Formation of the Final Reportopen_jicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/11763752_01.pdf · 10.2.4 National...

Formation of the Final Report The Final Report is comprised of the following volumes:

Volume 1: Executive Summary Volume 2: Main Report 1 Volume 3: Main Report 2 Volume 4: Main Report 3 Volume 5: Supporting Report Volume 6: Data Book

Volume 1, Executive Summary, contains the background information of this MMEIRS study, brief information of earthquake damage scenario for Metropolitan Manila, and summary of the master plan for a safer Metropolitan Manila for earthquake impact. Volume 2, Main Report 1, contains the information of overall study and its results; that is the background information of this study, earthquake damage scenario, and master plan and action plans for safer Metropolitan Manila. Volume 3, Main Report 2, defines problem of the present condition of Metropolitan Manila, and represents damage estimation results together with its assumptions and methodologies. Volume 4, Main Report 3, contains supportive components related to master plan to help understanding the development of master plan. Volume 5, Supporting Report, contains information on GIS Development and Topographic Map Compilation. It also includes other important out puts of the study, such as city ordinance of earthquake disaster management, earthquake disaster mitigation handbook, and earthquake mitigation and response checklists. Those outputs will be utilized when implementing the master plan. Volume 6, Data Book, contains various data used for analysis in this Study. In addition, data related to earthquake hazard analysis and damage analysis are stored in CD-ROM.

The following foreign exchange rate is applied on this study report;

US$1.00=P56.055

(February 2004)

Final Report

Table of Contents Manila Proclamation on Seismic Safety Profile of the Study Executive Summary of the Study Results Main Report Main Report 1 <Part I Outline of the Study> Chapter 1. General 1-1 ····················································································································

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

·············································································････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････

···············································································･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････

1.1 Introduction 1-1 1.2 Background of the Study 1-1 1.3 Scope of the Study 1-2

1.3.1 Study Objectives 1-2 1.3.2 Study Area 1-2 1.3.3 Schedule of the Study 1-4 1.3.4 Implementing Organizations 1-5

1.4 Major Activities of the Study 1-9

Chapter 2. Earthquake Damage Scenario 2-1 2.1 Earthquake Scenario Setting and Ground Motion 2-1

2.1.1 Fault in the Philippines 2-1 2.1.2 Earthquake Generators 2-2 2.1.3 Earthquake Condition 2-3 2.1.4 Scenario Earthquakes 2-5 2.1.5 Earthquake Ground Motion 2-7

2.2 Earthquake Damage and Urban Vulnerability 2-10 2.2.1 Summary of Earthquake Damage 2-10 2.2.2 Earthquake Damage Scenario During One Week from Occurrence of Earthquake 2-11

2.3 Regional Urban Vulnerability 2-17 2.3.1 Approach 2-17 2.3.2 Comprehensive Regional Vulnerability and its Characteristics 2-18 2.3.3 Possible Regional Separation 2-19

2.4 Facts and Damage Estimation by LGUs 2-22 Chapter 3. Recommendations Summary 3-1

3.1 Overall Master Plan 3-1 3.1.1 Assumption 3-1 3.1.2 Vision 3-1 3.1.3 Goals, Objectives and Frameworks 3-1 3.1.4 Frameworks and Action Plans 3-1

3.2 High Priority Action Plans 3-6 3.2.1 Prioritization Needs and Process 3-6 3.2.2 Selected High Priority Action Plans 3-6

-i-

Earthquake Impact Reduction Study for Metropolitan Manila in the Republic of the Philippines

<Part II Master Plan and Action Plans for Safer Metropolitan Manila> Chapter 4. Vision and Goals 4-1 ····································································································

･････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

···············································･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････

･･･････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････

·····························································································･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

4.1 The Vision -A Safer Metropolitan Manila from Earthquake Impact- 4-1 4.2 The Goals 4-1 4.3 The Plan 4-3

Chapter 5. Master Plan for Earthquake Impact Reduction 5-1 5.1 Introduction 5-1 5.2 Development of National System Resistant to Earthquake Impact 5-1 5.3 Improvement of Metropolitan Manila’s Urban Structure Resistant to Earthquake 5-5 5.4 Enhancement of Effective Risk Management Systems 5-21 5.5 Increasing Community Resilience 5-52 5.6 Formulation of Reconstruction Systems 5-60 5.7 Research And Technology Promotion for Earthquake Impact Reduction Measures 5-70

Chapter 6. Priority Action Plans 6-1 6.1 Definition of Priority Action Plans 6-1

6.1.1 General 6-1 6.1.2 Definition of High Priority Action Plans and Priority Action Plans 6-1

6.2 Selecting High Priority Action Plans 6-1 6.2.1 Areas of Focus 6-1 6.2.2 Additional Criteria for Selection 6-2 6.2.3 Selected Priority Action Plans 6-3

Main Report 2 <Part III Understandings for Master Plan – Conditions, Earthquake Damages and Urban

Vulnerabilities> Part III-1 Background of Metropolitan Manila for Disaster Management Plan

Chapter 7. Past Major Natural Disaster in the Philippines 7-1 ················································････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

7.1 Past Natural Disaster – Damages, Responses and Recovery Processes 7-1 7.1.1 Recent Disaster Situation 7-1 7.1.2 Presidential Decree No. 1566 as basis for Disaster Countermeasure 7-2

7.2 Past Earthquake Disaster-Damages, Responses and Recovery Processes 7-9 7.2.1 Latest Large Earthquake Disaster in Baguio 7-9

7.2.2 Outline of the Earthquake Damages 7-9 7.2.3 Emergency Management by the Government of Philippines 7-10 7.2.4 Restoration of Roads and Bridges 7-10 7.2.5 Rehabilitation/Clearing of Damaged Buildings 7-11 7.2.6 Cost Estimation by Earthquake Damage 7-11

Chapter 8. Social Systems and Conditions ············································································8-1 8.1 Socio-economic Condition of Metropolitan Manila 8-1

8.1.1 Economic Condition 8-1 8.1.2 Urban Development 8-2 8.1.3 Population 8-8

8.2 Urban Planning Systems in Metropolitan Manila 8-10 8.2.1 Land Use Planning Systems 8-10

-ii-

Final Report

8.2.2 Systems for Urban Developments 8-12 ･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････

··································································································･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

··········································································････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････

8.2.3 Urban Infrastructures 8-15 8.3 Structure, Condition and its Vulnerability of Metropolitan Manila 8-16

8.3.1 General 8-16 8.3.2 Natural Condition and Urban Development of Metropolitan Manila 8-17 8.3.3 Vulnerability Components of Metropolitan Manila 8-18

8.4 Communities in Metropolitan Manila 8-25 8.4.1 Introduction 8-25 8.4.2 Definition of Community 8-25 8.4.3 Difference between Barangay and Community 8-25 8.4.4 Characteristics of Communities in Metropolitan Manila 8-26 8.4.5 Relation between Community and Barangay 8-30 8.4.6 Key Implication to Disaster Management Activities at the Community Level 8-33

8.5 Common Resources in the Community 8-33 8.6 Community Based Disaster Management Activities -Characteristics of Selected Communities- 8-35

8.6.1 Objectives 8-35 8.6.2 Outline of the Community Activities 8-35 8.6.3 Selection of the Pilot Communities 8-37 8.6.4 Basic Characteristics of the Selected Communities 8-38 8.6.5 Social Characteristics of the Selected Communities 8-39 8.6.6 Major Observations 8-41 8.6.7 Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment 8-42 8.6.8 Enhancing Driving Forces and Minimizing Hindrances 8-44 8.6.9 Building and Infrastructure Survey and Establishment of GIS Database 8-47

Chapter 9. Urban Conditions 9-1 9.1 Buildings 9-1 9.2 Infrastructures 9-38

9.2.1 Roads 9-38 9.2.2 Bridges and Flyovers 9-40 9.2.3 Ports and Harbors 9-44 9.2.4 Angat Dam 9-49

9.3 Lifelines 9-56 9.3.1 Water 9-56 9.3.2 Electricity 9-57 9.3.3 Telecommunications 9-58

9.4 Hazardous Facilities 9-59

Chapter 10. Disaster Management Systems 10-1 10.1 Introduction 10-1

10.1.1 Methodology 10-1 10.1.2 System of Governance in Metropolitan Manila 10-3

10.2 Legal Framework for Disaster Management 10-4 10.2.1 Overview of Disaster Management Laws 10-4 10.2.2 Overview of Disaster Management Policy 10-5 10.2.3 Laws and Regulations at the Local and Regional Level 10-6 10.2.4 National Building Code of the Philippines (PD 1096) 10-6 10.2.5 Fire Code of the Philippines (PD 1185) 10-7

10.3 Institutional System 10-7 10.3.1 National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC) 10-7 10.3.2 The Metropolitan Manila Disaster Coordinating Council 10-9 10.3.3 City and Municipal Disaster Coordinating Councils in Metro Manila 10-16 10.3.4 Review of Six City/Municipality Disaster Coordinating Councils 10-17

-iii-


10.4 Review of Barangays 10-24 ･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････

10.4.1 Makati Barangays 10-24 10.4.2 Manila Barangays 10-24 10.4.3 Navotas Barangays 10-25 10.4.4 Pasig Barangays 10-26 10.4.5 Quezon City Barangays 10-26 10.4.6 Taguig Barangays 10-27

10.5 Disaster Management Planning 10-28 10.5.1 Concepts and Planning Guidance 10-28 10.5.2 Review of Existing Plans 10-29

10.6 Calamity Response Measures 10-40 10.6.1 Establishment of A Special Facility for the Importation and Donation of Relief Goods and Equipment

in Calamity-Stricken Areas 10-40 10.6.2 Calamity Fund Management 10-41 10.6.3 Policies, Procedures and Criteria for Calamity Area Declaration. 10-42 10.6.4 Policies and Procedures on the Provision of Financial Assistance to Victims of Disasters 10-44

10.7 Analysis of Past Assessments, Surveys and Studies 10-45 10.7.1 Lessons Learned from the Luzon Earthquake 10-45 10.7.2 Findings of the OCD-sponsored Earthquake Tabletop Exercise 10-46 10.7.3 Findings of the First MMEIRS Workshop 10-47 10.7.4 “The Philippine Disaster Management Story: Issues and Challenges” 10-48 10.7.5 “An Assessment of Disaster Preparedness in the NCR/Metro Manila Area” 10-49 10.7.6 GESI Emergency Response Questionnaire 10-50 10.7.7 Preparedness for Earthquake and Terrorism in Makati City 10-51

Chapter 11. Review of Health Emergency Management System 11-1 11.1 Introduction 11-1 11.2 Objectives 11-1 11.3 Methodology 11-2

11.3.1 Assessment Area 11-2 11.3.2 Target Organization 11-3 11.3.3 Survey Method 11-3

11.4 Review of Present Organization and Resources 11-4 11.4.1 Organizational and Institutional System 11-4 11.4.2 Health Emergency Management Program 11-7 11.4.3 Medical Service System 11-9 11.4.4 Training and Public Education 11-16 11.4.5 Sanitary Service and Epidemiology 11-17

11.5 Local Government Capability for Health Emergency Management 11-18 11.5.1 Organization of Health Office 11-18 11.5.2 Coordinating Activities 11-18 11.5.3 Mass Casualty Management 11-18 11.5.4 Epidemiology, Sanitation and Relief Activities 11-20 11.5.5 Training 11-21 11.5.6 Resources and Logistical Support 11-21 11.5.7 LGU’s Special Concerns for Earthquake Disasters 11-21

11.6 Major Problems Identified 11-22 11.6.1 General 11-22 11.6.2 Organization and Institutional System 11-23 11.6.3 Health Emergency Management Program 11-23 11.6.4 Medical and Health Service System 11-24

11.7 Toward the formulation of the Disaster Management Plan 11-24

-iv-

Final Report

Part III-2 Earthquake Impact Characteristics in Metropolitan Manila

Chapter 12. Consideration of Scenario Earthquakes and Hazards 12-1 ··································･････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

·······································································･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

12.1 Geomorphological and Geological Features of the Study Area 12-1 12.1.1 Fault in the Philippines 12-1 12.1.2 Geomorphological and Geological Features of the Study Area 12-2 12.1.3 Existing Probabilistic Estimation of Ground Motion 12-9

12.2 Scenario Earthquakes 12-10 12.2.1 Faults Condition 12-10 12.2.2 Earthquake Condition 12-13 12.2.3 Scenario Earthquakes 12-18

12.3 Ground Modeling and Those Parameters for Ground Motion Estimation 12-22 12.3.1 Feature of Ground Condition in Metro Manila 12-22 12.3.2 Ground Modeling for Seismic Motion Analysis 12-27

12.4 Estimated Ground Motion 12-37 12.4.1 General 12-37 12.4.2 Bedrock motion analysis method 12-39 12.4.3 Subsurface amplification analysis method 12-41 12.4.4 Simulation of December 12, 1999 Earthquake and August 1, 1968 Earthquake 12-43 12.4.5 Calculation of Earthquake Ground Motion 12-44 12.4.6 Issues on Ground Motion Estimation 12-49

12.5 Estimated Tsunami Height 12-51 12.5.1 Tsunami Height Evaluation Method 12-51 12.5.2 Estimated Tsunami Height 12-53

12.6 Estimated Liquefaction Potential 12-55 12.6.1 General 12-55 12.6.2 Analysis Procedure 12-56 12.6.3 Method of Calculation 12-57 12.6.4 Precondition for the Analysis 12-58 12.6.5 Liquefaction Potential 12-63

12.7 Estimated Slope Stability Potential 12-66 12.7.1 General 12-66 12.7.2 Analysis Procedure 12-68 12.7.3 Slope Stability 12-73

Chapter 13. Earthquake Damage Estimation 13-1 13.1 Earthquake Scenario 13-1 13.2 Hazards 13-3

13.2.1 Earthquake Ground Motion 13-3 13.2.2 Liquefaction Potential 13-3

13.3 Building Damages 13-13 13.3.1 Building Inventory 13-14 13.3.2 Methodology 13-22 13.3.3 Damage Estimation 13-26 13.3.4 Damage to Public Facilities 13-36 13.3.5 Damage to High-rise Buildings 13-37

13.4 Human Casualties 13-37 13.4.1 Methodology 13-38 13.4.2 Damage Estimation 13-41 13.4.3 Validation 13-48

13.5 Fire 13-50 13.5.1 Fire Outbreak Statistics 13-50 13.5.2 Fire Outbreak after Earthquake 13-51 13.5.3 Fire Spread Possibility 13-53

-v-


13.5.4 Damage Estimation 13-56 ･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

····················································································································････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

···········································································･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

13.6 Lifelines 13-60 13.6.1 Water Supply Pipeline 13-60 13.6.2 Electric Power Supply Cable 13-65 13.6.3 Telecommunication Cable 13-69

13.7 Bridges And Flyovers 13-72 13.7.1 Bridge Damage Estimation 13-72

13.8 Transportation 13-86 13.8.1 Port 13-86 13.8.2 Airport 13-86

13.9 Angat Dam 13-89 13.9.1 Review of Existing Report 13-89 13.9.2 Location of West Valley Fault System and Angat Dam 13-90 13.9.3 Earthquake Effect 13-91

Chapter 14. Urban Spatial Analysis on Vulnerability for Earthquake in Metropolitan Manila 14-1

14.1 Introduction 14-1 14.2 Regional Vulnerability Evaluation 14-1

14.2.1 General 14-1 14.2.2 Building Collapse 14-4 14.2.3 Flammability 14-7 14.2.4 Evacuation Difficulty 14-11 14.2.5 Comprehensive Regional Vulnerability and its Characteristics 14-14 14.2.6 Possible Regional Separation 14-17

14.3 Resource and Vulnerability Evaluation 14-19 14.3.1 General 14-19 14.3.2 Fire Extinguishing Service Shortage 14-21 14.3.3 Evacuation Facility Shortage 14-24 14.3.4 Hospital Service Shortage 14-27 14.3.5 Evacuation Area Shortage 14-30

Chapter 15. Earthquake Damage Scenario 15-1 15.1 Summary of Earthquake Damage 15-1 15.2 Earthquake Damage Scenario During One Week from Occurrence of Earthquake 15-1 15.3 Earthquake Damage Script During One Week from Occurrence of Earthquake 15-4

15.3.1 Day 1 15-4 15.3.2 Day 2-3 15-5 15.3.3 Day 4-7 15-6

Main Report 3 <Part IV Understandings for Master Plan – Systems and Planning related Components> Chapter 16. Legal and Institutional Arrangements for Disaster Management 16-1 ··············

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････

16.1 Evaluation of the Current Disaster Management System 16-1 16.1.1 General Framework and Methodology 16-1 16.1.2 The Capability Assessment 16-1 16.1.3 The Interviews 16-4 16.1.4 The Tabletop Exercise 16-4 16.1.5 Capacity Building and Awareness Raising at the Second MMEIRS Workshop 16-5 16.1.6 The Workshop on Earthquake Mitigation Checklist (Makati City) 16-6

-vi-

Final Report

16.1.7 Seminar-Workshop on Emergency Response 16-7 ･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

····················································································································････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

16.1.8 Development of Disaster Management Tools 16-9 16.2 Legal Basis for Disaster Management 16-9

16.2.1 Existing Laws 16-9 16.2.2 Proposed Legislation 16-11

16.3 Review of Institutional Arrangements 16-13 16.3.1 General 16-13 16.3.2 Disaster Coordinating Councils in Metropolitan Manila 16-15

16.4 An Analysis of the Metropolitan Manila Disaster Coordinating Council 16-18 16.4.1 Key Informants’ Impressions of the MMDCC 16-22

16.5 Evaluation of the City Disaster Coordinating Councils and the Municipal Disaster Coordinating Councils 16-22

16.5.1 City and Municipality Funding 16-23 16.6 The Barangay Disaster Coordinating Councils: From Paper Tiger to Working Kittens 16-24 16.7 Current Disaster Management Program Initiatives 16-26

16.7.1 NDCC’s National Committees 16-26 16.7.2 Other Initiatives 16-27

16.8 Training and Capacity Building Programs 16-27 16.9 Strengthening Disaster Management Systems, Institutions, and Capabilities 16-28

16.9.1 Enhancing Institutional Arrangements 16-28 16.9.2 Institutionalizing Disaster Risk Management 16-29 16.9.3 Developing Capabilities for Planning and Response 16-30 16.9.4 Developing the Framework for Earthquake Risk Reduction 16-31 16.9.5 Strengthening Institutions and Capabilities 16-31

16.10 Recommendations to Enhance Institutional Capabilities 16-32 16.10.1 Metropolitan Manila Disaster Coordinating Council (MMDCC) 16-32 16.10.2 City/Municipal Disaster Coordinating Councils (CDCC/MDCC) 16-34 16.10.3 Barangay Disaster Coordinating Councils 16-43

16.11 Proposed Zonification of Cities for More Effective Disaster Management Scheme 16-44 16.11.1 The Zonification Concept 16-44 16.11.2 Implementation of Zonification through Adoption of Mutual Aid and the Incident Command System

16-45 16.12 Establish Policies, Institutional Arrangements, Plans, and Procedures for Recovery 16-49

16.12.1 Establish Pre-Disaster Policies and Institutional Arrangements for Post-Disaster Reconstruction and Mitigation 16-49

16.12.2 Prepare Recovery Plans and Procedures to Ease Post-Disaster Human and Physical Recovery and Rehabilitation 16-50

Chapter 17. Outline of Earthquake Impact Mitigation Components for Metropolitan Manila 17-1

17.1 Introduction 17-1 17.2 Target of Metropolitan Manila Earthquake Preparedness and Mitigation Plan 17-2 17.3 Preventive Measures 17-3

17.3.1 Measures for Earthquake-resistant Buildings 17-3 17.3.2 Fire Preparedness and Mitigation 17-4 17.3.3 Earthquake-resistant Infrastructure, Lifeline, and Public Facilities 17-5 17.3.4 Improvement of Awareness of Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation 17-6 17.3.5 Urban Spatial Structure 17-6 17.3.6 Research Work 17-7

17.4 Emergency Response 17-8 17.4.1 Information and Communications System 17-8 17.4.2 Fire Services and Countermeasure Against Hazardous Materials 17-8 17.4.3 Evacuation Route and Evacuation sites (Refugee Sites) 17-10

-vii-


17.4.4 Measures against Tsunami 17-10 ･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

················································································･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････

····································･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

·········································･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

17.4.5 Emergency Transportation Routes 17-10 17.4.6 Medical and Health Emergency Response 17-11 17.4.7 Temporary Refugee Housings 17-12 17.4.8 Emergency Assistance for Everyday Life 17-13 17.4.9 Disposal of Rubble and Debris 17-13 17.4.10 Treatment of Corpses 17-13 17.4.11 Peace and Order Keeping 17-13 17.4.12 Finances and Credits 17-13 17.4.13 Assistance Receiving System 17-13

Chapter 18. Urban Spatial Components 18-1 18.1 Identified Issues 18-1

18.1.1 Identified Issues from Regional Vulnerability Analysis 18-1 18.1.2 Identified Issues from Resource and Vulnerability Evaluation 18-1

18.2 Key Directions 18-2 18.2.1 Key Directions for High Building Collapse Areas 18-2 18.2.2 Key Directions for High Flammability Areas 18-2 18.2.3 Key Directions related to Evacuation 18-2 18.2.4 Key Directions for Hospital Service Shortage Areas 18-3 18.2.5 Key Directions for Comprehensively Vulnerable Areas 18-3 18.2.6 Key Directions for Areas Possibly Separated 18-3

18.3 Possible Measures 18-3 18.3.1 Measures for High Building Collapse Areas 18-3 18.3.2 Measures related to Flammability 18-3 18.3.3 Measures related to Evacuation 18-4 18.3.4 Measures for Possible Regional Separating Areas 18-6

18.4 Damage Mitigation Assessment and Need for Application of Urban Re-development Procedures 18-7 18.4.1 Damage Mitigation Estimation on Fire 18-7 18.4.2 Need for Application of Urban Re-development Procedures 18-9

Chapter 19. Buildings, Infrastructure and Lifelines Components 19-1 19.1 Buildings 19-1

19.1.1 Recommendations for Building Units 19-1 19.1.2 Recommendation from Building Engineering Viewpoint for Urban Planning 19-4

19.2 Infrastructure 19-9 19.2.1 Road 19-9 19.2.2 Bridge 19-12 19.2.3 Airport 19-19 19.2.4 Port 19-20

19.3 Lifelines 19-22 19.3.1 Damages on Lifeline Facilities and its effects 19-23 19.3.2 Characteristics of Damage and Recovery for Lifelines 19-24 19.3.3 Strengthening of Lifeline Facilities and Networks 19-25

