Engaging Isolated Communities in Disaster Preparation and Communication in the Philippines [volume 11 ed.] 9789819946969, 9789819946976

Table of contents :
Preface
Contents
Abbreviations
References
List of Figures
List of Tables
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
1.1.1 The ASEAN Context
1.1.2 The Philippine Context
1.1.3 Mindanao: Land of Promise No More
1.2 The Brief
1.2.1 GIDA’s Narrative
1.3 Scope and Relevance
1.4 Definition of Terms
1.4.1 Disasters
1.4.2 There is Nothing Natural About Disasters
1.4.3 What Are the Four Phases of Disaster Management?
1.4.4 Pre-disaster Communication for Knowledge and Capacity Building
1.4.5 Social Inequalities Exacerbate Access Issues
1.4.6 Differentiating Community Engagement, Development and Participatory Communication, and Codesign/Cocreation Approaches
1.5 Book Overview
1.6 Summary
References
2 When Information is Critical and Access Becomes Difficult
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Access to Pre-disaster Information is a Privilege
2.2.1 Decentralisation and Localisation of Disaster Communication
2.3 Community Engagement as Information Access Point
2.3.1 Community: A Question of Who or What
2.3.2 Vulnerability Relates More to Risk Than to Disaster Risk Communication
2.3.3 What is Community Resilience?
2.3.4 The Rise of Community Engagement as a Pre-disaster Communication Strategy
2.4 Summary
References
3 Frameworks of Engagement and Precursors
3.1 Introduction
3.2 It Takes More Than a Communication Tool to Engage Communities
3.2.1 Frameworks of Engagement
3.2.2 The 4Rs of Community Engagement
3.2.3 Social Power
3.2.4 Experience as Teacher
3.2.5 Relationships and Community Development
3.3 Research Gap
3.4 The Relevance of These Frameworks to Understanding GIDA Communities
3.4.1 Understanding the Political Structure of the Philippines
3.4.2 DRRM in the Philippines
3.5 Summary
References
4 Getting the GIDA Story
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Research Design
4.3 Gathering Stories
4.3.1 GIDA and the Field Sites
4.3.2 GIDA Community and Government Informants’ Profile
4.4 Data Collection Methods
4.4.1 Talking to Locals
4.4.2 A Document is not Static
4.4.3 Field Observations
4.5 Interpreting GIDA Communities’ Stories
4.6 Summary
References
5 Communication in Isolation
5.1 Introduction
5.2 One-Way Informative Communication: Transactional Engagement
5.2.1 Print and Other Visual Materials
5.2.2 Road Signage
5.2.3 Television/Video
5.3 Two-Way Asymmetric Communication: Transitional Engagement
5.3.1 Radio
5.3.2 Social Networking Sites
5.3.3 Text Messaging/Blast and 911 Hotline
5.4 Face-to-Face Communication: Opportunities and Pitfalls of Transformative Engagement
5.4.1 Interpersonal Communication and Its Issues
5.4.2 Overreliance on Drills and Training and Trust Issues
5.4.3 Denial of GIDA Communities’ Access to Information
5.4.4 Localisation of Disaster Risk Information: Mere Compliance
5.5 Political Complications and Leadership Instability
5.6 Summary
References
6 Power, Relationships, and Experiences: Bridging Pre-disaster Communication and Community Engagement
6.1 Introduction
6.2 The Multiple Notions of Community in DRRM
6.3 Transposing the Individual’s Knowledge to a Collective DRRM Narrative
6.3.1 The Concept of Individuality in DRRM
6.3.2 The Practical Notion of Individual in DRRM
6.4 Power, Relationships, and Experiences
6.4.1 The Individual’s Social Power
6.4.2 The Individual’s (Social) Relationships
6.4.3 The Individual’s Lived and Simulated Experiences
6.5 Summary
References
7 PRE Transformative Engagement (PRETE) Framework
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Individuals in Small Groups or Sectors
7.2.1 The Individual as the Core of the PRETE Framework
7.2.2 A Targeted Approach Is Ideal in Pre-disaster Communication
7.2.3 Targeting Individuals and the Need to Shift Attention
7.2.4 Strengthening Social Linkages and Using an Individual’s Experiences
7.3 Lived and Simulated Experiences Are Core
7.4 Trust Is Essential in Pre-disaster Communication
7.5 The Impact of Social Network in Community Engagement
7.6 The PRETE Framework
7.6.1 Bridging the Gap Between Transitional and Transformative Engagement Using the PRETE Framework
7.6.2 The PRE Transformative Engagement (PRETE) Framework
7.6.3 The Actors and Other Elements in the Framework
7.7 Summary
References
8 Engaging Isolated Communities: What’s Next?
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Summary of Findings
8.2.1 Disaster Preparedness Utilises Multimodal Communicative Conditions
8.2.2 Transitional Level of Community Engagement
8.2.3 Spatial Isolation—The Biggest Barrier: Identifying Opportunities in Dealing with GIDA Communities
8.3 Implications for Theory and Practice
8.3.1 Theoretical Implications
8.3.2 Practical Implications
8.4 Future Research
8.5 Summary
References
Glossary

Citation preview

Communication, Culture and Change in Asia 11

Dennis John Sumaylo

Engaging Isolated Communities in Disaster Preparation and Communication in the Philippines

Communication, Culture and Change in Asia Volume 11

Series Editor Jan Servaes, Former UNESCO Chair in Communication for Sustainable Social Change, University of Leuven, Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong

This series offers a comprehensive view of contemporary theoretical and programmatic issues in the field of communication, culture and social change in Asia. It explores multiple linkages between communication and culture from a social change perspective, an area that has been increasingly central to development debates over the past decades. The purpose of the series is twofold: to showcase the increasing richness and versatility of communication, culture and social change research and practice, and to make a call for adopting and applying a more comprehensive perspective on communication/culture for development and social change, with a focus on localizing and globalizing cases and studies in the Asian region. Given the variety and depth of challenges in this field, both researchers and practitioners need to espouse a broad understanding of communication and culture that transcends conventional approaches. Therefore, this series will solicit manuscripts that link communication and cultural processes to the exercise of fundamental human and citizen’s rights and the empowerment of citizens in making decisions about change and other development-related issues. The series features contributions from well-respected scholars and practitioners in the field who address different communication and cultural dimensions and questions on current global/local change and development issues. The contributions propose an understanding of communication and culture as collective actions to redress social inequalities and development challenges.

Dennis John Sumaylo

Engaging Isolated Communities in Disaster Preparation and Communication in the Philippines

Dennis John Sumaylo Department of Humanities University of the Philippines Mindanao Davao City, Philippines

ISSN 2366-4665 ISSN 2366-4673 (electronic) Communication, Culture and Change in Asia ISBN 978-981-99-4696-9 ISBN 978-981-99-4697-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-4697-6 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

For Nenita Navaja-Francisco and Ildefonso Ambalong-Sumaylo

Preface

The Philippines’ disaster risk reduction and management (DRRM) follow a topdown pre-disaster communication approach characterised by a one-way information dissemination strategy resulting in communities having limited access to information and restricting feedback. This book explored this pre-disaster communication mechanism in the context of geographically isolated and disadvantaged areas (GIDA), intending to establish their communicative conditions that may aid in the conducive to smooth information access between government and marginalised communities. The analysis is grounded in combining the development communication approach with the Community Engagement Continuum while drawing on the participatory communication paradigm for development. The study presented in this book used a qualitative design and methods like document analysis, semi-structured interviews, and field observations for data triangulation. Two GIDA field sites were identified, and 22 research participants were tapped. Their composition comprises 11 representatives from the Philippine Government and 11 residents from two different GIDA communities. The findings confirm a top-down, informative, and one-way model of the predisaster communication approach that features a transitional community engagement style. In contrast, the communities, given their context, still consider interpersonal communication, primarily face-to-face communication, as the most effective and used mode of communication. The study also uncovered several communication dynamics issues centred on trust, information access issues, and overreliance on drills and training. These issues are by-products of political complications and leadership instability brought about by the current set-up of the national DRRM council. Ultimately, this book proposes the ‘PRE Transformative Engagement (PRETE) Framework’ purposively designed to bridge the gap between transitional and transformative levels of community engagement while addressing the geographic isolation context of the communities. This framework is grounded on the interplay of power, relationships, and experiences between the community and the government actors. This

vii

viii

Preface

book suggests that pre-disaster communication and community engagement efforts should be inclusive and require customisation, localisation, and mainstreaming of pre-disaster communication, thereby serving the needs of GIDA communities. Davao, Philippines

Dennis John Sumaylo

Acknowledgements Thank you to all my informants from the government and the GIDA communities. Your stories and experiences deserve attention and action. Thank you to the University of the Philippines (UP), RMIT University, and the Commission on Higher Education (CHED). This book is my Ph.D. dissertation funded by RMIT and CHED. Thank you to Dr. Marianne Sison, Dr. Leah Xiufang Li, and Dr. Jennifer Robinson of RMIT University.

Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.1 The ASEAN Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.2 The Philippine Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.3 Mindanao: Land of Promise No More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 The Brief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1 GIDA’s Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Scope and Relevance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.1 Disasters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.2 There is Nothing Natural About Disasters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.3 What Are the Four Phases of Disaster Management? . . . . . . 1.4.4 Pre-disaster Communication for Knowledge and Capacity Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.5 Social Inequalities Exacerbate Access Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.6 Differentiating Community Engagement, Development and Participatory Communication, and Codesign/Cocreation Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 Book Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 4 6 7 8 14 15 17 17 18 19

2 When Information is Critical and Access Becomes Difficult . . . . . . . . 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Access to Pre-disaster Information is a Privilege . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Decentralisation and Localisation of Disaster Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Community Engagement as Information Access Point . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 Community: A Question of Who or What . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Vulnerability Relates More to Risk Than to Disaster Risk Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35 35 35

20 21

22 24 27 28

37 41 42 45

ix

x

Contents

2.3.3 What is Community Resilience? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.4 The Rise of Community Engagement as a Pre-disaster Communication Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47

3 Frameworks of Engagement and Precursors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 It Takes More Than a Communication Tool to Engage Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Frameworks of Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 The 4Rs of Community Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3 Social Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.4 Experience as Teacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.5 Relationships and Community Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Research Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 The Relevance of These Frameworks to Understanding GIDA Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1 Understanding the Political Structure of the Philippines . . . . 3.4.2 DRRM in the Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

59 59

50 53 54

59 60 64 66 67 68 70 72 73 76 77 78

4 Getting the GIDA Story . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 4.2 Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 4.3 Gathering Stories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 4.3.1 GIDA and the Field Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 4.3.2 GIDA Community and Government Informants’ Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 4.4 Data Collection Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 4.4.1 Talking to Locals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 4.4.2 A Document is not Static . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 4.4.3 Field Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 4.5 Interpreting GIDA Communities’ Stories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 4.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 5 Communication in Isolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 One-Way Informative Communication: Transactional Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 Print and Other Visual Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2 Road Signage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.3 Television/Video . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

105 105 106 109 112 113

Contents

5.3 Two-Way Asymmetric Communication: Transitional Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 Radio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2 Social Networking Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.3 Text Messaging/Blast and 911 Hotline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Face-to-Face Communication: Opportunities and Pitfalls of Transformative Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.1 Interpersonal Communication and Its Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.2 Overreliance on Drills and Training and Trust Issues . . . . . . 5.4.3 Denial of GIDA Communities’ Access to Information . . . . . 5.4.4 Localisation of Disaster Risk Information: Mere Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Political Complications and Leadership Instability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Power, Relationships, and Experiences: Bridging Pre-disaster Communication and Community Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 The Multiple Notions of Community in DRRM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Transposing the Individual’s Knowledge to a Collective DRRM Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.1 The Concept of Individuality in DRRM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2 The Practical Notion of Individual in DRRM . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Power, Relationships, and Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.1 The Individual’s Social Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.2 The Individual’s (Social) Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.3 The Individual’s Lived and Simulated Experiences . . . . . . . . 6.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 PRE Transformative Engagement (PRETE) Framework . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Individuals in Small Groups or Sectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.1 The Individual as the Core of the PRETE Framework . . . . . 7.2.2 A Targeted Approach Is Ideal in Pre-disaster Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.3 Targeting Individuals and the Need to Shift Attention . . . . . 7.2.4 Strengthening Social Linkages and Using an Individual’s Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Lived and Simulated Experiences Are Core . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Trust Is Essential in Pre-disaster Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 The Impact of Social Network in Community Engagement . . . . . . .

xi

115 115 116 118 119 122 123 125 127 128 133 135 139 139 140 142 143 150 155 155 163 170 175 176 179 179 180 180 181 182 185 186 188 190

xii

Contents

7.6 The PRETE Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.1 Bridging the Gap Between Transitional and Transformative Engagement Using the PRETE Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.2 The PRE Transformative Engagement (PRETE) Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.3 The Actors and Other Elements in the Framework . . . . . . . . 7.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

193

8 Engaging Isolated Communities: What’s Next? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.1 Disaster Preparedness Utilises Multimodal Communicative Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.2 Transitional Level of Community Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.3 Spatial Isolation—The Biggest Barrier: Identifying Opportunities in Dealing with GIDA Communities . . . . . . . . 8.3 Implications for Theory and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.1 Theoretical Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.2 Practical Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4 Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

209 209 209

194 195 198 205 206

210 211 212 212 212 215 216 217 218

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

Abbreviations

4Ps AADMER

Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino program (a conditional cash grant) ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response ASEAN Association for Southeast Asian Nations BDRRMC Barangay Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council BDRRMO Barangay Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Officer CB-DRRM Community-based Disaster Risk Reduction and Management CEC Community Engagement Continuum (Bowen et al., 2010) CEF Community engagement framework (Dufty, 2011) CRED Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters DRRM Disaster risk reduction and management EM-DAT The Emergency Events Database GIDA Geographically isolated and disadvantaged area Local government unit (a collective term) LGU MDRRMC Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council MDRRMO Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Officer Mines and Geosciences Bureau MGB NAMRIA National Mapping and Resource Information Authority NDRRMP National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan NHTS-PR National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction NSED Nationwide Simultaneous Earthquake Drill PAGASA Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration PDRRMO Provincial Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Officer PHIVOLCS Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology PIO Public Information Officer RA 10121 (Philippine) Republic Act 10121

xiii

xiv

Abbreviations

References Bowen, F., Newenham-Kahindi, A., & Herremans, I. (2010). When suits meet roots: The antecedents and consequences of community engagement strategy. Journal of Business Ethics 95(2), 297– 318. Dufty, N. (2011). Engagement or education?. Australian Journal of Emergency Management 26(3), 35–39.

List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Fig. 3.1

Fig. 3.2 Fig. 4.1

Fig. 4.2

Visualisation of interlinked disaster phases and stages of disaster risk reduction and management. Source Author . . . . . . Researcher’s interpretation of Tomas Andres’s progression of Filipino Values System. Purok is a local term that means zone in this context. Source Author, based on Andres, 1988 p. 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research gap. Source Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geohazard map of the island province. This hazard map shows the distance of the island village from the municipality. It also shows that the island is prone to flooding and landslides. Red indicates high landslide susceptibility, and blue indicates high flood susceptibility. The name of the province has been removed from the original map, as required by RMIT Ethics Committee. Source ‘Flood and landslide susceptibility rating’, by Lands Geological Surveys Division—Mines and Geosciences Bureau, 2019, Geohazard web portal, https://mgb-lgsd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/ index.html?id=272f20c01e32491084fcb9dc0dc498c9. Copyright by Mines and Geosciences Bureau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geohazard map of the upland province. This geohazard map indicates that the entire province is susceptible to landslide (red) and some of it to flooding (navy blue). The name of the province has been removed from the original map, as required by RMIT Ethics Committee. ‘Flood and landslide susceptibility rating’, by Lands Geological Surveys Division—Mines and Geosciences Bureau, 2015, Geohazard web portal, https://mgb-lgsd.maps.arcgis.com/ apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=272f20c01e32491084 fcb9dc0dc498c9. Copyright by Mines and Geosciences Bureau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37

69 71

90

92 xv

xvi

Fig. 7.1

Fig. 7.2

Fig. 7.3 Fig. 7.4

List of Figures

Approaching pre-disaster communication at the individual level. Note The entire analysis is visualised in this (original) diagram, which indicates that an individual in a small group setting demonstrates potential as a pre-disaster communication conduit. At this level, acquiring information does not begin with a family but with an individual. This will have bigger impact if that individual is the decision maker of a household or the one who went to school and thus acquired education. The diagram also shows how the individual can become a conduit for community engagement. The communication flow from the individual to the family to other social connections provides that communication shifts from top-down (or transactional) engagement to horizontal communication (or transformational engagement). Source Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Author’s visualisation of proposed intersection of PRETE Framework in the existing CEC of Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi, and Herremans. Source Author, and ‘When suits meet roots: The antecedents and consequences of community engagement strategy,’ by F Bowen, A Newenham-Kahindi and I Herremans, 2010, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 95, no. 2, p. 304. Copyright 2010 by Springer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proposed PRE Transformative Engagement (PRETE) framework. Source Author, 2021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Layers of influence of an individual’s value system. Source Author, 2021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

189

196 196 199

List of Tables

Table 3.1 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 5.1 Table 6.1 Table 7.1

Summary of basic services of LGUs based on RA 7160 . . . . . . . Summary of informants’ profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of data collection procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criteria used in assessing current communication tools and level of engaging communities, based on the CEC . . . . . . . . Assessment of communication tools vis-à-vis level of community engagement based on the CEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of communication types used in communicating disaster risk information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proposed application of Filipino Values System in pre-disaster communication and community engagement . . . .

74 94 95 99 108 152 203

xvii

Chapter 1

Introduction

Each year the world faces various meteorological and hydrological calamities and hazards causing damage to the environment and homes, livelihoods, well-being, and even loss of life. While natural hazards are inevitable, properly managing them affects the ensuing damage they cause. Poor management of calamities and hazards can turn them into disasters. Proactively managing their impacts on ecological, socioeconomic, and political systems is grounded in pre-disaster communication efforts assisting communities in developing individual proactive measures. In Mindanao, which once dubbed itself outside the typhoon belt, an absence of pre-disaster preparation proved costly when in 2012, Typhoon Bopha (local name: Pablo) killed more than 1000 people in areas with no prior typhoon experience. Only a few years later, in 2013 and 2021, Super Typhoons Haiyan (local name: Yolanda) and Rai (local name: Odette) would prove much more devastating. The Philippines suffer an average of 25% of the world’s total typhoon occurrences, comprising 20 severe weather events yearly (Santos, 2021). Despite these numbers, the current top-down, one-way information dissemination approach observed in the Philippines limits access to information. It also restricts feedback muting communities in geographically isolated and disadvantaged areas (GIDAs). This practice corrals effective communication for pre-disaster management in these vulnerable areas.

1.1 Background The field of communication research is multifaceted and diverse. Therefore, I confined the scope of this investigation using approaches from development communication and community engagement. Approaching pre-disaster communicative conditions from an interdisciplinary lens is becoming increasingly valuable. They can provide a broader perspective of the risks brought by hazardous events and organisations’ role in managing their impacts on the public. Despite its interdisciplinarity, © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 D. J. Sumaylo, Engaging Isolated Communities in Disaster Preparation and Communication in the Philippines, Communication, Culture and Change in Asia 11, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-4697-6_1

1

2

1 Introduction

pre-disaster communication studies can be complex, as it taps into broad streams of knowledge from multiple disciplines such as sociology, public relations, and human resource management. Moreover, diversification and interdisciplinarity have resulted in nuanced definitions of communicative processes. Mefalopulos (2008, p. 32) argues that communication is both a process and a tool, while Manyozo (2012) posits that (development) communication involves stakeholder participation, referred to as community engagement. These dominant (i.e., modernisation) and opposing (dependency) paradigms in development communication gave birth to an emerging paradigm of participation that applies to pre-disaster communication targeting geographically isolated communities (Tufte & Mefalopulos, 2009; United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation [UNESCO], 1980). This investigation deals with communication (the process) and communications (the tools). It examined the intersection between the communicative tools used in predisaster communicative processes and placed within geographic isolation and social inequalities. It aims to provide empirical evidence that may aid in building community resilience. Therefore, I position this study as development communication using its participatory paradigm, knowing that building community resilience is the goal of disaster preparedness communicative efforts. However, a fundamental question needs to be answered: ‘How is pre-disaster information communicated to others, and why’? In the Philippines’ disaster risk reduction and management (DRRM), this interaction is between the government and the community. Unless the answers are clear and contextually relevant, communication efforts may be wasted, including those that harness financial and human resources. I also pose this question from the beginning because of the need to thoroughly investigate human interactions amid diverse human and geographical setups. My ultimate goal aligns with Sison (2017), who observes that the narratives of diverse and marginalised communities can provide an impetus for communication practitioners to examine practice. The Philippine context poses difficulty regarding cascading information to end users. Filipinos occupy over 7100 islands with unique communicative conditions influenced by infrastructure, technology adoption, socioeconomic conditions, language, and cultural contexts. These influences can create inequalities by privileging certain areas and sectors. To build resilient communities, the (Philippine) National DRRM Council (NDRRMC, 2018b) indicates the need to build resiliency community-based through various community engagements. Community-based DRRM often uses community engagement as a strategy (Foster, 2013; Head, 2007; Paton et al., 2017). Supposedly ‘altruistic’, involving individuals in building their resiliency, is considered a community-based approach, making it a catch-all description of programs dealing directly with people (Titz et al., 2018). However, a community engagement framework is the best way to build a resilient community (Teo et al., 2019). Shaw and Goda (2004) highlight the significance of community life experiences, associations, and economic incentives as drivers of a sustainable urban area in Kobe, Japan. However, Teo et al. (2018), who observed vulnerable groups in Australia, observe that there can be barriers to using such an approach among vulnerable groups in low socioeconomic

1.1 Background

3

contexts, where members are often culturally and linguistically diverse. They also noted that passivity towards preparedness, emergencies, and disasters could be high in these communities. Nevertheless, this finding does not nullify the importance of government and local community cooperation regarding disaster risk reduction and management (Shaw & Goda, 2004). Thus, the diversity in human and geographic conditions in the Philippines situates this investigation into the role and use of community engagement as a strategy in building disaster-resilient communities living in GIDA in the Philippines. Community engagement focusses on organised programs designed to address social issues by looking into the strategic communicative conditions employed in social processes. Moreover, within the DRRM stages, this study focusses on pre-disaster or disaster preparedness. This DRRM stage involves communicating information, providing education, and supporting knowledge adoption before meteorological and hydrological (weather) hazards. Scholars argue that communication breakdown during the response phase results from failed pre-disaster communication efforts (Adila et al., 2017), making the pre-disaster phase critical. Disaster preparedness or pre-disaster demands risk awareness and acceptance (Paton et al., 2017) for affected communities to make informed decisions. These factors demand robust pre-disaster communication strategies engaging people to act before a catastrophic event. For instance, people’s risk awareness, acceptance, and action may be low because of either previous experience with surviving natural hazards or, equally, a lack of (recent) experience (Paton et al., 2017). In such a situation, mainly when natural hazards have not occurred in recent history, the idea of the threat becomes so minimised or forgotten in the community’s mind, hindering the development of pre-disaster resilience. At this stage, community engagement can be employed and examined as a strategy along with its communication conditions as it intersects with people’s differences within a locality. The coexistence of government and community calls for inclusion, and the government has a significant role in engaging communities in disaster preparedness (Teo et al., 2018). In addition, letting people choose their source of information (Teo et al., 2018) creates ownership of action resulting in social inclusion, which empowers the poor and marginalised sectors of society (Sison, 2017). Social inclusion is the aftereffect of decentralising decision-making structures and processes (Manyozo, 2012), resulting in utilising cocreation approaches in engaging communities with issues of the local context (Akama & Barnes, 2011; Rogers et al., 2016). Considering the dangers of natural calamities, community engagement is arguably an essential strategy for DRRM in GIDA. This practice of engagement in an inclusive DRRM program develops mutual trust and respect in these communities (Astill et al., 2019), which Howard et al. (2017) argue is a perceived need of vulnerable groups that value and respect community sources of information (Teo et al., 2018). While disaster communication studies can be grouped into three categories (Sumaylo & Sison, 2018), as a review of the extant literature (see Sect. 2.2) shows, there has not been a comprehensive study, especially in the Philippines, that examines pre-disaster communication through the lens of spatial isolation and socioeconomic inequalities. A thorough examination of the use of community engagement and the communicative

4

1 Introduction

conditions it requires is of considerable value to establishing a strategy for disaster preparedness in GIDA. Shifting the research focus from the reactive to the preventive centres on developing and enhancing communication conditions and organisational structure—in this context, the use of community engagement. The current top-down, one-way information dissemination approach in the Philippines’ DRRM suggests that investigating the intersection between disaster preparedness and community engagement in the context of GIDA communities is relevant. As such, this book offers a new perspective on the impact of geographic isolation and other factors of potential disadvantage on pre-disaster communication and community engagement practices between the Philippine Government and GIDA communities. The content of this book aims to contribute to the discussion on the localisation and customisation of information and the mainstreaming of information into local policies. To provide context, the next section briefly introduces current practice in Southeast Asia in terms of DRRM and looks at how the Philippines situates itself in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ (ASEAN) DRRM objectives in the region.

1.1.1 The ASEAN Context Disasters are classified into two general groups, natural and technological. Natural disasters are categorised by their different subgroups, namely geophysical (earthquakes, volcanic activity, mass movement); meteorological (storm, extreme temperature, fog); hydrological (flood, landslide, wave action); climatological (drought, glacial lake outburst, wildfire); biological (epidemic, insect infestation, animal accident); and extra-terrestrial (impact, space weather). Technological disasters are classified into industrial, transport, and miscellaneous accidents (EM-DAT, 2018). The term ‘natural disaster’ is a misnomer and will not be used as a catch-all or replacement phrase for natural hazards. Disaster communication scholars argue that labelling disasters as ‘natural’ dismisses the role of people in creating that disaster (Cannon, 1994; Lizarralde et al., 2009; O’Keefe et al., 1976). This book adheres to the definition that disasters are by-products of natural hazards, but not all natural hazards cause disasters (Dombrowsky, 1998; Gilbert, 1998; Kreps, 1998; Quarantelli, 1998). Countries in Southeast Asia often experience natural hazards that turn into disasters due to higher population densities (Shaw et al., 2022). Among the ten member states of the ASEAN, almost 180 million people were affected by the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004, by Cyclone Nargis in 2008, and by Super Typhoon Haiyan (local name Yolanda) in 2013 (Petz, 2014). Wallemacq and the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (Wallemacq & CRED, 2018) recorded 318 natural hazards in 2017 alone, devastating 122 countries. Most of these documented natural hazards across the globe were floods and typhoons; two natural hazards rampant in the Philippines, affecting 4.87 million people that year. Given these statistics, governments all over Southeast Asia are now paying attention to their disaster preparedness efforts. The ASEAN Agreement on Disaster

1.1 Background

5

Management and Emergency Response (AADMER), which came into force in December 2009, highlights the importance of upholding disaster preparedness by constantly maintaining and reviewing communication networks for timely information delivery. The AADMER also highlights the importance of technical cooperation and research. In particular, Articles 18 and 19 state that the implementation of AADMER should include the ‘provision of trainings, awareness and education campaigns that relate[…] to disaster prevention and mitigation’, and that it should also ‘promote and support scientific and technical researches related to disaster and the means, methods, techniques and equipment for disaster risk reduction’ (ASEAN, 2010, pp. 18–19). The Philippines’ National DRRM Plan (NDRRMP) echoes the AADMER provision requiring the Philippine Government to provide ‘trainings and other awareness campaigns’ to its people. This directive also aligns with the ‘ASEAN Vision 2025 on Disaster Management’ (ASEAN, 2016), highlighting three strategic elements to implement various AADMER provisions until 2025 in all ASEAN member states. These are (a) institutionalisation and communications, (b) finance and resource mobilisation, and (c) partnerships and innovations (ASEAN, 2016, p. 1). The first strategic element accrues with the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance (2010) findings that communication is often overlooked in disaster management, especially regarding exchanges between stakeholders involved in the disaster. In this regard, the data presented in this book recognise that finding local and contextually acceptable ways to effectively communicate the significance of DRRM to specific stakeholders, such as those in GIDAs, is a continual challenge. Even so, communication with government agencies about disaster management in these areas needs to happen in ways that have veracity for their marginalised populations. A similar concern is also documented in other parts of Southeast Asia (Amri et al., 2017; Djalante & Thomalla, 2012), which upholds the point of ASEAN (2010) regarding communication in disaster management and highlights the need to investigate its challenges thoroughly. As part of its responsibilities in ASEAN under the AADMER, the Philippine Governments’ adherence to these agreements should ideally result in the strategic implementation of various ways and means to localise DRRM plans across the country. As part of the entire disaster management cycle, AADAMER stipulates that disaster preparedness needs to begin with knowledge building using information, education, and communication programs in the context of GIDA communities. In theory, the Philippine Government had already created a roadmap for their attention to these matters with the creation and approval of Republic Act 10121 (RA 10121), the stated intention of which is to ‘act strengthening the Philippine disaster risk reduction and management system, providing for the national disaster risk reduction and management framework and institutionalising the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan, appropriating funds therefore and for other purposes’ (Philippine Government, 2010, para. 1). The implementation of the RA 10121 is in the NDRRMP, which stipulates that DRRM should be community-based. However, despite the relevance of community engagement strategies in such a goal, the DRRM makes no concrete mention of strategies that address the specific needs of GIDA

6

1 Introduction

communities, increasing the urgent need to scaffold such practice for these vulnerable communities. This study thus focusses on the situation in GIDA communities with the ultimate intention of enabling rollout of community-based, information, education, and communication-targeted pre-disaster communication modes and tools described in this thesis via the catch-all phrase, ‘communicative conditions’.

1.1.2 The Philippine Context The Philippines is considered one of the leading ASEAN member states in disaster risk reduction and management (Alcayna et al., 2016), and in plain terms, it needs to be. Its geographical area is that of an archipelago of more than 7100 islands that are divided into three island groups—Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao—and are located along the Ring of Fire. As such, the Philippines regularly experiences earthquakes, typhoons, and tsunami. The country is also exposed to other hazards brought about by climate change, such as flash floods and landslides. Although the country is rich in biodiversity and minerals, its vulnerability to the ill effects of climate change is considered a priority by development advocates, development communication practitioners and workers, and scholars. Warren (2016, p. 465), for example, notes that the country is already ranked first in the region in terms of being hazard-prone, and has experienced a doubling of recorded physical destruction and loss of life since the 1970s. This documented rate and extent of impact of natural hazard is currently considered unprecedented (Warren, 2016). In the Philippines, developments in DRRM are often concentrated in urban locations, especially the capital, Manila, despite the need for DRRM progress in other locations. Mindanao, for example, is the second largest island in the Philippines and is known to be the food basket of the country, making issues of DRRM there arguably crucial to the country’s welfare. According to the 2020 census, the country’s population is at 109.035 million people and 26.25 million of this resides in Mindanao (Arguillas, 2021) where more than 40% of its villages are classified as GIDAs, which is more per province than any other province in the country.1 Yet despite its geographic and socioeconomic conditions, Mindanao contributes more than 30% to the national food trade and produces 40% of the country’s food requirements (Food & Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, 2017; Organisation for Economic Cooperation & Development, 2013) Its geographical location is one of the factors for its high productivity, as historically this island was not frequented by the tropical storms (Montalvan, 2014) and cold fronts that bring damaging amounts of rainfall (PAGASA, 2020). However, in recent years, the north-eastern and south-eastern parts of the island have become entry points for typhoons (Montalvan, 2014). What is even more alarming than the recent frequency and magnitude of these natural calamities 1

The three major islands of the Philippines are currently grouped into 17 regions and 81 provinces. Provinces are further divided into smaller units called municipalities, and these are further divided into villages.

1.1 Background

7

is their effects on low-lying areas that are prone to floods, on coastal areas that are vulnerable to tsunamis, and on mountainous areas that are under threat of landslides. Given these changes, people in Mindanao now face natural hazards they have not historically experienced, and their lack of consistent hazard experience has created a false sense of security which doubles the impact of these events when they occur (Rasquinho et al., 2013). In addition, their lack of experience has contributed to a lack of interest in local communities in Mindanao regarding pre-disaster information and other ways and means of disaster preparedness. This lack of experience is not limited to local communities on the island. Local government responders, too, have a dearth of experience in managing the impacts of natural hazards (NDRRMC, 2018a). Unfortunately, these communication conditions are effectively disenfranchising vulnerable people living in precarious situations. An example of a situation that may have led to an increase in casualties from these events is the prevalence of what have been locally labelled as ‘new terminologies’; these terms are not necessarily new but rather are technical terms that inexperienced lay people do not understand (Lagmay et al., 2015). A specific example is the lack of response from local communities to the use of the term ‘storm surge’ issued by the government and the media during Super Typhoon Yolanda (Lagmay et al., 2015). Critically, it appeared that if they don’t understand the real threat, people will fail to respond to disaster information, even when it contains a fear appeal (Lagmay et al., 2015; Perreault et al., 2014). Connected to this is the reality that the Philippines has around 120 languages as reported by Andrew Gonzalez in 1998 and is now at 130 based on the records of the Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino (2021) in its 2016 studies. In response to such communication complexities, and because the premise of my research centres on pre-disaster communication in communities experiencing geographic isolation and socioeconomic inequalities, I decided to focus my investigation on communities in the island of Mindanao.

1.1.3 Mindanao: Land of Promise No More As noted, the number of typhoons hitting the island of Mindanao was previously insignificant (Warren, 2016), which is how it earned its moniker, the ‘Land of Promise’. However, due to severe climate change, the island has become the entry way of most typhoons formed in the Pacific Ocean (NDRRMC, 2018a). In December 2011, Tropical Storm Washi (local name Sendong) raged through Cagayan de Oro City and the majority of Iligan City, both in Region X, while in December 2012, the Category 5 Typhoon Bopha (local name Pablo) hit Region XI—specifically, the provinces of Davao del Sur, Davao del Norte, Davao Oriental, and Surigao del Norte of Region XIII (NDRRMC, 2018a). Washi raged through 851 villages, affecting 1,168,726 people. However, these numbers are insignificant when compared to the chaos caused by Bopha/Pablo, which affected 3064 villages and 6,243,998 people. According to Reid (2018), Typhoon Bopha/Pablo was one of the deadliest and most destructive typhoons ever to hit the Philippines, second

8

1 Introduction

only to Super Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda (Montalvan, 2014; NDRRMC, 2018a). Then in November 2013, Super Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda struck some parts of eastern Mindanao, including the field sites used for this study. Of the 12,139 villages affected all over the country by Haiyan/Yolanda, 250 are in Mindanao, and of the 16,078,181 people affected, 94,548 people on Mindanao experienced the impact of the super typhoon. In the 2 years after Haiyan, Tropical Storm Jangmi (local name Seniang) and Tropical Depression Onyok (local name) damaged the island in December 2014 and 2015, respectively. In 2016, Mindanao was granted a rest, however, the following year a series of tropical storms raged through the island in a matter of just 2 months. In November 2017, Tropical Storm Kirogi (local name Tino) hit parts of Mindanao, specifically Region XI and the Caraga Region (Region XIII), and in December 2017, Tropical Storm Kai-Tak (local name Urduja) devastated parts of Mindanao again, specifically Region XIII. Kai-Tak was immediately followed by Tropical Storm Tembin (local name Vinta) which affected the entire island of Mindanao from Regions IX–XII, including Region XIII and the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).2 Then, in January of 2018, Tropical Storm Bolaven (local name Agaton) affected Mindanao in ARMM and in Regions X and XIII (NDRRMC, 2018a). Highlighting the frequency of natural calamities that have occurred in these regions in Mindanao since 2011 needs to be placed in the context of the island’s topography, which is of low-lying, coastal, and mountainous regions. According to EM-DAT (2018), such topography comprises 90% of all disasters worldwide. The frequent aftermath of calamities in such regions is property damage, loss of livelihoods, public health hazards, displaced families (resulting in climate refugees or environmental migrants), to say nothing of the unprecedented death toll (Wallemacq & CRED, 2018). Climate refugees or environmental migrants are those who are displaced from their community as an after-effect of either slow-moving or sudden natural disaster (Grosfield, 2018; April 25). In Mindanao, now no longer the Land of Promise, typhoons and their associated natural hazards (such as floods and landslides) consistently affect the island from November to January.

1.2 The Brief Given the human concern such conditions and events must necessarily create, I return to my argument regarding the need to investigate the intersection between disaster preparedness and community engagement in Mindanao, through the lens of development communication, in areas impacted by spatial isolation and socioeconomic inequalities. This lens addresses the imperative to examine the local contexts, experiences, and communication practices involved in the situation, as all these factors challenge the way communities engage in the act of self-reliance. Doing so allows 2

ARMM is a non-numbered region, of which there are two in the Philippines, ARMM and Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR).

1.2 The Brief

9

this research to build on and contribute to the conversation on what constitutes the communicative conditions of community engagement as a strategy in disaster preparedness. Emphasis should be placed on these variables since, as a review of the current literature shows (see Sect. 2.2), they have so far received little attention by scholarship. In addition to geographic isolation and socioeconomic inequalities, this study sheds light on systems of both demographics and culture that have received limited attention by previous studies (Perreault et al., 2014; Spialek & Houston, 2018b; Spialek et al., 2016). In an effort to limit the scope, I have focussed on slow-moving natural hazards, such as typhoons, landslides, and flooding, first because these are the most common, the most recent, and the deadliest of natural calamities experienced in the Philippines, and second because their frequency has been increasing in the study area in recent years. Slow-moving disasters are those that occur gradually (Curato, 2018). Typhoons require heat and moisture and gradually form over oceans; landslides and flooding are triggered by their associated rainstorms (Smith, 2013). These gradually developing nature of slow-moving disasters gives people preparation time to engage in prevention and mitigation efforts. In international media, unless such a weather system is considered ‘breaking news’, like Super Typhoon Haiyan/ Yolanda, the impacts of these slow-moving disasters often go unnoticed (Curato, 2018). Moreover, in a global news sense, the situation in the GIDA communities of Mindanao affects relatively few people; as such, their experiences are oftentimes muted, together with their needs. This study takes its stance from the need to give GIDA communities a platform from which to voice their pre-disaster communication experiences. While research by Helsloot and Ruitenberg (2004) argues that citizens are more rational when facing natural hazards, their investigation did not take into consideration contexts (including cultural biases) that may affect people’s rationality. In addition, these authors’ empirical data describe first-world, Western countries, so that the imperative to capture the experiences of minority, vulnerable, and marginalised groups regarding pre-disaster communication in the third-world ASEAN-member Philippine context provides impetus to the research. The current study acknowledges the interdisciplinary nature of disaster risk reduction and management. Grounded in development communication, this study used the community engagement frameworks of organisational communication scholars Bowen et al. (2010) and Dufty (2011) for its data analysis. This choice of frameworks is specifically grounded on participation as an emerging paradigm in communication for development. Additionally, I would argue that it is not a misalignment of development communication to use community engagement frameworks in this study. Organisational, or corporate, communication is one of the four common types of communication in development organisations (Mefalopulos, 2008), and the community engagement framework enables a more complex understanding of the organisations (central and local government) involved in the design, their production and dissemination of pre-disaster information, and the receivers of this information. Further, drawing lessons from the stories and lived experiences of people who have (or have not) experienced natural hazards firsthand is essential to the context

10

1 Introduction

of the investigation. These accounts are mapped against the community engagement frameworks of Frances Bowen and colleagues and Neil Dufty. In consideration of the fact that this study examines the interdisciplinary intersection between pre-disaster communication and community engagement in the context of geographical isolation and social inequalities, the data collected were further analysed from the perspectives of both social power (French & Raven, 1959; Pansardi & Bindi, 2021) and social relationships (Aldrich, 2019; Aldrich & Meyer, 2015; Rayamajhee & Bohara, 2021; Wickes et al., 2015). This analysis of social power and relationships was guided by Andres’ (1988) Filipino Values System in the context of community development. Andres’ (1988) system identifies that people give relevance and respond to formal and informal leadership and familial and social relationships, as well as that people’s experiences living in GIDA communities help create their common bonds and understandings. This brief background suggests that there may be a gap between the communication conditions of community engagement practices and the implementation of the NDRRMP, specifically disaster preparedness, at the local level. The demand from the Philippine National DRRM Council is for continuous communication regarding disaster preparedness to local communities, while concurrently making DRRM community-based. This demand from the national government resulted in my investigation of the possible intersection between disaster preparedness and community engagement and how these two fields can factor in issues of spatial/geographic isolation and socioeconomic inequalities in the process of developing community DRRM. It has been discussed that there are communication efforts made to prepare people for future natural hazards. More than that, systems must be set in place to ensure that communities, isolated or otherwise, are prepared for and able to bounce back after a natural hazard event, despite the difficulties of doing so. It is therefore the intention of this study to provide empirical evidence that either supports or opposes the idea that pre-disaster communication studies should consider three important elements: (a) communication modes and tools, or communicative conditions; (b) the level of community engagement; and (c) people’s lived experiences. These lived experiences provide the context of what it is to live in a GIDA-classified community in relation to facing natural hazards. The requirement for a local multimodal communicative condition needs to be conceptually scaffolded by the importance of people and context in the design and implementation of any pre-disaster communication and community engagement plans for disaster preparedness. Overall, this study argues that improving disaster resiliency at the pre-disaster stage makes the management of actions in both the during- and post-disaster phases easier, since people are already equipped with knowledge to decide on the measures to take to ensure their own safety. Despite the stated need for pre-disaster communication to be developed inclusive of the communication medium and the orientation and culture of the people, a clear pathway for merging context with pre-disaster communication and community engagement efforts has not yet emerged. It remains unclear how context can be localised into the current communication and engagement plans of local disaster

1.2 The Brief

11

risk reduction and management councils (local DRRM councils). Current governmental practice displays a top-down, linear transmission or ‘dissemination of information’ approach to community engagement regarding disaster risk—as opposed to one that prioritises communication efficacy. The merging of context with communicative conditions is justified by the documented social inequalities that are brought about by spatial or geographic differences (Sujarwoto & Tampubolon, 2016). These inequalities include the effects of geographical location on telecommunication infrastructure, socioeconomic status, disparities in human capital and education services, political environment and government readiness, risk perception, and prior exposure to disaster, among other things. Upskilling the citizens of all communities so that they can adopt new communication technologies for DRRM is not possible in the context of certain social exclusion factors (Basolo et al., 2017; Bolin & Kurtz, 2018; Madianou, 2015; Mansell, 2017; Sujarwoto & Tampubolon, 2016; Vincent, 2016; Wong et al., 2009). In addition, there is an existing tension between the benefits that technology brings to society and the various processes that are required for society to adopt and use a particular technological platform (Mansell, 2017). Mansell (2017) observes that with the increase in technological innovation comes an increase in social and economic inequality; this can be brought about by several factors, such as, for example, disparities in the human capital and education services (Sujarwoto & Tampubolon, 2016) required for communities to operate a technological innovation in disaster communication. In terms of scholarly attention in this regard, it is significant that the majority of the studies on digital and online disaster communication are concentrated on the second and third phases of disaster management (i.e., the during- and post-disaster phases) (Carley et al., 2016; Fabito et al., 2016; Goodchild & Glennon, 2010; Sumaylo, 2018; Tandoc & Takahashi, 2017). Clearly, communication infrastructure problems do occur in during and postdisaster stages, such as delays in the restoration of communication infrastructure, and it is also clear that the development of new communication tools for disaster management is rapid (Sumaylo, 2018; Sumaylo & Sison, 2018). In this sense, research focus on these phases is both inevitable and valuable. Indeed, Christine Hagar (2010, p. 10) calls this crisis informatics, but she notes that it deals with ‘the interconnectedness of people, organisations, information and technology during crises’. Hagar’s interconnectedness highlights the relevance of community engagement in the planning, designing, and production of new communication tools for various pre-disaster communication modes by including people at risk of disasters, local responders, and other allied fields in communication and design. Further, such interdisciplinary design collaborations of disaster risk communication tools are considered highly relevant, as they provide more perspectives on the risks at hand. In this sense, this research intends to provide an opportunity for the people who experience disaster and those first responders involved in their protection to add their on-the-ground experiences to the process of developing communication tools for more disaster-resilient communities. The stated interconnectedness between actors involved in DRRM requires attention to both of the communication pathways: top-down and bottom-up (Hagar, 2010).

12

1 Introduction

In top-down approach, organisational control of the communication process is firmly held by the government. This approach is grounded on the concept of information transmission (Olsson, 2014; Tan et al., 2017) and is considered the education aspect of community engagement (Dufty, 2011). The bottom-up approach is described by Tan et al. (2017) as being a paradigm shift from the top-down mode, as communication processes occur from employees upwards to management, as well as horizontally between groups. The inclusion of the horizontal approach was borrowed from its organisational context and is applied in development communication as community engagement. This third approach involves community participation and decision-making as it is grounded in the participatory paradigm of communication for development (Mefalopulos, 2008). This last approach demands a combination of top-down and bottom-up (Bowen et al., 2010; Dufty, 2011) allowing thorough engagement with the issues and contributing to the development communication and social change discourse of merging local contexts with global concepts (Servaes & Lie, 2013). This research thus presents both approaches, which are essential inclusions in the discussion of what constitutes pre-disaster communication experiences in the Philippine context and what is/can be their impact on DRRM education and community engagement there (Dufty, 2011). This research focus is timely, because very little research has so far integrated these two models—or, approaches to communication— as they can be applied in relation to geographic isolation and social inequalities. In addition, examining pre-disaster communication experiences through the lens of socioeconomic and geophysical exclusion will add another layer to existing community engagement frameworks. Currently, disaster communication is predominantly defined as the interaction of various actors within the three phases of disaster management, as described by Spialek and Houston (2018a) in the validation of their Citizen Disaster Communication Assessment tool. This particular definition indicates that disaster communication is inclusive of the phases from the sending out of hazard warnings up to disaster recovery. While the approach of Spialek and Houston attests to the need to consider disaster communication as a continuous process, it excludes the preparation stage that is highlighted in disaster management literature. This literature defines disaster preparedness as the moment in time when communities lay the groundwork in anticipation of disaster events caused by natural hazard (Haddow & Haddow, 2009; Li, 2014; Madu et al., 2018). The investigation explored a grounded community engagement critical framework between the government and local communities living in GIDAs. It investigated the different levels of community engagement seen on the field, the roles of multimodal communicative conditions, and the level of community participation in the hope of increasing disaster resiliency in GIDA communities. Supported by the Community Engagement Continuum (Bowen et al., 2010), Community Engagement Framework (Dufty, 2011), and the Filipino Values System (Andres, 1988), this research seeks to incorporate context, as is suggested by existing literature (Perreault et al., 2014; Spialek & Houston, 2018b), to expand the current methods of pre-disaster communication and community engagement practised in the context of GIDA communities in Mindanao, Philippines.

1.2 The Brief

13

This book explores how local government units use community engagement as a strategy in engaging geographically isolated and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities in pre-disaster communication. It documents the pre-disaster communication experiences of geographically isolated and disadvantaged communities and how these experiences shape the local government’s community engagement practices. Doing so identifies the level of community engagement approach implemented in geographically isolated and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities for pre-disaster communication. Lastly, this book identifies opportunities and barriers to a transformative level of community engagement exist in geographically isolated and socioeconomically disadvantaged contexts. Overall, this book provides data on pre-disaster communication and community engagement practices at the local community level. These data were translated into a grounded communication–community engagement framework that is intentionally transformative in nature and offers a proposed structure for interactions between government and local communities. Results also provide empirical argument on the impact of socioeconomic and geophysical isolation in relation to pre-disaster information communication and result in expanded communicative conditions for the community engagement process. It is worth addressing what the grounded framework will mean at the intersection of disaster preparedness and community engagement in the context of spatial isolation and socioeconomic inequalities. To begin with, when it comes to the topic of engaging local communities to take part in any disaster preparedness program, most scholars would readily agree on the role and importance of communication in this process (Quarantelli, 1986; Wray et al., 2004). Ensuring that pre-disaster information is communicated and understood aids in the decision-making of individuals facing threat from natural/environmental causes. However, further studies are needed to investigate the role and impact of pre-disaster communication in engaging communities. More than that, scholars are convinced that spatial inequalities affect community engagement efforts, aside from issues of human capital and other socioeconomic factors of keeping communities informed (Sujarwoto & Tampubolon, 2016). Tickamyer (2000) strengthens this argument by pointing out that space is governed by social hierarchies that enable social inequalities. Certain inequalities lead to access and literacy issues and result in the poor communication of pre-disaster information. It stands to reason that if pre-disaster information is poorly communicated, the level of engagement, or the action taken by local communities in this regard, can already be assumed to be low. Given this background, this book aims to join in the conversation on the intersection between disaster preparedness and community engagement in the context of spatial isolation and socioeconomic inequalities. In particular, it aims to provide empirical evidence in support of the argument that geographic isolation and social inequalities affect pre-disaster communication efforts, thereby stunting the level and impact of community engagement in GIDAs. This study therefore investigates spatial inequality within the context of GIDAs in the Philippines. As well as contexts of

14

1 Introduction

spatial isolation and socioeconomic inequality, this study focusses on cases that highlight demographics and culture, which have received limited attention in previous studies (Perreault et al., 2014; Spialek & Houston, 2018b; Spialek et al., 2016). Lobao (1996) observes that spatial studies can be looked at in two ways—as a background setting for an event that is unfolding, or to contrast different sociological characteristics within spaces. These sociological characteristics may include the process of political mobilisation and of identifying factors that marginalise a population (Lobao, 1996). At the turn of the twenty-first century, Tickamyer (2000) expounded Lobao’s concept of space: From the smallest unit of the human body through multiple aggregate and collective examples such as household, community, neighbourhood, city, region, state, nation, or global system, particular places provide a locale that may operate as container and backdrop for social action, as a set of causal factors that shape social structure and process, and finally as an identifiable territorial manifestation of social relations and practices that define that particular setting (p. 806).

This concept of a hierarchical spatial perspective is akin to Andres’s (1988) argument that a person’s social network follows a social hierarchy that begins with the individual and moves outward to their immediate family, village, town/city, province, nation, and the world. Quebral (2012) strengthens this argument by pointing out the significance of an individual’s communication systems, including their social networks, in their development.

1.2.1 GIDA’s Narrative Literature suggests that communicating pre-disaster information increases awareness and assists citizens in becoming proactive about natural hazards that cause disaster (Burnside-Lawry & Carvalho, 2016), in order that such preparation will help dispel their fear and panic when they come to face threats. Yet scholars observe that, in general, people inherently consider pre-disaster information to be bound to a passive understanding of ‘vaguely potential threat’. Such a generalisation is made without proper contextualisation; however, since the population at large does not display an absolute dismissal of pre-disaster information, but instead, people assess information for themselves by its contextual relevance (and reject the rest; Helsloot & Ruitenberg, 2004). While there is some level of proactive effort from citizens, this activity is curated from and for their individual contexts, including the assembling of predisaster information. Critically, people will only search for pre-disaster information in order to prepare for natural hazards that they already perceive to be imminent (Helsloot & Ruitenberg, 2004). Imminent threats are those that are immediate, or about to happen. This stage of perceived threat is beyond the confines of the disaster mitigation and preparedness of DRRM and rather falls under the heading of disaster communication itself.

1.3 Scope and Relevance

15

In 1986, the noted disaster researcher E. L. Quarantelli emphasised the importance of communication in disaster crisis management, arguing that disaster communication is not all about what (content) information is being disseminated but also how (mode) it is being communicated. In this sense, refocussing issues of pre-disaster communication in the context of the entire DRRM spectrum can create a shift in perspective, from being purely reactive to being preventive. This study upholds this paradigm shift, arguing that giving citizens the right tools (knowledge and equipment) to help them decide what to do prior to a hazard means saving more lives and reducing damage to property. Rather than planning how to rescue people, a shift towards pre-disaster communication allows governments to plan how to prevent the need for a huge rescue operation by reducing the risks ahead. Communication strategies used to build community resiliency should be able to transmit this message to the next stages of DRRM. In addition, such communication efforts need to take into account variations in hazard experiences owing to geographic and social contexts (Burnside-Lawry & Akama, 2013). As Quebral (2012) puts it, human development is shaped by communication. This is the imperative of the current study.

1.3 Scope and Relevance In this section, definitions of some key concepts are used to appropriately delimit the scope of the investigation. First, pre-disaster communication experience is defined in this study as the communicative conditions in the exchange of information between the local government unit (LGU) and the community, inside a specific context. This information exchange includes the communication interactions that occur among community members through community collaboration activities, and these interactions are affected by the various social roles each participant holds in the process. Second, for the purposes of this study, context is seen as comprising all the physical, socioeconomic, cultural, and demographic characteristics of an area. The terminology harnessed to denote the four stages of DRRM and their respective definitions is that reflected in the RA 10121 and the NDRRMP, and these stages are used to signify the various stages of disaster management (see Sect. 1.4.3). As the understandings in these definitions suggest, this study is solely focussed on the predisaster phase of DRRM. This focus on the pre-disaster phase is justified because of the flow between stages; for example, a communication breakdown during a disaster points to issues with pre-disaster communication about risk reduction strategies (Adila et al., 2017). On its own, the pre-disaster phase is composed of two stages—prevention and mitigation, and preparedness. It is assumed that information flows fluidly between these two stages. The prevention and mitigation stage revolves around ‘activities related to hazard evaluation and mitigation, vulnerability analyses, identification of hazard-prone areas, and mainstreaming DRRM into development plans’ (NDRRMC, 2018b). This set of logistical evaluations works hand in hand with the preparedness

16

1 Introduction

stage, which centres on ‘activities revolving around community awareness and understanding, contingency planning, conduct of local drills, and the development of a national disaster response plan’ (NDRRMC, 2018b). While this research is focussed on the pre-disaster phase (the totality of which includes both of these stages), the investigation is specifically limited to the disaster preparedness stage as it centres on information dissemination directed towards local communities. The prevention and mitigation stage can be considered the ‘hardware’ of DRRM, as it provides physical infrastructure that lessens hazard impacts; preparedness, on the other hand, is the ‘software’ that allows the smooth running of this hardware. In effect, the preparedness stage means providing people in hazard areas with the tools to navigate the physical infrastructure to ensure their own safety when facing threats. This study focusses on natural hazards, especially those that can be classified as ‘slow-onset disasters’ (Rodríguez et al., 2007). These are natural hazards that move ‘slowly’ enough that they can be predicted days prior to any impact. This type of natural hazards gives ample time for the government to provide warnings and for the potentially affected public to act. Tropical storms and floods are good examples of slow-onset hazards. Flood warnings can be issued early on for possible flooding due to heavy rains and/or tropical storms, which themselves take time to form over oceans and can thus be observed before they make landfall. Landslides, too, are often a by-product of the heavy rains brought on by tropical storms, and areas already prone to landslides can thus be forewarned days prior to a potential threat. Moreover, in the process of unpacking the GIDA communities’ pre-disaster communication narrative, a clear information-seeking and sharing practice was documented. This painted a picture of the current state of the Philippine Governments’ implementation of community engagement practices based on the NDRRMP and their various communication modes and tools, including their community-based DRRM plan for disaster preparedness at the local level within the context of socioeconomic and geophysical isolation. The results also offer an explanation of context regarding who gets access to different communication tools, and if/how this level of access is dependent on or independent of the variables of being located in a GIDA that result in such disparities as socioeconomic status, human capital, education, public health and relief assistance services, political environment and presence or absence of rebel groups in mountainous areas, government readiness, risk perception, and prior exposure to disasters. As per feedback received from the community, and the target deliverables stipulated in the NDRRMP, the results of this study were deemed relevant and valuable to disaster victims and their families, extended families, and the community in general. It is hoped that they will benefit these and other stakeholders, especially government and non-government agencies involved in communicating with the public about disaster risk information during the preparedness stage of the NDRRMP. Results of this study also provide additional basis for the localisation, mainstreaming, and customisation of disaster preparedness information, education, and communication campaigns. In terms of their possible ultimate scope, I would suggest that the application of the results is not confined to the Philippine context. Rather, the results of this study concur

1.4 Definition of Terms

17

with studies conducted in such neighbouring Southeast Asian countries as Indonesia and Malaysia. Research studies in these countries already posit the possible impact of effective government functioning in DRRM, and the social inequalities examined are present in various spatial conditions.

1.4 Definition of Terms This section presents operational definitions of the terms and concepts used in this study and expands many of the terms specified in the Glossary In providing a description of key terms such as disaster, pre-disaster communication, and social inequalities, this section confines the use of these terms within the scope the study. The section also includes a short discussion of the four phases of DRRM and specifies relevant differentiation between the similar key concepts of community engagement, development and participatory communication, and codesign/cocreation approaches.

1.4.1 Disasters There is a plethora of typology literature differentiating the terms disaster, crisis, risk, hazard, and emergency; much of this discussion would tacitly agree that these terms are ‘closely interconnected, interdependent, and overlap significantly’ and that they have been used interchangeably and in combination in such cases as ‘disaster crisis management’ and ‘crisis and emergency management’ (Al-Dahash et al., 2016, p. 1191). Historically, disaster studies began even before the Second World War (Perry, 2007). Perry’s (2007) work supersedes the development of crisis communication, which itself takes its roots from the Johnson and Johnson Tylenol case in 1982 (Heath & O’Hair, 2010). According to the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (2020a), disaster can be defined as. a serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society at any scale due to hazardous events interacting with conditions of exposure, vulnerability, and capacity, leading to one or more of the following: human, material, economic and environmental losses, and impacts (para. 1).

A disaster can thus be seen as the sudden onset of an event external to the system in place that has a major impact on that system and is not subject to any of its controls. A disaster can also be viewed as a disruption in the social order that may result in chaos, damage to property, and loss of life. These two views from Perry (2018) highlight the scientific and human aspects of disaster. Disaster can further be discussed as being the result of a catalyst event or agent that disrupts the social order (Perry, 2007). Moreover, other scholars posit that the key features of a disaster include: a sudden and/or unforeseen nature, results in loss and damage, tests coping capacity,

18

1 Introduction

requires system recovery, needs external assistance, and involves multi-stakeholders (Al-Dahash et al., 2016). In the event of a disaster, the dissemination of timely and accurate information to the public becomes top priority, which requires disaster agencies to have strong media partnerships that assist them in implementing disaster management strategies. Haddow and Haddow (2009) posit that an effective disaster communication strategy should be constructed on the following foundations: customer focus, leadership commitment, inclusion of communications planning and operations, situational awareness, and media partnership. In keeping with these elements, Coombs’ (2010, p. 60) definition of disaster specifies that a disaster is a ‘large-scale event that demands multiagency coordination’ and that disaster communication is the ‘responsibility of the lead agency and flows through various government agencies ideally in a coordinated fashion’.

1.4.2 There is Nothing Natural About Disasters I advocate the idea that there is nothing natural about disasters. Seeing disasters as ‘natural’ implies a position of continued acceptance of inevitable calamities that social systems are powerless to mitigate, when in fact the actions and decisions of these systems (functional or otherwise) are embedded in the matters that attend the hazards. Instead, this study upholds the position of other scholars who stipulate that the term ‘natural disasters’ implicates the practices of people that exacerbate the impact of a natural hazard. In 1976, a publication in Nature written by Phil O’Keefe, Ken Westgate, and Ben Wisner posited that there is nothing natural about disasters. For these scholars, ‘disasters are more of a consequence of socio-economic than natural factors’ (p. 566). Their argument identifies two elements needed for a disaster to take place: natural hazard and vulnerable population. For these authors, there a disaster only occurs when there are people involved. In this sense, it is a misnomer to label a disaster as natural. Scholars such as Cannon (1994); Lizarralde et al. (2009); Puttick et al. (2018); and Shaw et al. (2022) have continued to argue that there is nothing natural about disasters. Cannon (1994) furthers the argument of O’Keefe and colleagues by adding that not all hazards end up as disasters, noting too that much focus is given to understanding and mitigating the impact of natural hazards without looking at the human factor. While some scholars (Carley et al., 2016; Deng et al., 2016; Dufty, 2016; McLennan et al., 2016) are interested in unearthing new ways of mitigating and preparing for hazards using technology, fewer studies examine the role of social and economic institutions in exacerbating human vulnerability to them. However Cannon (1994), emphasises that opportunities and risks vary in spatial distribution and that ‘human activity itself has created the conditions of disaster events’ (p. 16). This argument was reiterated by Lizarralde et al. (2009); these authors state that disasters are not predominantly caused by natural hazards. Instead, hazards develop

1.4 Definition of Terms

19

into disasters when societies cannot cope with them. This is reflected in the definition used by the UNDRR (2020a), which clarifies that disaster is a disruption of how a community functions—a position that provides justification for placing society’s role in disaster into the foreground in defining the overall nature of disasters. As Puttick et al. (2018) argue, there are human-induced factors that turn natural hazards into disasters. In support of their argument, they candidly offer that ‘it was not the earthquake that left people homeless; it was badly built housing, government inefficiency and underlying corruption’ (Puttick et al., 2018, p. 118). The argument that there is no disaster without people (O’Keefe et al., 1976) is tacitly upheld by the specificity that defines events in terms of the number of affected populations. For instance, when Super Typhoon Haiyan devastated the Philippines in 2013, affecting 3,424,593 families (NDRRMC, 2018a), it was labelled a disaster. If, however, a similar incident had taken place in the Philippines in an area affecting < 1000 people, it might have been labelled a ‘calamity’, and the media would not have covered it. This underlying logic silences those who are already marginalised by their geographic and socioeconomic conditions because impact to these communities may not affect enough people to result in a media-worthy story like Super Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda. Even if it would appear from this that a numeric focus (i.e., how many people) also plays a part in how disaster is conceptualised. This media behaviour still support the logic that there is no disaster without people;

1.4.3 What Are the Four Phases of Disaster Management? Because of the enormity of scale, Perry (2007) suggested that there are three phases of disaster management process—mitigation, preparedness, and response or recovery. Perry has been accused of lumping response with recovery, and various scholars (Haddow & Haddow, 2009; Li, 2014; Madu et al., 2018) have reconfigured the disaster management process to include four phases: 1. Mitigation, which promotes the implementation of strategies, technologies, and actions that will reduce loss of life and property damage in future disasters; 2. Preparedness, which aims to communicate messages that encourage and educate the public to anticipate disaster events; 3. Response, which aims to provide public notification, warning, evacuation, and situation reports on an ongoing disaster; and 4. Recovery, which aims to provide individuals and communities affected by a disaster with information on how to register for and receive disaster relief. Christian Madu et al. (2018) explicitly include RECONSTRUCTION activities as part of the fourth phase, calling it instead RECOVERY AND RECONSTRUCTION.

20

1 Introduction

1.4.4 Pre-disaster Communication for Knowledge and Capacity Building This study is concerned with the processes involved in pre-disaster communication and community engagement in GIDAs. To understand the area of disaster research, it is necessary to briefly examine how researchers specifically define disaster in the field of disaster communication. Historically, researchers in this area have had a multitude of attempts to define disaster since the 1970s. Renowned disaster researcher Quarantelli (1998), of the Disaster Research Center at the University of Delaware in the United States, gathered several key researchers together to investigate the matter of defining what constitutes a disaster. In answer to his call, Claude Gilbert (1998) of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique in France posited that there are three paradigms in defining disaster—patterns of war, disaster as social vulnerability, and disaster as uncertainty. This definition coincides with the definition of disaster used by the United Nations, which highlights issues of vulnerability and uncertainty as well as the disruption of order be included in observing the impact of an environmental hazard on an area. Looking into the definition of disaster is further essential to defining the field of disaster communication. Since disaster in general refers to a malfunctioning community or society when it is exposed to environmental hazards, it can be stipulated that disaster communication pertains to the process of exchanging messages within the context of the disaster, including the pre-, during, and post-disaster phases. Disaster communication is therefore communication that happens during the scope of the days or hours from before an environmental hazard begins (e.g., in the case of a typhoon, the time of landfall) to the time when a community or society can again stand on its own. Disaster communication differs from disaster risk communication chronemically. The latter concerns itself with the process of exchanging pre-disaster risk information prior to any threats of environmental hazards. The UNDRR (2020b) defines this this type of information as a ‘comprehensive information on all dimensions of disaster risk, including hazards, exposure, vulnerability and capacity, related to persons, communities, organizations and countries and their assets’ (para. 1). This situates pre-disaster risk communication as revolving around disaster preparedness, which is defined as the ‘knowledge and capacities developed by governments, response and recovery organizations, communities and individuals to effectively anticipate, respond to and recover from the impacts of likely, imminent or current disasters’ (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2020d, para. 1). Disaster communication and disaster risk communication specifically differ from DRRM in that these two are subsumed by the bigger concept of DRRM, which can be defined as ‘the application of disaster risk reduction policies and strategies to prevent new disaster risk, reduce existing disaster risk and manage residual risk, contributing to the strengthening of resilience and reduction of disaster losses’ (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2020c, para. 1).

