Effectiveness of the Barangay Disaster Risk Reduction

and Management Committees (BDRRMCs) in Flood-

Prone Barangays in Cabanatuan City, Philippines
Olive Chester Cuya-Antonio1, Harron Dave P. Antonio2
1
City Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Department, Local Government of
Cabanatuan, Cabanatuan City, Philippines.
2
Department of Education Division of Cabanatuan City, Cabanatuan City, Philippines.
DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1103635 PDF HTML XML 21,293 Downloads 62,076 View
s Citations

Abstract
This paper measured the organizational effectiveness of the Barangay Disaster Risk
Reduction and Management Committees (BDRRMCs). It focused on the flood-prone
barangays of Cabanatuan City, Philippines. The study used the Goal Model of
Organizational Theory to measure the effectiveness of BDRRMCs. The effectiveness of
BDRRMCs was measured against the goals and objectives of Republic Act 10121 also
known as Philippines Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) Act. The study
used as a research tool the Checklist of Disaster Preparedness divided into four
thematic areas namely; a) Disaster Prevention and Mitigation, b) Disaster
Preparedness, c) Disaster Response, and d) Disaster Rehabilitation and Recovery. The
resulting scores were described by the use of Disaster Preparedness Effectiveness
Index. The study showed the need for periodic evaluation of the effectiveness of
Barangay Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Committees (DRRMCs) and to set
the standard of performance not only for the purpose of policy evaluation but also for
measuring community involvement in disaster risk reduction.

Keywords
Organizational Effectiveness, Disaster Risk Reduction and Management, Flood Prone
Barangays, Organizational Evaluation

Share and Cite:

FacebookTwitterLinkedInSina WeiboShare
Cuya-Antonio, O. and Antonio, H. (2017) Effectiveness of the Barangay Disaster Risk
Reduction and Management Committees (BDRRMCs) in Flood-Prone Barangays in
Cabanatuan City, Philippines. Open Access Library Journal, 4, 1-16.
doi: 10.4236/oalib.1103635.

