SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF VOLCANIC RISK PERCEPTION CASE STUDY IN LOCAL COMMUNITY AT MERAPI VOLCANO DANGEROUS ZONES

Tony Rianto

February 2009

SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF VOLCANIC RISK PERCEPTION CASE STUDY IN LOCAL COMMUNITY AT MERAPI VOLCANO

DANGEROUS ZONES

Thesis submitted to the Double Degree M.Sc. Programme, Gadjah Mada University and International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Science in Geo-

Information for Spatial Planning and Risk Management

By :

Tony Rianto

UGM : 07/262429/PMU/5218

ITC : 20445

Supervisor :

1. Dr. M.R. Djarot Sadharto W., M.Sc. (UGM)

2. Drs. Nanette C. Kingma (ITC)

3. Drs. Robert P.G.A. Voskuil (ITC)

DOUBLE DEGREE M.Sc. PROGRAMME GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR GEO-INFORMATION SCIENCE AND EARTH OBSERVATION

2009

UGM

ii

iii

DISCLAIMER This document describes work undertaken as part of a program of study at the Double Degree International Program of Geo-information for Spatial Planning and Disaster Risk Management, a Joint Education Program of ITC the Netherlands and UGM, Indonesia. All views and opinions expressed therein remain the sole responsibility of the author, and do not necessarily represent those of the institute.

Rianto, T

Signed …………………….

iv

Abstract

People risk perception is considered being fundamental for the behavior towards risks and for

the decision to take preventive measures. In order to develop policies and management

strategies for dealing with disaster, the perception of risks and the influencing factors should be

known. The main objective of this study is making contribute to achieving community based

disaster management particularly in volcanic hazard mitigation of Merapi volcano at Sleman

Regency. This main objective is divided into three specific objectives, namely to identify the

perception of volcanic risk of the local community that live in different levels of dangerous

zone; to describe the factors influencing the perception of volcanic risk of the local community

in different levels of dangerous zone; and to describe the local people acceptance of

government programs and its influence in volcanic risk perception of local people in different

level of dangerous zones of the Merapi Volcano. A case study approach was applied in this

research. The field study was carried out in three different dangerous zones of Merapi volcano,

which used for the base of stratified sampling method. Nineteenth respondents were

interviewed in order to obtain the primary data, thirteen persons for each dangerous zone. The

research took place in the period from October 2008 to Februari 2009. Interview with the

authorities and collecting secondary data from local government agencies were done

contributing to the further analysis. Presenting in descriptive tabulation and mapping

techniques, result indicated that people have a realistic view of the risk with different level of

risk perception; people living in more dangerous zone is higher than they live in safer zone.

Personality factors such as fate control, point of view of nature, and their tolerance of

information differences, personal experiences, and traditional rules are factors influencing their

risk perception of volcanic events. The study also demonstrated the correlation between people

acceptance of government programs and their risk perception; dangerous zone with high level

of people involvement has high acceptance on government programs. Many efforts have been

made by the local government of Sleman Regency to minimize the negative impact of volcanic

hazard, both of structural or non-structural programs. Considering with risk perception

differences, local authority should require an integrated approach including social and cultural

character in each dangerous zone.

Keywords: Volcanic risk, risk perception, dangerous zones, government programs

v

Acknowledgement

Thanks and praise to the almighty Allah because of His graceful and blessing on me during this study, until I accomplished this thesis. First I would give my great full thanks to the Indonesian and Netherlands Governments for the opportunity to study at The Joint Education Programme (JEP) UGM, Yogyakarta, Indonesia and ITC, Enschede, The Netherlands. Many thanks to BAPPENAS and STUNED for the scholarship, and to BPPHP VIII the Ministry of Forestry, my organization, for giving me permission and support.

My sincere gratitude to Dr. M.R. Djarot S. Widyatmoko, M.Sc., my supervisor, for his timely supervision, his support, guidance and encouragement during my study and fieldwork until reaching the final thesis. I would also like to give my sincere gratitude to Drs. Nanette C. Kingma and Drs. Robert P.G.A. Voskuil, my second supervisors, for their support, supervision, remark, improvement, and discussion during writing proposal until the final thesis.

My thanks go to all ITC staff, particularly Drs. M.C.J. Damen and Ir. G.R. Hennemann for their guidance in a part of my fieldwork, Dr. M.W. Straatsma and Drs. T.M. Loran for their advices and suggestion in mid-term evaluation.

I am grateful to all lecturer at UGM, especially Prof. Dr. Suratman W. Suprodjo, Dr. H. A. Sudibyakto, Dr. Rer. Nat. Djunun Sartohadi, M.Sc., for all facilities and services during the study in Geo-information for Spatial Planning and Risk Management Program, Faculty of Geography.

Special thanks go to Mas Heru’s family for everything you given to me during the fieldwork, my appreciation also to Lek Pujo, mBah Maridjan, and all of villagers, without your support, this research are nothing.

Further set of thanks goes to all my classmates of Geo-info 2007; Iwan, Sigit, Puji, Nugie, Andiset, Andisuk, Ais, Ari, Bowo, Rio, Shien, and Wahida, for discussion, self study, IA, and our GA. Don’t forget to remember our great last eighteen months, nice to be your friend.

Finally, my honest gratefulness and appreciation to my family, my mother, my father, and my wife, your steadfast understanding and patience are my courage. My success is your success.

vi

Table of Content

ABSTRACT ..............................................................................................................................................IV

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT....................................................................................................................... V

LIST OF TABLE .................................................................................................................................VIII

LIST OF FIGURE...................................................................................................................................IX

LIST OF FIGURE...................................................................................................................................IX

LIST OF BOX .......................................................................................................................................... X

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................................................................XI

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1

1.1. BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................ 1 1.2. RESEARCH PROBLEM................................................................................................................ 2 1.3. RESEARCH QUESTION............................................................................................................... 3 1.4. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE.............................................................................................................. 4 1.5. STUDY BENEFIT ......................................................................................................................... 4 1.6. RESEARCH LIMITATION.............................................................................................................. 4 1.7. THESIS STRUCTURE .................................................................................................................. 4

CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................. 6

2.1. HAZARD AND RISK MANAGEMENT............................................................................................. 6 2.2. DEFINING VOLCANIC RISK......................................................................................................... 8 2.3. VOLCANIC RISK ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................. 9 2.4. CONCEPT OF PERCEPTION AND RISK PERCEPTION ............................................................... 10 2.5. ROLES OF GEO-INFORMATION IN DISASTER MANAGEMENT...................................................11 2.6. PARTICIPATORY GIS APPROACHES........................................................................................ 12 2.7. RESEARCH CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................................. 14

CHAPTER 3 – STUDY AREA AND METHODOLOGY................................................................... 15

3.1. STUDY AREA............................................................................................................................ 15 3.1.1. Merapi Dangerous Zones ............................................................................................... 15 3.1.2. General Information of Sleman Regency ........................................................................ 20

3.2. METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 22 3.2.1. Sampling Method ............................................................................................................ 22 3.2.2. Questionnaire.................................................................................................................. 24 3.2.3. Secondary Data............................................................................................................... 25 3.2.4. Data Processing.............................................................................................................. 25 3.2.5. Data Analyzing ............................................................................................................... 25

CHAPTER 4 – SOCIO-CHARACTERISTIC OF SURVEYED COMMUNIT IES.......................... 27

4.1. SURVEYED VILLAGES .............................................................................................................. 27 4.2. AGE DISTRIBUTION .................................................................................................................. 28 4.3. EDUCATION LEVEL................................................................................................................... 29 4.4. OCCUPATION TYPE.................................................................................................................. 30 4.5. HOUSEHOLD SIZE .................................................................................................................... 31

CHAPTER 5 – VOLCANIC RISK PERCEPTION OF LOCAL COMM UNITY......................... 33

vii

5.1. VOLCANIC RISK KNOWLEDGE ................................................................................................. 33 5.1.1. People Knowledge of Volcanic Hazard Zonation................................................................... 33 5.1.2. People Knowledge of Volcanic Risk types.............................................................................. 35

5.2. PEOPLE PERCEPTION OF VOLCANIC RISK .............................................................................. 36 SOCIAL RISK PERCEPTION INDEX (SRPI)................................................................................................. 38 5.3. THE FACTORS INFLUENCING VOLCANIC RISK PERCEPTION.................................................. 40

5.3.1. Personal Experiences...................................................................................................... 40 5.3.2. Traditional Rules ............................................................................................................ 45 5.3.3. Personality Factors......................................................................................................... 47

5.4. DISCUSSION............................................................................................................................. 51

CHAPTER 6 – VOLCANIC HAZARD MITIGATION............... ....................................................... 62

6.1. LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS .......................................................................................... 62 6.2. PEOPLE INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................................................ 70 6.3. PEOPLE PERCEIVE................................................................................................................... 74 6.4. THE ACCEPTATION OF GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS................................................................. 76 6.5. GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS ACCEPTATION AND PEOPLE RISK PERCEPTION............................... 79 6.6. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................. 80

CHAPTER 7 – CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ............ .............................................. 82

7.1. CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................... 82 7.2. RECOMMENDATION.................................................................................................................. 83

REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................ 86

viii

List of Table TABLE 1-1: RESEARCH QUESTION AND PROPOSED METHODS..................................................................... 3 TABLE 2-1. SOME VOLCANIC EVENTS OF MERAPI VOLCANO(WITHAM 2005)............................................. 9 TABLE 2-2: KEY ELEMENT OF DISASTER MANAGEMENT(UNDP 2004) ...................................................... 12 TABLE 3-1. SAMPLING UNIT DETERMINATION........................................................................................... 24 TABLE 3-2: THE RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND ANALYZING TECHNIQUES.................................................. 25 TABLE 4-1: AGE OF RESPONDENTS DISTRIBUTION..................................................................................... 28 TABLE 4-2: EDUCATION LEVEL DISTRIBUTION........................................................................................... 29 TABLE 4-3: OCCUPATION TYPES DISTRIBUTION......................................................................................... 30 TABLE 4-4: HOUSEHOLD SIZE DISTRIBUTION............................................................................................. 31 TABLE 5-1. PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE KNOWLEDGE OF VOLCANIC RISK TYPES............................................ 36 TABLE 5-2. CASE PROCESSING SUMMARY (SPSS OUTPUT) ....................................................................... 37 TABLE 5-3. CROSSTABULATION OF RISK PERCEPTION LEVEL AND ZONES (SPSS OUTPUT) ......................... 38 TABLE 5-4. CHI-SQUARE TEST OF RISK PERCEPTION (SPSS OUTPUT) ......................................................... 38 TABLE 5-5. PEOPLE APPRAISAL OF FOUR TYPE OF VOLCANIC HAZARD IN ZONE I ....................................... 40 TABLE 5-6. THE FREQUENCY OF PEOPLE EXPERIENCE ON VOLCANIC EVENT.............................................. 41 TABLE 5-7. THE EXPERIENCE OF VOLCANIC HAZARD TYPES...................................................................... 41 TABLE 5-8. PEOPLE APPRAISE OF VOLCANIC EVENT................................................................................... 42 TABLE 5-9. THE CORRELATION OF EXPERIENCE AND INTERPRETATION (SPSS OUTPUT) ............................ 43 TABLE 5-10. THE EXPERIENCE OF EVACUATION......................................................................................... 43 TABLE 5-11. THE TYPE OF LOSSES OF LOCAL PEOPLE................................................................................. 44 TABLE 5-12. THE DERIVING OF LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION........................................................................... 45 TABLE 5-13. PEOPLE ATTITUDE ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF RELOCATION................................................. 47 TABLE 5-14. RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION: “A RE YOU AFRAID ABOUT VOLCANIC EVENTS IN THE FUTURE?”

.......................................................................................................................................................... 49 TABLE 5-15. RESPONSE TO THE STATEMENT: “THE INFORMATION IS RELEVANT WITH THE ACTUALITY”... 51 TABLE 5-16. CORRELATION BETWEEN RISK PERCEPTION AND SRPI ......................................................... 56 TABLE 5-17. THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE REASON TO RESPECT.................................................................... 60 TABLE 6-1. DISTRIBUTION OF DAM IN SLEMAN REGENCY ........................................................................ 63 TABLE 6-2.THE DISTRIBUTION OF EWS INSTRUMENTS (MODIFIED FROM P3BA, 2008) ........................... 65 TABLE 6-3.THE DISTRIBUTION EVACUATION INFRASTRUCTURES (MODIFIED FROM P3BA, 2008)............ 66 TABLE 6-4.TRAINING AND EDUCATION PROGRAM IN 2008 (MODIFIED FROM P3BA, 2008) ...................... 67 TABLE 6-5. PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT GOVERNMENT PROGRAM EXISTENCE.................................................... 70 TABLE 6-6. THE TYPE OF PROGRAMS IN PEOPLE VIEWPOINT...................................................................... 71 TABLE 6-7. PEOPLE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS THEIR IDEAS..................................................................... 72 TABLE 6-8. PEOPLE INVOLVED IN COUNSELING PROGRAM......................................................................... 72 TABLE 6-9. PATERFAMILIASES REPRESENTING IN COUNSELING PROGRAM................................................. 73 TABLE 6-10. MITIGATION STRUCTURE MEASURES EXISTING...................................................................... 73 TABLE 6-11. STRUCTURE LOCATION PRECISION IN PEOPLE PERCEPTION.................................................... 74 TABLE 6-12: PEOPLE PERCEIVE OF GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS.................................................................... 74 TABLE 6-13: GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS – TRADITIONAL RULES SUITABILITY ............................................ 75 TABLE 6-14. THE DIFFERENCES OF PEOPLE ACCEPTATION OF GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS IN THREE ZONES. 77 TABLE 6-15. PEOPLE ACCEPTANCE OF GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS - PEOPLE RISK PERCEPTION IN ZONE I .... 79 TABLE 6-16. PEOPLE ACCEPTANCE OF GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS - PEOPLE RISK PERCEPTION IN ZONE II... 80 TABLE 6-17. PEOPLE ACCEPTANCE OF GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS - PEOPLE RISK PERCEPTION IN ZONE III . 80

ix

List of Figure FIGURE 1-1: INDONESIA MAP (RED TRIANGLE IS MERAPI VOLCANO) .......................................................... 1 FIGURE 2-1: THE RISK PYRAMID .................................................................................................................. 7 FIGURE 2-2: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................................................... 14 FIGURE 3-1: MERAPI VOLCANO DANGEROUS ZONE MAP............................................................................ 15 FIGURE 3-2: THE HISTORICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PYROCLASTIC FLOWS ON MERAPI SLOPE........................ 18 FIGURE 3-3: SLEMAN REGENCY................................................................................................................ 20 FIGURE 3-4: POPULATION RATIO IN THREE DISTRICTS................................................................................ 21 FIGURE 3-5: SCHOOL NUMBER IN THREE DISTRICTS................................................................................... 21 FIGURE 3-6. SAMPLING METHOD ILLUSTRATION ....................................................................................... 23 FIGURE 4-1: SURVEYED VILLAGES DISTRIBUTION..................................................................................... 27 FIGURE 4-2: HISTOGRAM OF AGE OF RESPONDENTS.................................................................................. 28 FIGURE 4-3: EDUCATION LEVEL DISTRIBUTION.......................................................................................... 29 FIGURE 4-4: OCCUPATION TYPES DISTRIBUTION........................................................................................ 30 FIGURE 4-5: HOUSEHOLD SIZE DISTRIBUTION............................................................................................ 31 FIGURE 5-1: PEOPLE KNOWLEDGE OF VOLCANIC HAZARD ZONATION........................................................ 34 FIGURE 5-2. RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION: IN WHAT ZONE YOUR VILLAGE IS?........................................... 34 FIGURE 5-3. PEOPLE KNOWLEDGE OF VOLCANIC RISK TYPES DEFINITION................................................. 35 FIGURE 5-4. RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION ABOUT DEFINITION OF LAVA..................................................... 35 FIGURE 5-5. COMPARISON OF VOLCANIC RISK PERCEPTION OF LOCAL PEOPLE........................................... 37 FIGURE 5-6. COMPARISON OF SRPI IN ZONE I, II, AND III .......................................................................... 39 FIGURE 5-7. RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION: HOW BIG THE VOLCANIC EVENT IN YOUR EXPERIENCE? .......... 42 FIGURE 5-8. RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION: ARE YOU RESPECTING TO INFORMAL LEADER?........................ 46 FIGURE 5-9. THE REASON TO RESPECT IN ZONE III .................................................................................... 46 FIGURE 5-10. RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION: “A RE YOU SORRY TO BE VOLCANIC PEOPLE?” ....................... 47 FIGURE 5-11. PEOPLE OPINIONS ABOUT THE VOLCANIC RISK IS THEIR HABITUAL ...................................... 48 FIGURE 5-12. RESPONSE TO THE STATEMENT “M ERAPI VOLCANO IS DANGEROUS” ................................... 49 FIGURE 5-13. INFORMATION SOURCES....................................................................................................... 50 FIGURE 5-13. RESPONSE TO STATEMENT: “THE INFORMATION IS HELPFUL TO COPE WITH VOLCANIC RISK”

.......................................................................................................................................................... 51 FIGURE 5-14. RISK PERCEPTION LEVEL OF LOCAL PEOPLE IN EACH SAMPLING AREA ................................. 55 FIGURE 5-15. SRPI OF LOCAL PEOPLE IN EACH SAMPLING AREA................................................................ 59 FIGURE 6-1. MITIGATION IN DISASTER MANAGEMENT CYCLE(TWIGG 2004)............................................ 62 FIGURE 6-2. THE DISTRIBUTION OF DAM CONSTRUCTION.......................................................................... 64 FIGURE 6-3. COUNSELING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMS................................ 71 FIGURE 6-4. PEOPLE OPINION OF SOME INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMS....................................................... 76 FIGURE 6-5: PEOPLE ACCEPTATION OF GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS.............................................................. 76 FIGURE 6-6: GOVERNMENT PROGRAM ACCEPTANCE IN EACH SAMPLING AREAS....................................... 78

x

List of Box BOX 3-1: VOLCANIC EXPLOSIVITY INDEX (VEI) ....................................................................................... 19 BOX 4-1: SOCIO-CHARACTERISTIC OF SAMPLING UNIT .............................................................................. 32 BOX 5-1: PEOPLE’S RESPONSE ABOUT THE DEFINITIONS OF THE VOLCANIC RISK TYPES............................. 54 BOX 5-2: LOCAL AUTHORITY’S ORDER FOR GENDOL RIVER SAND-MINERS................................................ 58 BOX 6.1: SOME MITIGATION STRUCTURAL MEASURES ((PICTURES TAKEN DURING FIELDWORK.) ............... 68 BOX 6-2: ACTUAL CONDITION OF ONE OF THE STRUCTURAL BUILDING...................................................... 69

xi

List of Abbreviations

BAKOSURTANAL Badan Koordinasi Survei dan Perpetaan Nasional / National Agency of

Survey and Mapping Coordination.

BPPTK Balai Penyelidikan dan Pengembangan Teknologi Keguningapian /

Volcanology Observation and Technology Development Agency

BPS Biro Pusat Statistik / Central Bureau of Statistic

EWS Early Warning System

GIS Geographic Information System

P3BA Dinas Pengairan, Pertambangan, dan Penanggulangan Bencana Alam /

Irrigation, Mining, and Natural Disaster Mitigation Agency

PGIS Participatory Geographic Information System

PSMB UPN Pusat Studi Manajemen Bencana Universitas Pembangunan Nasional /

Disaster Management Study Centre of Pembangunan National

University

PVMBG Pusat Volcanologi dan Mitigasi Bencana Geologi / Geological Hazard

Mitigation and Volcanology Centre.

RBI Peta Rupa Bumi Indonesia / Topographic Map of Indonesia

SD Sekolah Dasar / Elementary School

SMA Sekolah Menengah Atas / Senior High School

SMP Sekolah Menengah Pertama / Junior High School

SPSS Statistical Product and Service Solution

SRPI Social Risk Perception Index

UNDP United Nation Development Program

UNESCO United Nation Education

VEI Volcanic Explosion Index

VSI Volcanological Survey of Indonesia

1

Chapter 1 – Introduction This chapter describes the introduction of the research, consisting of the background of the

research, the research problems, the research objectives, the research questions, the research

conceptual framework, the significance of the study, the scope and limitation, the thesis

structure, and the research schedule.

1.1. Background

Indonesia is the largest archipelago in the world. The characteristics of location that in the

intersection of three crustal plates: Eurasia plate, Ancient Australia-Indian continent, and

Pacific Ocean Floor place the country as the subject to a high level of seismic activities.

Indonesia has more than 500 volcanoes and 128 of them are active that make the soil along the

slope of the volcanoes have high fertility. People choose to live along the slopes because of the

soil condition support to do the agricultural activities. If there are people settle in the dangerous

area such as the slope of the active volcano, then the vulnerability will be high.

The Merapi volcano on Central Java is one of the most active volcanoes in Indonesia. It is

considered one of the most dangerous volcanoes in Indonesia mainly because of its proximity

to the Yogyakarta city. The Merapi dominates the landscape immediately north of Yogyakarta

city, the densely populated area with a population of 3 million. About 1.1 million people live in

the immediate vicinity of the volcano; 440,000 live in relatively high-risk areas prone to

pyroclastic flows, surges and lahars.

Figure 1-1: Indonesia Map (red triangle is Merapi Volcano)

2

Merapi volcano eruption in 1930 defeated more than 1300 people, and 13000 people were

homeless (Witham 2005). Lahars occurred along nine river with the largest on the western

flank, pyroclastic flowed more than thirteen kilometers to the south and south-west slopes,

destroyed seventy hectares of rice field, 277 ha of coffee plant, the irrigation system, and the

water supply system (Lavigne., Thouret. et al. 2000). The ash fall thickness from 1930 eruption

reached 40 cm high on the south-east slope (Newhall, Bronto et al. 2000). The volcanic

eruption in 1994 also showed that south – southwest flank of Merapi volcano are the dangerous

area for living. The nuees ardentes traveled 6.5 km to the south – southwest, damaged about 9.5

km2 area between the Boyong and Krasak Kecil valleys, and responsible for 95 casualties in

the adjacent vicinity (Abdurachman, Bourdier et al. 2000). In 2006, the Merapi volcano erupted

for a few months. C. Gomez et al. (2008) listed that on March 19 the seismic activity increasing

and lava were flowing. Later, the rockslide, rock fall, gas plumed and pyroclastic flows

occurred. On June, the pyroclastic flows reached until 7.5 km to the Gendol and Krasak valleys,

flew down to the villages in the Southeastward and Southwestward. During the eruption event

on 2006, about 16,870 people were evacuated from Boyolali and Magelang regencies in Central

Java Province, and more than 5,600 others were evacuated from the Sleman regency, a part of

Yogyakarta Province.

The research is conducted in the South slope of Merapi volcano. Administratively, the study

area is in Sleman Regency, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. This area is threatened by pyroclastic flows,

lahars flow, and ash falls from the Merapi volcano. According to the Indonesian Red Cross

(2006), there are 18,967 people at risk in Sleman Regency (total population: 56,215). Even

thought the Merapi has erupted many times, people are still living on the flanks of the active

Merapi Volcano. Local communities always go back to their villages after the disaster has

taken place. The phenomenon indicates that the local people have own definition about the risk.

Risk perception is important in examining how people understand the threat of the natural

phenomena and how they protect against it.. The risk perception gives feature that individuals

choose to adjust or not to adapt the threat of hazard, like volcanic eruptions. This study is

focusing on identifying the community perception of volcanic risk. The information generated

from this study can be useful for the authority to mitigate the impact of volcano hazard to the

local people.

1.2. Research Problem

Local community perceptions about volcanic risk have relation with not only knowledge and

experience of volcanic events, socio-economic factors, worldviews, and affective judgments,

but also with location disparities. People lived in certain area has perception differing from the

3

people in other area. Merapi volcano dangerous area divided into 3 zones; first dangerous zone,

second dangerous zone, and third dangerous zone. People tend to look back on their familiarity

when they face problems, such as volcanic risk. This causes the phenomena that they will come

back to their villages after the disaster occurred. The habitual of the local people more or less

had an effect on the process of disaster mitigation that conducted by the authority. The study

needed to know the relationship between the variation of the dangerous zones and the

perception of the local people.

1.3. Research Question

The research questions to achieve the research objectives are:

1. What are the perceptions of volcanic risk of the local communities? Are there any

differences of volcanic risk perception in the different level of dangerous zones of Merapi

volcano?

2. What are the factors influencing the volcanic risk perception of the local communities?

3. Are the people acceptation of government programs and policies influencing the volcanic

risk perception of the local people?

The primary and secondary data need to answer the research questions, using the acquisition

methods indicated below (see table 1-1).

Obj Research Questions Sources Acquisition methods1 What are the perceptions of volcanic

risk of the local communities? Are there any differences of volcanic risk perception in the different level of dangerous zones of Merapi volcano?

