Mitigation performance of household living in disaster prone II of MT.Slamet

This study has an aim to study the mitigation performance of household living in disaster prone II of Mt. Slamet. Living harmony with disaster is employed by Indonesia. To gain the research objective, this study use sequential mixed methodology supported by qualitative research and quantitative research sequentially. It was started with indepth interview to 29 key informants for qualitative and 538 households as the samples for quantitative approach. Variables are consist of mitigation, household characteristics, capitals of households and transformation on process and structure. The study area is located in the disaster prone II, approximately 4-6 km from the peak of Mt.Slamet, which had households work in agriculture and tourism sector. Mitigation phase describe the household warning system and the evolvement of disaster management. The result of this study explained household characteristics for number of healthy hosehold member (0.101*), owning the size of land (-0.118*) and household network to others living outside the red zone (0.312**) are directly influenced to mitigation ability. Transformation on process and structure is significantly influence directly to mitigation (0.115*) which consist of the land use management, spiritual enforcement and culture implementation.

MITIGATION PERFORMANCE OF HOUSEHOLD LIVING IN DISASTER PRONE II OF MT.SLAMET Diah Setyawati Dewanti1 ddewanti@umy.ac.id Assoc Prof Dusadee Ayuwat*2 dusayu@kku.ac.th Prof Sekson Yongvanit3 sekyon@kku.ac.th Department of Development Economics, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta, Indonesia Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand Department of Development Science, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand *corresponding author Abstract This study has an aim to study the mitigation performance of household living in disaster prone II of Mt Slamet Living harmony with disaster is employed by Indonesia To gain the research objective, this study use sequential mixed methodology supported by qualitative research and quantitative research sequentially It was started with indepth interview to 29 key informants for qualitative and 538 households as the samples for quantitative approach Variables are consist of mitigation, household characteristics, capitals of households and transformation on process and structure The study area is located in the disaster prone II, approximately 4-6 km from the peak of Mt.Slamet, which had households work in agriculture and tourism sector Mitigation phase describe the household warning system and the evolvement of disaster management The result of this study explained household characteristics for number of healthy hosehold member (0.101*), owning the size of land (-0.118*) and household network to others living outside the red zone (0.312**) are directly influenced to mitigation ability Transformation on process and structure is significantly influence directly to mitigation (0.115*) which consist of the land use management, spiritual enforcement and culture implementation Household living in disaster prone II applied culture activities as part of their belief on reducing the negative impact from the eruption of the mountain Mt Slamet had big eruption every to 10 years which recently was not predicted easier Ruwat Bumi as part of the culture implementation is one of the activities have been carried out until recent time Keywords: Mitigation, Disaster prone II, Household Characteristics, Capitals of households 805 Introduction Disaster defines as a disturbance affected to people for losing life, materials and environmental damage Disaster bring people to cope using their own resources (United Nations, 1992) Disaster is conditioned by the human activities and shows a continuous event after the hazards which could be natural or sources from people (Maskrey, 1993; Hewitt, 1996; Bhatt, 2002; and Wisner et al, 2004) To manage the impacted from the existence of hazard of disaster, have to identifed the threat to the community and nations as whole Hazards consists of natural hazards, man-mande hazards and intentional hazards (Coppola, 2007) Indonesia located in between three active faults; Pacific, Indo-Australian and Eurasian which caused to geological condition as volcanic disaster (Kusumastuti et al, 2014) The second highest mountain in Indonesia recognized as Mt.Slamet located in the density population of Central Java province Since 2014, the activities of Mt.Slamet started occured and un-predictable nature for eruptions which led the people who located near to risk impact on the constant standby level The highest eruption was carried out on September 2014 and since then, community and local government prepare themselves with their own limited resources Mt Slamet located in three difference districts which explore Mt.Slamet‘ resources in different ways, such as agriculture and tourism sector Three different districts are Tegal, Banyumas and Pemalang which divide into five villages which include into the disaster prone area Disaster prone area describes as the area with the highest risk impacted from Mt.Slamet‘ hazard Indonesia settled three disaster prone area based on the level of the risk (Regulation of Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources of Republic Indonesia, 2011) The