Activity 12: Technical Report

Group Name: Nuclear Pata Team

Group Members (Degree Programs)

Durante, Patricia Ann (BS Mining Engineering)
Miranda, Gerilene (BA Applied Psychology)
Navarro, Alyssa Rae (BA Applied Psychology)
Ramirez, Jansen Jeff (B Landscape Architecture)
Sundiang, Sofia Louise (BS Family Life and Child Development)

Report Outline

I. Research Problem and Objectives

A. Statement of Research Problem
B. Objectives
C. Target Audience
II. Situationer
A. History or backstory
1. Specific nature of the hazard and its accompanying hazard risks
2. Backstories on the nature and extent of past disaster
3. Vulnerability, exposure, and capacity
B. Local experiences, knowledge, and responses
C. Trends and projections for the future
III. Risk Assessment Methodology
A. Sampling
1. Convenience Sampling
2. Advantages of Convenience Sampling
B. Data Collection
1. Qualitative Risk Assessment
a) Interview with LGU
b) FGD with local community
2. Quantitative Risk Assessment
a) Objective Risk Assessment Tool
C. Data Analysis
1. Quantitative Approach
2. Tool derived from Tool for a Simplified, Site-Specific Evaluation of
Rain-Induced Landslide Susceptibility by Peckley and Bagtang (2010)
3. Risk assessment: Factor of Safety
a) Factor of Stability
4. Other risk factors
a) Vegetation cover
b) Reduction of shear strength
D. Instrument
1. Philippine Council for Industry, Energy and Emerging Technology
Research and Development (PCIEERD) landslide tool
E. Consent Forms for FGD and Interviews
 1. Purpose of the Study
2. Subject Participation
3. Study Procedure
4. Benefits and Potential Risks
5. Rights and Responsibilities of Participants
6. Data Handling and Data Privacy
F. References
G. Appendices
1. Group Processes of Collaboration and Decision Making
2. Group Consent

Research Problem and Objectives

Statement of Research Problem

A case study and risk assessment of the 2018 landslide in Barangay Tinaan, Naga
City, Cebu

Objectives

The case study aims to:

I. (Mining Engineering & Landscape Architecture) Assess the effectivity of
engineering interventions and city planning strategies employed by the
LGU for landslide risk management
II. (Applied Psychology) Identify and assess existing psychological first aid
services provided by the LGU
III. (Family Life and Child Development) Describe the role and effectiveness of
families in collaborating with the LGU for information dissemination and
landslide preparedness

Target Audience

The target audience of the study is the Local Government Unit of Naga, Cebu
and the Barangay Council of Brgy. Tina-an, Naga, Cebu where the 2018 Cebu took
place. Specifically, this case study aims to work close with the barangay council, the
local DRRM unit, the mayor, and the Mines abd Geosciences Bureau 7. Additionally,
this case study enjoins the local community members of Barangay Tina-an who were
primarily affected by the landslide and are still recovering from its effects. These target
audiences are the primary actors in the disaster risk and mitigation in the event of
another landslide.

Situationer

History or backstory: Specific nature of the hazard and its accompanying hazard risks

Naga City, Cebu is a city along the coastline of Cebu with a total number of 28
barangays. Among the barangays in the city is Tinaan which represents 5.60% of the
total population of Naga (PhilAtlas, n.d.). Cebu, as a whole, is part of the Central
 Philippines Region that lies within the Philippine Mobile Belt (PMB). This region is
recognized to be a deforming and seismically active zone (Lagmay et al., 2008).
Moreover, a potentially active fault system near the area was discovered to be a
northeast-trending fault system which consists of two major structures: The Central
and South Cebu Faults (Miasco, 2017).

On September 20, 2018, a massive landslide struck the community which

claimed 78 lives, left damages to 50 properties, and displaced 8,000 residents (Erram
& Abatayo, 2020). Overall, the areas affected by the landslide covered the crown area
of Sitio Tagaytay and the toe area of Sitio Sindulan in Barangay Tinaan (Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Mines and Geosciences Bureau, 2018).
Additionally, Apo Land & Quarry Corporation’s quarry area was also affected by the
landslide. In reference to the potentially active fault systems from the area of the Naga
landslide, two earthquakes were reported in 2018 by the Philippine Seismic Network
(Lagmay et al., 2020). These earthquakes were specifically noted with 3.0 and 3.4
magnitude, less than 33 km deep, with their epicenters located 3 km from the Naga
landslide.

Based on the assessment of the landslide, there were already early warning
signs of developing fractures particularly at the headscarp a month before the disaster
happened. Despite this, no action was taken by the villagers of Sitio Sindulan,
Barangay Tinaan (Lagmay et al., 2020). According to the anatomy assessment of
Lagmay et al. (2020), the Naga landslide was a debris avalanche which displayed
characteristics of rapid mass movement. Particularly, the Naga landslide was classified
to be a rockslide-debris avalanche since it was relatively dry and did not form debris
flow at the proximal part of the deposits. The material of the Naga landslide consisted
of Carcar and Barili formations that were largely uncemented, soft to semi-hard, and
could easily crumble.

The review of the 2018-2022 Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management
(DRRM) Plan of the City Government of Naga was able to identify areas near the
headscarp were highly susceptible to landslides (CDRRMO of Naga City, Cebu, 2018).
This report may have served as the basis as to why highland areas near the
headscarp were evacuated. Meanwhile, the hard hit lowland areas were mapped out
to have low susceptibility to landslide hazards. From this event, emphasis on the need
for accurate landslide susceptibility maps that were curated on a good understanding
of landslide kinematics should be considered as part of disaster prevention efforts.

History or backstory: Backstories on the nature and extent of past disaster

A chronological summary of past incidents and communications leading to the

2018 landslide was summarized in a briefer published by MGB7 (Mines and
Geosciences Bureau, 2022).

Aside from landslide incidents, the locality of Barangay Tinaan has had a history
of flooding since 1949. In 2007, a rockfall incident occurred in the area. An analysis by
Veracrus et al. (2019) indicated that accompanied by the rockfall incident was the
presence of intermittent ground cracks within the area.
 After a geohazard mapping conducted in August 28, 2008, Barangay Tinaan,
Naga City was classified as an area with Moderate Susceptibility to landslide and High
Susceptibility to flooding. After informing the barangay councilor of the data obtained
from the field, the MGB team involved recommended the relocation of residents in Sitio
Sindulan and Sitio Taylor Ville (Mines and Geosciences Bureau, 2022).