Chapter 20. Fire and Hazardous Treatment and Management 20-1 20.1 Fire Emergency Response 20-1

20.1.1 Existing Conditions of Fire-causing Factors 20-1 20.1.2 Fire Fighting Capacity 20-5 20.1.3 Recommendations 20-11

-viii-

Final Report

Chapter 21. Medical and Health Emergency Response 21-1 ······················································･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

··························･･･････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････

21.1 Capacity of Health Resources 21-1 21.1.1 Estimated Damages by a West Valley Fault Model 21-1

21.2 Assessment of Health Response Capacity and Capability 21-7 21.2.1 Governmental Response Area 21-7

21.3 Important Issues to be Concluded in the Plan 21-10 21.4 Planning Issues 21-11

21.4.1 Target Emergency Level 21-11 21.4.2 Objectives 21-11 21.4.3 Strategies 21-11 21.4.4 Area to be covered by the plan 21-12 21.4.5 Major Planning Issues 21-13

21.5 Role and Responsibility of Activities 21-23 21.5.1 Overall Response Activities and their Responsible Level 21-23

21.6 List of Actions to Strengthen the Response Capacity 21-25 21.6.1 Feedback from the 2nd Workshop on Health Issues 21-25

Chapter 22. Local Governance and Community Disaster Management 22-1 22.1 Basic Principle of Community Based Disaster Management 22-1 22.2 Plan and Tasks 22-2 22.3 Dissemination Framework 22-3

22.3.1 Agreement on Supporting Disaster Management Activity in Communities 22-3 22.3.2 Publication of “Community Activity Guidebook” 22-3

22.4 Lessons 22-5 22.5 Community Responsibilities for Earthquake Disaster Management 22-5 22.6 Local Governance and Community Governance 22-6 22.7 Community Resilience and Social Capital Enhancement 22-6

-ix-


-x-

Supporting Report <Part V GIS Development and Topographical Map Compilation> Chapter 1. Topographical Mapping Chapter 2. GIS Database System

<Part VI Appendices>

Outputs of the Study 1. City Ordinance on Disaster Management 2. Earthquake Disaster Mitigation Handbook 3. Earthquake Mitigation and Response Checklists -Local Planning Guide- 4. Guide for Managing Information Concerning Disasters 5. Community Activity Guidebook

Other Materials Records of Workshops and Seminars Sub contract outputs and other analysis (stored only in CD)

Final Report

List of Tables Table 1.3.1 Members of the Study Team and Assignments to be covered 1-6 ･･･････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･

･････････

･････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････

･･･････････

･････････････････

･･･････････････

･･････

･････

････････････････････

････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････

････････････････････････

････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････

･･･････････････

Table 1.3.2 Members of the Steering Committee 1-7 Table 1.3.3 Members of the Technical Committee 1-7 Table 1.3.4 Members of the Counterpart 1-9 Table 1.4.1 Major Topics of the Study 1-10 Table 2.1.1 Destructive Earthquakes that Affected Metropolitan Manila and Estimated PGA 2-4 Table 2.1.2 Fault Model Parameters of Scenario Earthquakes for Hazard Estimation 2-7 Table 2.1.3 PHIVOLCS Earthquake Intensity Scale (PEIS) 2-8 Table 2.2.1 Summary of Earthquake Damage 2-10 Table 2.2.2 Earthquake Damage Scenario 2-12 Table 2.3.1 Area of High Vulnerability 2-18 Table 2.3.2 High Vulnerable Area by Type 2-19 Table 3.1.1 Frameworks and List of Action Plans (1) 3-3 Table 3.1.1 Frameworks and List of Action Plans (2) 3-4 Table 3.1.1 Frameworks and List of Action Plans (3) 3-5 Table 3.2.1 Areas of Focus for Prioritization 3-6 Table 3.2.2 Description of High Priority Action Plans 3-7 Table 6.2.1 List of High Priority Action Plans (Short/Medium List) 6-3 Table 6.2.2 Description of High Priority Action Plans 6-6 Table 6.2.3 List of Priority Action Plans (Long List) 6-11 Table 7.1.1 Summary of Natural and Manmade Disasters from 1990 to 2001 7-3 Table 7.1.2 Lessons Learned from Past Disasters (NDCC and OCD) - Earthquake 7-5 Table 7.1.3 Lessons Learned from Past Disasters (NDCC and OCD) - Fire 7-6 Table 7.1.4 Lessons Learned from Past Disasters (NDCC and OCD) - Flood 7-6 Table 7.1.5 Lessons Learned from Past Disasters (NDCC and OCD) - Tropical cyclones 7-7 Table 7.1.6 Lessons Learned from Past Disasters (NDCC and OCD) - Volcanic Eruption 7-8 Table 8.1.1 Share of Metropolitan Manila in the Total Economy’s GDP 8-1 Table 8.1.2 Per Capita GDP in Metropolitan Manila and National 8-1 Table 8.1.3 Poverty Incidence 8-2 Table 8.1.4 Land Use Classification in Metropolitan Manila 8-4 Table 8.1.5 Definition of Classification of Existing Land Use Map 8-5 Table 8.1.6 Night-time Population in Metropolitan Manila 8-8 Table 8.3.1 Migration to Metropolitan Manila 8-20 Table 8.6.1 Community Based Disaster Management Activities 8-37 Table 8.6.2 Characteristic Features of the Selected Communities 8-39 Table 8.6.3 Viewpoint of Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment 8-43 Table 8.6.4 Applicability of Current CBDM Activities 8-45 Table 8.6.5 Force Field Analysis 8-45 Table 8.6.6 Countermeasures for Enhancement and Mitigation 8-46 Table 8.6.7 Summary Table of Detailed Building and Infrastructure Survey 8-54

-xi-


Table 9.1.1 General Information on Building by LGU 9-2 ･････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････

････････････････････

･････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････

･･････････････････

･･･････････････････････

･･･････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････

･･････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････

････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････

･･･････････････････

････････････････････････

･･････

････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････

･･･････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･

････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････

･

･･････････

･･･････

･･････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････

Table 9.1.2 Definition of Building Type 9-5 Table 9.1.3 Number of Household by Type of Building 9-6 Table 9.1.4 Building Type Distribution by District 9-6 Table 9.1.5 Building Outer Wall Material Distribution by LGU 9-8 Table 9.1.6 Building Construction Year Distribution by LGU 9-12 Table 9.1.7 Mid-rise and High-rise Buildings in Metropolitan Manila 9-18 Table 9.1.8 Contents of Public and Governmental Facility Buildings 9-18 Table 9.1.9 Police Stations in Metropolitan Manila 9-19 Table 9.1.10 Fire Stations in Metropolitan Manila 9-19 Table 9.1.11 Hospitals in Metropolitan Manila 9-20 Table 9.1.12 Schools in Metropolitan Manila 9-20 Table 9.1.13 Results of Building Diagnosis for Public Buildings 9-31 Table 9.1.14 Chronologies of Coefficients and Factors in Seismic Design 9-36 Table 9.2.1 Distribution of Road Network in Metropolitan Manila 9-38 Table 9.2.2 Summary of Bridges and Flyovers Inventory in NCR 9-41 Table 9.2.3 Facilities of Manila North Harbor 9-46 Table 9.2.4 List of Berths in MICT 9-47 Table 9.3.1 Contents of Lifeline Facilities 9-56 Table 9.3.2 Lifeline Facilities in Metropolitan Manila 9-56 Table 9.4.1 Contents of Hazardous Facilities 9-59 Table 9.4.2 Hazardous Materials Treatment Facilities in Metropolitan Manila 9-59 Table 9.4.3 Contents of Investigation on Hazardous Facilities 9-62 Table 9.4.4 Location of Investigation on Hazardous Facilities 9-63 Table 10.1.1 Assessment Matrix 10-2 Table 10.2.1 Major Legal Framework of Disaster Management in the Philippine 10-5 Table 11.3.1 Assessment Areas and Their Components 11-2 Table 11.3.2 Organizations to be Studied by Assessment Area 11-3 Table 11.4.1 DOH Budget Allocation by Expense Class, CY1998-2002 11-7 Table 11.4.2 Increasing Budget for Health in Local Government 11-7 Table 11.4.3 Survey on “Disaster Control Program” at Tertiary Level Hospitals in NCR 11-9 Table 11.4.4 Number and Ratio of LGU Facilities in 2001 11-10 Table 11.4.5 Membership Profile, As of September 30, 2002 11-11 Table 11.4.6 Number of Hospitals by Category in NCR on September 30, 2002 11-11 Table 11.4.7 Distribution of Hospitals and Bed Capacity by Level of Health Care and by City in 2001

11-13 Table 11.4.8 DOH-HEMS Annual Training and Related Activities Plan in 2003 (Abstract) 11-17 Table 11.4.9 DOH-NCR’s Campaign and Training Program in 2002 11-17 Table 11.5.1 Summary of the Answers from LGU’s about Their Capability for Health Emergency

11-19 Table 11.5.2 Major Concerns of LGU’s to Cope with Potential Earthquake Disaster 11-22 Table 12.2.1 Destructive Earthquakes that Affected Metropolitan Manila and Estimated PGA 12-15 Table 12.2.2 Source Zones Surrounding Metropolitan Manila and Estimated PGA 12-19 Table 12.2.3 Fault Model Parameters of Scenario Earthquakes for Hazard Estimation 12-21 Table 12.3.1 Definition of Terminology for Engineering Seismic Bedrock and Subsurface Soil 12-22 Table 12.3.2 Stratigraphical Feature of Soil Deposit 12-25 Table 12.3.3 Data Sources applied for Ground Classification 12-27

-xii-

Final Report

Table 12.3.4 Ground Classification Step 1, Major Classification 12-29 ････････････････････････

･････････

････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････

･･･････････

･･････････････

･･･････････

･････････････････････････

･････････････････････

･･･････････････････････

････････

･･･････････････････････

･････････････････････････

･･････

････････

･･･････････････････････････

･･･････

････････････････････････

･････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････

･･･････････････

････････････････････････

･････････････････

･･････････････････････････

･････････････････････

･････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････

･･････････････

･･･････････････････

･････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

Table 12.3.5 Ground Classification Step 2 and 3, Classification of the Soil Deposit 12-29 Table 12.3.6 Classification of the Rock 12-30 Table 12.3.7 Summary of Geotechnical Properties for Ground Motion Analysis 12-33 Table 12.6.1 Summary of Quaternary Deposits Distribution by City/Municipality 12-55 Table 12.6.2 Summary of Geotechnical Properties for Liquefaction Analysis 12-61 Table 12.6.3 Summary of Type of Ground Motion for Each Scenario Earthquake 12-62 Table 12.6.4 Criterion for Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential 12-63 Table 12.7.1 Summary of Central Plateau Area by City/Municipality 12-67 Table 12.7.2 Two Types of Evaluation Method for Slope Stability 12-69 Table 12.7.3 Evaluation of Slope Stability Based on Average Gradient in 500m Grid 12-70 Table 12.7.4 Evaluation of Slope Stability Based on Safety Factor 12-72 Table 12.7.5 Matrix of Evaluation of Slope in Failure Potential 12-73 Table 12.7.6 Shear Strength of Residual Soils, Weathered Rocks and Related Minerals 12-74 Table 13.1.1 Fault Model Parameters of Scenario Earthquakes for Damage Estimation 13-1 Table 13.2.1 Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale(1956 Version) 13-3 Table 13.3.1 Important Information Items in Census for Building Damage Estimation 13-14 Table 13.3.2 Classification of Buildings in Metropolitan Manila 13-16 Table 13.3.3 Liquefaction Area Ratio in Liquefaction Potential Area 13-26 Table 13.3.4 Definition of Building Damage 13-28 Table 13.3.5 Summary of Building Damage 13-28 Table 13.3.6 Building Damage by LGU 13-29 Table 13.3.7 Summary of Public Facilities Damage 13-37 Table 13.4.1 Definition of Casualty Damage 13-41 Table 13.4.2 Summary of Human Casualty Damage 13-41 Table 13.5.1 Summary of Fire Damage 13-56 Table 13.5.2 Fire Damage by LGU 13-57 Table 13.6.1 Definition of Water Pipeline Damage Estimation 13-62 Table 13.6.2 Summary of Water Pipeline Damage 13-62 Table 13.6.3 Liquefaction Coefficient for Damage Estimation 13-66 Table 13.6.4 Definition of Electric Power Supply Cable Damage Estimation 13-66 Table 13.6.5 Summary of Electric Power Supply Cable Damage 13-66 Table 13.6.6 Definition of Telecommunication Cable Damage Estimation 13-69 Table 13.6.7 Summary of Telecommunication Cable Damage 13-69 Table 13.7.1 Score Chart for Stability Analysis of Bridges/Flyovers 13-73 Table 13.7.2 Definition of Damage Degree of Bridges and Flyovers 13-75 Table 13.7.3 Summary of Bridge Stability Analysis 13-75 Table 13.7.4 Bridges Evaluated as Large or Moderate Probability of Fall-off 13-76 Table 13.7.5 Comparison of Seismic Resistance Evaluation of Bridges 13-79 Table 13.7.6 Comparison of Result of Damage Estimation 13-80 Table 13.7.7 Overall Evaluation in the Study 13-81 Table 13.8.1 Liquefaction Potential of Ports 13-86 Table 13.8.2 Damage to Airports by Earthquake 13-87 Table 13.8.3 Acceleration at Airport by Scenario Earthquake 13-88 Table 13.9.1 Summary of the Existing Report 13-89 Table 13.9.2 Recommendations on the Existing Report 13-89 Table 13.9.3 Population and Number of Households in the Downstream Basin of the Angat Dam

13-91

-xiii-


Table 14.2.1 Summary of Data used in Regional Vulnerability Analysis 14-3 ･･･････････････････

････････････････････････････

･････････

････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････

････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････

･･････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････

････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････

Table 14.2.2 Vulnerability Classification of Flammable Area 14-7 Table 14.2.3 Distance Areas Affected by the Explosions by Hazardous Facility Type 14-8 Table 14.2.4 High Vulnerable Area by Type 14-15 Table 14.3.1 Summary of Data used in Resource and Vulnerability Evaluation 14-21 Table 15.1.1 Summary of Earthquake Damage 15-1 Table 15.2.1 Earthquake Damage Scenario 15-2 Table 16.1.1 Assessment Matrix 16-3 Table 16.3.1 Institutional Strengths and Weaknesses 16-15 Table 16.4.1 Member Agencies as Resource Institutions for Disaster Management and their

impressions of the Functionality of the MMDCC (Department of Budget and Management--DBM) 16-18

Table 16.4.2 MMDCC Member Agencies as Resource Institutions for Disaster Management and their impressions of the Functionality of the MMDCC (Department of Education, Culture & Sports -- DECS) 16-18

Table 16.4.3 MMDCC Member Agencies as Resource Institutions for Disaster Management and their impressions of the Functionality of the MMDCC (Department of Interior and Local Government -- DILG) 16-19

Table 16.4.4 MDCC Member Agencies as Resource Institutions for Disaster Management and their impressions of the Functionality of the MMDCC (Department of Health -- DOH) 16-19

Table 16.4.5 MMDCC Member Agencies as Resource Institutions for Disaster Management and their impressions of the Functionality of the MMDCC (Department of Public Works and Highways -- DPWH) 16-20

Table 16.4.6 MDCC Member Agencies as Resource Institutions for Disaster Management and their impressions of the Functionality of the MMDCC (Department of Social Welfare and Development -- DSWD) 16-20

Table 16.4.7 MMDCC Member Agencies as Resource institutions for Disaster Management and their impressions of the Functionality of the MMDCC (Office of Civil Defense -- OCD)

16-21 Table 16.4.8 MMDCC Member Agencies as Resource institutions for Disaster Management and their

impressions of the Functionality of the MMDCC (Philippine National Red Cross -- PNRC) 16-21

Table 16.11.1 Proposed Zones for Zonification 16-47 Table 18.4.1 Fire Damage Reduction by Flammable Building Replacement 18-7 Table 19.1.1 Construction Costs for Buildings 19-3 Table 19.2.1 Possibility Effects to Transport Function in Metro Manila 19-11 Table 19.3.1 Effects of Earthquake Damage to Lifelines 19-24 Table 19.3.2 Characteristics of Damage and Recovery for Lifelines 19-25 Table 20.1.1 Fire Incidences in Metropolitan Manila 20-1 Table 20.1.2 Causes of Fire in Metropolitan Manila (1999-2002) 20-2 Table 20.1.3 Fire-extinguishing Resources of Large Petroleum Storage 20-4 Table 20.1.4 Fire-Fighting Resources of BFP 20-5 Table 20.1.5 Operational Condition of Fire Vehicles 20-6 Table 20.1.6 Age of Fire station (FS) and fire sub-stations (FSS) 20-11 Table 20.1.7 Fire Fighting Equipment of Barangays 20-13 Table 21.1.1 Estimated Building Damage & Human Casualties 21-1

-xiv-

Final Report

Table 21.1.2 Summary of Response Capacity Assessment 21-2 ･･････････････････････････････

････････････････････

････････････

････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････

･･････････････

･

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････

････････････････

･･････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････

･

･･･････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････

Table 21.1.3 Estimation of Hospital Beds Deployable over the Country 21-3 Table 21.1.4 Estimated Human Damages by District by West Valley Fault Model 21-4 Table 21.3.1 List of Important Issues for the Plan 21-10 Table 21.4.1 List of Medical and Health Functions to be Covered by the Plan 21-13 Table 21.4.2 Hospital Bed and Its Ratio to Population in Adjoining Provinces 21-16 Table 21.4.3 Role of Community and Local Health Personnel in Rescue and Relief Activities 21-19 Table 21.4.4 Role of Team at AMP 21-19 Table 21.4.5 Role of Hospitals by Level during the Disaster Period 21-20 Table 21.4.6 Requirements that “Disaster Medical Hospitals” should Meet 21-21 Table 21.4.7 Epidemic Control and Water Safety Monitoring Team 21-22 Table 21.5.1 Responsible Level by Activity 21-23 Table 21.5.2 Role of Community and Local Health Personnel in Rescue and Relief Activities 21-24 Table 21.6.1 Recommended Mitigation and Preparedness Actions 21-25 Table 21.6.2 List of Projects to Strengthen Capacity 21-27

-xv-


List of Figures

Figure 1.3.1 Study Area 1-3 ･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････

･････････････････････

･････････

･････････････････････

･･････

･････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････

････････････

･･････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････

･･･････････････････････････････

････････････････････

････････････････････

････････････････

･････････

･･････････････････････････

･･

･････････

････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････

･････････

･･･････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････

･･････････････････

･･････････････････････

･････････････････････

･････････････････････

･････････････････････

Figure 1.3.2 Work Flow of the Study 1-4 Figure 1.3.3 Study Organization 1-5 Figure 2.1.1 Geological Faults in the Philippines 2-1 Figure 2.1.2 Subducting Plates under Luzon Island 2-2 Figure 2.1.3 Distribution of Faults and Trenches around Metropolitan Manila 2-3 Figure 2.1.4 Distribution of Historical Earthquakes from 1608 to 1895 2-4 Figure 2.1.5 Distribution of Instrumentally Recorded Earthquakes from 1907 to 2002 2-5 Figure 2.1.6 Scenario Earthquake Fault Models for Hazard Estimation 2-6 Figure 2.1.7 Distribution of Seismic Intensity in PHIVOLCS Earthquake Intensity Scale 2-9 Figure 2.3.1 Flow of the Regional Vulnerability Evaluation 2-17 Figure 2.3.2 Comprehensive Regional Vulnerability 2-20 Figure 2.3.3 Regional Vulnerability Characteristics 2-20 Figure 2.3.4 Possible Regional Separation by Earthquake Impact 2-21 Figure 3.1.1 Structure of the Disaster Management Plan for Metropolitan Manila 3-2 Figure 7.1.1 Damages of Natural Disaster in the Philippines from 1990 to 2001 7-4 Figure 8.1.1 Expansion of Urban Land 8-3 Figure 8.1.2 Metropolitan Manila’s Land Use of 1986 (partly updated in 1996) 8-6 Figure 8.1.3 Existing Land Use Map (Compiled in 2003) 8-7 Figure 8.1.4 Population Density Distribution by Barangay (persons/ha) 8-9 Figure 8.3.1 Population Growth of National and Metropolitan Manila 8-18 Figure 8.3.2 Population Growth Ratio of National and Metropolitan Manila 8-19 Figure 8.3.3 Population Density of Cities and Municipalities in Metropolitan Manila 8-19 Figure 8.4.1 Example of Community Boundary in a Barangay 8-31 Figure 8.4.2 Information Channels and Methods between Barangay and Community Leaders 8-32 Figure 8.4.3 An Example of Barangay where Community Boundaries are not Aware 8-32 Figure 8.6.1 Sequence of Activities 8-36 Figure 8.6.2 Progression of Vulnerability 8-44 Figure 8.6.3 Flow of the Survey and GIS Database Development 8-47 Figure 8.6.4 Detailed Building and Infrastructure Survey Mataas na Lupa, Malate, Manila City 8-49 Figure 8.6.5 Detailed Building and Infrastructure Survey, Cupang, Muntinlupa City 8-51 Figure 8.6.6 Detailed Building and Infrastructure Survey, Ugong, Pasig City 8-53 Figure 9.1.1 Number of Buildings per Barangay 9-3 Figure 9.1.2 Building Density per Barangay 9-4 Figure 9.1.3 Concrete-Walled Buildings per Barangay (2000) 9-9 Figure 9.1.4 Wood-Walled Buildings per Barangay (2000) 9-10 Figure 9.1.5 Half Concrete-Walled Buildings per Barangay (2000) 9-11 Figure 9.1.6 Buildings Built in Year 1960 or Earlier per Barangay (2000) 9-13 Figure 9.1.7 Building Built in Year 1961-1970 per Barangay (2000) 9-14 Figure 9.1.8 Building Built in Year 1971 – 1980 per Barangay (2000) 9-15 Figure 9.1.9 Building Built in Year 1981 – 1990 per Barangay (2000) 9-16 Figure 9.1.10 Building Built in Year 1991 – 2000 per Barangay (2000) 9-17

-xvi-

Final Report

Figure 9.1.11 Location Map of Police Station 9-21 ･････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････

･･････････････

･･････････

･････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････

･･

･････････････････････････

････････････

････････････

･･･････

････････････

･････････････････････

･････････････････････････････

････････････････････

････････････････

･･････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････

･････････････

･･･････････････････

･･･････

･･･････････････････

･･･････････････････････････

････････････････････････････

Figure 9.1.12 Location Map of Fire Fighting Station 9-22 Figure 9.1.13 Location Map of Hospitals 9-23 Figure 9.1.14 Location Map of Public Schools and Private Schools 9-24 Figure 9.1.15 Location Map of 17 LGU City and Municipality Hall, MMDCC Departments and