highest risk is located in disaster prone III which ban any human settlement and activities inside the area The disaster prone II is the area who could be living by household Therefor, disaster prone of Mt.Slamet has the highest risk for household living in this area Indonesia government aware concerning the geological situation of Indonesia which impacted to the highest risk area Indeed, one national agency for disaster management, recognized as BNPB (Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana) established in 2004 to support for people who live with high risk However, BNPB is enforced by BPBD (Badan Penanggulangan Bencana Daerah) which is located in each districts since Indonesia devolved the government system Furthermore, Indonesia set policies in ministerial regulation No 15/Year 2011 as the vigilance by the community who stay in Disaster Prone II area during normal status, alert status, standby status and beware status (Republic Indonesia Minister regulation of Energy and Mineral Resources, 2011) The mitigation guideline was not mentioned the specific direction on each of the phase of disaster management which cause live in high risk area is insecure from the hazards Indonesia need well-applied disaster management concept which elaborate to the heterogenity of culture and spiritual aspects Disaster management consist of four phases; mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery phases.To build resilience from the impact of hazard, mitigation phase of each household need to build and strengthen before the disaster occurs.Mitigation means as an approach to reduce or eliminate the likelihood, or 806 the consequences of a hazard, or in both Mitigation seeks to treat the hazard impact on the society (Coppola, 2007) Leone and Zucarro (2014) explained the long and short-term for mitigation strategies are depending on the capabilites of people and/or household who lived in risk area altered the hazards Their study is related to strengthen the physical structure to protect and reduce the risk from volcanic crisis, including predict the duration or period of time The type of this mitigation strategies is structural mitigation which embedded the physical structure to reduce the risk impact of hazard The other type of mitigation strategies is non-structural mitigation which use human behavior to reduce the risk from volcanic hazard It‘s concern as ‗man adapts to nature‘ which is considered most since less cost and easy to communities implemented the strategies (Coppola, 2007) Non-structural mitigation in line to the framework described by Lewis (1999) and Wisner et al (2004) to balance the potential dangers from environmental hazards The fourth framework is live with hazard and risk which explore the integration between environmental threats and opportunities Household who live side by side with risk are produce and sustain the habitats and livelihood using their resources without destroying their resources Natural resource could defned as anything to obtain from the environmental to satisfied human needs and wants (Miller and Spoolman, 2011) Therefor, to understand the meaning of live with hazard and risk need to recognize the livelihoods concept as integration of mitigation enactment of household living in disaster prone II (GVP, 2006) Mitigation as to measures on reducing hazard risk to dictating human actions to keep safe, Sutton and Tierney (2006) explain the knowledge and the actions of human to recognize disaster occurance is the local warning system which has been strongly built from ancestors Furthermore, the involvement of households practicing disaster management phase with several local institution has been studied as the best practice of non-structural mitigation (Sugimoto, 2013) This study has an aim to study the mitigation performance of household living in disaster prone II of Mt.Slamet Household living in disaster prone II explained by the characteristics and also the capitals owned in each household However, household as the agency structure who impacted the volcanic hazards, external environment which have strong relationship to household activities and capitals are examined as transformation on process and structure The conceptual framework is describe in figure 807 Household Characteristics Occupation Dependency Ratio Labor Force Proportion of healthy household member(s) Migration Amount of electrical goods Amount of vehicle Size of agriculture land Transformation on Structure and Process Land Use Management Spiritual practice Cultural implementation Capitals of Households Non-structural Mitigation Warning system Disaster management envolvement Human capital Social capital Natural capital Physical capital Financial capital Figure The Conceptual Framework of this study Method This study using quantitative methods and use household as the unit of analysis The total population of household living in disaster prone II of Mt.Slamet is approximately 4,268 households Through the Hursh-Cesar (1981) measurement, the total sample was 538 households spread to five villages Two-stage stratified sampline was choosen to assign the village in each districts based on the location and previous impact assessed by BPBD in Tegal regency Respondents were choosen by systematic sampling with interval thfrom the list of households in each village Structured interview guideline enacted as the instruments