Research Details

Emergencies — whether natural, medical, or man-made — can strike without warning, rendering comprehensive preparedness an indispensable competency for all hospitality workers who serve as frontline responders in any crisis situation. In the Philippines, a nation of exceptional vulnerability owing to its location in the Pacific Ring of Fire and within the world's most active typhoon belt, the imperative for robust emergency preparedness extends well beyond national disaster agencies and permeates every sector, including academia and the hospitality industry (PHIVOLCS, 2022; Republic Act No. 10121, 2010). Yet natural and meteorological hazards represent only one dimension of the emergency landscape facing Philippine universities. Security-related emergencies — including bomb scares, suspicious package reports, and civil disturbances — constitute an increasingly documented category of institutional threat that demands equally systematic preparedness protocols.

Mariano Marcos State University (MMSU), situated in Batac City, Ilocos Norte, operates food service and accommodation establishments that serve students, faculty, staff, and external guests on a daily basis. The MMSU Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) office, as documented by SIRMATA — the official publication of MMSU college students — regularly disseminates disaster preparedness information and coordinates campus-wide drills, reflecting the university's institutional commitment to safety and resilience. However, a critical examination of these preparedness activities reveals a significant omission: systematic protocols for security-related emergencies, including bomb scares, have not been consistently integrated into the training curricula or drill programs of MMSU's hospitality workforce. Furthermore, despite the DRRM office's commendable efforts, no formal, empirical assessment of the competency levels of frontline hospitality personnel had been conducted prior to this study.

The Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) have issued guidelines for bomb threat response applicable to public institutions, including state universities. These guidelines prescribe specific evacuation sequences, communication protocols, and coordination procedures that differ meaningfully from those applicable to natural disaster scenarios (PNP Anti-Bomb Squad, 2021). The absence of bomb scare preparedness from hospitality workforce training programs is therefore not merely an academic gap — it constitutes a concrete institutional risk, particularly given that MMSU's canteens, dormitories, and food service facilities routinely accommodate large numbers of people and operate as semi-public spaces accessible to individuals beyond the immediate campus community.

Research by AlBattat and Mat Som (2013) established that hospitality establishments are structurally among the most vulnerable sectors during crises, yet a majority of practitioners lack the training to respond effectively. The American Hotel and Lodging Educational Institute (AHLEI, 2022) similarly documented persistent gaps between recommended emergency preparedness standards and actual practice, particularly among frontline staff who are disproportionately likely to serve as initial responders.

This study was motivated by the researchers' direct professional experience in the hospitality sector, where inadequate first aid training — and the broader absence of multi-hazard emergency preparedness — was observed as a recurring institutional vulnerability. The study sought to bridge this gap empirically by assessing the knowledge, attitudes, and preparedness levels of MMSU hospitality personnel across multiple emergency domains and proposing evidence-based, multi-hazard interventions to enhance their emergency response competencies.

This study aimed to: (1) describe the socio-demographic profile of MMSU hospitality personnel; (2) assess their level of knowledge on First Aid and Basic Life Support (BLS); (3) evaluate their level of preparedness in safety drill practices, including security-related emergency protocols; (4) determine their awareness and attitudes toward the four phases of disaster preparedness (preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery); and (5) recommend targeted, multi-hazard interventions — including bomb scare response training — to improve emergency response competency.

The hospitality industry occupies a singular position in emergency management: its establishments serve simultaneously as service venues and, during crises, as temporary refuges for guests who depend entirely on personnel to ensure their safety and well-being (AlBattat & Mat Som, 2013). Hotels, canteens, and food service establishments frequently serve as emergency coordination points and evacuation shelters, requiring their staff to interact directly with local government units and emergency response agencies during large-scale disasters (Brown & Green, 2022). This dual operational identity demands that hospitality personnel possess not only theoretical knowledge of emergency procedures but also the practical, scenario-tested skills to execute those procedures effectively under high-stress conditions.

