









































Pa
ge

 
1



Pa
ge

 
88

American Journal of   
Environment and Climate (AJEC)

From Policy to Practice: Investigating the Effectiveness of  DRRM Implementation in 
Shaping Student Disaster Competence 

Agnes S. Morante1, Ernie C. Cerado1*

Volume 4 Issue 3, Year 2025
ISSN: 2832-403X (Online) 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54536/ajec.v4i3.5215
https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Article Information ABSTRACT

Received: April 30, 2025

Accepted: June 02, 2025

Published: October 30, 2025

Disaster Risk Reduction is a critical component of  basic education, mainly in disaster-prone 
countries like the Philippines, where schools contribute to fostering preparedness and 
resilience. This study examined the relationship between the implementation of  the Disaster 
Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) Program and students’ disaster knowledge 
and readiness in public high schools in the SOX Region. Anchored in Bandura’s Social 
Cognitive Theory, the Constructivist Learning Theory, and the Theory of  Planned Behavior 
as supported by the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, this research looked at 
how school efforts shape learner competence. Using a descriptive-correlational design, the 
study involved 259 administrators, DRRM coordinators, and teachers, and 389 senior high 
school students from eight disaster-prone schools. DRRM implementation was assessed 
using seven Key Result Areas (KRAs), while students’ knowledge was measured through 
a validated test and their readiness through performance-based tasks. Findings indicated a 
“very high” level of  DRRM implementation across schools, yet students exhibited merely 
“average” knowledge but “very satisfactory” readiness. No significant correlation was noted 
between program implementation and either knowledge or readiness, indicative of  a gap 
within institutional initiatives and student outcomes. The study implies the need to strengthen 
the instructional delivery of  DRRM education, emphasizing experiential learning and active 
engagement. Limitations include purposive sampling and confidence on self-reported 
implementation data. Future research should adopt mixed methods and broader sampling 
to improve wider inference and explore mediating factors. Ultimately, effective DRRM in 
schools requires not just structured plans but meaningful student-centered learning.

Keywords
Descriptive-Correlational Design, 
Disaster Knowledge, Disaster 
Risk Reduction Education, Drrm 
Program Implementation, Student 
Readiness

1 Department of  Education, Sultan Kudarat State University, Philippines
* Corresponding author’s e-mail: nesssonza@gmail.com

INTRODUCTION
In recent decades, the increasing frequency and intensity 
of  natural hazards—such as typhoons, floods, droughts, 
earthquakes, and pandemics—have posed escalating 
threats to human security, sustainable development, 
and the stability of  educational systems. In response, 
Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) has gained global 
urgency, especially following the adoption of  the Sendai 
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 by 
the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction 
(UNDRR). This framework underscores the vital role of  
education in promoting preparedness, adaptive capacities, 
and risk-informed decision-making (Pearson & Pelling, 
2015; Yamazakis-Honda, 2022).
Aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals 
(SDGs)—notably SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and 
Communities) and SDG 13 (Climate Action)—the 
education sector is increasingly recognized as a catalyst 
for cultivating disaster-resilient communities. Schools 
are no longer viewed solely as vulnerable infrastructures 
but as strategic platforms for fostering risk awareness, 
proactive behavior, and community engagement.
In the Philippine context, where vulnerability to both 
climate-related and geophysical hazards is endemic, the 
institutionalization of  DRR in education is mandated 
through Republic Act No. 10121, or the Philippine 
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of  2010. 

The law requires all public schools to appoint DRRM 
coordinators, conduct regular drills, incorporate DRR into 
curricula, and formulate a Comprehensive School Safety 
Plan (CSSP). Further, the Department of  Education 
(DepEd) has issued policy guidelines promoting learner-
centered, contextualized DRR strategies (Loquillano et al., 
2021; Agustin & Cabansag, 2023).
Despite these policies, substantial gaps remain in the 
actual implementation of  DRRM programs, particularly 
in disaster-prone regions such as SOCCSKSARGEN 
(SOX), which comprises South Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, 
and Sarangani. Prior studies have reported persistent 
issues, including limited DRR knowledge among students, 
varying levels of  preparedness, inadequate contextual 
learning materials, and weak collaboration with local 
stakeholders (Epal et al., 2024; Pandapatan, 2024).
This study addresses a critical gap by investigating the 
extent to which school-based DRRM programs are 
implemented and their impact on students’ disaster 
preparedness knowledge and readiness. Focusing on 
selected public high schools in the SOX region, the study 
aims to provide empirical insights that can inform DRR 
education policies and contribute to the attainment of  
SDG 4 (Quality Education), alongside SDGs 11 and 
13. Specifically, it sought to: (1) describe the extent of  
DRRM program implementation across key result areas; 
(2) determine the significant differences of  the program 



Pa
ge

 
89

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 4(3) 88-99, 2025

implementation among schools divisions; 
(3) assess students’ levels of  disaster preparedness 
knowledge and readiness; and (4) examine the 
relationships between DRRM implementation and 
students’ preparedness knowledge, as well as readiness 
for disasters.

LITERATURE REVIEW
The increasing frequency and intensity of  natural hazards 
have prompted a global paradigm shift toward proactive 
disaster risk management, positioning Disaster Risk 
Reduction and Management (DRRM) as an essential 
foundation for sustainable development and climate 
resilience. Within this global discussion, education 
has emerged as a critical platform for cultivating 
disaster awareness, resilience, and preparedness among 
youth. Schools are no longer viewed solely as learning 
institutions but as operational and strategic centers for 
fostering safety, promoting community engagement, and 
developing disaster competence.
At the international level, the Sendai Framework for 
Disaster Risk Reduction (2015–2030) defines education 
as a key pillar in achieving resilience and mitigating 
disaster risks. It promotes the shift from reactive 
response to proactive, knowledge-based interventions 
embedded within formal education systems (Pearson & 
Pelling, 2015). This framework aligns with the UNDRR’s 
broader advocacy to integrate DRRM into multiple 
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), notably 
SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and 
Communities), and SDG 13 (Climate Action), situating 
education at the intersection of  risk reduction, equity, 
and sustainable development (Yamazaki-Honda, 2022). 
Recent scholarship has further highlighted the synergy 
between climate change adaptation and DRRM education, 
stressing the importance of  intersectoral partnerships 
and the role of  schools in promoting behavioral change 
(Valente et al., 2022; Wen et al., 2023).
In the Philippines, DRRM in education has been 
instituted through Republic Act 10121, mandating 
both public and private institutions to mainstream 
DRRM in their curriculum, planning, and operations. 
However, research suggests that implementation remains 
inconsistent across schools. According to (Manalo and 
Manalo, 2020), obstacles such as insufficient teacher 
training, lack of  localized instructional materials, and 
unequal resource distribution continue to hinder effective 
DRRM integration, particularly in the Senior High 
School (SHS) curriculum. In response, several initiatives 
have introduced contextualized learning materials and 
innovative pedagogies. (Loquillano et al., 2021) verified 
improvements in student disaster awareness following 
the use of  localized modules, while (Ng, 2022) advocated 
for inquiry-based, experiential learning approaches and 
enhanced teacher capacity to deliver DRRM content 
effectively.
Schools play a dual role in DRRM, not merely 
as transmitters of  knowledge but also as active 

