See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267750583

Supporting Local Initiatives in Preserving Heritage Buildings In Iloilo City

(Philippines) through Risk Assessment

Conference Paper · November 2013

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.1232.7363

CITATIONS READS

7 10,384

4 authors, including:

Kirk Kennedy Yu Andres Oreta

De La Salle University De La Salle University
6 PUBLICATIONS 24 CITATIONS 81 PUBLICATIONS 661 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Rhodella A Ibabao
University of the Philippines Visayas
3 PUBLICATIONS 15 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kirk Kennedy Yu on 04 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International  Conference  on  Cultural  Heritage  and  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  
SEAMEO  SPAFA  with  support  from  Japan  Foundation  
NOV  2013  Bangkok,  Thailand  

Supporting Local Initiatives in Preserving Heritage Buildings

In Iloilo City (Philippines) through Risk Assessment  
 
Kirk Kennedy U. Yu1, Andres Winston C. Oreta2, Rhodella A. Ibabao3, and Noel Hechanova4
1
Graduate Student, De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines, [email protected]
2
Professor, Civil Engineering Department, De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines,
[email protected]
3
Assistant Professor, Department of Management, University of the Philippines-Visayas, Iloilo City,
Philippines, [email protected]
4
Head, Iloilo City Community Environment and Natural Resources, Iloilo City, Philippines,
[email protected]
______________________________________________________________________

Abstract

Part of the Philippine’s history is characterized by colonial rule. From a pre-colonial era of Muslim
influence, to a 300-year long Spanish rule, to a 40-year American occupation and some four-year
Japanese sovereignty, the country’s culture has been a unique complexity of coalescing threads of
different cultures as espoused in the heritage buildings found in the country.

The City of Iloilo saw one of the first establishments of Spanish rule and became a prominent centre for
Spanish religious-political seat. Standing today are Spanish-themed churches and monuments that stand
as a testament to the strong colonial heritage in the city. The downtown central business district of the city
hosts 26 identified heritage buildings, which were houses of “illustrados” and trading bazaars of
entrepreneurial Chinese, during the era.

Heritage buildings are a monument to the resiliency and spirit of a people’s culture. However, these
buildings are of ancient built and are prone to several hazards as their physical condition deteriorates with
age. Iloilo city is at the forefront of preserving these buildings through the creation of a Cultural Council
that promulgates guidelines, mitigation and rehabilitation projects. The City has released an ordinance
and implementing guidelines that control renovations, preservations and new construction to conform to
the city’s cultural view. These structures, however, are threatened by hazards such as earthquake, fire
and typhoon. Hence, a qualitative, semi-quantitative rapid risk assessment that covers multi hazards is
proposed for ranking and prioritization of buildings. The aim of the assessment is to shortlist risky
buildings needing immediate attention.
______________________________________________________________________

1. Introduction

Some structures in Iloilo City were built during the American period while a few
dates back to Spanish times. However, the methods of construction, the materials used
in the building, the implemented design and constant wear and tear lead to aggravate
the structural integrity of the structures. This is in keeping with the basic principle that
the usefulness of a structure varies inversely with the increasing life of a building. In a
catalogue developed by the Iloilo City Cultural Heritage Conservation Council, the
oldest building listed was built in the year 1922 (Iloilo City Cultural Heritage
Conservation Council 2006). In the same catalogue, the aforementioned city ordinance
was also published. One of the provisions for a building to be considered in the shortlist
is that it must be at least 50 years old.

1  
 
International  Conference  on  Cultural  Heritage  and  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  
SEAMEO  SPAFA  with  support  from  Japan  Foundation  
NOV  2013  Bangkok,  Thailand  

In a study conducted by (O'Connor 2004), surveys were conducted about the

reason behind demolition of structures in North America. Contrary to popular belief that
structures are demolished because of their physical condition, majority of the buildings
were demolished due to area development reasons, which was observed for 34.8-per
cent of 227 buildings surveyed (O'Connor 2004). For non-residential buildings, most
were ‘young’ at point of demolition, with an age of 26-50 years. This implies that most of
the buildings that were demolished due to area development were ‘young’, and,
consequently they have not yet reached their design age. The ‘physical condition’ was
cited as a secondary reason for demolition at 30.8-per cent (O'Connor 2004), of these
buildings, about 65-percent are between 76-100 years old (O'Connor 2004).

In view of the above, the proposed study presents a very interesting case for this
research. Heritage buildings are meant to be preserved and maintained, they are not
structures that can be demolished solely for area development purposes. These
buildings actually live beyond their design age and put to the test, their physical
condition. At longer times of preservation, these buildings run the risk of demolition
because of degrading physical condition.

