The 3rd International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Disaster Mitigation 2016 (ICEEDM-III 2016)

Risk Management Model Housing Reconstruction Basing

The Community in The Aftermath of The Earthquake
Wendi Boya, Suripinb, M. Agung Wibowob *
a
Student Doctoral Program in Civil Engineering Diponegoro University in Semarang 50241, Indonesia
b
Teaching Staff Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Diponegoro Semarang 50241, Indonesia

Abstract
Earthquake has made thousands of families homeless, some are in camps while others live in houses of relatives, and have negative
impact on government activities, economic and social activities. In addition to destroying the infrastructure, earthquake also have
psichological negative impact for the community.
Housing sector in the event of 30 September 2009 Earthquake in West Sumatra suffered the largest losses compared with other
sectors, nearly Rp. 15,410,000,000,000, - (Fifteen Billion Four Hundred and Ten Billion Rupiah) or approximately 73.85%,
compared with other sectors, such as infrastructure, social, productive sector and cross-sector.
The reconstruction of housing become the backbone of community-based sustainable development. Through this approach, it is
hoped the community can realize the importance of constructing the building by using earthquake-resistant building structures.
The pre-construction stage of housing reconstruction after earthquake using community-based is risky in all stages, at the stage of
ideas, recruitment and training of facilitators, damage assessment of housing, identification and tenure verification, program
socialization, the establishment of community organizations, training of community/workers building as well as the stage of
designing and use of building materials in terms of threats (Hazard), Susceptibility (Vulnerability) in each of these stages. Inevitably,
pre-construction activities of community-based residential housing reconstruction can be classified as construction projects.
Based on the analysis of Likert Scale and Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), risk ranking of pre-construction phases of the
activities of community-based housing reconstruction is obtained. The results are as follows: Stage 8 Housing Design and Building
Materials has RPI (Risk Priority Index) = 0.983; Stage 7 Community / Labor Training with RPI = 0.755; ; Stage 5 Socialization
Program with RPI = 0.726; Stage 3 Housing Damage Assessment with RPI = 0.706; Stage 6 Establishment of Community
Organizations with RPI = 0.533; Phase 2 Recruitment and training of facilitators with RPI = 0.403; Stage 4 Benefits Identification
and Tenure with RPI = 0.3019 and Phase 1 The idea with RPI = 0.3015 . At each stage has its own RPI value and a different
magnitude.

Keywords: Community Based Reconstruction, Analytical Hierarcy Process (AHP), Risk Priority Index (RPI).

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +628126611701; Fax.: +6275171913.
E-mail address: wendiboy@upiyptk.ac.id, agungwibowo360@gmail.com
1. INTRODUCTION

Earthquake disaster events that shook the region of West Sumatra province and surrounding areas on September 30,
2009 at 17:16:09 pm. Based on information from the Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics (BMKG), the strength
of the earthquake is estimated at around 7.6 SR (SR 7.9 by the USGS) with the epicenter located at coordinates LS 0.84 -
99.65 BT at a depth of 71 km in the seabed and within 57 km directions Southwestern Pariaman, West Sumatra.
Intermittent 22 minutes later, at 17:38:52 pm there was an aftershock measuring 6.2 on the Richter scale. The epicenter
was located at coordinates LS 0.72 - 99.94 BT, at a depth of 110 km and is 22 km southwest of Pariaman, West Sumatra
(Konsultan Manajemen Provinsi, 2009).
Housing sector is based on Table 1, suffered the largest losses compared with other sectors, namely Rp.
15,410,000,000,000, - (Fifteen Billion Four Hundred Ten Billion Rupiah) or approximately 73.85%, compared with
other sectors, namely: Infrastructure, Social, Productive Sector and Cross-Sector.
Table 1. Distribution Damage Housing Sector (BNPB, 2009)
Pre-disaster condition
Number Heavy Medium Light
District / City Number
of Damage Damage Damage
of KK
Houses
Padang City 150.421 178.970 33.597 35.816 37.615
Pariaman City 15.154 17.124 6.514 3.960 2.931
Solok City 11.234 12.805 2 2 6
Padang Panjang City 9.177 10.941 17 164 413
Tanah Data District 82.717 89.400 28 115 105
Padang Pariaman
91.069 86.690 57.788 16.430 13.694
District
Kepulauan Mentawai
16.191 17.188 3 - 136
District
Agam District 97.907 112.029 11.796 3.797 4.353
Solok District 80.211 89.863 145 243 357
Pasaman District 53.925 59.454 197 13 931
Pasaman Barat District 75.580 78.236 3.240 3.046 2.862
Pesisir Selatan District 102.903 112.387 1.156 3.596 5.510
Summary 786.489 865.087 114.483 67.182 68.913

Housing Reconstruction activities are the most important activities in post-disaster reconstruction projects due to the
high level of demand due to the disaster. As a result, by providing high quality of the housing can satisfy the needs and
expectations of beneficiaries is the key factor (success) on the reconstruction program (Opyandri, 2013). It turns out in
practice, the whole recovery program can not be run as planned. This is indicated by the presence of the people who
occupy the posts evacuation because of rejection in the reconstruction and relocation of homes by local communities.
Several studies related to post-disaster reconstruction (Sagala et al., 2014 and Lutfiana. 2013) shows that to achieve
success in post-disaster recovery process, especially the reconstruction of housing, there are several factors that must be
met, such as:

