Article Sidebar
Downloads
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Disaster Mangement In Indonesia: A Lesson From The 2010 Eruption Of Mount Merapi
Muhammad Iqbal1
- National Cheng Kung University, Tainan City, Taiwan
Correspondence*
National Cheng Kung University, Tainan City, Taiwan
Email: [email protected]
Abstract
One of the most significant eruptions of Merapi that occurred was the eruption of Merapi in October November 2010 (Pallister, et al. 2013). At that time, the impact of the eruption of Merapi was tremendous. The flow of hot clouds swept the area on the slopes of Merapi. The cleaning of the hot clouds also caused casualties, either death or injury. The eruption of Merapi in 2010, which is indicated as a 100-year eruption period, caused extensive and massive damage and loss of community livelihood assets. Damage and loss assessment is divided into 5 (five) sectors: settlement, infrastructure, social, economy and cross-sector. This research is a qualitative descriptive study. this study uses information on websites, in newspapers, and government reports. These data are used to support the statements given by the interviewees. All documents processed through the NVivo application. The finding of this article is Local governments are considered slow in responding and distributing information. Apart from that, the problem of limited resources has resulted in the obstruction of resource mobilization. Budget constraints, disruption of regional government functions, and the insufficient number of government human resources have resulted in slow mobilization. However, the local government succeeded in optimizing NGO's / NPO's and also volunteers in emergency response efforts. Finally, the government's slow performance was covered by NPO's/NGO's and volunteers. NPOs/NGOs and volunteers have a very significant role in the emergency response to the eruption of Mount Merapi.
Keywords
Disaster Management; Information; Mobilization; Inter-organisational cooperation; Mount Merapi
BACKGROUND
As an archipelago located on the equator of the earth, Indonesia is one of the countries prone to natural disasters. Data from the National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB) until the end of December 2020 in Indonesia recorded that 2,925 natural disasters have occurred in Indonesia. These natural disasters include hurricanes, landslides, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions. Of the many natural disasters in Indonesia, volcanoes are one form of natural disaster that often hits Indonesia. This is certainly not surprising because Indonesia has 129 active mountains in which 70 mountains are declared to be very threatening or endangering the surrounding community (BNPB, 2010). One of the dangerous volcanoes is Mount Merapi, located on the border of Central Java Province with the Special Region of Yogyakarta (DIY).
Mount Merapi is a volcano and its territory belongs to the administrative district of the Special Region of Yogyakarta. The mountain is about 20 km from the Sleman Regency Government Center in Dengung, Tridady, Sleman. Of the 129 volcanoes in Indonesia, this 2,980-meter-high mountain is one of the most active (Dove, 2008). The active volcano, Mount Merapi, certainly harbors potential dangers that could jeopardize the safety of the surrounding community in the event of an eruption. In addition, the slopes of Mount Merapi are densely populated areas. The Sleman Regency area on the slopes of Mount Merapi includes Chunklingan, Pachem, Turi, Tempel and Ngenprak, which are at high risk of eruption disasters (Mei, et, al. 2013).
One of the most significant eruptions of Merapi that occurred was the eruption of Merapi in October November 2010 (Pallister, et al. 2013). At that time, the impact of the eruption of Merapi was tremendous. The flow of hot clouds swept the area on the slopes of Merapi. The cleaning of the hot clouds also caused casualties, either death or injury. In addition to hot clouds, Merapi also released cold lava flows totalling 150 million m3 and 35% of this amount entered the Gendol River, and the rest entered other rivers that had their head in the mountain (BPS, 2010).
The victims of the disaster due to Mount Merapi's eruption included the dead, the injured and the refugees. Due to the 2010 Merapi disaster, the number of victims was 346 people who died, five people were missing, and 121 people were seriously injured. The death toll based on the first eruption phase, namely 26 October – 4 November 2010, was 40 people and in the second eruption phase, namely 5 November – 23 May 2011, there were 306 people. The causes of casualties were 186 of them due to burns, and 160 others were non-burns (BAPPENAS, 2010).
