Community Disaster Awareness: Lesson Learned from Karo and

Banjarnegara

Rohani Budi Prihatin

and Husnul Khitam

Center for Research of Indonesian Parliament

Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, Indonesia

Keywords: Community Disaster; Adaptation; Capacity Building; Awareness

Abstract: Geographical location, archipelagic region, tectonic formation, large population, and tropical climate

condition have put Indonesia as the highest disaster risks area of tropical geo-hazards. How Indonesia deals

with natural disasters is a crucial issue nowadays not only for the government but also for academia. This

paper provides the experiences of community disaster awareness processes from two case studies on volcanic

eruptions in Karo, North Sumatera and landslides in Banjarnegara, Central Java. By conducting in-depth

interviews and field observations, this study found that the strategies used in managing natural disasters in

Indonesia are still reactive. Although most people live and seek life in the midst of high-risk areas of natural

disasters, they are not adequately prepared for disasters, no well-established tradition in facing imminent

disasters. This is a characteristic of people with a fatalistic view including those who were the victims of

natural disasters. The majority of disaster victims are not afraid to return to their original residence that once

was a disaster area. This lack of awareness influenced by the perspective of most people in assessing natural

disasters. People tend to accept what nature provides and see natural disasters as an inevitable destiny.

1 INTRODUCTION

In the last few years, the disaster caused by nature and

non-nature has risen, both from the characteristic

factor and the level of risk. The raising of

environmental decay through nature exploitation has

triggered the raising of the potential disaster.

In general, a natural disaster is an inflicted event

which resulted from natural earth cycling processes

(Bankoff, Freks, & Hilhorst, 2003) such as flood,

hurricane, volcano eruption, earthquake, tsunami, and

other geological processes. As a consequence of the

disaster, there are numbers of death, injuries or

misery, property damage, the loss of family income,

and psychological impact.

Based on Worldwatch Institute, 905 disasters

happened in 2012 across the world, and93 percent

was caused by weather anomalies (Ikhuoria, Yesuf,

Enaruvbe, & Ige-Olumide, 2012). It said that flood

and hurricane are among the two highest main factors

of the disaster in the world. Meanwhile, the flood was

the most frequent and has an enormous impact on

economic, business, infrastructure, service and health

in society as this also happens in Indonesia.

In 2005, UNESCO placed Indonesia in the

seventh among high-risk countries in the world.

Various disasters happened and caused victims along

with numerous losses. Every year, many people died,

injured, fled from their home, and many other

detriments. Therefore, it is important for Indonesian

people to know, understand, and aware that the earth

has a high risk of disaster.

Experiences have proven that disaster has directly

affected a society. Not only physical damage but also

the loss of beloved families. It might cause

psychological pressure for citizens and also cause

post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Jia, et al.,

2010). It can also cause depression, somatic, and

anxiety [ (Chou & al, 2004). In a post-disaster period,

people are likely vulnerable and useless toward the

traumatic effect of the disaster.

In the sociological perspective, disasters are often

known by people and social perspective, based on

their emotional experiences on various events that

threaten their lives. Disaster is part of the definition

that composes a social context of a social and cultural

aspect of people who experience a disaster (Pramono,

2016).

Prihatin, R. and Khitam, H.

Community Disaster Awareness: Lesson Learned from Karo and Banjarnegara.

DOI: 10.5220/0009934604110417

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Recent Innovations (ICRI 2018), pages 411-417

ISBN: 978-989-758-458-9

411

One of the strategies to manage natural disaster in

Indonesia is still tenuous. Meanwhile, many kinds of

literature have proven that factors related to the

enhancement of adaptive capacity on disaster should

be adopted and implemented as a policy. Therefore,

readiness is the most critical factor in the mitigation

process. There are various approaches to disaster

management; prevention is among one of them. The

main principle of disaster management is if we are

incapable of preventing disaster, then we have to

relieve the number of victims and losses

The government has been doing some programs,

such as Desa Tangguh Bencana (Sturdy Village from

Disaster) or called Destana program. Destana aims to

give a special preparation and insight on disaster

mitigation so that the people could be more prepared

on the possibilities of disaster. The real form of this

program is by forming villages’ acts, planning on

village disaster handling, autonomous budget

composing for disaster perceptive or village budget.

