[Downloaded free from http://www.ijhsdm.org on Tuesday, May 14, 2019, IP: 110.54.209.

21]

Original Article

Disaster Risk Reduction Knowledge of Grade 11 Students:

Impact of Senior High School Disaster Education in the
Philippines
Mark Anthony Catedral Mamon, Regin Adrian Vargas Suba, Ignacio Lakip Son Jr.
School Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (SDRRMC), Las Piñas City National Senior High School – Doña Josefa Campus, Department of Education,
Division of Las Piñas City, National Capital Region, Philippines

Abstract
Introduction: The Department of Education of the Philippines implements one of the provisions of the Philippine disaster risk reduction and
management act of 2010 (DRRM Act) to integrate DRRM in the school curriculum and other educational programs, and to heighten the level
of resiliency of students toward natural disasters. Hence, this study was conducted to assess the disaster‑related knowledge, preparedness and
readiness, adaptation, awareness, and risk perception of Grade 11 students. Materials and Methods: A total of 120 respondents answered the
survey questionnaire about DRRM. Responses of Grade 11 students were assessed using the five‑point Likert scale. Results: There is a high
percentage of students who understood some disaster‑related concepts and ideas. Moreover, Grade 11 students are ready, prepared, adapted
and aware on the risks inflicted by disasters. However, students were found to have low‑disaster risk perception. Conclusion: Senior high
school students have high levels of disaster‑related knowledge, preparedness and readiness, adaptation, and awareness. This could possibly
be the effect of the integration of disaster education in the senior high school science curriculum.

Keywords: Department of education, disaster risk reduction and management, K‑12 curriculum, natural disasters, Senior High School

Introduction is an average of 20 tropical cyclones entering the Philippine

The Philippines is a country with high vulnerability to natural
hazards. According to an international report, the Philippines
ranked third out of 173 countries vulnerable to disaster risks.[1]
This evaluation was based on the potential of a natural hazard
to cause heavy human casualties, damage to properties and
infrastructures, and decline of human welfare such as health
status and livelihoods.[2] Aside from the impact of disaster risks,
the country is also vulnerable to the effects of climate change.[1]
The Philippines is a disaster‑prone country because of its
geographical location.[3] The archipelago is located in the
Pacific Ring of Fire, making it prone to geological natural
disasters such as volcanic eruptions and earthquakes.[4] The
location of the Philippines is also highly susceptible to
various meteorological hazards.[5] The country is located in the
path of tropical cyclones that can be categorized as tropical
depression, tropical storm, severe tropical storm, typhoon,
and super typhoon. According to Philippine Atmospheric,
Geophysical, and Astronomical Services Administration, there
Access this article online
Quick Response Code:
Website:
www.ijhsdm.org
area of responsibility. With this location, the country has high
susceptibility to flooding, storm surges, and strong winds.[1,3]
The 36, 289 km coastlines of the Philippines also contribute
to the high susceptibility of the country to coastal flooding
and storm surge.[5]
The significant and catastrophic impacts of natural hazards led
countries and nations to prioritize disaster risk reduction (DRR).
In January 2005, 168 countries adopted the Hyogo Framework
for Action (HFA) during the World Conference on Disaster
Reduction held at Kobe, Hyogo Prefecture Japan. This
action‑oriented response has a goal to integrate effectively
disaster prevention, mitigation, preparedness, and vulnerability
Address for correspondence: Mark Anthony Catedral Mamon,
Josefa Avenue, Doña Josefa Village, Almanza Uno,
Las Piñas City, Philippines.
E‑mail: markcatedralmamon@yahoo.com
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution‑NonCommercial‑ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak,
and build upon the work non‑commercially, as long as the author is credited and the
new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
For reprints contact: reprints@medknow.com

How to cite this article: Mamon MA, Suba RA, Son IL. Disaster risk
DOI: reduction knowledge of Grade 11 students: Impact of Senior High School
10.4103/ijhsdm.ijhsdm_16_17 disaster education in the philippines. Int J Health Syst Disaster Manage
2017;5:69-74.