In May 28, 2011, a rockfall incident was reported in the area following intermittent
heavy to moderate rains. Three days after, a landslide occurred in the adjacent
Barangay Naalad, causing another incident of rockfall, which was said to be influenced
by the lithology of the area, the slope of the mountain where the incident occurred, and
the heavy rainfall that occurred days before. It was reported that a hanging slab was
left by the rockfall, which was labeled a hazard to the nearby residents near the foot of
the mountain (Mines and Geosciences Bureau, 2022).

A geological assessment was conducted on August 29, 2018 after fissures and
cracks were found in some limestones within the mining tenement of Apo Land and
Quarry Corporation (ALQC) in Sitio Tagaytay, Barangay Tinaan. According to the
report, the cracks or fissures were considered a natural phenomenon and cannot be
attributed to the mining operation. Constant monitoring of said cracks/fissures were
recommended (Mines and Geosciences Bureau, 2022).

On September 13, 2018, typhoon Ompong was expected to make landfall in the
Philippines days after, prompting the MGB to send a Threat Advisory to the Office of
the Naga City Mayor. Five days later, a follow-up investigation on the previously
assessed fissures and cracks in limestones within the ALQC tenement was conducted.
A joint investigation was conducted by the Bureau together with Tinaan barangay
officials, LGU representatives, and ALQC representatives. The cracks and fissures
found were reported to be longer and wider compared to the previous report (Mines
and Geosciences Bureau, 2022).

The catastrophic September 20, 2018 landslide occurred at around 6 a.m. in

Barangay Tinaan, Naga City, Cebu, which claimed 77 lives, injured 7 local residents,
damaged 57 houses, and affected at least 8000 people. Neighboring barangays
affected by the event were Barangay Mainit, Barangay Inoburan, and Barangay
Naalad (Veracruz et al., 2019). Lagmay et al. (2020) concluded in a study that the
event was not simply a landslide but a debris avalanche.

A previous landslide frequently assessed alongside the 2018 Naga City

Landslide is the 2006 Guinsaugon debris avalanche, which occurred in February 2006
in Leyte Island. The avalanche was caused by the failure of a 450-meter-high rock
slope, which resulted in a death toll of at least 1,100 victims, and caused the burial of
Barangay Guinsaugon (Evans et al., 2007). The presence of rice paddy fields at the
valley bottom was said to have increased the landslide risk (Guthrie et al., 2009). The
volume of material that collapsed was reported to be 15 Mm3, with a runout horizontal
distance of 3.8 km over a vertical distance of 810 m (Evans et al., 2007). A
side-by-side comparison of the 2018 Naga City landslide and the 2006 Guinsaugon
landslide by Veracruz et al. (2019) showed that the mechanisms for both events
differed, as the 2006 avalanche was categorized as a rockslide-debris avalanche,
 while the 2018 landslide was a translational block slide. On the other hand, both
events occurred days after a period of very heavy rainfall.

Another historic landslide incident often compared to the 2018 Naga City
landslide is the 1628 Iriga debris avalanche. In 1628, a debris avalanche caused the
collapse of the southeast side of Mount Iriga in Iriga City, Camarines Sur. The collapse
triggered a small phreatic eruption right after. The collapsed material was found to
have a volume of 1.5 km3 and covered 70 km2. No evidence was found regarding what
caused the collapse. Similar to the 2018 Naga City landslide, heavy rainfall was also
pointed out as a possible factor that contributed to the avalanche, in addition to
seismic activity and intrusion of a basaltic or andesitic dike (Aguila et al., 1986).

It was concluded in a study by Lagmay, et al. (2020) that the 2018 Naga City
landslide, 2006 Guinsaugon avalanche, and the 1628 Iriga avalanche were all
classified under debris avalanches.

History or backstory: Vulnerability, exposure, and capacity

Regarding exposure. According to a review of the Naga City Government's

2018–2022 Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) Plan by Lagmay
et al. (2020), the areas close to the headscarp were classified as having low
susceptibility to landslides, whereas the distal areas buried by the Naga landslide were
classified as having high susceptibility. Barangay Tinaan in particular was classified to
have moderate susceptibility to landslide risk (CDRRMO of Naga City, Cebu, 2018;
Philippines Cities Disaster Mitigation Project, 2001). This may have been the reason
why the highland areas close to the headscarp were evacuated, but not the hard-hit
lowland communities, which were 1.2 km from the Naga landslide's source and had
been mapped to have minimal vulnerability to landslide threats. This underlines
unequivocally the significance of landslide hazard maps as the foundation for efforts to
prevent disasters.

Regarding vulnerability. A 2020 census revealed that Barangay Tinaan’s

population to be 7,457, making up around 5.6% of the total population of the city of
Naga, Cebu (Census of Population, 2020). Vulnerable groups such as children under
five years old and people over 50 years old make up approximately 10% and 16.5% of
its population respectively (PhilAtlas, n.d.). There are no specific data on the
socio-economic profile of the barangay specifically, but it has been noted that the
poverty incidence estimate for Central Visayas as of 2022 is 27.6%, meaning 27 out of
100 families have incomes that cannot sustain their basic human needs–coincidentally
increasing their vulnerability to disaster risk (Philippine Statistics Authority, 2022).

Regarding capacity. As previously mentioned, the city of Naga has appropriate

disaster risk reduction and management plans in place. However the events from the
2018 landslide have shown that the landslide hazard maps are inaccurate which have
resulted in the non-evacuation of lowland affected areas (CDRRMO of Naga City,
Cebu, 2018; Philippines Cities Disaster Mitigation Project, 2001). However, studies by
the Mines and Geosciences Bureau back in 2020 have resulted in new hazard maps,
which the LGU is pushing to implement into their DRRM plans (Erram & Abatayo,
2020).
Local experiences, knowledge and responses

Less than a month prior to the massive landslide that occurred in Barangay
Tinaan, Naga, Cebu, the Mines and Geosciences Bureau Regional Office 7 (MGB7)
wrote a letter to the Naga Mayor about existing cracks and fissures in Sitio Sindulan
and Sitio Tagaytay (Tizon, 2018). Although the letter stated that the cracks and fissures
did not pose a threat to the communities, the city mayor had already ordered a cease
and desist for mining and quarrying operations for Apo Land and Quarry Corporation
following an earlier incident report about the area. Mining operations were allowed to
resume provided they fulfilled increased monitoring, safety, and reporting conditions.
However, by September 11, the small cracks had enlarged to 35 mm (Tizon, 2018),
prompting the local government and ALQC to evacuate the community the day before
the landslide occurred. However, residents that lived downslope were not part of those
made to evacuate. After the occurrence of the landslide, MGB7 stresses that they
have been giving previous warnings of the dangers of quarrying activities due to
limestone and the need to evacuate nearby communities.