AHLEI (2022) prescribes a multi-hazard preparedness framework for hospitality organizations, encompassing clear communication channels, regular multi-scenario staff drills, and comprehensive emergency response plans that address both natural and man-made hazard categories. Despite these recommendations, Carreon et al. (2022) documented significant disparities in preparedness levels among hospitality workers in the Philippines, particularly among establishments located in disaster-prone localities. Their study underscored the necessity of competency-based assessments and targeted training, and noted that drill programs in the Philippine hospitality context tend to focus narrowly on natural disaster scenarios — most commonly earthquake and fire evacuation — while neglecting security emergencies such as bomb scares, civil disturbances, and active threat protocols.

First aid knowledge is universally recognized as a critical core competency for all service industry workers who may be required to respond before the arrival of professional emergency medical services. Sonmez, Altiparmak, and Akin (2014) demonstrated significant and consistent knowledge gaps in basic first aid among non-medical professionals, particularly in primary assessment techniques such as breathing status evaluation and wound management protocols.

Ifran et al. (2019) similarly found deficient BLS competency rates even among health professionals who lacked exposure to updated clinical protocols, with procedural steps such as scene safety assessment and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) activation being particularly susceptible to misunderstanding. In the Philippine context, Republic Act No. 10121 and Republic Act No. 10871 mandate that establishments operating in public spaces maintain a minimum standard of first aid readiness. The Philippine Red Cross (2022) actively advocates for community-based first aid training programs, recognizing that the burden of initial emergency response falls most heavily on civilian bystanders.

Among the most consequential yet systematically neglected dimensions of emergency preparedness in Philippine higher education institutions is the domain of security-related threats, particularly bomb scares. A bomb scare — defined as a threat, whether credible or not, that a device capable of causing explosive harm has been placed in or near a facility — requires a rapid, coordinated, and protocol-driven institutional response that is fundamentally distinct from natural disaster evacuation procedures (PNP Anti-Bomb Squad, 2021). The response sequence prescribed by the Philippine National Police includes: immediate notification of authorities without using electronic devices in the threat vicinity; orderly evacuation following pre-established routes that differ from fire or earthquake protocols; prohibition of cellular phone use within a defined perimeter; and systematic building clearance conducted only by trained security personnel or law enforcement.

The Commission on Higher Education (CHED) issued an advisory in 2019 recommending that all state universities and colleges incorporate bomb threat response into their DRRM frameworks and conduct at least one simulation exercise per academic year. Research by Hsiao et al. (2018) on security preparedness in institutional hospitality settings found that non-security staff are routinely undertrained in bomb threat recognition and response, and frequently rely on improvised, untrained reactions during incidents — which can materially worsen outcomes during actual threat events.

The Philippines' geographic situation at the intersection of the Pacific Ring of Fire, the Pacific typhoon belt, and multiple active tectonic fault systems exposes it to the full spectrum of natural hazard categories, including typhoons, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and flooding events. The Abra earthquake of July 27, 2022 — a 7.0-magnitude event whose tremors were strongly felt across Ilocos Norte — demonstrated with clarity that northern Luzon provinces face serious and ongoing seismic risk (PHIVOLCS, 2022). The Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010 (RA 10121) established a comprehensive framework for disaster risk governance at all levels, including state universities. Critically, RA 10121 defines 'disaster' broadly to encompass serious disruptions caused by hazardous events of natural, technological, or human-induced origin — a definition that expressly includes security threats such as bomb scares.

The study employed a descriptive-survey design to assess the emergency response preparedness levels of MMSU hospitality personnel across multiple domains. This design was appropriate given the study's objective of systematically profiling and measuring the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of a defined workforce population without experimental manipulation.

The respondents consisted of 55 hospitality personnel employed at MMSU's food service and accommodation establishments, encompassing kitchen staff, food and beverage staff, security guards, housekeeping staff, dormitory attendants, front desk officers, maintenance personnel, and managerial staff. A census approach was employed, targeting the total population of personnel within the specified facilities during the study period, thereby maximizing the representativeness and comprehensiveness of the dataset.

