Volume 5, Issue 4, April – 2020 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology

ISSN No:-2456-2165

Development of a Monitoring, Evaluation,

Accountability and Learning Framework for Early
Warning System for Landslides
Leslie Jamie C. Cobar Roy Albert N. Kaimo
Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology

Roger S. Savella Arturo S. Daag, Ph.D.

Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology

Abstract:- Due to the devastating impacts of landslides Hyogo and Sendai Frameworks, Kyoto Protocol and World
worldwide, various mitigation projects such as Bank’s Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and
establishment of community-based early warning Recovery, an initiative specifically for landslides is the
systems are being initiated. Monitoring, evaluation, International Programme on Landslides. It is being
accountability and learning (MEAL) is integral in implemented by the International Consortium on Landslides
ensuring the success of these projects to achieve their and aims to promote partnerships through provision of
goals. Despite the increase in projects and funding for authorization and advice on landslide mitigation projects
disaster risk reduction, there are insufficient research in [11]. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
understanding the effectiveness of MEAL systems for and the United States Geological Survey also provide
disaster risk reduction projects, particularly for early services through provision of a knowledge base and remote
warning system for landslides (EWS-L). This study sensing datasets to support landslide hazards research [17].
aims to develop a framework for MEAL for EWS-L The European Commission, through the European Soil Data
through a systematic review of the available literature. Center, is also doing the same initiative on research as
The issues and recommendations derived from the landslides are a major hazard in the continent [8].
systematic review were adopted to craft the guiding
principles of the framework with the project goals and In the Philippines, CCA and DRR are being prioritized
objectives. This framework provides a novel approach through the Republic Act 10121 namely the Philippine
by providing guidelines on planning, designing and Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010, the
implementing MEAL not only for early warning system institutionalization of the Climate Change Commission
projects but also in disaster management and under the Office of the President, and inclusion of DRR
development projects in general. aspect in national development planning [22]. Specifically
for landslides, efforts from the Department of Science and
Keywords:- Monitoring; Evaluation; Landslides; Early Technology’s Philippine Institute of Volcanology and
Warning. Seismology (DOST-PHIVOLCS) such as the Dynaslope
Project, formerly Development of Early Warning Systems
I. INTRODUCTION for Landslides (DEWS-L), are being implemented to
empower communities make them resilient against
A landslide is described as a downward movement of a landslides through low-cost early warning systems. Early
mass of rock and debris on a slope. Over the 20th century, warning systems are essential in preparedness of the
there have been around 26 landslide events worldwide communities against disasters to prevent fatalities [24]. One
which resulted in deaths ranging from 54 to 100,000 people of the characteristics of an effective early warning system is
[28]. These catastrophic landslides are enumerated in Table where the recipients or communities receive reliable
1. Heavy rainfall, earthquake, snowmelt and volcanic warning information through proper flow of information
eruption were identified as the triggering factors in the from the monitoring sources down to the local responders
events. [6].

The Philippines is considered as one of the most It has been widely accepted that monitoring,
disaster-prone countries in the world. Annually, it evaluation, accountability and learning (MEAL) is being
experiences an average of twenty typhoons which result in implemented in order to achieve the goals of programs and
secondary disasters such as landslides. Table 2 lists the projects. Monitoring & evaluation (M&E) is being executed
recent major landslide events in the Philippines, most of to check the progress, evaluate the achievement of outcomes
which are aftermaths of typhoon events. and make adjustments in the next planning phase of the
project [10][19][21]. Recently, there has been an emphasis
Due to the devastating impacts of landslides, there has on learning and accountability as important aspects or
been an increase in programs and projects devoted to purpose for M&E [23]. M&E systems have been revised
climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction into various approaches such as results-based [27],
(DRR). Apart from the international initiatives such as the participatory [5], and stakeholder-based [29] in order to