 Public Participation (Aldrich (2010); Barakat (2003); Kweit and Kweit (2004); Olshansky et al. (2006); Paton,
and Johnston (2006), Phillips (2009); Yasui (2007)),
 Capability Stakeholder-related disasters (Garkovich (1989) in Yasui (2007); Barakat (2003); Aldrich (2010); Wu
& Lindell (2003); Olshansky et al., 2006; Phillips (2009); FEMA (2005)) ,
 Human Resources and Financial Aspects (Barakat (2003); Chang et al. (2010); Phillips (2009); Wu and Lindell
(2004))
  Clear System Implementation (Rahmanurrasjid (2008); Mintzberg (1979) in Suripto (2012); Phillips (2009)) and
 Sustainability Program (Barakat (2003), Rubin (1985); Wu and Lindell (2004)).
The reconstruction of community-based housing become the backbone of sustainable development (Steinberg, 2007
in Sagala et al., 2014). Through this approach, it is hoped the community can realize the importance of building the
building by using earthquake-resistant building structures.
Implementation of pre housing reconstruction after the disastrous earthquake in West Sumatra-based society stretcher
found to be a risk at each stage, both at the stage of ideas, recruitment and training of facilitators, damage assessment of
housing, identification and fereifikasi tenure, socialization program, the establishment of community organizations,
community training / construction workers as well as the stage of designing and use of building materials in terms of the
cost, quality, time and satisfaction (Ophyandry, 2013).
Post-disaster housing reconstruction in West Sumatra Earthquake done themselves among the affected communities,
governments, Non Governmental Organization (NGO) either from inside or from abroad. Housing reconstruction after
the disaster Earthquakes do with community based in West Sumatera based research (Ophyandri, 2013) have some risk
that a risk that a major impact on the development stage, namely the problem of rising prices of building materials, the
researchers propose a strategy in overcoming these problems one about supply building materials, control of prices of
building materials and the manufacture of material independently by the community.

1.4 Purpose and Objective

1.4.1 Research Aim

This study aimed to develop a model of pre-construction risk management in rebuilding / reconstruction of community-
based Housing Earthquake disaster in the coastal areas of West Sumatra - Indonesia.

1.4.2 Research Purposes

The purpose of this study is intended to:

1) Identify and evaluate the factors influencing risk and resources in the process of pre-post community-based housing
reconstruction Earthquake disaster in terms of both the threat (hazard), vulnerability.
2) Analyze the role of risk management in the process of construction in the pre-post community-based housing
reconstruction Earthquake disaster.
3) Modeling construction risk management in the process of pre-post community-based housing reconstruction
Earthquake disaster.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Understanding Disaster

Disaster is basically event or series of events that threaten and disrupt the lives and livelihood caused by both natural
factors and / or factors of non-natural or human factors that lead to the emergence of human lives, environmental
damage, loss of property, and the psychological impact (Article 1, point 1, UU No. 24 of 2007 on Disaster Management).

2.2 Disaster Management

The process of cross-sectoral integrated and sustainable in order to prevent and reduce the risk from disasters include
mitigation, awareness, disaster response and recovery efforts. In general, the risk can be formulated as follows (Figure 1
and Formula 1.):
 Fig 1. Crunch Model
(Center for Disaster Mitigation ITB, 2006)

The relationship between Risk, Hazard, Vulnerability and Capacity presented in the following formula (De Leon, 2006).

𝑉 (1)
𝑅 = 𝐻𝑥
𝐶
where :
R = Risk
H = Hazard )
V = Vulnerability
C = Capacity

Scale assessment of the likelihood of risk events are identified on the occurrence of problems in construction projects use
a scale of likelihood (frequency / probability) as in Table 2.

Table 2. Frequency Scale (Likelihood), (Goodfrey. (1996) in Saputra. (2005))

No. Frequency Rate Scale
1 Very Rarely 1
2 Rarely 2
3 Sometimes 3
4 Often 4
5 Very Often 5

While the scale of assessment of the magnitude of the effect of an event on the occurrence of problems in construction
projects using a scale of consequences (consequences) as shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Consequences Scale, (Goodfrey. (1996) in Saputra. (2005))

No. Frequency Rate Scale
1 Very small 1
2 Small 2
3 Moderate 3
4 Big 4
5 Very Big 5

Of the scores given by the respondents in each risk identification can be determined that the data mode as representing
the opinion of respondents to the identified risks. Referring to the scale of acceptance of risk (risk acceptability) by
Godfrey (1996) and Saputra (2005), taking into account the scale of consequences and likelihood scale as above, then
compiled a scale of risk acceptance as shown in Table 4 and Table 5 below:

Table 4. Risk Acceptance Scale (Goodfrey. (1996) in Saputra. (2005))

Risk Acceptance Acceptance Scale
Unacceptable X ≥ 12
Undesirable 5 ≤ X < 12
Acceptable 2≤X<5
Negligible X<2

Tabel 5. Risk Importance (Godfrey, 1996)

Frequent 5 25 20 15 10 5
Probable 4 20 16 12 8 4
Occasional 3 15 12 9 6 3
Remote 2 10 8 6 4 2
Improbable 1 5 4 3 2 1

= Unacceptable
=Undesirable
= Acceptable
= Negligible

Based on the acceptance of risk is then conducted an evaluation of the risks identified in the questionnaire that require
mitigation. The criteria for the risks that require mitigation actions are risks that are dominant, are all unacceptable risk
(unacceptable) and undesirable (not expected).
Each risk is rated on a probability to occur and impact on objectives if it occurs. The organization's risk threshold low,
medium or high are shown in the matrix and determine whether the risk is assessed as high risk, medium or low.

2.3 Risks In Post-Disaster Housing Reconstruction Project

A construction project has more risks and uncertainties than other industries such as manufacturing (Hlaing et al., 2008). Because
the post-disaster situation is more complex than a normal situation, the risk for projects post-disaster housing reconstruction is higher
than a construction project in a normal environment. Specific challenges in the post-disaster reconstruction is that it involves several
actors, does not have the local capacity, have limited funds, the high demand for accountability and the need for rapid reconstruction
(Kulatunga, 2011).
In dealing with risks, the construction industry has recognized that risk management is an important factor in achieving project
objectives (Kangari, 1995), minimizing losses and improving profitability (Akintoye and MacLeod, 1997). However, the application
of risk management is not yet a common practice in projects of post-disaster housing reconstruction (da Silva, 2010).
Post-disaster housing reconstruction in West Sumatra Earthquake done themselves among the affected communities, governments,
Non Governmental Organization (NGO) either from inside or from abroad. Housing reconstruction after the disaster Earthquakes do
with community based in West Sumatera based research (Ophyandri, 2013) have some risk that a risk that a major impact on the
development stage, namely the problem of rising prices of building materials, the researchers propose a strategy in overcoming these
problems one about supply building materials, control of prices of building materials and the manufacture of material independently
by the community.
Implementation of post-disaster housing reconstruction Earthquake in West Sumatra-based society (Ophyandri, 2013) there are
eight (8) stages in the risk of implementation, namely:
• Phase Ideas,
• Phase Recruitment and Training Facilitator,
• Damage judging Stage Housing,
 • Phase Identification and Ferifikasi Tenure,
• Phase Socialization Program,
• Establishment Phase Masyrarakat Organization,
• Stage Training Community / Construction Workers, and
• Stage as the design, use of Building Materials Housing affected communities

