The community-based resilience initiative in the Municipality of San Francisco, Cebu Province, Philippines, aims to strengthen local disaster preparedness and response by leveraging and adapting the “purok” system, a grassroots sub-village structure established in 2004 to organize community services at the neighborhood level. By formally integrating the purok system into the municipality’s Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) policies, the initiative enhances coordination, communication, and decision-making across barangays, enabling more effective risk reduction, preparedness, and emergency response. The initiative builds on existing local knowledge and social networks to promote active bottom-up participation, empower residents in planning and response activities, and facilitate rapid last-mile action during emergencies. Through this approach, the initiative not only strengthens neighborhood-level resilience but also reinforces the municipality’s overall disaster management framework, creating a scalable model for community-led adaptation and risk reduction in similar contexts.
Map
The Purok System
General Information
ISIG
Strengthen neighbourhood-level coordination for disaster risk reduction
San Francisco is an island municipality located in the Camotes Islands, composed of 15 barangays, 12 of which are coastal. This geographic position makes it highly exposed to natural hazards such as typhoons, strong winds, storm surges, and heavy rains. The community’s heavy reliance on agriculture, fishing, and natural resources further increases its vulnerability, since extreme weather events often result in significant economic losses and damages to homes and critical infrastructure. In 2010, the Philippines enacted the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act (RA 10121), which mandated local government units to take the lead in disaster risk reduction and management initiatives. This legislative framework created both an opportunity and an obligation for municipalities like San Francisco to strengthen their disaster preparedness and resilience. Importantly, even before Typhoon Haiyan (locally known as “Yolanda”) struck in 2013, the municipality had already begun building local capacities by institutionalizing the purok system, a grassroots sub-village structure that would later prove instrumental in enhancing community-based disaster response and risk reduction.
Needs Addressed
One of the main challenges faced by the Municipality of San Francisco was the limited preparedness and weak coordination at both the community and local government levels when responding to natural disasters. Although the purok system already existed as a grassroots mechanism for organizing community activities, it lacked formal recognition compared to barangays, making it difficult to align with the requirements of the newly introduced DRRM law. This gap highlighted the need to integrate existing community structures into the official disaster risk reduction framework to ensure coherence and effectiveness.At the same time, the municipality struggled with a shortage of human resources equipped with the necessary skills and technical expertise to implement disaster risk management policies effectively. Without adequate training and institutional support, local staff and volunteers were often underprepared to address the growing risks posed by climate change and recurring natural hazards.
This project includes all the most vulnerable classes of the community.
San Francisco’s governance model combines formal and community-based structures. The municipality, through the LGU and MDRRMC, provides strategic direction and ensures compliance with national DRRM law. Barangay councils act as intermediaries, adapting municipal plans to local contexts, while the purok system delivers community-led action at the household level, handling early warnings, evacuations, and local mobilization. Although puroks lack formal legal recognition, they have earned legitimacy through effective crisis response. The model is thus a hybrid of decentralized governance and multi-stakeholder participation, balancing top-down policy with bottom-up ownership.
San Francisco has achieved advanced preparedness through a five-year DRRM plan that integrates mitigation, prevention, preparedness, and response. Key measures include community drills, training for local leaders and volunteers, risk mapping at barangay and purok levels, and institutionalized early warning systems. These are supported by response infrastructure such as evacuation centers and communication networks. The approach combines long-term planning with grassroots action, ensuring that disaster preparedness is both inclusive and effective.
San Francisco has developed key infrastructure to strengthen disaster preparedness and response. At the municipal level, DRRM operation centers coordinate emergency actions, while evacuation facilities provide safe shelters for communities. Hazard maps at barangay and purok levels guide households and local planning. In addition, supportive infrastructure, such as WiFi connectivity at the Town Hall, ensures effective communication and real-time coordination. This combination of physical facilities and communication systems creates a solid foundation for rapid and organized disaster response.
