An assessment of the effectiveness of government’s risk management on disaster prevention, mitigation, response, recovery, and rehabilitation in Metro Manila, Philippines Open Access

The local government, enjoying fiscal autonomy, upholds its mandate to deliver basic services with quality and to secure the safety of the community. This commitment is enshrined in the Latin maxim, “Salus populi est suprema lex”, which means that the welfare of the people is the supreme law of the land (Kumar, 2024). Local Government Units (LGUs) are expected to perform functions that prioritize the well-being of the community. An immediate response is necessary to ensure the safety and security of the people within their territorial jurisdiction. LGUs are required by law, as explicitly stated in the Local Government Code of 1991, to be at the forefront in times of disasters and calamities. In such instances, the national government facilitates the response by providing the LGUs with the necessary resources and finances (Bowen, 2015). Every local government is responsible for implementing programs for disaster preparedness, prevention, mitigation, protection, and rehabilitation in the event of inevitable fortuitous occurrences. The local governments also engage in capacity development for disaster management to address imminent threats from disasters, such as fire, earthquakes, and floods (Cvetković et al., 2021).

Moreover, the local government recognizes policies on collaborative governance (Dai and Azhar, 2024) between national and local government units to achieve sustainable development goals and ensure stability of financial resources. These measures should be established, maintained, and implemented from the national level down to the basic level of government, fostering the need of disaster-resilient communities to mitigate risk (Imperiale and Vanclay, 2021) and proactively responding to the needs of families affected by calamities and disasters.

Metro Manila is the capital region of the Philippines and is considered the seat of power in the country, and is one of the most populous regions frequently experiencing disasters. According to the World Risk Report in 2018, the Philippines ranked third among all countries with the highest disaster risk, with a value of 25.14 percent (Cipres, 2023). Due to typhoons, rising sea levels, and storm surges, the Philippines is geographically vulnerable to coastal hazards. At least 60 percent of the country’s total geographical area is predicted to be exposed to various hazards, with 74 percent of the population at risk based on the 2017 annual report of the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery. Furthermore, the Philippine islands form part of the ‘Ring of Fire’ that connects the Eurasian and Pacific tectonic plates. The Philippines’ location makes it highly prone to earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, posing significant threats to public health and safety, particularly in densely populated cities. Typhoons, which often result in heavy floods, landslides, droughts, and tsunamis, further exacerbate the risk of natural disasters. Over the past half-century, typhoons and floods alone have accounted for more than 80 percent of the country's natural disasters (Jha and Stanton-Geddes, 2013).

Over the past decade, the Philippines has experienced hundreds of natural disasters, ranking it among the most disaster-prone countries in the world. In a study conducted by the World Bank in 2008, 50.3 percent of the country’s total land area and 81.3 percent of its population are found to be vulnerable to natural hazards. Furthermore, according to the 2016 World Risk Report released by the United Nations University Institute of Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS), the country ranked third among the world's most disaster-prone countries, with a Risk Index of 26.70 percent. In 2016, only Vanuatu and Tonga, in the Southern Pacific Ocean, had a higher Risk Index than the Philippines, at 36.28 percent and 29.33 percent, respectively. The Philippines’ geographic location makes it particularly vulnerable to natural disasters. As an archipelago with more than 7,000 islands and 36,000 kilometers of coastline, the country is highly susceptible to such events. The recurrence of catastrophic typhoons like Yolanda, Pablo, and Pepeng have proven that the country is frequently afflicted by extreme weather disturbances, such as floods, droughts, forest fires, and stronger typhoons.

In 2009, the Philippines experienced massive destruction from a tropical storm Ondoy which heavily impacted Metro Manila. According to National Disaster Coordinating Council, the Ondoy surge caused devastation in most parts of the Metropolitan Manila area, affecting 800,000 people and resulting in 241,394 injuries. It also damaged numerous business establishments and real properties. One of the factors identified during the Ondoy tragedy was the delayed completion of a flood control plan designed to handle a once-in-30-year flood. Had it been completed earlier, the loss of life and property would likely have been much less severe. The flood risks in Metro Manila continue to rise, exacerbated by the increasing population. Therefore, the LGUs should strictly enforce interventions such as proper zoning and land use regulations. In addition, reducing encroachment on functional flood control facilities, preventing illegal settlements, and minimizing waste dumping into waterways, could help reduce and mitigate future damages.

