Disaster Risk Communication and the Zero-Casualty Goal of Albay Province, Philippines

Abstract

The province of Albay in the Philippines is highly vulnerable to climatic and geologic hazards, but it has largely achieved its zero-casualty goal for the past two decades. In recognition of this achievement, the province has garnered numerous awards from international and national organizations. Past studies have identified Albay's success factors, but the role of communication has been overlooked. Thus, this research discusses the communication projects and protocols of Albay on disaster management. Data were obtained from interviews of key informants and examination of official documents. Results showed that the province's communication activities are assigned to specific persons, embedded in an early warning system, enacted using multiple media, supported by multiple stakeholders, and implemented under a strict protocol. These make Albay's disaster communication practices effective in attaining its zero-casualty goal during disasters.

Geophilosophical realness of risk: a case study in national housing authority resettlement sites in Albay, Philippines

“…Although Albay successfully achieved a zero-casualty goal for the past two decades under a strict communication protocol it remained at risk [ 11 ]. The author agrees with Espinas (2013) that land conditions of the host environment and risk reality phenomena should not hinder development [ 12 ].…”

“…Land use sensitivity is reliant on adaptive capacity of the exposed elements relative to their vulnerability that are extrinsic to the host environment regarded as vulnerable landscape or landform that rule what are the highest-best land uses based on safe, comfortable, and accessible site parameters [ 1 , 15 – 16 ]. Mainstreaming the land use sensitivity (understood as the space utilization that varies from: no-build zone to low unsuitable host environment or somewhat unsafe but uncomfortable area, protecting the remaining resilient sites suitable for forest and water zones, and balance utilization of the production areas or agricultural and settlement) into the land use plans and zoning ordinances are development control processes useful to determine the conforming or non-conforming land uses or areas that are risk hotspots [ 1 – 2 , 11 – 12 , 14 – 16 ].…”

“…In the words of Daep et al (2021), the Albay Province in the Philippines successfully achieved a 0-casualty goal for the past two decades under a strict communication protocol [ 11 ]. Be that as it may, Espinas [ 12 ] said that multiple hazards impacting Albay are primarily influenced by its location and geographic landscape.…”

“…They tried to examine the gap by investigating the challenges in mainstreaming CCA into the local land use plans in the province of Albay, Philippines. Their findings suggested 20 quantitative “mainstreaming indicators” categorized into: information, institutional (fragmented laws and regulations; overlapping policy requirements; and the lack of guidelines for mainstreaming CCA into the local land use plans), and resource capacities of systems (influenced by “leadership” indicator where the champion effectively led the CCA efforts because the existing institutional mechanisms at the provincial level which relatively influenced the behavior of Albayanos in production of collective action towards CCA [ 13 ] Espinas [ 12 ] and Cuevas et al (2015) recognized the importance of location and risk information in the safe developmental policy direction, decision making and action to reduce risk or strengthen CCA [ 11 – 13 ].…”

“…They stressed that understanding the site selection process can stimulate important research issues, formulated site selection schema, conceptual model of the site selection process and put forward several research propositions. They said that research in this area has the potential to contribute substantially to improve decision making and better understanding of reducing expenditures which benefits both the host (analogous to the local government unit) and guest (analogous to the resettlement project beneficiaries) [ 1 , 11 – 13 ].…”