While it is integral to keep and maintain culture as part of our identity as Filipino,
the main constraint on keeping heritage buildings is its vulnerability to risks such as fire,
seismic activity and extreme wind conditions. The Philippines, being a country located
at the Pacific Ring of Fire, stands to welcome a great number of hazards every year.
The Philippine National Red Cross lists that the country receives about, on average,
twenty tropical cyclones each year (Philippine Red Cross n.d.). In addition to this, the
country has a total of twenty-three active volcanoes (Philippine Institute of Volcanology
and Seismology 2008) and has records of several seismic activities every day. Specific
to the City of Iloilo, the city is situated near the Western Panay Fault Line (Philippine
Institute of Volcanology and Seismology n.d.) and is identified by the Philippine Institute
of Volcanology and Seismology (PHILVOLCS) as an area prone to soil liquefaction. A
report accomplished by the Citizen’s Disaster Response Centre (CDRC) for the year
2012 lists Philippines as the top country in the world with the most number of deaths
due to natural disasters at 2, 360 people (Citizen's Disaster Response Center 2012).
Top five disasters included both fire, land slide (seismic or cyclone induced) and storm
surges (cyclone induced). Natural hazards of earthquake, fire and tropical cyclone
appear in the top five hazards that affect the most number of populations at a combined
number of 4, 192, 915 people (Citizen's Disaster Response Center 2012).

Combining the hazards facing the city and the compromised nature of the
building’s structural integrity, a structural risk assessment is needed.

2  
 
International  Conference  on  Cultural  Heritage  and  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  
SEAMEO  SPAFA  with  support  from  Japan  Foundation  
NOV  2013  Bangkok,  Thailand  

2. Local Government Policies for Heritage Building Protection

The programs and projects on heritage preservation in the City of Iloilo are
guided by the City Ordinance number 00-54 and its Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR), as well as by the National Building Code of the Philippines. The city
ordinance declared certain building structures or sites as local heritage or legacy
buildings and prescribed for their use and conservation (Iloilo City Ordinance No. 00-
054). The same ordinance also created the Iloilo City Cultural Heritage Conservation
Council. (ICCHCC) The IRR can be summarized into two main sections: (1) controls for
preservation, construction and design of external facade and (2) responsibilities and
functions of the Iloilo City Cultural Heritage Conservation Council (City Government of
Iloilo 2010).

2.1 Controls for Preservation, Construction and Design

In the first section, the policy adheres to a singular idea that the entire façade of
the city must cohere together into a cultural cityscape. As such, the guidelines made
require certain controls on the building’s architectural aspect. These include its
elevation, theme, material, masonry work, external finishes and the like. This is
particularly observed in Section nine of the IRR. In this section, entitled ‘Envelop
Control’, provisions for infill sites, new construction and repair work are given. Infill sites
were seen as an avenue to help improve a coherent cityscape that adheres to the
cultural theme of the city. The sites, when proposed for new construction work must
adhere to the streetscape, material, roof scape, building line, architectural façade, form
and street edge. Façade control is also given importance by restricting the uniformity of
the building’s openings, parapets, cornices, arcaded walks and the like (City
Government of Iloilo 2010). Repair works were classified into two categories:
conforming and non-conforming structures. Conforming structures, including identified
heritage buildings, should be restored to its original condition. The material and finishing
must be similar to the original material. On the other hand, non-conforming structures
were given five years from date of IRR implementation to conform to the guidelines.

Specific façade control was stipulated in Section ten of the same IRR. Controls
on building height and massing, storefront doors and windows, cornices and fascia are
discussed. Buildings are recommended to utilize setbacks and varying roof heights in
order to follow the surrounding buildings. Storefront doors and windows must allow for
optimum viewing of the inside store; this means windows must be maximized for
exposure. Cornices and fascia must be restored to follow the original design—
notwithstanding the use of the same material. Exterior walls must be cleaned and
repaired and any mechanical, electrical, plumbing or other utility lines must be
concealed or placed in a less visible area. Store signage must conform to the overall
architectural design of the building, kept simple and eye catching.

