Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

​ Natividad , the easternmost town of Pangasinan, has two accounts of how it got its

name, either from its own nativity or from its patroness, Nuestra Señora de Natividad. It

was originally composed of barrios and sitios from San Quintin, San Nicolas, and Tayug,

and became an independent municipality through Act 371 on March 7, 1902. Covering

13,436 hectares, Natividad is largely agricultural, with rice as its main product, supported

by livestock, poultry, fishing, and rice mills. The town is also known for its attractions,

such as Maranum Falls, which never dries up, and the Sky Plaza, an ecotourism

pilgrimage site featuring religious landmarks including a grotto, a 30-foot cross, and the

40-foot statue “Ayat ni Apo Jesus.”

​ The chosen community, barangay of Poblacion East, has a population of 2,497 as

of the 2020 Census, accounting for 7.49% of the municipality's total population of 25,771

people, with a very low annual growth rate of 0.09% from 2015 to 2020.

​ Economically, Natividad's revenue has steadily grown, suggesting a developing

local economy, but the needs of Poblacion East reflect ongoing infrastructure and social

service challenges typical of rural communities with agricultural bases. The community's

agricultural livelihood depends heavily on palay farming, making farmer facilities critical

for storage and post-harvest processing, which currently are lacking.

In civil engineering terms, the community of Poblacion East faces several

interconnected and pressing infrastructure challenges that affect its functionality, safety,

and overall quality of life. The lack of a dedicated multi-purpose hall capable of serving
 2

as a properly equipped evacuation center severely limits the barangay’s disaster

resilience. Figure 1 shows the current multi-purpose hall of población east which is only

a part of the barangay hall. Currently, residents depend on schools and covered courts that

are not designed to handle large groups during emergencies, shown in Figure 2, resulting

in overcrowding, inadequate facilities for health and sanitation, and increased risks

during natural disasters like floods and typhoons. This gap underscores the urgent need

for civil infrastructure that prioritizes community safety and emergency preparedness.

Agriculture, the primary livelihood of most residents, is greatly affected by the

lack of adequate post-harvest infrastructure. Farmers do not have access to proper drying

and storage facilities for palay, which are essential in preventing spoilage caused by rain

and humidity. Without these facilities, they are forced to dry their harvest under

uncontrolled conditions, reducing the quality and market value of their produce. In

addition, access to necessary agricultural machinery within a dedicated facility is limited,

further hindering productivity and efficiency. Establishing a well-designed agricultural

facility equipped with drying, storage, and essential machinery would minimize

post-harvest losses, enhance grain quality, and support modern farming practices. This

would not only increase farmers’ income but also contribute to the overall economic

development of the community.

The restricted capacity of the Rural Health Unit (RHU), the sole medical facility

in the entire municipality of Natividad, is another major issue for the residents of

Poblacion East. As the population of the neighborhood has continuously grown over the

years, the small RHU, which can be seen in Figure 3, is currently unable to address their

increasing health needs and demands. This poses difficulties in delivering adequate and
 3

timely healthcare services, particularly in times of emergency and disaster when medical

treatment is most urgently needed. In order to ensure the resilience and well-being of the

inhabitants, the insufficient capacity of health facilities emphasizes the necessity of better

infrastructure and support systems in the fields of public health service delivery, civil

engineering, and agriculture.

The barangay's drainage system also presents significant civil engineering

concerns presented in Figure 4. The existing canals are undersized, prone to clogging

from debris, and suffer overflow during heavy rains, exacerbating flooding in low-lying

areas. This infrastructure deficiency hampers effective water management, which is vital

for both residential safety and agricultural productivity. Furthermore, the road network

comprises narrow and cracked roads, which restrict the movement of people, goods, and

agricultural products. Poor road conditions increase transportation costs, cause delays,

and reduce accessibility to essential services and markets, negatively impacting

socio-economic growth.

Waste management infrastructure is another critical issue. As can be seen in

Figure5, although the barangay maintains a Material Recovery Facility (MRF), its limited

space and capacity are insufficient to handle the community's growing waste volume

sustainably. This situation poses environmental risks, including improper waste disposal

and possible contamination, highlighting the need for an expanded and better-equipped

MRF to ensure efficient waste segregation, recycling, and disposal.

On a positive note, water supply and sanitation facilities in Poblacion East are

currently functioning and meet minimum community needs. Nevertheless, continual

 4

monitoring and maintenance are required to sustain these services, especially in the

context of increasing population and climate variability.

Addressing these civil engineering challenges through targeted infrastructure

development is crucial for enhancing disaster resilience, agricultural productivity, health

concerns, transport accessibility, and environmental sustainability. The proposed

improvements will not only safeguard the community in emergency events but also

support its socio-economic growth and quality of life, making Poblacion East a more

resilient and thriving rural community.

Historically, Natividad's growth and infrastructure development have been

moderate, with population and local income gradually increasing. Yet, natural disasters

such as flooding remain a concern due to insufficient drainage infrastructure. These

environmental challenges, compounded by infrastructure limitations, justify the focus on

improving evacuation facilities, post-harvest agricultural infrastructure, health faiclities,

drainage, and waste management within Poblacion East. These improvements will not

only address immediate safety and quality of life concerns but also uplift the economic

potential of this primarily agricultural community.

Figure 1
Current Barangay Hall/Multi-purpose Hall of Población East
 5

Figure 2
The Current Covered Court in Población East.

Figure 3
Rural Health Unit

Figure 4
Undersized Drainage with Sediments and Vegetation
 6

Figure 5
Current MRF and Segregation Area of Población East

Objectives of the Study

The general objective of this needs assessment study is to identify and analyze the

priority civil engineering infrastructure needs of the community of Poblacion East,

Natividad, Pangasinan, in order to provide a basis for informed decision-making and

targeted program development aimed at improving infrastructure, transportation, water

supply, sanitation, or disaster resilience.

Specifically, it aims to:

●​ Identify the current infrastructure problems, existing resources, and challenges

faced by the community in relation to infrastructure, transportation, water supply,

sanitation, or disaster resilience.

●​ Determine the gap between existing conditions and desired outcomes to establish

which needs are most urgent and impactful.

●​ Prioritize the most critical infrastructure and civil engineering concerns that

require intervention.
 7

●​ Recommend feasible, sustainable, and cost-effective strategies, projects, or

policies tailored to the specific context of Poblacion East to address the identified

gaps and support community development.

Significance of the Study

The significance of this needs assessment study lies in its critical role in

identifying and addressing the pressing infrastructure and agricultural challenges faced by

the community of Poblacion East, Natividad, Pangasinan.

The findings of the study will help benefit the following:

Community Residents: Improved safety, agricultural productivity, transportation access,

and living conditions directly enhance their quality of life and livelihood.

Farmers and Agricultural Workers: Access to better drying, storage, and processing

facilities will reduce crop losses and increase income.

Local Government Unit (LGU): Provides data-driven insights for effective planning,

budgeting, and implementation of infrastructure projects.

Disaster Management Authorities: Gains clearer understanding of evacuation needs,

improving disaster preparedness and response.

Environmental and Waste Management Stakeholders: Helps in designing more

effective waste disposal and recycling strategies.

Civil Engineers and Planners: Benefits from a documented case study that informs

future rural infrastructure projects.