The eruption of Merapi in 2010, which is indicated as a 100-year eruption period, caused extensive and massive damage and loss of community livelihood assets (Newhall et al., 2000). Damage and loss assessment is divided into 5 (five) sectors: settlement, infrastructure, social, economy and cross-sector. Based on the data collected and after going through the Damage and Loss Assessment (DaLA) and Human Recovery Needs Assessment (HRNA) methods, the estimated damage and losses due to the eruption of the Merapi volcano in the district of Sleman is Rp. 5.405 trillion, consisting of a damage value of IDR 894.357 billion and a loss of IDR 4.511 trillion (Warsini, et, al . 2014).
Figure 1.TABLE 1 The Value of Damage to the 2010 Merapi Eruption
| No | Sector/Subsector | Damage Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| IDR | % | ||
| 1 | Housing | 446.332.974.000 | 49,91 |
| 2 | Infrastructure | 219.461.374.600 | 24,54 |
| 3 | Economic | 193.437.367.200 | 21,63 |
| 4 | Social | 27.370.871.306 | 3,28 |
| 5 | Cross Sector | 5.755.212.896 | 0,64 |
| Total | 894.357.800.002 | 100 | |
Source: Development Planning Agency at Sub-National Level Sleman Regency
BNPB (2010) stated that Sleman Regency was the location that experienced the worst economic loss compared to the other three districts. One of the areas directly affected by the eruption of Mount Merapi in Cangkringan. Cangkringan is part of the Sleman Regency, which consists of five villages, namely Kepuharjo, Umbulharjo, Wukirsari, Argomulyo and Glagahharjo. BPBD Sleman (2011) One of the villages affected by the severe eruption was Kepuharjo village, the research object. Kepuharjo is located between the towns of Umbulharjo in the west and Glagaharjo in the east which is also included in the second level disaster-prone area (KRB II) so that it can affect quite a lot of potential. From the various potential disasters described above, the government and all related stakeholders made an effort to build community resilience in the face of disasters, namely to intensify community-based disaster risk reduction activities. This activity is intended to further enhance community empowerment in strengthening social capital to become an internal strength and a growing role in planning and implementing disaster risk reduction independently. One of society's essential elements in disaster risk reduction activities is the youth sector (Junior). It has made youth an actor playing an indispensable role in disaster risk reduction in many countries because it is considered very useful in a pragmatic way (Chang Seng, D. 2010).
It is known that every time a disaster occurs, the pillars of the local economy will be paralyzed, unemployment is high, investment stops, reduce regional income, and pockets of refugees appear vulnerable to social disasters such as poverty, dropping out of school, crime and so on, likewise with the eruption of Mount Merapi. This has resulted in the cessation of community economic activities and economic losses (Michel et al., 2017). Besides, the high number of casualties and material losses caused by volcanoes in Indonesia can be caused by a lack of preparedness for Indonesia in terms of disaster management. Performance is not optimal, has not been integrated and overall coordination and cooperation in dealing with emergencies (Michel et al., 2017).
Indonesia's crisis management is based on a hierarchical organization (2016 National Disaster Management Agency Commissioner's Ordinance No. 3). Governments and local governments are primarily responsible for managing disasters and taking into account the roles of stakeholders (Figure 1). Founded in 1966, the National Disaster Management Agency (NDMA or BNPB in Indonesian) is a non-departmental government institution who formulates, stipulates, and coordinates disaster management and its activities, pre-disaster, emergency response, and post-disaster activities. To implement disaster management duties at the Province and District/City level, Regional Disaster Management Agencies (RDMA or BPBD in Indonesian) have been established.