implementers of  preparedness measures. Activities such 
as risk mapping, simulation drills, and DRRM-themed 
lessons contribute to institutional and community 
resilience. (Arao-Arao et al., 2023) emphasized that 
comprehensive, school-based DRRM plans foster a 
culture of  preparedness and strengthen stakeholder 
participation. Similarly, (Dipon, 2023) underlined the 
importance of  school leadership in translating DRRM 
policy into concrete and sustainable programs. Yet, 
disparities persist. Leal and Zipagan (2024) observed 
significant variations in DRRM implementation, 
particularly in remote and underserved areas. Nadal 
(2024) proposed three essential pillars for effective 
DRRM curriculum integration, co-curricular activities, 
and community engagement denoting the need for 
systemic support and multi-stakeholder coordination.
A growing body of  literature has also explored the link 
between school-based DRRM programs and students’ 
disaster competence. Disaster preparedness, viewed 
through the lens of  competence, includes cognitive 
(knowledge), affective (awareness), and behavioral 
(readiness) domains. E-Palli Publishers  highlighted the 
positive impact of  extracurricular disaster risk reduction 
and management (DRRM) programs on students’ 
readiness and resilience. Garcia et al. (2023) emphasized 
that engaging students in hands-on simulations enhances 
their knowledge of  disaster protocols but and strengthens 
their collaborative skills during emergencies. The study 
of  (Orillo & Prudente, 2023), complemented their idea 
that community-based activities significantly enhance 
students’ overall disaster competence while promoting 
a sense of  civic responsibility. Likewise, (Pregoner 
et al. 2020) found that students exposed to DRRM 
content perceived themselves as more prepared and 
capable of  responding during emergencies. Theoretical 
contributions from Kelman (2017) and Swaris et al. 
(2024) support this evidence, advocating for a resilience-
based education framework that ties DRRM to broader 
goals of  climate adaptation and sustainability.
At the school level, several studies point out the 
importance of  localized, inclusive, and well-resourced 
implementation strategies. (Cruz and Ormilla, 2022) found 
that schools with high levels of  DRRM implementation 
often characterized by regular drills, updated contingency 
plans, and teacher training demonstrated better overall 
preparedness. However, they also identified disparities 
in access to resources and administrative support. (Fale, 
2022) noted that limited DRRM training among teachers 
weakens institutional readiness, recommending its 
integration into teacher development programs. Capacity-
building through collaborative planning was similarly 
emphasized by (Mella et al., 2021), who advocated for 
student-led hazard mapping and stronger community 
partnerships.
Addressing inclusivity, (Alarte, 2024) noted that students 
with special needs are often excluded from preparedness 
measures, prompting the need for differentiated 
DRRM strategies to ensure no learner is left behind. 



Pa
ge

 
90

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 4(3) 88-99, 2025

Baluran (2023) further identified administrative and 
logistical gaps in DRRM implementation, proposing a 
holistic model “Our School, Our Safe Zone to engage 
stakeholders and institutionalize preparedness protocols. 
Likewise, (Aquino, Polintan, and Mones, 2020) argued 
for positioning DRRM not just as compliance but 
as integral to long-term school sustainability. Firmo 
Jr. (2022) admitted that vague policy direction and 
fragmented integration between academic and DRRM 
components continue to limit program effectiveness, 
particularly during emergencies. Meanwhile, (Abenoja 
et al., 2023) showed that higher DRRM implementation 
levels correspond with greater hazard-readiness among 
school stakeholders, although systemic barriers such as 
limited funding and weak monitoring mechanisms remain 
challenges.
Collectively, the reviewed literature sustains that while 
the policy infrastructure for DRRM in schools is 
well-established, its practical implementation varies 
significantly. The success of  school-based DRRM 
programs depends largely on teacher training, resource 
availability, inclusive practices, stakeholder engagement, 
and administrative leadership. Remarkably, the literature 
reveals a consistent pattern: when DRRM programs are 
effectively implemented, students demonstrate higher 
levels of  disaster knowledge and readiness.
Premised on these findings and theoretical insights, 
this review moves on the hypothesis that effective 
implementation of  school-based DRRM programs 
promotes enhanced disaster preparedness competence 
among students, particularly in terms of  their knowledge 
and readiness to respond to emergencies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Research Design
This study employed descriptive and correlational 
research designs to examine the relationship between 
the implementation of  the Disaster Risk Reduction 
and Management (DRRM) program and the disaster 
preparedness knowledge and readiness of  senior high 
school students in public high schools within the SOX 
Region during the 2024–2025 school year. These designs 
facilitated the determination of  links between variables in 
a natural setting without manipulating the environment, 
enhancing the ecological validity of  the findings (Noah, 
2021).

Locale and Population of  the Study
The study was carried out across eight secondary schools 
in high-risk areas of  SOX Region, including provinces 
and cities such as Cotabato, Sarangani, South Cotabato, 
Sultan Kudarat, General Santos, Kidapawan, Koronadal, 
and Tacurong. The selected schools were validated by the 
Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) as disaster-prone 
due to recurring hazards like floods, earthquakes, and 
landslides.
Respondents included a total of  259 school administrators, 
DRRM coordinators, and teachers, as well as 389 senior 

high school students who were directly involved in or 
affected by DRRM program implementation. Their 
participation provided multi-level understandings into 
school practices and student preparedness in disaster-
prone environments.

Sampling Technique
A combination of  purposive and random sampling 
was used. Schools were purposively chosen according 
to geographic risk and DRRM engagement. Total 
enumeration was applied to administrators and DRRM 
coordinators due to their limited numbers and critical 
roles, while stratified random sampling was opted to select 
teachers and students, making sure representativeness. 
Sample sizes were calculated using Yamane’s formula and 
proportional allocation.

Research Instruments
To collect the needed data for the study, three research 
instruments were utilized: a survey questionnaire, a 
multiple-choice test (MCQ), and a practical assessment 
tool. These instruments were developed to align with 
the study’s objectives, particularly in evaluating how the 
school DRRM program is being implemented and how 
knowledgeable and prepared students are for disasters. 
All tools went through content validation and reliability 
testing to ensure accuracy and consistency.
The first instrument was a survey questionnaire used to 
measure the extent of  DRRM program implementation in 
schools. It was grounded on DepEd’s DRRMS Strategic 
Plan (2020–2022) and prepared around seven Key 
Result Areas (KRAs): Risk-Informed Plans and Policies, 
Partnerships for Resilience, DRRM Information System 
and Research, Resilience Education, IEC and Advocacy, 
Learning Continuity and Resilience, and Monitoring and 
Evaluation. Responses were rated on a 5-point Likert 
scale. Experts reviewed the tool, and all items got a 
Content Validity Index (CVI) higher than 0.83 threshold 
(Yusoff, 2029). A Cronbach’s alpha of  0.92 indicated 
excellent reliability.
The second instrument was a 50-item multiple-choice 
questionnaire (MCQ) that tested students’ knowledge 
of  disaster preparedness. It was based on the SHS 
competencies in Disaster Readiness and Risk Reduction 
course. Topics included hazard types and risks, risk 
assessment, preparedness strategies, early warning 
systems, and emergency plans and protocols. Expert 
validation gave the test a scaled CVI of  0.88, and the 
KR-21 reliability coefficient was 0.78, showing acceptable 
internal consistency.
The third instrument was a practical assessment tool 
designed to evaluate students’ actual readiness through 
simulated activities. The tasks under assessment included 
evacuation procedures, basic first aid and life support, 
crisis communication, resource coordination, and 
participation in preparedness drills. Each activity was 
rated on a 5-point scale based on specific performance 
indicators. The tool was also validated by six DRRM 



Pa
ge

 
91

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 4(3) 88-99, 2025

and test experts, and reliability was confirmed through 
Cronbach’s alpha, showing it was suitable for performance 
assessment.

