4.

Results and Discussion

The following section outlines the results from quantitative data gathered through surveys and
qualitative data collected from interviews.

4.1.1. Building Information

Presented in Table 1 are the distributions of the building in terms of age. The survey revealed
that most of the buildings are 16-20 years old (4 or 40%), with equal representation in buildings older
than 20 years (4 or 40%), followed by 0-5 and 11-15 years old (1 or 10%). However, buildings aged
6-10 years have accumulated zero percent.

Table 1. Frequencies of Building Age

Building Age Count % of Total Cumulative %
0-5 1 10% 10%
6-10 0 0% 10%
11-15 1 10% 20%
16-20 4 40% 60%
>20 4 40% 100%

Presented in Table 2 are the distributions of the buildings in terms of size. The survey
revealed that most of the buildings’ sizes are in the range of 51-100 square meters (7 or 70%),
followed by 101-200 square meters (2 or 20%) and ≤50 square meters (1 or 10%) but none for >200
square meters.

Table 2. Frequencies of Building Sizes

Building Size Count % of Total Cumulative %
≤50 1 10% 10%
51-100 7 70% 80%
101-200 2 20% 100%
>200 0 0% 100%

Presented in Table 3 are the distributions of the buildings in terms of flood insurance. The
survey revealed that most of the buildings do not have flood insurance (9 or 90%) and only one has an
insurance (1 or 10%).

Table 3. Frequencies of Flood Insurance

Flood Insurance Count % of Total Cumulative %
Yes 1 10% 10%
No 9 90% 100%

4.1.2. Building Characteristics

The vulnerability of buildings to floods is influenced by the structural type used in
constructing a building. This research creates a classification of various structural types in NHA Phase
3, Bangkal, Talomo, Davao City. A cross-tabulation of the wall, floor, and roof material for ten
interviewed households was performed using the pivot table function in Microsoft Excel. The result
indicated five common structural types, as shown in Table 4 below.

Table 4. Common Structural Types

 Structural Type Wall Floor Roof
Structural Type 1 Concrete Block Concrete Galvanized Iron Sheet
Structural Type 2 Concrete Block Ceramic Tiles Galvanized Iron Sheet
Structural Type 3 Concrete Block Ceramic Tiles Painted Steel Sheet
Structural Type 4 Concrete Block Ceramic Tiles & Concrete Concrete
Structural Type 5 Wood & Concrete Block Concrete Galvanized Iron Sheet

4.1.3. Population Characteristics

Presented in Table 5 are the distributions of the respondents in terms of number of people per
household. The survey revealed that most household sizes are 5-8 people (6 or 60%), and the least is
1-4 people (4 or 40%).

Table 5. Frequencies of Household Size

Household Size Count % of Total Cumulative %
1-4 4 40% 40%
5-8 6 60% 100%

Presented in Table 6 are distributions of the respondents in terms of age. The survey revealed
that most respondents were between the ages of 25-29 years old, followed by 55-64 years old,
followed by 40-54 years old, followed by 15-14 years old, followed by 0-4 and 65-79 years old.

Table 6. Frequencies of Age Distribution

Age Distribution Count % of Total Cumulative %
0-4 1 2% 2%
5-14 3 6% 8%
15-24 7 15% 23%
25-39 16 33% 56%
40-54 8 17% 73%
55-64 12 25% 98%
65-79 1 2% 100%
>80 0 0% 100%

4.1.4. Cause of Flood

Presented in Table 7 are distributions of the respondents in terms of cause of flood in the area.
The survey revealed that the cause of flood is excessive rainfall (8 or 44%), followed by garbage (5 or
28%), followed by hurricane with excessive rainfall (3 or 17%), followed by uncontrolled city
development and lowland with equal distribution (1 or 6%), lastly none for high water level from the
sea.

Table 7. Frequencies of Cause of Flood

Cause of Flood Count % of Total Cumulative %
Excessive Rainfall 8 44% 44%
Uncontrolled City Development 1 6% 50%
Hurricane with Excessive Rainfall 3 17% 67%
Garbage 5 28% 94%
From the Sea: High Water Level 0 0% 94%
Other: Lowland 1 6% 100%
 4.1.5. Descriptive Results of the Flood Proofing Structure
The following rating scales were utilized to analyze the descriptive data results of the flood
proofing structure applied in the spatial layout of the residential buildings.

Table 8. Rating and Interpretation Scale of Flood Proofing Structure

Scale Mean Range Descriptive Level Interpretation
Indicates that the flood proofing structure in the
5 4.20-5.00 Very Good
household are very good.
Indicates that the flood proofing structure in the
4 3.40-4.19 Good
household are good.
Indicates that the flood proofing structure in the
3 2.60-3.39 Acceptable
household are acceptable.
Indicates that the flood proofing structure in the
2 1.8-2.59 Poor
household are poor.
Indicates that the flood proofing structure in the
1 1.0-1.79 Very Poor
household are very poor.