of the research to collect the data The research area were spread in suround of Mt.Slamet, such as Sawangan, Guci, Dukuh Tengah, Ketenger and Gunungsari villages They are spread in the north, east and south side of Mt.Slamet as the designated from previous area impacted to the eruption Most of the villages have agriculture, trading and natural tourism activities as their livelihoods to support their life The sampling distribution for household living in disaster prone II of Mt.Slamet describe in Table 808 Table Distribution of sampling for household living in the disaster prone II area No Sub-district Bumijawa Bojong Baturaden Pulosari Village Sawangan Guci Dukuh Tengah Population 664 1,020 830 Percentage 14.35 22.04 17.93 Sample size 78 118 97 Ketenger 1,012 21.87 117 Gunungsari 1,102 23.81 128 4,268 100 538 TOTAL To study concerning the performance of the mitigation phase for households live in disaster prone II of Mt.Slamet, the enactment of mitigation phase which consist of the human behavior on warning system and the envolvement of disaster management practices This study is analyze use univariate and multivariate analysis Univariate analysis is carried out through descriptive analysis and recognize the performance of mitigation phase Furthermore, to understand how the independent variables influences to mitigation performance Independent variables based on literature review were describe as the household characteristics, capitals of households and transformation on process and structure Results Result of this study consist of descriptive analysis for mitigation performance and the influence of household characteristics, capitals of households and transformation on process and structure to mitigation performance The mitigation performance assessed using likert scale score and divide into three level groups, such as low level (0-4 scores); medium (5-10 scores) and high (>10 scores) Mitigation performance in households living disaster prone II of Mt.Slamet shows in low level with minimum score is 0.00 and maximum score is 14.00 (table 2) Table The percentage Level of Mitigation Mitigation Level of Mitigation Capacities Low level (0-4 scores) Total Percentage 55.4 Medium level (5-10 scores) 35.1 High level (>10 scores) 9.5 100.0 (538) Mean: 4.70 Median: 4.00 S.D=3.90 Max=14.00 Min=0.00 Source: developed by researcher from Quantitative methods Household living in disaster prone II recognized less on mitigation performance Mitigation phase consist of two indicators concerning warning system and the envolvement of disaster management (see Table 3) Household who lived in the disaster prone II never plan to find other area to settled since they found livelihoods as farmer 809 brought benefits to their life (Dewanti&Dusayu, 2015) But in the other hand, households not recognize the disaster map in Mt.Slamet (53.5%) or having experience observe the sign of disaster evacuation (57.8%) The performance of mitigation has been shows less envolvement of household in disaster management participation More than 50.0 percent of households stated had no experiences working collaborate on disaster management activities (71.2%), experiences to be volunteer (70.3%) and life guard (66.7%) Based on this indicators, households had less warning system and envolvement as part of reducing the hazard impact on volcanic disaster Table The level of Mitigation Perfomance based on Each Indicators Percentage Level of Behavior Mitigation phase Never Sometime Always Total N=538 Warning System Have plan to move from here 85.1 8.9 5.9 100.0 Have information on the risky place 36.1 25.7 38.3 100.0 Recognize disaster map 53.5 20.1 26.4 100.0 Have experience to observe the sign of disaster evacuation 57.8 18.0 24.2 100.0 Has meeting in the village to share disaster management knowledge 47.2 23.2 29.6 100.0 Has experiences working collaborate with institution in disaster management 71.2 13.2 15.6 100.0 Has experiences working as volunteer to build evacuation sign 70.3 12.3 17.5 100.0 Help to be volunteers of lifeguard 66.7 12.5 20.8 100.0 Disaster management evolvement Source: developed by researcher from Quantitative methods Based on the descriptive result, households living in ‗Red-zone‘ had limitation on practices the mitigation phase However, tt can be improved through their resources, described as capitals of the households However, the characteristics of household living in disaster prone II are different in each of area and brought different structure of agency problem Therefore, multivariate analysis to analyze the influence factors which described by independent variables need to detect the multicollinearity In the other hand, multivariate analysis through path analysis has five assumption need to be required, however, the most important is there should be no interactions among the variables which could be tested by multicollinearity test (Streiner, 2005) Multicollniearity is a statistical problem which if it is exist, means the perdictor factoes could cause several problems to the estimation of β and result interpretation Multicollinearity could be examine through the measurement of Variance Inflation Factors (VIF), identified by each of independent 810 variables When the VIF exceeds than 10, the multicollinearity is found as the problem for the model in conceptual framework (Montgormery & Runger, 2008) Among 25 factors supported as independent