“FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE RESIDENTS’ DECISION TO STAY IN

BARANGAY TUGANAY, CARMEN, DAVAO DEL NORTE (FLOOD-PRONE

AREA)”

_________________________________________

An Undergraduate Thesis

Presented to the Faculty Member of the

Institute of Leadership, Entrepreneurship, and Good Governance

Davao del Norte State College

Panabo City

_________________________________________

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Bachelor of Science in Disaster Resiliency and Management

2023
 CHAPTER 1

Background of the Study

It is well known that floods are one of the most common and pervasive types of

catastrophic disasters, harming human society severely and endangering the possibility of

sustainable development (Aerts et al., 2018) and (Gotham et al., 2017). The effects of

floods have become more severe over time due to additional causes, such as population

increase, fast urbanization, and climate change, particularly in coastal areas with high

economic and population densities (Aerts et al., 2014). Global losses from flooding are

anticipated to increase in the upcoming years due to an increase in the likelihood of

flooding, subsidence, and sea-level rise, notwithstanding the gradual implementation of

adaption strategies (Hallegatte et al., 2013).

According to studies, people living in flood-prone areas are at least partially

aware of survival techniques, such as building platforms out of reeds, using banana

shoots as animal food, fixing their wooden bed just below the roof, and cooking in

potable ovens built during the winter. The preventative precautions taken by flood-prone

homes hold the key to reducing loss and damages, and evidence suggests that protecting

one’s assets in an urban environment can save 80% of their monetary value (Ali et

al., 2018) and (Weyrich et al., 2020). Additionally, the scientific literature has shown that

people who are vulnerable to coastal and riverine floods take anticipatory precautionary

measures, such as the dissemination of early warning, raising awareness of damage

insurance, making furniture flood proof, and raising protection barriers to prevent water

from entering the house (Koerth et al., 2013). Consequently, people who live in flood-
prone areas eventually adopt mitigation measures. Yet, the degree of preparatory action

performed varies with capacities, and in many cases, the capacity of the households to

support flood protection is insufficient for various reasons that need to be further

examined (Babcicky et al., 2016).

The Philippines is geographically situated in a zone that is prone to disasters,

making it one of the world’s most disaster-prone nations (Cinco et al., 2016;

Valenzuela et al., 2020). The Philippines is particularly vulnerable to various hazards,

including intermittent typhoons, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions, widely regarded as

the deadliest and most expensive hazards (Doroteo, 2015). Additional dangers include

landslides, wildfires, floods, and tsunamis. These rapid-onset events have drastically

altered how the nation views dangers (Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, UN, 2019).

Specifically, in Carmen, Davao del Norte, Philippines has been considered one of

the flood-prone areas since 2012. In January 2013, the Municipality of Carmen lost more

than P21 million in agriculture and fisheries when floodwaters from three major rivers

swamped its rice fields and aquaculture fishponds for two days. Several families have

been forced to relocate due to the extensive floods, severely damaging the local

population’s ability to support themselves through farming (Abangan, 2013). Also, the

Philippines National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC)

confirmed on April 20 that 1,302 families had to be evacuated from their homes after

flash floods struck Carmen, Davao del Norte, after heavy rainfall over the weekend, with

the Tuganay River breaking its banks and damaging a dike located at the Mactan Channel

(Davies, 2014). On February 2023, thousands of families, recently evacuated to safer

grounds as heavy rain spawned widespread flooding and destruction again in Davao del

Norte. The municipal government of Carmen in Davao del Norte ordered the forced

evacuation of residents in 11 villages where communities submerged in floodwater as a

result of continuous heavy rain. As of 5 pm, the local government counted 9,951 families,

or about 29,804 people, who fled their homes in 11 barangays in Carmen town, and the

hardest hit villages were Mabuhay, Alejal, New Camiling, Ising, Asuncion, Taba,

Mangalcal, Tuganay, Salvation, Santo Niño, Anibongan (Rappler, 2023)

Moreover, floods have been affecting the lives of poor communities living near

rivers. To address this, several mitigation strategies have been proposed in the form of

structural and non-structural measures as well as the combination of both. The structural

measures involve infrastructure such as levees, dams, and other flood control structures to

lessen or decrease the impact of floods. On the other hand, non-structural measures focus

on managing flood risk through early warning systems, land use planning, and

community-based preparedness and response. However, financial and social factors made

the measures difficult to implement, especially in poor communities near rivers.