Many residents have been opposed to the mining operations of Apo Land and
Quarry Corporation at Naga, Cebu. These complaints revolved around land ownership
disputes, where several claimed that the mining group is operating on land that they
privately own (Popioco, 2018). Others complain about the disruption the company has
brought to daily living, especially the noise of the operations. Residents have stated
that no public dialogue or hearing took place to discuss their qualms about the
quarrying operations.

In the wake of the disaster, residents described the beginning stages like it was
an earthquake coupled with loud banging sounds (Ropero, 2018). The disaster
happened so quickly, others immediately anticipated land to begin rushing into their
homes, and many immediately sought evacuation and refuge trying to gather their
children and loved ones. Many were unfortunate and could not make it out on time
leaving them trapped under the debris. There were reports of text messages being
sent by survivors from under the rubble asking to be rescued (BBC News, 2018).

Relocation for the families affected by the landslide was a slow and long
process. The local government, the Department of Welfare, and former President
Duterte himself promised the families that they would cover expenses for burials and
relocation. The government offered families the option of financial assistance or
relocation, many chose the latter. But almost a year later, there were reports that the
construction of new housing had not even begun (Ecarma, 2019). Two years later,
some families have returned and rebuilt their homes in Barangay Tinaan where ground
zero of the landslide is located. Images of the area show that residents are rebuilding
their lives and trying to return to life before the disaster (Erram, 2020).

Trends and projections for the future

Almost five years after the massive landslide incident in Barangay Tana-an,
Naga City, Cebu, the locality may seem to look like it has reclaimed the days before
the catastrophe took place. In 2020, stories from the locals have made their way to the
news revealing that they have started their lives again by building new homes at the
lots in the Sitios that were provided by Apo Land and Quarry Corp. (ALQC) - the
cement manufacturing company that used to operate in the landslide site and blamed
by the residents as the culprit of the event. Most residents in the barangay have
returned to the community given that the local government has permitted them to go
back to their houses. This prompt, however, was based on the constant revalidation of
the site’s Hazard Zonation Map which resulted in the narrowing of the initial permanent
danger zone. The local government unit, in coordination with the Mines and
Geosciences Bureau and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, has
taken action in constantly monitoring, revalidating, and reassessing the hazard maps,
mitigation and risk reduction plans as well as regularly reminding the residents living in
the area of the possible risks. ALQC was also tasked by the said agencies to execute
the hazard reduction plan in the landslide site by moving loose debris to build
infrastructure to keep the community from possibilities of further erosion in the future
(Erram & Abatayo, 2020).

At present, there is no recent substantial data that could show relevant updates
regarding the long-term aftermath of the landslide incident. Furthermore, there is also
no recent substantial data that could provide future trends and projections related to
hazardous events in the specific location, except for the review of the 2018-2022 Local
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) Plan of the City Government of
Naga that identifies areas near the headscarp as having high susceptibility to
landslides (CDRRMO of Naga City, Cebu, 2018).

It should be noted that the occurrences of natural disasters such as landslides

are almost improbable to predict, especially in the absence of possible triggers.
According to Catane et al (2019), there was no apparent trigger for the Naga landslide
as there was minimal rainfall and no earthquakes immediately occurred prior or during
the event. However, future trends and projections related to hazardous events in a
previously affected location can be attributed to the existence of early warning signs. In
this case, Lagmay et al (2020) relate the event to the presence of faults, fractures, and
cracks in the immediate area of the landslide, which had developed over a month prior
to the event. Moreover, future trends and projections can also be attributed to the data
provided by geohazard maps. Although it was pointed out earlier that there is no
recent substantial data that could provide future trends and projections, data from
geohazard mapping could identify threats and risks present within the location. For
instance, as early as 2008, a geohazard mapping conducted in the Barangay Tinaan
revealed that the landslide-hit sitio has been classified as having “modern landslide
susceptibility” (MGB-7, 2018). This also proves how geohazard maps can serve as a
basis for disaster prevention efforts (Lagmay et al, 2020).

Now, in relation to tracking future hazardous events that may possibly take place
in this specific location, there are available hazard maps from the website of
PHIVOLCS that may give an overview of the potential hazards and risks present within
the area (PHIVOLCS, n.d.). As suggested in the hazard maps below, Barangay Tinaan
[1] is not located within an active fault, [2] has areas that have low to moderate
susceptibility to earthquake-induced landslides, [3] has a PEIS - Intensity VIII or
higher: very destructive to devastating ground shaking susceptibility, and [4] has a high
liquefaction susceptibility. Even so, the mentioned risks and hazards are roughly based
on the hazard maps generated by PHIVOLCS. Site specific evaluation is needed to
 further obtain substantial data that could provide accurate trends and projections of
hazardous events in the future.

Figure 1. Active Faults Map Figure 2. Earthquake-induced Landslides Map

Figure 3. Ground Shaking Ma Figure 4. Liquefication Map

Risk Assesment Methodology

Sampling

The sampling method to be employed in this study is convenience sampling,

which is a non-probability sampling technique that involves selecting participants
based on their availability and accessibility. Rather than adhering to strict
randomization or complex sampling frameworks, this method allows researchers to
recruit individuals who are readily accessible and willing to participate.
In our study, this approach was a deliberate choice owing to its practicality and
feasibility within our resource constraints—specifically with the distance of the chosen
site that limits us to conduct the study remotely.

Advantages of Convenience Sampling

The following are the main considerations to why the group decided to use
convenience sampling:
 Accessibility and Time Efficiency

Convenience sampling offers a practical solution by enabling researchers to

recruit participants conveniently, expediting the data collection process. This sampling
method allows for quick access to a diverse range of individuals, saving valuable time
and effort. Additionally, conducting research within specific timeframes can be
challenging, especially as students that face such issues as limited resources and tight
deadlines, as well as research constraints such as the remote research setup.

