ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 947
www.rsisinternational.org
This study examined the compliance of the top five disaster-prone barangays of Dapitan City, Zamboanga del
Norte, with Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) programs across four thematic areas:
prevention and mitigation, preparedness, response, and rehabilitation. Employing a mixed-methods design, the
quantitative component used a descriptive survey administered to 100 respondents (50 residents and 50
Barangay DRRM Committee members), complemented by qualitative interviews with five Incident
Commanders analyzed through thematic content analysis. Results indicated moderate compliance in
prevention–mitigation and preparedness, strong compliance in response, and fair compliance in rehabilitation.
However, compliance was uneven across activities, strong in administrative coordination and fund utilization,
but weak in structural measures and reporting. Statistical tests found no significant differences across
demographic variables, indicating shared experiences within the community. Qualitative findings highlighted
challenges such as inadequate drainage, signage, and early warning devices, limited resources, and resident
unresponsiveness. Overall, the study underscores the need for integrated funding, infrastructure investment,
and community-based interventions. Enhanced regression and correlational analyses in future research could
deepen insights into predictors of compliance and improve local disaster governance.
Keywords: disaster risk reduction, compliance, preparedness, disaster response, rehabilitation, community
resilience
Disasters continue to threaten global human security, necessitating resilient, community-based governance
frameworks. Recent global research demonstrates that localized risk reduction strategies and citizen
participation substantially mitigate disaster impacts (Jayasinghe et al., 2024; Vu et al., 2025; UNDRR, 2023).
In the Philippines, the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010 (RA 10121) institutionalizes the
four pillars, prevention and mitigation, preparedness, response, and rehabilitation. Barangays are central to
operationalizing DRRM mandates, yet local compliance varies due to uneven resources, technical capacity,
and institutional continuity (Nacaya, 2023; National DRRMC, 2025).
While prior studies describe implementation gaps, few critically interrogate why barangay-level compliance
diverges despite uniform policy frameworks. Literature shows recurring fragmentation in DRRM coordination
(Hermosura et al., 2025) and fiscal limitations that hinder sustained infrastructure improvement (Yusay &
Caelian, 2022; Andaya & Castañar-Alano, 2025). International comparisons suggest that local disaster
resilience depends on integrating community participation with predictive and data-driven tools (Chong et al.,
2025; Vu et al., 2025). However, Philippine research still underrepresents compliance analytics linking
demographic, institutional, and infrastructural variables, an empirical gap this study aims to address.
The present research critically examines barangay compliance with DRRM programs in Dapitan City, a flood-
prone locality where repeated events from 2018 to 2022 highlight persistent vulnerabilities. By identifying
both the quantitative levels of compliance and qualitative implementation challenges, this study contributes
evidence to strengthen barangay-level disaster governance and resilience-building initiatives.
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 948
www.rsisinternational.org
1. Assess the respondents’ level of compliance with DRRM programs across prevention–mitigation,
preparedness, response, and rehabilitation.
2. Determine whether significant differences exist in compliance based on respondents’ profiles.
3. Identify issues and challenges encountered by Barangay DRRM Committees in program
implementation.
This study utilized a mixed-methods research design that integrated quantitative and qualitative approaches to
comprehensively assess compliance with Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) programs. The
quantitative component employed a descriptive-survey method to determine the level of compliance across the
four thematic areas, disaster prevention and mitigation, disaster preparedness, disaster response, and disaster
rehabilitation and recovery, among five disaster-prone barangays in Dapitan City, Zamboanga del Norte: Ba-
ao, Burgos, Opao, Ilaya, and Tamion. Complementing this, the qualitative component applied a transcendental
phenomenological design to capture the lived experiences, issues, and challenges encountered by barangay
stakeholders in implementing DRRM initiatives.
A total of 100 respondents participated in the study, consisting of 50 residents and 50 members of the
Barangay Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Committees (BDRRMCs). To provide further insights,
five (5) Incident Commanders, one from each barangay, were selected as key informants through purposive
sampling for the qualitative interviews. Data collection employed two instruments: an adapted survey
questionnaire measured on a 4-point Likert scale to determine compliance levels, and a structured Key
Informant Interview (KII) guide to elicit in-depth perspectives on implementation challenges. Before
administration, permission was obtained from barangay officials, and ethical considerations such as voluntary
participation, informed consent, confidentiality, and anonymity were strictly observed.