Implementing mitigation strategies can be difficult for poor communities that live near

the river. Financial factors may be the reason; building infrastructure might be costly and

not always accessible to communities with limited resources. It has a probability of being

unsuccessful in preventing floods. Another challenge is that because of social ties, there

is a probability that some members of the community will oppose or resist these measures

because they need to understand their benefits. It is thus at least beneficial to disaster
managers to reduce flood risk by enhancing flood response, such as rapid evacuations

during floods.

However, residents differ in how they interpret the seriousness of flood warnings;

thus, not all of them respond immediately to evacuation. Most recently, in February 2023,

heavy rain triggered extensive flooding and destruction, leading to the evacuation of

9,951 families from 11 barangay to safer locations (Rappler, 2023). The occurrence of

forced evacuations in Carmen, Davao del Norte, was due to residents’ noncompliance

with voluntary evacuation advisories, despite being strongly advised or warned to

evacuate, and the presence of frequent flood events. This could worsen the impact of

floods as it possibly leads to the loss of lives, which could have been avoided through

evacuation.

Furthermore, according to the Office of the Municipal Engineer (2008),

Municipality of Carmen, particularly in Barangay Tuganay, the area is prone to floods

due to its close proximity to the Tuganay River, which experiences erosion and scouring.

Flooding occurs 2-3 times annually, the flows of rivers are hampered by heavy rainfall in

the upstream and overflows in the downstream of the Tuganay River system, this

predominantly affecting the low-lying regions along the river. While casualties resulting

from the floods are minimal, the impact on agriculture, infrastructure, and the built-up

areas is significant. This study analyzes the recorded damages from the 2007 flood event,

which amounted to 23.2 million pesos in crop damage, 17.4 million pesos in

infrastructure damage, 1.7 million pesos in fishery damages, and two houses were

completely destroyed, with a total of 27,164 individuals were affected. Despite its
vulnerability to floods and hazards due to its geographical position, Barangay Tuganay

still have 4.966 residents which still living in the area.

Certainly, disaster preparedness of nurses, youth involvement in disaster risk

reduction, and community leaders’ disaster preparedness and resiliency have all been

studied in the Philippines (Matunhay, 2018). However, there is limited to no literature

that tackles the factors that affect residents’ decisions to stay in a floodplain.

Therefore, this qualitative research aims to understand the various factors that can

cause different interpretations of flood warnings among residents of Barangay Tuganay

and to explore why some residents choose to stay and are hesitant to evacuate

immediately, as well as their underlying experiences and perceptions influenced by the

area’s repeated flood. Also, gather suggestions from residents regarding intervention

programs that can assist them in mitigating flood risk and safeguarding their properties.

Research Questions

1. How does residents’ experience with flooding impact their perception of flood

risk and decision-making processes?

2. What are the factors or circumstances that influence residents’ decision to stay in

flood-prone areas?

3. What are the possible intervention programs that the authority can offer to

improve the situation of residents in flood-prone areas?

Theoretical Lens

Everett Rogers developed the Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) in (1975),

which theorizes that people’s decisions to engage in protection behaviors have driven by

their perceptions of risk and coping ability (Wescot et al., 2017). However, people are

less likely to engage in protective behavior if they believe the threat is lesser or lack

confidence in their capacity to handle the situation. Therefore, determining the risk

perception of residents plays a crucial part in the decision-making process of whether to

stay or leave the area. If the residents consider the severity and the likelihood of flood is

low or have the confidence to cope with the flood due to experience, they may be more

inclined to stay in the area. Emotional attachment also considered; the fear of losing

one’s home, belongings, and investments might make residents hesitant about

considering moving to a safer place. People often establish strong social bonds within

their local community, and these ties may give a sense of belonging and support during

times of difficulty. It also includes the social norms and shared values of the community;

for instance, the residents may have a sense of obligation to stay in the area and develop

coping strategies, or the way they perceive the risk of a flood could also be the reason for

their strong attachment to the place.

Flooding has become one of society’s most prominent issues, especially since the

population living in the flood-prone area has been increasing. The theory mentioned

above have a variety of factors, such as emotional attachment towards their homes or

community, influence by one another, or how they perceive the risk based on their

experience in flood. Identifying human behavior is critical in residents’ decision to stay in

flood-prone areas to provide potential interventions or strategies to encourage residents to

make safer decisions regarding their situation.

Significance of the study

This section will briefly describe the various significances of the individuals who

will benefit from this study.

Residents. They will be able to understand the factors that influence their

decision-making process and understand the importance of safety and welfare in the risk

associated with their area. In addition, residents will be more inclined to take precautions

and create better solutions or decisions in living in the flood-prone area.

