GeoJournal 49: 173183, 1999. 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

173

Lahar hazard micro-zonation and risk assessment in Yogyakarta city, Indonesia

Franck Lavigne
Universit e Paris 1 Panth eon-Sorbonne, Institut de G eographie, 191 rue St.-Jacques, 75005 Paris, France and Laboratoire de G eographie Physique, CNRS URA 141, 1 place Aristide Briand, 92190 Meudon, France, e-mail: lavigne@univ-paris1.fr)
Received 18 January 1999; accepted in revised form 6 March 1999

Key words: hazard-zone mapping, Indonesia, Java, lahar, Merapi, risk assessment, vulnerability, Yogyakarta

Abstract Yogyakarta urban area (500,000 inhab.) is located in Central Java on the uvio-volcanic plain beside Merapi volcano, one of the most active of the world. Since the last eruption of Merapi in November 1994, the Code river, which goes across this city, is particularly threatened by lahars (volcanic debris ows). Until now, no accurate hazard map exists and no risk assessment has been done. Therefore, we drew a detailed hazard map (1/2,000 scale), based on morphometric surveys of the Code channel and on four scenarios of discharge. An additional risk assessment revealed that about 13,000 people live at risk along this river, and that the approximate value of likely loss is US $ 52 millions. However, the risk level varies between the urban suburbs.

Introduction Terminology The term lahar, of Javanese origin, is a rapidly owing mixture of rock debris and water (other than normal streamow) from a volcano (Smith and Fritz, 1989). The ow behaviour exhibited by lahars may be complex, and includes a debris ow phase, where sediment concentration is in excess of 60% by volume. Additionally, there are also precursor and waning stage hyperconcentrated-streamow phases, where sediment concentration ranges from 20 to 60% by volume (Beverage and Culbertson, 1964). According to the terminology adopted by United Nations Disaster Relief Organization (UNDRO), a natural hazard is the probability of occurrence, within a specic period of time in a given area, of a potentially damaging natural phenomenon. Hazard appraisal is obtained by the following equation: Hazard = extension frequency magnitude of the events. The risk is the expected number of lives lost, persons injured, damage to property and disruption of economic activity due to a natural phenomenon. It can be dened as the product of hazard by vulnerability (Slaymaker, 1996; Blaikie et al., 1997), whereas some authors add the elements at risk (UNDRO, 1979) or georesources (Nossin and Javelosa, 1996) as a third component. Vulnerability is a complex concept, commonly appreciated from a quantitative approach. It is dened as the degree of loss to a given element at risk, expressed on a scale from 0 (no damage) to 1 (total loss) (UNDRO, 1979; Smith, 1992). However, a new approach, developed more recently, aims

to appreciate the social and cultural factors which reduce or amplify the effects of a natural phenomenon (Drabek, 1986; Thouret and DErcole, 1996). Yogyakarta city Yogyakarta urban area is located on the highly populated, (>1000/km2), uvio-volcanic plain beside Merapi volcano (2961 m) in Central Java (Figure 1). The city is the political, economic, social and cultural center of the special Province of Yogyakarta. For 50 years, this city of 500,000 inhabitants has attracted people from the surrounding overcrowded rural areas. In order to preserve the productive tilled lands and irrigation networks around the city, the government has attempted to control the urban growth. The guidelines in the present master plan (19852005), limit northern extension of the city between Magelang street and Gadjahwong river, and western and southern extension is allowed only along ve main roads, leading to Wates, Godean, Bantul, Parangtritis and Imogiri (Figure 2). However for the last 20 years, thousands of migrants have settled within areas prone to oods and lahars along the Code river. Thus, vulnerability has increased greatly in Yogyakarta. Lahars at Mt Merapi Lahar generation is complex, resulting from a combination of volcanic and climatic processes. At Mt Merapi, lahar is triggered by two main processes (Lavigne et al., 1998b): (1) eruption-induced lahars or primary lahars from the admixing of pyroclastic ows, or less frequently, from debris avalanches, with running water; (2) rain-triggered lahars or secondary lahars from heavy rainfall upon recently erupted volcaniclastics, usually during the rainy season (from November to April). Rain-triggered lahars can be occasionnaly

