Disasters are not only material and environmental crises but also communicative events in which public interpretation, trust, and collective response are shaped through the circulation of information, cultural meaning systems, and socially embedded processes of risk negotiation. The ways in which communities prepare for, respond to, and recover from crises are profoundly shaped by the circulation of information, the credibility of messengers, and the cultural frameworks through which risk is interpreted. In the Philippines, among the most disaster-prone nations globally, effective communication is often regarded as a linchpin for disaster risk reduction. Yet, mainstream approaches to disaster communication have largely been dominated by Western technocratic paradigms—frameworks that prioritize efficiency, accuracy, and the transmission of scientific information, while neglecting the cultural and epistemic realities of local communities (Alexander, 2014; Gaillard, 2019). This imbalance creates what Santos (2018) calls an “epistemic injustice,” wherein local and indigenous forms of knowledge are either sidelined or appropriated without proper recognition. These limitations become especially visible in contexts where institutional communication systems encounter culturally diverse communities whose understandings of risk are shaped by localized histories, vernacular practices, and indigenous epistemologies.

In recent years, critiques of disaster communication have pointed to the limitations of these one-size-fits-all, top-down models. Global scholarship has highlighted the dangers of “technocolonialism” in risk communication, whereby technologies and frameworks developed in the Global North are transplanted into contexts of the Global South without adaptation to local epistemologies (Escobar, 2018; Madianou, 2015).

Such approaches risk producing communicative dissonance, where official warnings and scientific risk assessments fail to resonate with or be acted upon by communities, not due to ignorance, but because they do not align with lived realities, cultural logics, and locally trusted practices. The result is a recurring pattern: despite the proliferation of advanced technologies and standardized protocols, communities remain vulnerable, and communication gaps persist.

The Philippines provides a compelling site for interrogating these tensions. Known as the “most exposed country in the world to multiple hazards” (World Bank, 2020), the nation regularly experiences typhoons, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions. Within this national landscape, the municipality of San Luis in Aurora Province represents a microcosm of disaster vulnerability: a coastal community at the frontline of typhoon impacts, whose residents must negotiate between formal government messaging and longstanding indigenous practices for survival. The lived experiences of San Luis residents illustrate not only the practical challenges of disaster communication but also the epistemic clashes between institutional discourses of risk and community-grounded knowledge systems. These tensions also shape how communities evaluate credibility, negotiate preparedness decisions, and collectively interpret institutional warnings during crises. In this sense, disaster communication in San Luis provides a critical site for examining how public opinion surrounding risk and preparedness is culturally mediated within vulnerable coastal communities.

This study positions indigenous knowledge as central to addressing these tensions. Rather than treating cultural practices as supplementary to scientific communication, it argues for their integration into scientized disaster communication frameworks. The notion of “scientization,” as applied here, does not imply the domination of science over local knowledge, but rather the careful integration of scientific and indigenous epistemologies to produce communication strategies that are both rigorous and culturally resonant. Indigenous practices such as bayanihan (collective solidarity), pakikiramdam (sensitivity to social and environmental cues), kapwa (shared identity and interdependence), and spiritual faith are not merely cultural artifacts; they are active modes of resilience and trusted channels of meaning-making in times of crisis (Buelo, 2025a, 2025b).

At the same time, integrating indigenous epistemologies into disaster communication is not merely a technical exercise—it is a decolonial imperative. Decolonizing disaster communication entails recognizing the epistemic authority of local communities, challenging the hegemony of Western-centric models, and reframing the study of risk and resilience through Southern perspectives (Escobar, 2018; Gaillard & Mercer, 2013). By foregrounding indigenous knowledge in scientized frameworks, this study contributes to the ongoing project of decolonizing public opinion and communication research, extending debates beyond theory into practice.

The present paper builds on a mixed-methods study conducted in San Luis, Aurora, which examined the current state of disaster communication strategies, community perceptions and experiences, and the role of indigenous practices in shaping resilience. From this empirical foundation, the paper advances the SALIGAN framework—a comprehensive model for disaster communication that integrates seven interdependent pillars: strategic communication modes, aligning to cultural and linguistic contexts, local participation, integrated knowledge co-creation, guidance through feedback, anchoring in governance, and networking and replication. While the framework was originally developed as part of my doctoral dissertation (Buelo, 2025b), this article refocuses its significance for international communication scholarship by emphasizing its contribution to decolonization and epistemic justice.

Thus, the purpose of this article is threefold. First, it highlights the epistemic tensions in disaster communication by showing how official strategies often clash with community-grounded practices. Second, it demonstrates the resilience and adaptive value of indigenous knowledge systems in navigating disasters.

Third, it advances the SALIGAN framework as a decolonized, scientized approach to disaster communication, offering both theoretical enrichment and practical guidance for scholars, policymakers, and practitioners.

The central research question guiding this article is:

RQ1: How can indigenous knowledge systems be integrated into scientized disaster communication frameworks, and what does this reveal about the decolonization of risk communication in the Global South?

By answering this question, my study not only contributes to scholarly debates on disaster risk reduction and communication but also provides pathways for reimagining crisis communication that are culturally grounded, inclusive, and epistemically just. In doing so, the it positions disaster communication not merely as a technical process of information dissemination, but as a culturally negotiated and epistemically contested field through which resilience, public interpretation, and collective survival are continuously shaped.

