Usamah, Handmer, Mitchell, & Ahmed (2014) monitored the relationship between vulnerability and resilience in the setting of informal settlements. Using a case study of two barangays in Camalig Municipality in Albay Province of the Philippines. The main discussion of the study is to whether and how vulnerability and resilience can exist simultaneously. The authors first determine community vulnerability, which is identified as through geographical, economic, and physical vulnerability.  Based on historical disasters and projection of occurrence, according to the Camalig Municipal Disaster Management and Contingency Plan, eight different types of natural hazards are recognized as threats to the municipality (Table 2). They are volcanic eruption, lahar flows, mudflows, typhoons, flash floods, landslides and earthquakes. These hazards are classified according to their probability of occurrence, consequence to the community as well as elements at risk.  Results showed that, during the Focus Group Discussions done in two barangays, the types of hazard with high impact on the local residents are during the last 30–40 years. They shown in Table 3 in the order of frequency of occurrence.  Unsustainable land use, poor urban planning, non-existence of building codes and weak land administration (Table 4) are the identified characterization of land-related vulnerability. An estimated sixty percent (60%) of all properties in the case study sites are no formal land tenures or informal settlers. Established houses on land with a high hazard risk are observed in the area these informal settlers. The houses are along road corridors, next to rivers and on abandoned railway reserves. The informal settles may have a hard time returning to the area after disasters and their houses might be demolished.  The study concluded that “qualitative analysis of households in the case study areas revealed that the strength of social relationships helps to reduce the vulnerability of the communities.” The relationship between vulnerability and resilience somewhat contradicts. “Strong community perceptions of their level of resilience to the impacts of disasters are supported by the social domains of the community. They have inbuilt resilience resulting from the perception of disasters as part of life, strong social bonds and government awareness of the validity of the informal settlements.”