December 2013
Maria Agustina del Valle Flores Björn Klüver
Reducing Risks at Community Level
A Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment of two Villages in Yogyakarta Province,
Indonesia
This thesis is submitted for obtaining the NOHA Joint European Master’s Degree in International Humanitarian Action.
By submitting the thesis, the authors certify that the text is from their own hand,
does not include the work of someone else unless clearly indicated, and that
the thesis has been produced in accordance with proper academic practices.
"Disasters are never natural. They are the intersection of factors other than physical. They are the accumulation of the constant breach of economic, social, and environmental thresholds. Most of the time disaster is a result of inequity and the poorest people of the world are at greatest risk because of their
vulnerability and decades of mal-development, which I must assert is connected to the kind of pursuit of economic growth that dominates the world; the same kind of pursuit of so-called economic growth and unsustainable consumption that has altered the climate system."
Yeb Sano, Lead Negotiator for Philippines, at the United Nations Climate
Change Convention’s 19th Conference, 11
thNovember 2013.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments...10
Abstract...11
Acronyms...12
Chapter 1: Introduction...14
1.1. Rationale and Problem Statement ... 14
1.2. Research Goals ... 17
1.2.1 Research Objectives and Questions ... 17
1.2.2 Aim of the CBDRR pilot project ... 18
1.3. Research Foundations and Assumptions... 19
1.4. Outline of the book ... 20
Chapter 2: Key Concepts related to CBDRR ...22
2.1.“Nature-as-Opportunity” and “Nature-as-Hazard”... 23
2.2. Vulnerability and Capacities... 27
2.2.1. Triangle of Vulnerability and Circle of Capacities ... 31
2.3. Hazard... 35
2.3.1. Earthquake risk environments ... 37
2.3.2. Flood risk environments... 38
2.4. Risk ... 40
2.5. Disaster ... 40
2.6. Disaster Risk Reduction ... 41
2.7. Resilience ... 41
2.8. Other Concepts comprised on CBDRR ... 43
2.8.1. Community... 43
2.8.2. Community-based... 44
2.8.3. Local knowledge ... 44
2.8.4. Participation ... 45
2.9. Key Determinants of CBDRR... 46
Summary of the Chapter... 48
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework ...50
3.1 Pressure and Release Model... 50
3.1.1. Progression of Vulnerability ... 52
3.1.2. Progression of safety ... 56
3.2. Access Model... 59
3.2.1. Access to Resources and Safety... 61
Summary of the Chapter... 65
Chapter 4. Methodology ...67
4.1 Participatory Action Research ... 68
4.1.1. Participatory Action Research in DRR... 71
4.2. Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment ... 71
4.3. Data Collection Methods... 72
4.3.1. Literature Review... 73
4.3.2. Household Vulnerability and Capacity Survey... 74
4.3.3. Key Informant and Expert Interviews... 77
4.3.4. Focus groups discussions ... 79
4.3.5. Participant Observation ... 81
4.4. Participatory Methods ... 81
4.4.1. Space-related PRA methods ... 81
4.4.2. Time-related PRA methods ... 84
4.4.3. Relational PRA methods... 85
4.5. Working With an Interpreter ... 86
4.6. Data triangulation ... 88
4.7. Research Ethics and Principles ... 89
4.8. Challenges and Difficulties... 93
Summary of the Chapter... 97
Chapter 5. The Indonesian Context ...99
5.1. Brief History of Indonesia ... 99
5.2. Disaster profile ... 104
5.3. Indonesian Disaster Management Policy... 108
5.5. Yogyakarta Province ... 111
5.5.1. Rural-Urban Setting ... 112
5.5.2. Government Structure ... 115
5.5.3. Disaster Management Stakeholders... 116
5.5.4. Religion and Culture ... 123
5.5.4. Risk Environment in Bantul... 126
Summary of the Chapter... 127
Chapter 6. Case Studies ... 128
6.1. Puton ... 128
6.1.1. Context ... 129
6.2. Karangsemut... 132
6.2.1. Context ... 132
6.3. Results... 135
6.3.1. Hazard profile ... 136
6.3.2. Natural Resources ... 138
6.3.3. Human Resources ... 141
6.3.4. Physical Resources ... 147
6.3.5. Economic Resources... 152
6.3.6. Social Resources... 164
6.3.7. Political Resources ... 166
Summary of the Section ... 168
6.4. Dynamic Pressures ... 169
6.4.1. Global Environmental Change... 170
6.4.2. Natural Resource Degradation ... 171
6.4.3. Population Growth ... 175
6.4.4. Urbanization... 177
6.4.5. Poor Governance and Corruption... 178
6.4.6. Dependency on World Economic Market ... 179
Summary of the Section ... 181
6.5. Hazard Prevention and Mitigation... 182
6.5.1. Engineering-oriented measures... 182
6.5.2. Society- oriented measures ... 183
6.5.3. Ecosystem oriented measures ... 187
Summary of the Section ... 188
Chapter 7. Conclusion and Recommendations...189
7.1. Conclusion ... 189
7.2. Recommendations ... 193
7.2.1. Selection of CBDRR project components... 193
7.2.2. Selection of local partners to be involved in a potential CBDRR Pilot project
... 201
Bibliography ...205
Books and Journal Articles ... 205
News ... 215
Websites ... 216
Annexes ...217
Annex 1: Household Vulnerability and Capacity Survey ... 218
Annex 2: Interview Guidelines Database Development ... 232
Annex 3: Guideline Semi-structured Interviews Context Analysis... 234
Annex 4: Guideline Semi-structured Interviews Vulnerability ... 236
Annex 5: List of People Interviewed ... 238
Annex 6: Focus Group Discussion Guide for Community Elders ... 239
Annex 7: Focus Group Discussion Guide for Women ... 240
Annex 8: Trend Analysis: “Now and Then” Method ... 242
Annex 9: Helpful Institutions in Times of Disaster... 246
Annex 10: Disaster Management Stakeholder Analysis ... 254
List of Figures
Figure 1: Nature's Dual Face: Opportunity or Hazard ...26
Figure 2: Triangle of Vulnerability...32
Figure 3: Circle of Capacities ...33
Figure 4: Hazard Classification ...36
Figure 5: Determinants of Vulnerability to Earthquakes ...40
Figure 6: Pressure and Release Model - Progression of Vulnerability...56
Figure 7: Pressure and Release Model - Progression of Safety ...58
Figure 8: Mitigation and Prevention Measures...58
Figure 9: Outline of the Access Model ...62
Figure 10: Access to Resources ...64
Figure 11: The Action-Research Framework of VCA in a Project Planning Cycle ...73
Figure 12: Overview of Data Collection...74
Figure 13: Flow-chart of Field Survey Data Collection ...74
Figure 14: Status of the Respondent...76
