micro-level vulnerability and capacity assessment for ... assessment and coping mechanism related to...

VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT AND COPING MECHANISM RELATED TO FLOODS IN URBAN AREAS: A COMMUNITY‐BASED

CASE STUDY IN KAMPUNG MELAYU, INDONESIA

Thesis submitted to the Graduate School, Faculty of Geography, Gadjah Mada University in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Science in Geo‐Information for Spatial Planning and Risk Management

U G M

By: Mone Iye Cornelia Marschiavelli

19547/PS/MGISPRM/06 [email protected]

Supervisor: 1. Dr. Pramono Hadi, MSc. 2. Dr. Michael K. McCall 3. Drs Nanette Kingma

GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR GEO‐INFORMATION SCIENCE AND

EARTH OBSERVATION 2008

mailto:[email protected]

THESIS

VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT AND COPING MECHANISM RE D

By: Mone Iye Corn Marschiavelli

Has been approved in Yogyakarta

By Team of pervisors:

Chairman

Prof. Dr tikno

LATED TO FLOODS IN URBAN AREAS: A COMMUNITY‐BASECASE STUDY IN KAMPUNG MELAYU, INDONESIA

elia 19547/PS/MGISPRM/06

17521

February 2008 Su

. Su

External xaminer

Prof. Dr. V. G. Victor) Jetten

E

(

Dr. Hartono, DESS

DEA,

Supervisor 1:

Dr. Pramon Hadi, MSc.

o

Supervisor 2:

Dr. Michael K. McCall

Supervisor 3:

Drs Nanet Kingma

te

Certif d by: Program Director of Geo‐Informat Planning and Risk Management,

Dr. H.A. Sud yakto, M.S.

ie

ion for SpatialGraduate School Faculty of Geography, Gadjah Mada University

ib

DISCLAIMER

This document describes work undertaken as part of a programme of study at the Double

P

Marschiavelli, M.I.C

Degree International Programme of Geo‐Information for Spatial Planning and Risk Management, a Joint rogram of International Institute for Geo‐Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC) ‐ The Netherlands and Gadjah Mada University ‐ Indonesia. All views and opinions expressed therein remain the sole responsibility of the author, and do not necessarily represent those of the institute.

Vulnerability Assessment and Coping Mechanism Related to Floods In Urban Areas: a Community‐based Case Study in Kampung Melayu, Indonesia

Abstract Flooding has become a serious problem in Jakarta. During floods of 2007, Kampung Melayu in the Jatinegara, East Jakarta was the worst hit by the floods. Community have different perceptions on disaster and develop different effort to overcome the hazards. Therefore, local government and relevant institution should investigate this situation and make this information a valuable input in developing and implementing response plans. This research tries to explore the vulnerability as well as the capacity for flood management based on local people’s perception. There were 83 households interviewed using questionnaire. Certain elements at risk related with physical and socio‐economic aspects were identified. Physical information concerned the building structure and building contents. Several socio‐economic characteristics were used as key indicators to analyze the vulnerability of people. In addition, information about flood occurrence, and existing coping mechanisms based on people’s perception also discussed in this research. Generally, the result of this research shows that the ability of people to cope with the flooding is linked with the capacity of the people itself. The capability of people to deal with flooding was influenced by several indicators based on their socio‐economic characteristics. For example, lower income people will experience more suffering than the wealthier, because they cannot afford the costs of repair, reconstruction, or relocation after floods. Although the wealthier are likely to experience a higher degree of economic damage due to possessions of higher value. Several existing coping strategies employed by the local people and local government are discussed in this study. However, all coping strategies and flood measures are not enough to cope with flooding in the study area. Local government and people in this area should cooperate to reduce the impact of flooding using the knowledge of how to address disasters effectively through people’s participation in the process. Keywords: Jakarta, Kampung Melayu, flooding, participatory studies, vulnerability assessment, risk perception, coping mechanism.

i


Acknowledgements It is very difficult to list and thank each and every individual who contributed to this thesis since it has indeed been a collaborative effort of many and it would not have been possible for me to finish it without the valuable inputs and comments. From the bottom of my heart, I gratefully acknowledge and give thanks to each one of them: To the Bappenas and Netherlands Education Centre, for providing a scholarship to pursue higher education in Gadjah Mada University (GMU) and ITC; to GMU, for providing me a place for studying in the great city of Yogyakarta and to the ITC, for providing a wonderful education environment to learning, working and also having fun during my time in Netherlands. To the Marine Natural Resources Survey Centre of BAKOSURTANAL, that allows me to study and chase my dream. Special thanks goes to Drs. Suwahyuono, MSc, Drs. Suprajaka, MSi, Drs. A.B. Suriadi, MSc and my officemates, for their support during my study. To my supervisors: Dr. Pramono Hadi, M.Sc, for his attention and guidance from the very start of this thesis; Dr. M.K.McCall, who first introduced me to the “participatory approach” in Disaster Management during my class in ITC, continued guiding me, giving comments and supporting between his busy schedule; and to Drs Nannete Kingma, for her comments, excellent ideas and invaluable assistance until I can finish my thesis. To all lecturer and staff members in GMU and ITC, for their support and guidance, especially to Dr. Hartono DEA,DESS, Dr. Sudibyakto, Dr. Junun Sartohadi, Drs. Robert Voskuil, Dr. Michel Damen, Dr. David G. Rossiter, Danang and Emma. To all parties who involved during my fieldwork: the officials of Kelurahan Kampung Melayu, Jakarta for allowing me to carry out the research in their area and providing the official documents and their valuable input on my subject matter; Mr. Jaka Suryanta in PSSDAD BAKOSURTANAL and the Action Contre la Faim for supplying documents and data, Dhina for accompanying me during my fieldwork in Kampung Melayu. My intellectual discussion partner: Saut Sagala and Graciella Peters Guarin, for their support and inspiring discussion. To my Geo‐info classmates, who always make both Bogor and Yogyakarta or even Enschede, a home for me. Special thanks to Arif, Maya and Budi ‐ The best friend anyone could ask for. I never believe that friendship is truly “a single soul dwelling in two bodies” until I met you all. To my soulmates: Wongga Abadi, the only true gentleman on earth who introduced me to harmony and made me fall in love with it ‐ your companion is my cup of tea. My little daughter: Harmonie Toviel, thanks for being my little angel. To my family, that always showering me with an unconditional love, for giving me the privilege of free‐thinking, the opportunity to explore the world and the freedom to make mistakes and learn from them. And last but not least, I would like to give thanks to My Saviour, Jesus Christ, who always showers me with His abundant love. God is good!!

Mone Iye Cornelia Marschiavelli February 2008

ii


Table of contents Abstract .........................................................................................................................................................i Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................. ii Table of contents ...................................................................................................................................... iii List of figures ..............................................................................................................................................v List of tables ............................................................................................................................................. vii Abbreviations .........................................................................................................................................viii 1. General Introduction of Research ................................................................................................. 1

1. 1 Urban Floods and Vulnerability............................................................................................. 1 1. 2 Research Context – Floods of 2007......................................................................................... 2 1. 3 Research Problem..................................................................................................................... 3 1. 4 Research Objectives.................................................................................................................. 3 1. 5 Research Conceptual Framework .......................................................................................... 3 1. 6 Research Questions .................................................................................................................. 4 1. 7 Benefits of the study................................................................................................................. 5 1. 8 Limitations................................................................................................................................. 5 1. 9 Research Design and Thesis Structure................................................................................... 5

2. Review of Related Literature.......................................................................................................... 9 2. 1 Definitions of Vulnerability .................................................................................................... 9 2. 2 Vulnerability Assessment Methods ..................................................................................... 11 2. 3 Community‐Based Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM) ............................................... 13

3. Study Area and Research Method............................................................................................... 16 3. 1 Case Study Area: Kampung Melayu, Jakarta ..................................................................... 16

3.1.1 General Information of Jakarta .................................................................................... 16 3.1.2 Flooding in Jakarta ........................................................................................................ 18 3.1.3 Characteristic of Kelurahan Kampung Melayu ........................................................ 21

3. 2 Research Process..................................................................................................................... 23 3.2.1 Pre‐fieldwork ................................................................................................................. 23 3.2.2 Fieldwork ....................................................................................................................... 25 3.2.3 Post‐fieldwork................................................................................................................ 30

4. Respondent’s Perception on Flooding in Kampung Melayu ................................................. 32 4. 1 Flood Occurrence in Kelurahan Kampung Melayu........................................................... 32 4. 2 Households’ Flood Information ........................................................................................... 38 4. 3 Flood Risk Perception ............................................................................................................ 41 4. 4 Summary and Conclusion..................................................................................................... 43

5. Analysis of Elements Risk due to Flooding in Kampung Melayu........................................ 45 5. 1 Information of Building Structure........................................................................................ 45

5.1.1 Wall Material.................................................................................................................. 45 5.1.2 Floor Material................................................................................................................. 46 5.1.3 Roof Material ................................................................................................................. 47 5.1.4 Combination wall–floor–roof material ....................................................................... 48 5.1.5 Number of floor ............................................................................................................. 50 5.1.6 Building age ................................................................................................................... 51

5. 2 Building Contents................................................................................................................... 52 5. 3 Characteristics of the People at Risk .................................................................................... 53

5.3.1 Age of the respondents................................................................................................. 53 5.3.2 Gender of the respondents ........................................................................................... 54 5.3.3 Occupation ..................................................................................................................... 54

iii


5.3.4 Income............................................................................................................................. 55 5.3.5 Educational Level .......................................................................................................... 56 5.3.6 Length of Stay ................................................................................................................ 57 5.3.7 Housing Status............................................................................................................... 57

5. 4 Summary and Conclusion..................................................................................................... 58 6. Analysis of Vulnerability Assessment ....................................................................................... 60

6. 1 Vulnerability of Building Structure to Flood...................................................................... 60 6. 2 Vulnerability of Building Contents to Flood ...................................................................... 64 6. 3 Vulnerability of People to flooding...................................................................................... 68 6. 4 Summary and Conclusion..................................................................................................... 70

7. Coping Mechanism ........................................................................................................................ 72 7. 1 Community Coping Mechanism.......................................................................................... 72 7. 2 Flood Forecasting and Early Warning System (EWS) ....................................................... 78 7. 3 Flood Management by Government.................................................................................... 80 7. 4 Summary and Conclusion..................................................................................................... 82

8. Conclusion and Recommendation .............................................................................................. 83 8. 1 Conclusion and Main Findings ............................................................................................ 83 8. 2 Contributions of this research............................................................................................... 85 8. 3 Recommendations for Future Studies ................................................................................. 85

References.................................................................................................................................................. 86 Appendix ................................................................................................................................................... 89

iv


List of figures Figure 1‐1: Jakarta Flood Inundation Map (a) year 2002 and (b) year 2007 ....................................... 1 Figure 1‐2: As population continues to grow, settlements spread

to marginal and even unsafe areas ...................................................................................... 2 Figure 1‐3: Research Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................ 3 Figure 1‐4: Research Design...................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2‐1 : The Double Structure of vulnerability.............................................................................. 10 Figure 2‐2: BBC Model ‐ integrating exposure and coping capacity into

three types of vulnerability ................................................................................................ 11 Figure 2‐3: Various Stakeholders and Actors in the CBDRM Process .............................................. 14 Figure 3‐1: Rivers and main drains of Jakarta ...................................................................................... 17 Figure 3‐2: Flood areas in Jakarta, Depok and Tangerang ................................................................. 18 Figure 3‐3: Rainfall prediction for February 2007 in all parts of Indonesia ..................................... 19 Figure 3‐4: Rainfall pattern 1999 – 2005 ................................................................................................ 19 Figure 3‐5: Sea tide pattern on February 2002 and 2007 ..................................................................... 20 Figure 3‐6: Garbage dumping and buildings along the Ciliwung River.......................................... 20 Figure 3‐7: Flood’s 2007 Casualties and Damages............................................................................... 21 Figure 3‐8: Study area of the research ................................................................................................... 22 Figure 3‐9: Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of Kelurahan Kampung Melayu................................. 22 Figure 3‐10: During Flood in February 2007......................................................................................... 23 Figure 3‐11: Outline of the Research Process ....................................................................................... 24 Figure 3‐12: Administrative ladder of Jakarta Province ..................................................................... 26 Figure 3‐13: Stratified random sampling scheme ................................................................................ 27 Figure 3‐14: Spatial distribution of respondents in Kampung Melayu ............................................ 28 Figure 3‐15: Building inventory during fieldwork in Kampung Melayu......................................... 29 Figure 3‐16: Interview during fieldwork in Kampung Melayu ......................................................... 29 Figure 3‐17: Flood mark collected during field survey ....................................................................... 30 Figure 3‐18: Illustration of point with attributes collected during the fieldwork ........................... 31 Figure 4‐1: Gaussian semi‐variogram model for water depth (a) and water duration (b) dataset34 Figure 4‐2: Interpolated map for the water depth (a) and water duration (b)

during flood in February 2007 ........................................................................................... 35 Figure 4‐3: General overview for flood on February 2007 flood ....................................................... 36 Figure 4‐4: One way to connect Kampung Melayu and Bukit Duri.................................................. 37 Figure 4‐5: One of the point interests in Kampung Melayu............................................................... 37 Figure 4‐6: Water level in Kampung Melayu at different time.......................................................... 38 Figure 4‐7: Cause of flood based on household interview ................................................................. 39 Figure 4‐8: Garbage along the Ciliwung River..................................................................................... 39 Figure 4‐9: Reason for living in Kampung Melayu ............................................................................. 40 Figure 4‐10: Matrix of community‐based criteria for risk flood perception..................................... 42 Figure 4‐11: Flood risk perception based on household interview ................................................... 43 Figure 5‐1: Houses with mixed wall material ...................................................................................... 45 Figure 5‐2: Spatial distribution of buildings based on wall material ................................................ 46 Figure 5‐3: Spatial distribution of buildings based on floor material ............................................... 47 Figure 5‐4: Spatial distribution of buildings based on roof material ................................................ 47 Figure 5‐5: Spatial distribution of buildings based on structural type ............................................. 50 Figure 5‐6: Spatial distribution of buildings based on number of floor ........................................... 51 Figure 5‐7: Age of the building (house) in Kampung Melayu ........................................................... 51 Figure 5‐8: Spatial distribution of buildings based on building age ................................................. 51

v


Figure 5‐9: Example of building contents ............................................................................................. 52 Figure 5‐10: Values of households’ building contents ........................................................................ 53 Figure 5‐11: Histogram of age of respondents ..................................................................................... 53 Figure 5‐12: Distribution of respondents based on gender ................................................................ 54 Figure 5‐13: Distribution of respondents based on occupation ......................................................... 54 Figure 5‐14: Distribution of respondents based on educational level................................................ 57 Figure 5‐15: Distribution of respondents based on length of stay...................................................... 57 Figure 5‐16: Distribution of respondents based on land tenure ........................................................ 58 Figure 6‐1: Comparison of vulnerability curve for all structural type of building ......................... 63 Figure 6‐2: Map of building structure vulnerability............................................................................ 64 Figure 6‐3: Vulnerability function for building contents estimation. ............................................... 66 Figure 6‐4: Map of building contents vulnerability............................................................................. 67 Figure 6‐5: Comparison of Building Structure Vulnerability map (a)

with Building Contents Vulnerability map (b) ................................................................ 68 Figure 7‐1: Households’ Coping Mechanism ....................................................................................... 78 Figure 7‐2: The scheme of the Early Warning System in Kampung Melayu ................................... 78 Figure 7‐3: One of tools for EWS dissemination ................................................................................. 79 Figure 7‐4: Disaster Management Organizational Structure.............................................................. 80

vi


List of tables Table 1‐1: Research Sub Objectives and Research Questions................................................................ 4 Table 1‐2: Research Questions and Proposed Methods ........................................................................ 6 Table 2‐1: Vulnerability assessment methods at different scale ........................................................ 12 Table 3‐1: Land area and its usage by municipality in Jakarta .......................................................... 16 Table 3‐2: Nine major rivers (watersheds) in Jakarta .......................................................................... 17 Table 3‐3: History of Floods in Jakarta ................................................................................................... 18 Table 3‐4: House affected by the 2007 flood ......................................................................................... 23 Table 3‐5: Data Availability .................................................................................................................... 25 Table 3‐6: Non‐proportional random sampling of building .............................................................. 27 Table 4‐1 : One‐Sample Kolmogorov‐Smirnov test for water depth data set ................................... 32 Table 4‐2 : One‐Sample Kolmogorov‐Smirnov test for water duration data set .............................. 33 Table 4‐3: VCA (Vulnerability Capacity Assessment) matrix ............................................................ 40 Table 4‐4 : Community’s perception on flood intensity....................................................................... 42 Table 5‐1 : Wall material of buildings..................................................................................................... 45 Table 5‐2 : Floor material of buildings.................................................................................................... 46 Table 5‐3 : Roof material of buildings .................................................................................................... 47 Table 5‐4 : Combination wall and floor material .................................................................................. 48 Table 5‐5 : Combination floor and roof material................................................................................... 48 Table 5‐6 : Combination wall – floor ‐ roof material ............................................................................ 48 Table 5‐7 : Five common structural type of building in Kampung Melayu...................................... 49 Table 5‐8 : Number of floor...................................................................................................................... 50 Table 5‐9 : Combination of Wall Material and Number of floor ........................................................ 50 Table 5‐10: Income of the respondents .................................................................................................. 55 Table 5‐11: Statistical data of income vs. number of floors ................................................................ 55 Table 5‐12: Statistical data of income vs. values of building contents .............................................. 56 Table 5‐13: Duration of study ................................................................................................................. 56 Table 6‐1: Description of Stage of Damage of Structural Type of Building ..................................... 61 Table 6‐2 : Structural vulnerability class for each five structural types of building ........................ 63 Table 6‐3: Lists of assets for contents estimation ................................................................................. 64 Table 6‐4: Common damages on building contents based on households’ interviews.................. 65 Table 6‐5: Description of Stage of Damage of Building Contents ..................................................... 65 Table 6‐6: Water depth for building contents vulnerability assessment .......................................... 66 Table 6‐7: Vulnerability values for building contents ......................................................................... 67 Table 6‐8 : Building contents vulnerability class for each five structural types of building ........... 67 Table 6‐9: Socio‐economic indicators influencing social vulnerability ............................................. 69 Table 7‐1 : Households’ coping strategies before flooding ‐ preparations ........................................ 72 Table 7‐2 : Households’ coping strategies during flooding................................................................. 73 Table 7‐3 : Households’ coping strategies after flooding..................................................................... 74 Table 7‐4 : Households’ coping strategies before flooding based on gender.................................... 74 Table 7‐5 : Households’ coping strategies during flooding based on gender................................... 75 Table 7‐6 : Households’ coping strategies after flooding based on gender....................................... 76 Table 7‐7 : Community’s coping mechanisms....................................................................................... 77 Table 7‐8 : Flood alert level in Kampung Melayu................................................................................. 79 Table 7‐9 : Government’s coping strategies before flooding ............................................................... 81

vii


Abbreviations Bappenas National Development Planning Agency Bappeda Regional Development Planning Agency Bakosurtanal National Coordinating Agency for Survey and Mapping BAKORNAS PB National Coordinating Board for the Management of Disaster Satkorlak PB Provincial Disaster Coordinator Implementing Unit Satlak PB District Disaster Management Implementing Unit Satlinmas Village Disaster Management Implementing Unit BPS Central Bureau of Statistics BPPT Agency for The Assessment and Application of Technology BMG Meteorology and Geophysics Agency CBDRM Community‐based disaster risk management ISDR International Strategy for Disaster Reduction NGO Non‐governmental organization Kotamadya Municipality Kecamatan Sub‐District Kelurahan Village RW Rukun Warga RT Rukun Tetangga WHO World Health Organization UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNDRO United Nations Disaster Relief Organization (now DHA‐Geneva) ADPC Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre ISDR International Strategy for Disaster Reduction BPLHD Regional Environmental Monitoring Agency ACF Action Contre la Faim VCA Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment

viii


1. General Introduction of Research This chapter explains the general overview of this research, consisting of the background of the research, research problem, research objectives, research questions, research hypothesis, research design and timeframe, benefit of this study, limitations and thesis structure.

1. 1 Urban Floods and Vulnerability Jakarta as capital city of Indonesia is growing as one of the largest cities in South East Asia. The population has rapidly increased over the past ten years. Statistic data showed total population of Jakarta has reached 8.9 million in 2006 with population density about 13.547 people per square kilometre (BPS,2006). Floods in Jakarta annually occur during rainy season, triggered by heavy seasonal rain in December, January, February and March. Between the floods of 2002 and flood 2007 the inundation become wider and spread in all municipalities in Jakarta Province (see Figure 1‐1). The flood in February 2007 was considered as the largest flood that hit Jakarta in the last three centuries; almost 60% area of Jakarta was flooded. Based on the Emergency Situation Report #6 published by WHO (2007) more than 70,000 houses in Jakarta and surrounding were inundated. The range of water level varied from 10 centimetres to 7 meters.

Figure 1‐1: Jakarta Flood Inundation Map (a) year 2002 and (b) year 2007

Source: LAPAN & Kompas in Hutasoit (2007) UNDP (1992) implies that there is a strong correlation between the increase in population and the increase of damage and losses caused by a disaster. This rapid growth of population will subsequently affect inhabitants who live and work in flood‐prone areas (illustrated in Figure 1‐2). For example, peoples from low‐income families prefer to live along the riverbanks because they can’t afford the legal land in flood‐secure areas; it will of course lead to the increase of vulnerability. The word “vulnerability” has different and broader meanings and interpretations for different people, groups or organizations. Urban vulnerability based on Rashed and Weeks (2002) is a function of human behaviour, which describes how physical assets and socio‐economic characteristics in urban areas are either susceptible or resilient to the disaster impacts. Vulnerability varies over space and time because it is always modified by the human activities,

1


knowledge, social capital, etc. Therefore, vulnerability cannot be measured in absolute terms but should be assessed with reference to specific spatial and temporal scales.