Data were gathered using a structured questionnaire consisting of four major parts. Part I covered the Socio-Demographic Profile, including age, sex, educational attainment, position held, and prior training history. Part II comprised the Level of Knowledge on First Aid and BLS, consisting of a 10-item multiple-choice knowledge test on First Aid (adapted from Sonmez et al., 2014) and a 10-item multiple-choice knowledge test on BLS (adapted from Ifran et al., 2019 and based on the 2020 AHA BLS Guidelines). Part III consisted of a Safety Drills Preparedness scale with 12 Likert-type items (1 = Not at All Prepared; 4 = Very Well Prepared) adapted from Carreon et al. (2022). Part IV comprised an Awareness on Disaster Preparedness and Response scale with 20 Likert-type items (1 = Strongly Disagree; 4 = Strongly Agree) covering the Preparedness, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery phases of the DRRM framework.

It is noted that the research instrument did not include specific items assessing respondents' knowledge or preparedness regarding bomb scare and security threat protocols. This represents a recognized limitation of the current study, and the researchers recommend that future iterations of this research instrument incorporate items specifically addressing security threat awareness, bomb threat response sequences, and evacuation protocol differentiation across hazard types, consistent with the multi-hazard preparedness framework advocated by RA 10121 (2010) and the CHED Security Advisory (2019).

Data were collected through the personal administration of questionnaires by the research team, with respondents' written informed consent obtained in accordance with the provisions of the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (RA 10173). Quantitative data were analyzed using frequency counts, percentages, and arithmetic means. The following interpretive scales were applied: for knowledge items, the percentage of correct responses was computed and interpreted against the 80% functional competency benchmark established by the Philippine Red Cross (2022); for safety drills, the scale was 3.50–4.00 = Very Well Prepared, 2.50–3.49 = Prepared, 1.50–2.49 = Slightly Prepared, and 1.00–1.49 = Not at All Prepared; for awareness, the scale was 3.50–4.00 = Strongly Agree, 2.50–3.49 = Agree, 1.50–2.49 = Disagree, and 1.00–1.49 = Strongly Disagree.

Table 1 presents the socio-demographic profile of the 55 respondents. The sample was female-dominated, with females comprising 58.2% and males 41.8% of the total workforce. This gender distribution is consistent with the broader feminization of the Philippine hospitality workforce. In terms of educational attainment, the majority held college degrees (58.2%), followed by high school graduates (27.3%), vocational or certificate graduates (10.9%), and one respondent each with elementary education (1.8%) and advanced studies (1.8%). Security Guards and Food and Beverage Staff were jointly the most represented groups (21.8% each), followed by Kitchen Staff (18.2%), Housekeeping Staff (10.9%), and Dormitory Attendants (9.1%).

Perhaps the most structurally significant finding is that only 40.0% of respondents had ever attended any training or seminar on First Aid or BLS, while 60.0% had received no such training whatsoever. This training absence directly contextualizes the knowledge deficits documented in subsequent sections and makes the case for mandatory, institutionally governed certification programs — encompassing both medical emergency and security threat protocols — not merely compelling, but urgent.

 | Variable | Frequency (f) | Percentage (%)
| Sex |   | 
| Male | 23 | 41.8
| Female | 32 | 58.2
| Educational Attainment |   | 
| Elementary Graduate | 1 | 1.8
| High School Graduate | 15 | 27.3
| Vocational/Certificate Graduate | 6 | 10.9
| College Graduate | 32 | 58.2
| Advanced Studies | 1 | 1.8
| Position Held |   | 
| Front Desk Officer | 1 | 1.8
| Kitchen Staff | 10 | 18.2
| Housekeeper | 6 | 10.9
| Manager | 1 | 1.8
| Security Guard | 12 | 21.8
| Maintenance Personnel | 1 | 1.8
| Food and Beverage Staff | 12 | 21.8
| Dormitory Attendant/Caretaker | 5 | 9.1
| Others | 6 | 10.9
| First Aid/BLS Training Attended |   | 
| Yes | 22 | 40.0
| No | 33 | 60.0
| Total | 55 | 100.0

Note. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Table 2 presents the results of the 10-item First Aid knowledge test administered to all 55 respondents. The overall percentage of correct responses was 63.6%, indicating a moderate but functionally insufficient level of first aid knowledge. While this score exceeds the arithmetical midpoint, it falls considerably short of the 80% minimum competency benchmark established by the Philippine Red Cross (2022) as an indicator of functional first aid literacy.