Figure 15: Number of Years Living in the Village ...77
Figure 16: Data Triangulation Techniques ...88
Figure 17: Methodological Advantages, Limitations and Ethical Issues of Participatory Techniques...92
Figure 18: Indonesian Disaster Management Policy...111
Figure 19 Municipality Hierarchy Structure in Yogyakarta Special District...116
Figure 20: Household Size - Puton ...130
Figure 21: Household Size - Karangsemut ...133
Figure 22: Trends Perception of Safety and Main Natural Hazards...137
Figure 23: Trends in Biodiversity and Soil Fertility Indicators...139
Figure 24: Access to Water ...141
Figure 25: Trends in Food Security, Sickness and Health Services Availability ...145
Figure 26: Diarrhea Cases in Trimulyo 2011...146
Figure 27: House Ownership...152
Figure 28: Average Household Monthly Income ...155
Figure 29: Household Savings ...158
Figure 30: Reasons for Saving...158
Figure 31: Access to Formal Credit...159
Figure 32: Trends on Livestock and Cultivated Area ...160
Figure 33: Concerns on Economic Security ...160
Figure 34: Trends on Communal Political Conflicts ...168
Figure 35: Population Growth in DIY - Indonesia (1971-2010) ...176
Figure 36: Trends on Population Growth ...176
Figure 37: Trends on Agricultural Yield and Use of Hybrid Seeds ...180
Figure 38: Willingness to Participate in DRR activities...186
Figure 39: Progression of Vulnerability in Puton and Karangsemut...189
Figure 40: Progression of Safety in Puton and Karangsemut ...190
Figure 41: Problem Tree ...194
Figure 42: Solution Tree...195
List of Maps Map 1: Earthquake Zones in Indonesia...126
Map 2: Earthquake Zones in Indonesia - Close up of Java Island ...127
Map 3: Safe Locations and Vulnerable Households – Karangsemut ...148
Map 4: Safe Locations and Vulnerable Households - Puton...149
Map 5: Java’s Water Risk...173
Map 6: Projected Change in Water Stress in Java Island ...174
List of Photos Photo 1: Flood and Earthquake History - Puton...132
Photo 2: Disaster History - Karangsemut ...135
Photo 3: Flood-Prone Livestock Cage Karangsemut ...138
Photo 4: Slope Protection in Puton ...183
Photo 5: Evacuations Signs Prepared by SCS ...184
List of Tables Table 1: Vulnerability and Capacities Categories...34
Table 2: Focus Group Discussions ...80
Table 3: Participatory Methods Used ...83
Table 4: Overview of Natural Disasters in Indonesia (1980-2010)...105
Table 5: Government Adminstrative Divisions ...115
Table 6: Village History - Puton...131
Table 7: Village History - Karangsemut...134
Table 8: Highest Level of Education Attained by Survey Respondents ...142
Table 9: Livelihood Chart - Puton...162
Table 10: Livelihood Chart - Karangsemut...163
Table 11: Summary of Vulnerability and Capacities...168
Acknowledgments
This research showed us in many ways how people, in spite of their vulnerabilities form powerful networks to overcome difficulties. People help people. That was exactly what make this project possible and made for us a unique and unforgettable experience. We are eternally grateful to each and every person who has contributed to our research and supported us.
Firstly, we would like to thank all the members of Puton and Karangsemut communities who participated in this research. They made thanks to their energy, time and valuable inputs we learn and grow, professionally and as individuals.
Special thanks go to our supervisors Prof. Dr. Joost Herman from University of Groningen and PhD Maharani Hapsari from University of Gadjah Mada. We are immensely grateful for supporting us from the beginning and giving us the chance to joint our strengths and overcome our weaknesses in a joint research project. We thank them both for their positive and inspirational spirit, their input and guidance.
Conducting this research would have not been possible without the great assistance of our team work behind-the scenes. We are extremely grateful to IIS-PoHA at Gadjah Mada University for their constant support and trust since the beginning of our endeavours and providing enough space and resources to develop our ideas. We feel extremely glad for having the pleasure and honor to work with inspiring and supportive colleagues. We particularly like to express our gratitude to Diah Tricesaria from IIS – PoHA for facilitating all our meetings and supporting our initiatives since the very beginning. Her willingness and support were crucial.
Our great appreciation and very special thanks go to our research assistant, Alif Satria, who not only was our interpreter but also enormously contributed with valuable comments and suggestions, specially regarding cultural issues. He also made the data entry process possible in short time.
The NOHA network is a family. Many thanks go to Lifter, Maria, Patrick and Joshua and all the NOHAs around the world who personally or through their contacts, helped us to find the right project, shared valuable information and guided us during our stay in Indonesia.
A big thank to our friends for their eternal support and for always being there for us. Despite the distances, time differences and overloaded schedules, they always made themselves present through phone calls, videoconferences and postcards.
Finally, from the deepest of our hearts our gratitude goes to our families. Even remotely, they managed to keep us healthy and with our feet on the ground.
Their unconditional love and support made us feel privileged and blessed.
Abstract
The present research work consist of a comprehensive Vulnerability and Capacity assessment (VCA) of two rural-urban villages in Yogyakarta Special District, Indonesia, Puton and Karangsemut conducted in cooperation with IIS- PoHA in the period between July and November 2013.
Following the model of Participatory Action Research, the study was conducted using classic qualitative methods such as expert interviews, participatory observations and Focus Group Discussions including a wide variety of Participatory Rural Appraisal techniques. The data collection process was further complemented with a household vulnerability and capacities survey targeting a total of 483 families.
The overall aim of the research was divided in two main parts. Firstly, the study introduces and examines the applicability of the Pressure and Release (PAR) and Access models to conduct a comprehensive vulnerability analysis.
