See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269166941

FLOOD DISASTER RISK REDUCTION AND RISK MANAGEMENT OF PASIG CITY

Thesis · December 2014

CITATIONS READS
0 14,650

2 authors, including:

Robert john Ocampo Robas

De La Salle University
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Robert john Ocampo Robas on 06 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

FLOOD DISASTER RISK REDUCTION AND RISK MANAGEMENT OF

PASIG CITY
Robert John O. Robas¹

Introduction

The World Risk Report 2011 assessed the vulnerability of 173 countries to natural hazards and
their ability to handle the aftermath of natural disasters based on exposure, susceptibility of the
population, coping capacity and adaptation strategy. This report from the United Nations University
Institute for Environment and Human Safety (UNU-EHS) revealed that the Philippines was the third most
vulnerable worldwide because of the frequency of calamities, such as typhoons, floods, landslides and
earthquake, combined with the country’s ineffectual disaster preparedness programs (Mucke, 2011).

Being one of the most disaster-prone
countries in the world, the Philippines had long
experiences in dealing with, responding to and
managing disasters. Since the 1970s, the country
has shifted its approach from disaster preparedness
and response to disaster management in the 1980s
to disaster risk management in the 1990s and
disaster risk reduction in the years 2005 and
beyond. This evolution paved the way to the
paradigm shift in the way people, communities and
government think, act and respond to the current
and emerging risks that continually face them.
In 1978, the National Disaster Coordinating
Council (NDCC) was established through
Presidential Decree (PD) 1566 as the highest policy
making body and the focal organization for disaster
management in the country. This law also provided
for the establishment of regional, provincial, city,
municipal and barangay disaster coordinating
councils. These DCCs were formed primarily to
advice the President and/or the local chief
executive on all natural disaster preparedness and
management plans; recommend the declaration of
state calamity and the release of calamity funds for
relief and rescue operations, among others. (PD.
1566; NDRRMF, 2011)
In 2005, President Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo approved the implementation of the National
Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC) Four Point
Plan of Action for Preparedness (4PPAP) which
aimed to increase public awareness and
involvement in measures put in place by the
government to minimize the impact of disasters in
the future. (NDRRM, 2011) Republic Act No. 10121
was also legislated as continuous policy prior to
SNAP program. However, despite such progress,
problems were still seen during Bagyong Ondoy in
September 2009 where Philippines was badly hit
and many of the cities and provinces like Pasig City
flood was as high as eight meters or eight hundred
centimeters approximately.
During Typhoon Ondoy, the Pasig City
government incurred huge damages in
infrastructures: buildings (P11,800,000,000-
US$3B); Roads/drainages(P1,500,000,000-US
$36B); Government buildings schools, health
centers, playgrounds (P800,000,000 or US$20 B);
Government vehicles, equipment and facilities
(P14, 609, 791or US$3.5M); not included were the
many innocent people who died during the
catastrophe (Porio, 2011).
The adverse disaster happened again last
August 2012 when deadly floods brought by
southwest monsoon (Habagat) have swamped
Metro Manila and other provinces. The amount of
rainfall brought by southwest monsoon surpasses
typhoon Ondoy that prompted some local
government to declare state of calamity. From the
records of NDRRMC, a total of forty nine (49)
cities/municipalities in Region I,III, IV-A, IV-B, XII
and NCR was declared under State of Calamity
wherein the Pasig City were included. The total cost
of damages of southwest monsoon for
infrastructure is Php 639,128, 230.00 and for
agriculture is Php1,624,410,815.14 or combined
damages for infrastructure and agriculture
amounting of Php. 2,263,539, 045.14 (NDRRMC,
2012).
In the Local Government of Pasig the
affected places of southwest monsoon are twenty
four barangays (24), seven thousand one hundred
fifty (7,150) families or thirty three thousand two
hundred eighty (33,280) persons (NDRRMC, 2012).