1.4 Definition of Terms

21

In the end, the goal of government and non-government agencies, including disaster researchers, is to find ways to make a resilient society. In this sense, resilience also needs to be defined. The UNDRR states that resilience is The ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate, adapt to, transform and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions through risk management (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2020e; para. 1).

In this study, resilience is achieved once vulnerable populations have access to pre-disaster risk information, training, and drills since these communication tools are evaluated effective in knowledge building (Alim et al., 2015). Yet, accessing these programs can be problematic, especially for communities living in geographic isolation who concurrently experience socioeconomic inequalities.

1.4.5 Social Inequalities Exacerbate Access Issues As an area of research, social inequality deals with disparities in income between people; it is evident in almost all cultures, since people have the tendency to compare themselves with others who have achieved (or have not achieved) the measures of success and thus inculcate these differences in themselves. Measures of success or social standing and prestige also contribute to the concept of inequality because social standing and prestige define power, and this is particularly true in most Southeast Asian contexts (Marger, 2014). Inequality is thus a study of power and poverty and the ways in which these two lead to social exclusion. The idea of social exclusion is complex because its factors are entangled with culture; it is therefore not surprising that Louise Warwick-Booth (2019) argues that measurements of inequality are also varied. She states that ‘social exclusion is complex in that social class position can result in social exclusion, as can age, gender, ethnicity, employment status, and location’ (Warwick-Booth, 2019, p. 35). In this sense, as Martin Marger (2014) raises, social inequality appears to be part of the culture and institutions of society. These foundational structures are connected to differences in power, which itself ‘underlie[s] all forms of inequality’ (p. 3). Observing the connection between power and its benefits in relation to issues of social exclusion and inequality may in part explain why economic growth does not moderate inequality, which remains, as Warwick-Booth notes, ‘because the benefits that come with such growth are not equally shared across the whole of society’ (Warwick-Booth, 2019, p. 13). Warwick-Booth’s observation of the complexity of issues that can cause exclusion is in congruence with the definition of GIDA that is advocated by the Department of Health in the Philippines. This government agency classifies an area as a GIDA by more than its economic status. Aspects of inequality are not only surveyed through an economic lens but are also assessed in terms of their access to education and

22

1 Introduction

employment, social participation, and basic services that affect a person’s overall quality of life.

1.4.6 Differentiating Community Engagement, Development and Participatory Communication, and Codesign/ Cocreation Approaches This research situates itself within the area of communication for development, and I decided to locate the investigation in this field because I needed to examine the Philippine Government’s supposed strategic use of communication modes and tools to engage isolated communities in pre-disaster communication. Development communication’s purpose is to alleviate social problems in evolving societies (Wilkins, 1996). Since disaster is the inability of societies to cope with the impact of natural hazards, development communication is the appropriate approach for this research. As discussed, this study investigates the intersection between disaster preparedness and community engagement in the context of spatial isolation and socioeconomic inequalities. Two concepts must be clarified before moving forward: participatory communication and codesign/cocreation. This study focusses on a twoway communication process, as defined by Grunig and Hunt (1984) in the context of community engagement in development communication. However, I need to acknowledge the existence of these two other terms to avoid them being misconstrued as part of the two-way communication and community engagement I have investigated. Part of the objective of this research was an examination of the exchange of information between people. This exchange is not limited to one-way information transfer methods, and as such cannot be unpacked this way. Doing so would limit the investigation to discussion of what a particular communication medium can offer and/or how people can utilise it. Rather, information exchange means a two-way process of communication that both allows feedback and permits participants to change their roles in the process. This concept of changing roles is not limited to the original sender and receiver of messages. Instead, it is expanded, by looking at ways of developing a lateral flow of communication between residents in a community. For example, the information communicated to others may be of the kind that dates back generations and is or will eventually turn into local wisdom in that specific community. For this reason, a lateral flow of communication is significant, and for it to occur and be maintained, the line of communication should be consistent open in both directions, rather than comprising a purely unidirectional information flow. In context of these issues, I ask, what could the role of community engagement be in this kind of communication process? Can community engagement be considered a communication strategy? How is community engagement different from participatory communication and cocreation/codesign?

1.4 Definition of Terms

23

Engagement is defined as the involvement of local communities in the process of decision-making. This consultative form of communication aims to empower people to be proactive in developing disaster resilience. The term community engagement is often used interchangeably with other concepts like participation, collaboration, and empowerment (Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2016). Dufty (2011) elaborates the concept of engagement, seeing it as a participatory approach that allows communities to identify their own problems and develop solutions—either on their own or with minimal guidance from organisational oversight. The congruence between community engagement and participatory communication is further shown to be relevant in the media, communications, and development scholar Linje Manyozo’s argument that participatory communication is another term for community engagement. He defines this approach in communication as ‘the organised decentralisation of decision-making structures and processes that focus on community as a collective unit of policy design and implementation at the local level’ (2012, p. 152). The approach is not dependent on media but instead on the importance of interpersonal communication. Crucially for this investigation, participatory communication aims for social change (Jacobson, 2003). In the field of development communication participatory communication carries a variety of definitions—from project planning, implementation, and evaluation, to interpersonal interactions between communication actors (Jacobson, 2003). This investigation was intentionally framed inside the broader field of communication for development, which utilises community engagement as an approach that ensures community decisions and actions are collectively engaged. However, community engagement does not immediately start with participatory activities. Dufty (2011) states that an effective community engagement practice does not disregard the traditional (top-down) information dissemination practice, which he coins as the education part of the communication process. However, real engagement occurs when communication spreads horizontally between people in the same context. The broader frame of development communication was thus used rather than that of participatory communication. While the latter is concerned with hands-on community level participation, from planning to evaluation of programs, as is exemplified in codesign/cocreation, the objective of development communication is to elicit social change. Therefore, in this study, social change is operationally defined as the actions embedded in various contexts that elicit a positive development or change of a specific community endeavour (Servaes & Lie, 2015; Servaes & Servaes, 2021). Social change, conceptually, is a social process involving communities (Servaes, 2008). Codesign/cocreation describes the various ways participation is practised, especially at the community level. Akama’s (2014) work, for instance, argues that a smooth transition of ‘ownership of the project’ from the government to the people is the main goal of codesign/cocreation activities. While this practice also ensures the sustainability of any project of an organisation in a community, the needs of the community are analysed externally and a solution is brought to them. In a codesign/ cocreation approach, the focus of design is on people’s adaptive capacities, which does require their participation from the beginning, and it differs somewhat from

24

1 Introduction

the approach used by David et al. (2010) when they introduced and taught residents how to use a manual rain gauge. In this case, the community was not involved in the conceptualisation, design, or implementation of this learning, leaving unaddressed the important question, how does the manual rain gauge fit into the actions, experiences, current situation, and needs of the recipients? This nagging question, however, does highlight issues of externally contextualised ‘solutioning’. Applying a codesign/cocreation approach to the context of this study would mean that local DRRM councils would prescribe solutions taken from the NDRRMP (because this is their road map), and their role would be to facilitate the process of creating design solutions to the identified problem. While this will lead participants to reflect on their actions, lived and simulated experiences, and current spatial isolation and socioeconomic situation, I argue that despite having this National Plan, the way it should be implemented at the local level needs to fundamentally consider the local context and its issues/problems before enabling customisation and localisation. Since codesign/ cocreation does not allow the problem definition to take place in Mindanao study context, it was deemed unsuitable for this study, and its processes are excluded from the definition of community engagement that is used. For these reasons, this study uses the term community engagement, as it describes an entire communication process involving two actors—government and the community. Participatory communication and cocreation/codesign, although conceptually related, focus attention on the community actors and thus do not engage the actors equally. This study investigates the intersection between disaster preparedness and community engagement in the context of spatial or geographic isolation and socioeconomic inequalities. My aim is to discover what communicative conditions can act as conduits between the various levels of community engagement.

1.5 Book Overview To address the focus of this investigation, which centres on discovering the ways in which LGUs in the Philippines engage marginalised and isolated communities in taking part in pre-disaster communication efforts, this study focusses on GIDA communities in Mindanao, Philippines. The focus is centred on GIDA communities because they are assumed to receive less information and help in relation to their circumstances. This research investigates the disaster preparedness communicative conditions of people living in GIDAS. In doing so, it identifies synergies and tensions in the engagement process. As such, specific branches of enquiry focus on how informationseeking and sharing experiences of GIDA communities inform the current practice of community engagement. In taking this research approach, the study intends to deliberately give voice to these marginalised and often silenced communities. In general, the study seeks other possibilities (or variables) in the pre-disaster risk communication process that will truly engage geographically isolated and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities in DRRM.

1.5 Book Overview

25

In consideration of the existing methodologies being used to engage local communities in DRRM, this research enquires into ways bottom-up and top-down approaches could be melded together to achieve a transformational level of engagement in these communities. This level of engagement is based on Bowen et al.’ (2010) Community Engagement Continuum, which dictates that fully engaging communities requires transformational learning. This book has been organised in the following manner: This chapter has provides the research background, and locates the study in the field of development communication. This chapter also introduces the main and subsidiary research enquiries and examines initial justifications for gearing the research direction towards investigating the intersection between disaster preparedness and community engagement in the context of GIDA. The parameters that delimit the scope of this study are also set out in this chapter in order to make clear to the reader what aspects of DRRM will be discussed, which demographic the study targets, and the study’s potential contribution to the overall field of pre-disaster communication and community engagement. Both Chaps. 2 and 3 review the existing literature, and their discussion further justifies the need for the current research. Specifically, Chap. 2 discusses pre-disaster communication and reviews literature about multimodal disaster communication and the way access to information becomes the privilege of a chosen few. To fully grasp the intersection between disaster preparedness and community engagement, I also present a discussion on community, vulnerability, and resilience. I believe that unpacking these three concepts aids in the understanding of what, why, and how community engagement is relevant in contextual pre-disaster communication. Chapter 3 then presents the theoretical underpinnings and frameworks of community engagement. This section draws on the scholarship in development communication using community engagement as a pre-disaster communication strategy, acknowledging that disaster risk reduction and management (DRRM) is an interdisciplinary research area (Shaw, 2020). This study bridges the scholarship at the intersection of development communication and organisational communication, specific to conceptualising DRRM. Unpacking community engagement in the context of predisaster communication requires utilisation of Bowen et al. Community Engagement Continuum (2010) and Dufty’s community engagement framework (2011). These two models of community engagement scaffold the assessment of the current practices observed in both field sites. In addition, this chapter presents a discussion on Andres’ Filipino Values System (1988) in the context of community development in order to further the discussion on the various synergies and tensions in the communication in community engagement practices observed during fieldwork. The literature review effectively concludes in Sect. 3.3, which provides a discussion on the research gap that appears in the available existing literature on disaster communication and community engagement. This section locates the point at which, in the spectrum of pre-disaster communication and community engagement, this study is situated. After this understanding is reached, Chap. 3 goes on to provide a section on DRRM practices in the Philippines. This comprises a review of the policies and laws that act as a basis for the formation of the National DRRM Council

26

1 Introduction

and highlights the Philippine Governments’ top-down approach to implementing the NDRRMP through the LGUs and research studies conducted on Philippines’ DRRM. This sections situates aspects of the study as it focusses on the pre-disaster communication and community engagement activities of LGUs as they implement the NDRRMP in their area. Chapter 4 goes on to provide an overview on DRRM practices in the Philippines by reviewing the policies and laws that act as a basis for the formation of the National DRRM Council and highlights the Philippine Governments’ top-down approach to implementing the NDRRMP through the LGUs and research studies conducted on Philippines’ DRRM. Moreover, this chapter provides a detailed description of both field sites, which highlights the relevance of site identification and the criteria used to do so. This way, the concept of geographic isolation and socioeconomic disparities can be explicitly described based on what was seen in the field. Lastly, this chapter discusses the research design, outlines the qualitative approaches used. Chapter 5 reports the findings from the semi-structured interviews, document analysis, and field observations. This chapter revolves around the pre-disaster risk communication practices of local DRRM councils and highlights various modes and tools they use to target GIDA communities. The chapter shifts from this discussion of the multimodality of pre-disaster risk communication efforts of the government and moves on to identify the singular mode of communication that was used by these agents in the context. Next, the level of community engagement identified from the semi-structured interviews and document analysis is discussed in the context of the established communication modes and tools that are used for pre-disaster communication and community engagement. Common themes surfaced in participants’ accounts, and the chapter organises and highlights these based on the research questions posited. From these accounts, three variables are identified that satisfy the need for a more transformative level of community engagement. The structure of the chapter is guided by the Community Engagement Continuum of Bowen et al. (2010). Chapter 6 interprets, analyses, and discusses the themes uncovered in the previous chapter. It explores how these themes relate to or contradict existing literature. The chapter highlights the role of the individual as a conduit to communication in community engagement in the context of spatial or geographic isolation and socioeconomic inequalities. The results of the analysis reveal three intervening variables that may aid in the smooth changeover from a transitional to a transformative level of community engagement. The chapter also considers a paradigm shift regarding the government’s approach to community-based DRRM efforts, through instigating drills and training based on the reported experiences of GIDA communities and the local DRRM councils handling them. This shift led to the development of a possible model that moves transitional engagement towards transformational engagement using pre-disaster communication modes and tools. Chapter 7 explains further how individuals can be considered communication and community engagement conduits in the context of disaster preparedness. In this chapter, the individual is explored in the small group context. Rather than looking at the community as single entity, I argue that it is individuals who comprise a

1.6 Summary

27

community and highlight that these individuals fit into social groups within their community. Thus, this chapter discusses a person’s common bonds and socialisation activities that could potentially be used to connect existing social pathways and expand their social networks or connections. This chapter also discusses how these social networks or connections are relevant in the utilisation of the three intervening variables discussed in the previous chapter. Lastly, in response to the argument of Sujarwoto and Tampubolon (2016) on spatial inequalities, this chapter presents a proposed communication and community engagement framework that targets more than just GIDA communities. Chapter 8 brings together all the arguments and evidence presented in Chaps. 5–7 and provides the general implications of current pre-disaster risk communication and community-based DRRM practice. It presents enquiries about the proposed framework introduced in the previous chapter that warrants further investigation. This chapter also provides recommendations about what specific mode of communication can be used to ascertain a smooth changeover from transitional to transformational learning. These recommendations are grounded on the current practice of both local DDRM councils observed, and the accounts provided by local informants. This chapter concludes by offering implications of the current pre-disaster communication practices used in dealing with GIDA communities and proposes areas for future research investigation.

1.6 Summary This chapter has presented a brief background on the study investigation that was conducted in Mindanao, Philippines. The chapter highlighted that disaster is a result of society’s failure to manage the impact of natural hazards. It further provided an overview of the study, which outlined that the investigation will revolve around pre-disaster communication practices in order to identify the level of community engagement currently in place. To join in the conversation among scholars, this study is delimited within the confines of GIDA communities. As such, the study intends to provide empirical evidence about the spatial isolation and socioeconomic inequalities that are experienced in the Philippines and are potentially applicable across communities in other Southeast Asian countries. The chapter upholds an appreciation that focussing on GIDA communities also supports further investigation into the ways and means a bottom-up approach in pre-disaster communication and community engagement in DRRM can be achieved in these communities. The next two chapters justify the need to focus on pre-disaster communication and community engagement by providing an account of the relevant literature in this area. Given that pre-disaster communication studies are often interdisciplinary, my literature review is divided into two chapters, each deals separately with issues of pre-disaster literature and its theoretical underpinnings.

28

1 Introduction

References Adila, I., Dewi, W. W. A., Tamitiadini, D., & Syauki, W. R. (2017). Disaster mitigation action plan: digital media on improving accountability and community relationships. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 70(1), 012016. Akama, Y. (2014). Passing on, handing over, letting go—the passage of embodied design methods for disaster preparedness. In Proceedings of the Fourth Service Design and Service Innovation Conference (pp. 173–183). Lancaster University. Viewed November 1, 2021, from http://www. ep.liu.se/ecp/099/017/ecp14099017.pdf Alcayna, T., Bollettino, V., Dy, P., & Vinck, P. (2016). ‘Resilience and disaster trends in the Philippines: opportunities for national and local capacity building. PLoS Currents, 8, 846. Al-Dahash, H., Thayaparan, M., & Kulatunga, U. (2016). Understanding the terminologies: Disaster, crisis and emergency. In P. W. Chan, & C. J. Neilson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ARCOM Conference (vol. 2, pp. 1191–1200). Manchester, UK, 5–7 September. Aldrich, D. P. (2019). Black wave: How networks and governance shaped Japan’s 3/11 disasters. The University of Chicago Press. Aldrich, D. P., & Meyer, M. A. (2015). Social capital and community resilience. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(2), 254–269. Alim, S., Kawabata, M., & Nakazawa, M. (2015). Evaluation of disaster preparedness training and disaster drill for nursing students. Nurse Education Today, 35(1), 25–31. Amri, A., Bird, D. K., Ronan, K., Haynes, K., & Towers, B. (2017). Disaster risk reduction education in Indonesia: Challenges and recommendations for scaling up. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 17(4), 595–612. Andres, T. Q. (1988). Community development: A manual. New Day Publishers. Arguillas, C. (2021). Mindanao’s population: from 24 million in 2015 to 26 million in 2020. MindaNews, Viewed May 26, 2022, from https://www.mindanews.com/top-stories/2021/07/ mindanaos-population-from-24-million-in-2015-to-26-million-in-2020/ ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations). (2010). ASEAN agreement on disaster management and emergency response. ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster Management, Viewed February 7, 2020, from https://ahacentre.org/wp-content/upl oads/2016/11/AADMER-DOCUMENT.pdf ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations). (2016). ASEAN vision 2025 on disaster management. ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster Management, Indonesia. Viewed February 18, 2020, from https://ahacentre.org/publication/asean-vision2025-on-disaster-management/ Astill, S., Corney, S., Carey, R., Auckland, S., & Cross, M. (2019). Reconceptualising “community” to identify place-based disaster management needs in Tasmania. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 34(1), 48–51. Australian Institute of Family Studies. (2016). Community engagement: A key strategy for improving outcomes for Australian families, (CFCA paper no. 39). Child Family Community Australia. Viewed September 15, 2020, from https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/communityengagement/what-community-engagement Basolo, V., Steinberg, L. J., & Gant, S. (2017). Hurricane threat in Florida: Examining household perceptions, beliefs, and actions. Environmental Hazards, 16(3), 253–275. Bolin, B., & Kurtz, L. C. (2018). Race, class, ethnicity, and disaster vulnerability. In H. Rodríguez, W. Donner, & J. E. Trainor (Eds.), Handbook of disaster research (2nd ed., pp. 181–203). Switzerland: Springer. Bowen, F., Newenham-Kahindi, A., & Herremans, I. (2010). When suits meet roots: The antecedents and consequences of community engagement strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(2), 297– 318. Burnside-Lawry, J., & Akama, Y. (2013). Communication research needs for building societal disaster resilience. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 28(4), 29–35.

References

29

Burnside-Lawry, J., & Carvalho, L. (2016). A stakeholder approach to building community resilience: Awareness to implementation. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 7(1), 4–25. Cannon, T. (1994). Vulnerability analysis and the explanation of “natural” disasters. Disasters, Development and Environment, 1, 13–30. Carley, K. M., Malik, M., Landwehr, P. M., Pfeffer, J., & Kowalchuck, M. (2016). Crowd sourcing disaster management: The complex nature of Twitter usage in Padang Indonesia. Safety Science, 90, 48–61. Coombs, W. T. (2010). cCrisis communication and its allied fields. In W. T. Coombs, & S. J. Holladay (Eds.), The handbook of crisis communication (pp. 54–64). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Curato, N. (2018). Beyond the spectacle: Slow-moving disasters in post-Haiyan Philippines. Critical Asian Studies, 50(1), 58–66. David, C. P. C., Padua, D. M. V., Vargas, M. M., Caceres, J. I., Vicente, M. C. T. M., Tolentino, D. B., Abon, C. C., Ramores, J., & Wamil, R. A. (2010). Community and DRR technology interface: The “Reduction of flood risk in the Bicol River Basin II” project. In L. P. Cruz, E. M. Ferrer, & M. C. Pagaduan (Eds.), Building disaster resilient communities: Stories and lessons from the Philippines (pp. 33–57). College of Social Work and Community Development, University of the Philippines. Deng, Q., Liu, Y., Zhang, H., Deng, X., & Ma, Y. (2016). A new crowdsourcing model to assess disaster using microblog data in typhoon Haiyan. Natural Hazards, 84(2), 1241–1256. Djalante, R., & Thomalla, F. (2012). Disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in Indonesia. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 3(2), 166–180. Dombrowsky, W. R. (1998). Again and again: is a disaster what we call a “disaster”? In E. L. Quarantelli (Ed.), What is a disaster? Perspectives on the question (pp. 19–30). Routledge. Dufty, N. (2011). Engagement or education? Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 26(3), 35–39. Dufty, N. (2016). Twitter turns ten: Its use to date in disaster management. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 31(2), 50. EM-DAT: The Emergency Events Database. (2018). Disaster classification. Université catholique de Louvain, Brussells, Belgium—Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), Viewed October 26, 2021, from https://www.emdat.be/ Fabito, B. S., Balahadia, F. F., & Cabatlao, J. D. N. (2016). AppLERT: A mobile application for incident and disaster notification for metro Manila. In IEEE Region 10 Symposium (pp. 288–292). Bali, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.1109/TENCONSpring.2016.7519420 Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. (2017). FAO in Mindanao. Viewed November 17, 2021, from https://www.fao.org/3/ca5540en/ca5540en.pdf Foster, H. (2013). Interactive hazard preparation strategy efficacy: Considerations for future community engagement programs. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 28(1), 8–14. French, J., Jr., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Institute for Social Research. Gilbert, C. (1998). Studying disaster: changes in the main conceptual tools. In E. L. Quarantelli (Ed.), What is a disaster? Perspectives on the question (pp. 11–18). Routledge. Gonzalez, A. (1998). The language planning situation in the Philippines. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 19(5), 487–525. Goodchild, M. F., & Glennon, J. A. (2010). Crowdsourcing geographic information for disaster response: A research frontier. International Journal of Digital Earth, 3(3), 231–241. Grosfield, L. (2018). What are the negative effects of natural disasters? In Sciencing. Viewed November 17, 2021, from https://sciencing.com/negative-effects-natural-disasters-8292806. html Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. Holt. Haddow, G. D., & Haddow, K. S. (2009). Disaster communications in a changing media world. Butterworth-Heinemann.

30

1 Introduction

Hagar, C. (2010). Crisis informatics: Introduction. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 36(5), 10–12. Head, B. W. (2007). Community engagement: Participation on whose terms? Australian Journal of Political Science, 42(3), 441–454. Heath, R. L., & O’Hair, H. D. (2010). The significance of crisis and risk communication. In R. L. Heath & H. D. O’Hair (Eds.), Handbook of Risk and Crisis Communication (pp. 17–42). Taylor and Francis. Helsloot, I., & Ruitenberg, A. (2004). Citizen response to disasters: A survey of literature and some practical implications. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 12(3), 98–111. Howard, A., Agllias, K., Bevis, M., & Blakemore, T. (2017). “They’ll tell us when to evacuate”: The experiences and expectations of disaster-related communication in vulnerable groups. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 22, 139–146. Jacobson, T. L. (2003). Participatory communication for social change: The relevance of the theory of communicative action. Annals of the International Communication Association, 27(1), 87– 123. Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino. (2021). KWF Repositoryo ng mga Wika at Kultura ng Pilipinas. Komisyong sa Wikang Filipino. Viewed May 26, 2022, from https://kwfwikaatkultura.ph/ Kreps, G. A. (1998). Disaster as systemic event and social catalyst. In E. L. Quarantelli (Ed.), What is a disaster? Perspectives on the question (pp. 31–55). Routledge. Lagmay, A. M. F., Agaton, R. P., Bahala, M. A. C., Briones, J. B. L. T., Cabacaba, K. M. C., Caro, C. V. C., Dasallas, L. L., Gonzalo, L. A. L., Ladiero, C. N., Lapidez, J. P., Mungcal, M. T. F., Puno, J. V. R., Ramos, M. M. A. C., Santiago, J., Suarez, J. K., & Tablazon, J. P. (2015). Devastating storm surges of Typhoon Haiyan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 11, 1–12. Li, L. X. (2014). Involvement of social media in disaster management during the Wenchuan and Ya’an earthquakes. Asian Journal for Public Opinion Research, 1(4), 249–267. Lizarralde, G., Johnson, C., & Davidson, C. (2009). Rebuilding after disasters from emergency to sustainability. Routledge. Lobao, L. (1996). A sociology of the periphery versus a peripheral sociology: Rural sociology and the dimension of space. Rural Sociology, 61, 77–102. Madianou, M. (2015). Digital inequality and second-order disasters: social media in the Typhoon Haiyan recovery. Social Media + Society, 1(2), 1–11. Madu, C. N., Kuei, C.-H., Madu, I. E., Ozumba, B. C., Nnadi, V. E., Odinkonigbo, U. L., & Ezeasor, I. C. (2018). Introduction to disaster risk reduction and management. In C. N. Madu & C.-H. Kuei (Eds.), Handbook of disaster risk reduction and management (pp. 1–30). World Scientific Publishing Company. Mansell, R. (2017). Inequality and digitally mediated communication: divides, contradictions and consequences. Javnost—the Public, 24(2), 146–161. Manyozo, L. (2012). Media, communication and development. SAGE Publications. Marger, M. N. (2014). Social inequality: Patterns and processes (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill. McLennan, B., Whittaker, J., & Handmer, J. (2016). The changing landscape of disaster volunteering: Opportunities, responses and gaps in Australia. Natural Hazards, 84(3), 2031–2048. Mefalopulos, P. (2008). Development communication sourcebook: broadening the boundaries of communication, OKR: Open Knowledge Repository/The World Bank, Washington DC. Montalvan, A. (2014). “Typhoon-free” Mindanao? The Inquirer.Net. Retrived January 26, November 17, 2021, from https://opinion.inquirer.net/70355/typhoon-free-mindanao NDRRMC (National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council). (2018a). Disaster reports and advisories. Viewed November 17, 2021, from https://ndrrmc.gov.ph/index.php/disaster-rep orts/reports.html NDRRMC (National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council). (2018b). National disaster risk reduction and management plan (NDRRMP) 2011–2028, Viewed November 17, 2021, from https://ndrrmc.gov.ph/attachments/article/1980/National_Disaster_Risk_Redu ction_and_Management_Plan.pdf

References

31

O’Keefe, P., Westgate, K., & Wisner, B. (1976). Taking the naturalness out of natural disasters. Nature, 260, 566–567. Olsson, E.-K. (2014). Crisis communication in public organisations: Dimensions of crisis communication revisited. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 22(2), 113–125. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2013). Economic outlook for Southeast Asia, China, and India 2014: Beyond the middle-income trap. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/ saeo-2014-en PAGASA (Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration). (2020). Fronts. PAGASA. Viewed September 18, 2019, from http://bagong.pagasa.dost.gov. ph/learning-tools/fronts Pansardi, P., & Bindi, M. (2021). The new concepts of power? Power-over, power-to and power-with. Journal of Political Power, 14(1), 51–71. Paton, D., Johnston, D., Rossiter, K., Buergelt, P., Richards, A., & Anderson, S. (2017). Community understanding of tsunami risk and warnings in Australia. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 32(1), 54–59. Perreault, M. F., Houston, J. B., & Wilkins, L. (2014). Does scary matter? Testing the effectiveness of new National Weather Service tornado warning messages. Communication Studies, 65(5), 484–499. Perry, R. W. (2007). What is a disaster? In H. Rodríguez, E. L. Quarantelli, & R. R. Dynes (Eds.), Handbook of disaster research (pp. 1–15). Springer. Perry, R. W. (2018). Defining disaster: An evolving concept. In H. Rodríguez, W. Donner, & J. E. Trainor (Eds.), Handbook of disaster research (2nd ed., pp. 3–22). Springer International Publishing. Petz, D. (2014). Brookings-LSE project on internal displacement: strengthening regional and national capacity for disaster risk management: The case of ASEAN. The Brookings Institution, Viewed November 17, 2021, from https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Str engthening-Regional-and-National-Capacity-for-DRM-Case-of-ASEAN-November-5-2014. pdf Puttick, S., Bosher, L., & Chmutina, K. (2018). Disasters are not natural. Teaching Geography, 43(3), 118–120. Quarantelli, E. L. (1986). Disaster crisis management. Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware. Viewed July 5, 2019, from http://udspace.udel.edu/handle/19716/487 Quarantelli, E. L. (1998). What is a disaster? Perspectives on the question. Routledge. Quebral, N. C. (2012). The underside of communication in development. Nordicom Review, 33, 59–64. Rasquinho, O., Liu, J., & Leong, D. (2013). Assessment on disaster risk reduction of tropical storm Washi. Tropical Cyclone Research and Review, 2(3), 169–175. Rayamajhee, V., & Bohara, A. K. (2021). Social capital, trust, and collective action in postearthquake Nepal. Natural Hazards, 105(2), 1491–1519. Reid, K. (2018). 2012 Typhoon Bopha: Facts, FAQs, and how to help. World Vision. Viewed October 20, 2018, from https://www.worldvision.org/disaster-relief-news-stories/2012-typhoon-bophafacts Republic Act no. 10121. (2021). Official Gazette. 27 May, Viewed October 19, 2021, from https:// www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2010/05/27/republic-act-no-10121/ Rodríguez, H., Díaz, W., Santos, J. M., & Aguirre, B. E. (2007). Communicating risk and uncertainty: Science, technology, and disasters at the crossroads. In H. Rodríguez, E. L. Quarantelli, & R. R. Dynes (Eds.), Handbook of disaster research (pp. 476–488). Springer. Rogers, P., Burnside-Lawry, J., Dragisic, J., & Mills, C. (2016). Collaboration and communication: Building a research agenda and way of working towards community disaster resilience. Disaster Prevention and Management, 25(1), 75–90. Santos, G. D. C. (2021). 2020 Tropical cyclones in the Philippines: A review. Tropical Cyclone Research and Review, 10(3), 191–199. Servaes, J. (2008). Communication for development and social change. SAGE Publications.

32

1 Introduction

Servaes, J., & Lie, R. (2013). Sustainable social change and communication. Communiation Research Trends, 32(4), 5–30. Servaes, J., & Lie, R. (2015). New challenges for communication for sustainable development and social change: A review essay. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 10(1), 124–148. Servaes, L., & Servaes, J. (2021). Participatory communication for social change. In S. R. Melkote & A. Singhal (Eds.), Handbook of communication and development (pp. 120–141). Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Shaw, R. (2020). Thirthy years of science, technology, and academia in disaster risk reduction and emerging responsibilities. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 11(4), 414–425. Shaw, R., & Goda, K. (2004). From disaster to sustainable civil society: The Kobe experience. Disasters, 28(1), 16–40. Shaw, R., James, H., Sharma, V., & Lukasiewicz, A. (2022). Disaster risk reduction and resilience: Practices and challenges in Asia Pacific. In H. James, R. Shaw, V. Sharma, & A. Lukasiewicz (Eds.), Disaster risk reduction in Asia Pacific: Governance, education, and capacity (pp. 1–15). Palgrave Macmillan. Sison, M. D. (2017). Communicating across, within and between, cultures: Toward inclusion and social change. Public Relations Review, 43(1), 130–132. Smith, K. (2013). Environmental hazards: Assessing risk and reducing disaster (6th ed.). Routledge. Spialek, M. L., Czlapinski, H. M., & Houston, J. B. (2016). Disaster communication ecology and community resilience perceptions following the 2013 central Illinois tornadoes. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 17, 154–160. Spialek, M. L., & Houston, J. B. (2018a). The influence of citizen disaster communication on perceptions of neighborhood belonging and community resilience. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 47(1), 1–23. Spialek, M. L., & Houston, J. B. (2018b). The development and initial validation of the Citizen Disaster Communication Assessment. Communication Research, 45(6), 934–955. Sujarwoto, S., & Tampubolon, G. (2016). Spatial inequality and the Internet divide in Indonesia 2010–2012. Telecommunications Policy, 40(7), 602–616. Sumaylo, D. J. (2018). Potentials and pitfalls of crowdsourcing in disaster risk communication: a systematic review. In Proceedings of the 2018 Southeast Asia disaster risk governance academic seminar. Bangkok, Thailand, 24–26 September. Viewed November 17, 2021, from https://www. rcrc-resilience-southeastasia.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Paper14.pdf Sumaylo, D. J., & Sison, M. (2018). Reframing disaster communication approaches: a narrative review. In ICA Regional Conference 2018. Selangor. Tan, M. L., Prasanna, R., Stock, K., Hudson-Doyle, E., Leonard, G., & Johnston, D. (2017). Mobile applications in crisis informatics literature: A systematic review. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 24, 297–311. Tandoc, E. C., & Takahashi, B. (2017). Log in if you survived: Collective coping on social media in the aftermath of Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines. New Media & Society, 19(11), 1778–1793. Teo, M., Goonetilleke, A., Deilami, K., Ahankoob, A., & Lawie, M. (2019). Engaging residents from different ethnic and language backgrounds in disaster preparedness. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 39, 101245. Teo, M., Lawie, M., Goonetilleke, A., Ahankoob, A., & Deilami, K. (2018). Engaging vulnerable populations in preparedness and response: A local government context. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 33(1), 38–47. Tickamyer, A. R. (2000). Space matters! Spatial inequality in future sociology. Contemporary Sociology, 29(6), 805–813. Titz, A., Cannon, T., & Krüger, F. (2018). Uncovering “community”: Challenging an elusive concept in development and disaster related work. Societies, 8(3), 71. Tufte, T., & Mefalopulos, P. (2009). Participatory communication: A practical guide. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.

References

33

United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). (1980). Many voices one world: communication and society today and tomorrow: towards a new more just and more efficient world information and communication order. Kogan Page and UNESCO. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. (2020a). Disaster definition. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Viewed January 23, 2018, from https://www.undrr.org/ter minology/disaster United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. (2020b). Disaster risk information definition. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Viewed January 23, 2018, from https://www. undrr.org/terminology/disaster-risk-information United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. (2020c). Disaster risk management definition. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Viewed January 23, 2018, from https://www. undrr.org/terminology/disaster-risk-management United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. (2020d). Preparedness definition. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Viewed January 23, 2018, from https://www.undrr.org/ter minology/preparedness United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. (2020e). Resilience. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Viewed January 23, 2018, from https://www.undrr.org/terminology/ resilience Vincent, R. C. (2016). The Internet and sustainable development: Communication dissemination and the digital divide. Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, 15(6), 605–637. Wallemacq, P., & Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). (2018). Natural disasters in 2017: Lower mortality, higher cost. In CRED crunch. Université catholique de Louvain, Viewed October 26, 2021, from https://cred.be/sites/default/files/CredCrunch50.pdf Warren, J. F. (2016). Typhoons and the inequalities of Philippine society and history. Philippine Studies, Historical and Ethnographic Viewpoints, 64(3/4), 455–472. Warwick-Booth, L. (2019). Social inequality (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. Wickes, R., Zahnow, R., Taylor, M., & Piquero, A. R. (2015). Neighborhood structure, social capital, and community resilience: Longitudinal evidence from the 2011 Brisbane flood disaster. Social Science Quarterly, 96(2), 330–353. Wilkins, K. G. (1996). Development communication. Peace Review, 8(1), 97–103. Wong, Y. C., Fung, J. Y. C., Law, C. K., Lam, J. C. Y., & Lee, V. W. P. (2009). Tackling the digital divide. British Journal of Social Work, 39(4), 754–767. Wray, R., Kreuter, M., Jacobsen, H., Clements, B., & Evans, R. (2004). Theoretical perspectives on public communication preparedness for terrorist attacks. Family & Community Health, 27(3), 232–241.

Chapter 2

When Information is Critical and Access Becomes Difficult

2.1 Introduction Given the breadth of the scholarship in the various disciplines implicated in this study, this chapter addresses (a) the multimodality of disaster communication and how access to information becomes a privilege and (b) the various conceptualisations of community and engagement that I believe can be considered the information access point of marginalised sectors of society. These two sections are punctuated by discussing the research gap in the current scholarship on pre-disaster communication that utilises community engagement as a communication strategy. This discussion explicitly points to where this study comes in the spectrum of communication and community engagement.

2.2 Access to Pre-disaster Information is a Privilege Disaster preparedness is essential to reducing or eliminating casualties when natural calamities strike. Its primary goal is to equip people with the knowledge they need to become resilient to these hazards. However, an individual’s access to pre-disaster information can be dependent on their geographic location, demographics, education, language, and socioeconomic standing. While it is apparent that access to such information ought to be a right, in fact, depending on these circumstances of an individual’s life, such access can become a matter of privilege. In this study, I investigate the strategic use of the communication modes and tools that can be employed in DRRM community engagement activities to achieve a resilient community. Various communication modes and tools are used by governments and other organisations to ensure that access is provided equally to everyone by providing them with options. Yet, is this the same when we talk about the experiences of people living in geographic isolation experiencing socioeconomic disadvantages? © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 D. J. Sumaylo, Engaging Isolated Communities in Disaster Preparation and Communication in the Philippines, Communication, Culture and Change in Asia 11, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-4697-6_2

35

36

2 When Information is Critical and Access Becomes Difficult

The question arises along more than one line of thought, not least of which is the reality that while the communication tools selected are important in transmitting information, transmission itself does not always ensure participation. In consideration of this, I push for a user-focussed approach. This not only covers a discussion on the plethora of available communication modes and tools, but it also covers issues of access and user preferences. In the context of pre-disaster communication, contextual and user-focussed platform studies go beyond the mere transference and retention of information. Message retention is important, but ensuring that messages are put into action by their users requires a strategic approach. In terms of strategically creating effective tools and communication outcomes, communication tools can be categorised according to the contexts where they are used, including the number of people involved, their communicative goals, and the environment or area where the tools will be used. In consideration of the responsibilities implied by equity, messages developed for disaster communication should theoretically be easily understood, should meet the needs of the community, and should be transmitted by communication tools that are comparably accessible. In addition, these messages must be up-to-date, accurate, reliable, and continuously disseminated (Rodríguez et al., 2007) to the community using accessible communication tools and with ample lead time for the people to take appropriate action. Appropriate lead time is important to the disaster communication cycle, which requires users to hear, understand, believe, confirm, and respond. The inability to traverse this cycle results in communication breakdown, which delays community response and can eventually lead to loss of life and property (Rodríguez et al., 2007). The use of multimodal disaster communication tools is a proposed solution to these issues of process and timeliness; a multimodal approach offers the assurance of an up-to-date, accurate, reliable, and continuous flow of information. Multimodality is defined as the use of various modes of communication, each of which is shaped by culture (Chandler & Munday, 2016; Kress, 2010). Examples of different modes include ‘image, writing, layout, music, gesture, speech, moving image, soundtrack, and 3D objects’ (Kress, 2010, p. 79). As such, there are several studies on strategies and methodologies for disaster risk communication covering the four stages of disaster management—prevention and mitigation, preparedness, response, and rehabilitation and recovery (see Fig. 2.1). Examining these four stages is important since the impact of an incoming disaster may be lessened if there are concrete activities and plans from pre-, during, to post-disaster phases of disaster management (Madu et al., 2018). Developing a multimodal disaster risk communication strategy highlights the significance of various communication forms and information sources, as these have been observed to have a direct correlation with behavioural responses during a disaster, such as, for example, evacuation (Liu et al., 2016). Advances in communication technologies have paved the way for disaster risk communication to follow suit by adopting new technological methodologies in delivering disaster risk information to vulnerable communities (Takahashi et al., 2015) as well as reconstructing social networks and reaffirming a sense of community (Shklovski et al., 2010). However,

2.2 Access to Pre-disaster Information is a Privilege Fig. 2.1 Visualisation of interlinked disaster phases and stages of disaster risk reduction and management. Source Author

Predisaster phase

37

.Prevention and mitigation stage .Preparedness stage

During disaster phase

.Respons e stage

Postdisaster phase

.Rehabilitation and recovery stage

technology-driven disaster risk communication has also resulted in inequality and the privileging of information (Madianou, 2015; Sujarwoto & Tampubolon, 2016). In developing countries, an increase in technological innovation demands certain levels of buyer capacity and education to ensure user information access; in relation to disaster communication, this has resulted in disparities that effectively comprise a knowledge/information gap between information-rich and information-poor communities. In particular, in 2018, the Philippines’ Department of Health acknowledged that there were areas in the country that the government had experienced difficulty in getting its programs across to for various reasons. The term geographically isolated and disadvantaged areas (GIDA) was coined in response to this acknowledgement (Department of Health, 2018). The people living in these areas experience social exclusion that is brought about by several factors linked to their geographical location, which affects access to: telecommunication infrastructure (Bolin & Kurtz, 2018; Sujarwoto & Tampubolon, 2016), socioeconomic status (Bolin & Kurtz, 2018; Madianou, 2015; Mansell, 2017), human capital and education services (Madianou, 2015; Sujarwoto & Tampubolon, 2016; Wong et al., 2009), political environment and government readiness (Basolo et al., 2017; Vincent, 2016), risk perception and prior exposure to disaster (Basolo et al., 2017), among other things. In general, extant literature upholds the call for studies on communication modes and tools in building resilient communities (Burnside-Lawry & Akama, 2013) and I add to this call by focussing on disaster preparedness and its decentralisation and localisation of pre-disaster risk information (Wamil, 2010), according to the needs of people living in geographically and socioeconomically disadvantaged locations (Sujarwoto & Tampubolon, 2016).

2.2.1 Decentralisation and Localisation of Disaster Communication The top-down framework of information dissemination is widely used in the Philippines, especially in the implementation of the NDRRMP. This method of information

38

2 When Information is Critical and Access Becomes Difficult

delivery is often preferred because of certain bureaucratic processes of government. However, this process neglects the capacity of local communities to plan and design their own preferred methodologies regarding how they are informed about various pre-disaster preparedness information. In addition, the top-down method has been deemed problematic for foreign responders who are not familiar with the bureaucratic processes in the country (Güss & Pangan, 2004). The use of top-down framework may not be the best approach in a multi-agency and interagency disaster risk reduction and management setting. Multi-agency disaster management means the collaboration between organisations to deliver an effective response in the event of a disaster (Janssen et al., 2009). These organisations may be geographically distributed from different parts of the world, as observed during the Typhoon Haiyan disaster when governments and emergency management organisations lent aid to the Philippines (Janssen et al., 2009). Comfort (2007) posits that a dynamic interagency system requires cognition, communication, coordination, and control. Cognition, or the capacity to identify the risk level to a community, is central to disaster management (Comfort, 2007). Therefore, an interagency approach’s goal is to craft a collective community response that reduces the impact of any natural hazard. However, the recurring problem with interagency/multi-agency disaster management is a lack of coordination caused by a lack of understanding among participants on the decision-making process itself (Smith & Dowell, 2010), data governance principles (Abdeen et al., 2022; Harrison et al., 2022), and the current information/communication systems (Abdeen et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2011). This study acknowledges the reality that disaster risk reduction and management as a field is interdisciplinary (Shaw, 2020). It is not boxed within the frameworks of development communication or organisational communication alone. Therefore, this study situates itself in the intersection of these disciplines and identifies a possibility of bridging theory and practice by contributing to both. It has been suggested that disaster preparedness should take the form of a dialogue between the government and local communities (Baybay & Hindmarsh, 2019; Head, 2007; Lovari & Bowen, 2019). This approach considers the need for local communities to take charge of their level of disaster preparedness, rather than being merely a passive audience that relies on information from the government. Several studies argue for community participation in DRRM through local community capacity building. Community participation is a method used in development communication to ensure community involvement in the process of achieving social change (Manyozo, 2012). Research on community participation has investigated the establishment of home-based early warning stations (Garcia, 2010), the decentralisation of disaster communication (David et al., 2016; Sumaylo et al., 2016; Wamil, 2010), cocreation (Akama et al., 2016), gender and leadership (Burnside-Lawry & Akama, 2013), and coproduction of flood hazard map (Luke et al., 2018). Sumaylo et al. (2016) highlight that this top-down method of information dissemination has been seen to be insufficient based on the experiences of people living in Loreto, Province of Dinagat Islands, Mindanao. In this village, disaster-related information from the local DRRM council broadcast over radio and television does

2.2 Access to Pre-disaster Information is a Privilege

39

not reach the village because of communication signal interferences and reception issues. Radio signals that reach this area are those from nearby islands in the Visayas. As a result of the insufficiency this method of information dissemination, the local DRRM council of Barangay Loreto disseminate information through bandilyo—a local communication tool that was conceptualised from the bottom-up and which works as a local public announcement system. Messages written in the local dialect are delivered by a member of the local disaster council around the barangay (village1 ) using a megaphone and via text message. The utilisation of social media’s capacity to involve its users in gathering and sharing disaster information (Carley et al., 2016; Illner, 2018; Tandoc & Takahashi, 2017) is another example of making pre-disaster risk communication bottom-up compared to the current practice. In a scoping review of the extant literature on social media use in disaster management, Sumaylo (2018) identified crowdsourcing as a common theme. The potential of social media use in disaster communication also lies in its efficient delivery of messages and accessibility (Carley et al., 2016; Dufty, 2016) and the duality of roles of its users as content consumers and creators (Li, 2014). Carley et al. (2016) highlight the fast translation of messages by Twitter users, widening audience reach. The government and emergency management organisations also used this platform in instructing and adjusting information during Hurricane Harvey (Liu et al., 2018). Yi and Kuri (2016) also observe that during Typhoon Haiyan, the Philippine Government still utilised mass media, unlike how Japan’s government used social networking sites during the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. Today, popular social networking sites like Facebook introduced features allowing users to mark their safety after a natural hazard hits an area. This example of local communities disseminating information with approaches appropriate to their realities suggests that localisation of disaster risk information may be an essential element in the process of disaster risk information dissemination being used to build resilient communities. However, this method of localisation is only achieved by translating the content of current information, education, and communication tools from the English language into the local dialect, a process which can potentially result in inaccuracies due to issues with local translation of scientific information (Arreza & Sumaylo, 2015). What is noteworthy for a deeper understanding of what localisation can achieve and how it works in the Philippines is consideration of the use of English language in disaster communication tools in this non-English speaking country. Certainly, relying on translation alone as a form of localisation poses threats such as misappropriation, lack of local equivalence, and inaccurate translation of scientific information. In terms of local community recognition of the need to engage with disaster risk information, other studies observe that it was experience with actual disaster experiences that have prompted local communities to think of and prepare for disasters in advance (Onuma et al., 2017; Sanchez & Sumaylo, 2015; Sumaylo et al., 2016), beyond the drills taught to them by the implementers of the National Plan (Sumaylo 1

As noted in the Glossary, the words village and barangay are used interchangeably throughout the document.

40

2 When Information is Critical and Access Becomes Difficult

et al., 2016). However, disaster experiences are not the ideal source of motivation in terms of encouraging people to prepare for disasters. Aside from the loss of life and property damage they cause, disaster experiences are a double-edge sword. While they may encourage people to prepare for future disasters, not all disaster experiences will create enough impact to shift people towards this decision. Rather, the need to prepare for future natural disasters depends on the intensity of the original difficulty and the loss experienced. For instance, Onuma et al. (2017) documented that some identified disaster-prone communities are even less prepared than areas not at risk of disaster, even despite their experiences. However, Kirschenbaum et al. (2017) report that living in high-risk areas makes residents more prepared for disasters. It is clear that the geographical make-up of the Philippines makes information dissemination one of the major challenges for DRRM, and that being an archipelago of 7100+ islands makes communication difficult for its population, as do issues of local topography. More information is provided to urban communities in comparison to rural communities because of the proximity and accessibility of the target community to the information source and media outlets (Sujarwoto & Tampubolon, 2016; Sumaylo & Salas, 2015). These outcomes are significantly different when we talk about rural and geographically disadvantaged communities, such as those living in areas separated from the mainland by a body of water, or in hard-to-reach places isolated by transportation problems, high incidence of poverty, and the presence of vulnerable sectors such as indigenous or differently abled populations, and senior citizens, for example (Department of Health, 2018; Sumaylo & Salas, 2015; Sumaylo et al., 2016). At the structural level, the top-down framework of information dissemination and its localisation of scientific information at the community level is problematic when essential (and necessarily equitable) top-down messages are being presented in the English language. Under these conditions, this disaster research tradition proposes a bottom-up framework of information dissemination that utilises multimodal approaches in disaster risk communication (Head, 2007). As a development communication practitioner working in the field, it is my observation that decentralisation and localisation can be achieved if enough opportunity is given to people to participate in resiliency building (Head, 2007; Wamil, 2010). Given this review on the communicative conditions in disaster communication in the Philippines, there may still be a gap in research regarding the actions and needs of those who do not have access to a plethora of communication modes and tools, not because of their choosing but due to their socioeconomic condition and geographical locations. Since the NDRRMP is cascaded to the community level from the national government, there may be nuances in this holistic approach that make the community feel like end users. I would suggest that, in the context of DRRM, rather than looking into communities in this end-user frame, research may need to examine communities not as one unit but as the composition of individuals that make up that unit of society, and who are the actual end users of transmitted information.

2.3 Community Engagement as Information Access Point

41

2.3 Community Engagement as Information Access Point Literature shows that strategic access to pre-disaster risk information gradually builds community resilience (Burnside-Lawry & Akama, 2013; Rogers et al., 2016; Teo et al., 2018). In 2013, Judy Burnside-Lawry and Yoko Akama pushed for communication strategies and resiliency-building studies. As well as the development of suitable methods, they also identified a need to align the relationship between communication and resilience. As Houston and Buzzanell (2018, p. 26) posit, ‘resilience is constructed by citizens, media systems, organisations, and governments in everyday talk and mediated communication’. This composite picture of communication activities/sources suggests that a multidirectional approach may be better suited to constructing resilience and disaster preparedness than a one-way, managerial, and top-down approach (Head, 2007). Government and non-government sectors worldwide utilise community engagement as a strategy for building disaster-resilient communities, and it is given significant importance in most emergency management plans (Australian Emergency Management Institute, 2013; NDRRMC, 2018). In addition, using different communication modes and tools allows individuals to choose their information source. For example, social media is one of the communication modes currently under investigation for its capacity to deliver quick information, albeit as long as the communication infrastructure remains online to deliver signals to those in the disaster zone. Tandoc and Takahashi (2017) observe the significance of this mode of communication in post-disaster recovery, noting that it allows survivors to group together. Clarity and frequency have been noted to affect people’s responses to disaster-related messages (Mileti & O’Brien, 1992). In terms of Burnside-Lawry and Akama’s alignment between communication and building resilience, however, a community engagement strategy that harnesses multiple communication modes and tools is potentially about more than enabling and transmitting clear and frequent messages; through its ushering in knowledge building and sharing it may scaffold new action and activity. Community engagement strategies also rely on smooth relations and swift transactions between emergency management service providers and local communities (Liu et al., 2013). The planning, design, production, and implementation of community engagement strategies depend on these agencies’ position concerning their target audience. For instance, the multiple communication modes of traditional media (e.g., radio and television) strongly influence people’s responses to crises (Liu et al., 2013). However, it is argued that local culture and practices should be considered in relation to these activities, especially if the agency intends to use them as a community engagement strategy for building resiliency (Baybay & Hindmarsh, 2019). Strengthening the community through capacity-building activities to create a culture of resilience (Tolentino, 2007) requires agencies to communicate disaster-related information to understand their current positions and those of their end users. Given this review, I argue that community engagement is more than a public relations program; rather, it can be both framed and used as a communication strategy. Doing so, however, does require understanding of the multiple concepts involved in

42

2 When Information is Critical and Access Becomes Difficult

community engagement as it is utilised in community-based disaster risk reduction and management (CB-DRRM) programs. In pre-disaster communication, the use of community engagement as a communication tool in CB-DRRM ensures multimodal communication approaches, as it takes into consideration and responds to the needs of the sociopolitical and geographical contexts of individuals. In order to assure a proactive citizenry in regard to disaster preparedness, it is necessary to dissect the various concepts involved in community engagement. These are community, vulnerability, and resilience. The next three sections examine each of these concepts in detail, and individually and collectively they allow the communicative role of engagement in CB-DRRM to be identified.

2.3.1 Community: A Question of Who or What The notion of community does not solely mean a location or a group of people. Rather, a community is the balanced relationship between the place and the people (Delanty, 2018). Similarly, Bowen et al. (2010) state that the ‘who’ aspect of community vanishes unless it is placed together with its geographic aspect. This review wants to highlight the significance of a situation where a community of people utilises community engagement as a communication tool within a defined context. Situating the people within their context upholds the significance of their contextual, individual experiences and capacities, and offers a counterpoint to one-way, top-down hierarchical communication processes, which arguably implicitly ignore these aspects (Titz et al., 2018). Community, as a concept, must be one of the most contested in the social sciences (Jewkes & Murcott, 1996), if not the most misused and misunderstood. In this regard, as early as 1919, Mary Parker Follett, considered to be ahead of her time by highlighting the significance of horizontal structures and social networks (Martin & Klenke, 2016), discussed that a community is a process of integration, and argued that looking at community as process allows recognition of the interplay between freedom and law/rules (Follett, 1919), discussed that a community is a process of integration, and argued that looking at community as process allows recognition of the interplay between freedom and law/rules (Follett, 1919). However, she emphasised that ‘integration’ does not necessarily mean absorption or fusion of individual traits. Rather, community is composed of ‘wishes’ or actions and suggested that these ‘wishes unite in a working whole’ (p. 576). It is clear in Follett’s definition of community that the roles and actions of an individual happen or are situated in a specific setting. For Follett, a community is created by a conglomeration of individual personalities, purposes, wills, and loyalties. There have been multiple attempts to define what a community is and/or what constitutes a community. Hillery (1955), a sociology professor, consolidated 94 definitions of community, but the only common theme among these definitions is the presence of people. The conceptualisation process and its endpoint vary depending on who does the defining and how the definition is operationalised. Definitions in the

2.3 Community Engagement as Information Access Point

43

1990s suggested the importance of membership in definition, that is, that what constituted a community depended upon whether you were part of it or not. For Jewkes and Murcott (1996), this exercise of conceptualising community meant considering the fundamental difference in the interpretation of members and non-members. Critically, they identify that the development of the concept of community participation developed separately from the ‘discussion of community in the literatures of analytic social commentary’ (p. 555). In recent years, literature has evolved in its view that a sense of community equates to nationalism; rather, the concept of community goes beyond its political inclinations (Delanty, 2018). The presence of communities and their individual cultural, social, and political realities is rather a critique of and an alternative to current views of ‘society’ as a conglomerate whole—highlighting the tension between unity and life experiences. For Gerard Delanty, community is an example of an experienced solidarity, that of a world of meaning, belonging, and everyday life. Much earlier, the sociologist Brint (2001) had already argued that defining a community could be partitioned into four by aspects of interaction: context of interaction, motivation for interaction, rate of interaction, and frequency of interaction (vis-à-vis mediated communication). Defining community in relation to using community engagement in pre-disaster communication requires translating the concept of community into action—inherent in the word engagement is the notion that the community agrees to enter into an agreement to do something. And certainly, the idea of engaging communities specifically in pre-disaster communication necessarily introduces another (external) party into the communicative activity, namely governments, non-government groups, and other institutions. Some literature has noted the potential for using the concept of community engagement as a means for governments to merely transfer responsibility about an issue to a community, rather than as a means to create a structure or frame for working with a community about that issue (Titz et al., 2018). In contrast, community engagement aims to eliminate passive actors/beneficiaries and create a connected, proactive citizenry. In the context of community engagement, too, one must understand the nature of the community one wants to engage with, making the observation of Jewkes and Murcott (1996) valuable in highlighting that the perspective of ‘outsiders’ to the community, no matter what their physical and social distance may be from that community, may be different from that of insiders. Jewkes and Murcott expanded on the work of Lee and Newby (1983), who had proposed three factors that define a community: geography, interaction, and identity (Bowen et al., 2010). This expanded criteria means that people living in one area or region can be considered a community, and yet allows that this geographic community also cradles smaller communities that are based on people’s individual identities, interactions, and social relationships. In support of this view, Andres (1988) argues that a person’s individual points of view and decisions are influenced by her/his familial and social relations, and this idea of social capital has proved to be beneficial in disaster management in terms of its bonding, bridging, and linking functions (Aldrich & Meyer, 2015). Thus, beyond issues of geography and social relationships, community builds and provides identity.

44

2 When Information is Critical and Access Becomes Difficult

As such, a group of people who share the same beliefs and experiences can be considered a community, and community-as-identity is not confined to issues of geographic boundaries or social relationships (Bowen et al., 2010). In the Philippines, community is commonly defined in terms of geographic location and governmental function. The smallest unit of Philippine governance is called a barangay or barrio (village; Romani, 1956; Zamora, 1967). There are areas called sitios, which comprise a cluster of households, but this term has no legal status or any formal governmental function and appears only in village governance (Romani, 1956). In exploring a definition of community for this study, I initially subscribed to a geographical definition and focussed on villages. These villages also belong to bigger communities (municipal and provincial). This initial engagement with community as a geographical conceptualisation enabled me to identify field sites that are classified as GIDA, and the geographic conceptualisation was necessary because of Sujarwoto and Tampubolon’s (2016) argument that spatial isolation results in social inequalities. This initial definition expanded as I considered experiences (Delanty, 2018) and interactions (Brint, 2001) essential in defining community. Then, as I situated experiences and interactions in the context of community engagement targeting GIDA communities, I needed to capture both village and organisational needs and concerns in this regard. I thus had to expand my conceptualisation of community to include issues of people’s practices, roles, and social relationships (Andres, 1988). Given that by this time I had conceptualised community beyond its geography and inclusive of its experiences and context, I finally decided to endorse Follett’s (1919, p. 579) classic definition, that a community carries its own ‘personality, power, freedom, and purpose’; this definition transcends both geographic space and the time period in which it was written. Its four characteristics also encompass what Delanty (2018) posits as the overall goal of a community—a sense of belonging and meaning. As such, an individual’s personality gives them social power to freely fulfil their perceived purpose. Defining community is significant for this study in terms of its flow to issues of utilising community engagement in pre-disaster communication. This research deals with vulnerable communities facing risks. As such, context, including peoples’ experiences and capacities (Titz et al., 2018), and community partitions, through levels of interaction (Brint, 2001), play an important role in understanding the four characteristics of a community, that is, personality, power, freedom, and purpose (Follett, 1919). This study investigated the presence and interplay of these characteristics of a community in villages classified as GIDA.

2.3 Community Engagement as Information Access Point

45

2.3.2 Vulnerability Relates More to Risk Than to Disaster Risk Communication Vulnerability undeniably relates to risk, and understanding an individual’s vulnerability necessarily turns focus to identifying the risks they may face. The UNDRR defines risk as. the potential loss of life, injury, or destroyed or damaged assets which could occur to a system, society or a community in a specific period of time, determined probabilistically as a function of hazard, exposure, vulnerability and capacity (2021, para. 1).

Living in a geographically isolated location increases human vulnerability to the risk or exposure to danger (i.e., potential for disaster) that is brought about by meteorological or hydrological hazards. One reason for this is the reduced access to information that occurs due to the remoteness of some geographic locations. Sujarwoto and Tampubolon (2016) observe that distance from the information source results in access issues, and in the field, this problem can in fact be exacerbated for people in GIDA communities when they go in and out of their community to other places (i.e., signal access is worse outside their regular community spaces). This is the result of unequal infrastructure development that directly affects the communicative conditions of these areas. Unfortunately, communities that are marginalised or underrepresented in current DRRM literature are often classic examples of vulnerable people who may inherently already be at greater risk of various dangers, including natural calamities. There are several segments of both urban (Marlowe et al., 2018; Sandoval & Sarmiento, 2020; Sujarwoto & Tampubolon, 2016) and rural populations that are underrepresented in the DRRM discourse. Often, these unheard voices are those of marginalised, traditional societies (Gaillard, 2006) living in precarious conditions. Communities situated in geographical isolation are an example; their situation is often beyond choice—if they had the means, many would live elsewhere.2 In the Philippines, these communities often live on unproductive, hazard-prone land and constantly face security issues not least because of their experiences with communication infrastructure and the terrain. These living and economic conditions turn any natural hazard into a disaster (Cannon, 1994), a reality that gives credence to the importance of disaster preparedness in risk reduction and management efforts. Cannon (1994) states that a person or group is considered vulnerable when their livelihood, self-protection, and social protection are under threat. I grounded this study on the argument that vulnerability when facing natural hazards is caused by unequal access to resources (Cannon, 1994; Gaillard, 2006; Sandoval & Sarmiento, 2020; Sujarwoto & Tampubolon, 2016). The UNDRR (2021) defines vulnerability as ‘the conditions determined by physical, social, economic, and environmental factors or processes which increase the susceptibility of an individual, a community, assets or systems to the impacts of hazards’ (para. 1). This inequality is variously attributed 2

Source: Anecdotal statements made during informal conversations with government officials while seeking approval to conduct my study in their area.

46

2 When Information is Critical and Access Becomes Difficult

to class, gender, and ethnicity (Cannon, 1994) or to overall political, socioeconomic, and demographic factors (Gaillard et al., 2007). Other factors such as social power (French & Raven, 1959), geographic location (Sujarwoto & Tampubolon, 2016), and even prior experiences (Onuma et al., 2017; Ruin et al., 2007) also contribute to the vulnerability of an individual. Terry Cannon (1994) highlights three factors that indicate vulnerability to natural hazards: (a) when livelihood resilience will be impacted, (b) when the individual’s health and the accessible healthcare system may be compromised, and (c) if the overall disaster preparedness of the individual or group is poor. The underlying commonality that both generates and maintains these vulnerabilities is social inequality, either of income, resources, power, status, social capital, and/or social inclusion/exclusion (Warwick-Booth, 2019). Clearly, inequality is also contextbased, so that even a multiple positivist measure does not cover the entire picture of vulnerability: Resident within each of Cannon’s three factors of vulnerability are human issues that reach beyond quantifying (for example) how many attended the training or if posters were put up in all government schools. As Warwick-Booth (2019) argues, inequality is both subjective and relational and reaches past the individual to the social: ‘Social inequality results in many negative outcomes, both at the level of the individual experiencing the inequality but also at the level of society’ (p. 25). Reducing the possibility/potential of hazards turning into disasters means addressing and reducing vulnerability and inequality, but in context of these complex factors, this is no small task. For example, Mishra et al. (2010) argue that preparing for and reacting to disasters is both genealogically and economically grounded. In this regard, it is common in the Philippines to see news stories about people refusing to leave their assets (so as not to lose them) despite the risk to their lives of remaining with them during hazard events. They may also refuse to evacuate because of place attachment (Teo et al., 2018). Indigenous peoples may remain in their community areas in spite of perceiving the high risk to their lives (Zheng et al., 2019) because it is their ancestral land and the government has awarded them these properties. Place attachment is also an issue of preparedness. In times of hazard, people in vulnerable communities often choose their actions in relationship to this issue and thus suffer more when impacted by hazards, arguably because they are not specifically prepared in relation to their inherent priorities (Teo et al., 2018). While this highlights that the issue of place attachment may need to be a concern of local DRRM councils who implement the National Plan in these communities, it is also a specific example of the link between vulnerability and disaster preparedness. It stands to reason that if government officials in the area were already aware of this problem, their system of (for example) evacuation could consider and address the reasons why people are attached to their homes. Reading the context more deeply, however, shows that not only do these communities consider disaster preparedness the least of their priorities (Lindell & Perry, 2004), as well, their geographic, social, cultural, and economic isolation often means they exhibit low levels of extended social capital and only consider their family and friends as credible sources of information, regardless of the communication mode or tools used (Teo et al., 2018). In this regard, it could be argued

2.3 Community Engagement as Information Access Point

47

that an exploration of the untapped potential of the elderly, themselves a vulnerable population (Cornell et al., 2012), could support community engagement for DRRM, particularly since this sector of the community holds a wealth of experiences (Brint, 2001; Delanty, 2018). In recent years, in response to the significance of these issues of community in managing disasters, DRRM councils in the Philippines have pushed for communitybased disaster preparedness strategies to address the needs of vulnerable communities living in geographically isolated areas experiencing socioeconomic inequalities. While the overall objective is to build a self-sufficient and resilient community in times of natural calamities, one of the biggest challenges for DRRM councils worldwide is to ensure relevance in communicating this information to people (Burnside-Lawry & Akama, 2013; Howard et al., 2017; Mileti & O’Brien, 1992). It is not enough, for example, to equip people with survival tips and consider them less vulnerable and more resilient; it is also necessary to increase their awareness of the risk by providing them with information about how and why these natural hazards occur so that they can find ways to lessen their vulnerability. I agree with Adger (2006), that importance should be given to the resilience of social–ecological systems by understanding how these two complement each other. We can only say that a community is truly resilient if vulnerability is lessened once information equilibrium is visibly achieved and results in proactive actions from the people. However, the GIDA context already makes people vulnerable, and thus, concentrating on solving problems relating to their primary vulnerability takes precedence for them over preparing for the risks they might experience when facing natural hazards. Maslow’s (1943) Hierarchy of Needs, supports this—physiological needs take precedence over safety needs. Thus, the immediate, everyday physiological needs people experience in their GIDA context need to be solved first; as such, issues of disaster preparedness and the effects of possible future hazards are not seen as immediate. In summary, this review suggests that vulnerability relates more to risk itself than it does to disaster risk communication. Access to relevant information, or the lack of it, may create more risks to a group of people who are, by geographic and socioeconomic context, already vulnerable.