This program hopes, people might understand the

disaster management, such as prevention, mitigation,

alert planning, early warning, readiness, emergency

knowledge, operational planning, emergency

perceptive, recovery, rehabilitation, and

reconstruction. In the macro level, government,

people, and the private sector are expected to strongly

beneficial in the implementation of living in harmony

with disaster risks.

The government of Indonesia has enacted law No.

24 on disaster management since 2007.Based on this

law, the implementation of disaster tackling is (1)

readiness; (2) early warning; and (3) disaster

mitigation. Regarding disaster mitigation, more often

is constrained by people misperception on disaster.

Admittedly, it is uneasy to raise people awareness on

their way of the importance of disaster readiness.

2 THE LANDSLIDE IN

BANJARNEGARA

Banjarnegara district is located from 7°12’S–7°31’S

latitude and 109°29’E- 109°45’E longitude.

Spreading on the mountain valley in the middle of

west side of Central Java which across from west to

east. Banjarnegara is a district that has lies on

mountain area with high level of landslide hazard

(Prasetyo, 2018). One of the main cause factors of the

vulnerability escalation is improper land-use

planning. Vulnerability escalation can get intense

worse if the government as well as the people do not

realize or anticipate any threat of natural disaster

coming in their area. Landslide disaster in

Banjarnegara District caused economic collapse,

building damages, fatalities and property losses.

In 2014, a landslide struck in Dusun Jemblung,

Sampang Village, Karangkobar District,

Banjarnegara Regency, and Central Jawa Province.

Dusun Jemblung is a risky area on landslide with mid-

high intensity. Two days before the event, on

December 10th-11th, 2014, Dusun Jemblung had

rained heavily so, land in the area filled with water.

Meanwhile, the material composition of Telaga Lele

hill – the location of Dusun Jemblung – was

precipitated by old volcanic material which the so

lumor the soil horizon is thick and weathered and the

slove of the hill is less than 60 percent.

Meanwhile, most plants on the hill is an annual

crop such as palawija which is not so close, and the

soil becomes loose and easily carried by water.

Allegedly, the cause of landslide is the human itself.

Agricultural cultivation which was not considered

conservation also become one of the causes of the

landslide. In the slove of the location of the incident

also has many terraces.

Landslide disaster is not something new for

people in Karakobar district. In the district with 13

villages, nearly every year this type of disaster

happens, even though on a relatively small scale.

Naturally, natural landscape of Karangkobar is not

appropriate for settlement area. Its hilly landscape

and unstable soil texture made this area easily hit by

a landslide. Fragile soil also is the characteristic of

this area geological. Rocks insert the soil, and when

hit by rainfall, plots that cut all bond between soil and

rocks will potentially be going slide.

Regarding disaster handling, the role of state and

society are needed. The role of the state is represented

by BNPB (National Disaster Management Agency)

and BPBD (Regional Disaster Management

Agencies) which are responsible for taking any action

during the calamity. Meanwhile, people participation

is required for disaster risk reduction and avoidance.

However, it is crucial also to enhance people

awareness and capacity for disaster management

(Suryanti, Rahayu, & Retnowati, 2010).A study,

(Zein, 2010) explained that society is the party that

has direct experience ofa disaster event. Therefore,

understanding of disaster might be beneficial and

capital for risk disaster reduction. In the context of

natural disaster management, it is essential to know

how people respond to natural disaster (Marfai, et al.,

2008).

Respond of the people is the beginning adaptation

strategy which resulted through the understanding of

existing disaster; people’s understanding such as

ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation

412

knowledge and perception that has actualized through

attitude and action towards a disaster. The result of

behaviour and action towards disaster is an adaptive

strategy which means an adjustment on the potential

threat from the surrounding environment.

Since adaptation and social resilience of society in

the disaster area are crucial, there is a need to increase

various studies on adaptation strategy in society, both

in individual level and group on disaster

management. Adaptation is a result of people’s

attitude which appears based on their knowledge and

perception of disaster indication.

