京 都 大 学 防 災 研 究 所 年 報 第47号 C 平成16年3月
Annuals of Disas. Prev. Res. Inst., Kyoto Univ., No. 47 C, 2004

Participatory Planning in Developing Earthquake Disaster Reduction Plan
in Marikina City, Philippines

Tamiyo KONDO*, Haruo HAYASHI, Kenneth TOPPING, Norio MAKI**,
Michiko BANBA**, Keiko TAMURA, Shigeo TATSUKI****, Satoshi TANAKA,
Kei HORIE**, Koichi HASEGAWA**,
Yuka KARATANI***, Yoshinobu FUKASAWA****** COE Researcher, DPRI, Kyoto University** Earthquake Disaster Mitigation Research Center, NIED*** Graduate school of Engineering, Kyoto University***** Department of Sociology, Doshisha University****** Disaster Reduction and Human Renovation Institution

Synopsis
As a collaborative effort, earthquake disaster experts from Japan joined with alocal stakeholder team made up mainly of Marikina City administrators to develop acomprehensive and integrated Marikina Comprehensive Earthquake Disaster Reduction
Program (CEDRP). The CEDRP features a systematic structure in which a single goalis elaborated into ten objectives, along with policies/strategies and programs/projects
while also taking into account the four phases of the disaster management cycle. The
ten objectives can be categorized into three general policies summarizing physical,
informational and strategic countermeasures.
Keywords: Strategic Plan, Comprehensive Disaster Reduction Plan, Disaster
Management Cycle, Participation

1. Introduction
Losses from hazards can be reduced if stakeholders
in a society take constructive action before the next
disaster occurs. There is a real need for disaster
reduction planning to maintain and enhance people’squality of life and environmental quality. Disaster
reduction planning is the process of determining how
to reduce loss of life and property damage resulting
from natural and human-caused hazards. Disaster
reduction planning can be a tool to achieve this goal
and is important to promote sustainable development.
Developing the Marikina Comprehensive Earthquake
Disaster Reduction Program (CEDRP) is a challenge
to strengthen and maximize the function of theDisaster Reduction Plan. The CEDRP was developedby Marikina City administrators using a consensus-

building approach in order to create a sense ofownership so that they will take active roles inDisaster
implementing
thecomprehensive
countermeasures to reduce earthquake risk. This
paper describes the contents and characteristics of the
CEDRP, and examines its effectiveness andsuperiority. By introducing requirements of theDisaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (U.S) as a set ofcriteria and a template to assess the CEDRP, weevaluated the quality of the contents and theeffectiveness of the planning process. Finally, we
will examine the further challenge to implement andimprove the quality of CEDRP.
2. Participatory Planning Process of Marikina
Initiative - How were the ten Objectives alongwith the Policies/Strategies and Program/Projects
developed?

We held five workshops to develop a disaster
reduction plan for Marikina City through astakeholders’ participatory process. This section
describes participatory planning process throughworkshops, and its goal and outcome.
Workshop 1: Problem Identification Workshop
This workshop aims to share information aboutrisks, the present situation, and future visions ofMarikina City. Three objectives, to increase publicawareness on disasters, collect information on
Marikina City, and to map assets, were set toaccomplish the workshop goal. The first two tasks
were conducted by lecture and third task wasaccomplished by a small group exercise. In thegenerated asset map, critical facilities that should
continue to be operated at the time of disaster werelisted.
Workshop 2: Risk Assessment and Goal SettingWorkshop
The goal of this second workshop is to understandMarikina’s earthquake risk and to outline Marikina’s
disaster reduction goals and objectives. Local
stakeholders focused on defining goals andobjectives for earthquake disaster reduction in
Marikina City. Damage estimation results on criticalfacilities, which were listed in the asset map, weredisseminated at this workshop. The consensus toestablish the Earthquake Disaster Reduction Plan of
Marikina City was reached and in a small groupformat, ideas were generated on how to prevent or
minimize the damage or social disruption in event ofan earthquake. After a round-robin presentation ofideas, 162 statements were categorized into goals andobjectives with clarification of each idea.
Workshop 3: Planning Workshop
Stakeholders work to prepare a conceptual planframework at third workshop. Before workshop 3,
Japanese experts team sort 162 statements, generated
at Workshop2, into ten objective categories, eachparticipant was asked to assign the statements to theappropriate category level of the CEDRP three-levelstrategic planning structure comprised of Objectives,
Policies/Strategies, and Programs/Projects
The goal statement was confirmed and then a fourlayered planning structure, which was adopted from
Marikina Comprehensive Land Use Plan, wasintroduced. The generated ideas were then classified
into categories, 1) Objectives, 2) Polices/Strategies,
and3)
Programs/Projects.
Idea
on
the
Polices/Strategies and Program/Project categories
were fulfilled using a Planning Matrix, which wasreflects the four phases of disaster reduction and areaof expertise on disaster reduction.
Workshop 4: Implementation Workshop
Fourth workshop was held to develop a list of
tentative programs/projects for further evaluation andto review and confirm the generated statement from
1) Objectives, 2) Polices/Strategies, and 3)