Local Businesses and Markets: Enhanced infrastructure promotes smoother transport

and better-quality agricultural goods.

 8

Researchers and Academics: Access to comprehensive data and analysis for further

study on rural development and civil engineering challenges.

Funding Agencies and Donors: Clear priorities and gaps assist in targeted investments.

Short-term benefits of the study include improved safety during disasters through

the establishment of designated evacuation centers, reduced post-harvest losses with

better drying and storage facilities, and enhanced mobility via road and drainage

improvements.

Long-term benefits focus on fostering economic resilience by boosting

agricultural productivity and marketability, ensuring environmental sustainability through

efficient waste management, and building community capacity to withstand and recover

from future disasters. In the broader field of civil engineering, the study contributes

valuable knowledge on rural infrastructure challenges and solutions that can inform

similar cases in agricultural communities facing comparable issues.

Ultimately, the assessment’s results will serve as a blueprint for sustainable

community development, aligning with both local aspirations and national goals for rural

advancement and disaster risk reduction.

Scope and Limitations

The scope of this needs assessment study is geographically limited to Barangay

Poblacion East in the Municipality of Natividad, Pangasinan. The study focuses on the

community’s civil engineering infrastructure needs, specifically addressing evacuation

facilities, post-harvest drying and storage for palay, drainage canals, road conditions,
 9

waste management, water supply, and sanitation systems. The population under study

comprises all residents of Poblacion East.

The needs assessment study in Barangay Poblacion East may face several

constraints and limitations that could affect its scope and outcomes. Funding and budget

shortages may restrict data collection, detailed designs, or project implementation. Land

availability poses challenges, as suitable public spaces are limited, potentially requiring

acquisition or compromises in facility size and location. Data gaps or inaccuracies may

also force reliance on self-reported information, which can introduce bias. In addition,

limited technical expertise among local implementers may reduce the feasibility of

complex solutions, while environmental and topographical factors such as flooding or

soil conditions can increase project costs and complexity. Community acceptance and

participation are also crucial, as resistance or lack of engagement may hinder

implementation and sustainability. Moreover, maintenance resources are limited, which

could affect the durability of facilities. Finally, the study’s focus on public infrastructure

excludes private properties and nearby barangays that may influence overall community

development.
 10

References:

PhilAtlas. Natividad, Pangasinan profile (nd).

[Link]

RHU NATIVIDAD · 2QVW+5WG, Marcos St, Natividad, 2446 Pangasinan, Philippines.

(n.d.). RHU NATIVIDAD · 2QVW+5WG, Marcos St, Natividad, 2446

Pangasinan, Philippines.

[Link]

108,17.55z/data=!4m6!3m5!1s0x339119e1a331dd9f:0xf5c0e099a9261504!8m2!3

d16.0429321!4d120.7973232!16s%2Fg%2F11mpcsp80j?entry=ttu&g_ep=Egoy

MDI1MDkyOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

The Official Website of the Province of Pangasinan. (2023, June 15). Natividad | The

official website of the Province of Pangasinan.

[Link]

Thomas Brinkhoff: City Population, [Link] (n.d.). Natividad

(Municipality, Philippines) - Population statistics, charts, map and location.

[Link]

ad/
 Chapter 2

METHODOLOGY

The goal of this research project is to identify and understand the real needs of the

people in Barangay Poblacion East, Natividad, focusing on challenges that can be

improved through civil and structural engineering.

Ultimately, this research project seeks to develop practical and meaningful

engineering solutions and build a safer, more resilient, and healthier community.​

Research Design

This study began by collecting official population data from barangay records,

followed by the use of random sampling to select a representative group of Barangay

Poblacion East, Natividad. A survey questionnaire and semi-structured interviews were

then administered to these respondents.

This study used a mixed-methods (quali-quanti) research design that combines

both quantitative and qualitative methods to get a complete understanding of the civil

engineering needs in Barangay Poblacion East.

Quantitative research design focuses on collecting and analyzing numerical data

through surveys to better understand the community needs. This research design allows

for gathering reliable data and identify patterns that represent the entire population. In

this research, we used a Likert scale as a tool to gather feedback and assess the

respondents on the problems encountered in the community.

 2

On the other hand, qualitative research design uses semi-structured interviews

with community leaders and members to explore deeper insights and give context to the

numbers. This method allows for open and flexible conversations that help explain the

reasons and feelings behind the survey results. By gathering these personal stories and

details, qualitative research adds important background to the numbers, and it helps

identify problems, needs, and ideas that might not be clear from just looking at the data.

Ultimately, the mixed-methods approach combines quantitative data with

qualitative insights to give a clear and accurate picture of the community’s needs.

Through data triangulation, the research compares results from both methods to reduce

bias and increase reliability. In addition, this process ensures that the proposed solutions

are based on a balanced and thorough understanding of the community’s main challenges

and priorities.

This combined research design is well-suited for identifying community needs

because it balances measurable data with personal perspectives, making the findings both

reliable and meaningful for planning infrastructure improvements

Data Gathering Methods

This research utilized a combination of data collection methods to obtain a

thorough understanding of the study area. Site observations and technical inspections

were conducted to directly assess the physical conditions and details of the existing

structures, such as roads, drainage, and public buildings. These methods provided

concrete and accurate information about the state of the environment and infrastructure.
 3

Primary data were collected through a survey questionnaire and semi-structured

interviews. Survey questionnaires were conducted to obtain valuable insights from the

community, helping to assess their perspectives, experiences, and specific needs. In

addition, semi-structured interviews helped uncover detailed experiences, contextual

challenges, and community-driven solutions that surveys alone could not reveal. Data

triangulation was then employed by comparing and cross-checking information gathered

from these different methods. This approach improved the accuracy and reliability of the

findings by validating results from multiple sources. Together, these methods ensured that

the study captured both the measurable data and the deeper aspects of the community’s

situation.

Respondents and Sampling

This study was conducted in Barangay Poblacion East, which is located within the

municipality of Natividad in the province of Pangasinan, Philippines. Geographically,

Poblacion East is situated at approximately 16.0428° North latitude and 120.7958° East

longitude. According to the 2020 census, Barangay Poblacion East has a population of

approximately 1,929 residents living in around 455 households, with an average

household size of 4.21 members (Philippine Statistics Authority, 2020; [Link]).

Natividad is predominantly an agricultural municipality known for rice farming,

with cassava, livestock, and poultry production as significant economic activities. These

industries influence the community’s need for supporting infrastructure like irrigation,

drainage, access roads, barangay halls, schools, and health centers that sustain both

livelihood and daily life (Provincial Agriculture Office Pangasinan, 2025; Official
 4

Website of Natividad, Pangasinan, 2023). Environmental considerations, including flood

risks and other hazards common to the region, are factors accounted for in the study to

ensure resiliency in infrastructure planning (Philippine Statistics Authority, 2020).

The target respondents were residents aged 18 years and above. The researchers

employed a simple random sampling technique to randomly select 332 participants based

on Slovin’s formula with a 5% margin of error. Sloven’s formula is expressed as

𝑁
𝑛 = 2 ………………………(Eq.2.1)
1+𝑁𝑒

where N = Population size

e - margin of error

n - sample size

This sample size is adequate to yield statistically reliable and representative

insights into the community’s perspectives. The sampling approach ensured that every

qualified resident had an equal opportunity to participate, reducing bias and capturing a

wide range of viewpoints. This aligns with the study’s objectives of assessing the

importance, availability, and condition of barangay infrastructure, as well as gathering

community suggestions for improvement. Ultimately, this approach guarantees reliable

data to inform priorities and interventions in civil engineering for Barangay Poblacion

East.

