International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 10 (2014) 178–189

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdrr

Can the vulnerable be resilient? Co-existence of vulnerability

and disaster resilience: Informal settlements in the Philippines
Muhibuddin Usamah a,n, John Handmer a, David Mitchell a, Iftekhar Ahmed b
a
School of Mathematical and Geospatial Sciences, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
b
School of Architecture and Design, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

a r t i c l e in f o abstract

Article history: This paper explores the relationship between vulnerability and resilience in the context of
Received 6 July 2014 informal settlements, using a case study of two barangays in a rural province in the
Received in revised form Philippines. Central to the discussion in this paper is whether and how vulnerability and
24 August 2014
resilience can exist simultaneously.
Accepted 26 August 2014
The authors first identify community vulnerability, which is explored through
Available online 4 September 2014
geographical, economic, and physical vulnerability. Another element involves land-
Keywords: related vulnerability characterised by unsustainable land use, poor urban planning, non-
Vulnerability existence of building codes and weak land administration. Approximately sixty per cent of
Resilience
all properties in the case study areas are held in informal land tenures. Many of these
Informal settlements
informal settlers have established houses on land with a high hazard risk – for example,
Philippines
adjacent to rivers, on disused railway reserves and along road corridors. The result is they
face the threat of eviction, and may have difficulty returning to their land after disasters.
Qualitative analysis of households in the case study areas revealed that the strength of
social relationships helps to reduce the vulnerability of the communities. A paradoxical
relationship between vulnerability and resilience is evident. Strong community percep-
tions of their level of resilience to the impacts of disasters are supported by the social
domains of the community. They have inbuilt resilience resulting from the perception of
disasters as part of life, strong social bonds and government awareness of the validity of
the informal settlements.
& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction indicate a more complex relationship and the possibility of

Resilience and vulnerability are two related concepts that
have gained currency in various types of disaster-related
discourses ([20,26,29]). A key question that appears over and
over again is about the relationship between these two
concepts. While the relationship is generally perceived as
antonymous, one being the opposite of the other, field-based
investigations in the study from which this paper is derived
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: muhy.usamah@gmail.com (M. Usamah).
co-existence. This paper explores this relationship between
vulnerability and resilience through a study conducted in
informal settlements in the Philippines, and particularly
examines if vulnerability and resilience can exist simulta-
neously, that is, whether people who are vulnerable can also
be resilient. Such settlements ostensibly exhibit signs of
vulnerability associated with poverty and high exposure to
natural hazards, but at the same time have strong social
cohesion and internal networks – aspects contributing to
resilience – that can potentially counterbalance the vulner-
ability. How such a relationship manifested itself on the
ground was examined in detail by the study.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.08.007
2212-4209/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M. Usamah et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 10 (2014) 178–189
Employing a case-study strategy, two rural neighbour-
hoods, or barangays1, were selected as case studies. Pov-
erty, as measured by the Philippines Annual Per Capita
Poverty Threshold of less than PhP 18,678 (E US$ 429)
[37], was widespread in the barangays comprising a large
proportion of informal settlers, thus they were ostensibly
vulnerable, and were therefore suitable sites to investigate
the extent and nature of vulnerability and indications of
co-existing resilience. Those two barangays were selected
based on the following criteria: their exposure to the
impacts of different hazards such as typhoons (signals 3
and 4), Mayon volcano eruptions (lava flow, ash fall, lahar
flow), floods, landslides and earthquakes [32]; and the
community's basic characteristics that demonstrate its
resilience.
The study was framed by the set of questions below,
answers to which were sought using a multi-method
approach consisting of interviews of, and focus group
discussions with, community members and staff of local
organisations, and on-site observations, followed by an
analysis of the qualitative data collected during fieldwork:
– Are the communities vulnerable? If so, why? What
contributes to their vulnerability?
– Are the communities resilient? How do they perceive
resilience? What contributes to building their resilience
to disasters?
– If the communities are vulnerable, are they also resi-
lient? If so, why? What is the relationship between
vulnerability and resilience?
2. Overview of the concepts of vulnerability and
resilience
Before moving on to the empirical findings of the study,
it is necessary to briefly review the literature on vulner-
ability and resilience. One of the first authors who
attempted to link the concept of resilience and vulner-
ability, as suggested by Cardona [9], is Timmerman [45] in
his monograph Vulnerability, Resilience and the Collapse of
Society, in which he provided the following definitions:
Vulnerability as the degree to which a system, or part of
a system, may react adversely to the occurrence of a
hazardous event. The degree and quality of that
adverse reaction are partly conditioned by the systems;
whereas
Resilience is the measure of a system's, or part of a
system's, capacity to absorb and recover from the
occurrence of a hazardous event.
In the disaster management field, the term ‘resilience’
has been widely used after the international adoption of the
Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015, in which the
United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
(UNISDR) advocated “Building the Resilience of Nations
1
Barangay is the smallest administration division in the Philippines.
It is the native Filipino term (Tagalog) for a village, district or ward.
179
and Communities to Disasters” [20,29,48]. Specific to nat-
ural disasters, [48] defines resilience as ‘the capacity of a
system, community or society potentially exposed to
hazards to adapt, by resisting or changing in order to reach
and maintain an acceptable level of functioning and struc-
ture’. The capacity is determined by the degree to which the
system is capable of organising itself to increase this
capacity for learning from past disasters for better future
protection and to improve risk reduction measures [48].
Various authors have also framed such definitions. [59]
define resilience as ‘the ability of an actor to cope with or
adapt to hazard stress, which is a product of the degree of
planned preparation undertaken in the light of potential
hazard’. Mileti [33] states that “in the context of disaster
management, resilience is used to describe the ability to
resist or adapt to stress from hazards, and the ability to
recover quickly”. Related to this, Zhou et al. [61] in their
paper on ‘geographic perspective of disaster resilience’
define disaster resilience as “the capacity of hazard-
affected bodies (HABs) to resist loss during disaster and
to regenerate and reorganise after a disaster in a specific
area in a given period”.2 However, it should be noted here
that reorganisation of hazard-affected bodies requires a
strong level of adaptability and flexibility in a system,
which is a process of linking adaptive capacities to return
to functioning after disasters [36].
From the above definitions it is clear that disaster
resilience relates to the ability of a disaster management
agency in organising and managing its capacity in a pre-
disaster situation. In this paper, the focus of the resilience
is the preparedness of the stakeholders in responding to
the potential natural hazards that may turn to disasters for
the surrounding community [48].
Some of the key definitions of vulnerability that are
closely related to resilience are captured below in Table 1.
As evident from the above, largely, most authors view
resilience as the opposite of vulnerability [16,18,26], that
is, having an antonomous relationship. The opposing
relationship between resilience and vulnerability is pos-
ited widely, for example, by Cimellaro et al. [10], who state
that a community needs to be “prepared” and less “vulner-
able”, in order to achieve a high level of “resilience.”
Others consider the relationship from slightly different
angles, also viewing them largely as discrete entities, not
overlapping, but nonetheless suggesting a connexion. For
example, Cutter et al. [13] argue that resilience is a factor
of vulnerability and that they are intersecting concepts.
Manyena [29] argues that vulnerability and resilience are
akin to two sides of the same coin.
This paper adopts a multi-faceted view of vulnerability
and resilience. The attributes used in this paper are those
that are most frequently discussed in vulnerability and
resilience analysis, but maintaining a view that these
entities may overlap and co-exist and are not necessarily
opposite sides of the spectrum. Vulnerability is analysed
through a range of geographical, economic, physical and
2
Hazard-affected Bodies (HAB) is the term used to describe elements
that are potentially affected by disasters. It includes community, system,
institutions or combination of all ([61]).
180 M. Usamah et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 10 (2014) 178–189