3. METHOD

3.1. Descriptive statistics

Descriptive statistics give a description of the subject of the study based on data from the study variables were not for
hypothesis testing:
 Presentation of frequencies and percentages
 Presentation of tables and figures
Presentation of the characteristics of data by statistical values (mean, median, mode, SD, variance, minimum, maximum,
range, number of samples)

3.1.1. T test (partial)

The t-test is a test to determine the significance of the influence of the independent variable (X) partially towards the
dependent variable (Y) using the formula:

ttest = (2)
Where:
r = corelation moment product
t = t test
n = sample

3.2. Forum Group Method (FGM)

Focus Group Method (FGM) was introduced by a sociologist, Merton, in 1956, FGM has long been one of the
qualitative research methods most widely adopted (Chan et al., 2012). FGM is an exploration technique that involves the
collection of data through dynamic discussions and inter-active group led by a moderator (the researcher). FGM consists
participant groups with 1 to 2 moderator, focus groups can have two (2), 3 (three), 4 (four) to 6 (six) participants (called
group mini), 7 (seven) to 10 (ten) participants (called a small group), or 11 (eleven) to 20 (twenty) participants (called a
large group) (Cooper and Schindler 2006 in Chan et al., 2012).
However, a small group usually used for research that seeks to understand the deep feelings of the participants
(Millward 2006). Therefore, for this study, a mini to small group sizes optimally between 5 to 10 participants used, to
maintain a balance between depth and breadth in the discussion (Beyeaand Nicoll 2000; Krueger and Casey in 2000 in
Chan et al., 2012). Through group discussions, ideas, perceptions, feelings, and experiences of each participant on a
particular topic can be freely communicated, interacted and stimulated (Gaskell 2000) .Berdasarkan principles of
grounding, FGM for comparison between groups (Curry et al 2009 ;. Krueger and Casey 2000).

3.3. Analitycal Hierarchy Process (AHP)

The decision making process can involve problems of simple to complex. The complexity of decision-making can
occur as a result of the diversity of alternatives and the selection criteria, attributes or objectives of the problems faced by
decision makers (Saaty, 1988; Mollaghasemi & Edwards, 1997).
AHP is one method of multi-criteria decision making by means of articulation preferences will determine the initial
(prior articulation of preferences). Other decision-making model is a method of scoring (scoring methods), methods
based utility (utility-based methods), methods based hierarchy process (analytical hierarchy process), the method of
programming the final destination (goal programming) and outranking method (outranking methods). Utility-based
method consists of a method multiattribute multiattribute value functions and utility functions (Adi, 2010).
 Basically, AHP is a method used to solve complex problems and are not structured into their groups, to organize the
group into a hierarchy, and then enter a numerical value as a substitute for human perception in making relative
comparisons. With a synthesis of it will be determined which elements should have the highest priority (Cipta et al.,
2010).
The benefits of using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) were: integrating intuitive thinking, feeling and sensing in
analyzing the decision, taking into account the consistency of the assessments that have been done in comparing factors
exist, and facilitate measurement of the elements, allowing forward planning (Copyright et al., 2010).

3.3.1. Basic principles Analytical Hierarchy Process

According to Saaty (1993) in the Notices et al. (2010) the basic principles in the drafting process in the AHP analytic
hierarchy models, include:
• Problem Decomposition (Hierarchy Problem Formulation)
In the preparation of this hierarchy is necessary to breakdown or breakdown of the whole problem into several
elements / components are then formed from the component hierarchy. Solving these elements made up of these
elements can no longer be broken down in order to get some level of a problem. Preparation of the hierarchy is an
important step in the analysis model hierarchy. The steps of the preparation of the hierarchy begins with the
identification of the overall objectives and sub-objectives, look for the criteria to obtain sub-objectives of the overall
objectives, preparing sub-criteria of each criterion, where each criteria and sub-criteria must be specific and indicate the
level of the value of the parameter or the intensity of verbal, determine the actors involved, the policy of the perpetrator,
and the determination of alternatives as the output destination to be determined priorities.
• Comparative Judgement (Pairwise Comparison Ratings)
This principle is done by making a penny-pairwise comparison judgments about the relative importance of the two
elements at a certain hierarchical level in relation to the above and provides a numerical weight based on the comparison.
The results of this study are presented in a matrix called a pairwise comparison.
• Synthesis of Priority (Prioritizing)
The synthesis is the stage to get the weights for each element of the hierarchy and alternative elements. Because the
pairwise comparison matrix contained in each level to get a global priority, then the synthesis must be carried out on
each local priority. Procedures for implementing the different synthesis to form hierarchies. While sequencing the
elements according to the relative importance through the synthesis procedure is called priority setting.
• Logical consistensy (Logical Consistency)
Consistency means two meanings or similar object. Consistency of data obtained from the consistency ratio (CR),
which is the quotient between consistency index (CI) and the random index (RI).

3.3.2. Pairwise Comparison Scale AHP

Determination of quantitative scale according to Saaty (1993) was used to assess the interest rate comparison
of an element of the other elements can be seen in Table 6, as follows:

Tabel. 6. Pairwise Comparison (Satty, 1993)

The intensity of
Interests Information
Both elements are equally
1 important
Elements that one a little bit more
3 important than other elements
Elements which one is more
5 important than other elements
One element is clearly more
important than the absolute other
7 elements
9 One element is absolutely
Explanation
Two elements that have an enormous
influence on the destination
Experience and judgment slightly favor
one element over another element
Experience and very strong ratings
meyokong one other element
One strong element supporting the
elements than other elements
Evidence supporting one element against
 important than other elements another element has the highest possible
level of confirmation strengthens
Values between two values This value is given when two
2, 4, 6, 8 adjacent consideration compromise between the two options
If the activities he gained one point compared with the activity j j have the
reverse opposite values compared with the value of i

3.3.3. AHP Calculation

Saaty (1993) explains that the elements on each line of a square matrix is the result of pairwise comparisons. Each
eigenvector matrix of pairwise comparison searched her for medapat local priority. Scale pairwise comparisons are based
on the fundamental values of AHP with a weighting of 1 (one) for each important, up to nine (9) to very important.
Based on the pairwise comparison matrix arrangement produced a number of priorities, which is the relative influence of
a number of elements in the elements in the level above it.
Deviations of consistency is expressed in consistency index obtained from the formula:
maks  n
CI 
n 1 (3)
Description: λmaks = maximum eigenvalue; n = size matrix Consistency Index (CI), random matrix with a scale of 1 to 9
studies, and its opposite as Random Index (RI) in Table 2.15. Based on the calculation Saaty with 500 samples, if the
numerical judgments taken at random from a scale of 1/9, 1/8, ..., 1, 2, ..., 9 will be obtained an average consistency to
the matrix of varying size.