2.3.3 What is Community Resilience? The previous section unpacks vulnerability as being in part a result of the inability of interconnected systems (government, infrastructure, media, community, individuals) to prepare citizens for appropriate action when facing natural hazards. In this regard, Proag (2014) observes that resiliency can be found in hard forms (institutional and infrastructural strength) and soft forms (systemic ability for recovery after impact). However, in keeping with the value this study places on the complexities of individuals in communities, I argue that the interconnections between the concepts of vulnerability and resiliency go beyond those of a particular system or organisation.

48

2 When Information is Critical and Access Becomes Difficult

Both concepts are composed of the knowledge, activities, decisions, and experiences of individuals, each with their own unique set of vulnerabilities and capacity for recovery vis-à-vis their resiliency (2018b; Spialek & Houston, 2018a). Therefore, this study suggests that a weak or resilient system is a by-product of the individual weaknesses or strengths that exist in its citizenry. This assertion can be examined using Brint’s (2001) framework, in which the definition of community is partitioned into four aspects of interaction: context, motivation, rate, and number of face-to-face or mediated interactions (vis-à-vis mediated communication). I extend Brint’s argument by pointing out that one aspect may positively or negatively affect the other three aspects. For instance, in relation to the specific issue of communication access (which has already been established as a factor that increases a person’s vulnerability), motivation for and rate of interaction in this regard are both impacted by the community’s context. In GIDA communities, a lack of access to communication infrastructure results in minimal interaction between people within an area; it also dictates what level of interaction they can have with communities outside their area. In this sense, Brint’s framework highlights that it is the specific experiences and instances of community life that comprise people’s vulnerability and resilience, making understanding and addressing issues of resilience a matter of attending to the way people and context are bound together. The UNDRR defines resilience as: the ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate, adapt to, transform and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions through risk management (2020, para. 1).

In the context of this definition and Brint’s framework, resiliency can be seen as systemic (geographic) and as a characteristic of an entire community. As such, there is value in exploring resilience as a function of community and further dissecting the concept of community resilience. In the specific context of a GIDA community (local DRRM council and GIDA community members) in the Philippines, it is the individual and collective experiences of these individuals that either make or break its resiliency in times of crisis. However, empirical information that comprehensively explores the ‘community experience’ in GIDA contexts is currently missing from literature, and this forms a barrier to genuinely and effectively localising CB-DRRM plans and programs for boosting resiliency in these communities in the Philippines. In Indonesia, research by Sujarwoto and Tampubolon (2016) documents that despite being close to the information source, people living in urban environments experience both spatial inequalities and a digital divide. Translating this result to the context of GIDA communities, which are geographically isolated from their primary information source, it seems probable spatial inequalities and information access problems could only increase, further hampering the potential development of resilience. Paton et al. (2017) emphasise that community-based discussions positively influence disaster preparedness; these authors suggest the value of avenues that foster interaction and communication. In further research in Indonesia, Partelow (2020) notes that such interactions help build social capital and strengthen resilience, so that

2.3 Community Engagement as Information Access Point

49

both become shaped by community experiences and actions. Similarly, Ramalho (2019) stresses the need to understand the sociospatial manifestations of power and gender in community-based resiliency building in the Philippines. The challenge in engaging vulnerable populations (i.e., GIDA communities) lies in their social, cultural, linguistic, and economic isolation (Teo et al., 2018) and their situated propensity to disaster preparedness as least priority (Lindell & Perry, 2004). Spialek et al. (2016) simplify the UNDRR definition by breaking it into four domains: connection and caring, resources, transformative potential, and disaster management. These authors expound that responsibility for these four domains can be attributed to organisations, but that they also relate to individual actors, with their own set of experiences, skills, information processing, and decision-making. When combining the definition of community (see Sect. 1.3.1) and resilience, it can be deduced that building resilience at the community level does not only mean developing community leaders and community-based first responders. Rather, it also means building and strengthening the connection and interaction between the government and the people (Titz et al., 2018). Resilience-building at the community level arguably begins with the participation of the people in planning and decision-making, a bottom-up process of involvement that aims to form a sense of accountability for the issues in the people they concern (Head, 2007). Creating a resilient community, therefore, means engaging with its people (Titz et al., 2018) by providing opportunities for interaction that go beyond geolocation and dig deeper into the segmentation of the population in an individual location (Titz et al., 2018). In this sense, when combined with resilience, the definition of community still upholds its conceptualisation as relating to geography, interaction, and identity (see Sect. 1.3.1). However, attempts to engage communities have so far comprised outsiders planning and implementing a program from their perspective and expecting or hoping it would work at the local level (the studies of Gaillard, 2006 and Wamil, 2010 are examples of this). In this regard, efficacy may depend on an outsider taking steps to consider, for example, how various ethnic groups understand and prepare for disaster. Knowing the target audience is necessary in terms of such aspects as overcoming language barriers and avoiding mismatched cultural perceptions (Teo et al., 2019). This is when community engagement as a communication tool in building resiliency can come into play, since its premise is grounded in knowing the audience. In a practical sense, building resilient communities involves knowledge creation and its subsequent reuse within the community (Chua, 2007) through drills and workshops (Tang & Feng, 2018); the intention of these events is that the simulated experiences people get from participating in them get added to their prior disaster experience, and the process contributes to improved (informed) decision-making when people are preparing for the next natural calamity. In this regard, however, people’s prior experience and cultural backgrounds form an intrinsic part of their presentation to this mode of engagement. Plans and actions can be tailored to fit the needs of the message recipients, which also means acknowledgement and consideration of the fact that people have different motivations for participating in their local resilience-building workshop (Rashman & Hartley, 2002).

50

2 When Information is Critical and Access Becomes Difficult

This review highlights the need for more studies to investigate the experiences of geographically isolated and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities regarding pre-disaster communication, particularly as cultural and social limitations continue to affect disaster preparedness strategies in Asia, Africa, and Oceania (Ayeb-Karlsson et al., 2019). In the Philippines, research by Ayeb-Karlsson et al. (2019) identifies that messages should be understandable to the target audience so they will be taken seriously. These authors also found that in Bangladesh and Nepal, cultural and religious reasonings explain disasters, including issues of prevention. As described in Sect. 1.3.1, a community is comprised of individual custodians of information and knowledge that has been gained through their past experiences. Specifically, studies that investigate multiple communication conditions for disaster preparedness, outside the context of emergency management (pre-, during, and postevent), should be given attention; arguably, less will be needed within the emergency management context if people are already equipped with knowledge before natural calamities. I also advocate for studies on how modes and tools of communication within the community engagement communication strategy can answer issues of multiple contexts and demographic variations. A framework that uses community engagement as communication tool can shift emergency management from a purely reactive focus to a preventive one. In this study, the idea of building community resiliency is bound to the three aspects highlighted in the definition of what a community is. Community as geography means resilience through infrastructure. Community as interaction means resilience through community problem-solving. Community-as-identity means resilience through equipping individuals to contribute to the group. Resiliencebuilding puts into action the key elements of community. Once these elements are strengthened, proactive pre-disaster preparations can be achieved.

2.3.4 The Rise of Community Engagement as a Pre-disaster Communication Strategy In keeping with the scope of the strategies it uses, community engagement utilises concepts from sociology, development communication, and public relations (to name a few) to achieve its deliverables (Li & Feng, 2021). As sociology centres its investigation on the people involved in the communication process (Brint, 2001; Delanty, 2018), and public relations utilises engagement as a way of image building, examining the behavioural, cognitive, and affective levels of engagement (Johnston, 2018; Li & Feng, 2021), development communication concerns itself with participatory paradigms in achieving social change (Mefalopulos, 2008). Recently, the field of DRRM, specifically pre-disaster communication, has begun to use community engagement to educate people and build community resilience (Foster, 2013; Redshaw et al., 2017; Teo et al., 2018). Because of this interdisciplinary usage,

2.3 Community Engagement as Information Access Point

51

community engagement is usually specifically defined according to the field where it is used, and each field highlights its own aspect of the concept. In this study, I am using community engagement through the lens of development communication because my intention is to give voice to those who are marginalised because of their geographic location and socioeconomic standing. The significance of situating this study in the field of development communication lies in the documented push and pull dynamics between understanding local contexts and extrapolate this understanding into the global setting (Servaes & Lie, 2013). Servaes and Lie (2013) and Quebral (2012) acknowledge that communication for development and social change looks at human existence beyond quantifiable measures of productivity and development. Communication for development emphasises both community participation and the decentralisation of information, both of which are seen as keys in achieving a true participatory communication (Manyozo, 2012). It also gives importance to unpacking differences rather than reaching homogeneity (Lie & Servaes, 2015) through qualitative investigations (Servaes & Lie, 2013) as opposed to a positivist approach. Development communication practitioner and academic Manyozo (2012) discusses how community engagement, often referred to as ‘grassroots communication’ emphasises the ‘basic needs’ approach (Willis, 2005)—an approach I strongly believe is beneficial to GIDA communities. This approach was coined because it emphasises the basic needs of people (food, clothing, shelter, etc., and other qualitative needs like safety), and it can be achieved when communication and governance are decentralised and devolved to local communities (Willis, 2005). Quebral (2012) posits that the concern of development communication is to address the multiple factors that threaten equality and information access necessary in knowledge building. People living in geographically isolated locations who experience socioeconomic disadvantage experience inequalities because of their lack of access to these basic needs. In the Philippines, development communication is defined as ‘the science of human communication linked to the transitioning of communities from poverty in all its forms to a dynamic state of overall growth that fosters equity and the advancement of individual potential’ (Quebral, 2012, p. 63). Hence, the conceptualisation and definition of community engagement in this study are grounded in development communication because its goal is achieving a certain level of social change within a community (Mefalopulos, 2008). Why is engaging communities significant in building resilient communities? Engaging the community in disaster risk reduction is essential since the objective of the NDRRMP (also referred to as the National Plan in this research) is to make disaster preparation community-based. This includes identifying risks in the area and how to prepare for such risks. Community engagement is defined by literature as the inclusion of the community in the decision-making process (Dufty, 2011) in matters that have substantial impact to them, such as preparing for disasters and increasing the resiliency of individuals to natural threats. Engagement involves stakeholders working together to create a collaborative environment, which is essential in building and expanding personal social networks and developing mutual trust (Australian Emergency Management Institute, 2013). According to Teo et al. (2018),

52

2 When Information is Critical and Access Becomes Difficult

engaging communities assists in ‘establishing effective and trusted ways to disseminate information, strengthen government-community partnerships and break down sociocultural barriers that hinder disaster risk reduction and management processes’ (p. 38). By focussing on the people at risk, governments can enhance the design and approach of their pre-disaster communication efforts, including preparedness activities and warning systems. As stipulated in the NDRRMP (2018), local DRRM councils are encouraged to design their own communication tools, including early warning systems, giving them an opportunity to focus on the needs of people at risk. However, as Sujarwoto and Tampubolon (2016) argue, even those close to the information source (i.e., geographically close to the central government) can still experience access issues. Paton et al. (2017) observe this phenomenon in the imbalance between the rapid development of warning systems and people’s capacity to respond to these warnings. These authors emphasise the importance of understanding people’s grasp of the threat and their local beliefs about approaches to building resilient communities before the actual design and implementation of such programs. Their respondents also identified positively with community-based discussions in influencing their risk acceptance, which they agreed motivated them to prepare ahead. The significance of early warning systems is nullified if a community’s capacity to respond has not been scaffolded. Why is there a gap in the manner of implementation? In cases of pre-disaster communication efforts and early warning systems, the experiences of minority groups are often set aside (Teo et al., 2018), proximity to the source of information does not guarantee access to it (Sujarwoto & Tampubolon, 2016), and technologically driven plans do not always solve the communication problem (Paton et al., 2017). If information retention and disaster preparation are the end goal, then community dynamics, lifestyle, and cultural and social norms should be considered in the design and implementation of community engagement programs. Teo et al. (2018) posit that engaging communities is one way of promoting collective responsibility, as it instils the idea that everyone in the community will reap what everyone sows in creating a safe environment. In their case study in Logan City, Queensland, Australia, Teo et al. (2018) documented that culturally and linguistically diverse populations seek assistance from their social networks (family and friends) more than from the local government. However, this shift to shared responsibility has to be managed carefully: It can also be perceived as a way for governments to avoid accountability and pass the burden and blame to vulnerable populations that prefer using their social networks for information when facing natural hazards. Head (2007) warns that the state can and will be able to abuse the concept of community participation and engagement as a way to outsource their own role/function in community communication, share blame, and promote policies that reduce government accountability. Another issue involves the tacit implementation of an effectively governmentcentred ‘community engagement’ program. This kind of program is one that does not hold true to the definition of community engagement. It is not a true reflection of community engagement if agencies such as governments use their own controlled processes to shape outcomes so that they are favourable towards the implementing

2.4 Summary

53

agency (Head, 2007). The concept of engaging communities should allow people to exercise their personal choices in protecting themselves and their families (Teo et al., 2018). Community-based engagement programs begin with the needs of the community and assist people with contextually and individually situated issues of risk acceptance and their inclination to prepare ahead (Paton et al., 2017).

2.4 Summary This chapter has discussed two major themes related to this study, access to predisaster information and the use of community engagement in disaster preparedness, with the objective of supporting the overall research objective, which is to investigate how governments engaged geographically isolated and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities in pre-disaster communication. This review found that current practice in disaster communication in general, and in pre-disaster communication specifically, is multimodal. Multimodality means the use of multiple communication modes and tools to transmit information to end users, but this strategy does not always adhere to the multiple contexts in which it is applied. Instead, this review describes that, despite having multiple sources of information, access to these tools is limited, especially in GIDA communities. That is why I call for the decentralisation of disaster communication, to expand its reach; decentralising the communication process means people, or the end users of information, are able to participate in the decision-making process. They will then have the chance to select the communication modes and tools that work best in their own context. Since decentralisation of disaster communication demands the participation of people, the final section of this review has provided an investigation into community engagement strategy. The significance of this strategy sits firmly on the background of understanding provided by the earlier discussion of the relevant issues of community, vulnerability, risk, and resilience. Community can be operationalised as geography, interaction, and identity. Combining community with resilience allows these same three concepts to be upheld. The need to be resilient is grounded on people’s vulnerabilities when facing natural hazards. The impact of hazardous events to GIDA communities becomes greater because of issues individuals in these communities experience in accessing pre-disaster information, as well as their ability to use the communication modes and tools currently available. This investigation of pre-disaster and disaster communication and community engagement methodologies leads to a discussion of several theoretical underpinnings covering current frameworks of community engagement and its precursors that may aid in the data analysis of this study. The next chapter thus reviews the current frameworks of community engagement and its precursors that are used in this study.

54

2 When Information is Critical and Access Becomes Difficult

References Abdeen, F. N., Fernando, T., Kulatunga, U., Hettige, S., & Ranasinghe, K. D. A. (2022). Challenges in multi-agency collaboration in disaster management: a Sri Lankan perspective. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 62, 1–12. Adger, W. N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 268–281. Akama, Y., Cooper, V., & Mees, B. (2016). Beyond transmission: an analysis of communication frameworks in Australian bushfire preparedness. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 7(1), 49–62. Aldrich, D. P., & Meyer, M. A. (2015). Social capital and community resilience. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(2), 254–269. Andres, T. Q. (1988). Community development: A manual. New Day Publishers. Arreza, C. M., & Sumaylo, D. J. (2015). Localization of IEC materials of carrascal LDRRMO through disaster management training. In International conference on communication/culture and the sustainable development goals (CCSDG). Challenges for a new generation. Chiang Mai. Australian Emergency Management Institute. (2013). National strategy for disaster resilience: Community engagement framework (handbook 6). Australian Emergency Management Institute. Viewed November 1, 2021, from https://d2kpbjo3hey01t.cloudfront.net/uploads/2018/10/Nat ional-Strategy-for-Disaster-Resilience-Community-Engagement-Framework....pdf Ayeb-Karlsson, S., Kniveton, D., Cannon, T., van der Geest, K., Ahmed, I., Derrington, E. M., Florano, E., & Opondo, D. O. (2019). I will not go, I cannot go: Cultural and social limitations of disaster preparedness in Asia, Africa, and Oceania. Disasters, 43(4), 752–770. Basolo, V., Steinberg, L. J., & Gant, S. (2017). Hurricane threat in Florida: Examining household perceptions, beliefs, and actions. Environmental Hazards, 16(3), 253–275. Baybay, C. S., & Hindmarsh, R. (2019). Resilience in the Philippines through effective community engagement. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 34(1), 65–70. Bolin, B., & Kurtz, L. C. (2018). Race, class, ethnicity, and disaster vulnerability. In H. Rodríguez, W. Donner, & J. E. Trainor (Eds.), Handbook of disaster research (2nd ed., pp. 181–203). Springer. Bowen, F., Newenham-Kahindi, A., & Herremans, I. (2010). When suits meet roots: The antecedents and consequences of community engagement strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(2), 297– 318. Brint, S. (2001). Gemeinschaft revisited: A critique and reconstruction of the community concept. Sociological Theory, 19(1), 1–23. Burnside-Lawry, J., & Akama, Y. (2013). Communication research needs for building societal disaster resilience. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 28(4), 29–35. Cannon, T. (1994). Vulnerability analysis and the explanation of “natural” disasters. Disasters, Development and Environment, 1, 13–30. Carley, K. M., Malik, M., Landwehr, P. M., Pfeffer, J., & Kowalchuck, M. (2016). Crowd sourcing disaster management: The complex nature of Twitter usage in Padang Indonesia. Safety Science, 90, 48–61. Chandler, D., & Munday, R. (2016). A dictionary of media and communication (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. Chua, A. Y. K. (2007). A tale of two hurricanes: Comparing Katrina and Rita through a knowledge management perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(10), 1518–1528. Comfort, L. K. (2007). Crisis management in hindsight: Cognition, communication, coordination, and control. Public Administration Review, 67, 189–197. Cornell, V. J., Cusack, L., & Arbon, P. (2012). Older people and disaster preparedness: A literature review. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 27(3), 49–53. David, C., Ong, J., & Legara, E. (2016). Tweeting supertyphoon Haiyan: Evolving functions of Twitter during and after a disaster even. PLoS ONE, 11(3), e0150190.

References

55

Delanty, G. (2018). Community (3rd ed.). Routledge. Department of Health. (2018). Geographically isolated and disadvantaged areas. Viewed November 17, 2021, from https://www.doh.gov.ph/node/1153 Dufty, N. (2011). Engagement or education? Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 26(3), 35–39. Dufty, N. (2016). Twitter turns ten: Its use to date in disaster management. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 31(2), 50. Follett, M. P. (1919). Community is a process. The Philosophical Review, 28(6), 576–588. Foster, H. (2013). Interactive hazard preparation strategy efficacy: Considerations for future community engagement programs. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 28(1), 8–14. French, J., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research. Gaillard, J. C. (2006). Traditional societies in the face of natural hazards: The 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption and the Aetas of the Philippines. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 24(1), 5–43. Gaillard, J. C., Liamzon, C., & Villanueva, J. (2007). Natural’ disaster? A retrospect into the causes of the late-2004 typhoon disaster in Eastern Luzon, Philippines. Environmental Hazards, 7(4), 257–270. Garcia, A. T. (2010). Installing early warning system along the Agos River in the municipalities of Infanta and General Nakar. In L. P. Cruz, E. M. Ferrer, & M. C. Pagaduan (Eds.), Building disaster resilient communities: Stories and lessons from the Philippines (pp. 9–22). College of Social Work and Community Development, University of the Philippines. Güss, C. D., & Pangan, O. I. (2004). Cultural influences on disaster management: A case study of the Mt Pinatubo eruption. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 22(2), 31–58. Harrison, S. E., Potter, S. H., Prasanna, R., Doyle, E. E. H., & Johnston, D. (2022). “Sharing is caring”: A socio-technical analysis of the sharing and governing of hydrometeorological hazard, impact, vulnerability, and exposure data in Aotearoa New Zealand. Progress in Disaster Science, 13, 1–13. Head, B. W. (2007). Community engagement: Participation on whose terms? Australian Journal of Political Science, 42(3), 441–454. Hillery, G. A. (1955). Definitions of community: Areas of agreement. Rural Sociology, 20(2), 111–123. Houston, J. B., & Buzzanell, P. M. (2018). Communication and resilience: Concluding thoughts and key issues for future research. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 46(1), 26–27. Howard, A., Agllias, K., Bevis, M., & Blakemore, T. (2017). “They’ll tell us when to evacuate”: The experiences and expectations of disaster-related communication in vulnerable groups. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 22, 139–146. Illner, P. (2018). “The locals do it better?”: The strange victory of Occupy Sandy. In R. Bell & R. Ficociello (Eds.), Eco culture: Disaster, narrative, discourse (pp. 49–72). Lexington Books. Janssen, M., Lee, J., Bharosa, N., & Cresswell, A. (2009). Advances in multi-agency disaster management: Key elements in disaster research. Information Systems Frontiers, 12(1), 1–7. Jewkes, R., & Murcott, A. (1996). Meanings of community. Social Science & Medicine, 43(4), 555–563. Johnston, K. A. (2018). Toward a theory of social engagement. In K. A. Johnston & M. Taylor (Eds.), The handbook of communication engagement, John Wiley & Sons (pp. 53–68). Hoboken. Kirschenbaum, A., Rapaport, C., & Canetti, D. (2017). The impact of information sources on earthquake preparedness. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 21, 99–109. Kress, G. R. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge. Lee, J., Bharosa, N., Yang, J., Janssen, M., & Rao, H. R. (2011). Group value and intention to use: A study of multi-agency disaster management information systems for public safety. Decision Support Systems, 50(2), 404–414.

56

2 When Information is Critical and Access Becomes Difficult

Li, X., & Feng, J. (2021). Empowerment or disempowerment: Exploring stakeholder engagement in nation branding through a mixed method approach to social network analysis. Public Relations Review, 47(3), 102024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102024. Li, L. X. (2014). Involvement of social media in disaster management during the Wenchuan and Ya’an earthquakes. Asian Journal for Public Opinion Research, 1(4), 249–267. Lie, R., & Servaes, J. (2015). Disciplines in the field of communication for development and social change. Communication Theory, 25(2), 244–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12065 Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. W. (2004). Communicating environmental risk in multiethnic communities. Sage. Liu, B. F., Fraustino, J. D., & Jin, Y. (2016). Social media use during disasters: How information form and source influence intended behavioral responses. Communication Research, 43(5), 626–646. Liu, B. F., Jin, Y., & Austin, L. L. (2013). The tendency to tell: Understanding publics’ communicative responses to crisis information form and source. Journal of Public Relations Research, 25(1), 51–67. Liu, W., Lain, C.-H., & Xu, W. W. (2018). Tweeting about emergency: A semantic network analysis of government organizations’ social media messaging during Hurricane Harvey. Public Relations Review, 44(5), 807–819. Lovari, A., & Bowen, S. A. (2019). Social media in disaster communication: A case study of strategies, barriers, and ethical implications. Journal of Public Affairs. https://doi.org/10.1002/ pa.1967 Luke, A., Sanders, B. F., Goodrich, K. A., Feldman, D. L., Boudreau, D., Eguiarte, A., Serrano, K., Reyes, A., Schubert, J. E., AghaKouchak, A., Basolo, V., & Matthew, R. A. (2018). Going beyond the flood insurance rate map: Insights from flood hazard map co-production. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 18(4), 1097–1120. Madianou, M. (2015). Digital inequality and second-order disasters: Social media in the Typhoon Haiyan recovery. Social Media + Society, 1(2), 1–11. Madu, C. N., Kuei, C.-H., Madu, I. E., Ozumba, B. C., Nnadi, V. E., Odinkonigbo, U. L., & Ezeasor, I. C. (2018). Introduction to disaster risk reduction and management. In C. N. Madu & C.-H. Kuei (Eds.), Handbook of disaster risk reduction and management (pp. 1–30). World Scientific Publishing Company. Mansell, R. (2017). Inequality and digitally mediated communication: Divides, contradictions and consequences. Javnost—The Public, 24(2), 146–161. Manyozo, L. (2012). Media, communication and development. SAGE Publications. Marlowe, J., Neef, A., Tevaga, C. R., & Tevaga, C. (2018). A new guiding framework for engaging diverse populations in disaster risk reduction: Reach, relevance, receptiveness, and relationships. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 9(4), 507–518. Martin, S., & Klenke, K. (2016). Content analysis of the writings of Mary Parker Follet. In K. Klenke (Ed.), Qualitative research in the study of leadership (2nd ed., pp. 273–301). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. Mefalopulos, P. (2008). Development communication sourcebook: Broadening the boundaries of communication. OKR: Open Knowledge Repository/The World Bank. Mileti, D. S., & O’Brien, P. W. (1992). Warnings during disaster: Normalizing communicated risk. Social Problems, 39(1), 40–57. Mishra, S., Mazumdar, S., & Suar, D. (2010). Place attachment and flood preparedness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(2), 187–197. NDRRMC (National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council). (2018). National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan (NDRRMP) 2011–2028. Viewed November 17, 2021, from https://ndrrmc.gov.ph/attachments/article/1980/National_Disaster_Risk_Reduction_and_ Management_Plan.pdf Onuma, H., Shin, K. J., & Managi, S. (2017). Household preparedness for natural disasters: Impact of disaster experience and implications for future disaster risks in Japan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 21, 148–158.

References

57

Partelow, S. (2020). Social capital and community disaster resilience: Post-earthquake tourism recovery on Gili Trawangan, Indonesia. Sustainability Science, 16, 1–18. Paton, D., Johnston, D., Rossiter, K., Buergelt, P., Richards, A., & Anderson, S. (2017). Community understanding of tsunami risk and warnings in Australia. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 32(1), 54–59. Proag, V. (2014). The concept of vulnerability and resilience. Procedia Economics and Finance, 18, 369–376. Quebral, N. C. (2012). The underside of communication in development. Nordicom Review, 33, 59–64. Ramalho, J. (2019). Empowerment in the era of resilience-building: Gendered participation in community-based (disaster) risk management in the Philippines. International Development Planning Review, 41(2), 129–148. Rashman, L., & Hartley, J. (2002). Leading and learning? Knowledge transfer in the Beacon Council Scheme. Public Administration, 80(3), 523–542. Redshaw, S., Ingham, V., Hicks, J., & Millynn, J. (2017). Emergency preparedness through community sector engagement in the Blue Mountains. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 32(2), 35–40. Rodríguez, H., Díaz, W., Santos, J. M., & Aguirre, B. E. (2007). Communicating risk and uncertainty: Science, technology, and disasters at the crossroads. In H. Rodríguez, E. L. Quarantelli, & R. R. Dynes (Eds.), Handbook of disaster research (pp. 476–488). Springer. Rogers, P., Burnside-Lawry, J., Dragisic, J., & Mills, C. (2016). Collaboration and communication: Building a research agenda and way of working towards community disaster resilience. Disaster Prevention and Management, 25(1), 75–90. Romani, J. H. (1956). The Philippine barrio. The Far Eastern Quarterly, 15(2), 229–237. Ruin, I., Gaillard, J., & Lutoff, C. (2007). How to get there? Assessing motorists’ flash flood risk perception on daily itineraries. Environmental Hazards, 7(3), 235–244. Sanchez, K., & Sumaylo, D. J. (2015). IEC strategies on risk management and other precautionary practices of residents in Brgy. Matina Crossing 74-A. In International conference on communication/culture and the sustainable development goals: Challenges for a new generation. Chiang Mai. Sandoval, V., & Sarmiento, J. P. (2020). A neglected issue: Informal settlements, urban development, and disaster risk reduction in Latin America and the Caribbean. Disaster Prevention and Management, 29(5), 731–745. Servaes, J., & Lie, R. (2013). Sustainable social change and communication. Communiation Research Trends, 32(4), 5–30. Shaw, R. (2020). Thirthy years of science, technology, and academia in disaster risk reduction and emerging responsibilities. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 11(4), 414–425. Shklovski, I., Burke, M., Kiesler, S., & Kraut, R. (2010). Technology adoption and use in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(8), 1228– 1246. Smith, W., & Dowell, J. (2010). A case study of co-ordinative decision-making in disaster management. Ergonomics, 43(8), 1153–1166. Spialek, M. L., Czlapinski, H. M., & Houston, J. B. (2016). Disaster communication ecology and community resilience perceptions following the 2013 central Illinois tornadoes. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 17, 154–160. Spialek, M. L., & Houston, J. B. (2018a). The development and initial validation of the Citizen Disaster Communication Assessment. Communication Research, 45(6), 934–955. Spialek, M. L., & Houston, J. B. (2018b). The influence of citizen disaster communication on perceptions of neighborhood belonging and community resilience. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 47(1), 1–23. Sujarwoto, S., & Tampubolon, G. (2016). Spatial inequality and the Internet divide in Indonesia 2010–2012. Telecommunications Policy, 40(7), 602–616.

58

2 When Information is Critical and Access Becomes Difficult

Sumaylo, D. J., & Salas, C. J. (2015). Is Davao City ready for e-Health? In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on media, communication and culture. Penang. 30 November–2 December, Viewed November 17, 2021, from http://eprints.usm.my/31923/1/Dennis_John_F._ Sumaylo,_Christian_Joy_C._Salas.pdf Sumaylo, D. J., Gomez, A. L., & Abrio, D. F. (2016). Mainstreaming LDRRMC-IEC efforts in Barangay Esperanza, Municipality of Loreto, Province of Dinagat Islands. In CIDS Research Colloquium. Quezon City. Sumaylo, D. J. (2018). Potentials and pitfalls of crowdsourcing in disaster risk communication: A systematic review. In Proceedings of the 2018 Southeast Asia disaster risk governance academic seminar (pp. 107–123). Bangkok. Viewed November 17, 2021, from https://www.rcrc-resili ence-southeastasia.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Paper14.pdf Takahashi, B., Tandoc, E. C., & Carmichael, C. (2015). Communicating on Twitter during a disaster: An analysis of tweets during Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 392–398. Tandoc, E. C., & Takahashi, B. (2017). Log in if you survived: Collective coping on social media in the aftermath of Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines. New Media & Society, 19(11), 1778–1793. Tang, J. S., & Feng, J. Y. (2018). Residents’ disaster preparedness after the Meinong Taiwan earthquake: A test of protection motivation theory. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15071434. Teo, M., Goonetilleke, A., Deilami, K., Ahankoob, A., & Lawie, M. (2019). Engaging residents from different ethnic and language backgrounds in disaster preparedness. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 39, 101245. Teo, M., Lawie, M., Goonetilleke, A., Ahankoob, A., & Deilami, K. (2018). Engaging vulnerable populations in preparedness and response: A local government context. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 33(1), 38–47. Titz, A., Cannon, T., & Krüger, F. (2018). Uncovering “community”: Challenging an elusive concept in development and disaster related work. Societies, 8(3), 71. Tolentino, A. S. (2007). The challenges of Tsunami disaster response planning and management. 7(1), 147–154. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. (2020). Resilience, United Nations Office for disaster risk reduction. Viewed January 23, 2018, from https://www.undrr.org/terminology/res ilience United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. (2021). Vulnerability definition. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Viewed March 15, 2021, from https://www.undrr.org/termin ology/vulnerability Vincent, R. C. (2016). The Internet and sustainable development: Communication dissemination and the digital divide. Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, 15(6), 605–637. Wamil, R. A. (2010). Decentralizing disaster information: Reflections on the BRB2 project. In L. Polotan-dela Cruz, E. Ferrer, & M. Pagaduan (Eds.), Building disaster-resilient communities: Stories and lessons from the Philippines (pp. 33–57). College of Social Work and Community Development and University of the Philippines Diliman. Warwick-Booth, L. (2019). Social inequality (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. Willis, K. (2005). Theories and practices of development. Routledge. Wong, Y. C., Fung, J. Y. C., Law, C. K., Lam, J. C. Y., & Lee, V. W. P. (2009). Tackling the digital divide. British Journal of Social Work, 39(4), 754–767. Yi, C. J., & Kuri, M. (2016). The prospect of online communication in the event of a disaster. Journal of Risk Research, 19(7), 951–963. Zamora, M. D. (1967). Political history, autonomy, and change: The case of the barrio charter. Asian Studies, 5(1), 79–100. Zheng, C., Zhang, J., Guo, Y., Zhang, Y., & Qian, L. (2019). Disruption and reestablishment of place attachment after large-scale disasters: The role of perceived risk, negative emotions, and coping. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 40, 101273.

Chapter 3

Frameworks of Engagement and Precursors

3.1 Introduction This study approaches strategic pre-disaster communication from the perspective of communication for development while acknowledging that this field is not made of individual silos that do not interact and overlap. Instead, literature shows that disaster communication is relevant in various disciplinary areas, including sociology, organisational development, and public relations, and engaging with issues of disaster communication—inclusive of pre-, during, and after—involves examining scholarship from several fields. This is also true regarding pre-disaster communication, as discussions in the previous chapter have already highlighted. This chapter surveys how community engagement is conceptualised and applied in disaster communication and focusses on the various frameworks that inform this study. In addition, understanding how the Filipino mind informs community development was required to build the significance of people and context into pre-disaster communication. As such, the chapter engages with the Filipino psyche through the lens of human resource management. I then identify and present the research gap. Beyond this point, Sect. 1.4 briefly discusses the Philippines’ DRRM plans and practices to situate the study in the existing NDRRMP. The contribution of this study is the spotlight it places on the GIDA communities; individuals in this sector are often at risk from natural calamities but do not have access to pre-disaster information.

3.2 It Takes More Than a Communication Tool to Engage Communities According to the Harvard School of Public Health (2022, para. 1), interdisciplinary study combines two or more theoretical frameworks from different disciplines, allowing researchers to utilise methods and methodologies applicable to these two © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 D. J. Sumaylo, Engaging Isolated Communities in Disaster Preparation and Communication in the Philippines, Communication, Culture and Change in Asia 11, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-4697-6_3

59

60

3 Frameworks of Engagement and Precursors

fields (Aboelela et al., 2007). Transdisciplinary goes beyond discipline-specific strategies, methods, and theoretical and conceptual frameworks as investigators from various disciplines come together to address a problem or knowledge gap (Harvard School of Public Health, 2022, para. 1) to create a coherent synthesis of knowledge. Shaw (2020) already posits that DRRM studies are often interdisciplinary citing possible intersections between the arts and culture, social sciences, management and planning, and hard sciences like sustainability science and survivability. Therefore, this study is also interdisciplinary because it traverses into the intersections where theoretical lenses from different disciplines meet. It does not borrow concepts or frameworks. Instead, it acknowledges that community engagement and development concepts and frameworks and Filipino communicative behaviours exist, and certain overlaps occur in specific cases like disaster risk reduction and management.

3.2.1 Frameworks of Engagement Engagement is a key concept in this study, and it is therefore important to revisit how this concept is grounded, both for disaster preparedness and in terms of its strategic use in community engagement. Engagement has been used as a strategy by communication practitioners in various fields, particularly when they have identified communities or residents as their key stakeholders or audience. In terms of the context of this study, engaging the community in disaster risk reduction is considered essential in the Philippines, since the objective of the NDRRMP is to make disaster preparation community-based. This includes communities identifying potential risks in their area as well as how to prepare to deal with them when natural hazards increase their likelihood. In keeping with this, community engagement is defined by Dufty (2011) as the inclusion of the community in the decision-making process of matters that have substantial impact on them, such as preparing for disasters and increasing individual resiliency towards natural threats. Engagement itself can be classified by whether it is at the individual or social level (Johnston, 2018; Li & Feng, 2021; Taylor, 2018), and its use intersects with various disciplines such as public relations, development communication, and organisational development. I engage with this concept at the developmental level and argue that to attain the higher social level of engagement Taylor (2018) discusses, one must ensure that the individual level (Johnston, 2018) is secured. As noted, this study is framed inside the broader field of communication for development, as I investigated the supposed strategic use of media in pre-disaster communication in the context of GIDA communities. Since disasters are caused by the inability of society to cope with the impact of natural calamities (see Sect. 1.1.1), examining the way people are being engaged in preparing for natural hazards ahead is key in building resiliency. How is information on disaster preparedness disseminated? How do governments involve communities in disaster preparation? How is community engagement, a strategy heavily utilised in community-based DRRM in the Philippines, rolled out in geographically isolated areas?

3.2 It Takes More Than a Communication Tool to Engage Communities

61

Notable models of community engagement have been proposed by Bowen et al. (2010) and Dufty (2011). The Community Engagement Continuum (CEC) was developed by Bowen, Newehman-Kahini and Herremans as a by-product of their review of the then-available literature on frameworks in community engagement and community participation, which was inclusive of six existing community engagement models. The CEC posits that community participation can be categorised along a continuum of three kinds of engagement: transactional, transitional, and transformational. Transactional engagement focusses on the interaction between the organisation and the community in terms of providing access to information and other critical resources. This type of engagement crosses over to the next, transitional engagement, which is the point on the engagement continuum where organisations involve the community in consultation. The involvement of many community partners is common in transitional engagements, while its major difference from transactional engagement is that transactional involves one-way communication and transitional involves two-way communication, but still leaning towards the organisation dictating information. Transformational engagement ‘is the most proactive engagement strategy’ (Bowen et al., 2010, p. 305), as it requires organisations to empower local communities to take part in community decision-making and offers joint control over the processes of information transfer and determining the desired outcomes. Unlike the first two types of community engagement, transformational engagement seeks to engage with only a few community partners, thereby ensuring a frequent interaction and building relational trust between parties (Bowen et al., 2010). Each of the three levels of engagement involves a form of educating the community that points to the potential of behavioural change. The education element of the CEC begins at the transactional level when information is sent to end-users. As it moves higher in the continuum, a feedbacking system is anticipated. As such, the first two levels of the CEC point to the role of education in community engagement, and at the end of the continuum, a more proactive and informed community that has moved through the transactional and transitional levels of the CEC takes shape. As such, an application of this model to the disaster communication context of the study is supported by the presence of this element (education) in community participation, which together would allow for the process of educating the community about disaster preparedness, with the long-term goal of behavioural change and community participation. As Ayeb-Karlsson et al. (2019) posit, the biggest interference in disaster preparedness in the Philippines is people’s lack of understanding of the message, which results in messages being dismissed as trivial or unimportant. This review therefore argues that applying the CEC in disaster communication requires that the two underlying concepts in the model, engagement and education, should be implemented simultaneously. In this regard, Neil Dufty’s community engagement framework (CEF; Dufty, 2011) simplifies the CEC by observing that there is overlap between engagement and education. The CEF upholds that an education model in disaster communication has measurable outcomes, as it relies on information dissemination that can lead to learning, while an engagement model, though not

62

3 Frameworks of Engagement and Precursors

as information-heavy as an education model, can reach more people in any given space—physical or digital. This research harnesses the important tenets of these two models. The CEC provides detail regarding the levels of engagement that should be engaged in when discussing community empowerment in the study context. The CEF acknowledges the existing methodology of information dissemination, which in the Philippine context is top-down in nature, highlighting examination of the communication tools used in spreading information to the public. In the centre of both of these models is context, which can be physical and socioeconomic (e.g., GIDA), cultural, and demographic. Highlighting context in community engagement allows the exploration of disaster as a socially constructed concept. It is assumed that if risk perception is high, the people are more prepared and ready to evacuate. If the government is perceived to be prepared, the people also feel prepared. However, despite these perceptions, these same people will not evacuate in the face of the risks of natural hazard events because their perceptions are also shaped by culture (Donovan et al., 2012) and institutional dependency (Basolo et al., 2017). As such, they are not proactive. Location also dictates the kinds of communication tools that can be used by the government in disaster preparedness, and the people’s behaviour and motivation towards these. For instance, internet access is disproportionate in Indonesia and internet usage shows divergent trends among education and poverty levels across generations (Sujarwoto & Tampubolon, 2016). A study by Yang and Ho (2017) sought to discover whether traditional media (newspaper and television) could be used effectively to decrease the knowledge gap on climate change across groups of different socioeconomic status in Singapore. They found that newspaper reading and television watching on the subject did reduce the knowledge gap, however, this finding only held if effects on the knowledge gap were investigated from a mass media perspective. Approaching this issue from an individual level might yield a different result. In Taiwan, Yu et al. (2017) proposed to increase people’s information literacy and digital skills to lessen the digital divide by introducing information and communication technology (ICT) to underprivileged children and their elders, thereby giving them media experience. These authors defined media experience as the amount of time spent by an individual using a particular device, arguing that the adoption of any ICT device for general use may rely on a person’s media experience. While their study allows the suggestion that enabling people to use ICT tools for the integration of salient disaster risk information into their daily lives is easily achieved, using ICT tools in this regard does not address the issue of the capacity of rural communities in Taiwan to buy or access these ICT tools (Yu et al., 2017). In this regard, while the extensive innovations in communication technologies have given rise to studies of this kind, most of these merely recommend considering people’s culture in both message design and information, education, and communication tool development, and mention the ‘digital divide’ (i.e., the digital and social inequalities that must be addressed for these technologies to be meaningfully used; Vincent, 2016; Wong et al., 2009; Xuerui, 2008).

3.2 It Takes More Than a Communication Tool to Engage Communities

63

However, very few studies focus solely on exploring the cultural perspective required to achieve this, hence the direction of this study. Such issues of cultural perspective are important aspects of the social construction of reality, but they can oftentimes be overlooked by being regarded as a mute and invisible ‘status quo’ that does not require probing. Mercer et al. (2012) observe that in case studies in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, USA, and Maldives, disregarding issues of culture in disaster preparedness resulted in methods that show a lack of understanding of people’s perception of disaster and their actual reception of disaster risk messages. Indeed, examining the cultural dimension is the current movement in disaster research, which places human agency at the centre of disaster studies (since disasters are socially constructed; Webb, 2018, p. 113). The cultural dimensions of disaster include the examination of ‘art, [and] literature [depicting disasters], and other tangible objects’ and other non-material phenomena such as ‘norms, values, beliefs, ideologies, and other elements that bind people together’ (Webb, 2018, p. 110). Examining the cultural aspects of disaster emphasises the need to consider how a community copes with catastrophe by looking at both its culture of resiliency and culture of vulnerability (Webb, 2018) through its local history (Mercer et al., 2012), thus ‘connecting disaster events with antecedent conditions’ (Bolin & Kurtz, 2018, p. 199). This allows researchers to ‘investigate the intersection of social inequalities, hazards, and environmental policies that put people and places at risk’ (Bolin & Kurtz, 2018, p. 199). Investigating culture oftentimes provides transferable cultural knowledge that may aid in building the community’s resiliency (Mercer et al., 2012) as well as (for example) providing guidance for international responders as they deal with disaster victims and governments with cultures different from their own (Güss & Pangan, 2004). On one hand, community failure to heed evacuation calls from the government during hazard events can be illuminated by the knowledge that locals believe they know more about their surroundings (Lagmay et al., 2015) from traditional warnings, such as animals going down from the mountains (Donovan et al., 2012). In addition, the difficulty of international volunteers in communicating with the locals in the midst of organisational culture and bureaucracies during disaster can be lessened if culture and its meanings are first understood (Güss & Pangan, 2004). Issues of culture, access, and skill/familiarity are some of the many things that need to be considered in an examination of context as an integral element in community engagement. This review argues that when looking at community engagement, context should be considered as its own focus, rather than from the point of view of ‘education’ alone, in order to ensure that genuinely proactive DRRM practices will be developed in an area. It is necessary to understand the requirements in engaging diverse populations in disaster risk reduction. Marlowe et al. (2018) argue that there are 4Rs in community engagement, and these are explored in the next section.

64

3 Frameworks of Engagement and Precursors

3.2.2 The 4Rs of Community Engagement The measurement of success for any pre-disaster communication effort goes beyond things that are quantifiable. The impact of any information session is not, and cannot be measured by, the number of attendees. Part of the challenge for agencies and governments in pre-disaster communication is ensuring that the messaging they implement in building resilient communities is received by the people. This goal can be achieved if efforts are guided by the principles identified by Marlowe et al. (2018): reach, relevance, receptiveness, and relationships (referred to in this study as the 4Rs). For Marlowe et al. (2018), engaging diverse communities is difficult but doable if differences in language, cultural barriers, knowledge (or lack thereof), access, and other concerns are acknowledged and addressed (Guadagno, 2016). As such, the diversity of a population should not be viewed as a hindrance to implementing DRRM-related community engagement activities. Instead, organisations and governments engaged in emergency management need to acknowledge that diversity brings prior experience (Onuma et al., 2017), which can be viewed as an existing strength within the community (Shepherd & van Vuuren, 2014). In fact, Vertovec (2007) pushes for diversification of diversity (‘super diversity’), noting that there are a plethora of diversity markers aside from the traditional age, gender, ethnicity, and religion. As Marlowe et al. (2018, p. 508) observe, ‘there is a growing recognition of the complexities of communities and the importance of understanding these contexts in order to engage and target risk strategies’. Their recognition of complexities within a community is grounded in the 4Rs of Emergency Management used in New Zealand, where they conducted their original study and proposed a new guiding framework in engaging culturally and linguistically diverse populations in this regard. The National Emergency Management Agency (2021) in New Zealand identifies four areas of activity in relation to emergency management. These are readiness, reduction, response, and recovery (also called the 4Rs). These activity areas are defined by the Ministry as: . Reduction: ‘Identifying and analysing long-term risks to human life and property from hazards; taking steps to eliminate these risks if practicable, and, if not, reducing the magnitude of their impact and the likelihood of their occurring’ (para. 2). . Readiness and Response: ‘Developing operational systems and capabilities before a civil defence emergency happens, including self-help and response programs for the public, and specific programs for emergency services, lifeline utilities and other agencies’ (para. 3). ‘Actions taken immediately before, during or directly after a civil defence emergency to save lives and protect property, and to help communities recover’ (para. 4). . Recovery: ‘The coordinated efforts and processes to bring about the immediate, medium-term and long-term holistic regeneration of a community following a civil defence emergency’ (para. 5).

3.2 It Takes More Than a Communication Tool to Engage Communities

65

In response to this cyclical conception of emergency management, Marlowe et al., (2018, p. 511) proposed their own 4Rs as a framework for addressing the engagement needs of diverse population in disaster risk reduction. As noted, these are reach, relevance, receptiveness, and relationships, and are defined as: . Reach: the degree to which any communication strategy will get to the person/ group of interest. . Relevance: the degree to which any communication is seen as being relevant to the target audience. . Receptiveness: the degree to which engagement is constructed in ways that are seen as culturally resonant. . Relationships: the way in which two or more people or things are connected, or the state of being connected. To expound each of these further, first, reach ensures that the message is effectively communicated to the intended audience. This can be achieved through various mixtures of communication modes and tools. Multimodality and multiplatform communication strategies fill in the communication gaps created in the process by providing choices. Using multiple modalities and platforms is not the only way to ensure participant access to materials, however; reach also means giving enough consideration to how learning happens within the target community (Rashman & Hartley, 2002). Second, the relevance of the information to the target audience is also significant because each group has different motivations to participate and learn (Rashman & Hartley, 2002). Effectively, people will only peruse information that seems necessary or relevant to their context. Thus, information needs to be properly curated for relevance and packaged using multiple modes and tools. As noted, those who live in high-risk areas do perceive higher risk (Zheng et al., 2019; see Sect. 2.3.2) but risk perception and disaster experience do not always end in action (Onuma et al., 2017). Third, the receptiveness of the target audience towards predisaster information is also dependent on the engagement strategy employed. There is no one strategy that fits the needs of every community because of ‘super diversity’ (Vertovec, 2007). In this regard, the role of the community in selecting their preferred communication strategies and disaster preparation technologies takes precedence (David et al., 2010). Wamil (2010) observes that a home-based disaster preparedness plan developed by the family might be more effective than any other drills and seminars. Fourth and finally, relationships pertain to social connections established within the community. These social relationships, or social capital, are believed to be essential in building resilient communities (Rayamajhee & Bohara, 2021). Aldrich and Meyer (2015) highlight that attention is given to infrastructure development, but little is done towards studying the people involved in its use. Evidence proving the positive role social capital plays in DRRM has been established by social–ecological relationship and vulnerability experts (Fraser et al., 2021; Hsueh, 2019). These 4Rs do not deviate particularly from the interlinked disaster phases and stages discussed in Chap. 2 (see Fig. 2.1). However, platform studies pertaining to disaster communication discussed in this review show that the trend in both technological development and systemic analysis is leaning towards reduction, response,

66

3 Frameworks of Engagement and Precursors

and recovery. Less attention, however, is given to readiness, or the pre-disaster phase of emergency management, which includes disaster preparedness (human aspect) and prevention and mitigation stages (infrastructural aspect). In terms of these two vital stages, more attention is given to the infrastructural aspect of the pre-disaster phase of DRRM in comparison with the human aspect. In summary, the 4Rs of New Zealand’s National Emergency Management Agency (2021) are more attuned to disaster management than to issues of privileging predisaster communication and people’s context. As this study does not tackle disaster response and recovery, which are essential parts of these 4Rs, I have instead used the 4Rs of Marlowe et al. (2018) to highlight the contextual pre-disaster communication this study is asserting. Privileging aspects of context for effective use of reach, relevance, receptiveness, and relationships in this study are pertinent to informing the design, production, and transmission of pre-disaster information for GIDA communities. These 4Rs also highlight that the people and their context are significant in discussing relationships and community development (Andres, 1988). The 4Rs presented by Marlowe et al. (2018) also serve as a foundation for the significance of social power within communities. Each person in a household wields social power over others. Oftentimes, this is based on familial hierarchy. However, classic literature observes that there are several types of social power a person possesses at any given time (French & Raven, 1959). The next section discusses this issue in context of DRRM and GIDA communities.

3.2.3 Social Power Given that this study utilises community engagement as an analytical lens, it is necessary to discuss the role of social power, which either binds or breaks social relationships. The role of social power extends beyond the personal to the community, and the utilisation, development and strengthening of social power in DRRM aims to develop social empowerment among marginalised and GIDA communities. Critically, as Pratto (2016) observes, social empowerment is not just about having the power to act, it also entails being in an environment that empowers you. Critically, as Pratto (2016) observes, social empowerment is not just about having the power to act, it also entails being in an environment that empowers you. Empowerment is now viewed as an individual’s understanding of power, which can be operationalised as finding a person’s potential based on their abilities (Rowlands, 1995). As social media and public relations scholars Li and Feng (2021, p. 4) argue, ‘the power of social media engagement can empower the citizen group in nation branding. Empowerment means a “sense of capacity for influence” (French & Raven, cited in Smith et al., 2017, p. 980)’. In 1959, John French, Jr. and Bertram Raven collaborated to unpack the bases of social power. The enormity, complexity, and concealability of social power all spell out its social influence. A person or group who holds social power or influence in the context of DRRM makes or breaks a communication process in that community.

3.2 It Takes More Than a Communication Tool to Engage Communities

67

There is thus a ‘necessity to distinguish different types of power in order to account for the different effects found in … social influence’ (French & Raven, 1959, p. 150). The agent of influence may not necessarily be a person: it could also be a group or part of a system, such as a value system (Andres, 1988) and its norms. In addition, a person’s past disaster experiences can be a possible source of social power. Such experience also provides a form of commonality among individuals which may influence them forming a group. However, experiences do vary in terms of their impact on others.

3.2.4 Experience as Teacher A person’s social power can be attributed to her or his previous experiences and acquired knowledge. It is necessary to look at individuals’ previous disaster experience in order to conceptualise better ways to engage local communities, because this variable varies in strength and impact, depending on an individual’s role and relationships. Literature suggests that actual disaster experiences are more likely to make local communities think about and prepare for disasters in advance (Koerth et al., 2013; Onuma et al., 2017; Osberghaus, 2015; Sanchez & Sumaylo, 2015; Sumaylo et al., 2016), in comparison with being taught drills by the implementers of the National Plan (Sumaylo et al., 2016). Yet, a recent study by Tang and Feng (2018) argues that drills and workshops do improve the public’s disaster preparedness knowledge. Certainly, it has been noted that past disaster experiences aid in decision-making (Lechner & Rouleau, 2019) and preparedness behaviour (Poussin et al., 2014), thereby reinforcing the fact that those without prior experience tend to underestimate the risks they are facing (Ruin et al., 2007). This prior negative experience is a transformative learning method that turns experiences into preparedness lessons, thereby developing peoples’ adaptive capacity (Paton & Buergelt, 2019). This transformative learning is also the end goal of Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi, and Herremans’ CEC model. Obviously, however, in view of the risks, actual disaster experiences are not considered an ideal source of information and motivation for people to prepare for disasters. Aside from the loss of properties and lives, disaster experiences are a double-edged sword. While they can encourage people to prepare for disasters, not all disaster experiences create an appropriate impact in this regard; the act of preparing for future natural events is then restricted to the intensity of the previous event (Becker et al., 2017) and its difficulty and loss, which may not be a good measure of the difficulty and loss that could be experienced during a future event. It has been documented that some identified disaster-prone communities are even less prepared in comparison with areas that are not at risk of disaster (Onuma et al., 2017); however, other authors assert that living in high-risk areas does make residents more prepared for disasters (Kirschenbaum et al., 2017). Zheng et al. (2019) highlight that despite a high perception of risk among some populations living in hazard-prone areas, communities in these places can also develop a sense of attachment to the area that mediates coping

68

3 Frameworks of Engagement and Precursors

and results in a cycle of destruction and rehabilitation, with death and other losses in between. In this regard, careful consideration of previous individual and community disaster experiences and training and drills on disaster preparedness should be of high priority in terms of documenting the lived experiences of GIDA communities. Further, documenting communication experiences also helps build the information-sharing and -seeking that happens in this context, as the next section describes.

3.2.5 Relationships and Community Development One of the major factors for community engagement is that of creating and maintaining social relationships with the local government and the people themselves within the community. Given that relationships are essential to people’s lives, I return to Andres’ (1988) proposed manual for community development to discuss the role of social networks in pre-disaster risk communication. Andres (1988) historically traced the concept of villages in the Philippines, and argues that its formation was based on familial ties during the pre-Hispanic period. Other historians tracing the conceptualisation of villages (barangay) in the Philippines also discuss that colonisers of the Philippines (Spain and the USA) capitalised on the pre-existing social formation in the country, using their knowledge in this regard to their advantage. In the modern Philippines, the former pre-Hispanic ‘family village’ has become the lowest administrative/governing unit in the country (Romani, 1956; Zamora, 1967). Community development starts with the individual and how they relate to other people around them. As Quebral (2012) posits, individual growth is essential in communication for development. In the context of pre-disaster communication, the acknowledgment of perceived threat lies on the person’s ability to assess risks as various individual and social factors affect attitude towards disaster preparedness (Kanakis & McShane, 2016). For Andres (1988), the individual already carries certain traits, cultural beliefs, and value systems that help them navigate their engagements with other people. To begin with, the individual is an entity formed by the people around them as their sources of values. Andres (1988) discusses that an individual acts the way they do and believes in the things they do based on the influences they imbibe from parents, their peers, the system of belief (e.g., religion) they follow, and society in general. Similarly, the norms an individual believes in are also based on the teachings they receive from parents, peers, and their awareness or rejection of belief towards a supreme being. These sources of values often impact an individual’s communication potential in terms of building or expanding their social network and ensuring social cohesion among them (Quebral, 2012). Andres (1988) continues his argument by stating that, in terms of the sources of value systems enumerated, an individual relates to others according to both vertical

3.2 It Takes More Than a Communication Tool to Engage Communities

69

and lateral relationships. The simplest way to describe lateral relationships is by looking at how an individual relates to other people around them. In regard to lateral relationships, Fig. 3.1 maps the close connection a Filipino individual has to their immediate family. Family is followed by close neighbours because of living proximity and, given that villages are made up of households coming from the same family, also close family relatives. However, Fig. 3.1 shows that the relationship between an individual and their immediate family is not the same as that between an individual and their close neighbours. The top flow of relationship is tied to filial relations that fork into distant relatives and kin. This type of relationship was described by Zamora (1967) as the foundation of the pre-Hispanic concept of barangay or village. The bottom flow of relationship is based solely on living proximity. In terms of vertical relationships, these may be based on wealth, age, power (e.g., such as is endowed by means of election to the government or local council), and other factors that categorise people into either majority or minority groups—that is, the basis of vertical relationships is culture. Seniority is highly valued in Southeast Asian culture, and the opinion of an elder in a community is almost always valued. In addition, the opinion of the eldest in the family matters more than anyone else, and position (power) is honoured, especially in far-flung villages; as such, to be approached by someone in position is preferred by vulnerable groups (Howard et al., 2017).

Fig. 3.1 Researcher’s interpretation of Tomas Andres’s progression of Filipino Values System. Purok is a local term that means zone in this context. Source Author, based on Andres, 1988 p. 29

70

3 Frameworks of Engagement and Precursors

3.3 Research Gap After carefully evaluating existing literature in (pre-)disaster communication, community, and engagement, I identified the need to probe the role of community engagement in strategic DRRM. This broad investigation gives special attention to the individual’s role in sectoral engagement and how they can perform as conduits of pre-disaster communication. The diagram presented in Fig. 3.2 represents the CEC posited by Bowen et al. (2010). I decided to visualise their model to show where the extant literature discussed in this chapter applies. The horizontal arrow pointing to the right represents the abridged version of the literature that tackles communication modes and tools used in the various levels of community engagement. This indicates that community engagement utilises multiple communication modes and tools if divided into three levels. However, studies on this subject do not necessarily provide information on how these modes and tools can be combined to engage communities. I, therefore, added the vertical downward pointing arrow to indicate the research gap where this study comes in. At this intersection, studies exist regarding community engagement, and how it should be achieved. However, the specific meeting point between communication and community engagement has not yet been fully explored. Community engagement is perceived as a framework at this point, and communication is seen as a tool that aids in its implementation. Let’s look at community engagement as a communication strategy. We can zero-in on the significance of individual modes and tools of interaction that aim to reach the transformational level. Thus, Fig. 3.2 highlights a possible unexplored research intersection between communication practices and community engagement. This chapter (see Sect. 1.4) has already described the mandate of the National DRRM Council for a communitybased DRRM practice and for continuous communication of disaster preparedness actions and plans in the Philippines. However, existing literature does not adequately explain how the two fields of communication practice and community engagement can merge in order to achieve this objective. Close examination of the literature on pre-disaster and disaster communication highlights various modes and tools of communication in this regard, as well as concerns about how these affect the communication process including the digital divide that is brought about by several intervening factors. Community engagement literature also posits several ways of engaging local communities, which include participatory communication and codesign/cocreation practices. What is lacking in this overall schema is the process of merging these two fields in order to come up with possible ways to utilise various modes and tools of communication and community engagement to reach a transformational level of engagement (Bowen et al., 2010). Chapter 2 has already highlighted that not all people in a community can easily adapt to change, and this includes the adoption of new technologies that can be used for various DRRM purposes—pre-disaster, during, and post-disaster. Literature suggests that a move to make pre-disaster and disaster communication digital would exacerbate existing socioeconomic and geographical access inequalities to

3.3 Research Gap

71

Fig. 3.2 Research gap. Source Author

this information for some communities, such as via problems of poor communication infrastructure, financial instability, and/or literacy (Mansell, 2017; Sujarwoto & Tampubolon, 2016). It should also be noted that the majority of the literature reviewed in this regard describes studies that utilise various communication modes and tools in either the second phase (just before a slow-moving hazard makes landfall) or the third phase (after the disaster has passed) of disaster management, not in the pre-disaster phase. Very few studies have focussed on pre-disaster communication, which happens in anticipation of an as-yet-unseen future disaster. What is clear is the speed at which new communication tools are being developed, especially digital ones that are intended for use in DRRM. The community engagement literature that was reviewed also suggests its relevance in the planning, designing, and production of communication tools for DRRM. The literature highlights the importance of including those affected by hazards in the process of pre-disaster community engagement. In this regard, communities and local DRRM councils in precarious situations are not the only ones affected; responders are also covered in this classification, as while they do not necessarily live in GIDA communities, these workers do live in the same provincial/municipal areas. The potential involvement of local communities, responders, and perhaps also those who belong in allied fields—including the media—in this process of engagement promises multiple perspectives on how to address issues of safety and preparation. Given the multiplicity of involved parties, literature suggestion would be for a

72

3 Frameworks of Engagement and Precursors

multimodal pre-disaster communication approach. In addition, Arreza and Sumaylo (2015) observe that localising pre-disaster communication approaches which tap into local people’s experiences and context would require three levels of information mainstreaming—political, cultural, and personal. If pre-disaster communication approaches and messages are intertwined with people’s political and cultural contexts (i.e., in the local barangay) and their personal, day-to-day activities, a preventive culture may develop, creating a relevant and connected framework for minimising the impact of natural hazards. This study thus aims to find ways to mainstream pre-disaster risk information on the political (Healy & Malhotra, 2009; Martin et al., 2011), cultural (Bolin & Kurtz, 2018; Webb, 2018), and personal levels (Aldrich & Meyer, 2015; Shaw & Goda, 2004) as revealed by the gap in the current scholarship. Political mainstreaming means institutionalising disaster preparedness activities through government- and community-led activities. In the long run, cultural mainstreaming potentially means that a community’s perspective of disaster preparedness can shift so that it is seen not as an extra activity but as part of an individual’s daily activities. Personal mainstreaming means changing the personal risk perceptions of people living in GIDA communities.

3.4 The Relevance of These Frameworks to Understanding GIDA Communities In order to grasp the top-down, multilayered management processes involved in the research investigation, it is first necessary to understand current DRRM practices in the Philippines. This discussion is also important because it shows how distant local communities are from the decision-makers and sources of information. In addition, this outline of DRRM allows the observation that certain layers and levels of governance appear to think that they are, and effectively function as, mere implementers of national policies and programs. Detailing this ‘message relay’ type of management gives an impression of a lack of accountability of certain levels of governance. It also describes a systemic overreliance on the top-down process of management, which disregards the role of building resiliency at the community level. This section is divided into two subsections that discuss the political structure governing the DRRM plans and its ways of implementation. The first subsection provides an overview of the political structure of the Philippines. This information is significant to the study because the laws pertaining to DRRM in the country, including their implementing rules and guidelines, are intertwined with the political structure. The second subsection unpacks DRRM in the Philippines, specifically its connection to the political structure of the country.

3.4 The Relevance of These Frameworks to Understanding GIDA …

73

3.4.1 Understanding the Political Structure of the Philippines The Republic of the Philippines is an archipelagic country that follows a democratic system of governance with a president at its head. According to its 1987 Constitution, governance is divided into three branches, the Legislative (Article 6), Executive (Article 7), and Judiciary (Article 8). The legislative branch, which comprises the House of Representatives (Congress) and the Senate, oversees drafting and passing legislation. This branch is also responsible for reviewing, amending, and/or removing past legislation and law. The executive branch, which comprises the President, Vice-President, and the Cabinet members, enforces legislation passed by the legislative branch. In particular, the Office of the President can also veto laws coming from Congress. Lastly, the judicial branch, or judiciary, comprises the Supreme Court and the lower courts; it handles disputes and other controversies. The judiciary can also overturn law that contravenes the 1987 Constitution (GOV.PH, 2021). The country is also geopolitically divided into several territorial and political subdivisions known as LGUs that are themselves classified into levels: provincial, municipal, city, and barangay (village). The formation, composition, and powers of these LGUs are defined in Republic Act 7160, also known as the Local Government Code of 1991, with amendments in February 1998 now known as Republic Act 8553, which amended Sec. 41[B]), and Republic Act 8524 (which amended Sec. 43). The Local Government Code of 1991 posits that: Every local government unit created or recognized under this Code is a body politic and corporate endowed with powers to be exercised by it in conformity with law. As such, it shall exercise powers as political subdivision of the National Government and as a corporate entity representing the inhabitants of its territory (RA7160, Book 1, Chap. 2, Sec. 15).

