integrating social and physical perspectives of mitigation ...risk from landslides and 5 million...

Integrating Social and PhysicalPerspectives of Mitigation Policyand Practice in Indonesia

Supriyati Andreastuti, Agus Budiantoand Eko Teguh Paripurno

AbstractEarthquakes, tsunami, landslide and volcanic eruptions occur frequently inIndonesia. The frequency of events combined with high population andwidely varied culture, differing levels of education and knowledge ofnatural hazards, as well as varied income, combine to give the country ahigh risk for natural disaster. Communication in hazard zones is affectedby a number of factors such as: differing terminology and perceptions ofhazards by the public, scientists, and disaster managers; how scientists andemergency managers communicate information; and how effectively themedia transfers the information to the public. Communication is alsocomplicated by culture, social factors and a wide variety of locallanguages. In Indonesia, disaster mitigation efforts at the national level arecoordinated by National Disaster Management Agency; whereas, provin-cial and regional disaster agencies are responsible for managing withintheir domains and in most cases local authorities are responsible forspecific mitigation actions, such as evacuations. Transferring hazardinformation is an important process in mitigation. In order to obtainefficient communication with the public, trusting relationships betweenscientists and communities are required. An understanding by scientistsand emergency managers of local culture, local languages and people’scharacter facilitates communication and contributes to trust. In addition,the media used for information can contribute significantly to improvingcommunication. Hazard communication also aims to improve the capacityof communities through enhancing their knowledge and strengthening oftheir mitigation institutions. In hazard zones, effective mitigation requires

S. Andreastuti (&) � A. BudiantoCenter for Volcanology and Geological HazardMitigation, Jl. Diponegoro no 57, Bandung 40122,Indonesiae-mail: [email protected]

A. Budiantoe-mail: [email protected]

E.T. ParipurnoUniversitas Pembangunan Nasional ‘Veteran’Yogyakarta, Jl. SWK 104 (Lingkar Utara),Condongcatur, Daerah Istimewa, Yogyakarta 55283,Indonesiae-mail: [email protected]

https://doi.org/10.1007/11157_2016_36© The Author(s) 2017Published Online: 26 May 2017

Advs in Volcanology (2018) 307–320

participation and community empowerment with activities before, duringand after disasters. A lesson learned from numerous volcanic eruptions inIndonesia is that each volcano has a different character, based not only thephysical characteristics of eruptions but also on geographic, social andcultural features. These features result in different responses of peopleduring crises and they influence the way scientists and governmentagencies communicate and deal with the process of evacuation andrepatriation.

KeywordsNatural hazards � Hazard communication � Information transfer � Lessonslearnt � Community capacity

1 Introduction

Indonesia is located between 3 tectonic plates,Indo-Australia, Eurasia and Pacific plates. Thisplate tectonic configuration exposes the nation toa wide range of geological hazards, i.e. earth-quakes, tsunami, landslides and volcano erup-tions. According to the Indonesia NationalDisaster Agency (2014), there are about200 million people at risk from earthquakes;4 million at risk from tsunami, 200 million atrisk from landslides and 5 million people at riskfrom volcanic eruptions. With a population of227,641,326 (Government of Indonesia 2010)and the dense population in hazard zones, riskreduction efforts are a priority of the government.

This chapter will discuss disasters as related tovolcanic eruptions. Indonesia has 127 active vol-canoes (Fig. 1), 77 are classified Type A, whichhave experienced one or more eruptions since1600 AD. Type A are monitoring priority volca-noes. Type B (29 Volcanoes), last erupted before1600 AD and show evidence of volcanic activity,such as fumaroles or solfatara. Type C (21 vol-canoes), do not have any record of historic erup-tions, but show fumarole and or sofatara activity.In 2015 (October), there were 18 volcanoes withactivity above normal levels, 2 of those were inlevel 3 (Watch) and 1 in level 4 (Warning).

In hazard mitigation, there are 3 stages;pre-disaster, syn-disaster, and post disaster.

According to Law no 24 (2007) of the RepublicIndonesia concerning Disaster Mitigation, effortsof mitigation shall be emphasized in pre-disasteractivity programs, such as capacity building toprepare community awareness. Communicationwith the public is an important part of developingcommunity preparedness in volcanic hazardzones. Our experience in Indonesia shows thatdisaster mitigation can only be achieved suc-cessfully if preparedness is carried out at thecommunity level. During this process, participa-tory action to empower people is the key topeople taking action during crisis according totheir preparedness (e.g., Paton and Johnston2001; Ronan and Johnson 2005).