Ethical Considerations
 5

This study adhered to ethical research standards to ensure the rights, safety, and

confidentiality of all participants. Before data collection, the purpose of the study was

clearly explained, and informed consent was obtained from each respondent.

Participation was entirely voluntary, and respondents were free to withdraw at any point

without consequence.

All information gathered through the survey was treated with the utmost

confidentiality and used solely for academic purposes. No personal identifiers were

recorded to maintain anonymity. The study also ensured that questions were respectful

and non-invasive, focusing only on topics relevant to community structures and

development.

By upholding these ethical principles, the research maintained integrity,

transparency, and respect for the community’s values and privacy.

Data Validation

The questionnaire was subjected to expert validation by five (5) professionals

with expertise in civil engineering and community needs assessment. These experts

evaluated the instrument based on its clarity, relevance, and alignment with the study’s

objectives. Their constructive feedback was carefully considered and integrated to

enhance the questionnaire’s content validity and overall quality.

Due to constraints in time and resources, the study was unable to conduct pilot

testing within the target community. Although pilot testing could have provided further

insights into the clarity and comprehensibility of the questionnaire items among actual
 6

respondents, the research team ensured the instrument’s suitability through rigorous

expert validation.

Data Analysis

The data gathered from the survey were organized, processed, and analyzed using

Microsoft Excel. Descriptive statistics, including frequency counts, percentages, and

mean values, were employed to summarize and present the quantitative data, allowing a

clear understanding of community responses.

To examine relationships between variables, cross-tabulation was utilized,

particularly to compare the importance and availability of various community structures.

This helped identify areas where significant gaps exist between perceived importance and

actual accessibility.

A ranking method was also applied to prioritize community needs and problems

based on their degree of importance, availability, and degree of severity. This approach

provided a structured basis for identifying which issues require immediate attention.

For qualitative data obtained from open-ended responses, thematic and content

analysis were conducted. This study utilized Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools, specifically

ChatGPT, Copilot, and Gemini, to assist in coding and organizing responses during the

thematic analysis. The researcher then carefully reviewed and verified all outputs

generated by the AI tools to ensure that the interpretations and categorizations accurately

reflected the original input of the researchers. Ultimately, responses were grouped into
 7

recurring themes and patterns to capture community insights, perceptions, and

suggestions that could not be fully expressed through quantitative measures.

Together, these analytical methods ensured a comprehensive interpretation of the

data, aligning with the study’s objectives of assessing the current state of barangay

infrastructure and identifying priority areas for improvement.​

 Chapter 4:

PROBLEM PRIORITIZATION

Problem Inventory Table

Problem Location Sever Availabi Importa Themati Evidence

Description ity lity nce c Score Reference

Lack of dedicated Poblacio 4.8 1.5 4.6 4.8 Chapter 3:

evacuation center n East Tables 4b, 6,

11

Flooding due to Poblacio 4.5 2.0 4.0 4.3 Chapter 3:

inadequate n East Tables 4c, 8,

drainage 9

Insufficient Poblacio 4.0 2.2 4.3 3.8 Chapter 3:

multi-purpose halls n East Tables 3b, 12

Insufficient Poblacio 3.5 3.0 3.7 3.5 Chapter 3:

farmers support n East Tables 8, 9

facilities
Limited health and Poblacio 3.8 2.9 4.1 3.6 Chapter 3:

social service n East Tables 9, 12

facilities

Criteria for Prioritization

Quantitative Weighted Prioritization

This prioritization uses severity, availability (inversed so lower availability ranks higher),

and importance scores, combined with weights highlighting severity:

𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑛𝑡 = (0. 5×𝑆𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦) + (0. 3×(5 − 𝐴𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦)) + (0. 2×𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒)

Qualitative Weighted Prioritization (Thematic Scores)

Using the thematic scores derived from frequency and community emphasis on issues,

the following prioritization applies weights to themes such as frequency, emotional

intensity, and urgency:

𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 = (0. 4×𝐹𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦) + (0. 4×𝐸𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦) + (0. 2×𝑈𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦)

The weighted prioritization formulas used in this study are grounded in well-established

decision-making and community-based priority setting frameworks, supported by

academic research and practical applications in public health and project management.
Multi-criteria Decision-Making Approach

The approach adopts multiple criteria—severity, availability, importance, and thematic

community input—as recommended by Salihu et al. (2015) in community-based priority

settings. Such multi-criteria methods help structure complex decisions, allowing

stakeholders to systematically evaluate several factors influencing prioritization.

Weight Assignments Reflect Relative Importance

●​ Severity receives the highest weight (e.g., 0.45 or 0.5) because it measures the

critical impact or harm a problem poses, aligning with priority setting literature

emphasizing the magnitude of issues as a key factor.

●​ Availability is inverted (using 5−Availability5−Availability) to emphasize urgency

where resources or structures are scarce. Its moderate weight (e.g., 0.25 or 0.3)

accounts for how lacking infrastructure or services intensifies priority.

●​ Importance represents stakeholder perception and community relevance, receiving

a smaller but meaningful weight (e.g., 0.15 to 0.2) recognizing subjective values

in the prioritization process.

●​ Thematic Score from qualitative analysis is included (weight around 0.15) to

capture community voice more fully, reflecting emotional intensity and urgency

derived from respondents’ lived experiences, supporting a more nuanced and

participatory prioritization.
Weighted Scoring Model Foundations

The formula structure mirrors weighted scoring models widely used in product and

project management domains for prioritizing features, initiatives, or problems based on

quantified criteria and stakeholder input. These models multiply each criterion by a

weight reflecting relative importance, then sum results to get a final priority score.

Mathematical Rationale

●​ Use of arithmetic mean ratings to summarize importance or severity aligns with

recommended practices when stakeholders provide non-uniform responses;

avoids bias from missing data.

●​ Inversion of availability scores ensures that lower availability increases priority, a

common approach in community needs assessments.

●​ Weight totals sum to 1 to allow the final score to remain on a comparable scale

(typically 1-5), facilitating ranking and interpretation.

Community Engagement and Accountability

Including thematic (qualitative) data in the prioritization formula aligns with calls for

inclusive decision-making processes that integrate numeric scoring with community

narratives, fostering accountability and cultural acceptability of priorities and

interventions.

Summary and Use of Dual Prioritization

 ●​ The quantitative prioritization provides an objective ranking based on measurable

impact, availability gaps, and importance.

●​ The qualitative prioritization amplifies community voice, incorporating emotional

and lived experience.

●​ Problems consistently ranked high in both methods (e.g., evacuation centers and

flooding) present clear priorities.

●​ This dual approach strengthens the validity and responsiveness of recommendations

by balancing numeric data with community perspectives.

Ranked List of Needs

Problem Description Quantitative Rank

Priority

Score

Evacuation centers are unsafe or overcrowded during disasters. 4.52 1

Multipurpose halls used as evacuation centers are not structurally

4.48 2
adequate or properly designed for disaster situations.

Temporary shelters/housing units are substandard or poorly

4.37 3
designed.