Figure 2.Crisis management in Indonesia
Source: Jousset, et., al (2012)
Apart from the fact that there is often cooperation between the proximal and similar authorities (Simo & Bies 2007), collaborative disaster management faces a variety of challenges that can lead to failure of response operations. Poor communication, poor planning, wrong direction and poor leadership, and poor coordination with multiple stakeholders can lead to failure of collaboration (Streib & Waugh, 2006; Wise2019). Meanwhile, Seng (2010) argued that Indonesia's multi-central structure of disaster management is ideal for responding to the Indonesian tsunami. However, it does not meet the norms of the Indonesian political community. In addition, Nurmandi et al. (2015) After investigating various disasters in Indonesia, we came to the conclusion that different structures will be formed in the management of each disaster they encounter.
Emergency response in Indonesia is often unpredictable, especially when it comes to coordinating both the search and rescue of people and the collection and distribution of aid to victims (Subandi, 2014). Disaster recovery efforts have not been maximized either. Inaccurate data on the number of casualties and types of injuries make it difficult to identify the medical facilities needed to restore victims' health (Handayani et al., 2016). The complexity of the problem requires proper regulation, and disaster response needs to be carefully planned for more focused and integrated disaster management (Antriyandarti & Ani, 2013). Considering the above problems, the implementation of disaster risk reduction regulations by the Indonesian government was not optimal. This means that the measures taken do not follow systematic and systematic procedures (Warsini, 2014).
This study aims to analyze how the emergency response to the eruption of Mount Merapi in 2010. The critical questions of this research are: How is the emergency response to the 2010 eruption of Mount Merapi?
Related Literature on Disaster Management
Disaster management is an activity that does not stand alone, but is related to various aspects of community life and requires a multi-disciplinary approach. Disaster management as a collective term covers all aspects of planning to respond to a disaster, including activities before a disaster and after a disaster occurs. Disaster management includes plans, structures, and arrangements that are made and involve the government, volunteers and private parties in a coordinated and comprehensive manner to respond to all emergency needs (Kusumasari, 2014).
In general, disaster management is divided into three activities: pre-disaster, during the disaster and after the disaster (Fillah, Ishartono, & Fedryansyah, 2017). Pre-disaster activities include prevention, mitigation, preparedness and early warning of potential disasters. In contrast, activities during a disaster include emergency response to alleviate temporary suffering, such as search and rescue (SAR) and emergency assistance such as food, medicine and evacuation. The last activity, namely after a disaster, this activity is a process that includes recovery which includes rehabilitation and reconstruction activities, this activity is to improve the condition of the community affected by the disaster by improving community life as before the disaster so that the community returns to normal conditions. Another opinion (Tunc & Ozsarac, 2019) Disaster management generally consists of five steps: mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery and prevention. But many governments forget about the risk of disasters that occur, causing many casualties. Many countries have adopted these management measures in line with it (Park, Park, & Kim, 2019) Mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery are very important in disaster management.
Similar to (Adiyoso, 2018) the disaster management cycle consists of two major activities, namely before the disaster (pre-event) and after the disaster (post-event) actions after the disaster can be in the form of disaster emergency response or disaster recovery, while activities before it occur. Disasters can be in the form of disaster preparedness and disaster mitigation to reduce disaster risk following the cycle of disaster management.
Yang (2010) investigated the mechanism of the disaster recovery system in the Nantou County government after the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake, using a three-element model of information gathering, mobilization of local governments, and cooperation between organizations. bottom. Kilby (2008) examines the role of an integrated network of 12 local NGOs to fill gaps not covered by government programs in response to the December 26, 2004 earthquake and tsunami in the Indian Ocean. Did. Chen and Booth (2011) described ERR work after the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, and Suzuki and Kaneko (2013) explained Japan's central government and local governments to deal with the unexpected scale of the Great East Japan Earthquake. We analyzed joint actions with and other civil defense forces. Corresponds to Tsunami North 2011. Yang et al. (2013) Explained the first experience of China National Medical Rescue Team in 2013 Lushan Earthquake.
Figure 3.Theoritical Framework
Source: Yang (2010)
In Indonesia, the central government and local governments are responsible for the implementation of disaster management. As defined in Government Regulation No. 21 of 2008 concerning the Implementation of Disaster Management, the implementation of Disaster Management is a series of efforts that include establishing development policies that pose a risk of disaster, disaster prevention activities, emergency response, and rehabilitation. The series of activities described in the disaster management cycle are as follows: Basically, the implementation consists of three stages: 1—pre-disaster, which includes: non-disaster situations and situations with potential disasters 2. During Emergency Response carried out in cases of disaster 3. Post-disaster carried out in the aftermath of a disaster.