The same code also stipulates the basic services and facilities that should be provided at the provincial, municipal, city, and barangay levels: Local government units shall endeavor to be self-reliant and shall continue exercising the powers and discharging the duties and functions currently vested upon them. They shall also discharge the functions and responsibilities of national agencies and offices devolved to them pursuant to this Code. Local government units shall likewise exercise such other powers and discharge such other functions and responsibilities as are necessary, appropriate, or incidental to efficient and effective provisions of the basic services and facilities enumerated herein (RA7160, Book 1, Chap. 2, Sec. 17 [A])

Table 3.1 outlines some of the basic services itemised in the Code. The provincial government’s role is to provide these services to all municipalities and cities under its jurisdiction, and it serves as the national government agency that implements a dynamic mechanism of developmental processes at the provincial level. The provincial government also oversees effective governance of its constituent municipalities and component cities. National government agencies are bodies that implement projects through the provincial government. The role of municipal governments is to provide the same services as the provincial governments but on a smaller

74

3 Frameworks of Engagement and Precursors

Table 3.1 Summary of basic services of LGUs based on RA 7160 Provincial

Municipal

Barangay

• Agricultural support services • Industrial research and development services • Enforcement of laws on the protection of the environment • Provision of health services • Social welfare services • Infrastructure facilities • Inter-municipal telecommunications services

• Agricultural support services • Social welfare services • Information services such as maintenance of public library • Solid waste disposal system or environmental management system and services/facilities related to hygiene and sanitation • Infrastructure facilities for health, agriculture, drainage and flood controls, and road signages • Sites for police and fire stations

• Agricultural support services • Health and social welfare services, specifically maintenance of a Barangay health centre and day-care centre • Services and facilities related to general hygiene and sanitation, beautification, and solid waste collection • Maintenance of barangay roads, bridges, and water supply • Infrastructure facilities • Information and reading centre

Source Republic Act 7160, Local Government Code of 1991

scale. The municipal government thus ensures that projects from the higher level of governance are delivered in its territorial jurisdiction. The barangay or village is the lowest and most basic governing body in the Philippines. It ensures that national, provincial, and municipal projects and services are delivered to local people. The collective opinions of people are formed at this grassroots level. The barangay captain (village leader), as head, together with other barangay officials and functionaries, finds ways to improve the livelihood and overall quality of life of the residents of the village. The Philippine DRRM Act (RA 10121, 2010) was enacted in 2010, 19 years after the Local Government Code of 1991. This Act upholds the nature and role of the local governments as they are defined in the Code. For instance, the composition of a barangay DRRM council is not exclusive to local government officials. Rather, it is a multi-sectoral council that aims to: Adopt a disaster risk reduction and management approach that is holistic, comprehensive, integrated, and proactive in lessening the socioeconomic and environmental impacts of disasters including climate change and promote the involvement and participation of all sectors and all stakeholders concerned, at all levels, especially the local community (RA 10121, Sec. 2[D]).

As the elected head of the barangay, the village leader/barangay captain performs duties as head of the barangay DRRM council. It is their responsibility to include in the council the elected officials of the barangay, and officials from other civil society organisations such as tanods (local ‘police’, who maintain the village peace

3.4 The Relevance of These Frameworks to Understanding GIDA …

75

and order), as well as senior citizens and representatives from women’s groups in the community. These members of the council are not elected, meaning they are not representatives of the government. However, the membership base of these groups is culturally designed to unite communities in achieving a goal. In terms of DRRM councils at the municipal and provincial levels, the same is true. The provincial council is headed by a governor and the municipal by a mayor. Membership of the council at all levels includes politicians, their appointees, and those from local agencies (such as the police in the LGUs), as indicated in the law. Although there are specific offices at each level designated as municipal or provincial DRRM offices, these only house a few staff; membership of this council includes the municipal/provincial engineering office and other staff, who work at their regular government employment elsewhere. As such, an individual who holds a position, say, in the LGU, also holds the same position within the DRRM council. In terms of how these individuals can function as part of the LGU and as part of the local DRRM council, it is at this point that two significant issues emerge from the confusion on roles and responsibilities: 1. Divided attention towards DRRM, as there are no dedicated personnel to look at a specific DRRM theme because officials are busy with their main function; and 2. Budget utilisation, as other offices may use the DRRM budget to augment their office’s budget for a certain project. On this last point, the DRRM budget can and may be used by other local agencies and departments in the LGUs. For instance, the tourism committee of the LGU may use the local DRRM council budget to construct roads going to tourist areas under the heading of ‘disaster mitigation’ projects. The area may not, in fact, be prone to any hazard, but since the priority project for the head of the council (mayor or governor) is tourism, they can realign the budget to such matters because they are also the approving body. Hence, DRRM council budgets can be used up in ways other than by improving areas that are truly at risk or need immediate attention. This budget realignment is technically legal and depends on how it is justified on paper. A discussion of project prioritisation is provided in Chaps. 5 and 6. In this section, I have discussed that DRRM follows a managerial, top-down process akin to the political structure of the country. This structure posits certain expectations from each level of governance as reflected in the local government code. The structure is also reflected in the multi-agency and multi-departmental composition of the local DRRM councils. In terms of actions for DRRM, this council and its DRRM budget is subject to several issues, including council membership focus and budget utilisation. The next section outlines specific issues of DRRM in the Philippine context.

76

3 Frameworks of Engagement and Precursors

3.4.2 DRRM in the Philippines Government communication programs in the Philippines involve so many layers of bureaucracy and complexity that, as a message from the top ‘descends’ or moves through these layers, both the message and its meaning can often change dramatically from its original form and intentions. Effectively, by the time the message has reached the last person in the bureaucratic chain, the original message is frequently muddled; either the addition of new lines or the absence of missing lines means that new messages, or new meanings, have been created along the way. And this is just within the government. By the time the message has flowed down to the people, it has become a very different entity from that of its original form. Such is the case with the Philippine DRRM Act (RA 10121, 2010) that details the layers of bureaucracy that interact with the implementation of DRRM in the Philippines. The law stipulates that the National DRRM Council, previously known as the National Disaster Coordinating Council, is responsible for the protection of its people during disasters and other emergencies through its development and implementation of the NDRRMP (2018), RA 10121 (2010). For clarity and uniformity, the National DRRM Council will now be referred to as the National Council and the NDRRMP as the National Plan. The National Council is a multi-agency council that aims to enact RA 10121 and craft and ensure the implementation of the National Plan. The National Council is headed by the Secretary of the Department of National Defense and cochaired by the Secretaries of the following departments, each of which is assigned to a specific phase in DRRM: Department of Interior and Local Government, Department of Social Welfare and Development, Department of Science and Technology, and the DirectorGeneral of the National Economic and Development Authority. The National Council aims to achieve specific objectives in four priority areas: disaster prevention and mitigation (Department of Science and Technology), disaster preparedness (Department of Interior and Local Government), disaster response (Department of Social Welfare and Development), and rehabilitation and recovery (National Economic and Development Authority; NDRRMC, 2018; RA 10121, 2010). By 2016, most of the objectives under the disaster preparedness stage of the National Plan were expected to be 60% complete (NDRRMC, 2018). The implementation of the Philippine DRRM Act (RA 10121, 2010), follows a linear, top-down process that begins with the Office of Civil Defense as chair and is implemented in the various administrative regions in the Philippines through its regional offices. The implementation process is carried down to the lowest administrative level following this top-down process, from the provincial to the municipal/ city, and then to the barangay councils. Directives are thus given to the regional DRRM councils from the National Council, so that the implementation of the Philippine DRRM Act (RA 10121, 2010) is passed effectively from the chair of the Office of Civil Defense to the provincial government, then to the municipal government (from the Office of Civil Defense Regional Office) before it reaches the barangays (villages). As such, the municipal government’s purpose is coordination and delivery

3.5 Summary

77

of basic services from the provincial level, which it achieves through its municipal DRRM office, ensuring the implementation of the National Plan at the grassroots level. These details of the structure of government DRRM implementation in the Philippines show that the current framework is top-down in nature, and establish the complexity of DRRM in the Philippines by highlighting the number of agencies that need to coordinate when a natural calamity occurs. Each of these agencies is expected to communicate emergency and disaster information to the public, either through agency-initiated intervention or interagency coordination. Another reality of this situation is the absence of the government agency in-charge of communication from this decision-making process. The Philippine Information Agency is mentioned only once in the entire National Plan 2011–2028, despite the Plan’s concurrent emphasis on issues of communication that constrain the fluidity of disaster phase implementation. It is in the context of this political background that this research examined the strategic pre-disaster communication of the government that utilises community engagement in two geographically isolated and disadvantaged local communities in Mindanao in the southern Philippines. The research investigated socioeconomic and geographic factors, levels of community engagement, and the role of various communication tools relevant to disaster preparedness using qualitative methods. This research also looked at the information-seeking and -sharing behaviours of residents in geographically isolated communities and investigated ways that intervening variables, such as social and geographic factors, positively or negatively impact levels of community engagement.

3.5 Summary This review has discussed community engagement studies and frameworks and the Filipino Values System, both of which inform the theoretical underpinnings and assist in answering the aims of this study. Specifically, community engagement has been expounded through the lens of the CEC developed by Bowen et al. (2010). Based on their review, community engagement practices documented in scholarly works can be categorised into three levels, which they present as a continuum or process. I also included Dufty’s CEF (2011) as a catch-all framework that describes what community engagement is before it is broken into the three levels. This review of community engagement approaches led to a discussion of power, relationships, and experiences as relevant variables in engaging communities, and these are specifically described in terms of Andres’ Filipino Values System (1988). This system is contextualised under community development, which means it tackles cultural values and traditions that positively or negatively affect community development through people’s participation in it. This chapter has also explored the way that these cultural influences may affect pre-disaster communication in terms of the community engagement processes discussed in the previous chapter.

78

3 Frameworks of Engagement and Precursors

The rationale behind the theoretical underpinnings of this study lies within Marlowe et al.’ (2018) 4Rs (reach, relevance, receptiveness, and relationships) which were specifically developed to address the needs of a diverse population. The community engagement frameworks discussed in this chapter cover reach and relevance, while the Filipino Values System covers receptiveness and relationships. Any predisaster information and its accompanying mode of transmission should reach and be relevant to geographically isolated communities. The receptiveness and social relationships of GIDA communities also demand that pre-disaster communication information goes through culturally resonant channels. The Filipino Values System, which helps unpack social power, experiences, and relationships, provides a solid basis for connecting these 2Rs of Marlowe et al. (2018) framework to the study context. In due course, therefore, this review was able to identify the research gap the study aims to address. After a discussion of multiple platform studies, that is, scholarly works which focus on communication modes and tools and the structure wherein these modes and tools of communication are used, I highlighted that this study situates itself in the scholarly conversation at the intersection of communication and community engagement in DRRM. Added to this is the context of GIDA communities, with their specific DRRM and community engagement issues connected to spatial or geographic isolation and socioeconomic inequality. Literature at this intersection is sparse, as the review indicates, and issues fuse together to identify a research gap. Lastly, the chapter provides the political context of DRRM in the Philippines. I have briefly introduced the governance of the Philippines, as well as outlined the DRRM roles of LGUs. I also discussed how DRRM policies and laws are rolled out in the Philippines in order to provide context for how GIDA communities operate in regard to DRRM. This section also provides the necessary background on the current implementation of the National Plan so that the succeeding chapters of this study can highlight issues of the implementation of the National Plan at the local level. In particular, it supplies foundation for documenting the localisation of national programs at the community level and the various setbacks it faces. The next chapter discusses the methodology and the various methods of data collection employed in conducting the study. It also provides a detailed description of each field site, and these are necessary since my argument later is centred on how spatial or geographic isolation and socioeconomic inequalities impact pre-disaster communication and community engagement practices.

References Aboelela, S. W., Larson, E., Bakken, S., Carrasquillo, O., Formicola, A., Glied, S. A., Haas, J., & Gebbie, K. M. (2007). Defining interdisciplinary research: conclusions from a critical review of the literature. Health Services Research, 42(1P1), 329–346.

References

79

Aldrich, D. P., & Meyer, M. A. (2015). Social capital and community resilience. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(2), 254–269. Andres, T. Q. (1988). Community development: A manual. New Day Publishers. Arreza, C. M., & Sumaylo, D. J. (2015) Localization of IEC materials of Carrascal LDRRMO through disaster management training. In International Conference on Communication/Culture and the Sustainable Development Goals (CCSDG). Challenges for a New Generation. Chiang Mai. Ayeb-Karlsson, S., Kniveton, D., Cannon, T., van der Geest, K., Ahmed, I., Derrington, E. M., Florano, E., & Opondo, D. O. (2019). I will not go, I cannot go: Cultural and social limitations of disaster preparedness in Asia, Africa, and Oceania. Disasters, 43(4), 752–770. Basolo, V., Steinberg, L. J., & Gant, S. (2017). Hurricane threat in Florida: Examining household perceptions, beliefs, and actions. Environmental Hazards, 16(3), 253–275. Becker, J. S., Paton, D., Johnston, D. M., Ronan, K. R., & McClure, J. (2017). The role of prior experience in informing and motivating earthquake preparedness. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 22, 179–193. Bolin, B., & Kurtz, L. C. (2018). Race, class, ethnicity, and disaster vulnerability. In H. Rodríguez, W. Donner, & J. E. Trainor (Eds.), Handbook of disaster research (2nd ed., pp. 181–203). Springer. Bowen, F., Newenham-Kahindi, A., & Herremans, I. (2010). When suits meet roots: The antecedents and consequences of community engagement strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(2), 297– 318. David, C. P. C., Padua, D. M. V., Vargas, M. M., Caceres, J. I., Vicente, M. C. T. M., Tolentino, D. B., Abon, C. C., Ramores, J., & Wamil, R. A. (2010) Community and DRR technology interface: the “Reduction of flood risk in the Bicol River Basin II” project. In L. P. Cruz, E. M. Ferrer, & M. C. Pagaduan (Eds.), Building disaster resilient communities: Stories and lessons from the Philippines (pp. 33–57). College of Social Work and Community Development, University of the Philippines. Donovan, K., Suryanto, A., & Utami, P. (2012). Mapping cultural vulnerability in volcanic regions: The practical application of social volcanology at Mt Merapi, Indonesia. Environmental Hazards, 11(4), 303–323. Dufty, N. (2011). Engagement or education? Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 26(3), 35–39. Fraser, T., Aldrich, D. P., & Small, A. (2021). Connecting social capital and vulnerability: citation network analysis of disaster studies. Natural Hazards Review, 22(3), 469. https://doi.org/10. 1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000469 French, J., Jr., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Institute for Social Research. GOV.PH. (2021). About the government. Philippine Government. Viewed November 1, 2021, from https://www.gov.ph/es/the-government.html Guadagno, L. (2016). Human mobility in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 7(1), 30–40. Güss, C. D., & Pangan, O. I. (2004). Cultural influences on disaster management: A case study of the Mt Pinatubo eruption. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 22(2), 31–58. Harvard School of Public Health. (2022). Transdisciplinary research definition. Harvard School of Public Health. Viewed May 19, 2022, from https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/trec/about-us/defini tions/#:~:text=Transdisciplinary%20Research%20is%20defined%20as,to%20address%20a% 20common%20problem Healy, A., & Malhotra, N. (2009). Myopic voters and natural disaster policy. American Political Science Review, 103(3), 387–406. Howard, A., Agllias, K., Bevis, M., & Blakemore, T. (2017). “They’ll tell us when to evacuate”: the experiences and expectations of disaster-related communication in vulnerable groups. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 22, 139–146.

80

3 Frameworks of Engagement and Precursors

Hsueh, H.-Y. (2019). The role of household social capital in post-disaster recovery: an empirical study in Japan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 39, 101199. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101199 Johnston, K. A. (2018). Toward a theory of social engagement. In K. A. Johnston, & M. Taylor (Eds.), The handbook of communication engagement (pp. 53–68). John Wiley & Sons. Kanakis, K., & McShane, C. J. (2016). Preparing for disaster: Preparedness in a flood and cyclone prone community. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 31(2), 18–24. Kirschenbaum, A., Rapaport, C., & Canetti, D. (2017). The impact of information sources on earthquake preparedness. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 21, 99–109. Koerth, J., Vafeidis, A. T., Hinkel, J., & Sterr, H. (2013). What motivates coastal households to adapt pro-actively to sea-level rise and increasing flood risk? Regional Environmental Change, 13(4), 897–909. Lagmay, A. M. F., Agaton, R. P., Bahala, M. A. C., Briones, J. B. L. T., Cabacaba, K. M. C., Caro, C. V. C., Dasallas, L. L., Gonzalo, L. A. L., Ladiero, C. N., Lapidez, J. P., Mungcal, M. T. F., Puno, J. V. R., Ramos, M. M. A. C., Santiago, J., Suarez, J. K., & Tablazon, J. P. (2015). Devastating storm surges of Typhoon Haiyan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 11, 1–12. Lechner, H. N., & Rouleau, M. D. (2019). Should we stay or should we go now? Factors affecting evacuation decisions at Pacaya volcano, Guatemala. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 40, 101160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101160 Li, X., & Feng, J. (2021). Empowerment or disempowerment: exploring stakeholder engagement in nation branding through a mixed method approach to social network analysis. Public Relations Review, 47(3), 102024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102024 Local Government Code of 1991. (1991). Manila. Philippines. Viewed February 10, 2020, from https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1991/ra_7160_1991.html Mansell, R. (2017). Inequality and digitally mediated communication: divides, contradictions and consequences. Javnost the Public, 24(2), 146–161. Marlowe, J., Neef, A., Tevaga, C. R., & Tevaga, C. (2018). A new guiding framework for engaging diverse populations in disaster risk reduction: Reach, relevance, receptiveness, and relationships. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 9(4), 507–518. Martin, M. L., Jenkins, H. A., Mehring, B. B., & Ma, A. C. (2011). All hazards, all communities: An approach to disaster preparedness and policy. Journal of Race and Policy, 7(1), 26–41. Mercer, J., Gaillard, J. C., Crowley, K., Shannon, R., Alexander, B., Day, S., & Becker, J. (2012). Culture and disaster risk reduction: Lessons and opportunities. Environmental Hazards, 11(2), 74–95. NDRRMC (National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council). (2018). National disaster risk reduction and management plan (NDRRMP) 2011–2028. Viewed November 17, 2021, from https://ndrrmc.gov.ph/attachments/article/1980/National_Disaster_Risk_Reduction_and_ Management_Plan.pdf National Emergency Management Agency. (2021). The 4 Rs. Retrieved 11 June from https://www. civildefence.govt.nz/cdem-sector/the-4rs/ Onuma, H., Shin, K. J., & Managi, S. (2017). Household preparedness for natural disasters: Impact of disaster experience and implications for future disaster risks in Japan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 21, 148–158. Osberghaus, D. (2015). The determinants of private flood mitigation measures in Germany— evidence from a nationwide survey. Ecological Economics, 110, 36–50. Paton, D., & Buergelt, P. (2019). ‘Risk, transformation and adaptation: ideas for reframing approaches to disaster risk reduction. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(14), 2594. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16142594 Poussin, J. K., Botzen, W. J. W., & Aerts, J. C. J. H. (2014). Factors of influence on flood damage mitigation behaviour by households. Environmental Science & Policy, 40, 69–77. Pratto, F. (2016). On power and empowerment. British Journal of Social Psychology, 55(1), 1–20. Quebral, N. C. (2012). The underside of communication in development. Nordicom Review, 33, 59–64.

References

81

Rashman, L., & Hartley, J. (2002). Leading and learning? Knowledge transfer in the Beacon Council Scheme. Public Administration, 80(3), 523–542. Rayamajhee, V., & Bohara, A. K. (2021). Social capital, trust, and collective action in postearthquake Nepal. Natural Hazards, 105(2), 1491–1519. Republic Act no. 10121. (2010). Official Gazette. 27 May, Viewed October 19, 2021, from https:// www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2010/05/27/republic-act-no-10121/ Republic Act no. 7160. (2021). Local government act of 1991, Official Gazette. 10 Oct, Viewed October 19, 2021, from https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1991/10/10/republic-act-no-7160/ Romani, J. H. (1956). The Philippine barrio. The Far Eastern Quarterly, 15(2), 229–237. Rowlands, J. (1995). Empowerment examined. Development in Practice, 5(2), 101–107. Ruin, I., Gaillard, J., & Lutoff, C. (2007). How to get there? Assessing motorists’ flash flood risk perception on daily itineraries. Environmental Hazards, 7(3), 235–244. Sanchez, K., & Sumaylo, D. J. (2015). IEC strategies on risk management and other precautionary practices of residents in Brgy. Matina Crossing 74-A. In International conference on communication/culture and the sustainable development goals: Challenges for a new generation. Chiang Mai. Shaw, R. (2020). Thirthy years of science, technology, and academia in disaster risk reduction and emerging responsibilities. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 11(4), 414–425. Shaw, R., & Goda, K. (2004). From disaster to sustainable civil society: The Kobe experience. Disasters, 28(1), 16–40. Shepherd, J., & van Vuuren, K. (2014). The Brisbane flood: CALD gatekeepers’ risk communication role. Disaster Prevention and Management, 23(4), 469–483. Smith, B. G., Stumberger, N., Guild, J., & Dugan, A. (2017). What’s at stake? An analysis of employee social media engagement and the influence of power and social stake. Public Relations Review, 43(5), 978–988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.04.010 Sujarwoto, S., & Tampubolon, G. (2016). Spatial inequality and the Internet divide in Indonesia 2010–2012. Telecommunications Policy, 40(7), 602–616. Sumaylo, D. J., Gomez, A. L., & Abrio, D. F. (2016). Mainstreaming LDRRMC-IEC efforts in Barangay Esperanza, Municipality of Loreto, Province of Dinagat Islands. In CIDS Research Colloquium. Tang, J. S., & Feng, J. Y. (2018). Residents’ disaster preparedness after the Meinong Taiwan earthquake: A test of protection motivation theory. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(7), 1434. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15071434 Taylor, M. (2018). Reconceptualizing public relations in an engaged society. In K. A. Johnston, & M. Taylor (Eds.), The handbook of communication engagement (pp. 162–174). John Wiley & Sons. Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6), 1024– 1054. Vincent, R. C. (2016). The Internet and sustainable development: Communication dissemination and the digital divide. Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, 15(6), 605–637. Wamil, R. A. (2010). Decentralizing disaster information: reflections on the BRB2 project. In L. Polotan-dela Cruz, E. Ferrer, & M. Pagaduan (Eds.), Building disaster-resilient communities: Stories and lessons from the Philippines (pp. 33–57). College of Social Work and Community Development and University of the Philippines Diliman. Webb, G. R. (2018). The cultural turn in disaster research: Understanding resilience and vulnerability through the lens of culture. In H. Rodríguez, W. Donner, & J. E. Trainor (Eds.), Handbook of disaster research (2nd ed., pp. 109–121). Springer. Wong, Y. C., Fung, J. Y. C., Law, C. K., Lam, J. C. Y., & Lee, V. W. P. (2009). Tackling the digital divide. British Journal of Social Work, 39(4), 754–767. Xuerui, Y. (2008). Narrowing or widening the digital divide? The growth of the Internet and uneven developments in China. Media Asia, 35(3), 140–204. Yang, X., & Ho, S. S. (2017). Decreasing the knowledge gap among different socioeconomic status groups on the issue of climate change. Environmental Hazards, 16(3), 276–290.

82

3 Frameworks of Engagement and Precursors

Yu, T.-K., Lin, M.-L., & Liao, Y.-K. (2017). Understanding factors influencing information communication technology adoption behavior: The moderators of information literacy and digital skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 196–208. Zamora, M. D. (1967). Political history, autonomy, and change: The case of the barrio charter. Asian Studies, 5(1), 79–100. Zheng, C., Zhang, J., Guo, Y., Zhang, Y., & Qian, L. (2019). Disruption and reestablishment of place attachment after large-scale disasters: The role of perceived risk, negative emotions, and coping. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 40, 101273.

Chapter 4

Getting the GIDA Story

4.1 Introduction To fully tell the story of these disaster-prone communities, one must examine the distances from the centre of services wherever they are located. I define GIDA in this study as communities with marginalised population isolated from mainstream society due to geographic and socioeconomic isolation. To get to one of my areas of study, I must travel at least 16 h by bus and another four hours by boat to get to the municipality where I can rent another boat and travel at least two hours to go to my field site. As such, these residents are making the most of limited resources and, surprisingly, ask little from government. The respondents have coped with disasters as something that they must go through together, especially amid their isolation. From my interviews with the different sectors alone, it was clear that the communities have placed a great deal of importance towards preparing for the unpredictable, whether these were earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, landslides, storm surges, and the utter randomness of climate change. From this paragraph alone, I was able to note that these were all likely possibilities, even if there are no recorded incidents of these disasters before. This chapter provides a general overview of the philosophical grounding of this qualitative study. A detailed description of each field site is provided, including a justification for considering these areas as GIDA. Finally, the last section presents a brief discussion of the theoretical underpinnings that were used to analyse the empirical data from the field.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 D. J. Sumaylo, Engaging Isolated Communities in Disaster Preparation and Communication in the Philippines, Communication, Culture and Change in Asia 11, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-4697-6_4

83

84

4 Getting the GIDA Story

4.2 Research Design My interactions with the communities led me to understand the practices of vulnerable sectors in the community. Doing so allowed me to document existing practices in terms of DRRM across various sectors. This approach confirmed some of my hypotheses while also debunking some of my own assumptions. My investigation followed a constructivist–interpretivist approach of qualitative research that allowed me to directly observe the practices and processes of disaster risk communication in situ. As Crotty (1998) explains, a constructivist lens is not about discovering meanings but rather observing how meanings are constructed. As such, meanings are situated in people, not in words, and the construction of meaning goes beyond objectivity. Instead, it involves how people experience reality and thereby allows that reality has a particular meaning endemic to each. Hence, employing an interpretivist theoretical perspective is logical in this research, as it seeks to understand the social realities of isolated and disadvantaged communities. Crotty (1998) highlights that the root of an interpretivist theoretical perspective is in human understanding. These epistemological and theoretical underpinnings allowed flexibility in terms of the methods of data collection that were employed in the field (Gobo & Marciniak, 2016; Morgan, 2008). In that regard also, a qualitative approach was deemed suitable for this people-centred project, since it supported the in-depth inductive exploration (David & Sutton, 2011) of the two main research variables, pre-disaster communication and community engagement practices. Previous studies have extensively used qualitative methods of data collection that I used in this study, namely (a) interviews (Becker et al., 2017; Burnside-Lawry & Carvalho, 2016; Donovan et al., 2012; McIntosh & Morse, 2015; Tandoc & Takahashi, 2017), (b) qualitative document analysis (Bowen, 2009; Burnside-Lawry & Carvalho, 2016), and (c) field observations (Burnside-Lawry & Carvalho, 2016; Donovan et al., 2012). These methods were employed to examine existing practices, processes, and communication modes and tools used for pre-disaster communication in two different field sites in Mindanao, Philippines that were classified as GIDA. In my own investigation, I wanted to find out the practices of the communities in the field sites, such as the ways they communicated with various sectors the need to prepare residents for disasters. Both of these areas represented communities in upland and island locations that, after applying inclusion–exclusion criteria, excluded any lowland communities. Varying the field sites was seen as important for this study (as per Sujarwoto & Tampubolon, 2016), as it was hoped that this would yield different but relevant information in terms of the information-seeking and -sharing behaviours that were used in the context of each area, but in the end, only two areas, island and upland, proved practicable in terms of the criteria (see also Sect. 4.3). This triangulation of methods is common in qualitative studies (David & Sutton, 2011) and is considered essential for both gathering and corroborating data (Bowen, 2009). Triangulation is particularly valuable in places like the Philippines, which follows a top-down approach in terms of DRRM. At the ground level, there are more moving parts, as there are more than one group of actors involved in the Barangay

4.3 Gathering Stories

85

level (see Sect. 3.4.1). The three main data collection methods were utilised to acquire the following types of data: descriptive; profiling; possible segmentation, attitudes, and expectations; trust and relationships; and media use and preferences.

4.3 Gathering Stories The criteria used to identify the locations for this study were based on the factors that represent a GIDA according to the Philippines’ Department of Health (2018). The DOH says that there are physical and socioeconomic factors that qualify areas to be among the poorest of the poor. Physical factors include distance and difficulty in transportation, while socioeconomic factors include high levels of poverty, the presence of vulnerable sectors, and the presence of or recovery from armed conflicts (Department of Health, 2018). The two communities in Mindanao selected for this study have been classified as GIDA by the Philippines’ Department of Health. These places were also chosen because of their socioeconomic status based on the class level of the local government according to their average annual income (BusinessWorld Research, 2018) and the presence of vulnerable sectors such as indigenous peoples, senior citizens, youth, and women (World Health Organization, 2009). In regard to the former, the Department of Finance in the Philippines classifies cities, municipalities, and provinces into six income classes, with first class being awarded to local governments with the highest average annual income. I also included poor access to communication infrastructure (which was based on the experiences conveyed by local DRRM councils during the initial interviews when I was searching for a field site), and experience of slow-moving natural hazards (typhoons and floods, determined as per record of the National Council) as part of the criteria. Initially, I wanted to find three locations for this study that would represent disadvantaged communities living in (a) island, (b) upland, and (c) lowland areas (Sujarwoto & Tampubolon, 2016). A representation from three different topographies responds to the recommendation of Sujarwoto and Tampubolon (2016) to vary locations when dealing with spatial inequalities. These authors suggest that there might be varying experiences of GIDA communities, depending on their topography. However, upon applying the criteria described by the Philippines’ Department of Health, only two locations qualified as GIDA, and these were upland and island. The lowland site was excluded because these are easily accessible by public transport; further, they are often classified as first to third income class based on annual income. Lastly, there were no lowland areas in the list of GIDA-classified villages provided by the Department of Health that had recently experienced typhoons and other slow-moving natural hazards; thus, no lowland areas fit the study criteria. Several scholars have highlighted the need to examine spaces of inequality in disaster communication (Reid, 2013; Sujarwoto & Tampubolon, 2016). Spatial inequality in a country cannot be classified by an urban–rural dichotomy. There are gradients of spatial inequalities in any given place, with various social inequalities experienced by the people living in them. In addition, further marginalisation

86

4 Getting the GIDA Story

of already geographically distant communities often occurs in relation to socioeconomic factors and the efficacy of media information. In the Philippines, GIDA areas are often overlooked and marginalised because of their location, which adds to their socioeconomic disadvantage. This study addresses the call of other scholars to investigate disaster risk communication practices in isolated locations; it does this by focussing on two GIDA communities in Mindanao, Philippines. In the past, the islands of Mindanao were outside the typhoon belt, at least until the onslaught of two of the most destructive typhoons (Haiyan/Yolanda and Bopha/Pablo). Mindanao lost its typhoon-free title and now fits the criterion for disaster preparation. This relatively recent phenomenon calls attempts to answer calls for scholars to identify and make sense of disaster risk communication practices in areas like these two GIDA communities. I wanted to know how prepared the communities in these areas are since the 2012 (Bopha/Pablo) and 2013 (Haiyan/Yolanda) typhoons.

4.3.1 GIDA and the Field Sites There are at least two ways of looking at both field sites, namely the way these places are described on paper vis-a-vis my own observations. However, throughout my interaction with the communities, a third image of the sites would unravel itself. The interviews showed the way the communities looked at their own situation, from a lens of groups who experience the area for themselves. This section establishes the context and current situation of the field sites from the provincial to the village level. The duration of the study allowed me to create a careful description of the barangays (villages) and provided empirical evidence why these areas and the people living in it are considered geographically isolated and socioeconomically disadvantaged. This section also details concerns that were raised by my informants (on all community levels) during the initial site planning stages as warranting attention. The general objective of this study was to investigate the intersection between disaster preparedness and community engagement in the context of spatial isolation and socioeconomic inequalities. This focus was established to differentiate this study from both the literature already available on this subject regarding the Philippines (Cool et al., 2015; Gaillard, 2007; Valenzuela et al., 2020) and that available regarding its Southeast Asian neighbours, such as Indonesia (Chang Seng, 2013; Djalante & Thomalla, 2012; Sujarwoto & Tampubolon, 2016). In order to do this, I specifically decided to focus on GIDA. These are not simply rural areas. People living in GIDA experience all the geographic, socioeconomic, and political concerns described in the literature, but these are exacerbated by their context. This focus puts forward the relevance of the spatial distribution of people and its intersection with disaster risk information distribution and consumption. This made the selection of the field sites the most crucial aspect in this regard. In the process, I followed a simple set of inclusion–exclusion criteria to identify a province, municipality, and eventually a GIDA village as a potential primary field site.

4.3 Gathering Stories

87

The specific criteria for GIDA classification used by the Philippines’ Department of Health states that this classification Refer[s] to communities with marginalized population physically and socio-economically separated from the mainstream society and characterized by physical factors—isolated due to distance, weather conditions and transportation difficulties (island, upland, lowland, landlocked, hard to reach and unserved/underserved communities) and socio-economic factors (high poverty incidence, presence of vulnerable sector, communities in or recovering from situation of crisis or armed conflict; Department of Health, 2018).

To be classified as GIDA means the area and the people residing in it are separated from mainstream society. While still caused by catastrophic slow-moving disasters, their disaster-related stories are comparatively minute in the overall scale and are thus often neglected by mainstream media. As such, their voices and concerns are almost always excluded in the narrative of the majority that is portrayed in national news stories. As Curato (2018) opines, mainstream media attention is focussed on ‘monster meteorological events’ (pp. 58–59) that impact a large group of people; this attention often draws assistance from institutions outside the affected area. Despite the severity of the impact caused by any natural hazard in these vulnerable areas, the situation will not be classified as disaster, but rather, it will only be classified as calamity, since disaster is defined by EM-DAT (2020) as a: situation or event, which overwhelms local capacity, necessitating a request to national or international level for external assistance; An unforeseen and often sudden event that causes great damage, destruction and human suffering. Though often caused by nature, disasters can have human origins.

By classification, this terminology limits description to the scale of negative impacts caused by natural hazard to the overall societal functions (e.g., Super Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda). Calamity is the terminology used when an isolated case of community disruption impacts a smaller number of people. For instance, while in GIDA communities a landslide caused by heavy rains might disrupt an entire community’s livelihood, this incident is not considered a disaster by EM-DAT definition. Given this demand and context, I implemented a threefold inclusion–exclusion criteria in my initial search. At first I thought that only one province in Mindanao must be selected to represent each of upland, island, or lowland areas. However, I also realised that if I could identify a province that included barangays which fulfilled all three geographic requirements and the rest of the inclusion–exclusion criteria, I could consider doing this study in only one province. Second, the province, including its municipalities and villages, should have experienced a slow-moving disaster, specifically a typhoon. Third, the province needed to have reported the existence of GIDA villages to the Department of Health. In order to action this criteria, I consulted the latest list of GIDAs per province provided by the Department of Health to see if I needed to choose one province per geographic requirement, or if there might be one province that fulfilled all the requirements. I also reviewed the latest typhoons that hit the island of Mindanao from 2010 to 2017 using the disaster reports and advisories of the National Council (NDRRMC 2018a) and news media sources.

88

4 Getting the GIDA Story

This document review yielded two provinces (that had already been included in the previous criterion) that were hit by typhoons Bopha/Pablo (2012) and Haiyan/ Yolanda (2013). Focussing my enquires on these two provinces, I then identified the exact municipalities where Bopha/Pablo and Haiyan/Yolanda had made landfall by reviewing news stories and reports from the National Council webpage. At this stage, my intention was to find municipalities in these provinces that had locations that could represent island, upland, and lowland GIDAs. I solicited recommendations from the provincial DRRM councils for a location that would fit my inclusion–exclusion criteria, which were (a) contains a lowland, upland, or island municipality, (b) was struck by either or both of the typhoons Bopha/Pablo and Haiyan/Yolanda, and (c) contains GIDA-classified villages. These recommendations from the provincial DRRM council added to the preparation of possible study areas that had begun with my document analysis of published records. After consulting the list of GIDA villages in the provinces hit by typhoons Bopha/ Pablo and Haiyan/Yolanda, no lowland area fit the criteria, and at this point, it became clear that I could not find a lowland area in the municipalities under the two provinces impacted by typhoons Bopha/Pablo and Haiyan/Yolanda. The upland province suggested a municipal area home to indigenous peoples (IP) and armed rebel groups operate in the area. As such, their security (and mine) would be compromised because of the presence of armed rebel groups. During data collection, however, the area did not record any recent activities from the rebel group, and this issue was therefore not considered critical. As noted, these concurrent realities (the presence of vulnerable groups and security problems such as armed conflict) are some of the main criteria of a GIDA community. The identification of a specific GIDA village in this area was easier since I had already obtained a list of GIDA villages per province and municipality from the Department of Health. All I needed was a confirmation from the municipal DRRM council that this village had been hit by typhoon Bopha/Pablo. I also needed an approval and endorsement from the municipal mayor, who chairs the municipal DRRM council, to conduct interviews and observations in the village. The same process was employed in the island province for that field site. The only difference was that instead of armed rebel groups as the potential threat, my concern was safety in crossing the Philippine Sea because there was no public transport available going in and out of the island. I had to negotiate with private contractors/fisherfolk who were willing to take me across.

4.3.1.1

The Field Sites

There are four administrative divisions in the Philippines: regions, provinces and cities, municipalities and component cities, and barangays (villages). There are 17 administrative regions in the country (I–XVII), and the areas of study represent the Caraga (Region XIII) and Davao (Region 11) Regions. The provinces, municipalities, and villages are legislated administrative divisions that are collectively referred to as LGUs. It is important to present the province and municipality where the upland

4.3 Gathering Stories

89

and island villages are located to establish both the place and the levels of decisionmaking and information dissemination that are present in these areas. This hierarchal presentation also provides context when discussing life in the island and upland villages. Therefore, the discussion about the upland and island villages was separated since these areas are the main concern of this study. At this point, I would like to reiterate that when I use the terms upland or island area, this covers both the provincial and municipal levels, unless stated otherwise.

The Island Field Site Description The island province is situated in the north-eastern part of Mindanao and falls into the Caraga Region. This province was chosen to be one of the areas of study because it was included in the areas hit by Haiyan/Yolanda in 2013 and is now the gateway for the typhoons that occur in the Philippines (NDRRMC, 2018a). Based on its income, the municipality suggested by the provincial DRRM office is a fourth class municipality, making it one of the poorest in the Philippines. It has a population of 9309 based on the 2015 census (Philippine Statistics Authority, 2019), and there are ten barangays (villages) under this municipality. Of these ten, four are classified as GIDA. Three of these four barangays are geographically separated from the main island. This municipality was also suggested because one of its villages had previously won the Gawad KALASAG1 competition, which was initiated in 1998 by the defunct National Disaster Coordinating Council. It gives recognition to the best local DRRM councils in the Philippines in terms of their efforts in implementing the four thematic areas of the National Plan in their area. Given this background, I immediately had high expectations for the site recommended by the municipal DRRM council. Such a site would allow me to see the various DRRM activities and projects that had earned them an award as one of the best in the country. Thus, the island village chosen for this research was under the leadership of this award-winning municipality. The island village fit the previously stipulated inclusion–exclusion criteria previously discussed. As noted, in terms of natural hazards, typhoons are a constant threat of this island province and its nearby provinces in the Caraga Administrative Region (NDRRMC, 2018a), making it a suitable selection for the fieldwork. There are only two seasons in the Philippines, rainy (June to November) and dry (December to May). However, the climate of this island province is classified as Type 2, which means that there is no dry season at all (PAGASA, 2019). This climate type makes the island province vulnerable to landslides and floods, as well as typhoons, storm surges, earthquakes, and tsunamis (see Fig. 4.1).

1

KALASAG: KAlamidad at Sakuna LAbanan, SAriling Galing ang Kaligtasan. Kalasag is also a Filipino word for shield.

90

4 Getting the GIDA Story

Fig. 4.1 Geohazard map of the island province. This hazard map shows the distance of the island village from the municipality. It also shows that the island is prone to flooding and landslides. Red indicates high landslide susceptibility, and blue indicates high flood susceptibility. The name of the province has been removed from the original map, as required by RMIT Ethics Committee. Source ‘Flood and landslide susceptibility rating’, by Lands Geological Surveys Division—Mines and Geosciences Bureau, 2019, Geohazard web portal, https://mgb-lgsd.maps.arc gis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=272f20c01e32491084fcb9dc0dc498c9. Copyright by Mines and Geosciences Bureau

The island barangay (village) The chosen barangay field site is a small village in an island off the northwest coast of the municipality. The island itself comprises three villages, and my field site was the farthest away from the municipality (see red ‘balloon’ at top left of the map in Fig. 4.1). My study area is located northwest of the main island province, and its adjacent bodies of water are the Surigao Strait and Leyte Gulf. All three villages on this island are on the list of GIDA from the Department of Health. There is no public transport available to people who live on the island, either across the Sea to the larger municipal island, or on the island from one village to the next. The road network connecting the three GIDA villages in the island is also a problem. The single lane

4.3 Gathering Stories

91

and often unpaved road network fits only two motorbikes abreast and goes around the island following the coast line. If there are storm surges, the road network will be the first thing to be destroyed. Moreover, excluding Filipino, the residents of this village speak at least three languages. Several of the barangay houses are built near the coastline in order for residents to have access to mooring space for their fishing boats. These houses are built using a combination of light materials (e.g., corrugated galvanised iron sheets) that can be easily blown or washed away by strong winds and big waves. Moreover, these houses were built by local carpenters without the supervision of engineers or architects and therefore may not withstand super typhoons like Haiyan/Yolanda and storm surges. Those closest to the coastline are often built using light materials. Both the village multipurpose gymnasium, which is the office of the barangay officials, and the health centre are near the coastline. Natural hazards in the island village Based on the geohazard map of the municipality and maps from the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA), the island village is prone to typhoons, landslides, flooding, and storm surges. Despite its geographic location, I was unable to verify if the area is also prone to tsunami, as there was no information from the province or municipality on the threats of tsunami in the village. There was no road signage (steel type or otherwise), in the village that tagged it as prone to tsunami. However, the village leader/barangay captain reported tidal wave as one of the natural hazards faced by those living in low-lying areas of the village. A tidal wave is caused by the gravitational forces of the sun, moon, and earth. It differs from storm surge because the latter happens during tropical storms and typhoons. A tidal wave is also different from tsunami because the latter is caused by seismic disturbances (Smith, 2013).

The Upland Field Site Description The upland province located in the southeast of Mindanao’s Davao Region was chosen because this area was hit by Typhoon Bopha/Pablo in 2012 (NDRRMC, 2018a) and is constantly plagued by flooding and landslides (see Fig. 4.2). Within this province is a municipality containing upland villages that were impacted by Bopha/Pablo. The municipality is also home to several vulnerable sectors, including indigenous peoples. A village was found in this municipality that fit the inclusion– exclusion criteria stipulated for the selection of field sites for this study. Despite being categorised as an ‘upland’ area by this study, the province is also prone to storm surges and coastal erosion and degradation because the total provincial area covers upland, lowland, and island municipalities. Flooding is a constant

92

4 Getting the GIDA Story

Fig. 4.2 Geohazard map of the upland province. This geohazard map indicates that the entire province is susceptible to landslide (red) and some of it to flooding (navy blue). The name of the province has been removed from the original map, as required by RMIT Ethics Committee. ‘Flood and landslide susceptibility rating’, by Lands Geological Surveys Division—Mines and Geosciences Bureau, 2015, Geohazard web portal, https://mgb-lgsd.maps.arc gis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=272f20c01e32491084fcb9dc0dc498c9. Copyright by Mines and Geosciences Bureau

threat in this province, as are tropical depressions and landslides. This list is a byproduct of deforestation, farming and land use malpractices, and the rapid growth and development of urban areas. The upland village Established in June 1967, the upland village is part of the timberland area of the municipality that was suggested by the provincial DRRM office. The entire timberland area, which comprises five villages, is owned by the government, and the people living there do not have land titles because the area is considered a forest reserve. However, they are permitted to live in the area and develop it. The upland village is divided into nine silos called puroks (zones), and houses a population of 1942 people, made up of 433 households and 467 families. Of the

4.3 Gathering Stories

93

total population, 804 people are part of indigenous groups. This diversity also means various languages are spoken in this area. Residents in the upland village speak three languages aside from Filipino, the national language. Despite the relatively small population, which could conceivably allow smooth dissemination of information, the upland village population experience issues in terms of their proximity to other residents in the village, as the households are dispersed across the terrain. The closest neighbour may be at least two kilometres away, and only a few households are living near the village ‘centre’, where the barangay hall is situated. Most residents are living on their farmlands further up the mountain. In addition, the upland village is situated close to the border of another province, which is only 12 kms away; as a result, most of the village residents carry out their regular activities—school, market, church— across the border in this province, rather than accessing these services in their own village. Travel time from the municipal capital to the upland area takes 45–60 min, but it takes longer if one shares a ride with others, as Filipinos generally commute. The more weight on the motorcycle-based transports, the slower they can climb the steep mountains. Natural hazards in the upland village The upland village is prone to landslides due to the heavy rains that are part of its climate. A major landslide event occurred in 2013, when category 5 Typhoon Bopha/ Pablo hit the area. Tectonic landslide may happen at any time, however, since there is an active fault line that runs through the village. According to the municipal DRRM council, a crack is already visible in the area. The upland village lacks a safe road network. There is only one secondary road that goes to the village centre; however, the road does not reach the actual centre. Since no four-wheeled vehicles frequent the area, the minor roads may be enough for those residents in the village who own a motorcycle, and those who make driving a skylab and/or habal-habal their livelihood. However, this quality of road infrastructure is problematic when it comes to mounting disaster preparedness and disaster response activities.

4.3.2 GIDA Community and Government Informants’ Profile Two sets of informants were interviewed for this study. The first set are implementers of the National Plan at the local level. The second set are community leaders living in areas classified as GIDA. Identifying informants for the first group was purposive and was based on the organisational structure of LGUs and local DRRM councils (provincial, municipal, and barangay). In addition to government employees, the first group of informants included other professionals in charge of implementing the National Plan. I decided to include the catch-all phrase ‘other professionals’ in preparation for the possibility that I would be interviewing employees without an employer–employee relationship. These employees are called ‘Job Order’ employees in the Philippines, and the services

94

4 Getting the GIDA Story

they provide are considered non-government services, hence their status as not having any form of employer–employee relationship. In Australia, this kind of position is similar to one that is considered project-based with a clear termination date. The second group of informants were adult residents aged between 21 and 65 years old who had previously and/or were currently participating in any disaster preparedness activities. In response to studies which highlight that women are more proactive in DRRM than men, I tried to achieve gender balance in recruiting local informants (Mulyasari & Shaw, 2013). The interviews with these community residents included questions about their information-seeking behaviours and their media preference in obtaining pre-disaster information. They were also asked about the kind of engagement they have with the local DRRM office, and in what way they take an active role in preparing themselves for future disasters (Shklovski et al., 2010). Each of the interviews was 30–60 min long. Informants holding local leadership roles (teachers, priests, etc.) were interviewed at their workplace, while other informants were interviewed in public spaces of the purok (open hut), or the basketball court, community health centre, or barangay (village) hall. Table 4.1 provides a summary of the informants’ profiles. The total number of informants was 22, 11 informants from the government and 11 informants from the community. Table 4.1 Summary of informants’ profiles Island area

Upland area

Profile

Code

Profile

Code

Island, female, PLG

I1

Upland, female, PLG

U1

Island, female, PLG

I2

Upland, male, PLG

U2

Island, male, PLG

I3

Upland, male, MLG

U3

Island, male, MLG

I4

Upland, male, MLG

U4

Island, transwoman, MLG

I5

Upland, male, BLG

U5

Island, male, BLG

I6

Upland, female, community nurse, UC

U6

Island, female, health worker, IC

I7

Upland, female, housewife, UC

U7

Island, female, women’s sector, IC

I8

Upland, male, former village police, UC

U8

Island, female, health worker, IC

I9

Upland, female, landslide victim, UC

U9

Island, female, housewife, IC

I10

Upland, female, landslide victim/ vendor, UC

U10

Island, female, village functionary, IC

I11

Island, female, housewife, IC

I12

PLG—provincial local government; MLG—municipal local government; BLG—barangay local government; UC—upland community; IC—island community

4.4 Data Collection Methods

95

4.4 Data Collection Methods Data gathering for this study involved both desk work and fieldwork. Desk work included searching for relevant literature, including disaster databases, online; monitoring news reports about disaster preparedness efforts of the government and DRRM updates from the upland and island areas; obtaining and reproducing geohazard maps; and reviewing additional environment-related laws in the Philippines that might aid in either the development of data gathering tools or with the analysis. Table 4.2 provides a summary of the data collected and the specific method of data collection employed. The tabular presentation of these data collection methods does not imply sequential implementation; the actual process was recursive and cyclic, and thus, the data gathering was not linear. Non-participant field observations were done during the whole duration of data collection, depending on the kind of data that was being observed.

4.4.1 Talking to Locals The semi-structured interviews I did aimed to allow the articulation of the experiences of both government officials and community members living in GIDAs regarding working to achieve the disaster preparedness outcomes of the National Plan. To achieve this, two sets of informants were required. The first set of informants were government employees and professionals implementing the National Plan at the local level. The second set of informants were residents of the study sites. In the interview, the informants from the first group were asked to provide insights about the various processes and methods used in disseminating disaster risk information to the public. This enquiry aimed to allow them to provide an overview of their plans and projects that could be broadly classified under the thematic area ‘disaster preparedness of the National Plan’. Specifically, they were asked to provide information on the various communication tools they used/were in use to disseminate disaster Table 4.2 Summary of data collection procedures Data type

Data source

Data collection method

1

Document analysis (communication tools used)

Existing communication tools Semi-structured interviews for disaster risk communication and non-participant field observations

2

Implementation status of the community-based DRRM program

Regional DRRM officer city/ municipal/provincial/barangay DRRM officers

Semi-structured interviews and non-participant field observations

3

Information-seeking and -sharing practices

Local community

Semi-structured interviews and non-participant field observations

96

4 Getting the GIDA Story

risk information. They were also asked about how the local community engage with the communication tools the government had used/was using. The informants were also asked to describe whether the communication tools currently in use fit the social and cultural context of the community by providing examples of problems they had encountered with using these tools. Lastly, they were asked how they had tried to encourage local communities to take proactive roles in DRRM in terms of their information-seeking and -sharing behaviours regarding disaster risk information. Informants in the second group were local informal village leaders, such as local priest/pastor, teachers, purok (district/zone) leaders, and those who took/had taken an active part in disseminating disaster risk information. Informal leaders were considered target informants because I was convinced that they were knowledgeable about DRRM practices and had disaster experience in the area. This second group were all adult residents of the study areas who were between 21 and 65 years old and who had previously participated and/or were currently participating in any disaster preparedness activities. They were identified using Fujii’s (2018) ‘funnel method’, which required looking for someone who had taken/was taking an active participation and/ or leadership role in disaster management efforts of the village DRRM office. Prior exposure to these activities, especially drills and training, was relevant to ensure that informants either had been or were currently part of the communication process. I also conducted informal interviews during field work. Informal interviews were conversations with informants from both groups who shared information relevant to the topic. Informal interviews or conversations did not follow the semi-structured interview schedule that I had prepared ahead of time. The remarks offered in these informal conversations tended to confirm what had been disclosed in formal interviews, and/or otherwise provided general remarks about living in that area that gave context. These informants were not included in the total number of interviewees for this study, but relevant information from these informal conversations is included in the discussion. In general, the two categories of informants in this study provided two perspectives about pre-disaster communication and community engagement practices in relation to GIDA communities; as implementers of the National Plan, the government informants provided a different perspective than the community informants, who are effectively end-users of information. The government perspective was largely a descriptive implementation of the National Plan at the local level. The community informants talked about how they were informed; how they wanted to be informed; how and why they wanted to participate in DRRM activities; and why, despite knowing the risks they face, they choose to prioritise other basic needs over disaster preparedness. Having two sets of informants thus allowed two perspectives to emerge that aided in explaining the context and process of pre-disaster communication in geographically isolated locations. An interpretivist–constructivist approach was appropriate for this study because it allowed the data to paint a picture of pre-disaster communication experiences in geographically isolated and socioeconomically disadvantaged areas. The qualitative approach also facilitated the systematic examination of variables through an inclusion–exclusion process that kept the limitations of the study and its analysis within the GIDA context.

4.4 Data Collection Methods

97

4.4.2 A Document is not Static A thematic document analysis was essential for the evaluation of current policies and laws and other communication tools pertaining to DRRM in the Philippines. The analysis investigated the role of documents (i.e., communication tools, news stories, and government reports, policies, and laws) in disseminating information, building knowledge, and influencing perceptions. I explored Prior’s (2003) concept of what constitutes a document, and followed the examples Bowen (2009) provides regarding documents that can be assessed for research. The concepts of Prior and Bowen were operationalised using the step-by-step process of document analysis suggested by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2009, 2018). This was deemed suitable because document analysis is not a method of data collection exclusive to studies in health and its allied fields. Moving away from the definition that a document is something static and predefined, Prior (2003) defined documents as something that should be discussed and examined based on their context and framing. For Prior, a document can be a combination of text, images, and auditory material merged into one. For this study, document analysis entailed appraising the communication tools used to disseminate disaster risk information in geographically isolated locations. I examined various existing communication tools, such as maps, posters, and flyers, among other things (Bowen, 2009). The results of the document analysis informed the interview questions for the community informants, and document analysis was completed prior to conducting non-participant field observations. The completion of the document analysis prior to fieldwork was significant as it informed the initial checklist used for field observations. The document analysis involved a specific data abstraction method and specified the list of documents to be analysed. I specifically audited existing communication tools that were being used in communicating disaster risk information. These were maps, posters, flyers, PowerPoint presentations during drills and seminars, disaster drills and lecture programs, early warning devices, scripts of radio broadcasts, social networking sites/social media accounts, and instructional video materials used for training. All the materials that were analysed are publicly available and are posted at local DRRM offices, in stores, and at roadsides. These were important in providing initial information and context for the research questions. What was essential to the investigation was a thorough examination of the various communication processes and tools involved in communicating disaster risk information in geographically isolated and disadvantaged locations. The qualitative document analysis employed to achieve this goal was influenced by a management process called communication audit, which is ‘a process of exploring, examining, monitoring, and evaluating’ communication processes (Downs & Adrian, 2004, p. 6). These four activities formed the basis of the document analysis process for this study. To begin with, selection followed the process advocated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2009, 2018) to identify the various documents used in information dissemination. It also followed the definition used by sociologist Prior (2003), who

98

4 Getting the GIDA Story

defined a document as something that is not static or predefined; Prior observes that documents should be discussed and examined based on their context or field and framing. This definition means that a document can be a combination of text, images, and auditory material, merged into one unit. In this sense, what is considered a document or used for document analysis may vary, depending on the objective of the qualitative research. Bowen (2009) focusses on the evaluation of tangible, printed forms of documents, both those published online and offline. As such, the documents analysed for this study included both print and non-print materials distributed via digital and nondigital platforms, as well as the interpersonal communication practices also used to communicate disaster risk information that are required by the geographically isolated context of the study sites. Following Bowen, the evaluation process included describing the communication tools used in situ; their primary purpose (based on the perspective of the government); how the community used these tools; and what use or aspects of the tools hinder information transfer. The principal aim of the document analysis was to evaluate the production and consumption of documents (communication tools) for pre-disaster communication, along two trajectories: (a) how the Philippine Government produce and disseminate information and (b) how the people in GIDA communities respond to the current dissemination processes. The intersection of these two trajectories is in spatial isolation and socioeconomic inequalities. Although some document evaluation demands a form of counting words and categorising these words into themes, what was relevant for this research was to identify the function of the documents in pre-disaster communication. As such, documents analysed in this research were considered social products (Prior, 2003), which is the reason why they were approached beyond textual analysis and were evaluated according to their societal function. Adapting the community engagement strategies of Bowen et al. (2010), a summary of the document evaluation criteria is presented in Table 4.3.

4.4.3 Field Observations To examine the way the residents communicated risks and hazards, I documented the communities’ existing documentation tools and how the residents engaged with them. These observations also included how residents communicate, both with each other and with the local government regarding the tools. I also documented the residents’ exposure to the various communication tools. Lastly, I assessed issues of information access by going to pocket areas where communication signal was available and appraised the modes of travel available to residents in this regard; these issues were included as data that confirmed the two criteria of a GIDA (physical and socioeconomic factors). The field observations rolled out in this study were initially structured around a checklist. A structured observation checklist seemed appropriate, since the incipient aim of this data collection method was to provide clear evidence on how communities

4.4 Data Collection Methods

99

Table 4.3 Criteria used in assessing current communication tools and level of engaging communities, based on the CEC Research objective

Transactional engagement

Transitional engagement

Transformational engagement

Stance

‘Giving back’

‘Building bridges’

‘Changing society’

Communication tactics/model

One-way, top-down

Two-way, but still centred on the organisation

Two-way, but balanced communication between organisation and the community

Characteristics

Top-down framework of information transfer, with emphasis on the government as sender of message

Involves consultation, collaboration, shared sense making, and problem framing

Frequency of interaction

Occasional

Repeated

Frequent

Control on process

Firm

Firm

Shared

Number of community

Many

Many

Few

Source Author, based on Bowen et al. (2010)

interact with the communication tools. During the fieldwork, however, the observation checklist I had prepared expanded to include items from answers informants had provided pertaining to their use of communication tools. This expanded structured observation checklist was used to corroborate data from interviews with government informants about the communication tools used in communicating disaster risk information. The observation area also expanded: from its initial focus at the village level, my observations eventually covered both the provincial and municipal levels. This was because focussing just on the village level did not go according to plan, since there were no actual drills or training scheduled during the 6-month fieldwork. There was an actual natural calamity (flooding) in one of the areas, which allowed me to ask questions pertaining to preparations, setbacks, and plans in terms of DRRM at all levels. This expansion of the area was critical in the analysis, as it showed the disparity between accessible areas vis-à-vis GIDAs. I also acknowledge Handley’s (2008) position, that utilising non-participative observation does not totally maintain the investigator’s distance from the study, as the presence of an outsider may influence the actions of those observed. While I kept this in mind, the kind of impact Handley means does not require transition to a participant observation method.

100

4 Getting the GIDA Story

4.5 Interpreting GIDA Communities’ Stories Data analysis for this study was divided into two levels—cross-case analysis and case-oriented analysis. These levels of analysis required coding, which allowed the creation of labels, categories, and patterns within the data (Babbie, 2016). Data in this study refer to interview transcripts, field observation checklists, and preliminary document analysis of existing DRRM communication tools and DRRM-related laws and policies. Preliminary document analysis helped craft the interview schedule and field observation checklist. The first level of analysis required data coding using cross-case analysis. At this stage in the analysis, I identified patterns across several interviews and observations (Babbie, 2016). The second level of analysis, called case-oriented analysis, identified similarities based on the number of frequencies it appeared in the available data (Babbie, 2016). This stage of analysis allowed me to compare data coming from both upland and island areas. Triangulation of data came in at this level of analysis as well. Both levels of analysis allowed me to navigate the interaction and integration of data between national versus local government levels. This kind of analysis was expected because DRRM in the Philippines follows a top-down approach. Combining levels of analysis from the national to local level also represents the intersection of disciplines—development communication and organisational communication— within the conversation. Interpretation was the last stage in the analysis process. The interpretation of data was based on the community engagement frameworks (western models or frameworks) and Filipino Values System (local theoretical lens). Discussions and conclusions emanating from this study were based on the national policies as implemented locally, and these two shall be in constant dialogue. The level of analysis was not just at the conceptual intersections but also at the practical intersections as concepts and frameworks were operationalised at the grassroots level. The national remains in conversation with the local and vice versa. This research is grounded on development communication, which is defined as the strategic use of media to achieve social change (Manyozo, 2012; Mefalopulos, 2008) but it also works within other disciplinal intersections like organisational communication. This study investigated three themes. The first was the current predisaster communicative conditions, to see if these seamlessly meld top-down and bottom-up approaches in engaging communities. This theme ensured a discussion on the communicative role of community engagement in DRRM. The second was the experiences of GIDA communities, highlighting and examining their impact on predisaster communicative conditions and community engagement. This theme covered contextual pre-disaster communication and community engagement. The third theme investigated pertained to the identification of variables that could aid in developing a pre-disaster communication and community engagement model that incorporates the experiences of geographically and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. The first theme demands a closer look at Bowen et al.’ (2010) CEC and Dufty’s (2011) CEF. These two frameworks were essential in data analysis, since the objective

4.5 Interpreting GIDA Communities’ Stories

101

of the study was to explore multiple possibilities of equipping and engaging communities in geographically and socioeconomically disadvantaged areas to prepare for natural hazards. Dufty (2011) argues that community engagement should be both informative and cooperative and thus should not discount top-down approaches. In a similar vein, Bowen et al. (2010) plot three levels of engagement (transactional, transitional, and transformational) and identify criteria on how to reach each level. Together, these two frameworks generally argue that there is no singular method (topdown or bottom-up) of community engagement. Using these frameworks allowed the analysis of current practice, in terms of reach, through (a) identifying specific communication tools and frequency of communicating information, (b) plotting the kind of relationship (top-down or bottom-up) between the sender (government) and the receiver (GIDA community), and (c) identifying the kind of engagement expected from people based on these communicative practices. In relation to this, community in this research is defined as a group of people sharing the same geographical location and sustaining a certain level of interaction among themselves. This definition follows Bowen et al.,’ (2010, p. 302) characterisation of community as either geographical, interactional, or based on identity. The second theme examined the disaster risk communication experiences of GIDA communities, including the experiences of the government in communicating to people living in geographic isolation. At this stage in the analysis, Tomas Andres’s (1988) Filipino Values System, observed from the perspective of community development, was considered essential to discuss the relevant variable that distinguishes the field sites from one another. Identifying the Values System as the basis of certain practices is essential in explaining the role of previous experiences (actual or simulated) adults in the communities described in regard to these communication and engagement processes. This theoretical frame is important, because this research deals with the previous experiences of informants that impact the current pre-disaster communication practices of both field sites. This theory also captures people’s receptiveness to those pre-disaster messages and social relationships, which, according to Marlowe et al. (2018), are culturally resonant. Receptiveness and relationships cannot be fully explained by Bowen et al.’ (2010) CEC and Dufty’s (2011) CEF. Andres’s Filipino Values System was also used to understand intrinsic variables that are present in and affect the interactions between the government and communities, and those that occur among residents in GIDA communities. Since this research investigated interactions between government and GIDA communities and the interactions of people living in GIDA communities, it was essential to know what kind of social power takes hold in these interactions. The kinds of social power identified were extrapolated from the descriptions of the interactions that occurred between the two kinds of informants (government and community). These can be used as essential variables that may impact the development of future transformative communication and community engagement frameworks that engage people in spatially disadvantaged situations.

102

4 Getting the GIDA Story

4.6 Summary This chapter has detailed the methodology and the specific methods used in data collection and analysis which allowed the exploration, documentation, and validation of the DRRM experiences of marginalised GIDA communities in Mindanao, Philippines. The triage of methods used—interviews, document analysis, and field observations—gathered self-reported experiences of two sets of informants to create a picture of disaster risk communication practices. Field observation was not solely used to describe both field sites, but was also used to verify answers from both sets of informants. Data gathering for this study involved both desk work and fieldwork. After all data were collected from both study sites, the first level of analysis was made. The first objective of this study was to determine how disaster risk information is disseminated in geographically isolated and disadvantaged areas. This data provided a picture of the extent of local implementation of the National Plan and a description of how local DRRM councils roll out disaster preparedness as one of the four thematic areas of the National Plan. The second level of analysis identified the multiple variables that positively or negatively impact the disaster preparedness plans of local DRRM councils in GIDAs. The third level of analysis focussed on how certain intervening variables can be used to achieve a transformative level of engagement in GIDA communities so that they will always be prepared for any natural hazard, knowing their own setbacks.