Agencies 9-25 Figure 9.1.16 Organization Chart of DPWH 9-30 Figure 9.1.17 Results of Building Diagnosis for Public Building 9-33 Figure 9.2.1 Road Network 9-39 Figure 9.2.2 Bridge Distribution in Metropolitan Manila 9-42 Figure 9.2.3 Port Facilities of Metropolitan Manila 9-45 Figure 9.2.4 Existing Plan of North Harbor, Port of Manila 9-46 Figure 9.2.5 Existing Plan of MICT, Port of Manila 9-47 Figure 9.2.6 Existing Plan of International Container Terminal, Port of Manila 9-48 Figure 9.2.7 Geological Map around the Angat Dam and Water Transmission Pipes 9-50 Figure 9.2.8 Plan of the Angat Dam and the Dike 9-51 Figure 9.2.9 MWSS Headworks Schematic Diagram 9-52 Figure 9.2.10 Plane of the Angat Dam 9-53 Figure 9.2.11 Cross Section of the Angat Dam 9-53 Figure 9.2.12 Plan of the Dike 9-54 Figure 9.2.13 Cross Section of the Dike 9-55 Figure 9.4.1 Location Map of Fire/Explosion Material treatment facilities, Gasoline Stations 9-60 Figure 9.4.2 Location Map of Hazardous Waste Treatment Facilities, Hazardous Waste Generating

Facilities, Hazardous Stock - Radioactive Material 9-61 Figure 10.3.1 Organizational Chart of National Disaster Coordinating Council (1) 10-8 Figure 10.3.2 Organizational Chart of National Disaster Coordinating Council (2) 10-9 Figure 10.3.3 Organizational Chart, Metropolitan Manila Disaster Coordinating Council 10-9 Figure 10.3.4 Typical Organization of Barangay Disaster Coordinating Councils 10-17 Figure 11.4.1 Organizational Spectrum in Emergency Health Service 11-5 Figure 11.4.2 Organization Chart of Stop DEATH Program 11-8 Figure 11.4.3 Allocation of Major Hospitals with 200 Beds and More 11-14 Figure 11.4.4 Ratio of Bed Capacity to 1000 Population by City/Municipal 11-15 Figure 11.4.5 Metropolitan Manila Zoning System by Stop DEATH Program 11-16 Figure 12.1.1 Geological Fault in the Philippines 12-1 Figure 12.1.2 Geomorphological Map of the Study Area 12-3 Figure 12.1.3 Elevation Map of the Study Area 12-4 Figure 12.1.4 Slope Gradient Map of the Study Area 12-5 Figure 12.1.5 Geological Map of the Study Area 12-7 Figure 12.1.6 PGA maps with 10% Probability of Exceedance in a) 50 year, b) 100 year and c) 250 year

exposure time. 12-10 Figure 12.2.1 Subducting Plates under Luzon Island 12-11 Figure 12.2.2 Distribution of Faults and Trenches around Metropolitan Manila 12-12 Figure 12.2.3 Distribution of Historical Earthquakes from 1608 to 1895 12-16 Figure 12.2.4 Distribution of Instrumentally Recorded Earthquakes from 1907 to 2002 12-17 Figure 12.2.5 Scenario Earthquake Fault Models for Hazard Estimation 12-20 Figure 12.3.1 Schematic Diagram of Distribution of the Rock 12-23 Figure 12.3.2 Thickness of Deposit of Soil Based on Model 12-24

-xvii-


Figure 12.3.3 Distribution of Predominant Period Based on Existing Microtremor Measurement 12-24 Figure 12.3.4 Four Regional Classification of Lowland Area 12-26 ････････････････････････････

･･･････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････

･･････････････････････････

････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････

･････････････

･･････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････

･･･････････

･･････････････････

････････

･･････

･･･････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････

･･････････

･･････････

････････････････････････････････････

･･

･･････････････

･･･････････････････････････････

･･････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････

･････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････

･･･････････････････････

･･･････････････････････

･･･････････････････････

･･･････････････････

･･･････････････････

･･･････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････

Figure 12.3.5 Flowchart for Ground Modeling for Seismic Motion Analysis 12-27 Figure 12.3.6 Location of Investigation Drilling 12-28 Figure 12.3.7 Relationship between N Value and Shear Wave Velocity 12-31 Figure 12.3.8 Non-Linear Stress-Strain Characteristics of Soil 12-32 Figure 12.3.9 Ground Model Distribution at Ground Surface 12-34 Figure 12.3.10 Model Cross Section: North-South Direction 12-35 Figure 12.3.11 Model Cross Section: East-West Direction 12-36 Figure 12.4.1 Schematic figure of seismic wave propagation and amplification 12-38 Figure 12.4.2 Flowchart of Earthquake ground motion analysis 12-38 Figure 12.4.3 Adopted Attenuation Formula for Acceleration 12-40 Figure 12.4.4 Adopted Attenuation Formula for Velocity 12-40 Figure 12.4.5 Adopted Attenuation Formula for Acceleration Response Spectrum 12-41 Figure 12.4.6 Amplification from Strong Motion and Response Analysis 12-42 Figure 12.4.7 Simulated Acceleration distribution of December 12, 1999 Earthquake 12-44 Figure 12.4.8 Simulated Seismic Intensity in MMI Scale of August 1, 1968 Earthquake 12-44 Figure 12.4.9 Distribution of Peak Ground Acceleration 12-46 Figure 12.4.10 Distribution of Peak Ground Velocity 12-47 Figure 12.4.11 Distribution of Seismic Intensity in MMI Scale 12-48 Figure 12.5.1 Observed and estimated run-up height of 1976Mindanao Earthquake 12-52 Figure 12.5.2 Observed and estimated run-up height of 1994 Mindoro Earthquake 12-53 Figure 12.6.1 Flowchart of Liquefaction Analysis 12-57 Figure 12.6.2 Variation of Soil Properties, D50, D10 and Fc, for Each Ground Classification 12-60 Figure 12.6.3 Variation of Soil Properties, PI, for Each Ground Classification 12-61 Figure 12.6.4 Observed Groundwater Level in the Study 12-62 Figure 12.6.5 Results of Liquefaction Analysis for Each Scenario Earthquake 12-64 Figure 12.6.6 Variation of Liquefaction Potential in Each City/Municipality, Case of Scenario

Earthquake Model 08 12-64 Figure 12.6.7 Liquefaction Potential Map 12-65 Figure 12.7.1 Flowchart of Slope Stability Analysis 12-69 Figure 12.7.2 A Typical Section of Slope 12-71 Figure 12.7.3 Relationship Between Slope Gradient, Seismic Coefficient and Minimum Shear Strength

Stability Number 12-72 Figure 12.7.4 Results of Slope Stability Analysis for Each Scenario Earthquake 12-75 Figure 12.7.5 Variation of Slope in Failure Potential in Each City/Municipality Area, Case of Scenario

Earthquake Model 08 12-75 Figure 12.7.6 Slope in Failure Potential Map 12-76 Figure 13.1.1 Scenario Earthquake Fault Model for Damage Estimation 13-2 Figure 13.2.1 Distribution of Peak Ground Acceleration: Model 08 13-4 Figure 13.2.2 Distribution of Peak Ground Acceleration: Model 13 13-5 Figure 13.2.3 Distribution of Peak Ground Acceleration: Model 18 13-6 Figure 13.2.4 Distribution of Seismic Intensity in MMI Scale: Model 08 13-7 Figure 13.2.5 Distribution of Seismic Intensity in MMI Scale: Model 13 13-8 Figure 13.2.6 Distribution of Seismic Intensity in MMI Scale: Model 18 13-9 Figure 13.2.7 Liquefaction Potential Map: Model 08 13-10 Figure 13.2.8 Liquefaction Potential Map: Model 13 13-11 Figure 13.2.9 Liquefaction Potential Map: Model 18 13-12 Figure 13.3.1 Flowchart of Building Damage Estimation 13-13

-xviii-

Final Report

Figure 13.3.2 Classified Building Distribution - CBB + CBA - 13-18 ･･････････････････････････

･････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････

･･

･･･････････････････････････

･･････････

････････････････････････

･････････････････････････

････････････････････････

････････････････････････

････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････

････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････

････

･･･････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････

････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････

･････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････

･･･････････････････････

･･･････････････

･･･････････････

････････････････････････

･････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････

･････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････

Figure 13.3.3 Classified Building Distribution - CWB + CWA - 13-19 Figure 13.3.4 Classified Building Distribution - WB + WA 13-20 Figure 13.3.5 Classified Building Distribution - S - 13-21 Figure 13.3.6 Distribution of Totally + Partly Damaged Buildings by 1990 Luzon Earthquake 13-23 Figure 13.3.7 Seismic Intensity in by 1990 Luzon Earthquake 13-23 Figure 13.3.8 Example of Estimated Damage Function for 1990 Luzon Earthquake 13-25 Figure 13.3.9 Heavily Damage Function for Metropolitan Manila 13-25 Figure 13.3.10 Partly Damage Function for Metropolitan Manila 13-26 Figure 13.3.11 Number of Heavily Damaged Buildings : Model 08 13-30 Figure 13.3.12 Number of Heavily Damaged Buildings : Model 13 13-31 Figure 13.3.13 Number of Heavily Damaged Buildings : Model 18 13-32 Figure 13.3.14 Ratio of Heavily Damaged Buildings : Model 08 13-33 Figure 13.3.15 Ratio of Heavily Damaged Buildings : Model 13 13-34 Figure 13.3.16 Ratio of Heavily Damaged Buildings : Model 18 13-35 Figure 13.4.1 Flowchart of Human Casualty Damage Estimation 13-38 Figure 13.4.2 Damage Function for Death Estimation 13-40 Figure 13.4.3 Damage Function for Injured Estimation 13-40 Figure 13.4.4 Number of Dead People : Model 08 13-42 Figure 13.4.5 Number of Dead People : Model 13 13-43 Figure 13.4.6 Number of Dead People : Model 18 13-44 Figure 13.4.7 Death Ratio : Model 08 13-45 Figure 13.4.8 Death Ratio : Model 13 13-46 Figure 13.4.9 Death Ratio : Model 18 13-47 Figure 13.4.10 Relationship between total casualty figures and total building damages statistics

(Retouched to Coburn and Spence 1992) 13-49 Figure 13.5.1 Number of Fire Outbreaks from 1995 to 2002 13-50 Figure 13.5.2 Origin of Fire from 1995 to 2002 13-51 Figure 13.5.3 Relation between Fire Outbreaks and Building Damage by Kobe Earthquake 13-53 Figure 13.5.4 Relation between Burnt Area Ratio and Flammable Area Ratio 13-54 Figure 13.5.5 Possible Area of Fire Spreading 13-55 Figure 13.5.6 Maximum Burnt Buildings by Fire : Wind Speed 3m/sec 13-58 Figure 13.5.7 Maximum Burnt Buildings by Fire : Wind Speed 8m/sec 13-59 Figure 13.6.1 Damage Function of Water Supply Pipeline 13-61 Figure 13.6.2 Distribution of Water Pipe Damage : Model 08 13-63 Figure 13.6.3 Distribution of Water Pipe Damage : Model 18 13-64 Figure 13.6.4 Damage Function of Electric Power Supply Cable 13-65 Figure 13.6.5 Distribution of Electricity Cable Damage : Model 08 13-67 Figure 13.6.6 Distribution of Electricity Cable Damage : Model 18 13-68 Figure 13.6.7 Distribution of Telecommunication Cable Damage : Model 08 13-70 Figure 13.6.8 Distribution of Telecommunication Cable Damage : Model 18 13-71 Figure 13.7.1 Flowchart of Stability Analysis of bridges/flyovers 13-73 Figure 13.7.2 Result of Bridges and Flyovers Stability Analysis 13-77 Figure 13.8.1 Damage Grade to Airport and PGA 13-88 Figure 13.9.1 Location of the Angat Dam and West Valley Fault System 13-90 Figure 14.2.1 Flow of the Regional Vulnerability Evaluation 14-2 Figure 14.2.4 Building Collapse 14-6 Figure 14.2.7 Flammability 14-10 Figure 14.2.12 Possible Regional Separation by Earthquake Impact 14-18

-xix-


Figure 14.3.1 Flow of the Resource and Vulnerability Evaluation 14-20 ････････････････････････

････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････

･

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････

････････････････

････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････

･････････････････････

････････････

････････････････････

･･･････････････････････

･･･････････････

････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････

･･･････････

･･････････････････････

･････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････････････････････････

････････････････････････････････････････････

･･･････････････

･･･････････････････

･････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････････

･･････････････････････

･･･････

･････････････････････････････

･････････････････････････

Figure 16.3.1 Organizational Chart of Institutional Arrangements 16-14 Figure 16.3.2 Organizational Chart of a City Disaster Coordinating Council, Marikina Disaster

Coordinating Council 16-17 Figure 16.3.3 Organizational Chart of a Municipal Disaster Coordinating Council, Navotas Disaster

Coordinating Council 16-17 Figure 16.6.1 Organizational Charts of Two Typical Barangay Disaster Coordinating Councils 16-26 Figure 16.11.1 Proposed Zonification 16-48 Figure 17.1.1 General Workflow 17-2 Figure 18.4.1 Fire Damage Mitigation by Flammable Building Replacement 18-8 Figure 18.4.2 A Concept of Urban Re-development 18-9 Figure 19.1.1 Proposal for Retrofitting Techniques 19-2 Figure 19.1.2 Methods for Improvement of Structural Member 19-4 Figure 19.1.3 Various Methods for Retrofitting of Building Structures 19-5 Figure 19.1.4 Institutionalization for Qualified Building Design and Construction 19-7 Figure 19.1.5 Improved detail of Masonry Wall and Adjacent Columns 19-8 Figure 19.2.1 Characteristics of Road Damage Against Earthquake 19-10 Figure 19.2.2 Relationship between Road Damage and Ground Acceleration 19-11 Figure 19.2.3 Type of Strengthening Method for Bridge Structure 19-13 Figure 19.2.4 Typical Samples of “Falling-off Prevention System” 19-14 Figure 19.2.5 Explanation of the Effect at Each Stage of the Earthquake Intensity 19-15 Figure 19.2.6 An Example of Displacement Controlling by Damper 19-16 Figure 19.2.7 An Example of Seismic Isolation Device (Lead Rubber Bearing) 19-16 Figure 19.2.8 Behavior of Seismic Isolation Device 19-17 Figure 19.2.9 Example of RC Jacketing Method 19-18 Figure 19.2.10 Example of Steel Jacketing Method 19-18 Figure 19.2.11 Example of Fiber Jacketing Method 19-18 Figure 20.1.1 BFP Organization Structure 20-7 Figure 20.1.2 Regional Fire Organizational Structure 20-7 Figure 20.1.3 Regional Operational Units 20-8 Figure 20.1.4 Organizational Structure of City and Municipality Fire Stations 20-8 Figure 20.1.5 Organization of Barangay Disaster Coordination Council 20-10 Figure 21.1.1 Direction to Evacuate the Injured to Less Affected Area by Earthquake Damaged Zone

21-6 Figure 21.2.1 Three-level Structure of Disaster Coordinating Council 21-7 Figure 21.4.1 Proposed Organizational Set-up for Health Command and Coordination 21-14 Figure 21.4.2 Proposed Rescue & Relief Operation Zoning 21-17 Figure 21.4.3 Principle Structure of Medical Relief in the Zone 21-18

-xx-

Final Report

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official ABC Associate of Barangay Captains ACP Advance Command Post ADB Asian Development Bank ADOC Advance Disaster Operations Center AMMS Administrative & Manpower Management Service AMP Advanced Medical Post ASEP Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines ATC Applied Technical Council ATI Asia Terminal Incorporated BAC Bids and Awards Committee BDCC Barangay Disaster Coordination Council BFP Bureau of Fire Protection BOC Bureau of Construction BOD Bureau of Design BOE Bureau of Equipment BOM Bureau of maintenance BRS Bureau of Research and Standards C/GP Clean/Green Personnel CAR Cordillera Administrative Region CBD Central Business District CBDM Community-Based Disaster Management CBO Community Based Organization CDCC City Disaster Coordination Council CDMC Core Disaster Medical Center CDPP Calamities & Disaster Preparedness Plan CFMS Comptrollership & Financial Management Service CFS City Fire Station CH City Hall CHB Concrete Hollow Brick CHED Commission on Higher Education CHO City Health Officers CLUP Comprehensive Land Use Plan CMP Community Mortgage Plan COA Commission on Audit CSSR Collapsed Structure Search and Rescue DAO Disaster Action Officer DBM Department of Budget & Management DCC Disaster Coordination Council DECS Department of Education, Culture & Sports DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources DEO District Engineering Office DIG Disaster Imagination Game DILG Department of Interior and Local Government DMCC Disaster Management Coordinating Council DMH Disaster Medical Hospitals DND Department of National Defense DOC Disaster Operations Center DOCCP Disaster Center Command Post DOH Department of Health DOTC Department of Transportation and Communications DPD Division of Preventable Disease DPOS Department of Public Order and Safety DPWH Department of Public Works and Highways

-xxi-


DSO Directorate for Special Operation DSWD Department of Social Welfare and Development DepEd Department of Education ED Engineering Department EDM Earthquake Disaster Management EMB Environmental Management Bureau EMI Earthquake and Megacities Initiative EMIP Emergency Management Institute of the Philippines EMS Emergency Medical Service (or System) EMSA Emergency Medical Services Authority EMT Emergency Medical Treatment ESC Environmental Sanitation Center EVF East Valley Fault FD Fire Department FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency; The United States of America FS Fire station FT Fire Truck GDP Gross Domestic Product GESI Global Earthquake Safety Initiative GIS Geographic Information System GMR Greater Manila Region GOJ Government of Japan GOP Government of Republic of the Philippines GPS Global Positioning System HEMS Health Emergency Management Staff HLURB Housing and Land use Regulatory Board HUDCC Housing and Urban Development Coordination Council ICS Incident Command System ICTSI International Container Terminal Services, Inc ICU Intensive Care Unit IEC Information and Education Campaign IRA Internal Revenue Allotment JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency JMAI Japan Methodological Agency Intensity KI Key Informants LCE Local Chief Executives LDCC Local Disaster Coordinating Committee LGC Local Government Code LGU Local Government Unit LHP Local Health Personnel LLO Legislative Liaison Office LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas LRT Light Rail Transit LWUA Local Water Utilities Administration MAYERT Makati Youth Emergency Rescue Unit MCDCC Makati City Disaster Coordinating Council MDCC Municipal Disaster Coordination Council MEC Ministry of Education and Culture MERALCO Manila Electric Company MERG Manila Emergency Response Group MFS Municipality Fire Station MICT Manila International Container Terminal MIS Monitoring and Information MMA Metro Manila Authority MMDA Metropolitan Manila Development Authority MMDCC Metropolitan Manila Disaster Coordinating Council MMDOC Metro Manila Disaster Operations Center MMEIRS Metropolitan Manila Earthquake Impact Reduction Study

-xxii-

Final Report

MMI Modified Mercalli Intensity MMUTIS Metropolitan Manila Urban Transportation Integration Study (JICA) MOA Memorandum of Agreement MRT Metro Rail Transit MRTC Metropolitan Manila Transit Corporation MSSD Ministry of Social Services and Development MSW Marine Slipway MWSS Manila Waterworks and Sewerage System NAIA Ninoy Aquino International Airport NAMRIA National Mapping and Resource Information NAMRIA NAPOCOR National Power Corporation NBCP National Building Code of the Philippines NCDA National Civil Defense Administration NCR National Capital Region NCRPO National Capital Regional Police Office NDCC National Disaster Coordinating Council NDMC National Disaster Management Center NEMA National Emergency Management Association NGO Non-Governmental Organization NHA National Housing Authority NHMFC National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation NPC National Power Corporation NS Nurse Supervisor NSCB National Structure Code for Buildings NSCP National Structural Code of Philippines NSO National Statistics Office NTC National Telecommunications Commission OCD Office of Civil Defense OPCEN Operation center PAGASA Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration PAHO Pan American Health Organization PD Presidential Decree PEAC Pre-Qualification, Evaluation and Awards Committee for Consultancy PEIS PHIVOLCS Earthquake Intensity Scale PERR Philippine Earthquake Reconnaissance Report PFZ Philippine Fault Zone PGA Peak Ground Acceleration PGV Peak Ground Velocity PHA Philippine Hospital Association PHIVOLCS Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology PICE Philippine Institute of Civil Engineering PIO Public Information Officer PLDT Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company PNCC Philippine National Construction Corporation PNP Philippine National Police PNRC Philippine National Red Cross PPA Philippine Ports Authority PTSD Post-traumatic Stress Disorder RA Republic Act RB Road Board RC Reinforced Concrete RCDG Reinforced Concrete Deck Girder RES Regional Equipment Services ROD Regional Operations Division RQD Rock Quality Designation RROZ Rescue & Relief Operation Zones RS Resident Survey RVS Rapid Visual Screening

-xxiii-


S.W.M.O Solid Waste Management Office SARS Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome SEAOC Structural Engineers Association of California SFS Sub Fire Stations SO Surveillance Officer and RSI SOP Standard Operating Procedure SPT Standard Penetration Tests SS Strike Slip SUMA Supply Management Methodology SWD Solid Waste Department TOT Training of Trainers UBC Uniform Building Code UHLP Unified Home Lending Pregram UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UN-OCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs USGS U.S. Geological Survey UTM Universal Transverse Mercator Projection VCA Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment VFS Valley Fault System WB World Bank WHO World Health Organization WVF West Valley Fault WVFS West Valley Fault System

-xxiv-

Main Report 2 Part III Understandings for Master Plan

-Conditions, Earthquake Damages and Urban Vulnerabilities-

Part III-1 Background of Metropolitan Manila for Disaster Management Plan

Chapter 7. Past Major Natural Disaster in the Philippines

Final Report

CHAPTER 7. PAST MAJOR NATURAL DISASTER IN THE PHILIPPINES

7.1 Past Natural Disaster – Damages, Responses and Recovery Processes

7.1.1 Recent Disaster Situation The Philippines has suffered from various types of natural disaster for a long time. M.L. P. Bautista et al.(2002) summarized the situation as follows:

The Philippines has been battling the onslaught of natural hazards. This is not surprising considering its geographic location. For the last 35 years, the Philippines was affected by 10 earthquakes with magnitude greater than 7.0. Yearly, about 20 tropical cyclones visit the country, about five of them causing significant damages. The Philippines also has 220 volcanoes, 22 of which are considered active having had eruptions for the last 10,000 years. Its most active volcano is Mayon followed by Taal, Bulusan, Kanloan and Hibok-Hibok. Pinatubo Volcano, which was quiet for 600 years, erupted in June 12-15, 1991. It ejected 5 cu. km. of pyroclastic materials and 0.5 cu. km. of ash. Its 1991 eruption is considered as the second biggest in the 20th century with its thick ash circling the globe twice and even causing global temperatures to drop by 2 degrees C years after the event. Other significant natural hazards are droughts and floods, which also caused economic and human losses.