Secondly, and building upon the results and conclusions of the first part, the research has a more practical goal of finding solutions and making viable recommendations for practitioners who want to design and implement a CBDRR pilot project in the research contexts. The theoretical part of the research provides a review of the definitions of the several concepts related to the PAR and Access models as well as CBDRR. Concepts such as hazard, vulnerability, capacity, disaster, risk, community-based, local knowledge and resilience are examined and redefined in accordance to the particular contexts studied. The second part establishes the actual capacities and vulnerabilities of the two target communities. The research concludes with recommendations for aid practitioners working in DRR and identifies potential partners in the implementation of a CBDRR program.
Keywords: access model, assessment, capacity, community, community-
based, disaster, disaster risk reduction, earthquake, floods, Indonesia, local
knowledge, natural hazards, participatory action research, pressure and release
model, resilience, rural-urban, VCA, vulnerability, Yogyakarta.
Acronyms
AADMER ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and
Emergency Response
ADPC Asian Disaster Preparedness Center
APBD Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Daerah
(Regional Public Policy Budget)
APBN Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Nasional
(National Public Policy Budget)
ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations BAPPENAS National Development Planning Agency
BNPB Badan Nasional Penanggulan Bencana Daerah
(National Disaster Management Agency)
BPBD Badan Penanggulangan Bencana Daerah
(Disaster Management Agencies - Provincial and Regency Levels)
CBDRR Community-based Disaster Risk Reduction
CCA Climate Change Adaptation
CSO Civil Society Organization
DIY Yogyakarta Special District
DR Disaster Risk
DRR Disaster Risk Reduction
ESCAP Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
FPRB Forum Pengurangan Reziko Bencana (Disaster Risk Reduction Forum)
GoI Government of Indonesia
H Hazard
HFA Hyogo Framework for Action
IASC Inter-Agency Standing Committee
IIS-POHA Institute of International Studies-Programme on Humanitarian Action at University of Gajah Mada
IMF International Monetary Fund
NAP-DRR National Action Plan for Disaster Risk Reduction NGO Non Governmental Organisation
PAR Pressure and Release model
PKI Communist Party of Indonesia
PKK Pembinaan Kesejahteraan Keluargan - women’s
group
PLANAS PRB National Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction
R Risk
RT Rukun Tetangga - Neighborhood
SBY General Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono
SCS Student Community Service
UGM Universitas Gadjah Mada
UNISDR United Nations Secretariat for the International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
V Vulnerability
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1. Rationale and Problem Statement
Indonesia, often referred to as a “supermarket for disasters” (Triyana 2013), is highly vulnerable to various hazards: the geographic location at the rupture zone of the Australian, the Eurasian and the Pacific Ocean plate, makes the country prone to a high degree of seismic and volcanic activity, alongside other hazards such as tsunamis, floods, droughts, landslides, forest fires and increasingly various technological, epidemiological and toxicological hazards (Castilhos et al. 2006; Djalante et al. 2012). With nearly half of its total population at risk from the multiple hazards, Indonesia is positioned on the top of the highest risk countries in the world (Diley 2005; Okuyama and Sahin 2009).
The UN and various researchers recognize that the adverse effects of global climate change significantly and increasingly enforce the impacts of natural hazards in Indonesia (Holmes 2009; Measey 2010; Naylor et al. 2007).
A rapid decline in biodiversity enforced by large-scale deforestation, forest fires and degradation of arable land, is leaving the country especially vulnerable to disasters (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment 2005; Woodward and Weinstein 1998; Yusuf and Francisco 2009).
Additionally Indonesia is a developing country with high population pressure combined with relatively low-income levels, low human development indicators (World Bank 2012), and high corruption (Transparency International 2013). A broad range of literature emphasizes the importance of the complex relationship between disasters and development (Bendimerad 2003; Schipper and Pelling 2006; Toya and Skidmore 2007).
These complex interactions between disaster risk and development have
increasingly been acknowledged in international declarations and documents
such as the Hyogo Framework for Action and various UN reports (UNISDR
2004; 2005; 2008; 2011; UNISDR/ESCAP 2012). Furthermore, these
interactions constitute one of the main focuses of the Post-2015 Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR 2012). Stephenson and Du Frane (2002, p.
110) summarize the connections between development and disaster by pointing out that “disasters can both destroy development initiatives and create development opportunities, and [...] development schemes can both increase and decrease vulnerability”.
Consequently, as development can increase or decrease vulnerability as well as adaptation and coping capacity, research in disaster preparedness and risk reduction and related project efforts are intrinsically linked to development.
In this context, comprehensive disaster risk reduction measures, including climate change adaptation and awareness raising activities become paramount to safe lives in the coming decades. In order to design tailored and context- specific programs and activities for a certain area, one first needs to understand the specific vulnerabilities and capacities existing in that particular context.
Therefore, the capability to assess and quantify vulnerability and capacities is seen crucial to the promotion of a culture of disaster resilience and the effectiveness of risk reduction measures (Birkmann 2006, p. 3).
Vulnerability can be widely understood as a measure of the scale and type of exposure to risk caused by different populations in relation to hazards (Cannon 1994, p.16). In other words, it is the predisposition to be damaged should an event of certain scale and magnitude occur and impact the population, its infrastructure and economic assets, and the ecosystem (Birkmann 2006, p. 2). Defined this way, although ill defined, the concept of vulnerability well-suits the current debate on disaster risk reduction and can be related to multiple dimensions of human development (UNDP 1994, pp. 24-34).
Following Bogardi and Brauch’s (2005, pp. 85-109) suggestion of extending the human development concept to introduce an environmental dimension, vulnerability would then explain people security (or insecurity) in opposition to natural and human induced hazards.
In this research we acknowledge that often, humankind has the capacity
to influence frequency and magnitude of disasters. People have also tangible
and intangible resources to cope with and protect themselves from natural
hazards. Following this line of reasoning, we believe that vulnerability and capacity assessment becomes then a vital part of disaster risk reduction. On one side, vulnerability, once appropriately assessed, and if possible, quantified, could facilitate estimations of potential impacts of natural hazards. It could also serve to recognize the need for proactive measures in the preparedness phase of a disaster. On the other side, assessing the capacities of a community is essential for designing sustainable and “community-based” DRR programs, which can build upon the existing assets, structures mechanisms and knowledge available for DRR in the communities.
