindanao, including the field sites used for this study. Of the 12,139
villages affected all over the country by Haiyan/Yolanda, 250 are in Mindanao, and of the 16,078,181
people affected, 94,548 people on Mindanao experienced the impact of the super typhoon. In the two
years after Haiyan, Tropical Storm Jangmi (local name Seniang) and Tropical Depression Onyok
(local name) damaged the island in December 2014 and 2015, respectively.

In 2016, Mindanao was granted a rest, however, the following year a series of tropical storms raged
through the island in a matter of just two months. In November 2017, Tropical Storm Kirogi (local
name Tino) hit parts of Mindanao, specifically Region XI and the Caraga Region (Region XIII), and
in December 2017, Tropical Storm Kai-Tak (local name Urduja) devastated parts of Mindanao again,
specifically Region XIII. Kai-Tak was immediately followed by Tropical Storm Tembin (local name
Vinta) which affected the entire island of Mindanao from Regions IX to XII, including Region XIII
and the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM)2. Then, in January of 2018, Tropical
Storm Bolaven (local name Agaton) affected Mindanao in ARMM and in Regions X and XIII
(NDRRMC 2018a).

Highlighting the frequency of natural calamities that have occurred in these regions in Mindanao
since 2011 needs to be placed in the context of the island’s topography, which is of low lying, coastal
and mountainous regions. According to EM-DAT (2018), such topography comprises 90% of all
disasters worldwide. The frequent aftermath of calamities in such regions is property damage, loss of
livelihoods, public health hazards, displaced families (resulting in climate refugees or environmental
migrants), to say nothing of the unprecedented death toll (Wallemacq & CRED 2018). Climate
refugees or environmental migrants are those who are displaced from their community as an
aftereffect of either slow moving or sudden natural disaster (Grosfield 2018, April 25). In Mindanao,
now no longer the Land of Promise, typhoons and their associated natural hazards (such as floods and
landslides) consistently affect the island from November to January.

2
ARMM is a non-numbered region, of which there are two in the Philippines, ARMM and CAR (Cordillera Administrative
Region).

10
1.2 The research context

Given the human concern such conditions and events must necessarily create, I return to my argument
regarding the need to investigate the intersection between disaster preparedness and community
engagement in Mindanao, through the lens of development communication, in areas impacted by
spatial isolation and socioeconomic inequalities. This lens addresses the imperative to examine the
local contexts, experiences, and communication practices involved in the situation, as all these factors
challenge the way communities engage in the act of self-reliance. Doing so allows this research to
build on and contribute to the conversation on what constitutes the communicative conditions of
community engagement as a strategy in disaster preparedness. Emphasis should be placed on these
variables since, as a review of the current literature shows (see sec. 2.2), they have so far received
little attention by scholarship.

In addition to geographic isolation and socioeconomic inequalities, this study sheds light on systems
of both demographics and culture that have received limited attention by previous studies (Perreault,
Houston & Wilkins 2014; Spialek, Czlapinski & Houston 2016; Spialek & Houston 2018b). In an
effort to limit the scope, I have focussed on slow-moving natural hazards, such as typhoons,
landslides, and flooding, first because these are the most common, the most recent, and the deadliest
of natural calamities experienced in the Philippines, and second because their frequency has been
increasing in the study area in recent years. Slow-moving disasters are those that occur gradually
(Curato 2018). Typhoons require heat and moisture and gradually form over oceans; landslides and
flooding are triggered by their associated rain-storms (Smith 2013). These gradually developing
nature of slow-moving disasters gives people preparation time to engage in prevention and mitigation
efforts. In international media, unless such a weather system is considered ‘breaking news’, like Super
Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda, the impacts of these slow-moving disasters often go unnoticed (Curato
2018). Moreover, in a global news sense, the situation in the GIDA communities of Mindanao affects
relatively few people; as such, their experiences are oftentimes muted, together with their needs. This
study takes its stance from the need to give GIDA communities a platform from which to voice their
pre-disaster communication experiences. While research by Helsloot and Ruitenberg (2004) argues
that citizens are more rational when facing natural hazards, their investigation did not take into
consideration contexts (including cultural biases) that may affect people’s rationality. In addition,
these authors’ empirical data describe first world, Western countries, so that the imperative to capture
the experiences of minority, vulnerable, and marginalised groups regarding pre-disaster
communication in the third world ASEAN-member Philippine context provides impetus to the
research.

The current study acknowledges the interdisciplinary nature of disaster risk reduction and
management. Grounded in development communication, this study used the community engagement

11
frameworks of organisational communication scholars Frances Bowen, Aloysius Newenham-Kahindi,
and Irene Herremans (2010) and Neil Dufty (2011) for its data analysis. This choice of frameworks is
specifically grounded on participation as an emerging paradigm in communication for development.
Additionally, I would argue that it is not a misalignment of development communication to use
community engagement frameworks in this study. Organisational, or corporate, communication is one
of the four common types of communication in development organisations (Mefalopulos 2008), and
the community engagement framework enables a more complex understanding of the organisations
(central and local government) involved in the design, their production and dissemination of pre-
disaster information, and the receivers of this information. Further, drawing lessons from the stories
and lived experiences of people who have (or have not) experienced natural hazards firsthand is
essential to the context of the investigation. These accounts are mapped against the community
engagement frameworks of Frances Bowen and colleagues and Neil Dufty.

In consideration of the fact that this study examines the interdisciplinary intersection between pre-
disaster communication and community engagement in the context of geographical isolation and
social inequalities, the data collected were further analysed from the perspectives of both social power
(French & Raven 1959; Pansardi & Bindi 2021) and social relationships (Aldrich 2019; Aldrich &
Meyer 2015; Rayamajhee & Bohara 2021; Wickes et al. 2015). This analysis of social power and
relationships was guided by Tomas Andres’ (1988) Filipino Values System in the context of
community development. Andres’ (1988) system identifies that people give relevance and respond to
formal and informal leadership and familial and social relationships, as well as that people’s
experiences living in GIDA communities helps create their common bonds and understandings.

1.3 Research aim and questions

This brief background suggests that there may be a gap between the communication conditions of
community engagement practices and the implementation of the NDRRMP, specifically disaster
preparedness, at the local level. The demand from the Philippine National DRRM Council is for
continuous communication regarding disaster preparedness to local communities, while concurrently
making DRRM community-based. This demand from the national government resulted in my
investigation of the possible intersection between disaster preparedness and community engagement
and how these two fields can factor in issues of spatial/geographic isolation and socioeconomic
inequalities in the process of developing community DRRM. It has been discussed that there are
communication efforts made to prepare people for future natural hazards. More than that, systems
must be set in place to ensure that communities, isolated or otherwise, are prepared for and able to
bounce back after a natural hazard event, despite the difficulties of doing so. It is therefore the
intention of this study to provide empirical evidence that either supports or opposes the idea that pre-
disaster communication studies should consider three important elements: (a) communication modes

12
and tools, or communicative conditions; (b) the level of community engagement; and (c) people’s
lived experiences. These lived experiences provide the context of what it is to live in a GIDA
classified community in relation to facing natural hazards. The requirement for a local multimodal
communicative condition needs to be conceptually scaffolded by the importance of people and
context in the design and implementation of any pre-disaster communication and community
engagement plans for disaster preparedness. Overall, this study argues that improving disaster
resiliency at the pre-disaster stage makes the management of actions in both the during- and post-
disaster phases easier, since people are already equipped with knowledge to decide on the measures to
take to ensure their own safety.

Despite the stated need for pre-disaster communication to be developed inclusive of the
communication medium and the orientation and culture of the people, a clear pathway for merging
context with pre-disaster communication and community engagement efforts has not yet emerged. It
remains unclear how context can be localised into the current communication and engagement plans
of local disaster risk reduction and management councils (local DRRM councils). Current
governmental practice displays a top-down, linear transmission or ‘dissemination of information’
approach to community engagement regarding disaster risk—as opposed to one that prioritises
communication efficacy. The merging of context with communicative conditions is justified by the
documented social inequalities that are brought about by spatial or geographic differences (Sujarwoto
& Tampubolon 2016). These inequalities include the effects of geographical location on
telecommunication infrastructure, socioeconomic status, disparities in human capital and education
services, political environment and government readiness, risk perception, and prior exposure to
disaster, among other things.

Upskilling the citizens of all communities so that they can adopt new communication technologies for
DRRM is not possible in the context of certain social exclusion factors (Basolo, Steinberg & Gant
2017; Bolin & Kurtz 2018; Madianou 2015; Mansell 2017; Sujarwoto & Tampubolon 2016; Vincent
2016; Wong et al. 2009). In addition, there is an existing tension between the benefits that technology
brings to society and the various processes that are required for society to adopt and use a particular
technological platform (Mansell 2017). Mansell (2017) observes that with the increase in
technological innovation comes an increase in social and economic inequality; this can be brought
about by several factors, such as, for example, disparities in the human capital and education services
(Sujarwoto & Tampubolon 2016) required for communities to operate a technological innovation in
disaster communication. In terms of scholarly attention in this regard, it is significant that the majority
of the studies on digital and online disaster communication are concentrated on the second and third
phases of disaster management (i.e., the during- and post-disaster phases) (Carley et al. 2016; Fabito,
Balahadia & Cabatlao 2016; Goodchild & Glennon 2010; Sumaylo 2018; Tandoc & Takahashi 2017).

13
Clearly, communication infrastructure problems do occur in during and post-disaster stages, such as
delays in the restoration of communication infrastructure, and it is also clear that the development of
new communication tools for disaster management is rapid (Sumaylo 2018; Sumaylo & Sison 2018).
In this sense, research focus on these phases is both inevitable and valuable. Indeed, Christine Hagar
(2010, p. 10) calls this crisis informatics, but she notes that it deals with ‘the interconnectedness of
people, organizations, information and technology during crises’. Hagar’s interconnectedness
highlights the relevance of community engagement in the planning, designing, and production of new
communication tools for various pre-disaster communication modes by including people at risk of
disasters, local responders, and other allied fields in communication and design. Further, such
interdisciplinary design collaborations of disaster risk communication tools are considered highly
relevant, as they provide more perspectives on the risks at hand. In this sense, this research intends to
provide an opportunity for the people who experience disaster and those first responders involved in
their protection to add their on-the-ground experiences to the process of developing communication
tools for more disaster-resilient communities.

The stated interconnectedness between actors involved in DRRM requires attention to both of the
communication pathways: top-down and bottom-up (Hagar 2010). In top-down approach,
organisational control of the communication process is firmly held by the government. This approach
is grounded on the concept of information transmission (Olsson 2014; Tan et al. 2017) and is
considered the education aspect of community engagement (Dufty 2011). The bottom-up approach is
described by Tan and colleagues (2017) as being a paradigm shift from the top-down mode, as
communication processes occur from employees upwards to management, as well as horizontally
between groups. The inclusion of the horizontal approach was borrowed from its organisational
context and is applied in development communication as community engagement. This third approach
involves community participation and decision-making as it is grounded in the participatory paradigm
of communication for development (Mefalopulos 2008). This last approach demands a combination of
top-down and bottom-up (Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi & Herremans 2010; Dufty 2011) allowing
thorough engagement with the issues and contributing to the development communication and social
change discourse of merging local contexts with global concepts (Servaes & Lie 2013).

This research thus presents both approaches, which are essential inclusions in the discussion of what
constitutes pre-disaster communication experiences in the Philippine context and what is/can be their
impact on DRRM education and community engagement there (Dufty 2011). This research focus is
timely, because very little research has so far integrated these two models—or, approaches to
communication—as they can be applied in relation to geographic isolation and social inequalities. In
addition, examining pre-disaster communication experiences through the lens of socioeconomic and
geophysical exclusion will add another layer to existing community engagement frameworks.
Currently, disaster communication is predominantly defined as the interaction of various actors within

14
the three phases of disaster management, as described by Spialek and Houston (2018a) in the
validation of their Citizen Disaster Communication Assessment tool. This particular definition
indicates that disaster communication is inclusive of the phases from the sending out of hazard
warnings up to disaster recovery. While the approach of Spialek and Houston attests to the need to
consider disaster communication as a continuous process, it excludes the preparation stage that is
highlighted in disaster management literature. This literature defines disaster preparedness as the
moment in time when communities lay the groundwork in anticipation of disaster events caused by
natural hazard (Haddow & Haddow 2009; Li 2014; Madu et al. 2018).

The investigation explored a grounded community engagement critical framework between the
government and local communities living in GIDAs. It investigated the different levels of community
engagement seen on the field, the roles of multimodal communicative conditions, and the level of
community participation in the hope of increasing disaster resiliency in GIDA communities.
Supported by the Community Engagement Continuum (Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi & Herremans
2010), Community Engagement Framework (Dufty 2011), and the Filipino Values System (Andres
1988), this research seeks to incorporate context, as is suggested by existing literature (Perreault,
Houston & Wilkins 2014; Spialek & Houston 2018b), to expand the current methods of pre-disaster
communication and community engagement practiced in the context of GIDA communities in
Mindanao, Philippines.

The study seeks to answer the following research question:

RQ: How do local government units use community engagement as a strategy in

engaging geographically isolated and socioeconomically disadvantaged
communities in pre-disaster communication?

These three research sub-questions support specific aspects of the enquiry:

SRQ1: How do the pre-disaster communication experiences of geographically

isolated and disadvantaged communities shape the local government’s community
engagement practices?

SRQ2: What level of community engagement approach is implemented in

geographically isolated and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities for pre-
disaster communication?

SRQ3: What opportunities and barriers to a transformative level of community

engagement exist in geographically isolated and socioeconomically disadvantaged
contexts?

In answering these questions, the research provides data on pre-disaster communication and
community engagement practices at the local community level. These data were translated into a

15
grounded communication–community engagement framework that is intentionally transformative in
nature and offers a proposed structure for interactions between government and local communities.
Results also provide empirical argument on the impact of socioeconomic and geophysical isolation in
relation to pre-disaster information communication, and result in expanded communicative conditions
for the community engagement process.

It is worth addressing what the grounded framework will mean at the intersection of disaster
preparedness and community engagement in the context of spatial isolation and socioeconomic
inequalities. To begin with, when it comes to the topic of engaging local communities to take part in
any disaster-preparedness program, most scholars would readily agree on the role and importance of
communication in this process (Quarantelli 1986; Wray et al. 2004). Ensuring that pre-disaster
information is communicated and understood aids in the decision-making of individuals facing threat
from natural/environmental causes. However, further studies are needed to investigate the role and
impact of pre-disaster communication in engaging communities. More than that, scholars are
convinced that spatial inequalities affect community engagement efforts, aside from issues of human
capital and other socioeconomic factors of keeping communities informed (Sujarwoto & Tampubolon
2016). Ann Tickamyer (2000) strengthens this argument by pointing out that space is governed by
social hierarchies that enable social inequalities. Certain inequalities lead to access and literacy issues
and result in the poor communication of pre-disaster information. It stands to reason that if pre-
disaster information is poorly communicated, the level of engagement, or the action taken by local
communities in this regard, can already be assumed to be low.

Given this background, this study aims to join in the conversation on the intersection between disaster
preparedness and community engagement in the context of spatial isolation and socioeconomic
inequalities. In particular, it aims to provide empirical evidence in support of the argument that
geographic isolation and social inequalities affect pre-disaster communication efforts, thereby stunting
the level and impact of community engagement in GIDAs. This study therefore investigates spatial
inequality within the context of GIDAs in the Philippines. As well as contexts of spatial isolation and
socioeconomic inequality, this study focusses on cases that highlight demographics and culture, which
have received limited attention in previous studies (Perreault, Houston & Wilkins 2014; Spialek,
Czlapinski & Houston 2016; Spialek & Houston 2018b).

Linda Lobao (1996) observes that spatial studies can be looked at in two ways—as a background
setting for an event that is unfolding, or to contrast different sociological characteristics within spaces.
These sociological characteristics may include the process of political mobilisation and of identifying
factors that marginalise a population (Lobao 1996). At the turn of the 21st century, Tickamyer (2000)
expounded Lobao’s concept of space:

16
 From the smallest unit of the human body through multiple aggregate and collective
examples such as household, community, neighbourhood, city, region, state, nation, or
global system, particular places provide a locale that may operate as container and
backdrop for social action, as a set of causal factors that shape social structure and
process, and finally as an identifiable territorial manifestation of social relations and
practices that define that particular setting (p. 806).

This concept of a hierarchical spatial perspective is akin to Andres’s (1988) argument that a person’s
social network follows a social hierarchy that begins with the individual and moves outward to their
immediate family, village, town/city, province, nation, and the world. Quebral (2012) strengthens this
argument by pointing out the significance of an individual’s communication systems, including their
social networks, in their development.

1.3.1 Significance of the study

Literature suggests that communicating pre-disaster information increases awareness and assists
citizens in becoming proactive about natural hazards that cause disaster (Burnside-Lawry & Carvalho
2016), in order that such preparation will help dispel their fear and panic when they come to face
threats. Yet scholars observe that, in general, people inherently consider pre-disaster information to be
bound to a passive understanding of ‘vaguely potential threat’. Such a generalisation is made without
proper contextualisation, however, since the population at large does not display an absolute dismissal
of pre-disaster information, but instead, people assess information for themselves by its contextual
relevance (and reject the rest; Helsloot & Ruitenberg 2004). While there is some level of proactive
effort from citizens, this activity is curated from and for their individual contexts, including the
assembling of pre-disaster information. Critically, people will only search for pre-disaster information
in order to prepare for natural hazards that they already perceive to be imminent (Helsloot &
Ruitenberg 2004). Imminent threats are those that are immediate, or about to happen. This stage of
perceived threat is beyond the confines of the disaster mitigation and preparedness of DRRM, and
rather falls under the heading of disaster communication itself.

In 1986, the noted disaster researcher E.L. Quarantelli emphasised the importance of communication
in disaster crisis management, arguing that disaster communication is not all about what (content)
information is being disseminated but also how (mode) it is being communicated. In this sense,
refocussing issues of pre-disaster communication in the context of the entire DRRM spectrum can
create a shift in perspective, from being purely reactive to being preventive. This study upholds this
paradigm shift, arguing that giving citizens the right tools (knowledge and equipment) to help them
decide what to do prior to a hazard means saving more lives and reducing damage to property. Rather
than planning how to rescue people, a shift towards pre-disaster communication allows governments
to plan how to prevent the need for a huge rescue operation by reducing the risks ahead.
Communication strategies used to build community resiliency should be able to transmit this message

17
to the next stages of DRRM. In addition, such communication efforts need to take into account
variations in hazard experiences owing to geographic and social contexts (Burnside-Lawry & Akama
2013). As Quebral (2012) puts it, human development is shaped by communication. This is the
imperative of the current study.

1.4 Scope and relevance

In this section, definitions of some key concepts are used to appropriately delimit the scope of the
investigation. First, pre-disaster communication experience is defined in this study as the
communicative conditions in the exchange of information between the local government unit (LGU)
and the community, inside a specific context. This information exchange includes the communication
interactions that occur among community members through community collaboration activities, and
these interactions are affected by the various social roles each participant holds in the process.
Second, for the purposes of this study, context is seen as comprising all the physical, socioeconomic,
cultural, and demographic characteristics of an area.

The terminology harnessed to denote the four stages of DRRM and their respective definitions is that
reflected in the RA 10121 and the NDRRMP, and these stages are used to signify the various stages
of disaster management (see sec. 1.5.3). As the understandings in these definitions suggests, this study
is solely focussed on the pre-disaster phase of DRRM. This focus on the pre-disaster phase is justified
because of the flow between stages; for example, a communication breakdown during a disaster
points to issues with pre-disaster communication about risk reduction strategies (Adila et al. 2017).

On its own, the pre-disaster phase is composed of two stages—prevention and mitigation, and
preparedness. It is assumed that information flows fluidly between these two stages. The prevention
and mitigation stage revolves around ‘activities related to hazard evaluation and mitigation,
vulnerability analyses, identification of hazard-prone areas, and mainstreaming DRRM into
development plans’ (NDRRMC 2018b). This set of logistical evaluations work hand in hand with the
preparedness stage, which centres on ‘activities revolving around community awareness and
understanding, contingency planning, conduct of local drills, and the development of a national
disaster response plan’ (NDRRMC 2018b). While this research is focussed on the pre-disaster phase
(the totality of which includes both of these stages), the investigation is specifically limited to the
disaster preparedness stage as it centres on information dissemination directed towards local
communities. The prevention and mitigation stage can be considered the ‘hardware’ of DRRM, as it
provides physical infrastructure that lessens hazard impacts; preparedness, on the other hand, is the
‘software’ that allows the smooth running of this hardware. In effect, the preparedness stage means
providing people in hazard areas with the tools to navigate the physical infrastructure to ensure their
own safety when facing threats.

18
This study focusses on natural hazards, especially those that can be classified as ‘slow-onset disasters’
(Rodríguez et al. 2007). These are natural hazards that move ‘slowly’ enough that they can be
predicted days prior to any impact. This type of natural hazards gives ample time for the government
to provide warnings and for the potentially affected public to act. Tropical storms and floods are good
examples of slow-onset hazards. Flood warnings can be issued early on for possible flooding due to
heavy rains and/or tropical storms, which themselves take time to form over oceans and can thus be
observed before they make landfall. Landslides, too, are often a by-product of the heavy rains brought
on by tropical storms, and areas already prone to landslides can thus be forewarned days prior to a
potential threat.

Moreover, in the process of providing answers to the research question and its subsidiary enquiries
(see sec. 1.2), a clear information seeking and sharing practice was documented. This painted a
picture of the current state of the Philippine Governments’ implementation of community engagement
practices based on the NDRRMP and their various communication modes and tools, including their
community-based DRRM plan for disaster preparedness at the local level within the context of
socioeconomic and geophysical isolation. The results also offer an explanation of context regarding
who gets access to different communication tools, and if/how this level of access is dependent on or
independent of the variables of being located in a GIDA that result in such disparities as
socioeconomic status, human capital, education, public health and relief assistance services, political
environment and presence or absence of rebel groups in mountainous areas, government readiness,
risk perception, and prior exposure to disasters.

As per feedback received from the community, and the target deliverables stipulated in the NDRRMP,
the results of this study were deemed relevant and valuable to disaster victims and their families,
extended families, and the community in general. It is hoped that they will benefit these and other
stakeholders, especially government and non-government agencies involved in communicating with
the public about disaster risk information during the preparedness stage of the NDRRMP. Results of
this study also provide additional basis for the localisation, mainstreaming, and customisation of
disaster preparedness information, education, and communication campaigns.

In terms of their possible ultimate scope, I would suggest that the application of the results is not
confined to the Philippine context. Rather, the results of this study concur with studies conducted in
such neighbouring Southeast Asian countries as Indonesia and Malaysia. Research studies in these
countries already posits the possible impact of effective government functioning in DRRM, and the
social inequalities examined are present in various spatial conditions.

19
1.5 Definition of terms

This section presents operational definitions of the terms and concepts used in this study, and expands
many of the terms specified in the Glossary In providing a description of key terms such as disaster,
pre-disaster communication, and social inequalities, this section confines the use of these terms
within the scope the study. The section also includes a short discussion of the four phases of DRRM
and specifies relevant differentiation between the similar key concepts of community engagement,
development and participatory communication, and co-design/co-creation approaches.

1.5.1 Disasters
There is a plethora of typology literature differentiating the terms disaster, crisis, risk, hazard, and
emergency; much of this discussion would tacitly agree that these terms are ‘closely interconnected,
interdependent, and overlap significantly’ and that they have been used interchangeably and in
combination in such cases as ‘disaster crisis management’ and ‘crisis and emergency management’
(Al-Dahash, Thayaparan & Kulatunga 2016, p. 1191). Historically, disaster studies began even before
the Second World War (Perry 2007). Ronald W. Perry’s (2007) work supersedes the development of
crisis communication, which itself takes its roots from the Johnson and Johnson Tylenol case in 1982
(Heath & O’Hair 2010). According to the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (2020a),
disaster can be defined as

a serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society at any scale due to

hazardous events interacting with conditions of exposure, vulnerability, and capacity,
leading to one or more of the following: human, material, economic and environmental
losses, and impacts (para. 1).

A disaster can thus be seen as the sudden onset of an event external to the system in place that has a
major impact on that system and is not subject to any of its controls. A disaster can also be viewed as
a disruption in the social order that may result in chaos, damage to property, and loss of life. These
two views from Perry (2018), highlight the scientific and human aspects of disaster. Disaster can
further be discussed as being the result of a catalyst event or agent that disrupts the social order (Perry
2007). Moreover, other scholars posit that the key features of a disaster include: a sudden and/or
unforeseen nature, results in loss and damage, tests coping capacity, requires system recovery, needs
external assistance, and involves multi-stakeholders (Al-Dahash, Thayaparan & Kulatunga 2016).

In the event of a disaster, the dissemination of timely and accurate information to the public becomes
top priority, which requires disaster agencies to have strong media partnerships that assist them in
implementing disaster management strategies. Haddow and Haddow (2009) posit that an effective
disaster communication strategy should be constructed on the following foundations: customer focus,
leadership commitment, inclusion of communications planning and operations, situational awareness,
and media partnership. In keeping with these elements, W. Timothy Coombs’ (2010, p. 60) definition

20
of disaster specifies that a disaster is a ‘large-scale event that demands multi-agency coordination’ and
that disaster communication is the ‘responsibility of the lead agency and flows through various
government agencies ideally in a coordinated fashion’.

1.5.2 There is nothing natural about disasters

I advocate the idea that there is nothing natural about disasters. Seeing disasters as ‘natural’ implies a
position of continued acceptance of inevitable calamities that social systems are powerless to mitigate,
when in fact the actions and decisions of these systems (functional or otherwise) are embedded in the
matters that attend the hazards. Instead, this study upholds the position of other scholars who stipulate
that the term ‘natural disasters’ implicates the practices of people that exacerbate the impact of a
natural hazard.

In 1976, a publication in Nature written by Phil O’Keefe, Ken Westgate, and Ben Wisner posited that
there is nothing natural about disasters. For these scholars, ‘disasters are more of a consequence of
socio-economic than natural factors’ (p. 566). Their argument identifies two elements needed for a
disaster to take place: natural hazard and vulnerable population. For these authors, there a disaster
only occurs when there are people involved. In this sense, it is a misnomer to label a disaster as
natural. Scholars such as Terry Cannon (1994); Gonzalo Lizarralde, Cassidy Johnson, and Colin
Davidson (2009); Steve Puttick, Lee Bosher, and Ksenia Chmutina (2018); and Rajib Shaw, Helen
James, Vinod Sharma, and Anna Lukasiewicz (2022) have continued to argue that there is nothing
natural about disasters.

Cannon (1994) furthers the argument of O’Keefe and colleagues by adding that not all hazards end up
as disasters, noting too that much focus is given to understanding and mitigating the impact of natural
hazards without looking at the human factor. While some scholars (Carley et al. 2016; Deng et al.
2016; Dufty 2016; McLennan, Whittaker & Handmer 2016) are interested in unearthing new ways of
mitigating and preparing for hazards using technology, fewer studies examine the role of social and
economic institutions in exacerbating human vulnerability to them. Cannon, however (1994),
emphasises that opportunities and risks vary in spatial distribution and that ‘human activity itself has
created the conditions of disaster events’ (p. 16).

This argument was reiterated by Lizarralde and colleagues (2009); these authors state that disasters
are not predominantly caused by natural hazards. Instead, hazards develop into disasters when
societies cannot cope with them. This is reflected in the definition used by the UNDRR (2020a),
which clarifies that disaster is a disruption of how a community functions—a position that provides
justification for placing society’s role in disaster into the foreground in defining the overall nature of
disasters. As Puttick and colleagues (2018) argue, there are human-induced factors that turn natural
hazards into disasters. In support of their argument, they candidly offer that ‘it was not the earthquake

21
that left people homeless; it was badly built housing, government inefficiency and underlying
corruption’ (Puttick, Bosher & Chmutina 2018, p. 118).

The argument that there is no disaster without people (O’Keefe, Westgate & Wisner 1976) is tacitly
upheld by the specificity that defines events in terms of the number of affected populations. For
instance, when Super Typhoon Haiyan devastated the Philippines in 2013, affecting 3,424,593
families (NDRRMC 2018), it was labelled a disaster. If, however, a similar incident had taken place
in the Philippines in an area affecting less than 1000 people, it might have been labelled a ‘calamity’,
and the media would not have covered it. This underlying logic silences those who are already
marginalised by their geographic and socioeconomic conditions because impact to these communities
may not affect enough people to result in a media-worthy story like Super Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda.
Even if it would appear from this that a numeric focus (i.e., how many people) also plays a part in how
disaster is conceptualised. this media behaviour still support the logic that there is no disaster without
people;

1.5.3 What are the four phases of disaster management?

Because of the enormity of scale, Perry (2007) suggested that there are three phases of disaster
management process—mitigation, preparedness, and response or recovery. Perry has been accused of
lumping response with recovery, and various scholars (Haddow & Haddow 2009; Li 2014; Madu et
al. 2018) have reconfigured the disaster management process to include four phases:

1. Mitigation, which promotes the implementation of strategies, technologies, and actions

that will reduce loss of life and property damage in future disasters;
2. Preparedness, which aims to communicate messages that encourage and educate the
public to anticipate disaster events;
3. Response, which aims to provide public notification, warning, evacuation, and
situation reports on an ongoing disaster; and
4. Recovery, which aims to provide individuals and communities affected by a disaster
with information on how to register for and receive disaster relief.

Christian Madu and colleagues (2018) explicitly include RECONSTRUCTION activities as part of
the fourth phase, calling it instead RECOVERY AND RECONSTRUCTION.

1.5.4 Pre-disaster communication for knowledge and capacity building

This study is concerned with the processes involved in pre-disaster communication and community
engagement in GIDAs. To understand the area of disaster research, it is necessary to briefly examine
how researchers specifically define disaster in the field of disaster communication. Historically,
researchers in this area have had a multitude of attempts to define disaster since the 1970s. Renowned
disaster researcher E. L. Quarantelli (1998), of the Disaster Research Center at the University of
Delaware in the United States, gathered several key researchers together to investigate the matter of

22
defining what constitutes a disaster. In answer to his call, Claude Gilbert (1998) of the Centre
National de la Recherche Scientifique in France posited that there are three paradigms in defining
disaster—patterns of war, disaster as social vulnerability, and disaster as uncertainty. This definition
coincides with the definition of disaster used by the United Nations, which highlights issues of
vulnerability and uncertainty as well as the disruption of order be included in observing the impact of
an environmental hazard on an area.

Looking into the definition of disaster is further essential to defining the field of disaster
communication. Since disaster in general refers to a malfunctioning community or society when it is
exposed to environmental hazards, it can be stipulated that disaster communication pertains to the
process of exchanging messages within the context of the disaster, including the pre-, during, and
post-disaster phases. Disaster communication is therefore communication that happens during the
scope of the days or hours from before an environmental hazard begins (e.g, in the case of a typhoon,
the time of landfall) to the time when a community or society can again stand on its own.

Disaster communication differs from disaster risk communication chronemically. The latter concerns
itself with the process of exchanging pre-disaster risk information prior to any threats of
environmental hazards. The UNDRR (2020b) defines this this type of information as a
‘comprehensive information on all dimensions of disaster risk, including hazards, exposure,
vulnerability and capacity, related to persons, communities, organizations and countries and their
assets’ (para. 1). This situates pre-disaster risk communication as revolving around disaster
preparedness, which is defined as the ‘knowledge and capacities developed by governments, response
and recovery organizations, communities and individuals to effectively anticipate, respond to and
recover from the impacts of likely, imminent or current disasters’ (United Nations Office for Disaster
Risk Reduction 2020d, para. 1).

Disaster communication and disaster risk communication specifically differ from DRRM in that these
two are subsumed by the bigger concept of DRRM, which can be defined as ‘the application of
disaster risk reduction policies and strategies to prevent new disaster risk, reduce existing disaster risk
and manage residual risk, contributing to the strengthening of resilience and reduction of disaster
losses’ (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction 2020c, para. 1).

In the end, the goal of government and non-government agencies, including disaster researchers, is to
find ways to make a resilient society. In this sense, resilience also needs to be defined. The UNDRR
states that resilience is

The ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb,

accommodate, adapt to, transform and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely
and efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its essential
basic structures and functions through risk management (United Nations Office for
Disaster Risk Reduction 2020e; para. 1).

23
In this study, resilience is achieved once vulnerable populations have access to pre-disaster risk
information, training, and drills since these communication tools are evaluated effective in knowledge
building (Alim, Kawabata & Nakazawa 2015). Yet, accessing these programs can be problematic,
especially for communities living in geographic isolation who concurrently experience socioeconomic
inequalities.

1.5.5 Social inequalities exacerbate access issues

As an area of research, social inequality deals with disparities in income between people; it is evident
in almost all cultures, since people have the tendency to compare themselves with others who have
achieved (or have not achieved) the measures of success, and thus inculcate these differences in
themselves. Measures of success or social standing and prestige also contribute to the concept of
inequality because social standing and prestige define power, and this is particularly true in most
Southeast Asian contexts (Marger 2014). Inequality is thus a study of power and poverty and the ways
in which these two lead to social exclusion.

The idea of social exclusion is complex because its factors are entangled with culture; it is therefore
not surprising that Louise Warwick-Booth (2019) argues that measurements of inequality are also
varied. She states that ‘social exclusion is complex in that social class position can result in social
exclusion, as can age, gender, ethnicity, employment status, and location’ (Warwick-Booth 2019, p.
35). In this sense, as Martin Marger (2014) raises, social inequality appears to be part of the culture
and institutions of society. These foundational structures are connected to differences in power, which
itself ‘underlie[s] all forms of inequality’ (p. 3). Observing the connection between power and its
benefits in relation to issues of social exclusion and inequality may in part explain why economic
growth does not moderate inequality, which remains, as Warwick-Booth notes, ‘because the benefits
that come with such growth are not equally shared across the whole of society’ (Warwick-Booth
2019, p. 13).

Warwick-Booth’s observation of the complexity of issues that can cause exclusion is in congruence
with the definition of GIDA that is advocated by the Department of Health in the Philippines. This
government agency classifies an area as a GIDA by more than its economic status. Aspects of
inequality are not only surveyed through an economic lens but are also assessed in terms of their
access to education and employment, social participation, and basic services that affect a person’s
overall quality of life.

1.5.6 Differentiating community engagement, development and participatory

communication, and co-design/co-creation approaches
This research situates itself within the area of communication for development, and I decided to locate
the investigation in this field because I needed to examine the Philippine Government’s supposed

24
strategic use of communication modes and tools to engage isolated communities in pre-disaster
communication. Development communication’s purpose is to alleviate social problems in evolving
societies (Wilkins 1996). Since disaster is the inability of societies to cope with the impact of natural
hazards, development communication is the appropriate approach for this research.

As discussed, this study investigates the intersection between disaster preparedness and community
engagement in the context of spatial isolation and socioeconomic inequalities. Two concepts must be
clarified before moving forward: participatory communication and co-design/co-creation. This study
focusses on a two-way communication process, as defined by Grunig and Hunt (1984) in the context
of community engagement in development communication. However, I need to acknowledge the
existence of these two other terms to avoid them being misconstrued as part of the two-way
communication and community engagement I have investigated.

Part of the objective of this research was an examination of the exchange of information between
people. This exchange is not limited to one-way information transfer methods, and as such cannot be
unpacked this way. Doing so would limit the investigation to discussion of what a particular
communication medium can offer and/or how people can utilise it. Rather, information exchange
means a two-way process of communication that both allows feedback and permits participants to
change their roles in the process. This concept of changing roles is not limited to the original sender
and receiver of messages. Instead, it is expanded, by looking at ways of developing a lateral flow of
communication between residents in a community. For example, the information communicated to
others may be of the kind that dates back generations and is or will eventually turn into local wisdom
in that specific community. For this reason, a lateral flow of communication is significant, and for it
to occur and be maintained, the line of communication should be consistent open in both directions,
rather than comprising a purely unidirectional information flow.

In context of these issues, I ask, What could the role of community engagement be in this kind of
communication process? Can community engagement be considered a communication strategy? How
is community engagement different from participatory communication and co-creation/co-design?

Engagement is defined as the involvement of local communities in the process of decision-making.

This consultative form of communication aims to empower people to be proactive in developing
disaster resilience. The term community engagement is often used interchangeably with other
concepts like participation, collaboration, and empowerment (Australian Institute of Family Studies
2016). Dufty (2011) elaborates the concept of engagement, seeing it as a participatory approach that
allows communities to identify their own problems and develop solutions—either on their own or
with minimal guidance from organisational oversight. The congruence between community
engagement and participatory communication is further shown to be relevant in the media,
communications, and development scholar Linje Manyozo’s argument that participatory

25
communication is another term for community engagement. He defines this approach in
communication as ‘the organised decentralisation of decision-making structures and processes that
focus on community as a collective unit of policy design and implementation at the local level’ (2012,
p. 152). The approach is not dependent on media but instead on the importance of interpersonal
communication.

Crucially for this investigation, participatory communication aims for social change (Jacobson 2003).
In the field of development communication participatory communication carries a variety of
definitions—from project planning, implementation, and evaluation, to interpersonal interactions
between communication actors (Jacobson 2003) This investigation was intentionally framed inside the
broader field of communication for development, which utilises community engagement as an
approach that ensures community decisions and actions are collectively engaged. However,
community engagement does not immediately start with participatory activities. Dufty (2011) states
that an effective community engagement practice does not disregard the traditional (top-down)
information dissemination practice, which he coins as the education part of the communication
process. However, real engagement occurs when communication spreads horizontally between people
in the same context. The broader frame of development communication was thus used rather than that
of participatory communication. While the latter is concerned with hands-on community level
participation, from planning to evaluation of programs, as is exemplified in co-design/co-creation, the
objective of development communication is to elicit social change. Therefore, in this study, social
change is operationally defined as the actions embedded in various contexts that elicit a positive
development or change of a specific community endeavour (Servaes & Lie 2015; Servaes & Servaes
2021). Social change, conceptually, is a social process involving communities (Servaes 2008).

Co-design/co-creation describes the various ways participation is practiced, especially at the

community level. Yoko Akama’s (2014) work, for instance, argues that a smooth transition of
‘ownership of the project’ from the government to the people is the main goal of co-design/co-
creation activities. While this practice also ensures the sustainability of any project of an organisation
in a community, the needs of the community are analysed externally and a solution is brought to them.
In a co-design/co-creation approach, the focus of design is on people’s adaptive capacities, which
does require their participation from the beginning, and it differs somewhat from the approach used
by Carlos Primo David and colleagues (2010) when they introduced and taught residents how to use a
manual rain gauge. In this case, the community was not involved in the conceptualisation, design, or
implementation of this learning, leaving unaddressed the important question, How does the manual
rain gauge fit into the actions, experiences, current situation, and needs of the recipients? This
nagging question, however, does highlight issues of externally contextualised ‘solutioning’. Applying
a co-design/co-creation approach to the context of this study would mean that local DRRM councils
would prescribe solutions taken from the NDRRMP (because this is their road map), and their role

26
would be to facilitate the process of creating design solutions to the identified problem. While this
will lead participants to reflect on their actions, lived and simulated experiences, and current spatial
isolation and socioeconomic situation, I argue that despite having this national plan, the way it should
be implemented at the local level needs to fundamentally consider the local context and its
issues/problems before enabling customisation and localisation. Since co-design/co-creation does not
allow the problem definition to take place in Mindanao study context, it was deemed unsuitable for
this study, and its processes are excluded from the definition of community engagement that is used.

For these reasons, this study uses the term community engagement, as it describes an entire
communication process involving two actors—government and the community. Participatory
communication and co-creation/co-design, although conceptually related, focus attention on the
community actors and thus do not engage the actors equally. This study investigates the intersection
between disaster preparedness and community engagement in the context of spatial or geographic
isolation and socioeconomic inequalities. My aim is to discover what communicative conditions can
act as conduits between the various levels of community engagement.

1.6 Overview of the study

To address the focus of this investigation, which centres on discovering the ways in which LGUs in
the Philippines engage marginalised and isolated communities in taking part in pre-disaster
communication efforts, this study focusses on GIDA communities in Mindanao, Philippines. The
focus is centred on GIDA communities because they are assumed to receive less information and help
in relation to their circumstances.

This research investigates the disaster preparedness communicative conditions of people living in
GIDAS. In doing so, it identifies synergies and tensions in the engagement process. As such, specific
branches of enquiry focus on how information seeking and sharing experiences of GIDA communities
inform the current practice of community engagement. In taking this research approach, the study
intends to deliberately give voice to these marginalised and often silenced communities. In general,
the study seeks other possibilities (or variables) in the pre-disaster risk communication process that
will truly engage geographically isolated and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities in
DRRM.

In consideration of the existing methodologies being used to engage local communities in DRRM,
this research enquires into ways bottom-up and top-down approaches could be melded together to
achieve a transformational level of engagement in these communities. This level of engagement is
based on Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi and Herremans’ (2010) Community Engagement Continuum,
which dictates that fully engaging communities requires transformational learning.

In order to answer the research questions, this study has been organised in the following manner:

27
Chapter 1 has provides the research background, and locates the study in the field of development
communication. This chapter also introduces the main and subsidiary research enquiries, and
examines initial justifications for gearing the research direction towards investigating the intersection
between disaster preparedness and community engagement in the context of GIDA. The parameters
that delimit the scope of this study are also set out in this chapter in order to make clear to the reader
what aspects of DRRM will be discussed, which demographic the study targets, and the study’s
potential contribution to the overall field of pre-disaster communication and community engagement.

Both Chapters 2 and 3 review the existing literature, and their discussion further justifies the need for
the current research. Specifically, Chapter 2 discusses pre-disaster communication and reviews
literature about multimodal disaster communication and the way access to information becomes the
privilege of a chosen few. To fully grasp the intersection between disaster preparedness and
community engagement, I also present a discussion on community, vulnerability, and resilience. I
believe that unpacking these three concepts aids in the understanding of what, why, and how
community engagement is relevant in contextual pre-disaster communication.

Chapter 3 then presents the theoretical underpinnings and frameworks of community engagement.
This section draws on the scholarship in development communication using community engagement
as a pre-disaster communication strategy, acknowledging that disaster risk reduction and management
(DRRM) is an interdisciplinary research area (Shaw 2020). This study bridges the scholarship at the
intersection of development communication and organisational communication. specific to
conceptualising DRRM. Unpacking community engagement in the context of pre-disaster
communication requires utilisation of Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi and Herremans’ Community
Engagement Continuum (2010) and Dufty’s Community Engagement Framework (2011). These two
models of community engagement scaffold the assessment of the current practices observed in both
field sites. In addition, this chapter presents a discussion on Andres’ Filipino Values System (1988) in
the context of community development in order to further the discussion on the various synergies and
tensions in the communication in community engagement practices observed during fieldwork.

The literature review effectively concludes in section 3.3, which provides a discussion on the research
gap that appears in the available existing literature on disaster communication and community
engagement. This section locates the point at which, in the spectrum of pre-disaster communication
and community engagement, this study is situated. After this understanding is reached, Chapter 3 goes
on to provide a section on DRRM practices in the Philippines. This comprises a review of the policies
and laws that act as a basis for the formation of the National DRRM Council, and highlights the
Philippine Governments’ top-down approach to implementing the NDRRMP through the LGUs and
research studies conducted on Philippines’ DRRM. This sections situates aspects of the study as it
focusses on the pre-disaster communication and community engagement activities of LGUs as they
implement the NDRRMP in their area. Discussing DRRM practices in the Philippines as at this point

28
also provides context prior to the discussion of the methodology used at each field site that occurs in
Chapter 4.

Chapter 4 describes the Methodology, and points out why this study should be approached from a
constructivist-interpretivist perspective. It also describes the research design and outlines why a
qualitative approach is the best way of arriving at answers to the research questions. Preliminary
fieldwork considerations cover two significant aspect of the methodology—the criteria used in both
site and informant selection. These discussions of criteria are crucial, since it has been established that
the study seeks answer to how context (spatial isolation and socioeconomic inequalities) impacts the
results of community engagement and pre-disaster risk communication. A detailed discussion on
qualitative data collection tools and data analysis follows a description of these critera. Moreover, this
chapter provides a detailed description of both field sites, which highlights the relevance of site
identification and the criteria used to do so. This way, the concept of geographic isolation and socio-
economic disparities can be explicitly described based on what was seen in the field. Lastly, this
chapter considers the validity and reliability of the qualitative research findings based on the choice of
data collection methods used.

Chapter 5 reports the findings from the semi-structured interviews, document analysis, and field
observations. This chapter revolves around the pre-disaster risk communication practices of local
DRRM councils, and highlights various modes and tools they use to target GIDA communities. The
chapter shifts from this discussion of the multimodality of pre-disaster risk communication efforts of
the government and moves on to identify the singular mode of communication that was used by these
agents in the context. Next, the level of community engagement identified from the semi-structured
interviews and document analysis is discussed in the context of the established communication modes
and tools that are used for pre-disaster communication and community engagement. Common themes
surfaced in participants’ accounts, and the chapter organises and highlights these based on the
research questions posited. From these accounts, three variables are identified that satisfy the need for
a more transformative level of community engagement. The structure of the chapter is guided by the
Community Engagement Continuum of Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi and Herremans (2010).

Chapter 6 interprets, analyses, and discusses the themes uncovered in the previous chapter. It explores
how these themes relate to or contradict existing literature. The chapter highlights the role of the
individual as a conduit to communication in community engagement in the context of spatial or
geographic isolation and socioeconomic inequalities. The results of the analysis reveal three
intervening variables that may aid in the smooth changeover from a transitional to a transformative
level of community engagement. The chapter also considers a paradigm shift regarding the
government’s approach to community-based DRRM efforts, through instigating drills and training
based on the reported experiences of GIDA communities and the local DRRM councils handling

29
them. This shift led to the development of a possible model that moves transitional engagement
towards transformational engagement using pre-disaster communication modes and tools.

Chapter 7 explains further how individuals can be considered communication and community
engagement conduits in the context of disaster preparedness. In this chapter, the individual is explored
in the small group context. Rather than looking at the community as single entity, I argue that it is
individuals who comprise a community, and highlight that these individuals fit into social groups
within their community. Thus, this chapter discusses a person’s common bonds and socialisation
activities that could potentially be used to connect existing social pathways and expand their social
networks or connections. This chapter also discusses how these social network or connections are
relevant in the utilisation of the three intervening variables discussed in the previous chapter. Lastly,
in response to the argument of Sujarwoto and Tampubolon (2016) on spatial inequalities, this chapter
presents a proposed communication and community engagement framework that targets more than
just GIDA communities.

Chapter 8 brings together all the arguments and evidence presented in Chapters 5 to 7 and provides
the general implications of current pre-disaster risk communication and community-based DRRM
practice. It presents enquiries about the proposed framework introduced in the previous chapter that
warrant further investigation. This chapter also provides recommendations about what specific mode
of communication can be used to ascertain a smooth changeover from transitional to transformational
learning. These recommendations are grounded on the current practice of both local DDRM councils
observed, and the accounts provided by local informants. Aside from modes of communication, I also
present specific communication tools I designed in response to the three intervening variables
discussed in Chapters 5 and 6. This chapter concludes by offering implications of the current pre-
disaster communication practices used in dealing with GIDA communities, and proposes areas for
future research investigation.

1.7 Summary

Chapter 1 has presented a brief background on the study investigation that was conducted in
Mindanao, Philippines. The chapter highlighted that disaster is a result of society’s failure to manage
the impact of natural hazards. It further provided an overview of the study, which outlined that the
investigation will revolve around pre-disaster communication practices in order to identify the level of
community engagement currently in place. To join in the conversation among scholars, this study is
delimited within the confines of GIDA communities. As such, the study intends to provide empirical
evidence about the spatial isolation and socioeconomic inequalities that are experienced in the
Philippines and are potentially applicable across communities in other Southeast Asian countries. The
chapter upholds an appreciation that focussing on GIDA communities also supports further

30
investigation into the ways and means a bottom-up approach in pre-disaster communication and
community engagement in DRRM can be achieved in these communities.

The next two chapters justify the need to focus on pre-disaster communication and community
engagement by providing an account of the relevant literature in this area. Given that pre-disaster
communication studies are often interdisciplinary, my literature review is divided in two chapters,
each deals separately with issues of pre-disaster literature and its theoretical underpinnings.

31
CHAPTER 2: WHEN INFORMATION IS CRITICAL AND
ACCESS BECOMES DIFFICULT

2.1 Introduction

This research project examines the role of pre-disaster communication in community resilience
building in the context of geographic isolation and socioeconomic inequalities. Given the breadth of
the scholarship in the various disciplines implicated in the research, my literature review is divided
into two chapters. This first chapter addresses (a) the multimodality of disaster communication and
how access to information becomes a privilege, and (b) the various conceptualisations of community
and engagement that I believe can be considered the information access point of marginalised sectors
of society. These two sections are punctuated by a discussion on the overall research gap in the
current scholarship on pre-disaster communication that utilises community engagement as a
communication strategy. This discussion explicitly points to where in the spectrum of communication
and community engagement this study comes in.

2.2 Access to pre-disaster information is a privilege

Disaster preparedness is essential to reducing or eliminating casualties when natural calamities strike.
Its primary goal is to equip people with the knowledge they need to become resilient to these hazards.
However, an individual’s access to pre-disaster information can be dependent on their geographic
location, demographics, education, language, and socioeconomic standing. While it is apparent that
access to such information ought to be a right, in fact, depending on these circumstances of an
individual’s life, such access can become a matter of privilege.

In this study, I investigate the strategic use of the communication modes and tools that can be
employed in DRRM community engagement activities to achieve a resilient community. Various
communication modes and tools are used by governments and other organisations to ensure that
access is provided equally to everyone by providing them with options. Yet, is this the same when we
talk about the experiences of people living in geographic isolation experiencing socioeconomic
disadvantages? The question arises along more than one line of thought, not least of which is the
reality that while the communication tools selected are important in transmitting information,
transmission itself does not always ensure participation. In consideration of this, I push for a user-
focussed approach. This not only covers a discussion on the plethora of available communication
modes and tools, but it also covers issues of access and user preferences.

32
In the context of pre-disaster communication, contextual and user-focussed platform studies go
beyond the mere transference and retention of information. Message retention is important, but
ensuring that messages are put into action by their users requires a strategic approach. In terms of
strategically creating effective tools and communication outcomes, communication tools can be
categorised according to the contexts where they are used, including the number of people involved,
their communicative goals, and the environment or area where the tools will be used.

In consideration of the responsibilities implied by equity, messages developed for disaster

communication should theoretically be easily understood, should meet the needs of the community,
and should be transmitted by communication tools that are comparably accessible. In addition, these
messages must be up-to-date, accurate, reliable, and continuously disseminated (Rodríguez et al.
2007) to the community using accessible communication tools and with ample lead time for the
people to take appropriate action. Appropriate lead time is important to the disaster communication
cycle, which requires users to hear, understand, believe, confirm, and respond. The inability to
traverse this cycle results in communication breakdown, which delays community response and can
eventually lead to loss of life and property (Rodríguez et al. 2007).

The use of multimodal disaster communication tools is a proposed solution to these issues of process
and timeliness; a multimodal approach offers assurance of an up-to-date, accurate, reliable, and
continuous flow of information. Multimodality is defined as the use of various modes of
communication, each of which is shaped by culture (Chandler & Munday 2016; Kress 2010).
Examples of different modes include ‘image, writing, layout, music, gesture, speech, moving image,
soundtrack, and 3D objects’ (Kress 2010, p. 79). As such, there are several studies on strategies and
methodologies for disaster risk communication covering the four stages of disaster management—
prevention and mitigation, preparedness, response, and rehabilitation and recovery (see Figure 2.1. ).
Examining these four stages is important since the impact of an incoming disaster may be lessened if
there are concrete activities and plans from pre-, during, to post-disaster phases of disaster
management (Madu et al. 2018).

33
Figure 2.1.
Visualisation of interlinked disaster phases and stages of disaster risk reduction and management

Pre- • Prevention and

mitigation stage
disaster • Preparedness
phase stage

During
• Response
disaster stage
phase

Post- • Rehabilitation
disaster and recovery
phase stage

Note. Source: Author.

Developing a multimodal disaster risk communication strategy highlights the significance of various
communication forms and information sources, as these have been observed to have a direct
correlation with behavioural responses during a disaster, such as, for example, evacuation (Liu,
Fraustino & Jin 2016). Advances in communication technologies have paved the way for disaster risk
communication to follow suit by adopting new technological methodologies in delivering disaster risk
information to vulnerable communities (Takahashi, Tandoc & Carmichael 2015) as well as
reconstructing social networks and reaffirming a sense of community (Shklovski et al. 2010).
However, technology-driven disaster risk communication has also resulted in inequality and the
privileging of information (Madianou 2015; Sujarwoto & Tampubolon 2016).

In developing countries, an increase in technological innovation demands certain levels of buyer

capacity and education to ensure user information access; in relation to disaster communication, this
has resulted in disparities that effectively comprise a knowledge/information gap between
information-rich and information-poor communities. In particular, in 2018, the Philippines’
Department of Health acknowledged that there were areas in the country that the government had
experienced difficulty in getting its programs across to for various reasons. The term geographically
isolated and disadvantaged areas (GIDA) was coined in response to this acknowledgment
(Department of Health 2018). The people living in these areas experience social exclusion that is
brought about by several factors linked to their geographical location, which affects access to:
telecommunication infrastructure (Bolin & Kurtz 2018; Sujarwoto & Tampubolon 2016),
socioeconomic status (Bolin & Kurtz 2018; Madianou 2015; Mansell 2017), human capital and
education services (Madianou 2015; Sujarwoto & Tampubolon 2016; Wong et al. 2009), political

34
environment and government readiness (Basolo, Steinberg & Gant 2017; Vincent 2016), risk
perception and prior exposure to disaster (Basolo, Steinberg & Gant 2017), among other things.

In general, this review upholds the call for studies on communication modes and tools in building
resilient communities (Burnside-Lawry & Akama, 2013) and I add to this call by focussing on
disaster preparedness and its decentralisation and localisation of pre-disaster risk information (Wamil
2010), according to the needs of people living in geographically and socioeconomically disadvantaged
locations (Sujarwoto & Tampubolon 2016).

2.2.1 Decentralisation and localisation of disaster communication

The top-down framework of information dissemination is widely used in the Philippines especially in
the implementation of the NDRRMP. This method of information delivery is often preferred because
of certain bureaucratic processes of government. However, this process neglects the capacity of local
communities to plan and design their own preferred methodologies regarding how they are informed
about various pre-disaster preparedness information. In addition, the top-down method has been
deemed problematic for foreign responders who are not familiar with the bureaucratic processes in the
country (Güss & Pangan 2004). The use of top-down framework may not be the best approach in a
multi-agency and interagency disaster risk reduction and management setting.

Multi-agency disaster management means the collaboration between organisations to deliver an

effective response in the event of a disaster (Janssen et al. 2009). These organisations may be
geographically distributed from different parts of the world, as observed during the Typhoon Haiyan
disaster when governments and emergency management organisations lent aid to the Philippines
(Janssen et al. 2009). Comfort (2007) posits that a dynamic interagency system requires cognition,
communication, coordination, and control. Cognition, or the capacity to identify the risk level to a
community, is central to disaster management (Comfort, 2007). Therefore, an interagency approach’s
goal is to craft a collective community response that reduces the impact of any natural hazard.
However, the recurring problem with interagency/multi-agency disaster management is a lack of
coordination caused by a lack of understanding among participants on the decision-making process
itself (Smith & Dowell 2010), data governance principles (Harrison et al. 2022; Abdeen et al. 2021),
and the current information/communication systems (Abdeen et al. 2021; Lee et al. 2011).

This study acknowledges the reality that disaster risk reduction and management as a field is
interdisciplinary (Shaw 2020). It is not boxed within the frameworks of development communication
or organisational communication alone. Therefore, this study situates itself in the intersection of these
disciplines and identifies a possibility of bridging theory and practice by contributing to both.

It has been suggested that disaster preparedness should take the form of a dialogue between the
government and local communities (Baybay & Hindmarsh 2019; Head 2007; Lovari & Bowen 2019).
This approach considers the need for local communities to take charge of their level of disaster

35
preparedness, rather than being merely a passive audience that relies on information from the
government. Several studies argue for community participation in DRRM through local community
capacity building. Community participation is a method used in development communication to
ensure community involvement in the process of achieving social change (Manyozo 2012). Research
on community participation has investigated the establishment of home-based early warning stations
(Garcia 2010) the decentralisation of disaster communication (David, Ong & Legara 2016; Sumaylo,
Gomez & Abrio 2016; Wamil 2010), co-creation (Akama, Cooper, & Mees 2014), gender and
leadership (Burnside-Lawry & Akama 2013) and co-production of flood hazard map (Luke et al.
2018).

Sumaylo, Gomez and Abrio (2016) highlight that this top-down method of information dissemination
has been seen to be insufficient based on the experiences of people living in Loreto, Province of
Dinagat Islands, Mindanao. In this village, disaster-related information from the local DRRM council
broadcast over radio and television do not reach the village because of communication signal
interferences and reception issues. Radio signals that reach this area are those from nearby islands in
the Visayas. As a result of the insufficiency this method of information dissemination, the local
DRRM council of Barangay Loreto disseminate information through bandilyo—a local
communication tool that was conceptualised from the bottom-up and which works as a local public
announcement system. Messages written in the local dialect are delivered by a member of the local
disaster council around the barangay (village3) using a megaphone and via text message.

The utilisation of social media’s capacity to involve its users in gathering and sharing disaster
information (Carley et al. 2016; Illner 2018; Tandoc & Takahashi 2017) is another example of making
pre-disaster risk communication bottom-up compared to the current practice. In a scoping review of
the extant literature on social media use in disaster management, Sumaylo (2018) identified
crowdsourcing as a common theme. The potential of social media use in disaster communication also
lies in its efficient delivery of messages and accessibility (Dufty 2016; Carley et al. 2016) and the
duality of roles of its users as content consumers and creators (Li 2014). Carley and colleagues (2016)
highlight the fast translation of messages by Twitter users, widening audience reach. The government
and emergency management organisations also used this platform in instructing and adjusting
information during Hurricane Harvey (Liu, Lai, and Xu 2018). Yi and Kuri (2016) also observe that
during Typhoon Haiyan, the Philippine government still utilised mass media, unlike how Japan’s
government used social networking sites during the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami.
Today, popular social networking sites like Facebook introduced features allowing users to mark their
safety after a natural hazard hits an area. This example of local communities disseminating
information with approaches appropriate to their realities suggests that localisation of disaster risk

3
As noted in the Glossary, the words village and barangay are used interchangeably throughout the document.

36
information may be an essential element in the process of disaster risk information dissemination
being used to build resilient communities.

However, this method of localisation is only achieved by translating the content of current
information, education, and communication tools from the English language into the local dialect, a
process which can potentially result in inaccuracies due to issues with local translation of scientific
information (Arreza & Sumaylo 2015). What is noteworthy for a deeper understanding of what
localisation can achieve and how it works in the Philippines is consideration of the use of English
language in disaster communication tools in this non-English speaking country. Certainly, relying on
translation alone as a form of localisation poses threats such as misappropriation, lack of local
equivalence, and inaccurate translation of scientific information.

In terms of local community recognition of the need to engage with disaster risk information, other
studies observe that it was experience with actual disaster experiences that have prompted local
communities to think of and prepare for disasters in advance (Onuma, Shin & Managi 2017; Sanchez
& Sumaylo 2015; Sumaylo, Gomez & Abrio 2016), beyond the drills taught to them by the
implementers of the national plan (Sumaylo, Gomez & Abrio 2016). However, disaster experiences
are not the ideal source of motivation in terms of encouraging people to prepare for disasters. Aside
from the loss of life and property damage they cause, disaster experiences are a double-edge sword.
While they may encourage people to prepare for future disasters, not all disaster experiences will
create enough impact to shift people towards this decision. Rather, the need to prepare for future
natural disasters depends on the intensity of the original difficulty and the loss experienced. For
instance, it Onuma, Shin and Managi (2017) document that some identified disaster-prone
communities are even less prepared than areas not at risk of disaster, even despite their experiences.
However, Kirschenbaum, Rapaport and Canetti (2017) report that living in high-risk areas makes
residents more prepared for disasters.

It is clear that the geographical makeup of the Philippines makes information dissemination one of the
major challenges for DRRM, and that being an archipelago of 7100+ islands makes communication
difficult for its population, as do issues of local topography. More information is provided to urban
communities in comparison to rural communities because of the proximity and accessibility of the
target community to the information source and media outlets (Sujarwoto & Tampubolon 2016;
Sumaylo & Salas 2015). These outcomes are significantly different when we talk about rural and
geographically disadvantaged communities, such as those living in areas separated from the mainland
by a body of water, or in hard to reach places isolated by transportation problems, high incidence of
poverty, and the presence of vulnerable sectors such as indigenous or differently-abled populations,
and senior citizens, for example (Department of Health 2018; Sumaylo, Gomez & Abrio 2016;
Sumaylo & Salas 2015).

37
At the structural level, the top-down framework of information dissemination and its localisation of
scientific information at the community level is problematic when essential (and necessarily
equitable) top-down messages are being presented in the English language. Under these conditions,
this disaster research tradition proposes a bottom-up framework of information dissemination that
utilises multimodal approaches in disaster risk communication (Head 2007). As a development
communication practitioner working in the field, it is my observation that decentralisation and
localisation can be achieved if enough opportunity is given to people to participate in resiliency-
building (Head 2007; Wamil 2010).

Given this review on the communicative conditions in disaster communication in the Philippines,
there may still be a gap in research regarding the actions and needs of those who do not have access to
a plethora of communication modes and tools, not because of their choosing but due to their
socioeconomic condition and geographical locations. Since the NDRRMP is cascaded to the
community level from the national government, there may be nuances in this holistic approach that
make the community feel like end users. I would suggest that, in the context of DRRM, rather than
looking into communities in this end-user frame, research may need to examine communities not as
one unit but as the composition of individuals that make up that unit of society, and who are the
actual end users of transmitted information.

2.3 Community engagement as information access point

Literature shows that strategic access to pre-disaster risk information leads to a gradual build-up of
community resilience (Burnside-Lawry & Akama 2013; Rogers et al. 2016; Teo et al. 2018). In 2013,
Judy Burnside-Lawry and Yoko Akama pushed for studies on communication strategies and
resiliency building. As well as the development of suitable strategies, they also identified a need to
align the relationship between communication and resilience. As Houston and Buzzanell (2018, p. 26)
posit, ‘resilience is constructed by citizens, media systems, organisations, and governments in
everyday talk and mediated communication’. This composite picture of communication
activities/sources suggests that a multidirectional approach may be better suited to constructing
resilience and disaster preparedness than a one-way, managerial, and top-down approach (Head
2007). Government and non-government sectors worldwide utilise community engagement as a
strategy in building disaster resilient communities, and it is given significant importance in most
emergency management plans (Australian Emergency Management Institute 2013; NDRRMC
2018b). In addition, using different communication modes and tools gives individuals the freedom to
choose their information source. For example, social media is one of the communication modes
currently under investigation for its capacity to deliver quick information, albeit as long as the
communication infrastructure remains online to deliver signals to those in the disaster zone. Tandoc
and Takahashi (2017) observe the significance of this mode of communication in post-disaster

38
recovery, noting that it allows survivors to group together. Other factors that have been noted to affect
people’s responses to disaster-related messages are clarity and frequency (Mileti & O’Brien 1992). In
terms of Burnside-Lawry and Akama’s alignment between communication and building resilience,
however, a community engagement strategy which harnesses multiple communication modes and
tools is potentially about more than enabling and transmitting clear and frequent messages; through its
ushering in of knowledge building and sharing, it may scaffold new action and activity.

Community engagement strategies also rely on smooth relations and swift transactions between
emergency management service providers and local communities (Liu, Jin & Austin 2013). The
planning, design, production, and implementation of community engagement strategies depends on
these agencies’ position in relation to their target audience. For instance, the multiple communication
modes of traditional media (e.g., radio, television) strongly influence the people’s response to crisis
(Liu, Jim & Austin 2013). However, it is argued that local culture and practices should be considered
in relation to these activities, especially if the agency intends to use them as a community engagement
strategy in building resiliency (Baybay & Hindmarsh 2019). The objective of strengthening the
community through capacity-building activities to create a culture of resilience (Tolentino 2007)
requires agencies involved in communicating disaster-related information to understand their current
positions and those of their end users.

In this literature review, I argue that community engagement is more than a public relations program;
rather, it can be both framed and used as a communication strategy. Doing so, however, does require
understanding of the multiple concepts involved in community engagement as it is utilised in
community-based disaster risk reduction and management (CB-DRRM) programs. In pre-disaster
communication, the use of community engagement as a communication tool in CB-DRRM ensures
multimodal communication approaches, as it takes into consideration and responds to the needs of the
sociopolitical and geographical contexts of individuals.

In order to assure a proactive citizenry in regards to disaster preparedness, it is necessary to dissect the
various concepts involved in community engagement. These are community, vulnerability, and
resilience. The next three sections examine each of these concepts in detail, and individually and
collectively they allow the communicative role of engagement in CB-DRRM to be identified.

2.3.1 Community: a question of who or what

The notion of community does not solely mean a location or a group of people. Rather, a community
is the balanced relationship between the place and the people (Delanty 2018). Similar to the idea of
Lee and Newby (1983), Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi and Herremans (2010) state that the ‘who’
aspect of community vanishes unless it is placed together with its geographic aspect. This review
wants to highlight the significance of a situation where a community of people utilises community
engagement as a communication tool within a defined context. Situating the people within their

39
context upholds the significance of their contextual, individual experiences and capacities, and offers
a counterpoint to one-way, top-down hierarchical communication processes, which arguably
implicitly ignore these aspects (Titz, Cannon & Krüger 2018).

Community, as a concept, must be one of the most contested in the social sciences (Jewkes & Murcott
1996), if not the most misused and misunderstood. In this regard, as early as 1919, Mary Parker
Follett, considered to be ahead of her time by highlighting the significance of horizontal structures
and social networks (Martin & Klenke 2016), discussed that a community is a process of integration,
and argued that looking at community as process allows recognition of the interplay between freedom
and law/rules (Follett 1919). discussed that a community is a process of integration, and argued that
looking at community as process allows recognition of the interplay between freedom and law/rules
(Follett 1919). However, she emphasised that ‘integration’ does not necessarily mean absorption or
fusion of individual traits. Rather, community is composed of ‘wishes’ or actions, and suggested that
these ‘wishes unite in a working whole’ (p. 576). It is clear in Follett’s definition of community that
the roles and actions of an individual happen or are situated in a specific setting. For Follett, a
community is created by a conglomeration of individual personalities, purposes, wills, and loyalties.

