DETERMINANTS OF RESILIENCE TO A CLIMATE CHANGE RELATED

EXTREME WEATHER EVENT: A TWO-CASE CASE STUDY OF URBAN

COMMUNITIES IN METRO MANILA, PHILIPPINES

Abstract

Resilience to climate change is becoming another aspect of sustainable development

However; little is understood on how this is operationalized at the community level. This
study looks at how the residents on urban poor communities on East Riverside, Barangay
Potrero, Malabon City and Balubad Resettlement Area, Barangay Nangka, Marikina City,
utilized their adaptive capacities and coping strategies in their stability and recovery
processes from Tropical Storm Ketsana. Both communities displayed similar rates of
recovery. However, the community in Balubad exhibited characteristics that would enable
them to transition to the transformation phase of resilience. The legal status of the
settlement in Balubad provided for the density of assistance that facilitated their potential
for transformation.

The major findings of the study are (1) the current indicators, at least those that the study
was able to cover, may be used at the community level, with some modifications and use
of surrogate variables, (2) current praxis in resilience research praxis may not be able to
account for the role and quality of relationships among actors working at different phases
of resilience (3) indicators and major actors are significant at different phases of the
disaster and resilience building, (4) synergy as another possible dimension of disaster and
climate resilience; and (5) three major facets of state-society continuum of synergy in
climate resilience: state actors, non-state intermediaries and community organizations.

Key words: climate change, resilience, synergy, indicator, Malabon, Marikina, Metro
Manila
 Chapter 1

Introduction

Recent studies on climatic science suggest that our climate does not change in a steady and
slow pace as we once thought (IPCC, 2007). Rather, it changes abruptly over a short period
due to a combination of natural or external forcing and anthropological factors (IPCC,
2007). However, the most compelling issue regarding climate change is not its main
contributing agent but the reality that our climate is indeed or will inevitably change and
that we have to do something in response to that change. In its fourth assessment report
(AR4) in 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledges that
by the turn of the century our ecosystem will be overwhelmed by unprecedented
combination of climate change and natural disasters such as flooding, wildfire and insect
infestation, and other anthropogenic global change drivers such as land-use change, over
pollution and over extraction of natural resources. The impact and magnitude of these
disruptions would take a costly toll on food security, water supply, health and the economy
especially on settlements in low lying areas such as coastal and flood plains where most
rapid urbanization in many developing countries is taking place. This is compounded by
the fact that these will leave urban poor communities, which are usually in high
concentration on those areas, highly vulnerable and unable to deal with these changes due
to their limited adaptive capacity.

Responding to climate change necessitates a two-pronged approach: decreasing magnitude

of anthropogenic forcings that exacerbate climatic change while at the same time
addressing the impacts that are already manifested on vulnerable populations, places,
sectors and systems. Whether by merit good or by the financial prospects of clean
development mechanism projects, a significant number of mitigation programs have
already been implemented all over the world even among countries that are non-Annex I
party to UNFCCC (Chandler, et al., 2002) (UNFCCC, 2010). Reduction of carbon
emissions and carbon footprint are widely associated nowadays with climate change and
became new buzzwords in media literature. These positively reflect on the existing attitude
towards global commitment in reducing target GHG emissions. Adaptation, on the other
hand, receives less media mileage and generally the same attention from international
assistance community in the form of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the
bilateral and multilateral donors (Hayes, 2006) due to its fuzzy nature.

This study focuses on improving understanding of urban communities in developing

countries on climate change adaptation and resilience. It also relates the current trends in
urban adaption on climate change concerning global perspective of international
communities and the perspective of local state actors. It further explores the growing
interests on utilizing resilience principles on top of conventional adaptation measures on its
potency to address uncertainties that adaptation plans are not able to predict and account
for.

Current limitations on the understanding on the impacts of climate change as identified by

Resurreccion and Sajor (2008) tells us that current literature leaves many opportunities for
climate change adaptation research. Considering these limitations, this research shall
attempt to identify social capital and social security mechanisms in enhancing community
resilience to climate change. Likewise, it shall also study how national government and
even local government efforts on climate change adaptation, mostly in the form of disaster

2
risk management, manifest in building resilience at the community level. At same time,
translate what is happening on ground, autonomously, and communicate these to higher
public administrative and planning levels.

In light of recent events, this thesis explores a possible empirical case where resilience can
be observed on communities that were devastated by TS Ketsana last year. This study
performs a micro-historical study on two communities with similar biophysical
vulnerability and socio-economic profile that exhibited different rates of resilience, one
being significantly slower to recover and rebuild than the other community is. The
underlying factors that led to the ability of one community to recover significantly faster
than the other are investigated by comparing the characteristics of the two communities
before, during and after the disaster struck. The relationship of these with existing and
proposed resilience indicators in current climate change literature would be compared and
further elaborated.

1.1 Research Problem

This study examines how practices and characteristics of low-lying and riverine urban poor
communities in Metro Manila, which are perennially exposed to climatic stresses and
climate related shocks, make them sensitive or resilient to climate change, and to what
extent these attributes contribute to the communities’ climate resiliency.

While many studies point out that urban poor communities are one the highest sector
vulnerable to effects of climate change, very few studies have actually been made that
assess their needs for resilience. Without sufficient information regarding adaptation
strategies to climate change, urban planners and managers are bound to haphazardly
develop action plans in response to climate change. By exploring the strengths and
limitations of these practices, this research aims to provide a better understanding on how
urban planners and managers can improve upon these practices in addressing adaptation
vis-à-vis effects of climate variability.

Furthermore, since there is an increasing interest in role of resilience in climate change

adaptation, an increasing number of indicators to measure climate change resilience have
been proposed. In light of this, the need arises to evaluate how and why these indicators
mattered on community or system that experienced a climate related shock.

1.2 Research Questions

Vulnerability

 What are the effects of unpredictable climate variability to low-lying and coastal
urban communities?

Resilience

 What characteristics make an urban village resilient to climate change?

 What possible indicators can be used to assess climate resilience at the community
level? How and why do these indicators mattered in increasing community
resilience?

3
  What are the national and local programs, policies and plans that aim to directly
enhance climate change resilience, and to what extent do these address issues of
resilience at the urban village?

Implications

 What are the implications of the results of this study to urban planning and
management at the city level and, concurrently, at the barangay level?

1.3 Research Objectives

 To examine the characteristics of vulnerable urban settlements with respect to

unpredictable climate variability
 To examine the climate resilient characteristics of communities and the extent of
these characteristics in degrading and/or enhancing the resilience of urban
communities
 To assess the validity of generally accepted indicators for climate change resilience
at the community level in existing literature and identify other determinant
variables that contributes to the communities to be more resilient or less resilient
 To explore ways on how the results of this study can influence decisions at the
local and national level

1.4 Scope and Limitations

The study involves the vulnerability and resilience assessment of two urban poor
communities in Metro Manila or in the Greater Manila Area, with different rates of
recovery after being devastated by TS Ketsana. Further, the barangay selection was limited
by the availability of required secondary data for the assessment. The study attempts cover
social, economic and environmental indicators linked to vulnerability and resilience based
on the studies of Ibarrarán et al. (2009) on VRIM, Cutter (2008) on DROP, Shaw et al. (
(2009) and Wardekker, et al. (2010). However, since this study is mostly exploratory,
some indicators available in the literature were not observed from the communities.
Conversely, there were also new indicators observed that were previously not proposed in
literature. Further, the study did not assess and quantify in detail the level at which the
level of indicators made the communities more or less resilient to climate change.

4
 Chapter 2
Literature Review

It is important to understand key definitions and issues surrounding current initiatives and
research on climate change adaptation in order to appreciate the context of this study. In
this chapter, critical definitions central to the understanding of this study as well as the
issues surrounding the increasing urgency to shift global climate agenda to adaptation shall
be discussed. This chapter also provides an overview of different approaches to climate
change adaptation, with emphasis on resilience, the subject matter of this study.

2.1 Definitions: adaptation, adaptive capacity, vulnerability and resilience

Different definitions carry with them different emphases. It is important to note that
climate change adaptation literature borrows heavily from other disciplines. The IPCC
Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) defines adaptation as the “adjustment in natural or
human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which
moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities” (IPCC, 2007). The said report also
identified three types of adaptation: anticipatory/proactive, autonomous/spontaneous, and
planned. Note that the IPCC definition of adaptation has evolved and has been refined
significantly from its Second Assessment Report definition as responses in the form of
adjustments, whether passive, reactive, or anticipatory, to the effects of climate change
(IPCC, 1996). The present definition explicitly referred to the adaptation of both physical
and social systems.