Programs/Projects level. Prior to this workshop, theJapanese expert team edited and polished thegenerated ideas. At the end of this workshop, aComprehensive Earthquake Disaster Reduction Planfor Marikina City, which consisted of one goalstatement,tenobjective
statements,
54
policy/strategy statements, and 216 program/projectstatements, was completed.
Workshop 5: Stakeholder Resource Assessment
and Priority Evaluation Workshop
At last workshop, stakeholder developed an
Earthquake Disaster Reduction Action Plan for
Marikina.
The
questionnaire
surveysonprogram/projects importance and available resources
both internal and external were conducted prior to theworkshop. The Action Plan of Marikina Earthquake
Disaster Reduction Plan based on a Comprehensive
Earthquake Disaster Reduction Plan for Marikina
City was established reflecting the results of theresource assessment. Table 1 shows the Goal andTasks of each workshop.
3. Characteristics and Effectiveness of Marikina
Earthquake Disaster Reduction ProgramThis section of the paper describes the structure of
the CEDRP, and points out two of its main
characteristics which are 1) comprehensiveness and2) the disaster management cycle. By providing
comparisons with other disaster reduction plans in
the U.S and Japan, we show the characteristics andsuperiority of the CEDRP and examine its
effectiveness.
3.1 Structure of the plan and strategic planning
The CEDRP is a “strategic plan”, which sets a goaland develops objectives, policies /strategies andprograms/projects, to accomplish its goal. This is oneof the characteristics of the CEDRP compared to the
Basic Plan for Disaster Prevention, the national levelplan in Japan.
Strategic planning usually involves common
elements. These elements are usually reflected inplanning for both disaster reduction and economic
development. They include:
1. Vision - envisioning desired outcomes;
2. Stakeholder
identification
involvingstakeholders, who might be affected by the plan orwhose support will be needed to implement the plan,
early enough in the planning process so their ideas
can be truly considered;
3.
Goals - determining goals and objectives
reflecting critical dimensions of desired outcomes,
described in complete and, if possible, measurable
terms;
4.
Options - assessing opportunities, challenges,
and alternatives for achieving goals;
5.
Structure - creating a coherent plan content