Tabel 7. Random Index Values (Satty, 1993)

Matrix size 1,2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Random Index 0,0 0,58 0,9 1,12 1,24 1,32 1,41 1,45 1,49

 max  N
C.R. = (4)
( N  1)( R.I .)

Comparison between CI and RI for a matrix is defined as the Consistency Ratio (CR). For AHP model comparison
matrix can be accepted if the consistency to value ratio of no more than 0.1 or equal to 0.1.
The processes AHP, as follows:
1. Define the problem and determine the desired solution.
2. Make a hierarchical structure that begins followed by a general purpose criteria and possible alternatives at the
level of the criteria
3. Make a pairwise comparison matrix that illustrates the relative contribution or influence of each element of the
criteria yangsetingkat on it.
4. Perform pairwise comparisons in order to obtain a judgment (decision) of n x ((n-1) / 2) bh, where n is the number
of elements being compared.
5. Calculate eigenvalues and tested for consistency if not inconsistent then the data retrieval repeated.
6. Repeating steps 3,4 and 5 for each level of the hierarchy.
7. Calculate the eigen vector of each pairwise comparison matrices.
8. Check the consistency of the hierarchy. If the value is more than 10 percent, the judgment should be corrected data
assessment

3.3.4. Matematical Models of Risk Priority Index

The mathematical model is a mathematical persamaam system used to settle the problem, so the solution is simple.
Citing the opinion Brodjonegoro (1991) of the weighting of the criteria of total respondents above average as calculated
risk priority ratanya then calculated with the following formula:
RPI = A (a1 x Weight a1 + …….+ a6 x Weight a6 + ……+ D(d1 x Weight d1 +… + d5 x Weight d5) (5)
where :
RPI= Risk Priority Index
A s/d D = Alternatif level Weight 2 (based on the analysis of respondents)
a1, a2, , ….d4, d5 = Weight Alternatif level 3 (based on the analysis of respondents)
Weight a1, Weight a2, …., Weight d5 = Weight Alternatif level 3 (based on the analysis of data)

3.3.5. Profit of AHP

AHP has many advantages in explaining the decision-making process, as it can be depicted graphically, making it
easily understood by all parties involved in the decision making. With the AHP, the complex decision process can be
broken down into smaller decisions that can be handled with ease.
In addition, the AHP also test the consistency of assessment, in case of deviation is too far from the value of perfect
consistency, it shows that the assessment needs to be repaired, or hierarchy must be restructured (Marimin, 2004).