There have been multiple attempts to define what a community is and/or what constitutes a
community. George Hillery (1955), a sociology professor, consolidated 94 definitions of community,
but the only common theme among these definitions is the presence of people. The conceptualisation
process and its endpoint vary depending on who does the defining and how the definition is
operationalised. Definitions in the 1990s suggested the importance of membership in definition, that
is, that what constituted a community depended upon whether you were part of it or not. For Jewkes
and Murcott (1996), this exercise of conceptualising community meant considering the fundamental
difference in the interpretation of members and non-members. Critically, they identify that the
development of the concept of community participation developed separately from the ‘discussion of
community in the literatures of analytic social commentary’ (p. 555).

In recent years, literature has evolved in its view that a sense of community equates to nationalism;
rather, the concept of community goes beyond its political inclinations (Delanty 2018). The presence
of communities and their individual cultural, social, and political realities is rather a critique of and an
alternative to current views of ‘society’ as a conglomerate whole—highlighting the tension between
unity and life experiences. For Gerard Delanty, community is an example of an experienced
solidarity, that of a world of meaning, belonging, and everyday life. Much earlier, the sociologist
Steven Brint (2001) had already argued that defining a community could be partitioned into four by
aspects of interaction: context of interaction, motivation for interaction, rate of interaction, and
frequency of interaction (vis-à-vis mediated communication).

40
Defining community in relation to using community engagement in pre-disaster communication
requires translating the concept of community into action—inherent in the word engagement is the
notion that the community agrees to enter into an agreement to do something. And certainly, the idea
of engaging communities specifically in pre-disaster communication necessarily introduces another
(external) party into the communicative activity, namely governments, non-government groups, and
other institutions. Some literature has noted the potential for using the concept of community
engagement as a means for governments to merely transfer responsibility about an issue to a
community, rather than as a means to create a structure or frame for working with a community about
that issue (Titz, Cannon & Krüger 2018). In contrast, community engagement aims to eliminate
passive actors/beneficiaries and create a connected, proactive citizenry.

In the context of community engagement, too, one must understand the nature of the community one
wants to engage with, making the observation of Jewkes and Murcott (1996) valuable in highlighting
that the perspective of ‘outsiders’ to the community, no matter what their physical and social distance
may be from that community, may be different from that of insiders. Jewkes and Murcott expanded
on the work of Lee and Newby (1983), who had proposed three factors that define a community:
geography, interaction, and identity (Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi & Herremans 2010). This expanded
criteria means that people living in one area or region can be considered a community, and yet allows
that this geographic community also cradles smaller communities that are based on people’s
individual identities, interactions, and social relationships. In support of this view, Andres (1988)
argues that a person’s individual points of view and decisions are influenced by her/his familial and
social relations, and this idea of social capital has proved to be beneficial in disaster management in
terms of its bonding, bridging, and linking functions (Aldrich & Meyer 2015). Thus, beyond issues of
geography and social relationships, community builds and provides identity. As such, a group of
people who share the same beliefs and experiences can be considered a community, and community-
as-identity is not confined to issues of geographic boundaries or social relationships (Bowen,
Newenham-Kahindi & Herremans 2010).

In the Philippines, community is commonly defined in terms of geographic location and governmental
function. The smallest unit of Philippine governance is called a barangay or barrio (village; Romani
1956; Zamora 1967). There are areas called sitios, which comprise a cluster of households, but this
term has no legal status or any formal governmental function and appears only in village governance
(Romani 1956).

In exploring a definition of community for this study, I initially subscribed to a geographical

definition, and focussed on villages. These villages also belong to bigger communities (municipal and
provincial). This initial engagement with community as a geographical conceptualisation enabled me
to identify field sites that are classified as GIDA, and the geographic conceptualisation was necessary
because of Suijarwoto & Tampubolon’s (2016) argument that spatial isolation results in social

41
inequalities. This initial definition expanded as I considered experiences (Delanty 2018) and
interactions (Brint 2001) essential in defining community. Then, as I situated experiences and
interactions in the context of community engagement targeting GIDA communities, I needed to
capture both village and organisational needs and concerns in this regard. I thus had to expand my
conceptualisation of community to include issues of people’s practices, roles, and social relationships
(Andres 1988).

Given that by this time I had conceptualised community beyond its geography and inclusive of its
experiences and context, I finally decided to endorse Follett’s classic definition, that a community
carries its own ‘personality, power, freedom, and purpose’ (1919, p. 579); this definition transcends
both geographic space and the time period in which it was written. Its four characteristics also
encompass what Delanty (2018) posits is the overall goal of a community—a sense of belonging and
meaning. As such, an individual’s personality gives them social power to freely fulfill their perceived
purpose.

Defining community is significant for this study in terms of its flow to issues of utilising community
engagement in pre-disaster communication. This research deals with vulnerable communities facing
risks. As such, context, including peoples’ experiences and capacities (Titz, Cannon & Krüger 2018),
and community partitions, through levels of interaction (Brint 2001), play an important role in
understanding the four characteristics of a community, that is, personality, power, freedom, and
purpose (Follett 1919). This study investigated the presence and interplay of these characteristics of a
community in villages classified as GIDA.

2.3.2 Vulnerability relates more to risk than to disaster risk communication

Vulnerability undeniably relates to risk, and understanding an individual’s vulnerability necessarily
turns focus to identifying the risks they may face. The UNDRR defines risk as

the potential loss of life, injury, or destroyed or damaged assets which could occur to a
system, society or a community in a specific period of time, determined probabilistically
as a function of hazard, exposure, vulnerability and capacity (2021, para. 1).

Living in a geographically isolated location increases human vulnerability to the risk or exposure to
danger (i.e., potential for disaster) that is brought about by meteorological or hydrological hazards.
One reason for this is the reduced access to information that occurs due to the remoteness of some
geographic locations. Sujarwoto and Tampubolon (2016) observe that distance from the information
source results in access issues, and in the field, this problem can in fact be exacerbated for people in
GIDA communities when they go in and out of their community to other places (i.e, signal access is
worse outside their regular community spaces). This is the result of unequal infrastructure
development that directly affects the communicative conditions of these areas. Unfortunately,
communities that are marginalised or underrepresented in current DRRM literature are often classic

42
examples of vulnerable people who may inherently already be at greater risk of various dangers,
including natural calamities.

There are several segments of both urban (Marlowe et al. 2018; Sandoval & Sarmiento 2020;
Sujarwoto & Tampubolon 2016) and rural populations that are underrepresented in the DRRM
discourse. Often, these unheard voices are those of marginalised, traditional societies (Gaillard 2006)
living in precarious conditions. Communities situated in geographical isolation are an example; their
situation is often beyond choice—if they had the means, many would live elsewhere4. In the
Philippines, these communities often live on unproductive, hazard-prone land and constantly face
security issues not least because of their experiences with communication infrastructure and the
terrain. These living and economic conditions turn any natural hazard into a disaster (Cannon 1994), a
reality that gives credence to the importance of disaster preparedness in risk reduction and
management efforts.

Cannon (1994) states that a person or group is considered vulnerable when their livelihood, self-
protection, and social protection are under threat. I grounded this study on the argument that
vulnerability when facing natural hazards is caused by unequal access to resources (Cannon 1994;
Gaillard 2006; Sandoval & Sarmiento 2020; Sujarwoto & Tampubolon 2016). The UNDRR (2021)
defines vulnerability as ‘the conditions determined by physical, social, economic and environmental
factors or processes which increase the susceptibility of an individual, a community, assets or systems
to the impacts of hazards’ (para. 1). This inequality is variously attributed to class, gender, and
ethnicity (Cannon 1994) or to overall political, socioeconomic, and demographic factors (Gaillard,
Liamzon & Villanueva 2007). Other factors such as social power (French & Raven 1959), geographic
location (Sujarwoto & Tampubolon 2016), and even prior experiences (Onuma, Shin & Managi 2017;
Ruin, Gaillard & Lutoff 2007) also contribute to the vulnerability of an individual.

Terry Cannon (1994) highlights three factors that indicate vulnerability to natural hazards: (a) when
livelihood resilience will be impacted, (b) when the individual’s health and the accessible health care
system may be compromised, and (c) if the overall disaster preparedness of the individual or group is
poor. The underlying commonality that both generates and maintains these vulnerabilities is social
inequality, either of income, resources, power, status, social capital, and/or social inclusion/exclusion
(Warwick-Booth 2019). Clearly, inequality is also context-based, so that even a multiple positivist
measure does not cover the entire picture of vulnerability: Resident within each of Cannon’s three
factors of vulnerability there are a human issues that reach beyond quantifying (for example) how
many attended the training or if posters were put up in all government schools. As Warwick-Booth
(2019) argues, inequality is both subjective and relational, and reaches past the individual to the

4
Source: Anecdotal statements made during informal conversations with government officials while seeking approval to
conduct my study in their area.

43
social: ‘Social inequality results in many negative outcomes, both at the level of the individual
experiencing the inequality but also at the level of society’ (p. 25).

Reducing the possibility/potential of hazards turning into disasters means addressing and reducing
vulnerability and inequality, but in context of these complex factors, this is no small task. For
example, Mishra, Mazumdar and Suar (2010) argue that preparing for and reacting to disasters is both
genealogically and economically grounded. In this regard it is common in the Philippines to see news
stories about people refusing to leave their assets (so as not to lose them) despite the risk to their lives
of remaining with them during hazard events. They may also refuse to evacuate because of place
attachment (Teo et al. 2018). Indigenous peoples may remain in their community areas in spite of
perceiving the high risk to their lives (Zheng et al. 2019) because it is their ancestral land and the
government has awarded them these properties.

Place attachment is also an issue of preparedness. In times of hazard people in vulnerable

communities often choose their actions in relationship to this issue, and thus suffer more when
impacted by hazards, arguably because they are not specifically prepared in relation to their inherent
priorities (Teo et al. 2018). While this highlights that the issue of place attachment may need to be a
concern of local DRRM councils who implement the national plan in these communities, it is also a
specific example of the link between vulnerability and disaster preparedness. It stands to reason that if
government officials in the area were already aware of this problem, their system of (for example)
evacuation could consider and address the reasons why people are attached to their homes. Reading
the context more deeply, however, shows that not only do these communities consider disaster
preparedness the least of their priorities (Lindell & Perry 2004), as well, their geographic, social,
cultural, and economic isolation often means they exhibit low levels of extended social capital and
only consider their family and friends as credible sources of information, regardless of the
communication mode or tools used (Teo et al. 2018). In this regard, it could be argued that an
exploration of the untapped potential of the elderly, themselves a vulnerable population (Cornell,
Cusack & Arbon 2012), could support community engagement for DRRM, particularly since this
sector of the community holds a wealth of experiences (Brint 2001; Delanty 2018).

In recent years, in response to the significance of these issues of community in managing disasters,
DRRM councils in the Philippines have pushed for community-based disaster preparedness strategies
to address the needs of vulnerable communities living in geographically isolated areas experiencing
socioeconomic inequalities. While the overall objective is to build a self-sufficient and resilient
community in times of natural calamities, one of the biggest challenges for DRRM councils
worldwide is to ensure relevance in communicating this information to people (Burnside-Lawry &
Akama 2013; Howard et al. 2017; Mileti & O’Brien 1992). It is not enough, for example, to equip
people with survival tips and consider them less vulnerable and more resilient; it is also necessary to
increase their awareness of the risk by providing them with information about how and why these

44
natural hazards occur so that they can find ways to lessen their vulnerability. I agree with Adger
(2006), that importance should be given to the resilience of social–ecological systems by
understanding how these two complement each other. We can only say that a community is truly
resilient if vulnerability is lessened once information equilibrium is visibly achieved and results in
proactive actions from the people. However, the GIDA context already makes people vulnerable, and
thus, concentrating on solving problems relating to their primary vulnerability takes precedence for
them over preparing for the risks they might experience when facing natural hazards. Maslow’s
Hierarchy of Needs (1943), supports this—physiological needs take precedence over safety needs.
Thus, the immediate, everyday physiological needs people experience in their GIDA context need to
be solved first; as such, issues of disaster preparedness and the effects of possible future hazards are
not seen as immediate.

In summary, this review suggests that vulnerability relates more to risk itself than it does to disaster
risk communication. Access to relevant information, or the lack of it, may create more risks to a group
of people who are, by geographic and socioeconomic context, already vulnerable.

2.3.3 What is community resilience?

The previous section unpacks vulnerability as being in part a result of the inability of interconnected
systems (government, infrastructure, media, community, individuals) to prepare citizens for
appropriate action when facing natural hazards. In this regard, Proag (2014) observes that resiliency
can be found in hard forms (institutional and infrastructural strength) and soft forms (systemic ability
for recovery after impact). However, in keeping with the value this study places on the complexities
of individuals in communities, I argue that the interconnections between the concepts of vulnerability
and resiliency go beyond those of a particular system or organisation. Both concepts are composed of
the knowledge, activities, decisions, and experiences of individuals, each with their own unique set of
vulnerabilities and capacity for recovery vis-à-vis their resiliency (Spialek & Houston 2018).
Therefore, this study suggest that a weak or resilient system is a by-product of the individual
weaknesses or strengths that exist in its citizenry.

This assertion can be examined using Brint’s (2001) framework, in which the definition of
community is partitioned into four aspects of interaction: context, motivation, rate, and number of
face-to-face or mediated interactions (vis-à-vis mediated communication). I extend Brint’s argument
by pointing out that one aspect may positively or negatively affect the other three aspects. For
instance, in relation to the specific issue of communication access (which has already been established
as a factor that increases a person’s vulnerability), motivation for and rate of interaction in this regard
are both impacted by the community’s context. In GIDA communities, a lack of access to
communication infrastructure results in minimal interaction between people within an area; it also
dictates what level of interaction they can have with communities outside their area. In this sense,

45
Brint’s framework highlights that it is the specific experiences and instances of community life that
comprise people’s vulnerability and resilience, making understanding and addressing issues of
resilience a matter of attending to the way people and context are bound together.

The UNDRR defines resilience as

the ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb,

accommodate, adapt to, transform and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely
and efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its essential
basic structures and functions through risk management (2020e, para.1).

In context of this definition and Brint’s framework, resiliency can be seen as systemic (geographic)
and as a characteristic of an entire community. As such, there is value in exploring resilience as a
function of community and further dissecting the concept of community resilience. In the specific
context of a GIDA community (local DRRM council and GIDA community members) in the
Philippines, it is the individual and collective experiences of these individuals that either make or
break its resiliency in times of crisis. However, empirical information that comprehensively explores
the ‘community experience’ in GIDA contexts is currently missing from literature, and this forms a
barrier to genuinely and effectively localising CB-DRRM plans and programs for boosting resiliency
in these communities in the Philippines. In Indonesia, research by Sujarwoto and Tampubolon (2016)
documents that despite being close to the information source, people living in urban environments
experience both spatial inequalities and a digital divide. Translating this result to the context of GIDA
communities, which are geographically isolated from their primary information source, it seems
probable spatial inequalities and information access problems could only increase, further hampering
the potential development of resilience. Paton and colleagues (2017) emphasise that community-based
discussions positively influence disaster preparedness; these authors suggest the value of avenues that
foster interaction and communication. In further research in Indonesia, Partelow (2020) notes that
such interactions help build social capital and strengthen resilience, so that both become shaped by
community experiences and actions. Similarly, Ramalho (2019) stresses the need to understand the
socio-spatial manifestations of power and gender in community-based resiliency building in the
Philippines. The challenge in engaging vulnerable populations (i.e., GIDA communities) lies in their
social, cultural, linguistic, and economic isolation (Teo el al. 2018) and their situated propensity to
disaster preparedness as least priority (Lindell & Perry 2004). Spialek, Czlapinski and Houston (2016)
simplify the UNDRR definition by breaking it into four domains: connection and caring, resources,
transformative potential, and disaster management. These authors expound that responsibility for
these four domains can be attributed to organisations, but that they also relate to individual actors,
with their own set of experiences, skills, information processing, and decision-making.

When combining the definition of community (see sec 2.3.1) and resilience, it can be deduced that
building resilience at the community level does not only mean developing community leaders and

46
community-based first responders. Rather, it also means building and strengthening the connection
and interaction between the government and the people (Titz, Cannon & Krüger 2018). Resilience-
building at the community level arguably begins with the participation of the people in planning and
decision-making, a bottom-up process of involvement that aims to form a sense of accountability for
the issues in the people they concern (Head 2007). Creating a resilient community, therefore, means
engaging with its people (Titz, Cannon & Krüger 2018) by providing opportunities for interaction that
go beyond geolocation and dig deeper into the segmentation of the population in an individual
location (Titz, Cannon & Krüger 2018). In this sense, when combined with resilience, the definition
of community still upholds its conceptualisation as relating to geography, interaction, and identity
(see sec 2.3.1).

However, attempts to engage communities have so far comprised outsiders planning and
implementing a program from their perspective and expecting or hoping it would work at the local
level (the studies of Gaillard 2006 and Wamil 2010 are examples of this). In this regard, efficacy may
depend on an outsider taking steps to consider, for example, how various ethnic groups understand
and prepare for disaster. Knowing the target audience is necessary in terms of such aspects as
overcoming language barriers and avoiding mismatched cultural perceptions (Teo et al. 2019).

This is when community engagement as a communication tool in building resiliency can come into
play, since its premise is grounded in knowing the audience. In a practical sense, building resilient
communities involves knowledge creation and its subsequent reuse within the community (Chua
2007) through drills and workshops (Tang & Feng 2018); the intention of these events is that the
simulated experiences people get from participating in them get added to their prior disaster
experience, and the process contributes to improved (informed) decision-making when people are
preparing for the next natural calamity. In this regard, however, people’s prior experience and cultural
backgrounds form an intrinsic part of their presentation to this mode of engagement. Plans and actions
can be tailored to fit the needs of the message recipients, which also means acknowledgement and
consideration of the fact that people have different motivations for participating in their local
resilience-building workshop (Rashman & Hartley 2002).

This review highlights the need for more studies to investigate the experiences of geographically
isolated and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities regarding pre-disaster communication,
particularly as cultural and social limitations continue to affect disaster preparedness strategies in
Asia, Africa, and Oceania (Ayeb-Karlsson et al. 2019). In the Philippines, research by Ayeb-Karlsson
et al. (2019) identifies that messages should be understandable to the target audience so they will be
taken seriously. These authors also found that in Bangladesh and Nepal, cultural and religious
reasonings explain disasters, including issues of prevention. As described in sec. 2.3.1, a community
is comprised of individual custodians of information and knowledge that has been gained through

47
their past experiences. Specifically, studies that investigate multiple communication conditions for
disaster preparedness, outside the context of emergency management (pre-, during, and post-event),
should be given attention; arguably, less will be needed within the emergency management context if
people are already equipped with knowledge before natural calamities. I also advocate for studies on
how modes and tools of communication within the community engagement communication strategy
can answer issues of multiple contexts and demographic variations. A framework that uses
community engagement as communication tool can shift emergency management from a purely
reactive focus to a preventive one.

In this study, the idea of building community resiliency is bound to the three aspects highlighted in
the definition of what a community is. Community as geography means resilience through
infrastructure. Community as interaction means resilience through community problem-solving.
Community as identity means resilience through equipping individuals to contribute to the group.
Resilience building puts into action the key elements of community. Once these elements are
strengthened, proactive pre-disaster preparations can be achieved.

2.3.4 The rise of community engagement as a pre-disaster communication strategy

We are shaped, to a greater extent than almost any other species, by contact with others
George Monbiot (2016, p. 1).

In keeping with the scope of the strategies it uses, community engagement utilises concepts from
sociology, development communication, and public relations (to name a few) to achieve its
deliverables (Li & Feng 2021). As sociology centres its investigation on the people involved in the
communication process (Brint 2001; Delanty 2018), and public relations utilises engagement as a way
of image building, examining the behavioural, cognitive, and affective levels of engagement
(Johnston 2018; Li & Feng 2021), development communication concerns itself with participatory
paradigms in achieving social change (Mefalopulos, 2008). Recently, the field of DRRM, specifically
pre-disaster communication, has begun to use community engagement to educate people and build
community resilience (Foster 2013; Redshaw et al. 2017; Teo et al. 2018). Because of this
interdisciplinary usage, community engagement is usually specifically defined according to the field
where it is used, and each field highlights its own aspect of the concept.

In this research, I am using community engagement through the lens of development communication
because my intention is to give voice to those who are marginalised because of their geographic
location and socioeconomic standing. The significance of situating this study in the field of
development communication lies in the documented push and pull dynamics between understanding
local contexts and extrapolate this understanding into the global setting (Servaes & Lie 2013). Servaes
and Lie (2013) and Quebral (2012) acknowledge that communication for development and social
change looks at human existence beyond quantifiable measures of productivity and development.

48
Communication for development emphasises both community participation and the decentralisation
of information, both of which are seen as keys in achieving a true participatory communication
(Manyozo 2012). It also gives importance to unpacking differences rather than reaching homogeneity
(Lie & Servaes 2015) through qualitative investigations (Servaes & Lie 2013) as opposed to a
positivist approach.

Development communication practitioner and academic Linje Manyozo (2012) discusses how
community engagement, often referred to as ‘grassroots communication’ emphasises the ‘basic needs’
approach (Willis, 2005)—an approach I strongly believe is beneficial to GIDA communities. This
approach was coined because it emphasises the basic needs of people (food, clothing, shelter, etc., and
other qualitative needs like safety), and it can be achieved when communication and governance is
decentralised and devolved to local communities (Willis 2005). Quebral (2012) posits that the concern
of development communication is to address the multiple factors that threaten equality and
information access necessary in knowledge building. People living in geographically isolated
locations who experience socioeconomic disadvantage experience inequalities because of their lack of
access to these basic needs. In the Philippines, development communication is defined as ‘the science
of human communication linked to the transitioning of communities from poverty in all its forms to a
dynamic state of overall growth that fosters equity and the advancement of individual potential’
(Quebral 2012 p. 63). Hence, the conceptualisation and definition of community engagement in this
study is grounded in development communication because its goal is achieving a certain level of
social change within a community (Mefalopulos, 2008).

Why is engaging communities significant in building resilient communities? Engaging the community
in disaster risk reduction is essential since the objective of the NDRRMP (also referred to as the
National Plan in this research) is to make disaster preparation community based. This includes
identifying risks in the area and how to prepare for such risks. Community engagement is defined by
literature as the inclusion of the community in the decision-making process (Dufty 2011) in matters
that have substantial impact to them, such as preparing for disasters and increasing the resiliency of
individuals to natural threats. Engagement involves stakeholders working together to create a
collaborative environment, which is essential in building and expanding personal social networks and
developing mutual trust (Australian Emergency Management Institute 2013). According to Teo et al.
(2018), engaging communities assists in ‘establishing effective and trusted ways to disseminate
information, strengthen government-community partnerships and break down socio-cultural barriers
that hinder disaster risk reduction and management processes’ (p. 38).

By focussing on the people at risk, governments can enhance the design and approach of their pre-
disaster communication efforts, including preparedness activities and warning systems. As stipulated
in the NDRRMP (NDRRMC 2018), local DRRM councils are encouraged to design their own
communication tools, including early warning systems, giving them an opportunity to focus on the

49
needs of people at risk. However, as Sujarwoto and Tampubolon (2016) argue, even those close to the
information source (i.e., geographically close to the central government) can still experience access
issues. Douglas Paton and colleagues (2017) observe this phenomenon in the imbalance between the
rapid development of warning systems and people’s capacity to respond to these warnings. These
authors emphasise the importance of understanding people’s grasp of the threat and their local beliefs
about approaches to building resilient communities before the actual design and implementation of
such programs. Their respondents also identified positively with community-based discussions in
influencing their risk acceptance, which they agreed motivated them to prepare ahead. The
significance of early warning systems is nullified if a community’s capacity to respond has not been
scaffolded. Why is there a gap in the manner of implementation? In cases of pre-disaster
communication efforts and early warning systems, the experiences of minority groups are often set
aside (Teo et al 2018), proximity to the source of information does not guarantee access to it
(Sujarwoto & Tampubolon 2016), and technologically driven plans do not always solve the
communication problem (Paton et al. 2017).

If information retention and disaster preparation is the end goal, then community dynamics, lifestyle,
and cultural and social norms should be considered in the design and implementation of community
engagement programs. Teo and colleagues (2018) posit that engaging communities is one way of
promoting collective responsibility, as it instils the idea that everyone in the community will reap
what everyone sows in creating a safe environment. In their case study in Logan City, Queensland,
Australia, Teo and colleagues (2018) documented that culturally and linguistically diverse populations
seek assistance from their social networks (family and friends) more than from the local government.
However, this shift to shared responsibility has to be managed carefully: It can also be perceived as a
way for governments to avoid accountability and pass the burden and blame to vulnerable populations
that prefer using their social networks for information when facing natural hazards. Head (2007)
warns that the state can and will be able to abuse the concept of community participation and
engagement as a way to outsource their own role/function in community communication, share blame,
and promote policies that reduce government accountability.

Another issue involves the tacit implementation of an effectively government-centred ‘community

engagement’ program. This kind of program is one that does not hold true to the definition of
community engagement. It is not is not a true reflection of community engagement if agencies such as
governments use their own controlled processes to shape outcomes so that they are favourable
towards the implementing agency (Head 2007). The concept of engaging communities should allow
people to exercise their personal choices in protecting themselves and their families (Teo et al. 2018).
Community-based engagement programs begin with the needs of the community and assist people
with contextually and individually situated issues of risk acceptance and their inclination to prepare
ahead (Paton et al. 2017).

50
2.4 Summary

This chapter has discussed two major themes related to this study, access to pre-disaster information
and the use of community engagement in disaster preparedness, with the objective of supporting the
overall research objective, which is to investigate how governments engaged geographically isolated
and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities in pre-disaster communication.

This review found that current practice in disaster communication in general, and in pre-disaster
communication specifically, is multimodal. Multimodality means the use of multiple communication
modes and tools to transmit information to end users, but this strategy does not always adhere to the
multiple contexts in which it is applied. Instead, this review describes that, despite having multiple
sources of information, access to these tools is limited, especially in GIDA communities. That is why
I call for the decentralisation of disaster communication, to expand its reach; decentralising the
communication process means people, or the end users of information, are able to participate in the
decision-making process. They will then have the chance to select the communication modes and
tools that work best in their own context.

Since decentralisation of disaster communication demands the participation of people, the final
section of this review has provided an investigation into community engagement strategy. The
significance of this strategy sits firmly on the background of understanding provided by the earlier
discussion of the relevant issues of community, vulnerability, risk, and resilience. Community can be
operationalised as geography, interaction, and identity. Combining community with resilience allows
these same three concepts to be upheld. The need to be resilient is grounded on people’s
vulnerabilities when facing natural hazards. The impact of hazardous events to GIDA communities
becomes greater because of issues individuals in these communities experience in accessing pre-
disaster information, as well as their ability to use the communication modes and tools currently
available.

This investigation of pre-disaster and disaster communication and community engagement

methodologies leads to a discussion of several theoretical underpinnings covering current frameworks
of community engagement and its precursors that may aid in the data analysis of this study. The next
chapter thus reviews the current frameworks of community engagement and its precursors that are
used in this study.

51
CHAPTER 3: FRAMEWORKS OF ENGAGEMENT AND
PRECURSORS

3.1 Introduction

This study approaches strategic pre-disaster communication from the perspective of communication
for development while acknowledging that this field is not made of individual silos that interact and
overlap with one another. Instead, literature shows that disaster communication is relevant in various
disciplinary areas, including sociology, organisational development, and public relations, and
engaging with issues of disaster communication—inclusive of pre-, during, and after—involves
examining scholarship from several fields. This is also true in terms of pre-disaster communication, as
discussions in the previous chapter have already highlighted.

This chapter surveys how community engagement is conceptualised and applied in disaster
communication, and focusses on the various frameworks that inform this study. In addition, an
understanding of how the Filipino mind informs community development was required to build the
significance of people and context into pre-disaster communication. As such, the chapter engages with
the Filipino psyche through the lens of human resource management. After reviewing the existing
literature on pre-disaster communication, community, and engagement, I then identify and present the
research gap.

Beyond this point, section 3.4 presents a brief discussion on the Philippines’ DRRM plans and
practices, to situate the study in the existing NDRRMP. The contribution of this study is the spotlight
it places on the GIDA communities; individuals in this sector are often at risk from natural calamities
but do not have access to pre-disaster information.

3.2 It takes more than a communication tool to engage communities

According to the Harvard School of Public Health (Harvard School of Public Health, 2022, para. 1),
interdisciplinary study combines two or more theoretical frameworks from different disciplines,
allowing researchers to utilise methods and methodologies applicable to these two fields (Aboelela et
al. 2007). Transdisciplinary goes beyond discipline-specific strategies, methods, and theoretical and
conceptual frameworks as investigators from various disciplines come together to address a problem
or knowledge gap (Harvard School of Public Health, 2022, para. 1) to create a coherent synthesis of
knowledge. Shaw (2020) already posits that DRRM studies are often interdisciplinary citing possible
intersections between the arts and culture, social sciences, management and planning, and hard
sciences like sustainability science and survivability. Therefore, this study is also interdisciplinary

52
because it traverses into the intersections where theoretical lenses from different disciplines meet. It
does not borrow concepts or frameworks. Instead, it acknowledges that community engagement and
development concepts and frameworks and Filipino communicative behaviours exist, and certain
overlaps occur in specific cases like disaster risk reduction and management.

3.2.1 Frameworks of engagement

Engagement is a key concept in this study, and it is therefore important to revisit how this concept is
grounded, both for disaster preparedness and in terms of its strategic use in community engagement.
Engagement has been used as a strategy by communication practitioners in various fields, particularly
when they have identified communities or residents as their key stakeholders or audience. In terms of
the context of this study, engaging the community in disaster risk reduction is considered essential in
the Philippines, since the objective of the NDRRMP is to make disaster preparation community based.
This includes communities identifying potential risks in their area as well as how to prepare to deal
with them when natural hazards increase their likelihood. In keeping with this, community
engagement is defined by Dufty (2011) as the inclusion of the community in the decision-making
process of matters that have substantial impact on them, such as preparing for disasters and increasing
individual resiliency towards natural threats.

Engagement itself can be classified by whether it is at the individual or social level (Johnston 2018; Li
& Feng 2021; Taylor 2018), and its use intersects with various disciplines such as public relations,
development communication, and organisational development. I engage with this concept at the
developmental level and argue that to attain the higher social level of engagement Taylor (2018)
discusses, one must ensure that the individual level (Johnston 2018) is secured. As noted, this study is
framed inside the broader field of communication for development, as I investigated the supposed
strategic use of media in pre-disaster communication in the context of GIDA communities. Since
disasters are caused by the inability of society to cope with the impact of natural calamities (see sec.
1.1.1), examining the way people are being engaged in preparing for natural hazards ahead is key in
building resiliency. How is information on disaster preparedness disseminated? How do governments
involve communities in disaster preparation? How is community engagement, a strategy heavily
utilised in community-based DRRM in the Philippines, rolled out in geographically isolated areas?

Notable models of community engagement have been proposed by Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi and
Herremans (2010) and Dufty (2011). The Community Engagement Continuum (CEC) was developed
by Bowen, Newehman-Kahini and Herremans as a by-product of their review of the then-available
literature on frameworks in community engagement and community participation, which was
inclusive of six existing community engagement models. The CEC posits that community
participation can be categorised along a continuum of three kinds of engagement: transactional,
transitional, and transformational (see Figure 3.1. ).

53
Figure 3.1.
Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi and Herremans’ Community Engagement Continuum

Note. Source: ‘When suits meet roots: The antecedents and consequences of community engagement strategy,’ by F
Bowen, A Newenham-Kahindi and I Herremans, 2010, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 95, no. 2, p. 304. Copyright 2010
by Springer.

Transactional engagement focusses on the interaction between the organisation and the community in
terms of providing access to information and other critical resources. This type of engagement crosses
over to the next, transitional engagement, which is the point on the engagement continuum where
organisations involve the community in consultation. The involvement of many community partners
is common in transitional engagements, while its major difference from transactional engagement is
that transactional involves one-way communication and transitional involves two-way
communication, but still leaning towards the organisation dictating information. Transformational
engagement ‘is the most proactive engagement strategy’ (Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi & Herremans
2010, p. 305), as it requires organisations to empower local communities to take part in community
decision-making (see Figure 3.1. ) and offers joint control over the processes of information transfer
and determining the desired outcomes. Unlike the first two types of community engagement,
transformational engagement seeks to engage with only a few community partners, thereby ensuring a
frequent interaction and building relational trust between parties (Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi &
Herremans 2010).

54
Each of the three levels of engagement involves a form of educating the community that points to the
potential of behavioural change. The education element of the CEC begins at the transactional level
when information is sent to end-users. As it moves higher in the continuum, a feedbacking system is
anticipated. As such, the first two levels of the CEC point to the role of education in community
engagement, and at the end of the continuum, a more proactive and informed community that has
moved through the transactional and transitional levels of the CEC takes shape. As such, an
application of this model to the disaster communication context of the study is supported by the
presence of this element (education) in community participation, which together would allow for the
process of educating the community about disaster preparedness, with the long-term goal of
behavioural change and community participation. As Ayeb-Karlsson et al. (2019) posit, the biggest
interference in disaster preparedness in the Philippines is people’s lack of understanding of the
message, which results in messages being dismissed as trivial or unimportant. This review therefore
argues that applying the CEC in disaster communication requires that the two underlying concepts in
the model, engagement and education, should be implemented simultaneously. In this regard, Neil
Dufty’s Community Engagement Framework (CEF; 2011) simplifies the CEC by observing that there
is overlap between engagement and education (see Figure 3.2). The CEF upholds that an education
model in disaster communication has measurable outcomes, as it relies on information dissemination
that can lead to learning, while an engagement model, though not as information-heavy as an
education model, can reach more people in any given space—physical or digital.

This research harnesses the important tenets of these two models. The CEC provides detail regarding
the levels of engagement that should be engaged in when discussing community empowerment in the
study context. The CEF acknowledges the existing methodology of information dissemination, which
in the Philippine context is top-down in nature, highlighting examination of the communication tools
used in spreading information to the public. In the centre of both of these models is context, which can
be physical and socioeconomic (e.g., GIDA), cultural, and demographic.

55
Figure 3.2.
Dufty’s Community Engagement Framework

Note. Source: 'Engagement or education?,’ by N Dufty, 2011, Australian Journal of Emergency Management, vol. 26, no.
3, p. 37. Copyright 2011 by Dufty.

Highlighting context in community engagement allows exploration of disaster as a socially-

constructed concept. It is assumed that if risk perception is high, the people are more prepared and
ready to evacuate. If the government is perceived to be prepared, the people also feel prepared.
However, despite these perceptions, these same people will not evacuate in the face of the risks of
natural hazard events because their perceptions are also shaped by culture (Donovan, Suryanto &
Utami 2012) and institutional dependency (Basolo, Steinberg & Gant 2017). As such, they are not
proactive. Location also dictates the kinds of communication tools that can be used by the government
in disaster preparedness, and the people’s behaviour and motivation toward these. For instance,
internet access is disproportionate in Indonesia and internet usage shows divergent trends among
education and poverty levels across generations (Sujarwoto & Tampubolon 2016).

A study by Yang and Ho (2017) sought to discover whether traditional media (newspaper and
television) could be used effectively to decrease the knowledge gap on climate change across groups
of different socioeconomic status in Singapore. They found that newspaper reading and television
watching on the subject did reduce the knowledge gap, however, this finding only held if effects on
the knowledge gap were investigated from a mass media perspective. Approaching this issue from an
individual level might yield a different result. In Taiwan, Yu, Lin and Liao (2017) proposed to
increase people’s information literacy and digital skills to lessen the digital divide by introducing

56
information and communication technology (ICT) to underprivileged children and their elders,
thereby giving them media experience. These authors defined media experience as the amount of time
spent by an individual using a particular device, arguing that the adoption of any ICT device for
general use may rely on a person’s media experience. While their study allows the suggestion that
enabling people to use ICT tools for the integration of salient disaster risk information into their daily
lives is easily achieved, using ICT tools in this regard does not address the issue of the capacity of
rural communities in Taiwan to buy or access these ICT tools (Yu, Lin & Liao 2017). In this regard,
while the extensive innovations in communication technologies has given rise to studies of this kind,
most of these merely recommend considering people’s culture in both message design and
information, education, and communication tool development, and mention the ‘digital divide’ (i.e.,
the digital and social inequalities that must be addressed for these technologies to be meaningfully
used; Vincent 2016; Wong et al. 2009; Xuerui 2008). However, very few studies focus solely on
exploring the cultural perspective required to achieve this, hence the direction of this study.

Such issues of cultural perspective are important aspects of the social construction of reality, but they
can oftentimes be overlooked by being regarded as a mute and invisible ‘status quo’ that does not
require probing. Mercer et al. (2012) observe that in case studies in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea,
USA and Maldives, disregarding issues of culture in disaster preparedness resulted in methods that
show a lack of understanding of people’s perception of disaster and their actual reception of disaster
risk messages. Indeed, examining the cultural dimension is the current movement in disaster research,
which places human agency at the centre of disaster studies (since disasters are socially constructed;
Webb 2018, p. 113). The cultural dimensions of disaster include the examination of ‘art, [and]
literature [depicting disasters], and other tangible objects’ and other non-material phenomena such as
‘norms, values, beliefs, ideologies, and other elements that bind people together’ (Webb 2018, p.
110). Examining the cultural aspects of disaster emphasises the need to consider how a community
copes with catastrophe by looking at both its culture of resiliency and culture of vulnerability (Webb
2018) through its local history (Mercer et al. 2012), thus ‘connecting disaster events with antecedent
conditions’ (Bolin & Kurtz 2018, p. 199). This allows researchers to ‘investigate the intersection of
social inequalities, hazards, and environmental policies that put people and places at risk’ (Bolin &
Kurtz 2018, p. 199).

Investigating culture oftentimes provides transferable cultural knowledge that may aid in building the
community’s resiliency (Mercer et al. 2012) as well as (for example) providing guidance for
international responders as they deal with disaster victims and governments with cultures different
from their own (Güss & Pangan 2004). On one hand, community failure to heed evacuation calls from
the government during hazard events can be illuminated by the knowledge that locals believe they
know more about their surroundings (Lagmay et al. 2015) from traditional warnings, such as animals
going down from the mountains (Donovan, Suryanto & Utami 2012). In addition, the difficulty of

57
international volunteers in communicating with the locals in the midst of organisational culture and
bureaucracies during disaster can be lessened if culture and its meanings are first understood (Güss &
Pangan 2004).

Issues of culture, access, and skill/familiarity are some of the many things that need to be to
considered in an examination of context as an integral element in community engagement. This
literature argues that when looking at community engagement, context should be considered as its
own focus, rather than from the point of view of ‘education’ alone, in order to ensure that genuinely
proactive DRRM practices will be developed in an area. It is necessary to understand the requirements
in engaging diverse populations in disaster risk reduction. Marlowe and colleagues (2018) argue that
there are 4Rs in community engagement, and these are explored in the next section.

3.2.2 The 4Rs of community engagement

The measurement of success for any pre-disaster communication effort goes beyond things that are
quantifiable. The impact of any information session is not, and cannot be measured by, the number of
attendees. Part of the challenge for agencies and governments in pre-disaster communication is
ensuring that the messaging they implement in building resilient communities is received by the
people. This goal can be achieved if efforts are guided by the principles identified by Marlowe et al.
(2018): reach, relevance, receptiveness, and relationships (referred to in this study as the 4Rs).

For Marlowe and colleagues (2018), engaging diverse communities is difficult but doable if
differences in language, cultural barriers, knowledge (or lack thereof), access, and other concerns are
acknowledged and addressed (Guadagno 2016). As such, the diversity of a population should not be
viewed as a hindrance to implementing DRRM-related community engagement activities. Instead,
organisations and governments engaged in emergency management need to acknowledge that
diversity brings prior experience (Onuma, Shin & Managi 2017), which can be viewed as an existing
strength within the community (Shepherd & van Vuuren 2014). In fact, Vertovec (2007) pushes for
diversification of diversity (‘super diversity’), noting that there are a plethora of diversity markers
aside from the traditional age, gender, ethnicity, and religion. As Marlowe and colleagues observe,
‘there is a growing recognition of the complexities of communities and the importance of
understanding these contexts in order to engage and target risk strategies’ (2018, p. 508). Their
recognition of complexities within a community is grounded in the 4Rs of Emergency Management
used in New Zealand, where they conducted their original study and proposed a new guiding
framework in engaging culturally and linguistically diverse populations in this regard.

The National Emergency Management Agency (2021) in New Zealand identifies four areas of activity
in relation to emergency management. These are readiness, reduction, response, and recovery (also
called the 4Rs). These activity areas are defined by the Ministry as:

58
• Reduction: ‘Identifying and analysing long-term risks to human life and property from
hazards; taking steps to eliminate these risks if practicable, and, if not, reducing the
magnitude of their impact and the likelihood of their occurring’ (para. 2).
• Readiness and Response: ‘Developing operational systems and capabilities before a
civil defence emergency happens, including self-help and response programmes for the
public, and specific programmes for emergency services, lifeline utilities and other
agencies’ (para. 3). ‘Actions taken immediately before, during or directly after a civil
defence emergency to save lives and protect property, and to help communities
recover’ (para. 4).
• Recovery: ‘The coordinated efforts and processes to bring about the immediate,
medium-term and long-term holistic regeneration of a community following a civil
defence emergency’ (para. 5).

In response to this cyclical conception of emergency management, Marlowe and colleagues (2018, p.
511) proposed their own 4Rs as a framework for addressing the engagement needs of diverse
population in disaster risk reduction. As noted, these are reach, relevance, receptiveness, and
relationships, and are defined as:

• Reach: the degree to which any communication strategy will get to the person/group of
interest.
• Relevance: the degree to which any communication is seen as being relevant to the
target audience.
• Receptiveness: the degree to which engagement is constructed in ways that are seen as
culturally resonant.
• Relationships: the way in which two or more people or things are connected, or the
state of being connected.

To expound each of these further, first, reach ensures that the message is effectively communicated to
the intended audience. This can achieved through various mixtures of communication modes and
tools. Multimodality and multiplatform communication strategy fill in the communication gaps
created in the process by providing choices. Using multiple modalities and platforms is not the only
way to ensure participant access to materials, however; reach also means giving enough consideration
to how learning happens within the target community (Rashman & Hartley 2002). Second, the
relevance of the information to the target audience is also significant because each group has different
motivations to participate and learn (Rashman & Hartley 2002). Effectively, people will only peruse
information that seems necessary or relevant to their context. Thus, information needs to be properly
curated for relevance and packaged using multiple modes and tools. As noted, those who live in high-
risk areas do perceive higher risk (Zheng et al. 2019; see sec. 2.3.2) but risk perception and disaster
experience do not always end in action (Onuma, Shin & Managi 2017). Third, the receptiveness of the
target audience towards pre-disaster information is also dependent on the engagement strategy
employed. There is no one strategy that fits the needs of every community because of ‘super diversity’

59
(Vertovec 2007). In this regard, the role of the community in selecting their preferred communication
strategies and disaster preparation technologies takes precedence (David et al. 2010). Wamil (2010)
observes that a home-based disaster preparedness plan developed by the family might be more
effective than any other drills and seminars. Fourth and finally, relationships pertain to social
connections established within the community. These social relationships, or social capital, are
believed to be essential in building resilient communities (Rayamajhee & Bohara 2021). Daniel
Aldrich and Michelle Meyer (2015) highlight that attention is given to infrastructure development, but
little is done towards studying the people involved in its use. Evidence proving the positive role social
capital plays in DRRM has been established by social–ecological relationship and vulnerability
experts (Fraser, Aldrich & Small 2021; Hsueh 2019).

These 4Rs do not deviate particularly from the interlinked disaster phases and stages discussed in
Chapter 2 (see Figure 2.1. ). However, platform studies pertaining to disaster communication
discussed in this review show that the trend in both technological development and systemic analysis
is leaning towards reduction, response, and recovery. Less attention, however, is given to readiness, or
the pre-disaster phase of emergency management, which includes disaster preparedness (human
aspect) and prevention and mitigation stages (infrastructural aspect). In terms of these two vital
stages, more attention is given to the infrastructural aspect of the pre-disaster phase of DRRM in
comparison to the human aspect.

In summary, the 4Rs of New Zealand’s National Emergency Management Agency (2021) are more
attuned to disaster management than to issues of privileging pre-disaster communication and people’s
context. As this study does not tackle disaster response and recovery, which are essential parts of
these 4Rs, I have instead used the 4Rs of Marlowe and colleagues (2018) to highlight the contextual
pre-disaster communication this study is asserting. Privileging aspects of context for effective use of
reach, relevance, receptiveness, and relationships in this study is pertinent to informing the design,
production, and transmission of pre-disaster information for GIDA communities. These 4Rs also
highlight that the people and their context are significant in discussing relationships and community
development (Andres 1988). The 4Rs presented by Marlowe and colleagues (2018) also serve as a
foundation for the significance of social power within communities. Each person in a household
wields social power over others. Oftentimes, this is based on familial hierarchy. However, classic
literature observes that there are several types of social power a person possesses at any given time
(French & Raven 1959). The next section discusses this issue in context of DRRM and GIDA
communities.

3.2.3 Social power

Given that this study utilises community engagement as an analytical lens, it is necessary to discuss
the role of social power, which either binds or breaks social relationships. The role of social power

60
extends beyond the personal to the community, and the utilisation, development and strengthening of
social power in DRRM aims to develop social empowerment among marginalised and GIDA
communities. Critically, as Felicia Pratto (2016) observes, social empowerment is not just about
having the power to act, it also entails being in an environment that empowers you. Critically, as
Felicia Pratto (2016) observes, social empowerment is not just about having the power to act, it also
entails being in an environment that empowers you. Empowerment is now viewed as an individual's
understanding of power, which can be operationalised as finding a person's potential based on their
abilities (Rowlands 1995). As social media and public relations scholars Xiufang Leah Li and Juan
Feng (2021, p.4) argue, “the power of social media engagement can empower the citizen group in
nation branding. Empowerment means a ‘sense of capacity for influence’ (French & Raven, cited in
Smith, Stumberger, Guild & Dugan, 2017, p. 980)”.

In 1959, John French, Jr. and Bertram Raven collaborated to unpack the bases of social power. The
enormity, complexity, and concealability of social power all spell out its social influence. A person or
group who holds social power or influence in the context of DRRM makes or breaks a communication
process in that community. There is thus a ‘necessity to distinguish different types of power in order
to account for the different effects found in … social influence’ (French & Raven 1959, p. 150). The
agent of influence may not necessarily be a person: it could also be a group or part of a system, such
as a value system (Andres 1988) and its norms. In addition, a person’s past disaster experiences can
be a possible source of social power. Such experience also provides a form of commonality among
individuals which may influence them forming a group. However, experiences do vary in terms of
their impact on others.

3.2.4 Experience as teacher

A person’s social power can be attributed to her or his previous experiences and acquired knowledge.
It is necessary to look at individuals’ previous disaster experience in order to conceptualise better
ways to engage local communities, because this variable varies in strength and impact, depending on
an individual’s role and relationships.

Literature suggests that actual disaster experiences are more likely to make local communities think
about and prepare for disasters in advance (Koerth et al. 2013; Onuma, Shin & Managi 2017;
Osberghaus 2015; Sanchez & Sumaylo 2015; Sumaylo, Gomez & Abrio 2016), in comparison to
being taught drills by the implementers of the national plan (Sumaylo, Gomez & Abrio 2016). Yet, a
recent study by Tang and Feng (2018) argues that drills and workshops do improve the public’s
disaster preparedness knowledge. Certainly, it has been noted that past disaster experiences aid in
decision-making (Lechner & Rouleau 2019) and preparedness behaviour (Poussin, Botzen & Aerts
2014), thereby reinforcing the fact that those without prior experience tend to underestimate the risks
they are facing (Ruin, Gaillard & Lutoff 2007). This prior negative experience is a transformative

61
learning method that turns experiences into preparedness lessons, thereby developing peoples’
adaptive capacity (Paton & Buergelt 2019). This transformative learning is also the end goal of
Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi and Herremans’ CEC model (see Figure 3.1. ).

Obviously, however, in view of the risks, actual disaster experiences are not considered an ideal
source of information and motivation for people to prepare for disasters. Aside from the loss of
properties and lives, disaster experiences are a double-edged sword. While they can encourage people
to prepare for disasters, not all disaster experiences create an appropriate impact in this regard; the act
of preparing for future natural events is then restricted to the intensity of the previous event (Becker et
al. 2017) and its difficulty and loss, which may not be a good measure of the difficulty and loss that
could be experienced during a future event. It has been documented that some identified disaster-
prone communities are even less prepared in comparison to areas that are not at risk of disaster
(Onuma, Shin & Managi 2017), however other authors assert that living in high-risk areas does make
residents more prepared for disasters (Kirschenbaum, Rapaport & Canetti 2017). Zheng et al. (2019)
highlight that despite a high perception of risk among some populations living in hazard prone areas,
communities in these places can also develop a sense of attachment to the area that mediates coping
and results in a cycle of destruction and rehabilitation, with death and other losses in between.

In this regard, careful consideration of previous individual and community disaster experiences and
training and drills on disaster preparedness should be of high priority in terms of documenting the
lived experiences of GIDA communities. Further, documenting communication experiences also
helps build the information sharing and seeking that happens in this context, as the next section
describes.

3.2.5 Relationships and community development

One of the major factors for community engagement is that of creating and maintaining social
relationships with the local government and the people themselves within the community. Given that
relationships are essential to people’s lives, I return to Tomas Andres’ (1988) proposed manual for
community development to discuss the role of social networks in pre-disaster risk communication.

Andres (1988) historically traced the concept of villages in the Philippines, and argues that its
formation was based on familial ties during the pre-Hispanic period. Other historians tracing the
conceptualisation of villages (barangay) in the Philippines also discuss that colonisers of the
Philippines (Spain and the USA) capitalised on the pre-existing social formation in the country, using
their knowledge in this regard to their advantage. In the modern Philippines, the former pre-Hispanic
‘family village’ has become the lowest administrative/governing unit in the country (Romani 1956;
Zamora 1967).

62
Community development starts with the individual and how they relate to other people around them.
As Nora Quebral (2012) posits, individual growth is essential in communication for development. In
the context of pre-disaster communication, the acknowledgment of perceive threat lies on the person’s
ability to assess risks as various individual and social factors affect attitude towards disaster
preparedness (Kanakis & McShane 2016). For Andres (1988), the individual already carries certain
traits, cultural beliefs, and value systems that help them navigate their engagements with other people.

Figure 3.3.
Andres’ source of Filipino values

Note. Source: Community development: A manual, by TQ Andres, 1988, p. 31. Copyright 1988 by New Day Publishers,
Quezon City, Philippines.

To begin with, the individual is an entity formed by the people around them as their sources of values
(see Figure 3.3. ). Andres (1988) discusses that an individual acts the way they do and believes in the
things they do based on the influences they imbibe from parents, their peers, the system of belief (e.g.,
religion) they follow, and society in general. Similarly, the norms an individual believes in are also
based on the teachings they receive from parents, peers, and their awareness or rejection of belief
towards a supreme being. These sources of values often impact an individual’s communication

63
potential in terms of building or expanding their social network and ensuring social cohesion among
them (Quebral 2012).

Andres (1988) continues his argument by stating that, in terms of the sources of value systems
enumerated, an individual relates to others according to both vertical and lateral relationships. The
simplest way to describe lateral relationships is by looking at how an individual relates to other people
around them.

Figure 3.4.
Researcher’s interpretation of Tomas Andres’s progression of Filipino Values System

Note. Purok is a local term that means zone in this context. Source: Author, based on Andres 1988 p. 29.

In regard to lateral relationships, Figure 3.4. maps the close connection a Filipino individual has to
their immediate family. Family is followed by close neighbours because of living proximity and,
given that villages are made up of households coming from the same family, also close family
relatives. However, Figure 3.4. shows that the relationship between an individual and their immediate
family is not the same as that between an individual and their close neighbours. The blue flow of
relationship is tied to filial relations that fork into distant relatives and kin. This type of relationship
was described by Zamora (1967) as the foundation of the pre-Hispanic concept of barangay or village.
The purple flow of relationship is based solely on living proximity.

64
In terms of vertical relationships, these may be based on wealth, age, power (e.g., such as is endowed
by means of election to government or local council), and other factors that categorise people into
either majority or minority groups—that is, the basis of vertical relationships is culture. Seniority is
highly valued in Southeast Asian culture, and the opinion of an elder in a community is almost always
valued. In addition, the opinion of the eldest in the family matters more than anyone else, and position
(power) is honoured, especially in far-flung villages; as such, to be approached by someone in
position is preferred by vulnerable groups (Howard et al. 2017).

3.3 Research gap

After careful evaluation of existing literature in the fields of (pre-)disaster communication,

community, and engagement, I identified the need to probe the role of community engagement in
strategic DRRM. Within this broad investigation, special attention is given to the individual’s role in
sectoral engagement and how they can perform as conduits of pre-disaster communication.

The diagram presented in Figure 3.5. is a representation of the CEC posited by Bowen, Newenham-
Kahindi and Herremans in 2010. I decided to visualise their model in this manner to show where the
extant literature discussed in this chapter is applicable. The green horizontal arrow pointing to the
right represents the abridged version of literature that tackles communication modes and tools that are
used in the various levels of community engagement. This symbolically indicates that community
engagement, if divided into three levels, utilises multiple communication modes and tools. However,
studies on this subject do not necessarily provide information on how these modes and tools can be
combined to engage communities. I therefore added the blue vertical downward pointing arrow to
indicate the research gap, where this study comes in. At this intersection, studies exist regarding
community engagement and how it should be achieved, however, the specific meeting point between
communication and community engagement has not yet been fully explored. Community engagement
is perceived as a framework at this point and communication is seen to be a tool that aids in its
implementation. If we look at community engagement as a communication strategy, we can zero-in
on the significance of individual modes and tools of interaction that aim to reach the transformational
level.

65
Figure 3.5.
Research gap

Note. Source: Author.

Thus, Figure 3.5. highlights a possible unexplored research intersection between communication
practices and community engagement. This chapter (see sec. 3.4) has already described the mandate
of the National DRRM Council for a community-based DRRM practice and for continuous
communication of disaster preparedness actions and plans in the Philippines. However, existing
literature does not adequately explain how the two fields of communication practice and community
engagement can merge in order to achieve this objective. Close examination of literature on pre-
disaster and disaster communication highlights various modes and tools of communication in this
regard, as well as concerns about how these affect the communication process including the digital
divide that is brought about by several intervening factors. Community engagement literature also
posits several ways of engaging local communities, which include participatory communication and
co-design/co-creation practices. What is lacking in this overall schema is the process of merging these
two fields in order to come up with possible ways to utilise various modes and tools of
communication and community engagement to reach a transformational level of engagement (Bowen,
Newenham-Kahindi & Herremans 2010).

66
Chapter 2 has already highlighted that not all people in a community can easily adapt to change, and
this includes the adoption of new technologies that can be used for various DRRM purposes—pre-
disaster, during, and post-disaster. Literature suggests that a move to make pre-disaster and disaster
communication digital would exacerbate existing socioeconomic and geographical access inequalities
to this information for some communities, such as via problems of poor communication
infrastructure, financial instability, and/or literacy (Mansell 2017; Sujarwoto & Tampubolon 2016). It
should also be noted that the majority of the literature reviewed in this regard describes studies that
utilise various communication modes and tools in either the second phase (just before a slow-moving
hazard makes landfall) or the third phase (after the disaster has passed) of disaster management, not in
the pre-disaster phase. Very few studies have focussed on pre-disaster communication, which happens
in anticipation of an as-yet unseen future disaster. What is clear is the speed at which new
communication tools are being developed, especially digital ones, that are intended for use in DRRM.

The community engagement literature that was reviewed also suggests its relevance in the planning,
designing, and production of communication tools for DRRM. The literature highlights the
importance of including those affected by hazards in the process of pre-disaster community
engagement. In this regard, communities and local DRRM councils in precarious situations are not the
only ones affected; responders are also covered in this classification, as while they do not necessarily
live in GIDA communities, these workers do live in the same provincial/municipal areas. The
potential involvement of local communities, responders, and perhaps also those who belong in allied
fields—including the media—in this process of engagement promises multiple perspectives on how to
address issues of safety and preparation. Given the multiplicity of involved parties, literature
suggestion would be for a multimodal pre-disaster communication approach. In addition, Arreza and
Sumaylo (2015) observe that localising pre-disaster communication approaches which tap into local
people’s experiences and context would require three levels of information mainstreaming—political,
cultural, and personal. If pre-disaster communication approaches and messages are intertwined with
people’s political and cultural contexts (i.e., in the local barangay) and their personal, day-to-day
activities, a preventive culture may develop, creating a relevant and connected framework for
minimising the impact of natural hazards.

This study thus aims to find ways to mainstream pre-disaster risk information on the political (Healy
& Malhotra 2009; Martin, Jenkins, Mehring, & Ma 2011), cultural (Webb 2018; Bolin & Kurtz 2018),
and personal levels (Aldrich & Meyer 2015; Shaw & Goda 2004) as revealed by the gap in the current
scholarship. Political mainstreaming means institutionalising disaster preparedness activities through
government- and community-led activities. In the long run, cultural mainstreaming potentially means
that a community’s perspective of disaster preparedness can shift so that it is seen not as an extra
activity but as part of an individual’s daily activities. Personal mainstreaming means changing the
personal risk perceptions of people living in GIDA communities.

67
3.4 The relevance of these frameworks to understanding GIDA communities

In order to grasp the top-down, multilayered management processes involved in the research
investigation, it is first necessary to understand current DRRM practices in the Philippines. This
discussion is also important because it shows how distant local communities are from the decision-
makers and sources of information. In addition, this outline of DRRM allows the observation that
certain layers and levels of governance appear to think that they are, and effectively function as, mere
implementers of national policies and programs. Detailing this ‘message relay’ type of management
gives an impression of a lack of accountability of certain levels of governance. It also describes a
systemic overreliance on the top-down process of management, which disregards the role of building
resiliency at the community level.

This section is divided into two subsections that discuss the political structure governing the DRRM
plans and its ways of implementation. The first subsection provides an overview of the political
structure of the Philippines. This information is significant to the study because the laws pertaining to
DRRM in the country, including their implementing rules and guidelines, are intertwined with the
political structure. The second subsection unpacks DRRM in the Philippines, specifically its
connection to the political structure of the country.

3.4.1 Understanding the political structure of the Philippines

The Republic of the Philippines is an archipelagic country that follows a democratic system of
governance with a president at its head. According to its 1987 Constitution, governance is divided
into three branches, the Legislative (Article 6), Executive (Article 7), and Judiciary (Article 8).

The legislative branch, which comprises the House of Representatives (Congress) and the Senate,
oversees drafting and passing legislation. This branch is also responsible for reviewing, amending,
and/or removing past legislation and law. The executive branch, which comprises the President, Vice-
President, and the Cabinet members, enforces legislation passed by the legislative branch. In
particular, the Office of the President can also veto laws coming from Congress. Lastly, the judicial
branch, or judiciary, comprises the Supreme Court and the lower courts; it handles disputes and other
controversies. The judiciary can also overturn law that contravenes the 1987 Constitution (GOV.PH
2021).

The country is also geopolitically divided into several territorial and political subdivisions known as
LGUs that are themselves classified into levels: provincial, municipal, city, and barangay (village).
The formation, composition, and powers of these LGUs are defined in Republic Act 7160, also known
as the Local Government Code of 1991, with amendments in February 1998 now known as Republic
Act 8553, which amended Sec. 41[B]), and Republic Act 8524 (which amended Sec. 43).

The Local Government Code of 1991 posits that:

68
 Every local government unit created or recognized under this Code is a body politic and
corporate endowed with powers to be exercised by it in conformity with law. As such, it
shall exercise powers as political subdivision of the National Government and as a
corporate entity representing the inhabitants of its territory (RA7160, Book 1, Chapter 2,
Sec. 15).

The same code also stipulates the basic services and facilities that should be provided at the
provincial, municipal, city, and barangay levels:

Local government units shall endeavor to be self-reliant and shall continue exercising
the powers and discharging the duties and functions currently vested upon them. They
shall also discharge the functions and responsibilities of national agencies and offices
devolved to them pursuant to this Code. Local government units shall likewise exercise
such other powers and discharge such other functions and responsibilities as are
necessary, appropriate, or incidental to efficient and effective provisions of the basic
services and facilities enumerated herein (RA7160, Book 1, Chapter 2, Sec. 17 [A])

Table 3-1 outlines some of the basic services itemised in the Code.

Table 3-1.
Summary of basic services of LGUs based on RA 7160

Provincial Municipal Barangay

• Agricultural support services • Agricultural support services • Agricultural support services

• Industrial research and
development services
• Enforcement of laws on the
protection of the
environment
• Provision of health services
• Social welfare services
• Infrastructure facilities
• Inter-municipal
telecommunications services
• Social welfare services • Health and social welfare
services, specifically
• Information services such as
maintenance of a Barangay
maintenance of public library
health centre and day-care
• Solid waste disposal system or centre
environmental management
• Services and facilities related
system and services/facilities
to general hygiene and
related to hygiene and
sanitation, beautification, and
sanitation
solid waste collection
• Infrastructure facilities for
• Maintenance of barangay
health, agriculture, drainage
roads, bridges, and water
and flood controls, and road
supply,
signages
• Infrastructure facilities
• Sites for police and fire
stations • Information and reading
centre

Note. Source: Republic Act 7160, Local Government Code of 1991.

The provincial government’s role is to provide these services to all municipalities and cities under its
jurisdiction, and it serves as the national government agency that implements a dynamic mechanism

69
of developmental processes at the provincial level. The provincial government also oversees effective
governance of its constituent municipalities and component cities. National government agencies are
bodies that implement projects through the provincial government. The role of municipal
governments is to provide the same services as the provincial governments but on a smaller scale. The
municipal government thus ensures that projects from the higher level of governance are delivered in
its territorial jurisdiction.

The barangay or village is the lowest and most basic governing body in the Philippines. It ensures that
national, provincial, and municipal projects and services are delivered to local people. The collective
opinions of people are formed at this grassroots level. The barangay captain (village leader), as head,
together with other barangay officials and functionaries, finds ways to improve the livelihood and
overall quality of life of the residents of the village.

The Philippine DRRM Act (RA 10121 2010) was enacted in 2010, 19 years after the Local
Government Code of 1991. This Act upholds the nature and role of the local governments as they are
defined in the Code. For instance, the composition of a barangay DRRM council is not exclusive to
local government officials. Rather, it is a multi-sectoral council that aims to:

Adopt a disaster risk reduction and management approach that is holistic,

comprehensive, integrated, and proactive in lessening the socioeconomic 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 (RA 10121, Sec. 2[D]).

As elected head of the barangay, the village leader/barangay captain performs duties as head of the
barangay DRRM council. It is their responsibility to include in the council the elected officials of the
barangay, and officials from other civil society organisations such as tanods (local ‘police’, who
maintain the village peace and order), as well as senior citizens and representatives from women’s
groups in the community. These members of the council are not elected, meaning they are not
representatives of the government. However, the membership base of these groups is culturally
designed to unite communities in achieving a goal.

In terms of DRRM councils at the municipal and provincial levels, the same is true. The provincial
council is headed by a governor and the municipal by a mayor. Membership of the council at all levels
include politicians, their appointees, and those from local agencies (such as the police in the LGUs),
as indicated in the law. Although there are specific offices at each level designated as municipal or
provincial DRRM offices, these only house a few staff; membership of this council includes the
municipal/provincial engineering office and other staff, who work at their regular government
employment elsewhere. As such, an individual who holds a position, say, in the LGU, also holds the
same position within the DRRM council. In terms of how these individuals can function as part of the

70
LGU and as part of the local DRRM council, it is at this point that two significant issues emerge from
the confusion on roles and responsibilities:

1. Divided attention towards DRRM, as there are no dedicated personnel to look at a

specific DRRM theme because officials are busy with their main function; and
5. Budget utilisation, as other offices may use the DRRM budget to augment their
office’s budget for a certain project.

On this last point, the DRRM budget can and may be used by other local agencies and departments in
the LGUs. For instance, the tourism committee of the LGU may use the local DRRM council budget
to construct roads going to tourist areas under the heading of ‘disaster mitigation’ projects. The area
may not, in fact, be prone to any hazard, but since the priority project for the head of the council
(mayor or governor) is tourism, they can realign the budget to such matters because they are also the
approving body. Hence, DRRM council budgets can be used up in ways other than by improving
areas that are truly at risk or need immediate attention. This budget realignment is technically legal
and depends on how it is justified on paper. A discussion of project prioritisation is provided in
Chapters 5 and 6.

In this section I have discussed that DRRM follows a managerial, top-down process akin to the
political structure of the country. This structure posits certain expectations from each level of
governance as reflected in the local government code. The structure is also reflected in the multi-
agency and multi-departmental composition of the local DRRM councils. In terms of actions for
DRRM, this council and its DRRM budget is subject to several issues, including council membership
focus and budget utilisation. The next section outlines specific issues of DRRM in the Philippine
context.

3.4.2 DRRM in the Philippines

Government communication programs in the Philippines involve so many layers of bureaucracy and
complexity that, as a message from the top ‘descends’ or moves through these layers, both the
message and its meaning can often change dramatically from its original form and intentions.
Effectively, by the time the message has reached the last person in the bureaucratic chain, the original
message is frequently muddled; either the addition of new lines or the absence of missing lines means
that new messages, or new meanings, have been created along the way. And this is just within the
government. By the time the message has flowed down to the people, it has become a very different
entity from that of its original form.

Such is the case with the Philippine DRRM Act (RA 10121 2010), and Figure 3.6 details the layers of
bureaucracy that interact with the implementation of DRRM in the Philippines. The law stipulates that
the National DRRM Council, previously known as the National Disaster Coordinating Council, is
responsible for the protection of its people during disasters and other emergencies through its

71
development and implementation of the NDRRMP (NDRRMC 2018b; RA 10121 2010). For clarity
and uniformity, the National DRRM Council will now be referred to as the National Council and the
NDRRMP as the National Plan.

Figure 3.6.
Organisational structure of the National Council

Note. DND: Department of National Defense; DILG: Department of Interior and Local Government; DSWD:
Department of Social Welfare and Development; DOST: Department of Science and Technology; NEDA: National
Economic and Development Authority. Source: Primer on the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) Act
of 2010, by Disaster Risk Reduction Network Philippines, 2010, <https://www.alnap.org/help-library/primer-on-the-
disaster-risk-reduction-and-management-drrm-act-of-2010>. Copyright 2010 by Disaster Risk Reduction Network
Philippines.