Government Officials. Understanding the underlying reasons for the residents’

decisions could help develop more effective and inefficient policies to protect the

residents and mitigate the potential impact of floods.

Disaster Management Organization. To create more efficient approaches for

promoting safer decision-making and reducing the risks of flood-related harm through

gaining a greater knowledge of the needs and problems of communities in flood-prone

areas. Disaster management organizations can enhance their ability to respond and ensure

the safety of impacted individuals by strengthening communication and interaction with

at-risk communities.

Researchers. This can enhance understanding the complex interplay between

factors that shape human behavior in the face of a flood. It also provides practical

experience, which can be valuable for their professional development. These also provide

opportunities to engage with residents and others involved in flood risk management.
Scope and limitations

This research will be carried out in order to give information on what factors

influence residents’ decisions to stay in Barangay Tuganay (a flood-prone area). It

focuses on the residents living in Barangay Tuganay, and the respondents should not be

18 years old below.

This study will use open-ended questions to get the residents’ views in Barangay

Tuganay. The study will be limited by the sample size and the potential bias that may

arise from self-reporting.

Operationalization of Terms

Factors. This refers to the elements that have been identified as potentially

affecting residents’ decision-making process, which classifies into three – economic,

social, and psychological factors.

Influence. This refers to the various factors that affect or shape residents’

decision to remain despite the risk of flooding.

Residents. This refers to the participants in this study who still lived in the flood-

prone area in Barangay Tuganay, Carmen.

Flood-prone. This refers to the land subject to recurring floods and poses a

significant risk to people, property, and personal safety.

 CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Risk Perception

Risk perception plays a significant role in encouraging individuals to take action

to avoid, minimize, adapt to, or even disregard potential hazards (Wachinger et

al., 2013), and it is also a key concept in disaster risk management as it determines what

risk people are concerned about and how they respond to them. Generally, people

commonly assess the risk based on their interpretation and intuition, and conclusions

from their limited gathered information, including media coverage, but only sometimes

rely on objective risk factor information (Shin et al., 2019). Wachinger et al., (2013) have

different assertion, they argue that media coverage, age, gender, education, income,

social status, and other cultural and individual factors do not have an important role, but

instead, they operate as mediators or drivers of the crucial causal connections amongst

experience, trust, perception, and awareness to adopt preventive actions.

On the other hand, the study of risk perception stemmed from the public’s and

experts’ opposing viewpoints on risk in the 1960s. Traditional studies on risk perception

have often concentrated on the features of particular hazards as risk perception variables.

Researchers recognize the need to focus on the social, political, and cultural settings in

which risk develops and the relationships between individuals, risk perception, and the

environments wherein risk experienced (Cardwell and Elliott, 2019).

Direct and Indirect Experience in Disaster

Ge et al., (2021) state that two dimensions of experience contribute to risk

perception: direct experience (such as witnessing a natural disaster firsthand) and indirect

experience (such as learning about natural disasters via the media and education).

Numerous studies, including Wachinger et al., (2013) and Knuth et al., (2014), have

demonstrated that direct experience positively correlates with risk perception. However,

these outcomes differ depending on the characteristics of the occurrence and the

experience. In fact, some researchers propose that if the consequences of the events are

minor or if the events are rare, it does not affect risk perception. Lechoska (2018) argued

that several studies emphasize the importance of personal experiences in shaping one’s

perception of flood risk. People who have had direct experience with flooding have a

greater degree of flood risk perception. In other words, social risk perception is often low

in locations where flooding is uncommon.

Nevertheless, in the research study of Askman et al., (2018) in Sri Lanka, it was

stated that the majority of the respondents’ interviews consider the flood as part of their

life as it happens several times per year. The people who live in the flood-prone area tend

to normalize the risk associated with flood and consider it more of an inconvenience than

a disaster, and it also stated that residents had been living generation by generation, and

they have handed down their knowledge on how to deal with flooding as well as their

methods for overcoming it. Similar to the study of Chawawa (2018), which emphasized

their personal experience with floods over the years, and it provided a chance for them to
become adapt to floods while developing the ability to live with them. The people have

embraced floods as a part of life even though they are occasionally affected; it is no

longer a big source of concern for them every year. Personal flood encounters influence

how affected individuals perceive their own vulnerability and risk to flooding, as well as

their perceptions of climate change and how they respond to flooding (Demski et

al., 2017). Wachinger came to the conclusion that the level of individual impact sustained

in disaster events influences respondents’ perspectives. Thus, low-severity and

infrequently encountered hazards can create a false sense of security; only high-severity

hazards can increase risk perception (Wachinger et al., 2013).