Table 1
Definitions of vulnerability that are closely related to resilience (modified after [29,54]).

Author(s) Vulnerability definition

Timmerman Vulnerability is the degree to which a system acts adversely to the occurrence of a hazardous event. The degree and quality of the
[45] adverse reaction are conditioned by a system's resilience (a measure of the system's capacity to absorb and recover from the event).
[15] Vulnerability is the differential capacity of groups and individuals to deal with hazards, based on their positions within physical and
social worlds.
Blaikie et al. By vulnerability we mean the characteristics of a person or a group in terms of their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist and
[3] recover from the impact of a natural hazard. It involves a combination of factors that determine the degree to which someone's life
and livelihood are put at risk by a discrete and identifiable event in nature or in society.
Bohle et al. [5] Vulnerability is best defined as an aggregate measure of human welfare that integrates environmental, social, economic and political
exposure to a range of potential harmful perturbations. Vulnerability is a multi-layered and multidimensional social space defined by
the determinate, political, economic and institutional capabilities of people in specific places at specific times
[22] Vulnerability involves, perhaps above all, the general and active capacities of people – what enables them to avoid, resist or recover
from harm. Whereas a hazards perspective tends to explain risk and disaster in terms of external agents and their impacts,
vulnerability looks to the internal state of a society and what governs that
[55] By vulnerability, we mean the condition of a given area with respect to hazard, exposure, preparedness, prevention, and response
characteristics to cope with specific natural hazards. It is a measure of the capability of this set of elements to withstand events of a
certain physical character.

