Vulnerability Assessment of Pangasinan Province to

Typhoons, Floods and Landslides

R D Estember1,a) and M C M Abiog1,b)
1
School of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Mapúa University, 658 Muralla St., Intramuros,
Manila 1002, Philippines
a)
Corresponding author: rdestember@yahoo.com
b)
kittyabiog@gmail.com

Abstract.This paper analyse the vulnerability of Pangasinan province among the top of typhoon and flood-prone
provinces in the country by using exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity of a system. The study aims is to
identify the cities/municipalities in the province that are most vulnerable to the three natural hazards. The exposure
index, sensitivity index, adaptive capacity index, and overall vulnerability index of each city/municipality were
computed to develop mitigation strategies especially during calamities. The study found five towns of 48 towns
were identified as the most vulnerable areas in Pangasinan which are Dagupan City, Calasiao, Bolinao, Sual, and
Santa Barbara. Furthermore, 12 locales were identified as not vulnerable and the remaining 29 were determined as
mildly vulnerable.

INTRODUCTION
Each year, approximately 232 million people are affected by natural disasters, 100, 000 people are died and more
than US$100 billion global in harm between 2001 and 2010 [1]. Natural hazard is hydrological, atmospheric and
geophysical incident such as tsunami, earthquake, drought, flood or windstorm which caused damage or loss and
natural disaster is severe hazardous incident which affected the natural and built environment of affected regions
[2,3]. Recent major natural disasters in Asia such as Pakistani Kashmir earthquake in 2005, 2004 tsunami in Indian
Ocean, Great East Japan earthquake in 2011 and cyclone Nargis hit Myanmar in 2008 which caused severe damage
and losses [4-6].

The Philippines is among top five high-risk countries which experienced natural disasters such as earthquake,
flash floods, mudslides, typhoon and volcanic eruptions [7]. The Philippines had experienced five floods, eight
storms in form of tropical cyclones and earthquake in 2013 [8]. The landslides occurred in the areas which
surrounded by the mountains and coastlines. Based on Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Mines
and Geo-Science Bureau (DENR0MGB) had listed top 10 landslides prone provinces such as Benguet, Mountain
Province, Nueve Vizcaya, Kalinga Apayao, Southern Leyte, Abra, Marinduque, Cebu, Catanduanes, and Ifugao.
Meanwhile, top flood prone provinces were Pampanga, Nueva Ecija, Pangasinan, Tarlac, Maguindanao, Bulacan,
Metro Manila, North Cotabato, Oriental Mindoro, and Ilocos Norte.

Besides, Pangasinan province also listed as flood and typhoon -prone province and located in the west central
area of Luzon, proved to be vulnerable to those disasters. Pangasinan is third biggest province in the Philippines
which constituted almost 42% of the region and 2% of total Philippine area. There are 28% or 49 out of 175
typhoons that entered the Philippine area of responsibility directly affected the province. The Pangasinan’s
Provincial Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (PDRRMC) had reported total of 405 casualties due to

4th Electronic and Green Materials International Conference 2018 (EGM 2018)
AIP Conf. Proc. 2045, 020060-1–020060-7; https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5080873
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1771-7/$30.00

020060-1
typhoons which 188 were reported died, 183 people injured and 34 people were missing. The study aims was to
identify the cities/municipalities in the province that are most vulnerable to the three natural hazards.

METHODOLOGY
In this study, the index based approach to analyse vulnerability. The vulnerability indicators and computation of
the overall vulnerability index applied to the city/municipality level were utilized. Table 1 showed the vulnerability
indicators for this study.

Table1. Indicators for vulnerability

Weight Sub-index Weight Category Weight Indicators
0.33 Typhoons 1.00 Frequency of
typhoon
0.33 Floods 1.00 Frequency of
0.33 Exposure
flood
0.33 Landslides 1.00 Frequency of
landslides
0.70 Human 1.00 Population
Sensitivity density
0.33 Sensitivity
0.30 Ecological 1.00 Protected areas
Sensitivity
0.50 0.50 Human
development
index
Socio-
0.28 Poverty
economics
incidence
0.22 Income
Adaptive
0.33 inequality
capacity
Technology 0.53 Electricity
coverage
0.25
0.47 Extent of
irrigation
0.25 Infrastructure 0.50 Road density
0.50 Communication

The exposure meant frequency of typhoon was measured in terms of event numbers between 2007 and 2016 and
frequency of floods and landslides were measured based on the event numbers between 2010 and 2016. The
sensitivity was measured based on population density and protected area. Meanwhile, adaptive capacity had
measured human development index (HDI), poverty incidence, electricity coverage and road density.