IJISRT20APR476 www.ijisrt.com 727

Volume 5, Issue 4, April – 2020 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
meet different goals of programs and projects in accordance development of MEAL framework and plan for EWS-L? In
to the welfare of its recipients. order to assist in the answering of questions, the objectives
of this study are 1.) to identify issues in M&E by systematic
Despite the increase in climate change adaptation analysis; and 2.) to adopt recommendations in the
(CCA) and disaster risk reduction projects and amount of development of a MEAL framework and plan for EWS-L.
funding available globally, there are insufficient initiatives
on the examination of the utilization of M&E for CCA and II. RESEARCH FLOWCHART
DRR [23].
Figure 1. explains the flowchart of the study which
More specifically, there is a lack of research on M&E also served as the basis for the conceptualization of this
focusing on disaster early warning system projects. study. The items inside the rectangle symbol represents the
objectives of the study, the document symbol represents the
Recognizing the importance of M&E of early warning data source, the arrow represents the method, and the
system projects, the goal of this study is to develop a parallelogram represents the results. The first objective of
framework for creating a MEAL system for early warning the study is to identify issues and recommendations in
system for landslides (EWS-L). The questions which the MEAL through systematic review of literature. Results
study aims to answer are 1.) what are the issues in terms of from the review will be utilized in order to design a
designing and implementing M&E for EWS-L?; and 2.) framework for MEAL for early warning system.
what recommendations or approaches can be adopted for the

Fig 1:- Flowchart for the development of MEAL for EWS-L

Year Eruption Eruption type Human impacts

source
1911 Usoy rockslide, Tadzhik, USSR Usoy 7.4 magnitude earthquake 54 killed

1919 Kalut lahars, Indonesia Eruption of Kalut volcano 5,110 killed

1920 Haiyuan earthquake, China Haiyuan earthquake 100,000 killed
1921 Kazakh Republic Snowmelt 500 killed

1933 Deixi landslides, China (Schichuan) Deixi 7.5 magnitude earthquake 6,800 killed

1939 Mount Rokko, Japan Heavy rain 505 dead

1949 Khait rockslide, Tadzhik, USSR Khait 7.5 magnitude earthquake 12,000-20,000 killed

1953 Arita river slides and debris/mud flow, Wakayama, Heavy rain 460 dead
Japan
1953 Minamiyashiro landslides, Kyoto, Japan Heavy rain 336 dead

IJISRT20APR476 www.ijisrt.com 728

Volume 5, Issue 4, April – 2020 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
1958 Kanogawa slides, Shizuoka, Japan Heavy rain 1,094 dead

1962 Nevados Huascaran debris avalanche, Ancash, Peru - 4,000-5,000 dead

1963 Vaiont Reservoir Rockslide, Italy - 2,000 killed

1964 Alaska landslides, Alaska, USA Prince William Sound 9.5 Estimated US$280
magnitude earthquake million (1964 $)
damages
1965 Rock slides, Yunnan, China - 444 dead

1966 Rio de Janeiro slides, avalanches, debris/mud Heavy rain 1,000 dead
flows, Brazil
1967 Serra das Arasas, Brazil Heavy rain 1,700 dead

1970 Nevados Huascaran debris avalanche, Ancash, Peru 7.7 magnitude earthquake 18,000 dead

1974 Mayunmarca rock-slide debris avalanche, Speculated rainfall or river 450 killed
Huancavelica, Peru erosion
1980 Mount St. Helens rockslide-debris, Washington, Volcanic Explosivity Index 5 5-10 killed; major
USA eruption destruction of
homes/highways
1983 Thistle debris slide, Utah, USA Snowmelt & heavy rain Destroyed major
railroads and highways
1983 Saleshan landslide, Gansu, China - 237 dead