variables were less than 10, including the dependent variables, mitigation performance (1.10) In conclusion, there is no problem concerning the model which describe in conceptual framework Path analysis is to analyse the direct and indirect effects of independent variables to dependent variables (Wuensch, 2016) Direct effects describe the independent variables predicting to dependent variable directly, likewise indirect effects explain the independent variables predict to dependent variable indirectly and had middle variable Through the model developed in this study, the result of path analysis could be describe in Figure It found three independent variables directly influence to the mitigation performance in the level significant of 0.05 and 0.01 The number of household members in healthy condition is influence directly to mitigation performance as much as 0.101 It shows if the household members in less healthy condition could be decreasing the mitigation performance to involve the disaster management practices The size of land has negative resulted of β value for direct effect to mitigation performance as - 0.118* Farmer who owned bigger size of land in agriculture had less mitigation performance It could be describe based on their less envolved on mitigation performances In the other hand, social capital which describe in the networking of households to other community who lived in non-red-zone improve the mitigation performance as much as 0.312 The household planning to prepare the evacuation as warning system preparation by making relationship to others during the volcano eruption X5_Health 0.101* X6_Migration -0.097* X13_LivChange -0.097* X19_Chemical X22_Transport 0.396** X_Transformation on Process and Structure 0.132* 0.115* 8* Y_Mitigation Performance 0.089* X23_Income X9_Size of land X16_HHNetwork -0.118* 0.312** Figure Path analysis of Mitigation Performance 811 Indirect effect found on five independent variables which consist on migration, livelihoods changing, chemical fertilizer usage, transportation as the physical capital and income of each households Migration and livelihoods changing (-0.097) are found negative influence to mitigation performance indirectly through the transformation on process and structure It shown the more household members migrate to other side of village, the more the households have less mitigation performances Reciprocally the livelihoods changing in households influence to the mitigation performance lower compare household who is less changing for their job Migration behavior and livelihood changing impact to transformation on process and structure, then impacted to mitigation performance Chemical fertilizer utilization, transportation as physical capital and income are positive influence indirectly on mitigation performation Discussion and Conclusion In discussion, the result of path analysis among 25 independent variables found three variables directly effect and five variables indirectly effected to the mitigation performance The path analysis for this formula has been valued as R squared equal to 0.277 which means 27% of dependent values described by the independent variables The path analysis yield decomposing of the correlation among set of variables formed to dependent and independent variables (table 4) The direct effect and indirect effect could be measure total effect to whole of variables The highest total effect value found on H16_HHNetwork which indicate to the variable of social capital (0.312) Household who have good networking to other household or institution which located in non-red-zone area could directly effected to their mitigation performance It is part of warning system of households to plan where can household move when eruption occur Table Decomposing the Correlation among set of Variables of Mitigation Performance Independent Variables X5_Health Direct Effect 0.101 X6_Migration X9_Size of Land Indirect Effect Total Effect 0.101 0.097 x 0.115 = 0.023 0.023 0.118 X13_LivChange 0.118 0.097 x 0.115 = 0.023 0.023 X19_Chemical 0.396 x 0.115 = 0.046 0.312 0.046 X22_Transport 0.132 x 0.115 = 0,015 0.015 X23_Income 0.089 x 0.115 = 0.010 0.010 X16_HHNetwork X_Transformation 0.312 0.115 0.115 Indirect effect found on five independent variables which consist on migration, livelihoods changing, chemical fertilizer usage, transportation as the physical capital and income of each households Migration and livelihoods changing (-0.097) are found negative influence to mitigation performance indirectly through the transformation on 812 process and structure It shown the more household members migrate from their house decrease the mitigation performance Ho, et al (2008) and Kung&Chen (2012) study gender in disaster management The result stated that female has well-prepared on disaster management compare to male However, this study has found differently, household who have less male household members because they were having migration, brought less mitigation performance Chemical utilization is explained positively impacted to transformation on process and structure, then to mitigation performance Since fertilizer is important part on the land use management, the significance found on less than 0.01 with 0.396 influence indirectly to mitigation performance Higher chemical fertilizer utilization increase the households‘s land use management in agriculture, and indirectly