The National Council is a multiagency council that aims to enact RA 10121 and craft and ensure the
implementation the National Plan. The National Council is headed by the Secretary of the Department
of National Defense and co-chaired by the Secretaries of the following departments, each of which is
assigned to a specific phase in DRRM: Department of Interior and Local Government, Department of
Social Welfare and Development, Department of Science and Technology, and the Director-General
of the National Economic and Development Authority. The National Council aims to achieve specific

72
objectives in four priority areas: disaster prevention and mitigation (Department of Science and
Technology), disaster preparedness (Department of Interior and Local Government), disaster response
(Department of Social Welfare and Development), and rehabilitation and recovery (National
Economic and Development Authority; NDRRMC 2018b; RA 10121 2010;). By 2016, most of the
objectives under the disaster preparedness stage of the National Plan were expected to be 60%
complete (NDRRMC 2018b).

Figure 3.7.
Simplified roles of each local DRRM council

Note. DRRMC: Disaster Risk and Reduction Management Council; OCD: Office of Civil Defense; DRRMO: Disaster
Risk and Reduction Management Office. Source: Primer on the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) Act
of 2010, by Disaster Risk Reduction Network Philippines, 2010, <https://www.alnap.org/help-library/primer-on-the-
disaster-risk-reduction-and-management-drrm-act-of-2010>. Copyright 2010 by Disaster Risk Reduction Network
Philippines.

Figure 3.7 details the implementation of the Philippine DRRM Act (RA 10121 2010), which is shown
as a linear, top-down process that begins with the Office of Civil Defense as chair and is implemented
in the various administrative regions in the Philippines through its regional offices. The
implementation process is carried down to the lowest administrative level following this top-down
process, from the provincial to the municipal/city, and then to the barangay councils. Directives are

73
thus given to the regional DRRM councils from the National Council, so that the implementation of
the Philippine DRRM Act (RA 10121 2010) is passed effectively from the chair of the Office of Civil
Defense to the provincial government, then to the municipal government (from the Office of Civil
Defense Regional Office) before it reaches the barangays (villages). As such, the municipal
government’s purpose is coordination and delivery of basic services from the provincial level, which
it achieves through its municipal DRRM office, ensuring the implementation of the National Plan at
the grassroots level.

These details of the structure of government DRRM implementation in the Philippines show that the
current framework is top-down in nature, and establish the complexity of DRRM in the Philippines by
highlighting the number of agencies that need to coordinate when a natural calamity occurs. Each of
these agencies is expected to communicate emergency and disaster information to the public, either
through agency-initiated intervention or interagency coordination. Another reality of this situation is
the absence of the government agency in-charge of communication from this decision-making
process. The Philippine Information Agency is mentioned only once in the entire National Plan 2011–
2028, despite the Plan’s concurrent emphasis on issues of communication that constrain the fluidity of
disaster phase implementation.

It is in the context of this political background that this research examined the strategic pre-disaster
communication of the government that utilises community engagement in two geographically isolated
and disadvantaged local communities in Mindanao in the southern Philippines. The research
investigated socioeconomic and geographic factors, levels of community engagement, and the role of
various communication tools relevant to disaster preparedness using qualitative methods. This
research also looked at the information seeking and sharing behaviours of residents in geographically
isolated communities and investigated ways that intervening variables, such as social and geographic
factors, positively or negatively impact levels of community engagement.

3.5 Summary

This review has discussed community engagement studies and frameworks and the Filipino Values
System, both of which inform the theoretical underpinnings and assist in answering the research
questions posed in Chapter 1 (sec. 1.3). Specifically, community engagement has been expounded
through the lens of the CEC developed by Frances Bowen, Aloysius Newenham-Kahindi, and Irene
Herremans (2010). Based on their review, community engagement practices documented in scholarly
works can be categorised into three levels, which they present as a continuum or process. I also
included Neil Dufty’s CEF (2011) as a catch-all framework that describes what community
engagement is before it is broken into the three levels.

74
This review of community engagement approaches led to a discussion of power, relationships, and
experiences as relevant variables in engaging communities, and these are specifically described in
terms of Tomas Andres’ Filipino Values System (1988). This system is contextualised under
community development, which means it tackles cultural values and traditions that positively or
negatively affect community development through people’s participation in it. This chapter has also
explored the way that these cultural influences may affect pre-disaster communication in terms of the
community engagement processes discussed in the previous chapter.

The rationale behind the theoretical underpinnings of this study lies within Marlowe and colleagues’
(2018) 4Rs (reach, relevance, receptiveness, and relationships) which were specifically developed to
address the needs of a diverse population. The community engagement frameworks discussed in this
chapter cover reach and relevance, while the Filipino Values System covers receptiveness and
relationships. Any pre-disaster information and its accompanying mode of transmission should reach
and be relevant to geographically isolated communities. The receptiveness and social relationships of
GIDA communities also demand that pre-disaster communication information goes through culturally
resonant channels. The Filipino Values System, which helps unpack social power, experiences, and
relationships, provides a solid basis for connecting these two Rs of Marlowe and colleague’s
framework (2018) to the study context.

In due course, therefore, this review was able to identify the research gap the study aims to address.
After a discussion of multiple platform studies, that is, scholarly works which focus on
communication modes and tools and the structure wherein these modes and tools of communication
are used, I highlighted that this study situates itself in the scholarly conversation at the intersection of
communication and community engagement in DRRM. Added to this is the context of GIDA
communities, with their specific DRRM and community engagement issues connected to spatial or
geographic isolation and socioeconomic inequality. Literature at this intersection is sparse, as the
review indicates, and issues fuse together to identify a research gap.

Lastly, the chapter provides the political context of DRRM in the Philippines. I have briefly
introduced the governance of the Philippines, as well as outlined the DRRM roles of LGUs. I also
discussed how DRRM policies and laws are rolled out in the Philippines in order to provide context
for how GIDA communities operate in regard to DRRM. This section also provides the necessary
background on the current implementation of the National Plan so that the succeeding chapters of this
study can highlight issues of the implementation of the National Plan at the local level. In particular, it
supplies foundation for documenting the localisation of national programs at the community level and
the various setbacks it faces.

The next chapter discusses the methodology and the various methods of data collection employed in
conducting the study. It also provides a detailed description of each field site, and these are necessary

75
since my argument later is centred on how spatial or geographic isolation and socioeconomic
inequalities impact pre-disaster communication and community engagement practices.

76
CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY

4.1 Introduction

This chapter sets out the methodology and analytical framework utilised by this study. It is divided
into five sections that cover the research design, data collection methods, field sites, analytical
framework, and research scope. The first section provides a general overview of the philosophical
grounding of this qualitative study. This is followed by a detailed discussion of each of the data
collection methods that were utilised in situ. Next, a detailed description of each field site is provided,
including a justification for considering these areas as GIDA. Following this is a brief discussion of
the theoretical underpinnings that were used to analyse the empirical data from the field. Finally, the
last section deals with the scope of the study, and the chapter concludes with a summary.

4.2 Research design

This study followed a constructivist–interpretivist approach of qualitative research that allowed me to

directly observe the practices and processes of disaster risk communication in situ. A constructivist
epistemological underpinning is appropriate for this research since the enquiry revolves around
documenting experiences of isolated and disadvantaged communities in disaster risk communication.
This lens allowed the development of meaning to be illuminated through the experiences that were
observed in the field. As Crotty (1998) explains, a constructivist lens is not about discovering
meanings but rather observing how meanings are constructed. As such, meanings are situated in
people, not in words, and the construction of meaning goes beyond objectivity. Instead it involves
how people experience reality and thereby allows that reality has a particular meaning endemic to
each. Hence, employing an interpretivist theoretical perspective is logical in this research, as it seeks
to understand the social realities of isolated and disadvantaged communities. Crotty (1998) highlights
that the root of an interpretivist theoretical perspective is in human understanding. These
epistemological and theoretical underpinnings allowed flexibility in terms of the methods of data
collection that were employed in the field (Gobo & Marciniak 2016; Morgan 2008). in that regard
also, a qualitative approach was deemed suitable for this people-centred project, since it supported the
in-depth inductive exploration (David & Sutton 2011) of the two main research variables, pre-disaster
communication and community engagement practices.

This study utilised qualitative methods of data collection that have been engaged extensively by other
researchers in the field. Three data collection methods were used: (a) interviews (Becker et al. 2017;
Burnside-Lawry & Carvalho 2016; Donovan, Suryanto & Utami 2012; McIntosh & Morse 2015;
Tandoc & Takahashi 2017), (b) qualitative document analysis (Bowen 2009; Burnside-Lawry &

77
Carvalho 2016), and (c) field observations (Burnside-Lawry & Carvalho 2016; Donovan, Suryanto &
Utami 2012). These methods were employed to examine existing practices, processes, and
communication modes and tools used for pre-disaster communication in two different field sites in
Mindanao, Philippines that were classified as GIDA. Both of these areas represented communities in
upland and island locations that, after applying inclusion–exclusion criteria, excluded any lowland
communities. Varying the field sites was seen as important for this study (as per Sujarwoto &
Tampubolon 2016), as it was hoped that this would yield different but relevant information in terms
of the information-seeking and sharing behaviours that were used in the context of each area, but in
the end, only two areas, island and upland, proved practicable in terms of the criteria (see also sec.
4.3.1.).

This triangulation of methods is common in qualitative studies (David & Sutton 2011) and is
considered essential for both gathering and corroborating data (Bowen 2009). In this case,
triangulation was particularly valuable since DRRM in the Philippines follows a top-down approach,
and thus there is more than one group of actors involved in DRRM at the barangay level (see sec.
3.4.1). The three main data collection methods were utilised to acquire the following types of data:
descriptive; profiling; possible segmentation, attitudes, and expectations; trust and relationships; and
media use and preferences.

4.3 Preliminary fieldwork considerations

There are two important aspects of this research that needed to be highlighted by the fieldwork. First,
site selection was paramount, as this research intended to hear the voices of communities that have
been so far voiceless and marginalised in regard to DRRM in the Philippines. Second, the selection of
respondents was significant to the research being able to observe the communication process between
government and marginalised communities. This section discusses both the site and the informant
selection criteria that were used.

4.3.1 Criteria for site selection

The criteria used to identify the locations for this study were based on the factors that represent a
GIDA according to the Philippines’ Department of Health (2018). These criteria specify that for a
village to be considered GIDA, it should satisfy both physical and socioeconomic factors. Physical
factors include distance and difficulty in transportation, while socioeconomic factors include high
levels of poverty, the presence of vulnerable sectors, and the presence of or recovery from armed
conflicts (Department of Health 2018). The two communities in Mindanao selected for this study have
been classified as GIDA by the Philippines’ Department of Health. Socioeconomic criteria used for
this research were satisfied by the class level of the local government, which is based on average
annual income (BusinessWorld Research 2018) and the presence of vulnerable sectors such as

78
indigenous peoples, senior citizens, youth, and women (World Health Organization 2009). In regard
to the former, the Department of Finance in the Philippines classifies cities, municipalities, and
provinces into six income classes, with first class being awarded to local governments with the
highest average annual income. I also included poor access to communication infrastructure (which
was based on the experiences conveyed by local DRRM councils during the initial interviews when I
was searching for a field site), and experience of slow-moving natural hazards (typhoons and floods,
determined as per record of the National Council) as part of the criteria.

Initially, I wanted to find three locations for this study that would represent disadvantaged
communities living in (a) island, (b) upland, and (c) lowland areas (Sujarwoto & Tampubolon 2016).
A representation from three different topographies responds to the recommendation of Sujarwoto and
Tampubolon (2016) to vary locations when dealing with spatial inequalities. These authors suggest
that there might be varying experiences of GIDA communities, depending on their topography.
However, upon applying the criteria described by the Philippines’ Department of Health, only two
locations qualified as GIDA, and these were upland and island. The lowland site was excluded
because these are easily accessible by public transport; further, they are often classified as first to third
income class based on annual income. Lastly, there were no lowland areas in the list of GIDA-
classified villages provided by the Department of Health that had recently experienced typhoons and
other slow-moving natural hazards; thus, no lowland areas fit the study criteria.

Several scholars have highlighted the need to examine spaces of inequality in disaster communication
(Reid 2013; Sujarwoto & Tampubolon 2016). Spatial inequality in a country cannot be classified by
an urban–rural dichotomy. There are gradients of spatial inequalities in any given place, with various
social inequalities experienced by the people living in them. In addition, further marginalisation of
already geographically distant communities often occurs in relation to socioeconomic factors and the
efficacy of media information. In the Philippines, GIDA areas are often overlooked and marginalised
because of their location, which adds to their socioeconomic disadvantage.

This study addresses the call of other scholars to investigate disaster risk communication practices in
isolated locations; it does this by focussing on two GIDA communities in Mindanao, Philippines.
After experiencing two of the most destructive typhoons (Haiyan/Yolanda and Bopha/Pablo) ever to
hit the island, Mindanao lost its typhoon-free title and now fits the criterion for disaster preparation.
Given this background, I decided to investigate areas devastated by these two typhoons. I wanted to
know how prepared the communities in these areas are since the 2012 (Bopha/Pablo) and 2013
(Haiyan/Yolanda) typhoons.

4.3.2 GIDA and the field sites

This section establishes the context and current situation of the field sites from the provincial to the
village level. Careful description of the barangays (villages) observed for the study provides empirical

79
evidence why these areas and the people living in it are considered geographically isolated and
socioeconomically disadvantaged. This section also details concerns that were raised by my
informants (on all community levels) during the initial site planning stages as warranting attention.

The general objective of this study was to investigate the intersection between disaster preparedness
and community engagement in the context of spatial isolation and socioeconomic inequalities. This
research focus was established to differentiate this study from both the literature already available on
this subject regarding the Philippines (Cool et al. 2015; Gaillard 2007; Valenzuela et al. 2020) and
that available regarding its Southeast Asian neighbours, such as Indonesia (Chang Seng 2013;
Djalante & Thomalla 2012; Sujarwoto & Tampubolon 2016). In order to do this, I specifically
decided to focus on GIDA. These are not simply rural areas. People living in GIDA experience all the
geographic, socioeconomic, and political concerns described in the literature, but these are
exacerbated by their context. This research focus puts forward the relevance of the spatial distribution
of people and its intersection with disaster risk information distribution and consumption. Selection of
field sites was the most crucial aspect of this research in this regard. In the process, I followed a
simple set of inclusion–exclusion criteria to identify a province, municipality, and eventually a GIDA
village as a potential primary field site. As noted, this initially involved requesting a recent list of
GIDAs from the Department of Health in the Philippines through the Philippine Government’s
electronic Freedom of Information site.

The specific criteria for GIDA classification used by the Philippines’ Department of Health states that
this classification

Refer[s] to communities with marginalized population physically and socio-

economically separated from the mainstream society and characterized by physical
factors—isolated due to distance, weather conditions and transportation difficulties
(island, upland, lowland, landlocked, hard to reach and unserved/underserved
communities) and socio-economic factors (high poverty incidence, presence of
vulnerable sector, communities in or recovering from situation of crisis or armed
conflict; Department of Health 2018).

To be classified as GIDA means the area and the people residing in it are separated from mainstream
society. While still caused by catastrophic slow-moving disasters, their disaster-related stories are
comparatively minute in the overall scale and are thus often neglected by mainstream media. As such,
their voices and concerns are almost always excluded in the narrative of the majority that is portrayed
in national news stories. As Nicole Curato (2018) opines, mainstream media attention is focussed on
‘monster meteorological events’ (pp. 58–59) that impact a large group of people; this attention often
draws assistance from institutions outside the affected area. Despite the severity of the impact caused
by any natural hazard in these vulnerable areas, the situation will not be classified as disaster, but
rather, it will only be classified as calamity, since disaster is defined by EM-DAT (2020) as a

80
 situation or event, which overwhelms local capacity, necessitating a request to national
or international level for external assistance; An unforeseen and often sudden event that
causes great damage, destruction and human suffering. Though often caused by nature,
disasters can have human origins.

By classification, this terminology limits description to the scale of negative impacts caused by
natural hazard to the overall societal functions (e.g., Super Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda). Calamity is the
terminology used when an isolated case of community disruption impacts a smaller number of people.
For instance, while in GIDA communities a landslide caused by heavy rains might sever the entire
road infrastructure, this incident is not considered a disaster by EM-DAT definition.

Given this demand and context, I implemented a three-fold inclusion–exclusion criteria in my initial
search. At first I thought that only one province in Mindanao must be selected to represent each of
upland, island, or lowland areas. On the other hand, however, I also realised that if I could identify a
province that included barangays which fulfilled all three geographic requirements and the rest of the
inclusion–exclusion criteria, I could consider doing this study in one province only. Second, the
province, including its municipalities and villages, should have experienced a slow-moving disaster,
specifically a typhoon. Third, the province needed to have reported the existence of GIDA villages to
the Department of Health. In order to action this criteria, I consulted the latest list of GIDAs per
province provided by the Department of Health to see if I needed to choose one province per
geographic requirement, or if there might be one province that fulfilled all the requirements. I also
reviewed the latest typhoons that hit the island of Mindanao from 2010 to 2017 using the disaster
reports and advisories of the National Council (NDRRMC 2018a) and news media sources. This
document review yielded two provinces (that had already been included in the previous criterion) that
were hit by the typhoons Bopha/Pablo (2012) and Haiyan/Yolanda (2013). Focussing my enquires on
these two provinces, I then identified the exact municipalities where Bopha/Pablo and
Haiyan/Yolanda had made landfall by reviewing news stories and reports from the National Council
webpage. At this stage, my intention was to find municipalities in these provinces that had locations
that could represent island, upland, and lowland GIDA.

The identification of field sites was done during preliminary fieldwork. I solicited recommendations
from the provincial DRRM councils for a location that would fit my inclusion-exclusion criteria,
which were: (a) contains a lowland, upland, or island municipality, (b) was struck by either or both of
the typhoons Bopha/Pablo and Haiyan/Yolanda, and (c) contains GIDA-classified villages. These
recommendations from the provincial DRRM council added to the preparation of possible study areas
that had begun with my document analysis of published records. After consulting the list of GIDA
villages in the provinces hit by typhoons Bopha/Pablo and Haiyan/Yolanda, no lowland area fit the
criteria, and at this point it became clear that I could not find a lowland area in the municipalities
under the two provinces impacted by typhoons Bopha/Pablo and Haiyan/Yolanda.

81
The upland province suggested was a municipal area home to indigenous peoples (IP), and armed
rebel groups operate in the area. As such, their security (and mine) would be compromised because of
the presence of armed rebel groups. During data collection, however, the area did not record any
recent activities from the rebel group, and this issue was therefore not considered critical. As noted,
these concurrent realities (the presence of vulnerable groups and security problems such as armed
conflict) are some of the main criteria of a GIDA community. The identification of a specific GIDA
village in this area was easier since I had already obtained a list of GIDA villages per province and
municipality from the Department of Health. All I needed was a confirmation from the municipal
DRRM council that this village had been hit by typhoon Bopha/Pablo. I also needed an approval and
endorsement from the municipal mayor as head of the municipal DRRM council to conduct
interviews and observations in the village. The same process was employed in the island province for
that field site. The only difference was that instead of armed rebel groups as the potential threat, my
concern was safety in crossing the Philippine Sea because there was no public transport available
going in and out of the island. I had to negotiate with private contractors/fisherfolk who were willing
to take me across. All fieldwork consultation with residents on the island field site was conducted
during the summer of 2019, between April and June. All safety measures usually imposed in public
transport were checked going from the main island to the island field site, and vice versa.

4.3.2.1 The field sites

There are four administrative divisions in the Philippines: regions, provinces and cities, municipalities
and component cities, and barangays (villages). There are 17 administrative regions in the country (I–
XVII), and the areas of study represent the Caraga (Region XIII) and Davao (Region 11) Regions.
The provinces, municipalities, and villages are elected administrative divisions that are collective
referred to as LGUs. It is important to present the province and municipality where the upland and
island villages are located to establish both the place and the levels of decision-making and
information dissemination that are present in these areas. This hierarchal presentation also provides
context when discussing life in the island and upland villages. Therefore, the discussion about the
upland and island villages were separated since these areas are the main concern of this study.

At this point, I would like to reiterate that when I use the terms upland or island area, this covers both
the provincial and municipal levels, unless stated otherwise. The actual areas (in all levels) will not be
disclosed, as part of the ethics agreement. This is to safeguard the informants’ identities.

4.3.2.1.1 The island field site

Description
The island province is situated in the Northeastern part of Mindanao and falls into the Caraga Region.
This province was chosen to be one of the areas of study because it was included in the areas hit by
Haiyan/Yolanda in 2013 and is now the gateway for the typhoons that occur in the Philippines

82
(NDRRMC 2018a). Based on its income, the municipality suggested by the provincial DRRM office
is a fourth class municipality, making it one of the poorest in the Philippines. It has a population of
9,309 based on the 2015 census (Philippine Statistics Authority 2019), and there are 10 barangays
(villages) under this municipality. Of these 10, four are classified as GIDA. Three of these four are
geographically separated from the main island. This municipality was also suggested because one of
its villages had previously won the Gawad KALASAG5 competition, which was initiated in 1998 by
the defunct National Disaster Coordinating Council. It gives recognition to the best local DRRM
councils in the Philippines in terms of their efforts in implementing the four thematic areas of the
National Plan in their area.

Given this background, I immediately had high expectations for the site recommended by the
municipal DRRM council. Such a site would allow me to see the various DRRM activities and
projects that had earned them an award as one of the best in the country. Thus, the island village
chosen for this research was under the leadership of this award-winning municipality. The island
village fit the previously stipulated inclusion–exclusion criteria previously discussed.

As noted, in terms of natural hazards, typhoon is a constant threat of this island province and its
nearby provinces in the Caraga Administrative Region (NDRRMC 2018a), making it a suitable
selection for the fieldwork. There are only two seasons in the Philippines, rainy (June to November)
and dry (December to May). However, the climate of this island province is classified as Type 2,
which means that there is no dry season at all (PAGASA 2019). This climate type makes the island
province vulnerable to landslides and floods, as well as typhoons, storm surges, earthquakes, and
tsunami (see Figure 4.1).

5
KALASAG: KAlamidad at Sakuna LAbanan, SAriling Galing ang Kaligtasan. Kalasag is also a Filipino word for shield.

83
Figure 4.1.
Geohazard map of the island province

Note. This hazard map shows the distance of the island village from the municipality. It also shows that the island is
prone to flooding and landslides. Red indicates high landslide susceptibility, and blue indicates high flood susceptibility.
The name of the province has been removed from the original map, as required by RMIT Ethics Committee. Source:
‘Flood and landslide susceptibility rating’, by Lands Geological Surveys Division—Mines and Geosciences Bureau, 2019,
Geohazard web portal, <https://mgb-
lgsd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=272f20c01e32491084fcb9dc0dc498c9>. Copyright by Mines
and Geosciences Bureau.

The island barangay (village)

The chosen barangay field site is a small village in an island off the northwest coast of the
municipality. The island itself comprises three villages, and my field site was the farthest away from
the municipality (see red ‘balloon’ at top left of the map in Figure 4.1). My study area is located
northwest of the main island province, and its adjacent bodies of water are the Surigao Strait and
Leyte Gulf. All three villages on this island are on the list of GIDA from the Department of Health.
There is no public transport available to people who live on the island, either across the Sea to the

84
larger municipal island, or on the island from one village to the next. The road network connecting the
three GIDA villages in the island is also a problem. The single lane and often unpaved road network
fits only two motorbikes abreast and goes around the island following the coast line. If there are storm
surges, the road network will be the first thing to be destroyed. Moreover, excluding Filipino, the
residents of this village speak at least 3 languages.

Several of the barangay houses are built near the coastline in order to have access to mooring space
for their fishing boats. These houses are built using a combination of light materials (e.g., corrugated
galvanised iron sheets; see Figure 4.2) that can be easily blown or washed away by strong winds and
big waves. Moreover, these houses were built by local carpenters without the supervision of engineers
or architects and therefore may not withstand super typhoons like Haiyan/Yolanda and storm surges.
Those closest to the coastline are often built using light materials. Both the village multipurpose
gymnasium, which is the office of the barangay officials, and the health centre are near the coastline.

85
Figure 4.2.
Local village houses near the shoreline

Note. TOP: This photo was taken on my arrival at the island village. From this perspective, it is apparent that the
houses are built close to the water and are therefore at risk when storm surges occur. The villagers’ boats are parked
behind their houses. BOTTOM: A concrete house in the island village. Behind this house is the shoreline. Source:
Author.

86
Natural hazards in the island village
Based on the geohazard map of the municipality and maps from the Philippine Atmospheric,
Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA), the island village is prone to
typhoons, landslides, flooding, and storm surges. Despite its geographic location, I was unable to
verify if the area is also prone to tsunami, as there was no information from the province or
municipality on the threats of tsunami in the village. There was no road signage (steel type or
otherwise), in the village that tagged it as prone to tsunami. However, the village leader/barangay
captain reported tidal wave as one of the natural hazards faced by those living in low-lying areas of
the village. A tidal wave is caused by the gravitational forces of the sun, moon, and earth. It differs
from storm surge because the latter happens during tropical storms and typhoons. A tidal wave is also
different from tsunami because the latter is caused by seismic disturbances (Smith 2013).

4.3.2.1.2 The upland field site

Description
The upland province located in the southeast of Mindanao’s Davao Region was chosen because this
area was hit by Typhoon Bopha/Pablo in 2012 (NDRRMC 2018a) and is constantly plagued by
flooding and landslides (see Figure 4.3). Within this province is a municipality containing upland
villages that were impacted by Bopha/Pablo. The municipality is also home to several vulnerable
sectors, including indigenous peoples. A village was found in this municipality that fit the inclusion–
exclusion criteria stipulated for the selection of field sites for this study.

Despite being categorised as an ‘upland’ area by this study, the province is also prone to storm surges
and coastal erosion and degradation because the total provincial area covers upland, lowland, and
island municipalities. Flooding is a constant threat in this province, as are tropical depressions and
landslides. This list is a by-product of deforestation, farming and land use malpractices, and the rapid
growth and development of urban areas.

87
Figure 4.3.
Geohazard map of the upland province

Note. This geohazard map indicates that the entire province is susceptible to landslide (red) and some of it to flooding
(navy blue). The name of the province has been removed from the original map, as required by RMIT Ethics
Committee. ‘Flood and landslide susceptibility rating’, by Lands Geological Surveys Division—Mines and Geosciences
Bureau, 2015, Geohazard web portal, <https://mgb-
lgsd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=272f20c01e32491084fcb9dc0dc498c9>. Copyright by Mines
and Geosciences Bureau.

The upland village

Established in June 1967, the upland village is part of the timberland area of the municipality that was
suggested by the provincial DRRM office. The entire timberland area, which comprises five villages,
is owned by the government, and the people living there do not have land titles because the area is
considered a forest reserve. However, they are permitted to live in the area and develop it.

The upland village is divided into nine silos called puroks (zones), and houses a population of 1,942
people, made up of 433 households and 467 families. Of the total population, 804 people are part of

88
indigenous groups. This diversity also means various languages are spoken in this area. Excluding
Filipino, residents in the upland village speaks three languages. Despite the relatively small
population, which could conceivably allow smooth dissemination of information, the upland village
population experience issues in terms of their proximity to other residents in the village, as the
households are dispersed across the terrain. The closest neighbour may be at least two kilometres
away, and only a few households are living near the village ‘centre’, where the barangay hall is
situated. Most residents are living on their farmlands further up the mountain. In addition, the upland
village is situated close to the border of another province, which is only 12 kilometres away; as a
result, most of the village residents carry out their regular activities—school, market, church—across
the border in this province, rather than accessing these services in their own village. Travel time from
the municipal capital to the upland area takes 45–60 minutes, but it takes longer if you share a ride
with other people. The more weight on the motorcycle-based transports (see Figure 4.4), the slower
they can climb the steep mountains.

Figure 4.4.
Mode of transportation

Note. Transportation in the area is via motorcycle-based transports. This vehicle is called a skylab (with roof). When
you book a ride going to the upland village through the province, you share a ride with six other passengers, excluding
the driver. The habal-habal is of a different design, and can carry up to four passengers (excluding the driver).
Passengers of the habal-habal sit behind the driver, and one passenger may sit on the gas tank in front of the driver. A
habal-habal can also come with a roof.

89
Natural hazards in the upland village
The upland village is prone to landslides due to the heavy rains that are part of its climate. A major
landslide event occurred in 2013, when category 5 Typhoon Bopha/Pablo hit the area. Tectonic
landslide may happen at any time, however, since there is an active fault line that runs through the
village. According to the municipal DRRM council, a crack is already visible in the area. Figure 4.5
shows a cropped portion of the municipal hazard map that details the specific hazards the upland
village faces.

Figure 4.5.
Detail of geohazard map of the upland village

Note. This detail of a hazard map of the upland village indicates that the area is prone to landslides; brown indicates a
very high landslide susceptibility, and red indicates high landslide susceptibility. A glance at the legend also indicates
that the official hazard map of the area shows not all zones are connected by secondary road. Moreover, this map shows
that the upland village is situated at the boundary of the municipality which is why residents opt to access services in
the nearby province, rather than in their own.

As Figure 4.5 indicates, the upland village lacks a safe road network. There is only one secondary
road (the white line) that goes to the village centre, and as this map indicates, the road does not reach
purok/zone 4. The road that connects purok 5 to the village’s centre (purok 1) is most likely a minor
road that is not maintained by the provincial and municipal governments. It may also be a barangay
road, a kind of minor road, that can accommodate one four-wheeled vehicle at a time. Since no four-
wheeled vehicles frequent the area, the minor roads may be enough for those residents in the village
who own a motorcycle, and those who make driving a skylab and/or habal-habal their livelihood.

90
However, this quality of road infrastructure is problematic when it comes to mounting disaster
preparedness and disaster response activities.

4.3.3 Criteria for informant selection

Two sets of informants were interviewed for this study. The first set are implementers of the National
Plan at the local level. The second set are community leaders living in areas classified as GIDA.

Identifying informants for the first group was purposive and was based on the organisational structure
of LGUs and local DRRM councils (provincial, municipal, and barangay). In addition to government
employees, the first group of informants included other professionals in charge of implementing the
National Plan. I decided to include the catch-all phrase ‘other professionals’ in preparation for the
possibility that I would be interviewing employees without an employer–employee relationship.
These employees are called ‘Job Order’ employees in the Philippines, and the services they provide
are considered non-government services, hence their status as not having any form of employer–
employee relationship. In Australia, this kind of position is similar to one that is considered project-
based with a clear termination date.

The second group of informants were adult residents aged between 21 and 65 years old who had
previously and/or were currently participating in any disaster preparedness activities. In response to
studies which highlight that women are more proactive in DRRM than men, I tried to achieve gender
balance in recruiting local informants (Mulyasari & Shaw 2013). The interviews with these
community residents included questions about their information-seeking behaviours and their media
preference in obtaining pre-disaster information. They were also asked about the kind of engagement
they have with the local DRRM office, and in what way they take an active role in preparing
themselves for future disasters (Shklovski et al. 2010). Each of the interviews was 30–60 minutes
long. Informants holding local leadership roles (teachers, priests, etc.) were interviewed at their
workplace, while other informants were interviewed in public spaces of the purok (open hut), or the
basketball court, community health centre, or barangay (village) hall.

Table 4-1 provides a summary of the informants’ profiles.

Table 4-1.
Summary of informants’ profiles

Island Area Upland Area

Profile Code Profile Code

Island, female, PLG I1 Upland, female, PLG U1

Island, female, PLG I2 Upland, male, PLG U2

Island, male, PLG I3 Upland, male, MLG U3

91
Island Area Upland Area

Island, male, MLG I4 Upland, male, MLG U4

Island, transwoman, MLG I5 Upland, male, BLG U5

Island, male, BLG I6 Upland, female, community nurse, UC U6

Island, female, health worker, IC I7 Upland, female, housewife, UC U7

Island, female, women’s sector, IC I8 Upland, male, former village police, UC U8

Island, female, health worker, IC I9 Upland, female, landslide victim, UC U9

Upland, female, landslide victim/vendor,

Island, female, housewife, IC I10 U10
UC

Island, female, village functionary, IC I11

Island, female, housewife, IC I12

Note. PLG—provincial local government; MLG—municipal local government; BLG—barangay local government; UC—
upland community; IC—island community.

Despite my intention to recruit community leaders, many of the informant profiles (from the field
sites) indicate that informants do not hold any current leadership role. However, in reality they all fit
the criterion of having attended any form of drill or training. Moreover, some of them had previously
held leadership roles but had since been replaced (because the appointments were political and thus
timeframe-specific).

This section has described the preliminary work that was conducted prior to the commencement of
field work. I have presented how the methods selected for field work—that is, the interview schedule
and field observation checklist, including selection of the field sites—were based on preliminary
document analysis. The criteria for site selection and short descriptions of the final two field sites,
including the natural hazards they are at risk of, were outlined. I also discussed how informants from
the government and GIDA communities were selected. The next section covers the data collection
methods I used. Section 4.4.1 also provides more information on the informant selection and
interview process.

4.4 Data collection methods

Data gathering for this study involved both desk work and fieldwork. While actual fieldwork was
carried out between January and July of 2019, Desk work began in mid-2018, with a review of
DRRM-related documents that assisted in the development of the data gathering tools, and continued
up until the field work began. Desk work included searching for relevant literature, including disaster
databases, online; monitoring news reports about disaster preparedness efforts of the government and

92
DRRM updates from the upland and island areas; obtaining and reproducing geohazard maps; and
reviewing additional environment-related laws in the Philippines that might aid in either the
development of data gathering tools or with the analysis. Roughly three months were spent for field
work per field site.

Table 4-2 provides a summary of the data collected and the specific method of data collection
employed.

Table 4-2.
Summary of data collection procedures

Data type Data source Data collection method

1 Document analysis Existing communication tools Semi-structured interviews and

(communication tools used) for disaster risk communication non-participant field
observations

2 Implementation status of the Regional DRRM officer Semi-structured interviews and

community-based DRRM city/municipal/provincial non-participant field
program /barangay DRRM officers observations

3 Information seeking and Local community Semi-structured interviews and

sharing practices non-participant field
observations

The tabular presentation of these data collection methods does not imply sequential implementation;
the actual process was recursive and cyclic, and thus the data gathering was not linear (see sec 4.8).
Rather, it began with discussions with key informant at the provincial level regarding suitable field
sites, and was followed by an audit of the communication tools used for communicating disaster risk
information. Non-participant field observations were done during the whole duration of data
collection, depending on the kind of data that was being observed.

4.4.1 Semi-structured interviews

Semi-structured interviews were used as one of the qualitative methods of data collection. The
interviews aimed to allow the articulation of the experiences of both government officials and
community members living in GIDAs regarding working to achieve the disaster preparedness
outcomes of the National Plan. To achieve this, two sets of informants were required. The first set of
informants were government employees and professionals implementing the National Plan at the local
level. The second set of informants were residents of the study sites.

93
In the interview, the informants from the first group were asked to provide insights about the various
processes and methods used in disseminating disaster risk information to the public. This enquiry
aimed to allow them to provide an overview of their plans and projects that could be broadly
classified under the thematic area ‘disaster preparedness of the National Plan’. Specifically, they were
asked to provide information on the various communication tools they used/were in use to
disseminate disaster risk information. They were also asked about how the local community engage
with the communication tools the government had used/was using. The informants were also asked to
describe whether the communication tools currently in use fit the social and cultural context of the
community by providing examples of problems they had encountered with using these tools. Lastly,
they were asked how they had tried to encourage local communities to take proactive roles in DRRM
in terms of their information-seeking and -sharing behaviours regarding disaster risk information (see
Appendix A for the Interview Schedule). The interviews took 30–60 minutes and were conducted in
the informants’ offices.

Informants in the second group were local informal village leaders, such as local priest/pastor,
teachers, purok (district/zone) leaders, and those who took/had taken an active part in disseminating
disaster risk information. Informal leaders were considered target informants because I was convinced
that they were knowledgeable about DRRM practices and had disaster experience in the area. This
second group were all adult residents of the study areas who were between 21 and 65 years old and
who had previously participated and/or were currently participating in any disaster preparedness
activities. They were identified using Fujii’s (2018) ‘funnel method’, which required looking for
someone who had taken/was taking an active participation and/or leadership role in disaster
management efforts of the village DRRM office. Prior exposure to these activities, especially drills
and training, was relevant to ensure that informants either had been or were currently part of the
communication process. Their involvement in the pre-existing communication process ensured I
would be properly documenting what was and is being done in the community regarding disaster
preparedness.

A letter of invitation was sent to the individuals who held informal leadership roles in the local
community. Choosing informal leaders in the village as informants was also beneficial for discovering
the communication dynamics between those with legitimate power and other the residents of the area.
However, I did not completely dismiss the possibility of interviewing informants who did not hold
any informal leadership roles. I determined that, should there be difficulties in recruiting village
informants using the stipulated criteria, any resident in the village could participate in the study. I also
expected that there would be other people who would participate in these one-on-one interviews since
they would be conducted in public areas; as such these interviews did end up with either listeners
eager to join in the conversation I was having with my informant, or with the informant asking
someone else to join. This did not affect the objective of the study—rather, it provided critical

94
information on how people living in GIDAs interact with each other and how information is passed on
to others. The ‘background village informants’ turned out to be a mixture of village functionaries
(those who held some level of non-elected leadership role) and residents without any legitimate or
formal power attained through election (French & Raven 1959).

In the interviews with community residents, informants were asked to describe their information-
seeking behaviours and their media preference in obtaining pre-disaster information. They were also
asked about the kind of engagement they had with the local DRRM office and how they take an active
role in preparing themselves for future natural calamities (Shklovski et al. 2010). Those informants
who had been able to attend training and drills were also asked about their experiences during these
events. The interviews took 30–60 minutes for each informant and were conducted at the workplaces
of those who held local leadership roles (teachers, priests, etc.). Other informants were interviewed in
public spaces in the purok (open hut) that were built and maintained by zone officers, or in the
community health centre, on the basketball court, and/or in the barangay hall. Any outdoor and public
area near any pre-disaster communication tools, such as posters or road signage, was deemed
appropriate for these interviews, since part of the study’s intention was to observe how informants
interacted with these tools in their area. In the cases where there were no communication tools in the
area, I showed my informants some brochures I had taken from the provincial and municipal DRRM
offices, which higher DRRM offices had suggested should have been relayed to and made available in
the local village context.

All interviews were audio-recorded (with the participants’ permission), were transcribed in the local
(Bisaya) language by me, and were translated into English by me. The interviews were analysed by
identifying critical statements and coding these into themes. The themes from both study areas were
compared, and recurring themes were identified. The process used was the same as that used by Lin
and Abrahamsson (2015) and Yin and Campbell (2018). There were three levels of analysis
employed, and each level was aimed at answering the specific objectives of the study (see sec. 4.8).

I also conducted informal interviews during this data collection stage. Informal interviews were
conversations with informants from both groups who shared information relevant to the topic. These
informal informants were drivers of the motorcycle transport I rented, the boat man and his assistant,
and other employees in government offices who shared their thoughts about the topic of the study
while I was waiting for the official informant. Informal interviews or conversations did not follow the
semi-structured interview schedule that I had prepared ahead of time, but I asked them the same
questions. As such, the remarks offered in these informal conversations tended to confirm what had
been disclosed in formal interviews, and/or otherwise provided general remarks about living in that
area that gave context. These informal interviews were extremely short (5 minutes) and were not
subject to the rigidity or formality of the recorded interviews, and informants were very open and

95
candid. These informants were not included in the total number of interviewees for this study but
relevant information from these informal conversations is included in the discussion.

In general, the two categories of informants in this study provided two perspectives about pre-disaster
communication and community engagement practices in relation to GIDA communities; as
implementers of the National Plan, the government informants provided a different perspective than
the community informants, who are effectively end-users of information. Each perspective thus
required a different approach in the interviews and in data interpretation. The government perspective
was largely a descriptive implementation of the National Plan at the local level. These informants also
provided a list of issues encountered in their implementation of the Plan, and these related to (a)
community readiness and willingness to participate, and (b) the lack of motivation of GIDA
communities to participate in disaster preparedness activities. The community informants talked about
how they were informed; how they wanted to be informed; how and why they wanted to participate in
DRRM activities; and why, despite knowing the risks they face, they choose to prioritise other basic
needs over disaster preparedness. Having two sets of informants thus allowed two perspectives to
emerge that aided in explaining the context and process of pre-disaster communication in
geographically isolated locations. An interpretivist–constructivist approach was appropriate for this
study because it allowed the data to paint a picture of pre-disaster communication experiences in
geographically isolated and socioeconomically disadvantaged areas. The qualitative approach also
facilitated the systematic examination of variables through an inclusion–exclusion process that kept
the limitations of the study and its analysis within the GIDA context.

The total number of informants was 22, 11 informants from the government and 11 informants from
the community. The distribution of informants is described in Table 4-3:

Table 4-3.
Distribution of informants for formal interviews

Field site Group 1: Government Group 2: Residents TOTAL

Upland area 5 5 10

Island area 6 6 12

TOTAL 11 11 22

4.4.1.1 Confidentiality
Confidentiality of informants’ personal data and information was maintained during data collection.
Personal information (such as names) was not used, instead, informants were assigned codes (see
Table 4-1) in the field, immediately after they signed the participation form. The file names of the
recorded interviews also reflected these codes. However, certain forms of identification, such as

96
pseudonyms, gender, position, and location, as well as the level of governance (provincial, municipal,
barangay) they are currently serving in are used for all informants in both field sites, and the
individual informant codes distinguish the informants by site (island, I, and upland, U).

Moreover, the field sites have not been identified, to avoid any possible tracing of the informants. The
provincial and municipal levels have been referred to as ‘upland areas’ and ‘island areas’ throughout
to deliberately conceal the specific identity of the sites. Similarly, when I refer to the actual
village/barangay that was part of the study data, I refer to it as ‘island village’ or ‘upland village’ or
using the catch-all phrase ‘field site’. Only a general description of each area is provided (see sec.
4.3.2.1.1 and 4.3.2.1.2).

Furthermore, informants who agreed to be interviewed were informed about and understood the
Participation Information Sheet (which was translated into the local language, Bisaya) prior to them
signing it. This Participation Information (see Appendix D) details that study results will be presented
in public as oral presentation, written publication, and online publication of my thesis via RMIT
Library Thesis Repository. No personal identification of informants would occur in these public
presentations. However, some form of identification, such as pseudonyms, gender, position, and
location (island or upland) would be used for clarity and coherence of the data presentation.

Lastly, this study went through a rigorous ethics application process with RMIT University through
the College Human Ethics Advisory Network (CHEAN). I also completed research ethics training
prior to my ethics application. Ethics Approval was granted (number CHEAN B 21705-09/18), and a
copy of the Ethics Approval is available in Appendix E.

4.4.2 Document analysis

A thematic document analysis was essential for the evaluation of current policies and laws and other
communication tools pertaining to DRRM in the Philippines; this was completed during the desk
work phase. The analysis investigated the role of documents (i.e., communication tools, news stories,
and government reports, policies, and laws) in disseminating information, building knowledge, and
influencing perceptions. I explored Prior’s (2003) concept of what constitutes a document, and
followed the examples Bowen (2009) provides regarding documents that can be assessed for research.
The concepts of Prior and Bowen were operationalised using the step-by-step process of document
analysis suggested by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2009, 2018). This was deemed
suitable because document analysis is not a method of data collection exclusive to studies in health
and its allied fields.

Moving away from the definition that a document is something static and predefined, Prior (2003)
defined documents as something that should be discussed and examined based on their context and
framing. For Prior, a document can be a combination of text, images, and auditory material merged

97
into one. For this research, document analysis entailed appraising the communication tools used to
disseminate disaster risk information in geographically isolated locations. I examined various existing
communication tools, such as maps, posters, and flyers, among other things (Bowen 2009). The
results of the document analysis informed the interview questions for the community informants, and
document analysis was completed prior to conducting non-participant field observations. The
completion of the document analysis prior to fieldwork was significant as it informed the initial
checklist used for field observations.

The document analysis involved a specific data abstraction method and specified the list of documents
to be analysed. I specifically audited existing communication tools that were being used in
communicating disaster risk information. These were maps, posters, flyers, PowerPoint presentations
during drills and seminars, disaster drills and lecture programs, early warning devices, scripts of radio
broadcasts, social networking sites/social media accounts, and instructional video materials used for
training. All the materials that were analysed are publicly available and are posted at local DRRM
offices, in stores, and at roadsides. These were important in providing initial information and context
for the research questions.

What was essential to the research investigation was a thorough examination of the various
communication processes and tools involved in communicating disaster risk information in
geographically isolated and disadvantaged locations. The qualitative document analysis employed to
achieve this goal was influenced by a management process called communication audit, which is ‘a
process of exploring, examining, monitoring, and evaluating’ communication processes (Downs &
Adrian 2004, p. 6). These four activities formed the basis of the document analysis process for this
study. To begin with, selection followed the process advocated by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (2009, 2018) to identify the various documents used in information dissemination. A
methodology employed in health communication, document analysis is also applicable in other
communication fields investigating the role of documents (communication tools). It also followed the
definition used by sociologist Lindsay Prior (2003), who defined a document as something that is not
static or predefined; Prior observes that documents should be discussed and examined based on their
context or field and framing. This definition means that a document can be a combination of text,
images, and auditory material, merged into one unit. In this sense, what is considered a document or
used for document analysis may vary, depending on the objective of the qualitative research.

Glenn Bowen (2009) focusses on the evaluation of tangible, printed forms of documents, both those
published online and offline. As such, the documents analysed for this study included both print and
non-print materials distributed via digital and non-digital platforms, as well as the interpersonal
communication practices also used to communicate disaster risk information that are required by the
geographically isolated context of the study sites. Following Bowen, the evaluation process included
describing the communication tools used in situ; their primary purpose (based on the perspective of

98
the government); how the community used these tools; and what use or aspects of the tools hinder
information transfer.

The principal aim of the document analysis was to evaluate the production and consumption of
documents (communication tools) for pre-disaster communication, along two trajectories: (a) how the
Philippine Government produce and disseminate information, and (b) how the people in GIDA
communities respond to the current dissemination processes. The intersection of these two trajectories
is in spatial isolation and socioeconomic inequalities. Although some document evaluation demands a
form of counting words and categorising these words into themes, what was relevant for this research
was to identify the function of the documents in pre-disaster communication. As such, documents
analysed in this research were considered social products (Prior 2003), which is the reason why they
were approached beyond textual analysis, and were evaluated according to their societal function. The
questions asked in this process included: Does the document promote cohesiveness/divisiveness
among people in pre-disaster communication? Does it promote further inequalities among people
living in the margins of society? How do these communication tools impact community engagement,
and vice versa?

Adapting the community engagement strategies of Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi, and Herremans

(2010; see Figure 3.1), a summary of the document evaluation criteria is presented in Table 4-4.

Table 4-4.
Criteria used in assessing current communication tools and level of engaging communities, based
on the CEC

Transactional Transitional Transformational

Research objective
engagement engagement engagement
Stance ‘Giving back’ ‘Building bridges’ ‘Changing society’
Two-way, but balanced
Two-way, but still
Communication communication
One-way, top-down centred on the
tactics/model between organisation
organisation
and the community
Top-down framework Involves consultation,
of information transfer, collaboration, shared
Characteristics with emphasis on the sensemaking, and
government as sender of problem framing
message
Frequency of interaction occasional repeated frequent
Control on process firm firm shared
Number of community many many few

Note. Source: Author, based on Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi & Herremans (2010).

99
4.4.3 Field observations
The field observations I conducted for this study involved documenting existing communication tools
in situ and observing how residents engaged with these communication tools. These observations also
included how residents communicate, both with each other and with the local government regarding
the tools. I also documented the residents’ exposure to the various communication tools. Lastly, I
assessed issues of information access by going to pocket areas where communication signal was
available, and appraised the modes of travel available to residents in this regard; these issues were
included as data that confirmed the two criteria of a GIDA (physical and socioeconomic factors).

In identifying suitable areas for observation, a referral from the barangay DRRM office was sought as
to where the various communication tools used in communicating disaster risk information were in
place around the village. Aside from this referral, I did my own visual inspection of the village area,
and other villages and municipalities I passed through, to spot communication tools used for
communicating disaster risk information. I recorded the field observations using a field journal and
hand-wrote my notes, such as what was the kind of foot traffic in the area where the communication
tools were located at a specific time of day. I did not take photographs or videos of individuals; if, in
the process of taking a photograph, people were accidentally photographed, I cropped the photograph
to exclude the person or blurred individuals’ faces.

The field observations rolled out in this study were initially structured around a checklist. A structured
observation checklist seemed appropriate, since the incipient aim of this data collection method was to
provide clear evidence on how communities interact with the communication tools. During the
fieldwork, however, the observation checklist I had prepared expanded to include items from answers
informants had provided pertaining to their use of communication tools. This expanded structured
observation checklist was used to corroborate data from interviews with government informants about
the communication tools used in communicating disaster risk information (see Appendices B and C).
The observation area also expanded: From its initial focus at the village level, my observations
eventually covered both the provincial and municipal levels. This was because focussing just on the
village level did not go according to plan, since there were no actual drills or training scheduled
during the 6-month fieldwork. There was an actual natural calamity (flooding) in one of the areas,
which allowed me to ask questions pertaining to preparations, setbacks, and plans in terms of DRRM
at all levels. This expansion of the area was critical in the analysis, as it showed the disparity between
accessible areas vis-à-vis GIDAs. I also acknowledge Karen Handley’s (2008) position, that utilising
non-participative observation does not totally maintain the investigator’s distance from the study, as
the presence of an outsider may influence the actions of those observed. While I kept this in mind, the
kind of impact Handley means does not require transition to a participant observation method.

100
Finally, to better understand the analysis provided in this study, it is imperative that I provide a short
background of myself, as the investigator, so that the reader can form an idea of the standpoint,
perspectives, and biases that I brought with me when I did my fieldwork. My background does not
make me an insider in this study. I am a Filipino citizen with Cebuano-Kapampangan-Kalagan Tribe
(IP group) and Boholano descent. I live in Davao City, a centre for commerce and education, in the
island of Mindanao, Philippines. My most recent degree is in Development Communication, and this
study was completed under the supervision and scrutiny of academics in Australia, a first world
country. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic during the writing period of this research enabled me
to understand, at the surface level at least, the experience of not having access to internet (unlimited or
capped), a situation which affects both study and communication. It also required me to upskill in
order to be able to adapt to the ‘new normal’ mode of university instruction, and to manage a form of
poverty—due to a lack of income, not being able to get a job, and experiencing a COVID-19 grant
rejection—and rely on fellow Filipinos in Melbourne for both information and help.

4.5 Data analysis and analytical frameworks

Data analysis for this study was divided into two levels – cross-case analysis and case-oriented
analysis. These levels of analysis required coding, which allowed the creation of labels, categories,
and patterns within the data (Babbie 2016). Data in this study refers to interview transcripts, field
observation checklists, and preliminary document analysis of existing DRRM communication tools
and DRRM-related laws and policies. Preliminary document analysis helped craft the interview
schedule and field observation checklist.

The first level of analysis required data coding using cross-case analysis. At this stage in the analysis,
I identified patterns across several interviews and observations (Babbie 2016). The second level of
analysis, called case-oriented analysis, identified similarities based on the number of frequencies it
appeared in the available data (Babbie 2016). This stage of analysis allowed me to compare data
coming from both upland and island areas. Triangulation of data came in at this level of analysis as
well. Both levels of analysis allowed me to navigate the interaction and integration of data between
national versus local government levels. This kind of analysis was expected because DRRM in the
Philippines follows a top-down approach. Combining levels of analysis from the national to local
level also represents the intersection of disciplines – development communication and organisational
communication – within the conversation.

Interpretation was the last stage in the analysis process. The interpretation of data was based on
the community engagement frameworks (western models or frameworks) and Filipino Values System
(local theoretical lens). Discussions and conclusions emanating from this study were based on the
national policies as implemented locally, and these two shall be in constant dialogue. The level of

101
analysis was not just at the conceptual intersections but also at the practical intersections as concepts
and frameworks were operationalised at the grassroots level. The national remains in conversation
with the local and vice versa.

This research is grounded on development communication, which is defined as the strategic use of
media to achieve social change (Manyozo 2012; Mefalopulos 2008) but it also works within other
disciplinal intersections like organisational communication. This study investigated three themes. The
first was the current pre-disaster communicative conditions, to see if these seamlessly meld top-down
and bottom-up approaches in engaging communities. This theme ensured a discussion on the
communicative role of community engagement in DRRM. The second was the experiences of GIDA
communities, highlighting and examining their impact on pre-disaster communicative conditions and
community engagement. This theme covered contextual pre-disaster communication and community
engagement. The third theme investigated pertained to the identification of variables that could aid in
developing a pre-disaster communication and community engagement model that incorporates the
experiences of geographically and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations.

The first theme demands a closer look at Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi and Herremans’ (2010) CEC
and Dufty’s (2011) CEF. These two frameworks were essential in data analysis, since the objective of
the study was to explore multiple possibilities of equipping and engaging communities in
geographically and socioeconomically disadvantaged areas to prepare for natural hazards. Dufty
(2011) argues that community engagement should be both informative and cooperative and thus
should not discount top-down approaches. In a similar vein, Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi and
Herremans (2010) plot three levels of engagement (transactional, transitional, and transformational)
and identify criteria on how to reach each level. Together, these two frameworks generally argue that
there is no singular method (top-down or bottom-up) of community engagement. Using these
frameworks allowed the analysis of current practice, in terms of reach, through (a) identifying specific
communication tools and frequency of communicating information, (b) plotting the kind of
relationship (top-down or bottom-up) between the sender (government) and the receiver (GIDA
community), and (c) identifying the kind of engagement expected from people based on these
communicative practices. In relation to this, community in this research is defined as a group of
people sharing the same geographical location and sustaining a certain level of interaction among
themselves. This definition follows Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi and Herremans’ (2010, p. 302)
characterisation of community as either geographical, interactional, or based on identity.

The second theme examined the disaster risk communication experiences of GIDA communities,
including the experiences of the government in communicating to people living in geographic
isolation. At this stage in the analysis, Tomas Andres’s (1988) Filipino Values System, observed from
the perspective of community development, was considered essential to discuss the relevant variable

102
that distinguishes the field sites from one another. Identifying the Values System as the basis of
certain practices is essential in explaining the role of previous experiences (actual or simulated) adults
in the communities described in regard to these communication and engagement processes. This
theoretical frame is important, because this research deals with the previous experiences of informants
that impact the current pre-disaster communication practices of both field sites. This theory also
captures people’s receptiveness to those pre-disaster messages and social relationships, which,
according to Marlowe et al. (2018), are culturally resonant. Receptiveness and relationships cannot be
fully explained by Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi and Herremans’ (2010) CEC and Dufty’s (2011) CEF.

Andres’s Filipino Values System was also used to understand intrinsic variables that are present in
and affect the interactions between the government and communities, and those that occur among
residents in GIDA communities. Since this research investigated interactions between government
and GIDA communities and the interactions of people living in GIDA communities, it was essential
to know what kind of social power takes hold in these interactions. The kinds of social power
identified were extrapolated from the descriptions of the interactions that occurred between the two
kinds of informants (government and community). These can be used as essential variables that may
impact the development of future transformative communication and community engagement
frameworks that engage people in spatially disadvantaged situations.

4.6 Scope of the study

This study only focusses on one aspect of the pre-disaster phase, disaster preparedness. This exclusive
focus is based on the objective of this study, which is to examine the methods used by the Philippine
Government to capacitate and engage communities with knowledge and skills in order to enable them
to cope when hit by natural hazards. It was expected, however, that the data collected during
fieldwork would include discussions on disaster response. The four stages of DRRM do not
necessarily have clear-cut beginnings and endings. This study used terminology and definitions from
the RA 10121 and the National DRRM Plan of the Philippines to observe the four stages of DRRM.
Specifically, stages 1 (mitigation) and 2 (preparedness) fall under the pre-disaster phase; stage 3
(response) occurs during the disaster phase; and stage 4 (recovery) falls under the post-disaster phase.
As such, this study’s focus on disaster preparedness connects into more than stage 2, since (for
example) a communication breakdown during a disaster suggests a failure in risk reduction
communication at the pre-disaster phase (Adila et al. 2017). It is further assumed that information
flows fluidly between stages. Mitigation revolves around ‘activities related to hazard evaluation and
mitigation, vulnerability analyses, identification of hazard-prone areas, and mainstreaming DRRM
into development plans’ (NDRRMC 2018b, p. 21), a quantitative focus that is almost opposite to that
needed by preparedness, which centres on ‘activities revolving around community awareness and
understanding, contingency planning, conduct of local drills, and the development of a national

103
disaster response plan’ (NDRRMC 2018b, p. 23). Although this research focusses on the pre-disaster
phase, which potentially covers mitigation and disaster preparedness, the investigation only
considered the disaster preparedness stage as it centres on communicating disaster risk information
directed towards capacitating and engaging local communities.

This study focussed on natural disasters, especially those that can be classified as ‘slow-onset
disasters’ (Rodríguez et al. 2007), such as tropical storms and floods, as these give ample time for the
government to provide warning signals and for the afflicted public to act. Floods are included in slow-
onset disasters because warnings can be issued early on for possible flooding due to heavy rains and
tropical storms.

Ultimately, providing answers to the research questions specified in Chapters 1 and 3 means
documenting the information-seeking and -sharing behaviour of the participants, as well as painting a
picture of the current implementation of the National Plan for disaster preparedness at the local level.
The results will provide context as to who gets access to the various different information, education,
and communication tools, and if this level of access is dependent or independent of the
aforementioned socioeconomic and geographical exclusion variables, which are disparities in
socioeconomic status, human capital, education, public health, relief assistance services, political
environment, presence or absence of rebel groups in mountainous areas, government readiness, risk
perception, and prior exposure to disasters.

4.7 Validity and reliability

This section describes considerations and potential biases that could impact the validity and reliability
of the findings of this qualitative research. Several criteria exist to check the trustworthiness,
verifiability, and reliability of qualitative research. Tracy (2020) proposes eight ways to validate the
reliability of qualitative research: worthy topic, rich rigor, sincerity, credibility, resonance, significant
contribution, ethical research practice, and meaningful coherence. This list can be summarised into
the four overarching themes proposed by Deborah Court (2017) to test the trustworthiness of research
data: (a) internal and external validity, (b) internal and external reliability, (c) sampling, and (d)
insider/outsider research position. The following sections discuss these in detail in relation to the
research.

4.7.1 Internal validity

Internal validity aims to check whether the data collection instruments fit the research goals, that is,
whether the questionnaire seeks to answer the research goal by using the right questions (content), the
proper wording of questions (easily understood by informants), and the concepts investigated (disaster
risk communication practices and community engagement). Court (2017) posits that internal validity
demands that research methods should aim for a triangulation of data. This requires a researcher to

104
listen, see, and read about the people and program under investigation. These three methods were
employed in this study, following what Karin Ekström (2006) refers as the common tools of
fieldwork.

The research process for this study began by examining documents pertaining to the current DRRM
practices in the study areas. This included looking at laws and policies promulgated at the national
level and how these are implemented at the local (provincial, municipal, and barangay/village) levels.
Documents such as the RA 10121 (the National Plan), and the Gawad KALASAG were analysed. As
well as laws and policies, news stories and databases were also searched for items to include in the
document analysis. News stories selected pertained to natural hazards that had devastated Mindanao,
Philippines in the recent years, and these were then doublechecked in the databases of PAGASA, the
Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS), NDRRMC, and EM-DAT, as well
as against plans and projects of the national government, available weather forecasts and DRRM
related mobile applications, and controversies surrounding DRRM. This comprehensive document
analysis allowed the development of an initial criteria for the fieldwork that allowed both flexibility in
methods at the field sites and data triangulation. Flexibility and triangulation entailed the utilisation of
qualitative and observational research methods to analyse the informants’ context, shared experiences,
and observed cultural behaviour and cultural knowledge (Fetterman 2008; McKechnie 2008).

An interview schedule and observation checklist were prepared from the analysis of the documents.
At this point, it was deemed important to get the perspectives of both government and communities
since the focus of this study was disaster risk communication, which, from the analysis and adoption
of literature (Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi & Herremans 2010; Dufty 2011) was assumed to be both
one-way and two-way. There were two observation checklists initially planned: One checklist was
intended for observing drills and training if there was a scheduled activity during fieldwork (which it
turned out there was not); the other one aimed to document how communities utilise the
communication tools available in their villages (see Appendix B for the checklists).

In terms of the interview schedules prepared, the first one intended to examine government
informants’ experiences of the current implementation of National Plan at the local level, zeroing on
disaster preparedness. Since disaster preparedness focusses on information, education, and
communication activities, questions on the various modes of communication made up most of the
interview questions. Questions were also asked about the challenges informants had experienced in
the implementation of the National Plan, specifically in communicating and engaging GIDA
communities in their area. Once fieldwork began, observations at the provincial and municipal levels
were added onto the field observations, to enhance the existing interview questions by citing examples
of DRRM communication tools that I had seen in the area.

105
The second interview schedule was prepared for community informants, and was also based on the
document analysis. The goals of this interview schedule included documenting how people respond to
the current modes of communication used by the government. Moreover, the questions aimed to
ascertain people’s media preferences in information seeking and sharing, both within and outside the
community, as well as reveal the kinds of communication issues people face in GIDA communities.
Lastly, questions pertaining to the roles of GIDA communities in increasing their disaster resiliency
and preparedness were included, with the hope of identifying variables that could be utilised to
engage more people in GIDA communities in this regard. Some of the questions put to the community
informants were developed after the interviews with the government informants, such as asking them
to make remarks on specific issues or examples that had been raised the previous interview group
(although the source of the material was not mentioned or alluded to). Doing this allowed the
community informants to either verify or nullify the claims made by government informants. During
the semi-structured interviews with the community informants, it often occurred that some passers-by
or a friend of the informant tended to listen in to the interviews, as well as make comments and share
their own answers to the question. These were allowed during data collection, as this reflects the
communal cultural practice in the community. I believe it also showed the eagerness of the
community to share, and their yearning to be heard. These instances were treated as informal
interviews and answers were noted on pen and paper later. Remarks offered in this way were
particularly useful for data triangulation, since they were offered candidly in informal conversations
(maximum of 5 minutes each); they often tended to confirm what had been disclosed in the formal
interviews, and/or otherwise provide useful general remarks about living in that area that gave
context.

After all data were collected in both field sites, three levels of thematic analysis were conducted (see
sec. 4.5). The first level of analysis determined how disaster risk information is disseminated in
geographically isolated and disadvantaged areas. The second level of analysis identified the multiple
variables that (positively or negatively) impact the disaster preparedness plans of local DRRM
councils in GIDAs. The third level of analysis focussed on the discovery of certain intervening
variables that could be used to assist in engaging communities living in GIDAs to be prepared for any
natural hazard, knowing their own setbacks.

Another method of testing internal validity is to spend more time in the field in order to reach a point
of data saturation. Data gathering for this study involved both desk work and fieldwork. Actual
fieldwork was conducted between January and July of 2019, but desk work began in mid-2018 with a
review of DRRM-related documents that aided in the development of the data gathering tools (see
sec. 4.4). Data saturation was reached after the completion of the document analysis, which informed
the data collection tools used in this study prior to the actual field work,

106
Finally, a member check closes the circle when it comes to the internal validity of qualitative data.
Before commencing the analysis, I went back to my government informants to validate if what I had
understood from the first interview was correct. As noted, community informants, both formal and
informal, also helped in validating the information coming from the government. Field observations
validated the data coming from government and community informants.

Moreover, there were certain programs and projects mentioned during the interviews that involved
other government agencies, such as the conditional cash grant program of the Department of Social
Welfare and Development, which, among other activities, involves community youth in DRRM.
Information on this program was explained by an informant from the Department of Social Welfare
and Development. Youth programs were later discussed with senior high school teachers who had
taught the DRRM course to their students. These kinds of ‘checks’ assisted the research process to
meet the criteria for what Court calls ‘new understanding with some broader implications’ (2017, p.
32) through peer and expert evaluation.

This summary of the research flow (see Figure 4.6) demonstrates that this inductive study (David &
Sutton 2011) employed a qualitative research design that followed a constructivist-interpretivist
approach to ensure internal validity. The combination of semi-structured interviews, qualitative
document analysis, and field observations provided answers to the main research question and its
subsequent queries by interlinking and cross-referencing the data during the research phase.

4.7.2 External validity

External validity ensures that a broader research implication, called ‘naturalistic generalisation’—such
as that drawn from ‘new categories of human experience, conceptual insights, and theories’ which
may aid in understanding human activities (Court 2017, p. 32)—can be reached. Naturalistic
generalisation is different from the way positivist studies conclude their findings. If qualitative
findings do not provide an avenue for broader implications, no research has been done (Court 2017).

To comply with the demands of external validity, two sets of informants were interviewed, to
represent the whole communication process of sending and receiving messages that allows feedback
and the switching of the communicative role. Unlike quantitative studies, which demand specific
percentage to represent a population, qualitative researchers tend to focus on small group of people to
allow deeper investigation of lived experiences. For this study, the number of informants was
originally set to eight per field site, with a total of 16 informants. This expanded to 22 informants for
formal interviews and at least two informal interviews per field site. Informants validated their
responses after reviewing their answers prior to translation; responses were also validated by
observations in the field.

107
4.7.3 Internal reliability
Internal reliability, or interrater reliability, examines the possibility of getting the same naturalistic
generalisation from another observer. In this aspect, I considered myself an outsider looking in; in this
sense, internal reliability for me meant achieving the same set of generalisations as the informants.
The criteria used in classifying areas as GIDA was significant in achieving my understanding of
internal reliability. I utilised the definition of GIDA used by the Department of Health and their
official list of GIDA-classified villages in the Philippines. To be classified as GIDA, these areas must
project the same physical and socioeconomic factors; in this sense, people’s experiences in these
communities are guaranteed to have certain commonalities. These would include difficulty in
accessing the village (Department of Health 2018), communication signal problems (Bolin & Kurtz
2018; Sujarwoto & Tampubolon 2016), illiteracy (Madianou, 2015; Sujarwoto & Tampubolon 2016;
Wong et al. 2009), and poverty (Bolin & Kurtz 2018; Mansell 2017; Madianou 2015) that almost
always affect the information-seeking and -sharing of people within these communities, and the same
issues also affect how LGUs deal with GIDA communities. To qualify these Department of Health
criteria, this study investigated two GIDA communities to ascertain internal validity.

As an outsider to the community, any other researcher would very likely have the same difficulties I
did accessing GIDA communities, and may opt not to take on research in GIDA communities—not
because they are not willing, but because the geographic location on its own is a formidable obstacle.
Differences in age, gender, social background, religion, and even region would not have a big impact
on internal reliability, given that GIDA communities are classified as such because of the common
socioeconomic and geographic inequalities they experience.