1985 Nevado del Ruiz debris flow, Tolima, Colombia Eruption of Nevada del Ruiz Four towns and villages
destroyed
1986 Papua New Guinea Bairaman 7.1 magnitude Village destroyed by
earthquake debris flow
1987 Reventador landslides, Napo, Ecuador Reventador 6.1-6.5 magnitude 1,000 killed
earthquakes
1994 Paez landslides, Colombia Paez magnitude 6.4 earthquake 271 dead

1998 Flooding, landslides, debris flow in Honduras, Hurricane Mitch Approximately 10,000
Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador killed
Table 1:- Catastrophic Landslides of the 20th Century - Worldwide [27]

Year Location Number of Persons Affected

1999 Cherry Hills, Antipolo, Rizal 60 dead

2003 Panaon Island, Southern Leyte 154 dead

2006 Guinsaugon, Saint Bernard, Southern Leyte 1200-1500 dead
2006 Mayon Volcano lahar 526 dead, 740 missing

2009 Cordillera (Benguet, Baguio, Mountain Province) 120 dead

2012 Pantukan, Compostela Valley 42 dead

2012 New Bataan, Compostela Valley 128 dead, 450 missing

2014 Catbalogan, Samar 9 dead

2017 Biliran Province 42 dead

2018 Itogon, Benguet 58 dead

2018 Naga, Cebu 29 dead

Table 2:- Recent Major Landslide Events in the Philippines [4][18]

IJISRT20APR476 www.ijisrt.com 729

Volume 5, Issue 4, April – 2020 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
III. METHODOLOGY Some of the data being collected for M&E are
incomplete in entirety [28] which may result in lapses if
A. Data Collection these will be utilized in the project managers’ decision-
Literature in the form of scientific articles, manuals, making processes.
handbooks, guidelines, and technical reports from academic,
non-government and funding organizations were collected  Institutional Problems
online and reviewed. Literature both for generic M&E, Problems in the institutions are also factors in terms of
disaster risk management and climate change adaptation determining success in implementing M&E in projects.
were reviewed as literature specific to M&E for both early One of the problems identified is the capacity of the
warning systems and landslide projects weren’t available. personnel to implement monitoring and evaluation
The researchers also considered the terms “Monitoring and responsibilities [15][28]. There was also a high turnover of
Evaluation (M&E)”, “Monitoring”, and “Evaluation” in personnel involved especially projects where high risks are
searching and collection of literature due to the lack of involved [28]. Funding for M&E activities and M&E skill
available resources specifically for MEAL. shortage were also cited as challenges in M&E [15]. The
capacity of the personnel in charge of M&E should also be
B. Analysis and Framework Development built and improved.
Systematic review of literature was performed for the
collected resources. This approach stems from the social A means to address problems in institutions is to
sciences and uses existing studies to answer questions [12]. ensure political support as a means to gain support from the
After the review of collected literature, issues and public [29]. Stakeholder commitment is a factor in terms of
recommendations were consolidated, then clustered into successful implementation [14] as they are not being
cross-cutting themes. These were adopted for the design consulted in the M&E decision-making process. In
and development of the MEAL framework for EWS-L addition, coordination and cooperation is also seen as
[1][7]. The developed framework was in line with the goals problems in terms of efficient implementation of M&E
and objectives of community-based early warning system [14].
for landslides, and desired to be utilized in the development
of a MEAL system in the future.  Indicator- and Baseline-Setting
During the development of framework, indicators
Findings from the review were summarized through must be improved by identifying both the quantitative and
Microsoft Excel by acquiring issues and challenges and qualitative aspects [21]. It is also recommended to involve
recommendations from each source. the community in setting the indicators in the achievement
of outcomes [28]. Making the community involved in
IV. RESULTS defining indicators makes the process more participatory
and relatable for them, which contribute to the achievement
A. Issues and Recommendations on MEAL Systems of the goals of the project. There is also a need to
coordinate with stakeholders to identify the appropriate
 Designing Monitoring and Evaluation Systems baselines of indicators [13].
It has been mentioned that the context of monitoring
and evaluation particularly for CCA lacks a practical guide  Use of Technology in Reporting
or approach in developing an M&E system [24]. There are Utilization of technology in recording, reporting and
also issues in terms of the inability of M&E practitioners to evaluation of outputs is suggested to efficiently gather data
link planning and budget priorities [14]. Focusing too much for M&E for proper tracking, consolidation and analysis
on indicators instead of context of projects also make the [25] [2]. An example on the utilization of technology for
M&E problematic in the achievement of higher impact of data processing is through geographic information systems
projects [14]; Ramos et al., 2004). Setting of definitions and web-based applications [16][13]. Encoding data in
and baselines is also crucial in the design and uniform templates and report outlines is also instrumental
implementation of M&E [24]. for easier facilitation of data [25]. There should also be a
proper system of reporting, summarizing data, and
 M&E Complexity dissemination of an automated timely response in order to
Another issue on M&E implementation is that the streamline data collection [16][25].
M&E plans are too complex for the stakeholders involved,
and the implementation takes too much time and effort  Outcomes as the focus of disaster risk management
[24][28]. Concepts such as “Theory of Change” are being capacities
suggested as the commencing stage in formulating MEAL A rigorous monitoring system should always base on
plans, yet not all of the M&E staff understand how it is outcomes rather than outputs [13]. For disaster risk
being done. This complexity is also related to the M&E as management capacity, there should be an outcome-based
an expensive and difficult activity [3]. These characteristics generic framework in M&E of disasters in order to provide
can be detrimental especially to the recipients of projects flexibility for project managers and for them to focus on the
such as the community and local governments that lack the sustainability of the projects [20]. The proposed framework
capacity to implement M&E systems. identified the following sub-outcomes which disaster risk
management capacity projects should aim for: 1.)