Quantitative data were treated using frequency counts, percentages, means, and t-tests, with a 0.05 alpha level
of significance as the decision point for hypothesis testing. Meanwhile, qualitative data from the KIIs were
analyzed using the Thematic Content Analysis as cited in the study of Bacroya and Aranjuez (2025), which
involved coding, clustering, and identifying recurring patterns to generate themes, which was also cited in
Alipoyo (2022). The integration of results from both strands provided a well-rounded understanding of
compliance with DRRM programs and the contextual challenges faced by local communities, ensuring
methodological rigor and validity of findings.
Compliance across thematic areas was moderate overall. Prevention–mitigation achieved the lowest mean
(2.58), reflecting strong administrative coordination but weak infrastructure-based actions. Consistent with
Yusay & Caelian (2022), barangays prioritize communication and planning over physical risk-reduction
investments, a symptom of limited funds and competing local priorities. This reveals a “planning,
implementation gap” (Lagrada, 2025) that weakens structural resilience.
These gaps may be explained by limited awareness or technical capacity among respondents, or by competing
fiscal priorities that constrain implementation of infrastructure projects. The fact that administrative
compliance (communication, planning) is higher than physical mitigation suggests a disconnect between
planning and action, a phenomenon observed in local DRRM evaluations (Lagrada Jr., 2025). For effective
disaster mitigation, technical measures must accompany enabling policies and strong community participation;
failure to invest in drainage and warning systems leaves communities vulnerable despite compliance in
coordination (Lauer et al., 2024). The dual compliance–gap pattern seen here reinforces calls for integrated
funding mechanisms and performance accountability in barangay DRRM (Chong et al., 2025).
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 949
www.rsisinternational.org
Table 1. Level of Compliance in terms of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation
Items
AWV
D
1. Generate localized map in every barangay.
2.83
Complied
2. Establish the designated route to evacuation center, critical infrastructure like
barangay hall, covered court, and numbers of possible affected household.
2.62
Complied
3. Conduct risk assessment regularly.
2.73
Complied
4. De-clog drainage.
1.78
Less Complied
5. Implement the solid waste management program properly through MRF.
3.04
Complied
6. Conduct regular clean-up drive.
3.08
Complied
7. Identify designated area for tree planting.
2.60
Complied
8. Participate or facilitate in tree planting.
2.33
Complied
9. Install alarm system and CCTV cameras.
1.98
Less Complied
10. Install warning signage for evacuation area, flood and landslide prone area.
2.24
Complied
11. Maintain constant direct communication with the City DRRMO.
3.16
Complied
Mean
2.58
Complied
Preparedness compliance (mean = 2.73) was moderate but higher in fund utilization than in technical training
such as swift-water rescue. These results support Guo et al. (2025) and Lacher (2024), who argue that financial
compliance alone is inadequate without continuous capacity-building. Embedding simulation drills and
practical exercises could transform procedural compliance into operational readiness.
The implications are clear: effective preparedness must integrate both resource allocation and skill
development. Prioritizing only funding without ensuring that personnel are properly trained can lead to
superficial compliance that falters during actual emergencies. Studies of community preparedness show that
when citizens and local committees are engaged in capacity-building activities, overall resilience and readiness
increase significantly (Schreurs et al., 2024). Barangays should therefore balance fiscal compliance with
continuous investments in training, drills, and simulation exercises. Only by aligning resources with technical
competence can preparedness become more substantive and less symbolic.
Table 2. Level of Compliance in terms of Disaster Preparedness Program
Items
AWV
D
1. Establish Barangay Disaster Risk Reduction Management Committee
(BDRRMC) operation center.
2.72
Complied
2. Ensure availability of rescue equipment and facilities.
2.58
Complied
3. Participate or facilitate all barangay assembly pertaining to Disaster Risk
Reduction Management Program.
3.24
Complied
4. Coordinate with the direct supplier for the relief stock piling.
2.69
Complied
5. Utilize the calamity funds properly.
3.33
Highly Complied
6. Conduct or participate training on Water Search and Rescue (WASAR).
2.81
Complied
7. Conduct or participate training on Basic Incident Command System (BICS)
2.79
Complied
8. Conduct or participate training on Contingency Planning
2.43
Complied
9. Conduct or participate training on Flood Swift Water Rescue.
2.22
Complied
10. Conduct or participate training on Rapid Damage Assessment Needs
Analysis (RDANA).
2.68
Complied
11. Conduct or participate training on Disaster Community Drilling.
2.70
Complied
Mean
2.73
Complied
Response compliance (mean = 3.30) was relatively high, especially in evacuation and relief distribution.