National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC)- Office of Civil Defense (OCD) summarized natural and manmade disaster statistics from 1990 to 2001(Table 7.1.1 and Figure 7.1.1). Almost 20 to 80 cases of natural disasters have occurred annually. During this time, 16,632 persons were dead, 18,756 persons were injured and 3,997 persons were missing. Total damaged properties were estimated as 165,200 millions of Pesos. Especially great hazards as follows occurred during last 10 years: 1990: July 16 Earthquake, 1991: Mt Pinatubo Eruption, 1991: Ormoc Flood, 1993: Mt Mayon Eruption, 1994: Mindoro Earthquake, 1999: Dec 12-Earthquake, 2001: Typoon Feria, 2001: Typoon TS Nanang. Total dead persons exceeded 2000 in year 1990 and 1991. Furthermore, a lot of manmade disaster occurred and total occurrence of disaster reached to 1,931 cases and total damaged properties were estimated as 16,808 millions of Pesos.

National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC)- Office of Civil Defense (OCD) summarized “Lessons learned from past disasters” in their web site. These are shown in Table 7.1.2 to Table 7.1.6. Some of the recommendations are already applied. Various disaster-counter measures have been actually applied especially after 1990 July 16 Earthquake. Earthquake monitoring system in PHIVOLCS is being strengthened. Earthquake drills are undertaken comprehensively by MMDA and PHIVOLCS. OCD is proposing enactment of laws that will mitigate earthquake impacts. In these considerations, capability built-up of local government disaster coordination councils

-7-1-


(DCC) is often stated. This is because Presidential Decree No. 1566 defines the responsibility of local government in disaster management. However, increasing disasters do not always allow each local DCC to cope with these recommendations sufficiently.

7.1.2 Presidential Decree No. 1566 as basis for Disaster Countermeasure This Decree was promulgated on June 11, 1978 and it calls for the "Strengthening of the Philippine Disaster Control Capability and Establishing the National Program on Community Disaster Preparedness" (http://www.ndcc.gov.ph/dm_laws.html#Decree). The six main policies of this decree are: [M.L. P. Bautista et al.(2002)] 1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

It is the responsibility of all government departments, bureaus, agencies and instrumentalities to prepare plans of their emergency functions and activities; The National Government exists to support the local governments in times of emergencies and according to their levels of assignments. All national government offices in the field shall support the operations of the local government. The primary responsibility during emergencies rests on the government agencies in the affected areas in coordination with the local people. The responsibility of leadership rests on the provincial governor, city and municipal mayors, (and barangay chairman), each according to his area of responsibility. Self-reliance shall be developed by promoting and encouraging the spirit of self-help and mutual assistance among the local officials and their constituents. Each political and administrative subdivision of the country shall utilize all available resources in the area before asking for assistance from neighboring entities or higher authority.

This decree is the basis for any consideration, preparation and implementation for coping with disasters. Details of the decree are explained in chapter 10 in this report.

-7-2-

Final Report

Table 7.1.1 Summary of Natural and Manmade Disasters from 1990 to 2001

Casualties Affected Population Houses Damaged Damage to Properties

YEAR Disaster OccurrencesNo. of Occur- rence Dead Injured Missing Families Persons Totally Partially

in Millions of Pesos

GRAND TOTAL 2607 16632 18756 3997 13312230 65335549 1042476 3054619 165200.50

1990 Natural Disasters 36 723 1506 312 1490036 7561893 223593 637494 16117.36 Man made Disasters 64 0 July 16, Earthquake 1 1283 2786 321 227918 1255248 25207 77249 12225.04 SUB-TOTAL 101 2006 4292 633 1717954 8817141 248800 714743 28342.40

1991 Natural Disasters 18 5271 551 1284 200255 1020515 15517 84062 6255.26 Man made Disasters 37 54 27 10 1015 4858 0 Mt Pinatubo Eruption 1 850 184 23 249371 1180132 40867 67862 10624.00 SUB-TOTAL 56 6175 762 1317 450641 2205505 56384 151924 16879.26

1992 Natural Disasters 16 155 162 56 377566 1891040 3416 8084 9302.11 Man made Disasters 35 23 133 867 4887 590 1543 13.00 SUB-TOTAL 51 178 295 56 378433 1895927 4006 9627 9315.11

1993 Natural Disaster 57 878 1746 247 1884428 9337911 164623 445423 21097.75 Manmade Disasters 115 285 105 6 51696 234893 0 Mt Mayon Eruption 1 3614 17883 72.72 SUB-TOTAL 173 1163 1851 253 1939738 9590687 164623 445423 21170.47

1994 Natural Disasters 65 293 255 56 686254 3385193 59051 223911 3570.81 Manmade Disasters 174 101 29 1 12248 56097 1914 58490 750.52 Mindoro Earthquake 1 83 420 8 22454 134712 1530 6030 515.00 SUB-TOTAL 240 477 704 65 720956 3576002 62495 288431 4836.32

1995 Natural Disasters 87 1353 3040 683 1781439 8971363 294517 719779 16658.34 Manmade Disasters 302 397 582 108 31175 150906 1202 297 2157.33 SUB-TOTAL 389 1750 3622 791 1812614 9122269 295719 720076 18815.67




1999 Natural Disasters 73 400 150 48 997180 4854841 5797 26713 4034.35 Manmade Disasters 161 249 329 59 40417 133339 986 104 1092.63 Dec 12-Earthquake 1 5 40 87 356 3.99 SUB-TOTAL 235 654 519 107 1037684 4988536 6783 26817 5130.97

2000 Natural Disasters 89 641 538 135 1628881 8093821 25122 198419 9158.18 Manmade Disasters 240 916 1145 12 165837 865304 11507 2307 0.48 Mt Mayon Eruption 1 14114 68426 89.86 SUB-TOTAL 330 1557 1683 147 1808832 9027551 36629 200726 9248.52

2001 Natural Disasters 71 511 1472 160 887884 4212132 16393 58302 8369.71 (Mt Mayon included) 2 11529 56853 48.82 Manmade Disasters 246 345 882 64 53602 294806 4357 149 804.13 SUB-TOTAL 319 856 2354 224 953015 4563791 20750 58451 9222.66

Source: National disaster coordinating council - office of civil defense, http://www.ndcc.gov.ph/home_Disasters1990-2001.html

-7-3-


020406080

100

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

No. of Occurrence

02000400060008000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Dead Injured Missing

0250000050000007500000

10000000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Affected Population (Families) Affected Population (Persons)

0

10000

20000

30000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Damage to Properties (in Millions pesos)

0200000400000600000800000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Totally Damaged Houses Partially Damaged Houses

Figure 7.1.1 Damages of Natural Disaster in the Philippines from 1990 to 2001 1990: July 16 Earthquake, 1991: Mt Pinatubo Eruption, 1991: Ormoc Flood, 1993: Mt Mayon Eruption, 1994: Mindoro Earthquake 1999: Dec 12-Earthquake, 2001: Typhoon Feria, 2001: Typhoon TS Nanang Source: National disaster coordinating council - office of civil defense, http://www.ndcc.gov.ph/home_Disasters1990-2001.html,

compiled by JICA Study Team

-7-4-

Final Report

Table 7.1.2 Lessons Learned from Past Disasters (NDCC and OCD) - Earthquake

DISASTER LESSONS LEARNED RECOMMENDATIONS

Earthquake 1. Need to upgrade earthquake monitoring through the provision of advanced seismic equipment and establishment of additional seismic stations in strategic sites of the country

- Upgrade existing monitoring set-up

2. Need for upgrading awareness and preparedness of Filipinos about geologic phenomena like earthquakes and volcanic activities

- Inclusion of geologic hazards in the elementary school curriculum

3. Need for effective and fast relief rescue management and implementation during times of natural calamities

- Creation of teams of trained personnel in rescue operations and provide them with the necessary logistics and appropriate equipment

4. Need for effective and proper land use management and inclusion of preventive measures against adverse effects of geologic hazards in urban development

- Conduct information and education campaign (IEC) regarding geologic hazards in school and communities and include preventive measures in the regional and national urban planning

- Strict enforcement of national building code should be done to ensure safety of buildings and structures

5. Need for coordination and facilitation of entry of foreign assistance

- Institutionalize existing procedures of coordination and facilitation of entry of foreign assistance

6. Failure of local DCCs to react immediately during emergencies.

- Retrain/revitalize/ reorganize DCCs at all levels - Require LGUs to prepare functional disaster plans- Strict implementation of 2% budgetary reserve for

disaster operations under PD #477 and allocation of funds for disaster preparedness under PD #1566.

7. Need for the establishment of effective management relief centers and staging areas for relief responses in affected areas.

- Determination of relief goods requirements for the duration of relief operations and acquisition of same

8. Need for an effective quick- response rescue/recovery capability

- Organize/train the rescue/recovery/evacuation team of NDCC and local DCCs with AFP unit as nucleus

- Procurement of special equipment for 200-men set-up for rescue/recovery/evacuation purposes

9. Need for an immediate damage assessment/ feedback information as basis of decision-making by NDCC and tasked agencies.

- Local DCCs to form a survey team for immediate dispatch in affected areas where communication lines are cut-off

- Back up communications to be readily available for damage assessment and reporting purposes

10. Need to decentralize decision-making on rescue, recovery and relief management to tasked agencies

- Spell out an NDCC policy on decentralization of decision- making during emergencies

Source: National disaster coordinating council - office of civil defense, http://www.ndcc.gov.ph/home_lessons%20learned.html#Top

-7-5-


Table 7.1.3 Lessons Learned from Past Disasters (NDCC and OCD) - Fire


Manor Hotel 1. Need to review the fire and building code of the Philippines

- Strict implementation of Fire Code and Building Code of the Philippines

- Proper inspection of vital facilities by concerned authorities

2. Need to conduct intensive training of responders for urban search and rescue operations

- Conduct of Intensive training of responders for urban search and rescue operations

3. Need to conduct regular fire drill in all establishments

- Regular conduct of fire drills in vital facilities

4. Need to implement the Incident Command System during operations

- Establish an Incident Command System during disasters and clearly define roles of the ICS Structure

5. Lack of Self-contained breathing apparatus and other rescue equipment

- Allocate additional funds specially for purchase of Self-contained breathing apparatus and other rescue equipment

MV CARMELA SEA TRAGEDY

Responders: 1. Responders were hardly identified due to lack

of uniform / identification 2. Improper handling/disposal of casualties 3. Lack of coordination and no established

Incident Command System (ICS) 4. No Standard Operating Procedures LGUs 1. Triage for medical was not applied 2. Failures to control the crowd 3. No Media Center was set-up 4. Lack of uniform and identification 5. LDCC is hesitant to augment/release funds

for the purpose 6. Networking between the PDCC and CDCC is

weak 7. Lack of necessary knowledge on emergency

management

- Provision of uniforms to response teams for purposes of identification

- Reorientation/networking of local DCCs giving emphasis on SAR, Incident Command System and Emergency Medical Services

- To clearly define RA 8185 regarding utilization of 5% Local Calamity Fund

- Strict implementation of Maritime Laws Specific training design for Local Chief

Executives (LCEs) - Equipage of response teams to deal with

maritime disasters - Proper observance in the handling of

cargoes/combustible inflammable materials - Augmentation support from the management

for such operations


Table 7.1.4 Lessons Learned from Past Disasters (NDCC and OCD) - Flood


ORMOC TRAGEDY

1. Ineffective watershed management program 2. Need to establish/identify flood hazard zones,

warning system and flood mitigating measures

3. Poor drainage system 4. Need to have massive reforestation program

nationwide, especially in strategic watersheds and headwaters

5. Assessment and evaluation of flood high risk areas

- There must be an affective watershed management program

- Develop efficient drainage system - Massive and aggressive reforestation

program nationwide, especially in strategic watersheds and headwaters

- Assess other potential disaster areas


-7-6-

Final Report

Table 7.1.5 Lessons Learned from Past Disasters (NDCC and OCD) - Tropical cyclones


TYPHOON FERIA (2001)

1. The need to immediately release of NDCC financial assistance to dead and injured victims

2. The need to have direct communication linkage with provincial and municipal DCCs to validate reports received from other sources

3. The need for awareness and education of people living along areas vulnerable to disasters remains a major issue

4. Mitigation and preparedness activities need to be intensified to minimize casualties and damage properties

5. Discrepancy on the figures on disaster impact also remains a major issue

6. The need to upgrade the rescue capability of local responders on SAR

- Immediate restoration of power lines in all affected areas; repair and rehabilitation of damaged roads and bridges by local DPWH and Provincial Engineering Office

- DSWD to provide Emergency Shelter Assistance to families with partially damaged houses and Core Shelter Assistance to families whose houses were totally destroyed

- DSWD and PSWDO to implement Food-For-Work program to support families while they repair/rebuild their houses

- National and provincial offices of the Department of Agriculture to extend technical assistance and other services such as farm inputs, seeds, easy loan terms to the affected farmers for immediate recovery of their losses

- Train barangay-based Quick Response Teams and other special operating units

- Reorient key implementors of disaster management focusing on lower DCCs to strengthen the system

- Augment Provincial Disaster Operations Centers with NDCC Calamity Fund

TS NANANG (2001)

1. Urgent need for effective land use management and institution of precautionary measures against adverse effects of geologic hazards and the like

2. 52nd EBDE, AFP needs available strategic POL reserves to effectively deliver timely emergency response services

3. 52nd EBDE, AFP needs to replace vintage equipment which hampers the rehabilitation effort of the concerned AFP unit

- Implementation of proper land use (Zoning)- Institution of precautionary measures against

adverse effects of disasters - Augmentation support or allocation of funds

from the higher headquarters for the purpose

2002 destructive cyclones

1. Delayed reporting by some lower DCCs and no existing SOPs at the Disaster Operations Center

2. Need for close coordination with the deputized coordinators even during weekends

3. Lack of manpower and funds for operations purposes.

- Improvement of alert warning/ communications and linkages with NGOs and volunteers

- Review the lapses in the system to improve emergency response operations


-7-7-


Table 7.1.6 Lessons Learned from Past Disasters (NDCC and OCD) - Volcanic Eruption


The local DCCs and LGUs as well as the national implementing agencies have been very responsible and effective in disaster management particularly in terms of monitoring and warning dissemination, rescue, evacuation, relief and rehabilitation operations yet there is still a need for foreign technical assistance. Since we lack experts on lahar, the assistance provided by theUS Government through USGS Team and the Japanese Government through the JICA had complemented the government’s present capability.

- It is therefore imperative for the government to equip all RDCCs, particularly those in disaster-prone areas with high technology equipment and devices for monitoring and warning dissemination, helicopters and heavy duty trucks to support immediate SAR operations

MT PINATUBO

1. Successes: Unrest of long dormant volcano must be treated urgently Willingness to make and to act on uncertain forecasts as needed for successful risk mitrigation Manned lahar watch points are viable valuable parts of the monitoring efforts Video portrayal of volcanic hazards is a lifesaver Satellites or cellular phones are needed for reliable communications during major eruptions because cellular phones worked when all other communications had failed

2. Shortcomings: Planning for worst case scenarios needs to consider combinations of events – for example, an eruption and a typhoon together Manuals instructing local readers how to prepare should be brought to each future crisis Plans for notification must be streamlined and tested Seismic networks need redundant, dual gain or wide dynamic-range instrument, to allow survival of a sufficient number of stations and to keep recording on line and on scale

MT MAYON During the duration of the Mayon operations, one single and concerted effort on disaster management program was effectively implemented. DCCs from the provincial down to the barangay level had been very responsive in terms of preparedness, prevention and mitigation with their objective of reducing vulnerability of the people to disaster. There was a pro-active transparent and institution-directed management system wherein quick and immediate reaction to the emergency situation was made possible. All available resources were pre positioned at strategic places for rapid distribution. Relief goods and donations intended for the victims and evacuees were directed to CDCC and MDCC immediately.


References to 7.1.1

Maria Leonila P. Bautista and Bartolome C. Bautista, Earthquake disaster countermeasures in the Philippines, Country report, Asia- Oceania symposium on information technology and strategy for earthquake disaster reduction, February 2002.

-7-8-

Final Report

National Disaster Coordinating Council and Office Of Civil Defense, Summary of Natural and Manmade Disasters from 1990 to 2001, http://www.ndcc.gov.ph/home_Disasters1990-2001.html

National Disaster Coordinating Council and Office Of Civil Defense, Lessons learned from previous disasters, http://www.ndcc.gov.ph/home_lessons%20learned.html#Top

National Disaster Coordinating Council and Office Of Civil Defense, Basic laws on the implementation of disaster management programs in the Philippines, http://www.ndcc.gov.ph/dm_laws.html#Decree

7.2 Past Earthquake Disaster-Damages, Responses and Recovery Processes

7.2.1 Latest Large Earthquake Disaster in Baguio In the late afternoon of July 16 1990, wide area of northern part of central Luzon island was hit by a very strong earthquake with magnitude of 7.8. The epicenter of this earthquake was located at Cabanatuan City, Nueva Vizcaya Province. According to the PHIVOLCS, this strong earthquake was caused by structural movement of the Philippine Fault Zone, which is a major fault system extending from north to south in Luzon island. Due to the strong shaking of the earth, extensive areas in Benguet ,Tarlac, Pangasinan and Nueva Vizcaya Provinces were heavily damaged. Also, surrounding areas of these provinces were damaged extensively. Metropolitan Manila felt seismic intensity at 7 and buildings along the coastal lowland area of the Manila Bay were slightly damaged.

Based on the report prepared by NDCC in 1990 and DPWH, UNDP/UNCRD et al., in 1992, emergency disaster management and recovery processes will be reviewed to identify existing problems taking into consideration this most recent and largest earthquake disaster in the Philippines.

7.2.2 Outline of the Earthquake Damages Area affected by this earthquake was the whole Northern and Central Luzon covering regions I, II, III and the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR) and part of Southern Luzon. In these areas, the provinces of Benguet, Mt.Province, La Union, Pangasinan, Nueva Vizcaya, Nueva Ecijia and Tarlac as well as the cities of Baguio, Dagupan, Cabanatuan and San Josa were seriously damaged.

In upland area such as Baguio city, damages were extensively found not only for buildings but also infrastructures such as road and bridges. Many land slides and land collapses were caused in steep slope area. Debris of these landslides blocked the mountain and caused road traffic in many places for a long time.

-7-9-


Liquefaction took place in coastal lowland area such as Dagupan city. Due to these phenomena, many buildings were tilted or a lower part of buildings subsided into the ground. Many bridges in lowland area also collapsed.

Total casualty was counted at 1,283. Furthermore, 321 persons were missing and 2,786 were injured. A total of 227,918 families and 1,255,248 persons were affected. In Region I, total casualty was 191 and 29 were missing. The provinces of Pangasinan and La Union had 87 and 80 casualties, respectively. In Region II, total casualty was 191 and 94 were missing. Out of that, Nueva Vizcaya had 190 casualties and 94 missing. In Region III, total casualty was 245 and only 2 missing. Nueva Ecija and Cabanatuan City combined have 212 casualties. Almost 50% of total casualties occurred at the Cordillera Administrative Region. Baguio City had 385 casualties and 184 missing whereas Benguet had 243 casualties and 2 missing.

Among affected buildings, about 25,207 were totally damaged and 77,249 were partially damaged.

7.2.3 Emergency Management by the Government of Philippines The seven immediate concerns aimed primarily to restore the normal living condition of the people in the earthquake stricken area were prepared. These were: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

Rehabilitation of road networks Provision of temporary housing/shelters Environmental sanitation in evacuation areas Normalization of basic services Relocation, livelihood and water supply in flooded areas Demolition/clearing of disaster debris Restoration of normal flow of commerce and trade.

Most of these activities have been carried out by the Presidential Task Force on Rehabilitation, which assumed the second phase of the government’s response to the disaster. The President and government offices responded quickly to take necessary measures for rescue operations and restoration activities such as issuing a series of Presidential Proclamation and budget preparation.

7.2.4 Restoration of Roads and Bridges DPWH as the responsible agency for road and bridge restoration in the affected area started resurfacing work, prevention of the destruction of the soil and other measures immediately after the quake. The three main roads to Baguio City such as Kennon, Marcos Highway and Naguilian were heavily damaged. These main roads were rendered impassible by landslide debris and Baguio City was isolated for about three days. Heavy machines could not reach these areas promptly and people had to remove rocks and soils by hand for rescue operations.

-7-10-

Final Report

Naguilian Road was partially opened on the third day after the earthquake event but Kennon road and Marcos Highway have not opened a month after the earthquake. Naguilian road was the only connection route to Baguio City. However, traffic was limited for one-way and was open only during day time. The restoration for the main road networks and roads for village areas needed longer time. These were the restoration condition for main road network and road restoration for village areas need longer time. Bridge restoration also needed a longer time. It took three weeks for one-way traffic to be opened in the case of the heavily damaged Carmen Bridge in Pangasinan. It took a month to build a temporary wooden bridge for pedestrians across the damaged Magsaysay Bridge in Dagupan City.

7.2.5 Rehabilitation/Clearing of Damaged Buildings In Baguio city, building damage was serious. The Famous buildings such as Hyatt Terrace Hotel and Nevada Hotel totally collapsed. In addition to these collapsed buildings, many another damaged buildings in the city were impossible to restore. Demolition of these buildings and removal of debris required plenty of heavy machineries and long period of time after the event.

In Dagupan city where liquefaction had extensively occurred, many buildings tilted or subsided. Heavily tilted buildings were later demolished. Buildings that subsided were rehabilitated by burying the floor that subsided. A three-story building was converted to a two story one as an example.

Public facilities such as city halls, churches and school buildings were also damaged. Totally collapsed buildings were demolished but slightly damaged city halls were used for daily operation. Damaged school buildings were checked and those confirmed to have no problems were used for re-opening classes. However, many schools were closed for more than a month.