Item-level analysis reveals a pronounced disparity between performance on experientially familiar, common-sense interventions and procedurally specific, clinically derived skills. Items with the highest correct response rates were managing embedded foreign objects (89.1%) and treating insect or animal bites (81.8%). In stark contrast, the clinically most consequential items recorded the lowest correct response rates. Item 1, assessing whether a person is breathing, yielded only 41.8% correct responses — despite being the most foundational step in any primary survey assessment. Nosebleed management (49.1%) and burn treatment (52.7%) also recorded low correct response rates, consistent with the patterns documented by Sonmez et al. (2014).

 | No. | First Aid Knowledge Item | Correct (f) | Correct (%) | Incorrect (%)
| 1 | Assessing if a person is breathing | 23 | 41.8 | 58.2
| 2 | Managing airway obstruction | 33 | 60.0 | 40.0
| 3 | Treating burns from hot water | 29 | 52.7 | 47.3
| 4 | Managing open fractures | 33 | 60.0 | 40.0
| 5 | Response to fainting | 41 | 74.5 | 25.5
| 6 | Assisting electrocution victims | 36 | 65.5 | 34.5
| 7 | Controlling bleeding from a wound | 34 | 61.8 | 38.2
| 8 | First response to nosebleed | 27 | 49.1 | 50.9
| 9 | Treating insect or animal bites | 45 | 81.8 | 18.2
| 10 | Managing embedded foreign objects | 49 | 89.1 | 10.9
|   | Overall Mean Percentage Correct | 350 | 63.6% | 36.4%

Note. Overall mean percentage computed across all 10 items.

Table 3 presents respondents' performance on the 10-item BLS knowledge test developed in accordance with the 2020 American Heart Association (AHA) BLS Guidelines. The overall correct response rate of 56.2% was lower than the First Aid knowledge score, underscoring the heightened technical complexity of BLS protocols.

The most critical findings concern the procedurally foundational initial steps of the chain of survival. Items 2 and 3 — identifying scene safety assessment as the correct first response upon encountering an unresponsive person, and EMS activation as the correct immediate action — each recorded a correct response rate of only 14.5%. These two items represent the first two links in the AHA's chain of survival framework, and their near-universal failure constitutes not merely an academic knowledge gap but a concrete and immediate patient safety risk. A responder who initiates CPR without first ensuring scene safety endangers both the victim and themselves; a responder who fails to activate emergency services before beginning resuscitation significantly reduces the victim's probability of survival (Ifran et al., 2019).

In contrast, items testing general awareness performed considerably better. Item 9, recognizing stroke signs in a coworker (FAST acronym), achieved the highest correct response rate at 87.3%. The substantial gap between awareness-level and procedural-level item performance is consistent with Ifran et al.'s (2019) finding that conceptual recognition does not predict procedural execution.

 | No. | BLS Knowledge Item | Correct (f) | Correct (%) | Incorrect (%)
| 1 | Meaning of BLS abbreviation | 46 | 83.6 | 16.4
| 2 | First response to unresponsive person | 8 | 14.5 | 85.5
| 3 | Immediate action for unresponsive victim | 8 | 14.5 | 85.5
| 4 | Correct chest compression location | 36 | 65.5 | 34.5
| 5 | Compression-to-breath ratio (30:2) | 40 | 72.7 | 27.3
| 6 | Meaning of AED | 31 | 56.4 | 43.6
| 7 | Rescue breathing for infants | 16 | 29.1 | 70.9
| 8 | Correct CPR compression depth for adults | 34 | 61.8 | 38.2
| 9 | Response to signs of stroke in a coworker | 48 | 87.3 | 12.7
| 10 | Response to choking (Heimlich maneuver) | 42 | 76.4 | 23.6
|   | Overall Mean Percentage Correct | 309 | 56.2% | 43.8%

Note. Correct answers based on the 2020 AHA BLS Guidelines. Items 2, 3, and 7 represent critically low performance with direct patient safety implications.