1. Introduction
The Philippines is exposed to disasters and hazards because of its geography and
geology [1] . It has been ranked third (3rd) among 173 countries in terms of exposure
to hazards, such as typhoon, earthquake, flooding, landslide, volcanic eruption, and
tsunami, according to the World Risk Index 2012 released by the United Nations
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR).
On the R.A. 10121 Orientation Seminar conducted by the Office of Civil Defense, it has
been presented that the Philippines’ location along the Pacific Typhoon Belt made it
prone to typhoon or hydrometeorological hazards. Based on the 2002 to 2012 data of
the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC), the country
experiences an average of twenty (20) typhoons a year, and 50% of it have damaging
effects to lives and properties. At the same time, Philippines is also situated along the
Pacific Ring of Fire that made it susceptible to earthquake and volcanic eruptions. These
risks made the Philippine Disaster Management System to undergo a paradigm shift.
From Presidential Decree 1566 to Republic Act 10121, from reactive to pro-active, from
top-down and centralized management to bottom-up and participatory disaster risk
reduction process.
Republic Act 10121, also known as the Philippines Disaster Risk Reduction and
Management (DRRM) Act of 2010, is an Act focusing on strengthening the Philippine
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management System [2] . Through this Act, the National
DRRM Framework (NDRRMF) and National DRRM Plan (NDRRMP) were developed. Both
the NDRRMF and NDRRMP foresee a country which has “safer, adaptive and disaster-
resilient Filipino communities toward sustainable development”. Together with the
paradigm shift is the creation of the four thematic areas namely; a) Disaster Prevention
and Mitigation, b) Disaster Preparedness, c) Disaster Response, and d) Disaster
Rehabilitation and Recovery. Each area has long term goals and activities which will
lead to the attainment of overall vision in DRRM. According to the NDRRMF, resources
invested in the four thematic areas must prioritize disaster prevention and mitigation,
disaster preparedness and climate change adaptation to be more effective in attaining
its goal and objectives [3] . All of these were cascaded from national government to the
barangay, the smallest political unit in the archipelago; and the nearest to the people in
the localities serving as the primary planning and implementing unit of government
programs, projects and activities [4] . As the political unit in the grassroots level, the
Barangay Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Committee (BDRRMC) was
mandated to implement RA 10121 (Sec. 12 (a)).
Flooding is the primary hazard in Cabanatuan City. Despite the importance of reducing
risk during manmade or natural made calamities, there is an observable gap in
knowledge on how to measure the effectiveness of government unit in-charged of
lessening the impact of disasters. At present, there is no standard tool to measure their
effectiveness in the performance of functions. On the contrary, programs intended to
measure the performance of the entire Local Government Unit is well in placed. The
Seal of Good Governance and the “Gawad Kalasag” are programs to measure
performance of the LGU.
The SGLG was implemented by the Department of Interior and Local Government
(DILG). It is an improvement of the Seal of Good Housekeeping that was launched on
2010, and integrated with the Seal of Disaster Preparedness that was released on 2012.
The SGLG recognizes good performance of the LGUs, not only on financial
housekeeping, but also on areas that directly benefit the people, including disaster
preparedness [5] . While Gawad KALASAG (Kalamidad at Sakuna Labanan, Sariling
Galing ang Kaligtasan) was implemented by the National Disaster Risk Reduction and
Management Council (NDRRMC) through the Office of Civil Defense (OCD). It is a
Search for Excellence in DRRM and Humanitarian Assistance, which recognizes
exceptional contributions of DRRM practitioners in strengthening the resilience and
adaptive capacities of nations and communities on disaster risks [6] .
These national programs have their own limitations. They cannot measure the
effectiveness of the Disaster Risk Reduction Management System at the Barangay level.
Thus, the study is designed to fill the Gap in terms of performance evaluation at the
barangay level. This would in turn assess the effectiveness of the policies enacted by
the national and the effectiveness of its implementation in the grassroots level.
Performance measurement and program evaluation have been used and is essential for
a more efficient, effective and accountable public sector [7] . Thus, an assessment at
the barangay level is vital in the performance management of the local governments.
Either way, according to Walker and Andrews (2013) a focus on service-delivery is
important in the local government because local government represents the public face
of the state and is where citizens experience of government is derived on a day-to-day
basis [8] .
Objectives of the Study
The main objective of the study is to measure the organizational effectiveness of the
BDRRMCs of the flood-prone barangays in Cabanatuan City based on Disaster
Prevention and Mitigation, Disaster Preparedness, Disaster Response, and Disaster
Rehabilitation and Recovery.
The study is aimed at measuring the organizational effectiveness of the flood prone
barangays in Cabanatuan City, Philippines along the areas of:
1) Disaster Prevention and Mitigation using as parameters:
a) Risk Assessment
b) Plans, Policies, and Budget
c) Early Warning System
d) Risk Financing
e) Environmental Management
f) Infrastructure Resilience
2) Disaster Preparedness in terms of:
a) Presence of a functional Barangay Development Council (BDC)
b) Presence of an institutionalized Barangay DRRM Committee
c) Approved Plans
d) Capacity development activities conducted:
e) Partnership Mechanisms
3) Disaster Response;
4) Disaster Rehabilitation and Recovery;
5) The overall organizational effectiveness of the flood-prone barangays measured
based on the four thematic areas of disaster risk reduction management.
6) To propose policy recommendation.

