Evidence Summary
National Survey Identifies Disaster
Preparedness Gaps in Philippine Libraries
A Review of:
Superio, D.
L., Yap, J. M., Sebial-Guinanao, J. M. L., & Calilung, R. P. (2024). When a disaster strikes: Are
libraries in the Philippines ready? IFLA Journal, 50(2), 322-340. https://doi.org/10.1177/03400352231222039
Reviewed by:
Lisa Shen
Business Librarian & Director of Public Services
Newton Gresham Library
Sam Houston State University
Huntsville, Texas, United States of
America
Email: lshen@shsu.edu
Received: 09 May 2025 Accepted: 25 Aug. 2025
2025 Shen. This
is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
DOI: 10.18438/eblip30787
Abstract
Objective – To assess
the level of disaster preparedness and management practices of Philippine
libraries.
Design – Web-based survey
questionnaire.
Setting – Online survey
conducted between March and May 2019.
Subjects – Ninety head
librarians or officers-in-charge of academic (52), school (24), public (8), or
special (6) libraries in the Philippines.
Methods – Participants
were recruited online by convenience and snowball sampling. Invitations were
posted on the Facebook pages of various library associations and councils and
shared through personal posts and messages.
Main Results – Thirty-nine
(43%) of the respondents indicated that their libraries had experienced at
least one natural or human-caused disaster between 2009 and 2019, including
earthquakes (18%), floods (18%), typhoons (16%), and fires (10%). However, only 21 (23%) of the surveyed
libraries had a formal disaster management plan (DMP). Limited financial (51%)
and human (41%) resources were the most frequently identified constraints for
the lack of DMP. Even so, most libraries did employ some preparedness measures,
such as fire and theft alarms (63%), emergency kits (59%), or scheduled trainings
or drills (46%).
Conclusion – Noting the
limited capacity to prepare for and respond to disasters at most Philippine
libraries, the researchers called for systematic interventions by national and
local government agencies and library associations to provide the necessary
resources and training to improve knowledge around and capabilities for
disaster resilience across all types of libraries.
Commentary
Given the escalating impact of global climate change
and the COVID-19 pandemic, this study provides a timely contribution to library
management literature by examining emergency preparedness efforts by Philippine
libraries. The authors provided a robust literature review supported by a sound
theoretical framework, clearly outlined results, and in-depth discussions.
However, some of the methodology elements were vague and left readers wanting
more specification. An assessment using the EBL Critical Appraisal Checklist
(Glynn, 2006) yielded an overall validity of 63%, with the data collection (80%)
and results (80%) sections meeting the validity threshold of 75% and the
population (33%) and study design (66%) sections failing to do so.
The authors acknowledged several study limitations,
including that the responses represented a “minimal percentage” of all
Philippine libraries (Superio et al., 2024, p. 327),
and that academic (n = 52) and Mindanao region (n = 42) libraries were
disproportionally represented. It would be informative to know the total
population size (i.e., the approximate number of Philippine libraries), the
response rate for each subgroup, and any notable differences in their
preparedness levels. Information about the different geographic regions would
also help inform whether limited preparedness at some institutions reflected an
appropriate low-risk assessment or complacency in higher-risk areas.
Additionally, the authors presented the research as a
mixed-methods study, but the only qualitative portion seemed to be open-ended
questions about factors related to the lack of DMPs, and the responses were
presented as descriptive statistics more appropriately categorized as
quantitative research. Such misclassification of the research design could
misinform aspiring LIS researchers and learners. It is possible that thematic
coding protocols were employed to analyze a substantive set of qualitative survey
responses, but those details and the survey instrument were unavailable.
Finally, while the authors provided a logical
rationale for using Facebook for recruitment, they did not address other data
collection elements, such as processes for recruiting through direct messaging
or methods of identifying library organizations and obtaining their buy-in to
share survey invitations. These details would be desirable to assist future
researchers interested in replicating the study or improving upon the response rate.
The authors’ thorough literature review and analysis
of the study results can serve as a good starting point for those interested in
expanding upon current research in library emergency preparedness. However,
readers are advised to consider the overall representativeness of the study
findings with some caution and refrain from using the design as an example for
mixed-methods research. Nevertheless, given the comparatively limited current
literature on this pertinent topic, including but not limited to Philippine
libraries, this article is a valuable contribution to library and information
studies literature.
References
Glynn, L. (2006). A critical appraisal tool for library and information
research. Library Hi Tech, 24(3), 387–399. https://doi.org/10.1108/07378830610692154
Superio, D. L., Yap, J.
M., Sebial-Guinanao, J. M. L., & Calilung, R. P. (2024). When a disaster strikes: Are
libraries in the Philippines ready? IFLA Journal, 50(2), 322-340. https://doi.org/10.1177/03400352231222039