Figure 1‐2: As population continues to grow, settlements spread

to marginal and even unsafe areas Source: UNDP (1992)

There are a lot of structural and non‐structural measures applied in order to reduce the impact of flood disasters, such as a levees or dams construction, flood forecasting and warning system, land use regulation and insurance. However, understanding of risk should be viewed as the primary and fundamental action in risk reduction. Risk perception and coping mechanisms can be used to improve mitigation and preparedness for natural disasters. Acquiring the knowledge of why and how certain groups are more vulnerable than others involves effective community participation. The result of risk assessment as well as coping mechanism learnt from local people can improve the risk perception level and can be used as an input in planning for local government and all stakeholders to cope with the flood.

1. 2 Research Context – Floods of 2007 The heavy rains started on Tuesday, 23 January 2007 in Bogor, Depok and southern parts of Jakarta which caused the overflowing of the Ciliwung River and the Pesanggrahan River; Jakarta was struck by the flood. The flood has inundated 60% of Jakarta and was considered much worse than the flood in 2002. The floodwater reached 7 meters in some parts of Jakarta (WHO 2007). The flood in 2007 inundated 3 provinces as cited in WHO(2007): 1. Jakarta Province: Central Jakarta, South Jakarta, East Jakarta, North Jakarta and West Jakarta. 2. Banten Province: Tangerang City, Tangerang District. 3. West Java Province: Bekasi City, Bekasi District, Bogor City and Depok City. The worst impact from floods in this time is likely to affect people who have a high vulnerability of both social economic and environmentally. That is especially the residents that live in slum areas, along riverbank or flood prone areas, stricken hard by floods and pertained to have a low income source. Geographically they are located around the Ciliwung River such as sub district of Jatinegara, Tebet, Kramatjati, and Makasar. Especially spread on Kampung Melayu, Cipinang, Cawang, Bidara Cina, Bukit Duri, Kebon Baru, and Bidara Cina.

2


1. 3 Research Problem Vulnerability assessments are necessary in order to reduce the impact of the next flooding event in Jakarta. Government already conducted many surveys to measure and assess flood damage, but the vulnerability assessment at the micro‐level (based on community data), including the coping mechanism of the community hasn’t been done yet. Therefore, this research is addressed to identify the people’s perception, identify certain elements at risk, assess the vulnerability of each of the element at risk, and assess the coping mechanism/capacities of the community. The result of this research can be used as a valuable input for local governments for making appropriate actions, policies and programs in the context of flood hazard management in this study are in order to reduce the risk of the flood hazard and to apply it in urban areas of Kampung Melayu, Indonesia.

1. 4 Research Objectives Main Objective The main objective of this study is to assess community‐level flood vulnerability, including hazard perception and identification of elements at risk, and local coping mechanisms, based on community surveys. Sub‐objectives

1. To determine the people’s perception about flood risk. 2. To determine, identify and classify certain elements at risk, which would be affected by

flood in the study area. 3. To assess the vulnerability related to key elements at risk (structural types of buildings,

building contents and people’s socio‐economic characteristics). 4. To identify the current coping capacities (coping strategies) employed by the local

people and local government.

1. 5 Research Conceptual Framework

Figure 1‐3: Research Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework for this study is described and illustrated Figure 1‐3. Generally, this research is based on a conceptual framework of micro‐level flood vulnerability assessment method. Thus, the analytical framework developed for this study links the local knowledge to the elements at risk, the people’s perception and the coping mechanisms. Local knowledge is

3


very important for flood vulnerability assessment because local communities have lots of important local knowledge and local initiative to find solutions, also, communities become more involved, more transparency, higher feeling of ownership, better feedback to government, more ‘sustainable’. The combination of local knowledge and scientific or technical knowledge will provide better results in flood vulnerability analysis. As shown in Figure 1‐3, the concept of flood vulnerability consists of two components: exposure and coping capacity (Chambers 1989; Bohle 1994). First, the exposure is related to the susceptibility of people to suffer from flooding. Second, the coping capacity is related to the ability of people to respond and to cope with the impacts of disaster. Both exposure and coping capacity are function of socio‐economic as well as biophysical factors. The damaged elements at risk should be identified in order to determine the vulnerability. In this research certain elements at risk are identified. It is including physical elements at risk related to building structure and building contents, also several people’s socio‐economic characteristics, such as age, gender, occupation, income, education level, etc. People’s perception can influence both positive (related to exposure) and negative (related to capacity) related to flood vulnerability. Being aware of risks is an essential requirement for drawing up an action plan in risk reduction. It is very important because the outsiders maybe didn’t know what the community itself needs. In flood vulnerability assessment context, coping mechanism is related to the internal side of vulnerability, which is the ability of people to reduce the flood damage. The people who live in flood prone areas usually develop a number of traditional methods for coping with floods. This information should be integrated with the mitigation plans developed by the government to minimize the adverse impacts of floods.

1. 6 Research Questions The research questions corresponding to each sub objective are summarized in Table 1‐1 below.

Table 1‐1: Research Sub Objectives and Research Questions

No. Sub Objectives Questions

1. To determine people’s perceptions about flood risk.

What are people’s perceptions of flooding in study area?

What is their knowledge of flood hazards? E.g. frequency and spatial location?

What is the perception of risk from flooding in this study area?

2. To determine, identify and classify certain elements at risk, which would be affected by flooding in the study area.

How to get the information about certain element at risk due to flooding?

What are the appropriate elements at risk due to flooding in the study area to be analyzed?

3. To assess the vulnerability related to key elements at risk (structural types of buildings, building contents and people’s socio‐economic characteristics).

What are the relationships between flood‐depth, flood duration and vulnerability for each element at risk (structural types of buildings, building contents and vulnerability of people)?

What is the spatial distribution of vulnerability for those elements at risk?

4


4. To identify the current coping capacities (coping strategies)employed by the local people and local government.

What are the people’s current actions to reduce the impact of flood?

What are the local government regulations and practices in relation to flood disaster management in this study area?

1. 7 Benefits of the study The benefits of this research hopefully can be used by the local government and many stakeholders especially those who have an interest in flood risk management, such as:

1. It performs household surveys using questionnaires and in‐depth interview for certain element at risk to estimate the physical and social vulnerability in urban areas.

2. It can be used as a tool to assess the micro‐level vulnerability both for physical and socio‐economic aspects.

3. It visualizes the flood risk based on local people’s perception within risk map perception.

4. It may represent the situation before, during and after the flood, especially information about coping mechanism that can be used as a valuable input to improve the capacities of local people and minimize the flood risk.

5. It may result in policy recommendation by local government to reduce the flood risk in urban areas.

1. 8 Limitations The type of flood considered in this study is river flood which is based on the increase of river water. The building footprint collected before fieldwork was in poly line shape file. Due to lack of time, and because the buildings in this area are very dense, the author didn’t have time to generate the detailed building footprint. The representation of each house spatially using mobile PDA was in point shape file instead of polygon shape file. The household survey was conducted only over a short period, in practice only three weeks in the field and there were no preliminary activities prepared before fieldwork. Since this is a research that integrated physical and social aspect based on people’s answers, it needs more time to build a strong relationship among interviewer and respondents to give better results. In‐depth interview isn’t enough to gather as much information as possible; it should be supported with other tools, for example with FGD (Focus Group Discussion). This research envisioned the flood extent, flood duration and risk perception based on people’s memory, and did not itself consider other hydrological and morphological aspects. During the process of this research, it is assumed that people’s answers should represent the actual flood situation that happened in that area. The result of this community‐level participatory research can be later compared against conventional hydrological hazard assessments. Coping mechanism conducted by the local people represents the real activities in risk reduction because the society which lives in this area already has many experiences to fight the flood.

1. 9 Research Design and Thesis Structure This research consists of four main parts (Figure 1‐4). The first step is determining the local people’s perception of risk due to flood in study area, while the second step is identification of elements at risk based on data gathered from fieldwork. The third step is vulnerability assessment for certain elements at risk evaluated from physical (structural) and social point of

5


view and the last is identification of the existing coping strategies (coping mechanisms) in community to reduce the impact of the flood.

Figure 1‐4: Research Design

Table 1‐2 below shows the research questions and the proposed methods that will be done in this research.

Table 1‐2: Research Questions and Proposed Methods

Sub Objectives

Research Questions

Proposed Methods

1. What is people’s perception of flooding in study area?

Interview (using questionnaires) with households.

Collect data on flood depth and flood duration to generate the community‐based flood occurrence map.

2. What is their knowledge of flood hazards? E.g. frequency and spatial location?


1.

3. What is perception of risk from flooding in this study area?

Data analysis using water depth and water duration information gathered from household interview.

2. 1. How to get the information about certain element at risk due to flood?

Field survey using questionnaire Mobile PDA and GPS to map the houses and record the characteristics of elements at risk.

6


2. What are the appropriate elements at risk due to flooding in the study area to be analyzed?

Classification based on previous step (2.1)

1. What are the relationships between

flood‐depth, flood duration and vulnerability for each element at risk (structural types of buildings, building contents and people’s socio‐‐economic characteristics)?

Interview of elements at risk that get damaged during flood (using questionnaires) with respondents.

Elements at risk classification. Data analysis for each element at risk (structural type of building, building contents and people’s vulnerability).

3.

2. What is the spatial distribution of vulnerability for those elements at risk?

Plot and link the result from the previous step spatially.

Make a vulnerability map. 1. What are the people’s current

actions to reduce the impact of flood?


4.

2. What are the local government regulations and practice in relation to flood disaster management in this study area?

Interview with contact person (community leader, local government and NGO).

This research contains of eight chapters; each chapter will described briefly in the following section. Chapter 1 ‐ Introduction This chapter contains a general idea of this research, from background and context, followed with research problem, objectives, questions, which this study concentrates on. It continues with research design and time allocated for all research process, benefits and limitations of this study. Chapter 2 ‐ Literature Review It provides the theoretical background from available literatures related with this research. Chapter 3 ‐ Study Area and Research Methods This section presents the brief description of study area and the factors that possibly cause flooding, site selection, sampling method and research methodology. Research method divides into three stages: pre‐fieldwork, fieldwork and post‐fieldwork. Each stage explains in deep discussion. Chapter 4 – Respondents’ Perception of Flooding in Kampung Melayu This chapter looks at the respondents’ information related to flood, including flood height and flood duration and VCA (Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment) matrix to see the vulnerabilities and capacities of community. In addition, their perception of floods risk, whether it is perceived as normal, manageable, unmanageable or disastrous for them is also discussed in this chapter. Chapter 5 – Analysis of Elements Risk due to Flooding in Kampung Melayu This chapter shows certain elements at risk, both physical elements, and the people at risk collected from field survey. The physical information about the buildings includes structural type of building, number of floors and age of building, also building contents inside the house. It is followed by the key socio‐economic characteristics of respondents in Kampung Melayu.

7


Chapter 6 ‐ Analysis of Vulnerability Assessment It analyzes physical and social vulnerability based on building structure and building contents, and on the characteristics of the people of the area. Chapter 7 ‐ Coping Mechanism It shows the coping mechanism implemented in the community before, during and after flood. It is followed by further explanation for each stage into three types of mechanism in terms of technological, economic and social aspects Chapter 8 ‐ Conclusion and Recommendation This chapter provides the conclusions on result of this study and offers suggestions needed for further research.

8


2. Review of Related Literature This chapter discusses the related literatures used to support this research. It describes the definition of vulnerability, vulnerability assessment methods and Community‐Based Disaster Risk Management.

2. 1 Definitions of Vulnerability The word “vulnerability” has different meanings and interpretations for different people. It arises as a consequence of the different needs confronted by each particular group to deal with particular issues of the potential impacts of disasters. ADPC (2004) divides vulnerability into four types:

1. Physical vulnerability (building age, construction, material, infrastructures, lifeline facilities)

2. Social vulnerability (risk perception and way of life related with culture, religion, ethnic, social interaction, age, gender, attitude of population poverty )

3. Economic vulnerability (income, investments, potential loss of stock) 4. Environmental vulnerability (water, air, land, flora and fauna)

Chambers (1989) defines vulnerability as the “exposure to contingencies and stresses and the difficulty which some communities experience while coping with such contingencies and stresses”. He introduces two sides of vulnerability:

External: related to exposure to external shocks and stresses. Internal: related with defencelessness, incapacity to cope without damaging losses.

According to Chambers, assets like labour (human) and money can influence the community to cope with disaster; it depends on how people manage those assets. Further explanation about the double structure of the vulnerability concept is brought by Bohle (1994). In this context, he explains that the external side of vulnerability is related to the exposure to stresses and shocks influenced by: human ecology perspectives, entitlement theory and political economy approaches. While on the internal side, the vulnerability theory is related with the coping strategy and influenced by: action theory approaches, models of access to assets and crisis and conflict theory (Figure 2‐1). According to Pelling (2003), vulnerability can be defined as the exposure to risk and an the inability to avoid or absorb potential harm. He divides vulnerability into three components: physical vulnerability as the vulnerability of the physical environment, social vulnerability as experienced by people and their social, economic, and political systems and human vulnerability as the combination of physical and social vulnerability, also individual behavioural/psychological components of individuals. ISDR (2004) introduces vulnerability as “conditions determined by physical, social, economic, and environmental factors or processes, which increase the susceptibility of a community to the impact of hazards.” Physical vulnerability can be determined using several aspects, such as population density, remoteness of a settlement, location, and construction materials and techniques employed to build infrastructure. Social vulnerability is linked to social issues such as levels of well‐being of individuals, gender, health, literacy, education, the existence of peace and security, access to human rights, social equity, traditional values, beliefs, and organisational systems. Some groups are more vulnerable than others. People less privileged in class or caste structures, ethnic minorities, the very young and very old and marginalized segments of the population are more likely to be exposed to greater risk. Gender issues, particularly the role of

9


women, and social insecurity related with social power relation are also important aspects in social vulnerability. In contrast, economic vulnerability related to issues of poverty (economic status) and it can include levels of individual, community, and national economic reserves, levels of debt, degrees of access to credits, loans, and insurance, and economic diversity. Finally, the environmental vulnerability includes natural resource depletion and environmental degradation. Several elements that can influence environmental vulnerability are exposure to toxic and hazardous pollutants, reduced access to clean air, water, and sanitation, as well as inappropriate forms of waste management.

Figure 2‐1 : The Double Structure of vulnerability

Source: Bohle (1994) The physical aspects of vulnerability assessment can answer the questions, such as: What is vulnerable? Where is it vulnerable? While socio‐economic aspects of vulnerability answer the questions: Who is vulnerable? How have they become vulnerable? Attributes of groups and individuals, such as socio‐economic class, ethnicity, caste membership, gender, age, physical disability and religion are among the characteristics that differentiate vulnerability to hazards. Socio‐economic vulnerability assessments rely on more conventional methods, which provide other opportunities and advantages, such as the active involvement of the communities at risk in mapping and assessment exercises. Besides all terminology above, there is a model concerning risks and vulnerabilities that has been developed by Birkmann (2005); it is called BBC model. This model is a combination of the model of Birkmann, and Bogardi and the model of Cardona. It integrates the aspects of exposure and coping capacities that is originally proposed by Chambers and Bohle within vulnerability. The three types of vulnerabilities presented in the BBC model: economic‐, social‐, and environmental‐ vulnerability, are influenced by both exposure and coping capacities, as can be seen in Figure 2‐2.

10


Figure 2‐2: BBC Model ‐ integrating exposure and coping capacity into

three types of vulnerability Source: Birkmann (2005)

2. 2 Vulnerability Assessment Methods As it has been explained in the previous pages, vulnerability is also influenced by social, economic and political factors. It means in order to get a better analysis of vulnerability; we must identify the social, economic or political dimensions of risk assessment that considered contributing to vulnerability. Numerous tools have been developed to assess the vulnerability. The eight step method for vulnerability assessment proposed by Polsky et al. (2003):

1. Define the study area in tandem with stakeholders 2. Become aware of the study area and its contexts 3. Hypothesize who is vulnerable to what 4. Develop a causal model of vulnerability 5. Find indicators for the components of vulnerability 6. Weight and combine the indicators 7. Project future vulnerability 8. Communicate vulnerability creatively

Villagran (2006) compared several vulnerability assessment methods at different scales: national, mega city and local scale. Vulnerability assessment for national level, mega city level and local level was shown in Table 2‐1.

11


Table 2‐1: Vulnerability assessment methods at different scale

No. Methods Remarks A National level 1. The Disaster – Risk Index:

developed by BCPR‐UNDP Simple and straightforward calculation, based on historical vulnerability (mortality and losses) for various types of hazards.

2. The Hot‐Spots Model: developed by World Bank

Similar with BCPR, simple and straightforward calculation of the vulnerability coefficients (disaster related mortality and losses).

3. The Composite Vulnerability Index for Small Island States

The indicator is only sensible to those events within the period used for the calculation. Given the structure of the index, it is only employed at the national level. It cannot be adapted to lower levels such as municipal or local levels.

4. Small Island Developing States: Natural Disaster Vulnerability Indicators

The method combines the five indicators using equal weights for each one and represents vulnerability in a scale from 1 to 4, 1 being most vulnerable and 4 being least vulnerable.

B Mega city level 5. Mega cities method

vulnerability assessment: carried out by Munich Re

The index makes use of information on the current status of the city in terms of infrastructure and population, and is not based on historical outcomes of previous disasters.

C Local Scale 6. Vulnerability and Risk at

Local Level Use several indicators to assess the four types of vulnerability factors (ISDR) at the municipal level. The method includes the use of data currently available from municipal and national sources, as well as a questionnaire to acquire the remaining data.

7. Household Sector Approach The method is based on the consideration of a very high magnitude event, but cannot cope with small‐magnitude events. It requires a specific survey at the household level to gather information on the four types of vulnerabilities within the housing sector for each house.

8. Vulnerability at the Community Level Using Census Data

This method provides the comparison of vulnerabilities among different communities. Primary data mainly from community through interview and questionnaires.

9. Normalizing Vulnerability and Risk to Compare Communities

The method can be used to compare small and large communities. Vulnerability is assessed at the level of towns and cities using data representing aggregation of parameters at this level.

10. Holistic Approach for Seismic Risk in Cities

Vulnerability is represented within the method as a combination of exposure, social fragility and lack of resilience. The method requires a specific survey to gather information on three sub‐indices, but can be applied rather easily in any city.

Source: Villagran (2006)

12


Based on the result of comparison of vulnerability assessment performed by Villagran (2006) above and regarding the main objectives of this research to conduct vulnerability assessment based on community perception (micro‐scale level), therefore the vulnerability at the community level is the most appropriate. Data and information can be gathered using in‐depth interviews, questionnaires, mapping, etc. The comparison of vulnerabilities among different groups in communities based on several key factors such as gender, age, educational level and income is also possible to evaluate using this method. One of the methods for assessing the vulnerability with the emphasis on participatory and people oriented approaches is Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment (VCA). Based on Davis et. al (2004), the aims of the VCA are: 1. Identify and measure the specific vulnerable individuals/groups, based on key social

characteristics such as gender, age, health status, disability, ethnicity, etc. 2. Analyze the density patterns, livelihood security and occupational activities that increase the

vulnerability of certain households and communities. 3. Identify the resources: community coping strategies, local leadership and institutions,

existing social capital which may contribute to risk reduction efforts, skills, labor, community facilities, preparedness stocks, a local evacuation plan, etc.

4. Identify the local perception of risk, which can play a key role in determining risk and community prioritization of mitigation measures.

That information can be used as an input for decision making in order to reduce the impact of the disaster. Davis et. al (2004) also states that vulnerability is different from one individual/group to others and it always specific, mostly it act locally. Therefore, in order to get the more accurate of VCA, it is confined to smaller scale area, such as a particular community, village or small town. During its process, it is including the participatory approach and active long‐term engagement with communities to define their own problems and opportunities. The more active participation will provide more reliable and qualitative understanding of the vulnerabilities and capacities of the groups concerned.

2. 3 Community‐Based Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM) In general, aftermath of the disaster, responses are provided and managed at different levels in the form of relocation and zoning strategies, infrastructure rehabilitation, and restructuring of early warning systems. The problem is that most of the flood mitigation strategies are top‐down system. Communities have no role in either the planning of disaster management, allocation of resources or implementation of the plan. Community‐based disaster risk management (CBDRM) is essential for numerous reasons. First, communities are the ones who suffer the most. Second, community‐based organizations act (ADPC 2004)to securing local support and ownership. Community involvement is also needed in planning for disaster management, because in many cases there is a missing link between the disaster response actually needed and what is provided. Information of what makes a person or a community more vulnerable than another determines the next steps to reduce their risk. This information is very important in dealing with the disaster (UNDP 1994). CBDRM also identifies that different people have different perceptions of risk. For example, men and women who may have different understanding the risk and coping strategies also may have a different perception of risk; therefore, they may have different views to reduce the risks (ADPC 2004).

13


Shah and Kenji (2004) describe that the CBDRM approach is basically people and development oriented. With this approach, people empowers to address the root causes of vulnerabilities by transforming social, economic and political structures that generate inequality and underdevelopment According to WHO (1989), all communities and villages have some important assets to deal with disasters. These may include knowledge of disaster warning signs, locally safe and vulnerable areas, experience of past disasters, methods of survival and social relations that are often vitally important in coping with crisis. Local communities have an active part to play before, during, and after disasters because:

A good state of disaster preparedness may reduce its impacts More lives can be saved during the first few hours after a disaster has occurred through local response teams, before help arrives from elsewhere.

The numerous problems of survival and health resulting from a disaster are dealt with more efficiently, if the community is active and well organized.