Data do not include those unreported statistics of
affected families recorded from each barangay of
Pasig.
People who live in poverty and adverse
socio-economic conditions are highly vulnerable to
disasters. The most vulnerable sectors include the
poor, the sick, people with disabilities, older
persons, women and children. Although many
people may be affected, these sectors will have the
least capacity to recover from the impact of
disasters. This situation is exacerbated by rapid
urbanization, environmental degradation and the
increasing risk of environmental disasters, whether
as a result of direct human impact and or from
climate change. The risks induced by these hazards
have big effects on the country’s economic
development targets and programming as well as in
the overall welfare of the people and their
properties, especially on the poor and most
vulnerable groups.
The milestone towards disaster risk
reduction- disaster risk management preparedness
is prevention rather than recovery. The protection
and security of houses, properties, and the life of
every human individual, during a disaster, must be
given utmost attention by the government. The
researcher is very much interested to know the
flood disaster risk management-disaster risk
reduction of the city government of Pasig, This
study will serve as a wake-up call to the community
and officials to formulate or improved necessary
disaster management measures to reduce the
vulnerability in risk reduction, risk recovery, relief
and rehabilitation plan and the like. In addition, the
vigilance of the public regarding disaster
management preparedness and other related
measures to protect their rights are the main
concerns of the researcher because this will
warrant saving and protecting life, property and
conserving properly the natural environments.
Flood Abstract & Situation in Pasig City
Pasig City is one of the highly developed
cities in the Metropolitan Manila area due to rapid
development and its accessible location is suited for
doing business like the Ortigas area. The growth
and political stability of city encourage many people
to migrate within the city to find opportunities. As a
result, city became highly industrialize and polluted
by permanent structure such as buildings and
houses to accommodate the needs of the city for
progress.
2
In the Metro Manila structure, Pasig is
located at the eastern boundary of Metro-Manila
and within the intermediate core, together with
Muntinlupa, Valenzuela, Las Piñas, Paranaque,
Marikina, Taguig, Pateros. In the national structure,
it lies within the Laguna de Bay basin and between
two coastal growth centers of Metro Manila and
MARILAQUE. It lies approximately on the southern
end of Pasig River and is bounded by Quezon City
and Marikina City on the North; the City of
Mandaluyong on the West; Pateros, Tagig and
Makati City on the South; and Rizal towns of Cainta
and Taytay on the East.
The city is the catch basin of all excess
water from Marikina river, Pasig river, Napindan
Channel, human made Manggahan floodway. The
Manggahan floodway is created by the national
government to catch water from the mountain due
to diminished forests in Antipolo and Rizal province.
Cited to PAGASA (2012), the capacity of river and
the flow rate during Ondoy the Marikina river has a
current capacity of 2,900m³/second, Pasig river with
500m³/second, Napindan Channel with
35m³/second, and Manggahan Floodway with
2,400m³/second.
The risk is further exacerbated by
inappropriate human practices contributing to still
higher levels of natural hazards, such as
deforestation, lack of drainage systems, and
concrete and asphalt paving, all of which lessen the
absorption capacity of the plant layer. For these
reasons, disaster risk management means not only
intervention in and control of natural phenomena,
but also (and especially) modification of existing
land use practices, occupation practices, and
economic activities that generate hazards and
vulnerabilities; it also means strengthening the
application of risk reduction criteria in development
planning.
Expert such as Palafox Associates and Dr.
Britton, suggested that Ondoy and Habagat
floodings is as a result of poor urban planning
coupled with poor environmental management.
People built houses along the riverbanks most
especially in floodway that block the water flowing
to the Laguna De Bay. Poor solid waste
management is also factor despite the mandate of
R.A. 9003 (Solid Waste Management Act) the
garbages clogged the water ways and causes flood.
The man made Manggahan Floodway built in
1980’s cuts across the city, from the Marikina river
bend in Brgy. Rosario down to Laguna Bay. About 3
km. of Manggahan floodway traverse the city, in
particular barangay Rosario, and Maybunga. The

Manggahan floodway is part of Metro Manila flood
control program that prevents flooding in Manila
and its vicinity through diversion of about 70% of
the water coming from Marikina River to flow
towards the Laguna de Bay and only 30% to flow to
the Pasig River. (Pasig City Profile,2010) Figure 4
the map shows that the city is highly susceptible to
flood based on Mines and Geo Science Bureau
(PIA, 2012)
Aside from two natural bodies influencing
flood in the city (Marikina River and Pasig River),
the drainage lines within the City of Pasig have a
total aggregate length of 104 kilometers consisting
of open canal, covered canal and underground
reinforced pipes. This represents the drainage
facilities installed in private subdivision which are
mostly underground reinforced concrete pipes.
Almost all thoroughfares and residential areas have
underground drainage facilities, while most high
density residential areas are provided with open or
closed canal to relieved the city of storm flooding. In
total, sixteen (17) other creeks serve as the city’s
drainage outfall. A total of 26 km. of creeks runs
through the territory and periphery of Pasig. At
present, Pasig has three (3) pumping stations
located on both ends of the Parian Creek in Ilugin,
Pinagbuhatan and Kapasigan and at San Agustin
creek, Barangay Pinagbuhatan with combined
pumping capacity of 10 gallons/minute (Pasig City
Profile, 2010).
The City of Pasig created a Comprehensive
Land Use Plan that identified the existing flood
situation and listed the current status of creeks
within the city which Table 3 shows. The status of
seventeen creeks reveals one reason for the flood
on the last typhoon Ondoy of September 2009 and
Habagat of August 2012. Most of the creeks were
dried-up, silted or totally lost due to infrastructures
built within, such as houses by squatters or illegal
settlers, commercial establishments etc. the
development of the city paved way to look for
vacant place that shall be utilized for industrial,
business or houses occupation. Hence, since the
city is highly urbanized vacant area for commercial
consumptions are very limited. As result, water
ways was converted and sacrifice.
For instance, the Parian creek (Bitukang
Manok) that serves as outlet of water within the city
to Marikina river which was culvert and filled, from
Plaza Bonifacio to Marikina River, 400 meters and
occupied by structures of Rio de Pasig Linear Park,
Brgy Out-post, Brgy Multipurpose Hall, San Jose
Barangay Hall, commercial establishments, and
houses which eventually in absence of water ways
3
resulted to flooding in Sto. Tomas, Sta Cruz, and
City hall and other parts of the city.
Bautista et al. (2011) summarized Dr.
Lagmay’s presentation entitled “Flood Risk
Mitigation: Learning from Ondoy” presented during
the NDRRM planning workshop conducted by OCD
that there is a consensus that the intensity and
volume of Ondoy was unusually high; it was beyond
the capacity of existing drainage systems, natural or
man-made, in Metro Manila. However, events of
greater magnitude may have happened in the past.
According to Taiwanese experts, typhoon Morakot
brought three times as much rain as Ondoy
delivered. There are also human activities
contributory to the mishap. One is groundwater
subsidence. There are areas in Valenzuela,
Rosario, Las Piñas, and Dasmariñas showing land
subsidence which are believed to have been
caused by excessive extraction of groundwater.
The areas are subsiding at 5cm/year (Bautista et al,
2011).
Statement of the Problem
It is the purpose of this study to evaluate the
flood disaster management program of Pasig City,
a local government unit in the National Capital
Region, during calendar year 2012.
Specifically, the study sought answers to the
following sub problems:
1. What is the demographic profile of the Pasig City
local government officials who respond to disasters
in terms of:
1.1. age,
1.2. gender,
1.3. government affiliation,
1.4. position held, and
1.5. length of service
2. What is the evaluation of Flood Disaster Risk
Management- Disaster Risk Reduction (DRM-DRR)
programs of the Pasig City?
3. Is there any significant relationship between
socio demographic profiles and evaluation on the
flood Disaster Risk Management- Disaster Risk
Reduction (DRM-DRR) programs in terms of;
3.1. government affiliation,
3.2. position held, and
3.3. length of service