Additionally, flooding is not a recent hazard in the Philippines; it has occurred throughout the recorded history of the archipelago. Its frequency can be linked to the broader global ecological crisis, driven by climate change and rising sea levels. However, it is also a result of more localized human activities. In particular, flooding poses a pervasive risk to the residents of Metropolitan Manila, stemming from a complex mix of interrelated factors that highlight how vulnerability arises from the lack of harmony between the environment and human activity over time (Bankoff, 2003). According to Rodolfo and Siringan (2006), one of the primary causes of flooding in Metro Manila is land subsidence, which results from the excessive extraction of groundwater, a phenomenon particularly common in East Asian countries. The Philippine government has begun to recognize that the sea-level rise of one to three millimeters per year due to global warming is exacerbating floods around Manila Bay.

The Philippines is often described as the melting pot of natural disasters including typhoons, floods, and torrential rains. The Disaster Risk and Reduction Council faces significant challenges in addressing these events due to its limited capacity and resources (Kim et al., 2022). Conventional risk reduction mitigation methods, such as land use and building codes, have proven inadequate. To effectively mitigate risks, efforts should focus on developing hybrid community organizations, minimizing direct physical damage, fostering neighborhood cooperatives through microfinance schemes, and establishing an in-kind community insurance system.

Furthermore, Manila’s situation is not unique. Disaster threats, rapid and substandard urban development, increasing poverty levels, and the degradation of social capital are phenomena also observed in other parts of the developing world. In such settings, traditional mitigation approaches are also difficult to carry out effectively (Iuchi and Esnard, 2008). Today, disasters are becoming more frequent due to climate change, and they are certain to impact the economic stability of every country. As the major player in the Philippine economy, local governments, especially in Metro Manila, must be adequately prepared for potential disasters or calamities. They should be sufficiently ready to prevent or, at the very least, mitigate the impacts of such unwarranted events.

This framework explains the concepts of the study and examines the relationships between the variables to determine the level of effectiveness of the local government’s City Disaster Risk Reduction Management Units in Metro Manila (Figure 1).

The National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan (NDRRMP) satisfies the need of RA No. 10121 of 2010, which establishes the legal framework for disaster-related policies, plans, and programs. The NDRRMP consists of four subject areas that match the organization of the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council, and they are as follows: (1) disaster prevention and mitigation; (2) disaster preparedness; (3) disaster response; and (4) disaster rehabilitation and recovery (NDRRMC). Under this legislation, the Office of Civil Defense creates and implements the NDRRMP, ensuring that the actual systems, social, financial, and ecological plans of communities, cities, municipalities, and provinces align with these plans.

Disaster management involves the process of utilizing regulatory requirements, organizational structures, and operational capacities to implement strategies, policies, and adaptive measures aimed at reducing the negative effects and likelihood of disasters. Through proactive measures such as relief operations, and preparedness strategies, disaster risk management aims to prevent, reduce, or mitigate the negative effects of disasters (UNISDR, 2012). Disaster management is a process or strategy implemented when a catastrophic or tragic event occurs. It is also known as disaster recovery management that involves a substantial task of administrative functions and compliances (Asio, 2020). Disaster management is also defined by the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies as the organization and management of assets and duties related to managing all charitable aspects of crises, specifically readiness, reaction, and recovery to mitigate the impact of disasters. Disaster management, particularly strategic management, is gaining significant attention these days because it focuses on handling unexpected natural disasters. Additionally, it serves as a buffer for organizations during calamities, making preparedness essential for mitigating the impacts of such events.

According to UNISDR (2012), disaster preparedness involves the information and boundaries set by governments, professional response and recovery associations, networks, and individuals to appropriately respond to, and recover from the impact of likely, upcoming, or existing risk events or situations considering disasters as natural occurrences or regular phenomena (Chaiya et al., 2022).