On the other hand, the AR4 defines adaptive capacity as “the ability of a system to adjust
to climate change (including climate variability and extremes) to moderate potential
damages, to take advantage of opportunities, or to cope with the consequences” (IPCC,
2007). Inversely, AR4 defines vulnerability as the “degree to which a system is susceptible
to, and unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability
and extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate
change and variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive
capacity” (IPCC, 2007).

Similarly, resilience was defined as “the ability of a social or ecological system to absorb
disturbances while retaining the same basic structure and ways of functioning, the capacity
for self-organization, and the capacity to adapt to stress and change” (IPCC, 2007). This
definition is drawn from the study on socio-ecological resilience by Holling (1973),
Walker et al. (2004) and Folke (2006).

According to Walker et al. (2004), “resilience is the capacity of a system to absorb

disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the
same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks.” A resilient system in the said context
has three characteristics (Carpenter, Walker, Anderies, & Abel, 2001):

(1) the ability to undergo changes and still retain the same controls on structure and
function;
(2) the capability for self-organization; and
(3) The ability to increase its capacity to learn and adapt (adaptive capacity).

5
Adaptation focuses on adjustments and processes made by actor-stakeholders in reaction or
anticipation to detrimental change. It is a broad term that may be composed of various
processes and approaches. In comparison, resilience studies are based on complex systems
that focus on adaptive capacity and maintaining the ability to deal with future uncertain
change (Nelson, Adger, & Brown, 2007). Resilience is not an alternative to adaptation;
rather, it is a form of adaptation. It is one of the many approaches to climate change
adaptation that emphasizes a holistic approach (by considering both physical and social
factors) in reducing vulnerabilities and increasing adaptive capacities, and may even
contain elements of mitigation. This concept of socio-ecological resilience and the other
approaches to climate change adaptation shall be explored in further detail in the
proceeding sections.

2.2 Emerging need for climate change adaptation

While this study does not discount the fundamental importance of reducing global GHG
emissions to their natural assimilation levels and other anthropogenic forcings to climate
change, it tries to highlight the increasing urgency of adapting to climate change.
According to Füssel (2007) there are four reasons why mitigation received more attention
from the climate change community than adaptation. Primarily, it has the ability to reduce
the impact of climate change in all climate sensitive systems in all spatial scales. In
contrast, contributions of adaptation can only be attributed to certain scales or certain set of
systems. In connection with this, mitigation is meant to solve the root cause of climate
change. Adaptation measures often address problems and solutions that are localized.
Thirdly, it applies the polluter pays principle by enforcing Annex 1 countries to mitigate
GHG emission as opposed to adaptation measures that are more focused on non-Annex 1
countries with insignificant historical contributions to climate change. Lastly, GHG
emissions are relatively easy to monitor and quantify. Adaptation plans, like sustainable
development plans, whose outcomes’ effectiveness in contributing to climate change
impact alleviation is less straightforward. Despite of these conditions, Füssel (2007) posits
five arguments that presuppose the emerging need for climate change adaptation:

(1) The effects of anthropogenic GHG emissions are already felt on recent history of
climatic extremes and unprecedented variability;
(2) Climate records from fossil data show that climate changed periodically in the past
and will continue to do so indefinitely;
(3) GHG continuously accumulate, so do the rate of global warming;
(4) The effectiveness of adaptation programs implemented whether locally and/or
regionally are not easily influenced by other strategic actions; and
(5) There is a growing momentum of interest among development organizations to
fund climate adaptation programs as reflected by the growing number of climate
change assessment techniques.

Hayes (2006) adds that unlike mitigation measures, adaptation measures have always been
practiced by societies and governments in responding to climate variability. While this
makes it difficult to separate it from those done in response or in anticipation to
anthropogenic induced climate change, it is also in the realm of familiarity for many
related professions and state actors. Many civilizations have learned to deal with the
climate constraints over time, usually in response to lack of water resources during dry
periods (e.g., Egyptian’s Nile River irrigation system, Roman aqueduct, Mesopotamian
dams) or the exceeding abundance of it during rainy season (Venetian Grand Canal,

6
‘floating villages’ in Ton Le Sap Lake in Cambodia). Fussel and Klein (2006) also points
out the difficulty in monitoring the results and impacts of adaptation programs in aiding its
intended beneficiary. There is a significant degree of uncertainty to what extent is the
program able to reduce the impact of climate change. This raises a concern among
international funding institutions as development programs necessitate a certain measure
that ensures their effectiveness.

Moreover, while mitigation measures done local level are generally considered to have a
global impact, the same cannot be said for adaptation strategies that have a more localized
benefit (Hayes, 2006). Ironically, those who are least able to pay for it – local communities
from poor and under developed countries, suffer the brunt of costs by climate change.
UNFCCC estimated that by 2030 the total investment and financial flows needed for
adaptation is about $49–171 billion, of which $28–67 billion are needed by developing
countries alone (UNFCCC, 2007).

2.3 Approaches to Climate Change adaptation

Climate change adaptation refers to a broad range of initiatives and measures that reduce
the vulnerability of natural and human systems against actual or expected climate change
effects. The context of adaptation is influenced by the climate-sensitive domain under
study, types of climate hazard present, certainty of climate change models, climatic
conditions in the form of political, economic, cultural and other environmental forcings,
purposefulness, timing, planning horizon, form whether technical, institutional, legal or
otherwise; and the actors involved. Due to its diverse context, multiple approaches arose to
resolve climate change adaptation.

Many forms of adaptation measures are not new. It incorporates well-established

disciplines already practiced in the realm of regional and urban planning such as coastal
resource management, disaster risk management, and integrated flood management. It is
also present in public health management and in agricultural science research through the
development pest/drought/flood resistant crops. However, we should also consider that
some aspects of climate change adaptation arose very recently in contemporary history.

Malone (2009) and Nelson et al. (2008) identified four approaches to adaptation research
domain. Each of these research communities has different exposure/receptor units of
vulnerability and different focal concerns.

(1) Impact-oriented research focus on the magnitude of damage done by climate

change to receptor sectors such as food/agriculture, infrastructure, economy,
environment, health, etc. whose magnitude of impact can be measured such as
crops destroyed (in monetary terms), damage to infrastructure, loss of investment
opportunity, lost lives, and loss of biodiversity/species. It emphasizes on the
physical attributes of vulnerability. (Malone, 2009).
(2) Hazards/disaster oriented approach stems from disaster risk management. It
classifies climate change as physical hazard along with it related disasters such as
flood, hurricane, sea level rise, and drought. It has a tendency to emphasize on
extreme climatic events that people-receptors should plan in anticipation. People’s
accounts, dimensions of time, scale space and gender are taken into consideration
concerning social, physical, psychological and cultural vulnerability (Nelson,
Lamboll, & Arendse, 2008) & (Malone, 2009).

7
 (3) Political economy/political ecology deals with exposure unit’s (individual,
household, community) vulnerability vis-à-vis the political and socio-economic
process that determines their vulnerability such lack of basic services and
infrastructure, social security that is exacerbated by the threat of climate change
(Nelson, Lamboll, & Arendse, 2008).
(4) Socio-ecological resilience approach, as defined in the earlier section, stemmed
from Holling’s (1973) theories on ecological resilience. This concept was extended
later on to apply to human-environmental systems, which primarily became the
focus of this approach. Vulnerability is understood as having both a social and a
physical attributes that are inseparable. This approach takes into account dynamics
interaction of systems (not just a single actor, the human, acting upon changes) that
need to respond to changes and accounts for multiple time and spatial scales.
(Malone, 2009) (Nelson, Lamboll, & Arendse, 2008)

These four approaches also mark how our understanding and approach to adaptation has
evolved since the first IPCC approach. The application of socio-ecological resilience to
climate change is a recent concept. While the first three approaches are still widely used in
research and in adaptation planning, there is an increasing interest on resilience research in
the context of sustainable development and climate change. Primarily, due to its ability to
take into account both social and physical vulnerabilities as well as the nuances of climate
change predictability (Wardekker, De Jong, Knoop, & Van der Sluijs, 2010).

