Building a Disaster Resilient Project

Hazards, Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Report

22 May 2013

Earthquakes and Megacities Initiative

Earthquakes and Megacities Initiative Puno Building, 47 Kalayaan Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City, Metro , 1101 T/F: +632 9279643; T: +632 4334074 www.emi-megacities.org

Hazards, Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Report and City Risk Atlas

Building a Disaster Resilient Quezon City Project

22 May 2013 4 Quezon CityQuezon Project

EMI Research Team QCG Contributors

Dr. Eng. Fouad Bendimerad, Risk Assessment Hon. Herbert M. Bautista, City Mayor, QCG Task Leader, Project Director, EMI Gen. Elmo DG San Diego (Ret.), Head, DPOS Dr. Bijan Khazai, Risk Assessment and ICT and QC DRRMC Action O#cer, Project Expert, EMI Director, QCG Building a Disaster Resilient Resilient Building a Disaster Mr. Jerome Zayas, Project Manager, EMI Mr. Tomasito Cruz, Head, CPDO, QCG Ms. Joyce Lyn Salunat-Molina, Co-Project Ms. Consolacion Buenaventura, DPOS, Project Manager, EMI Manager, QCG Ms. Ma. Bianca Perez, Project Coordinator, EMI Dr. Noel Lansang, DPOS, Project Coordinator, Mr. Leigh Lingad, GIS Specialist, EMI QCG Mr. Kristo!er Dakis, GIS Specialist, EMI Project Technical Working Group Ms. Lalaine Bergonia, GIS Specialist, EMI Engr. Robert Beltran, Department of Ms. Bernie Magtaas, KDD Manager, EMI Engineering, Data Cluster Head, QCG Ms. Marivic Barba, Research Assistant for Engr. Robert Germio, PDAD, Data Cluster DRRM, EMI Head, QCG Ms. Ishtar Padao, Research Assistant for DRRM, Dr. Esperanza Arias, Quezon City Health EMI Department, Data Cluster Head, QCG Mr. Lluis Pino, Graduate Intern, EMI Karl Michael Marasigan, DPOS, Data Cluster Mr. Eugene Allan Lanuza, Junior GIS Analyst, EMI Head, QCG Ms. Anne Marie Valera, Junior GIS Analyst, EMI Mr. Paolo Micael Villa, Junior GIS Analyst, EMI Mr. Eugene Allan Lanuza, Junior GIS Analyst, EMI Ms. Anne Marie Valera, Junior GIS Analyst, EMI Mr. Paolo Micael Villa, Junior GIS Analyst, EMI Ms. Tanya Mia Hisanan, Lay-out Artist, EMI

Copyright © 2013 QCG and EMI

The concepts, methodologies, and overall design of the Hazards, Vulnerability, and Risk Assess-ment (HVRA) Report are developed by EMI; hence, the aforementioned are, and remain, intellectual property of EMI. Parts of the contents, data, and information contained in this report are property of Quezon City.

This document is jointly owned by the Quezon City Government and EMI. Permission to use this document is granted provided that the use of the document or parts thereof are for educational, informational, non-commercial, and personal use only. The Quezon City Government and EMI must be acknowledged in all cases as the source when reproducing or using any part of this publication. 5 About this Document Hazards, Vulnerability Assessment and Risk

e Hazards, Vulnerability, and Risk Assessment Additional Contributors (HVRA) report is submitted to the Quezon City Greater Lagro Government as part of the Memorandum of Barangay Horseshoe Agreement between QCG and EMI, signed by Barangay both parties on August 22, 2013. is document Barangay Operations Center assesses the impact of !ood and earthquake Atlas Risk and City Report Barangay Quirino 2-A hazards on Quezon City’s population and Barangay Teacher’s Village West physical assets. e HVRA report provides the City Administrator’s O!ce scienti"c foundation to disaster risk reduction City Assessor’s O!ce and management planning. City General Services Department City Health Department City Secretary’s O!ce City Treasurer’s O!ce Committee on Environment, Parks and Ecology Communication Coordination Center Community Relations O!ce Councilor and Committee on Public Order and Safety Department of Building O!cial Department of Engineering Department of Public Order and Safety Department of Public Order and Safety – Disaster Control Division Division of City Schools Environment Protection and Waste Department Gender and Development Resource Coordination Housing and Community Development and Reset- tlement Department Information and Technology O!ce Kapatiran Bayan ng Bagong Filipino Foundation O!ce of Councilor Gian Carlo Sotto O!ce of the Vice Mayor Parks Development and Administration Department Planning and Development O!ce Public A"airs and Information O!ce Quezon City Bureau of Fire Protection Quezon City General Hospital Quezon City Performing Arts Development Foun- dation, Inc. Quezon City Policy Department Radio Communications Services Social Services and Development Department Task Force COPRISS Urban Poor A"airs O!ce 6 Executive Summary Quezon CityQuezon Project Reduction and Management Plan (DRRMP). The Hazards, Vulnerability and Risk It also gives inputs to the other elements of Assessment (HVRA) Report focuses on the project such as the Land Use Planning analyzing the impact of earthquakes and Component, DRRM Plan Formulation, oods in Quezon City. €e data, ndings, and DRRM Plan Components and Emergency mapping of social and physical losses provided Management Training Narrative Scenarios. in the report will enable the city to develop