References Andres, T. Q. (1988). Community development: A manual. Quezon City, Philippines: New Day Publishers. Babbie, E. (2016). The practice of social research (14 edn.). Cengage Learning. Becker, J. S., Paton, D., Johnston, D. M., Ronan, K. R., & McClure, J. (2017). The role of prior experience in informing and motivating earthquake preparedness. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 22, 179–193. Bowen, F., Newenham-Kahindi, A., & Herremans, I. (2010). When suits meet roots: The antecedents and consequences of community engagement strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(2), 297– 318. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. Burnside-Lawry, J., & Carvalho, L. (2016). A stakeholder approach to building community resilience: Awareness to implementation. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 7(1), 4–25. BusinessWorld Research. (2018). Which region has the highest proportion of first class municipalities? In BusinessWorld, 9 August. Viewed October 9, 2020, from https://www.bworldonline. com/which-region-has-the-highest-number-of-first-class-municipalities/ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). Data collection methods for evaluation: Document review. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Viewed April 17, 2018, from https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/evaluation/pdf/brief18.pdf

References

103

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018). Data collection methods for evaluation: Document review. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Viewed April 17, 2018, from https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/evaluation/pdf/brief18.pdf Chang Seng, D. S. (2013). Tsunami resilience: Multi-level institutional arrangements, architectures and system of governance for disaster risk preparedness in Indonesia. Environmental Science and Policy, 29, 57–70. Cool, C. T., Claravall, M. C., Hall, J. L., Taketani, K., Zepeda, J. P., Gehner, M., & Lawe-Davies, O. (2015). Social media as a risk communication tool following Typhoon Haiyan. Western Pacific Surveillance and Response Journal, 6, 86–90. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Curato, N. (2018). Beyond the spectacle: Slow-moving disasters in post-Haiyan Philippines. Critical Asian Studies, 50(1), 58–66. David, M., & Sutton, C. D. (2011). Social research: An introduction (2nd ed.). London, UK: SAGE Publications. Department of Health. (2018). Geographically isolated and disadvantaged areas. Viewed November 17, 2021, from https://www.doh.gov.ph/node/1153 Djalante, R., & Thomalla, F. (2012). Disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in Indonesia. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 3(2), 166–180. Donovan, K., Suryanto, A., & Utami, P. (2012). Mapping cultural vulnerability in volcanic regions: The practical application of social volcanology at Mt Merapi, Indonesia. Environmental Hazards, 11(4), 303–323. Downs, C. W., & Adrian, A. D. (2004). Assessing organizational communication strategic communication audits (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Dufty, N. (2011). Engagement or education? Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 26(3), 35–39. EM-DAT. (2021). The Emergency Events Database 2020, Glossary, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussells, Belgium—Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). Viewed May 27, 2021, from https://www.emdat.be/Glossary#letter_d Fujii, L. A. (2018).Selecting, finding, and approaching interviewees. In Interviewing in social science research: A relational approach. Routledge. Gaillard, J. C. (2007). Resilience of traditional societies in facing natural hazards. Disaster Prevention and Management, 16(4), 522–544. Gobo, G., & Marciniak, L. T. (2016). What is ethnography? In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research (pp. 103–120). London, UK: SAGE Publications. Handley, K. (2008). Non-participant observation. In R. Thorpe & R. Holt (Eds.), The SAGE dictionary of qualitative management research (pp. 143–144). London, UK: SAGE Publications. Lands Geological Surveys Division. (2015). Flood and landslide susceptibility rating. In Geohazard web portal. Mines and Geosciences Bureau. Viewed November 5, 2021, from https://mgb-lgsd. maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=272f20c01e32491084fcb9dc0dc498c9 Lands Geological Surveys Division. (2019). Flood and landslide susceptibility rating. In Geohazard Web Portal. Mines and Geosciences Bureau. Viewed November 5, 2021, from https://mgb-lgsd. maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=272f20c01e32491084fcb9dc0dc498c9 Manyozo, L. (2012). Media, communication and development. India: SAGE Publications. Marlowe, J., Neef, A., Tevaga, C. R., & Tevaga, C. (2018). A new guiding framework for engaging diverse populations in disaster risk reduction: Reach, relevance, receptiveness, and relationships. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 9(4), 507–518. McIntosh, M. J., & Morse, J. M. (2015). Situating and constructing diversity in semi-structured interviews. Global Qualitative Nursing Research, 2, 674. https://doi.org/10.1177/233339361 5597674 Mefalopulos, P. (2008). Development communication sourcebook: Broadening the boundaries of communication. OKR: Open Knowledge Repository/The World Bank.

104

4 Getting the GIDA Story

Morgan, D. L. (2008). Emergent design. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 246–248). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Mulyasari, F., & Shaw, R. (2013). Role of women as risk communicators to enhance disaster resilience of Bandung, Indonesia. Natural Hazards, 69(3), 2137–2160. NDRRMC (National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council). (2018a). Disaster reports and advisories. Viewed November 17, 2021, from https://ndrrmc.gov.ph/index.php/disaster-rep orts/reports.html PAGASA (Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration). (2019). Climate of the Philippines. Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration. Viewed August 19, 2019, from http://bagong.pagasa.dost.gov.ph/inf ormation/climate-philippines Philippine Statistics Authority. (2019). Municipality of Loreto. Philippine Statistics Authority. Viewed August 19, 2019, from https://psa.gov.ph/classification/psgc/?q=psgc/barangays/160 305000 Prior, L. (2003). Using documents in social research. London, UK: SAGE Publications. Reid, M. (2013). Disasters and social inequalities. Sociology Compass, 7(11), 984–997. Shklovski, I., Burke, M., Kiesler, S., & Kraut, R. (2010). Technology adoption and use in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(8), 1228– 1246. Smith, K. (2013). Environmental hazards: Assessing risk and reducing disaster (6th ed.). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Sujarwoto, S., & Tampubolon, G. (2016). Spatial inequality and the Internet divide in Indonesia 2010–2012. Telecommunications Policy, 40(7), 602–616. Tandoc, E. C., & Takahashi, B. (2017). Log in if you survived: Collective coping on social media in the aftermath of Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines. New Media and Society, 19(11), 1778–1793. Valenzuela, V. P. B., Esteban, M., Takagi, H., Thao, N. D., & Onuki, M. (2020). Disaster awareness in three low risk coastal communities in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, Philippines. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 46, 101508. World Health Organization. (2009). Manual for the public health management of chemical incidents. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press.

Chapter 5

Communication in Isolation

5.1 Introduction The study aims to investigate the interconnections between pre-disaster communication and community engagement in the context of spatial inequality and the factors that surround these. As such, I examined how community engagement can be used as a communication strategy in pre-disaster communication targeting geographically isolated and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities. While community engagement packaged as CB-DRRM is implemented worldwide, literature failed to highlight how community engagement is used as a communication strategy in building resiliency, particularly in GIDA communities. Engaging local communities is an approach stipulated in the National Plan of the Philippines as part of its disaster preparedness activities. The identification of field sites that best fit the description of GIDA was therefore crucial to this study, and this was followed by an investigation of the pre-disaster communication modes and tools that currently mediate issues of DRRM community engagement between the government and GIDA communities. Understanding how GIDA communities use and respond to various pre-disaster communication tools through community-based programs requires an analysis of the modes of communication used. These can be interpersonal, public, and mass and are referred to by Seiler et al. (2017) as types of communication; this research prefers modes of communication, however, because a specific communication tool in a particular mode can be a one-way informative type or a two-way asymmetrical type (Grunig & Hunt, 1984). While the former focusses on sending information, the latter allows feedback but does not allow changes in the message or the process. This simplistic explanation illustrates only one of the first steps required to fully unpack the roles of communication modes and tools in pre-disaster communication through community engagement. This chapter presents the identified modes and tools used for pre-disaster communication between the government and the GIDA communities surveyed. It also contextualises these modes and tools within the GIDA frame of reference and itemises © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 D. J. Sumaylo, Engaging Isolated Communities in Disaster Preparation and Communication in the Philippines, Communication, Culture and Change in Asia 11, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-4697-6_5

105

106

5 Communication in Isolation

the barriers in pre-disaster communication observed in situ and their impact on community engagement. In general, this chapter answers the following questions: 1. What are the various modes and tools of communications used by the government to engage GIDA communities in disaster preparedness activities? 2. At which level of community engagement are these modes and tools used? 3. What factors affect the level of community engagement, based on the information exchanges between the government and local community and given the modes and tools used and the GIDA context they are used in? Specifically, this chapter details the modes and tools of communication utilised by local DRRM councils to equip GIDA communities with pre-disaster risk information. Moreover, it tackles barriers affecting the exchange of information between the sender (local DRRM council) and the receiver (GIDA communities) of the messages. It details how each communication tool is used, its purpose, and why it is used. I triangulated the data gathered from government informants and field observations with interviews with community informants in situ. These data aid in identifying the level of community engagement implemented in the two GIDA communities observed. Finally, this chapter is organised and analysed according to the CEC developed by Bowen et al. (2010), which states that a specific modality captures a particular level of engagement. There should be a movement from purely transactional to transformational engagement to capture the essence of community engagement. To better understand the findings, this chapter is organised based on the questions it seeks to answer. The first and second sections tackle the multimodal approaches used in pre-disaster communication in the context of the GIDA sites. They also provide details of how each communication tool is used, its pros and cons, and how people perceive their relevance in pre-disaster preparation. In the third section (Sect. 5.4), I discuss the role of interpersonal communication in communicating disaster risk information in GIDA communities. This section revolves around the role of people in either strengthening or weakening disaster risk communication. The final section describes the impacts of political complications and leadership instability on the contextually aggressive approach currently used in pre-disaster risk communication. Overall, this study found that the current CEC level of engaging GIDA communities is still transactional, as evidenced by the two-way asymmetrical communication processes.

5.2 One-Way Informative Communication: Transactional Engagement This study identified three significant themes in pre-disaster communication. First, the general approach in pre-disaster communication is multimodal. This means the government utilises various modes and tools of communication in engaging local

5.2 One-Way Informative Communication: Transactional Engagement

107

communities. However, the effectiveness of some communication tools is questionable because of ‘fake news’, people’s literacy levels, and access to the information requires appliances such as radio and television, electricity, and communication signal. Second, face-to-face communication is an integral pre-disaster mode of communication for GIDA communities. Often, this mode demands a third party in the communication process. Still, per contra, communication via a third party (such as zone leaders, teachers, and other village functionaries) affects people’s trust in the process. It also adds to the isolation and detachment felt by other community members, furthering already present social inequalities. Third, political complications and leadership instability were considered barriers that weaken contextual pre-disaster communication. The multimodality of pre-disaster communication (generally) reflects that a multimodal approach is a possible solution to the demand for an up-to-date, accurate, reliable, and continuously disseminated information system, such as that of Rodriguez et al. in (2007). However, findings suggest that the experiences of those living in GIDA communities do not support the idea that a general multimodal pre-disaster communication reaches the entire spectrum of various demographics existing in a locality, with its own varying capacities, demands, and access to communication tools. Multimodal communication is simply using different communication tools (Chandler & Munday, 2016; Kress, 2010) to target various audiences; channelling the right communication tool to the right demographic relies on appropriate media planning. Before conducting the fieldwork, I made a checklist of communication tools to look for in situ. The checklist included online and offline tools; traditional media, such as print, radio, and television; drills and training; and other visual tools, such as videos and road signage. I further classified each tool into three levels of engagement following Bowen et al.’s (2010) CEC. This allowed communication tools to be grouped into categories based on the criteria set by the framework, thus highlighting a possible explanation of why local DRRM offices at both provincial and municipal levels complain of a weak DRRM at the village level. The framework also highlights the barriers to pre-disaster communication and community engagement for people living in GIDA communities. Table 5.1 shows the current level of engagement in situ. The communication tools used for transactional engagement in both field sites follow a one-way transmission style, which means there is little-to-no possibility of the information recipient sending feedback to the sender of the message. These transactional communication tools are print (posters and brochures) and other visual aids, A3 printed tarpaulins, and road signage. These tools are considered traditional media, which, in the context of public relations, are defined as standard forms of media (television, radio, print) that disseminate information following a one-way framework (Taylor & Perry, 2005). Traditional communication tools were comprehensively audited during fieldwork, and the conclusion was that the information dissemination methods used in the Philippines are top-down, regardless of the sender or the receiver of the message. The problem with this approach is the lack of a pathway for evaluation (of message effectiveness) or follow-up (subsequent to evaluation, to improve effectiveness) from

108

5 Communication in Isolation

Table 5.1 Assessment of communication tools vis-à-vis level of community engagement based on the CEC Research objective

Transactional engagement

Transitional engagement

Transformational engagement

Communication tools

Print materials Videos Tarpaulinsa Road signages

Radio Social networking sites Text messaging Interpersonal communication (drills, face-to-face, games, informal meet-ups)

–

Characteristics

Top-down

With collaboration and – consultation, but emphasis is still on sender of message

Frequency

Occasional

Occasional

–

Control of process FIRM: based on government bureaucracy

FIRM: based on set rules by – higher DRRM councils and other agencies in the NDRRMC up to national level

Number of communities involved

Only accessible areas and proactive villages are often involved especially when local DRRM councils have plans to join the Gawad KALASAG competition

Only accessible areas are often involved

–

a

Tarpaulins are printed A3-size messages Source Author, based on Bowen et al. (2010)

the sender of the message; indeed, it appeared that there was no evaluation tool or follow-through activity in place to measure the effectiveness of these communication tools, either in general or in the specific context of the GIDA communities. I ascertained that production of traditional communication tools is occasional, as it requires bigger budget allocation and a level of technical knowledge among local DRRM councils. Control over the communication process resides in the local DRRM councils, and this means production, distribution, and messaging is firm and is also backed up by local and national policies. In addition, LGUs allocate the budget necessary for DRRM. Despite their proximity to the message recipients, the number of communities involved in the communication process is minimal—local communities are seen as mere recipients of information. However, this study does not intend to discredit the role of these tools in pre-disaster communication. On the contrary, findings intend to highlight the role played by these tools and how they can expand the existing transactional approach to achieve a wider audience reach. Traditional media are and will be useful for one-way informative communication, as long as the receiver of the message knows how to consume the medium. These tools are also beneficial for end users if the message and design of traditional media (i.e., posters and brochures) are effective for and target a specific demographic.

5.2 One-Way Informative Communication: Transactional Engagement

109

Using traditional media in a transactional style projects a top-down approach of communication to its end users. In addition, since the frequency of information to each location via this method is occasional, the level of expectation from the government in terms of consumption of the information is high. In terms of their political framework, these communication modes, such as they are, do comply with the requirement to educate the public by providing information on disaster preparedness. In the following subsections, I present a consolidated discussion on the various traditional media used in disseminating disaster risk information from the provincial to the village level.

5.2.1 Print and Other Visual Materials Print is perhaps the most commonly used communication tool in both field sites, but it projects varying levels of importance and usefulness to the community. Print and other visual materials found in the field sites can only be helpful based on who, where, and how people are exposed to and use these tools. Print is the least beneficial for people living in GIDA communities because of issues of literacy and access. However, DRRM councils rely on these materials in most training and drills. Given these observations, it would appear that the effectiveness of print and other visual materials depend on the context in which they are used. An evaluation of current literature on the subject suggests that other scholars cannot provide a concrete judgement on the usefulness of print communication. For instance, in the context of health and hygiene, the call to action was less observable in people who get their information from posters (Contzen & Mosler, 2013), yet in the context of tourism, brochures were preferred by tourists for accessing any relevant risk information in the area where they spend their holidays (Susmayadi et al., 2014). In informing religious pilgrims about the risks of a stampede or other hazards, print materials such as pamphlets were considered more effective than smart technologies and face-to-face outreach activities (Taibah et al., 2018). Post-earthquake, the people from Haiti considered print materials such as newspapers and billboards part of an elite repertoire of information sources (Sommerfeldt, 2014). These studies suggest that outsiders such as tourists and religious pilgrims prefer materials they can take with them and use to peruse information in their own time, but what are the communication needs of GIDA communities? Based on the experiences the local DRRM councils described in both field sites, they use print and other visual materials to aid during training and drills. These modes of communication visually reinforce the verbal messages delivered at these events, which may not be comprehensible because of the jargon used in DRRM. Specifically, when conducting drills in various villages, the upland’s provincial DRRM council members show geohazard maps to the local community. These maps are meant to help convey the information that the community lives in a hazard-prone area. This idea is extended by showing the soil layers, the depth of the trench, how high tsunamis can get, and why the soil cracks during earthquakes. The island’s provincial

110

5 Communication in Isolation

DRRM council also utilises traditional print materials such as posters, brochures, and flyers, particularly those provided by other government agencies that are part of the National Council. The island’s council had combined all vital information in flyers and posters and produced a translated brochure covering topics relevant to earthquakes and tsunamis, two natural hazards the area is prone to. In the context of the community’s response to these tools, it is perhaps fortuitous that the council did not include typhoons in the list of natural hazards experienced by the province, despite the frequent occurrence of these in the area. Instead, in this regard, the province gets their communication tools from other government agencies, but they also produce their own localised tools; these make the information accessible and understandable for them, and therefore the tools are more effective. Aside from using specific traditional print materials—posters, brochures, and flyers—the island provincial DRRM council also consolidates all useful communication tools into a single information board system. The information board system is like a bulletin board, where all information, including hotlines, warnings, and calls for an evacuation, are posted; these boards are placed in strategic areas in the provincial capital, where visiting local government officials from different municipalities and barangays will immediately see them. Accessibility of this communication tool was a common problem at the municipal level in both field sites. Posters and other printed materials were not visible beyond government offices. In addition, most of the print materials were provided by PAGASA, PHIVOLCS, the Department of Science and Technology, and/or the Mines and Geosciences Bureau through the provincial DRRM council. These governmentproduced posters are text-heavy, use jargon, and are frequently in English or Filipino. None of the posters from the government are in the local Bisaya language. It is the role of local DRRM councils to translate these government-produced posters into the local language, which is particularly necessary for the upland village, where the level of community literacy is a concern. The role of the municipal DRRM councils is intermediary. They become distributors of communication tools to villages under their jurisdiction, and they must post these communication tools in strategic places. Often, they are put up in their municipal offices. The same scenario is observed in the villages. However, most of the print and other visual materials shown to me were unavailable in both villages. The upland village had a newly placed road sign because of a recent drill and training in the area, while the island had no signage. Village informants observed that it would be possible for the local DRRM council officials to leave the posters and flip charts at the zone’s public hut so that anyone could access them. It might be beneficial to do this because people who lounge in these huts can see the printed materials. However, seeing them is one thing; reading them is different. Even if people can see these print materials posted everywhere in the village, if they cannot read them, the content of the materials will be meaningless and the communication tool ineffective. Similarly, if the information is written in a language people do not understand, the posters are merely wasted opportunities. Practically speaking, people require communication materials that are more visual than textual so that those who cannot read can still understand the message. To address

5.2 One-Way Informative Communication: Transactional Engagement

111

some of these issues, upland and island provincial DRRM councils translated these posters and brochures into the local language. However, community informants said they had not seen any translated brochures or posters. This absence of materials in situ can be attributed to the difficulty of distribution to isolated locations. During my field observations, these translated materials were only seen in easily accessible villages in the lowland areas of the municipality. Informants from both field sites stated that they preferred colour-coded printed material, such as the maps used during seminars and drills. However, judging by the way the local DRRM council used maps in the upland area, it is safe to assume that the presentation of information is very technical and full of jargon. As noted, most of the print materials are not locally produced, and their design tends to be full of text and other information that is not necessarily suited to the needs and understanding capacity of the receivers in either of the field sites. It was also clear that adult illiteracy is not openly talked about because at least two informants suddenly lowered the volume of their voices, almost to a whisper, while relaying that there are adults in the upland village who do not know how to read. This admission confirms issues of illiteracy the provincial DRRM council raised, especially in the farming sector. How this sensitive information was shared during fieldwork suggests that people in the village do not openly discuss the subject, not even if they are officials. Regarding the importance of the printed materials to the community, I asked the community informants from both field sites if these materials are seen as necessary in their village. They immediately said that they value printed materials posted around the village because these will continue to remind them what to do if a natural hazard is coming. If printed brochures or leaflets are available, they could take them to their homes and share them with their immediate family and neighbours. To them, what they learned during seminars and drills would be forgotten, but the constant reminder from print material would make information retention easy. Despite the locally ascribed importance to these printed materials, their distribution is always delayed, especially in GIDA villages. I was informed that a road sign that was put up in the upland village, including one about a training and drills event, happened because this area was finally included in the list of villages to be visited in the government caravan (which is where each government department introduces their programs and projects to villages). The inclusion happened when I organised my fieldwork in this area. Initially, the upland village was not included in the list. In the case of the island village, the printed materials for the community (including maps) were dropped off at another village. According to the village DRRM council, they had to go to the other village to pick up the materials. These materials had not yet been collected from the other village during my field work because other more pressing concerns needed immediate attention. There were undoubtedly both positive and negative sides to using printed materials to communicate risk in upland and island villages. It is also clear that both field sites preferred visual information because it is easily understood; it was unclear, however, if the people were likely to remember the messages from these materials, which is a limitation of this study.

112

5 Communication in Isolation

5.2.2 Road Signage Despite informants stating that a visual communication tool is preferred for DRRM messages, such as those presented on steel-plated road signs, such signage may pose problems in terms of community understanding of universal signs that pertain to risks. The inability to read and understand universally accepted symbols is due to a lack of prior exposure to these universal signs, drawing attention to the link between these issues and access to education, which plays a vital role in these matters. The continuous use of road signage (which can be considered a billboard in terms of size) as a DRRM communication tool has already proven effective in delivering risk information to the public (Sommerfeldt, 2014; Taibah et al., 2018). What is important is knowing who this tool is communicating with. Motorists are familiar with these road signs because they traverse national highways and back roads where the signs are often used. However, what is the role of this signage in GIDA communities? In addition, it has been observed (see Sect. 3.2.2) that knowledge of risk does not always lead to action. As such, based on the data from GIDA communities and the available literature, print and other visual materials cannot be used effectively as stand-alone tools that elicit preparedness actions from people who see them. During my field work, I saw several signs erected in lowland areas known to commuters as being ‘flood-prone’. Yet, in early 2019, when the tail of a cold front brought heavy rains to the site for several days, flooding these national highways, what had been a rice field looked like a brown lake for several days. Yet, ironically, displaced residents were seen in tents on roadsides as they refused to leave their homes. Even so, for those living in GIDA villages, the level of importance of this signage appeared to be high. For instance, when the provincial DRRM council placed road signage and billboards in the upland village, people were glad to be aware of the hazards their area might face. Local DRRM councils also use steel-plated signage to mark the national highways with various danger/hazard information. However, the quantity of signage along roads decreases as one approaches geographically isolated areas, and villages with only a small number of inhabitants and fewer people moving through them also have less signage. This becomes problematic, connoting as it does that the least significant population gets less information vis-à-vis attention and help from the government and private organisations during calamities. More than that, the fact that residents in these areas are not aware of the threats they may face potentially results in less (or no) preparation from them. Another reason behind this decrease in signage is the production cost of steelplated road signs and billboards. Local DRRM councils in both areas cannot afford to produce more signs. Most often, the provincial DRRM council funds the production and distribution of signage. Still, at other times the municipal DRRM council will coproduce signage or produce their signs using cheaper materials. This problem can be traced back to the annual budgetary plan for disaster preparedness activities and how the local DRRM councils use their calamity funds. By default, the sitting governor and mayor automatically lead the local DRRM council in their respective areas, and their office dictates where the DRRM budget

5.2 One-Way Informative Communication: Transactional Engagement

113

is utilised. Evidently, most of the DRRM budget in these areas was used for reactive rather than preventive projects, indicating a delay in pre-disaster planning that includes building infrastructure and procuring tools for emergency response. These issues can be observed from three possible perspectives. First, in the context of the recently debunked ‘typhoon-free’ narrative (see Sect. 1.1.3), it is feasible that the LGUs have just started getting serious about looking into DRRM because of their recent disaster experience, and pre-disaster measures haven’t been implemented yet. Second, these areas have only recently been identified as hazard-prone areas. Therefore, the local DRRM councils are still working on projects that mitigate the impact of future natural hazards. On the downside, the third perspective may be that the field sites I observed are not priority areas of the LGUs because of their geographic location and the comparatively small number of people affected by the hazards in these areas. The first two perspectives provide insight into the reason why most of the steelplated signage erected in strategic areas has been translated into the local language, which suggests consideration of the fact that previous use of National Councilprovided communication tools, which were in either English or Filipino, did not result in proactive responses from the people. For example, upon arriving at the island municipality’s port, I saw a steel-type sign translated into the local language and in full colour—an early warning system (EWS) board. This is an upgrade to the signage that used to be there in 2016; at that time, the island’s DRRM council had printed their early warning systems signage on A3-size tarpaulins (Sumaylo et al., 2016). These translated road signs also show how local DRRM councils localise communication tools so they are accessible to the community. The village DRRM councils and LGUs are also encouraged by the provincial DRRM council to produce communication tools such as road signs. It is felt that this mode of communication exposes residents continually to disaster information or directs them to the nearest evacuation centres. However, the village leaders complained that they never had enough budget or the capacity to produce such road signs. As such, the provincial DRRM council had instructed them to use alternative materials, such as sacks, so the village leaders had placed these signs in hazardprone areas. As U1 observed, sacks were still better than not having any risk or hazard information provided to the residents in their area. However, these materials are not durable and cannot withstand heat and rain for an extended period; thus, in consideration of the number of reproductions that would be required to keep them legible, informants felt that using sacks and tarpaulins would likely be more costly in the long run.

5.2.3 Television/Video Both upland and island provincial DRRM councils make efforts to disseminate predisaster information through television, as it is the most popular and most often used communication tool in the Philippines (Hootsuite and We Are Social, 2019).

114

5 Communication in Isolation

These efforts include the creation of television spots, news segments, and other video materials used during drills and training in various villages. Concerning DRRM, television, as a traditional media, has been extensively studied as a communication tool, mostly with positive results (Arlikatti et al., 2014; Sellnow et al., 2017). Although these results are often from studies conducted in first-world countries such as the USA, the tool also works well in the Philippines, with many Filipinos having access to television (Hootsuite and We Are Social, 2019). However, the results of this study would suggest that the effectiveness of television and videos in this regard is still based on the context of their consumers—meaning not just their capacity to access the medium but also their ability to take meaning from the messages delivered. Television as a tool for disseminating pre-disaster information requires knowledge of the medium and skill in using and manipulating it to carry a specific message. In the context of government informants, skill, in this sense, may mean the use of multiple machines (camera, lighting, and audio recording equipment, among others) and editing software needed to produce one segment because not all of them have media production background. Consumers of disaster communication information from television demand high-quality content that gives a realistic sense of place and space (Fraustino et al., 2018); this means high-quality production equipment and a corresponding skill level from the production staff. In addition, public service announcements delivered through television elicit the consumer’s attitude that there is manipulation in the messaging (Adame & Miller, 2015). I agree that, as communicators, our content should work well with the chosen medium. However, if budgets are short and the writer is not trained explicitly in content writing, the medium’s extenuating visuals should at least provide a realistic sense of place and space. In GIDA communities, using television or any video material immediately promotes inequality relating to access to information. This communication tool is selective of its audience. Only those who can afford cable subscription or has access to television can acquire information. This tool excludes those who do not subscribe to the local cable channel and have access to free channels only. There was no mention of any evaluation tool used to know if this communication channel is considered relevant in the context of the entire province. Using television segments, spots, and Facebook Live can reach more audiences as these appeal to people who consume messages that are presented visually. Presently, producing TV segments and spots was stopped because of production costs, but Facebook Live is used to provide updates. As claimed by community informants, they would like to get information from television because it is a ‘high-tech’ way of communication. However, despite having this ‘high-tech’ communication tool, television, for the most part, is useless on the island village because of electricity problems. However, because community informants often mention television, it is assumed that access to it is not a problem in both field sites. Some households in both villages have televisions. Even the efforts of the provincial DRRM councils in both field sites include producing TV spots. I9 even said they would want electricity for the entire day, so they would constantly be updated on any news. Sadly, electricity in the village is only between 6 and 9 in the evening.

5.3 Two-Way Asymmetric Communication: Transitional Engagement

115

In general, television segments often cater to those living in lowland areas and component cities with a consistent electricity supply and the financial capacity to subscribe to local cable channels.

5.3 Two-Way Asymmetric Communication: Transitional Engagement The dominant modes of communication in transitional engagement are those that provide a feedback system. Audience feedback opens possible collaboration and consultation with the receivers of information. However, this feedback system does not necessarily alter the original message or the process; thus, the presence of feedback does not equate to two-way symmetric communication (Grunig & Hunt, 1984). Transitional engagements are often occasional in their frequency (Bowen et al., 2010), and messaging is dependent on several factors, such as budget, mode of delivery, and even politics. At this level in the Philippines, messaging is still centred on the rules set by higher government agencies and the National Plan. The most common tools documented and used in situ for transitional engagement are radio, digital communication (social networking sites and text messaging), and face-to-face interactions during drills, training, and informal meet-ups.

5.3.1 Radio Radio was observed to be a standard mode of communication in GIDA communities. It is not necessarily the community’s primary source of information, but it is a tool that community informants said they could access. Radio is consistently documented in literature as a valuable communication tool in information dissemination (Arlikatti et al., 2014; Coile, 1997; Hugelius et al., 2016; Romo-Murphy et al., 2011). However, the efficacy of this communication tool relies on stable telecommunications infrastructure, individual perception of risk and preparations, individual media preference, access to a working radio, and at which point it is used in the disaster management cycle. Despite these requirements, the local DRRM councils in both field sites maintain a radio program because radio signals often reach geographically isolated locations. This study asserts that radio broadcasting should be used with other communication tools in disseminating pre-disaster information. DRRM councils often produce radio segments and programs dedicated to weather information, which go on air if they have the budget to pay for a time slot. These broadcasts can also be achieved if there is an ongoing agreement between the government and the radio station. These programs may be exclusively about DRRM or discuss other government projects and activities, including DRRM. In both field sites, the

116

5 Communication in Isolation

provincial governments produced radio segments. In the upland municipality, a local radio program was also available. Radio was a frequent source of information and entertainment during the daytime at the island village. Battery-operated transistor radios are conventional in the area since electricity is unavailable during the day. Residents lounged in sari-sari (local convenience) stores and puroks with their transistor radios during fieldwork. Moreover, because of its location, the residents of the island village can get signals from neighbouring islands in the Visayas area. This connection to radio was not observed in the upland village, and radio was not even mentioned as part of the residents’ sources of DRRM information. The goal of the provincial DRRM council there is to go digital, despite the province being considered home to indigenous peoples who live in its upland areas. The digitalisation of DRRM targets those living in lowland and island areas popular with local and international tourists. These population segments often have access to technology, electricity, and communication signal. In the context of these findings, it would appear that radio, although practical, should be used in tandem with other communication tools for disaster risk information dissemination. In agreement with the literature, I contend that in the context of GIDAs, a mix of communication tools is most useful for information dissemination, especially when this multimodal approach is coupled with what these GIDA communities have now, which they lacked before—disaster experience. Mixing communication modes also addresses the various communication needs and preferences of people.

5.3.2 Social Networking Sites Government agencies mainly utilise social networking sites (SNS) for disseminating DRRM information, yet SNS are not available to the whole population, including those living in GIDAs. The National Council and local DRRM councils use Facebook and Twitter extensively to disseminate pre-disaster information. Various studies have documented the feasibility of using SNS for DRRM, from mitigation to rehabilitation, with varying results (Liu et al., 2016; Nicholson et al., 2019). Yang et al. (2019), with their backgrounds in computer science and engineering, highlight the importance of SNS users in disseminating information generally. Pourebrahim et al. (2019) corroborate the importance of SNS in disseminating disaster information and emphasise that the connectivity between users and their followers allows swift information sharing online. However, the use of SNS has its negative side. In the Philippines, Facebook is often used as an accessible digital online communication tool by LGUs because of the number of people the platform can reach, and information dissemination is also free unless these are boosted posts. However, this platform is prone to misinformation and gossip (Silver & Matthews, 2017). More than that, these findings disregard the experiences of those people living in geographically isolated locations who don’t have access to these tools.

5.3 Two-Way Asymmetric Communication: Transitional Engagement

117

Regarding DRRM information dissemination, the characteristic function of SNS, aside from giving information, is soliciting input through crowdsourcing. Citizen reporting through this medium is frequent, a function that is effectively a form of feedback from the information receiver and is the basic requirement of transitional engagement. Information from the public is sent to the provincial DRRM page either by private message or by commenting on a post. This volunteered information is validated by asking the local officials at the municipal or village level to proceed to the area reported. In this regard, government and community informants mentioned ‘fake news’ as one setback of SNS. As I1 and U2 said, sharing old warnings and photos creates unnecessary panic among the people, and the provincial DRRM council actively combats the escalation of fake news. We have to be aware of the posts in Facebook because they may be old news or fake news. Our process is we contact the local DRRM official in that reported area to confirm if the post was real or not before we take action (U2). Even if they do not have signal (to access social networking sites in the village), they can still access these sites if they go the municipal capital or elsewhere, so they are aware how fast information is transmitted using social media and the existence of fake news (I1).

My main argument regarding using a digital platform in pre-disaster communication in the Philippine context is its accessibility. No online digital communication tool is available in either of the field sites because of their location. Neither field site has access to any of the various online platforms—social networking sites, government websites, and weather apps—for them to be informed about incoming risks brought by natural hazards from these sources. In the context of the digital divide, it could be argued that the ubiquitous nature of these digital platforms in the minds of their users potentially further isolates communities living in geographically isolated areas who cannot see them, putting them at risk. Madianou (2015) warns about digital inequalities because of the digital divide brought about by unequal access to smartphones and the Internet. Of 107.3 million Filipinos, only 71% have access to the Internet, and only 65% own a smartphone (Hootsuite and We Are Social, 2019). This disparity in access to online information creates a knowledge gap (Xuerui, 2008) between the information rich and the information poor. Community informants and village leaders expressed a strong need for access to communication signal to access the social networking sites utilised by the local government. The residents of both villages also acknowledged the importance of an Internet connection, despite being unable to access it. This scenario is opposite to the failure of the Indonesian government to fully utilise social media/networking sites in disaster risk communication (Yudarwati et al., 2021). Currently, there are no municipal or provincial plans to provide cellular base transceiver stations (signal repeaters) in the upland village. Still, the island municipality is already installing cellular base transceiver stations so that the island village can access telecommunication signal. Therefore, the island village will likely be able to utilise online information, but poverty is still a significant problem in the area. Being digitally reliant is far from fruitful in these areas because access to smartphones and prepaid data still relies on purchasing power.

118

5 Communication in Isolation

5.3.3 Text Messaging/Blast and 911 Hotline Text messaging/SMS is so prevalent in the Philippines that the country was once called the ‘“texting” capital of the world’ (Alampay et al., 2007, p. 8), yet, as noted, this somewhat accessible and cost-efficient method of communication is not available to people living in GIDA communities. Studies on the subject suggest that the use of text messaging is preferred if the message is urgent (Sumaylo, 2013) and if the sender of the message requires a timely and efficient way of delivering information (Caragea et al., 2011), factors that certainly relate well to specific phases of DRRM. As such, the Government of the Philippines even enacted a law requiring telecommunication companies to send out free warning messages during threats of natural hazards. Yet GIDA communities can only benefit from these warnings if they can access telecommunication signal. Even so, text messaging, or ‘text blast’, is heavily utilised in both field sites. This mode of communication allows local DRRM councils at all levels to send out information and warnings via text, ostensibly to officials and residents alike. The municipal DRRM office in the upland area reportedly sends messages through text to all village leaders, especially when swift information transfer is needed. However, text blast is not the primary method of informing the villages in the upland municipality because of signal issues. According to both municipal DRRM offices, the most common communication tools used are handheld radios that go through a cellular base transceiver station that acts as a repeater. Despite the effort to relay information through text messaging, reaching out to people living in geographically isolated places is inefficient when they experience telecommunications signal problems. Nevertheless, text messaging is crucial in upland and island villages. The residents know that they must go to a particular location/s in the village where they can send and receive messages. The fact that text messaging is still considered an essential communication tool in both field sites despite the state of telecommunications signal in these areas shows how eager the communities in these villages are to access and send information this way, notwithstanding the effort they must make to do it. Aside from text messaging/blasts, the provincial DRRM council of the upland area boasts a 911 hotline. Any resident of the upland province can dial 911 and report any incident they have witnessed. The necessary validating of volunteered information through the 911 hotline follows a rigorous process. According to the upland provincial DRRM council, as the office that monitors the 911 hotline, they send a text message to the contact person in the village where the reported incident supposedly happened. The contact person at the village will validate the information by going physically to the location mentioned in the report. Once the incident has been validated, the response team will go to the confirmed site, and online updates will be released. This 911 hotline may be the future for the entire upland province, but it excludes the context of GIDA communities. There may be no plans at any level to put up cellular base transceiver stations for SMS in these isolated locations because two-way radio

5.4 Face-to-Face Communication: Opportunities and Pitfalls …

119

works just fine for these communities already. The intention was to improve the 911 hotline to serve most of the province. This decision may be political also because fewer people live in GIDAs in this province (i.e., fewer disadvantaged persons are affected by the decision). At the same time, the hotline allows the province to be competitive with the nearby Davao City, where an established 911 hotline has been in place since 2002. In addition, Mansell (2017) makes the point in his discussion of inequalities and digitally mediated communication that governments advocate for digitalisation because it promotes transparency and fairness. This reasoning does not apply in GIDA communities, and allowing these communities to remain disconnected from the rest of the province by not providing an avenue to inform them (and be informed by them) is part of the managerial political style that, at times, glosses over issues of inequality that it generates. The push towards digitalising disaster communication tools is evident at the provincial DRRM council level in both provinces in this study. Given these data on the various communication tools used for pre-disaster communication in the field sites, the current practice can still be described as transitional. These results agree with the argument of Yudarwati (2019) that community engagement practices are dominated by instrumental perspectives or the surveying and use of communication modes and tools. This stage also highlights face-to-face communication as an integral mode of communication; in the context of the field sites, this mode equips GIDA communities with pre-disaster information. Moreover, nontraditional modes of communication, such as batingaw (bells) and bandilyo (public announcement using megaphones), are available. Still, these are most often used for disaster communication (rather than pre-disaster risk communication), which usually involves updating audiences on warning signals and broadcasting calls for evacuation.

5.4 Face-to-Face Communication: Opportunities and Pitfalls of Transformative Engagement Drills and training events, family development sessions, and informal face-to-face interactions are significant in pre-disaster communication in geographically isolated and socioeconomically disadvantaged locations. These face-to-face interactions between the government and the community allow feedback to enter the system. At this point, a community may mean municipalities and villages (LGUs) and private, non-government organisations requesting drills and training for their employees and developing their disaster management plans. However, whether it is LGUs or other organisations requiring training, the process is still laden with problems, such as those connected to its top-down nature, the infrequency of communication, and the need to tailor disaster risk information to the local community. Drills and training events are a standard part of the National Plan and can be considered an avenue for government and community interaction. There is potential for the parties to learn

120

5 Communication in Isolation

from one another during these events. Government informants from both field sites also relayed that informal meetings (‘meet-ups’) provide opportunities for information dissemination, given that those who can attend the drills and training they organise are also residents of that particular village and can share their learning with others in the course of their regular movements. Not all drills and training sessions are open to all village residents. Some are targeted towards specific groups, such as teachers. However, their implementation is intermittent because of the demands on personnel and budget in mounting these events. Bowen et al. (2010) emphasise the importance of frequency in information delivery in engaging communities. However, the problem for GIDA communities goes beyond the requirement for frequency and efforts towards localisation; the problem is the lack of avenues to achieve these goals. While face-to-face communication (as a form of information dissemination) is seen to be a possible solution to DRRM communication issues by village leaders, the seemingly minimal opportunities for DRRM information dissemination in GIDA locations lie in the engrained idea that if only a few people are affected by calamities, less attention needs to be paid to the issue. This predisposition results in neglect of these communities, which means their further socioeconomic isolation. Another assumption made by government informants was that GIDA communities are not interested in face-toface interactions, especially during drills and training, because they equated the non-participation of residents during drills and training to their lack of interest in building resiliency. In terms of a general process, residents gather in one area for drills and training sessions or events to listen to several lectures about the various risks they face regarding hazards. People are introduced to the four thematic areas of DRRM in the Philippines and told what each thematic area entails. The main bulk of the exercise is communicating important information about the early warning system and how to respond to hazards. A role-playing activity of evacuation drills and rescue follows. Special attention is given to indigenous peoples in the role-plays due to contrasting tenets of science and supernatural beliefs. Overall, residents from GIDA communities (including indigenous peoples) are more likely to be receptive to disaster risk information acquired in multimodal ways like role-playing than those living in lowland areas, as relayed by informants U1 and U4. The drills and training workshops contain several games to make information dissemination interactive. Government informants from both field sites opined that gamification was important because these activities make information dissemination fun for the receiver. They use different games for different audiences: kids have interactive activities that allow them to have fun while learning, while adults have a mix of activities to make learning less tedious, meaning less ‘classroom-type lecture’ and more ‘how-tos’. Moreover, gamification extends to intervillage and intermunicipality competitions, an example of which is the annual first aid training competition. Events like this ensure the constant transfer of information via the training of new and returning contenders.

5.4 Face-to-Face Communication: Opportunities and Pitfalls …

121

Aside from drills and training, informal meet-ups are also considered an effective method of disseminating information. With limited access to electricity, telecommunications signal, and other technological devices such as smartphones, informal meet-ups with village officials and zone leaders allow information to pass from one person to another. It should be noted that this study does not assert a total lack of access to electricity, signal, and/or smartphones. However, those who have access to information from various communication tools such as radio, social media, and television and have the financial means to maintain their usage (electric bills and prepaid data plans) gain power. Residents who have attained some level of education and can upskill themselves in using technology become local sources of information. Their access to information will function as a link that binds them to other residents. However, this situation can be problematic, as their connections can be limited to those within their social circle. Often these are relatives and neighbours, and informants raised that trust issues were a by-product of this situation. Family development sessions are also used to relay pre-disaster information. These sessions, however, are not part of the program of the local DRRM council. Instead, they comprise part of the conditional cash grant program (the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino program, known as the 4Ps) of the Department of Social Welfare and Development. During these sessions, representatives from the Department of Social Welfare and Development deliver an information session to 4Ps beneficiaries (i.e., those awarded the cash grant and thus access to the program), covering topics from family planning, livelihood, and disaster preparedness. Of the 99 families living in the island village, 40 are beneficiaries under the 4Ps program. This means 40% of their population can access DRRM information via this program. In the upland village, 220 (47%) of 467 families are listed under the National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction (NHTS-PR). Of the total population of 1942 people in the upland village, 804 are indigenous peoples. In terms of program access, this may mean that the NHTS-PR families have information that could be shared with the rest of the community because they are enrolled in the 4Ps program. The indigenous peoples may also utilise indigenous DRRM practices that could be blended with scientific information. The difference between the 4Ps information sessions and drills and training is their consistency (i.e., they occur monthly) and their focus. Government respondents U1 and I1 spoke highly of this program and said they intend to emulate it for CB-DRRM as they see its positive impact on its beneficiaries. In reality, however, they cannot easily pattern their CB-DRRM approach on this because 4Ps require personnel, which requires a personnel budget. Unlike the 4Ps program, which is financially anchored in a national government agency with regional, provincial, and municipal offices that implement its programs locally, the council can only hire a limited number of permanent employees to take care of the DRRM needs of their constituents.

122

5 Communication in Isolation

5.4.1 Interpersonal Communication and Its Issues There are three ways interpersonal communication is used in both field sites: (a) drills and training, (b) ‘door-to-door’ delivery of messages and ‘bandilyo’, and (c) informal meet-ups. Concerning the first, the mounting of drills and training is already stipulated in the National Plan, including that it should be carried out locally. These activities provide an opportunity for feedback, signalling a transitional level of engagement: The events offer an opportunity for local DRRM councils to get to know the context of the GIDA communities they are dealing with, and the community, in general, may be able to relay their fears and demand help from the government. This interaction falls under community-based DRRM (as per the National Plan). The second tool used for interpersonal communication is the ‘door-to-door’ delivery of messages, whether by bandilyo—an announcement made by a village official using a megaphone while roaming around the entire village, used in the upland village—or by personal home visits by a village official. Often this communication tool is used for delivering announcements. However, it also allows people to interact with the moving source of the message. The third tool used as a mode of interpersonal communication is informal meet-ups. Government informants explained this as a serendipitous moment when an official or a DRRM-trained community leader can share pre-disaster information in an informal conversation or context, such as waiting for public transport or after church activities (among other examples). However, these three interpersonal communication tools present a corresponding number of interrelated issues that may impact the goal of communicating pre-disaster information. Three main issues need to be unpacked in terms of relying on face-to-face communication for DRRM: (a) drills and training events are the primary sources of community engagement about DRRM, (b) these are costly and suffer issues of political prioritisation, and (c) not all materials used in these events are in the local language. First, to recap, it needs to be clearly understood that drills and training events are part of the community-based DRRM program of the National Council, and these are the main form of face-to-face communication about DRRM in the villages. In particular, on account of the other communication issues (e.g., access to infrastructure, etc.) they face as part of their isolation and socioeconomic inequality, these drills and training events can become the sole source of DRRM information for those in GIDA communities. In the context of these two truths, it is perhaps unsurprising that informants indicated that trust issues could form based on how these drills and training events were handled (see Sect. 5.4.2), especially when some drills and training were mounted exclusively for specific target groups. Second, organising drills and training sessions is costly in terms of budget, personnel, and time, and the village DRRM council could not maintain the counterpart budget required to mount this activity. Effectively, these constraints mean that these drills and training events are only held occasionally, restricting GIDA communities’ access to pre-disaster information. The authority to engage communities through drills and training sessions also resides with local DRRM councils, again highlighting the tension between the various use of budgets and project prioritisation by village officials.

5.4 Face-to-Face Communication: Opportunities and Pitfalls …

123

Third, the requirement for localising DRRM information for local DRRM plans disregards the capacity of the GIDA community audience to read and understand the information communicated in English and/or Filipino, and materials are not always translated into Bisaya. This situation connects to utilising the interagency approach to DRRM planning because trust issues, such as bias towards teachers, emerged in informants’ remarks. Still, they also noted that outside leadership do not grasp this angle on the issues.

5.4.2 Overreliance on Drills and Training and Trust Issues In terms of structured community-based DRRM programs, local DRRM councils in the field sites rely solely on drills and training events as the main method of engaging the community in pre-disaster information. They approach drills and training either by sector (women, fisherfolk, senior citizens, youth, and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, queer, intersex, asexual, pansexual, and allies (LGBTQIA+), among others) or engage the entire community as a whole. I4 and I1 shared that the inclusion of the LGBTQIA+ in their sectoral drills and training is in response to a locally crafted Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression (SOGIE) Equality ordinances. The municipality has employed members of the LGBTQIA+ and the persons-withdisabilities (PWD) sectors (I4). The LGBTQIA+ community is now currently integrated into the DRRM plans of the province in response to the SOGIE bill (I1).

In general, these drills and training events are organised by the local DRRM councils, who first arrange to have an event in their area and then pick representatives from each village and subject them to the 5-day training event. The intention is to have suitably trained first responders in situ. However, it appeared that despite these arrangements, not all GIDA communities (and not all community members) get to access drills and training. While in the upland village, a drills and training event had been conducted several days prior to my fieldwork—as this area was included in the list of villages to be visited as part of the government’s annual caravan promoting various government programs to its constituents—residents of the island village had not experienced any drills and training events with their local DRRM councils. The method of engaging communities in the island area was focussed on training first responders among its residents, rather than training the entire community. Yet it appeared that the drills and training experiences of the upland village community members had brought out trust and relationship issues, while the lack of drills and training in the island village had brought the residents together to form their own method of coping during threats of natural hazards.

124

5 Communication in Isolation

Residents of the upland village shared that they had only obtained access to disaster risk information during the recent drills and training session. A road sign had been erected, and flip charts were distributed by the provincial DRRM council, but only to zone leaders and parent leaders, for them to bring to the session—copies of the flip chart were not provided to all session attendees. The ones handed out to the formal and informal leaders carried the expectation that these people were to disseminate the information to their immediate family members, neighbours, and other zone residents. This particular strategy of the upland provincial DRRM council reportedly aims to recognise the importance of a local leader in developing a community-based DRRM. The council expects that these community leaders will take on the role of a credible information source in the area, whom anyone can come to for further information. As such these leaders are expected to take the lead and inform the rest of the zone residents about the contents of that flip chart. Despite this effort, a lack of trust towards community leaders was noted with regard to them ensuring that information was passed on to others. Informant U6 said she was unsure if there was information dissemination happening this way. She feared that only the zone leader and their household had consumed the information from the flip chart. Like many of the informants for this study, U6 held or had held a leadership role in the community, and the lack of trust she described towards the information relay process appeared to be concern that the general community felt distrust because of incidents such as the one described, coupled with their overall unfamiliarity with the message relay process. Just as notable as the issue of DRRM content dissemination expressed in these remarks is the problem embedded in the process, the issue of trust. However, the remarks do concurrently uphold the meaning of print materials as relevant sources of information in GIDA communities and do describe that these tools are being combined with other face-to-face tools (drills and training). Another trust issue from the selective provision of drills and training was projected towards teachers, this time from village leaders. According to the upland village leader/barangay captain, only teachers were trained how to use the emergency bell placed inside the school compound; none of the village officials were taught how to use it. Despite being elected as officials in the village, this teacher-exclusive training had resulted in leaders feeling left out of this aspect of the disaster response process. According to U6, I8, and I9, one possible solution to these trust issues would be to utilise the zone’s purok (open hut) as a place to display various DRRM print materials. During our interview, an information board was seen inside the purok containing information of that particular zone. Unlike the information board described earlier, which is placed along major roads, using the purok for this purpose carries a different meaning. The purok is an open hut that is built for the use of the residents of that particular zone in the village. As such, it is not meant to be ‘an information site’ like the information board, but rather it is used as a venue for the zone residents’ meetings (e.g., of zone officers), public gatherings, and relaxation. Zone leaders would be responsible to ensure the safety of these materials once they are put up in the hut. Anyone who has the capacity to read can then share the information to those

5.4 Face-to-Face Communication: Opportunities and Pitfalls …

125

who cannot read in the course of using the hut. In the island village, fisherfolk, who usually set sail at dawn and come back before midday, can lounge in the hut and at the same time access information from the posters. Despite the trust issues that emerged regarding information access and role, the lack of trust in handling and handing out learning materials did not equate to an overall lack of trust towards local government officials and informal community leaders. Empirical evidence still leans towards the community having feelings of reliance and trust towards officials in terms of their source credibility. The doorto-door information delivery sometimes undertaken by these leaders also added to their credibility as information sources, as well as adding urgency to the of the information they brought. These combined elements often resulted in action from residents, especially in the island village. This section has presented issues in the current implementation of drills and training and the overall process of pre-disaster information dissemination. Specifically, this section offers that despite the effort to provide drills and training to the different sectors in the community to ascertain broader reach through targeted measures, GIDA communities had issues accessing this platform. This access issue is attributed to the selection process of participants coming from the village to become first responders in situ. Because of this process, trust issues emerged against those who nominated people from the community to be trained. Trust issues were also noted in the process of ensuring the relay of information within the community. Lastly, this section observes that these trust issues did not signify a complete lack of trust in the process and people, because community informants demonstrated faith in the process by identifying possible solutions, such as using the village purok to house an information board. They also showed reliance in the government-elected position held by the village leader/barangay captain.

5.4.3 Denial of GIDA Communities’ Access to Information Informants in the upland province described that the province aims to start a bottomup approach to DRRM through the formation of the Alliance of Grassroots Responders. The same method is practised in the island province, but the ultimate goal there is to make DRRM sectoral (i.e., functioning through different community sectors). The upland province implements localisation through the alliance; in the field site village, this policy involves training local responders among residents of the village (ten people per village). At present, the DRRM council in the island area aims to train a total of seven responders from the village’s functionaries. However, as noted, equitable access to information means providing it to all the residents in a community. Instead, via pre-existing social sector leadership or alliance, the community is organised into those who are equipped with pre-disaster information (first responders’ alliance) and the rest of the population, who are dependent on these responders. This situation reflects what Marger (2014) discusses as social inequalities that are institutionalised as policies by the government. This practice dictates who gets information

126

5 Communication in Isolation

and who gets the privilege of training. The acquisition of knowledge from training empowers individuals and gives them power over others. If abused (or unused), this kind of power institutionalises social inequalities in GIDA communities. The mode of information dissemination that works well in a GIDA community is that achieved via the social network of its residents. Jackson (2019) loosely defines this as a large network of friends or connections within a community. Building and maintaining social networks in GIDA communities works because of the small number of people involved in the transfer of the message and their close interconnections (see Fig. 3.1). In an island village of 355 people, social cohesion is an expectation, and close cohesion can be attributed to the common experiences they have as residents of GIDA communities. In particular, Helsloot and Ruitenberg observe that communities which have more than once been hit by certain types of disasters often develop so-called ‘disaster subcultures’, in which the exchange of knowledge, exercises and other preparations are of central importance. (2004, p. 100)

In the island village, these 355 people are living within three puroks/zones that are close together. It is safe to assume that everyone knows everyone. If you ask a community member about the profile of a specific village, they can provide you with the exact numbers of children aged 0–5 years old who live there, or the exact ratio of males and females among the persons-with-disabilities and the senior citizens. They do not need the full facilities and expertise of the Philippine Statistics Authority to conduct their census! It is slightly different in the upland village. With only a relatively small population of almost 2000 (specifically 1942) compared to other non-GIDA villages in the municipality, it might be expected that information dissemination would be smooth. However, as informants U3 and U4 relayed, their geographic location (e.g., the topography) hinders smooth information relay. Door-to-door relay of information is still practised, but with more difficulty. The most efficient form of information dissemination in the area is informal meet-ups and neighbour-to-neighbour information relay through face-to-face interactions, such as when people meet a neighbour or a zone leader at the market and information is relayed during conversation. These GIDA communities are aware that interpersonal communication works for them because of the number of residents in the area. The level of awareness among residents of this aspect of their lives is so high that they believe an increase in population will disrupt the current mode of information dissemination they enjoy. They also acknowledged that the current information dissemination set in place by the government does not provide equitable access, but rather privileges select residents in the community. Hence, the informants’ responses suggested a demand for better access to other modes of communication that they can use to consume disaster risk information; however, it appeared that in some cases improvements were not substantive but were merely a matter of compliance.

5.4 Face-to-Face Communication: Opportunities and Pitfalls …

127

5.4.4 Localisation of Disaster Risk Information: Mere Compliance The current method of localising disaster risk information is through translation of content. This practice was observed on road signage. However, despite having translated the signage, there are still road signs in the upland municipality that are written in English. This choice of language use on road signage is quite the opposite of what I believe should correspond to the needs of a community who consume information from them, regardless of whether they are a minority population. There are plans to translate all these signs into Bisaya (the local language); however, the upland municipal DRRM council said they could not just replace the existing English signs because they are new and sign production is costly. Instead, they have decided to use the signs until they are old enough to be replaced by signage in the local language. Further conversation with the head of the upland municipal DRRM office brought to light the reason why they erected road signage in English in the first place. The erection of road signage is required by the Department of Interior and Local Government as part of the Seal of Good Governance. Providing information to the public is only a secondary objective, a reality that was enforced by informant U3, who began his reply to this question with ‘Sa totoo lang…’ (to be honest). Despite communication with the community through these signs being a secondary objective, U3 believed that the public was now aware of the hazards their area could face in future because of the signs. For U3, the most critical pre-disaster communication tool is road signage, and his office stands by its effectiveness based on their observations of community behaviour during threats. In addition, and despite signs being erected for compliance with Department of Interior and Local Government policy, the people exposed to the signage said they were now aware of the hazards they face because of the signs. ‘Myth-busting’ traditional beliefs is also common during drills and training sessions, especially when these involve the indigenous peoples. Certain indigenous people groups residing in GIDA communities have specific cultural beliefs in gods and goddesses who punish them, hence the natural hazards they experience. This local belief system creates a certain level of social inequality that is engrained in culture (Marger, 2014) and makes this group of people more vulnerable to natural hazards. Myth-busting needs to be carried out with a certain level of sensitivity and without discrediting cultural beliefs. As UI relayed, the indigenous peoples are documented as being the most open towards new knowledge and are serious in their participation in government-organised drills. Given this empirical evidence of the overreliance on drills and training, the denial of GIDA communities access to information, and the localisation of DRRM being ostensibly for compliance purposes only in both field sites, it appears that the idea of community engagement in both upland and island areas revolves around message relay through word-of-mouth and face-to-face interactions. This practice presupposes an increase in the role of community members, also ensuring their resiliency during

128

5 Communication in Isolation

calamities. However, the supposed two-way communication is still asymmetrical and is centred on the government as the sender of information; control over the pre-disaster communication process is firmly held by the government. Reflecting on this communication process leads back to the initial argument that communication tools used in transactional engagement can only be useful based on who is using them, where they are being used, and how people are using them. The transitional communication tools in use in GIDA communities highlight the role of individuals in a communication process that effectively only allows a feedback system which affirms and conforms to the government’s practices. Given this asymmetrical, twoway communication process, the transactional engagement style in use is tangibly intractable despite its use of modes of communication that should lead to transitional engagement. In this case, it would appear that the usual synergy between transaction and transition levels of engagement is being affected by tensions arising from political complications and leadership instability.

5.5 Political Complications and Leadership Instability The preceding sections provide description and discussion of the pros and cons of the various communication tools currently being used to disseminate pre-disaster information in GIDA communities and examine issues of their use, misuse, or lack of use. While continuing to uphold a multimodal and contextual (i.e., tailored to the needs of the target audience) pre-disaster communication practice and process, this study now extends its investigation into political- and leadership-related factors that appear to be weakening the existing multimodal and contextual pre-disaster communication utilised in the GIDA field sites. Leadership is a process of influencing and motivating group members to attain a collective goal (Haslam & Reicher, 2016). Winston and Patterson (2006) also provide both conceptual and operational definitions of leadership. To them, leadership is embodied by a person or group who ‘selects, equips, trains, and influences one or more followers’ (p. 7). Leaders differ from others because they obtain traits and behaviours that can be applied in any situation, and they can match their attributes, behaviours, and style according to the context they are put into (Cortellazzo et al., 2019). Wilson (2020) posits that a leadership trait includes the ability to lead based on expertise, mobilise a collective effort, and allow coping, especially in the context of the pandemic. One commonality that emerged between the two field sites is the utilisation of multiple modes of communication to disseminate pre-disaster information, despite their socioeconomic exclusion and geographic isolation. Both the provincial and municipal DRRM councils in the two field sites understand the importance of a multimodal pre-disaster communication approach. Both councils are also aware of the strengths and weaknesses of each mode of communication they use. More than that, they are aware that their messages do not reach certain villages because of telecommunications signal problem, access to stable electricity, difficulty with transport, illiteracy, and the (assumed) lack of interest of village leaders in DRRM. However,

5.5 Political Complications and Leadership Instability

129

despite their stated ‘awareness’ of these issues, the two councils relayed budget and lack of human resources as significant problems. On closer investigation, these two problems could be separated into two issues—prioritisation and departmentalisation; these issues are intertwined, as the following discussion highlights. The prioritisation of projects is rooted in the promises made by the elected official during their campaign period. From the list of projects promised to the people, the elected official will prioritise a project and an area where the project will be implemented. Budget is naturally required for these projects and is concurrently cited as a common reason why pre-disaster preparedness efforts are minimal. In addition to these realities, local DRRM councils believe that their DRRM budget should address problems regarding stability of communication infrastructure and difficulties with mobility in and out of the village, which are issues of stage 4 disaster preparedness. These findings align with an investigation conducted by Chang Seng (2013) in Indonesia, that there can be an overemphasis on post-disaster funding. In terms of addressing DRRM, this focus is reactive rather than preventive. The use of budget is also structurally anchored to the elected official’s own prioritisation of projects and programs. In this regard, Amri et al. (2017) argue for the specific integration of budget requirements in the early stages of DRRM planning. In terms of the way budget and project prioritisation are structurally (i.e., in terms of top-down bureaucratic processes) acted out in the context of the provincial and municipal DRRM councils, both of these issues are effectively hindered by political complications that impact an equitable implementation of the National Plan. Concerns raised by provincial DRRM informants about the lack of participation and weak DRRM practices at the village level highlight the interaction between priorities and the use of budgets. To some extent, the lack of interest from the villages can be explained in terms of the project prioritisation of the local leaders in these villages. In the upland village, the concern of the village leader/barangay captain was livelihood and infrastructure, such as a safer road network and the provision of basic needs like electricity and water. Therefore, ‘priority’ projects include road concreting and widening and the installation of sirens in critical villages. This project prioritisation seemed to be the result of post-evaluation after typhoon Bopha/Pablo hit the municipality in 2012. Neither the government nor the community were prepared at that time; nobody believed in the immensity of the threat because Mindanao, especially the southeast area, had always been typhoon-free. It appeared therefore that at this stage, the upland area was still working on its mitigation phase, and budget was being utilised to address the impacts of previous natural hazards. As such, disaster preparedness activities were being mounted for compliance purposes only. Concurrent with this, however, the upland village also expects the full support and quick response of the municipality in times of disaster, suggesting they rely heavily on both the province and the municipality for DRRM support, and responses indicated that they are aware that they could not function without this aid. However, this behaviour and expectation is contrary to what the province and municipality expect from village officials, which is local resiliency. As such, the municipal and provincial DRRM councils often complain about the weak DRRM practices in the

130

5 Communication in Isolation

villages and the lack of initiative coming from village leaders despite the training they provide to them. Another example of non-prioritisation of DRRM in the upland GIDA community is the location of the identified evacuation centres. Currently, there are three identified areas: the village hall and health centre, the village gym, and the school. However, informants were unsure of their actual safety in these supposed evacuation areas because these buildings back onto a cliff and the village is prone to landslides. Some people also refuse to evacuate because of previous bad experiences in evacuation centres. If there is an incoming typhoon, we just sound the alarm, stay away from hazard prone areas, and go to our built kamalig (shed) or to other places like the school where we think it is safe and wait for the typhoon to pass (I6). We have evacuation centres. We have the health centre and the gym. But we really could not say that we are safe there because at the back of it is a cliff and we are landslide prone (U9).

In regard to observing the political processes connected to DRRM and the workings of DRRM councils, it proved useful that field work was conducted during an election period when this topic was in informants’ minds. Most of the LGUs were transitioning to new leadership. It was apparent that most DRRM officials could not relay any concrete plans because these would be dependent on whoever won the election. In fact, village officials and functionaries from both field sites demonstrated their wariness of this cyclic change in leadership, and this concern was also raised by the heads of the local DRRM councils at the provincial and municipal levels. It appeared that the continuity and prioritisation of DRRM-related projects is significantly impacted by leadership instability, both in terms of prioritisation of projects and in terms of personnel. Local officials each serve a 3-year term (governor, mayor, barangay captain). It was noted that it would be easier for the local DRRM council to continue its projects without these changes in leadership at all levels of governance. In terms of party politics, it must be noted that both field sites had been under one political family for a long period of time, and political dynasty was observed. In addition, it was clear from the interviews that areas where community members are not supporters of the incumbent political dynasty experience issues of exclusion. In the upland province and municipality, the highest position is passed on to the next member of the family, who is legally allowed to run for office. In the island province, the political power had been in the hands of one family since the creation of the province in 2007. Since this political family and its representatives did not win the current election bid, however, program changes were expected by informants. These changes would include losing all political appointees who had been trained for DRRM during their tenure in the local government. The impact of leadership change would also be felt in budget allocations and personnel development. However, this study does not suggest that a single political family should hold office indefinitely to ensure continuity of DRRM projects. Fealty to political families is not the answer to problems of project prioritisation, the continuity of project implementation, and the training of personnel. While a longer term of leadership stability may ensure the continuity of projects and may lessen the need to retrain newly elected officials and

5.5 Political Complications and Leadership Instability

131

political appointees, it would also spell less development and support to areas that are not supporters of the sitting officials. Provincial and Municipal government informants from both upland and island areas opined that the constant change in leadership vis-à-vis their priority projects is concomitant with the political process of having a DRRM council that is headed by an elected official at multiple levels of governance (provincial, municipal, and village). This set-up also directly impedes the activities of local DRRM councils from provincial to village levels because of the presence of the coterminous positions of political appointees and their personnel in these DRRM offices. While every newly elected officer brings a different platform and priority projects, these officers also come with new staff members who are thus coterminous with the current administration. Before explaining the issue of coterminous positions, I will highlight that this study does not downplay the role and perceived relevance of political appointees, but rather wants to underline the value of giving trained political appointees fixed tenure in local government. So what is a coterminous position, how does it work, and why is it problematic for the local DRRM councils? Answering these questions means looking again at the political composition of the local DRRM council. Politically, the effective head/ s of a local DRRM council are the elected governor (provincial), the mayor (municipal), and the barangay captain (village). The role of non-elected (i.e., continuous) local DRRM officials in the two levels of governance is to train these newly elected officials on the processes involved in DRRM. This is achieved with the help of other national agencies through these officials’ regional counterparts. If incumbent officials lose their election bid, the local DRRM council need to train the incoming politician. The political landscape also gives an elected official the right to hire people based on her/his trust and confidence alone. According to the 2017 Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Human Resource Actions, the legal understanding of coterminous positions is defined by the Civil Service Commission of the Philippines as ‘an appointment issued to a person whose tenure is limited to a period specified by law’, and this appointment coexists ‘with the term/tenure of the appointing officer/authority’ (Civil Service Commission, 2018, p. 16 sec. D). This set-up can be abused by those who run for office. The coterminous position can be used as bribe for community members with strong voices to campaign for a certain politician in exchange for a job post-election. Consistent with this situation, informants from the upland provincial DRRM described that there are only a few tenured positions in their office; the rest of the personnel are in coterminous positions. This arrangement means that aside from training the head of the council, the DRRM office needs to train coterminous appointees. Informants reported incidents where the DRRM council would spend money to send individuals to train in accredited institutions in the Philippines only to lose these people in the end because of lack of tenure in the government. As such, it appeared from accounts that most of the budget intended for disaster preparedness goes to training and retraining newly elected officials and their appointees. Informants’ discussion of their concerns regarding these matters led to a discussion about House Bill 6075 of the Philippine Congress, which proposes to create the

132

5 Communication in Isolation

Department of Disaster Resiliency (Salceda, 2017). According to informants from the upland provincial DRRM council, the creation of the Department of Disaster Resiliency would solve the problem of the continuity of DRRM projects since this would no longer be reliant on the re-election of an official. The new department would also solve the issue of maintaining employees in the DRRM council, since its creation would require opening government item positions. At the time of writing, the proposed House Bill 6075 had been approved at the congressional level (Cepeda, 2018). Research suggests that there is more to the Department of Disaster Resiliency than was conveyed by the government informants for this study. As noted, the current setup for DRRM is a council with membership coming from diverse (and multilevel) government agencies. This can be problematic given the fact that DRRM is only secondary to their primary function in society. In terms of the agencies currently involved in the issue of DRRM, it is understandable that when there is a disaster, society is in chaos, and order needs to be reinstated; as such, providing order is supposed to be the role of the Department of National Defense, so this department has a role in DRRM. A disaster also affects the welfare of people; hence the Department of Social Welfare and Development play a role in DRRM. Health problems arise during a disaster; therefore, there is a need to include the Department of Health in the mix of DRRM agencies. However, in each case, the DRRM functions of these officials are secondary, as these agencies do not plan and operate in the context of disaster all the time. It would appear that the creation of a dedicated agency like the Department of Disaster Resiliency would provide an entity whose purpose and operation is confined to the context of DRRM, presumably giving this issue its own scope, specialised staff, and budget. Whether the Department of Disaster Resiliency will be useful or not once it is approved, however, is beyond the scope of this study. There are leftist groups who oppose the creation of the Department of Disaster Resiliency on the grounds that the head of the department will possess legitimate power over government arms and its reserved forces during disasters, powers that are only otherwise given to the President of the country, and that everything is already working fine as per the National Council working with local governments (Cepeda, 2018). The political complications discussed in this study include change in council leadership and its impacts on project and area prioritisation. I4 shared that changes in government leadership also affect personnel composition and budgets due to the presence of coterminous positions that essentially overtake budgets with training requirements citing the current situation of I5 who is sitting in a coterminous position. It will depend on who is sitting as the head of the DRRM council (Mayor). With every newly elected officer comes different platform/priority projects and even staff who are co-terminus with the current administration (I4).