The primary data was obtained by visiting and communicating with national government agencies and provincial
and local government units such as the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services
Administration (PAGASA), Provincial Disaster Risk Reduction Management Council (PDRRMC) and Municipal/
City Disaster Risk Reduction Management Council (MDRRMC/CDRRMC) of each city/municipality, Provincial
Planning and Development Office (PPDO), Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), and Department of Interior and
Local Government (DILG).

The indicators had either positive or negative impacted on vulnerability. The indicators with positive relationship
meant indicators value increased and vulnerability also increased and vice versa. The indicators were normalized
followed UNDP’s Human Development Index (HDI) methodology. Normalization process is done so that all
indicator values is lie within 0 and 1, where 0 is less vulnerable and 1 is highly vulnerable. Overall vulnerability is a
function of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity was calculated for climate change vulnerability index:

020060-2
 The exposure, sensitivity, adaptive capacity and overall vulnerability of each city and municipality were assessed
and ranked from most vulnerable to the least. The index ranged from 0 and 1, where 0 is less vulnerable and 1 is
highly vulnerable.

An evacuation plan was developed for most vulnerable cities/municipalities through Optimization (Transport
Model). The recommendations for risk-mitigating solutions and interventions helped the provincial and local
government to develop or improve the disaster planning process, strategies and management were also provided.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

All indicators, categories and sub-indices were ranked and categorized in terms of vulnerability. Table 2 had
defined vulnerability that were assigned to each city/municipality. The interval class for each vulnerability level was
computed based on the actual values of each indicator and the normalized values of each category and sub-index.

Based on this study, Dagupan City vulnerable locale in whole Pangasinan province. Dagupan City as fell under
“Highly Vulnerable” category even though had mildly vulnerable in the exposure and adaptive capacity aspects.
Most densely populated location in the province and therefore, highly sensitive to natural disasters. Meanwhile,
Calasiao, Bolinao, Sual and Santa Barbara were categorized under “Moderately Vulnerable”. Calasiao and Santa
Barbara had high exposure despite high in adaptive capacity. These two municipalities had been identified as flood-
prone areas as well as Dagupan City. Sual and Bolinao also had low sensitivity, however Bolinao had low adaptive
capacity and Sual had high exposure caused these cities fall under “Moderately Vulnerable” category in overall
assessment.

In contrast, least vulnerable locations in the province were Mangatareem, Alaminos City, Asingan, Tayug,
Villasis, San Quintin, San Manuel, Infant, Manaoag, Pozorrubio, Labrador and Natividad. An evacuation plan was
developed by using transport modelling. The results proved that three factors such as exposure, sensitivity and
adaptive capacity are all equally significant. Dangupan City had high vulnerability was primarily due to its high
human sensitivity. The population density is not directly controlled by regulations and the population’s high coping
capacity only protected against natural hazards. In additions, Calasio had moderately high exposure and sensitivity.
Calasiao and Santa Barbara are flood-prone locations since preventative steps had been employed to avoid or
mitigate flooding. The improvement in electricity access, irrigation and communication increased coping capacity
and decreased the vulnerability.

In vulnerability of Pangasinan province assessment, the result also proved that three factors such as exposure,
sensitivity and adaptive capacity were equally significant. However, adaptive capacity was aspect that is within
immediate influence of local government. The daptive capacity improvement also had indirect implications on
improving the exposure degree and sensitivity of the population. Hence, the exposure of the province toward
typhoon would be remain consistent in following years or worsen due to climate change. The flood management
system helped decrease the frequency of flood especially cities and municipalities which identified as flood-prone.
In additions, enforcement of precautionary measurement also reduce landslides occurrence.

In general, the natural resource protection needed for strengthened for the whole province. The technology and
infrastructure also significant components which increased adaptive capability of the province. Besides, irrigation
facilities improvement meant more irrigated area resulted less heat and drought impacts [9]. Furthermore, the road
network improvements meant increased in accessibility for some areas in term of transportation and communication
improvements lead to increase number of population in the province in term of telecommunication. The province’s
capacities for monitoring, forecasting, hazard identification, early warning and risk evaluation need to be
strengthened to improve awareness level and preparedness of the government as well as the community.