Building a Disaster Resilient Resilient Building a Disaster €e outputs and recommendations of the necessary understanding and competency to project provides the elements for enacting address and reduce risk from earthquakes and risk sensitive policies, decisions and plans to oods. €e determination of risk hotspots, or build a resilient Quezon City. It remains that Barangays with high risk in terms of casualties these recommendations must be incorporated and economic losses, allows for rational and in the QCG’s investment and development adequate planning of resources. plans to become e‚ective. A capacity building program should also be undertaken to achieve €e project undertook several meetings and internal technical competency in disaster risk workshops to involve the stakeholders with the reduction. development of the HVRA and information within QCG. It is recommended that Quezon €e assessment of impacts for ood and City leadership enact policies and processes to earthquake are expressed in terms of: 1) mainstream HVRA within its core functions Identifying the spatial severity of the hazards and its governance processes as recommended in the city; 2) Quantifying damages, losses in this report and other reports related to this and impacts to population, buildings, project. infrastructure, critical and high loss facilities; and 3) identifying hotspot barangays. €e €rough the Disaster Risk Geo-Spatial approach for identifying risk hotspots is based Database (DRGS) that was jointly developed on the Urban Disaster Risk Index (UDRI) by EMI and QCG, scientically validated methodology, which combines directly the scenarios and parameters for planning were descriptors comprising both the physical developed. €ese will guide the city in the risks and the socio-economic impact factors. performance of its mandate to protect the In the application of this methodology, the public and in improving the disaster resiliency objective is to bring in the local context of of its citizenry. €e interaction between the socio-economic vulnerability and coping spatial distribution of the risk and the exposed capacities of these cities based on the available assets is carried out using GIS (Geographical information and data. Information Systems) and remote sensing technologies to enable high resolution In summary, the top ve barangays that are mapping. at high risk to both earthquake and ood are Bagumbayan, Libis, Damayang Lagi, Talayan €e HVRA Report provides the scientic and Dioquino Zobel. foundation and sets the parameters for the development of strategies and actions in €ese barangays are projected to have the developing the Quezon City’s Disaster Risk most losses in terms of casualties and physical 7 Hazards, Vulnerability Assessment and Risk Top Five Barangays that are at high risk to both EQ and Floods Barangay Urban Disaster Earthquake Flood Risk Socio economic Risk Index Risk Index Index Impact Bagumbayan 0.543 0.815 0.329 0.464 Libis 0.439 0.433 0.380 0.534 Damayang Lagi 0.435 0.340 0.516 0.457 Talayan 0.424 0.276 0.578 0.425 Dioquino Zobel 0.410 0.398 0.578 0.484