The CBDRM process consists of various stakeholders and actors, which are divided into two groups, the Insiders and the Outsiders (see Figure 2‐3). The Insiders mean every individual, family, organization, and stakeholder within a community. CBDRM organization is the crucial point among the Insider, because it can ensure the implementation of disaster risk reduction measures. The CBDRM organization should organize all aspect in the community; men, women, farmers, traders, labourers, youths, elders and other people with special needs to implement the multitude of actions. In order to do that, the CDRM organization should identify different perceptions and interests among the numerous stakeholders in the community. While the Outsiders include the government offices and agencies, NGOs, UN, private sector and other outside agencies, who want to reduce the vulnerability in those community and develop its capacities for disaster risk management. They can provide the technical, material, financial and political support ((Abarquez and Murshed 2004).

Figure 2‐3: Various Stakeholders and Actors in the CBDRM Process

Source: Abarquez and Murshed (2004) Local knowledge is the most important factor in the CBDRM. Minang and McCall (2006) describe some weaknesses and significant characteristics of the indigenous and local knowledge. Some weaknesses of indigenous and local knowledge are the difficulties in communities to

14


predict what happens next if the situations are new or changed, lack of ways of information is stored and communicated and only a little quantification of information can be used for analysis. Generally, the local knowledge’s is created from the links of local people, their land and their natural resources. It consists of classification structures, employs particular methodologies and holistic because it can be used for decision‐making in many sectors. Therefore, the root causes of a disaster and some practical coping mechanism are already develop by the communities and can be identified and can be used as valuable input in risk reduction action. In addition, UNDP (1992) states that the participation of all individuals in the community is the main key to help the recovery process because through them, the appropriate coping strategies will be most successfully utilized.

15


3. Study Area and Research Method This chapter introduces the general overview of the study area and the methodology and process used for this research. The discussion section about the study area starts with general information of the study area, the flooding phenomenon in Jakarta and also the characteristics of Kelurahan Kampung Melayu. The process of this research divides into three sections: pre‐fieldwork, fieldwork and post‐fieldwork.

3. 1 Case Study Area: Kampung Melayu, Jakarta

3.1.1 General Information of Jakarta Jakarta, located on the northwest coast of the island of Java (6˚12’ S and 106˚48’ E), has an area of 661.52 km². Administratively, Jakarta Province is divided into five municipalities: Central Jakarta, South Jakarta, North Jakarta, West Jakarta and East Jakarta. Administratively, Kampung Melayu is located in East Jakarta municipality. The total population of Jakarta has reached 8.9 million in 2006 with a population density of about 13.547 people per square kilometre (BPS 2006). The rapid growth caused extensive land exploitation. Statistic data from BPS (2005) showed 85% of total coverage of Jakarta already occupied (Table 3‐1).

Table 3‐1: Land area and its usage by municipality in Jakarta

Municipality Housing Industry Office and Warehouse

Park Others Area

Central Jakarta 2,915.40 71.59 1,154.53 197.13 451.35 4,790.00 South Jakarta 10,408.92 184.86 1,929.93 224.95 1,824.34 14,573.00 North Jakarta 7,780.07 1,768.19 1,683.94 155.08 2,832.72 14,220.00 West Jakarta 9,068.04 403.39 1,384.99 248.19 1,510.39 12,615.00 East Jakarta 13,672.56 895.10 1,997.55 259.54 1,948.25 18,773.00 Jakarta (land) 43,844.99 3,323.13 8,150.94 1,084.89 8,567.05 64,971.00 Seribu Island 351.12 235.87 111.44 0 482.57 1181

Total 44,196.11 3,559.00 8,262.38 1,084.89 9,049.62 66,152.00 Source: BPS (2005) Approximately 40% areas of Jakarta Province is lowland area, some of them even below sea level. This lowland area mostly exists in North Jakarta Municipality. Situated on the coastal lowlands bordering with the Java Sea, Jakarta has become very vulnerable to be flooded. Thirteen rivers flow within this area (Figure 3‐1). In the east, there are Cakung, Kramat Jati, Buaran, Sunter and Cipinang rivers. In the central area, there are Ciliwung, Cideng, and Krukut rivers, while in the west, the Grogol, Sekretaris, Pasanggrahan, Mokervaart, and Angke rivers flow. Among those thirteen rivers, nine of them are categorized as major rivers with total coverage are about 106,000 ha. Sinukaban and Kadri (2005) reported that the average annual rainfall of 17 stations (1972‐1999) all over the watersheds is 2,973 mm and calculated the total water resources throughout Jakarta is about 3.151 billion cubic meters per year (centimeter/year). Table 3‐2 showed the major rivers flowing in Jakarta with total area, length, lowest and highest elevation for each river.

16


Figure 3‐1: Rivers and main drains of Jakarta Source: NEDECO (2002) in Caljouw et. al (2005)

Table 3‐2: Nine major rivers in Jakarta

Rivers/watershed Area (sq km) Length (m) Lowest elevation (m)

Highest elevation (m)

Cakung 55 33 6 90 Buaran 30 23 9 45 Sunter 73 40 12 122 Cipinang 48 36 12 107 Ciliwung 347 117 8 2908 Krukut 98 37 7 117 Grogol 33 27 29 100 Pesanggrahan 110 83 3 205 Angke 263 100 3 220

Total 105.7 Source: NEDECO, 1973 in Sinukaban and Kadri (2005)

17


3.1.2 Flooding in Jakarta Annual flooding is one of environmental issues in the Jakarta area due to the worsening river management both in the upland and lowland. Flood in Jakarta has been recognized since the Dutch occupation era in Indonesia. Historical record illustrates that some enormous floods have occurred that killed some people and destroyed properties i.e., year 1699, 17114, and 1854. While in the last few decades, the flooding occurred in 1918, 1942, 1996, 2002 and 2007; caused some damages and some people were killed and lost (Table 3‐3). The flood on February 2007 was spread in almost 60% of Jakarta areas and its surroundings (see Figure 3‐2).

Table 3‐3: History of Floods in Jakarta

No. Year Affect

1. 1699 Ciliwung river floods “Oud (old) Batavia” after Mount Salak erupts. 2. 1714 Ciliwung river overflows after clearing forest areas in Puncak. 3. 1854 “Nieuw (new) Batavia” is a meter under water, caused by the raging

Ciliwung. 4. 1918 Extensive flooding. The Dutch colonial government begins work in the

Western Flood Canal. 5. 1942 The Canal is completed, but Jakarta still floods. 6. 1996 A flood sweeps through the capital. Approximately 10 people die. 7. 2002 The Darthmouth Flood Observatory notes it as the largest flood in Jakarta’s

history, 25 people died. 8. 2007 The greatest flood to hit Jakarta in the last three centuries.

Source: WHO (2007)

Figure 3‐2: Flood areas in Jakarta, Depok and Tangerang

Source:http://www.hewsweb.org/epweb/mapsrepository/maps

18

http://www.hewsweb.org/epweb/mapsrepository/maps/01802_20070205_IDN_A4_UNDSS_Flood_areas_in_Jakarta,_Depok_and_Tangerang_Feb__07.pdf


Hydro‐meteorological observations during the flood of February 2007 are given below: 1. Heavy rainfall in Jakarta during end of January 2007.

The rainfall amount in February 2007 in Jakarta areas ranged from 300 until 400 mm (look at the prediction of rainfall in Figure 3‐3); while the rainfall amount in 2002 is ranged from 150 until 700 mm that also caused the big flood (look at Figure 3‐4)

Figure 3‐3: Rainfall prediction for February 2007 in all parts of Indonesia

Source: BMG, 2007 in Bappenas (2007)

Figure 3‐4: Rainfall pattern 1999 – 2005 Source: BMG, 2007 in Bappenas (2007)

2. High sea tide in Tanjung Priok (North Jakarta) on February 2007 with average 1 meter.

Figure 3‐5 showed the daily sea tide in February 2002 and 2007.

19


Figure 3‐5: Sea tide pattern on February 2002 and 2007

Source: BMG, 2007 in Bappenas (2007) Beside the morphological and hydro‐meteorological aspects, flood in Jakarta is also affected by several other factors (based on Caljouw et.al., (2005): 1. Land use change

The fast and uncontrolled development in the Ciliwung – Cisadane catchments contributed to the flood occurrence in Jakarta. Conversions of forest and paddy field into numerous buildings areas are reducing the water retention capacity in that area; it means the rainwater will divert faster and flow directly to the nearest river and the river peak flows and discharge will increase. That is why, nowadays, even lower rainfall intensity cause flood problems downstream.

2. Decreasing the flow cross‐section

The large amount of sediment as a result of deforestation and increasing peak flows as well as garbage that clogged rivers and drains immediately decreases the flow cross‐section. The narrow flow cross‐section has blocked the water and created backwater effects. In addition, buildings along the river including settlement in the riverbanks also contribute the narrowing of flow cross‐section (see Figure 3‐6).

Figure 3‐6: Garbage dumping and buildings along the Ciliwung River

Source: Fieldwork, 2007

20


3. Socio‐cultural aspects such as weak policy implementation, rapid urbanization, solid waste dumping and management (further discussion in Chapter 4).

The casualties and damage caused by the 2007 flood are shown in Figure 3‐7 below.

Figure 3‐7: Flood’s 2007 Casualties and Damages

Source: WHO (2007)

3.1.3 Characteristic of Kelurahan Kampung Melayu The study area of this research is Kelurahan Kampung Melayu in Jatinegara District, East Jakarta, located along the Ciliwung River (Figure 3‐8). It divided into 8 Rukun Warga and 114 Rukun Tetangga. The administration boundary of Kelurahan Kampung Melayu:

North : Railway, Kelurahan Kebon Manggis East : Kelurahan Bali Mester South : Kelurahan Bidara Cina West : Ciliwung River, Kelurahan Bukit Duri (South Jakarta)

Geographically, Kampung Melayu located in the non‐coastal area (± 15 Km from shoreline) and is relatively flat. The altitude of Kampung Melayu is between 9 until 18 above the sea level (see Figure 3‐9). Kampung Melayu with area 0.48 km2 has high density of people; complex and heterogenic, because it formed by many ethnics; regularly affected by floods; permanent slums, and the highest poverty level in East Jakarta. This area was dominated by unorganized housing (64%). 23,062 people in Kampung Melayu (7,394 households) or approximate 85% from all population are living in flood risk area, spread in 96 RT. They are most located in Kampung Pulo (RW 01, 02, and 03) and Tanah Rendah (RW 07 and 08).

21


Quickbird data

Kampung Melayu

http://www.biocrawler.com/

Figure 3‐8: Study area of the research

Figure 3‐9: Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of Kelurahan Kampung Melayu

Source: Bakosurtanal Based on a survey conducted by Action Contre la Faim ‐ ACF (2006), in total 1.056 households (981 houses), live on the riverbanks in Kelurahan Kampung Melayu. There are poor areas in 8 locations, 1.120 unit houses with 1.181 households. Meanwhile, there is an estate settlement: Bukit Duri Indah, located in RT 4. During flood 2007, the flood water in some areas in Kampung Melayu ranged from 1 until 6 meter (see Figure 3‐10). There were 1,834 houses in Kelurahan

22


Kampung Melayu damaged. More than 1,000 houses were suffered with minor damage, more than 700 houses get major damage and more than 50 houses were floating away (see Table 3‐4 below).

Table 3‐4: House affected by the 2007 flood

House Condition No. RW Floating

away Minor Damage

Major Damage

Total

1. 01 2 97 48 147 2. 02 7 240 253 500 3. 03 8 103 69 180 4. 04 3 74 139 216 5. 05 ‐ 84 15 99 6. 06 5 7 7 19 7. 07 14 167 130 311 8. 08 19 257 86 362

Total 58 1,029 747 1,834 Source: Kelurahan Kampung Melayu (2007)

Figure 3‐10: During Flood in February 2007

Source: ACF (2007)

3. 2 Research Process This research is focused on determining the people’s perception about flooding risk, identifying and classifying certain elements at risk which would be affected by flood in study area, assessing the vulnerability of the elements at risk (structural types of buildings, building contents and socio‐economic aspects), and identifying the current coping capacities and coping strategies. The research process consists of three stages: pre‐fieldwork, fieldwork and post‐fieldwork (Figure 3‐11).

3.2.1 Pre‐fieldwork The pre‐fieldwork started with an intensive literature review through journals, books, previous studies and reports relevant to get more information about the proposed data needs and methods that will be used during the fieldwork and data analysis stage. The key concept of this research is using local knowledge as additional information and hopefully, it can used as an valuable input in decision making against flood in this study area.

23


From the literature and site observation in study area, the author designed a sampling design and formulated the questionnaires. The questionnaires were made into seven sections to gain all the information needed (see appendix 1). First section is general information including a personal profile of the respondent (name, age, gender, family member, etc) and building information (administration id, building age, ownership, etc). The second section is concerned with the elements at risk that divides into two separate parts: building (physical / structural) and building contents. Section three and four are regarding flood and its damages, while section five and six are about risk perception and coping mechanism. The last section is related to flood impacts.

Figure 3‐11: Outline of the Research Process

24


Beside literature review, one of the activities in the pre‐fieldwork stage is data inventory. The data availability for this research is shown in Table 3‐5. Most of the data needed for analysis was collected through the field survey (primary data collection in the study area) because those data were not available.

Table 3‐5: Data Availability

No. Research Activities Data Requirement Source 1. Generate sampling

design and target sampling.

Satellite image: Quick bird 2005 (resolution 0.6 meter)

Topographic map (1:25.000)

Digital building footprint Digital base map Digital contour (interval 1 meter)

Flood prone areas map

Bakosurtanal Bakosurtanal Action Contre la Faim (ACF) Subdin Pertanahan & Pemetaan Jakarta Timur Subdin Pertanahan & Pemetaan Jakarta Timur Bappeda DKI Jakarta

2. Risk perception analysis

Flood depth, flood duration, flood threat based on community’s perception

Fieldwork and data analysis

3. Analysis of certain element at risk

Structural types of buildings (material, function, age of building)

Contents of the building Socio‐economic aspects (age, gender, family network, income)

Fieldwork

4. Damage assessment Flood damage Fieldwork 5. Vulnerability

assessment Flood depth and damage relationship

Data analysis from damage assessment and element at risk

6. Coping mechanism Community’s coping strategies

Fieldwork

From the list above, data collected both in hardcopy and softcopy (digital) type. First, hardcopy maps were scanned. After that, they were converted digitally through on‐screen digitizing. All digital data were processed using GIS (Geographic Information System) software and must come into the same projection and coordinate system. The standard map projection is UTM (Universal Transverse Mercator) Zone 48S and the coordinate system is WGS (World Geographical System) 1984. After that, Quick bird image, digital base map and digital building footprint map were stored in the mobile PDA (Personal Digital Assistance) to be used in field survey.

3.2.2 Fieldwork The aim of this stage were to collect certain element at risk data (physical and building contents), socio‐economic aspect of the households, flood depth and duration based on interviews, estimation damage due to floods, flood risk perception and household’s coping mechanism against floods. The fieldwork was conducted from 23 July until 24 August 2007, in Kelurahan Kampung Melayu, where most of the inhabitants live on the riverbanks of the Ciliwung River and every year suffer from floods.

25


There were two main activities during the fieldwork: 1. Primary data collection interview both household and contact person in particular

community (government official, community leader, NGO, etc) and map verification of digital map already collected in the previous stage. Before doing field survey, it had been assumed that the entire digital map collected were correct. But, when the building footprint data compared with field survey, the building footprint data was mismatched in some places. Many buildings were missing and not too precise. Because of that reason, building footprint is only used for map visualization and not used as digital database. Other data, such as river, road, and administrative boundary were accurate. Therefore, they had been used as a reference during fieldwork.

2. Secondary data collection through gathering report and additional information from some institution, NGO and local government income.

The result of this fieldwork is a database containing all information related with people perception on flooding, physical aspects (structural types of buildings and building contents) and socio‐economic aspects (age, gender, occupation, income, educational level, length of stay and housing status) and people’s coping mechanism due to flood. Selection of study area The selection of areas in Jakarta was guided by the consideration that community participation is a social occurrence, which is influenced mainly by institutional rather than technological or hydrological factors. Hence, it was decided to go along the administrative ladder (see Figure 3‐12) of Kotamadya (municipality), Kecamatan (sub district), Kelurahan (village) and RW (Rukun Warga) for selection of the sample units through a multi‐stage sampling procedure. From the area of Ciliwung watershed, the more frequently flooded Kotamadya Jakarta Timur was selected. In stage of Kotamadya, a list of frequently flooded kecamatan having floods in recent years was prepared and from the list one kecamatan was selected at random. Following this criterion, Kecamatan of Jatinegara was selected. Pursuing a similar approach, Kelurahan Kampung Melayu was selected for study area. Although the most flood prone area in Kelurahan Kampung Melayu is in RW 02, 03, 07 and 08, author try to cover all RW in Kelurahan Kampung Melayu (8 RW) because in the recent flood in February 2007, all of them were inundated.

Figure 3‐12: Administrative ladder of Jakarta Province

Source: Pasang et.al. (2006)

26


Sampling Method A list of buildings with building_id and coordinate information for each RW was prepared. There were 8 RW in Kelurahan Kampung Melayu. Then from the list of building of each RW, author selected several sample of buildings randomly. Based on information gathered from literature review and discussion with government official in Kampung Melayu, RW 07, 08, 02 and 03 is considered as the most suffered from floods, for that reason the sample in this area is larger than other. Because author used different sampling fractions in the strata (RW), the sampling method in this research called non‐proportional stratified random sampling.

Figure 3‐13: Stratified random sampling scheme

Table 3‐6: Non‐proportional random sampling of building

RW Number of Building

Number of Sample

Sampling Fraction

1 254 7 2.76 2 324 14 4.32 3 332 10 3.02 4 284 7 2.47 5 284 3 1.06 6 281 5 1.78 7 330 19 5.75 8 375 18 4.80

Total 2465 83 From preliminary survey, the building footprints were mismatched in some places and many buildings were missing, the representation of each building then only marked as a point. The chosen building with its coordinate and id then stored in mobile PDA as a point survey. Overall, there were 83 point sample designed for field survey (Figure 3‐14). Sample distribution of household in each RW can be seen in the table below.

27


Figure 3‐14: Spatial distribution of respondents in Kampung Melayu

During field survey, building inventory and household interview were made in the same time using mobile PDA, GPS (Global Positioning System), digital camera, topographic map of study area and printed quick bird image base map information (administration boundary, road and river). Mobile PDA and GPS were used in order to get accurate and detailed information of buildings. This mobile PDA used ArcPad6 software to store and retrieves the quick bird image and digital maps. The map projection on mobile PDA was set into UTM Zone 48S and coordinate system WGS 1984. Some digital data such as quick bird image, digital base map and digital building foot print already stored in mobile PDA. Shape file consist of several attributes also prepared and stored in this device. Digital camera was used to capture the picture of each building and the photo’s number is stored as an attribute in the mobile PDA. Topographic map and printed quick bird image with base map of study area was used as to do map verification and to get information about flood extent and additional information related with flood from local people . Building Inventory Building inventory aimed to gain building information for database and to verify the respondents’ answer during interview. The activities in building inventory were measuring the height of floor from street and above the surface and observing the physical aspect of building such as wall material, floor material, roof material, number of floor, etc. All information was stored in mobile PDA and added as an attribute for each building points. The attributes for building inventory were: building_id, date, owner, function, wall material, floor material, roof material, number of floor, size, floor height from surface, floor height from the street and photo’s number. Photo numbers were set by digital camera to provide better information for each building visited.

28


Figure 3‐15: Building inventory during fieldwork in Kampung Melayu

Source: Fieldwork (2007) Household interview The purpose of household interview using questionnaires (see appendix 1) was to get detailed information about element at risk including asset and damage estimation for each household, risk perception regarding flood in this area and households’ coping mechanism. In‐depth interview and consultation were held with occupants of the buildings identified as being risk. Each interview lasted between 30 and 45 minutes. Author was accompanied with government official during some session of interviews and it helps to overcome the gap of information received from respondents. Although, the respondents come from different ethnic groups and have their own local language such as, Javanese and Sundanese, interviews were conducted in Bahasa Indonesia, which is a national language, and because everybody can understand it well and they use it in daily conversation. All respondents seemed to have a good and positive response during the interviews because they allowed author to get in to their house and they served food and drinks also. Generally, it was not difficult to interact with local people in study area. Open‐ended questions conducted to gather more information how the respondents try to reduce and minimalize the damage and losses of their properties before, during and after flood. Results of interviews were recorded with questionnaires and they were analysed in the next chapter.

Figure 3‐16: Interview during fieldwork in Kampung Melayu

Source: Fieldwork (2007)

29


The essential information needed from the respondents was the flood height and duration, which needs people’s memory to remember the past event. However, because the last flood happened only a few months before the field survey (on February 2007), most of respondents still have good memory on it. In this interview, respondents also tried to point out the flood mark that caused by flood on February 2007 (Figure 3‐17). Flood depth and flood duration gathered from respondents are analysed further in Chapter 4.

Figure 3‐17: Flood mark collected during field survey


3.2.3 Post‐fieldwork The final step of this research is post‐fieldwork, which is data analysis. Data collected from the building inventory were able to be analysed after fieldwork because already in digital format. The shape file from mobile PDA was transferred into PC (Personal Computer) and using Arc View software, all of data collected during fieldwork can be retrieved easily (see Figure 3‐18). However, information from interview had to be converted from hardcopy format (questionnaires) into digital format first. Data from building inventory and interview processed spatially and statistically using ILWIS 3.3, Arc View 3.3 and SPSS 12 software.

