The 3rd International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Disaster Mitigation 2016

(ICEEDM-III 2016)

How Community Perception Influence the Earthquake Risk

Analysis in Bandung Barat District?
Aria Marianya*, Teti Armiati Argob, Roos Akbarc, Djoko Abi Surosod, Irwan Meilanoe,
Krishna S. Pribadif
a
PhD Candidate, Urban and Regional Planning ITB, Jl, Ganesa 10, Bandung 40132, Indonesia
b
Associate Proffesor, Urban and Regional Planning ITB, Jl, Ganesa 10, Bandung 40132, Indonesia
c
Proffesor, Urban and Regional Planning ITB, Jl, Ganesa 10, Bandung 40132, Indonesia
d
Associate Proffesor, Urban and Regional Planning ITB, Jl, Ganesa 10, Bandung 40132, Indonesia
e
Associate Proffesor, Research Center for Disaster Mitigation ITB, Jl, Ganesa 10, Bandung 40132, Indonesia
f
Proffesor, Research Center for Disaster Mitigation ITB, Jl, Ganesa 10, Bandung 40132, Indonesia

Abstract

Disaster risk analysis conducted by community is important to increase community awareness on disaster
risk at community level and they could accept the risk level in their area. Community perception will
influence the community to assess the disaster risk level in their area, and community experience on
disaster will form their perception. Community who has experience in disaster will use their experience
value to assess the risk level of certain disaster in their area. How about community who has no or less
experience in disaster, but they live in the area that is potential to certain hazard according to the scientist,
such as in Bandung Barat District that is exposed by Lembang Fault Earthquake? It is important to see the
community perception on the disaster to recognize how community could assess the risk they will face.
This paper is aimed at finding community perception in Bandung Barat District on earthquake disaster
and how it could influence the earthquake disaster risk analysis at community level. Qualitative approach
method with social constructivism paradigm is used in this research because researcher relies as much as
possible on community point of view regarding the certain situation, i.e. earthquake disaster risk in their
area. As a preliminary result, community knew that their area is exposed to earthquake hazard due to
Lembang Fault but they do not aware the risk they face. They are still relied on the experts or government
to assess the earthquake disaster risk they faced.

Keywords: Bandung Barat, Earthquake, Community Perception, Community Earthquake Risk Analysis,
Community Based Disaster Management
I. INTRODUCTION

Bandung Barat District (KBB), which is located in the northern part of the capital of West Java
Province, Indonesia, is one area that is prone to earthquake disaster. Almost the area of KBB is
exposed by earthquake (spatial plan of Bandung Barat District 2009-2029), especially earthquake
that caused by Lembang Fault. At least two damaged earthquake occurred in KBB, first, caused
by Java subduction in 2009 that caused 16 people injured (www.dibi.bnpb.go.id), and second, in
2011 that caused by Lembang fault that caused 103 houses damaged.

Many researchers have conducted earthquake-related research in this area. Study on earthquake
disaster risk, beside earthquake hazard, becomes one of important issues to acknowledge the
disaster risk situation in the area. Most of the study were using technocratic approach (such as
Damayanti and Sagala, 2013). Technocratic approach at macro and meso level is important for
policy maker to make a decision at national, provincial, and district level (Suroso, et.al, 2009) for
disaster mitigation.

At community level, technocratic approach is not enough. It is important to consider all aspects
both technical and non-technical aspects. As Cardona (2003) stated that assessing the risk has
been shifted from natural and applied science to social science, which human behavior and
perception is included in the calculation of disaster risk. The community involvement is believed
can consider the community dynamic and behavior. The absence of community involvement in
the technocratic approach makes researcher simplified the data and information and it causes the
community cannot accept what resulted by the researcher (Nelson, Ehrenfeucht, & Laska, 2007;
Arnoldi, 2009; Perhac-Jr., 1998). Therefore, many researchers are trying to involve the
community in their study since the beginning to ensure the study will accommodate the dynamic
of people and the result of the study can be benefited for community action (e.g. Healey, 2006;
Sandercock, 2003; Brooks, 2002; Paripurno, 2009; Wisner B., 2007; Norris, Stevens,
Pffefferbaum, Wyche, & Pfferbaum, 2007; Cadag & Gallard, 2012; Cronin, Gaylord, Charley,
Alloway, Wallez, & Esau, 2004). In disaster area, community-based disaster risk analysis has
been conducted as initiatl part of community-based disaster management and as a foundation for
determining mitigation efforts taken by the community (see Paripurno, 2009).

One of important parts in community involvement in disaster risk assessment is the perception of
community to the disaster risk situation in their area. Risk perception can be defined as people’s
subjective evaluation of the risk condition of an event (Slovic, 1987 in Xu, Zhang, Liu, and Xue,
2009). Therefore, this study is trying to capture how community perception on the disaster risk
situation in their area and how it can influence the disaster risk analysis at community level?