However, the question arises whether leadership stability is the answer to ensuring continuity of projects, because this leans towards the acceptance of political dynasties, which bring their own problems for DRRM. Based on the experiences of people

5.6 Summary

133

living in GIDAs, it would appear that maintaining a political dynasty is not an effective answer to the issues of changing leadership, coterminous positions, personnel movement, project prioritisation, and budget allocation. The effectiveness of the local disaster risk information dissemination practices is intertwined with various problems of the political context of DRRM. The problem is not in the people or in their lack of interest—safety is everyone’s interest. It is also not about the people’s inability to follow instructions to evacuate, or their place attachment and real fears of economic loss—these things are all part of human nature. Placed in context of issues that the political situation currently subsumes (such as, for example, access to stable electricity, socioeconomic inequality, and illiteracy), it can be noted that DRRM councils at all levels could conduct a thorough demographic analysis as well as survey their locality’s media environments. However, the political complications explained in this study form an impediment to the equitable and contextual delivery of DRRM services; in addition to their entanglement with them, these entrenched political complications effectively dwarf issues of budget and human resources. In this study, therefore, political complications are considered intervening variables that negatively impact disaster risk communication efforts targeted towards GIDA communities, and three key concepts encapsulate the study data—power, relationships, and experiences. Power connects the political and leadership issues to budgets and priorities; at the same time, maintaining cohesive social and familial relationships has been proven significant in DRRM practices targeted towards GIDA communities. In addition, the actual (or simulated) disaster experiences of both government and community members can strengthen the decision-making process. Although not yet evaluated in full, there are ways currently in place to somehow empower these communities. For instance, the island provincial and municipal DRRM councils are advocating for sectoral and community-based training to empower the local villages to be resilient on their own. This goal may require different communication strategies that will satisfy the demand for both education and engagement (Dufty, 2011).

5.6 Summary This chapter has tackled the interconnectedness of pre-disaster communication and community engagement in the GIDA context. Pre-disaster communication directed towards GIDA communities is dominated by traditional communication tools such as print, radio, and video within the public/mass communication efforts; however, observations do not show the efficacy of these traditional communication tools. Findings show that effective pre-disaster communication with GIDA communities is dominated by interpersonal communication. This mode of information dissemination utilises face-to-face interactions between and among the people involved in the communication process.

134

5 Communication in Isolation

This study found that interpersonal communication that was anchored in a community engagement framework was an integral disaster risk communication tool. In situ, interpersonal communication enhances the multimodal process of information dissemination involving digital tools both via online and offline technologies. Observations and other findings reinforce the role of traditional media in dealing with communities living in geographically, socially, and economically isolated areas. Literature upholds that effective risk communication that targets various demographics is multimodal, but this efficacy is not convincing in terms of using this method to target the various demographics and context of the areas investigated by this this study. In terms of the modes and tools of pre-disaster communication and their use in GIDA communities, it appears that the CEC level of community engagement is still in the transitional phase. This means interactions are mediated by modes and tools of communication that allow feedback. Examples include radio, village assemblies, and trainings and drills. Yet despite the provision of a feedback system, the communication flow is still asymmetrical because it is still unclear whether feedback is considered in the design or redesign of training manuals or messaging through public and mass communication tools. Feedback is directed towards the sender, which adheres to the bottom-up approach, but data do not show that there is any efficient horizontal (or lateral) flow of information between residents in GIDA communities. This horizontal or lateral flow of communication signals the beginning of a transformational level of community engagement. It emerged that certain organisational factors affect the exchange of information between the government and local community and those among members of GIDA communities. These factors include trust issues and furthering the inequalities experienced by GIDA communities because of endemic political complications. These complications include project prioritisation and budget use, which are also tied to changing political leadership. In the light of these results, this study recommends looking into social power (P), social relationships (R), and past or simulated disaster experiences (E), and the next chapter addresses these ‘PRE’ issues. Social power was observed in the leadership position held by a person in a community, such as the zone leaders; social relationships were observed when local informants shared their concerns, such as about their disabled neighbours needing assistance during emergencies; and experiences and their positive and negative impacts were relayed by government informants. Overall, this study continues to defend that the push for the digitalisation of predisaster risk communication will not (as expected) assist all communities, particularly not those living in GIDA. The experiences of informants relayed in this chapter are akin to the geographic and socioeconomic inequalities experienced in urban and accessible areas documented by Sujarwoto and Tampubolon (2016) in Indonesia and Madianou (2015) in the Philippines. Despite the move to make both risk and disaster communication digital (Mansell, 2017), as can be evidenced by the number of studies geared towards the digitalisation of disaster communication (Sumaylo, 2018), there are certain social inequalities that are engrained in GIDA communities

References

135

that are not solely a result of their location; some of these inequalities are a byproduct of the political behaviour of the institutions that provide DRRM to these communities.

References Adame, B. J., & Miller, C. H. (2015). Vested interest, disaster preparedness, and strategic campaign message design. Health Communication, 30(3), 271–281. Alampay, E., Mendes, S., Soriano, C., & Soriano, E. (2007). The innovative use of mobile applications in the Philippines—Lessons for Africa. Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), Sweden, viewed 1 November 2020, https://www.unapcict.org/sites/default/ files/2019-01/The%20Innovative%20Use%20of%20Mobiles%20in%20the%20Philippines. pdf Amri, A., Bird, D. K., Ronan, K., Haynes, K., & Towers, B. (2017). Disaster risk reduction education in Indonesia: Challenges and recommendations for scaling up. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 17(4), 595–612. Arlikatti, S., Taibah, H. A., & Andrew, S. A. (2014). How do you warn them if they speak only Spanish? Challenges for organizations in communicating risk to Colonias residents in Texas, USA. Disaster Prevention and Management, 23(5), 533–550. Bowen, F., Newenham-Kahindi, A., & Herremans, I. (2010). When suits meet roots: The antecedents and consequences of community engagement strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(2), 297– 318. Caragea, C., McNeese, N., Jaiswal, A., Traylor, G., Kim, H.-W., Mitra, P., Wu, D., Tapia, A. H., Giles, L., & Jansen, B. J. (2011). Classifying text messages for the Haiti earthquake. In Proceedings of the 8th International ISCRAM Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, May, pp. 1–10, viewed 9 November 2021, http://www.bernardjjansen.com/uploads/2/4/1/8/24188166/classifying_text_messages_h aiti_earthquake.pdf Cepeda, M. (2018). House okays bill creating Department of Disaster Resilience. Rappler, Philippines, viewed 23 October 2019, https://www.rappler.com/nation/213262-house-3rd-readingbill-department-of-disaster-resilience Chandler, D., & Munday, R. (2016). A dictionary of media and communication (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. Chang Seng, D. S. (2013). Tsunami resilience: Multi-level institutional arrangements, architectures and system of governance for disaster risk preparedness in Indonesia. Environmental Science & Policy, 29, 57–70. Civil Service Commission. (2018). 2017 omnibus rules on appointments and other human resource actions: Revised July 2018. Civil Service Commission, Philippines, viewed 17 November 2021, http://www.csc.gov.ph/phocadownload//PolicyReso/2018/2017ORAOH RA(RevisedJuly2018)CSCResoNo1800692_af.pdf Coile, R. C. (1997). The role of amateur radio in providing emergency electronic communication for disaster management. Disaster Prevention and Management, 6(3), 176–185. Contzen, N., & Mosler, H. J. (2013). Impact of different promotional channels on handwashing behaviour in an emergency context: Haiti post-earthquake public health promotions and cholera response. Journal of Public Health, 21(6), 559–573. Cortellazzo, L., Bruni, E., & Zampieri, R. (2019). The role of leadership in a digitalized world: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–20. Dufty, N. (2011). Engagement or education? Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 26(3), 35–39.

136

5 Communication in Isolation

Fraustino, J. D., Lee, J. Y., Lee, S. Y., & Ahn, H. (2018). Effects of 360° video on attitudes toward disaster communication: Mediating and moderating roles of spatial presence and prior disaster media involvement. Public Relations Review, 44(3), 331–341. Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. (2016). Rethinking the psychology of leadership: From personal identity to social identity. Daedalus, 145(3), 21–34. Helsloot, I., & Ruitenberg, A. (2004). Citizen response to disasters: A survey of literature and some practical implications. Journal of Contingencies & Crisis Management, 12(3), 98–111. Hootsuite and We Are Social. (2019). Digital 2019. https://wearesocial.com/uk/blog/2019/01/dig ital-in-2019-global-internet-use-accelerates/ Hugelius, K., Gifford, M., Ortenwall, P., & Adolfsson, A. (2016). Disaster radio for communication of vital messages and health-related information: Experiences from the Haiyan Typhoon, the Philippines. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 10(4), 591–597. Jackson, M. O. (2019). The human network: How we’re connected and why it matters. Pantheon Books. Kress, G. R. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge. Liu, B. F., Fraustino, J. D., & Jin, Y. (2016). Social media use during disasters: How information form and source influence intended behavioral responses. Communication Research, 43(5), 626–646. Madianou, M. (2015). Digital inequality and second-order disasters: Social media in the Typhoon Haiyan recovery. Social Media + Society, 1(2), 1–11. Mansell, R. (2017). Inequality and digitally mediated communication: Divides, contradictions and consequences. Javnost—The Public, 24(2), 146–161. Marger, M. N. (2014). Social inequality: Patterns and processes (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill. Nicholson, D., Vanli, O. A., Jung, S., & Ozguven, E. E. (2019). A spatial regression and clustering method for developing place-specific social vulnerability indices using census and social media data. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 38, art. 101224. http://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijdrr.2019.101224 Pourebrahim, N., Sultana, S., Edwards, J., Gochanour, A., & Mohanty, S. (2019). Understanding communication dynamics on Twitter during natural disasters: A case study of Hurricane Sandy. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 37, art. 101176. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr. 2019.101176 Rodríguez, H., Díaz, W., Santos, J. M., & Aguirre, B. E. (2007). Communicating risk and uncertainty: Science, technology, and disasters at the crossroads. In H. Rodríguez, E. L. Quarantelli, & R. R. Dynes (Eds.), Handbook of disaster research (pp. 476–488). Springer. Romo-Murphy, E., James, R., & Adams, M. (2011). Facilitating disaster preparedness through local radio broadcasting. Disasters, 35(4), 801–815. Salceda, J. (2017). House bill 6075. House of Representatives, Philippines, viewed 17 November 2021, http://www.congress.gov.ph/legisdocs/basic_17/HB06075.pdf Seiler, W. J., Beall, M. L., & Mazer, J. P. (2017). Communication: Making connections (10th ed.). Pearson Education. Sellnow, D. D., Lane, D. R., Sellnow, T. L., & Littlefield, R. S. (2017). The IDEA model as a best practice for effective instructional risk and crisis communication. Communication Studies, 68(5), 552–567. Silver, A., & Matthews, L. (2017). The use of Facebook for information seeking, decision support, and self-organization following a significant disaster. Information Communication & Society, 20(11), 1680–1697. Sommerfeldt, E. J. (2014). Disasters and information source repertoires: Information seeking and information sufficiency in postearthquake Haiti. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 43(1), 1–22. Sujarwoto, S., & Tampubolon, G. (2016). Spatial inequality and the Internet divide in Indonesia 2010–2012. Telecommunications Policy, 40(7), 602–616.

References

137

Sumaylo, D. J. (2013). Using SMS for grassroots health communication in the Philippines. Media Asia, 40(3), 227–230. Sumaylo, D. J. (2018). Potentials and pitfalls of crowdsourcing in disaster risk communication: A systematic review. In 2018 Southeast Asia Disaster Risk Governance Academic Seminar, Bangkok, Thailand, 24–26 September, pp. 107–123, viewed 17 November 2021, https://www. rcrc-resilience-southeastasia.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Paper14.pdf Sumaylo, D. J., Gomez, A. L., & Abrio, D. F. (2016). Mainstreaming LDRRMC-IEC efforts in Barangay Esperanza, Municipality of Loreto, Province of Dinagat Islands. In CIDS Research Colloquium, Quezon City, Philippines. Susmayadi, I. M., Kanagae, H., Adiyoso, W., & Suryanti, E. D. (2014). Sustainable disaster risk reduction through effective risk communication media in Parangtritis tourism area, Yogyakarta. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 20, 684–692. Taibah, H., Arlikatti, S., & Andrew, S. (2018). Risk communication for religious crowds: Preferences of Hajj pilgrims. Disaster Prevention and Management, 27(1), 102–114. Taylor, M., & Perry, D. C. (2005). Diffusion of traditional and new media tactics in crisis communication. Public Relations Review, 31(2), 209–217. Wilson, S. (2020). Pandemic leadership: Lessons from New Zealand’s approach to COVID-19. Leadership, 16(3), 279–293. Winston, B. E., & Patterson, K. (2006). An integrative definition of leadership. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(2), 6–66. Xuerui, Y. (2008). Narrowing or widening the digital divide? The growth of the Internet and uneven developments in China. Media Asia, 35(3), 140–204. Yang, Y., Zhang, C., Fan, C., Yao, W., Huang, R., & Mostafavi, A. (2019). Exploring the emergence of influential users on social media during natural disasters. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 38, art. 101204. Yudarwati, G. A. (2019). Appreciative inquiry for community engagement in Indonesia rural communities. Public Relations Review, 45(4). http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101833 Yudarwati, G. A., Putranto, I. A., & Delmo, K. M. (2021). Examining the Indonesian government’s social media use for disaster risk communication. Asian Journal of Communication, 1–20. http:// doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2021.2007274

Chapter 6

Power, Relationships, and Experiences: Bridging Pre-disaster Communication and Community Engagement

6.1 Introduction The previous chapter presented the current level of community engagement local governments use as a communication strategy in building resilient communities. With the available communication modes and tools observed in situ (including the use of community engagement), this study asserts that community engagement is being underutilised as a communication strategy concerning DRRM for GIDA communities in the Philippines. In addition, the communication processes between the government and GIDA communities investigated in the previous chapter were subject to political complications, issues of interpersonal communication (such as trust), and lack of experiential motivation (regarding natural calamities) to act beyond the ‘choke-up’ points. However, this chapter suggests that these choke-up points can be used as drivers to improve the communication process that is currently in place. As such, this chapter aims to highlight how to ‘flip’ the three identified chokeup points—power, relationships, and experiences—so that they can become drivers of better pre-disaster risk communication targeting GIDA communities. I also discuss these impacts for future disaster preparedness efforts directed towards GIDA communities, not just in the Philippines but also in its neighbouring Southeast Asian countries. The chapter thus extends the discussion on multimodal pre-disaster communication efforts in engaging GIDA communities and is divided into several sections. The first section revolves around what constitutes a community. In contrast, the second section discusses the centrality of the individual as a communication conduit guided by their power and experiences, whether simulated or actual. The third section is centred on the capabilities of an individual to take on the role of communication conduit in pre-disaster communication.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 D. J. Sumaylo, Engaging Isolated Communities in Disaster Preparation and Communication in the Philippines, Communication, Culture and Change in Asia 11, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-4697-6_6

139

140

6 Power, Relationships, and Experiences: Bridging Pre-disaster …

6.2 The Multiple Notions of Community in DRRM This study is centred on community engagement as a communication tool, with the individual as the core component. In Sect. 2.3.1, I initially established the notion of community as something geographic. In this study, I initially defined community based on where marginalised people live. This conceptualisation may be elementary, but I believe it is crucial to establish roots, because the results of this investigation lead to three overlapping notions of what constitutes a community. Literature already posits that unpacking community as a concept begins with a geographic definition (Titz et al., 2018) and proceeds to the levels of interaction in which people in the community participate (Brint, 2001). The data gathered from geographically isolated communities yielded three notions of community that applied to issues of DRRM. The first notion of community is geographic. A community can be defined based on its shared spatial location. This definition of community pertains to a group of people living in one area. Examples may include a community of upland dwellers. This notion of community makes segmentation and segregation easy. Governments can use this segmentation and segregation to divide their areas of responsibility into smaller units for easy management. In the Philippines, the smallest unit of governance is called a barangay or village, and this concept was established in Philippine history. The village was previously known as a barrio, and villages are based on the pre-Spanish concept of the balangay (Andres, 1988; Romani, 1956; Zamora, 1967). In their review of various meanings of community used in literature, Jewkes and Murcott (1996) note that a community can be viewed as people who share something in common that distinguishes them from other communities. In the Philippines, this is clearly geographic. However, based on Jewkes and Murcott’s insider–outsider observations, I assert that DRRM studies involving multiple facets of community should move away from the paradigm of outsiders-looking-in. I suggest that community members interpret and define their experiences as representations of their community. This suggestion means unpacking, processing, and developing personal experiences into actions that apply to a broader audience. Grounded on the fact that the conceptualisation and implementation of community-based DRRM programs in the Philippines are based on how governments currently define community, these personal interpretations can potentially be tapped by local DRRM councils to make community-based DRRM participatory and transformative. The second notion of community is observed in how people are organised into smaller units. At both field sites, people are organised into various sectors: women, youth, senior citizens, people with disabilities, etc. These organised smaller units can be found in any geographic community, whether it is classified as GIDA or not. Grouping people in a geographic community into smaller groups dissects the geographic notion, allowing for more efficient/tailored governance. Various government agencies dealing with these smaller groups conduct programs and activities related to their common interests. Projects can be personalised based on the needs of each group and made inclusive to all members in a venue where they can fully express themselves.

6.2 The Multiple Notions of Community in DRRM

141

Both field sites already show this organisation of individuals into various social groups within the community, such as the fisherfolk association or the senior citizens organisation. This method of creating smaller groups is beneficial not only for people with needs and interests that can make them part of a working social group but also for the local DRRM council, whose mandated intention is to reach out to specific groups. Local DRRM councils recognise the need for a personalised approach to pre-disaster programs, yet they cannot provide it because of political roadblocks. Unfortunately, reaching a compromise is not the way to achieve community cooperation and participation. Follett debunked this notion in 1919 when she observed that reaching a compromise when dealing with communities does not fully comprehend the interwoven social processes among its members. That is, the individual continues to evolve based on their experiences, which include the social network they build for themselves; a compromise means a cancellation of parts of these experiences just so the individual will fit the ‘community’ mould prescribed by the government. Marginalised people’s community experiences also play a significant role in building resilient communities. For instance, the elderly (Cornell et al., 2012) and the LGBTQIA+ communities (Dominey-Howes et al., 2018) are marginalised because of their perceived physical and mental weaknesses (the elderly) or are ostracised because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. In my conversations with local community informants, I4, I5, and I7 all described that their community recognised the potential role of the LGBTQIA+ community in pre-disaster communication. In fact, the local government had begun implementing local policies and ordinances in support of the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression Bill. Local DRRM councils also acknowledged the unique needs of the LGBTQIA+ community and those of the older population in the area. I4 and I5 explained that LGBTQIA+ might have different needs, for instance, in evacuation centres. U1 also shared that the local DRRM council already identified the LGBTQIA+ community as a target sector for DRRM training, given that the approach is sectoral in both areas. The LGBT community federation was (recently) organized, and we are looking at the possibility of integrating DRRM into their cause because we can see the eagerness of the members of the community, and they are easy to tap. In terms of number, the LGBTQIA+ can mobilise a lot that is why we are including them in our CBDRRM facilitators. Also, funds are provided by the province for this sector (U1). I would like to enlist the LGBTQIA+ community as part of our responders. They can be tapped to organize trainings on one of the thematic areas of DRRM like Response. They can get trainers from OCD who is also part of the LGBTQIA+ community to train them (I4).

Despite the continuous neglect of international DRRM policies and frameworks on sexual and gender minorities, extant literature has investigated the roles of LGBTQIA+ communities in DRRM (Gaillard et al., 2017). However, the geographic and communication infrastructure setup for marginalised groups in GIDA communities is still prone to access issues, furthering the inequality they experienced. This ‘othering’ can be explained in terms of political complications connected to leadership instabilities: Politicians may have biases towards segments

142

6 Power, Relationships, and Experiences: Bridging Pre-disaster …

of the population who can vote for them, while other leaders may have biases towards specific causes or groups. The third notion of community is profession portrayed by emergency responders and frontline workers during calamities. Community goes beyond the recipients of disaster preparedness programs. Astill et al. (2019) observe that one issue in conceptualising community is dismissing the implementers of DRRM plans as a community of praxis. If the community of DRRM professionals is unprepared, their programs will be mediocre. Including the community of professionals in the dialogue provides an opportunity to strengthen a parallel community and improve organisational resilience (Astill et al., 2019). In the immediate aftermath of Super Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda, criticism towards the local DRRM councils in the affected areas was reported in both traditional (print, TV, and radio) and social media platforms. However, outsiders failed to understand that the supposed first (frontline) responders were also among the victims. Often, outsiders think that emergency responders, as a community, are not part of the local community. In response to this situation, the government, through its various community-based DRRM programs, trains local responders who are residents of various at-risk communities. However, as noted, community informants opined that this manner of implementation also created further inequalities within the community. Community engagement as a communication tool is central in my investigation, placing the individual at the core. The findings of this research lead to three overlapping notions of what constitutes a DRRM community: geography, organisation (of smaller units), and profession. These notions connect to the concepts of power, relationships, and experiences individuals have concerning DRRM. This section has discussed these in detail, and the next section breaks these into the DRRM roles an individual plays based on their experiences.

6.3 Transposing the Individual’s Knowledge to a Collective DRRM Narrative A community comprises individuals who are part of smaller units of society (e.g., via familial connections and expanded social capital; see Fig. 3.1). If the objective is to build a disaster-resilient community—that is, a community that can bounce back to its pre-disaster state after an event—resiliency should not be looked at from a macro-perspective. If each individual can bounce back, it stands to reason that the community has resilience as a function of the strength of each member. I, therefore, argue that individuality is significant in pre-disaster communication. Individuality gains more relevance when used as part of a community engagement strategy. I argue that looking at the smallest unit in the communication process—the individual—is the way to bridge the gap between communities and governments.

6.3 Transposing the Individual’s Knowledge to a Collective DRRM Narrative

143

The wisdom behind targeting individuals in small group settings is two-pronged. The first prong is conceptual and goes back to defining who the individual is in a community. The second is practical and focusses on how the concepts are applied in pre-disaster communication using community engagement as a strategy. Identifying the actors and their roles in community resiliency building provides a grounding on utilising power, relationships, and experiences (see Sect. 6.4) in bridging the gap between transitional and transformational engagement.

6.3.1 The Concept of Individuality in DRRM Approaching pre-disaster communication through the lens of community engagement allows me to unpack the role of the individual in a community setting and identify various conceptualisations of the individual in relation to DRRM. Overall, this study was able to locate three conceptualisations connected to the individual in a DRRM setting: personal DRRM, inclusive DRRM, and expressive DRRM (PIE). These notions ensure that individual perspectives are encompassed in the context of broader GIDA community experiences. First, personal DRRM relates to individuality in pre-disaster communication. This study argues that approaching pre-disaster communication using community engagement as a strategy encourages a targeted information dissemination mechanism. This means there is no generic approach to building resilient communities through communication. Perception of threat is not immediately collective. It starts with the individual and spirals outwards to familial connections and other social contacts. Community engagement as a communication strategy is also crucial in community-level disaster preparation activities. It demands a targeted approach encouraging individuals to become proactive in disaster risk preparations. DRRM councils can communicate to individuals about their vulnerabilities by presenting a personalised risk evaluation. Individuals at risk from slow moving natural hazards can then generate their preparatory actions. Moreover, this pre-disaster preparation can be done with the aid of representatives from LGUs, members of the local DRRM councils, and even family members in a household. Community resilience can be achieved once individual proactive practices become part of pre-disaster communication efforts and community engagement (Kanakis & McShane, 2016). In a broader sense, targeted DRRM projects and activities could encourage DRRM councils to properly analyse each community to identify those with and without access to traditional and digital media. However, this personalised approach to pre-disaster communication may be complex when local DRRM councils face issues related to personnel retention and other political complications (see Sect. 5.5). In arguing that messaging should be based on individual experiences, socioeconomic standing, and risk perceptions—I acknowledge that other communication scholars may perceive my argument as shallow, particularly given that it focusses only on information dissemination. Significant in information dissemination, however, is the smooth transmission of information from sender to receiver. Existing literature

144

6 Power, Relationships, and Experiences: Bridging Pre-disaster …

would categorise this under platform studies. However, perceiving dissemination as the lowest level of communication investigation is significant because I wanted to highlight the importance of a multimodal pre-disaster communication. Information dissemination may only cover the multimodal information access points. Still, it also demands deeper investigation because the design, testing, and use of any communication modes and tools are grounded on audience analysis—the individual. Levelling up information dissemination to communicating disaster risks demands further conceptualisation of the role of the individual in DRRM. Disaster risk communication brings comprehension and actualisation of concepts learned. This higher level of awareness and understanding demands that the target audience—the individual—has the basic capacity and skill set to access and consume the information provided in the platform it is currently available. In this study, I highlighted the fact that geographically isolated and socioeconomically challenged communities are aware of their lack of reading skills and access to information access points and that these inequalities exist not because of choice but as part of their lived realities. Personal DRRM focusses on the self and its experiences, socioeconomic standing, and risk perception impacting a person’s intention to act on the disseminated information. It has intentionally answered the who question. However, this entity (or self) is also part of a broader community. Combined entities or selves comprise a community’s traditions, social relations, and communication dynamics. Combining entities or selves leads to the second concept of individuality in DRRM, inclusivity. Inclusivity means being part of a broader context or group. The basic tenet of this concept is that individuals make up the community. Therefore, the definition and level of community resilience when facing natural hazards go back to the individuals’ risk perception and message reception. A community cannot begin to work on its resiliency when its members, the individuals, have concerns that need to be addressed first. Understanding and assembling individual worries about safety when facing natural hazards makes up the community’s risk vulnerability. Inclusivity means that the individual, regardless of gender, physical capacity or disability, wants to build disaster resiliency as part of a bigger community. The results of this study suggest that looking at the community, whether its definition is based on geographic location or social or political segregation, does not always result in a better pre-disaster communication practice. Hence, the value and importance of individuality in DRRM arise. In making this assertion, I do not suggest that looking at pre-disaster communication from the perspective of a bigger group or community should be nullified. Instead, this study wants to point out that when organisations such as those of government intend to use community engagement as a communication strategy, they need to go through a step-by-step process of analysing the community and the individuals that constitute it. Inclusivity does not always mean the macro-level of geographic boundaries and political demarcations; communities are made up of interconnecting and interconnected units, which implies inclusivity in DRRM communication can tap into organised social groups within that community, such as (for example) senior citizens, youth, and the LGBTQIA+ community, aside from their familial associations, an individual affiliates with others who share their

6.3 Transposing the Individual’s Knowledge to a Collective DRRM Narrative

145

interests and realities. The next logical step in moving to a higher level of analysis or conceptualisation of individuality in DRRM is inclusivity. Inclusivity can be a temporary cultural change influenced by natural hazards, pre-disaster sociocultural context, and community resiliency (Gaillard, 2007). Individuals that make up the community bring with them experiences, social connections, preparatory behaviours, culture, and traditions handed down by their elders (Gaillard, 2007; Kanakis & McShane, 2016). Gaillard (2006, 2007) posits that individuals, especially the indigenous peoples, use these experiences, culture, and traditions and modify them as they merge them with their own. This may be observed in an individual’s processes to integrate into a society where they want to belong. This integration process may involve developing and using social and economic capital and social power. This iteration of inclusivity can be observed in social and civic groups in a community and can be defined as the process of belonging. As such, there is one group that is frequently placed along the margins of DRRM frameworks—the LGBTQIA+. Although studies have connected gender with disaster frameworks, most of these are centred on women’s experiences. There is still limited attention given to the LGBTQIA+ sector—and there is an absence of any representation of gender or sexual minorities in DRRM policies. Gaillard et al. (2017, p. 22) point out the need for disaster scholars to expand their foci and explore this ‘new terrain’ to address the gap between gender minorities and disaster studies. Dominey-Howes et al. (2018) add that the heteronormative settings of DRRM policies—including the complex range of vulnerabilities and muted and underrepresented disaster experiences in mainstream media—make gender studies in DRRM difficult. In general, despite the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression Bill, the current social context in the Philippines does not provide any venue for representation, especially considering it is a conservative Catholic country. On this head, I received contradictory information about the presence/absence of LGBTQIA+ members in the island area from different informants, drawing attention to the group’s social status. However, government respondents from both field sites acknowledged the potential contribution of the LGBTQIA+ community in DRRM. One informant suggested that rather than viewing individuals in this sector as ‘victims’ of natural hazards, they could be considered sources of knowledge for deepening the understanding of the importance of pre-disaster communication among themselves. I5, a coterminous employee and transwoman, shared that they are currently trained to disseminate health-related information but can also expand their scope. However, most LGBTQIA+ members are not out because of social stigma, and informants I10 and I12 denied their existence in the island village. The main objective why we are formed is to provide additional information on various STIs and HIV to our youth...Since we do not have any formal training (on DRRM), what we can do is to request training for our group before we can reach out to others. As a government employee, I was part of training in basic first aid but as LGBT organization, we would like to adopt these trainings for our members and other basic information on disaster preparedness as well (I5). There are no LGBT in the village (I10 and I12).

146

6 Power, Relationships, and Experiences: Bridging Pre-disaster …

In this regard, the island community boasts a sectoral strategy for engaging local communities. The island province changed its approach to DRRM and focussed on community-based DRRM. The group Listong Kabataang Dinagatnon, which translates to ‘Ready or Prepared Youth of Dinagat’, attempts to make DRRM inclusive and personalised for the youth sector. In 2018, the province also organised the Personswith-Disabilities Summit for DRRM, which was reportedly well attended. According to I1, Our style of sectoral training is ‘Training of Facilitators’ or TOF, specially on CBDRRM. When we did it with the women sector, we realised that we also need a form of return demo so they can facilitate in their own communities.

The LGBTQIA+ sector, which was recently formalised through a local ordinance, is being supported by the community-based DRRM of the island province. The provincial DRRM office acknowledges their potential in disseminating information and rallying the LGBTQIA+ towards resiliency and being of help to fellow LGBTQIA+. As I1 opined: Recently, the LGBT community federation was organised, and we are looking at the possibility of integrating DRRM into their cause because we can see the eagerness of the members of the community, and they are easy to tap. In terms of number, the LGBTQIA+ can mobilise a lot, that is why we are including them in our CBDRRM facilitators. Also, funds are provided by the province for this sector.

The municipality also uses a sectoral approach to ensure that the delivery of the National Plan is community-centred, and there are several organised sectors, including women and persons-with-disabilities, that have already been provided with training. Still, the island municipality mainly advocates for two sectors—youth and LGBTQIA+. Targeting the youth seems logical since they are the community’s future leaders, and their energy and excitement can be tapped. The local DRRM council in the area also believes that the youth can help educate their parents on pre-disaster activities. As I4 shared, ‘the old people are hard-headed’. He added that tapping the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) is still the best way to involve and capacitate the youth. The SK is the smallest and lowest governing elected body in a village and the highest government body among the youth sectors. Since it is part of the local government unit, the SK gets an annual budget from the government. Moreover, in relation to the newly organised LGBTQIA+ sector of the island, the municipality DRRM office is also keen to tap this sector. Formed in the municipality through Resolution Number 021-2018, the local ordinance seeks to protect the right and dignity of the LGBTQIA+ sector, especially via the provision of the LGU services that aid in the promotion of health and human dignity of the members of this sector. The main problem is how to convince people to be part of the local LGBTQIA+ organisation, because it entails outing yourself to the public. In a very conservative Catholic country like the Philippines, issues on gender and sexuality are still not generally accepted, despite the existence of laws that protect minority groups. Another problem is that not everyone is open about their sexual orientation. I5, the president of the organisation said,

6.3 Transposing the Individual’s Knowledge to a Collective DRRM Narrative

147

We are still trying to convince them that they should not be ashamed of who they are. We do this by showing them what we do as established organisation. We are trying to tell them through our activities that being an LGBTQIA+ is being a leader. This way, we can encourage them to become members of our organisation so we can also protect them.

Looking ahead, the municipal DRRM office observed that the number of LGBTQIA+ in the area meant that they could be valuable as responders during calamities. The significance of looking at both inclusivity and individuality in implementing a community-based DRRM is highlighted by Follett’s discussion on why community should be viewed beyond a singular entity, as a process. Follett uses the example of household decision-making: when two people live together, they have to stand before the world with joint decisions. The process of making these decisions by the interpenetrating of thought, desire, etc., transfers the centre of consciousness from the single I to the group I. The resulting decision is that of the two-self. (1919, p. 578)

However, based on the data I gathered during field work, in terms of the political understanding of community, the definition remains solely based on geographic boundaries and their political demarcations. Areas classified as geographically isolated and disadvantaged are not heavily populated. When DRRM projects are politicised, project implementation depends on the number of possible votes a politician may get in that area by making election promises. During interviews with government informants, the difficulties of transportation and geographic make-up were always mentioned as reasons why projects are not implemented in GIDA communities. Yet several campaign materials were seen in these isolated areas during field work. Therefore, it appears that problems of DRRM are not rooted in reachability alone; rather, the difficulties are grounded on area and project prioritisation. The earlier quote from Follett (1919) highlights the significance of joint decisions of community. As a community of professionals, government actors plan pre-disasterrelated activities (i.e., drills and training as part of engaging communities); however, GIDA community residents (including their government/council representatives) need to make the decision to prioritise disaster preparedness as an immediate need. As a core concept of individuality in community engagement, inclusivity means the inclusion and participation of GIDA communities in the decision-making and implementation of pre-disaster communication projects of the local government. However, in the current situation, rather than mounting inclusive, community-based DRRM activities (e.g., an open-to-all drills and training, and translated communication materials), DRRM signs that are not in the local language are placed into local zones as a mark of political obligation. In line with community engagement as a communication strategy, organising an equitable and inclusive disaster preparedness activity demands what Follett calls the transference of consciousness from one group (government) to the community and vice versa. When the community, composed of many individual experiences, forms a singular message directed towards the government, this practice adheres to what Follett sees as the decision of the two-self.

148

6 Power, Relationships, and Experiences: Bridging Pre-disaster …

As a concept of individuality, inclusivity can also impact the method of evaluation of pre-disaster communication projects implemented through community engagement strategy. Creating and evaluating community-based DRRM programs that aim to engage communities is currently grounded on how manageable and measurable the program is. Governments are more concerned with measurable key performance indicators (KPIs), which reduce human interactions and experiences to quantitative indicators of success, than they are with human evaluations of effectiveness that may contribute to the design and/or redesign of communication materials to incorporate local experiences, culture, and traditions into its content. In keeping with this focus, data from the field work suggest that the number or extent of casualties incurred and the number of people who evacuated when threats were present are included in the KPI of pre-disaster programs. Moreover, the number of attendees of training and workshops is also a part of the KPI of these programs. At the very least, this means that the only way to properly validate all pre-disaster communication efforts is to wait for an actual disaster to occur. I would suggest that when the various conceptualisations of individuality proposed by this study can be transmuted into a measurable KPI, actual disasters will not be required for evaluation. With evaluation in mind, applying the inclusive quality of individuality to DRRM means that people serve as a communication link to others and their collective experiences; such a practice may suggest ways of shifting existing program evaluation paradigms. The third concept of individuality is expressivity. Recognising the individual’s self-worth in the context of DRRM communication allows us to distinguish ourselves from others but at the same time combat the otherness individuality brings to create a coherent whole. As Follett (1919) remarks: If the self with its purpose and its will is even for the moment a finished product, then of course the only way to get a common will is through compromise. But the truth is that the self is always in flux weaving itself out of its relations. (p. 577)

As a concept of individuality, therefore, expressivity comprises a demonstration of past experiences (such as of calamities) and social capital (such as in familial relations), and how these experiences and mutual concessions affect and form an individual’s social networks. This compromise between the government and GIDA community, as part of their lived experience, can be observed in the efforts of the former to provide preemptive measures when facing natural hazards through the select training of community responders. Experience can be used by an individual to express their own understanding of the risks they face. The same set of experiences can be used to express justifications of their actions, or the lack thereof. In terms of sharing experiences as a person in the world, expressivity is an everyday part of individuality, and this tendency to share allows discussion of issues regarding disaster preparation without an imminent sense of threat acting as stimulus. With an actual threat as stimulus, people almost always respond to DRRM communication with action, even if this action is deciding to remain with their property and thus in the way of the threat. As an informant in the upland site observed, it is difficult to shift 90 years of shared typhoon-free experience. Expressivity is therefore affected (e.g., can become volatile/controversial) by the presence of threat and the coping

6.3 Transposing the Individual’s Knowledge to a Collective DRRM Narrative

149

appraisal of individuals in relation to their past experiences and social capital. These pairings (threat–coping appraisal, and past experience—social capital) may help determine the level of individual preparedness in vulnerable communities, such as the preparation of go-bags in readiness for incoming an threat and the identification of a go-to person/s (an individual who lives in an non-risky area when threatened by natural calamity, as relayed by all island village informants). The identification of this person may be from a shared past disaster experience. The same pairings can also be used to construct the community’s collective local wisdom, which is another form of expressivity. As previously discussed, local wisdom is an assemblage of all of the individual knowledge of the residents of a community. Individuals are vessels of knowledge that is grounded on their past experiences, traditions, and culture. This knowledge is seen as the peak of the conceptualisation of individuality in DRRM. Local wisdom of past disaster experiences may dictate disaster preparation behaviours, including how the group will respond to the threat posed by a calamity. The more experiences they have gained, the more an individual can prepare for a threat. However, less frequent experiences of actual threats and more false alarms can negatively affect the action-response of the group. The collective local wisdom of individuals, which, much like experience (actual, simulated, or false alarms), is thus a double-edge sword. Kanakis and McShane (2016) suggest that frequency is not the only factor that affects preparatory behaviours. In addition, the severity of an event does not always equate to a positive (effective) influence on people’s future risk perceptions and their propinquity to prepare ahead. Moreover, dismissing local wisdom by dent of managerial policy is tantamount to attacking people’s culture. This kind of thing is tacitly observed in such things as the effort extended towards localising DRRM information for a particular community (Sison, 2017). The source of local wisdom is not merely the community itself; rather, the community is composed of individuals who possess knowledge that has been handed down from generation to generation, and which forms what becomes known as local wisdom. Tracing the source of local knowledge to the individual level brings to mind what Rapport (1997) opines, that the individual is someone who goes beyond their sociocultural background. His idea of the individual is contextualised in the individuality of the creative practices confined in a specific timeframe and consciousness. The study of Dominey-Howes et al. (2018) provides a case in point when discussing individuals’ collective wisdom in DRRM through the lens of individuality. Their study documents the underrepresentation of the LGBTQIA+ community in DRRM policies and frameworks in ostensibly-inclusive countries like Australia and New Zealand. Yet, within the heteronormative cultural setting of the Philippines, the LGBTQIA+ sector was seen by local informants as a potential source of local wisdom. The LGBTQIA+ community has resilient capacities and adaptive strategies unique to their needs—these alone are enough to put value in the knowledge and wisdom they can bring to make DRRM frameworks gender sensitive. Governments, organisations, and individuals in DRRM also demonstrated sensitivity and

150

6 Power, Relationships, and Experiences: Bridging Pre-disaster …

openness, which itself suggest the current disaster preparedness setup in the Philippines is moving towards inclusivity. Placing value on what the individuals bring may allow the LGBTQIA+ community to express their complex range of needs and vulnerabilities without fear. This study identified overlapping notions of community—geography, organisation (of smaller units), and profession (see Sect. 6.2). These three conceptualisations of individuality in DRRM directly relate to the experiences of GIDA communities, as they provide importance about the role of each community member in ensuring safety when facing natural hazards. However, the scope of community goes beyond the confines of vulnerable populations and people at risk; it also includes the people who implement local policies and emergency management plans (Astill et al., 2019). Members of local DRRM councils, the first responders during an event, are also residents of the village or municipality. Wearing two hats at the same time—responder and victim—can be daunting.

6.3.2 The Practical Notion of Individual in DRRM After careful evaluation of available data on transactional and transitional engagements presented in the previous chapter, it appeared that the individual plays a major role in interpersonal disaster risk communication in GIDA communities. The practical notion of individuality can be summarised in three Cs (3Cs): communication link, consistency, and cooperation and cocreation. The practical notion of individuality stems from the concept of the inclusivity of the individual. As discussed, inclusivity is the potential for the community individual to be sectored according to their socioeconomic, demographic, and/or political preferences. These can be religious organisations, life-stage groups (e.g., senior citizens), or even a group of people who are all from the same province. Given the preexistence of these sectors, the practical notion of individuality in DRRM can be initially grounded on easy management of programs from the point of view of the DRRM council. Utilising existing sectors makes finding commonalities among community members quicker, albeit does not always translate to localisation of information according to their needs as one sector. But by tapping into demographic commonalities, localisation of and access to pre-disaster information is feasible and increases an individual’s (or a small group’s) capacity to act on natural hazards, building their resiliency when facing these threats. Literature has documented that able-bodied people who have access to capital, information, tools, and equipment are believed to be resilient (Proag, 2014). Resiliency is the capacity of the individual to bounce back to the status quo before the disaster occurred. It is important to dissect what constitutes a community and reflect on the role of individuals—their strengths and weaknesses—that ultimately defines the community and its level of resiliency (hard or soft; Proag, 2014). The next subsections detail the practical notion of the individual as they become communication links with actual

6.3 Transposing the Individual’s Knowledge to a Collective DRRM Narrative

151

or simulated disaster experiences during drills and training, and their capacity for cooperation and cocreation in building and maintaining the safety of their community.

6.3.2.1

The Individual as Communication Link

At the close of the day, however, it is still enlightened and caring individuals who can use their communication systems to help their societies and communities develop. Quebral (2012, p. 64)

It was assumed prior to fieldwork that access to information in both field sites would be minimal to none because of their geographic isolation and other expected communication infrastructure setbacks. However, despite having minimal to no access to information from traditional, digital, and non-digital media, data show that GIDA communities mainly utilise an interpersonal information transfer method to send and receive messages for disaster risk communication. Empirical data also show that this interpersonal communication requires the right mix of elements to ensure smooth information dissemination and retention. This study identified social power, relationships, and experiences (PRE) as the drivers that empower GIDA communities. It appeared that utilising PRE in pre-disaster communication initiated a transformative level of community engagement that included empowerment, collaboration, and support. Altogether, four modes of communication were observed in both field sites (i.e., DRRM communication was multimodal). These modes were categorised based on the number of people involved in the interaction, their purpose, and its formality (Seiler et al., 2017). The four modes are (a) interpersonal and (b) public, and mediated types of communication through (c) mass and (d) social media. These modes of communication are utilised as links that connect the government to the people (see Table 6.1). Critically, these modes are all insignificant without the human intervention that enables them. Hence, the role of the individual as communication link in pre-disaster communication supersedes the modes and tools used in engaging geographically isolated and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities. These data indicate that face-to-face (F2F) interaction (in pairs or groups) is the communication method that links the government and the community. It is also the communication tool that connects people within the community. Face-to-face interaction is also an important communication tool utilised in any community engagement strategy programs. Given that F2F interaction is the definitive practical linking tool between senders and receivers of DRRM messages, interactions at the interpersonal level should be strengthened. Strengthening such interpersonal communication would also enable isolated communities to form their own human networks so that individuals know who to go to or who to help when the community is facing threats. Strengthening interpersonal communication as the main mode of communication in GIDA aligns with the idea of communication reach that Marlowe et al. (2018; see Sect. 3.2.2) argue is a crucial element in engaging diverse populations. Illustrative of the impact

152

6 Power, Relationships, and Experiences: Bridging Pre-disaster …

Table 6.1 Summary of communication types used in communicating disaster risk information Modes of communication Kinds of communication tools Upland area

Island area

Interpersonal

Dyadic interactions between . Government official (provincial/municipal) and village leader . Village leader and zone leader . Village officials and residents . Between family members not sharing a house, and . Between family members sharing a house Small group interactions between . Village leader and other elected village officials, and . Village leader and zone leaders

Dyadic interactions between . Government official (provincial/municipal) and village leader . Village leader and zone leader . Village officials and residents . Between family members not sharing a house . Between family members sharing a house, and . Neighbour to neighbour Small group interactions between . Village leader and other elected village officials, and . Village leader and zone leaders

Public

Village assembly Monthly meetings Drills and training

Village assembly Monthly meetings Drills and training

Mass

Print, radio, TV, road signage, text blast, bells

Print, radio, TV, road signage, text blast, bandilyo

Social media

Social networking sites

Social networking sites

of communication reach in GIDA is the concept of looking out for each other during threats of natural hazards which is learned during the monthly family development sessions of the conditional cash transfer program called the 4Ps (see Sect. 5.4). Looking out for others is feasible because there may be two or more families under one roof and/or those residing in the zone are all relatives. Currently, there are few modes of communication that promote relational and face-to-face interactions; these are village assemblies and informal meet-ups. These interpersonal communication interactions are endemic in the villages observed, and the community, through the village leader/barangay captain organises these venues for information dissemination and social interactions that build personal relationships among the residents. However, pre-disaster communication strategy cannot rely solely on these interactions for efficacy, because these gatherings are not always meant to discuss and learn ways of preparing for future natural hazards. In addition, these interactions will not foster personal and continual message relay between zones unless the senders and receivers have familial relationships with each other (thus, people outside the immediate social network of an individual described in Fig. 3.4 (immediate family and close neighbour) get excluded by this process). The process efficacy of the monthly family development sessions of the conditional cash transfer program therefore needs to be studied in order to find out what aspect can be replicated for DRRM.

6.3 Transposing the Individual’s Knowledge to a Collective DRRM Narrative

6.3.2.2

153

Consistency in Information Dissemination

Disparity was observed in information dissemination within the three levels of government. Almost all the communication tools audited by this study are available at the provincial level. At this level, information dissemination is packaged as fun, interactive, and competitive, through games and dramatisations. At the municipal level, a few communication tools are still available, but these are not as extensive as the tools used at the provincial level. Posters and brochures emanate from the national and provincial councils, road signage such as early warning signs from the province, as well as (in the case of the upland municipality) a radio station that sometimes presents DRRM-related topics. However, these traditional modes of communication (see Sects. 5.2 and 5.3.1) are usually available for the municipality’s use. This disparity in the availability of multiple modes of communication at the various administrative levels can be explained by context. At the provincial level, the DRRM council is dealing with several municipalities and hundreds of villages at the same time. At this level, a variety in the available communication tools is to be expected because of the number and diversity of the provincial population. At the municipal level, the DRRM council deals with numerous villages of varying contexts, and therefore, this council provides mainly more conservative and traditional forms of information dissemination suitable to the various village contexts. However, in terms of tailoring information to these villages, while the municipality cannot provide radio programs because of infrastructure and budget demands, where one is already provided by the province, they may see that producing one only duplicates what already exists. In addition, since gamification is the trend in DRRM in both field sites, the municipalities field their own contestants to represent them in these competitions, and there is rigorous training available for those who will be chosen to represent the municipality in the competition, drawing attention to the inclusivity of the criteria used for selecting contenders. Certainly, villages vying for the coveted Gawad KALASAG prize will put extra effort into the process of selecting, training, and fielding participants to these municipal and provincial games, but this can be disadvantageous for communities (like GIDAs) whose budgetary priority is livelihood and infrastructure programs. This problematic (bureaucratic) information dissemination process is obvious at the village level with the dwindling number of communication tools that are available. Most of the communication tools used at the villages are provided by the municipal or provincial DRRM councils. For instance, the province uses text messaging (text blast) to send urgent information to the municipalities (Sumaylo, 2013). Information is thus passed through text blast to the various municipality and village leaders. However, in GIDA villages, this mode is only intermittently accessible because of infrastructure-based signal problems. Posters, flyers, and road signage are designed and produced by the province and the municipality. These modes of communication are one-way and are often not read and understood by local communities due to issues of illiteracy. Worse, these print materials often do not reach the village because of their geographic location. Face-to-face drills are organised by the province and the municipality with their budgetary counterpart from the village, but GIDA villages

154

6 Power, Relationships, and Experiences: Bridging Pre-disaster …

cannot always afford these drills because budgets are already tight on account of these communities facing more pressing issues than DRRM. Television is included in the list of communication tools used in the island area, and access to electricity for this activity is scheduled because community members are aware that they can easily get information from television news. This method is faster than waiting for the municipal DRRM council’s text blast information, which may be delayed because of lack of telecommunication signal and the difficulty of getting to the island village. Even so, access to technology and even electricity are ongoing concerns in GIDA villages.

6.3.2.3

Cooperation and Cocreation

In context of these problems, the importance of GIDA communities’ reliance on interpersonal communication is considerable, and this research argues that both the individual and their relationships with others are crucial in building a transformative DRRM learning environment. Even so, a community is comprised of many individuals with varying roles and knowledge. What is thus essential at this stage of DRRM is building an environment of cooperation and cocreation that is grounded on trust, so that, as I have already argued, community engagement (as a DRRM communication strategy) is supported by trust at the grassroots level. At the structural or managerial level, the government’s current approach to utilising individuals as grassroots responders only feeds to the transactional level of engagement. However, highlighting the role of the individual in disaster risk communication is a reiteration of another similar and evidently effective program that was relayed by informants during data collection—the family development sessions of the conditional cash transfer program (4Ps). This program approaches family development sessions as an opportunity to teach families through their individual representatives. Depending on the topic, partners are not required to be present during these sessions, as one of the requirements of being a beneficiary of the program is that one partner must work to sustain the family while the other attends the session, although there are also beneficiaries who are single parents. Even though this approach relies on assemblies in the same way that local DRRM councils do with drills and training, the difference with 4Ps is the regularity (monthly) of information dissemination, and the fact that these sessions focus on one topic per session, such as preparing the family in the event of natural hazards. These 4P sessions require further investigation, as it may be that their regularity is not the only reason this style of interaction works in the GIDA communities—another reason might be the way they package information. Certainly, beneficiaries of this program felt empowered by the knowledge they gained from the 4Ps sessions and were afterwards willing to share information and act. The positive feedback about the 4P program highlights two things in regard to effective dissemination and the retention of knowledge, both of which rely on personal and continual processes. Instead of a ‘what-you-should-do’ style of teaching, as was observed in the messaging of the DRRM drills and training sessions,

6.4 Power, Relationships, and Experiences

155

and which also highlight fear, messages can be tailored to answer a ‘what-you-cando’ enquiry. By focussing on the individual, the sender of the message is able to tailor-fit the information to the profile of the audience. In terms of process, these individuals can and do then change roles from being the receivers of messages to being the senders of messages to their immediate family and relatives. This means that the individual can be observed as a singular agent or communication conduit that expands their role from being the sender of a message to being an agent of persuasion. This style of learning interaction goes beyond the government’s limited utilisation of the individual as a plain grassroots responders during calamities. The 3Cs—communication link, consistency, and cooperation and cocreation— thus describe the practical notion of individuality. In particular, disaster risk communication efforts require cooperation and cocreation among involved parties. Further discussion of the 3Cs will arise in the next chapter in relation to a discussion of the pre-disaster communication framework that uses community engagement as strategy. What is essential at this point is to build the significance of the individual in the entire DRRM process by looking at their social power, relationships, and experiences (PRE). The next section highlights these elements in turn.

6.4 Power, Relationships, and Experiences Understanding the community means looking at the individuals that make up the community. This study asserts that an individual can be empowered by their social power, their relationships in the community, and by their lived or simulated experiences. Each of these elements are discussed in the succeeding sections.

6.4.1 The Individual’s Social Power To be considered an information junction, an individual must possess a certain level of influence towards others through their social power. This influence might be the result of their relationships (familial or social) with others, their lived experiences (e.g., based on longevity of residence in the area), their disaster risk knowledge, and their actual or simulated disaster experience. It will be apparent that age can be a factor of influence, and this is especially so in indigenous peoples communities, who revere their elders, and in Southeast Asian culture in general. The individual, guided and provided by their social power, relationships, and experiences, can thus become a conduit in pre-disaster communication processes. This person acts as link between government and the community that encapsulates the idea of a transformative community engagement approach. One example was equipping an individual who represents a household with the information to decide suitable and efficacious action for their family when they are facing threats.

156

6 Power, Relationships, and Experiences: Bridging Pre-disaster …

This style of community engagement education has been extensively documented by other researchers in the Philippines through projects of non-government organisations. David et al. (2010) (a large group of authors from various institutions including the University of the Philippines, the Manila Observatory, the COPE Foundation, the Ateneo de Naga University, and the Naga College Foundation—Typhoon Preparedness Center) equipped several volunteer households with manual rain gauges to monitor rainfall as a warning mechanism for threats of flooding. Despite feedback about the community relevance of the actual tool chosen by the research team, these rain gauges still highlight what Wamil (2010) opines, that equipping households with the tools to decide for themselves when facing threats decentralises disaster risk information in the village level. Both decision-making and high disaster risk knowledge can be signs of a transformative level of community engagement in GIDA communities. Current government practice in engaging local communities to prepare for natural hazards is training individual representatives from each village to be emergency responders. These individuals are also expected to relay what they have learned to other individuals in the zones where they live. The selection process for these positions is based on power being granted to an individual by the social network nomination of a member of either a village or a zone DRRM committee; residents who are not in the social network of these officials cannot be nominated by them. In contrast to this somewhat limiting process, all beneficiaries of the conditional cash grant (4Ps program) receive information about issues from family planning to disaster preparedness on a monthly basis. Family-based information dissemination was also seen as the future of disaster risk communication by the provincial DRRM office in the upland area. I would suggest that placing this monthly program within the scope of community DRRM engagement of government could mean that any of the beneficiaries of the program could be a source of disaster risk information in the community. In this regard, there are 40 family beneficiaries in the island village. This means that there are 40 people who can be information sources when it comes to preparing for disasters. Forty communication conduits are better than a few grassroots responders who need to organise their own training in the community, should they take their role beyond being responders. In addition, their unique skill set in the village means that should any untoward incident happen to the grassroots responder during a hazardous event, the village is automatically be put at a disadvantage. Having multiple individuals acting as communication conduits, even in informal setups, expands the reach of information dissemination, making it potentially continuous. This style of community engagement increases the risk knowledge among community members, thereby increasing the possibility of action during hazardous events. To lessen the possible risks that attend the fragile human condition of grassroots responders during calamities, empirical data provide support as to why disaster risk communication should be centred at the individual level to share the accountability for protecting the village from harm among its residents. Currently, however, there is a paucity of DRRM training and information for residents in the upland village, which is the result of the budgetary requirements needed (and unavailable in the

6.4 Power, Relationships, and Experiences

157

GIDA context) to mount these events. Yet, a few days prior to my field work, an emergency drill had taken place in the upland village, and informant U7 shared how beneficial the drill was for her. It was the first time the community had received this training and she said she learned a lot from the experience. She had not learned any information from any other communication tools produced and distributed by both provincial and municipal DRRM councils, because she had never seen them. She added that these communication tools could help, but only if a person knew how to read. Informant U8 from the same area opined that she learned what to prepare and how to react to a natural hazard during the drill. She quipped that their zone leader also ensures that they know what to do if there are environmental threats. Of the residents of both the upland and island communities, it appeared that the best demographic to target is the youth. According to informant U1, the youth are also the easiest to work with in terms of teaching them disaster preparedness and practices that address issues of climate change. The informant also established that it is difficult to deal with adults because they often argue that they have not experienced any of the natural hazards discussed during drills and training. In contrast to this information, in practice, the target audience of drills and seminars are the adult residents of both villages. The provincial DRRM offices of both field sites are also aware that their audience are present during drills and seminars because of the free food provided. These statements highlight that learning and acting on disaster risk information begins with the individual. As noted earlier, an individual may influence others or be influenced by others based on the social status each possesses in the community. As such, an individual may have influence over others including (but not limited to) immediate and extended family. This means that anybody in the community holds a certain type of social power that they can use to influence others to do something or not do it. In tangent with this, an analysis of the disaster risk communication practices in both areas suggests that, as another actor with power in the context of DRRM and GIDA communities, the government relies on five main forms of social power, and that their aim in developing communities is to give some people expert power. However, the process of engaging local communities through the training of select individuals as central actors in times of emergency might be problematic in the long run should any untoward incident happen to the grassroots responder during calamities, or if they move to another village. Both local communities gravitate towards four main types of social power, which are coercive, reward, legitimate, expert, and referent power. These are discussed in turn in the upcoming subsections. Digging deeper into the current status of power that is used in interpersonal communication in the GIDA field sites suggests that it is paramount that these social powers be understood as being part of the context, including the further negative possibilities they bring to it. As such, power in this context is defined as the potential influence of an individual, organisation, or culture (Raven, 1965). Raven’s definition is used because social power is culture-based, and may include factors such as (but not limited to) age, gender, and income that allow the person in power to provide rewards in the form of social relationships or knowledge, or to punish people by exclusion from a social network.

158

6.4.1.1

6 Power, Relationships, and Experiences: Bridging Pre-disaster …

The Power to Coerce or Punish

As noted, the government aims to engage local communities in DRRM education by cultivating selected individuals—often village functionaries and teachers—for DRRM training as emergency responders. However, relying on a select few as trained grassroots responders and possible focal units of information may be problematic. Informants indicated that the government could coerce someone to take the training against their own inclination. These individuals may actually be keen to be trained but are not keen to relay what they have learned, as is part of the post-training role. It is also possible that, while an individual may gain expert power post-training, their referent power is not that strong and they can only possibly influence their immediate family (i.e., their scope to influence the local community is limited, disadvantaging those outside their familial circle). This practice also disenfranchises other members of the community who want to learn more about emergency preparation and response but are not selected by the nomination process. Informants from both field sites who currently do not hold any leadership position in the village expressed their interest to learn more about the subject. They also opined that instead of bringing select individuals to the municipality’s capital, they wanted their provincial and municipal DRRM councils to conduct the training in their village, so that they can at least still observe, even if they are not allowed to join in. Disapproval, rejection, and disagreement are just a few examples of sources of coercive power (Raven, 1965). Current practice is indicative of the coercion of a chosen few and the exclusion of those who are interested. This practice is also problematic if the sole trained individual becomes the first casualty during an emergency. Automatically, the village will be at a disadvantage. The effectiveness of this precarious practice is also contingent upon limited population increase. Local informants are aware that the face-to-face individualised method of disseminating disaster risk information works because of the small number of people in their communities. This practice may not work in the future if the population increases. At that point, the government will require a greater number of ‘volunteers’ to represent the village in training. If not, these representatives may face bigger problems in terms of relaying the training they have learned to the rest of the community.

6.4.1.2

The Power to Give Rewards

As the previous subsection would indicate, the government has the capacity to provide rewards; however, these are greater than just bestowing the status of grassroots responder and providing training. Current practice is that attendees will get food packs during and after their training. The reward system ensures attendance, since most attendees have to give up paid work hours to attend. However, if an individual is enticed to attend drills and training because of the reward, there is a possibility that attention is not given to the content but on ensuring that they can get their reward. This

6.4 Power, Relationships, and Experiences

159

makes the reward system that is imposed on both field sites problematic: compromised attention means message retention is at risk. Although local DRRM officials said they do not announce these rewards ahead of time, informants stated and reiterated that their attendance at training and drills gravitates towards the possibility of a reward being provided during or after. Given the context of this study, I argue that any individual can provide a form of reward. Unlike the rewards provided by the government, however, the individual can use information, time, agreement, or any form of social bond or emotional attachment as reward. For instance, an individual who took lessons from the monthly family development sessions now possesses information that can be shared with others; in sharing with others, the individual provides the reward of time spent with those others, resulting in a kind of bond between them. Moreover, an individual who has familial connections with an elected official may be able to become a bridge between those who are in need of information and social connections and those who can provide these things. This possibility leads to a discussion about power that individuals may have over others based on their position.

6.4.1.3

The Power Provided by Position

Half of the informants for this study are functionaries in their villages. Others had held leadership roles, but these were coterminous with the previous administration. This means that most informants held or had held a formal leadership position. Provided with this kind of informant profile, it is expected that most of them will have answered the interview questions from the point of view of a person with an official position. Their past/current position also made them aware of how information is passed around in the village. The various positions that can be held by people in these communities are either earned through voting or volunteering, and most are managed by different government agencies. The functionaries for this study included health workers, village secretaries, and village collectors. Most of the informants worked directly under the office of the village leader/barangay captain, and this means that by mere connection to the highest elected office in the village, that individual may assert their opinions regarding village concerns. They are also aware of the various practices and loopholes of DRRM as it is implemented in their village. Despite being aware of the government’s DRRM plans because of their current or past position, informants still trusted interpersonal communication as the best mode of communicating disaster risk information, and both these current and past functionaries and the ordinary village residents preferred personal dissemination of information. In particular, trust in the content is high if the information is delivered at their doorstep. For them, communicating personally and face-to-face connotes urgency and holds a high level of importance. If information is mediated, such as through text blast, they will not act on it for fear that it might be fake news. Power provided by an elected position becomes relevant in pre-disaster communication in geographically isolated locations especially when used as a form of social capital, a term first used by L. J. Hanifan in (1916) that pertains to the benefits of social

160

6 Power, Relationships, and Experiences: Bridging Pre-disaster …

relationships. In turn, this extends towards the formal kind of social relationship that exists between an office and its constituents, so that this relationship provides value to the information being communicated. This kind of power also extends to the functionaries being community leaders themselves; in this sense, elected officials need to separate their personal from their work relationships, as ideally this minimises potential trust issues between their office and the community. The functionaries, however, can extend the nature of their relationship to other community members, from formal to personal. This shift was observed in the family development sessions of the conditional cash program run by the Department of Social Welfare and Development. These sessions strip an individual of their position in the community; in these sessions, everyone is equal in the sense that they have all gone through a rigorous selection process to be considered beneficiaries. Critically, this setup gives any resident a chance to develop a social bond with a village functionary because they share a common experience. It also potentially improves a functionary’s social skills for social connection, given that they are part of a group outside of the position they hold in the community. The program also effectively allows any resident to have access to reliable information that is provided by the position of their fellow beneficiaries who are village functionaries. Overall, the power provided by position opens a pathway between ordinary residents and village officials, and this is enabled in the villages by them being placed in a situation that allows socialisation grounded on common bonds.