IJISRT20APR476 www.ijisrt.com 730

Volume 5, Issue 4, April – 2020 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
Knowledge and behavior change in the community; 2.) objectives will be the guide for the achievement of projects
DRRM included in the local institutional framework; and by performing activities that support them. In order to
3.) Creation of an enabling environment; successfully implement the MEAL Plan, the guiding
principles shall be the pillars in each stage of the MEAL
 Lack of consideration of the local and dynamic contexts cycle.
As regards M&E for climate change adaptation and
resilience, the spatial factors of measuring resilience must  MEAL Cycle: Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation
be considered [3]. Site-specific intricacies must be The MEAL cycle in this framework comprises of
considered in the planning and implementation of M&E three phases: 1.) planning; 2.) monitoring; and 3.)
[23]. Indicators and targets should also be iterative & evaluation. Planning is the phase where the setting of goals,
dynamic [23][2]. Uncertainty regarding future climate objectives, indicators, and resources are being performed.
change impacts is also a factor in the creation of M&E as This includes completion of the results framework or
adaptation targets may change despite the existence of logical framework. Monitoring is the phase where the
sophisticated climate models to predict and simulate future progress of the project implementation are being assessed
impacts of climate change [23]. in terms of the utilization of inputs to achieve outputs and
intermediate outcomes. Evaluation is where the assessment
B. Developed MEAL EWS-L Framework of progress towards the achievement of project outcomes is
After a comprehensive review of both the common being undertaken. Accountability and learning are
issues and recommendations of MEAL, the framework classified under evaluation as stated in various literature.
developed for MEAL for EWS-L was formulated in Figure The results of feedback and learning sub-phases will be
2. The design of the MEAL plan and its implementation utilized in the succeeding planning phase.
will be framed after the project’s goal. The project’s

Fig 2:- MEAL Framework for EWS-L

 MEAL Framework Principles ordinances and policies of the locality, and providing an
The following principles of the MEAL framework are enabling environment by which community-based EWS
defined in the following paragraphs. The principles are not can be implemented easily [20].
linear and all-encompassing in nature and can be utilized as
a guideline in the development of MEAL systems for EWS- Achievement of outcomes and impact is also the pillar
L. of results-based monitoring and evaluation by which
management methodologies are patterned after
 Outcome development results. [26].
Focusing on outcomes has been mentioned in most of
the literature on M&E. The goal of the MEAL system
should be to see the changes in behavior of people [5].
Early warning system for landslides initiatives are being
integrated into the way of life of the community,

