mitigating measures and level of preparedness against risks and disasters among local government...

8/2/2019 Mitigating Measures and Level of Preparedness against Risks and Disasters among Local Government Units

1/21

185

Mitigating Measures and Levelof Preparedness against Risks and Disasters

among Local Government Units

Jo V. Mahilum, [email protected]

Liceo de Cagayan University

Abstract - The study determined the mitigating measuresand level of preparedness against risks and disasters among localgovernment units in Region 10, Northern Mindanao, Philippines.The descriptive research design was used and supported byquantitative and qualitative approaches. in data analysis andinterpretation. The 250 barangay captains of the provinces werethe respondents selected through cluster sampling. The clustersampling was used in the selection of the respondents. Two sets ofdata gathering tools were used namely: Likert-type questionnaireand Interview Guide. The statistical techniques used were theweighted mean and multiple regression analysis. The dominantpolitical governance of the local government units is the proactiveapproach wherein all necessary mitigating measures are preparedin advance rather than making the preparations aer the occurrence

of risks and disasters. The most salient mitigating measures arerisk/disaster prevention/reduction planning. Operationally, theLGUs are prepared on the best response against risk and disasterin terms of decisions and appropriate actions. However, the LGUsare only partially prepared in terms of availability of resources inthe implementation of contingency plans, post-disaster recovery,and reconstruction activities. The LGUs level of preparednessagainst risks and disasters are signicantly determined byproactive political governance and risk/disaster prevention/

reduction planning.

Keywords - Mitigating measures, risks, disasters, level ofpreparedness

Date Submied: February 26, 2008Final Revision Accepted: July 13, 2008

Vol. 6 No. 1 December 2009 ISSN: 2094-1064

CHED Accredited Research Journal, Category B

Liceo Journal of Higher Education Research

Business and Public Policy Section


2/21

186


INTRODUCTION

The Local Government Units in the country are empoweredto discharge decentralized functions from the national level. Oneof these decentralized responsibilities of the LGUs focused onhealth and safety of the residents. The LGUs responsibility on theprovision of the residents safety is closely linked with how theLGUs undertake measures against unexpected risks and disastersthat may occur in the local level. In fact, Zulueta (1996) emphasizedthat the LGU is an essential component of human policy because

it is the government people have most access to, the governmentthat would likely respond to the problems of community risks anddisasters as part of their local functions. It was also emphasized inRepublic Act No. 7160, that the LGU is not only an instrument ofparticipatory democracy but, more signicantly, it is a dynamicmechanism for democratic action in the aainment and promotionof community interests and goals.

Murphys Law, as discussed by Lewis and Wong (2005) indicated

that there is a higher probability that things will accidentally gowrong than that they will accidentally go right. Relative to thislogical premise, risks and disasters are some occurrences that mayhappen unexpectedly in the community or local level.

It is the social expectations, that the LGU ocials take the leadand advocacy in identifying risks and disasters and must eectivelydevelop a higher level of preparedness to mitigate or reduce thedestructive consequences of risks. Graves (2000), opined that a

strategic risk mitigation measures consist of analysis, decisions,and actions. Thus, the challenge to LGU ocials is to formulatemeasures and strategies that provide the peoples safety andadvantages that can be sustained over time.

Rosales (2007) implied that an eective barangay risks anddisasters management are directed at overall organizational goalsof the local government unit, includes an involvement of multiplestakeholders, mitigation planning measures, and seing the stage

between eectiveness and eciency. Eectiveness, means doingthe right things while eciency means doing things right. Socialinvolvement of stakeholders is an important element in achieving


3/21

187

eectiveness and eciency of a joint activity in the political socialinstitution (Schaefer: 2001; Heywood and Thompson: 2007).

The occurrence of risks and disasters in the local level is an

expected but unpredictable phenomenon. The people might becaught in surprise and the stakeholders may not have preparedthe necessary measures to deal with the disastrous events. Thisstudy, therefore, is a basis in determining areas or concerns forenhancement of the risk management program of the LGUs inRegion X. This is also an evidence-based aempt to show that theresearch advocacy of Liceo de Cagayan University focuses on allaspects of social institutions, disseminate the same, and seing the

stage for research utilization.

