50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”

Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines

SEISMIC RISK MAPPING AT MICRO-SCALE

Dexter S. Lo and Andres Winston C. Oreta
ABSTRACT: Disaster risk refers to the likelihood of loss or harm due to a serious disruption of
the community’s normal functioning; it is not only dictated by the strength of a hazard like
earthquake, but also on how vulnerable the community is. This study developed a tool for
quantifying the Seismic Risk Index (SRi) of a community at micro-scale. The SRi is taken as a
function of various parameters including the severity of earthquake in the area, population,
structural vulnerability, as well as other physical and socio-economic factors. An actual
application has been made to the case of Barangay Carmen, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines.
Results show that Zones 2, 5 and 9 are at High Risk. The Structural Seismic Vulnerability Score
of Zones 2 and 5 are beyond the cut-off score, which suggests that many of the structures in
these zones are potentially seismically hazardous; mainly due to the presence of many non-
engineered structures. To reduce the community’s vulnerability, it is recommended that a
committed and conscientious effort in implementing strict code compliance be done. To
empower the economically marginalized members of society will give them a chance to build
structurally sound infrastructures and having the option to avoid slopes.

KEYWORDS: Disaster, Earthquake, FEMA, Structures, Vulnerability

1. INTRODUCTION

According to a 2009 joint report of the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster
Reduction (UN ISDR) and the Centre for Research and the Epidemiology of Disasters
(CRED), more than 98% of the people killed in 2008 due to natural disasters were in Asia; and
nine of the ten countries with the highest disaster deaths were also in Asia. Most tragic is the
2008 Sichuan Earthquake in China which caused the deaths of more than 87,000 people; and
leaving millions without decent shelter and billions of economic losses.

The Philippines happens to be geographically located in one of the most geologically dynamic
territories in Asia. It lies within the Pacific Ring of Fire where 80% of the world's earthquakes
occur. At least 22 of the country's 200 volcanoes are considered active and are scattered all
over the archipelago. Disaster damages are also worsening because of the alarming degradation
of the country’s environment. In 2007, a total of 236 disaster events happened in the country,
affecting more than 4 million people and damaging closely to 30,000 houses (CDRC, 2008).
As a response to the global socio-economic challenges of the times, many urban cities and
barangays in the Philippines experience rapid development growth. However, a common
consequence of this rush growth is the triggering of haphazard urban development which may
increase risks of fatalities during disasters. The growth of informal settlements and inner city
slums has led to growth of unstable living environments because these settlements are often
located at ravines, on steep slopes, or along flood plains. It is widely recognized that one of the
factors that enhances the rise of disaster losses throughout the world in recent times is the
population explosion combined with demographic change and movements leading to
unplanned urbanization (Baas, et. al., 2008).

The city of Cagayan de Oro (CDOC), where Barangay Carmen is situated, is considered the
gateway to Mindanao, one of the three largest islands in the Philippine archipelago. CDOC is
currently experiencing rapid commercial, residential, and industrial expansions. It is an
economic hotspot which links agro-based products of neighboring provinces to the country's
central economic institutions in metropolitan cities like Manila, Cebu, and even abroad.

167
 50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines

Carmen is the most populated barangay in CDOC; with a total land area of more than 560
hectares in 13 political zones, it is home to more than 10 educational institutions, more than 10
regional government agencies, various landmark institutions and major commercial
establishments. It is where two of the five major bridge abutments lie making the barangay of
critical importance for the city’s operations. Carmen is also an interesting barangay as a pilot
area for the study because of its varied geographic landscape. To the east, a long stretch of
communities is bounded by the Cagayan de Oro River; while on the south are ranges of plateau
where major residential and commercial developments cloud.

Amidst these seemingly escalating developments, in the 2004 Barangay Carmen Development
Plan, it is noted that households whose monthly income above poverty line is only 1,115 and
8,935 still lives below poverty line. It is not surprising that informal settlements presently
swarm on sloped landscapes and public open-creeks; while multi-million residences are also in
full-blown construction in some parts of the barangay.