Assessing vulnerabilities and capacities implies exhaustive analysis of a wide range of phenomena at local, national and even international level. We have chosen to do so utilizing a comprehensive theoretical framework that allows us to earnestly identify and completely understand the processes and roots of vulnerability and capacities in the studied context. The structure of the Pressure and Release Model serve us as a solid theoretical scheme to investigate and draw our main conclusions regarding the macro political and economic dimensions that affect the two villages targeted, Karangsemut and Puton. It allows us to identify the main social relations and structures of domination that shape the life in the villages. Alongside, the Access model becomes a well-grounded pertinent analytical link. This model serves as a strong theoretical foundation from which we can assemble greater understanding of the vulnerability and capacities at a context-specific level. It allows us to build a more precise picture of the “normal life” conditions, the possible outcomes of hazard events and the most vulnerable groups, in the targeted areas.
The theoretical combination of these two models and their empirical test
will provide us a detailed view of the vulnerability and capacities of
Karangsemut and Puton to further draw substantiated and evidence-based
recommendations for the design, planning and implementation of community-
based initiatives in disaster risk reduction.
1.2. Research Goals
1.2.1 Research Objectives and Questions
The overall aim of this research can be divided in two main parts. Firstly, the study aims at introducing and examining the applicability of the “Pressure and Release” (PAR) and “Access” models to conduct a comprehensive vulnerability analysis. Secondly, and based on the results and conclusions, the research has a more practical goal: it aims at finding solutions and making viable recommendations for practitioners who want to design and implement a CBDRR pilot project in the research area. The theoretical part of the overall goal seeks to provide a review of the definitions of the several concepts related to the PAR and Access models as well as CBDRR. Concepts such as hazard, vulnerability, capacity, disaster, risk, community-based, local knowledge and resilience are examined and redefined in accordance to the particular contexts studied. The second part establishes the actual capacities and vulnerabilities of the two communities in the context studied. The research concludes with recommendations for aid practitioners working in DRR and identifies potential partners in the implementation of a CBDRR program
From early discussions with staff of Institute of International Studies Programme on Humanitarian Action at University of Gadjah Mada (IIS – PoHA) and Osaka University as well as our Master’ thesis supervisors, lecturers and researchers at University of Groningen, we collected a series of experiences and dilemmas that practitioners felt they could not tackle alone. Our arrival on the project “Building Resilience” allowed us to make a review of expectations and interests that we clustered in the following overall research question and sub-questions:
What evidence-based project recommendations are valid for reducing risk in the particular contexts studied?
This overall research question examines the potential and implications of a CBDRR project in the preselected locations (Puton and Karagsemut).
The question also seeks to recognize lessons learnt and best practices
from projects implemented in similar contexts and the practical
implications of managing the pilot project in order to identify meaningful activities, partnerships as well as potential synergies.
1. What is the practical applicability of the Pressure and Release model and Access model to identify vulnerability and capacities at macro and micro- levels, respectively?
This first sub-question seeks to identify a connection between our theoretical framework and the practical consequences of its use to develop evidence-based recommendations.
2. What is the comprehensive vulnerability of Karangsemut and Puton villages, in Yogyakarta Province, Indonesia?
This sub-question investigates the different levels of natural, physical, human, social, economic and political vulnerability of the two villages pre- selected to carry out a CBDRR pilot project. It also deals with the progression of vulnerability, attempting to identify root causes, dynamic pressures and livelihood unsafe conditions.
3. What are the existing local capacities in the two villages?
This sub-question examines the capacities and level of preparedness and awareness of the villages’ population. More specifically, it investigates the power dynamics and interactions among the many actors present in the villages (including local people, village and religious leaders, government agencies, amongst others). It also seeks to elucidate how these actors conceive and negotiate the implementation of CBDRR projects.
1.2.2 Aim of the CBDRR pilot project
IIS – PoHA and Osaka University wanted to learn from local realities and
perspectives on vulnerability and risk to consciously incorporate that knowledge
into their aid programming. Osaka University, was especially interested in
enhancing downward accountability through the incorporation of the local
population in all phases of the intervention. In words of its representative,
Stefano Tsukamoto, “interventions should raise from the people themselves.
Their participation will ensure their sustainability and success”.
The expected outcomes of the CBDRR pilot project were systematically specified as follow:
! IIS – PoHA and the partner organizations gained knowledge and experience on CBDRR.
! Local communities actively participate in CBDRR. Alongside with the partner organizations, communities became aware of their risks and are able and willing to devote efforts to address their vulnerability to disasters.
! The partner organizations and structures embrace the CBDRR approach to reduce disaster risk and include the concepts of disaster risk reduction in their policies and programming within two to three years.
! In time, the partner organizations involved in the CBDRR pilot project share and transfer their knowledge about CBDRR, lessons learnt and best practices to future projects.
1.3. Research Foundations and Assumptions
This research study can be characterized as what authors define as
“participatory action research” (Baum, MacDougall and Smith 2006; Cornwall and Jewkes 1995). An interactive research that allows the interplay of diverse bodies of knowledge with the aim to generate, translate or transform knowledge in order to address issues that current practices are not able to solve (Mackenzie et al. 2012). Moreover, we intend to establish knowledge on vulnerability and risks and Community-based Disaster Risk Reduction (CBDRR). Founded on existing research and prevailing contemporary literature, we base our work in the following assumptions:
! Although natural hazards are not preventable, their effects can be
mitigated or reduced. Anticipating risks and reducing vulnerabilities
through disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change
adaptation (CCA) policies and interventions can eventually assist to reduce the impacts of natural events.
! An assessment carried out for a precise location and environment will allow us to produce clearer, context-specific and well-tailored recommendations for the decision-makers and practitioners.
! Formal (or academic) and informal settings enclose rules, customs and norms from which researchers and practitioners can benefit in a joint social learning process. We assume that the adjustment of academic standards to problem-solving and solution- exploring structures facilitates changes of behavior.
Methodologically, the research has a multi-strategic character, integrating qualitative and quantitative data. Participatory in its essence, the research study made use of different methods to ensure the involvement of key stakeholders, and in particular the communities themselves.
Instead of imposing new structures following a “top-down” approach, with this research we aim at identifying existing capacities to promote a “bottom- up” approach already in the project design phase.