Statistical Treatment
Descriptive statistics such as mean and standard 
deviation were used to describe the levels of  DRRM 
implementation, students’ preparedness knowledge, 
and readiness. Besides, inferential statistics like one-
way ANOVA and Pearson’s correlation analysis, were 
applied to test the difference of  DRRM implementation 
across divisions, and the relationship between DRRM 
implementation and student outcomes, respectively. All 
hypothesis were tested at .05 alpha level. 

Ethical Considerations 
This study was guided by stringent ethical standards to 
warrant the safeguard of  respondents and the veracity 
of  the research. Informed consent was secured from 
all participants to include school administrators, DRRM 
coordinators, teachers, and students, with additional 
parental consent required for involved minors. 
Participants were fully informed of  the study’s purpose, 

procedures, and their voluntary involvement, including 
the right to withdraw at any time without penalty.
Confidentiality and anonymity were strictly observed. 
Personal identifiers were removed, and data was presented 
in aggregate form. All physical and digital records were 
securely stored following institutional data management 
protocols. Participants benefited from the process 
through better awareness of  DRRM issues, access to 
research findings, and the opportunity to help notify 
future practices and policies. Their contributions were 
respectfully acknowledged in presentations and reports.
The principle of  non-maleficence was upheld, ensuring 
no harm whether physical, emotional, or psychological 
came to any participant. All procedures conformed to 
ethical guidelines of  the university, DepEd, and relevant 
national and international standards for human subject 
research, ensuring academic integrity and respect for 
respondent rights throughout the study.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS  
Table 1 presents the extent of  implementation of  the 
School Disaster Risk Reduction Management (DRRM) 
Program in the SOX Region.

Table 1: Implementation of  School DRRM Program (n=259)
Key Result Areas Means SD
1. Risk-Informed Plans, Policies, and Standards 4.33 0.51
2. Partnership in Strengthening Resilience 4.34 0.52
3. DRRM Information System (DRRMIS) and Research 4.17 0.54
4. Resilience Education 4.19 0.56
5. Information, Education, Communication (IEC) and Advocacy for Resilience 4.03 0.65
6. Learning Continuity and Resilience Interventions 4.23 0.52
7. Monitoring and Evaluation on DRRMS Comprehensive School Safety Initiatives 4.24 0.54
Overall Mean 4.22 0.47

Legend: 1.00-1.79 (Very Low), 1.80-2.59 (Low), 2.60-3.39 (Moderate), 3.40-4.19 (High), 4.20-5.00 (Very High)

As indicated, the overall extent of  Disaster Risk Reduction 
and Management (DRRM) Program implementation 
across all key result areas (KRAs) is very high (M= 4.22, 
SD=.47). This signifies that public schools in the region 
have largely embraced the mandates of  the Department 
of  Education (DepEd) in institutionalizing DRRM 
structures and practices within the educational system. 
The strong implementation is particularly notable in areas 
such as Partnership in Strengthening Resilience (M=4.34), 
Risk-Informed Plans, Policies, and Standards (M=4.33), 
Monitoring and Evaluation on DRRMS Comprehensive 
School Safety Initiatives (M=4.24), and Learning 
Continuity and Resilience Interventions (M=4.23), all of  
which obtained “very high” qualitative descriptions.
A thorough examination at these results shows the 
success of  inter-agency collaboration and community 
partnerships in promoting resilience. Epe (2023) 
emphasized the importance of  local government units 
and school partnerships in building child-centered disaster 
resilience. The high rating for Partnership in Strengthening 

Resilience aligns with this finding, indicating that schools 
in the region are effectively engaging stakeholders such 
as LGUs, NGOs, and parent associations in DRRM 
planning and execution.
Moreover, the implementation of  Risk-Informed 
Plans, Policies, and Standards being rated very high 
demonstrates the schools’ proactive orientation toward 
disaster preparedness. This supports the assertion of  
de la Cruz (2023) that institutionalizing policies and 
integrating risk reduction in school development plans is 
critical in minimizing vulnerabilities. The high scores also 
reflect the alignment of  schools’ efforts with the DepEd’s 
Comprehensive School Safety (CSS) Framework and the 
global priorities set forth in the Sendai Framework and 
the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as discussed 
by Navarro (2020).
In addition, the implementation of  Monitoring and 
Evaluation (M=4.24) and Learning Continuity and 
Resilience Interventions (M=4.23) as very high implies 
that schools are not only prepared for disasters but 



Pa
ge

 
92

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 4(3) 88-99, 2025

are also continuously assessing and improving their 
strategies. According to Firmo (2022), regular evaluation 
mechanisms ensure that DRRM practices are responsive 
to emerging hazards and the evolving needs of  learners. 
Such emphasis on sustainability and improvement is a 
positive indicator of  adaptive school systems.
However, while Resilience Education (M=4.19), DRRM 
Information System and Research (M=4.17), and 
Information, Education, Communication (IEC) and 
Advocacy (M=4.03) were also rated high, they did not 
reach the “very high” threshold. This slight gap suggests 
areas for enhancement. For example, Alarte (2024) 
highlighted that while most schools are structurally 
compliant with DRRM frameworks, gaps remain in the 
integration of  DRRM concepts into the curriculum 
and the use of  technology-driven information systems. 
Similarly, Javier and Diliman (2019) underscored the need 
for disaster literacy among students, especially those in 
vulnerable communities, noting that education remains 
the most powerful tool for behavioral change and risk 
awareness.
Furthermore, Cruz and Ormilla (2022) found that 
DRRM implementation in Philippine schools, though 
generally high, is impeded by a lack of  sustained capacity-
building efforts, limited access to DRRM materials, and 
fragmented advocacy initiatives. These constraints may 
explain the relatively lower scores in research, advocacy, 
and education-related KRAs.
The consistently high ratings across most DRRM 
implementation areas in SOX Region affirm that schools 
are transitioning from reactive disaster response to 

proactive resilience-building. However, the relatively 
lower ratings in education, research, and advocacy 
dimensions suggest a need for rebalancing efforts toward 
deeper curricular integration, systemic innovation, and 
behavioral transformation.
The findings imply that for DRRM efforts to be truly 
transformative and sustainable, education must be 
leveraged not only as a medium for awareness but as a 
core strategy for behavioral change and risk-conscious 
citizenship. This calls for the professional development 
of  teachers as DRRM educators, the utilization of  
technology for real-time data and predictive analytics, 
and the expansion of  localized and research-driven 
IEC materials tailored to the cultural and geographical 
contexts of  learners.
Moreover, to further concretize the gains of  DRRM 
implementation, schools must evolve into knowledge hubs 
for disaster resilience, where students are empowered not 
merely as passive recipients of  safety information, but as 
active change agents within their communities. As Canlas 
and Karpudewan (2023) argued, embedding disaster 
literacy in science and social studies curricula enhances 
not only cognitive competencies but also students’ sense 
of  civic responsibility and environmental stewardship.
Finally, policy reforms that encourage schools to 
document, publish, and share best practices in DRRM 
implementation may contribute to a more equitable and 
standardized approach across the region. The integration 
of  DRRM-related performance indicators into school 
evaluation tools may also incentivize long-term 
commitment among school leaders and stakeholders.

