Professional Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226829108
CITATIONS
READS
21
151
1 author:
Franck Lavigne
Universit de Paris 1 Panthon-Sorbonne
174 PUBLICATIONS 1,811 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Franck Lavigne on 28 January 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
173
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 fluvio-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 flows). 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 flowing mixture of rock debris and water (other than normal streamflow)
from a volcano (Smith and Fritz, 1989). The flow behaviour
exhibited by lahars may be complex, and includes a debris
flow phase, where sediment concentration is in excess of
60% by volume. Additionally, there are also precursor and
waning stage hyperconcentrated-streamflow 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 specific 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 defined 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 defined 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
Yogyakarta city
Yogyakarta urban area is located on the highly populated,
(>1000/km2), fluvio-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 five 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 floods 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 flows, 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).
175
Figure 2. Settlement density of the Yogyakarta Urban Area (after Sabari Yunus, 1991, modified).
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
Valley
Casualties
Damages of Property
28 Dec. 1822a
25 Dec. 1832 a
Nov. 1846
5 Oct. 1888
12 Oct. 1920a
1920 Dec. 1930a
about 100
32
35
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
4 villages
?
50 ha TL
1 village
1 village
1 bridge, 70 ha ricefield
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
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
29
a Syn-eruptive lahar.
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
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 .
Methods
Combined geomorphological investigation, lahar flow simulation and enquiries were used to delineate areas at risk in
Yogyakarta.
Micro-zonation of lahar and flooding hazards
The mapping of potential disaster areas (Figure 4) was
carried out in four stages.
The first stage was to research past cases of sediment
movement, in order to assess the location, frequency and
scale of the past events. According to scientific reports and
178
179
Table 2. Parameters and weighting procedure for hydraulical modelling of flood and lahar hazard.
Assumed
velocity
(m/s)
Level-headedness
value of velocity
(m/s)
Mannings
coefficienta
(n)
Froude
numberb
(F)
Degree of
meandering
Brake slope
due to a Sabo dam
(m)
+2
+1
0
1
2
< 0.5
0.51
11.5
1,52
>2
>2
1,52
11.5
0.51
< 0.5
straight
sinuosity
meandering
<2 m
24 m
>4m
a Mannings n or roughness coefficient 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 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).
Figure 7. Orthoimage (A) and sketch map (B) of the Suryatmajan suburb in Yogyakarta city, showing the comprehensive hazard microzonation for lahar and flood, evacuation roads and refuges buildings.
180
181
Table 3. Vulnerability assessment along the Code river, including Yogyakarta city
Level of hazard
< 200
200300
300500
500700
Area (ha)
38
144
674
Threatened villages
12
23
30
PHYSICAL
VULNERABILITY
OF PEOPLE
12,828
10.7
5685
TECHNICAL
VULNERABILITY
Houses
stone
wood
bamboo
Total
3110
55
40
3205
Public buildings
Schools
Mosques
Prayer houses
27
23
19
Infrastructure
equipment
stores
market
warehouses
asphalt roads
bridges
65
4
59
23
28
ricefields
dry fields
Total
87
0.5
87.5
ECONOMIC
VULNERABILITY
52
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
Results
Combined geomorphological investigation and lahar flow
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 flood
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 first overflow 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
182
(e.g., Keparakan, Wirogunan) are also at low risk, because
the population density is much less than further upstream.
Discussion
An accurate method to assess lahar and flood 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 flows (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 flow simulations we used were based on assumptions
open to criticism, e.g., assuming initial flow 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.
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 flank potentially unstable, which
could result in debris avalanche toward the Boyong river.
(3) Pyroclastic flow deposits emplaced during and after the
1994 dome-collapse provides large source material for lahars, which are actually flowing 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 flood 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
Acknowledgements
I am indebted to the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
the French Embassy in Jakarta for financial 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 field characteristics of the 22 November 1994 pyroclastic-flow
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 flow following the 1984 eruption with pyroclastic flows 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 classification 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.
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 flow 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
influences 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 flooding and debris flowage 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: Mudflows Forecasting and Warning
System, Yogyakarta.