4. What are the problems encountered in the
implementation of Flood Disaster Risk
Management-Disaster Risk Reduction program in
the City of Pasig?
5. What are the Flood Disaster Risk Management-
Disaster Risk Reduction (DRM-DRR) program
needs in terms of:
5.1. Program objectives,
5.2. Program resources,
5.2.1. staff,
5.2.2. physical resources, and
5.2.3. budgetary allocation
5.3. Program activities,
5.3.1.prevention and mitigation,
5.3.2. emergency preparedness and risk
reduction,
5.3.3. emergency response, and
5.3.4. rehabilitation and recovery
6. Is there any significant difference between the
responses of barangays to the implementation of
DRR-DRM program in their respective area?
Hypotheses
1. There is no significant relationship between the
socio-demographic profiles of respondent and the
disaster risk management-risk reduction DRR-DRM
program of Pasig City for flood.
2. There is no significant difference between the
responses of barangays to the implementation of
disaster risk reduction- risk management program
in their respective area.
Methodology
The study was conducted to assess and
evaluate the flood disaster risk reduction and
management program of Pasig City, a local
government unit in the National Capital Region
using the fundamentals of program/project/activities
(P/P/A) designed and implementation, taking into
consideration the input-process-output linkages in
the series of activities.
The study focused on the nineteen (19)
barangays severely affected by the Typhoon Ondoy
4
of September 2009 and South West Monsoon
(Habagat) of August 2012. These are the Barangay
Chairmen, Councilors, and the Head of the
Barangay Disaster Coordinating Councils of
Barangay Manggahan, Maybunga, Pinagbuhatan,
Rosario, San Miguel, Santolan, Sta. Lucia, Bagong
Ilog, Bambang, Caniogan, Kalawaan, Malinao,
Palatiw, Pineda, Sagad, San Joaquin, Sto. Tomas,
Santa Cruz, and Ugong. Also the key personnel of
the planning division, Committee in Disaster
Management and Department of Engineering of
LGU-Pasig City Hall that are directly in task in
disaster management implementation shall also be
included as participants of the study.
These respondents sought to answer the
questions and framework of PDRRMF on national
policy for disaster management pursuant to
Republic Act No 10121 also known as “Philippine
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of
2010″ and to other mainstream policy context for
disaster management program specifically the
Philippine Development Plan, Millennium
Development Goals (MDG), Hyogo Framework for
Actions (HFA), Asean Agreement on Disaster
management and Emergency Response
(AADMER), International Disaster Response Law
(IDRL), Kyoto Protocol, and United Nations (UN).
All policy context and DRRMF focuses in disaster
risk management on (1.) prevention and mitigation,
(2.) emergency preparedness and risk reduction,
(3.) emergency response, and (4.) rehabilitation and
recovery. These four areas will be the key
assessment areas of the study for disaster
management preparedness of Pasig City.
The study utilized the descriptive method of
research employing quantitative and qualitative
approach. Hence, a researcher made questionnaire
is used employing purposive sampling to gather
data from respondents and interview schedule was
employed to collect data from groups of
respondents. Likert scale was utilized to interpret
the data and Percentage, Weighted Mean, Chi
Square, and F test was employed to treat the data
gathered. Henceforth, the study is collaborated by
the literatures, records, and data examined by the
researcher and the observation conducted to the
places affected by the floods.
Out of the 180 survey questionnaires, only
151 were retrieved, considered and used in the
study. The study is collaborated by the literatures,
records, and data examined by the researcher and
the observation conducted to the places affected by
the floods.