However, low adherence to SOPs and limited psychosocial support reveal an imbalance between logistical
efficiency and emotional recovery, consistent with Mercado (2024) and García et al. (2024). Integrating
psychosocial first aid within barangay SOPs would align with holistic response frameworks advocated by
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 950
www.rsisinternational.org
Amini et al. (2024). Moreover, research affirms that capacity investment in response must consider both
hardware (equipment, logistics) and soft components like mental health response (García et al., 2024).
The disparity between logistical and psychosocial response is not uncommon. Community resilience literature
highlights that emotional recovery and mental health support are often underprioritized during response
phases, even though they significantly influence long-term recovery (Mercado, 2024). To strengthen response
compliance, barangays should adopt a more holistic approach that includes psychosocial first aid protocols in
SOPs and train responders accordingly. Integrating mental health components into response frameworks can
move compliance from transactional reaction to more sustainable, community-centered resilience.
Table 3. Level of Compliance of the Respondents on Disaster Response Program
Items
AWV
D
1. Create Barangay Disaster Risk Reduction Management Committee (BDRRMC).
3.52
HC
2. Deploy City DRRM Personnel for the conduct of pre-disaster risk assessment in the
flood or landslide prone area.
3.38
HC
3. Support the CSWD and CHO personnel for the preparation and distribution of relief
services.
3.47
HC
4. Participate or facilitate the order given by the City DRRM on the evacuation matters.
3.50
HC
5. Cooperate and coordinate with rescue teams during search and rescue operation.
3.41
HC
6. Adhere to the Standard Operating Procedures for disaster response operations.
3.02
C
7. The LGU/CDRRMO deploy enough number of personnel in the disaster area.
3.06
C
8. Guide the residents on the route to evacuation site.
3.41
HC
9. Assist in providing transportation going to evacuation site.
3.29
C
10. Implement the procedures for accounting of personnel, residents and visitors.
3.27
C
11. Assist or participate on ensuring the physical, mental health and psychological support
for the disaster victims
3.01
C
Mean
3.30
C
Rehabilitation compliance (mean = 3.22) reflected active participation in infrastructure restoration but weak
documentation and reporting. This pattern parallels Boston (2024), who noted that recovery is often “visible
but weakly institutionalized.” Strengthening monitoring systems and data documentation will institutionalize
resilience practices. The emphasis on reconstruction over process adherence is also observed in rural recovery
research emphasizing resource mobilization over rigorous accountability (García et al., 2024). Cross-
nationally, resilience literature notes that recovery compliance is often more visible in infrastructure but less so
in governance and monitoring functions (Boston et al., 2024).
The weaker performance in reporting suggests the need to strengthen institutional processes for accountability,
monitoring, and evaluation in recovery. Comprehensive recovery is not just rebuilding; it also involves
restoring livelihoods, continuous services, and governance mechanisms (Boston et al., 2024). Barangays
should ensure that recovery compliance protocols include systematic documentation and information systems
to capture project progress and resource flows. By embedding accountability into recovery practices,
compliance can transcend physical rehabilitation and embed sustainable resilience into local systems.
