RESEARCH-PPT.ppyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

M

1. DISASTER AWARENESSES AND PREPAREDNESS: THE CASE OF BARANGAY BALUGO, IMELDA, ZAMBOANGA SIBUGAY Prepared by: Aurelia C. Salipot Roniely J. Rivera Willie Mar Q. Ranario

2. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY Nowadays, communities are exposed to a variety of risks, both natural and man-made. One of the nations with the highest risk of natural disasters is the Philippines. The Philippines ranks second highest in terms of risks associated with natural disasters as cited by Andriesse (2018). Regardless of its size or location, every municipalities needs to plan for emergencies and natural catastrophes. Although it is very difficult to account for every scenario that could arise, planning is essential for protecting lives in the event of an emergency. Among several municipalities situated within the basin, the frequent casualty is the Municipality of Imelda which is located on the lower end, being the sink or outlet of all floodwaters (NDRRM 2022).

3. THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) by Albert Bandura (1999) Social Capital Theory by Bourdieu (1986) and Coleman (1988)

4. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

5. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM What is the Socio-Economic profile of the residents in terms of 1.1 Gender 1.2 Age 1.3 Educational Attainment 1.4 Ethnicity What is the level of disaster awareness of the residents of Barangay Balugo , Imelda, Zamboanga Sibugay? What is the level of disaster preparedness of the residents of Barangay Balugo , Imelda, Zamboanga Sibugay? Is there a significant difference in terms of the level of disaster awareness of the residents when group according to Socio-Economic Profile Is there a significant difference in terms of the level of disaster preparedness of the residents when group according to Socio-Economic Profile Is there a significant relationship between Socio-Economic profile and the level of disaster awareness of the residents Is there a significant relationship between Socio-Economic Profile and the level of disaster preparedness of the residents Is there a significant relationship between Socio-Economic Profile and the level of disaster awareness and preparedness

6. HYPOTHESES Ho 3 . There is no significant relationship between Socio-Demographic profile and Disaster Awareness in Barangay Balugo , Imelda, Zamboanga Sibugay. Ho 2 . There is no significant difference between the Disaster Preparedness in Barangay Balugo , Imelda, Zamboanga Sibugay. Ho 4 . There is no significant relationship between Socio-Demographic Profile and Disaster Preparedness in Barangay Balugo , Imelda, Zamboanga Sibugay. Ho 5 . There is no significant relationship between Disaster Awareness and Disaster Preparedness in Barangay Balugo , Imelda, Zamboanga Sibugay. Ho 1 . There is no significant difference between the Disaster Awareness in Barangay Balugo , Imelda, Zamboanga Sibugay.

7. RESEARCH DESIGN Residents of Barangay Balugo , Imelda, Zamboanga Sibugay RESEARCH RESPONDENTS LOCALE OF THE STUDY Descriptive - Quantitative Barangay Balugo , Imelda, Zamboanga Sibugay

8. DATA GATHERING PROCEDURE Stratified random sampling SAMPLING PROCEDURE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT Five-point scale questionnaire (Pre-test is necessary for validity and reliability of the questionnaire.) Questionnaire-checklist

9. STATISTICAL TOOL Descriptive Statistics   Inferential Statistics Mann-Whitney U Test   Kruskal-Wallis Test   Chi-square .     Spearman Rank Correlation Test

10. SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Table 1.1 Distribution of Respondents by Gender Gender Frequency Percentage (%) Male 121 39.7 % Female 184 60.3 % Total 305 100% Table 1.2 Distribution of Respondents by Age Age Frequency Percentage (%) 18-32 153 50.2 % 33-47 82 26.9 % 48-60 70 23% Total 305 100%

11. Table 1.3 Distribution of Respondents by Educational Attainment Educational Attainment Frequency Percentage (%) Elementary Level 19 6.2 % Elementary Graduate 14 4.6 % High School Level 109 35.7 % High School Graduate 23 7.5 % Senior High School Level 24 7.9 % Senior High School Graduate 12 3.9 % College Level 56 18.4 % College Graduate 45 14.8 % Master's Degree 3 1.0 % Total 305 100% Table 1.4 Distribution of Respondents by Monthly Income Monthly Income Counts % of Total 500.00-17,000.00 280 91.8 % 17,001.00-33,501.00 24 7.9 % 33,502.00-50,003.00 1 0.3 % Total 305 100%