Summary of Findings
1. The respondents are predominately
males mostly affiliated with the barangay with the
position of barangay councilors and had been
serving as officials for 4 to 7 years. More than 1/3 of
the respondents have ages 46 years old and above
while only 6% have ages as young as 18 to 25
years old.
2. On the overall the respondents assessed
the Flood Disaster Risk Management- Disaster Risk
Reduction (DRM-DRR) programs of the Pasig City
as effective.
3. There is no significant relationship
between the variables government affiliation,
position, and length of service and the respondents
on the overall assessment of the flood DRR-DRM.
4. The respondents disagree that they
encounter problems in lack of disaster management
plan, lack of coordination between LGU, NGO,NG &
other agency, and delayed implementation of
project. However, the respondents moderately
agree that they encounter problems in budget,
Awareness thru education & information,
Community participation, Political will (Leadership
of Officials), Community resistance, manpower,
poor implementation of law, and insufficient
assistance from National Government.
5. Flood Disaster Risk Management-
Disaster Risk Reduction (DRM-DRR) program.
5.1. In terms of program objectives, the
respondents assessed the flood DRR- DRM
program to be effective.
5.2. Flood DRR-DRM Program
Resources
5.2.1. In terms of program
resources, the respondents assessed that the city
has a sufficient physical resources in the life
savings jacket, life saving buoys, rescue boat,
search light, water proof battery, generators, diving
suit, ambulance, vehicles (transportation), early,
warning device, portable toilets, evacuation area,
fire alarm system, telephone services, and health
facilities.
5.2.2. The respondents assessed
that the city has a sufficient funding in prevention
and mitigation, emergency preparedness and risk
reduction, emergency response, rehabilitation and
recovery.
5
5.3. Flood DRR-DRM Program Activities
5.3.1. In terms of program activities
in prevention and mitigation, the respondents
agree that the needed plans are hazard mapping
and urban planning, education and awareness,
sufficient shelter food & cloths, antibiotics and
medical kits, transportation to help the effected
people, community involvement and participation,
infrastructure, de-clogging of water ways and
canals, dredging of rivers, and early warning
mechanism.
5.3.2. In terms of program activities
in emergency preparedness and risk reduction, the
respondents assessed that the community level are
responsive and aware of the disaster risk factors.
First, the communities organize themselves to
monitor potential disaster. Second, there are
warning systems in place to the community level.
Third, communities are ready and understand
official warning and react. Fourth, community
vulnerable has evacuation plans/maps. Fifth, there
are training, simulation exercise, or local drills
conducted, at the community level. Sixth, the
training conducted at the community level is
relevant. Lastly, there is disaster awareness and
public information projects or programmes being
undertaken to the community
5.3.3. In terms of program activities
in emergency response, the respondents assess
that the plan for life preservation and supply of the
basic needs of affected population during the actual
and immediate after the disaster are responsive
and effective. The program for relief operation,
search and rescue, dissemination/information
sharing of disaster related information,
development/provision of temporary shelter, health
service, psycho social support, early recovery
mechanism, management of dead and missing,
evacuation management, social protection
intervention, and civil & uniformed services
coordination are responsive.
5.3.4. In terms of program for
rehabilitation and recovery, the respondent assess
that the government action taken to restore and
improved the living conditions of the affected
residents are efficient. The program for livelihood
for affected victims, search and retrieval,
shelter/relocation for affected victims, psycho social
counseling, infrastructure and relocation plan, post
disaster need assessment, and environmental
protection are efficient.

6. Significant Difference between the
Responses Per Barangay and DRR-DRM Program.
6.1. There distinction on responses per
barangay and the objectives of flood disaster risk
reduction-risk management program. Hence, the
null hypothesis regarding the assessment by the
officials of different barangay in terms of program
objectives is rejected.
6.2. There is disparity on the assessment
of flood DRM-DRR programs in terms of program
resources for staff, physical resources, and
budgetary allocation and the officials of different
barangay of Pasig City. Therefore, the null
hypothesis regarding the assessment by the
officials of different barangay in terms of program
resources is rejected.
6.3. There is divergence on the
assessment of Flood DRM-DRR programs in terms
of program activities and the officials of different
barangay of Pasig City. All computed F’s for
prevention and mitigation, emergency
preparedness and risk reduction, emergency
response, and rehabilitation and recovery are
exceeding the critical value thus the null hypothesis
is rejected.
Conclusions
Based on the above findings, the following
conclusions are stated:
1. The respondents are predominately males
mostly affiliated with the barangay with the
position of barangay councilors and had been
serving as officials for 4 to 7 years. More than
1/3 of the respondents have ages 46 years old
and above and 6% have ages as young as 18
to 25 years old.
2. The Flood Disaster Risk Management-
Disaster Risk Reduction (DRM-DRR) programs
of the Pasig City for prevention and mitigation,
disaster preparedness and risk reduction,
emergency response, and rehabilitation and
recovery are effective.
3. It found out that there is no significant
relationship between the variables of
government affiliation, position, and length of
service, and the responses of barangay
officials on the overall assessment of the flood
DRM-DRR.
4. It resulted that respondents moderately agree
that they encounter problems in budget,
6
awareness thru education & information,
community participation, political will
(Leadership of Officials), community resistance,
manpower, poor implementation of law, and
insufficient assistance from National
Government. On the other hand, the
respondents disagree that they encounter
problems in lack of disaster management plan,
lack of coordination between LGU, NGO,NG &
other agency, and delayed implementation of
project.
5. It attested that the program objectives of flood
Disaster Risk Management- Disaster Risk
Reduction (DRM-DRR) program are effective.
Further, program resources for physical needs
and funding for DRR-DRM are sufficient.
6. It shows that the DRR-DRM program activities
in prevention and mitigation needed the plan
for: First, hazard mapping and urban planning.
Second, education and awareness. Third,
sufficient shelter food & cloths. Fourth,
antibiotics and medical kits. Fifth, transportation
to help the effected people. Fifth, community
involvement and participation. Sixth,
infrastructure. Seventh, de-clogging of water
ways and canals. Eighth, dredging of rivers.
Lastly, early warning mechanism. Moreover, the
program activities in emergency preparedness
and risk reduction resulted to be responsive.
Likewise, the program activities in emergency
response emphasized to be effective and
responsive. Similarly, in terms of program for
rehabilitation and recovery confirmed to be
efficient.
7. It shows on F computation that there is
distinction on responses per barangay and
DRR-DRM program for objectives, program
resources, and program activities in prevention
and mitigation, disaster preparedness and risk
reduction, emergency response, and
rehabilitation and recovery.
Recommendations
Based on the findings and conclusions, the
following recommendations are made to improved
the current flood DRR-DRM program and for future
research.
Prevention and Mitigation
1. Carry out more comprehensive
vulnerability assessments to identify the risk and