Stakeholder engagement in San Francisco’s DRRM strategy aims to root preparedness and response in the daily realities of vulnerable communities. By involving barangay councils, purok leaders, civil society, and citizens, the municipality ensures local ownership, making disaster measures more relevant, accepted, and sustainable. Engagement also adapts interventions to specific contexts, strengthens coordination across municipal, barangay, and purok levels, and creates two-way communication channels for early warnings and feedback. Ultimately, its purpose is to build a community-centered system of resilience, where disaster management becomes a shared responsibility and local actors are empowered to act quickly and effectively.
San Francisco relies on the purok system as its foundation for community engagement, with purok officers and coordinators mobilizing residents and organizing preparedness activities at the neighborhood level. This approach ensures direct communication with households and fosters collective responsibility. Alongside this structure, the municipality conducts awareness campaigns, training, and drills in barangays and puroks to strengthen local capacities and familiarize residents with evacuation and response protocols. Schools also play a vital role by providing disaster education to younger generations. A further method is the use of Participatory Capacity and Vulnerability Assessments (PCVA), which involve residents in identifying risks, mapping vulnerabilities, and shaping local solutions. Together, these methods combine grassroots leadership, participatory planning, and continuous education to embed disaster preparedness across the municipality.
In San Francisco, participants play a meaningful role in shaping both the design and implementation of disaster risk reduction strategies. At the purok level, community members actively contribute to identifying local hazards, mapping vulnerabilities, and proposing solutions through participatory assessments. These inputs directly inform barangay and municipal DRRM plans, ensuring that official strategies reflect the realities and priorities of households.Purok leaders serve as intermediaries, channeling community perspectives into barangay councils and municipal discussions. This bottom-up flow of information allows residents not only to be consulted but also to have their voices integrated into decision-making processes. Similarly, barangay officials adapt municipal guidelines based on the feedback and experiences gathered from purok consultations, creating a two-way exchange between formal governance and grassroots structures.While ultimate authority for resource allocation and policy approval rests with the municipal government and the MDRRMC, the system ensures that community inputs shape concrete measures such as evacuation routes, early warning systems, and local training programs. In this way, decision-making is not centralized but shared across levels, combining top-down direction with bottom-up ownership.
The San Francisco model seeks to strengthen community resilience through continuous training, drills, and awareness campaigns. Barangay officials, purok leaders, and volunteers acquire technical and organizational skills to manage risks.These activities enhance immediate response capacity and improve local planning and coordination.The purok system offers residents concrete leadership roles, such as managing household registries and leading evacuations. In this way, local leaders become recognized and legitimate decision-makers within their communities.Direct involvement fosters a sense of collective responsibility and ownership of risk management processes. Schools contribute by educating children on prevention and safety culture. Families participate actively, passing resilience practices on to the next generations. The participatory approach transforms communities from passive beneficiaries into active actors in shaping strategies.
Hazard Type
Geographical Scope - Nuts
Population Size
Population Density
Vulnerable Groups
Governance
Emergency Preparedness
Infrastructure Readiness
Engagement Level
Empowerment Level
Implementation
San Francisco is distinguished by the institutionalization of the purok system, transforming an informal sub-village structure into a functional governance unit for disaster risk management. This innovation ensures last-mile delivery of preparedness and response activities, strengthening community ownership. The principle of “Start Small, Think Big” guided the approach, beginning with modest local initiatives that later scaled up to municipal policy. The municipality effectively utilized the Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund (LDRRMF), separating resources for preparedness and rapid response. This financial model guaranteed sustainability and ensured investments in prevention, not just in crisis response. Participatory tools such as risk and vulnerability assessments (PCVA) were applied to adapt strategies to local contexts. Community drills and training reinforced practical readiness among residents and volunteers. Education in schools embedded disaster awareness in younger generations, creating long-term cultural change. The combination of formal governance and grassroots structures enhanced legitimacy and inclusiveness. Overall, San Francisco developed a cost-effective and adaptable model that can inspire replication in other municipalities.