Cost-effectiveness

To guarantee a representative sample, traditional probability sampling

approaches frequently need significant financial investments. On the contrary,
convenience sampling reduces expenses by making the most of resources that are
readily available—including using participants from inside a particular organization or
community. The ability to use scarce resources more effectively thanks to cost
effectiveness may help researchers to broaden the Risk and volume of their research.

Flexibility in Participant Selection

Convenience sampling’s main benefit is that it offers flexibility in participant

selection. By focusing on people who have relevant experiences or characteristics,
researchers can adjust the sample size and features to their particular study topics.
This flexibility increases the possibility of learning in-depth lessons and absorbing the
subtleties of the study's goals.

Data Collection

For the data collection of the study, there will be a quantitative and qualitative
risk assessment of the specific area in mind. The quantitative phase of the study will
be making use of an objective risk assessment tool specifically curated to assess
landslide risk. In this regard, the Philippine Council for Industry, Energy and Emerging
Technology Research and Development (PCIEERD) landslide tool will be used by the
researchers as the primary tool in the monitoring and assessment of landslide risk.
The qualitative phase of the study will involve having direct interactions with the
residents of the local community at Barangay Tinaan, Naga City, Cebu. Interviews with
the local community will be done to gain understanding of the current perceived risks
among the individuals in said area. Moreover, the qualitative phase of the study will
also be identifying the acceptable risks for the community to gauge and determine their
behavior during hazardous situations.

Data Analysis

Analysis of data would employ a quantitative approach and would derive

concepts from the Tool for a Simplified, Site-Specific Evaluation of Rain-Induced
Landslide Susceptibility by Peckley and Bagtang (2010). The risk assessment
procedure would be based on the concept of the Factor of Safety Fs, which is the
 strength of material over the applied load. In this proposed risk assessment, Fs is
referred to as the Factor of Stability and is defined as SRating over αRating.

𝑆𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔
𝐹𝑠 = α𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔

The formula is used when assessing landslide susceptibility based on slope

material strength and slope angle alone. The SRating is a score given to the strength
of the slope material, while the αRating is a score assigned to the slope angle of the
material. In engineering, the Fs should always be greater than 1 for the slope to qualify
as stable, hence, the score of the strength of the slope material SRating must be
greater than the score given to the slope angle αRating. In this assessment, a Factor
of Stability value of 1.2 would be qualify as a stable slope,

The proposed risk assessment would also incorporate other factors in its data
analysis. The vegetation cover of the slope would be referred to as the vFactor, the
history of cracks and slope failure as fFactor, and current land use as lFactor. Two
factors representing reduction of shear strength due to saturation are also considered:
sRed is indicated by the presence of spring or elevation of groundwater brought by
permeation of rainfall into soil, while dRed is indicated by the poor drainage system.
Values of all factors mentioned are presented in the Landslide Susceptibility Tool used
in the proposed risk assessment. Shown below is the comprehensive formula for the
Factor of Stability used in the proposed risk assessment.

𝑣𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟*𝑓𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟*(𝑆𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔−𝑆𝑅𝑒𝑑−𝑑𝑅𝑒𝑑)
𝐹𝑠 = α𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔*𝑙𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟

Computing for the overall Factor of Stability would determine the corresponding
landslide susceptibility rating of the slope. The numerical values of Fs and their
corresponding descriptive value is summarised in the table in the following page.

Landslide Susceptibility Overall FS

Low FS > 1.2

Moderate 1.0 < FS < 1.2

HIgh 0.7 < FS < 1.0

Very High FS < 0.7

Instrument

The objective and quantitative risk assessment for the study will be conducted
using the Philippine Council for Industry, Energy and Emerging Technology Research
and Development (PCIEERD) landslide tool. This tool was developed by the PCIEERD
from the Department of Science and Technology (DOST). It was specifically designed
for site-specific evaluation for assessing rain-induced landslide susceptibility. The
PCIEERD landslide tool consists of seven assessment steps which involves evaluating
 the slope angle, lithology, artesian flow, effect of drainage, effect of slope movement
and failure, effect of vegetation, and effect of land use. After evaluating these specific
factors, the overall factor of safety in the area will be calculated and provided.

Consent Form

See following pages for consent form.

Sample Survey Questionnaire

See following pages for questionnaire.

Sample Interview Questionnaire

See following pages for questionnaire.

 University of the Philippines Diliman
Quezon City, Philippines, 1101

INFORMED CONSENT FORM

Greetings!

We, Patricia Ann Durante, Gerilene Miranda, Alyssa Rae Navarro, Jansen Jeff Ramirez, and
Sofia Louise Sundiang are students from the University of the Philippines Diliman. We are
currently conducting a case study entitled, "A case study and risk assessment of the 2018
landslide in Barangay Tinaan, Naga City, Cebu” as our requirement for our Case Study
Proposal in our DRMAPS class.

This document acts as the study's informed consent form. After being signed, this will act as
a contract between the "participant" (you) and the "researchers" (Durante, Miranda, Navarro,
Ramirez and Sundiang). Remember that you have the right to withdraw from the study at
any time and that the informed consent form may be completely disregarded at your
discretion.

It is crucial that the participant (you) fully comprehend the purpose of the study as well as
what will be involved before deciding to participate. Please carefully read the details
presented below. Moreover, please feel free to contact the researchers using the details
shown below if you have any queries or concerns.

Purpose of the study

The goal of this case study is to generate an understanding of the current perceived risks
among the individuals in Barangay Tinaan, Naga City, Cebu.

Subject Participation
By agreeing to participate in this study, you are confirming that you meet the criteria for
participation which are as follows: (1) a local of Barangay Tinaan, Naga City, Cebu; (2) a
member of the said barangay’s LGU; and (2) had experienced the 2018 Naga City landslide.

Study Procedure
Participants will register in Google Forms through this link: [insert link]

The interview will be conducted online through your preferred platform (Facebook
Messenger, Google Meet, or Zoom Meetings) with the researchers. The participant's
experiences and tales about their experience and narratives before, during, and after the
2018 Naga landslide incident will be the subject of the researcher's inquiries during the
interview. The participants will go through a brief debriefing session led by the researchers
following the interview. The researchers will go over the study's aims and objectives as well
as address any queries during this time.

Participation in this study will take approximately one hour but may be extended if needed.
The schedule will depend on the availability of the participants and the researchers.