hazard. Mapping is very effective as mitigation
measures. Assessment of all physical
infrastructures, number & classification of people at
risk, and hazard areas is very significant to reduce
risk
2. Incorporate the study of Disaster Risk
Reduction in formal school as part of the
curriculum, so that at a young age students will be
educated on environmental awareness and its
harmful effect.
3. Encourage multi-sectoral participation in
DRR-DRM program and activities. Ex. School to
conduct socio-civil activities about flood disaster.
Companies to participate in tree planting or
environmental activities.
4. Educate the barangay officials and
volunteers about the DRR and their role in the
community. Further, encourage them to participate
in the training about DRR. Training must be
periodic and barangay must have an evaluation,
assessment and inventory of human physical
resources.
5. Aside from the CCTV installed in the
community the LGU and barangay is also
encouraged to put up a visible public address
system (i.e. megaphone) that will serve as early
warning device at the community level.
6. Installations of flood control system in
strategic areas are encouraged. Most especially on
those low lying barangays near the main water
ways.
7. The purchased and installations of
disaster management medical kits and box to
barangays are suggested.
8. The continuous programs of the city in
reclogging of canals, drainage and sewerage
systems should be encouraged.
9. The rehabilitation and reclamation of
Bitukang Manok River are strongly suggested or the
creation of new water ways connected to Marikina
river are suggested to reduce the impact of floods
within the city.
10. Activation, formation and empowerment
of BDRRCC, BDRRCO, and volunteers are strongly
suggested to each barangay.
7
Emergency Preparedness and Risk
Reduction
11. Encourage the community to
build their own capacity by establishment
community disaster group link to barangay and
LGU that will monitor disaster in their area.
12. Conduct more trainings, seminars, and
drills to the community base about the disaster risk
reduction. Information dissemination of leaflets,
journal, caricature, and cartoonist is significant.
13. Encourage the community to participate
in the activities and training conducted in the
community level. Most likely required member (at
least one per family) to undergo training on first aid
and basic life support.
14. Encourage the people to volunteer in
disaster risk reduction and disaster risk
management.
15. Develop a policy of coordination among
departments and agency involved in LDRRMC.
Emphasize a bottom up decentralized approach
about DRM-DRR program.
16. Build a coordination capacity from the
Pasig City local government to other neighboring
cities, communities and national government. We
remember that Local government code give local
autonomy to each LGU, these hampered the
coordination due to different policies and strategies
imposed in each city. However, links between the
cities is very important in order to notify each other
of the plan about DRR. “No one can stand on their
own” disaster needs a multi sectoral and
partnership approach in order to lessen the
vulnerability.
17. The flood management plan must
specifically identify the source of fund and the
process how it should be tap.
Emergency Response
18. Secure of master list of areas families
and individuals that are in high risk or prone to
disaster.
19. It is suggested to have an annual
inventory of physical resources and capacity of all
barangay to determine their needs in disaster
response and preparedness.

20. Purchase of necessary equipment to
barangays based on their respective needs in
disaster phase.
21. Purchased of additional vehicles that
shall be used for transportation and emergency.
Rehabilitation and Recovery
22. Coordinate with the national government
thru National Housing Authority for possible
relocation. Relocate those people in flood prone
areas especially those living near the river and
water ways.
23. Coordinate with the National
Government to create an institutionalized policy on
rehabilitation, dredging, and cleaning of Marikina
River, Pasig River, Napindan channel, and
Manggahan Floodway.
24. Continuous implementation of ordinance
and program for environmental protection in tree
planting, banning of plastic usage in the city, and
segregation of garbage as mandated by RA No.
9003, RA No. 9729 and other statutory laws.
25. It is suggested that a replicate of this
study be conducted using other respondents and
variables to validate the findings of the study or to
explore other important dimensions of the topic in
disaster risk reduction-risk management.
Endnotes
1. Mr. Robert John O. Robas, 24, is currently an
assistant professor and Program Head of College of
Arts and Science at AMA Computer College-Pasig
Campus. He is also a part-time instructor under
Department of Political Science at Rizal
Technological University (2011-Present) and
Department of Social Sciences at Jose Rizal
University (2013-Present). He handled subjects in
History, Economics, Philosophy, Political Science,
Sociology and Public Administration. Aside from
teaching, he is also a Local Legislative Officer III of
Local Government of Mandaluyong under the office
of Councillor Atty. Jesus C. Cruz in committees on
Environmental Protection & Technology and
Barangay Affairs which responsible for research
and drafting of proposed measures in the city. He
graduated Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and
Master of Arts in Public Administration at Rizal
8
Technological University and currently studying
PhD in Developmental Studies at De La Salle
University under the scholarship apprenticeship
program of DLSU - Jesse M. Robredo Institute of
Governance (JMRIG). He is speaker, policy
developer, consultant and active in community
organizing and development.
Bibliography
A. Books
Aczel, Amir D. (1996). “Complete Business
Statistics”. 3rd Edition, Bethley College, Student
Edition ISBN 0-256-13894-X, Instructors Edition
ISBN 0-256-20678-3, Printed in United States of
America.
Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (2001).
“Community Based Disaster Management Course
Participants Workbook”, Partnerships for Disaster
Reduction- South East Asia Program
Aldrich Nancy and William F. Benson (2008).
“Disaster Preparedness and the Chronic Disease
Needs of Vulnerable Older Adults” Preventing
Chronicle Disease, Public Health Research,
Practice and Policy, Volume 5: No. 1 January 2008
Correa, E. (Ed.) 2011. Preventive Resettlement for
Populations at Risk of Disater. Experiences from
Latin America. Washington DC: World Bank
Delica, Zenaida G. (2005). “Disaster Preparedness
And Management Innovations In The Philippines”.
Citizens’ Disaster Response Center (CDRC). 72-
ATimes St., West Triangle Homes, P.O. Box
2893 CPO, Quezon City, Philippines
EMI Brochure BR-07-02 (2007). “The Disaster Risk
Management Master Plan of Metro Manila”
Earthquakes and Megacities Initiative 2F Puno
Bldg. Annex, 47 Kalayaan Ave. Quezon City 1101,
Philippines
ISDR (2011). “Disaster Risk Reduction in the United
Nations 2011 Roles, mandates and areas of work of
key United Nations entities” International Strategy
for Disaster Reduction
GFDRR(2011). “Disaster Risk Management in
2011: Investing Smart for Results” Global
Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery, the
(GFDRR) Iwan Gunawan, The World Bank
Office –Jakarta, February 3 , 2011, World Bank HQ
Washington DC, USA