4.7.4 External reliability

External reliability refers to ‘the degree to which a future researcher could replicate the study and
arrive at the same results’ (Court 2017, p. 33). Situations do change, and there were hints from
government informants of future changes being in the pipeline for both field sites. As such, future
researchers might encounter a different situation in the same field sites. These villages may not even
be classified as GIDA in the future. However, what is constant is the definition of GIDA, and there is
a possibility of replicability because the overall inclusion–exclusion criteria of GIDA remains the
same, even if a different GIDA barangay is investigated. It could also be a triage of field sites—
upland, island, and lowland—or one field site, but the GIDA criteria remain.

The semi-structured interview questions and observation checklist were also organised based on
available literature and document analysis, both of which are highly replicable. Moreover, since these
methods allowed flexibility, the questions and observation lists expanded and became more targeted
based on the data gathered from fieldwork. This process ensured that naturalistic generalisation can be
achieved at the end of the study.

108
What I hope cannot be replicated are my personal experiences when it comes to the difficulty of
transportation I encountered, its cost, and issues of access to communication signal, to name a few.
Plans in the current pipeline include boosting the island’s communication signal, and it is to be hoped
that a safe public transport system will be introduced. However, the cultural, geographic, and
socioeconomic conditions of people are likely to remain relevant and constant for a longer period post
research.

4.7.5 Sampling
Sampling refers to the validity of the sampling method used in relation to the research enquiries. The
sampling method used in this study aimed to provide representation for both parties involved in the
communication process. The purposive sampling method used can be replicated. Although there were
set criteria in selecting informants from the government and community, these criteria did not
disregard the experiences of other residents in the village. For instance, at the community level, target
informants were residents holding formal/informal leadership roles or those who were able to attend a
DRRM-related drills and trainings. Albeit purposive, the sampling method used does aim to provide a
broad picture of experiences in both field sites.

The semi-structured interviews also allowed flexibility and responsiveness to the broader community
viewpoint, not just in the interview schedule but in the method of interviewing in situ. This occurred
in the island village when other people decided to join in the conversation by giving their answers to
the question. These were recorded (both people’s actions and their answers) to document the
communal culture in the area.

4.7.6 Insider/outsider options

The concept of insider/outsider options demands that a researcher should identify which perspective
dominates in the collection, observation, and analysis of data. This approach, together with the data
collection methods used, required that I identify my role as researcher, and, ergo, the perspectives and
biases I brought to this study. I am aware that I am an outsider looking in. This position became
evident when community informants began asking if I would be providing them with communication
signal or whether my study would be able to provide a solution to some of their problems, like safer
road networks, when it was complete. Comments of this sort provided a signal that I was viewed as an
outsider. However, being an outsider was not perceived as problematic by the either the government
or the community informants. While cooperation towards researchers might be expected from the
government, community informants can potentially refuse anytime, and yet, during the fieldwork,
community informants were open and even adjusted to the language/s I spoke, despite not being
required to do so. My presence as an outsider was welcomed. My outsider status allowed me to learn
from their experiences and its impact in disaster preparedness activities.

109
During the fieldwork, however, I realised that I could not be a complete outsider in this study. There
is something universal in disaster preparedness experiences. The fear, destruction, and death that
comes with natural hazards made me somewhat an insider. This is the ‘space between’ posited by
Dwyer and Buckle (2009) to explain the role of a qualitative researcher who is not fully enmeshed
with the study but is not a complete outsider. Acker (2000) even urged qualitative researchers to
uphold both insider and outsider perspectives and work creatively around them. Upholding both
perspectives allowed ‘broader ways of knowing and ways of being to understand peoples, cultures,
and practices so different from and increasingly so similar to who we are’ (Kanuha 2000, pp. 445–
446). I believe that what is essential is not the status of my being an outsider looking in, it is the
genuine interest in people’s experiences and the ability to maintain an open mind that makes
representing these experiences valid (Dwyer & Buckle 2009).

The results (Chapter 5) and discussion (Chapters 6 and 7) are mostly written in the third person to
convey that I do not have full understanding of the informants’ experiences; rather, as Dwyer and
Buckle posit, this strategy is relevant ‘to avoid leaving the impression of fully understanding or
speaking from the experiences’ of the informants (2009, p. 61).

4.8 Summary

This chapter has detailed the methodology and the specific methods used in data collection and
analysis which allowed the exploration, documentation, and validation of the DRRM experiences of
marginalised GIDA communities in Mindanao, Philippines. The triage of methods used—interviews,
document analysis, and field observations—gathered self-reported experiences of two sets of
informants to create a picture of disaster risk communication practices. Field observation was not
solely used to describe both field sites, but was also used to verify answers from both sets of
informants.

Data gathering for this study involved both desk work and fieldwork. Desk work began with
reviewing DRRM-related documents that aided the development of the data gathering tools. This
started in mid-2018, and actual fieldwork was conducted between January to July 2019. In-between
these months, desk work included online searching, news monitoring, obtaining and reproducing of
hazard maps, and reviewing additional environment-related laws in the Philippines that might assist in
either the development of data gathering tools or the analysis. Roughly three months were spent per
area of study. Figure 4.6 summarises the flow of the 15-step research process.

110
Figure 4.6.
15-step research flow implemented per field site

DISASTER RISK
COMMUNICATION
PRACTICE
Document analysis and
Proposed Framework
online research

Identification of intervening Initial focus, questions,

variables in disaster risk sequence, and observation
communication list

Thematic analysis level 2

(factors affecting disaster Interviews and observations
risk communication at provincial level
practices)

Reflection and processing

Thematic analysis level 1
of encounter and
(communication tools used)
observations

Revision of focus,
Transcription questions, sequence, and
observation list

Reflection and processing

Interviews and observations
of encounter and
at municipal level
observations

Reflection and processing

Interview and observation at
of encounter and
village level
Revision of focus, observations
questions, sequence, and
observation list for village
level

After all data were collected from both study sites, the first level of analysis was made (level 1 in dark
orange in Figure 4.6). The first objective of this study was to determine how disaster risk information
is disseminated in geographically isolated and disadvantaged areas. This data provided a picture of the
extent of local implementation of the National Plan and a description of how local DRRM councils
roll out disaster preparedness as one of the four thematic areas of the National Plan. The second level

111
of analysis (level 2 in dark orange) identified the multiple variables that positively or negatively
impact the disaster preparedness plans of local DRRM councils in GIDAs. The third level of analysis
(level 3 in dark orange) focussed on how certain intervening variables can be used to achieve a
transformative level of engagement in GIDA communities so that they will always be prepared for
any natural hazard, knowing their own setbacks.

The next chapter describes the results of the analysis.

112
CHAPTER 5: RESULTS

5.1 Introduction

The study aims to investigate the interconnections between pre-disaster communication and
community engagement in the context of spatial inequality, and the factors that surround these. As
such, I examined the way community engagement can be used as a communication strategy in pre-
disaster communication that targets geographically isolated and socioeconomically disadvantaged
communities. The literature review identified the need for a contextualised DRRM that focusses on
involving communities in building their own resiliency. While community engagement packaged as
CB-DRRM is implemented worldwide, literature failed to highlight how community engagement is
used as a communication strategy in building resiliency, particularly in GIDA communities.

The identification of field sites that best fit the description of GIDA was therefore crucial to this
study, and this was followed by an investigation of the pre-disaster communication modes and tools
that currently mediate issues of DRRM community engagement between the government and GIDA
communities. Engaging local communities is an approach stipulated in the National Plan of the
Philippines as part of its disaster preparedness activities. Understanding how GIDA communities use
and respond to various pre-disaster communication tools through community-based programs requires
an analysis of the modes of communication used. These can be interpersonal, public, and mass and are
referred to by Seiler, Beall, and Mazer (2017) as types of communication; this research prefers modes
of communication, however, because a specific communication tool in a particular mode can be a
one-way informative type or a two-way asymmetrical type (Grunig & Hunt 1984). While the former
focusses on sending information, the latter allows feedback but does not allow changes in the message
or the process. This simplistic explanation illustrates only one of the first steps required to fully
unpack the roles of communication modes and tools in pre-disaster communication through
community engagement.

This chapter presents the results of the various modes and tools that were identified by the data
collection as being used for pre-disaster communication between the government and the GIDA
communities surveyed. It also contextualises these modes and tools within the GIDA frame of
reference and itemises the barriers in pre-disaster communication observed in situ and their impact on
community engagement.

In general, this chapter answers the following questions:

1. What are the various modes and tools of communications used by the government to
engage GIDA communities in disaster preparedness activities?
2. At which level of community engagement are these modes and tools used?

113
3. What factors affect the level of community engagement, based on the exchanges of
information between the government and local community and given the modes and
tools used and the GIDA context they are used in?

Specifically, this chapter details the modes and tools of communication utilised by local DRRM
councils to equip GIDA communities with pre-disaster risk information. Moreover, it tackles barriers
affecting the exchange of information between the sender (local DRRM council) and the receiver
(GIDA communities) of the messages. It goes on to detail how each communication tool is used, its
purpose, and the reasons why it is used. I triangulated the data gathered from government informants
and field observations with interviews with community informants in situ. These data aid in the
identification of the level of community engagement implemented in the two GIDA communities
observed.

Most of the communication tools audited are common in both upland and island provinces and
municipalities. What deviates from the norm and makes the data engaging are the various modes of
communication the local DRRM councils employ to engage GIDA communities to take part in the
government's effort to build disaster-resilient communities.

Finally, this chapter is organised and analysed according to the CEC developed by Bowen,
Newenham-Kahindi and Herremans (2010), which states that a specific modality captures a specific
level of engagement. To capture the essence of community engagement, there should be a movement
from a purely transactional to a transformational level of engagement. To better understand the
findings, this chapter is organised based on the questions it seeks to answer. The first and second
sections tackle the multimodal approaches used in pre-disaster communication in the context of the
GIDA sites, and provide details of how each communication tool is used, the various pros and cons of
using these tools, and how people perceive their relevance in pre-disaster preparation. In the third
section (sec. 5.4), I discuss the role of interpersonal communication in communicating disaster risk
information in GIDA communities. This section revolves around the role of people in either
strengthening or weakening disaster risk communication. The final section describes the impacts of
political complications and leadership instability on the contextually aggressive approach currently
used in pre-disaster risk communication. Overall, this study found that the current CEC level of
engaging GIDA communities is still transactional, as is evidenced by the two-way asymmetrical
communication processes in use.

5.2 One-way informative communication: Transactional engagement

This study identified three significant themes in pre-disaster communication. First, the general
approach in pre-disaster communication is multimodal. This means the government utilises various
modes and tools of communication in engaging local communities. However, the effectiveness of

114
some communication tools is questionable because of the existence of ‘fake news’, people’s literacy
levels, and the fact that access to the information requires appliances such as radio and television,
electricity, and communication signal. Second, face-to-face communication is an integral pre-disaster
mode of communication for GIDA communities. Often, this mode demands a third party, but per
contra, communication via a third party (such as zone leaders, teachers, and other village
functionaries) affects the level of trust people place in the process. It also adds to the isolation and
detachment felt by other members of the community, furthering already present social inequalities.
Third, political complications and leadership instability were identified as barriers that weaken
contextual pre-disaster communication.

The multimodality of pre-disaster communication (generally) reflects the idea that a multimodal
approach is a possible solution to the demand for an up-to-date, accurate, reliable, and continuously
disseminated information system, such as that posited by Rodriguez and colleagues in 2007.
However, findings suggest that the experiences of those living in GIDA communities do not support
the idea that a general multimodal pre-disaster communication reaches the entire spectrum of various
demographics existing in a locality, with its own varying capacities, demands, and access to
communication tools. Multimodal communication is simply the use of various communication tools
(Chandler & Munday 2016; Kress 2010) to target a variety of audiences; channeling the right
communication tool to the right demographic relies on appropriate media planning.

Prior to conducting the fieldwork, I made a checklist of communication tools to look for in situ. The
checklist included online and offline tools; traditional media, such as print, radio and television; drills
and training; and other visual tools such as videos and road signage. I further classified each tool into
three levels of engagement following Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi and Herremans’ (2010) CEC. This
allowed communication tools to be grouped into categories based on the criteria set by the framework,
thus highlighting a possible explanation of why local DRRM offices at both provincial and municipal
levels complain of a weak DRRM at the village level. The framework also highlights the existing
barriers to pre-disaster communication and community engagement for people living in GIDA
communities. Table 5-1 shows the current level of engagement in situ.

Table 5-1.
Assessment of communication tools vis-à-vis level of community engagement based on the CEC

Transactional Transitional Transformational

Research objective
engagement engagement engagement

Communication tools print materials radio -

videos social networking sites
tarpaulins* text messaging
road signages interpersonal

115
 Transactional Transitional Transformational
Research objective
engagement engagement engagement

communication (drills,
face-to-face, games,
informal meetups)

Characteristics top-down With collaboration and -

consultation, but
emphasis is still on
sender of message.

Frequency occasional occasional -

Control of process FIRM: based on FIRM: based on set -

government rules by higher DRRM
bureaucracy. councils and other
agencies in the
NDRRMC up to
national level.

Number of Only accessible areas Only accessible areas -

communities involved are often involved and proactive villages
are often involved
especially when local
DRRM councils have
plans to join the Gawad
KALASAG competition.

Note. *Tarpaulins are printed A3-size messages. Source: Author, based on Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi & Herremans
(2010).

The communication tools used for transactional engagement in both field sites follow a one-way
transmission style, which means there is little-to-no possibility of the information recipient sending
feedback to the sender of the message. These transactional communication tools are print (posters and
brochures) and other visual aids, A3 printed tarpaulins, and road signage. These tools are considered
traditional media, which, in the context of public relations, are defined as standard forms of media
(television, radio, print) that disseminate information following a one-way framework (Taylor &
Perry 2005).

Traditional communication tools were comprehensively audited during fieldwork, and the conclusion
was that the information dissemination methods used in the Philippines are top-down, regardless of
the sender or the receiver of the message. The problem with this approach is the lack of a pathway for
evaluation (of message effectiveness) or follow-up (subsequent to evaluation, to improve
effectiveness) from the sender of the message; indeed, it appeared that there was no evaluation tool or
follow-through activity in place to measure the effectiveness of these communication tools, either in
general or in the specific context of the GIDA communities.

116
I ascertained that production of traditional communication tools is occasional, as it requires bigger
budget allocation and a level of technical knowledge among local DRRM councils. Control over the
communication process resides in the local DRRM councils, and this means production, distribution,
and messaging is firm and is also backed up by local and national policies. In addition, LGUs allocate
the budget necessary for DRRM. Despite their proximity to the message recipients, the number of
communities involved in the communication process is minimal—local communities are seen as mere
recipients of information. However, this study does not intend to discredit the role of these tools in
pre-disaster communication. On the contrary, findings intend to highlight the role played by these
tools and how they can expand the existing transactional approach to achieve a wider audience reach.
Traditional media are and will be useful for one-way informative communication, as long as the
receiver of the message knows how to consume the medium. These tools are also beneficial for end
users if the message and design of traditional media (i.e., posters and brochures) are effective for and
target a specific demographic.

Using traditional media in a transactional style projects a top-down approach of communication to its
end users. In addition, since the frequency of information to each location via this method is
occasional, the level of expectation from the government in terms of consumption of the information
is high. In terms of their political framework, these communication modes, such as they are, do
comply with the requirement to educate the public by providing information on disaster preparedness.

In the following subsections I present a consolidated discussion on the various traditional media used
in disseminating disaster risk information from the provincial to the village level.

5.2.1 Print and other visual materials

Print is perhaps the most commonly-used communication tool in both field sites, but projects varying
levels of importance and usefulness to the community. Print and other visual materials found in the
field sites can only be useful based on who, where, and how people are exposed to and use these tools.
Print is the least beneficial for people living in GIDA communities because of issues of literacy and
access. However, DRRM councils rely on these materials in most of their training and drills. Given
these observations, it would appear that the effectiveness of print and other visual materials depends
on the context where they are used.

An evaluation of current literature on the subject suggests that other scholars are unable to provide a
concrete judgment on the usefulness of print communication. For instance, in the context of health
and hygiene, the call to action was less observable in people who get their information from posters
(Contzen & Mosler 2013), yet in the context of tourism, brochures were preferred by tourists for
accessing any relevant risk information in the area where they spend their holidays (Susmayadi et al.
2014). In informing religious pilgrims on the risks of a stampede or other hazard, print materials such
as pamphlets were considered more effective than smart technologies and face-to-face outreach

117
activities (Taibah, Arlikatti & Andrew 2018). Post-earthquake, the people from Haiti considered print
materials such as newspapers and billboards part of an elite repertoire of information sources
(Sommerfeldt 2014). Taken together, these studies suggest that outsiders such as tourists and religious
pilgrims prefer materials that they can take with them and use to peruse information in their own time,
but what are the communication needs of GIDA communities?

Based on the experiences described by the local DRRM councils in both field sites, they use print and
other visual materials to ‘download’ information to the attendees of training and drills. These modes
of communication visually reinforce the verbal messages delivered at these events, which may not be
comprehensible because of the jargon used in DRRM. Specifically, when conducting drills in various
villages the upland’s provincial DRRM council members show geohazard maps to the local
community. These maps are meant to help convey the information that the community is living in a
hazard-prone area. This idea is extended by showing the layers of soil, depth of the trench, how high
tsunami can get, and why the soil cracks during earthquakes. The island’s provincial DRRM council
also utilises traditional print materials such as posters, brochures, and flyers, in particular those that
are provided by other government agencies that are part of the National Council. The island’s council
had combined all vital information in flyers and posters and had produced a translated brochure that
covered topics relevant to earthquake and tsunami, two natural hazards that the area is prone to. In
context of the community’s response to these tools, it is perhaps fortuitous that the council did not
include typhoons in the list of natural hazards experienced by the province, despite the frequent
occurrence of these in the area. Instead, in this regard the province gets their communication tools
from other government agencies, but they also produce their own localised tools; these make the
information accessible and understandable for them, and therefore the tools are more effective.

Aside from these uses of specific traditional print materials—posters, brochures, and flyers—the
island provincial DRRM council also consolidates all useful communication tools into a single
information board system. The information board system is like a bulletin board, where all
information, including hotlines, warnings, and calls for an evacuation, are posted; these boards are
placed in strategic areas in the provincial capital, where visiting local government officials from
different municipalities and barangays will immediately see them.

Accessibility of this kind of communication tool was a common problem at the municipal level in
both field sites. Posters and other printed materials were not visible beyond government offices. In
addition, most of the print materials were provided by PAGASA, PHIVOLCS, the Department of
Science and Technology, and/or the Mines and Geosciences Bureau through the provincial DRRM
council. These government-produced posters are text-heavy posters that use jargon and are frequently
in either English or Filipino. None of the posters from the government are in the local Bisaya
language. It is the role of local DRRM councils to translate these government-produced posters into

118
the local language, which is particularly necessary in the upland village, where the level of
community literacy is a concern.

The role of the municipal DRRM councils is intermediary. They become distributors of
communication tools to villages under their jurisdiction, and they are required to post these
communication tools in strategic places. Often, they are put up in their municipal offices. The same
scenario is observed in the villages. However, the majority of the print and other visual materials
shown to me were not available in both villages. The upland village had a newly-placed road sign
because of a recent drill and training in the area, while the island had no signage of this kind.

Village informants observed that it would be possible for the local DRRM council officials to leave
the posters and flip charts at the zone’s public hut so that anyone could access them. It might even be
beneficial to do this, because people who lounge in these huts can then see the printed materials.
However, seeing them is one thing; reading them is a different issue. Even if people can see these
print materials posted everywhere in the village, if they cannot read, the content of the materials will
be meaningless and the communication tool ineffective. Similarly, if the information is written in a
language people do not understand, the posters are merely wasted opportunities. Practically speaking,
the people require communication materials that are more visual than textual, so that those who
cannot read can still understand the message. To address some of these issues, both upland and island
provincial DRRM councils had translated these posters and brochures into the local language.
However, community informants said that they had not seen any of these translated brochures or
posters. This absence of materials in situ can be attributed to the difficulty of distribution to isolated
locations. During my field observations, these translated materials were only seen in easily accessible
villages in the lowland areas of the municipality.

In general, informants from both field sites stated that they preferred colour-coded printed material,
such as the maps used during seminars and drills. However, judging by the way the local DRRM
council were using maps in the upland area, it is safe to assume that the presentation of information is
very technical and full of jargon. As noted, most of the print materials are not locally produced, and
their design tends to be full of text and other information that is not necessarily suited to the needs and
understanding capacity of the receivers in either of the field sites.

It was also clear that adult illiteracy is something that is not openly talked about, because at least two
informants suddenly lowered the volume of their voices, almost to a whisper, while relaying that there
are adults in the upland village who do not know how to read. This admission confirms issues of
illiteracy raised by the provincial DRRM council, especially in the farming sector. The manner in
which this sensitive information was shared during fieldwork suggests that people in the village do
not openly discuss the subject, not even if they are officials.

119
In terms of the importance of the printed materials to the community, I asked the community
informants from both field sites if these materials are seen as necessary in their village. They
immediately said that they value printed materials posted around the village because these will
continue to remind them what to do in case a natural hazard is on its way. If printed brochures or
leaflets are available, they could take these with them to their homes and share them with their
immediate family and their neighbours. To them, what they learned during seminars and drills would
be forgotten, but the constant reminder from print material would make information retention easy.

Despite this level of importance being locally ascribed to these printed materials, their distribution is
always delayed, especially in GIDA villages. I was informed that a road sign that was put up in the
upland village, including one about a training and drills event, happened because this area was finally
included in the list of villages to be visited in the government caravan (which is where each
government department introduces their programs and projects to villages). The inclusion happened
when I organised my fieldwork in this area. Initially, the upland village was not included in the list. In
the case of the island village, the printed materials for the community (including maps) were dropped
off to another village. According to the village DRRM council, this meant that they had to go to the
other village to pick the materials up. During my field work, these materials had not yet been
collected from the other village because there were other more pressing concerns in the island village
that needed immediate attention.

There were certainly both positive and negative sides to the use of printed materials to communicate
risk in both upland and island villages. It is also clear that both field sites preferred visual information
because it is easily understood; it was unclear, however, if the people were likely to remember the
messages from these materials, which is a limitation for this study.

5.2.2 Road signage

Despite informants stating that a visual communication tool is preferred for DRRM messages, such as
those presented on steel-plated road signs, such signage may in fact pose problems in terms of
community understanding of universal signs that pertain to risks. The inability to read and understand
universally accepted symbols is due to lack of prior exposure to these universal signs, drawing
attention to the link between these issues and access to education, which clearly plays a vital role in
these matters.

The continuous use of road signage (which can be considered a billboard in terms of its size) as a
DRRM communication tool has already proven effective in delivering risk information to the public
(Sommerfeldt 2014; Taibah, Arlikatti & Andrew 2018). What is important is knowing who this tool is
communicating with. Motorists are familiar with these road signs because they traverse national
highways and back roads where the signs are often used. However, what is the role of this signage to
GIDA communities? In addition, it has been observed (see sec. 3.2.2) that knowledge of risk does not

120
always lead to action. As such, based on the data from GIDA communities and the available literature,
print and other visual materials cannot be used effectively as stand-alone tools that elicit preparedness
actions from people who see them. In this regard, during my field work, I saw several signs erected in
lowland areas that are known to commuters as being ‘flood-prone’. Yet, in early 2019, when the tail
of a cold front brought heavy rains to the area for several days, flooding these national highways,
what had been a rice field looked like a brown lake for several days. Yet, ironically, displaced
residents were seen in tents on roadsides, as they refused to leave their homes.

Even so, for those living in GIDA villages, it appeared that the level of importance of this signage was
high. For instance, when the provincial DRRM council placed road signage and billboards in the
upland village, people were glad to be aware of the hazards their area might face. Local DRRM
councils also use steel-plated signage to mark the national highways with various danger/hazard
information. However, the quantity of signage along roads decreases as one approaches
geographically isolated areas, and villages with only a small number of inhabitants and fewer people
moving through them also have less signage. This becomes problematic, connoting as it does that the
least significant population gets less information vis-à-vis attention and help from government and
private organisations during calamities. More than that, the fact that residents in these areas are not
aware of the threats they may face potentially results in less (or no) preparation from them.

Another reason behind this decrease in signage is the production cost of steel-plated road signs and
billboards. Local DRRM councils in both areas cannot afford to produce more signs. Most often, the
provincial DRRM council funds the production and distribution of signage, but at other times the
municipal DRRM council will co-produce signage or will produce their own signs using cheaper
materials. This problem can be traced back to the annual budgetary plan intended for disaster
preparedness activities and how the local DRRM councils use their calamity funds.

By default, the sitting governor and mayor automatically lead the local DRRM council in their
respective areas, and their office dictates where the DRRM budget is utilised. It was evident that most
of the DRRM budget in these areas was used in projects that were reactive rather than preventive,
indicating there is a delay in pre-disaster planning that includes building infrastructure and procuring
tools for emergency response. These issues can be observed from three possible perspectives. First, in
context of the recently-debunked ‘typhoon free’ narrative (see sec. 1.1.3), it is feasible that the LGUs
have just started getting serious about looking into DRRM because of their recent disaster experience,
and pre-disaster measures haven’t been implemented yet. Second, that these areas have only recently
been identified as hazard-prone areas, and therefore the local DRRM councils are still working on
projects that mitigate the impact of future natural hazards. On the downside, the third perspective may
be that the field sites I observed are not priority areas of the LGUs because of their geographic
location and the comparatively small number of people affected by the hazards in these areas.

121
The first two perspectives provide insight into the reason why most of the steel-plated signage erected
in strategic areas has been translated to the local language, which suggests consideration of the fact
that previous use of National Council-provided communication tools, which were in either English or
Filipino, did not result in proactive responses from the people. As an example of this, upon my arrival
at the island municipality’s port, I saw a steel-type sign, translated to the local dialect, and in full
colour—an Early Warning System (EWS) board. This is an upgrade to the signage that used to be
there in 2016; at that time, the island’s DRRM council had printed their early warning systems
signage on A3-size tarpaulins (Sumaylo, Gomez & Abrio 2016). These translated road signs also
show how local DRRM councils localise communication tools so they are accessible by the
community.

The village DRRM councils and LGUs are also encouraged by the provincial DRRM council to
produce their own communication tools such as road signs. It is felt that this mode of communication
exposes residents continually to disaster information, or directs them to the nearest evacuation centres.
However, the village leaders complained that they never had enough budget or the capacity to
produce such road signs. As such, the provincial DRRM council had instructed them to use alternative
materials such as sacks, so the village leaders had placed these kinds of signs in hazard-prone areas.
As U1 observed, the use of sacks was still better than not having any risk or hazard information
provided to the residents in their area. However, these materials are not durable and cannot withstand
heat and rain for an extended period; thus, in consideration of the number of reproductions that would
be required to keep them legible, informants felt that using sacks and tarpaulins would likely be more
costly in the long run.

5.2.3 Television/video
Both upland and island provincial DRRM councils make efforts to disseminate pre-disaster
information through television, as it is the most popular and most often used communication tool in
the Philippines (Hootsuite and We Are Social 2019). These efforts include the creation of television
spots, news segments, and other video materials used during drills and training in various villages. In
regard to DRRM, television, as one of the traditional media, has been extensively studied as a
communication tool, mostly with positive results (Arlikatti, Taibah & Andrew 2014; Sellnow et al.
2017). Although these results are often from studies conducted in first world countries such as the
United States, the tool also works well in the Philippines, with many Filipinos having access to
television (Hootsuite and We Are Social 2019). However, the results of this study would suggest that
the effectiveness of television and videos in this regard is still based on the context of their
consumers—meaning not just their capacity to access the medium but also their ability to take
meaning from the messages delivered.

122
Utilising television as a tool for disseminating pre-disaster information requires knowledge of the
medium, as well as skill in using and manipulating it to carry a specific message. In the context of
government informants, skill, in this sense, may mean the use of the multiple machines (camera,
lighting, and audio recording equipment among others) and editing software needed to produce one
segment because not all of them have media production background. Consumers of disaster
communication information from television demand high-quality content that gives a realistic sense of
place and space (Fraustino et al. 2018); this means high quality production equipment and a
corresponding level of skill from production staff. In addition, public service announcements
delivered through television are known to elicit the consumer attitude that there is manipulation in the
messaging (Adame & Miller 2015). I agree that, as communicators, our content should work well
with the chosen medium. However, if budgets are short and the writer is not specifically trained in
content writing, the medium’s extenuating visuals should at least provide a realistic sense of place and
space.

In GIDA communities, using television or any video material immediately promotes inequality in
terms of access to information. This communication tool is selective of its audience. Only those who
can afford cable subscription or has access to television can acquire information. This tool excludes
those who do not subscribe to the local cable channel and have access to free channels only. There
was no mention of any evaluation tool used to know if this communication channel is considered
relevant in the context of the entire province. Presently, producing TV segments and spots were
stopped because of production cost but Facebook Live is used to provide updates. Using television
segments, spots, and Facebook Live has the potential to reach more audience as these appeal to people
who consume messages that are presented visually.

As claimed by community informants, they would like to get information from television because for
them it is a ‘high-tech’ way of communication. However, despite having this ‘high-tech’
communication tool, television, for the most part, is useless on the island village because of electricity
problem. However, because community informants often mention television, it is assumed that access
to it is not a problem in both field sites. Some households in both villages have their own televisions.
Even the efforts of the provincial DRRM councils in both field sites include producing TV spots. I9
even said they would want to have electricity for the entire day so they would always be updated on
any news. Sadly, electricity in the village is only between 6 to 9 in the evening.

In general, television segments often cater to those living in lowland areas and component cities with
a consistent supply of electricity and with the financial capacity to subscribe to local cable channels.

123
5.3 Two-way asymmetric communication: Transitional engagement

The modes of communication that are dominant in transitional engagement are those that provide a
feedback system. Audience feedback is believed to be the beginning of possible collaboration and
consultation with the receivers of information. However, this feedback system does not necessarily
alter the original message, or the process, and thus, the presence of feedback does not equate to two-
way symmetric communication (Grunig & Hunt 1984).

Transitional engagements are often occasional in their frequency (Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi &
Herremans 2010), and messaging is dependent on several factors such as budget, mode of delivery,
and even politics. At this level in the Philippines, messaging is still centred on the rules set by higher
government agencies and the National Plan.

The most common tools documented that were used in situ for transitional engagement are radio,
digital communication (social networking sites and text messaging), and face-to-face interactions
during drills and training and informal meetups. These are discussed in the following subsections.

5.3.1 Radio
Radio was observed to be a common mode of communication in GIDA communities. It is not
necessarily the community’s main source of information, but it is a tool that community informants
said they could access. Radio is consistently documented in literature as being a useful
communication tool in information dissemination (Arlikatti, Taibah & Andrew 2014; Coile 1997;
Hugelius et al. 2016; Romo-Murphy, James & Adams 2011). However, the efficacy of this
communication tool relies on stable telecommunications infrastructure, individual perception of risk
and preparations, individual media preference, access to a working radio, and at which point in the
disaster management cycle it is used. Despite these requirements, the local DRRM councils in both
field sites continue to maintain a radio program because radio signals often reach geographically
isolated locations. This study asserts that radio broadcasting should be used in tandem with other tools
of communication in disseminating pre-disaster information.

DRRM councils often produce radio segments and programs dedicated toward weather information,
which go to air provided councils have the budget to pay for a time slot, although these broadcasts can
also be achieved if there is an ongoing agreement between the government and the radio station. In
both field sites, the provincial governments produced radio segments. In the upland municipality, a
local radio program was also available. These programs may be exclusively about DRRM or may
discuss other government projects and activities, including DRRM.

Radio was observably a frequent source of information and entertainment during the daytime at the
island village. During fieldwork, residents were seen lounging in sari-sari (local convenience) stores
and puroks with their transistor radios. Battery operated transistor radios are conventional in the area

124
since electricity is not available during the daytime. Moreover, because of its location, the residents of
the island village can get signals from neighbouring islands in the Visayas area.

This connection to radio was not observed in the upland village, and radio was not even mentioned as
being part of the residents’ sources of DRRM information. The goal of the provincial DRRM council
there is to go digital, despite the province being considered home to indigenous peoples who live in its
upland areas. The digitalisation of DRRM targets those living in lowland and island areas that are also
popular with both local and international tourists. These segments of the population often have access
to technology, electricity, and communication signal.

In context of these findings, it would appear that radio, although useful, should be used in tandem
with other communication tools for disaster risk information dissemination. In agreement with
literature generally, I contend that, in the context of GIDAs, a mix of communication tools is most
useful for information dissemination, especially when this multimodal approach is coupled with what
these GIDA communities have now which they lacked before—disaster experience. Mixing
communication modes also addresses the various communication needs and preferences of people.

5.3.2 Social networking sites

Government agencies particularly utilise social networking sites (SNS) for disseminating DRRM
information, yet SNS are not available to the whole population, including those living in GIDAs. Both
the National Council and local DRRM councils use Facebook and Twitter extensively for
disseminating pre-disaster information.

Various studies have documented the feasibility of using SNS for DRRM, from mitigation to
rehabilitation, with varying results (Liu, Fraustino & Jin 2016; Nicholson et al. 2019). Yang and
colleagues (2019), with their backgrounds in computer science and engineering, highlight the
importance of SNS users in disseminating information generally. Pourebrahim et al. (2019)
corroborate the importance of SNS in disseminating disaster information and emphasise that the
connectivity between users and their followers allows swift information sharing online. However, the
use of SNS has its negative side. In the Philippines, Facebook is often used as an accessible digital
online communication tool by LGUs because of the number of people the platform can reach, and
information dissemination is also free unless posts are boosted. However, this platform is prone to
misinformation and gossip (Silver & Matthews 2017). More than that, these findings disregard the
experiences of those people living in geographically isolated locations, who don’t have access to these
tools.

In terms of DRRM information dissemination, the characteristic function of SNS, aside from giving
information, is soliciting information through crowdsourcing. Citizen reporting through this medium
is frequent, a function that is effectively a form of feedback from the receiver of the information, and
is the basic requirement of a transitional engagement. Information from the public is sent to the

125
provincial DRRM page either by a private message or by commenting on a post. This volunteered
information is validated by asking the local officials at the municipal or village level to proceed to the
area reported. In this regard, government and community informants mentioned ‘fake news’ as one
setback of SNS. As I1 and U2 mentioned, sharing old warnings and photos creates unnecessary panic
among the people, and the provincial DRRM council actively combats the escalation of fake news.

We have to be aware of the posts in Facebook because they may be old news or fake
news. Our process is we contact the local DRRM official in that reported area to
confirm if the post was real or not before we take action (U2).

Even if they do not have signal (to access social networking sites in the village),
they can still access these sites if they go the municipal capital or elsewhere, so they
are aware how fast information is transmitted using social media and the existence
of fake news (I1).

There is no online digital communication tool available in either of the field sites because of their
location. My main argument when it comes to using a digital platform in pre-disaster communication
in the Philippine context is its accessibility. Neither of the field sites have access to any of the various
online platforms—social networking sites, government websites, and weather apps—for them to be
informed about incoming risks brought by natural hazards from these sources. In context of the digital
divide, it could be argued that the perhaps ubiquitous nature of these digital platforms in the minds of
their users potentially further isolates communities living in geographically isolated areas, who cannot
see them, putting them at risk. Madianou (2015) warns about digital inequalities because of the digital
divide that is brought about by unequal access to smartphones and the internet. Of 107.3 million
Filipinos, only 71% have access to the internet, and only 65% own a smartphone (Hootsuite and We
Are Social 2019). This disparity, in terms of access to online information, creates a knowledge gap
(Xuerui 2008) between the information rich and the information poor.

Community informants and village leaders expressed a strong need to have access to communication
signal so they could access the social networking sites utilised by the local government. The residents
of both villages also acknowledged the importance of an internet connection, despite not being able to
access it. This scenario is opposite to the failure of the Indonesian government to fully utilise social
media/networking sites in disaster risk communication (Yudarwati, Putranto & Delmo 2021).
Currently, there are no plans at either municipal or provincial level to provide cellular base transceiver
stations (signal repeaters) in the upland village, but the island municipality is already working on the
installation of cellular base transceiver stations so that the island village will have access to
telecommunication signal. It is therefore likely that the island village will be able to utilise online
information, but poverty is still a significant problem in the area. Being digitally reliant is far from
fruitful in these areas because access to smartphones and prepaid data still relies on purchasing power.

126
5.3.3 Text messaging/blast and 911 hotline
Text messaging/SMS is so prevalent in the Philippines that the country was once called the ‘“texting”
capital of the world’ (Alampay et al. 2007, p. 8), yet, as noted, this somewhat accessible and cost-
efficient method of communication is not available to people living in GIDA communities. Studies on
the subject suggest that the use of text messaging is preferred if the message is urgent (Sumaylo
2013), and if the sender of the message requires a timely and efficient way of delivering information
(Caragea et al. 2011), factors that certainly relate well to certain phases of DRRM. As such, the
Government of the Philippines even enacted a law requiring telecommunication companies to send
out free warning messages during threats of natural hazards. Yet GIDA communities can only have
the benefits of these warnings if they have access to telecommunication signal.

Even so, text messaging, or ‘text blast’, is heavily utilised in both field sites. This mode of
communication allows local DRRM councils at all levels to send out information and warnings via
text, ostensibly to officials and residents alike. The municipal DRRM office in the upland area
reportedly sends messages through text to all village leaders, especially when swift information
transfer is needed. However, text blast is not the primary method of informing the villages in the
upland municipality because of signal issues. According to both municipal DRRM offices, the most
common communication tools used in this regard are handheld radios that go through a cellular base
transceiver station that acts as a repeater.

Despite the effort to relay information through text messaging, it is clearly not efficient to reach out to
people living in geographically isolated places when they experience telecommunications signal
problems. Nevertheless, text messaging is seen as a crucial communication tool in both upland and
island villages. The residents know that they must go to a particular location/s in the village where
they can send and receive messages. The fact that text messaging is still considered an essential
communication tool in both field sites despite the state of telecommunications signal in these areas
shows how eager the communities in these villages are to access and send information this way,
notwithstanding the effort they have to make to do it.

Aside from text messaging/blast, the provincial DRRM council of the upland area boasts a 911
hotline. Any resident of the upland province can dial 911 and report any incident they have witnessed.
The necessary validating of volunteered information through the 911 hotline follows a rigorous
process. According to the upland provincial DRRM council, as the office that monitors the 911
hotline, they send a text message to the contact person in the village where the reported incident
supposedly happened. The contact person at the village will validate the information by going
physically to the location mentioned in the report. Once the incident has been validated, the response
team will go to the confirmed location, and online updates will be released.

127
This 911 hotline may be the future for the entire upland province, but it excludes the context of GIDA
communities. It may be that there are no plans at any level to put up cellular base transceiver stations
for SMS in these isolated locations because two-way radio works just fine for these communities
already. The current intention appeared to be to improve the 911 hotline so that it serves most of the
province. This decision may be political also, because fewer people live in GIDAs in this province
(i.e., fewer disadvantaged persons are affected by the decision), and at the same time the hotline
allows the province to be competitive with the nearby Davao City, where an established 911 hotline
has been in place since 2002. In addition, Mansell (2017) makes the point in his discussion of
inequalities and digitally mediated communication that the reason why governments advocate for
digitalisation is that it promotes transparency and fairness. This reasoning does not apply in GIDA
communities, and allowing these communities to remain disconnected from the rest of the province by
not providing an avenue to inform them (and be informed by them) is part of the managerial political
style that at times glosses over issues of inequality that it generates. The push towards digitalisation of
disaster communication tools is evident at the provincial DRRM council level in both of the provinces
in this study.

Given these data on the various communication tools being used for pre-disaster communication in
the field sites, the current practice can be described as being still at the transitional stage. These results
agrees with the argument of Yudarwati (2019) that community engagement practices is dominated by
instrumental perspective or the surveying and use of communication modes and tools. This stage also
highlights face-to-face communication as an integral mode of communication; in context of the field
sites, this mode is used in equipping GIDA communities with pre-disaster information. Moreover,
non-traditional modes of communication such as batingaw (bells) and bandilyo (public announcement
using megaphone) are available but these are most often used for disaster communication (rather than
pre-disaster risk communication), which often involves giving updates on warning signals and
broadcasting calls for evacuation.

5.4 Face-to-face communication: Opportunities and pitfalls of transformative

engagement

Drills and training events, family development sessions, and informal face-to-face interactions carry a
significant role in pre-disaster communication in geographically isolated and socioeconomically
disadvantaged locations. These face-to-face interactions between the government and the community
allow feedback to enter the system. At this point, community may mean two things: municipalities
and villages (LGUs) and private, non-government organisations requesting drills and training for their
employees and the development of their own disaster management plans. However, regardless of
whether it is LGUs or other organisations requiring training, the process is still laden with problems,
such as those connected to its top-down nature, the infrequency of communication, and the need to

128
tailor disaster risk information to the local community. Drills and training events are a standard part of
the National Plan and can be considered an avenue for government and community interaction. There
is potential for the parties to learn from one another during these events. Government informants from
both field sites also relayed that informal meetings (‘meet-ups’) provide opportunities for information
dissemination, given that those who are able to attend the drills and training they organise are also
residents of that particular village and can share their learning with others in the course of their
regular movements. Note that not all drills and training sessions are open to all residents of the
village; some are targeted towards specific groups, such as teachers. However, because of the
demands on personnel and budget in mounting these events, their implementation is intermittent.

Bowen, Newenham and Herremans (2010) emphasise the importance of frequency in information
delivery in engaging communities, but the problem for GIDA communities goes beyond the
requirement for frequency and efforts towards localisation; the problem is the lack of avenues to
achieve these goals. While face-to-face communication (as a form of information dissemination) is
seen to be a possible solution to DRRM communication issues by village leaders, the seemingly
minimal opportunities for DRRM information dissemination in GIDA locations really lie in the
engrained idea that if only a few people are affected by calamities, less attention needs to be paid to
the issue. This predisposition results in neglect of these communities, which means their further
socioeconomic isolation. Another assumption made by government informants was that GIDA
communities are not interested in face-to-face interactions, especially during drills and training,
because they equated the non-participation of residents during drills and training to their lack of
interest in building resiliency.

In terms of general process, residents gather in one area for drills and training sessions or events to
listen to several lectures about the various risks they are facing with regard to hazards. People are
introduced to the four thematic areas of DRRM in the Philippines and told what each thematic area
entails. The main bulk of the exercise is communicating significant information about the early
warning system and how to respond to hazards. After these lectures, a role-playing activity is
conducted that involves evacuation drills and rescue. Overall, residents from GIDA communities
(including indigenous peoples) are considered more likely to be receptive to disaster risk information
acquired in multimodal ways like role-playing compared to those living in lowland areas, as relayed
by informants U1 and U4. Special attention is given to indigenous peoples in the role-plays due to
contrasting tenets of science and supernatural beliefs.

The drills and training workshops contain several games to make information dissemination
interactive. Government informants from both field sites opined that gamification was considered
important because these activities make information dissemination fun for the receiver. They use
different games for different audiences: Kids have a set of interactive activities that allows them to
have fun while learning, while adults have a mix of activities to make learning less tedious, meaning

129
less ‘classroom-type lecture’ and more ‘how-tos’. Moreover, gamification extends to inter-village and
inter-municipality competition, an example of which is the annual first aid training competition.
Events like this ensure the constant transfer of information via the training of new and returning
contenders.

Aside from drills and training, informal meet-ups are also considered a significant method of
disseminating information. With the limitations on access to electricity, telecommunications signal,
and other technological devices such as smartphones, informal meet-ups with village officials and
zone leaders allow information to pass from one person to another. It should be noted that this study
does not assert a total lack of access to electricity, signal, and/or smartphones. However, those who
have access to information from various communication tools such as radio, social media, and
television and have the financial means to maintain its usage (electric bills and prepaid data plans)
gain power in the process. Residents who have attained some level of education and can upskill
themselves in the use of technology become local sources of information. Their access to information
will function as a link that binds them to other residents. However, this situation can be problematic,
as the connections they maintain can be limited to those within their own social circle. Often these are
relatives and neighbours, and informants raised that trust issues were a by-product of this kind of
situation.

Family development sessions are also used to relay pre-disaster information. These sessions, however,
are not part of the program of the local DRRM council, instead, they comprise part of the conditional
cash grant program (the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino program, known as 4Ps) of the Department of
Social Welfare and Development. During these sessions, representatives from the Department of
Social Welfare and Development deliver an information session to 4Ps beneficiaries (i.e., those
awarded the cash grant and thus access to the program) covering topics from family planning,
livelihood, and disaster preparedness. Of the 99 families living in the island village, 40 families are
beneficiaries under the 4Ps program. This means 40% of their population have access to DRRM
information via this program. In the upland village, 220 (47%) of 467 families are listed under the
National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction (NHTS-PR). Of the total population of
1,942 people in the upland village, 804 are indigenous peoples. In terms of program access, this may
mean that the NHTS-PR families are in possession of information that could be shared with the rest of
the community because they are enrolled in the 4Ps program. The indigenous peoples may also utilise
indigenous DRRM practices that could be blended with scientific information.

The difference between the 4Ps information sessions and that of drills and training is their consistency
(i.e., they occur monthly) and their focus. Government respondents U1 and I1 spoke highly of this
program and said they intend to emulate it for CB-DRRM, as they see the positive impact it has on its
beneficiaries. In reality, however, they cannot easily pattern their CB-DRRM approach on this
because 4Ps requires personnel, which requires a personnel budget. Unlike the 4Ps program, which is

130
financially anchored in a national government agency with regional, provincial, and municipal offices
that implement its programs locally, the council can only hire a limited number of permanent
employees to take care of the DRRM needs of their constituents.

Given this background, this section itemises findings pertaining to interpersonal/face-to-face

communication and the issues that may be encountered in using this mode of communication.

5.4.1 Interpersonal communication and its issues

There are three ways interpersonal communication is used in both field sites: (a) drills and training,
(b) ‘door-to-door’ delivery of messages and ‘bandilyo’, and (c) informal meet-ups. In relation to the
first, the mounting of drills and training is already stipulated in the National Plan, including that it
should be carried out locally. These activities provide an opportunity for feedback, signaling a
transitional level of engagement: The events offer an opportunity for local DRRM councils to get to
know the context of the GIDA communities they are dealing with, and the community in general may
be able to relay their fears and demand help from the government. This kind of interaction falls under
community-based DRRM (as per the National Plan). The second tool used for interpersonal
communication is the ‘door-to-door’ delivery of messages, whether by bandilyo—an announcement
made by a village official using a megaphone while roaming around the entire village, used in the
upland village—or by personal home visits by a village official. Often this communication tool is
used for delivering announcements, however, it also allows people to interact with the moving source
of message. The third tool used as a mode of interpersonal communication is informal meet-ups.
Government informants explained this as a serendipitous moment when an official or a DRRM-
trained community leader is given a chance to share pre-disaster information in an informal
conversation or context, such as waiting for public transport or after church activities (among other
examples). However, these three interpersonal communication tools present a corresponding number
of interrelated issues that may impact the goal of communicating pre-disaster information.

Three main issues need to be unpacked in terms of relying on face-to-face communication for DRRM:
(a) drills and training events are the main source of community engagement about DRRM, (b) these
are costly and suffer issues of political prioritisation, and (c) not all materials used in these events are
in the local language. First, to recap, it needs to be clearly understood that drills and training events
are part of the community-based DRRM program of the National Council, and these are the main
form of face-to-face communication about DRRM in the villages. In particular, on account of the
other communication issues (e.g., access to infrastructure, etc.) they face as part of their isolation and
socioeconomic inequality, these drills and training events can become the sole source of DRRM
information for those in GIDA communities. In context of these two truths, it is perhaps unsurprising
informants indicated that trust issues could form based on how these drills and training events were

131
handled (see sec. 5.4.2), especially when some drills and training were mounted exclusively for
specific target groups.

Second, organising drills and training sessions is costly in terms of budget, personnel, and time, and
the village DRRM council was unable to maintain the counterpart budget required to mount this
activity. Effectively, these constraints mean that these drills and training events are only held
occasionally, which restricts GIDA communities’ access to pre-disaster information. The authority to
engage communities through drills and training sessions also resides with local DRRM councils,
again highlighting the tension between the various use of budgets and project prioritisation by village
officials.

Third, the requirement for localising DRRM information for local DRRM plans disregards the
capacity of the GIDA community audience to read and understand the information communicated in
English and/or Filipino, and materials are not always translated into Bisaya. This situation connects to
the full utilisation of the inter-agency approach to DRRM planning in the sense that trust issues, such
as bias towards teachers, emerged in informants’ remarks, but they also noted that outside leadership
do not grasp this angle on the issues. The next section provides more detail on these three issues.

5.4.2 Overreliance on drills and training, and trust issues

In terms of structured community-based DRRM programs, local DRRM councils in the field sites rely
solely on drills and training events as the main method of engaging the community in pre-disaster
information. They approach drills and training either by sector (women, fisherfolk, senior citizens,
youth, and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, queer, intersex, asexual, pansexual,
and allies (LGBTQIA+), among others) or engage the entire community as a whole. I4 and I1 shared
that the inclusion of the LGBTQIA+ in their sectoral drills and training is in response to a locally
crafted Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression (SOGIE) Equality ordinances.

The municipality has employed members of the LGBTQIA+ and the persons-with-
disabilities (PWD) sectors (I4).

The LGBTQIA+ community is now currently integrated into the DRRM plans of the
province in response to the SOGIE bill (I1).

In general, these drills and training events are organised by the local DRRM councils, who first
arrange to have an event in their area and then pick representatives from each village and subject them
to the 5-day training event. The intention is to have suitably-trained first responders in situ. However,
it appeared that despite these arrangements, not all GIDA communities (and not all community
members) get to access drills and training. While in the upland village, a drills and training event had
been conducted several days prior to my fieldwork—as this area was included in the list of villages to
be visited as part of the government’s annual caravan promoting various government programs to its

132
constituents—residents of the island village had not experienced any drills and training events with
their local DRRM councils. The method of engaging communities in the island area was focussed on
training first responders among its residents, rather than training the entire community. Yet it
appeared that the drills and training experiences of the upland village community members had
brought out trust and relationship issues, while the lack of drills and training in the island village had
brought the residents together to form their own method of coping during threats of natural hazards.

Residents of the upland village shared that they had only obtained access to disaster risk information
during the recent drills and training session. A road sign had been erected, and flip charts were
distributed by the provincial DRRM council, but only to zone-leaders and parent-leaders, for them to
bring to the session—copies of the flip chart were not provided to all session attendees. The ones
handed out to the formal and informal leaders carried the expectation that these people were to
disseminate the information to their immediate family members, neighbours, and other zone residents.
This particular strategy of the upland provincial DRRM council reportedly aims to recognise the
importance of a local leader in developing a community-based DRRM. The council expects that these
community leaders will take on the role of a credible information source in the area, whom anyone
can come to for further information. As such these leaders are expected to take the lead and inform the
rest of the zone residents about the contents of that flip chart.

Despite this effort, a lack of trust towards community leaders was noted with regard to them ensuring
that information was passed on to others. Informant U6 said she was unsure if there was information
dissemination happening this way. She feared that only the zone leader and their household had
consumed the information from the flip chart. Like many of the informants for this study, U6 held or
had held a leadership role in the community, and the lack of trust she described towards the
information relay process appeared to be concern that the general community felt distrust because of
incidents such as the one described, coupled with their overall unfamiliarity with the message relay
process. Just as notable as the issue of DRRM content dissemination expressed in these remarks is the
problem embedded in the process, the issue of trust. However, the remarks do concurrently uphold the
meaning of print materials as relevant sources of information in GIDA communities, and do describe
that these tools are being combined with other face-to-face tools (drills and training).

Another trust issue from the selective provision of drills and training was projected towards teachers,
this time from village leaders. According to the upland village leader/barangay captain, only teachers
were trained how to use the emergency bell placed inside the school compound; none of the village
officials were taught how to use it. Despite being elected as officials in the village, this teacher-
exclusive training had resulted in leaders feeling left out of this aspect of the disaster response
process.

133
According to U6, I8, and I9, one possible solution to these trust issues would be to utilise the zone’s
purok (open hut) as a place to display various DRRM print materials. During our interview, an
information board was seen inside the purok containing information of that particular zone. Unlike the
information board described earlier, which is placed along major roads, using the purok for this
purpose carries a different meaning. The purok is an open hut that is built for the use of the residents
of that particular zone in the village. As such, it is not meant to be ‘an information site’ like the
information board, but rather it is used as a venue for the zone residents’ meetings (e.g., of zone
officers), public gatherings, and relaxation. Zone leaders would be responsible to ensure the safety of
these materials once they are put up in the hut. Anyone who has the capacity to read can then share
the information to those who cannot read in the course of using the hut. In the island village,
fisherfolk, who usually set sail at dawn and come back before midday, can lounge in the hut and at the
same time access information from the posters.

Despite the trust issues that emerged regarding information access and role, the lack of trust in
handling and handing out learning materials did not equate to an overall lack of trust towards local
government officials and informal community leaders. Empirical evidence still leans towards the
community having feelings of reliance and trust towards officials in terms of their source credibility.
The door-to-door information delivery sometimes undertaken by these leaders also added to their
credibility as information sources, as well as adding urgency to the of the information they brought.
These combined elements often resulted in action from residents, especially in the island village.

This section has presented issues in the current implementation of drills and training and the overall
process of pre-disaster information dissemination. Specifically, this section offers that despite the
effort to provide drills and training to the different sectors in the community to ascertain broader reach
through targeted measures, GIDA communities had issues accessing this platform. This access issue
is attributed to the selection process of participants coming from the village to become first responders
in situ. Because of this process, trust issues emerged against those who nominated people from the
community to be trained. Trust issues were also noted in the process of ensuring the relay of
information within the community. Lastly, this section observes that these trust issues did not signify
a complete lack of trust in the process and people, because community informants demonstrated faith
in the process by identifying possible solutions, such as using the village purok to house an
information board. They also showed reliance in the government-elected position held by the village
leader/barangay captain.

5.4.3 Denial of GIDA communities’ access to information

Informants in the upland province described that the province aims to start a bottom-up approach to
DRRM through the formation of the Alliance of Grassroots Responders. The same method is
practiced in the island province, but the ultimate goal there is to make DRRM sectoral (i.e.,

134
functioning through different community sectors). The upland province implements localisation
through the Alliance; in the field site village, this policy involves training local responders among
residents of the village (10 people per village). At present, the DRRM council in the island area aims
to train a total of seven responders from the village’s functionaries. However, as noted, equitable
access to information means providing it to all the residents in a community. Instead, via pre-existing
social sector leadership or alliance, the community is organised into those who are equipped with pre-
disaster information (first responders’ alliance) and the rest of the population, who are dependent on
these responders. This situation reflects what Marger (2014) discusses as social inequalities that are
institutionalised as policies by the government. This practice dictates who gets information and who
gets the privilege of training. The acquisition of knowledge from training empowers individuals and
gives them power over others. If abused (or unused), this kind of power institutionalises social
inequalities in GIDA communities.

The mode of information dissemination that works well in a GIDA community is that achieved via the
social network of its residents. Jackson (2019) loosely defines this as a large network of friends or
connections within a community. Building and maintaining social networks in GIDA communities
works because of the small number of people involved in the transfer of the message and their close
interconnections (see Figure 3.4). In an island village of 355 people, social cohesion is an expectation,
and close cohesion can be attributed to the common experiences they have as residents of GIDA
communities. In particular, Helsloot and Ruitenberg observe that

communities which have more than once been hit by certain types of disasters often
develop so-called ‘disaster subcultures’, in which the exchange of knowledge, exercises
and other preparations are of central importance (2004, p. 100).

In the island village, these 355 people are living within three puroks/zones that are close together. It is
safe to assume that everyone knows everyone. If you ask a community member about the profile of a
specific village, they can provide you with the exact numbers of children aged 0 to 5 years old who
live there, or the exact ratio of males and females among the persons-with-disabilities and the senior
citizens. They do not need the full facilities and expertise of the Philippine Statistics Authority to
conduct their census!

It is slightly different in the upland village. With only a relatively small population of almost 2,000
(specifically 1,942) compared to other non-GIDA villages in the municipality, it might be expected
that information dissemination would be smooth. However, as informants U3 and U4 relayed, their
geographic location (e.g., the topography) hinders smooth information relay. Door-to-door relay of
information is still practiced, but with more difficulty. The most efficient form of information
dissemination in the area is informal meet-ups and neighbour-to-neighbour information relay through
face-to-face interactions, such as when people meet a neighbour or a zone leader at the market and
information is relayed during conversation.

135
These GIDA communities are aware that interpersonal communication works for them because of the
number of residents in the area. The level of awareness among residents of this aspect of their lives is
so high that they believe an increase in population will disrupt the current mode of information
dissemination they enjoy. They also acknowledged that the current information dissemination set in
place by the government does not provide equitable access, but rather privileges select residents in the
community. Hence, the informants’ responses suggested a demand for better access to other modes of
communication that they can use to consume disaster risk information, however, it appeared that in
some cases improvements were not substantive but were merely a matter of compliance.

5.4.4 Localisation of disaster risk information: Mere compliance

The current method of localising disaster risk information is through translation of content. This
practice was observed on road signage. However, despite having translated the signage, there are still
road signs in the upland municipality that are written in English. This choice of language use on road
signage is quite the opposite of what I believe should correspond to the needs of a community who
consume information from them, regardless of whether they are a minority population. There are
plans to translate all these signs into Bisaya (the local language), however, the upland municipal
DRRM council said they could not just replace the existing English signs because they are new and
sign production is costly. Instead, they have decided to use the signs until they are old enough to be
replaced by signage in the local language.

Further conversation with the head of the upland municipal DRRM office brought to light the reason
why they erected road signage in English in the first place. The erection of road signage is required by
the Department of Interior and Local Government as part of the Seal of Good Governance. Providing
information to the public is only a secondary objective, a reality that was enforced by informant U3,
who began his reply to this question with ‘Sa totoo lang…’ (to be honest). Despite communication
with the community through these signs being a secondary objective, U3 believed that the public was
now aware of the hazards their area could face in the future because of the signs. For U3, the most
critical pre-disaster communication tool is road signage, and his office stands by its effectiveness
based on their observations of community behaviour during threats. In addition, and despite signs
being erected for compliance with Department of Interior and Local Government policy, the people
exposed to the signage said they were now aware of the hazards they face because of the signs.

‘Myth-busting’ traditional beliefs is also common during drills and training sessions, especially when
these involve the indigenous peoples. Certain indigenous people groups residing in GIDA
communities have specific cultural beliefs in gods and goddesses who punish them, hence the natural
hazards they experience. This local belief system creates a certain level of social inequality that is
engrained in culture (Marger 2014) and makes this group of people more vulnerable to natural
hazards. Myth-busting needs to be carried out with a certain level of sensitivity and without

136
discrediting cultural beliefs. As UI relayed, the indigenous peoples are documented as being the most
open towards new knowledge and are serious in their participation in government-organised drills.

Given this empirical evidence of the overreliance on drills and training, the denial of GIDA
communities access to information, and the localisation of DRRM being ostensibly for compliance
purposes only in both field sites, it appears that the idea of community engagement in both upland and
island areas revolves around message relay through word-of-mouth and face-to-face interactions. This
practice presupposes an increase in the role of community members, also ensuring their resiliency
during calamities. However, the supposed two-way communication is still asymmetrical and is
centred on the government as the sender of information; control over the pre-disaster communication
process is firmly held by the government. Reflecting on this communication process leads back to the
initial argument that communication tools used in transactional engagement can only be useful based
on who is using them, where they are being used, and how people are using them. The transitional
communication tools in use in GIDA communities highlight the role of individuals in a
communication process that effectively only allows a feedback system which affirms and conforms to
the government’s practices. Given this asymmetrical, two-way communication process, the
transactional engagement style in use is tangibly intractable despite its use of modes of
communication that should lead to transitional engagement. In this case, it would appear that the usual
synergy between transaction and transition levels of engagement is being affected by tensions arising
from political complications and leadership instability.

5.5 Political complications and leadership instability

The preceding sections provide description and discussion of the pros and cons of the various
communication tools currently being used to disseminate pre-disaster information in GIDA
communities and examine issues of their use, misuse, or lack of use. While continuing to uphold a
multimodal and contextual (i.e., tailored to the needs of the target audience) pre-disaster
communication practice and process, this study now extends its investigation into political- and
leadership-related factors that appear to be weakening the existing multimodal and contextual pre-
disaster communication utilised in the GIDA field sites. Leadership is a process of influencing and
motivating group members to attain a collective goal (Haslam & Reicher (2016). Winston and
Patterson (2006) also provide both conceptual and operational definitions of leadership. To them,
leadership is embodied by a person or group who “selects, equips, trains, and influences one or more
followers” (p. 7). Leaders differ from others because they obtain traits and behaviours that can be
applied in any situation, and they can match their attributes, behaviours, and style according to the
context they are put into (Cortellazzo, Bruni, & Zampieri 2019). Wilson (2020) posits that a
leadership trait includes the ability to lead based on expertise, mobilise a collective effort, and allow
coping, especially in the context of the pandemic.

137
One commonality that emerged between the two field sites is the utilisation of multiple modes of
communication to disseminate pre-disaster information, despite their socioeconomic exclusion and
geographic isolation. Both the provincial and municipal DRRM councils in the two field sites
understand the importance of a multimodal pre-disaster communication approach. Both councils are
also aware of the strengths and weaknesses of each mode of communication they use. More than that,
they are aware that their messages do not reach certain villages because of telecommunications signal
problem, access to stable electricity, difficulty with transport, illiteracy, and the (assumed) lack of
interest of village leaders in DRRM. However, despite their stated ‘awareness’ of these issues, the two
councils relayed budget and lack of human resources as significant problems. On closer investigation,
these two problems could be separated into two issues—prioritisation and departmentalisation; these
issues are intertwined, as the following discussion highlights.

The prioritisation of projects is rooted in the promises made by the elected official during their
campaign period. From the list of projects promised to the people, the elected official will prioritise a
project and an area where the project will be implemented. Budget is naturally required for these
projects, and is concurrently cited as a common reason why pre-disaster preparedness efforts are
minimal. In addition to these realities, local DRRM councils believe that their DRRM budget should
address problems regarding stability of communication infrastructure and difficulties with mobility in
and out of the village, which are issues of stage 4 disaster preparedness. These findings align with an
investigation conducted by Chang Seng (2013) in Indonesia, that there can be an overemphasis on
post-disaster funding. In terms of addressing DRRM, this focus is reactive rather than preventive. The
use of budget is also structurally anchored to the elected official’s own prioritisation of projects and
programs. In this regard, Amri and colleagues (2017) argue for the specific integration of budget
requirements in the early stages of DRRM planning. In terms of the way budget and project
prioritisation are structurally (i.e., in terms of top-down bureaucratic processes) acted out in the
context of the provincial and municipal DRRM councils, both of these issues are effectively hindered
by political complications that impact an equitable implementation of the National Plan.

Concerns raised by provincial DRRM informants about the lack of participation and weak DRRM
practices at the village level highlight the interaction between priorities and the use of budgets. To
some extent, the lack of interest from the villages can be explained in terms of the project
prioritisation of the local leaders in these villages. In the upland village, the concern of the village
leader/barangay captain was livelihood and infrastructure, such as a safer road network and the
provision of basic needs like electricity and water. Therefore, ‘priority’ projects include road
concreting and widening and the installation of sirens in critical villages. This project prioritisation
seemed to be the result of post-evaluation after typhoon Bopha/Pablo hit the municipality in 2012.
Neither the government nor the community were prepared at that time; nobody believed in the
immensity of the threat because Mindanao, especially the southeast area, had always been typhoon-

138
free. It appeared therefore that at this stage, the upland area was still working on its mitigation phase,
and budget was being utilised to address the impacts of previous natural hazards. As such, disaster
preparedness activities were being mounted for compliance purposes only.

Concurrent with this, however, the upland village also expects the full support and quick response of
the municipality in times of disaster, suggesting they rely heavily on both the province and the
municipality for DRRM support, and responses indicated that they are aware that they could not
function without this aid. However, this behaviour and expectation is contrary to what the province
and municipality expect from village officials, which is local resiliency. As such, the municipal and
provincial DRRM councils often complain about the weak DRRM practices in the villages and the
lack of initiative coming from village leaders despite the training they provide to them. Another
example of non-prioritisation of DRRM in the upland GIDA community is the location of the
identified evacuation centres. Currently, there are three identified areas: the village hall and health
centre, the village gym, and the school. However, informants were unsure of their actual safety in
these supposed evacuation areas because these buildings back onto a cliff and the village is prone to
landslides. Some people also refuse to evacuate because of previous bad experiences in evacuation
centres.

If there is an incoming typhoon, we just sound the alarm, stay away from hazard
prone areas, and go to our built kamalig (shed) or to other places like the school
where we think it is safe and wait for the typhoon to pass (I6).

We have evacuation centres. We have the health centre and the gym. But we really
could not say that we are safe there because at the back of it is a cliff and we are
landslide prone (U9).

In regard to observing the political processes connected to DRRM and the workings of DRRM
councils, it proved useful that field work was conducted during an election period when this topic was
in informants’ minds. Most of the LGUs were transitioning to new leadership. It was apparent that
most DRRM officials could not relay any concrete plans because these would be dependent on
whoever won the election. In fact, village officials and functionaries from both field sites
demonstrated their wariness of this cyclic change in leadership, and this concern was also raised by
the heads of the local DRRM councils at the provincial and municipal levels. It appeared that the
continuity and prioritisation of DRRM-related projects is significantly impacted by leadership
instability, both in terms of prioritisation of projects and in terms of personnel. Local officials each
serve a 3-year term (governor, mayor, barangay captain). It was noted that it would be easier for the
local DRRM council to continue its projects without these changes in leadership at all levels of
governance.

In terms of party politics, it must be noted that both field sites had been under one political family for
a long period of time, and political dynasty was observed. In addition, it was clear from the interviews

139
that areas where community members are not supporters of the incumbent political dynasty
experience issues of exclusion. In the upland province and municipality, the highest position is passed
on to the next member of the family, who is legally allowed to run for office. In the island province,
the political power had been in the hands of one family since the creation of the province in 2007
Since this political family and its representatives did not win the current election bid, however,
program changes were expected by informants. These changes would include losing all political
appointees who had been trained for DRRM during their tenure in the local government. The impact
of leadership change would also be felt in budget allocations and personnel development. However,
this study does not suggest that a single political family should hold office indefinitely to ensure
continuity of DRRM projects. Fealty to political families is not the answer to problems of project
prioritisation, the continuity of project implementation, and the training of personnel. While a longer
term of leadership stability may ensure the continuity of projects and may lessen the need to retrain
newly elected officials and political appointees, it would also spell less development and support to
areas that are not supporters of the sitting officials.

Provincial and Municipal government informants from both upland and island areas opined that the
constant change in leadership vis-à-vis their priority projects is concomitant with the political process
of having a DRRM council that is headed by an elected official at multiple levels of governance
(provincial, municipal, and village). This setup also directly impedes the activities of local DRRM
councils from provincial to village levels because of the presence of the coterminous positions of
political appointees and their personnel in these DRRM offices. While every newly-elected officer
brings a different platform and priority projects, these officers also come with new staff members who
are thus coterminous with the current administration. Before explaining the issue of coterminous
positions, I will highlight that this study does not downplay the role and perceived relevance of
political appointees, but rather wants to underline the value of giving trained political appointees fixed
tenure in local government.