Moreover, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), disaster preparedness involves the efforts required to prepare for and mitigate the effects of both natural and man-made disasters. This is achieved through research and planning to identify disaster-prone areas or districts, prevent catastrophes where possible, and reduce the impact of disasters on vulnerable populations, enabling them to effectively adapt. Disaster preparedness exercises, combined with risk reduction measures, can help prevent disasters, save the lives and livelihoods of the most vulnerable people, and allow afflicted community to return to normalcy quickly. Effective disaster response and rehabilitation services can help reduce the death toll and property damage, while preparedness remains the most effective way to mitigate the impact of disasters and future damages (Dariagan et al., 2021).

Disaster mitigation and risk reduction are important priorities in the Philippines (Walch, 2018). These efforts involve reducing the number of casualties and the amount of property destroyed by disasters. The Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration (FIMA) of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) oversees the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and implements various projects approved by Congress to mitigate the effects of natural disasters. Disaster mitigation refers to the reduction or limitation of the harmful effects of hazards and unfortunate events. This includes designing risk-reducing strategies, promoting safe development practices, and raising public awareness through improved natural methods. On the other hand, disaster prevention involves completely avoiding the adverse consequences of hazards and related calamities. Republic Act (RA) 10121 outlines the concept and goal of completely avoiding the expected negative effects of disasters through proactive measures, such as constructing dams or levees to eliminate flood risks, implementing land-use guidelines that restrict development in high-hazard zones, and designing seismic-resistant infrastructure to ensure the durability and resilience of essential structures in the event of a disaster. The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) also focus on resilience and prevention through various initiatives and programs as part of their Emergency Management efforts. Resilience, which is the core goal of mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery, refers to the ability to recover from catastrophes or adversity, while prevention focuses on avoiding dangerous or high-risk events.

The Republic of the Philippines’ RA 10121 defines disaster response as the provision of emergency services and public assistance during or after a disaster to save lives, reduce the impact on the public’s well-being, ensure general security, and meet the basic requirements of individuals. Therefore, disaster response is frequently focused on immediate and urgent needs and can also be referred to as disaster relief. This is a coordinated multi-office response to lessen the impact of a disaster and its long-term consequences. Relief tasks include rescuing individuals, providing food and water, preventing illness and disability, repairing essential services such as media communications and transportation, offering temporary shelter, and delivering emergency medical care. To effectively implement risk reduction and resilience, there must be effective community engagement (Baybay and Hindmarsh, 2019). It includes children’s participation and early education to prepare them for disaster (Proulx and Aboud, 2019). These plans and actions must adopt a concise, focused, forward-looking, and action-oriented approach. The lessons learned from previous regional and national strategies, disaster risk reduction plans, and their recommendations should also be considered. Commitment to cooperation regarding resources, information, and capital is essential to address disaster risk reduction and resilience-building with a renewed sense of urgency, within the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication. The increasing risk of natural disasters requires the creation of resilient disaster management systems (Medel et al., 2020). It is also important to integrate disaster risk reduction and resilience into policies, plans, programs, and budgets at all levels, while considering them within relevant frameworks. Challenges arise in identifying methods to cope with the increasing frequency and severity of disasters, exacerbated by climate change and hazards which constantly test the limits of the country’s institutions, preparedness mechanisms, and management capabilities. According to NDRRMC, challenges in fully localizing the DRRM framework often lead to confusion during disaster response phases, including accessing earmarked funds and carrying out recovery efforts.

Communities’ vulnerability often persists long after the immediate crisis has passed. Disaster recovery refers to those programs that extend beyond providing immediate assistance to those affected by a disaster. These programs include: (a) rebuilding structures such as homes, schools, clinics, and roads, (b) healthcare and restoration, (c) improvement activities, such as creating resources for well-being, and (d) developing strategies and practices to prevent or alleviate future disasters. According to RA 10121, restoration or rehabilitation is defined as “actions that ensure the capacity of impacted communities/areas to re-establish their normal level of working by remaking commercial and economic foundations and increasing the hierarchical limit of networks.” The process of recovery is underway. Individuals affected by a crisis, as well as the communities that support them, remain vulnerable even after immediate needs have been met and the underlying emergency has passed. Solidarity among affected communities contributes to the recovery of survivors following a disaster (Jovita et al., 2019). The rehabilitation process includes rebuilding infrastructure, medical services, and restoration. These efforts should be combined with advancement initiatives such as reorganizing human resources for health and developing strategies and procedures to prevent such situations in the future. The response and strategy for risk reduction entail the ability to anticipate, prepare for, and recover from disaster (Paton, 2019).