Emergency medical facilities are limited in capacity or structurally

4.36 4
unsafe.
Storage facilities for relief goods are not secure or adequate. 4.21 5

Drainage canals are clogged, undersized, or poorly maintained. 3.72 6

Secondary canals are poorly maintained or undersized. 3.65 7

Dikes or flood control canals are deteriorating or undersized. 3.60 8

Main irrigation canals are damaged or leaking. 3.51 9

Farm-level distribution structures are inefficient. 3.49 10

Stormwater collectors are not functioning effectively. 3.42 11

Rainwater harvesting facilities are underutilized or insufficient. 3.30 12.5

Water diversion dams/intake structures are weak or deteriorating. 3.30 12.5

Irrigation control gates are not functioning properly. 3.26 14

Pumping stations are non-functional or inadequate. 3.19 15

Thematic Ranking of Structures that should be given priority for improvement or

construction

Theme Frequency Salience Thematic Rank

Score
Disaster Preparedness & 37.95% 2
1
Community Facilities 126
Farmers’ Needs & Livelihood 27.71% 2
2
Support 92
Drainage and Flooding 18.37% 1
3
Concerns 61
No Identified Problem 53 15.96% 1 4
81-100% = 5, 61-80% = 4, 41 - 60% = 3, 21 - 40% = 2, 0-20% = 1

Thematic Ranking of Sufficiency of the current evacuation areas

Salience Thematic Rank

Theme Frequency Score
Lack of Own Evacuation 3
1
Center 136 40.96%
Overcrowding, Insufficient 2
2
Space/Facilities 84 25.30%
Unsuitable / Unsafe Locations 42 12.65% 1 3
Conditional Sufficiency (Okay 1
4
but limited) 28 8.43%
Adequate (Positive Responses) 22 6.63% 1 5
No Response / Uncertain 20 6.02% 1 6
81-100% = 5, 61-80% = 4, 41 - 60% = 3, 21 - 40% = 2, 0-20% = 1
Thematic Ranking of Usage of a multi-purpose hall and how it would be supported if it

was built

Theme Frequency Salience Thematic Rank

Score
Disaster Preparedness & 112 2
1
Evacuation 33.73%
Events & Social Gatherings 74 22.29% 2 2
Youth Development & Sports 58 17.47% 1 3
Health & Social Services 36 10.84% 1 4
Farmers & Livelihood Support 28 8.43% 1 5
Community Participation 24 7.23% 1 6
81-100% = 5, 61-80% = 4, 41 - 60% = 3, 21 - 40% = 2, 0-20% = 1
Justification of Priority Problems

Justification of Priority Problems 46 In prioritizing community problems, the study

considered three key criteria: importance, availability, and severity. This approach

ensures that facilities rated as highly essential, lacking within the community, and linked

to severe difficulties are given the highest priority. By combining these factors into a

single priority rating, the analysis provides a clear and systematic basis for identifying the

most urgent infrastructure needs.

RANK PROBLEM PRIORITY RATING JUSTIFICATION

1 Disaster Preparedness & Ranked highest

Community Facilities. because they are

important (WM 4.88),

4.52 very severe when

absent (WM 4.108),

and reported 97.59%

no availability

2 Multipurpose halls used as The structure are not

evacuation centers are not structurally adequate,

structurally adequate or 4.48 Severe problem

properly designed for disaster (4.07), and 90.66%

situations.
 reported

unavailability

3 Temporary shelters/housing Needed in time of

units are substandard or poorly calamity, with WM

4.37
designed. (4.85), and 79.52%

absence reported

4 Emergency medical facilities High priority due to

are limited in capacity or their life-saving role,

structurally unsafe. due to major problem

4.36 severity (WM3.97),

and 79.52%

community

unavailability

5 Storage facilities for relief Essential for safety

goods are not secure or and emergency

adequate. provision, with

4.21
75.60% unavailability

and major problem

severity (WM 3.68)

The findings show that the community has major problems in disaster preparedness. The

most urgent issue is the lack of safe and enough evacuation centers (priority rating 4.52),

with almost all respondents (97.59%) saying these are unavailable, making people unsafe

and overcrowded during disasters. The second problem is that multipurpose halls used as

evacuation centers are not structurally strong or designed for disasters (rating 4.48),

leaving 90.66% of the community without proper refuge. The third concern is the poor

quality of temporary shelters or housing units (rating 4.37). These are badly needed

during calamities but are often substandard, as reported by 79.52% of respondents. The

fourth issue is the limited and unsafe emergency medical facilities (rating 4.36), which

poses a serious risk since medical services are vital during disasters. Lastly, storage

facilities for relief goods are not secure or adequate (rating 4.21). With 75.60% reporting

their absence, this causes problems in relief operations, such as delays and possible

spoilage of supplies.
Thematic Ranking of Structures that should be given priority for improvement or

construction

RANK PROBLEM Frequency Salience JUSTIFICATION

The lack of safe evacuation

1 Evacuation centers are
centers is the top concern
unsafe or overcrowded
because overcrowding and
during disasters.
inadequate facilities put
126 37.95%
residents at high risk during

disasters.

Farmers’ Needs & Farmers’ support and livelihood

2 Livelihood Support
is next most cited since many

depend on agriculture and need

92 27.71%
better facilities for their work.
 Drainage and Flooding Drainage and flooding are
3 Concerns
frequently mentioned because

poor systems cause repeated

61 18.37% property damage and

disruptions to daily life.

No Identified Problem A notable portion reported no

4
issues, reflecting either partial

satisfaction or survey coverage

53 15.96%
of their concerns.

The findings indicate that the foremost concern of the community is the lack of

safe and adequate evacuation centers, as reflected by 37.95% of respondents.

Overcrowding and unsafe conditions within existing facilities significantly

increase vulnerability during disasters, underscoring the urgent need for

improved evacuation infrastructure. The second most prevalent issue, cited by

27.71% of respondents, pertains to the necessity for enhanced support and

facilities for farmers’ livelihoods, which is critical given the community’s reliance

on agriculture for sustenance and economic stability. The third major concern

involves drainage and flooding problems, reported by 18.37% of participants,

highlighting the detrimental impact of inadequate drainage systems on property,

infrastructure, and daily life. Lastly, 15.96% of respondents indicated no

problems, which may suggest partial satisfaction with current conditions or

limitations in the survey’s scope to capture all community concerns.

These results align with established disaster management standards which

emphasize that evacuation centers must be structurally resilient, sufficiently

capacitated, and strategically located to effectively safeguard populations during

emergencies. Furthermore, addressing livelihood and environmental

infrastructure challenges constitutes an integral component of community

resilience and sustainable development.

Thematic Ranking of Sufficiency of the current evacuation areas

RANK PROBLEM Frequency Salience JUSTIFICATION

Lack of Own
1 Evacuation Center
Failure to have a dedicated

evacuation center leaves the

136 40.96% community dependent on

unsafe or borrowed spaces,

increasing risk during

emergencies.

Overcrowding,
2 Insufficient
Space/Facilities
Existing facilities cannot safely

accommodate the number of

84 25.30%
evacuees, leading to dangerous

overcrowding and inadequate

resources.

Unsuitable / Unsafe
3 Locations

42 12.65% Many evacuation sites are

located in hazard-prone or
 inaccessible areas, undermining

their effectiveness and safety.

