## 5 Conclusions
**Acknowledgments:** The author would like to acknowledge the in-kind support of Romblo State University, Local Government of Odiongan, National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA), Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical, and Astronomical Services Administration (PA-GASA), Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB), Bureau of Soils and Water Management (BSWM), and the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) for the conduct of the study. **Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest. **Appendix A**In identifying the weights of factors, the pairwise comparison procedure usually contains a questionnaire for comparing all the elements and a geometric mean to arrive at a final solution. Psychologists conclude that the nine points shown in Table A1 are the most used comparison matrix individuals can compare simultaneously and consistently rank. The feature weight was assigned to each parameter, where levels were reclassified and normalized into 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (1 for the least priority and 5 for the most prior). Assigned values depend on how primary the level or category is. Table A2 indicates the feature weight of every indicator. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Indicators** & **Feature Class** & **Feature Weight** \\ \hline
**Flood Hazard Parameters** & & \\ \hline  & 2200 & 1 \\  & 2210 & 1 \\ Average Annual Rainfall (in mm) & 2220 & 2 \\  & 2230 & 3 \\  & 2240 & 4 \\  & 2250 & 5 \\ \hline  & 0–5 & 5 \\  & 6–20 & 4 \\ Elevation (in meters) & 21–50 & 3 \\  & 51–150 & 1 \\  & 151–600 & 0 \\ \hline  & 0–3 & 5 \\  & 3–8 & 4 \\ Slope (in degrees) & 8–18 & 3 \\  & 18–30 & 2 \\  & 30–50 & 1 \\  & 50 above & 0 \\ \hline  & Sandy, loamy sand, or sandy loam & 1 \\ Soil Type & Silt loam or loam & 3 \\  & Clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, or clay & 5 \\ \hline  & 0–0.5 & 1 \\  & 0.51–1 & 2 \\ Flood Depth (in meters) & 1.01–1.5 & 3 \\  & 1.51–2 & 4 \\  & 2\textgreater{} & 5 \\ \hline
**Flood Vulnerability Parameters** & & \\ \hline  & 0.839339–0.839655 & 1 \\  & 0.839656–0.963855 & 2 \\ Gender Ratio (men to women ratio) & 0.963856–1.008065 & 3 \\  & 1.008066–1.040521 & 4 \\  & 1.040522–1.208661 & 5 \\ \hline  & 29–30 & 1 \\  & 31–32 & 2 \\ Mean Age & 33–34 & 3 \\  & 35–36 & 4 \\  & 37–38 & 5 \\ \hline  & 500,000 and over & 1 \\  & 250,000 to 499,999 & 1 \\ Average Income & 100,000 to 249,999 & 2 \\  & 600,000 to 99,999 & 3 \\  & 40,000 to 59,999 & 4 \\  & Less than 40,000 & 5 \\ \hline  & 5–12 & 1 \\  & 13–26 & 2 \\ Number of PWD & 27–37 & 3 \\  & 38–55 & 4 \\  & 56–70 & 5 \\ \hline  & College Graduate & 3 \\ Highest Educational Attainment & High School Graduate & 5 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Parameters with their designated feature weight. Pairwise comparison was based on adequate information, expert knowledge, and experience using a questionnaire. Ten (10) experts on-field and end-users determined the relevance of one alternative over the other with a pairwise comparison method presented in a matrix. Gathered weight for each criterion and option used a pairwise comparison technique. Then, each comparison is graded by expert respondents and end-user using the nine-point scale of importance. Eligible respondents and their credentials are shown in Table A3. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Respondent** & **Field of Expertise/Project Involvement** & **Agency/Institution/Project** & **Years in Service** \\ \hline
1 & Water Resource Engineering/Disaster Risk & Mapua University & 10 \\ \hline
2 & Meteorology/Hydroology & PAGASA-DOST & 30 \\ \hline
3 & Project Staff & FRAMER—Mapua University & 4 \\ \hline
4 & Researcher & FRA Project—Asian Institute of Technology & 3 \\ \hline
5 & Disaster Risk/Municipal Engineer & LGU—Odiongan & 30 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table A3: Respondent’s credentials for pairwise comparison technique.