FRAMEWORK

This study was anchored on the Contingency Theory of Taylorand Fayol which was discussed analytically by Bartol and Martin(1997). This theory puts emphasis on how leaders apply the bestway and strategy to handle and operate a situation. It is a viewpointwhich argues that appropriate actions, plans, and decisions areundertaken depending on the characteristics of the situation. In thisstudy, the problematic situation is the unpredictable occurrence ofpotential risks and disasters in the community level.

Further conceptual underpinning of the study is provided byRosales (2007) in his work on barangay directed risk management.He presented several parameters of mitigating measures,namely: barangay political governance, strategic disaster andrisk management, barangay risk assessment, and risk deductionplanning.

The study considered mitigating measures as the independentvariable which was hypothesized to determine the LGUs levelof preparedness against risks and disasters in the local level asthe dependent variable. Figure 1 presents the interplay of theindependent and dependent variables. Mitigating measures were

geared in terms of political governance, risk/disaster managementstrategies, risk assessment, and risk/disaster prevention planning.Meanwhile, the LGUs level of preparedness against risks anddisasters were measured in terms of decisions, actions, and post-


4/21

188


disaster recovery and reconstruction activities.Political governance could either be reactive or proactive

strategies. The reactive approach formulates mitigating measures

until something goes wrong and then decide what to do aboutit. Unfortunately, under such conditions, it is oen very dicultto recover from the event. Meanwhile, the proactive approachinvolves identifying, assessing, quantifying, and managing risksand disasters in a timely and active manner to prevent, if not reducethe destructive eects (Lewis and Wong: 2005).

The inclusion of political governance as an independent variableis supported by several social scientists. For instance, Zulueta

(1996) discussed that the local government unit, as an institutionalframework of national government is an eective mechanism ofpolitics in bringing the aairs of the government to the peoplethrough active participation on maers aecting their welfare.Mot (2000) said that local political planning is an invaluableinstrument of the people by which they could participate in criticaldecision-making during the period of crisis.

According to Gray and Larson (2006), strategic risk/disastermanagement aempts to recognize and manage potential andunforeseen trouble spots that may occur resulting from man-maderisks and potential natural disasters. It is therefore, imperative thatpolitical leaders must be able to identify as many as possible riskevents or asking the question what can go wrong?; minimizetheir impact (what can be done about the event before it happens?);manages mitigating strategies stipulated in the contingency plan;

and provides contingency funds for the purpose.Moreover, Downes (2001) posited that handling risk mitigatingstrategies can be deadly quite expensive. However, identifyingevents and disaster occurrences and deciding a response beforetheir occurrences are more prudent approaches than not aemptingto manage risks.

Risk/Disaster management strategies were gauged in terms of riskidentication and stakeholders involvement. These two measures

are supported by the principle which states that once potential risks/disasters have been identied, stakeholders altogether shall assesstheir possible negative consequences (Baker and Menon: 1995).


5/21

189

One common mistake that is made in risk identication process isto focus on consequences and not on the events that could produceconsequences. Only by focusing on actual events can potential

mitigating measures can be formulated. Dess and Lumpkin (2003)stressed the importance of multiple stakeholders involvement instrategic risk and disaster management. Stakeholders are thoseindividuals, groups, and organizations who have a stake in thesuccess of risk disaster management strategies.

SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM

Figure 1 The schematic presentation of the study depicting the

interplay of the independent and dependent variables

LGU ocials will not be successfully if they focus only on the LGUcouncil.

Risk/Disaster assessment is another component of mitigatingmeasures. It was measured in terms of severity of risks and disasters,likelihood of occurrence, and controllability. According to Carr, et.

al. (2003), not all risks/disasters have deserved aention. Some aretrivial and can be ignored, while others poise serious threats to thephysical and social environments, and welfare of the locality. So,stakeholders have to develop methods in determining its severity,


6/21

190


likelihood of occurring, and controllability. Gray and Larson (2006)suggested that the eective technique in risk assessment is scenarioanalysis. In this approach, the stakeholders assess the identied

risks in terms of the undesirable event, outcomes of the events,magnitude or severity of the impact, chances or likelihood of theevent happening, and level of controllability of the occurrences ofthe events.