Household interview Interviews with questionnaires, primary data obtained during field observation, sketch maps.

2 What are the factors influencing the volcanic risk perception of the local communities?

Household interview Interviews with questionnaires, primary data obtained during field observation.

3 Are the people acceptation of government programs and policies influencing the volcanic risk perception of the local people?

Households, local government officials

Interviews with questionnaires, primary data obtained during field observation.

Table 1-1: Research Question and Proposed Methods

The focus of this research is on how the perception of volcanic risk of local community varies

within the different dangerous zone. Fieldwork was done to acquire data to address the research

questions. about the local community’s perception of volcanic risk, Local community’s

4

perception of volcanic risk at the different locations is collected and analyzed with the factors

concerning to the different conditions. Primary data was gathered from interviews with

households using a purposive multi stage area sampling. Secondary data was also collected

during the survey from other sources, for instance: BPS-Statistics of Sleman Regency,

Regional Development Planning Agency, and BPPTK-Merapi Volcano Observatory Agency.

1.4. Research Objective

The objectives of this research are:

1. To identify the perception of volcanic risk of the local community that live in different

levels of dangerous zone of the Merapi volcano;

2. To describe the factors influencing the perception of volcanic risk of the local community

in different levels of dangerous zones.

3. To describe the local people acceptation of government programs and its influence in

volcanic risk perception of local people in different level of dangerous zones.

1.5. Study Benefit

This study generated the information about the variation of the risk perception of the local

people. The authority can use the information in order to make the integrated planning in

volcanic risk mitigation.

By knowing the variation of the perception, they should have the social consideration beside

the technique discretion in the mitigation planning.

1.6. Research Limitation

This research covers the identification of local community’s perception of volcanic risk and its

influencing factors. The limitation encountered during this study is related to the primary data

collection during fieldwork, particularly the time availability. Fieldwork was conducted in the

period September – October 2008, partly during the Ramadan. Most of respondent are Moslem

that was doing fasting. This condition more or less affects the interview process. In Ramadan

period, the daily activity of the villagers is change. They need more time to do the spiritual

endeavor than other months.

1.7. Thesis Structure

5

The structure of this thesis is as follows:

Chapter 1 – Introduction

This chapter will include the background of the research, the research problems, the research

questions, the research objectives, the significance of the study, the scope and limitation, and

the thesis structure.

Chapter 2 – Review of Related Literature.

There are various terminologies related to the study and concepts introduced in this document.

These terminologies and concepts are defined in this chapter. Started with the definition of

hazard and risk in general, the defining of volcanic risk, volcanic risk assessment, the concept

of perception and risk perception, and the roles of geo-information in risk management. The

research conceptual framework closed this chapter.

Chapter 3 – Study Area and Methodologies

This chapter highlights the general overview of the study area. Brief information related of

data, facts, such as; dangerous zone, physical condition, and community distribution have been

described. Proposed approach of fieldwork, requiring, collecting and processing data including

sampling method and questionnaire will also discuss in this chapter.

Chapter 4 – Socio Characteristic of Surveyed Communities

This chapter discusses the socio-characteristic of the local people represented by the

respondent. Ninety respondents from nine villages in three different dangerous zones were

selected. The description focuses on some variables: age, education, household size, and

occupational types that are assumed to have correlation with their risk perception.

Chapter 5 – Volcanic risk perception of Local Community

This chapter is addressing the specific objective (1) and (2) of this study. The definition of

volcanic risk based on the awareness of the community will be discussed in this section. The

risk perception of the community and the influencing factors influencing are presented in this

section.

Chapter 6 – Volcanic Hazard mitigation

The relationship between the government programs and policies and the local people

perception will discuss in this chapter to address the objective (3).

Chapter 7 – Conclusion and Remark

This chapter comprises the conclusion of this study and some remarks for the authority.

6

Chapter 2 – Literature Review The literature review in this chapter, which is organized by subject, is conducted in order to

approach the concepts, which are becoming the backdrop of this study. The review on hazard

and risk management, volcanic risk and its assessment, the concept of perception and risk

perception, and the roles of geo-information in risk management broaden the acquaintance of

this topic as well as helping in analyze the context of this study. This literature review is used to

support the building block of the conceptual framework.

2.1. Hazard and Risk Management

The Humanitarian Practice Network (2004) determines hazard as the potentially damaging

caused by natural phenomena and/or induced by human processes. The potential threat to

human and their welfare may include the loss of life, injury, property damage, the disruption of

social and economy or the degradation of environment (Twigg 2004). Based on its origin,

natural hazard can be classified as geological hazard such as volcanic activity, earthquake, mass

movement, and subsidence. Natural hazard of atmospheric, hydrological, or oceanographic

nature is the hidrometeorological hazard. The phenomena of hidrometeorological hazard for

example flood, debris and mudflow, tropical cyclones, storm surges, rain and windstorm,

drought, head waves, and snow avalanches. The third kind of natural hazard is biological

hazard, the processes of organic conveyed by biological vector, including toxins and bioactive

substances. A physical event like a volcanic eruption is not a hazardous event as long as it does

not affect human being, its called natural phenomenon. If hazardous event cause unacceptably

numbers of fatalities and property damage then it has called a natural disaster.

People in different situations define risk differently. Risk as understood by a politician is

different from risk to a seismologist, or to an insurance company executive, or to a family

living in an volcanic dangerous zone. Risk is the probability of lost, the likelihood of a specific

hazard occurring and its consequences for human and property. Its depend on three independent

elements, hazard, vulnerability, and exposure, that is represented by the three-dimensional

pyramid (Crichton 1999) in Figure 2-1.

7

Figure 2-1: The risk pyramid

illustrates the three independent variables that be a factor to risk: hazard, exposure, and

vulnerability (source: Chrichton 1999)

The changing of any of these variables causes the changing of risk. If the variables increases or

decreases, then the risk increases or decreases correspondingly. The risk represented by the

volume of the pyramid that the greater the contribution of one of the factors, the greater the

volume and so the risk. The simple expression to define risk is (Dwyer, Zoppou et al. 2004):

Risk = Hazard * Elements Exposed * Vulnerability.

Vulnerability is explained as the level of loss to each element at risk resulting from a given

hazard at a given severity level (Coburn, Sspence et al. 1994). The vulnerability related to the

people capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist a hazard, and recover from its impact, which

determined by the whole range of economic, social, cultural, institutional, political, and

psychological factors. In general, the definition of vulnerability to natural hazard refers to the

characteristic of the physical element exposed like road, building, and person. Beside the

physical vulnerability, Dwyer et al (2004) wrote that measuring the ability of an individual

within a household to recover from the impact of the natural hazard, called social vulnerability,

and is important to mitigate the hazard impact.

The modern view of the disaster management is not only post-disaster assistance but also

includes pre-disaster planning and preparedness activities, and it has called as risk

management. So, in this modern view the management process comprises of all disaster

management cycle as mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. According to natural

hazard such as volcanic events, risk management refers to the activities of identify, control and

minimize the impacts, involves measures of likelihood or probability and consequences. The

8

risk management efforts could involve the government action, the require involvement from

citizens, or combine the authority program and community contribution. For example, if a slope

or hillside region faces some kind of volcanic risk like lahars-flow due to more intense of

rainfall, then the authority may respond by building physical control measures, like dam or

embankment (Patt and Schroter 2008).

2.2. Defining Volcanic Risk

In Source-book for volcanic-hazard zonation, Unesco (Crandell, Booth et al. 1984), the term

‘volcanic risk’ refers to “the expectable consequences of a volcanic event in terms of deaths or

injuries among a population and the destruction of specific kinds of property or other kinds of

economic loss”, and volcanic hazard refers to “a potentially damaging or destructive volcanic

event.”

Various type of volcanic events directly or indirectly endanger people as well as many kind of

land use around volcanoes; settlements, agriculture, reservoirs, and communication and

transportation network. Keith Smith (2001) divides the volcanic hazard as primary volcanic

hazard and secondary volcanic hazard. Primary volcanic hazards are related with the materials

ejected by the volcanic eruption, those are: pyroclastic flows, air-fall tephra, ashfalls, lava

flows, and volcanic gases. The volcanic events that are the secondary hazards are ground

deformation, lahars, landslide, and tsunamis (Smith 2001). Some definitions of those volcanic

events that related with this study are mentioned below.

Pyroclastic flows are avalanches of hot ash, rock fragments, and gas that move at high speeds

down the sides of a volcano during explosive eruptions or when the edge of a thick, viscous

lava flow or dome breaks apart or collapses. The term “pyroclastic flows” is as complex as the

phenomenon itself. There are few types of pyroclastic flows; explosion pyroclastic flows that

generated from explosive eruptions, synonyms include: St. Vincent-type pyroclastic flows, and

nuee ardente d’explosion vulcanienne. Dome-collapse pyroclastic flows that originated by

gravitational failure of lava domes, synonym include hot cloud of rockfall type, nuees ardentes

d’avalanche, Merapi-type glowing clouds or pyroclastic flows (Newhall, Bronto et al. 2000).

Volcanic ash is low-density solidified rock material ejected from a volcanic vent into the air.

The explosive nature of an eruption involving steam (phreatic eruption) results in the magma

being blown into particles of silt to sand size. The ejection of large quantities of ash will

produce an ash cone. When volcanic ash consolidates, it forms tuff.

Lava flows are masses of hot, partially-molten rock that flow downslope, generally following

valleys.

9

Lahar are a specific type of debris flow associated with volcanoes. They are dense mixtures of

water-saturated debris that move down-valley, looking and behaving much like flowing

concrete. The term “lahar” was introduced by Scrivenor (1929) to mentioned “mudstream”,

then it was extended by Van Bemmelen (1949) as; “a mudflow, containing debris and angular

blocks of chiefly volcanic origin” (Lavigne., Thouret. et al. 2000). Chester (1993) in Volcanoes

and Society wrote that 175,000 human death due to volcanic eruption over the past two

centuries on the island of Java. Merapi is the most active volcano of 129 volcanoes on Java.

Some volcanic events of Merapi volcano are listed below.

Number of victims No Date

Killed Injured Homeless 1 1904/1/30 16 45 3000 2 1920/10/12 35 1000 3 1930/12/18 1369 13000 4 1934/11/17 100 5 1943/4/1 1000 6 1954/1/18 68 57 3000 7 1956/1/3 75 1000 8 1961/4/13 6 6 8000 9 1962/10 2 5 5000 10 1963/12/ 11 1969/1/7 3 3800 12 1976/11/25 29 13 1979/4/30 80 14 1984/6/13 1000 15 1986/12/31 1 16 1992/7/5 1 5 17 1994/11/22 64 500 6026 18 1996/10/31 300 19 1997/1/17 1 5 3444 20 1998/7/18 314 6000 21 1999/8/5 2195

Table 2-1. Some Volcanic Events of Merapi Volcano(Witham 2005)

2.3. Volcanic Risk Assessment

Risk assessment is a method to determine the nature and extent of risk that refers to the analysis

of various factors in order to establish the probability of a certain outcome from an uncertain

event or suite of events. Such factors include the magnitude and probability of a hazard, the

vulnerability of populations and the built environment and the overall loss or impact will be

used to analyze the potential hazards and evaluating existing conditions of vulnerability that

could pose a potential threat or harm to people, property, livelihoods and the environment on

which they depend. The process of conducting a risk assessment is based on a review of both

the technical features of hazards such as their location, intensity, frequency, and probability;

10

and the analysis of the physical, social, economic, and environmental dimensions of

vulnerability and exposure, while taking particular account of the coping capabilities pertinent

to the risk scenarios. Essentially, a natural hazard risk assessment is a study undertaken to

determine the range of possible consequences from a natural hazard (Dwyer, Zoppou et al.

2004).

2.4. Concept of Perception and Risk Perception

Geographers have different point of view to mention the term perception that used in

psychology. Geographers always use the term for arguing something that people remembered

or recalled. People receives information signal from the real world through their sense by sight,

hearing, smell, taste, and touch. Information is contained in differentials of color, heat, motion,

sound, pressure, and direction. Individual ability to reach that differences cause the different

meaning of information messages, and resulting the different perception (Golledge. and

Stimson. 1997). Perception is an adjustment process of the situation of a living organism. The

process is enables it to solve the problems, to the advantages and disadvantages, values and

disvalues of the situation (Aaronson 1914).

The term of risk perception has been the central focus for many social scientists interested in

natural hazard and disaster studies since 1945 (Gaillard. 2008). What constitutes a risk has been

the topic of much debate and research. The different characteristics of a risk such as how

dreaded a consequence of a risk, and how much of the risk is unknown, are factors that

influence risk perception. The higher the dread or unknown factors are, the higher the risk

perception tends to be. From these findings, further attempts were made to characterize the

concept of risk in order to investigate why the perception of risk is so varied. It was suggested

that risk is actually made up by two parts: hazard and outrage (Wester-Herber 2004), where

hazard refers to a technical definition with probabilities and magnitude estimates of a risk and

outrage factors are factors of a less technical nature that influence risk perception. There

attempt to see if there are some differences in risk perception amongst various social or cultural

group in society. How individual or a community respond to a natural disaster, or in

preparation for another is often a function of their culturally-related perceptions from training,

education, and experiences (Paradise 2006). Risk perception is the estimated probability people

have that hazard will affect them (Lavigne., Coster. et al. 2008). It is built up from four

components: (a) actual quantitative risk level ('exposure'); (b) personal experience of the

hazardous events ('familiarity'); (c) the degree to which the hazard is perceived as being

controllable or its effects prevented ('preventability'); (d) the horror of the hazard, its scale and

consequences ('dread'). (Rosenbaum and Culshaw 2003).

11

Some factors may influence in risk perception. Based in its origin, the influencing factor can

determine as the internal factors and the external factors.

The internal factors that are thought to influence the risk perception of ordinary people are: The

frequency and intensity of personal experience of the past similar events, the personality factors

(e.g. fate control, different view of nature), the tolerance of dissonance-creating information

(Kates 1971), and people’s interpretation of their experience of events (Paton., Smith. et al.

2008).

The external factors are the nature and features of the natural hazard involved including its

magnitude, duration, frequency, and temporal spacing, the public education programs of natural

hazard (Paton., Smith. et al. 2008), and the source of information (Baker 1990). Involuntary

risk (like being exposed to air pollutants) is more concern than voluntary risk (like smoking).

People are less accepted the risk that not under their personal control (e.g. traveling as a

passenger in train) than those people fell are under their personal control (e.g. driving a car).

Information that comes from sources that are perceived as trustworthy are more readily

accepted than from sources seen as untrustworthy. It is important to recognize that people rely

on the opinions of other people besides authorities and experts, including friends, fellow

workers, and neighbors.

2.5. Roles of Geo-information in Disaster Managemen t

Disasters can be viewed as a series of phases on a time continuum. Identifying and knowledge

these phases helps to describe disaster related needs and to conceptualize appropriate disaster

management activities. Disaster management is the body of policy and administrative decisions

and operational activities that pertain to the various stages of a disaster at all levels. The

systematic management of administrative decisions, organization, operational skills and

abilities to implement policies, strategies and coping capacities of the society or individuals to

lessen the impacts of natural and related environmental and technological hazards is called

disaster risk management (UNDP 2004).

Disaster management divided in several phases, pre disaster phases and post disaster. Pre

disaster phases are risk identification, mitigation, risk transfer, and preparedness phases. In pre

disaster phases, a variety of risk are assessed in order to be able to carry out appropriate

mitigation measures to reduce the risk, transferring of risk using financial means and all aspects

leading to a better preparedness to predict and cope with the occurrence of hazardous events.

Post disaster phases comprise of emergency response, in which damage assessment and

resources mobilization are appraised to perform the rehabilitation, and reconstruction phases.

12

Pre-disaster phases Post-disaster phases

Risk Identification

Mitigation Risk Transfer Preparedness Emergency response

Rehabilitation and

Reconstruction Hazard assessment

Physical structural mitigation work

Insurance/reinsurance of public infrastructure and private assets

Early warning systems. Communication systems

Humanitarian assistance / rescue

Rehabilitation / reconstruction of damaged critical infrastructure.

Vulnerability assessment

Land-use planning and building codes

Financial market instruments

Monitoring and forecasting

Clean-up, temporary repairs and restoration of services

Macroeconomic and budget management

Risk Assessment

Economic incentives

Privatization of public services with safety regulations.

Shelter facilities Emergency planning

Damage assessment

Revitalization of affected sectors

GIS mapping and scenario building

Education, training and awareness

Calamity funds (national or local level)

Contingency planning (utility companies / public services)

Mobilization of recovery resources

Incorporation of disaster mitigation components in reconstruction.

Table 2-2: Key element of disaster management(UNDP 2004)

Spatial information plays a role in nearly all these phase. In disaster management, much type of

data will be collected to arrange the best decision. In the aspect of disaster management that has

an important spatial component, the data will be collected using remote sensing and combined

with other types of data using GIS. Here, GIS has important purposes in: data collection, data

management, data analysis/modeling, and data dissemination.

Geoinformation science consist of a combination of tools and methods for the collection,

storage and processing of geo-spatial data. This involves the development and application of

concepts for the structuring, organization and management of geo-spatial production processes,

the implementation of concepts for spatial data modeling, for information extraction from

measuring on image data, and for the processing, analysis, dissemination, presentation and use

of geo-spatial data (Westen 2005).

2.6. Participatory GIS Approaches

The importance a community places on the risk of a disaster is likely to be influenced by the

type and level of other everyday risks it faces. Community-based disaster management is

empowering communities to assess disaster risks, and to plan, implement, monitor and evaluate

counter disaster measures. They take responsibility for their action and are accountable for

resources they utilize. Participation is a central issue within the field of development

cooperation since 1990s. Participatory is defined as a partnership which is built upon the basis

of dialogue among the various actors. In this concept, local views and indigenous knowledge

13

are deliberately sought and respected. People become actors instead of being beneficiaries

(UNDP 1998).

Generally, participation can be understood as the active involvement of people in making

decisions about the implementation of processes, program, and projects that affect them.

Community participation is being encouraged in many areas of development, including disaster

management because of some reasons. First, participatory approach enables people to explain

their vulnerability and priorities to be designed and implemented. Second, people and their

local knowledge and expertise are the principle resources for mitigating to disasters. Third,

participatory work obtains a multi-track approach, combining different activities that dealing

with the complexity of disasters. The process of achieving things together can strengthen

communities and increases the potential of the people for reducing vulnerability. Fourth,

participatory initiatives are sustainable because they build on local capacity, and likely to be

compatible with long-term development plans. Fifth, participatory approaches in the log term

may be more cost-effective than externally driven initiatives. The external agents cannot cope

alone with the enormous risks and they need local people to bring knowledge and skill. Finally,

working with local community can help scientists to gain a greater insight, and produce better

result (Twigg 2004).

Participatory Geographic Information Systems (PGIS) is an attempt to utilize GIS technology

in the context of the needs and capabilities of communities that will be involved with, and

affected by development projects and programs. PGIS is the crossing of participatory

progressive development and GIS-science integrating low and high tech spatial management

applications, and also seen as a practice which should facilitate empowerment (possessing own

spatial information), communication among stakeholders and as learning processes (Kienberger

2008). McCall (2004) wrote that participation is the essence and the key to P-mapping and P-

GIS. The participation is more fundamental than the map or the GIS product. The spotlight

always falls back on the participation and the participatory processes, rather than the GIS

(McCall 2004).

14

2.7. Research Conceptual Framework

This research consists of three main parts (figure 2-2).

I II III

Figure 2-2: Conceptual Framework

Figure 2-2 illustrates the three main component of this research: Volcanic risk (I), Risk

Perception (II) and Government programs/policies (III). First, the definition of volcanic risk of

local people should be known, considered with the type and characteristic of the risk. People in

different situations define risk differently. Volcanic risk as understood by a seismologist is

different from risk to local people living in a volcanic dangerous zone. Volcanic activities that

defined scientifically as risk could be nothing by local people whose face it as natural habit

everyday. Second, this study would like to know the risk perception of local people in different

dangerous zones and to identify the influencing factors of their perception. According to

Aaronson (1914), “Perception is a temporal process that opens up new things to stimulate us. It

is a progressive discovery of values or revelation of reality”. People’s perception of risk is how

they perceive risk. Direct experiences are a major factor affecting risk perception. People need

to witness events for themselves before they would appreciate of some natural phenomena.

Finally, this research would give some recommendation to local government in order to achieve

spatial planning in disaster management.

Type of volcanic

risk

Volcanic risk

Characteristic of volcanic

risk

Risk Perception

Influencing

factors

Different zone

Government programs/policy

on Disaster Management

Rec

omm

enda

tions

for

auth

ority

abo

ut m

itiga

tion

plan

ning

15

Chapter 3 – Study Area and Methodology This chapter explains the general overview of the study area including general information,

geographic, and administrative information. The discussion section is about the method of this

study and starts with data collection, a detailed conceptual approach, and the analyses.

3.1. Study Area

3.1.1. Merapi Dangerous Zones

Merapi dangerous zone included of the part of the three regencies of Central Java and Special

Province of Jogyakarta: Magelang, Boyolali, and Sleman regencies. This study was conducted

in three different levels of dangerous zone of Merapi Volcano that situated administratively at

Sleman regency. Based on the hazard map of Merapi volcano published by Directorate of

Volcanology and Geologic Hazard Mitigation on 2002, the dangerous area divided in three

zones. The most dangerous zone is the zone III, the intermediate zone is the zone II, and the

safest zone is the zone I.

Figure 3-1: Merapi volcano dangerous zone Map

16

Zone III

The area located near the hazard source is Hazard zone III. Pyroclastic flows, lava flows, rock

falls, and ejected rock fragments (glowing) frequently affect this area. Caused by its high

vulnerability, permanent settlement in hazard zone III is not allowed. The boundary of hazard

zone III is based on a few things. First, the history of Merapi volcano eruptive activity within

a hundred years since 1900 until 2002. The beginning of its eruptive activity was on 1006 that

listed as the first eruption. Volcanological Survey of Indonesia (2008) listed that until 2001

explosion there are 82 eruption events with the average of short period is every 2-5 years, the

average of medium period is 5-7 years, and the longest dormant period is 30 years. Second is

the type of eruption of th Merapi volcano that was the longterm process, began with the growth

of lava dome, dome-collapse, and caused the pyroclastic flows. The next consideration is the

limited reach of small volume dome-collapse (3-7 km from the top), the morphological change

around the summit area, the geologic structure of the summit, and the dome position of the

present activity.

Since 1930 until 1992, the distribution of pyroclastic flows of Merapi were westward and

southwestward. During the 1994 eruption, the lava dome grew exceed the southern part of the

crater rim and its resulted the collapse of part of the dome entering the Boyong and Bedog

rivers in the southern flank (Abdurachman, Bourdier et al. 2000).

Since 1998 the pyroclastic flows retuned back to the western- and southwest flank. Dome-

colllapse pyroclastic flows can reach a distance of 3-7 km, whereas eruption column collapse

pyroclastic flows may reach farther than 8 km from the summit. The west-flank is swept by

pyroclastic flows every 8-15 years:1930, 1969, 1973, 1984 (Thouret, Lavigne et al. 2000),

whereas the southwest flank is most often and even almost daily affected by lava

avalanche/glowing rock falls as far as 2 km from the top until 1800m elevation. Considering

the position of the present active vent and dome, the southwest flank is the most likely affected

by the coming eruption mainly pyroclastic flows.

Zone II

The boundary of Hazard zone II of Merapi is based on the eruption history of older than a

hundred year with Volcanic Eruption Index (VEI) 3-4, either for the mass flow like pyroclastic

flows, lava flows and lahar, or the ejected material such as thick dry volcanic ash fall, volcanic

bomb, and other ejected rocks. The Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) is the value to provide a

relative measure of the explosiveness of volcanic eruptions.

The areas affected by pyroclastic flows in zone II are in several river valleys in the western,

southwestern, southern, and southeast slopes. Based on the historic activity of Merapi during

17

the past century, the boundary of flowing mass is the farthest distribution of pyroclastic flows

that is 13 km away from the eruption center. The morphology in the western part of the lower

slope that is useful as a barrier against pyroclastic flows was changed by the mining activities.

Considering the present activity is located at the southwestern part of the summit, when a dome

collapse occurs there will no longer be a ridge that can hinder the pyroclastic flows towards this

location. When a large eruption occurs, the flanks around all side of the volcano are potentially

affected by either pyroclastic flows, pyroclastic fall/ejected rocks and lahar. The volume of

pyroclastic flow may sweep the whole slope and fill in the valleys until 8-11 km in 1872 and

10-15 km in 1930-1931.

The potential zone for lahar to occur is between 700 m-450 m elevation, 11-13 km from the

summit with the total rainfall reaches 40 mm within two hours. (Lavigne., Thouret. et al. 2000).

Thirteen rivers surrounding Merapi have experienced lahar, from Apu river in the northwest to

Woro river in the southeast.