174

Figure 1. Sketch map of the basic geographic context and geological features of Merapi volcano and the Yogyakarta area (after Thouret et al., 2000).

syn-eruptive, e.g., lahars along 9 rivers between Pabelan River and Woro River on 19 December 1930 and on 7-8 January 1969 (Figure 1). Average frequency of such events is one every 30 years, whereas frequency of post-eruptive lahars is almost one or two years in some channels of Merapi (Lavigne et al., 2000a). This frequency depends upon rainfall characteristics and on the total volume and grain size distribution of fresh pyroclastic deposits in source areas. Rain lahars occur periodically for about 4 years following

small-to medium-scale eruptions (Jitousono et al., 1995; Shimokawa et al., 1995). According to the Volcanological Survey of Indonesia (VSI), lahars are generated from rainfall exceeding 40 mm in 2 h. In fact, thresholds vary widely over space (elevation above sea level, exposure of the volcano ank), time, and the type of the rainfall (SW monsoon rain or convection rain) concerned (Lavigne et al., 2000b). Lahars at Merapi are predominantly brief events related to rainfalls that commonly last 1 or 2 hours. The lahars are

175

Figure 2. Settlement density of the Yogyakarta Urban Area (after Sabari Yunus, 1991, modied).

usually characterized by only 1 or 2 main pulses, which may result from the variation of intensity during a storm, variable distribution of rainfall over the drainage basin, inherent ow instability or natural self-damming and rapid release. Lahar velocity and discharge can be high. A maximum of 15 m/s has been measured in 1995 in Boyong river at 7 km from the summit, where the channel gradient was 4.1 (Lavigne et al., 2000a). Recorded peak discharges reached 2,000 m3 /s in 1985 (Putih River) and peak discharge per unit drainage area is 131 m3 /s/km2 (VSTC, 1990). Downstream dilution of Merapi lahars is usually very fast. Within a few kilometers, lahars transform from debris ow to hyperconcentrated streamow and then to normal streamow. Since the end-1970s, this dilution has become faster downstream from Sabo-dam structures (e.g., check dams, sand-pockets), which slow down the lahars. These transition ows can go much further than the coarse debris ows and easily reach Yogyakarta city, only thirty kilometers downstream from the crater of Merapi volcano (Figure 1).

Rain-generated lahars can cause a serious hazard at any time during the monsoon season (Table 1). In the Krasak River, 9 people were killed by rain lahars on 22 October 1974, and 29 more on 25 November 1976. This last disaster was inuenced by the large volume of the lahar (1.2 106 m3 ) and the high level of rainfall (220 mm in 8 h at Ngepos) concerned.

Previous lahar hazard zonation and goals of the study The VSI hazard map of Merapi (Figure 3) identies three hazard zones, including a lahar zone termed the second danger zone (Pardyanto et al., 1978). This hazard map has 3 main aws. First, although valleys most prone to lahars are identied, the scale of the map (1/100,000) is not large enough to delimit accurately lahar inundation in specic channels. Second, valleys on the eastern and northern slopes of the volcano, which were not affected by historical lahars, are not included in the lahar hazard zone even though

176
Table 1. Lahar-related disasters at Merapi volcano. At least 35 lahar events caused damage on the slopes of Merapi since the early 1900s. 76 people died and thousand of houses were destroyed, as well as tens of bridges Lahar occurrence 28 Dec. 1822a 25 Dec. 1832 a Nov. 1846 5 Oct. 1888 12 Oct. 1920a 1920 Dec. 1930a Valley Casualties Damages of Property