institutional perspectives [2,8,11,29,41,52,56,59,57,58]. In
the same way, this paper adopts a multi-dimensional view
of resilience, which generally includes various aspects of
social, economic, institutional, infrastructure and commu-
nity competence, and seeks to contextualise it through
case studies of at-risk communities [6,13,12,18,21,24,26,
29,51–53,56].
3. Empirical Investigation
A multi-method and case study approach was used in
the study. The range of qualitative data collection methods
included interviews of community members, decision-
makers and staff of local agencies, on-site observations,
meetings/workshops and focus group discussions, collec-
tion of written documents, photographs and historical
information. The key source of data was semi-structured
interviews to elicit local narratives including individuals'
and groups' accounts of personal and community experi-
ences and life stories.
Interviews were undertaken of stakeholders involved
in land administration and disaster management at the
provincial and municipal levels, as well as key barangays
officials. The interview questions included topics such as
local government strategies in building community resi-
lience as well as the growth of informal settlements in the
two barangays. Interviews of 100 households from differ-
ent informal settlements were also conducted. Questions
included their history of moving to their settlements, their
perception of tenure security, disasters, their coping
mechanisms and their perception of resilience.
Focus group discussions (FGD) were held with commu-
nity members from four different informal settlements. In
each informal settlement area 8–10 households attended
the FGDs. The aim of the FGDs was to explore perceptions
of disaster resilience of different groups of informal
settlers, who were the most marginalised people in the
community and hence vulnerable.
Interviews with key stakeholders took place in their
offices and were conducted in English without the assistance
of the interpreter. Data collection with community members
(including interviews and FGD) was conducted in the local
languages (Bicolano and Tagalog), with the assistance of an
interpreter from the municipality. Although the participants
were randomly selected, the process took gender balance
and age group diversity into consideration. These processes
were conducted in locations convenient to the respondents
including their houses during the evening, their work places,
and also on the streets where they usually gather in the
afternoon.
The Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Soft-
ware (CAQDAS) NVivo Version 9 was used to manage the
data and to assist in the qualitative analysis. To protect
participants' privacy, pseudonyms are used throughout
this paper.
3.1. Key Features of the case studies
Two rural barangays in Camalig Municipality in Albay
Province of the Philippines were selected for the study,
located in the northern and central parts of the munici-
pality (Fig. 1). The area is bounded by Mayon Volcano on
the north and one of the barangays, Ilawod, is located
approximately 8–10 km from the top of the volcano. The
other barangay, Tagaytay is further downhill, approxi-
mately 10–14 km from the top of Mayon. Barangay Ilawod
is relatively flat, while the land in Barangay Tagaytay
ranges from flat to undulating.
The barangays had a significant proportion of informal
settlers, that is, households living on land which they did
not own or rent. Typically, these were poor people who
were squeezed out of the highly competitive informal land
market of the larger cities such as Metro Manila. They
aspired to establish agricultural livelihoods in rural areas
where pressure on land was less and hoped that they
would eventually obtain formal and permanent ownership
of the land they settled on informally.
Surveys in the two barangays found that there are 371
informal settlers out of 646 households in Barangay Ilawod
(about 57%). In Barangay Tagaytay 371 out of 606 houses
(about 61%) are inhabited by informal settlers. The infor-
mal settlers mostly reside in four primary locations: (1)
within a 15 m strip of the abandoned railway; (2) within a
15 m strip of the river or right on the river bank; (3) within
 M. Usamah et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 10 (2014) 178–189
Fig. 1. Position of Camalig Municipality in Bicol Region (left) and location of the two barangays in the Camalig Municipality (right), map not to scale).
25 m from the centre of the main road; and (4) some
families also live inside forested areas (Fig. 2). Inhabitation
of these areas is a combination of land availability, and the
need of the settlers to be as close as possible to public
facilities. Table 2 shows the distribution of the interview
respondents according to their location of residence.
4. Findings from the barangays
4.1. What contributes to community and household
vulnerability?
Four major aspects relating to geography, economy,
housing and land tenure contribute to the vulnerability
of the communities in the case study barangays. Exposure
to hazards due to geography of place [2,7,57,58] and
resource limitations [42] are the key factors that lead to
these four aspects of vulnerability. The findings from the
field investigations are discussed below according to these
aspects.
4.1.1. Geographical vulnerability
Exposure to hazards due to the particular location of a
settlement can be defined as its geographical vulnerability.
The location of Albay Province along the pathway of three
to five typhoons that wreak havoc each year, and the
presence of Mayon Volcano, one of the most active
volcanoes in the Philippines, make Albay Province suffer
significantly from disasters [38]. Out of 19–21 occurrences
of typhoons per year in the Philippines, three to five hit
181
Albay. Nearly 200,000 houses are threatened by wind
destruction and at least 350,000 people are likely to face
evacuation because of typhoons [19].
In the Camalig Municipal Disaster Management and Con-
tingency Plan, eight different types of natural hazards are
identified as threats to the municipality based on historical
disasters and projection of occurrence. They are volcanic
eruption, lahar flows, mudflows, typhoons, flash floods,
landslides and earthquakes. These hazards are categorised
according to their probability of occurrence, consequence to
the community as well as elements at risk (Table 3).
The FGDs conducted in two barangays also revealed the
types of hazard with high impact on the communities
during the last 30–40 years. They are listed in Table 4 in
the order of frequency of occurrence.
4.1.2. Economic vulnerability
The economy of the two barangays depends largely on
agriculture. About 60% of Ilawod's population and about
40% in Tagaytay depend on farming [32], mainly rice and
also vegetables and coconut. Many households also run
small grocery shops, which are rapidly increasing over
time. Some households are also engaged in production of
handicrafts, namely slippers, bags and other handicraft
items made of abaca (a local plant yielding long fibres),
largely destined for nearby cities. Despite these economic
activities, most community members mentioned that they
do not have stable livelihoods due to irregular and variable
incomes (Table 5).
182 M. Usamah et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 10 (2014) 178–189

Fig. 2. (A) Patterns of informal settlements (red buildings). (B) Informal settlements within the 15 m strip of the main road and (C) settlements along the railway.
Source: Google Earth, Map not to scale. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

elevated plinths, approximately 30–70 cm above

Table 2
Distribution of interview respondents from the two case study baran- ground level to avoid flooding.
gays according to location of residence. ▪ Semi-concrete buildings: these houses have corrugated
iron sheet and nipa (palm fronds) roofing, mostly
Informal Settlement location Barangay Total upgraded from the original informal settlement houses.
Ilawod Tagaytay
The structure has been strengthened somewhat to
avoid damage by strong typhoon winds.
Along the river bank 15 15 30 ▪ Houses made of organic materials: materials such as
Along railway – 20 20 bamboo and nipa used to build this type of house can
On the road 15 15 30
be obtained locally at low cost. The owners usually
In forests 10 10 20
Total 40 60 100 belong to the lowest socio-economic group; most of
them do not have stable income. These are the most
vulnerable houses.
As the majority of the informal settlers have low and
irregular incomes, they are unable to accumulate any There is a general pattern of settlement vis-à-vis the
significant savings to recover adequately after disasters. different type of houses. The full reinforced and semi-
Time after time they somehow rebuild their houses using concrete houses are mostly built along the main provincial
local resources and their limited savings (Table 6). Since road or along the main road in the barangay centre. Houses
their savings are not adequate enough to rebuild their made of organic materials are built in the forest or in rural
houses and to also have some money to re-establish their settlement blocks away from the main road. Most informal
lives, these vulnerable groups depend on assistance from settlements along the river bank also have houses con-
the government or international aid. Generally after dis- structed of organic materials whereas informal settle-
asters, most community members re-established the same ments along the railway usually have semi-concrete
livelihoods. houses (Fig. 4). However, many of the informal settlers
also have permanent-type concrete houses.
Since no building codes are followed, a mixture of
4.1.3. Housing vulnerability house types is common. Nor are there any guidelines for
The three major characteristics of housing construction disaster-resistant housing, thus houses are of poor quality.
in the two case study barangays are (Fig. 3) The multiplicity of natural hazards has exposed a large
number of houses in the two barangays to risk from
▪ Reinforced concrete houses: owned by the wealthiest different natural hazards (Figs. 4 and 5). 95% of houses in
in the barangays, their owners generally understand Ilawod are at risk of lava/pyroclastic flow and flash floods,
the risk of hazards; thus their houses were built on about 80–83% are at risk of typhoons and flash floods and
 M. Usamah et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 10 (2014) 178–189 183

Table 3
Municipal risk register of Camalig [32].