30


Figure 3‐18: Illustration of point with attributes collected during the fieldwork

There are four parts in this stage: risk perception analysis, identification of certain element at risk, vulnerability assessment (physical and socio‐economic aspects) and coping mechanism analysis. For vulnerability and risk perception analysis, author conducted spatial analysis using GIS software. It was used to plot the physical element at risk (building material) and results from analysis. Flood extent and flood duration map was processed using ILWIS. Author used kriging to interpolate the point data using Gaussian model. Risk perception map was generated from the flood extent and flood duration map. For coping mechanism analysis, author using descriptive analysis to figure it out all activities related with risk reduction were conducted by local people. Statistical analysis used in this research includes descriptive statistics and cross tabulation analysis to get the chi square value. People perception on flooding will be discussed in Chapter 4, element at risk identification in chapter 5, while vulnerability assessment and coping mechanism analysis discussed in Chapter 6 and 7.

31


4. Respondent’s Perception on Flooding in Kampung Melayu

The first section of this chapter shows the flood extent and flood duration of February 2007 flood which is considered as the greatest flood that hit Jakarta in the last three centuries based on the household interviews with 83 respondents. The next section describes the information related with flooding in the study area based on the local people’s perception. Information about the flood occurrence, the root causes of flood was collected during the survey, people’s behaviour before, during and after flood, as well as reason why people still living in this area despite that it is a flood‐prone area. The last section, examines the flood risk based on local people perception.

4. 1 Flood Occurrence in Kelurahan Kampung Melayu Annual flood in Kampung Melayu comes usually in range of 10 – 100 cm water depth. During this time, local people prefer to stay at home because the flood only last in hours. But the flood of February 2007 in Kampung Melayu, most of households that have been interviewed were stated that they were evacuated to the evacuation places (shelter), lasted for one – two weeks. This flood reach more than 5 meters in depth at some places. The respondents still remembered the latest flood well because it was just six months before this research was conducted. Government and NGos already made many maps and information related with the February 2007 flood but some of them didn’t integrate with the information gathered from the local people who really stayed in that area although they were victims of flood and had experience the flood. That is the reason why the author tries to configure the flood occurrence in this study area using the data collected from households interviews. In this section, the flood occurrence during February 2007 will be described. There were 83 households interviewed during the fieldwork. From each of the households, data on flood‐depths and flood‐durations were gathered. The flood depths data was measured inside the house using the first floor as the reference. Later on, the flood depth for each point was added with the height of the first floor data. The distribution of the 83 points was calculated with One‐Sample Kolmogorov‐Smirnov Test in SPSS software and the results of the flood height and the flood duration dataset showed that the data have a normal distribution (Table 4‐1 and Table 4‐2).

Table 4‐1 : One‐Sample Kolmogorov‐Smirnov test for water depth data set

One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

83335.00

145.770.076.062

-.0762.689

.000

NMeanStd. Deviation

Normal Parametersa,b

AbsolutePositiveNegative

Most ExtremeDifferences

Kolmogorov-Smirnov ZAsymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

Water depth

Test distribution is Normal.a.

Calculated from data.b.

32


Table 4‐2 : One‐Sample Kolmogorov‐Smirnov test for water duration data set

One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

839.35

4.432.190.147

-.1901.734.005

NMeanStd. Deviation

Normal Parameters a,b

AbsolutePositiveNegative

Most ExtremeDifferences

Kolmogorov-Smirnov ZAsymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

Waterduration

Test distribution is Normal.a.

Calculated from data.b.

In order to produce the flood extent and flood duration map in ILWIS software, points in shape file were transferred into ILWIS format. Next, the water height and water duration dataset were interpolated using a kriging method. Kriging is one of the interpolation techniques that based on a statistical method. This method derived from the theory of regionalized variables. It calculated each input points values using weighted averages. The weighting factor determined using semi‐variogram model. A semi‐variogram model represents the relationship between distance and squared differences of pairs of point values. It will model the outcome of spatial correlation by a continuous function for the kriging operation later on (ITC 2001). The experimental semi‐variogram values for water depth and water duration dataset was build using Gaussian model, which is the best fit model for both dataset. Input information such as model type, nugget, sill and range was needed to create the semi‐variogram for water depth dataset and water duration dataset that was shown in Figure 4‐1.

AvgLag x SemiVar

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400AvgLag

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

Sem

iVar

Gaussian ModelAvgLag x SemiVar

(a)

33


AvgLag x SemiVar

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400AvgLag

0

10

20

30

40

50

Sem

iVar

Gaussian ModelAvgLag x SemiVar

(b

Figure 4‐1: Gaussian semi‐variogram model for water depth (a) and water duration (b) dataset

Finally, using ordinary kriging method, the flood extent and flood duration of February 2007 flood was generated. Figure 4‐2 displays the interpolated map for the water depth and water duration during the February 2007 flood in the Kampung Melayu. Those maps will be used as scenario for the further vulnerability assessments (see Chapter 6).

(a)

34


(b)

Figure 4‐2: Interpolated map for the water depth (a) and water duration (b) during flood in February 2007

Based on, the interpolation map above (see Figure 4‐2), information about the water depth and water duration during flood event in February 2007 clearly depicted. The water covered almost all of Kampung Melayu area in eight RWs. Water depth varies from 0 ‐ 5, 4 meter, while the water duration has range 0 – 15 days. A detailed description in several points in Kampung Melayu is shown in Figure 4‐3. It was found that in certain place the water reached an altitude more than 5 meters. The worst area which has the highest water depth and longest duration is RW 02 and RW 03. Those areas have relatively low altitude compare with other part in Kampung Melayu – 9 until 12 above the sea level. In contrast, RW 05 and RW 06 have been less inundated during flood 2007 because they are located in relatively high places: 12 – 19 above the sea level (see DEM of Kampung Melayu in Figure 3‐9). Point 1: located in RW 01. This area and surroundings is safe from the flood and never experience the annual river flood. Its location which has high altitude (see DEM of Kampung Melayu in Figure 3‐9) makes it relatively safer places during flood. But the report recorded for this location one house located in top of river was collapse because of landslide that triggered by the flood. Some part of the house is fall down to the river and the family had to move from their house because of their afraid that some remaining part of the house will also collapse. Point 2: this location has suffered from flood; it situated in RW 01. Distance from river to this house point only one meter, it makes this area is susceptible during flood. The owner built the house in two stories in order to minimize the flood damage. They moved their properties a few hours before the flood is come to the second floor and when they knew that the water became higher they moved to their neighbor’s house.

35


1

2

34

5

678

910

11

Figure 4‐3: General overview for flood on February 2007 flood

Source: Fieldwork (2007) Point 3: Santa Maria Fatima School. During big flood in Kampung Melayu, including in 2007, this complex is used as the evacuation centre, especially for households lived in Kampung Pulo (RW 02 and 03). Point 4: this is one of the bottlenecks in the Ciliwung River. Guarin (2003) describes a bottleneck may reduce the size of the river compared with the river’s discharge capacity; it will overtop and become source point of flooding. In this part, the river width is only 3‐4 meters with garbage along the river. During the big flood in 2007, the water discharge increased and the flood water cut the water path direct to northern of Kampung Pulo. One of the respondents in this area, Iyem, lost her house during flood 2007. Although she lost her house with all her belongings, she still

36


stays in this area and builds a new house from material she gathered from the remains. All her children already can swim in the river since they were little. It maybe one of the coping mechanisms they conduct against the flood. Point 5: one of the memorials of the flood 2007; the mark on the wall showed that the flood water reached almost upto 7 meters. In this area, there is a bridge from bamboo that people used to go across from Kampung Pulo to Kelurahan Bukit Duri. There is also mountainous garbage in the riverside (see Figure 4‐4).

Figure 4‐4: One way to connect Kampung Melayu and ukit Duri

oint 6: the bridge is located near the Jatinegara Barat road. From this point we can see one of

BSource: Fieldwork (2007)

Pthe meanders of the Ciliwung River. The semi permanent house expanding and garbage in the riverbank is one of the usual phenomenon found here (Figure 4‐5).

Figure 4‐5: One of the point interests in Kampung Melayu

oint 7: this is Bukit Duri Indah complex. Many of the households that lived in this area have a

oint 8: located in RW 08 (Tanah Rendah). The house in this point is situated only one meter

toilet.


Pstore and are categorized as medium and high income families. Almost every house has two floors or more. During the 2007 flood, this part also experiences the flood and most of them evacuated to their relatives. Paway from the river. The owner already builds a new house after the flood of February 2007 using bamboo sheets. The house contains one big room which is used as a kitchen, bedroom and living room without a toilet inside the house. In fact, people who live in Kampung Melayu especially in the riverbanks didn’t have a toilet in their house. They use river as their public

37


Point 9: a house in RW 05 that is now empty, the owner leaves the house since the flood struck. The flood mark is clearly shown from the dirt on the wall. The ceilings, door and windows are

ted in high elevation and there is a way down towards the mosque. uring the flood, many peoples stayed in this mosque. In Figure 4‐6 we can see the different in

damage because of flood. Point 10: this point is locaDconditions between flood (2007) and non‐flood (fieldwork) in this location.

Figure 4‐6: Water level in Kampung Melayu at different time Left: During Flood (ACF 2007) an Right: Non‐flood (Fieldwork, 2007) d

Point 11: a , the owner uilt this house in two floors using the low‐priced material. This means people have been aware

gathered from the households’ interview were 83 respondents interviewed in this

ased on interviews, more than 90% of the people, who lived in Kelurahan Kampung Melayu, ir rience the annual river flood with flood heights that varied from 10 until

ost of them (61.4 of the respondents) thought that the cause of the flood in Kampung Melayu is ca Bogor. Banjir kiriman is a term that people use to represent the

house in RW 06, this area is considered as a less flooded area. Howeverbof flooding and try to decrease their possibilities to get damaged.

4. 2 Households’ Flood Information Information related with flooding in this study area isusing questionnaires during the fieldwork. There survey. The information was then transferred into an Excel worksheet. The discussion of the 2007 flood in Kampung Melayu is presented below. • Flood occurrence Baff med that they expe100 centimeters. The flood can come more than 5 times during the rainy season. The peak of the rainy season is in December, January and February. Most of the people are already prepared before the flood season starts. Generally, most respondents perceive flood as a normal event. They also still remember the history of big flood in 1996, 2002, and the most recent one, in February 2007 which is considered to be the worst flood that ever happened in this area. The majority stated that the magnitude of floods is increasing every year. • The root causes of flood Mbe use of “banjir kiriman” fromflood in Jakarta; it is mostly because of the heavy rain in Puncak‐Bogor (upper part of Ciliwung River) which makes the Ciliwung River flood and sends the water to Jakarta areas. Other causes are garbage (27%), excessive rainfall (8%), uncontrolled city development (2%), and land use changes (1%).

38


Cause of floodGarbage27%

Excessive rainfall8%

Banjir kiriman62%

Uncontrolled city

development2%

Land use changed

1%

Figure 4‐7: Cause of flood based on household interview

There is one interest y area. Although most of them belie ost of them throw

ing finding related to the waste management in the studve that the garbage also influences the river to be flooded, m

their garbage in the river. People, who stayed near the river, stated that it is the easiest way and because there is no longer cleansing workers who collect and transport the waste to the final disposal site. In the past, the Ciliwung River has 50 meter wide but now is only 6‐9 meter because of garbage along the river (see Figure 4‐8). The rapid urbanization and the competition in land occupation force the people to settle in this flood‐prone area. Based on observation during survey, the illegal housing along the riverbanks can also be considered as one factor that contributes to river narrowing and it can increase the water height during flooding. It can be concluded that flooding in the study area is mostly affected by socio‐cultural aspects, i.e: poor housing along the riverbanks as the result of rapid urbanization and poor garbage disposal system.

Figure 4‐8: Garbage along the Ciliwung River

Source: Fie dwork (2007) l • People’s behaviour due to flohe floods left many people temporarily homeless at first, and they took refuge in their

government offices and health clinics. There were several

They

od Tneighbour’s house, mosques, schools, shelters locations during the flood in Kampung Melayu, including musholla and mosque, also Kelurahan office, school of Santa Maria Fatima and Jenderal Urip field near the study area. If the water height is still only at the first floor then most of the respondents stayed in their house. They just moved their properties to higher places and stayed in the second floor. prefer to stay at home because the shelters are not optimal (dirty, not safe, not enough toilets, and a lack of security) and in addition, people are afraid that their house will get robbed if they

39


stay in the shelter. When the water height is higher than their first floor, and they can not handle it anymore, they move to the shelter. During the flood, most of them couldn’t go to work as usual because of the place where they orked was flooded (most of them work in the traditional market near the study area and it is

e flood. From the last flood 7), the mud reached 50 cm in their house. Respondents started to clean‐up their house with

he reasons to stay in this flood by

e m s g pe

e

o

walso flooded). There is also a new job opportunity during the flood; the respondents hire the wagon as a new transportation because the road was inundated. After the flood, they cleaned‐up the mud and garbage left by th(200the flood water itself if the water starts to decline. People clean up their house and surroundings together (gotong royong). This is a positive thing about flood, when people leave their animosities and lend a hand for other people. Gotong royong is one of the coping mechanisms that developed by the local people in this area and it will be explained further in Chapter 7. • Reasons to stay in that area Tprone area are mostly influencedthe livelihood security and occupational activities. There are thre ain reason iven by ople for staying in this area: better access to economic activity (traditional market, railway station), to school and to their office (mor than 40% interviewed respondents stated this); no choice, which means they didn’t have any place to go (32.5% of respondents) and own properties (18.1% of respondents). Also given as reasons are: claims n their ancestral property and the cheap cost for renting houses in the study area.

6.0

18.1

2.4

41.0

32.5

0.0

25.0

50.0

Cheap Ownproperties

Ancestralproperties

Betteraccess

No choice

Reason living in this area

% Household

Figure 4‐9: Reason for living in Kampung Melayu

nerabilities and capacities in three broad, interrelated areas: hysical, social and motivational; the VCA (Vulnerability Capacity Assessment) matrix for

Capacities

In order to viewing people’s vulpKampung Melayu in relation with flood hazard was created (Table 4‐3).

Table 4‐3: VCA (Vulnerability Capacity Assessment) matrix

Aspects Vulnerabilities

Phys al

1. Annua rainy season; ry five years. The big flood history: 1996, 202 and 2007. Flood in 2007 is the biggest flood that happens in this area.

2. Poor housing along the riverbanks.

1. People ry houses using constructi materials that are locally available and cheaper.

2. Many people can swim. 3. Availability of public latrines. 4. Presence of Early Warning

System.

ical/materi l flooding during the big flood eve

build 2‐stoon

40


3. Most respondents are categorizeas low income family (see sectio5.3.4) Lack of adequate skills and low education level, more then half of the res

d n

4.

pondents only obtained the tion

6. 7. f clean water and

1.

ich is very effective. near

elementary level (see sec5.3.5).

5. The population density is high. Poor garbage disposal system. Lack osanitation. Dependent on moneylenders.

5. Dissemination of EWS using several communication facilities like mobile phone (SMS) wh

1. The location is Jatinegara traditional market (source of income).

Social/ organizational

2.

3. flooding most of

2. emination

of flood warnings. 3. Assistance from NGOs (for

example: ACF). 4. People help each other to

cope with the flood, for example: gotong royong to

5. stitution.

Presence of Lurah, head of RW and RT in diss

The young children have to work to help their parents. Duringhouseholds cannot go to work.

4. Lack of participation in disastermanagement.

clean the canal. Presence of SATLINMAS as the local disaster in

6. Presence of public kitchen during flooding.

Motivational/ attitudinal

1. state that the flood is only a normal event. Flooding becomes part of their life. Intentional forgetting due to lack of alternative settlement options.

2. They keep throwing the garbage into the river.

d p the

Most of respondents 1. Some of the young people trained by NGOS or organization that concernewith flood to helcommunity in preparation, during and aftermath the flooding.

S rk (2 )

4. 3 Flood Risk PeThis section will explore ed on the he knowledge of local peop rela pth, duration and flood in s were etermine the level of

manageable, unmanageable and disastrous with water duration for each risk perception category using open‐ended

uestion (see questionnaire in appendix 1). The answers collected from 83 respondents then the majority of answers related with water depth

each level of flood (normal, manageable, unmanageable

ource: Fieldwo 007

rception the flood risk perception bas local people’s perception. T

tionship between water de asked to d

le will be a basis on determining thetensity. During interviews, household

gorized as normal,flood risk which is catepecific water depth and sqinputted using worksheet in Microsoft Excel,and duration then selected to represent and disastrous). The community’s perception on flood intensity is presented in Table 4‐4.

41


Table 4‐4 : Community’s perception on flood intensity

Duration (days) Water depth (cm) < 1 day 1 – 3 days 3 – 7 days > 7 days 10 – 50 Normal Normal Disturbing but Disturbing but

still still manageable manageable

51 ‐ 100 Normal Disturbing but still Disturbing but Unmanageablemanageable still

manageable 10 0 1 – 20 Distu t still rbing bu Dist

m anageableurbing but still U m anageable

nmanageable Un le manageab

201 – 300 Unmanageable Disastrous > 300 Disastrous

Sourc ork (2007) The terminology of “normal” in this case indicates that the commun the flood as a nat and il h aseasons, usually from til March le” means although they accept this flood ce as l event, can manage , it starts to become disturb use it w ms like lac water, difficulties to work, etc. this

flooded ho rather than go to evacuation centre. stories building or more will continue their daily activities mostly in

n

e: Fieldw

ity still perceivesural event they are already fam

December uniar with it because it

. “Manageabappens every ye r during rainy

occurrenca

recurrent naturai le

they still k o clean

iting be ll cause prob

in theirf use

Inlevel, people prefer to stayouseholds who have two

Hthe second floor. The “unmanageable” terminology means that people consider that they cannot deal with the flood because it becomes higher and it causes more problems. Usually the head of households didn’t go to work in order to keep their family safe in the inundated house. During this level of flood intensity, most people decide to go to the nearest evacuation centre (shelter). “Disastrous” in this research represent the uncontrollable flood and all respondents prefer to evacuate themselves to the safer places. In order to make the criteria in Table 4‐4 more clearly depicted, the matrix of community‐based criteria for flood perception classification is generated using Excel (Figure 4‐11). Later on, the criteria were processed using Arc View to reate the map of flood risk perceptiocbased on household interview in Figure 4‐11.

Figure 4‐10: Matrix of community‐based criteria

for risk flood perception

42


Figure 4‐11: Flood risk perception based on household interview

4. 4 Summary and Conclusion This chapter has tried to illustrate the February 2007 flood occurrence in the study area, with reference to water depth and water duration. A dataset is made from 83 household interviews. Some information related with flood in the study area is also revealed. Flooding comes annually every rainy season with fluctuating water heights, in the range of 10 – 100 centimeters. The big floods with five years return period struck in 1996, 2002 and 2007. The flood of 2007 was the largest and the most destructive flood that ever happened in the area. There are some main findings based on interviews during the flood. People will stay in their house if water only inundates their first floor and only move their properties to safer places. They will leave their house and evacuate themselves if the water is getting higher and they do not have the capability to handle it anymore. In the flood of 2007, there were several places which respondents used as shelter, including kelurahan office, school and mosque. The flood left mud with upto 50 centimeters height with garbage and a horrible smell. To cope with this situation, the people cleaned up their house and surroundings together (go ng royong). This is the positive th usually people only think about their selves.

r

waste into the river. The

toing related with flood in this study area, which is an urban area where

Since the majority of these communities live mostly on trading, this research revealed that proximity to the communityʹs livelihood—rather than safety—was the main reason why they ttle in these flood prone areas. Some households decide to live in this flood prone area fose

better access for their activities and others stay because they have no choice. Three main causes of the flood in Kampung Melayu based on people’s perception are banjir kiriman from Bogor area, garbage and excessive rainfall. Although the majority of the interviewed households are aware that garbage can causes the river to be flooded, this does not affect their behavior; their attitude is not to throw their trash in proper places; they still throw their

43


waste disposal management and houses in the riverbanks are serious problems found in this

vels of flooding which can be interpreted as: normal, anageable, unmanageable and disastrous.

study area; therefore local people with government should cooperate to handle this problem if they want to reduce the impact of floods in this area. The information collected from the households interview was summed up into a VCA matrix to see the vulnerability and capacity in three broad aspects, including physical/material, social/organizational and motivational/attitudinal. The information about water height and water duration linked to flooding intensity based on community’s perception is explored in the second section of this chapter. People relate the water level and water duration as certain lem

44


5. Analysis of Elements Risk due to Flooding in Kampung Melayu

his chapter describes about the elements at risk in Kelurahan Kampung Melayu which is cluding physical (structural type of buildings and building contents), and the people at risk ased on the key socio‐economic characteristics of household. Each element at risk will influenced e vulnerability that will be discussed in the next chapter.

. 1 Information of Building Structure ata related with physical or structural of building collected during fieldwork through building ventory and households’ interview. That information such as material of building (wall, floor nd roof), number of floor and age of building was recorded using mobile PDA and represented point shape field. Subsequently, data was processed statistically using SPPS software to get nother relationship.

The pes of wall material based on primary data collection during the field survey

tion were also using this kind of wall materials such as wood, plywood

Tinbth

5Dinaina

5.1.1 Wall Material re were five ty

(Table 5.1). More than 50% households in Kampung Melayu use brick as the main wall material of their houses. They called it tembok which using brick as main material then covered with cement and plaster. Alternatively, they usually mixed the concrete material in the lower part, often less than 60 cm height, with non concrete material such as plywood or bamboo sheet in the upper part (Figure 5‐1). Buildings with one floor in this locamaterial in order to reduce the cost of building material. Otherand bamboo were founded in this study area.

Figure 5‐1: Houses with mixed wall material

Source: Fieldwork (2007) T

50 cm

45 cm

able 5‐1 : Wall material of buildings Wall

material Number of building

Percentage (%)

Plywood 2 2 Wood 4 5 Brick 53 64

Bamboo 1 1 Mixed 23 28 Total 83 100


The selection of this material may cause by the floods that occur every year and this kind of material is more resistant compare with other wall material due to flood. However, in order to save the wall cost material, they choose mixed material as a second alterative. The spatial distribution of building based on wall material in Kampung Melayu is shown in Figure 5‐2.