So what is a coterminous position, how does it work, and why is it problematic for the local DRRM
councils? Answering these questions means looking again at the political composition of the local
DRRM council. Politically, the effective head/s of a local DRRM council are the elected governor
(provincial), the mayor (municipal), and the barangay captain (village). The role of non-elected (i.e.,
continuous) local DRRM officials in the two levels of governance is to train these newly-elected
officials on the processes involved in DRRM. This is achieved with the help of other national
agencies through these officials’ regional counterparts. If incumbent officials lose their election bid,
the local DRRM council need to train the incoming politician. The political landscape also gives an
elected official the right to hire people based on her/his trust and confidence alone. According to the
2017 Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Human Resource Actions, the legal understanding
of coterminous positions is defined by the Civil Service Commission of the Philippines as ‘an

140
appointment issued to a person whose tenure is limited to a period specified by law’, and this
appointment coexists ‘with the term/tenure of the appointing officer/authority’ (Civil Service
Commission 2018, p. 16 sec. D). This setup can be abused by those who run for office. The
coterminous position can be used as bribe for community members with strong voices to campaign
for a certain politician in exchange for a job post-election.

Consistent with this situation, informants from the upland provincial DRRM described that there are
only a few tenured positions in their office; the rest of the personnel are in coterminous positions. This
arrangement means that aside from training the head of the council, the DRRM office needs to train
coterminous appointees. Informants reported incidents where the DRRM council would spend money
to send individuals to train in accredited institutions in the Philippines only to lose these people in the
end because of lack of tenure in the government. As such, it appeared from accounts that most of the
budget intended for disaster preparedness goes to training and retraining newly elected officials and
their appointees.

Informants’ discussion of their concerns regarding these matters led to a discussion about House Bill
6075 of the Philippine Congress, which proposes to create the Department of Disaster Resiliency
(Salceda 2017). According to informants from the upland provincial DRRM council, the creation of
the Department of Disaster Resiliency would solve the problem of the continuity of DRRM projects
since this would no longer be reliant on the re-election of an official. The new department would also
solve the issue of maintaining employees in the DRRM council, since its creation would require
opening government item positions. At the time of writing, the proposed House Bill 6075 had been
approved at the congressional level (Cepeda 2018).

Research suggests that there is more to the Department of Disaster Resiliency than was conveyed by
the government informants for this study. As noted, the current setup for DRRM is a council with
membership coming from diverse (and multilevel) government agencies. This can be problematic
given the fact that DRRM is only secondary to their primary function in society. In terms of the
agencies currently involved in the issue of DRRM, it is understandable that when there is a disaster,
society is in chaos, and order needs to be reinstated; as such, providing order is supposed to be the
role of the Department of National Defense, so this department has a role in DRRM. A disaster also
affects the welfare of people; hence the Department of Social Welfare and Development play a role in
DRRM. Health problems arise during a disaster; therefore, there is a need to include the Department
of Health in the mix of DRRM agencies. However, in each case, the DRRM functions of these
officials are secondary, as these agencies do not plan and operate in the context of disaster all the
time. It would appear that the creation of a dedicated agency like the Department of Disaster
Resiliency would provide an entity whose purpose and operation is confined to the context of DRRM,
presumably giving this issue its own scope, specialised staff, and budget. Whether the Department of
Disaster Resiliency will be useful or not once it is approved, however, is beyond the scope of this

141
study. There are leftist groups who oppose the creation of the Department of Disaster Resiliency on
the grounds that the head of the department will possess legitimate power over government arms and
its reserved forces during disasters, powers that are only otherwise given to the President of the
country, and that everything is already working fine as per the National Council working with local
governments (Cepeda 2018).

The political complications discussed in this study include change in council leadership and its
impacts on project and area prioritisation. I4 shared that changes in government leadership also affect
personnel composition and budgets due to the presence of coterminous positions that essentially
overtake budgets with training requirements citing the current situation of I5 who is sitting in a
coterminous position.

It will depend on who is sitting as the head of the DRRM council (Mayor). With
every newly elected officer comes different platform/priority projects and even staff
who are co-terminus with the current administration (I4).

However, the question arises whether leadership stability is the answer to ensuring continuity of
projects, because this leans towards the acceptance of political dynasties, which bring their own
problems for DRRM. Based on the experiences of people living in GIDAs, it would appear that
maintaining a political dynasty is not an effective answer to the issues of changing leadership,
coterminous positions, personnel movement, project prioritisation, and budget allocation.

The effectiveness of the local disaster risk information dissemination practices is intertwined with
various problems of the political context of DRRM. The problem is not in the people or in their lack
of interest—safety is everyone’s interest. It is also not about the people’s inability to follow
instructions to evacuate, or their place attachment and real fears of economic loss—these things are all
part of human nature. Placed in context of issues that the political situation currently subsumes (such
as, for example, access to stable electricity, socioeconomic inequality, and illiteracy), it can be noted
that DRRM councils at all levels could conduct a thorough demographic analysis as well as survey
their locality’s media environments. However, the political complications explained in this study form
an impediment to the equitable and contextual delivery of DRRM services; in addition to their
entanglement with them, these entrenched political complications effectively dwarf issues of budget
and human resources.

In this study, therefore, political complications are considered intervening variables that negatively
impact disaster risk communication efforts targeted towards GIDA communities, and three key
concepts encapsulate the study data—power, relationships, and experiences. Power connects the
political and leadership issues to budgets and priorities; at the same time, maintaining cohesive social
and familial relationships has been proven significant in DRRM practices targeted towards GIDA
communities. In addition, the actual (or simulated) disaster experiences of both government and

142
community members can strengthen the decision-making process. Although not yet evaluated in full,
there are ways currently in place to somehow empower these communities. For instance, the island
provincial and municipal DRRM councils are advocating for sectoral and community-based training
to empower the local villages to be resilient on their own. This goal may require different
communication strategies that will satisfy the demand for both education and engagement (Dufty
2011).

5.6 Summary

This chapter has tackled the interconnectedness of pre-disaster communication and community
engagement in the GIDA context. Pre-disaster communication directed towards GIDA communities is
dominated by traditional communication tools such as print, radio, and video within the public/mass
communication efforts, however, observations do not show the efficacy of these traditional
communication tools. Findings show that effective pre-disaster communication with GIDA
communities is dominated by interpersonal communication. This mode of information dissemination
utilises face-to-face interactions between and among the people involved in the communication
process.

This study found that interpersonal communication that was anchored in a community engagement
framework was an integral disaster risk communication tool. In situ, interpersonal communication
enhances the multimodal process of information dissemination involving digital tools both via online
and offline technologies. Observations and other findings reinforce the role of traditional media in
dealing with communities living in geographically, socially, and economically isolated areas.
Literature upholds that effective risk communication that targets various demographics is multimodal,
but this efficacy is not convincing in terms of using this method to target the various demographics
and context of the areas investigated by this this study.

In terms of the modes and tools of pre-disaster communication and their use in GIDA communities, it
appears that the CEC level of community engagement is still in the transitional phase. This means
interactions are mediated by modes and tools of communication that allow feedback. Examples
include radio, village assemblies, and trainings and drills. Yet despite the provision of a feedback
system, the communication flow is still asymmetrical because it is still unclear whether feedback is
considered in the design or redesign of training manuals or messaging through public and mass
communication tools. Feedback is directed towards the sender, which adheres to the bottom-up
approach, but data does not show that there is any efficient horizontal (or lateral) flow of information
between residents in GIDA communities. This horizontal or lateral flow of communication signals the
beginning of a transformational level of community engagement.

143
It emerged that certain organisational factors affect the exchange of information between the
government and local community and those among members of GIDA communities. These factors
include trust issues and furthering the inequalities experienced by GIDA communities because of
endemic political complications. These complications include project prioritisation and budget use,
which are also tied to changing political leadership.

In light of these results, this study recommends looking into social power (P), social relationships (R),
and past or simulated disaster experiences (E), and the next chapter addresses these ‘PRE’ issues.
Social power was observed in the leadership position held by a person in a community, such as the
zone leaders; social relationships were observed when local informants shared their concerns, such as
about their disabled neighbours needing assistance during emergencies; and experiences and their
positive and negative impacts were relayed by government informants.

Overall, this study continues to defend that the push for the digitalisation of pre-disaster risk
communication will not (as expected) assist all communities, particularly not those living in GIDA.
The experiences of informants relayed in this chapter are akin to the geographic and socioeconomic
inequalities experienced in urban and accessible areas documented by Sujarwoto and Tampubolon
(2016) in Indonesia and Madianou (2015) in the Philippines. Despite the move to make both risk and
disaster communication digital (Mansell 2017), as can be evidenced by the number of studies geared
towards the digitalisation of disaster communication (Sumaylo 2018), there are certain social
inequalities that are engrained in GIDA communities that are not solely a result of their location;
some of these inequalities are a byproduct of the political behaviour of the institutions that provide
DRRM to these communities.

144
CHAPTER 6: POWER, RELATIONSHIPS, AND
EXPERIENCES: BRIDGING PRE-
DISASTER COMMUNICATION AND
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

6.1 Introduction

The previous chapter presented the current level of community engagement used by local
governments as a communication strategy in building resilient communities. With the available
communication modes and tools observed in situ (including the use of community engagement), this
study asserts that community engagement is being underutilised as a communication strategy in
respect to DRRM for GIDA communities in the Philippines. In addition, the communication
processes between the government and GIDA communities investigated in the previous chapter were
subject to political complications, issues of interpersonal communication (such as trust), and lack of
experiential motivation (regarding natural calamities) to take action beyond the ‘choke-up’ points.
However, this chapter suggests that these choke-up points can be used as drivers to improve the
communication process that is currently in place. A focus on the use of multiple modes of
communication (including interpersonal communication), combined with a reduction of political
complications and the proper use of experiential motivation may lead to a more transformative
community engagement practice in the Philippines.

As such, this chapter aims to highlight how to ‘flip’ the three identified choke-up points—power,
relationships, and experiences—so that they can become drivers of better pre-disaster risk
communication targeting GIDA communities. I also discuss the impacts of these for future disaster
preparedness efforts directed towards GIDA communities, not just in the Philippines but also in its
neighbouring Southeast Asian countries. The discussion comprises dissecting community engagement
as a communication strategy into its individual components to see how this strategy can benefit from
power, relationships, and experiences. The next chapter uses this discussion to build community
engagement up again for GIDA communities.

Specifically, this chapter answers the following questions:

• What are the components of community engagement as a communication strategy?

• How can power, relationships, and experiences be used to counter the negative impacts
of the current local DRRM communication dynamics?

145
The chapter thus extends the discussion on multimodal pre-disaster communication efforts in
engaging GIDA communities, and is divided into several sections. The first section revolves around
what constitutes a community. After identifying the level of engagement in the GIDA communities
according to Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi and Herremans’ (2010) CEC criteria, I then probe what
constitutes a community in the field sites. It is relevant in this process to step back and look at the
community from a broader perspective. This chapter aims to examine how communities, as targets of
government messaging, can and do take part in defining current and future DRRM programs
packaged as community-based activities.

The second section discusses the centrality of the individual as a communication conduit guided by
their own power and experiences, whether these are simulated or actual. Tracing the impact of the
individual by looking at their role in relation to other people potentially leads to what Merriam and
Bierema (2013) call transformative learning. Utilising transformative learning methods may also
address what Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi and Herremans (2010) describe as transformative level of
community engagement, which intrinsically means that both transactional and transitional levels are
already in place (see Table 6-1). This section explicates the major findings and provides the necessary
criteria for how an individual can become communication conduit. The overall presentation is thus
deductive, so that the initial discussion of the multiple notions of community in relation to DRRM
unpacking what constitutes a community in relation to DRRM, which leads to an investigation of the
various notions of the individual that makes up the community. At this point, I then present that there
are two notions of the individual in DRRM—conceptual and practical.

The third section is centred on the capabilities of an individual to take on the role of communication
conduit in pre-disaster communication. This section relates to the results presented in the previous
chapter, wherein issues pertaining to the choke up points were substantively identified. These choke-
up points—power, relationships, and experiences—are flipped into positive traits that can be used in
utilising community engagement as a pre-disaster communication strategy.

6.2 The multiple notions of community in DRRM

This study is centred on community engagement as a communication tool, with the individual as the
core component. In section 2.3.1, I initially established the notion of community as something
geographic, and, in context of the study goals, I defined community based on where marginalised
people live. This conceptualisation may be elementary, but I believe that it is important to establish
roots, because the results of this research lead to three overlapping notions of what constitutes a
community. As such, an age-old query resurfaced as to any definition pertaining to who does the
defining. Literature already posits that unpacking community as a concept begins with a geographic
definition (Titz, Cannon & Krüger 2018) and proceeds to the levels of interaction that people in the

146
community participate in (Brint 2001). The data gathered from geographically isolated communities
yielded three notions of community that applied to issues of DRRM; these are now discussed in
detail.

The first notion of community is geographic. A community can be defined based on its shared spatial
location. This definition of community pertains to a group of people living in one area. Examples may
include a community of island dwellers. This notion of community makes segmentation and
segregation easy, and governments can use it to divide its areas of responsibility into smaller units for
easy management. In the Philippines, the smallest unit of governance is called a barangay or village,
and this concept is established in Philippine history (the village was previously known as a barrio,
and villages are based on the pre-Spanish concept of the balangay; Andres 1988; Romani 1956;
Zamora 1967). In their review of various meanings of community used in literature, Jewkes and
Murcott (1996) note that a community can be viewed as people who share something in common that
distinguishes them from other communities. In the Philippines, in terms of government structures, this
is clearly geographic. However, also on the basis of Jewkes and Murcott’s insider–outsider
observations, I assert that DRRM studies involving multiple facets of community should move away
from the paradigm of outsiders-looking-in. I suggest that community members interpret and define
their experiences as being representations of the community they belong to. This suggestion means
unpacking, processing, and developing personal experiences into actions that are applicable to a wider
audience. Grounded on the fact that the conceptualisation and implementation of community-based
DRRM programs in the Philippines is based on how governments currently define community, these
personal interpretations can potentially be tapped by local DRRM councils to make community-based
DRRM participatory and transformative.

The second notion of community observed in the field is the organisation of people into smaller units.
At both field sites, people are organised into various sectors: women, youth, senior citizens, people
with disabilities, etc., and these organised smaller units can be found in any geographic community,
whether it is classified as GIDA, or not. Various government agencies dealing with these smaller
groups conduct programs and activities related to their common interests. Grouping people in a
geographic community together into smaller groups dissects the geographic notion, which allows for
more efficient/tailored governance. Projects can be personalised based on the needs of each group,
and made inclusive to all members in a venue, where they can fully express themselves.

Both field sites already show this organisation of individuals into various social groups within the
community, such as the fisherfolk association or the senior citizens organisation. This method of
creating smaller groups is beneficial not only for people in general, who have needs and interests that
can make them part of a working social group, but also for the local DRRM council, whose mandated
intention is to reach out to specific groups. Local DRRM councils recognise the need for a
personalised approach when it comes to pre-disaster programs, yet they are unable to provide it

147
because of political roadblocks. Unfortunately, community cooperation and participation cannot be
achieved by reaching a compromise—this notion was debunked by Follett in 1919, when she
observed that reaching a compromise when dealing with communities does not comprehend the
entirety of the social processes interwoven among its individual members. That is, the individual
continues to evolve based on their experiences, which include the social network they build for
themselves; a compromise means a cancellation of parts of these experiences, just so the individual
will fit the ‘community’ mould prescribed by the government.

Community experiences, especially those from marginalised people, also play a significant role in
building resilient communities. The elderly (Cornell, Cusack & Arbon 2012) and the LGBTQIA+
communities (Dominey-Howes, Gorman-Murray & McKinnon 2018) are examples of vulnerable
populations that are marginalised because of their perceived physical and mental weaknesses (the
elderly) or are ostracised because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.
In this study, local community informants I4, I5, and I7 all described that their community recognised
the potential role of the LGBTQIA+ community in pre-disaster communication and had begun
implementing local policies and ordinances in support of the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
and Expression bill. Local DRRM councils also acknowledged the unique needs of the LGBTQIA+
community, and those of the older population in the area. I4 and I5 explained that the LGBTQIA+
might have different needs, for instance, in evacuation centres. U1 also shared that the local DRRM
council already identified the LGBTQIA+ community as a target sector for DRRM training, given
that in both areas, the approach is sectoral.

The LGBT community federation was (recently) organized, and we are looking at
the possibility of integrating DRRM into their cause because we can see the
eagerness of the members of the community, and they are easy to tap. In terms of
number, the LGBTQIA+ can mobilise a lot that is why we are including them in our
CBDRRM facilitators. Also, funds are provided by the province for this sector (U1).

I would like to enlist the LGBTQIA+ community as part of our responders. They can
be tapped to organize trainings on one of the thematic areas of DRRM like
Response. They can get trainers from OCD who is also part of the LGBTQIA+
community to train them (I4).

Existing literature has investigated the roles of LGBTQIA+ communities in relation to DRRM,
despite international DRRM policy frameworks ignoring sexual and gender minorities in times of
disaster (Gaillard, Gorman-Murray & Fordham 2017).

The geographic and communication infrastructure setup for marginalised groups in GIDA
communities, however, is still prone to access issues, which only furthers the inequality experienced
by these groups in GIDA communities. This ‘othering’ can be explained in terms of political
complications connected to leadership instabilities: Politicians may have biases towards segments of

148
the population who can vote for them, while other leaders may have biases towards certain causes or
groups.

The third notion of community is profession, or those role/responsibility-bearing professionals that

make up part of the community. The concept of community portrayed by emergency responders and
frontline workers during calamities needs to be investigated as well. Community goes beyond the
recipients of disaster preparedness programs; Astill et al. (2019) observe that one issue in
conceptualising community is dismissing the implementers of DRRM plans as being a community of
praxis. If this aspect of community in DRRM is unprepared, their programs will be mediocre.
Including this community of professionals in the dialogue provides an opportunity to strengthen a
parallel community and improve organisational resilience (Astill et al. 2019).

In the immediate aftermath of Super Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda, criticism toward the local DRRM
councils in the affected areas was reported in both traditional (print, TV, and radio) and social media
platforms. However, outsiders failed to understand that the supposed first (frontline) responders
themselves were also among the victims. Often, outsiders think that emergency responders, as a
community, are not part of the local community. Yet there are few studies that look at the experiences
of emergency responders as part of the community. In response to this situation, the government,
through its various community-based DRRM programs, trains local responders who are residents of
various at-risk communities. However, as noted, community informants opined that this manner of
implementation also created further inequalities within the community.

This study is centred on community engagement as a communication tool, with the individual as the
core component. The findings of this research lead to three overlapping notions of what constitutes a
community in relation to issues of DRRM: geography, organisation (of smaller units), and profession.
This section has discussed these in detail, and the next section breaks these into the DRRM roles an
individual plays based on their experiences, and connects these up to the concepts of power,
relationships, and experiences individuals have in relation to DRRM.

6.3 Transposing the individual’s knowledge to a collective DRRM narrative

This chapter unpacks the significance of power, relationships, and experiences in utilising community
engagement as communication strategy in DRRM to achieve disaster resiliency. I have discussed that
this study encountered multiple notions of community in dealing with GIDA communities, and I now
extend this discussion further and dissect community into its individual members. A community is
composed of individuals who are part of smaller units of society (e.g., via familial connections and
expanded social capital; see Figure 3.4). If the objective is to build a disaster resilient community—
that is, a community that can bounce back to its pre-disaster state after an event—resiliency should
not be looked at from a macro perspective. If each individual can bounce back, it stands to reason that

149
the community has resilience as a function of the resilience of each member. I therefore argue that
individuality is significant in pre-disaster communication. It gains more relevance when used as part
of a community engagement strategy. I argue that the way to bridge the gap between communities and
governments is through looking at the smallest unit in the communication process—the individual.

The wisdom behind targeting individuals in small group settings is two-pronged. The first prong is
conceptual, and goes back to defining who the individual is in a community. The second is practical,
and focusses on how the concepts are applied in pre-disaster communication using community
engagement as strategy. Identifying the actors and their roles in community resiliency building
provides grounding on the utilisation of power, relationships, and experiences (see sec. 6.4) in
bridging the gap between transitional and transformational engagement (see Figure 3.1).

6.3.1 The concept of individuality in DRRM

…the individual who makes himself or herself ex nihilo [from or out of nothing] … who
comes to be, … out with and beyond the socio-cultural environment in which he or she
was born and has been socialised/enculturated (Rapport 1997, p. 1).

Approaching pre-disaster communication through the lens of community engagement allows me to

unpack the role of the individual in a community setting, as well as identify various
conceptualisations of the individual in relation to DRRM. These notions are posited to ensure that
individual perspectives are encompassed in the context of wider GIDA community experiences.
Overall, this study was able to identify three conceptualisations connected to the individual in a
DRRM setting: personal DRRM, inclusive DRRM, and expressive DRRM (PIE).

First, personal DRRM relates to individuality in pre-disaster communication. This study argues that
approaching pre-disaster communication using community engagement as strategy encourages a
targeted mechanism of information dissemination. This means there is no generic approach to
building resilient communities through communication. Perception of threat is not immediately
collective. It starts with the individual and spirals outwards to familial connections and other social
contacts.

Community engagement used as a communication strategy is also important in community-level

disaster preparation activities. It demands a targeted approach that encourages individuals to become
pro-active in their own disaster risk preparations. DRRM councils can communicate to individuals
about their personal vulnerabilities by presenting a personalised risk evaluation; individuals who are
at risk from slow moving natural hazards can then generate their own preparatory actions. Moreover,
this pre-disaster preparation can be done with the aid of representatives from LGUs, members of the
local DRRM councils, and even family members in a household. Once individual proactive practices
become part of pre-disaster communication efforts and community engagement, community resilience
can achieved (Kanakis & McShane 2016). In a broader sense, targeted DRRM projects and activities

150
could encourage DRRM councils to properly analyse each community, in particular to identify those
with and without access to traditional and digital media. However, this personalised approach to pre-
disaster communication may be difficult when local DRRM councils face issues related to personnel
retention and other political complications(see sec. 5.5).

In arguing that messaging should be personalised—that is, that it should be based on individual
experiences, socioeconomic standing, and risk perceptions—I acknowledge that other communication
scholars may perceive my argument as shallow, particularly given that it focusses only on information
dissemination. Significant in information dissemination, however, is the smooth transmission of
information from sender to receiver. Existing literature would categorise this under platform studies,
however, perceiving dissemination as the lowest level of communication investigation is significant,
because I wanted to highlight the importance of the multimodality of pre-disaster communication.
Information dissemination may only cover the multimodal information access points, but it also
demands deeper investigation because the design, testing, and use of any communication modes and
tools are grounded on audience analysis—the individual.

Leveling up information dissemination to communicating disaster risks therefore demands further

conceptualisation of the role of the individual in DRRM. Disaster risk communication brings
comprehension and actualisation of concepts learned. This higher level of comprehension demands
that the target audience—the individual—has the basic capacity and skill set to access and consume
the information provided in the platform it is currently available. In this study, I highlighted the fact
that geographically isolated and socioeconomically challenged communities are aware of their lack of
reading skills and access to information access points, and that these inequalities exist not because of
choice, but as part of their lived realities.

Overall, then, personal DRRM focusses on the self and its experiences, socioeconomic standing, and
risk perception that impact the intention of a person to act on the disseminated information. It has
intentionally answered the who question. However, this entity (or self) is also part of a broader
community. Combined entities or selves make up the traditions, social relations, and communication
dynamics of a community. The combination of entities or selves leads to the second concept of
individuality in DRRM, which is inclusivity.

Inclusivity means being part of a broader context or group. The basic tenet of this concept is that
individuals make up the community, therefore the definition and level of community resilience when
facing natural hazards goes back to the individuals’ risk perception and message reception. A
community cannot begin to work on its resiliency when its members, the individuals, have concerns
that need to be addressed first. Understanding and assembling individual concerns about safety when
facing natural hazards makes up the community’s risk vulnerability. Inclusivity means that the

151
individual, as part of a bigger community, wants to take part in the process of building disaster
resiliency.

The results of this study suggest that looking at the community, whether its definition is based on
geographic location or social or political segregation, does not always result in a better pre-disaster
communication practice. Hence, the value and importance of the concept of individuality in DRRM
arises. In making this assertion, I do not suggest that looking at pre-disaster communication from the
perspective of a bigger group or community should be nullified. Instead, this study wants to point out
that when organisations such as those of government intend to use community engagement as a
communication strategy, they need to go through a step-by-step process of analysing, not just the
community, but the individuals that constitute it. Inclusivity does not always mean the macro level of
geographic boundaries and political demarcations; communities are made up of interconnecting and
interconnected units, which means inclusivity in DRRM communication can tap into organised social
groups within that community, such as (for example) senior citizens, youth, and the LGBTQIA+
community. Aside from their familial associations, an individual affiliates with others who share their
interests and realities. The next logical step in moving to a higher level of analysis or
conceptualisation of individuality in DRRM is inclusivity.

Inclusivity can appear in the form of temporary cultural change influenced by the natural hazard, pre-
disaster sociocultural context, and community resiliency (Gaillard 2007). Individuals that make up the
community bring with them the experiences, social connections, preparatory behaviours, culture, and
traditions handed down by their elders (Gaillard 2007; Kanakis & McShane 2016). Gaillard (2006,
2007) posits that individuals, especially the indigenous peoples, use these experiences, culture, and
traditions and modify them as they merge them with their own. This may be observed in the processes
an individual goes through to integrate into a society where they want to belong. This process of
integration may involve the development and use of social and economic capital and social power.

This iteration of inclusivity can be observed in social and civic groups in a community, and can be
defined as the process of belonging. As such, there is one group that is frequently placed along the
margins of DRRM frameworks—the LGBTQIA+. Although there have been studies that connect
gender with disaster frameworks, most of these are centred on women’s experiences. There is still
limited attention given to the LGBTQIA+ sector—and there is an absence of any representation of
gender or sexual minorities in DRRM policies. Gaillard, Gorman-Murray and Fordham (2017, p. 22)
point out the need for disaster scholars to expand their foci and explore this ‘new terrain’ to address
the gap between gender minorities and disaster studies. Dominey-Howes, Gorman-Murray and
McKinnon (2018) add that the heteronormative settings of DRRM policies—including the complex
range of vulnerabilities and muted and underrepresented disaster experiences in mainstream media—
make gender studies in DRRM difficult. In general, despite the Sexual Orientation and Gender
Identity and Expression bill, the current social context in the Philippines does not provide any venue

152
for representation, especially considering it is a conservative Catholic country. On this head, I
received contradictory information about the presence/absence of LGBTQIA+ members in the island
area by different informants, drawing attention to the group’s social status. However, government
respondents from both field sites acknowledged the potential contribution of the LGBTQIA+
community in DRRM. One informant suggested that, rather than viewing individuals in this sector as
‘victims’ of natural hazards, perhaps they could be considered sources of knowledge for deepening
the understanding of the importance of pre-disaster communication among themselves. I5, who is a
coterminous employee and transwoman, shared that they are currently trained to disseminate health
related information but they can also expand their scope. However, most LGBTQIA+ members are
not out because of social stigma and informants I10 and I12 denied their existence in the island
village.

The main objective why we are formed is to provide additional information on

various STIs and HIV to our youth...Since we do not have any formal training (on
DRRM), what we can do is to request training for our group before we can reach
out to others. As a government employee, I was part of training in basic first aid but
as LGBT organization, we would like to adopt these trainings for our members and
other basic information on disaster preparedness as well (I5).

There are no LGBT in the village (I10 & I12).

In this regard, the island community boasts their own sectoral strategy in engaging local communities
in the area. More than the use of multimodal communication tools in disseminating information, the
island province changed its approach in DRRM and focussed on community-based DRRM. The group
Listong Kabataang Dinagatnon, which translates to ‘Ready or Prepared Youth of Dinagat’, is an
attempt to make DRRM inclusive and personalised for the youth sector. In 2018, the province also
organised the Persons-with-Disabilities Summit for DRRM which was reportedly well attended.
According to I1,

Our style of sectoral training is ‘Training of Facilitators’ or TOF, specially on

CBDRRM. When we did it with the women sector, we realised that we also need a
form of return demo so they can facilitate in their own communities.

The LGBTQIA+ sector is another sector that is currently being supported by the community-based
DRRM of the island province, which was recently formalised in a form of local ordinance. The
provincial DRRM office considers that this sector has potential in terms of disseminating information
and rallying the LGBTQIA+ towards resiliency and being of help to fellow LGBTQIA+. As I1
opined:

Recently, the LGBT community federation was organised, and we are looking at the
possibility of integrating DRRM into their cause because we can see the eagerness
of the members of the community, and they are easy to tap. In terms of number, the

153
 LGBTQIA+ can mobilise a lot, that is why we are including them in our CBDRRM
facilitators. Also, funds are provided by the province for this sector.

The sectoral approach is also used by the municipality to ensure that the delivery of the National Plan
is community-centred, and there are several organised sectors, including women and persons-with-
disabilities, that have already been provided with training, but the island municipality is mainly
advocating for two sectors—youth and the LGBTQIA+. Targeting the youth seems to be logical since
they are the future leaders of the community, and the energy and excitement of the youth can be
tapped. The local DRRM council in the area also believes that the youth can help educate their parents
on pre-disaster activities. As I4 shared, ‘the old people are hard-headed’. He also added that tapping
the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) is still the best way to involve and capacitate the youth. The SK is the
smallest and lowest governing elected body in a village, but it is also the highest government body
among the youth sectors. Since it is part of the local government unit, the SK gets an annual budget
from the government.

Moreover, in relation to the newly organised LGBTQIA+ sector of the island, the municipality
DRRM office is also keen to tap this sector. Formed in the municipality through Resolution Number
021-2018, the local ordinance seeks to protect the right and dignity of the LGBTQIA+ sector,
especially via the provision of the LGU services that aid in the promotion of health and human dignity
of the members of this sector. The main problem is how to convince people to be part of the local
LGBTQIA+ organisation, because it entails outing yourself to the public. In a very conservative
Catholic country like the Philippines, issues on gender and sexuality are still not generally accepted,
despite the existence of laws that protect minority groups. Another problem is that not everyone is
open about their sexual orientation. I5, the president of the organisation said,

We are still trying to convince them that they should not be ashamed of who they
are. We do this by showing them what we do as established organisation. We are
trying to tell them through our activities that being an LGBTQIA+ is being a leader.
This way, we can encourage them to become members of our organisation so we
can also protect them.

Looking ahead, the municipal DRRM office observed that the number of LGBTQIA+ in the area
meant that they could be valuable as responders during calamities.

The significance of looking at both inclusivity and individuality in implementing a community-based

DRRM is highlighted by Follett’s discussion on why community should be viewed beyond a singular
entity, as a process. Follett uses the example of household decision-making:

when two people live together, they have to stand before the world with joint decisions.
The process of making these decisions by the interpenetrating of thought, desire, etc.,
transfers the centre of consciousness from the single I to the group I. The resulting
decision is that of the two-self (1919, p. 578).

154
However, based on the data I gathered during field work, in terms of the political understanding of
community, the definition remains solely based on geographic boundaries and their political
demarcations. Areas classified as geographically isolated and disadvantaged are not heavily
populated. When DRRM projects are politicised, project implementation depends on the number of
possible votes a politician may get in that area by making election promises. During interviews with
government informants, the difficulties of transportation and geographic make-up were always
mentioned as reasons why projects are not implemented in GIDA communities. Yet several campaign
materials were seen in these isolated areas during field work. Therefore, it appears that problems of
DRRM are not rooted in reachability alone; rather, the difficulties are grounded on area and project
prioritisation. The earlier quote from Follett (1919) highlights the significance of joint decisions of
community. As a community of professionals, government actors plan pre-disaster related activities
(i.e., drills and training as part of engaging communities); however, GIDA community residents
(including their government/council representatives) need to make the decision to prioritise disaster
preparedness as an immediate need. As a core concept of individuality in community engagement,
inclusivity means the inclusion and participation of GIDA communities in the decision-making and
implementation of pre-disaster communication projects of the local government. However, in the
current situation, rather than mounting inclusive, community-based DRRM activities (e.g., an open-
to-all drills and training, and translated communication materials), DRRM signs that are not in the
local language are placed into local zones as a mark of political obligation. In line with community
engagement as a communication strategy, organising an equitable and inclusive disaster preparedness
activity demands what Follett calls the transference of consciousness from one group (government) to
the community and vice versa. When the community, composed of many individual experiences,
forms a singular message directed towards the government, this practice adheres to what Follett sees
as the decision of the two-self.

As a concept of individuality, inclusivity can also impact the method of evaluation of pre-disaster
communication projects implemented through community engagement strategy. Creating and
evaluating community-based DRRM programs that aim to engage communities is currently grounded
on how manageable and measurable the program is. Governments are more concerned with
measurable key performance indicators (KPIs), which reduce human interactions and experiences to
quantitative indicators of success, than they are with human evaluations of effectiveness that may
contribute to the design and/or redesign of communication materials to incorporate local experiences,
culture, and traditions into its content. In keeping with this focus, data from the field work suggests
that the number or extent of casualties incurred and the number of people who evacuated when threats
were present are included in the KPI of pre-disaster programs. Moreover, the number of attendees of
training and workshops is also a part of the KPI of these programs. At the very least this means that
the only way to properly validate all pre-disaster communication efforts is to wait for an actual

155
disaster to occur. I would suggest that when the various conceptualisations of individuality proposed
by this study can be transmuted into a measurable KPI, actual disasters will not be required for
evaluation. With evaluation in mind, applying the inclusive quality of individuality to DRRM means
that people serve as a communication link to others and their collective experiences; such a practice
may suggest ways of shifting existing program evaluation paradigms.

The third concept of individuality is expressivity. Recognising the individual’s self-worth in the
context of DRRM communication allows us to distinguish ourselves from others but at the same time
combat the otherness individuality brings to create a coherent whole. As Follett (1919) remarks:

If the self with its purpose and its will is even for the moment a finished product, then of
course the only way to get a common will is through compromise. But the truth is that
the self is always in flux weaving itself out of its relations (p. 577).

As a concept of individuality, therefore, expressivity comprises a demonstration of past experiences

(such as of calamities) and social capital (such as in familial relations), and how these experiences and
mutual concessions affect and form an individual’s social networks. This compromise between the
government and GIDA community, as part of their lived experience, can be observed in the efforts of
the former to provide preemptive measures when facing natural hazards through the select training of
community responders. Experience can be used by an individual to express their own understanding
of the risks they face. The same set of experiences can be used to express justifications of their
actions, or the lack thereof. In terms of sharing experiences as a person in the world, expressivity is an
everyday part of individuality, and this tendency to share allows discussion of issues regarding
disaster preparation without an imminent sense of threat acting as stimulus. With an actual threat as
stimulus, people almost always respond to DRRM communication with action, even if this action is
deciding to remain with their property and thus in the way of the threat. As an informant in the upland
site observed, it is difficult to shift 90 years of shared typhoon-free experience. Expressivity is
therefore affected (e.g., can become volatile/controversial) by the presence of threat and the coping
appraisal of individuals in relation to their past experiences and social capital. These pairings (threat–
coping appraisal, and past experience—social capital) may help determine the level of individual
preparedness in vulnerable communities, such as the preparation of go-bags in readiness for incoming
an threat and the identification of a go-to person/s (an individual who lives in an non-risky area when
threatened by natural calamity, as relayed by all island village informants). The identification of this
person may be from a shared past disaster experience. The same pairings can also be used to construct
the community’s collective local wisdom, which is another form of expressivity.

As previously discussed, local wisdom is an assemblage of all of the individual knowledge of the
residents of a community. Individuals are vessels of knowledge that is grounded on their past
experiences, traditions, and culture. This knowledge is seen as the peak of the conceptualisation of
individuality in DRRM. Local wisdom of past disaster experiences may dictate disaster preparation

156
behaviours, including how the group will respond to the threat posed by a calamity. The more
experiences they have gained, the more an individual can prepare for a threat. However, less frequent
experiences of actual threats and more false alarms can negatively affect the action-response of the
group. The collective local wisdom of individuals, which, much like experience (actual, simulated, or
false alarms), is thus a double-edge sword. Kanakis and McShane (2016) suggest that frequency is not
the only factor that affects preparatory behaviours. In addition, the severity of an event does not
always equate to a positive (effective) influence on people’s future risk perceptions and their
propinquity to prepare ahead.

Moreover, dismissing local wisdom by dent of managerial policy is tantamount to attacking people’s
culture. This kind of thing is tacitly observed in such things as the effort extended towards localising
DRRM information for a particular community (Sison 2017). The source of local wisdom is not
merely the community itself; rather, the community is composed of individuals who possess
knowledge that has been handed down from generation to generation, and which forms what becomes
known as local wisdom. Tracing the source of local knowledge to the individual level brings to mind
what Rapport (1997) opines, that the individual is someone who goes beyond their sociocultural
background. His idea of the individual is contextualised in the individuality of the creative practices
confined in a specific timeframe and consciousness.

The study of Dominey-Howes, Gorman-Murray and McKinnon (2018) provides a case in point when
discussing individuals’ collective wisdom in DRRM through the lens of individuality. Their study
documents the underrepresentation of the LGBTQIA+ community in DRRM policies and frameworks
in ostensibly-inclusive countries like Australia and New Zealand. Yet, within the heteronormative
cultural setting of the Philippines, the LGBTQIA+ sector was seen by local informants as a potential
source of local wisdom. The LGBTQIA+ community have resilient capacities and adaptive strategies
unique to their needs—these alone are enough to put value in the knowledge and wisdom they can
bring to make DRRM frameworks gender sensitive. Governments, organisations, and individuals in
DRRM also demonstrated sensitivity and openness, which itself suggest the current disaster
preparedness setup in the Philippines is moving towars inclusivity. Placing value on what the
individuals bring may allow the LGBTQIA+ community to express their complex range of needs and
vulnerabilities without fear.

This study identified overlapping notions of community—geography, organisation (of smaller units),
and profession (see sec. 6.2). These three conceptualisations of individuality in DRRM directly relate
to the experiences of GIDA communities, as they provide importance about the role of each
community member in ensuring safety when facing natural hazards. However, the scope of
community goes beyond the confines of vulnerable populations and people at risk; it also includes the
people who implement local policies and emergency management plans (Astill et al. 2019). Members

157
of local DRRM councils, the first responders during an event, are also residents of the village or
municipality. Wearing two hats at the same time—responder and victim—can be daunting.

6.3.2 The practical notion of individual in DRRM

After careful evaluation of available data on transactional and transitional engagements presented in
the previous chapter, it appeared that the individual plays a major role in interpersonal disaster risk
communication in GIDA communities. The practical notion of individuality can be summarised in
three Cs (3Cs): communication link, consistency, and cooperation and co-creation. More specifically:

1. The individual can function as link between the government and GIDA communities;
2. Previous and consistent disaster experiences impact a person’s willingness to prepare
for future hazards; and
3. Disaster risk communication efforts demand cooperation and co-creation among
involved parties to adapt to changes in society and people.

The practical notion of individuality stems from the concept of the inclusivity of the individual. As
discussed, inclusivity is the potential for the community individual to be sectored according to their
socioeconomic, demographic, and/or political preferences. These can be religious organisations, life-
stage groups (e.g., senior citizens), or even a group of people who are all from the same province.
Given the preexistence of these sectors, the practical notion of individuality in DRRM can be initially
grounded on easy management of programs from the point of view of the DRRM council. Utilising
existing sectors makes finding commonalities among community members quicker, albeit does not
always translate to localisation of information according to their needs as one sector. But by tapping
into demographic commonalities, localisation of and access to pre-disaster information is feasible and
increases an individual’s (or a small group’s) capacity to act on natural hazards, building their
resiliency when facing these threats. Literature has documented that able-bodied people who have
access to capital, information, tools, and equipment are believed to be resilient (Proag 2014).
Resiliency is the capacity of the individual to bounce back to the status quo before the disaster
occurred.

It is important to dissect what constitutes a community and reflect on the role of individuals—their
strengths and weaknesses—that ultimately defines the community and its level of resiliency (hard or
soft; Proag 2014). The next subsections details the practical notion of the individual as they become
communication links with actual or simulated disaster experiences during drills and training, and their
capacity for cooperation and co-creation in building and maintaining the safety of their community.

6.3.2.1 The individual as communication link

‘At the close of the day, however, it is still enlightened and caring individuals who
can use their communication systems to help their societies and communities
develop.’ Quebral 2012, p.64

158
It was assumed prior to fieldwork that access to information in both field sites would be minimal to
none because of their geographic isolation and other expected communication infrastructure setbacks.
However, despite having minimal to no access to information from traditional, digital, and non-digital
media, data show that GIDA communities mainly utilise an interpersonal information transfer method
to send and receive messages for disaster risk communication. Empirical data also show that this
interpersonal communication requires the right mix of elements to ensure smooth information
dissemination and retention. This study identified social power, relationships, and experiences (PRE)
as the drivers that empower GIDA communities. It appeared that utilising PRE in pre-disaster
communication initiated a transformative level of community engagement that included
empowerment, collaboration, and support (see Figure 3.1).

Altogether, four modes of communication were observed in both field sites (i.e., DRRM
communication was multimodal). These modes were categorised based on the number of people
involved in the interaction, their purpose, and its formality (Seiler, Beall & Mazer 2017). The four
modes are (a) interpersonal and (b) public, and mediated types of communication through (c) mass
and (d) social media. These modes of communication are utilised as links that connect the government
to the people (see Table 6-1). Critically, these modes are all insignificant without the human
intervention that enables them. Hence, the role of the individual as communication link in pre-disaster
communication supersedes the modes and tools used in engaging geographically isolated and
socioeconomically disadvantaged communities.

Table 6-1.
Summary of communication types used in communicating disaster risk information

Modes of Kinds of communication tools

communication
Upland area
Interpersonal Dyadic interactions between
• government official
(provincial/municipal) and village
leader,
• village leader and zone leader,
• village officials and residents,
• between family members not sharing
a house, and
• between family members sharing a
house.
Small group interactions between
• village leader and other elected village
officials, and
• village leader and zone leaders.
Island area
Dyadic interactions between
• government official
(provincial/municipal) and village
leader,
• village leader and zone leader,
• village officials and residents,
• between family members not sharing
a house,
• between family members sharing a
house, and
• neighbour to neighbour.
Small group interactions between
• village leader and other elected village
officials, and
• village leader and zone leaders.

159
Public village assembly village assembly
monthly meetings monthly meetings
drills and training drills and training
Mass print, radio, TV, road signage, text blast, print, radio, TV, road signage, text blast,
bells bandilyo
Social media social networking sites social networking sites

These data indicate that face-to-face (F2F) interaction (in pairs or groups) is the communication
method that links the government and the community. It is also the communication tool that connects
people within the community. Face-to-face interaction is also an important communication tool
utilised in any community engagement strategy programs.

Given that F2F interaction is the definitive practical linking tool between senders and receivers of
DRRM messages, interactions at the interpersonal level should be strengthened. Strengthening such
interpersonal communication would also enable isolated communities to form their own human
networks so that individuals know who to go to or who to help when the community is facing threats.
Strengthening interpersonal communication as the main mode of communication in GIDA aligns with
the idea of communication reach that Marlowe and colleagues (2018; see sec. 3.2.2) argue is a crucial
element in engaging diverse populations. Illustrative of the impact of communication reach in GIDA
is the concept of looking out for each other during threats of natural hazards which is learned during
the monthly family development sessions of the conditional cash transfer program called the 4Ps (see
sec. 5.4). Looking out for others is feasible because there may be two or more families under one roof
and/or those residing in the zone are all relatives.

Currently, there are few modes of communication that promote relational and face-to-face
interactions; these are village assemblies and informal meetups. These interpersonal communication
interactions are endemic in the villages observed, and the community, through the village
leader/barangay captain organises these venues for information dissemination and social interactions
that build personal relationships among the residents. However, pre-disaster communication strategy
cannot rely solely on these interactions for efficacy, because these gatherings are not always meant to
discuss and learn ways of preparing for future natural hazards. In addition, these interactions will not
foster personal and continual message relay between zones unless the senders and receivers have
familial relationships with each other (thus, people outside the immediate social network of an
individual described in Figure 3.4 (immediate family and close neighbour) get excluded by this
process). The process efficacy of the monthly family development sessions of the conditional cash
transfer program therefore needs to be studied in order to find out what aspect can be replicated for
DRRM.

160
6.3.2.2 Consistency in information dissemination
Disparity was observed in information dissemination within the three levels of government. Almost
all the communication tools audited by this study are available at the provincial level. At this level,
information dissemination is packaged as fun, interactive, and competitive, through games and
dramatisations. At the municipal level, a few communication tools are still available, but these are not
as extensive as the tools used at the provincial level. Posters and brochures emanate from the national
and provincial councils, road signage such as early warning signs from the province, as well as (in the
case of the upland municipality) a radio station that sometimes presents DRRM related topics.
However, these traditional modes of communication (see sec. 5.2 and 5.3.1) are usually available for
the municipality’s use.

This disparity in the availability of multiple modes of communication at the various administrative
levels can be explained by context. At the provincial level, the DRRM council is dealing with several
municipalities and hundreds of villages at the same time. At this level, a variety in the available
communication tools is to be expected because of the number and diversity of the provincial
population. At the municipal level, the DRRM council deals with numerous villages of varying
contexts, and therefore this council provides mainly more conservative and traditional forms of
information dissemination suitable to the various village contexts. However, in terms of tailoring
information to these villages, while the municipality cannot provide radio programs because of
infrastructure and budget demands, where one is already provided by the province, they may see that
producing one only duplicates what already exists. In addition, since gamification is the trend in
DRRM in both field sites, the municipalities field their own contestants to represent them in these
competitions, and there is rigorous training available for those who will be chosen to represent the
municipality in the competition, drawing attention to the inclusivity of the criteria used for selecting
contenders. Certainly, villages vying for the coveted Gawad KALASAG prize will put extra effort
into the process of selecting, training, and fielding participants to these municipal and provincial
games, but this can be disadvantageous for communities (like GIDAs) whose budgetary priority is
livelihood and infrastructure programs.

This problematic (bureaucratic) information dissemination process is obvious at the village level with
the dwindling number of communication tools that are available. Most of the communication tools
used at the villages are provided by the municipal or provincial DRRM councils. For instance, the
province uses text messaging (text blast) to send urgent information to the municipalities (Sumaylo
2013). Information is thus passed through text blast to the various municipality and village leaders.
However, in GIDA villages, this mode is only intermittently accessible because of infrastructure-
based signal problems. Posters, flyers, and road signage are designed and produced by the province
and the municipality. These modes of communication are one-way and are often not read and
understood by local communities due to issues of illiteracy. Worse, these print materials often do not

161
reach the village because of their geographic location. Face-to-face drills are organised by the
province and the municipality with their budgetary counterpart from the village, but GIDA villages
cannot always afford these drills because budgets are already tight on account of these communities
facing more pressing issues than DRRM. Television is included in the list of communication tools
used in the island area, and access to electricity for this activity is scheduled because community
members are aware that they can easily get information from television news. This method is faster
than waiting for the municipal DRRM council’s text blast information, which may be delayed because
of lack of telecommunication signal and the difficulty of getting to the island village. Even so, access
to technology and even electricity are ongoing concerns in GIDA villages.

6.3.2.3 Cooperation and co-creation

In context of these problems, the importance of GIDA communities’ reliance on interpersonal
communication is considerable, and this research argues that both the individual and their
relationships with others are crucial in building a transformative DRRM learning environment. Even
so, a community is comprised of many individuals with varying roles and knowledge. What is thus
essential at this stage of DRRM is building an environment of cooperation and co-creation that is
grounded on trust, so that, as I have already argued, community engagement (as a DRRM
communication strategy) is supported by trust at the grassroots level.

At the structural or managerial level, the government’s current approach to utilising individuals as
grassroots responders only feeds to the transactional level of engagement. However, highlighting the
role of the individual in disaster risk communication is a reiteration of another similar and evidently
effective program that was relayed by informants during data collection—the family development
sessions of the conditional cash transfer program (4Ps). This program approaches family development
sessions as an opportunity to teach families through their individual representatives. Depending on the
topic, partners are not required to be present during these sessions, as one of the requirements of being
a beneficiary of the program is that one partner must work to sustain the family while the other
attends the session, although there are also beneficiaries who are single parents. Even though this
approach relies on assemblies in the same way that local DRRM councils do with drills and training,
the difference with 4Ps is the regularity (monthly) of information dissemination, and the fact that
these sessions focus on one topic per session, such as preparing the family in the event of natural
hazards. These 4P sessions require further investigation, as it may be that their regularity is not the
only reason this style of interaction works in the GIDA communities—another reason might be the
way they package information. Certainly, beneficiaries of this program felt empowered by the
knowledge they gained from the 4Ps sessions and were afterwards willing to share information and
act.

The positive feedback about the 4P program highlights two things in regard to effective dissemination
and the retention of knowledge, both of which rely on personal and continual processes. Instead of a

162
‘what-you-should-do’ style of teaching, as was observed in the messaging of the DRRM drills and
training sessions, and which also highlight fear, messages can be tailored to answer a ‘what-you-can-
do’ enquiry. By focussing on the individual, the sender of the message is able to tailor-fit the
information to the profile of the audience. In terms of process, these individuals can and do then
change roles from being the receivers of messages to being the senders of messages to their
immediate family and relatives. This means that the individual can be observed as a singular agent or
communication conduit that expands their role from being the sender of a message to being an agent
of persuasion. This style of learning interaction goes beyond the government’s limited utilisation of
the individual as a plain grassroots responders during calamities.

The 3Cs—communication link, consistency, and cooperation and co-creation—thus describe the
practical notion of individuality. In particular, disaster risk communication efforts require cooperation
and co-creation among involved parties. Further discussion of the 3Cs will arise in the next chapter in
relation to a discussion of the pre-disaster communication framework that uses community
engagement as strategy. Specifically, communication linking is expounded in sec. 7.3, consistency is
described in sec. 7.4, and cooperation and co-creation are explained in sec. 7.5. What is essential at
this point is to build the significance of the individual in the entire DRRM process by looking at their
social power, relationships, and experiences (PRE). The next section highlights these elements in turn.

6.4 Power, relationships, and experiences

Understanding the community means looking at the individuals that make up the community. This
study asserts that an individual can be empowered by their social power, their relationships in the
community, and by their lived or simulated experiences. Each of these elements are discussed in the
succeeding sections.

6.4.1 The individual’s social power

To be considered an information junction, an individual must possess a certain level of influence
towards others through their social power. This influence might be the result of their relationships
(familial or social) with others, their lived experiences (e.g., based on longevity of residence in the
area), their disaster risk knowledge, and their actual or simulated disaster experience. It will be
apparent that age can be a factor of influence, and this is especially so in indigenous peoples
communities, who revere their elders, and in Southeast Asian culture in general. The individual,
guided and provided by their social power, relationships, and experiences, can thus become a conduit
in pre-disaster communication processes. This person acts as link between government and the
community that encapsulates the idea of a transformative community engagement approach. One
example was equipping an individual who represents a household with the information to decide
suitable and efficacious action for their family when they are facing threats.

163
This style of community engagement education has been extensively documented by other researchers
in the Philippines through projects of non-government organisations. David and colleagues (2010) (a
large group of authors from various institutions including the University of the Philippines, the
Manila Observatory, the COPE Foundation, the Ateneo de Naga University, and the Naga College
Foundation—Typhoon Preparedness Center) equipped several volunteer households with manual rain
gauges to monitor rainfall as a warning mechanism for threats of flooding. Despite feedback about the
community relevance of the actual tool chosen by the research team, these rain gauges still highlight
what Wamil (2010) opines, that equipping households with the tools to decide for themselves when
facing threats decentralises disaster risk information in the village level. Both decision-making and
high disaster risk knowledge can be signs of a transformative level of community engagement in
GIDA communities.

Current government practice in engaging local communities to prepare for natural hazards is training
individual representatives from each village to be emergency responders. These individuals are also
expected to relay what they have learned to other individuals in the zones where they live. The
selection process for these positions is based on power being granted to an individual by the social
network nomination of a member of either a village or a zone DRRM committee; residents who are
not in the social network of these officials cannot be nominated by them. In contrast to this somewhat
limiting process, all beneficiaries of the conditional cash grant (4Ps program) receive information
about issues from family planning to disaster preparedness on a monthly basis. Family-based
information dissemination was also seen as the future of disaster risk communication by the
provincial DRRM office in the upland area. I would suggest that placing this monthly program within
the scope of community DRRM engagement of government could mean that any of the beneficiaries
of the program could be a source of disaster risk information in the community.

In this regard, there are 40 family beneficiaries in the island village. This means that there are 40
people who can be information sources when it comes to preparing for disasters. Forty
communication conduits are better than a few grassroots responders who need to organise their own
training in the community, should they take their role beyond being responders. In addition, their
unique skill set in the village means that should any untoward incident happen to the grassroots
responder during a hazardous event, the village is automatically be put at a disadvantage. Having
multiple individuals acting as communication conduits, even in informal setups, expands the reach of
information dissemination, making it potentially continuous. This style of community engagement
increases the risk knowledge among community members, thereby increasing the possibility of action
during hazardous events.

To lessen the possible risks that attend the fragile human condition of grassroots responders during
calamities, empirical data provides support as to why disaster risk communication should be centred
at the individual level to share the accountability for protecting the village from harm among its

164
residents. Currently, however, there is a paucity of DRRM training and information for residents in
the upland village, which is the result of the budgetary requirements needed (and unavailable in the
GIDA context) to mount these events. Yet, a few days prior to my field work an emergency drill had
taken place in the upland village, and informant U7 shared how beneficial the drill was for her. It was
the first time the community had received this training and she said she learned a lot from the
experience. She had not learned any information from any other communication tools produced and
distributed by both provincial and municipal DRRM councils, because she had never seen them. She
added that these communication tools could help, but only if a person knew how to read. Informant
U8 from the same area opined that she learned what to prepare and how to react to a natural hazard
during the drill. She quipped that their zone leader also ensures that they know what to do if there are
environmental threats.

Of the residents of both the upland and island communities, it appeared that the best demographic to
target is the youth. According to informant U1, the youth are also the easiest to work with in terms of
teaching them disaster preparedness and practices that address issues of climate change. The
informant also established that it is difficult to deal with adults because they often argue that they
have not experienced any of the natural hazards discussed during drills and training. In contrast to this
information, in practice, the target audience of drills and seminars are the adult residents of both
villages. The provincial DRRM offices of both field sites are also aware that their audience are
present during drills and seminars because of the free food provided. These statements highlight that
learning and acting on disaster risk information begins with the individual.

As noted earlier, an individual may influence others or be influenced by others based on the social
status each possesses in the community. As such, an individual may have influence over others
including (but not limited to) immediate and extended family. This means that anybody in the
community holds a certain type of social power that they can use to influence others to do something
or not do it. In tangent with this, an analysis of the disaster risk communication practices in both areas
suggests that, as another actor with power in the context of DRRM and GIDA communities, the
government relies on five main forms of social power, and that their aim in developing communities
is to give some people expert power. However, the process of engaging local communities through the
training of select individuals as central actors in times of emergency might be problematic in the long
run should any untoward incident happen to the grassroots responder during calamities, or if they
move to another village. Both local communities gravitate towards four main types of social power,
which are coercive, reward, legitimate, expert, and referent power. These are discussed in turn in the
upcoming subsections. Digging deeper into the current status of power that is used in interpersonal
communication in the GIDA field sites suggests that it is paramount that these social powers be
understood as being part of the context, including the further negative possibilities they bring to it. As
such, power in this context is defined as the potential influence of an individual, organisation, or

165
culture (Raven 1965). Raven’s definition is used because social power is culture-based and may
include factors such as (but not limited to) age, gender, and income that allow the person in power to
provide rewards in the form of social relationships or knowledge, or to punish people by exclusion
from a social network.

6.4.1.1 The power to coerce or punish

As noted, the government aims to engage local communities in DRRM education by cultivating
selected individuals—often village functionaries and teachers—for DRRM training as emergency
responders. However, relying on a select few as trained grassroots responders and possible focal units
of information may be problematic. Informants indicated that the government could coerce someone
to take the training against their own inclination. These individuals may actually be keen to be trained
but are not keen to relay what they have learned, as is part of the post-training role. It is also possible
that, while an individual may gain expert power post-training, their referent power is not that strong
and they can only possibly influence their immediate family (i.e., their scope to influence the local
community is limited, disadvantaging those outside their familial circle). This practice also
disenfranchises other members of the community who want to learn more about emergency
preparation and response but are not selected by the nomination process. Informants from both field
sites who currently do not hold any leadership position in the village expressed their interest to learn
more about the subject. They also opined that instead of bringing select individuals to the
municipality’s capital, they wanted their provincial and municipal DRRM councils to conduct the
training in their village, so that they can at least still observe, even if they are not allowed to join in.
Disapproval, rejection, and disagreement are just a few examples of sources of coercive power (Raven
1965). Current practice is indicative of the coercion of a chosen few and the exclusion of those who
are interested. This practice is also problematic if the sole trained individual becomes the first casualty
during an emergency. Automatically, the village will be at a disadvantage.

The effectiveness of this precarious practice is also contingent upon limited population increase.
Local informants are aware that the face-to-face individualised method of disseminating disaster risk
information works because of the small number of people in their communities. This practice may not
work in the future if the population increases. At that point, the government will require a greater
number of ‘volunteers’ to represent the village in training. If not, these representatives may face
bigger problems in terms of relaying the training they have learned to the rest of the community.

6.4.1.2 The power to give rewards

As the previous subsection would indicate, the government has the capacity to provide rewards;
however, these are greater than just bestowing the status of grassroots responder and providing
training. Current practice is that attendees will get food packs during and after their training. The
reward system ensures attendance, since most attendees have to give up paid work hours to attend.

166
However, if an individual is enticed to attend drills and training because of the reward, there is a
possibility that attention is not given to the content but on ensuring that they can get their reward. This
makes the reward system that is imposed on both field sites problematic: compromised attention
means message retention is at risk. Although local DRRM officials said they do not announce these
rewards ahead of time, informants stated and reiterated that their attendance at training and drills
gravitates towards the possibility of a reward being provided during or after.

Given the context of this study, I argue that any individual can provide a form of reward. Unlike the
rewards provided by the government, however, the individual can use information, time, agreement,
or any form of social bond or emotional attachment as reward. For instance, an individual who took
lessons from the monthly family development sessions, now possesses information that can be shared
with others; in sharing with others, the individual provides the reward of time spent with those others,
resulting in a kind of bond between them. Moreover, an individual who has familial connections with
an elected official may be able to become a bridge between those who are in need of information and
social connections and those who can provide these things. This possibility leads to a discussion about
power that individuals may have over others based on their position.

6.4.1.3 The power provided by position

Half of the informants for this study are functionaries in their villages. Others had held leadership
roles, but these were coterminous with the previous administration. This means that most informants
held or had held a formal leadership position. Provided with this kind of informant profile, it is
expected that most of them will have answered the interview questions from the point of view of a
person with an official position. Their past/current position also made them aware of how information
is passed around in the village. The various positions that can be held by people in these communities
are either earned through voting or volunteering, and most are managed by different government
agencies. The functionaries for this study included health workers, village secretaries, and village
collectors. Most of the informants worked directly under the office of the village leader/barangay
captain, and this means that by mere connection to the highest elected office in the village, that
individual may assert their opinions regarding village concerns. They are also aware of the various
practices and loopholes of DRRM as it is implemented in their village.

Despite being aware of the government’s DRRM plans because of their current or past position,
informants still trusted interpersonal communication as the best mode of communicating disaster risk
information, and both these current and past functionaries and the ordinary village residents preferred
personal dissemination of information. In particular, trust in the content is high if the information is
delivered at their doorstep. For them, communicating personally and face-to-face connotes urgency
and holds a high level of importance. If information is mediated, such as through text blast, they will
not act on it for fear that it might be fake news.

167
Power provided by an elected position becomes relevant in pre-disaster communication in
geographically isolated locations especially when used as a form of social capital, a term first used by
L. J. Hanifan in 1916 that pertains to the benefits of social relationships. In turn, this extends towards
the formal kind of social relationship that exists between an office and its constituents, so that this
relationship provides value to the information being communicated. This kind of power also extends
to the functionaries being community leaders themselves; in this sense, elected officials need to
separate their personal from their work relationships, as ideally this minimises potential trust issues
between their office and the community. The functionaries, however, can extend the nature of their
relationship to other community members, from formal to personal. This shift was observed in the
family development sessions of the conditional cash program run by the Department of Social
Welfare and Development. These sessions strip an individual of their position in the community; in
these sessions, everyone is equal in the sense that they have all gone through a rigorous selection
process to be considered beneficiaries. Critically, this setup gives any resident a chance to develop a
social bond with a village functionary because they share a common experience. It also potentially
improves a functionary’s social skills for social connection, given that they are part of a group outside
of the position they hold in the community. The program also effectively allows any resident to have
access to reliable information that is provided by the position of their fellow beneficiaries who are
village functionaries. Overall, the power provided by position opens a pathway between ordinary
residents and village officials, and this is enabled in the villages by them being placed in a situation
that allows socialisation grounded on common bonds.

6.4.1.4 The power provided by expertise

Training local experts is seen as the link between the government and the local community in terms of
DRRM. However, power that is based on an individual’s expertise may connote further inequality
within the community. As such, the expertise gained from training needs to be transferrable so that
local experts may share a common social bond with residents of the village, not merely a geographic
one. It stands to reason that this ‘expert method’ will work best if people selected as representatives of
the village to become local experts have an extensive social network—that is, these individuals should
have the ability (and be willing; see sec. 6.4.1.1) to create opportunities for socialisation and bonding
between residents.

The current method of developing local experts in order to have a first line of emergency responders
stationed in each village provides that DRRM training and drills will be handled by these local experts
in the community, and situates DRRM in the local population, as per the National Plan. While
previous subsections have examined potential and real issues with this strategy, the idea itself is
entangled with what expertise is defined as. Expertise can be multifaceted. For instance, the upland
village is home to indigenous peoples who have cultural and supernatural beliefs in relation to
calamities that intersect with issues of DRRM—for example, they believe that earthquakes are caused

168
by giants living underground. As such, what is seen as expertise can be based on experience and
cultural practice. Another example is how residents of the island village ‘read’ the sea. Because these
cultural practices are seen as ‘unscientific’, however, DRRM training and drills aim to disprove
claims such as giants causing earthquakes. Yet, I assert that this multifaceted form of expertise should
be explored. Traditional forms of expertise may have connections to certain scientific methodologies
(Mercer et al. 2010).

As well as training functionaries and teachers, the government is also aiming to target the youth. This
plan for creating a resilient community is strategic. By training the youth early on, the idea of
resiliency will be embedded in the next generation at an early age, According to municipal
government informant I4, based on their recent DRRM activities directed toward this sector, the
immediate impact of engaging the youth is that they can then enact the information among their peers
and their families . Moreover, they can continue to practice the learned information when they
become adults, and perhaps develop a wider social power that may be influential in both their family
and immediate community. If at an early age youth are equipped with information, they can
potentially become experts in disaster preparedness and emergency response; thus, targeting the youth
in DRRM is also a way of starting to develop local individuals’ expert power. To emphasise this
point, Daniel Aldrich (2019) narrates the story of 10-year-old Telly Smith, a girl who was able to save
a lot of lives during the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. Telly was able to convince people to vacate the
shoreline based on the tsunami warning signs she had studied at school.

However, it remains a factor that the power of the government to provide expert power to selected
individuals in the community is the root of trust issues and even cultural jealousy among residents.
Both the fact and the process of selection of individuals for expert training exacerbates the inequalities
experienced by GIDA communities in accessing information. It also prioritises certain cultural
groups, such as the indigenous peoples, over others, which creates a subtext of cultural jealousy in the
perspectives of other cultural groups.

Developing local experts is not bad, however, it needs to be carefully planned, monitored, and
reinforced by further training that intends to include the public in order to create a common bond
regarding DRRM. In particular, I argue that it should not create or promote further the inequalities
already experienced by GIDA communities.

6.4.1.5 The power of social connections

Social connection, or referent power, begins with an individual’s interest in being associated with
another person or group, thus forming a social relationship (French & Raven 1959); people build a
social network to enjoy its benefits. However, it is not referent power if social connections are built on
force or obligation, such as following the directives of an organisation out of fear (coercive power). It
will be clear that one of the benefits of having social connections in a GIDA community, especially

169
with those who hold a position in the community, is that you are linked to someone who has access to
information. Social connections can be based on either relational and/or familial bonds, and
sometimes on political loyalty, and these form regardless of whether there is any form of formal or
informal punishment or reward for this kind of connection. Although this was not directly observed,
what was seen in the field is actually a form of fealty towards political families. But this can also be
extended to fealty for one’s own family and relatives. Close knit families are common in the
Philippines. Historically, villages are made up of a cluster of houses from one family (Romani 1956),
meaning everybody in the village is related. This changed when the Spanish colonised the Philippines
and established the modern village (Zamora 1967).

Even so, social connection in the Philippines is still related to familial relationships, as well as to
economic status and level of education (Andres 1988). In fact these three were among the many
determinants of familial leverage in villages during the pre-Spanish and Spanish periods in the
Philippines. Today, the same factors are still observed in GIDA communities as determinants of
building and maintaining relationships. To illustrate this claim, the informants confided that they feel
important when a village official goes to their house as a mode of communicating with them. The
combination of this practice and its meanings thus builds trust towards the sender of the message and
the message itself. According to informant I8, people ‘will believe any information delivered to us in
person, unlike text messages, which may be fake news’. To be visited by someone in power means
that you matter. It may also mean you are linked by a certain social bond that goes beyond the duty of
the information source being an official. This kind of social capital is also the reason why, during an
election period, political candidates will attend family activities such as a wake, even if they are not
related to the deceased or their family. Making someone feel important by being there in times of
need is significant in Filipino culture generally, as well as in the field sites investigated for this study.
Such an act solidifies one’s relationship with that family and all their relatives and connections.

This example returns to the importance of personal and face-to-face communication as for building
trust. For the informants, nobody would waste time coming to their house if the message was not
important. Following this line of thought, it would appear that it is possible to utilise this strategy of
building trust between residents in DRRM communication, if, instead of trusting a power that is based
on position, people are able to gravitate to those who have power based on their influence in the
community. Power that is grounded on strong interpersonal skills should be investigated, especially in
engaging local communities with the goal of making DRRM bottom-up. This kind of power is
connected to the multifaceted expertise of an individual that was previously discussed (e.g., cultural
and traditional expertise, etc.; see sec. 6.4.1.4). The multifaceted expertise explored by this study
provides empirical evidence that highlights informational influence generally. As Bertram Raven
observes, ‘informational influence appears to be the most stable and it fits into our modern-day value
system’ (1965, p. 380).