Few projects on disaster risk estimation have been done in the Philippines, but these are either
on provincial or metropolitan level (Manila Observatory, 2005; Fernandez et. al., 2006). These
studies can be useful disaster management plans in the national or regional levels; however as
often the case, these are not clearly translated at the more basic component of society (e.g.,
barangays, zones) since the results are rather generalized. Thus, a localized or micro-scaled
approach is needed so that local actors who are directly affected of their jurisdiction’s
development programs are able to respond more appropriately.

In this study, the researchers developed a tool for quantifying the Seismic Risk Index (SRi) of a
community at micro-scale; having Barangay Carmen as a case study and displaying the final
results through sets of maps. These maps can be helpful in assessing the suitability of proposed
projects, including existing infrastructures. A disaster risk-integrated development plan for a
community will give a better chance of the promise of a true sustainable development.

2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Earthquakes result from sudden shifting of the earth’s crust below or at the surface, causing
ground vibrations. Everyday at least five earthquakes occur in the Philippines. The eastern
portions of Mindanao, Samar and Leyte have been identified as the most seismically active areas
in the country, with an average of 16 perceptible earthquakes a year.

Disasters are serious events that disrupt the normal and functional operations of a community.
They arise from either natural or man-made hazards; but these hazards only result to disasters
when they affect people who cannot cope with the damaging impacts. The term Disaster Risk
refers to the likelihood of this loss or harm.

A natural hazard, like earthquake, is defined as a process or event that is potentially damaging
to the community, in that it may result to loss of life or damage to property. On the other hand,
vulnerability may be quantified as to how resistant and efficient the existing built environment
is in that area when a specific hazard strikes, like how structurally sound are the buildings
when earthquakes happen. More so, the density of the exposed population, their age structure
and prevalent socio-economic condition also influence the assessment of disaster risk (ADRC,
2007; UNDP, 2004; Dilley, et. al., 2005; Kriemer, et. al. 2003). Integrating this complex
interplay of hazard, exposed population and vulnerability is the underlying principle used in
the analysis of this study.

Therefore in general, disaster risk is defined as the expectation value of losses (deaths, injuries,
property, etcetera) that would be caused by a hazard. Disaster risk can therefore be seen as a
function of hazard, exposure and vulnerability as follows:

168
 50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines

Disaster Risk = function (Hazard, Exposure, Vulnerability) (2-1)

This suggests that growing exposure and delays in reducing vulnerabilities result in an increased
number of disasters and greater levels of loss. However, this also means that to be able to reduce
disaster risk, it is important to reduce the level of vulnerability and to keep exposure as far away
from hazards as possible by relocating populations and property. The reduction of vulnerability
can be achieved through such measures as mitigation and preparedness strategies.

The United Nations Development Program (UNDP, 2004) quantifies disaster risk in terms of the
equation:

Risk = Hazard x Population x Vulnerability (2-2)

This risk index or disaster risk index expresses that disaster risk assessment includes
relationships between the strength and frequency of a given hazard (earthquake), the exposed
population density, and various vulnerability indicators of the community and the built
environment. Mathematically, it simply translates that the level of disaster risk is very low or
zero even if there is an occurrence of strong hazard intensity but there is no population exposed
or the infrastructures can withstand the damage. It is therefore clearly shown that disaster risk
arises only when there is a vulnerable population.

3. METHODOLOGIES

3.1 The Research Design

The study involved four phases: The first phase was the presentation of the project concept to the
Barangay Carmen Council. The Council then deliberated and unanimously agreed to seal and
sign a Memorandum of Agreement between Barangay Carmen and Xavier University
Engineering Resource Center (XUERC) for this project.

