Content uploaded by Wiwandari Handayani
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Wiwandari Handayani on May 05, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Disaster Advances Vol. 12 (5) May (2019)
23
Community-Based Disaster Management: Assessing
Local Preparedness Groups (LPGs) to build a Resilient
Community in Semarang City, Indonesia
Handayani Wiwandari1*, Surya Putri Intan Hapsari2, Anggraeni Mega3 and Setyono Jawoto Sih1
1. Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Diponegoro University, INDONESIA
2. Institute for Regional Development and Environmental Management, INDONESIA
3. Initiative for Urban Climate Change and Environment, INDONESIA
*wiwandari.handayani@pwk.undip.ac.id
Abstract
Semarang is prone to flooding due to tidal flood from
the sea and flash flood from the upper inland area.
Several studies have noted that a community is an
important element in the reduction of disaster (flood)
risk. The purpose of this study is to examine the
capacity of community formed as Local Preparedness
Groups (LPGs) in Semarang.
The analysis was designed by comparing perceptual-
and evidence-based questions to assess the capacity of
the LPGs to contribute to better comprehension of the
strengths and emerging challenges in engaging the
community/local people in Disaster Management
(DM). The questions were derived from six main
variables including knowledge, skill/capability,
communication and collaboration, financial resources,
leadership and organizational system. A mini FGD was
conducted in each LPG and the participants were
asked to form a consensus to answer the questions. The
scoring system was applied to calculate the capacity
value ranging from 0 to 1. We found an average
capacity value of 0.64.
Keywords: Disaster management, local preparedness group,
resilient community, perceptual and evidence-based,
Semarang.
Introduction
Hydrometeorology disasters are one of growing number of
disastrous events across the globe, with flooding regarded as
the most frequently occurring of these. Urbanization is
indicated by an increased urban population and a higher rate
of land conversion and together these play a role in straining
environmental/ecological capacity15,16. In addition, the
climate change phenomena shown by a higher level of
rainfall and rises in sea level have led to multifaceted
vulnerability of most urban areas located in a low elevated
zone. The generally high pace of urbanization, combined
with the climate change impact, can be clearly seen in
Semarang. Similar to other coastal cities in Indonesia, or
even in Asia, Semarang city is prone to flooding due to tidal
flood from the sea and the threat of flash flooding from the
upper inland area. Landslides are also regarded as a most
frequent disaster, particularly in the hilly area of the city.12
The Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015 followed by
the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)
2015–2030. have forced a global commitment to reduce the
increasing vulnerability and promote resilience in many
developing regions by giving more attention to Disaster Risk
Management (DRM). This includes Disaster Risk Reduction
(DRR) and Disaster Management (DM) components, to
mitigate disasters with infrastructural work, appropriate
knowledge and incessant innovation. Accordingly, there are
now many concerns in DRM across the country which are
preparing the related stakeholders including local
communities, to be sufficiently equipped to participate
optimally in the disaster risk management process1,17.
DRR is more concerned with mitigation planning and
strategy setting while DM is likely to be a reactive approach
consisting of preparedness, response and recovery phases.
DM includes a social process that is applied to the design of
the DM mechanism based on community needs and
condition.19
There is general agreement that a community is central to
DM.14,19,20,25 Accordingly, community resilience has
become a term frequently used to connect DM and disaster
resilience. Norris et al20 similar to Rapaport et al29, define
community as an entity in a defined area which has a
communal identity and fate. In regard to community
resilience in the DM, the community refers to a group of
individuals with similar characteristics living in a particular
disaster-prone area. There are at least two important notions
on community resilience in DM. First, it is very much related
to the process of adaptation and, therefore, a resilient
community may have a good adaptive capacity to address
disaster. Second, a community is understood as a social
learning process where people absorb the disturbance
together, resulting in collective actions.
The resilient community is essentially not the ultimate goal
in DM, but rather a strategy to enhance disaster readiness.
Hence, a resilient community is one with the capacity to
“bounce back” after a disaster, as indicated by the level of
preparedness based on knowledge and awareness, methods
of responding and speed of recovery26,29.