170
In summary, empirical data provide evidence of the use of both punishment and reward powers within
the top-down flow of information in the Philippine context. This process intends for individuals to
gain expert power and become local resources. This setup exposes that legitimate power is the driving
force of the utilisation of reward and punishment that is used to develop experts in the community.
However, the definition of expertise is narrow, so that while some individuals possess referent power,
this is underutilised and sometimes dismissed because the informational trust connections lack
scientific basis as ‘expertise’. Those who possess such power thus cannot extend their influence
outside their immediate family—meaning into the community and the government. It seems useful to
investigate referent power as a driving force in engaging communities in GIDAs with the hope of
developing informational influence (power) so that each community contains members that are
‘information hubs’ with multiple junctions that rely on face-to-face interpersonal communication.

This section establishes the importance of the individual, with their own capacities, development, and
influence, as able to perform the role of an information junction. The argument to focus on the
individual is grounded on the concept of development posited by Tomas Andres. According to Andres
(1988), the concept of community development in the Philippines should begin with the individual,
rather than by considering the family as the basic unit of society. For Andres, ‘the Filipino should be
developed in a planned and gradual way’ (1988, p. 32) based on their values, which are influenced by
parents, norms, peers, religion, and society at large.

6.4.2 The individual’s (social) relationships

Establishing the individual as an information junction in disaster risk communication allows this
section to add social relationships in the disaster risk communication mix. Empirical evidence
suggests three ways to build social relationships in GIDA communities:

1. approaching a small number of people,

2. identifying social similarities, and
3. trusting in others and in the community’s belief system.

However, in tangent with these, six factors were identified that hinder the development of social
relationships: (a) political complications and leadership instability, (b) internal racial jealousy and
discrimination, (c) divisive selection process, (d) infrastructure problems, (e) adult literacy issues, and
(f) reliance on dole outs and a reward system. Currently, the three approaches for building social
relationships are outnumbered by six possible hindrances present in GIDA communities. The
following subsections describe the three approaches in detail and identify areas where these six
complicating factors become a hindrance. Specifically, the sections proceed through, first, the
significance of approaching a small audience, to ensure that the community engagement approach
reaches individuals, and that it builds on people’s social commonalities. Second, building social
relationships based on people’s similarities (either by their GIDA context or cultural background)

171
creates (third) trust among community members and between community engagement actors
(government and community). The final subsection deals specifically with factors that affect trust
relationships.

6.4.2.1 Small audience approach

The small audience approach starts at the individual level with representatives of a small group such
as a family. The individual is implicitly included in this approach because decision-making in families
is either done by the head of the family or two adults. Moreover, approaching disaster risk
communication with a smaller audience is rooted in the four virtues of a community, as well as
Andres’ (1988) concept of community development. These virtues are close personal relationships,
feelings of safety, community support, and a sense of belonging (Brint 2001). Targeting a smaller
audience allows information dissemination to be personalised and direct. The conditional cash grant
program is an example of a program that approaches information dissemination using small groups .
Not everyone in the village can be a beneficiary of the program, which reduces the target audience. A
monthly family session is organised, and recipients of the program are engaged in discussions on
family planning, drug problems, and disaster risk reduction, among other things. Approaching disaster
risk reduction in this manner is also encouraged by both upland and island DRRM councils, who
report that this method currently works in engaging individuals in GIDAs to be constantly prepared
for any natural hazard. The intention of these councils is to replicate this style of information
dissemination through their community engagement program of training and drills for community
members. In this regard, the first step by the island council has been to approach CB-DRRM through
organised and legally recognised community sectors.

The importance of social relationships in disaster risk communication emanates from an individual’s
referent power, as was discussed in the previous section. Referent power emphasises the power of the
respect and charisma that draw others toward an individual (French & Raven 1959). This means those
who exercise referent power in the community maintain close relationships with their immediate
neighbours. The capacity to build these close relationships adds up to the factors that enhance an
individual’s personal influence towards others.

Moreover, the ability to establish social relationships in the community that is grounded in referent
power connects to the Filipino cultural practice of bayanihan, or communal unity, and the concept of
relationships this espouses can also extend outside familial and zonal confines. Bayanihan may
include the relationships among people between zones, between villages, and between DRRM
councils at the municipal and provincial levels.

6.4.2.2 Social similarities

The informants’ responses embody how personal relationships work in the community. Their answers
also illustrate a deep understanding of DRRM operations, from the provincial to the village level. This

172
was to be expected, because most of the informants are formal/informal leaders in the community.
However, data from informal interviews also suggest awareness of local DRRM processes. This leads
to the assumption that interaction between those with formal leadership and the rest of the residents in
the village is robust, and that dynamic interpersonal interaction had allowed the smooth passing of
information pertaining to disaster risk communication via community members’ social similarities in
relation to disaster threat. These similarities were predominantly observed in the island area.

Because of similarities in hazard threats and a shared knowledge of their vulnerabilities, the island
village informants relayed specific disaster preparation practices that they had developed. The
formation of committees, building of temporary shelters, and looking out for neighbours were some of
the practices informants relayed that are grounded in referent power and social and familial
relationships. They were also aware of their own vulnerabilities, and perceived that their hazard risks
are greater because they are living in a GIDA community and they do not have access to a rapid mode
of communication. Given these realities, they tended to look out for each other, as these extracts
highlight:

They made a temporary structure using indigenous materials to create a makeshift

evacuation centre. The community immediately starts building their evacuation
centre when a warning is issued. This is something we just discovered after Super
Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda (I4).

We do have specific committees formed in the island. One committee is in-charge

with food. The other committee is in-charge with building the temporary evacuation
centre. All these we established ahead because we get at least 20 typhoons in a
year. We even stop counting the weak typhoons (I6).

If there is someone sick in the neighbourhood or even in the family, we must make
sure that the patient is safe. We tell them to prepare their medicine, water, food, and
a mat for sleeping (I10).

It stands to reason that the island village would have had difficulty putting these practices in place if
there were strong relational problems within the community that hindered cooperation. The
informants were also aware why their current disaster preparedness practices were working. To them,
a population of 317 people makes interpersonal communication easy. However, current disaster risk
communication practices will suffer with any substantial increase in population.

6.4.2.3 Trust in people and belief system

All the informants agreed that trust is important in disaster risk communication. This trust can be
established by a legitimate power, as has been discussed; by a source of information such as family
development sessions; by trainings and drills; by their own experiences and beliefs; and by their
familial connections, or referent power. Building trust is important because it assists the development
of people’s adaptation behaviours in a crisis (Azadi, Yazdanpanah & Mahmoudi 2019). Trust can be

173
strengthened with open communication (Conchie & Burns 2008; Peters, Covello & McCallum 1997)
and honesty, knowledge and expertise, and concern and care (Peters, Covello & McCallum 1997).

Trust is one of the factors involved in developing a resilient community. It demands progressive
connections between the individual, their family, and the government (Acosta, Chandra & Madrigano
2017). Trust starts with open communication between the community and the sources of information
established by interpersonal communication practices, and allows involvement that begins at the
individual level and goes both upwards and sideways. It also promotes an avenue for top-down and
bottom-up approaches to intersect. This intersection allows community resilience to take root
(Houston 2018) and provides empirical evidence for Dufty’s argument about merging engagement
and education (2011). Spialek and Houston (2018b) have also established that neighbourhood
belonging is strong when there is an established pattern of citizen disaster communication during and
post-disaster events.

In order of their perceived veracity, these three sources of information were trusted by the residents of
GIDA communities:

1. Local government officials and frontline government agencies.

2. Education programs delivered by DRRM councils.
3. Some mediated communication tools, such as text messaging, relevant to their context.

It was also observed that personal beliefs (i.e., indigenous myths and past disaster experiences) and an
individual’s value system may act as intervening variables in developing trust towards either another
person or an institution.

First, there is high level of community trust in local government officials and other informal leaders in
the field sites. Trust in local government officials is significant in that the perceived reliability of any
information in both field sites was dependent on the level of trust that was placed in the legitimate
power (position) of the information source. Confidence in both the information and the severity of the
situation also increased when frontline government agencies such as military and police were
involved. The strong perception of trust regarding village officials could also be attributed to people’s
feeling of being prioritised and taken-cared of (such as when leaders came to their door).

There were certain underlying expectations observed between communities and the government in
both areas of study that appeared to complicate trust and action. For instance, the provincial
government expects that villages should be proactive in their DRRM plans, but disregards the
possibility that being classified as GIDA means some villages and their DRRM councils need to (and
do) prioritise issues relating to other community living conditions, like access to water, electricity,
food, and people’s livelihoods. The community, on the other hand, expects that everything will be
provided to them by the government when natural calamities occur. This discord should be minimised
(if not eradicated) by creating stronger social interconnections between the actors (government,

174
disaster risk information, people) involved in DRRM. The message relay process currently being
implemented also cast doubt from community residents toward their officials. This could be
minimised by working to increase the level of trust, such as by encouraging people to observe their
shared common interests and values, particularly in context of situations where, given that they live in
the same area, they are all (including the officials) facing the same threats. The data provide further
empirical evidence of the trustworthiness of the information source in relation to shared interests and
values (Prior, Partridge & Plant 2014), countering the idea that government agencies are least trusted
because these institutions are continuously questioned by the public via extensive media coverage
(Bronfman et al. 2015). Trust issues in the GIDA communities were interpersonal, not institutional.

Second, GIDA community members demonstrated a medium (i.e., less than in officials, but still
relatively strong) perception of trust in people who presented training information. This includes
ordinary residents who were trained by the government (i.e., attended the drills and training) or those
who were in possession of information from the government (e.g., instructors of the 4Ps). It is
important to note here that most residents in both villages live below the poverty line, and thus have
access to the 4Ps sessions and this avenue of government contact (see sec 5.4).

Despite the high percentage of possible information junctions in each village in regard to this
information source, it only scored a medium trust rating owing to its intersection with the selective
process of involvement of community members (i.e., item [c] at 6.4.2). This selective process is a
result of the way local DRRM councils implement their community engagement projects (see sec.
5.4.3). This practice was a source of doubt from the perspective of community residents in terms of
officials reportedly hoarding information within their circle or social network. This doubt may be
more substantial for those residents who do not hold any leadership role in the community, as they
have no means of becoming familiar with the council’s DRRM information processes.

Third, selected modes of communication, such as text messaging, had a low perception of trust in the
GIDA communities. This was primarily due to people’s awareness of fake news spreading in
mediated forms of communication, but it could also be attributed to their non-exposure to these
existing communication tools being associated with the inevitable communications infrastructure
setbacks in the area (no signal and intermittent electricity). It did see that once residents were
introduced to these communication tools, they were willing to learn how to use them. On this head,
residents were quite aware of the importance of getting information in real time and expressed a
demand to have access to electricity and communication signal, as informant I7 observed:

It would be better if we have electricity all the time so we will be informed through
media reports. It would also be better if we have (communication) signal, so we
don’t have to go to each house to relay information because that takes time (I7).

175
Bronfman and colleagues (2015) argue that high risk perception equates to high disaster preparedness
practices, but this is not the case in the GIDA study areas. Despite their high vulnerability awareness,
disaster preparedness practices and programs are not well engaged. Intervening variables that affect
personal disaster preparedness practices comprise both physical (geographic isolation) and
socioeconomic (day labourers, indigenous peoples, and 4Ps beneficiaries) factors. These are the same
factors that classify their village as GIDA.

6.4.2.4 Factors affecting social relationships

Aware of various localised disaster preparedness practices in the GIDA villages, local DRRM
councils intend to reinforce DRRM practices by selectively training responders, typically offsite. In
terms of selection, however, as noted, the process is sometimes based more on an individual’s
relationship to a functionary than it is on their previous and/or potential role in DRRM, and there is no
process in place to ensure this creates structure in terms of having one trained representative per zone.
Neither the selection process nor its offsite training were well received by informants in either village,
and it was observed that the process was divisive and thus adds to political complications that may
hinder social relationship building (item [a] at 6.4.2). These same political complications and
leadership instabilities affect the design and distribution of disaster risk communication tools in
general (see sec. 5.5). Informants said they wanted to participate in the training and that it should be
conducted in the village so that interested participants would not have to incur the cost of travel to the
municipal or provincial capital, or leave their livelihoods behind to attend it. As Informant I4 opined,
engaging communities to prepare for disaster ‘should start at home. It should start from the family as
the basic unit of society. If someone in the family knows how to respond, there will be no problem’.
He further explained:

We train responders in each village so that there will always be someone in the area
who can respond to the situation. We do the training annually. It is already
expected that not everyone trained in the village will remain in the village. People
leave to look for better future outside the isolated island. They look for jobs in the
main island or in other provinces. We aim to have seven responders per village (I4).

Responses from informants also pointed to issues of racial jealousy and perceived discrimination that
were affecting community relationships (item [b] at 6.4.2). Illustrative of this concern were some
divisions voiced in the upland village that pertained to distinction being made between the Bisaya and
the indigenous peoples. Informant U6 said she felt that the indigenous peoples were always prioritised
and taken-care of.

The indigenous peoples are really loved and taken-cared of by the province and
municipality (governments). They are so lucky (U6).

176
This statement supports findings by Spialek and Houston (2018b), who state that race plays a role in
vulnerability perception, and describe that different racial groups, such as the indigenous peoples in
the upland GIDA community site, may feel more vulnerable and at risk than the racial majority.

In addition, despite the current disaster risk communication system and practices in place, government
programs and community needs contradict each other. There is perceived prioritisation of selected
community individuals to be in the frontlines for disaster preparedness activities. This divisive
selection process (item [c] at 6.4.2) occurs in addition to the problems brought about by the frequent
changes in leadership on the local DRRM councils. Most recently, the change in leadership has meant
new set of people being prioritised for drills and trainings. The data collection for this research
happened before the election (upland area) and after the election (island area), a situation that
highlighted informants’ concerns about leadership changes and priority programs. Informant U5
opined that ‘only the teachers were trained on how to use the siren’, which is a result of changing
plans and approaches. Despite coming from a different field site (but knowing that new leadership
was expected post-election), informant I8 relayed a similar concern about not involving everyone in
the village during drills and training, saying that ‘it would be better if they bring the seminar in the
village. We need someone from the municipality and the province to come and teach us how to
prepare for incoming natural hazards’.

Moreover, communication infrastructure problems (item [d] at 6.4.2) that hinder rapid modes of
information dissemination remain unaddressed. These are exacerbated by political complications and
leadership instability. Critically, issues of infrastructure include problems with hazardous road
networks, which make the delivery of communication tools to the area difficult and create unreliable
evacuation areas. Informants at both upland and island villages clamoured for better and safer road
networks; there is no continuous road network in the island area that connects three of the local GIDA
villages, making the current practice of interpersonal information dissemination more difficult. There
are no primary or secondary roads specified in the official hazard map of the upland village either.
These setbacks hinder communication between neighbours because of their topographic locations and
the distances involved.

A dearth of locations for frequent interaction is a further infrastructural hindrance for local social
interactions. Data show that these social interactions are opportunities for people living in GIDA
communities to build and strengthen their essential community relationships. Currently, the only
common place people can converge without any special community gathering is at the purok (zone
open hut), but even this can be problematic for people who live too far away.

As well as these infrastructure problems, the residents in the upland village were wary of their adult
literacy issues (item [e] at 6.4.2). A significant part of the adult population cannot read and write. This
concern has been reiterated by the provincial council as affecting those with poor demographics—

177
such as farmers and indigenous peoples—in the area. The issue appeared to carry stigma in the
community, judging by the way informants needed to lower their voices and check if someone could
hear them when they spoke about it. Stigma may lead to isolation and self-doubt, resulting in an
inability to build needed social relationships with others in the community.

Local DRRM councils also rely on dole outs and a reward system to get participants to attend training
and drills (item [f] at 6.4.2). This is problematic as it may encourage a kanya-kanya (self-serving)
system instead of bayanihan (communal unity). It has been established that there is high level of
vulnerability awareness in the areas, and while this is a good sign in terms of the residents’ disaster
preparedness knowledge, high vulnerability awareness may lead to a self-serving attitude if it is also
grounded on dole outs and a reward system. Using a reward and dole out system encourages residents
to convene and be informed for the wrong reason and does not guarantee their attention. In tension
with this, because of their economic circumstances, people will choose to remain at work rather than
attend unpaid drills and trainings for a foreseeable hazard that may or may not happen in the next
three to six months.

While it may be possible to attribute the high vulnerability awareness observed in the upland village
to the recent training and drill organised by the provincial DRRM office two weeks prior to my data
collection, informant U5 confided that the high turn-out of participants to the recently conducted drill
and training was because of the food packs provided. This informant shared that:

the biggest problem in the village is non-cooperative residents. Nobody will come to
a village-organised training and drill because they are day earners. They could not
afford missing one day of work. Others have personal problems as well.

The local DRRM offices of the island area also provide rewards for attendance. The practice is to
announce the reward after the drill and training session. To lessen the impact of this reward and dole
out system, there is a need to re-introduce the value of communal unity and intercultural respect. Such
a focus would create opportunities for local DRRM councils to investigate and utilise the sources of
an individual’s beliefs and value systems (Andres, 1988) in CB-DRRM. In attaching to these value
systems and their sources, DRRM councils would then be able to design community engagement
practices that fit the livelihood and other needs of people living in GIDA villages. Moreover, the
context (GIDA) of each village is essentially the main factor that fosters common understanding and
mutual experiences between residents (Brint 2001). These commonalities provide an opportunity to
share and gain knowledge and at the same time, aid in a form of relationship-building that is brought
about by common concerns. Lastly, this process allows a community to define who they are, what
they lack, and what they can do together, from the bottom up.

178
6.4.3 The individual’s lived and simulated experiences
The results of this research attest to the relevance of lived and simulated experiences as factors that
help build and stabilise pre-disaster communication in GIDA communities. Findings that helped
uncover the impact of experience in pre-disaster communication were not limited to perspectives from
GIDA communities, but also included the experiences of local DRRM councils in both field sites.
Empirical evidence suggests extending the definition of experience from that which is acquired in
drills and training and/or from actual disasters to draw in local wisdom brought by daily life
experiences, culture, and indigenous practices in GIDA communities.

6.4.3.1 Experiences of GIDA communities

It was observed in situ that personal experiences with disasters and evacuation play an active role in
engaging communities to take part and be active in the initiatives of making DRRM community-
based. These personal experiences, both actual and simulated through drills, develop an individual’s
alacrity to prepare for natural hazards. In context of the field sites’ relatively recent exposure to
devastating natural hazards, no-one in either community attends to a training or drill with a blank slate
in this regard. This finding is parallel with that of Cahyanto and Pennington-Gray (2015), who
emphasise that those with past disaster experiences know where to access information and what to do
in event situations. Guo and Li (2016) also uphold that both past and indirect experiences raise
consciousness that leads to public action. The implication for this finding is in the overall messaging
that is directed towards GIDA communities. This study argues that a paradigm shift is needed in the
crafting of DRRM messages to these communities, to transition them from the ‘what-you-should-do’
(managerial focus) to ‘what-you-can-do' (community focus); this focus allows people to intrinsically
connect their existing knowledge to new behaviour, and is both respectful and relevant, given that
people carry their personal experiences and beliefs with them, both in disaster events and otherwise.

The impact of past experiences on people’s disaster preparedness actions was observed at the island
village where people annually experience typhoons of varying strength. Because of their prior
personal experience, the island village was able to come up with a plan that allowed them to prepare
ahead, knowing what they will experience within the year from typhoons and other forms of natural
hazards. This aligns with findings by Garcia (2010), which indicate that frequent exposure to natural
hazards increases the awareness and propensity of an individual to act. However, the multiplicity and
consistency of the natural hazards experienced in the island village contrasted strongly with a lack of
disaster experience in the upland village, where people were heavily reliant on what the local
government say and can do for them. The lack of prior experience also makes disaster risk
communication efforts difficult, as was attested to by the provincial DRRM office in the upland area.
Without prior experience, people often disregard pre-disaster risk messages, justifying that they have
not actually experienced any of the hazards they are being told they might face in the area. In this

179
sense, prior experience can be a double-edge sword for DRRM that either aids in the preparation of
villages or does the opposite. This manner of conflicting data on the role of prior experiences in pre-
disaster communication has been documented extensively (Bamberg et al. 2017; Lechner & Rouleau
2019; Onuma, Shin & Managi 2017; Paton & Buergelt 2019).

6.4.3.2 Experiences of local DRRM councils

In this study, the concept of prior experience does not only refer to the disaster experiences of people
living in GIDA communities. It also pertains to the experiences of the local DRRM councils in
managing threats, responding to threats, and ensuring that societal functions will quickly stabilise
once the threat ceases. Local DRRM councils in the island area reported fewer problems in terms of
engaging communities, and this council were continuing to test ways of involving the locals, from
village-level training and drills to sectoral engagement (see sec. 6.3.2). They also reported less
reliance on dole outs and rewards because it is established that people already have high information-
seeking behaviour. This is also the reason why residents in the island village did not favour the
selective training of certain individuals, supporting the findings of David et al. (2010) who argue that
local communities should decide on the technologies they want to use (in this case method of
learning) based on their context.

The experiences recorded in the upland area were effectively opposite to those in the island area.
Local DRRM councils in the upland area rely on dole outs and rewards to entice people to attend
seminars and drills. The municipal council’s efforts there were concentrated on issues related to
disaster flooding, which affects its lowland areas, and the capital; flooding does not affect the upland
GIDA community field site, however, because it is in a mountainous area. The decision to focus on
this one concern alienates those living in upland areas with other disaster experiences including none.
Without the stimulus provided by consistent and prior experiences, programs and activities for DRRM
are always in line with the general outline provided by the Department of National Defense. For
instance, the establishment of the Alliance of Grassroots Responders in the upland area means training
seven functionaries for each village as first responders in the island area. This program is encouraged
by the Department of National Defense as part of the community engagement efforts of the National
Plan. The difference is that the island area, equipped with more experiences, decided to implement a
sectoral approach to community engagement as well as training select functionaries, increasing the
mobilisation of the entire community in the matter of DRRM.

As alluded to, there are also reports from government informants that some residents in the upland
area use prior experience to disregard pre-disaster communication and preparation activities.
According to informants U1 and U2, it is common to hear from people that they have ‘not
experienced any disasters in their area in the many years they have lived there’ as the driving force
behind their refusal to act on disaster risk warnings. However, some of this community sentiment

180
changed when the upland village was hit by a strong typhoon, second only to Haiyan/Yolanda. This
shift was also observable in the island province: After they were hit by Haiyan/Yolanda, island
residents committed to preparing for any incoming natural hazards. However, data suggest that people
living in the upland area reverted to their previous low risk perceptions, while people in the island
area continued to work to perfect their own ways of preparing for future disasters. Their constant
exposure to threat is the factor that has spurred the residents of the island province to continue
working on building disaster resiliency at the community level. It is on this premise that drills at the
village level are now considered important, and these sessions give the local community an
opportunity to practice various disaster scenarios and think about them in a rational manner prior to
the presence of actual threat.

With the objective of making DRRM community-based, the local DRRM councils of both field sites
organise drills in various villages to simulate specific scenarios. Often, these are evacuation and
earthquake drills. The premise of holding such training is to provide that particular simulated disaster
experience in the hope that this can be transformed into future-applicable knowledge should this event
occur. Both field sites already have concrete disaster experiences with certain natural hazards, with
the island area having more typhoon-related experiences than the upland area, and these have made
people in both areas aware of their situation. According to some upland village informants, prior to
the landslide in their area, nobody was aware that they were prone to such a hazard or even that there
is a tectonic fault line in their village. It is necessary that they be both aware and better prepared
through drills.

The first two layers of experience unpacked in this research provide a general point of view of this
aspect of GIDA communities and their local DRRM councils. Past experiences alter the future
behaviour of both people and organsiations and potentially improve the way they will react towards
future hazards. Even so, some residents tend to be non-reactive towards calls for evacuation because
they have not experienced this kind of natural disaster in the many years they have lived in the area,
which for some means as many as 90 years without experience. From the point of view of the
government, previous experiences assist in developing methods to engage communities to be
proactive in preparing for future disasters.

6.4.3.3 Traditional cultural beliefs and local wisdom

Another layer of experience is grounded on traditional cultural beliefs. Although traditional cultural
beliefs are debunked during drills and training, as described by informants U1 and U2, I argue that
such complete dismissal of all traditional cultural beliefs and practices creates a cultural divide
between the indigenous peoples and the rest of the community. I also argue that, once unpacked, these
beliefs and practices can aid in developing a resilient GIDA community.

181
Traditional cultural knowledge is commonly passed down from ancestors through word-of-mouth. An
example is the (aforementioned) belief that giants live underground, and hence there is land
movement and cracks appear in the surface. Another belief is that Magbabaya (the supreme creator) is
angry because of man’s wrong deeds; in this frame, earthquakes and other natural hazards are
punishment from the supreme creator to teach people a lesson. However, indigenous peoples’
practices need to be appreciated and investigated, as some may be considered empirical evidence of
other scientific knowledge, as Garcia (2010) posits. For instance, the movement of animals and other
changes in their behaviour prior to any hazard are considered local signs of inclement weather or
other events in the upland village. Moreover, those in the island village ‘read’ the wind and the water
daily in order to know whether it is safe to go to sea or cross to the mainland, and these observations
also warn them of an incoming typhoon. This research considers these examples as local wisdom that
has been developed through years of experience.

These lived experiences and local wisdom, coupled with the drills and trainings provided by the local
government, allow GIDA communities to learn from simulated situations and integrate these with
their own experiences, thereby forming an impartial observation of their current situation. Evidence of
this combination is reflected in the interviews with local informants, who observed that after the
government placed signage indicating that their area is prone to flood or other natural hazard, they
gained a general understanding of their risk situation when heavy rain or a typhoon is the forecast. As
Informant U4 articulated,

Now I believe the people are aware because of the signages we put in their area.
Unlike before, they did not know if they are prone to hazards. That is also the
reason why they do not listen to warnings before.

Lived and simulated experiences thus work together to help build and stabilise pre-disaster
communication in GIDA communities. Respect for previous experience facilitates change and
reevaluation.

6.4.3.4 Reevaluating actual and simulated disaster experiences

Because of this reflection, the public now understands the value of drills and training and have formed
a logical and rational reevaluation of their current situation. Instead of just relying on their personal
experience of hazards, local informants indicated that they have integrated their learning from
simulated situations into their existing understandings, as well as those from other sources, including
face-to-face interactions in the form of lectures; traditional printed materials such as flowcharts, facts-
at-glance charts; videos; and listening to the shared experiences of others. Now that people are aware
of their situation, as is mostly the case in the upland village, they want to know more about ways to
increasing their resiliency when facing natural hazards. However, information-seeking may decrease
because of the absence of the original stimuli. Informant U6 verbalised her fears saying,

182
 as of now, the residents, including village officials, are aware of the DRRM
practices in place because of the recency of the training and drill conducted in the
area. Who knows if they can still remember the lectures in the next six months?

On the other hand, the experiences of the island village community spurred them to investigate ways
of improving their resiliency, such as building their own evacuation hut for everyone to use. They
have also established committees that are in charge of preparing specific essentials for evacuation,
such as food and medicine. They have also established the idea of checking on their neighbours,
especially those households with senior citizens, children, and persons with disabilities. Unfortunately
(in terms of current CB-DRRM processes), local informants had learned these activities via attending
the conditional cash transfer (4P) program, not from the municipal DRRM drills and training, the
main reason being that they had not been given this training. Only officials and community leaders (or
their friends/family members) are selected to attend. This manner of selecting individuals to be first
responders alienates community members from one another and exacerbates other inequalities already
experienced in the community. The upland village did not appear to be developing their own methods
of increasing community resiliency; this may be owing to a combination of inconsistent
communication efforts from the government on the topic of DRRM and the community’s own lack of
experience in this regard.

Observations in the GIDA communities relating to experiences reiterate what David et al. (2010)
advocate, about having a context-based DRRM. They also agree with Wamil (2010), that developing
home-based disaster preparedness plans is paramount when involving communities. Direct
communication with individuals and families has proven effective, based on reports from local
DRRM councils and anecdotes from informants. Even so, the best feedback of this kind comes from
the 4P program mounted by the Department of Social Welfare and Development. Local DRRM
councils need to push for education-engagement that utilises avenues of familial and sectoral
communication vis à vis the already-established, shared common connections of its individual
members.

This study also suggests that the activity design for training and drills should be grounded on
participants’ existing experiences, and the approach shifted towards moderating rather than merely
educating, which only covers the first step in the entire community engagement continuum
(transactional level) and tends to focus on ‘downloading information’ to participants. The question
remains whether the community will continue learning/awareness after the drill, and in this regard it
would be useful to have methods of follow-up and evaluation in place. As informant U6 said, ‘They
[village DRRM council] only started disseminating information ever since the drill [in February
2019] because it [knowledge] is still fresh’. It is understood that the reactions of people to drills and
training will vary, depending on whether they have had simulated experience or exposure to actual
threat; however they will also forget their learning experiences unless they are constantly exposed to

183
the message (Garcia 2010). In this regard, the factors that make up what Foster (2013) calls
community dynamics, including community social norms and lifestyle, can become the basis of
crafting community engagement programs. Factors specific to regional needs, such as demographic
profile, the special needs of family members, responsibility for or attachment to property, and even
individual value systems, can all potentially be considered in planning experience-based disaster risk
communication.

6.5 Summary

This chapter draws attention to improving pre-disaster risk communication through enhanced
community engagement practices that highlight the existing role of interpersonal communication in
GIDA communities. It argues that dividing the community into sectors and approaching each sector as
if approaching its individual members might be the key to the shift from transitional to
transformational engagement (Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi & Herremans 2010). This paradigm shift
is also needed in messaging, so that instead of packaging disaster risk information into ‘what-you-
should-do’, information becomes focussed on ‘what-you-can-do’, which is a more proactive frame. In
addition, rather than myth-busting for indigenous peoples’ beliefs and using fear appeals to galvanise
people towards future action, CB-DRRM can work to equip people with the knowledge and
technology to decide for themselves and uphold a transformational level of learning. Changing the
perspective this way means that people are no longer being compelled to just follow the ‘rules’, but
rather are being enabled to create their own ways of being resilient, even amidst their vulnerabilities
and inequalities, with the guidance of the trusted local DRRM council.

This chapter also highlights the relevance of approaching pre-disaster communication and community
engagement at the individual level. Capitalising on the individual approach taps into individuals’
power and relationships in the community. It further captures the relevance of experiences—simulated
or lived—and their influence in gaining power and relationships. As such, power, relationships, and
lived or simulated experiences are considered intervening variables that are necessary to fulfilling the
education-engagement process (Dufty 2011). These variables also provide possible real-world
application of the transaction—transition—transformation community engagement continuum of
Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi and Herremans (2010).

Looking forward, the next chapter proposes a framework that aims to mainstream pre-disaster risk
information at three levels: the political, cultural, and personal. Political mainstreaming means
institutionalising disaster preparedness activities through government- and community-led activities.
Cultural mainstreaming means, in the long run, disaster preparedness is seen as part of an individual’s
daily activities, not as an extra activity. Personal mainstreaming means changing the personal risk
perceptions of people living in GIDA communities.

184
CHAPTER 7: DISCUSSION: THE PRE
TRANSFORMATIVE ENGAGEMENT
(PRETE) FRAMEWORK

7.1 Introduction

The previous chapter explored the role of power, relationships, and experiences (PRE) as variables
that may enhance current community engagement practices in the GIDA study areas. These variables
are a by-product of investigating the pre-disaster communicative conditions and methodologies that
exist between the Philippine government and the two GIDA communities. This investigation was
guided by Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi and Herremans’ (2010) CEC through the lens of development
communication (Jacobson 2003; Wilkins 1996). I then examined the possible drivers of PRE in local
communities using the Filipino Values System (Andres, 1988) and how these could be used to shift
PRE towards a transformative communication and community engagement framework. This process
follows what Montemayor (2015) suggests weaving western models with local theoretical lenses.
Moreover, the discussions covered in this chapter are based on national policies implemented at the
local level. Therefore, this reflects an ongoing conversation between national and local
implementation practices and that results and analysis are firmly situated within this intersection.

This chapter now discusses how an individual’s PRE can be utilised in pre-disaster communication
and community engagement based on the arguments presented in Chapters 5 and 6. It begins by
tracing the ways an individual situates themselves in a community. To that end, and in context of the
other definitions of community thus far utilised by this study, the definition of community that will be
used in this chapter is that set by Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi and Herremans’ (2010), which is
neither geographical nor residential, and refers instead to people who engage in regular interaction
and those who share a common identity. This chapter moves away from the purely geographic or
residential concept (GIDA) of community that was used previously, and entertains the concept of
community as a form of interaction and identity. In this sense, I go beyond the connections of
geographical location and focus instead on relational concepts, backed up by data from both
government and community informants. In this frame I further explore how PRE can be
operationalised for disaster preparedness through community engagement efforts within the GIDA
communicative conditions.

Moreover, this chapter proceeds under the understanding that an individual can be grouped into and is
therefore a part of smaller community sectors. This individual level of engagement is described by Li
and Feng (2021) as an individual’s active participation in organisation-led activities that aim to trigger

185
positive outcomes for that individual. These outcomes can be within the scope of education and/or
engagement efforts. Common bonds, socialisation, and linking pathways between individuals are
therefore vehicles for PRE. As such, this chapter unpacks the possible role of the individual in the
overall pre-disaster communication and community engagement process, and highlights that the
individual, as part of a small group, can expand the boundaries currently set by the government in
engaging communities that are geographically and socioeconomically isolated. Both the possibilities
and the pitfalls of this approach are identified, and this leads to the development of the proposed PRE
Transformative Engagement (PRETE) Framework. In tangent with its exploration of the potential of
this framework, the study acknowledges that it may be costly in terms of budget and time. However,
the framework begins from the pre-existing position of the GIDA communities, and future studies can
examine its applicability, replicability, and expansion in other contexts.

7.2 Individuals in small groups or sectors

This section introduces how an “individuals-in small-group-settings” approach can be applied to

bridge the research gap identified in sec. 3.3. It specifically deals with how individuality can be
operationalised in the PRETE Framework as it is applied to disaster preparedness.

The individual, both in small group settings and in terms of their power, relationships, and
experiences is the core component of the proposed framework of this study. This section argues that
the development of the proposed framework needs to begin with an understanding of the individual as
the first step in the customisation, localisation, and mainstreaming of disaster risk information, not
only in terms of the daily activities of GIDA communities but also as these form part of the local
DRRM policies and programs. I then discuss how individuality can expand Andres’ concept of
Filipino culture, particularly when embedded in the design, implementation, and management of
community development projects. As a development communication practitioner, I find relevance in
grounding community-based/community engagement projects in people’s culture and traditions. This
section goes on to uphold the need for a shift in focus when providing for the information needs of
vulnerable communities like GIDA communities, and uses the 4Ps program of the Department of
Social Welfare and Development as the point of comparison used by both government and
community informants. The section closes with a reiteration of the need to strengthen individuals’
social linkages through their experiences.

7.2.1 The individual as the core of the PRETE Framework

This study provides empirical evidence that probing the complex system of pre-disaster
communication and combining it with people’s experiences will help shape a grounded community-
engagement framework suitable for communities experiencing various levels and factors of
inequality. Investigating the role of the individual in disaster preparedness can encourage continual

186
participation and knowledge building among residents of GIDA villages (Ingham & Redshaw 2017).
The individual, as part of a specific group or sector, is placed at the centre of these pre-disaster
communication and community engagement dynamics. The current investigation yielded three
important factors that impact the dynamics between pre-disaster communication and community
engagement. These factors are seen as inherent to an individual in a community, and are often
untapped. These three factors are power, relationships, and experiences that comprise PRE.

These three factors are derived from what was observed in the field sites, and they highlight the
differences and commonalities an individual brings with them to the communication process. Any
individual in any given community, regardless of whether it is classified as GIDA or not, possesses
power over others based on several factors, such as age, position in the community, influence, and
wealth (Andres 1988). Often, their power dictates the kinds of relationships an individual has with
other people, and an examination of these kinds of relationships can reveal the level in the relational
hierarchy that this individual operates at in the wider network of relationships within a community
(Andres 1988). Both power and relationships are also built within a specific context, and this context
can be based on the individual’s set of life experiences.

Given these parameters, it is worth emphasising that the individualistic approach discussed in this
study does not necessarily veer away from the communal Filipino culture, which is also common in
neighbouring Southeast Asian countries. Rather, I argue that we begin the process of forming the
framework by examining the individual level so that pre-disaster information discovered at this level
can be carried over into the way this customised framework is mainstreamed into local policies and
programs. I would also like to emphasise that the study’s focus on GIDA communities in the
Philippines does not limit the applicability of this proposal to non-GIDA communities. As Sujarwoto
and Tampubolon (2016) argue, all communities in all geographic locations experience a certain level
of spatial inequality. Therefore, my argument is that at the role of the individual be examined within a
specific group or sector, in pursuit of the easy design, implementation, and management of
community engagement efforts in disaster preparedness through the strategic use of various
communicative conditions.

7.2.2 A targeted approach is ideal in pre-disaster communication

Focussing on the individual allows customisation of the communication process to their specific
needs. Their context, dictated by culture, tradition, and socioeconomic conditions, should be taken
into consideration. Hence, the relevance of looking at the individual in the process is a way of
focussing on the who at the centre of the communication process. The needs of the individual receiver
of the message—someone that, in this context, is placed in an unfavourable circumstance because of
their living and economic conditions—therefore take precedence in the planning, design, and
implementation of pre-disaster communication activities.

187
Although following the proposal of this study to begin with the individual may appear costly for
implementation, the approach does not necessarily mean that there will be three approaches to target a
family of three. Targeting individuals who are part of the same specific group or sector narrows the
scope of the individual as focal point, remembering that the approach not only aims to target this
smallest unit of society, it also incorporates the individual’s PRE in the process as it is applied in that
specific group or sector.

If the whole group (government and community) recognises that an individual’s social
power/influence acts as a conduit to socialisation that bridges interpersonal relational gaps, then types
of power can be explored and incorporated in the pre-disaster communication process. Data also
suggest that various types of power (e.g., legitimate, expert) dictate or provide leverage for forming
relationships that function as linking pathways towards engaging isolated communities. Moreover, if
disaster experience equates to relationship formation through socialisation that is based on common
bonds, then this research provides evidence to suggest the value of a deeper examination of personal
experiences and local wisdom. These experiences and local wisdom can be translated into suitable
simulations which facilitate community engagement by targeting various demographics. This means
that organising drills and training will not be enough. Targeted communication efforts should be
customised at the individual level, as opposed to communicating with the community en masse.

7.2.3 Targeting individuals and the need to shift attention

Targeting individuals in a specific group or sector was seen to be an effective method in the island
village, where knowledge of disaster preparation was acquired through the conditional cash grant
program of the Department of Social Welfare and Development. Local DRRM councils felt that
replicating this method might be beneficial for in engaging GIDA communities. Informant U1 opined
that the 4Ps method of practice was effective and they wanted to replicate it in DRRM activities.

The current practice in the rollout of the conditional cash grant program is that the Department of
Social Welfare and Development organises a monthly assembly with representatives from the families
that are program beneficiaries, and engages them in discussions on various topics from family
planning to disaster preparedness. It is expected that attendees relay the information to the rest of the
family after each session. This practice is based on how the Filipino individual values the concept of
kapwa (other) that forms their collective community (Jocano 2001; Montemayor 2015). Targeting
individuals who are part of a small group makes communicating easier and consistent. It also adheres
to the argument of this study that an individual carries a certain power to influence others. This power
is based on their position in the family and community society. In keeping with this style of
engagement, an individualistic approach is operationalised in this study as one that targets a
household representative, or a member of a small social group or other organised sector that is bound
together by common bonds that comprise a social relationship. This approach contrasts with the

188
current practice of local DRRM councils for DRRM events, which is the intermittent scheduling of
drills and training for all selected residents, regardless of their individual background or connections.

Using the 4Ps sessions as a model for the modification of current DRRM begs the question, How
effective is the monthly assembly of the conditional cash grant program in terms of communicating
with its beneficiaries? First, the program uses an individualistic approach, which empowers
beneficiaries to recognise what they can do in cases of natural hazard. When I asked the community
informants what they knew about preparing ahead for the effects of natural hazards, all the
community informants from the island area relayed that knew they needed to prepare their ‘Go Bag’
in advance of a natural calamity; this is a bag or other container that contains food, water, medicine,
money, and necessary documents. On this head, informants also relayed the role they have towards
any of their neighbours who cannot act alone during emergencies because of illness or disability.
Second, informants reported that they had learned all these preparations during their monthly sessions
as beneficiaries of the conditional cash grant program of the Department of Social Welfare and
Development. They relayed that they were in close contact with other beneficiaries in their area
because the nature of the program requires them to attend all the learning sessions (failure to do so
means revocation of the privileges offered by the program). Third, the continuous nature of the
assemblies is also a way of monitoring and evaluating the progress of the beneficiaries. Fourth, the
nature of the monthly assemblies allows the topic discussion to be limited to one learning area. One
month, the lessons could be about family planning, and this might be followed the next month by
livelihood training. Since Department of Social Welfare and Development is part of the local DRRM
council, disaster preparedness is also included in the list of topics covered in the assemblies, however,
promoting DRRM practices is not the main goal of the agency.

Keywords worth noting in the 4P implementation process are individual preparedness, social
relationships, continuity and follow-through (of program and relationships), and topic limitation. In
the context of participants discovering individually-relevant information, there is continuity and
follow-through of both relationships and learning, because the assembly is held monthly. Further,
participants are not encouraged to attend, they are required to attend as a matter of accepting the
privilege of being beneficiaries. In practice, informants’ accounts suggest that this continuity and
follow-through had allowed beneficiaries to develop common bonds with other beneficiaries, and
these monthly assemblies thus became avenues for social relationships and socialisation. In addition,
all participants developed a relational linking pathway with a representative of a government agency
that is in charge of people’s welfare for natural or other threats. Finally, session topics are limited and
specific, and questions posed by the beneficiaries can be addressed within that specific session.

This manner of program implementation is possible because Department of Social Welfare and
Development is a large government department with an annual budget and both regional and local
offices that provide personnel all over the country. This structural reinforcement makes conducting a

189
monthly learning session possible. The local DRRM council, on the other hand, is not a legitimate
government department; it is a council composed of representatives from various government
agencies (including the Department of Social Welfare and Development). Being a council, its local
office only consists of a few full-time employees; the rest of the personnel are volunteers or
employees under coterminous contracts. As one informant said,

There are only a few positions in the DRRM council with items to secure tenure of
employees. The rest are coterminous positions (U1).

Thus, dedicated personnel at this level is limited to only a few regular employees, as government
informant U1 explained. Based on my observation, only between three and five people are running the
entire council when an area is not facing any threats, and it is expected that general assemblies are
intermittent because the rollout of plans and projects is affected by issues of budget and personnel. A
DRRM council of 3–5 members cannot serve the needs of either an entire province or a municipality.
In addition, unlike the monthly sessions of the conditional cash grant program, the general assembly
organised by the local DRRM council is an activity where everyone in the village is encouraged to
attend but attendance is not required. Other issues in its implementation are its necessarily
inconsistent schedule, a lack of follow-through activities, and the fact that all topics (from pre-disaster
to post-disaster, and across the scope of whatever calamities are targeted by the council, whether these
relate to the attendees needs or not) are discussed in one day, plus actual drills.

This discussion highlights the relevance of discussing the rollout of the conditional cash grant
program vis-à-vis disaster preparedness programs, particularly because the local DRRM councils see
4P as effective in achieving its program deliverables. The comparison also provides justification for
why this study argues to focus on the individual as part of a small group or sector. Currently, its status
as a council without the resources of a legitimate government department affects the programs and
activities of the local DRRM councils. Informants U1 and U3 expressed their support of the creation
of the Department of Disaster Resiliency that was currently being voted on in the Philippine Congress
(Cepeda 2018). However, the process of establishing a Department of Disaster Resiliency will take
time, and it remains important to find ways of improving current practice.

7.2.4 Strengthening social linkages and using an individual’s experiences

Despite these organisational hindrances in the implementation of disaster preparedness programs, it
was observed that each local DRRM council is finding ways to improve their practice. The local
DRRM councils in the upland area are looking at the conditional cash grant program (4Ps) as a model,
and the local DRRM councils in the island area are trying to implement a sectoral approach. Judging
by these efforts, both councils recognise the importance of targeting individuals in small group
settings. Individuals can build social bonds with other members during their small group learning,
thus developing some form of emotional attachment to both the people and the group (and arguably

190
the information, also, by proxy). Such common bonds are formed owing to the nature of small groups
as a venue for socialisation and bridging. Being part of a small group also helps develop a person’s
social skills, hence it facilitates people cultivating emotional attachments with others. Once common
bonds are formed through socialisation and common interests are identified, the next step facilitates
further linking pathways when individuals connect through current group members (including the
program facilitator, such as the Department of Social Welfare and Development representative in the
case of 4Ps) to other organisations or someone else with power/influence who can help the group.

One way to operationalise this argument is to include the participants’ previous actual or simulated
disaster experiences as a topic in DRRM meetings. If these experiences are discussed with the
assistance of local DRRM officials and are shared with people who have the same or similar
experiences, enquiries, and concerns, these experiences can become a way for participants to form
social linkages, or else strengthen those linkages already formed. Another topic that can open up
avenues for forming social linkages is participant sharing of the local wisdom, traditions, and beliefs
of GIDA communities regarding pre-disaster signs, preparations, and ways of coping. This topic is
particularly relevant, for example, among residents of the upland barangay/village who have mixed
cultural backgrounds, including those of indigenous peoples. These topics are examples of giving
significance to and strengthening the current practices of local DRRM centres using an individual’s
actual or simulated hazard and/or evacuation experiences as a point of reference in designing pre-
disaster communication programs. As noted, however, experiences can have conflicting effects on
disaster preparedness—in some cases, previous disaster experiences are the reason why people do not
act (Onuma, Shin & Managi 2017) on the incoming threat. Yet, experience also prompts individuals
to act on calls for evacuation or advance preparation (Becker et al. 2017). Experiences can also be
collective, as in the group or sector’s experiences, and this angle can also extend towards mining local
wisdom that is based on traditional and cultural beliefs.

This section has presented the individual as the core of the proposed PRETE Framework, which
requires a targeted approach that utilises their power, relationships, and experiences. A targeted
approach is particularly viewed as ideal when dealing with GIDA communities because it allows
customisation, localisation, and mainstreaming of disaster risk information into communication and
community engagement efforts and applicable government programs. Identified keywords that may
impact future pre-disaster communication and community engagement efforts are: individual
preparedness, social relationships, continuity of programs, and topic limitations. This research
identified lack of experience, limited social network, and the restricted rollout of disaster preparedness
programs, including information dissemination practices as issues with pre-disaster communication
and community engagement. These same factors were documented by Poussin, Botzin and Aerts
(2014) in France.

191
The next sections discuss the 3Cs (see sec. 6.3.2)—communication link, consistency, and cooperation
and co-creation—or the practical notion of the individual in DRRM. Specifically, sec. 7.3 presents the
individual as communication link, sec. 7.4 describes consistency in program implementation, and sec.
7.5 outlines cooperation and co-creation. The practical notion of the individual is significant in this
study based on the urgency of the demand for an attention shift in pre-disaster communication and
community engagement efforts. As a development communication practitioner, I see potential benefit
in positioning the conceptual bases of my argument as a practical solution through the development of
the PRETE Framework.

7.3 Lived and simulated experiences are core

The PRETE framework advocated by this study upholds that an individual’s active participation in
organisation-led DRRM activities intends to create better outcomes for that individual in the event of
natural hazards (e.g., stronger knowledge, improved preparedness); it further contends that these
outcomes potentially fit within the scope of education and/or engagement efforts that utilise existing
connections between individuals who are part of small groups or sectors. As such, individuals’ lived
and simulated experiences form part of their contribution to these organised activities, and local
DRRM councils can potentially use these as points of reference in the design of pre-disaster
communication programs. At this point, the role of the experienced individual is to become the
communication link (the first C of the practical notions of an individual; see sec. 6.3.2) within the
GIDA community and their sectoral community/ies (such as the association of fisherfolk in the
barangay/village, or within their own small organisation outside their GIDA context).

Informant U1 mentioned that, aside from villages, as more organisations and corporations develop
their own disaster management plans, certain groups or sectors request training from council.
Informant I1 also said that the rollout of sectoral training is better than a general assembly training
session because it targets the specific needs of each sector. (Neither of these government informants
implied the complete removal of village assemblies because these are part of the standard operating
procedure set by the National Council.) These reported organisational or sectored requests suggest the
significance of tapping an individual’s common bonds with others that are developed through
socialisation in small group settings for CB-DRRM. As a simple example, simulated hazard
experience can be provided to attendees of a sectorally-organised training session where individuals
share common experiences and context.

Through this proposed process of prioritising a communication process that begins at the individual
level, local DRRM councils gain access to the community’s personal risk perceptions; this matters if
the whole community is to become resilient. If, for example, an individual believes they can withstand
any natural hazard on their own, they will not be encouraged to act on information about advance

192
preparation, or attend to the call for evacuation. Through their social power, this individual’s risk
perception impacts the actions of their family as well, and if this individual possesses a certain amount
of referent power in the community, their actions will influence others around them. This scenario
highlights the relevance of shifting the CB-DRRM approach from impersonal community events to
those that target the basic unit of a small group, which is the individual. In addition, while the
communication process should both emanate from and target the individual, as the example
demonstrates, once this is structurally achieved, the communication potentially continues and expands
to the individual’s familial and social interactions (socialisation) with others.

Perhaps despite its appearance, this recommendation still upholds the fact that Filipino culture is often
communitarian (Andres 1988), as are other Southeast Asian countries. The suggestion to begin the
communication process with the individual occurs in the context of knowing these individuals belong
in other smaller groups and share common experiences and context with others. Furthermore, this idea
potentially moves outwards, as individuals link together through their experiences and contexts. In
addition, this proposal follows the historical development of influence in barangays (villages) in the
Philippines (Romani 1956; Zamora 1967). It can in fact be observed that this approach is, in a way,
currently being tested in the rollout of training to select individuals to become grassroots responders.
However, in the context of achieving a transformative community engagement practice, certain
changes need to be made to move away from the current asymmetrical communication model, where
government officials or representatives take a managerial approach that has no feedback system
(either to the selected individuals, who may be coerced to become responders, or to the community
that resents the partisan approach). There is value in shifting this approach to a symmetrical one
(Grunig & Hunt 1984), wherein feedback is able to impact both communicative conditions and
community engagement processes. As has been pointed out in the previous chapter, the current
method of focussing on grassroots responders alone for DRRM furthers inequalities experienced by
GIDA communities. In particular, the current top-down process cannot see or respond to individuals
who are willing to take a proactive role in disaster preparedness but are not selected to as responders.
As such, current practice spells out inequalities in both communication and community engagement.
To completely disregard an entire community by denying them the training and drills they need
because there are already trained grassroots responders does not approach a transformative level of
engagement. To this end, I assert that where mounting a general assembly is costly for the village, the
local DRRM councils can instead begin to tap organised groups in the community for this training,
such as the youth sector or a women’s group. Overall, these proposals aim for the improvement of the
current DRRM communication and community engagement practices.

This section expands the first C of the 3Cs, which highlights the role of the experienced individual to
become a communication link in disseminating pre-disaster information. This first practical notion of
individuality confirms the significance of simulated or actual disaster experiences as a source of

193
knowledge, and the value of a person’s social network for possible dissemination of pre-disaster
information. The next section presents the second C, the practical notions of an individual, which
tackles the issue of trust.

7.4 Trust is essential in pre-disaster communication

The second C in the practical notion of individuality (see sec 6.3.2) discusses consistency of
information delivery, which, in the long run, develops trust in the communication link. Trust develops
on two heads: trust in the source of information (first C) and the message, and how it is delivered
(second C) by DRRM officials and community leaders. However, the framework that this study
proposes suggests that it is not just those who hold leadership that can become information sources,
but rather anyone in the community can act in this role within the sectors they belong to, because of
their PRE. Even so, why are these proposals for improving the current communication and
community engagement relevant? In simple terms, because it was evident from findings that
approaching pre-disaster communication through individuals in groups or sectors is grounded on trust.
Empirical evidence shows that those who have high levels of trust in the simple information-by-
message-relay type of pre-disaster risk communication are people with lived disaster experiences,
who have been at one time evacuated, and who hold formal and informal leadership positions in the
village. Those who do not trust zone leaders are not yet familiar with the communication and
engagement processes set in place. These people are wary that zone leaders end up hoarding
information because of their immediate access to it. This lack of trust can be traced back to previous
experiences when communication stopped at the level of zone leaders and information was not
handed down by someone in power to their constituents.

Therefore, the role of developing common bonds through socialisation, which may lead to the
establishment of linking pathways, may help resolve trust issues in the community. This study further
argues that common bonds, socialisation, and linking pathways are driven by issues of PRE. People
form bonds through common experiences. As they continue to socialise with like-minded individuals,
they can develop linking pathways to other individuals or groups that can connect them to people with
power. Hence, this study proposes to approach pre-disaster communication through individuals in
small groups or sectors. This approach is also projected as a way of commencing a transformative
community engagement activity that is firmly grounded on communication. Trust can be accorded to
the practical notion of individuality when sources of information are known (such as immediate
family and close relatives). Access to these close contacts assures individuals’ close proximity to
information (and its veracity) and therefore results in consistent and reliable information
dissemination. Often those in vulnerable communities gravitate towards familial and familiar personal
connections, owing to trust in the communal system, even in a first world country like Australia (Teo

194
et al. 2018). In GIDA communities, this also means trust in the local governance. This hierarchy
adheres to the individuals’ layers of influence (see Figure 7.4).

Figure 7.1 visualises the building (sectoral) and breaking (individual social contacts) of information
channels or communication links (first C), and thus highlights how consistency of information
dissemination and trust building come together. In this way, the concept of individuality is
contextualised in small group settings. Later in the process, the information shared within a small
group/sector is disseminated to each individual’s immediate and close social contacts. As such, Figure
7.1 describes a process of operationalising the practical notion of individuality discussed in sec. 6.3.2.

Practically speaking, when an individual is exposed to and develops new knowledge about DRRM,
there is a greater chance that their family will also learn and develop it. Family members may develop
an interest in being trained as rescuers or may even start building a social network by checking on the
situation of their neighbours. A strong social network often equates to strong social cohesion or social
bonds. This common bond is integral in the current practice of local DRRM councils in training first
responders among residents of the village. Without common bonds and social networks formed
through socialisation activities, the spread of information is inhibited by individual silos in the
community.

At this point, communication link/ing and consistency of information dissemination and experiences
(simulated or actual) establish the significance of the individual and individuality in the proposed
framework. The next section completes the 3Cs presented in sec. 6.3.2 by expounding cooperation
and co-creation between and among actors in disaster preparedness activities and programs involving
geographically isolated and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities.

195
Figure 7.1.
Approaching pre-disaster communication at the individual level

Note.The entire analysis is visualised in this (original) diagram, which indicates that an individual in a small group
setting demonstrates potential as a pre-disaster communication conduit. At this level, acquiring information does not
begin with a family but with an individual. This will have bigger impact if that individual is the decision maker of a
household or the one who went to school and thus acquired education. The diagram also shows how the individual can
become a conduit for community engagement. The communication flow from the individual to the family to other
social connections provides that communication shifts from top-down (or transactional) engagement to horizontal
communication (or transformational engagement). Source: Author.

7.5 The impact of social network in community engagement

Implementing the proposed individuals-in-small-groups approach requires rethinking the current

rollout of disaster preparedness programs so that they tap cooperation and co-creation strategies,
which is the third C of the practical notion of individuality. How will this approach extend the impact
of the current pre-disaster communication and community engagement practice? How can this
approach enhance the identified factors—PRE—that may aid in pre-disaster communication and
community engagement?

Cooperation and co-creation are arguably grounded on PRE. The context of GIDA communities
creates a form of common experience that impacts how expansive an individual’s social network can
be, and this offers potential for community relationships to be empowered through common
experiences. In addition, in such small communities, an individuals’ relationships may result in them
gaining a position or role that gives them some kind of power in their social network. This position or
role can be established by many things, for example, economic power is possessed by those who own
a sari-sari (local convenience) store; this very likely gives them access to electricity and the means to

196
own a television, which in turn give them access to information and knowledge; if they can read and
write, they may also have access to referent power. In the Philippine context, this concept of gaining
position through power can be traced back to the way certain roles were filled in pre-Hispanic villages
(Romani 1956; Zamora 1967).

In light of both the problems and the potential of centring the DRRM communication and engagement
process in the individual, one way to move forward seems to be to strengthen the existing
interpersonal or face-to-face communication that already works so well in GIDA communities. The
shift required is toward targeting the individual, rather than the entire village, as the main receiver of
DRRM information. Individuals can also switch roles from being receivers of DRRM messages to
being senders of these messages in the village (the existing programs already intend for this to
happen, but the success of it is hampered by managerial process). Once an individual becomes a
genuine source of information for their immediate family, they can become an information junction
for distant relatives and neighbours (see Figure 7.1).

Changing perspective from approaching pre-disaster communication in big groups to utilising the
power of individuals in small groups provides a sense of ownership and participation from the point
of view of the participants in the overall process. This method of engaging people in smaller numbers
(i.e., families and individuals), is similar to the way the conditional cash grant program is
implemented, and the local DRRM councils in both field sites are aware the effectiveness of this
program and intend to replicate it. Although it is expensive to target communities in smaller numbers,
in consideration of the grounding of the proposed model, it appears it might prove beneficial in the
long run. Taking these factors together suggests the value of testing the method in these communities,
also harnessing the impetus provided by the positive vote given to the proposed Department of
Disaster Resiliency. Even before the Department of Disaster Resiliency comes into being, the
potential impact of this proposed approach for community knowledge and resiliency offsets the cost
of its implementation.

The PRE concepts can also be applied to the current context of training and drills assemblies. Show-
and-tell and gamification are two possible ways to both draw the participants towards one another
through their shared experiences, and avoid what Garcia (2010) identified, that participants in training
and drills in the Philippines find topics too academic and beyond their reach. Incorporating short
breaks in the sessions could provide a ‘breather’ from the highly technical and jargon-filled lectures,
during which individuals could share their previous disaster experiences (such as through activities
like show-and-tell). Gamification of training and drills is already seen as a way of involving
participants in learning, and this style of engagement also shifts the sessions away from lecture type
training. Incorporating PRE concepts into these sessions would thus not be difficult, because local
DRRM councils of both areas already utilise games to engage their audiences and hold competitions
between representatives from different villages. Although this process is still costly for the villages,

197
and it still poses threats of inequality (especially to those who are not chosen as representatives), if
localised at the village level, gamification could potentially provide an answer to the problem of
continuity in communicating pre-disaster information. If a simple show-and-tell exercise during
training and drills or gamification allows a local voice to communicate personal pre-disaster risk
information by example and experience, training and drills then shift beyond education (teaching) and
extend towards community engagement. This transition subscribes to Dufty’s (2011) observation that
engaging communities should involve top-down (education) and bottom-up (engagement) approaches.
As such, this study provides further empirical evidence that pre-disaster communication practices with
GIDA communities should contain both education and engagement aspects. This study extends its
argument to cover all types of communities defined by Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi and Herremans
(2010), regardless of whether they are based on geographical location, regardless of the level and type
of interaction among members, and regardless of their individual or group identity. This is the reason
why the individual-in-small-groups approach is relevant: The individual is part of each of these three
types of communities.

The current method, which includes organising public events such as training and drills in community
assemblies has partially worked for GIDA communities, but its longitudinal impact has not been
evaluated, and this study identifies various implementation problems. It certainly does not, at present,
adhere to the criteria of an effective disaster communication practice that is reliable and continuously
communicated (Rodríguez et al. 2007). Reliability, in the context of GIDA communities, is
contextualised in communication infrastructure, and in this sense, continuous communication is
problematic because the frequency of community assemblies is dependent on budget, project
prioritisation, and other political complications discussed in this research. An effective disaster
communication follows the cycle of hearing, understanding, believing, confirming, and responding
(Rodríguez et al. 2007). Whether GIDA communities reach the other stages of this cycle beyond
hearing in the context of pre-disaster communication currently cannot be measured until an area is hit
by a natural hazard. Government informants U1, U3, and I4 opined that this is their only way of
knowing if their disaster preparedness programs are effective or not.

As this study highlights, and in agreement with informant preference to use the 4Ps as a model for
future DRRM communication, rather than targeting the community at large in the manner of
delivering these public events, pre-disaster communication efforts need to be addressed to the
individual in small group settings. As previously discussed, an individual has influence over someone
and this influence is brought about by cultural and universally accepted factors including (but not
limited to) patriarchal society, social relationships, experiences, age, financial status, property, and
assumed or legitimate leadership role. Tomas Andres’ (1988) aptly called these factors the premise
behind the Filipino Values System. This value system does not only affect personal, social, and
familial relationships. It also impacts how government projects are being rolled out.

198
As applied to pre-disaster communication and community engagement, Tomas Andres’ (1988)
Filipino Values System can be contextualised at two levels—macro and micro. Examination of these
two levels demonstrates that PRE act as important variables that aid in the shift from the education to
the engagement level (Dufty 2011). Looking at the overall political structure of DRRM councils, the
provincial and municipal DRRM councils are at the macro level of governance and implementation.
The macro level is affected by political uncertainties and other complications (see sec. 5.5). Positional
power impacts the process of responder selection. Moreover, relationships born out of power may not
be long-lasting in terms of the need to create DRRM continuity. This was observed in the matter of
coterminous employees, where experiences get cut short by political terms. Power, relationships, and
experiences (PRE) are short lived at this level. The micro level is the village itself. It may be small in
comparison with the municipal or provincial level, however, villages are the most complex since they
are not governed simply by rules and regulations set by the government. Villages are comprised of
people, who are not ‘empty glasses waiting to be filled’ with information; rather, social power,
relationships, and experience are implicit in situ and affect people’s relationships towards others.
Experiences can also be acknowledged as the basis of social power and relationships that impact an
individual’s decision-making. Therefore, the PRE elements are long-lasting at the micro level and are
partly handed down from generation to generation.

From their first appearance as purely transactional, the current transitional communication and
engagement practices have been reviewed and ways of reaching a transformational communication
and engagement level have been investigated (Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi & Herremans 2010).
Cooperation and co-creation that are grounded in PRE carry positive effects in communicating pre-
disaster risk information in GIDA communities. If this is activated via the individuals-in-small-groups
approach, there is a possibility of transitioning from education to engagement. Although cooperation
and co-creation are not novel concepts in design-related disaster communication and management
studies, the GIDA context forces the reassessment of pre-disaster risk communication programs in the
light of social inequality and the digital and communication divide.

This investigation is relevant as it provides voice to the voiceless, gives representation to those so far
unrepresented, and contributes to public scholarship. The research project also demonstrates how the
sharing of past disaster experiences can foster both relationships and pre-disaster knowledge building,
providing empirical evidence for Spialek and Houston’s (2018b) argument of the relevance of sharing
and listening to stories in cultivating community relationships and building community resilience.
However, the results of this study do differ from that of Spialek and Houston, which observed citizens
connecting with one other through an actual disaster experience. I argue that simulated experiences
grounded in people’s past experiences and cultural backgrounds can be utilised to strengthen pre-
disaster communication and engagement efforts. Hence, this research pushes for the convergence of
social power (P), relationships (R), and experiences (E) in pre-disaster communication and

199
community engagement programs, and asserts that this will allow pre-disaster risk communication
and community engagement processes to organically develop and flourish at the village level.

7.6 The PRETE Framework

The various conceptualisations of community, individuality, and PRE that were discussed in the
previous chapter combine to form the PRETE Framework. In reference to the research gap identified
in sec. 3.3, this framework proposes to create a bridge for GIDA communities and government
between the transitional and transformational levels of engagement. Moreover, this framework is
based on the data gathered from government and community informants in geographically isolated
and socioeconomically disadvantaged areas in the Philippines. As such its applicability is assumed to
cover areas classified as either geographically isolated or socioeconomically disadvantaged, or both.

7.6.1 Bridging the gap between transitional and transformative engagement using the
PRETE Framework
In the previous chapter I discussed how PRE can be used as variables that may aid in shifting pre-
disaster communication from the transitional level of community engagement to the transformational
level. The PRE elements are also positioned as variables that may improve pre-disaster
communication as well as make it inclusive, so to avoid creating more levels of social inequality.
Subsumed in the proposed framework, these three variables intend to capture the reality of those
living in the margins, whose grassroots accounts are often left out in the national DRRM narrative that
is dominated by those in lowland and overly populated areas covered by the media. This research,
based on the narratives of the displaced, isolated, and unreported, proposes a framework that is
grounded on the CEC (Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi & Herremans 2010) and the Filipino Values
System (Andres 1988). The framework intends to consider the following questions in assessing
current community conditions:

• How can local DRRM councils utilise past experiences, actual or simulated, as positive
reinforcement for individuals and communities to act on disaster preparedness
messages and plans?
• How can local government utilise social power in engaging communities?
• How can social relationships function as conduits of pre-disaster communication and
community engagement practices?

These questions are based on the current implementation of disaster preparedness programs of local
DRRM councils in both field sites. (Note. The compound term ‘disaster preparedness programs’ is
used as a catch-all phrase that covers both pre-disaster communication modes and tools and
community engagement activities.) After assessing the current modes and tools of communication
used and the level of community engagement in the GIDA field sites, it appears that current practice

200
is grounded in the efforts of building bridges between government and the local community (see
Chapter 5). As such, the current stance in community engagement in both field sites shows the initial
efforts of government to build bridges. Problems encountered by government include the alleged lack
of cooperation from local communities, changing political leadership that results in changes in
priority projects, and some GIDA concerns that are also applicable in non-GIDA locations. On the
side of local communities, concerns surrounding the current process include trust issues with local
leaders and difficulties with communication infrastructure—whether it is mediated or face-to-face.