6.4.1.4

The Power Provided by Expertise

Training local experts is seen as the link between the government and the local community in terms of DRRM. However, power that is based on an individual’s expertise may connote further inequality within the community. As such, the expertise gained from training needs to be transferrable so that local experts may share a common social bond with residents of the village, not merely a geographic one. It stands to reason that this ‘expert method’ will work best if people selected as representatives of the village to become local experts have an extensive social network—that is, these individuals should have the ability (and be willing; see Sect. 6.4.1.1) to create opportunities for socialisation and bonding between residents. The current method of developing local experts in order to have a first line of emergency responders stationed in each village provides that DRRM training and drills will be handled by these local experts in the community, and situates DRRM in the local population, as per the National Plan. While previous subsections have examined potential and real issues with this strategy, the idea itself is entangled with what expertise is defined as. Expertise can be multifaceted. For instance, the upland village is home to indigenous peoples who have cultural and supernatural beliefs in relation to calamities that intersect with issues of DRRM—for example, they believe that earthquakes are caused by giants living underground. As such, what is seen as expertise can be based on experience and cultural practice. Another example is how residents of the island village ‘read’ the sea. Because these cultural practices are seen

6.4 Power, Relationships, and Experiences

161

as ‘unscientific’, however, DRRM training and drills aim to disprove claims such as giants causing earthquakes. Yet, I assert that this multifaceted form of expertise should be explored. Traditional forms of expertise may have connections to certain scientific methodologies (Mercer et al., 2010). As well as training functionaries and teachers, the government is also aiming to target the youth. This plan for creating a resilient community is strategic. By training the youth early on, the idea of resiliency will be embedded in the next generation at an early age. According to municipal government informant I4, based on their recent DRRM activities directed towards this sector, the immediate impact of engaging the youth is that they can then enact the information among their peers and their families. Moreover, they can continue to practice the learned information when they become adults, and perhaps develop a wider social power that may be influential in both their family and immediate community. If at an early age youth are equipped with information, they can potentially become experts in disaster preparedness and emergency response; thus, targeting the youth in DRRM is also a way of starting to develop local individuals’ expert power. To emphasise this point, Aldrich (2019) narrates the story of ten-year-old Telly Smith, a girl who was able to save a lot of lives during the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. Telly was able to convince people to vacate the shoreline based on the tsunami warning signs she had studied at school. However, it remains a factor that the power of the government to provide expert power to selected individuals in the community is the root of trust issues and even cultural jealousy among residents. Both the fact and the process of selection of individuals for expert training exacerbates the inequalities experienced by GIDA communities in accessing information. It also prioritises certain cultural groups, such as the indigenous peoples, over others, which creates a subtext of cultural jealousy in the perspectives of other cultural groups. Developing local experts is not bad; however, it needs to be carefully planned, monitored, and reinforced by further training that intends to include the public in order to create a common bond regarding DRRM. In particular, I argue that it should not create or promote further the inequalities already experienced by GIDA communities.

6.4.1.5

The Power of Social Connections

Social connection, or referent power, begins with an individual’s interest in being associated with another person or group, thus forming a social relationship (French & Raven, 1959); people build a social network to enjoy its benefits. However, it is not referent power if social connections are built on force or obligation, such as following the directives of an organisation out of fear (coercive power). It will be clear that one of the benefits of having social connections in a GIDA community, especially with those who hold a position in the community, is that you are linked to someone who has access to information. Social connections can be based on either relational and/ or familial bonds, and sometimes on political loyalty, and these form regardless of whether there is any form of formal or informal punishment or reward for this kind of connection. Although this was not directly observed, what was seen in the field

162

6 Power, Relationships, and Experiences: Bridging Pre-disaster …

is actually a form of fealty towards political families. But this can also be extended to fealty for one’s own family and relatives. Close knit families are common in the Philippines. Historically, villages are made up of a cluster of houses from one family (Romani, 1956), meaning everybody in the village is related. This changed when the Spanish colonised the Philippines and established the modern village (Zamora, 1967). Even so, social connection in the Philippines is still related to familial relationships, as well as to economic status and level of education (Andres, 1988). In fact, these three were among the many determinants of familial leverage in villages during the pre-Spanish and Spanish periods in the Philippines. Today, the same factors are still observed in GIDA communities as determinants of building and maintaining relationships. To illustrate this claim, the informants confided that they feel important when a village official goes to their house as a mode of communicating with them. The combination of this practice and its meanings thus builds trust towards the sender of the message and the message itself. According to informant I8, people ‘will believe any information delivered to us in person, unlike text messages, which may be fake news’. To be visited by someone in power means that you matter. It may also mean you are linked by a certain social bond that goes beyond the duty of the information source being an official. This kind of social capital is also the reason why, during an election period, political candidates will attend family activities such as a wake, even if they are not related to the deceased or their family. Making someone feel important by being there in times of need is significant in Filipino culture generally, as well as in the field sites investigated for this study. Such an act solidifies one’s relationship with that family and all their relatives and connections. This example returns to the importance of personal and face-to-face communication as for building trust. For the informants, nobody would waste time coming to their house if the message was not important. Following this line of thought, it would appear that it is possible to utilise this strategy of building trust between residents in DRRM communication, if, instead of trusting a power that is based on position, people are able to gravitate to those who have power based on their influence in the community. Power that is grounded on strong interpersonal skills should be investigated, especially in engaging local communities with the goal of making DRRM bottom-up. This kind of power is connected to the multifaceted expertise of an individual that was previously discussed (e.g., cultural and traditional expertise, etc.; see Sect. 6.4.1.4). The multifaceted expertise explored by this study provides empirical evidence that highlights informational influence generally. As Bertram Raven observes, ‘informational influence appears to be the most stable and it fits into our modern-day value system’ (1965, p. 380). In summary, empirical data provide evidence of the use of both punishment and reward powers within the top-down flow of information in the Philippine context. This process intends for individuals to gain expert power and become local resources. This setup exposes that legitimate power is the driving force of the utilisation of reward and punishment that is used to develop experts in the community. However, the definition of expertise is narrow, so that while some individuals possess referent power, this is underutilised and sometimes dismissed because the informational trust connections

6.4 Power, Relationships, and Experiences

163

lack scientific basis as ‘expertise’. Those who possess such power thus cannot extend their influence outside their immediate family—meaning into the community and the government. It seems useful to investigate referent power as a driving force in engaging communities in GIDAs with the hope of developing informational influence (power) so that each community contains members that are ‘information hubs’ with multiple junctions that rely on face-to-face interpersonal communication. This section establishes the importance of the individual, with their own capacities, development, and influence, as able to perform the role of an information junction. The argument to focus on the individual is grounded on the concept of development posited by Tomas Andres. According to Andres (1988), the concept of community development in the Philippines should begin with the individual, rather than by considering the family as the basic unit of society. For Andres, ‘the Filipino should be developed in a planned and gradual way’ (1988, p. 32) based on their values, which are influenced by parents, norms, peers, religion, and society at large.

6.4.2 The Individual’s (Social) Relationships Establishing the individual as an information junction in disaster risk communication allows this section to add social relationships in the disaster risk communication mix. Empirical evidence suggests three ways to build social relationships in GIDA communities: 1. approaching a small number of people, 2. identifying social similarities, and 3. trusting in others and in the community’s belief system. However, in tangent with these, six factors were identified that hinder the development of social relationships: (a) political complications and leadership instability, (b) internal racial jealousy and discrimination, (c) divisive selection process, (d) infrastructure problems, (e) adult literacy issues, and (f) reliance on dole outs and a reward system. Currently, the three approaches for building social relationships are outnumbered by six possible hindrances present in GIDA communities. The following subsections describe the three approaches in detail and identify areas where these six complicating factors become a hindrance. Specifically, the sections proceed through, first, the significance of approaching a small audience, to ensure that the community engagement approach reaches individuals, and that it builds on people’s social commonalities. Second, building social relationships based on people’s similarities (either by their GIDA context or cultural background) creates (third) trust among community members and between community engagement actors (government and community). The final subsection deals specifically with factors that affect trust relationships.

164

6.4.2.1

6 Power, Relationships, and Experiences: Bridging Pre-disaster …

Small Audience Approach

The small audience approach starts at the individual level with representatives of a small group such as a family. The individual is implicitly included in this approach because decision-making in families is either done by the head of the family or two adults. Moreover, approaching disaster risk communication with a smaller audience is rooted in the four virtues of a community, as well as Andres’ (1988) concept of community development. These virtues are close personal relationships, feelings of safety, community support, and a sense of belonging (Brint, 2001). Targeting a smaller audience allows information dissemination to be personalised and direct. The conditional cash grant program is an example of a program that approaches information dissemination using small groups. Not everyone in the village can be a beneficiary of the program, which reduces the target audience. A monthly family session is organised, and recipients of the program are engaged in discussions on family planning, drug problems, and disaster risk reduction, among other things. Approaching disaster risk reduction in this manner is also encouraged by both upland and island DRRM councils, who report that this method currently works in engaging individuals in GIDAs to be constantly prepared for any natural hazard. The intention of these councils is to replicate this style of information dissemination through their community engagement program of training and drills for community members. In this regard, the first step by the island council has been to approach CB-DRRM through organised and legally recognised community sectors. The importance of social relationships in disaster risk communication emanates from an individual’s referent power, as was discussed in the previous section. Referent power emphasises the power of the respect and charisma that draw others towards an individual (French & Raven, 1959). This means those who exercise referent power in the community maintain close relationships with their immediate neighbours. The capacity to build these close relationships adds up to the factors that enhance an individual’s personal influence towards others. The ability to establish social relationships in the community that is grounded in referent power connects to the Filipino cultural practice of bayanihan, or communal unity. The concept of relationships this espouses can extend outside familial and even zonal boundaries. Bayanihan may include the relationships among people between zones, between villages, and between DRRM councils at the municipal and provincial levels.

6.4.2.2

Social Similarities

The informants’ responses embody how personal relationships work in the community. Their answers also illustrate a deep understanding of DRRM operations, from the provincial to the village level. This was to be expected, because most of the informants are formal/informal leaders in the community. However, data from informal interviews also suggest awareness of local DRRM processes. This leads to the assumption that interaction between those with formal leadership and the rest of the residents

6.4 Power, Relationships, and Experiences

165

in the village is robust, and that dynamic interpersonal interaction had allowed the smooth passing of information pertaining to disaster risk communication via community members’ social similarities in relation to disaster threat. These similarities were predominantly observed in the island area. Because of similarities in hazard threats and a shared knowledge of their vulnerabilities, the island village informants relayed specific disaster preparation practices that they had developed. The formation of committees, building of temporary shelters, and looking out for neighbours were some of the practices informants relayed that are grounded in referent power and social and familial relationships. They were also aware of their own vulnerabilities and perceived that their hazard risks are greater because they are living in a GIDA community and they do not have access to a rapid mode of communication. Given these realities, they tended to look out for each other, as these extracts highlight: They made a temporary structure using indigenous materials to create a makeshift evacuation centre. The community immediately starts building their evacuation centre when a warning is issued. This is something we just discovered after Super Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda (I4). We do have specific committees formed in the island. One committee is in-charge with food. The other committee is in-charge with building the temporary evacuation centre. All these we established ahead because we get at least 20 typhoons in a year. We even stop counting the weak typhoons (I6). If there is someone sick in the neighbourhood or even in the family, we must make sure that the patient is safe. We tell them to prepare their medicine, water, food, and a mat for sleeping (I10).

It stands to reason that the island village would have had difficulty putting these practices in place if there were strong relational problems within the community that hindered cooperation. The informants were also aware why their current disaster preparedness practices were working. To them, a population of 317 people makes interpersonal communication easy. However, current disaster risk communication practices will suffer with any substantial increase in population.

6.4.2.3

Trust in People and Belief System

All the informants agreed that trust is important in disaster risk communication. This trust can be established by a legitimate power, as has been discussed; by a source of information such as family development sessions; by trainings and drills; by their own experiences and beliefs; and by their familial connections, or referent power. Building trust is important because it assists the development of people’s adaptation behaviours in a crisis (Azadi et al., 2019). Trust can be strengthened with open communication (Conchie & Burns, 2008; Peters et al., 1997) and honesty, knowledge and expertise, and concern and care (Peters et al., 1997). Trust is one of the factors involved in developing a resilient community. It demands progressive connections between the individual, their family, and the government (Acosta et al., 2017). Trust starts with open communication between the community and the sources of information established by interpersonal communication practices

166

6 Power, Relationships, and Experiences: Bridging Pre-disaster …

and allows involvement that begins at the individual level and goes both upwards and sideways. It also promotes an avenue for top-down and bottom-up approaches to intersect. This intersection allows community resilience to take root (Houston, 2018) and provides empirical evidence for Dufty’s argument about merging engagement and education (2011). Spialek and Houston (2018b) have also established that neighbourhood belonging is strong when there is an established pattern of citizen disaster communication during and post-disaster events. In order of their perceived veracity, these three sources of information were trusted by the residents of GIDA communities: 1. local government officials and frontline government agencies, 2. education programs delivered by DRRM councils, and 3. some mediated communication tools, such as text messaging, relevant to their context. It was also observed that personal beliefs (i.e., indigenous myths and past disaster experiences) and an individual’s value system may act as intervening variables in developing trust towards either another person or an institution. First, there is high level of community trust in local government officials and other informal leaders in the field sites. Trust in local government officials is significant in that the perceived reliability of any information in both field sites was dependent on the level of trust that was placed in the legitimate power (position) of the information source. Confidence in both the information and the severity of the situation also increased when frontline government agencies such as military and police were involved. The strong perception of trust regarding village officials could also be attributed to people’s feeling of being prioritised and taken-cared of (such as when leaders came to their door). There were certain underlying expectations observed between communities and the government in both areas of study that appeared to complicate trust and action. For instance, the provincial government expects that villages should be proactive in their DRRM plans, but disregards the possibility that being classified as GIDA means some villages and their DRRM councils need to (and do) prioritise issues relating to other community living conditions, like access to water, electricity, food, and people’s livelihoods. The community, on the other hand, expects that everything will be provided to them by the government when natural calamities occur. This discord should be minimised (if not eradicated) by creating stronger social interconnections between the actors (government, disaster risk information, people) involved in DRRM. The message relay process currently being implemented also cast doubt from community residents towards their officials. This could be minimised by working to increase the level of trust, such as by encouraging people to observe their shared common interests and values, particularly in context of situations where, given that they live in the same area, they are all (including the officials) facing the same threats. The data provide further empirical evidence of the trustworthiness of the information source in relation to shared interests and values (Prior et al., 2014), countering the idea that government agencies are least trusted because these

6.4 Power, Relationships, and Experiences

167

institutions are continuously questioned by the public via extensive media coverage (Bronfman et al., 2015). Trust issues in the GIDA communities were interpersonal, not institutional. Second, GIDA community members demonstrated a medium (i.e., less than in officials, but still relatively strong) perception of trust in people who presented training information. This includes ordinary residents who were trained by the government (i.e., attended the drills and training) or those who were in possession of information from the government (e.g., instructors of the 4Ps). It is important to note here that most residents in both villages live below the poverty line and thus have access to the 4Ps sessions and this avenue of government contact (see Sect. 5.4). Despite the high percentage of possible information junctions in each village in regard to this information source, it only scored a medium trust rating owing to its intersection with the selective process of involvement of community members (i.e., item [c] at 6.4.2). This selective process is a result of the way local DRRM councils implement their community engagement projects (see Sect. 5.4.3). This practice was a source of doubt from the perspective of community residents in terms of officials reportedly hoarding information within their circle or social network. This doubt may be more substantial for those residents who do not hold any leadership role in the community, as they have no means of becoming familiar with the council’s DRRM information processes. Third, selected modes of communication, such as text messaging, had a low perception of trust in the GIDA communities. This was primarily due to people’s awareness of fake news spreading in mediated forms of communication, but it could also be attributed to their non-exposure to these existing communication tools being associated with the inevitable communications infrastructure setbacks in the area (no signal and intermittent electricity). It did see that once residents were introduced to these communication tools, they were willing to learn how to use them. On this head, residents were quite aware of the importance of getting information in real time and expressed a demand to have access to electricity and communication signal, as informant I7 observed: It would be better if we have electricity all the time so we will be informed through media reports. It would also be better if we have (communication) signal, so we don’t have to go to each house to relay information because that takes time (I7).

Bronfman et al. (2015) argue that high risk perception equates to high disaster preparedness practices, but this is not the case in the GIDA study areas. Despite their high vulnerability awareness, disaster preparedness practices and programs are not well engaged. Intervening variables that affect personal disaster preparedness practices comprise both physical (geographic isolation) and socioeconomic (day labourers, indigenous peoples, and 4Ps beneficiaries) factors. These are the same factors that classify their village as GIDA.

168

6.4.2.4

6 Power, Relationships, and Experiences: Bridging Pre-disaster …

Factors Affecting Social Relationships

Aware of various localised disaster preparedness practices in the GIDA villages, local DRRM councils intend to reinforce DRRM practices by selectively training responders, typically offsite. In terms of selection, however, as noted, the process is sometimes based more on an individual’s relationship to a functionary than it is on their previous and/or potential role in DRRM, and there is no process in place to ensure this creates structure in terms of having one trained representative per zone. Neither the selection process nor its offsite training were well received by informants in either village, and it was observed that the process was divisive and thus adds to political complications that may hinder social relationship building (item [a] at 6.4.2). These same political complications and leadership instabilities affect the design and distribution of disaster risk communication tools in general (see Sect. 5.5). Informants said they wanted to participate in the training and that it should be conducted in the village so that interested participants would not have to incur the cost of travel to the municipal or provincial capital, or leave their livelihoods behind to attend it. As informant I4 opined, engaging communities to prepare for disaster ‘should start at home. It should start from the family as the basic unit of society. If someone in the family knows how to respond, there will be no problem’. He further explained: We train responders in each village so that there will always be someone in the area who can respond to the situation. We do the training annually. It is already expected that not everyone trained in the village will remain in the village. People leave to look for better future outside the isolated island. They look for jobs in the main island or in other provinces. We aim to have seven responders per village (I4).

Responses from informants also pointed to issues of racial jealousy and perceived discrimination that were affecting community relationships (item [b] at 6.4.2). Illustrative of this concern were some divisions voiced in the upland village that pertained to distinction being made between the Bisaya and the indigenous peoples. Informant U6 said she felt that the indigenous peoples were always prioritised and taken-care of. The indigenous peoples are really loved and taken-cared of by the province and municipality (governments). They are so lucky (U6).

This statement supports findings by Spialek and Houston (2018b), who state that race plays a role in vulnerability perception and describe that different racial groups, such as the indigenous peoples in the upland GIDA community site, may feel more vulnerable and at risk than the racial majority. In addition, despite the current disaster risk communication system and practices in place, government programs and community needs contradict each other. There is perceived prioritisation of selected community individuals to be in the frontlines for disaster preparedness activities. This divisive selection process (item [c] at 6.4.2) occurs in addition to the problems brought about by the frequent changes in leadership on the local DRRM councils. Most recently, the change in leadership has meant new set of people being prioritised for drills and trainings. The data collection for this

6.4 Power, Relationships, and Experiences

169

research happened before the election (upland area) and after the election (island area), a situation that highlighted informants’ concerns about leadership changes and priority programs. Informant U5 opined that ‘only the teachers were trained on how to use the siren’, which is a result of changing plans and approaches. Despite coming from a different field site (but knowing that new leadership was expected post-election), informant I8 relayed a similar concern about not involving everyone in the village during drills and training, saying that ‘it would be better if they bring the seminar in the village. We need someone from the municipality and the province to come and teach us how to prepare for incoming natural hazards’. Moreover, communication infrastructure problems (item [d] at 6.4.2) that hinder rapid modes of information dissemination remain unaddressed. These are exacerbated by political complications and leadership instability. Critically, issues of infrastructure include problems with hazardous road networks, which make the delivery of communication tools to the area difficult and create unreliable evacuation areas. Informants at both upland and island villages clamoured for better and safer road networks; there is no continuous road network in the island area that connects three of the local GIDA villages, making the current practice of interpersonal information dissemination more difficult. There are no primary or secondary roads specified in the official hazard map of the upland village either. These setbacks hinder communication between neighbours because of their topographic locations and the distances involved. A dearth of locations for frequent interaction is a further infrastructural hindrance for local social interactions. Data show that these social interactions are opportunities for people living in GIDA communities to build and strengthen their essential community relationships. Currently, the only common place people can converge without any special community gathering is at the purok (zone open hut), but even this can be problematic for people who live too far away. As well as these infrastructure problems, the residents in the upland village were wary of their adult literacy issues (item [e] at 6.4.2). A significant part of the adult population cannot read and write. This concern has been reiterated by the provincial council as affecting those with poor demographics—such as farmers and indigenous peoples—in the area. The issue appeared to carry stigma in the community, judging by the way informants needed to lower their voices and check if someone could hear them when they spoke about it. Stigma may lead to isolation and self-doubt, resulting in an inability to build needed social relationships with others in the community. Local DRRM councils also rely on dole outs and a reward system to get participants to attend training and drills (item [f] at 6.4.2). This is problematic as it may encourage a kanya-kanya (self-serving) system instead of bayanihan (communal unity). It has been established that there is high level of vulnerability awareness in the areas, and while this is a good sign in terms of the residents’ disaster preparedness knowledge, high vulnerability awareness may lead to a self-serving attitude if it is also grounded on dole outs and a reward system. Using a reward and dole out system encourages residents to convene and be informed for the wrong reason and does not guarantee their attention. In tension with this, because of their economic circumstances, people will choose to remain at work rather than attend unpaid drills

170

6 Power, Relationships, and Experiences: Bridging Pre-disaster …

and trainings for a foreseeable hazard that may or may not happen in the next three to six months. While it may be possible to attribute the high vulnerability awareness observed in the upland village to the recent training and drill organised by the provincial DRRM office two weeks prior to my data collection, informant U5 confided that the high turn-out of participants to the recently conducted drill and training was because of the food packs provided. This informant shared that: the biggest problem in the village is non-cooperative residents. Nobody will come to a village-organised training and drill because they are day earners. They could not afford missing one day of work. Others have personal problems as well.

The local DRRM offices of the island area also provide rewards for attendance. The practice is to announce the reward after the drill and training session. To lessen the impact of this reward and dole out system, there is a need to reintroduce the value of communal unity and intercultural respect. Such a focus would create opportunities for local DRRM councils to investigate and utilise the sources of an individual’s beliefs and value systems (Andres, 1988) in CB-DRRM. In attaching to these value systems and their sources, DRRM councils would then be able to design community engagement practices that fit the livelihood and other needs of people living in GIDA villages. Moreover, the context (GIDA) of each village is essentially the main factor that fosters common understanding and mutual experiences between residents (Brint, 2001). These commonalities provide an opportunity to share and gain knowledge and at the same time aid in a form of relationship building that is brought about by common concerns. Lastly, this process allows a community to define who they are, what they lack, and what they can do together, from the bottom-up.

6.4.3 The Individual’s Lived and Simulated Experiences The results of this research attest to the relevance of lived and simulated experiences as factors that help build and stabilise pre-disaster communication in GIDA communities. Findings that helped uncover the impact of experience in pre-disaster communication were not limited to perspectives from GIDA communities but also included the experiences of local DRRM councils in both field sites. Empirical evidence suggests extending the definition of experience from that which is acquired in drills and training and/or from actual disasters to draw in local wisdom brought by daily life experiences, culture, and indigenous practices in GIDA communities.

6.4.3.1

Experiences of GIDA Communities

It was observed in situ that personal experiences with disasters and evacuation play an active role in engaging communities to take part and be active in the initiatives of making DRRM community-based. These personal experiences, both actual

6.4 Power, Relationships, and Experiences

171

and simulated through drills, develop an individual’s alacrity to prepare for natural hazards. In context of the field sites’ relatively recent exposure to devastating natural hazards, no-one in either community attends to a training or drill with a blank slate in this regard. This finding is parallel with that of Cahyanto and Pennington-Gray (2015), who emphasise that those with past disaster experiences know where to access information and what to do in event situations. Guo and Li (2016) also uphold that both past and indirect experiences raise consciousness that leads to public action. The implication for this finding is in the overall messaging that is directed towards GIDA communities. This study argues that a paradigm shift is needed in the crafting of DRRM messages to these communities, to transition them from the ‘what-youshould-do’ (managerial focus) to ‘what-you-can-do’ (community focus); this focus allows people to intrinsically connect their existing knowledge to new behaviour and is both respectful and relevant, given that people carry their personal experiences and beliefs with them, both in disaster events and otherwise. The impact of past experiences on people’s disaster preparedness actions was observed at the island village where people annually experience typhoons of varying strength. Because of their prior personal experience, the island village was able to come up with a plan that allowed them to prepare ahead, knowing what they will experience within the year from typhoons and other forms of natural hazards. This aligns with findings by Garcia (2010), which indicate that frequent exposure to natural hazards increases the awareness and propensity of an individual to act. However, the multiplicity and consistency of the natural hazards experienced in the island village contrasted strongly with a lack of disaster experience in the upland village, where people were heavily reliant on what the local government say and can do for them. The lack of prior experience also makes disaster risk communication efforts difficult, as was attested to by the provincial DRRM office in the upland area. Without prior experience, people often disregard pre-disaster risk messages, justifying that they have not actually experienced any of the hazards they are being told they might face in the area. In this sense, prior experience can be a double-edge sword for DRRM that either aids in the preparation of villages or does the opposite. This manner of conflicting data on the role of prior experiences in pre-disaster communication has been documented extensively (Bamberg et al., 2017; Lechner & Rouleau, 2019; Onuma et al., 2017; Paton & Buergelt, 2019).

6.4.3.2

Experiences of Local DRRM Councils

In this study, the concept of prior experience does not only refer to the disaster experiences of people living in GIDA communities. It also pertains to the experiences of the local DRRM councils in managing threats, responding to threats, and ensuring that societal functions will quickly stabilise once the threat ceases. Local DRRM councils in the island area reported fewer problems in terms of engaging communities, and this council was continuing to test ways of involving the locals, from villagelevel training and drills to sectoral engagement (see Sect. 6.3.2). They also reported less reliance on dole outs and rewards because it is established that people already

172

6 Power, Relationships, and Experiences: Bridging Pre-disaster …

have high information-seeking behaviour. This is also the reason why residents in the island village did not favour the selective training of certain individuals, supporting the findings of David et al. (2010) who argue that local communities should decide on the technologies they want to use (in this case method of learning) based on their context. The experiences recorded in the upland area were effectively opposite to those in the island area. Local DRRM councils in the upland area rely on dole outs and rewards to entice people to attend seminars and drills. The municipal council’s efforts there were concentrated on issues related to disaster flooding, which affects its lowland areas, and the capital; flooding does not affect the upland GIDA community field site, however, because it is in a mountainous area. The decision to focus on this one concern alienates those living in upland areas with other disaster experiences including none. Without the stimulus provided by consistent and prior experiences, programs and activities for DRRM are always in line with the general outline provided by the Department of National Defense. For instance, the establishment of the Alliance of Grassroots Responders in the upland area means training seven functionaries for each village as first responders in the island area. This program is encouraged by the Department of National Defense as part of the community engagement efforts of the National Plan. The difference is that the island area, equipped with more experiences, decided to implement a sectoral approach to community engagement as well as training select functionaries, increasing the mobilisation of the entire community in the matter of DRRM. As alluded to, there are also reports from government informants that some residents in the upland area use prior experience to disregard pre-disaster communication and preparation activities. According to informants U1 and U2, it is common to hear from people that they have ‘not experienced any disasters in their area in the many years they have lived there’ as the driving force behind their refusal to act on disaster risk warnings. However, some of this community sentiment changed when the upland village was hit by a strong typhoon, second only to Haiyan/Yolanda. This shift was also observable in the island province: After they were hit by Haiyan/Yolanda, island residents committed to preparing for any incoming natural hazards. However, data suggest that people living in the upland area reverted to their previous low risk perceptions, while people in the island area continued to work to perfect their own ways of preparing for future disasters. Their constant exposure to threat is the factor that has spurred the residents of the island province to continue working on building disaster resiliency at the community level. It is on this premise that drills at the village level are now considered important, and these sessions give the local community an opportunity to practice various disaster scenarios and think about them in a rational manner prior to the presence of actual threat. With the objective of making DRRM community-based, the local DRRM councils of both field sites organise drills in various villages to simulate specific scenarios. Often, these are evacuation and earthquake drills. The premise of holding such training is to provide that particular simulated disaster experience in the hope that this can be transformed into future-applicable knowledge should this event occur. Both field sites already have concrete disaster experiences with certain natural hazards,

6.4 Power, Relationships, and Experiences

173

with the island area having more typhoon-related experiences than the upland area, and these have made people in both areas aware of their situation. According to some upland village informants, prior to the landslide in their area, nobody was aware that they were prone to such a hazard or even that there is a tectonic fault line in their village. It is necessary that they be both aware and better prepared through drills. The first two layers of experience unpacked in this research provide a general point of view of this aspect of GIDA communities and their local DRRM councils. Past experiences alter the future behaviour of both people and organisations and potentially improve the way they will react towards future hazards. Even so, some residents tend to be non-reactive towards calls for evacuation because they have not experienced this kind of natural disaster in the many years they have lived in the area, which for some means as many as 90 years without experience. From the point of view of the government, previous experiences assist in developing methods to engage communities to be proactive in preparing for future disasters.

6.4.3.3

Traditional Cultural Beliefs and Local Wisdom

Another layer of experience is grounded on traditional cultural beliefs. Although traditional cultural beliefs are debunked during drills and training, as described by informants U1 and U2, I argue that such complete dismissal of all traditional cultural beliefs and practices creates a cultural divide between the indigenous peoples and the rest of the community. I also argue that, once unpacked, these beliefs and practices can aid in developing a resilient GIDA community. Traditional cultural knowledge is commonly passed down from ancestors through word-of-mouth. An example is the (aforementioned) belief that giants live underground, and hence, there is land movement and cracks appear in the surface. Another belief is that Magbabaya (the supreme creator) is angry because of man’s wrong deeds; in this frame, earthquakes and other natural hazards are punishment from the supreme creator to teach people a lesson. However, indigenous peoples’ practices need to be appreciated and investigated, as some may be considered empirical evidence of other scientific knowledge, as Garcia (2010) posits. For instance, the movement of animals and other changes in their behaviour prior to any hazard are considered local signs of inclement weather or other events in the upland village. Moreover, those in the island village ‘read’ the wind and the water daily in order to know whether it is safe to go to sea or cross to the mainland, and these observations also warn them of an incoming typhoon. This research considers these examples as local wisdom that has been developed through years of experience. These lived experiences and local wisdom, coupled with the drills and trainings provided by the local government, allow GIDA communities to learn from simulated situations and integrate these with their own experiences, thereby forming an impartial observation of their current situation. Evidence of this combination is reflected in the interviews with local informants, who observed that after the government placed signage indicating that their area is prone to flood or other natural hazard, they gained

174

6 Power, Relationships, and Experiences: Bridging Pre-disaster …

a general understanding of their risk situation when heavy rain or a typhoon is the forecast. As informant U4 articulated, Now I believe the people are aware because of the signages we put in their area. Unlike before, they did not know if they are prone to hazards. That is also the reason why they do not listen to warnings before.

Lived and simulated experiences thus work together to help build and stabilise pre-disaster communication in GIDA communities. Respect for previous experience facilitates change and reevaluation.

6.4.3.4

Reevaluating Actual and Simulated Disaster Experiences

Because of this reflection, the public now understands the value of drills and training and have formed a logical and rational reevaluation of their current situation. Instead of just relying on their personal experience of hazards, local informants indicated that they have integrated their learning from simulated situations into their existing understandings, as well as those from other sources, including face-to-face interactions in the form of lectures; traditional printed materials such as flowcharts, facts-at-glance charts; videos; and listening to the shared experiences of others. Now that people are aware of their situation, as is mostly the case in the upland village, they want to know more about ways to increasing their resiliency when facing natural hazards. However, information seeking may decrease because of the absence of the original stimuli. Informant U6 verbalised her fears saying, as of now, the residents, including village officials, are aware of the DRRM practices in place because of the recency of the training and drill conducted in the area. Who knows if they can still remember the lectures in the next six months?

On the other hand, the experiences of the island village community spurred them to investigate ways of improving their resiliency, such as building their own evacuation hut for everyone to use. They have also established committees that are in charge of preparing specific essentials for evacuation, such as food and medicine. They have also established the idea of checking on their neighbours, especially those households with senior citizens, children, and persons-with-disabilities. Unfortunately (in terms of current CB-DRRM processes), local informants had learned these activities via attending the conditional cash transfer (4P) program, not from the municipal DRRM drills and training, the main reason being that they had not been given this training. Only officials and community leaders (or their friends/family members) are selected to attend. This manner of selecting individuals to be first responders alienates community members from one another and exacerbates other inequalities already experienced in the community. The upland village did not appear to be developing their own methods of increasing community resiliency; this may be owing to a combination of inconsistent communication efforts from the government on the topic of DRRM and the community’s own lack of experience in this regard. Observations in the GIDA communities relating to experiences reiterate what David et al. (2010) advocate, about having a context-based DRRM. They also

6.5 Summary

175

agree with Wamil (2010) that developing home-based disaster preparedness plans is paramount when involving communities. Direct communication with individuals and families has proven effective, based on reports from local DRRM councils and anecdotes from informants. Even so, the best feedback of this kind comes from the 4P program mounted by the Department of Social Welfare and Development. Local DRRM councils need to push for education-engagement that utilises avenues of familial and sectoral communication vis à vis the already-established, shared common connections of its individual members. This study also suggests that the activity design for training and drills should be grounded on participants’ existing experiences, and the approach shifted towards moderating rather than merely educating, which only covers the first step in the entire Community Engagement Continuum (transactional level) and tends to focus on ‘downloading information’ to participants. The question remains whether the community will continue learning/awareness after the drill, and in this regard, it would be useful to have methods of follow-up and evaluation in place. As informant U6 said, ‘They [village DRRM council] only started disseminating information ever since the drill [in February 2019] because it [knowledge] is still fresh’. It is understood that the reactions of people to drills and training will vary, depending on whether they have had simulated experience or exposure to actual threat; however, they will also forget their learning experiences unless they are constantly exposed to the message (Garcia, 2010). In this regard, the factors that make up what Foster (2013) calls community dynamics, including community social norms and lifestyle, can become the basis of crafting community engagement programs. Factors specific to regional needs, such as demographic profile, the special needs of family members, responsibility for or attachment to property, and even individual value systems, can all potentially be considered in planning experience-based disaster risk communication.

6.5 Summary This chapter draws attention to improving pre-disaster risk communication through enhanced community engagement practices that highlight the existing role of interpersonal communication in GIDA communities. It argues that dividing the community into sectors and approaching each sector as if approaching its individual members might be the key to the shift from transitional to transformational engagement (Bowen et al., 2010). This paradigm shift is also needed in messaging, so that instead of packaging disaster risk information into ‘what-you-should-do’, information becomes focussed on ‘what-you-can-do’, which is a more proactive frame. In addition, rather than myth-busting for indigenous peoples’ beliefs and using fear appeals to galvanise people towards future action, CB-DRRM can work to equip people with the knowledge and technology to decide for themselves and uphold a transformational level of learning. Changing the perspective this way means that people are no longer being compelled to just follow the ‘rules’ but rather are being enabled to create their own

176

6 Power, Relationships, and Experiences: Bridging Pre-disaster …

ways of being resilient, even amidst their vulnerabilities and inequalities, with the guidance of the trusted local DRRM council. This chapter also highlights the relevance of approaching pre-disaster communication and community engagement at the individual level. Capitalising on the individual approach taps into individuals’ power and relationships in the community. It further captures the relevance of experiences—simulated or lived—and their influence in gaining power and relationships. As such, power, relationships, and lived or simulated experiences are considered intervening variables that are necessary to fulfilling the education-engagement process (Dufty, 2011). These variables also provide possible real-world application of the transaction—transition—transformation Community Engagement Continuum of Bowen et al. (2010). Looking forward, the next chapter proposes a framework that aims to mainstream pre-disaster risk information at three levels: the political, cultural, and personal. Political mainstreaming means institutionalising disaster preparedness activities through government- and community-led activities. Cultural mainstreaming means, in the long run, disaster preparedness is seen as part of an individual’s daily activities, not as an extra activity. Personal mainstreaming means changing the personal risk perceptions of people living in GIDA communities.

References Acosta, J. D., Chandra, A., & Madrigano, J. (2017). An agenda to advance integrative resilience research and practice: Key themes from a resilience roundtable. Rand Health Quarterly, 7(1), viewed 30 October 2021. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1683.html. Aldrich, D. P. (2019). Black wave: How networks and governance shaped Japan’s 3/11 disasters. The University of Chicago Press. Andres, T. Q. (1988). Community development: A manual. New Day Publishers. Astill, S., Corney, S., Carey, R., Auckland, S., & Cross, M. (2019). Reconceptualising “community” to identify place-based disaster management needs in Tasmania. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 34(1), 48–51. Azadi, Y., Yazdanpanah, M., & Mahmoudi, H. (2019). Understanding smallholder farmers’ adaptation behaviors through climate change beliefs, risk perception, trust, and psychological distance: Evidence from wheat growers in Iran. Journal of Environmental Management, 250, art. 109456. Bamberg, S., Masson, T., Brewitt, K., & Nemetschek, N. (2017). Threat, coping and flood prevention—A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 54, 116–126. Bowen, F., Newenham-Kahindi, A., & Herremans, I. (2010). When suits meet roots: The antecedents and consequences of community engagement strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(2), 297– 318. Brint, S. (2001). Gemeinschaft revisited: A critique and reconstruction of the community concept. Sociological Theory, 19(1), 1–23. Bronfman, N. C., Cisternas, P. C., López-Vázquez, E., & Cifuentes, L. A. (2015). Trust and risk perception of natural hazards: Implications for risk preparedness in Chile. Natural Hazards, 81(1), 307–327. Cahyanto, I., & Pennington-Gray, L. (2015). Communicating hurricane evacuation to tourists. Journal of Travel Research, 54(3), 329–343. Conchie, S. M., & Burns, C. (2008). Trust and risk communication in high-risk organizations: A test of principles from social risk research. Risk Analysis, 28(1), 141–149.

References

177

Cornell, V. J., Cusack, L., & Arbon, P. (2012). Older people and disaster preparedness: A literature review. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 27(3), 49–53. David, C. P. C., Padua, D. M. V., Vargas, M. M., Caceres, J. I., Vicente, M. C. T. M., Tolentino, D. B., Abon, C. C., Ramores, J., & Wamil, R. A. (2010). Community and DRR technology interface: The “Reduction of flood risk in the Bicol River Basin II” project. In L. P. Dela Cruz, E. M. Ferrer, & M. C. Pagaduan (Eds.), Building disaster resilient communities: Stories and lessons from the Philippines (pp. 33–57). College of Social Work and Community Development, University of the Philippines. Dominey-Howes, D., Gorman-Murray, A., & McKinnon, S. (2018). On the disaster experiences of sexual and gender (LGBTI) minorities: Insights to support inclusive disaster risk reduction policy and practice. Australian Journal of Emergency Management Monograph No.3: Diversity in Disaster, 60–68. Dufty, N. (2011). Engagement or education? Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 26(3), 35–39. Follett, M. P. (1919). Community is a process. The Philosophical Review, 28(6), 576–588. Foster, H. (2013). Interactive hazard preparation strategy efficacy: Considerations for future community engagement programs. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 28(1), 8–14. French, J., Jr., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Institute for Social Research. Gaillard, J. C. (2006). Traditional societies in the face of natural hazards: The 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption and the Aetas of the Philippines. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 24(1), 5–43. Gaillard, J. C. (2007). Resilience of traditional societies in facing natural hazards. Disaster Prevention and Management, 16(4), 522–544. Gaillard, J. C., Gorman-Murray, A., & Fordham, M. (2017). Sexual and gender minorities in disaster. Gender, Place & Culture, 24(1), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2016.1263438 Garcia, A. T. (2010). Installing early warning system along the Agos River in the municipalities of Infanta and General Nakar. In L. P. Dela Cruz, E. M. Ferrer, & M. C. Pagaduan (Eds.), Building disaster resilient communities: Stories and lessons from the Philippines (pp. 9–22). College of Social Work and Community Development, University of the Philippines. Guo, Y., & Li, Y. W. (2016). Getting ready for mega disasters: The role of past experience in changing disaster consciousness. Disaster Prevention and Management, 25(4), 492–505. Hanifan, L. J. (1916). The rural school community center. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 67(1), 130–138. Houston, J. B. (2018). Community resilience and communication: Dynamic interconnections between and among individuals, families, and organizations. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 46(1), 19–22. Jewkes, R., & Murcott, A. (1996). Meanings of community. Social Science & Medicine, 43(4), 555–563. Kanakis, K., & McShane, C. J. (2016). Preparing for disaster: Preparedness in a flood and cyclone prone community. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 31(2), 18–24. Lechner, H. N., & Rouleau, M. D. (2019). Should we stay or should we go now? Factors affecting evacuation decisions at Pacaya volcano, Guatemala. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 40, art. 101160. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101160 Marlowe, J., Neef, A., Tevaga, C. R., & Tevaga, C. (2018). A new guiding framework for engaging diverse populations in disaster risk reduction: Reach, relevance, receptiveness, and relationships. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 9(4), 507–518. Mercer, J., Kelman, I., Taranis, L., & Suchet-Pearson, S. (2010). Framework for integrating indigenous and scientific knowledge for disaster risk reduction. Disasters, 34(1), 214–239. Onuma, H., Shin, K. J., & Managi, S. (2017). Household preparedness for natural disasters: Impact of disaster experience and implications for future disaster risks in Japan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 21, 148–158.

178

6 Power, Relationships, and Experiences: Bridging Pre-disaster …

Paton, D., & Buergelt, P. (2019). Risk, transformation and adaptation: Ideas for reframing approaches to disaster risk reduction. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(14), art. 2594. http://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16142594 Peters, R. G., Covello, V. T., & McCallum, D. B. (1997). The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication: An empirical study. Risk Analysis, 17(1), 43–54. Prior, J., Partridge, E., & Plant, R. (2014). “We get the most information from the sources we trust least”: Residents’ perceptions of risk communication on industrial contamination. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 21(4), 346–358. Proag, V. (2014). The concept of vulnerability and resilience. Procedia Economics and Finance, 18, 369–376. Quebral, N. C. (2012). The underside of communication in development. Nordicom Review, 33, 59–64. Rapport, N. (1997). Transcendent individual: Essays toward a literary and liberal anthropology. Routledge. Raven, B. H. (1965). Social influence and power. In I. D. Steiner & M. Fishbein (Eds.), Current studies in social psychology (pp. 371–382). Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Romani, J. H. (1956). The Philippine barrio. The Far Eastern Quarterly, 15(2), 229–237. Seiler, W. J., Beall, M. L., & Mazer, J. P. (2017). Communication: Making connections (10th ed.). Pearson Education. Sison, M. D. (2017). Communicating across, within and between, cultures: Toward inclusion and social change. Public Relations Review, 43(1), 130–132. Spialek, M. L., & Houston, J. B. (2018). The influence of citizen disaster communication on perceptions of neighborhood belonging and community resilience. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 47(1), 1–23. Sumaylo, D. J. (2013). Using SMS for grassroots health communication in the Philippines. Media Asia, 40(3), 227–230. Titz, A., Cannon, T., & Krüger, F. (2018). Uncovering “community”: Challenging an elusive concept in development and disaster related work. Societies, 8(3), 71. Wamil, R. A. (2010). Decentralizing disaster information: Reflections on the BRB2 project. In L. Polotan-dela Cruz, E. Ferrer, & M. Pagaduan (Eds.), Building disaster-resilient communities: Stories and lessons from the Philippines (pp. 33–57). College of Social Work and Community Development and University of the Philippines. Zamora, M. D. (1967). Political history, autonomy, and change: The case of the Barrio Charter. Asian Studies, 5(1), 79–100.

Chapter 7

PRE Transformative Engagement (PRETE) Framework

7.1 Introduction The previous chapter explored the role of power, relationships, and experiences (PRE) as variables that may enhance community engagement practices in the GIDA study areas. These variables are a by-product of investigating the pre-disaster communicative conditions and methodologies between the Philippine Government and the two GIDA communities. This investigation was guided by Bowen et al.’s (2010) CEC through the lens of development communication (Jacobson, 2003; Wilkins, 1996). I then examined the possible drivers of PRE in local communities using the Filipino Values System (Andres, 1988) and how these could be used to shift PRE towards a transformative communication and community engagement framework. This process follows what Montemayor (2015) suggests weaving western models with local theoretical lenses. Moreover, the discussions covered in this chapter are based on national policies implemented at the local level. Therefore, this reflects an ongoing conversation between national and local implementation practices and that results and analysis are firmly situated within this intersection. This chapter now discusses how an individual’s PRE can be utilised in pre-disaster communication and community engagement. It begins by tracing the ways an individual situates themselves in a community. To that end, and in the context of the other definitions of community thus far utilised by this study, the definition of community that will be used in this chapter is that set by Bowen et al.’s (2010), which is neither geographical nor residential, and refers instead to people who engage in regular interaction and those who share a common identity. This chapter moves away from the purely geographic or residential concept (GIDA) of a community used previously and entertains the idea of community as a form of interaction and identity. In this sense, I go beyond the connections of geographical location and focus instead on relational concepts backed up by data from both government and community informants. In this frame, I further explore how PRE can be operationalised for disaster preparedness through community engagement efforts within the GIDA communicative conditions. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 D. J. Sumaylo, Engaging Isolated Communities in Disaster Preparation and Communication in the Philippines, Communication, Culture and Change in Asia 11, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-4697-6_7

179

180

7 PRE Transformative Engagement (PRETE) Framework

Moreover, this chapter proceeds under the understanding that an individual can be grouped into and is, therefore, a part of smaller community sectors. Li and Feng (2021) describe this individual level of engagement as an individual’s active participation in organisation-led activities that aim to trigger positive outcomes for that individual. These outcomes can be within the scope of education and/or engagement efforts. Therefore, common bonds, socialisation, and linking pathways between individuals are vehicles for PRE. As such, this chapter unpacks the possible role of the individual in the overall pre-disaster communication and community engagement process and highlights that the individual, as part of a small group, can expand the boundaries currently set by the government in engaging geographically and socioeconomically isolated communities. This approach’s possibilities and pitfalls are identified, leading to the development of the proposed PRE Transformative Engagement (PRETE) Framework. In tangent with its exploration of the potential of this framework, the study acknowledges that it may be costly in terms of budget and time. However, the framework begins from the pre-existing position of the GIDA communities, and future studies can examine its applicability, replicability, and expansion in other contexts.

7.2 Individuals in Small Groups or Sectors The individual both in small group settings and in terms of their power, relationships, and experiences is the core component of the proposed framework of this study. This section argues that the development of the proposed framework needs to begin with an understanding of the individual as the first step in the customisation, localisation, and mainstreaming of disaster risk information, not only in terms of the daily activities of GIDA communities but also as these form part of the local DRRM policies and programs. I then discuss how individuality can expand Andres’ concept of Filipino culture, particularly when embedded in the design, implementation, and management of community development projects. As a development communication practitioner, I find relevance in grounding community-based/community engagement projects in people’s culture and traditions. This section goes on to uphold the need for a shift in focus when providing for the information needs of vulnerable communities like GIDA communities and uses the 4Ps program of the Department of Social Welfare and Development as the point of comparison used by both government and community informants. The section closes with a reiteration of the need to strengthen individuals’ social linkages through their experiences.

7.2.1 The Individual as the Core of the PRETE Framework This study provides empirical evidence that probing the complex system of predisaster communication and combining it with people’s experiences will help shape a

7.2 Individuals in Small Groups or Sectors

181

grounded community engagement framework suitable for communities experiencing various levels and factors of inequality. Investigating the role of the individual in disaster preparedness can encourage continual participation and knowledge building among residents of GIDA villages (Redshaw et al., 2017). The individual, as part of a specific group or sector, is placed at the centre of these pre-disaster communication and community engagement dynamics. The current investigation yielded three important factors that impact the dynamics between pre-disaster communication and community engagement. These factors are seen as inherent to an individual in a community and are often untapped. These three factors are power, relationships, and experiences that comprise PRE. These three factors are derived from what was observed in the field sites, and they highlight the differences and commonalities an individual brings with them to the communication process. Any individual in any given community, regardless of whether it is classified as GIDA or not, possesses power over others based on several factors, such as age, position in the community, influence, and wealth (Andres, 1988). Often, their power dictates the kinds of relationships an individual has with other people, and an examination of these kinds of relationships can reveal the level in the relational hierarchy that this individual operates at in the wider network of relationships within a community (Andres, 1988). Both power and relationships are also built within a specific context, and this context can be based on the individual’s set of life experiences. Given these parameters, it is worth emphasising that the individualistic approach discussed in this study does not necessarily veer away from the communal Filipino culture, which is also common in neighbouring Southeast Asian countries. Rather, I argue that we begin the process of forming the framework by examining the individual level so that pre-disaster information discovered at this level can be carried over into the way this customised framework is mainstreamed into local policies and programs. I would also like to emphasise that the study’s focus on GIDA communities in the Philippines does not limit the applicability of this proposal to non-GIDA communities. As Sujarwoto and Tampubolon (2016) argue, all communities in all geographic locations experience a certain level of spatial inequality. Therefore, my argument is that at the role of the individual be examined within a specific group or sector, in pursuit of the easy design, implementation, and management of community engagement efforts in disaster preparedness through the strategic use of various communicative conditions.

7.2.2 A Targeted Approach Is Ideal in Pre-disaster Communication Focussing on the individual allows customisation of the communication process to their specific needs. Their context, dictated by culture, tradition, and socioeconomic conditions, should be taken into consideration. Hence, the relevance of looking at

182

7 PRE Transformative Engagement (PRETE) Framework

the individual in the process is a way of focussing on the who at the centre of the communication process. The needs of the individual receiver of the message— someone that, in this context, is placed in an unfavourable circumstance because of their living and economic conditions—therefore take precedence in the planning, design, and implementation of pre-disaster communication activities. Although following the proposal of this study to begin with the individual may appear costly for implementation, the approach does not necessarily mean that there will be three approaches to target a family of three. Targeting individuals who are part of the same specific group or sector narrows the scope of the individual as focal point, remembering that the approach not only aims to target this smallest unit of society, it also incorporates the individual’s PRE in the process as it is applied in that specific group or sector. If the whole group (government and community) recognises that an individual’s social power/influence acts as a conduit to socialisation that bridges interpersonal relational gaps, then types of power can be explored and incorporated in the predisaster communication process. Data also suggest that various types of power (e.g., legitimate, expert) dictate or provide leverage for forming relationships that function as linking pathways towards engaging isolated communities. Moreover, if disaster experience equates to relationship formation through socialisation that is based on common bonds, then this research provides evidence to suggest the value of a deeper examination of personal experiences and local wisdom. These experiences and local wisdom can be translated into suitable simulations which facilitate community engagement by targeting various demographics. This means that organising drills and training will not be enough. Targeted communication efforts should be customised at the individual level, as opposed to communicating with the community en masse.

7.2.3 Targeting Individuals and the Need to Shift Attention Targeting individuals in a specific group or sector was seen to be an effective method in the island village, where knowledge of disaster preparation was acquired through the conditional cash grant program of the Department of Social Welfare and Development. Local DRRM councils felt that replicating this method might be beneficial for in engaging GIDA communities. Informant U1 opined that the 4Ps method of practice was effective, and they wanted to replicate it in DRRM activities. The current practice in the rollout of the conditional cash grant program is that the Department of Social Welfare and Development organises a monthly assembly with representatives from the families that are program beneficiaries, and engages them in discussions on various topics from family planning to disaster preparedness. It is expected that attendees relay the information to the rest of the family after each session. This practice is based on how the Filipino individual values the concept of

7.2 Individuals in Small Groups or Sectors

183

kapwa (other) that forms their collective community (Jocano, 2001; Montemayor, 2015). Targeting individuals who are part of a small group makes communicating easier and consistent. It also adheres to the argument of this study that an individual carries a certain power to influence others. This power is based on their position in the family and community society. In keeping with this style of engagement, an individualistic approach is operationalised in this study as one that targets a household representative, or a member of a small social group or other organised sector that is bound together by common bonds that comprise a social relationship. This approach contrasts with the current practice of local DRRM councils for DRRM events, which is the intermittent scheduling of drills and training for all selected residents, regardless of their individual background or connections. Using the 4Ps sessions as a model for the modification of current DRRM begs the question, How effective is the monthly assembly of the conditional cash grant program in terms of communicating with its beneficiaries? First, the program uses an individualistic approach, which empowers beneficiaries to recognise what they can do in cases of natural hazard. When I asked the community informants what they knew about preparing ahead for the effects of natural hazards, all the community informants from the island area relayed that knew they needed to prepare their ‘Go Bag’ in advance of a natural calamity; this is a bag or other container that contains food, water, medicine, money, and necessary documents. On this head, informants also relayed the role they have towards any of their neighbours who cannot act alone during emergencies because of illness or disability. Second, informants reported that they had learned all these preparations during their monthly sessions as beneficiaries of the conditional cash grant program of the Department of Social Welfare and Development. They relayed that they were in close contact with other beneficiaries in their area because the nature of the program requires them to attend all the learning sessions (failure to do so means revocation of the privileges offered by the program). Third, the continuous nature of the assemblies is also a way of monitoring and evaluating the progress of the beneficiaries. Fourth, the nature of the monthly assemblies allows the topic discussion to be limited to one learning area. One month, the lessons could be about family planning, and this might be followed the next month by livelihood training. Since Department of Social Welfare and Development is part of the local DRRM council, disaster preparedness is also included in the list of topics covered in the assemblies, however, promoting DRRM practices is not the main goal of the agency. Keywords worth noting in the 4P implementation process are individual preparedness, social relationships, continuity and follow-through (of program and relationships), and topic limitation. In the context of participants discovering individually relevant information, there is continuity and follow-through of both relationships and learning, because the assembly is held monthly. Further, participants are not encouraged to attend, they are required to attend as a matter of accepting the privilege of being beneficiaries. In practice, informants’ accounts suggest that this continuity and

184

7 PRE Transformative Engagement (PRETE) Framework

follow-through had allowed beneficiaries to develop common bonds with other beneficiaries, and these monthly assemblies thus became avenues for social relationships and socialisation. In addition, all participants developed a relational linking pathway with a representative of a government agency that is in charge of people’s welfare for natural or other threats. Finally, session topics are limited and specific, and questions posed by the beneficiaries can be addressed within that specific session. This manner of program implementation is possible because Department of Social Welfare and Development is a large government department with an annual budget and both regional and local offices that provide personnel all over the country. This structural reinforcement makes conducting a monthly learning session possible. The local DRRM council, on the other hand, is not a legitimate government department; it is a council composed of representatives from various government agencies (including the Department of Social Welfare and Development). Being a council, its local office only consists of a few full-time employees; the rest of the personnel are volunteers or employees under coterminous contracts. As one informant said, There are only a few positions in the DRRM council with items to secure tenure of employees. The rest are coterminous positions (U1).

Thus, dedicated personnel at this level is limited to only a few regular employees, as government informant U1 explained. Based on my observation, only between three and five people are running the entire council when an area is not facing any threats, and it is expected that general assemblies are intermittent because the rollout of plans and projects is affected by issues of budget and personnel. A DRRM council of 3–5 members cannot serve the needs of either an entire province or a municipality. In addition, unlike the monthly sessions of the conditional cash grant program, the general assembly organised by the local DRRM council is an activity where everyone in the village is encouraged to attend but attendance is not required. Other issues in its implementation are its necessarily inconsistent schedule, a lack of follow-through activities, and the fact that all topics (from pre-disaster to post-disaster, and across the scope of whatever calamities are targeted by the council, whether these relate to the attendees needs or not) are discussed in one day, plus actual drills. This discussion highlights the relevance of discussing the rollout of the conditional cash grant program vis-à-vis disaster preparedness programs, particularly because the local DRRM councils see 4P as effective in achieving its program deliverables. The comparison also provides justification for why this study argues to focus on the individual as part of a small group or sector. Currently, its status as a council without the resources of a legitimate government department affects the programs and activities of the local DRRM councils. Informants U1 and U3 expressed their support of the creation of the Department of Disaster Resiliency that was currently being voted on in the Philippine Congress (Cepeda, 2018). However, the process of establishing a Department of Disaster Resiliency will take time, and it remains important to find ways of improving current practice.

7.2 Individuals in Small Groups or Sectors

185

7.2.4 Strengthening Social Linkages and Using an Individual’s Experiences Despite these organisational hindrances in the implementation of disaster preparedness programs, it was observed that each local DRRM council is finding ways to improve their practice. The local DRRM councils in the upland area are looking at the conditional cash grant program (4Ps) as a model, and the local DRRM councils in the island area are trying to implement a sectoral approach. Judging by these efforts, both councils recognise the importance of targeting individuals in small group settings. Individuals can build social bonds with other members during their small group learning, thus developing some form of emotional attachment to both the people and the group (and arguably the information, also, by proxy). Such common bonds are formed owing to the nature of small groups as a venue for socialisation and bridging. Being part of a small group also helps develop a person’s social skills, hence it facilitates people cultivating emotional attachments with others. Once common bonds are formed through socialisation and common interests are identified, the next step facilitates further linking pathways when individuals connect through current group members (including the program facilitator, such as the Department of Social Welfare and Development representative in the case of 4Ps) to other organisations or someone else with power/influence who can help the group. One way to operationalise this argument is to include the participants’ previous actual or simulated disaster experiences as a topic in DRRM meetings. If these experiences are discussed with the assistance of local DRRM officials and are shared with people who have the same or similar experiences, enquiries, and concerns, these experiences can become a way for participants to form social linkages, or else strengthen those linkages already formed. Another topic that can open up avenues for forming social linkages is participant sharing of the local wisdom, traditions, and beliefs of GIDA communities regarding pre-disaster signs, preparations, and ways of coping. This topic is particularly relevant, for example, among residents of the upland barangay/village who have mixed cultural backgrounds, including those of indigenous peoples. These topics are examples of giving significance to and strengthening the current practices of local DRRM centres using an individual’s actual or simulated hazard and/or evacuation experiences as a point of reference in designing pre-disaster communication programs. As noted, however, experiences can have conflicting effects on disaster preparedness—in some cases, previous disaster experiences are the reason why people do not act (Onuma et al., 2017) on the incoming threat. Yet, experience also prompts individuals to act on calls for evacuation or advance preparation (Becker et al., 2017). Experiences can also be collective, as in the group or sector’s experiences, and this angle can also extend towards mining local wisdom that is based on traditional and cultural beliefs. This section has presented the individual as the core of the proposed PRETE Framework, which requires a targeted approach that utilises their power, relationships, and experiences. A targeted approach is particularly viewed as ideal when dealing with GIDA communities because it allows customisation, localisation, and

186

7 PRE Transformative Engagement (PRETE) Framework

mainstreaming of disaster risk information into communication and community engagement efforts and applicable government programs. Identified keywords that may impact future pre-disaster communication and community engagement efforts are individual preparedness, social relationships, continuity of programs, and topic limitations. This research identified lack of experience, limited social network, and the restricted rollout of disaster preparedness programs, including information dissemination practices as issues with pre-disaster communication and community engagement. These same factors were documented by Poussin et al. (2014) in France. The next sections discuss the 3Cs—communication link, consistency, and cooperation and cocreation—or the practical notion of the individual in DRRM. The practical notion of the individual is significant in this study based on the urgency of the demand for an attention shift in pre-disaster communication and community engagement efforts. As a development communication practitioner, I see potential benefit in positioning the conceptual bases of my argument as a practical solution through the development of the PRETE Framework.

7.3 Lived and Simulated Experiences Are Core The PRETE Framework advocated by this study upholds that an individual’s active participation in organisation-led DRRM activities intends to create better outcomes for that individual in the event of natural hazards (e.g., stronger knowledge, improved preparedness); it further contends that these outcomes potentially fit within the scope of education and/or engagement efforts that utilise existing connections between individuals who are part of small groups or sectors. As such, individuals’ lived and simulated experiences form part of their contribution to these organised activities, and local DRRM councils can potentially use these as points of reference in the design of pre-disaster communication programs. At this point, the role of the experienced individual is to become the communication link (the first C of the practical notions of an individual) within the GIDA community and their sectoral community/ies (such as the association of fisherfolk in the barangay/village, or within their own small organisation outside their GIDA context). Informant U1 mentioned that, aside from villages, as more organisations and corporations develop their own disaster management plans, certain groups or sectors request training from council. Informant I1 also said that the rollout of sectoral training is better than a general assembly training session because it targets the specific needs of each sector. (Neither of these government informants implied the complete removal of village assemblies because these are part of the standard operating procedure set by the National Council.) These reported organisational or sectored requests suggest the significance of tapping an individual’s common bonds with others that are developed through socialisation in small group settings for CB-DRRM. As a simple example, simulated hazard experience can be provided to attendees of a sectorally organised training session where individuals share common experiences and context.

7.3 Lived and Simulated Experiences Are Core

187

Through this proposed process of prioritising a communication process that begins at the individual level, local DRRM councils gain access to the community’s personal risk perceptions; this matters if the whole community is to become resilient. If, for example, an individual believes they can withstand any natural hazard on their own, they will not be encouraged to act on information about advance preparation, or attend to the call for evacuation. Through their social power, this individual’s risk perception impacts the actions of their family as well, and if this individual possesses a certain amount of referent power in the community, their actions will influence others around them. This scenario highlights the relevance of shifting the CB-DRRM approach from impersonal community events to those that target the basic unit of a small group, which is the individual. In addition, while the communication process should both emanate from and target the individual, as the example demonstrates, once this is structurally achieved, the communication potentially continues and expands to the individual’s familial and social interactions (socialisation) with others. Perhaps despite its appearance, this recommendation still upholds the fact that Filipino culture is often communitarian (Andres, 1988), as are other Southeast Asian countries. The suggestion to begin the communication process with the individual occurs in the context of knowing these individuals belong in other smaller groups and share common experiences and context with others. Furthermore, this idea potentially moves outwards, as individuals link together through their experiences and contexts. In addition, this proposal follows the historical development of influence in barangays (villages) in the Philippines (Romani, 1956; Zamora, 1967). It can in fact be observed that this approach is, in a way, currently being tested in the rollout of training to select individuals to become grassroots responders. However, in the context of achieving a transformative community engagement practice, certain changes need to be made to move away from the current asymmetrical communication model, where government officials or representatives take a managerial approach that has no feedback system (either to the selected individuals, who may be coerced to become responders, or to the community that resents the partisan approach). There is value in shifting this approach to a symmetrical one (Grunig & Hunt, 1984), wherein feedback is able to impact both communicative conditions and community engagement processes. As has been pointed out in the previous chapter, the current method of focussing on grassroots responders alone for DRRM furthers inequalities experienced by GIDA communities. In particular, the current top-down process cannot see or respond to individuals who are willing to take a proactive role in disaster preparedness but are not selected to as responders. As such, current practice spells out inequalities in both communication and community engagement. To completely disregard an entire community by denying them the training and drills they need because there are already trained grassroots responders does not approach a transformative level of engagement. To this end, I assert that where mounting a general assembly is costly for the village, the local DRRM councils can instead begin to tap organised groups in the community for this training, such as the youth sector or a women’s group. Overall, these proposals aim for the improvement of the current DRRM communication and community engagement practices.

188

7 PRE Transformative Engagement (PRETE) Framework

This section expands the first C of the 3Cs, which highlights the role of the experienced individual to become a communication link in disseminating pre-disaster information. This first practical notion of individuality confirms the significance of simulated or actual disaster experiences as a source of knowledge and the value of a person’s social network for possible dissemination of pre-disaster information. The next section presents the second C, the practical notions of an individual, which tackles the issue of trust.