Benefits and Potential Risks

The data-gathering procedure is designed to be followed in a way that would not harm you
(the participant). However, it is unavoidable that you may find the questions intrusive, which
may then cause distress because previous experiences of a hazardous event will be
recalled. To minimize such risk, the researchers will rehearse for the interview sessions to
ensure safe, respectful, and light conversations with you during the interview process itself.
Moreover, since the interview process will be in the form of pakikipagkwentuhan, the
researchers will allow flexible and open conversations.

Another known risk for participating in this study is the risk of having eye fatigue or Zoom
fatigue, which may come from long periods of facing electronic devices or using Zoom. To
combat this, you may request a short break if said fatigue prevents you from answering
questions in the interview. Apart from that, there are no other known risks, and the procedure
will be kept harm-free with your well-being in mind.

Rights and Responsibilities of Participants

1. By agreeing to participate, you recognize that you will be invited to attend an online
interview to talk about your experiences before, during, and after the 2018 Naga
landslide incident.
2. By signing this consent form, you are confirming that your participation is voluntary
and that you are giving the researchers permission to use your responses for
academic and research purposes.
3. You have the right to withdraw your participation at any point during the study without
any penalty.
4. You have the right to request the removal from the study or the destruction of all the
data you provided.
5. If you feel any level of distress or discomfort during the data gathering process, you
have the right to withdraw or reschedule the interview at a time that is convenient for
you.

Data Handling and Data Privacy

In order to verify your eligibility as a participant in this study, you will be requested to submit
some identifying information. You may be guaranteed that you will participate in the study
anonymously and that the researchers involved in it will only have access to any identifiable
information you provide. No names or other identifying information shall be mentioned in the
results or discussion. A participant code will be assigned to each participant, and the code
shall be used in reporting the answers.

Also, the FGD session will be recorded for the sole purpose of accurate transcription of the
participants’ answers. Do note that all Zoom recording data to be gathered will only be used
for the purpose of this study. After the study has been completed, all information will be
permanently deleted from our database.

The Data Privacy Act of 2012, or Republic Act 10173, and its related rules and regulations
will be strictly complied with during this research. The information that will be acquired will
only be utilized for academic purposes, and it will not be disclosed to anyone who is not
involved in the study's primary goal. Moreover, the researchers reserve the right to review,
select, or remove information as part of the process of developing the research. Review
more of your rights under this law by clicking this link:
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2012/08/15/republic-act-no-10173/

Sincerely,

Patricia Ann Durante

(email/fb link)
Jansen Jeff Ramirez
Gerilene Miranda (email/fb)
(email/fb)
Sofia Louise Sundiang
Alyssa Rae Navarro (email/fb)
(email/fb)

Noted by:

Prof. Elenita Que

(email)

Having read and understood the content of the informed consent form, please fill out the
form below:

( ✔ ) I have carefully read and understood all the information stated above. I agree to
become a participant and I consent to the use of my data for the study.

( ) I have carefully read and understood all the information stated above. I do not agree to
become a participant and I do not consent to the use of my data for the study.

__________________________________
LAST NAME, First Name, Middle Initial (This will serve as your e-signature)

_______________
Date
 University of the Philippines Diliman
Quezon City, Philippines, 1101

TOOL FOR SITE-SPECIFIC EVALUATION OF

RAIN-INDUCED LANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBILITY

Instructions: For each step, enter appropriate values in the cell shaded gray based on the
description contained in the corresponding table. The worksheet will compute the score
corresponding to the factor shown in the adjacent cell shaded blue. The overall factor of
safety against rainfall induced slope failure will be outputted in the cell shaded green at the
bottom of the worksheet.

STEP I: Slope angle Value Score

What is the average steepness of the slope measured in

4 10
degrees?

Value Description αRating

1 a) α ≥ 75° (or with overhang) 82.5°

2 b) 60° ≤ α < 75° 67.5°

3 c) 45° ≤ α < 60° 52.5°

4 d) 30° ≤ α < 45° 37.5°

5 e) 15° ≤ α < 30° 22.5°

6 f) α ≤ 15° 7.5°

STEP 2: Lithology

What is the predominant material of the slope? 9 10

Value Description sRating

Hard Rock 1. Massive or intact hard rock with few

widely spaced cracks or discontinuities,no
predominant discontinuity. Intact rock strength, σci ≥
1
20MPa.Schmidt rebound hammer reading, HR ≥ 30,
crack/discontinuity spacing, s ≥ 200cm.Geologic
strength index, 55 ≤ GSI ≤ 100

Hard Rock 2. Blocky, well-interlocked hard rock,

rock mass consisting of cubical blocks intact rock
2 strength, σci ≥ 20MPa Schmidt rebound hammer
reading, HR ≥ 30 crack/discontinuity spacing, s ≥
60cm. Geologic strength index, 35 ≤ GSI ≤ 65
 Hard Rock 3. Very blocky, disturbed hard rock with
multi-faceted angular blocks formed by 4 or more
discontinuity sets intact rock strength, σci > 20MPa
3
Schmidt rebound hammer reading, HR ≥ 30
crack/discontinuity spacing, 20cm < s < 60cm
Geologic strength index, 25 ≤ GSI ≤ 65

Hard Rock 4. Highly fractured and seamy hard rock

folded with angular blocks persistence of bedding
planes and schistosity intact rock strength, σci ≥
4
20MPa Schmidt rebound hammer reading, HR ≥ 30
discontinuity spacing, s ≤ 20cm Geologic strength
index, 15 ≤ GSI ≤ 35

Hard Rock 5. Disintegrated, unstable rocks and

boulders, protruding rock fragments intact rock
5
strength, σci > 20MPa discontinuity spacing, s ≤
20cm Geologic strength index, 5 ≤ GSI ≤ 25

Soft Rock 1. Massive or intact soft rock with few

widely spaced cracks or discontinuities,no
predominant discontinuity intact rock strength, σci <
6
20MPa Schmidt rebound hammer reading, HR < 30
crack/discontinuity spacing, s ≥ 200cm Geologic
strength index, 55 ≤ GSI ≤ 100

Soft Rock 2. Highly fractured soft rock intact rock

strength, σci < 20MPa. Schmidt rebound hammer
7
reading, HR < 30. Discontinuity spacing, s ≤ 20cm
Geologic strength index, 5 ≤ GSI ≤ 35