Conditional
4 Sufficiency (Okay but
limited)
Some centers only meet basic

28 8.43% needs under limited conditions,

making them unreliable in major

or prolonged disasters.

Adequate (Positive A smaller group views current

5 Responses)
evacuation centers as sufficient,
22 6.63%
indicating localized satisfaction

but not widespread confidence.

No Response / This represents respondents

6 Uncertain
who are unsure or unwilling to

20 6.02% comment, reflecting possible

lack of awareness or mixed

experiences.

The results indicate significant gaps in the community’s evacuation center

availability and safety. The primary concern, cited by 40.96% of respondents, is

the absence of a dedicated evacuation center, which compels residents to use

unsafe or borrowed spaces that increase their vulnerability during disasters.

Overcrowding and inadequate space or facilities constitute the second major

issue (25.30%), reflecting that existing centers cannot safely accommodate

evacuees, resulting in hazardous conditions and limited resources. Additionally,

12.65% of respondents identified unsuitable or unsafe locations of some

evacuation sites, which compromises accessibility and safety during

emergencies. A smaller proportion (8.43%) reported conditional sufficiency,

where centers meet only basic needs and are inadequate for prolonged or

large-scale disasters. Positive feedback (6.63%) pertains to localized satisfaction

with evacuation centers, while 6.02% showed no response or uncertainty, likely

reflecting variability in awareness or experiences.

These findings align with regulatory standards mandating that evacuation

centers must be strategically located, structurally resilient, and equipped with

adequate facilities—including gender-segregated sanitation, health services, and

emergency power—to effectively safeguard and accommodate affected

populations.
Thematic Ranking of Usage of a multi-purpose hall and how it would be supported if it

was built

RANK PROBLEM Frequency Salience JUSTIFICATION

Disaster Preparedness
1 & Evacuation
This is prioritized because

effective disaster preparedness

112 33.73% and evacuation facilities are

critical for community safety

and resilience during

emergencies.

Events & Social

2 Gatherings
Community spaces for events

and gatherings are essential for

74 22.29%
social cohesion, cultural

activities, and community

bonding.

Youth Development &

3 Sports

58 17.47% Youth programs and sports

facilities support healthy

 development, engagement, and

future community leadership.

Health & Social Accessible health and social

4 Services
services are vital to address

physical and mental well-being,

36 10.84% especially during and after

disasters.

Farmers & Livelihood Supporting farmers ensures

5 Support
livelihoods and food security,
28 8.43%
which are foundational for

community sustainability.

Community Active community involvement

6 Participation
strengthens collective
24 7.23%
preparedness, decision-making,

and local empowerment.

The findings reveal that disaster preparedness and evacuation represent the

community’s highest priority, comprising 33.73% of responses, underscoring the

critical need for safe, functional facilities and systems to protect residents and

enhance resilience during emergencies. Venues for events and social gatherings
rank second at 22.29%, highlighting their importance in fostering social cohesion,

cultural expression, and communal interaction. Youth development and sports

follow at 17.47%, reflecting community recognition of the role of programs and

facilities in promoting young people’s health, engagement, and leadership

potential. Health and social services, accounting for 10.84% of responses,

emphasize the necessity of accessible care to maintain well-being, particularly in

disaster-affected contexts. Farmers and livelihood support, at 8.43%, indicate

ongoing needs to strengthen agricultural resources and ensure food security as

part of sustainable community development. Lastly, community participation,

representing 7.23%, reflects the value placed on active citizen engagement in

decision-making, preparedness, and empowerment efforts.

These priorities align with established frameworks emphasizing the integral role

of comprehensive disaster preparedness, social infrastructure, youth

engagement, health services, and inclusive community involvement in building

resilient and sustainable communities.

1.​ [Link]

2.​ [Link]

3.​ [Link]

[Link]

4.​ [Link]

ms

5.​ [Link]

6.​ [Link]

7.​ [Link]

rnal-and-child-health-nursing/problem-prioritization/27514205

8.​ [Link]

ol-of-arts-and-trades/bachelor-of-education-generalist/ph-activity3a-prioritization-o

f-problemss-survey-form-fin/87729616

9.​ [Link]

10.​[Link]
 Chapter 3

FINDINGS

This chapter presents the findings of the needs assessment conducted in Barangay

Poblacion East, Natividad, Pangasinan. The data were gathered through community

surveys, interviews, and focus group discussions, complemented by both quantitative and

qualitative inputs. The results highlight the community’s perceptions of the importance,

availability, and adequacy of various facilities and structures. The analysis includes

thematic interpretations of community responses, frequency distributions, and rankings,

supported by nonverbal cues that provided deeper insight into the respondents’ priorities

and sentiments. These findings serve as the basis for identifying key issues and

formulating recommendations responsive to the specific needs of the barangay.

Summary of the data collected

Table 1a: Importance of Community Structures as Perceived by Residents

(Essential Community Structures)

Structure VI I MI SI NI WM DE

Barangay halls 294 38 0 0 0 4.886 VI

Schools / educational facilities 294 38 0 0 0 4.886 VI
Health centers / hospitals 289 40 3 0 0 4.861 VI
Public markets / multipurpose halls 286 46 0 0 0 4.861 VI
Covered courts / gyms 286 45 1 0 0 4.858 VI

Weighted Mean 4.870 VI

4.21-5.00 Very Important (VI); 3.41-4.20 Important (I); 2.61-3.40 Moderately Important
(MI); 1.81-2.60 Slightly Important (SI); 1.00-1.80 Not Important (NI)
Table 1b: Importance of Community Structures as Perceived by Residents
(Irrigation Canals and Structures)
​
Structure VI I MI SI NI WM DE
Main irrigation canals 208 94 29 1 0 4.533 VI
Secondary canals / laterals 189 109 33 1 0 4.464 VI
Water diversion dams / intake
167 61 94 8 2 4.154 VI
structures
Irrigation control gates / regulators 166 62 93 9 2 4.148 VI
Farm-level distribution structures 161 125 35 9 2 4.307 VI
Weighted Mean 4.321 VI
4.21-5.00 Very Important (VI); 3.41-4.20 Important (I); 2.61-3.40 Moderately Important
(MI); 1.81-2.60 Slightly Important (SI); 1.00-1.80 Not Important (NI)

Table 1c: Importance of Community Structures as Perceived by Residents

(Disaster Preparedness)

Structure VI I MI SI NI WM DE
Purpose-built evacuation centers 294 35 3 0 0 4.877 VI
Emergency housing units (tents,
287 38 6 1 0 4.840 VI
modular houses)
Storage facilities for relief goods 245 76 10 1 0 4.702 VI
Emergency medical facilities (field
239 82 9 2 0 4.681 VI
hospitals, clinics)
Multipurpose halls used for evacuation 292 36 4 0 0 4.867 VI
Weighted Mean 4.793 VI
4.21-5.00 Very Important (VI); 3.41-4.20 Important (I); 2.61-3.40 Moderately Important
(MI); 1.81-2.60 Slightly Important (SI); 1.00-1.80 Not Important (NI)

The above tables refer to how essential or valuable a structure or service is to the

community’s daily life, well-being, and long-term development. The data from the table

1a imply that residents place the highest importance on Essential Community Structures

(4.87) such as barangay halls, schools, and health centers, with more than 280

respondents classifying these as “Very Important.” Facilities for Disaster Preparedness

(4.79) from table 1c such as purpose-built evacuation centers and multipurpose halls also

received consistently high importance ratings. While Irrigation and Canal Structures

(4.32) from table 1b were likewise recognized as important, they recorded a slightly

higher proportion of “Important” and “Moderately Important” responses, suggesting that

while critical, they are perceived as secondary to everyday services.