In this study, the researchers used a purposive sampling technique and a descriptive research method, employing both descriptive-evaluative and comparative research designs. The descriptive-evaluative design was used to assess the respondents’ profiles, and the comparative research design was used to evaluate the level of effectiveness of the City Disaster Risk Reduction Management in Metro Manila, Philippines. Furthermore, a descriptive-comparative approach was also used to identify significant differences in respondents’ assessments of the City Disaster Risk Reduction Management, based on their profiles.

Moreover, the survey instrument was distributed to sixteen (16) cities and one (1) municipality of Metro Manila. Data gathering was done through questionnaires via Google Forms, designed to assess the level of effectiveness of the City Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office in implementing disaster management across four (4) thematic areas: Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Prevention and Mitigation, Disaster Response, and Disaster Recovery and Rehabilitation. The results of the study were statistically analyzed and correlated using appropriate statistical methods and formulas to compute the weighted mean, standard deviation, percentage, and frequency. Additionally, the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U test were employed to facilitate the interpretation, presentation, and analysis of the data.

Based on the gathered data on Disaster Response, Recovery, and Rehabilitation Practices of the City Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Offices in local governments of Metro Manila, the key findings of the study are summarized as follows.

Table 1 presents the level of effectiveness of the City Disaster Risk Reduction Management Unit in Metro Manila, Philippines in disaster preparedness. The grand mean for preparedness is 3.47, interpreted as effective. The highest weighted mean, 3.61, corresponds to the statement, “The City Disaster Risk Reduction Plan is developed and formulated with the support of the local administration.” The lowest weighted mean, 3.38, refers to the statement, “Adequate support for disaster preparedness initiatives is provided, including response volunteer training programs, orientations, seminars, webinars, and other CDRRM-related events or activities”, which is interpreted as agree. This suggests that the City Disaster Risk Reduction Plan is quite effective.

Table 2 shows that the level of effectiveness of the City Disaster Risk Reduction Management Unit in Metro Manila in disaster prevention and mitigation has a grand mean of 3.42 which is interpreted as effective. The highest weighted mean, 3.47, interpreted as effective, corresponds to the statement, “Government regulations aimed at disaster prevention are strictly enforced and properly implemented in the LGUs.” The lowest weighted mean, 3.29, also interpreted as effective, refers to the statement, “Conducts scientific research studies on how to prevent and mitigate disaster risk through innovation and technological application.” This means that, according to the respondents, the CDRRM unit is assessed as effective in disaster prevention and mitigation.

Table 3 shows that the level of effectiveness of the City Disaster Risk Reduction Management Unit in Metro Manila in disaster response has a grand mean of 3.42 which is interpreted as effective. The highest weighted mean, 3.52, interpreted as highly effective, corresponds to the statement, “A strategic disaster action plan for evacuation is in place and effectively executed.” The lowest weighted mean, 3.33, interpreted as effective, refers to the statement, “Creates a community early warning system that is connected to the municipality and other higher-level government bodies.” with an interpretation of effective. This indicates that according to the respondents, the CDRRM unit is assessed as effective in disaster response.

Table 4 shows that the level of effectiveness of the City Disaster Risk Reduction Management Unit in Metro Manila in disaster recovery and rehabilitation has a grand mean of 3.42 which is interpreted as effective. The highest weighted mean, 3.52, which is interpreted as highly effective corresponds to the statement, “The National Government provides timely support to local government for faster recovery.” The lowest weighted mean, 3.33, interpreted as effective, refers to the statement, “Stakeholders are actively involved in the rehabilitation of public infrastructures, properties, and facilities damaged by the disaster.” with an interpretation of effective. This suggests that, according to the respondents, the operations of disaster recovery and rehabilitation of LGUs are effective.

In summary (Table 5), the highest grand mean among the four (4) thematic areas assessing the effectiveness of the City Disaster Risk Reduction Management in Metro Manila was observed in Disaster Preparedness, with a grand mean of 3.47, verbally interpreted as effective. This was followed by Disaster Response and Disaster Recovery and Rehabilitation, both with a grand mean of 3.42, while Disaster Prevention and Mitigation had the lowest grand mean of 3.40. The overall grand mean for all four thematic areas was 3.42, verbally interpreted as effective.

