La Mesa Watershed Vulnerbility Assessment PDF

SYLVATROP
Editorial Staff
Antonio M. Daño
Editor-in-Chief
Adreana Santos-Remo
Veronica O. Sinohin Liberato A. Bacod
Managing Editor Layout Artists

Liberty E. Asis Gliceria B. De Guzman
Adreana Santos-Remo Eduardo M. Tolentino
Editors Circulation Assistant

Marilou C. Villones Liberato A. Bacod
Editorial Assistant Printing Coordinator

January - December 2015 Vol. 25 Nos. 1&2
SYLVATROP, The Technical Journal of Philippine Ecosystems and Natural Resources is

published by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) through
the Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau (ERDB), College, Laguna.
Subscription rates: P75 for single issue copy (local); P150 for combined issues and
US$15 per single issue copy (foreign) including airmail cost; US$30 for combined
issues. Re-entered as Second Class Mail CY 2012 at the College, Laguna Post Office
on 14 May 2013. Permit No. 2013-14.
Address checks to The Circulation Officer and contributions or inquiries to

The Editor-in-Chief at the following address:
SYLVATROP, The Technical Journal of Philippine Ecosystems and Natural Resources

Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau, DENR
Tel. No. (049) 536-2229, 2269 Fax: (049) 536-2850
E-mail: erdb@denr.gov.ph or sylva_secretariat@yahoo.com
Cover Photo: Photo shows the watersheds of La Mesa and San Cristobal
in Metro Manila and Sta. Rosa, Laguna, respectively.
Cover Layout: Adreana Santos-Remo

PREFACE
Climate change has taken a huge impact in the research world. Several
studies have been conducted to determine its effects in the environment. In
the Philippines, while we have lower carbon emissions compared to other
developing countries, we are considered to be one of the most vulnerable to
the impacts of climate change.
Because of the risks associated to climate change, Philippines has to

push for developing strategies that could help us to either mitigate or to adapt
to these impacts. Assessing the ecosystem’s vulnerability to hazards due to
climate change forms an important decision tool towards better management
of natural resources as well as minimized risk to environmental disasters. With
the projected impacts of climate change, the streamflow and groundwater
recharge in many water-stressed areas could further be decreased. This will
vary depending on the vulnerability of the watershed.
Thus, on 2009, the Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau

implemented the study entitled “Vulnerability assessment (VA) of priority
watersheds with coastal areas in the Philippines to climate change” to assess the
vulnerability of different watersheds. This study employed an interdisciplinary
approach in addressing a complex problem in aid of identifying the natural
and social factors that magnify or intensify the effects of natural hazards.
The study followed the framework formulated by ERDB in assessing the
vulnerability of watersheds to hazards. In 2011, ERDB shifted its framework
to include climate change as an important contributory to the vulnerability of
watersheds.
Four of the watersheds included in this VA project are featured in this

Special Issue of Sylvatrop. This special issue contains results on the vulnerability
of the watersheds, namely: 1) La Mesa Watershed in Metro Manila, 2) San
Cristobal Watershed in Sta. Rosa, Laguna, 3) Kisloyan Watershed in Mindoro,
Vulnerability framework used by ERDB in its vulnerability assessment
studies to identify natural and anthropogenic hazards
Vulnerability framework used by ERDB for vulnerability assessment

studies from 2011 onwards (Adapted from the framework of
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2011))
and the 4) Matutinao Watershed in Cebu. These VA results can therefore serve
as input in the planning and preparation of watershed managers in managing
the complexities of the watersheds under their jurisdiction. Emerging issues
related to climate change are also incorporated in the discussion of the
research results.
Results of the four vulnerability assessment studies can be utilized

in planning the sustainable development of a watershed and conserving
its natural resources. With this, more responsive and integrated watershed
management plans can be expected from our policy makers.
We hope that this issue will inspire more researchers to conduct in-
depth studies on vulnerability assessment using up-to-date and science based
information.
ANTONIO M. DAÑO
Lead Author, VA Special Issue
Sylvatrop, The Technical Journal of Philippine Ecosystems and Natural Resources 25 (1 & 2) 1-26
Vulnerability assessment of the La Mesa

Watershed Reservation, Quezon City,
Philippines
Esmeralda P. Andres Rudolfo Espada, Jr.
Supervising Science Research Specialist Planning Officer I
Ecosystems Research and Development Service Email address: rudolf_espada@yahoo.com
DENR-National Capital Region
North Avenue, Quezon City, Philippines Eduardo C. Calzeta
Email address: esmie.andres@gmail.com Forester II
Email address: ed_calzeta@yahoo.com
Manuel S. Sabater
Community Enviroment and Natural Riza C. Arjona
Resources Officer Science Aide
Email address: mss_iise@yahoo.com Email address: rizmagcar@yahoo.com
The vulnerability assessment of the La Mesa Watershed Reservation in Novaliches,

Quezon City was conducted to provide the basis for the formulation of a
sustainable watershed development and management plan. The guidelines on
vulnerability assessment prepared by Daño (2006) of the Ecosystems Research and
Development Bureau (ERDB) was also tested in the identification of vulnerable
areas in the La Mesa Watershed.
Four priority environmental hazards were assessed in the study area using a spatial
analysis tool, the ArcGIS Model Builder. The composite map identified a total
of 10.285 ha of very highly vulnerable areas distributed as follows: soil erosion
(0.285 ha), landslide (0.014 ha), biodiversity loss (8.685 ha), and fire (1.141 ha).
Keywords: Vulnerability assessment, La Mesa Watershed Reservation, ecological profiling

and characterization, soil erosion vulnerability, landslide vulnerability, fire
vulnerability, biodiversity loss vulnerability, Metro Manila, Philippines
2 E. Andres et al.
THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF ANY WATERSHED IS

primarily dependent on the existing socioeconomic, political, institutional, ecological
and physical resources. The status of these resources, both quantitatively and
qualitatively, can be determined through a comprehensive ecological profiling and
characterization of the watershed. These results of characterization are valuable inputs
in assessing the area in terms of its vulnerability to geohazards. Knowing the geological
hazards will help environmental managers in pinpointing priority conservation areas
and formulating intervening actions to reduce environmental degradation and enhance
the coping capacity of the watershed to potential environmental hazards.
In Metro Manila, the remaining recharge is La Mesa Watershed Reservation

(LMWR). The dam serves as a holding reservoir for the water coming from the transbasins
of Umiray, Angat and Ipo Watersheds which are all declared as watershed reservations.
The Proclamation of the La Mesa Watershed under Presidential Proclamation 1336 on
July 25, 2007 completed the water system, thus, providing water security for Metro
Manila.
To date, LMWR is still considered as Unclassified Land of Public Domain,

otherwise referred to as Public Forest per L. C. Map No. 639 issued on March 11,
1927. It is a titled property under the name of the Metropolitan Waterworks and
Sewerage System (MWSS). Politically, it is under the jurisdiction of the Quezon City
local government.
This vulnerability assessment was conducted to determine the degree of

vulnerability of the watershed in terms of soil erosion, landslide, fire and loss of
biodiversity. The results of the study would provide baseline information for the
preparation and implementation of the La Mesa Development and Management Plan.
Review of literature
Watersheds, considering the role they play, should always be given due
conservation efforts. Vulnerability assessment of the watershed is one important tool to
determine its risks and hazards.
Different approaches can be used in the conduct of vulnerability assessment.

One earlier study on vulnerability of watershed to climate change was conducted by
Tiburan, Jr., et al. The author developed an approach that integrates geospatial-based
model involving 21 indicators, classified into three major components: exposure,
sensitivity and adaptive capacity. Each indicator was given a scale of 1 to 5 to signify
the degree of vulnerability. Threshold level for each scale was determined using
statistics and existing geospatial-based techniques. Subindices in the model was used
to evaluate the extent of damage brought about by other pertinent issues associated
Vulnerability assessment of the La Mesa Watershed Reservation 3
with climate change such as flood, drought, erosion, landslide, and biodiversity loss. It
was emphasized in the paper that all these information played a significant role in the
effective and efficient management of watersheds in the country, as well as in targeting
policy interventions associated with climate change (Tiburan et al. 2010).
Susceptibility assessment of areas prone to landslide remains one of the most

useful approaches in landslide hazard analysis. The key point of such analysis is the
correlation between the physical phenomenon and its triggering factors based on past
observations. Many methods have been developed to capture and model this correlation,
usually within a geographic information system (GIS) framework. Among these, the
use of neural networks, particularly the multilayer perceptron (MLP) networks, has
provided successful results. A successful application of the MLP method to a basin area
requires the definition of different model strategies, such as the sample selection for
the training phase or the design of the network structure. Investigation of the effects of
the different strategies on the development of landslide susceptibility maps by applying
different model configurations was done to a small basin located in northeastern Sicily,
Italy. A number of historical slope failure events have been documented in the study
area over the years. Model performances and their comparison were evaluated using
specific metrics (Arnone et al. 2014).
In Naguilian River Watershed in Benguet, Philippines, the simple overlaying

technique in GIS was used to evaluate the vulnerability to landslide and forest/grass fire.
The watershed attributes contributing to the two mentioned hazards were analyzed.
Slope was the most important factor. Other factors considered were rainfall, landuse/
land cover, faultline, geology, and soil attributes. Results showed that the watershed
has high vulnerability to landslide and a moderate vulnerability to forest/grass fire
(Lopez et al. 2014).
Another way to study vulnerability assessment (VA) includes the use of a GIS
model that integrates the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) (Lanuza 2014). This
method was used by Lanuza in geospatial modeling of soil erosion of the Buhisan
Watershed Forest Reserve in Cebu City, Philippines. It was predicted that about 60.20%
or 369.22 ha of the watershed forest reserve have high potential for soil erosion. On the
average, predicted soil erosion is about 160.23 t/ha/yr.
The USLE, remote sensing satellite data, digital elevation model (DEM) and GIS-
based geospatial approach were utilized to study the soil erosion of some sections of the
Upper Subarnarekha River Basin, Jharkhand, India. Raster grids of topography acquired
from Advanced Space-borne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) Global
DEM data were analyzed to determine vulnerability. LANDSAT TM and ETM+ satellite
data of March 2001 and March 2011 were used to infer the land use cover of the watershed.
USLE was integrated within the GIS framework to derive the annual soil erosion rates and
also the areas with varying degrees of erosion vulnerability, from very low (0-5 t/ha/yr) to
4 E. Andres et al.
very severe (>40 t/ha/yr.) Results indicated an increase of erosion rates in 2011 compared
to 2001. Factors for the increase in the overall erosion could be attributed to variation in
rainfall, decrease in vegetation cover or protective land covers, and the increase in built-up
or impervious areas (Chatterjee et al. 2014).
In a study conducted at a watershed in Taiwan, the watershed’s eco-

environmental vulnerability was analyzed using three watershed-based environmental
indicators with multiple-criteria decision-making techniques (i.e., Analytical Hierarchy
Process, and the Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations).
The study was conducted at Ari-Jia-Wan Stream Watershed, an area famous for
slopeland agriculture and land-locked salmon. The composite evaluation index system
was set up including sediment, runoff, and nutrient factors. Using GIS and K-means
clustering, vulnerability of the watershed was classified into four levels: potential, low,
moderate, and high. Evaluation results showed that 8.82% of the six subwatersheds are
in the moderately and highly vulnerable zones (Pi-Hui Huang et al. 2010).
In Italy, a vulnerability assessment to validate the landslide hazard

susceptibility, using GPS monitoring technique, was undertaken in the high Cordevole
river basin (Eastern Dolomites, Italy). Hazard map was prepared adopting the Swiss
Confederation semi-determinalistic approach taking into account parameters such as
velocity, geometry, and frequency of landslides. The work illustrated some progress of
the approach by refining the parameters for more reliable results on landslide hazard
assessment (Tagliavini et al. 2007).
In Bartin Province of Western Black Sea Region, Turkey, the effects of mapping
unit on different susceptibility mapping methods was investigated. GIS and remote
sensing techniques were used to create the landslide factor maps, obtain susceptibility
maps and compare results. Use of the Logical Regression (LR) and Spatial Regression
(SR) were also compared. The Relative Operating Characteristics (ROC) curve was
used to compare the predictive abilities of each model and mapping unit. Accuracy was
also evaluated based on observations made during the field surveys. Analyzing the area
under the ROC curve for grid-based and slope-unit-based mapping units showed that
SR model provided better predictive performance as compared to the LR model. The
result was also supported by the accuracy analysis. Better performance of the SR model
was derived from the incorporation of the spatial correlation between the mapping
units into the model while it was not considered in the LR model (Erener et al. 2012).
In the Philippines, Tiburan et al. assessed LMWR using a geospatial-based

environmental vulnerability index called the Geospatial-based Regional Environmental
Vulnerability Index for Ecosystems and Watersheds (GeoREVIEW). The LMWR is a
vital carbon sink and an important source of domestic water supply in Metro Manila.
Based on the assessment, LMWR received an overall vulnerability point of 62.52 that
classifies it as “at risk” level. A vulnerability map ranging from 2.86 to 3.52 was also
generated from the process. Around 69.7% of the watershed have vulnerability scales
of >3.0. In addition, priority areas were determined using an evaluation matrix and
results showed that around 8.4% (193.4 ha) of LMW have high to very high priority
levels. All these information were considered as very indispensable and can be used
to address management issues, such as resource prioritization and optimization. In
addition, these can be utilized to sustainably manage the watershed, particularly, on
the provision of quality water for domestic use of several cities in the National Capital
Region, as well as its neighboring provinces (Tiburan et al. 2012).
Methodology
Study area
La Mesa Watershed Reservation (LMWR) is located at 14o75” N, 121o10” E

in Novaliches, Quezon City, Philippines. It is bounded by Caloocan City on the
northwestern side; Quezon City on the southeastern and southwestern side; and San
Mateo and Rodriguez, Rizal on the northeastern and southeastern side. It has a total
area of 2,659.59 ha (Fig. 1).
The vulnerability assessment of the LMWR was conducted in 2008. The

Vulnerability Assessment guidelines by Daño (2006) of the Ecosystems Research and
Development Bureau (ERDB) were applied in the conduct of this project. The Technical
Working Group (TWG) from the Ecosystems Research and Development Service
(ERDS), Planning Office and the Forest Management Service (FMS) of the DENR-NCR,
together with a GIS specialist, reviewed the Profiling and Characterization Report of the
La Mesa Watershed. Four environmental hazards were identified for the watershed: soil
erosion, landslide, fire hazard, and biodiversity loss (Table 1).
Table 1 Critical factors used in the vulnerability assessment

Hazard Critical factors
Agro-climatic type, soil type, slope, vegetative
Soil erosion
cover/landuse, conservation practices
Slope, soil genesis/morphology, proximity to fault-

Landslide
line, climate, typhoon risk, vegetative cover/land
use, road/river cut, geologic
Fire Vegetation, slope, aspect/wind exposure, proximity

to fire sources, accessibility, infrastructure
Biodiversity loss Slope, road and river, natural disturbances, market,

encroachment
6 E. Andres et al.
Figure 1 Location map of the La Mesa Watershed per Presidential

Proclamation No. 1335
Spatial analysis using the ArcView/ArcGIS Model Builder was used to identify
vulnerable areas within the watershed. Researchers utilized two spatial analysis tools: the
arithmetic overlay and the weighted overlay. The former was applied to soil erosion while
the latter was applied to landslide, fire hazard, and biodiversity loss.
Arithmetic overlay involved the use of specified calculations to come up with

the desired map. Figure 2 presents the schematic diagram for the operation of arithmetic
overlay, process of ArcView/ArcGIS Model Builder to assess the soil erosion potential of
LMWR using the USLE.
Figure 2 Schematic diagram showing the operation of arithmetic overlay process to

estimate soil erosion using Universal Soil Loss Equation.
The schematic diagram presents input factors (i.e., agroclimatic, soil, slope,
vegetative cover/landuse, and conservation practices) that are converted into vector/raster
format and subsequently reclassified prior to the operation of arithmetic overlay process.
Reclassification was done to assign values to reclassified critical factors. Applying the USLE
in the arithmetic overlay, soil erosion map was generated and further reclassified to assign
vulnerability class value for a certain range of soil erosion estimate.
Weighted overlay technique was used in this study. It combines multiple rasters
by applying a common measurement value or percentages on each raster to create an
integrated analysis. Input factors critical for each hazard were converted into vector/raster
format and subsequently reclassified and/or buffered prior to the operation of the weighted
overlay process. Reclassification was done to assign degree of influence and vulnerability
classification value for each critical factor and reclassified critical factor.
For each hazard, the critical factors were identified. Table 1 presents the critical
factors utilized in the assessment. Table 2 presents the qualitative classification of areas
vulnerable to identified hazards, with corresponding classification value.
The degree of influence assigned to each critical factor, as used during the
overlay process for landslide, fire and biodiversity loss, is presented in Table 3. Soil
erosion (t/ha/yr) was estimated by applying the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) and
spatial analysis using the Model Builder of ArcView/ArcGIS to estimate the soil erosion
potential.
8 E. Andres et al.
Table 2 Qualitative classification of areas vulnerable to identified

hazards, with corresponding classification value
Vulnerability classification value Degree of vulnerability
1 Very low
2 Low
3 Moderate
4 High
5 Very high
Table 3 Critical factor’s degree of influence
Hazard Critical factor Degree of influence (%)

Slope 30.00
Soil genesis/morphology 10.00
Proximity to faultline 15.00
Climate 10.00
Landslide
Typhoon risk 10.00
Vegetative cover/landuse 10.00
Road/river cut 5.00
Geologic 10.00
Vegetation 16.67
Slope 16.67
Aspect/wind exposure 16.67
Fire
Proximity to fire sources 16.67
Accessibility 16.67
Infrastructure 16.67
Slope 20.00
Road and river 20.00
Biodiversity
loss Natural disturbances 20.00
Market 20.00
Encroachment 20.00
Using the ArcView/ArcGIS Model Builder, the following models for LMWR were
formulated: a) Vulnerability to soil erosion; b) Vulnerability to landslide; c) Vulnerability to
fire; and d) Vulnerability to biodiversity loss.
Results and discussion

Background information
Information from the Profiling and Characterization of the LMWR Report on

the physical and natural attributes of the watershed.
Geomorphological features
The surface elevation of the area ranges from 40 to 260 masl. The watershed
is characterized as having a gently sloping to rolling topography with most of the area
having slopes of 18% and below. There are no flood-prone areas in the watershed
since the two major creeks, namely, the Sapang Krudo Kamatis and Sapang Kawayan,
adequately drain into the reservoir. The elevation and slope of the watershed is
presented in Table 4.
Geology and soils

Table 4 Elevation and slope of La Mesa Watershed
Features Value Description
Elevation 40-260 meters With gentle slopes and relatively flat areas around
above sea level the watershed indicate low sediment loss or
(masl) surface runoff.
Slope 0-50% = 834.64
The major geological feature in the area is the West Marikina Valley Fault that
runs from Angat Dam from Pasig to Tagaytay. On the northeastern part of the La Mesa
reservoir is the Guadalupe Formation, a major geologic formation which is made up
of clastic and volcanic rocks. Guadalupe Formation overlies pre-Quaternary Basement
Rock Formations, namely, the Madlum, Angat, Maybangan and Kinabuan Formation
which serve as basement rocks for the watershed and its adjacent areas.
The LMWR exhibits three types of soil, namely, loamy-sand, sandy-clay loam,
and sandy-loam. Sandy-clay loam is the dominant soil type.
10 E. Andres et al.
Climate
The nearest climatological station of the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical

and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA) is at the Science Garden in
Quezon City. Parameters such as rainfall, air temperature, wind speed and humidity
were regularly measured and recorded. The climate at the Science Garden can be
considered as very similar to La Mesa watershed. During the assessment, PAGASA has
not yet issued data scenario, thus, the old system was used.
The PAGASA classifies the climate in the Philippines on the basis of temporal
rainfall distribution (Coronas Scheme). Under this classification, the area has a Type 1
climate: two pronounced seasons, dry from November to April and wet from May to
October.
The LMWR derives its rainfall for the most part from the warm, moist southwest
monsoon, as well as, the convergent storm cells associated with the intertropical
intensification and strong winds due to the frequent passage of tropical typhoons during
the rainy season. The cooler and drier northeast monsoon occurs from October to
January, occasionally producing light rainfall.
The mean annual rainfall over the study area is around 2,000 mm. Temperature
ranges from a minimum of 20 ºC around January and February to a maximum of 35 ºC
around April and May. Mean monthly temperature varies from 25 ºC to 30 ºC. Mean
annual temperature is at 27 ºC. Monthly relative humidity ranges from the maximum
of 95% in August and September to a minimum of 55% in March and April. Mean
annual relative humidity is 76%.
Flora
Flora characteristics of the LMWR is a product of various reforestation efforts to

include those undertaken by the Manila Seedling Bank Foundation (1978-1983), Alpha
Omega Foundation (1984-1999), DENR-NCR, ERDS (1998-2000), and the ABS-CBN
Bantay Kalikasan. Prominent in the area are stands of different species of dipterocarps,
teak and molave.
ABS-CBN Bantay Kalikasan uses 86 species of indigenous and endemic

species for their enrichment activities. Of these, five are critically endangered, three are
endangered and four are vulnerable under the International Union for the Conservation
of Nature (IUCN) category.
A total of 520 plant species are now located in the area to include those
enumerated during the inventories as well as planted species during reforestation and
enrichment efforts. Out of the listed species, 10 are vulnerable, seven are endangered,
and four are critically endangered according to the IUCN category (Table 5).
Table 5 Conservation status of some plant species at the LMWR
Common name Scientific name Conservation status

Tanglin Adenanthera intermedia Vulnerable
Antipolo Artocarpus blancoi Vulnerable
Pili-liitan Canarium luzonicum Vulnerable
Dao Dracontomelon dao Vulnerable
Hamindang Macaranga bicolor Vulnerable
Narra Pterocarpus indicus Vulnerable
Almon Shorea almon Vulnerable
White lauan Shorea contorta Vulnerable
Tanguile Shorea polysperma Vulnerable
Molave Vitex parviflora Vulnerable
Palosapis Anisoptera thurifera Endangered
Hingiw Ichnocarpus volubilis Endangered
Dapong kahoy Loranthus philippinensis Endangered
Nito vine Lygodium flexuosum Endangered
Anchoan-dilau Senna spectabilis Endangered
Payong-payong Tacca palmate Endangered
Ayo Tetrastigma harmandii Endangered
Kamagong Diospyros discolor Critically endangered
Dalingdingan Hopea foxworthyi Critically endangered
Baguilumbang Reutealis trisperma Critically endangered
Philippine teak Tectona philippinensis Critically endangered
Fauna
General assessment of all the fauna studies conducted by Pampolina, the

Wildbird Club of the Philippines, and the DENR revealed that at least 90 bird species
exist in the watershed. The highlight species of the area is osprey (Pandion haliaetus),
which is an uncommon migrant species listed under Convention on the International
Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) Appendix II. Of the identified species, 24 are
endemic, 53 are residents, 11 are migrants, and one is migrant/resident species. Five
species are listed under CITES Appendix II which means that they are vulnerable species
affected by wildlife trade. These species are presented in Table 6.
12 E. Andres et al.
Table 6 Avifaunal species at the LMWR which are listed under CITES Appendix II
Local name Scientific name
Guiabero Bolbopsittacus lunutatus
Brahminy kite Haliastur indus
Colasisi or hanging parakeet Loriculus philippensis
Philippine scops owl Otus megalotris
Crested serpent eagle Spilormis cheela
Land use
GIS mapping of the LMWR shows that it is a mixture of closed forest, open
forest, other wooded land, built-up areas, barren land, and inland water. More
specifically, the watershed has a forested area of 2166.90 ha, natural barren land of
9.30 ha, built-up area of 116.20 ha, and inland water of 367.18 ha.
The watershed is now bordered by expansive urban development. Situated at

the upper portion of the watershed is a nature park for recreational activities such as
guided trekking, hiking, biking, among others. In a certification of Barangay Macabud
to Samahang Magsasaka sa Seedling dated May 12, 2006, about 56 families of informal
settlers have established their residences in the Montalban area of the watershed.
Communities within the watershed
According to the database provided by Barangay Macabud Council, there are 64

families utilizing some areas within the watershed located in Sitio Calumpit, Barangay
Macabud in Rodriguez (formerly known as Montalban), Rizal side for agriculture and
housing. The socioeconomic data gathered by the DENR-NCR ERDS team during the
conduct of the PASA in July 2006 were utilized. The group interviewed a total of 21
respondents. Some residents were not present in the area during the interview, while
most of them refused to be interviewed due to the intermittent conduct of demolition
efforts. They were all members of the Samahang Magsasaka ng Seedling, a people’s
organization established in 1998 with 56 members.
Vulnerability assessment

1. Soil erosion
Soil erosion is defined as the movement of soil particles either by water or wind
usually expressed in tons per hectare per year (t/ha/yr). Utilizing the critical factors, the
rate of soil erosion (t/ha/yr) was estimated by applying the Universal Soil Loss Equation
(USLE) as expressed in the following formula:
USLE A = RKLSCP where: A = annual soil erosion in t/ha/yr

R = rainfall erositivity factor
K = soil erodibility factor
L = slope length factor
S = slope gradient factor
C = cover and management factor
P = conservation and practice factor
Spatial analysis using the Model Builder of ArcView/ArcGIS was used to estimate
the soil erosion potential of the La Mesa Watershed. Input factors like agroclimatic, soil,
slope, vegetative cover/landuse, and conservation practices are converted into vector/
raster format and subsequently reclassified prior to the operation of arithmetic overlay
process. Reclassification was done to assign values to reclassified critical factors as
shown in Table 7. Applying the USLE in the arithmetic overlay, a soil erosion map was
generated and further reclassified to assign vulnerability class value for a certain range
of soil erosion estimate (t/ha/yr) as shown in Table 8.
Using the annual soil loss map, soil erosion index map was generated and the
result thereof is presented in Table 8. Erosion index was regrouped and its value of
>1.5 is classified as highly vulnerable area (Table 9).
Table 10 shows that 1.96 ha of the LMWR is very severely eroded with a soil
erosion estimate of ≥2 t/ha/yr. Annual soil loss map of the LMWR is presented in Fig. 3.
From the erosion vulnerability map (EVM), 0.28 ha of the watershed is very
highly vulnerable to erosion (Figure 3 ). These are the areas located within a 600-m
distance away from streambanks and the reservoir.
Figure 4 shows the erosion hazard map of the LMWR. The slope factor greatly
contributed to the identified areas of the watershed with high risk to soil erosion.
Agricultural production in sloping areas located below the water treatment plants
further enhanced the risk.
2. Landslide
Landslide is defined as the downward movement of rocks/soil due to gravity.