7.2.6 Cost Estimation by Earthquake Damage Total amount of damages, based on damage investigation by each responsible agency was 12.2 Billion pesos in 1990 cost. For the reconstruction of earthquake damages, following items were programmed; 1)

2) 3)

4)

Roads and Bridges by DPWH, Rehabilitation and reconstruction of national highways, bridges, and their access roads. Provincial, barangay, and municipal roads and bridges Housing by NHA. Reconstruction of 7700 houses, repair of 6700 units. Health Facilities by DOH. Reconstruction and repair of 45 hospitals and 350 other health related facilities. Irrigation Facilities by NIA. Reconstruction and repair of irrigation facilities such as dams, dikes, embankments and canals.

-7-11-


5)

6)

7)

Flood Control Drainage by DPWH. Reconstruction and repair of Flood control and drainage structures and restoration of dikes, embankments, slope protection and river training works. Water Supply by DPWH and LWUA. Reconstruction and repair of water supply system in rural/barangay areas, mainly the rehabilitation of wells (DPWH). Reconstruction and repair of water supply system in urban areas including elevated concrete reservoirs, deep wells, repair and transmission of distribution pipelines(LWUA). Schools and other governmental buildings by DPWH. Government of the Philippines introduced external funds from the World Bank and ADB as a loan, and bilateral assistance from the U.S.A., Japan, and others to accomplish reconstruction program above mentioned.

-7-12-

Chapter 8. Social Systems and Conditions

Final Report

-8-1-

CHAPTER 8. SOCIAL SYSTEMS AND CONDITIONS 8.1 Socio-economic Condition of Metropolitan Manila

8.1.1 Economic Condition Metropolitan Manila is the center of financial, commercial, social, cultural, and educational center and the seat of the national government. Its continuous development through centuries has made the Metropolitan Manila the premier metropolis in the Philippines.

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Metropolitan Manila reached P835.6 billion (US$28.4 billion) in 1997. The share of Metropolitan Manila in the total economy’s GDP initially went down from 30.1 percent in 1980 to 28.3 percent in 1985 before recovering to 32.7 percent in 1997 (refer to Table 8.1.1). For 1997, the share of service sector and manufacturing of Metropolitan Manila in the total economy is approximately 40%.

Table 8.1.1 Share of Metropolitan Manila in the Total Economy’s GDP

% 1975 1980 1985 1990 1992 1997 Ave 1985-1997

GDP 28.99 30.16 28.35 32.27 32.39 32.74 34.48

GVA in Industry Sector 44.18 40.94 42.97 38.82 38.3 38.41 38.71

GVA in Manufacturing 47.86 48.02 45.8 42.97 42.03 43.26 43.82

GVA in Construction 38.4 32.84 40.97 36.49 34.09 30.08 30.46

GVA in Service Sector 37.84 37.89 35.06 43.29 43.69 44.09 44.81

Source: Philippine Institute for Development Studies

In 1997, per capita GDP in Metropolitan Manila stood at P82,832 (US$2,811). Metropolitan Manila continues to dominate all the other regions with a per capita income that is 2.5 times the national per capita GDP of P33,722 (US$1,144). These are described in Table 8.1.2 below.

Table 8.1.2 Per Capita GDP in Metropolitan Manila and National

Pesos 1975 1980 1985 1990 1992 1995 1997

Metropolitan Manila

6,690.74 13,470.54 25,019.63 43,248.94 51,037.53 65,997.11 82,832.38

National 2,726.30 5,502.34 11,207.01 17,611.42 21,107.53 2,7778.00 33,722.49


Poverty line of 1997 for a family of 5 is P71,800 per year. In Metropolitan Manila, 7 percent live below this line out of 2.0 million households, while the national poverty incidence was 32.1%. The poverty incidence is shown in Table 8.1.3.


-8-2-

Table 8.1.3 Poverty Incidence

Reduction % 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997

85-94 85-97 Metropolitan Manila 23 21.6 13.2 8 7.1 15 15.9

National 44.2 40.2 39.9 35.5 32.1 8.7 12.1


These variables support the economical concentration in Metropolitan Manila versus the national. Furthermore, these tendencies are becoming stronger in recent years.

8.1.2 Urban Development 1) Historical Development of Metropolitan Manila

Metropolitan Manila has been constantly growing and is expected to expand further. The present Metropolitan Manila has 636 km2 and 10 million population as of 2000, while the actual metropolitan area has expanded beyond the administrative boundary and houses 14.5 million. According to the Metropolitan Manila Urban Transportation Integration Study (MMUTIS), March 1999, it is predicted that this will further reach 25 million with the expanded urbanized area of 1,500 km2 (refer to Figure 8.1.1).

Historically, Metropolitan Manila’s growth and expansion follows common historical patterns, that is, initial densification of population followed by commercialization and the outward movement of residents to the suburbs. The suburbs subsequently attract commercial developments, and the cycle continues without let up and apparent order. Metropolitan Manila has experienced this phenomenon since the 1970s. This expansion has been continuous, but no longer confined to National Capital Region (NCR), but to the Greater Manila Region (GMR).

Recent urban developments in Metropolitan Manila can be summarized by the following characteristics: 1) Intensified population density in some inner areas, and population decrease also in inner

area, degenerating sprawl phenomena 2) Continuous suburbanization for the residential housings 3) Mixed land use and squatter area are evident 4) Inadequate land use and development control

Final Report

-8-3-

Figure 8.1.1 Expansion of Urban Land


-8-4-

Uncontrolled sprawl is still the norm in Metropolitan Manila. LGUs, cities and municipalities, were transferred with the powers, particularly urban planning and development controls, by the Local Government Code (LGC) enacted in 1991. While many have embraced comprehensive planning and adopted zoning regulations, all are generally ineffective in enforcing land use restrictions and securing future road rights of way. Major reasons for the inadequate use of land, meaning the gap between the land use plan and the actual land use are: 1) decentralization policy without main control, and 2) uncontrollable social factors, such as in-migration and illegal settlement.

2) Land use Classification in Metropolitan Manila

Land use classification in Metropolitan Manila is summarized in Table 8.1.4 and Figure 8.1.2.

Table 8.1.4 Land Use Classification in Metropolitan Manila

Land use 1972 1980 1991

Ha % Ha % Ha %

Residential 13,570 28.4 18,948 29.4 41,405 65.0

Commercial 530 1.1 2,573 4.0 1,911 3.0

Industrial 1,365 2.8 3,037 4.7 2,548 4.0

Institutional 1,800 3.7 2,892 4.5 3,185 5.0

Utilities 890 1.4 637 1.0

Open Space 30,980 64.0 14,380 22.3 5,096 8.0

Agricultural 7,806 12.1 5,733 9.0

Cemetery/ Memorial Parks 637 1.0

Recreation/ Parks/ Sports 13,012 20.2 637 1.0

Reviers/ Waterways 1,911 3.0

Reclamation 671 1.0

Agro-Industrial 236 0.4

Total 48,425 100.0 64,445 100.0 63,700 100 Note: 1972 figures from Manosa (1974) Neda Journal of Development, vol 1/2

1981 figures from Metropolitan Manila Commission (1983) 1991 figures from NCR Regional Development Plan (1993-1998)


Metropolitan Manila is predominantly composed of residential area. This tends to continue, because the share of residential area had increased drastically within a decade from the 80s to 90s. On the other hand, open spaces had decreased in great amount, that it now only shares 8% of the total land area in Metropolitan Manila while it was 22% in the 80s. It is evident that this tends to continue as population continues to grow in metropolitan manila.

Since 1986, land use of this area has changed in its urban extent. Thus The Study Team newly compiled an existing land use map. Features of the newly compiled map are as follows: - Base data: Aerophoto, scale 1:10,000, taken 2003, supplemented with field verification - Minimum mapping unit: 1ha（10,000m2）

Final Report

-8-5-

- Classification types: As shown in Table 8.1.5.

Figure 8.1.3 shows the existing land use of Metropolitan Manila in 2003.

Table 8.1.5 Definition of Classification of Existing Land Use Map

Classification Type Definition

1 Residential An area within a city or municipality principally for dwelling/housing purposes VL1 1-5 dwelling units per ha. (1-2 storey building) VL2 1-5 dwelling units per ha. (3-4 storey building) VL3 1-5 dwelling units per ha. (5 or more) L1 6-20 dwelling units per ha. (1-2 storey building) L2 6-20 dwelling units per ha. (3-4 storey building) L3 6-20 dwelling units per ha. (5 or more) M1 21-65 dwelling units per ha. (1-2 storey building) M2 21-65 dwelling units per ha. (3-4 storey building) M3 21-65 dwelling units per ha. (5 or more) H1 66-90 dwelling units per ha. (1-2 storey building) H2 66-90 dwelling units per ha. (3-4 storey building) H3 66-90 dwelling units per ha. (5 or more) V1 91+ dwelling units per ha. (1-2 storey building) V2 91+ dwelling units per ha. (3-4 storey building) V3 91+ dwelling units per ha. (5 or more) Informal Settlers Shanty, temporary housing

2 Commercial and Business

Area supporting or promoting commercial and other business activities: 1. Principally for trade and services and business activities ordinarily referred to as

the Central Business District. 2. Quasi-trade business activities and service industries performing complimentary/

supplementary functions to principally commercial zone (CBD). 3. Intended for regional shopping centers such as large malls and other commercial

activities

3 Industrial An area designed for specific types of industry such as manufacturing, refining, fabricating, assembly, storage, parking and other incidental uses

4 Government and Quasi-Public An area designed for government services and quasi-public services

5 Educational & cultural An area designed for educational purposes

6 Health & welfare An area designed for health and welfare purposes

7 Park & recreational Area reserved exclusively for parks, playgrounds, recreational uses and other similar facilities amenities

8 Religious & cemetery An area designed for religious activities and burial place/ground.

9 Transport & Service Facilities An area designed for transport and service facilities.

10 Military An area for military use

11 Agricultural land

Land devoted or suitable for cultivation of the soil, poultry fish or agriculture production including the harvesting of such farm products, and other farm activities and practices performed in conjunction with such farming operations done by persons whether natural or juridical and not classified by law as mineral land, forest land or national park, residential land or industrial land.

12 Grassland Area covered with grass, including grazing

13 Forestland Area which is at least 10 percent stocked with forest trees, wild palm, bamboo or brush.

14 Water Related An area designed for water related use or facilities (i.e. fish pond, water treatment plants)

15 Open spaces A tract of unused land 16 Rivers/ Bodies of Water Rivers/ Bodies of Water


-8-6-

Figure 8.1.2 Metropolitan Manila’s Land Use of 1986 (partly updated in 1996)

Final Report

-8-7-

Figure 8.1.3 Existing Land Use Map (Compiled in 2003)


-8-8-

8.1.3 Population Population distribution is one of the major important sources for seismic damage analysis. Human casualties will be calculated with population data together with building damage result.

1) Current Condition

The National Statistics Office (hereinafter referred to as “NSO”) had implemented the population census in 2000. The Study Team will use the data from NSO. Table 8.1.6 shows nighttime population in Metropolitan Manila by each LGUs.

Table 8.1.6 Night-time Population in Metropolitan Manila

Land Area

Barangay No

Population Population

Growth Density (pop/ha) Ave. Pop.

Barangay LGU (km2) 2000 1995 1990 95-00 90-95 2000 1,995 2000 1995

NCR 636 1,694 9,906,048 9,454,040 7,948,402 0.94% 3.53% 156 149 5,851 5584 City of Manila 38.3 897 1,581,082 1,654,761 1,601,234 -0.91% 0.66% 413 432 1,763 1845

City of Mandaluyong 27 27 278,474 286,870 248,143 -0.59% 2.94% 107 110 10,314 10625 City of Marikina 38.9 14 391,170 357,231 310,227 1.83% 2.86% 101 92 27,941 25517 City of Las Piñas 41.5 20 472,780 413,086 297,102 2.74% 6.81% 114 100 23,639 20654 City of Makati 29.9 33 444,867 484,176 453,170 -1.68% 1.33% 149 162 13,481 14672

City of Muntinlupa 46.7 9 379,310 399,846 278,411 -1.05% 7.51% 81 86 42,146 44427 City of Parañaque 38.3 16 449,811 391,296 308,236 2.83% 4.89% 117 102 28,113 24456

City of Pasig 13 30 505,058 471,075 397,679 1.40% 3.45% 389 362 16,835 15703 City of Valenzuela 47 32 485,433 437,165 340,227 2.12% 5.14% 103 93 15,170 13661

Kalookan City 55.8 188 1,177,604 1,023,159 763,415 2.85% 6.03% 211 183 6,264 5442 Malabon City 23.4 21 338,855 347,484 280,027 -0.50% 4.41% 145 148 16,136 16547

Nabotas 2.6 14 230,403 229,039 187,479 0.12% 4.09% 886 881 16,457 16360 Pasay City 13.9 201 354,908 408,610 368,366 -2.78% 2.10% 255 294 1,766 2033

Pateros 10.4 10 57,407 55,286 51,409 0.76% 1.46% 55 53 5,741 5529 Queson city 166.2 142 2,173,831 1,989,419 1,669,776 1.79% 3.57% 131 120 15,309 14010

San Juan 10.4 21 117,680 124,187 126,864 -1.07% -0.43% 113 119 5,604 5914 Taguig 33.7 18 467,375 381,350 266,637 4.15% 7.42% 139 113 25,965 21186

Source: * Population:National Statistics Office, 2002, ** Barangay No: National Barangay Operation Office, DILG

From the table, population is increasing remarkably in City of Las Piñas, City of Muntinlupa, Kalookan City and Taguig from 1990 to 1995, which represents more than 6% of population growth. On the contrary, in some LGUs, population migrates outside the city such as City of Manila, City of Muntinlupa, Pasay City and San Juan.

In addition to the population distribution by LGUs, the Study Team received population distribution by Barangay. Figure 8.1.4 shows the population density by Barangay per hectare. However, there are questions on the some of the data. For instance, there are many Barangays with population density of more than 1,200 persons/ha. This is caused by the difference in area between NSO Barangay boundary and MMDA Barangay boundary.

Final Report

-8-9-

Figure 8.1.4 Population Density Distribution by Barangay (persons/ha)


-8-10-

8.2 Urban Planning Systems in Metropolitan Manila With regard to urban planning systems in Metropolitan Manila from perspectives of seismic disaster management plans, the following were identified.

8.2.1 Land use Planning Systems 1) Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for the National Capital Region, March 1981

This ordinance describes the type of zoning and the procedures of implementation. All the local government units, cities and municipalities, are ordered to prepare their own Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) and submit to the Housing and Land use Regulatory Board (HLURB) by December 31, 2002 for ratification. This ordinance includes articles and sections related to urban disaster prevention. However, only the cities of Makati, Pasig, Marikina, Mandaluyong, Muntinlupa, Parañaque, and Las Piñas have complied so far with this ordinance.

This Ordinance describes the type of zoning and the procedures of implementation. There are zones as follows.

Major zones - Residence-1 (R-1): low density residential zone - Residence-2 (R-2): medium density residential zone - Residence-3 (R-3): high density residential zone - Commercial-1 (C-1): minor commercial zone - Commercial-2 (C-2): major commercial zone - Commercial-3 (C-3): metropolitan commercial zone - Industry (I-1): light industrial zone - Industry (I-2): medium industrial zone - Parks and recreation zones

Special areas - Institutional zones (INST) - Agriculture (AGR) - Agro-Industrial (AI) - Fishpond area (FP) - Transport and Utilities area (TRU) - Cultural area (CUL) - Cemetery area (CEM) - Bagon Lipunan site and services (BLISS Site) - Planned area for necessary development (PLAND) - Military Zone

Final Report

-8-11-

“Model Zoning Ordinance” prepared by Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board in 1996 additionally includes some zones as well as restrictions for building shape.

(1) Zones added

“General Residential Zone” and “Socialized Housing Zone” are added to “Residential”, and one more zone to “Commercial” and “Industry” respectively. There are some zones newly added such as “Tourist Zone” and “Forest Zone”.

(2) Building Shape Regulations for Residential Areas - R-1: Development density should be 20 units and below per hectare. Only detached house is

allowed to develop with the height of 10m and below. - R-2: Development density should be 21-65 units per hectare. The maximum height of

building should be 21m.

- R-3：Development density should be 66 units and over per hectare. The height of building should be determined by the floor area ratio which conforms to the capacity of the area’s transportation and other utilities.

2) Articles & Sections relating to Urban Disaster Prevention

Ｔhe Zoning Ordinance describes the following points relating to the disaster prevention.

(1) Article 2, Section 2

One of the purposes of the zoning ordinance is to secure safety. - a. To promote and protect public health, safety, peace, morals, - d. and to insure safety from fire and other dangers;

(2) Article 5, Section 6, Dwelling on Rear Lots

Dwelling on the rear lots should have access to public roads with minimum width of 4m. Two or more buildings may be allowed if a common path to the public roads (right of way) has width of at least 6m.

(3) Article 5, Section-7, Structure to have Access

Every building shall have access to a public street or to a private street open to the public and all structures shall be located on lots so as to provide safe and convenient access for reservicing fire protection units.

(4) Article 5, Section-9-c

At least 5% of total areas of development should be an open space for playground purposes 、provided that more than ten families are located. The size of each playground should be 100 ㎡ at least.


-8-12-

(5) Article 6, Supplementary Regulations, Section -2

The section-2 provides a guideline of location for some selected establishments. Among these there is a description about a filling station, which shall be located at least 200m distance from such institutions as schools, hospitals, churches. Also a buffer strip and adequate fire fighting equipments are required.

3) Observations - As a whole, the existing zoning system will contribute to improving safety of urban areas ,

provided that the zoning carried into effect in everywhere of Metropolitan Manila. - Concrete regulations such as maintaining an access road, limiting a location of filling station

and securing open spaces along the rivers are appreciated to be effective for disaster mitigations.

- Comparing with the systems in Japan, there are differences as described below. 1) As for residential area, strict or in other words, idealistic regulations are introduced

through limitation of building height and setback. On the other hand, regulations for commercial areas seem little, which may deteriorate a safety of space if over-developed.

2) In case of Japan, a zoning of fire proofing district is introduced, especially for promoting fire proofing buildings along the trunk roads in order to formulate a fire break. In the Philippines, there is no such zoning. However, the possibility to achieve similar results still exist since most of lands adjacent to trunk roads are designated to be commercial use which is developed by fire proofing buildings.

Reference: Presidential Degree 399 aimed to control the areas within 500m from the center of trunk roads. However it was not enforced.

8.2.2 Systems for Urban Developments 1) Development Permission

Due to the continuous increase in population including both natural and social increase, the built-up areas in the Metropolitan Manila has expanded and continues. Most of the urban expansion after 1970’s to 1980’s has been done by subdivision and condominium developers, especially in areas, which are considered not suitable for living. Informal settles account for about 36% of the population. Development permission for subdivisions is provided by local governments with the guide of HLURB, following the design criterion listed below.

(1) Processing and Approval of Subdivision Plans (BP220)

BP220, amended in 1995, prescribes the design criterion for a subdivision development precisely. Socialized housing also conforms to these plans. The plan cover various aspects of development, including infrastructure such as roads, parks, water supply, sewerage and the design conditions of lots as well as buildings and houses.

Final Report

-8-13-

Examples - Roads: The Right of Way for Major Road – 10m and over, for Minor Road – 6m and over - Parks & Playgrounds: Ratio to the gross area should be 3.5%-9.0% according to the size of

development.

- Minimum development size: in case of detached house ‐ lot size 72 ㎡, floor size 22 ㎡ - Setback: Frontage 1.5m, Side & Rear 2.0m - Regarding the fire protection:

Provision of fire-hydrants and a cistern by local government Fire reserve added to Capacity of Elevated reservoir Installation of Fire wall into dwellings Installation of Smoke detector

It is supposed that the risk of fire in subdivisions is low, since wooden houses are scarce, and comparatively high level of development quality is required and the development of subdivision usually conforms to the regulations. Thus, it will be sufficiently achieved to secure the spaces for fire fighting, rescue activities and refuge, since the space of parks and roads is properly provided. Following points, however, are matters of arguments. 1) A subdivision is often closed to people except for its residents. It will be difficult to

evacuate from a subdivision to outside and to operate rescue activities from outside, since most of them limit the entrance by a fence. Besides, there is a possibility that a subdivision will be an obstacle for evacuation of the surrounding populace or for fire fighting and rescue activities of the neighbor. Systems copping with a subdivision enclosure in case of emergency will be required.

2) The areas with a disaster risk, like flooding and land slides are generally avoided, it is necessary to take various conditions such as the ground conditions and the existence of hazardous factories nearby into account for designing. In this respect, BP220 only describes little. Subdivision developments are sometimes observed in hazardous areas such as for flooding.

(2) Presidential Decree No.957

P.D.957 is mostly about the regulations for the sale of subdivision lots and condominiums, however, following two points are related to urban space structure.

A. Section 29 ：Right of Way to Public Road

The subdivision without an access to any existing public street must secure a right of way to a public street. And it must be developed and maintained according to the request of the government concerned.


-8-14-

B. Section31： Donation of roads and open spaces to local government

According to the amendment by Presidential Degree 1216, 30% of the gross development area should be allocated to open spaces which includes roads, sidewalk, parks, playgrounds and recreational use, provided that the development exceeds 1ha. A developer or the owner develops roads and parks to donate to the local government. The amendment was introduced to reduce a burden of developer if compared with Presidential Degree 953, which necessitated a developer to allocate 30% of land for open spaces including only parks and playgrounds.

2) Housing

Various types of public housing have been provided for the lower income families. Meanwhile, subdivisions had been developed mostly for upper middle classes by the private sector. Some of those housing programs will be possible for restoration of community or reducing disaster risk of built-up areas. The following are related acts and programs.

(1) Republic Act No.7279 - The Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992

The Act intends to provide the national framework of urban development & housing, and to promote the Socialized Housing mainly for the underprivileged and homeless citizens in urbanized areas through rational utilization of idle lands, and provides also guides for equitable land tenure systems, people’s participation and to improve the capability of local governments. The Act also is the base of housing programs described in below.

(2) Programs leading to a reduction of disaster risk in built-up areas

A. Relocation and Resettlement Program

Local governments in coordination with NHA (National Housing Authority) implement this program to relocate and to resettle people like squatters from public lands or disaster risk areas outside of Metropolitan Manila, which usually requires a lot of efforts to get an agreement with the residents.

B. Medium Housing Program (NHA)

This program intends to provide in-city relocation for squatter families as well as additional housing stock especially in the areas where the cost of land is too high to secure the affordability of targeted clientele. High rise flats were provided once, but the medium rise building (3-5 storey) is constructed in recent years to sell and to lease in combination due to the difficulties of maintenance and environmental deterioration.