© 2018 International Journal of Health System and Disaster Management | Published by Wolters Kluwer ‑ Medknow 69
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijhsdm.org on Tuesday, May 14, 2019, IP: 110.54.209.21]
Mamon, et al.: Disaster risk reduction knowledge
reduction to the policies, plans, and programs of sustainable
development.[6] Governments all over the globe implement
DRR, which is an organized and step‑by‑step approach to
identify, assess, and reduce the risks inflicted by disasters.[2] It
is an integral effort in managing disasters by strengthening the
capacities of communities toward the risks and adverse impacts
of natural hazards.[6] The Philippines is one of the countries
who agreed on the implementation of HFA.
The Philippine government is committed to promote and
implement measures and guidelines for DRR. To strongly
implement this international standard of DRR, the Fourteenth
Philippine Congress passed the Republic Act 10121 or the
Philippine DRRM Act, also known as the DRRM Act. This
Republic Act was formally signed by Pres. Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo on May 27, 2010. This law strengthens the Philippine
DRRM system by institutionalizing the National DRRM
Plan.[6] The DRRM Act mandates the National Disaster Risk
Reduction and Management Council to develop a National
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Framework, which
serves as the principal guide to conduct efforts on DRRM all
over the country.
This law also provides a proactive approach in addressing
disaster risks, wherein the people become presently prepared
for the imminent risks and threats of natural disasters. [7]
DRRM Act also requires the integration of DRR Education
in the school curricula of both basic and tertiary levels. It
was opportune to incorporate DRR education because the
Philippines’ Department of Education  (DepEd) recently
implemented a new basic education system known as the
K‑12 Basic Education Curriculum which follows the rules,
regulations, and guidelines of Republic Act 10533, also
called as the Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013.[8,9] This
educational program added two more years to the 10 years
of basic education in the Philippines.[8,10] Specifically, these
2 years are known as senior high school education, an added
educational level to Kindergarten, 6 years of elementary, and
4 years of junior high school.[10] In the curriculum of senior high
school, DRR education is integrated in Earth and Life Science,
a core subject offered to all tracks, and to a specialized track
subject Disaster Readiness and Risk Reduction.
With the provisions of DRRM Act, comprehensive, and
integrated knowledge building about disaster education
is intensified among students under the K‑12 Education
Program. The youth are empowered to be proactive members
of community on DRR and sustainable development. It is
relevant and significant to assess the capacity of students on
DRR to ensure that the senior high school education of the
K‑12 curriculum is substantial on the culture of safety and
resilience toward disaster risks. Furthermore, an assessment
about the DRR knowledge of senior high school students will
be a significant report on the impact of disaster education in
senior high school level in the Philippines. Hence, this study
was conceptualized to determine the DRR knowledge of
Grade 11 students in the Philippines. Specifically, it aimed
70 International Journal of Health System and Disaster Management  ¦  Volume 5  ¦  Issue 3  ¦  July‑September 2017
to assess the disaster‑related knowledge, preparedness and
readiness, adaptation, awareness, and risk perception of senior
high school students.
Materials and Methods
This research used a cross‑sectional study design wherein it
attempts to assess the disaster‑related knowledge, preparedness
and readiness, adaptation, awareness, and risk perception of
Grade 11 or senior high school students. A  simple random
sampling technique was used to obtain 120 respondents from
a total population of 712 students at a selected Senior High
School in Las Piñas City, Philippines.
A survey questionnaire was adopted by the researchers from
the study of Tuladhar et al.[2] The survey questionnaire from
this study is a validated data collection tool based from
different research studies and literatures in investigating DRR
knowledge. Some of the criteria in the survey questionnaire
were based on the suggestions in the report of Southern
California Earthquake Center on public awareness, education,
and knowledge transfer,[11] and Peru’s National Educational
Program for Disaster Prevention and Mitigation on training
and education for improving earthquake disaster management
in developing countries.[12] Some criteria were also based on
the study of Tanaka[13] that investigates the effect of disaster
education on improving people’s readiness and preparedness
in Fukui, Japan and San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA,
and based on the study of Ronan et al.[14] that correlates hazard
education on hazard awareness, risk perceptions, psychological
factors, knowledge, and hazards adjustments of youth.
The respondents answered twenty  (20) questions that were
categorized into five. These categories on DRR knowledge
are the following: disaster‑related knowledge, disaster
preparedness and readiness, disaster adaptation, disaster
awareness, and disaster risk perception. Disaster‑related
knowledge refers to the information and familiarity of the
respondent on the occurrence of disaster, and of being informed
about disaster risk education training and seminar. Disaster
preparedness and readiness refers to the knowledge and
capacities of a person, community, institution, or a government
to efficiently anticipate, and effectively respond to and recover
from imminent and present disasters. Disaster adaptation refers
to the adjustment that a person, community, institution, or a
government can conduct or implement in response to actual
or expected disasters and their effects. Disaster awareness
evaluates the respondent’s level of consciousness on disasters.
Disaster risk perception evaluates the individual judgement
toward the dangers and other impacts of disasters.
A five‑point Likert scale  (5  =  Strongly Agree, 4  = Agree,
3 = Disagree, 2 = Strongly Disagree, and 1 = I do not know)
was used to determine the responses of students on different
issues of DRR. The five responses in the survey questionnaire
were also rephrased with terminologies suited for DRR issues
based on the study of Tuladhar et al.[2] Table 1 shows the DRR
issues and the responses.
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijhsdm.org on Tuesday, May 14, 2019, IP: 110.54.209.21]