Top Five Barangays with High Earthquake Risks Atlas Risk and City Report Barangay Earthquake Casualties/ Affected Risk Index Fatalities Buildings Index Bagumbayan 0.815 1.0 0.871 St. Ignatius 0.514 0.788 0.420 Ugong Norte 0.512 0.735 0.485 0.506 0.636 0.406 0.500 0.586 0.485 and economic assets due to a combined risk to Bagumbayan is at the highest risk of earthquake and ood hazards. earthquake impact. !e earthquake hazard given in terms of Peak Ground Acceleration Earthquake Hotspots (PGA) in this Barangay is over 1.0g or a 9.8 on the Modi"ed Mercalli Index (MMI) which !e top "ve barangays that are at high risk to an is much higher than surrounding Barangays. extreme earthquake scenario (M7.2 earthquake !is produces very high casualties (fatalities originating from the West Valley Fault according expected in almost 2 percent of the population, to MMEIRS) are: and injuries in close to 5 percent of the population with 20 percent of the buildings t Bagumbayan expected to collapse or severely damaged in t St. Ignatius this scenario. t Ugong Norte t Bagong Silangan t Bagumbayan, St. Ignatius, White Plains, t Batasan Hills Ugong Norte and Blue Ridge B have some of the highest fatality rates with values !e results of the HVRA show that considering greater than 1.20 percent of the population the combined physical risks, socio-economic at risk. impacts, coping capacities and social vulnerabilities, these barangays will su#er the t Bagumbayan, Libis, Ugong Norte, Batasan most to the worst case scenario earthquake as Hills and Dona Aurora will have the projected by MMEIRS. highest number of damaged buildings due to ground shaking. In terms of loss on population and buildings, 8 t Kaligayahan has the highest number t Silangan which does not show up in the of critical facilities that are exposed top 10 ood risk Barangays has the highest to extreme ground shaking. Bagong ood infection risk with a value of 3.5% of Lipunan ng Crame (hospitals), the population of this Barangay at risk of Bagumbayan and Commonwealth infection versus the next highest Barangay (emergency and rescue operation centers Sto. Domingo (Matalahib) at 1.6%. Quezon CityQuezon Project and hazardous facilities), and (roads and bridges) have the next highest t Talayan, Damayang Lagi, , Roxas, exposure of critical facilities due to Bagon Silangan and Libis have some of the earthquakes. highest fatality rates with values greater than 0.02 percent of the population at risk. Hotspot maps show the top ve barangays that have high risk to earthquake and t St. Peter, San Vincente, San Isidro Labrador Building a Disaster Resilient Resilient Building a Disaster earthquake-related hazards. €ese hotspot and Sienna have the highest levels of long- barangays reect the impacts caused directly term displaced population and a‚ected. or indirectly by earthquakes, in terms of estimated casualties (i.e. deaths and injuried) t Talayan, Dioquino Zobel, St. Doningo, a‚ected buildings and the combination Bagumbayan and Maharlika have the of these two parameters. €e top ve highest economic losses per capita. barangays that have high earthquake risks are: t North Fairview, Doña Imelda, Tatalon, Damayang Lagi, Sto. Domingo t Bagumbayan (Matalahib), Bahay Toro, Batasan Hills, t St. Ignatius Roxas and Talayan have an estimated total t Ugong Norte economic losses over 10 million USD due t Bagong Silangan to ood damage. t Batasan Hill t Doña Imelda (hospitals), Masambong Risk values range from 0 to 1. €e closer the (emergency and rescue operation centers), value to 1, the higher the risk. Tatalon (hazardous facilities), Bagumbayan (hazardous facilities) and Tatalon (roads) Flood Hotspots have the highest exposure of critical facilities due to oods. Contributing factors such as a‚ected population, buildings and extent of ooding were measured to rank the top barangays to prioritize for ood impacts:

Top Five Barangays with High Flood Risks Barangay Flood Risk Affected Affected Population Buildings Index Index Talayan 0.578 0.734 0.769 Damayang Lagi 0.516 0.719 0.491 Roxas 0.497 0.720 0.486 St. Peter 0.495 0.730 0.484 Dona Imelda 0.473 0.501 0.420 9 Disclaimer Hazards, Vulnerability Assessment and Risk