Zone I

Hazard zone I is located in the valleys, where the lahars overflowing. During the increasing of

eruption, these areas are potentially affected by volcanic ash fall and possibly ejected rock

fragments (glowing). The area facing to lahars are found in the northwest, west, southwest,

south, and southeast flanks of Merapi volcano. Historical data show that there are some

villages affected by lahars such as Banaran and Sumokaton in 1974, Mriyan, Guling and

Bakalan in 1960s, and Plataran in 1990. Right now, the villages never experience any more

lahars. The establishing of Sabo dam facilities and the sand mining activities along the rivers in

the southwest slope has reduced the casualties caused by lahars. There are no pyroclastic flows

deposits in the upper path of Senowo, Lamat, and Sat in the western slope anymore. Due to

these conditions, lahars may not reach further than it used to be.

18

Figure 3-2: The historical distribution of pyroclastic flows on Merapi slope

(adapted from (Thouret, Lavigne et al. 2000; Wilson, Kaye et al. 2007))

Instead of lahars, the people living in the zone I has also threatened by volcanic ash fall and

possibly ejected rock fragment. In 1994 eruption, the ash fall reached Magelang, Babadan, and

Ngepos with 5 mm thickness, but no glowing ejected rock fragments.

19

Box 3-1: Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI)

20

3.1.2. General Information of Sleman Regency

3.1.2.1. Geographic Condition

Sleman Regency Area is spread out from 110o 13’ 00” until 110o 29’ 30” Eastern Longitude,

and from 7o34’51” until 7o47’03” Southern Latitude, consists of 17 districts, 86 sub-districts,

and 1.212 villlages. The distance from the North to the South is 32 km, East to West is 35 km,

with the altitude between 100 – 2.500 meter above the sea level. The administrative boundaries

of Sleman Regency are Boyolali Regency in the north, Klaten Regency in the east, Bantul

Regency and Yogyakarta Municipality in the south, and Kulonprogo and Magelang regencies

in the west. The southern part of Sleman is lowland area, fertile for agriculture, and urban area

also. The northern part is dry land area, non-irrigate agricultural fields and farmyards. This part

laid in the south slope of Merapi volcano so potential to eco-tourism development. The

vegetated area in the northern part is covered by mountain tropical forest that is the source of

living for a million people in the down part. The climate type is wet tropical. Based on Schmidt

and Ferguson classification type, this include on type C with the value Q is equal to 33,3% up

to 66%. Rainfall is varying with the lowest rainfall equal to 875 mm/year and highest rainfall

equal to 2527 mm/year. The wet season is started in November up to May and the dry season is

started in June up to October.

Figure 3-3: Sleman Regency

21

3.1.2.2. Social Condition

Population of Sleman Regency in 2007 is 1,026,596 people consisting of 517,837 male and

508,756 female. With the wide area of 574.82 km2, the density of Sleman Regency is 1,785

people per km2. Sleman Regency has three districts that in the dangerous area of Merapi

volcano: Cangkringan, Pakem, and Turi. Number of people at Cangkringan district is 28,081

people in 8,425 households, 13,810 male and 14,271 female,and the density is 585 people per

km2. Pakem district has population of 31,905 people (9498 households), and Turi has 33,164

people (9171 households) with the density of 728 people per km2, and 770 people per km2.

9171

9498

8425

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

num

ber

of p

eopl

e

Turi Pakem Cangkringan

districts

Population Ratio in Three Districs

people

male

female

household

Figure 3-4: Population ratio in three districts

In education section, Sleman has state school and private school. In elementary level (SD) there

are 387 state schools and 112 private schools. In secondary level (SMP) there are 55 state

schools and 49 private schools, and 25 state schools and 74 private schools in high schools

(SMA). The number of elementary school students is 82,184, secondary school is 32,051, and

high school is 8,132. The numbers of schools in Cangkringan, Pakem, and Turi districts are

mentioned below.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

uni

ts

Turi Pakem Cangkringan

districts

School Distribution in Three Districts

elementary

secondary

high_school

Figure 3-5: School number in three districts

The composition of the people based on their religion is 846,793 Muslims, 61,910 Catholics,

25,614 Christians, 1,413 Hindus, and 870 Buddhist. The numbers of worship places are 1838

22

mosques, 88 churches, 2 pura (shrine), and 3 wihara. Cangkringan district has 28452 Moslems,

252 Catholics, 173 Christians, and 5 Hindus. Pakem district dominated with Moslems as 27,718

people, while 4138 Catholics, 821 Christians, 7 Hindus, and 17 Buddhists. The composition of

Turi is 32457 Moslems, 3448 Catholics, 118 Christians, and 11 Hindus.

3.2. Methodology

A case study approach was applied in this research. The field study was carried out in three

different levels of dangerous zones of Merapi volcano. The dangerous level differences will be

used for the base of stratified sampling method, further for spatial analysis of this study. The

study in every zone covered three villages that were chosen randomly separated in the east,

middle, and western part of the dangerous zones based on the administrative boundary. Ninety

respondents were interviewed in order to obtain the primary data, thirty persons for each

dangerous zone. The research took place in the period from October to December 2008.

Two kind of maps were used for determine the sampling villages. Applying some overlay

technique between Merapi Dangerous Zone Map, RBI-Rupa Bumi Indonesia Map (Contour

Map), and Merapi Volcano Dangerous Area map to depict the village samples.

Interview with the authorities such as BPPTK (Volcanological Observatory Agency)

Yogyakarta and P3BA Kabupaten Sleman (Natural Hazard Mitigation Agency of Sleman

Regency), and collecting secondary data from local government agencies like BPS Sleman

(Statistic Agency of Sleman Regency), Dinas Kehutanan dan Perkebunan Propinsi DI.

Yogyakarta (Forestry Service Agency of Yogyakarta Province) was done contributing to the

further analysis.

Data were analyzed by statistical computation using SPSS 16 software to recognize the

correlation between variables, and to identify the role of certain variable on risk perception of

local people. The results were presented by descriptive and tabulation to distinguish the finding

in each dangerous zone, also mapping techniques using Arcview GIS 3.3 software to show the

spatial aspect of the outcomes.

3.2.1. Sampling Method

The study area is a part of dangerous zone of Merapi volcano in Sleman Regency that

administratively divided into three districts: Cangkringan, Pakem, and Turi. In each district,

three villages were chosen as sampling village representing three dangerous zones.

Thirty respondents were chosen randomly for each dangerous zone and distribute

proportionally according to the household number in every village.

23

Figure 3-6. Sampling Method illustration

Study area was divided in three parts based on two official maps: Merapi dangerous zone map

and Sleman regency administrative map. The different dangerous zone and different

administrative location were used for the base of stratified sampling method and for further

spatial analysis.

− The first step is combining two maps as mention above producing map of Part of Merapi

dangerous zone that placed in Sleman regency administratively, so its inform that the

dangerous zones of Merapi volcano are spreading out in three districts of Sleman Regency:

Cangkringan, Pakem, and Turi.

− The second step is obtaining sampling area. Nine villages were determined, consisted of

three villages for each level of dangerous zones. In zone III, the sampling area are the

villages which nearest from the summit of Merapi volcano in Sleman regency: Kalitengah

Lor in Cangkringan district, Palemsari in Pakem district, and Tunggularum in Turi district.

In Zone II, there are the village of Kepuh, Kaliurang Timur, and Kemirikebo. In the safest

zone, there are Ngancar, Karanggeneng, and Glagahombo villages.

24

− The third step is determining the sampling unit for each village that done randomly

considered in indigenous people. Sampling units were households that stay in that place as

long as their live. The number of household sampled for every village decided with the

population consideration.

X Y1 I Karanggeneng 437528.03 9156871.96 110 (110/348)*100%*30 = 102 Glagahombo 433362.16 9156067.85 108 (108/348)*100%*30 = 93 Ngancar 440685.20 9155586.00 130 (130/348)*100%*30 = 11

Total Zone I 3484 II Kemirikebo 434124.25 9158956.00 136 (136/536)*100%*30 = 85 Kaliurang Timur 437278.59 9160157.57 297 (297/536)*100%*30 = 166 Kepuh 440254.75 9156998.29 103 (103/536)*100%*30 = 6

Total Zone II 5367 III Tunggularum 433021.27 9159199.05 168 (168/404)*100%*30 = 138 Palemsari 438563.57 9161694.72 83 ( 83/404) *100%*30 = 69 Kalitengah Lor 440300.59 9162170.19 153 (153/404)*100%*30 = 11

Total Zone III 404

Number of Households

Number of SamplesNo Zone VillagesUTM Coordinates

Table 3-1. Sampling Unit Determination

3.2.2. Questionnaire

The questionnaires used for interviews with 90 household in order to collect the primary data.

The structure of the questionnaire was designed in such a manner that easily to follow for the

respondents. Ninety-eight questions were asked to every respondent contained of four parts: the

respondent profile (1-11), questions about the risk knowledge (12-30), questions about the

influencing factors in risk perception (31-69), and questions about the government program

acceptance (70-98). The questions included closed question with “agree” until “not agree” and

“yes” or “no” choices and open question to give opportunity for respondent to convey their

opinion.

To obtain the answer of the research question number 1, the answers of the question number

12-29 were analyzed descriptively. The risk perception of every respondent was identified by

analyzing the question number 12-13, 15-19, 22, 24, 26,28, 41, 48, 51, 56, 59-60, 63-65, and

67-69. The answers were graded as 5 if “fully agree” till 1 if “fully not agree”. The index of

risk perception considered with four kind of volcanic risk was known by calculate the answer

of question number 30. The perception of government programs was detected by analyzing the

answers of 13 questions; numbers 76-78, 83-87, 91-93, and 97-98. The questions that not used

for the calculation, particularly the open questions were described for further information to

explain the influencing factors of risk perception.

25

3.2.3. Secondary Data

Secondary data required in this study like base map, dangerous zone map, and administrative

map were gathered from related organizations. Topographic Map (Peta RBI) collected from the

Indonesian National Agency of Survey and Mapping Coordination (BAKOSURTANAL),

Merapi Dangerous Zone Map collected from Directorate of Volcanology and Geologic Hazard

Mitigation (PVMBG), and the Administrative Map of Sleman Regency gathered from Regional

Development Planning Agency (BAPPEDA).

3.2.4. Data Processing

Data processing is data/value obtaining process that will be analyzed in tables, diagrams,

graphics, and thematic maps representing spatial aspect. Data processing in this research

including:

- Scoring of variables.

- Statistical process by SPSS 16.0 and MS Excel.

- Spatial process by Arc View GIS to produce some thematic maps.

- Secondary data analysis.

3.2.5. Data Analyzing

Data analyzing is the process of data simplification that easier to read and interpret using some

techniques. Quantitative techniques such as scoring, correlation analysis, and comparative

analysis, and qualitative techniques like maps analysis were used in this study.

No Objectives Analyzing Techniques

o Map analysiso Scoringo Comparative analysiso Descriptive tabularized

o Scoringo Correlation analysiso Descriptive tabularized

o Map analysiso Scoringo Comparative analysiso Descriptive tabularized

3 To describe the local people acceptation of governmentprograms and its influence in volcanic risk perceptionof local people in different level of dangerous zones.

1 To identify the perception of volcanic risk of the localcommunity that live in different levels of dangerouszone of the Merapi volcano.

2 To describe the factors influencing the perceptionofvolcanic risk of the local community in different levelsof dangerous zones.

Table 3-2: The Research Objectives and Analyzing Techniques

26

In relation to the questionnaire, scoring was used to appraise the answer. If the question is

“yes/no question”, then the scoring is 1 for “yes” and 0 for “no”. If the question is “agreement

question”, then the scoring is 5 for “fully agree”. 4 for “agree”, 3 for “not sure”, 2 for “not

agree”, and 1 for “fully not agree”.

The correlation between one variable to another will be known by using correlation analysis.

There are two kind of correlation analysis in SPSS 16.0, parametric correlation and non-

parametric correlation analysis. Parametric correlation analysis is used to analyze ratio and

interval data, and non-parametric correlation analysis for ordinal and nominal data. The

comparison analysis such as Chi-square (χ2) analysis and “t” test will be used to know the

diversity of data.

27

Chapter 4 – Socio-Characteristic of Surveyed

Communities

This chapter discusses the socio-characteristic of the local people represented by the

respondent. Ninety respondents from nine villages in three different dangerous zones were

selected. The description focuses on some variables: age, education, household size, and

occupational types which are assumed to have correlation with they risk perception.

4.1. Surveyed Villages

This study carried out in nine villages located within the part of Merapi volcano dangerous

zone in Sleman Regency. There are three villages for each dangerous zone. In zone III there

are: Kalitengah Lor, Palemsari, and Tunggularum. In Zone II, there are the village of Kepuh,

Kaliurang Timur, and Kemirikebo. In the safest zone, there are Ngancar, Karanggeneng, and

Glagahombo villages.

Figure 4-1: Surveyed Villages Distribution

28

The indicators of socio-characteristic of the respondents collected during the fieldwork are age,

education, household size, and occupational types.

4.2. Age Distribution

Figure 4-2: Histogram of Age of Respondents

The distribution of age of respondent is described in figure 4-2. The age of respondents is

ranging from 24 to 80 years old, and the mean is 42 years old. This research uses age of

respondent as variable with the assumption that the age has correlation with people perception

of volcanic risk. The comparison of age distribution between dangerous zones is shown in

table below.

Table 4-1: Age of Respondents Distribution

Zones (%) Classes (years old) I II III

21-25 0.0 0.0 3.3 26-30 10.0 26.7 10.0 31-35 16.7 16.7 20.0 36-40 20.0 20.0 16.7 41-45 26.7 6.7 10.0 46-50 6.7 23.3 10.0 51-55 10.0 3.3 13.3 56-60 6.7 3.3 10.0 61-65 3.3 0.0 0.0 66-70 0.0 0.0 3.3 71-75 0.0 0.0 0.0 76-80 0.0 0.0 3.3

100.0 100.0 100.0

29

4.3. Education Level

The education level of the respondents is illustrated in figure 4-3, contained of eight levels from

“non-formal” level until “others” level representing the education level that higher than

“complete high school” level. It can be seen from the figure that 42% of respondents has high

school education level, 18% elementary school level, and 17% secondary school level. Only

7% of respondents has education level higher than high school (bachelor and college degree).

Education Level

3% 10%

18%

1%

17%2%

42%

7% Non Formal

Some Elementary Sch

Complete Elementary Sch

Some Secondary Sch

Complete Secondary Sch

Some High Sch

Complete High Sch

Others

Figure 4-3: Education level distribution

Table 4-2 shows the education level difference in each zone. Generally, the education level in

zone I is higher than the level in zone II and III. In zone I, 16.7% of the respondents have

education level higher than “complete high school” level, while 0% in zone II and 3.3% in zone

III. With the assumption that the level of education is related with the people perception of

volcanic risk, so the education level is being variable in this research.

Hazard Zone Levels

I II III

Non Formal 0.0 0.0 10.0

Some Elementary School 0.0 0.0 30.0

Complete Elementary Sch 0.0 23.3 30.0

Some Secondary Sch 0.0 0.0 3.3

Complete Secondary Sch 26.7 20.0 3.3

Some High Sch 0.0 6.7 0.0

Complete High Sch 56.7 50.0 20.0

Others 16.7 0.0 3.3

100.0 100.0 100.0Table 4-2: Education level distribution

30

4.4. Occupation Type

The type of occupation of the respondent is considered as a variable in this research with the

pre-assumption that occupation has relation with the perception of local people facing with

volcanic risk.

Occupation types distribution

0% 8%

19%

56%

6%0%

11% Army

Civ. Serv

Priv. Empl

Farmer

Seller

Retired

Oth

Figure 4-4: Occupation types distribution

The occupation as farmer (56%) dominates the respondent’s occupation. 19% of respondent

work as private employee, 8% as civil servant (government employee), and 6 % as seller

(trader). 11% of respondent is categorized in the “others occupation” to accommodate the

respondent that not have decisive job. In this research, no one of respondent has occupation as

army (0%) or retired (0%). Table 4-3 shows the dispersion of the occupation types in each

hazard zone. Work as a farmer is the most occupation type in every zones, 73.3% in zone III,

60.0% in zone II, and 36.7% in zone I.

Zones (%) No Occupation types

I II III 1 Army 0.0 0.0 0.02 Civil Servant 13.3 10.0 0.03 Private Employee 30.0 20.0 6.74 Farmer 36.7 60.0 73.35 Seller 13.3 0.0 3.36 Retired 0.0 0.0 0.07 Others 6.7 10.0 16.7 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 4-3: Occupation types distribution

31

4.5. Household Size

Figure 4-5: Household size distribution

The variation of the household size of the 90 respondents ranging from 1 to 10 people. Figure

3-9 shows that 57.8% of the respondents have 3-4 members in their family, 27.8% is the

household with 5-6 people, 8.9% with 1-2 members, 3.3% with 7-8 people, and 2.2% is the

household with 9-10 members.

I II III

1-2 10.0 6.7 10.0

3-4 63.3 56.7 53.3

5-6 26.7 30.0 26.7

7-8 0.0 6.7 3.3

9-10 0.0 0.0 6.7

Sum 100.0 100.0 100.0

ClassesZones (%)

Table 4-4: Household size distribution

As shown in table 4-4, more than a half of respondents in each zone are the household with 3-4

members: 63.3% in zone I, 56.7% in zone II, and 53.3% in zone III. There is no family with

more than six people in zone I, but exist in zone III. Further discussion is needed to know the

possibility of the correlation between the household size and the people perception of volcanic

risk.

8.9

57.8

27.8

3.3 2.2

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0pe

rcen

tag

e

1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10

members

Household size distribution

32

Box 4-1: Socio-characteristic of Sampling unit

33

Chapter 5 – Volcanic Risk Perception of Local

Community

This chapter discusses perception of volcanic risk of local community in Merapi Volcano

Dangerous Areas. People knowledge of volcanic risk was described including their knowledge

of hazard zonation and types of volcanic risk. People perception of volcanic risk, perception

index, and influencing factors of risk perception were discussed.

5.1. Volcanic Risk Knowledge

The local community knowledge about volcanic risk is identified on the questionnaire during

the interview with the household. The questions about volcanic risk knowledge consist of 18

numbers of closed questions and five open questions, starting with asking about dangerous

zone until giving opportunity to write their opinion about many kind of volcanic risk.

5.1.1. People Knowledge of Volcanic Hazard Zonation

According to the Volcanic Hazard Map of Merapi Volcano issued by Directorate of

Volcanology and Geologic Hazard Mitigation, the dangerous area of Merapi volcano divided in

three zones as mentioned above. To know the people knowledge of these zonation, the

questions about the definition of each hazard zones were asked. Figure 5-1 shows that people in

zone III have high knowledge about hazard zonation (80.0%) and the rest is in medium classes

(20.0%). 73.3% people in zone II is in high level of knowledge, 20.0% in medium, and 6.7% in

low. In the safest zone, more than a half of the people (60.0%) have medium level of

knowledge of volcanic hazard zonation.

34

Low

Medium

High

zona I

zona II

zona III

0.0

20.0

80.0

6.7

20.0

73.3

3.3

60.0

36.7

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

perc

enta

ge

Figure 5-1: People knowledge of volcanic hazard zonation

Generally, people knowledge of hazard zonation in zone III is higher than in zone II and zone I.

This fact can be known also from the answer when they were asked about the zone that

including their village be mentioned below.

46.7

43.3

76.7

53.3 56

.7

23.3

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

perc

enta

ge

right w rong

zone I

zone II

zone III

Figure 5-2. Response to the question: In what zone your village is?

76.6% people in zone III have the right answer about the existing zonation, while more than

50% people in zone II and zone I have wrong answer. People in zone II suppose that they live

in the third zone, and so the people living in zone I.

35

5.1.2. People Knowledge of Volcanic Risk types

Based on four questions about the type of the volcanic risk definitions, the distribution of

knowledge of local community can be seen as figure 5-3. The first question is about the

definition of lava, the second is question about lahars, the third is about volcanic ash, and the

last is the definition of pyroclastic flows.

3.30.

00.

0

86.7

93.3

80.0

10.0

6.7

20.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

perc

enta

ge

low medium high

zone I

zone II

zone III

Figure 5-3. People knowledge of Volcanic Risk types definition

As shown in Figure 5-3, the people comprehension about the type of the volcanic risk in every

zone dominated by the medium level, while the low level found only in zone I (3.3%). The

answer distribution of the question about the definition of lava from each zone is shown in

figure 5-4.

fullyagree

agreenot sure

notagree fully not

agree

zone I

zone II

zone III

10.0

60.0

30.0

0.0

0.0

3.3

56.7

36.7

0.0 3.

33.3

46.7

46.7

0.0 3.

30.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Figure 5-4. Response to the question about definition of lava

36

It can be seen that people in zone I, II, and III were agree with the definition of lava mentioned

in the questionnaire, and even 10% people in zone III is fully agree. Based on the several

literatures those explain the definition of lava, 46.7% people in zone I, 56.7% people in zone II,

and 60.0% people in zone III agree that lava flows are masses of hot, partial molten rock that

flow down slope, generally following valleys.

The response to the question about the definition of lahars, volcanic ash, and pyroclastic flows

were shown that in general, people in zone I, zone II, and zone III agree with the definition

mentioned in questionnaire. The whole result is illustrated in table 5-1.

Lava Lahars Volcanic ash Pyroclastic Flow

Criteria

Zone I Zone II Zone III Zone I Zone II Zone III Zone I Zone II Zone III Zone I Zone II Zone III

fully agree 3.3 3.3 10.0 6.7 3.3 6.7 10.0 3.3 13.3 6.7 0.0 16.7

agree 46.7 56.7 60.0 50.0 50.0 56.7 43.3 60.0 53.3 43.3 76.7 66.7

not sure 46.7 36.7 30.0 40.0 43.3 36.7 46.7 33.3 30.0 46.7 20.0 16.7

not agree 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 3.3 3.3 0.0 3.3 0.0

fully not agree 3.3 3.3 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 5-1. Percentage of people knowledge of volcanic risk types

5.2. People Perception of Volcanic Risk

People perception refers to a variety of judgments, beliefs, and attitudes. Perception is dynamic

concept, what people identifies as a threat depends on their environment and the characteristic

of the threat itself. People who depend on their natural environment have flexible and adaptive

capacities to cope with natural hazard. According to the result of the questionnaires, figure 5-5

indicates that the volcanic perception of the people living in every zones dominated by medium

level. Thirty percent of people in third zone have high level of risk perception, and 70% have

medium level. People in the second zone are divided in high level (26.7%) and in medium level

(73.3%) of volcanic risk perception. In the first zone, 3.3% people responded have high level of

risk perception, 93.3% medium, and 3.3% in low level.

37

Low

Medium

High

ZONA III

ZONA II

ZONA I

3.3

93.3

3.3

0.0

73.3

26.7

0.0

70.0

30.0

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0pe

rcen

tage

Figure 5-5. Comparison of volcanic risk perception of local people

The risk perception difference of local people in three different dangerous zones was

determined by statistical test. Chi-Sguare test procedure for more than two categories table in

SPSS 16.0 was used to examine the null hypothesis (H0) that there is no difference between the

people risk perception in zone 1 and people risk perception in zone 2 and 3. So, there were

three categories in colom (high, medium, low), and three categories in row (zone 1, 2, and 3).

The result from the test as mentioned below.

- Output crosstabs case processing summary: shown the number of cases being analyzed.

Here, the number of analyzed-subjects for “zone” and “level” variables was 90.

Table 5-2. Case Processing Summary (SPSS output)

- Output level*zone crosstabulation: shown the amount of analyzed-groups where the subject

in each zones is 30. In zone 1, 1 people in high risk perception, 1 people in low risk

perception, and 28 people in medium level of risk perception. In zone 2, 8 people in high

38

risk perception, 22 people in medium level, and no one in low level. In zone 3, 9 people in

high level, 21 people in medium level, and no one in low level of risk perception. The total

subject in high level is 18 people, subject in low level is 1, and subject in medium level of

risk perception is 71 people.

Table 5-3. Crosstabulation of risk perception level and zones (SPSS output)

- Output chi-square test: shown the result of chi-square analysis χ2 = 9.545 and df 4 with

probability (Asymp. Sig (2-sided)) 0.049. The decision to accept or reject the null

hypothesis could be done based on chi-square (χ2) value or considered to the probability (p)

value. If the χ2 value for the calculated is χ2 < χ2 value for the table, then the H0 is

accepted or if the χ2 value for the calculated is χ2 > χ2 value for the table, then the H0 is

rejected. If the probability is p > 0.05 then Ho is accepted or if p < 0.05 then Ho is rejected.

Critical χ2 value with df = 4 (on table) are 9.49 (in significant level 5%) and 13.28 (in

significant level 1%). Chi-square (χ2 ) value =9.545 > 9.49 means that the null hypothesis

(H0) is rejected, and alternative hypothesis (Ha) that that there is differences between the

people risk perception in zone 1 and people risk perception in zone 2 and 3 is accepted.