Se, Pa, Bl, La, Wo Bl Wo Tr, Se Se, Bl, Ba Se, Pa Bl La, Pu Bo, Ku, Wo Ge West and SW West and SW West and SW Ba Se, Pa, La, Bl, Ba Ba Se, Bl, Ba Se, pa Bl, Pu Be, Kr Bo, Co Ku Ge Wo Be Pu, oth Pu Bl Se, Pu, Be, Kr Pu Be, Kr Be Be S Pu, Be, Kr, Bo, Ku Pu, Be, Kr, Bo, Ku Kr Kr K. Krasak Pu, Be, Kr Pu Be Kr Be Be Be Bo Bo

about 100 32 35 3 9 29

2 Jan. 1931 11 Jan. 1931 14 Jan. 1931 27 Apr. 1931 17 Feb. 1932 7 Apr. 1932 2728 Nov. 1961a

78 Jan. 1969a

19 Jan. 1969 20 Jan. 1969 22 Jan. 1969 23 Jan. 1969 26 Feb. 1969 5 Apr. 1969 21 Nov. 1969 22 Sep. 1973 26 Jan. 1974 22 Oct. 1974 21 Nov. 1974 22 Nov. 1974 6 Dec. 1974 5 Mar. 1975 22 Mar. 1975 4 Oct. 1975 25 Nov. 1976 11 Dec. 1994 2 Feb. 1995 20 May 1995 3 Mar. 1995 5 Dec. 1996
a Syn-eruptive lahar.

4 villages ? 50 ha TL 1 village 1 village 1 bridge, 70 ha riceeld 1 bridge, TL irrigation system water supply system of Kaliurang and Yogyakarta 277 ha coffee plantation TL, 1 bridge TL TL 1 bridge TL 1 village, 2 bridges 5 villages, 95 houses, 1 bridge 2 villages, 38 houses, 25 ha TL 4 villages, 15 houses, 25 ha TL, 3 bridges 6 villages, 239 houses, 103 ha TL, 2 bridges 2 villages, 51 ha TL, 1 bridge 2 villages, 1 bridge 9 villages, 390 houses, > 270 ha TL, 2 bridges 6 villages,1 bridge 12 houses tens of houses, 2 bridges 15 houses, 1 bridge 3 houses tens of houses 39 houses houses, 1 road 3 houses 9 houses 6 houses several houses 43 houses, several shops, 25 ha TL 14 houses 102 houses 12 houses 5 villages, 20 houses, 30 ha TL, 1 bridge 3 villages, 2.3 ha TL, 2 bridges 17 houses,17 ha TL 306 houses, 4 buildings, 330 ha TL, 3 bridges 2 trucks 3 trucks 8 trucks 1 bridge 14 trucks

TL: Tilled land; KR: Kedaulatan Rakyat (local newspaper); MVO: Merapi Volcano Observatory; Se: Senowo; Tr: Trising; Pa: Pabelan; La: Lamat; Bl: Blongkeng; Pu: Putih; Ba: Batang; Be: Bebeng; Kr: Krasak; Bo: Boyong; Co: Code; ku: Kuning; Ge: Gendol; Wo: Woro; oth: others;