Literature Review

Cultural Framings of Disaster

Disasters are not merely natural or technological phenomena; they are also cultural events, shaped by how communities interpret, narrate, and respond to risk (Hewitt, 2013). Risk perception is mediated through cultural logics, social hierarchies, and symbolic systems that determine what is considered dangerous and how communities act upon warnings. These cultural systems also shape how publics evaluate the credibility of warnings, assign meaning to risk, and collectively negotiate appropriate responses during crisis situations. For instance, Douglas and Wildavsky’s (1982) seminal work on risk culture emphasizes that risk is socially constructed and embedded in power relations. In the Philippine context, disasters are often framed not only as meteorological or geological events but also as collective trials intertwined with spirituality, kinship, and community resilience (Bankoff, 2003).

Cultural framings matter because they determine whether official messages resonate with communities. A government-issued storm surge warning, for example, may be disregarded if it is communicated in highly technical language, but the same warning reframed through culturally familiar metaphors—such as invoking kinship ties or collective responsibility—may be more effective (Gaillard & Texier, 2010). Thus, cultural framings reveal the need for disaster communication strategies that go beyond scientific accuracy to embrace symbolic resonance and cultural humility.

Participatory Models of Communication

The limitations of top-down communication models have long been recognized in development and risk communication scholarship. Early diffusion models, which assumed that expert knowledge simply needed to be transmitted to passive publics, were critiqued for their linearity and exclusion of community voices (Rogers, 2003). Such models have been criticized for assuming that information accuracy alone is sufficient to generate compliance, while overlooking the social, cultural, and relational dimensions through which communities interpret and act upon risk communication. In response, participatory communication approaches emerged, emphasizing dialogue, collaboration, and co-creation of knowledge (Freire, 1970; Servaes, 1999).

In disaster communication, participatory models advocate for the involvement of local communities not only as recipients of warnings but as active agents in knowledge production and dissemination (Cadag & Gaillard, 2012). Such approaches acknowledge that communities possess their own risk indicators, early warning systems, and resilience practices. For example, fisherfolk may rely on the color of the sea or bird flight patterns as environmental cues, which serve as functional equivalents to satellite forecasts. When these indicators are incorporated into official communication systems, disaster messages become more trusted and actionable.

Participatory models therefore highlight the importance of integrating local knowledge systems with institutional communication practices. However, the challenge lies in moving from tokenistic consultations toward genuine knowledge co-production, where communities exercise epistemic authority and shape the design of communication frameworks.

Epistemological Tensions in Disaster Communication

The intersection of scientific and indigenous knowledge produces both opportunities and frictions. On the one hand, integrating scientific forecasts with local practices can enhance preparedness; on the other, epistemological tensions often arise when institutional actors dismiss indigenous knowledge as anecdotal, irrational, or unscientific (Mercer et al., 2010). These tensions reflect broader debates in science and technology studies (STS), where the privileging of Western epistemologies perpetuates epistemic hierarchies and marginalizes alternative ways of knowing (Santos, 2018).

In the Philippine case, epistemological tensions are evident in how disaster communication is delivered. Government agencies often rely on highly technical language (e.g., “storm surge” or “intensity scale”) that does not easily translate into community discourse. Residents may instead rely on vernacular descriptions (“daluyong” for tidal waves [though daluyong really means storm surge]) or environmental cues that resonate more closely with lived experiences. The resulting gap is not merely linguistic but epistemological: whose knowledge counts, and whose knowledge is sidelined? These tensions reveal that disaster communication is not merely a question of transmitting information, but also a struggle over epistemic authority, communicative legitimacy, and whose interpretations of risk become institutionally recognized.

This tension underscores the need for frameworks that can scientize without colonizing—that is, integrate the rigor of scientific systems while honoring the validity and utility of indigenous epistemologies.

Critiques: Technocolonialism and the Call to Decolonize Disaster Risk Reduction

A growing body of scholarship critiques the dominance of Western, technocratic models in disaster risk reduction as a form of “technocolonialism” (Madianou, 2015). This critique argues that technologies such as early warning systems, mobile apps, and satellite data, while valuable, are often imposed without regard for local contexts. They risk creating dependencies on external expertise and sidelining community-based capacities (Escobar, 2018).

Beyond technological dependence, these critiques also expose how communication systems may reproduce colonial patterns of expertise and authority by positioning local communities as passive recipients rather than co-producers of preparedness knowledge. Decolonizing disaster communication requires more than the inclusion of indigenous knowledge as an “add-on.” It entails a fundamental shift in epistemic authority, where local communities are not only consulted but recognized as co-equal producers of risk knowledge. Gaillard and Mercer (2013) argue for a “bridging” approach, where indigenous and scientific knowledge systems are integrated to produce hybrid strategies that are both culturally relevant and scientifically robust. This decolonial turn resonates with broader calls in communication studies to provincialize Western frameworks and embrace Southern epistemologies (Chakrabarty, 2000).

For the Philippines, a decolonial lens is particularly urgent given its colonial history and contemporary vulnerability to global climate regimes. Disaster communication that fails to account for cultural heterogeneity risks reproducing colonial logics of control, where the state dictates preparedness without engaging communities in meaningful dialogue.

Indigenous and Local Epistemologies in Disaster Communication

Indigenous knowledge is not static folklore but a dynamic system of practices, beliefs, and values that shape how communities engage with risk (Nakagawa & Shaw, 2004). In the Philippines, coastal and upland communities have long relied on environmental indicators—such as wind shifts, animal behavior, or sea color changes—as warning signs. These practices, transmitted intergenerationally, remain vital even in the age of satellite forecasts.