Biophysical factors included in the assessment are slope, soil morphology or genesis,
proximity to faultline, typhoon risk, climate, vegetative cover or landuse, road and river
cut, and geology.
areas vulnerable to landslide within the La Mesa Watershed. Input factors (i.e., slope,
soil morphology or genesis, proximity to faultline, typhoon risk, climate, vegetative cover
14 E. Andres et al.
Table 7 Reclassification of critical factors and corresponding values

Assigned
Critical factor Reclassified critical factor
value
Agro-climatic Type 1 390
Loamy sand 0.11
Soil type Sandy clay loam 0.20
Sandy loam 0.10
Agro-climatic Type 1 390
Loamy sand 0.11
Soil type Sandy clay loam 0.20
Sandy loam 0.10
0-3% 0.009
3-8 0.024
8-18 0.069
Slope
18-30 0.083
30-50 0.182
> 50 0.520
Closed forest broad-leaf 0.002
Open forest broad-leaf 0.003
Other build-up 0.300
Landuse Other land, Natural barren land 0.500
Other land, natural grassland 0.500
Other wooded land, shrub 0.100
Other wooded land, wooded grassland 0.100
Conservation
management 1.000
practice
Table 8 Soil erosion estimate (t/ha/yr) with corresponding class rating
Soil loss (t/ha/yr) Vulnerability class value
0.0001-0.5 1
0.5-1.0 2
1.0-2.0 3
2.0-4.0 4
>4.0 5
Figure 3 Annual soil loss map of the La Mesa

Watershed Reservation
or land use, road and river cut, and geology) were converted into vector/raster format
and subsequently reclassified and/or buffered prior to the operation of the weighted
overlay process. Reclassification was done to assign degree of influence and vulnerability
classification value for each critical factor and reclassified critical factor, respectively.
Meanwhile, buffer operation was performed to create buffers such that areas near faultlines,
for example, have higher vulnerability class value.
Table 11 presents the tabulated result of the analysis showing areas with
corresponding qualitative degree of vulnerability to landslide. The landslide hazard map
of the area is shown in Figure 5.
16 E. Andres et al.
Extracting areas with reclassification values greater than 4 (Table 12) from the
landslide vulnerability map, landslide hazard areas were identified with a total area of
0.014 ha. The presence of gully within the identified landslide hazard areas confirmed
such observation during validation. Although the said gully is dominantly vegetated
with vines and shrubs, may not suffice to control landslide phenomenon.
3. Fire
Identified critical factors for the vulnerability assessment to fire include

vegetation, slope, wind exposure aspect, proximity to possible sources of fire,
accessibility and nature of existing infrastructures.
areas vulnerable to fire within the La Mesa Watershed. Input factors (i.e., vegetation,
slope, wind exposure aspect, proximity to possible sources of fire and accessibility)
Table 9 Soil erosion index with corresponding class rating
Erosion index Vulnerability class value

0.0001-0.1 1
0.1-0.5 2
0.5-1.0 3
1.0-1.5 4
>1.5 5
Table 10 Soil loss per hectare per year in the LMWR

Soil erosion
Soil erosion Qualitative
estimates Area (ha)
classification classification
(t/ha/yr)
Erosion class 1 0.0001-0.5 None to slightly eroded 2098.15 2098.15
Class 2 0.5-1.0 Moderately eroded 172.81 172.81
Class 3 1.0-2.0 Severely eroded 19.26 19.26
Class 4 2.0-4.0 Very severe eroded 1.86
1.95
Class 5 >4.0 Very severe eroded 0.09
Reservoir NA - 367.18 367.18
Total
were converted into vector/raster format and subsequently reclassified and/or buffered
prior to the operation of the weighted overlay process.
Vulnerability analysis for fire for the LMWR was undertaken using GIS. The
resulting fire hazard map is presented in Figure 6. Table 11 presents the tabulated result
of the analysis showing areas with corresponding qualitative degree of vulnerability.
Fire-prone area of the LMWR based on spatial analysis is 8.685 ha. Field validation
revealed that the identified areas are sparsely planted with trees and are still dominated by
grasses, which usually dry up during summer, thus, increasing the fire vulnerability of the
area.
4. Biodiversity loss
Critical factors contributing to the continuing loss of biodiversity at the LMWR

include slope, roads, presence of natural disturbances such as landslides, availability of
markets especially near the area, and encroachment within the watershed itself.
areas vulnerable to biodiversity loss within the watershed. Input factors were converted
into vector/raster format and subsequently reclassified and/or buffered prior to the
operation of the weighted overlay process.
Extracting areas (Figure 7) with reclassification values greater than 4 from

the resulting biodiversity loss vulnerability map, biodiversity loss hazard areas were
identified with a total area of 0.01 ha (Table 12). The presence of illegal entry and exit
points within the identified biodiversity loss hazard areas confirmed such observation
Table 11 Landslide vulnerability table for the LMWR

Qualitative
Reclassification value Area (ha.)
classification
Slightly vulnerable <2.5 1050.39
Fairly vulnerable 2.51 – 2.99 1333.90
Moderately vulnerable 3.0 – 3.50 271.29
Highly vulnerable 3.51 – 3.99 3.74
Very highly vulnerable >4.0 (Landslide hazard) 0.01

18 E. Andres et al.
Figure 4 Erosion hazard map of the La Mesa Watershed Reservation

Figure 5 Landslide hazard map of the La Mesa Watershed Reservation

Figure 8. Landslide hazard map of the LMWR.
20 E. Andres et al.
Figure 6 Fire hazard map of the La Mesa Watershed Reservation

Figure 9. Fire hazard map of the LMWR.
Figure 7 Biodiversity loss hazard map of the La Mesa Watershed Reservation

Figure 8 Ecological hazards map of the La Mesa Watershed Reservation.

during validation.
Conclusion and recommendation
The identified ecological hazards of the watershed were observed to be very

minimal with respect to its total area of 2,659 ha. Table 13 summarizes the identified
ecological hazards of the watershed with corresponding extent/areas of coverage.
It can be deduced from the table that only 0.38% of the entire watershed area is
highly vulnerable to soil erosion, landslide, fire and biodiversity loss. Figure 8 shows
the ecological hazards of the LMWR. This indicates that these hazards have a very
minimal negative environmental effect in the area. The very minimal occurrence of
soil erosion and landslide may be due to the continuous reforestation being done in
the area focusing on indigenous and native species. Nonetheless, proper mitigation
is recommended to retard escalation of these environmental problems especially the
biodiversity loss vulnerability of the area.
The formulation and implementation of La Mesa Watershed Management and

Development Plan is necessary to ensure the sustainable protection, management and
conservation of the area. Considering that the study was undertaken in 2008, the
Table 12 Biodiversity loss table for the La Mesa Watershed Reserve

Biodiversity loss Rating Area
covered vulnerability class (ha)
Slightly vulnerable 1.0 and below 199.13
Fairly vulnerable 1.1 – 2.0 1555.81
Moderately vulnerable 2.1 – 3.0 440.32
Highly vulnerable 3.1 – 4.0 95.41
Very highly vulnerable > 4.0 (vulnerable to 1.14
biodiversity loss)
Reservoir 367.18
Table 13 Summary of identified ecological hazards with corresponding area

Factors Area (ha)
Soil erosion 0.28
Landslide 0.01
Biodivesity loss 8.68
Fire 1.14
Total area 10.11
24 E. Andres et al.
scenario within the LMWR might have already changed by now, thus, an updated
vulnerability study is recommended.
The applicability of the prepared ERDB Vulnerability Assessment Manual for

the La Mesa Watershed Reservation was confirmed with the positive results obtained
during the ground validation process.
Acknowledgment
We would like to thank the other members of the team who helped in the
profiling and characterization as follows: Forester Angelito O. Arjona, Forester Rolando
Acosta and Forester Rodelina de Villa;
Acknowledgment is also due the following offices: the River Basin Coordinating
Office of the DENR; Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS); ABS-
CBN Bantay Kalikasan; and the Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau (ERDB).
Considering that this is a multisectoral study of the DENR-NCR, our heartfelt

appreciation for all the support, encouragement and appreciation of Regional Executive
Director Corazon C. Davis, Regional Executive Director Jose Andres L. Diaz, Regional
Technical Director Ali Bari, Regional Technical Director Carlos Gubat I, Regional
Technical Director Perfecta B. Hinojosa, Regional Technical Director Cesar Orallo, OIC
Regional Technical Director Ma. Consolacion Capino, and CENRO Ibarra Calderon.
Literature cited
Arnone E, Francipane A, Noto L, Scarbaci A, La Loggia G. 2014. Strategies investigation

in using artificial neural network for landslide susceptibility mapping: Application
to a Sicilian catchment. Journal of Hydroinformatics (16)2. p. 502-515.
Chatterjee S, Krisna A, Sharma A. 2014. Geospatial assessment of soil erosion

vulnerability at watershed level in some sections of the Upper Subarnarekha river
basin, Jharkhand, India. Environmental Earth Sciences. January 2014 (71):1, p357-
374. 18p.
[DENR] Department of Environment and Natural Resources . 2007. Profiling and

characterization of the La Mesa Watershed Reservation. Terminal Report. ERDS
NCR, Quezon City.
Daño A. 2006. Guidelines on vulnerability assessment of watersheds. Ecosystems

Research and Development Bureau. Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, College, Laguna.
Erener A, Duzgun H. 2012. Landslide susceptibility assessment: What are the effects
of mapping unit and mapping method? Environmental Earth Sciences. 66(3):859-
877.
Huang P, Tsai J, & Lin W. 2010. Using multiple-criteria decision-making techniques

for eco-environmental vulnerability assessment: A case study on the Chi-Jia-Wan
Stream watershed, Taiwan. Environmental Monitoring & Assessment. 168(1-
4):141-158.
Lanuza RL. 2014. Geospatial modeling of soil erosion in Buhisan Watershed Forest
Reserve, Cebu City, Philippines: Model Application and Validation. Sylvatrop.
Tech. J. of Phil. Ecosystems and Nat. Resources. 24(1&2):47-78.
Lopez AV, et al. 2008. Vulnerability assessment of the Pudong Watershed within the
Upper Amburayan River Basin in Kapangan, Benguet. Ecosystems Research Digest.
13(2).
Lopez A, Tubal R, Andrada M, Baldo H, Maddumba H. 2014. Vulnerability assessment

of the Naguilian River Watershed to landslide and forest/grass fire. Sylvatrop. Tech.
J. of Phil. Ecosystems and Nat. Resources. 24(1&2):19-46.
Sabater M, Andres E, Espada R, Calzeta E, Arjona R. 2007. Profiling and characterization

of the La Mesa Watershed Reservation, Quezon City, Philippines. Terminal Report.
ERDS NCR, Quezon City.
Tagliavini F, Mantovani M, Marcato G, Pasuto A, Silvano S and Staffler H. 2007.

Validation of landslide hazard assessment by means of GPS monitoring technique
– a case study in the Dlomites, Eastern Alps, Italy. Natural Hazards and Earth
System Sciences. 7(1):185-193.
Tiburan CL Jr, et al. 2012. Geospatial-based vulnerability assessment of an urban

watershed. Procedia Environmental Science. Paper presented at: 3rd International
Conference on Sustainable Future for Human Security, SUSTAIN 2012, 3-5
November 2012, Clock Tower Centennial Hall, Kyoto University, Japan.
Sylvatrop, The Technical Journal of Philippine Ecosystems and Natural Resources 25 (1 & 2) 27 - 50
San Cristobal Watershed vulnerability

assessment to soil erosion and water
pollution
Antonio M. Daño, Ph. D.
Supervising Science Research Specialist
Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau (ERDB),
College, Laguna, 4031
Email address: tonydano093
Karen Rae M. Fortus

Science Research Specialist I
The study reviewed the characterization report of San Cristobal Watershed

located in Laguna, Cavite, and Batangas. Its vulnerability to soil erosion and water
pollution was assessed and mitigation and adaptive measures were recommended
to address erosion and pollution hazards. Hazards and their contributory factors
were determined through analysis of biophysical and socio-economic data and
conduct of focus group discussion (FGD). Locations where hazards have been
observed were recorded and inputted in the maps generated using geographic
information system (GIS) software.
The watershed provides various functions aside from contributing an estimated 5%

of the total freshwater discharge to Laguna Lake. The study revealed that out of the
total area of the watershed (14,162 ha), 1,173 ha located mainly in the upstream
portion was zoned as highly vulnerable to soil erosion. Vulnerability of the water
resource was attributed to the water quality problem brought about by the fast-
paced conversion of agricultural lands into subdivisions and factory areas. Three
vulnerability levels (very high, high and moderate) were developed for specific
stretches of the river system. The upstream portion of the river was classified as
moderate due to lesser level of development in the area compared to the other
portions of the watershed. In the formulation of a Watershed Management Plan,
interventions should focus on minimizing soil erosion and improving the water
quality of the river.
Keywords: Vulnerability assessment, watershed characterization, Geographic Information

Systems, hazards, soil erosion
28 A.M. Daño and K.R.M. Fortus
IN THE PHILIPPINES, SAN CRISTOBAL WATERSHED IS ONE OF THE 142 PRIORITY

watersheds that suport irrigation structures as identified by the Forest Management
Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). San Cristobal
watershed provides several amenities and performs various functions to benefit nearby
provinces of Cavite, Batangas, and Laguna. It is the source of domestic potable water
(upper stream only) to more than 200,000 inhabitants in the communities of Cabuyao,
Sta. Rosa City, and Biñan in the province of Laguna. It is also a source of industrial
water for commercial establishments and factories located inside the Light Industrial
Park in Calamba City, Laguna. San Cristobal River also contributes about five percent
(5%) of the total freshwater discharge to Laguna Lake. The quality of water from the
river, however, continues to deteriorate and its function as source of irrigation water is
becoming less feasible (Lasco and Espaldon 2005). Such situation is not unique to San
Cristobal watershed; it is also true to many watersheds in the country.
Watersheds not only serve as vital habitat for plants and wildlife but also
perform a critical water quality function and provide natural aesthetics and various
environmental benefits. However, watersheds in the Philippines are vulnerable to
various hazards because of the country’s steep topography, poor vegetation cover,
earthquake faults and effects of climate change. Adverse changes in seasonal river
flows, floods, droughts and loss of biodiversity are among the major vulnerabilities
and concerns in Asia-Pacific region. The greatest vulnerabilities are likely to occur in
watersheds that are currently subjected to stress, or are being unsustainably managed.
In unmanaged watersheds, there are few or no structures in place to absorb the effects
of hydrologic variability, population pressures and natural hazards.
The conduct of vulnerability assessment to watersheds is now required prior

to the formulation of an integrated watershed management plan to address hazards
in the watersheds (DENR MC 2008-05). Vulnerability assessment does not have a
straightforward definition. There is no universally accepted concept of vulnerability
assessment. Thywissen (2006) lists 35 definitions of the term. The plurality of its
definition leads to very diverse assessment frameworks and methods. Some authors
even argue that by principle, vulnerability cannot be measured as it does not denote
observable phenomena. Fussel and Klein (2006) define vulnerability as the degree to
which a system is susceptible to, unable to cope with adverse effects of natural or man-
made hazards. It identifies strengths and weaknesses of the recipient subject in relation
to the identified hazard. The vulnerability of human societies and natural systems to
natural and man-made hazards is demonstrated by the damage, hardship and death
caused by events such as droughts, floods, landslides, typhoons, and wildfires.
Considering the relative importance of San Cristobal watershed in providing

suitable water, this study was conducted to assess the vulnerability of the watershed
to soil erosion and water pollution. The study assesses the current vulnerability as a
Vulnerability to soil erosion and water pollution assessment 29
basis for mitigation and adaptive measures. The study results are expected to be useful
to the concerned authorities in formulating suitable integrated watershed management
policies and strategies and in prioritizing the actions needed to protect the water
resources and the environment of the river.
Watersheds may undergo significant changes due to natural and anthropogenic
hazards. Adverse effects to watershed resources can be mostly due to human activities
like improper land use and agricultural practices. The degree of watershed stress
can be detrimental to a large extent with the impact of climate change interplaying
with anthropogenic effects (Ahmadi et al. 2014). Among of the major indicators of
watershed's health are its soil and water quality. Assessment of soil and water quality,
through biological and physico-chemical parameters, has always been an urgent process
of determining the extent of effects of natural forces and anthropological impacts.
Soil erosion has been identified as one of the problems of both rural and urban
landscapes all over the world. Developed as well as developing countries like the
Philippines, face problems of soil erosion of varying intensity and nature. A number of
parametric models have been developed to assess soil erosion vulnerability of drainage
basins. Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) is a largely used empirical method for
quantifying soil erosion taking into account various contributing factors. For watershed-
based computation of soil erosion, remote sensing and GIS are widely used, especially
employing USLE method (Chen Tao et al. 2010; Bez 2011). Qualitative and quantitative
models provide appropriate information about the spatial distribution of erosion-risk
areas in the watershed where suitable and urgent measures and treatments will be
required (Kefi et al. 2011). USLE predicts soil loss for a given site as a product of six
major erosion factors – soil, rainfall, topography, cropping and management. The values
at a particular location can be expressed numerically and is suitable for predicting long-
term averages. Spatial patterns of soil erosion play an important role in studying sources
of erosion, sinks as well as soil and water conservation (Shinde et al. 2011). Prediction
of soil loss is important for assessing soil erosion hazard and determining suitable land
use and soil conservation measures for the watershed (Baskan et al. 2010).
Rapid increase in population, urbanization, and industrialization contribute to

the reduction of the quality of Philippine waters, especially in densely populated areas
and regions of industrial and agricultural activities. Discharge of domestic and industrial
wastewater, and agricultural runoff have caused extensive pollution of the receiving
water bodies. This effluent is in the form of raw sewage, detergents, fertilizers, heavy
metals, chemical products, oils, and even solid wastes. Each of these pollutants has a
different noxious effect that influences human livelihood and translates into economic
costs (State of Water Environmental Issues: Phil., WEPA).
Pollution of groundwater is an issue because aquifers and the contained

groundwater are susceptible to contamination from wastewater and agricultural
activities (Alwathfa and Mansouri 2011). The increasing and widening disposal of
household solid wastes and industrial hazardous waste in the environment is a growing
threat to the quality of water, air, and land.
Many have emphasized the importance of vulnerability assessments and

presented useful frameworks (Metzger et al. 2005; Polsky et al. 2003; Turner et al.
2003; Schröter et al. 2004; Yohe and Tol 2002), yet relatively few have presented
methods to assess vulnerability empirically. As the literatures illustrate, ambiguity
surrounds not only the components of vulnerability, but also the operationalization and
measurement of those components. Some empirical studies use indicators to characterize
vulnerability, although indicator values may not adequately reflect impacts, especially
at the local level, and may not be relevant across multiple regions and sectors. Further,
even in empirical studies, data often focus on the hazard itself (e.g., magnitude of a
water shortage rather than overall vulnerability), which would also consider impacts
like losses due to water shortages and the ability to reduce and mitigate those impacts,
both short-term and long-term (e.g., water reallocation, water conservation). Studies
needed are empirical assessments to understand how vulnerability is experienced “on
the ground”, by those who are vulnerable, to elucidate the causes and effects of that
vulnerability, and to provide database guidance to decision makers (Brooks et al. 2005;
Cutter et al. 2003; Metzger et al. 2005).
ERDB (2011) presented a conceptual framework on the vulnerability assessment

on watershed such as assessment of the biophysical and socioeconomic, hazard
identification and analysis, critical factor analysis, GIS-based analysis and mitigation
opportunities. The ERDB Manual on Vulnerability Assessment stressed that quantitative
and qualitative description of a watershed are basic to the understanding of and control
on the various biophysical and socioeconomic processes in a watershed. An adequate
knowledge on the characteristics of watershed will help immensely in the prediction
of the behavioral response of a watershed to diverse environmental conditions and
management activities.
Methodology
Characterization of the watershed
Gathering/updating of secondary and primary data on various watershed

characteristics was conducted in 2009 under the guidelines defined in DENR
Memorandum Circular 2008-05. The activity also involved the review of available
documents/reports to determine data gaps that should be augmented through field visits
and other means. Assessments included:
a. Biophysical assessment
Soil (soil physical and chemical properties)
Climate (annual/monthly rainfall, evaporation, typhoon occurrence and
frequency)
Hydrology (monthly streamflow pattern)
Water Quality. Water samples were taken at different times of the year and
analyzed for various water quality parameters (temperature, pH, dissolved
oxygen, BOD, coliforms). Water samples were brought to DENR-Region 4A
laboratory for analysis.
b. Community perceptions on hazards