Almost 70 to 75 percent of Banjarnegara area is

indicated as potential landslide area because of its

location on the slove of Dieng highland. 12 out of 20

districts in Banjarnegara Regency, is in the red zone

or landslide potential zone since the area is hilly and

the soil is easily in motion. The increasing number of

a landslide in Banjarnegara should trigger its

surrounding neighbourhood on understanding and

anticipating any potential harmful disaster by living

in harmony with surrounding nature. It became

essential since the self-mitigation concept in society

is still weak.

People, in general still depend on the

government’s aid and initiative up to now. As a

consequence, victims during the disaster cannot be

reduced significantly. Numbers of people in the area,

who live in the hill area in Banjarnegara admitted that

they did not have any knowledge on disaster

mitigation and they depend on the natural indication.

Mostly, people who live in the landslide area felt

perforce to live in the mountain area because of the

high density of the urban area. They usually depend

on cultivation and agricultural economics and make

them live in the hilly and risky area is a logical

consequence of being a peasant.

In general, a village with landslide risk is under a

big hill with most of it slope is planted by annual

crops such as Potato, Cabbage, and several varieties

of horticulture. Therefore, during the rainy season,

the soil condition remains unstable and causing a

landslide. So far, people often rely on disaster

socialization from the government. There are no self-

movement initiated by people to raise the attitude

towards disaster consciousness. People’s behaviour

in the surrounding disaster-prone area is not suitable

for the rules of conservation. For example, Jemblung

village has landslide at the end of 2014, of about 150

families, 75 percent of them have a fish ponds

surrounding their houses.

People and Government need to consider some

steps; First of all is the identification of Jemblung

village characteristic and its surrounding such as the

form of land which is hilly with a medium-steep slope

with mostly volcanic rocks, various type of slopes,

the type of soil, rainfall, and also the river intensity.

The concept of understanding of anticipating the

risk of landslide needs to be acknowledged by the

entire community so that the community is expected

to be able to overcome the risk in the area.

Government both central and regional should focus

on raising people’s awareness of the life in disaster-

prone areas in Banjarnegara and be educated on

disaster mitigation properly.

The most appropriate treatment in Jemblung

village is the bio-engineering system or planting

technique, because of extensive and hilly in the area.

Therefore, this might be difficult to apply as

protection techniques such as making talus on the

slopes. The bio-engineering method is a method for

landslides handling by observing the equilibrium of

slopes which formed by plants.

As in the Telaga Lele Hill (the location where

Jemblung village is) and its surroundings, when

setting the plant, people should pay attention to the

angle of slope and the position of the slope. Because

palawija crops can be planted on the lower slopes and

the slope is not extremely steep. Therefore, there must

be a plant that supports or strengthen the slopes such

as calliandra and other strong root plants, although

there are not many. For the upward parts, it is still

permitted to plant palawija crops in the higher slope

area, and it needs more support of plants in the slope

due to steep slope conditions which have the potential

to a landslide.

Furthermore, on very steep slopes, it is only

possible for certain reinforcement plants. Hard plants

can also be used as water absorbers, reducing the

concentration of water in the soil and might naturally

prevent landslides. However, the most important

thing is the plant might become a buffer plant in the

slope area and protecting the soil from landslides. The

community should understand that in the location of

landslide-prone areas, non-structural activities such

as socialization of landslide prevention become an

important agenda in landslide handling and must be

done immediately. The government should bring all

elements of society in this activity, for example by

involving universities, NGOs, and mass

organizations so that the community can prevent

landslides.

Landslide disaster is not new for the people in

Karangkobar District, Banjarnegara, and Central

Java. Almost every year there is always a similar

disaster in the sub-district. Almost every year, land

slide also costs the lives and the properties of people.

The area in Karangkobar Sub-district, especially in

Community Disaster Awareness: Lesson Learned from Karo and Banjarnegara

413

Jemblung village, is not possible to be a settlement

area. The condition of the hilly topography and

unsteady soil texture make this area potentially hit by

landslides. In general, the geological condition of this

region has fragile soils. The rocky soil and some

fields cut the bonds between soil and rock. When the

rain arrives, the soil might be susceptible to slide or

landslides.