Before the actual survey began, an Orientation / Workshop with the Barangay Carmen Zone
Chairmen (BZC) was hosted by XUERC to capacitate them on the basics of Disaster Risk
Management and GIS technology. Consultations with the Barangay Health Workers (BHW), the
Cagayan de Oro City Planning and Development Office (CPDO) and the Office of Civil Defense
– Regional Disaster Coordinating Council (OCD-RDCC) – 10 were also conducted.

The second phase was the collection of data: (1) gathering existing databases from various
government line agencies and other private institutions; (2) reconnaissance around the survey
area and validation of land use clusters; (3) scheduling and actual field survey for the structural
seismic vulnerability of existing structures using the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) 154 procedures; and (4) data validation with the Barangay Zone Chairmen and other
local leaders. The third phase was the processing of the gathered data. Scores are assigned, and
some raw data were transformed and normalized to fit in the scoring system. The fourth phase
was the analysis of these data, studying the prevalent factors which affected the results, and
creation of the various maps for better representation. Recommendations are then drafted, using
the generated user-friendly maps to emphasize the situations.

3.2 Scoring System

In this study, the equation of risk is modified to take into account its application against
earthquake at micro-scale, and normalized to a range of zero (0.000) as minimum value and one
(1.000) as maximum value:

169
 50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines

SRi = Hs x Ps x Vs (3-1)

The SRi (Seismic Risk Index) is the final quantification of the political zone’s relative
earthquake disaster risk level integrating the effects of hazard, exposed population and various
vulnerability parameters.

Hs (Earthquake Hazard Score) quantifies the severity of the earthquake hazard experienced in
each zone. It is taken as the ratio of the Ground Acceleration of the zone to that of the Ground
Acceleration considered by the National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) 2001; where
CDOC belongs in Zone 4. In seismic Zone 4, effective peak ground acceleration is taken to be
0.4g (Bozorgnia and Campbell, 2004; Naeim, 2001). Hs is then normalized by dividing the
previous quotient by the largest resulting ratio above; thus Hs ranges from 0.000 to 1.000.

Ps (Exposed Population Score) accounts for the exposed population in each zone. It is taken as
the ratio of the zone’s Population Density to that of the largest Population Density among the
zones. Ps values range from 0.000 to 1.000. Population Density is used as a better measure for
the analysis since this considers how loosely or densely packed the zonal communities are. This
also gives a picture of the development trends in specific zones vis-à-vis the whole barangay. It
can also be used as a better estimate in prioritizing needs for various projects and policies that
the barangay or city should implement vis-à-vis the number of people benefited.

The Vs (Earthquake Vulnerability Score) is the factor which describes the vulnerability of the
community against earthquake. It incorporates several factors which takes into consideration the
structural, physical, social and economic parameters that best characterize each zone’s capacity
or incapacity to resist the stresses of earthquakes. Mathematically, it is computed as:

Vs = ( SSVs x (1 + Phf) x (1 + SEf) ) ≤ 1.000 (3-2)

In this equation, the Structural Seismic Vulnerability Score (SSVs) is magnified by the Physical
Aggravating Factor (Phf) and the Socio-Economic Aggravating Factor (SEf). However, to be
consistent with the normalization used, a maximum limit of (1.000) is set for Vs.

In this study, FEMA 154 is used as reference for assessing the SSVs. FEMA 154 scores typically
range from zero (0) to seven (7), with higher scores corresponding to better seismic performance.
FEMA suggests a cut-off score of two (2), below which a structure is considered potentially
seismically hazardous. However, for the analysis of this study to be consistent, in which the
underlying principle is that a higher score is assigned to a factor which will contribute or increase
the level or risk, the original FEMA 154 scores were transformed and normalized in order to
have the SSVs be consistent with the range of values from a minimum of 0.000 and a maximum
of 1.000.