Table 4. Level of Compliance on Disaster Rehabilitation and Recovery Program
Items
AWV
D
1. Cooperate in making incident report as to damage and others relevant reports.
3.0
3.14
C
C
2. Guide the Rapid Damage Assessment Needs Analysis Team (RDANA).
3.15
C
3. Cooperate or participate during the rehabilitation of damaged facilities.
3.48
HC
4. Guide the CSWDO on the release of financial assistance.
3.33
HC
5. Guide the CHO on the continuous medical and health services
3.20
C
6. Guide or support the City Engineering personnel on the infrastructure repair and restoration
3.18
C
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 951
www.rsisinternational.org
7. Guide or support the City Veterinarians for the implementation of Livestock Development
Program
3.21
C
8. Guide or support the City Agriculture personnel on Crops Assessment Program
3.28
C
9. Guide or support the City Fisheries personnel on the Fishery Rehabilitation Program
3.20
C
Mean
3.22
C
Table 5. Significant Difference of the Level of Compliance when Analyzed by Profile
Indicator
X
2
p- Value @ .05
Decision
Age
6.72
.02
Not significant
Gender
5.92
.01
Not significant
Educational Background
6.39
.031
Not significant
This table presents the results of the test of significant difference in the level of compliance with DRRM
programs when grouped according to the respondents’ profiles. Chi-square tests showed no significant
differences in compliance by age, gender, or education (p > .05), indicating that compliance behaviors are
community-driven rather than demographically segmented. This uniformity may stem from shared
vulnerability and collective awareness (Tuya et al., 2025). However, incorporating regression analysis could
uncover latent predictors such as years of barangay service or exposure frequency. The indicators of Age (p =
.02), Gender (p = .01), and Educational Background (p = .031) all yielded results interpreted as Not
Significant. This implies that the respondents’ perceptions of their compliance with DRRM programs do not
differ substantially across demographic variables. In other words, compliance is uniformly perceived and
practiced regardless of age, sex, or educational attainment. This result suggests that DRRM compliance is
shaped more by communal experiences and shared vulnerabilities in disaster-prone areas rather than individual
demographic attributes. The finding is consistent with recent studies indicating that collective risk perception
and exposure often override demographic differences in influencing compliance and disaster preparedness
(Lagrada, 2025; Tuya et al., 2025; Ner et al., 2022; García et al., 2024; Amini et al., 2024).
However, these results contradict earlier findings (Asio, 2021), which revealed significant differences in
disaster awareness and compliance when grouped by profile, particularly in relation to education and age. This
discrepancy underscores the importance of contextual factors such as geographic exposure, availability of local
DRRM initiatives, and community-level awareness campaigns. Recent evidence highlights that standardized
training and community-based disaster programs help reduce demographic disparities, leading to more
consistent compliance across different groups (Chong et al., 2025; Guo et al., 2025; Lacher, 2024; Kurata et
al., 2023; Evangelio et al., 2024). Overall, the findings emphasize the need for inclusive, community-driven
approaches to DRRM that treat compliance as a collective responsibility rather than tailoring interventions
strictly to demographic profiles. This perspective can guide policymakers in designing interventions that focus
on shared vulnerabilities and systemic resilience rather than individual-level differences.
The data collected from informants were meticulously transcribed and read repeatedly to immerse in the
content. From these transcripts, significant statements aligned with the research questions were extracted.
These statements were coded, clustered, and interpreted to derive emergent themes. Informants were allowed
to express their thoughts in their native dialect to ensure authenticity, and later translations were made for
clarity to general readers. This process ensured that the participants’ lived experiences with DRRM compliance
could be captured in their natural voice while being accessible to a broader academic audience. Thematic
analysis grounded in this approach has been supported as rigorous and valid in disaster studies.
The analysis revealed five major themes that encapsulated the obstacles encountered by Barangay DRRM
committees: (a) Lack of Drainages, (b) Inadequacy of Signages, (c) Unavailability of Early Warning Devices,
(d) Scarcity of Resources, and (e) Unresponsive Populace. Each theme reflects structural, institutional, and
social constraints that inhibit effective compliance with DRRM programs. These themes resonate with patterns
found in recent literature on local disaster governance, namely, that technical gaps, underinvestment, and
community engagement deficits converge to limit local resilience.
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 952
www.rsisinternational.org
Lack of Drainage. Informants described several challenges: blocked or nonexistent drainage systems, damage
from road widening, and reliance on makeshift household canals. One participant said their drainage had been
“affected by the widening project,” so water could no longer pass freely. Another noted that the barangay
lacked the budget to install proper drainage, forcing households to improvise channels toward nearby rivers.
The result was consistent flooding even with light rains. The absence of adequate drainage infrastructure is a
recognized risk factor in urban flooding, as fragmented stormwater systems overwhelm communities (Context
News, 2025; IJSRED, 2025; Dariagan et al., 2020; Kurata et al., 2023; How Flood Control Projects Fail the
Poor, 2025). Effective stormwater and drainage design is integral to reducing flood risk in populated barangays
(IJSRED, 2025; Kurata et al., 2023).
Inadequacy of Signages. Participants reported that signage intended to guide evacuees was often damaged by
weather, vandalized, or had faded over time. One informant noted that children threw stones at signs, and
strong winds would topple them, making frequent replacement seem unsustainable. These observations align
with studies that emphasize the role of clear signage in evacuation efficiency: functional, visible, well-placed
signage helps reduce confusion and delays, especially during crises (Rogers & Tsirkunov, 2015; Basher, 2016;
Asio, 2021; De León et al., 2006; Hallegatte, 2019). Durable materials, preventive maintenance, and strategic
placement can improve the persistence and cost-effectiveness of evacuation signage (Hallegatte, 2019; Sufri et
al., 2020).