Hard Soil 1. Stiff and dense gravelly, sandy, silty and

clayey soils depth ≥ 0.5m 15 ≤ SPT-N value ≤
8
50,SWST Nsw value ≥ 80 cohesion , c’ ≥ 30kPa
angle of internal friction, 35° ≤ f’ ≤ 45°

Soft Soil 1. Gravel/silty or sandy or clayey gravel

9 deposit depth > 0.5m SPT-N value ≤ 20,angle of
internal friction, 30° ≤ f’ ≤ 45°

Soft Soil 2. Sand/silty sand deposit depth > 0.5m

SPT-N value ≤ 10,SWST Nsw value ≤ 80 undrained
10
shear strength, Su ≤ 80kPa angle of internal friction,
15° ≤ f’ ≤ 35°

Soft Soil 3. Soft clay/silt depth > 0.5m SPT-N value

11 ≤ 5, SWST Nsw value ≤ 60 undrained shear
strength, Su ≤ 70 kPa cohesion, 5kPa ≤ c’ ≤ 20kPa
STEP 3: Reduction due to artesian flow

When are springs present in the affected slope active? 3 0

Value Description spRed

1 Yearlong

2 Only during rainy season

3 No Flow

STEP 4: Effect of drainage

What are the drainage conditions at the site? 5 0

Value Description dRed

1 No drainage system

2 Totally clogged, filled with debris

3 Partially clogged or overflows during heavy rains

4 Water leaks into the slope

5 Good working condition

STEP 5: Effect of slope movement and failure

What is the frequency of ground movement or failure at

4 0.8
the site?

Value Description fFactor

1 Once a year or more than once a year

2 Presence of past failure, but occurrence not yearly

3 Presence of tensile cracks in ground

4 If with retaining wall, wall is deformed

5 None
STEP 6: Effect of vegetation

What is the predominant vegetation at the site? 1 1

Value Description vFactor

1 No vegetation

2 Predominantly grass or vegetation with shallow roots

Coconut, bamboo or vegetation with moderately

3
deep roots

4 Trees with age less than or equal to 20 years

5 Trees with age more than 20 years

STEP 7: Effect of land use

What is the present land use of the affected slope? 8 1

Value Description lFactor

Dense residential area (with closely spaced

1
structures <5m)

Commercial/residential area with building/s having 2

2
storeys or more

Residential area with buildings having 1 or 2 storeys

3
spaced at ≥5m

Road/highway with heavy traffic (1 truck or more

4
every 10mins)

Road/highway with light traffic (less than 1 truck

5
every 10mins)

6 Agricultural area, grasslands and bushlands

7 Forest

8 Uninhabited and no vegetation

Overall
Factor of
Safety
 Landslide susceptibiltiy Overall FS

Low FS > 1.2

Moderate 1.0 <FS< 1.2

High 0.7<FS<1.0

Very High FS < 0.7

Acknowledgements: This tool was developed through a grant from the Philippine Council
on Industry and Energy Research (PCIERD) of the Department of Science and Technology
(DOST) entitled "Development of a non-expert tool for site specific evaluation of rain-induced
landslide susceptibility".
 Questionnaire for Interview

The questions for the interview were adapted from a research study conducted to find
out landslide risk perception (Mendonca & Gullo, 2020). This interview was done in
recognition of the need to also provide focus on the vulnerability of exposed populations to
landslide threats and risks which is often a neglected aspect in disaster risk reduction
planning. In ensuring that this aspect of disaster risk reduction planning is not overlooked,
the researchers see to it that there will be an acquired understanding of the residents and
local community for a more efficient landslide risk management planning and policy. The
researchers also stress how the local government unit (LGU) of the community could further
assess the conditions and threats of the community members as they remain in landslide
risk areas.

The questionnaire prepared by Mendonca and Gullo (2020) were translated by the
researchers to Filipino to communicate with the residents of the local community with ease.
This is also to make sure that they understand the concept and idea of the items in the
questionnaire. Questions by Mendonca and Gullo were categorized as behavioral,
knowledge, perception, and feeling. Behavioral questions pertain to what the respondent
does or has done with regards to the question, knowledge questions pertain to factual
information they know, perception questions pertain to the cognitive and interpretive
processes of the participants including their opinions, judgments, and values, while feeling
questions pertain to emotional responses in relation to their experiences and thoughts.

Tungkol saan

Ang panayam na ito ay naglalayong alamin ang pag-unawa at pagtingin ng mga

residente ng Barangay Tinaan, Naga City, Cebu sa peligrong dulot ng pagguho ng lupa o
landslide. Mahalagang malaman ang impormasyon ukol dito upang makatulong sa mga
awtoridad ng local government unit (LGU) na makapaghanda na naka-ayon sa pamumuhay
ng mga residente.

Inyong partisipasyon

Lubos na makatutulong ang inyong partisipasyon sa gaganaping panayam na ito.

Ipinagkakaloob sa bawat indibidwal na nais lumahok sa panayam ang karapatang bawiin
ang kanyang pagkalahok at tumanggi sa anumang katanungan. Ito ay ipinagkakaloob
anumang oras habang ginagawa ang pag-aaral.

Benepisyo

Ang pagsali sa panayam para sa pag-aaral ay walang personal na benepisyong

mai-aabot sa indibidwal na nais lumahok sa panayam. Ngunit, ang impormasyon at datos na
makukuha mula sa panayam na gagawin ay lubos na makatutulong upang magkalap ng
kaalaman sa personal na karanasan ng mga residente. Ito ay magagamit ng mga
mananaliksik at ng mga awtoridad sa pagbuo ng mga epektibong plano upang tuluyang
maiwasan ang kapahamakang maidudulot ng pagguho ng lupa o landslide.

Panganib

Walang angking panganib ang pagsali sa panayam na ito. Gayundin, wala ring parte
sa pag-aaral na isinasagawa na magbibigay kapahamakan sa reputasyon, seguridad, o
kalusugan ng mga indibidwal na nais lumahok sa panayam.

Pagiging kompidensiyal

Ipinapangako ang mga mananaliksik na maayos na panghahawakan ang anumang

personal na impormasyon at datos na ibabahagi ng mga indibidwal na nais lumahok sa
panayam na isasagawa. Ang mga impormasyon at datos ay gagawing pribado at gagamitin
lamang para sa layunin ng pag-aaral na ito. Matapos isagawa ang pag-aaral, lahat ng
personal na impormasyon at datos ng mga lumahok sa panayam ay buburahin upang tiyak
na mapangalagaan ang karapatang kompidensyal ng mga ito.