outline and structure;
6. Impacts - assessing potential plan consequences– what could go wrong as well as right;
7. Implementation - formulating actions necessary
for implementing the plan;
8. Schedule – determining a sequence for actions
needed for timely implementation;
9. Resources – determining human and financial
resources needed to implement the plan;
10. Monitoring and feedback – checking results tosee if the plan is working as intended, and if not,either revising the goals or the implementation for
greater consistency between both.
The Goal, Objectives, Policies/Strategies, andPrograms/Projects, which gradually become more
focused and specific, comprise the CEDRP. We
introduced this structure in order to adopt the samestructure as the Marikina Comprehensive Land Use
Plan (CLUP, 2000). This can be useful to ensure
consistency between CEDRP and CLUP (2000). A
Goal can be defined as a long term purpose, which isbroad and abstract in a sense. Objectives are more
specific and narrower in scope than goals and theyelaborate how goals will be achieved. Objectives
encompass Policies/Strategies to attain the identified
goal. “Policies” and “Strategies” have somedifferences. We define Policies as a direction to
encourage action consistent with an organization’s
chosen values and objectives, and Strategies as
actions taken to accomplish short-term outcomes orcompetitive advantage. However, in a broad sense, it
is common that Policies/Strategies are actions that
help you achieve your goals and objectives.
Programs/Projects are specific countermeasures andimplementation actions under Policies/Strategies. A
program is usually ongoing while a project is focusedon a specific result, such as building a bridge. Figure
1 shows the hierarchical structure of the CEDRP.
The Goal is on top with Objectives,
Policies/Strategies, and Programs/Projects below.
Local stakeholders will set the priorities at the bottom
level, Programs/Projects. At this level, Programs andProjects represent a more concrete and quantitative
element.
3.2 Comprehensive and Generic Countermeasures
To accomplish the goal of the CEDRP, we set thefollowing policies to encourage informed andeffective disaster mitigation, preparedness, response,
and recovery programs and projects. The CEDRP
includes three general policies summarizing physical,
informational, and strategic countermeasures. Firstly,
Physical Countermeasures comprised of Critical
Facilities, New Buildings, and Existing Buildings, isa policy of the City of Marikina to protect the lives,property, and activities of the people by ensuring that
infrastructure facilities and buildings throughout thecity are disaster-resistant through use of safe
construction and strengthening methods.
Critical Facilities are basic infrastructure assets:
bridges, fire stations, schools, hospitals, etc. Most ofthese facilities are vulnerable to earthquake threats
and need strengthening, and they are essential for
successful earthquake response and recovery.
The Critical Facilities, Objective 1, statement is:Protect and strengthen infrastructure facilities toprevent loss of lives and damage to properties toallow continued use and to restore normalcy quickly
following disasters. P/S 1-2 states: Preserve routefunctionality of roads and bridges for evacuation andlogistics under all circumstances, and P/S 1-3:
Construction of public and private facilities shouldtake into account potential earthquake threats
including liquefaction.
New Buildings represent a prime investment for the
future, enabling economic development and housing
improvement, and should be strong enough to resist
earthquakes to avoid loss of life and property.
The New Buildings, Objective 2, statement is:
Improve the quality of building design and standards
to encourage and safeguard investment and to protect
human lives, properties, and activities. To achieve
this objective, there are P/S 2-1: Implement the rules
and regulations of the national building code (PD1096) and its referral code strictly, particularly the
structural code. In the Philippines, there is an existingbuilding code; however, it is not consistently
implemented because of a lack of rules andregulations to encourage abiding by the code. P/S 2-3
states: Upgrade the standards of the building review
process with emphasis on Seismic Design Analysis
includingevacuationroutesandsafetyconsiderations.”
Existing Buildings in Marikina City aredemonstrated by interactive risk assessment to bevulnerable to earthquake damage or collapse(Hasegawa, 2004). Strengthening these existingbuildings is one of the important countermeasures tosave human lives. The Existing Buildings, Objective
3, statement is: Identify the condition of existingbuildings and take corrective action to prevent loss of
lives and properties and to allow continued use. To
encourage this, P/S 3-3 states: Invest financial assets
in strengthening public and private buildings throughretrofitting. And P/S 3-4 states: Provide incentives
for retrofitting of existing buildings in accordancewith the building code.
Secondly,Informational
Countermeasures,comprised of Education, Research and Technology,
and Public Information, represents a policy to raise
the level of preparedness of all stakeholders througheducation, timely information, evaluation of hazards,
and implementation of mitigation technologies.
Community support for earthquake safety will
require education. Education should be communitywide, and school children, citizens, and businesspeople must all be involved for this to last. The
Education, Objective 4, statement is: Raise
consciousness and preparedness of all citizens ofMarikina through education and training about
earthquake disaster issues. In order to achieve thisobjective,
P/S
4-3
states:Conduct
seminars/workshops on earthquake disaster issues
within the community and schools. P/S 4-5 states:
Develop the spirit of volunteerism and community
involvement to facilitate disaster awareness andpreparedness. The City should structure and develop
earthquake safety through research and technology
with new computer-based information tools.
The Research and Technology, Objective 5,statement is: Identify and evaluate high-risk areas
through research and appropriate technologies. GIS,
used for the May Risk Assessment Workshop using
local data, is a promising tool and information source.
Public information empowers the community
towards self-help on earthquake safety. It is mosteffective when information generated is locally based.
The Public Information, Objective 6, statement is:
Formulate, maintain and sustain a continuous public
information campaign strategy before, during andafter earthquakes. P/S 6-3 states: Establish local
emergency information dissemination system. Such asystem does not yet exist in Marikina City.
Thirdly, Strategic Countermeasures, comprised ofLand Use Planning, Institutional Initiatives,
Economic Development, Sources of Finance,
represent a policy to combine economic development
and disaster management programs through the useof a well-defined comprehensive land use plan andthrough organizational initiatives to build thecapacity of the City to generate financial resources
enabling the City to fully implement earthquake
disaster reduction programs. For earthquake safety
where you build – that’s land use” - is as importantas how strongly you build. The City of Marikina has
a Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), approvedin 2000, which should be broadened to include
earthquake safety issues. The Land Use Planning,
Objective 7, statement is: Realize the vision of
Marikina as a little Singapore facing minimal risk ofearthquake disaster damage through a well definedland use plan and disaster management program. To
achieve this objective, P/S 7-3 states: Control andregulate construction of buildings in identifies risk
areas, including areas with fault line, landslide threat,liquefaction threat.
Institutional Initiatives is a strategic countermeasurethat encourages all stakeholders, local government,
community, business, industry and NGOs to eachplay a role in achieving earthquake safety. The
Institutional Initiatives, Objective 8, statement is:
Build Marikina’s capacity to mitigate, prepare,
respond and recover from a major earthquake
through developing a Disaster Reduction Plan. P/S 86 states: Create a coordinating body that will deal