support their mitigation performance It could be impact to other independent variables on income Chemical fertilizer utilization improve the agriculture harvesting and increase income of the households in positive indirectly to disaster management Increasing income could decrease the damage risk and found better disaster management enactment Higher income receive by household supported them to aware and perform mitigation in volcanic It is in line to the several previous study, social economic status support mitigation in disasters (Lin, Shaw, Ho, 2007; Kellenberg and Mobarok, 2008) Transportation as part of physical capital explain as the access of household could use transportation log suround their house and environment It is indirectly effected to the mitigation performance which part of indicator on warning system planning Healthy household members effected to the capabilities on mitigation phase Horwell and Baxter (2006) describe the same findings as this study, volcanic risk mitigation brought less when individuals have problem on health condition before the volcanic disaster occur Moreover, household who lived in disaster prone II mostly work in agriculture sector and found that size of land indirectly effected to mitigation performance Household live in disaster prone II are rely to the natural resources as their part of livelihoods and capitals (CARD, et al 2009), size of land is effect to the transformation on process and structure and mitigation enactment Live with hazard and risk as Lewis (1999) and Wisner et al (2004) describe hazards can be reduce the impact of risk when volcanic disaster occur The exogeneus variable named as transformation on process and structure had positive direct effected to the mitigation performance References Backstrom, C.H., & Hursch-Cessar G (1981) Survey Research (2nd ed.) New York: Wiley and Sons Bhatt, M (2002) Corporate Social Responsibility and Disaster Reduction: Local Overview of Gujarat Case study for Corporate Social Responsibility and Disaster ReductionL A Global Overview DFID-funded study conducted by the Benfield Grieg Hazard Research Center, University College London http://www.benfieldhrc.org/SiteRoot/disaster_studies/csr/csr_gujarat.pdf 813 Coppola, P., D (2007) Introduction to International Disaster Management Elsevier: Butterworth-Heinemann print Dewanti, D.S., Ayuwat, D., Yongvanit, S (2016), Volcanic Disaster Management Practices for People who Lived in Disaster Prone II International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research Vol 14 (11): 7431-7450 Hewitt, K (1996) Regions of Risk: A Geographical Introduction to Disasters, Longmann, Essex Horwell, C.J & Baxter, P.J (2006) The Respiratory Health Hazards of Volcanic Ash: A Review for Volcanic Risk Mitigation Bulleting of Volcanology Vol 69(1): 1-24 Kellenberg, D.K & Mobarok, A.M (2008) Does Rising Income Increase or Decrease Damage Risk from Natural Disasters? Journal of Urban Economics Vol 63 (3): 788-802 Kusumastuti, R.D., Viverita, Husodo, Z.A., Suardi, L., and Danarsari, D.N (2014) Developing a resilience index towards natural disasters in Indonesia International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 10 (2014): 327-340 Lin, S., Shaw, D., Ho, M.C., (2008) Why are flood and landslide victim less willing to Take Mitigation Measures than the Public? Natural Hazard Vol 44 (2): 305-314 10 Maskrey, A (1993),Los Desastros No Son Naturales (English version) La Red/ITDG Bogota 11 Montgomery, D.C., Runger, R.C (2008) Estatistics aplicada e probabilidade para engenheiros (English Version) LCT 463 Rio de Janeiro 12 Regulation of Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources of Indonesia Number 15 Year 2011 concerning mapping of disaster-prone area of volcano disaster Retrieved November 14, 2014 from http://prokum.esdm.go.id/permen/2011/Permen%20ESDM%2015%202011.pdf 13 Streiner, D.L 2005 Finding Our Way: An Introduction to Path Analysis The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry-Research Methods in Psychiatry Vol 50 (2) 14 Sugimoto, S (2013) Volcanic Disaster Management at Unzendake National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention, Mp 380 (July, 2013) 15 Sutton, J & Tierney, K (2006) Disaster Preparedness: Concept, Guidance, and Research Natural Hazards Center Institute of Behavioral Science University of Colorado Boulder 16 United Nations (1992) An Overview of disaster management nd ed United Nations Development Programme 17 Wisner B, Blaikie P, Cannon T and Davies (2004) At risk natural hazards, people‘s vilnerability and disasters Routledge, London 18 Zucarro, G & Leone, M.F The Mitigation of Volcanic Risk as Opportunity for an Ecological and Resilient City TECHNE Journal of Technology for Architecture and Environment, 7(2014), pp 101-107 814 ... the mitigation performance of household living in disaster prone II of Mt.Slamet Household living in disaster prone II explained by the characteristics and also the capitals owned in each household. .. activities inside the area The disaster prone II is the area who could be living by household Therefor, disaster prone of Mt.Slamet has the highest risk for household living in this area Indonesia... concerning the performance of the mitigation phase for households live in disaster prone II of Mt.Slamet, the enactment of mitigation phase which consist of the human behavior on warning system