This paper highlights the process of partici-patory management of crises and empowermentof responsible media to fill communication gapsbetween scientist and managers on one side andcommunities on the other side.

Below we describe methods used in Indonesiaand lessons learned in seeking optimal preparedness.

2 Disaster Mitigation in Indonesia

In Indonesia, implementation for disaster miti-gation is coordinated by the National DisasterManagement Agency (BNPB) and by Provincialand Regional Disaster Management Agencies(BPBD), who are responsible for managingwithin their domains. The institution responsible

308 S. Andreastuti et al.

Fig.1

Distributionof

Indo

nesiavo

lcanoes.Sy

mbo

ls:redtriang

les,Typ

eA;yello

wtriang

les,Typ

eB

andC

Integrating Social and Physical Perspectives … 309

for overall volcano hazard mitigation is theCenter for Volcanology and Geological HazardMitigation (CVGHM), which uses 4 alert levels(Table 1) to communicate hazards and recom-mend actions to be taken by the Disaster Man-agement agencies. The alert levels are: Normal,Advisory (Waspada), Watch (Siaga) and Warn-ing (Awas). Characteristics of volcanic activityare defined for each alert level and specificactivities of mitigation are linked to the alertlevels. For Normal, Advisory and Watch levelsthese activities include socialization, preparationof contingency plans, simulations (e.g., table topexercises), and evacuation drills. When thehighest alert level (Warning) is declared, evacu-ation of people in a specified threatened area isrecommended by CVGHM, and the localauthorities take the action to evacuate the people.

During levels Watch and Warning, commu-nication to the public and amongst stakeholdersbecomes intense and frequent. Communication isaccomplished in various ways, including tele-phone (mobile and land-lines), text messaging,fax, television, radio and radio streaming; thelatter is arranged by communities and typicallyutilizes hand-held citizens-band radios forstreaming information.

In order to understand the information anddisaster mitigation processes, socialization andsimulations (table top exercises, “TTX”) areconducted with local disaster mitigation agenciesand selected community members (see Fig. 2).Simulations are implemented according to

community contingency plans for threatenedareas. These exercises help stakeholders andcommunity members understand volcanic hazardinformation and what to do to respond accordingto their contingency plans. A wide range ofstakeholders are involved, including both localnational authorities, such as representatives fromagencies involved in public works, social, health,energy and mineral resources (parent agency forCVGHM), and transportation, as well as theCentral Bureau of Statistics, Non-GovernmentalAgencies (e.g., Red Cross), and volunteers.

3 Gaps in Communication

Understanding information flow as a part of earlywarning systems is essential for dissemination ofhazard information to the public. There are anumber of factors that can hamper the process ofcommunication, i.e.: culture and language, hazardperception, mandates and policy. According toDamen (1987), culture may be defined as learnedand shared human patterns or models for living.Therefore, culture relates to mankind’s adaptivemechanisms and includes local beliefs, religion,language, social habits and communication.

In hazardmitigation, a cultural approach is usedto improve the capacity of a community to copewith disaster. Donovan (2009) noted that socialand economic factors should be considered, suchas during the Merapi crisis of 2006. In Indonesia,the culture of a community largely affects

Table 1 Volcano activity in Indonesia

Level of volcanic activity in Indonesia

Normal level Visual observations and instrumental records show normal fluctuations, but no change ofactivityHazards in the form of poisonous gas may take place near vents according to the volcano’scharacteristic activity

Waspada level(advisory)

According to visual observations and instrumental records there are indications of increasingof volcanic activity

Siaga level (watch) According to visual observation and instrumental records there are prominent indications ofincreasing volcanic activity. Eruptions may take place but do not threaten settlements and/oractivities of communities near the volcano.