Beyond environmental cues, indigenous epistemologies also encompass relational values that inform collective action. Bayanihan reflects mutual aid and solidarity in evacuation and recovery. Pakikiramdam fosters sensitivity to both environmental and social cues, allowing communities to anticipate risks before they are formally announced. Kapwa underlines shared identity and responsibility, ensuring that disaster responses are not individualistic but collective. Spiritual faith, another cornerstone of Filipino indigenous epistemologies, shapes how communities interpret disaster events as tests of resilience and as occasions for collective renewal. These indigenous epistemologies therefore function not only as cultural values but also as communicative logics that shape how warnings are interpreted, trusted, circulated, and acted upon within community networks. Integrating these epistemologies into scientized frameworks allows for disaster communication that is both rigorous and resonant. Instead of positioning indigenous practices as supplementary, they can serve as core communicative logics that enhance trust, participation, and resilience. The proposed SALIGAN framework advances this integration by formalizing indigenous practices into interdependent pillars that guide disaster messaging and policy.

Synthesis

The reviewed literature demonstrates that disaster communication is at once a technical, cultural, and epistemological process. Existing models often privilege Western scientific approaches, producing epistemic tensions that weaken trust and effectiveness. Participatory communication and indigenous epistemologies offer critical alternatives, but they must be framed within decolonial logics that shift epistemic authority to communities themselves. By grounding disaster communication within Filipino cultural epistemologies and participatory communicative practices, the study advances a localized and decolonial approach to risk communication that foregrounds public interpretation, epistemic plurality, and community-centered resilience.

Methodology

Research Design

This study employed a qualitative case study design to explore how indigenous knowledge systems can be integrated into disaster communication frameworks in San Luis, Aurora. A case study approach was chosen because it allows for in-depth investigation of a bounded system—here, the municipality of San Luis—as a representative site where both institutional disaster communication and community-based practices intersect (Yin, 2018). Qualitative inquiry was central to capturing the lived experiences, narratives, and epistemologies of local actors, which cannot be adequately represented through quantitative measurement alone.

The study was informed by a constructivist orientation, recognizing that meanings surrounding disasters, risks, and communication practices are socially and culturally constructed through lived experiences and community interactions. This orientation aligned with the study’s emphasis on indigenous epistemologies, participatory knowledge production, and the interpretation of disaster messages within localized contexts.

This study approaches public opinion not as a statistically aggregated construct but as a socially negotiated and culturally mediated process of interpreting, trusting, and responding to disaster-related information. In San Luis, Aurora, public opinion emerged through communicative interactions among residents, local officials, kinship networks, and institutional actors. A qualitative case study design was therefore appropriate because it enabled examination of how perceptions of credibility, urgency, trustworthiness, and legitimacy were collectively formed and negotiated during disaster situations.

Setting and Context

San Luis, Aurora, is a coastal municipality along the eastern seaboard of Luzon, directly exposed to typhoons, flooding, and storm surges. The municipality’s vulnerability is shaped not only by its geophysical location but also by socioeconomic reliance on fishing and agriculture, limited infrastructural resources, and cultural heterogeneity. San Luis is notable for the coexistence of formal government-driven disaster communication strategies, primarily through the Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office (MDRRMO), and longstanding indigenous practices such as reliance on environmental cues, kinship networks, and collective cultural values like bayanihan and pakikiramdam. This intersection of institutional and community-based systems provided a rich context for examining epistemic tensions and integration.

Participants and Sampling

A purposive sampling strategy was adopted to capture diverse perspectives across stakeholder groups:

  • Residents: Individuals from coastal community were interviewed to reflect varied ages, genders, and livelihoods. Their narratives centered on experiences of receiving, interpreting, and acting upon disaster communication.

  • Barangay (smallest political and administrative unit in the Philippines) Officials: Local leaders were interviewed to provide insight into grassroots governance and the transmission of official communication.

  • MDRRMO Staff: Municipal disaster managers offered perspectives on institutional communication practices and their challenges.

  • Focus Group Discussion: A session with marginalized stakeholders—including women, youth leaders, an LGBTQIA+ representative, and an indigenous community member—foregrounded perspectives often excluded in formal disaster communication.

This multi-stakeholder composition ensured that institutional voices, everyday community experiences, and marginalized viewpoints were all represented in the case study.

Participants were selected purposively based on their direct involvement in disaster experiences, communication practices, and local governance processes. The study involved individual interviews with community residents, barangay officials, and MDRRMO personnel, alongside one focus group discussion composed of marginalized stakeholders. Selection prioritized participants with substantial lived experience of typhoon-related disasters and familiarity with both formal and informal communication systems.

Data Collection Methods

Data were gathered through multiple qualitative techniques:

  1. Semi-Structured Interviews: Conducted with residents, barangay officials, and MDRRMO staff to explore communication practices, challenges, and perceptions of indigenous knowledge.

  2. Focus Group Discussion: Enabled dialogue among marginalized groups, eliciting collective narratives about disaster experiences and culturally grounded practices.

  3. Document and Social Media Analysis: Included review of local MDRRMO memoranda, advisories, and Facebook posts to contextualize institutional messaging.

This multi-method strategy allowed triangulation across data sources, strengthening credibility and depth.

The development of the SALIGAN framework emerged through an inductive-deductive analytic process. Initial themes were generated inductively from recurring participant narratives, communicative practices, and observed tensions between institutional and indigenous approaches to disaster communication. These emergent categories were subsequently refined through engagement with existing scholarship on crisis communication, decolonization, participatory communication, and scientization. The seven SALIGAN pillars therefore represent both empirically grounded themes and theoretically informed syntheses derived from the study’s iterative analytical process.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed thematically using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) approach. Transcripts from interviews and the focus group discussion were read repeatedly to identify patterns and codes, which were then clustered into themes that aligned with or challenged existing literature on disaster communication, cultural framings, and epistemological tensions. An inductive-deductive strategy was adopted: themes emerged from participants’ narratives while also being informed by theoretical constructs such as decolonization, participatory communication, and scientization.