Nordic Agency for Development and Ecology and
GEF Evaluation Office (2007). “Country Program
Case Study: The Philippines”, Joint Evaluation of
the GEF Small Grants Programme, July 2007
Morillo, Odon (2001). “Towards A Community-
Based Risk Reduction Approach”, paper presented
at the Disaster Management Practitioners
Workshop, Da Nang, Vietnam, November 2002.
Mucke Peter (2011). “WorldRiskReport2011”
Bundnis Entwicklung Hilft: Alliance Development
Works, United Nation University UNU-EHS: Institute
for Environment and Human Security, ISBN
978-3-9814495-1-8
Porio, Emma PhD (2011). “Enhancing Institutional
Arrangements For Climate Change Adaptation: The
Case Of Pasig City In Metro Manila”. Paper
presented at the Cities at Risk II Conference,
Academia Sinica, Taipe, April 11-13, 2011
Ramírez, F., and D. Rubiano. (2009). “Incoporando
la gestión del riesgo de desastres en la
planificación territorial.” Prevención de Desastres
en la Comunidad Andina (PREDECAN), Lima.
Sevilla, Consuelo G. Et Al (2002). “Research
Methods, Revised Edition”. ISBN-971-23-1058,
(Printed May 2002) Rex Book Store, Manila
Philippines
Walpole, Ronald E. (2002). “Introduction to
Statistics, Third Edition”. Pearson Education, Asia
Pte Ltd. 23 First Lok Road Jurong, Singapore
629733, ISBN 981- 4009-51-2, Printed in the
Philippines.
World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision
(database). Population Division of the Department
of Economic and Social Affairs of the United
Nations Secretariat.
World Bank. (2002) “Natural disaster risk
management in the Philippines: Enhancing poverty
alleviation through disaster reduction”. World Bank
East Asia And Pacific Region Rural Development
Victoria, Lorna P. (2002). “Community Based
Disaster Management In The Philippines: Making a
Difference in People’s Lives” Center for Disaster
Preparedness, CSWCD Bldg., Ramon Magsaysay
Avenue University of the Philippines Diliman
Campus, Quezon City, Philippines
9
Villanueva, Jed l. (2010). “Disaster Management
Plan of Municipality of Camalig, Albay”, Municipal
Disaster Coordinating Council. –Camalig, Albay
B. Newspapers and Journals
ADP (2001) “The Philippine Disaster Management
Story: Issues and challenges” Asian Disaster
Preparedness Center PO Box 4 Klong Luang,
Pathumthani 12120 Thailand, October 2001
Bautista, Rostum J, Et al. (2011) “National
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management
(NDRRM) Planning Workshop” (activity report)
Summit Ridge Hotel, Tagaytay City 11-13 July
2011. National Defense College of the Philippines
Berza, Katharina Anne D. (2008) “Towards
Achieving disaster-resilient communities”, Health
Alert Asia-Pacific Edition (Issue No 12) ISSN 0116-
1202, page 10-11.
Comprehensive Land Use Plan (2010), Planning
Department Office, (Available at) Pasig City Hall.
Pasig City LGU
De Vera, Ellalyn B. (2012) “New Color Coding for
Rains” Manila Bulletin, Vol. 476 No. 10 August
10, 2012, page 1
Dimaandal Marianito M. (2010) EO No. 888
“Adopting the Strategic National Action Plan
(SNAP) on Disaster risk Reduction (DRR), 2009-
2019 and Institutionalizing DRR”,
Malacanang Records Office, June 21, 2010
EMI, Earthquakes and Megacities Initiative (2007)
“The Disaster Risk Management Plan of Metro
Manila”, 2F Puno Bldg. Annex, 47 Kalayaan Ave.
Quezon City. EMI Brochure BR-07-02
Flood Disaster Risk Reduction & Management of
2012, Manual available at Local Disaster Risk
Reduction and Management Office, Pasig City Hall
Gazmin Voltaire (2010) “Implementing Rules and
Regulation (IRR) of RA 10121”, NationalDisaster
Risk Reduction and management Council, NDMC
Centre, Camp Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo, Quezon City.
Mc David (2005) “Research Designs for Program
Evaluation” 03-McDavid-4724
McNamara, Carter (2002) “A Basic Guide to
Program Evaluation” Authencity Consulting, LLC,
The Grantsmanship Center (800) 421-9512