1.4. Outline of the book
This book includes 7 chapters, addressing different aspects of our research work and findings. The problem statement is introduced and the research questions are scrutinized and discussed in the present chapter.
Chapters 2, 3 and 4 outline the theoretical framework and methodology applied in our research. Chapter 2, jointly written by the two authors, commences with a set of definitions of the various key concepts and terms that make up the foundations of CBDRR. In Chapter 3, we introduce the latest version of the PAR model. Here the author puts a particular focus on floods and earthquakes when analyzing natural hazards and the progression of vulnerability at macro-level.
Chapter 3 further completes the theoretical framework with an overview of the
Access model. This overview will set the groundwork of the findings at micro-
level.
In Chapter 4, we set out a thorough explanation on the methodology used to collect, compile and analyze valid information. It also provides a precious insight on the specificities and particularity of conducting research in Indonesia, and in Yogyakarta Province specially, as well as the challenges and difficulties we confronted during our research work.
Referring to the generalities of the chosen contexts, in Chapter 5 we provide an overview of Indonesia’s history and the country’s disaster profile.
Also in this chapter, we introduce an overview of the country’s disaster management policy. Moving forward to a context-specific analysis, Chapter 6 zooms in on the two different case studies, presenting and discussing the results of the research work. It provides a deep analysis of the context, stakeholders, vulnerability and capacities of the two specific villages, Puton and Karangsemut.
Finally, in Chapter 7 we step back from the separate findings mirroring
the empirical work to the theoretical one in order to draw final conclusions and
answer the research questions outlined at the beginning. This final conclusion
also takes the form of recommendations for CBDRR programming.
Chapter 2: Key Concepts related to CBDRR
Disasters do not only cause immediate suffering but also hold back long- term development opportunities and threaten the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. In addition, climate change is adding greater urgency as it makes people and livelihoods even more vulnerable to shocks. The Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015 (HFA) recognizes community-based approaches on disaster risk reduction as one of the main pillars of building and strengthening resilience and adaptation to climate change. Even more, the HFA highlights the importance of the impact of DRR activities at the community level.
In this regard, it asserts the relevance of community participation, capacity building for community-level institutions and structures, and their role as vital stakeholders (IFRC 2010). In this regard, the 2009 Global Assessment Review revealed a generally positive assessment of the states’ accomplishments in terms of community participation and decentralization of decision-making on DRR (UNISDR 2009). Likewise, the HFA favors decentralization of authority and resources to encourage community-level DRR activities.
Recently, Indonesia has reported good levels of people’s participation in DM and DRR, in particular amongst populations who have suffered major disasters. However, authorities acknowledge difficulties in engaging community participation, especially in areas that have never been struck by large-scale disasters (BNPB 2013). The need for enhancing community participation in Indonesia has also been highlighted as a priority. In most DRR programs, local governments engage communities in a passive fashion, through a series of limited socialization sessions. Hence, building a sense of ownership towards DRR activities amongst stakeholders becomes paramount in the coming future.
Furthermore, unless communities are not well aware of their own risks, vulnerability and capacities, they are unlikely to actively contribute in reducing them.
Vulnerability, risk, hazard, resilience and many other terms related to
CBDRR are broadly used regardless the fact that there is plenty debate and
there is still no universally agreed definitions. Many glossaries have been
published in order to promote the use of a common terminology and serve as
‘dictionaries’ for practitioners and experts to share a common vocabulary.
The increasing acceptance in the global community of CBDRR as an effective way of reducing risks and building resilient communities led us to ask ourselves the following questions:
! What does CBDRR really entail?
! What are the key determinants that make CBDRR a successful tool to reduce risk?
In order to answer these questions, and attempting to move forward on this debate, we elucidate the basic component parts of CBDRR. In the next sections we present the reader a series of important terms. These terms are introduced, defined and refined by the specific context. It is our intention to provide the reader with a set of key definitions that would broader his/her understanding of DRR at community level.
2.1.“Nature-as-Opportunity” and “Nature-as-Hazard”
Today, interlinked economic, social and political systems appear to influence many, if not all, facets of life and, thus, dictate how to change the value system within which the world nowadays operates (Neumayer 2013). It is then fair to suggest that the natural environment has a dual-faced character.
Firstly, its not completely “natural” characteristic, as human action dynamically and constantly modify and construct the environment through different land use and resource exploitation policies and other economic decisions. Secondly, and perhaps as a consequence of the first, the “natural” environment gives origin to a series of possible opportunities as well as a series of possible hazards, which vary greatly in spacial and time distribution (Cannon 1994, p. 14; Wisner, Gaillard and Kelman 2012, p. 20).
1Figure 1 illustrates these two sides: while
1
This particular view on the natural environment has for many decades defined studies and
research on natural resource management and natural hazards. For instance, Zimmerman
the natural environment provides humankind with a wide range of opportunities, it also presents it a set of natural hazards. Expressly, the spatial diversity of nature offers a set of environmental opportunities and expose humans to different hazards at the same type. Yet, most importantly, access to resources is not equal, nor the exposure to hazards. For instance, some places are more at risk of floods, earthquakes or landslides than others. Similarly, different locations offer different prospects. Cheap housing opportunities can often be found in floodplain areas; and poor people frequently settle in slums located in unsafe lowlands (e.g. informal settlements in coastal Bangladesh) (Braun and Aßheuer 2010) or in earthquake prone areas (e.g. slums in Kampung, Indonesia) (Gencer 2013, p. 20).
In other words, interconnected social, economic and political factors and processes determine on the one hand, issues such as adequate access to natural resources (water, land and others) and to appropriate housing conditions. On the other hand, those factors and processes also play a crucial role in determining who is most exposed to hazards. Clearly, although some aspects of nature are unavoidable (e.g. the strike of an earthquake), the attributes of society define who is most at risk. Ultimately, it is people’s class, ethnicity, gender, age and status what defines where they live and work, their levels of awareness, preparedness and protection, their access to information, health and education, etc. (Bolin 2006, pp. 116-117; Wisner et al. 2003, p. 6).