Awas level(warning)

According to visual observations and instrumental records, there are significant indicationsof volcanic activity, which are followed eruptions and potentially threaten settlements and orcommunity activities around the volcano


individuals’ perception of hazards. This percep-tion relates strongly to local beliefs, which aretypically associated with the community mem-bers’ experiences during previous eruptions andwith physical barriers or obstructions betweenthem and the volcano (Lavigne et al. 2008). Anexample of a change in physical barriers was evi-dent during the 2006 eruption of Merapi. Peopleon the southern flank of the volcano had longbelieved that the Gegerbuaya ridge protectedthem, as it had for decades. The Gegerbuaya was asteep ridge near the summit of Merapi that pro-tected much of the southern flank, as it directedpyroclastic flows to the southwest. However,during the 2006 eruption, the Gegerbuaya waseroded and subsequent pyroclastic flows and sur-ges in 2006 and during the large “100-year”eruption in 2010 had a profound impact not just tothe southwest, but also on the southern flank.Unfortunately, the perception of protection of thesouthern flank persisted long after the “protector”(the Gegerbuaya) had ceased to exist. Conse-quently, it was important to overcome thislong-held misperception through communityeducation during the 2006–2010 time interval.

In most cases, communication from scientistsand disaster managers to the public is

complicated by uncertainty involved in eruptionforecasting and by limitations in understandingby public authorities. This may lead to uncer-tainty in decision-making and accordingly, inpublic mitigation actions (Morchio 1993). Con-sequently, effective two-way communicationbetween parties is important. Simple language todeliver hazard information, supported by a cul-tural approach is one of the solutions.

Indonesia is a nation of diverse cultures andreligions, and as noted by Chester (2005) in suchenvironments religious and community leadershave important roles in disaster management.This is the case in certain areas of Indonesia,where communication between government sci-entists or disaster managers and society is mosteffective when done through religious or com-munity leaders. For example, hazard communi-cation during the ongoing Sinabung volcaniccrisis in Sumatra has been more effective throughthe local religion leaders; whereas, communica-tion through other community leaders waseffective during recent crises at Merapi andKelud volcanoes in Java.

The manner of communication, includingculturally sensitive approaches, use of local lan-guages, and appropriate means of delivery of

Fig. 2 Information flow during volcanic activity. This diagram illustrates how information flows from CVGHM toDisaster Management Agencies and other related institutions


information is critical. Indonesia has hundreds oflocal languages, although Bahasa Indonesia(“language of Indonesia”) is the commondenominator for hazard communication and ingeneral socialization of hazard information iscarried out in Indonesian. However in someplaces, local languages are still needed for com-munication and understanding and to be effec-tive. In order to enhance communication and toimprove hazard mitigation in this diverse lin-guistic and cultural nation, CVGHM operates 68local observatories, staffed by observers fromnearby communities who speak local languages.

3.1 Hazard Perception

The response of disaster mitigation agencies andcommunities to anticipate disaster depends on acommon understanding of the hazards and anability to take action during the event. Differ-ences in hazard perception among emergencymanagers and scientists can lead to different andsometimes confusing and dangerous responseactions. Our experience is that such differencesmay be caused by overlaps in mandate andauthority, different levels of knowledge, errors incommunication and coordination amongststakeholders, and by ineffective communicationbetween government authorities and communi-ties. These issues are not unique to Indonesia.Qualitative and quantitative studies by Hayneset al. (2008a) of the factors controlling risk per-ception during the volcanic crisis on the Car-ibbean island of Montserrat show that difficultiesin communication and understanding of uncer-tainties pertaining to volcanic risk led to confu-sion and social, economic and political forcesresulted in distorted risk messages.

Hazard perceptions of local governments andcommunities are also influenced by their expe-riences during previous disasters. Communitiesfrom Kelud and Merapi have had far moreexperience in dealing with eruptions than thecommunities around Sinabung. The experienceof those near Kelud and Merapi has allowed

them to quickly understand the hazard informa-tion and respond appropriately during recentcrises. In contrast, the communities near Sina-bung (which had not erupted in hundreds ofyears) had less experience, and were thus lessaware and less able to respond as effectivelyduring the crisis. This example of a populationthat is not experienced in volcanic eruptions is byno means unique. For example, Solana et al.(2008) notes that even though local authoritiesare aware of the hazard at Vesuvius, there is stillincomplete understanding among communitiesas to how to respond during a volcano crisis.

3.2 Mandate and Policy

As previously noted, the responsibility for coor-dination of disaster management in Indonesia lieswith the National Disaster Management Agency(BNPB) and with the Provincial and RegionalDisaster Management Agencies (BPBD). BNPBhas the mandate to coordinate all the stakehold-ers and to manage the situation during crisis.Therefore, all reports regarding events are firstlydelivered to this agency for action. BNPB alsohas authority to publish policies, guidelines andprotocols related to preparedness, mitigation andemergencies regulation. While this is of greatvalue at the national level, a lack of socializationand understanding of the regulation at the locallevel may result in less than optimumimplementation.