To strengthen credibility and trustworthiness, the study employed methodological triangulation through the use of interviews, focus group discussions, and document analysis. Recurrent themes were compared across participant groups and institutional materials to ensure consistency and depth of interpretation. Reflexive attention was also maintained throughout the analysis, particularly in interpreting indigenous knowledge practices and culturally grounded meanings within the community context.

Ethical Considerations

The study prioritized ethical and culturally respectful engagement. Informed consent was secured from all participants, who were assured of confidentiality and the right to withdraw at any time. Special care was taken in engaging marginalized groups, ensuring their perspectives were not tokenized but meaningfully represented. Findings were shared with community stakeholders in an accessible form, reinforcing reciprocity and acknowledging participants as co-producers of knowledge rather than mere informants. Given the study’s emphasis on indigenous and community-based epistemologies, reflexive sensitivity was maintained throughout field engagement and interpretation. I remained attentive to power dynamics, representation, and the risk of reducing local knowledge into merely supplementary forms of expertise. Community narratives were therefore approached not simply as data sources but as legitimate epistemic contributions to disaster communication scholarship.

Limitations

As a qualitative case study situated in a single municipality, findings are not intended to be generalized to all disaster contexts. Instead, they provide deep, contextualized insights that contribute to theoretical debates and practical frameworks in disaster communication. The reliance on narrative accounts may also reflect subjective biases, but the use of multiple data sources and triangulation helped to mitigate this. Furthermore, I prioritized depth over breadth, emphasizing contextual understanding rather than statistical representativeness. While this limits broad generalizability, it enables nuanced exploration of how public opinion, trust, and indigenous epistemologies interact within localized disaster communication systems.

Results

Strategic Communication Modes

My findings reveal that San Luis relies on a multimodal communication ecology. Digital platforms such as Facebook posts and SMS advisories are paired with analog tools like VHF radios, handheld units, sirens, and the traditional bandillo (roving announcements using megaphone). Participants emphasized that communication effectiveness in San Luis depended not only on technological availability but also on redundancy and adaptability across communication channels. One MDRRMO representative explained that disaster communication often shifted depending on environmental conditions and infrastructure limitations: “We have a FB page… radio base… but when technology isn’t effective, we go directly to the barangay, conducting bandillo, going house-to-house.” (“Meron kaming FB page… radio base… pero kapag hindi magiging effective yung technology, doon kami pumupunta directly sa barangay, nagba-bandillo, nagha-house-to-house”]. This demonstrates how communication systems in the municipality remained intentionally layered, allowing institutional advisories to continue circulating even during power interruptions, signal failures, or severe weather disturbances. Rather than treating traditional communication methods as outdated, participants described them as necessary fallback mechanisms that complemented digital communication infrastructures. However, participants emphasized that communication reach alone did not guarantee effectiveness. Messages also needed to be culturally intelligible and contextually meaningful to local audiences, particularly during high-risk situations where immediate interpretation shaped community response behaviors.

Aligning to Cultural and Linguistic Contexts

Residents reported difficulty understanding technical jargon in advisories, such as “storm surge” or “wind signal.” These terms were often mistranslated or misunderstood. Barangay officials and MDRRMO staff addressed this by reframing warnings into locally resonant terms, using metaphors, and incorporating cultural narratives. For example, waves were described as daluyong (giant surging waves), which carried stronger symbolic weight than the scientific term. Several participants explained that comprehension and urgency were often shaped by cultural familiarity rather than technical precision alone. One resident noted, “When they say storm surge, we don’t immediately think about how strong it is. But when they say ‘daluyong,’ we know we need to evacuate” (“Kapag sinabing storm surge, hindi agad namin naiisip kung gaano kalakas. Pero kapag sinabi nilang daluyong, alam naming kailangan nang lumikas”). Participants described how localized language, vernacular metaphors, and culturally familiar expressions made warnings more understandable and actionable within the community. Barangay officials further observed that residents tended to respond more quickly when advisories were contextualized through shared experiences, recognizable environmental conditions, and familiar modes of communication rather than purely scientific terminology. These culturally calibrated adjustments improved comprehension, trust, and compliance.

Local Participation in Communication

Community members actively participated in assemblies, drills, and neighborhood discussions. In schools, children became conduits of information, relaying preparedness lessons to families. Barangay consultations gave residents space to ask questions, critique communication methods, and suggest alternatives. Participation also extended to message dissemination: some residents volunteered as local announcers or message relays within kinship networks. These practices transformed disaster communication into a collaborative rather than purely top-down process. In several interviews, participants described disaster preparedness not merely as a government responsibility but as a shared communal obligation reinforced through interpersonal coordination, neighborhood interaction, and collective participation. These communicative practices allowed residents to move beyond passive reception of warnings and instead participate actively in local preparedness processes. Trust also emerged as a relational component of disaster communication. Participants repeatedly emphasized that physical presence and direct interaction strengthened message credibility within communities. An MDRRMO participant shared, “It’s also better when they see you there directly,” (“Mas maganda rin yung nakikita ka nila doon directly,”), explaining that residents were generally more receptive when officials personally visited barangays rather than relying solely on online announcements or technological platforms. This suggests that communication effectiveness in San Luis was closely associated with interpersonal familiarity, visibility, and sustained community engagement.