Mamon, et al.: Disaster risk reduction knowledge

The responses on the five‑point rating scale of each question
were descriptively presented as percentages and were analyzed
using nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis test. This statistical test is
a rank test that is a nonparametric substitute to ANOVA used
in testing the difference between three or more independent
groups. Nonparametric tests are used if the data are not
normally distributed and have unequal variances.[15] Statistical
test was conducted using Statistical Package for the Social
Science (SPSS) Version 22 (IBM Corporation, 1 New Orchard
Road Armonk, New York, United States). It is a software
package that is used for comprehensive data analysis. SPSS
contains all basic parametric and nonparametric tests. It
can also be used in creating tables and charts. The level of
significance in all cases was set at P < 0.05. A small P value
that is less than the predetermined significance level such as
0.05, which is a common alpha value, means strong evidence
against the null hypothesis or in favor to the alternative.
Results
Table 2 shows the mean percentages of each response option
of Grade 11 students on disaster‑related knowledge. Responses
in all cases of disaster‑related knowledge are significantly
different. Out of 120 respondents, 33.33% understood when a
disaster will take place, followed by 30.00% who find it unclear
on this DRR issue. Majority of respondents  (42.50%) have
no clear knowledge on the idea that there is no prevention for
the occurrence of disasters. There is also a higher percentage
of students  (35.00%) who understood the importance of
participating on a disaster risk education seminar and training,
followed by 20.83%, and 20.00% of Grade 11 students who
have no clear idea and find it confusing on this important issue.
Responses in all cases of disaster preparedness and readiness
are significantly different. Most of the respondents are ready
and prepared on disaster risks, because they find it significant
on sharing knowledge and experiences of disasters, they
recognize the importance of making conversations about
disasters with their family and other people, they know their
government can give assistance during disasters, they are
confident that there will be an immediate rehabilitation after
a disaster and because they gain knowledge from experts of
disaster risks as shown in Table 3.
Table 4 shows the mean percentages of each response option
of Grade 11 students on disaster adaptation. Responses in
all cases are significantly different. The highest percentage
of students are adapted on disaster risks because they are
aware on the location of shelter areas, evacuation centers,
and open spaces, they are confident that government
institutions can give assistance during the disaster, they
are aware on disaster prone areas, they obtained sufficient
information on disaster adaptation implemented by local
government units and nongovernmental organizations,
and they are aware about the evacuation system and plan
of their locality.
Responses in all cases of disaster awareness and risk perception
are significantly different. Most of the students are aware on
DRR at local, regional, and national level because of various
disaster awareness campaigns, and most of the respondents
are aware on the importance of building or infrastructure
retrofitting as shown in Table 5. However, high percentage of
students is not aware on the importance of preparing emergency
kits and bags in case of disaster.
Table 6 shows that the highest percentages of students,
29.17% and 25.00%, have not perceived and have no idea
that large‑scale disasters will definitely happen in the next
10 years. Most of the students, 36.67% and 25.83%, also have