Table 2a: Availability of Community Structures as Perceived by Residents

(Essential Community Structures)

Structure A % NA %
Barangay halls 332 100.000 0 0.000
Schools / educational facilities 332 100.000 0 0.000
Health centers / hospitals 315 94.880 17 5.120
Public markets / multipurpose halls 277 83.434 55 16.566
Covered courts / gyms 138 41.566 194 58.434

Average 83.976 16.024

Legend: Available (A); Not Available (NA)

Table 2b: Availability of Community Structures as Perceived by Residents

(Transportation and Traffic)

Structure A % NA %
Roads and bridges 332 100.000 0 0.000
Parking facilities 331 99.699 1 0.301
Pedestrian walkways / overpasses 310 93.373 22 6.627
Public transport terminals / stations 308 92.771 24 7.229
Traffic management facilities (signs,
204 61.446 128 38.554
signals, loading bays)
Average 89.458 10.542
Legend: Available (A); Not Available (NA)
Table 2c: Availability of Community Structures as Perceived by Residents
(Disaster Preparedness)

Structure A % NA %
Purpose-built evacuation centers 8 2.410 324 97.590
Emergency housing units (tents,
29 8.735 303 91.265
modular houses)
Storage facilities for relief goods 81 24.398 251 75.602
Emergency medical facilities (field
68 20.482 264 79.518
hospitals, clinics)
Multipurpose halls used for
31 9.337 301 90.663
evacuation
Average 13.072 86.928
Legend: Available (A); Not Available (NA)

Tables 2a to 2c present the availability of community structures, considering their

presence, operational condition, and the level of accessibility for community utilization.

While Transportation and Traffic Infrastructures (89.46%) such as roads and bridges,

parking facilities, and pedestrian walkways / overpasses as shown in table 2b are highly

available and accessible to residents, other infrastructures show lower availability.

Specifically in table 2c, Disaster preparedness (13.07%) exhibits significant limitations in

availability, with purpose-built evacuation centers being the least available (2.41%). This

suggests uneven infrastructure development, with priority given to central governance

and educational services, while environmental management and disaster preparedness

facilities fall behind.

Table 3a: Importance and Availability of Community Structures
(Essential Community Structures)

Availability
Structure Importance
% Available % Not Available

Barangay halls 4.886 100.000 0.000

Schools / educational facilities 4.886 100.000 0.000

Health centers / hospitals 4.861 94.880 5.120

Public markets / multipurpose
4.861 83.434 16.566
halls
Covered courts / gyms 4.858 41.566 58.434

Table 3b: Importance and Availability of Community Structures

(Structural Safety and Adequacy)

Availability
Structure Importance
% Available % Not Available

Purpose-built evacuation centers 4.877 2.410 97.590

Emergency housing units (tents,

4.840 8.735 91.265
modular houses)

Storage facilities for relief goods 4.702 24.398 75.602

Emergency medical facilities

4.681 20.482 79.518
(field hospitals, clinics)
Multipurpose halls used for
4.867 9.337 90.663
evacuation

Tables 3a and 3b illustrate the relationship between importance and availability,

wherein the significance of a community structure is assessed in relation to its presence

and adequacy within the community. As shown in table 3a, while Essential Community

Structures such as barangay halls, schools, and health centers show high availability and
importance at the same time, facilities tied to disaster preparedness shown in tables 3b

shows high disparity in importance and availability. The most notable ones are

evacuations centers and multipurpose halls, suggesting that although residents view them

as very important, their actual availability falls significantly short.

Table 4a: Severity of Community Problems Related to Structures

(Flooding and Drainage)
Structure SP MaP MoP MiP NP WM DE
1. Drainage canals are clogged,
38 100 124 51 19 3.262 MaP
undersized, or poorly maintained.
2. Stormwater collectors are not
21 51 111 87 62 2.645 MoP
functioning effectively.
3. Dikes or flood control canals are
21 95 112 59 45 2.964 MoP
deteriorating or undersized.
4. Dikes or flood control canals are
8 30 105 49 140 2.148 MoP
deteriorating or undersized.
5. Rainwater harvesting facilities are
8 42 94 54 134 2.205 MoP
underutilized or insufficient.
Weighted mean 2.645 MoP
4.21-5.00 Severe Problem (SP); 3.41-4.20 Major Problem (MaP) 2.61-3.40 Moderate
Problem (MoP); 1.81-2.60 Minor Problem (MiP); 1.00-1.80 No Problem (NP)

Table 4b: Severity of Community Problems Related to Structures

(Irrigation Canal and Structures)
Structure SP MaP MoP MiP NP WM DE
1. Main irrigation canals are damaged
5 80 124 88 35 2.795 MoP
or leaking.
2. Secondary canals are poorly
39 77 114 82 20 3.099 MaP
maintained or undersized.
3. Water diversion dams/intake
3 11 100 163 55 2.229 MoP
structures are weak or deteriorating.
4. Irrigation control gates are not
3 14 92 141 82 2.142 MoP
functioning properly.
5. Farm-level distribution structures
19 49 132 70 62 2.678 MoP
are inefficient.
Weighted mean 2.589 MoP
4.21-5.00 Severe Problem (SP); 3.41-4.20 Major Problem (MaP) 2.61-3.40 Moderate
Problem (MoP); 1.81-2.60 Minor Problem (MiP); 1.00-1.80 No Problem (NP)
Table 4c: Severity of Community Problems Related to Structures
(Disaster Preparedness)

Structure SP MaP MoP MiP NP WM DE

1. Evacuation centers are unsafe or
131 126 58 14 3 4.108 SP
overcrowded during disasters.
2. Temporary shelters/housing units
85 152 62 27 6 3.852 MaP
are substandard or poorly designed.
3. Storage facilities for relief goods
74 153 51 34 20 3.684 MaP
are not secure or adequate.
4. Emergency medical facilities are
limited in capacity or structurally 120 124 50 34 4 3.970 MaP
unsafe.
5. Multipurpose halls used as
evacuation centers are not
128 131 47 19 7 4.066 SP
structurally adequate or properly
designed for disaster situations.
Weighted mean 3.936 Map
4.21-5.00 Severe Problem (SP); 3.41-4.20 Major Problem (MaP) 2.61-3.40 Moderate
Problem (MoP); 1.81-2.60 Minor Problem (MiP); 1.00-1.80 No Problem (NP)

Tables 4a-4c highlight the most pressing community issues related to community

structures, emphasizing the severity of consequences that may arise when such problems

are not addressed. In table 4c, problems relating to Disaster Preparedness (3.94) are

considered to be major problems (MaP) by most of the respondents. While in table 4a and

4b, problems related to Flooding (2.65) and Irrigation (2.59) are projected as moderate

problems (MoP) respectively. The consistency of high scores across multiple issues

suggests that the community experiences overlapping problems tied to infrastructure

gaps.
Table 5: Importance Ranking

IMPORTANCE IMPORTANCE
CATEGORY
WEIGHTED MEAN RANK

A. Structural Safety and Adequacy 4.8705 1

B. Transportation & Traffic 4.2946 4

C. Flooding & Drainage 4.1428 6

D. Irrigation Canals & Structures 4.3211 3

E. Environmental & Special Concerns 4.2295 5

F. Disaster Preparedness 4.7934 2

G. Special Structures 3.1529 7

Table 5 shows the ranking of the different categories of community structures

based on the data tabulated from the importance of community structures using weighted

means. The ranking shows that Structural Safety and Adequacy (4.87) are at the top of

the list for community priorities, followed closely by Disaster Preparedness structures

(4.79), indicating that it is essential and highly valuable to their daily lives, safety, and

overall well-being. Irrigation Canals and Structures are ranked lower (4.32), indicating

that while still important, residents perceive them as less immediately critical than

everyday service facilities.