Assessment included the determination of attitude, awareness and perceptions
of watershed occupants including existing programs in the area that may aggravate or
reduce the vulnerability of the watershed to natural and anthropogenic hazards. A total
of 11 barangays from Sta. Rosa, Calamba and Cabuyao, Laguna and Silang, Cavite were
visited. Community responses were translated into Rating Classes 1 to 5. Location of
critical facilities like schools, roads and bridges, hospitals, floodplain/riverbank houses
and other critical structures were also mapped. Data on socio-demography (sex, age,
income, education, etc.) were also gathered during the interview.
Hazard identification, critical factor analysis, and mapping
Hazards occurring in the watershed both in the upstream and downstream

portions were identified from characterization data and site visits. Hazard identification
focused on the soil and water resources particularly on soil erosion and water pollution.
Hazard information from other agencies/institutions were also sourced out.
Hazards and their contributory factors were also verified through analysis of
watershed characterization data and through the conduct of focus group discussion
(FGD) with occupants of the watershed and other key informants. Specific locations
where the hazards occurred or were observed were recorded during the field surveys
and inputted to maps generated using geographic information system (GIS). A crucial
element in reducing vulnerability to natural hazards was the analysis of human
settlements and infrastructures gathered during field validation and Focus Group
Discussion (FGD).
Generation of thematic and hazard maps
Relevant secondary information needed in the GIS-assisted approach to

vulnerability assessment were gathered from various sources. These include the
topographic map of the study area (scale of 1:10,000), political boundary, land cover,
land classification map, soil and geology, and climate. The topographic map was used
to digitize the contours at 10-m interval which served as reference to generate the
digital elevation model (DEM).
All thematic maps were transformed to hazard class rating maps based on the
procedure contained in the ERDB Manual for Vulnerability Assessment (ERDB 2008).
Rating Classes 1 to 5 rate the thematic maps’ features from very low (1) to very high (5)
susceptibility to the occurrence of the hazard.
For assessing vulnerability to soil erosion, the thematic maps were assigned
class and weights according to their relative importance in influencing erosion and
mass movement. These are briefly discussed below.
1. Slope. To make the assessment more systematic, all slopes from 0-8% (level
to gently sloping) were categorized as areas with low susceptibility to erosion.
Steep slopes (>50%) were considered to be areas that are very highly
susceptible to landslide.
2. Soil. Soil characteristic contributes to occurrence of erosion and mass
movement. A general soil map based on soil classification was used in this
study.
3. Rainfall and typhoon occurrence. Rainfall is considered as the triggering factor
to the occurrence of any hazard. The rainfall isohyets and historical monthly
average rainfall were used in assessing the susceptibility of the watershed to
soil erosion.
4. Land use. Land use map derived from LANDSAT satellite images were
analyzed and validated in the field. Rating was based on the presence and
type of vegetation cover in the watershed.
Table 1 Rating class for vulnerability to water pollution

Water discoloration due Level of chemical and Class
to pollutants biological contaminants
Negligible sediments None. Class A/AA water 1

Slight discoloration after Low. Class B water 2
heavy rainfall
Moderate discoloration Low level contaminants 3
after heavy rainfall which are still within DENR
limits
Severe discoloration Levels of contaminants 4
exceeded DENR standards
Table 1 Rating class for vulnerability to water pollution (Continued)

Water discoloration due Level of chemical and Class
to pollutants biological contaminants
Very severe discoloration Levels of contaminants are 5
very high, very high levels
of biological contamination
that could lead to widespread
incidence of water-borne
diseases
Land use impact
Agricultural impact Very large agricultural activity 5
High agricultural activity 4
Moderate agricultural activity 3
Minimal agricultural activity 2
No agricultural activity 1
Industrial and household Very large discharge or 5

impact very heavy impact on the
surrounding
Large discharge or heavy 4
impact on the surrounding
Moderate discharge or 3
moderate impact on the
surrounding
Minimal discharge or 2
minimal impact on the
surrounding
No industry or households 1
Transportation avenue National and provincial 5

road system
Provincial/municipal 4
road system
Paved roads in most of 3
the watershed
Unimproved road or dirt road 2
throughout the watershed
area
No road system 1
Vulnerability of water resource to pollution was determined in terms of the

alteration of the physical, chemical, biological or radiological properties of the water
body and land use impact that may result in the impairment of its purity or quality. The
assessment involved two major activities: 1) review and comparison of the gathered
water quality data with the DENR water quality standards as contained in Department
Administrative Order (DAO) 35; and 2) survey of land use and sources of pollutants.
GIS spatial analysis and output validation
Overlay and index method which involved combination of various watershed

attributes (e.g., geology, soils, slope, climate, land use, anthropogenic factors) was
used. In this approach, watershed attributes were assigned class (Class 1-5) and weights
(1-100%). Results of this activity include location of vulnerable areas including the
classification (from high to low) of various hazards (degree of vulnerability). Results
were validated by simple comparison with recorded occurrence of the hazard and the
degree/class reflected in the vulnerability map.
Description of the area
San Cristobal Watershed is located at the southwestern side of Laguna de Bay. It lies
within four provinces, with the largest area located in Laguna (10,645.70 ha). Most of the
watershed’s upstream area is in Silang (1,967.30 ha) and Tagaytay City (1,493 ha) in Cavite
while a very small portion towards the headwater is part of Tanauan City, Batangas (56 ha).
The watershed is shaped like a fish with its tail along the Laguna Lake (Fig. 1).
The whole watershed encompasses an area of 14,162 ha. Hydrologically, the

watershed’s area affects the peak flow and the time it takes for the total floodflow to
reach the outlet. As the area of the watershed increases, runoff takes longer time to
reach a given station. The watershed has a perimeter of 63 km.
The average length of stream is highest for the fourth and fifth orders for the
entire watershed which is 8.62 and 7.5 km, respectively. The watershed has a total of
219 streams with a total length of 269 km. On the other hand, the subwatersheds have
higher average length only in second and third orders except for Diezmo which is a
fourth order stream with a total length of 9 km.
Channel cross-section and profile varied from a width of about 2 m in the

upstream to about 20 m near the bridge along the Calamba-Cabuyao highway. In most
Figure 1 Administrative map of San Cristobal Watershed
parts of the river system, the channel has a deep ravine, indicating less problem of
channel overflow or flooding.
Slope
The slope distribution ranges from 0% to more than 50%. About 70% of the
area (9,842.5 ha) is level to nearly level to undulating. This area occupies near the lower
to middle portion of the watershed. Close to 18% (2,525 ha) of the area is within the
slope range of 8-18%, described to be undulating to rolling. This slope range is situated
in Calamba City, Sta. Rosa City, and Cabuyao. About 1,243.8 ha (8.8%) belongs to
Table 2 Slope distribution of San Cristobal Watershed
Slope range Description Area (ha) Percent
(%) (%)
0 - 8 Level to undulating 9,842.5 69.5

8 - 18 Undulating to rolling 2,525.2 17.8
18 - 30 Rolling to moderately steep 1,243.8 8.8
30 - 50 Steep 485.4 3.4
>50 Very steep 66.1 0.47
Total 14,162.0 100.00
rolling to moderately steep (18-30% slope). Steep slope (30-50% slope) occupies 485.4
ha (3.4% ) of the total land area of the micro-watershed. The very steep slope (>50%)
shares less than 1% of the total land area.
Geology and soil
The portion of the watershed within Calamba City is generally underlain by

quarternary pyroclastic deposits, which may have originated from Taal occurrences
of mudstone agglomerate. Two types of rock formations are found in Sta. Rosa City,
namely, clastic and alluvium rocks. Clastic rocks consist of interbedded shale and
sandstone with occasional thin lenses of limestone, as well as tuff and reworked sandy
tuffs and partly tuffaceous shale. Alluvium rocks are found in the remainder of the
municipality. These rocks consist of an unconsolidated mixture of gravel, sand, silt, and
clay. The clastic and alluvium type of rocks found in the city are both known for good
water bearing abilities (Fig. 3).

Soil greatly influences the infiltration capacity of watersheds, hence, affects the
nature of subsequent surface runoff, groundwater recharge, and other related processes.
Soil properties also influenced the susceptibility of the area to soil erosion and suitability
to crops. The common soil types of the San Cristobal Watershed are presented in Table
3. The most dominant soil type in the area is Lipa loam which occupies 6,990 ha.
Table 3 Common soil types in San Cristobal Watershed

Soil type Area (ha) Percent (%)
Quingua fine sandy loam 582.8 4.11

Tagaytay sandy loam 1,102.4 7.78
Tagaytay loam 389.3 2.74
Carmona sandy clay loam 3,875.4 27.70
Mountain soil (undifferentiated) 1,091.2 7.70
Taal fine sandy loam 130.8 0.92
Lipa loam 6,990.0 49.35
This is followed by Carmona sandy clay loam (3,835 ha) and the rest are Tagaytay
sandy loam (1,072 ha), mountain soil, undifferentiated (1,062 ha), Quingua fine sandy
loam (575 ha), Tagaytay loam (381 ha), and the Taal fine sandy loam (125 ha).
Land classification and use
The watershed is basically an Alienable and Disposable land where most of

the areas are part of the sugarcane plantations of Yulo Estate. The elevated portion of
the watershed is agricultural land devoted to coconut and annual crops (Fig. 4).
Barangay Casile in Cabuyao is the drainage area of the Matang Tubig Spring,
which is the source of water for the municipality of Cabuyao and corresponds to an
area of about 318 ha. In Silang, forest areas are devoted primarily for forest purposes.
These cover an aggregate area of 208.0 ha or 1.3 % of the municipality’s total land area.
Agricultural area, comprised 41.4% of the total land area. Grasslands/

shrublands comprised about 39.7% of the area while about 17.6% are built up areas
(Table 4). Comparison of the data taken from 2007 imagery showed the doubling of
built-up areas (from 17.6 to 35.9%) and the reduction of grasslands and agricultural
lands. This was observed in the area wherein grasslands and agricultural lands had been
converted to subdivisions and industrial parks. The increase in open canopy areas can
be attributed to classification of some brushlands as open canopy areas. With the rapid
development of high-class subdivisions and industrial parks in the area, it is expected
that built-up areas will continue to increase with subsequent reduction of agricultural
and grassland areas.
Table 4 General land uses within San Cristobal Watershed (1996 and 2007 imagery)
Land use
1996 Imagery 2007 Imagery
category
Area Percent Area Percentage Percent change
(ha) total (%) (ha) total (%) from 1997 imagery
Agricultural 5,865 41.4 4,926 34.7 -6.7
areas
Grassland/ 5,621 39.7 2,926 20.7 -19.0
shrubland
areas
Built-up areas 2,488 17.6 5,084 35.9 +18.3
Open canopy 188 1.3 1,226 8.7 +6.4
Total 14,162 100.0 14,162 100.0
Climate
The most dominant climatic type of the watershed is Type 3 where the seasons
are not very pronounced and relatively dry from November to April and wet during the
rest of the year. The maximum rainy period is from June to October and on the average,
the area is visited by five cyclones every three years.
Rainfall in the watershed usually occurs as short high-density storms rather

than as a long-lasting moderate intensity rainfall. Four synoptic stations enveloping
the watershed were taken to determine the rainfall distribution in the area. The mean
monthly rainfall (mm) is presented in Figure 6.
Figure 2 Drainage map of San Cristobal Watershed
Figure 3 Soil map of San Cristobal Watershed

Figure 4 Land cover map of San Cristobal Watershed
Figure 5 Isohytal map of San Cristobal Watershed

Hydrology and water quality
San Cristobal River is one of the major tributaries draining into the Laguna de
Bay (Fig. 2). It is also one of the most polluted rivers affecting the lake’s productivity and
survival. It contributes about 5% of the total freshwater discharge into the lake. Figure
7 shows the mean monthly discharge (m3/sec) of San Cristobal Watershed at a point
along the National Highway. The watershed has an estimated mean discharge of 0.694
Rainfall (mm)
Figure 6 Monthly rainfall from four synoptic stations around San Cristobal
Watershed
monthly flow
Figure 7 Monthly streamflow behavior (m3/sec) of San Cristobal Watershed

m3/sec. Maximum peak discharge recorded in the watershed was 411.9 m3/sec during
the September 1, 1956 flood event.
Water samples collected from three samples sites showed high level of BOD
and coliforms. Water quality status based on different parameters is summarized in
Table 5.
Other parameters were measured in-situ using portable equipment. Sampling

conducted did not differ much from the findings of LLDA monitoring team which
showed high BOD level of the river system (Table 5) (Espaldon 2005).
Table 5 Water quality analysis result of San Cristobal River Basin
Results
Parameter Diezmo River San Cristobal River San Cristobal
(upstream) (midstream) mouth
Temperature (⁰C) 29.50 30.5 32.4
pH 8.29 8.17 7.13
BOD5 (mg/l) 2.20 12.280 19.20
DO (mg/l) 6.70 1.3 0 12.8
Total P (mg/l) 0.55 0.24 0.54
Total N (mg/l) 2.51 1.58 0.61
Sulfate (mg/l) 5.30 0.07 16.0
Conductivity 0.22 0.292 0.592
(mS/cm)
TDS (mg/l) 114.0 145.0 294.0
Total Coliforms >1.6 x 106 4.9 x 105 >1.6 x 107
MPN/100ml
Fecal Coliforms >1.6 x 106 7.8 x 104 >1.6 x 107
MPN/100ml
The DO level during field visits varies from 6.7 to 1.3 mg/l. The permissible
limit for DO concentration is 5.0 mg/l. Diezmo River and the mouth of San Cristobal
have an average of 6.7 mg/l and 2.8 mg/l, respectively. The DO concentration is the
primary parameter on determining the suitability of water for fish and wildlife. Reduced
DO indicates depletion as a result of organic pollutants coming from the industrial and
residential area along the river.

The biological oxygen demand (BOD)5 (5 days at 20°C) was 12.8 from the
midtsream to 19.2 mg/l to the mouth of the river system. The value provides information
on the quantity of oxygen needed by the river for biochemical degradation of organic
compounds. High BOD 5 level indicates a polluted water body. The prescribed limit of
BOD5 for “Class C” water body is 5.0 mg/l. Upstream tributary (Diezmo River) has BOD
level of 2.2mg/l. High levels of BOD were observed from samples collected from the
middle to the mouth of San Cristobal River. The high BOD5 value was attributed to the
organic pollutants coming from the industrial establishments and domestic households
that abound in the area.
Data indicated that water pollution from the river systems was brought about
by discharges from residential septic tanks, domestic liquid wastes, and industrial
discharges. The elevated BOD and coliform counts plus depleted DO level also
indicate that contamination of water largely comes from fecal matter and unmitigated
discharges from households.
Socioeconomic
The level of employment seems to follow the development of different

economic sectors in each municipality. Industrialized cities and municipalities like
Calamba City, Cabuyao and Sta. Rosa City have more people employed in the services
sector, followed by those in industries, and lastly, in agriculture. As the local economies
move towards an industrialized state, agriculture appears to attract lesser investments
and consequently, employment.
The major sources of family income can be grouped into two: employment
and entrepreneurial activities. Household incomes are derived mainly from non-
agricultural activities and only a few from farming and fishing. In Calamba City, 36,225
(68%) of the households mainly derived their income from entrepreneurial activities
of non-agricultural nature. In Sta Rosa City, only 7,969 (13%) of the households still
derive their income from farming or fishing. Similarly, in Cabuyao, only 304 families
depend on fishing for their income. While actual data are unavailable, it can also be
inferred that for highly commercialized localities, majority of the households derive
their income from non-agricultural endeavors.
Table 6 Major sources of income of households in Laguna
Source of income Municipality
Sta. Rosa Cabuyao Calamba
Entrepreneurial activities n.d. n.d. 36,225
Farming and Fishing 7,969 304 n.d.
Oversees Remittances n.d. n.d. 4,255
*n.d. - no data
Overseas remittances also contribute significantly to household incomes.

In Calamba City, about 4,255 (8%) of the households derive their income from
remittances of family members who are working overseas. The same is true in Tagaytay
City. Most of the residents in San Cristobal Watershed are employed in non-agricultural
activities other than farming and fishing. Migration of employment from agriculture to
non-agricultural activities are driven by wage differential across sectors (Habito and
Briones 2005); increasing land conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural areas;
lowered agricultural productivity and consequently lowered farm incomes (Balicasan

et al. 2006) and declining interest among the younger generation to have this kind of
livelihood.
Perception of residents on water resources
Different perceptions on the importance and benefits derived from San Cristobal
River were noted. The usefulness of the river was positively expressed by respondents
in Sitio Matang Tubig, Canlubang, Laguna; Barangay Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna; Pasong
Langka, Silang, Cavite; and Sto. Domingo, Sta. Rosa City. Accordingly, the importance
of the river is as follows: fishing, irrigation/agricultural uses, domestic and aesthetic
values. It also generates electricity in Sitio Matang Tubig according to some residents.
In Barangay Gulod, San Isidro, Baclaran, Mamatid, and Marinig in Cabuyao,

Laguna, the farmers use the water provided by National Irrigation Administration (NIA)
to irrigate their farm lots. According to one of the respondents during the interview,
the polluted state of the river for irrigation, has no effect on the yield and growth of the
crops, instead, it served as fertilizer. Some of the farmers no longer buy fertilizers, thus,
minimizing their expenses.
Farming is undertaken both in the lowlands and in the uplands. In Cabuyao,

Laguna, agricultural activities are predominantly practiced in the lowlands. In Tagaytay
City and Silang, Cavite, it is predominantly done in the uplands. Multi-storey cropping
is the common practice in the uplands. This system usually involves intercropping
coconut, corn, pineapple, coffee, sugarcane, banana, papaya, root crops and assorted
vegetables.
On the other hand, residents in Barangay Pittland and Barangay Diezmo in

Cabuyao, Laguna found the river to be useless. Pollution of the rivers is attributed to
the presence of industrial plants. Industrial wastes are also being dumped in the river.
Residents derive no benefit from these waterbodies.
According to the farmers interviewed, there are three types of water used in
irrigating their farm lots. These are: Class A which comes directly from NIA irrigation;
Class B, water from NIA irrigation and collected rainwater (rainfed); and Class C which is
non-NIA water or spilled water coming from deep wells of industrial plants in Cabuyao,
Laguna. Barangay San Isidro and Barangay Gulod in Cabuyao use class B in their farm
lots. Barangay Baclaran and Barangay Mamatid use the excess water coming from the
NIA irrigation system in watering their farm lots. Accordingly, their crops are healthy
and do not require fertilizer application. The common farm problems include presence
of black bugs and snail on crops.
Hazard identification and critical factor analysis
Analysis of watershed attributes, as well as, findings from FGD revealed two
major hazards affecting the soil and water resources of San Cristobal watershed – soil
erosion and water pollution.
Soil erosion was the dominant hazard in the watershed due to community
cropping practices particularly in the planting of pineapple and vegetables in moderately
steep slopes, mostly in the Silang-Tagaytay portion of the watershed.
Water pollution is the biggest problem threatening the usefulness of the water
resources of the river. Water quality assessment revealed heavy pollution from the
middle to downstream portion of the river system. The water from San Cristobal river
had fecal coliform greater than 1.6 x 107 MPN/100ml and BOD level reaching about
20 mg/l. The high BOD level and coliform count particularly fecal coliforms can
be attributed to households and industries that discharge their waste directly to the
river system resulting in foul smell and black color of the water. Most of the houses
located near the river discharge their waste directly to the river. Furthermore, results
of interviews with residents revealed that water pollution is the main problem of
communities living near the river system. Accordingly, the river has a very foul smell.
The situation is worst particularly during rainy season, wherein at a certain time of the
day, the smell is almost intolerable. The communities suspected that some industries
discharge their waste during heavy rainfall to avoid being noticed by the communities.

Surface water bodies are progressively subjected to stress as a result of
anthropogenic activities. The rivers, strongly influenced by household wastewater,
have the highest concentrations of nutrients (Wang et al. 2006).

Interview with the NIA personnel revealed the sad state of the river system.
Accordingly, it is difficult to conduct maintenance operations on the irrigation structures
due to the intolerable smell of water. The structures are difficult to visit due to proliferation
of houses. Permit need to be secured first from private landowners before NIA personnel
can pass through the private properties to reach the site of the infrastructures.
GIS-based vulnerability assessment
Results of the overlay and index methods provided the spatial location of
vulnerable areas including their classification from high to low to various hazards
(degree of vulnerability).
Soil erosion
The identified physical factors affecting soil erosion include: slope (S), climate
(which is influenced by rainfall and typhoon frequency), soil type (St), and land cover
(Lc). These erosion factors were converted to hazard index or scale and transformed
into maps; and the data processed were used to create critical factor layers in grid or
raster formats.
Using overlaying approach of slope, rainfall, landuse, soil and crop management
factor, the polygon formed from the intersection of the five maps was analyzed using
the GIS-assisted spatial analysis. Overlaying produced the soil erosion vulnerability
map as shown in Figure 8. Out of the total area of the watershed (14,162 ha), the
1,173 ha in the upstream portion of the watershed was zoned as vulnerable to soil
erosion. Most of the areas belonged to the zone with moderate to low vulnerability to
soil erosion. The distributions of these areas are shown in Table 7.
Figure 8 Soil erosion vulnerability map of San Cristobal Watershed

Table 7 Areas in the watershed that are highly vulnerable to erosion

Municipality/City Highly vulnerable areas (ha)
Cabuyao 18
Calamba 114
Silang 653
Tagaytay 373
Tanauan 15
Total (ha) 1173
Surface water vulnerability to pollution
Vulnerability of the water resource was attributed to the surface water’s

quality problem brought about by the fast pace of conversion of agricultural lands
to subdivisions and factories. Based on water quality assessment and land use of the
watershed, three vulnerability levels were developed for the stretch of the river system
(very high, high and moderate). The upstream portion of the river was classified as
moderately vulnerable due to lesser level of development done in the area as compared
to the other portion of the watershed. Construction of high-class subdivisions in the
Tagaytay area also pose danger to the water quality of the entire river system.
As reflected in the land use map, the lower and middle portions of the watershed
are now occupied by houses and industries. Surface water in the river system which is
used to irrigate ricefields and other agricultural areas in Canlubang and Calamba has
become polluted due to wastewater coming from households and industries. Figure
9 shows the vulnerability map of San Cristobal river system to water pollution. Areas
along the river system are the highly vulnerable portions of the river; and communities
living on it are predisposed to water-borne diseases brought about by the high fecal
coliform and BOD of water.
Conclusion and recommendations
The characteristics of the watersheds served as inputs in identifying the factors

that make the San Cristobal watershed vulnerable to natural and anthropogenic hazards.
These factors include: 1) fast conversion of areas to industrial and residential areas affecting
the water quality of the river; 2) favorable soil influencing farmers to practice planting
annual crops in sloping lands; 3) drainage from households and industries; and 4) domestic
household practices of throwing solid waste into the river system.
Figure 9 Water pollution vulnerability map of San Cristobal Watershed

A small portion of the San Cristobal Watershed is vulnerable to soil erosion but
the river, from the mouth to almost the entire stretch of the river system, is vulnerable to
water pollution. There is a need to review the land use of San Cristobal Watershed for
irrigation because of the continued conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural
use. The water in San Cristobal is no longer suitable for any contact activities.
San Cristobal River as one of the 21 major tributaries draining into the Laguna
Lake represents a typical agro-industrial condition which if properly and scientifically
managed could serve as a model for development to other basins with similar potential
characteristics. The rapid urbanization of Tagaytay City and the migration of landless
farmers in the heartland of the watershed will inevitably increase cultivated farms. As
the area becomes highly urbanized, infrastructures and settlements should be avoided
in steep areas as these are aquifer recharge areas. Areas with steep slopes particularly in
Silang and Tagaytay City, should be declared as environmental zones in the respective
Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUPs) of said municipalities.
Hazards identified in the vulnerability assessment should be the focus in

developing intervention projects during the formulation of Watershed Management
Plan. The study showed that interventions should focus on minimizing soil erosion and
improving the water quality of the river. Information, Education and Communication
(IEC) program should be intensified focusing on the identified hazards and the
anthropogenic factors affecting it. Groundwater resource assessment should also be
conducted because its usage will dramatically increase with the increase in water
demand by industries and households.
Literature cited
Ahmadi M, Records R, Arabi M. 2014. Impact of climate change on diffuse pollutant

fluxes at the watershed scale. Hydrol Process 28 (4):1962-1972.
Alwathaf, Yahia, BEl Mansouri. 2011. Assessment of aquifer vulnerability based on GIS
and ARCGIS methods: A case study of the Sana’a Basin (Yemen) 3: 845-855.
Retrieved from http://www.SciRP.org/journal/jwarp.html
Balisacan AM, Sebastian LS and Associate. 2006. Securing rice, reducing poverty:
challenges and policy directions. SEARCA, PhilRICE and DA-BAR, Los Baños,
Philippines.
Baskan O, Hicrettin C, Suat A, Gunay E. 2010. Conditional simulation of USLE/RUSLE

soil erodibility factor by geostatistics in a mediterranean catchment, Turkey.
Environ Earth Sci 60:1179–1187.
Bez PK. 2011. Watershed characterization for assessing erosional behavior through
geoinformatics. M.Tech. (Remote Sensing) [Thesis]. Birla Institute of Technology
(BIT). Mesra, India.
Brooks N, Adger W, Kelly P. 2005. The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive

capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation. Global
Environ. Change, [Internet].[cited 2005] . Available from http://webcache.
googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:87fEgx3Tc_UJ:www.researchgate.
net/profile/Nick_Brooks2/publication/223944959_The_determinants_
of_vulnerability_and_adaptive_capacity_at_the_national_level_and_the_
implications_for_adaptation/links/09e4150ac166a8bdb5000000.pdf
Chen T, Niu R, Li P, Zhang L, Du B. 2010. Regional soil erosion risk mapping using
RUSLE, GIS, and remote sensing: A case study in Miyun watershed, North
China. Environ Earth Sci (Online). doi:10.1007/s12665-010-0715-z.
Cutter S, Boruff, B, and Shirley W. 2003. Social vulnerability to environmental hazards.