The Phf (Physical Aggravating Factor) takes into account some geographic features that may
aggravate the vulnerability of a zone against earthquake. In this study, the effect of sloping
grounds and proximity to bodies of water were taken into consideration, and thus computed as:

Phf = ( Sf + Wf ) / 2 (3-3)

Sf is taken as 1.000 when there are structures within the zone found on slopes; and 0.000 when
no structures are found on slopes or no sloping grounds within the zone. While Wf values ranges
from 0.000 to 1.000, computed as:

Wf = wetted perimeter (zone) / wetted perimeter (barangay) (3-4)

170
 50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines

The SEf (Socio-Economic Aggravating Factor) takes into account some social and economic
profile of each political zone that may aggravate its vulnerability against earthquake. In this
study, the effect of vulnerable population, poverty threshold and disaster awareness programs
were taken into consideration, and thus computed as:

SEf = ( VPf + Pf + DAf ) / 3 (3-5)

Vulnerable Population includes children ages five (5) and below, and elderly ages sixty (60) and
above. The VPf is computed as the ratio of the number of vulnerable population in a given
political zone to the total population of that zone; values range from 0.000 to 1.000.

The Pf factor takes into account the financial capacity of the people in each political zone. The
parameter used is the lower limit of the average monthly income per household in each zone.
This is compared to the poverty threshold monthly household income value of PhP 6,195.00 set
by the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB, 2007). Zones which do not meet this
threshold value are assigned a Pf score of 1.000, otherwise a Pf score of 0.000.

The DAf factor reflects the community’s disaster preparedness and response programs. These
programs must have a formal structure in the operation of the local government unit (LGU).
Official and approved ordinances, memoranda, guidelines or working documents must be
available to guide local stakeholders on their specific tasks in the pre-disaster, response and post-
disaster stages. A DAf score of 1.000 is assigned if these programs are absent or non-working;
while a DAf score of 0.000 when these programs are active and working.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The entire area of Barangay Carmen has a Hs of one (1.000), shown in Figure 4-1. The basis
for each zone’s Ground Acceleration is the information from the Mines and Geosciences
Bureau (MGB) – Region 10’s CDO Ground Acceleration Map (inlet). It is clear from MGB’s
map that earthquake occurrence and severity throughout Barangay Carmen is fairly uniform.
The same can be observed from the seismicity maps published by the Philippine Institute of
Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS) and the Manila Observatory.

Figure 4-1 Earthquake Hazard Score Map Figure 4-2 Exposed Population Score Map

171
 50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines

Population Density is expressed in terms of the number of people per square meter of area. The
Ps is then normalized by dividing each resulting zonal Population Density by the largest
Population Density among the zones. The results are shown graphically in Figure 4-2. The
political zone with the highest population density is Zone 2, at the north-east boundary of the
barangay, adjacent to the river. Second is Zone 5, which similar with Zone 2, is bounded by the
Cagayan de Oro River on their east potion. The least dense populated area is Zone 13, located at
the far south-western portion. Zone 13 is currently undergoing robust but well-planned
development activities; and vast open areas are also available.

As to structural seismic vulnerability, it is observed that Zone 8 ranked highest, shown in Figure
4-3a. Many of the residential structures in Zone 8 were identified as non-engineered. It is
important to note that the original FEMA 154 score of Zone 8’s General Residential Cluster is
way much lower than FEMA’s cut-off score of 2.0, below which a structure is considered
potentially structurally seismically hazardous.

Zone 2 closely follows as the most structurally vulnerable zone against earthquakes. Similarly,
this is due to the zone’s relatively high score from residential structures, many of which are non-
engineered houses. Third in the rank is Zone 6, with similar observations.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4-3 (a) Structural Seismic Vulnerability Score Map,
(b) Physical Factors (Slope and River), and (c) Socio-Economic Aggravating Factors

One of the zones which has a relatively low SSVs is Zone 13, even though development
activities is accelerating. As mentioned above, Zone 13 has good development practices: well-
planned subdivision units with proper construction methods and quality construction materials. It
is seen that even if some of these houses do have plan or vertical irregularities, their scores
remained sufficient due to the “post-benchmark” score modifier. This implies that strict
compliance to the structural and building codes, and the use of appropriate construction materials
and methods, may indeed lower the structural seismic vulnerability of a community (EMI, 2007).