Unavailability of Early Warning Devices. Many informants explained that their barangays lacked CCTV
systems, sirens, or automated flood sensors. Some said they relied on church bells as ad hoc warning tools.
One participant said, “We don’t have CCTV or warning devices installed here.” The lack of such devices
reduces reaction time and may increase exposure to disaster risk. In contrast, successful community-based
early warning systems (CBEWS) integrate both technological and social components, and their absence
weakens resilience (Evangelio et al., 2024; Munasinghe et al., 2024; GSMA, 2022; Assessing EWS in coastal
communities, 2023; Multi-Hazard EW Systems, 2025). The digital and mobile technologies for EWS in the
Philippines have shown promise but remain patchy and fragmented (GSMA, 2022; PreventionWeb, 2023).
Scarcity of Resources. Informants consistently named limited budgets as a major barrier. One said the
barangay’s disaster fund was only 5% of its IRA (Internal Revenue Allotment), allocated across mitigation,
preparedness, and response. Inadequate funding hampered repair, replacement, and procurement of DRRM
equipment. The literature affirms that many local governments in the Philippines face fiscal constraints,
limiting their capacity to implement full DRRM programs (Dariagan et al., 2020; Kurata et al., 2023; Ner et
al., 2022; GSMA, 2022; UNDRR, 2023). Without predictable and sufficient funding, local DRRM plans often
remain aspirational rather than operational.
Unresponsive Populace. Some participants described difficulty convincing a small number of residents to
evacuate, citing skepticism about flooding severity or reluctance to leave animals or property behind. One
informant said that while most complied, some refused to evacuate even when warned. Behavioral resistance
to evacuation is well documented: trust, prior experience, and perceived credibility influence compliance
(Kawasaki, 2020; Butler, 2017; Saha, 2017; Thompson et al., 2017; Sawada et al., 2021). In DRRM literature,
promoting community trust, effective communication, and pre-evacuation engagement are crucial to
minimizing refusal (Sawada et al., 2021; Sufri et al., 2020). Direct quotations from respondents illustrate these
lived experiences, e.g., “Our drainage was damaged by road widening, so water cannot pass freely,”
highlighting structural neglect. These qualitative insights affirm findings by Sawada et al. (2021) and Sufri et
al. (2020) that behavioral and infrastructural barriers intertwine in local disaster governance.
Compliance with DRRM programs in Dapitan City barangays is present but uneven, strong in procedural
coordination, weak in infrastructural implementation. This imbalance reflects broader national trends where
administrative compliance outpaces tangible resilience measures. Strengthening drainage systems, early
warning mechanisms, and capacity-building programs are critical for moving from compliance to
sustainability. Furthermore, the study showed no significant differences in compliance when analyzed by age,
gender, or educational background, indicating that disaster preparedness and response are influenced more by
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 953
www.rsisinternational.org
collective vulnerabilities and community-wide risk perception than by demographic factors. Qualitative
findings reinforced this conclusion, highlighting major challenges such as the lack of drainage systems,
inadequate signage, the absence of reliable early warning devices, limited budgetary resources, and occasional
reluctance of residents to evacuate during disasters. These systemic barriers reduce the effectiveness of DRRM
programs and hinder the achievement of resilient communities.
In light of these results, it is recommended that future DRRM initiatives prioritize the development of essential
infrastructure such as drainage and warning systems, institutionalize regular training and simulation exercises,
and strengthen community engagement through participatory risk communication. Increasing barangay-level
allocations and establishing systematic monitoring and evaluation mechanisms can further improve
accountability and sustainability. By aligning infrastructure development, resource support, and community
participation, Dapitan City can enhance its compliance with DRRM mandates and build safer, more disaster-
resilient communities.
Ethical Consideration
The study adhered to institutional ethical guidelines, with REC approval obtained before data collection.
Participation was voluntary, and confidentiality and anonymity were maintained throughout.
Conflict Of Interest
The author declares no conflict of interest and intends to use this publication as evidence of research
productivity for institutional merit.
1. Alipoyo, V. (2022). Conditions of correctional facilities in the Philippines: Jail wardens’ perspectives
and experiences. Otoritas: Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan, 12(1), 67-77.
2. Amini, F., Hidarnia, A., Ghofranipour, F., & Motlagh, M. E. (2024). Examining the effectiveness of a
training program on improving knowledge, functional skills, and attitude in natural disaster volunteers.
Frontiers in Public Health, 12, 1321535. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1321535
3. Andaya, E. J., & Castañar-Alano, F. (2025). Understanding disaster mitigation in the Philippines: A
review.