According to Government Regulation No. 21 of 2008 concerning the Implementation of Disaster Management, the stages of disaster management in Indonesia are as follows.
At the Pre-Disaster stage, in a situation where there is no disaster, a Disaster Management Plan is prepared, a general and comprehensive plan covering all stages/disaster work areas. In particular, for certain disaster prevention and mitigation efforts, there is a plan called a mitigation plan
At the Pre-Disaster stage, in situations where there is a potential disaster, a Preparedness Plan to deal with an emergency is prepared based on a scenario for dealing with a particular disaster (single hazard), a plan called a Contingency Plan is drawn up.
During Emergency Response, an Operational Plan is carried out, which is the operation/activation of the Emergency Plan or Contingency Plan prepared previously.
In the Recovery Phase, a Recovery Plan is prepared, including a post-disaster rehabilitation and reconstruction plan. Meanwhile, if the disaster has not yet occurred, then the preparation of post-disaster management mechanism guidelines is carried out to anticipate future disaster events.
RESEARCH METHOD
This research is a qualitative descriptive study. Qualitative research is essentially research by observing the living environment of objects, interacting with them, and trying to be able to understand their language and their interpretation of the world around them (Nasution, 2003). This research uses a case study approach. Creswell, (2010) states that a case study is a research strategy in which researchers carefully investigate a program, event, activity, process, or group of individuals. Data collection techniques in this study using in-depth interviews.
The survey also uses information about websites, newspapers, and government reports. This data will be used to support what the respondents said. Documents processed through the NVivo application, described by Bazeley and Jackson (2014), are useful for managing and analyzing non-numeric or unstructured data. In addition, the NVivo application allows you to observe, analyze, and categorize the information contained in selected documents to show the relationships between the information and the problems that shape them (Woolf and Silver, 2018).
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Information Gathering
As a tropical country prone to disasters, Indonesia has to remain vigilant in handling disasters. Emergency response is a top priority to reduce casualties. For this reason, the need for accurate, fast, and easy-to-reach information is expected to assist in disaster management as a whole. This is related to disaster communication management, starting from planning, coordination and implementation, and disaster management evaluation, especially during emergency response. The following research findings are shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4.Merapi Mount Disaster Communication Managemen Model during Emergency Response
The problems that occur are because the communication carried out by the government is still top-down. This has resulted in the slow distribution of information to the public and other stakeholders involved in these mitigation efforts. The validation of the information itself hampers the slow diffusion of knowledge. The confirmation of the information even took up to 74 hours. The media used by the government to distribute information on the 2010 Merapi disaster include national TV, local TV, community radio, internet and social media.
The 2010 Merapi eruption disaster communication management model is shown by the flow of information and communication from planning, coordination, organizing, evaluation, and feedback. Sleman Regency already has a sectoral plan prepared in the Contingency Plan 2009 to anticipate the Merapi disaster. It turned out that the planning was hampered when the 2010 Merapi disaster occurred (Interview with a Volunteer).
Mobilisation
A resilient disaster supply chain has been proposed as a useful area of research, where various stakeholders work together to provide urgently needed products and services to disaster victims (Boin et al. 2010). However, creating and maintaining effective emergency resource management is a daunting task (Van Wassenhove, 2005). This includes procuring what is needed, transporting relief supplies to the affected areas, and relief supplies to the victims.