Table 6 shows the issues and challenges encountered by the LGUs. The highest weighted, 2.36, interpreted as disagree, corresponds to the statement, “There is a lack of adequate resources necessary for the implementation of disaster management plans, projects, and activities at the local government level.” The lowest weighted mean, 2.07, interpreted as disagree refers to the statement, “There is no effective collaboration among government agencies, NGOs, and CDRRM units.” This implies that the LGUs have adequate resources, have succeeded in increasing community awareness, and have fostered collaborative efforts among agencies. Disaster preparedness plans, contingency plans, technological systems, and early warning systems are in place. The data suggest that Metro Manila is well-prepared and organized in Disaster Risk, Reduction, and Management. All the indicators related to the issues and challenges encountered by the City Disaster Risk Reduction Management (DRRM) were disagreed by the respondents.

The highest frequency in terms of age was in the 31-35 year range, with a percentage of 27.8 percent. Among the 97 respondents, 62.9 percent were male, while 36 percent were female. The majority of the respondents held a bachelor’s degree, accounting for 76.3 percent. Additionally, the most common civil status was married, with 52.6 percent. The highest number of employees were DRRM members/staffs, comprising 79.4 percent with 11 or more years of service.

As for the level of effectiveness of the City Disaster Risk Reduction Management in Metro Manila, the area of Disaster Preparedness had a grand mean of 3.47, which is interpreted as effective. In Disaster Prevention and Mitigation, the grand mean was 3.40. Additionally, both the areas of Disaster Response and Disaster Recovery and Rehabilitation, had a grand mean of 3.47, which is also interpreted as effective.

In summary, the findings revealed that the level of effectiveness of the City Disaster Risk Reduction Management in Metro Manila, Philippines in the four thematic areas of (1) disaster preparedness, (2) disaster prevention and mitigation, (3) disaster response, and (4) disaster recovery and rehabilitation had a total grand mean of 3.42, which is interpreted as effective. The findings indicate no significant difference in the respondents’ assessment of the level of effectiveness of the City Disaster Risk Reduction and Management in Metro Manila when age was considered. Moreover, the results show a significant difference in the respondents’ assessment of the level of effectiveness of the City Disaster Risk Reduction and Management in Metro Manila when gender and civil status were considered. However, there was no significant difference in the assessment when position/designation and length of service were taken into account.

Based on the findings of the study, the existing development programs and systems at the national level should be integrated into every local government unit in the Philippines. A proactive role from the local government units is essential, along with an efficient Disaster Risk Reduction and Management plan. The proper utilization of the budgetary resources in the local government should be prioritized and safeguarded against misuse for private gain or interest. Preference should be given to plans and projects aimed at enhancing the immediate response capabilities of the City Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Committees. The local government must also embrace new and innovative tools and resources to strengthen disaster response, resiliency, recovery, and rehabilitation in the region.

Additionally, there should be proper coordination with government agencies, effective information dissemination within the community, increased active participation from stakeholders, and a sufficient budget allocation for contingency and emergency funds. The local government budget system should ensure adequate funds are set aside for potential disasters or fortuitous events or disasters. It is also recommended to develop multiple evacuation plans for various localities and enhance community-based participation at the local level. Furthermore, efforts should be intensified to enhance resiliency and ensure proper monitoring of the priority programs and policies implemented by the local government. The level of awareness regarding potential threats and impacts of unforeseen events must also be recognized. In view thereof, communities need to be empowered and always prepared, equipped with the necessary information, skills, and knowledge to effectively prepare for and prevent disasters and calamities.

Furthermore, an inter-agency task force, composed of local government officials, should be established and properly coordinated across different regions. Collaboration with various sectors of the government is essential to effectively respond to impending disasters. The capability and capacity of the Local DRRM Councils, Offices, and Operation Centers at all levels in Metro Manila should be strengthened to effectively implement the plans, projects, and programs of the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Committees. Lastly, comprehensive national and local preparedness and response policies should be developed to enhance collaboration and coordination among all stakeholders.