45


uildings based on wall material Figure 5 Spatial dist of b

5.1.2 Floor Material Based on result from fieldwork, there were only three types of floor materials were found in Kampung Melayu: concrete, mixed floor material and wood (Table 5‐2). Almost 90% respondents choose the concrete floor for their house. Concrete in this study area indicates the cement and ceramic tile. The concrete floor easier to clean up after the flood struck and it may be the reason why they use this type of material. This is also one of coping strategies that developed by the local people in order to reduce damage flood aftermath (it will discuss further in Chapter 7). The mixed floor material was found in building with more than one floor; the first and the second floor have different floor material, usually they use combination concrete on the first floor and wood on the second floor. During annual flood with water depth varies from 10 until 100 cm, the first floor will inundated while the second floor is not. Distribution of buildings with different floor material can be seen in Figure 5‐3 below.

Table 5‐2 : Floor material of buildings

Floor material

Number of building Percentage (%)

‐2: ribution

Concrete 69 83 Wood 3 4 Mixed 11 13 Total 83 100


46


Figure 5‐3: Spatial distribution of buildings based on floor material

5.1.3 Roof Material Mostly the households in Kampung Melayu use the clay roof for their houses. Other roof types found in this area were: asbestos and mixed material (Table 5‐3). The mixed roof material is combination of clay tiles and plastic sheets. Some of the respondents haven’t repaired their roof, which is damaged because of flood on February 2007. A plastic sheet is cheaper than a clay roof, that’s make they replaced the damaged clay tiles with this material. Figure 5‐4 shows the spatial distribution of roof material used by respondent in Kampung Melayu. Table 5‐3 : Roof material of buildings

Roof material

Number of Percentage building (%)

Clay 54 65 Asbestos 24 29 Mixed 5 6 Total 83 100


Figure 5‐4: Spatial distribution of buildings based

on roof material

47


5.1.4 Combination wall–floor–roofThis research tried to assess the structural vulroof mate

material nerability based on the combination wall, floor and

rial because different material will have different vulnerability. The combination enerated from the cross tabulation of wall ‐ roof material and cross tabulation of floor – roof

the highest frequency of wall – floor combination (Table 5‐4). It seems ombination i.e brick wall – concrete floor, mixed wall –

con all r.

T om and r material

Floor material

gmaterial (Table 5‐4 and Table 5‐5). The result derived fromthere were three types of walls – roof c

crete floor

able 5‐4 : C

and mixed w

bination wall

– mixed floo

floo

Wall material Concrete Soi Wood Mixed

Total l

Plywood 0 0 2 2 0 Wood 2 0 1 1 4

53 0 0 0 53 Brick Bamboo 1 0 0 0 1

11 0 2 10 23 Mixed Total 69 0 3 11 83

From cross tabulation floor – roof material, types of floor – roof combination i.e concrete mixed floor ‐ asbestos roof (Table 5‐5).

the highest frequency of occurrence was found three floor – clay roof, concrete floor – asbestos roof and

Table 5‐5 : Combination floor and roof material

Roof material Floor material Clay Asbestos Mixed

Total

Concrete 53 14 2 69 Soil 0 0 0 0 Wood 0 1 2 3 Mixed 1 9 1 11 Total 54 24 5 83

Table 5‐6 : Combination wall – floor ‐ roof material

Wall ‐ floor material Floor ‐ roof material Wall ‐ floor ‐ roof material Total Brick ‐ concrete Brick‐conc ay 44 Concrete ‐ clay rete‐cl

Concrete ‐ a oncrete‐asbestos 8 sbestos Brick‐cMixed ‐ concre ncrete ‐ cl ‐concr ‐clay 7 te Co ay Mixed ete

Concrete ‐ asb os Mixed‐concret sbestos 4 est e‐aMixed ‐ mixe Mixed ‐ asbe s Mixed‐mixed estos 8 d sto ‐asb

Base e result ove, combination wa – floor – f can b nerated (see Table 5‐6). Ther five typ structura pe withi ombinati – flo roof found in the study rea. All combination of the five common structural types and their pictures are showed in

44 respondents. The structural type 4, mixed wall – 4 households. The spatial distribution of each

d on th ab ll roo e gee were e of l ty n c on wall or –

aTable 5‐7. Later on in Chapter 6 , these five structural types will be used as an input for structural vulnerability assessment. The highest frequency of occurrence is for structural type 1, brick wall – concrete floor – clay roof, withconcrete floor – asbestos roof, was found only instructural type can be seen in Figure 5‐5.

48


Ta mon structural t in Kampung Melayu

1. Br concrete fl clay roof ick wa rete floor – asbestos roof

ble 5‐7 : Five com ype of building

ick wall – oor – 2. Br ll – conc

3. Mixed wa – concrete flooMixed w asbestos

ll r – clay roof roof 4. all – concrete floor –

5. Mixed wall – mixed floor – asbestos roof

49


Figure 5‐5: Spatial distribution of buildings based on structural type

5.1.5 Number of floor Data recorded during fieldwork showed that almost 54% of respondents in Kampung Melayu have buildings with two stories, 42% have buildings only with one storey and the rest (4%) have buildings with three stories (Table 5‐8). Build a house with more than 1‐floor is one effective way to cope with the flood in this area (it will discuss further in Chapter 7).

Table 5‐8 : Number of floor

Number of Floor

Number of building

Percentage (%)

1 35 42 2 45 54 3 3 4

Total 83 100 Source: Fieldwork (2007)

Other reason why people tend to build

of lack of space

b of d

terial only used in ne storey building due to their flimsy

Table 5‐9 : Combination of Wall Material and Number of floor

f Floor more than 1‐floor is becausein urban areas. Figure 5‐6 shows the spatial distri ution respon ents based on number of floor. Mostly, the building with more than one storey constructed using brick and mixed wall material. While plywood and bamboo maostructure (Table 5.9)

Number oWall material 1

Total 2 3

Plywood 2 0 0 2 Wood 3 0 4 1 Brick 26 3 53 24

Bamboo 1 0 1 0Mixed 4 9 0 23 1Total 36 44 3 83

S ource: Fieldwork (2007)

50


Figure 5‐6: Spatial distribution of buildings based on number of floor

5.1.6 Building age Based on the age of the building, more than 40% houses in this study area were > 30 years. The old buildings have a high vulnerability due to flood because of the flimsy structures (look at Figure 5‐7). Map of spatial distribution shows in Figure 5‐8.

8.415.7

0.0

25.0

0 ‐ 10 year 11 ‐ 20 year 21 ‐ 30 year > 30 year

Age of the building

%

32.543.4

75.0

100.0

old

50.0

Househ

Figure 5‐7: Age of the building (house) in

Kampung Melayu

Figure 5‐8: S buildings

based on building age patial distribution of

51


5. 2 Building Contents Valuation of households’ asset is very important to examine the building contents vulnerability ( Sagala (2006); Dutta and Tingsanchali (2003); Blaikie et. al (1994)). Therefore in this section, author tried to analysis the value of total asset belongs to the households. The analysis of building contents vulnerability will discussed in Chapter 6. The building contents in this research are all respondents’ properties that found and located inside the house. These properties include furniture and appliances inside the house (see questionnaire in appendix 1). 83 respondents were interviewed in order to get the information about building contents. One of local people who live in this area accompanied author during fieldwork; therefore it surely help throughout the verification and quantification of households’ properties. Most of the people in Kampung Melayu put their valuable properties – for example: electronic appliances, books and important documents, jewellery, etc ‐ in the second floor to avoid the damage during the flood. First floor is used only for cooking and fewer properties located in this area. They prefer the furniture made from plastic in order to save the time and effort to evacuate the properties before the flood come. Most people have standard electronic devices such as television and radio; the appliances are made in China which is cheaper than other well‐known brand. It seems that everyone think that TV and radio is a primary and must‐have properties in their house; it is become part of modern lifestyle. the last flood (February 2007), most of households lost their properties in second floor bec of the height of flood is more than 5

The value of building contents was summed up to get the

Inause

meters and it reached the second floor.total building contents value for each household.

Figure 5‐9: Example of building contents Source: Fieldwork (2007)

Total values of building contents for all households can be seen in Figure 5‐10; it had a very wide range from Rp 300,000 until Rp 54,300,000. Most of total values of building contents are less than Rp 920,000 with average of total asset is Rp 5,315,000

52


0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

Asset

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Freq

uenc

y

Mean = 5315.18Std. Dev. = 10386.386N = 83

Figur tents

. 3 Characteristics of the People at Risk

e, their occupations, their income, houses, equipment, crops and livestock. For that reason, in this section the characteristics of people at risk are linked with the livelihood of the respondents in the study area. The characteristics of the people at risk are age and gender of households, occupation and income, households’ size, educational level, length of stay ‐ related to strength of social network ‐ and the housing status. The handicapped people also include to these characteristics, but unfortunately during the fieldwork, the author didn’t get enough data about this characteristic; therefore in this research the handicapped people didn’t include into the analysis. All this information could help in understanding people reactions to cope the floods happened in this study area. There were 83 household interviewed during the field survey. A summary of some of the key characteristics of the people at risk is shown in this section.

5.3.1 Age of the respondents Information about age of respondents is important because it is assumed that the way people respond toward flood and how they conduct some strategies to cope the flood has correlation with the age of respo 5‐11), it were found that most of the respondents’ age is between 41‐ 50 (31.3%), in ages 31 – 40 (26.5%), in ages 21 –

e 5‐10: Values of households’ building con

5Community risk covers all potential losses and damage aftermath the hazard event. The elements at risk consist of varies of things related to people’s lives and their environment as well as their economic activities, where (and how) they liv

ndents. From data collected during field survey (Figure

30 (22.9%) and in ages over 50 years (19.3%).

Age of respondents

0.0

22.926.5 31.3

19.3

0.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

< 21 21 ‐ 30 31 ‐ 40 41 ‐ 50 > 50

Age

% Household

Figure 5‐11: Histogram of age of respondents

53


5.3.2 Gender of the respondents

many cases, the household still not got home and terview was carried out with the wife. Gender was considered as one characteristic that can

influence how households react upon the flood. Different type of coping mechanisms could be developed among male and female respondents. The analysis of coping mechanism in Chapter 7 will discuss this issue in more detail.

Distribution of respondents based on gender in Figure 5‐12 shows the equal number of respondents between male (49 respondents) and female (34 respondents). The fieldwork was conducted from 8.30 am until 17.00 pm when most of the male respondents work and not available in their house but because of the job’s location is nearby (Jatinegara traditional market), by the afternoon they already got home. In in

Distribution of respondents based on gender

3449

0.025.0

50.075.0

100.0

Female Male

of respondents based on gender

motorcycle driver (ojek), workers for construction works (kuli bangunan), and workers in the market (buruh pasar). Respondents work in government office or in private sector was categorized as employee (4.8%) (Look at Figure 5‐13). Since the majority of people in Kampung Melayu live mostly on trading, the location of the study area, which is near to economic activity – for example the Jatinegara traditional market and Jatinegara railway station, appear as the main reason why people prefer to stay in this area although every year they must be suffer from flooding (see Section 4.2).

Figure 5‐12: Distribution

5.3.3 Occupation Most of the female respondents are housewife (41%) and stay at home to take care of children and house while the head of the family was worked during the interview. Some of them open the small store (warung) in front of their house to get an extra income for their family. Most of the male respondents work as a trader (22.9%). They work as a peddler, have the small store (warung) in front of their houses or the shop in the Jatinegara traditional market. Non‐permanent job (21.7%) is including car driver,

22.9

41.0

21.74.8 9.6

0.0

25.0

Housewife Trader Employee Non‐ Jobless

%

50.0

100.0

permanent

e

75.0

hold

Hous

Occupation

Figure 5‐13: Distribution of respondents based on occupation

54


5.3.4 Income Table 5‐10 shows that this community is a low‐income community with 77.1% of the households on an income less than the legislated minimum wage (Rp 900.560). Medium income households (18.1%) have income ranged from Rp 1.000,000 – Rp 2,000,000, while households with high income have income more than Rp 2,000,000 (4.8%). Households’ income assumed as one of the factor contributes in selection certain coping mechanisms. High income households can build their buildings using concrete material which is more resistant from flood and can afford for surance, while the low income households cannot due to lack of money. They prefer to build

their house made from combination of brick and plywood or bamboo sheet in order to minimize the flood damage. Most of the households have secondary income, example: from their wives (small shop in front of their house). Many female respondents stated that during flood, they actually helped their husband to get extra income to survive with the crisis condition.

Table 5‐10: Income of the respondents

Income of the respondents Criteria of income Number of respondents

Percentage

in

< Rp 1.000.000 Low income 64 74.7 Rp 1.000.001 – 2.000.000 Medium income 15 20.5

> Rp 2.000.000 High income 4 4.8 Tot 00 al 83 1

Based on: KHL ( age for Jakarta 60 Kebutuhan Hidup Layak) Jakarta 2007 Rp 991.988 and Minimum W

Province Rp 900.5 In order to find out the correlation between income and number of floors, and income and values of building contents, data from those parameters were analyzed using SPSS. Statistical data were produced to shows the relationship between income and number of floors, and between income and values of building contents (Table 5.11 and Table 5.12).

Table 5‐11: Statistical data of income vs. number of floors

Income * Floor Crosstabulation

Count

0 2 2 41 2 3

FloorTotal

37 27 0 648 6 1 15

45 35 3 83

HighLow

Income

MediumTotal

Bas ve (Ta und that people with low a edium tend to build houses wh income (wea ier) can affor build their houses mor floor. The ability of to build their more tha e floors will

strategies developed by the local people in the study area in order to the flood (see Chapter 7).

ed on statistical data abo ble 5.11), it was fo nd m the one‐storey ile the higher lth d to

e than one people houses n ondecrease the vulnerability of people due to flooding. In addition, building houses more than one floor become one of copingduce the impact of re

55


Table 5‐12: Statistical data of income vs. values of building contents

Income N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum

Low 64 1117.34 389.795 300 1890 Medium 15 12353.33 3979.612 8750 21950 High 4 46087.50 5605.410 42500 54300 Total 83 5315.18 10386.386 300 54300 eople with low income have values of building contents varying from Rp 300.000 until Rp

.3.5 Educational Level igure 5‐14 shows the level of households’ education in Kampung Melayu; whereas majority of spondents obtained the high school (34.9% in junior high and 30.1% in senior high), 28.9% spondents were in elementary level, 3.6% in college and 2.4% un‐educated. People well‐ducated assumed to have a better life and it means a higher income to cope with flood.

From data below (Table 5‐13), the un‐educated households have low income (4.8%), the respondents who obtain men d medium income (6% e with junior level large low income (20.5%) the rest (6%) has medium senior sponde varyin m low e (3.6%), medium i %) high %), th ve occ n as a and have their own s Respondents wi de tly wo an employee in government or p sector mediu e (3.6%

P1.890.000, people with medium income in the range of Rp 8.750.000‐Rp 21.950.000, while people with high income have values of building contents varying between Rp 42.500.000 – Rp 54.300.000. The values of building contents will influence the vulnerability of building contents due to flooding. More assets found inside the house, more vulnerable the buildings will be. The discussion about the relationship between income, values of building contents and vulnerability will be explained further in Chapter 6.

5Freree

ed ele tary school have low income (45.8%) an) respond nts

me, high

high’s rely have

ts more and

incom inconcome (4.8

ne latter ha

g fro and income (4.8 upatio trader

hore. th university gree mos rk as rivate with m incom ).

Table 5‐13: Duration of study

Education Duration of study Frequency % Un‐educated 0 4 4.8

Elementary School 6 43 51.8 Junior High 9 22 26.5 Senior High 12 11 13.3 University 17 3 3.6 Total 83 100


56


0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

% Hous

dehol

Un‐educated 4.8 0.0 0.0

Elementary School 45.8 6.0 0.0

Junior High 20.5 6.0 0.0

Senior High 3.6 4.8 4.8

University 0.0 3.6 0.0

Low Income Medium Income High Income

Figure 5‐14: Distribution of respondents based on educational level

5.3.6 Length of Stay Based on information from fieldwork, majority of the households already live in this area between 21 – 31 years (38.6%), over 30 years (30.1%), 11 – 20 years (24.1%) and 7.2% already stay less than 10 year. This characteristic related with social network, dependency of neighbor and local support during the flood. The longer a household live in one area, the wider social network they had. Related with flood, this type of household will easy to get assistance in order to minimize the impact of flood, for example duri

or they can friend to cover

the safer lace and easier evacuation route.

ng flood they can stay in their neighbor’s house borrow money from their the extra expenses caused by flood. The senior inhabitants in this area also will understand the location well; during evacuation, she or he will knowp

7.224.1

50.0

Hous 38.6

30.1

0.0

25.0

75.0

100.0

%

ehold

0 ‐ 10 11 ‐ 20 21 ‐ 30 > 30

Length of stay (year)

Figure 5‐15: Distribution of respondents based on

7 t p en in Kampung Melayu own their houses (66.3%),

d 10.8% of respondents rent their current house. The tions take when the flood come; people who rent the floor because the house is not belong to them.

length of stay

5.3. Housing Status Based on Figure 5‐16, most of he res ond22.9% represent the ancestral properties anownership of the building will affect the achouse didn’t think about to build a second

ts

57


66.3

10.822.9

0.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

Own Rent Ancestral

Land Tenure % Household

Figure 5‐16: Distribution of respondents based on land tenure

sical of the building (including structural type of building and building contents) and socio‐economic characteristic of households. In physical aspect, information about wall material, floor material and roof material was gained. The result of this research found that most of households using concrete material for wall, floor, and roof. Concrete wall they used was called “tembok” which is use brick as main material and covered with cement and plaster. This kind of wall material believed as the less damaged‐wall‐material during flood because its structure is solid and quite sturdy. There are mixed wall building found in this area which is combination of concrete wall material with plywood or bamboo sheet. Local people prefer to build this kind of structure because they want to make their house resistant to annual flood with flood depth 10 – 50 cm with low‐priced material. Cement and ceramic tile ea because this type of floor ma during this

t storey using concrete floor and the second using so because they know that the annual flood only 50

rom combination of wall material, floor material and roof material, five common structural type

from plastic that easier to move to safer place during flood. Most of total values of building

5. 4 Summary and Conclusion In this chapter, certain elements at risk considered as aspects that can influence the flood vulnerability were discussed. Those elements at risk divided into two main groups: phy

s was found as the most favourite floor material in this study arterial is easy to clean after flood. Mixed floor material also found

research especially in two stories house, firswood. Households using this kind of floor alcm and it means the second storey is safe from flood. Although during big flood (2002 and 2007) most of building with two stories also inundated because of the water height more than 3 meters. Most of respondents use clay tiles as their roof material. Fof building in this study area was found. Later that information was used in structural vulnerability assessment to get the information which structural type that more susceptible to flood compare than others in Chapter 6. More than a half of respondents in Kampung Melayu built the second‐storey‐house although they build it with low‐priced material. This means they already have their own ways to minimize damage caused by floods that happen regularly in that area with considering of their own capacities. Building contents found inside the houses in Kampung Melayu include include furniture and appliances. From this research revealed that local people located their valuable properties – for example: electronic appliances, books and important documents, jewellery, etc ‐ in the second floor to avoid the damage during the flood. They also decided to choose the furniture made

58


contents are less than Rp 920,000 (Figure 5‐10). This value shows the value of building contents that could be damaged during flood. Some indicators such as: age and gender, occupation and income, households’ size, educational level, length of stay and housing status were used to access socio‐economic characteristics of the people in the study area. The capacity of households react upon the flood can be measured using those socio‐economic indicators. Age of the respondents mostly 41‐50 years old; consist of 49 ale respondents and 34 female respondents. Most of female respondents are housewife while

tents (further discussion in Chapter 6). Their insufficient income and lack of rmal education limit their capacity to improve their livelihood strategies, for example they can

mthe male respondents are traders. Their income and educational level seems to be low; 74.7% of the interviewed households categorized as low income family and 51.8% of the respondents only achieved elementary level. There is relationship between income related to building structure and building confonot compete and function effectively in the labor market. This research revealed that most of households own their houses and it force them to secure their asset with several coping strategies. The local coping strategies will be discussed further in Chapter 7.

59


6. Analysis of Vulnerability Assessment his section examines the flood vulnerability for building structure found in Kampung Melayu, uilding contents located inside the buildings and social vulnerability regarding to socio‐onomic characteristics of local people in the study area.