Hazard Probability Consequence

Strong – severe Typhoon Occur often; at least twice a year Moderate – few injuries; some damage to any part of
Signal No. 3 [39] houses and community buildings or facilities, and
people's livelihoods
Strong – severe Typhoon Occur every one, or at least two years Disastrous – many injuries; some fatalities; serious and
Signal No. 4 [39] significant damage to houses, community buildings,
facilities and people’s livelihoods
Ash fall Occur every one, or at least two years Minor – no deaths or injuries; negligible damage to
houses made of light materials
Lahar flow Could possibly occur once every three to ten years Moderate
Flash flood Could possibly occur once every three to ten years Disastrous
High-intensity earthquake Expected to occur perhaps once every 11–100 Disastrous
years
Landslide Occur every one, or at least two years Major – few fatalities; significant damage to houses,
community buildings, facilities and people's livelihoods
Lava and pyroclastic flow Could possibly occur once every three to ten years Minor

Table 4
Identified hazards in barangays Ilawod and Tagaytay based on FGDs with
barangay communities.
Barangay Ilawod Barangay Tagaytay
Typhoon (signals 3 and 4) Mayon eruption (ash fall, lahar
flow)
Mayon eruption (lava flow, Floods (impact of typhoon in
ash fall, lahar flow) other areas)
Floods (flash floods/river Landslide/land subsidence
floods)
Landslide Earthquake
Earthquake Fire
Fire
18% from lahar mud flow. In Tagaytay, 94% of houses are
exposed to typhoons whereas about 60% are exposed to
different volcanic disasters [34]. This is due to the fact that
Tagaytay is located 2–4 km further from the top of Mayon
Volcano, thus considered a bit safer from volcanic hazards.
4.1.4. Tenure vulnerability
Vulnerability of land tenure in the two barangays are
characterised by the unavailability of land titles or any
other formal contract documents. Communities are faced
with tenure insecurity, and thus the high threat of eviction
would be expected, as per the location where informal
settlements reside, especially after disasters. Among the
four types of informal settlers, the most vulnerable are
those squatting along the river bank (within a 5–15 m strip
of the river) and within a 15 m strip near the railway.
These correspond to a set of land-related predictors that
contribute to vulnerability to natural disasters (Table 7).
Poor settlements are growing rapidly on flood plains,
water catchments or other areas that are exposed to
flooding and consequently experience the impacts. Though
mapping of hazardous areas in the municipality has been
undertaken and there are established laws and regula-
tions, local communities still continue living in hazardous
areas due to weak law enforcement. And there are no
zoning by-laws. Land administration is also weak, reflected
in the small proportion of titled / registered parcels of
land, which is 35% of the total 574 plots. The registered
parcels are based on a 1920s survey that has not been
updated. Hence land boundaries are ambiguous and often
not defined properly. In addition, data on the small
number of registered parcels is poorly recorded, main-
tained manually without electronic back-up hence the risk
of loss or damage of municipal land records.
4.2. What contributes to the community's resilience?
Despite the state of vulnerability described above, the
community perceives that they are resilient to the various
disasters that frequently affect the areas, as found in the
survey and FGDs (Table 8).
This research found that the high perception of resi-
lience is founded mainly on social resilience as perceived
by most of the informal settlers. Social resilience is defined
as “the capacity of a social entity (e.g. group or commu-
nity) to recover from, or respond positively to, crises” [28].
Adger [1] describes it as “the ability of groups or commu-
nities to cope with external stresses and disturbances in
relation to disasters”. Indicators of social resilience as
suggested by some authors [1,4,28] are also reflected in
the case study communities, as discussed below.
4.2.1. Trust
Trust within a community is important for social
resilience, especially in building connexions and strength-
ening bonds within the community [28,40]. This study
revealed the strong trust among community members
before, during and after disasters (Table 9), reflected in
communication and transmission of disaster early warn-
ings, and when people are evacuated from their homes
due to an impending disaster, reliance on neighbours to
safeguard property and belongings.
4.2.2. Social cohesion and sense of community
Social cohesion as contributing to resilience depends
on social connexion, sense of belonging, attachment to
a group, willingness to participate and to share out-
comes [23,30,35]. This is translated to a shared vision
and the well-functioning of community in which goals and
184 M. Usamah et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 10 (2014) 178–189

Table 5
Perception of communities on economic stability in daily life.

Informal settlers

Along riverbank (n ¼30) Along railway (n¼ 20) In forest (n¼20) On road (n¼30)

Do you think you have stable economy the whole year?

Yes 20% 20% 30% 30%
No 80% 80% 70% 70%

Do you think that your employment provides you enough income for daily life?
Yes 60% 40% 50% 60%
No 40% 60% 50% 40%

Table 6 “The good thing about our community is the respect for
Regularity of income and savings from different informal settlers.
the elderly and barangay authority. In times of disaster,
Informal Settlers we do well in implementing the plan that we have
developed. They listen to us.” (Head of Barangay Ilawod)
Along riverbank Along railway In forest On road
(n¼30) (n¼ 20) (n¼ 20) (n¼ 30) Social networks, indicated by a high degree of social
interaction within families and local communities. Chris-
Do you receive regular income?
Yes 40% 30% 10% 30%
tianity is the dominant religion and the church acts as a
No 60% 70% 90% 70% social networking platform. In addition, social groups,
street corner meeting places and generally a strong
Do you have regular savings?
Yes 10% 10% 10% 20% social life also support networks. A community member
No 90% 90% 90% 80% explained this:
Are your savings enough to recover from damages after disasters?
Yes 0% 10% 0% 20% “We are like a family. Everybody knows everybody
No 100% 90% 100% 80% including what they do for work. I join many community
groups, for example the women's group and regular
school parents' meetings.” (Melcor Vibar, age 63, squat-
responsibilities are shared, and community members co- ting inside forest area since 1980)
operate with each other (2011). Five main social cohesion
Place attachment and identity, are related to liveli-
factors were identified in the case study communities
hoods and a sense of community, which are the reasons
(adapted from Forrest and Kearns [17]:
why the people in these communities still live in (or go
Common values of moral principles and codes of beha-
back to) the same place even after being hit by and
viour, manifested in a strong sense of solidarity demon-
exposed to different disasters. This also increases social
strated in times of disaster, encapsulated by a comment by a
connexions.
community member:

“We are all the same here. We live in the same situation and
we always feel that we are all family.” (Estela N. Napay, age
79, squatting along the river bank since 1943)
Social solidarity, emanating from the same level of
vulnerability within the community, and hence the sharing
of similar difficulties. Such solidarity, eventually contri-
buting to resilience, is captured in a community member's
reflection:
“We always help each other. There are conflicts, but that is
normal. The most important thing is that we are willing to
help each other in daily life, and importantly, in times of
disasters.” (Lerna Nayve, age 62, squatting along the
river for 40 years)
Social Control, reflected in respect for the elderly and
for people in authority, supports community cohesion.
It builds trust in the authorities during disasters and helps
the disaster management authority to manage evacuations
and to implement contingency plans. This is illustrated by
a barangay leader's comment:
4.2.3. Community involvement
The importance of community participation and invol-
vement in building resilient communities has been
recognised widely [11,13,24,46,48–50]. There is active
participation of the community in the study areas on most
occasions. For example, the number of participants in the
FGDs was much higher than expected; many community
members attended the events out of curiosity. The Muni-
cipal Disaster Management Office confirmed that this kind
of participation, for example in disaster drills, is successful
in delivering a disaster-related message and mobilising
people during disaster events. This was highlighted by the
Mayor of Camalig municipality:
“The communities here are very participative and very
active. It is not really difficult to mobilise them when we
want to implement disaster-related projects. Some DRR
projects have been successfully implemented due to that
fact. Active community participation is always encour-
aged every time high officials come to our municipality.
It does not only apply in disaster-related matters but also
to all sectors.”
 M. Usamah et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 10 (2014) 178–189 185

Fig. 3. General characteristics of housing in the study areas: (A) house built with organic materials. (B) Reinforced concrete house. (C) and (D) semi-
concrete houses respectively with nipa and corrugated iron sheet roofing.

700

600
Number of Houses

500

400

300

200

100

0
Typhoon Flash Flood Lahar/ Mudflow River flood Lava/ Pyroclastic Earthquake/
Flow/ Ash Fall Landslide

Type of Natural Hazard

Number of houses at risk Total Number of houses

Fig. 4. Total number of houses versus number of houses at risk to natural hazards in Barangay Ilawod [32].

4.2.4. Respect for culture and values
One value that is embedded in the community, especially
in rural areas, is pakikisama (getting along) and pakikipag-
kapwa (relating) [27], which can be interpreted as “smooth
interpersonal relations” [60]. Conflicts between community
members are usually resolved in a family-orientated way.
Respect for the elderly is taught from a young age. These are
some of the core values that provide a social bond between
community members. An event that brings the community
together is the “town-fiesta” – a week-long festival, which
the community is proud of, bringing home people who live
away from the area, another demonstration of the strong
186 M. Usamah et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 10 (2014) 178–189

500
450
400

Number of houses
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Typhoon Flash Flood Lahar/ Mudflow River flood Lava/ Pyroclastic Earthquake /
Flow/ Ash Fall Landslide
Type of Natural Disaster

Number of houses at risk Total Number of houses

Fig. 5. Total number of houses versus number of houses at risk to specified natural hazards in Barangay Tagaytay [32].

Table 7 be issued. People usually listen to them so we always

Characteristics of land-related vulnerability factors to natural disasters approach them. This has become one of our approaches in
in the study area (adapted and modified after UN-HABITAT [47]. disaster management. This is the strong value of our
people in Camalig. We respect the values of helping and
Characteristics Nature of disaster vulnerability
saving each other.”
Unsustainable land Settlements on buffer zone (i.e., river
use bank), more risk of flooding
Land degradation in the buffer zone as 4.2.5. Communication and information
the impacts of farming for livelihood Regular communication is a common practice in the
Farming/gardening on slope hills, risk study areas, a basic attribute of Filipino culture [27]. The
of landslide local sari–sari shops in the barangay provide a platform
Unsafe settlements
where people can communicate with each other. Shopping
Poor urban planning Unsafe settlements is undertaken daily at the local shops or markets and local
Weak implementation of zoning
people meet and interact in these places. Through such
regulations
No building codes regular communication, social bonds grow and informa-
tion can be shared easily. Consequently, early warnings or
Non-existence of Poor quality of housing construction
building codes
other disaster-related information can be easily dissemi-
nated. Such communication is evident from a community
Weak land Incomplete land registration
member's comment:
administration Out-of-date registration data
Unavailability of back-up of land
registration “We meet at the sari–sari shop and talk. We go to buy
food, and we talk to people. We go to the market, we talk
to people. We wait for a taxi, we talk to people. Sometimes
we even go to our neighbour's house to watch TV
Table 8 together” (Vilma, age 53, squatting along the railway
Community perception on resilience and tenure insecurity based on the
since 1994).
question ‘Are you resilient to disasters given the current tenure
situation?’.
4.3. Co-existence of vulnerability and resilience
Informal Settlers

Along riverbank Along railway In forest On road The above section indicates that there is an overlap
(n¼30) (n¼ 20) (n¼ 20) (n¼ 30) between vulnerability and resilience, at least in the
study areas where communities have various forms of
Yes 70% 80% 100% 95%
vulnerability, and yet also characteristics that enable their
No 30% 20% – 5%
resilience. Three factors explain how vulnerability and
resilience overlap in the context of multiple hazards.