Figure 4-3b illustrates graphically the effects to communities over slopes and along riverbanks.
The portions where the gray contour lines are rather thick represent a continuous change of
elevation, thus indicating a rather steep slope. It is seen therefore that steep slopes are found in
portions of Zone 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. While there are sloping grounds at Zone 13, these
areas are uninhabited as part of the well-developed planning of the zone’s stakeholders. Zones
where slopes are swarmed with structures are at 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12; thus these zones have Sf

172
 50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines

values of 1.000. Figure 4-3b also clearly shows that Zones 2, 4, 5, 7 and a small portion of Zone
9 are adjacent to the Cagayan de Oro River; thus these zones have Wf values.

Figure 4-3c depicts the SEf values of each zone. The zone with the highest percentage of
vulnerable population with respect to its zonal population is Zone 10, followed by Zones 7 and 9.
However, in terms of vulnerable population count, Zone 9 tops in the list. The alarming situation
of only four zones (1, 2, 8 and 13) among the thirteen zones in the barangay that meet the
poverty threshold value should be seriously noted. While the DAf value for all zones in
Barangay Carmen is 0.000 since the barangay has well-documented and working disaster
preparedness and response programs.

A summary of the Vs scores for each zone is presented in Figure 4-4. It is seen that Zones 4, 6, 7,
9, 10 and 11 garnered the highest scores of 1.000 for Vs. Zones 4 and 6 originally scored high
SSVs; the vulnerabilities of these two zones were aggravated due to the effects of poverty; plus
being adjacent to the river for Zone 6. For Zones 7, 9, 10 and 11, their vulnerabilities are
similarly aggravated due to poverty; all these zones were also found to have structures built over
their slopes; and being adjacent to the river for Zones 7 and 9. Zone 9 also has the greatest
number of vulnerable population in Barangay Carmen.

Figure 4-4 Seismic Vulnerability Score Map Figure 4-5 Seismic Risk Index Map

On the other extreme, it is noted that Zone 13 only had a very minimal increase in its
vulnerability even if slopes and vulnerable population are present in this zone. This suggests that
proper land use (i.e., staying away from dangerous slopes and flood-prone areas) is a significant
factor that must be considered for development projects.

Finally, the Seismic Risk Indexes (SRi) of each political zone in Barangay Carmen are
graphically displayed in Figure 4-5. It is seen that Zone 2 emerged as the most critical zone
against earthquake disaster. Based from the analysis articulated in the preceding paragraphs,
Zone 2 is relatively highly critical due to the high vulnerability scores (SSVs and Vs) and its

173
 50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines

densely-packed exposed population. In contrast for instance to a zone which has the least seismic
risk index, Zone 13 has scored much better due to its well-planned and appropriately-built
infrastructures, as well as its much lower exposed population.

It is interesting to take note of Zone 8, which originally has the highest SSVs, but ranked rather
relatively low in the final SRi. This is because Zone 8’s population density is rather relative low
compared to other zones. In addition, no physical aggravating factor and a very minimal socio-
economic factor is applicable to Zone 8. However, this should not discount the fact that a lower
SRi may automatically mean that the structural seismic vulnerability of the infrastructures in that
particular zone may not be potentially hazardous in the event of a strong earthquake.

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Seismic Risk Map in the preceding section clearly indicates that the most critical zones
against Earthquake are Zones 2, 5 and 9. These same zones are also the top three densely
populated areas within the barangay. In addition, Zones 2 and 5 are swarmed with structures
literally adjacent to the Cagayan de Oro River, while Zone 9’s slopes are mushroomed with
structures as well. Furthermore, the Structural Seismic Vulnerability Score (SSVs) of Zones 2
and 5 are beyond the cut-off score, which suggests that many of the structures in these zones
are potentially seismically hazardous.