Another parameter employed in the mitigating measuresagainst risks and disasters was risk prevention/deductionplanning. This was geared by the existing working contingencyplan. Risk/disaster response was determined by the strategies used

in reducing the likelihood that the event will occur and reduce theimpact that the adverse event would result. According to Grayand Larson (2006), a contingency plan represents actions that willreduce or mitigate the negative impact of risk/disaster events. Theabsence of a contingency plan, when a risk/disaster event occurs,can cause a delay or postpone the decision to implement a remedy.Contingency planning evaluates alternative remedies for possibleforeseen and unforeseen events before the risk events occur and

select the best action among alternatives.Meanwhile, the LGUs level of preparedness against risks

and disasters were measured in terms of decisions, actions, andpost-disaster recovery and reconstruction activities. The premisepresented in the study is if appropriate mitigation measures are inplace, then the level of preparedness of the LGU against risks anddisasters is manifested to a highest extent. Rue and Byars (2007)discussed that the success of any safety programs depends largely

on the proper supervision of the various planned activities andactions.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The study aimed to determine the mitigating measures andlevel of preparedness against risks and disasters among localgovernment units in Region X. Specically, it aempted to 1)identify the mitigating measures against risks and disasters asdiscerned from the LGUs political governance, disaster/riskmanagement strategies, risk assessment, and risk prevention/


7/21

191

reduction planning; (2) determine the LGUs level of preparednessagainst risks and disasters; and 3) analyze which of the mitigatingmeasures signicantly determine the LGUs level of preparedness

against risks and disasters.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The ndings of the study will be benecial to the following:

LGU Ocials. They will discover how well they perform in theformulation of mitigating measures against risks and disasters that

may possibly occur in the local level. The degree of their level ofpreparedness to face the potential problems of risks and disasterswill be ascertained. As such, these will guide them to enhancetheir strategic risk/disaster management approaches and propergovernance.

Stakeholders. Their ability and capacity to decide and beinvolved in the process of aaining the eective and ecient means

of reducing or preventing the negative consequences of risks anddisasters will make them feel the importance of social involvementand social responsibility in the process.

Local Residents. They will be extended the prime benets ofthe process of mitigating measures for their safety and physicalsecurity for a harmonious and comfortable co-existence with othersin the locality.

Future Researchers. The ndings will serve as a benchmarkto any interested social researcher to undertake a similar study inanother LGU units in Mindanao.

SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

The coverage of the study was limited to selected LocalGovernment Units in Region X. The mitigating measures as theindependent variables was limited to such indicators as politicalgovernance, risk/disaster management, risk/disaster assessment,


8/21

192


and risk/disaster prevention/reduction planning, Meanwhile,the LGUs level of preparedness against risks and disasters wasmeasured in terms of decisions, actions, and post-disaster recovery

and reconstruction activities.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Gray and Larson (2006) presented the idea that some potentialrisks can be identied , such as equipment malfunction, buildingcollapses, and technical requirements among others. Risks can be

beyond imagination like the September 11, 2001, aack on the Twin

Towers in New York City.Lewis and Wong (2005), suggested that once risks have been

identied, it is time to develop a plan on how to handle the risks.Based on the risk assessments, the stakeholders should prioritizethem according to their severity, probability, and exposure and planactions to handle these risks. These actions may include avoidance,transference, mitigation, and acceptance. In avoidance risk response,the strategy is nding the root cause of the risk and disaster and

eliminating it. Transference means allowing other organizations oragencies to solve the risks occurrences. Meanwhile, mitigation hasthe goal to reduce the risk by preventing its probability of occurring.Acceptance is a way of accepting a risk if it occurs. This approachis coupled with a what-if scenario and a triggering action if therisk occurs.

Preston and Smith (1998) presented some guidelines in riskhandling solutions. They explained that risk and disasters are partmechanics and part creativity. The process is to identify the risksituation, analyze each, create viable options, apply evaluationcriteria, choose the best course of action, and implement thesolution.

Labadie (2008) explored the application of auditing andquality assurance principles and practices to the planning andimplementation of post-disaster recovery and reconstruction. The

activity needs support and eorts from relief organizations toensure that recovery and reconstruction activities are both credibleand eective. It also described the growing emphasis aroundthe world on social justice/equity and the importance of proper


9/21

193

governance. It was concluded that there is a prime importanceto the aected communities of knowing the expenditures bothnancial and emotional. A potential solution to the performance

management of recovery and reconstruction includes identifyingrisk and control, seing measurable targets, and assessing whethersustainability and survivability goals are met.