Thus, disaster risk can be thought as a combination of all those factors that determine the exposure of people to a particular natural hazard and the existing social, economic and political systems and their underlying power relations. As Cannon stated, “disasters are not ‘natural’ (not even sudden ones) they happen to people who are put at risk as a result of their vulnerability”
(Cannon 1994, p. 19). Hazards affect people in different ways within societies, and may have different impacts on different societies. For instance, earthquakes of equal -or even lower- intensity may cause great devastation in one country, while minimum damage in other (e.g. while the earthquake of 6.2 in Yogyakarta Indonesia in 2006 caused severe damages and approximately
stated that “resources, are not, they become; they are not static but expand and contract in
5800 immediate deaths, no instant injuries or damage were reported after a similar event in Japan in 2013) (IASC 2006; Reuters 2013).
Understanding the relationship between humankind and nature, and
hence, disasters, entails not only knowing about the different types of hazards
that affect populations, but also the varying levels of vulnerability of people. This
vulnerability is in turn, defined and determined in space and time by social,
economic and political systems and power at local, national and international
scales (Wisner et al. 2003, p. 7).
Figure 1: Nature's Dual Face: Opportunity or Hazard 1 Natural Environment
2
Spatially varied, with inequitable distribution of
opportunities and hazards
3 Opportunities, locations and resources for human activities, e.g.
agricultural land, water, minerals, energy sources, sites for construction, places to live and work, means of communication and
mobility
4 Climatological, geomorphological,
geological, biological and astronomical hazards affecting
human activities
5
Social processes determine unequal access to livelihoods, location, inequitable exposure to hazards
and unequal access to means of protection
6
Class – Gender – Ethnicity – Religious affiliation – Age group – Physical and mental health status – immigration
status
7
Social systems, power relations and governance, cultural
beliefs and values, religions
8
Political and economic systems at local, sub-national,
national and international scales
Source: Wisner et al. 2012.
2.2. Vulnerability and Capacities
Social sciences addressing environmental risks and hazards have largely developed the concept of vulnerability throughout the past decades (Kasperson et al., 2005; Wisner et al. 2004). Introduced as a response to the purely hazard- centered conceptions of disaster and disaster risk in the 1970s, the term vulnerability is currently widely used in different science spheres, and is often given different focus and meanings (Scheneiderbauer and Ehrlich 2004, p. 13).
Since the early 1980s, the alternative paradigm of using vulnerability as the starting point to design risk reduction strategies has increasingly challenged the dominant hazard-oriented strategies based on technical interventions (Birkmann 2006, p.12). In this approach, the susceptibility of people and communities exposed to natural hazards is combined with their social, economic and cultural capacities to cope with the potential damage (Hilhorst and Bankoff 2004, p. 2).
The plurality of definitions is possibly serving functional purposes or needs of the different disciplines and is also a reflection of the diverse intellectual traditions (Adger 2006; Gallopin 2005). On the one hand, the multiple and diverse conceptions of the term vulnerability overlap in a sense of
“family resemblance” that eases mutual comprehension across disciplines. On the other hand, as Gallopin (2005, p. 293) observes, this might also create misunderstandings or miscommunication across disciplines, particularly in fields considering both, social and biophysical elements and interactions. An overview of the vulnerability literature, provide us with a variety of meanings given to the term. Those include (Villagrán de León 2006, p. 11):
! Vulnerability as a direct consequence of the exposure to a given hazard;
! Vulnerability as a particular state or condition of a system before an
event triggers a disaster. Here, vulnerability will be described as a set of
criteria including susceptibility, incapacities or deficiencies and limitations
(e.g. the incapacity to cope with certain event or to resist its impact).
! Vulnerability as the probability of an outcome of the system when exposed to a hazard event. Here vulnerability is expressed in terms of potential human and economic losses.
In addition, some authors make a distinction between biophysical vulnerability on the one hand, and social vulnerability on the other. Developing mainly from global environmental research, biophysical vulnerability describes the extent to which a system is vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change and to what extent that system is able (or unable) to adapt to such effects (WBGU 2005, p. 33). According to Cardona (2004, pp. 37-51), vulnerability represents the community’s physical, economic, social and political susceptibility to damage resulting from a natural or man-made hazardous event.
Thus, in this view, vulnerability is an intrinsic predisposition to be susceptible to damage or to be affected by.
Within hazard literature, more recent approaches have posed vulnerability as a pre-existing condition influenced by social, economic and political structures (Birkmann 2007; Cannon, Twigg and Rowell 2003; Pelling 2003; Wisner et al. 2004). For instance, Cannon, Twigg and Rowell (2003) describe social vulnerability as partially determined by the kind of hazard.
According to the authors, vulnerability is also principally driven by precarious livelihood, the level or degree of self and social protection, qualifications and institutional settings. Many other authors think vulnerability as similar to poverty, marginalization or other forms of disadvantages; while others argue that these definitions are not equal (Cannon, Twigg and Rowell 2003). Furthermore, some authors stress that vulnerability is not a predetermined state. Rather, it is usually socially constructed, context-specific or context-dependent, dynamic and driven by several causal factors and processes (Vogel and O’Brien 2004, p.2). What is more, putting focus on the socially constructed nature of vulnerability highlights the larger-scale processes that are reflection of power relations in a society.
Vulnerability to one particular hazard does not necessarily mean
vulnerability to another. Along these lines, changes in social and environmental
conditions such as deforestation or urbanization can be compelling forces
influencing vulnerability. Hence, vulnerability is then a relative term, as within
any society, some members are more vulnerable than others when faced to the same risk. In other words, vulnerability to natural hazards is often unevenly distributed across society and often people are not equally vulnerable. The level at which vulnerability is being assessed has been remarked as an important aspect to consider (Birkmann 2007). As Wisner (2005b) points out, vulnerability can be perceived as a “quantity having a ‘fractal’ nature”, implying the imperative need to identify what the individual, household, community or region is vulnerable to (Ellis 2003).
Authors such as Anderson and Woodrow (1998) maintain that an understanding of why disasters occur, their level of impact and why specific groups seem to be more severely affected can be reached through the exploration of vulnerability. Vulnerability is manifested in a completely different manner at a local level (a single household for instance) than at a higher level of aggregation such as vulnerability of a community or a country. Moreover, whereas quantifying vulnerability at a higher level requires the aggregation of individual vulnerabilities, this sole aggregation does not show the full vulnerability at this higher level. Further, additional elements might play a significant role and might need to be integrated to determine a full and exhaustive perspective of vulnerability at higher levels (Villagrán de León 2006, p.14). Thus, vulnerability is multi-dimensional and differential and capturing those distinctive elements becomes a prerequisite for the design, planning and implementation of disaster risk reduction policies and projects.