Social Science Quarterly. Southwestern Social Science Association, HVRI
Publications-University of South Carolina 84 (1) 242–262.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources MC 2008-05. Guidelines on

watershed characterization. Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau.
College, Laguna.
Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau. 2011. Manual on Vulnerability

assessment of watersheds. ERDB, College, Laguna.
Fussel HM, Klein RJT. 2006. Climate change vulnerability assessments: An evolution
of conceptual thinking. Climate Change, 75, 301-329. DOI: 10.1007/S10584
– 006-0329-3.
Habito CF, RM Briones. 2005. Philippine agriculture over the years: Performance,
policies and pitfalls. Paper presented at the conference “Policies to Strengthen
Productivity in the Philippines,” Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) Trust Fund, Asian
Institute of Management Policy Center, Foreign Investment Advisory Service,
Philippines Institute of Development Studies and the World Bank, Makati City,
June 27-28, 2005.
Kefi M, Yoshino K, Setiawan Y, Zayani K, Boufaroua M. 2011. Assessment of the effects

of vegetation on soil erosion risk by water: a case study of the Batta watershed
in Tunisia. Environ Earth Sci. 64:707–719.
Lasco R, Espaldon VO. 2005. Ecosystem and people: The Philippine millennium
ecosystem assessment sub global assessment. Environmental Forestry Program,
College of Forestry and Natural Resources.University of the Philippines at Los
Baños.
Metzger MJ, Leemans R, Schröter D. 2005. A multidisciplinary multi-scale framework

for assessing vulnerabilities to global change. International Journal of Applied
Earth Observation and Geoinformation. Vol. 7, 253–267. [Internet] Retrieved
at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2005.06.011
Polsky C, Schröter D, Patt A, Gaffin S, Martello ML, Neff R, Pulsipher A, Selin H.

2003. Assessing vulnerabilities to the effects of global change: An eight-
step approach. Research and assessment systems for sustainability program
discussion paper 2003-05, Environment and Natural Resources Program,
Belfer Center for Science and Int. Affairs, Kennedy School of Government,
Harvard Univ., Cambridge, Mass. pp. 1-31.
Schröter D, Metzger MJ. 2004a. Global change vulnerability— Assessing the European
human-environment system. Proc., Twentieth Sessions of the Subsidiary
Bodies (SB 20), United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), Workshop on Scientific, Technical, and Socio-Economic Aspects
of Impacts of Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change, Apr. 9, 2006.
Retrieved from http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/workshops/other_meetings/
application/pdf /schroeter.pdf.
Schröter D, Metzger MJ, Cramer W, Leemans R. 2004b. Vulnerability assessment–

analysing the human-environment system in the face of global environmental
change. Environmental Science Section Bulletin, 2(2), 11-17.
Shinde V, Sharma A, Tiwari KN, Singh M. 2011. Quantitative determination of soil

erosion and prioritization of micro-watersheds using remote sensing and GIS.
J Indian Soc Remote Sens 39(2):181–192.
Thywissen K. 2006. Components of risk: A comparative glossary. SOURCE No. 2/2006.

Bonn, Germany.
Turner BL, et al. 2003. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainable science.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Jul 8; 100(14):8074-9. Epub 2003 Jun 5.
Wang X, Lu Y, Han J, He G, Wang T. 2006. Identification of anthropogenic influences

on water quality of rivers in Taihu watershed. [Internet]. 19(2007):475-481.
Retrieved from www.sciencedirect.com
Water Environment Partnership in Asia WEPA. _____. State of water environmental

issues. Water Environment partnership in Asia. Ministry of Environment,
Japan. (Cited:2010) Retrieved from (http://www.wepa-db.net/policies/state/
philippines/overview.htm)
Yohe GW, Tol RSJ. 2002. Indicators for social and economic coping capacity – moving
towards a working definition of adaptive capacity. Global Environmental
Change. 12 (1), 25-40. (Q20): Retrieved at www.feem-web.it/cp05/05bio_tol.
htm
Sylvatrop, The Technical Journal of Philippine Ecosystems and Natural Resources 25 (1 & 2): 51- 78
Landslide vulnerability assessment of

Kisloyan subwatershed in Mindoro
Island, Philippines
Edgardo E. Vendiola, PhD
OIC-Regional Technical Director for Research (retired)
Ecosystems Research and Development Service
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Region IV-B, Roxas Blvd., Manila
Forester Marilyn R. Limpiada

Science Research Specialist II
Email address: erds4b@gmail.com
Kisloyan subwatershed is one of the crucial sources of water to the Mag-

asawang Tubig River. Mag-asawang Tubig River is one of the major rivers in
Oriental Mindoro that provides irrigation and domestic water to at least three
of the big towns in the province and serves as a natural habitat to endemic
and endangered flora and fauna. However, it is threatened because of nickel
and cobalt extraction, with deposits considered as one of the largest in the
Far East. A total mining area of 1,435.90 ha is administratively shared by the
municipalities of Victoria, Oriental Mindoro and Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro.
This study determined the landslide vulnerability of the Kisloyan

subwatershed to come up with recommendations on how to mitigate the
impacts of this hazard. Vulnerability assessment was conducted based
on the natural characteristics and the man-induced attributes of the site.
Results of the study indicated that the Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro portion
has the highest vulnerability to landslide, particularly to geological risks.
Keywords: Kisloyan subwatershed, vulnerability assessment, watershed,

geological hazards, landslide, geospatial technology
52 Vendiola E and Limpiada M
This is caused by the convergence of the effects of slope, rainfall, and fault lines.
Meanwhile, portions of Victoria, Oriental Mindoro have similar rainfall
and fault line characteristics except for the aggravating effect of slope.
Immediate rehabilitation of said vulnerable areas is recommended as a priority mitigating

measure in the watershed management plan, especially the 28.40 ha of severely
eroded/landslide areas in the southern portion of Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro.
WATERSHEDS ARE FRAGILE. IN DISASTER-PRONE AREAS OF THE PHILIPPINES,

the paramount importance of watersheds does not rest solely in its supportive role to
agriculture but more on its role in preventing soil erosion. Knowing their condition
and capability to prevent the occurrence of destructive landslides is vital.
The Kisloyan subwatershed of the Mag-asawang Tubig watershed was

chosen for this study because of the conflicts in resource use that are brewing in
this watershed. Multinational mining companies made big investments with the end
view of extracting nickel and cobalt deposits in the area. The estimated volumes are
considered to be one of the largest in the Far East.
Environmentalists became more vigilant because the Kisloyan subwatershed

serves as one of the crucial sources of water to the Mag-asawang Tubig River. It is
also one of the major rivers in Oriental Mindoro that provides irrigation and domestic
water to at least three of the big towns in the province. In many instances, however,
Mag-asawang Tubig River was the cause of disastrous floods that hit the province in
recent history. The area is also regarded as important because it is a natural habitat to
several endemic and endangered flora and fauna.
Therefore, vulnerability assessment can be effectively utilized in planning the

sustainable development of the area and conserving its natural resources. Assessing
the ecosystem’s vulnerability to hazards due to climate change forms an important
decision tool towards better management of natural resources as well as minimized
risk to environmental disasters.
As cited by Daño (2005), Neil Fraser, a Mindanao-based Australian ecologist

stated that for as long as Filipinos regarded the earth and the environment as resources
to be exploited and abused, a flood similar to that in Ormoc City that killed about
8,000 people and rendered about 50,000 residents homeless in 1991, could occur
anytime. Fraser’s forecast came true. In December 2004, heavy rains, illegal logging
Vulnerability assessment of the Kisloyan subwatershed 53
and the mountainous terrain were blamed for the fatal floods and mudslides in Infanta-
Nakar area in Quezon province.
In 2006, Roberto reported that three flashfloods struck Calapan City and the
municipalities in the northern part of Oriental Mindoro. As reported by PAGASA,
this was caused by the three-day rainfall reaching a total of 194 mm and 77 mm on
6 December 2005 and 17 December 2005, respectively. Heavy rainfall resulted in
large discharges in both Mag-asawang Tubig and Bucayao Rivers.The municipalities/
city of Baco, Naujan, Victoria and Calapan were severely affected with 141 barangays
stricken by the typhoon, leaving 23,364 families affected. Calamity victims reached
9,551 families or 39,006 persons. One death was registered in the municipality of
Naujan.
Former DENR Secretary Elisea G. Gozun said that much of the landslide
tragedy had to do with the improper use of forest land for agricultural purposes;
noting that farmers opted to plant cash crops instead of trees (DENR 2003 as cited by
Daño 2005).
In view of this, the urgency of vulnerability assessment, mapping, and

sustainable ENR management has become imperative to save people whose lives are
affected by watersheds that are highly vulnerable to hazards.
Geospatial technology is now being used in natural resources management

where wildfire, floods, and landslides can be mapped as polygon areas. All these
information can be of great value when surveyed and represented digitally in
computer systems like Geographic Information Systems (GIS) (Godilano 2004 as cited
by Daño 2005).
The paper by van Westen (2008) discussed a number of issues related to the use
of spatial information for landslide susceptibility, hazard, and vulnerability assessment
with focus on the types of spatial data needed for each component and the methods
for obtaining them. Accordingly, there is a very fast development in the application
of digital tools such as GIS, digital image processing, digital photogrammetry and
Global Positioning Systems (GPS). Landslide inventory databases are now available
and accessible even through the internet. A comprehensive landslide inventory is a
must to quantify both landslide hazard and risk.
Landslide is one of the various natural processes that shape the surface of the
earth. Hazard can only be realized when landslides threaten mankind. Landslide is
one of the mass movements which include all those processes that involve movement
of slope-forming material under the influence of gravity either outward or downward
(Crozier 1999a).
In the DENR report on Landslide Mapping and Vulnerability Assessment of

the Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Comprehensive Development
and Management Plan (DENR-CDMP 2005), the factors that were identified to cause
landslide include weak rock or soil; foliated/fractured rocks due to earthquakes and
natural weathering process; steep mountainous terrain; high drainage density; and
climatic factors particularly high rainfall and frequency of typhoons. Gunther (2006)
gave an overview of methods in landslide assessment which include geomorphologic
mapping; heuristic analysis (index-based); analysis of inventories; statistical modeling;
and process-based (conceptual).
Factors that promote slope instability are important considerations in

landslide vulnerability. Among them are the triggering factors that initiate movement,
namely, shifting of slope from a marginally stable to an actively unstable state. The
most common triggering factors are intense rainstorms, prolonged periods of wet
weather, seismic shaking, and slope undercutting. Hence, if a slope is marginally
stable, it is possible to recognize a threshold value for the triggering factor that is
responsible for initiating movement. The common triggering factors are usually
external forces imposed on the slope and the initiating thresholds are referred to as
extrinsic thresholds (Schumm 1979).
In certain occasions, there is mass movement even in the absence of particular

external triggering force, thus, it is assumed that some intrinsic threshold has been
surpassed within the slope. The Mount Cook rock avalanche from New Zealand’s
highest mountain in1991 is an example of this case (Mc Saveney 2002).
However, in most cases, an extrinsic triggering threshold for landslide

occurrence is identifiable and presents two useful opportunities for hazard estimation.
The first recognizes that the triggering threshold varies with the inherent stability of
the terrain and that spatial differences in the value of triggering thresholds can provide
a relative measure of the geographic distribution of terrain susceptibility to landslide
occurrence (Glade1998). Having identified the triggering threshold for a given
terrain, the triggering value may be used in determining the frequency of occurrence
of landslide generating conditions with reference to the seismic or climatic record for
the region (Brooks et al. 2004). Climate records are usually much longer and more
reliable than historical landslide records. In addition, these thresholds can be used for
warning systems and forecasting of landslide activity (Crozier 1999b).
Methodology
This study was conducted in 2010 within Mag-asawang Tubig Watershed

which is administratively shared by Occidental Mindoro and Oriental Mindoro.
Kisloyan Subwatershed is a component of the Mag-asawang Tubig Watershed with
a total land area of 1,435.90 ha covering the municipalities of Victoria, Oriental
Mindoro and Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro (Roberto 2006). As of May 1, 2010,
the Mag-asawang Tubig has a total population of 605 according to the Philippine
Statistics Authority (2010).
To facilitate the smooth implementation of the project, a multidisciplinary

team from various sectors of DENR-MIMAROPA Region was created. A workshop
was conducted to level off on the concepts and methodologies as well as to delineate
responsibilities of each member in the conduct of the project.

Watershed characterization and vulnerability assessment generally followed
the sequence of activities proposed by Daño (2005) in his Watershed Vulnerability
Activity Flow Diagram.
Assessment of watershed characterization data
This activity involves the review of the watershed characterization report to

determine data gaps that should be augmented through field visits or other means.
DENR MC 2008-05 can be used to assess the sufficiency of the characterization
report. Further environmental scanning was done to determine the availability of
watershed characterization data in other government agencies. This way, time and
substantial resources were saved as there was no need to get primary information
for data that are already available. Aerial photographs as well as other documents on
the history of flooding in the area were gathered from the provincial government of
Oriental Mindoro.
To have a good understanding of the entire Kisloyan subwatershed at

the macro level, the research team conducted a reconnaissance survey to gather
information on significant features within the study area. On-the-ground survey of the
Kisloyan subwatershed area was done traversing the main channel from the mouth to
the headwaters.
Determination and establishment of observation sites
With the use of topographic map, soils map and vegetation map, the
preliminary points were identified. The preliminary/tentative observation sites were
determined on the ground for evaluation. The identified areas were marked on the
ground.
Hazard identification, analysis, and mapping
The following methodologies and procedures were generated from the

Vulnerability Assessment Manual of ERDB (2011).
Hazards occurring in the Kisloyan subwatershed, both upstream and

downstream portions were identified from watershed characterization data and site
visitations together with the information gathered from the Mines and Geosciences
Bureau (MGB), Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHILVOCs),
Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration
(PAGASA) and other agencies.
This component is equivalent to a scoping activity in environmental

assessment. Its purpose is to focus on priority and critical hazards in the watershed.
Hazards and its contributory factors were initially determined through:
• Analysis of watershed characterization data

• Field observation of hazards occurring in the watershed (i.e., landslide)
• Conduct of focus group discussion (FGD) with the occupants of the
watershed and other key informants
Specific locations where the hazards were observed were recorded in the
field map during the field surveys and inputted to maps generated using geographic
information system (GIS) software. The observed hazard locations are useful in
validating GIS generated model. A crucial element in reducing vulnerability to natural
hazards is the analysis of human settlements and infrastructures as gathered during
field validation and FGDs.

For assessing landslide vulnerability due to physical factors, the different

thematic maps (slope, soil, geology/seismic, land use, and climate) are assigned with
corresponding rates/weights and overlaid based on the following relationships:
L = f [Sl, Cl (r + t), G (f + a + f), S (t + c), Lu]
Where: G = geology factor with consideration

L = landslide vulnerability to formation (f), age (a) and relative
f = formation distance to the fault line (f)
Sl = slope factor S = soil factor as soil type (t) and soil
Cl = climate factor morphological classification (c)
r = rainfall amount Lu = land use factor
t = typhoon frequency
Each factor was assigned a relative weight according to their influence in

landslide occurrence. Each factor class was also assigned a class rating as presented
in Table 1.
Table 1 Landslide vulnerability class rating

Landslide vulnerability class Rating
Slightly vulnerable (SV) <2.1
Failrly vulnerable (FV) 2.1 – 2.79
Moderately vulnerable (MV) 2.8 – 3.49
Highly vulnerable (HV) 3.5 – 4.19
Very highly vulnerable (VHV) >4.2
Vulnerability was classified (slight, fair, moderate, high, and very high) based
on the hazard value; thus, a map was zoned into vulnerability classes. Landslide
vulnerability map due to physical factors were calculated for each hazard unit as the
sum of weighted product of individual factors, as shown in Equation 2:
Lp = 0.35Sl + 0.2R + 0.2G + 0.1S + 0.15Lu
Where: R = rainfall
Lp = landslide vulnerability due to G = geology factor
physical factors S = soil factor
Sl = slope factor Lu = land use factor
Geographic Information System and spatial analysis
To assess the vulnerability of the study area, historical accounts from the
respondents as to the occurrence of floods and landslides in the area were gathered.
Using tools such as remote sensing and geographic information systems (GIS), the
potential vulnerability was analyzed.
The overlay and index method which involved combining various watershed
attributes (e.g., geology, soils, slope, climate, landuse, anthropogenic factors) was
used. In this approach, all attributes are assigned with class (Class 1-5) and weights
(1-100%) (Table 2). This method was considered to be the simplest approach that
can easily be adopted in conducting vulnerability assessment. This tends to be more
quantitative by assigning different numerical scores and weights to the attributes in
developing a range of vulnerability classes which are then displayed in the map.
This approach involved assigning values to the identified factors affecting the
vulnerability of watershed resources to landslide. Factors which are considered to
have high influence in the vulnerability of the watershed to landslide were rated as 5
while those with very minimal effect were given a rating of 1 (Daño 2005).
Table 2 Guide in scaling of factors for landslide vulnerability of Kisloyan

subwatershed (ERDB 2011)
Physical factors Class Description

A. Slope (30%) 1 Slope, in general, is not steep (<8%)
2 Slope, in general, is slightly steep (8.1-18%)
3 Slope, in general, is fairly steep (18.1–30%)
4 Slope, in general, is moderately steep (30.1-50%)
5 Slope, in general, is very steep (>50%)
B. Soils(15%)
Morphology (5%) Soil type
1 Tropaquepts with entropepts, tropepts and oxisols
2 Tropopsamments with troporthents
3 Tropudalfs with tropepts
4 Entropepts with dystropepts
5 Tropudults with tropudalfs, mountain soils
Erosion (10%) 1 Severe sheet and rill erosion
2 Moderate sheet, rill and gully erosion
3 Moderate sheet and rill; slight gully
4 Slight sheet and rill; no gullying
5 Almost no active erosion

subwatershed (ERDB 2011) (Continued)
C. Climate Maximum monthly rainfall
Monthly Rainfall 1 Very low (<100 mm)
(7%) 2 Low (100.1-200mm)
3 Moderate (200.1-300mm)
4 High (300.1-500mm)
5 Very high (>500mm)
Typhoon frequency
Typhoon 1 Very low frequency
Frequency (3%) 2 Low frequency
(See Philippine 3 Moderate frequency
Typhoon 4 High frequency
frequency map) 5 Very high frequency
D. Geology (3%) 1 Pliocene-Quaternary (QV); Paleocene (sedimentary
and metamorphic rocks); Pre-jurassic
2 Undifferentiated (UV; KPg1; KPg2)
3 Oligocene (SPg2); Paleocene-Eocene (SPg1)
4 Pliocene-Pleistocene (N3+Q1); Upper Miocene-
pliocene (N2)
5 Recent (R); Quaternary (QAV); Pliocene-quaternary
(QPV)
E. Geohazards
(40%)
Proximity to fault 1 Fault lines are not nearer than 5 km from the watershed
lines (20%) 2 Fault lines are within 4-4.9 km
3 Fault lines are within 3-3.9 km
4 Fault lines are within 2-2.9 km
5 Fault lines within 1.9 km from the watershed
Earthquake 1 < 20% of the area is susceptible
triggered landslides 2 20-30% of the area is susceptible
susceptibility 3 31-50% of the area is susceptible
(10%) 4 51-70% of the area is susceptible
5 71-100% of the area is susceptible

subwatershed (ERDB 2011) (Continued)
Rain-induced 1 < 20% of the area is susceptible
landslides 2 20-30% of the area is susceptible
susceptibility 3 31-50% of the area is susceptible
(10%) 4 51-70% of the area is susceptible
5 71-100% of the area is susceptible
Vegetative cover
F. Vegetative 1 >71% of the area is open/grassland/bare/cultivated
cover/ Land-use 2 50-70% open/grassland/bare/cultivated
(2%) 3 30-49% open/grassland/bare/cultivated
4 21-30% open/grassland/bare/cultivated
5 <20% open/grassland/bare/cultivated
Formulation of mitigating measures
Having identified the hazards, series of FGDs with the community as well as
workshops by the technical team and key persons were conducted to come up with
appropriate mitigating measures to prevent the occurrence of disaster. The mitigating
measures focused on interventions that may reduce the effects of the identified hazard
or improve the adaptation of the watershed to the landslide.
Review, analysis, and policy recommendation
Existing policies, including national policies, gathered during the conduct of

watershed characterization were reviewed and analyzed as to their relevance. Series
of in-house workshops were initiated by the team to come up with needed policy
recommendations that will serve as legal support to address the identified problems
and minimize damage that can be caused by landslide.