II. Disaster Risk Analysis and Community Perception

Disaster risk analysis is a part of disaster risk management and it is close related to disaster
management that could support sustainable development, especially in the disaster risk prone
country, such as Indonesia. Disaster risk can be defined as loses that caused by disaster, such as
victims, loses of health, livelihood, asset, and services that occurs in the future to certain
community (UNISDR, 2009). Disaster risk can be assessed and mapped based on knowledge on
certain hazard that threat one area and the condition of social, economical, physical development
in that area (UNISDR, 2009).

Disaster risk is influenced by hazard and vulnerability. Some experts separate vulnerability and
capacity (such as Davidson, 1997 and Wisner, 2007). Capacity is people capability to overcome
negative impact of disaster.

As stated above, risk perception is people’s subjective evaluation of the risk condition of an
event (Slovic, 1987 in Xu, Zhang, Liu, and Xue, 2009). People perception on risk is influenced
by experience, demographic characteristics, social, cultural, institutional environment (Xu,
Zhang, Liu, and Xue, 2009). Characteristic of disaster also influences the perception of people
toward risk. If the disaster is rare, unknown, unknown, uncontrollable, catastrophic, the risk are
often overrated and if the disaster is common, familiar, controllable and chronic, the risk is often
underrated (Slovic et al., 1979 in Xu, Zhang, Liu, and Xue, 2009).

III. METHODOLOGY

This study is a small part of research on community-based risk analysis. Qualitative approach,
especially social constructivism paradigm was used to gather information on perception to the
community in the area of Lembang Fault (Cresswell, 2009). Neuman (2006) stated that there are
some important things in qualitative approach, i.e.:
1. Construct the social and cultural reality
2. Focus on interactive and event process
3. The key is originality
4. Value is presented and described explicitly
5. Theory and data are integrated
6. There is situational limitation
7. Only few cases, subjects
8. Thematic analysis
9. Researcher is involved

The primary survey, semi-structured interview was conducted to community who live in the RT
01 and RT 02 RW 07, Cikahuripan Village, Bandung Barat District, which is prone to
earthquake disaster.

The questions include three parts, i.e. community’s perception on hazard that threat their area,
community’s perception on their existing condition that could affect the increasing or the
decreasing of the disaster risk, and community’s perception on collaboration with other
stakeholder to assess the disaster risk in their area.

The answer of the respondents is analyzed by using qualitative analysis, which key word is
considered to see the direction of community perception.

IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

The result of the study is divided into three parts of community’s perception. First, the
respondents’ perception on earthquake hazard that threat their area, second, respondents’
perception on vulnerability in their area toward earthquake hazard, and third, respondents’
perception on the possibility of their collaboration with other stakeholders to assess the
earthquake disaster in their area.

33% male and 67% female respondents (total respondents interviewed is 6) answer that they
have experienced in damaged earthquake once. But their house was not fully damaged, there was
only crack on the wall, even, some of their neighbors’ house was collapsed. Beside damaged
earthquake, they always feel shake for twice to three times a year. They know that their area is
prone to earthquake disaster. Because of their area is near to Tangkubang Parahu Volcano (17%
respondents) and because there is Lembang Fault near their area (83% respondents). They got
this information from other people informally and they assume when they saw the experts put the
tools to observe the fault movement in the settlement near their area. They never got trained
formally.

Different with perception on hazard, people’s perception on vulnerability is different. 17% of

respondents thought that their house is vulnerable toward earthquake because it was not built
properly for earthquake resistant house. There is no columns, beam, and foundation for their
house, even though they know it is important for earthquake resistant house. Meanwhile, the rest
of respondents (83%) stated that their house will be fine even if the earthquake hit the area. It
means that most of respondents still do not aware of the vulnerability they have toward
earthquake disaster. They may be cannot assess the vulnerability of their house by their own,
they need expert assistance to assess it. But at least they should aware even the previous
earthquake did not destroy their house, it still possible future earthquake with higher magnitude
could destroy it.

In the capacity parameter, especially how to deal when earthquake disaster occurs, all of
respondents know what to do. They answered that they have to go the open and safer place. 33%
respondents even know better that now there is no safer place to go if earthquake happen because
some of open area has been built by high rise building.

Even they have knowledge on how to deal with earthquake disaster and they aware that their area
is prone to disaster, but they do not have confidence they can contribute to assess the risk toward
earthquake disaster in their area. They put all the assessment things to the expert. They expect
the experts or researcher could do the earthquake disaster risk assessment for them.
V. CONCLUSION

From the study above, it can be concluded that community perception is important in disaster
risk analysis. Even, community aware that their area is prone to earthquake disaster and they
know how to deal with earthquake disaster, they still have lack of confidence to assess
themselves. They do not know the vulnerability nor the capacity they have toward earthquake
disaster. So, they still need outsider, in this case is expert or researcher to do a disaster risk
assessment for them. It is contra to what Nelson, Ehrenfeucht, & Laska, (2007), Arnoldi (2009),
and Perhac-Jr. (1998) study that if researcher do a study without involving the community, there
will be some data and information missed to be analyzed. Therefore, community perception is
important to be considered in the disaster risk analysis. It needs to build community perception
first that they have roles and capacity as well as knowledge in assessing the disaster risk as
important as researcher do, especially in vulnerability and capacity parameters.