Although specific mitigation actions, such asevacuations are carried out by local authorities andmanaged by BPBD, the overall mandate for theinformation that results in the mitigation of vol-canic hazards in Indonesia is given to CVGHM.This institution is responsible for volcano moni-toring, issuing alert levels, and providing recom-mendations for evacuation to BNPB, BPBD andlocal governments and for dissemination of haz-ards information. The protocol for determinationof alert levels is established by CVGHM. Prob-lems have arisen in cases when other institutionsor individuals have intervened by issuing


statements to the mass media, in some cases evencausing panic among the public.

4 Problems and Solutionsin Communicating Hazardsand Achieving CommunityPreparedness

The aim of the dissemination of knowledge abouthazards should be to create awareness among thethreatened parties and we suggest that the biggestimprovement in communicating hazards inIndonesia will come about through encouragingactors to behave and act equally and in harmony.However, in implementation, we find that there isoften a disparity between hazard mitigationactors. Frequently, hazard mitigation institutionsattempt to impose their role at levels higher thanthat of the community. In these cases, key rolesof assessment and participatory learning may beconsidered inappropriate and therefore may notbe used. In such cases, dissemination of infor-mation tends to be carried out from the top downand centralized, often delaying transmission ofcritical information and contributing to misun-derstanding at the local level. Occasionally, thesource of knowledge depends on a single personor group. In other cases during crisis, manygroups of people may get involved in dissemi-nation of information without proper knowledgeand without adequate coordination with theinstitution responsible for socialization. We havefound that the best result in improving commu-nity preparedness is achieved when the style andmode of communication between actors changesgradually. An informal approach is a key factorin good communication, and we find that such aninformal mode is an effective means to transferknowledge through participatory activities duringthe quiet times between volcanic crises.

4.1 The Role of Media

Involvement of media or mass communication isimportant to improve public knowledge andresponse capacity. Access to public media is very

much a part of daily public life in Indonesia andat all levels of society. Consequently, it is aneffective means for both long-term education andfor short-term communication of hazard infor-mation. To transfer hazard information to thepublic several mass media methods are used,namely direct communication through televisionprograms, interviews and articles in newspapers,and webpages. In addition, socialization pro-grams are provided by CVGHM to target priorityaudiences, utilizing workshops, seminars, exhi-bitions and formal or informal discussions withthe public in the areas of concern.

To enhance the effectiveness of mass mediacommunication, workshops with reporters andscientists on translation of technical data intopublic language have been carried out. Potentialproblems include the reporters and the mediacompanies’ own interests in how they deliverhazard messages. CVGHM recognizes this needand works with reporters to keep the messageappropriate to the scale of the hazards and tomake sure that critical public safety messages areeffectively communicated. In addition, we rec-ognize value of involving media in observationof capacity building of communities before,during and after disasters. Although the media istypically less attracted in pre-disaster activities,our involvement with news reporters during cri-ses and following disasters helps increase interestin public-interest and capacity-building storiesabout pre-disaster activities, which might other-wise be neglected by the media.

4.2 Building Trust

To build trust between scientist and communi-ties, equity in level of communication is impor-tant, in addition to understanding of local culture,local language and people’s character. Sharinginformation to identify problems will alsoencourage people be more involved in hazardmitigation. Various targets and conditions ofcommunities during the capacity building pro-cess stimulate scientists to be flexible and modifyprocedures and understanding of hazards. Thismay include equating perception and


terminology to other more commonly understoodthreats to communities.

Here we describe how pre-established trust ofcommunities in government (scientists and dis-aster managers) during the volcano crisis ofFebruary 2014 at Kelud resulted in a timely andefficient evacuation. People obtained and dis-tributed information to others by communityradio, text messaging and community gatherings.The CVGHM observatory post was one of themain sources of information. New local com-munity leaders emerged from a local disasterpreparedness group known as Wajib Latih(Indonesian for “compulsory training”; a groupdefined in more detail below). Such leadersplayed an important role in communicating haz-ard information during the Kelud crisis. TheChief of the District of Ngancar was involved inthe distribution of information through radiobriefings with the help of local leaders andmembers of the communities. During the crises,the communities of Kelud were also involved inkeeping the public away from exclusion zones.

This case illustrates the independency of com-munities to take action, and it represents abottom-up process in mitigation.

