Annex 3. Equity-Based Local Prioritization Criteria

ANNEX 3.
EQUITY-BASED LOCAL PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA
The Philippine DRRM Act of 2010 mandates LGUs to allocate at least five percent (5%) of
their annual regular income for DRRM, regardless of their exposure and vulnerability to
hazards, The financial picture is grim for highly vulnerable, low income municipalities which
are highly dependent (about up to 80 percent) on their internal revenue allotment (IRA) for
their operations. The IRA serves as the biggest share in the annual regular income of LGUs,
which then marks the baseline for local DRRM fund allocation.
Purpose of equity-based prioritization:

1. To direct NDRRM funds to highly vulnerable, low income LGUs specifically for
preparedness projects or Local DRRM Fund augmentation
2. To prioritize LGUs affected by a specific disaster event based on equity
considerations and additional criteria for intensity of population, housing, agriculture
and infrastructure impact
The proposed prioritization criteria will put emphasis on equity by prioritizing highly
vulnerable and low income local government units. In the absence of risk estimates based
on hazard probability, exposure data and vulnerability, secondary or leading indicators will
be used to come up with an indicative risk profile of LGUs.
Figure 1: Criteria for Prioritization
Geographic vulnerability. Twenty-two provinces which are highly vulnerable to multiple

hazards are implied priority areas for DRRM interventions. These were identified by the
Cabinet Cluster on Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation (CCCAM). Other
geographical features give further indication of vulnerability to natural hazards, particularly,
coastal municipalities and location in a major riverbasin. Coastal municipalities are prone to
storm surges which cause heavy displacement of population and damage to livelihood. Sea
level rise could further aggravate the impacts. Another relevant geographic feature is
location in the 18 major riverbasins of the county, which make them vulnerable to riverine
flooding.
Likely population impact. Disaster risk is not only dependent on the hazard events that
could potentially affect an area; it is also strongly related to the presence of a vulnerable
population. Population density is used as an indicator of population impact. Large
population density will result in increased vulnerability due to a considerable number of
people at risk in a specific geographic area.
Likely poverty impact, measured by poverty incidence, is indicative of a population’s

resilience to disasters. Higher poverty incidence means a larger number of poor families
who may not be able to prepare for and recover from disasters.
Income class of an LGU is a leading indicator of the capability of an LGU to finance DRRM.
Higher income means the amount of Local DRRM Fund is higher and vice-versa for lower
income LGUs.
OCD has the database for the indicators of each criteria, and the ranking results on various
applications of the prioritization tool:
(1) for ranking of all LGUs;
(2) for ranking of LGUs in a given region; and
(3) ranking of LGUs affected by a disaster event which will add additional criteria on intensity
of impact.
See Notes on the methodology below.
Annex 3 Notes
1. Methodology for Ranking All LGUs for Allocating NDRRMF for Preparedness
A database is available with OCD which includes data for all LGUs for each of the criteria
used and ranking of all LGUs.
Step 1: Assign weights to the prioritization criteria. The weight below gives emphasis to
geographic vulnerability and poverty incidence having a uniform weight of 30 percent for
each of these criteria. Population density and income class are likewise given the same
weight of 20% each
Criteria Weight (%)

Geographic Vulnerability 30
Population Density 20
Poverty Incidence 30
Income Class 20
Total 100
Step 2: Derive the score for geographic vulnerability. There are three sub-indicators for
geographic vulnerability. A score of 10 is given to a city/municipality if it is located in the 22
the provinces identified by CCCAM. The same score is given if the city and municipality is
located in a major riverbasin, and if classified as a coastal municipality. Otherwise for these
three instances, a score of zero is assigned. These three criteria have separate columns in
the database. A 10 or a zero is for each LGU for each sub-indicator of vulnerability.
Criteria/ Indicator/ Sub-indicator Score

YES NO
Geographic Vulnerability 30 0
● Located in 22 CCCAM priority provinces 10 0
● Located in Major Riverbasins 10 0
● Coastal City/Municipality 10 0
Step 3: Derive the score for population density . The higher the population density, the
higher the vulnerability score. Population density data is from the Philippine Statistics
Authority. Due to the large number of datapoints, the methodology groups LGUs by decile
in ascending order. Those belonging in the 1st decile shall get a score of 2, 2nd decile 4, 3rd
decile 6 and so on. The highest possible score shall be 20, for LGUs with population density
in the 10th decile. See the database for deriving the deciles.
Criteria/ Indicator SCORE