177 a map which marks indenitly the hazardous zones around Merapi volcano. In the same study, the authors investigated hazard zonation for lahar using another method based on computer simulation. This simulation model uses several factors, such as cross-section, slope of the river course and hydraulic parameters, and furthermore, has been tested along two channels: Putih and Bebeng/Krasak. Although this method is much better than the former one and provides interesting results, it can still be criticised, predominantly because it is based entirely on photogrametrical techniques and theoretical models, without any kind of eld work. Until now, no accurate hazard map exists for lahar and ooding around Merapi volcano, and especially for Yogyakarta city. The scales of the previous maps are too small to delimit precisely the lahar-related hazards zones. Therefore, the actual warning system is based only on assumptions and upon knowledge of past events. Furthermore, any study of vulnerability and risk has never been undertaken within Yogyakartas hazardous areas. On the 22 November 1994, a part of the Merapi summit lava dome collapsed, generating dozens of nues ardentes. As a consequence of these events, a complex assemblage of channelled and veneer block-and-ash pyroclastic ows were initiated on the southern ank (Bourdier and Abdurachman, 2000). In contrast to the prior eruptions of this century which produced deposits towards the west and southwest, sediment-delivery systems capable of generating lahars were formed in the Boyong/Code river. The catchment area of 2 the river is 76 km , stream length 37 km, mean channel gradient 8%, and volume of material deposited by the 1994 pyroclastic ows is estimated at 2.5 106 m3 , cutting across Yogyakarta. Thus, the goals of our study were to produce a detailed hazard map at 1/2,000 for Yogyakarta city coupled with a vulnerability appraisal to assess social lives, economic estates, and urban activities in jeopardy. This assessment aimed to delineate hazardous areas which are prone to risk. This study was undertaken in summer 1995, six months after the 22 November (1994) eruption of Merapi volcano. It was funded by the French Embassy in Indonesia (Jakarta), in cooperation with the staff of the Volcanological Survey of Indonesia (VSI, Bandung) and the Merapi Volcano Observatory (MVO, Yogyakarta).

Figure 3. Volcanic hazard map of Merapi (VSI, 1995) showing the volcanic hazard-zones delineated by Pardyanto et al. (1978) at 1/100,000 scale. On this map, the lahar hazards correspond to the second danger zone, which covers an area of 99.6 km2 .

older lahar deposits commonly outcrop along the channels on these slopes. Third, the 1978 map is nearly 20 years old, and so the hazard map does not account for the present morphology of the channels, or for the presence of the Sabo structures. JICA (1980) suggests that the maximum extent of the lahar-prone areas for the worst case of a cataclysmic eruption is about 290 km2, and that for a medium- or large-scale eruption, the probable lahar-related hazard area without Sabo facilities is 135 km2 . In the latter case, the main drainage channels affected are the Woro (45 km2), and the western valleys of Krasak, Batang, and Putih (15 to 20 km2 each). Topographical analyses, numerical simulations and distribution of historical lahar deposits suggest that the lahar inundation areas proposed by JICA is more accurate than the second danger zone of the VSI map. The JICA map is useful for long-range lahar hazard assessment, although, due to its small scale (1/250,000), of no use for immediate warning. The hazard map of Maruyama et al. (1980) (1/25,000 scale), is based on an analysis of the 1975 and 1976 lahar disasters, and on air-photo interpretation of landforms. This map categorizes 5 qualitative hazard classes based on the height of the channel bank. A lahar or ood hazard is considered to be very high when the bank height ranges 0 to 5 m, high when 5 to 10 m, intermediate when 10 to 20 m, low when 20 to 30 m, and very low when <30 m. Obviously, as this method does not take into account hydrological characteristics, such as the ow discharge, it only provides

Methods Combined geomorphological investigation, lahar ow simulation and enquiries were used to delineate areas at risk in Yogyakarta. Micro-zonation of lahar and ooding hazards The mapping of potential disaster areas (Figure 4) was carried out in four stages. The rst stage was to research past cases of sediment movement, in order to assess the location, frequency and scale of the past events. According to scientic reports and

178

Figure 4. Method for micro-zonation of lahar and ooding.