The IRR also stipulates guidelines on restoration, renovation, reconstruction and

preservation works. Restoration guidelines for elements of masonry, arches and

3  
 
International  Conference  on  Cultural  Heritage  and  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  
SEAMEO  SPAFA  with  support  from  Japan  Foundation  
NOV  2013  Bangkok,  Thailand  

column, corbels and brackets, roof top embellishments, other elements and painting
and colour were provided. Masonry work must be made to cement finish; the use of
mortar is advised. Architectural elements such as arches, columns, corbels and
brackets must be restored to original condition. Replacement of a different design or
material must only be allowed as a last resort—the replacement must still however
follow in the same line of design. Should there be renovation works, the new design and
material must approximate the original design. In the case where a new design or
material is used, the substitute material must convey the same visual appearance. The
new design must also be clearly differentiated, to some extent, so as to avoid a false
historical appearance. Reconstruction and preservation works must make sure that
original or pre-work condition is properly documented. This documentation includes
physical evidence, colour, texture, material and the like. All deteriorated materials must
be repaired and the work done properly documented. Protection against weathering and
other environmental hazards must also be done. The guidelines also strive to ensure
that the structures are environmentally friendly. This is achieved by ensuring adherence
to clean water, energy efficiency, solid waste management, health and safety. All works
must, in the end, stick to a coherent and appealing visual perception.

Special emphasis were given to exterior masonry, architectural metal and

roofing. These three elements mainly represent the essential make up of the heritage
buildings. Preservation work of these elements require a detailed documentation,
including but not limited to, (1) jointing, (2) tooling, (3) coatings, (4) colour and (5)
condition of masonry. Architectural metals would require the documentation of (1) type
of metal, (2) condition and (3) a test to ensure appropriate cleaning method. Roofing
must be documented to include information on (1) roof pitch, (2) deck, (3) shape, (3)
material, (4) decorative elements and (5) material. After proper documentation,
preservation or repair works can be done. Architectural metals must be properly
cleaned from corrosion, prior to any application of paints or protective coatings. Roof
sheathings must be well vented to avoid water penetration and moisture condensation.
Adequate anchorage and design must be ensured to protect against typhoon or
extreme wind loads.

2.2 Responsibilities and Functions of Cultural Council

Under the IRR, the Iloilo City Cultural Heritage Conservation Council was
mandated to (1) make an inventory of heritage buildings, (2) review, approve or
disapprove any plans or programs for construction in heritage zone, (3) promulgate and
assist Local Government Unit in creation of policies and ordinances insofar as heritage
preservation is concerned, and (4) review sponsored projects that may affect
implementation of historic structures. The council has a technical working group that
assists in implementation of the IRR.

The council also opens its doors for groups or individuals that may want to
conduct case studies, research or other studies related to heritage preservation.
Partnerships among academe, private companies, departments in the national
government, professional organizations, among others are welcome. Among the main

4  
 
International  Conference  on  Cultural  Heritage  and  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  
SEAMEO  SPAFA  with  support  from  Japan  Foundation  
NOV  2013  Bangkok,  Thailand  

task of the council is to keep and update a cultural heritage register. The register must
contain the name and an explanation of the heritage value or interest of the building.
The following parameters were considered in the designation of cultural value: (1)
architectural, (2) cultural, (3) historical, (4) archaeological, (5) aesthetic, (6) scientific
and (7) educational worth (City Government of Iloilo, 2010).

A permit system that controls construction and repair work for any structures is
also put in place, prior to any approval from the building official of the city government.

3. Survey of Heritage Buildings in Iloilo City

3.1 Brief characteristics of heritage buildings

The Philippines was under the Spanish and American rule, which greatly
influenced the architectural style of a number of structures all over the city. Many of the
residential houses particularly those found in Jaro District were built during the Spanish
period and have the traditional ‘bahay na bato’ (stone house) architectural style; most of
the construction materials were of bricks, stones, and wood as flooring material.

Majority of the commercial buildings found at Calle Real were built during the
American period (1920-32) and were mostly made of concrete. Historical educational
buildings, such as the Main Building of the University of the Philippines-Visayas, which
used to be the old Iloilo City, have incorporated the architectural style of the ‘bahay na
bato’ with concrete and wood as design materials. In the Central Business District area,
the buildings follow the following architectural designs: the Beaux Arts style, Art Deco,
art modern, post-art modern and neo-classical designs (Iloilo City Cultural Heritage
Conservation Council 2006).

An inventory of the City Government identified 26 heritage buildings located in

the city’s Central Business District (Iloilo City Cultural Heritage Conservation Council
2006). The earliest structure was built in 1922 (Javellana building) and is about 91 years
of age. The age of some buildings is difficult to determine because the structures have
no mark on the year it was built and the city government does not have copies of the
original plans of such structures (CENRO staff, informal interview, 10 October 2013).
Most buildings were constructed in the 20th century during the American period with
concrete as its dominant construction material.