Several studies have noted that a community is an important
element in the reduction of disaster risk. Learning from
California in the USA, Pearce23 states that there is more
public participation when disaster management is planned
Disaster Advances Vol. 12 (5) May (2019)
24
simultaneously with community planning and that public
participation is very important to raising awareness and
minimalizing loss and damage. Madan7, based on the case of
Delhi, India, stated that the local community is the frontline
in the response to a disaster and, therefore, local capacity is
very important not only to minimize loss and damage but
also to reduce the impact of future potential disasters.
Misra et al18 showed the important role of social networks in
helping a community in West Bengal, India, deal with
disaster. Singkran34 also exposed how there was greater loss
and damage in Thailand in 2011 because of flooding due to
the lack of capacity and awareness of the local community
affected. A similar case was also elaborated by Allen1
concerning the Philippines in 2006 and his results showed
that despite some limitations and a potentially more complex
process, local people should be engaged in DM to create a
sustained effort to reducing vulnerability and improving
adaptive capacity.
In line with several studies revealing the important role of
the local community in DM, there has been more concrete
action on engaging the local community in Indonesia, mostly
as a follow up to the Indonesian government’s commitment
to the Hyogo Framework. There have been at least three
important and very influential milestones in promoting the
DM mechanism in the country. The first was the
establishment of the Indonesian National Board for Disaster
Management (INBDM) in 2008, which is responsible for
implementing the Hyogo Framework for Action in
Indonesia. Following this formation in the national setting,
the second milestone was the establishment of a Disaster
Management Board (DMB) at the provincial and district/city
level, under the supervision of the INBDM. The DMB in
Semarang was established in 2011 under government
regulation no. 13, 2010 and it was expected that there would
be a more comprehensive DM at the city level after its
initiation.
The third milestone was the launch of the Local
Preparedness Group (LPGs) in certain prone local areas (at
Kelurahan1 level), to promote community-based disaster
preparedness action. Under the Semarang DMB, the first
LPG in Semarang was introduced in 2012. As part of the
Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network
(ACCCRN) between 2009–2016 and continuing with
engagement in the 100 Resilient Cities network, other
significant contributions have also been made by
international donors to support Semarang’s DM, including
facilitation to empower the LPGs. The number of LPGs
reached 35 in 2018, indicating that locally based community
groups play a significant role in safeguarding front line DM
in Semarang city.
Other studies have also focused on the importance of the
local people/ community in DM.1,15,18,23,34 However, the
performance or capacity of the community itself has so been
far understudied. Accordingly, in line with the growing
awareness of the importance of community participation in
DM, this study aims to examine the capacity of the LPGs in
Semarang. The analysis was designed by comparing
perceptual- and evidence-based questions to assess the
LPGs’ capacity to contribute to better comprehension of the
strengths and emerging challenges in engaging the
community/ local people in DM to achieve a more resilient
community in the future. Accordingly, by comparing the two
types of questions, a fuller comprehension emerges about the
effectiveness of the interventions of different stakeholders
including government, donors and NGOs, to improve the
capacity of the LPGs in particular and the community living
in the disaster-prone area in general.
Description of Study Area
Disaster in Semarang City is triggered mostly by
hydrometeorological factors which are very much
influenced by climate change and urbanization. In the last
ten years, disaster events in the city have included floods,
droughts, landslides, cyclones and land fires13. Floods and
landslides were the most frequent disaster in Semarang City
between 2010–20178. According to the Indonesian
Constitution No. 24 / 2007, disaster causes property loss,
environmental damage, human casualties and psychological
distress. One of the disasters with the greatest losses in
Semarang City was caused by flash floods in the Garang
Watershed in 1990. Water overflowed to a height of 2-3m,
causing a loss of Rp 8.5 billion, with 782 damaged houses
and 47 fatalities.
In 1993, flash floods in the Garang Watershed caused 23
fatalities28. Flash flooding also occurred in the Beringin
Watershed and the East Flood Canal of Semarang City. In
2010. flash flooding in the Beringin Watershed caused eight
deaths21. In addition to flash flooding, Semarang City, as a
coastal city with low elevation, is also prone to tidal
flooding.
Landslides are also regarded as a most frequent disaster in
Semarang City during the rainy season, especially in hilly
areas such as in the Gajahmungkur, Gunungpati, Candisari,
Ngaliyan, Tugu, Tembalang, South Semarang, West
Semarang and Banyumanik Sub-Districts. In the dry season,
several areas in Semarang City such as in Candisari and
Tembalang, are prone to drought and fires. Based on the risk
of disaster, a map was developed by the DMB showing that
approximately 20% of kelurahan in Semarang City is also
prone to cyclone including Gunungpati, Gajahmungkur,
Genuk, Ngaliyan and Tembalang. Figure 1 depicts the
disaster-prone areas in Semarang City.