2. Research Methodology
Study Locale
The study locale is in Cabanatuan City, a component city of the province of Nueva Ecija,
situated in the heart of Central Luzon which is one of the main islands in the
Philippines. It is a landlocked city with 89 barangays and a population of 302,231, as of
August 2015, according to the Philippine Statistics Authority (Figure 1).
Study Design
The study is both qualitative and quantitative in design. The quantitative aspect
involved the use of Checklist of Disaster Preparedness while the qualitative part
involved the description and determination of effectiveness through the use of
observation, interview and analysis of the data observed. Furthermore, the
Figure 1. Location of Cabanatuan City. Source: Google Maps. 2017.
qualitative side of the study focused on describing the how and why of the subject of
inquiry using the Goal Model, objectives, and the policies cited. While the quantitative
side highlights the measurement of the effectiveness of the BDRRMCs through the
relative value of its components, the four thematic areas.
Provided on the checklist are the four thematic areas. Prevention and Mitigation were
given 35 points, Preparedness has 30 points, Response has 20, and 15 points was
apportioned to Rehabilitation and Recovery. Each thematic area has supporting
activities with corresponding points that would meet the objectives set in this study.
The point system would be all or nothing. Every maximum point specified is based on
the weight or importance of the activity. The first two thematic areas were given large
points to satisfy the provisions of the laws and policies cited earlier, the NDRRMF, and
NDRRMP. The points from the four thematic areas are totaled using the Microsoft Excel
to derive the effectiveness. Thus, the Effectiveness Index yielded the following Score
and its Verbal Description, to wit;
Verbal Description Score
Most Effective: 91% - 100%
Much Effective: 81% - 90%
Effective: 71% - 80%
Least Effective: 51% - 70%
Ineffective: 0% - 50%
Respondents
The respondent-barangays are the flood-prone barangays of Cabanatuan City. The
flood-prone barangays were selected based on the information gathered from the
Cabanatuan City Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office (CDRRMO). According
to the CDRRMO, out of 89 barangays in Cabanatuan City, thirty nine (39) are high risk
to flooding, seventeen (17) are medium risk, and the rest are low risk to flooding.
Based on a 50% normal distribution, with 95% Confidence Level, 15% Margin of Error,
and a population sample of 89 barangays, the sampling yielded a sample size of 30
barangays. They are the following:
1 Aduas Centro 11 DS Garcia 21 Pamaldan
2 Aduas Norte 12 Isla 22 Rizdelis
3 Aduas Sur 13 Imelda 23 San Josef Norte
4 Bagong Sikat 14 Kapt Pepe 24 San Josef Sur
5 Barrera 15 Mabini Homesite 25 San Juan Accfa
6 Bonifacio 16 Matadero 26 San Roque Sur
7 Calawagan 17 MS Garcia 27 Sta Arcadia
8 Caudillo 18 Nabao 28 Sto Nino
9 Communal 19 Pagas 29 Talipapa
10 Daan Sarile 20 Palagay 30 Valdefuente
These barangays are high-risks and medium-risk in terms of flooding in the city. And
they are the barangays that are easily affected of Pampanga River runoffs, which is the
major cause of flooding in the city.
The respondents of the study were seventeen (17) Barangay Captains and thirteen (13)
Barangay Secretaries. The Barangay Captain, as chief executive, is the one enforcing
laws and ordinances which are applicable within the barangay for the general welfare of
the community [9] . While the Barangay Secretary, as an appointive barangay official,
is the one in charge of all barangay records. Thus, the Chairperson and or the Secretary
are the appropriate respondents of this study to ensure validity of the data gathered.
Theoretical Framework
This study is guided by the principles of Organization Theory. There have been several
studies regarding organizations, its functions and systems, which led to organization
theories. Őnday (2016) and Yang, et al. (2013) cited Zhu (1999) and defined
organization theory as, “knowledge systems which study and explain organizational
structure, function and operation and organizational group behavior and individual
behavior” [10] [11] [12] . Under organization theories is the measure of organizational
effectiveness. And one of the earliest models of organizational effectiveness is the Goal
Model. Hall (1980) and Henri (2004) referred to Goodman et al. (1977) and stated that
Goal Model is a rational model or set of arrangements and assumptions oriented toward
the achievement of goals of the organization [13] [14] [15] . Meanwhile, Etzioni (1977)
described effectiveness as the degree to which an organization accomplishes its goals
or outcome [16] . The focus of this model is exclusively on the end result or output
which is the achievement of goals, objectives, and targets [15] . Hence, the measure of
effectiveness is the outcome of organizational activities in terms of measurable outputs
[17] . This implies that organizational effectiveness is based on quantifiable
activities/outcomes as a result of the BDRRMCs observance and implementation of
policies.
Research Paradigm
The figure below shows the research paradigm of this study. It posits that the
Organizational Effectiveness is measured by the number of activities fully implemented
by the BDRRMC for every thematic area (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Research paradigm adopted from the presentation of Ismeet Sikka

Hersohena, organizational effectiveness, goal approach flow chart.
As the paradigm shows, box 1 contains the inputs to be used in the study such as RA
10121, NDRRMP, NDRRMF, and Checklist of Disaster Preparedness. The inputs were
processed by the implementation of the policies and BDRRMC functions, and as
provided by the throughput box above. Thus, would measure the output of this study,
the BDRRMC Organizational Effectiveness. The research output shall again form part of
the feedback loop, it may be perceived as the trial and testing of the policy. In return, it
may be used whether or not to amend or revise the existing policy on disaster
management. Also, to create a suitable standard performance/effectiveness
measurement on the subject matter. The cycle of input-process-output continues.