continuously with earthquake disaster reduction
issues. We, as disaster reduction specialists, see
Marikina City as a self-reliant community withstrong human assets.
Economic development is one of the important andtypical issues which developing countries have toaddress. The Economic Development, Objective 9,statement is: Incorporate disaster management into
the enhancement of livelihoods and economic
development. P/S 9-1 states: Help the private sector
increase business opportunities, create new jobs, andraise the level of wealth of the community, while
recognizing and reducing earthquake risks. P/S 9-5, a
new idea for this field, states: Develop economic andregulatory incentives to enhance seismic performanceof existing and new construction. Today, Marikina isseen as a “bedroom community;” however, the local
city government is now trying to bring new jobs toMarikina City, and to bring opportunity and balanced
development. Job development and earthquake safety
must go hand in hand, and the City must reach out tobusiness and industry to protect new and existing
investments from unnecessary future earthquake
losses.
Finally, when we implement countermeasures toachieve earthquake safety, we need money. Though
earthquake safety is cheaper in the long run, it.
requires an investment of money Some can comefrom external sources, such as the Japan International
Cooperation Agency or the Asian Development Bank,but most must come from the internal sources. The
Sources of Finance, Objective 10, statement is:
Identify existing local sources of finance andgenerate additional funding from other sources tosupport disaster reduction.
We cannot stress enough how comprehensive the
CEDRP is. This might be one of the mostcomprehensive earthquake disaster reduction plansever compiled even compared to those in the UnitedStates and Japan. In Japan, there is the Basic Plan for
Disaster Prevention at the national level, and theRegional Disaster Reduction Plan at the city
government level; however, most of the elements ofthese plans are comprised of “response” levelcountermeasures, and there is no comprehensive
disaster reduction plan. I will deal with this issue indetail in the next section.
In the United States, looking at the California State
Earthquake Loss Reduction Plan (2002-2006) as an
example, the plan consists of eleven objective
categories: 1) Geosciences, 2) Research andTechnology, 3) Education and Information, 4)
Economics, 5) Land Use, 6) Existing Buildings, 7)
New Buildings, 8) Utilities and Transportation, 9)
Preparedness, 10) Emergency Response and 11)
Recovery. However, CEDRP has the additional
objective categories of Institutional Initiatives andSources of Finance, which the California Plan does
not include. These additional elements highlight theuniqueness and superiority of CEDRP whichcontains objectives especially useful for developing
countries. It is obvious that CEDRP is in no way
inferior to the California Plan, which is one of themost advanced Disaster Reduction Plans.
3.3 Disaster Management Cycle: Mitigation,
Preparedness, Response, and Recovery
Another characteristic of the CEDRP is that we take
into account of the disaster management cycle:
Mitigation, Preparedness, Response and Recovery.
In Japan the response phase is well planned in great
detail; however, mitigation, preparedness andrecovery are considered less serious and have noclear goal for each of the phases. For example, whenlooking at the Basic Plan for Disaster Prevention at
the national level plan, the Mitigation andPreparedness/Response/Recovery ratio is 125:232:25(Kawata, 2003). Kagiya (2003) explains the reason
for this as mitigation, preparedness and recovery are
not inadequately supported by the coffers of local
governments; consequently, they tend to write thispart of the plans abstractly and do not set goals for
Mitigation, Preparedness and Recovery. Also,
Kagiya (2003) points out that recovery would belargely affected by the national level rules andregulation, so that local government cannot set
disaster reduction goals in the Regional Disaster
Reduction Plan. In Japan, however, some local
governments, such as the Tokyo Metropolitan
Government as well as Osaka and Kobe have theirown programs for disaster reduction although, there
is no legal support for them. After the Kobe
earthquake in 1995, the City of Kobe proposed“Christmas-tree type”
The disaster management cycle describes the process
through which emergency managers prepare for
emergencies and disasters, respond to them when
they occur, help people and institutions recover fromthem, mitigate their effects, reduce the risk of loss,
and prevent disasters such as fires from occurring. It
is crucial to take into account each of the disastermanagement phases. Integrating all emergency
management activities, throughout all phases of an
emergency, and across all functions increases
accountability, provides continuity of resource
application, establishes a clear chain of command andcoordination, and identifies responsibilities forcritical task performance. To reduce future losses
through disasters, it is important to create a wellFigure 1 Disaster Management Cyclebalanced plan for each phase, such as building
retrofit for mitigation, organizational capacity
building for preparedness, and well-organizeddisaster response activities for response, andrecovery. Although, it has not only financial resource,
but also human resources to proceed with projects,
local government would not set priorities for projects(Kawata, 2003). This shows that in Japan, generally
speaking, it is not common to prepare an Action Plan,
which includes prioritization and resource assessment
to implement disaster reduction countermeasures.
In the United States, the California State Earthquake
Loss Reduction Plan (2002-2006) includes all phases.
As mentioned in Section 2, Preparedness, Response
and Recovery objectives are included in the Plan. In
Marikina
city,takeholders
formulated
Policies/Strategies statements intended to realize
identified
objectives
anddecidedwhich
Policies/Strategies would be part of each of the fourphases of Disaster Management planning.
Figure 2 shows the Planning Concept Matrix, a tool
we use to fulfill all the elements of disaster reduction
planning. It consists of a matrix of ten fields andthe four phases of disaster reduction: Mitigation,
Preparedness, Response, and Recovery. Stakeholders
learned the Disaster Management Cycle andgenerated ideas on what to include in each phase at
the July workshop. All ideas have not born fruit as acompleted CEDRP; however, it is extremely
important to plan for each disaster phase in order toadequately prepare and recover from disasters.
Generate ideas statements which could realize those
identified objectives