. 1 Vulnerability of Building Structure to Flood ulnerability of building structure in this research refers only to the damage of building material all, floor and roof) without considering other parts of the building. It only measured the

amage in those materials as element at risk (see Table 5‐4 and Table 5‐5) and determined on the asis of percentage of damage for each wall, floor and roof materials from the occurrence of the ood.

ased on UNDRO (1991), the definition of vulnerability means the degree of loss to a given at risk or set of such elements resulting from the occurrence of a natural phenomenon of

(total loss). According to this

, pollution load of floodwater and rate of water rise during flood onset. However, other aspects like social and economic variables e.g.

ility of building contents

because they are not recorded frequently and it is quite difficult to calculate their influence

use or different types of house?”, this research is using wall, floor and

Tbec

6V(wdbfl Belementa given magnitude. It expressed on a scale from 0 (no damage) to 1 definition, vulnerability for building structure in this research made in on scale from 0 to 1. Flood damage is determined by some physical flood characteristics, such as: water depth, velocity, duration, sediment concentration, sediment size

flood knowledge; property and infrastructure variables, e.g. susceptiband structure to floods; warning variables, e.g. warning time and response variables, e.g. amount of people responding to floods also playing an important role to increase the damage (Guarin 2003). In this research, the damage is only considered the water depth because generally it is the most important parameter and it assumed that water depth has strongest influence on damage magnitude. Other parameters are suggested as being important but are not analyzed in this udy st

for damage assessment. Firstly, all flood damage was estimated to be in financial value using local currency or the cost that spent to repair the damage according to literature (Dutta and Tingsanchali (2003); Penning‐owsell and Chatterton (1977); Smith and Ward (1998). But because not everybody alreadyR

repairs the damage in their house or some of the respondents could not remember properly the money they spent for repairing the damage, it proposed to use another approach to measure the percentage of damage. In this research, the damage on structural building determined based on Nothing Happen (0%, NH), Half Collapse (50%, HC) and Collapse (100%, C) that is divided into seven values between 0 and 1 (see Table 6‐1). Those values are adopted from the previous research conducted by Maiti (2007) which measured the flood structural damage using wall, floor and material and use a wall‐floor‐roof combination as element at risk considered to be damaged. This method is the best fit for this study because it performs a local survey with considering the local expert and local knowledge. Using the scheme based on the research of Kelman and Spence (2003): “What will fail first when loodwater contacts a hofroof materials as the basis to determine the damage. It is also based on the responses of the respondents during the interviews, which mentioned wall, floor and roof are parts of building structure that can be damaged during flood. During the household interview, the percentage of damage with above mentioned codes were used and the respondents were asked to define the damage based on the condition of wall, floor and roof during the flood occurrence.

60


Table 6‐1: Description of Stage of Damage of Structural Type of Building

Vulnerability Description

0 (No Damage or Nothing Happen of wall, floor and roof materials)

1. If the materials (wall, floor and roof) do not get damaged due to certain level of flood depth.

2. If the material does not need any repair or replacement.

0.2 (> Nothing Happen and < Half Collapse of wall, floor and roof materials)

1. If any one material (among wall, floor and roof) or in a half portion of that does get Half Collapse ( half damage) and other two did not get damage (Nothing Happen) due to certain level of flood depth.

2. If that one material or in a half portion of that does not need any replacement directly but

t due to Half Collapse. might be needed repairing cos

0.4 (> Half Collapse and < Nothing

1. If any two ma g wall, floor and

hin

those

terials (amonroof) or in a half portion of those got Half Collapse (half damage) and other one does not get damage (Not g Happen) due to Happens of wall, floor and roof

materials) certain level of flood depth. 2. If two materials or half portion of did

not need replacement but needed repairing cost due to Half Collapse.

0.5 (Half Collapse of wall, floor andals)

1.

roof materi

If the three materials (among wall, floor and roof) or in a half portion of those got Half Collapse (half damage) at the simultaneously due to certain level of flood depth.

2. If those three materials or half portion of those might needed replacement and must needed repairing cost.

pse and < Collapse)

ent

1. If any two materials (among wall, floor and roof) or in a or total damage of wall, floor and roof materials) half portion of those got Half Collapse (half damage) and other one does get full damage or total Collapse due to

0.6 (> Half Colla certain level of flood depth. 2. If those two materials or half portion of those

did not need replacem but needed repairing cost and Collapse material does need repairing cost and replacement cost.

0.8 (> Collapse or total damage and < Half Collapse of wall, floor and roof materials)

1. If any two materials (among wall, floor and roof) or in a half portion of those got total Collapse (total damage) and other one does get Half Collapse (half damage) due to certain level of flood depth.

2. If those two materials might needed replacement and other one needed repairing cost not replacement.

61


1 (Collapse or total damage of wall, floor and roof materials)

1.

to certain level of

2. l l e

If full portion of three materials (among wall, floor and roof) got total Collapse or total damage simultaneously due flood depth. If those materia s needed rep acem nt and repairing cost and need to make a new structure.

Source: Maiti (2007) B abov and f for e this s Derived from th e vulnerability curve for each s lding was produced e d t w ths used to create the relationships between w le’s memories and also measured from the flood m house. Vulnerability curves for five structural types re 6

House structural type 1 is made from oof material. There were 44 respondents usi ith combination of strong and solid materia tural type is less vulnerable. However,

to repair some minor damage especially in wall material. Some of respondents repainting the wall because of the mud leave the mark after flood. Concrete

Structural type 2 is houses made from combination of brick wall – concrete floor – asbestos

e difference only in the roof material – asbestos ‐ which is more vulnerable than concrete r this type of structural building still can maintain to cope with the flood

3.

. Plywood wall or bamboo sheet is very prone to water because it gets damaged easily when it attached to water. However, the c lay roof make this structural type is less vulnerable than structural type 4

4.

ased on the stage damage description lood depths were plotted into graphics

ndix 2).

e, the relationships between levels of damage ach of five structural type of building found in ose plots, the averagtudy area (see appe

tructural type of bui (Figur 6.1). It shoul be noted hat the ater depater depth and damage are based on peopark remains inside the

of buildings are observed as follows (see Figu.1): 1. Structural Type 1

a combination of brick wall ‐ concrete floor ‐ clay rng structural type 1 found during fieldwork. Wl, this struc

people still have

floor material like ceramic tiles and cement are easier to clean after the flood and relatively sturdy; not many respondents have to repair or replace their concrete floor (While the roof material, some of households mentioned that they have replace some holes in the roof because they flushed away during flood or broken down.

2. Structural Type 2

roof. This structural type is also having a tough and solid material like the structural type 1, thoof. During flood,water. This type starts getting damage from flood depth around 50 cm. Subsequently, it gets half damaged when the water increases to around 180 cm. The material of this structural type of building are almost entirely damaged (vulnerability 0.8) when water reaches to 350 cm.

Structural Type 3 Houses with structural type 3 are made from combination of mixed wall – concrete floor – clay roof. Mixed wall in this case means combination of brick wall on the lower part of the wall and plywood wall or bamboo sheet on the upper part

oncrete floor and cand 5. This structural type gets half damage in range 120 – 150 cm and totally collapse when the floodwater increases from 180 onwards. Structural Type 4 Structural type 4 is houses are made from combination of mixed wall – concrete floor ‐ asbestos roof. Like structural type 3, the mixed wall also means combination of brick wall on

62


lower part and plywood wall or bamboo sheet on upper part. The vulnerability for this structure is almost similar with structural type 3. The plywood or bamboo sheet gets damaged when it exposed to water, this make it gets half damaged when water increases in r This structural type of building is totally damaged when the floodwater

5.

in the second floor. The concrete wall material rick) and floor material (ceramic tiles in the first floor) is less vulnerable during flood due

t But, when water reaches more than 50 cm, the plywood wall or the

ange 110 – 150 cm.reaches to 200 cm or higher. Structural Type 5 This structural type 5 represents the houses made from combination of mixed wall – mixed floor –asbestos roof. Mixed wall here means combination of brick wall on the lower part and plywood wall or bamboo sheet on the upper part and mixed floor means combination of concrete floor in the first floor and wall floor(bheir sturdy form. bamboo sheet become vulnerable because it will exposed to water and gets rotting. The wood material in the second floor will inundated when the flood water reaches 120 cm and gets damaged. The entire building materials for this structural house are collapsed when flood water increases to 150 cm or more.

1

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0 100 200 300 400 500

Water depth inside the house (cm)

Vulnerabilit

0.8

y

Structure 1

Structure 2

Structure 3

Structure 4

Structure 5

ity curve for all structural type of building

It is found that houses with structural type 5 (mixed wall – mixed floor – asbestos roof) are the most vulnerable among all structural types of building found in Kampung Melayu. There is similarity of vulnerability curves for structural type 3, 4, and 5. Additionally, house with structural type 1 is the least vulnerable among other structural types of building in the study area. Later on, the final vulnerability map for structural type of buildings (Figure 6.3) was obtained after classifying the vulnerability values in different categories using a slicing operation (very high, high, moderate, low and no vulnerability) (see Table 6‐2).

Table 6‐2 : Structural vulnerability class for each five structural types of building

Structural Vulnerability Class Vulnerability

Figure 6‐1: Comparison of vulnerabil

No Vulnerability 0 Low Vulnerability <=0.2

Moderate Vulnerability <=0.5 High Vulnerability <=0.8

Very High Vulnerability <=1

63


Figure 6‐2: Map of building structure vulnerability

6. 2 Vulnerability of Building Contents to Flood The methodological approach for contents estimation used in this research attempted to be consistent with situation and the way of living existing in the study area. Thus, some assumptions were also established before defining the building contents vulnerability: 1. The list of building contents only considered the building contents located in bedrooms,

living room, dining rooms and kitchen. 2. Socio‐economic level especially income has strong influence on the building contents found

in the houses. Furthermore, three socio‐economic levels (see Chapter 5 Section 5.3.4) were assumed have different value of building contents; they are: low, medium and high.

3. Some articles can be found in all socio‐economic classes but the price of it differs related to the income level; and that the number of items increases with the economic class. For that reason, three lists classes and it was already assigned the each article was

of articles were prepared according to the socioeconomicto each respondent during the survey. The price for

obtained from the local shops in Kampung Melayu. (Table 6‐3).

Table 6‐3: Lists of assets for contents estimation

List Item (1) Low income (2) Medium Income (3) High Income

Television set 400 1,300 2,500 T 900 2,000 ape / Radio system 300 Sofa set 1,500 4,000 Beds 50 500 1,000 Dinning set 800 2,000 Drawers 200 400 1,000 Curtain 20 100 250 Auxiliary Tables 150 350 1,000

64


Auxiliary Chairs 50 150 400 Ca 800 rpet 250 Refrigerator 1,200 2,500 Computer set 4,000 6,000 Air Con r ditione 2,000 3,000 Washing Machine 1,000 2,500 Video, DVD 800 2,000 Telephone 400 1,000 Vacuum cleaner 1,500 Stove 150 300 1,000 Rice cooker 250 400 Iron 100 200 400 Electric fan 80 150 300 Total 1,5 16 3500 ,550 ,550 N ven in Rupiah (multip ith 1,000) M lds mentioned that the common damages on the contents af od 2007 i and smelly furniture, oken electronic de loss of kitche ils, wet m ws, loss some importan documents and s spondents st at they d age on building cont ts (see Table 6‐4).

T mon damages on building ontents based on h holds’ intervi

Kelurahan Kamp Melayu (N = 83 respondents)

ote: Prices are gi ly w

ost househo building ter flos wet clothes, dirty br vices, n utensattress and pillo t ome re ated thidn’t suffer any dam en

able 6‐4: Com c ouse ews

ung

Damaged building contents Number of responses (f)

% of s Ra case nk

Clothes become wet and 9 1 soaked

80 6

Dirty and smelly furniture 74 89 2 because of mud

Electronic devices do not 61 73 3 work anymore

Loss of kitchen utensils 44 53 4 Pillows and mattresses get wet and dirty

38 46 5

Lost of some documents 23 28 6 No damage 2 2 7 TOTAL 322 B damag content ed into sses, i.e: 0 (No Damage), 0.25 (Slightly Affecte ately Affected), 0.75 (Highly Affected), and 1 ( s

Tab escription of Stage of Damage of Building Contents

Description

ased on the result above, the e of buildingd), 0.5 (Moder

s was classifi five cla

De troyed) (see Table 6‐5).

le 6‐5: D

Vulnerability

0 (No Damage) No water inside the house that can cause damage on the buildi ng contents.

65


0.25 (Slightly Affected) People start to move objects to a safer or higher position or they d to mop and clea e building contents. ha n th

0.5 (Moderately Affected) Minor ses, particularly clothes, pillows and attresses get ro due to soaking we and people had mop and clean the building contents.

los mtten t to

0.75 (Highly Affected) Almost total loss of the contents, especially furniture, kitchen utensils, etc. People had to remove dirt and mud.

1 (Destroyed) Total loss of the contents, electric devices do not work anymore.

Vulnerabi contents in this research was con erent floodwater height. In order to between vulnerability and water for building contents vulnerabi househo

lity of building see the relation

sidered to diff depth, a graph

lity based on the lds interview vs. water depth was plotted (Figure 6.4).

0

0.25

Vu

0.5

1

0 5 100 125 150 175 200


lner

ab

0.75

ility

25 50 7

Figure 6‐3: Vulnerability function for building contents estimation.

Dots represent the averaged water depth inside the house for each vulnerability stage From the above graph, water depth values for each stage of vulnerability described in Table 6.4 were obtained, as can be seen in Table 6‐6 below. Table 6‐6: Water depth for building contents vulnerability assessment

Vulnerability Water Depth (cm)

0 (No Damage) 0 0.25 (Slightly Affected) <40

0.5 (Moderately Affected) <70 0.75 (Highly Affected) <100

1 (Destroyed) >=100 For each wa on the list previ the terviewed households and represent the percentage of expected damage. Therefore, it was

tals, and dividing by the total price of the list ch one of the lists is

ter depth, the vulnerability for each item of building contents basedously described in Table 6‐3 was calculated. The vulnerability values are gathered from

inmultiplied by the value of each item. Later on, the vulnerability value (from 0 to 1) for each water height was determined by summing up the subto(Appendix 3). The vulnerability values for building contents for easummarized in Table 6‐7.

66


Table es for building ents

0 cm <100 cm >=100 cm

6‐7: Vulnerability valu cont

List <4 <70 cm1 0.12 0.91 1.00 0.34 2 0.20 0.61 1.00 0.42 3 0.29 0.55 0.90 1.00

A slicing operation was used in order to produce the map of building contents vulnerability. The vulnerability was classified into five classes, i.e: very high, high, moderate, low and no vulnerability (see Table 6‐8).

Table 6‐8 : Building contents vulnerability class for each five structural types of building

Building Contents Vulnerability Class Vulnerability No Vulnerability 0 Low Vulnerability <=0.2

Moderate Vulnerability <=0.5 High Vulnerability <=0.8

Very High Vulnera <=1 bility Later on, these classes were u t ing con nerabilit the study area (Figur ‐5).

s developed to h de buil te lnts vu y in map e 6

Figure 6‐4: Map of building contents vulnerability

67


(a) (b)

Figure 6‐5: Comparison of Building Structure Vulnerability map (a) with Building Contents Vulnerability map (b)

In order to find out if there is any correlation between the map of building contents vulnerability (Figure 6‐5) and the map of building structure vulnerability (Figure 6‐3), the comparison between those maps was generated in Figure 6‐6. In this figure, it seems that even the buildings located in a zone with lower water height and have moderate building structure vulnerability, the vulnerability of building contents found were higher. This condition shows that the building contents vulnerability is also influenced by socioeconomic class (income) and depend on the asset located inside the houses. Buildings with more assets possibly to have a higher damage and have a high vulnerability as well.

6. 3 Vulnerability of People to flooding In the context of natural ity of a people as individual or groups to anticipate, cope with, resist and recover from the natural disaster’s

(1999)). It involves a combination of factors that determine the d livelihood is put at risk by a discrete or identifiable event in

nature sozera et. al (2006) stated that the ability of people to react to and natural disaster is a function of socio‐economic as well as

Therefore an approach to assess local social vulnerability using socio‐economic information c cted during the survey. The characteristics the people at risk are age and genlength of stayopefully can be used for plans.

ducated, and the ill or handicapped who are the most e, economic or human resources also deal with a disaster. Housing status,

disasters, the term of vulnerability means the capac

impact (Blaikie et. al (1994); Adgerdegree to which someoneʹs life an

or society.ʺ In addition, Madeal with the impacts of

biophysical factors.

, this section considers olle of

der of households, occupation and income, households’ size, educational level, ‐ related to strength of social network ‐ and the housing status (see Section 5.3). It

further emergency management and disaster responseh Andrews and Whitey (1976) quoted in Guarin (2003) described a social indicator as “a feature which can be monitored over time, can be disaggregated to the level of the relevant social unit…they should be ‘coherent’ in that it would be helpful to our understanding if they hung together in some form that would eventually lead to a model or theory about how society operates”. Groups with higher vulnerability include minorities, woman‐headed households, the elderly, the unemployed, the illiterate or unevulnerable to disaster. Besides, lack of access to knowledgcan reduce the capacity of some socio‐economic groups towhether renting or owning the property, can also limit the individualʹs ability to cope with natural disaster (Masozera et al. 2006).

68


Key social indicators were selected from literature review and adopted as parameters, which were then collected from the socio‐economic characteristic of people in Kampung Melayu. The indicators selected were:

Length of stay

stionnaires collected.

1. Age 2. Gender 3. Occupation 4. Income 5. Education level 6.7. Housing status Table 6‐9 summarizes the socio‐economic characteristics (see Chapter 5, Section 5.3) that influence social vulnerability based on information gathered during households’ interview and through que

Table 6‐9: Socio‐economic indicators influencing social vulnerability

Socio‐economic characteristics Description

Increases (+) or decreases (−)

social vulnerability Age (see Section 5.3.1)

• This indicator relates to the movement during evacuation

Elderly (+) or when the flood

strikes. Children (+)

• The elderly and the children need some assistance during that period.

Gender • Women frequently have more culties than men to recover from

flood disaster, because of the responsibilities to take care of her family.

• During flood events, women often need help from men to evacuate themselves to the shelters.

Woman (+) Men (‐) (see Section 5.3.2) diffi

Occupation (see Section 5.3.3)

• People, who are live on trading, depend on the source of income

d‐prone area (see Section 4.2

have permanent job indicate to have low income s them more vulnerable due to flooding.

Peddler, non‐permanent job (+)

(traditional market and railway station); therefore they prefer to stay in this floo

Employee (‐)

and Section 5.33). • Street trader or people who do not

and it make

Income

the costs of repair,

• ly ss in e

(+) (+/−)

(see Section 5.3.4)

• People with low income suffer more after the flood because they can not afford reconstruction, or relocation. Wealthier can recover more quickfrom lo es using suranc and additional financial resources.

Low incomeHigh income

69


• likely to register the highest

y 5.2 and

Nevertheless, the high income people are moremagnitude of economic damage because the have more possessions, and of higher value (see Section6.2).

Education level (see Section 5.3.5)

• ktu e

•

• n constrains the

ucation (+) ed (−)

Education is lin ed to the socio‐economic sta s (incom ). Higher educational attainment affects lifetime earning. Limited educatioability to understand warning information and access recovery information.

Little edHighly educat

Length of stay n 5.3.6)

• who stay

r s k.e during

• m

Longer stay in that area (‐) at area (+) (see Sectio

Social networking: People more than 20 years have a strong relationship with the neighbors as well as thei wide ocial networ This relates to the social assistancthe flood. People have ore direct experiences from previous floods.

New comer in th

Housing status ee Section 5.3.7)

• People who rent the house didn’t have

e•

ant to flooding and can receive t g

Renters (+) wners (‐)

O(s responsibilities to build their houses

more than one floor in order to minimize th impact of the flood. The owners have the access to land, able to build their houses more resistfinancial support from he overnment for reconstruction.

6. 4 Summary and In this chapter, physica it ilding structure and building contents found inside the i la discussed about vulnerability to flooding using socio‐e ch are described in previous chapter pter 5, c T f build u e most prone to flood is th ion of mixed wall – mixed floor – asbestos roo r ctural type 1 which is made from combination of bric ial. Afterward, using slicing operation, the vulnerab udy area was classified into 7 vulnerability classes: ve te low, low and no vulnerability and in Figure I con p ngs found inside the houses was done usi regarding to the three socio‐economic level descri ently, based on the building contents analysis, five ere generated: very high, high,

Conclusionl vulnerabil y including vulnerability of bu house were d scussed. The st section conomic community characteristics whition 5.3). (see Cha se

ing structure found that among five stre structural type 5 which is made from f. While the least vulnerable to flood is stk wall ‐ concrete floor ‐ clay roof mater

he vulnerability o ctcombinat

ural types of building, th

u

ility of structural type of buildings in the stry high, high, moderate high, moderate, modera 6‐3. represented

n analysis of building tents vulnerability, quantification of peong three lists of assets (see Table 6‐3) d in Chapter 5, section 5.3.4. Su

le’s belongi

be bsequclasses of building contents vulnerability w

70


moderate, low and no vu map of building contents vulnerability is plotted sp g when the map of building structure vulnerability (Fi ap of building contents vulnerability (Figure 6‐5) were compared. Figure 6‐6 shows that even the buildings located in relatively lower water

ilding structure, the building contents vulnerability

ome, educational level, length of stay, and housing status.

lnerability (see Table 6‐8). Finally, theatially in Figure 6‐5. There is a findingure 6‐3) and the m

height and have moderate vulnerability of bufound higher. Therefore, it can be concluded that building contents vulnerability is also depend on the social status (income) of the households and the total assets found inside the houses. Vulnerability of people due to flood in this study area was investigated using several indicators, uch as: age, gender, occupation, incsThose parameters were selected through literature review and the socio‐economic characteristics found during fieldwork. The social indicators which can influence the social vulnerability in the study area were summarized in Table 6‐9. A full research in social vulnerability is absolutely required in order to recognize and integrate the real root causes of social vulnerability in Kampung Melayu. Hopefully this information will encourage the local government, stake holders and policy makers, emergency planners, NGOs and local people in the study area to develop a comprehensive CBDRM before for the next flood coming.

71


7. Coping Mechanism his chapter explores the flood coping mechanisms floods developed by local people in the study rea taken from the fieldwork data. Each coping mechanism is categorized into three flooding hases: before, during and after flooding. For each phase the coping mechanisms will be divided to three types, which are: technological/structural, economic and social coping mechanisms. lood forecasting and early warning system in the study area also described in this chapter. The st section will describe the flood management conducted by the local government.