e €ndings and analyses undertaken in the recent experience (e.g., Fukishima Earthquake) study are based on secondary data, information because they help organizations and institutions and results collected from various existing prepare for the unforeseen. studies such as MMEIRS, Project NOAH and others (Refer to the Reference Section below). e sources of ‚ood data used in the study ey are also based on interviews, surveys, include various models based on ‚ooding due Atlas Risk and City Report mapping exercises, and group validation to Typhoon Ondoy (2009), Habagat ‚ooding processes. Data sources and documentation (2012), as well as mapping exercises with were received from Quezon City Government, participants from the Quezon City Government various government institutions, and particular and other organizations. Flood hazard maps individuals. Hypotheses and assumptions are indicative inundation maps for large ‚ood were developed by EMI experts with extensive events and useful only for knowing where not to experience in their respective €elds of expertise be during extremely heavy rainfall. ese hazard to treat the datasets and come up with sound maps are only as good as the topographic map assessments. In order to improve on the base that was used in the ‚ood simulation. assessments, focus group validations were conducted over several dierent occasions Damage impact assessments and projections with key participants from the Quezon City provided in this report are meant to inform government and stakeholders. e validation QCG on the hazards and risks provided by procedures include ‚ooding situations to earthquakes and ‚oods so they can improve on augment ‚ood models, spatial locations and their planning and policy making processes. attributes of essential facilities, and importance e information provided in this report is of disaster risk variables in terms of emergency not meant, and should not be interpreted, to response, coping capacities, and hazard replicate the realities of the impacts of an actual exposures. event. Consequences from actual events can vary signi€cantly from the projections provided e analysis for earthquake related hazards is in this report. scenario-based. e magnitude 7.2 earthquake scenario on the West Valley Fault (Model ere were many cases where data was 8 in MMEIRS) is recognized by experts as inconsistent or incomplete. A diligent eort representing the worst case scenario for Metro was allocated to ascertain the completeness Manila. It is considered in this study to develop and validation of the data. However, data the planning assumptions and considerations improvements and data updates are continuous related to earthquake risk. e occurrence of tasks. . EMI recommends that the study be such an earthquake is possible but very rare. updated regularly as better data becomes us, preparedness activities for magnitude 7.2 available. cause the greatest stress on Quezon City. While earthquakes with lesser magnitudes will provide lower levels of constraints and loss, planning for the worst case scenario is recommended by international standards (e.g., ISO3000) and by 10 Contents Quezon CityQuezon Project

About this Document ...... 5 Executive Summary ...... 6 Disclaimer ...... 9 Acronyms ...... 15 De!nition of Terms ...... 17

Building a Disaster Resilient Resilient Building a Disaster Acknowledgements ...... 19 1. Introduction ...... 20 1.1 Purpose of this Report ...... 20 1.2 Approach and Outputs ...... 20 2.1 Overview of Earthquake Exposure in Quezon City ...... 22 2.1.1 Reference Earthquake Studies ...... 22 2.1.2 De!nition of Earthquake Scenarios ...... 22 2. and Quezon City Exposure to Earthquake and Flood Risks ...... 22 2.1.3 Earthquake Planning Parameters ...... 23 2.1.4 Impact of Aftershocks ...... 25 2.1.5 Analytical Procedure for Calculating Damage and Loss ...... 25 2.2 Overview of Flood Risk in Quezon City ...... 26 2.2.1 Flood Disaster Situation ...... 26 2.2.2 Key Flood Reference Studies ...... 26 2.2.3 Flood Context of Quezon City ...... 35 2.2.4 Flood Control ...... 37 2.2.5 Historic Floods Impacting Quezon City including the 2009 Ondoy Floods 38 2.3 Justi!cation of Worst Case Scenarios ...... 39 3.1 Data Needs and Sources ...... 40 3. Data Needs, Collection and Limitations ...... 40 3.3 Limitations ...... 41 3.4 Spatial Data Infrastructure ...... 44 3.4.1 Geospatial Reference ...... 44 3.4.2 Built Environment ...... 44 3.4.4 Emergency Support Functions ...... 46 3.4.5 Social/Demographic ...... 47 3.5 Determination of High Loss Facilities and Critical Facilities ...... 48 4.1 The Earthquake Context of Quezon City ...... 49 4.3 Fire Following Impact ...... 49 4.4 Liquefaction Impact...... 50 11 Hazards, Vulnerability Assessment and Risk

4.5 Ground Motion Shaking Severity ...... 50 4.6 Building Damage Impact ...... 50 5.1 Flood Risk Assessment for Quezon City...... 64 5.2 Flood Susceptibility Mapping ...... 65