In contrast, a low capacity and experience ofSinabung communities resulted in inconsistentresponses, such as repeated requests for confir-mation of hazard information, attempts tonegotiate before taking action, and less consid-eration in taking risks. A tragic example tookplace during the Sinabung eruption on 1February 2014, which resulted in 17 fatalities.As a consequence of ineffective understandingof the risk, these people entered the 5 kmexclusion zone (Fig. 3) and were killed by apyroclastic surge.

Improvements in the capacity of Sinabungcommunities have resulted from the efforts ofstaff members of CVGHM conducting social-ization work. These improvements are clearly aresult of increasing trust of community leaders inthe relevant communicator. Such individual trustbuilding is an important way to improve volcanicrisk communication (Haynes et al. 2008b).

Fig. 3 Map showing direction of pyroclastic flows of Sinabung volcano on 1 February 2014 (black arrow) and 5 kmexclusion zone (magenta dashed circle)


Indonesia has a unique involvement of sci-entists in mitigation actions related to volcaniceruptions. As a mandate holder, CVGHM isresponsible not only for monitoring and volcanohazard evaluation, but also for mitigation ofvolcanic hazards, as alert levels are directly tiedto mitigation actions and areas recommended forevacuation are specified in formal CVGHMnotifications. Scientists and decision makers whoissue volcano alert levels are in the same insti-tution. Scientists from different institutions mayprovide input based on research but do not toissue alert levels. Further, decision makerscommunicate directly with disaster managers,such as BNPB and BPBD and provide specificrecommendations regarding mitigation actions.BNPB and BPBD arrange, prepare, and throughlocal authorities enact mitigation plans.

5 Steps of Knowledge Transferand Communication

In general, there are several steps in deliveringinformation that we use in Indonesia, namelysocialization, preparation of contingency plandocuments, simulation and evacuation drills.

5.1 Socialization

Socialization is dissemination of hazard infor-mation to people at risk. In Indonesia, the level ofvolcano activity and priority of socialization byCVGHM changes at different alert levels(Fig. 4). At the Normal level, socialization isgiven to people living close to volcanoes thatexperience a high frequency of eruptions. At theAdvisory level, socialization is carried out withpriority to people in the area potentially threat-ened by hazards. At Watch level, it is carried outin area which will likely be evacuated in the caseof a Warning level alert. At the Warning level,additional socialization is conducted in evacua-tion camps or barracks, if it is needed.

In hazard zones where there is a high frequencyof volcanic eruptions, continuity of hazard infor-mation is important to maintain awareness ofthreatened communities. A model of participatorytraining is most appropriate in these situations.This model aims to implement “training of thetrainer” or compulsory training (“Wajib Latih,” inthe language of Indonesia).Wajib Latih representsthe lowest social level of disaster management andmitigation planning. It is a disaster managementlearning activity that is undertaken to bring

Fig. 4 Capacity building in communities and its implementation during volcano eruption according to alert level


together the instructors, local stakeholders andcommunity leaders. Most activities are conductedby CVGHM and result in the creation of a newlocal leader. From our experience, the creation andestablishment of such a local leader plays animportant role in effective community evacuation.ThroughWajib Latih, information is sharedwithincommunities and by members of communities. Inthis activity, the group has the task to formulate acontingency plan and SOP of evacuation, includ-ing making village risk maps (Fig. 5). Eachmember of the group is given a specific respon-sibility and as a result, each acts as a leader of theirown task. Because the plan is created by thecommunity itself, it is easily understood andeffectively utilized by the community.

The Wajib Latih requires a common percep-tion between government and the community inorder to create a sharing environment to findsolutions. However, even with thiscommunity-based process, this condition is dif-ficult to achieve as even in areas near a volcano,hazard perception may vary from sector to sector.

To a significant degree the success of the methoddepends on the experience of those involved indealing with the hazard directly and repeatedly.

5.2 Contingency Plan

According to UNISDR (2009) “contingencyplanning is a management process that analysesspecific potential events or emerging situationsthat might threaten society or the environmentand establishes arrangements in advance toenable timely, effective and appropriate respon-ses to such events and situations”.