Table 4 presents the mean scores for the 12 items on the Safety Drill Preparedness scale. The overall mean of 3.54 falls within the interpretive range of 'Prepared' (3.50–4.00), indicating a collectively adequate level of behavioral readiness for emergency situations among MMSU hospitality personnel. This represents the strongest performance domain across all four measured variables.

The highest-scoring item was Item 7, taking all alarms and alerts seriously as real emergencies (M = 3.64), reflecting commendably high alarm compliance. Earthquake-specific protocol items also performed consistently well: duck, cover, and hold (M = 3.58); exit building calmly while protecting the head (M = 3.60); and proceed to designated safe area (M = 3.58). The lowest-scoring items were Item 12, securing outdoor furniture and loose items before storms (M = 3.44), and Item 10, developing and practicing a household emergency plan (M = 3.45). Critically, the current safety drill scale does not include items assessing preparedness for bomb scare scenarios, and the 3.54 mean should be understood as reflective of natural disaster and general evacuation preparedness only.

 | No. | Safety Drill Practice | Mean | Interpretation
| 1 | Stay alert and avoid panic during emergencies | 3.58 | Prepared
| 2 | Practice "duck, cover, and hold" during earthquakes | 3.58 | Prepared
| 3 | Exit building calmly while protecting head after earthquake | 3.60 | Prepared
| 4 | Proceed to designated safe area after evacuation | 3.58 | Prepared
| 5 | Avoid running, pushing, or rushing others during evacuation | 3.53 | Prepared
| 6 | Never go back inside once safely evacuated | 3.58 | Prepared
| 7 | Take all alarms and alerts seriously as real emergencies | 3.64 | Prepared
| 8 | Use stairs instead of elevators during emergency evacuation | 3.51 | Prepared
| 9 | Maintain a well-stocked emergency supply kit | 3.56 | Prepared
| 10 | Develop and practice a clear household emergency plan | 3.45 | Prepared
| 11 | Know official evacuation routes and safe higher ground locations | 3.49 | Prepared
| 12 | Secure outdoor furniture and loose items before storms | 3.44 | Prepared
|   | Overall Mean | 3.54 | Prepared

Note. Scale: 3.50–4.00 = Very Well Prepared; 2.50–3.49 = Prepared; 1.50–2.49 = Slightly Prepared; 1.00–1.49 = Not at All Prepared.

Table 5 presents the results of the 20-item Disaster Preparedness and Response Awareness scale. The overall grand mean of 3.37 falls within the 'Agree' range (2.50–3.49), indicating that respondents generally affirm the adequacy and functionality of MMSU's emergency preparedness systems. However, none of the four sub-domains reached the 'Strongly Agree' threshold (3.50 or above).

The Preparedness sub-domain recorded the lowest sub-mean (M = 3.27, 'Agree'). Item P5 — the visible posting of emergency contact numbers in facilities — registered the lowest item mean in the entire scale at 3.18. Item P2, clarity of evacuation route markings (M = 3.22), and Item P3, staff orientation on emergency procedures (M = 3.25), also recorded relatively low means. Notably, none of the posted contacts include PNP Anti-Bomb Squad information, reflecting the broader absence of bomb scare preparedness infrastructure.