3 THE SINABUNG VOLCANO

ERUPTION IN KARO

Mount Sinabung, located in Tanah Karo District,

North Sumatra Province, is one of 30 volcanoes

located above the Great Sumatra Fault. Mount

Sinabung began to reactivate after the earthquake and

a devastating tsunami that shook Aceh on December

26, 2004, followed by the Nias earthquake in March

2005 and July 2006 then the earthquake in Padang in

September 2009 followed by an earthquake in Nias

Island in October 2009. A year later, on August 29,

2010, Mount Sinabung erupted for the first time after

400 years of silence (Lestari, 2016). Since then, the

Mount experienced a significant increase in activity.

On September 15, 2013, the status started from Level

II (Cautious), and entered Level III (Alert) from

November 3, 2013, until now it has entered the

highest level, namely Level IV (Beware).

From December 2013 until January 2014 there

have been 365 eruptions that spewed hot clouds on

Mount Sinabung. Even though the government

lowered the status to Standby in May 2014, Mount

Sinabung was still a significant threat to Karo District

residents.

The eruption has affected 33,192 people, and

10,322 families have fled to 37 destinations; 17

people died, of which 14 were found at the

Sukameriah Village, an area within a 3-kilometer

radius from the top of the mountain, while three

others who had previously suffered burns died in the

hospital. The high intensity of eruption also caused a

relocation for some villages within a 5-kilometer

radius, considering that these villages could no longer

be inhabited. The most severe losses and damage

from the eruption are in the infrastructure and

agricultural sectors. Although the Karo district

government is still implementing the emergency

response, the government has begun to take a stand

for recovery for people who have been allowed to go

home.

Around 28 billion rupiahs have been rolled out by

National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB)

through the Regional Disaster Management Agency

(BPBD) of Karo Regency which is allocated to

immediately address the needs of citizens in recovery

processes, ranging from shelters, food, agriculture,

and so on. The BPBD has also begun to assist the

affected people. These are specifically directed to

people in Sukameriah Village, Guru Kinayan Village,

Selandi Village, Bekerah Village, Berastepu Village,

Kebayaken Village, Simacem Village, Kuta Tonggal

Village, Kuta Rayat Village, Gamber Village,

Sigarang-Garang Village, Suka Nalu Village, Kuta

Gugung Village, Mardinding Village, Kuta Tengah

Village, and Perbaji Village.

Siosar Village in Merek District is designated as

the relocation site for victims of the eruption. The

construction of the house is almost complete, and

some people have received the keys and occupied it.

The house, with a 100 square meters of land, has also

equipped with clean water, electricity and fully

furnished. Even though, most people are reluctant to

reside in the house because of the land readiness for

farming activity as most of them are farmers or

peasants.

In the first phase, the government built 370 houses

occupied by villagers who were most severely

affected by the eruption such as in Bekerah, Suka

Meriah, and Simacem Villages. An area of 458

hectares has been prepared to accommodate a total of

2,053 people including the agricultural area, with a

budget of Rp59.4 million each. Nevertheless, this

program is still experiencing some problems, and it

still has a wide gap in meeting the basic need because

of the allocation is considered very minimal and has

not been able to meet the needs of all affected people.

The government previously had spent 13 billion

Rupiahs for agricultural restoration for people in 16

villages in the first phase; this assistance was obtained

from the Regional Agency. According to the

Regional Office of Agriculture, the funds were spent

on the purchase of fast-harvesting crops, such as chili,

tomatoes, vegetables, and others. Furthermore, for

residents of the nine villages that have just been

repatriated, there has been no special allocation for

agricultural recovery. The availability of new funds

will be allocated for the handling of people in refugee

camps, considering that the Karo Regency still states

the emergency response situation and some of the

treatment is still focusing on this phase.

Until now, all the victims who have been allowed

to return to their settlements have not received any

assistance for their livelihood recovery from the Karo

Regency. In some villages, such as Mardinding

Village and Perbaji Village, many residents have

been indebted to fulfil their basic needs. Since the

ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation

414

evacuation, their family income is only from their life

insurance (especially during the last emergency

response period) which has been given by the

government in a minimal amount. Head of Perbaji

Village, Mr. Martin Ginting, said that many people

sold their assets (such as gold) and owed money to

fulfil their daily needs such as children's school, food,

and other needs.