NDRM, (2000) “Natural Disaster Risk Management
in the Philippines: Enhancing Poverty Alleviation
through Disaster Reduction” 33822 Vol. 1, The
World Bank East Asia and pacific Region Rural
Development, National Disaster Coordination
Council, republic of the Philippines
NDRRMP (2011) “National Disaster Risk Reduction
and Management Plan 2011-2028” DILG-
Resources-2012116-420ac59e31.pdf (PDF
Downloadable @ DILG Website)
Romero, Alexis (2012) “Monsoon death toll hits 65”
The Philippine Star, Vol XXVII No. 15, August 11,
2012.
Rabonza Glenn J (2009) NDCC UPDATE FINAL
Report on Tropical Storm “Ondoy”and Typhoon
“Pepeng”, Glide No. TC-2009-000205-PHL and
Glide No. TC2009-000214-PHL,(September 24-
27 and September 30-October 10, 2009) National
Disaster Coordinating Council. National Disaster
management Center, Camp Gen. Emilio
Aguinaldo, Quezon City Philippines.
Pasig City Profile (2010) Pasig City Hall.
C. Online Database/Internet Website
Abat, Crispina B. (2006) Asian Conference on
Disaster Reduction 2006, Manual [Online] Available
PPT, March 15 to 17, 2006. (Date Retrieved
November 2012) http://www.adrc.asia
/acdr/2006seoul/documents/006bcountry_presen/P
hilippines.pdf
Ceph.org (2012) “Outcome Assessment for School
and Program Effectiveness: Linking Planning and
Evaluation to Mission, Goals and objectives” (Date
Retrieved December 2012) http://www.ceph.org
/pdf/LinkingProgramEvaluationtoMission.pdf
Duque, Atty. Priscilla P. (2005). “Disaster
management and critical issues on disaster Risk
reduction in the Philippines” paper presented at
International Workshop on Emergency Response
and Rescue, October 31 ~ November 1, 2005.
http://ncdr.nat.gov.tw/iwerr/doc/pdf/S10%20PDF/s1
0-4%20ATTY..pdf
Disaster Risk Profile (2012) Philippines GFDRR
(Available Online PDF File)
http://gfdrr.org/ctrydrmnotes/Philippines.pdf
10
Dimaandal, Marianito (2010) Executive Order No.
888, Office of the President [Official Gazette
Online] Available PPP http://www.ndrrmc.gov.ph/
attachments/048EO%20888% 20SNAP.pdf
FEMA (2013) Ready Campaign (Date Retrieved:
January 2013) http://www.ready.gov/floods
Forces of Nature TQ 2000: Flooding.
http://library.thinkquest.org/C003603/english/floodin
g /index.shtml (Date Retrieved: November 2012)
Geronimo Gian C. (2012), “P5 billion for immediate
flood-control projects approved by NEDA” GMA
News (September 5, 2012)
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story /272718/
news/nation/p5-billion-for-immediate-flood-control-
projects-approved-by-neda
Guidelines on Mainstreaming DRR in Subnational
Development Land Use Planning. (Available Online,
Date Retrieved November 2012)
http://www.neda.gov.ph/references/Guidelines/DRR
/Guidelines%20on%20Mainstreaming%20DRR%20
in%20Subnational%20Development%20Land%20U
se%20Planning.pdf
Hyogo Framework for Actions: Philippines,(2008)
An HFA Monitor update published by Prevention
Webhttp://www.preventionweb.net/files/7495_Philip
pines.pdf
HFA, (2005) Hyogo Framework for Actions 2005-
2015 “World Conference on Disaster Reduction,
January 18-22 2005, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan [Online]
Available PFP www.unisdr.orgDirectory:
ISDRhttp://www.adaptationlearning.net/sites/default
/ files/Hyogo-framework-for-action-english.pdf
Local Government Code (1991)
http://ppp.gov.ph/wpcontent/uploads/2010/11/The-
Local-Government-of-the-Philippines.pdf
NDCC (2007) “History of Disaster Management in
the Philippines” (Date Retrieved October
2012)http://www.ndcc.gov.ph/ndcc/index.php?modu
le=pagemaster& PAGE_user_op=view_print...
National Geographic Website (2012). News Letter
on Floods, (Date Retrieved: December
2012)http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/
environment/natural-disasters/floods-profile/
Nacmara, Cartel (2002) “Basic Guide for Program
Evaluation” Austenticity Consulting, LLC. (Date
Retrieved October 2012)
 11

http://www.tgci.com/magazine /A%20Basic% http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/cee/pubs/meth/pem-mep-

20Guide%20to%20Program%20Evaluation.pdf eng.pdf

NDRRMC Website (2012) National Disaster Risk REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9729 (2009) "Climate Change
Reduction and Management Council Portal Act of 2009". http://www.chanrobles.com
Update, http://www.ndrrmc.gov.ph/ /republicacts/republicactno9729.php

NCBI Resources (2012) “Monitoring Unit-Based Santos, Kara (2013) “Philippines Floods Prompt
Innovations: A Process Evaluation Approach” (Date Climate Action”, January 11, 2013, Inter Press
retrieved October 2012) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Service(Online)http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/08/phil
/pubmed/8345878 ippines-floods-prompt-climateaction/

Macaraig, Mynardo (2012) “Philippine floods a Salazar, Tessa R. (2012) “Bad habits,
man-made disaster—experts”, Philippine Daily overdevelopment caused Metro floods, say
Inquirer, August 9th, 2012. analysts”.August 18, 2012, Philippine Daily
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/246867/philippine- Inquirerhttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/246867/philippin
floods-a-man-made-disaster-experts e-floods-a-man-made-disaster-experts