12. Interval Descriptive Interpretation Frequency % of Total 1.00-1.79 Not All Aware 6 1.97 1.80-2.59 Somewhat Aware 38 12.46 2.60-3.39 Aware 48 15.74 3.40-4.19 Well-Aware 108 35.41 4.20-5.00 Very Well-Aware 105 34.43 Total 305 100 Weighted Mean 3.68 Remark W ell-Aware Interval Descriptive Interpretation Frequency % of Total 1.00-1.79 Not All Prepared 2 0.66 1.80-2.59 Somewhat Prepared 26 8.52 2.60-3.39 Prepared 57 18.69 3.40-4.19 Well-Prepared 113 37.05 4.20-5.00 Very Well-Prepared 107 35.08 Total 305 100 Weighted Mean 3.77 Remark W ell-Prepared Level of Disaster Awareness Level of Disaster Preparedness

13.   -value Degrees of Freedom p-value Interpretation Age   3.16 2 0.206 Not Significant Educational Attainment 7.40 8 0.494 Not Significant Monthly Income   2.10   2   0.350 Not Significant   Degrees of Freedom p-value Interpretation Age   3.16 2 0.206 Not Significant Educational Attainment 7.40 8 0.494 Not Significant Monthly Income   2.10   2   0.350 Not Significant Difference on the Level of Disaster Awareness when grouped in terms of Socio-economic profile Difference on the Level of Disaster Preparedness when grouped in terms of Socio-economic profile   Gender       Statistic       p       Interpretation   Male   Female   M   SD   n   M   SD   n   3.63   0. 900   121   3.71   0. 878   184   10554   . 442   Not Significant   -value Degrees of Freedom p-value Interpretation Age 1.89   2 0.389 Not Significant Educational Attainment 10.5 8 0.233 Not Significant Monthly Income 2.58 2 0.275 Not Significant   Degrees of Freedom p-value Interpretation Age 1.89   2 0.389 Not Significant Educational Attainment 10.5 8 0.233 Not Significant Monthly Income 2.58 2 0.275 Not Significant   Gender       Statistic       p       Interpretation   Male   Female   M   SD   n   M   SD   n   3.73   0. 878   121   3.80   0. 748   184   10782   . 642   Not Significant

14.   Value df p Remark Gender 1.32 4 0.858 Not Significant Age 9.98 8 0.267 Not Significant Educational Attainment 9.98 8 0.267 Not Significant Monthly Income 5.64 8 0.687 Not Significant N 305       df =”Degrees of Freedom”, p=”Probability Value”   Relationship between Socio-economic profile and the Level of Disaster Awareness in terms of their Socio-economic profile Relationship between Socio-economic profile and the Level of Disaster Preparedness in terms of their Socio-economic profile   Value df p Remark Gender 5.37 4 0.251 Not Significant Age 17.1 8 0.029 Significant Educational Attainment 46.5 32 0.047 Significant Monthly Income 8.40 8 0.395 Not Significant N 305       df =”Degrees of Freedom”, p=”Probability Value”  

15. Variables Spearman Rho Remark p-value Interpretation Disaster Awareness and Preparedness 0.767 Moderate <.001 Highly Significant Significant relationship between Socio-economic profile and the level of disaster awareness and preparedness of the residents

16. CONCLUSIONS On the bases of the previous findings, the researchers arrived at the following conclusions: (1) the level of disaster awareness among the residents is “Well-Aware”; (2) the level of disaster preparedness among the residents is “Well-Prepared”; (3) the level of disaster awareness among the residents when grouped according to Socio-economic profile have no significant difference; (4) the level of disaster preparedness among the residents when grouped according to Socio-economic profile have no significant difference; (5) there is no significant relationship between Socio-economic profile and the level of disaster awareness among the residents; (6) the relationship between Socio-economic profile and the level of disaster preparedness of the residents in terms of age and educational attainment has a significant relationship and there is no significant relationship in terms of gender, and monthly income; (7) there is highly significant relationship between the level of disaster awareness and preparedness among the residents.

17. RECOMMENDATIONS The researchers have formulated the following recommendations: (1) It is recommended to implement continued educational seminars and workshops. (2) the local disaster risk management should develop and distribute a handbook or manual containing basic survival and safety measures during disasters. (3) maintaining a comprehensive list of all contact agencies that residents can reach out to for assistance and information during emergencies is crucial. (4) volunteer and Get Trained, consider volunteering with local disaster response organizations or taking training courses in first aid, CPR, or disaster preparedness.

18. THANK YOU