Integrated Knowledge Co-creation

San Luis residents continue to rely on indigenous knowledge systems such as observing animal behavior, shifts in sea breeze, or changes in cloud patterns as signals of impending typhoons. Barangay leaders and MDRRMO staff acknowledged these local cues and, in some cases, synchronized them with scientific forecasts to strengthen message legitimacy. For example, warnings issued when both PAGASA (Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration) advisories and observable environmental changes aligned were perceived as most trustworthy. Indigenous environmental observations remained embedded within local interpretations of disaster risk. Participants described how changes in wind temperature, ocean stillness, sky coloration, and animal behavior were often treated as warning indicators alongside formal advisories from PAGASA and the MDRRMO. One participant explained that “The sea is calm… but the wind is warm,” (“tahimik ang dagat… pero mainit ang hangin”), describing environmental conditions that community members associated with approaching severe weather disturbances. Another participant referenced the movement and behavior of birds as indicators of changing environmental conditions. These practices illustrate how indigenous knowledge systems continued to shape local perceptions of preparedness and hazard anticipation within the municipality. Despite these integrative practices, participants acknowledged that tensions occasionally emerged between institutional scientific advisories and indigenous interpretations of environmental conditions. Some residents reportedly continued to prioritize familiar experiential indicators even when official forecasts suggested otherwise, while others expressed uncertainty regarding how traditional observations should be reconciled with increasingly technological warning systems. This integration illustrates co-production, where scientific and local epistemologies inform one another. Participants also emphasized that indigenous knowledge and scientific systems were not necessarily viewed as opposing forms of expertise. Instead, communication practices in San Luis often involved negotiation and complementarity between both systems. One participant explained that local planners attempted to harmonize (pagtugmain) indigenous observations and scientific early warning systems during planning discussions and preparedness activities. Another participant noted that community members were more receptive to technological systems when they felt that their own experiences and local knowledge were acknowledged rather than dismissed. These findings suggest that scientization within the municipality functioned less as replacement and more as adaptive integration between institutional and community-based epistemologies.

Guidance Through Community Feedback

After every typhoon, barangay officials conducted assemblies to review communication effectiveness. Residents critiqued timing, language, and delivery methods. Feedback such as “masyadong teknikal” (too technical) or “late dumating ang text” (the text arrived late) informed adjustments in subsequent events. Informal feedback loops also occurred in everyday conversations, where community members shared opinions on which channels worked and which failed. Participants described feedback not only as a post-disaster evaluative mechanism but also as a means of sustaining communicative trust between communities and local institutions. Barangay meetings, informal conversations, and hotline interactions enabled residents to voice frustrations, clarify misunderstandings, and suggest communication adjustments, reinforcing perceptions that local experiences were being acknowledged rather than ignored. These feedback mechanisms created iterative learning, gradually refining the disaster communication system.

Anchoring in Governance and Policy

Institutional readiness reinforced community practices. The MDRRMO implemented 24/7 hotlines, standard operating procedures for evacuations, and mandatory training on radio communication protocols. These practices were codified in local disaster risk reduction and management (DRRM) plans, ensuring sustainability across leadership changes. The findings further revealed that indigenous participation in disaster governance extended beyond consultation and into formalized representation mechanisms. Participants described the presence of tribal councils and indigenous peoples mandatory representatives who participated in discussions related to disaster preparedness and community concerns. One participant explained that “there are two leaderships… barangay council and tribal council” (“may dalawang pamunuan… sangguniang barangay at tribal council”), emphasizing the collaborative relationship between formal barangay governance and indigenous leadership structures. This participatory arrangement enabled indigenous perspectives to become more visible within local communication and preparedness initiatives. By embedding communication practices within formal governance structures, San Luis reduced dependence on individual leadership initiatives and instead institutionalized disaster communication as a sustained municipal responsibility. This institutionalization strengthened continuity, allowing communication systems to remain operational beyond changes in personnel, leadership cycles, or isolated preparedness efforts. Participants noted that the institutionalization of communication practices reduced confusion during emergencies, because residents became familiar with established procedures, warning formats, and evacuation expectations over time. This consistency reinforced perceptions of preparedness and organizational reliability within the municipality.

Networking and Replication

San Luis’s disaster communication practices have begun influencing other municipalities in Aurora. MDRRMO staff shared strategies during provincial meetings, encouraging replication of redundancy models and participatory approaches. Neighboring barangays adopted practices such as integrating indigenous knowledge into warnings and conducting feedback-driven assemblies. This outward diffusion demonstrates how localized innovations can travel horizontally across local government units, contributing to broader resilience within the province. Participants described intermunicipal collaboration and knowledge-sharing as increasingly important components of disaster preparedness within Aurora. MDRRMO representatives explained that communication strategies developed in San Luis were frequently presented during provincial coordination meetings, trainings, and inter-barangay consultations, where neighboring municipalities observed and discussed locally adapted communication practices. In particular, participants noted growing interest in the municipality’s use of redundant communication systems, localized advisories, and community-centered preparedness activities.

Several respondents also emphasized that some neighboring barangays and municipalities had begun adopting similar communication adjustments, including the use of culturally familiar terminology, participatory assemblies, and localized feedback mechanisms after disaster events. According to participants, these exchanges allowed communities to learn from one another’s experiences rather than relying solely on externally imposed models of disaster management. One MDRRMO participant explained that communication strategies became more effective when neighboring communities were able to share practices and adapt approaches according to their own geographical and cultural conditions.

These findings suggest that disaster communication innovations in San Luis did not remain confined within municipal boundaries but instead circulated horizontally through local governance networks, institutional coordination, and community-based exchanges. The replication of localized communication practices across neighboring areas demonstrates the broader potential of culturally grounded and participatory disaster communication strategies within similarly vulnerable coastal communities.

Synthesis of Findings

The results collectively illustrate how disaster communication in San Luis embodies the seven SALIGAN pillars: redundancy ensures reach, cultural calibration fosters comprehension, participation builds ownership, knowledge co-creation strengthens trust, feedback drives adaptation, governance anchoring ensures sustainability, and networking promotes scalability. More broadly, the findings reveal that disaster communication in San Luis operates as a negotiated and relational communication ecology shaped by trust, cultural interpretation, participatory engagement, and adaptive integration between scientific and indigenous systems of knowledge. Rather than functioning as a purely top-down dissemination model, disaster communication within the municipality emerged as a dynamic social process in which institutional advisories, community experiences, and localized epistemologies continuously interacted to shape preparedness, interpretation, and collective response.