MDG (2012) “Millennium Development Goals: Sardar Sarovar Narvada Nigam Limited (2012)
Philippines” (Date Retrieved November “Disaster Management Plan-2012, Flood
2012)http://www.indexmundi.com/philippines/millen Memorandum-2012”, Sardar Sarovar Narvada
nium-development-goals.html Nigam Limited. Gandhinagar 382010 Block No.
12, ground Floor, Sardar Bhavan, Gandhinaar,
Official Gazette (2012) “NEDA Board approves 11 Government of Gurat, Indonesia
projects for flood control, bridges, transportation, &
energy” Office of the President, PA 21 (2008) The Philippine Agenda 21,
MalacanangPalace,http://www.gov.ph/2012/09/04/n www.emb.gov.ph
eda-board-approves-11-projects-for-flood-control-
bridges-transportation-energy/ UNISDR (2009). “2009 UNISDR Terminology on
Disaster” Geneva: UNISDR. (United Nations
PAGASA DOST Website (2012) “Definition And International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
Nature Of Flood” http://kidlat.pagasa.dost.gov.ph/ http://unisdr.org/files/7817_UNISDRTerminologyEn
genmet/floods/def_nature.html glish.pdf.

RA No. 10121 (2010) “Philippine Disaster Risk United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction
Management Act of 2010”, http://download- (UNISDR)(2009). “New Legislation in the
88flood.www.gov.tw/otherReC/file/045_RA%20101 Philippines places Disaster Risk Reduction as the
21.pdf first line of defense against climate change
risks”http://www.unisdr.org/archive/11516
PIA (2012) “Flood Hazard Map Of Pasig City
Quadrangle”Philip pine Information Agency, Media VUSS, (2012) “Introduction to Disaster
Center Building, Visayas Ave, Diliman, Quezon Management” (Date Retrieved November 2012)
City, Philippine http://www.pia.gov.ph/news/ Virtual University for Small States of
hazzard. php?geomap=pasig&regmap=NC Commonwealth Version 1.0, 1055
http://www.col.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/Disaste
Philippine Development Plan (2011) 2011-2016. r_Management_version_1.0.pdf
(Online) Available at Adobe Reader
http://www.neda.gov.ph/PDP/rm/pdprm2011- Webster Online Dictionary (2013) “Urban Planning”
2016.pdf (Date Retrieved, February 2013)
http://www.websterdictionary.org/definition/urban%2
Public Affair Branch (2012) “Program evaluation 0planning
Methods: Measurements and Attribution of
Program Results. Third Edition, Review Practice World Population Prospects: The 2007 Revision
and Studies Government Review and (database). Population Division of the Department
Quality Branch Treasury Board of Canada, of Economic and Social Affairs of the United
Secretariat, Minister of Government Service Nations Secretariat. http://esa.un.org/unup

World Health Organization. (2013) “Flooding and
communicable diseases fact sheet Risk
assessment and preventive measures” (Date
Retrieved February 23, 2013) http://www.who.int
/hac/techguidance/ems/flood_cds/en/
D. Related Studies (Published/Unpublished)
Anderson, Mary B. (1993). Lessons learned in
Rehabilitation of population Displaced by Disaster
and policy Implications of these Lessons for
programs to Assist the Mt. Pinatubo Victims,
Mt. Pinatubo Rehabilitation options and Alternatives
Research Study Project, No. 492-0432,
Philippine Business for Social Science
(Published;AvailableOnline)http://www.bahaistudies
.net/asma/in_search_of_alternatives.pdf
Chhetri, Dr. Meen B. Poudyal, (2008) “Disaster
Management In Nepal: A Review” (a country
paper presented). Ministry of Home Affairs, Disaster
Relief Section, SinghaDurbar, Kathmandu, Nepal.
(International Research Published)
Co, Jason Christopher Ramos (2010) Community-
Driven Disaster Intervention (Human Settlements
Working paper Series: Climate Change and
Cities25) September, 2010 (PublishedOnline)
http://www.sdinet.org/media/upload/documents/HS
WP2010Rayos.pdf
De Leon, Juan Carlos Villagran, Et Al. (2006)
“Evaluation of the capacity Building Programme for
Natural Disaster Reduction (CBNDR) in Central
America and the Caribbean (Available Online)
Internal Oversight Service Evaluation Section.
IOS/EVS/PI68
View publication stats
12
Gil, Sharon (2010) “Making Social Networks, Work”
Post-Ondoy Flood Management In Metro Manila,
Philippines. Asian Development Bank (Master
Thesis, Unpublished Report)
Noson, Linda (2012) “Hazard Mapping and Risk
Assessment”. Igional Workshop on Best
Practices in Disaster Mitigation [(Published Online)
Date Retrieved February2013] Linda Noson
Associates,http://www.adpc.net/audmp/rllw
/PDF/hazard%20mapping.pdf
E. List of Interviewees
Dr. Neil Britton
ADB’s Principal Disaster Risk Management
Specialist, Regional and Sustainable Development
Department (RSDD), Asian Development Bank
(ADB), Philippines
Mr. Von Ong
Head, PRC- Pasig/Pateros Branch
Philippine Red Cross-Rizal Chapter
Mr. Richie Van Angeles
Head, Local Disaster Risk Reduction Management
Office and Member, LDRRMC, Pasig City Hall
City Hall Employees
Department of Engineering
Department of Planning
Local Government of Pasig
Barangay Captains, Councillors, BDRRC, and
Volunteers, Barangay Officials 2012
Local Government of Pasig