Realizing that the number of disaster events is increasing
every year and appreciating community involvement as an
essential element in DM, the DMB of Semarang City, in
collaboration with BINTARI (a local NGO) and Mercy
Corps Indonesia, seven LPGs were formed to improve
community capacity to address flood under the ACCCRN
Programme. The LPG is a locally-based organization at the
Disaster Advances Vol. 12 (5) May (2019)
25
Kelurahan level and consists of community representatives
from particular disaster-prone areas. LPG membership is
voluntary and there are average 25 members in each
Kelurahan. The LPG acts as the first layer for evacuation
and first aid activities during a disaster, as an extension of
the DMB. When a disaster occurs, the LPG is the first team
that has the capability and responsibility to evacuate and
provide first aid in order to minimize the disaster impact
before assistance from related stakeholders arrives.
In general, the organizational structure of an LPG consists of
a chairperson and secretary, supported by evacuation,
communication, public kitchens and health teams. In
Semarang City, some LPGs are legalized by Kelurahan or
sub-district decree. The number of LPGs in Semarang City
continued to increase after 2012 and reached 35 by 2018. Up
until 2018, as many as 18 LPGs had been initiated by the
DMB of Semarang City; 14 LPGs were initiated in
collaboration with different NGOs and three were initiated
by community empowerment at the Kelurahan level and are
known as CEI (Community Empowerment Institution).
Table 1 explains the establishment of LPGs in Semarang
City between 2012–2017 and figure 2 further illustrates the
locations of LPGs and types of disaster experienced.
Material and Methods
Data Needs: The measurement of the capacity of the LPGs
in Semarang city was developed based on a questionnaire
distributed to LPG members in the city. Of the 35 LPGs
established between 2012–2017, 31 were willing to
participate as respondents through the FGD mechanism. A
mini FGD was conducted in each LPG and the participants
were ask to form a consensus when answering the questions.
Two types of questions, categorized as perceptual- and
fact/evidence-based (Table 2), were developed based on the
literature and related regulations on DM and community
participation. The questions were derived from six main
elements indicating the capacity level of the LPGs in DM
including knowledge, skill/capability, communication and
collaboration, financial resources, leadership and
organizational system.
Figure 1: Disaster Prone Areas in Semarang City, based on Kelurahan
Disaster Advances Vol. 12 (5) May (2019)
26
Table 1
Establishment of LPGs in Semarang City
LPGs
Initiator
2012
Randusari
DMB
Wates
BINTARI and MCI
Wonosari
BINTARI and MCI
Beringin
BINTARI and MCI
Tambakaji
BINTARI and MCI
Mangunharjo
BINTARI and MCI
Mangkang Wetan
BINTARI and MCI
Muktiharjo Lor
CEI
2013
Jagalan
DMB
Kedungpane
DMB
Kaligawe
DMB
Jomblang
DMB
Sukorejo
DMB
Genuksari
DMB
Rowosari
DMB
Tinjomoyo
DMB
2014
Kemijen
CEI
Kembangarum
DMB
Gondoriyo
BINTARI and MCI
Muktiharjo Kidul
DMB
2015
Bandarharjo
DMB
Tanjung Mas
CEI
Lempongsari
DMB
2016
Mangkang Kulon
DMB
Meteseh
DMB
Kalipancur
DMB
Krobokan
IUCCE and MCI
Cabean
IUCCE and MCI
Panggung Lor
IUCCE and MCI
2017
Petompon
IUCCE and MCI
Ngemplak Simongan
DMB
Bulustalan
IUCCE and MCI
Candi
DMB
Bulu Lor
IUCCE and MCI
Manyaran
IUCCE and MCI
Note:
2012–2016 : supported by the ACCCRN Programme
2016–2017 : supported by the Zurich Flood Resilience Programme
Government : DMB
Local NGO : BINTARI, MCI, IUCCE
Community : LPMK
Disaster Advances Vol. 12 (5) May (2019)
27
Table 2
Selected Variables and Questions for LPGs Capacity Assessment
Variables
Explanation
References
Questions
Perceptual-based
Fact/Evidence-based
Knowledge
Knowledge is
important for the
sustainability of
community
participation.