Some people take the initiative to work on other

people agricultural. Unfortunately, it does not need

any labour. Some others are renting people’s land in

around Rp. 6 million per year for 0.5 hectares.

However, the land is in dormant condition due to the

capital limitation to buy seeds and fertilizer. The

government's promise to provide seed is yet to come.

Based on the interviews and discussions carried out

with the community, the majority of people in the

nine villages did not have any ability except farming.

Considering that they are doing this inherited

profession, it is challenging for them to adapt to other

economic activities.

They expected the assistance from the

government in the form of seeds with a short harvest

period (about 3-4 months) and had a relatively good

economic value. The hope is that the assistance is

might be improving their economic conditions. The

data shows that the refugee’s livelihoods are

vegetable and horticulture farming. By being a

peasant, they can merely survive and continue their

post-disaster life.

As explained above, the affected people have

suffered and harmed their livelihood in farming for

almost one year. In short, the livelihood system of the

people in the affected villages was destroyed. It

destroys people’s economy, and it is difficult for them

to be able to meet their basic needs when returning

home. Some of them also have indebted to fulfil their

basic needs. People also do not have any other skills

and their lives depend on agricultural activity.

Entering the transition period of recovery, especially

for residents in the nine villages that have been

allowed to return home, a quick response is needed to

restore their economic conditions.

Refugees need short-term programs that generate

stimulus income in the relocation area. Providing

financial resources through cash for work (CFW) is

one of the recommended models for the recovery

program. The program can be directed to repair or

rebuild public facilities so that the community has an

opportunity to continue and rebuild their lives

towards a normal situation. A real example that can

be done is by involving people in some government

recovery projects for they can earn a decent income.

The way of refugee’s handling disaster seems to

emulate the community-based settlement

rehabilitation and reconstruction model. This model

was successfully applied to refugees from the Mount

Merapi eruption disaster several years ago.

Unfortunately, the recovery processes of the Mount

Sinabung refugees are slower compared to Merapi

refugees. Some factors that make their vulnerable are

the unemployment period during a disaster and the

dependency of assistance from the government. The

local government is often focused only on building

temporary relocation housing rather than encouraging

the refugees to regain family livelihoods and income.

In an interview with Mr. Ginting, a refugee that had

occupied the relocation house, he is still complaining

about the lack of income and employment. As a

horticulture farmer, he preferred to be given by the

government a land rather than a house; with the land,

he can work and make money. He claimed, he was

used to sleeping in the agricultural fields by building

simple huts. By farming, he can generate an income,

and later he can make a permanent house.

4 LESSON LEARNED

Based on the two disaster cases mentioned above,

namely landslides in Banjarnegara and the eruption of

Mount Sinabung above, the possibility of natural

disasters in both areas should be anticipated in

advance. During the last 25 years, more than 20

natural disaster management policies have been made

by the government of Indonesia. All of them have the

same substance, which is trying to protect the

community from the impact of disasters. However, so

far, the government has not been proven to be able to

move the community to be prepared better for

disasters. This can be seen from physical facilities or

disaster prevention programs that are very few and

still below the minimum standart. Availability of

early warning facilities and evacuation routes is

considered inadequate. Mitigation infrastructure is

generally only available in areas that have just been

hit by natural disasters. After that the treatment is

often overlooked.

The results of this study are in line with the

Kompas survey (2011), which found the fact that half

of respondents in tsunami-affected areas in Aceh

claimed that there were no proper evacuation

facilities in their area. While 20 percent of other

respondents in the area claimed they did not know

about the existence of evacuation routes in their area.

Whereas risk mitigation arising from natural disasters

and post-disaster adaptation is crucial to being

Community Disaster Awareness: Lesson Learned from Karo and Banjarnegara

415

understood and carried out by the community. The

role of the government in socializing the disaster

mitigation is very large and crutial. This program was

apparently still not optimal. Still according to the

survey, most ofthe respondents (85 percent) felt that

they had never been involved in various disaster

management activities. This fact strengthens, the

culture of disaster awareness in the country that is full

of natural disaster threats is still far from what we

expected.