. 1 Community Coping Mechanism ince the area is flood prone and people become familiar with annual floods, with the big flood very 5 years, the people tend to have practically trained themselves to make some actions with eir own capacity. Coping strategies are often transmitted from generation to generation within ommunities and households. Based on the households’ interview and site observation during rvey, several coping mechanisms employed by the local people to deal with flood were found. uring interviews, the people were asked, using open‐ended questions, about their coping echanisms: before, during and after flooding (see appendix 1). Subsequently, the data of the ifferent coping mechanisms, used during the different flooding phases, were analyses. In order identify the dominant type of coping mechanisms, the number of responses for each coping rategies was divided by with total respondents in the study area ranked from the most

coping strategies gathered from the survey before, during ‐1 and Table 7‐2.

TapinFla

7SethcsuDmdtostpreferred through least preferred. Theand after flooding are shown in Table 7

Table 7‐1 : Households’ coping strategies before flooding ‐ preparations

N = 83 respondents Coping strategies employed Number of

responses Rank

‐ Cleaning the canal 46 1 ‐ Building a house with more than one floor 42 2 ‐ Cleaning the house and surroundings (gotong royong) 36 3 ‐ Store basic food items 35 4 ‐ Prepare cooking equipment 32 5 ‐ Construct house using the concrete material 22 6 ‐ Check the water depth in Watergate 22 6 ‐ Build a secure place under the roof 21 7 ‐ Put sand bags in front of the house 20 8 ‐ Prepare baby’s stuffs, light and battery 19 9 ‐ Store the properties in higher place 17 10 ‐ Placing the motorcycle in safe place 16 11 ‐ Placing properties in relative’s or neighbor’s house 15 12 ‐ Store clothes and valuable things in the plastic bag 11 13 ‐ Discuss with other household about the action plan to cope with flood

5 14

‐ Other 2 15 TOTAL 361 The most comm ed by the househ oodin ning the canal. The canal in the study area is usually full of trash and th ot flow easily.

on coping strategies develop olds before fle water cann

g is clea

72


P floor s ey can keep ir precious g clothes, books, etc) in the second floor. ally, the first oor is only u no valuable properties put in here le the second oor is used f and low inco family, they d to build t materials, like asbestos, plywood, etc to protect from the f resistant to flood damage t’s the main ason why p ng this solid material. The bination of brick wall ( was an alternative technique, despite la of money. T es is also to reduce the impact of flood a it is much e l characteristics of building pter 5). M ve their mo against problems of flood. B the safe ace (higher place), prepare c etc), li and battery store in a food items such as: noodle, rice and drinking ter.

T : Households’ coping strategies during flooding

eople in study area build their houses with more than one o th theoods (electrical devices, Usu flsed for cooking and there are whi flor daily activities. Although they come from poor me trieheir second house floor with minimal lood. Concrete material is relatively , tha reeople prefer to build their house usi com theconcrete) and plywood or bamboo sheet ckhe selection of cement and ceramic til nd asier to clean it from mud (see physica in Cha

ost households do not have insurance and do not sa ney ut they do prepare to evacuate the important things toooking equipment, prepare baby’s stuffs (clothes, blankets,

essential

plght and

dvance the wa

able 7‐2

N = 83 respondents Coping strategies employed Number of

responses (f) Rank

‐ Evacuate personal goods to the higher place 41 1 ‐ Guard their house 38 2 ‐ Evacuate the children, pregnant women and the elderly 37 3 ‐ Staying at evacuation centre/neighbors/relatives 37 3 ‐ Continue to working 25 4 ‐ Rescue important documents 24 5 ‐ Helping each other to evacuate the neighborhood 22 6 ‐ Can not go to work 19 7 ‐ Find alternative jobs 18 8 ‐ Share their food and water 16 9 ‐ Extra money for buying the food 13 10 ‐ Disseminate flood information 10 11 ‐ Tie a rope in dangerous places to help people during evacuation

10 12

‐ Do nothing 2 12 ‐ Other 1 13 TOTAL 313 Evacuate perso furniture are copin anism during flooding, followed by guarding the house to make s house is safe and e elderly. M st places ke shelter d ng flood w relatives. The la stated that th ion i is makes sense, since the school buildings, e or mosque e usually n es such as clean water, toilets a space large ough to a leaving their houses, the famil normally m in some cases, one male member of the fa stays back t the p le thefts. The above practice is conducted y when a hi flood is a , when the anticipated flood is mil lds prefer to stay back at their houses.

nal goods such as appliances and the dominanture that their

g mech

vacuate the children, pregnant women and the

ost households find mosques, school or office as the safe to ta urihile a few prefer to stay in their neighbors or their tter e condit

n the shelter is poor. Th offic arot equipped with basic faciliti nd enccommodate huge numbers of evacuees. While y oves together. However, mily o guardroperty against possib onl ghnticipated. In normal conditions d, househo

73


A interview, people usually look alternative occupation if t ch as Jatinegara traditional mark ave been inu ted and t

T olds’ coping strategies after flooding

s stated by local people during the for heir main source of livelihood su et h ndahey can not work in that area.

able 7‐3 : Househ

N = respondents 83 Coping strategies employed Num

responses (f) Rank ber of

‐ Repairing the damage 42 1 ‐ Cleaning the mud from house and furniture 36 2 ‐ Clean up the mud and debris after the flood together with neighbours (gotong royong) 29 3 ‐ Borrowing money from relatives or friends 25 4 ‐ Drying wet clothes, furniture, etc 24 5 ‐ Sell goods to get extra money to repair the house 17 6 ‐ Sourcing house materials 12 7 ‐ Other 4 8 TOTAL 189

After flooding, most people mentioned that they repair the damage and clean up the mud as their coping mechanism. People normally retrieve materials to repair the damage caused by flood. Households would re‐use resources and materials that were left undamaged or those which were still useful. During this process, most of them stated that they seek loans or borrow from relatives or friends to pay for household expenses or sell their goods to get extra money. These coping strategies will exacerbate the flood impact, because poorer households, who cannot

ith searching for loans or selling their properties. It means that poor households will become even poor rrence.

Based on inte at they didn’t pr nes b usually government provides it in the shelters. Good things abo le generally forget p help each other. They share their food they help e other to c

T yed based on gender: male female. B nisms by the fema espondents a preparing t items such as rice, dles and drin ng water. W hanisms by the male responde cleaning t canal and b

T ing strategies before flooding based on nder

afford the cost of repair to their houses, would end up wer after the flood occu

rviews, respondents stated th epare mediciut flood, peop

ecause

ersonal animosities and and achlean up the mud and debris after the flood.

here are different coping mechanisms that are emploefore flooding, the most common

le r

andre coping mecha

he cooking equipment and storing the basic noo kihile the most common coping mec nts are he uilding the second floors (Table 7‐4).

able 7‐4 : Households’ cop ge

Female Mal(34 respondents) (49 respondents)

e

Coping strategies employed Number of responses (f)

Rank Number of responses (f)

Rank

‐ Cleaning the canal 13 5 33 1 ‐ Building a house with more than one floor

11 6 31 2

‐ Cleaning the house and surroundings (gotong royong)

20 3 16 5

‐ Store the basic food items 27 2 8 10 ‐ Prepare the cooking equipments 30 1 2 14

74


‐ Construct the house using the concrete material

4 9 18 4

‐ Check the water depth in Watergates 3 10 19 3 ‐ Build a secure place under the roof 11 6 10 9 ‐ Put sand bags in front of the house 8 8 12 7 ‐ Prepare baby’s stuffs, light and battery 17 4 2 14 ‐ Store the properties in higher place 10 7 7 11 ‐ Placing the motorcycle in safe place 2 11 14 6 ‐ Placing properties in relative’s or 4 9 11neighbor’s house

8

‐ Stor gs in the

e the clothes and valuable thin plastic bag

8 8 3 13

‐ Discuss with other household about e with flood the action plan to cop

1 12 4 12

‐ Other 1 12 1 15 TOTAL 170 191

D dents an that th stay at ev ation centre r at t which are locat in safer are s and move their belong s to h second floor to the top f the desk r cupboard ale

echanisms s as evacua the childr pregnant nd the elderly and guard their house to make sure that their abandoned house were safe (Table 7

T s during oding ba on gende

uring flooding, most of female responheir nearest neig

swer ey acu ohbors or relatives

igher places, for example toedor

a o

o

ing. M the

espondents carry out the coping mra

uch te en, women

‐5).

able 7‐5 : Households’ coping strategie flo sed r

Female (34 spondents

Male ( spondents re ) 49 re )

Coping strategies employed Number of responses (f) Rank Number of

responses (f) Rank

‐ Evacuate personal goods to the higher place

16 2 25 3

‐ Guard their house 12 3 26 2 ‐ Evacuate the children, pregnant women and the el

1 derly

8 6 29

‐ Staying at evacuation centre/neighbors/relatives

26 1 11 7

‐ Continue to working 3 8 22 4 ‐ Rescue the important documents 8 6 16 5 ‐ Helping each other to evacuate the neighborhood

10 4 12 6

‐ Can not go to work 9 5 10 8 ‐ Find alternative jobs 8 6 10 8 ‐ Share their food and water 12 3 4 11 ‐ Extra money for buying the food 10 4 3 12 ‐ Disseminate flood information 4 7 6 10 ‐ Tie a rope in dangerous places to help 3 7people during evacuation 8

9

‐ Do nothin g 0 ‐ 2 13‐ Other 1 9 0 ‐ TOTAL 130 183

75


A ooding, the most common coping strategies employed by the female respondents are c om house, cleaning furn e (usuall rniture e from plastic), b friends for repair the damage or for ily expenses, and d niture. The male resp have reference t pair the damage a use and furniture (Table ‐6).

T ing strategies after flooding based gender

fter flleaning the mud fr itur y fu madorrowing money from relatives orrying wet clothes and fur

dao re

ondents p

nd clean the mud from ho

able 7‐6 : Households’ cop

7

on

male (34 respondents)

Male (49 respondents)

Fe

Coping strategies employed Number of responses (f)

Rank Number of responses (f)

Rank

‐ Repairing the damage 1 16 3 26 ‐ Cleaning the mud from house and furniture 19 1 17 2 ‐ Clean up the mud and debris after the

15 14 flood together with neighbours (gotong royong) 4 3 ‐ Borrowing money from relatives or friends 19 1 6 6

wet clothes, furniture, etc 18 2 6 ‐ Drying 6 ‐ Sell goods to get extra money to repair the house 10 5 7 5 ‐ Sourcing house materials 1 6 11 4 ‐ Other 1 6 3 7 TOTAL 99 90

Based on the discussion above, we can conclude that coping mechanism conducted by the female s, home and family

whereas the male respondents perform the coping strategies linked with technical or structural aspects.

Subseq three t g mechanism tified in this section, which are: technological/struct c so mec . T coping mechanisms arch n a to p involving ma rial or existing action, as cleaning the c Econom echanism nsist of a rategies linked to m ducing profits or benefits. While the cial mecha a in which they occur. They include activities offering o text.

D esting finding related to coping mechanisms employed by t in the study area. Respondents stated t they us lly clean u e canal and eir n on is comin d also cle up the mu the deb left b e head of RT or RW usually lead and coordinate this a the community. People work han hand wi their neighbour and leav eir a common condition found in the u n areas. S of coping mechanism developed by th cal people the stud ea can be seen in Table 7‐7. In addition, some coping mechanisms in Kampung Melayu shown in Figure 7‐1.

respondents mostly sustain basic livelihood related with food, propertie

uently, for each flood stage, ype of copinural, economi in s rese

were idencial coping the ns gener

and hanismechnological/structural thi

te mea actio

suchted

rotect or cope with flood damages anal, placing things at higher place, etc. ic m s co ll st

soaterials, resources and capability of prore those activities that relate to the societypportunity of interactions in a social con

nisms

uring the interviews, there is an interhe people tha ua p th theighbourhood before the flood seas g an an d and ris y the flood together (gotong royong). Thctivity among d in th e thnimosities, which is very un rba

ummary e lo in y ar

76


Table 7‐7 : Community’s coping mechanisms

TECHNOLOGICAL / STRUCTURAL

ECONOMIC SOCIAL

BEFORE FLOODING Long term: 1. Build a secure place

under the roof to put their valuable properties

Long term: 1. Store basic food items

such as: noodle, rice and drinking wa

Long term: 1. Cleaning the house and

surroundings together

2. Build the house with more than one floor

3. Cleaning the canal 4. Construct house using

the concrete material (wall and floor)

2. Store clothes and valuable things in the plastic bag

3. Store the properties in higher place (second floor or in top of shelf)

2. Discuss with other households about the action plan to cope with flood

ter (gotong royong)

Short term:

2. Put sand bags in front of the house to barrier the water

Short term:

2. Prepare baby’s stuffs (clothes, blankets, etc), light and battery

Short term:

Manggarai Watergate 2. Placing properties in

relative’s or neighbor’s house

1. Placing the motorcycle in safe place

1. Prepare the cooking equipment

1. Check the water depth in Katulampa, Depok and

DURING FLOODING 1. Evacuate personal

pl2. Evacuate the children,

t women and

3.

s

Long term: 1. Fin bs 2. Extra money for buying

te to working

e let

Long term: 1. Staying tion

centre/neighbors/relatives 2. Helping each other to

the neighborhood e s is

5. food and water

goods to the higher ace

pregnanthe elderly Rescue the important documents

4. Tie a rope in dangerouplaces to help peopleduring evacuation

d alternative jo at evacua

he food 3. Continu4. Can not go to work

because of flooding: the office is closed, thhousehold cannot his/her family alone

evacuate3. Guard their house to mak

sure that their belongingsafe

4. Disseminate flood information from one toanother Share their

IM OOD MEDIATE POST‐ FL1. mage

house

3. mud from

4. re, etc

1. repair the

2. ney from

1. Clean up the mud and ter the flood

Repairing the da2. Sourcing

materials Cleaning the house and furniture Drying wet clothes, furnitu

Sell goods to get extra money tohouse Borrowing morelatives or friends to repair the damage

debris aftogether (gotong royong)


77


Figure 7‐1: Households’ Coping Mechanism


7. 2 Flood Forecasting and Early Warning System (EWS) Flood forecasting and warning system is one of the non‐structural measures in Flood Risk Management. Based on the information gathered during fieldwork, there is a flood forecasting and warning system at Kampung Melayu (look at Figure 7‐2). They can identify the flood by monitoring the water level in Katulampa (Bogor), Depok and Manggarai watergate. The source of the flood information is the official in Depok and Manggarai Watergate, who will distribute this information to Kelurahan which is susceptible to flood, and the telemetric system, operated by Department of Public Works since 2003, which sends the information to the Flood Crisis Centre. The Crisis Centre will disseminate the information to the vulnerable areas using landline phones or mobile ). From Kelurahan level, the information will be d (see Figure 3‐12) to RW and RT. The head of Kelurahan, hea lay an important role in this flood

phones through Short Message Service (SMSistributed through the administrative ladder

d of RW and head of RT pinformation dissemination.

Figure 7‐2: The scheme of the Early Warning System in Kampung Melayu

Source: ACF (2007)

78


Ways to disseminate warnings include radio, television, telephone, mobile phone, handy talkie (HT), water level estimation board (look at Figure 7‐3), and speaker in mosque or even with the conventional ways; door to door. The interesting finding in this case is nowadays people use high technology tools to disseminate the flood information such as mobile phone which is more efficient and it can connect everybody easily. Usually, the early warning received by the local people is the water level information from Depok and Manggarai Watergate. From that information, the people in Kelurahan Kampung Melayu have time to evacuate themselves before the flood happens. Based on interview, the time to prepare for the flood is 5‐6 hours after the warning. If the water in Manggarai Watergate reaches 750 cm then the water height in Kampung Melayu will rise between 1 and 1.5 meter, it will inundate 50% of RW 03 area and 30% of RW 02 area. The Flood alert level in Kampung Melayu is shown in Table 7‐8. Unfortunately, the determination of the existing flood alert level in this study area has not been followed by the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) that describe what should be done before, during and after flooding by relevant agencies and community. People are left on their own to monitor official warning information and decide on what actions to take.

Figure 7‐3: One of tools for EWS dissemination

Source: ACF (2007)

Table 7‐8 : Flood alert level in Kampung Melayu

Phase Bogor (cm) Depok (cm) Manggarai (cm) Normal 40 – 100 150 – 200 550 – 650

IV 100 – 110 200 – 270 650 – 750 III 110 – 120 270 – 300 750 – 850 II 120 – 140 300 – 350 850 – 950 I >140 > 350 > 950

Source: Satkorlak (2005) It was observed that the reliability of the warning is still low. Some respondents mentioned that they did not always believe the information they obtained, because sometimes the information is not accurate; in the past they had already moved their properties to higher places but the flood never came. The respondents added that if they already see the head of RW or RT preparing to move the belongings to the safe places, they will do the same thing otherwise they do nothing. In this case, the head of RW and RT play an important role during flood preparedness in Kampung Melayu. Warning information obtained from different sources also make the people in the study area panic. Since there were no e isting community preparedness plans inclu ing the Standard Operating have to be responsible for their own safety, res Further, it will make difficulties in evacuation process and sometimes to injuries and casualties.

x d Procedures (SOP) in this study area, households ulting in the ents of people.disorganized movem

it will lead

79


7. 3 Flood Management by Government This sec scribes the e measures the loca ted with fl ampung Me information i from the int ith the governme in study ill be presente sion below. Governme responses relat managem e study area inly on organizati strengthening f aster preparedne ctural defense strategies, public

emergency responses and rehabilitation assistance.

cover all elements in the community, but it is not followed with clear authority and detailed job

stated that SATKORLAK, SATLAK,

tion de xisting flood employed by l government relaood in K layu. All s gathered erviews w

nt official area and w d in discus

nt ed with flood ent in th focus maonal or dis ss, stru

information and warning, ACF (2007) describes the disaster management organization in Kampung Melayu. It explains the structural design of the disaster management institution from the national level until the lowest administrative level in Kelurahan based on the Governor Decree of Special Region of Jakarta Capital No. 96 of 2002 can be seen in Figure 7‐4. The local institution for disaster management is SATLINMAS which consists of several elements, include: Kelurahan’s official, police (Babinsa and Babin Kamtibmas), community organization (Bakomwil, Mitra Babinsa, Binmas, Balakar, Red Cross, Satgasos, PSM, KP3, Pokdar Kamtibmas, Citra Bhayangkara, and KPD), youth organization (KSR, PMR, Karang Taruna, and Boy Scout) and women organization (PKK). Although the institutional structure of disaster management is well designed from the highest authority on the national level until the lowest administrative level in kelurahan and

description for each of them. In addition, ACF (2007) Operational Unit and SATLINMAS Institutional has not been supported by a detailed Standard

Operating Procedures (SOP) yet. The existing SOP is only based on the emergency response when the flood is coming, and not on an action plan before flooding, needed for prevention and preparedness.

Figure 7‐4: Disaster Management Organizational Structure Source: ACF (2007)

80


As stated by the government official in ACF (2007), SATLINMAS has a limited budget and facility for flood risk management in the study area. This obviously influences the activities conducted by SATLINMAS. There are many elements involved in flood risk management, it is rather difficult to do the coordination among them and it may cause many overlapping activities during emergency response. Structural defense plans based on Sudin Perumahan Kodya Jakarta Timur are either standard engineering or technical measures, such as river normalization to make a wider dimension of Ciliwung River and build a dike along the perimeter (Anonymous 2005). Another measure is the relocation of the inhabitants in RW 02 and RW 03 to the multi‐storey apartment buildings. Public information and warning is mostly linked with the flood forecasting with water level measurements in Katulampa, Depok and Manggarai Watergate, and dissemination of warnings to the local people (see previous section 7.2). Emergency responses are actions performed during flooding, which are: electricity power cut, evacuation process and giving aid to flood victims in the shelters. Rehabilitation assistance is a post‐flooding action through support to help people during their recovery phase after the flood. This research revealed that several coping mech isms are already employed by the government in Kelurahan and R ed within three flood stages, nam

Table 7‐9 : Government’s coping strategies bef flooding

NO. COPING STRATEGIES EMPLOYED

anW or RT level in this area. The coping strategies were performely: before, during an le 7‐9). d after flooding (Tab

ore

BEFORE FLOODING Kelurahan level 1. Coordination meeting between government official (Kelurahan and RW) with

SATLINMAS, Puskesmas and relevant elements in order to: preparing for the rainy season and assesing of flooding.

2. Crisis Centre in RW level 3. Training SATLINMAS, Red Cross, security, search and rescue, etc. 4. Gladi Posko (flood simulation in order to prepare the community when the real

flood is coming) 5. Preparing the tools for evacuation and flood management, such as: rope, life

jacket, light battery, car tire tubes, rubber boat, speaker (TOA), cooking equipment, etc.