According to Cannon (2000), the concept of vulnerability should have a predictive nature, as the analysis of it should be able to predict vulnerable communities or groups. As vulnerability “is supposedly a way of conceptualizing what may happen to an identifiable population under conditions of particular risks and hazards” (Cannon, Twigg and Rowell, 2003, p. 4). In this regard, vulnerability, and the analysis thereof, should provide a measure and directions for mitigation and risk reduction interventions.
In spite of the multitude definitions, nearly all concepts of vulnerability express it as an “intrinsic characteristic of a system or element at risk”
(Birkmann 2006, p. 16). It is possible then to define a common ground between
the many concepts: the conditions of the people or community exposed at risk, that is, their susceptibility, are seen as nucleus characteristics of vulnerability (Cardona, 2004; UNISDR, 2004; Wisner et al., 2004).
From this viewpoint, UNISDR (2009, p. 30) defines vulnerability as “the characteristics and circumstances of a community, system or asset that make it susceptible to the damaging effects of a hazard”. Here, vulnerability is understood as a condition that exists previous, during and after a disaster event and will considerably impact levels of resilience and coping capacities. Thus, access to different forms of assets (tangible and intangible), access to knowledge and information and access to power and rights are some of the main factors influencing the levels of vulnerability (Chambers, 1989; Wisner et al., 2006; Pelling, 2003).
Following this line of thinking, Wisner proposes a comprehensive notion of vulnerability:
“By vulnerability we mean the characteristics of a person or group and their situation that influence their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist and recover from the impact of a natural hazard (an extreme natural event or process). It involves a combination of factors that determine the degree to which someone’s life, livelihood, property and other assets are put at risk by a discrete and identifiable event (or series or ´cascade´ of such events) in nature and in society” (Wisner 2005a, p. 1)
Interestingly, Birkmann (2006, p. 16) remarks the possibility of applying
this particular understanding of vulnerability to different elements at risk, being
them communities and/or social groups (institutional and socio-economic
conditions), physical structures (characteristics of buildings); or environmental
capital (ecosystems and environmental functions and services). Likewise,
Cannon, Twigg and Rowell (2003) aside from emphasizing the predictive nature
of vulnerability, they too stress its human dimensions. Depending on a variety of
factors (e.g. ability to cope and recover, level of preparedness, livelihood
strategies, etc.), individuals, groups and communities are impacted differently
by hazards. In the authors words
“it is especially important to recognize this social vulnerability as much more than the likelihood of building to collapse or infrastructure to be damaged. It is crucially about the characteristics of people, and the differential impacts on people of damage to physical structures” (Cannon, Twigg, Rowell 2003, p. 5).
In our view, vulnerability is the key concept by which the social causation of the nature’s dual face described above is explained. Vulnerability does not exist in isolation from the political economy of resource use; rather it is “driven by inadvertent or deliberate human actions that reinforce self-interest and the distribution of power in addition to interacting with physical and ecological systems” (Adger, 2006, p. 270).
Finally, for the purpose of our research, and in accordance with our theoretical framework, we use Wisner et. al. (2003, p. 11) definition of vulnerability. The authors stated:
“By vulnerability we mean the characteristics of a person or group and their situation that influence their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist and recover from the impact of a natural hazard (an extreme natural event or process).”
2.2.1. Triangle of Vulnerability and Circle of Capacities
The triangle of vulnerability (Figure 2) puts emphasis on access and
marginalization. The three circles at the triangle’s apexes represent the
structural constraints that ultimately determine the degree of access that people
have to the different set of natural, social, human, political, economic and
physical resources represented by the inner circles. Although frequently
available locally, these resources are often not accessible to people for reasons
concerning their gender, caste, age, ethnic, religious affiliation, physical ability
and/or poor governance, politics and inequitable distribution of wealth (Gaillard
2010, p. 220).
Precarious and unsteady access to resources leads to marginalization during “normal life” times, and when facing hazard events in particular. People’s livelihoods resistance, diversity, stability and sustainability depend on their access to resources. Hence, vulnerability ultimately reflects people’s position within their society as a result of their ability or inability to ensure access to a set of resources in a sustainable manner.
Figure 2: Triangle of Vulnerability
Capacities refer to the assets and resources that people have to cope with hazard events and recover from disasters (Wisner, Gaillard and Kelman 2012, p. 28). This concept goes beyond the mere availability of resources and does not only comprise the possession of such, rather it also includes the ability to access and use those resources (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Circle of Capacities
It is important to remark at this point that capacities are not always the opposite of vulnerability: it is not possible to draw them on a linear spectrum where vulnerability is immediately translated into lack of capacities. Even the most vulnerable people possess capacities that they can use to prevent, resist, cope with and recover from challenging hazard events. While vulnerabilities are mostly, yet not exclusively, exogenous to the communities, people frequently show to have more control over capacities (Gaillard 2010, p. 220) (Figure 3).
For this reason, in practice, it is frequently easier to enhance capacities than to
reduce vulnerability. For this purpose, and especially at the community level, it is important to recognize the existing local capacities. Agreements on infrastructure and livestock protection, warning signals and meeting and evacuation sites constitute good examples of activities aiming to enhance capacities and strengthen communities’ or household’s strategies to cope with hazard events.
Table 1 below lists some of the most relevant vulnerabilities and capacities we have identified during our literature review. We have categorized them in six different groups, maintaining coherence with the triangle of vulnerability and the circle of capacities described above.
Table 1: Vulnerability and Capacities Categories
Category Vulnerabilities Capacities
Political ! Poor governance
! Poor management and leadership
! Inequitable distribution of power
! Local leadership
! Equitable distribution of power
Economic ! Mono-crop agriculture
! Non-diversified economy
! Subsistence economies
! Indebtedness
! Relief/welfare dependency
! Economic capital
! Secure livelihoods
! Financial reserves
! Diversified agriculture and economy
Social ! Occupation of unsafe areas
! High-density occupation of sites and buildings
! Lack of mobility
! Low perceptions of risk
! Vulnerable occupations
! Vulnerable groups and individuals
! Corruption
! Lack of education
! Poverty
! Lack of vulnerability and capacity analysis
! Lack of disaster planning and preparedness
! Limited or disrupted social networks
! Social capital
! Coping mechanisms
! Adaptive strategies
! Memory of past disasters
! Good governance
! Ethical standards
! Local non-governmental organizations
! Accountability
! Well-developed disaster plans and preparedness
! Extended social networks
! Social inclusion
Human ! Fragile health
! Limited Skills and formal ! Access to health services
and facilities
education ! Access to education, vocational trainings, etc.