As presented in Table 2, a one-way ANOVA was 
undertaken to test whether there are statistically significant 
differences in Disaster Risk Reduction and Management 
(DRRM) mean scores among eight school divisions in 
SOX. The analysis yields a significant result, F(7, 66.7) 
= 11.0, p < .001, indicative that DRRM implementation 
varies across the divisions.
Tukey’s post hoc comparisons indicates three general 
performance levels. Cotabato Division (M = 4.50ᵃ) has 
the highest mean score and is significantly higher than 
General Santos City, Tacurong City, and Kidapawan, 
placing it as the top-performing division. This finding 

may suggest aggressive adoption of  DRRM in Cotabato, 
consistent with Cruz and Ormilla’s (2022) observation 
that successful implementation depends on firm 
adherence to DepEd Order No. 21, s. 2015 and active 
stakeholder engagement. Koronadal (M = 4.35ᵃ) and 
South Cotabato (M = 4.30ᵃ) were statistically similar to 
Cotabato and appear to have similarly orderly DRRRM 
structures and practices in place.
Sarangani (M = 4.25ᵇ) and Sultan Kudarat (M = 4.20ᵇ) 
followed, representing a middle-performing tier. 
Although they did not significantly differ from the top 
group in some comparisons, they fell short of  reaching 

Table 2: Implementation of  School DRRM Program (n=259)
Divisions N Mean SD F P
Tacurong City 13 4.64a 0.355 11.0 <.001
Kidapawan City 18 4.58ab 0.556
Cotabato 72 4.37ab 0.379
Sultan Kudarat 49 4.25b 0.409
Sarangani 18 4.08bc 0.462
General Santos City 52 4.01c 0.392
South Cotabato 16 3.96c 0.591
Koronadal City 21 3.88c 0.313   

Notes: Means sharing the same superscript letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 level according to Tukey’s HSD test.



Pa
ge

 
93

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 4(3) 88-99, 2025

why some divisions fall slightly behind despite structural 
readiness.
General Santos City (M = 4.10ᶜ), Tacurong City (M = 
4.00ᶜ), and Kidapawan (M = 3.90ᶜ) were identified as 
the lowest-performing divisions. These divisions shared 
common statistical subscripts, implying no significant 
difference among them, but they were consistently lower 
compared to Cotabato and Koronadal. This aligns with 
the findings of  Tabilon-Tizon and Comighud (2020), 
who reported disparities in DRRRM capabilities among 
public schools due to inconsistent training, limited 
participation in drills, and underdeveloped school-based 
DRRRM plans.
De la Cruz (2022) cited that effective DRRRM 
implementation requires not only structural preparedness 
but also capability-building activities and active 
community involvement, which may be lacking in lower-
performing divisions. Moreover, Epe (2023) pointed 
out that child-led school watching programs and inter-
agency coordination are often absent in schools with low 

DRRRM scores, thereby weakening their preparedness 
profile.
The variation in DRRRM implementation observed in 
this study signifies the need for a differentiated approach 
to capacity development. High-performing divisions may 
serve as benchmarks for best practices, while those lagging 
should be provided with targeted technical assistance, 
sufficient funding, and policy support. As Alarte (2024) 
emphasized, inclusive and localized DRRRM strategies, 
rooted in school culture and led by empowered SDRRM 
teams, are key to improving outcomes at the grassroots 
level.
Concisely, the results reveal a meaningful gap in DRRRM 
implementation across school divisions. The top-tier 
divisions like Cotabato, Koronadal, and South Cotabato, 
demonstrate strong performance, while divisions like 
GSC, Tacurong, and Kidapawan would benefit from 
priority-focused initiatives to strengthen their DRRRM 
systems and align with DepEd’s strategic vision for safe 
and resilient schools.

In Table 3, the findings on high school students’ disaster 
preparedness knowledge in the SOX region reveal a 
mixed but generally moderate level of  understanding 
and readiness, based on the content standards specified 
in the Senior High School Disaster Risk Reduction 
and Management (DRRM) curriculum. The general 
mean percentage score of  (MPS) is on average level 
(M=58, SD=14.70). Such index of  students’ knowledge 
about disaster preparedness implies that while DRRM 
education has been integrated into the K–12 curriculum, 
its effectiveness remains uneven across different themes 
or domains.
The highest MPS is in the domain “Understanding Hazard 
Types and Risks” (M = 81, SD = 14.60), rated as “Moving 
towards Mastery.” This signifies that the basic knowledge 
regarding types of  natural and man-made hazards and 
their associated risks is relatively well understood. This 
outcome aligns with the findings of  Mamon, Suba, and 
Son (2017), who reported that students generally exhibit 
a good grasp of  disaster types, likely due to exposure to 
recent catastrophic events and growing public awareness. 
Furthermore, the Filipino context—being one of  the 
most disaster-prone countries globally—inevitably 
conditions youth to be familiar with such hazards (Javier 

& Diliman, 2019).
However, other course contents such as “Disaster 
Risk Assessment” (M = 57), “Prepared Strategies and 
Mitigation Measures” (M = 58), “Early Warning Systems” 
(M = 64), and “Emergency Plans and Protocols” (M = 54) 
all fall under the “Average” category. These scores indicate 
significant gaps in students’ applied and procedural 
knowledge, particularly in risk assessment and operational 
planning. This finding echoes those of  Lavilles and 
Hordista (2024), who stressed that while DRRM is taught, 
the transfer of  knowledge into actionable understanding 
mainly in strategic planning, is still limited. Manalo and 
Manalo (2020) also noted that despite the legal mandate 
under Republic Act 10121 to institutionalize DRRM 
education, the actual implementation is often superficial 
and lacks integration in critical thinking and decision-
making exercises.
The variability in students’ performance, indicated by 
relatively high standard deviations (ranging from 18.70 
to 23.20), also implies inconsistencies in the delivery 
and reception of  DRRM content across schools in the 
region. These disparities may be attributed to factors such 
as the availability of  qualified DRRM teachers, the use 
of  localized materials, and institutional support (Cruz 

Table 3: High School Students’ Disaster Preparedness Knowledge in SOX Region (n=389)
Contents MPS SD
1. Understanding Hazard Types and Risks 81 14.60
2. Disaster Risk Assessment 57 23.20
3. Prepared Strategies and Mitigation Measures 58 18.80
4. Early Warning Systems 64 18.70
5. Emergency Plans and Protocols 54 19.60
Overall Mean 58 14.70

Legend: 96%-100% (Mastered), 86%-95% (Closely Approximating Mastery), (66%-85%), Moving Towards Mastery, 35%-65% 
(Average), 15%-34% (Low), 5%-14% (Very Low), 0-4% (Absolutely No Mastery)