Collims and Kapucu (2008) conducted a study on earlywarning systems and disaster preparedness and response in localgovernment in Central Florida. The central research question washow local governments shall provide early warning to the citizenryof impending disasters. The study concludes with a disaster

management policy recommendations for an early warning systemsfor local government. This recommendation is generazible to earlywarning systems for tornadoes, hurricanes, ash ooding, terroristaacks, and all other natural and man-made disasters. The targetimplementers are local government ocials, public policy makers,and disaster management community.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The descriptive research design was used as the over all schemein conducting the study. It utilized the quantitative and qualitativeapproaches in data analysis and interpretation. This is so becausethe study employed both a Likert-Type questionnaire and interviewschedule. The rst portion was analyzed quantitatively consideringthe scales of the responses while the second approach dealt withthe qualitative data analysis.

The target population of the study were the barangay captainsof the provinces comprising Region X. The cluster sampling wasused in the selection of the respondents. In each province, two (2)municipalities were chosen as the research locales and in each towna cluster of twenty (20) barangays were chosen. Another clusterincluded the capital of each province with ten cluster barangayseach. Therefore, a total of 250 barangay captains were included inthe study. The sampling scheme is as follows:


10/21

194


Provinces Cluster ofMunicipalities

BarangayCluster

Capital City BarangayCaptains

MisamisOriental

2 40 1 10

MisamisOccidental

2 40 1 10

Bukidnon 2 40 1 10

Camiguin 2 40 1 10

Lanao delNorte

2 40 1 10

Total 10 200 5 50

Two sets of data gathering tools were used, namely: Likert-typequestionnaire and Interview Guide. Both research tools gathered

data on mitigating measures and level of preparedness of the LGUsagainst risks and disasters in the local level.

Two types of validation were made. The rst was contentvalidation which was done by showing the instrument to three keyocials in the provincial government unit. The second was facevalidation which was done by showing the instruments to twoprofessional researchers.

Further, the instruments were subjected to a reliability test to

10 barangay captains in Cagayan de Oro City. The validation andthe reliability tests of the instrument are important to establish aquality assessment (Sealza: 1995).

The weighted mean was used in the analysis of the Likert-Type questionnaire. A qualitative description and analysis of theinterview results were used as insights to the quantitative data.The data were presented through the weighted mean while themultiple regression analysis was applied to determine which ofthe mitigating measures signicantly determine the LGUs level ofpreparedness against risks and disasters.


11/21

195

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 1 Mitigating measures in terms of political governance

Reactive Governance WeightedMean

Interpretation

1. The LGU decides what to do untilsomething goes wrong.

1.08 Never

2. The LGU has to wait for the signs of therisks and disasters to occur and develop aplan of action to solve them.

1.76 Rarely

3. If a risk or disaster happens, so it be,come what may and decision comes onthe spot.

1.0 Never

4. The LGUs contingency plan isformulated aer a risk/disaster has beenexperienced.

1.01 Never

Over all 1.21 Never

Proactive Governance WeightedMean Interpretation

1. The LGU tries to prevent the risk/disaster by nding its root causes andeliminating them.

2.50 Rarely

2. Risk management plan is already inplace to reduce the negative consequencesof risks and disasters.

3.29 Always

3. The LGU creates and assign variouscommiees to take charge of the riskmanagement and disaster identicationactivities of the locality.

3.33 Always

4. Mitigating measures are preparedin preparation of risks and disastersoccurrences.

3.26 Always

Over all 3.09 Sometimes


12/21

196


The rst objective of the study was to identify the mitigationmeasures against risks and disasters as discerned from the LGUspolitical governance, disaster/risk management strategies, risk

assessment, and risk promotion/reduction planning. The politicalgovernance was categorized into reactive and proactive dimensions.Reactive governance involves the formulation of mitigatingmeasures until something goes wrong. On the other hand, theproactive approach requires the preparation of mitigation measuresin preparation for a possible occurrence of risks and disasters.Findings indicated that the LGU ocials dominantly practicedthe proactive governance as disclosed by the variable mean of

3.09. The most salient practices were the creation and assigning ofvarious commiees to take charge of risk management and disasteridentication activities of the barangay (3.33) and the existing riskmanagement place with activities designed to reduce the negativeconsequences of risks and disasters (3.29). An interview withseveral barangay captains revealed that the major disastrous andrisky events they experienced were oods and landslides. However,they ensured their best to plan for mitigating the risks of re and

armed social conict. Relative to this aim, the LGUs have disastercoordinating commiees which are tasked to spearhead solutionsto the negative consequences of these specic untoward naturaland man-made negative occurrences. Meanwhile, the risk/disastermanagement plan stipulates an annual disaster fund to defrayexpenses of the negative consequences of risks/disasters relative todisplaced families. The respondents claimed that the fund to assistto victims/families of risks/disasters is not sucient if the displacedfamilies are really numerous.