The domain of identified climate sensitive receptors is continually expanding. This

development necessitates the involvement of disciplinary approaches and actors not
traditionally involved with regional-local planning and development such as gender,
mathematics, communication, sociology, atmospheric sciences. Recent advances in
climatic sciences also offer decision-makers and planners critical and timely information
on determining the extent, magnitude, origin and, to some extent, the trajectory of climate
induced impacts that are not available before. However, these new developments also bring
with them discoveries that also pit traditional approaches to local climate variability with
the more complex dynamics global climate change. Access to better prediction models also
exposes limitations of adaptation structures in resolving uncertainties which results from
sudden and extreme changes. Most urban planners and policy makers take into account the
risk of natural disasters such as storms, flood and earthquake and by extension climate
change. However, it is often in the light of natural catastrophic disaster such as floods,
tsunamis and typhoons. It is less seen in the context of the multiple hazards of gradual and
cumulative effect of climate change to food security, health, disruptions to ecological
balance and increasing vulnerabilities of urban centers.

2.4 Emergence of resilience perspective on climate change adaptation

The very nature of climate change produces uncertainties. Its ramifications cross local,
national and global boundaries and may manifest (or have already manifested) in the
coming decades or even centuries. Its effects overlap and interact with many layers of
ecological systems. Lastly, climate change is a highly dynamic process whose domain
entrenches social, economic and environmental spheres. Decision makers develop effective
adaptation policies based on available prediction data. Uncertainties in these cases could
lead to overestimation, which wastes valuable resources that could be allocated to other
tasks, or underestimation, which exposes them to the risk of overwhelming impact due to

8
ignorance of a calamity or due to indeterminate and prolonged exposure to climatic stress
(Barnett, 2001).

As discussed before, there are many approaches to climate change adaptation in current
literature; one of the more prevalent approaches is through increasing the resilience of
systems, both human and ecological. Strengthening of resilience aims to increase a
system’s ability to cope with shocks, prolonged disturbances and unknown/wildcard
forcings. Resilience is a measure of the ability of systems to absorb changes of state
variables, driving variables and parameters (Holling, 1973). These systems are able
reorganize by undergoing change while retaining essentially the same function, structure,
identity and feedbacks (Walker, Holling, Carpenter, & Kinzig, 2004). Resilience is not
simply a return-to-original-state process. Later studies done in the realm of social-
ecological system, by extension the urban environment, by Walker et al. (2004) further
relates resilience to adaptability and transformability, the capacity to create a
fundamentally new system states when ecological, economic, or socio-political conditions
make the existing system untenable. Early work on resilience using these definitions had to
do with ecological resilience. Further studies extended resilience concept to social spheres
and much later to integrative social and ecological spheres. Folke (2006) distinguishes at
least three sequence of resilience, as it is currently understood. The first is resilience
engineering that denotes a return of system states to original equilibrium through recovery
and constancy. Second are the ecological and social resiliencies that focus on buffer
capacities of systems to sustain shocks and maintain functions through persistence and
robustness. Unlike the first resilience concept, ecological and social resiliencies are open to
multiple equilibriums. Lastly, socio-ecological resilience, the focus of this study, are able
to account for interplay disturbance, reorganize, sustain, seek opportunities for
development (and transformation) by increasing adaptive capacities through socio-
ecological transformation and capacity building on learning and innovation. This concept
of resilience aims more for robustness of systems rather than stability and takes into
consideration integrated system feedbacks and cross-scale dynamic interactions.

Malone (2009) argues that vulnerability is a deficit concept. It tends to focus the approach
to climate change into pursuing compartmentalized goals and objectives such as
minimizing casualty to storm surges and floods, threat to food security, and damage to
infrastructure. The point of departure of resilience is explained by Nelson et al. (2007) in
their paper that resilience provides a dynamic perspective on adaptation processes and the
effects of these processes at different spatial and temporal scale. Nelson et al. (2007)
summarizes the contribution of resilience framework to environmental change (by
extension climate change) into the following statements:
(1) Change is a fundamental aspect of any system, and the level of system adaptedness
changes as the context changes. Owing to the transitory nature of adaptedness, a
resilience framework stresses the importance of preparation for surprises and
system renewal.
(2) Social-ecological systems can exist in multiple stable states, which are bounded by
thresholds. The desirability of a particular state is a normative classification.
(3) There is an inherent tension between high adaptedness and system resilience, which
results in trade-offs between current efficiency and future vulnerabilities.

The last statement pertains to the proposition of Walker et al. (2006) that “efforts to
deliberately enhance adaptability can (unintentionally) lead to loss of resilience.” The
proposition argues that strengthening adaptation on particular area or shock may in

9
avertedly reduce resilience on other areas and unable to anticipate for surprises. Further,
while adaptation may lead to the increase in production efficiency of one resource, it may
be a detriment to diversity in the long run.
In the realm of urban environmental management, a city’s resilience to climate change is
defined by its capacity to continuously respond, withstand the effects of climate variability,
and still function organically. Resilience to climate change requires urban governments to
display the following characteristics: decentralization and autonomy, accountability and
transparency, responsiveness and flexibility, participation and inclusion and experience
and support (Tanner, Mitchell, Polack, & Guenther, 2009). A study on the role of local
government units on climate change adaptation in the province of Albay, Philippines
revealed that communities experiencing frequent and severe climate hazards are more
aware and responsive to the need climate change adaptation on (Lasco, Delfino, Pulhin, &
Rangasa, 2008). This is supported by the presence of political will and the numerous
policies, programs and projects (PPPs) that the provincial government has enacted and
implemented. Working with adaptation programs at a mesoscale or provincial scale was
also found to be more cost-effective than having to delegate it to smaller and more
numerous municipalities.
It is wrong to assume that climate resilience is just about semantics and simply a
repackaging of existing sustainable development concepts. Climate change resilience puts
these concepts into perspective. It gives us a framework that guides us coherently toward
securing sustained and uninterrupted city development that is responsive to the growing
threats of climate change. In an age of unprecedented extremes in climate variability,
selective and compartmental adaptation measures for climate change, marred with the
inability to respond to uncertainties and ignorance of unforeseen calamities, only give
misguided notion of resolution and maybe suspect to failure.
2.5 Measuring Resilience
It is important to note that measuring resilience is a complicated issue that is largely
unresolved. The resilience concepts presented above are just samples of what are currently
available in literature. Differences in data types (physical/social, quantitative/qualitative),
temporal and spatial scales, and view on what variable and what receptors are critical
produce different approaches to resilience building. Wardekker et al. (2010) summarizes
the above characteristics of a resilient system into the following six principles listed in the
table below.
Table 2.1: Principles and characteristics of a resilient system
Principles Characteristics
Homeostasis multiple feedback loops counteract disturbances and stabilize the system
Omnivory vulnerability is reduced by diversification of resources and means
High flux a fast rate of movement of resources through the system ensures fast
mobilization of these resources to cope with perturbations
Flatness the hierarchical levels relative to the base should not be top-heavy. Overly
hierarchical systems with no local formal competence to act are too
inflexible and too slow to cope with surprise and to rapidly implement
non-standard highly local responses.
Buffering essential capacities are over-dimensioned such that critical thresholds in
capacities are less likely to be crossed
Redundancy overlapping functions; if one fails, others can take over
Note. Adapted from Operationalising a resilience approach to adapting an urban delta to uncertain climate change by
Wardekker, De Jong, Knoop, & Van der Sluijs, 2009, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77.

10
A method for measuring resilience is proposed by Malone and Brenkert (2008) and Moss
et al. (2000) using a vulnerability-resilience indicator model (VRIM). The said model
utilizes a comprehensive framework that goes beyond the analysis of hazards exposure at
the same time taking into account location based factors of resilience. VRIM is a four-tier
model: (1) resilience index from sensitivity and adaptive capacity, (2) vital sectors (human,
economy, environment), (3) proxy variables for each sector; and (4) scenario projection.
Malone and Brenkert (2008) point out that the said model, as with many indicator based
research, is not able to account for the function of demographic and social characteristics.
Of all the studies reviewed, the VRIM offers the most comprehensive number of
indicators. Further, it has also already been used in a number of case studies. The table
below summarizes the sectors and indicators used in this assessment model.