IJISRT20APR476 www.ijisrt.com 731

Volume 5, Issue 4, April – 2020 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
 Participatory V. DISCUSSION
Participation of various stakeholders has been widely
accepted as an approach in monitoring and evaluation of It was identified in the systematic review that it is
development disaster risk reduction projects as they are the integral to focus on the people for an effective MEAL
recipients of the project with whom the project managers system for landslide early warning system projects. MEAL
are accountable for, and whose insights must be sought in frameworks, plans and tools and analysis should
order to achieve the goals [5][25][29]. Seeking the inputs of concentrate on what benefits the people and their unique
the community, local partners and external monitors can situations, cultures and characteristics. It was apparent that
also solve the challenge of lack of M&E personnel, implementation of MEAL without focusing on the
especially in high conflict areas [28]. outcomes has been a major issue. The support of effective
and committed institutions is also necessary in the proper
 Local context implementation of MEAL.
Creation of M&E systems should consider the local
context and intricacies individuals, communities, and The limited number of academic articles specifically
councils [24]. Spatial element of resilience measurements explaining the theory and paradigm for MEAL system for
[3]. Each community has its own cultures and early warning system for landslide projects also implies the
characteristics which must be considered in planning for insufficient efforts to thoroughly understand the appropriate
disaster resilience projects. systems to monitor activities, evaluate the achievement of
goals for disaster-related projects, and how to utilize the
 Technology suggestions of the stakeholders for improvement. The
As mentioned, the utilization of technology in available literature were mostly through handbooks,
monitoring and evaluation of implementation efficiently manuals and reports produced by funding and non-
gather data for M&E for proper tracking, consolidation and government organizations. These resources do not
analysis [2][25]. This can also prevent issues in M&E such explicitly state how these manuals were formulated and
as incompleteness and inaccessibility of data and delay of what their bases were.
reports.
Landslide events may increase due to the effects of
 Institutional and Political Commitment climate change, and changes in topography due to
It has been stated also that institutional & political anthropogenic causes. Increase in landslide events may
commitment to monitoring and evaluation is important for increase the likelihood of landslide-related disasters. It is
a successful MEAL system [9][14][15][28]. Having important for funding institutions to create projects that will
institutional and political commitment of stakeholders, help communities reduce landslide risks. Thus, the
especially local or federal governments, may result in framework presented in this paper can be a generic guide
MEAL-enhancing activities such as capacity-building of and impetus for scientific and collaborative discussion on
personnel in terms of conducting M&E, providing funding monitoring and evaluating disaster risk reduction-related
and equipment resources, and incorporation of early initiatives.
warning system in the local DRR plans, laws, and proactive
actions towards early warning systems. VI. CONCLUSION

C. MEAL Framework for community-based early warning The study reviewed the prevailing issues and
systems (CBEWS-L) for landslides challenges, and recommendations in MEAL systems for
The developed MEAL framework for community- early warning system for landslides (EWS-L). The findings
based early warning systems for landslides can be seen in were utilized to formulate a framework for a MEAL system
Figure 3. This is the framework of MEAL. The core of the that can be applied for early warning system for landslides.
framework is the project’s goal, which is to contribute to the It was found that focusing on the outcomes which will
empowerment and resilience of communities by using benefit the people is the key in formulating and
science and technology in the development of a community- implementing a MEAL system for EWS-L. Commitment of
based early warning system for landslides (CBEWS-L). The institutions and utilization of technology will also support
objectives are to: 1) improve early warning system for the achievement of outcomes.
landslides; 2) promote enabling institutional environment by
developing capacities of partner communities or Literature on rigorous testing and evaluation of the
sustainability; and 3) strengthen research and development appropriate MEAL for early warning system is sparse. As
practice in landslide risk reduction. It is hoped that the initiatives on disaster risk reduction and climate change
MEAL system for CBEWS-L shall concentrate on the have been increasing, it is integral to put effort in MEAL
guiding principles. research by assessing and formulating the appropriate tools
and analysis in order to achieve the disaster risk reduction
outcomes.