Meanwhile, the lowest aspect of proactive governance waspreventing the risks/disasters by nding their root causes andeliminating them (2.50). The respondents claimed that the rootcauses of these negative events cannot really be accuratelydetermined due to their unpredictability.

Furthermore, the disaster/risk management strategies were

measured in terms of risk/disaster identication and stakeholdersinvolvement. The most salient manifestation of risk/disasteridentication was the proling of probable risks/disasters that mayoccur in the locality indicating the strengths and weaknesses of the


13/21

197

solutions made (3.36). In similar vain, probable risks and disastersare identied before they occur (3.30). The ndings disclosed thatthe LGU ocials identied probable risks/disasters based on their

past experiences. The solutions made were also assessed by pointingout their strengths and weaknesses. Through these measures theywere able to come up with the most preferred alternatives causesof action. Meanwhile, rated lowest among the indicators was risk/disaster identication in terms of their causes, consequences andearly warning system. What made this indicator a rare extent isthe fact that in the real scenario, there is no concrete evidence thatthe LGUs can provide early warning measure to the citizenry of

impending disasters. The actual scenario is the citizenry are warnedof disasters when the disasters are already in place. Although thepossible solutions are in place, there is a dire need to conduct postdisaster recovery and reconstruction activities as an integral partof risk/disaster identication. Labadie (2008) found out that post-disaster recovery and reconstruction eorts can help mitigatepossible future disaster eects by making the community moresustainable and more survivable. Recovery and reconstruction

eorts as consequences identication greater credibility with aiddonors, stakeholders, and the aected public by having formalprograms in place for assessing recovery performance.

In terms of stakeholders involvement, the LGU ocialsencouraged them to investigate the past experiences of thecommunity on risks/disaster occurrences as an important basisto analyze the present cases (3.35). This disclosed that the LGUssought assistance from the involved stakeholders to analyzepast disasters as a benchmark for possible alternative mitigationmeasures. This step considers the past experiences as lesson toprevent more destruction. In fact, Harvey, et. Al. (2008) promotesan involvement of academics, policy-makers and practitioners forthe high-quality research and practices related to disasters andcomplex political emergencies. Special loci of inquiry are disasterprevention, mitigation, and response policies and practices.

On the aspect of risk/disaster prevention/reduction planning, therespondents strongly agree (3.68) that a contingency plan is availableand the risk/disaster responses are identied but the resources to

be utilized are still to be determined. The implication of this nding


14/21

198


is the gap between the formulated plan and the availability of theneeded resources for implementation of the contingency plan. Agood example cited in this gap was the destruction and damages

in the river banks could have been prevented if there are riprapsalongside. The respondents also agreed (3.21) that the contingencyplans of the LGUs have been reviewed and accepted but thereare no measures yet for monitoring and tracking. Overall, thendings disclosed two probable barriers to the implementation ofcontingency plan, namely: availability of resources and measuresfor monitoring and tracking.

Table 2 Mitigating measures in terms of risk/disastermanagement strategies

Risk/Disaster Identication WeightedMean

Interpretation

1. Probable risks and disasters are identiedbefore they occur.

3.30 Always

2. All potential risks/disasters are properly

reviewed, analyzed and communicated tothe stakeholders.

3.31 Sometimes

3. A risk/disaster prole is formulated andpresents strengths and weakness of thesolutions made.

3.36 Always

4. Risk/disasters are identied in termsof their causes, consequences, and earlywarning systems.

2.31 Rarely


Stakeholders Involvement WeightedMean

Interpretation

1. The LGU pull together variousstakeholders to work as a team inidentifying all possible risks/disasters thatcould aect the local level.

2.27 Rarely

2. The stakeholders spearheaded by the

LGU use brainstorming and other problem-identifying techniques to identify potentialproblems.

2.28 Rarely


15/21

199

3. Participants are encouraged to keep anopen mind and generate as many probable

risks as possible and lter out unreasonablerisks/disasters.