By Public Law in Indonesia, contingency plansinclude scenarios and goals, establishment oftechnical and managerial actions, as well asresponse plans for mobilization of mutuallyagreed stakeholders (Government of Indonesia2007). The formulation of a contingency plan iscarried out in twoways, namely community-basedand stakeholder-based. Contingency plans areprepared by village (throughWajib Latih groups),

Fig. 5 Village risk map shows total number of inhabitants, resources, locations of vulnerable groups and infrastructurefor evacuation


and also at regency and national levels(stakeholder-based). AtMerapi andKelud, both ofthese two approaches were carried out. In prepa-ration of the contingency plans, many stakehold-ers are involved. Stakeholders involved in WajibLatih groups include CVGHM, local authorities atvillage level, community health centers, commu-nity preparedness groups, volunteers, and repre-sentative community members and leaders.Stakeholder-based contingency plans involveCVGHM, local authorities at regency andprovincial levels, local health, public works,social, communication and information, andtransportation agencies, community preparednessgroups, volunteers, Red Cross/Red Crescent andsearch and rescue units. During the process offormulating contingency plans, the input ofstakeholders is needed to define their appropriateroles. Formulation of the contingency planincludes identification of hazard, threat, and vul-nerability, as well as a determination of possibledisaster impacts, risk reduction measures, readi-ness and response mechanisms, and a distributionof tasks, mandates and available resources(Government of Indonesia 2008). Besides pro-viding the contingency plan document and SOPfor evacuation, the process also improves com-munication and coordination of hazard perceptionamongst stakeholders and community leaders.

The Wajib Latih process is similar to Partici-patory Rural Appraisal (PRA) methods imple-mented in the Solomon Islands (Cronin et al.2004a, b), which involves stakeholders fromcommunities and government to encouragecommunity-based planning. Wajib Latih andPRA emphasize the important of dialogue amongstakeholders to integrate various aspects, bothsocial and physical to derive risk assessment andmitigation plans.

Increased capacity of a community requiresnot just knowledge of the hazard but also effec-tive communication and coordination, in whichthose responsible for crisis management under-stand the policy, guidelines and standard oper-ating procedures of the entire process. Therefore,in the preparation of contingency plans it isimportant to document and empower hazardmitigation institutions (stakeholders) and the

community at risk. Contingency planning alsorequires understanding of the mandates of eachinstitution and the distribution and coordinationof authorities. During contingency planning andthrough simulation of the plans, needs and gapsare identified and addressed with solutions thatwill be effective during future crises. Contin-gency plans are not only useful to identify haz-ards and vulnerabilities and to enhanceunderstanding of evacuation procedures, but thepreparation of these plans also builds a criticalcommunication network and coordinationamongst stakeholders, community leaders andmembers of villages.

As previously noted, preparation of theseplans takes place during Normal or Advisoryalert levels. In the Watch level, a review ofcontingency plan is carried out in order to updateall data before a real disaster and the contingencyplan is changed to an operation plan. At this timeand at higher governmental levels(regency/provincial and national levels) an Inci-dent Commander is appointed. The operationalplan is then used by the Incident Commander andall stakeholders to guide the response, typicallyan evacuation (Fig. 4). Activities of communitiesin each Alert level are shown in Table 2.

5.3 Simulation (Table Top Exercises)

Table top exercises are designed to test the abilityof disaster mitigation officials to respond. In thiscase, the exercise also aims to test and review theprocedures set out in the contingency plan. Theexercise involves key persons from the varioussectors as described in the contingency plan. Asused by CVGHM, the nature of the exercise isinformal, such that participants may improve thescenarios, share information and experiences,and overall provide input to improve the plan.

5.4 Evacuation Drills

Drills are used to practice evacuations involvingcommunities and all stakeholders. These exer-cises are carried out in the field, involve


vulnerable people and mobilize resources andcommunities according to scenarios from thecontingency plan. Our experience is that reviewof the contingency plan during evacuation drillssubstantially improves the plan. For example,risks related to the route of evacuation, locationand facilities at evacuation camps or barracks andmodes of transportation are all commonlyaddressed and solutions found.