Pa
ge

 
94

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 4(3) 88-99, 2025

& Ormilla, 2022; Reyes, 2019). Fale (2022) adds that the 
absence of  a uniform standard in implementing DRRM 
lessons contributes to an uneven level of  resiliency and 
preparedness among students.
Furthermore, the results suggest the need to move 
afar theoretical instruction towards more experiential, 
competency-based disaster education. As Baluran (2023) 
disputes, the mere presence of  DRRM modules does not 
suffice unless these are coupled with drills, simulations, 
and reflective activities that engage students in real-world 
applications. Dollentas and Gamba (n.d.) support this by 
pointing out that the average performance of  DRRM 
coordinators themselves affects the overall effectiveness 
of  school preparedness programs.
The knowledge gap in domains such as emergency 
planning and protocols is especially critical, as this 
component directly affects response during actual 
disaster events. Alarte (2024) emphasized that inclusive, 
participatory DRRM education programs are more 
successful when students understand the procedural steps 
needed during emergencies. This highlights the necessity 
for integrating DRRM into both curricular and extra-
curricular activities, promoting student-led initiatives, and 
leveraging community-based disaster learning approaches.

Overall, as some progress is evident in students’ 
conceptual understanding of  hazards, the relatively 
lower scores in application-driven areas reveal a systemic 
issue in the translation of  DRRM policies into effective 
pedagogical practice. The results affirm the call for 
strengthened DRRM education through enhanced teacher 
training, curriculum contextualization, and school-wide 
implementation that goes beyond compliance to truly 
empower learners with life-saving competencies.
These findings collectively point out that actual 
implementation at the school level is uneven and in 
need of  systemic support despite the existence of  a legal 
mandate for DRRM education. Educational leaders and 
policymakers must invest in sustained teacher capacity-
building, contextualized learning resources, and inclusive 
program designs. The evidence also suggests that 
integrating DRRM across curricular and extracurricular 
programs, combined with child-centered approaches and 
local community engagement, can foster a culture of  
safety and resilience among learners. Moreover, consistent 
monitoring and evaluation of  DRRM implementation 
across regions could help bridge existing disparities and 
ensure that all students, regardless of  their context, are 
adequately prepared for disaster risks.

Table 4: Students’ Disaster Readiness in SOX Region (n=389)
Competencies Mean SD
1. Practical Application of  Evacuation Procedure 4.14 0.83
2. First Aid and basic life support 3.96 1.16
3. Crisis Communication Skills 4.25 0.79
4. Resource Management and Coordination 4.29 0.76
5. Participation in Preparedness Drills 4.48 0.68
Overall Mean 4.22 0.64

Legend: 1.00-1.79 (Very Low), 1.80-2.59 (Low), 2.60-3.39 (Moderate), 3.40-4.19 (Satisfactory), 4.20-5.00 (Very Satisfactory)

As shown in Table 4, the level of  disaster readiness 
among high school students tested through practical 
demonstration of  common competencies is very 
satisfactory (M = 4.22, SD = 0.64). This virtually means 
that students possess commendable competencies in 
preparing for and responding to disaster situations. This 
further indicates the ongoing integration of  Disaster 
Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) skills in 
basic education, as defined in DepEd Order No. 21, s. 
2015, which obliges the institutionalization of  DRRM 
education in public schools. This finding is consistent 
with Cruz and Ormilla (2022), who emphasized that 
schools serve as critical venues for nurturing the life skills 
essential to disaster preparedness and resilience.
In terms of  specific competencies, Participation in 
Preparedness Drills appeared with the highest rating of  
very satisfactory (M = 4.48, SD = 0.68). Clearly, students 
are highly engaged in simulation exercises and school-
initiated disaster preparedness activities. These drills help 
internalize procedures and instill automatic response 
behaviors during real emergencies. Tanaka (2005) asserted 

that habitual participation in drills significantly enhances 
behavioral readiness, while Tabilon-Tizon and Comighud 
(2020) stressed the importance of  practical exposure in 
building student capabilities, arguing that knowledge and 
skills gained during drills are more impactful than policy 
alone.
Meanwhile, Resource Management and Coordination 
was also rated very satisfactory (M = 4.29, SD = 0.76), 
demonstrating that students understand how to organize 
and mobilize essential resources in times of  disaster. This 
is consistent with the principles of  community-based 
disaster risk reduction and management (DRRM), which 
regard learners as active participants rather than passive 
recipients of  disaster education. In this context, Dipon 
(2023) discloses the prominence of  equipping students 
with resource management competencies as a key 
component of  strategic DRRM planning in the school 
setting.
Following this, Crisis Communication Skills also got 
a very satisfactory rating (M = 4.25, SD = 0.79). This 
denotes that students can relay accurate information 



Pa
ge

 
95

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 4(3) 88-99, 2025

and remain composed in crisis situations—skills that 
are essential in reducing confusion and coordinating 
responses. Anchored in Bandura’s (1986) Social Cognitive 
Theory, these behaviors can be linked to effective role 
modeling and structured communication training in 
schools. Similarly, Javier and Diliman (2019) cited that 
child-centered DRRM initiatives enable learners with 
the confidence and accuracy necessary to convey during 
emergencies.
On the other hand, Practical Application of  Evacuation 
Procedures received a slightly lower but still very 
satisfactory rating (M = 4.14, SD = 0.83). The relatively 
high standard deviation suggests that while many students 
understand evacuation protocols in school, application 
at home or in the community remains inconsistent. 
Manalo and Manalo (2020) noted that implementation 
gaps in DRRM are often rooted in limited collaboration 
between home and school. Reinforcing this concern, 
Alarte (2024) argued that DRRM efforts must transcend 
institutional boundaries and engage households to ensure 
full preparedness.
However, the domain of  First Aid and Basic Life Support 
was rated only satisfactory (M = 3.96, SD = 1.16), the 

lowest among the five. This reflects inadequate hands-
on training in administering life-saving procedures, as 
supported by the wide variation in student responses. 
Loquillano et al. (2021) highlighted the importance of  
contextualized DRRM modules that offer practical, 
step-by-step training in basic life support. Moreover, 
Baluran (2023) concluded that inconsistencies in funding 
and trainer availability contribute to disparities in the 
implementation of  this crucial component.
Overall, these findings convey important implications. 
While students are palpably developing disaster-related 
competencies within the school setting, the lower score 
in first aid signals a pressing need for enhanced capacity-
building initiatives. Schools must partner with local 
health units, NGOs, or Red Cross chapters to provide 
structured training programs that provide students with 
necessary emergency response skills. Furthermore, 
DRRM must become a whole-community effort, 
integrating households and local stakeholders in order to 
strengthen school-based learning and foster a culture of  
readiness. As Epe (2023) pointed out, enabling children 
through inclusive, sustained, and well-supported DRRM 
education is key to building resilient communities.