3.30 Sometimes

4. Stakeholders are encouraged toinvestigate past experiences of thecommunity on risk/disaster occurrencesas important documents to analyze thepresent case.

3.35 Always


The second objective of the study was to determine the LGUslevel of preparedness against risks and disasters. The respondentsagreed that they are prepared (3.23) in terms of decisions on the

best response against risks/disasters in terms of appropriateactions for implementation and partially prepared in terms ofdecisions and appropriate actions, availability of resources, and

post-disaster recovery and reconstruction activities (3.21). Findingsimplied that necessary preparations were done as indicated in thecontingency plan. Appropriate mitigating measures are in place.The problem, however, is bridging the gap between the plannedof mitigating measures and the severity of the occurrence of majornatural and man-made disasters which may consequently lead tovast destructions of infrastructures. Meanwhile, the respondentsclaimed that they are only partially prepared on the LGUs response

to post-disaster recovery and reconstruction activities. Barriersto these activities are resources and nancial constraints becausepost-disaster recovery and reconstruction require a huge amountof budget, machineries, and equipment.

(Table 2 continued)


16/21

200


Table 3 Mitigating measures in terms of risk/disasterassessment

Disaster Assessment WeightedMean

Interpretation

All potential risks and disasters areidentied but not yet assessed or evaluated.

3.28 StronglyAgree

All potential risks and disasters areidentied, and assessed but the severity ofits impact is not yet evaluated.

3.27 StronglyAgree

Appropriate risk assessment is madeincluding the severity of impact likelihood/probability of occurring and controllabilityare determined.

2.48 Disagree

The risk assessment is already approved bythe Barangay Council.

3.47 StronglyAgree

Table 4 Mitigating measures in terms of risk/disaster

prevention/reduction planning

Risk/Disaster Prevention/Reduction Planning WeightedMean

Interpretation

A contingency plan is not yet nished/still on theprocess.

1.54 Strongly Disagree

A contingency plan is available but there are noalternative courses of action ore response to addressthe risks/disasters.

1.21 Strongly Disagree

A contingency plan is available and the risk responsesare identied but the resources to be utilized are stillto be determined.

3.68 Strongly Agree

A contingency plan and risks/disasters responsehave been reviewed and accepted but there are nomeasures yet for monitoring and tracking.

3.21 Agree

The third objective of the study was to analyze which of the

mitigation measures signicantly determine the LGUs level ofpreparedness against risks and disasters. Two independent variableswere signicantly entered in the regression equation, namely,political governance and risk prevention/reduction planning. The r2


17/21

201

value of .477 indicated that 48% of the LGUs level of preparednesswas signicantly determined by the political governance. Findingsimplied the importance of proper governance in the multi-faceted

processes in the level of preparedness for the probable occurrencesof risks and disasters. Specically, proactive political governanceemphasizes advanced preparations of devasting negativeconsequences of disasters, whether natural or man-made, is notdetermine by individuals alone but both the policy makers and thecitizenry. Findings found support in the work of Rosales (2007) thatan eective barangay risks and disasters management needs anintegrated organizational goal of the local government unit.

Table 5 Level of preparedness against risks and disasters

WeightedMean

Interpretation

Prepared in terms of decisions on the best response against risk/disasters on

appropriate actions for implementation

3.23 Agree

Partially prepared on decisions, appropriateactions, availability of resources, andpost-disaster recovery and reconstructionactivities

3.21 Agree

Prepared all the time in terms of theappropriate decisions, proper actions,available resources, and post-disaster

recovery and reconstruction activities.

2.26 Disagree

Meanwhile, the r2 value of .508 disclosed that 51% of the varianceof the LGUs level of preparedness against risks and disasterswas aributed to risk prevention/reduction planning which isoperationally labelled as the existence of a workable contingencyplan. The importance of the contingency plan cannot be ignored.

This is so because the choice of the most ecient and eectivealternative courses of actions and the constituents responsible forthe implementation of the planned activities are clearly indicated.


18/21

202


Findings found support in the principle of Gray and Larson (2006)and Moc (2000)indicating that contingency plans are invaluableinstruments which guide appropriate decisions and actions before,

during, and aer the period of crisis.