4. Bacroya, J. J., & Aranjuez, N. E. (2025). Voices of survival: Exploring the experiences of victims of
robbery. International Journal of Research Scientific Innovation. 10.51244/IJRSI.2025.120700221.
5. Boston, M. (2024). Community resilience: A multidisciplinary exploration. Journal of Community
Resilience.
6. Chong, R. M. B., Tangunan, D. N., Toyado, D. T., Elegado, A. F. K., & co-authors. (2025). Evolving
disaster resilience in the Philippines: Insights from the 2021 and 2023 World Risk Poll on socio-
economic, regional, and systemic factors. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 121, Article
105415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2025.105415
7. City of Manila. (2021). Manila DRRM Plan 2021-2028. https://www.scribd.com/document/660033127/
Manila-Disaster-Risk-Reduction-and-Management-Plan-2021-2028.
8. Cuadra, J. M., & Cotoron, J. (2025). Addressing false information through local capacity building in
disaster risk management. Frontiers in Communication. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC120
67539/
9. Desalit, P., et al. (2025). Predictors of disaster response self-efficacy among adult residents in highly
dense barangays. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management.
https://internationaljournalofdisasterriskmanagement.com/Vol1/article/view/143
10. García, I., et al. (2024). Overcoming challenges to build disaster resilience and recovery in rural
contexts. Sustainability, 16(11), 4373. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114373
11. Guo, L., Fang, M., Liu, L., Chong, H., Zeng, W., & Hu, X. (2025). The development of disaster
preparedness education for public: a scoping review. BMC Public Health, 25, Article 21664.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-21664-0
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 954
www.rsisinternational.org
12. Hermosura, M. J., et al. (2025). The Philippine DRRM-Health (DRRM-H) program: Fragmentation and
the need for a unified framework. Journal of Integrated Policy.
https://jippublication.com/index.php/jip/article/download/611/471
13. Jayasinghe, G. Y., et al. (2024). Integrating DRR into sustainable tourism: A systematic literature
review. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212420924005041
14. Lacher, S. (2024). Exploring disaster preparedness: A scoping review of adult and continuing
education. International Journal of Lifelong Learning.
15. Lagrada Jr., H. D., & Santiago, A. B. (2025). An assessment of the effectiveness of government’s risk
practices in disaster prevention, mitigation, response, recovery, and rehabilitation in Metro Manila,
Philippines. Policing: An International Journal.
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/PIJPSM-08-2023-0218/full/html
16. Lumabi, J. C. (2025). Key factors strengthening disaster preparedness of barangay councils.
International Journal of Language, Literature and Society.
https://ijlls.org/index.php/ijlls/article/download/2235/941
17. Mercado, M. T. (2024). Exploring community resilience strategies in disaster management: A
qualitative study. International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research.
18. Nacaya, I. M. Q. (2023). Assessment of disaster preparedness and RA 10121 IRR at the barangay level.
Cognizance Journal of Multidisciplinary Research.
https://cognizancejournal.com/vol3issue10/V3I1011.pdf
19. National DRRMC. (2025). NDRRMP 2020-2030 RBMES: Situational analysis and gaps assessment.
https://rbmes-api.ndrrmc.gov.ph/download/RBMES_NDRRMP_2020-2030.pdf
20. OpenGov Asia. (2025). Zamboanga Peninsula LGUs adopt REDAS to boost preparedness.
https://opengovasia.com/the-philippines-zamboanga-boosts-smart-disaster-preparedness/
21. PreventionWeb/UNDRR. (2025). Evolving disaster resilience in the Philippines: Insights from 2021 &
2023 World Risk Poll. https://www.preventionweb.net/publication/evolving-disaster-resilience-
philippines-insights-2021-and-2023-world-risk-poll-socio
22. ReliefWeb. (2022). Philippines: Flooding in Zamboanga Peninsula (Region IX) - 25 Dec 2022.
https://reliefweb.int/report/philippines/philippines-flooding-zamboanga-peninsula-region-ix-25-dec-
2022
23. UNDRR. (2023). Progress report on the implementation of the UN Plan of Action on DRR for
Resilience. https://www.undrr.org/media/103580/download
24. Vu, B. T., et al. (2025). Enablers and barriers to implementing effective local disaster risk governance.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420925001682
25. Yusay III, J. T., & Caelian, Z. G. V. (2022). Compliance with the Disaster Risk Reduction and
Management Act of 2010 among LGUs. Philippine Social Science Journal, 5(2), 51–60.