Figure 2 Planning Concept Matrix

4. Marikina Comprehensive Earthquake Disaster
Reduction Plan
4.1. What is the purpose of the Action Plan?
The CEDRP is accompanied by an Action Plan,
which prioritizes Programs/Projects by year to becompleted, and includes timing for completion as
well as projecting the use of internal or external
resources and identifying the department to take thelead. Some mitigation actions may be low-cost
initiatives that can be readily adopted; others may
depend on available funding or would be best
implemented following a disaster when additional
funding may become available. Local government
needs to prioritize the list of possible initiatives toensure that the projects they consider to be the mostimportant get implemented as funding or resources
become available. To accomplish this, the Action
Plan identifies the resources and appropriate steps
necessary to implement projects. It is tempting to
finalize a list of projects that would simply get thejob done. However, it is important to take time toevaluate the relative merits of the alternative projects
and actions and the local conditions in which these
activities
wouldbepursued.
Proposed
Programs/Projects will be evaluated against the
backdrop of what is feasible in terms of the City ofMarikina’s legal, administrative, fiscal, and technicalcapacities. Capability assessment should include a
description of a range of agencies and their resources,
responsibilities,
andlimitations
relatedtoimplementing Programs/Projects. After the Octoberworkshop, when the Programs/Projects wereidentified, we sent questionnaires to the stakeholders
for in preparation for the Action Plan. In thequestionnaires, the City of Marikina administrators
were asked four main questions. 1) Identify theimportance of each of the Programs/Projects(High/Medium/Low) 2) Indicate the Availability ofinternal and external resources for each of thePrograms/Projects (High/Medium/Low) 3) Indicate
the urgency of each of the Programs/Projects (within
1-2 years/within 5 years/within 10 years) 4) Indicate
the leading department for each of thePrograms/Projects.
The questionnaire was used for the November
workshop as a basis for workshop discussions, and toshare the thoughts of the participants with each other.
In a plenary, session, we tentatively suggested theAction Plan be limited to the top 60
Programs/Projects, out of the original 216, based on
the questionnaire responses. In the group sessions,theparticipants
weretodecidewhich
Programs/Projects would be included in the Action
Plan, determine internal and external resource
availability, and indicate the appropriate leaddepartments. Participants discussed the results of theplenary session and decided if Programs/Projects
initially eliminated in the plenary session should berestored. Stakeholders first decided which
Programs/Projects initially eliminated in the plenary
session should be restored and then discussed timingof implementation and the appropriate leaddepartment to implement the Programs/Projects.
4.2 Contents of the Action Plan - Results of theNovember workshop, Resource Assessment andPriority Evaluation Workshop
Table 1 shows that 113 Programs/Projects wereselected as the Action Plan out of 216
Programs/Projects, which we developed as a CEDRP.
In a plenary session in the November workshop, wetentatively selected top 60 Programs/Projects
tentatively, which consists of 28% (60/216), andfinally 52% (113/216) were selected to be included in
the Action Plan by participants which is almost twice
the number suggested in the plenary session.