newspaper articles, lahars occurred only once in the Code river between 1930 and 1994, on 8 January, 1969. Its deposits, which covered an area of 51 ha, were drawn a few month after the event on a 1/10,000 scale topographic map (Siswowidjojo, 1971). The second stage of the study consisted of determining the conditions for computer simulation in measuring the channels geometry and assessing hydraulic conditions for ooding or lahar overow occurrence. To measure the crosssections of the Boyong-Code system, we used a set of 55 topographic maps at 1/2,000 scale (1 m interval contour), drawn by the Mt Merapi Project in 1984. Field checking conrmed the assumption that no signicant morphological changes occurred for the last 10 years in the river bed. Therefore, 282 proles were drawn along this river between 457 m and 36 m elevation, including several in Yogyakarta city. For each cross-section, we computed its elevation, distance from crater and from the previous section, and mean gradient. Then, we assumed 5 m/s mean velocity as a rule, based on visual observations of lahar, during the 1994-1995 rainy season and also on past recorded data from the slopes of Merapi volcano. However, we weighted this mean velocity, using four parameters: Mannings coefcient (used only for ood hazard), Froude number, degree of meandering and Sabo dams. For each coefcient, we increased or reduced the assumed velocity by 1 or 2 m/s (Table 2). The inital assumed velocity has been reduced under conditions: high roughness coefcient n > 1.5, weak gravitational effects F < 1 (ow in a subcritical state), and severe degree of meandering (ratio of the meander length to the straight length of the channel greater than 1.5) as dened by Chow (1959). Sabo dams, when already lled by lahar deposits (typically 105 m3 of sediment), also reduce lahar and streamow velocity when the height of the fall is greater than 2 m, corresponding to the actual state of former dams built before the 1980s. The third stage was the calculation of maximum ow discharge before owing over the banks in a particular section,

as the product of the weighted velocity and the cross-section area. The capacity of each section to pass the total ow volume was computed to determine the location of probable overow points for a given discharge. No hydraulical model for lahar is available for Merapi, because (1) lahars are too unsteady and transient, due to sediment concentration variations during the ows (Lavigne, 1998) and (2) there is no direct correlation between hourly rainfall intensity, a parameter which is often used for ood simulation, and lahar discharge at Merapi (Lavigne et al., 2000b). Thus, discharge values used for lahar ow and ood simulation is based on hydrological scenarios: four discharge categories corresponding to four lahar-prone areas (area 1 = 200 m3 /s, area 2 = 200300 m3 /s, area 3 = 300500 m3 /s, area 4 = 500700 m3 /s) help to delineate the micro-zonation. The last stage of the method was to carry out a detailed geomorphological study of each cross-section, so as (1) to assess possible areas of material deposition during the lahar ow and possibility of riverbed rising, and (2) to map the ow course in case of overow. Overow discharge between two sections gives the estimated scale of the endangered area. Vulnerability assessment within hazardous areas Social lives, economic estates and activities which are in jeopardy in Yogyakarta city were assessed, using a set of SPOT orthoimage (1987) at 1/2,000 scale and eld enquiries (Figure 5) in 30 suburbs along the Code river. Survey of the elements at risk, including people, housing, public buildings (e.g., mosques, schools), infrastructures and tilled land (Table 3), gave an estimation of the approximate value of likely loss for each scenario. However, indirect loss induced by the disruption of economic activities or cost of reconstruction was not assessed. Additional survey information included technical or functional factors which render people more or less vulnera-

179
Table 2. Parameters and weighting procedure for hydraulical modelling of ood and lahar hazard. Assumed velocity (m/s) 5 Level-headedness value of velocity (m/s) +2 +1 0 1 2 Mannings coefcienta (n) < 0.5 0.51 11.5 1,52 >2 Froude numberb (F) >2 1,52 11.5 0.51 < 0.5 Degree of meandering Brake slope due to a Sabo dam (m) <2 m 24 m >4m

straight sinuosity meandering

a Mannings n or roughness coefcient is a function of the mean velocity V, the riverbed gradient (S) and the hydraulic radius R, which characterize the channel morphology (R = A/P where A is the cross-section area and P is the wetted perimeter). b Froude number correlates the mean velocity (V) with the hydraulic depth (D) and the gravity acceleration g.

Figure 5. Flowchart of vulnerability assessment study within lahar-related hazard zones.

Figure 6. Aerial photograph of the Code river in Yogyakarta city. Settlements in the central suburbs (in the foreground) cover 60% of the area and the population density is about 8,000/km2 (Photo courtesy: JICA).