5.2.1 100-year NOAH Flood Hazard Map ...... 65 Atlas Risk and City Report 5.2.2 Calibration of the 100-year NOAH Model ...... 65 5.3 Flood Risk Analysis ...... 70 5.3.1 Population A!ected by Floods ...... 70 5.3.2 Casualties Caused by Floods ...... 70 5.3.3 Buildings A!ected by Flood ...... 72 5.3.4 Population Displaced and A!ected by Floods...... 72 5.3.5 Economic Losses ...... 76 5.3.6 Impact on Critical and High Loss Potential Facilities ...... 80 5.3.7 Post-Flood Health Issues - Adapted JICA Outbreak Model ...... 82 6.1 Scope and Objectives ...... 85 6.2 Approach ...... 85 6. Quezon City Disaster Risk Hotspots and Indicators ...... 85 6.2.1 Physical Risk Indicators (R) ...... 86 6.2.2 Socio-economic Impact Factors (IF) ...... 86 6.3 Results ...... 90 6.3.1 Physical Risk Index ...... 90 6.3.2 Socio-economic Impact Factors ...... 97 6.4 Urban Disaster Risk Index ...... 97 6.5 Key Findings ...... 100 6.5.1 Flood Impact ...... 100 6.5.2 Earthquake Impact ...... 104 6.5.3 Urban Disaster Risk Index ...... 104

References Related to the Calculations of the Indicators ...... 111 Appendix ...... 112 Appendix 1: Participatory Exercise on Risk Drivers and ...... 113 Development of Socio-Economic Indicators...... 113 Appendix 2: Social Vulnerability and ...... 118 Coping Capacity Indicators...... 118 Appendix 3: UDRI Framework and Approach ...... 123 12 List of Tables Quezon CityQuezon Project

Table 1: Project Deliverables ...... 20 Table 2. Primary Characteristics of the two earthquake scenarios ...... 22 Table 3. List of Key Flood Studies for Quezon City ...... 26 Table 4. Summary of Data Gathering ...... 41 Building a Disaster Resilient Resilient Building a Disaster Table 5. Liquefaction-Prone Barangays ...... 50 7DEOH)ORRG+D]DUG6XVFHSWLELOLW\&ODVVLÀFDWLRQEDVHGRQ,QXQGDWLRQ'HSWK ...... 66 Table 7. Number of Casualties Caused By The 100-Year Flood Susceptibility ...... 70 Table 8. Capital Stock and the GDP and Exchange Rates ...... 72 7DEOH&RVW5DWLR9DOXHVRI&RQWHQWVDQG$VVHWV$JDLQVW)ORRG,QXQGDWLRQ+HLJKWV ...... 76 Table 10. Weights used in ranking the impact on Critical and High Loss Facilities ...... 78 Table 11: Top Five Barangays for each of the critical and high loss facilities ...... 80 Table 12. Adjusted Values from the USEPA’s Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund ...... 81 Table 12. E.coli Concentration Ce = 30,000 MPN/100 mL (Nga, 1999) ...... 82 7DEOH(DUWKTXDNH5LVN,QGLFDWRUVH ...... 87 7DEOH)ORRG5LVN,QGLFDWRUV ...... 88 7DEOH)LQDO6HWRI6RFLR(FRQRPLF,QGLFDWRUV ...... 89 Table 17. Stakeholder importance ranking of drivers of socio-economic vulnerability ...... 113 Table 18. Ranking of Social Vulnerability Drivers ...... 114 Table 19. Stakeholder importance ranking of vulnerable groups ...... 114 Table 20. Stakeholder ranking of the most important factors describing coping capacity ....115 13 List of Figures Hazards, Vulnerability Assessment and Risk

Figure 1. Map showing earthquake sources considering in the MMEIRS Study...... 23 Figure 2. Aerial View of the West Valley Fault ...... 23 Figure 3. 100-year flood with exisiting infrastructure and climate change...... 30 Figure 4. Mines and Geosciences Bureau Flood Hazard Map as of 2009 ...... 27