3. Results and Discussion

Presented on the succeeding pages are the data gathered and their interpretation based
on the theory, model, objectives, and policies cited earlier. The legend below will be
consistently used on the presentation of the data of the barangays.
 A= Aduas
Centro K= DS Garcia U= Pamaldan
B= Aduas
Norte L= Isla V= Rizdelis
W= San Josef
C= Aduas Sur M= Imelda Norte
D= Bagong
Sikat N= Kapt Pepe X= San Josef Sur
Legend: O= Mabini Y= San Juan
E= Barrera Homesite Accfa
Z= San Roque
F= Bonifacio P= Matadero Sur
G= Calawagan Q= MS Garcia AA= Sta Arcadia
H= Caudillo R= Nabao BB= Sto Nino
I= Communal S= Pagas CC= Talipapa
J= Daan Sarile T= Palagay DD= Valdefuente
Disaster Prevention and Mitigation
The data on Figure 3 shows the scores of the thirty barangays in terms of prevention
and mitigation. 9 barangays (30%) have achieved full 35 points, while 2 barangays got
the lowest score of 11 points (V and I). The barangays which attained the full score on
this thematic area infers their adherence to the objectives of the RA 10121, NDRRMP,
and NDRRMF. Also, based on the table, 5 barangays (16.67%) have achieved 20 points
below (A, I, V, W, CC) which means they have not attained 50% of the total score on
disaster prevention and mitigation. Thus, indicates that prevention and mitigation
activities have not been a priority of the barangay. On the positive note, the rest of the
barangays attained more than 50% of the total score in this area, indicating that
majority of the barangays have considered to lessen and prevent the adverse effect of
flooding in their area.
Of the 6 activities listed under this thematic area, 21 barangays got full points on
having plans, policies, and budget. These activities are essentials in disaster
management. However, 12 barangays performed poorly on Risk Financing, 3 barangays
lack Early Warning System, and 5 barangays do not carry out Risk
Figure 3. Disaster Prevention and Mitigation.
Assessment activities. Barangays which do not conduct Risk Assessment activities rely
only on the budget of their barangays and do not source out fund from financial
institutions. And based on the interview and observation of the researcher, Early
Warning System and Risk Assessment activities are in place in all barangays but they
do not have the clear idea that what they are already doing fall under these activities.
This indicates that the policies given to the barangays should be clear and specific in
order for the grassroots level to understand and identify the provisions of the law.
By definition, Disaster Mitigation is the “lessening or limitation of the adverse impacts
of hazards and related disasters encompassing engineering techniques and hazard-
resistant construction as well as improved environmental policies and public awareness”
[2] . As shown in the figure, it indicates the priority projects in order to prevent and
lessen the impacts of disaster in the community. It depicts enactment and
implementation of policies, which is the backbone of disaster management. It focuses
on activities which has long term impact on the community. This thematic area is vital
on determining whether or not the BDRRMCs are effective on doing what the law
mandates. Thus, it is essential in the measurement of effectiveness of the BDRRMCs.
However, enactment and implementation of policies requires people’s participation.
According to Gabriel and Mangahas (2016), “the effectiveness of a public policy rests on
effective implementation” [18] . Gabriel and Gutierrez (2017) also pointed out that
creation of enabling laws in local government is not enough to create enabling
environment. Enabling environment is when people’s participation in local legislation
provides them sense of ownership of the policies which are useful for effective
implementation [17] .
Disaster Preparedness
As indicated on Figure 4, it illustrates the capacity and capability of the BDRRMCs on
preparing for any kinds of disaster. This depicts the structure, mechanism, activities,
and trainings funded to ensure that the goals on DRRM are achieved.
It is shown on the figure that Barangays D and S got the highest score with 27 points,
however none of the barangays achieved the full 30 points in disaster preparedness.
Nevertheless, 25 barangays achieved more than 50% (15 points) of the total score in
this area depicting that the barangays are equipping themselves even before any
disaster strikes, which is one of the key to be effective in disaster management. This
shows that they have learned from their experiences and are now prepared for any
calamities that may arise.
On the figure, only 5 barangays (M, N, T, U, X) lack approved plans such as BDRRM
Plan, Contingency Plan, and Evacuation Plan. However, none of the 30

Figure 4. Disaster preparedness.