Mga katanungan

Question Type of Question

1. Bakit mo piniling manirahan sa

Feeling
inyong lugar/barangay?

2. Ano ang pinakagusto mong parte ng

Feeling
inyong lugar/barangay?

3. Ano ang mga alalahanin mo sa

Feeling – Perception
inyong lugar/barangay?

4. Alam mo ba kung ano ang pagguho

Knowledge
ng lupa o landslide?

5. Sa iyong palagay, ano ang mga

pagbabanta ng posibleng pagguho
ng lupa o landslide sa inyong
Perception
kalidad ng buhay o kapakanan?
Gaano kadalas mo inaalala ang
mga bantang ito?

6. Pamilyar ka ba sa katagang,
“landslide risk area”? Alam mo ba Knowledge
ang kahulugan nito?

7. Naniniwala ka bang ang iyong

bahay ay nasa sa landslide risk
area, o sa simpleng salita, sa tingin
mo ba ay maaaring mapahamak sa
pagguho ng lupa o landslide?
Gaano kataas ang panganib na ito
sa tingin mo? Perception
[ ] Mababa
[ ] Katamtaman
[ ] Mataas
[ ] Sobrang taas

Bakit?

8. Ano ang mga paraan na sa tingin

mo ay maaaring gawin upang
Knowledge – Behavior
maiwasan ang panganib na dulot ng
pagguho ng lupa o landslide?
9. Sa tingin mo ba ay mayroon kang
kakayahan at kaalaman upang
Perception
maiwasan ang panganib na dulot ng
pagguho ng lupa o landslide?

10. Ano sa tingin mo ang ginagawa ng

mga tao na maaaring magdulot ng Knowledge
pagguho ng lupa o landslide?

11. Sa tingin mo ba ay sapat ang

kakayahan at kaalaman ng
gobyerno tungkol sa kapamahakan Knowledge - Perception
na maaaring dulot ng lupa o
landslide?
References
ABS-CBN News. (2018, September 21). Aktuwal na video ng landslide sa Cebu [Video].
YouTube. Retrieved April 30, 2023, from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJBqbvBCef0

Aguila, L.G., Newhall, C.G., Miller, C.D., & Listanco, E.L. (1986, January). Reconnaissance
geology of a large debris avalanche from Iriga volcano, Philippines.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242736545_Reconnaissance_geology_of_
a_large_debris_avalanche_from_Iriga_volcano_Philippines

BBC News. (2018, September 21). Philippines landslide victims “sent texts from underneath
rubble.” BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45597252

Catane, S., Veracruz, N., Flora, J., Go, C., Enrera, R., & Santos, C. (2019). Mechanism of a
low-angle translational block slide: evidence from the september 2018 naga
landslide, philippines. Landslides (16), 1709–1719.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-019-01212-9

CDRRMO of Naga City Cebu. (2018). Naga City (2018) Local Disaster Risk Reduction and
Management Plan 2018-2022 City of Naga, Cebu. Technical report.

Census of Population (2020). "Region VII (Central Visayas)". Total Population by Province,
City, Municipality and Barangay. PSA. Retrieved April 30, 2023.

Department of Environment and Natural Resources Mines and Geosciences Bureau. (2018,
September 23). Retrieved April 30, 2023, from
https://r7.mgb.gov.ph/briefer-of-the-landslide-incident-in-barangay-tinaan-city-of-nag
a-cebu/

Disaster Response Operations Monitoring and Information Center. (2019). DSWD DROMIC
terminal report on the landslide incident in Naga City, Cebu. In Department of Social
Welfare and Development. Department of Social Welfare and Development.
Retrieved April 30, 2023, from
https://dromic.dswd.gov.ph/landslide-in-naga-city-cebu-20-september-2018/

Ecarma, L. (2019, August 6). Still no relocation, a year after Naga landslide. The Freeman.
https://www.philstar.com/the-freeman/cebu-news/2019/08/07/1941334/still-no-relocati
on-year-after-naga-landslide

Erram, M.M.B., & Abatayo R.O. (2020, September 20). IN PHOTOS: Brgy Tinaan two years
after the killer landslide. INQUIRER.net. Retrieved April 30, 2023, from
https://cebudailynews.inquirer.net/340907/in-photos-tinaan-two-years-after-killer-lan
dslide

Evans, S.G., Guthrie, R.H., Roberts, N.J., & Bishop, N.F. (2007). The disastrous 17
February 2006 rockslide-debris avalanche on Leyte Island, Philippines: A
catastrophic landslide in Tropical Mountain Terrain. Natural Hazards and Earth
System Sciences, 7(1), pp. 89–101. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-7-89-2007

Guthrie, R.H., Evans, S.G., Catane, S.G., Zarco, M.A.H., & Saturday, R.M. (2009, April 22).
The 17 February 2006 rock slide-debris avalanche at Guinsaugon Philippines: a
 synthesis. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 68(2), 201-213.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-009-0205-2

Lagmay, A.M., Escape, C. M., Ybañez, A. A., Suarez, J. K., & Cuaresma, G. (2020).
Anatomy of the naga city landslide and comparison with historical debris avalanches
and analog models. Frontiers in Earth Science, 8.
https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2020.00312

Lagmay, A.M., Tengonciang, A. M., Rodolfo, R. S., Soria, J. L., Baliatan, E. G., Paguican, E.
R., Ong, J. B., Lapus, M. R., Fernandez, D. F., Quimba, Z. P., & Uichanco, C. L.
(2008). Science guides search and rescue after the 2006 Philippine landslide.
Disasters, 32(3), 416-433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2008.01047.x

Mendonca, M. B., & Gullo, F. T. (2020). Landslide risk perception survey in Angra dos reis
(Rio de Janeiro, southeastern Brazil): A contribution to support planning of non
structural measures. Land Use Policy, 91, 104415.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104415

Miasco, M.B. (2017, July 26). Cebu has potentially active fault lines – PHIVOLCS.
Philstar.com.
https://www.philstar.com/the-freeman/cebu-news/2017/07/26/1721980/cebu-has-pot
entially-active-fault-lines-phivolcs

Mines and Geosciences Bureau. (2022, September 23). Briefer of the landslide incident in
Barangay Tinaan, City of Naga, Cebu.
https://r7.mgb.gov.ph/briefer-of-the-landslide-incident-in-barangay-tinaan-city-of-nag
a-cebu/