7.6.2 The PRE Transformative Engagement (PRETE) Framework

The current disaster preparedness programs targeting GIDA communities lack clear methods in
reaching the highest level of the CEC (Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi & Herremans 2010). Maintaining
a reliable and consistent pre-disaster communication flow becomes problematic because of the
multiple social and spatial inequalities experienced by GIDA communities. The various
communication modes and tools currently in place do not reach the people living in these areas due to
communication infrastructure problems. The level of understanding reached regarding the
communication modes tools that are used is also affected by illiteracy in the GIDA communities.
These observed realities adhere to what Montemayor and Custodio (2014) identified as setbacks in
communicating risk in the Philippines despite government efforts. Current efforts address, albeit with
inconsistencies, the transactional and transitional levels of engagement. However, since the
communication process is asymmetrical, the trajectory towards reaching a transformational level is
currently uncertain. Moreover, the concept of community engagement needs to be revisited as it is
being implemented at the local level. Currently, community engagement is implemented by instituting
groups like the Alliance of Grassroots Responders, and membership selection for this group excludes
the majority of the community. In addition, the ability of the community to survive when facing
natural hazards is dependent on a select group of individuals. This kind of transitional communication
and community engagement practice is already considered to be at the transformational level by local
DRRM councils. However, a transformational level of engagement means more than developing the
leadership capacity of community members. This level also demands community participation in
decision-making. The individuals living in GIDA communities should be able to gauge for themselves
how important disaster preparedness is to them. Given empirical data, rather than relying on mere
information dissemination to the people through drills and training, transformational learning needs to
be the aim of all disaster preparedness efforts. Therefore, this research introduces the PRE
Transformative Engagement Framework (PRETE Framework; see Figure 7.3).

The framework is envisioned to take place between the transitional and transformational levels in
Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi and Herremans’ CEC (2010; see Figure 7.2). At this level,
communication and engagement activities are geared towards collaboration (transitional) and

201
empowerment (transformational). Data from the field show that the premature conceptualisation of
community engagement and the implementation of projects under this framework does not provide a
clear trajectory in terms of empowering residents of GIDA communities. Therefore, my proposed
framework highlights PRE as relevant variables in empowering local communities. Empowering
people is seen as the zenith of a transformative level of community engagement. Empowerment can
be operationalised as strengthening people’s risk perception and pre-disaster knowledge and making
them more open to government collaborations and community alliances. Empowerment can be
achieved if PRE, at the onset, act as intervening factors that affect the information-seeking and -
sharing practices of individuals via a multiplier effect that enables them to reach out to other residents
of any type of community, especially those in GIDAs.

Figure 7.2.
Author’s visualisation of proposed intersection of PRETE Framework in the existing CEC of
Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi & Herremans

•Inform
Transitional •Empower
•Passive •Improve leadership
•Educate •Consulting & involving •Intensive alliances
•'Arm's length' •Acting & deciding
engagement together
•Participating
•Interactive
collaborations
Transactional Transformational

Communication modes and tools

Proposed application of PRETE Framework

Note. Source: Author, and ‘When suits meet roots: The antecedents and consequences of community engagement
strategy,’ by F Bowen, A Newenham-Kahindi and I Herremans, 2010, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 95, no. 2, p. 304.
Copyright 2010 by Springer.

The acronym PRE is used in this framework to connote that the framework applies to the PRE-
disaster phase of disaster management, focussing on disaster risk communication under the disaster
preparedness theme. The suffix pre- also means before or prior to, and this signifies that the variables

202
stipulated in the framework, which are based on accounts by informants from GIDA communities,
may aid in the shift from the transitional to the transformational level of community engagement. I
argue that the process of transformational learning begins prior to fully transitioning to a
transformative community engagement practice.

Given these, the PRETE Framework is presented in Figure 7.3.

Figure 7.3.
Proposed PRE Transformative Engagement (PRETE) Framework

Note. Source: Author, 2021.

The PRETE Framework is grounded on the PRE of people living in geographic isolation with
socioeconomic hardship. The PRE aspect of the framework (grey spiral) highlights that power,
relationships, and experiences act as conduits to transformative engagement. This framework also
investigates the role of individuals’ value systems and culture (white spiral, green text label), as these
affect how people frame and respond to messages. In addition, the diagram clearly shows that there
are two main actors in the framework—the sender (disaster management council) and the receiver
(the individual/public). However, this framework also reflects the possible duality of the role of the
receiver, which can shift so that the receiver turns into the sender of the message. This change of roles
still follows the basic criteria set by the CEC (Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi & Herremans 2010).

The intention of the PRETE framework is to aid in communicating information to and compelling
action from a target population, with the ultimate goal of community empowerment and resilience.
The identification of transmission and role interchange points provides an avenue that allows
government and community to work together to start building disaster resiliency. This can be
achieved through cooperation and co-creation between these two agents of communication, even
despite issues of socioeconomic and geographical inequalities and a digital divide. The PRETE
framework specifically aims to achieve reliability and continuity of information dissemination by
providing feedback to the origin of the message (top-down and bottom-up arrow). It also allows a
reversal of role from message receiver to message sender, directed towards her/his own social
network (spiral). As such, the PRETE framework can be visualised between individuals who represent
a family, clan, or sector in the community. This framework does not discredit the top-down

203
communication approach. Rather, it places importance on role reversal, which covers community
participation, ergo empowerment, resulting in an active and effective community engagement
communication strategy.

This framework intends to achieve its objective via utilisation of PRE (grey spiral) elements. As such,
the PRE process can follow a top-down approach. This can be observed when government uses its
legitimate power to build relationships with its constituents creating an experience and culture of open
communication. It also means government can utilise people’s social power to help them build
relationships among themselves in the community. These relationships are those grounded on
common experiences as well as familial relations.

In addition, from the bottom-up, an individual carries their personal experiences with them. Grouping
individuals who share common experiences builds a tight aggregate that is bound by certain
commonalities. They influence and are influenced by other people around them. This scenario means
people are provided with an avenue in which to utilise their social powers to impact those around
them. When grouped together, these individuals will possess a bigger and perhaps better power to
build linkages with the government. However, this framework also acknowledges the fact that its
success in moving upwards or towards the government is dependent on the strength of people’s social
relations (see sec. 5.4.1: Interpersonal communication and its issues) and the influence of power (see
5.5: Political complications and leadership instability). In the context of these possible issues, I
purposefully included both value system and culture as buffers. I argue that if PRE is grounded on a
positive value system that is influenced by people’s culture, the implementation of the PRETE
Framework can lead to positive results.

7.6.3 The actors and other elements in the Framework

This subsection describes the proposed PRETE Framework as a process that involves the interaction
and intersection of actors and elements to assist in communicating and engaging marginalised and
vulnerable communities such as GIDA barangays/villages. Following the process is assumed to usher
a transformative level of engagement, as shown in Figure 7.2. This proposed framework follows the
recommendation of Montemayor (2015) to use western models (in this study, CEC and CEF) and
entwined it with a local theoretical lens (in this study, Filipino Values System).

Specifically, this section presents the proposed PRETE Framework, which:

• Caters for two-way communication, with the availability of a reversal of roles between
actors (government and community), as demanded by Dufty’s CEF (2011);
• Showcases that reversal of roles transitions through various levels of power, social
relationships, and actual or simulated experiences; and

204
• Describes a top-down approach that utilises PRE in sequence, while the bottom-up
approach follows the process in reverse, with experiences becoming the basis of the
approach that ascends via first, social relationships, and then power.

Figure 7.3 contains four grey and white image circles where the white and grey spirals intersect; these
represent the actors involved in pre-disaster communication: village/barangay, sectoral/small group,
family, individual. The placement of each actor in the framework represents the communication
approach the process wants to convey. As mentioned, this framework does not intend to discredit any
one approach, especially in the pre-disaster communication context, but rather, with Dufty (2011),
advocates both top-down and bottom-up communication, as well as that moving
horizontally/sideways.

The top-down approach begins with the organisation or group handling emergency management. This
group can either be the government or non-government organisations. For this research, I labelled it
‘disaster management council’ since this is the government body I investigated. The bottom-up
approach begins with the individual, spiralling up to family, neighbours, and village levels. Disaster
communicators and planners can design their communication plans around PRE. In addition, as noted,
the framework includes another spiral that overlaps with PRE and represents value system and
culture. This spiral influences and is influenced by PRE in an infinite manner, albeit in consideration
of the amount of time needed for changes to be observed.

The element of experience is placed at the bottom of the spiral because experience is an inherent
knowledge of an individual. Experiences can be transmitted to other people and translated into
actions. Relationships allow an individual to share their experiences, culture, beliefs, context, and
planned actions. Therefore, moving upward in the spiral, it is proper to acknowledge that relationships
are formed based on an individual’s experiences, which are processed according to their culture,
beliefs, and context. These relationships can be familial and extend to an individual’s neighbourhood.

Familial relationships are based on how ‘family villages’ were formed during pre-Hispanic time in the
Philippines (Romani 1956; Zamora 1967). Historically, Zamora (1967) recounts that a
village/barangay was composed of a group of boats carrying family members, relatives, friends, and
their slaves who migrated to the Philippines from neighbouring islands. Once situated in a place, they
built their houses together and appointed a village leader (local term: Datu) who would perform roles
such as protector, legislator, implementor, and adjudicator. The Datu was often assisted by other men
in the village who were once chieftains. This means pre-Hispanic villages were essentially family
villages; the leader was the wealthiest and strongest among the men, or their leadership was passed on
through inheritance (Zamora 1967).

Contemporary experience, however, tells us that more benefits are reaped from forming relationships
when individuals are grouped into several sectors (see Figure 7.1). This means taking the concept of

205
the pre-Hispanic barangay discussed by Zamora (1967) and Romani (1956) and applying it to
contemporary times—that is, as sectoral representation. In his discussion of community development,
Andres (1988) points out that an individual’s value system is not formed in isolation from other
systems. Placed in the middle of small group, an individual develops another layer of their value
system based on the rules and practices that form the group’s organisational culture. This other layer
influences the way an individual responds to certain stimuli within the group, but they can carry this
value system with them to the original layer, which is familial (see Figure 7.4).

Figure 7.4.
Layers of influence of an individual’s value system

Individual

Familial

Sectoral

Note. Source: Author, 2021.

Figure 7.4 shows the micro influences that exist and function in close proximity to an individual’s
processing, responding, and acting-on pre-disaster risk communication messages. It also shows the
relationships an individual may currently possess. Tomas Andres (1988) highlights that the value
system of an individual is also based on their relationships with others in a specific order:

family → neighbours → village → municipality → province

This list can go on up to the national level, but empirical data suggest the level of importance
decreases as it goes higher. Tying experiences and relationships together, it can be deduced that an
individual’s knowledge affects their own decisions and these impact their immediate family, extended
family, neighbours, and so on, to the entire village. Going beyond the village level requires the
inclusion of higher concepts such as local politics and multiple sociocultural backgrounds, and
demands a broader understanding of the impact of such aggregate action for the whole municipality,
city, or province. Tomas Andres (1988 p. 32) coined this ‘the total development of man’. Ordinary
residents in GIDA communities, for instance, limit their concern towards other people in term of their
micro-level influences (see Figure 7.4). If you are an elected individual with legitimate power,

206
however, your concern should go beyond personal gain. Yet, preparing a community for any calamity
demands examination of the way an individual protects themselves and their immediate family.
Therefore, it is not accurate to say that a village’s DRRM is weak, or the people are uncooperative.
This perspective only looks at the village as a whole, and ignores the individuals that make up the
village.

The final intervening variable is power. It is argued that, with enough experiences and social
relationships, an individual gains a certain influence that they can use. This influence can exist within
a close social circle, such as their family, but it can also expand to other relatives and neighbours.
Experiences and relationships form social networks, and these can become sources of referent or
legitimate power that allow an individual to exercise their reward and coercive powers. All of these
emerge because both the individual and their social network believe they possess an expert power that
is brought about by their lived or simulated experiences (the latter acquired from the local DRRM
council). In Figure 7.3, this action is signified by the arrow (visible at either end) that cuts through the
spiral. Lastly, to make this framework truly transformational, the feedback system is presented in two
ways: direct feedback from the individual to the local DRRM council, and indirect feedback that goes
through a spiral process, such as dissemination through the grapevine that moves laterally and
horizontally. This second type of feedback also requires a careful evaluation methodology from the
local DRRM council, an aspect that can be considered for future research. However, this study argues
that evaluative practices can also be perceived as a means of ‘measuring one’s privileges’. In this
context, privileges refers to those who have access to multiple communication modes and tools
because of their socioeconomic standing in the community and/or the leadership role they perform in
a village (which brings them closer and gives them immediate access to pre-disaster information), and
their subsequent referent power, which enables them to have a wider social network. Careful planning
is required so that the evaluation process encompasses the entire spectrum of experiences of all
community members, not just those in positions of formal leadership.

The action of PRE in the framework is different from what is represented by the intersection of actors
(i.e., the white and grey pictorial circles). The latter only enumerate the possible interactions any
individual in a community can have, while PRE is used as a binding agent in any interaction between
actors that may lead to the expansion of their social network. Thus, PRE aids in the formation or
destruction of any social relationship within the community. In general, PRE affects actor
intersections.

The point of view of government offers a different perspective on utilising PRE, because the approach
they use is top-down and relies on the legitimate power they hold as implementers of the National
Plan at the local level. Given that local DRRM councils initiate pre-disaster communication activities,
the disaster management council can tap its legitimate power and resources as a government
organisation to reach out to people beyond or outside the macro perspective of a barangay/village and

207
connect with various sectors within that community. This can be achieved by tapping the same
variables (PRE) used in the bottom-up process. For example, villages are divided into puroks (zones)
and this division can be utilised by the government as an instance of the sectoral approach given that
the local government (i.e., barangay/village level elected officials) possess power over organised
groups in the village. Once this sectoral approach is established, the government can start helping
communities form social relationships that are grounded on common bonds with other members of
that purok/small group by providing more avenues for sectoral meetings and consultations as a way of
fulfilling the cooperation and co-creation aspect of individuality (see sec. 6.3.2). An example of this
government-led effort is the method of implementing the 4Ps program of the Department of Social
Welfare and Development. The government then functions as a linking pathway between this small
group of people and others that hold power, once socialisation or bridging avenues are set. An
example of socialisation or bridging activities at the village level is the village fiesta or sports festival
organised by the barangay LGU, where people compete with other groups representing their
purok/zone. Activities like this allow people to interact with other residents of the wider community.
Local DRRM councils can even extend their reach up to the individual level if their experiences
(simulated or lived) are utilised and shared with other members of the community. To visualise these
directional actions/connections:

[Individual] → experiences, relationships, power → [Government] (bottom-up)

[Government] → power, relationships, experiences → [Individual] (top-down)

The directional actions/connections shown above are also the suggested sequence of variable
utilisation in the framework.

Returning to the white spiral in Figure 7.3, which represents the value system and culture discussed
by Tomas Andres (1988), this spiral influences the solid spiral (PRE) either positively or negatively.
It is represented as a clear (appears white) spiral, to connote that this aspect is permeable to external
influences and it can change, albeit with consideration for the length of time required for change to
occur. The styling here also connotes that the government can tap this permeability and utilise value
systems and culture in their messaging. Despite its permeability, the elements represented by this
broken spiral do affect the PRE triage. For instance, it can be argued that culture is something that
influences experience, but at the same time, we ‘experience the world through culture’ (Highmore
2016, p. 95). Many scholars have struggled to define culture because of its mutability. In 1962, T.S.
Eliot defined culture in his book Notes Towards the Definition of Culture by providing a list of
activities that English people engage in on a day-to-day basis. Defining culture in this manner means
viewing it as a way of life. Recent scholarship upholds this definition, however, it also broadens its
scope to include four ways of looking at culture. Terry Eagleton (2016, p. 1) argues that culture can be

208
 (1) a body of artistic and intellectual work, (2) a process of spiritual and intellectual
development, (3) the values, customs, beliefs and symbolic practices by which men and
women live; and (4) a whole way of life.

Drawing these definitions towards the GIDA context through the element of values, in his discussion
on the sources of Filipino values, Andres (1988) observes, ‘the Filipino derives his values from
society, parents, church, peers, and norms he learned from others’ (p. 31). Society changes, which
means that norms and practices change; the only constant is the variability of the impact of these
values on how people act or react to certain stimuli not necessarily related to DRRM. Their reactions
are rooted in culture.

The permeability of value systems and culture can be tapped by both sender (government) and
receiver (individual) in the communication process. Local DRRM councils can utilise value systems
and culture in the actions of PRE towards the community; given the multicultural backgrounds of its
residents, they particularly need to be aware of various local cultural/value system pitfalls in GIDA
communities. For instance, the value of bayanihan (communal unity) in the Philippines combats or
counters the kanya-kanya (to each his own) system previously mentioned. Although in some contexts
the tayo-tayo (just us) system works, it can also be extremely exclusive and thus divisive. Tayo-tayo
and kanya-kanya are responses of those who experience inequalities in life, and reflect a need to act
so their family can survive; this is known as the makaraos lang mentality. Attendance at drills and
training because of the promised food packs as dole outs is an example of this. These exclusive
cultural value systems (i.e., casting doubt towards groups outside their familial relations) are also tied
to some supernaturalistic beliefs within an extremely structured style of norms and principles (Andres
1988; see Figure 7.4). Table 7-1 describes some common Filipino values observed in both field sites
that can be utilised to make a significant impact on the PRE and the individual following a bottom-up
approach, as well as various local attitudes and values that need to be understood so that potential
negative outcomes can be avoided.

Table 7-1.
Proposed application of Filipino Values System in pre-disaster communication and community
engagement

Stages in pre-disaster risk communication Filipino Values System

Planning At this stage, the Filipino’s concept of vertical

relationships can be tapped in terms of age, position,
At this stage, the concern is to come up with
wealth, and power (Andres 1988), as per:
concrete, understandable, accessible, and
continuous messaging directed towards GIDA • rich over poor,
communities and other communities experiencing • more powerful over less powerful, and
socioeconomic isolation and inequalities, regardless

209
 Stages in pre-disaster risk communication
of location.
The main actor in the communication process is the
government. Therefore, it is suggested that the
government, through the local DRRM councils, tap
into specific value systems that may ensure the
participation of local communities. Collaboration is
in progress when local DRRM councils begin to tap
the individual. It is the goal of a transitional
engagement to maintain collaborative efforts that
may extend to people empowerment.
Organising
At this stage, the concern is to build relationships
between local DRRM councils and individuals. It is
also essential to create an avenue for all four levels
of interaction (individual, family, neighbour, and
Filipino Values System
• older relative over younger relative.
These vertical relationships are also common in
ASEAN countries. Vertical relationships even exist
in workplaces. Seniority is upheld. This seniority
can be in terms of rank or number of years in
service.
Lateral relationships are also common and are
observed in the following contexts:
• relatives over neighbours;
• neighbours and zone-mates over other
people from other zones;
• villagers over outsiders; and
• people with commonalities (language,
religion, cultural heritage) over those
with different language, religion, and
cultural heritage.
Local DRRM councils should be aware that there is
an endemic grouping in the upland village based on
vertical and lateral relationships. This is also true
among GIDA barangays/villages when social
relationships go beyond familial ties and expand into
cultural ties, like the indigenous peoples.
As communicators, local DRRM councils should
watch out for the following Filipino values: mañana
habit (performing tasks in a later time) and Filipino
Time (always late). Filipinos also have a pahingi
(mendicancy/dole-out) mentality, which may be
perceived as laging nakasandal sa pader (total
dependence).
Total dependence was observed in the upland
village. Dole-out system was also observed in the
upland village.
Bayanihan (helping each other) and nakatayo sa
sariling paa (independence) should be highlighted as
essential parts of pre-disaster risk communication.
This makes disaster preparedness a form of personal
advocacy, rather than just a government project.
However, both bayanihan and nakatayo sa sariling
210
 Stages in pre-disaster risk communication
village) to build relationships among themselves.
This can be done through sectoral organisation that
is grounded in the pre-existing commonalities
(experiences) between members.
The local DRRM councils remain as the main actor
in the communication process. However, at this
stage, people can organise themselves and start a
lateral flow of communication.
Filipino Values System
paa can be viewed as a form of privilege that is
enjoyed by those living in lowland and accessible
areas.
It is also advised to watch out for the following
Filipino values—ningas cogon (good at starting
things but never finishes) and inggitan (jealousy).
Utak talangka (dragging people down) is often the
result of inggitan. Pre-disaster communication
should be crafted in such a way that it will not be
perceived as panghihimasok (interference) in other
people’s lives.

Bayanihan and nakatayo sa sariling paa were

observed in the island village. Inggitan was also
observed in both field sites. This inggitan is rooted
on both vertical (residents vs zone leaders) and
lateral (residents vs residents who are teachers in
the local school) relationships.

In consideration of the stakes, community expectations of local DRRM councils are already high; as
Table 7-1 demonstrates, however, the actions of local DRRM councils need to move to another level
if they are to appropriately tailor the initial top-down communication process aptly named by Dufty
(2011) as the education aspect of community engagement. However, both the sender and receiver of
messages should be mindful of varying value system and culture as these affect PRE. Both DRRM
planners and implementers should consider value system and culture in the design and
implementation of their communication programs. In general, value system and culture affect PRE.

The LGUs represented as disaster management councils in the PRETE framework communicate pre-
disaster information and engage local communities to take part in building resiliency. The local
DRRM council need to provide avenues for better transactional and transitional modes and tools of
communication, as well as those for feedback, to ensure a transformational community engagement
level. This holds true for all local DRRM councils, not just in the Philippines but also those in
neighbouring Southeast Asian countries that face natural hazards perennially.

This proposed framework is grounded in the data collected in the Philippines, as well as other disaster
research that deals with communities experiencing different types of social inequalities. Marlowe and
colleagues (2018) point out the important of reach, relevance, receptiveness, and relationships in
engaging diverse communities, but the PRE Transformative Engagement (PRETE) Framework also
highlights the enormity of the government’s role as main actor in pre-disaster communication and
disaster preparedness. This goes back to Dufty’s (2011) CEF, which asserts that in engaging

211
communities to be proactive in building resiliency, a top-down flow of information cannot be
dismissed. This aspect provides the education part and is the role of the government. Bowen,
Newenham-Kahindi and Herremans (2010) consider this the early aspect of community engagement,
and call it transactional engagement. Transaction is generally seen as an exchange of goods or
services between two entities. In this instance, the transaction is between the government and the
community, albeit via various stages and bureaucracies.

The PRETE Framework also resembles the idea upheld by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) in the United States, that disaster preparedness should be treated as a cycle (Torres
2019), but it extends the process and involves the government. FEMA’s disaster preparedness cycle
begins with the individual identifying threats and ends with them evaluating the possible damages that
they may incur during calamities. As such, FEMA’s disaster preparedness cycle puts the role of the
government in the background. Its ‘invisibility’ in this sense assumes that people are already equipped
with the knowledge and technology to conduct a do-it-yourself assessment. In the GIDA community
context, this means recognising that, prior to giving attention to the disaster preparedness cycle,
people are equipped with pre-disaster knowledge that includes such things as the indigenous peoples’
way of predicting hazards, and the years of experiences fisherfolk have in ‘reading’ the sea.

Finally, the PRETE Framework is grounded in cooperation and co-creation between and among the
government and the community, especially those living in GIDAs. However, its applicability extends
beyond the GIDA context of this study. As Sujarwoto and Tampubolon (2016) argue, spatial
inequalities are present within and beyond the rural and urban dichotomy. Their study suggests that in
an urban setting, space is measured by distance. The case of GIDA communities indicates that spatial
inequalities include both distance and topography and that an individual’s pre-disaster information
situation in these communities is driven by the interplay of their PRE. My proposed individualistic
approach to pre-disaster communication and community engagement considered distance and
topography as initial barriers to DRRM-related communication and engagement practices. An
individual’s PRE was initially identified in this study as the ‘choke-up points’ to effective pre-disaster
communication and community engagement practices (see Chapter 6). However, these choke-up
points can also be used to combat the inequalities brought about by geographic distance and
topography, as the people within these communities can work together to lessen their distance from
the outside world and the internal distance they experience in their communities. Hence, while the
PRETE Framework is designed to focus on and address issues to the people living in GIDA contexts
experiencing various kinds of inequalities, it is hoped that its application will extend to other contexts.

This subsection has highlighted the significance of merging the current top-down approach with a
bottom-up approach that gives equal significance to the inputs of the individual. This participation
goes back to the 3Cs of the practical notion of individuality (see sec. 6.3.2), and examines the role of
communication link/ing, consistency of messaging (as regards building trust), and cooperation and co-

212
creation approaches. It has also presented the way the PRETE Framework can be used to bridge the
research gap identified within the communication and community engagement spectrum of Bowen,
Newenham-Kahindi and Herremans (2010; see Figure 3.5).

7.7 Summary

This chapter has presented a new approach in communicating with and engaging GIDA communities,
through individuals in small groups. This approach is grounded in empirical data and can be justified
in three ways: (a) that it has been proven effective in another program (4P) and this program’s
replicability is being eyed by local DRRM councils; (b) that addressing the pre-disaster concerns of
people in small groups allows greater message retention and promotes easier recollection; and (c) that
addressing people who are already grouped together based on their specific, existing commonalities is
easier to manage than the current approach of mass community gatherings.

The individual-in-small-groups approach harnesses three components of small groups: (a) common
bonds, which are formed through (b) socialisation, which itself may lead to the development or
discovery of (c) linking pathways to those people who are in power. These three components scaffold
the way individuals create and strengthen their social networks, and as such become components of
social networks, providing justification for why the individuals-in-small-groups approach can yield
positive benefits in both pre-disaster communication and community engagement. In the long run, this
method stands to equip more people with information that aids in their decision-making in relation to
developing precautionary measures against natural hazards. Common bonds, socialisation, and linking
pathways also lead to power, relationships, and experiences (PRE). These three components of social
networks thus spell-out what PRE can do in relation to pre-disaster communication and community
engagement.

This chapter provides specific examples regarding how to capitalise on the social networks that build
the PRE of residents in GIDA communities. These include show-and-tell activities during training and
drills, and gamification. Gamifying aspects of disaster preparedness is one potential way of addressing
the problem of continuity of information communication. If some aspects of disaster preparedness can
be gamified and localised, playing the game becomes a method of continued DRRM communication.

Given these potentials, this chapter has proposed the PRE Transformative Engagement Framework
(PRETE Framework). This framework is relevant not only in the field of pre-disaster communication,
but in other areas of study as well. The elements contained in PRE are broad, and their applicability
can be correspondingly extensive and expansive. The PRETE Framework, although applied in the
context of GIDA communities in this study, is also applicable to the three definitions of community
advocated by Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi and Herremans (2010). Moreover, despite its Philippine
context, the Framework’s applicability extends beyond the confines of geographical territory, as it is

213
grounded on people’s culture and tradition, which dictate how power is gained, how relationships are
formed, and how experiences are utilised.

The proposed framework aims to introduce potential connections between the communication modes
and tools used in pre-disaster communication and community engagement that are used within the
context of spatial or geographical isolation and other socioeconomic inequalities. A local state of
calamity or disaster often goes unobserved when impacted populations are small, and incidents
affecting communities with smaller populations go unreported. This leads to the exclusion of potential
help from other organisations and individuals outside government. In context of this, the proposed
framework intends to create new connections that enable these communities to have open access to
government and non-government support in building their own resiliency.

The framework also aims to overcome the boundaries created by GIDA communities’ geographic
isolation that spell out specific communication infrastructure problems and insecurities. It hopes to
otherwise resolve the issues that exist because of the absence of a concrete and reliable
communication infrastructure, which makes communicating with GIDA communities next to
impossible. It intends to capacitate GIDA communities directly, by providing them with more
avenues to tap when seeking pre-disaster information, in order to improve their disaster preparedness
plans. And, it aims to usher transitional methodologies towards transformational engagement. Overall,
the PRETE framework encompasses a political and cultural mainstreaming of pre-disaster
communication and community engagement that become grounded on personal mainstreaming or
collaboration and co-creation.

214
CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSION

8.1 Introduction

This chapter provides a summary of this research investigation and its value in the implementation of
DRRM programs focussed on disaster preparedness. The chapter then discusses implications for
theory and practice in relation to the connections the proposed PRETE Framework creates, and
examines the boundaries it can overcome. These and other reflections aim to trigger the kinds of
enquiries that require a similar paradigm shift to investigate the intersection between disaster
preparedness and community engagement through the lens of development communication,
particularly in the context of geographic isolation and socioeconomic inequalities. Next, and based on
the data gathered in situ, I suggest ways of turning this research into practice by proposing several
communication tools in different modes that would assist an observation of the performance of the
PRETE Framework in the field. Some of these communication tools already exist in both field sites;
others I designed. This curating of existing communication tools and the design of new ones is guided
by the study’s theoretical underpinnings (Andres 1988; Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi & Herremans
2010; Jacobson 2003; Wilkins 1996). Finally, the chapter discusses and raises questions for future
research.

8.2 Summary of findings

This investigation is focussed on the intersection between disaster preparedness and community
engagement in the context of spatial or geographic isolation and socioeconomic inequality in
Southeast Asia, particularly the Philippines. This intersection is unpacked through the lens of
development communication, which involves the strategic use of available communication conditions
to alleviate social problems (Wilkins 1996). This study aims to provide additional evidence and points
of discussion regarding the impact of these two factors in communicating, not disseminating, disaster
risk information, and engaging isolated and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities.

This study reports three main findings that were observed in the field sites:

1. Disaster preparedness in GIDA communities utilises multimodal communicative

conditions;
2. A transitional level of community engagement exists in these communities; and
3. Spatial isolation is their biggest barrier, prompting the need to identifying opportunities
in dealing with GIDA communities.

These are discussed in turn in the next three subsections.

215
8.2.1 Disaster preparedness utilises multimodal communicative conditions
The disaster preparedness communication experiences of both government and GIDA communities
revolve around the use of traditional media (print, radio, and video). Despite its fairly rampant use,
this study did not find it equated to efficacy. Instead, interpersonal communication practices, which
were also observed in the field sites, suited GIDA communities given that communities are small and
well connected. The current continual use of traditional media and the Philippine Government’s plan
to introduce an online communicative condition for DRRM presents various potential negative
impacts for these communities, including furthering people’s pre-existing inequalities by assuming
access that is currently unsupported by infrastructure. Despite varying degrees of effectiveness, in situ
disaster preparedness communication is already multimodal in nature. Even so, it still follows an
asymmetrical flow of communication and focusses on information transfer alone. This old model of
transmission has been extensively critiqued by this study, which further asserts that despite efforts to
make transmission of information bottom-up, attempts to provide a feedback system have not yet
equated to community engagement.

Moreover, there is a certain level of misalignment in how the government considers training and drills
sessions as a strategy for a community-based DRRM that promotes community engagement and
empowerment. These drills and trainings are supported by traditional media, often print, and their
reception varies by extremes. Drills and training are in principle considered commendatory, however
given the context of the people involved in this study, their infrequency and exclusivity often only
exacerbated community feelings of isolation and promoted further inequalities. Looking closely, the
idea of community engagement, mandated by the National Plan, could also be viewed as a strategy for
communication issues that have merely identified communities or residents as their key audience.

Lastly, all informants demonstrated that there is an unclear distinction between pre-disaster
communication in the disaster preparedness stage and disaster communication in the disaster response
stage. As such, some informant answers were focussed on communication efforts during the disaster
response stage. The disaster response stage in the interlinked DRRM phases and stages (see Figure
2.1) involves pre-, during, and post-disaster activities, and ‘pre-disaster’ means hours or a few days
prior to any natural hazard. The efforts of each government unit in actual disaster preparedness were
focussed on the production and distribution of communication tools and training and drills as part of
their community engagement efforts.

8.2.2 Transitional level of community engagement

The current level of community engagement observed in the field sites is still at the transitional level,
as per Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi and Herremans’ CEC (2010). This meant that communication
efforts observed in situ were borne out of public participation or allowed some level of community
involvement. However, most communication efforts made by the government, especially the National

216
Council, are focussed on educating the public by ‘downloading’ information to local DRRM councils.
In turn, local DRRM councils transmit this information to local communities without effort at
localisation (including the absence of local language translation, or, conversely, only language
translation). This top-down method of engaging communities accrues to the first half of Dufty’s CEF
(2011), but the remaining half of the framework is incomplete in the field sites.

Lateral or horizontal communication empowers and creates community leaders. It allows people to
decide for themselves what way they want to be informed or get access to information to protect
themselves when facing threats of natural hazards; it also gives them agency in how they utilise their
important alliance with their local DRRM councils (Kanakis & McShane 2016). That the
communication tools used in situ under this level of engagement are radio, social networking sites,
and text messaging, all of which allow some form of feedback. Councils had made an effort to make
engagement transitional by using communication modes and tools that allow consultation, such as
creating a form of community involvement by forming community-based first responders, and
allowing some interaction with local DRRM councils during drills and training. Aside from face-to-
face communication, local DRRM councils also used communication tools like batingaw (bells) and
bandilyo (public announcements using megaphone). What was most striking in this regard was that
these efforts of transitional engagement are perceived by the government as transformational. There
were also political and budgetary issues regarding the continuity of projects and community
assemblies, and this halted the process of empowering local communities and developing local
leaders. These issues connected to the use of face-to-face communication are highlighted in GIDA
communities, particularly when access to basic human needs is already intermittent, including limited
to no access to technology (radio, mobile phone, internet connection) because of their context.

8.2.3 Spatial isolation—the biggest barrier: Identifying opportunities in dealing with

GIDA communities
Spatial isolation was identified as the biggest barrier to engaging GIDA communities, and it brings
with it multiple inequalities that affect people’s communication practices and needs. However, it can
also be seen as an opportunity to start developing new methodologies of pre-disaster communication
that truly engage disadvantaged or marginalised communities. From a public relations standpoint,
engagement at the individual level must be achieved to attain that social engagement (Li & Feng
2021). Reaching a social level of engagement also means achieving the transformational level of
engagement posited in the CEC (Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi & Herremans 2010) after it attends to
the demands of an individual or transactional level of engagement.

In my conversations with both government and community informants, I reflected on three

community aspects they often talked about: first, their own experiences, second, their connections
with other members of the community (and beyond), and third, how they acquired information from

217
these first two. In both field sites, socialisation with others is seen as an important communication
tool, and it is achievable because of shared experiences that build people’s common bonds. These two
aspects of social life allow an individual to expand their social network, which in turn may lead to
linking pathways that can provide connections to resources. In short, this social networking is being
used for resource mapping. I began to enquire more deeply about this, and after examining the
complex issues in the use of community engagement in relation to DRRM and GIDA communities, it
led me to three elements that both connect and impact socialisation, common bonds, and linking
pathways. These are power, relationships, and experiences (PRE). Each of these elements can stand
alone as a point of enquiry, but they are not individual or isolated silos; rather they are interconnected,
as each affects the others.

8.3 Implications for theory and practice

8.3.1 Theoretical implications

Answering the umbrella research question demands a rethinking of the concept of engagement as
strategy of the government in the rollout of disaster preparedness programs. Engagement cuts across
disciplines of sociology, development communication, and public relations (to name a few; Hollebeek
2011; Li & Feng 2021) and is considered an important research track in development communication.
The intersection between disaster preparedness and community engagement in the context of GIDA
shows that engagement should be approached as a process and needs to begin with the individual and
move bottom-up to the organisation. Instead of strategically utilising multimodal communicative
conditions in targeting GIDA communities, the current practice tends to use community engagement
to support a top-down approach. Yet in reality, community engagement involves a plethora of
communicative conditions that are directly influenced by the socioeconomic and geographic
conditions of the message receiver.

In essence, this argument amounts to how public relations as a discipline defines engagement. In
public relations, engagement is viewed on two levels, the individual and the social (Li & Feng 2021).
Engagement at the individual level aspires to achieve a positive outcome on a personal level, whilst a
social level of engagement can be in the form of interpersonal or community processes (Johnston
2018; Li & Feng 2021). These two levels of engagement align with the way development
communication views engagement both as a concept and as a practice, and sit comfortably within the
CEC. In order to reach a transformative level of engagement, however, communication scholars and
practitioners need to provide communicative conditions that fulfill the necessary requirements at the
individual (transactional) and social (transitional) levels.

Local government units handling GIDA communities utilise communication modes and tools that do
not directly address the community context. They rely on drills and training and other traditional

218
media (print, radio, and video) as tools in building a CB-DRRM plan, and all aspects of these
communicative conditions are subsumed under a heading of ‘community engagement’. The lack of
proper conceptualisation of community engagement in CB-DRRM has resulted in a premature idea of
community engagement practice. As such, community engagement in the field sites is accomplished
‘hit and miss’ and essentially proceeds according to local implementers of the National Plan
performing a version what is expected of them. The communicative conditions (context plus
communication modes and tools) define and affect the level of engagement between the government
and GIDA communities.

Exploring how LGUs engage geographically isolated and socioeconomically disadvantaged

communities in disaster preparedness also unearthed several factors that may improve communication
and engagement processes. A sectoral approach (e.g., youth, fisherfolk, senior citizens, and the
LGBTQIA+) was observed to be beneficial in rounding up people to take part in disaster preparedness
activities. The gamification of drills and training also aided in making DRRM information
dissemination more appealing. Recognising the LGBTQIA+ community as a sector that may be able
to engage more people in disaster preparedness activities is also a good sign, although getting people
to admit to being part of the LGBTQIA+ community is problematic in the traditional and religious
context of the Philippines. The data gathered establish that a successful CB-DRRM which operates
through genuine community engagement requires localisation, customisation, and mainstreaming of
disaster preparedness to local policies.

To a certain extent the research activities highlight that there are still aspects of the situation that need
to be reviewed, reassessed, and revised. One example is the concept of community engagement at the
local level. If the objective of engaging communities is to make people proficient in their own
decision-making with regard to threats caused by natural hazards, current practices are somewhat
lacklustre and as such may even provide foundation for the generalisation by government informants
that villages are uncooperative with regard to drills and training. While this puts the blame on the
community, if the context of these communities (which revolves around the interplay of social power,
relationships, and experiences) is considered, the government’s efforts may need to be more engaging.
The ultimate contribution of this research is focussing attention not just on the plight of GIDA
communities but on their need for localised, customised, and mainstreamed disaster preparedness.

The intention of this research was to investigate the intersection between disaster preparedness and
community engagement in the context of spatial isolation and socioeconomic inequalities. It aimed to
identify communication conditions and pathways that may serve as conduits for ushering community
engagement toward the transformational level by investigating the various existing modes and tools of
engagement found in communities’ pre-disaster communication efforts. This study does not suggest
that only one communication condition (i.e., interpersonal communication) can move the level of
community engagement. As a conduit, communication efforts should be customised and localised, not

219
mass produced. Local DRRM plan implementers need to learn to listen, evaluate, and adjust to the
situation or context at hand. The data gathered from these two isolated communities shows that the
lack of communication pathways did not stop people from grouping together to solve issues and
problems among themselves. Yet, this ability of people to group together and work to achieve a
certain level of resiliency does not provide an excuse for government to shirk their role of ensuring
the safety of all people. The communication-community engagement framework, PRE Transformative
Engagement (PRETE) Framework proposed by this study was created to directly address and harness
these connections and interactions for the common good.

The PRETE Framework is envisioned to provide basis for future communication modes and tools that
usher a shift from a transitional to a transformational level of community engagement. It is grounded
on the social power, relationships, and experiences that empower individuals to build and expand their
social networks. This expansion is assumed to work in communities with intermittent to no access to
traditional and digital communication modes and tools and that rely on interpersonal communication
modes. The Framework also addresses concerns regarding the value of local wisdom and provides an
avenue for a lateral or horizontal communication movement that enables a more consultative,
collaborative, and empowering CB-DRRM practice. The uniqueness of the proposed framework is its
intention to address the concerns of communities who are marginalised by their location, population,
and communication access issues.

The PRETE Framework aims to push pre-disaster communication and community engagement
beyond its current neoliberal stance based on the experiences of marginalised communities. It intends
to show the difficulties experienced by communities living in geographic isolation experiencing
multiple socioeconomic inequalities, but the objective of the study is not confined to the matter of
identifying a weak DRRM practice at the village level. The developed framework aims to expose
other realities in DRRM that move it beyond attempts to win local and national awards for DRRM.
Rather, it highlights the relationship between government and community in pre-disaster
communication and community engagement, in particular, that neither can survive on their own.
Disaster preparedness and its communicative conditions, including community engagement, is a give-
and-take relationship.

Not all communities are intrinsically equipped to overcome the impacts of natural hazards; as such,
multiple platforms need to be provided and made accessible for people so that they can prepare ahead.
It is tough to live in GIDA communities, yet people living in these conditions are able to make do
with their situations. The proposed framework, and this study in general, highlights this reality. The
ability of GIDA communities to overcome on their own should not be used by the government to
neglect them in this regard.

220
Civil society expects everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law; in theory, RA 10121 ensures the
safety of all the Filipino people with regard to natural hazards. However, the reality is, laws have
implementing rules and guidelines that privilege certain groups of people and/or locations. The
current National Plan and its rollout in the provinces, municipalities, and villages in the Philippines is
framed from a neoliberal perspective that is concurrently impacted by the various political
complications and leadership instability discussed in this study. Current communication interventions
are styled for those who have access to information, yet access is dependent on an individual’s
capacity to buy, learn, and understand. For the most part, these things are not easily accessible for
GIDA communities because of their spatial isolation. This investigation on the intersection between
disaster preparedness and community engagement through the lens of development communication
demands that current DRRM practices recognise the assumptions inherent to its neoliberal stance.
Disaster preparedness plans, projects, and activities should not be unconsciously anchored to the
capacity to access. Access to pre-disaster information is a right, not a privilege.

8.3.2 Practical implications

This section suggests various ways of embedding the PRETE Framework in pre-disaster
communication efforts. The communication tools suggested abide by the Framework and may help
expand individuals’ social network access to pre-disaster information.

The proposed tools reflect what was observed in situ and what is available, and each tries to overcome
some aspect of inequality. Some of the tools are already in current use the field in other capacities. In
addition, I designed a few original communication tools, especially those that gamify pre-disaster
communication, in response to the ‘opportunities’ I saw in the field. As such, I believe that the
problems posed in this study in dealing with communities living in geographic isolation experiencing
socioeconomic inequalities should be viewed as opportunities. In addition, it is concurrently
imperative to acknowledge the problems faced by GIDA communities. Failure to recognise their
issues and concerns means these communities will continue to be voiceless in DRRM. In context of
the COVID-19 pandemic, it is likely that the ‘new normal’ may further isolate GIDA communities.

Three specific recommendations are provided as potential communication tools that bridge the
transitional and transformational levels of community engagement. These recommendations are
tailored to the needs of the two field sites, and can be used by several sectors in their pre-disaster
communication efforts. The development and use of these tools was also laid down as part of the
agreement between myself and the local government before I was granted access to the villages. Their
testing, production, and implementation are beyond the scope of this study.

First, I uphold the need to tap old community practices that are emerging today because of the
COVID-19 pandemic. One example is the barter system, which was an old trade system that was
practiced in the Philippines during pre-Hispanic time. Today, the notion is experiencing a rebirth, and

221
online barter groups are being formed. Even before the nomenclature ‘barter trade’ was reintroduced
into current parlance, this practice, called an ex-deal (or X deal) was being used among social media
influencers and other companies. Inspired by this idea of the barter system, I propose that a
community member could provide pre-disaster information to GIDA communities through an
exchange process. This person may be a resident, who, for example, has lost their job because of the
pandemic but is trained in DRRM, and can thus start teaching and training people in the community.
In return, the village leader can provide some form of payment for the services rendered.

Next, as findings have shown, both government and community informants highlight the role of the
youth in building community resilience. The first strategy in this regard is to ground pre-disaster
communication in education and entertainment, especially in the form of gamification. This idea
builds on the fact that there is an existing DRRM subject in the curriculum of senior high school
students taking the science track. In tangent with this, it then seems imperative to provide teachers
with the required teaching tools to build pre-disaster knowledge.

Research suggests that experience plays a vital role in building pre-disaster knowledge that may aid in
future decision-making. In the island village, the community was able to come up with their own plan
because of their consistent experiences with typhoons. The upland village also started building pre-
disaster knowledge based on their own experiences, although this was occasional. The original sample
strategy in Figure 8.1 was designed as additional learning material for DRRM classes in Grades 11
and 12. However, it can also be used outside the classroom context, such as in family gatherings, as
part of DRRM-related barangay/village activities, or simply as a board game that anyone in the
village can borrow at any time. The game is played by two to four players, with one game master to
officiate. Each player rolls the dice and moves along the board, which is divided into natural hazard
scenarios, namely, earthquake (numbers 4 to 13, except 6 and 19) and preparedness/safety (numbers
14 to 18) scenarios. Numbers 2, 3, 6, 19 and 20 will bring the player back to the earthquake scenes.
When a player lands in any of the earthquake scenes, a series of questions relating to the image is
asked by the game master.

The game is designed to ensure that continuous messaging occurs during play. This can be in the form
of question and answer with the game master, or knowing the reasons behind the images within the
safe zone. The game intends to concurrently expose players to the things that need to be done to
achieve a safe zone against earthquakes. It also quizzes the player on what to do during earthquakes.
Continuous use of this board game assures regularity of information dissemination. As all government
informants shared, gamification helps liven up the drills and training activities. While this version of
the game tackles earthquake preparedness, expansion packs could potentially include other natural
hazards.

222
Figure 8.1.
Sample strategy: classroom material grounded in learning through games

Note. This board game was designed based on the experiences shared by informants. Source: Author. Intellectual
property rights asserted 2021 by D. J. Sumaylo.

The second sample strategy was designed around the need to assist local DRRM councils to visualise
the impacts of natural hazards, in this case, an earthquake. This hazard was deemed relevant to the
fears of the local DRRM councils in both field sites. Figure 8.2 shows the concept behind the shake
table, which is designed to visualise earthquake intensity and how it impacts structures like houses
that are made of light materials. As Figure 8.2 describes, the mechanism of the shake table creates
three intensity levels of movement that affect the 3D house puzzle. When trainers from local DRRM
councils discuss the impacts of earthquake and its varying intensities, they can use the shake table to
demonstrate the differences. This strategy can be used to provide a simulated idea of earthquake
experience to the community, which is particularly useful if there are residents in the area who have
not yet experienced actual earthquakes. While the shake table demonstration simulates the impact, it
would be more impactful to let GIDA communities ‘experience’ the impact. As such, a possible

223
expansion of this proposed tool is to make a shake table that can hold regular household items such as
chairs and small tables. It is hope that a simulated experience might aid in families’ future decision-
making.

Figure 8.2.
Sample strategy: drills and training material on visualising the impact of earthquakes

Note. Source: Conceptualised and designed by the author in tandem with the social enterprise Swito Designs Inc. The
shake table house (made from wood) is provided by Swito Designs Inc. Intellectual property rights asserted 2021 by D.
J. Sumaylo and Swito Designs Inc.

These two sample strategies were created as part of my response (in fact it was a collatila, or
condition of the research) to the local government in both field sites demanding tangible proposals for
the problems I identified, as my way of giving back to the community. However, producing, testing,
and evaluating these sample strategies is beyond the scope of the study.

8.4 Future research

The results of this investigation uncover more questions relevant to the process of communicating and
engaging with isolated and marginalised communities. Therefore, several future research directions
are identified.

224
The first suggested research trajectory would be an exploration of the impact of the PRETE
Framework in GIDA communities, not just in the Philippines but also in other cultures that similarly
value community relationships. Does the framework possess practical application? How will the
proposed framework perform as a way of tracing an individual’s methods of expanding their social
network? In what ways can the framework differentiate pre-disaster communication from engagement
and later identify their meeting point?

Also in relation to the performance of the framework, it would seem necessary to continue to examine
the way/s communication modes and tools are used and/or the overall communicative condition in
GIDA communities as it changes over time. Community informants of this study opined that their
current local system works because of the number of actors involved in the communication process.
This will be altered when/if communicative conditions in the area change, such as an increase in
population. The results of any qualitative research are time bound, and can only explain social
phenomenon for that specific period. Will the framework hold its ground over time in capturing the
experiences of geographically isolated and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities?

The PRETE Framework is grounded on power, relationships, and experiences. As such, it would be
valuable for research to specifically trace the development of individuals gaining social power in a
community, from building common bonds through socialisation activities to ultimately forming
linking pathways with those who hold legitimate power in the community. To capture the essence of
experiences in the framework, it would be worthwhile to investigate further what or who triggers
action for disaster preparedness in these communities. Is the trigger the legitimate source of
information (i.e., government) or are there other triggers?

The second suggested research trajectory is for applied research that focusses on the design and
testing of communication tools that bridge the transitional to transformational level of community
engagement in pre-disaster communication. This research would explore the role of co-creation and
community participation in developing communication tools that work in the context and with its
needs. Practice-led research can focus on collaborative design or co-creation methodologies which tap
into the power, relationships, and experiences of people that lead to the development of localised or
customised activities and games. Data from this study suggests that show-and-tell activities and the
gamification of disaster preparedness aids in communicating disaster preparedness information.
Exploring education-entertainment as a process of message retention is also a possible research track.

8.5 Summary

Overall, this investigation accomplished its aims in multiple ways. First, communication tools and
modes were audited in situ and the way/s these are utilised in engaging isolated and disadvantaged
communities to prepare for future natural calamities was documented. Second, using the

225
communication tools and modes, this study was able to identify the level of engagement currently in
place in the GIDA communities. This level of engagement does not cover communities that are not
classified as GIDA, as these communities may have different communication conditions because of
their geographic and socioeconomic factors, and would therefore have different experiences from
GIDA residents. Third, the study proposes a framework that aims to bridge the transitional and
transformational levels of community engagement.

This proposed framework aims to fill the identified research gap (see Figure 3.5), which is the
intersection between disaster preparedness and community engagement in the context of geographic
isolation and socioeconomic inequalities through the lens of development communication.

Pre-disaster communication practices in the Philippines follow a top-down framework with few
robust avenues for feedback, yet several of the current modes and tools of pre-disaster communication
are already considered transformative by the government. The desire of this investigation is to
encapsulate the communication experiences of both actors—government and community—in a
framework that allows communication continuity following a lateral or horizontal flow. This way,
there is a chance of slowly building a consultative, collaborative, and empowering pre-disaster
communication, and a transformative level of community engagement practices can be attained.

This investigation provides empirical evidence of the way/s LGUs engage geographically isolated and
socioeconomically disadvantaged communities in the Philippines. It also proposes a framework that
aims to connect the dissonance identified between the transitional and the transformational level of
engagement using multiple communication modalities and tools that respond specifically to the
context of geographic isolation and socioeconomic inequalities.

It is hoped that through this research, the inequalities experienced by these marginalised communities
are addressed thus enabling a fairer and more inclusive approach to pre-disaster communication and
management.

226
References

Abdeen, FN, Fernando, T, Kulatunga, U, Hettige, S & Ranasinghe, KDA 2022, ‘Challenges in multi-
agency collaboration in disaster management: a Sri Lankan perspective’, International
Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 62, pp. 1–12.
Aboelela, SW, Larson, E, Bakken, S, Carrasquillo, O, Formicola, A, Glied, SA, Haas, J & Gebbie,
KM 2007, ‘Defining interdisciplinary research: conclusions from a critical review of the
literature’, Health Services Research, vol. 42, no. 1P1, pp. 329–346.
Acker, S 2000, ‘In/out/side: Positioning the researcher in feminist qualitative research’, Resources for
Feminist Research, vol. 28, no. 3-4, pp. 153–172.
Acosta, JD, Chandra, A & Madrigano, J 2017, ‘An agenda to advance integrative resilience research
and practice: key themes from a resilience roundtable’, Rand Health Quarterly, vol. 7, no. 1,
viewed 30 October 2021, <https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1683.html>.
Adame, BJ & Miller, CH 2015, ‘Vested interest, disaster preparedness, and strategic campaign
message design’, Health Communication, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 271–281.
Adger, WN 2006, ‘Vulnerability’, Global Environmental Change, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 268–281.
Adila, I, Dewi, WWA, Tamitiadini, D & Syauki, WR 2017, 'Disaster mitigation action plan: digital
media on improving accountability and community relationships', IOP Conference Series:
Earth and Environmental Science, vol. 70, no. 1, art. 012016.
Akama, Y, Cooper, V, & Mees, B 2016, ‘Beyond transmission: an analysis of communication
frameworks in Australian bushfire preparedness’, International Journal of Disaster Resilience
in the Built Environment, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 49–62.
Akama, Y 2014, ‘Passing on, handing over, letting go—the passage of embodied design methods for
disaster preparedness’, Proceedings of the Fourth Service Design and Service Innovation
Conference, Lancaster University, UK, 9–11 April, pp. 173–183, viewed 1 November 2021,
<http://www.ep.liu.se/ecp/099/017/ecp14099017.pdf>.
Alampay, E, Mendes, S, Soriano, C & Soriano, E 2007, The innovative use of mobile applications in
the Philippines—lessons for Africa, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
(SIDA), Sweden, viewed 1 November 2020,
<https://www.unapcict.org/sites/default/files/2019-
01/The%20Innovative%20Use%20of%20Mobiles%20in%20the%20Philippines.pdf>.
Alcayna, T, Bollettino, V, Dy, P & Vinck, P 2016, ‘Resilience and disaster trends in the Philippines:
opportunities for national and local capacity building’, PLoS Currents, vol. 8.
Al-Dahash, H, Thayaparan, M & Kulatunga, U 2016, ‘Understanding the terminologies: disaster,
crisis and emergency’, in PW Chan and CJ Neilson (eds), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual
ARCOM Conference, Manchester, UK, 5–7 September, vol, 2, pp. 1191–1200.
Aldrich, DP 2019, Black wave: how networks and governance shaped Japan’s 3/11 disasters, The
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Aldrich, DP & Meyer, MA 2015, ‘Social capital and community resilience’, American Behavioral
Scientist, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 254–269.
Alim, S, Kawabata, M & Nakazawa, M 2015, ‘Evaluation of disaster preparedness training and
disaster drill for nursing students’, Nurse Education Today, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 25–31.
Amri, A, Bird, DK, Ronan, K, Haynes, K & Towers, B 2017, ‘Disaster risk reduction education in
Indonesia: challenges and recommendations for scaling up’, Natural Hazards and Earth
System Sciences, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 595–612.

227
Andres, TQ 1988, Community development: a manual, New Day Publishers, Quezon City,
Philippines.
Arguillas, C 2021, Mindanao’s population: from 24 million in 2015 to 26 million in 2020,
MindaNews, Philippines, viewed 26 May 2022, <https://www.mindanews.com/top-
stories/2021/07/mindanaos-population-from-24-million-in-2015-to-26-million-in-2020/>.
Arlikatti, S, Taibah, HA & Andrew, SA 2014, ‘How do you warn them if they speak only Spanish?
Challenges for organizations in communicating risk to Colonias residents in Texas, USA’,
Disaster Prevention and Management, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 533–550.
Arreza, CM & Sumaylo, DJ 2015, ‘Localization of IEC Materials of Carrascal LDRRMO through
Disaster Management Training’, in International Conference on Communication/Culture and
the Sustainable Development Goals (CCSDG). Challenges for a New Generation, Chiang
Mai, Thailand.
ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) 2010, ASEAN agreement on disaster management
and emergency response, ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on
Disaster Management, Indonesia, viewed 7 February 2020, <https://ahacentre.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/AADMER-DOCUMENT.pdf>.
ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) 2016, ASEAN vision 2025 on disaster
management, ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster
Management, Indonesia, viewed 18 February 2020, <https://ahacentre.org/publication/asean-
vision-2025-on-disaster-management/>.
Astill, S, Corney, S, Carey, R, Auckland, S & Cross, M 2019, ‘Reconceptualising “community” to
identify place-based disaster management needs in Tasmania’, Australian Journal of
Emergency Management, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 48–51.
Australian Emergency Management Institute 2013, National strategy for disaster resilience:
community engagement framework (handbook 6), Australian Emergency Management
Institute, Australia, viewed 1 November 2021,
<https://d2kpbjo3hey01t.cloudfront.net/uploads/2018/10/National-Strategy-for-Disaster-
Resilience-Community-Engagement-Framework....pdf>.
Australian Institute of Family Studies 2016, Community engagement: a key strategy for improving
outcomes for Australian families, (CFCA paper no. 39), Child Family Community Australia,
Australia, viewed 15 September 2020, <https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/community-
engagement/what-community-engagement>.
Australian National University 2021, Mindanao provinces, CartoGIS Services, College of Asia and
the Pacific, Canberra, viewed 15 October 2021,
<https://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/mapsonline/base-maps/mindanao-provinces>.
Ayeb-Karlsson, S, Kniveton, D, Cannon, T, van der Geest, K, Ahmed, I, Derrington, EM, Florano, E
& Opondo, DO 2019, ‘I will not go, I cannot go: cultural and social limitations of disaster
preparedness in Asia, Africa, and Oceania’, Disasters, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 752–770.
Azadi, Y, Yazdanpanah, M & Mahmoudi, H 2019, ‘Understanding smallholder farmers’ adaptation
behaviors through climate change beliefs, risk perception, trust, and psychological distance:
evidence from wheat growers in Iran’, Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 250, art.
109456.
Babbie, E 2016, The practice of social research, Fourteenth edn, Cengage Learning, Boston, USA.
Bamberg, S, Masson, T, Brewitt, K & Nemetschek, N 2017, ‘Threat, coping and flood prevention—A
meta-analysis’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 54, pp. 116-126.
Basolo, V, Steinberg, LJ & Gant, S 2017, ‘Hurricane threat in Florida: examining household
perceptions, beliefs, and actions’, Environmental Hazards, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 253–275.

228
Baybay, CS & Hindmarsh, R 2019, ‘Resilience in the Philippines through effective community
engagement’, Australian Journal of Emergency Management, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 65–70.
Becker, JS, Paton, D, Johnston, DM, Ronan, KR & McClure, J 2017, ‘The role of prior experience in
informing and motivating earthquake preparedness’, International Journal of Disaster Risk
Reduction, vol. 22, pp. 179–193.
Bolin, B & Kurtz, LC 2018, ‘Race, class, ethnicity, and disaster vulnerability’, in H Rodríguez, W
Donner & JE Trainor (eds), Handbook of disaster research, 2nd edn, Springer, Switzerland,
pp. 181–203.
Bowen, F, Newenham-Kahindi, A & Herremans, I 2010, ‘When suits meet roots: the antecedents and
consequences of community engagement strategy’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 95, no. 2,
pp. 297–318.
Bowen, GA 2009, ‘Document analysis as a qualitative research method’, Qualitative Research
Journal, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 27–40.
Brint, S 2001, ‘Gemeinschaft revisited: a critique and reconstruction of the community concept’,
Sociological Theory, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 1–23.
Bronfman, NC, Cisternas, PC, López-Vázquez, E & Cifuentes, LA 2015, ‘Trust and risk perception of
natural hazards: implications for risk preparedness in Chile’, Natural Hazards, vol. 81, no. 1,
pp. 307–327.
Burnside-Lawry, J & Akama, Y 2013, ‘Communication research needs for building societal disaster
resilience’, Australian Journal of Emergency Management, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 29–35.
Burnside-Lawry, J & Carvalho, L 2016, ‘A stakeholder approach to building community resilience:
awareness to implementation’, International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built
Environment, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 4–25.
BusinessWorld Research 2018, ‘Which region has the highest proportion of first class
municipalities?’, BusinessWorld, 9 August, viewed 9 October 2020,
<https://www.bworldonline.com/which-region-has-the-highest-number-of-first-class-
municipalities/>.
Cahyanto, I & Pennington-Gray, L 2015, ‘Communicating hurricane evacuation to tourists’, Journal
of Travel Research, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 329–343.
Cannon, T 1994, ‘Vulnerability analysis and the explanation of “natural” disasters’, Disasters,
Development and Environment, vol. 1, pp. 13–30.
Caragea, C, McNeese, N, Jaiswal, A, Traylor, G, Kim, H-W, Mitra, P, Wu, D, Tapia, AH, Giles, L &
Jansen, BJ 2011, ‘Classifying text messages for the Haiti earthquake’, in Proceedings of the
8th International ISCRAM Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, May, pp. 1–10, viewed 9 November
2021,
<http://www.bernardjjansen.com/uploads/2/4/1/8/24188166/classifying_text_messages_haiti_
earthquake.pdf>.
Carley, KM, Malik, M, Landwehr, PM, Pfeffer, J & Kowalchuck, M 2016, ‘Crowd sourcing disaster
management: the complex nature of Twitter usage in Padang Indonesia’, Safety Science, vol.
90, pp. 48–61.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2009, Data collection methods for evaluation: document
review, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, viewed 17 April 2018,
<https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/evaluation/pdf/brief18.pdf>.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2018, Data collection methods for evaluation: document
review, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, viewed 17 April 2018,
<https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/evaluation/pdf/brief18.pdf>.

229
Cepeda, M 2018, House okays bill creating Department of Disaster Resilience, Rappler, Philippines,
viewed 23 October 2019, <https://www.rappler.com/nation/213262-house-3rd-reading-bill-
department-of-disaster-resilience>.
Chandler, D & Munday, R 2016, A dictionary of media and communication, 2nd edn, Oxford
University Press, UK.
Chang Seng, DS 2013, ‘Tsunami resilience: multi-level institutional arrangements, architectures and
system of governance for disaster risk preparedness in Indonesia’, Environmental Science &
Policy, vol. 29, pp. 57–70.
Chua, AYK 2007, ‘A tale of two hurricanes: comparing Katrina and Rita through a knowledge
management perspective’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 1518–1528.
Civil Service Commission 2018, 2017 Omnibus rules on appointments and other human resource
actions: revised July 2018, Civil Service Commission, Philippines, viewed 17 November
2021.
<http://www.csc.gov.ph/phocadownload//PolicyReso/2018/2017ORAOHRA(RevisedJuly201
8)CSCResoNo1800692_af.pdf>.
Coile, RC 1997, ‘The role of amateur radio in providing emergency electronic communication for
disaster management’, Disaster Prevention and Management, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 176–185.
Comfort, LK 2007, ‘Crisis management in hindsight: cognition, communication, coordination, and
control’, Public Administration Review, vol. 67, no. SI, pp. 189–197.
Conchie, SM & Burns, C 2008, ‘Trust and risk communication in high-risk organizations: a test of
principles from social risk research’, Risk Analysis, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 141–149.
Contzen, N & Mosler, HJ 2013, ‘Impact of different promotional channels on handwashing behaviour
in an emergency context: Haiti post-earthquake public health promotions and cholera
response’, Journal of Public Health, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 559–573.
Cool, CT, Claravall, MC, Hall, JL, Taketani, K, Zepeda, JP, Gehner, M & Lawe-Davies, O 2015,
‘Social media as a risk communication tool following Typhoon Haiyan’, Western Pacific
Surveillance and Response Journal, vol. 6, suppl 1, pp. 86–90.
Coombs, WT 2010, cCrisis communication and its allied fields', in WT Coombs & SJ Holladay (eds),
The handbook of crisis communication, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., West Sussex, United
Kingdom, pp. 54–64.
Cornell, VJ, Cusack, L & Arbon, P 2012, ‘Older people and disaster preparedness: a literature
review', Australian Journal of Emergency Management, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 49–53.
Cortellazzo, L, Bruni, E & Zampieri, R 2019, ‘The role of leadership in a digitalized world: a review',
Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 10, pp. 1–20.
Court, D 2017, Qualitative research and intercultural understanding: conducting qualitative research
in multicultural settings, Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon.
Crotty, M 1998, The foundations of social research: meaning and perspective in the research process,
SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Curato, N 2018, ‘Beyond the spectacle: slow-moving disasters in post-Haiyan Philippines’, Critical
Asian Studies, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 58–66.
David, C, Ong, J & Legara, E 2016, ‘Tweeting Supertyphoon Haiyan: evolving functions of Twitter
during and after a disaster event', PLoS One, vol. 11, no. 3, art. e0150190.
David, CPC, Padua, DMV, Vargas, MM, Caceres, JI, Vicente, MCTM, Tolentino, DB, Abon, CC,
Ramores, J & Wamil, RA 2010, ‘Community and DRR technology interface: the “Reduction
of flood risk in the Bicol River Basin II” project’, in LP-d Cruz, EM Ferrer & MC Pagaduan
(eds), Building disaster resilient communities: stories and lessons from the Philippines,

230
 College of Social Work and Community Development, University of the Philippines, Quezon
City, Philippines, pp. 33–57.
David, M & Sutton, CD 2011, Social research: an introduction, 2nd edn, SAGE Publications,
London, UK.
Delanty, G 2018, Community, 3rd edn, Routledge, New York, NY.
Deng, Q, Liu, Y, Zhang, H, Deng, X & Ma, Y 2016, ‘A new crowdsourcing model to assess disaster
using microblog data in typhoon Haiyan’, Natural Hazards, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 1241–1256.
Department of Health 2018, Geographically isolated and disadvantaged areas, viewed 17 November
2021, <https://www.doh.gov.ph/node/1153>.
Disaster Risk Reduction Network Philippines 2010, Primer on the Disaster Risk Reduction and
Management (DRRM) Act of 2010, ALNAP, viewed 1 November 2021,
<https://www.alnap.org/help-library/primer-on-the-disaster-risk-reduction-and-management-
drrm-act-of-2010>.
Djalante, R & Thomalla, F 2012, ‘Disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in Indonesia’,
International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 166–
180.
Dombrowsky, WR 1998, ‘Again and again: is a disaster what we call a “disaster”?’, in EL Quarantelli
(ed.), What is a disaster? Perspectives on the question, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 19–30.
Dominey-Howes, D, Gorman-Murray, A & McKinnon, S 2018, ‘On the disaster experiences of sexual
and gender (LGBTI) minorities: insights to support inclusive disaster risk reduction policy
and practice’, Australian Journal of Emergency Management Monograph No.3: Diversity in
Disaster, pp. 60–68.
Donovan, K, Suryanto, A & Utami, P 2012, ‘Mapping cultural vulnerability in volcanic regions: the
practical application of social volcanology at Mt Merapi, Indonesia’, Environmental Hazards,
vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 303–323.
Downs, CW & Adrian, AD 2004, Assessing organizational communication strategic communication
audits, 2nd edn, Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Dufty, N 2011, ‘Engagement or education?’, Australian Journal of Emergency Management, vol. 26,
no. 3, pp. 35–39.
Dufty, N 2016, ‘Twitter turns ten: its use to date in disaster management’, Australian Journal of
Emergency Management, vol. 31, no. 2, p. 50.
Dwyer, SC & Buckle, JL 2009, ‘The space between: on being an insider-outsider in qualitative
research', International Journal of Qualitative Methods, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 54–63.
Eagleton, T 2016, Culture, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Ekström, KM 2006, ‘The emergence of multi-sited ethnography in anthropology and marketing’, in
RW Belk (ed.), Handbook of qualitative research methods in marketing, Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham, England, pp. 497–508.
Eliot, TS 1962, Notes towards the definition of culture, Faber and Faber, London, UK.
EM-DAT: The Emergency Events Database 2018, Disaster classification, Université catholique de
Louvain, Brussells, Belgium—Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters
(CRED), viewed 26 October 2021, <https://www.emdat.be/>.
EM-DAT: The Emergency Events Database 2020, Glossary, Université catholique de Louvain,
Brussells, Belgium—Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), viewed
27 May 2021, <https://www.emdat.be/Glossary#letter_d>.
Fabito, BS, Balahadia, FF & Cabatlao, JDN, 2016, ‘AppLERT: a mobile application for incident and
disaster notification for metro Manila’, IEEE Region 10 Symposium, Bali, Indonesia, 9–11
May, pp. 288–292, DOI:10.1109/TENCONSpring.2016.7519420.