The Mitigation sub-domain yielded a sub-mean of 3.38. Item M2, the availability and accessibility of emergency supplies and equipment (M = 3.49), was the highest-performing item. The Response sub-domain achieved a sub-mean of 3.41, with Item RES5, clarity of coordination with external agencies (M = 3.47), recording the highest item mean. The Recovery sub-domain registered the highest sub-mean (M = 3.42), led by Item REC5, 'Lessons from past emergencies are used to improve future plans' (M = 3.51, 'Strongly Agree') — the only item across the entire 20-item scale to reach the Strongly Agree threshold.

 | No. | Indicator | Mean | Interpretation
|   | A. Preparedness
| P1 | Awareness of university disaster preparedness plan | 3.35 | Agree
| P2 | Evacuation routes clearly marked in canteens/kitchens/dormitories | 3.22 | Agree
| P3 | Orientation on emergency procedures received by staff/residents | 3.25 | Agree
| P4 | Designated safe assembly areas in food service/dormitory facilities | 3.35 | Agree
| P5 | Emergency contact numbers visibly posted in facilities | 3.18 | Agree
|   | Sub-Mean | 3.27 | Agree
|   | B. Mitigation
| M1 | Regular drills and exercises are conducted | 3.36 | Agree
| M2 | Emergency supplies and equipment are available and accessible | 3.49 | Agree
| M3 | Hazard-reduction measures are in place in facilities | 3.29 | Agree
| M4 | Staff are trained in hazard identification and risk reduction | 3.35 | Agree
| M5 | Mitigation measures are updated based on new risks | 3.42 | Agree
|   | Sub-Mean | 3.38 | Agree
|   | C. Response
| RES1 | I know the role I play during an emergency situation | 3.42 | Agree
| RES2 | Communication systems are in place for emergency alerts | 3.33 | Agree
| RES3 | I know who to contact in case of emergency at the facility | 3.42 | Agree
| RES4 | First aid kits and emergency equipment are easily accessible | 3.44 | Agree
| RES5 | Coordination with external agencies during emergencies is clear | 3.47 | Agree
|   | Sub-Mean | 3.41 | Agree
|   | D. Recovery
| REC1 | Post-emergency reporting procedures are clearly understood | 3.35 | Agree
| REC2 | Psychological support for affected staff/residents is available | 3.42 | Agree
| REC3 | Facilities are systematically inspected after an emergency | 3.42 | Agree
| REC4 | Operations can be restored promptly after a disaster | 3.40 | Agree
| REC5 | Lessons from past emergencies are used to improve future plans (★) | 3.51 | Strongly Agree
|   | Sub-Mean | 3.42 | Agree
|   | Overall Grand Mean | 3.37 | Agree

Note. Scale: 3.50–4.00 = Strongly Agree; 2.50–3.49 = Agree; 1.50–2.49 = Disagree; 1.00–1.49 = Strongly Disagree. Item REC5 (★) is the sole item reaching Strongly Agree across the entire scale.

This study provides a systematic, multi-dimensional, and empirically grounded assessment of emergency response preparedness among hospitality personnel at Mariano Marcos State University, yielding four converging conclusions of both scholarly and practical significance.

First, technical knowledge gaps are significant, measurable, and directly consequential. The overall correct response rate of 63.6% on the First Aid knowledge test and 56.2% on the BLS knowledge test indicate that the majority of MMSU hospitality personnel fall below established functional competency thresholds in both domains. Most critically, the near-universal failure on procedurally foundational BLS items — scene safety assessment and EMS activation, each with only 14.5% correct responses — reveals a systemic misunderstanding of the chain of survival that renders the majority of personnel unable to correctly execute the initial steps of an effective emergency response. These deficiencies are directly traceable to the documented absence of formal training: 60.0% of respondents had never attended any First Aid or BLS training.

Second, behavioral preparedness is the demonstrable strength of this workforce. The overall safety drill preparedness mean of 3.54 ('Prepared') indicates that MMSU hospitality personnel have internalized correct emergency behaviors — particularly in evacuation protocols, alarm compliance, and earthquake-specific responses — at a level that meaningfully exceeds their technical knowledge scores. This behavioral readiness reflects the positive institutional impact of the MMSU DRRM office's drill culture and constitutes a motivational foundation upon which more comprehensive technical training programs can be built.