Table 1: Disaster risk reduction issues and responses

DRR issues Responses
Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree No knowledge
Disaster‑related knowledge Well understood Understood Not clear Confusing No idea
Disaster preparedness and readiness Very ready Ready Not ready Confusing No idea
Disaster adaptation Well adapted Adapted Not adapted Confusing No idea
Disaster awareness Well aware Aware Not aware Confusing No idea
Disaster risk perception Well perceived Perceived Not perceived Confusing No idea
DRR: Disaster risk reduction

Table 2: Mean percentages of each response option on disaster‑related knowledge

DRR issues Mean percentages of response options (%)
Disaster‑related knowledge Strongly Agree (4) Disagree (3) Strongly No knowledge Significant
agree (5) disagree (2) (1)
I know when a disaster will happen 5.00 33.33 30.00 11.67 20 S
I know there is no prevention for the occurrence of disaster 18.33 20.00 42.50 20.00 6.67 S
I have been a participant in a disaster risk education 15.00 35.00 20.83 20.00 9.17 S
seminar and training
Values are given as mean percentages of response options (%). S: Significant, DRR: Disaster risk reduction

International Journal of Health System and Disaster Management  ¦  Volume 5  ¦  Issue 3  ¦  July‑September 2017 71
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijhsdm.org on Tuesday, May 14, 2019, IP: 110.54.209.21]

Mamon, et al.: Disaster risk reduction knowledge

Table 3: Mean percentages of each response option on disaster preparedness and readiness
DRR issues Mean percentages of response options (%)
Disaster preparedness and readiness Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly No knowledge Significant
agree (5) (4) (3) disagree (2) (1)
I know the significance of sharing knowledge and experiences of 22.50 57.50 11.67 3.33 5.00 S
disaster
I recognize the importance of making conversations about disasters 31.67 54.17 7.50 4.17 2.50 S
with family members, neighbors, relatives, friends, and colleagues
I know the government is ready to provide assistance after disaster 16.67 51.67 18.33 6.67 6.67 S
I am confident that reconstruction activities can be implemented 10 40.85 32.50 6.67 10 S
after disaster
I gain enough knowledge about disasters from experts who work 9.17 51.67 25.83 8.33 5.83 S
or conduct activities for disaster reduction and management
Values are given as mean percentages of response options (%). S: Significant, DRR: Disaster risk reduction

Table 4: Mean percentages of each response option on disaster adaptation

DRR issues Mean percentages of response options (%)
Disaster adaptation Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly No knowledge Significant
agree (5) (4) (3) disagree (2) (1)
I am aware of the shelter areas or evacuation centers, 15.00 52.50 19.17 8.33 5.00 S
and open spaces in case of a disaster
I am aware about which government institution needs 15.83 46.67 25.83 4.17 7.5 S
to be coordinated and contacted with after disaster
I am informed about disaster prone areas 10.00 45.00 27.50 8.33 9.17 S
I obtained sufficient information about disaster 5.83 40.00 35.00 6.67 12.50 S
adaptation from the local government or from NGOs
I am fully aware and informed about the evacuation 10.83 46.67 27.50 6.67 8.33 S
system and plan in my locality, or area
Values are given as mean percentages of response options (%). S: Significant, NGOs: Nongovernmental organizations, DRR: Disaster risk reduction

Table 5: Mean percentages of each response option on disaster awareness

DRR issues Mean percentages of response options (%)
Disaster awareness Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly No knowledge Significant
agree (5) (4) (3) disagree (2) (1)
I actively participate for disaster awareness campaigns 7.50 43.33 31.67 8.33 9.17 S
I am prepared with emergency kits and bags in case of disaster 15.00 34.17 35.00 9.17 6.67 S
I prioritize awareness in the local, regional, and national level 10.00 49.17 25.83 9.17 5.83 S
I am aware on the importance of building or infrastructure retrofitting 12.50 46.67 22.50 5.00 13.33 S
Values are given as mean percentages of response options (%). S: Significant, DRR: Disaster risk reduction