Table 2.2: Structure and relationships in the VRIM

Sector Indicator Proxy for
Sensitivity
Settlement/ Population at flood risk Potential extent of disruptions from sea level rise
infrastructure from sea level rise
sensitivity Population no access Access of population to basic services to buffer
clean water/sanitation against climate variability and change
Food security Cereals production/ crop Degree of modernization in the agriculture sector;
land area access of farmers to inputs to buffer against climate
variability and change
Protein consumption/ Access of a population to agricultural markets and
Capita other mechanisms (e.g., consumption shift) for
Compensating for shortfalls in production
Ecosystem % Land irrigated Degree of human intrusion into the natural
sensitivity landscape
Fertilizer use/cropland Nitrogen/phosphorus loading of ecosystems
area and stresses from pollution
Human health Completed fertility Composite of conditions that affect human health
sensitivity Life expectancy including nutrition, exposure to disease risks, and
access to health services
Water resource Renewable supply and Ratio of water supply from renewable resources and
sensitivity inflow and water withdrawals to meet current or projected
withdrawal needs
Precipitation Precipitation
amount in mm
Coping and adaptive capacity
Economic GDP (market)/capita Distribution of access to markets, technology, and
capacity other resources useful for adaptation
Income equity measure Realization of the potential contribution of all
people
Human and Dependency ratio Social and economic resources available for
civic adaptation after meeting other present needs
resources Literacy Human capital and adaptability of labor force
Environmental Population density Population pressure and stresses on ecosystems
capacity

Air pollution/state area Air quality and other stresses on ecosystems

% Land unmanaged Landscape fragmentation and ease of ecosystem
migration
Note. Adapted from Climate change vulnerability and resilience: current status and trends for Mexico by Ibarrarán,
Malone, & Brenkert, 2009, Population Action International.

11
Brooks et al. (2005) also proposed the following vulnerability indicators for determining
vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the national level:

1) population with access to sanitation,

2) literacy rate, 15–24-year olds,
3) maternal mortality,
4) literacy rate, over 15 years,
5) calorific intake,
6) voice and accountability,
7) civil liberties,
8) political rights,
9) government effectiveness,
10) literacy ratio (female to male),
11) life expectancy at birth.

Shaw et al. (2009) also proposed a similar approach but on a city scale. They developed a
Climate Disaster Resilience Index that tries to account for the localized effects of climate-
induced disasters, such as cyclone, flood, heat wave, drought and heavy rainfall induced
landslide. The model assessed overall resilience based on natural, physical, social,
economic and institutional resilience.

Table 2.3: List of dimensions and variables considered in climate disaster resilience
indicators (CDRI)
Dimensions Variable considered
Physical Electricity, Water supply, Sanitation, Solid waste disposal, Internal
road network, Housing and land use, Community assets, Warning
system and evacuation
Social Health status, Education and awareness, Social capital
Economic Income, Employment, Households’ assets, Access to financial
service, Savings and insurance, Budget and subsidy
Institutional Internal institutions and development plan, Effectiveness of internal
institutions, External institutions and networks, Institutional
collaboration and coordination
Natural Hazard intensity, Hazard frequency
Note. Climate Disaster Resilience: Focus on Coastal Urban Cities in Asia by Shaw, Razafindrabe, Gulshan, & Takeuchi,
2009, Asian Journal of Environment and Disaster Management, 1.

Cutter et al. (2008) provides an attempt in integrating these unaccounted socioeconomic

characteristics by proposing a new framework for measuring disaster resilience called
disaster resilience of place (DROP) model. The said model improves upon the existing
comparative assessment for disaster resilience at the community level. Their seminal paper
in 2008 provides an initial candidate set of variables that will be used in the model. The
model has three limitations: (1) it is specifically designed to address natural hazards; (2) it
focuses on community-level resilience; (3) it focuses on social resilience of places; and (4)
it does not take into account national policies and legislations that may have significant
influence of on community resilience.

12
 Table 2.4: Community resilience indicators based on DROP model
Sector Candidate Variable
Ecological Wetlands acreage and loss
Erosion rates
% impervious surface
Biodiversity
# coastal defense structures
Wetlands acreage and loss
Social Demographics (age, race, class, gender, occupation)
Social networks and social embeddedness
Community values-cohesion
Faith-based organizations
Economic Employment
Value of property
Wealth generation
Municipal finance/revenue
Institutional Participation in hazard reduction programs (NFIP, Storm Ready)
Hazard mitigation plans
Emergency services
Zoning and building standards
Emergency response plans
Interoperable communications
Continuity of operations plans
Infrastructure Lifelines and critical infrastructure
Transportation network
Residential housing stock and age
Commercial and manufacturing establishments
Community Local understanding of risk
competence Counseling services
Absence of psychopathologies (alcohol, drug, spousal abuse)
Health and wellness (low rates mental illness, stress-related outcomes)
Quality of life (high satisfaction)
Note. Adapted from A place-based model for unerstanding community resilience to natural disasters by Cutter, et al.,
2008, Global Environmental Change, 18.

The model measures inherent vulnerability and resilience of the community using the
following indicators: ecological, social, economic, institutional, infrastructure, and
community competence. As of the paper’s publication, the model proposed was not yet
operationalized. The authors also suggest on improving and standardizing the initial set of
indicators. The table below summarizes the domains and proposed indicators for this
assessment model.

13
2.6 Why study climate change resilience at the community level?

This research builds upon the following arguments:

(1) Urban poor communities from developing countries are deemed to suffer more
from climate change;
(2) Adaptation, whether planned, autonomous or reactive, is often focused on a
particular sector and/or with particular limitations in magnitude and period of time
in its design;
(3) Fuzziness of climate change impacts increases as the spatial level decreases – local
specific impacts of climate change area harder to predict with certainty (Malone &
Brenkert, 2008);
(4) National assessments may not be able to take into account subnational nuances in
vulnerabilities due place based characteristics as such national policies and plans
may not sufficiently addressed if not taken into consideration (Wilbanks & Kates,
1999);
(5) Resilience approach to adaptation has the ability to anticipate for unexpected
shocks and rates of perturbations (Nelson, Adger, & Brown, 2007);
(6) Communities are focal points of social collective action and social capability
building needed for increasing adaptive capacity at the local level (Adger, 2003);
and
(7) Barangays are appropriate scale of study due to their functional cohesion and
mobilizing capacity since it has an administrative identity and community identity
(Allen, 2006).

Adger (2003) in his paper on social capital, collection action and adaptation, posits that
communities, especially in developing countries, are focal points of social collective action
and social capital building necessary for increasing adaptive capacity at the local level. In
the Philippines, barangays are the lowest level of decentralized political administration unit
entrusted by the government to promote social, economic and environmental welfare. It
has a functional cohesion and mobilizing capacity, exhibited by its administrative identity
with a formal leadership structure as well as a community identity that is reinforced by
social events hosted by the barangay government through basketball tournaments, town
fiestas, and public assemblies or hearings (Allen, 2006). Due to the scale of this political
unit, local decisions are often based on unanimity by local politicians and other influential
parties. Family and kinship often comes first before political administrative ties.
Oftentimes, family or kinship dictates political ties. Vertical relationship with
municipal/city governments is often dictated by the close relationship of barangay officials
with municipal officials, especially the mayor, the local chief executive. Moreover, due to
its political nature as an administrative unit, most available secondary data from documents
and reports from both public and private institutions are available on this level.
Adger (2003) highlighted three lessons that are further explored in this study:
 “…adaptive capacity… has culture and place-specific characteristics that can be
identified only through culture and place- specific research.”
 “there are the institutional prerequisites for the evolution and persistence of
collective action and its relative importance compared to state intervention”

14
  “institutional theories of social capital provide a means to generalize the macro
level determinants of adaptive capacity”

In light of these arguments, while this study shall be looking at the resilience of the
community or the barangay as a whole, it will take in to account both place-based and
person-based induced resilience as well as the influence of national level policies that aim
to enhance local adaptive capacity. Understanding of place prosperity and people
prosperity is significant in the development of national policies that aims to assist to
individuals especially when it has genuine externalities that may also benefit other similar
localities or places of larger scales (Bolton, 1992).