Accordingly, local
knowledge is an
important element in
reducing disaster
risk.
Shah et al.,
2017; Gibson
& Wisner,
2016; UNDP,
2012; Lopez-
Marrero, 2011
LPGs/community knowledge
on:
• the causes of disaster
• natural signs prior to
disaster
• disaster information
dissemination system
• required actions during
disaster
• impacts of disaster
• access to recovery
programmes
Availability of:
• CBDRM (Community Based
Disaster Risk Management)
document
• disaster risk map
Skills/Capability
Skills/capability is
the community
capacity for
preparedness,
response and
recovery, including
the ability to utilize
available resources
Atreya et al.,
2017; Onuma
et al., 2017;
UNDP, 2012;
Husna, 2012
LPGs/community ability on:
• managing or mobilizing the
current resources (ex.
handy talky, first aid, etc.)
• Availability of scheduled
disaster preparedness training
initiated by the LPGs
• Availability of regular
rehearsal initiated by different
institutions (govt agency,
NGO, etc) for disaster
preparedness, evacuation and
emergency response
• Women’s involvement in
disaster preparedness
activities
• Availability of an early
warning system
• LPGs/community actions/
initiatives to reduce loss and
damage a during disaster
• LPGs/community actions/
initiatives to speed up
recovery process
Communication
and
Collaboration
Communication is a
substantial element.
Effective
communication
takes place based on
trust among
community
members, in
addition to the
importance of
expanding networks
and collaborating
with different
partners.
Tzionas, 2017;
Gultom, 2016;
Rogers,
Lawry,
Dragisic, &
Mills, 2016;
Lopez-
Marrero, 2011
• Quality of networking
between communities and
other stakeholders on
disaster-related issues
• Trust among LPGs mostly
on disaster information
delivery and related
disaster management
activities
• Trust between LPGs and
government (DMB) on
disaster information
delivery and related
disaster management
activities
• Trust between LPGs
member and local
communities on disaster
information delivery and
• Availability of formal
institution or NGO to support
disaster management activities
• Collaborations among LPGs
• Collective actions between
member of LPGs and the local
communities
Disaster Advances Vol. 12 (5) May (2019)
28
related disaster
management activities
Financial
Resource
Funding
sustainability is very
important to
developing various
activities and
improving the
community
capacity.
PPN/Bappenas
& BKNPB,
2006;
Chaskin, 2001
• Financial capacity
• Availability of financial
support from government
(DMB) or other sources
• Existence of self-funded
activities
• Effort to access different
financial resources
• Availability of budget control
mechanisms
Leadership
Effective leadership
has been proven to
significantly reduce
the disaster risk at
community level.
Bankoff, 2015
• Commitment of local
(LPGs) leader
• Existence of local (LPGs)
leader
• Role of local (LPGs) leader
Organizational
System
Legal formal status
is effective in the
optimal engagement
of the local
community and
reducing disaster
risk.
INBDM,
2012;
PPN/Bappenas
& BKNPB,
2006
• LPGs management board
commitment to run the
organization
• Intensity of LPGs regular
routine meeting
• Implementation of LPG
programme
• Availability of volunteers
coordinated by the LPG
management board
Figure 2: Distribution of LPGs and the Disaster Type of each Kelurahan in Semarang City
Disaster Advances Vol. 12 (5) May (2019)
29
Methods
Two further means of examining the capacity of the LPGs
were employed. The first was an LPG capacity assessment
using a scoring system to measure the capacity level in each
kelurahan. The second was a comparison analysis to further
comprehend the perceptual- and evidence-based types of
question. There were in total 37 questions, consisting of 16
perceptual- and 21 evidence-based questions. The following
shows the steps used to conduct these two main analyses:
1. The LPG capacity assessment:
a) Define variables to assess community capacity (Table 2),
then break these down into questions (perceptual- and
evidence-based);
b) Develop the scoring system. There was a different scoring
method for each type of question. Data ranged from 0, 0.25,
0.5, 0.75 and 1 in scale for questions with five possible
answer options, while for those with two answer options the
data ranged between 0 and 1. For three answer questions, the
data ranged between 0. 0.5 and 1. The scoring system is
explained in more depth below (Table 3).
c) Calculate all the data in each variable of each sub-district.