Table 6: Mean percentages of each response option on disaster risk perception

DRR issues Mean percentages of response options (%)
Disaster risk perception Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly No knowledge Significant
agree (5) (4) (3) disagree (2) (1)
I am sure that large‑scale disasters will definitely happen in the next 11.67 24.17 29.17 10.00 25.00 S
10 years
I think my locality is safe from all types of disasters 4.17 20.00 36.67 13.33 25.83 S
I think my house/building is well designed to withstand an earthquake 3.33 15.83 37.50 13.33 30.00 S
Values are given as mean percentages of response options (%). S: Significant, DRR: Disaster risk reduction

not perceived or have no idea on the safety of their localities or Discussion

areas. Same trend was also observed regarding their perception
about earthquake resistant structures such as their houses and The United  Nations International Strategy for Disaster
other buildings. Reduction (UNISDR) mentioned and established the

72 International Journal of Health System and Disaster Management  ¦  Volume 5  ¦  Issue 3  ¦  July‑September 2017
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijhsdm.org on Tuesday, May 14, 2019, IP: 110.54.209.21]
Mamon, et al.: Disaster risk reduction knowledge
fact that effective DRR education in the basic education
curriculum solidifies and strengthens the culture of awareness,
preparedness, and resiliency among the students.[16,17] They are
the most vulnerable victims of disasters wherein risks can affect
their physical, emotional, and psychological well‑being.[16]
These aforementioned calls and concerns by UNISDR urged all
governments and institutions to conduct disaster management
and mitigations. [17] The present Philippine government
addresses and implements these recommendations of UNISDR
by disseminating disaster risk assessment, reduction and
management knowledge among government employees, local
households, students, and other stakeholders, and designing
frameworks of DRR measures.[3] The DepEd of the Philippines
prioritizes the incorporation of DRRM into the national basic
education system.
The responses of Grade 11 students in this study reflect how
K‑to‑12 curriculum and other educational programs of DepEd
are effective in addressing DRRM. DepEd implements the
comprehensive DRRM in the Basic Education Framework
which seeks to protect students and education staff (teachers
and nonteaching personnel) from death and injury in schools,
promotes risk reduction and resilience through education, and
plan for a steady educational program despite of imminent
natural hazards. Schools should be guided by this Framework
for an effective assessment, planning, and implementation of
DRR, prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response, and
rehabilitation
The DRRM in the basic education framework is fully
reinforced by the present curriculum. School and community
stakeholders are engaged and are asked to participate in
the integration of DRR in the educational programs. Based
from the School DRRM Manual of DepEd, the children or
the youth should have a great involvement in educational
activities that promote DRR awareness. It is a priority
that students should have an in‑depth understanding on
school‑based disaster risk reduction and management.
Students should know what makes their school or community
unsafe, and how can they make these places safe from
disasters. Moreover, students should be knowledgeable on
what to do before, during, and after natural disasters. It is
clear that the active participation and cooperation of students
is vital to the success of DRRM.
Some aspects of disaster risks are understood by the
respondents, and most of them are ready, adapted and aware on
the hazards that natural disasters can cause. However, students
have very low disaster risk perception. Based on these findings,
the core subject Earth and Life Science somehow elevated
the knowledge of the students on natural hazards. Learning
competencies include the hazards, hazard maps in identifying,
and practical ways of coping geologic, hydrometeorological,
and coastal processes. Geologic processes include earthquakes,
volcanic eruptions, and landslides. Hydrometeorological
processes include tropical cyclones, monsoons, floods, and
tornadoes. Coastal processes include erosion, submersion,
International Journal of Health System and Disaster Management  ¦  Volume 5  ¦  Issue 3  ¦  July‑September 2017