In addition, it discovered that the effect of individual risk perception on risk-

adapting protective behavior had been the focus of substantial research in recent years

(Thistlethwaite et al., 2018). A literature review found that assessing preparedness for

disasters based on risk perception needs to be stronger and more consistent (Lechowska,

2018). Various studies have found that mitigation behavior is clearly connected to risk

perception; for example, Reynaud et al. observed that several flood-protective actions

taken by Vietnamese families have driven by flood risk perception (Nguyen, 2013).

Further research, on the other hand, found no statistically significant connection between

risk perception and disaster preparedness. For example, Ge et al., (2021) reviewed the

literature and discovered that risk perception and disaster preparedness need to be more

substantial or more associated in the empirical investigation they conducted and

discovered that risk perception barely connected with preparedness in three distinct

flood-affected regions in Germany.

 Scolobig et al., (2012) validated this finding by presenting an Italian case study

on flood mitigation behavior. Wachinger et al., (2013) also discovered a complicated

connection between risk perception and preparedness: people with low-risk perceptions

may prepare for natural disasters, but the opposite can also happen. Choon et al., (2019)

investigated the relationship between risk perception and mitigation behaviors in

response to climate change; however, the anticipated impact of risk perception on

mitigation actions still needs to be validated. It refers to this weak connection that exists

between risk perception and personal behaviors as “the risk perception paradox” and

explains it as follows: (1) individuals prefer to accept the risk because the advantages that

they have perceived outweigh the potential negative impacts, despite understanding the

risk; (2) individuals do not recognize any agency for actions and delegate responsibility

for action despite understanding the risk; and (3) the limited resources available limit

individuals’ ability to change the situation, despite their awareness of the danger

(Wachinger et al., 2013).

There are three explanations why people might conclude that the benefits

outweigh the possible adverse effects. The three subsequent instances expand on these

concepts: people happen to be aware that a particular natural hazard is likely to occur and

will result in serious personal consequences, but they also have additional risks (which

may perceive as more serious) to be concerned about (e.g., social, economic, and

security-related issues have mentioned) (Wachinger et al., 2013). Furthermore, the need

to secure daily livelihoods is more emotionally significant than the risk perception of

natural hazards. People who have or do not have hazard experience may regard the threat
of a future natural hazard to their livelihood as low, and thus the benefits (for example,

fertile agricultural land or the beauty of the landscape) exceed the disadvantages (Barberi,

2013). Research on floods and phenomenon hazards discovered that if people predict the

worst living circumstances after evacuation or are scared they won’t be able to preserve

their property after leaving, they will stay in a dangerous place as long as possible.

Furthermore, evacuation conditions prevent people from leaving even in the face of a

major natural disaster.

Trust in Government and Authorities

According to some that have reviewed, dependence on scientific experts and

authorities and confidence in preventative measures are important determinants for risk

perception of natural disasters. Individuals use trust to manage personal risk through

externalized faith: individuals cannot inform themselves about all hazards they face due

to an increasingly complicated environment. As a result, individuals feel obligated to rely

on authorities and experts, and they are utilized as a shortcut to avoid having to make

reasonable judgments based on information by picking trustworthy experts whose

opinions may be regarded as reliable (Wachinger et al., 2013).

A trust exists on numerous levels, including interpersonal, group, inter-

organizational, institutional, and social trust. The various focal points for the articles

under consideration also called into question how trust was defined and operationalized.

Furthermore, when researchers formulated definitions for trust, there was frequently a

dynamic assumption for trust as an idea that existed between two parties. Mehta et al.,
(2017), on the other hand, the primary concept of trust in government communication

might occur at institutional, organizational, group or interpersonal levels and involve a

government agency or spokesperson or expert from a government agency, or even

organizations other than the government. The amount of trust is likely to impact how we

pay attention to and handle communication amid disasters.

However, trust has two opposing side effects. People in areas where dikes are not

there tend to underestimate hazards in most cases. This is especially true when people

have a high level of faith in management performance, as is the case with flood

protection and the use of dikes and dams as structural barriers (Botzen, 2013). In this

situation, trust lowers one’s perception of the possibility and severity of a flood, which in

turn lowers willingness and preparatory actions. On perception and behavioral responses

to climate change against floods, Whitmarsh (2013) found comparable results.

Additionally, Bichard and Kazmierczak (2015) discovered that the majority of people

think that government agencies are primarily in charge of protecting against flooding and

are therefore required to help alleviate residents of the responsibility of taking personal

protective measures.