The purpose of this step was to derive the actual value of
each data executed by the formula below:
Note: N: LPG/Sub-district; V1: Knowledge; V2:
Skills/Capability; V3: Communication and Collaboration;
V4: Financial Resource; V5: Leadership; V6:
Organizational System;
d) Standardize each calculation to normalize the actual
values of each data to make it more comparable. The
normalizing process was executed by the formula:
Note: X: Normalized value; Xi: Actual value; Xmax:
Maximum value;
e) Summarize the capacity variables and then identify the
average value, minimum value and maximum value of each
category.
2. Comparison of perceptual- and evidence-based questions:
a) Group the questions, i.e. as perceptual or evidence;
b) Calculate the data of each type of question in each
variable;
c) Convert the data into a percentage executed by the
formula:
Note: X%: Percentage value; Xi: Actual value; (∑x1…xn):
Result of summing up all the values in the set.
d) Present perceptual- and evidence-based data as a diagram,
two for each variable.
Results
Local Preparedness Group Capacity in Semarang: Table
4 describes the assessment result of the LPG capacity
calculation for each kelurahan. The values ranged from 0 to
1. with 0 indicating the lowest and 1 the highest capacity
value.
Following the value for each kelurahan, figure 3 further
summarizes the average, minimum and maximum value
based on variables. Both the table and the figure illustrate, in
general, that the capacity of LPGs in Semarang is good. The
average capacity value was 0.64 (highlighted in grey in table
4).
The capacity value of 16 kelurahans out of 30 was above
average and only 11 had a below average score. Regarding
the six aspects (Figure 3), only financial resources scored a
relatively low capacity value, mostly because some
kelurahan gave a value of 0 for this variable and the other
five variables had a relatively high value (0.68–0.79). Most
flood-prone areas in Semarang are located in dense
settlement with quite a significant number of poor and
vulnerable people;11 therefore, it is not very surprising that
financial resources had the lowest score, meaning that the
LPGs have a low capacity to ensure the quality and
sustainability of the organization, mostly due to limited
budget.
Gondoriyo had the highest score of 0.88. The LPG members
in the kelurahan even agreed to give the highest score (i.e.
1) to the leadership and organization system, indicating that
they were satisfied with its current institutional performance.
Similar to other kelurahan, financial resources had the
lowest score and this aspect should be regarded as the main
challenge to further improve capacity in future. In contrast
to Gondoriyo, Manyaran had the lowest score (0.35) and the
aspect of leadership and organizational system had the
lowest value of almost close to 0, demonstrating a serious
internal management issue.
Nevertheless, the score for knowledge in Manyaran was
above the average value, meaning that the LPG members had
confidence in their comprehension of DM. Indeed, each
kelurahan had a different combination of capacity value for
each variable. This depended very much on the internal
dynamic of the LPGs as influenced by the level of
participation of the LPG members and the neighborhood
characteristics.
Disaster Advances Vol. 12 (5) May (2019)
30
Table 3
Scoring Method
Types of Questions
Answer
Score
Questions with 5 answering options
(applied in perceptual-based questions)
a. Very perceptual-based on the best situation
1
b. …
0.75
c. …
0.5
d. ….