In line with this, Barangay Carmen should take a closer study on the development activities of
Zones 2, 5 and 9. Earthquakes may never be driven away, but disaster risk reduction is possible
by either moving the exposed population out from harm’s way or retrofitting seismically weak
structures. For Zones 2 and 5 in particular, Baranay Carmen, together with other government
agencies (e.g., Office of the City Building Official, City Engineer’s Office, Department of
Public Works and Highways), should check the said areas if land use laws, regulations and
ordinances have still been strictly implemented. In addition to land use, it is also advised that a
closer monitor and policing if proper structural design and appropriate construction
methodologies have been practiced. The emergence of many non-engineered structures in Zone
2 seems to defy these interventions. Similarly, the mushrooming of structures over the slopes
of Zones 9, 7, 10, 11 and 12 must be closely evaluated. A follow-up study on the landslide risk
of these areas is strongly recommended.

As to structural seismic performance, it is recommended that a more detailed study must be

done for Zones 8, 2, 6, 4 and 5. These zones have SSVs beyond the cut-off value.

All the above parameters are explored at the micro-scale or zonal level of the barangay. With
this approach, the study also showcased the better promise of community-based disaster risk
management. Involving the locals in the exercise will enhance a warmer acceptance of the
results and recommendations of the project. Also very instrumental in this endeavor is to
capacitate the locals with the science of disasters in a language most fitting, familiar and
particularly tailored for their work as public servants or simply as residents.

The researchers also strongly recommend for proper authorities like the Association of
Structural Engineers of the Philippines (ASEP) and the Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers
(PICE), to formulate an evaluation tool for non-engineered structures which swarm many cities
in the country today, including even those in highly urbanized metropolises. It may also be
wise to publish simplified guidelines for proper construction practices written in the
vernacular, so that many of society’s marginalized and poverty-challenged communities are
given a chance of building better structurally sound homes.

Finally, the alarming information that majority of the households in Barangay Carmen live
below the poverty threshold value must be immediately addressed. As often the case, the poor

174
 50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines

are forced to live in highly risky conditions because they have lost the hope for the better
promise of sustainable development. The barangay and the city, or non-government
organizations (NGO) should jointly formulate and implement simple but concrete sustainable
livelihood programs for those who are badly in need. Uplifting these poor people’s lives to a
state of human decency can be one of the most instrumental non-structural interventions
against disasters that will soon transform to sound structural activities. More people are able to
afford building structurally sound infrastructures, and having the option to avoid slopes and
flood-prone areas; in turn, the majority of the community will hopefully have a better share of
the promise of truly beneficial sustainable development.
REFERENCES

Asian Disaster Reduction Center (2007). ADRC – Natural Disasters Data Book 2006, ADRC: Japan.

Asian Disaster Reduction Center. www.adrc.or.jp/, accessed March 10, 2008.

Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines (2001). National Structural Code of the
Philippines, ASEP: Manila.

Baas, S., Ramasamy, S., de Pryck, J. and Battista, F. (2008). Disaster Risk Management Systems
Analysis, Food and Agriculture Organizations of the United Nations: Rome.

Barangay Carmen Council (2004). Barangay Development Plan, Barangay Carmen: Cagayan de Oro.

Bozorgnia Y. and Campbell K. W. (2004). Engineering Characterizaiton of Ground Motion,

Earthquake Engineering from Engineering Seismology to Performance-Based Engineering, CRC
Press: Florida.

Cagayan de Oro City Council (2000). Cagayan de Oro Comprehensive Land Use Plan 2000, CDOC
Council: Cagayan de Oro.

Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters. www.cred.be/, accessed March 10, 2008.

Citizen’s Disaster Response Center (2008). Changing Times, Changing Climates: Disaster in the
Philippines 2007, CDRC: Manila.

Citizens' Disaster Response Center. www.cdrc-phil.org/, accessed March 10, 2008.

Department for International Development (2005). Disaster Risk Reduction: A Development Concern,
DFID: United Kingdom.

Department of Education, www.deped.gov.ph/, accessed March 31, 2009.