Nonetheless, studies have emphasized the role of culture, relationships, and social

trust in the domains of natural hazards and emergency management. An Indonesian

research in the emergency management domain with a risk emphasis found how culture

fostered confidence in disaster communication sources that were viewed as part of the

community (Gultom, 2016). Moving into the pre-disaster phase of the natural hazards
area, Canadian participants were more inclined to plan for disasters when there was great

social trust (Yong et al., 2019). Trust was a social element in the response-phase study of

natural disasters, with poor trust in authorities and each other (Yari et al., 2019).

In Chile, post-disaster study in the natural hazard area discovered regional

differences in trust, which improved after disasters but to a lesser extent for areas with

low pre-disaster trust as opposed to those with high pre-disaster trust (Dussaillant and

Guzman, 2014). In the natural disaster sector, research from Japan found that the

recovery phase can boost trust in organizations and communities that are driven to

promote positive results (Cheng et al., 2015). Social capital has identified as a function

for cultural elements and community connectivity in relation to preparedness and post-

disaster performance across several focus/phases and in the natural hazards and

emergency management domains.

According to Paton (2013), trust was only required when the decision-maker has

to deal with uncertainty. Decision makers are frequently challenged with uncertainty

when dealing with hazards caused by nature. In this context, “trust serves to minimize the

uncertainty and complexity that people experience when faced with novel events.” Trust

therefore becomes “a construct of significant value when dealing with unfamiliar,

infrequent, and complex environmental hazards.” Paton’s research on bushfires,

earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and floods demonstrates that “when addressing

infrequently occurring natural hazards, information will be assessed in terms of peoples’

broad assumptions regarding trust in the social institutions providing information.” High
levels of trust might be detrimental in terms of motivating individuals to take preparatory

actions in their area. In other words, if individuals believe that government agencies will

protect them, they may not feel the need to take personal precautions. Furthermore, trust

with authorities is required to create a social climate in which authorities’ judgment is

taken into account in times of crisis (Wachinger et al., 2013).

Furthermore, confusion or misinformation regarding the proper action to take, as

well as a lack of capacity/resources to help oneself, must all be addressed. As a result, it

is not just an issue of increasing risk perception but also of equipping individuals with the

physical and mental strength to influence their circumstances. Experience and trust are

vital in transferring/sharing information between “experts” and “lay people,” according to

Siegrist and Gutscher (2015).

Place Attachment

According to research, the places that people and groups occupy can have a

tremendous impact on their experiences, realities, relationships, and welfare (Clarke et

al., 2016) define place attachment is the intense social and symbolic bond people have

with specific locations. People’s interactions create, contribute to, and strengthen place

attachment with their physical and social contexts, which were made up of place reliance

and place identity (Clarke et al., 2016). It is also commonly considered a positive link

and may expressed on various spatial scales. Individuals may form bonds with their

neighbors, villages, cities, provinces, states, and so on (Gustafson, 2014).

 The importance of place attachment in the decision to stay or migrate in response

to stresses has been thoroughly acknowledged in the literature (Anton and Lawrence,

2014) sense of place is an encompassing concept that includes place attachment (the

degree to which individuals are drawn to their locations) and place-meaning (the reasons

why people have a connection to places) both are viewed differently at different

geographic scales, and it is also characterized as an umbrella concept that incorporates

place attachment, place identity, and place reliance (Brown et al., 2015). Morehead City

(2019) argues that there is a need to broaden the more constrained theoretical

interpretation of place attachment to a larger understanding that incorporates other

elements of the phrase and, as a result, supports its significance in the mobility discussion

across several disciplines. Further, this study conceptualizes place attachment as a more

extensive phrase defining the emotional tie between individuals and places,

corresponding to more extensive definitions offered by Bonaiuto et al., (2016). It

acknowledges its multifaceted character, which includes a variety of fundamentally

personal, intervening, and location-based variables (Bukvivk et al., 2022).

Recent studies show that even while disasters threaten place attachments, people

frequently decide to stay in their houses thereafter. People’s decisions to stay in their

houses after calamities have explained by a strong attachment (Nejat et al., 2016). For

instance, in Bangladesh the people that have been affected and lost their houses due to

erosion of riverbank; choose to migrate close to their original place because of the strong

social ties as well as accessibility in natural resources are essential to sustain their

livelihoods (Paul et al., 2020). In addition, following Hurricane Sandy, the Canadian
government offered some residents home buyouts so they could relocate to areas away

from the usual hurricane paths. Binder et al., (2015) contend that residents’ decisions to

stay put or move have primarily influenced by their sense of place and attachment to their

current surroundings.