231
Fetterman, DM 2008, ‘Ethnography’, in LM Given (ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative
research methods, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 289–292.
Follett, MP 1919, ‘Community is a process’, The Philosophical Review, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 576–588.
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations 2017, FAO in Mindanao, viewed 17
November 2021, <https://www.fao.org/3/ca5540en/ca5540en.pdf>.
Foster, H 2013, ‘Interactive hazard preparation strategy efficacy: considerations for future community
engagement programs’, Australian Journal of Emergency Management, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 8–
14.
Fraser, T, Aldrich, DP & Small, A 2021, ‘Connecting social capital and vulnerability: citation
network analysis of disaster studies’, Natural Hazards Review, vol. 22, no. 3,
DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000469.
Fraustino, JD, Lee, JY, Lee, SY & Ahn, H 2018, ‘Effects of 360° video on attitudes toward disaster
communication: mediating and moderating roles of spatial presence and prior disaster media
involvement’, Public Relations Review, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 331–341.
French, J. Jr. & Raven, B 1959, ‘The bases of social power’, in D Cartwright (ed.), Studies in social
power, Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 150–167.
Fujii, LA 2018, ‘Selecting, finding, and approaching interviewees’, in Interviewing in social science
research: a relational approach, Routledge, New York, NY.
Gaillard, JC 2006, ‘Traditional societies in the face of natural hazards: the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption
and the Aetas of the Philippines’, International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters,
vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 5–43.
Gaillard, JC 2007, ‘Resilience of traditional societies in facing natural hazards’, Disaster Prevention
and Management, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 522–544.
Gaillard, JC, Gorman-Murray, A & Fordham, M 2017, ‘Sexual and gender minorities in disaster’,
Gender, Place & Culture, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 18–26, DOI:10.1080/0966369X.2016.1263438.
Gaillard, JC, Liamzon, C & Villanueva, J 2007, ‘Natural’ disaster? A retrospect into the causes of the
late-2004 typhoon disaster in Eastern Luzon, Philippines’, Environmental Hazards, vol. 7, no.
4, pp. 257–270.
Gaillard, J-C & Le Masson, V 2007, ‘Traditional societies’ response to volcanic hazards in the
Philippines’, Mountain Research and Development, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 313–317,
DOI:10.1659/mrd.0949.
Garcia, AT 2010, ‘Installing early warning system along the Agos River in the municipalities of
Infanta and General Nakar’, in LP-d Cruz, EM Ferrer & MC Pagaduan (eds), Building
disaster resilient communities: stories and lessons from the Philippines, College of Social
Work and Community Development, University of the Philippines, Quezon City, Philippines,
pp. 9–22.
Gilbert, C 1998, ‘Studying disaster: changes in the main conceptual tools’, in EL Quarantelli (ed.),
What is a disaster? Perspectives on the question, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 11–18.
Gobo, G & Marciniak, LT 2016, ‘What is ethnography?’, in D Silverman (ed.), Qualitative research,
SAGE Publications, London, UK, pp. 103–120.
Gonzalez, A 1998, ‘The language planning situation in the Philippines’, Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 487–525.
Goodchild, MF & Glennon, JA 2010, ‘Crowdsourcing geographic information for disaster response: a
research frontier’, International Journal of Digital Earth, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 231–241.
GOV.PH 2021, About the government, Philippine Government, viewed 1 November 2021,
<https://www.gov.ph/es/the-government.html>.
Grosfield, L 2018, What are the negative effects of natural disasters?, Sciencing, 25 April, viewed 17
November 2021, <https://sciencing.com/negative-effects-natural-disasters-8292806.html>.

232
Grunig, JE & Hunt, T 1984, Managing public relations, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., New York,
NY.
Guadagno, L 2016, ‘Human mobility in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction’,
International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 30–40.
Guo, Y & Li, YW 2016, ‘Getting ready for mega disasters: the role of past experience in changing
disaster consciousness’, Disaster Prevention and Management, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 492–505.
Güss, CD & Pangan, OI 2004, ‘Cultural influences on disaster management: a case study of the Mt
Pinatubo eruption', International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, vol. 22, no. 2,
pp. 31–58.
Haddow, GD & Haddow, KS 2009, Disaster communications in a changing media world,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington, MA.
Hagar, C 2010, ‘Crisis informatics: introduction’, Bulletin of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 10–12.
Handley, K 2008, ‘Non-participant observation’, in R Thorpe & R Holt (eds), The SAGE dictionary of
qualitative management research, SAGE Publications, London, UK, pp. 143–144.
Hanifan, LJ 1916, ‘The rural school community center’, The Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 130–138.
Harrison, SE, Potter, SH, Prasanna, R, Doyle, EEH & Johnston, D 2022, ‘“Sharing is caring”: a socio-
technical analysis of the sharing and governing of hydrometeorological hazard, impact,
vulnerability, and exposure data in Aotearoa New Zealand’, Progress in Disaster Science,
vol. 13, pp. 1–13.
Harvard School of Public Health 2022, Transdisciplinary research definition, Harvard School of
Public Health, viewed 19 May 2022, <https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/trec/about-
us/definitions/#:~:text=Transdisciplinary%20Research%20is%20defined%20as,to%20address
%20a%20common%20problem.>.
Haslam, SA & Reicher, S 2016, ‘Rethinking the psychology of leadership: from personal identity to
social identity’, Daedalus, vol. 145, no. 3, pp. 21–34.
Head, BW 2007, ‘Community engagement: participation on whose terms?’, Australian Journal of
Political Science, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 441–454.
Healy, A & Malhotra N 2009, ‘Myopic voters and natural disaster policy’, American Political Science
Review, vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 387–406.
Heath, RL & O’Hair, HD 2010, ‘The significance of crisis and risk communication’, in RL Heath &
HD O’Hair (eds), Handbook of Risk and Crisis Communication, Taylor and Francis, New
York, N.Y., pp. 17–42.
Helsloot, I & Ruitenberg, A 2004, ‘Citizen response to disasters: a survey of literature and some
practical implications’, Journal of Contingencies & Crisis Management, vol. 12, no. 3, pp.
98–111.
Highmore, B 2016, Culture, Routledge, Oxfordshire, UK.
Hillery, GA 1955, ‘Definitions of community: areas of agreement’, Rural Sociology, vol. 20, no. 2,
pp. 111–123.
Hollebeek, L 2011, ‘Exploring customer brand engagement: definition and themes’, Journal of
Strategic Marketing, vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 555–573.
Hootsuite and We Are Social 2019, Digital 2019, <https://wearesocial.com/uk/blog/2019/01/digital-
in-2019-global-internet-use-accelerates/>.
Houston, JB 2018, ‘Community resilience and communication: dynamic interconnections between
and among individuals, families, and organizations’, Journal of Applied Communication
Research, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 19–22.

233
Houston, JB & Buzzanell, PM 2018, ‘Communication and resilience: concluding thoughts and key
issues for future research’, Journal of Applied Communication Research, vol. 46, no. 1, pp.
26–27.
Howard, A, Agllias, K, Bevis, M & Blakemore, T 2017, ‘“They’ll tell us when to evacuate”: the
experiences and expectations of disaster-related communication in vulnerable groups’,
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 22, pp. 139–146.
Hsueh, H-Y 2019, ‘The role of household social capital in post-disaster recovery: an empirical study
in Japan’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 39, art. 101199,
DOI:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101199.
Hugelius, K, Gifford, M, Ortenwall, P & Adolfsson, A 2016, ‘Disaster radio for communication of
vital messages and health-related information: experiences from the Haiyan Typhoon, the
Philippines’, Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 591–597.
Illner, P 2018, ‘“The locals do it better?”: the strange victory of Occupy Sandy’, in R Bell & R
Ficociello (eds), Eco culture: disaster, narrative, discourse, Lexington Books, London, UK,
pp. 49–72.
Jackson, MO 2019, The human network: how we’re connected and why it matters, Pantheon Books,
New York, NY.
Jacobson, TL 2003, ‘Participatory communication for social change: the relevance of the theory of
communicative action’, Annals of the International Communication Association, vol. 27, no.
1, pp. 87–123.
Janssen, M, Lee, J, Bharosa, N & Cresswell, A 2009, ‘Advances in multi-agency disaster
management: key elements in disaster research’, Information Systems Frontiers, vol. 12, no.
1, pp. 1–7.
Jewkes, R & Murcott, A 1996, ‘Meanings of community’, Social Science & Medicine, vol. 43, no. 4,
pp. 555–563.
Jocano, FL 2001, Filipino worldview: ethnography of local knowledge, PUNLAD Research House,
Inc., Quezon City.
Johnston, KA 2018, ‘Toward a theory of social engagement’, in KA Johnston & M Taylor (eds), The
handbook of communication engagement, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NY, pp. 53–68.
Kanakis, K & McShane, CJ 2016, ‘Preparing for disaster: preparedness in a flood and cyclone prone
community’, Australian Journal of Emergency Management, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 18–24.
Kanuha, VK 2000, ‘“Being” native versus “going native”: conducting social work research as an
insider’, Social Work, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 439–447.
Kirschenbaum, A, Rapaport, C & Canetti, D 2017, ‘The impact of information sources on earthquake
preparedness’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 21, pp. 99–109.
Koerth, J, Vafeidis, AT, Hinkel, J & Sterr, H 2013, ‘What motivates coastal households to adapt pro-
actively to sea-level rise and increasing flood risk?’, Regional Environmental Change, vol.
13, no. 4, pp. 897–909.
Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino 2021, KWF Repositoryo ng mga Wika at Kultura ng Pilipinas,
Komisyong sa Wikang Filipino, Philippines, viewed 26 May 2022.
<https://kwfwikaatkultura.ph/>.
Kreps, GA 1998, ‘Disaster as systemic event and social catalyst’, in EL Quarantelli (ed.), What is a
disaster? Perspectives on the question, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 31–55.
Kress, GR 2010, Multimodality: a social semiotic approach to contemporary communication,
Routledge, London, UK.
Lagmay, AMF, Agaton, RP, Bahala, MAC, Briones, JBLT, Cabacaba, KMC, Caro, CVC, Dasallas,
LL, Gonzalo, LAL, Ladiero, CN, Lapidez, JP, Mungcal, MTF, Puno, JVR, Ramos, MMAC,

234
 Santiago, J, Suarez, JK & Tablazon, JP 2015, ‘Devastating storm surges of Typhoon Haiyan’,
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 11, pp. 1–12.
Lands Geological Surveys Division 2015, ‘Flood and landslide susceptibility rating’, in Geohazard
web portal, Mines and Geosciences Bureau, viewed 5 November 2021, <https://mgb-
lgsd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=272f20c01e32491084fcb9dc0dc498
c9>.
Lands Geological Surveys Division 2019, ‘Flood and landslide susceptibility rating’, in Geohazard
web portal, Mines and Geosciences Bureau, viewed 5 November 2021, <https://mgb-
lgsd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=272f20c01e32491084fcb9dc0dc498
c9>.
Lechner, HN & Rouleau, MD 2019, ‘Should we stay or should we go now? Factors affecting
evacuation decisions at Pacaya volcano, Guatemala’, International Journal of Disaster Risk
Reduction, vol. 40, art. 101160, DOI:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101160.
Lee, J, Bharosa, N, Yang, J, Janssen, M & Rao, HR 2011, ‘Group value and intention to use – a study
of multi-agency disaster management information systems for public safety’, Decision
Support Systems, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 404–414.
Li, LX 2014, ‘Involvement of social media in disaster management during the Wenchuan and Ya’an
earthquakes’, Asian Journal for Public Opinion Research, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 249–267.
Li, X & Feng, J 2021, ‘Empowerment or disempowerment: exploring stakeholder engagement in
nation branding through a mixed method approach to social network analysis’, Public
Relations Review, vol. 47, no. 3, art. 102024, DOI:10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102024.
Lie, R, & Servaes, J 2015, ‘Disciplines in the field of communication for development and social
change’, Communication Theory, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 244–258, DOI:10.1111/comt.12065.
Lin, LX & Abrahamsson, M 2015, ‘Communicational challenges in disaster risk management: risk
information sharing and stakeholder collaboration through risk and vulnerability assessments
in Sweden’, Risk Management-an International Journal, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 165–178.
Lindell, MK & Perry, RW 2004, Communicating environmental risk in multiethnic communities,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Liu, BF, Fraustino, JD & Jin, Y 2016, ‘Social media use during disasters: how information form and
source influence intended behavioral responses’, Communication Research, vol. 43, no. 5, pp.
626–646.
Liu, BF, Jin, Y & Austin, LL 2013, ‘The tendency to tell: understanding publics’ communicative
responses to crisis information form and source’, Journal of Public Relations Research, vol.
25, no. 1, pp. 51–67.
Liu, W, Lain, C-H & Xu, WW 2018, ‘Tweeting about emergency: a semantic network analysis of
government organizations’ social media messaging during Hurricane Harvey’, Public
Relations Review, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 807–819.
Lizarralde, G, Johnson, C & Davidson, C 2009, Rebuilding after disasters from emergency to
sustainability, Routledge, London, UK.
Lobao, L 1996, ‘A sociology of the periphery versus a peripheral sociology: rural sociology and the
dimension of space’, Rural Sociology, vol. 61, pp. 77–102.
Local Government Code of 1991 1991, Manila, Philippines, viewed 10 February 2020,
<https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1991/ra_7160_1991.html>.
Lovari, A & Bowen, SA 2019, ‘Social media in disaster communication: a case study of strategies,
barriers, and ethical implications’, Journal of Public Affairs, vol. 20, no. 1,
DOI:10.1002/pa.1967.
Luke, A, Sanders, BF, Goodrich, KA, Feldman, DL, Boudreau, D, Eguiarte, A, Serrano, K, Reyes, A,
Schubert, JE, AghaKouchak, A, Basolo, V & Matthew, RA 2018, ‘Going beyond the flood

235
 insurance rate map: insights from flood hazard map co-production’, Natural Hazards and
Earth System Sciences, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 1097–1120.
Madianou, M 2015, ‘Digital inequality and second-order disasters: social media in the Typhoon
Haiyan recovery’, Social Media + Society, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 1–11.
Madu, CN, Kuei, C-H, Madu, IE, Ozumba, BC, Nnadi, VE, Odinkonigbo, UL & Ezeasor, IC 2018,
‘Introduction to disaster risk reduction and management’, in CN Madu & C-H Kuei (eds),
Handbook of disaster risk reduction and management, World Scientific Publishing Company,
Singapore, pp. 1–30.
Mansell, R 2017, ‘Inequality and digitally mediated communication: divides, contradictions and
consequences’, Javnost—The Public, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 146–161.
Manyozo, L 2012, Media, communication and development, SAGE Publications, India.
Marger, MN 2014, Social inequality: patterns and processes, 6th edn, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Marlowe, J, Neef, A, Tevaga, CR & Tevaga, C 2018, ‘A new guiding framework for engaging diverse
populations in disaster risk reduction: reach, relevance, receptiveness, and relationships’,
International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 507–518.
Martin, ML, Jenkins, HA, Mehring, BB & Ma, AC 2011, ‘All hazards, all communities: an approach
to disaster preparedness and policy’, Journal of Race and Policy, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 26–41.
Martin, S & Klenke, K 2016, ‘Content analysis of the writings of Mary Parker Follet’, in K Klenke
(ed), Qualitative research in the study of leadership, 2nd edn, Emerald Group Publishing
Limited, Bingley, pp. 273–301.
Maslow, AH 1943, ‘A theory of human motivation’, Psychological Review, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 370–
396.
McIntosh, MJ & Morse, JM 2015, ‘Situating and constructing diversity in semi-structured
interviews’, Global Qualitative Nursing Research, vol. 2, DOI:10.1177/2333393615597674.
McKechnie, LEF 2008, ‘Observational research’, in LM Given (ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of
qualitative research methods, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 574–575.
McLennan, B, Whittaker, J & Handmer, J 2016, ‘The changing landscape of disaster volunteering:
opportunities, responses and gaps in Australia’, Natural Hazards, vol. 84, no. 3, pp. 2031–
2048.
Mefalopulos, P 2008, Development communication sourcebook: broadening the boundaries of
communication, OKR: Open Knowledge Repository/The World Bank, Washington DC.
Mercer, J, Gaillard, JC, Crowley, K, Shannon, R, Alexander, B, Day, S & Becker, J 2012, ‘Culture
and disaster risk reduction: lessons and opportunities’, Environmental Hazards, vol. 11, no. 2,
pp. 74–95.
Mercer, J, Kelman, I, Taranis, L & Suchet-Pearson, S 2010, ‘Framework for integrating indigenous
and scientific knowledge for disaster risk reduction’, Disasters, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 214–239.
Merriam, SB & Bierema, LL 2013, Adult learning: linking theory and practice, John Wiley & Sons,
San Francisco, CA.
Mileti, DS & O’Brien, PW 1992, ‘Warnings during disaster: normalizing communicated risk’, Social
Problems, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 40–57.
Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management 2021, The 4Rs, Ministry of Civil Defence and
Emergency Management, New Zealand, viewed 14 May 2021,
<https://www.civildefence.govt.nz/cdem-sector/the-4rs/>.
Mishra, S, Mazumdar, S & Suar, D 2010, ‘Place attachment and flood preparedness’, Journal of
Environmental Psychology, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 187–197.
Monbiot, G 2016, How did we get into this mess?, Verso, London, UK.
Montalvan, A 2014, ‘“Typhoon-free” Mindanao?’, The Inquirer.Net, 26 January, viewed 17
November 2021, <https://opinion.inquirer.net/70355/typhoon-free-mindanao>.

236
Montemayor, GJS 2015, ‘Exploring the Filipino’s communicative behaviors in knowledge sharing’,
The Antoninus Journal, vol. 1, pp. 44–61.
Montemayor, GJS & Custodio, P 2014, ‘Communicating risks, risking (mis)communication: mass
media and the science of disasters’, Kasarinlan: Philippine Journal of Third World Studies,
vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 39–74.
Morgan, DL 2008, ‘Emergent design’, in LM Given (ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative
research methods, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 246–248.
Mulyasari, F & Shaw, R 2013, ‘Role of women as risk communicators to enhance disaster resilience
of Bandung, Indonesia’, Natural Hazards, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 2137–2160.
NDRRMC (National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council) 2018a, Disaster reports and
advisories, viewed 17 November 2021, <https://ndrrmc.gov.ph/index.php/disaster-
reports/reports.html>.
NDRRMC (National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council) 2018b, National Disaster
Risk Reduction and Management Plan (NDRRMP) 2011–2028, viewed 17 November 2021,
<https://ndrrmc.gov.ph/attachments/article/1980/National_Disaster_Risk_Reduction_and_Ma
nagement_Plan.pdf>.
Nicholson, D, Vanli, OA, Jung, S & Ozguven, EE 2019, ‘A spatial regression and clustering method
for developing place-specific social vulnerability indices using census and social media data’,
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 38, art. 101224,
DOI:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101224.
O’Keefe, P, Westgate, K & Wisner, B 1976, ‘Taking the naturalness out of natural disasters’, Nature,
vol. 260, pp. 566–567.
Olsson, E-K 2014, ‘Crisis communication in public organisations: dimensions of crisis
communication revisited’, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, vol. 22, no. 2,
pp. 113–125.
Onuma, H, Shin, KJ & Managi, S 2017, ‘Household preparedness for natural disasters: impact of
disaster experience and implications for future disaster risks in Japan’, International Journal
of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 21, pp. 148–158.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development 2013, Economic outlook for Southeast
Asia, China, and India 2014: beyond the middle-income trap, Paris: OECD,
DOI:10.1787/saeo-2014-en.
Osberghaus, D 2015, ‘The determinants of private flood mitigation measures in Germany—evidence
from a nationwide survey’, Ecological Economics, vol. 110, pp. 36–50.
PAGASA (Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration) 2019,
Climate of the Philippines, Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services
Administration, viewed 19 August 2019,
<http://bagong.pagasa.dost.gov.ph/information/climate-philippines>.
PAGASA (Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration) 2020,
Fronts, PAGASA, viewed 18 September 2019, <http://bagong.pagasa.dost.gov.ph/learning-
tools/fronts>.
Pansardi, P & Bindi, M 2021, ‘The new concepts of power? Power-over, power-to and power-with’,
Journal of Political Power, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 51–71.
Partelow, S 2020, ‘Social capital and community disaster resilience: post-earthquake tourism recovery
on Gili Trawangan, Indonesia’, Sustainability Science, vol.16, pp. 1–18.
Paton, D & Buergelt, P 2019, ‘Risk, transformation and adaptation: ideas for reframing approaches to
disaster risk reduction’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
vol. 16, no. 14, art. 2594, DOI:10.3390/ijerph16142594.

237
Paton, D, Johnston, D, Rossiter, K, Buergelt, P, Richards, A & Anderson, S 2017, ‘Community
understanding of tsunami risk and warnings in Australia’, Australian Journal of Emergency
Management, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 54–59.
Perreault, MF, Houston, JB & Wilkins, L 2014, ‘Does scary matter? Testing the effectiveness of new
National Weather Service tornado warning messages’, Communication Studies, vol. 65, no. 5,
pp. 484–499.
Perry, RW 2007, ‘What is a disaster?’, in H Rodríguez, EL Quarantelli & RR Dynes (eds), Handbook
of disaster research, Springer, New York, N.Y., pp. 1–15.
Perry, RW 2018, ‘Defining disaster: an evolving concept’, in H Rodríguez, W Donner & JE Trainor
(eds), Handbook of disaster research, 2nd edn, Springer International Publishing, Cham,
Switzerland, pp. 3–22.
Peters, RG, Covello, VT & McCallum, DB 1997, ‘The determinants of trust and credibility in
environmental risk communication: an empirical study’, Risk Analysis, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 43–
54.
Petz, D 2014, Brookings-LSE project on internal displacement: strengthening regional and national
capacity for disaster risk management: the case of ASEAN, The Brookings Institution,
Washington, DC, viewed 17 November 2021, <https://www.brookings.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2016/06/Strengthening-Regional-and-National-Capacity-for-DRM-Case-of-
ASEAN-November-5-2014.pdf>.
Philippine Statistics Authority 2019, Municipality of Loreto, Philippine Statistics Authority, viewed
19 August 2019, <https://psa.gov.ph/classification/psgc/?q=psgc/barangays/160305000>.
Pourebrahim, N, Sultana, S, Edwards, J, Gochanour, A & Mohanty, S 2019, ‘Understanding
communication dynamics on Twitter during natural disasters: a case study of Hurricane
Sandy’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 37, art. 101176,
DOI:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101176.
Poussin, JK, Botzen, WJW & Aerts, JCJH 2014, ‘Factors of influence on flood damage mitigation
behaviour by households’, Environmental Science & Policy, vol. 40, pp. 69–77.
Pratto, F 2016, ‘On power and empowerment’, British Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 55, no. 1,
pp. 1–20.
Prior, J, Partridge, E & Plant, R 2014, ‘“We get the most information from the sources we trust least”:
residents’ perceptions of risk communication on industrial contamination’, Australasian
Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 346–358.
Prior, L 2003, Using documents in social research, SAGE Publications, London, UK.
Proag, V 2014, ‘The concept of vulnerability and resilience’, Procedia Economics and Finance, vol.
18, pp. 369–376.
Puttick, S, Bosher, L & Chmutina, K 2018, ‘Disasters are not natural’, Teaching Geography, vol. 43,
no. 3, pp. 118–120.
Quarantelli, EL 1986, Disaster crisis management, Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware,
Newark, Delaware, viewed 5 July 2019, <http://udspace.udel.edu/handle/19716/487>.
Quarantelli, EL 1998, What is a disaster? Perspectives on the question, Routledge, New York, NY.
Quebral, NC 2012, ‘The underside of communication in development’, Nordicom Review, vol. 33, pp.
59–64.
Ramalho, J 2019, ‘Empowerment in the era of resilience-building: gendered participation in
community-based (disaster) risk management in the Philippines’, International Development
Planning Review, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 129–148.
Rapport, N 1997, Transcendent individual: essays toward a literary and liberal anthropology,
Routledge, New York, NY.

238
Rashman, L & Hartley, J 2002, ‘Leading and learning? Knowledge transfer in the Beacon Council
Scheme’, Public Administration, vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 523–542.
Rasquinho, O, Liu, J & Leong, D 2013, ‘Assessment on disaster risk reduction of tropical storm
Washi’, Tropical Cyclone Research and Review, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 169–175.
Raven, BH 1965, 'Social influence and power', in ID Steiner & M Fishbein (eds), Current studies in
social psychology, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, NY, pp. 371–382.
Rayamajhee, V & Bohara, AK 2021, ‘Social capital, trust, and collective action in post-earthquake
Nepal’, Natural Hazards, vol. 105, no. 2, pp. 1491–1519.
Redshaw, S, Ingham, V, Hicks, J & Millynn, J 2017, ‘Emergency preparedness through community
sector engagement in the Blue Mountains’, Australian Journal of Emergency Management,
vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 35–40.
Reid, K 2018, 2012 Typhoon Bopha: facts, FAQs, and how to help, World Vision, viewed 20 October
2018, <https://www.worldvision.org/disaster-relief-news-stories/2012-typhoon-bopha-facts>.
Reid, M 2013, 'Disasters and social inequalities’, Sociology Compass, vol. 7, no. 11, pp. 984–997.
Republic Act no. 7160: Local government act of 1991, Official Gazette, 10 Oct, viewed 19 October
2021, <https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1991/10/10/republic-act-no-7160/>.
Republic Act no. 10121, Official Gazette, 27 May, viewed 19 October 2021,
<https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2010/05/27/republic-act-no-10121/>.
Rodríguez, H, Díaz, W, Santos, JM & Aguirre, BE 2007, ‘Communicating risk and uncertainty:
science, technology, and disasters at the crossroads’, in H Rodríguez, EL Quarantelli & RR
Dynes (eds), Handbook of disaster research, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 476–488.
Rogers, P, Burnside-Lawry, J, Dragisic, J & Mills, C 2016, ‘Collaboration and communication:
building a research agenda and way of working towards community disaster resilience’,
Disaster Prevention and Management, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 75–90.
Romani, JH 1956, ‘The Philippine barrio’, The Far Eastern Quarterly, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 229–237.
Romo-Murphy, E, James, R & Adams, M 2011, ‘Facilitating disaster preparedness through local radio
broadcasting’, Disasters, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 801–815.
Rowlands, J 1995, ‘Empowerment examined’, Development in Practice, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 101–107.
Ruin, I, Gaillard, J & Lutoff, C 2007, ‘How to get there? Assessing motorists’ flash flood risk
perception on daily itineraries’, Environmental Hazards, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 235–244.
Salceda, J 2017, House bill 6075, House of Representatives, Philippines, viewed 17 November 2021,
<http://www.congress.gov.ph/legisdocs/basic_17/HB06075.pdf>.
Sanchez, K & Sumaylo, DJ 2015, ‘IEC strategies on risk management and other precautionary
practices of residents in Brgy. Matina Crossing 74-A’, in International Conference on
Communication/Culture and the Sustainable Development Goals: Challenges for a New
Generation, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Sandoval, V & Sarmiento, JP 2020, ‘A neglected issue: informal settlements, urban development, and
disaster risk reduction in Latin America and the Caribbean’, Disaster Prevention and
Management, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 731–745.
Santos, GDC 2021, ‘2020 Tropical cyclones in the Philippines: a review’, Tropical Cyclone Research
and Review, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 191–199.
Seiler, WJ, Beall, ML & Mazer, JP 2017, Communication: making connections, 10th edn, Pearson
Education, Boston, MA.
Sellnow, DD, Lane, DR, Sellnow, TL & Littlefield, RS 2017, ‘The IDEA model as a best practice for
effective instructional risk and crisis communication’, Communication Studies, vol. 68, no. 5,
pp. 552–567.
Servaes, J 2008, Communication for development and social change, SAGE Publications, India.

239
Servaes, J & Lie, R 2015, ‘New challenges for communication for sustainable development and social
change: a review essay’, Journal of Multicultural Discourses, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 124–148.
Servaes, J & Lie, R 2013, ‘Sustainable social change and communication’, Communiation Research
Trends, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 5–30.
Servaes, L & Servaes, J 2021, ‘Participatory communication for social change’, in SR Melkote & A
Singhal (eds), Handbook of communication and development, Edward Elgar Publishing
Limited, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 120–141.
Shaw, R & Goda, K 2004, ‘From disaster to sustainable civil society: the Kobe experience’,
Disasters, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 16–40.
Shaw, R, James, H, Sharma, V, & Lukasiewicz, A 2022, ‘Disaster risk reduction and resilience:
practices and challenges in Asia Pacific’, in H James, R Shaw, V Sharma & A Lukasiewicz
(eds), Disaster risk reduction in Asia Pacific: governance, education, and capacity, Palgrave
Macmillan, Singapore, pp. 1–15.
Shaw, R 2020, ‘Thirthy years of science, technology, and academia in disaster risk reduction and
emerging responsibilities’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, vol. 11, no. 4, pp.
414–425.
Shepherd, J & van Vuuren, K 2014, ‘The Brisbane flood: CALD gatekeepers’ risk communication
role’, Disaster Prevention and Management, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 469–483.
Shklovski, I, Burke, M, Kiesler, S & Kraut, R 2010, ‘Technology adoption and use in the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans’, American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 53, no. 8, pp. 1228–
1246.
Silver, A & Matthews, L 2017, ‘The use of Facebook for information seeking, decision support, and
self-organization following a significant disaster’, Information Communication & Society,
vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 1680–1697.
Sison, MD 2017, ‘Communicating across, within and between, cultures: toward inclusion and social
change’, Public Relations Review, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 130–132.
Smith, K 2013, Environmental hazards: assessing risk and reducing disaster, 6th edn, Routledge,
Abingdon, Oxon.
Smith, W & Dowell, J 2010, ‘A case study of co-ordinative decision-making in disaster management’,
Ergonomics, vol. 43, no. 8, pp. 1153–1166.
Sommerfeldt, EJ 2014, ‘Disasters and information source repertoires: information seeking and
information sufficiency in postearthquake Haiti’, Journal of Applied Communication
Research, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 1–22.
Spialek, ML, Czlapinski, HM & Houston, JB 2016, ‘Disaster communication ecology and community
resilience perceptions following the 2013 central Illinois tornadoes’, International Journal of
Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 17, pp. 154–160.
Spialek, ML & Houston, JB 2018a, ‘The development and initial validation of the Citizen Disaster
Communication Assessment’, Communication Research, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 934–955.
Spialek, ML & Houston, JB 2018b, ‘The influence of citizen disaster communication on perceptions
of neighborhood belonging and community resilience’, Journal of Applied Communication
Research, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 1–23.
Sujarwoto, S & Tampubolon, G 2016, ‘Spatial inequality and the Internet divide in Indonesia 2010–
2012’, Telecommunications Policy, vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 602–616.
Sumaylo, DJ 2013, ‘Using SMS for grassroots health communication in the Philippines’, Media Asia,
vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 227–230.
Sumaylo, DJ 2018, ‘Potentials and pitfalls of crowdsourcing in disaster risk communication: a
systematic review’, 2018 Southeast Asia disaster risk governance academic seminar,

240
 Bangkok, Thailand, 24–26 September, pp. 107–123, viewed 17 November 2021,
<https://www.rcrc-resilience-southeastasia.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Paper14.pdf>.
Sumaylo, DJ, Gomez, AL & Abrio, DF 2016, ‘Mainstreaming LDRRMC-IEC efforts in Barangay
Esperanza, Municipality of Loreto, Province of Dinagat Islands’, in CIDS Research
Colloquium, Quezon City, Philippines.
Sumaylo, DJ & Salas, CJ 2015, ‘Is Davao City ready for e-Health?’, in 2nd International Conference
on Media, Communication and Culture, Penang, Malaysia, 30 November–2 December,
viewed 17 November 2021,
<http://eprints.usm.my/31923/1/Dennis_John_F._Sumaylo,_Christian_Joy_C._Salas.pdf>.
Sumaylo, DJ & Sison, M 2018, ‘Reframing disaster communication approaches: a narrative review’,
in ICA Regional Conference 2018, Selangor, Malaysia.
Susmayadi, IM, Kanagae, H, Adiyoso, W & Suryanti, ED 2014, ‘Sustainable disaster risk reduction
through effective risk communication media in Parangtritis tourism area, Yogyakarta’,
Procedia Environmental Sciences, vol. 20, pp. 684–692.
Taibah, H, Arlikatti, S & Andrew, S 2018, ‘Risk communication for religious crowds: preferences of
Hajj pilgrims’, Disaster Prevention and Management, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 102–114.
Takahashi, B, Tandoc, EC & Carmichael, C 2015, ‘Communicating on Twitter during a disaster: an
analysis of tweets during Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines’, Computers in Human
Behavior, vol. 50, pp. 392–398.
Tan, ML, Prasanna, R, Stock, K, Hudson-Doyle, E, Leonard, G & Johnston, D 2017, ‘Mobile
applications in crisis informatics literature: a systematic review’, International Journal of
Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 24, pp. 297–311.
Tandoc, EC & Takahashi, B 2017, ‘Log in if you survived: collective coping on social media in the
aftermath of Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines’, New Media & Society, vol. 19, no. 11, pp.
1778–1793.
Tang, JS & Feng, JY 2018, ‘Residents' disaster preparedness after the Meinong Taiwan earthquake: a
test of protection motivation theory’, International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, vol. 15, no. 7, DOI:10.3390/ijerph15071434.
Taylor, M 2018, ‘Reconceptualizing public relations in an engaged society’, in KA Johnston & M
Taylor (eds), The handbook of communication engagement, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken,
NJ, pp. 162–174.
Taylor, M & Perry, DC 2005, ‘Diffusion of traditional and new media tactics in crisis
communication’, Public Relations Review, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 209–217.
Teo, M, Goonetilleke, A, Deilami, K, Ahankoob, A & Lawie, M 2019, ‘Engaging residents from
different ethnic and language backgrounds in disaster preparedness’, International Journal of
Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 39, art. 1012451-10, viewed 17 November 2021,
<https://eprints.qut.edu.au/131533/>.
Teo, M, Lawie, M, Goonetilleke, A, Ahankoob, A & Deilami, K 2018, ‘Engaging vulnerable
populations in preparedness and response: a local government context’, Australian Journal of
Emergency Management, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 38–47.
Tickamyer, AR 2000, ‘Space matters! Spatial inequality in future sociology’, Contemporary
Sociology, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 805–813.
Titz, A, Cannon, T & Krüger, F 2018, ‘Uncovering “community”: challenging an elusive concept in
development and disaster related work’, Societies, vol. 8, no. 3, p. 71.
Tolentino, AS Jr. 2007, ‘The challenges of tsunami disaster response planning and management’, vol.
7, no. 1, pp. 147–154.

241
Torres, SAV 2019, The cycle of preparedness, Federal Emergency Management Agency, viewed 21
January 2018, <https://deployedlogix.com/emergency-preparedness-for-the-everyday-
person/>.
Tracy, SJ 2020, Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating
impact, Second edn, Wiley Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ.
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction 2020a, Disaster definition, United Nations Office
for Disaster Risk Reduction, viewed 23 January 2018,
<https://www.undrr.org/terminology/disaster>.
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction 2020b, Disaster risk information definition, United
Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, viewed 23 January 2018,
<https://www.undrr.org/terminology/disaster-risk-information>.
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction 2020c, Disaster risk management definition,
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, viewed 23 January 2018,
<https://www.undrr.org/terminology/disaster-risk-management>.
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction 2020d, Preparedness definition, United Nations
Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, viewed 23 January 2018,
<https://www.undrr.org/terminology/preparedness>.
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction 2020e, Resilience, United Nations Office for
Disaster Risk Reduction, viewed 23 January 2018,
<https://www.undrr.org/terminology/resilience>.
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction 2021, Vulnerability definition, United Nations
Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, viewed 15 March 2021,
<https://www.undrr.org/terminology/vulnerability>.
Valenzuela, VPB, Esteban, M, Takagi, H, Thao, ND & Onuki, M 2020, ‘Disaster awareness in three
low risk coastal communities in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, Philippines’, International
Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 46, art. 101508.
Vertovec, S 2007, ‘Super-diversity and its implications’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 30, no. 6, pp.
1024–1054.
Vincent, RC 2016, 'The Internet and sustainable development: communication dissemination and the
digital divide’, Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 605–
637.
Wallemacq, P., & Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) 2018, ‘Natural
disasters in 2017: lower mortality, higher cost’, CRED Crunch, issue 50, Université
catholique de Louvain, Brussells, Belgium—CRED, viewed 26 October 2021,
<https://cred.be/sites/default/files/CredCrunch50.pdf>.
Wamil, RA 2010, ‘Decentralizing disaster information: reflections on the BRB2 project’, in L
Polotan-dela Cruz, E Ferrer & M Pagaduan (eds), Building disaster-resilient communities:
stories and lessons from the Philippines, College of Social Work and Community
Development and University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines, pp. 33–57.
Warren, JF 2016, ‘Typhoons and the inequalities of Philippine society and history, Philippine Studies,
Historical & Ethnographic Viewpoints, vol. 64, no. 3/4, pp. 455–472.
Warwick-Booth, L 2019, Social inequality, 2nd edn, SAGE Publications, London, UK.
Webb, GR 2018, ‘The cultural turn in disaster research: understanding resilience and vulnerability
through the lens of culture’, in H Rodríguez, W Donner & JE Trainor (eds), Handbook of
disaster research, 2nd edn, Springer, Switzerland, pp. 109–121.
Wickes, R, Zahnow, R, Taylor, M & Piquero, AR 2015, ‘Neighborhood structure, social capital, and
community resilience: longitudinal evidence from the 2011 Brisbane flood disaster’, Social
Science Quarterly, vol. 96, no. 2, pp. 330–353.

242
Winston, BE & Patterson, K 2006, ‘An integrative definition of leadership’, International Journal of
Leadership Studies, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 6–66.
Wilkins, KG 1996, ‘Development communication’, Peace Review, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 97–103.
Willis, K 2005, Theories and practices of development, Routledge, London, UK.
Wilson, S 2020, ‘Pandemic leadership: lessons from New Zealand’s approach to COVID-19’,
Leadership, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 279–293.
Wong, YC, Fung, JYC, Law, CK, Lam, JCY & Lee, VWP 2009, ‘Tackling the digital divide’, British
Journal of Social Work, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 754–767.
World Health Organization 2009, Manual for the public health management of chemical incidents,
WHO Press, Geneva, Switzerland.
Wray, R, Kreuter, M, Jacobsen, H, Clements, B & Evans, R 2004, ‘Theoretical perspectives on public
communication preparedness for terrorist attacks’, Family & Community Health, vol. 27, no.
3, pp. 232–241.
Xuerui, Y 2008, ‘Narrowing or widening the digital divide? The growth of the Internet and uneven
developments in China’, Media Asia, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 140–204.
Yang, X & Ho, SS 2017, ‘Decreasing the knowledge gap among different socioeconomic status
groups on the issue of climate change’, Environmental Hazards, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 276–290.
Yang, Y, Zhang, C, Fan, C, Yao, W, Huang, R & Mostafavi, A 2019, ‘Exploring the emergence of
influential users on social media during natural disasters’, International Journal of Disaster
Risk Reduction, vol. 38, art. 101204.
Yi, CJ & Kuri, M 2016, ‘The prospect of online communication in the event of a disaster’, Journal of
Risk Research, vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 951–963.
Yin, RK & Campbell, DT 2018, Case study research and applications: design and methods, 6th edn,
SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Yudarwati, GA 2019, ‘Appreciative inquiry for community engagement in Indonesia rural
communities’, Public Relations Review, vol. 45, no. 4, DOI:10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101833.
Yudarwati, GA, Putranto, IA & Delmo, KM 2021, ‘Examining the Indonesian government’s social
media use for disaster risk communication’, Asian Journal of Communication, pp. 1–20,
DOI:10.1080/01292986.2021.2007274.
Yu, T-K, Lin, M-L & Liao, Y-K 2017, ‘Understanding factors influencing information
communication technology adoption behavior: the moderators of information literacy and
digital skills’, Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 71, pp. 196–208.
Zamora, MD 1967, ‘Political history, autonomy, and change: the case of the barrio charter’, Asian
Studies, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 79–100.
Zheng, C, Zhang, J, Guo, Y, Zhang, Y & Qian, L 2019, ‘Disruption and reestablishment of place
attachment after large-scale disasters: The role of perceived risk, negative emotions, and
coping’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 40, art. 101273.

243
Appendix A

Interview schedule (KII with implementers of the National DRRM Plan)

Purpose: 1. Examine the current implementation and status of the national DRRM plan on
disaster preparedness at the local level; and

2. Audit communication tools used to address the national DRRM plan pre-disaster
phase.

Questions

1. What are the various communication tools used in disseminating disaster risk information?
Who is responsible for developing the tools? For distribution? For dissemination? What are
the communication strategies developed locally?
2. How appropriate are the current communication tools used in disaster risk information in
your area? How accessible are these tools? Who is able to access these tools?
3. What are the various processes involved in providing trainings and drills for the local
community? How are topics selected? How are speakers selected? How are attendees
selected or invited to attend? How do the speakers ensure that disaster risk information
discussed with the community are received? Do they translate the information in the local
dialect? Do they use local examples and beliefs? Do they do myth busting in disseminating
disaster risk information?
4. What are the challenges in implementing the National DRRM Plan at the local level?
5. What are the challenges in engaging the local community to act on preparing themselves for
any disaster event?
6. If you would propose other ways of disseminating disaster risk information to the local
community, what would these be? Why do you prefer these strategies? Does the current
local DRRM council have the capacity to design and implement these strategies?

244
Interview schedule (KII with residents of local community)

Purpose: 1. To describe how the community respond and engage with the current
communication tools used in disseminating disaster risk information;

2. To record the local community’s media preference in seeking and sharing disaster
risk information; and

3. To explore roles of the local community in increasing their disaster resiliency and
preparedness.

Method: Aside from asking questions, samples of communication tools currently used by the
local DRRM council will be shown to the informant.

Questions

Communication tools for disaster preparedness:

1. What are the various communication tools (poster, flyer, announcement, Early Warning
Signs, etc.) that you know of that were used to disseminate disaster risk information?
2. Where did you see these communication tools? Are there many of these in the community?
How often do you get to see this communication tool?
3. What are your experiences in using these tools? What makes it easy or difficult to use? Do
you think they were effective? Why/why not?

Perceptions and use of digital technology:

1. What are your thoughts about using social media like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram for
disaster risk information dissemination?
2. Do you have social media accounts? Which social networking sites do you subscribe
(Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram etc.)? Do you use your social media accounts to get
disaster risk information? Do you follow the local governments social media accounts?
3. What are your thoughts about mobile applications like weather applications or Project
NOAH?

Perception and attitude about risk communication:

1. How do you want to be informed about disaster risk information? What communication
tools do you want the local council to use in informing you about disaster risks? Why?
2. Have you previously attended disaster drills and seminars? What do you think about them?
Did you find the information useful/not useful? Why?

245
3. What kind of information are you looking for/expecting when you attend these drills and
seminars? Did these activities change your idea of preparing for disaster? In what way?
4. Can you share with me your preferred ways of preparing for a disaster event? How did you
learn about these? Why do you think it is necessary to prepare for a disaster event? What
are the specific indicators (e.g. environmental or natural) that will make you decide to
evacuate?

246
Appendix B

Observation checklist (disaster drills/training/symposia)

All observations will be documented through pen and paper. No photographs or videos will be taken
during observations.

Below is a list of pre-determined observation checklist:

1. Approximate number of attendees;

2. Approximate gender balance of attendees;
3. Approximate age bracket of attendees;
4. Approximate number of attendees leaving the venue without finishing the drill / training /
symposia;
5. Topics discussed;
6. Background of speaker per topic;
7. How the topic was discussed;
8. The activities used by speaker during the lecture/drill; and
9. Kinds of questions asked.

NOTE: Checklist may expand during the course of data gathering.

247
Observation checklist (unobtrusive observation in areas with IEC tools)

Below is a list of pre-determined observation checklist:

1. Approximate number of people in the area within a specific time of day;

2. Approximate gender balance of people in the area within a specific time of day;
3. Approximate age bracket of people in the area within a specific time of day; and
4. Description of the kind of engagement of people in the area within a specific time of day
with the communication tool (Do they even look at it? Do they read it?).

NOTE: Checklist may expand during the course of data gathering.

248
Appendix C

Communication tools audit checklist

Kind of Digital Tools Non-Digital Tools Language Production

Communication and
(English,
Tool Distribution
Filipino,
Bisaya) (Local or
National)

Online Offline Print Audio Video Other Drills/ Others

Visual
Community
Tools
Assembly

Legend:

Kind of Tool Examples

Online Social Networking Sites, Websites, Mobile

Applications, etc.

Offline Text Messaging, Digital Games, etc.

Print Posters, Brochures, Flyers, up to A1 Size (32’’ x

48’’) Tarpaulins and other print materials, etc.

Audio Locally produced radio programs funded by the

Local Government Unit through the Local DRRM
Council

Videos Local TV Ads and Informative Shows in free or

local cable channels

Other Visual Tools Billboards, Road Signages, and other visual tools
bigger than A1

Drills / Community Assembly Organised by the Local Government Unit,

249
 partner Non-Government Organisations, and the
Local DRRM Council or a national mandate like
the National Earthquake Drill.

Others Not part of the aforementioned and oftentimes

locally designed, produced, and disseminated.

Production and Distribution Examples

Local Provincial DRRM Council

Municipal DRRM Council

Barangay DRRM Council

National National DRRM Council

250
Appendix D

Research consent form

Participant Information Sheet/Consent Form

INTERVIEW WITH LOCAL DRRM COUNCIL OFFICER / MEMBER

Title Information Transfer and Local Community

Engagement for Disaster Preparedness in
Geographically Isolated and Disadvantaged
Areas in Mindanao, Philippines
Chief Investigator/Senior Supervisor Dr. Marianne Sison
Associate Investigator(s)/Associate
Principal
Dr. Investigator]
Leah Li
Supervisor(s)

Principal Research Student(s) Dennis John Sumaylo

What does my participation involve?

1 Introduction

You are invited to take part in this research project, which is called Information Transfer and
Local Community Engagement for Disaster Preparedness in Geographically Isolated and
Disadvantaged Areas in Mindanao, Philippines. You have been invited because you are part
of the Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) Council implementing the
National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) Plan. Your contact details were
obtained from [the Provincial Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) Council.

251
This Participant Information Sheet/Consent Form tells you about the research project. It
explains the processes involved with taking part in it. Knowing what is involved will help you
decide if you want to take part in the research.

Please read this information carefully. You may ask questions about anything that you don’t
understand or want to know more about. Before deciding whether or not to take part, you
might want to talk about it with a relative, friend, or other members of the Local DRRM
Council.

Participation in this research is voluntary. If you don’t wish to take part, you don’t have to.

If you decide you want to take part in the research project, you will be asked to sign the
consent section. By signing it you are telling us that you:

• Understand what you have read; and

• Consent to take part in the research project.

You will be given a copy of this Participant Information and Consent Form to keep.

2 What is the purpose of this research?

The aim of this research is to look at the various existing methodologies of information
transfer and engaging the local community in building and sharing pre-disaster risk
information in the Philippine context by looking at how local communities in the Philippines
access and use government-produced disaster information, education, and communication
(IEC) tools. This study will also look at how implementers of the National Disaster Risk
Reduction and Management Plan engage the locals to be proactive in accessing and
sharing disaster risk information to increase resiliency during disaster of select island,
lowland, and highland communities. This will be answered using document reviews, semi-
structured interviews, and unobtrusive observations during field work as qualitative methods
of data gathering which in turn provides a communication audit of current communication

252
tools used in disaster risk communication, a narrative of the people’s information seeking
and sharing behaviour, and a grounded critical framework of community engagement.

This research has been initiated by Dennis John Sumaylo and the results will be used by the
researcher to obtain a Ph.D. in Media and Communication degree from RMIT University,
Melbourne, Australia. This research project is personally funded.

3 What does participation in this research involve?

If you decide to take part in this research project, you will be asked to affix your signature to
the consent form prior to any form of involvement in the research project. Your name will not
be included in the textual and verbal presentation of research results, however, your role
and contribution/s in the implementation of the National DRRM Plan at the local level will be
describe.

After obtaining consent, you will participate in an audio-recorded face-to-face interview at

your office in your most convenient time. The interview will be recorded using a digital audio
recorder and will run for 30 – 45 minutes. During the interview, you will be asked questions
pertaining to the following information:

1. The current implementation methods of the local DRRM council of the

national DRRM plan;
2. The current Information, Education, and Communication (IEC) tools such as
posters, drills, seminars, etc. used to address disaster preparedness needs of
the local community;
3. Description of how the local community use and respond to the current IEC
tools used in disaster preparedness efforts;
4. The strengths and weaknesses based on how the IEC tools are used by the
Local DRRM Council in disaster preparedness activities; and
5. The possible role/s of the local community’s information seeking and sharing
behaviour in disaster risk information dissemination.

In addition, your assistance may be needed by the researcher to do actual observations in

the community by identifying areas where IEC tools are posted and allowing the researcher

253
to document organised seminars and drills conducted by the Local DRRM Council using pen
and paper. Included in the list of things to observe and data to be gathered are bulletin
boards, placement of IEC tools in the area of study, visibility of IEC tools, foot traffic within
the area where IEC tools are placed, time of day when foot traffic is high or low, gender and
assumed age of pedestrians, topics discussed, and organisational background of speakers
during seminars and drills.

As informant, you are also allowed to review the transcription of our interview before it is
translated to English language.

Lastly, there are no costs associated with participating in this research project, nor will you
be paid. However, you may be reimbursed for any reasonable travel, meals, and other
expenses associated with area observation.

4 Other relevant information about the research project

There are three general locations for this study that will represent communities living in an
island, highland, and lowland (urban area). Specifically, the research areas Surigao del
Norte or Province of Dinagat Islands, Davao del Norte, and Davao City.

Aside from interviews with members of the Local DRRM Council, a separate semi-structure
interview of residents of the chosen community will be made. They will be asked questions
on their media preference and experiences in using the current IEC tools used for disaster
risk information transfer.

A minimum of three people will be interviewed from the local DRRM council per area from
the Provincial level down to the Village level. However, a minimum of 5 interviewees will be
included in the semi-structured interviews for residents of each chosen community.
Maximum number of informants per community is seven.

This research is also supervised by faculty members of the School of Media and
Communication, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.

5 Do I have to take part in this research project?

254
Participation in any research project is voluntary. If you do not wish to take part, you do not
have to. If you decide to take part and later change your mind, you are free to withdraw from
the project at any stage.

If you do decide to take part, you will be given this Participant Information and Consent Form
to sign and you will be given a copy to keep. After giving consent, you will participate in a
face-to-face interview with the researcher. The interview may take 30-45 minutes of your
time; however, you may stop the interview at any time. Unless you say that you want the
researcher to keep them, any recordings will be erased and information you have provided
will not be included in the study results. You may also refuse to answer any questions that
you do not wish to answer during the interview.

Your decision whether to take part or not to take part, or to take part and then withdraw, will
not affect your relationship with the researcher or with RMIT University.

6 What are the possible benefits of taking part?

There will be no clear benefit to you from your participation in this research; however, you
may appreciate contributing to knowledge. Benefits may include a baseline data of your
constituent’s media preference that may aid in developing your own methods of
disseminating disaster risk information.

7 What are the risks and disadvantages of taking part?

While there is no high risk participating in this research as it does not require any personal
information, some questions pertaining to organisational operations might cause distress.
Whilst all care will be taken to maintain privacy and confidentiality, you may feel that some of
the questions we ask may cause discomfort on your part. If you do not wish to answer a
question, you are allowed to do so and move on to the next question or you may stop the
interview immediately. It is advisable that you do not reveal anything too personal or any
information that you may regret later on.

255
8 What if I withdraw from this research project?

If you do consent to participate, you may withdraw at any time. If you decide to withdraw
from the project, please notify the researcher anytime.

You also have the right to have any unprocessed data withdrawn and destroyed, providing it
can be reliably identified.

9 What happens when the research project ends?

The target completion date of this research project is December 2021. After the researcher
gets approval from RMIT University, results of the study will be shared to you. The
researcher will visit your office and provide an oral presentation of the research results. This
will be done in 2022. You will also be provided with a summary of the results when the
research project is completed.

How is the research project being conducted?

10 What will happen to information about me?

By signing the consent form you consent to the researcher collecting and using information
from you for the research project. Any information obtained in connection with this research
project that can identify you will remain confidential. Specifically:

• All transcriptions and translations of interview will be stored at RMIT University

system for easy retrieval; and
• Only people who will review and approve this research project within RMIT University
will have access to any personal information you provided should it be deemed
necessary.

256
It is anticipated that the results of this research project will be published and/or presented in
a variety of fora. In any publication and/or presentation, information will be provided in such
a way that you cannot be identified, except with your express permission. Should there be a
need to have a form of identification, all participants in this research will be assigned an
alias. Rest assured that the information you provided will be used responsibly and will be
treated with utmost respect.

Moreover, in accordance with relevant Australian and/or Victorian privacy and other relevant
laws, you have the right to request access to the information about you that is collected and
stored by the research team. You also have the right to request that any information with
which you disagree be corrected. Please inform the research team member named at the
end of this document if you would like to access your information.

Any information that you provide can be disclosed only if (1) it is to protect you or others
from harm, (2) if specifically allowed by law, (3) you provide the researchers with written
permission. Any information obtained for the purpose of this research project and for the
future research described that can identify you will be treated as confidential and securely
stored.

11 Who is organising and funding the research?

This research project is being conducted and personally funded by Dennis John F. Sumaylo.

12 Who has reviewed the research project?

All research in Australia involving humans is reviewed by an independent group of people

called a Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC). This research project has been
approved by the RMIT University HREC.

257
This project will be carried out according to the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in
Human Research (2007). This statement has been developed to protect the interests of
people who agree to participate in human research studies.

13 Further information and who to contact

If you want any further information concerning this project, you can contact the researcher
using the following contact information: (mobile number), (email), or any of the following
people:

Research contact person

Name Dr. Marianne Sison

Position Senior Supervisor

Telephone

Email

Research contact person

Name Dr. Leah Li

Position Associate Supervisor

Telephone

Email

Local contact person (Philippines)

Name Asst. Prof. Ma. Teresa R. Escano

Position Chair, Department of Humanities

University of the Philippines Mindanao

Telephone

Email

258
14 Complaints

Should you have any concerns or questions about this research project, which you do not
wish to discuss with the researchers listed in this document, then you may contact:

Reviewing HREC name RMIT University

HREC Secretary Peter Burke

Telephone

Email

Mailing address

259
Consent form

Title Information Transfer and Local Community

Engagement for Disaster Preparedness in
Geographically Isolated and Disadvantaged
Chief Investigator/Senior Areas in Mindanao,
Dr. Marianne Sison Philippines
Supervisor
Associate Investigator(s)/Associate Dr. Leah Li
Supervisors
Research Student(s) Dennis John F. Sumaylo

Acknowledgement by Participant

I have read and understood the Participant Information Sheet.

I understand the purposes, procedures and risks of the research described in the project.

I have had an opportunity to ask questions and I am satisfied with the answers I have
received.

I freely agree to participate in this research project as described and understand that I am
free to withdraw at any time during the project without affecting my relationship with RMIT.

I understand that I will be given a signed copy of this document to keep.

Name of Participant (please print)

Signature Date

Declaration by Researcher†

260
I have given a verbal explanation of the research project, its procedures, and risks and I
believe that the participant has understood that explanation.

Name of Researcher† (please print)

Signature Date

† An appropriately qualified member of the research team must provide the explanation of, and information
concerning, the research project.

Note: All parties signing the consent section must date their own signature.

261
 Participant Information Sheet/Consent Form
INTERVIEW WITH RESIDENTS OF LOCAL COMMUNITY

Information Transfer and Local Community

Engagement for Disaster Preparedness in
Title
Geographically Isolated and Disadvantaged
Areas in Mindanao, Philippines
Chief Investigator/Senior Supervisor Dr. Marianne Sison
Associate Investigator(s)/Associate
Principal
Dr. Investigator]
Leah Li
Supervisor(s)

Principal Research Student(s) Dennis John Sumaylo

What does my participation involve?

1 Introduction

You are invited to take part in this research project, which is called Information Transfer and
Local Community Engagement for Disaster Preparedness in Geographically Isolated and
Disadvantaged Areas in Mindanao, Philippines. You have been invited because you are a
resident of the area of study and may have had received or shared disaster risk information
to others. Participants for this research are selected randomly.

This Participant Information Sheet/Consent Form tells you about the research project. It
explains the processes involved with taking part in the research. Knowing what is involved
will help you decide if you want to take part in it.

262
Please read this information carefully. You may ask questions about anything that you don’t
understand or want to know more about. Before deciding whether or not to take part, you
might want to talk about it with a relative, friend, or members of the Local DRRM Council.

Participation in this research is voluntary. If you don’t wish to take part, you don’t have to.

If you decide you want to take part in the research project, you will be asked to sign the
consent section. By signing it you are telling us that you:

• Understand what you have read; and

• Consent to take part in the research project.

You will be given a copy of this Participant Information and Consent Form to keep.

2 What is the purpose of this research?

The aim of this research is to look at the various existing methodologies of information
transfer and engaging the local community in building and sharing pre-disaster risk
information in the Philippine context by looking at how local communities in the Philippines
access and use government-produced disaster information, education, and communication
(IEC) tools. This study will also look at how implementers of the National Disaster Risk
Reduction and Management Plan engage the locals to be proactive in accessing and
sharing disaster risk information to increase resiliency during disaster of select island,
lowland, and highland communities. This will be answered using document reviews, semi-
structured interviews, and unobtrusive observations during field work as qualitative methods
of data gathering which in turn provides a communication audit of current communication
tools used in disaster risk communication, a narrative of the people’s information seeking
and sharing behaviour, and a grounded critical framework of community engagement.

This research has been initiated by Dennis John Sumaylo and the results will be used by the
researcher to obtain a Ph.D. in Media and Communication degree from RMIT University,
Melbourne, Australia. This research project is personally funded.

263
3 What does participation in this research involve?

If you decide to take part in this research project, you will be asked to affix your signature to
the consent form prior to any form of involvement in the research project. Your name will not
be included in the textual and verbal presentation of research results, however, your role
and contribution/s in the implementation of the National DRRM Plan at the local level will be
describe.

After obtaining consent, you will participate in a recorded face-to-face interview in your
workplace or in public spaces like tambayan (hangout) area of the zone built and maintained
by zone officers, the community centre, and barangay hall at your most convenient time. The
interview will be recorded using a digital audio recorder and will run for 30 – 45 minutes.
During the interview, you will be asked questions pertaining to the following information:

6. The current Information, Education, and Communication (IEC) tools such as

posters, drills, seminars, etc. used to address disaster preparedness needs of
the local community;
7. Description of how the local community use and respond to the current IEC
tools used in disaster preparedness efforts;
8. The strengths and weaknesses based on how the IEC tools are used by the
Local DRRM Council in disaster preparedness activities; and
9. The possible role/s of the local community’s information seeking and sharing
behaviour in disaster risk information dissemination.

As informant, you are also allowed to review the transcription of your interview before it is
translated to English language.

Lastly, there are no costs associated with participating in this research project, nor will you
be paid.

4 Other relevant information about the research project

264
There are three general locations for this study that will represent communities living in an
island, highland, and lowland (urban) areas. Specifically, the research areas Surigao del
Norte or Province of Dinagat Islands, Davao del Norte, and Davao City.

Aside from interviews with residents, a separate semi-structure interview with members of
the Local DRRM Council will be made. They will be asked about specific practices involved
in disaster risk information dissemination in your locality. You are being interviewed because
you take an active role in disseminating disaster risk information and is considered to be an
informal leader in disaster risk reduction and management.

A minimum of 5 interviewees and a maximum of 7 will be included in the semi-structured

interviews for residents of the chosen community.

This research is also supervised by faculty members of the School of Media and
Communication, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.

5 Do I have to take part in this research project?

Participation in any research project is voluntary. If you do not wish to take part, you do not
have to. If you decide to take part and later change your mind, you are free to withdraw from
the project at any stage.

If you do decide to take part, you will be given this Participant Information and Consent Form
to sign and you will be given a copy to keep. After giving consent, you will participate in a
face-to-face interview with the researcher. The interview may take 30-45 minutes of your
time; however, you may stop the interview at any time. Unless you say that you want the
researcher to keep them, any recordings will be erased and information you have provided
will not be included in the study results. You may also refuse to answer any questions that
you do not wish to answer during the interview.

Your decision whether to take part or not to take part, or to take part and then withdraw, will
not affect your relationship with the researcher or with RMIT University.

265
6 What are the possible benefits of taking part?

There will be no clear benefit to you from your participation in this research; however, you
may appreciate contributing to knowledge.

7 What are the risks and disadvantages of taking part?

While there is no high risk participating in this research as it does not require any personal
information, it may take some of your free time. Whilst all care will be taken to maintain
privacy and confidentiality, you may feel that some of the questions require detailed answers
which may cause discomfort on your part. If you do not wish to answer a question, you are
allowed to do so and move on to the next question or you may stop the interview
immediately. It is also advisable that you do not reveal anything too personal or any
information that you may regret later on.

8 What if I withdraw from this research project?

If you do consent to participate, you may withdraw at any time. If you decide to withdraw
from the project, please notify the researcher or any of the contact persons (see Section 13)
indicated in this form anytime.

You also have the right to have any unprocessed data withdrawn and destroyed, providing it
can be reliably identified.

9 What happens when the research project ends?

The target completion date of this research project is December 2021. After the researcher
gets approval from RMIT University, results of the study will be shared to you. The
researcher will also visit your local DRRM council office and provide an oral presentation of

266
the research results. This will be done in 2022. Furthermore, the post-research project
activities will include dissemination of results through conferences and publications.

How is the research project being conducted?

10 What will happen to information about me?

By signing the consent form you consent to the researcher collecting and using information
from you for the research project. Any information obtained in connection with this research
project that can identify you will remain confidential. Specifically:

• All transcriptions and translations of interview will be stored at RMIT University

system for easy retrieval; and
• Only people who will review and approve this research project within RMIT University
will have access to any personal information you provided should it be deemed
necessary.

It is anticipated that the results of this research project will be published and/or presented in
a variety of fora. In any publication and/or presentation, information will be provided in such
a way that you cannot be identified, except with your express permission. Should there be a
need to have a form of identification, all participants in this research will be assigned an
alias. Rest assured that the information you provided will be used responsibly and will be
treated with utmost respect.

Moreover, in accordance with relevant Australian and/or Victorian privacy and other relevant
laws, you have the right to request access to the information about you that is collected and
stored by the research team. You also have the right to request that any information with
which you disagree be corrected. Please inform the research team member named at the
end of this document if you would like to access your information.

Any information that you provide can be disclosed only if (1) it is to protect you or others
from harm, (2) if specifically allowed by law, (3) you provide the researchers with written

267
permission. Any information obtained for the purpose of this research project and for the
future research described that can identify you will be treated as confidential and securely
stored.

11 Who is organising and funding the research?

This research project is being conducted and personally funded by Dennis John F. Sumaylo.

12 Who has reviewed the research project?

All research in Australia involving humans is reviewed by an independent group of people

called a Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC). This research project has been
approved by the RMIT University HREC.

This project will be carried out according to the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in
Human Research (2007). This statement has been developed to protect the interests of
people who agree to participate in human research studies.

13 Further information and who to contact

If you want any further information concerning this project, you can contact the researcher
using the following contact information: (mobile number), (email), or any of the following
people:

Research contact person

Name Dr. Marianne Sison

Position Senior Supervisor

Telephone

Email

268
 Research contact person

Name Dr. Leah Li

Position Associate Supervisor

Telephone

Email

Local contact person (Philippines)

Name Asst. Prof. Ma. Teresa R. Escano

Position Chair, Department of Humanities

University of the Philippines Mindanao

Telephone

Email

14 Complaints

Should you have any concerns or questions about this research project, which you do not
wish to discuss with the researchers listed in this document, then you may contact:

Reviewing HREC name RMIT University

HREC Secretary Peter Burke

Telephone

Email

Mailing address

269
Consent form

Information Transfer and Local Community

Engagement for Disaster Preparedness in
Title
Geographically Isolated and Disadvantaged
Areas in Mindanao, Philippines
Chief Investigator/Senior
Dr. Marianne Sison
Supervisor
Associate Investigator(s)/Associate
Dr. Leah Li
Supervisors
Research Student(s) Dennis John F. Sumaylo

Acknowledgement by Participant

I have read and understood the Participant Information Sheet.

I understand the purposes, procedures and risks of the research described in the project.

I have had an opportunity to ask questions and I am satisfied with the answers I have
received.

I freely agree to participate in this research project as described and understand that I am
free to withdraw at any time during the project without affecting my relationship with RMIT.

I understand that I will be given a signed copy of this document to keep.

Name of Participant (please print)

Signature Date

Declaration by Researcher†

270
I have given a verbal explanation of the research project, its procedures, and risks and I
believe that the participant has understood that explanation.

Name of Researcher† (please print)

Signature Date

†
An appropriately qualified member of the research team must provide the explanation of, and information
concerning, the research project.

Note: All parties signing the consent section must date their own signature.

271
Appendix E

Ethics committee approval

272
273
Appendix F

Academic activities and publications

Publications

Sumaylo, DJ 2018, ‘Potentials and pitfalls of crowdsourcing in disaster risk communication: a

systematic review’, 2018 Southeast Asia Disaster Risk Governance Academic Seminar ,
Bangkok, Thailand, 24–26 September, pp. 107–123, <https://www.rcrc-resilience-
southeastasia.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Paper14.pdf>
Sumaylo, DJ & Sison, MD 2022, ‘Rethinking disaster commuication ecology: exploring context in
isolated communities in the Philippines’, in J-E W Yusuf & B St John III (eds),
Communicating climate change: making environmental messaging accessible, in press,
Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon.

Presentations

Sumaylo, DJ, 2018, ‘Potentials and pitfalls of crowdsourcing in disaster risk communication: a
systematic review’, in 2018 Southeast Asia Disaster Risk Governance Academic Seminar,
Bangkok, Thailand, 24–26 September.
Sumaylo, DJ & Sison, M 2018, ‘Reframing disaster communication approaches: a narrative
review’, in ICA Regional Conference 2018, Selangor, Malaysia.
Sumaylo, DJ, 2019, ‘Disaster risk information dissemination in an upland community in
Mindanao, Philippines’, in 27th AMIC Annual Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, 17–19
June.
Sumaylo, DJ, 2021, ‘Engaging communities living in geographic and socio-economic isolation in
pre-disaster communication’, in The Twelfth Convention of Asia Scholars (ICAS12),
Online Conference, Kyoto Seika University, Japan (host), 24–28 August.

274