A recent project of UN Habitat in the Sorsogon City, Philippines on promoting community

resilience reflects the still-prevailing needs of many cities in developing countries – (1)
enabling capacity to implement measures in combating contemporary issues such as
climate change; and (2) strong public involvement at all levels of planning, decision-
making process and implementation. The latter case being largely solved (or at least in the
process of being solved) already at least in countries where there is a strong presence of
internationally denominated donor agencies. The former however is still largely
unresolved. This is clearly echoed by the development priorities on capacity building and
technical assistance from international assistance mentioned.
Local governments, such as Sorsogon City, as pointed out by Lasco et al. (2008), which
are exposed more often to the climate-induced hazards, are those who are more readily
aware to the needs of climate change, yet are unable to respond due to their limited set of
knowledge and skills. Prioritizing the acquisition of knowledge and skills is clearly the first
step in the effort of achieving climate change resilience. This, together with the
strengthening of organic links within the city further inspires local cooperative action.
Further, while it is one of the most essential parts for climate adaptation action, it is also
one of the easiest to implement technically and financially. These efforts necessitate only
the participation of the vulnerable populations (which is a sufficient incentive given the
perceived threat) and political willingness and resolve of local authorities (vulnerable
populations are also potential voters).

2.7 Adaptation strategies in Southeast Asia and the Philippines

Several climate change adaptation initiatives are already in place in Southeast Asia.
However, according to Resurreccion and Sajor (2008), these initiatives are largely focused
on climate change impacts, particularly on traditional sectors such as agriculture, coastal,
aquatic and forestry resources, and water resources. These initiatives also put emphasis on
biophysical vulnerabilities and prefer technical interventions in addressing said
vulnerabilities.

All SEA countries, except Myanmar and Timor Leste, already developed their National
Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) to the UNFCC. These NAPAs presented plans
and options for mitigation via reduction of GHG emissions but failed to provide extensive
measures for adaptation (Resurreccion & Sajor, 2008). Climate change initiatives in SEA
are initiated by either government agencies through state policies and actions or NGOs
through international intermediaries. These initiatives were carried out through policies,
researches and capacity building activities. Some of these initiatives are listed on Appendix
A.

15
Initial efforts to address climate change issues in the Philippines began with the Philippine
Strategy for Sustainable Development (PSSD) and the Philippine Agenda 21 in 1991. In
the same year, the Philippine government already formed the Inter-agency Committee on
Climate Change (IACCC), composed of 15 government agencies and non-government
organizations. The IACCC was formed in order to provide the government with technical
expertise on national matters regarding climate change. In 1997, through these early
initiatives, the country was one of the first countries to develop its NAPA.

Presently, there are already several existing national legislations in the Philippines exist
that enables or support initiatives for climate change adaptation. The monumental
legislation galvanizing the government’s thrust in curbing the effects of climate change
was passed in 2009. The Climate Change Act of 2008 mandates government agencies to
mainstream climate change agenda into government policies. Unlike earlier initiatives by
the government, this landmark legislation primarily focuses in enabling the government
and its people to adapt with the potential consequences of climate change. The legislation
also created the Climate Change Commission which is tasked as the to formulate and
implement a National Climate Change Action Plan, develop related enabling policies and
act as the coordinating body for all government agencies on climate change matters. The
said commission also replaced the Presidential Task Force on Climate Change and the
Inter-Agency Committee on Climate Change. Aside from the Climate Change Act, the
country has also several national legislations that supplements the said law through
protection of biophysical and natural resources (Clean Water Act, Ecological Solid Waste
Management Act, Fisheries Law), mitigation of greenhouse gases (Clean Air Act, Biofuels
Act), and derivation of alternative sources for critical resources (Water Wells, Rainwater
Collectors and Spring Development Act), among others.

Aside from these national legislations, a number of climate change adaptation initiatives
are also conducted in the country, some of which are still on going. Some of these
initiatives are found:
Table 2.5: Climate Change adaptation initiatives in the Philippines
Initiative Implementing Organization(s) Status
Various CCA projects including Provincial Government of Albay, On-going
mainstreaming of CC to local governance ICRAF
Vulnerability mapping, various CCA projects City Government of Sorsogon On-going
City, UNHabitat
Integrated risk mapping Manila Observatory, Christian On-going
AID UK
Second National Communication to Climate Change Commission On-going
UNFCCC (formerly IACCC)
Mapping Philippine Vulnerability to Manila Observatory Completed
Environmental Disasters
AIACC/START UPLB Completed
Mainstreaming adaptation in natural systems UPLB, ICRAF, TroffCA Completed
and policy
Disaster risk management and CCA in Manila Observatory Completed
Oriental Mindoro
Capacity building on CCA mainstreaming in Ateneo School of Government Completed
Malabon
Note. Adapted from Climate Adaptation in Asia: Knowledge Gaps and Research Issues in Southeast Asia, B.
Resurreccion & E. Sajor, 2008, ISET.

16
2.8 Urban Planning & Management and Climate Change Resilience

Urban planning and management has a significant role in building urban climate resiliency.
Cities, especially coastal cities on developing countries here in SEA, where disparate
concentrations of national population and economic power are located will most likely
suffer from the brunt of long term effects of climate change and its related disasters. A
vulnerability mapping study by EEPSEA in 2009 lists coastal megacities such as Jakarta,
Metro Manila and Bangkok as the most vulnerable regions in their respective counties
(Yusuf & Francisco, 2009).

Urban planning and management, as it is currently practiced, already covers issues such as
effective land use, public transport systems and housing. The same is true with sustainable
development concepts such as environmental sustainability, social equity and local
economic development. These same issues and concepts also factor significantly in
building resilience at the city level. However, there are still other climate change issues
that are not fully integrated in the realm of urban planning and management. These issues
are often identified with national and regional plans and policies, and likewise governed by
intermediaries at the said government administrative scales, such as energy, water and food
security. These need to be understood in consideration of external shocks brought by oil
crisis, prolonged drought, food-biofuel competition, flood and other man-made and natural
calamities.

As described above, cities are complex system that continually needs to adapt. It is
therefore a good example of system where resilience concepts can be applied. The
principles proposed by Wardekker et al. (2010) can be used to illustrate the current role of
urban planning and management and determine the potential areas on which it could
contribute further. As stated previously, many concepts that shall be discussed below are
already entwined in existing practices but may be less pronounced in the context of climate
change adaptation.

Homeostasis

This principle refers to the establishment of feedback loops that aim to stabilize the system
to external perturbations. These are self-reinforcing mechanisms resolve intrinsic issues in
order to mitigate or avoid altogether the compounding effect of external climate forcings.
In the realm of urban planning and management, one such example is the reduction urban
heat island effect that consequently mitigates prolonged effects of global warming at local
level. This commonly achieved through careful planning and allocation of green open
spaces that could act as heat sinks, and through the design of lighter-colored roads that
deflects radiant energy rather than absorb it. Road systems should also be planned to allow
for natural circulation not only above (ventilation) but also below (drainage).

Early warning and response mechanisms for disaster also contribute to internal stability.
The safety of residents is ensured by providing them sufficient time to evacuate to safer
grounds before disaster strikes. A well-developed disaster risk management system
incorporates monitoring of sea or river water level in case of flood and other
meteorological indicators.

Local economic development also protects the city from shocks in the national or global
economy, making more self-sufficient (probably even in terms of vital goods and services)

17
and less elastic to external negative economic influences brought by natural calamities or
financial crisis.

Omnivory

This involves multiple approaches or solutions to an identified issue or problem, increases

the chance of resolution. Further, if one of the approaches fails, the city is still left with
other options. In many developing countries, where agriculture is still a large part of
economy of many cities, multiple cropping patterns that are more responsive to local
climate variability are currently being developed. Diverse forms of available transport
modes and systems ensure flow of goods and persons during calamities. The energy sector,
which is vital to the function of the city, should also have alternative sources at sufficient
amounts. In Metro Manila and the rest of the Philippines, for example, significantly draws
power from hydrological sources. Due to the early onset and prolonged drought that the
region is experiencing, water levels on four of the country’s hydroelectric dams were
significantly decreased, nearing critical levels and the operation are threatened to be
shutdown to avoid damage to the structures. The same is true for potable water sources that
are also threatened by prolong periods of drought.

High flux

Responses and warnings to threats and changes are vital in ensuring the safety of the city’s
residents. As mentioned, it is critical that these warnings are disseminated to vulnerable
populations as fast as possible. Several technologies already exist for this end, such as
SMS, TV and radio broadcasts. Fast deployment of emergency response is also an essential
element in effectively abating threats to life. The local responsible authorities should have
technical and logistical capacity that enables rapid deployment of persons and equipment
to those in need.

Horizontal urban growth also influences response times. The more compact a city is the
more quickly emergency teams can be deployed on a target area. Planning should also
provide for quick access to safer grounds. Elevated open areas or designated rescue points,
for example, should be within reach of housing settlements.