Table 5: Correlation Analysis between the DRRM Program Implementation and the HS Students’ Disaster 
Preparedness Knowledge
Key Result Areas (KRAs) Disaster Preparedness Knowledge

Spearman's rho p-value
1. Risk-Informed Plans, Policies,  
2. and Standards -0.26 0.528
3. Partnerships for Strengthening Resilience -0.29 0.501
4. DRRM Information System and (DRRMIS)  -0.48 0.230
5. Resilience Education -0.19 0.665
6. Information, Education, Communication (IEC) and 

Advocacy for Resilience
-0.21 0.619

7. Learning Continuity and Resilience Interventions -0.62 0.115
8. Monitoring and Evaluation on DRRMS Comprehensive 

School Safety Initiative
-0.33 0.428

Overall DRRM Program -0.38 0.360
Notes: df=6; p<.05, significant

Table 5 presents the results of  the Spearman’s rho 
correlation analysis performed to test the relationship 
between the implementation of  the Disaster Risk 
Reduction and Management (DRRM) Program measured 
through its Key Result Areas (KRAs), and high school 
students’ knowledge on disaster preparedness. The 
general results divulged a weak and statistically non-
significant negative correlation amid DRRM program 
implementation and students’ disaster preparedness 
knowledge (ρ = -0.38, p = 0.360). This means that, 
even if  there is a tendency for higher DRRM program 
implementation to be associated with slightly lower 
preparedness knowledge, such a relationship is not strong 
enough to be deemed statistically meaningful.

Transitioning to the specific key result areas, all seven 
KRAs also displayed negative but non-significant 
correlations with disaster preparedness knowledge. 
The strongest negative association was observed in the 
implementation of  Learning Continuity and Resilience 
Interventions (ρ = -0.62, p = 0.115), followed by the 
DRRM Information System (ρ = -0.48, p = 0.230). 
However, these associations, though moderately strong 
in direction, failed to reach significance at the 0.05 level, 
suggesting variability and inconsistencies in the extent 
to which these interventions influence or correspond to 
students’ knowledge levels. Similar patterns are noted in 
the other KRAs, including Partnerships for Strengthening 
Resilience (ρ = -0.29, p = 0.501), Monitoring and 



Pa
ge

 
96

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 4(3) 88-99, 2025

Evaluation on DRRMS Comprehensive School Safety 
Initiative (ρ = -0.33, p = 0.428), and Resilience Education 
(ρ = -0.19, p = 0.665), all of  which show weak inverse 
associations that are not statistically significant.
To support these findings, Galvizo (2022) stressed that 
DRRM integration into the school curriculum customarily 
needs consistent follow-through, particularly in ensuring 
comprehension and retention among students. Besides, 
Panes et al. (2020) stated that mere presence of  DRRM 
policies and partnerships does not result into enhanced 
disaster knowledge except these efforts are strategically 
communicated and adopted by learners. Arcegono et al. 
(2024) likewise disputed that while student-led DRRM 
activities and budgetary provisions improve institutional 
readiness, their direct influence on individual students’ 
knowledge remains reliant on pedagogical engagement 
and continuous instructional strategies.
Moreover, Lavilles and Hordista (2024) cited that while 
schools in Region XII showed relatively high levels of  
DRRM program implementation, this did not guarantee 
intensified awareness or preparedness among students 
unless there was connection between program delivery and 
students’ lived experiences and classroom realities. This 
confirms the present finding that implementation alone 
does not amount to knowledge acquisition. Additionally, 
Cruz and Ormilla (2022) revealed that schools sometimes 
adopt a compliance-based approach to DRRM, focusing 
more on documentation rather than student-centered 
outcomes—possibly explaining the disconnection 
observed between program implementation and student 
learning outcomes.

Given these explanations, it becomes apparent that the 
quality and delivery of  DRRM education, rather than 
the quantity of  activities or formal implementation, 
pointedly influence student preparedness. It is also 
worth considering that some students may not fully 
grasp the content of  DRRM interventions due to 
lack of  contextualization, especially when these are 
administered as one-time seminars or activities with 
minimal integration into core curricular areas. Rico 
(2022) stressed the importance of  embedded and 
participatory DRRM instruction within regular school 
activities, which enhances students’ readiness through 
experiential learning.
The non-significant negative correlations across all 
key result areas suggest a critical disconnect between 
program undertaking and student learning outcomes 
in disaster preparedness. This denotes that the current 
implementation model of  the DRRM Program may be 
administrative or compliance-driven rather than student-
centered. If  not acted upon, this gap may hinder the very 
objective of  the DRRM initiative, which is to empower 
learners with the knowledge, skills, and values necessary 
to respond effectively during disasters. Thus, there is an 
urgent need to reassess the pedagogical strategies and 
learner engagement mechanisms embedded in DRRM 
program delivery. Schools should integrate DRRM 
education directly into classroom instruction through 
participatory, locally relevant, and context-specific 
approaches. Such integration is important to boost 
students’ long-term knowledge retention and nurture 
practical preparedness behaviors.

Table 6: Correlation Analysis between the DRRM Program Implementation and the High School Students’ 
Disaster Readiness
Key Result Areas (KRAs) Disaster Readiness

Spearman's rho p-value
1. Risk-Informed Plans, Policies, and Standards 0.30 0.471
2. Partnerships for Strengthening Resilience 0.33 0.428
3. DRRM Information System and (DRRMIS)  0.14 0.734
4. Resilience Education 0.17 0.703
5. Information, Education, Communication (IEC) and 

Advocacy for Resilience
0.29 0.501

6. Learning Continuity and Resilience Interventions 0.02 0.977
7. Monitoring and Evaluation on DRRMS Comprehensive 

School Safety Initiative
0.31 0.462

Overall DRRM Program 0.19 0.665
Notes: df=6; p<.05, significant

The correlation analysis presented in Table 5 reveals a 
weak and statistically non-significant relationship between 
the implementation of  the Disaster Risk Reduction 
and Management (DRRM) Program and high school 
students’ disaster readiness. Among the seven key result 
areas (KRAs) evaluated, the coefficients of  Spearman’s 
rho range from as low as 0.02 to as high as 0.33, with 
all p-values exceeding the 0.05 level of  significance. The 

strongest correlation is observed between “Partnerships 
for Strengthening Resilience” and disaster readiness (ρ 
= 0.33, p = 0.428), followed closely by “Monitoring and 
Evaluation on DRRMS Comprehensive School Safety 
Initiative” (ρ = 0.31, p = 0.462) and “Risk-Informed 
Plans, Policies, and Standards” (ρ = 0.30, p = 0.471). 
However, these values still denote weak relationships 
and lack statistical significance, suggesting that variations 