barangays attained the maximum points on capacity development activities showing
that the barangays need to prioritize and appropriate more funds on trainings and skills
development for efficient disaster management and service delivery to the community.
Basically, this thematic area is about community preparation and participation. And
participatory approach is the best way to make the community realize how vulnerable
they are [19] . Therefore, the BDRRMCs should encourage people’s participation to
efficiently manage disasters or emergencies which is the essence of the R.A. 10121.
Disaster Response
Reference [2] provides a detailed definition of Disaster Response. Under this area are
the systems on evacuation, relief distribution mechanism, coordination, rapid damage
assessment and needs analysis, and on time reporting of the barangay to appropriate
agencies. This thematic area presents what the barangay should do during emergencies
and calamities.
The data on Figure 5 reveals that only 5 barangays (B, C, H, L, and S) got the full 20
points, 2 barangays (N, T) got no points at all, but the rest of the barangays (23
barangays) have scored 11 to 17 points or at least more than 50% of the maximum
score for this area. This indicates that the barangays are equipped and are able to
display their capability during disaster. Based on its definition and the performance of
the BDRRMCs, an effective disaster response is through an effective system of
managing a disaster or an emergency. The figure clearly shows that barangays perform
well during disaster and they are practicing what they need to do in times of calamities.
As mentioned earlier, effective implementation of the policies and program requires the
participation of the community. And each decision and action taken by society makes it
more vulnerable or more resilient to disasters [20] . Training

Figure 5. Disaster response.

on proper response during emergencies would help the barangays to be effective on
disaster response. This implies that effective disaster preparedness will result to
effective disaster response. Hence, successful response measures are indication of
successful preparations [21] . This denotes the importance and interrelatedness of each
thematic area with each other. The performance of the barangays on one area will have
an effect on their performance on the other areas. This is true in disaster response. If
the people know what to do and follow the specified early warning and evacuation
procedure (disaster preparedness) the need for emergency services and public
assistance in times of disaster would be reduced (disaster response) [Ibid.].
Disaster Rehabilitation and Recovery
After calamity strikes, a systematic process of preparing for rehabilitation and recovery
should be done. This involves post-damage needs assessment (PDNA), restoration
activities, and recovery plan to abide by the build-back better principle of the NDRRMP
 and prevent another disaster to happen. This area involves multi-sectoral and multi-
disciplinary approach as it covers estimation and valuation of losses, damages, and
needs in agriculture, services, trade, etc. While the BDRRMC is not mainly responsible
for the valuation and estimation, it could assist the city/municipal government in
identifying the needs of the barangay [21] .
As shown in Figure 6, 11 barangays got 15 full points, while only 1 barangay (X)
attained no points at all. Based on the table, 1/3 of the sample population attained 8
points below, which is 50% of the maximum score on rehabilitation and recovery. This
suggests that 33% of the barangays do not have enough activities

Figure 6. Disaster rehabilitation and recovery.

on rehabilitation and recovery considering that all of these barangays are prone to
flooding. In here, the capacity of the barangays to return to their normal condition is
vital in determining whether the preparedness activities of the barangays are enough to
make the community resilient. This infers that in rehabilitation and recovery, it will
require not only the effectiveness of the BDRRMCs but also the resiliency of the whole
community. This will only be achieved if the BDRRMCs are effective in doing the pre-
disaster activities that the law required to them to prioritize.
The Effectiveness of the BDRRMCs
The data on Table 1 displays the total scores each barangay has and the verbal
Barangay Total Score Description
A 54.5 Least Effective
B 85.5 Much Effective
C 87 Much Effective
D 94 Most Effective
E 84.5 Much Effective
 F 68.5 Least Effective
G 74 Effective
H 77 Effective
I 45 Ineffective
J 82.5 Much Effective
K 83 Much Effective
L 84 Much Effective
M 65 Least Effective
N 47 Ineffective
O 93 Most Effective
P 77 Effective
Q 80.5 Much Effective
R 81.5 Much Effective
S 97 Most Effective
T 47 Ineffective
U 65 Least Effective
V 45 Ineffective
W 63 Least Effective
X 61.5 Least Effective
Y 89 Much Effective
Z 77 Effective
AA 84.5 Much Effective
BB 81 Much Effective
CC 63 Least Effective
DD 93.5 Most Effective
Table 1. Effectiveness of the BDRRMCs.