Table 5-4. Chi-square test of risk perception (SPSS output)

Social Risk Perception Index (SRPI)

39

People living in the third zone were threatened by all of type of volcanic hazard like lava, lahar,

volcanic ash, and pyroclastic flows. Their expectation of certain types of volcanic hazard is

different with people reception in different dangerous zone. Although the threatened volcanic

hazard type in zone I was lahars only, people living in there have also perception about the

other type of volcanic hazard such as lava, ash falls, and pyroclastic flows.

The Risk perception index of local people was constructed to capture information from four

kinds of volcanic risk: lava flows, lahars, ash fall, and pyroclastic flows. The risk perception

index ranges from 0 to 4, where index number of 0 and 4 indicate a combine score of people

perception level for each kind of volcanic risks. In order to obtain the people perception level, a

simple participatory method was done. Using beans to represent the level of threatening of

volcanic risk, people put them on a blank table on a piece of paper. If they think that one kind

of volcanic hazard is “extreme risk”, then they put four beans in the appropriate column.

Similarly, three beans for “severe risk”, two beans for “moderate risk”, one bean for “slight

risk” and no bean if they fell safe (“no risk”) from certain volcanic risk. Figure 5-6 shows the

comparison of risk perception index between zone I, zone II, and zone III.

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

percentage

0.250.500.751.001.251.501.752.002.252.502.753.003.253.503.754.00

srpi

ZONA III 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 6.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 0.0 13.3 6.7 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0

ZONA II 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 3.3 10.0 10.0 3.3 10.0 16.7 10.0 10.0 20.0 3.3 0.0 0.0

ZONA I 10.0 23.3 0.0 23.3 10.0 13.3 0.0 3.3 6.7 6.7 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00

Figure 5-6. Comparison of SRPI in zone I, II, and III

According to the response figured above, no one have SRPI neither 0.00 nor 4.00. The lowest is

0.25 (10% people in zone I) and the highest value is 3.50 (10% people in zone III and 3.3%

people in zone II). SRPI value in zone III spread from 1.00 (3.3%) to 3.5 (10%), and have the

same percentage (16.7%) in value 1.75, 2.00, and 2.25. In the second dangerous zone, the SRPI

40

started at 1.00 (3.3%) until 3.5 (3.3%) with the highest percentage (20.0%) in value 3.25, while

in the first zone the minimum SRPI is 0.25 and the maximum is 3.00. Based on Hazard Map of

Merapi Volcano, the first zone is threatened by lahars and during the increasing of eruption,

these area also potentially affected by volcanic ash fall and possibly ejected rock fragments.

People in the first zone rated the four types of volcanic hazard by “slight-risk” and “moderate-

risk” more frequently than “severe-risk” and “extreme-risk”. Not only fifteen respondents

graded lahars threatening in “extreme risk” and nine respondents placed it in “severe risk” but

also they graded the other types of volcanic hazard in “slight risk”, “moderate risk”, even “no

risk” (see Table 5-5).

no risk slight riskm oderate

risksevere

riskextrem e

risktotal

Lava 15 12 3 0 0 30

Lahars 0 0 6 9 15 30

Ash fall 0 9 21 0 0 30Pyroclastic

F lows 0 21 3 6 0 30

Table 5-5. People appraisal of four type of volcanic hazard in zone I

5.3. The Factors Influencing Volcanic Risk Percept ion

Some factors that probably influenced in risk perception were discussed in this research. Based

on the preliminary survey and referenced to some literature, the personal experiences,

traditional rules, and personality factor were exposed.

5.3.1. Personal Experiences

The previous volcanic event occurred in 2006, when 2 people were killed and 12,000 people

were evacuated. The 2006 eruption period has begun in the end of April until October when the

authority declared to return to baseline alert level. On 25 April, Merapi Volcano Observatory

(BPPTK) reports the increasing activities of Merapi volcano by 198 multi-phases earthquakes,

4 shallow volcanic tremors, and one tectonic quake. On May 15, reported 202 events of rock

falls, 88 pyroclastic flows reaching maximum 2,5 km, and around 29 hot lava flows were

observed to reach 2,5 km distance to the Krasak, Gendol, and Boyong rivers. The rising of

volcanic activities caused the increasing alert level to four (caution) and the authority

recommends communities within 8 km of the crater on the south-southeast sector, 10 km of the

crater on the southwest-west side, and 8 km on the western flank evacuate. On 14 June, the

dome collapse, pyroclastic flows down Woro valley onto Kaliadem village. Two men were

41

killed in a bunker where they tried to avoid the flow. The intensity and frequency of the small-

dome collapse and block and ash flows were decreased, and on 12 July the alert level lowered

to 3 (alert) until return to baseline alert level on October 1st (Wilson, Kaye et al. 2007).

People experiences of volcanic event and the interpretation of the event are the factor

influencing the perception of risk (Kates 1971; Paton., Smith. et al. 2008). The direct

experiences, the witness events are the major factor for people before they fully appreciate the

volcanic events (Haynes, Barclay et al. 2008). All 0f 90 respondents have experiences in

volcanic events such as lahars, ashfall, and pyroclastic flows. In this study, their experience of

events was distinguished in four class: 1 if their first experience, 2 if twice, 3 if thrice, and 4 if

they have more than thrice experiences. The frequency of events for all of respondents is shown

in table 5-6.

Number of

experience(s) Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

1 12 13.3 13.3 13.3

2 37 41.1 41.1 54.4

3 20 22.2 22.2 76.7

4 21 23.3 23.3 100.0

Valid

Total 90 100.0 100.0

Table 5-6. The frequency of people experience on volcanic event

As shown on table 5-6, 13.3% of respondent have one time experience in volcanic event, 41.1%

have twice experiences, 22.2% have thrice experiences, and 23.3% have more than thrice. The

type of volcanic hazard that they faced on including of lava flows, lahars, ash falls, and

pyroclastic flows. Most of respondent in every dangerous zone had experience in ash falls.

People in zone III especially in Kaliadem hamlet, one of settlements in Pelemsari village have

experience in pyroclastic flows during 2006 explosion.

Z o n e I Z o n e I I Z o n e I II

la v a 0 .0 0 .0 2 0 .0

la h a rs 4 3 .3 2 0 .0 1 6 .7

a s h fa lls 5 6 .7 2 6 .7 3 3 .3

p yro c la s t ic 0 .0 5 3 .3 3 0 .0

to ta l 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0

Table 5-7. The experience of volcanic hazard types

42

Table 5-7 indicates that people in zone I had experience only in two types of volcanic hazard;

lahars and ash falls. In zone II, people faced on lahars, ash falls, and pyroclastic flows,

meanwhile people in zone III had experience in lava. During 2006 eruption, some of

respondents said that ash falls reached their village and covered their cultivated land. People

appraise of their last experience in volcanic events was shown in table 5-8.

How badly the last volcanic events affected your life?

zone I zone II zone III

very sligthly 73.3 0.0 0.0

Not too badly 26.7 46.7 13.3

Quiet badly 0.0 33.3 53.3

very badly 0.0 20.0 33.3

total 100.0 100.0 100.0

levels

response (%)

Table 5-8. People appraise of volcanic event

People with less experiences of volcanic risk have less memory about the events in their mind.

Figure 5-7 exposed people interpretation of volcanic events. People living in zone III have

higher interpretation than community’s knowledge in zone II and zone I. 53.3% people in zone

III have high level of interpretation of volcanic event, while 66.7% of people in zone I have low

level of it.

low medium

high

zone III

zone II

zone I

66.7

33.3

0.03.3

76.7

20.0

3.3

43.3 53

.3

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

perc

enta

ge

Figure 5-7. Response to the question: How big the volcanic event in your experience?

43

Interpretation of volcanic event probably related with the frequency of the experiences. The

relationship between experiences and interpretation of volcanic risk describe in table 5-9.

experience interpretation

Pearson Correlation 1 .018

Sig. (2-tailed) .864

experience

N 90 90

Pearson Correlation .018 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .864

interpretation

N 90 90

Table 5-9. The correlation of experience and interpretation (SPSS output)

The correlation analysis between people experience and their interpretation of events resulted

Sig value is 0.864 means that there is no significant correlation between them. However, the

value of correlation coefficient (0.018) indicated that the correlation is positive; the raise of the

interpretation will follow the increasing of the experience.

Personal experience in evacuation during volcanic eruption of local people is shown in table 5-

10. People living in zone I have no experience in evacuation yet, and people in zone II and III

often evacuated when Merapi volcano erupted. Even when alert level increased, the authority

conducted to evacuate the villagers for mitigation.

H a ve yo u b e e n e va c u a te d ?

zo n e I zo n e II zo n e III

n e ve r 1 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0

ye s , 1 tim e 0 .0 1 6 .7 1 3 .3

ye s , 2 tim e s 0 .0 4 6 .7 7 0 .0

ye s , > 2 tim e s 0 .0 3 6 .7 1 6 .7

to ta l 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0

e x p e r ie n c e sp e o p le re s p o n s e (% )

Table 5-10. The experience of evacuation

The 46.7% people in zone II and 70.0% people in zone III had two times experiences of

evacuation in 1994 and 2006 eruptions. 1994 eruption was responsible for 95 casualties in

44

Turgo, one of the hamlets in zone III and Kaliurang, the tourism object in zone II. During the

2006 eruption, the hamlet of Kaliadem and Bebeng, the tourism objects in zone III were

devastated by block and ash flows. Some of respondents in zone II and III have more than two

times of evacuation experiences, and there are two respondents in zone III had been evacuate

for six times in 1960, 1967, 1969, 1994, 1996, and 2006.

According to kind of loss that people have, table 5-11 shows the result of the question “What

kind of loss did you have?”

W h a t k in d o f lo s s d id yo u h a v e ?

z o n e I z o n e II z o n e II I

h u m a n d e c e a s e d 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0

h o u s e d a m a g e d 0 .0 3 3 .3 1 6 .7

a n im a l d e c e a s e d 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0

la n d d e s tru c t io n 5 6 .7 6 6 .7 8 3 .3

o th e rs 4 3 .3 0 .0 0 .0

n o th in g 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0

to ta l 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0

T yp e o f lo s sre s p o n s e (% )

Table 5-11. The type of losses of local people

The type of losses is dominated by “land destruction”. 83.3% of respondents in zone III and

66.7% of respondents in zone II mentioned that volcanic eruption caused damage to their land,

particularly their farmyard, and their pasture. In the volcanic eruption period, they have

difficulties to get grass to feed their livestock. In zone I, 56.7% of people said that their

cultivated land was covered by volcanic ash when the eruption happened, and caused damage

to their plantation. 43.3% people in zone I said that they have problem with their health and

their feeling. Their respiration system was disturbed because of volcanic ash particles, and they

afraid of the volcanic events in the future. 33.3% of people in zone II, particularly in Kaliurang

said that tourism activities were fall down during volcanic eruption period. Their home

functioned as inn or motel had to close because it was damage by ash falls. Similarly, 16.7% of

respondent in zone II worked in tourism sectors also loss their occupation because of the

damage of their house.

When asked about livestock production related with volcanic events, the answer from the

respondents as shown on table 5-12.

45

“Are the volcanic events deriving your livestock production?”

zone I zone II zone III

Yes 0.0 80.0 83.3

No 40.0 20.0 16.7

Do not know 60.0 0.0 0.0

total 100.0 100.0 100.0

ChoicesAnswer (%)

Table 5-12. The deriving of livestock production

Livestock production was decrease during volcanic eruption period. 83.3% people in zone III

and 80.0% people in zone II said that the lack of grass to feed their livestock decreased the

dairy milk production.

5.3.2. Traditional Rules

The cultural environment may influence the behavior of the people and their perception of the

risk (Lavigne., Coster. et al. 2008). Most of local community surrounding Merapi volcano

believe that there is an invisible kingdom controls the volcanic activities of Merapi and it will

not destroy its own land. Considering that the location of their villages are near the Kingdom,

they suppose to be not afraid when the volcanic activities is rising (Yunus 1996). Local people

think that volcanic eruptions are under the control of divine forces. The volcanic activities has

been integrated in their daily life, it belong to the human world. Their belief on cultural

environment is related with the cultural leader existence, called Juru Kunci (Key holder). Juru

Kunci of the Merapi volcano is Mr. Sureksohargo, also called mBah Marijan. He is 80 years

old, live in Kinahrejo hamlet, part of Pelemsari, one of the villages in the third level dangerous

zone. He was appointed by the Sultan to carry out the annual gift to the volcano, called

Labuhan to honor the founding father of the ancient kingdom. 58.8 % of the respondents are

giving their respect to the informal leader existence. The comparison of the people’s response

in each zones is shown in Figure 5-8.

46

13.33

76.67

93.33

86.67

23.33

6.67

0.000.00

0.00

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

perc

enta

ge

yes no no answer

zone 1

zone 2

zone 3

Figure 5-8. Response to the question: Are you respecting to informal leader?

People in the third level dangerous zone have highly respected to the cultural leader (93.33%).

In the second zone, 76.67% of people are respecting to informal leader, and 23.3% are not. In

the safest zone, the cultural leader existence related with volcanic events has no interesting.

13.33% people are respecting to informal leader, and 86.67% are not.

The reasons of people in the third zone giving the respect to the cultural leader are: (a) because

of his relationship with Sultan (37%), (b) because of their ancestor’s belief (37%), (c) because

of his heredity (23%), and (d) no reason (3%).

Figure 4-7. The reason to respect

relation with sultan37%

anchestor's belief37%

his heredity23%

no reason3%

Figure 5-9. The reason to respect in zone III

47

5.3.3. Personality Factors

Some personality factor that possible effected in risk perception are how people control their

fate, how people’s nature point of view, and how they get the information about risk. Some

question were asked and analyzed, to know the role of the factors as mentioned above in risk

perception.

Fate Control

The response when asked, “Are you sorry to be volcanic people?” are: 96.7% of respondents in

zone III stated “No”, while the rest (3.3%) feel sorry to be Merapi volcano’s people, 90% of

respondents in zone II answered “No”, and 10% “yes”, and all of the respondents in zone I

(100%) said “No” (see Figure 5-10).

YesResponse (%)

No

0.0 10

.0

3.3

100.

0

90.0 96

.7

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Figure 5-10. Response to the question: “Are you sorry to be volcanic people?”

People opinions when they were asked about the possibility to relocate the entire villager in

dangerous zones to the other place are: 53.3% respondent in zone I stated agree, 36.7% not

sure, and 10% not agree. In zone II, 13.3% said agree, 6.7% not sure, 60% not agree, and 20%

fully not agree. In zone III, 3.3% said agree, 16.7% not sure, 43.3% not agree, and 36.7% fully

not agree (see Table 5-13).

Zone I Zone II Zone III

Fully agree 0.0 0.0 0.0

Agree 53.3 13.3 3.3

Not sure 36.7 6.7 16.7

Not agree 10.0 60.0 43.3

Fully not agree 0.0 20.0 36.7

100.0 100.0 100.0

CategoriesResponse (%)

Table 5-13. People attitude about the possibility of relocation

48

The first dangerous zone is laid down along the river valleys where the previous lahars

overflowing. People in this zone have more heterogenic than their live in the second and third

zones. 36,7% people in zone I living as a farmer, 30% as private employee, 13,3% as a seller,

and 13.3% as civil servant. They have more complex consideration than people in zone II and

III when faced some problems. The possibility of relocation is a chance to be better live for

next generation.

Point of view of Nature

People opinions with the statement “The volcanic events are your habitual, so take them

unconditionally” are (see Figure 5-11):

− In zone I, 36.67% of respondent were agree, 13.33% not sure, and 50.00% not agree,

− In zone II, 13.33% of respondents were fully agree, 56.67% agree, 6.67% not sure, 16.67%

not agree, and 6.67% fully not agree

− In zone III, 26.67% were fully agree, 46.67% agree, 20.00% not sure, and 6.67% not agree.

0.00

13.33

26 .6736 .67

56 .67

46 .67

13.33

6.67

20.00

50 .00

16 .67

6.67

0.006.67

0.00

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

perc

enta

ges

(%)

Fully agree Agree Not sure Not agree Fully notagree

Zone I

Zone II

Zone III

Figure 5-11. People opinions about the volcanic risk is their habitual

People in zone I is more educated than they living in zone III, so they have more rational

consideration beside their traditional concern. Natural hazard is phenomena that should be

faced and minimized the negative impacts to human.

When asked “Are you afraid about volcanic events in the future?”, 16.7% respondent in zone I

said yes, and 83% said no. In zone II, 50% of respondents were afraid about the future volcanic

events, while the rest is not. In Zone III, 80% stated that they not afraid and 20% said afraid

(see Table 5-14).

49

Yes No Sum

I 16.7 83.3 100.0

II 50.0 50.0 100.0

III 20.0 80.0 100.0

ZoneResponse (%)

Table 5-14. Response to the question: “Are you afraid about volcanic events in the future?”

People in zone II and III have the strong link to their environment. They believe that the village

they live and their cultivated land are their ancestors. That is the reason why they always feel

save living with volcanic risk.

When asked “Is Merapi volcano blessing your live?”, 100% of respondents in zone II and III

stated yes, while 56.6% of respondents in zone I said no. Contrary, the people opinions about

the statement “Merapi volcano is dangerous” are:

− In zone I, 50% of respondents said agree, 30% said not sure, and 20% said not agree.

− In zone II, 33.3% of respondents stated that they were agree, 23.3% not sure, 30% not

agree, and 13.3% fully not agree.

− In zone III, 63.3% of respondent agree if Merapi volcano is dangerous, 26.7% not sure, and

10% not agree.

Fullyagree Agree

Notsure Not

agree Fullynot

agree

Zone I

Zone II

Zone III0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

Zone I 0.0 50.0 30.0 20.0 0.0

Zone II 0.0 33.3 23.3 30.0 13.3

Zone III 0.0 63.3 26.7 10.0 0.0

Fully agree Agree Not sure Not agree Fully not agree

Figure 5-12. Response to the statement “Merapi volcano is dangerous”

50

The tolerance of the information differences

Some questions about the information were asked to the respondent. When asked “How do you

get the information about volcanic events?”, 66.7% of people in zone I said that they get

information from authority, 20% get from mass-media, and 13.3% get from NGO. People in

zone II, 80.0% get information from the government, 10% get from NGO, 6.7% get from mass

media, and only 3.3% get information from their ancestors. In zone III, 90% of respondents

acquired information from the government, and 10% get information from their parents (see

Figure 5-13).

AnchestorsGovernment

NGOMass media

Zone I

Zone II

Zone III

10.0

90.0

0.0

0.0

3.3

80.0

10.0

6.7

0.0

66.7

13.3 20.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

Figure 5-13. Information sources

The sources of information differences caused the variation of volcanic risk knowledge. It is

depend on how attractive the information presented. 50% of respondents in zone I, 70% in zone

II and 50% in zone III agree that they get the information from the same source. Most people

prefer to obtain the information from the local authority. When asked the relevancy between

information and actual condition, 50% of respondents in zone I and 60% in zone II stated that

the information is relevant with the actuality, but in zone III only 36.7% of people stated like

that (see Table 5-15).

51

Zone I Zone II Zo ne III

Fully agree 6.7 3.3 0

Agree 50 60 36.7

Not sure 40 26.7 43.3

Not agree 0 6.7 16.7

Fully not agree 3.3 3.3 3.3

100 100 100

CategoriesResponse (%)

Table 5-15. Response to the statement: “The information is relevant with the actuality”

When the statement “The information is helpful to cope with volcanic risk” was asked to the

people, 66.7% of respondents in zone I, 73.3% in zone II, and 83.3% in zone III were agree,

even 6.7% people in zone I said fully agree.

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

Zone I 6.7 66.7 20.0 3.3 3.3

Zone II 3.3 73.3 23.3 0.0 0.0

Zone III 3.3 83.3 10.0 3.3 0.0

Fully agree Agree Not sure Not agreeFully not

agree

Figure 5-13. Response to statement: “The information is helpful to cope with volcanic risk”

5.4. Discussion

Hazard zonation

In order to minimize the effects of volcanic eruptions, the government published the hazard

zonation map. The Merapi volcano hazard-zone map published by the Volcanological Survey

of Indonesia (VSI) on 1978 divided the area into three zones: Forbidden Zone, First danger

zone, and Second danger zone (Thouret, Lavigne et al. 2000). The forbidden zone, above 1500

m altitude on the upper part of the volcano that is frequently affected by rock fall, pyroclastic

52

flows, and tephra fall, including ballistic eject. The ‘first danger zone’ is the area that is

affected by tephra fall or lahars, should violent explosive eruptions occur. This area thought to

be beyond the reach of most pyroclastic flows and lava flows. The ‘second danger zone’

corresponds to the radial valleys draining the volcano’ flanks, particularly towards the west and

south. Lahars and water floods can devastate the second danger zone as far as 30 km down

valley from the summit.

Based on fact that the eruption process will change the volcanic morphology such as the crater

edge degradation, Voskuil and Zuidam (1982) suggest that it is necessary to generate a new

map after each eruption. In 2002, the government establishes the new hazard map of the Merapi

Volcano. The nomenclature of hazard zonation is hazard prone area I, II, and III. This could be

the explanation for the result of questionnaire about hazard zonation. 53.3% people in zone I

stated that their zone is the third or in the second zone. In their opinion, the most dangerous

zone is the first zone, so in series the safest zone is the third zone. People in zone I supposed

that they are in zone II because of their knowledge of the previous nomenclature. In the earlier

nomenclature, the most dangerous zone is the forbidden zone, followed by the first dangerous

zone and the second of it. Also in zone II, 56.7% people said that their settlement is in the first

dangerous zone because they still referred to the earlier classification.

Volcanic risk identification

Local people have their own definition about kind of volcanic risk. They understand that

volcanic activities of Merapi volcano consist of several types of risk such as lava flows, lahars,

ash flow, and pyroclastic flow. Even though, 52.8% of respondents wrote their opinions about

the definition of four kind of volcanic risk. There are several key words resumed from them to

explain each of volcanic risks. When they explain about lava, most of them mentioned “liquid”,

“hot”, “melting”, and “flow”. When they give explanation about lahars, they always wrote

“liquid”, “cold”, “sand”, “stone”, “river valley” and “flow”. If talking about ash fall then they

mentioned “small-size material”, “dust”, “wind”, and “far distance”. Pyroclastic flows related

with “high temperature”, “fast moving”, “bowling”, and “destructive”. Compare with the

definition based on the literatures, the people opinions about volcanic risk are appropriate

enough.

Based on the A Dictionary of Earth Science, lava is a molten or partially molten mass of

magma extruded from a volcano (Anonim 1976). Lahars is a volcanic debris flow forms when

the unstable debris accumulating on the sides of volcano is lubricated by the certain intensity of

rain and will flow under gravity. Ash falls is one kind of the fragmental materials less than 2

mm in diameter, mostly of acid composition and the result of deposition from incandescent

cloud and volcanic fragments, emitted during certain eruptions. Pyroclastic is the accumulation

53

of fragmental materials thrown out by volcanic explosions, as a solid fragment or in the molten

state, chilling in the air and producing vitreous material divided into several forms as bomb,

block, lapili, ash, and ignimbrites.

People opinion appropriate is related also with their response of some questions about volcanic

risk knowledge in the questionnaire. The average level of their response is “medium” (Figure 5-

3) and most of them were agree with the definition in the questionnaire (Table 5-1).

Volcanic risk perception level

The value of risk perception is obtained by calculating twenty-three numbers of responses from

the statements in questionnaire. Responses from people were valued from 1 to 5 based on the

degree of their agreement; 1 for fully not agree, 2 for not agree, 3 for not sure, 4 for agree, and

5 for fully agree, so the minimum value is 23 and the maximum is 115. The results were

categorized in three classes: Low (23-53), Medium (54-84), and High (85-115). For all of

respondents, the average is 79, it means that the risk perception of the respondent is medium

level. The lowest value is 46 (at zone I) and the highest is 97 (at zone III). Risk perception

level of local people in each sampling areas is shown in figure 5-14.

54

Box 5-1: People’s response about the definitions of the volcanic risk types

Based on the answers of four questions about the definition of lava, lahars, ash-fall, and pyroclastic flows, figure as below shows the comparison of people responses for each zone.