In the context of the eruption of Merapi volcano, each actor plays a unique role in the mobilization process. The most dominant actors in the mobilization process during an eruption disaster are illustrated in the following figure:
Figure 5.Contribution Of Stakeholders
Figure 5 shows that the Regional Disaster Management Agency (BPBD DIY) has the most significant contribution to the mobilization process. This is because BPDB DIY is a regional government organization with special authority in disaster management in the special area of Yogyakarta, including the eruption of Mount Merapi. BPBD DIY as a representative of the government uses its power to mobilize various assistance such as food needs, emergency tents, medicines, and other things needed. However, there are problems in the mobilization efforts carried out by BPBD DIY, such as:
In A chaotic situation, people with their abilities and expertise try to help vulnerable victims. The volunteers are not yet organized, with individual initiative playing a role in handling the situation;
The emergence of rumors in the case of Merapi there were rumors that the "Merapi Rulers" would spit out a more violent eruption;
The hospital is overloaded, that is, the number of patients who died or injured exceeds the capacity of the hospital
The government system does not function, especially in the center of the disaster; most of the officials and staff are also victims. They were so shocked that they didn't know what to do at the time;
Government officials and residents' actions are more reactive than anticipatory. Besides, there are promises from officials or individuals to provide temporary comfort to the victims;
The problem of people's distrust of the government because the government's response is not satisfactory;
There are also many political interests in the disaster area, such as making donations by putting up flags or banners of certain political parties, giving assistance in the hope of being assisted in electing specific legislative candidates.
The Indonesian Red Cross (PMI) also has a significant role in the mobilization process (Figure 5). As a community organization, PMI has a position that is considered very helpful, both the local government as the primary responsibility for the community and the victims of the eruption of Mount Merapi. The types of assistance that PMI mobilized were medical personnel, medicines, emergency tents, staple food, and other necessities. However, based on the results of interviews with PMI staff, PMI found it difficult to distribute aid, because there was a lot of unclear information regarding the area and the number of victims affected. This resulted in an uneven distribution of assistance provided by PMI so that sometimes the distribution and mobilization of aid was not on target.
Inter-Organization Corporation
Based on the picture above, the Disaster Management network structure in the Special Region of Yogyakarta in the context of the Merapi Eruption Disaster can run even though it is relatively slow and less effective in handling disaster management. This is because all stakeholders other than the government and the partners concerned have a strong coordinating bond between their partners. In its technical performance, it can be concluded that social organizations such as the Indonesian Red Cross are more active in collaborating with all stakeholders or local communities. This is following a statement said by one of the local communities or volunteers who are members of volunteering in the village of Kepulharjo, Cangkringan District, which said that:
"The activeness of community organizational institutions that are more active in coordinating and making closeness to disaster management parties is also responsive in handling disaster management" (Interview conducted on 19 December 2020).
This statement was given feedback by one of the employees from the Indonesian Red Cross Disaster Management Division (PMI) DIY:
"Our institution works effectively. We try to get closer to the community by collaborating with other disaster partners such as local volunteers and local NGOs and international organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) based in Jakarta. We do this effectively and actively. We know that active collaboration does not have to be dominated by the government but all stakeholders who must work together in disaster management, even if the community says that we are closer to the community then that is fine, but we don't think at all that we are more dominant. We work relatively the same as others, it's just that we act on behalf of humanity and volunteer who acts independently in disaster management, not bound by the existing rules, for example when a disaster occurs we are ready and immediately provide information to the agency coordinators, namely BPBD and other partners and immediately jumped into the that was affected by natural disasters" (Interview conducted on 18 December 2020).
The above statement confirms that the Indonesian Red Cross is very active in collaborating with all stakeholders. Besides, in disaster response, PMI is an independent institution, and this institution has a more straightforward structure but is still systematic in responding to emergency disasters.
The Indonesian Red Cross has several active partners in response to the eruption of Mount Merapi in 2010. It is determined that PMI currently has the support of 7 international associations that help PMI's work program in several fields, namely the American Red Cross, the Dutch Red Cross, and the Red Cross. Hong Kong, Japanese Red Cross, Australian Red Cross, Canadian Red Cross and Spanish Red Cross. In addition to 7 international associations, PMI's activities in Indonesia are also supported by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) based in Jakarta (PMI.or.id, 2013).