Table 1 Programs/Projects implementation timing by objectives (Action Plan)#

OBJECTIVE

now(with in 1-2
years)

soon(with in 5
years)

later(with in 10
years)

SUM

All
% of
selected Programs/Projects
P/P

California
selected
P/P

California
Plan
6

1

Critical Facilities

8

32%

5

20%

0

0%

13

(52%)

25

2

2

New Buildings

4

22%

4

22%

0

0%

8

(44%)

18

0

3

3

Existing Buildings

7

27%

3

12%

0

0%

10

(38%)

26

3

11

4

Education

11

52%

4

19%

0

0%

15

(71%)

21

4

6

5

Research & Technology

2

10%

9

45%

4

20%

15

(75%)

20

6

7

6

Public Information

7

47%

3

20%

0

0%

10

(67%)

15

0

0

7

Land Use Planning

8

32%

1

4%

0

0%

9

(36%)

25

8

Institutional Initiatives

16

59%

0

0%

0

0%

16

(59%)

27

1
2

3

9

Economic Development

11

50%

1

5%

0

0%

12

(55%)

22

5

14

10

Sources of Finance

1

6%

3

18%

1

6%

5

(29%)

17

0

3

216

23(11%)

60(28%)

SUM

75

33

When looking at the popularity of each objective,
especially line “now (within 1-2 years), you find thepercentage
oftheoriginallyproposed
Programs/Projects selected was as follows:
Institutional Initiatives 59%, Education 52%, andEconomic Development 50%. The reason for thispopularity can be explained as follows. It is true thatstakeholders in Marikina city officer believe
education as best way to promote disaster reduction
and put high priority. And also, it can be said that
Marikina city are very positive to enlarge theircapacity to demonstrate their initiatives (institutional
initiatives) , and consider economic development is
one of the significance objectives to reduce the losses
from disasters.
The Programs/Projects as developed are mainly
fromthestakeholders;
however,60
Programs/Projects, 28% (60/216) were adopted from
California State Earthquake Loss Reduction Plan
(2002-2006). Finally, the stakeholders selected 23
Programs/Projects out of 216, which consisted ofonly 11% (23/216). This show the stakeholders did
not feel comfortable to adopt many the California
requirements as they wanted to create their own
countermeasures which they considered to beparticularly suitable and appropriate for their local
context.
5. Objective Evaluation on Marikina Earthquake
Disaster
Reduction
programbasedonComparison with the U.S. Disaster Mitigation Act
of 2000
In this section, we evaluate the planning process
and content of the CEDRP by a third-party
measurement, which is the Disaster Mitigation Act of2000 in the United States. The Disaster Mitigation
Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) is an Act that aims toreinforce the importance of pre-disaster mitigation
planning to reduce the nation's disaster losses, and isprimary intended primarily to control and streamline
the administration of federal disaster relief and5

113(52%)

7

mitigation programs. Key features include anemphasis on strong, integrated state and local
planning, incentives for state commitment toplanning and program management, and sanctions fornot meeting requirements at the state and local level.
Table 2 is a worksheet used by local governments
when they prepare a Disaster Mitigation Plan in order
to meet the requirements defined by DMA 2000. By
introducing this requirement sheet under DMA 2000
as a set of criteria and template to evaluate the
CEDRP, this section examines the content andquality of the CEDRP.
5.1 Planning Process
DMA 2000 requires documentation of the planning
process and coordination with other state agencies,
appropriate federal agencies, and interested groups
during the planning process. This is because the early
involvement of other parties provides the opportunity
for integration of mitigation measures with otherplanning efforts. To meet the documentation
requirement, we have executive summaries preparedby the experts from Japan to cover the planningaccomplished through the workshops. From here on,
we are expecting Marikina City itself to take lead to
document its own continuing planning process.
The local plan must be integrated to the extent
possible with other ongoing state planning efforts aswell as other FEMA mitigation programs andinitiatives (DMA 2000, Requirement §201.4(b) ).
FEMA has learned that mitigation plan
implementation is most effective when individualstates integrate mitigation planning efforts with thoseof other state planning programs and initiatives. This
will be the next step further by local stakeholder toreview existing plans and reports in order to identify
opportunity to integrate mitigation measures.
However, we have not coordinated the CEDRP withother planning efforts in Marikina City, which areembodied in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
(2000), “Marikina as a Little Singapore.” This is oneof the challenges for Marikina City administrators towork on for the next step.
5.2 Risk assessment
DMA 2000 requires local government to develop amitigation strategy, which is based on local
vulnerability analysis and risk assessments. The
CEDRP is based on an interactive seismic risk
assessment, in which a field survey was conducted toacquire the above mentioned information for thoseimportant structures which Marikina City
administrators expressed desires to protect in case ofan earthquake. Structures were identified in the
Problem Identification Workshop, in January 2003,
which was part of the series of workshops held forthe purpose of developing the Earthquake Disaster
Reduction Program (Hasegawa, K., 2004).