Another aspect of climate disaster that could be looked into is recovery. Modular housing
and building units allows for cheap and easy reproduction of parts needed to build the said
structures. Modular and flexible flood defense structures are another aspect that could be
explored. It has the potential to allow for quick deployment of flood structures and at the
same quick de-installation of these structures (so that it would not block and restrict access
to rivers or roads).

Flatness

This principle involves the prevention of top-heavy systems. Authorities and

responsibilities should be distributed and devolved down to the community level. When
top-level decision-making collapses, the bottom is still able to function. Decentralized
commands also enable quick assessment of the situation and respond accordingly. It
enables the participating communities to respond by themselves. Most oftentimes, this
approach is more responsive to the needs of residents, as they are able to determine for
themselves their priorities and needs. If these functions are always relegated to a central

18
command, it usually takes time before decisions are passed to the local level. Devolution of
authority and responsibility also ensures that decision making in the city is not cut off from
regional or central governments if the scale of the calamity is nationwide. Flatness operates
on elements of good urban governance, where decentralization and public participation are
highly promoted.

Buffering

Buffering allows for shocks and changes to be absorbed and barred to some extent. In
flood management literature, this pertains to water retention areas where floodwater is
drained temporarily or permanently. These could include parks, car parks, open spaces and
underground/basement areas. Multi-function dwelling units designed with the lower floors
serving non-vital functions building is another example, as well as houses on built on stilts
or elevated using landfill.

The main function of green open spaces mentioned in homeostasis is to also buffer/absorb
heat radiated from engines and air conditioning units. It also serves as conduits for ground
water recharge, absorption of ambient pollution, noise and GHG emissions. Green roofing
and vertical farming are also potential similar solutions. Their implementability on
developing countries may be very limited, however.

Redundancy

Redundancy of systems could refer to authority; transport modes plying the same route;
power lines, communication, and drainage lines; and vital structures such as hospitals and
relief centers. This principle ensures that the loss of one facility or person in authority does
not cripple the function of the city. Redundancy also pertains to plans. Disaster
management plans and climate adaptation plans should always have a ready alternative, a
Plan B so to speak. Planning for failure enables us to account for unforeseen shocks or
have an exit strategy when all systems or available measures fail.

Many of these aspects are already well established, either in urban planning or its allied
fields such as land use planning and management, building design regulations, disaster risk
reduction and management, flood and landslide hazard mapping, public infrastructure that
assuage natural disasters to vulnerable settlements, disaster resistant settlements, urban
planning regulations on open spaces, transport system hierarchies, road width, design and
location of hospitals, fire and police stations, administrative offices, street grid pattern,
among others. However, even in a city where most, if not all, of these principles are met
already, they were not yet pursued in a coherent fashion. It could be noted that most of
these principles have overlapping benefits. One cited already is the benefit of having open
spaces that mitigates external influences from global warming and at the same time
absorbs the heat produced internally. Multi-function buildings, which serves both
commercial and residential purposes, promotes omnivory and buffering at the same time.
Further, careful planning of city transport systems not only allows for rapid transport of
person, goods and equipment in all conditions but also has the potentially to improve
ventilation inside the city. Also, notably present in these principles are elements of urban
governance that calls for devolution of power structures, most especially on vital functions
such as disaster management. Many of concepts presented here are also gaining ground in
the context of green building literature, especially on the use of modular and prefabricated

19
construction units for houses and buildings, multi-functionality, green roofing and vertical
farming.

The need now is how urban planner and managers, especially from poor and developing
countries, will incorporate these principles given that many of the concepts mentioned are
green agenda projects. Another challenge still is how these principles can be applies on
metropolis and cities, such as Metro Manila, which built environment is already heavily
congested and faces hazards from multiple vectors, both natural and man-made.

2.9 Role of synergy in social capital development

Evans (1997) posited that “active government and mobilized communities can enhance
each other’s developmental efforts.” He argues that the combined actions of both public
and private actors could yield greater results than either party could produce
independently. He identified two characteristic relationships between the government and
the civil society: (1) complementarity and (2) embeddedness. Complementarity refers to
the mutually reinforcing actions between state and non-state actors based on their inherent
capacities and limitations. Embeddedness on the other hand refers to the quality of
horizontal and vertical relationships across the public-private divide. The concepts of
complementarity and embeddedness are mutually reinforcing and enriching. He further
explains that “complementarities create the potential but do not provide an institutional
basis for realizing it”. Rather, it is through thick vertical and horizontal relationships
between the state and society that facilitates complementarities to work synergistically.

There are an increasing number of studies that point out the importance of community
based organizations as well as civil society organizations in enhancing the local climate
change and disaster resilience. Governments are also becoming more open participatory
processes that enables the said organizations, including stakeholders, play an active roles
as partners in many state-sponsored development projects, including that of climate change
adaptation. Synergy brings these efforts into a perspective.

2.10 Gaps in understanding climate change impacts and resilience

A recent study by Resurreccion and Sajor (2008) identified several limitations in our
current understanding of impacts of climate change. The study posits the limited
understanding of how social dimensions to resilience could have substantial influence on
how climate change affects people such as migration and social security. The said study
also points out the lack of effort in addressing multi-scale governance issues, among
different government agencies and departments, across different levels of government.
This also includes pervading gaps between sectors and stakeholders; how differently
climate change issues are abstracted at the national level and at the local level.

20
 Chapter 3
Methodology

The proceeding section discusses the conceptual and analytical framework, specific aims
and the methodologies used in this research. It includes the approaches in methodology,
the types of research methods used, methodological framework, research and analysis
instruments used and the criteria for study area selection.

3.1 Conceptual and Analytical Framework

The data collection and its succeeding analysis follows an framework conceived on the
concept of resilience as mutually convergent processes spanning across different scales of
governance rather than an inherent characteristic of an isolated system in a particular slice
of time. Further, the analysis of the events regarding the extreme weather event is
approached using the phases of the disaster in the perspective of the survivors as it is
experienced (DeWolfe, 2000)1. This framework is illustrated on the figure below adapted
from Füssel (2007).

Figure 3.1 Füssel's hypothetical example of timing in a planned adaptation

Note. Adapted from Adaptation planning for climate change: concepts, assessment approaches, and key lessons, H.M.
Füssel, 2006, Sustainability Science.

The analysis shall carry on a contrastive approach on the factors contributing to the
resilience between the two communities in this study. The coping mechanisms employed
by the two communities shall be examined in five phases: (1) conditions prior to the TS
Ketsana including existing vulnerabilities prior to the extreme weather event, (2) events
during the flood including immediate events before after the flood, (3) events during
remediation period, (4) events during recovery phase and (5) city and national level events
during and after the disaster. The methodology used in this study also relies on this
approach.

1
A phenomenological approach as opposed to disaster response/management approach.

21
Figuree 3.2 Conceeptual Fram
mework

3.2 Type
T of Ressearch

This research
r useed mixed method
m apprroach. It is i a primarily qualitatiive study but
b
augmeented and vaalidated by quantitative approachess as well. A mixed metthod approacch
was coonsidered foor this studyy because itt enables triiangulation aand co-validdation of daata
deriveed from bothh methods. It was also ddeemed morre appropriaate in an urban poor studdy
such as
a this that laacks of sufficcient prior reesearch data.