The Kisloyan subwatershed is located at the central part of the Mindoro Island.
Geographically, it lies between 13o02‘42’’ to 13o6’54’’ N, and 121o06’54’’ to 121o11‘
06’’ E (Fig. 1). It has an approximate area of 1,435.90 ha of which 1,133.70 ha or 78.95%
is within the Occidental side while 302.20 ha or 21.05% is within the Oriental side.
The subwatershed is covered by two municipalities: Victoria in Oriental Mindoro, and
Sablayan in Occidental Mindoro (Fig. 2).
Figure 1 Location map of Kisloyan subwatershed

Although a larger portion of the said watershed is within the Occidental side,
the area is more accessible via the Oriental side route. Consequently, the inhabitants
living inside the watershed are having a more active interaction with the residents
of Oriental Mindoro than the other part of the island. However, the administrative
jurisdiction over the Kisloyan subwatershed is shared between Occidental Mindoro
and Oriental Mindoro.
Victoria
Sablayan
River Network
Kisloyan Subwatershed
Barangay Boundary
Municipal Boundary
Figure 2 Administrative map of Kisloyan subwatershed

Watershed behavior of the Kisloyan Sub-watershed is quite stable, relative to the

conditions of adjoining watersheds. Except for occasional “kaingins” done by the
Mangyan’s, which are also being allowed to fallow (as a soil conservation measure)
after 2 to 3 years of cropping, the vegetative condition of Kisloyan is quite good.
Geomorphological features
A. Slope
Figure 3 shows the slope characteristic of the subwatershed. Table 3 presents

the area covered per slope classification. It can be noted that a significant portion
falls under the gentle to moderately slope category representing 45.18% of the entire
area or 648.43 ha. Obviously, the rate of soil erosion and probability of landslide
occurrence are directly correlated with steepness of slope.
Figure 3 Slope map of Kisloyan subwatershed

Table 3 Slope characteristics of Kisloyan subwatershed

Slope (%) Area (ha) Percent share
Not steep (0-8) 261.04 18.18
Slightly steep (8-18) 369.43 25.74
Gentle to moderately steep (18-50) 648.43 45.18
Very steep (50 and above) 156.40 10.90
B. Soils
The entire Kisloyan subwatershed is classified by the Bureau of Soils and

Water Management as rough mountain soils. Composite soil analysis was done from
three different elevation ranges as shown in Table 4. Clay is the major component
of the soil within the subwatershed. These results show that the subwatershed is less
vulnerable to erosion which can also mean it is less vulnerable to landslide in terms
of its soil type.
Table 4 Soil characteristics of Kisloyan subwatershed

Soil
Lower elevation Middle elevation Higher elevation
characteristics
Topsoil Subsoil Topsoil Subsoil Topsoil Subsoil
Texture Clay Clay Clay Loamy Clay Loamy
loam loam clay loam clay
Soil depth (m) 0.15 0.35 0.10 0.25 0.10 0.25
Bulk density 1.15 1.25 1.08 1.12 1.02 1.08
(g/cc)
C. Geology
In terms of mineral deposits, the Kisloyan subwatershed is the most active

object of mining exploration in the whole island of Mindoro. It is estimated that the
Kisloyan-Ibolo-Aglubang complex will yield about 500,000 tons of purified nickel
metal alone in addition to the significant volume of cobalt.
Geologic formation of the subwatershed shows that almost the entire area
(95.45%) evolved from the Pre-Jurassic to Jurassic era while the rest were of recent
(up to 1 million years old) origin. It was in the Pre-Jurassic and Jurassic eras that the
nickel and cobalt ore materials likely originated.
The general composition of the rock deposits in the area are classified into
four, namely: silt-sand-gravel component generally deposited along the channel,
green schist with mica schist generally associated with the Halcon metamorphics
and, dunite and peridotite generally associated with the ultramafic complex (Fig. 4).
Figure 4 Composition of rock deposits in

Kisloyan subwatershed
D. Climate
The subwatershed falls under Climatic Type III based on Corona’s Revised
Classification where rainfall is not pronounced and dry season lasts from one to three
months only. Rain mostly occurs in October, November, and December while the
driest period is during March and April.
Figure 5 shows the monthly mean rainfall during the two time periods: baseline
period (1951-1999) and climate change period (2000-2010). The selected time period
is in line with the PAGASA study on climate change which considers the period 1999
and earlier as the baseline period. The latter was found to have higher monthly mean
rainfall as compared to the baseline period (Daño et al. 2013). It shows that climate
change has a significant effect in the area and in the province as well. Rainfall almost
occurs from May to December. This underscores the fact that the Kisloyan subwatershed
is one of the major sources of water of the Mag-asawang Tubig River.
Table 5 Extent of the various geological characteristics of Kisloyan subcatchment
Geologic formation Lithology Composition

Micro- Pre- Green
Halcon Ultra-
watershed Jurassic Alluvial Silt/Sand/ Schist
Quater- meta- mafic Dunite Perido tite
(MW) and deposits Gravel & Mica
nary (ha) morphics complex (ha) (ha)
Jurassic (ha) (ha) Schist
(ha) (ha)
(ha) (ha)
MW 1 13.5 89.90 13.50 51.00 38.80 13.50 51.00 0.10 38.80
MW 2 51.90 456.80 51.90 156.20 300.60 51.90 156.20 101.60 199.00
MW 3 276.90 276.90 162.30 114.60
MW 4 159.70 159.70 143.50 16.20
MW 5 49.70 49.70 49.70
MW 6 53.00 53.00 37.40 15.60
MW 7 135.20 135.20 97.90 37.40
MW 8 149.20 17.40 131.90 17.40 8.70 123.10
Total 65.40 1370.5 65.40 224.60 1145.90 65.40 224.60 601.10 544.80
Percent (%) 4.55% 95.45% 4.55% 15.64% 79.81% 4.55% 15.64% 41.86% 37.95%
Figure 5 Mean monthly rainfall in the subwatershed based on PAGASA Calapan

Station (Daño et al. 2013)
E. Geological hazards
The Kisloyan subwatershed is crisscrossed with major fault lines such as the
Aglubang River Fault and the Central Mindoro Fault. As recorded by the US Geological
Survey, the Kisloyan area was the epicenter of three moderately strong earthquakes
in the past. Further, there are three general geological hazards identified in the area.
These are landslides, soil erosion, and floods. Figure 6 shows the geohazard map of
the Kisloyan subwatershed.
Of the three hazards, landslide is considered as most likely to occur with

tremendous impact in the area. Therefore, to be thoroughly prepared for this most
likely occurrence, landslide is further dissected on the basis of the most likely cause,
which is either earthquake-triggered or rainfall-triggered landslides (Tables 6a and
6b). It is very essential for disaster managers to lay out specific preparations based on
the nature of the landslides.
As shown in Table 6a, 56% of the entire area is vulnerable to earthquake-

triggered landslides. It is noticeable that of the entire 1,435.90 ha of subwatershed
area, about 800.20 ha are vulnerable to landslides triggered by earthquakes (Fig. 7).
Presumably, these are remnants of the Magnitude 7.2 earthquake that hit Mindoro in
Figure 6 Geohazard Map of Kisloyan Sub-watershed
1994. On the other hand, about 42% of the area is vulnerable to landslides caused by
intense rainfall (Fig. 8). Although some areas are interchangeably vulnerable to these
two forms of landslides, it is obvious that for the most part, Kisloyan subwatershed is
particularly vulnerable to landslides in general.
F. Land classification
Legal Status. The entire subwatershed is classified into three major land classes. These
include: timberland, alienable and disposable, and school reservation. Table 7 shows
that approximately 50% of the area is considered under the Timberland status. This
constitutes about 711 ha. The rest of the areas are under the School Reservation status
(MinSCAT) and Alienable and Disposable (A&D).
Land Capability. In terms of land capability, the entire subwatershed is categorized

into four classes, namely: (1) agricultural production with intercropping of permanent
crops as a soil conservation measure, (2) areas where clean cultivation may apply, (3)
Table 6a Extent of earthquake-triggered landslide hazards in Kisloyan subwatershed
Not vulnerable Moderately vulnerable

635.8 800.2
44% 56%
Victoria
Figure 7 Earthquake-trigerred landslide map of Kisloyan subwatershed

Table 6b Extent of rain-induced landslide hazards in Kisloyan subwatershed

Not vulnerable Low vulnerability Moderate vulnerability
834.6 78.3 316.2
58% 20% 22%
Figure 8 Rainfall-induced landslide map of Kisloyan Sub-Watershed.

areas with severe limitation for crop production, and (4) definitely unfit for agricultural
production (Table 8). As shown in Table 7b, 81% of the area or 1,169.10 ha is not
suited for agricultural activities where constant soil working is done. This includes
55% of the area under severe limitation and the 26% classified under not suited for
agricultural production. These areas had to stay as woodland and covered with trees.
The present classification of the area, where 21% had been declared as Alienable and
Disposable, fits relatively well with the inherent geophysical attribute and capability
of the land.
G. Land use and vegetative cover
Four categories of present landuses and vegetative cover are observed in the
area. These are: closed canopy, cropland mixed with coconut plantation, cultivated
area mixed with brushland/grassland, and mossy forest (Fig. 9). Table 9 shows details
of the area covered under each category. This shows that a major portion of the area
is cultivated with mixed brushland/grassland but still with the presence of mossy and
closed canopy of mature trees covering >50% in the higher elevation.
The area is believed to contain rich amount of nickel and cobalt. Therefore,
it is anticipated that the extent of the variability in the proposed land management
modalities will largely depend on the perception of the various interest groups as to
how the area should be managed and utilized.

Table 7 Land classification of Kisloyan subwatershed
Land classification (ha)

School reservation Timberland A&D
413.80 711.00 311.00
29% 50% 21%
Table 8 Land capability of Kisloyan subwatershed
Land capability (ha)

Not for
Agricultural
Clean cultivation Severe limitation agricultural
production
production
176.10 90.80 795.00 374.10
13% 6% 55% 26%
Figure 9 Landuse and land cover maps of Kisloyan subwatershed
Table 9 Landuse of Kisloyan subwatershed
Land use Area (ha) Percentage (%)

Closed canopy, mature 302.09 21
trees covering >50%
Crop land mixed with 10.27 0.7
coconut plantation
Cultivated area mixed 938.06 65.4
with brushland/grassland
Mossy forest 184.89 12.9
Vulnerability assessment
A. Landslide vulnerability analysis
Based on the analysis of factors and parameters, as presented in the ensuing

tables, the entire Kisloyan subwatershed is a source of possible landslide hazard.
Table 10 shows the summary ratings of each parameter based on the guide of
scaling of factors for landslide vulnerability of Kisloyan subwatershed (ERDB 2011).
Table 10 Summary of landslide vulnerability rating of Kisloyan subwatershed

Parameters Vulnerability rating
1. Slope (30%) 4
2. Climate (10%)
- Monthly rainfall (7%) 5
- Typhoon frequency (3%) 4
3. Soils (15%)
- Morphology (5%) 5
- Erosion (10%) 2
3. Geology (3%) 1
4. Geo-Hazards (40%)
-Fault Lines (20%) 5
-Earthquake triggered landslide susceptibility (10%) 4
-Rain-induced landslide susceptibility (10%) 2
5. Vegetative cover (2%) 1
After assigning values to factors and analyzing them, results showed that six out of ten
factors contributed to the landslide vulnerability of the Kisloyan subwatershed. These
are slope, climate (rainfall and typhoon frequency), soil morphology, geohazards
(nearness to fault lines and earthquake-triggered susceptibility to landslide).
The weights of the assigning values to each factors based on their influence
in the occurrence of landslide in the subwatershed were analyzed to determine the
vulnerability class of the subwatershed as presented in Table 11. This result is further
verified through the landslide vulnerability map in Fig. 10 .
Conclusion
Despite the presence of upland dwellers or Mangyans in the area, the

Kisloyan subwatershed can still be considered as sufficiently forested. For centuries,
the means of living for these Mangyans is primarily through slash-and-burn farming
(kaingin making) following the traditional set of rules in the observance of fallow
period. This farming system is particularly attuned to the physical environment of
Kisloyan; otherwise, these forests had long been gone. This system of cropping,
however, can only be as effective as the availability of large tracts of forest lands
relative to the number of dweller-families. In a situation where lands become scarce
as a result of population influx, fallow period becomes shortened and subsequent
Table 11 Vulnerability class of the Kisloyan subwatershed

Parameters Vulnerability analysis
1. Slope 1.20
2. Climate 0.45
3. Soils 0.52
4. Geology 0.03
5. Geohazards 1.35
6. Vegetative cover 0.02
Total rating 3.57
Vulnerability class Highly vulnerable
Landslide Vulnerability Map

Naujan
Victoria
Sablayan
River Network
Municipal Boundary
Low
Moderate
High
Figure 10 Landslide vulnerability map

soil fertility loss sets in. Once fallow period is shortened, sustainability becomes a
critical issue. Notwithstanding the relative richness of its forest resources, the Kisloyan
subwatershed is threatened by its vulnerability to landslide.
Results of the vulnerability assessment in the area indicated that a large part
of the subwatershed is highly vulnerable to landslide. The vulnerability of these areas
is particularly precipitated by the convergence of the effects of slope, rainfall, soils,
and fault lines. These parameters are the principal operating factors that rendered
a major portion of Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro particularly vulnerable to these
geological risks. Although the Victoria, Oriental Mindoro side shares similar rainfall
and fault line characteristics with the rest of the areas, the aggravating effect of slope
stood out as a very critical factor in the analysis.
Recommendations
Landuse prescriptions. Inasmuch as the Kisloyan subwatershed is one of

the principal watersheds of the Mag-asawang Tubig River, the management regimes
in the area must be geared towards watershed conservation and protection. This
does not preclude the government from allowing the use of other resources in the
area, however, the mode of resource-use must be designed in such a way that the
watershed character of Kisloyan will not be jeopardized. Appropriate technologies
must be earnestly applied to achieve such goal.
Natural hazards. As indicated in the results, there are specific areas in the
Kisloyan subwatershed that are particularly prone to geological perturbations, such as
ground movements, due to the presence of fault lines. The presence of these active
faults rendered the area vulnerable to landslides. Therefore, to forestall loss of life and
property, the long-term use of this subwatershed must be restricted to forest purposes.
The dwellers in these areas must be advised to move to safer grounds.
Several landslides are still visible in some portions of the area. These are
presumably results of the 1994 earthquake. Although many years had already passed,
these landslides have not been substantially repopulated with vegetation. It would be
beneficial to apply Assisted Natural Regeneration (ANR) using grasses and other low-
statured flora as pioneer or succession species.
It is critically important that no area within the Kisloyan subwatershed will

remain open without any vegetation for more than a year. This can be done by
limiting the annual usable area that is being provided to mining companies based on
their capability to immediately rehabilitate mined-out/opened areas after the mining
activity.
The vulnerability map shows that majority of the areas in the subwatershed
are highly vulnerable to landslide. Therefore, the following mitigating measures,
among others, should be prioritized:
1. Immediate rehabilitation of the 28.40 ha of severely eroded/landslide areas in

the southern portion of Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro. The surface condition
of these landslide areas are poor such that the soils are very porous and loose,
vegetative rehabilitation must be done thru planting of grasses, vines and
other low-statured pioneer species. The introduction of leguminous vines and
shrubs will improve the fertility of the soils. The leguminous crops may include
the following: Centrosema pubescens (Centro), Centrosema macrocarpum
(Centro), Pueraria lathyroides (Kudzu), Macroptilium atropurpureum (Siratro),
Calopogonium mucusoides (Calopogonium), Stylosanthes guianensis (Stylo),
Calliandra calothyrsus (Calliandra), Desmanthus virgatus (Desmanthus).
2. Application of the following soil conservation measures in the cropping

regimes in the portions of Victoria, Oriental Mindoro: contour cropping, buffer
strip or hedge-row planting, and mixed cropping of short-duration crops with
perennials. Some 266.70 ha of land in this subwatershed must be managed
using the above prescription.
3. Installation of rain gauge within the watershed. Since Kisloyan is one of the
principal sources of water to Mag-asawang Tubig River, the river could also
be one of the major contributors to the inundation of the floodplains. Several
studies pointed out that the triggering effect of rainfall to landslide start once
an area receives >100 mm rainfall in a 24-hour rainfall event. The rain gauge
will give a signal to any impending landslide situation in the area. With the
early warning of an unusually heavy precipitation, the residents in the low-
lying areas of Mag-asawang Tubig River can be warned against a possible
flooding as a result of damming due to landslides, and the abrupt release of
the impounded waters in the Kisloyan River. This rain gauge can be installed
in the built-up areas where several dwellers live.
4. Determination of optimum Kisloyan subwatershed's carrying capacity for

kaingin farming. Prohibiting the practice of kaingin farming could serve as one
of the best prescriptions in the area. However, this is difficult to implement
because it is basically the Mangyans' only source of living. Hence, the
sustainable area for kaingin farms must be set to ensure that proper fallow
intervals are maintained.
5. Local Government Units (LGUs) should come up with Information, Education

and Communication (IEC) materials on the vulnerabilities within the watershed.
Literature cited
Brooks SM, Crozier MJ, Glade T, Anderson MG. 2004. Towards establishing climatic thresholds
for slope instability: Use of a physically-based combined solid hydrology-slope stability
model. Pure and Applied Geophysics. 161.
Crozier MJ. 1999a. Landslides. Alexander DE and Fairbridge RW, Editors. Encyclopedia of
Environmental Science. Dordrecht, Kluwer.
Crozier MJ. 1999b. Prediction of rainfall-triggered landslides: A test of the antecedent water
status model. Earth surface processes and landforms. 24:825-833.
Daño AM. 2005. Vulnerability assessment of watersheds in the Philippines. Unpublished

Research Proposal. ERDB, College, Laguna.
Daño AM, Ebora JB, Ociones FT, Olvida AF. 2007. Guidelines on vulnerability assessment of
watersheds. Unpublished paper. College, Laguna.
Daño AM, Vendiola EE, Reaviles RS, Mauricio RA, Chicano DS. 2013. Impacts of climate
change on the extent and magnitude of flooding in Mag-asawang Tubig-Bucayao River
Basin in Oriental Mindoro. Unpublished Terminal Report. Ecosystems Research and
Development Bureau, College, Laguna.
(DENR) Deparment of Environment and Natural Resources. 2005. Comprehensive Development

and Management Plan (CDMP). Diliman, Quezon City.
(ERDB) Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau. 2011. Manual on vulnerability

assessment of watersheds. Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau, Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, College, Laguna.
Glade T. 1998. Establishing the frequency and magnitude of landslide-triggering rainstorm

events in New Zealand. Environmental Geology. 35:160-74.
Gunther A. 2006. Landslide susceptibility assessments.
McSaveney MJ. 2002. Recent rockfalls and rock avalanches in Mount Cook National Park,
New Zealand. Evans SGand DeGraff JV (Eds.) Catastrophic landslides: Effects, occurrence,
and mechanisms. 15:35-70.
Roberto IS. 2006. Philippine Disaster Management System: Case of the Oriental Mindoro
December 2005 Floods.
Schumm SA. 1979. Geomorphic thresholds: the concept and its applications. Transactions
Institute of British Geographers (New Series). 4:485-515.
Van Westen CJ, et al. 2008. Spatial data for landslide susceptibility, hazard and vulnerability
assessment: An overview. Engineering Geology, doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2008.03.010.
Sylvatrop, The Technical Journal of Philippine Ecosystems and Natural Resources 23 (1 & 2): 79 - 120
Application of analytic hierarchy process

and GIS in landslide vulnerability assessment
of Matutinao Watershed, Cebu, Philippines:
A case study anchored on the climate change
framework
Reynaldo L. Lanuza Daisy Luisa S. Camello
Supervising Science Research Specialist Statistician II
Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau
ERDB-BCWERC Antonio M. Daño, PhD
Banilad, Mandaue City Supervising Science Research Specialist
Email address: reyllanuza@yahoo.com ERDB, College, Laguna
Bruno O. Carreon
Science Research Specialist I
The study was conducted in the ecologically and economically
significant Matutinao Watershed in Cebu. Ongoing developmental activities
in the area necessitates a landslide vulnerability assessment to avoid possible
losses of lives and properties. A GIS-assisted approach was developed to
a) evaluate the utility of GIS with regard to landslide vulnerability assessment
anchored on the climate change framework; b) identify and map out the
areas vulnerable to landslide; recommend appropriate measures to avoid
loss of lives and properties; and c) formulate policy recommendations.
Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) in determining the

relative importance of factors identified and GIS, the landslide vulnerability
anchored in a climate change perspective was determined. Exposure
to landslide was based on 2020 climate projections. The sensitivity
was computed based on the model derived from AHP, expressed as L
= 0.8297[0.3160Sl + 0.0973R + 0.0973T + 0.0912Ga + 0.0912Gf +
0.1729Gfl+ 0.0698So + 0.0633Lu] + 0.1703[0.2532FS + 0.3175H +
0.4349GD].
Keywords: GIS-assisted approach, landslide, vulnerability assessment, Matutinao

Watershed, Geographic Information System, Analytic Hierarchy Process
80 R. Lanuza et al.
Adaptive capacity was derived based on the response of the

community. It was predicted that about 3,278.47 ha or approximately
65.12% have high vulnerability to landslide. This is followed by moderate
landslide vulnerability with 1,666.11 ha and very high vulnerability covering
about 89.60 ha.
The GIS-assisted model predicted the location of areas that are

vulnerable. Generally, areas vulnerable to landslides are located in steeper
slopes and in unstable geology. This can be further triggered by high rainfall
that causes the soil saturation and mass movement downslope. Moreover,
the results also showed the capability of GIS-assisted approach with AHP in
assessing areas vulnerable to landslide.
THE PHILIPPINES IS DUBBED AS THE "PEARL OF THE ORIENT" BECAUSE IT IS

endowed with rich natural resources, fascinating landscapes and splendid white
beaches. The Philippines’ rainforests and its extensive coastlines make a suitable
habitat to a diverse range of floral and faunal species. However, the country is
geographically located in the western side of the Pacific Ocean “Ring of Fire” which
is continually threatened by natural hazards that adversely affect the lives of Filipino
people. Therefore, landslides should be addressed with urgency, readiness, and good
plans and actions to avoid the loss of human lives and damage to infrastructures and
properties.
Landslides pose serious threats to life and property as demonstrated by a

disastrous rockslide-debris avalanche in Guinsaugon, Leyte, Philippines in February
2006 where over 1,100 people died. This is considered as one of the largest
landslides to have occurred in recent years (Evans et al. 2007). The occurrences of
catastrophic landslides in the country have highlighted the significance of assessing
the vulnerable areas to serve as inputs in the formulation of development plans. The
new Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) management headed
by Secretary Ramon J.P. Paje reiterated the need to address these environmental
hazards. This paved way to the Banner Program on Vulnerability Assessment of
Characterized Watersheds in the Philippines with landslide assessment as one of the
project components.
In Central Visayas, Matutinao Watershed was the target site for CY 2014. It is
one of the important watersheds in Cebu because it supplies majority of the domestic
and agricultural waters in the municipalities of Alegria and Badian. It is also an
ecotourism site known for the fantastic beauty of Kawasan Falls. Thousands of local
and foreign tourists visit the place to commune with nature and to enjoy the cool
and refreshing waters and the beautiful landscape. It also generates power for nearby
Application of AHP and GIS in landslide vulnerability assessment 81
municipalities of Alegria and Badian with hydroelectric power plant of CEBECO in