Figure 7. The effectiveness of the BDRRMCs.

description based on the Effectiveness Index used on this study. As presented below,
only 4 (13.33%) barangays (D, O, S, and DD) are described as Most Effective, followed
by 11 (36.67%) barangays which are all defined as Much Effective, another 4 (13.33%)
barangays which is described as Effective, 7 barangays (23.33%) are Least Effective,
while 4 barangays (13.33%) are described as Ineffective.
As indicated on Figure 7, it shows that the highest score were achieved by barangay S
(97 points) followed by D (94), DD (93.5) and O (93). Indicating that the results of the
four thematic areas discussed earlier clearly identify that the organizational
effectiveness of BDRRMCs are achieved if they adhere to the law by implementing all
the activities of the four thematic areas.
The Most Effective barangays shown above, specifically barangay S, is consistent in
achieving the top scores in all four thematic areas, the same goes with the four
Ineffective BDRRMCs wherein. Hence, shows that the effectiveness of the BDRRMCs
must be measured as the total of the four thematic areas due to their interrelatedness
with each other.
The findings of this study clearly reveal that performance measurement is a vital
element in the successful operation of performance management in the public service
[22] . The performance of the BDRRMCs in the four thematic areas, as reflected by
their organizational effectiveness, definitely ensures the attainment of the goal of the
R.A. 10121. And for the policies to be appreciated by the community, sufficient public
involvement in local decision making is needed to ensure that primary objectives of the
policies reflect community concern [23] . This way the effective implementation and
performance of the barangays will be assured.

4. Conclusion and Recommendations

Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to measure the organizational effectiveness of the
BDRRMCs based on the four thematic areas. And based on the findings, the following
conclusions can be drawn from this study. The four thematic areas are interrelated to
each other so it really requires the result of each thematic area to assess the
effectiveness of the BDRRMCs. The BDRRMCs will be most effective if they are
performing their functions. And as prescribed by the law, they should give priorities to
all thematic areas, especially prevention and mitigation, and disaster preparedness to
achieve the goals and objectives of RA 10121. This way, not only will the barangay be
benefitted but the whole community and city as well.
R.A. 10121, NDRRMP, and NDRRMF already provided the essential activities in DRRM. It
is up to the people, especially the barangays, how they would appreciate the policies
and how they would implement it. But the performance of the barangays on DRRM
should be assessed. Rather, there should be a standard on performance and
effectiveness measurement to be able to test the policies and somehow revise or
amend it based on the performance of the barangay.
Recommendations
Based on the existing policies and the findings of this study, the researcher arrived to
the following recommendations:
1) For the government
a) The researcher recommends the government to establish a standard performance
and effectiveness measurement on DRRM per thematic areas, to all levels of the
government, specifically to the barangays.
b) To effectively cascade the existing policies on DRRM, the national government should
revisit the R.A. 10121 and make its Implementing Rules and Regulations be more
detailed, specific, and inclusive for the LGUs to easily appreciate and implement it.
c) The national and local governments should strictly implement the policies regarding
DRRM and those integrated in it such as Zoning Ordinance, CLUP, and Climate Change
Adaptation Plan.
2) For the Barangay
a) The researcher recommends that the barangay should prioritize Disaster Prevention
and Mitigation and Disaster Preparedness activities to effectively and efficiently manage
any types of disaster.
b) Since disaster is unpredictable, the barangay should always have plans such as drrm
plan, contingency plans, evacuation plan, and recovery plan to properly respond to any
types of disaster.
c) The barangay should also encourage peoples’ participation to effectively implement
the policies on DRRM.
d) The barangay should prioritize DRRM activities in its area to effectively manage any
types of disaster.
e) The researcher recommends that the Barangay should adhere to the provisions of
the law regarding DRRM to prevent loss of life and property.
3) For Future Researchers
a) The researcher recommends that future researchers on this field should conduct
study and surveys on the point of views of the citizens or constituents to gauge the
effectiveness of the barangays on implementing DRRM. Future researchers might also
look at other factors affecting the performance of the barangays in DRRM and derive a
different checklist or questionnaires.
b) Future researchers should use different models to measure the organizational
effectiveness of the BDRRMCs. Goal Model has its own limitations for it only relies on
measuring the goals or the output and requires to meet certain conditions. Future
researchers might look into the input, the system or the process to measure the
BDRRMCs effectiveness.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.