community bond. These values are upheld by a Disaster
Management Officer of Camalig Municipality:
“People here always respect elderly people. They, on many
occasions, become the key people in conveying the
message during disasters, especially when warning is to
4.3.1. Inbuilt resilience
Inbuilt resilience implies an essential, integral and
inherent characteristic of the case study communities.
Their largely low incomes have meant having to live in
economic hardship, which built their resistance to shocks.
Therefore, in times of disasters, they are more prepared to
 M. Usamah et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 10 (2014) 178–189
Table 9
Perception of trust between community members and the importance of trust in time of disasters.
Informal settlers
Along riverbank (n ¼30) Along railway (n¼ 20)
Do you trust your neighbours?
Yes 100% 100%
No – –
Do you trust your neighbour when they convey the warning of disasters?
Yes 100% 100%
No – –
Does this trust help you secure your property, coming back to your houses to resume life after disasters?
Yes 100% 100%
No – –
deal with hardship and difficult situations, as explained by
a community member:
“The difficulties in life that we face everyday have built
our strength. We are used to living with limited facilities.
Impacts of disasters always give us a difficult time, but we
are used to that. We are resilient.” (Leria Nayve, age 62,
squatting along the river bank since 1970).
This is a form of psychological resilience, operating at
both the individual and family levels:
▪ Individual personality traits including a positive self-
concept, sociability, autonomy, self-esteem, problem-
solving skills, humour and good mental and physical
health [44]. This was evident during fieldwork for the
study when the community participants were always
cheerful and joked throughout the process. Such traits
are evident from the comments below of community
members:
“We are used to living like this, so it is okay.” (Joey
Imbat, age 28, tenant)
“Life is always difficult after disasters, but this is how
our life is.” (Noli Luces, age 50, squatting on the
river bank)
“I know I am poor but we are okay. We can eat and
children can go to school. That is the most important
thing” (Joel, age 61, squatting on the main road)
▪ Family relationships characterised by warmth, affection,
cohesion, commitment and emotional support of each
other [44] are displayed by the case study communities.
These characteristics are embedded in daily life and
practiced before, during and after disasters. The family
bond also extends to next of kin – cousins, grand-
parents, aunties and other extended family members –
who mutually help each other in difficult times, a part
of daily life. This is a strong attribute of resilient
families who share financial resources even when
money is in short supply [31]. These characteristics
stand out in the community members' comments
below:
“We always help each other from sharing food, hous-
ing materials, to paying my children's education.
187
In forest (n¼ 20) On road (n¼ 30)
100% 90%
– 10%
100% 100%
– –
100% 100%
– –
My brother gives money for my children's education”
(Pilar Narito, age 73, tenant)
“Before disasters, instead of waiting to be evacuated,
the whole family goes to our cousin's house in Legazpi”
(Melcor Vibar, age 63, squatting inside forest areas)
“In difficult time, there are families that help us. We
help each other” (Joey, age 37, squatting along the
railway)
4.3.2. Social system in informal settlements
Despite the tenure insecurity and poor housing stan-
dards discussed above, by their very nature informal
settlements are compact, which strengthens social cohe-
sion. As evident from the discussions above, such cohesion
is manifested in a sense of community, social trust and
respect for authority. These attributes, intrinsic in the
social system of the informal settlements, act as a strong
resource in times of disaster. The following excerpts
from narratives of community members clearly illustrate
the nature of this social system and its capacity for
enabling resilience, despite the prevailing conditions of
vulnerability.
“I live in an informal settlement along the railway. We live
next to each other. We are separated only by a small fence
and we share the same backyard. We know what people
do and eat everyday. This is life here; like living in one
house. During disasters it is easy for us to help each other
because our neighbours are like our families. We care for
each other. We help disseminate warning and during
disasters, we make sure everyone is evacuated” (Brenda
Malate, age 77, squatting along the railway)
“Everyone knows everybody here and everybody helps
everybody here” (Melcor Vibar, age 63, squatting inside
forest areas)
“Even though we live in informal settlements, we do not
have problems with rebuilding back our life. It is true we
face economic problems, but we can usually overcome it.
People help each other when we are rebuilding our houses
after disasters. In regards to housing, everyone knows
188 M. Usamah et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 10 (2014) 178–189
whose houses are where. That is the most important thing,
we recognise each other and we are bonded with each
other” (Estela N. Napay, age 79, squatting along the
river bank)
“Because we are like a family, we always have access to
our neighbours' houses. We just say “knock knock” and
we can come inside, like in our own house. This especially
helps during disasters” (Norly Moreuda, age 56, squat-
ting along the railway)
4.3.3. Government's role vis-à-vis informal settlements
The local government is aware of the growth of
informal settlements; the fact that some settlements have
been there for 40–70 years demonstrates a tacit recogni-
tion. Although various laws have been established in
regards to settlement in the disaster-prone areas or in
buffer zones along the river, their implementation is poor.
An example of a weakly enforced law is the Administrative
Order of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources that prohibits the construction of houses within
15 m of railways and roads, and 50 m within the limit of
water body [14]. However this study found many house-
holds living for decades in such places as shown above in
Section 3.1.
5. Conclusion
This paper has demonstrated that although commu-
nities are faced with vulnerability relating to geographical