Matutinao, Badian, Cebu. However, despite these uses, Matutinao Watershed is
threatened by degradation caused by natural and human-related activities. One of the
common hazards in the watershed is landslide. Hence, the need to identify and map
out the areas that are vulnerable in order to prevent future calamities that endanger
human lives and properties.
In conducting vulnerability assessment, computer-based tools are found to be

useful in the hazard mapping of landslides. One of the significant tools for landslide
hazard mapping is GIS coupled with Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Hazard
occurrence models are further enhanced by evaluating their results and adjusting the
relative importance of input variables. Thus, the application of GIS-assisted approach
coupled with AHP is a useful approach to analyze the complicated process affecting
landslide.
This study focused on the following: integration of AHP and GIS in landslide
vulnerability assessment anchored on a climate change perspective; evaluation of
the utility of GIS with regard to landslide assessment and mapping; identification and
mapping of areas that are vulnerable to landslides; recommendation of appropriate
measures to avoid loss of lives and properties due to landslides; and formulation of
policy recommendations.
Landslides: Its causes and occurrence
Landslide is one of the forms of erosion called mass wasting when the
force of gravity pulls rock, debris or soil down a slope. It may occur when the stress
produced by the force of the gravity exceeds the resistance of the material due to
the determining and triggering factors (Varnes 1978). A landslide may be defined as
a “downhill and outward movement of slope-forming materials under the influence
of gravity” (Cruden 1991). According to Petley (2010), majority of landslides are
triggered by external processes that cause the slope for failure. These processes are
termed as “causes” which includes geomorphology, physical processes or features,
and human actions. In most cases, the final failure of slope occurs as a result of a
clear trigger. Rainfall triggered landslides happen when the rainwater sinks through
the earth on top of a slope, percolates through cracks and pore spaces in underlying
sandstone, and encounters a layer of slippery material, such as shale or clay, inclined
toward the valley (Petley 2010).
82 R. Lanuza et al.
Petley (2010) stated that landslide hazard assessment identifies areas

potentially affected by slope failures, quantifies the probability of occurrence and
estimates the magnitude of the event. Determining the extent of landslide hazard
requires identifying those areas which could be affected by a damaging landslide
and assessing the probability of the landslide occurring within a period of time.
The methods used to assess probability of land sliding and other hazards have been
discussed by Leroi (1996). Unfortunately, specifying a time frame for the occurrence
of a landslide is difficult to determine even under ideal conditions. As a result, Brabb
(1984) stressed that landslide hazard is often represented by landslide susceptibility.
It only identifies areas potentially affected and does not imply a time frame when
a landslide might occur. Esmali and Ahmadi (2003) stated that the ultimate aim of
investigating and studying landslides is to look for ways to reduce and/or to avoid
their damages. This can be possibly achieved by determining the hazardous areas
or through landslides hazard zonation and by providing mitigation measures and
regulations for appropriate uses or avoidance of these areas.
GIS-assisted landslide assessment
The advancement of computer-based tools with capabilities on geographically

referenced data is useful in landslide assessment and hazard mapping. Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) is found to be effective as a key tool for natural hazard
management of spatial and temporal data in the context of integrated development
planning (Parsons and Frost 2000; Lan et al. 2004; Kohler et al. 2006; Lan et al. 2009).
GIS is a systematic means of geographically referencing a number of “layers”

of information to facilitate overlaying, quantification, and synthesis and analysis of
data to aid in decision-making (Burrough and McDonnell 1998). GIS also provides
effective tools for the handling, integrating, and visualizing diverse spatial data sets
(DeMers 2000; Brimicombe 2003; Lan et al. 2009). Arunkumar et al. (2013) pointed
out that the advanced GIS computational tools offer numerous advantages in multi-
geodata handling as evident from various geo-environmental studies. Furthermore, the
integration of GIS with information on natural hazards, natural resources, population,
and infrastructure can help planners in identifying less hazard-prone areas that
are suitable for development activities, areas where further hazard evaluations are
required, and areas where mitigation strategies should be prioritized.
Soeters and van Westen (1996) discussed the application of various GIS
methods with respect to the characteristics of the area, the extent and type of
landslides, data types, and mapping scale. However, GIS applications in natural
hazard management and development planning are limited only by the amount of
information available and by the imagination of the analyst. Mukhlisin et al. (2010)
used GIS in analyzing and mapping landslide hazardous areas with four main factors
such as slope gradient aspect, geology, surface cover/landuse, and precipitation
distribution. They produced a hazard map with five different indexes (i.e., very low,
low, medium, high, and very high hazard). The results of the analysis were verified
using the landslide location data which showed that the model was very suitable in
predicting landslide hazard and generating landslide hazard maps.
In Iran, Hassanzadeh (2000) had successfully applied multiple regression

method and GIS techniques for landslides hazard zonation considering four factors
such as lithology, slope angle, precipitation, and land use. Ajalloeian et al. (2000)
also investigated the role of land use change and its relation to landslide using GIS
with Arc Info Software. They found out that landslide zonation can be successfully
done and that the most important landslide points are in the areas with changes in
landuse (e.g., replacement of forest to grassland and civil activities).
In Mangalore, Karnataka, Sivakumar Babu and Mukesh (2007) emphasized

that GIS is a promising tool for an effective analysis associated with the study of
geologic hazards such as landslide modeling because of its flexibility in handling
large set of information as well as in providing a good avenue for analysis and display
of results. Their study has demonstrated the ability of the GIS in incorporating the
spatial variation of ground elevation, soil properties, and other factors in slope
stability analysis.
The GIS-based Multi-Criteria Evaluation (MCE) methods have also been

applied in several studies. They provide good computational ability in determining
the relative importance of factors. Typically, MCE has been approached in two
ways. First, all criteria are allowed as Boolean type statement. However, problems
were noted in the methods for site selection and resource evaluation that rely on
classical Boolean logic (Carver 1991). Loss of information might occur in situations
where the threshold value is not precise. Furthermore, the method does not offer any
analytical possibility for examining which of the areas fulfilling the criteria are the
most appropriate method for the purpose of the study. With these constraints, the
MCE methods have been applied instead of the Boolean logic (Pereira and Duckstein
1993) for suitability analysis and vulnerability analysis were identified. An index
model produces for each unit area an index value rather than a simple yes or no.
The weighted linear combination method is probably the most common

method for computing the index value for each unit area and produces a ranked map
based on the index values (Saaty 1980). According to Saaty (1980), AHP is one of the
widely used methods in computing the criteria weights in MCE via an expert pair-
wise comparison matrix using the respective weights. It has been suggested by Rao
84 R. Lanuza et al.
et al. (1991) that for the development of criteria weights, the procedure of pairwise
comparison in AHP is a logical process. Weighted linear combination operator
commonly used with such factors lies on a continuum with these operators.
However, in spite of some uncertainties, several studies have successfully

applied the AHP in various fields (Banai-Kashani 1989; Malczewski 2000; Gil and
Kellerman 1993; Eastman et al. 1995; Jiang and Eastman 1996, Esmali and Ahmadi
2003). These studies acknowledged successful application of the AHP approach
combined with weighted linear combination in GIS for strong theoretical framework
and standardization of factors.
Landslide vulnerability and climate change

Kelly and Adger (2000) and Dolan and Walker (2004) have summarized the
various definitions of vulnerability that have previously appeared in the literatures.
Dolan and Walker (2004) identified three perspectives of vulnerability from climate
change and hazards research to address the dynamic and integrated nature of social
and environmental vulnerability. The first perspective delves on the exposure to
hazards and how this affects people and structures. The second perspective views
vulnerability as a human relationship (social vulnerability) while the third is the
integration of both the physical event and the underlying causal characteristics
leading to risk exposure and limited capacity of communities to respond.
Similarly, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) described

vulnerability as the function of the degree of exposure of the system to climatic
hazards, sensitivity of a system to changes in climate (the degree to which a
system will respond to a given change in climate, including beneficial and harmful
effects), adaptive capacity (the degree to which adjustments in practices, processes,
or structures can moderate or offset the potential for damage or take advantage of
opportunities created by a given change in climate). The integration of exposure and
sensitivity will result to the potential impact to the human populations.
Previous vulnerability assessment studies in the Philippines by the DENR

Research Sector failed to include the future climate scenarios as indicated in the
climate change framework. The procedures have been described in the ERDB
vulnerability manual and implemented nationwide (ERDB 2000). In the course of
implementation, the GIS-assisted methodology was developed and found to be
a useful alternative tool in aid of watershed planning (Lanuza 2007). One of the
most important applications of GIS is spatial analysis of geospatial data to support
the process of environmental decision-making. Malczewski (1999) noted that a
decision can be between alternatives, where the alternatives may be different actions,
locations, and the like. Since 80% of data used by decision makers is location based,
GIS can provide better information in decision making. Heywood et al. (1995) opined
that GIS allows the decision maker to identify a list of pre-defined set of criteria with
the overlay process.
Methodology
Project Site
Matutinao Watershed is located in the southwestern portion of Cebu Province

and within the political jurisdiction of the Second Congressional district covering
the municipalities of Alegria and Badian. The watershed is geographically located
at coordinates at 123o22’ to 123o27’N latitude and 9o42’ to 9o44’34.5” E longitude
(Fig. 1). It is approximately 93 km from Cebu City via Cebu-Barili-Bato route. It
has a total land area of 5,735.7 ha. Of this, 3,915.6 and 1,820.1 ha are classified
as timberland, and alienable and disposable lands, respectively. It covers wholly or
partly four barangays in Lepanto, Compostela, Valencia, and Guadalupe in Alegria
and Barangays Matutinao, Balhaan, and Sulsogan in Badian (Table 1 and Fig. 2).
The watershed is characterized with a relatively rolling terrain that varies

from plain along valleys to slightly rolling along hills and moderately steep to steep
along mountains. The flat portions of the watershed are located in the coastal area
near the outlet of Matutinao River. There are some portions that can be classified as
mountainous with 30-50% slope or over almost majority of the total land area belongs
to this topographic classification. Slightly rolling to moderately undulating relief is
mostly characterized in the middle portion. The highest elevation is 841 m above sea
level (masl) in Libo, Lepanto, Alegria while the lowest is 0 masl in Matutinao, Badian.
Table 1 Component barangays and the respective areas within Matutinao

Watershed in Alegia and Badian, Cebu
Municipality Barangay Area (ha)

Alegria Compostela 720.265
Guadalupe 1,300.368
Lepanto 928.141
Valencia 1,717.892
Badian Balhaan 96.345
Matutinao 66.840
Solsogan 212.184
86
N
Department of Environment and

Natural Resources Location of Matutinao Watershed W E
S
540000 545000 550000
54000 0 54900 0
A MAP showing
location of Matutinao Watershed
1085000
1085000
Area : 5,735.677 hectares
Watershed : Matutinao Watershed
Municipality : Alegria, Badian, Dalaguete and
10800 00 10800 00 Malabuyoc
Province : Cebu
Island : Cebu
20000 0 20000 Meters

Scale : 1:1535938
Legend
Political Boundary
1080000
1080000
10710 00 10710 00 Barangay
Matutinao Watershed
54000 0 54900 0
1075000
1075000
540000 545000 550000
December 2014 Universal Transverse Mercator 51N

Luzon Datum (excluding Mindanao)
R. Lanuza et al.
Figure 1 Location map of the Matutinao Watershed

N

Natural Resources Barangay Boundary W E
S
540000 545000 550000
A MAP showing
barangay boundary within Matutinao
Watershed
1085000
1085000
Matutinao Area : 5,735.677 hectares
ait
Str
Sulsogan Malabuyoc
on
Province : Cebu
n
Balhaan
Island : Cebu
Ta
2000 0 2000 Meters
Compostela Scale : 1:100000
Legend
Dugyan
Watershed Boundary
1080000
1080000
Barangay
Balhaan
Compostela
Valencia
Dugyan
Guadalupe
Lepanto
Matutinao
Nug-as
Palaypay
Sulsogan
Guadalupe Valencia
Application of AHP and GIS in landslide vulnerability assessment
Nug-as
1075000
1075000
Lepanto 475000 570000 665000
1235000
1235000
Palaypay
This Site
1140000
1140000
540000 545000 550000

1045000
1045000
December 2014 Source: NAMRIA, FMS 475000 570000 665000

Universal Transverse Mercator 51N
87
Figure 2 Map showing the covered barangays of Matutinao Watershed

88 R. Lanuza et al.
Data sources
Secondary information were gathered from various sources. These included

the topographic map from National Mapping and Resource Information Authority
(NAMRIA) with a scale of 1:50,000; landuse and land classification map (DENR
2007); geology map (Bureau of Mines 1984); soil map (Bureau of Soil and Water
Management as cited by DENR 2007); rainfall data (DENR 2007); political boundary
(LGU Badian and Alegria as digitized by DENR 2007); road network from the
topographic map; and fault line (PHIVOLCS).
Actual survey within Matutinao Watershed was conducted to have ocular

observation on the occurrence of landslides in the area. Personal interview of key
informants in the seven barangays within the watershed was also done. About 25
households per barangay were interviewed. The interview schedule included the
following: a) sociodemographic characteristics, b) socioeconomic characteristics,
c) access to social services, and d) exposure, biological sensitivity and adaptive
capacity of the community. The study included other factors: possible impacts of
climate change; coping mechanism which include awareness of the status of climate;
mitigating measures extended by the government/institutions to address the changes
encountered by communities; and communities' adapted traditional/indigenous
practices associated to climate change perception.
The location of landslides and landslide prone areas were determined using
a Global Positioning System (GPS). Other primary data included the location of
infrastructures, farming systems and occupancy, and ground habitation which served
as inputs to the development of GIS-assisted model on landslide assessment.
Hazard identification and generation of thematic maps using GIS
Hazard areas due to landslide were identified and categorized. Actual

locations were determined using the GPS and mapped using GIS. The thematic maps
such as contour, geology, vegetation, climate, soil, landuse, infrastructures, among
others were generated using GIS. This involved digitizing and processing the spatial
information of individual map as well as downloading and converting the actual GPS
readings to GIS map. Moreover, geo-relational databases were also created for each
thematic map.
Factor analysis, hazard ratings, and determination of weights
The factors for each of the vulnerability functions such as exposure, sensitivity
and adaptive capacity were treated individually. Then, thematic maps were generated
for each factor.
For the exposure, the relative distance to landslide areas (household,

economic activities, and leisure activities), frequency of occurrence, projected
increase of rainfall in 2020, and percentage exposure of community were considered.
For the sensitivity, both the physical and anthropogenic causal factors on landslides
were included such as the slope, climate (rainfall and typhoon frequency), geology
(age, formation and relative distance to fault line), soil, landuse, farming systems,
habitation, and ground disturbance. The exposure and sensitivity constituted the
potential impact on landslide (Fig.3).
The resiliency is estimated based on the system’s adaptive capacity to

sustain the climate effects with minimum disruption or cost. The factors for adaptive
capacity included the self-help system, availability of structures, availability and use
of facilities, special skills and training, external assistance, Information Education and
Communication (IEC) activities, leadership, formal safety association, common safety
indigenous practices, availability of technology, and adoption of technology. The
final vulnerability index as a function of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity
is presented in Fig. 4.
Scaling of factors affecting landslide vulnerability
The approach in landslide vulnerability assessment involved assigning values

to quantitative and qualitative factors considered to affect the vulnerability of the
watershed. Factors or attributes in each of the vulnerability functions are assigned
with hazard rating ranging from 1 to 5. The scale as presented in the Manual on
Vulnerability Assessment of Watershed by ERDB (2011) was adopted as follows:
1 – The factor plays a role in Very Low Vulnerability

2 – The factor plays a role in Low Vulnerability
3 – The factor plays a role in Moderate Vulnerability
4 – The factor plays a role in High Vulnerability
5 – The factor plays a role in Very High Vulnerability
Computing the relative weights of factors
The average weight of factors was directly used for the exposure and adaptive
capacity. The weights for the factors identified were equally divided by the number
of factors for each vulnerability function. On the other hand, the MCE approach
using the AHP was employed in determining the relative weights for the sensitivity.
The MCE approach can objectively solve a complex decision problem with multiple
criteria using the AHP method introduced by Saaty (1980). The AHP is a method to
derive ratio scales from paired comparisons. The input can be obtained from actual
90 R. Lanuza et al.
measurement from subjective opinion such as satisfaction, feelings, and preference.

The AHP considers a set of evaluation criteria as well as a set of alternative options
among which the best decision can be made. Essentially, with contrasting criteria, the
best option is not always the one which optimizes each single criterion, rather the
one which achieves the most suitable trade-off among various criteria (Saaty 1980).
Furthermore, AHP allows some small inconsistency in judgment because human is
not always consistent. The ratio scales are derived from the principal Eigenvectors
and the consistency index is derived from the principal Eigen value.
An expert pair-wise comparison matrix was formulated and the weights to the
factors/criteria were assigned. Using the pair-wise comparison matrix, all identified
relevant factors/criteria were compared against each other with reproducible preference
factors to calculate the needed weights of factors. Table 2 shows the numerical values
expressing a judgment of the relative importance of one factor against another. The
values range from 1 to 9 which describe the intensity of importance (Saaty and Vargas
1991). A value of 1 expresses “equal importance” and a value of 9 is given for factors
with “extreme importance” over another factor.
Table 3 shows a reciprocal matrix from pair-wise comparisons of order

11 where 11 criteria (F1, F2, …, and F11) are compared against each other. In the
comparison of criteria F1 and F2, criterion F1 is regarded as moderately important.
Similarly, F1 is moderately important to F3, F4 and F5, equally to moderately
important to F6, moderately to strongly important to F7, F8 and F11, very strongly
important to F9 and very to extremely strong importance to F10. Then, the relative
importance had been assigned to the remaining criterion. The transposed position for
F1 to F2 automatically gets a value of the reciprocal which is 1/3 or 0.33.
In the next step, the assigned preference values are synthesized to determine
a numerical value which is equivalent to the weights of the factors. Therefore, the
Eigen values and Eigen vectors of the square preference matrix showing important
details about patterns in the data matrix are computed. The square matrix of order
11 gives 11 Eigen values with which 11 Eigen vectors can be computed. Saaty and
Vargas (1991) remarked that it is sufficient to calculate only the Eigen vector resulting
from the largest Eigen value since this Eigen vector contains enough information to
provide the relative priorities of the factors being considered. The pair-wise matrix
is normalized and the Eigen values of the normalized matrix, which represent the
parameter weights, are computed as shown in Table 3. The final equation of sensitivity
function is expressed in Equation 1:
L = 0.8297[0.3160Sl + 0.0973R + 0.0973T + 0.0912Ga + 0.0912Gf + 0.1729Gfl+

0.0698So + 0.0633Lu] + 0.1703[0.2532FS + 0.3175H + 0.4349GD]
Exposure
VL L M H VH
SensItIvIty VL VL VL L L M
L VL L L M H
M L L M H H
H L M H H VH
VH M H H VH VH
Potential Impact = (Exposure + Sensitivity)
2
Note: The formula was adapted from Allison et al. 2009
Vulnerability Values
Very Low < 2.0
Low 2.0 – 2.75
Moderate 2.75 – 3.5
High 3.5 – 4.2
Very High > 4.2
Figure 4 Potential impact of the ecosystem as a function of exposure and sensitivity
Adaptive Capacity
VL L M H VH
VL M L L VL VL
Potential Impact
L H M L L L
M H H M L L
H VH H H M L
VH VH VH H H M
Vulnerability = Potential Impact – Adaptive Capacity

Note: The formula was adapted from Gletibouo and Ringler 2009; Allison et al. 2009
Vulnerability Values
Very Low < -1.0
Low -1.0 to 0
Moderate 0 to 0.5
High 0.5 to 1.5
Very High > 1.5
Figure 5 Vulnerability anchored to climate change as a function of potential impact
and adaptive capacity
92 R. Lanuza et al.
The relative contribution by the physical and anthropogenic factors was also
analyzed. It was done by summing up all the physical and normalizing the values.
The same was done for the anthropogenic factors. The relative weights were 82.97%
and 17.03% for the physical and anthropogenic factors.
Table 2 The fundamental scale (adapted from Saaty 1990)

Intensity of
importance on
Definition Explanation
an absolute
scale
Two activities contribute equally to
1 Equal importance
the objective
Experience and judgment slightly
3 Moderate importance
favor one activity over another
Essential or strong Experience and judgment strongly
5
importance favor one activity over another
Very strong An activity is strongly favored and its
7
importance dominance demonstrated in practice
The evidence favoring one activity

9 Extreme importance over another is of the highest possible
order of affirmation
Intermediate values
2, 4, 6, 8 between the two When compromise is needed
adjacent judgments
If activity i has one of the above numbers assigned to it when
Reciprocals compared with activity j, then j has the reciprocal value when
compared with i
If consistency were to be forced by
Ratios arising from the
Rationals obtaining n numerical values to span
scale
the matrix
Table 3 Pair-wise comparison matrix of the factors/criteria affecting landslide sensitivity
PHYSICAL FACTORS ANTHROPOGENIC FACTORS
Priority
CRITERIA Relative Occupancy Vector
Rainfall Typhoon Geologic Soil Farming Ground
Slope Geologic Distance Landuse and (PV)
Amount Frequency Formation Type System Disturbance
(F1) Age (F4) to Faultline (F8) Habitation
(F2) (F3) (F5) (F7) (F9) (F11)
(F6) (F10)
Slope (F1) 1 3 3 3 3 2 4 4 8 7 4 0.2624
Rainfall
1/3 1 1 1 1 1/2 2 2 2 1 1 0.0808
amount (F2)
Typhoon
1/3 1 1 1 1 1/2 2 2 2 1 1 0.0808
frequency (F3)
Geologic age
1/3 1 1 1 1 1/2 1 1 2 2 1 0.0757
(F4)
Geologic
1/3 1 1 1 1 1/2 1 1 2 2 1 0.0757
formation (F5)
Relative
distance to 1/2 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 3 2 0.1436
faultline (F6)
Soil type (F7) 1/4 1/2 1/2 1 1 1/2 1 1 1 1 1 0.0580
Landuse (F8) 1/4 1/2 1/2 1 1 1/3 1 1 1 1 1/2 0.0526
Farming
1/8 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/3 1 1 1 1 1/2 0.0429
system (F9)
Occupancy
and habitation 1/7 1 1 1/2 1/2 1/3 1 1 1 1 1 0.0538
(F10)
Ground
disturbance 1/4 1 1 1 1 1/2 1 2 2 1 1 0.0737
(F11)
SUM 3.8512 12.50 12.50 13.00 13.00 7.00 17.00 19.00 25.00 21.00 14.00 1.0000
SUM*PV 1.0121 1.0091 1.0091 0.98536 0.985360 1.0179 0.9756 0.9867 1.0747 1.1039 1.0338
Lambda Max 11.1937
CI 0.0194
CR 0.0127
94 R. Lanuza et al.
Development of GIS-assisted model and determination of vulnerability class
In assessing the landslide vulnerability anchored on climate change

framework, data on the exposure due to 2020 climate projection and other factors,
the physical and biological sensitivity, and the adaptive capacity of the community
were gathered and analyzed. These information were based from primary and
secondary data gathered. Under this framework, a highly vulnerable system would
be a system that is very sensitive to modest changes in climate, where the sensitivity
includes the potential for substantial harmful effects, and for which the ability to adapt
is severely constrained. Resilience is the flip side of vulnerability — a resilient system
or population is not sensitive to climate variability and change and has the capacity
to adapt (McCarthy et al. 2001).
The vector files of the thematic maps with the respective hazard ratings
were converted into grid formats in assessing the landslide vulnerability class due
to exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity (Lanuza 2007). For the exposure and
adaptive capacity, a straight-forward conversion of the vector files to grid format was
done by averaging the respective hazard ratings. In the case of sensitivity, the GIS-
based approach with relative weights derived from AHP was applied to calculate areas
that are vulnerable to landslide using Equation 1. The vulnerability class followed the
ranges as presented in Table 4.
Table 4 Vulnerability class for landslide as referred to sensitivity of the watershed

Landslide vulnerability class Rating
Not vulnerable < 2.1
Low vulnerable 2.1 – 2.8
Moderately vulnerable 2.8 – 3.5
Highly vulnerable 3.5 – 4.2
Very highly vulnerable > 4.2
The potential impact of landslide with consideration of future climate

scenario within Matutinao Watershed was computed by getting the average hazard
ratings of exposure and sensitivity. Then, the final landslide vulnerability anchored
on the climate change framework was calculated by getting the difference of potential
impact and the adaptive capacity (Fig. 5).
Formulation of mitigation measures
A review of existing programs was made and the results of the vulnerability
assessment on landslide was used to come up with the proposed mitigation measures
to minimize and control the negative impact of the identified environmental hazards
within Matutinao Watershed. The strategies focused on measures that can keep the
Landuse Ground disturbance