Table 6: Availability Ranking

AVAILABILITY
CATEGORY % AVAILABILITY
RANK

A. Structural Safety and Adequacy 83.976 6

B. Transportation & Traffic 89.458 7

C. Flooding & Drainage 68.735 3

D. Irrigation Canals & Structures 73.373 5

E. Environmental & Special Concerns 71.446 4

F. Disaster Preparedness 13.072 1

G. Special Structures 44.955 2

Table 5 presents the ranking of the different categories of community structures

based on the data derived from their level of availability, as measured through percentage

values, with the least available in the highest ranking since it pertains to the highest

priority. As shown, structures relating to Disaster Preparedness have the least availability

(13.07%), despite being recognized as an important part of the community. On the other

hand, Transportation and Traffic Infrastructures fall to the bottom due to its high

availability (89.46), reflecting their high availability in the community.

Table 7: Severity Ranking

SEVERITY
CATEGORY SEVERITY RANK
WEIGHTED MEAN

A. Structural Safety and Adequacy 2.180 5

B. Transportation & Traffic 1.846 6

C. Flooding & Drainage 2.645 2

D. Irrigation Canals & Structures 2.589 3

E. Environmental & Special Concerns 2.243 4

F. Disaster Preparedness 3.936 1

G. Special Structures 1.803 7

Table 7 presents the ranking of the different categories of community structures

based on the data derived from the severity of problems, as measured through weighted

means, with higher rankings indicating more severe impacts to the safety and livelihood

of the residents. The ranking shows that problems related to Disaster Preparedness (3.94)

and the issue of Flooding & Drainage (2.65) to be the most urgent problems, ranking 1st

and 2nd respectively. This indicates the absence or inadequacy of disaster-related facilities

and deficiencies in drainage infrastructure or flood control measures. Irrigation Canals &

Structures (2.59) as well also emerged as a critical issue. The clustering of severity scores

above 2.5 indicates that these problems are not only frequent but are also perceived as

significantly affecting the quality of life in the community.

Table 8: Themes produced based on the respondents’ answer to the question
regarding other problems in community structures that were not included
in this survey

Theme Frequency Percentage

Agriculture and Farmers’ Support Facilities 108 32.53%

Health and Social Services 7 2.11%

Infrastructure and Environmental Concerns 23 6.93%

Land Availability for Community Projects 12 3.61%

No Identified Problem 182 54.82%

Total 332 100%

Thematic analysis of Question 1 shows that the dominant concern is the lack of

agricultural support facilities (32.53%), including farming centers, drying and storage

areas, and post-harvest structures. One respondent stated, “Awan ti pasilidad para

kadagiti mannalon”. Residents consistently emphasized this issue, often accompanied by

nonverbal cues of fatigue, frustration, and resignation (e.g., sighs, head shakes, sad

expressions). A smaller but significant number of responses focused on infrastructure and

environmental issues (6.93%) with one respondent stating, “I guess the drainage canals,

since medyo ano siya, hindi malalim. Kumbaga na-stuck yung waste sa center ways ng

both canals na pinagdudugtungan (ng daanan) kaya umaapaw yung tubig kapag umuulan,

nababaha siya here na part”, particularly poor drainage that leads to frequent flooding, as

well as the need for streetlights, garbage disposal areas, and venues for events. Land

availability (3.61%) was also raised, with some respondents noting that insufficient land

prevents construction of needed facilities. Meanwhile, health and social services (2.11%)
were occasionally mentioned, including calls for localized health units and senior spaces.

Notably, the largest share of respondents (54.82%) reported no additional problems,

either because they felt the survey had already covered their concerns or because they had

none to report.

Table 9: Themes produced based on the respondents’ answer to the question

regarding the structure or facility that should be given priority for improvement
or construction

Theme Frequency Percentage

Disaster Preparedness & Community Facilities 126 37.95%

Farmers’ Needs & Livelihood Support 92 27.71%

Drainage and Flooding Concerns 61 18.37%

No Identified Problem 53 15.96%

Total 332 100%

Thematic analysis of Question 2 highlights three dominant concerns in Poblacion

East, Natividad, Pangasinan. The most frequently mentioned is the need for disaster

preparedness and community facilities (37.95%), such as multipurpose halls, covered

courts, and evacuation centers, which residents emphasized as vital for safety and

communal activities, with one respondent even stating that “Sa current situation natin,

mas okay na bigyang pansin yung evacuation center natin since sa brgy natin wala naman

tayong evacuation center. Yung meron tayo is for buong bayan natin. Eh dito sa atin, wala

naman tayong ganon.”. Various respondents with agricultural background also raised

their concerns regarding the lack of farmer’s support in their area, with one stating that
“Since dito sa amin maraming magsasaka, for farmers. Iyong pagbilaran ng mais or

kapag ganitong tag-ulan hindi sila makapag-bilad, sana may drying machine or facilities.

Halimbawa kapag maaga, umaaraw tapos tuno umaldawen, nagmamadali silang

mag-akas kasi bigla-biglang umuulan. Mayroon kami diyan (Imbakan sa Luarca), kaso

open din siya at ang may bubong lang don is yung storage.” and another stating that

“Pagbilaran ng Palay, lalo kapag tag-ulan o kaya iyong dryer”. Farmers’ needs (27.71%)

were also prominent, with requests for post-harvest facilities, storage areas, and

livelihood support, underscoring the community’s dependence on agriculture.

Additionally, drainage and flooding issues (18.37%) were raised repeatedly, pointing to

environmental and infrastructural weaknesses that disrupt daily life. Nonverbal cues such

as sighs, serious facial expressions, and emphatic tones reveal frustration and urgency,

especially on farmers’ concerns and flooding problems. A smaller group (15.96%)

reported no further problems, suggesting partial satisfaction or hesitation to raise issues.