5.5 Leadership

In disaster management, the role of leadership isimportant, both for decision makers and localleaders. As previously noted, during the capacitybuilding process of institutions and communities,often a new leader emerges. Such a leader canmobilize disaster management agencies andcommunities to take action according their

Table 2 Volcano alert levels and community preparedness taken from the Indonesia national standard trainingguideline for community preparedness to anticipate hazards of volcanic eruption (in press)

Alert level Activity of community

Normal (normal, level 1) 1. Socialization of volcanic hazard map2. Understanding of character of volcano hazards3. Community understanding regarding their settlement within volcanic hazard map4. Census of inhabitants within hazard zones5. Inventory of resources within hazard zones6. Formulation of SOP7. Preparation of sign and evacuation route8. Simulation

Advisory (Waspada, level 2) 1. Dissemination of increasing alert level2. Updating census of inhabitants3. Updating of vulnerability of inhabitants within hazard zones4. Intensification of inventory of resources within hazard zones5. Preparation of equipment and communication system6. Preparation of evacuation plan7. Preparation of transportation for evacuation8. Preparation of evacuation barracks9. Preparation of logistics10. Explanation to community11. Grouping of communities

Watch (Siaga, level 3) 1. Dissemination of increased alert level2. Sign of alert is ready to be operated3. Transportation for evacuation is ready to be operated4. Evacuation barracks are ready to be operated5. Logistics are ready to be operated6. Security is ready to be operated7. SOP is ready to be operated8. Equipment and communication system is activated9. Determination of the emergency response command

Warning (Awas, level 4) 1. Dissemination of increased alert level2. Warning signals are sounded3. Evacuation order from Incident Commander is executed4. Activation of SOP5. Evacuation6. Activation of evacuation barracks7. Activation of logistics8. Activation of security9. Activation of crisis center

Alert levels are given in English and Indonesian (in parentheses)


capacity and capability to anticipate disaster. Thenew leader is typically most effective during theevacuation process. In our experience and acrossa wide variety of Indonesian cultures, we findthat a trusted community leader is patient,open-minded, caring, flexible, and a good com-municator. Such a leader also has great endur-ance. The function of a leader in the communityis to serve as a role model and initiator; one whoencourages people to take proper action accord-ing to their capability.

6 Conclusion

Communicating hazard information is a timeconsuming process, as the interaction betweencommunity (social) and scientists (physical per-spectives) and disaster management agencies(policy and practice) requires equity in hazardperception. We find that informal approaches arekeys to success. An informal nature of commu-nication encourages people to share experience,knowledge and problems without regard to theirbackground differences and is best accomplishedthrough socialization using a participatoryknowledge dissemination methods. These activ-ities are carried out through discussion andsharing of experiences among actors, analyzingproblems from different perspectives to findsolutions, and involvement of various groups tomaintain diversity and necessity. The main pointof the activity is to identify underlying problemsin hazard perception, cultural backgrounds andcommunity characteristics and to harmonize thepoint of view of both hazard mitigation officialsand communities. This is consistent with theconclusion of Howes and Minos-Minopoulos(2004), who pointed out the importance of publicperception of hazard, risk and vulnerability inrelation to public education programs and disas-ter management plans.

One of the factors to motivate communities toprotect themselves from natural disasters is toencourage people to find out where and how toobtain hazard information and to conduct theirown assessments that lead to appropriate actions.This can be achieved by empowerment of

communities through participatory learning.Perry and Lindell (2008) proposed that there iscorrelation between responsibility forself-protection of the community that has had anexperience of property damage and informationseeking behavior related to protective action. Wefind this to be the case in Indonesia.

Both Merapi and Kelud communities areexperienced the Wajib Latih process. The coreactivity of Wajib Latih groups is to encouragepeople to be capable to respond and take actionappropriately during crisis. This behavior can beachieved through intensive training andinvolvement in the preparation of mitigationplans. The training also emphasizes the differ-ence between evacuating and “being evacuated.”The first case implies being prepared and activelyparticipating and the second reflects beingunprepared and passively participating. Theevacuation processes at both Kelud and Merapicommunities illustrates the value in prepared-ness. Even during the short-term crisis of the2014 Kelud eruption (less than one day ofwarning), part of the community evacuatedthemselves before a recommendation for evacu-ation was issued (i.e., Warning level alert beingissued). This condition represents independencyof the community to anticipate and take actionduring a crisis according to their capacity andknowledge.

An important lesson from the experience ofdisaster mitigation in Indonesia is the necessity tomaintain effective communication between sci-entists and those responsible for mitigation byrespecting mandates and authorities for disastermanagement and by directly involving commu-nities in hazard mitigation. Such effective com-munication and community involvement issupported by development of policy, strategy andmitigation plans by government which involvespublic participation.