Soil Type Habitation and Occupancy
Relative distance to fault line Farming System
Geological formation
Geological age
Typhoon Frequency
Rainfall amount
Slope
Factors
Factors for sensitivity
for Sensitivity
Analytic Hierarchy
Process Parameter Class
Weighing (0-100) Landslide Hazard Model
on Sensitivity
Parameter s Weighing Weighted Linear GIS

Σ=1 Sum
Distance to Household
Distance to Economic Activities
Distance to Leisure Activities
Frequency (Household)
Frequency (Economic Activities)
Frequency (Leisure Activities)
Projected Increase in Rainfall
Percentage of Exposure
Landslide Hazard Model

on Exposure
Average Weight GIS

Factors for Exposure
Self-help System
Availability of Structures
Availability and Use of Facilities
Special Skills and Training
External Assistance Model on the
IEC Activities
Leadership Potential
Formal Safety Association impact
Indigenous Practices Impact
Availability of Technology
Adoption of Technology
Landslide Hazard Model Landslide Vulnerability

on Adaptive Capacity Model
Factors for Adaptive Average Weight GIS

Capacity
Figure 5 Schematic diagram of the GIS-assisted approach on landslide

assessment based on the result of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP).
96 R. Lanuza et al.
communities away from vulnerability to landslide-prone areas to prevent and avoid

damage or loss of human lives and properties.
Hazard identification and landslide occurrence
Landslides were among the natural hazards that had occurred within Matutinao
Watershed. Landslide refers to slides, rock falls, and/or lows of unconsolidated
materials. It can be triggered by heavy precipitation or groundwater rise that saturate
and loosen the soil, earthquakes, and river undercutting. Landslides are highly
localized but can be particularly hazardous due to their frequency of occurrence.
In Matutinao Watershed, landslides are in the form of rockfalls which consist

of free-falling rocks from overlying cliffs. In general, rockfalls are apparent dangers to
life and property but they cause only a localized threat due to their limited area of
influence. There are also cases of minor slides, a displacement of overburden due to
shear failure along a structural feature. In contrast to rockfalls, slides often have great
area of coverage which result in loss of lives and properties.
Based on personal interviews with key informants, landslide incidents and

landslide prone-areas are noticed in Barangays Compostela, Guadalupe, Valencia,
Lepanto, Matutinao, and Solsogan. Landslides were triggered by the combined effects
of soil type, soil exposure, and heavy rainfall. Areas prone to landslide are those along
the creeks and in steep slopes (Table 5 and Fig. 6).
Projected increase in rainfall
Matutinao Watershed belongs to the Type III Climate under the Corona
climate classification. This is characterized by no pronounced wet or dry season,
relatively dry from December to April, but wet during the rest of the year. It is situated
on less frequent typhoon zone making it favorable to vegetative interventions. The
highest amount of monthly rainfall was recorded in November 2001 having 523.7
mm. Moreover, the average monthly rainfall for the 9-year period (2000-2008) is
131.9 mm taken from three nearby stations. For the rainfall recorded in Philippine
Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA),
Mactan Station, the highest rainfall amount for the 11-year period (1997-2007)
was 423.5 in December 2003. Data on annual rainfall from three gauging stations
indicated that the month of May is the driest month with only 1,107.5 mm average
rainfall for the past seven years. In contrast, the month of March had the highest
rainfall with 1,835.6 mm followed by month of April that measured 1,663.1 mm
average rainfall.
Table 5 Geographic location of landslide incidents and landslide prone areas within
Matutinao Watershed determined using a GPS handset (Lanuza et al. 2014)
Elevation
Location Easting Northing Remarks
(masl)
Alegria
Compostela 540163 1081046 236 Minor landslide area
540145 1081062 231 Minor landslide area
540022 1081119 248 Landslide prone (4 people affected)
540189 1080989 222 Landslide prone
Guadalupe 539706 1076139 416 Landslide prone (5 houses affected) near
on somewhat a lake
539606 1076207 424 Landslide area (rock falls along road
at the back of Guadalupe Elementary
School)
539573 1076180 415 Landslide prone (road at the back of
Guadalupe Elementary School)
539696 1076253 391 Landslide prone (abandoned Guadalupe
Elementary School)
Elementary School)
Elementary School)
539675 1076300 427 Landslide prone (very steep area at the
back of Guadalupe Elementary School)
Lepanto 542548 1073654 633 Landslide area (occurring at road side)
98 R. Lanuza et al.
Table 5 Geographic location of landslide incidents and landslide prone areas within
Matutinao Watershed determined using a GPS handset (Lanuza et al. 2014)
(Continued)
Elevation
Location Easting Northing Remarks
(masl)
Valencia 541786 1077941 420 Landslide prone (occurring at sitio
Banahaw)
541863 1077985 414 Minor landslide area (near 3 houses)
541923 1078006 396 Landslide prone (2 houses)
541933 1078012 395 Landslide prone (cliff)
542097 1078054 394 Landslide prone (1 house)
542170 1077866 409 Landslide area (rock falls)
542136 1077884 406 Landslide prone (near 2 houses)
542379 1077883 405 Landslide prone (2 houses)
543417 1077989 490 Landslide area (basketball court with
rock falls at the upper portion of Inghoy
Elementary School)
543423 1077964 493 Landslide area (rock falls affecting 3
houses)
543968 1077709 525 Landslide area (minor rock falls going to
sitio Mayana)
542405 1077830 423 Landslide prone (after Cambais falls)
Badian
Matutinao 540489 1084126 13 Landslide area (area due to earthquake)
540533 1084133 12 Landslide area (rock falls)
540651 1084093 15 Landslide area (located at the other
side of the river (portion of the adjacent
mountain) which occurred few years ago
Solsogan 542627 1082901 313 Landslide prone
Furthermore, the rainfall pattern has two peaks from June to July and
September to October. Similarly, the general rainfall pattern of Cebu Province has
also two peaks around these months. The average annual rainfall within the watershed
is about 1,583.4 mm. Based on the 11-year rainfall data from PAGASA station in
Mactan, Cebu, the average annual rainfall is about 1,623.5 mm (Fig. 7).
Specifically for Cebu Province, the projected seasonal rainfall changes in

2020 are shown in Table 6. Generally, there will be an increase in the rainfall amount
with greatest during the northeast monsoon (DJF) having 17.7% increase or from
324 mm to 381.3 mm in 2020.
Table 6 Projected change in seasonal rainfall (%) in Cebu Province (Millennium

Development Goal Achievement Fund 2010)
Observed rainfall a Projected change Projected amount in
Season
(mm) in 2020 b (%) 2020 (mm)
DJF 324.0 17.7 381.3
MAM 228.3 0.8 230.1
JJA 595.1 7.7 640.9
SON 607.4 7.7 654.2
Total 1,754.8 8.5c 1,904.9
Note:
Seasonal rainfall: DJF (December-January-February); MAM (March-April-May); JJA (June-July-August); SON
(September-October-November); a - Rainfall observed from 1971-2000; b - Projected change (2006-2036),
c - Computed average from the seasonal rainfall
Determination of landslide vulnerability anchored in a Climate Change

Framework
Exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity
The values of exposure and adaptive capacity per barangay are shown in
Tables 7 and 8 which were later converted to geospatial data using the average
weights of hazard ratings (Figs. 8 and 9). Meanwhile, the sensitivity was based on
GIS-assisted model as expressed in Equation 1 which was generated through Analytic
Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the hazard ratings are presented in Table 9. However,
before the relative weights of the GIS-assisted model were applied, the consistency
ratio (CR) was calculated. The CR is a measure of how consistent the judgments were
made relative to large samples of purely random judgments. The AHP always allows
for some level of inconsistencies which should not exceed a certain threshold (Saaty
1980).
Table 10 shows the Random indices (RI) developed by Saaty and Vargas
(1991) and is used to determine the CR. If the CR value is smaller or equal to 0.1,
100 R. Lanuza et al.
the inconsistency is acceptable. However, if the CR is greater than 0.1, the pair-wise
comparison may be revised as it implies that the judgments are unreliable because
they are too close for comfort to randomness.
Based on AHP, weights are calculated in percent as 26.24, 8.08, 8.08, 7.57,
7.57, 14.36, 5.80, 5.26, 4.29, 5.38, and 7.37 for slope, rainfall amount, typhoon
frequency, geologic age, geologic formation, relative distance to fault line, soil
type, landuse, farming system, habitation and occupancy, and ground disturbance,
respectively. The computed CR is 0.0127 which indicated a reasonable level of
consistency in the pair-wise comparison of the factors. Thus, the weights can be
accepted. The physical and anthropogenic sensitivity were further analyzed and the
final equation is:
L(sensitivity) = 0.8297[0.3160Sl + 0.0973R + 0.0973T + 0.0912Ga + 0.0912Gf +

0.1729Gfl+ 0.0698So + 0.0633Lu] + 0.1703[0.2532FS + 0.3175H + 0.4349GD].
The raster layer in grid format of each parameter is multiplied by their given
weight and summing them together by arithmetic weighted sum overlay tool using
GIS to generate the sensitivity (Fig. 10).
On the exposure, Barangay Lepanto has very high category followed by

Barangays Guadalupe, Valencia, and Matutinao having high category and Barangays
Compostela, Balhaan, and Solsogan with moderate category (Table 7). The factors
considered were distance to household, economic and leisure activities, frequency
of occurrence to household, projected increase in rainfall amount in 2020, and
percentage of exposed community. In terms of adaptive capacity, Barangay Balhaan
has very low adaptive capacity, Barangays Compostela, Guadalupe, Valencia,
Matutinao, and Solsogan have low adaptive capacity; and Barangay Lepanto has
moderate adaptive capacity (Table 8). This was based on the following factors: self-
help system, availability of structures, availability and use of facilities, special skills
and training, external assistance, IEC activities, leadership, formal safety association,
common safety indigenous practices, availability of technology, and adoption of
technology. Then, the potential impact was computed as a function exposure and
sensitivity (Fig. 11). Finally, landslide vulnerability map was generated Fig. 12.
It was predicted that about 3,278.47 ha or approximately 65.12% have

high landslide vulnerability. This is followed by moderate landslide vulnerability
with 1,666.11 ha (33.10%) and then a very high vulnerability covering about 89.60
ha(1.78%). The extent of areas on landslide vulnerability per barangay is presented
in Table 11. Among the barangays, Balhaan has been estimated having 89.60 ha
with very high vulnerability. Further, it was estimated that Barangays Guadalupe,
Valencia, Compostela, Lepanto, and Solsogan have high vulnerability with 1,243.42
N
Department of Environment and Landslide and Landslide Prone Areas

Natural Resources W E
(based on GPS Readings) S
540000 545000 550000 A MAP showing
the location of landslides and landslide
prone areas based on GPS readings
1085000
1085000
within Matutinao Watershed
###
Matutinao Area : 5,735.677 hectares
ait
Str
n
Sulsogan# Malabuyoc
o
Province : Cebu
n
Balhaan
Island : Cebu
Ta
2000 0 2000 Meters
###
# Compostela Scale : 1:100000
#
Legend
Dugyan
Watershed Boundary
1080000
1080000
#
# Hazards areas
Barangay
Valencia Balhaan
#
Compostela
#### #######
# Dugyan
Guadalupe
Lepanto
Matutinao
##### Nug-as
Palaypay
Guadalupe Sulsogan
Nug-as Valencia
1075000
1075000
#
Lepanto 475000 570000 665000
1235000
1235000
Palaypay
This Site
1140000
1140000
540000 545000 550000

1045000
1045000

Universal Transverse Mercator 51N MDGF, 2010
Figure 6 Location of landslide and landslide-prone areas within Matutinao Watershed

101
102
Annual Rainfall Amount from PAG-ASA, Mactan Station

(1997-2007)
2,500.00
2,125.10
2,057.80
1,980.01 1,954.90
2,000.00
1,764.80
1,559.71
1,500.00 1,364.30 1,401.53 1,398.80
1,117.50 1,134.50
1,000.00
Rainfall Amount (mm)

500.00
-
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
Figure 7 Annual rainfall from 1997 to 2007 at PAGASA Station, Mactan, Cebu
R. Lanuza et al.
ha, 826.23 ha, 715.07 ha, 212.07 ha, and 209.56 ha, respectively. However, the
information generated is only indicative.
The GIS-approach used by this study confirmed the capability of GIS

technology in assessing landslide vulnerability. The validation was based on actual
location of landslide and landslide prone areas. Out of 21 locations, 67% falls on high
vulnerability, 14% on very high vulnerability, and 19% on medium vulnerability.
Furthermore, it also conformed to the findings of other researchers, although remote
sensing was integrated (Yuan and Mohd 1997; Nagarajan et al. 1998; Hassanzadeh
2000; Ajalloeian et al. 2000; Ramakrishnan et al. 2007; Sivakumar Babu and Mukesh
2007).
Implications and mitigation/Adaptation measures
Generally, the areas with higher vulnerability to landslides are located in

steeper slopes, unstable geology, and near fault lines and the effects may be further
aggravated by high rainfall that causes the saturation of soil and some ground
disturbance which lead to mass movement downslope. Considering the projected
17.7% increase in rainfall in 2020, it is estimated that the aggregate coverage of
high and very high vulnerability is 3,368.07 ha or about 66.90% of the total area
of the barangay assessed (Fig. 12). With this finding, the GIS-assisted model for
landslide assessment can be used as a valuable tool in determining areas vulnerable
to landslides as input to the sustainable management of watersheds.
Landslide hazard is a function of location, type of human activity, intervention

and use, and frequency of landslide events. The effects of landslides on human
population and structures can be lessened by total avoidance of landslide hazard
areas or by restricting, prohibiting, or imposing conditions on hazard-zone activity.
Local governments can reduce landslide effects through appropriate landuse policies
and regulations. Individuals can reduce their exposure to hazards by educating
themselves on the past hazard history of a site and by making inquiries to planning
and engineering departments of local governments as well as mitigating the impacts
of climate change. They can also obtain the professional services of an engineering
geologist, a geotechnical engineer, or a civil engineer who can properly evaluate the
hazard potential of a site. The proposed mitigation measures for areas vulnerable to
landslide are presented in Table 12.
104
Table 7 Exposure to landslide of barangays within Matutinao Watershed based on 2020 climate projections
Exposure
Location
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 Average Category
A. Alegria
1. Compostela 2 4 2 3 4 3 4 5 3.38 Moderate
2. Guadalupe 5 4 5 3 2 3 4 5 3.88 High
3. Lepanto 5 5 5 3 2 5 4 5 4.25 Very High
4. Valencia 5 4 2 3 4 3 4 5 3.75 High
B. Badian
1. Balhaan 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 5 3.00 Moderate
2. Matutinao 5 5 5 2 2 3 4 5 3.88 High
3. Solsogan 2 3 2 3 3 3 4 5 3.13 Moderate
C. Dalaguete
1. Dugyan * nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd
D. Alcoy
1. Nug-as * nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd
E. Malabuyoc
1. Palaypay * nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd
Note:
E1 - Distance to Household
E2 - Distance to Economic Activities
E3 - Distance to Leisure Activities
E4 - Frequency of Occurrence to Household
E5 - Frequency of Occurrence to Economic Activities
E6 - Frequency of Occurrence to Leisure
E7 - Projected Increase in Rainfall in 2020 (0-5%=1; 5-10%=2; 10-15%=3; 15-20%=4; and >20%=5)
E8 - Percentage of Exposure of Community ((0-2%=1; 2-4%=2; 4-7%=3; 7-10%=4; and >10%=5)
nd - No data
R. Lanuza et al.
Table 8 The present adaptive capacity of communities to landslide within Matutinao Watershed
Adaptive Capacity
Location
AC1 AC2 AC3 AC4 AC5 AC6 AC7 AC8 AC9 AC10 AC11 Average Category
A. Alegria
1. Compostela 1 1 2 2 4 3 2 4 4 2 1 2.36 Low
2. Guadalupe 2 1 2 2 4 3 2 5 4 2 1 2.55 Low
3. Lepanto 4 3 3 1 3 3 4 3 3 2 3 2.91 Moderate
4. Valencia 2 3 2 2 4 3 2 4 3 2 3 2.73 Low
B. Badian
Very
1. Balhaan 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1.36
low
2. Matutinao 2 3 2 2 3 3 4 1 2 2 3 2.45 Low
3. Solsogan 2 3 3 2 1 3 4 1 2 2 2 2.27 Low
C. Dalaguete
1. Dugyan * nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd
D. Alcoy
1. Nug-as * nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd
E. Malabuyoc
1. Palaypay * nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd
Note: AC5 - External Assistance AC10 - Availability of Technology
AC1 - Self-help System AC6 - IEC AC11 - Adoption of Technology
AC2 - Availability of Structures AC7 - Leadership
AC3 - Availability and use of Facilities AC8 - Formal Safety Association
AC4 - Special Skills and Training AC9 - Common Safety Indigenous Practices
105
Table 9 Hazard rating of various themes
Landslide parameters /Sensitivity Subclass of parameters Hazard rating
1. Slope Very Steep (>50%) 5
Steep (30-50%) 4
Moderate (18-30%) 3
Gentle (8-18%) 2
Very Gentle (0-8%) 1
2. Rainfall (Annual) > 2000 mm 5
1500 – 2000 mm 4
1000 mm – 1500 mm 3
500 mm – 1000 mm 2
< 500 mm 1
3. Typhoon Frequency 3 times a year 3
4. Geologic Age Upper Miocene-Pliocene, Pliocene-Pleistocene 4
Oligocene-Miocene 3
5. Geologic Formation Carcar Formation, Maingit Formation 4
Barili Formation 3
6. Relative Distance to Fault 0 – 0.5 km 5
line
0.5 – 2 km 4
2 – 5 km 3
5 – 8 km 2
> 8 km 1
7. Soil Type Clay loam, silt loam 4
Clay, loam 3
8. Landuse Cultivated area (annual crops) 5
Shrublands 4
Woodland with grassland, natural grassland, open forest with broadleaves 3
species
9. Farming System Upland farms (Cropland) 5
Brushland 4
Open forest interspersed with broadleaves species 3
10. Occupancy and Habitation 0 – 100 m 5
100 – 200 m 4
200 – 300 m 3
300 – 400 m 2
> 500 m 1
11. Ground Disturbance 0 – 200 m 5
200 – 400 m 4
400 – 600 m 3
600 – 800 m 2
> 800 m 1
Note: Values in bold are the hazard ratings of the landslide parameters (sensitivity) of Matutinao Watershed.
Table 10 Random Index for matrices of various sizes (Saaty and Vargas 1991)
n 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
RI 0.00 0.52 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49 1.51
Note:
CR= CI/RI, where CI = ( max - n)/(n-1), RI = random index, n = number of criteria, λmax is priority vector
multiplied by each column total.
Table 11 Landslide vulnerability as a function of exposure, sensitivity, and

adaptive capacity within Matutinao Watershed by barangay based on
2020 climate projections
Estimated area by landslide vulnerability class (ha)
Location
Very Low Low Moderate High Very high
A. Alegria
Compostela 0 0 2.37 715.07 0
Guadalupe 0 0 56.32 1,243.42 0
Lepanto 0 0 715.34 212.07 0
Valencia 0 0 890.50 826.23 0
B. Badian
Balhaan 0 0 0 6.48 89.60
Matutinao 0 0 0 65.64 0
Solsogan 0 0 1.58 209.56 0
C. Dalaguete
1. Dugyan* * * * * *
D. Alcoy
1. Nug-as* * * * * *
E. Malabuyoc
1. Palaypay* * * * * *
Total of barangays
0 0 1,666.11 3,278.47 89.60
covered
% 0 0 33.10 65.12 1.78
Total 0 26.47 2,051.05 3,557.08 89.60
% 0 0.46 35.83 62.14 1.57
Note: The barangay boundary is based on the map provided by CENRO Argao (2007). The extent of
landslide is only indicative per barangay which also covered three other barangays (in asterisk) not
included in the assessment but with assumed values.
Table 12 Proposed mitigation/adaptation measures for areas vulnerable to landslides

Landslide
Area
Vulnerability Mitigation/Adaptation Measures
(ha)
Class
Moderate 1,666.11 • The Municipal and Barangay Hazard Prevention

Vulnerability and Mitigation Council must be created through
legislation.
• Results shall be included in the Comprehensive
Landuse Plan (CLUP).
• Infrastructures and settlements must be avoided
in areas with moderate landslide. These areas
are located in steeper slopes, unstable geology
and near fault lines.
• Intensive IEC campaign must be done through
barangay “pulong-pulong”, display of GIS maps
of affected areas in the municipal and barangay
halls.
• LGU must put markings or warning signs on
the ground to warn would be developers and
investors of the potential hazards.
• Strengthen the self-help systems
High 3,278.47 • The Municipal and Barangay Hazard Prevention
legislation.
• Results shall be included in the CLUP.
in areas with high landslide. These areas are
located in steeper slopes, unstable geology and
near fault lines.
halls.
• LGU must put markings or warning signs on
the ground to warn would be developers and
investors of the potential hazards.
• There is a need of continuous monitoring of
landslides.
• Warning devices to warn occurrence of
landslides must be installed.
Table 12 Proposed mitigation/adaptation measures for areas vulnerable to landslides

(Continued)
Landslide
Area
Vulnerability Mitigation/Adaptation Measures
(ha)
Class
• Upper slopes of roads constructed in steeper
slopes must be supported with ripraps.
• Procurement of equipment to respond to
landslide occurrence.
• Provision of goods and basic services in
evacuation centers
Very High 89.60 • The Municipal and Barangay Hazard Prevention
legislation.
• Results shall be included in the CLUP.
in areas with very high landslide. These areas
are located in steeper slopes, unstable geology
and near fault lines.
halls.
• LGU must put markings or warning signs on the
ground to warn developers and investors of the
potential hazards.
• Continuous monitoring of landslides.
• Installation of warning devices to warn people
with the occurrence of landslides.
• Upper slopes of roads constructed in steeper
slopes must be supported with ripraps.
• Provision of goods and basic services in
evacuation centers
• Procurement of equipment to respond to
landslide occurrence.
• Relocation of communities living within these
areas.
N 110
Exposure to Landslide
(based on 2020 Rainfall Projection) S
540000 545000 550000 A MAP showing
the exposure to landslide based
on 2020 rainfall projection
1085000
1085000
it
tra
nS
Malabuyoc
o
Province : Cebu
n
Island : Cebu
Ta
2000 0 2000 Meters
Scale : 1:100000
Legend
Watershed Boundary
1080000
1080000
Exposure
0 - 2.1 (Very Low)
2.1 - 2.8 (Low)
2.8 - 3.5 (Moderate)
3.5 - 4.2 (High)
> 4.2 (Very Hig)
1075000
1075000
Note: The watershed boundary
is based from the map
presented in the Watershed
475000 570000 665000
Characterization Report (2007).
However, this map is for
1235000
1235000
indicative purposes only and

subject to further validation
and/or actual boundary survey. This Site
1140000
1140000
540000 545000 550000

1045000
1045000
December 2014 Universal Transverse Mercator 51N Source: NAMRIA, FMS 475000 570000 665000
MDGF, 2010
Figure 8 Exposure to landslide within Matutinao Watershed based on 2020 rainfall projection
R. Lanuza et al.
111
Figure 9 Adaptive capacity of the communities on landslide within Matutinao Watershed

112
N

Sensitivity to Landslide
(Physical and Biological) S
540000 545000 550000
A MAP showing
the sensitivity to landslide
1085000
1085000
ait
Str
Malabuyoc
on
Province : Cebu
n
Island : Cebu
Ta
2000 0 2000 Meters
Scale : 1:100000
Legend
Watershed Boundary
1080000
1080000
Sensitivity
0 - 2.1 (Very Low)
2.1 - 2.8 (Low)
3.5 - 4.2 (High)
> 4.2 (Very Hig)
1075000
1075000
475000 570000 665000
1235000
1235000