Final Report

-8-15-

(3) Programs relating to reconstruction of residential areas

A. Emergency Housing Assistance Program (NHA)

For the housing needs of affected people by natural calamities or man-made disasters, the following relief measures are undertaken. - Provision of temporary shelter - Development of new settlements - Provision of home materials for repair & reconstruction - Construction of evacuation center with communal facilities & utilities

B. Site and services Development Program (NHA)

To meet the need of population increase, this program changes raw lands into serviced home lots mainly for low-income people by land acquisition & development of infrastructure. Loan programs are available for home building also.

Although it is not the program for reconstruction, there is a possibility that this will be adapted for reconstructing highly affected areas or providing a site for relocation.

C. Slum Improvement Program/Zonal Improvement Program

Without relocating the existing occupants, this program improves the infrastructures and the houses through readjustment of various rights and space structures. Therefore its techniques and experience might be useful for the reconstruction of damaged areas. Implementation body of the program is NHA, local governments and land owners.

8.2.3 Urban Infrastructures Within an urban planning system, there is no planning system regarding infrastructures.

Road Network

A zoning map only shows the existing space of roads, except the roads which are proposed and budgeted already. Regarding the road network planning, there are no official planning, except a major trunk road network planning which is studied rather independently from zoning plans by transportation planning. Therefore no guide lines for road network planning including disaster prevention or communal environments exist.

Park and Green

A zoning plan sometimes includes parks and recreational zones for proposed parks, even though it is not common to all cities and municipalities. The number of parks is rather small. Presidential Degree 957 provides the space ratio of parks and playgrounds, but there are no descriptions about the location of parks.


-8-16-

Just as the case of road planning, there are neither guidelines nor standard for park systems.

8.3 Structure, Condition and its Vulnerability of Metropolitan Manila

8.3.1 General 1) Metropolitan Manila as Capital of the Philippines

Metropolitan Manila, or the National Capital Region (NCR), is the smallest of the 16 regions of the Philippines in terms of land area (636km2), which compose only 0.21% of the total area. In spite of the small share of the land, Metropolitan Manila has been in the leading position as capital of Philippines since its establishment. It is the prime financial, commercial, political, social, cultural and educational center.

Share on population and economic activities are very high in NCR compared to the national. The population of Metropolitan Manila is 13% of the total population in the Philippines. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Metropolitan Manila shared 34.5 percent of the national GDP, and per capita GDP was 2.5 times higher than the national per capita GDP in 1997.

NCR is concentrated with important capital functions and hosts governmental institutions, governmental banks, academic institutions such as universities and research centers.

2) Overall Vulnerabilities in Metropolitan Manila

During the administration of President Aquino, which started in 1986, policy-enacting decentralization was enforced and local government units were given more authorization and powers. Nevertheless, local government’s or other local organization’s capacity for planning and enforcement of laws and other subjects differs, which leads to ad-hoc development. Measures taken for the development seems quite ineffective. For example, infrastructural measures are usually taken only after knowing that over population exists and there is a need for decongestion.

In the 1990s, urban development was rapid in the central business districts such as Makati and Ortigas. Although there are laws existing for the local government unit to prepare city land use plans, one integrated plan for Metropolitan Manila which the local government units can follow does not exist. Therefore, urban systems like transportation and urban infrastructures are not corresponding enough to the partial development done by the local government. Without integrated urban plans and strategies, equal development in Metropolitan Manila is not yet applied, thus causing recent urban issues, such as traffic congestion and environment deterioration represented by air and water pollution.

Another important vulnerability to mention here is the availability of regions that may substitute for the functions of the capital. Large cities next to NCR are only two; Davao and Cebu in terms of population. However, these cities can not easily substitute the function of the Capital because of their geographical condition. Neighboring satellite cities, such as Olongapo, San Fernando,

Final Report

-8-17-

and Batangas also can not support the function of the capital. Therefore, if ever a disastrous earthquake hits Metropolitan Manila, its political, economical, and social loss together with secondary disasters will be enormous that it may lead to a chaos and disorder of the nation.

8.3.2 Natural Condition and Urban Development of Metropolitan Manila 1) Topography

Topographically, Metropolitan Manila is divided into three major categories; Central Plateau, Coastal Lowland, and Marikina Valley. Central Plateau is on stiff soils, Coastal Lowland is on soft sand and clay deposits, and Marikina Valley is consists of delta and muddy flood plain deposits. By overlaying the administrative boundaries to the topographic condition map, it is clear that cities and municipalities, such as Quezon, Kalookan, San Juan, Mundaluyong, and Paranaque are located in Central Plateau. City of Manila and cities adjacent to it, such as Novotas, Malabon, Pasay, are located in Coastal Lowland. Finally, cities and municipalities of Marikina, Pasig, Pateros, Taguig, and Muntinlupa are located in Marikina Valley. Cities located in Coastal Lowland and along the coast of Laguna de Bay within Marikina Valley have elevations less than 2 meters. Due to this topographic condition, flooding during the rainy season frequently attacks these areas.

2) Geological Condition

Many faults, such as the Valley Fault System, Philippine Fault, Lubang Fault, Manila Trench, and Casiguran Fault, can generate earthquakes, which might affect Metropolitan Manila. Among these faults, East Valley Fault and West Valley Faults, located in the eastern part of the study area, are considered to cause the largest impact to the Metropolitan Manila area.

Recent studies clarified that the Valley Fault system has caused at least 2 to 4 earthquakes within the last 1400 years, with the approximate return period being less than 500 years. No event along West Valley Fault is known since 16th century, meaning that active phases of the Valley Faults are approaching. Many research studies indicate that the estimated magnitude will be around 7 or more.

3) Urban Development

Historically, urbanization of Manila started in 1571, when Spain established a colony in Manila. The City of Manila had developed as a trading port. The city first developed on the coastal low land, and until the early 1950s, the urbanized area was limited at the central Manila, where city of Manila and Pasay is now located. This area is still the political, economic, commercial, and cultural center of Metropolitan Manila. Over the past 50 years, Metropolitan Manila area was rapidly urbanized, and has been expanding far toward the North and South, and to the East to the coastal line of Laguna de Bay. Since 1950s, the urbanized area expanded more than 8 times of its


-8-18-

area as shown in Figure 8.1.1. This rapid urbanization brought up many urban issues, including unstable socio-economical structure, inefficient transportation system, and unsatisfactory urban infrastructures. Moreover, newly developed central business districts as well as political center, are developed with limited awareness of earthquake disaster. For example, new central business districts of Ortigas and Makati and new political center of Quezon are located close to the Valley faults. In addition, newly reclaimed area along the Manila Bay, regardless of its liquefaction potential, is planned to be utilized as sub-center of Manila.

8.3.3 Vulnerability Components of Metropolitan Manila 1) Socio-economical Structure

(1) Population Concentration

Figure 8.3.1 shows population growth of Metropolitan Manila. Population is nine million and nine hundred thousand in 2000. Comparing the share of the population of Metropolitan Manila to that of the national, it was only 8% of the total population in 1948 but it now shares almost 14% of the total population due to the rapid centralization, which started in the 1980s.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

1948 1960 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000

Year

Popu

latio

n (0

00)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0Pe

rcen

tile National

Metro Manila

MM share (%)

Figure 8.3.1 Population Growth of National and Metropolitan Manila


It can be interpreted from Figure 8.3.2 that annual population growth of Metropolitan Manila was always higher by 1 to 2 % than national growth ratio, except for the years of 1995 to 2000. Annual population growth decreased in years 1995 to 2000 to 1% from 3.5% in years 1990 to 1995. According to the MMUTIS report, population is increasing in the Greater Metropolitan Manila region, which includes the surrounding provinces to Metropolitan Manila.

Final Report

-8-19-

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

48-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-95 95-00

Year

Perc

entil

eNational

Metro Manila

Figure 8.3.2 Population Growth Ratio of National and Metropolitan Manila


Metropolitan Manila is one of the typical highly populated large cities in East Asian countries. In 2000, population density of Metropolitan Manila was estimated at 15,576 persons per km2. Congestion is more glaring in individual cities and municipalities. Figure 8.3.3 shows population density of cities and municipalities of Metropolitan Manila in year 2000. Congestion, as measured by population density, is more evident in Navotas, Manila, Pasig, and Pasay.

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

Manila

Mandalu

yong

Marikin

a

Pasig

Quezon

San J

uan

Calo

okan

Mala

bon

Nabota

s

Vale

nzuela

Las P

inas

Makati

Muntinlu

pa

Para

naque

Pasay

Pate

ros

Taguig

City/Municipality

Pers

on/k

m2

Figure 8.3.3 Population Density of Cities and Municipalities in Metropolitan Manila


-8-20-

(2) Social Migration

According to the study on “Migration and Environmental Issues in Economic Development”1, large portion of migration to Metropolitan Manila is mainly from the regions of Bicol, Eastern Visayas, Western Visayas, and Ilocos, which are considered as economically depressed areas among the Philippines. The study concluded that there was a correlation between migration and poverty in Metropolitan Manila, that those migrants from depressed areas tend to migrate into Navotas, Pateros, Kalookan, Valenzuela, and Malabon (Ordered in higher share of migration to the cities and municipalities), where the annual per capita income is lowest (under 37,220 pesos), or second to lowest (37,220 to 41,573 pesos). The study also concluded that the recent concentration of migrants from the economically depressed region to Metropolitan Manila may decrease per capita income and social infrastructure expenditures. This aggravates poverty and environmental problems in Metropolitan Manila.

Table 8.3.1 shows the number of migrants to Metropolitan Manila. This indicates that although the migration rate is declining, migration to Metropolitan Manila still continues. With the two facts concluded in the above study and continuous migration to Metropolitan Manila, the urban poor, which is more prone to disaster, tends to grow continuously.

Table 8.3.1 Migration to Metropolitan Manila

Gross Migration to MM Net Migration to MM

70-75 75-80 85-90 70-75 75-80 85-90

Total Migrants 310,824 393,723 462,586 155,087 180,318 128,516

(Total positive net volume) (161,348) (194,855) (196,932)

Migration rate (0/00) 8.9 9.9 9.3 4.4 4.6 2.6

Source: Metropolitan Manila: In Search of a Sustainable Future

(3) Urban Informal Settlers

According to the survey data by national housing authority in 1996, the number of informal dwelling area, located in vulnerable areas such as river banks, esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, shorelines, waterways, and other public places such as sidewalks, roads, parks and play ground, is about 276. This is occupied by about 400 thousand families composing 36% of the total population in Metropolitan Manila. The informal settlers occupy hazardous areas. Additionally, squatting is usually accompanied by deteriorated physical condition and does not conform to community regulations. Thus, squatting may result to clogging of water ways and sewerage and river systems, causing flooding. Informal settlers also tend to expand their territories to the

1 Metropolitan Manila: In Search of a Sustainable Future, Research by Prof. Toru Nakanishi, Graduate School of Social and

International Studies, University of Tokyo

Final Report

-8-21-

sidewalks and to roads, which aggravates the traffic condition. Also, sometimes, sub-standard living environment becomes the breeding ground for infectious disease and viruses.

Houses of informal settlers are mainly two-story height wooden non-structural building, with tin roof. Houses are heavily crowded and, very closely built to each other, tending to collapse easily in case of a strong earthquake. Timbers are commonly used as housing materials, and houses are also easily burned.

The reason for the permanent residence of informal settlers in unapproved area is highly related to the system of the government. Usually, prior to election, candidates for mayors and congressmen has budget for the use of constituents. Informal dwellers do not have access to tenured land of their own. However, they are accepted as the city resident of the settlement. Because of this, the candidates promise and use the budget for the environmental improvement of the informal settler’s livelihood in exchange for their votes. This investment in the informal settling area also makes the residence more permanent.

LGUs and National Housing Authority (NHA) are the responsible agencies for the provision of relocation or resettlement sites “with basic services and facilities and access to employment and livelihood opportunities sufficient to meet the basic needs of the affected families”. This is enforced under Community Mortgage Plan (CMP), though usually, relocated people do not reside in the provided unit, and rather, they sub-lease the places to others. The reason for this phenomenon is that informal settlers are not seeking for better living condition but are seeking for any small piece of land. If informal settlers ever acquire a small piece of land, they will construct buildings with several stories for rent. This will be a great source for their income.

Out of many LGUs in Metropolitan Manila, Marikina City has so far successfully done a model city program for relocation and maintains no informal settlers within their land. There are two reasons for Marikina City to be considered as successful city of no informal settlers. One is their establishment of real estate property tax system. The city is the only one who is introducing the system, and collecting tax from all households, including the originally informal settlers. The other reason is the introduction of 24 hours patrol system by the city.

2) Urban Systems

(1) Road and Railway System

A. Road System

Due to the limited land for eastward expansion, Metropolitan Manila is expanding to North and to South. Many transportation studies have been executed, and road network among Metropolitan Manila and its adjoining area is improving. Though, road coverage ratio in Metropolitan Manila


-8-22-

is approximately 10%, this is still low compared to the 20 to 25% of those in cities like London and Tokyo.

Road linking north to south has been reinforced but the east-west link is still weak. In addition, linkages between Metropolitan Manila and neighboring cities need to be strengthened.

Vulnerability of road system in Metropolitan Manila is its reliance on bridges, flyovers, and elevated road structures. Due to the Pasig River running through the center of Metropolitan Manila from East to West, urbanized area of Metropolitan Manila is divided in to two portions of North and South. There are 18 bridges which cross the river, and its existence is inevitable for the road network. Additionally, many flyovers and elevated roads have been constructed within the central area for traffic congestion.

Other vulnerability in relation to road network is as follows. 1) Constant traffic congestion in the central Manila 2) Easily submerged road in many places after heavy rains especially during the rainy season

B. Railway System

Railway transportation is developed in Metropolitan Manila. The oldest rail transport system in the Philippines is the long-distance railway being operated by the Philippine National Railways. Its Main Line North is no longer operational, while the Main Line South to Bicol province runs only four or five trips daily servicing approximately 30,000 commuters and cargoes from regional factories. There are two light rail systems operating in Metropolitan Manila: the Light Rail Transit (LRT) Line 1 and the Metro Rail Transit (MRT) 3. The Light Rail Transit Line 1 runs from north to south of Metropolitan Manila (Monumento in Caloocan City to Pasay City) and presently continues to serve at least 400,000 passengers daily. The 16.7 kilometer Metro Rail Transit 3, or the Metrostar Express, runs from the North Avenue in Quezon City to Taft in Pasay City.

The Light Rail systems are both elevated. Recent transportation improvement measures in Metropolitan Manila tend to be introduced as elevated facilities.

In case of large earthquake, those elevated structures have the possibility of falling or toppling down. This may totally shut the access to inner side of Metropolitan Manila. Congestion will even make the situation worse. If such case ever occurs, this damage will be a big barrier for rescue and relief activities and for distribution of the commodities. This also has possibility to lead to disorder of national and governmental functions.

(2) Centralized Capital Functions

In case a capital of a nation suffers a large earthquake disaster, damage will influence the whole country in terms of economy, governance, and international relations. As seen in many other

Final Report

-8-23-

Asian countries, the Philippines also hold the capital function only in Metropolitan Manila area. For example, presidential palace and office is located in the city of Manila along the Pasig river, senate is located in the reclaimed area along the Manila Bay, and, house of representatives and administrations is located in the city of Quezon. Although those institutions are located in remote distance to each other within the NCR, once the transportation and communication network is cut, it will lead to the disorder of the capital functions.

Also, the vulnerability of the following facilities, together with redundant inter-communication system, is necessary to consider. - Legislative body: Congress (Senate and House of Representatives), related offices - Administrative body: Presidential palace, official residence, central governments, national

government facilities - Administration of Justice: Supreme court, official residence - Financial body: Central bank, Private banks - Economical body: Financial market (Stock), private companies - Information body: Mass media, internet exchange - International facilities: International organization, foreign affairs

(3) Land Use Issues

Rapid urbanization over 30 years has altered Metropolitan Manila’s landscape. Residential landuse currently predominate land use activity in Metropolitan Manila. As described in detail above, poverty drives people to live in hazardous areas such as river banks, esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, shorelines, and other public places such as sidewalks and roads, which accelerate the vulnerability of the people.

There are two main problems in land use; the mixed land use, and improper enforcement of land use ordinance.

A. Mixed Land Use

Indefinite use of land is correlated to inefficiency of land use and increase of urban risk. For instance, in spite of land use designating an area as residential, mixed land use for residential, commercial, and industrial purposes occur. Also, industrial areas including hazardous facilities are located or adjacent to residential areas. These examples are in Pasig city, and in central part of city of Manila. These residential areas are normally exposed to fire possibility and hazardous materials. Fire and exposure to hazardous materials may cause secondary disaster in case of earthquake.


-8-24-

B. Improper Enforcement of Land Use Ordinance

In Metropolitan Manila, “Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for the National Capital Region” was enacted in 1981. This regulates the land use type and enforcement procedures. The Model Zoning Ordinance was regulated in 1996 and this further gave details on the guidelines especially on enforcement. However, there are only seven cities and municipalities, which have finalized their land use plan so far. In addition, the zoning ordinance is not empowered for enforcing the ordinance because there are many places with conflicting to the landuse ordinance. It is also necessary to consider the limited consideration of hazards in the area in the development of land.

(4) Park System and Open Spaces

According to the research paper “Governance and urban development: case study of Metropolitan Manila”, of the Philippine Institute for Development Studies three decades ago, open space was the predominant land use. Recreation land uses including parks and sports area comprise only one percent of total land area in 1991 compared to 20 percent in 1980. A large percentage of these land intended as open spaces and for other purposes have been used for housing. It is estimated that if the increasing rate of population and the development pattern or system do not change, the green space in Metropolitan Manila is likely to disappear by 2006.

This is not only the environmental concern, but also a problem for disaster management. If large earthquake occur, open spaces including parks will act as inevitable base as evacuation site, commodity distribution site, or for rehabilitation site. The lack of open space is fatal in emergency response and in rehabilitation procedures.

Final Report

-8-25-

8.4 Communities in Metropolitan Manila

8.4.1 Introduction Different types of communities were identified in Metropolitan Manila based on the observation and insight acquired through our social survey. This categorization was conducted from the viewpoints of both sociology and earthquake disaster management.

Characteristics of each category are analyzed and key points for disaster management are considered.

8.4.2 Definition of Community There are many definitions of community, but here we adopt the definition that “The community is a certain unit in which people can share their interests and feel the sense of unity”.

From the aspect of disaster management activities by community members, it is understood that various types of communities exist in Metropolitan Manila. Communities differ in their physical sizes and forms, relationship among residents, roles of leaders, people’s perception about their common resources, people’s consciousness about their communities, and ways of taking collective actions.

We identified eight (8) types of communities in Metropolitan Manila, taking into account sociological and disaster management aspects. In spatial distribution, same types of communities do not always exist side by side, and different types do exist adjacently.

8.4.3 Difference between Barangay and Community In the Philippines, the smallest administrative unit is “barangay”, which is also true of the Metropolitan Area. In the Metropolitan Area, there are 1,694 barangays, of which more than half are located in the old city area. Barangay’s have the administrative duties of providing community residents with such services as medical treatment, social welfare, public health, environmental improvement and garbage collection. They are also responsible for maintenance and management of public facilities, such as culture center, parks, play grounds and sports centers. Regardless of the size of barangays, each barangay has officers consisting of one (1) barangay chairman and seven (7) barangay councilmen (Kagawad) who are elected by residents every three years. They are basically responsible for implementing various polices through their judicial, legislative, and administrative functions, for maintenance and improvement of lives and for keeping Peace & Order for the barangay residents.

In addition to the barangay officers, there are other actors who play public roles at the barangay level. These include Tanods, who are responsible for patrolling their barangays for security. Other actors are also active in barangay cleaning, traffic control and medical assistance.


-8-26-

In view of this, “barangays”, which are administrative units and organizations, are different from “communities” in concept and in actuality. Indeed, there is more than one community in a barangay. In the Philippines, “barangays” are often used to signify the term “communities”. However, it is very important to know that the community is different from the barangay.

8.4.4 Characteristics of Communities in Metropolitan Manila 1) 8 Types of Communities in Metropolitan Manila

Metropolitan Manila is briefly categorized to 8 types of communities. Those are;

Old City Type: Communities, which are located in the old city area (Old Manila).

Long-Established Village Type: Old communities which are located in suburban areas of Metropolitan Manila. Such areas have been urbanized, although their original livelihood was based on farming or fisheries.

Subdivision Type: Subdivisions and town house complexes, which were established on commercially developed land. One subdivision or town house complex constitutes one community.

Condominium Type: Communities found in high-rise residential buildings located in areas, such as Makati and Rockwell. One condominium constitutes one community.

Spontaneously Developed Town Type: Communities, which exist in spontaneously developed areas. Originally, settlers resided in the communities for a long time, but houses were constructed without plans, and then squatters began to reside. As a result, such settlement areas have expanded in unordered manners.

Urban Slum Type: Communities, which are located in the central Metropolitan Manila, which are highly crowded. Their physical living conditions are deteriorated. Many residents own the land where they live.

Permanent Informal Settlement Type: Communities in informal settlements with more durable buildings. Although the residents illegally reside on the land, their houses are constructed with concrete blocks, and public infrastructures, such as water and electricity are provided. In addition, alleys and drainages are paved with concrete.

Transitory Informal Settlement Type: Communities, which are found in informal settlements along railways and rivers, and in vacant public land. Houses are constructed with wooden pieces, and tin roofs, and the living environment has not been improved.

2) Detailed Characteristics of Communities

Detailed characteristics of the above-categorized communities are described below:

Final Report

-8-27-

Old City Type: - Location: Old city area (Old Manila) - Size of Community: Houses located along one street - Land Ownership: Original residents own the land. Transients live in rented houses. . - People’s Relationship within the Community: Original residents have closer relation with

each other, but transients do not have such relation. - Community Leaders: Barangay captains and council men, or persons who have such

experience. - Unification of the Community: Community members are rather unified, especially among the

members of original settlers. Unification between the original residents and transients or among transients is rather weak.

- Population Density: High - Income: Medium, but varies. People with higher income sublease part of their houses for

additional income. - Physical Conditions of Buildings: Proportional balance of the houses can be imaged as 5% of

the all houses are wooden, 25% are houses mixed with concrete and wood, and 70% are made of concrete. The density of buildings is rather high, although roads are relatively wide.

Long-Established Village Type: - Location: Suburban areas of the Metropolitan manila - Size of Community: Relatively large, approximately 10-15 ha per one community - Land Ownership: Owned by residents - People’s Relationship within the Community: Very close with each other. People in the

community grew up together. - Community Leaders: Barangay captains and councilmen, or persons who have such

experience. - Unification of the Community: Unified - Population Density: Relatively high - Income: Community people who live near the city center have many job opportunities with

higher incomes, while community people who live far from the city center have less chances. - Physical Conditions of Buildings: 20% of the houses are wooden, 30% are mixed buildings

with concrete and wood, and 50% are of concrete. The building density is relatively high, and roads are relatively narrow.