Discussion

Rethinking Disaster Communication Through a Decolonial Lens

The case of San Luis suggests that disaster communication operates within a plural epistemic environment where institutional communication systems and localized forms of knowledge continuously interact. Although local government communication practices incorporated participatory and culturally adaptive mechanisms, residents continued to interpret warnings through indigenous epistemologies, environmental observations, kinship networks, and collective values such as bayanihan (collective solidarity), pakikiramdam (shared sensitivity), kapwa (shared identity and interdependence). These findings indicate that communication effectiveness depended not solely on institutional dissemination but also on the extent to which advisories aligned with community-based systems of interpretation. In this regard, the case reflects broader concerns regarding epistemic injustice (Santos, 2018), wherein localized knowledge systems may remain underrecognized despite contributing to preparedness and risk interpretation.

The findings confirm that disaster communication is not only about transmitting risk information but also about shaping public opinion regarding trust, credibility, and urgency. In this way, the SALIGAN framework can be read as a model of opinion formation in crisis contexts. More specifically, the findings demonstrate that public opinion in disaster settings is not formed solely through institutional advisories or media dissemination, but through culturally embedded processes of interpretation, relational confidence, and collective negotiation among community members. Residents evaluated disaster messages not only according to technical accuracy but also through familiarity, visibility of communicators, prior lived experiences, and alignment with local communicative norms. In this sense, disaster communication in San Luis functioned as a socially negotiated process of meaning-making rather than a purely linear transmission of risk information.

By integrating indigenous knowledge into formal systems, San Luis offers a model of scientization without colonization: combining the rigor of institutional communication with the resonance of community epistemologies. This integration is articulated through the SALIGAN framework, which consists of seven interdependent pillars. Together, these pillars reflect a decolonized, culturally grounded approach to disaster communication, offering lessons for both practice and theory. More specifically, the findings suggest that disaster communication effectiveness in San Luis depended not only on technological dissemination but also on the social processes through which communities interpreted, trusted, negotiated, and acted upon risk information. These communicative dynamics became especially visible in the ways residents evaluated credibility, participated in preparedness activities, and reconciled institutional advisories with culturally embedded systems of understanding.

Trust, Interpretation, and Public Opinion Formation

The findings reveal that disaster communication in San Luis was deeply shaped by processes of trust formation, cultural interpretation, and participatory meaning-making. Rather than functioning as passive recipients of institutional advisories, residents actively interpreted warnings through relational, linguistic, and experiential frameworks embedded within community life. This reinforces reception theory’s assertion that audiences decode messages through cultural and social contexts rather than absorbing them uniformly (Hall, 1980).

Participants consistently associated message credibility with interpersonal familiarity and embodied communication. Advisories delivered through barangay officials, local announcers, and face-to-face engagement were often perceived as more trustworthy than distant or purely technological communication channels. The repeated emphasis on physical visibility, direct interaction, and localized language suggests that public opinion regarding disaster preparedness was strongly influenced by perceived communicative credibility and communicative accessibility rather than technical dissemination alone. This finding complicates technologically deterministic assumptions in disaster communication scholarship, suggesting that communication infrastructures alone do not automatically generate public trust. Instead, legitimacy emerged through socially embedded communicative relationships in which familiarity, relational proximity, and repeated interpersonal interaction shaped how warnings were evaluated and acted upon by community members.

The findings further demonstrate that communication effectiveness depended not merely on message reach but on cultural intelligibility. Residents responded more readily to localized metaphors, vernacular terminology, and contextually familiar narratives than to highly technical scientific jargon. Terms such as "daluyong" carried stronger emotional and interpretive resonance than abstract institutional terminology such as “storm surge.” This indicates that disaster communication becomes more actionable when warnings are translated into culturally meaningful forms of expression grounded in local communicative realities.

Participation likewise emerged as central to communicative validity. Barangay assemblies, school-based preparedness programs, and community consultations enabled residents to shape dissemination practices, clarify misunderstandings, and collectively negotiate communication strategies. These participatory mechanisms transformed disaster communication from a purely top-down system into a dialogic and community-centered process. In doing so, the findings support participatory communication scholarship which argues that communication effectiveness increases when communities become active co-participants in meaning-making and decision-making processes rather than passive recipients of institutional directives (Freire, 1970).

Indigenous Epistemologies and Knowledge Co-Production

The study further reveals that indigenous epistemologies continue to play a significant role in shaping local perceptions of risk, preparedness, and communicative reliability within San Luis. Participants described how environmental observations, animal behavior, atmospheric conditions, and inherited experiential knowledge remained integrated into local interpretations of approaching hazards. These findings challenge technocratic assumptions that scientific communication alone is sufficient for effective disaster preparedness.

Importantly, the findings do not suggest a rejection of scientific disaster communication systems. Rather, they demonstrate an ongoing negotiation between institutional forecasting mechanisms and indigenous systems of interpretation. Community members frequently evaluated technological advisories alongside localized environmental cues, creating hybrid forms of hazard interpretation that combined scientific forecasts with experiential knowledge (Gaillard & Mercer, 2013). This coexistence reflects a localized process of scientization in which scientific and indigenous epistemologies interact without necessarily displacing one another. In this regard, the findings challenge hierarchical models of expertise that position scientific knowledge as inherently superior to localized systems of interpretation. Instead, the case of San Luis demonstrates a more pluralistic communicative environment in which epistemic legitimacy is negotiated through practical experience, cultural continuity, and institutional adaptation. This reflects broader calls within decolonial scholarship for epistemic justice in knowledge production and governance processes (Santos, 2018).