It's good if we learn from Japan. Japan is very well

known for its highly effective disaster management

(disaster response management), this country is

always fast and responsive in victims handling. The

response from the Japanese government together with

all elements of society is generally very fast in dealing

with post-disaster situations, recovering areas

affected by disasters, and addressing the health and

life problems of survivors (Tanaka, 2005).

Disaster management is a structural and

managerial processess of managing the resources and

responsibility in handling everything related to every

aspect of human safety, both in the phase of

preparation, response, and recovery of disaster

events, with the aim of minimizing the negative

impact caused by the disaster. Therefore, by

developing an assumption that the earthquake disaster

has always been repeated, the government and the

Japanese community designed and built earthquake

resistant buildings.

In addition, they also maintain a consistent

environmental protection movements, such as

protection of coastal forests or mangrove forests and

early protection of the tsunami waves (by placing

breakwater stones on the shore to reduce the impact

of the tsunami). Equally important, Japan developed

a disaster-early warning system. This system make all

parties, starting from the disaster task force unit

(disaster alert task force) able to respond the event

quickly, as well as people who have the potential to

experience the impact of the disaster to immediately

prepare themselves to move out to the prepared place.

They also set up shelters (protection areas) for

affected people or victims and provide routine

training to the community as a quick response to

natural disasters that might come at any time.

One of the things that can be learned by the

government and society from Japan is that they

continuously develop a disaster emergency response

system more effectively. In the tsunami disaster

caused by the 8.5 magnitude earthquake on December

26, 2004 that hit Aceh, for example, there were

200,000 people died. Comparing to the 8.9 magnitude

earthquake with tsunami on March 11, 2011 in Japan,

there were only around 7,000 people died. This

evidence shows that Japan is prepared better for

disasters than Indonesia, because of numbers of

experiences. Japan is the most prepared country to

face disasters. A variety of methods have been carried

out by Japan to reduce the impact of disasters, ranging

from raising public awareness from an early age,

building adaptive infrastructure that might resist to

the earthquakes, and developing an evacuation routes

for the safety of citizens.

For the sake of developing a disaster awareness,

the community is accustomed to participate in

disaster evacuation training. The aim of this training

is that when a disaster really happens, the residents

will no longer panic, and they will calmly follow the

standard procedures that they have trained for many

times. Likewise, early warning systems for an

earthquake and tsunami disasters work well and the

results are quickly distributed to the community. The

result of the raising of awareness of disasters among

the Japanese citizens are clearly seen by their attitude

that emphasizes public safety.

For people who are aware of its high impact and

physical and social consequences of this catastrophy

will put disaster events as a routine issue in everyday

life so that they will not shocked if a disaster occurs

because it has been predicted beforehand and the

disaster management is already planned properly. For

people who have not made disaster management

planning a public issue, generally they will look very

nrimo (fatalistic) where there is only a resignation to

the God when the disaster comes while hoping for

help to come as soon as possible. In the end, the

pattern declined in the disaster management regime

put the country as the dominant actor in handling any

disasters. Countries that follow the fatalist principle

will apply the principle of minimalism (just fulfill

their obligations) in the making of emergency

response efforts. This is completely different with a

country that is so serious in preparing for a disaster.

In addition, this also reflected a major problem

between a country or people with lack of cooperation

and an egalitarian country or state that is deliberately

prepared and anticipated a disasters and upholds

cooperation in dealing with disasters as a commons

problem.

5 CONCLUSION

The handling of disasters that have been carried out

in many countries is still considered impulsive

(focusing on post-disaster actions); issues on some

prevention or reduction are rarely carried out. Many

ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation

416

governments trapped in charity efforts, it seems

helpful when a disaster occurs then over time the

recovery problem is charged entirely to the citizen. As

a result, the perception and accepting attitude towards

the disaster that was perceived by the Banjarnegara

community and Mount Sinabung make the disaster

problem seem to be recurrent without any effort to

minimize the victims.