Table 2 Plan Criteria :monitor mitigation activities. This requirement has
not yet been met in Marikina City; however, it will
be necessary to meet this requirement in theimplementation phase.
6. Conclusion
It is our, Marikina City and experts from Japan, newexciting challenge to develop the Comprehensive
Earthquake Disaster Reduction Program for Marikina
City, in the Philippines with a participatory planning
process. We have examined how comprehensive the
CEDRP is, and have shown that it was developed
through taking into account the disaster management
cycle comprised of mitigation, preparedness,
response and recovery. It is our belief that incomparison with other disaster reduction strategicplans in the U.S and Japan, this CEDRP is one of theStandard Local Mitigation Plan Worksheet

5.3 Mitigation Strategies§201.6(c)(3) (i) requires that the hazard mitigation
strategy shall include a description of mitigation
goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities tothe identified hazards. We set a goal in the CEDRP
and developed Objectives, Policies/Strategies, andPrograms/Projects to accomplish the goal, which iswhat we call “Strategic Planning.” Capability
assessment was conducted by local stakeholders byquestionnaire and discussed at the November
workshop in preparing the Action Plan. A resource
assessment has been accomplished by an evaluationof internal and external resources in addition tohuman resources in each department in Marikina city.
5.4 Plan maintenance procedures
DMA 2000 requires monitoring, evaluating, andupdating the local plan, and identifying a process tomost comprehensive earthquake disaster reductionplans ever compiled.
However, we have several further challenges. One isto conduct an external evaluation of the contents of
the CEDRP. We employed a participatory planning
process to develop the CEDRP through workshopswith Marikina City administrators. The Goal, along
with
Objectives,
Policies/Strategies,
andPrograms/Projects were mainly developed by
Marikina City stakeholders with assistance by
experts from Japan. The quality of the CEDRP has
yet to be evaluated thoroughly in terms ofeffectiveness, merits, and functions of the
Policies/Strategies and Programs/Projects in the
CEDRP. Another challenge is how to implement the
Action Plan. Implementation includes thecoordination with other planning efforts, which Imentioned in Section 4. Also, although we have
prepared the Marikina Comprehensive Earthquake
Disaster Reduction Action Plan, planning has yet to
be done on how to proceed with the Action Plan toimplement Programs/Projects indicated in CEDRP.
Marikina City has to coordinate among all theagencies in the City government, to carry forward theplans and programs to achieve earthquake safety.

Acknowledgments
This project is the part of the Development ofEarthquake and Tsunami Disaster Mitigation
Technologies and Their Integration for the AsiaPacific Region sponsored by the Earthquake Disaster
Mitigation Research Center (EDM), Japan.

References
FederalEmergency
Management
Agency(2002) :State and Local Plan Interim Criteria under
the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 Federal
Emergency Management Agency (2003) :Developing the Mitigation Plan
Kawata, Y (2003) : Theory on Risk Management,
Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto
University (2003) Theory of Disaster Prevention
Planning, Sankaido,Japan
Kagiya,H (2003): System of Disaster Reduction andRisk Management by Local Government,
Gakuyoshobo ,Japan
Hasegawa (2004): Interactive Seismic Risk
Assessment in Marikina City, Philippines, Asian
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Manila,
Philippines
Topping, K et all (2004): Strengthening Economic
Development Through Disaster Reduction Strategic
Planning In the Asia-Pacific Region, Asian
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Manila,
Philippines
Maki, N et all (2004) : Developing Earthquake
Disaster Reduction Planning Process for Asia-PacificRegion, Marikina Initiative: Case Study in Marikina
City, Manila, Philippines