During the Spanish era, the site saw the houses of the ‘illustrados’ and trading
bazaars of the Chinese (Iloilo City Cultural Heritage Conservation Council 2012). The
image below displays the map of the CBD and locations of the Heritage Buildings.

5  
 
International  Conference  on  Cultural  Heritage  and  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  
SEAMEO  SPAFA  with  support  from  Japan  Foundation  
NOV  2013  Bangkok,  Thailand  

Figure 3.1. Iloilo City CBD map with location of Heritage Buildings (City Government
of Iloilo 2010).

At present, the buildings at the CBD area are mostly used for commercial
purposes, while still maintaining their heritage facet. The images are heritage buildings
in the CBD area, which are not yet improved.

Figure 3.2. (Left) Celso Ledesma Building, built on 1923 and (Right) Iloilo City Public
Market.

6  
 
International  Conference  on  Cultural  Heritage  and  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  
SEAMEO  SPAFA  with  support  from  Japan  Foundation  
NOV  2013  Bangkok,  Thailand  

Figure 3.3. (Left) Regent Arcade Building built on 1927 and (Right) S. Villanueva
Building, built on 1936.

Three of the heritage buildings have undergone renovation works. These

buildings are the Serafin Villanueva Building otherwise known as the (CBD 01-008) on
J.M. Basa St. and the two other S. Villanueva buildings (CBD 01-015 & 016) facing
each other on Arsenal street (Iloilo City Cultural Heritage Conservation Council 2012).
The 1925 S. Villanueva restoration was started in December 2011 and was completed
in the first quarter of 2012. The Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) has
restored the facade of its building at Arsenal Street corner Calle Real. It was completed
on the 2nd quarter of the same year. The restoration of E. Villanueva Building
(International Hotel) facade started in February 2012 and was completed in August
2012 (Retrieved at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpH32UTqaAc on 11 October
2013).

The next images contrast the original and restored condition of the S. Villanueva
Building: CBD 01-016 and CBD 01-015.

7  
 
International  Conference  on  Cultural  Heritage  and  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  
SEAMEO  SPAFA  with  support  from  Japan  Foundation  
NOV  2013  Bangkok,  Thailand  

Figure 3.4. S. Villanueva Building: CBD 01-016 in its restored condition on left and
original condition on the right. Right photo from (Iloilo City Cultural Heritage
Conservation Council 2006)

Figure 3.5. S. Villanueva Building: CBD 01-015 in its restored condition on left
and original condition on the right. Right photo from (Iloilo City Cultural Heritage
Conservation Council 2006)

Part of the restoration project is the creation and provision of funds of new and
durable permanent kiosk units that have provided assistance to the affected vendors
along the sidewalks of the restored structures. These kiosks complement the old look of
the restored buildings (Retrieved at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpH32UTqaAc on
11 October 2013). The renovation projects were spearheaded by the private sector
headed by Arch. A. Sangrador and the Iloilo Cultural Heritage Foundation, Inc. (ICHFI).
Funds used for renovation were privately raised in partnership with the present owners
(Iloilo City Cultural Heritage Conservation Council 2012).

Scheduled for renovation is the Javellana Building (CBD 01-010), the Dominican
Sisters Building (CBD 01-002) and the building (CBD 01-005) whose tenants include the

8  
 
International  Conference  on  Cultural  Heritage  and  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  
SEAMEO  SPAFA  with  support  from  Japan  Foundation  
NOV  2013  Bangkok,  Thailand  

“Parisian shoeline,” bazaar (Iloilo City Cultural Heritage Conservation Council 2012).
Another project proposed is the restoration of the century-old Marquez-Lim Balay nga
Bato and the conversion of the very old abaca factory into a heritage site complete with
exhibits of abaca processing and products (On-going and future restoration projects
2012). One of the biggest Unibanks in the country has agreed to sponsor the restoration
of the façade of Javellana building in J.M. Basa corner Guanco streets (Montealto-Sinay
2013).

Figure 3.6. Restoration of Javellana building (Source: Retrieved at

http://www.icchcc.com/javellana-building-renovation/ on 11 October 2013).