Physical ! Buildings at risks
! Unsafe infrastructure
! Unsafe critical facilities
! Rapid urbanization
! Physical capital
! Resilient buildings and infrastructure that cope with and resist extreme hazard forces
Natural ! Deforestation
! Pollution of soil, water and air
! Destruction of natural barriers (e.g. mangroves)
! Global climate change
! Natural environmental capital
! Creation of natural barriers (e.g. coral reefs)
! Natural environmental recovery process and conservation
! Biodiversity
! Responsible natural resource management
2.3. Hazard
UNISDR defines hazard as “the probability of occurrence of a physical phenomenon which may threaten human lives, lead to injuries, property damage or dysfunction of social and economic systems or the degradation of natural ecosystems, depending on related vulnerability of the elements exposed” (UNISDR 2012, p. 27).
Each hazard is characterized by its location or area of influence, probability of occurrence or frequency and strength measured in intensity, magnitude or level of toxicity (UNISDR 2011). Consequently, as Burton et al.
(1993, p. 290) explain, the likely destructive power of a hazard event will depend on its magnitude, duration, location, and timing of the event.
Hazards can be classified according with their natural origin into climatologic, geomorphologic and geological, biological and ecological, and astronomical. Figure 4 below provides examples of each of these categories.
Nevertheless, hazards are not completely independent or free from
anthropogenic influence. What is more, hazard events are repeatedly
accentuated and/or accelerated by human actions. For instance, human
activities such as deforestation and mining can have enormous effects on the occurrence, magnitude, duration, frequency and even location of hazard events.
On the other hand, mitigation and prevention actions can positively influence on the occurrence and impact level of hazard events.
Furthermore, it is important to bear in mind that many hazards often trigger secondary hazards. In several cases, these secondary hazards have often led to bigger impacts than those caused by the initial event. A recent example of this is the 2011 earthquake affecting Japan: it generated a devastating tsunami, which in turn resulted in a major nuclear incident. The eruption of the Merapi volcano in Yogyakarta in 2010 also exemplified this clearly: while the eruption itself caused widespread damage, the displacement of volcanic material downstream precipitated flash floods affecting communities residents at the rivers mouths.
Climatologic
! Coastal storm
! Thunderstorm and tornado
! Flood
! Drought
! Extreme heat and cold
! Climate change
Geomorphologic and Geological
! Landslide
! Earthquake
! Tsunami
! Volcano
! Soil erosion and contamination
Biological and Ecological
! Human epidemic
! Plant disease, pests, invasive species and erosion of
biodiversity
! Livestock plage
! Wildfire
Astronomical
! Hazards from space
Source: Own elaboration based on Wisner, gaillard and Kelman, 2012, pp. 23-25
Hazard Classification
Figure 4: Hazard Classification
2.3.1. Earthquake risk environments
Discerning the vulnerability of people to earthquakes in a particular location requires a broad understanding of space and time-related and socio- economic features of the population at risk. This explains how people are affected by earthquake and which forms of access to resources and capabilities and knowledge are used in the immediate response and recovery phases.
Figure 5 lists the most relevant determinants of vulnerability to earthquakes providing a brief description of each of them.
Earthquakes can cause many human casualties, especially among vulnerable groups. This not only happens through the destruction or collapse of structures, but also as a consequence of secondary hazards such as landslides, fires, liquefaction or tsunamis. The destructive power of earthquakes is visible in human losses as well as often-enormous economic loss, as exemplified by the 2006 devastating earthquake in Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
Many areas vulnerable to earthquake also experience landslides. This might occur not only due to the ground shaking but also for the dilation of soil materials caused by the shaking that allows quick infiltration of water.
Landslides and liquefaction are often aggravated by deforestation and mismanagement of natural resources. The consequences are devastating: as soil is acts as intermediate between solids and liquids, the ground shaking might release water and debris causing floods and enormous damage to infrastructure.
This proves that social systems are vulnerable, but also contribute to increasing risks in different ways such as land use and natural resources and environment management (Wisner, Gaillard and Kelman 2012, p. 314). What is more, as Wisner et al. (2006) point out, people with little political or economic power are often forced to live in marginal areas in houses and buildings not professionally engineered in an earthquake-resistant fashion.
An insight into the perception of risk becomes paramount regarding this
type of hazard. Often people tend to think that highly disastrous events will
seldom repeat. This way of thinking is often associated to religious beliefs,
when people relate the damaging events with fate or punishment of the gods.
The danger on this way of thinking relies on the fact that some people do not deem necessary or important to take preventive or mitigation actions and leave their lives in hands of their divinity. We will delve further into this issue when analyzing our case studies.
2.3.2. Flood risk environments
Although floods constitute a natural part of the hydrological cycle of rivers, human activities such as deforestation or disruption or interference with river systems can intensify its frequency and severity. Floods are a good representation of nature’s dual face: whilst they nourish deltas, fertilize the soil for growing crops and provide seasonal fisheries, they can cause widespread destruction and dead.
2Investigating the mortality causes in floods allows yielding useful patterns and identifying people’s vulnerabilities to the specific hazard and capacities to cope with it. Whilst drowning is the most common cause of death, especially during floods and their immediate aftermath, other causes such as electrocution, heart attack, accidents during evacuations and diseases (in particular, water-borne diseases) add to the toll. In rural areas, snake and spider bites, as well as animal attacks can be added to the list.
In rural or semi-rural areas floods are main threat to infrastructure, homesteads, livestock and crops and people’s health. In some cases, particularly in urban areas, floodwater can be highly contaminated with pesticides, sewage, petrol and industrial chemicals. This will also determine the severity of the impacts during and after the floods.
The level of political and economic influence of communities and social groups determine their vulnerability. Inequitable distribution of power and resources, and institutional relations leading to this constitute one of the major contributors to vulnerable groups (Mustafa 1998; Wisner, Gaillard and Kelman 2012).
2