Subdivision Type: - Location: Suburban, newly developed areas.


-8-28-

- Size of Community: Usually, subdivisions are larger than town house complexes. These units of houses are usually physically separated by walls from other part of the area. It is considered that one subdivision or one town house complex constitutes one community.

- Land Ownership: Basically, residents own the land - People’s Relationship within the Community: Residents of the community are only formally

associated through administrative activities. People in the community are in-migrants, from inner city, or suburban. Length of residence in the community is not always long, thus community is under liquid condition.

- Formal residential organization within the organization: Home Owner’s Associations exists in Subdivision and Town House Complex

- Community Leaders: Home Owner’s Association exists in Subdivision and Town house complex

- Unification of the Community: Relatively weak - Population Density: Low - Income: High - Physical Conditions of Buildings: Basically, houses inside Subdivision are one to two story

heights, with front and back yard. However, condition differs on physical conditions, such as the size of houses and infrastructures, from Subdivision to Subdivision, based on the income level of the community.

Condominium Type: - Location: Close to the Central Business District, such as Fort Bonifacio, and Rockwell in

Makati, or Cubao, in Quezon. - Size of Community: A community is developed in one building - Land Ownership: A lot for building is owned by all the residents in the building - People’s Relationship within the Community: Residents are independent from door to door,

and do not have close relation to each household. - Formal residential organization within the organization: Building Administration - Community Leaders: Building administrators of condominiums could play roles similar to

leaders. - Unification of the Community: Weak - Population Density: Low - Income: High - Physical Conditions of Buildings: High-rise buildings are constructed based on the building

code

Spontaneously Developed Town Type: - Location: Suburban

Final Report

-8-29-

- Size of Community: Varies. It is sometimes the group of houses, which are developed along the alley, or road.

- Land Ownership: - Community Leaders: Barangay captain and councilmen, or person who have such

experience. - Unification of the Community: Weak - Population Density: Relatively high

Urban Slum Type: - Location: Central Metropolitan Manila - Size of Community: Houses expanded along the alleys of one to three - Land Ownership: Residents who owns the house own the land legally - People’s Relationship within the Community: A community is usually blood related, and the

relationship within the community is very dense. However, relation between the communities is relatively weak.

- Unification of the Community: United - Population Density: Very high - Income: Medium. Residents usually sublease their bedrooms for additional income or

convert their first floor building into sari-sari (convenience) store. - Physical Conditions of Buildings: Buildings are made of concrete. When the house is newly

constructed, it is usually two-story height building. However, to increase their living area, buildings are usually extended to three to four story height. Building density is very high.

Permanent Informal Settlement Type: - Location: Basically suburban - Size of Community: Unit, which substitute as a boundary named “sitio”. Note that Sitio is not

always informal settlement area. - Land Ownership: Not owned - People’s Relationship within the Community: Community develops based on the blood

relation. In case of conflict in the community it tends to split easily. - Leader of the community: Sitio President - Unification of the Community: United - Population Density: High - Income: Very low - Physical Conditions of Buildings: Most of the buildings are made of concrete bricks. Bricks

are only piled up, and thus, is not resistant to the earthquake.

Transitory Informal Settlement Type: - Location: Suburban, newly developed area


-8-30-

- Size of Community: Mostly settled along the railways, rivers, and vacant land of government or public land.

- Land Ownership: Not owned - Population Density: Very high - Income: Very low - Physical Conditions Buildings: Houses are constructed with wooden pieces, and tin roofs.

As described, different types of communities have different characteristics. It is then proposed, that community unit shall be selected, for the disaster management plan in the community.

8.4.5 Relation between Community and Barangay In this section, the relation between communities and barangays are discussed.

In some barangays, the boundaries of communities are widely or officially recognized. In such barangays, there are community units, so-called sitios, puroks, or subdivision. Examples of these community units are shown in Figure 8.4.1.

In such barangays where community units or boundaries are explicitly recognized, there are some kinds of leaders in each community. There is a president for the home owner’s association in the subdivision, and there are also presidents for puroks and sitios.

In these barangays, there are some ways of communications between the community and barangay leaders. Figure 8.4.2 shows the channel of information and method of information distribution between barangay leaders and community leaders.

On the contrary, there are many barangays where community units or the boundaries are not explicitly recognized. For example, Barangay Sta. Ellena in Marikina City has several different types of communities in its territory; however, the barangay administration does not have clear understanding of the community units or the boundaries.

In the case of the City of Manila, where the size of barangays is small compared to other municipalities, there are a few communities identified within one barangay. However, the community is not used by the barangay administration. In the barangays of the City of Manila, they use broadcasting systems, or posters as the devices for communication between the barangay administration and community people. Since there are no formally recognized community leaders, the barangay administration has one-way method of communication from the barangay level to the community level.

Final Report

-8-31-

Name of Barangay, City/Municipality Description

Hagonoy, Taguig Barangay

Purok

Purok

Purok

(Sub-division)

Purok

Purok

Purok

(Sub-division)

- 6 puroks in the barangay - Subdivision is counted as one purok

Quezon, Fairview 10 subdivisions

24 sitios

- 10 subdivisions and 24 sitios in the barangay

- Sitios in this area are legal and registered organizations, although the residents of those sitios are informal settlers.

Ugong, Pasig Barangay

Ugong Proper(Old Area)

Purok Purok

Purok Purok

Purok Purok

- 6 puroks in the old neighborhood and 6 subdivisions in the newly developed area

Figure 8.4.1 Example of Community Boundary in a Barangay

Barangay Sub-

Division Sub-Division

Sub-Division

Sitio

Sitio

Sitio Sitio

Sub- Division

Sub- Division

Sub-Division

Sub- Division

Sub- Division

Sub-Division


-8-32-

Channel of Information Method of Information Distribution Hagonoy, Taguig

Barangay Chairman Councilman Councilman …………….. Councilman

Purok President

Purok President

……………..

Purok President

- Verbal communication by the barangay councilmen to purok presidents or vice versa

- Posters posted within the barangay

Fairview, Quezon Step 1) Call for meeting

Barangay Chairman

Sub-div Home Owner’s Assoc. President

Sitio President

………

Step 2) Meeting

Two steps:

1) Prepare official documents to subdivisions and sitios for call on meeting

2) Meeting held with leaders with open discussion style

Figure 8.4.2 Information Channels and Methods between Barangay and Community Leaders

Sta. Ellena, Marikina Legend: Community Boundaries

Figure 8.4.3 An Example of Barangay where Community Boundaries are not Aware

SubdivisionPresident

Barangay Chairman

Sitio President

Sub- Division

Paved road

Alleys

Alleys

Final Report

-8-33-

In sum of the above discussion, the following characteristics of communities are observed: In the case of barangays where community units or boundaries are explicitly recognized: - There are two or three types of communities found in one barangay - There are some kinds of leaders in each community. - The community level and the barangay administrative level have some methods of

communications between the two levels.

In the case of barangays where community units or boundaries are not explicitly recognized: - There are many different types of communities in one barangay - Information distribution is frequently unilateral, from barangay leaders to community

members.

8.4.6 Key Implication to Disaster Management Activities at the Community Level As discussed above, a barangay contains different types of communities in its boundary. Therefore, the following points are considered important in planning disaster management activities at the community level. - It is important to identify appropriate community units through which the disaster

management activities are to be promoted for the community - It is important to identify key actors both at the barangay level and at the community level. - It is important for the barangay level to intensify the relation with identified community

levels through various actors of both barangay and community levels. - It is important to clarify the roles of both barangay and community levels in disaster

management activities. - It is important to disseminate information on disaster management toward the community

level.

8.5 Common Resources in the Community Common resources are found in communities through our social survey in selected barangays. Some of these resources can be utilized not only during the emergency, but also during the preparedness stage in disaster management at the community level. Some examples are given below:

1) Human Resources

(1) Leaders and agents

Community leaders and their capacity are important resources in disaster management. In some barangays, the capacity of these community leaders have been activated and enhanced by various community development activities.


-8-34-

(2) Women’s Group

There is a very strong coordination between women’s groups who are active in barangay environmental improvement in Ugong, Pasig City. In case of flood disaster in the area, woman members of the groups also act as leaders of the communities. This is a good example of common resources, which have potential in community disaster management.

(3) Unemployed

Many unemployed people are found in Palasan, Valenzuela City. Those unemployed men are volunteering as barangay tanods. According to the conversation with barangay councilmen, 80% of the households in the community have at least one man volunteering for that position.

2) Financial Resources

A community sometimes collects money for community activities. In some cases, collected money is used during calamities, mainly for flooding. - In communities of subdivision and town house complex in Sta. Ellena in Marikina City and

Fairview, Quezon City, fund collected monthly is utilized for maintenance of security, and rehabilitation of building.

- In sitio community of permanent informal settlement in Fairview, Quezon City, community leaders are collecting voluntary contribution of 20 pesos monthly from the residents. Collected funds are used for maintenance and improvement of livelihood within the community.

Sometimes, barangays collect fund for their capitals. In Hagonoy, Taguig, or in Sta. Ellena, Marikina City, barangay administration holds activities such as popularity contest, bingo, or raffle for raising fund. Collected funds are used together with the allocated fund by the city government, for barangay operation, repairs on infrastructures, and for calamities.

3) Water Resources

Wells are found in many communities all over the Metropolitan. The well water is not potable. But local people use the well water for bathing, cleaning and laundry. On the other hand, in some areas, such as Tunasan, Muntinlupa City, people are no longer able to depend on well water due to water quality deterioration. This is caused by rapid construction of industrial facilities in the areas.

In areas with no public systems of piped water supply, small business owners buy and keep water in water tanks to sell water in their neighbors.

Final Report

-8-35-

4) Small Open Spaces

In the old Manila area, there are small open spaces which are used for religious purposes. Each of them could accommodate approximately 100 people. Except for the old Manila area, most barangays have basketball courts beside barangay offices. These kinds of open space could be utilized for emergency response to disasters.

8.6 Community Based Disaster Management Activities -Characteristics of Selected Communities-

8.6.1 Objectives In Metropolitan Manila, an earthquake may hit at anytime. However, not many people have accurate knowledge about a possible earthquake and its damages. In the Philippines, in the current trend of decentralization, local government units and barangays have been institutionally empowered. The barangay especially is a good system of community governance. In urban areas where social cohesion has become weaker, vulnerability to disasters has been increasing and a community based disaster risk management system needs to be developed further.

Under such circumstances, community based disaster management activities were conducted in the three pilot communities during the Study, aiming: 1) to suggest a model for future community based earthquake disaster impact reduction activities in Metropolitan Manila, and 2) to draw lessons learned through sharing community activities with counterpart agencies and local communities.

More specific targets for the selected communities were: 1) to make an earthquake risk reduction conscious community, 2) to enhance risk management capacity through a participatory planning process, 3) to disseminate disaster management knowledge that leads to action, and 4) to encourage mutual help, a self-help attitude, and individual preparation.

For the barangay, the specific targets are: 1) to plan community level disaster preparedness as part of the barangay disaster management plan, 2) to encourage decentralization and participation in turning law and form into practice. The Barangay can be more proactive with strengthened planning and implementing functions, not only problem solving and dispute mediation.

Lastly, for the local government unit, through these activities they have targeted: 1) strengthening of coordination links, and 2) incorporation of disaster risk management concepts and community disaster risk management into master plans and development plans.

8.6.2 Outline of the Community Activities The pilot communities were aimed to be spearheads to spread similar activities to other communities and barangays in Metropolitan Manila. The community activities started with the social survey, such as key informant survey, and focus group discussions. The community


-8-36-

activities are barangay general assembly, community watching, risk and resource mapping, disaster imagination game, training, and drill. The sequence of the activities is listed in the following chart.

Figure 8.6.1 Sequence of Activities

Finding Preconditions Seeking Possibilities Model Plan

Community Workshops

Earthquake Disaster

PreparednessPlan

(Action Plan)

Vulnerability & Capacity

Assessment

•Infrastr. & Building Survey

•Key Informant Survey

•Focus Group Meeting

•Personal Interview

•Secondary Information

Damage

Estimation

Awareness Raising

Participatory Planning

Final Report

-8-37-

Table 8.6.1 Community Based Disaster Management Activities

Activity Agenda

Key informant survey Interview survey

◇ Vulnerability and capacity assessment Social Survey

Focus Group Discussion 1 and 2

◇ Sharing the Residential Survey results ◇ Receiving insights and discussion on key results

General Assembly

◇ Explaining damage estimation results ◇ Showing visual image of possible earthquake damages ◇ Sharing damage scenario and developing community response scenario

Community Watching and Resource Mapping

◇ Identifying resources and risks in the community ◇ Mapping exercise ◇ Building regulations ◇ Introducing building damages and countermeasures ◇ Emergency community response

Disaster Imagination Game (DIG) 1

◇ Mapping exercise of earthquake hazards ◇ Sharing vulnerabilities and capacities ◇ Earthquake emergency risk management planning ◇ Emergency Medical

Disaster Imagination Game (DIG) 2

◇ Earthquake emergency risk management planning ◇ Presentation on specific topics

Training ◇ Training community response in the actual Earthquake situation; testing evacuation routes, information management, learning first aid, fire extinguish, organizing community kitchen etc.

Drill ◇ Testing the plan ◇ Training community response in the actual earthquake situation; testing evacuation

routes, information management, learning first aid, fire extinguish, organizing community kitchen etc.

Community Activities

Minutes of Agreement ◇ Identifying roles of PHIVOLCS, MMDA and LGU for the continuation of the activities

◇ Discussion and documentation

8.6.3 Selection of the Pilot Communities The first step in community selection was the selection of cities in Metro Manila. Three cities were chosen based on the following criteria: 1) Hazards: High hazard area, higher Probable Peak Ground Acceleration, referring to the Valley Fault Model 08 and Manila Trench Model 13, 2) Vulnerability of people: High vulnerability, with higher population density, and 3) Vulnerability of buildings and infrastructures: High vulnerability of physical urban structures and building conditions.

The second step of community selection was selection of a barangay within each city. Selection criteria were: 1) Motivation, as evidenced from discussion with city officials, 2) Political Will, as evidenced from the discussion with barangay captains, and officials, and 3) Existence of community organizations in the community.

Based on the above steps and criteria, Barangay 741 of Manila City, Ugong of Pasig City, and Cupang of Muntinlupa City were selected as three target communities.


-8-38-

8.6.4 Basic Characteristics of the Selected Communities Characteristics of the selected communities are shown in Table 8.1. As shown, Barangay 741 has the highest population density among the three communities. A well-organized community based organization exists in Ugong, having six puroks (small community unit), one senior citizen’s association, and one income generating cooperative organization. There is an existing disaster management unit in Barangay Ugong, which automatically becomes activated during a disaster by the request of the city government. The barangay has its own rescue equipment, which is used during different types of disasters in the city. However, earthquake is not currently included in their response capacity. Among the three selected communities, Ugong barangay has the highest possibility to become a model for community activities and influencing the initiatives of other selected communities.

Among nearly 1,600 barangays in Metro Manila, about 900 are in Manila city. Due to this large numbers of barangays in the city, the jurisdiction of each barangay is restricted in area and operation. However, there are many barangay officials in the city, and they can serve as an important human resource during a disaster. In the case of Manila, physical and financial resources of each barangay are limited, however, there is a culture of sharing resources among barangays within the city. Since the probability of damages caused by the possible earthquakes generated by the West Valley Fault is higher in Manila, the communities in the city have higher probability of experiencing damaging effects of the earthquake. Therefore, Manila city needs to incorporate specific measures at the barangay level to reduce the impacts of the earthquake. Compared to the barangays in other cities, Manila barangay officials receive a relatively lower honorarium and have to manage the barangay with a relatively limited budget. Thus, there is significance in choosing one sample case study from Manila City to plan how to motivate barangay officials and mobilize human and physical resources and allocate budget to take different approaches and measures to reduce earthquake impacts.

In contrast, Muntinlupa city has taken different measures related to urban planning, and communities have a relatively higher level of earthquake awareness due to the visible creeping effects of the southern part of the West Valley Fault. However, there are no specific measures taken by the communities to reduce earthquake impacts, which needs attention and focus through the current activities.

Final Report

-8-39-

Table 8.6.2 Characteristic Features of the Selected Communities

City Manila Muntinlupa Pasig

Barangay name Bgy 741 Cupang Ugong

Bgy Budget 2003 (peso)

770,000 20,000,000 34,000,000

Bgy. Employees 30 100 200

Existence of Community

Jolly Clever’s club Since 1960’s (40 years) exclusive

San Nicolas St. Known as Nofuente Comp. Home Owners’ Assc. Since 1970’s declining tendency

Purok 1- 5 well-organized Senior Citizen’s Assc. KILUS (Cooperative)

Area 1.79ha 1.8ha 11ha (394ha Bgy)

Population 1600 1000 7000 (26,0000Bgy)

Pop. Density 900 p/ha 550 p/ha 630p/ha

House Hold # 317 150 1500

Built-up area (Assumption)

95% 85% 80%

Building type (Dominant)

CB, half Wood CB, half Wood CB, half Wood

Disaster Management Plan

none Organization structure only

Automatic Not in written documents

Hazard

Fire (2003,1985) Flood

Flood (2000) Subsidence (due to water extraction) Fault (Valley fault system)

Flood (2000)

Damage Estimation (Model 08) MMI / PEIS Bldg. Damage Death Ratio Fire spread Liquefaction

X / lX 30-50% 0.3-0.4% Possible Low

X / lX 30-50% 0.5-0.7% Possible Low

X / lX 20-30% 0.5-0.7% ― Relatively high

8.6.5 Social Characteristics of the Selected Communities 1) Survey objective

The social survey aims to assess the vulnerabilities of communities in Metro Manila to earthquake disasters, and their preparedness to respond to any eventuality. These findings shall be the basic information to be used in deciding an approach for the community based activities and barangay level disaster management plan.

The specific objectives of the survey are as follows:


-8-40-

• To clarify and characterize the citizenry’s level and quality of awareness and perception of disasters;

• To identify the needs of local citizens, barangay officials and other public officials who are concerned with disaster management;

• To identify household and community vulnerabilities and their root causes among the selected local communities; and

• To assess and evaluate available and unavailable resources and capacities that may be utilized for disaster management in these communities.

2) Survey design and sample size

The social structure survey is comprised of the following four major items and each sample size is in the bracket.

1) Key Informant Survey: (30 samples at each selected community) 2) Participatory Observation: (2 entire days at each selected community) 3) Questionnaire Survey: (50 samples at each selected community) 4) Focus Group Meetings: (2 groups at each selected community)

Prior to the Questionnaire Survey, semi-structured interview survey were conducted for key informants of the four selected areas of Mataas Na Lupa area (Barangay 735, 736, 737, and 741), Manila City, Barangay Cupang, Muntinlupa, and Barangay Ugong, Pssig City. The respondents consisted of elected community leaders (barangay chairpersons and councilors) and representatives of different sectors: women’s groups, youth, senior citizens or the elderly in the communities, entrepreneurs, the police, teachers and health workers. Interview guides tailored to different groups were used in the interviews. The 83 key informants were distributed by research site as follows: 28 from Zone 80 Mataas na Lupa [Barangays 735, 736, 737, 741], Manila; 28 from Barangay Ugong, Pasig City; and 27 from Barangay Cupang, Muntinlupa2. A focus group discussion among the community-based facilitators generated additional insights, while sharing local vulnerabilities and capacities with the local community members by showing the survey results.

2 The ages of the key informants ranged widely from 88 years old in Pasig and 18 years old in Manila. Reflecting the overall population, they were predominantly Catholic in terms of religious affiliation, and a significant majority were married. A majority were also born in Metro Manila while the rest were either migrants from nearby provinces or from Visayas and Mindanao. Marriage to a resident in the area or location of their employment pushed the migrants to consider the research community sites their homes. Among the community leaders, the longest serving rendered 22 years while the shortest has served for only 2 months when interviewed.

Final Report

-8-41-

8.6.6 Major Observations 1) Political will

Disaster risk is mostly generated through unsustainable development and weak governance. Community based disaster management which is integrated with development planning will reduce vulnerability and disaster losses. In the Philippines, the community based approach is commonly recognized and promoted among disaster response agencies. Practically, the institutional arrangement has been set, since the barangay that originates from the community unit coincide with the smallest administrative unit; moreover, barangay based community disaster preparedness is defined to be promoted in the national policy of Presidential Decree 1566. However, in the case of the Philippines, including a wider spectrum of policy makers is essential, and the success of the project depends on political will. Policy makers are national and local government level officials and political will means political commitment and high-level support from national and local government officials and politicians to ensure initiation of the program and linking mitigation measures with other programs. Risk management policies, especially mitigation policies, need to ride on other development policies. In this sense, more advocacies are necessary for policy makers to understand that disaster risk management is the essential component of sustainable development, that it pays off in the long run, and that the community approach is vital.

2) Democratic participatory approach

In the Philippines, more democratic and process-oriented approaches are commonly taken with a relatively high voting rate, in average perceived percentage of voters in the selected communities during elections are 68% in Manila, 80% in Pasig and 50% in Muntinlupa city. This means that more concerned people are expected to be involved from the beginning. Keeping concerned people informed is the essential factors for further cooperation. The Local Government Code clearly defines the roles of the people’s and non-governmental organizations and promotes linkages with them. It says that local government unit shall promote the establishment and operation of people’s and non-governmental organizations to become active partners in the pursuit of local autonomy. The code further defines that local government units may enter into joint ventures and such other cooperative arrangements with people’s and non-governmental organizations to engage in the delivery of certain basic services, capability-building and livelihood projects, and to develop local enterprises designed to institutionalization. Pasig City is encouraging cooperatives to be established among the community for livelihood programs. Effective risk management can best be achieved where the intended beneficiaries are involved in the design, management, and implementation of the assistance program in a participatory way.


-8-42-

Consensus building might be time consuming, but it is worth it to invest in it, keeping in mind the sustainability of the process.

3) Leadership structure / Elections

The leadership structure and elections play important roles in the decision making in the community. This is especially relevant to the diverse and multi ethnic groups where formation of the common voice out of individual needs is the key issue. Barangay captains are the basically the local leaders. The barangay captain is a honorary position. Some of them run their own businesses, others may regard this as a gateway to a political career. After completing the maximum 3 terms as Barangay captain, some will run for city councilors, vice mayor, mayor and so on.