3.2 Initiatives of the Iloilo City Government

The city government has initiated a number of projects for the preservation and
conservation program of heritage structures in Iloilo City. Infrastructure projects include
the rehabilitation of the downtown CBD through improvement of sidewalk, installation of
heritage lamps at the CBD; improvements of and rehabilitation of the plazas such as
restoring Molo Plaza and installing concrete pavers at Plaza Libertad with funds coming
from the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) and TIEZA. The city government has set up
markers that identify heritage structure (Community Environment and Natural
Recources Office 2012)

The city government has also supported a number of Information, Education and
Communication campaigns and advocacies. These include: survey and cataloguing,
seminars on local oral history and continuous cultural mapping, celebration of heritage
month and participation through exhibits at the first Iloilo River International Summit. As
a legal campaign, the city officials have proposed a resolution declaring Iloilo City as a
‘Heritage City” for having complied the minimum requirements of Republic Act 10066
(Phil. National Cultural Heritage Law). The city government has also passed a bill
declaring certain sites to be declared as Heritage and Tourist spots. These sites are as
follows: Jaro Cathedral, Molo Church, CBD, Fort San Pedro, the Jaro Plaza complex

9  
 
International  Conference  on  Cultural  Heritage  and  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  
SEAMEO  SPAFA  with  support  from  Japan  Foundation  
NOV  2013  Bangkok,  Thailand  

and the Plaza Libertad Complex. The City Environment and Natural Resources Office
(CENRO) continues its function of doing evaluation of building renovation and
demolition permit applications (Community Environment and Natural Recources Office
2012).

In August 2013, the Iloilo City council approved the approved the Tourism Code
of the city by integrating all tourism-related existing ordinances (City Government of
Iloilo 2013).The measures will define broad tourism industry concerns, heritage sites
incentives, tourism destinations and recognized programs and events, among others.
The structures and priority areas of tourism–oriented industries will avail of fiscal
incentives. These incentives include investments of PHP five million, but not less than
PHP 20 million for one year incentives; PHP 20 million but not less than PHP 40 million
for two years; PHP 40 million to PHP 60 million for three years; and PHP 60 million and
above for four years. The code also called for the reduction of taxes based on gross
sales and receipts of the preceding calendar year for new and expanded tourism
enterprise (City Government of Iloilo 2013).

Since June of 2011, the city government was not allowed anymore to use its IRA
to pay for the participation and registration fees of its members and staff for activities
such as lectures and fora. This Memorandum Circular Number 2011-1 (dated 13 April
2011) implies that the city government has to look for other funding sources for activities
such as lectures and fora.

4. Framework of Risk Assessment

The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) defines risk as the

“probability of harmful consequences —casualties, damaged property, lost livelihoods,
disrupted economic activity, and damage to the environment —resulting from
interactions between natural or human-induced hazards and vulnerable conditions,”
(United Nations Development Program 2010). From this definition, we can see the
important factors that contribute to risk. These are the consequences (or the population
at risk), hazard and vulnerability. The consequences pertain to the exposure of the
population, in relation to the potential loss brought about by the hazard present and the
vulnerability of the subject in study. This definition has been carried on in the proposed
risk assessment but with slight modifications to account for the unique nature of
heritage buildings. In lieu of the population, the asset value of the building will be
accounted for. The UNDP further classified vulnerability to encompass a mitigation
factor (United Nations Development Programme 2004). Thereby, the risk score in a
heritage building can be counted as an aggregate of the structure’s vulnerability
including present conditions, the hazards present, the mitigation efforts and the asset
value of the building. Risk can be expressed as in the equation below,
!×!×!
𝑅= !
Equation 4.1

Where R = risk, A = asset value, H = hazard, V = vulnerability and M = mitigation.

10  
 
International  Conference  on  Cultural  Heritage  and  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  
SEAMEO  SPAFA  with  support  from  Japan  Foundation  
NOV  2013  Bangkok,  Thailand  

Each index that makes up the risk can be calculated as a summation of the
product of the parameter’s score and its corresponding weight. Thereby the equations
for the hazard, vulnerability, asset and mitigation indices are as follows,

𝐻! = ! 𝑤!! ×𝐻!" Equation 4.2

𝑉! = ! 𝑤!" ×𝑉!" Equation 4.3
𝐴! = ! 𝑤!" ×𝐴!" Equation 4.4
𝑀! = ! 𝑤!" ×𝑀!" Equation 4.5

Where w = weight, H = hazard score for parameter pj, V = vulnerability score for
parameter pj, and A = asset score for parameter pj and M = mitigation score for
parameter pj, and j is the jth parameter.

In the following figure, the overview of the framework is seen where each factor
is further expanded to cater to more specific characteristics. This is done in order to
make data gathering more targeted and allow for easier calculation of risk rating for
each heritage building.