Lava

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

per

cen

tag

e

Zona I 6.7 45.8 45.0 0.0 2.5

Zona II 2.5 60.8 33.3 2.5 0.8

Zona III 11.7 59.2 28.3 0.8 0.0

Fully Agree Agree Not Sure Not Agree Fully not agree

Ash-falls

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

per

cen

tag

e

Zona I 10.0 43.3 46.7 0.0 0.0

Zona II 3.3 60.0 33.3 3.3 0.0

Zona III 13.3 53.3 30.0 3.3 0.0

Fully Agree Agree Not Sure Not Agree Fully not agree

Lahars

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

perc

enta

ge

Zona I 6.7 50.0 40.0 0.0 3.3

Zona II 3.3 50.0 43.3 3.3 0.0

Zona III 6.7 56.7 36.7 0.0 0.0

Fully Agree Agree Not Sure Not Agree Fully not agree

Pyroclastic Flow

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

perc

enta

ge

Zona I 6.7 43.3 46.7 0.0 3.3

Zona II 0.0 76.7 20.0 3.3 0.0

Zona III 16.7 66.7 16.7 0.0 0.0

Fully Agree Agree Not Sure Not Agree Fully not agree

Local community often under-estimate the predicted risk and perceive the risk as acceptable risk. Because of the lack of volcanic processes knowledge, local people have difficulties to estimate the probability of volcanic events accruing and its consequences. Lavigne et al (2008) wrote that during 1994 eruption some people in Boyong valley identified pyroclastic flows as lahars. They did not expect that pyroclastic surges were able to flow over small hills. (source of pictures: BPPTK, 2008)

55

Figure 5-14. Risk perception level of local people in each sampling area

56

Risk perception is a subjective opinion of people about the risk, its characteristics, and its

severity, include multiple factors: the individual’s knowledge of the objective risks, the

individual’s expectations about his or her own experience to risks, and his or her ability to

mitigate or cope with the adverse events if they occur. Risk perception is related to the

estimated probability of people that hazard will affect them. Individual capacity to manage risk

can feed back into risk perceptions. People were accepted the risk readily in condition that the

risk is voluntary, high familiarity, equitable to share, benefit clearance, well understood, and

have scientific dimension. Risk familiarity is related with the origin of the villagers. The

indigenous people living in their birth village have better knowledge of their environment than

foreign people like the sand miners in Gendol river, Cangkringan. Most of them come outside

the area and have lack information about volcanic activities (see Box 5-2)

Risk perception also presents by index, called Social Risk Perception Index. In calculation, the

consideration is four kind of volcanic risk only, and not included the characteristic of people

and the geographical condition of area. Index number shows only the responses of people when

they give rank for lava, lahars, ash fall, and pyroclastic flows. SRPI distribution was showed in

figure 5-15.

The risk perception has more wide consideration than SRPI concerned in. Risk perception

valued based on several question including social aspects, but SRPI graded only considered in

the people judgment on four type of volcanic hazard. Statistical analysis using SPSS 16.0 was

done to know the relation between risk perception and SRPI. Because of the type of data is

interval data then Pearson correlation coefficient was used.

Table 5-16. Correlation between Risk Perception and SRPI

Table 5-16 shows the result of Pearson correlation analysis is Sig value 0.001 (< 0.05) means

that there is significant correlation between risk perception and SRPI. Considering with Pearson

57

correlation value as 0.336 (> 0) indicates that the correlation is positive, the increasing one

variable followed by the increasing the other variable. People whose high SRPI, risk perception

of them are high.

58

Box 5-2: Local authority’s order for Gendol river sand-miners

According to the beginning of rainy season, the local authority conducts the policing operation of sand-mining activity in Gendol river. The sand miners, most of them come from outside of Cangkringan district, worked in Gendol River were breached the mining regulation. They do not afraid to the possibility of debris flow occurrence when the certain intensity of rainfall triggered. The Governor decree stated that the distance between the escarpment and the mining location must be 15 meters, and the mining location must be 500 meters far from the retaining dam. (Kedaulatan Rakyat, the local newspaper, issued 13 November 2008)

59

Figure 5-15. SRPI of local people in each sampling area

60

Traditional Rules

Local people knowledge of volcanic hazard and risk perception are strongly linked to cultural

context. 100% of the people who interviewed in zone II and III considered Merapi volcano as

blessing in their live, not as a threat. In addition, 47% of interviewed people in the most

dangerous zone consider that Merapi volcano activities is part of their habitual life, even 26.7%

stated fully agree. Cultural phenomena in Merapi volcano’s communities hardly tied to the

cultural leader existence. People living in Pelemsari village (Kinahrejo hamlet) where mBah

Maridjan staying, fell safer than people living far away from him where they have less

confidence in his supernatural power (Lavigne., Coster. et al. 2008). Their reason to give

respect to the cultural leader are (a) because of his relation with the Sultan, the king of

Yogyakarta kingdom, (b) because of their ancestor said, (c) because of his prosperity, and (d)

no reason.

Why you give respect to the cultural leader?

Zone I % Zone II % Zone III] %Because of: Because of: Because of:No Answer 66.7 his prosperity 63.3 his relationship with Sultan 36.7his prosperity 10.0 his relationship with Sultan 13.3 the anchestor's belief 36.7Don't know 10.0 Don't know 13.3 his prosperity 23.3his relationship with Sultan 6.7 the anchestor's belief 6.7 Don't know 3.3the anchestor's belief 6.7 No Answer 3.3 No Answer 0.0

100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 5-17. The distribution of the reason to respect

Traditional rule has also attached by traditional ceremonies, the rituals to actualize the respect

of local people. On the southeast slope of Merapi volcano, particularly at Kinahrejo and

surrounding, villagers always conduct the annually ceremony in the beginning of Ruwah (one

of the months in Javanese calendar) called Labuhan, to honor the great expected leader of the

founding father of the ancient kingdom. The form of the offering is “tumpeng”, some structure

represent a volcanic cone that made of rice and vegetables. The “tumpeng” brought by many

people, particularly by the prayer, the Sultan’s servant by walk from mBah Marijan’s house to

the secret place in the upper part of Palemsari village, called “Srimanganti” where people were

scramble the “tumpeng” to get the blessing from the God. On the south west slope, people in

Tunggularum village arrange “Merti Bumi” ceremony in the first week of Javanese month

61

Sapar or after a grand harvest period, in order to give their respect to the earth, begging safety

and protection against disasters. They make some structure symbolizing the cone of mountain

made from vegetables tributes to the earth, the source of live.

Information differences

Local people access the information about volcanic risk from some source such as (a) the story

from their parents when they were young. Information about their environment particularly

volcanic activities were transferred by fairy tales, poets (Javanese’s poet called wayang)

exhibitions, and traditional tools demonstration. Traditional tool used to communicate between

household one to another named kentongan (drum made from bamboo or wood that is struck to

sound an alarm) were an efficient for early warning system. (b) the information from the

authority such as counseling programs, leaflet or other publication paper about volcanic

activities, fringes in prone hazard areas, and mitigation programs that conducted by both local

government and Indonesian government. (c) the contribution of Non-government organization

(NGO) in volcanic risk information disseminating were important also. NGOs have good socio-

cultural approach and always use bottom-up technique when they work. People participation is

a key in their programs implementation. (d) Volcanic activities information from mass-media

like newspapers, television, radio broadcasting, and internet connections were accessible for

local people.

62

Chapter 6 – Volcanic Hazard Mitigation This chapter discusses about volcanic hazard mitigation measures in Merapi Volcano

Dangerous Zone. Local government program of mitigation will describe to know kind of

structural measures and non-structural measures existing. This part also discusses about

people involvement and people perceive of government program.Finally, the analyze of people

acceptation of government program and the discussion were presenting in the last part of this

chapter.

6.1. Local Government Programs

Mitigation is one of the disaster management steps taken prior to the occurrence of a disaster

including preparedness and long-term risk reduction measures. It involves not only saving lives

and injury and reducing property losses, but also reducing the adverse consequences of natural

hazards to economic activities and social institutions. Mitigation concept accepts the fact that

some hazard may happen but tries to minimize the impact by improving the capacity of the

community.

Figure 6-1. Mitigation in Disaster Management Cycle(Twigg 2004)

Mitigation measures are placed in the pre-disaster period (see figure 6-1). Actually, the most

appropriate moment to act the mitigation process is in the period after a disaster when the

awareness of people and the political will of the authority to act is high (UNDP 1992).

Related with volcanic events, mitigation is any action taken to minimize casualties or property

loss caused by volcanic eruption including both structural and non-structural measures. For

63

examples, achieving early warning systems, developing dams to control lahars flows,

evacuation track establishment, and building evacuation barrack, or non-structural actions such

as conducting public education , simulation of mitigation process, and others socio-cultural

approach to the local people (Twigg 2004).

In 2004, the government of the Sleman Regency established one agency to manage natural

disaster mitigation, called Dinas P3BA (Pengairan, Pertambangan, dan Penanggulangan

Bencana Alam / Irrigation, Mining, and Natural Disaster Mitigation Agency). The agency has

several programs related with natural disaster management, including volcanic hazard

mitigation of Merapi volcano. Volcanic hazard mitigation conducted by the authority of Sleman

Regency can be classified into structural and non-structural mitigation measures. The

government measure programs to minimize volcanic risks listed below.

1. Sabo dam structures construction and development.

This program began in 1969 by Departemen Pekerjaan Umum (The Ministry of Public Work of

Indonesia). The tasks of the project are to protect inhabitants and agriculture areas from lahars

threatening. Local government of Sleman Regency continued this project not only by Sabo dam

structure development but also with the irrigation structures construction, placed along the river

in this area (Figure 6.2). The number of dam structures in each river as mentioned in table 6-1.

Table 6-1. Distribution of dam in Sleman Regency

64

Figure 6-2. The distribution of Dam construction

65

2. Improvement of the warning system

The traditional warning system kentongan gradually replaced by a high-technology warning

system: sensors and sirens were installed at several villages. At now, there are six sensor and

eleven siren towers spread out in some villages. Table 6-2 shows the distribution of these

instruments.

S e n s o r s a n d S i r e n s f o r E a r l y W a r n in g S y s te m ( E W S )

N o I n s t r u m e n t L o c a t io n1 R a in f a l l G a u g e K e p u h a r j o

K la n g o n

2 S e is m o g r a p h V ib r a t io n K la ta a n

P la w a n g a n

D e le s

P u s u n g lo n d o n

3 T r a n s m i te r /R e c ie v e r K in a h r e j o

A n te n a T r i t i s

P o w e r S u p ly K a l i u r a n g ( 2 )

S i r in e K a l i te n g a h K id u l

U m b u lh a r jo

K e p u h a r j o

K a l i a d e m

M a n g g o n g

B r o n g g a n g

J a m b o n L o r

Table 6-2.The Distribution of EWS Instruments (Modified from P3BA, 2008)

3. Evacuation infrastructure development

The authority developed structural mitigation measures such as bunker, evacuation barrack,

relocation site, and evacuation road (see table 6-3). At 2006 eruption, two men were killed in a

bunker in Kaliadem when they tried to escape the flow. The bunker specifically designed with

heavy door, running water, and oxygen supply to withstand a pyroclastic flow, but this structure

was overwhelmed. This failure suggesting that the future construction of emergency bunker

should be reviewed.

66

Evacuation Infrastructures

No Structure Quantity Location

1 Bunker 2 units Tunggularum, Kaliadem

2 Evacuation barrack 19 unitsDistrict of Turi, Pakem, Cangkringan, Tempel, Ngemplak, Ngaglik

3 Relocation 241 houses Pelem and Sudimoro villages

4 Evacuation track 126.35 kmDistrict of Turi, Pakem, Cangkringan, Tempel, Ngemplak, Ngaglik

Table 6-3.The Distribution Evacuation Infrastructures (Modified from P3BA, 2008)

The evacuation barrack were prepared using the establishing building. In normal condition,

these building were used for school, local authority office, or private office. The lack of facility

such as lavatory and soup kitchen, recommend that the evacuation barrack should be improved.

Local government of Sleman Regency was set up two relocation sites at Pelem and Sudimoro

villages (see Box 6-1). Pelem relocation site with 120 houses was prepared for 1994 eruption

victims from Ngandong and Tritis Villages, and 121 houses at Sudimoro site was arranged for

Turgo villagers.

4. Training and Education Program

Local government of Sleman Regency has responsibility to improve people awareness of

volcanic hazard mitigation. A good public knowledge of volcanic hazard and a high public

participation in community preparedness program were the objectives of this task. In 2008, the

authority in collaboration with the other institutions conducted several programs (see Table 6-

4).

67

Training and Education Program

No Institution Location

1 P3BA, BPPTK Distric of Cangkringan, Pakem, Turi

2 P3BA, PSMB UPN Purwobinangun, Kemiri

3 P3BA, PSMB UPN Villages in distric of Cangkringan, Pakem, Turi

4 P3BA, BPPTK, PSMB UPN

PakemWorkshop

Activity

Public dissemination ofinformation

Community based trainning

Counseling program

P3BA :

BPPTK:

PSMB UPN:

Dinas Pengairan, Pertambangan, dan Penanggulangan Bencana Alam /Irrigation, Mining, and Natural Disaster Mitigation Agency

Balai Penyelidikan dan Pengembangan Teknologi Kegunungapian /Volcanological Observation and Technology Development Agency

Pusat Studi Manajemen Bencana Universitas Pembangunan Nasional /Disaster Management Study Center of Pembangunan Nasional University

Table 6-4.Training and Education Program in 2008 (Modified from P3BA, 2008)

Community dissemination of information was done using mass media, poster campaign, leaflet,

and communal meeting. This program explains the basic issues to clarify the causes of the

hazard, the impact of disaster, and the way in which the local people is vulnerable. Community

based training offered for local people, which emphasizes post disaster activities like practicing

evacuation plan and search and rescue effort. The intensive counseling program will encourage

the community to share responsibility for preparedness measures with the officers. Workshop

proposed for local community leader and officers who will play a part in disaster mitigation,

preparedness, and post disaster assistance.

68

Box 6.1: Some mitigation structural measures ((Pictures taken during fieldwork.)

(a) New consolidation dam in Gendol river (b) Old dam in Gendol river

© House for evacuation point in

Tunggularum

(d) Relocation near Kemirikebo for the 1994 eruption

fictims

(e) Early warning equipment in Gendol river (f) Evacuation road and fringe in Tunggularum

69

Box 6-2: Actual condition of one of the structural building

One of the retaining-dams placed at Gendol River was broken down. The authority presumes that it caused by sand-mining activities. (Kedaulatan Rakyat, local newspaper, 12 December 2008)

70

6.2. People involvement

This research conducts to explore several of mitigation programs by the local government in

dangerous zones of Merapi volcano and to know the local people acceptation on them. First,

when question about the existence of government program related with volcanic risk was

asked, the response is mentioned in table 6-5.

Do you know about government program related with volcanic risk?

zone 1 zone 2 zone 3

yes 83.3 66.7 50.0

no 16.7 33.3 50.0

100.0 100.0 100.0

answerresponse (%)

Table 6-5. People know about government program existence

It shown that 83.3% of respondents in zone I, 66.7% of respondents in zone II, and 50.0% of

respondents in zone III stated that they know if there are government programs in their area.

Volcanic mitigation activities were conducted not only by the authority but also by non-

government organizations, group of scientist, and youth organizations. In zone III, there are

many kind of non-government organizations activities related to volcanic hazard, particularly in

non-structural measures such as scientific research, economic empowering, reforestation

program, and education for free. These programs were well received, but even so, people not

sure who is conducting it.

Tabel 6-6 has shown people response when asked “What kind of program that exist in your

area?” 63.3% of respondents in zone I said that there is infrastructure program in their area, and

36.7% stated that counseling program. In zone II, 86.7% of respondents stated that there is

counseling program in their village, and 13.3% said that infrastructure program existing. And

so in zone III, 73.3% of respondents said that counseling program existing in their village, and

26.7% said that infrastructure program is existed.

71

What programs existed in your village?

zone 1 zone 2 zone 3

counceling 36.7 86.7 73.3

infrastructure 63.3 13.3 26.7

100.0 100.0 100.0

programresponse (%)

Table 6-6. The type of programs in people viewpoint

People in zone II and III recognized the programs in their villages through non-structural

measures like counseling activities that done more frequently than in zone I. Otherwise, people

in zone I know the existing program by structural measures such as embankment along the

river.

Furthermore, when statement “The counseling program is more important than infrastructure

program” was asked, the response are mentioned in figure below.

Figure 6-3. Counseling is more important than infrastructure programs

As shown in figure 6-3, 40% of people in zone I stated that counseling program is not more

important than infrastructure program, even 3.3% said fully not agree with the given statement.

In zone II, 46.7% people agree that counseling program is more important, but 40% people in

zone III feel that they not sure.

72

When asked “Do you have opportunity to express your ideas in the counseling program?”,

76.6% of respondents in zone I, 76.6% of respondents in zone II, and 80% respondents in zone

III stated that they have occasion to expressing their ideas.

Do you have opportunity to express your idea?

zone 1 zone 2 zone 3

yes 76.7 76.7 80.0

no 23.3 23.3 20.0

100.0 100.0 100.0

answerresponse (%)

Table 6-7. People opportunity to express their ideas

When statement “All villagers should be involved in counseling program” was asked, the

responses were:

- In zone I, 6.7% of respondents were fully agree, 50.0% of respondents were agree, 40.0 %

of respondents were not sure, and 3.3% of respondents were fully not agree.

- Respondents in zone II: 13.3% were fully agree, 76.7% were agree, only 3.3% were not

sure, and 6.7% were not agree.

- Respondents in zone III: 10.0% were fully agree, 63.3% were agree, and 26.7% were not

sure.

All of villagers should be involved in counseling program

zona 1 zona 2 zona 3

fully agree 6.7 13.3 10.0

agree 50.0 76.7 63.3

not sure 40.0 3.3 26.7

not agree 0.0 6.7 0.0

fully not agree 3.3 0.0 0.0

sum 100.0 100.0 100.0

Choiceresponse (%)

Table 6-8. People involved in counseling program

When statement “Paterfamiliases attending are representative to express the idea” was asked,

their responses were:

- In zone I, 23.3% of respondents were agree, 23.3% of respondents were not sure, 50.0 % of

respondents were not agree, and 3.3% of respondents were fully not agree.

73

- Respondents in zone II: 6.7% were fully agree, 70.0% were agree, only 3.3% were not sure,

and 20.0% were not agree.

- Respondents in zone III: only 3.3% were fully agree, 73.3% were agree, and 23.3% were

not sure.

Paterfamiliases are representing the ideas

zona 1 zona 2 zona 3fully agree 0.0 6.7 3.3agree 23.3 70.0 73.3not sure 23.3 3.3 23.3not agree 50.0 20.0 0.0fully not agree 3.3 0.0 0.0sum 100.0 100.0 100.0

Choiceresponse (%)

Table 6-9. Paterfamiliases representing in counseling program

Comparing with the previous question, in general, people living in dangerous zones tend to be

present by their self in counseling program to communicate their ideas.

When asked, “Are there any mitigation structure related with volcanic risk in your village and

surrounding?”, 60% of respondents in zone I, 60 % of respondents in zone II, and 93.3% of

respondents in zone III said yes.

zone 1 zone 2 zone 3

yes 60.0 60.0 93.3

no 40.0 40.0 6.7

100.0 100.0 100.0

answerresponse (%)

Are there mitigation structure in your village?

Table 6-10. Mitigation structure measures existing

The mitigation structure measures consist of retaining dam, evacuation barracks, bunkers, early

warning system equipments, and evacuation tracks. To know people perception about

mitigation structures in their area, the question about how they percept on the location of the

structures (dams, barracks, etc) were asked. When the statement “The location of structures is

accurate to volcanic mitigation planning”, the responses are:

74

zone 1 zone 2 zone 3

fully agree 0.0 6.7 0.0

agree 13.3 33.3 66.7

not sure 70.0 40.0 26.7

not agree 13.3 10.0 3.3

fully not agree 3.3 10.0 3.3

100.0 100.0 100.0

answerresponse (%)

The structure position is accurate for m itigation planning

Table 6-11. Structure location precision in people perception

70.0% people in zone I stated that they not sure in structure measures position. Most of them do

not have experience in volcanic event related with existing structure measures in their

environment yet. The existing embankment along the river near their village capable to counter

the flow or not, is still big question for them. Meanwhile, only 66.7% people in zone III said

that they agree in the position of the dam. They still remember of 2006 eruption when the

volcanic material flows down Woro valley onto Kaliadem village. There is dam structure in the

upper part of Kaliadem, but the direction of block and ash flow was chopping round before

facing the structure through to the village.

6.3. People perceive

In order to appraise the volcanic risk, local government has to work in close collaboration with

local communities. It will help them in defining people's risk perception and weighting of

structural constraints. To know the perception of the local people in government programs,

some questions were asked. Local people acceptations to the program were known by analyze

their answer. When statement “Villagers need some mitigation programs in order to mitigate

volcanic risk” was asked, their response was mentioned in table as below.

Villagers need mitigation program from the authority

zone 1 zone 2 zone 3

fully agree 13.3 16.7 0.0

agree 80.0 66.7 76.7

not sure 0.0 10.0 23.3

not agree 3.3 6.7 0.0

fully not agree 3.3 0.0 0.0

100.0 100.0 100.0

answerresponse (%)

Table 6-12: People perceive of government programs

75

As shown in table 6-12, 80.0% of respondents in zone I perceive that they need the mitigation

program from authority, whereas 3.3% not agree and 3.3% fully not agree. In zone II, 66.7 %

of respondents agreed with the statement. 76.7% of respondents in zone III stated that they need

some government program also. People opinion about the suitability of government program

with traditional rules was known from their response to statement “Government programs are

relevant to traditional rules/local wisdom” as mentioned below.

Government programs are relevant to traditional rules

zone 1 zone 2 zone 3

fully agree 0.0 16.7 0.0

agree 40.0 30.0 50.0

not sure 30.0 26.7 43.3

not agree 26.7 20.0 6.7

fully not agree 3.3 6.7 0.0

100.0 100.0 100.0

answerresponse (%)

Table 6-13: Government programs – traditional rules suitability

40.0% of respondents in zone I think that government programs are relevant with traditional

rules. 16.7% of respondents in zone II fully agree and 30% agree with the statement, and 50%

of respondents in zone III stated that the government programs are suitable for traditional rules.

Local communities in dangerous zones of Merapi volcano, particularly in zone III, have high

respect in traditional leader and some cultural ceremonies existence. These traditional beliefs

should be well understood by local authority to support the government program

implementation.

People opinions about infrastructure program establishment were shown in figure 6-4. Most of

people in all zones were helpful with early waring system and evacuation road, but not for dam

and evacuation barrack. In zone II, 86.7% of people feel not safe with the present dam

structure. They always considered to previous volcanic eruption that the dam in several place

did not work well, like at Bebeng and Kaliadem hamlets in 2006

76

Is ea r ly w arn in g system h e lp fu l fo r yo u ?

zo n e 1 zo n e 2 zo n e 3yes 8 3 .3 1 0 0 .0 9 3 .3n o 1 6 .7 0 .0 6 .7su m 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0

Is evacu a tio n ro u te h e lp fu l fo r yo u ?

zo n e 1 zo n e 2 zo n e 3yes 9 6 .7 9 6 .7 1 0 0 .0n o 3 .3 3 .3 0 .0su m 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0

D o yo u fee l m o re sa fe w ith d am stru c tu re?

zo n e 1 zo n e 2 zo n e 3yes 7 6 .7 1 3 .3 6 6 .7n o 2 3 .3 8 6 .7 3 3 .3su m 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0

D o yo u fee l m o re sa fe w ith evacu a tio n b arrack d eve lo p m en t?

zo n e 1 zo n e 2 zo n e 3yes 3 3 .3 6 0 .0 8 6 .7n o 6 6 .7 4 0 .0 1 3 .3su m 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0

a n sw er resp o n se (% )

a n sw er resp o n se (% )

a n sw er resp o n se (% )

a n sw er resp o n se (% )

Figure 6-4. People opinion of some infrastructure programs

6.4. The Acceptation of Government Programs

Local community acceptation of government mitigation programs, both of structural measures

and non-structural measures, were known by analyzing the answer of questions, and refer to

people’s responses about their involvement and their perceiving of the government programs.

The answer were valued from 1 for “fully not agree” until 5 for “fully agree”.

Figure 6-5: People acceptation of government programs

77

All of zones dominated by medium level of acceptation, 93.33% in zone I, 76.67% in zone II,

and 66.67% in zone III. In the most dangerous zone, only 33.33% of people have high

acceptation of government programs.

Table 6-14. The differences of people acceptation of government programs in three zones

As shown in table 6-14, the value of Chi-square (x2) is 12.880 with df=4. Critical value for

df=4 is 9.49 (in sig = 5%) and 13.28 (in sig = 1%). So, x2 > critical value in significant level

5%. It means that the answer of people in three dangerous zones about their acceptation of

government programs is different. The distribution of people’s acceptation was shown in Figure

6-6.

78

Figure 6-6: Government program acceptance in each sampling areas

79

6.5. Government Programs Acceptation and People Ris k Perception

One of the specific objectives in this research is to know the influence of people acceptation of

government programs in risk perception. Based on computation mentioned in previous section,

risk perception of local community in zone I, II, and III dominated by medium level (see figure

5-5), and so the people acceptation of government programs (see figure 6-3). The correlations

between them were known by some statistical calculation as follow.

Zone I

Table 6-15 shows the degree of correlation coefficient between people acceptance of

government programs and people perception of volcanic risk in zone I. The coefficient value is

0.749 that higher than 0.361 in 5% significant degree and 0.463 in 1% significant degree (r

coefficient values from table when df=N-nr=30-2=28) means that there is positive significant

correlation.