Mines and Geosciences Bureau Regional Office No. 7. (2018). Naga, cebu execs informed
of landslide-prone areas as early as 2008.
https://r7.mgb.gov.ph/naga-cebu-execs-informed-of-landslide-prone-areas-as-early-
as-2008/

PhilAtlas. (n.d.). Tinaan, Naga, Cebu profile. Retrieved April 30, 2023, from
https://www.philatlas.com/visayas/r07/cebu/naga/tinaan.html

Philippine Statistics Authority. (2022, October 27). Central Visayas poor population is
estimated at 27.6 percent in 2021 [Press release].
http://rsso07.psa.gov.ph/poverty/releases/title/Central%20Visayas%20Poor%20Pop
ulation%20is%20estimated%20at%2027.6%20percent%20in%202021

Philippines Cities Disaster Mitigation Project. (2001). Naga city disaster mitigation plan. In
Asian Disaster Preparedness Center. Asian Disaster Preparedness Center.
Retrieved April 30, 2023, from
https://www.adpc.net/igo/category/ID186/doc/2013-iMDp26-ADPC-Naga_City_Disas
ter_Mitigation_Plan.pdf

PHIVOLCS. (n.d.). Earthquake & Volcano-Related Maps.

https://gisweb.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph/gisweb/earthquake-volcano-related-hazard-gis-in
formation
PHIVOLCS. (2017, July). Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology. Earthquake
Induced Landslide Hazard Map of City of Naga, Province of Cebu. [Map] Version 1.
1:25,000. Quezon City, Philippines

PHIVOLCS. (2018, July). Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology. Active Faults
Map of City of Naga, Province of Cebu. [Map] Version 1. 1:20,000. Quezon City,
Philippines

PHIVOLCS. (2018, July). Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology. Ground

Shaking Hazard Map of City of Naga, Province of Cebu. [Map] Version 1. 1:20,000.
Quezon City, Philippines

PHIVOLCS. (2018, July). Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology. Liquefaction

Hazard Map of City of Naga, Province of Cebu. [Map] Version 1. 1:20,000. Quezon
City, Philippines

Popioco, M. (2018). Residents to sue quarry company after Cebu landslide. CNN
Philippines.
http://www.cnnphilippines.com/news/2018/9/26/naga-cebu-landslide-citizens-sue-apo
.html
Ropero, G. (2018, September 20). At least 21 dead, 74 missing in Naga, Cebu landslide.
ABS-CBN News; ABS-CBN News.
https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/09/21/18/at-least-21-dead-74-missing-in-naga-cebu-la
ndslide
Tizon, M. G. (2018, September 22). Naga, Cebu, landslide: Did authorities ignore signs of
danger? Rappler.
https://www.rappler.com/nation/212549-naga-cebu-landslide-authorities-signs-danger
/

Veracruz, N.A., Catane, S.G., Flora, J.R., Go, C.M., Enrera, R.E., & Santos, E.R. (2019,
December 5). The september 2018 Naga landslide: Analysis and lessons learned.
https://www.geolsocphil.org/geocon2019/papers/Veracruz.pdf
Appendices
Group Processes of Collaboration and Decision Making

Given our blended (remote and F2F) learning format, what mode did you use to
communicate with each other? Were there any difficulties with communication?

During the course of accomplishing group requirements, the group collectively

decided to maximize both online and face-to-face discussions according to the
schedule of each member. Although, remote and online discussions appeared to be a
more favorable mode of discussion as location and availability were always taken into
consideration given the varying programs and colleges of the members. In the group,
three of the members are students of UP Diliman while two members are from
UPDEPP.

Since regular face-to-face meetings proved to be challenging given the

circumstances, the group found it better to conduct group discussions online. These
discussions were often made using Messenger. The members will usually set a period
to communicate online wherein all members are available to allow everyone to pitch in
their input and ideas. Using the social media platform allowed the members to provide
updates, brainstorm, divide tasks, and maintain productivity with relative ease. Despite
not meeting regularly and in person, a similar understanding of the group’s desired
output was ensured.

With the location and availability of the members as factors to be considered with
each assigned task, the outputs of the group were also accomplished through
available online media and platforms. The reports and other supplementary output by
the group were made using Google Docs and Canva. Using platforms that allowed
joint and simultaneous editing allowed and maintained efficient collaboration and
cooperation within the group.

Overall, the group was able to work around emerging challenges while working
together such as differences in priorities and schedules. It was helpful to always be
mindful of each individual member’s circumstances to accomplish each task
accordingly. The group also allowed for open communication with each other by
encouraging comments and revisions from all members before every output
submission. Each task assigned was accomplished through clear and open
communication, efficient collaboration and cooperation, and mindful consideration of
each one’s differences.

On the whole, was it difficult to reach consensus? What were some of the steps that your
group took to facilitate reaching consensus? How did you handle contrary views?

Throughout the semester, the members were able to communicate effectively

when making decisions as a group. It was not difficult for the group to reach consensus
on any matter since the members are always openly expressing their support for or
uncertainties regarding any suggestions raised during group meetings. Even after
initial suggestions were raised, the members do not hesitate to communicate any
possible changes that might prove to be more effective than the initial suggestions.

In any given activity, the group members start by volunteering for any section of
the output and providing their individual contributions to the group output with respect
to their agreed individual assignment. In some instances, group members raise a few
concerns about parts in the output that could be further improved, or ideas that may
need to be changed. After a member lays out the reasons for why changes could be
 made to improve the output, the group is able to finally reach a final decision regarding
any matter after all members decide whether or not they agree with the changes.

In instances where there are contrary views among members, the group is able
to effectively assess which choice to go with after asking for the opinion of all
members. Overall, the group makes decisions by objectively weighing the choices
presented by different members and reaching a consensus.

Group Consent

This case study proposal is aimed to generate an understanding of the current

perceived risks among the local residents and families in Barangay Tinaan, Naga City,
Cebu. For such purpose, the researchers undersigned hereby authorize other
researchers or individuals interested in the study to use this proposal as a reference, in
all its effects and to every extent it may benefit them.

For questions or concerns, do not hesitate to reach to any member of the

research team.

Durante, Patricia Ann Miranda, Gerilene

Navarro, Alyssa Rae Ramirez, Jansen Jeff

Sundiang, Sofia Louise