Pa
ge

 
97

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 4(3) 88-99, 2025

in DRRM program implementation across these KRAs 
do not meaningfully correspond with students’ levels of  
disaster readiness in the sample studied.
The relatively low correlation values and insignificant 
p-values may imply several possibilities. One key insight 
is that while the DRRM program is being implemented, it 
may not be translating into tangible increases in students’ 
actual preparedness, possibly due to issues in delivery, 
integration, or contextual relevance. For example, Cruz 
and Ormilla (2022) emphasized that while schools do 
conduct student-led disaster preparedness activities, 
these are often isolated efforts that lack systematic 
integration with curricular content or broader school 
safety frameworks. Similarly, the work of  Abenoja et al. 
(2023) revealed that although schools may show a high 
level of  DRRM implementation, there is still a disconnect 
in equipping students with practical knowledge and 
response capabilities during disasters.
Another influencing factor may be the limited attention 
on students’ experiential engagement and ownership of  
DRRM processes. Tabilon-Tizon and Comighud (2020) 
found that students’ preparedness improves significantly 
when they are exposed to hands-on drills and localized, 
context-specific training, rather than passive forms of  
instruction. However, in many cases, DRRM activities 
tend to be administrative in nature or are reduced to mere 
compliance, with limited involvement from students 
as active stakeholders. This may explain the negligible 
correlation between components like “Learning 
Continuity and Resilience Interventions” and disaster 
readiness (ρ = 0.02, p = 0.977).
Moreover, Lavilles and Hordista (2024) affirmed that the 
success of  DRRM programs in building resilience relies 
on how intensely the concepts, values, and practical skills 
of  disaster preparedness are embedded in the school 
culture and daily practices. If  DRRM efforts remain 
superficial or are only occasionally implemented without 
sustained engagement, their impression on student 
readiness is expected to remain minimal. The modest 
correlation values for “Resilience Education” (ρ = 0.17, p 
= 0.703) and “Information, Education, Communication 
(IEC) and Advocacy for Resilience” (ρ = 0.29, p = 0.501) 
further confirm that exposure alone does not suffice; 
effectiveness counts on heavily on the quality, relevance, 
and student-centeredness of  the interventions.
From a systems perspective, Galvizo (2022) asserted 
that partnerships and community linkages can enhance 
the delivery and contextualization of  DRRM initiatives. 
However, if  such partnerships are not localized or 
tailored to the students’ environment, their relevance 
diminishes. This could explain why even the relatively 
higher correlations for partnership-related KRAs did 
not bear significance. Besides, Alarte (2024) emphasized 
the significance of  inclusive and differentiated DRRM 
education, mostly in multicultural and geographically 
diverse regions of  the Philippines. When implementation 
fails to consider such variability, its effect on readiness is 
weakened.

CONCLUSION
This study explored the implementation of  the Disaster 
Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) Program 
in public high schools across the SOX Region and 
its association with students’ disaster preparedness 
knowledge and readiness. It was revealed that though 
the DRRM program is being implemented at a very high 
level, there are noted gaps across divisions, indicating 
uneven prioritization or resource allocation. Remarkably, 
despite the high level of  program execution, students’ 
knowledge on disaster preparedness stays at an average 
level, while their readiness, particularly in practical 
aspects, is dependably more satisfactory. These patterns 
denote a vital divergence between policy execution and 
educational impact.
The absence of  a significant relationship between 
program implementation and student preparedness 
outcomes implies a fundamental issue: the weight on 
procedural compliance and structural activities may 
not adequately address the instructional needs required 
to develop disaster competence. This points to the 
importance of  redirecting from implementation-focused 
strategies to learner-centered approaches that effectively 
improve both cognitive and behavioral dimensions of  
preparedness.
While the study offers valuable insight into the current 
state of  DRRM education, it is limited by its cross-
sectional design and dependence on apparent measures 
of  program implementation and student competence. 
Future research may benefit from longitudinal tracing and 
in-depth qualitative assessments to disclose the complex 
factors affecting the effectiveness of  DRRM education. 
Integrating disaster preparedness into the formal 
curriculum using more interactive and contextual learning 
approaches might improve both student engagement and 
retention of  critical knowledge and skills. Bolstering the 
educational core of  the DRRM program could ultimately 
make sure that students are not just ready to respond but 
are also deeply informed and capable of  making sound 
decisions in times of  crisis.

REFERENCES
Abenoja, J. T., Oducado, R. M. F., & Ocampo, M. R. (2023). 

Implementation of  school disaster risk reduction and 
management program in Davao de Oro, Philippines. 
International Journal of  Multidisciplinary: Applied Business 
and Education Research, 4(3), 986–994. https://doi.
org/10.11594/ijmaber.04.03.29

Abenoja, N., Bautista, R. J., & Villanueva, L. A. (2023). 
Disaster risk reduction management in public high 
schools: Implementation gaps and opportunities. 
Philippine Journal of  Education and Development, 14(2), 
45–61.

Agustin, E. R., & Cabansag, J. N. (2023). Integration 
of  DRRM in secondary education: A pedagogical 
imperative. International Journal of  Education and 
Research, 11(2), 35–49.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of  planned behavior. 



Pa
ge

 
98

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 4(3) 88-99, 2025

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 
50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-
5978(91)90020 T

Alarte, C. P. (2024). Disaster preparedness for learners 
with special needs: A call for inclusive DRRM. Journal 
of  Special Education and Development, 9(1), 32–47.

Alarte, T. (2024). Implementation of  Disaster Risk 
Reduction and Management in the context of  
inclusive education. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/
sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4818643

Arao Arao, M. A., Dizon, G. T., & Lim, C. J. (2023). 
Building a culture of  preparedness in schools: The 
role of  comprehensive DRRM plans. Asian Journal of  
Education and Disaster Resilience, 5(2), 13–29.

Baluran, A. B. (2023). Governing disaster risk in schools: 
Lessons from DRRM implementation in local 
communities. Philippine Journal of  Public Policy, 29(1), 
67–84.

Baluran, A. G. S. (2023). Extent of  disaster risk reduction 
and management (DRRM) program implementation 
among public elementary schools: Basis for a 
proposed “Our School, Our Safe Zone” program. 
European Journal of  Education Studies. 

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of  thought and action: A 
social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall.

Canlas, I. P., & Karpudewan, M. (2023). Complementarity 
of  scientific literacy and disaster risk reduction: 
A reflection from the science curriculum of  the 
Philippine basic education program. Curriculum 
Perspectives. Springer. 

Cruz, R. D. D., & Ormilla, R. C. G. (2022). Disaster risk 
reduction management implementation in the public 
elementary schools of  the Department of  Education, 
Philippines. International Journal of  Disaster Risk 
Management. 

Cruz, R. L., & Ormilla, R. J. (2022). Disaster preparedness 
levels in schools: A comparative assessment of  
DRRM implementation. Southeast Asian Journal of  
Educational Research, 7(3), 88–102.

Dipon, C. H. (2023). Disaster risk reduction management: 
Basis in crafting a 3 year strategic plan for Pili National High 
School. ResearchGate. 

Dipon, D. G. (2023). School leadership and disaster 
preparedness: Translating policies into programs. 
International Journal of  School Governance, 6(1), 21–38.

Dollentas, J. A. T., & Gamba, M. N. (n.d.). Knowledge and 
skills of  school disaster risk reduction management 
(DRRM) coordinators in Irosin District I: A mixed 
methods analysis. American Research Journal of  
Humanities & Social Sciences. https://www.arjhss.com/

Epal, E. B., Devanadera, M. N., & Orillos, M. M. (2024). 
Challenges in DRRM implementation in Philippine 
public schools: A provincial case study. Philippine 
Journal of  Education and Development, 12(1), 57–69.

Epe, R. B. (2023). Children and disaster risk reduction: 
Building resilience from education, local government 
units, and communities. In Disasters in the Philippines. 
Bristol University Press.

Fale, B. J. (2022). Teacher readiness in implementing 
DRRM: Challenges and capacity gaps. Journal of  
Teacher Education and Practice, 12(4), 40–55.