Third, institutional awareness is positive in orientation but incomplete in infrastructure. The overall disaster preparedness awareness grand mean of 3.37 ('Agree') confirms that respondents are broadly supportive of MMSU's emergency preparedness framework. However, the lowest sub-domain score in Preparedness (M = 3.27) — driven by deficiencies in emergency contact visibility, evacuation marking clarity, and the adequacy of staff orientation — identifies specific physical and operational gaps that require targeted institutional investment.

Fourth, and critically, bomb scare and security threat preparedness represents an unaddressed gap in the current emergency preparedness framework of MMSU's hospitality workforce. The complete absence of security-specific emergency training from the documented training histories of respondents, combined with the absence of bomb scare protocol items from existing drill assessments and awareness scales, indicates that this dimension of multi-hazard preparedness has not been systematically integrated into the university's hospitality workforce development programs. This gap represents a concrete and addressable institutional vulnerability.

Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, the following evidence-based interventions are recommended for implementation by MMSU's College of Business, Economics and Accountancy, the Tourism and Hospitality Management Department, and the MMSU DRRM office.

          Mandatory First Aid and BLS Certification. MMSU should mandate all hospitality personnel to complete at least a Basic First Aid and BLS certification course accredited by the Philippine Red Cross or the Department of Health. Given the documented 60.0% training absence rate and the critically low BLS procedural knowledge scores, voluntary training is demonstrably insufficient. Certification requirements should be incorporated into employment contracts and annual performance evaluation criteria, with recertification required every two years (Philippine Red Cross, 2022). Priority must be accorded to security personnel, who are most likely to serve as initial responders across all emergency types.

          Integration of Bomb Scare and Security Threat Protocols into Emergency Training Programs. MMSU, in coordination with the DRRM office and the Philippine National Police Anti-Bomb Squad, should develop and implement a dedicated Bomb Scare and Security Threat Response module for all hospitality personnel. This module should cover: recognition of bomb threat indicators; correct response sequences; immediate notification of campus security and the DRRM office; coordination with the PNP Anti-Bomb Squad; and post-incident reporting procedures. The module should be integrated into the semi-annual simulation drill schedule and delivered in partnership with the Bureau of Fire Protection, the Ilocos Norte Emergency Response Team, and the PNP.

          Development and Deployment of a Multi-Hazard Emergency Preparedness Toolkit. A customized Emergency Preparedness Toolkit should be developed for MMSU food service and accommodation establishments. The toolkit should include laminated visual First Aid guides and BLS quick-reference cards posted at workstations; color-coded evacuation maps for different emergency types; a bomb threat checklist with PNP Anti-Bomb Squad contact information; and emergency contact directories prominently displayed in all canteens, kitchens, dormitory common areas, and security posts.

          Regular Multi-Scenario Simulation Drills. MMSU should implement at least semi-annual simulation drills incorporating medical emergency scenarios — including cardiac arrest, severe bleeding, and choking — and security threat scenarios, including bomb scare evacuation and suspicious item reporting. These drills should be coordinated with the MMSU DRRM office, the Bureau of Fire Protection, the PNP, and the Ilocos Norte Emergency Response Team.

          Upgrading of Physical Emergency Infrastructure. The university administration should undertake a systematic audit and upgrading of physical emergency infrastructure across all food service and accommodation facilities. Priority interventions should include the posting of up-to-date emergency contact numbers — inclusive of the PNP, Anti-Bomb Squad, and DRRM hotlines — in all work areas; the re-marking of multi-hazard evacuation routes; and the installation of Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) in high-traffic areas such as canteens and dormitory lobbies.

          Institutional Competency-Based Certification Program. The Tourism and Hospitality Management Department should develop an institutionally recognized Emergency Preparedness Certification Program, awarded to hospitality personnel who complete mandatory First Aid and BLS training, attend simulation drills (including bomb scare exercises), and demonstrate competency in post-training assessments. This initiative aligns with MMSU's Quality Policy (2019).