The integration of indigenous and scientific systems also strengthened institutional confidence. Participants expressed greater confidence in advisories when institutional warnings aligned with observable environmental conditions familiar to the community. In this sense, communication legitimacy emerged not solely from institutional authority but from the perceived convergence between scientific forecasts and lived community experience.

These findings contribute to decolonial communication scholarship by demonstrating that indigenous knowledge should not be treated merely as supplementary cultural information but as a legitimate epistemic system capable of informing disaster governance and communication practices. The case of San Luis therefore illustrates a form of “scientization without colonization,” wherein scientific rigor is integrated with, rather than imposed upon, localized systems of meaning and interpretation. Rather than treating indigenous knowledge as residual or pre-scientific, the findings demonstrate how community-based epistemologies can coexist with institutional communication systems to produce more culturally resonant, participatory, and socially legitimate forms of disaster preparedness.

Governance, Networking, and Communicative Resilience

The findings further demonstrate that disaster communication resilience in San Luis was sustained not only through community participation but also through institutional anchoring, governance integration, and intermunicipal collaboration. Communication practices such as radio protocols, evacuation procedures, hotlines, and preparedness trainings were embedded within formal DRRM structures, allowing communication systems to remain operational beyond individual leadership cycles or isolated disaster events. This institutionalization contributed to organizational continuity and reinforced public perceptions of preparedness, reliability, and procedural consistency within the municipality.

Importantly, governance mechanisms in San Luis did not function solely through centralized administrative control. The findings reveal that participatory governance structures, including barangay consultations, tribal councils, and indigenous peoples mandatory representatives, enabled localized perspectives to become integrated into communication planning and preparedness processes. This collaborative arrangement reduced communicative exclusion and strengthened the legitimacy of institutional advisories within culturally diverse communities.

The findings likewise highlight the significance of horizontal learning and intermunicipal networking in sustaining communicative resilience. MDRRMO representatives described how communication strategies developed in San Luis were shared through provincial meetings, trainings, and coordination activities with neighboring municipalities. Practices such as localized advisories, feedback-driven assemblies, and redundant communication systems were reportedly adapted by nearby barangays and local government units facing similar environmental vulnerabilities.

This outward diffusion demonstrates that localized communication innovations need not remain confined within a single municipality. Rather, communicative resilience may emerge through regional knowledge-sharing networks that allow communities to adapt successful practices according to their own cultural and geographical contexts. In this sense, resilience becomes not only a local condition but also a collective and networked communicative process sustained through institutional collaboration, participatory governance, and intercommunity exchange (Norris et al., 2008).

Taken together, these communicative dynamics reveal that disaster resilience in San Luis emerged not from isolated communication strategies alone, but from the interaction between cultural interpretation, participatory governance, institutional adaptation, and epistemic negotiation. These interrelated dynamics collectively informed the development of the SALIGAN framework as a localized and decolonial model of disaster communication.

The SALIGAN Framework as a Decolonial Communication Model

The findings of the study collectively culminate in the SALIGAN Framework, a localized and scientized model of disaster communication grounded in the lived experiences, communicative practices, and epistemological realities of San Luis, Aurora. Rather than functioning as a rigid procedural model, SALIGAN represents a relational and adaptive communication framework that integrates institutional disaster protocols with culturally embedded systems of interpretation, participation, and knowledge production.

The seven interdependent pillars of the framework — strategic communication modes, aligning to cultural and linguistic contexts, local participation in communication, integrated knowledge co-creation, guidance through community feedback, anchoring in governance and policy, and networking and replication — emerged not as isolated categories but as interconnected communicative dynamics repeatedly observed throughout the study. Collectively, these pillars illustrate how disaster communication effectiveness depends not solely on technological sophistication or institutional authority, but on the interaction between trust, cultural intelligibility, participatory engagement, and epistemic inclusivity. In this regard, SALIGAN may also be understood as a communicative framework of resilience, wherein disaster preparedness is produced through ongoing processes of interpretation, participation, relational trust, and culturally situated negotiation between institutions and communities.

More importantly, the SALIGAN framework advances a decolonial intervention in disaster communication scholarship. Existing crisis communication models often prioritize speed, efficiency, and centralized information dissemination while marginalizing localized systems of interpretation and indigenous communicative practices (Escobar, 2008). In contrast, SALIGAN demonstrates that scientific disaster communication and indigenous epistemologies need not operate in opposition. Instead, the framework illustrates how scientific rigor may coexist with culturally grounded forms of knowledge, producing communication systems that are simultaneously institutionalized, participatory, adaptive, and socially legitimate.

In this sense, the framework operationalizes what this study refers to as “scientization without colonization.” Rather than imposing external communication logics upon communities, the SALIGAN framework emphasizes negotiated integration, wherein institutional systems adapt to local communicative realities while communities simultaneously engage with scientific preparedness mechanisms. This process allows disaster communication to become more culturally resonant, participatory, and contextually sustainable.

The framework likewise contributes to broader discussions within Global South communication scholarship by demonstrating how localized communication practices may generate theoretically meaningful and transferable models of resilience. While rooted in the specific experiences of San Luis, the principles underlying SALIGAN may offer adaptable insights for similarly vulnerable communities where disaster communication must navigate cultural diversity, infrastructural limitations, and plural systems of knowledge.

Practical and Theoretical Contributions

The study offers several practical contributions for disaster communication policy and governance. First, the findings suggest that disaster preparedness initiatives become more effective when communication systems are culturally calibrated and participatory rather than exclusively technocratic. Embedding localized communication practices, indigenous epistemologies, and feedback mechanisms into formal DRRM structures may strengthen message legitimacy, improve community trust, and increase preparedness responsiveness within vulnerable communities.