and saltwater intrusion. These competencies possibly improve
the understanding of the students on the basic concepts of
natural hazards, and the measures of mitigation and adaptation.
Disaster risk perception must be improved among students
to have a correct judgement toward the imminent dangers
of natural hazards. Risk perception among students shall be
developed to ensure an effective and protective public response
and action.[18]
The success implementation of the school and community‑based
DRRM relies on public awareness and public education.[19]
Disaster education aims to increase the resiliency of students
on disaster risks by solidifying knowledge about disasters,
developing skills that can be used to prepare, adapt, mitigate,
and respond to the damaging effects of disasters, and elevating
awareness that widens the scope of understanding on DRR.[20]
With these objectives, DRR is advocated by promoting a
culture of safety and resiliency in the community, most
especially at the school level.[21]
Aside from the centralized competency‑based approach
adopted by the Philippines’ DepEd, communication and
promotion of DRR can materialize through strategic
planning, development, and improvement of educational
materials according to the United  Nations Children Fund
and United  Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization,[22] schools all over the country should integrate
DRRM through textbook‑driven approach, wherein students
have reliable sources on the different concepts and issues about
natural hazards. Other approaches include interactive and
action learning for the students and professional development
of teachers on DRR education.
Conclusion
Grade 11 students understood some disaster‑related concepts
and ideas, and are prepared, adapted, and aware on the risks
inflicted by these natural hazards. Low perception on disaster
risks are evidently observed among senior high school students.
The responses of Grade 11 students could be based on the
efficiency and impact of the integration of DRR education in
the senior high school curriculum. Specifically, integration
of the concepts about the hazards, hazard maps, disaster
preparedness, awareness, mitigation, prevention, adaptation,
and resiliency in the science curriculum possibly affect the
knowledge and understanding of students on DRR.
Acknowledgment
The authors are grateful to the support of the Department of
Education – Division of Las Piñas. Specifically, the authors
would like to thank the Schools Division Superintendent,
Dr. Loreta B. Torrecampo, CESO V, and the Division Planning
Officer III, Dr. Raymond Magno, for encouraging us to conduct
this research study. We also like to express our gratitude to the
students who became the respondents of this study.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
73
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijhsdm.org on Tuesday, May 14, 2019, IP: 110.54.209.21]
Mamon, et al.: Disaster risk reduction knowledge
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
References
1. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The
World Bank. Community Mapping for Disaster Risk Reduction and
Management: Harnessing Local Knowledge to Build Resilience; 2014.
Available from: http://www.iapad.org/wp‑content/uploads/2015/07/
Community-Mapping-for‑Disaster‑Risk‑Reduction‑and‑Management.
pdf. [Last accessed on 2017 Jan 30].
2. Tuladhar  G, Yatabe  R, Dahal  RK, Bhandary  NP. Disaster risk
reduction knowledge of local people in Nepal. Geoenvironmental
Disasters 2015;2:1‑12. Available from: https://www.link.springer.
com/content/pdf/10.1186%2Fs40677‑014‑0011‑4.pdf. [Last accessed
on 2017 Jul 07].
3. Llanto  GM. Mainstreaming disaster risk management in local
governments. Policy Notes No. 2011‑05. Philippine Institute for
Developmental Studies; 2011.
4. Blanco  DV. Disaster governance in the Philippines: Issues, lessons
learned, and future directions in the Post‑Yolanda super typhoon
aftermath. Int J Public Admin 2015;38:1‑14. Available from: http://
www.academia.edu/13029525/Disaster_Governance_in_the_
Philippines_Issues_Lessons_Learned_and_Future_Directions_in_the_
Post‑Yolanda_Super_Typhoon_Aftermath. [Last accessed on 2017 Jan
30].
5. Lapidez  JP, Tablazon  J, Dasallas  L, Gonzalo  LA, Cabacaba  KM,
Ramos MM, et al. Identification of storm surge vulnerable areas in the
Philippines through the simulation of Typhoon Haiyan‑induced storm
surge levels over historical storm tracks. Natural Hazard Earth Syst Sci