Figure 5. Latest version of Landslide and Flood Susceptibility map via MGB (PIA,2013) ...... 28 Atlas Risk and City Report Figure 7. Comparison of JICA Model ...... 31 Figure 8. University of Philippines Flo-2d Project (Source: http://www.nababaha.com)...... 32 Figure 9. HEC-RAS Model as produced by the NOAH DOST project...... 33 Figure 10. Juan and systems, Right: system...... 33 Figure 11. IFD curves used in the modeling of NOAH ...... 34 Figure 12. Ondoy Flood Situation Map Examples from Manila Observatory ...... 35 Figure 13. Ondoy Flood Situation Map (Quezon City) (UNOSAT, 28 Sep, 2009) ...... 36 Figure 14. The five (5) river systems of Quezon City ...... 37 Figure 15. Left: Habagat (2012) in E Rodriguez St., Quezon City ; Right: Ondoy ...... 39 Figure 16. Map of West Valley Fault ...... 51 Figure 17. Map of Fire Following Earthquake ...... 53 Figure 19. Modified Mercalli Scale Distribution per Barangay ...... 55 Figure 22. PGV per Barangay (Model 08) ...... 57 Figure 23. Projected Collapsed Buildings ...... 58 Figure 24. Very Heavily Damaged Buildings per Barangay ...... 59 Figure 25. Heavily Damaged Buildings ...... 60 Figure 26. Partially Damaged Buildings per Barangay ...... 61 Figure 27. Projected Fatality Rates per Barangay ...... 62 Figure 28. Projected Injuries per Barangay ...... 63 Figure 29. The comparison of JICA at various locations along the rivers...... 64 Figure 30. NOAH 3 level inundation depths VS Digital Elevation Model...... 66 Figure 31.1 Finalized Situational Flood Validation Map ...... 67 Figure 31.2 Flood Map Validation Workflow ...... 68 Figure 31.3 Flood Susceptibility Map of Quezon City ...... 69 Figure 32 Number of Casualties per Barangay ...... 71 Figure 33. Buildings Affected by Floods ...... 73 Figure 34. Population Displaced and Affected by Floods ...... 74 Figure 35. Map of Total Population Affected by Floods ...... 75 Figure 36. Map of Capital Stock per Square Kilometer ...... 77 Figure 37 . Economic Losses Including Capital Stock and GDP ...... 79 14 Hazards, Vulnerability Assessment and Risk

Figure 38. Ranking of Top 5 Barangays Overall in terms of exposure ...... 80 Figure 39 Infection routes through direct and indirect contact with contaminated floodwater...... 81 Figure 40. Flowchart for Infection Risk Calculation; after JICA (2010) methodology ...... 82 Figure 41. Number of infected people due to gastrointestinal illness ...... 84 Figure 42. Structure of the Urban Disaster Risk Index ...... 86 Figure 43. Direct Impact of Earthquakes on Population ...... 90 Figure 44. Direct Impact of Earthquakes on Buildings ...... 90 Figure 45. Direct Impact of Earthquakes on Critical Infrastructure ...... 91

Figure 46. Ranking of Earthquake Risk Index ...... 91 Atlas Risk and City Report Figure 47. Earthquake Risk Index Map ...... 92 Figure 48. Direct Flood Impact on the Population ...... 94 Figure 49. Direct Flood Impact on the Buildings ...... 94 Figure 50. Direct Flood Impact on Critical Infrastructure...... 94 Figure 51. Ranking of Barangays in Quezon City based on Flood Impact ...... 95 Figure 52. Sensitivity Graph showing changes in rankings of Barangays...... 95 Figure 53. Flood Risk Index Map ...... 96 Figure 54. Ranking of Socio-Economic Impact Factors ...... 97 Figure 55. Ranking for Top Barangays with Lowest Coping Capacity ...... 98 Figure 56. Ranking of the Social Fragility Index and (lack of) Coping capacity Index ...... 98 Figure 57. Ranking of Socio-Economic Impact Factors in Quezon City ...... 99 Figure 58: UDRI ranking for Barangays with respect to earthquake impact scenario ...... 100 Figure 59: UDRI ranking for Barangays with respect to flood susceptibility...... 101 Figure 60: UDRI ranking for Barangays with respect to combined flood and earthquake...... 101 Figure 61: Scatter Plot Diagram of Earthquake and Flood Risk Scores ...... 102 Figure 62: Scatter Plot Diagram of Physical Risk and Impact Factor ...... 102 Figure 63. Urban Disaster Risk Index Map for Earthquake and Flood Hazards in Quezon City ...... 103 Figure 64. Hotspot Barangays for Earthquake ...... 106 Figure 65. MMI Scale Distribution per Barangay with Critical and High Loss Facilities ...... 107 Figure 66 Hotspot Barangays for Flood ...... 108 Figure 67. Flood Susceptibility with Critical and High Loss Facilities ...... 109 Figure 68 Hotspot Barangays for Combined Earthquake and Flood Hazards ...... 110 Figure 69. Fire Station Service Area ...... 121 Figure 70. Proposed Emergency Routes for Extreme Flooding ...... 122

View publication stats