020060-3
 Table 2. Vulnerability levels
Sub-Index/ Not Mildly Moderately Highly
Category Indicators
Index Vulnerable Vulnerable Vulnerable Vulnerable
Frequency of
Typhoon
Typhoon 0-12 13-25 26-38 39-51
Risk Map
(number)
Frequency of
Flood Risk
Flood 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20
Map
Exposure (number)
Frequency of
Landslide
Landslides 0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7
Risk Map
(number)
0.084- 0.168- 0.252-
OVERALL 0-0.083
0.167 0.251 0.335
Population
Human 107- 1063- 2019- 2975-
Density
Sensitivity 1062 2018 2974 3930
(pop./sq.km.)
Sensitivity Ecological Protected
8-10.6 5.3-7.9 2.7-5.2 0-2.6
Sensitivity Areas (%)
0.0822- 0.3118- 0.5414- 0.7710-
OVERALL
0.3117 0.5413 0.7709 1
Population
Socio-
Density 0.75-1 0.50-0.74 0.25-0.49 0-0.24
Economics
(pop./sq.km.)
Protected 16.9-
7-10.2 10.3-13.5 13.6-16.8
Areas (%) 20.1
Population
Density 0-0.24 0.25-0.49 0.50-0.74 0.75-1
(pop./sq.km.)
Protected 0.24-
0-0.07 0.08-0.15 0.16-0.23
Areas (%) 0.31
Population
Technology Density 94-106 81-93 68-80 55-67
(pop./sq.km.)
Adaptive
Protected 76.8-
capacity 53-76.7 29.2-52.9 5.4-29.1
Areas (%) 100.5
Population
0.1767- 0.3238- 0.4709- 0.6180-
Density
0.3237 0.4708 0.6179 0.765
(pop./sq.km.)
Protected 4.14- 2.93- 1.72- 0.51-
Infrastructure
Areas (%) 5.34 4.13 2.92 1.71
Population
75.37-
Density 70.76-75.36 66.15-70.75 61.54-66.14
79.97
(pop./sq.km.)
Protected 0.0759- 0.2934- 0.5109- 0.7284-
Areas (%) 0.2933 0.5108 0.7283 0.9458
0.1391- 0.2453- 0.3515- 0.4577-
OVERALL
0.2452 0.3514 0.4576 0.5638
0.1694- 0.2415- 0.3136- 0.3857-
Overall VI
0.2414 0.3135 0.3856 0.4577

020060-4
Table 3. Top 10 cities /municipalities with highest and lowest exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity indices.
Highest Lowest
City/Municipality Vulnerability Level City/Municipality Vulnerability Level
Exposure Index
Santa Maria Highly Vulnerable Aguilar Not Vulnerable
Sual Highly Vulnerable Anda Not Vulnerable
Santa Barbara Highly Vulnerable Asingan Not Vulnerable
City of Alaminos Moderately Vulnerable Bayambang Not Vulnerable
Laoac Moderately Vulnerable Manaoag Not Vulnerable
Calasiao Moderately Vulnerable Mangaldan Not Vulnerable
Bolinao Mildly Vulnerable Mapandan Not Vulnerable
Balungao Mildly Vulnerable Pozorrubio Not Vulnerable
Labrador Mildly Vulnerable City of San Carlos Not Vulnerable
Natividad Mildly Vulnerable San Jacinto Not Vulnerable
Sensitivity Index
City of Dagupan Highly Vulnerable City of Alaminos Not Vulnerable
Mangaldan Moderately Vulnerable Mangatarem Not Vulnerable
Calasiao Moderately Vulnerable Mabini Not Vulnerable
Lingayen Moderately Vulnerable Infanta Not Vulnerable
Basista Moderately Vulnerable Burgos Not Vulnerable
Mapandan Moderately Vulnerable Dasol Not Vulnerable
Santo Tomas Moderately Vulnerable Agno Not Vulnerable
Binmaley Moderately Vulnerable Sual Not Vulnerable
Binalonan Mildly Vulnerable San Nicolas Not Vulnerable
Alcala Mildly Vulnerable Labrador Mildly Vulnerable
Adaptive Capacity Index
Agno Highly Vulnerable Lingayen Not Vulnerable
Mabini Highly Vulnerable Binalonan Not Vulnerable
Bolinao Highly Vulnerable City of Urdaneta Not Vulnerable
Dasol Highly Vulnerable Alcala Not Vulnerable
Urbiztondo Moderately Vulnerable Mangaldan Not Vulnerable
Umingan Moderately Vulnerable Santa Maria Not Vulnerable
Burgos Moderately Vulnerable Basista Not Vulnerable
Aguilar Moderately Vulnerable Santo Tomas Not Vulnerable
Bugallon Moderately Vulnerable Asingan Not Vulnerable
Bani Moderately Vulnerable Santa Barbara Not Vulnerable