          Engagement of SIRMATA and Student Organizations as Preparedness Advocates. SIRMATA, the University Student Council, and college-level student organizations should be formally engaged as communication and advocacy partners in MMSU's multi-hazard emergency preparedness program, extending institutional preparedness communications to the broader campus community.

AlBattat, A. R., & Mat Som, A. P. (2013). Emergency preparedness for disasters and crises in the hotel industry. SAGE Open, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013505604

American Hotel and Lodging Educational Institute. (2022). Emergency preparedness standards for the hospitality industry. AHLEI Press.

Brown, C., & Green, A. (2022). Hospitality and community resilience: The role of hotels in disaster response. Journal of Hospitality Management Research, 14(2), 55–68.

Carreon, J. S., Inocencio, J. M. G., Ligoyligoy, J. J., Morillo, H. M., Sullano, M. A., Tabianan, L. J., Morales, L., Genabe, M., Nillos, J., & Verba, R. (2022). The level of disaster preparedness among the employees of selected hospitality establishments in Naval Biliran. International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology, 7(1), 996.

Commission on Higher Education. (2019). CHED Advisory on Security and Emergency Preparedness in State Universities and Colleges. Republic of the Philippines.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2023). Comprehensive preparedness guide (CPG) 101: Developing and maintaining emergency operations plans. U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Hsiao, C., Lee, Y., & Turco, D. (2018). Security preparedness in institutional hospitality environments: Gaps and training implications. Journal of Security Studies, 11(2), 88–102.

Ifran, M., Saeed, A., Khan, S., Ijaz, A., & Sial, S. A. (2019). Current state of BLS knowledge among health professionals in Pakistan. Cureus, 11(6), e4871. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.4871

Mariano Marcos State University. (2019). MMSU Quality Policy. Office of the University President.

Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology. (2022). Geologic hazards and disaster risk reduction in the Philippines. DOST-PHIVOLCS.

Philippine National Police Anti-Bomb Squad. (2021). Guidelines for bomb threat response in public institutions. PNP-ABS Operations Manual.

Philippine Red Cross. (2022). Community-based first aid and disaster preparedness manual. Philippine Red Cross.

Republic Act No. 10121. (2010). Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010. Republic of the Philippines.

Republic Act No. 10871. (2016). An act strengthening the Filipino family as the basic unit of society. Republic of the Philippines.

SIRMATA. (2023). MMSU campus emergency preparedness activities. Official Publication of the College Students of MMSU, XLI(1–4). https://www.facebook.com/MMSU.SirmataOfficial/

Smith, J., & Johnson, R. (2021). Crisis management in the hospitality sector: Training gaps and strategic recommendations. International Hospitality Review, 35(1), 44–59.

Sonmez, M. O., Altiparmak, M., & Akin, B. (2014). Determining the knowledge levels of pre-school teachers related to basic first-aid practices. Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine, 14(2), 47–52. https://doi.org/10.5505/1304.7361.2014.76727

The researchers express sincere gratitude to the MMSU Office of the Vice President for Administration, Finance, and Business — Security Monitoring Services, and particularly to Prof. Reynold P. Guiang, Chief of the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office, for the invaluable institutional support extended throughout this study. Special appreciation is extended to all 55 hospitality personnel who generously participated and shared their knowledge and experiences, and to the College of Business, Economics and Accountancy for its enduring commitment to research excellence in alignment with MMSU's Quality Policy. 

The study is expected to produce a comprehensive, evidence-based Emergency Preparedness Enhancement Program for the Mariano Marcos State University (MMSU) hospitality workforce. Specifically, the study will generate the following outputs:

These outputs are expected to strengthen the emergency preparedness and response capacity of MMSU hospitality personnel, enhance the safety of students, employees, and guests, and serve as a replicable model for hospitality education institutions seeking to improve disaster resilience and emergency management practices.