**2. Methods**

The study is essentially participatory action research that uses a qualitative approach and documents review, interviews, and observation as data collection methods. It is limited to the case of the Marinduque Council for Environmental Concerns (MaCEC) involving several faith communities, community chapters, or members. The participants in the interviews were purposively selected using the following criteria: (1) living in the community/province for ten years or more; (2) a member/leader of MaCEC community/chapter; (3) resident of capital town villages with high 'risks' based on Provincial Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (PDRRM) Plan; (4) willingness to participate in the interview; and (5) access to digital/online platform for data gathering activities. While MaCEC has village and town chapters in all six towns of the province, the interviewees selected were limited to village-level formations in the capital town of Boac, as this was the most accessible to the researcher at the time. Documents reviewed included MaCEC plans and reports, press statements, online information, and documentation of events from its official social media, training modules, and relevant local policies and programs.

The study observes ethical considerations of ensuring voluntary participation and withdrawal, informed consent, and the health and safety of the research community. With the observance of governmen<sup>t</sup> quarantine and mobility restrictions during the field research

schedule, the researchers modified the interviews into paper/online interviews with followup phone calls arranged based on the availability of the interviewees and contingent on the health situation and connectivity access households/villages. The discussions proceeded with an interview guide that grouped questions into the participants' understanding of how cultural and religious aspects figure into their work as environmental stewards, the cultural and religious elements in the risk and resilience messages, results, and recommendations. In coordination with MaCEC staff, the researchers identified a total of nine (9) informants: four (4) of which are community/chapter leaders, four (4) are community/chapter members, and one (1) is the head of the MaCEC. The researchers then contacted them and sent printed copies of the interview guide. After two weeks, the researchers retrieved the filled-out interview guides. The researchers did some follow-up phone calls during data processing to validate or probe the recorded responses.

The organization permitted the researchers to conduct an online observation of a MaCEC Leaders' Discussion scheduled during their meeting on 7 October 2021. It informed the researchers of the process and content of organizational ecological discussions, planning, and evaluation. The validation session proceeded with emails and scheduled phone calls with MaCEC leaders and staff.