Table 10: Themes produced based on the respondents’ answer to the question
regarding the suggestions on how engineers can help improve community
structures

Theme Frequency Percentage

Quality and Standard Materials 118 35.54%

Transparency, Integrity, and Timely Work 52 15.66%

Assessment and Working with the LGU 78 23.49%

Sustainability and Innovation 38 11.45%

Considering Farmers (facilities, support) 26 7.83%

No Responses / N.A. 20 6.02%

Total 332 100%

Out of 332 respondents, the majority (35.54%) stressed the importance of quality

and standard materials, often showing frustration in their tone and gestures when

recalling substandard roads or facilities that deteriorate quickly, with one respondent

stating “Kung may makakausap akong isa, especially engineer. First magfocus tayo sa

kung ano talagang kailangan na pangmatagalan. Especially yug nabanggit nga kanina na

Evacuation center. Kasi hindi lang naman for during the calamities ginagamit yon. Pwede

natin gamitin sa ikabubuti pa ng ating mga citizen dito sa atin. Especially gusto ko rin

ipoint out yung sa agriculture kasi isa sa pinagmamalaki natin is agriculture and

kailangan natin ng space for farmers especially kapag nagpapatuyo tayo ng mga crops

natin, yung mga palay and so on.”. Another significant portion (23.49%) emphasized

assessment and collaboration with the LGU, pointing to the need for proper community

consultation, monitoring, and planning. Around 15.66% focused on transparency,

integrity, and timely work, reflecting concerns about delays, dishonesty, and unfinished

projects. Smaller but important shares included sustainability and innovation (11.45%),

with respondents suggesting resilient, eco-friendly, or modernized designs, and

farmer-centered considerations (7.83%), where respondents highlighted the neglect of

agricultural needs such as storage and drying facilities. About 6.02% gave no responses

or non-answers, often accompanied by neutral expressions or shrugs. Taken together, the

responses reveal that while durability and accountability dominate community priorities,

there is also a clear call to include farmers’ needs and pursue sustainable innovation in

future infrastructure planning.

Table 11: Themes produced based on the respondents’ answer to the question
regarding the sufficiency of the current evacuation areas

Theme Frequency Percentage

Lack of Own Evacuation Center 136 40.96%

Overcrowding, Insufficient Space/Facilities 84 25.30%

Unsuitable / Unsafe Locations 42 12.65%

Conditional Sufficiency (Okay but limited) 28 8.43%

Adequate (Positive Responses) 22 6.63%

No Response / Uncertain 20 6.02%

Total 332 100%

Out of 332 respondents, the dominant concern (40.96%) was the absence of a

dedicated evacuation center in Poblacion East, forcing reliance on borrowed facilities like

schools, gyms, or municipal buildings. A respondent living in low lying area stated that

“Yes, current evacuation center(s) are not sufficient. It can't accomodate the residents and

at the same time it's not available in the community.”. Residents often expressed

frustration or resignation, noting that this dependence leaves them vulnerable during

large-scale disasters. Another 25.30% highlighted overcrowding and insufficient facilities

such as toilets, water, and sleeping spaces, while 12.65% criticized the unsuitability and

safety risks of current evacuation areas (e.g., flood-prone schools, unsafe gyms). A

smaller share (8.43%) acknowledged that existing spaces could work under limited
conditions—for short-term use, or if disaster impact and evacuee numbers remain

manageable. A minority (6.63%) gave positive responses, indicating they felt current

evacuation sites were sufficient. Finally, 6.02% gave no response or were uncertain.

Taken together, the findings show a clear community demand for a dedicated, safe, and

well-equipped evacuation center. The lack of such infrastructure is perceived as a major

gap in disaster preparedness, exacerbated by overcrowding, poor facilities, and reliance

on unsafe or borrowed spaces.

Table 12: Themes produced based on the respondents’ answer to the question
regarding the usage of a multi-purpose hall and how it would be supported if
it was built

Theme Frequency Percentage

Disaster Preparedness & Evacuation 112 33.73%

Events & Social Gatherings 74 22.29%

Youth Development & Sports 58 17.47%

Health & Social Services 36 10.84%

Farmers & Livelihood Support 28 8.43%

Community Participation 24 7.23%

Total 332 100%

Out of 332 respondents, the most prominent theme was the use of the

Multi-Purpose Hall for disaster preparedness and evacuation (33.73%), a respondent also

stated that “Puwede siyang gamitin as evacuation center, storage facilities. Kapag naman

walang typhoons, puwede siyang gamitin as hall for events or anything na pinagdiriwang

sa barangay”, with strong emphasis and assertive nonverbal cues reflecting the
community’s fear of recurring disasters and the inadequacy of current evacuation

facilities. Events and social gatherings (22.29%) and youth development and sports

(17.47%) followed, highlighting the hall’s role as a social and cultural hub. A notable

share also envisioned it as a center for health services (10.84%), farmers’ support and

livelihood activities (8.43%) with a respondent stating that “Since farming community

dito, mostly about sa farming or pagbilaran ganon. Or if ever may mga programs, lalo na

rin sa mga kabataan. Dito kasi sa amin (sa Luarca) mayroon ngang court, kaso open area

siya so kapag tag-ulan takbuhan na sila. So maganda sana kung may Multipurpose Hall

tapos covered siya.”, and community participation (7.23%) in maintaining the facility.

The combination of strong verbal statements and nonverbal cues (frustration when

describing poor facilities, excitement when describing youth/sports, pride in

volunteering) indicates that the Multi-Purpose Hall is viewed not just as a building, but as

a multi-dimensional hub for safety, livelihood, and community identity.

Interpretations of Findings

In identifying key problems and formulating recommendations responsive to the

specific needs of the barangay, the researchers used different criteria in problem

prioritization and ranking of the data collected to accomplish the objectives of this needs

assessment. As previously shown in tables 5, 6, and 7, the criteria used for ranking the

community structures and problems were importance, availability, and severity

respectively. Importance was evaluated alongside availability because a structure or

service, though highly significant, may not demand urgent attention if it is already
present and adequately serves the community. However, if it is lacking or insufficient, it

becomes a priority for development and intervention. In addition to this, severity was

used to measure the degree of harm, risk, or difficulty experienced by the community.

This criterion may also correlate with availability, since low availability can also be

regarded as a severe problem because the absence or insufficiency of a necessary

structure or service heightens the risks and difficulties faced by the community. Limited

access restricts the capacity to address essential needs, thereby intensifying the adverse

effects and making the problem more critical.

Thematic and Content Analysis from interview questions was also used in this

study to further gather information on how the community structures of Barangay

Poblacion East, Natividad may be improved. Tables 8 to 12 show the different themes

produced from the questions regarding the community structures. Thematic analysis used

to identify and group the issues raised by the community into common categories.

Content analysis with frequency and percentage then provides a numerical basis by

showing how many respondents mentioned each problem and what proportion of the total

responses they represent. These figures can be compared across themes, allowing the

most frequently cited problems to be ranked higher. In this way, frequency and

percentage serve as quantitative indicators, much like importance, availability, and

severity, to determine which problems are most pressing for the community.

Based on the data collected in this needs assessment, the findings state that

Disaster preparedness emerges as the most urgent priority, primarily because of its critical

role in community safety and resilience. This category also recorded the lowest

availability, indicating that the necessary facilities are largely insufficient or lacking.
Furthermore, its prominence in community responses underscores the high level of

concern among residents regarding their vulnerability to natural hazards. Following this,

flooding and drainage rank as the next priority. The inadequacy of effective drainage

systems indicated in thematic and content analysis has been shown to result in severe

consequences, including recurrent disruptions and heightened risks to both property and

welfare. The frequency with which this issue was raised in discussions highlights its

persistent impact on the community. Farming Facilities constitute the third priority. As an

essential component of agricultural productivity and livelihood support, this category

holds considerable importance as shown in the frequency of the themes produced. While

it is moderately available, its role in sustaining farming activities and ensuring food

security reinforces its inclusion among the community’s foremost needs.