According to the PMI Volunteer Division (2019) for the DIY level, the Indonesian Red Cross at the provincial level of the special region of Yogyakarta has conditioned and coordinated each partner member at the District level in the effort to respond to the eruption of Mount Merapi in 2010. This coordination is through the central PMI (DIY) with PMI at the level Districts. This is due to maintaining closeness to residents and improving and accelerating services in terms of disaster response. Therefore, without waiting for the PMI Regency management, the sub-district level officials can immediately jump into the affected area. Several districts already have an Indonesian Red Cross office, especially in Sleman Regency such as the Pakem District Red Cross (PMI Sleman Hemodialysis Clinic), PMI Sleman District, PMI Ngemplak District, PMI Cangkringan District, PMI Turi District, PMI Temple District, Pmi Kecamatan, PMI Ngaglik District, PMI Ngemplak District, PMI Perambanan and this in almost every sub-district (Interview was conducted on 20 August 2019).
Besides, PMI Yogyakarta Special Region has collaborated with various campuses in Yogyakarta. This campus is called the disaster prepared campus. It is known that PMI has collaborated with 12 campuses including Yogyakarta Achmad Yani University, Guna Bangsa Stikes, UNY, Sanata Dharma, Istiper, UIN Sunan Kalijaga, UAD, Surya Global, Mercubuana, UMY, UPN, and the Ministry of Health Poltekes (Gatra.com, 2019).
Figure 6.Inter-Organization Corporation in Merapi Disaster Management 2010
Meanwhile, when viewed by government organizations. BPBD DIY also has a good network structure. The social network analysis results through the Nviovo 12 Plus application prove that the BPBD is below one level of a social organization such as PMI (Figure 6). This does not mean that it does not have a significant relationship with all stakeholders; it is just that more of the role is PMI. BPBD, as a state organization under the National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB), has coordinated well with all stakeholders related to disaster response. It's just that the implementation is too structural, so the people think that the government's response is a bit slow. Usually, this is caused by a system that is also structural (bureaucratic), a disaster response warrant that goes down vertically makes local disaster management agencies slow to take action in responding to disasters. (Nurmandi et al., 2015).
In this context, in disaster management, the government should collaborate totally without being fixated on the process and focus on priority activities that significantly impact and are carried out to completion. These priority activities will have a positive impact, such as forming an emergency mindset. This will give dynamics to disaster management by contributing thoughts and decision-making to be ready and alert whenever needed when the disaster suddenly comes.
The point is that disaster management cannot be separated from all stakeholder actors and partners' active collaboration. Because this shows the future of a suitable disaster management mechanism in Indonesia. Responding swiftly requires good planning, good conflict management, good consensus or good regulation, as well as good trust that must be exercised by all stakeholders, to create good network relationships to all disaster management partners and local communities.
CONCLUSION
The management of the 2010 Merapi eruption disaster had many obstacles. The information provided by the local government is considered relatively slow. Local governments are considered slow in responding and distributing information. Its because the local government's function at that time stopped because of the impact of the eruption of Mount Merapi. The cessation of government functions creates obstacles in distributing information to other stakeholders. Apart from that, the problem of limited resources has resulted in the obstruction of resource mobilization. Budget constraints, disruption of regional government functions, and the insufficient number of government human resources have resulted in slow mobilization. However, the local government succeeded in optimizing NGO's / NPO's and also volunteers in emergency response efforts. Finally, the government's slow performance was covered by NPO's / NGO's and volunteers. NPOs / NGOs and volunteers have a very significant role in the emergency response to the eruption of Mount Merapi. Furthermore, based on this study's data and findings, emergency response efforts are still ineffective and tend to be considered slow.
Based on the findings above, the authors provide various inputs to the government to be faster and more responsive in the emergency response to Mount Merapi's eruption. Local governments must also improve accurate information systems to support emergency response efforts. As described above, if the information provided is slow and inaccurate, it will interfere with the mobilization process and other stakeholders' participation to collaborate in emergency response efforts. As the leading sector in emergency response efforts, the government must provide the most excellent possible opportunity for NPOs / NGOs and the community as individuals to be actively involved in emergency response efforts. Also, there is a need for bureaucratic reform or changes in government organizations to be more effective and responsive in dealing with disasters.