exposure, economic limitations, inadequate housing and
insecure land tenure, they still perceive themselves to be
resilient to the disasters that frequently impact the areas.
The narratives from community members demonstrate
resilience – “strength in the presence of stress”, to para-
phrase [25,43]. The findings of this study point to social
resilience being paramount in building a community's
perception and level of resilience. Social resilience is built
through strong social cohesion, demonstrated by a strong
sense of community, trust among the community mem-
bers, active community involvement and respect for exist-
ing cultures and values.
Within the context of informal settlements in a rural
setting, this paper has provided a fresh insight on the
seemingly paradoxical relationship between vulnerability
and resilience, showing that there is an overlap between
vulnerability and resilience. The experiences of the case
study communities discussed in this paper show that
vulnerability and resilience can exist simultaneously. In
fact, it was revealed that the frequency of disasters that hit
the area has created a strong perception among commu-
nity members that ‘disasters are a part of their life’. This
has helped to develop an inbuilt resilience. The experi-
ences and perceptions of the case study communities have
demonstrated the importance of social aspects in building
resilience even in a context beset by multiple disasters.
This signifies the importance of highlighting social aspects
in natural hazards discourses.
Strong social resilience implies that building resilience
includes understanding of what potentially affected com-
munities can do for themselves to withstand the impacts
of disasters. This research suggests the importance of
building strong internal structures in societies confronted
by the prospects of future disasters.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Jed Villanueva from
the Municipal Disaster Management Office, Camalig Muni-
cipality for facilitating the in depth-interviews and FGD
during the data collection process. Estela Gumabon from
NAMRIA (The National Mapping and Resource Information
Authority) is acknowledged for her assistance with maps.
We are grateful to the residents of the two barangays who
contributed their time and experiences to the study. This
research is funded by AusAid through Australian Leader-
ship Awards and the School of Mathematical and Geospa-
tial Sciences of RMIT University.
References
[1] Adger W Neil. Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Prog
Hum Geogr 2000;24(3):347–64.
[2] Adger WNeil. Vulnerability. Glob Environ Change 2006;16(3):
268–81.
[3] Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I, Wisner B. At risk: natural hazards,
people's vulnerability and disasters. London: Routledge; 1994.
[4] Blyth Dale A, Roelkepartian Eugene C. Healthy communities, healthy
youth. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute; 1993.
[5] Bohle HG, Downing TE, Watts MJ. Climate change and social
vulnerability: toward a sociology and geography of food insecurity.
Glob Environ Change 1994;4(1):37–48.
[6] Buckle Philipp. Assessing social resilience. In: Paton Douglas, John-
ston David Moore, editors. Disaster resilience: an integrated
approach. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas; 2006.
[7] Buckle Philipp, Mars Graham, Smale Sydney. New approaches to
assessing vulnerability and resilience. Aust J Emerg Manag 2000;15
(2):8–14.
[8] Cannon Terry. Vulnerability analysis and disasters. In: Parker DJ,
editor. Floods, vol. I. London: Routledge; 2000.
[9] Cardona OD. The notion of disaster risk: conceptual framework for
integrated management. Sede Manizales: Manizales Inter-American
Development Bank, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Instituto de
Estudios Ambientales; 2003.
[10] Cimellaro Gian Paolo, Reinhorn Andrei M, Bruneau Michel. Frame-
work for analytical quantification of disaster resilience. Eng Struct
2010;32(11):3639–49.
[11] Cutter Susan L. Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc Sci
Q 2003;84(2):242–61.
[12] Cutter Susan L, Burton Christopher G, Emrich Christopher T. Disaster
resilience indicators for benchmarking baseline conditions. J Home-
land Secur Emerg Manag 2010;7 http://www.journalhse.org/about.
html; http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/jhsem.2010.7.1/jhsem.2010.
7.1.1732/jhsem.2010.7.1.1732.xml.
[13] Cutter Susan L, Berry M, Burton C, Evans E, Tate E, Webb J. A place-
based model for understanding community resilience to natural
disasters. Glob. Environ. Change 2008;18(4):598–606.
[14] DENR (1998), DAO No. 98–12, Revised Manual of Land Surveying
Regulation in the Philippines, Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR); Manila.
[15] Dow Kirstin. Exploring differences in our common future(s): the
meaning of vulnerability to global environmental change. Geoforum
1992;23(3):417–36.
[16] Folke, Carl, Carpenter, S, Gunderson, L, Holling, CS, Walker, B,
Bengtsson, J, et al.. Resilience and sustainable development: building
adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. Scientific back-
ground paper on resilience for the process of the world summit on
sustainable development on behalf of the environmental advisory
council to the Swedish Government, Stockholm; 2002.
[17] Forrest Ray, Kearns Ade. Social cohesion, social capital and the
neighbourhood. Urban Stud 2001;38(12):2125–43.
[18] Gallopín Gilberto C. Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and
adaptive capacity. Glob Environ Change 2006;16(3):293–303.
 M. Usamah et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 10 (2014) 178–189
[19] Government of Albay. Provincial development and physical frame-
work plan, 2011–2016, Legazpi City; 2010.
[20] GSDRC (Governance and Social Development Resource Centre).
Disaster resilience: topic guide. 〈http://www.gsdrc.org/go/topic-
guides/concepts/disaster-resilience/what-is-disaster-resilience〉;
2014 [accessed 24.08.14].
[21] Handmer John, Dovers Stephen R. A typology of resilience: rethink-
ing institutions for sustainable development. Ind Environ Crisis Q
1996;9(4):482–511.
[22] Hewitt Kenneth. Regions of risk: a geographical introduction to
disasters. Harlow: Longman; 1997.
[23] Jenson Jane. Defining and measuring social cohesion. London:
United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD);