7.4 Trust Is Essential in Pre-disaster Communication The second C in the practical notion of individuality discusses consistency of information delivery, which, in the long run, develops trust in the communication link. Trust develops on two heads: trust in the source of information (first C) and the message, and how it is delivered (second C) by DRRM officials and community leaders. However, the framework that this study proposes suggests that it is not just those who hold leadership that can become information sources, but rather anyone in the community can act in this role within the sectors they belong to, because of their PRE. Even so, why are these proposals for improving the current communication and community engagement relevant? In simple terms, because it was evident from findings that approaching pre-disaster communication through individuals in groups or sectors is grounded on trust. Empirical evidence shows that those who have high levels of trust in the simple information-by-message-relay type of pre-disaster risk communication are people with lived disaster experiences, who have been at one time evacuated, and who hold formal and informal leadership positions in the village. Those who do not trust zone leaders are not yet familiar with the communication and engagement processes set in place. These people are wary that zone leaders end up hoarding information because of their immediate access to it. This lack of trust can be traced back to previous experiences when communication stopped at the level of zone leaders and information was not handed down by someone in power to their constituents. Therefore, the role of developing common bonds through socialisation, which may lead to the establishment of linking pathways, may help resolve trust issues in the community. This study further argues that common bonds, socialisation, and linking pathways are driven by issues of PRE. People form bonds through common experiences. As they continue to socialise with like-minded individuals, they can develop linking pathways to other individuals or groups that can connect them to people with power. Hence, this study proposes to approach pre-disaster communication through individuals in small groups or sectors. This approach is also projected as a way of commencing a transformative community engagement activity that is firmly grounded on communication. Trust can be accorded to the practical notion of individuality when sources of information are known (such as immediate family and close relatives). Access to these close contacts assures individuals’ close proximity to

7.4 Trust Is Essential in Pre-disaster Communication

189

information (and its veracity) and therefore results in consistent and reliable information dissemination. Often those in vulnerable communities gravitate towards familial and familiar personal connections, owing to trust in the communal system, even in a first-world country like Australia (Teo et al., 2018). In GIDA communities, this also means trust in the local governance. This hierarchy adheres to the individuals’ layers of influence (see Fig. 7.4). Figure 7.1 visualises the building (sectoral) and breaking (individual social contacts) of information channels or communication links (first C) and thus highlights how consistency of information dissemination and trust building come together. In this way, the concept of individuality is contextualised in small group settings. Later in the process, the information shared within a small group/sector is disseminated to each individual’s immediate and close social contacts. Practically speaking, when an individual is exposed to and develops new knowledge about DRRM, there is a greater chance that their family will also learn and develop it. Family members may develop an interest in being trained as rescuers or may even start building a social network by checking on the situation of their neighbours. A strong social network often equates to strong social cohesion or social bonds. This common bond is integral in the current practice of local DRRM councils in training first responders among residents of the village. Without common bonds

Fig. 7.1 Approaching pre-disaster communication at the individual level. Note The entire analysis is visualised in this (original) diagram, which indicates that an individual in a small group setting demonstrates potential as a pre-disaster communication conduit. At this level, acquiring information does not begin with a family but with an individual. This will have bigger impact if that individual is the decision maker of a household or the one who went to school and thus acquired education. The diagram also shows how the individual can become a conduit for community engagement. The communication flow from the individual to the family to other social connections provides that communication shifts from top-down (or transactional) engagement to horizontal communication (or transformational engagement). Source Author

190

7 PRE Transformative Engagement (PRETE) Framework

and social networks formed through socialisation activities, the spread of information is inhibited by individual silos in the community. At this point, communication link/ing and consistency of information dissemination and experiences (simulated or actual) establish the significance of the individual and individuality in the proposed framework. The next section completes the 3Cs by expounding cooperation and cocreation between and among actors in disaster preparedness activities and programs involving geographically isolated and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities.

7.5 The Impact of Social Network in Community Engagement Implementing the proposed individuals-in-small-groups approach requires rethinking the current rollout of disaster preparedness programs so that they tap cooperation and cocreation strategies, which is the third C of the practical notion of individuality. How will this approach extend the impact of the current pre-disaster communication and community engagement practice? How can this approach enhance the identified factors—PRE—that may aid in pre-disaster communication and community engagement? Cooperation and cocreation are arguably grounded on PRE. The context of GIDA communities creates a form of common experience that impacts how expansive an individual’s social network can be, and this offers potential for community relationships to be empowered through common experiences. In addition, in such small communities, an individuals’ relationships may result in them gaining a position or role that gives them some kind of power in their social network. This position or role can be established by many things, for example, economic power is possessed by those who own a sari-sari (local convenience) store; this very likely gives them access to electricity and the means to own a television, which in turn give them access to information and knowledge; if they can read and write, they may also have access to referent power. In the Philippine context, this concept of gaining position through power can be traced back to the way certain roles were filled in pre-Hispanic villages (Romani, 1956; Zamora, 1967). In the light of both the problems and the potential of centring the DRRM communication and engagement process in the individual, one way to move forward seems to be to strengthen the existing interpersonal or face-to-face communication that already works so well in GIDA communities. The shift required is towards targeting the individual, rather than the entire village, as the main receiver of DRRM information. Individuals can also switch roles from being receivers of DRRM messages to being senders of these messages in the village (the existing programs already intend for this to happen, but the success of it is hampered by managerial process). Once an individual becomes a genuine source of information for their immediate family, they can become an information junction for distant relatives and neighbours.

7.5 The Impact of Social Network in Community Engagement

191

Changing perspective from approaching pre-disaster communication in big groups to utilising the power of individuals in small groups provides a sense of ownership and participation from the point of view of the participants in the overall process. This method of engaging people in smaller numbers (i.e., families and individuals) is similar to the way the conditional cash grant program is implemented, and the local DRRM councils in both field sites are aware the effectiveness of this program and intend to replicate it. Although it is expensive to target communities in smaller numbers, in consideration of the grounding of the proposed model, it appears it might prove beneficial in the long run. Taking these factors together suggests the value of testing the method in these communities, also harnessing the impetus provided by the positive vote given to the proposed Department of Disaster Resiliency. Even before the Department of Disaster Resiliency comes into being, the potential impact of this proposed approach for community knowledge and resiliency offsets the cost of its implementation. The PRE concepts can also be applied to the current context of training and drills assemblies. Show-and-tell and gamification are two possible ways to both draw the participants towards one another through their shared experiences, and avoid what Garcia (2010) identified, that participants in training and drills in the Philippines find topics too academic and beyond their reach. Incorporating short breaks in the sessions could provide a ‘breather’ from the highly technical and jargon-filled lectures, during which individuals could share their previous disaster experiences (such as through activities like show-and-tell). Gamification of training and drills is already seen as a way of involving participants in learning, and this style of engagement also shifts the sessions away from lecture type training. Incorporating PRE concepts into these sessions would thus not be difficult, because local DRRM councils of both areas already utilise games to engage their audiences and hold competitions between representatives from different villages. Although this process is still costly for the villages, and it still poses threats of inequality (especially to those who are not chosen as representatives), if localised at the village level, gamification could potentially provide an answer to the problem of continuity in communicating pre-disaster information. If a simple show-and-tell exercise during training and drills or gamification allows a local voice to communicate personal pre-disaster risk information by example and experience, training and drills then shift beyond education (teaching) and extend towards community engagement. This transition subscribes to Dufty’s (2011) observation that engaging communities should involve top-down (education) and bottomup (engagement) approaches. As such, this study provides further empirical evidence that pre-disaster communication practices with GIDA communities should contain both education and engagement aspects. This study extends its argument to cover all types of communities defined by Bowen et al. (2010), regardless of whether they are based on geographical location, regardless of the level and type of interaction among members, and regardless of their individual or group identity. This is the reason why the individual-in-small-groups approach is relevant: the individual is part of each of these three types of communities. The current method, which includes organising public events such as training and drills in community assemblies, has partially worked for GIDA communities, but its

192

7 PRE Transformative Engagement (PRETE) Framework

longitudinal impact has not been evaluated, and this study identifies various implementation problems. It certainly does not, at present, adhere to the criteria of an effective disaster communication practice that is reliable and continuously communicated (Rodríguez et al., 2007). Reliability, in the context of GIDA communities, is contextualised in communication infrastructure, and in this sense, continuous communication is problematic because the frequency of community assemblies is dependent on budget, project prioritisation, and other political complications discussed in this research. An effective disaster communication follows the cycle of hearing, understanding, believing, confirming, and responding (Rodríguez et al., 2007). Whether GIDA communities reach the other stages of this cycle beyond hearing in the context of pre-disaster communication currently cannot be measured until an area is hit by a natural hazard. Government informants U1, U3, and I4 opined that this is their only way of knowing if their disaster preparedness programs are effective or not. As this study highlights, and in agreement with informant preference to use the 4Ps as a model for future DRRM communication, rather than targeting the community at large in the manner of delivering these public events, pre-disaster communication efforts need to be addressed to the individual in small group settings. As previously discussed, an individual has influence over someone and this influence is brought about by cultural and universally accepted factors including (but not limited to) patriarchal society, social relationships, experiences, age, financial status, property, and assumed or legitimate leadership role. Andres’ (1988) aptly called these factors the premise behind the Filipino Values System. This value system does not only affect personal, social, and familial relationships. It also impacts how government projects are being rolled out. As applied to pre-disaster communication and community engagement, Andres’ (1988) Filipino Values System can be contextualised at two levels—macro and micro. Examination of these two levels demonstrates that PRE act as important variables that aid in the shift from the education to the engagement level (Dufty, 2011). Looking at the overall political structure of DRRM councils, the provincial and municipal DRRM councils are at the macro-level of governance and implementation. The macro-level is affected by political uncertainties and other complications. Positional power impacts the process of responder selection. Moreover, relationships born out of power may not be long-lasting in terms of the need to create DRRM continuity. This was observed in the matter of coterminous employees, where experiences get cut short by political terms. Power, relationships, and experiences (PRE) are short lived at this level. The micro-level is the village itself. It may be small in comparison with the municipal or provincial level; however, villages are the most complex since they are not governed simply by rules and regulations set by the government. Villages are comprised of people, who are not ‘empty glasses waiting to be filled’ with information; rather, social power, relationships, and experience are implicit in situ and affect people’s relationships towards others. Experiences can also be acknowledged as the basis of social power and relationships that impact an individual’s decision-making. Therefore, the PRE elements are long-lasting at the micro-level and are partly handed down from generation to generation.

7.6 The PRETE Framework

193

From their first appearance as purely transactional, the current transitional communication and engagement practices have been reviewed, and ways of reaching a transformational communication and engagement level have been investigated (Bowen et al., 2010). Cooperation and cocreation that are grounded in PRE carry positive effects in communicating pre-disaster risk information in GIDA communities. If this is activated via the individuals-in-small-groups approach, there is a possibility of transitioning from education to engagement. Although cooperation and cocreation are not novel concepts in design-related disaster communication and management studies, the GIDA context forces the reassessment of pre-disaster risk communication programs in the light of social inequality and the digital and communication divide. This investigation is relevant as it provides voice to the voiceless, gives representation to those so far unrepresented, and contributes to public scholarship. The research project also demonstrates how the sharing of past disaster experiences can foster both relationships and pre-disaster knowledge building, providing empirical evidence for Spialek and Houston’s (2018) argument of the relevance of sharing and listening to stories in cultivating community relationships and building community resilience. However, the results of this study do differ from that of Spialek and Houston, which observed citizens connecting with one other through an actual disaster experience. I argue that simulated experiences grounded in people’s past experiences and cultural backgrounds can be utilised to strengthen pre-disaster communication and engagement efforts. Hence, this research pushes for the convergence of social power (P), relationships (R), and experiences (E) in pre-disaster communication and community engagement programs, and asserts that this will allow pre-disaster risk communication and community engagement processes to organically develop and flourish at the village level.

7.6 The PRETE Framework The various conceptualisations of community, individuality, and PRE that were discussed in the previous chapter combine to form the PRETE Framework. This framework proposes to create a bridge for GIDA communities and government between the transitional and transformational levels of engagement. Moreover, this framework is based on the data gathered from government and community informants in geographically isolated and socioeconomically disadvantaged areas in the Philippines. As such, its applicability is assumed to cover areas classified as either geographically isolated or socioeconomically disadvantaged, or both.

194

7 PRE Transformative Engagement (PRETE) Framework

7.6.1 Bridging the Gap Between Transitional and Transformative Engagement Using the PRETE Framework In the previous chapter, I discussed how PRE can be used as variables that may aid in shifting pre-disaster communication from the transitional level of community engagement to the transformational level. The PRE elements are also positioned as variables that may improve pre-disaster communication as well as make it inclusive, so to avoid creating more levels of social inequality. Subsumed in the proposed framework, these three variables intend to capture the reality of those living in the margins, whose grassroots accounts are often left out in the national DRRM narrative that is dominated by those in lowland and overly populated areas covered by the media. This research, based on the narratives of the displaced, isolated, and unreported, proposes a framework that is grounded on the CEC (Bowen et al., 2010) and the Filipino Values System (Andres, 1988). The framework intends to consider the following questions in assessing current community conditions: • How can local DRRM councils utilise past experiences, actual or simulated, as positive reinforcement for individuals and communities to act on disaster preparedness messages and plans? • How can local government utilise social power in engaging communities? • How can social relationships function as conduits of pre-disaster communication and community engagement practices? These questions are based on the current implementation of disaster preparedness programs of local DRRM councils in both field sites. (Note. The compound term ‘disaster preparedness programs’ is used as a catch-all phrase that covers both pre-disaster communication modes and tools and community engagement activities.) After assessing the current modes and tools of communication used and the level of community engagement in the GIDA field sites, it appears that current practice is grounded in the efforts of building bridges between government and the local community (see Chap. 5). As such, the current stance in community engagement in both field sites shows the initial efforts of government to build bridges. Problems encountered by government include the alleged lack of cooperation from local communities, changing political leadership that results in changes in priority projects, and some GIDA concerns that are also applicable in non-GIDA locations. On the side of local communities, concerns surrounding the current process include trust issues with local leaders and difficulties with communication infrastructure—whether it is mediated or face-to-face.

7.6 The PRETE Framework

195

7.6.2 The PRE Transformative Engagement (PRETE) Framework The current disaster preparedness programs targeting GIDA communities lack clear methods in reaching the highest level of the CEC (Bowen et al., 2010). Maintaining a reliable and consistent pre-disaster communication flow becomes problematic because of the multiple social and spatial inequalities experienced by GIDA communities. The various communication modes and tools currently in place do not reach the people living in these areas due to communication infrastructure problems. The level of understanding reached regarding the communication modes tools that are used is also affected by illiteracy in the GIDA communities. These observed realities adhere to what Montemayor and Custodio (2014) identified as setbacks in communicating risk in the Philippines despite government efforts. Current efforts address, albeit with inconsistencies, the transactional and transitional levels of engagement. However, since the communication process is asymmetrical, the trajectory towards reaching a transformational level is currently uncertain. Moreover, the concept of community engagement needs to be revisited as it is being implemented at the local level. Currently, community engagement is implemented by instituting groups like the Alliance of Grassroots Responders, and membership selection for this group excludes the majority of the community. In addition, the ability of the community to survive when facing natural hazards is dependent on a select group of individuals. This kind of transitional communication and community engagement practice is already considered to be at the transformational level by local DRRM councils. However, a transformational level of engagement means more than developing the leadership capacity of community members. This level also demands community participation in decision-making. The individuals living in GIDA communities should be able to gauge for themselves how important disaster preparedness is to them. Given empirical data, rather than relying on mere information dissemination to the people through drills and training, transformational learning needs to be the aim of all disaster preparedness efforts. Therefore, this research introduces the PRE Transformative Engagement Framework (PRETE Framework; see Fig. 7.3). The framework is envisioned to take place between the transitional and transformational levels in Bowen et al.’s CEC (2010; see Fig. 7.2). At this level, communication and engagement activities are geared towards collaboration (transitional) and empowerment (transformational). Data from the field show that the premature conceptualisation of community engagement and the implementation of projects under this framework does not provide a clear trajectory in terms of empowering residents of GIDA communities. Therefore, my proposed framework highlights PRE as relevant variables in empowering local communities. Empowering people is seen as the zenith of a transformative level of community engagement. Empowerment can be operationalised as strengthening people’s risk perception and pre-disaster knowledge and making them more open to government collaborations and community alliances. Empowerment can be achieved if PRE, at the onset, act as intervening factors that affect the information-seeking and -sharing practices of individuals via a multiplier

196

7 PRE Transformative Engagement (PRETE) Framework

effect that enables them to reach out to other residents of any type of community, especially those in GIDAs. The acronym PRE is used in this framework to connote that the framework applies to the PRE-disaster phase of disaster management, focussing on disaster risk communication under the disaster preparedness theme. The prefix [pre-] also means before or prior to, and this signifies that the variables stipulated in the framework, which are based on accounts by informants from GIDA communities, may aid in the shift from the transitional to the transformational level of community engagement. I argue that the process of transformational learning begins prior to fully transitioning to a transformative community engagement practice. Given these, the PRETE Framework is presented in Fig. 7.3.

.Inform .Passive .Educate .'Arm's length' engagement

Transactional

Transitional .Consulting & involving .Acting & deciding together .Participating .Interactive collaborations

.Empower .Improve leadership .Intensive alliances

Transformational

Proposed application of PRETE Framework

Fig. 7.2 Author’s visualisation of proposed intersection of PRETE Framework in the existing CEC of Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi, and Herremans. Source Author, and ‘When suits meet roots: The antecedents and consequences of community engagement strategy,’ by F Bowen, A NewenhamKahindi and I Herremans, 2010, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 95, no. 2, p. 304. Copyright 2010 by Springer

Fig. 7.3 Proposed PRE Transformative Engagement (PRETE) framework. Source Author, 2021

7.6 The PRETE Framework

197

The PRETE Framework is grounded on the PRE of people living in geographic isolation with socioeconomic hardship. The PRE aspect of the framework (grey spiral) highlights that power, relationships, and experiences act as conduits to transformative engagement. This framework also investigates the role of individuals’ value systems and culture (white spiral, values system + culture text label), as these affect how people frame and respond to messages. In addition, the diagram clearly shows that there are two main actors in the framework—the sender (disaster management council) and the receiver (the individual/public). However, this framework also reflects the possible duality of the role of the receiver, which can shift so that the receiver turns into the sender of the message. This change of roles still follows the basic criteria set by the CEC (Bowen et al., 2010). The intention of the PRETE Framework is to aid in communicating information to and compelling action from a target population, with the ultimate goal of community empowerment and resilience. The identification of transmission and role interchange points provides an avenue that allows government and community to work together to start building disaster resiliency. This can be achieved through cooperation and cocreation between these two agents of communication, even despite issues of socioeconomic and geographical inequalities and a digital divide. The PRETE Framework specifically aims to achieve reliability and continuity of information dissemination by providing feedback to the origin of the message (top-down and bottom-up arrow). It also allows a reversal of role from message receiver to message sender, directed towards her/his own social network (spiral). As such, the PRETE Framework can be visualised between individuals who represent a family, clan, or sector in the community. This framework does not discredit the top-down communication approach. Rather, it places importance on role reversal, which covers community participation, ergo empowerment, resulting in an active and effective community engagement communication strategy. This framework intends to achieve its objective via utilisation of PRE (grey spiral) elements. As such, the PRE process can follow a top-down approach. This can be observed when government uses its legitimate power to build relationships with its constituents creating an experience and culture of open communication. It also means government can utilise people’s social power to help them build relationships among themselves in the community. These relationships are those grounded on common experiences as well as familial relations. In addition, from the bottom-up, an individual carries their personal experiences with them. Grouping individuals who share common experiences builds a tight aggregate that is bound by certain commonalities. They influence and are influenced by other people around them. This scenario means people are provided with an avenue in which to utilise their social powers to impact those around them. When grouped together, these individuals will possess a bigger and perhaps better power to build linkages with the government. However, this framework also acknowledges the fact that its success in moving upwards or towards the government is dependent on the strength of people’s social relations (see Sect. 5.4.1) and the influence of power (see Sect. 5.5). In the context of these possible issues, I purposefully included both value system and culture as buffers. I argue that if PRE is grounded on a positive value

198

7 PRE Transformative Engagement (PRETE) Framework

system that is influenced by people’s culture, the implementation of the PRETE Framework can lead to positive results.

7.6.3 The Actors and Other Elements in the Framework This subsection describes the proposed PRETE Framework as a process that involves the interaction and intersection of actors and elements to assist in communicating and engaging marginalised and vulnerable communities such as GIDA barangays/ villages. Following the process is assumed to usher a transformative level of engagement, as shown in Fig. 7.2. This proposed framework follows the recommendation of Montemayor (2015) to use western models (in this study, CEC and CEF) and entwined it with a local theoretical lens (in this study, Filipino Values System). Specifically, this section presents the proposed PRETE Framework, which • caters for two-way communication, with the availability of a reversal of roles between actors (government and community), as demanded by Dufty’s CEF (2011), • showcases that reversal of roles transitions through various levels of power, social relationships, and actual or simulated experiences, and • describes a top-down approach that utilises PRE in sequence, while the bottom-up approach follows the process in reverse, with experiences becoming the basis of the approach that ascends via first, social relationships, and then power. Figure 7.3 contains four grey and white image circles where the white and grey spirals intersect; these represent the actors involved in pre-disaster communication: village/barangay, sectoral/small group, family, and individual. The placement of each actor in the framework represents the communication approach the process wants to convey. As mentioned, this framework does not intend to discredit any one approach, especially in the pre-disaster communication context, but rather, with Dufty (2011), advocates both top-down and bottom-up communication, as well as that moving horizontally/sideways. The top-down approach begins with the organisation or group handling emergency management. This group can either be the government or non-government organisations. For this research, I labelled it ‘disaster management council’ since this is the government body I investigated. The bottom-up approach begins with the individual, spiralling up to family, neighbours, and village levels. Disaster communicators and planners can design their communication plans around PRE. In addition, as noted, the framework includes another spiral that overlaps with PRE and represents value system and culture. This spiral influences and is influenced by PRE in an infinite manner, albeit in consideration of the amount of time needed for changes to be observed.

7.6 The PRETE Framework

199

The element of experience is placed at the bottom of the spiral because experience is an inherent knowledge of an individual. Experiences can be transmitted to other people and translated into actions. Relationships allow an individual to share their experiences, culture, beliefs, context, and planned actions. Therefore, moving upward in the spiral, it is proper to acknowledge that relationships are formed based on an individual’s experiences, which are processed according to their culture, beliefs, and context. These relationships can be familial and extend to an individual’s neighbourhood. Familial relationships are based on how ‘family villages’ were formed during preHispanic time in the Philippines (Romani, 1956; Zamora, 1967). Historically, Zamora (1967) recounts that a village/barangay was composed of a group of boats carrying family members, relatives, friends, and their slaves who migrated to the Philippines from neighbouring islands. Once situated in a place, they built their houses together and appointed a village leader (local term: Datu) who would perform roles such as protector, legislator, implementer, and adjudicator. The Datu was often assisted by other men in the village who were once chieftains. This means pre-Hispanic villages were essentially family villages; the leader was the wealthiest and strongest among the men, or their leadership was passed on through inheritance (Zamora, 1967). Contemporary experience, however, tells us that more benefits are reaped from forming relationships when individuals are grouped into several sectors (see Fig. 7.1). This means taking the concept of the pre-Hispanic barangay discussed by Zamora (1967) and Romani (1956) and applying it to contemporary times—that is, as sectoral representation. In his discussion of community development, Andres (1988) points out that an individual’s value system is not formed in isolation from other systems. Placed in the middle of small group, an individual develops another layer of their value system based on the rules and practices that form the group’s organisational culture. This other layer influences the way an individual responds to certain stimuli within the group, but they can carry this value system with them to the original layer, which is familial (see Fig. 7.4). Fig. 7.4 Layers of influence of an individual’s value system. Source Author, 2021

Individual Familial Sectoral

200

7 PRE Transformative Engagement (PRETE) Framework

Figure 7.4 shows the micro-influences that exist and function in close proximity to an individual’s processing, responding, and acting-on pre-disaster risk communication messages. It also shows the relationships an individual may currently possess. Andres (1988) highlights that the value system of an individual is also based on their relationships with others in a specific order: family → neighbours → village → municipality → province This list can go on up to the national level, but empirical data suggest the level of importance decreases as it goes higher. Tying experiences and relationships together, it can be deduced that an individual’s knowledge affects their own decisions and these impact their immediate family, extended family, neighbours, and so on, to the entire village. Going beyond the village level requires the inclusion of higher concepts such as local politics and multiple sociocultural backgrounds, and demands a broader understanding of the impact of such aggregate action for the whole municipality, city, or province. Andres (1988, p. 32) coined this ‘the total development of man’. Ordinary residents in GIDA communities, for instance, limit their concern towards other people in term of their micro-level influences (see Fig. 7.4). If you are an elected individual with legitimate power, however, your concern should go beyond personal gain. Yet, preparing a community for any calamity demands examination of the way an individual protects themselves and their immediate family. Therefore, it is not accurate to say that a village’s DRRM is weak, or the people are uncooperative. This perspective only looks at the village as a whole and ignores the individuals that make up the village. The final intervening variable is power. It is argued that, with enough experiences and social relationships, an individual gains a certain influence that they can use. This influence can exist within a close social circle, such as their family, but it can also expand to other relatives and neighbours. Experiences and relationships form social networks, and these can become sources of referent or legitimate power that allow an individual to exercise their reward and coercive powers. All of these emerge because both the individual and their social network believe they possess an expert power that is brought about by their lived or simulated experiences (the latter acquired from the local DRRM council). In Fig. 7.3, this action is signified by the arrow (visible at either end) that cuts through the spiral. Lastly, to make this framework truly transformational, the feedback system is presented in two ways: direct feedback from the individual to the local DRRM council and indirect feedback that goes through a spiral process, such as dissemination through the grapevine that moves laterally and horizontally. This second type of feedback also requires a careful evaluation methodology from the local DRRM council, an aspect that can be considered for future research. However, this study argues that evaluative practices can also be perceived as a means of ‘measuring one’s privileges’. In this context, privileges refer to those who have access to multiple communication modes and tools because of their socioeconomic standing in the community and/or the leadership role they perform in a village (which brings them closer and gives them immediate access to pre-disaster information), and their subsequent referent power, which enables them to have a wider social network. Careful planning is required so that the evaluation

7.6 The PRETE Framework

201

process encompasses the entire spectrum of experiences of all community members, not just those in positions of formal leadership. The action of PRE in the framework is different from what is represented by the intersection of actors (i.e., the white and grey pictorial circles). The latter only enumerate the possible interactions any individual in a community can have, while PRE is used as a binding agent in any interaction between actors that may lead to the expansion of their social network. Thus, PRE aids in the formation or destruction of any social relationship within the community. In general, PRE affects actor intersections. The point of view of government offers a different perspective on utilising PRE, because the approach they use is top-down and relies on the legitimate power they hold as implementers of the National Plan at the local level. Given that local DRRM councils initiate pre-disaster communication activities, the disaster management council can tap its legitimate power and resources as a government organisation to reach out to people beyond or outside the macro-perspective of a barangay/village and connect with various sectors within that community. This can be achieved by tapping the same variables (PRE) used in the bottom-up process. For example, villages are divided into puroks (zones), and this division can be utilised by the government as an instance of the sectoral approach given that the local government (i.e., barangay/village level elected officials) possess power over organised groups in the village. Once this sectoral approach is established, the government can start helping communities form social relationships that are grounded on common bonds with other members of that purok/small group by providing more avenues for sectoral meetings and consultations as a way of fulfilling the cooperation and cocreation aspect of individuality (see Sect. 6.3.2). An example of this government-led effort is the method of implementing the 4Ps program of the Department of Social Welfare and Development. The government then functions as a linking pathway between this small group of people and others that hold power, once socialisation or bridging avenues are set. An example of socialisation or bridging activities at the village level is the village fiesta or sports festival organised by the barangay LGU, where people compete with other groups representing their purok/zone. Activities like this allow people to interact with other residents of the wider community. Local DRRM councils can even extend their reach up to the individual level if their experiences (simulated or lived) are utilised and shared with other members of the community. To visualise these directional actions/connections: [Individual] → experiences, relationships, power → [Government] (bottom-up) [Government] → power, relationships, experiences → [Individual] (top-down) The directional actions/connections shown above are also the suggested sequence of variable utilisation in the framework. Returning to the white spiral in Fig. 7.3, which represents the value system and culture discussed by Andres (1988), this spiral influences the solid spiral (PRE) either positively or negatively. It is represented as a clear (appears white) spiral, to connote that this aspect is permeable to external influences and it can change, albeit with consideration for the length of time required for change to occur. The styling here

202

7 PRE Transformative Engagement (PRETE) Framework

also connotes that the government can tap this permeability and utilise value systems and culture in their messaging. Despite its permeability, the elements represented by this broken spiral do affect the PRE triage. For instance, it can be argued that culture is something that influences experience, but at the same time, we ‘experience the world through culture’ (Highmore, 2016, p. 95). Many scholars have struggled to define culture because of its mutability. In 1962, T. S. Eliot defined culture in his book Notes Towards the Definition of Culture by providing a list of activities that English people engage in on a day-to-day basis. Defining culture in this manner means viewing it as a way of life. Recent scholarship upholds this definition; however, it also broadens its scope to include four ways of looking at culture. Eagleton (2016, p. 1) argues that culture can be (1) a body of artistic and intellectual work, (2) a process of spiritual and intellectual development, (3) the values, customs, beliefs and symbolic practices by which men and women live; and (4) a whole way of life.

Drawing these definitions towards the GIDA context through the element of values, in his discussion on the sources of Filipino values, Andres (1988) observes, ‘the Filipino derives his values from society, parents, church, peers, and norms he learned from others’ (p. 31). Society changes, which means that norms and practices change; the only constant is the variability of the impact of these values on how people act or react to certain stimuli not necessarily related to DRRM. Their reactions are rooted in culture. The permeability of value systems and culture can be tapped by both sender (government) and receiver (individual) in the communication process. Local DRRM councils can utilise value systems and culture in the actions of PRE towards the community; given the multicultural backgrounds of its residents, they particularly need to be aware of various local cultural/value system pitfalls in GIDA communities. For instance, the value of bayanihan (communal unity) in the Philippines combats or counters the kanya-kanya (to each his own) system previously mentioned. Although in some contexts the tayo-tayo (just us) system works, it can also be extremely exclusive and thus divisive. Tayo-tayo and kanya-kanya are responses of those who experience inequalities in life and reflect a need to act so their family can survive; this is known as the makaraos lang mentality. Attendance at drills and training because of the promised food packs as dole outs is an example of this. These exclusive cultural value systems (i.e., casting doubt towards groups outside their familial relations) are also tied to some supernaturalistic beliefs within an extremely structured style of norms and principles (Andres, 1988; see Fig. 7.4). Table 7.1 describes some common Filipino values observed in both field sites that can be utilised to make a significant impact on the PRE and the individual following a bottom-up approach, as well as various local attitudes and values that need to be understood so that potential negative outcomes can be avoided. In consideration of the stakes, community expectations of local DRRM councils are already high; as Table 7.1 demonstrates, however, the actions of local DRRM councils need to move to another level if they are to appropriately tailor the initial topdown communication process aptly named by Dufty (2011) as the education aspect of

At this stage, the Filipino’s concept of vertical relationships can be tapped in terms of age, position, wealth, and power (Andres, 1988), as per: . rich over poor, . more powerful over less powerful, and . older relative over younger relative These vertical relationships are also common in ASEAN countries. Vertical relationships even exist in workplaces. Seniority is upheld. This seniority can be in terms of rank or number of years in service Lateral relationships are also common and are observed in the following contexts: . relatives over neighbours; . neighbours and zone-mates over other people from other zones; . villagers over outsiders; and

Planning At this stage, the concern is to come up with concrete, understandable, accessible, and continuous messaging directed towards GIDA communities and other communities experiencing socioeconomic isolation and inequalities, regardless of location

The main actor in the communication process is the government. Therefore, it is suggested that the government, through the local DRRM councils, tap into specific value systems that may ensure the participation of local communities. Collaboration is in progress when local DRRM councils begin to tap the individual. It is the goal of a transitional engagement to maintain collaborative efforts that may extend to

people empowerment

advocacy, rather than just a government project. However, both bayanihan and nakatayo sa sariling paa can be viewed as a form of privilege that is enjoyed by those living in lowland and accessible areas It is also advised to watch out for the following Filipino values—ningas cogon (good at starting things but never finishes) and inggitan (jealousy). Utak talangka (dragging people down) is often the result of inggitan. Pre-disaster communication should be crafted in such a way that it will not be perceived as panghihimasok (interference) in other people’s lives Bayanihan and nakatayo sa sariling paa were observed in the island village. Inggitan was also observed in

essential to create an avenue for all four levels of interaction (individual, family, neighbour, and village) to build relationships among themselves. This can be done through sectoral organisation that is grounded in the pre-existing commonalities (experiences) between members The local DRRM councils remain as the main actor in the communication process. However, at this stage,

people can organise themselves and start a lateral flow of communication

both field sites. This inggitan is rooted on both vertical (residents vs. zone leaders) and lateral (residents vs. residents who are teachers in the local school) relationships

Bayanihan (helping each other) and nakatayo sa sariling paa (independence) should be highlighted as essential parts of pre-disaster risk communication. This makes disaster preparedness a form of personal

Organising At this stage, the concern is to build relationships between local DRRM councils and individuals. It is also

Total dependence was observed in the upland village. Dole-out system was also observed in the upland village

go beyond familial ties and expand into cultural ties, like the indigenous peoples As communicators, local DRRM councils should watch out for the following Filipino values: mañana habit (performing tasks in a later time) and Filipino Time (always late). Filipinos also have a pahingi (mendicancy/ dole-out) mentality, which may be perceived as laging nakasandal sa pader (total dependence)

. people with commonalities (language, religion, cultural heritage) over those with different language, religion, and cultural heritage Local DRRM councils should be aware that there is an endemic grouping in the upland village based on vertical and lateral relationships. This is also true among GIDA barangays/villages when social relationships

Filipino Values System

Stages in pre-disaster risk communication

Table 7.1 Proposed application of Filipino Values System in pre-disaster communication and community engagement

7.6 The PRETE Framework 203

204

7 PRE Transformative Engagement (PRETE) Framework

community engagement. However, both the sender and receiver of messages should be mindful of varying value system and culture as these affect PRE. Both DRRM planners and implementers should consider value system and culture in the design and implementation of their communication programs. In general, value system and culture affect PRE. The LGUs represented as disaster management councils in the PRETE Framework communicate pre-disaster information and engage local communities to take part in building resiliency. The local DRRM council need to provide avenues for better transactional and transitional modes and tools of communication, as well as those for feedback, to ensure a transformational community engagement level. This holds true for all local DRRM councils, not just in the Philippines but also those in neighbouring Southeast Asian countries that face natural hazards perennially. This proposed framework is grounded in the data collected in the Philippines, as well as other disaster research that deals with communities experiencing different types of social inequalities. Marlowe et al. (2018) point out the important of reach, relevance, receptiveness, and relationships in engaging diverse communities, but the PRE Transformative Engagement (PRETE) Framework also highlights the enormity of the government’s role as main actor in pre-disaster communication and disaster preparedness. This goes back to Dufty’s (2011) CEF, which asserts that in engaging communities to be proactive in building resiliency, a top-down flow of information cannot be dismissed. This aspect provides the education part and is the role of the government. Bowen et al. (2010) consider this the early aspect of community engagement and call it transactional engagement. Transaction is generally seen as an exchange of goods or services between two entities. In this instance, the transaction is between the government and the community, albeit via various stages and bureaucracies. The PRETE Framework also resembles the idea upheld by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the USA, that disaster preparedness should be treated as a cycle (Torres, 2019), but it extends the process and involves the government. FEMA’s disaster preparedness cycle begins with the individual identifying threats and ends with them evaluating the possible damages that they may incur during calamities. As such, FEMA’s disaster preparedness cycle puts the role of the government in the background. Its ‘invisibility’ in this sense assumes that people are already equipped with the knowledge and technology to conduct a do-ityourself assessment. In the GIDA community context, this means recognising that, prior to giving attention to the disaster preparedness cycle, people are equipped with pre-disaster knowledge that includes such things as the indigenous peoples’ way of predicting hazards, and the years of experiences fisherfolk have in ‘reading’ the sea. Finally, the PRETE Framework is grounded in cooperation and cocreation between and among the government and the community, especially those living in GIDAs. However, its applicability extends beyond the GIDA context of this study. As Sujarwoto and Tampubolon (2016) argue, spatial inequalities are present within and beyond the rural and urban dichotomy. Their study suggests that in an urban setting, space is measured by distance. The case of GIDA communities indicates that spatial inequalities include both distance and topography and that an individual’s pre-disaster

7.7 Summary

205

information situation in these communities is driven by the interplay of their PRE. My proposed individualistic approach to pre-disaster communication and community engagement considered distance and topography as initial barriers to DRRM-related communication and engagement practices. An individual’s PRE was initially identified in this study as the ‘choke-up points’ to effective pre-disaster communication and community engagement practices (see Chap. 6). However, these choke-up points can also be used to combat the inequalities brought about by geographic distance and topography, as the people within these communities can work together to lessen their distance from the outside world and the internal distance they experience in their communities. Hence, while the PRETE Framework is designed to focus on and address issues to the people living in GIDA contexts experiencing various kinds of inequalities, it is hoped that its application will extend to other contexts. This subsection has highlighted the significance of merging the current top-down approach with a bottom-up approach that gives equal significance to the inputs of the individual. This participation goes back to the 3Cs of the practical notion of individuality (see Sect. 6.3.2) and examines the role of communication link/ing, consistency of messaging (as regards building trust), and cooperation and cocreation approaches. It has also presented the way the PRETE Framework can be used to bridge the research gap identified within the communication and community engagement spectrum of Bowen et al. (2010).

7.7 Summary This chapter has presented a new approach in communicating with and engaging GIDA communities, through individuals in small groups. This approach is grounded in empirical data and can be justified in three ways: (a) that it has been proven effective in another program (4P) and this program’s replicability is being eyed by local DRRM councils; (b) that addressing the pre-disaster concerns of people in small groups allows greater message retention and promotes easier recollection; and (c) that addressing people who are already grouped together based on their specific, existing commonalities is easier to manage than the current approach of mass community gatherings. The individual-in-small-groups approach harnesses three components of small groups: (a) common bonds, which are formed through (b) socialisation, which itself may lead to the development or discovery of (c) linking pathways to those people who are in power. These three components scaffold the way individuals create and strengthen their social networks, and as such become components of social networks, providing justification for why the individuals-in-small-groups approach can yield positive benefits in both pre-disaster communication and community engagement. In the long run, this method stands to equip more people with information that aids in their decision-making in relation to developing precautionary measures against natural hazards. Common bonds, socialisation, and linking pathways also lead to power, relationships, and experiences (PRE). These three components of social

206

7 PRE Transformative Engagement (PRETE) Framework

networks thus spell out what PRE can do in relation to pre-disaster communication and community engagement. Given these potentials, this chapter has proposed the PRE Transformative Engagement Framework (PRETE Framework). This framework is relevant not only in the field of pre-disaster communication, but in other areas of study as well. The elements contained in PRE are broad, and their applicability can be correspondingly extensive and expansive. The PRETE Framework, although applied in the context of GIDA communities in this study, is also applicable to the three definitions of community advocated by Bowen et al. (2010). Moreover, despite its Philippine context, the Framework’s applicability extends beyond the confines of geographical territory, as it is grounded on people’s culture and tradition, which dictate how power is gained, how relationships are formed, and how experiences are utilised. The proposed framework aims to introduce potential connections between the communication modes and tools used in pre-disaster communication and community engagement that are used within the context of spatial or geographical isolation and other socioeconomic inequalities. A local state of calamity or disaster often goes unobserved when impacted populations are small, and incidents affecting communities with smaller populations go unreported. This leads to the exclusion of potential help from other organisations and individuals outside government. In context of this, the proposed framework intends to create new connections that enable these communities to have open access to government and non-government support in building their own resiliency. The framework also aims to overcome the boundaries created by GIDA communities’ geographic isolation that spell out specific communication infrastructure problems and insecurities. It hopes to otherwise resolve the issues that exist because of the absence of a concrete and reliable communication infrastructure, which makes communicating with GIDA communities next to impossible. It intends to capacitate GIDA communities directly, by providing them with more avenues to tap when seeking pre-disaster information, in order to improve their disaster preparedness plans. And, it aims to usher transitional methodologies towards transformational engagement. Overall, the PRETE Framework encompasses a political and cultural mainstreaming of pre-disaster communication and community engagement that become grounded on personal mainstreaming or collaboration and cocreation.

References Andres, T. Q. (1988). Community development: A manual. New Day Publishers. Becker, J. S., Paton, D., Johnston, D. M., Ronan, K. R., & McClure, J. (2017). The role of prior experience in informing and motivating earthquake preparedness. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 22, 179–193. Bowen, F., Newenham-Kahindi, A., & Herremans, I. (2010). When suits meet roots: The antecedents and consequences of community engagement strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(2), 297–318.

References

207

Cepeda, M. (2018). House okays bill creating Department of Disaster Resilience. Rappler, Philippines, viewed 23 October 2019, https://www.rappler.com/nation/213262-house-3rd-readingbill-department-of-disaster-resilience Dufty, N. (2011). Engagement or education? Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 26(3), 35–39. Eagleton, T. (2016). Culture. Yale University Press. Eliot, T. S. (1962). Notes towards the definition of culture. Faber and Faber. Garcia, A. T. (2010). Installing early warning system along the Agos River in the municipalities of Infanta and General Nakar. In L. P. Dela Cruz, E. M. Ferrer, & M. C. Pagaduan (Eds.), Building disaster resilient communities: Stories and lessons from the Philippines (pp. 9–22). College of Social Work and Community Development, University of the Philippines. Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. Holt. Highmore, B. (2016). Culture. Routledge. Jacobson, T. L. (2003). Participatory communication for social change: The relevance of the theory of communicative action. Annals of the International Communication Association, 27(1), 87–123. Jocano, F. L. (2001). Filipino worldview: Ethnography of local knowledge. PUNLAD Research House Inc. Li, X., & Feng, J. (2021). Empowerment or disempowerment: Exploring stakeholder engagement in nation branding through a mixed method approach to social network analysis. Public Relations Review, 47(3), art. 102024. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102024 Marlowe, J., Neef, A., Tevaga, C. R., & Tevaga, C. (2018). A new guiding framework for engaging diverse populations in disaster risk reduction: Reach, relevance, receptiveness, and relationships. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 9(4), 507–518. Montemayor, G. J. S. (2015). Exploring the Filipino’s communicative behaviors in knowledge sharing. The Antoninus Journal, 1, 44–61. Montemayor, G. J. S., & Custodio, P. (2014). Communicating risks, risking (mis)communication: Mass media and the science of disasters. Kasarinlan: Philippine Journal of Third World Studies, 29(2), 39–74. Onuma, H., Shin, K. J., & Managi, S. (2017). Household preparedness for natural disasters: Impact of disaster experience and implications for future disaster risks in Japan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 21, 148–158. Poussin, J. K., Botzen, W. J. W., & Aerts, J. C. J. H. (2014). Factors of influence on flood damage mitigation behaviour by households. Environmental Science & Policy, 40, 69–77. Redshaw, S., Ingham, V., Hicks, J., & Millynn, J. (2017). Emergency preparedness through community sector engagement in the Blue Mountains. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 32(2), 35–40. Rodríguez, H., Díaz, W., Santos, J. M., & Aguirre, B. E. (2007). Communicating risk and uncertainty: Science, technology, and disasters at the crossroads. In H. Rodríguez, E. L. Quarantelli, & R. R. Dynes (Eds.), Handbook of disaster research (pp. 476–488). Springer. Romani, J. H. (1956). The Philippine barrio. The Far Eastern Quarterly, 15(2), 229–237. Spialek, M. L., & Houston, J. B. (2018). The influence of citizen disaster communication on perceptions of neighborhood belonging and community resilience. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 47(1), 1–23. Sujarwoto, S., & Tampubolon, G. (2016). Spatial inequality and the Internet divide in Indonesia 2010–2012. Telecommunications Policy, 40(7), 602–616. Teo, M., Lawie, M., Goonetilleke, A., Ahankoob, A., & Deilami, K. (2018). Engaging vulnerable populations in preparedness and response: A local government context. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 33(1), 38–47. Torres, S. A. V. (2019). The cycle of preparedness. Federal Emergency Management Agency, viewed 21 January 2018, https://deployedlogix.com/emergency-preparedness-for-the-everyday-person/ Wilkins, K. G. (1996). Development communication. Peace Review, 8(1), 97–103. Zamora, M. D. (1967). Political history, autonomy, and change: The case of the barrio charter. Asian Studies, 5(1), 79–100.

Chapter 8

Engaging Isolated Communities: What’s Next?

8.1 Introduction This chapter summarises this investigation and spotlights its value in implementing DRRM programs focussed on disaster preparedness. It presents implications for theory and practice concerning the proposed PRETE Framework and how it creates and examines the boundaries it can overcome. These and other reflections aim to trigger different angles of enquiries that require a similar paradigm shift to investigate the intersection between disaster preparedness and community engagement through the lens of development communication, particularly in geographic isolation and socioeconomic inequalities context. Finally, the chapter discusses and raises questions for future research.

8.2 Summary of Findings This investigation looked at the intersection between disaster preparedness and community engagement in communities classified as spatially or geographically isolated and experiencing socioeconomic inequalities in Southeast Asia, particularly the Philippines. This intersection is unpacked through the lens of development communication, looking at the strategic use of available communication conditions to allay social problems (Wilkins, 1996). This investigation aims to provide additional evidence and discussion points regarding the impact of these two factors in communicating, not disseminating, disaster risk information and engaging isolated and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 D. J. Sumaylo, Engaging Isolated Communities in Disaster Preparation and Communication in the Philippines, Communication, Culture and Change in Asia 11, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-4697-6_8

209

210

8 Engaging Isolated Communities: What’s Next?

This investigation reports three main findings observed in situ: 1. GIDA communities utilises multimodal communicative conditions in disaster preparedness efforts; 2. A transitional level of community engagement exists in these communities; and 3. Geographic isolation triggering various social inequalities is their biggest communication barrier, suggesting the need to identify opportunities in dealing with GIDA communities. These are discussed in turn in the next three subsections.

8.2.1 Disaster Preparedness Utilises Multimodal Communicative Conditions The disaster preparedness communication experiences of both government and GIDA communities revolve around the use of traditional media (print, radio, and video). Despite its fairly rampant use, this study did not find it equated to efficacy. Instead, interpersonal communication practices, which were also observed in the field sites, suited GIDA communities given that communities are small and well-connected. The current continual use of traditional media and the Philippine Government’s plan to introduce an online communicative condition for DRRM present various potential negative impacts for these communities, including furthering people’s preexisting inequalities by assuming access that is currently unsupported by infrastructure. Despite varying degrees of effectiveness, in situ disaster preparedness communication is already multimodal in nature. Even so, it still follows an asymmetrical flow of communication and focusses on information transfer alone. This old model of transmission has been extensively critiqued by this study, which further asserts that despite efforts to make transmission of information bottom-up, attempts to provide a feedback system have not yet equated to community engagement. Moreover, there is a certain level of misalignment in how the government considers training and drills sessions as a strategy for a community-based DRRM that promotes community engagement and empowerment. These drills and trainings are supported by traditional media, often print, and their reception varies by extremes. Drills and training are in principle considered commendatory, however given the context of the people involved in this study, their infrequency and exclusivity often only exacerbated community feelings of isolation and promoted further inequalities. Looking closely, the idea of community engagement, mandated by the National Plan, could also be viewed as a strategy for communication issues that have merely identified communities or residents as their key audience. Lastly, all informants demonstrated that there is an unclear distinction between pre-disaster communication in the disaster preparedness stage and disaster communication in the disaster response stage. As such, some informant answers were focussed on communication efforts during the disaster response stage. The disaster response

8.2 Summary of Findings

211

stage in the interlinked DRRM phases and stages (see Fig. 2.1) involves pre-, during, and post-disaster activities, and ‘pre-disaster’ means hours or a few days prior to any natural hazard. The efforts of each government unit in actual disaster preparedness were focussed on the production and distribution of communication tools and training and drills as part of their community engagement efforts.

8.2.2 Transitional Level of Community Engagement The current level of community engagement observed in situ, as per Bowen et al.’s CEC (2010), is still at the transitional level. This meant that communication efforts observed in both field sites allowed some level of community involvement or participation. However, most communication efforts made by the government, especially the National Council, are focussed on educating the public by ‘downloading’ information to local DRRM councils. In turn, local DRRM councils disseminate this information to local communities without local language translation, or, conversely, only language translation. This top-down method of engaging communities only considers the first half of Dufty’s CEF (2011). The remaining half of the framework is not observed in both field sites. Lateral or horizontal communication empowers and creates community leaders. It allows people to decide for themselves what way they want to be informed or get access to information to protect themselves when facing threats of natural hazards; it also gives them agency in how they utilise their important alliance with their local DRRM councils (Kanakis & McShane, 2016). That the communication tools used in situ under this level of engagement are radio, social networking sites, and text messaging, all of which allow some form of feedback. Councils had made an effort to make engagement transitional by using communication modes and tools that allow consultation, such as creating a form of community involvement by forming community-based first responders, and allowing some interaction with local DRRM councils during drills and training. Aside from face-to-face communication, local DRRM councils also used communication tools like batingaw (bells) and bandilyo (public announcements using megaphone). What was most striking in this regard was that these efforts of transitional engagement are perceived by the government as transformational. There were also political and budgetary issues regarding the continuity of projects and community assemblies, and this halted the process of empowering local communities and developing local leaders. These issues connected to the use of face-to-face communication are highlighted in GIDA communities, particularly when access to basic human needs is already intermittent, including limited to no access to technology (radio, mobile phone, Internet connection) because of their context.

212

8 Engaging Isolated Communities: What’s Next?

8.2.3 Spatial Isolation—The Biggest Barrier: Identifying Opportunities in Dealing with GIDA Communities Spatial isolation was identified as the biggest barrier to engaging GIDA communities, and it brings with it multiple inequalities that affect people’s communication practices and needs. However, it can also be seen as an opportunity to start developing new methodologies of pre-disaster communication that truly engage disadvantaged or marginalised communities. From a public relations standpoint, engagement at the individual level must be achieved to attain that social engagement (Li & Feng, 2021). Reaching a social level of engagement also means achieving the transformational level of engagement posited in the CEC (Bowen et al., 2010) after it attends to the demands of an individual or transactional level of engagement. In my conversations with both government and community informants, I reflected on three community aspects they often talked about: first, their own experiences, second, their connections with other members of the community (and beyond), and third, how they acquired information from these first two. In both field sites, socialisation with others is seen as an important communication tool, and it is achievable because of shared experiences that build people’s common bonds. These two aspects of social life allow an individual to expand their social network, which in turn may lead to linking pathways that can provide connections to resources. In short, this social networking is being used for resource mapping. I began to enquire more deeply about this, and after examining the complex issues in the use of community engagement in relation to DRRM and GIDA communities, it led me to three elements that both connect and impact socialisation, common bonds, and linking pathways. These are power, relationships, and experiences (PRE). Each of these elements can stand alone as a point of enquiry, but they are not individual or isolated silos; rather they are interconnected, as each affects the others.

8.3 Implications for Theory and Practice 8.3.1 Theoretical Implications Answering the umbrella research question demands a rethinking of the concept of engagement as strategy of the government in the rollout of disaster preparedness programs. Engagement cuts across disciplines of sociology, development communication, and public relations (to name a few; Hollebeek, 2011; Li & Feng, 2021) and is considered an important research track in development communication. The intersection between disaster preparedness and community engagement in the context of GIDA shows that engagement should be approached as a process and needs to begin with the individual and move bottom-up to the organisation. Instead of strategically utilising multimodal communicative conditions in targeting GIDA communities, the current practice tends to use community engagement to support a top-down approach.

8.3 Implications for Theory and Practice

213

Yet in reality, community engagement involves a plethora of communicative conditions that are directly influenced by the socioeconomic and geographic conditions of the message receiver. In essence, this argument amounts to how public relations as a discipline defines engagement. In public relations, engagement is viewed on two levels, the individual and the social (Li & Feng, 2021). Engagement at the individual level aspires to achieve a positive outcome on a personal level, whilst a social level of engagement can be in the form of interpersonal or community processes (Johnston, 2018; Li & Feng, 2021). These two levels of engagement align with the way development communication views engagement both as a concept and as a practice and sit comfortably within the CEC. In order to reach a transformative level of engagement, however, communication scholars and practitioners need to provide communicative conditions that fulfil the necessary requirements at the individual (transactional) and social (transitional) levels. Local government units handling GIDA communities utilise communication modes and tools that do not directly address the community context. They rely on drills and training and other traditional media (print, radio, and video) as tools in building a CB-DRRM plan, and all aspects of these communicative conditions are subsumed under a heading of ‘community engagement’. The lack of proper conceptualisation of community engagement in CB-DRRM has resulted in a premature idea of community engagement practice. As such, community engagement in the field sites is accomplished ‘hit and miss’ and essentially proceeds according to local implementers of the National Plan performing a version what is expected of them. The communicative conditions (context plus communication modes and tools) define and affect the level of engagement between the government and GIDA communities. Exploring how LGUs engage geographically isolated and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities in disaster preparedness also unearthed several factors that may improve communication and engagement processes. A sectoral approach (e.g., youth, fisherfolk, senior citizens, and the LGBTQIA+) was observed to be beneficial in rounding up people to take part in disaster preparedness activities. The gamification of drills and training also aided in making DRRM information dissemination more appealing. Recognising the LGBTQIA+ community as a sector that may be able to engage more people in disaster preparedness activities is also a good sign, although getting people to admit to being part of the LGBTQIA+ community is problematic in the traditional and religious context of the Philippines. The data gathered establish that a successful CB-DRRM which operates through genuine community engagement requires localisation, customisation, and mainstreaming of disaster preparedness to local policies. To a certain extent, the research activities highlight that there are still aspects of the situation that need to be reviewed, reassessed, and revised. One example is the concept of community engagement at the local level. If the objective of engaging communities is to make people proficient in their own decision-making with regard to threats caused by natural hazards, current practices are somewhat lacklustre and as such may even provide foundation for the generalisation by government informants that villages are uncooperative with regard to drills and training. While this puts

214

8 Engaging Isolated Communities: What’s Next?

the blame on the community, if the context of these communities (which revolves around the interplay of social power, relationships, and experiences) is considered, the government’s efforts may need to be more engaging. The ultimate contribution of this research is focussing attention not just on the plight of GIDA communities but on their need for localised, customised, and mainstreamed disaster preparedness. The intention of this research was to investigate the intersection between disaster preparedness and community engagement in the context of spatial isolation and socioeconomic inequalities. It aimed to identify communication conditions and pathways that may serve as conduits for ushering community engagement towards the transformational level by investigating the various existing modes and tools of engagement found in communities’ pre-disaster communication efforts. This study does not suggest that only one communication condition (i.e., interpersonal communication) can move the level of community engagement. As a conduit, communication efforts should be customised and localised, not mass produced. Local DRRM plan implementers need to learn to listen, evaluate, and adjust to the situation or context at hand. The data gathered from these two isolated communities show that the lack of communication pathways did not stop people from grouping together to solve issues and problems among themselves. Yet, this ability of people to group together and work to achieve a certain level of resiliency does not provide an excuse for government to shirk their role of ensuring the safety of all people. The communication-community engagement framework, PRE Transformative Engagement (PRETE) Framework proposed by this study was created to directly address and harness these connections and interactions for the common good. The PRETE Framework is envisioned to provide basis for future communication modes and tools that usher a shift from a transitional to a transformational level of community engagement. It is grounded on the social power, relationships, and experiences that empower individuals to build and expand their social networks. This expansion is assumed to work in communities with intermittent to no access to traditional and digital communication modes and tools and that rely on interpersonal communication modes. The framework also addresses concerns regarding the value of local wisdom and provides an avenue for a lateral or horizontal communication movement that enables a more consultative, collaborative, and empowering CBDRRM practice. The uniqueness of the proposed framework is its intention to address the concerns of communities who are marginalised by their location, population, and communication access issues. The PRETE Framework aims to push pre-disaster communication and community engagement beyond its current neoliberal stance based on the experiences of marginalised communities. It intends to show the difficulties experienced by communities living in geographic isolation experiencing multiple socioeconomic inequalities, but the objective of the study is not confined to the matter of identifying a weak DRRM practice at the village level. The developed framework aims to expose other realities in DRRM that move it beyond attempts to win local and national awards for DRRM. Rather, it highlights the relationship between government and community in pre-disaster communication and community engagement, in particular, that neither

8.3 Implications for Theory and Practice

215

can survive on their own. Disaster preparedness and its communicative conditions, including community engagement, is a give-and-take relationship. Not all communities are intrinsically equipped to overcome the impacts of natural hazards; as such, multiple platforms need to be provided and made accessible for people so that they can prepare ahead. It is tough to live in GIDA communities, yet people living in these conditions are able to make do with their situations. The proposed framework, and this study in general, highlights this reality. The ability of GIDA communities to overcome on their own should not be used by the government to neglect them in this regard. Civil society expects everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law; in theory, RA 10121 ensures the safety of all the Filipino people with regard to natural hazards. However, the reality is, laws have implementing rules and guidelines that privilege certain groups of people and/or locations. The current National Plan and its rollout in the provinces, municipalities, and villages in the Philippines are framed from a neoliberal perspective that is concurrently impacted by the various political complications and leadership instability discussed in this study. Current communication interventions are styled for those who have access to information, yet access is dependent on an individual’s capacity to buy, learn, and understand. For the most part, these things are not easily accessible for GIDA communities because of their spatial isolation. This investigation on the intersection between disaster preparedness and community engagement through the lens of development communication demands that current DRRM practices recognise the assumptions inherent to its neoliberal stance. Disaster preparedness plans, projects, and activities should not be unconsciously anchored to the capacity to access. Access to pre-disaster information is a right, not a privilege.

8.3.2 Practical Implications This section suggests various ways of embedding the PRETE Framework in predisaster communication efforts. The communication tools suggested abide by the framework and may help expand individuals’ social network access to pre-disaster information. The proposed tools reflect what was observed in situ and what is available, and each tries to overcome some aspect of inequality. Some of the tools are already in current use the field in other capacities. I believe that the problems posed in this study in dealing with communities living in geographic isolation experiencing socioeconomic inequalities should be viewed as opportunities. In addition, it is concurrently imperative to acknowledge the problems faced by GIDA communities. Failure to recognise their issues and concerns means these communities will continue to be voiceless in DRRM. In context of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is likely that the ‘new normal’ may further isolate GIDA communities. Three specific recommendations are provided as potential communication tools that bridge the transitional and transformational levels of community engagement.

216

8 Engaging Isolated Communities: What’s Next?

These recommendations are tailored to the needs of the two field sites and can be used by several sectors in their pre-disaster communication efforts. First, I uphold the need to tap old community practices that are emerging today because of the COVID-19 pandemic. One example is the barter system, which was an old trade system that was practised in the Philippines during pre-Hispanic time. Today, the notion is experiencing a rebirth, and online barter groups are being formed. Even before the nomenclature ‘barter trade’ was reintroduced into current parlance, this practice, called an ex-deal (or X deal) was being used among social media influencers and other companies. Inspired by this idea of the barter system, I propose that a community member could provide pre-disaster information to GIDA communities through an exchange process. This person may be a resident, who, for example, has lost their job because of the pandemic but is trained in DRRM, and can thus start teaching and training people in the community. In return, the village leader can provide some form of payment for the services rendered. Next, as findings have shown, both government and community informants highlight the role of the youth in building community resilience. The first strategy in this regard is to ground pre-disaster communication in education and entertainment, especially in the form of gamification. This idea builds on the fact that there is an existing DRRM subject in the curriculum of senior high school students taking the science track. In tangent with this, it then seems imperative to provide teachers with the required teaching tools to build pre-disaster knowledge. Last, research suggests that experience plays a vital role in building pre-disaster knowledge that may aid in future decision-making. In the island village, the community was able to come up with their own plan because of their consistent experiences with typhoons. The upland village also started building pre-disaster knowledge based on their own experiences, although this was occasional. However, both field sites identified gamification as strategy to engage more people to participate in drills and trainings. Gamification is also seen as opportunity to sustain information transfer through annual competitions.

8.4 Future Research The results of this investigation uncover more questions relevant to the process of communicating and engaging with isolated and marginalised communities. Therefore, several future research directions are identified. The first suggested research trajectory would be an exploration of the impact of the PRETE Framework in GIDA communities, not just in the Philippines but also in other cultures that similarly value community relationships. Does the framework possess practical application? How will the proposed framework perform as a way of tracing an individual’s methods of expanding their social network? In what ways can the framework differentiate pre-disaster communication from engagement and later identify their meeting point?

8.5 Summary

217

Also in relation to the performance of the framework, it would seem necessary to continue to examine the way/s communication modes and tools are used and/ or the overall communicative condition in GIDA communities as it changes over time. Community informants of this study opined that their current local system works because of the number of actors involved in the communication process. This will be altered when/if communicative conditions in the area change, such as an increase in population. The results of any qualitative research are time bound, and can only explain social phenomenon for that specific period. Will the framework hold its ground over time in capturing the experiences of geographically isolated and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities? The PRETE Framework is grounded on power, relationships, and experiences. As such, it would be valuable for research to specifically trace the development of individuals gaining social power in a community, from building common bonds through socialisation activities to ultimately forming linking pathways with those who hold legitimate power in the community. To capture the essence of experiences in the framework, it would be worthwhile to investigate further what or who triggers action for disaster preparedness in these communities. Is the trigger the legitimate source of information (i.e., government) or are there other triggers? The second suggested research trajectory is for applied research that focusses on the design and testing of communication tools that bridge the transitional to transformational level of community engagement in pre-disaster communication. This research would explore the role of cocreation and community participation in developing communication tools that work in the context and with its needs. Practice-led research can focus on collaborative design or cocreation methodologies which tap into the power, relationships, and experiences of people that lead to the development of localised or customised activities and games. Data from this study suggest that show-and-tell activities and the gamification of disaster preparedness aid in communicating disaster preparedness information. Exploring education–entertainment as a process of message retention is also a possible research track.

8.5 Summary Overall, this investigation accomplished its aims in multiple ways. First, communication tools and modes were audited in situ and the way/s these are utilised in engaging isolated and disadvantaged communities to prepare for future natural calamities was documented. Second, using the communication tools and modes, this study was able to identify the level of engagement currently in place in the GIDA communities. This level of engagement does not cover communities that are not classified as GIDA, as these communities may have different communication conditions because of their geographic and socioeconomic factors, and would therefore have different experiences from GIDA residents. Third, the study proposes a framework that aims to bridge the transitional and transformational levels of community engagement.

218

8 Engaging Isolated Communities: What’s Next?

This proposed framework aims to fill the identified research gap (see Fig. 3.2), which is the intersection between disaster preparedness and community engagement in the context of geographic isolation and socioeconomic inequalities through the lens of development communication. Pre-disaster communication practices in the Philippines follow a top-down framework with few robust avenues for feedback, yet several of the current modes and tools of pre-disaster communication are already considered transformative by the government. The desire of this investigation is to encapsulate the communication experiences of both actors—government and community—in a framework that allows communication continuity following a lateral or horizontal flow. This way, there is a chance of slowly building a consultative, collaborative, and empowering pre-disaster communication, and a transformative level of community engagement practices can be attained. This investigation provides empirical evidence of the way/s LGUs engage geographically isolated and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities in the Philippines. It also proposes a framework that aims to connect the dissonance identified between the transitional and the transformational level of engagement using multiple communication modalities and tools that respond specifically to the context of geographic isolation and socioeconomic inequalities. It is hoped that through this research, the inequalities experienced by these marginalised communities are addressed, thus enabling a fairer and more inclusive approach to pre-disaster communication and management.

References Bowen, F., Newenham-Kahindi, A., & Herremans, I. (2010). When suits meet roots: The antecedents and consequences of community engagement strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(2), 297– 318. Dufty, N. (2011). Engagement or education? Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 26(3), 35–39. Hollebeek, L. (2011). Exploring customer brand engagement: Definition and themes. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19(7), 555–573. Johnston, K. A. (2018). Toward a theory of social engagement. In K. A. Johnston & M. Taylor (Eds.), The handbook of communication engagement (pp. 53–68). Wiley. Kanakis, K., & McShane, C. J. (2016). Preparing for disaster: Preparedness in a flood and cyclone prone community. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 31(2), 18–24. Li, X., & Feng, J. (2021). Empowerment or disempowerment: Exploring stakeholder engagement in nation branding through a mixed method approach to social network analysis. Public Relations Review, 47(3), art. 102024. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102024 Wilkins, K. G. (1996). Development communication. Peace Review, 8(1), 97–103.

Glossary

Barangay Filipino word for village; composed of 50–100 households; the words village and barangay are used interchangeably throughout the document. Bayanihan Filipino word for collective action or communal unity. Communication tools Refer to various kinds of communication tools used under a specific mode of communication. Dinagatnon Refers to the residents living in the island area. In situ On site. Island/upland area Discussion covers provincial, municipal, and village levels. Kanya-kanya Filipino word for her/his own, or each to their own; in some contexts this word means ‘self-serving’. Listo (vernacular) ready or prepared. Local DRRM offices/councils Catch-all phrase for provincial, municipal, and barangay DRRM offices. Local government units Collective term; refers to provincial, municipal, and village government units. Multimodal/multimodality Broad term that signifies the different types of communication tools defined by Seiler, Beall, and Mazer (2017) used to create meaning. These are interpersonal, public, and mass communication. Municipal council Municipal DRRM council. National council National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council. National plan National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan of the National Government. Provincial council Provincial DRRM council. Purok (vernacular) smaller unit in a village, composed of 20 households; also refers to a zone or area; also used to refer to an open hut in the barangay that is used as a public meeting place.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 D. J. Sumaylo, Engaging Isolated Communities in Disaster Preparation and Communication in the Philippines, Communication, Culture and Change in Asia 11, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-4697-6

219

220

Glossary

Republic Act 7160 Local Government Code of 1991. Republic Act 10121 Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010. Village council Barangay (village) DRRM council.