The table below presents the descriptive statistics of flood proofing applied in the spatial
layout of the residential buildings. The assessment of the existing features in NHA Phase 3, Bangkal,
Talomo, Davao City are the following: raised floors is in “Poor state” (m=2.4, sd=1.646), flood
barriers is in “Very Poor state" (m=1.8, sd=1.032), and Stilts is in “Very Poor state” (m=1, sd=0).

Table 9. Descriptive Statistics of Flood Proofing Structure

Raised Floors Flood Barriers Stilts
Flood Proofing Structure Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
2.4 1.646 1.8 1.032 1 0

4.1.6.Descriptive Results of the Flood Proofing Structure

The following rating scales were utilized to analyze the descriptive data results of the building
damage caused by flooding in residential buildings.

Table 9. Rating and Interpretation Scale of Building Damage

Scale Mean Range Descriptive Level Description
If the wall, floor, and roof materials were not
5 0 Very Low damaged (Nothing Happened) due to a certain
level of flood depth.
If two materials were not damaged (Nothing
Happen) and one material has half damage (Half
4 0.1-0.3 Low
Collapse) due to a certain level of flood depth, a
repair cost is needed.
If one material is not damaged (Nothing
Happened), one material has half damage (Half
3 0.4-0.6 Moderate Collapse), and one material has total damage
(Collapse) due to a certain level of flood depth, a
repair or replacement cost is needed.
2 0.7-0.9 High If one material is not damaged (Nothing
 Happened) and two materials have total damage
(Collapse) due to a certain level of flood depth, a
replacement cost is needed.
If three materials have total damage (Collapse) due
1 1 Very High to a certain level of flood depth, a complete
replacement cost is needed.

The table below presents the descriptive statistics of building damage caused by flooding in
residential buildings in terms of different structural types. The assessment of the building damage in
the households of NHA Phase 3, Bangkal, Talomo, Davao City are the following: structural type 1 is
in “Very Low damage”, structural type 2 is in "Low damage”, structural type 3 is in "Moderate
damage”, structural type 4 is in "Very Low damage”, and structural type 5 is in "Low damage”.

Table 11. Descriptive Statics of Building Damage

Structural Structural Structural Structural Structural
Building Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Type 5
Damage Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
0.1 0.204 0.2 0 0.5 0 0 0 0.2 0

4.1.8.Thematic Data Analysis

Table 12. Thematic Data Analysis

Global Themes Organizing Themes Basic Themes
4. Flood water 1.1 User Experience 1.1.1 Level of flood water:
Less than 1 foot
1.1.2 Entry point of flood
water: mostly through the main
door.
1.1.3 Severe Flooding: Human
level and almost at the height
of the standard gate
5. Flood Mitigation 2.1 Flood Responsive Design 2.1.1 Structural: raised floors
to lessen the water rising and
enter the house
6. Non-Flood Responsive 3.1 Level of Awareness 3.1.1 no significant differences
of their homes.
7. Designing Flood 4.1 Factors 4.1.1 Structural: Elevating the
Responsive features floor level
4.1.2 Maintenance: cleanliness
of the drainage system
4.1.3 Infrastructure
Development: build
embankment to accommodate
flow of flood water.

Key Observations
1. User Experience
 Residents’ experiences less than 1 foot flood water level however it most severe cases
it can rise to height of a standard gate or human level.
 Entry point of flood water in households mostly through the main door.
 2. Flood Responsive Design
 Households’ flood proofing structure is usually raised floors to avoid water level
rising and entry of flood water in the building.
3. Level of Awareness
 Residents did not show signs of awareness in terms of significant differences of
flood-responsive feature and non-flood-responsive features in the neighborhood.
4. Factors
 Residents suggested elevating the floor level, drainage cleanliness, and building an
embankment to accommodate the flow of flood water.

4.1.8.Methodological Triangulation
Combining data from both the quantitative and qualitative methods helped researchers to gain
comprehensive understanding about the subject under study.

Table 13. Quantitative and Qualitative Triangulation

Flood Responsive Feature
Quantitative: Raised floors scores high in flood Qualitative: Common themes from respondents
proofing structure however that state is poor. highlight the importance of rising floor level to
avoid flood occurrence.

The results collected from the respondents highlight the pressing need to raise the floor level
to avoid flooding in the area. The suggestions put forth by the participants also emphasized the
importance of implementing measures such as drainage cleanliness and embarkment to mitigate the
risk of floods in the neighborhood. These findings provide valuable insights into the challenges faced
by the community regarding flood management. Implementing these suggestions can prove crucial in
ensuring the safety and well-being of the residents in the area. Further research is needed to evaluate
the effectiveness of these measures and identify any other potential solutions to this problem.