To consider, this paper describes initial part of the study on disaster risk perception for disaster
risk analysis at community level. Therefore there is still lack of number of respondents. This
study will continue with many respondents to capture more perception of the community on the
earthquake disaster risk situation. With many more respondents, it is expected will have wider
point of view and will get more appropriate conclusion on community perception on disaster risk
situation.

ACKNOWLEDGE

The author express her grateful and thankful to the doctoral supervisor, Prof. Dr. Roos Akbar,
Dr. Teti Armiati Argo, and Dr. Djoko Abi Surosso for their supervising and their patient to
guide the author and listening for any difficulties faced by the author. Acknowledge is also
extended to Dr. Irwan Meilano as vice head of Research Center for Disaster Mitigation for
supporting the author in conducting the survey to KBB and submitting this paper and to Prof. Dr.
Krisha S. Pribadi for supporting the author both immaterial and material. The author also thanks
to Dr. Wayan Sengara for indirect supporting the author. Thank you also given to the community
of RT 01 and RT 02 RW 07, CIkahuripan Village, KBB.

REFERENCES
[1] Arnoldi, J. (2009). Risk. Cambridge: Polity Press.
[2] Brooks, M. (2002). Planning Theory for Practitioners. Chicago: American Planning
Association.
[3] Cadag, J. R., & Gallard, J. (2012). Integrating Knowledge ad Actions in Disaster Risk
Reduction: The Contribution of Participatory Mapping. Area Volume 44 Issue 1 , 100-
109.
[4] Cardona, O. D. (2003). The Need for Rethinking the Concepts of Vulnerability and Risk
from a Holistic Perspective: A Necessary Review and Criticism for Effective Risk
Management. In G. Bankoff, & D. H. G. Frerks, Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters,
Development and People (pp. 37-51). London: Earthscan Publisher.
[5] Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches. Third Edition. California: Sage Publications.
[6] Cronin, S. J., Gaylord, D. R., Charley, D., Alloway, B. V., Wallez, S., & Esau, J. W.
(2004). Participatory methods of incorporating scientific with traditional knowledge for
volcanic hazard management on Ambae Island, Vanuatu. Bull Volkanol , 652-668.
[7] Damayanti, P. & Sagala, S.A.H., (2013). Identifikasi Kesiapan Rumah Penduduk
Menghadapi Gempa di Area Rawan Gempa Bumi. Jurnal Perencanaan Wilayah dan Kota
B SAPPK V2N3 p. 637-643
[8] Davidson, R. A., & Shah, H. C. (1997). An Urban Earthquake Disaster Risk Index.
Standford: Blume Earthquake Engineering Center; Department of Civil and Environment
Engineering, Standfor University.
[9] Healey, P. (2006). Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies (2nd
Edtition). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
[10] Neslon, M., Ehrenfeucht, R., & Laska, S. (2007). Proffesional Expertiise; Local
Knowledge, and Governmental Action in Post-Hurricane Katrina New Orleans.
Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, Volume 9, Number 3 , 23-52.
[11] Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative
Approacehs, 6th Edistion. Pearson Education Inc.
[12] Norris, F. H., Stevens, S. P., Pffefferbaum, B., Wyche, K. F., & Pfferbaum, R. L. (2007).
Community Resilience as a Metaphor, Theory, Set of Capacities, and Strategy for
Disaster Readiness. Am J Community Psychol No. 41 , 127-150.
[13] Paripurno, E. T. (2009). Pengelolaan Risiko Berbasis Komunitas.
[14] Perhac-Jr., R. M. (1998). Comparative Risk Assessment: Where Does the Public Fit In?
Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 23, No. 2 , 221-241.
[15] Sandercock, L. (2003). Cosmopolis II Mongrel Cities in The 21st Century. New York:
Continuum.
[16] Local Planning and Development Agency. 2009. Spatial Plan of Bandung Barat District
2009-2029
[17] Suroso, D., Hadi, T. W., Sofian, I., Latief, H., Abdurahman, O., Julianto, H., et al. (2009).
Vulnerability of Small Islands to Climate Change in Indonesia: A Case Study of Lombok
Island, Province of Nusa Tenggara Barat.
[18] UNISDR. (2009a). Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction.
[19] Wisner, B. (2007). Self Assessment of Coping Capacity: Participatory, Proactive and
Qualitative Engagement of Communities in Their Own Risk Management. In Birkman,
Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards (pp. 316-328). United Nation Press.
[20] www.dibi.bnpb.go.id
[21] Xu, J., Zhang, Y., Liu, B., Xue, L. (2009), Risk Perception in Natural Disaster
Management