Multiple Regression Result on the Mitigating Measures asDeterminants of the LGUs Level of Preparedness

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the dominant political governance of the localgovernment units is the proactive approach wherein all necessarymitigating measures are prepared in advance rather than makingthe preparations aer the occurrence of risks and disasters. Themost salient mitigating measures are risk/disaster prevention/

reduction planning. Operationally, the LGUs are prepared onthe best response against risk and disaster in terms of decisionsand appropriate actions. However, the LGUs are only partiallyprepared in terms of availability of resources in the implementationof contingency plans, post-disaster recovery, and reconstructionactivities. The LGUs level of preparedness against risks and disastersare signicantly determined by proactive political governanceand risk/disaster prevention/reduction planning. These imply

that proactive governance and risk/disaster prevention planningfacilitate the multi-faceted tasks of the LGUs in aaining the levelof preparedness to respond to the emergencies and crisis brought

Significant Variables in the Model

Mitigating Measuresr r2

Beta

Coefficient

F valueP rob. Decision on

Ho

Political Governance .691 .477 .724 14.708 0.000 Rejected

(Significant)

Risk/Disaster

Prevention/Reduction

Planning

.713 .508 .683 23.432 0.000 Rejected

(Significant)


19/21

203

about by risks and disasters.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are presented:

1. The LGUs spearheaded by the barangay captains formulatemeans and measures to strengthen the following weak mitigatingactivities:

1.1. identifying the root causes and the consequences of risks and

disasters;1.2. get the stakeholders involvement in the formulation of risk/

disaster mitigating measures;1.3. organize a special task force to conduct risk/disaster

assessment;1.4. include the following dimensions in the contingency plan

1.4.1. Available Resources

1.4.2. Post-Disaster Recovery1.4.3. Reconstruction Activities

2. Future researches are recommended on the following topics:

2.1. Health Outcome of the Displaced Families2.2. Evacuation and Sheltering of the Aected Families2.3. Psychological Eect to Children (Chronic Fear and Anxiety)

2.4. Public Health Actions


20/21

204


LITERATURE CITED

Baker, B. and R. Menon (1995). Politics and Project Performance.

PM Network 9) 11. November, 1995.Bartol, Kathryn M. and David C. Martin (1997). Management. New

York: Mc Graw-Hill, Inc.Carr, M.J., S.L. Konda, I. Monarch, F.C. Ulrich, and C.F. Walker

(2008). Taxonomy-Based Risk Identication. TechnicalReport CMU, SEI 93, TR 6. Dess, Gregory G. and G.T. Lumpkin.Strategic Management: Creating Competitive Advantages.New York: Mc Graw-Hill Inc.

Collins, Mahew L. and Naim Kapucu (2008). Early WarningSystems and Disaster Preparedness and Response in LocalGovernment. Journal of Disaster Prevention and Management,Volume 17.

Downes, L. (2001). Strategy Can Be Deadly. Industry Standard,May 14, 2001.

Graves, R. (2000). Qualitative Risk Assessment. PM Network 14(10). October, 2000.

Gray, Cliord F. and Erik W. Larson (2006). Project Management.The Managerial Process. New York: Mc Graw-Hill InternationalEdition.

Harvey, Paul, et.al. (2008). Disasters. The Journal of DisasterStudies, Policy and Management. Volume 32.

Heywood, Paul and Helen Thompson (2007). Government andOpposition. An International Journal of Comparative Politics.74 (93).

Labadie, John R. (2008). Auditing of Post-Disaster Recovery andReconstruction Activities. Journal of Disaster Prevention andManagement, Volume 17.

Lewis, James P. and Louis Wong (2005). Accelerated ProjectManagement. Chicago: Mc Graw-Hill.

Mo, Leonard C. (2000). Strategic Management. Public Planningat the Local Level. Greenwich, Conn: JAL Press, 2000.

Preston, Frederick W. and Ronald W. Smith (1998).Sociology: A

Contemporary Approach. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.Republic Act No. 7160, Local Government Code of 1991 of the

Republic of the Philippines.


21/21

205

Rosales, Melchor (2007). Resourcebook for Barangay DirectedRisk Management to Productivity. Manila: Academic Pub.Corp.

Schaefer, Richard T. (2001). Sociology. Boston: Mc Graw-Hill, Inc.Sealza, Isaias S. (1995). Qualities of Assessment Instruments.

Quezon City: Fil-Asian Institute in Research and Management.Zulueta, Francisco M. (1996). Foundation and Dynamics of

Political Science. Manila: Academic Publishing Corporation.

mitigating measures and level of preparedness against risks and disasters among local government...

Documents