2015;15:1473‑81.
6. Saño EA. Primer on the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management
(DRRM) Act of 2010; 2010. Available from: http://www.downloads.
caraga.dilg.gov.ph/Disaster%20Preparedness/DRRM%20Act%20
Primer.pdf. [Last accessed on 2017 Feb 20].
7. Israel  DC, Briones  RM. Disasters, Poverty, and Coping Strategies:
The Framework and Empirical Evidence from Micro/Household
Data – Philippine Case. Discussion Paper Series No. 2014‑06. Philippine
Institute for Developmental Studies; 2014.
8. Sarmiento  DH, Orale  RL. Senior high school curriculum in the
Philippines, USA, and Japan. J  Acad Res 2016;1:12‑23. Available
from: http://www.ojs.ssu.edu.ph/index.php/JAR/article/view/54. [Last
accessed on 2017 Sep 01].
9. Estonanto  AJ. Acceptability and difficulty of the STEM track
implementation in Senior High School. Asia Pac J Multidiscipl Res
2017;5:43‑50. Available from: http://www.apjmr.com/wp‑content/
uploads/2017/04/APJMR‑2017.5.2.05.pdf. [Last accessed on 2017
Sep 01].
10. Sergio  MR. K‑12 education reform: Problems and prospects. Gibon
2011;9:70‑80. Available from: http://www.adnu.edu.ph/urc/download/
p070p080.pdf. [Last accessed on 2017 Sep 01].
74 International Journal of Health System and Disaster Management  ¦  Volume 5  ¦  Issue 3  ¦  July‑September 2017
11. Andrews  J, Benthien  M, Tekula  S. Southern California Earthquake
Center Outreach Report 1998: Public Awareness, Education, and
Knowledge Transfer Programs and Fiscal Year 1998 Activities; 1998.
Available from: http://www.s3‑us‑west‑2.amazonaws.com/files.scec.
org/s3fs‑public/SCEC1998Proceedings.pdf. [Last accessed on 2017
Sep 30].
12. Kuroiwa JA. Peru’s National Education Program for Disaster Prevention
and Mitigation  (PNEPDPM), Training and Education for Improving
Earthquake Disaster Management in Developing Counties. UNCRD
Meeting Report Series, No. 57; 1993. p. 95‑102.
13. Tanaka K. The impact of disaster education on public preparation and
mitigation for earthquakes: A cross‑country comparison between Fukui.
Japan and the San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA. Appl Geogr
2005;25:201‑25.
14. Ronan KR, Crellin K, Johnston D. Correlates of hazards education for
youth: A replication study. Nat Hazards 2010;53:503‑26.
15. Neideen  T, Brasel  K. Understanding statistical tests. J  Surg Educ
2007;64:93‑6. Available from: http://www.osp.mans.edu.eg/
tmahdy/papers_of_month/0706_statistical.pdf. [Last accessed on
2017 Sep 30].
16. Apronti  PT, Osamu  S, Otsuki  K, Berisavljevic  GK. Education for
disaster risk reduction (DRR): Linking theory with practice in Ghana’s
basic schools. Sustainability 2015;7:9160‑86. Available from: http://
www.mdpi.com/2071‑1050/7/7/9160.[Last accessed on 2017 Jun 24].
17. Haulle  E, Rugumamu W. Linking school environment to geo disaster
risk reduction for sustainable development in Tanzania. Int J Humanit
Soc Sci Educ 2015;2:91‑8. Available from: https://www.arcjournals.org/
pdfs/ijhsse/v2‑i6/11.pdf. [Last accessed on 2017 Jun 24].
18. Yu J, Cruz AM, Hokugo A. Households’ risk perception and behavioral
responses to Natech accidents. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 2017;8:1‑15.
Available from: https://www.link.springer.com/article/10.1007/
s13753‑017‑0116‑y. [Last accessed on 2017 Jun 24].
19. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
Public Awareness and Public Education for Disaster Risk Reduction:
A Guide; 2011. Available from: http://www.ifrc.org/Global/Publications/
disasters/reducing_risks/302200‑Public‑awareness‑DDR‑guide‑EN.
pdf. [Last accessed on 2017 Jul 07].
20. Baker OE, Kasapoglu K, Yilmaz E. The objectives of disaster education
from teachers’ perspectives. Int J Human Sci 2015;12:975‑90. Available
from: https://www.j‑humansciences.com/ojs/index.php/IJHS/article/
view/3196/1457. [Last accessed on 2017 Sep 01].
21. Asharose, Saizen I, Sasi PK. Awareness workshop as an effective tool
and approach for education in disaster risk reduction: A  case study
from Tamil Nadu, India. Sustainability 2015;7:8965‑84. Available
from: http://www.mdpi.com/2071‑1050/7/7/8965. [Last accessed on
2017 Sep 02].
22. Disaster Risk Reduction in School Curricula: Case Studies
from Thirty Countries. United  Nations Children Fund and
United  Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization;
2012. Available from: https://www.unicef.org/education/files/
DRRinCurricula‑Mapping30countriesFINAL.pdf. [Last accessed on
2017 Sep 01].