In most parts of Metropolitan Manila, smaller community organizations/associations exist within each barangay, e.g. homeowners’ associations, sitio, purok etc.; elections are also held at this level of the organizations and each organization/association selects leaders by elections. This democratic process of selection of leaders is found to play an important role in sustaining community activities and obtaining support from communities in the longer term.

4) Self reliance in the Philippine Context

Self reliance has its connotation within the local socio-economic and cultural context. In the case of the Philippines, self reliance is observed more as a process, where voluntary contributions and donations are obtained or raised from different sources like churches, wealthy businessmen, cooperate donations, etc. by the communities. These funds are usually utilized for community activities, festivals and gathering. This is to be noted that it is not a direct self-contribution within the community, but this process of fund raising helps in achieving self-reliance.

8.6.7 Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment Vulnerability and capacity assessment (VCA) is a good opportunity to develop local skills and capacity. Involving community people in this survey helps them to understand their own situation, especially when you involve community participants in assessing the results. It is important for them to realize their own capacities and vulnerabilities. This self-evaluation process is essential to create motivation to reduce local vulnerability. The viewpoints of VCA are categorized in the following table.

Final Report

-8-43-

Table 8.6.3 Viewpoint of Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment

Category Viewpoints Resource Structure

High population density Dependence on lifelines Gap of day time population. night time population People coming from outside Scarce resources (individuals, local organizations, CBOs, Barangay, LGU ) Lack of disaster countermeasures (individuals, local organizations, CBOs, Barangay, city gov.,

local enterprise) Lack of disaster management plan Lack of disaster management facilities Distance to evacuation site, fire hydrant, water supply, access to shops, public facilities, welfare

facilities Distance to workplace Economic capacity Employment status (unemployment, part-timer) Family composition Household members, kinship Ratio of elderly, disabled persons Influx of outsiders, boarders Weak neighborhood relationships Weak family relationships Activities based in the community (year of living, commitment) Low skills for living Access to medical services Geological conditions (lowland, swampy land, slope land) Land ownership Building ownership

Execution structure

Uncertain responsibilities of the disaster management organizations Skills of disaster respondents Exclusiveness of organizations Coordination between organizations Decline tendency of local organizations Organizing abilities（member、fund raising capacities） Distribution of political power Sense of Volunteerism

Decision making structure

Leadership Decision making mechanism (each DM organization, community, Bgy, LGU) Plural will Organizational background of leaders, politicians Tendency of resolving disputes, local problems (Bgy, LGUs churches, politicians, citizens) Community movement, citizens’ movement, CBOs Information resources, amount of information, dissemination route

Value and normative structure

Resignation to disaster Disaster culture Cultural stability Social psychological stability Standard of social security system Regulations, normative guidelines for behavior Level of disaster knowledge, local countermeasures, theoretical knowledge Lack of disaster consciousness, awareness Lack of disaster knowledge

Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment was done following the above viewpoints; however, the challenge of incorporating these findings directly and systematically into the planning process remains unsolved. The VCA process identifies various descriptive factors, but the correlations of these factors might be different in each local context to integrate them into the development planning.


-8-44-

The following model shows the image that disaster is the intersection of two opposing forces: those pressures generating vulnerability on the one hand and physical exposure to a hazard on the other. The left hand side illustrates the progression of vulnerability. A series of levels of social factors generates vulnerabilities. The root causes of the disaster sometimes lie in the distance, like the economic and political sphere. These are normally a function of the economic structure, political system, legal definitions of rights, gender relations, etc. The check list of the above is listed in parallel, but thinking about the progression level of vulnerability will help us think about how to approach reducing vulnerability.

Figure 8.6.2 Progression of Vulnerability

8.6.8 Enhancing driving forces and minimizing hindrances A participatory workshop was conducted with the participation of the officials of Manila, Muntinlupa and Pasig cities, barangay officials of the selected communities, and community leaders. During the workshop, three basic topics were discussed: 1) applicability of current community based disaster management (CBDM) activities in their respective communities, 2) driving forces and restraining factors in regard to implementation of CBDM activities, and 3) measures and countermeasures needed for enhancing driving forces and mitigating restraining forces. The results are shown in the following table.

Progression of Vulnerability

Dynamic Pressures

Unsafe Conditions

Disaster Hazards Root causes

Limited Access to Power Structure Resources

Ideologies Political

system Economic

system

Lack of Local institution Training Appropriate skills Local Investment Local market Press freedom Ethical standards in public life ……………….

Macro-forces

Rapid populationgrowth Rapid urbanization

……………….. ………………..

Fragile physical environment Fragile local economy Vulnerable society Public actions

EarthquakeWest Valley

Fault Magnitude 7.2

Metro Manila

Building damage Heavily damage 168,000 (12.7%)

Partly damage 339,800 (25.6%)

Human damage

Dead 33,500 (0.3%)

Injured 113,600 (1.1%)

Fire Incidents Outbreak 500

Source: “ At Risk”

Piers Blaikie et al.

Final Report

-8-45-

Table 8.6.4 Applicability of Current CBDM Activities

Bgy Q: In your opinion, can the CBDM activities be applied in your barangay? It is for common good. People will be ready for any disaster to come. This is essential for the Brgy. This is essential for the people. If the chairman will not be influenced by politics, it will work.

Bgy 741 Manila City

As long as transparency & coordination exist, it will be applicable. There exists a “thing” like that in our Barangay, especially in times of flood. People are always ready to have their motorboat lent to others, but this is not written in black and white. It could be done. Especially in places where there are numerous calamities, importantly the earthquake. This is important in preparedness. CBDM is important because there is a need for this so that the effects of calamity will be minimized.

Bgy Cupang Muntinlupa City

There is a need to organize this in the Barangay because it is a high-risk area. It can be implemented. Bgy Ugong

Pasig City It can be done, in fact, something similar is now being done in the barangay.

Table 8.6.5 Force Field Analysis

Bgy DRIVING FORCE RESTRICTING FORCE Strong leadership Poor leadership Disaster experience Lack of community involvement Funds Lack of funds Perception from people Unawareness Existence of Educators & trainers Lack of interest Community cooperation Dole-out mentality IEC Overpopulation Preparedness Poor access for infrastructures & communication

Bgy 741 Manila City

Support from Local Gov. Unit Cooperation from the community

Lack of cooperation as a whole.

A sense of concern from the people. Lack of training and knowledge Communication equipment There is no sense of concern on each other. Information dissemination Time and effort given on this endeavor. An active Barangay council Policy implementation Coordination with other community. Dishonesty Encouragement Opposing good plans Cooperation between the Barangay and the community Lack of funds/ not enough plans Sufficient funds Belief differences about the issue Lack of political will Political differences


Drug problem among the youth, sense of voluntarism among them curtailed.

Cooperation, teamwork spirit Self centeredness Unity, willingness to cooperate Lack of knowledge on what to do Community participation Talking of someone else's ills

Agreement to the possibility of doing CBDM Lack of knowledge on what to do

Equipment Lack of communication High income of the Brgy Politics Desire to cope and implement CBDM Lack of community participation Initiative, motivation, positiveness Lack of funding sources Adequate training Lack of training needs Good health Poor leadership organization Political support Poor information dissemination Financial support Negative approach Communication Disorder Existence of Fault Established legal limitation

Bgy Ugong Pasig City

Red tape


-8-46-

For Bgy 741 and Cupang, the answers are ranked from the top, according to the number of responses written in the Meta cards.

Table 8.6.6 Countermeasures for Enhancement and Mitigation

Bgy Issues Risk Reduction Measures

Strong Leadership 1. Presentation of MMIERS to Community leaders and Barangay

Assembly Disaster Experience (1985 fire)

1. identify people/residents who experience the disaster 2. let them talk (tell the stories) 3. film showing 4. disaster drills 5. exposure

Driving Force

Funds 1. Utilize in priority disaster project Poor Leadership 1. Trainings Community Participation 1. Disseminate information of MMIERS

2. Conduct community meetings

Bgy 741 Manila City

Restraining Force

Lack of Funds 1. Generate funds thru solicitation fund drive & other means.

Community Organization 1. The Barangay Council should initiate a General assembly, so that the

organization will be active again. 2. Regular meeting and an election should be conducted Driving Force

Attitude of Cooperation

1. Regular meeting, emphasize the importance of regular meetings (that this regular meeting will help their community)

2.Maintain/enhance transparency in terms of funding and policy.

Lack of Information, Education and Communication

1. A General meeting should be initiated by the Barangay 2. Give/distribute information materials to the homeowners Assoc.

members 3. There is a need to conduct trainings/workshop/seminar

Non-cooperation of community members and the Barangay

1. Good implementation of policies in the Nofuente Homeowners assoc. 2. Enhance transparency in terms of funding and policy.

Lack of political will due to political differences

1. Conduct dialogue to ease out conflicts 2. Create a working cooperation


Restraining Force

Lack of fund 1. Come of with series of meetings to brainstorm possible fund raising projects.

Community Spirit/Volunteerism

1. Continued participation 2. Organize the community

Community Awareness

1. Continuing education 2. Information dissemination 3. Holding seminars and trainings 4. Identification of risk areas

Driving Force

Community Resources

1. maximum utilization of human/ material resources 2. organize volunteers 3. Holding training, seminars 4. Identifying additional resource personalities

Politics 1. Apply multi-sectoral approach

Lack of Community Awareness

1. Education / Formal education 2. Organizing activities 3. Producing fliers, leaflets/reading materials 4. Utilizing multi-media 5. Organizing community assembly/meetings

Lack of Community Spirit 1. House to house visit 2. Providing value formation programs

Bgy Ugong Pasig City

Restraining Force

Legalities/Technical Limitations

1. Lobby for amendment of existing laws related to Disaster Management Budget

Final Report

-8-47-

8.6.9 Building and Infrastructure Survey and Establishment of GIS Database 1) Purpose

Detailed building and infrastructure surveys were conducted on the three communities where disaster management activities will be held. The aims of the detailed surveys are to gather information for: The establishment of a GIS database so that community maps can be created to be used for

community based disaster management activities such as disater imagination games. Use in basic analysis of the physical regional risk for earthquake

The GIS to be established for the CBDM covers a larger area than that covered by detailed building and infrastructure surveys so that regional data can be integrated in the activities. Regional data would include information on hospitals, school locations, road network and other infrastructure and public facilities which may not exist within the communities selected.

The series of surveys related to preparation of community disaster management activities and GIS database development are shown in Figure 8.6.3.

Figure 8.6.3 Flow of the Survey and GIS Database Development

2) Contents of the Work

There are mainly two portions to be covered in this work; survey and the establishment of the GIS database. The survey portion consists of the building survey, and infrastructure survey.

(1) Building Survey

The Building Survey basically collected the following data: 1) Building related information - Building use - Building structure 2) Household related information - Number of residents - Ownership - Accessibility to Lifelines/ Infrastructures/ information

Building and Infrastructure Survey

Social Survey (2)

Establishment of GIS Database


-8-48-

For a detailed list of items included in the survey, refer to the survey sheet attached in appendix.

(2) Infrastructure Survey

Infrastructure survey focuses on data collection related to existing infrastructure in the targeted area. The survey collected basic information on the following items. 1) Road, bridge, subdivision walls, residential walls, parks and open spaces 2) Resources related to disaster management 3) Hazards

Detail survey items can be referred from survey sheet attached in appendix.

3) Preliminary Assessment on Building and Infrastructure Data

(1) Mataas na Lupa Area, Manila City

A. Assessment and Findings on Building information

The Mataas na Lupa Community is bounded by two major thoroughfares, President Quirino Avenue to the northwest and President Sergio Osmena Sr Highway to the southwest (see Figure 8.6.4). The area is mostly (94%) for residential purposes. About half (49%) of the structures used concrete for wall material while 40% used a combination of concrete and wood. Only a small ratio (5%) used wood. Half (50%) of the structures used RC frames. Almost all (94%) the houses were in the period from 1985 to 2000. Construction reached its peak in the period from 1985 to 1988. This is due to the fact that a fire razed the area in 1985. About 68% employed conventional carpenters in the construction while about 23% utilized the help of a professional engineer. A small portion (8%) of the residents built their homes themselves. Most of the residents (87%) own their homes while the rest either rents or have their homes belong to other people.

A greater part (94%) of the residents have access to serviced water. Almost all households (97%) use electricity and propane for heating purposes. Almost all households (99%) have access to a sewer system. About 44% either communicate or get their information through cell phones, telephones, radio and television.

B. Assessment and Findings on Infrastructure

Wide roads surround the community but widths of Roads within the community range from 3.5 to 6 meters. Access to the inner portions of the community are limited to narrow alleys with widths typically at 2.5 meters. A total of 3 areas with a total of about 1,300 square meters were identified as open spaces in the vicinity of the target community. Resources for the community include 9 billboards. Four bridges exist in the area. Two bridges cross Estero de Paco, one along President Quirino Avenue and the other along President Sergio Osmena Sr Highway. The other two cross Estero Tripa de Gallina, one along San Andres St and the other along President Sergio Osmena Sr Highway.

Final Report

-8-49-

Figure 8.6.4 Detailed Building and Infrastructure Survey Mataas na Lupa, Malate, Manila City


-8-50-

(2) Cupang, Muntinlupa City


The Cupang community is bounded by Laguna Bay to the east and South Luzon Tollway to the west (see Figure 8.6.5). The Cupang, Muntinlupa community mostly consists of residential areas. Of the three communities, Cupang has the smallest average floor space for homes. About a 38% of homes in Cupang are made of Reinforced Concrete, 23% of wooden materials. Of the three communities, Cupang has the highest ratio of homes made of wooden materials. This characteristic indicates vulnerability to fire spreading. This is made worse by the fact that houses are built very close to each other. Most of the homes were built in the period from 1971 to 2000. Construction of homes peak in the period between 1981 to 1990. Forty percent of the existing building structures were built in this period. About 70% of the structures were built by conventional carpenters, 20% were built by the residents themselves, and only a small ratio, 8% were built with the help of a professional engineer. Half of the building structures are owned by the residents themselves with 20% built on government property.

Most of the residents (87%) get their water from deep wells. Majority (85%) of the residents use electricity and propane as source of heat for cooking and other purposes.


All roads within the community are considered narrow, all roads being 6 m or less. Road widths range from 2 to 3 meters in areas like Tuklas, Perez Compound, Arevalo St and San Nicolas St. Almost all residents have access to a sewer system. Some residences dispose wastewater to open canals. Most residents have access to information through radio and television. Access to Cell phones is also high.

Two bridges exist within the community which crosses Pasong Diablo River, the bigger bridge is the Cupang-Ilaya boundary bridge and is located along Pres. Manuel Quezon St. Two water tanks exist in the vicinity of Martinez Compound and Penguin.

Final Report

-8-51-

Figure 8.6.5 Detailed Building and Infrastructure Survey, Cupang, Muntinlupa City


-8-52-

(3) Ugong, Pasig City


The target community in Ugong is surrounded by industrial areas and the Marikina River (see Figure 8.6.6). The target community itself is mostly for residential (91%) use. About 40% of the structures are made of RC frame, 19% make use of a combination of RC and wood frame while 10% used wood frame. About half of the wall material used for the houses utilized a mix of concrete and wood while about 40% used only concrete. A little over half of the structures were built in the period between 1911 to 1980. About three fourths (74%) of the structures where built by conventional carpenters, while about 20% were built with the aid of a professional engineer, only a small ratio (5%) were built by the residents themselves. The majority (70%) of building structures are owned by the residents themselves while about 22% rent. Only a small ratio (4%) built on government land.

A bulk (92%) of the residents have access to serviced water. Most of the residents (85%) employ electricity and propane a source for heating. Almost all residents (96%) dispose wastewater to a sewer system. About half (48%) of the residents get their information through telephone, cell phone, radio and television.


The community is situated right next to Marikina River. One major bridge, the Alfonso Sandoval Bridge along Eagle St. exists in the northern portion of the community. To the south, the nearest bridge is Vargas Bridge and is about 1.2 km away.

All roads inside the targeted community are narrow, with road widths ranging from 2.75 meters along M Santiago St. to 4.75 meters along C Santos St. An open space exists in the southern portion of the community with an area of about 4,000 square meters.

Final Report

-8-53-

Figure 8.6.6 Detailed Building and Infrastructure Survey, Ugong, Pasig City


-8-54-

Table 8.6.7 Summary Table of Detailed Building and Infrastructure Survey (1) Cupang Malate Ugong Household by Building Use Counts Ratio Counts Ratio Counts Ratio Commercial/Business 51 1.09% 23 1.52% 15 1.71% Educational and Cultural 16 0.34% 1 0.07% 0.00% Government and Quasi-public 5 0.11% 7 0.46% 3 0.34% Government and Quasi-Public and Health andWelfare 0.00% 1 0.07% 0.00% Health and Welfare 5 0.11% 1 0.07% 0.00% Industrial 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Mixed 153 3.26% 41 2.71% 30 3.41% Mixed and Health and Welfare 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Park and Recreational 7 0.15% 0.00% 1 0.11% Religious and Cemetery 7 0.15% 4 0.26% 2 0.23% Residential 4405 93.74% 1425 94.06% 803 91.35% Residential and Commercial/Business 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Residential and Mixed 0.00% 2 0.13% 0.00% Transport and Service Facility 2 0.04% 0.00% 1 0.11% (blank) 48 1.02% 10 0.66% 24 2.73% Grand Total 4699 100.00% 1515 100.00% 879 100.00% Household by Builder of Residence Structure Counts Ratio Counts Ratio Counts Ratio Conventional Carpenter 3,366 71.63% 1,022 67.46% 647 73.61% Don't know 1 0.02% 1 0.07% 0.00% Professional Engineer 376 8.00% 354 23.37% 172 19.57% Professional Engineer and Conventional C 0.00% 3 0.20% 0.00% Professional Engineer and Residents them 1 0.02% 0.00% 0.00% Residents themselves 886 18.86% 120 7.92% 47 5.35% (blank) 69 1.47% 15 0.99% 13 1.48% Grand Total 4,699 100.00% 1,515 100.00% 879 100.00% Household by Residence Ownership Counts Ratio Counts Ratio Counts Ratio Government Owned 1,009 21.47% 11 0.73% 37 4.21% Government Owned and Othe 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Others 1,187 25.26% 83 5.48% 199 22.64% Owned 2,306 49.07% 1,319 87.06% 614 69.85% Owned and Others 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Rented 82 1.75% 89 5.87% 1 0.11% (blank) 115 2.45% 13 0.86% 28 3.19% Grand Total 4,699 100.00% 1,515 100.00% 879 100.00% Household by Type of Access to Water Counts Ratio Counts Ratio Counts Ratio Deep Well 4,082 86.87% 0.00% 0.00% Service Water 369 7.85% 1,435 94.72% 813 92.49% Service Water and Deep Well 2 0.04% 0.00% 0.00% (blank) 246 5.24% 80 5.28% 66 7.51% Grand Total 4,699 100.00% 1,515 100.00% 879 100.00%

Final Report

-8-55-

(2) Cupang Malate Ugong Household by Source of Heat Counts Ratio Counts Ratio Counts Ratio Charcoal/Wood 5 0.11% 0.00% 0.00% Charcoal/Wood and Kerosene 1 0.02% 0.00% 0.00% Electricity 192 4.09% 26 1.72% 44 5.01% Electricity and Kerosene 129 2.75% 1 0.07% 18 2.05% Electricity and Propane 3,998 85.08% 1,473 97.23% 746 84.87% Electricity, Charcoal/Wood and Kerosene 13 0.28% 0.00% 0.00% Electricity, Propane and Charcoal/Wood 18 0.38% 0.00% 2 0.23% Electricity, Propane and Kerosene 12 0.26% 0.00% 1 0.11% Electricity, Propane and Others 1 0.02% 0.00% 0.00% Electricity, Propane, Charcoal/Wood andKerosene 2 0.04% 0.00% 1 0.11% Kerosene 4 0.09% 0.00% 0.00% Propane 208 4.43% 1 0.07% 45 5.12% Propane and Charcoal/Wood 6 0.13% 0.00% 0.00% Propane and Kerosene 3 0.06% 0.00% 0.00% (blank) 107 2.28% 14 0.92% 22 2.50% Grand Total 4,699 100.00% 1,515 100.00% 879 100.00%

Household with Access to Sewer System Counts Ratio Counts Ratio Counts Ratio Sewage System 4,532 96.45% 1,501 99.08% 843 95.90% (blank) 167 3.55% 14 0.92% 36 4.10% Grand Total 4,699 100.00% 1,515 100.00% 879 100.00%

Household by Source of Information Counts Ratio Counts Ratio Counts Ratio Cellphone 13 0.28% 1 0.07% 2 0.23% Cellphone and Radio 19 0.40% 0.00% 0.00% Cellphone and Television 76 1.62% 2 0.13% 5 0.57% Cellphone, Radio and Television 1,427 30.37% 135 8.91% 156 17.75% Radio 88 1.87% 5 0.33% 10 1.14% Radio and Television 1,362 28.98% 182 12.01% 67 7.62% Telephone 16 0.34% 12 0.79% 2 0.23% Telephone and Cellphone 7 0.15% 6 0.40% 8 0.91% Telephone and Cellphone and Radio 0.00% 0.00% 1 0.11% Telephone and Radio 0.00% 1 0.07% 0.00% Telephone and Television 25 0.53% 65 4.29% 30 3.41% Telephone, Cellphone and Radio 4 0.09% 1 0.07% 8 0.91% Telephone, Cellphone and Television 16 0.34% 1 0.07% 19 2.16% Telephone, Cellphone, Radio and Television 801 17.05% 676 44.62% 420 47.78% Telephone, Radio and Television 195 4.15% 168 11.09% 30 3.41% Television 386 8.21% 232 15.31% 52 5.92% (blank) 264 5.62% 28 1.85% 69 7.85% Grand Total 4,699 100.00% 1,515 100.00% 879 100.00%

Infrastructure Total Number of Bridges 1 4 1 Total Number of Open Spaces 0 3 1 Total Area Open Spaces 0 1,290.74 4,000 Average Area of Open Space 0 430.25 4,000

Resources Broadcasting Pole Community Board 9 Fire Extinguishing Facilities Water Distributing Store Water Tank 2


-8-56-

4) Progress of GIS Database Construction and Preliminary Output of GIS Maps

The field work required for the GIS has been finished. Their output consists mainly of field survey maps and tabular data gather from the household survey. The field survey maps have been digitized and incorporated in the GIS. Tabular data have also been encoded, cleaned up and integrated into the GIS database. These information were then processed and summarized into GIS maps and tables.

Formation of the Final Reportopen_jicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/11763752_01.pdf · 10.2.4 National...

Documents

Transcript of Formation of the Final Reportopen_jicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/11763752_01.pdf · 10.2.4 National...