4. RESULTS

Based on the calculation of average, test the validity and reliability and statistical t test results obtained in Table 8,
Table 9 and Table 10, as follows:
Table 8. The t-test results of each stage Risks
Test Value = 0
One-Sample Statistics 95% Confidence
No. Interval of the
Difference
Std. Sig. (2-
Information Mean Deviation T tailed) Lower Upper
1 R1.1. The capacity of the Central Government 4,7536 1,15441 44,158 ,000 4,5403 4,9668
2 R1.2. The capacity of local government 5,1610 1,05288 52,566 ,000 4,9665 5,3555
3 R1.3. Government Support 5,2164 1,06052 52,748 ,000 5,0205 5,4123
4 R1.4. Implementing Knowledge Reconstruction 4,7389 1,23092 41,285 ,000 4,5115 4,9663
5 R1.5. Stage Funding Ideas 5,3081 1,00959 56,382 ,000 5,1216 5,4946
6 R1.6. The role of community leaders 4,6963 1,13844 44,238 ,000 4,4860 4,9067
7 R1.7. Coordination and Communication Society 5,1200 ,97408 56,367 ,000 4,9401 5,2999
8 R1.8. Women's participation 4,8011 1,09416 47,056 ,000 4,5990 5,0033
9 R1.9. Society participation 4,2898 1,20454 38,192 ,000 4,0673 4,5123
10 R1.10. reconstruction Policy 4,6110 1,22421 40,391 ,000 4,3848 4,8371
11 R1.11. Knowledge-Based Society 4,3471 1,20343 38,737 ,000 4,1248 4,5694
12 R1.12. Reconstruction organization 4,5163 1,29696 37,343 ,000 4,2768 4,7559
13 R1.13. Building Code 4,3285 1,16643 39,795 ,000 4,1130 4,5440
14 R1.14. Program management 4,4149 1,21927 38,830 ,000 4,1896 4,6401
15 R1.15. Idea Stage Schedule 4,4933 1,39752 34,479 ,000 4,2351 4,7515
4,6981 1,23996 40,631 ,000 4,4690 4,9271
16 R2.1. Disadvantages coach facilitators from government
17 R2.2. Candidates shortage facilitator Government 4,3373 1,22296 38,033 ,000 4,1114 4,5632
18 R2.3. experience facilitator 4,5913 1,36100 36,176 ,000 4,3399 4,8427
19 R2.4. facilitator conditions 4,4750 1,30398 36,802 ,000 4,2342 4,7159
20 R2.5. Funding shortages Recruitment Facilitator 4,3559 1,15291 40,516 ,000 4,1429 4,5689
21 R2.6. Involvement of Community Leaders 4,5939 1,25003 39,410 ,000 4,3630 4,8248
22 R2.7. Women's participation 4,7152 1,16806 43,290 ,000 4,4994 4,9310
R2.8. Participation of vulnerable groups, marginalized or 5,2536 ,99603 56,563 ,000 5,0696 5,4376
23 minority
24 R2.9. Facilitator Recruitment System 4,6077 1,15035 42,954 ,000 4,3952 4,8202
25 R2.10. Facilitator Recruitment Schedule 4,3156 1,27502 36,297 ,000 4,0800 4,5511
26 R2.11. Material Recruitment Program Facilitator 4,2683 1,33703 34,235 ,000 4,0214 4,5153
R3.1. Pemanatauan appraisal of the weak by the 4,6415 1,08235 45,987 ,000 4,4415 4,8414
27 Government
R3.2. Pressure from local officials in Damage 5,1220 1,05652 51,989 ,000 4,9268 5,3172
28 Assessment
29 R3.3. Number Surveyor / Facilitator Damage Appraisers 4,6271 1,26594 39,197 ,000 4,3933 4,8610
30 R3.4. Experience Surveyor / Facilitator 4,4190 1,40970 33,616 ,000 4,1585 4,6794
31 R3.5. Funds Limited Damage Assessment 4,5336 1,31518 36,966 ,000 4,2906 4,7765
32 R3.6. The involvement of the whole society 5,2792 1,05606 53,608 ,000 5,0841 5,4743
33 R3.7. Coordination 4,5108 1,22316 39,548 ,000 4,2848 4,7367
34 R3.8. Damage Assessment Method 5,1758 1,05423 52,649 ,000 4,9811 5,3706
35 R3.9. Data Base Housing 5,1116 1,11992 48,946 ,000 4,9047 5,3184
R3.10. Access Transport in residential damage 5,1250 1,13842 48,277 ,000 4,9147 5,3353
36 assessment
37 R4.1. Pemanatauan assessment by the Government 4,7983 1,21921 42,204 ,000 4,5730 5,0235
38 R4.2. Number Surveyor / Facilitator 4,5235 1,32243 36,682 ,000 4,2792 4,7678
4,5297 1,36291 35,641 ,000 4,2780 4,7815
39 R4.3. Experience Surveyor / facilitator in identifying
40 R4.4 Limited funding for identification 4,3364 1,15969 40,100 ,000 4,1222 4,5507
41 R4.5. Public awareness of the IMB Management 4,4210 1,23849 38,280 ,000 4,1922 4,6497
42 R4.6. Community involvement in the identification 4,5415 1,18969 40,937 ,000 4,3217 4,7612
43 R4.7. Identification Validation land ownership 5,0773 1,08587 50,142 ,000 4,8767 5,2779
44 R4.8. Lack of Data Base Beneficiaries 4,6655 1,31788 37,964 ,000 4,4220 4,9089
R4.9. Access Transport in the identification and land 5,1674 1,11627 49,642 ,000 4,9612 5,3736
45 ownership
46 R4.10. Land ownership 4,8860 1,31031 39,988 ,000 4,6439 5,1281
47 R5.1. Local Government Support socialization phase 4,5365 1,38882 35,029 ,000 4,2800 4,7931
48 R5.2. Fasislitator shortage socialization stage 4,3882 1,29249 36,409 ,000 4,1494 4,6269
49 R5.3. Facilitator experiences in socialization 4,3138 1,42423 32,481 ,000 4,0507 4,5769
50 R5.4. Facilitator less flexibility 4,4092 1,12718 41,948 ,000 4,2010 4,6174
51 R5.5. Lack of socialization Fund 4,4812 1,27138 37,798 ,000 4,2464 4,7161
52 R5.6. resistance Community 4,5173 1,26700 38,234 ,000 4,2833 4,7514
53 R5.7. Meeting / socializing in the Community 4,4795 1,17213 40,983 ,000 4,2630 4,6960
54 R5.8. donor system 4,7470 1,26248 40,322 ,000 4,5137 4,9802
55 R5.9. Socialization Schedule 5,0696 1,10123 49,368 ,000 4,8661 5,2730
R6.1. Assertiveness Local Government / Centre in the 4,3116 1,27872 36,158 ,000 4,0753 4,5478
56 establishment of CSOs
5,0437 1,24427 43,469 ,000 4,8138 5,2735
57 R6.2. Facilitator experience in the formation of CBOs
58 R6.3. Network Facilitator less 4,9256 1,39389 37,895 ,000 4,6681 5,1831
4,9030 1,46872 35,799 ,000 4,6317 5,1744
59 R6.4. Lack of financial support in the formation of CBOs
 60 R6.5. resistance Community 4,8290 1,33696 38,733 ,000 4,5820 5,0759
61 R6.6. Involvement of Community Leaders 4,8690 1,49855 34,843 ,000 4,5922 5,1459
62 R6.7. Lack of Community Involvement 4,8583 1,47941 35,217 ,000 4,5851 5,1316
R6.8. Implementation System Establishment of 4,8698 1,52511 34,242 ,000 4,5881 5,1516
63 organizations that are not clear
4,6781 1,39198 36,040 ,000 4,4209 4,9352
64 R6.9. Contracts / consensus with the Community unclear
65 R6.10. Formation schedule Organizations 4,9632 1,34007 39,718 ,000 4,7157 5,2108
4,9105 1,42841 36,866 ,000 4,6467 5,1744
66 R7.1. Government support for community training
67 R7.2. Total facilitator 4,9363 1,25263 42,259 ,000 4,7049 5,1677
68 R7.3. number of Workers 5,0413 1,10898 48,749 ,000 4,8364 5,2462
69 R7.4. Less funds Training 4,7929 1,28912 39,871 ,000 4,5547 5,0310
70 R7.5. Role of Communities 4,6923 1,28111 39,278 ,000 4,4557 4,9290
71 R7.6. Lack of community involvement 4,4427 1,33632 35,652 ,000 4,1958 4,6896
72 R7.7. Training system 4,3509 1,24287 37,540 ,000 4,1213 4,5805
73 R7.8. intensive training 4,6920 1,29328 38,906 ,000 4,4531 4,9309
74 R7.9. Training materials 5,0595 1,10467 49,116 ,000 4,8554 5,2635
75 R8.1. Kurangannya Role of Local Government / Central 4,4103 1,30485 36,245 ,000 4,1692 4,6513
76 R8.2. experience facilitator 4,3539 1,27165 36,717 ,000 4,1190 4,5888
77 R8.3. knowledge facilitator 5,1494 1,16241 47,506 ,000 4,9347 5,3641
78 R8.4. limited Budget 4,6004 1,26689 38,941 ,000 4,3664 4,8345
79 R8.5. Variations desired filing 4,3949 1,29216 36,473 ,000 4,1562 4,6336
80 R8.6. Public Participation in Design 4,4045 1,19598 39,493 ,000 4,1836 4,6255
81 R8.7. Cultural considerations 4,5213 1,15067 42,137 ,000 4,3087 4,7339
82 R8.8. The number of documents 5,1237 1,07402 51,158 ,000 4,9253 5,3221
83 R8.9. Building Code that is less 4,7564 1,20827 42,215 ,000 4,5332 4,9796
84 R8.10. Schedule Design 4,8197 1,25279 41,257 ,000 4,5883 5,0512
85 R8.11. Material price increases 4,7820 1,44751 35,427 ,000 4,5146 5,0494
86 R8.12. Sources and Types of Materials 4,6277 1,16481 42,605 ,000 4,4125 4,8428
87 R8.13. Material replacement / alternative less 4,7260 1,23934 40,893 ,000 4,4971 4,9549
88 R8.14. The main material scarcity 4,7183 1,21834 41,530 ,000 4,4932 4,9433
5,0812 1,03873 52,458 ,000 4,8893 5,2731
89 R8.15. The lack of residual material utilization of rubble
90 R8.16. Prices of building materials 5,3400 1,10042 52,039 ,000 5,1367 5,5433