Population Impact Density 20
2 for 1st decile
4 for 2nd decile
6 for 3rd decile
8 for 4th decile
10 for 5th decile
12 for 6th decile
14 for 7th decile
16 for 8th decile
18 for 9th decile
20 for 10th decile
Step 4: Derive the score for poverty incidence. The higher the poverty incidence, the higher
is the vulnerability score. Similar to the population density criterion, data on poverty
incidence comes from the Philippine Statistics Authority. Due to the large number of
datapoints, the methodology groups LGUs by decile in ascending order. Those belonging
in the 1st decile shall get a score of 2, 2nd decile 4, 3rd decile 6 and so on. The highest
possible score shall be 20, for LGUs with population density in the 10 th decile. See the
database for deriving the deciles.

Poverty impact/Poverty Incidence 30
3 for 1st decile
6 for 2nd decile
9 for 3rd decile
12 for 4th decile
15 for 5th decile
18 for 6th decile
21 for 7th decile
24 for 8th decile
27 for 9th decile
30 for 10th decile
Step 5: Derive the score for income class of LGU. LGUs are classified from 1st to income
class with 1st as the highest. A graduated scoring with 5th to 6th class LGUs getting the
maximum score of 20.

Income class 20
1st 4
2nd 8
3rd 12
4th 16
5th 20
6th 20
Step 6: Add up the scores for all criteria to get the final score. Since the application for all
LGUs has a large set of data points, further clustering using the decile approach may be
adopted. Another use is to select, say, the top 100 most highly vulnerable and low income
LGUs.
2. Methodology for Ranking of LGUs in Specific Region/s
The methodology can be applied to a specific region or regions by extracting the LGUs
covered from the main database. Specially for a single region application of the
methodology, there are fewer regions covered, groupings of LGUs may be by quintiles
(grouping by 5). Still, the user may still opt to group by decile as described above. In still
more manageable data points, say 50 LGUs, a ranking from 1 to n using the final score is
possible.
3. Methodology for Ranking of LGUs Affected by a Specific Disaster Event
The methodology can be applied in determining allocation of available of NDRRMF for the
rehabilitation and recovery from a certain disaster event. The suggested methodology is to
add criteria on impact on population, housing, agriculture and infrastructure; and give a
weight of 60 percent to the final score in the equity criteria.
Criteria Scope Weight (%) Remarks
All criteria 100
Equity criteria Geographic vulnerability, 60 60% final

population density, poverty score in the
incidence, and income class equity ranking
Disaster Event
criteria
● Impact on Percentage of number of 10

Population population affected in theLGU/
total number of affected
population for the disaster
event
● Impact on Percentage of number of 10

Housing partially and fully damaged
houses in the LGU/ total
number of partially and fully
damaged housing for the
disaster event
● Impact on Percentage of cost of damage 10

Agriculture to agriculture in LGU/ total
damage to agriculture for the
disaster event
● Impact on Percentage of cost of damage 10
Infrastructure to agriculture in LGU/ total
damage to agriculture for the
disaster event

Annex 3. Equity-Based Local Prioritization Criteria

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annex 3. Equity-Based Local Prioritization Criteria

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annex 3. Equity-Based Local Prioritization Criteria

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANNEX 3.

EQUITY-BASED LOCAL PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA

Purpose of equity-based prioritization:

Figure 1: Criteria for Prioritization

Geographic vulnerability. Twenty-two provinces which are highly vulnerable to multiple

Likely poverty impact, measured by poverty incidence, is indicative of a population’s

See Notes on the methodology below.

Criteria Weight (%)

Criteria/ Indicator/ Sub-indicator Score

Criteria/ Indicator SCORE

Criteria/ Indicator SCORE

Criteria/ Indicator SCORE

2. Methodology for Ranking of LGUs in Specific Region/s

3. Methodology for Ranking of LGUs Affected by a Specific Disaster Event

Criteria Scope Weight (%) Remarks

All criteria 100

Equity criteria Geographic vulnerability, 60 60% final

● Impact on Percentage of number of 10

● Impact on Percentage of number of 10

● Impact on Percentage of cost of damage 10

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.