Melnik and Weissman (2021) stated that this deep sense of place explains why

some people choose not to accept the government’s offers to buy their properties.

However, there is little knowledge of other factors, like money and physical health that

might influence people’s choices. Furthermore, a lot of these studies on decision-making

in the aftermath of disasters are based on singular or infrequent occurrences, whereas

flooding has always existed in New Brunswick. The flooding has, however, become more

severe and frequent. People who live in vulnerable areas, such as the flood zones in New

Brunswick, may decide to move because of the severity and frequency of disasters that

have recently increased. Governments at the municipal, provincial, and federal levels,

insurers, developers, and people will need to comprehend how decisions made in the

wake of flooding affect housing reality in susceptible areas in order to make better future

plans (Melnik and Weissman, 2021)

According to Bukvic et al., (2022) despite numerous variations in interpretation,

place attachment appears to be an important and well-documented factor that determines

risk perceptions and commitment to stay in place and cope with risk occurrences

regardless of the actual effectiveness of this decision. Given the expected magnitude and

scope of flooding, it appears reasonable to predict that relocation support systems and
programs will need to be ramped up to assist several different areas at the same time. As

a result, a better knowledge of which places are more likely to accommodate migration

versus adaptation in place would be critical for proactively assessing relocation

possibilities at larger regional scales (Bukvic et al., 2022).

Nonetheless, Bonaiuto et al., (2016) conducted a review study on natural hazards.

Among several other topics, the authors investigated the association between place

attachment and risk perception. There are findings of eight researchers found that a

stronger place connection has connected to a higher awareness of the onset of a natural

disaster, which included flooding. People who reside in threatened places have shown to

have stronger place attachments, probably because the likelihood of losing the place

reminds residents that they have an attachment to it (Cheng and Chou, 2015). Bonaiuto et

al., (2016) also report on four researches that found a negative association. In situations

of risk exposure, higher place attachment was associated with decreased risk

perception.This finding implies that deeply connected people may feel comfortable in

their houses, which may lead to disregard or denial of the possible danger, resulting in an

underestimating of potential risk (De Dominicis et al., 2015; Bonaiuto et al, 2016).

The ‘optimism bias’ could be used for people who believe that a disaster ‘will not

happen to them,’ yet it is more probable that it will happen somewhere else or to

someone else (Dominicis et al., 2015; Bonaiuto et al., 2016). According to the review

study conducted by Bonaiuto et al., (2016), place attachment can be a barrier to assessing

and responding to naturally existing threats. As an illustration, a higher place attachment

indicated being closer to a risk factor; the opposite has linked to a decreased sense of risk.

Individuals with strong attachments are less likely to migrate and are more inclined to

return to unsafe locations following a natural environmental disaster (Bonaiuto et

al., 2016). According to Dominicis et al., (2015), when the perceived threat is huge, place

attachment may operate as a barrier to implementing preventative behaviors to cope with

a potential threat of flooding.

Economic Dimension

This was quite prominent in literature as it includes opportunities for gainful

employment (access to agricultural plots, communal infrastructure such as schools, health

care, and shops), as well as financial affluence (regular income, savings and other

material assets, compensation payments) (Bukvic et al., 2015). Economic limitations are

frequently linked to the current building: residents may choose not to relocate if they

cannot afford to demolish their building or have yet to pay off their mortgage (Okada et

al., 2014). They may want to stay and invest in reconstructing and, if possible, flood

proofing their homes (Okada et al., 2014).

On the other hand, economic and financial reasons have been demonstrated to be

a key factor. People may prefer to live in such places because they can only afford homes

in flood-prone zones, or because such locations have lower land and property values.

Fernandez et al., (2018) discovered that low-income households are more likely to dwell

in flood-prone locations due to budgetary restrictions. Similarly, Liu et al., (2017)

discovered that persons who believe they cannot afford to live in less risky places are
more likely to reside in flood-prone areas. However, large-scale disasters, on the other

hand, may cause local property prices in surrounding, unaffected areas to rise. As a result,

households may be compelled to relocate a long distance away from the affected area in

order to buy a new home at a reasonable cost (Seebauer and Winkler, 2019).

According to Fernandez et al., (2018), economic variables such as housing

affordability and availability play a significant role in residents' decisions to live in flood-

prone locations. They suggest that because of budgetary constraints, low-income

households are more likely to live in flood-prone locations, whereas higher-income

households may opt to live in these areas due to reduced property prices. According to

the study, flood risk reduction initiatives should focus on improving housing affordability

and availability for low-income households, as well as enticing residents to relocate to

less flood-prone areas.