6. Preparing the location for evacuation 7. Preparing the public kitchen 8. Power cutting during the flood RW and RT level 1. Cleaning the canals 2. Preparing the tools for evacuation and flood managemant, such as: rope,

sandbags, water pump and wagon DURING FLOODING Kelurahan level 1. Coordination with higher authories 2. Distibuting the aid to the lower level 3. Reporting the number of victims and need assessment RW and RT level 1. Tied rope along the dangerous road 2. Evacuate the people

81


Head of RW ask for perm3. ission to the owner of places which gonna be the evacuation center and preparing the evacuation center

4. Distibuting the aid 5. and need assessment during flooding Victims inventoryAFTER FLOODING Kelurahan level 1. th higher authories Coordination wi2. Reporting the estimation of damage R dW an RT level 1. Clean up the neighborhood 2. Damage and infrastructure inventory

Sourc A

7. 4 SuT the existing coping mechanism developed by the community as well a mechanism can be divided into three phases, which r From each flood stage, the strategies have been categoriz mechanism and social me is Pr es the communityʹs capacity to prepare for and co it ve trained themselves to make some arrangements according to the p uce the damages are different coping strategies co te male respondents. Female respondents mainly focus on the food, pr ie perform the technological or s In ead of RW or RT plays an important role in the stu e ibuted using several tools, such as phone, mobile p (HT), mosque’s speaker and door‐to‐door. One of the interesting findings du in mobile phone to send the SMS in order to distribute the flo hatever the method for warning the public,

ems must be well planned so that it can well distributed to the people in prone areas.

munity is through monitoring the water height at

.reveals that the warnings are not always trusted by the people. More reliable

formation is needed because it will influence people’s response to flood.

e: CF (2007)

mmary and Conclusion his chapter has explos the local govern

redment. The community’s coping

e: before, during and after flooding. aed into technological/structural mechanism, economicm. chan

evious knowledge of disaster events enhancpe w h disasters. People hair ca acity. Several coping strategies are employed by local people in order to red

caused by flood. Further analysis found that there nduc d by the female and opert s, home and family while the men respondents prefer to

tructural mechanisms.

forecasting and warnings, lurah, the hflooddy ar a. Dissemination of warnings is distr

hone, handy talkiering terview is many people usingod warning to their friend or relatives. W

communication syst

Mainly, the flood forecasting within this comseveral Watergates and there are four alert levels (see Table 7‐8). This information has not followed the action plan for the community, nor the community preparedness plans. Individual households must take their own decision whether they must go to evacuation center or not. Many different sources of flood warnings can drive people into uncertainty and panic This research also in Flood management by the local government is not adequate to cope with the flood. It basically only focuses on the flood emergency response and not on the preparedness action before the flood is coming. The local governments and the local people should work together to design the community preparedness plans according to the existing flood forecasting and warning. Local people should be aware of their role in flood management.

82


8. Conclusion and Recommendation This chapter provides the final conclusion and contributions of this research related with the objectives of this thesis. Some recommendations on further research will be describes in last section of this chapter.

8. 1 Conclusion and Main Findings

tion of root causes of

people’s perception. First, people r

y’s livelihood rather than safety is the main reason that people stay in this flood‐prone area (see Chapter 6 and Section 5.3.3) and third, the root causes of flooding based on

Bogor area, garbage and excessive rainfall.

ous”. It is found that the

In order to answer this sub‐objective, the household interviews and site

The main objective of this study is to conduct flood vulnerability assessment and coping mechanisms identification based on community perception, in order to improve planning for reducing the risk of the flood hazard and to apply it in urban areas of Kampung Melayu, Indonesia. Following discussions describe the conclusions and main contributions linked with the research sub‐objectives presented in the first chapter of this thesis. People’s perception related to flooding risk. People’s knowledge is important input in flood sk management because it facilitates the more comprehensive identificari

flood damage and the most effective way to address the situation. The awareness of flood history is one factor that contributes to the selection of coping mechanisms. It is found that households in Kampung Melayu have been living with the flood for a long time. The annual flood comes every rainy season with water height varying between 10 – 100 centimeters, while big floods come with five years return period. Flood of 2007 was the largest flood ever occurring study area. in

Some interesting findings exist in this research related with

eachhelp other to clean up the house and surrounding before and afte flooding (gotong royong). It is a positive thing related with flood risks in this study area and an unusual phenomenon in urban areas, where people are usually more individualistic (see Chapter 7). Second, the proximity to communit

people’s perception, which are banjir kiriman from Due to lack of facilities and waste management system, most of interviewed households stated that they still throw their trash into the river. Risk perception based on the interviewed households is presented in Table 4‐4. In this case, people determine the water height and duration of flooding which they perceive and consider to e levels that are: “normal”, “manageable”, “unmanageable” and “disastrb

flood height 10‐50 centimeters with duration 1‐3 days and flood water height 51‐10 centimeters with duration less than 1 day were considered as “normal” event. These accounts may not match with the hydrological or technical models, but however this is what the local people actually perceive and feel to be the flooding risk that communities suffer from. Hopefully, by learning from peopleʹs local knowledge and perceptions of flood in this study area, lessons can be learnt on how to address disasters effectively through people’s participation in the process. Identification and classification of certain elements at risk, which would be affected by flood, study area.in

observations were carried out to identify and design the detailed classification of certain elements at risk, including physical/structural type of building, building contents and the people at risk. From the physical/structural type of building aspect, there were five different structural type of buildings found in this study area. The building contents, which are people’s goods and properties found and located inside the house, are grouped into one element at risk based on their value. The components of social elements considered as the key characteristics of the

83


people at risk are age, gender, occupation, income, educational level, length of stay and the housing status. Vulnerability assessment related to key elements at risk (structural types of buildings,

mixed wall tructural type 3, 4, and 5), which consist of brick wall on the lower part, and plywood or

t damage is strongly linked to the socio‐economic status (income) of the ouseholds. Buildings with more assets will possibly have a higher damage and also have higher

ter response. Local government should pay ttention to the preparedness action before flooding occurs in order to reduce the impact of floods.

building contents and people’s socio‐economic characteristics). The vulnerability assessment is described in Chapter 6, including the vulnerability to flooding for building structure and building contents. In addition, the vulnerability of people was also evaluated using several indicators gathered from the survey. It was found that the damage and vulnerability of the building structure is mainly determined by the material of the house. The least vulnerable is structural type of building 1 which is made from combination of brick wall ‐ concrete floor ‐ clay roof material while the most vulnerable is the structural type 5 which is made from combination of mixed wall – mixed floor – asbestos roof. The vulnerability curve for each structural type (see Figure 6.1), it clearly shows that the first 120 cm is the crucial height of flooding. The (sbamboo sheet on the upper part, indicates the damage after the water reaches 120 cm, because the plywood or bamboo sheet absorbs the water and starts to decaying. There is no clear spatial pattern found for the building structure vulnerability in the study area. The vulnerability assessment for contents of buildings in Kampung Melayu varies from 0 to 1. This value implies the percentage of damage of households’ building contents when the flood is coming. In further analysis, it was classified into five classes of vulnerability, which are: very high, high, moderate, low and no vulnerability (see Table 6‐8). An analysis to seek the relationship between building contents vulnerability with the building structure vulnerability is performed. It is found thahbuilding contents vulnerability even though the buildings located in a relatively lower water height and have more resistant building structure. For vulnerability of people, several indicators: age, gender, occupation, income, educational level, length of stay and the housing status were identified which can increase or decrease the vulnerability (see Table 6‐9). There was no spatial analysis performed within this vulnerability assessment. Therefore, in order to have more detailed information about social vulnerability in this study area, a full research is absolutely required. The current coping strategies employed by the local people and local government. Through this research, it was found that since this is a flood‐prone area, both community and local government already make some arrangements concerning their capacity to cope with the flood. Further analysis found that there are different coping strategies conducted by female and male respondents. One interesting finding is the key role of the lurah, head of RW or RT during dissemination of flood forecasting and warnings. The flood forecasting found in this community is commonly through water height monitoring in several Watergates with four alert levels (see Table 7‐8). Due to the non‐existence of action plan for the community, many households live in uncertainty and panic. This research also reveals that warnings are not always trusted by the people because sometimes this information has not been accurate. Flood management by the local government is not sufficient to address the flood risk in the study area because it still focuses only on the disasa

84


8. 2 Contributions of this research The following discussion is the contributions provided by this research: • Local government can adopt the research methodology that was conducted in this study

about flood risk management, because it is efficient in implementation and is a relatively low cost method.

• The vulnerability assessment of building structures and building contents, as well as social vulnerability of people can be used as valuable information for local government and relevant stakeholders to assess the micro‐level vulnerability and design policies related to flood risk reduction.

• Through investigating and listening to people’s perception of flooding risk, the local government will be aware of how to address disasters effectively through people’s

ct; therefore further studies in this area need to include the hydrological and meteorological data, river morphology, elevation contours at a detailed scale, etc. as

accurate result on flood hazard assessment. to test the accuracy and

r ana wi and

participation in the process. • By understanding coping mechanisms, through the results of this research, local people and

local government will be aware of their capabilities, and it can also educate communities and other stakeholders about the available resources and capacities for protecting themselves against flood risks.

8. 3 Recommendations for Future Studies Recommendations for future studies are as follows: • This research basically was aimed at utilising local knowledge, and did not consider other

aspe

additional inputs to produce a better and more • Since this is a research involving community participation, in order

reliability of the results obtained, they should be checked by the local people, through key persons (local traditional leader, administrative leader, town planning institution) and FGD (Focus Group Discussion) in this study area.

• Concerning the vulnerability of building structure assessment, the duration of the flood waters plays an important role, and it obviously influences the level of damage of the building structures; therefore the combination of water depth and water duration is needed for the next research.

• Micro‐level vulnerability and capacity assessment performed in this research could be enhanced by linking this analysis with a macro‐level assessment of disaster and vulnerability contexts. Combination of mic o‐macro lysis would give a der point of view help assess how national socio‐economic condition and political systems and processes are directly related to and could influence local vulnerability contexts.

85


Re

Aba

ferences

rquez, I. and Z. Murshed (2004). Field Practitioners’ Handbook. Bangkok, ADPC.

Ind ACInd

dger, N. W. (1999). ʺSocial Vulnerability to Climate Change and Extremes in Coastal Vietnam.ʺ orld Development

ACF (2006). Kejadian dan Dampak Banjir Tahun 2006 di Kelurahan Kampung Melayu. Jakarta, onesia, .

F (2007). Penjajakan Kapasitas SATLINMAS di Tiga Kelurahan DKI Jakarta. Jakarta, onesia.

AW 27(2): 249‐269.

DPC (2004). A Framework For Reducing Risk, in:CBDRM Field Practitionerse Handbook A . angkok, Thailand.

nonymous (2005). Executive Summary: Studi Sosial Ekonomi dan Model Rumah Susun di elurahan Kampung Melayu. Sudin Perumahan Kodya Jakarta Timur, Jakarta, Indonesia.

nonymous (2007). Laporan Hasil Kegiatan Pembinaan Pemerintah Kelurahan di DKI Jakarta. elurahan Kampung Melayu, Jakarta, Indonesia.

APPENAS (2007). Laporan Perkiraan Kerusakan dan Kerugian Pasca Bencana Banjir Awal

layah JABODETABEK (Jakarta, Bogor, Depok, Tangerang, dan Bekasi).

irkmann, J. and J. M. V. U.‐E. W. P. N. Birkmann, 12 September 2006. (2005). ʺMeasuring the

B AK AK BFebruari 2007 di WiJakarta, Indonesia. BUnmeasurable.ʺ 2nd UNU‐EHS Expert Working Group Meeting Retrieved 20 August 2007, from

nu.edu/index.php/article:174?menu=18>http://www.ehs.u .

al. (1994). At Risk: Natural Hazards, Peopleʹs Vulnerability, and Disasters Blaikie, P., et . London,

(1994). ʺVulnerability Article 1: Vulnerability and Criticality.ʺ Newsletter of the man Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change.ʺ Retrieved 16

Routledge. Bohle, H. G.International HuJune 2007, from http://www.ihdp.uni‐bonn.de/html/publications/update/update01_02/IHDPUpdate01_02_bohle.html.

Dalam Angka 2005. Jakarta, Indonesia.

Water

BPS (2005). Jakarta Dalam Angka 2004. Jakarta, Indonesia. BPS (2006). Jakarta Caljouw, M., et al. (2005). Flooding in Jakarta: Towards a Blue City with Improved Management. Jakarta, Indonesia.

licy ‐ Introduction Chambers, R. (1989). Vulnerability, Coping and Po , IDS Bulletin‐Institute of

dies Development Stu

86


Davis, I., et al. (2004). Social Vulnerability & Capacity Analysis (VCA): An Overview. ProVention Consortium Workshop, Geneva Dutta, D. and T. Tingsanchali (2003). ʺDevelopment of Loss Function for Flood Urban Flood Risk Analysis in Bangkok.ʺ New Technologies for Urban Safety of Mega Cities in Asia, Tokyo. Guarin, G. P. (2003). Flood Risk Assessment for the Town of San Sebastian in Guatemala. ITC,

stitute for Geo‐Information Science and Earth Observation. MSc Thesis.

(2007). Geologi, Penurunan Muka Tanah, dan Banjir Jakarta. Luncheon Talk

International InEnschedeThe Netherlands. Hutasoit, L. M. HAGI. Jakarta, Indonesia. ISDR. th Risk of Di nitiatives.ʺ Retrieved 16 June 2007, from

(2004). ʺLiving wi . A Global Review saster Reduction Iwww.unisdr.org.

ITC (2001). International Institute for Aaerospace Survey and Earth Sciences. Ilwis 3.0. Academic User’s Guide. Enschede, The Netherlands.

. Spence (2003). ʺA Flood Failure Flowchart for Buildings.ʺ Municipal Engineer Kelman, I. and R

ing a Flood Risk Assessment Procedure using Community Based Approach

rmation Science and Earth Observation. MSc Thesis. Enschede, The

bution of Impacts Of Natural Disasters Across Income Groups: New Orleans.ʺ Ecological Economics

156(ME 3): 207‐214. Maiti, S. (2007). Definwith Integration of Remote Sensing and GIS: Based on the 2003 Orissa Flood. ITC, International Institute for Geo‐InfoNetherlands. Masozera, M., et al. (2006). ʺDistriA Case Study of .

cement rbon Forestry Planning: An Example from Cameroon.ʺ Participatory Learning

Minang, P. A. and M. K. McCall (2006). ʺParticipatory GIS and Local Knowledge Enhanfor Community Caand Action 54. NEDECO (2002). Final report quick reconnaissance study flood JABODETABEK. Main report.

sia.ʺ Waste Management

Pasang, H., et al. (2006). ʺNeighbourhood‐based waste management: A solution for solid waste problems in Jakarta, Indone . Pelling, M. (2003). The Vulnerability of Cities. Natural Disasters and Social Resilience. London, Earthscan Publications. Penning‐Rowsell, E. and J. Chatterton (1977). The Benefits of Flood Alleviation. Polsky, C., et al. (2003). Assessing Vulnerabilities to the Effects of Global Change: An Eight‐Step Approach. Research and Assessment Systems for Sustainability Program Discussion Paper 2003‐5. , Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard

ridge,Mass. University,Camb

87

http://www.ihdp.uni-bonn.de/html/publications/update/update01_02/IHDPUpdate01_02_bohle.html


Rashed, T. and J. Weeks (2002). ʺAssessing Vulnerability to Earthquake Hazards through Spatial Multiciteria Analysis of Urban Areas.ʺ Int. Journal Geographical Inforamation Science 2003 17(6): 547‐576. Sagala, S. A. H. (2006). Analysis of Flood Physical Vulnerability in Residential Areas, Case Study:

Phillipines. ITC, International Institute for Geo‐Information Science and Earth

). Rencana Operasi Penanggulangan Banjir 05‐06. Satkorlak PBP. Jakarta,

Kenji (2004). Sustainable Community‐based Disaster Management Practices in

Naga City, The Observation. MSc Thesis. Enschede, The Netherlands. Satkorlak (2005Indonesia. Shah, R. and O. Asia : A User’s Guide, UNCRD Population Prospects. Kobe, Japan. Sinukaban, N. and T. Kadri (2005). Integrated Watershed Management to Prevent Floods and

. Ward (1998). Floods: Physical Processes and Human Impacts

Sustain Water Resources In Jakarta, Indonesia. Bogor, Indonesia. Smith, K. and R , John Wiley & Sons. London. UNDP (1992). An Overview of Disaster Management. New York, United Nations Development. 2nd edition. UNDP (1994). Vulnerability and Risk Assessment. New York, United Nations Development. 2nd edition. UNDRO (1991). Mitigating Natural Disasters: Phenomena, Effects and Options. New York, United Nations. 164 pp. Villagrán, J. C. (2006). Vulnerability:A Conceptual and Methodological Review, Bonn, Germany., UNU Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU‐EHS) WHO (1989). Coping with Natural Disasters:The Role of Local Health Personnel and Community. Geneva. WHO. (2007). ʺEmergency Situation Report #6.ʺ Retrieved 6 June 2007, from http://www.who.or.id/eng/contents/esr.html.

88


Appendix Appendix 1. Questionnaire of Vulnerability assessment, Risk Perception and Coping Mechanism Identification

Double Degree Msc. Programme Gadjah Mada University and ITC – The Netherlands

Iye Cornelia M. [email protected]

Researcher : Mone Contact :Research itle : Vulnerability As essment and oping Me hanisms Due to Flood in Urban Areas, Case Study: Jakarta City, Indonesia

T s C c

This information will only be used for scientific research

ate : ime :

General Information 1.1 Personal Profile of respondent

Name : Age : Education : Stay in that location since: Sex : Male Female Status : Married Single Ethnic : Religion : Job : Location : Time to reach the location: minutes

: penses per day :

Transport :

cation Job 1. 2. 3. (M / F) 4. / F)

ng

Block id : ilding age : 0‐10 years 10‐20 years 20‐30 years > 30 years wnership : Own Rent

(5) Mosque

DT 1.

Income o Ex

Food :

Others : Family Member:

Name Sex Age Last edu (M / F) (M / F)

(M

1.2 Buildi Information : RW : RT

Building id : Building size :

BuO

2. Elements at Risk 2.1 Building

(1) ool Sch (2) Shop (3) Hospital (4) ResidentialFunc i)

t on (6 Other

Floor m (1) (5) Other aterial Concrete (2) Soil (3) Wood (4) Mixed Wall m d (2) Wood (3) Brick (4) Bamboo (5) Mixed aterial (1) PlywooRoof m ) (2) A ed (4) Other aterial (1 Concrete sbestos (3) MixPillar Yes No Numb 1 er of floor 2 3 or more Height floor (m

of the 1st)

89


Heightsurface (m)

from

Height from str(m)

eet

2.2

2.2.1 App 2.2.2 Building contents

liances Furniture tem Q Value Item Q Value

TV Carpet Stove Sofa Refrigerator Dinning set Computer Book case AC Drawers Radio Chairs Tape stereo Curtain Washing machine Bed Double bed Table

erties

Item Q Value 2.3 Outside prop

Animal Car Motorcycle Bicycle

3. Ca

is the cause of the flood based on household’s perception? ) Garbage (2) Excessive rain

Floods use of flood‐ What

(1 fall(3) La d use cn h nged in the rech ge area (4) Uncontrolled ty development a ar ci(5)

Floo occurrences

st of water level during flood on February 2007? (m) d

• What is the highe• Ho long was thew flood duration (February 2007) ? • What e maximum he t of water ver happened

cation? When? How long? is th igh level e in this

lo (m)

Flood’s hi

Water lev l Du Cause of flo d story

eTim e ration o

4. Dam ges and Losses

4.1 age to Building Structure damage to building structure within the last 10 years?

Depth Damage Depth Damage Depth Damage

aDam

‐ What is the maximum

ItemFloor Wall Door Window Roof Note:

C= Collapse HC=Half Collapse NH=Nothing Happen

90


‐ How much the cost to repair the damage? Item Depth Cost Dep Depth Cost th Cost

Floor Wall Door Window Roof Note: in money (Rupiahs)

.2 Damage to Building Contents of building contents have been damaged because of flood within the last 10 years?

Item Dep Damage Depth Damage Depth Damage

4‐ What kind

th Appliances Furniture

‐ How is the co air th

m Depth Cost Depth Cost Depth Cost much st to rep e damage?Ite

Appliances Furniture Note: in money (Rupiahs)

4.3 Dam Outside ties ‐ of da age has been ppened to outside propertie within the last years?

‐ is th cost to repair e damage?

4.4

after the flood?

‐

‐ ow is the clean after eventD D Da

age to Proper

What kind m ha s 10 How much e th

Clean up ‐ hat kind of clean up do you do

W

H ow long is the duration to clean up the impact of flood?

H muchepth

up costamage

the floodDepth

s? amage D Depth mage

5.

heigh er and d of f oo ou c ns as: Flood Risk Perception

• W thehat is t of wat uration l d that y o idered − Norm cm day(s) al − Disturbing but still m geable cm day(s) ana

Unma ageable cm day(s) n − − Disast us cm day(s) ro

91


6. Copi

What is the reason living in this area?

‐

Yes No t kind of flood coping mechanism (protection) have you done?

g Flood After Flood

ng Mechanism ‐

Cheap Own properties Ancestral properties Better access (to business center, educational place, place to work, etc) Other:

Have you applied any flood coping mechanism (protection) in order to reduce the impact of flood?

If Yes, whaBefore Flood Durin

7. Flood I‐ hat are common diseases th appear after flood?

‐ ow long do you need to get ur things away in case of flood? (in hours)

e your things when flood strike?

‐ Duri thShelt loFam loOthe

lood? Why?

‐ ding event before you move to this area?

If Ye

‐ hat ha om the floods in yo

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Thank you for your help and cooperation ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

mpacts W at the

H yo

‐ Where do you plac

ng e flood, where do you live? er, cation: ily, cation: r:

‐ Can you continue to work during the f

Have you experienced flooYes No

was the former place? s, where

‐ Have you considered moving from this area (getaway from flooding)? Yes No

If Yes, to which area? Why? W ve you learnt fr ur area?

92


Append 1.

ix 2. The plots of Water Depth and Damage for Five Structural Types of Building

Structural Type 1

0

2 3

0.2

0.4

6

0.8

1

0 100 200 300 400

Water de

Vuln

erab

ility

5 68 910 1920 2430 3238 3941 420. 43 4647 48

pth inside the house

52 5356 59

646265 6667 6970 7174 7576 7980 8191 9397 99101 102

. Structural Type 2 2

0

0.2

0.4ulne

r

0.6

0.8

1

0 100 200 300 400


Vab

ility

23

58

73

77

78

98

103

104

93



0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 100 200 300 400


Vuln

erab

ility

11

45

50

60

63

94

95


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 100 200 300 400


Vuln

erab

ility 7

44

100

105


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 100 200 300 400

Water Depth inside the house (cm)

Vuln

erab

ility

16

22

34

35

57

68

92

96

94


Appendix 3. Analysis of Building Contents Vulnerability

95

micro-level vulnerability and capacity assessment for ... assessment and coping mechanism related to...

Documents