The qu
ualitative approach aimss to:

 Explore thhe characteeristics of vulnerable urban settllements witth respect to

unpredictaable climatee variabilityy. Determinee the perceeived effectts of climaate
change. Th he role of studying
s thee vulnerabilities of the two study areas on thhis
w primarilyy to expose the pre-exissting conditiions the com
research was mmunities thhat
are similarr in nature too what they hhave experieenced duringg TS Ketsanaa.
 Explore thhe climate reesilient charracteristics of o communiities with reespect to theeir
inherent caapacities and d local practtices. It aimss to map outt economic and
a livelihoood
fabrics annd determinne how thhese depend dencies streengthen or weaken thhe
communitiies’ resiliencce.
 Describe the
t extent of o these chaaracteristics in degradinng and/or enhancing
e thhe
resilience of
o urban com mmunities
 Evaluate how
h the resu
ults of this sttudy could innfluence deccision-makinng at the loccal
and meso-llevel

uantitative approach
The qu a of this
t study aim
ms to:

 Describe thhe effects off climate varriability on the

t urban coommunity ussing indicatoor-
based measurement toools
 Describe the
t intra-hou usehold, inteer-household d and comm
munity adapttive strategies
employed byb communiity memberss
  Explain the validity and limitations of existing literature on generally accepted and
proposed indicators for climate change resilience at the community level

3.3 Methodological Framework

The study involves five major steps:

(1) Problem definition as well as identification of research questions (as addressed in

Chapter 1)
(2) Identification of suitable case study areas using criteria on Section 3.5
(3) The third step aims to establish the climate change history between two
communities, with similar climatic events but different recovery process and/or
outcome results. A diachronic study shall be conducted between two communities
vis-à-vis their experiences with past severe weather conditions and a recent extreme
weather event, TS Ketsana. The historical data shall contain their perceptions,
practices and characteristics concerning past severe weather conditions before and
after, and during an extreme weather event.
(4) From a contrastive examination of the micro-historical accounts of the two
communities, the characteristics or factors that made one community resilient as
compared to the other shall be established.
(5) Using positivist qualitative induction, the characteristics and factors determined
from the previous step shall be used to validate whether existing and proposed
climate change resilience indicators are applicable in the context of the study.

Since the study examined the experiences two communities during flood that was brought
in the wake of TS Ketsana, emphasis was made on the coping strategies applied by the
both communities on a past similar disaster.

3.4 Research Instruments

The following research instruments were used during data collection:

Unstructured key informant interviews

The study began by conducting several unstructured interviews with key informants from
the local government units that were preliminary identified from literature as highly
vulnerable areas. Insights from the locals and community organization officials during site
visits were likewise sought to provide additional inputs for viable study areas.

Onsite observations

An ocular inspection of the communities identified by the key informants was conducted to
validate whether these communities satisfied the criteria for study areas set on Section 3.7.
Informal-unstructured interviews with locals were also conducted to reveal initial insights
on the magnitude of impact of TS Ketsana had on their community and their status of
recovery from the said calamity.

23
Focus group discussions

Around 9 to 16 household heads of families that were severely affected by TS Ketsana

from each of the two communities were invited on separate focus group discussions
(FGD). The FGD was used to reconstruct the events leading to the destruction brought by
TS Ketsana, their ordeal during the typhoon and its aftermath, and their recovery.
Participatory mapping tools were employed to explore the vulnerabilities and resilience
building strategies of the two communities. A further and more thorough session of FGD
was conducted among groups of respondents in one of the study area (East Riverside) that
was identified having different recovery experiences from the initial FGD.

The series of FGDs aimed to solicit from the respondents the key determinants of their
rates of recovery, key actors who played vital roles during the disaster and the recovery
period, collective and autonomous actions during and after the typhoon, understanding of
climate related risks in their locality.
Semi-structured key informant interviews
Based from the FGDs and preliminary secondary data gathering, key informants were
interviewed regarding their role in the recovery of the communities from TS Ketsana. This
series of KI interviews provided definitive insights on the key actions and instruments they
helped to mobilize that hastened the recovery process of the communities or shortcomings
and limitations that contributed to the slow process of recovery.
Household Survey

Using the FGDs and the KIs as means of distilling which indicators and other determinants
were significant in building resilience against climate change relate severe and extreme
weather conditions, a survey was conducted among households from the two study areas.
The survey aimed to test the pervasiveness of the determinants of resilience identified in
FGDs vis-à-vis their corresponding climate change resilience indicators available in
literature. The questionnaire used for the survey is found in the Appendix section.

Review of published reports and public documents

Secondary data gathering aimed to establish the factors that contributed to the biophysical
and social vulnerability vis-à-vis the perennial threat of climate and meteorological
phenomenon on the two communities. It supplemented and validated some the claims of
respondents on cases where they were not able provide figures, dates and other specific
data. Secondary data was also used to aid in the formulation of the findings, implications,
conclusion and recommendations of this study.

3.5 Detailed Methodology for Focus Group Discussion

The FGD was conducted on site, in a convenient location on the two study area. The FGD
was conducted in three stages, (i) perceptions, practices, characteristics and experiences
with severe weather conditions before TS Ketsana; (ii) micro-history on practices, and
experiences with TS Ketsana; and (iii) perceptions, practices, characteristics and
experiences with severe weather conditions after TS Ketsana. The study builds on the
conceptual framework derived from the Urban Participatory Climate Change Appraisal
(Moser & Stein, 2010).

24
Respondents
The FGD was conducted on site at a common area from the two communities, where there
was traffic from passersby within the communities. In East Riverside, this was conducted
on a multipurpose hall along the road, a daycare center and a vacant lot adjacent the
houses. The FGDs in East Riverside were conducted on November 20-22, 2010. In
Balubad, the FGD was conducted on a multipurpose hall commonly used by the residents
for community functions. The FGDs in Balubad were conducted on December 12-13,
2010.
At least 15 respondents were invited for the FGD. For East Riverside, around 15
respondents came to attend the FGD. While on Balubad, around 9 attended (see Appendix
D and Appendix E). A required number of respondents was set to ensure the flow of
discussion. Passerbys were also encouraged to participate during discussions.
The following participatory tools were used during the focus group discussions:
 Transect walk
 Participatory mapping of community assets and areas affected by severe weather
conditions
 Listing and ranking of most important community assets
 Listing and ranking of most important household assets
 General data matrix on population, number of households, average income,
infrastructures and services
 Visual mapping, listing and ranking of severe weather conditions experienced, their
consequences and coping strategies or solutions applied
 Listing and ranking of significant consequences of climate related events
 Time line of significant community events, severe weather conditions, including
related disease outbreaks, and extreme weather events, including tide changes
within the week, including activities/changes in reaction to conditions and events
 Community history matrix of climate related events and effects on community
 Matrix of asset based strategies applied by households during disaster
 Matrix of adaptation strategies by household before, during and after event
 Listing and ranking of institutions and specific ‘champions’ supporting local
adaptation including of support types and incidence, spatial location (within/outside
of community), if positive or negative
A detailed matrix of the required data and specific tools that that were employed in this
study is outlined in the proceeding section.
Site selection
Study areas were selected using the criteria pre-defined based on accounts from news
sources, corroborated by administrative officials from the city and barangay level and
confirmed during ocular survey by thesis adviser. A preliminary internet search on
Google News was made to identify urban poor areas in Metro Manila that was significantly
affected by TS Ketsana. The combination of keywords that were used is “Metro Manila”,
“urban poor community” and “Ketsana”.

25
3.6 Analysis Instruments

Research Question Critical Information Set Data Sources Data Collection Techniques
What are the effects Flood data News articles Documentation
of unpredictable Health records Journal articles Analyses of published
climate variability to Mortality rate Published reports accounts/reports and public
low-lying and Effects of climate related events Key informant and documents
coastal urban Other effects identified/perceived by respondents respondent’s account Unstructured interviews
communities? (exploratory) Communities’ accounts FGDs
Public documents and reports Listing and ranking
What makes these Land use Plan Key informant accounts Documentation
communities Housing quality Community accounts Analyses of published
vulnerable to # coastal/riverine defense structures Community maps accounts/reports and public
climate change? Climate and meteorological data News articles documents
Access to water and sanitation Published reports Key informant interviews
Population at risk from ASLR Public documents and reports Transect walk
Precipitation Journal articles Participatory mapping
Life expectancy Focus group discussions
Income Listing and ranking
Severe and extreme weather data
Areas affected by severe and extreme weather
conditions
What are the Demographics (age, race, class, gender, Key informant and Documentation
characteristics of the occupation, education level, respondent’s account Analyses of published
community that livelihood/employment); Communities’ accounts accounts/reports and public
makes them resilient Social networks and social embeddedness Community maps documents
to climate change? (transients, migration, single headed HH, Institutional maps Unstructured interviews
presence of kins, age of community); Observation Focus group discussions
Available public infrastructure and services News articles Matrix
Community and household assets Published reports Attitude surveys
Emergency funds available; Public documents and reports Key informant interviews
26
Research Question Critical Information Set Data Sources Data Collection Techniques
Emergency response plans Household survey On site observations
Local employment and livelihood Institutional mapping
Participation in disaster reduction Transect walk
programs/trainings Listing and ranking
Institutions that support local adaptation and
disaster recovery
Internal institutions and development plan

What are the Number and nature of strategic actions (PPPs) Public documents and reports Analyses of published
national programs, Institutions supporting and responsible for local Authorative reports and accounts/reports and public
policies and plans adaptation analyses regarding these PPPs documents
that aim to directly Key informant interviews with Key informant interviews
enhance climate experts Institutional mapping
change resilience? Institutional maps Listing and ranking
What are the Results of the study Expert judgment
implications of the
results of this study
to urban planning
and management?
Why indicators Results of the study Expert judgment
mattered in
increasing the
resilience of the
communities with
regards to climate
change?