180

Figure 7. Orthoimage (A) and sketch map (B) of the Suryatmajan suburb in Yogyakarta city, showing the comprehensive hazard microzonation for lahar and ood, evacuation roads and refuges buildings.

181
Table 3. Vulnerability assessment along the Code river, including Yogyakarta city Level of hazard Lahar maximum discharge (m3 /s) Area (ha) Threatened villages PHYSICAL VULNERABILITY OF PEOPLE TECHNICAL VULNERABILITY 1 < 200 7 4 2 200300 38 12 3 300500 144 23 4 500700 674 30 12,828 10.7 5685 3110 55 40 3205 27 23 19 65 4 59 23 28 87 0.5 87.5 52

Population 1995 (people) Growth rate 19901995 (%) Density (people/km2 )a Houses stone wood bamboo Total Schools Mosques Prayer houses stores market warehouses asphalt roads bridges riceelds dry elds Total

Public buildings

ECONOMIC VULNERABILITY

Infrastructure equipment

Tilled land (ha)

Approximate value of likely lossb (US $ millions)

a Population density of the whole threatened villages, not especially within the lahar-prone areas b Based on the average value per unit of each element at risk

ble, e.g., construction quality of houses, local disaster relief organizations, and specic countermeasures for civil defense (observation posts, evacuation roads, hospitals, and rst aid stations).

Results Combined geomorphological investigation and lahar ow simulation appear to be a good way to accurately delineate hazardous zones, and to produce a detailed hazard map at 1/2,000 in highly populated areas as Yogyakarta city. Along the Code river, 144 ha are prone to lahar or ood hazard within area 3 (300500 m3 /s), and 674 ha are threatened within area 4 (500700 m3 /s). About 13,000 people live at risk along the river, where population density exceeds 5,600/km2. Population growth is 2% a year, partly due to urban migration from the Merapi countryside. The approximate value of likely loss for the upper level of hazard is 52 106 US $, mainly due to the high density of houses (Table 3). The rst overow can occur in the southern suburbs of Yogyakarta at 90 m elevation. In this area, about 20% of the land has been built upon. Further upstream, where the Code river is 15 m deep, lahar simulation did not reveal any

overow point. However, more than 60% of the lahar and ooding prone areas have been built upon (Figure 6). Three types of suburbs were identied, based on four parameters: level of hazard, population density, properties at risk, countermeasures for civil defense: (1) Suburbs at high risk, located in the center of the city, are threatened by small-scale oods or lahars (200300 m3 /s), and are very vulnerable. Population density is very high (43,000/km2 at Prawirodirjan; 15,000/km2 at Ngupasan) and population growth ranged between 2 and 3% per year from 1990 to 1995. In these suburbs, countermeasures for civil defense are absent or limited. (2) Suburbs at medium risk, such as Gowongan or Suryatmajan, in the center of the city also, are as densely populated as in the previous case (23,000/km2 and 16,000/km2, respectively). However, these areas are prone to bigger lahars and some countermeasures exist to reduce the vulnerability of the people: a warning system is based upon 4 or 5 observation posts per suburb, and shelter and evacuation roads are well known by the residents (Figure 7). (3) Risk is low in the northern suburbs, such as Cokrodiningratan, Terban or Kota Baru, where hazardous areas are restricted to a few meters from the river. Population density is less (9,000/km2) and the warning system as efcient as in the previous cases. The southern suburbs

182 (e.g., Keparakan, Wirogunan) are also at low risk, because the population density is much less than further upstream. comprehensive hazard and risk maps at 1/2000 scale, which are available at the Merapi Volcano Observatory, can be used by civil authorities for emergency planning and future urban planning.