Figure 4.1. Factors affecting Risk in a Heritage Building.

a. Hazard Analysis

Prior to any data gathering for the structure’s vulnerability, mitigation factor and
the asset value of the heritage building, the present hazards that threaten the area or
site has to be established first (United Nations Development Program 2010). These

11  
 
International  Conference  on  Cultural  Heritage  and  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  
SEAMEO  SPAFA  with  support  from  Japan  Foundation  
NOV  2013  Bangkok,  Thailand  

hazards may be natural or artificial hazards that present any incurrence of losses in the
site or element in study. The hazards of seismic, extreme wind conditions and fire have
been identified for the city of Iloilo. Seismic hazard has been identified because of the
city’s proximity to a fault line. Historical seismic events that occurred in the CBD of Iloilo
City would also give us an idea of how frequent seismic events occur and its
corresponding magnitude. Fire hazard is present because of the archaic nature of the
materials, generally present in heritage buildings. These include wood and masonry
among others. Finally, the extreme wind conditions have been included because of the
frequency of the typhoons entering the Philippine Area of Responsibility every year.
Maximum wind gust would also help determine the wind hazard score.

b. Vulnerability and Mitigation

Having established the hazards, the vulnerability of the structure can then be
assessed. These hazards lay out the different characteristics that should be checked.
Thus, the vulnerability section is divided into three sub-sections. For extreme wind
conditions, three main sub-sections would be checked. These are the roofing
characteristics, door and window characteristic and elevation. This would specifically
include the slope, design and material of the roof among others.

Seismic vulnerability is then sub-divided into four main areas. These pertain to
intensive and extensive properties of the building. Building type and modifiers are
characteristics or features of the building that should be checked against seismic
loadings while soil type is an environment parameter that refers to the quality of the soil
than can affect the building during ground shaking. The fourth is the type of occupancy
in the building. This is only an information parameter and is not included in the
calculation of the seismic risk score.

Fire vulnerability is then assessed under the collective group of ‘sources of fuel.’
An added criterion is the protection system of the building such as fire alarms, presence
of fire extinguishers, sprinklers, fire exits and the like. These form the mitigation
parameter for fire.

Mitigation parameters for seismic and extreme wind are intertwined with the
vulnerability factor and are difficult to separate, as opposed to fire risk. As often is the
case with these risks, the vulnerability factors that would be assessed would either
mitigate or aggravate the risk conditions. Mitigation parameters tend to decrease the
value of risk.

c. Asset Value

Ultimately, the value of the heritage building is noted. Following the study by
(Harun 2011) and the implementing guidelines of the Iloilo City Council Resolution
number 00-54, the value of the building in aspects of age, architectural significance and
historical significance is analysed. Age and historical background would show us any
significant events that happened in the structure that is worth keeping and shared to the

12  
 
International  Conference  on  Cultural  Heritage  and  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  
SEAMEO  SPAFA  with  support  from  Japan  Foundation  
NOV  2013  Bangkok,  Thailand  

people. Architectural significance relate to the lessons or findings these structures can
teach us in terms of art or aesthetic value. A survey on the peoples’ perception of value
of heritage buildings with respect to history, architecture, tourism, and education will be
conducted to determine each building’s asset value. Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
will be used.

d. Sample Fire Hazard Risk Assessment Form

Following the risk framework in equation 4.1, the parameters for fire hazard were
listed. Hazard was defined as source of ignition and vulnerability as source of fuel
(Government of the United Kingdom 2006). As such, the type of building use and the
condition of the building’s electrical wiring constituted the hazard index. Vulnerability is
grouped into four different categories: the main type of construction material,
combustible materials, explosive substances and flammable substances. Finally,
mitigation is defined as the building’s fire fighting capacity and fire prevention and
warning system. These parameters will have a score ranging from one to three and are
evaluated using a developed rubric. The asset value shall be taken as a separate score
based on expert’s opinion and people’s perception. The asset value is then plotted
against the risk index in a 2D Cartesian plane.

The risk index can be calculated in two methods. The first one is to simply take
the average of the scores per hazard, vulnerability and mitigation and use the equation
𝑅 = 𝐻×𝑉/𝑀. The second method will involve the use of the Analytic Hierarchy Process
to derive weights for each parameter per category and sub-category. Equations 4.2 to
4.5 will then be used acquire an index for each hazard, vulnerability and mitigation and
use equation 4.1 to get a risk index.

The scores for the parameter are selected based on the conditions seen as
displayed below in the form. The form has four boxes: (A) preliminary data, (B) hazard,
(C) vulnerability and (D) mitigation. A hypothetical building is assessed below. The
computation of the risk index, assuming equal weights is illustrated (first method).