The growing perception among the victims is

that disasters are considered as a form of obstacles

from God so they must accept it without doing

anything about it. This kind of resignation turns out

to be a source of individual strength so that they can

forget the disaster without experiencing prolonged

stress. Awareness of accepting calamities is also a

way for the government to efficiently carry out the

disaster management policies without any resistance

from the victims.

Almost all the refugees and victims in the two

regions understand that they used to live in a disaster-

prone area with the medium-high category. That is

why there is no resistance during the relocation

process. Relocation is considered to be the best choice

for survival and continuation of life.

Another fact is that the government, both central

and local, and communities are often more focused on

logistical assistance (clothing, food, and settlement)

which is only a short-term solution. However, at the

community or social level, rehabilitation and

improvement of community or social institutions

such as markets, places of worship, schools,

livelihoods, and others are often forgotten. In the

future, the Agencies, as well as all parties should

focus on improving the community-level institutions

that were destroyed and building people awareness in

their minds.

REFERENCES

Bankoff, G., Freks, G., & Hilhorst, D. 2003. Mapping

Vulnerability: Disasters, Development, and People.

Routledge: New York.

Chou, F. C., & al, e. 2004. The relationship between quality

of life and psychiatric impairment for a Taiwanese

community post-earthquake. Quality of Life Research,

1089-1097.

Ikhuoria, I., Yesuf, G., Enaruvbe, G., & Ige-Olumide, O.

2012. Assessment of the impact of flooding on farming

communities in Nigeria: A case study of Lokoja, Kogi

State Nigeria. Geoinformation Society of Nigeria

(GEOSON) & Nigerian Cartographic Association

(NCA) Joint Annual Workshop/Conference (pp. 156-

167). Ife: Obafemi Awolowo University.

Jia, Z., Tian, W., He, X., Liu, W., Jin, C., & Ding, H. 2010.

Mental health and quality of life survey among child

survivors of the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. Quality of

Life Research, 1381-1391.

Lestari, Puji., et. al. 2016. "Environmental Communication

Model for Disaster Mitigation of Mount Sinabung

Eruption Karo Regency of North Sumatra."

Information: An International Interdisciplinary

Journal, Vol. 19 Number 9(B), September 2016.

Marfai, M. A., King, L., Sartohardi, J., Sudrajat, S.,

Budiani, S. R., & Yulianto, F. 2008. The impact of tidal

flooding on a coastal community in Semarang,

Indonesia. Enviromentalist, 237-248.

Pramono, R. 2016. Perspektif Sosiologis dalam

Penanggulangan Bencana. Jurnal Masyarakat dan

Budaya, 81-96.

Prasetyo, Yudo and Fahrudin. 2018. “Spatial analysis of

landslide hazard vulnerability using AHP method,

DInSAR method and geology method in Banjarnegara

district.” AIP Conference Proceedings 1987, 020044

(2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5047329

Suryanti, E. D., Rahayu, L., & Retnowati, A. 2010.

Motivasi dan Partisipasi Masyarakat dalam Upaya

Pengurangan Multirisiko Bencana di Kawasan

Kepesisiran Parangtritis dalam Penaksiran Multirisiko

Bencana di Wilayah Kepesisiran Parangtritis. PSBA

UGM: Yogyakarta.

Suwardiman. 2011. "Tipisnya Budaya Sadar Bencana"

(Thin Consciousness of Disaster Awareness). Link to

be accesed 20-10-2018 https://regional.kompas.com/

read/2011/09/14/04322058/tipisnya.budaya.sadar.benc

ana.

Tanaka, Kazuko. 2005. “The Impact of Disaster Education

on Public Preparation and Mitigation for Earthquakes:

A Cross-Country Comparison Between Fukui, Japan

and the San Fransisco Bay Area, California, USA”,

Applied Geography, Vol. 25, Issue 3, Juli 2005, hlm.

201–225.

Zein, M. 2010. A Community Based Approach Flood and

Vulnerability Assessment in Flood Prone Area: A Case

Study in Kelurahan Sewu, Surakarta City, Indonesia.

Gadjah Mada University: Yogyakarta.

Community Disaster Awareness: Lesson Learned from Karo and Banjarnegara

417