Second, the study highlights the importance of institutionalizing redundancy and participatory governance within disaster communication systems. The case of San Luis demonstrates that communication resilience depends not only on technological modernization but also on the maintenance of interpersonal, analog, and community-based communication infrastructures capable of functioning during technological disruption. These findings reinforce the need for DRRM policies that balance digital innovation with localized and relational forms of communication.

The study contributes theoretically to crisis communication theory by demonstrating that crisis communication operates within plural epistemic environments rather than exclusively through institutional media systems (Coombs, 2015). The findings extend reception theory by illustrating how disaster messages are actively interpreted, negotiated, and legitimized through cultural frameworks, relational trust, and localized systems of meaning-making. In doing so, the study challenges linear transmission models of communication and instead positions disaster communication as a socially negotiated process shaped by participatory interaction and epistemic diversity.

More broadly, the study contributes to decolonial communication scholarship by operationalizing epistemic justice within disaster communication practice. The SALIGAN framework demonstrates that indigenous knowledge systems are not merely cultural supplements to scientific governance but legitimate communicative resources capable of shaping preparedness, resilience, and public interpretation of risk. In this regard, the study contributes to ongoing Global South scholarship seeking to provincialize Western-centric communication paradigms and foreground localized systems of knowledge production, participatory governance, and socially grounded communicative authority. More broadly, the findings demonstrate that disaster communication becomes most resilient not when communities are treated merely as recipients of information, but when they are recognized as active epistemic agents in the co-production of preparedness, interpretation, and collective response.

Conclusion

This study examined how indigenous knowledge systems can be integrated into disaster communication frameworks, using the case of San Luis, Aurora, Philippines. The findings revealed that while institutional strategies emphasize efficiency, digital platforms, and standardized protocols, communities continue to rely on epistemologies rooted in culture, kinship, and environmental attunement. Rather than being oppositional, these systems are complementary. When integrated, they generate disaster communication that is not only scientifically rigorous but also culturally resonant, trusted, and actionable.

The SALIGAN Framework, composed of seven interdependent pillars, emerged from this integration as a scientized yet decolonized model of disaster communication. These pillars collectively represent the interconnected communicative dynamics through which culturally grounded disaster preparedness and public interpretation of risk were sustained within the municipality:

  1. Strategic Communication Modes – Multimodal, layered channels ensured redundancy and resilience, balancing digital tools with analog and interpersonal pathways.

  2. Aligning to Cultural and Linguistic Contexts – Messages became effective when translated into local idioms, metaphors, and culturally meaningful symbols, overcoming barriers of technical jargon.

  3. Local Participation in Communication– Residents actively shaped communication processes through assemblies, drills, and neighborhood dialogues, transforming disaster messaging into a collaborative endeavor.

  4. Integrated Knowledge Co-creation – Scientific forecasts gained legitimacy when paired with indigenous cues, creating hybrid knowledge that communities trusted and acted upon.

  5. Guidance Through Community Feedback – Post-disaster assemblies and informal evaluations enabled iterative learning, refining communication strategies over time.

  6. Anchoring in Governance and Policy – Institutional protocols, training, and codified DRRM plans embedded practices into governance systems, ensuring sustainability beyond individual actors.

  7. Networking and Replication – San Luis’s practices diffused outward, demonstrating the potential for horizontal learning and adaptation across local government units, scaling localized resilience strategies.

Collectively, these pillars demonstrate that disaster communication in San Luis functioned not merely as the dissemination of institutional advisories, but as an ongoing process of negotiation, interpretation, participation, and knowledge co-production between institutions and communities.

Theoretically, this study contributes to the decolonization of communication scholarship by provincializing Western-centric crisis models and foregrounding Filipino epistemologies — bayanihan (collective solidarity), pakikiramdam (sensitivity to social and environmental cues), kapwa (shared identity and interdependence), and faith — as valid categories of analysis (Santos, 2018). It extends CRISIS COMMUNICATION THEORY by demonstrating that crises are mediated through plural epistemic fields, not solely institutional discourse (Hall, 1980). Furthermore, it enriches science and technology studies debates on epistemic justice, offering an example of scientization that integrates rather than erases indigenous knowledge.

Practically, the framework provides guidance for policy and practice. The findings suggest that local governments may strengthen disaster preparedness by embedding the seven SALIGAN pillars within DRRM planning processes, particularly through culturally calibrated communication strategies, participatory engagement mechanisms, and sustained collaboration with indigenous and community-based knowledge systems. Training modules for disaster managers should prioritize cultural calibration, participatory processes, and engagement with indigenous knowledge systems. Schools and community organizations can facilitate the intergenerational transfer of disaster knowledge, blending scientific education with local wisdom. Finally, networking mechanisms across local government units should be strengthened to replicate and adapt successful practices beyond their points of origin.

This study reaffirms that building disaster resilience in Asia is not only a matter of scientific accuracy but also of shaping inclusive public opinion rooted in cultural epistemologies and trust networks. In conclusion, the case of San Luis demonstrates that disaster communication is strongest when it is scientized yet rooted in culture, decolonized yet institutionalized, local yet replicable. By positioning indigenous knowledge as central rather than peripheral, the SALIGAN framework contributes to broader efforts within Global South communication scholarship to foreground culturally grounded, participatory, and epistemically inclusive approaches to resilience-building. Ultimately, the study suggests that disaster communication may become more culturally resonant, participatory, and responsive when communities are recognized not merely as audiences of risk information, but as active communicative agents capable of shaping preparedness, interpretation, and collective responses within increasingly uncertain environmental conditions.