1140000
1140000
540000 545000 550000

1045000
1045000

MDGF, 2010
Figure 10 Sensitivity to landslide within Matutinao Watershed based on 2020 rainfall projection
R. Lanuza et al.
N

Potential Impact
(due to Exposure and Sensitivity) S
540000 545000 550000
A MAP showing
the potential impact on landslide
1085000
1085000
it
tra
nS
Malabuyoc
o
Province : Cebu
n
Island : Cebu
Ta
2000 0 2000 Meters
Scale : 1:100000
Legend
Watershed Boundary
1080000
1080000
Potential Impact
0 - 2.1 (Very Low)
2.1 - 2.8 (Low)
3.5 - 4.2 (High)
> 4.2 (Very Hig)
1075000
1075000

presented in the Watershed 475000 570000 665000
1235000
1235000

1140000
1140000
540000 545000 550000

1045000
1045000

Universal Transverse Mercator 51N MDGF, 2010
Figure 11 Potential impact as a function of exposure and sensitivity on landslide within Matutinao
Watershed based on 2020 climate projection
113
114
N

Landslide Vulnerability
(based on Potential Impact and Adaptive Capacity)
S
540000 545000 550000
A MAP showing
the landslide vulnerability based
on potential impact and adaptive capacity
1085000
1085000
ait
Str
Malabuyoc
on
Province : Cebu
an
Island : Cebu
T
2000 0 2000 Meters
Scale : 1:100000
Legend
Watershed Boundary
1080000
1080000
Landslide Vulnerability
<= -1.0 (Very Low)
-1.0 - 0 (Low)
0 - 0.5 (Moderate)
0.5 - 1.5 (High)
> 1.5 (Very Hig)
1075000
1075000
475000 570000 665000
1235000
1235000

1140000
1140000
540000 545000 550000

1045000
1045000

MDGF, 2010
Figure 12. Landslide vulnerability as a function of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity
within Matutinao Watershed based on 2020 climate projection
R. Lanuza et al.
Conclusions
The occurrence of landslides is highly localized based on the ground truthing

conducted. However, landslides can be particularly hazardous due to their frequency
of occurrence.
It was predicted that about 3,278.47 ha or approximately 65.12% have high

landslide vulnerability. This is followed by moderate landslide vulnerability with
1,666.11 ha and very high vulnerability with 89.60 ha. Among the barangays, Balhaan
has been estimated having 89.60 ha with very high vulnerability. Further, it was
estimated that Barangays Guadalupe, Valencia, Compostela, Lepanto, and Solsogan
have high vulnerability with 1,243.42 ha, 826.23 ha, 715.07 ha, 212.07 ha, and
209.56 ha, respectively. Generally, the areas with higher vulnerability to landslides
are located in steeper slopes, with unstable geology and near fault lines. The effects
may be further aggravated by high rainfall that causes the saturation of soil and some
ground disturbance such as road construction which lead to mass movement of soil
downslope. With consideration on the projected 17.7% increase in rainfall amount
in 2020, it is estimated that the aggregate area of high and very high vulnerability is
3,368.07 ha or about 66.90% of the total area of the barangays assessed.
The GIS technology has demonstrated its capability in assessing landslide

vulnerability in a watershed. The model predicted the location of landslides in a
climate change perspective and these areas have been mapped out using GIS. Out
of 21 locations, 67% falls on high vulnerability, 14% on very high vulnerability,
and 19% on medium vulnerability. Therefore, this approach can be a valuable tool
in watershed planning to avoid possible losses of lives and properties caused by
landslides.
The GIS technology coupled with the application of AHP has demonstrated its
capability in assessing landslide vulnerability in a watershed. The application of AHP
has provided a strong basis in determining the relative importance of the landslide
sensitivity factors. Moreover, the approach has also refined the previously reported
GIS-assisted model by incorporatinh the vulnerability functions (exposure, sensitivity
and adaptive capacity) anchored on climate change framework. The model predicted
the location of landslides in a climate change perspective and these areas have been
mapped out using GIS. Out of 21 locations, 67% falls on high vulnerability, 14% on
very high vulnerability, and 19% on medium vulnerability. Therefore, this approach
can be a valuable tool in watershed planning to avoid possible losses of lives and
properties caused by landslides.
However, with the limited funding and insufficient actual observations on the
magnitude of landslide, there was no detailed validation of the GIS-assisted model.
With this limitation, this model needs to be validated using sufficient actual landslide
data in the area.
Recommendations
To address landslide hazards that pose constant threats to the communities

living within Matutinao Watershed, LGU Alegria and Badian must enact a Municipal
Ordinance on the Creation of Municipal Environmental Hazard Prevention and
Mitigation Council as the legal and policy support in dealing with areas vulnerable
to landslides. The draft ordinance is contained in the terminal report of Vulnerability
Assessment of Matutinao Watershed, Cebu, Philippines (Lanuza et al 2014). The
main provisions will be the creation of the council, its composition, duties and
responsibilities, and funding and allotment as well as the prevention and mitigation
of natural hazards but not limited to landslides, as follows:
1. Riparian restoration with bamboos and fruit trees to minimize stream

bank soil erosion and landslides.
2. Infrastructures and settlements must be avoided in areas with moderate
to high landslide vulnerability. These areas are located in steeper slopes,
unstable geology and near fault lines.
3. Legislation and implementation of consistent building and grading code
must be legislated and implemented.
4. Continuous monitoring of landslides.
5. Upper slopes of roads constructed in steeper slopes must be supported
with ripraps.
6. Installation of markings or warning signs to warn developers and investors
of the potential hazards.
7. Inclusion of results of the study to the municipal Comprehensive Land
Use Plan (CLUP).
8. Intensive IEC campaign through barangay “pulong-pulong” and display
of GIS maps of affected areas in the municipal and barangay halls.
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to express their deepest gratitude to the following persons and
institutions that in one way or another extended their assistance in the conduct of this research
endeavor;
Dr. Alicia L. Lustica and Mrs. Emma E. Melana for their support and technical inputs
in the research work; Samuel Laurino, for providing the GIS maps. Also, to MGB for the geology
maps, Philvocs for the faults map downloaded from their website, CENRO Argao and PAGASA
Mactan for providing the rainfall data, and to all ERDS personnel who in one way or another
assisted the project leader and the VA team;
Special thanks to OIC CENRO Flordeliza Geyrozaga, and For. Mardionne delos
Reyes, for their assistance in the project implementation;
The Local Government Units of Alegria and Badian headed by their respective
mayors, Mayor Verna Magallon and Mayor Rubbort Librando, the staff from MAO/MENRO,
and the barangay captains for their assistance during data gathering and facilitation of Focus
Group Discussion;
ERDS 7, FMS 7 and ERDB for providing funding support;
To our loved ones for their love, care, prayers, and understanding;
And above all, to the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY who gives life, knowledge, wisdom,
blessings and graces which make this work a reality.
Literature cited
Ajalloeian R, Karami R & Nikzad M. 2000. Investigation of land use in relation to landslide by
using GIS. Department of Geology, Isfahan University, Isfahan-Iran. GISdevelopment.net
(downloaded in 2007).
Allison EH, Perry AL, Badjeck MC, Adger WN, Brown K, Conway D, Halls AS, Pilling GM,
Reynolds JD, Andrew NL, Dulvy NK. 2009. Vulnerability of national economies to
the impacts of climate change on fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 10:173–196 Arunkumar
M, Gurugnanara B & Venkatraman AT. 2013. Topographic data base for landslide
assessment using GIS in between Mettupalayam-Udhagamandalam Highway, South India.
International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering 2(5):302-306.
Banai-Kashani R. 1989. A new method for site suitability analysis: The Analytic Hierarchy
Process, Environmental Management, Vol. 13 (6), Page No. 685-693.
Brabb EE. 1984. Innovative approaches to landslide hazard and risk mapping. In: IV International
Symposium on Landslides, Vol. 1, Toronto, pp. 307-323.
Brimicombe A. 2003. GIS, environmental modelling and engineering, London, New York,
Taylor & Francis, 312 p.
Burrough PA and McDonnell R. 1998. Principles of geographic information systems. Oxford

University Press, London.
Carver SJ. 1991. Integrating multi-criteria evaluation with geographical information systems.
International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 5(3): 321–339.
Cruden DM. 1991. A simple definition of a landslide: Bulletin of the International Association
for Engineering Geology, v. 43, p. 27–29, doi:10.1007/BF02590167.
DeMers MN. 2000. Fundamentals of Geographic Information Systems. Second ed. John Wiley
& Sons, New York, pp. 498.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2007. Proposed Badian-Alegria Watershed

reserve characterization and management plan. DENR-CENRO Argao, Technical Report,
67 p.
Dolan AH and Walker IJ. 2004. Understanding vulnerability of coastal communities to climate
change-related risks. Journal of Coastal Research Vol 39.
Eastman JR, Jin W, Kyem PAK, & Toledano J. 1995. Raster procedures for Multi-Criteria/Multi-
Objective Decisions. Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. Vol 61(5):539 547.
Ecosystems Research and Developmentv Bureau. 2011. Manual on vulnerability assessment of

watersheds. ERDB, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, College, Laguna
Esmali A and Ahmadi H. 2003. Using GIS and RS in mass movements hazard zonation - A case
study in Germichay Watershed, Ardebil, Iran. Paper presented during the 2003 Map Asia
Conference. Retrieved from:
http://www.gisdevelopment.net/application/natural_hazards/landslides/pdf/ma03004.pdf
Evans SG, Guthrie RH, Roberts NJ & Bishop NF. 2007. The disastrous 17 February 2006
rockslide-debris avalanche on Leyte Island, Philippines: a catastrophic landslide in tropical
mountain terrain. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 7:89–101.
Gbelitouo GA and C Ringer. 2009. Mapping South African farming sector vulnerability to
climate change and variability. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00885
Gil Y and Kellerman A. 1993, A multicriteria model for the location of solid waste transfer
stations: The case of Ashdod, Israel, Geojournal 29:377–384.
Hassanzadeh NM. 2000. Landslide hazard zonation in Shalmanrood Watershed, M.Sc. Thesis,
Tehran University.
Heywood I, Oliver J & Tomlinson S. 1995. Building an exploratory multi-criteria modeling

environment for spatial decision support: In Innovations in GIS 2:127–136.
Iverson RM. 2000. Landslide triggering by rain infiltration. Water Resources Research
36(7):1897-1910.
Jiang H and Eastman JR. 1996. Applications of fuzzy measures in Multi-Criteria Evaluation.
Proceedings, Chinese Association of GIS, 2nd Annual Meeting, pp: 474-478.
Kelly PM and Adger WN. 2000. Theory and practice in assessing vulnerability to climate
change and facilitating adaptation. Clim. Change 47:325–352.
Kohler P, Muller M, Sanders M & Wachter J. 2006. Data management and GIS in the Center
for Disaster Management and Risk Reduction Technology (CEDIM): from integrated spatial
data to the mapping of risk. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 6:621-628.
Lan HX, Zhou CH, Wang LJ, Zhang HY & Li RH. 2004. Landslide hazard spatial analysis and
prediction using GIS in the Xiaojiang watershed, Yunnan, China. Engineering Geology,
76: 109-128.
Lan HX, Martin CD, Froese CR, Kim TH & Morgand Chowdhury S.. 2009. A web-based GIS for
managing and assessing landslide data for the town of Peace River, Canada. Nat. Hazards
Earth Syst. Sci. 9:1433-1443.
Lanuza RL, Camello DLS, Carreon BO, Saludo G, Poncardas J, Dano AM & Padin JM. 2014.
Vulnerability assessment of Matutinao Watershed, Cebu, Philippines: A climate change
perspective. Terminal Report, BCWERC, Banilad, Mandaue City.
Leroi E. 1996. Landslide hazard – Risk maps at different scales: Objectives, tools and
developments”, In: Senneset (Ed) Landslides, Prooc. 7th International Symposium of
Landslides, Trondheim, Norway, 17-21 June 1996, Rotterdam: Balkema, pp. 35-51.
Malczewski J. 1999. GIS and Multi-criteria Decision Analysis, New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Malczewski J. 2000. On the use of weighted linear combination method in GIS: Common and
best practice approaches. Transactions in GIS 4:5-22.
McCarthy JJ, Canziani OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS, eds. 2001. Climate change 2001:
Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
Mines and Geosciences Bureau. 2010. Landslide and flood susceptibility map of Dalaguete
Quadrangle, Cebu Province, Philippines. Sheet No. 3649 II.
Mukhlisin M, Idris I, Salazar AS, Nizam K & Taha MR. 2010. GIS-based landslide hazard
mapping prediction in Ulu Klang, Malaysia. ITB J. Sci. Vol. 42A(2)163-178.
Nagarajan R, Mukherjee A, Roy A and Khire MV. 1998, Temporal remote sensing data and
GIS application in landslide hazard zonation of part of Western Ghat, India. Int. J. Remote
Sensing, Vol. 19(4):573-585.
Parsons RL and Frost JD. 2000. Interactive analysis of spatial sub-surface data using GIS-Based
tool. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 14(4):215-222.
Pereira J and Duckstein L. 1993. A Multiple Criteria Decision Making approach to GIS-based
land suitability evaluation. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems
7(5):407-424.
Perotto-Baldiviezo TL, Thuros CT, Smith RF, Fisher & Wu XB. 2004. GIS-based spatial
analysis and modeling for landslide hazard assessment in steeplands, southern Honduras.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 103(1):165-176.
Petley DN. 2010. Landslide hazards: In geomorphological hazards and disaster prevention.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 63-71.
Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology. Active faults and liquefaction map of
Region VI and VI. http://www.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph/images/active.faults/region%20vi%20
and%20vii.pdf. Downloaded March 30, 2015.
Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration. 2010.

Communicating climate information for effective development planning. MDG
Achievement Fund. MDG-F 1656. Fact Sheet No. 1.
Ramakrishnan SS, Sanjeevi Kumar V, Zaffar Sadiq MG. SM. & Venugopal K. 2007. Landslide
zonation for hill area development. GISdevelopment.net (downloaded in 2007).
Saaty TL & Vargas LG. 1991. Prediction, projection and forecasting. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht, 251 p.
Saaty TL. 1990. How to make a decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of
Operational Research 48:9-26.
Saaty TL. 1980. The Analytical Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York, 287 pp.
Sharma LP, Patel N, Debnath P & Ghose MK. 2012. Assessing landslide vulnerability from soil
characteristics—a GIS-based analysis. Arabian Journal of Geosciences 5(4):789-796.
Sivakumar Babu GL & Mukesh MD. 2007. Landslide analysis in Geographic Information
System. GISdevelopment.net, 8 p. (downloaded in 2007).
Soeters R & CJ van Westen. 1996. Slope instability recognition, analysis and zonation, in
Landslides: Investigation and mitigation. Edited by A. K. Turner and R. L. Schuster, Transp.
Res. Board Spec. Rep. 247, pp. 129–177, Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, D. C.
Varnes DJ. 1978. Slope movement types and processes. in R.L. Schuster and R.J. Krizek (Eds.)
Landslides, analysis, and control. Special Report 176. Washington, D.C.: Transportation
Research Board, pp. 12-33.
Yuan RKS & Mohd MIS. 1997. Integration of remote sensing and GIS techniques for landside
applications. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia GISdevelopment.net (downloaded in 2007).
Sylvatrop, The Technical Journal of Philippine Ecosystems and Natural Resources 25 (1 & 2)
122
Sylvatrop Editorial Board

(AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2015)
Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau (ERDB)

Director Henry A. Adornado Ph.D. Antonio M. Dano, Ph.D.
Executive Adviser Chair, Sylvatrop Editorial Board
Director, ERDB OIC Assistant Director

Veronica O. Sinohin
Managing Editor
Information Officer V
Liberty E. Asis Adreana S. Remo

Alternate Representative/Editor Editor
Information Officer IV Information Officer II
Ms. Marilou C. Villones

Board Secretariat
Editor I
Forest Management Bureau (FMB)

For. Mayumi Ma. Quintos-Natividad For. Rebecca B. Aguda
Official Representative Alternate Representatives
Chief Forest Management Specialist Supervising Forest Mgt. Specialist

Environmental Management Bureau (EMB)

Ms. Ella S. Deocadiz Ms. Perseveranda-Fe J. Otico
Official Representative Alternate Representative
Acting Director III Sr. Environmental Management
Specialist
Biodiversity Management Bureau (BMB)

Ms. Marlynn M. Mendoza Ms. Nancy R. Corpuz
Alternate Representative Alternate Representative
Chief Ecosystems Management Supervising Ecosystems
Specialist Management Specialist
123
Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB)

Yolanda M. Aguilar, Ph.D.
Official Representative
Supervising Science Research Specialist
Land Management Bureau (LMB)

Atty. Emelyne V. Talabis Engr. Rolando R. pablo
Assistant Director Chief, Land Management Division
Office of the Secretary

For. Cynthia A. Lopez For. Carina C. Manlapaz
Community Development Officer IV Technical Assistant
Human Resource Management Service, DENR (HRMS)

For. Manny Sabater Dexter Tindoc
Administrative Officer V Administrative Officer IV
National Mapping and Resources Information Authority (NAMRIA)

Rijaldia N. Santos, Ph.D. Beata D. Batadlan
Director II Chief, Land Classification Division

Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA)

Ms. Bileynnie P. Encarnacion Mr. Eduardo R. Canawin
Biologist II Planning Officer III
Sylvatrop, The Technical Journal of Philippine Ecosystems and Natural Resources 25 (1 & 2)
REVIEWERS
DR. DIOMEDES A. RACELIS

University of the Philippines
Los Banos, Laguna
Dr. Diomedes A. Racelis is an Associate Dean and

Professor at the University of the Philippines Los
Banos - College of Forestry and Natural Resources.
He has more than 25 years of experience in
watershed management, climate change and land
use planning - making him as one of the renowned
VA expert in the Philippines
FOR. MANOLITO U. SY
Ecosystems Research and
Development Bureau (Former researcher)
For. Manolito U. Sy has more than 35 years of

government service in the Ecosystems Research and
Development Bureau (ERDB) as a former Supervising
Science Research Specialist from 1992 to 2013. For.
Sy has completed research projects on forest and
plantation development, reforestation, silviculture,
and carbon sequestration. A prolific author cum
researcher, For. Sy has published five technical
articles and 41 semi-technical articles on different
topics about forestry.
Sylvatrop, The Technical Journal of Philippine
Ecosystems and Natural Resources
REMINDERS TO CONTRIBUTORS
Sylvatrop is a medium of information exchange on scientific, technological and

descriptive articles, research notes and reviews of technical literatures on ecosystems
and natural resources topics.
Manuscripts should not have been published earlier or are not being submitted for
publication in any other journal.
The articles to be submitted should accompany an endorsement letter from the head
of agency of the author, addressed to the ERDB Director.
Ideally, an article should have the following parts: title, author (with designation
and address), abstract, introduction, review of literature, materials and methods/
methodology, results and discussion, conclusion, and literature cited.
An informative abstract and at least five keywords should be provided.
A brief acknowledgement may be included.
For the text of the article, submit four hard copies and an e-copy in MS Word format.
Submit quality photos/graphics, either hard copies or a cd of the raw files with a
resolution of at least 300 dpi.
Keep the minimum number of tables, illustrations, maps and photographs. Provide
the caption of each.
Normally, Sylvatrop publishes articles of approximately 10 printed pages or 24

manuscript pages, including figures, tables, and references. If the manuscript exceeds
normal length, but otherwise appropriate, it should be submitted. The editors will
suggest ways of condensing it.
For mechanical style, consult the Scientific Style and Format: The CounciI of Science
Editors (CSE) Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Publishers. 2006. 7th edition.
Use metric system.
Sylvatrop gives authors 10 offprints of each published article and two complimentary
copies of the issue where their articles appear.
This journal is being abstracted by:

Abstract Bibliography of Tropical Forestry (Philippines)
Documentation Centre on Tropical Forestry (Philippines)
Forestry Abstract (Oxford, UK)
Chemical Abstracts (Ohio, USA)
Asia Science Research Reference (India)

La Mesa Watershed Vulnerbility Assessment PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

La Mesa Watershed Vulnerbility Assessment PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

SYLVATROP

January - December 2015 Vol. 25 Nos. 1&2

SYLVATROP, The Technical Journal of Philippine Ecosystems and Natural Resources is

Address checks to The Circulation Officer and contributions or inquiries to

SYLVATROP, The Technical Journal of Philippine Ecosystems and Natural Resources

Cover Layout: Adreana Santos-Remo

Because of the risks associated to climate change, Philippines has to

Thus, on 2009, the Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau

Four of the watersheds included in this VA project are featured in this

Vulnerability framework used by ERDB for vulnerability assessment

Results of the four vulnerability assessment studies can be utilized

Vulnerability assessment of the La Mesa

The vulnerability assessment of the La Mesa Watershed Reservation in Novaliches,

Keywords: Vulnerability assessment, La Mesa Watershed Reservation, ecological profiling

THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF ANY WATERSHED IS

In Metro Manila, the remaining recharge is La Mesa Watershed Reservation

To date, LMWR is still considered as Unclassified Land of Public Domain,

This vulnerability assessment was conducted to determine the degree of

Different approaches can be used in the conduct of vulnerability assessment.

Susceptibility assessment of areas prone to landslide remains one of the most

In Naguilian River Watershed in Benguet, Philippines, the simple overlaying

In a study conducted at a watershed in Taiwan, the watershed’s eco-

In Italy, a vulnerability assessment to validate the landslide hazard

In the Philippines, Tiburan et al. assessed LMWR using a geospatial-based

La Mesa Watershed Reservation (LMWR) is located at 14o75” N, 121o10” E

The vulnerability assessment of the LMWR was conducted in 2008. The

Table 1 Critical factors used in the vulnerability assessment

Slope, soil genesis/morphology, proximity to fault-

Fire Vegetation, slope, aspect/wind exposure, proximity

Biodiversity loss Slope, road and river, natural disturbances, market,

Figure 1 Location map of the La Mesa Watershed per Presidential

Arithmetic overlay involved the use of specified calculations to come up with

Figure 2 Schematic diagram showing the operation of arithmetic overlay process to

Table 2 Qualitative classification of areas vulnerable to identified

Table 3 Critical factor’s degree of influence

Hazard Critical factor Degree of influence (%)

Results and discussion

Information from the Profiling and Characterization of the LMWR Report on

Geology and soils

Features Value Description

The nearest climatological station of the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical

Flora characteristics of the LMWR is a product of various reforestation efforts to

ABS-CBN Bantay Kalikasan uses 86 species of indigenous and endemic

Table 5 Conservation status of some plant species at the LMWR

Common name Scientific name Conservation status

General assessment of all the fauna studies conducted by Pampolina, the

The watershed is now bordered by expansive urban development. Situated at

Communities within the watershed

According to the database provided by Barangay Macabud Council, there are 64

USLE A = RKLSCP where: A = annual soil erosion in t/ha/yr

Landslide is defined as the downward movement of rocks/soil due to gravity.

Table 7 Reclassification of critical factors and corresponding values

Table 8 Soil erosion estimate (t/ha/yr) with corresponding class rating

Soil loss (t/ha/yr) Vulnerability class value

Figure 3 Annual soil loss map of the La Mesa

Identified critical factors for the vulnerability assessment to fire include

Table 9 Soil erosion index with corresponding class rating

Erosion index Vulnerability class value

Table 10 Soil loss per hectare per year in the LMWR

Critical factors contributing to the continuing loss of biodiversity at the LMWR

Extracting areas (Figure 7) with reclassification values greater than 4 from

Table 11 Landslide vulnerability table for the LMWR

Fairly vulnerable 2.51 – 2.99 1333.90