Discussion An accurate method to assess lahar and ood hazard and risk within urban area is micro-zonation (Thouret and Laforge, 1994), based on morphometric investigations and scenarios of discharge. Construction of a range of scenarios is more accurate than hydraulical modelling because of the great variations of some parameters during the lahar ows (e.g., sediment concentration). A great advantage of the micro-zonation method is that it provides detailed hazard maps, which can be directly used by scientists and decision makers (local and regional authorities). The maps are also clearly understandable by the public, because the 1/2,000 scale allows people to see their own houses and shuts, and thereby increases their risk perception. The micro-zonation method have several limits. (1) The scenarios were based on the available database for the Code river, which provides data only on small-scale lahar events (Q < 700 m3 /s). However, large-scale events (>2,000 m3 /s), have already occurred in some neighborough valleys (e.g., Krasak river en 1976, Putih river in 1985). (2) The ow simulations we used were based on assumptions open to criticism, e.g., assuming initial ow velocity as constant before the weighting procedure. (3) Risk appraisal is incomplete, because it does not include social and sociocultural factors of vulnerabiliy: e.g., social origin and schooling level of the residents and their knowledge and consciousness of the risk. Therefore, peoples behaviour before, during and after an emergency is still unforeseeable. Acknowledgements I am indebted to the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the French Embassy in Jakarta for nancial support. I am also grateful for the cooperation and help extended to us by VSI and MVO, and particularly K. Sukhyar, Mas Atje Purbawinata and R. Bacharudin. I also thank the staff of Sabo Technical Center (STC) for their help and kindness. The advice and help of J.-C. Thouret, A. Gupta, and J.-P. Bravard are acknowledged.

References
Beverage J.P. and Culbertson J.K., 1964: Hyperconcentrations of suspended sediment. Journal of the Hydraulics Division, America Society of Civil Engineering 90: HY6: 117126. Blaikie P., Cannon T., Davis I. and Wisner B., 1997: At Risk: Peoples Vulnerability and Disasters. Routledge, London. Bourdier J.-L. and Abdurachman E.K., 2000: Observations of the distribution and eld characteristics of the 22 November 1994 pyroclastic-ow deposits, Merapi volcano. In: Voight B. (ed.), Merapi Volcano, Java. Journal of Volcanological and Geothermal Research (in press). Chow V.T., 1959: Open-Channel Hydraulics. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. Drabek T.E., 1986: Human Response to Disaster: an Inventory of Sociological Findings. Springer-Verlag, New York. J.I.C.A, (Japan International Cooperation Agency), 1980: Master Plan for Land Conservation and Volcanic Debris Control in the Area of Mt Merapi. Jakarta. Jitousono T., Shimokawa E., Tsuchiya S., Haryanto and Djamal H., 1995: Debris ow following the 1984 eruption with pyroclastic ows in Merapi volcano, Indonesia. Proceedings Workshop on Erosion Control through Volcanic Hydrological Approach (WECVHA), January 1011. Sabo Technical Center, Yogyakarta: 131149. Lavigne F., 1998: Les lahars du volcan Merapi, Java Central, Indonsie: dclenchement, budget sdimentaire, dynamique et zonage des risques associs (Lahars of Merapi volcano: initiation, sediment budget, dynamics, and related risk zonation). Thse de Doctorat (PhD Diss.), Universit Blaise Pascal, Clermont-Ferrand. Lavigne F., Thouret J.C., Voight B., Suwa H. and Sumaryono A., 2000a: Lahar at Merapi volcano: an overview. In: Voight B. (ed.), Merapi Volcano, Central Java. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research (in press). Lavigne F., Thouret J.C., Suwa H., Voight B., Young K., Lahusen R., Marso J., Sumaryono A., Dejean M., Sayudi D.S. et Moch, 2000b: Instrumental lahar monitoring at Merapi volcano, Central Java, Indonesia. In: Voight B. (ed.), Merapi Volcano, Central Java. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research (in press). Maruyama Y., Ikeda K., Higurashi M. and Kitani Y., 1980: Applied study of geomorphological land classication on debris control planning in the area of Mt Merapi in central Java, Indonesia. Second poster session, 141, 10th International Conference of the International Cooperation Agency, Tokyo. Nossin J.J. and R.S. Javelosa, 1996: Geomorphic Risk Zonation related to June 1991 eruptions of Mt Pinatubo, Luzon, Philippines. In: O. Slaymaker (ed.), Geomorphic Hazards. J. Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 6995. Pardyanto L., Reksowigoro L.D., Mitromartono F.X.S., Hardjowarsito S. and Kusumadinata, 1978 (reed. 1982): Volcanic Hazard Map, Merapi Volcano, Central Java (1/100,000). Geological Survey of Indonesia, Bandung, II, p. 14.