Table 9. Overall Risk Ranking process stages of pre-post-disaster housing reconstruction Earthquake in West Sumatra-
based Society
Test Value = 0
One-Sample Statistics 95% Confidence
Interval of the
Rank Difference

Std. Sig. (2-

The overall risk stages Mean Deviation t tailed) Lower Upper
1 R8.16. Prices of building materials 5,3400 1,10042 52,039 ,000 5,1367 5,5433
2 R1.5. Stage Funding Ideas 5,3081 1,00959 56,382 ,000 5,1216 5,4946
3 R3.6. The involvement of the whole society 5,2792 1,05606 53,608 ,000 5,0841 5,4743
R2.8. Participation of vulnerable groups, 5,2536 ,99603 56,563 ,000 5,0696 5,4376
4 marginalized or minority
5 R1.3. Government Support 5,2164 1,06052 52,748 ,000 5,0205 5,4123
6 R3.8. Damage Assessment Method 5,1758 1,05423 52,649 ,000 4,9811 5,3706
R4.9. Access Transport in the identification and 5,1674 1,11627 49,642 ,000 4,9612 5,3736
7 land ownership
8 R1.2. The capacity of local government 5,1610 1,05288 52,566 ,000 4,9665 5,3555
9 R8.3. knowledge facilitator 5,1494 1,16241 47,506 ,000 4,9347 5,3641
R3.10. Access Transport in residential damage 5,1250 1,13842 48,277 ,000 4,9147 5,3353
10 assessment
11 R8.8. The number of documents 5,1237 1,07402 51,158 ,000 4,9253 5,3221
R3.2. Pressure from local officials in Damage 5,1220 1,05652 51,989 ,000 4,9268 5,3172
12 Assessment
13 R1.7. Coordination and Communication Society 5,1200 ,97408 56,367 ,000 4,9401 5,2999
14 R3.9. Data Base Housing 5,1116 1,11992 48,946 ,000 4,9047 5,3184
R8.15. The lack of residual material utilization of 5,0812 1,03873 52,458 ,000 4,8893 5,2731
15 rubble
16 R4.7. Identification Validation land ownership 5,0773 1,08587 50,142 ,000 4,8767 5,2779
17 R5.9. Socialization Schedule 5,0696 1,10123 49,368 ,000 4,8661 5,2730
18 R7.9. Training materials 5,0595 1,10467 49,116 ,000 4,8554 5,2635
R6.2. Facilitator experience in the formation of 5,0437 1,24427 43,469 ,000 4,8138 5,2735
19 CBOs
20 R7.3. number of Workers 5,0413 1,10898 48,749 ,000 4,8364 5,2462
21 R6.10. Formation schedule Organizations 4,9632 1,34007 39,718 ,000 4,7157 5,2108
22 R7.2. Total facilitator 4,9363 1,25263 42,259 ,000 4,7049 5,1677
23 R6.3. Network Facilitator less 4,9256 1,39389 37,895 ,000 4,6681 5,1831
4,9105 1,42841 36,866 ,000 4,6467 5,1744
24 R7.1. Government support for community training
R6.4. Lack of financial support in the formation of 4,9030 1,46872 35,799 ,000 4,6317 5,1744
25 CBOs
26 R4.10. Land ownership 4,8860 1,31031 39,988 ,000 4,6439 5,1281
R6.8. Implementation System Establishment of 4,8698 1,52511 34,242 ,000 4,5881 5,1516
27 organizations that are not clear
28 R6.6. Involvement of Community Leaders 4,8690 1,49855 34,843 ,000 4,5922 5,1459
29 R6.7. Lack of Community Involvement 4,8583 1,47941 35,217 ,000 4,5851 5,1316
30 R6.5. resistance Community 4,8290 1,33696 38,733 ,000 4,5820 5,0759
31 R8.10. Schedule Design 4,8197 1,25279 41,257 ,000 4,5883 5,0512
32 R1.8. Women's participation 4,8011 1,09416 47,056 ,000 4,5990 5,0033
33 R4.1. Pemanatauan assessment by the Government 4,7983 1,21921 42,204 ,000 4,5730 5,0235
34 R7.4. Less funds Training 4,7929 1,28912 39,871 ,000 4,5547 5,0310
35 R8.11. Material price increases 4,7820 1,44751 35,427 ,000 4,5146 5,0494
36 R8.9. Building Code that is less 4,7564 1,20827 42,215 ,000 4,5332 4,9796
37 R1.1. The capacity of the Central Government 4,7536 1,15441 44,158 ,000 4,5403 4,9668
38 R5.8. donor system 4,7470 1,26248 40,322 ,000 4,5137 4,9802
39 R1.4. Implementing Knowledge Reconstruction 4,7389 1,23092 41,285 ,000 4,5115 4,9663
40 R8.13. Material replacement / alternative less 4,7260 1,23934 40,893 ,000 4,4971 4,9549
41 R8.14. The main material scarcity 4,7183 1,21834 41,530 ,000 4,4932 4,9433
42 R2.7. Women's participation 4,7152 1,16806 43,290 ,000 4,4994 4,9310
 R2.1. Disadvantages coach facilitators from 4,6981 1,23996 40,631 ,000 4,4690 4,9271
43 government
44 R1.6. The role of community leaders 4,6963 1,13844 44,238 ,000 4,4860 4,9067
45 R7.5. Role of Communities 4,6923 1,28111 39,278 ,000 4,4557 4,9290
46 R7.8. intensive training 4,6920 1,29328 38,906 ,000 4,4531 4,9309
R6.9. Contracts / consensus with the Community 4,6781 1,39198 36,040 ,000 4,4209 4,9352