要 旨
本稿は、フィリピン・マリキナ市において、現地の自治体職員と日本の防災専門家とのコラボレーションによって策定された総合的な地震防災計画の策定プロセスとその内容について報告するものである。計画の策定は、計5回のワークショップを通して現地の自治体職員らによる合意形成のもとで行われた。Comprehensive Earthquake Disaster Reduction Program (CEDRP)は、参加型のプロ
セスを通して策定された地震防災計画であり、その総合性・包括性、防災の4段階を考慮に入れた点などで先駆的である。今後は、計画の実現に向けての実行計画をすすめると同時に、CEDRPの有効性、効果などを再び検証して計画の質の向上を図っていくことが求められているといえる。
キーワード: 戦略計画、総合防災計画、トータルリスクマネージメント、参加

COE-07
参加型の地震防災計画の開発−フィリピン・マリキナ市におけるケーススタディ−○ 近藤民代・林春男・Kenneth Topping ・牧紀男・立木茂雄・田中聡・
馬場美智子・田村圭子・堀江啓・長谷川浩一・柄谷友香・深澤良信

１． はじめに
本稿は、フィリピン・マリキナ市において、現地の自治体職員と日本の防災専門家とのコラボレーシ
ョンによって策定された総合的な地震防災計画の策定プロセスとその内容について報告するものである。計画の策定は、計5回のワークショップを通して現地の自治体職員らによる合意形成のもとで行われ、そのプロセスに特徴がある。参加型で計画を開発することによって、現地自治体の計画に対する愛着(sense of ownership) と実現段階への責任感を持たせることを目指し、総合的な地震防災計画とそのアクション・プランが策定された。
２．地震防災計画の構造と特徴
マ リ キ ナ 市 総 合 地 震 防 災 計 画 （ Marikina
Comprehensive Earthquake Disaster Reduction
Program：以下、CEDRP)は、①ゴール（goal）、②方針（objective）、③政策/戦略(policy/strategy)、④プログラム/事業(program/project) という構造をもつ。１つのゴールと、10つの方針（objective）、54の政策/ 戦略(policy/strategy)、そして216のプロ
グラム/ 事業(program/project) から構成されている。防災計画のゴールを設定し、それを実現するための具体的な方策・事業−政策/戦略(policy/strategy) 、 や プ ロ グ ラ ム / 事 業(program/project) −を開発する、といった戦略的計画 (strategic planning) という手法が採用されている点が有効であると言える。また、計画内容の特徴は、第1に、その内容が総合的・包括的であること、第2に、防災の4つのフェーズである被害
抑止、被害軽減、応急対応、復旧・復興といった各々の段階における対策を考えた点に集約することができる。第1に関して言えば、伝統的なイン
フラや建築物の耐震化に加えて、 防災教育 、
公共への情報 、 土地利用計画 、 経済開発 、各主体によるイニシアティブ などの数々の方針（objective）を導入している。第２に関して説明す
ると、４つの段階ごとの対策を講じることは、地震対策間の相互の継続性を保ち、それらの関連を明確することに有効である。

３．アクション・プランの策定
CEDRPは、地震の被害を抑止・軽減するための総合的な対策のリスト、言うならば寄せ集めである。
策定された計画を、実際にマリキナ市で実行に移すには、対策ごとの重要性、実施時期、資源の有無などを考慮して、アクション・プランを策定する必要がある。ワークショップで提案されたCEDRP
内の216のプログラム/事業(program/project) のうち、アクション・プランに含めるものは113とされ、それらが1〜2年以内、5年以内、10年以内の3段階の時期に振り分けられた。現地職員に対するアン
ケート調査によって、アクション・プランに含めるべきプログラム/事業(program/project) の選定を行い、適切ナ実施時期などを尋ねている。この結果をもとに、最終のワークショップを実施してプログラム/事業(program/project) の重要性などを加味した、アクション・プランが策定された。
４．結論
CEDRPは参加型のプロセスを通して策定された
地震防災計画であり、その総合性・包括性、防災の4段階を考慮に入れた点などで先駆的である。
今後は、計画の実現に向けての実行計画をすすめると同時に、CEDRPの有効性、効果などを再び検証して計画の質の向上を図っていくことが求められているといえる。

謝辞
本研究の一部は、文部科学省の科学技術振興調整費による多国間型国際共同研究「アジア・太平洋地域に適した
地震・津波災害軽減技術の開発とその体系化に関する研究」（代表：亀田弘行 地震防災フロンティア研究センター長）」によるものである。