IJISRT20APR476 www.ijisrt.com 732

Volume 5, Issue 4, April – 2020 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165

Fig 3:- MEAL Framework for EWS-L

ACKNOWLEDGMENT <https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/212440-list-
deadly-landslides-philippines>
This work was supported by the Philippines’ [5]. Care International (2014) Participatory Monitoring,
Department of Science and Technology thru the Dynaslope Evaluation, Reflection and Learning for Community-
Project (Development of Early Warning System for based Adaptation (PMERL): A Revised Manual for
Landslides). The authors declare no conflict of interest in Local Practitioners. Used with permission, pp. 1-51.
this manuscript. [6]. Cobar, L. J., Miyamoto, K., Legono, D. (2016)
Modeling of Information Flow for Early Warning in
REFERENCES Mount Merapi Area, Indonesia. Journal of Disaster
Research Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 60-71.
[1]. Abdulquadri Ade Bilau, E., Witt, E., Lill, I. (2018) [7]. Durden, J., Murphy, K., Jaeckel, A., Van Dover, C.,
Research methodology for the development of a Christiansen, S., Gjerde, k., Ortega, A., Jones, D.
framework for managing post-disaster housing (2017) A procedural framework for robust
reconstruction. Procedia Engineering. 7th environmental management of deep-sea mining
International Conference on Building Resilience: projects. Marine Policy. Vol. 84, pp. 193-201.
Using scientific knowledge to inform policy and [8]. European Soil Data Centre (2019) Landslides.
practice in disaster risk reduction, ICBR 2017, 27-29 European Commission Joint Research Centre. Date
November 2017, Bangkok, Thailand. 212, pp. 598- Accessed: 06/17/2019. Retrieved from:
605. <https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/themes/landslides>
[2]. Argyrous and Rahman (2016) A Monitoring and [9]. Hapunda, G. (2018) Basis for Comparison and
Evaluation Framework for Disaster Recovery Elements of Monitoring and Evaluation.
Programs. The Australia and New Zealand School of [10]. Handbook of Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation
Government Ltd. pp. 1-53. Date Accessed: April 10, for Projects, Programmes or Policies. pp. 53-82.
2019. Retrieved from: [11]. Han, Q., Sassa, K., Kan, F. M., Margottini, C. (2017)
<https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/media/4783/ausnz- International Programme on Landslides (IPL):
school-of-govt_mpluse-framework-for-disaster- Objectives, History and List of World Centres of
recovery-programs.pdf> Excellence and IPL Projects. pp.
[3]. Brown, C., Shaker, R., Das, R. (2016) A review of [12]. James, K., Randall, N., Haddaway, N. (2018). A
approaches for monitoring and evaluation of urban methodology for systematic mapping in
climate resilience initiatives. Environment environmental sciences. Environmental Evidence.
Development and Sustainability. Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. Vol. 5, No. 7, pp. 1-13.
23-40. [13]. Katich, K. (2010) Monitoring and Evaluation in
[4]. Bueza, M. (2018) List: Deadly landslides in the Disaster Risk Management. EAP DRM Knowledge
Philippines. Rappler. Date Accessed: 06/10/2019. Notes; No. 21. World Bank, Washington, DC. World
Retrieved from: Bank.