47 unclear
48 R4.8. Lack of Data Base Beneficiaries 4,6655 1,31788 37,964 ,000 4,4220 4,9089
R3.1. Pemanatauan appraisal of the weak by the 4,6415 1,08235 45,987 ,000 4,4415 4,8414
49 Government
50 R8.12. Sources and Types of Materials 4,6277 1,16481 42,605 ,000 4,4125 4,8428
R3.3. Number Surveyor / Facilitator Damage 4,6271 1,26594 39,197 ,000 4,3933 4,8610
51 Appraisers
52 R1.10. reconstruction Policy 4,6110 1,22421 40,391 ,000 4,3848 4,8371
53 R2.9. Facilitator Recruitment System 4,6077 1,15035 42,954 ,000 4,3952 4,8202
54 R8.4. limited Budget 4,6004 1,26689 38,941 ,000 4,3664 4,8345
55 R2.6. Involvement of Community Leaders 4,5939 1,25003 39,410 ,000 4,3630 4,8248
56 R2.3. experience facilitator 4,5913 1,36100 36,176 ,000 4,3399 4,8427
57 R4.6. Community involvement in the identification 4,5415 1,18969 40,937 ,000 4,3217 4,7612
R5.1. Local Government Support socialization 4,5365 1,38882 35,029 ,000 4,2800 4,7931
58 phase
59 R3.5. Funds Limited Damage Assessment 4,5336 1,31518 36,966 ,000 4,2906 4,7765
R4.3. Experience Surveyor / facilitator in 4,5297 1,36291 35,641 ,000 4,2780 4,7815
60 identifying
61 R4.2. Number Surveyor / Facilitator 4,5235 1,32243 36,682 ,000 4,2792 4,7678
62 R8.7. Cultural considerations 4,5213 1,15067 42,137 ,000 4,3087 4,7339
63 R5.6. resistance Community 4,5173 1,26700 38,234 ,000 4,2833 4,7514
64 R1.12. Reconstruction organization 4,5163 1,29696 37,343 ,000 4,2768 4,7559
65 R3.7. Coordination 4,5108 1,22316 39,548 ,000 4,2848 4,7367
66 R1.15. Idea Stage Schedule 4,4933 1,39752 34,479 ,000 4,2351 4,7515
67 R5.5. Lack of socialization Fund 4,4812 1,27138 37,798 ,000 4,2464 4,7161
68 R5.7. Meeting / socializing in the Community 4,4795 1,17213 40,983 ,000 4,2630 4,6960
69 R2.4. facilitator conditions 4,4750 1,30398 36,802 ,000 4,2342 4,7159
70 R7.6. Lack of community involvement 4,4427 1,33632 35,652 ,000 4,1958 4,6896
71 R4.5. Public awareness of the IMB Management 4,4210 1,23849 38,280 ,000 4,1922 4,6497
72 R3.4. Experience Surveyor / Facilitator 4,4190 1,40970 33,616 ,000 4,1585 4,6794
73 R1.14. Program management 4,4149 1,21927 38,830 ,000 4,1896 4,6401
R8.1. Kurangannya Role of Local Government / 4,4103 1,30485 36,245 ,000 4,1692 4,6513
74 Central
75 R5.4. Facilitator less flexibility 4,4092 1,12718 41,948 ,000 4,2010 4,6174
76 R8.6. Public Participation in Design 4,4045 1,19598 39,493 ,000 4,1836 4,6255
77 R8.5. Variations desired filing 4,3949 1,29216 36,473 ,000 4,1562 4,6336
78 R5.2. Fasislitator shortage socialization stage 4,3882 1,29249 36,409 ,000 4,1494 4,6269
79 R2.5. Funding shortages Recruitment Facilitator 4,3559 1,15291 40,516 ,000 4,1429 4,5689
80 R8.2. experience facilitator 4,3539 1,27165 36,717 ,000 4,1190 4,5888
81 R7.7. Training system 4,3509 1,24287 37,540 ,000 4,1213 4,5805
82 R1.11. Knowledge-Based Society 4,3471 1,20343 38,737 ,000 4,1248 4,5694
83 R2.2. Candidates shortage facilitator Government 4,3373 1,22296 38,033 ,000 4,1114 4,5632
84 R4.4 Limited funding for identification 4,3364 1,15969 40,100 ,000 4,1222 4,5507
85 R1.13. Building Code 4,3285 1,16643 39,795 ,000 4,1130 4,5440
 86 R2.10. Facilitator Recruitment Schedule 4,3156 1,27502 36,297 ,000 4,0800 4,5511
87 R5.3. Facilitator experiences in socialization 4,3138 1,42423 32,481 ,000 4,0507 4,5769
R6.1. Assertiveness Local Government / Centre in 4,3116 1,27872 36,158 ,000 4,0753 4,5478
88 the establishment of CSOs
89 R1.9. Society participation 4,2898 1,20454 38,192 ,000 4,0673 4,5123
90 R2.11. Material Recruitment Program Facilitator 4,2683 1,33703 34,235 ,000 4,0214 4,5153

Table. 10. Ranking RPI Community-Based Housing Reconstruction in Post-Earthquake

Rank Stages p.AHP Risk RPI
1 Stage 8 Housing Design and Building Materials 0,21 4,681 0,983
2 Stage 7 Training Community / Labor 0,157 4,807 0,755
3 Stage 5 Socialization Program 0,16 4,535 0,726
4 Phase 3 Housing Damage Assessment 0,146 4,836 0,706
5 Stage 6 Establishment of Community Organizations 0,111 4,805 0,533
6 Phase 2 Recruitment and Training Facilitator 0,088 4,577 0,403
7 Stage 4 Benefits Identification and Land Ownership 0,065 4,645 0,3019
8 Phase 1 Ideas 0,065 4,639 0,3015
RPI = 4,709