13  
 
International  Conference  on  Cultural  Heritage  and  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  
SEAMEO  SPAFA  with  support  from  Japan  Foundation  
NOV  2013  Bangkok,  Thailand  

Table 4.1. Boxes A and B of Fire Risk Form.

A score of three would pertain to a higher risk, as when the use of the building
includes welding, smelting and the like. On the other hand, a score of 1 indicates a
lower risk.

The next boxes rank the vulnerability and mitigation indices. As opposed to
hazard and vulnerability, a score of three under mitigation would mean lower risk. This
is because the mitigation parameter varies inversely to risk.

Table 4.2. Boxes C and D of Fire Risk Form.  

14  
 
International  Conference  on  Cultural  Heritage  and  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  
SEAMEO  SPAFA  with  support  from  Japan  Foundation  
NOV  2013  Bangkok,  Thailand  

15  
 
International  Conference  on  Cultural  Heritage  and  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  
SEAMEO  SPAFA  with  support  from  Japan  Foundation  
NOV  2013  Bangkok,  Thailand  

Only boxes B, C and D are included in the calculation of the risk index. Utilizing
!×! !.!×!.!"
equation 4.1, 𝑅𝑖𝑠𝑘 = ! = !.! = 2.444. This risk index is normalized using the
equation below (Kanaami 2008):

!" !!!"!!"#
!"!!"# !!"!!"#
Equation 4.6

Applying this equation to the values derived from equation 4.1 and given a score range
!×! !×! !×! !×!
of one to three (three with higher risk), xmax is ! = ! = 9, xmin is ! = ! = 0.333
and x is the calculated risk index per building.

The normalized risk index is 0.605, classified as medium risk for fire. The
classifications of the normalized risk index are shown in table 4.2.

Table 4.3. Risk Index Classifications.

Risk General Situation

Risk Index Classification General Recommendation

Sources of fire and vulnerable Structure has hazard and

materials need to be minimized or vulnerability scores
.667-1.000 High Risk controlled. Quantitative and deeper approaching three, and
inspection is required. Mitigation mitigation score
efforts need to be improved. approaching one.

Sources of fire and vulnerable

Structure has hazard,
materials need to be minimized or
.335-.666 Medium Risk vulnerability and mitigation
controlled, depending on individual
score near to or exactly two.
parameter scores.

Building has low fire-risk. Individual Structure has hazard,

parameters with scores vulnerability and mitigation
0.000-
Low to No Risk contributing to higher risk (three for score approaching one and
0.334
H and V, one for M), must be mitigation score
addressed. approaching three.

A similar procedure will be implemented for the other hazards like earthquake
and wind. For earthquakes, the rapid visual screening (RVS) based on FEMA 154 may
be adopted to determine the risk. Modification may be included to consider other
vulnerability and/or mitigating parameters. For wind, the National Structural Code of the
Philippines (NSCP) will serve as a guide in the design of the assessment tool.

5. Benefits and Conclusion

This study will be of great importance in the preservation of the culture of the
people of Iloilo City—more so the spirit of the Filipino people. Assessment results may
16  
 
International  Conference  on  Cultural  Heritage  and  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  
SEAMEO  SPAFA  with  support  from  Japan  Foundation  
NOV  2013  Bangkok,  Thailand  

be used by the city council to create ordinances or institute programs that may be of
great help in risk and hazard mitigation. It may also help to identify the most vulnerable
structures that need immediate attention or further analysis. This way more lives can be
saved and risks can be averted or minimized. Altogether, Iloilo city becomes a lovable
and safe city to live in.

Such steps would prove to save on financial resources and increase economic
development in the form of tourism. A lot of the things we do today have much to do
with the economy. The bottom-line has seemed to be always focused in the generation
of financial resources. Heritage tourism creates jobs to people whether directly,
indirectly, tourism and induced (Greffe 2004). In France, 68, 019 direct jobs come from
libraries and museums and 42,714 indirect jobs have been created from heritage
preservation (Greffe 2004). Moreover, 176, 800 tourism jobs and 261,856 induced jobs
from arts and crafts, cultural and non-cultural industries were created because of
heritage tourism. All these contribute to about 2.4-per cent of the active employed
population in France (Greffe 2004). While we can say that the heritage movement in
France is quite progressive in nature and that in the Philippines is still in its infancy, we
cannot ignore the economic potential of engaging and improving this sector.