IJISRT20APR476 www.ijisrt.com 733

Volume 5, Issue 4, April – 2020 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/1 [25]. United Nations International Strategy for Disaster
0119 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.” Risk Reduction (2015) Monitoring and Evaluation
[14]. Masuku, N., Ijeoma, EOC (2015) A Global Overview Framework. pp. 1-24.
of Monitoring and Evaluation & its Meaning in the [26]. United Nations Development Programme (2002)
Local Government Context of South Africa. Africa’s Results-based Management: Concepts and
Public Service Delivery and Performance Review, Methodology. Technical Note. pp. 1-19.
Vol. 3, No. 2., pp.5-25. [27]. United States Geological Survey (2018) Catastrophic
[15]. Mthethwa, R. and Jilli, N. (2016) Challenges in Landslides of the 20th Century - Worldwide. Date
implementing monitoring and evaluation (M&E) The Accessed: 06/14/2019 Retrieved from:
case of the Mfolozi Municipality. African Journal of <https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/landslide-
Public Affairs, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 102-113. hazards/science/catastrophic-landslides-20th-century-
[16]. Nash, D., Elul, B., Rabkin, M., Tun, M., Saito, S., worldwide?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-
Becker, M., Nugawa-Biribonhowa, H. (2009) science_center_objects>
Strategies for More Effective Monitoring and [28]. Walden, V. (2013) Quick Guide to Monitoring,
Evaluation Systems in HIV Programmatic Scale-up in Evaluation, Accountability and Learning in Fragile
Resource-Limited Settings: Implications for Health Contexts. Oxfam. pp. 1-3.
System Strengthening. Journal of Acquired Immune [29]. Yuniartanti, R., Handayani, W., Waskitaningsih, N.
Deficiency Syndrome, Volume 25, Supplement 1, pp. (2016) Monitoring and evaluation effectiveness in
58-62. flood early warning system project in Semarang City.
[17]. National Aeronautics and Space Administration International Journal of Society Systems Science. Vol.
(2019) Landslides. NASA Earth Science Disaster 8, No. 1., pp. 49-77.
Program. Date Accessed: 06/17/2019. Retrieved from
<https://disasters.nasa.gov/landslides>
[18]. Rabonza, G. (2006) Philippines: NDCC media update-
Typhoon Reming (Durian). Technical Report. Office
of Civil Defense. Date Accessed: 06/10/2019.
Retrieved from
<https://center.noah.up.edu.ph/reming-2006-landslide-
in-albay/>
[19]. Save The Children (2014) Session 2: Save The
Children (MEAL) System Overview. Save the
Children’s Resource Centre.
<https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/node/1220
3/pdf/2_meal_system_overview.pdf> p. 9.
[20]. Scott, Z., Wooster, K., Few, R., Thomson, A.,
Tarazona, M., (2016) Monitoring and Evaluating
Disaster Risk Management Capacity. Disaster
Prevention and Management: An International
Journal, pp. 412-422.
[21]. The Development Executive (2012) Indicators,
Logframe and Monitoring and Evaluation System.
Date Accessed: 06/20/2019. Retrieved from:
<https://www.devex.com/news/indicators-logframe-
and-m-and-e-system-78031>
[22]. Tio, R. (2011) Integrating Disaster Risk Reduction
and Climate Change Adaptation in Development
Planning and Decision-making Processes: The
Philippines Experience. Presentation in the UNFCCC
Workshop on the identification of gaps and challenges
in the implementation of risk management approaches
to the adverse effects of climate change, 10 – 12
October 2011, Lima, Peru, pp. 1-8.
[23]. Turner, S., Moloney, S., Glover, A. and Fünfgeld, H.
(2014) A review of the Monitoring and Evaluation
Literature for Climate Change Adaptation, Centre for
Urban Research, RMIT University, Melbourne. pp. 1-
48.
[24]. United Nations International Strategy for Disaster
Risk Reduction (2006) Developing Early Warning
Systems: A Checklist: EWC III Third International
Conference on Early Warning. pp. 1-13.

IJISRT20APR476 www.ijisrt.com 734