Based on Table 8, Table 9 and Table 10, obtained the Risk Priority Index is highest to lowest :
1. Stage 8 (Housing Design and Building Materials) with a value of RPI = 0.983
2. Stage 7 Training Community / Labor with RPI value = 0.755
3. Stage 5 Socialization Program with RPI value = 0.726
4. Stage 3 Damage Assessment Housing with RPI value = 0.706
5. Stage 6 Establishment of Community Organizations with RPI value = 0.533
6. Phase 2 Recruitment and training of facilitators with RPI value = 0.403
7. Stage 4 Benefits Identification and Tenure with RPI value = 0.3019
8. Stage 1 The idea of the value of the RPI = 0.3015

5. CONCLUSION

RPI Values-Based Housing Reconstruction in Post-Earthquake Society in West Sumatra has a value of 4.709, the
popularity scale acceptance of risk (Goodfrey, 1996) then the risk is still acceptable with the provisions fixing the risks
involved in each activity item that has a value above 5 on the respective risk each of the stages.
There are 20 (two) twenty activities (Table. 9) which has a risk of unexpected (Undesirable), among others: R8.16.
Prices of building materials, R1.5. Funding Phase idea, R3.6. The involvement of the whole society, R2.8. Participation
of vulnerable groups, marginalized or minority, R1.3. Support the Government and others.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Authors say thanks to all those who helped me so can this research take place and produce an article that may be
useful for us together.

REFERENCES

[1] Adi Pratiwi, H. 2010, Ringkasan Disertasi Teknik Sipil UNDIP Semarang.
[2] BNPB (Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana). 2009.
[3] Center For Disaster Mitigation, ITB. 2006, Progress Report. 2006, Developing Community Based Risk
Reduction, Bandung.
[4] Chan, I. Y. S., Leung, M-Yung., and Yu, S. S. W. 2012, Managing the Stress of Hong Kong Expatriate
Construction Professionals in Mainland China: Focus Group Study Exploring Individual Coping Strategies and
 Organizational Support. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, © ASCE / October 2012, page :
1150 -1160.
[5] Chang, Y., Wilkinson, S., Seville, E., dan Potangaroa, R. 2010, Resourching for a resilent post-disaster
reconstrucyion environment. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in The Built Environment Vol 1 No.
,2010 pp 65-83 Ó Emeral Group Publishing Limited 1759-5908 DOI 10.1108/17595901011026481.
[6] Cipta, Mahendra, A. N., Wijaya, G. P., Hermawan., dan Wibowo, M. Agung. 2010 , Analisa studi penggunaan
AHP pada pengambilan keputusan pemilihan jenis sub struktur pada proyek konstruksi, Konferensi Nasional
Teknik Sipil 4 (KoNTekS 4) Sanur-Bali, 2-3 Juni 2010.
[7] Curry, L. A., Nembhard, I. M., and Bradley, E. H. (2009). “Qualitative and mixed methods provide unique
contributions to outcomes research.” Circ., 119(10), 1442–1452.
[8] Silva, J. (2010). Lessons from Aceh: key considerations in post-disaster reconstruction. Rugby: Practical Action
Publishing.
[9] De Leon J.C.V. 2006, Vulnerability: A conceptual and methodological review, United Nation University, UNU
EHS.
[10] Gaskell, G. (2000). “Individual and group interviewing.” Qualitative researching with text, image, and sound: A
practical handbook, M. W. Bauer and G. Gaskell, eds., Sage Publications, London, 38–56.
[11] Hlaing, N.N., Singh, D, Tiong, R.L.K. and Ehrlich, M. (2008). Perceptions of Singapore construction contractors
on construction risk identification. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 13(2), 85-95
[12] Kangari, R. 1995, ”Risk Management Perceptions and Trends of U.S. Construction.” Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management. ASCE.
[13] Konsultan Manajemen Propinsi, Sumatera Barat. 2009, Rencana Aksi, Rehap Rekons 2009-2011.
[14] Krueger, R. A., and Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research,3rd Ed.,SAGE
Publications,Thousand Oaks,CA.
[15] Kulatunga, U. (2011). Project Management of Disaster Reconstruction. In D. Amaratunga and R. Haigh (Eds),
Post-Disaster Reconstruction of the Built Environment: Rebuilding for Resilience (133-150). Chichester: Wiley-
Blackley
[16] Lutfiana, D. 2014, “Faktor-Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi Rekonstruksi Perumahan Pasca Bencana Gempa Bumi
Jawa Barat di Kecamatan Pandegelang”., Jurnal Perencanaan Wilayah dan Kota A SAPPK V1N2, 2014.
[17] Millward, L. J. (2006). Research methods in psychology, 3rd Ed., G. M. Breakwell, C. Fife-Schaw, S.
Hammond, and J. A. Smith, eds., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
[18] Mollaghasemi, M. and Pet-Edwards, J. 1997, Making Multi-Objective Decisions. California: IEEE Computer
Society Press.
[19] Ophiyandri,T., Amaratunga, D., Pathirage, C., and Keraminiyage, K. 2013, Critical success factors for
community-based post-disaster housing reconstruction projects in the pre-construction stage in Indonesia,
International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, Vol. 4 Iss: 2, pp.236 - 249.
[20] Rubin, C. B. 1985, The Community Recovery Process in The United States After a Major Natural Disaster.
International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 3(2): 9-28.
[21] Saaty, T. Lorie. 1993, Pengambilan Keputusan Bagi Para Pemimpin, Proses Hirarki Analitik untuk Pengambilan
Keputusan dalam Situasi yang Kompleks. Pustaka Binama Pressindo.
[22] Saaty, Thomas L. 1988, The Analytic Hierarchy Process., RWS Publications.
[23] Sagala, S. A., Lutfiana, D., dan Wimbardana, R. 2014, Manajemen Rekonstruksi Perumahan Pasca Bencana
Gempa Bumi Jawa Barat : Studi Kasus Kabupaten Bandung, Jawa Barat, Institut Teknologi Bandung.
[24] Saputra, I G. N. Oka. 2005. Manajemen Risiko pada Pelaksanaan Pembangunan Denpasar Sewerage
Development Project (DSDP) di Denpasar (tesis). Denpasar : Universitas Udayana.
[25] Undang-undang No. 24 Tahun 2007. 2007, Penanggulangan Bencana.