REFERENCES
Adiyoso, W. (2018). Manajemen Bencana: Pengantar dan Isu-isu Strategis. Bumi Aksara
Antriyandarti, E., Ferichani, M., & Ani, S. W. (2013). Sustainability of post-eruption socio economic recovery for the community on Mount Merapi slope through horticulture agribusiness region development (Case study in Boyolali District). Procedia Environmental Sciences, 17, 46-52.
Bazeley, P., & Jackson, K. (Eds.). (2013). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. SAGE publications limited.
Bevaola Kusumasari, B. (2014). Manajemen bencana dan kapabilitas pemerintah local. Yogyakarta: Universitas Gadjah Mada
BNPB. (2010). Rencana Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana 2010-2014. Jakarta: BNPB
Boin, A., Kelle, P., & Clay Whybark, D. (2010). Resilient supply chains for extreme situations: Outlining a new field of study. International Journal of Production Economics, 126(1), 1-6.
Chang Seng, D. (2010). The role of risk governance, multi-institutional arrangements and polycentric frameworks for a resilient tsunami early warning system in Indonesia. Erlangung des Doktorgrades (Dr. rer. nat.), Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Bonn.
Chen, Y., & Booth, D. C. (2011). The Wenchuan earthquake of 2008: anatomy of a disaster. Springer Science & Business Media.
Dove, M. R. (2008). Perception of volcanic eruption as agent of change on Merapi volcano, Central Java. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 172(3-4), 329-337.
Handayani, D., Herliansyah, M. K., Hartono, B., & Sopha, B. M. (2016, December). Community behavior during the evacuation of Mount Merapi eruption disaster. In 2016 IEEE international conference on industrial engineering and engineering management (IEEM) (pp. 276-280). IEEE.
Fillah, A. S., Ishartono, I., & Fedryansyah, M. (2016). PROGRAM Penanggulangan Bencana Oleh Disaster Management Center (Dmc) Dompet Dhuafa. Prosiding Penelitian Dan Pengabdian Kepada Masyarakat. https://doi.org/10.24198/jppm.v3i2.13648
Jousset, P., Pallister, J., Boichu, M., Buongiorno, M. F., Budisantoso, A., Costa, F., ... & Lavigne, F. (2012). The 2010 explosive eruption of Java's Merapi volcano—a ‘100-year’event. Journal of volcanology and geothermal research, 241, 121-135.
Kilby, P. (2008). The strength of networks: the local NGO response to the tsunami in India. Disasters, 32(1), 120-130.
Mei, E. T. W., Lavigne, F., Picquout, A., De Bélizal, E., Brunstein, D., Grancher, D., ... & Vidal, C. (2013). Lessons learned from the 2010 evacuations at Merapi volcano. Journal of volcanology and geothermal research, 261, 348-365.
Michel, L. A., Anke, B., Ian, J., The, M., Du, M. L. A., Jonathan, B. W., & Miranda, I. B. (2017). The Association Between Disaster Vulnerability and Post-disaster Psychosocial Service Delivery Across Europe.
Newhall, C. G., Bronto, S., Alloway, B., Banks, N. G., Bahar, I., Del Marmol, M. A., ... & Wirakusumah, A. D. (2000). 10,000 Years of explosive eruptions of Merapi Volcano, Central Java: archaeological and modern implications. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 100(1-4), 9-50.
Nurmandi, A., Qodir, Z., Purnomo, E. P., & Muallidin, I. (2015). Comparing Cross-Sectoral Governance in Managing Post-Disaster in Indonesia: The Case Study of Way Ela Dam Bursts, Forest Fire in Sumatera, Kelud and Merapi Volcano Eruption and Acheh's Tsunami. Forest Fire in Sumatera, Kelud and Merapi Volcano Eruption and Acheh's Tsunami.