Furthermore, the study discovered that residents' decision to stay in flood-prone

locations was influenced primarily by their livelihood because of the economic

opportunities afforded by agriculture, forestry, and other natural resource-based sectors,

residents were more likely to stay in flood-prone areas. These individuals frequently had

strong cultural ties to the area and were hesitant to leave despite the dangers of flooding.

These industries' economic prospects outweighed the risk of residing in a flood-prone

area (Harlan et al., 2014). According to Harlan et al., (2014), low-income populations are

more likely to stay in flood-prone locations because they lack the finances to relocate.

These residents frequently resided in bad housing and had limited access to
transportation, making it difficult for them to relocate to safer locations. The cost of

relocating was frequently a significant obstacle for many residents.

Another finding of Harlan et al., (2014) is substantial policy and practice

implications. It is obvious that economic prospects, a lack of resources, cultural

attachments to the land, and community identity are significant in identifying the people's

decision-making process. Effective flood mitigation and disaster preparedness techniques

are also essential for minimizing flood risk and protecting communities. Additionally,

efforts should be made to guarantee that low-income residents have access to inexpensive

housing and transportation, and affective response and efforts to the residents living in

prone (Harlan et al., 2014)

 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the methodology overview, which contains the research design,

research locale, research participants, data collection, data analysis, and ethical

considerations.

Research Design

This research is qualitative in the study of Factors that Influence Residents’

Decision to Stay in a flood-prone area. Qualitative research is chosen as it allows

exploration and provides deeper insights regarding individuals’ lived experiences and

perceptions. This focuses on gathering information through open-ended and

conversational communication. This strategy considers not just “what” individuals think

but also “why” they think that way. Through this method, researchers can collect in-depth

interviews of participants based on their responses which will provide a comprehensive

understanding of the context behind their decisions. Researchers will use the

Phenomenological approach, which is a type of qualitative research that examines a

person’s living experiences in the world. The researchers believe that it is a powerful

approach to inquiry since the nature of this research often relies Because the nature of

this study frequently relies on it, the researchers feel it is a potent technique to inquiry to

study a phenomenon as it is experienced and seen by the participant, with the goal of

discovering what the phenomenon is rather than what causes it or why it is occurring at

all.
Research Locale

Figure 1: Shows the flood hazard map of Barangay Tagunay, Carmen, Davao Del Norte.

Figure 2: Shows the geographic area of Barangay Tuganay, Carmen, Davao Del Norte.
 The study will be conducted in Barangay Tuganay, an area situated at

approximately 7.3709, 125.7219, on the island of Mindanao, and it is home to a diverse

population of around 4,966 residents in the year 2020 census (PhilAtlas, 2023). Office of

the Municipal Engineer (2008) stated that Barangay Tuganay flooding occurs 2-3 times

annually due to its proximity to the Tuganay River, which predominantly affects the low-

lying regions along the river. In the year 2007, flood events recorded the damages, 23.2

million pesos in crop damage, 17.4 million pesos in infrastructure damage, 1.7 million

pesos in fishery damage, and a total of 27 thousand individuals were affected (DPWH,

2008). Despite its vulnerability to floods and hazards due to its geographical position,

Barangay Tuganay still has around 4 thousand residents who are still living in the area.

Research Participants

This research will use In-depth interviews with individuals living in flood-

prone areas who are willing to participate in the study. Participants will be selected based

on the specific criteria to make sure the significance and diversity of perspectives. The

inclusion criteria contained residents who have experienced multiple flood events (more

than five years of experience), those who choose to remain in flood-prone areas despite

the situations, and residents who are not below 18 years old because parental consent

would be mandatory to retrieve prior to all interviews, according to Swedish legislation.

The exclusion criteria will be applied to residents who lack firsthand experience or

recently relocated to the area. In addition, this study consists of ten (10) participants for

in-depth interviews. According to Ellis (2016), 6 to 20 individuals are sufficient in

phenomenological research to understand the phenomenon in-depth. The In-depth

Interview will be conducted privately to make sure confidentiality and allow them to

express their perspective freely. The researchers will make to establish a comfortable,

non-judgmental environment and build trust with the participants. This approach will

encourage open conversations and allow residents living in flood-prone areas to share

their personal experiences and thoughts without fear of being criticized. Therefore,

researchers were able to gather detailed insights and a deeper understanding of how

individuals make decisions regarding staying in flood-prone areas.