020060-5
 Table 4. Top cities/municipalities with highest and lowest overall vulnerability index.
Highest Lowest
City/Municipality Vulnerability Index City/Municipality Vulnerability Index
City of Dagupan 0.4574 Mangatarem 0.1694
Calasiao 0.3706 City of Alaminos 0.2034
Bolinao 0.3282 Asingan 0.2187
Sual 0.3245 Tayug 0.2207
Santa Barbara 0.3228 Villasis 0.2224
Mangaldan 0.3123 San Quintin 0.2235
Laoac 0.3040 San Manuel 0.2266
Santa Maria 0.3026 Infanta 0.2285
Binmaley 0.3000 Manaoag 0.2306
Agno 0.2987 Pozorrubio 0.2309

A vulnerability map of the Pangasinan province had been created to accentuate the vulnerability of the cities and
municipalities. The different vulnerability levels were assigned specific colour codes as shown in Fig. 1. The city of
Dagupan is the most vulnerable and is also the only town that was categorized as “Highly Vulnerable.” The
municipalities Calasiao, Santa Barbara, Sual, and Bolinao closely follow as “Moderately Vulnerable” areas.

FIGURE 1. Vulnerability map of Pangasinan.

020060-6
 CONCLUSION

The study revealed Dagupan City was the most vulnerable location out of 44 municipalities and 4 cities. The
reasons due to highest population density which resulted to its high sensitivity. Although the city is only mildly
exposed to disasters and had relatively good adaptive capacity, those factors were not able to downscale its overall
vulnerability to natural hazards. Four municipalities were identified as moderately vulnerable, 31 municipalities as
mildly vulnerable, and 12 municipalities as not vulnerable. A vulnerability map was created to visually emphasize
the vulnerability levels of each city/municipality. An evacuation plan was developed for the five areas that had the
highest vulnerability to adapt in major disaster or serve an example in developing alternative evacuation plans.

REFERENCES

1. P. Brown et al., “Natural disasters, social protection and risk perceptions,” World Development, vol.104,
no.2018, (2018), pp.310-325. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.12.002
2. O. Petrucci, “The impact of natural disasters: simplified procedures and open problems,” In J. Tiefenbacher
(Ed.) Approaches to managing disasters- assessing hazards, emergencies and disaster impacts, (2012),
pp.110-133. doi: 10.5772/29147
3. Mata-Lima, H. Mata-Lima et al., “Impacts of natural disasters on environmental and socio-economic systems:
what makes the difference?” Ambiente and Sociedade, vol.16, no.3, (2013), pp.45-64. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1414-753X2013000300004
4. I. Noy et al., “The economics of natural disasters in a developing country: the case of Vietnam,” Journal of
Asian Economic, vol.21, no.2010, (2010), pp.345-354. doi: 10.1016/j.asieco.2010.03.002
5. K.Pongponrat et al., “Social vulnerability of marginalized people in times of disaster: case of Thai women in
Japan tsunami 2011,” International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol.27, no.2018, (2018), pp.133-141.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.09.047
6. M. Besset et al., “The impact of cyclone Nargis on the Ayeyarwady (Irrawaddy) River delta shoreline and
nearshore zone (Myanmar): toward degraded delta resilience?” Comptes Rendus Geoscience, vol.349, no.2017,
(2017), pp.238-247. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crte.2017.09.002
7. L. J. Labrague et al., “Disaster preparedness in Philippine Nurses,” Journal of Nursing Scholarship, vol.48,
no.1,pp.1-8, 2015. doi: 10.1111/jnu.12186
8. M. A. Salazar et al., “Post-disaster health impact of natural hazards in the Philippines in 2013,” Global Health
Action, vol.9, 2013. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/gha.v9.31320
9. T. Zhang et al., “Adaptive effectiveness of irrigated area expansion in mitigating the impacts of climate change
on crop yields in Northern China,” Sustainability, vol.9, no.5, pp.851, 2017. doi: 10.3390/su9050851

020060-7