Department of Health (1995). Republic Act No. 7876 – “Senior Citizens Act of the Philippines”,
www.doh.gov.ph/ra/ra7876, accessed March 31, 2009.

Department of Natural Resources – Mines and Geosciences Bureau –Region 10. CDO Ground
Acceleration Map, DENR-MGB-10: Cagayan de Oro City.

Earthquakes and Megacities Initiative (2007). Manual of Sound Practices, EMI: Quezone City.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (2002). Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential
Seismic Hazards: A Handbook, FEMA: Washington D.C.

Fernandez J., Mattingly, S., Bendimerad, F. and Cardona, O. D. (2006). Application of Indicators in
Urban and Megacities Disaster Risk Management: A Case Study of Metro Manila, Earthquake and
Megacities Initiative: Quezon City.

175
 50th ASEP Anniversary International Convention & Exposition, “Safer, Smarter & Greener”
Technical Proceedings ISSN 1656-7757, September 28-30, 2011 Makati City, Philippines

Kriemer, A., Arnold, M. and Carlin, A. (2003). Building Safer Cities: The Future of Disaster Risk, The
World Bank: Washington.

Manila Observatory (2005). Mapping Philippine Vulnerability to Environmental Disasters,

www.observatory.ph/vm/, accessed February 26, 2008.

Munich Re Group (2008). Severe Winter and Earthquake: Two Significant Events in China, MRG:
Germany.

National Statistical Coordination Board (2007). FAQs on Official Poverty Statistics, NSCB: Makati
City.

Naeim, F. (2001). The Seismic Design Handbook (2nd ed.), Springer: USA.

Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology. Seismicity Map of Cagayan de Oro City,
PHIVOLCS: Quezon City.

Pueblo de Oro Development Corporation, www.pueblodeoro.com, accessed March 31, 2009.

The New York Times (2008). Fearing Flood, Chinese Order Evacuations in Quake Area,
www.nytimes.com, accessed March 31, 2009.

Topping, K., Hayashi, H., Tatsuki, S., Maki, N., Tanaka, S., Banba, M., Kondo, T., Tamura, K., Horie,
United Nations Development Programme (2004). Reducing Disaster Risk: A Challenge for
Development, Bureau of Crisis Prevention and Recovery: New York.

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. www.unisdr.org, accessed March 10,
2008.

World Bank (2001). WDR 2000/2001, World Bank Institute: New York.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dexter S. Lo is the Founding Director of the XU Engineering Resource Center, the research and social
outreach arm of the College of Engineering in Xavier University - Ateneo de Cagayan. He underwent
specialized trainings on: Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation Writeshop jointly
sponsored by the UN-ISDR and the Stockholm Environment Institute, and Disaster Risk Management
through the World Bank Institute. He is an active member of various organizations, serving as: Region-10
Coordinator for ASEP; Volunteer and National Committee Member of PICE’s DMAPS Task Force.
E-mail: prof_dex2000@yahoo.com, d.lo@xu.edu.ph

Andres Winston C. Oreta, D.Eng. is a Professor in the Civil Engineering Department of De La Salle
University. He served as Department Chair from 1994-1997 and as Director of Graduate School of
Engineering from 1997-2000. He has published technical papers in various refereed journals such as the
ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, JSCE Journals, JCI Transactions and the Journal of Computer
Applications in Engineering Education. He is an active member of the Association of Structural
Engineers of the Philippines and the Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers.
E-mail: andyoreta@yahoo.com, oretaa@dlsu.edu.ph

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The researchers would like to thank the people of Barangay Carmen, especially to the Barangay Council
and the Barangay Zone Chairmen for being very supportive in the entire duration of the project. Special
gratitude is also warmly extended to Office of Civil Defense - 10, the Mines and Geosciences Bureau -
10, and the Cagayan de Oro City Planning and Development Office. The researchers are also deeply
grateful to the XU Kinaadman Research Center for the benevolent funding for this project.

176