Acknowledgements We would like to thank to theDirector of Center for Volcanology and GeologicalHazard Mitigation, Indonesia for providing chance to usto involve in many activities in pre-disaster and duringcrisis. We are also grateful to John Pallister of the USGS,for provide fruitful comments, and in the preparation andediting of the manuscript.


References

Chester DK (2005) Theology and disaster studies: the needfor dialogue. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 146:319–328

Cronin SJ, Gaylord DR, Charley D, Brent V,Alloway BV, Wallez S, Esau JW (2004a) Participa-tory methods of incorporating scientific with tradi-tional knowledge for volcanic hazard management onAmbae Island, Vanuatu, Bulletin of Volcanology, vol66, pp 652–668

Cronin SJ, Patterson MG, Taylor PW, Biliki R (2004b)Maximising multi-stakeholder participation in govern-ment and community volcanic hazard managementprograms: a case study from Savo, Solomon Islands.Nat Hazards 33:105–113

Damen L (1987) Culture learning: the fifth dimension inthe language classroom, vol 11478. Addison WesleyPublishing Company

Dominey-Howes D, Minos-Minopoulos D (2004) Per-ception of hazard and Risk on Santorini. J VolcanolGeotherm Res 137:285–310

Donovan K (2009) Doing social volcanology: exploringvolcanic culture in Indonesia. Area 42:117–126

Government of Indonesia (2007) Law of RepublicIndonesia no 24, 2007 concerning disaster mitigation,published by the Government of Indonesia

Government of Indonesia (2008) Regulation of Head ofNational Disaster Management Agency No 4, pub-lished by the Government of Indonesia

Government of Indonesia (2010) Badan Pusat Statistik(Central Bureau of Statistics). http://www.bps.go.id/tab_sub/view.php?tabel=1&id_subyek=12

Government of Indonesia (2014) Indonesia NationalDisaster Management Agency, Rencana NasionalPenanggulangan Bencana 2015–2019 (National Disas-ter Mitigation Plan), published by the Government ofIndonesia

Government of Indonesia (2015) Indonesia NationalStandard, Training guideline for community prepared-ness against hazards of volcanic eruption (StandarNasional Indonesia, Panduan Pelatihan KesiapsiagaanMasyarakat Terhadap Bahaya Erupsi Gunungapi),published by the Government of Indonesia (in press)

Haynes K, Barclay J, Pidgeon N (2008a) Whose realitycounts? Factors affecting the perception of volcanicrisk. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 172:259–272

Haynes K, Barclay J, Pidgeon N (2008b) The issue oftrust and its influence on risk, communication during avolcanic crisis. Bull Volcanol 70:605–621

Lavigne F, de Coster B, Juvin N, Flohic F, Gailard JC,Texier P, Morin J, Sartohadi J (2008) People’sbehaviour in the face of volcanic hazard: perspectivefrom Javanese communities, Indonesia. J VolcanolGeotherm Res 172:273–287

Morchio R (1993) The effect of the uncertainty in naturalprediction on the user communities. In: Nemec J,Nigg JM, Siggardi F (eds) Prediction and perceptionof natural hazards. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 39–47

Paton D, Johnston D (2001) Disasters and communities:vulnerability, resilience and preparedness. DisasterPrev Manag Int J 10:270–277

Perry RW, Lindell MK (2008) Volcanic risk perceptionand adjustment in a multi-hazard environment. J Vol-canol Geotherm Res 172:170–178

Ronan KR, Johnston DM (2005) Promoting communityresilience in disasters; the role for schools, youth, andfamilies. Springer, New York 213 pp

Solana MC, Kilburn CRJ, Rolandi G (2008) Communi-cating eruption and hazard forecasts on Vesuvius,Southern Italy. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 172:308–314

UNISDR (2009) UNISDR terminology on disaster riskreduction. United Nations International Strategy forDisaster Reduction, Geneva

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the termsof the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 InternationalLicense (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/),which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution andreproduction in any medium or format, as long as yougive appropriate credit to the original author(s) and thesource, provide a link to the Creative Commons licenseand indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapterare included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license,unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material.If material is not included in the chapter’s CreativeCommons license and your intended use is not permittedby statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, youwill need to obtain permission directly from the copyrightholder.


http://www.bps.go.id/tab_sub/view.php%3ftabel%3d1%26id_subyek%3d12

http://www.bps.go.id/tab_sub/view.php%3ftabel%3d1%26id_subyek%3d12

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

integrating social and physical perspectives of mitigation ...risk from landslides and 5 million...

Documents