English
The case of San Francisco stands out for the institutionalization of the purok system, which transformed an informal sub-village structure into a functional governance mechanism for disaster risk management. This choice made it possible to deliver preparedness and response activities down to the last mile while also strengthening the sense of community responsibility. The approach was guided by the principle “start small, think big,” beginning with modest local initiatives that gradually scaled up to become part of municipal policies. Another innovative element was the targeted use of the Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund, with a clear distinction between resources for preparedness and for rapid response. This financial model guaranteed sustainability and ensured constant investment in prevention. In addition, participatory tools such as risk and vulnerability assessments helped adapt strategies to specific local contexts. Drills and training programs consolidated the community’s practical readiness, while education in schools embedded a culture of resilience in younger generations. The combination of formal governance and grassroots structures made the model more legitimate and inclusive. Overall, San Francisco developed an innovative, effective, and replicable approach that can be applied in other municipal contexts.
The Municipality of San Francisco has built strong experience in disaster risk management, especially after the adoption of the Philippine DRRM Act in 2010. Even before Typhoon Haiyan in 2013, it institutionalized the purok system, creating a grassroots mechanism for preparedness. The Local Government Unit established the MDRRMO and MDRRMC to coordinate planning and response. These bodies worked closely with barangay councils and purok leaders, aligning national law with local realities. Regular training, drills, and participatory risk assessments strengthened both institutional and community capacities. During Typhoon Haiyan, San Francisco successfully evacuated residents and avoided casualties, proving the model’s effectiveness. The municipality gained recognition as a national and international example of resilience. Collaboration with Plan International and UNISDR added technical knowledge and external support. Its consistent focus on bottom-up governance complemented compliance with national frameworks. Overall, San Francisco’s LGU is now regarded as an experienced and credible actor in disaster risk management.
- Local Government Unit (LGU) of San Francisco – mayor and municipal council
- Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office (MDRRMO)
- Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (MDRRMC)
- Barangay councils (captains and councilors)
- Purok leaders and local coordinators
- Plan International (technical support and capacity building)
- UNISDR (assistance and international visibility)
- Philippine national agencies (legislative framework and DRRM funds)
- Schools and educational institutions (resilience education)
- Civil society organizations and local volunteers
The process began with the institutionalization of the purok system as the foundation of community preparedness. After the 2010 DRRM Act, San Francisco aligned its governance by creating the MDRRMO and MDRRMC. A five-year DRRM plan was then formulated, outlining priorities for prevention, preparedness, mitigation, and response. DRRM committees at barangay and purok levels were restructured to distribute responsibilities. Capacity-building followed, with awareness campaigns, training, and community drills. Participatory Capacity and Vulnerability Assessments (PCVA) ensured strategies were adapted to local contexts. Resources from the Local DRRM Fund were allocated to both preparedness and response. Implementation included evacuation plans, early warning systems, and emergency protocols tested in real scenarios. Monitoring and evaluation improved strategies over time. The system proved effective during Typhoon Haiyan, validating the step-by-step approach.
San Francisco’s DRRM model required a balanced mix of financial, human, and technical resources. Financially, the Local DRRM Fund covered prevention, preparedness, drills, evacuation centers, and emergency supplies. External partners like Plan International and UNISDR added support for training and technical expertise. Human resources included municipal staff and barangay councils for coordination, while purok leaders and volunteers ensured last-mile implementation. Their tasks ranged from maintaining household registries to leading evacuation drills. Technical resources involved participatory tools such as PCVA, hazard and risk maps at barangay and purok levels, and early warning systems. Municipal WiFi strengthened communication and coordination during emergencies. Educational materials and school programs transferred knowledge to younger generations. The system combined institutional capacity with grassroots participation. This mix of local funding, community manpower, and external expertise ensured sustainability.
Between 2008 and 2010, San Francisco began preparing for disaster management, partnering with Plan International and starting the transition toward proactive DRRM. From 2011 to 2013, the municipality implemented its five-year DRRM plan, restructuring committees at barangay and purok levels. Training, drills, and participatory planning were introduced to build local capacity. In November 2013, Typhoon Haiyan tested the system, and San Francisco recorded no casualties, proving the model’s effectiveness. The process followed distinct phases: initial preparedness, participatory planning, capacity-building, implementation, and response with recovery. Each phase built on the previous one, ensuring gradual but solid progress. Partnerships with external actors complemented local initiatives. Community structures were consistently reinforced to guarantee sustainability. The sequencing of actions allowed both top-down coordination and bottom-up ownership. Ultimately, the timeframe shows how long-term preparation ensured resilience in the face of major disasters.