Data Collection

This research will be conducted through In-depth Interviews as a primary method

of collecting the data, employing purposeful sampling. Using the interview guide allows

participants to respond in an open-text format, allowing them to respond based on their

own knowledge, feeling, and comprehension. It signifies that the answer to this question

is not confined to a set of choices. The research first part is the participant’s personal

information, which is optional. The Second part is the open-ended questions which will

serve to collect in-depth interviews of participants based on their responses, the

interviewer/researcher attempts to gain insight into their motivation and sentiments.

Questions may vary, and also it is already translated in a Cebuano for the participants to

understand the formulated question.

Data Analysis
 The researchers will use thematic analysis to analyze the data. First, the researcher

will record all of the participants’ responses during the in-depth interviews and gather

audio records for transcription. The researcher will examine the objectives and identify a

question that may be addressed with the information gathered. Second, the researchers

will code and transcribe the data, identifying and categorizing the thoughts and concepts.

Third, the researchers will look for patterns and connections in the data that will assist

them in answering the study questions. Following that, the researchers will present the

findings and hold conversations about them depending on their relevance to the research

issues.

First, researcher will record all of the participants' comments.

Second, the researchers will code and transcribe the data.

Third, researchers will make themes and connections in the data.

Lastly, the researchers will present results base on its relevance to

the research questions and provide discussions to them.

Figure 3: Shows the flow of the data analysis.

Ethical Considerations
 To secure the rights, safety, and protection of all participants in this research

project, ethical considerations and rules will be implemented first. It represents the

essential ethical aspects of dissertation principles.

Informed Consent. First, the researcher writes a letter of intent to the Tuganay Barangay

Captain, requesting authorization. The participants were then requested for their consent

via the Informed Consent Form, which is fully included in the Appendices.

Confidentiality. The participants were assured that the information they provided would

be kept secret and that they would stay anonymous since they were assigned individual

codenames. Nobody knew what the participants said. During the in-depth interview, only

the researchers will have access to the participants’ replies.

Respect for Participants. They are given the option to withdraw from the research at any

time and are not required to participate. To avoid ethical concerns over the course of this

research, all precautions must be taken carefully in order to preserve and respect the

participants’ rights.

Beneficence. The participants were handled ethically, not just by respecting their

decisions and keeping them safe but also by taking measures to ensure their well-being.

The researchers safeguarded their replies as well as their identities, and all information

would be utilized to benefit both the participant and the researcher.

Non-Maleficence. The researchers underline the need to avoid activities that would

endanger the participants. The researchers had a legal commitment not to do anything

that might endanger the volunteers.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS GUIDE QUESTIONS PROBING QUESTIONS

1. How do residents past 1.1. How has your own 1.1.1. Describe the most significant floo

flood experiences impact experience with flooding you have experienced.

their view of risks and the changed how you

1.1.2. How did it affect you, your family
decisions they make perceive the risks
your community?
when dealing with flood- associated with them?

related situations?

1.2. How has it 1.2.1. How has your perception of flood

influenced the way you changed as a result of your person

make decisions when it experience with flooding? Please

comes to dealing with specific examples.

flood-related

circumstances?

2. What were the 2.1. Why did you choose 2.1.1. What specific features of the

influencing factors that to stay in the flood- neighborhood or community mad

led to the residents’ prone area? What choose to stay in this area?

decision to stay in the factors led this decision?

2.1.2. Did you explore and compare oth
flood prone area?
before making your decision? If s

set this area apart from the others

2.2. Could you share any 2.2.1. Have you ever decided to stay in

personal experiences or home or location despite receivin

 circumstances where warnings?

you just choose to stay

2.2.2. What factors influenced your dec
despite flood warnings?
stay despite the flood warnings?
What factors led to that
2.2.3. Were there any challenges or obs
decision?
that pre vented you from evacuati

seeking shelter elsewhere during

flood warning? If so, please descr

them.

2.2.4. How did the actual flood event co

to the warnings you received?

2.2.5. Reflecting on your decision to sta

despite the flood warnings, do yo

believe it was the right choice? W

why not?

3. What recommendations 3.1. What specific 3.1.1. Have you noticed any efforts by l

do residents have for actions or programs do authorities to address the issue of

local authorities to you believe local flooding in your area? If so, what

address the living authorities should take they and do you think they were

conditions of individuals to improve the living effective?

residing in flood-prone conditions of residents

3.1.2. How do you think the issue of flo
areas, including their own in areas prone to your area can be addressed in a

communities? flooding, including your sustainable and long-term manner

own?
3.1.3. What specific actions or program

think local authorities should imp

to improve the living conditions o

residents in flood-prone areas?