Fale, M. A. T. L. (2022). Climate Change Adaptation, Disaster 
Risk Reduction Management (DRRM) and Resiliency of  
Secondary School Teachers: Basis for Integrated School Disaster 
Management. Archive.org. https://scholar.archive.org

Firmo, E. P. Jr. (2022). Implementation of  Disaster 
Risk Reduction and Management, Climate Change 
Adaptation and Education in Emergencies of  Public 
Schools in Region VIII. Universal Journal on Innovative 
Research.

Firmo, J. D. Jr. (2022). Bridging DRRM policy and practice 
in education: A critical analysis. Disaster and Education 
Review, 10(1), 25–41.

Javier, S. P., & Diliman, Q. C. (2019). Risk Reduction Through 
Disaster Literacy Among School-Age Children in a Vulnerable 
Community: The Case of  Barangay Parian, Calamba City. 
Academia.edu. https://www.academia.edu

Kelman, I. (2017a). Linking disaster risk reduction, climate 
change, and the sustainable development goals. 
Disaster Prevention and Management: An International 
Journal, 26(3), 254–258. https://doi.org/10.1108/
DPM-02-2017-0043

Kelman, I. (2017b). Linking disaster risk reduction, climate 
change, and sustainable development. International 
Journal of  Disaster Risk Reduction, 23, 252–260. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.05.020

Lavilles, H., & Hordista, A. (2024). Implementation of  
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Program in 
Selected Schools in Region XII, Philippines. Psychology 
and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal. https://
papers.ssrn.com

Leal, M. F., & Zipagan, M. D. (2024). Uneven ground: 
DRRM implementation across Philippine secondary 
schools. Philippine Journal of  Educational Policy and 
Research, 15(1), 58–76.

Loquillano, J. P., Dalisay, J. M., & Paloma, J. A. (2021). 
School-based disaster risk reduction and management 
programs in Philippine basic education. Journal of  
Educational Policy and Research, 5(1), 23–34.

Loquillano, J. T., & Potane, J. (2021). Validation and 
utilization of  the contextualized disaster readiness and 
risk reduction (DRRR) modules. IOER International 
Multidisciplinary Research Journal.

Loquillano, N. J., Santos, M. E., & Ferrer, C. L. (2021). 
Localized modules in DRRM instruction and their 
effects on students’ awareness. Journal of  Curriculum 
Studies, 11(2), 93–109.

Mal, S., Singh, R., Huggel, C., & Grothmann, T. (2017). 
Disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation: 
Do we have a policy mix problem? Environmental 
Science & Policy, 74, 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envsci.2017.05.013

Mamon, M. A. C., Suba, R. A. V., & Son, I. L. (2017). 
Disaster risk reduction knowledge of  Grade 11 
students: Impact of  senior high school disaster 
education in the Philippines. International Journal of  



Pa
ge

 
99

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajec

Am. J. Environ. Clim. 4(3) 88-99, 2025

Health. https://www.academia.edu
Manalo, R. A., & Manalo, J. C. (2020). Barriers to effective 

DRRM integration in senior high school education. 
Philippine Journal of  Disaster Education, 3(1), 17–33.

Manalo, R. G. M. V., & Manalo, M. V. (2020a). Bridging 
the Gap in Implementing the Philippine DRRM Law 
(RA 10121) in the K-12 Senior High School Institutions’ 
Curricula. De La Salle University. https://www.dlsu.
edu.ph

Manalo, R. G. M. V., & Manalo, M. V. (2020b). Exploring 
the gap in implementing the Philippine DRRM Law (RA 
10121) in the K-12 Senior High School institutions. De La 
Salle University.

Mella, R. C., Martinez, D. C., & Lisay, G. A. (2021). 
Student-led hazard mapping: An approach to DRRM 
integration in the curriculum. Asia-Pacific Journal of  
Education for Sustainable Development, 8(1), 60–74.

Navarro, C. N. (2020). Disaster Risk Reduction, Health 
and Sustainable Development: The Case of  the Philippines. 
Diposit.ub.edu.

Ng, M. C. (2022). Inquiry-based strategies for DRRM 
education in high schools. Journal of  Educational 
Innovation and Resilience, 9(3), 29–44.

Orillo, A. R., & Prudente, M. S. (2023). Student disaster 
competence through community-based DRRM 
education. Journal of  Youth and Disaster Readiness, 4(1), 
50–66.

Pandapatan, N. S. (2024). Evaluating disaster readiness 
among senior high school learners in Central Mindanao. 
Philippine Social Science Review, 76(1), 102–117.

Pearson, L. J., & Pelling, M. (2015a). The UN Sendai 
Framework for DRR 2015–2030: Negotiation process 
and prospects for science and practice. Journal of  
Extreme Events, 2(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1142/
S2345737615500017

Pearson, L., & Pelling, M. (2015b). The UN Sendai 
Framework for DRR 2015–2030: Negotiation 
process and prospects for science and practice. 
Journal of  Extreme Events, 2(1), 157–162. https://doi.
org/10.1142/S2345737615500017

Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of  the child. Basic Books.
Pregoner, E., Cruz, M. J., & Talampas, R. D. (2020). The 

impact of  DRRM-integrated education on student 
preparedness perception. Philippine Education Research 
Journal, 12(2), 78–94.

Reyes, M. R. B. (2019). Implementing DRR Education in Senior 
High School. Academia.edu. https://www.academia.edu

Swaris, A. T., Wijesooriya, R. B. T. S., & Jayasinghe, G. Y. 
(2024). Policy coherence in DRRM and climate change 
adaptation in South Asia: Barriers and opportunities. 
Asian Journal of  Environment and Disaster Management, 
16(1), 1–18.

Swaris, R., Nguyen, T. K., & Shah, S. (2024). Resilience-
based education frameworks: Advancing disaster 
preparedness among youth. Journal of  Risk and 
Resilience in Education, 6(2), 19–35.

Tabilon-Tizon, R., & Comighud, S. M. T. (2020). 
Implementation of  the public schools’ DRRM program and 
level of  capabilities to respond. CORE.ac.uk.

Tanaka, K. (2005). The impact of  disaster education on 
public preparation and mitigation for earthquakes: A 
cross-country comparison. Journal of  Natural Disaster 
Science, 27(2), 17–27.

United Nations Office for DRR (UNDRR). (2015). 
Sendai Framework for DRR 2015–2030. https://www.
undrr.org/publication/sendai-framework-disaster-
risk-reduction-2015-2030

Valente, R. M., Marquez, M. P. N., & Lucido, L. T. (2022). 
Climate change and DRR: Synergies in the Philippine 
education sector. Climate and Development, 14(1), 111–123. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2021.1956480

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of  
higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Wen, J., Su, D., & Peng, K. (2023). Disaster risk reduction 
and resilience in education: Lessons from global 
frameworks. International Journal of  Disaster Risk Science, 
14(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-022-
00414-y

Wen, J., Zhou, Y., & Widlund, M. (2023). Cross-sectoral 
collaboration in disaster risk reduction and school 
education. International Review of  Education, 69(3), 345–
365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-023-10000-9

Yamazaki-Honda, A. (2022a). Education and the 
sustainable development goals: A pathway to DRRM 
integration. Education for Sustainable Development Journal, 
10(1), 23–39.

Yamazaki-Honda, A. (2022b). Global to local disaster 
risk reduction: An education perspective. UNESCO 
Working Paper Series on Global Citizenship Education, 12, 
1–25.