2010.
[24] Joerin Jonas, Shaw R, Takeuchi Y, Krishnamurthy R. Assessing
community resilience to climate-related disasters in Chennai, India.
Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2012;1:44–54.
[25] Johnson Jeannette L, Wiechelt Shelly A. Introduction to the special
issue on resilience. Subst Use Misuse 2004;39(5):657–70.
[26] Klein Richard JT, Nicholls Robert J, Thomalla Frank. Resilience to
natural hazards: how useful is this concept? Glob Environ Change
Part B: Environ Hazards 2003;5(1–2):35–45.
[27] Lapiz. What makes the Filipino special? 2006.
[28] Maguire Brigit, Hagan Patrick. Disasters and communities under-
standing social resilience. Aust J Emerg Manag 2007;22(2):16–20.
[29] Manyena Siambabala Bernard. The concept of resilience revisited.
Disasters 2006;30(4):434–50.
[30] Markus Andrew. Mapping social cohesion. Caulfield East: Monash
University; 2011.
[31] McCubbin Hamilton I, McCubbin Marylin A. Typologies of resilient
families: emerging roles of social class and ethnicity. Fam Relat
1998;37(3):247–54.
[32] MDCC Camalig. Municipal disaster management and contingency
plan of the municipality of Camalig, Albay. Albay: Municipal Disaster
Coordinating Council, Office of the Mayor of Camalig; 2009.
[33] Mileti Dennis A. Disasters by design: a reassessment of natural
hazards in the United States. Washington, D.C: Washington Joseph
Henry Press; 1999.
[34] MoC. Brief profile of Camalig municipality. Camalig: Municipality of
Camalig; 2010.
[35] Mulvaney-Day Norah E, Alegría Margarita, Sribney William. Social
cohesion, social support, and health among Latinos in the United
States. Soc Sci Med 2007;64(2):477–95.
[36] Norris Frans, Stevens S, Pfefferbaum B, Wyche K, Pfefferbaum R.
Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and
strategy for disaster readiness. Am. J. Community Psychol. 2008;41
(1):127–50.
[37] NSCB. Annual per capita poverty threshold, poverty incidence and
magnitude of poor families, by region and province: 1991, 2003,
2006 and 2009. Makati City: National Statistical Coordination Board;
2009.
[38] Oxfam GB. Building resilient communities: good practices in dis-
aster risk management in the Philippines. Quezon City: Oxfam Great
Britain Philippines Programme; 2008.
[39] PAGASAThe Philippines public storm warning signals. 〈http://kidlat.
pagasa.dost.gov.ph/genmet/psws.html〉 [accessed 20.06.14].
[40] Paton Douglas. Disaster preparedness: a social-cognitive perspec-
tive. Disaster Prev Manag 2003;12(3):210–6.
[41] Pelling Mark. What determines vulnerability to floods; a case study
in Georgetown, Guyana. Environ Urban 1997;9(1):203–26.
[42] Pelling Mark. The vulnerability of cities: natural disasters and social
resilience. London: Earthscan; 2003.
[43] Rolf Jon E. Resilience: an interview with Norman Garmezy. In:
Glantz Jeannette L, Johnson Jeannette L, editors. Resilience and
189
development (longitudinal research in the social and behavioral
sciences: an interdisciplinary series. US: Springer; 1999. p. 5–14.
[44] Seccombe Karen. Beating the odds versus changing the odds:
poverty, resilience, and family policy. J Marriage Fam 2002;64:
384–94.
[45] Timmerman Peter. Vulnerability, resilience and collapse of society: a
review of models and possible climatic applications.Environ
Monogr, 1. Toronto: Institute for Environmental Studies, University
of Toronto; 1981.
[46] Twigg John. Characteristics of a disaster-resilient community: a
guidance note; 2 November 2009.
[47] UN-HABITAT. Land and natural disasters: guidance for practitioners.
Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Human Settlements Programme,
Food and Agricultural Organizations of the United Nations and
Global Land Tool Network; 2010.
[48] UNISDR. Hyogo framework of action 2005–2015. Geneva: United
Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction; 2005.
[49] UNISDR. Building disaster resilient communities: good practices and
lessons learned, a publication of the “global network of NGOs” for
disaster risk reduction. Geneva: United Nations International Strategy
for Disaster Reduction; 2007.
[50] UNISDR. Local governments and disaster risk reduction: good
practices and lessons learned, a contribution to the ‘making cities
resilient’ campaign. Geneva: United Nations International Strategy
for Disaster Reduction; 2010.
[51] Villagrán JC de León. Vulnerability: a conceptual and methodological
review. Bonn, Germany: Studies of the University: Research, Counsel,
Education, UNU-EHS; 2006.
[52] Vogel Coleen, Moser SC, Kasperson RE, Dabelko GD. Linking vulner-
ability, adaptation, and resilience science to practice: Pathways,
players, and partnerships. Glob Environ Change 2007;17(3-4):
349–64.
[53] Walker Brian, Holling CS, Carpenter SR, Kinzig A. Resilience, adapt-
ability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc
2004;9(2):5.
[54] Weichselgartner Juergen. Disaster mitigation: the concept of vulner-
ability revisited. Disaster Prev Manag 2001;10(2):85–95.
[55] Weichselgartner Juergen, Bertens Jurjen. Natural disasters: acts of
god, nature or society? On the social relation to natural hazards In:
Brebbia CA, editor. Risk analysis II. Southampton: WIT Press; 2000.
p. 3–12.
[56] Weichselgartner Juergen, Kelman Ilan. Geographies of resilience: chal-
lenges and opportunities of a descriptive concept, Prog Hum Geogr.
〈http://phg.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/30/0309132513518834〉,
2014 [accessed 24.08.14].
[57] Wisner Ben. Assessment of capability and vulnerability. In: Bankoff G,
Frerks G, Hilhorst D, editors. Mapping vulnerability: disasters, devel-
opment and people. London: Earthscan Publications; 2004. p. 183–93.
[58] Wisner Ben. Vulnerability. In: Rob Kitchin, Nigel Thrift, editors.
International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Oxford: Elsevier;
2009. p. 176–82.
[59] Wisner Ben, Blaikie Piers, Cannon Terry, Davis Ian. At risk: natural
hazards, people's vulnerability and disasters. London: Routledge;
2003.
[60] Yengoyan Aram A. Values and institutions in the Philippines. In:
Yengoyan Aram A, Makil Perla Q, editors. Philippine Society and the
Individual, Selected Essays of Frank Lynch, 1984. Michigan: Center
for South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of Michigan; 2004.
p. 13–25.
[61] Zhou Hongjian, Wang Jing’ai, Wan Jinhong, Jia Huicong. Resilience to
natural hazards: a geographic perspective. Nat Hazards 2010;53(1):
21–41.