Experience of the Implementing Organisation in DRM
Target Audience
Resources Required
Timeframe & Phases
Participation Results
San Francisco faced limited financial support for purok leaders, whose voluntary work risked burnout and perceptions of inequality. This was addressed by fostering volunteerism, collective responsibility, and public recognition. Resistance also emerged from some barangay officials who saw the purok system as redundant or politically competitive. The municipality responded by formally integrating puroks into the DRRM framework and promoting dialogue. Another obstacle was the lack of legal status for puroks, which restricted access to resources. This was mitigated by embedding purok functions in municipal DRRM plans and using Local DRRM Funds alongside external partnerships. At the start, limited technical capacity hindered effective action. To overcome this, the community adopted a learning-by-doing approach, with participatory assessments, drills, and training. These adaptive strategies turned barriers into opportunities, reinforcing both the legitimacy and effectiveness of San Francisco’s resilience model.
This information is not taken directly from the official case study website but reflects complementary sources describing San Francisco’s DRRM practices. The municipality developed hazard and risk maps at barangay and purok levels to identify vulnerable households, safe zones, and evacuation routes. Evacuation centers were set up, and regular drills tested community preparedness. Early warning systems connected municipal monitoring with barangay councils and purok leaders to ensure rapid communication. The Local DRRM Fund reduced financial risks by securing resources for both preparedness and response, preventing resource depletion during crises. Training programs strengthened the capacity of officials, purok leaders, and volunteers to act effectively in emergencies. Schools educated children on safety and preparedness, passing resilience practices to younger generations. These combined measures created a multi-layered safety net that reduced vulnerabilities and improved readiness. Overall, San Francisco’s plan embedded risk management into daily governance and community life.
Risk & Mitigation Plan
Scalability and Sustainability
The sustainability of San Francisco’s disaster risk management model rests on a combination of formal financing mechanisms and strong community participation. At the institutional level, the municipality relies on the Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund (LDRRMF), mandated by the Philippine DRRM Act. This fund guarantees regular and predictable allocations, with clear provisions for prevention, preparedness, mitigation, and rapid response. By ensuring that resources are earmarked in advance, the system reduces dependency on external aid and secures continuity for long-term resilience initiatives.Equally important is the role of the purok system, which operates largely on the basis of volunteerism and self-help. Community members take on responsibilities for preparedness activities, household registries, drills, and awareness campaigns without requiring heavy financial inputs. This grassroots engagement lowers external costs and makes disaster management more affordable, while at the same time strengthening local ownership and accountability.By combining stable municipal funding with community-led action, San Francisco has built a sustainability model that balances institutional support with grassroots resilience, ensuring that disaster preparedness remains both cost-effective and deeply rooted in local practice.
This information is not taken directly from the official case study but reflects broader analysis of the San Francisco model. The purok system shows that informal or neighborhood-level units can be integrated into disaster governance. Its grassroots nature makes it adaptable in other communities with similar structures. The model’s strength lies in starting small and scaling up gradually, allowing municipalities with limited resources to replicate it. Reliance on volunteerism keeps costs low and fosters community ownership. Legal and financial frameworks, such as the Philippine DRRM Act and the Local DRRM Fund, are key for long-term sustainability. Without such support, replication may be harder to sustain. International recognition confirms its value as a reference for other countries. The combination of grassroots action and formal governance enhances adaptability. It is suitable both for small island settings and larger municipalities.
Information not available
Information not available
Information not available
San Francisco’s experience shows that local ownership is essential for effective disaster preparedness. The purok system proved that grassroots structures can play a central role even without formal legal status. Starting with small initiatives and scaling them up built trust and credibility over time. A strong legal and financial framework, such as the Philippine DRRM Act and the Local DRRM Fund, was critical for continuity and legitimacy. Community participation through risk assessments ensured strategies matched local realities. Capacity-building for leaders and volunteers strengthened local response capabilities. Education in schools embedded resilience values across generations. Regular drills and training created a culture of preparedness. Combining top-down governance with bottom-up engagement made the system more inclusive.