Conclusion A large number of big cities are growing around active volcanoes resulting in large populations being exposed to volcanic hazards. Located 25 km south of Mount Merapi, one of the most active volcanoes of the world, Yogyakarta city (> 500,000 people) is one such centre at risk. Four factors indicate progressively increasing risk for this city. (1) The summit dome of Merapi has continuously grown since 1984 to a volume estimated at 11 106 m3 (VSI, 1995). (2) Southwest- and northeast-trending fractures render the upper south ank potentially unstable, which could result in debris avalanche toward the Boyong river. (3) Pyroclastic ow deposits emplaced during and after the 1994 dome-collapse provides large source material for lahars, which are actually owing towards the Boyong/Code river. (4) The growth rate of the population at risk in Yogyakarta is as much as 2% per year, and properties likely to be damaged are also increasing in acreage. Therefore, we undertook a micro-zonation for lahar and ood hazards, coupled with a vulnerability assessment within the hazardous areas. This study has shown that about 13,000 people live at risk in Yogyakarta, and that the approximate value of likely loss is US $ 52 million. The

183
Sabari Yunus H., 1991: The evolving urban planning. The case of the city of Yogyakarta. The Indonesian Journal of Geography, 21 (61): 114. Shimokawa E., Jitousono T., Tsuchiya S., Djamal H. and Haryanto 1995. Sediment yield from the 1984 pyroclastic ow deposits covered hillslopes in Merapi volcano, Indonesia. Proceedings Workshop on Erosion Control through Volcanic Hydrological Approach (WECVHA), January 1011, Sabo Tecnical Center, Yogyakarta, pp. 150162. Siswowidjojo S., 1971: Laporan Letusan G. Merapi 78 Januari 1969. Dinas Volkanologi, Seksi Pengawasan Gunungapi, Bandung. Slaymaker O., 1996: Introduction to geomorphic hazards. In: Slaymaker O. (ed.), Geomorphic Hazards. Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 17. Smith K., 1992: Environmental Hazards: Assessing Risk and Reducing Disaster. Routledge, London. Smith G.A., and Fritz W.J., 1989: Penrose Conference report: Volcanic inuences on terrestrial sedimentation. Geology 17: 376. Thouret J.-C. and DErcole R., 1996: Vulnrabilit et risques naturels en milieu urbain: effets, facteurs et rponses sociales. Cahiers des Sciences Humaines 32 (2): 407422. Thouret J.-C and Laforge C., 1994: Hazard appraisal and hazard-zone mapping of ooding and debris owage in the Rio Combeima valley and Ibagu city, Tolima department, Colombia. Geojournal 34 (4): 407413. Thouret J.-C., Lavigne F., Kelfoun K. and Bronto S., 2000: Toward a revised hazard assessment at Merapi volcano, Central Java. In: Voight B. (ed.), Merapi Volcano, Central Java. Journal of Volcanological and Geothermal Research (in press). UNDRO (United Nation Disaster Relief Organization), 1979: Prvention et attnuation des catastrophes. Aspects conomiques, Vol. 7. UNDRO, Genve. VSI (Volcanological Survey of Indonesia), 1995: A guide Book for Merapi Volcano. Bandung. VSTC (Volcanic Sabo Technical Center), 1990: Supporting Report of Technical Development Activities. 6: Mudows Forecasting and Warning System, Yogyakarta.