This study can also be the avenue for a more disaster-aware community that can
and knows how to take care of its own by learning the proposed assessment method.
The flexibility and basic nature of the assessment tool make it replicable and easily
learnable. The proposed method can then be done anywhere in the Philippines and can
also be adjusted to a larger scale of a city or district. Furthermore, the incorporation of a
rapid assessment and basic calculations make it do-able by the lay people or owner of
the building. This important aspect helps promote a sense of ownership in the citizens
through citizenry empowerment and involvement. Said general method can also be
expanded to cater for other mutually exclusive hazards depending on the site of study
or assessment.

Overall, the study would benefit the local government unit in its urban planning
and the cultural heritage council of Iloilo to help the execution and fulfilment of the city
council resolution. More than all this, it is the heritage buildings that will be preserved
and stand as a living monument to the deep culture of the Filipino people.

17  
 
International  Conference  on  Cultural  Heritage  and  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  
SEAMEO  SPAFA  with  support  from  Japan  Foundation  
NOV  2013  Bangkok,  Thailand  

References

Citizen's Disaster Response Centre. 2012 Philippine Disaster Report. Manila: Citizen's
Disaster Response Centre, 2012.

City Government of Iloilo. "Iloilo City Tourism Code." August 8, 2013.

http://www.sunstar.com.ph/iloilo/local-news/2013/08/16/iloilo-city-tourism-code-
approved-298199 (accessed October 11, 2013).

City Government of Iloilo. Implementing Rules and Regulations for the Downtown
Central Business District Heritage Zone. Iloilo: City Government of Iloilo, 2010.

Community Environment and Natural Resources Office. "Mid Year Accomplishment

Report." Iloilo, 2012.

Government of the United Kingdom. “Fire Safety Risk Assessment: 5 step checklist.”
Department for Communities and Local Government, 2006, 5-June.

Greffe, Xavier. “Is heritage an asset or liability?” Journal of Cultural Heritage 5 (2004):
301-309.

Harun, S.N. “Heritage Building Conservation in Malaysia: Experience and Challenges.”

Procedia Engineering 20 (2011): 41-53.

Iloilo City Cultural Heritage Conservation Council. Downtown Central Business District
Catalogue. Iloilo: City Government of Iloilo, 2006.

Iloilo City Cultural Heritage Conservation Council. ICCHCC Website. 2012.

http://www.icchcc.com/ (accessed October 10, 2013).

Iloilo City Cultural Heritage Conservation Council. Recently Renovated Pilot Buildings.
2012. www.icchcc.com/recently-renovated-pilot-buildings/soon (accessed October 11,
2013).

Kanaami, Yasuo. Country Based Flood Risk Index. Japan: International Centre for
Water Hazard and Risk Management, 2008.

Montealto-Sinay, Lucy. "Iloilo City Heritage Champions Named." The Daily Guardian.
October 11, 2013. http://www.thedailyguardian.net/index.php/local-news/16396-iloilo-
city-heritage-champions-named (accessed October 11, 2013).

O'Connor, Jennifer. “Survey on actual service lives for North American buildings.” Wood
frame Housing Durability and Disaster Issues Conference. Las Vegas, 2004.

18  
 
International  Conference  on  Cultural  Heritage  and  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  
SEAMEO  SPAFA  with  support  from  Japan  Foundation  
NOV  2013  Bangkok,  Thailand  

On-going and future restoration projects. 2012. http://iloiloculturalheritagefoundation.

com/our-projects/ (accessed October 10, 2013).

Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology. "Active Faults and Liquefaction

Susceptibility Map." n.d. http://www.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph/ images/active.faults/
region%20vi%20and%20vii.pdf (accessed February 7, 2013).

Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology. Active Volcanoes. July 29, 2008.
http://www.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=57:act
ive-volcanoes&catid=55:volcanoes-of-the-philippines (accessed March 24, 2013).

Philippine Red Cross. Disaster Management Services. n.d.

http://www.redcross.org.ph/dms (accessed March 24, 2013).

Tourism Office, Iloilo City. Maragtas Tour: A Historical Landmark Tour. 2013, 4-
September. http://iloilocity.gov.ph/downloads/historical.pdf.

United Nations Development Program. “Disaster Risk Assessment.” 2010, October.

http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/crisis%20prevention/disaster/2Disaster%
20Risk%20Reduction%20-%20Risk%20Assessment.pdf (accessed 2013, 8-April).

United Nations Development Programme. Reducing Disaster Risk: A Challenge for

Development. New York: John S. Swift Co., USA, 2004.

19  
 

View publication stats