27
3.7 Study area selection
The study was conducted on two communities located in Metro Manila. The main criteria
for resilience used in this study for screening a climate change resilient community was its
ability to recover significantly from TS Ketsana after one year. The selection of study areas
was limited to coastal or riverine communities as they are most likely vulnerable to climate
change due to high tide, heavy precipitation and exposure to severe and extreme weather
conditions. This study also focused urban poor communities due to increased vulnerability
arising from limited access to resources and services, poor housing conditions, degraded
natural resources and other negative environmental conditions. The communities chosen
also suffered and still suffer from perennial climatic stressors and high exposure to
multiple climate risks and have been significantly affected by TS Ketsana and the flood it
brought with it. Both communities should also have similar ecological zone, biophysical
vulnerabilities, experienced the same magnitude of effect from TS Ketsana, and similar
socio-economic profile. Lastly, the recovery process and stories of the two communities
should be different. The cities, where the studies were conducted, were pre-selected from
already-identified vulnerable cities or communities described in the earlier works of Perez
et al. (1996), Bankoff (2003), Rodolfo & Siringan (2006), Sales (2009) and Porio (2010).
3.8 Philippines, Flooding in Metro Manila and Tropical Storm Ketsana
The Philippines is an archipelago of 7,107 islands located on the western edge of the
Pacific Ring of Fire. The archipelago also lies on a typhoon belt along the tropical equator.
Each year, an average of 20 typhoons enters the Philippine area of responsibility. The
country also has one of the longest coastlines in the world with a total of 36,289
kilometers. Most of the country’s major urban centers are also located along the coasts,
such as Metro Manila, Metro Cebu and Metro Davao. The combination of high frequency
of typhoons, floods, tsunamis, droughts, volcanic eruption, earthquakes, landslides and
many of the country’s urban centers’ exposure to multiple hazards makes it as one of the
most natural disaster-prone countries. According to a World Bank study in 2008, 50.3
percent of the country’s total area and 81.3 percent of its population is vulnerable to natural
disasters. Bankoff (2003) observed that flooding in the Philippines “has occurred
throughout the recorded history of the archipelago… as a result of the low-lying nature of
much of the terrain and the frequency of typhoons” in the country.

Figure 3.3 Combined risk to climate and weather related risks

Note. Arrow indicates the location of Metro Manila. Adapted from Mapping Philippine Vulnerability to Environmental
Disasters, 2005, [Link] Manila Observatory.
3.9 Flooding
F in
n Metro Man
nila

The National
N Cappital Regionn (NCR) or Metro Mannila is the seeat of goverrnment of thhe
Philipp
pines (see Figure
F 3.3 for location). It is compossed of 16 citties and one municipalitty.
k 2 with a tootal populatiion of 11,5553,427. The Metro Maniila
It has a total area of 638.55 km
Develoopment Auuthority (MMDA) oveersees development planning, mo onitoring annd
coordiination funcctions. The MMDA is also in chaarge of the provision of o metro-widde
servicees in the reggion such ass solid wastee management, transportt and traffic managemennt,
flood control
c and managemen
m t and overalll developmeent planning..

The reegion is loccated on a semi-alluvial

s l floodplain formed by sediment flowf from thhe
Meycaauayan and Malabon-Tu ullahan riverr basins in the
t north, thhe Marikina river basin in
the easst and the West
W Mangg gahan basin iin the south (Bankoff, 20003 and Porrio, 2010) (seee
Figuree 3.4). At leeast 20% of the total lannd area in the
t metropollitan region is considereed
prone to floodinng by MM MDA (Bankkoff, 2003).. Notwithsttanding Meetro Manilaa’s
topogrraphy, the loocal climatee also makees it prone tot flooding. From 19600 to 1990, thhe
averagge precipitattion on the area
a ranges from
f 1,834 to
t 2,257 mmm; rainfalls of
o 200 mm or
more which lasts for more than t two daays were alsso common, with higheer occurrencce
duringg typhoons (B Bankoff, 20003).

Figuree 3.4 Flood Prone Areaas in Metro Manila

Note. Staar indicates locaation of Manila South
S Harbor. Adapted
A from “Im
mage: Flood Hazzard Map of Mettro Manila,” 2009,
[Link] M%20Flood%20H 0Hazard%20Map [Link], Mines andd Geosciences Bureau, Departmeent
of Envirronment and Nattural Resources.
Zoleta-Nantes (2000) relates urbanization to the flooding problem in Metro Manila.
Concretization, which is associated with urbanization, of much the region’s surface area
substantially increase volume run-off. The said author also posits that the land-use pattern
changes on the surrounding regions of NCR influenced flooding pattern in the area. She
observed that flooding “spread from the low-lying coastal areas in Manila, Navotas and
Malabon, and along the banks of San Juan and Pasig River in the 1950s to the more
suburban areas of Manila, Quezon City, Pasay, San Juan and Kalookan in the 1960s and
1970s” (Zoleta-Nantes, 2000).

With regards to climate change and the possibility of sea level rise, the metropolitan
region, including its surrounding provinces, Bulacan and Cavite, will be severely affected
by a 1-meter sea level rise (Perez, Feir, Carandang, & Gonzalez, 1996). Even at 0.3-m sea
level rise, areas in the KAMANAVA region of Metro Manila such Malabon, Navotas and
Dagat-dagatan, which already experience frequent coastal and riverine flooding due
subsidence, may experience severe sea water intrusion (see Figure 3.4).

Land subsidence due to excessive groundwater extraction contributes to flooding in Metro

Manila. This anthropological factor could further exacerbate of sea level rise. The sea level
rise recorded in the Manila South Harbor (see Figure 3.4 for location) saw a significant
increase during the 1960s, around the period when ground water utilization also increased
significantly in Metro Manila (Rodolfo & Siringan, 2006). The study of Rodolfo &
Siringan (2006) also reported that the worst annual floods in Bulacan and KAMANAVA
between 1991 and 2002 increased by 0.2 to one meter.

3.10 Tropical Storm Ketsana

Tropical Storm Ketsana or Ondoy lasted only 3 days on the Philippines. However, it
brought with it significant amount damage to property and loss to life as a result of flash
floods and landslides it carried on its wake. TS Ketsana brought the highest precipitation
recorded on a single day in Metro Manila at 454.9 mm. Below is a summary of its activity
and of the typhoon that followed it from the final report of the National Disaster Risk
Reduction and Management Council (then National Disaster Coordination Council)
regarding TS Ketsana and Typhoon Parma (NDRRMC, 2009):

Tropical Storm Ketsana developed from a low pressure area on east of Luzon to a
tropical depression in September 24, 2009. It was designated the name “Ondoy”
by the national weather bureau, Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and
Astronomical Services Administration or PAG-ASA, once it entered the
Philippine Area of Responsibility. It made landfall on the island of Luzon on
September 25, 2009 on the general direction of Central and Northern Luzon. It
intensified to a tropical storm as it moved towards Aurora-Isabela area. Ketsana
exited out of the country to South China Sea on September 27, 2009. Its
maximum center winds was 105 km/h with gustiness of 135 km/h while moving
from 11 to 19 km/h. TS Ketsana was immediately followed by the development of
Typhoon Parma, east of Northern Mindanao on September 29, 2009. Parma made
its first landfall on Luzon Island, particularly in Cagayan, on October 3, 2009. On
October 6, 2009, it made a 2nd landfall over Luzon Island. It finally exited the
country on October 10, 2009.
The same report also stated that TS Ketsana brought widespread flooding in almost all
parts in Metro Manila, Central and Southern Luzon. In Metro Manila alone, a total of 239

30
barangays were inundated. 172,287 families or 864, 668 individuals were affected by
Ketsana. A total of 173 persons were reported dead due to the effects of TS Ketsana. The
national estimated cost of damage to property is at PhP 10.45 billion, with infrastructure
damages at PhP 3.684 Billion (85.68M USD) and agriculture damages at PhP 6.766 Billion
(157.35M USD).

31