Table 6-15. People acceptance of government programs - people risk perception in zone I

Zone II

Table 6-16 shows coefficient value is 0.446 that higher than 0.361 in 5% significant degree (r

coefficient values from table when df=N-nr=30-2=28) means that there is positive significant

correlation between people acceptance of government programs and people perception of

volcanic risk in zone II in 5% significant degree.

80

Table 6-16. People acceptance of government programs - people risk perception in zone II

Zone III

The correlation between people acceptance of government programs and people perception of

volcanic risk in zone III was shown in table 6-17. The coefficient value is 0.708 that higher

than 0.361 in 5% significant degree and 0.463 in 1% significant degree (r coefficient values

from table when df=N-nr=30-2=28) means that there is positive significant correlation.

Table 6-17. People acceptance of government programs - people risk perception in zone III

6.6. Discussion

The local government of Sleman Regency has prepared many efforts in order to minimize the

negative impact of volcanic hazard in this area by infrastructure development and counseling

programs. The programs from authority will be running well if there is respectable relationship

between government and local people. Government programs should be made base on what the

people need in every different areas.

81

People in first dangerous zone have high attention to the government programs, especially for

infrastructure development. They think that structural measures like dam and dike improvement

are more important than non-structural measures such as counseling programs. There are five

check dams and twenty-seven consolidation dams placed along the rivers in the first dangerous

zone. However, people in zone I suppose that the location of structural building is not precision

enough.

People in second dangerous zone need non-structural actions from the authority more than

structural measures. According to their experience in previous eruption events, the structure

building existence like dam, not so helpful for them.

People knowledge about government programs existence in zone III is not as well as the people

knowledge in zone I and zone II. There are many activities done by non-government element,

particularly in non-structural measures such as local community economic empowering,

volcanic hazard preparedness counseling conducted by non-government organization or by

scientists. They have difficulties to distinguish whether by government or not.

People acceptation of government programs, both of structural measures and non-structural

measures have a role in people risk perception. Based on some statistical calculation, known

that there is positive significant correlation between people acceptation and their risk

perception in three different level dangerous zones.

82

Chapter 7 – Conclusion and Recommendation This chapter is including the conclusion and recommendation of this study. The conclusion

would refer back to the objectives and research questions connected. Recommendations are

also presented for relevant further research and for Sleman Regency authority.

7.1. Conclusions

The conclusions of this study are the reflection of the objectives and the research questions.

The objectives derived to a set of research questions, which are discussed in the chapters of this

study. The perception of volcanic risk of the local community live in different levels of

dangerous zones was identified by answer the first question. The second question about the

influencing factors in risk perception was answered, so the factors influencing the perception of

volcanic risk of the local community in different levels of dangerous zones was described. The

third objective was obtained by answer the third question about people acceptation of

government program and its influence in volcanic risk perception of local people in different

level of dangerous zones.

Volcanic Risk Perception of Local People

− Volcanic risk perception of the local people was classified in three levels; low, medium,

and high (chapter 5.2; 5.4).

− Statistical analysis identified that people risk perception in three different danger zones of

the Merapi volcano is different. People living in the third danger zone are having a higher

risk perception than the people that live in the areas of the first and second danger zones.

− Social risk Perception Index (SRPI) is the index value representing people perception about

volcanic risk considered in people’s appraisal of four kind of risk: lava, lahars, ash falls,

and pyroclastic flows. The correlation between them is positive significant correlation,

means that the raise of perception will follow the increasing of SRPI (Table 5-16).

Influencing Factors in Risk Perception

− Personal experiences, traditional rules, and personality factor are the influencing factors of

volcanic risk perception of local people (chapter 5.3).

− People interpretation of volcanic events in zone III is different with their living in zone II

and I, related with the difference of their volcanic events experiences (Table 5-8).

83

− Local people have high respect to traditional rules in their daily live. They give respect to

cultural leader and traditional ceremonies existence(chapter 5.3.2; 5.4). They believe that

the volcanic activity has been a part of their daily life.

− The influence of personality factors in zone III is higher than their living in zone II and I. It

was indicated with their fate control, viewpoint of nature, and tolerance of information

differences (Chapter 5.3.3).

People Acceptation of Government Program

− The mitigation program of the authority has been conducted, consist of structural and non

structural measures.

− Some structural constructions were built and placed spread out in dangerous area (Table 6-

1;6-2;6-3).

− Non-structural measures such as training and counseling program were conducted, in

collaborated with NGO and other government agencies (Table 6-4).

− Local people have respect by taking part in non-structural measures like counseling and

training programs. They get opportunity to express their ideas and to share responsibility

for mitigation measures with the authority (Chapter 6.2).

− People in dangerous zones perceive that they need the establishing of mitigation programs

from the authority, in condition that the activities are relevant to traditional rules (Table 6-

12;6-13).

− People acceptation of mitigation program was classified in three levels: low, medium, and

high. Generally, people accepted the government programs in medium level (Figure 6-3),

but it was different in each dangerous zones (Table 6-14).

− The correlation between people acceptation of government program and their risk

perception was positive significant correlation. It means that the increasing of people

acceptation level followed by the increasing of people risk perception (Chapter 6.5; Table

6-15;6-16;6-17).

7.2. Recommendation

From the experience gained from the research, some recommendations could be made

regarding the programs and policies of the government in mitigation programs.

− Disaster mitigation and preparedness have tended to fall into the gap between development

cooperation and humanitarian assistance. In one sense, the distinction between relief and

84

development is artificial in that risk is not a distinct factor. It should be everyone’s business

and an extensive range of options and approaches is available to authority and community.

− Disaster management, particularly in mitigation phase conducted by the local government

of Sleman Regency should pay attention with people risk perception differences in each

dangerous zone, but in proportional ways. The responsibility sharing between officers and

villagers should be made in capacity consideration. The mitigation program must have

priority when and where both of structural and non-structural programs are needed, so it

can be done by spatial planning that can differs the needs of every dangerous area.

− In disaster risk management, people risk perception could be placed in mitigation plan

process. In this phase, the authority should explores all possible measures to be alternative

in risk reduction. The choice should be weighed to choose ones that appropriate to satisfy

what the people want. Here, the risk perception quantifying is needed to do the satisfaction

analysis.

− The local government needs to have an agency that has authority to undertake social and

economic factors and planning at a higher level of professional competence. The agency

should take a very broad view of the options available to them, and it should be imaginative

in approach techniques.

− Risk perception of people in zone I is different with them living in zone II and III. People in

this zone need more non-structure measures like counseling programs than infrastructure

development. They think that the existing mitigation structure such as dam and artificial

dikes in their village and surrounding are appropriate enough to counter the probably

volcanic events occurring. Local government should have comprehensive counseling

program where people can express their opinion in order to maintain participatory

mitigation program.

− In the most dangerous zone, people tend to look what they have at present to face the

volcanic event when occurs. People need infrastructural programs more than counseling

programs. They get much counseling programs conducted by non-government organization

and group of scientists. Sleman Regency government should improve the capability to

increase the structural development programs.

− The condition of people in zone II causing Sleman authority should give more attention in

non-structural approach such as counseling and community reinforcement to rising up

economy capability of local people related to volcanic hazard mitigation programs.

85

− Overall, infrastructures building such as dam, dike, evacuation barrack, and evacuation

track at present are appropriate to face the possibility of volcanic event occurrences.

However, some parts need more attention to improve, which related to people participation.

86

References

Aaronson, I. (1914). "Perception." The Journal of Philosophy, Psycology and Scientific

Method 11 No 2: 37-46.

Abdurachman, E. K., J. L. Bourdier, et al. (2000). "Nuees ardentes of 22 November 1994 at

Merapi volcano, Java, Indonesia." Journal of volcanology and geothermal research 100

(2000)(2000): 345-361.

Anonim (1976). A Dictionary of Earth Sciences. London, Pan Books Ltd.

Baker, F. (1990). "Risk Communication about Environmental Hazard." Journal of Public

Health Policy 11 No. 3 (Autumn, 1990): 341-359.

Coburn, A. W., R. J. S. Sspence, et al. (1994). Vulnerability and Risk Assessment. Cambridge,

UNDP, Cambridge Architectural Research Limited.

Crandell, D. R., B. Booth, et al. (1984). Source-book for volcanic-hazard zonation. Paris,

Unesco.

Crichton, D. (1999). The Risk Triangle in Natural Disaster Management. Leicester, UK,

Tudore Rose.

Dwyer, A., C. Zoppou, et al. (2004). "Quantifying Social Vulnerability: A methodology for

identifying those at risk to natural hazard." Geoscience Australia 14(2004): 92.

Gaillard., J.-C. (2008). "Alternative paradigms of volcanic risk perception: The case of Mt.

Pinatubo in the Philippines." Journal of volcanology and geothermal research

doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2007.12.036.

Golledge., R. G. and R. J. Stimson. (1997). Spatial Behavior: A Geographic Perspective. New

York, London, The Guilford Press.

Haynes, K., J. Barclay, et al. (2008). "Whose reality counts? Factors affecting the perception of

volcanic risk." Journal of volcanology and geothermal research

10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2007.12.012.

Kates, R. W. (1971). "Natural Hazard in human ecological perspective: hypotheses and

models." Econ. Geogr. 47(3): 438-451.

Kienberger, S. (2008). Assessing The Vulnerability to Natural Hazard on The

Provincial/Community Level in Mozambique: The Contribution of Giscience and

Remote Sensing. Salzburg, Austria, Z_GIS, Centre for Geoinformatic-Salzburg

University.

87

Lavigne., F., B. D. Coster., et al. (2008). "People's behaviour in the face of volcanic hazard:

Perspectives from Javanese communities, Indonesia." Journal of volcanology and

geothermal research 03840: 15.

Lavigne., F., J. C. Thouret., et al. (2000). "Lahars at Merapi volcano, Central Java: an

overview." Journal of volcanology and geothermal research 1000(2000).

McCall, M. K. (2004). Can Participatory-GIS Strenghten Local-level Spatial Planning?

Suggestion for Better Practice. GISDECO 2004. Skudai, Johor, Malaysia.

Newhall, C. G., S. Bronto, et al. (2000). "10,000 Years of explosive eruption of Merapi

Volcano, Central Java: archaeological and modern implications." Journal of

volcanology and geothermal research 100(2000): 9-50.

Paradise, T. R. (2006). "Perception of earthquake riskn in Agadir, Morocco: A case study from

a Muslim community." Environmental Hazard doi:10.1016/j.hazards.2006.06.002.

Paton., D., L. Smith., et al. (2008). "Risk Perception and Volcanoc Hazard Mitigation:

Individual and social Perspectives." Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research:

10.

Patt, A. G. and D. Schroter (2008). "Perceptions of climate risk in Mozambique: Implications

for the success of adaptation strategies." Global Environmental Change.

Rosenbaum, M. S. and M. G. Culshaw (2003). "Communicating the Risk Arising from

Geohazard." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistical in Society)

166 No. 2 (2003): 261-270.

Smith, K. (2001). Environmental Hazards, Assessing risk and reducing disaster. London, New

York, Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.

Thouret, J. C., F. Lavigne, et al. (2000). "Toward a revised hazard assessment at Merapi

Volcano, Central Java." Journal of volcanology and geothermal research 100(2000):

479-502.

Twigg, J. (2004). Disaster risk reduction, Mitigation and Preparedness in Development and

Emergency programming. London, Humanitarian Practice Network.

UNDP (1992). An Overview of Disaster Management, Disaster Management Training

Programme, UNDP, UNDRO.

UNDP (2004). A Global Report: Reducing Disaster Risk, A Challenge for Development, undp.

Westen, D. C. v. (2005). Geoinformation Science and Earth Observation for Municipal risk

management; The SLARIM project. Enschede The Netherland, International Instititute

for Geoinformation Science and Earth Observation, ITC.

88

Wester-Herber, M. (2004). "Underlying Concerns in Land-use Conflicts, The Role of Place-

identity in Risk Perception." Environmental Science and Policy.

Wilson, T., G. Kaye, et al. (2007). Impacts of the 2006 eruption of Merapi volcano, Indonesia,

on agriculture and infrastructure, GNS Science Report 2007/07: 69.

Witham, C. S. (2005). "Volcanic disasters and incidents: A new database." Journal of

volcanology and geothermal research 148(2005).

Yunus, H. S. (1996). "The perception and aspiration of people residing in the dangerous zone

of merapi volcano on their settlement environment." The Indonesian Journal of

Geography Vol. 28 No. 72(December 1996): 18.

89

Appendices Appendix 1. The Questionnaire

VILLAGE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY 2008 Geoinformation for Spatial Planning and Disaster Risk Management, UGM-ITC

Purpose:

This survey is intended to study “Spatial Analysis Of Volcanic Risk Perception, Case Study In Local Community At “Gunung Merapi National Park” Area, Using Participatory GIS”.

Respondent’s Profile

(1) Age: ………..…years; (2) Sex: Male Female (3) Position in household: …..……….…………………………………

(4) Tribal background : ……………………………. (5) Religion: …………………………………… (6) When did you start living here ? …………… ( = year in which respondent settled in village)

(7) Household: Total : ……….. ; (8) Adult members : ………… (Male); ……….. (Female) (9) Children: ……… (Boys); ……… (Girls) ;

(10) Educational Level: □ No formal education □ Some elementary edu. □ Competed elementary

edu.

□ Some secondary edu. □ Completed secondary edu. □ Some high school edu.

□ Completed high school

edu. □ Others : ………………..

(11) Occupation: □ Army □ Civil servant □ Private employee

□ Farmer □ Businessman/seller □ Retired

□ Others : ………………..

Question #1 Danger zone 12. Your village is in the dangerous zone of Merapi volcano. □ Agree

□ Not Sure

□ Not Agree

13. There are three kind of dangerous zone; 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. □ Agree

□ Not Sure □ Not Agree

14. In what zone your village is. First, second, or third zone? □ First □ Second □ Thrid

15. The third dangerous zone is area that affected frequently by rock fall, pyroclastic flows, and

tephra fall, including ballistic eject □ Agree

□ Not Sure □ Not Agree

Interviewer: …………………… Respondent’s name: ……………………………………………….

Date: ……………………. …… Time of interview : ………………………………………………….

Village : ………………………….. GPS No.:…………..Lat:…………………..Long:…………………….

Danger zone: …………………………………………………………………………………………………

Physiographic / terrain position: ……………………………………………………………………………..

Position according to the mitigation works: ……………………………………………………………….

90

Appendix 1. (Contonued)

16 The second dangerous zone is the area that affected by tephra fall or lahars, should violent explosive eruptions occur. This area thought to be beyond the reach of most pyroclastic flows and lava flows

□ Agree

□ Not Sure □ Not Agree

17 The first dangerous zone is corresponds to the radial valleys draining the volcano’ flanks, particularly towards the west and south. Lahars and water floods can devastate the second danger zone as far as 30 km down valley from the summit.

□ Agree

□ Not Sure □ Not Agree

18 The present dangerous zone classification is relevant with local community aspiration. □ Agree

□ Not Sure □ Not Agree

19 Local people engage in dangerous zone determination process. □ Agree

□ Not Sure

□ Not Agree

Volcanic Risk Knowledge and Perception 20 Is there volcanic risk in your village according to you? □ Yes □ No □ Not sure

21 Your village affected by : □ Lava

□ Lahars

□ Ash fall □ Pyroclastic □ Others

22 Lava flows are masses of hot, partial molten rock that flow down slope, generally following valleys.

□ Agree

□ Not Sure □ Not Agree

23 Your explanation about lava: ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

24 Lahars are a specific type of debris flow associated with volcanoes. They are dense mixtures of water-saturated debris that move down-valley, looking and behaving much like flowing concrete.

□ Agree

□ Not Sure □ Not Agree

25 Your explanation about lahar: ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

26 Volcanic ash is low-density solidified rock material ejected from a volcanic vent into the air. The explosive nature of an eruption involving steam (phreatic eruption) results in the magma being blown into particles of silt to sand size. The ejection of large quantities of ash will produce an ash cone. When volcanic ash consolidates, it forms tuff.

□ Agree

□ Not Sure □ Not Agree

27 Your explanation about volcanic ash: ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

28 Pyroclastic flows are avalanches of hot ash, rock fragments, and gas that move at high speeds down the sides of a volcano during explosive eruptions or when the edge of a thick, viscous lava flow or dome breaks apart or collapses.

□ Agree □ Not Sure □ Not Agree

91

Appendix 1. (Contonued)

29 Your explanation about pyroclastic: ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Personal Risk perception:

30 Please mention the rank of volcanic risks, start with 0 if no risk until 4 if extreme risk:

Risk \ Class 0 (no) 1 (slight) 2 (moderate) 3 (severe) 4 (extreme)

Lava

Lahars

Ash falls

Pyroclastic

flows

Question #2 Personal experiences 31. Have you experienced in volcanic event(s) before? □ Yes, once □ Yes, twice □ Yes, thrice □ Yes, more □ No

32. What kind of volcanic events? □ Lava

□ Lahars

□ Ash fall □ Pyroclastic □ Others

33. How big the volcanic event in your experience? □ Low □ Medium □ High

34. Have you been evacuated? □ Yes, ……..times, in ……...,………………..,………………,………….. □ No

35. How badly would you say the last volcanic event affected your life? □ Very badly

□ Quiet badly

□ Not too badly □ Very slightly □ Don’t know

36. What kind of loss did you have? □ Human deceased. □ Animal deceased. □ House damaged. □ Land destruction □ Others:

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

37. Are the volcanic events deriving your livestock production? □ Yes, decrease ………..% □ No □ Not sure

38. Are the volcanic events giving effect to your land productivity? □ Yes, increase/decrease …………..% □ No □ Not sure

39. What did you do when the volcanic events happened? □ Stay in home □ Follow the part of evacuation instruction

□ Go to the Mosque / Church □ Follow all of the evacuation instruction

□ Others: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

92

Appendix 1. (Contonued)

40. Are you following the instruction from the authority? □ Yes, all □ Yes, a part of □ No 41. Follow the instruction from the government is the best way in order to face the volcanic

events. □ Fully Agree □ Agree □ Not Sure □ Not Agree □ Fully Not agree 42. Is early warning system helpful for you? □ Yes □ No □ Not sure 43. Is evacuation route helpful for you? □ Yes □ No □ Not sure

Traditional Rules 44. Is there somebody to be your informal leaders? □ Yes □ No □ Not sure

45. Are you respecting to informal leader? □ Yes □ No □ Not sure

46. Why you give respect to them? □ Because of his/her relation with the Sultan □ Because of his/her heredity □ Because of my ancestor believe □ I don’t know □ Others:

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

47. Is informal leader’s existence giving your safeness? □ Yes

□ No

□ Not sure

48. Villagers need informal leaders in face of volcanic risk. □ Fully Agree

□ Agree

□ Not Sure □ Not Agree □ Fully Not agree

49. Is the local authority accrediting the informal leader? □ Yes

□ No

□ Not sure

50. Describe briefly the traditional rules in your village: ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

51. All of the villagers are believe and bow to traditional rules/local wisdoms. □ Fully Agree

□ Agree

□ Not Sure □ Not Agree □ Fully Not agree

52. When the traditional activities happened? □ In the regularly time, one time a week □ In the regularly time, one time a month □ In the regularly time, one time a year □ If the volcanic events happen Briefly describe:

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

53. Whose involve in the activities? □ All of the villagers □ All of the household leader □ Only a particular persons of the villagers Briefly describe:

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

93

Appendix 1. (Contonued)

54. Are you engaged in the activities? □ Yes, always

□ Yes, sometime

□ No

55. Is the authority has contribute to the activities? □ Yes

□ No

□ Not sure

56. Traditional rules/local wisdoms are enough to cope with volcanic risk. □ Fully Agree

□ Agree

□ Not Sure □ Not Agree □ Fully Not agree

Personality Factors 57. Are you sorry to be “volcanic people”? □ Yes □ No □ Not sure 58. Are you ever leaving to another place? □ Yes □ No □ Not sure 59. Villagers need to be migration (move to another place). □ Fully Agree

□ Agree

□ Not Sure □ Not Agree □ Fully Not agree

60. The volcanic events are your habitual, so take them unconditionally. □ Fully Agree

□ Agree

□ Not Sure □ Not Agree □ Fully Not agree

61. Are you afraid about volcanic events in the future? □ Yes

□ No

□ Not sure

62. Is Merapi volcano blessing for your live? □ Yes

□ No

□ Not sure

63. Merapi volcano is dangerous □ Fully Agree

□ Agree

□ Not Sure □ Not Agree □ Fully Not agree

□ Yes

□ No

□ Not sure

64. The present condition of environment is supporting to face volcanic risk. □ Fully Agree

□ Agree

□ Not Sure □ Not Agree □ Fully Not agree

65. The natural resources need some recovering activities. □ Fully Agree

□ Agree

□ Not Sure □ Not Agree □ Fully Not agree

66. How do you get the information about volcanic events? □ From my ancestor □ From NGOs □ From local government □ From mass-media Briefly describe:

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

67. All villagers get the information from the same sources. □ Fully Agree

□ Agree

□ Not Sure □ Not Agree □ Fully Not agree

68. The information is relevant with the actuality. □ Fully Agree

□ Agree

□ Not Sure □ Not Agree □ Fully Not agree

69. The information is helpful to cope with volcanic risk □ Fully Agree

□ Agree

□ Not Sure □ Not Agree □ Fully Not agree

94

Appendix 1. (Contonued)

Question # 3 People involvement 70. Do you know about government program related with volcanic risk? □ Yes □ No □ Not sure 71. What programs existed in your village? □ Conseling program □ Infrastructure building program Briefly describe:

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

72. When the program started? □ At this year □ 1 year ago □ 2 years ago □ 3 years ago □ More than 3

years ago 73. Are there some programs still running right now? □ Yes □ No □ Not sure 74. How many times the authority conduct the counseling program in your village? □ In the regularly time, one time a week □ In the regularly time, one time a month □ In the regularly time, one time a year □ If the volcanic events happen Briefly describe:

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

75. Do you have opportunity to express your ideas? □ Yes

□ No

□ Not sure

76. All of villagers should be involved in the counselling program. □ Fully Agree

□ Agree

□ Not Sure □ Not Agree □ Fully Not agree

77. Paterfamiliases attending are representative to express the idea. □ Fully Agree

□ Agree

□ Not Sure □ Not Agree □ Fully Not agree

78. The counseling program is more important than infrastructure building program. □ Fully Agree

□ Agree

□ Not Sure □ Not Agree □ Fully Not agree

79. Are there any mitigation structure related with volcanic risk in your village? □ Yes

□ No

□ Not sure

80. What are the buildings? □ Dam (sabo) □ Evacuation barrack Others, briefly describe:

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

81. When was the dam build? □ At this year

□ 1 year ago

□ 2 years ago □ 3 years ago □ More than 3 years ago

82. When was the evacuation barrack build? □ At this year

□ 1 year ago

□ 2 years ago □ 3 years ago □ More than 3 years ago

83. The location of building is accurate to volcanic risk mitigation planning. □ Fully Agree □ Agree □ Not Sure □ Not Agree □ Fully Not agree

95

Appendix 1. (Contonued)

People percieve 84. Villagers need some government programs in order to mitigate volcanic risk. □ Fully Agree □ Agree □ Not Sure □ Not Agree □ Fully Not agree 85. Government programs and traditional rules should be work separately and cannot be

combining. □ Fully Agree □ Agree □ Not Sure □ Not Agree □ Fully Not agree 86. Government programs are relevant with traditional rules/local wisdoms. □ Fully Agree □ Agree □ Not Sure □ Not Agree □ Fully Not agree

87. Government programs can work in the community smoothly.

□ Fully Agree □ Agree □ Not Sure □ Not Agree □ Fully Not agree 88. Do you feel more secure with government program? □ Yes □ No □ Not sure 89. Do you feel more safe having a dam □ Yes □ No □ Not sure 90. Do you feel more safe having the evacuation barrack? □ Yes □ No □ Not sure 91. The frequency of counseling is enough. □ Fully Agree □ Agree □ Not Sure □ Not Agree □ Fully Not agree 92. The dams are capable for embanking volcanic material flow. □ Fully Agree □ Agree □ Not Sure □ Not Agree □ Fully Not agree 93. The evacuation barrack is eligible. □ Fully Agree □ Agree □ Not Sure □ Not Agree □ Fully Not agree 94. How far your house to the evacuation barrack? □ < 1 km

□ 1-2 km

□ 2-3 km □ 3-4 km □ > 4 km

Others, briefly describe:

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

95. How the maximum distance to the barrack so that you fell secure? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

96. How you and your family members go to the barrack? □ By walk I (on foot) □ By my vehicle □ By evacuation vehicle Briefly describe:

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

97. The barrack location is in the exact position for mitigation. □ Fully Agree

□ Agree

□ Not Sure □ Not Agree □ Fully Not agree

98. Mitigation facilities from the government are enough for villagers to cope the volcanic risk. □ Fully Agree

□ Agree

□ Not Sure □ Not Agree □ Fully Not agree

END OF QUESTIONNAIRES

We thank you very much for your help and kind cooperation

96

Appendix 2. Coordinate Position of Dam and Villages

D a m s t r u c t u r e a n d V i l l a g e s c o o r d i n a t p o s i t i o n

X Y1 4 3 9 6 6 5 .5 5 9 1 6 1 9 4 6 .7 2 c h e c k d a m

2 4 3 9 9 3 8 .5 8 9 1 6 0 3 6 3 .1 6 c h e c k d a m

3 4 4 0 3 2 0 .8 2 9 1 5 7 1 4 1 .4 4 c h e c k d a m

4 4 4 0 5 9 3 .8 5 9 1 5 4 9 0 2 .6 1 c o n s o l i d a t i o n d a m

5 4 4 0 8 1 2 .2 7 9 1 5 3 9 7 4 .3 2 c o n s o l i d a t i o n d a m

6 4 4 1 6 8 5 .9 6 9 1 4 9 8 7 8 .9 0 c o n s o l i d a t i o n d a m

7 4 4 2 5 0 5 .0 4 9 1 4 7 0 9 4 .0 2 c o n s o l i d a t i o n d a m

8 4 3 7 4 2 6 .7 3 9 1 6 0 4 7 2 .3 7 c h e c k d a m

9 4 3 7 1 5 3 .7 0 9 1 5 9 2 7 1 .0 5 c h e c k d a m

1 0 4 3 6 9 8 9 .8 8 9 1 5 8 5 6 1 .1 8 c h e c k d a m

1 1 4 3 6 9 3 5 .2 8 9 1 5 7 2 5 0 .6 5 c h e c k d a m

1 2 4 3 6 8 8 0 .6 7 9 1 5 6 4 8 6 .1 7 c h e c k d a m

1 3 4 3 6 7 7 1 .4 6 9 1 5 5 3 9 4 .0 6 c h e c k d a m

1 4 4 3 5 7 3 3 .9 6 9 1 5 9 8 7 1 .7 1 c h e c k d a m

1 5 4 3 5 6 2 4 .7 5 9 1 5 9 3 8 0 .2 6 c h e c k d a m

1 6 4 3 5 5 1 5 .5 4 9 1 5 8 8 3 4 .2 1 c h e c k d a m

1 7 4 3 5 4 0 6 .3 2 9 1 5 8 2 8 8 .1 5 c o n s o l i d a t i o n d a m

1 8 4 3 5 3 3 6 .2 7 9 1 5 7 5 7 4 .7 0 c o n s o l i d a t i o n d a m

1 9 4 3 5 2 6 0 .1 8 9 1 5 7 4 2 2 .5 3 c h e c k d a m

2 0 4 3 4 9 3 0 .4 8 9 1 5 7 0 4 2 .1 0 c h e c k d a m

2 1 4 3 4 4 9 9 .3 3 9 1 5 6 5 3 4 .8 7 c h e c k d a m

2 2 4 3 4 3 2 1 .8 0 9 1 5 6 0 5 3 .0 0 c h e c k d a m

2 3 4 3 4 2 9 6 .4 4 9 1 5 5 8 7 5 .4 6 c o n s o l i d a t i o n d a m

2 4 4 3 3 6 1 1 .6 7 9 1 5 3 7 9 5 .8 0 c o n s o l i d a t i o n d a m

2 5 4 3 3 2 8 1 .9 7 9 1 5 2 6 7 9 .8 8 c o n s o l i d a t i o n d a m

2 6 4 3 2 5 7 1 .8 4 9 1 4 8 0 3 8 .6 8 c o n s o l i d a t i o n d a m

2 7 4 3 3 9 6 6 .7 3 9 1 6 1 0 7 4 .6 2 c h e c k d a m

2 8 4 2 8 4 6 3 .2 3 9 1 5 7 4 7 3 .2 5 c o n s o l i d a t i o n d a m

2 9 4 2 7 5 9 5 .5 2 9 1 5 7 0 6 7 .4 7 c h e c k d a m

3 0 4 2 6 6 8 7 .9 1 9 1 5 6 3 5 7 .3 4 c h e c k d a m

3 1 4 2 5 9 2 7 .0 6 9 1 5 5 6 4 7 .2 1 c h e c k d a m

3 2 4 2 5 6 9 8 .8 0 9 1 5 5 3 6 8 .2 3 c o n s o l i d a t i o n d a m

3 3 4 2 5 2 6 7 .6 5 9 1 5 4 8 8 6 .3 5 c o n s o l i d a t i o n d a m

3 4 4 2 5 1 6 6 .2 0 9 1 5 4 7 5 9 .5 5 c o n s o l i d a t i o n d a m

3 5 4 2 3 5 6 8 .4 1 9 1 5 3 7 7 0 .4 4 c o n s o l i d a t i o n d a m

3 6 4 2 3 3 6 5 .5 2 9 1 5 3 7 4 5 .0 8 c o n s o l i d a t i o n d a m

3 7 4 2 3 1 6 2 .6 2 9 1 5 3 5 9 2 .9 1 c o n s o l i d a t i o n d a m

3 8 4 2 2 9 5 9 .7 3 9 1 5 3 2 8 8 .5 6 c o n s o l i d a t i o n d a m

3 9 4 2 2 7 8 2 .2 0 9 1 5 2 9 5 8 .8 6 c o n s o l i d a t i o n d a m

4 0 4 2 2 6 8 0 .7 5 9 1 5 2 5 5 3 .0 7 c o n s o l i d a t i o n d a m

4 1 4 2 0 9 8 1 .5 1 9 1 4 9 6 1 1 .1 1 c o n s o l i d a t i o n d a m

4 2 4 2 0 5 5 0 .3 6 9 1 4 8 9 2 6 .3 4 c o n s o l i d a t i o n d a m

1 4 3 3 0 2 1 . 2 7 9 1 5 9 1 9 9 . 0 5 T u n g g u la r u m

2 4 3 4 1 2 4 . 2 5 9 1 5 8 9 5 6 . 0 0 K e m ir ik e b o

3 4 3 8 5 6 3 . 5 7 9 1 6 1 6 9 4 . 7 2 P a le m s a r i

4 4 3 7 2 7 8 . 5 9 9 1 6 0 1 5 7 . 5 7 K a l iu r a n g T im u r5 4 4 0 3 0 0 . 5 9 9 1 6 2 1 7 0 . 1 9 K a l i t e n g a h L o r

6 4 3 7 5 2 8 . 0 3 9 1 5 6 8 7 1 . 9 6 K a r a n g g e n e n g

7 4 4 0 6 8 5 . 2 0 9 1 5 5 5 8 6 . 0 0 N g a n c a r

8 4 4 0 2 5 4 . 7 5 9 1 5 6 9 9 8 . 2 9 K e p u h

9 4 3 3 3 6 2 . 1 6 9 1 5 6 0 6 7 . 8 5 G la g a h o m b o

U T M C o o r d i n a t eN o N o t e s

97

Appendix 3. Database for Excel and SPSS operation.

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 451 WARSO 1 GIRIKERTO GLAGAHOMBO 55 4 8 2 2 2 0 2 4 0 0 1 1 3 1 1 0 02 SUMARNO 1 GIRIKERTO GLAGAHOMBO 44 3 7 2 2 3 0 2 4 0 0 1 1 4 1 1 0 03 AGUS BUDI W 1 GIRIKERTO GLAGAHOMBO 50 4 7 5 2 2 0 2 4 0 0 1 1 5 1 1 1 14 PARJIYONO 1 GIRIKERTO GLAGAHOMBO 31 3 8 3 2 3 0 1 4 0 0 1 1 4 1 1 0 05 BARDIYO 1 GIRIKERTO GLAGAHOMBO 36 2 7 3 3 3 0 1 4 0 0 1 1 4 1 1 0 06 SUTRISNO 1 GIRIKERTO GLAGAHOMBO 44 5 7 3 3 2 0 1 4 0 0 1 1 4 1 1 0 07 SUHARTONO 1 GIRIKERTO GLAGAHOMBO 40 6 8 3 2 2 0 2 4 0 0 2 1 5 1 1 0 08 BASUKI 1 GIRIKERTO GLAGAHOMBO 52 5 7 2 2 2 0 1 4 0 0 2 1 4 1 1 0 09 NGADIRAN 1 GIRIKERTO GLAGAHOMBO 57 5 5 4 3 3 0 2 4 0 1 5 1 4 1 1 0 0

10 SARMIDI 1 GLAGAHARJO NGANCAR 50 5 7 4 3 3 0 1 4 0 1 2 1 3 1 1 0 011 SUPARNO 1 GLAGAHARJO NGANCAR 44 4 7 4 2 1 0 2 4 0 0 2 1 3 1 1 1 112 BEJO 1 GLAGAHARJO NGANCAR 57 4 5 5 2 2 0 1 4 0 0 1 1 4 1 1 0 013 YUWONO 1 GLAGAHARJO NGANCAR 55 6 5 5 3 2 0 2 4 0 0 1 1 3 1 1 0 014 SUKIMIN 1 GLAGAHARJO NGANCAR 40 3 7 4 3 3 0 1 4 0 0 1 1 3 1 1 0 015 SUTORO 1 GLAGAHARJO NGANCAR 43 3 7 4 2 3 0 1 4 0 1 1 1 3 1 1 0 016 KISMO 1 GLAGAHARJO NGANCAR 65 3 5 4 3 3 0 1 4 0 0 2 1 4 1 1 0 017 SUWAJI 1 GLAGAHARJO NGANCAR 42 3 7 3 2 2 0 2 4 0 0 5 1 4 1 1 0 018 SARIJO 1 GLAGAHARJO NGANCAR 40 2 7 3 3 2 0 2 4 0 0 1 1 4 1 1 1 119 EKO S. 1 GLAGAHARJO NGANCAR 36 3 8 2 2 1 0 2 4 0 0 1 1 3 1 1 0 020 HARSONO 1 GLAGAHARJO NGANCAR 44 2 7 5 2 2 0 2 4 0 0 1 1 3 1 1 0 021 FATURAHMAN 1 PURWOBINANGUN KARANGGENENG 30 3 5 3 2 1 0 1 5 0 0 3 1 4 0 1 0 022 NN 1 PURWOBINANGUN KARANGGENENG 36 4 7 4 3 1 0 1 5 0 0 1 1 3 1 1 1 123 NN 1 PURWOBINANGUN KARANGGENENG 35 4 7 4 3 2 0 1 4 0 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 124 NN 1 PURWOBINANGUN KARANGGENENG 28 4 8 3 3 3 0 2 4 0 1 3 1 5 1 1 1 125 KRIST 1 PURWOBINANGUN KARANGGENENG 28 3 7 7 3 1 0 1 5 0 0 3 1 4 0 1 0 026 NN 1 PURWOBINANGUN KARANGGENENG 34 4 7 7 3 3 0 1 0 0 1 4 1 4 0 1 1 127 MURY 1 PURWOBINANGUN KARANGGENENG 41 3 7 4 3 1 0 1 5 0 0 3 1 4 0 1 0 028 PURWO1 1 PURWOBINANGUN KARANGGENENG 35 5 5 4 3 2 0 1 4 0 0 3 1 4 1 1 1 129 PURWO2 1 PURWOBINANGUN KARANGGENENG 45 5 5 3 3 1 0 2 4 0 0 3 1 4 1 1 1 130 PURWO3 1 PURWOBINANGUN KARANGGENENG 32 5 5 4 3 1 0 0 4 0 0 1 1 5 0 0 0 131 JUWADI 2 GIRIKERTO KEMIRIKEBO 39 5 5 4 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 0 032 NGADIMIN 2 GIRIKERTO KEMIRIKEBO 44 4 7 4 3 3 1 4 1 1 1 4 1 5 1 1 0 033 SUMADI 2 GIRIKERTO KEMIRIKEBO 30 5 5 4 3 4 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 0 134 TUKIMIN 2 GIRIKERTO KEMIRIKEBO 35 4 5 4 3 4 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 0 135 SUGENG 2 GIRIKERTO KEMIRIKEBO 35 3 7 4 3 4 1 4 4 1 1 3 1 5 1 1 1 136 AGUS BUDIMAN 2 GIRIKERTO KEMIRIKEBO 38 5 3 4 3 3 1 3 4 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 137 HADI RISNANTO 2 GIRIKERTO KEMIRIKEBO 40 6 3 4 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 138 RAT 2 GIRIKERTO KEMIRIKEBO 39 5 7 3 3 3 1 2 4 0 1 3 1 5 1 1 1 139 MARJIYONO 2 HARGOBINANGUN KALIURANG 30 5 6 7 4 2 1 1 4 0 1 3 1 4 1 1 0 140 SUWARSONO 2 HARGOBINANGUN KALIURANG 49 5 5 4 4 4 0 1 4 0 0 3 1 4 1 1 1 141 SARDI 2 HARGOBINANGUN KALIURANG 48 6 7 2 4 4 1 4 4 0 0 4 1 2 1 1 1 142 ANGGA 2 HARGOBINANGUN KALIURANG 26 3 7 4 4 2 1 4 4 1 0 3 1 4 1 1 0 043 AGUST 2 HARGOBINANGUN KALIURANG 27 3 7 3 4 2 1 3 0 0 0 3 1 4 1 1 1 144 SAIDI HS 2 HARGOBINANGUN KALIURANG 50 4 5 4 4 2 1 3 4 1 1 4 1 5 1 1 1 145 SUNYONO 2 HARGOBINANGUN KALIURANG 47 4 7 3 4 2 1 2 4 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 146 KLINGSA M 2 HARGOBINANGUN KALIURANG 47 5 7 2 4 2 0 2 4 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 147 WAWAN 2 HARGOBINANGUN KALIURANG 26 3 7 3 4 2 1 1 4 0 0 4 1 4 1 1 1 148 ISMARI 2 HARGOBINANGUN KALIURANG 50 4 7 4 4 3 1 3 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 0 049 SUPRAPT 2 HARGOBINANGUN KALIURANG 31 3 7 3 4 2 1 3 4 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 150 SUTARMAN 2 HARGOBINANGUN KALIURANG 42 3 7 7 4 2 1 3 4 0 0 3 1 4 1 1 1 151 JUMAR 2 HARGOBINANGUN KALIURANG 32 4 5 4 4 2 1 2 4 1 0 1 1 3 1 1 1 152 JANA 2 HARGOBINANGUN KALIURANG 30 3 3 4 4 2 0 2 4 1 1 4 1 5 1 1 1 153 SOKIRAN 2 HARGOBINANGUN KALIURANG 39 4 7 7 4 2 1 1 2 0 0 4 1 3 1 1 1 154 MITRO 2 HARGOBINANGUN KALIURANG 56 2 3 4 4 0 1 4 4 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 0 055 TRISNO UTOMO 2 KEPUHARJO KEPUH 54 2 3 4 2 3 1 4 4 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 0 056 SUNARDI 2 KEPUHARJO KEPUH 38 4 7 2 2 2 0 3 4 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 157 SUMARSIHONO 2 KEPUHARJO KEPUH 50 4 3 4 2 2 1 1 4 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 0 158 MARYONO 2 KEPUHARJO KEPUH 30 4 3 3 2 3 1 2 4 1 1 4 1 3 1 1 0 059 SURANTO 2 KEPUHARJO KEPUH 33 8 7 4 2 4 1 2 4 1 1 2 1 4 1 0 0 160 SUYADI 2 KEPUHARJO KEPUH 29 8 6 4 2 2 1 2 4 1 0 3 1 3 1 1 1 161 CIPTO WIYONO 3 GLAGAHARJO KALITENGAH LOR 58 3 1 4 3 3 1 3 4 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 0 162 WARDI W 3 GLAGAHARJO KALITENGAH LOR 55 2 2 4 3 3 1 3 4 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 0 063 MIRADI 3 GLAGAHARJO KALITENGAH LOR 58 3 2 4 3 3 1 3 4 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 0 164 NARTO SIHONO 3 GLAGAHARJO KALITENGAH LOR 54 2 2 4 3 3 1 4 4 1 1 4 1 5 1 1 0 065 SURAJI 3 GLAGAHARJO KALITENGAH LOR 32 3 3 3 3 3 1 4 4 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 0 066 NARJO WARSONO 3 GLAGAHARJO KALITENGAH LOR 48 5 3 4 3 3 1 3 4 1 1 4 1 5 1 1 0 167 SARTO 3 GLAGAHARJO KALITENGAH LOR 48 5 2 4 3 3 1 4 4 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 0 068 BUDI W 3 GLAGAHARJO KALITENGAH LOR 52 6 2 4 3 3 1 4 4 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 0 069 HARINTO 3 GLAGAHARJO KALITENGAH LOR 31 3 4 3 3 3 1 3 4 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 0 170 PRAWOTO 3 GLAGAHARJO KALITENGAH LOR 44 3 2 4 3 3 1 3 4 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 0 171 NN 3 GLAGAHARJO KALITENGAH LOR 40 4 7 4 3 4 1 3 4 1 1 5 1 4 1 1 1 172 UMBUL1 3 UMBULHARJO PELEMSARI 36 4 3 7 1 2 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 173 UMBUL2 3 UMBULHARJO PELEMSARI 47 4 7 7 1 2 1 3 4 1 0 3 0 4 1 1 0 074 UMBUL3 3 UMBULHARJO PELEMSARI 31 3 3 4 1 4 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 4 1 1 1 175 UMBUL4 3 UMBULHARJO PELEMSARI 35 4 5 4 1 3 1 3 0 0 0 4 1 3 0 1 0 176 UMBUL5 3 UMBULHARJO PELEMSARI 40 6 7 7 1 2 1 2 4 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 0 177 UMBUL6 3 UMBULHARJO PELEMSARI 35 5 3 5 1 2 1 3 4 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 178 NN 3 WONOKERTO TUNGGULARUM 30 4 3 4 3 2 0 4 4 1 0 2 1 3 1 1 0 079 NN 3 WONOKERTO TUNGGULARUM 26 3 8 7 3 3 0 4 2 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 0 080 NN 3 WONOKERTO TUNGGULARUM 42 6 3 4 3 1 1 2 0 1 0 3 1 4 1 1 1 081 RIYADI 3 WONOKERTO TUNGGULARUM 36 4 7 4 4 2 1 3 4 0 1 3 1 4 0 1 0 082 SUPRIYONO 3 WONOKERTO TUNGGULARUM 26 3 7 4 4 2 1 4 4 0 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 183 HADI WINANTO 3 WONOKERTO TUNGGULARUM 60 4 2 4 4 4 1 3 4 1 1 4 1 5 1 1 1 184 AMAT ZAINUDIN 3 WONOKERTO TUNGGULARUM 35 5 2 4 4 2 1 3 4 0 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 185 SMN 3 WONOKERTO TUNGGULARUM 45 2 3 4 3 2 1 4 4 0 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 186 PUJO SUWARNO 3 WONOKERTO TUNGGULARUM 80 9 1 4 4 2 1 4 4 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 187 SARIYA 3 WONOKERTO TUNGGULARUM 24 3 7 7 4 3 1 3 4 1 1 3 1 5 1 1 1 188 SUDI PAWIRO 3 WONOKERTO TUNGGULARUM 70 9 1 4 3 2 1 3 4 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 189 MUH YULI 3 WONOKERTO TUNGGULARUM 55 7 2 4 3 2 1 3 4 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 190 MUH DARIS 3 WONOKERTO TUNGGULARUM 40 5 3 4 3 2 1 4 4 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 1

VILLAGEZONANAMENO EDUHHNAGEDUSUN OCCUP

98

Appendix 3. (continued)