Pallister, J. S., Schneider, D. J., Griswold, J. P., Keeler, R. H., Burton, W. C., Noyles, C., ... & Ratdomopurbo, A. (2013). Merapi 2010 eruption—Chronology and extrusion rates monitored with satellite radar and used in eruption forecasting. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 261, 144-152
Park, J., Park, S., Kim, D. H., & Park, S. O. (2019). Leakage mitigation in heterodyne FMCW radar for small drone detection with stationary point concentration technique. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, 67(3), 1221-1232.
Simo, G., & Bies, A. L. (2007). The role of nonprofits in disaster response: An expanded model of cross‐sector collaboration. Public administration review, 67, 125-142
Subandi, M. A., Achmad, T., Kurniati, H., & Febri, R. (2014). Spirituality, gratitude, hope and post-traumatic growth among the survivors of the 2010 eruption of Mount Merapi in Java, Indonesia. Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies, 18(1), 19.
Suzuki, I., & Kaneko, Y. (2013). Japan’s disaster governance: how was the 3.11 crisis managed?. Springer Science & Business Media.
Torii, Y., Otsuka, T., & Ito, T. (2016, June). A diversity sensor connection capability WSN for disaster information gathering system. In 2016 IEEE/ACIS 15th International Conference on Computer and Information Science (ICIS) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
Tunc, G., Ozsarac, E., Sahin, B. E., & Cigdem, O. Y. (2019, October). A Study Of The Post-Earthquake Economic Impact Of Turkey’s Critical Industrial Facilities. In International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (5ICEES) (Vol. 8, p. 11).
Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2006). Humanitarian aid logistics: supply chain management in high gear. Journal of the Operational research Society, 57(5), 475-489.
Warsini, S., Buettner, P., Mills, J., West, C., & Usher, K. (2014). The psychosocial impact of the environmental damage caused by the MT Merapi eruption on survivors in Indonesia. EcoHealth, 11(4), 491-501.
Waugh Jr, W. L., & Streib, G. (2006). Collaboration and leadership for effective emergency management. Public administration review, 66, 131-140.
Wise, C. R. (2006). Organizing for homeland security after Katrina: Is adaptive management what’s missing?. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 302-318.
Woolf, N. H., & Silver, C. (2017). Qualitative analysis using NVivo: The five-level QDA® method. Routledge.
Yang, J., Chen, J., Liu, H., Zhang, K., Ren, W., & Zheng, J. (2013). The Chinese national emergency medical rescue team response to the Sichuan Lushan earthquake. Natural Hazards, 69(3), 2263-2268.
Yang, Y. (2010). The 9/21 earthquake in Taiwan: a local government disaster rescue system 1. Disasters, 34(1), 112-136.
.
Main Article Content
Abstract
One of the most significant eruptions of Merapi that occurred was the eruption of Merapi in October November 2010 (Pallister, et al. 2013). At that time, the impact of the eruption of Merapi was tremendous. The flow of hot clouds swept the area on the slopes of Merapi. The cleaning of the hot clouds also caused casualties, either death or injury. The eruption of Merapi in 2010, which is indicated as a 100-year eruption period, caused extensive and massive damage and loss of community livelihood assets. Damage and loss assessment is divided into 5 (five) sectors: settlement, infrastructure, social, economy and cross-sector. This research is a qualitative descriptive study. this study uses information on websites, in newspapers, and government reports. These data are used to support the statements given by the interviewees. All documents processed through the NVivo application. The finding of this article is Local governments are considered slow in responding and distributing information. Apart from that, the problem of limited resources has resulted in the obstruction of resource mobilization. Budget constraints, disruption of regional government functions, and the insufficient number of government human resources have resulted in slow mobilization. However, the local government succeeded in optimizing NGO's / NPO's and also volunteers in emergency response efforts. Finally, the government's slow performance was covered by NPO's/NGO's and volunteers. NPOs/NGOs and volunteers have a very significant role in the emergency response to the eruption of Mount Merapi.
Keywords
Article Details