46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 800 0 4 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 4 0 1 3 2 4 2 4 3 3 1 1 5 0 4 1 4 2 2 1 10 0 3 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 2 0 0 4 2 1 1 4 2 4 2 4 3 4 1 1 5 0 4 1 3 3 2 1 14 1 4 1 1 3 2 3 0 0 2 0 0 3 2 0 1 3 2 4 2 3 4 4 1 2 5 0 4 1 3 3 2 1 10 0 3 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 2 0 1 3 2 4 2 3 4 3 1 1 5 0 4 1 3 2 3 1 10 0 3 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 3 2 4 2 3 4 3 1 2 5 0 2 1 3 2 3 1 10 0 2 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 4 4 0 0 4 2 4 2 3 4 4 1 2 5 0 4 1 4 2 2 0 00 0 3 0 1 3 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 4 3 0 0 4 3 4 2 3 4 4 1 2 5 0 4 1 4 2 2 0 00 0 2 0 0 3 4 1 0 0 2 0 0 4 3 0 0 4 3 3 2 4 3 4 1 2 5 0 4 1 4 2 2 1 10 0 3 0 1 3 4 1 0 0 2 0 0 4 4 1 1 4 4 3 2 4 3 3 1 2 5 0 4 1 3 2 2 1 10 0 2 0 0 3 4 1 0 0 2 0 0 4 4 0 0 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 1 2 5 0 4 1 3 2 2 1 14 1 5 0 0 4 2 3 0 0 2 0 0 3 4 0 0 2 2 4 3 4 4 4 1 2 5 0 2 1 4 2 4 0 00 0 3 0 0 4 2 3 0 0 1 0 0 4 4 0 1 4 2 4 3 2 3 4 1 2 5 0 4 1 4 2 4 0 00 0 3 0 0 1 2 3 0 0 2 0 0 4 2 0 1 4 2 4 2 4 4 4 1 1 5 0 4 1 4 2 4 1 10 0 2 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 4 0 1 4 2 4 2 4 5 4 1 1 5 0 4 1 3 2 2 0 00 0 2 0 0 4 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 4 4 0 1 4 3 4 2 4 4 4 1 2 5 0 4 1 4 2 2 0 00 0 3 0 0 4 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 4 0 1 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 1 2 5 0 2 1 3 2 2 0 00 0 4 0 0 4 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 1 2 3 4 2 4 4 4 1 2 5 0 2 1 3 2 3 1 11 1 4 1 1 4 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 4 2 3 2 3 3 4 1 2 5 0 4 1 4 4 3 1 10 0 4 0 0 3 4 1 0 0 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 4 2 4 2 4 4 5 1 2 5 0 4 1 4 4 3 0 00 0 4 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 4 3 4 2 4 4 4 1 1 5 0 4 0 3 4 3 0 00 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 4 3 3 4 0 2 5 1 4 0 4 3 3 1 13 0 3 0 1 4 4 1 1 0 2 0 0 4 2 1 0 2 4 4 2 4 3 3 1 1 5 0 4 1 4 4 3 0 03 1 5 1 1 4 3 1 1 1 4 0 0 4 2 1 1 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 4 3 1 11 1 4 1 1 4 4 1 0 1 4 0 0 3 3 1 0 3 4 4 2 5 5 5 1 2 5 1 4 1 5 3 2 1 10 0 2 0 0 1 4 3 0 0 2 0 0 3 2 1 1 3 3 4 2 3 3 4 0 2 5 1 4 0 4 3 3 1 11 0 2 0 0 1 4 2 0 0 1 0 0 4 2 0 1 2 4 5 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 1 0 00 0 2 0 0 3 4 2 0 1 2 0 0 3 2 1 0 3 3 4 4 2 3 4 0 2 1 1 4 0 4 4 3 1 12 1 4 1 0 3 4 2 1 1 4 0 0 4 3 1 1 3 4 2 4 4 3 3 1 2 5 1 4 1 3 4 4 1 22 1 4 1 0 2 4 2 0 1 4 0 0 3 4 1 1 4 3 5 4 3 4 2 1 1 5 1 4 0 3 3 3 0 04 0 4 1 0 1 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 4 0 0 2 4 4 4 2 3 4 0 1 3 0 4 0 5 3 4 1 13 0 4 0 1 4 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 4 1 1 4 4 3 2 4 4 4 1 1 3 0 2 1 4 4 4 0 33 0 2 0 1 4 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 4 2 1 1 4 2 4 1 4 4 3 1 1 5 1 2 1 4 2 3 0 23 0 4 1 1 4 2 1 1 1 2 0 0 2 4 1 1 4 2 4 2 2 4 3 1 1 3 0 4 1 5 5 4 0 33 0 4 1 1 4 2 1 1 1 2 0 0 2 4 1 1 4 2 4 2 2 4 4 1 1 3 0 4 1 4 4 4 1 33 1 5 1 1 5 2 1 1 0 5 0 0 1 5 1 1 4 5 5 2 4 5 4 1 1 5 0 4 1 5 4 4 1 33 0 4 1 1 4 2 3 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 1 1 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 1 1 3 0 2 1 2 4 4 1 33 1 4 1 1 3 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 2 2 1 1 4 4 4 2 4 4 3 0 1 3 0 2 1 4 4 4 1 32 1 4 1 1 3 4 1 1 0 3 0 1 3 4 1 1 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 1 1 5 0 4 1 4 4 3 1 30 1 3 0 0 4 4 1 1 11 3 0 0 2 4 0 1 3 3 4 2 2 2 3 1 2 3 0 4 1 4 3 3 1 33 1 4 1 1 4 2 1 1 1 4 0 0 4 2 1 1 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 1 1 5 1 4 1 4 4 4 1 21 1 4 0 1 3 4 2 1 1 4 0 0 2 4 1 1 2 4 5 2 4 4 5 1 1 2 0 4 1 4 4 5 1 21 0 2 0 0 4 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 4 5 2 2 4 4 0 1 1 0 4 0 2 4 4 0 03 1 4 0 0 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 0 2 4 1 1 3 4 5 2 4 3 4 1 1 5 0 4 1 4 2 2 1 05 1 4 1 1 4 2 1 1 1 2 0 0 2 4 1 1 3 4 4 2 4 3 4 1 1 5 0 4 0 4 4 3 1 03 1 4 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 3 0 0 2 4 0 1 4 3 4 2 4 4 4 1 1 5 1 4 1 4 4 3 0 03 1 4 0 0 3 2 1 1 1 2 0 0 2 2 1 1 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 0 1 4 0 2 0 3 4 2 0 03 1 4 1 0 2 4 1 0 1 5 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 5 5 2 3 4 4 1 1 1 1 2 0 4 4 4 0 14 0 3 0 1 4 4 1 1 1 4 0 0 3 3 0 1 3 3 4 2 3 3 3 1 1 5 1 4 1 4 4 3 1 03 1 4 0 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 0 4 3 1 1 3 4 5 2 4 3 4 1 1 5 0 4 1 4 2 2 1 33 1 4 0 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 0 2 4 1 1 3 4 5 2 4 3 4 1 1 5 0 4 1 4 2 2 1 33 0 4 1 1 3 4 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 4 0 1 2 4 5 2 3 3 4 0 2 2 0 2 1 4 2 2 1 13 1 4 1 1 4 2 1 1 1 2 0 0 4 4 0 1 2 4 5 2 4 4 4 1 1 3 0 3 1 5 5 4 1 13 1 4 0 1 5 2 1 1 1 3 0 0 2 5 0 1 2 4 4 2 4 4 4 0 1 4 1 4 1 4 4 4 1 11 0 3 0 0 4 2 1 1 1 3 0 0 2 4 0 1 2 4 4 2 4 4 4 0 1 4 0 4 1 4 4 4 0 01 0 3 0 0 4 2 1 1 1 3 0 0 2 4 0 1 2 4 4 2 4 4 4 0 1 4 0 4 1 4 4 4 0 13 1 4 1 1 5 2 1 1 1 2 0 0 2 5 0 1 2 5 4 2 4 2 4 0 1 5 1 4 1 5 4 5 0 13 0 1 0 0 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 5 0 1 1 4 4 2 2 1 4 1 2 4 0 4 0 4 4 3 1 14 0 3 0 1 4 2 1 1 0 3 0 1 2 4 0 1 3 4 4 2 4 3 4 1 1 4 0 4 0 4 4 4 0 14 0 3 0 0 3 4 1 1 0 3 0 0 2 4 0 1 2 4 5 3 4 4 4 0 1 3 0 4 1 4 2 2 1 33 0 2 0 1 3 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 1 4 0 1 1 2 4 4 2 3 4 0 2 1 0 4 0 4 4 3 0 12 1 5 1 1 3 4 3 1 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 1 2 4 5 2 4 3 4 1 1 2 0 4 1 4 4 4 1 12 1 5 1 1 3 4 3 1 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 1 4 4 5 2 2 4 4 1 1 2 0 4 1 3 3 3 1 13 1 4 1 1 2 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 0 1 2 4 4 2 4 2 4 1 1 2 0 4 0 4 4 4 1 12 1 4 1 1 3 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 3 0 1 4 4 4 2 4 2 4 0 1 2 0 4 0 4 3 2 1 12 1 4 1 1 2 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 3 0 1 3 4 5 2 4 4 4 1 1 2 0 4 1 4 4 4 1 12 1 4 1 1 3 4 3 1 0 1 0 0 1 4 0 1 4 4 5 2 2 4 4 0 1 2 0 4 0 3 3 3 1 12 1 4 1 1 3 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 4 0 1 4 4 4 2 4 2 4 0 1 2 0 4 1 4 4 4 1 12 1 3 1 1 2 4 3 1 0 1 0 0 2 5 0 1 2 4 4 2 2 3 4 0 1 2 0 4 1 4 4 2 1 13 1 4 1 1 3 4 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 1 4 4 4 2 4 3 4 0 1 2 0 4 1 4 4 2 1 13 1 4 1 1 3 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 1 3 4 5 2 4 3 4 0 1 2 0 4 1 4 4 4 1 11 0 4 0 0 3 2 2 0 1 3 0 0 3 4 0 1 3 4 4 2 4 3 4 1 1 4 0 4 1 4 4 2 1 12 1 4 0 0 4 2 3 1 0 3 0 0 2 4 0 1 4 5 3 1 2 2 4 0 1 2 1 4 1 4 4 3 1 14 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 3 4 4 2 3 3 4 1 1 5 1 4 1 3 3 1 1 12 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 2 5 0 1 4 3 5 2 3 3 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 4 2 0 00 0 4 0 1 3 3 3 1 0 3 0 0 1 4 0 1 4 3 4 2 3 3 4 0 1 0 0 3 1 3 4 3 1 22 1 5 1 0 4 4 1 1 1 2 0 0 3 4 0 1 4 2 5 1 4 1 4 0 1 3 0 4 0 3 3 4 1 11 1 3 1 0 3 2 2 1 1 3 0 1 2 2 1 1 4 2 5 2 4 4 4 0 1 2 1 2 1 4 4 2 1 10 1 4 0 0 3 4 1 1 1 3 0 0 1 3 0 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 0 1 1 1 4 1 3 3 3 1 20 0 4 0 0 3 2 2 0 0 2 0 1 1 5 0 1 3 1 5 2 3 3 4 0 1 1 0 4 0 4 3 4 1 31 1 4 0 0 4 2 1 1 0 4 0 0 2 4 0 1 4 3 4 1 3 4 3 0 1 3 1 4 1 4 4 4 1 10 0 5 0 1 4 4 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 1 4 2 5 2 4 2 4 1 2 5 0 4 0 5 4 2 0 21 1 4 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 4 0 0 2 4 1 1 4 4 5 2 4 4 4 1 2 4 1 4 1 5 5 3 1 21 1 4 1 1 4 2 1 1 1 3 0 0 3 3 0 1 3 5 5 2 4 4 5 1 1 5 1 4 1 4 4 3 1 21 1 4 1 1 3 4 1 1 1 3 0 0 2 4 1 1 4 3 5 2 3 3 4 1 1 5 1 4 1 4 4 3 1 21 1 4 1 1 3 4 1 1 1 3 0 0 3 3 1 1 4 4 5 2 3 3 4 1 2 5 1 4 1 4 4 3 1 21 1 3 0 1 3 2 1 1 1 3 0 0 2 4 0 1 4 4 4 2 4 3 3 1 2 5 1 4 1 4 4 3 1 22 1 3 1 1 4 4 3 0 1 3 0 1 4 5 1 1 4 4 4 2 3 4 4 1 2 5 1 4 1 5 4 3 1 21 1 4 1 0 4 4 1 1 1 2 0 0 2 4 0 1 3 4 4 2 3 4 4 0 2 5 1 4 1 3 4 2 1 11 1 4 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 3 0 0 3 4 0 1 4 4 5 2 3 4 4 1 2 5 1 4 1 4 4 3 1 21 1 4 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 4 0 0 2 4 1 1 4 4 5 2 4 4 4 1 2 4 1 4 1 4 4 2 1 1

99

Appendix 3. (continued)

81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 985 0 3 4 2 3 4 1 1 0 2 4 3 4 5 0 2 2 71 1.50 375 0 3 4 2 3 4 1 1 0 4 2 2 4 5 3 3 2 73 1.25 375 0 3 4 2 3 4 1 1 0 2 4 2 4 4 0 3 3 74 0.25 385 0 3 4 2 3 3 1 1 0 3 3 3 5 5 0 3 4 70 0.50 395 0 4 4 2 3 4 1 1 0 2 4 2 4 5 0 3 4 69 0.50 405 0 3 4 2 2 4 1 1 0 3 3 2 4 4 0 3 4 72 0.50 385 0 3 4 2 4 4 1 1 0 4 3 3 4 5 3 3 4 80 1.00 425 0 3 4 2 4 4 1 1 0 2 4 2 4 5 0 3 2 75 1.00 385 0 3 4 2 2 4 1 1 1 2 3 2 4 5 0 4 2 75 1.25 355 0 3 5 1 4 3 1 1 1 2 3 3 5 4 0 3 2 75 1.50 365 0 3 5 2 4 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 5 5 0 4 2 79 1.50 395 0 2 4 1 2 4 1 1 0 2 3 2 4 5 0 3 2 76 1.25 355 0 2 4 2 2 4 1 1 0 2 3 2 4 5 0 3 2 78 1.00 365 0 3 4 1 2 4 1 1 0 2 3 2 5 5 0 3 2 67 0.50 335 0 3 4 2 2 4 1 1 1 4 2 3 4 5 0 3 2 72 1.00 375 0 3 4 2 4 4 1 1 1 2 4 3 4 5 0 3 3 77 1.00 395 0 3 5 2 4 4 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 4 0 3 3 78 0.25 395 0 3 4 2 4 4 1 1 0 4 4 2 4 5 0 2 2 73 0.25 425 0 3 4 2 4 4 1 1 0 2 2 2 5 5 0 3 2 80 0.50 395 0 3 4 2 4 3 1 1 1 2 4 2 5 5 0 3 2 75 0.50 395 5 3 4 2 3 3 0 0 0 2 2 3 1 2 3 3 3 67 0.50 385 5 4 4 4 3 3 1 1 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 4 3 75 1.00 442 4 4 4 2 4 4 1 1 1 2 4 4 2 3 1 4 4 79 1.00 475 5 4 4 3 4 4 1 1 1 4 3 2 5 2 0 4 4 87 1.50 465 5 3 4 2 3 3 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 3 73 2.00 370 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 5 3 3 1 1 46 2.25 131 5 3 4 2 4 3 0 0 0 2 3 2 1 4 1 3 3 70 2.25 405 5 2 5 1 2 2 0 0 0 3 3 3 1 1 2 2 3 80 2.50 375 5 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 2 77 2.50 295 5 3 4 4 3 3 0 0 0 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 77 3.00 433 3 4 4 2 3 4 1 0 1 4 3 4 5 5 2 4 4 83 3.25 485 5 4 4 4 3 4 1 0 1 4 4 2 4 5 3 3 2 79 1.50 430 0 4 5 1 3 4 1 0 1 5 4 4 3 5 2 4 4 82 3.25 523 0 4 4 2 4 4 0 0 1 4 4 4 4 5 2 4 4 84 2.50 503 5 5 5 1 5 4 1 1 1 4 3 3 5 5 2 5 5 94 3.00 533 5 3 4 2 4 3 1 0 1 3 2 3 3 5 2 3 3 80 2.75 403 0 3 4 3 4 4 1 0 1 4 3 4 5 5 2 4 4 81 3.25 493 5 4 4 4 4 3 1 1 1 3 4 3 3 5 3 4 4 87 3.25 483 5 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 3 3 2 5 5 3 2 2 69 2.50 375 5 3 4 4 4 4 1 0 1 4 2 5 2 3 2 3 2 90 2.75 471 5 4 4 4 2 2 1 1 1 4 4 2 5 1 3 2 2 74 1.50 430 0 0 5 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 2 5 0 3 1 1 74 2.50 260 0 3 4 3 3 4 1 0 1 3 4 0 0 0 0 1 2 85 3.50 350 0 0 4 4 3 3 0 0 1 3 1 1 5 0 3 3 3 86 2.50 360 0 0 4 4 4 3 0 0 0 2 3 3 5 0 2 3 3 81 1.75 402 0 3 4 2 2 3 0 0 1 3 2 2 4 4 2 3 3 79 1.50 365 5 4 5 1 1 3 0 0 0 1 3 1 4 0 3 2 1 81 2.25 345 5 3 2 3 2 3 0 0 0 3 3 3 5 0 1 2 2 81 3.00 375 5 3 4 3 3 4 1 0 1 3 1 3 5 0 3 2 2 86 2.00 365 5 3 2 3 3 4 1 0 1 3 4 2 5 0 3 2 2 84 1.00 364 0 2 3 2 3 3 0 0 1 4 2 3 4 4 2 3 3 79 1.25 364 5 4 4 2 3 3 1 0 1 4 4 2 5 5 2 2 2 88 1.75 444 5 3 4 2 4 4 1 0 1 4 1 2 5 5 3 2 2 74 1.75 404 5 4 3 2 4 4 1 0 0 4 2 2 5 4 3 3 3 74 2.25 434 5 4 3 2 4 4 1 0 0 4 2 3 5 4 3 2 2 79 2.25 424 5 5 5 2 5 4 1 0 0 5 1 2 5 5 2 2 2 92 2.50 472 5 3 4 3 2 3 1 0 0 2 2 1 5 3 3 3 3 66 2.75 375 5 3 4 1 3 3 1 1 0 3 3 4 5 4 3 3 3 77 3.00 424 3 2 4 2 2 3 0 0 0 4 2 1 4 5 2 3 3 82 3.25 341 3 2 4 1 2 3 0 0 0 4 1 2 4 5 3 4 3 67 3.25 372 1 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 4 2 4 5 5 2 4 4 84 1.75 502 1 3 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 4 2 4 5 5 2 4 4 86 2.25 462 1 4 4 2 4 4 1 1 1 4 2 4 5 5 2 4 4 83 2.25 482 1 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 4 2 3 5 5 2 4 4 83 2.25 462 1 3 4 4 3 3 1 1 1 4 2 3 5 5 2 4 4 86 2.75 462 1 4 4 3 4 4 1 1 1 4 2 4 5 5 2 4 4 83 2.75 462 1 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 4 2 4 5 5 2 4 4 82 2.75 502 1 4 4 4 3 4 1 1 1 4 2 2 5 5 2 4 4 78 3.00 452 1 4 4 2 4 4 1 1 1 4 2 3 5 5 2 4 4 83 3.25 452 1 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 4 2 3 5 5 2 4 4 84 3.50 494 0 4 4 3 4 4 1 1 1 3 3 3 5 1 2 3 3 83 3.50 444 0 3 3 2 2 3 0 0 1 3 2 2 5 0 2 2 3 76 2.25 365 0 3 3 4 3 3 0 0 1 5 1 3 5 1 2 3 3 70 2.25 380 2 3 4 2 3 3 0 0 0 3 2 1 5 1 2 3 3 76 1.00 364 3 3 3 3 4 3 0 0 1 4 2 3 5 1 2 3 3 76 1.50 412 0 2 3 2 4 4 1 0 1 4 1 3 4 1 3 4 2 76 2.75 394 0 0 4 2 3 3 0 0 0 3 2 1 5 1 1 2 2 73 2.00 324 4 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 1 3 1 3 5 0 2 3 3 69 1.75 370 0 4 4 1 3 3 0 0 1 2 2 3 5 1 2 3 3 78 2.00 390 3 4 3 3 3 4 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 3 3 3 83 3.25 425 5 4 4 1 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 3 0 2 2 2 85 1.50 345 5 4 4 3 4 4 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 5 2 4 4 92 1.75 525 5 4 4 2 4 4 1 1 1 4 3 3 4 4 2 4 4 94 1.75 475 5 4 4 3 3 3 1 1 1 4 4 5 4 4 2 5 5 83 1.75 515 5 4 4 3 3 4 1 1 1 3 4 4 4 5 2 4 4 83 2.00 485 5 4 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 4 4 5 5 2 4 4 81 2.00 465 5 4 4 4 3 5 1 1 1 4 4 2 5 4 3 5 4 97 2.00 515 5 4 4 3 3 3 0 1 1 3 4 3 5 5 2 4 3 85 3.00 435 5 3 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 3 4 4 4 5 2 4 4 86 3.25 494 5 4 4 3 4 4 1 1 1 3 4 4 5 5 2 4 4 88 3.50 48

GPASRPIRP

100

Appendix 4. Descriptive Analysis of Respondents Profile

FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=AGE HHN EDU OCCUP /PERCENTILES=10.0 90.0 /STATISTICS=STDDEV VARIANCE RANGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM SEMEAN MEAN MEDIAN MODE SUM SKEWNESS SESKEW KURTOSIS SEKURT /HISTOGRAM NORMAL

/ORDER=ANALYSIS.

Frequencies

Notes

Output Created 10-Jan-2006 15:33:55

Comments

Data C:\Documents and Settings\tony\My

Documents\THESIS\TABULASI\DATABA

SE_SPSS01.sav

Active Dataset DataSet1

Filter <none>

Weight <none>

Split File <none>

Input

N of Rows in Working Data

File 90

Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are treated

as missing.

Missing Value Handling

Cases Used Statistics are based on all cases with

valid data.

Syntax FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=AGE HHN

EDU OCCUP

/PERCENTILES=10.0 90.0

/STATISTICS=STDDEV VARIANCE

RANGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM SEMEAN

MEAN MEDIAN MODE SUM

SKEWNESS SESKEW KURTOSIS

SEKURT

/HISTOGRAM NORMAL

/ORDER=ANALYSIS.

Processor Time 00:00:01.281 Resources

Elapsed Time 00:00:01.202

101

Appendix 4. (Continued)

[DataSet1] C:\Documents and Settings\tony\My Documents\THESIS\TABULASI\DATABASE_SPSS01.sav

Statistics

Age of respondent

Household

number Education Occupation

Valid 90 90 90 90 N

Missing 0 0 0 0

Mean 41.62 4.13 5.42 4.04

Std. Error of Mean 1.146 .156 .215 .132

Median 40.00 4.00 7.00 4.00

Mode 35a 3 7 4

Std. Deviation 10.874 1.478 2.044 1.253

Variance 118.238 2.184 4.179 1.571

Skewness .766 1.111 -.527 1.070

Std. Error of Skewness .254 .254 .254 .254

Kurtosis .723 1.786 -1.204 1.327

Std. Error of Kurtosis .503 .503 .503 .503

Range 56 7 7 5

Minimum 24 2 1 2

Maximum 80 9 8 7

Sum 3746 372 488 364

10 29.10 3.00 2.00 3.00 Percentiles

90 55.90 6.00 7.00 7.00

a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown

Frequency Table

Age of respondent

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

24 1 1.1 1.1 1.1

26 4 4.4 4.4 5.6

27 1 1.1 1.1 6.7

28 2 2.2 2.2 8.9

29 1 1.1 1.1 10.0

30 6 6.7 6.7 16.7

31 4 4.4 4.4 21.1

Valid

32 3 3.3 3.3 24.4

102

Appendix 4. (Continued)

33 1 1.1 1.1 25.6

34 1 1.1 1.1 26.7

35 7 7.8 7.8 34.4

36 5 5.6 5.6 40.0

38 2 2.2 2.2 42.2

39 3 3.3 3.3 45.6

40 7 7.8 7.8 53.3

41 1 1.1 1.1 54.4

42 3 3.3 3.3 57.8

43 1 1.1 1.1 58.9

44 6 6.7 6.7 65.6

45 2 2.2 2.2 67.8

47 3 3.3 3.3 71.1

48 3 3.3 3.3 74.4

49 1 1.1 1.1 75.6

50 5 5.6 5.6 81.1

52 2 2.2 2.2 83.3

54 2 2.2 2.2 85.6

55 4 4.4 4.4 90.0

56 1 1.1 1.1 91.1

57 2 2.2 2.2 93.3

58 2 2.2 2.2 95.6

60 1 1.1 1.1 96.7

65 1 1.1 1.1 97.8

70 1 1.1 1.1 98.9

80 1 1.1 1.1 100.0

Total 90 100.0 100.0

Household number

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

2 8 8.9 8.9 8.9

3 26 28.9 28.9 37.8

4 25 27.8 27.8 65.6

Valid

5 19 21.1 21.1 86.7

103

Appendix 4. (Continued)

6 7 7.8 7.8 94.4

7 1 1.1 1.1 95.6

8 2 2.2 2.2 97.8

9 2 2.2 2.2 100.0

Total 90 100.0 100.0

Education

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

1 1 1.1 1.1 1.1

2 9 10.0 10.0 11.1

3 16 17.8 17.8 28.9

4 1 1.1 1.1 30.0

5 15 16.7 16.7 46.7

6 2 2.2 2.2 48.9

7 38 42.2 42.2 91.1

8 8 8.9 8.9 100.0

Valid

Total 90 100.0 100.0

Occupation

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

2 7 7.8 7.8 7.8

3 17 18.9 18.9 26.7

4 51 56.7 56.7 83.3

5 5 5.6 5.6 88.9

7 10 11.1 11.1 100.0

Valid

Total 90 100.0 100.0

104

Appendix 4. (Continued)

Histogram

105

Appendix 5. Descriptive Analysis of RP, GPA, and SRPI

FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=RP SRPI GPA /STATISTICS=RANGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM MODE /PIECHART FREQ /ORDER=ANALYSIS. Frequencies

Notes

Output Created 10-Jan-2006 15:39:40

Comments Data C:\Documents and Settings\tony\My

Documents\THESIS\TABULASI\DATABASE_SPSS01.sav

Active Dataset DataSet1

Filter <none>

Weight <none>

Split File <none>

Input

N of Rows in Working Data File 90

Definition of Missing User-defined missing values are treated as missing.

Missing Value Handling

Cases Used Statistics are based on all cases with valid data.

Syntax FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=RP SRPI GPA /STATISTICS=RANGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM MODE /PIECHART FREQ /ORDER=ANALYSIS.

Processor Time 00:00:01.031 Resources

Elapsed Time 00:00:00.923 [DataSet1] C:\Documents and Settings\tony\My Documents\THESIS\TABULASI\DATABASE_SPSS01.sav

Statistics

RP SRPI GPA

Valid 90 90 90 N

Missing 0 0 0

Mode 83 2.2 37

Range 51 3.2 40

Minimum 46 .2 13

Maximum 97 3.5 53

Frequency Table

RP

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

46 1 1.1 1.1 1.1

66 1 1.1 1.1 2.2

67 3 3.3 3.3 5.6

69 3 3.3 3.3 8.9

70 3 3.3 3.3 12.2

71 1 1.1 1.1 13.3

72 2 2.2 2.2 15.6

Valid

73 4 4.4 4.4 20.0

106

Appendix 5. (Continued)

74 5 5.6 5.6 25.6

75 5 5.6 5.6 31.1

76 5 5.6 5.6 36.7

77 4 4.4 4.4 41.1

78 4 4.4 4.4 45.6

79 6 6.7 6.7 52.2

80 4 4.4 4.4 56.7

81 5 5.6 5.6 62.2

82 3 3.3 3.3 65.6

83 9 10.0 10.0 75.6

84 4 4.4 4.4 80.0

85 3 3.3 3.3 83.3

86 5 5.6 5.6 88.9

87 2 2.2 2.2 91.1

88 2 2.2 2.2 93.3

90 1 1.1 1.1 94.4

92 2 2.2 2.2 96.7

94 2 2.2 2.2 98.9

97 1 1.1 1.1 100.0

Total 90 100.0 100.0

SRPI

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

0.25 3 3.3 3.3 3.3

0.5 7 7.8 7.8 11.1

1 9 10.0 10.0 21.1

1.25 4 4.4 4.4 25.6

1.5 9 10.0 10.0 35.6

1.75 8 8.9 8.9 44.4

2 7 7.8 7.8 52.2

2.25 10 11.1 11.1 63.3

2.5 7 7.8 7.8 71.1

2.75 7 7.8 7.8 78.9

3 6 6.7 6.7 85.6

3.25 9 10.0 10.0 95.6

3.5 4 4.4 4.4 100.0

Valid

Total 90 100.0 100.0

GPA

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

13 1 1.1 1.1 1.1

26 1 1.1 1.1 2.2

29 1 1.1 1.1 3.3

32 1 1.1 1.1 4.4

33 1 1.1 1.1 5.6

Valid

34 3 3.3 3.3 8.9

107

Appendix 5. Continued

35 3 3.3 3.3 12.2

36 9 10.0 10.0 22.2

37 10 11.1 11.1 33.3

38 5 5.6 5.6 38.9

39 8 8.9 8.9 47.8

40 5 5.6 5.6 53.3

41 1 1.1 1.1 54.4

42 5 5.6 5.6 60.0

43 5 5.6 5.6 65.6

44 3 3.3 3.3 68.9

45 2 2.2 2.2 71.1

46 6 6.7 6.7 77.8

47 4 4.4 4.4 82.2

48 5 5.6 5.6 87.8

49 3 3.3 3.3 91.1

50 3 3.3 3.3 94.4

51 2 2.2 2.2 96.7

52 2 2.2 2.2 98.9

53 1 1.1 1.1 100.0

Total 90 100.0 100.0

Pie Chart

108

Appendix 5. Continued