0.25
e. Very perceptual-based on the worst situation
0
Questions with 3 answering options
(applied in evidence-based questions)
a. Available, high intensity
1
b. Available, low intensity
0.5
c. Not available
0
Questions with 2 answering options (applied in
evidence-based questions)
a. Available
1
b. Not available
0
Table 4
Assessment Result of LPGs Capacity in Semarang
LPG/ Sub
District
Total
Disaster
Frequencies
(2012–2017)
Knowledge
Skill
Communication
and
Collaboration
Financial
Resource
Leadership
Organization
System
Community
Capacity
Gondoriyo
1
0.84
0.95
0.91
0.61
1.00
1.00
0.88
Panggung Lor
3
0.80
0.88
0.91
0.43
0.83
0.80
0.77
Bulu Lor
0
0.73
0.90
0.91
0.43
0.83
0.80
0.77
Tambakaji
18
0.70
0.95
0.91
0.32
0.83
0.85
0.76
Beringin
0
0.77
0.75
0.91
0.32
0.92
0.85
0.75
Mangkang
Kulon
6
0.77
0.90
0.88
0.00
1.00
0.90
0.74
Mangkang
Wetan
7
0.84
0.85
0.78
0.29
0.83
0.85
0.74
Kalipancur
13
0.75
0.73
0.91
0.18
0.92
0.95
0.74
Cabean
0
0.66
0.85
0.94
0.18
0.83
0.90
0.73
Candi
11
0.93
0.75
0.88
0.00
1.00
0.70
0.71
Wonosari
9
0.63
0.80
0.88
0.29
0.83
0.80
0.70
Lempongsari
12
0.71
0.95
0.88
0.32
0.67
0.65
0.70
Tinjomoyo
6
0.64
0.70
0.72
0.32
0.83
0.90
0.69
Randusari
11
0.70
0.80
0.88
0.04
1.00
0.65
0.68
Mangunharjo
6
0.88
0.45
0.88
0.00
0.83
1.00
0.67
Krobokan
2
0.68
0.73
0.75
0.14
0.83
0.80
0.65
Muktiharjo
Lor
2
0.68
0.85
0.75
0.00
0.92
0.65
0.64
Kaligawe
20
0.66
0.80
0.66
0.29
0.83
0.60
0.64
Tanjung Mas
8
0.80
0.50
0.88
0.00
0.83
0.80
0.64
Petompon
5
0.63
0.85
0.84
0.04
0.83
0.60
0.63
Bulustalan
2
0.68
0.65
0.56
0.04
0.83
0.85
0.60
Jomblang
18
0.43
0.45
0.81
0.00
1.00
0.70
0.57
Muktiharjo
Kidul
5
0.70
0.45
0.78
0.00
0.83
0.60
0.56
Rowosari
3
0.75
0.58
0.88
0.29
0.50
0.35
0.56
Sukorejo
17
0.66
0.23
0.78
0.00
1.00
0.60
0.54
Kemijen
14
0.59
0.73
0.81
0.14
0.08
0.45
0.47
Kembangarum
11
0.64
0.48
0.41
0.00
0.83
0.35
0.45
Genuksari
1
0.79
0.25
0.53
0.32
0.33
0.35
0.43
Ngemplak
Simongan
5
0.63
0.50
0.47
0.00
0.58
0.30
0.41
Manyaran
6
0.73
0.28
0.38
0.14
0.33
0.25
0.35
Disaster Advances Vol. 12 (5) May (2019)
31
Figure 3: Assessment of Each Community Capacity Variables
Despite the positive findings at the city level, there was no
correlation between the value of the LPG capacity and
disaster experience. Gondoriyo, for example, the kelurahan
with the highest LPF capacity value, had only experienced
one reported disaster between 2012–2017, while other
kelurahan(s) with more frequently reported disasters were
distributed randomly in the thread as illustrated in table 4.
This shows that community capacity was somehow not very
much influenced by how frequently they had experienced
disaster, or implicitly how important they thought the issue
of disaster is in their neighborhood, but rather it was mostly
influenced by the characteristics of the community itself.
This deduction might be supported by exploring the values
for each variable (Figure 3).
Regardless of the number of disasters experienced, the
average values for the knowledge and skill/capability
variable were quite high (0.71 and 0.69). Table 4 also shows
that all kelurahan had relatively high values for knowledge
and skill/capability.
Comparing the Perceptual- and the Evidence-based
Questions: Table 5 shows the comparison value in percent
between perceptual-based and evidence-based questions.
The evidence-based value was calculated from the
availability of supporting documents and/or proof of related
activities, while the perceptual-based value was calculated
from questions on how the LPG members acknowledged
their own capacity for each variable. Five out of six variables
had good evidence-based performance. The LPGs could
fulfil 60-80 percent of all required evidence of all variables.
It was only financial resources which had relatively low
evidence-based performance at lower than 20 percent.
Unlike the evidence-based situation, the performance of
perceptual-based answers differed across variables.
In general, there are three typologies of comparison with the
perceptual- and evidence-based situation, explained as
follows:
• Typology 1: equality between perceptual and
evidence based: This occurred for the two variables of
knowledge and leadership. Variable knowledge was a
relatively balanced comparison between the perceptual-
and evidence-based answers, as around 70 percent of the
LPG members were confident to state that they were
very knowledgeable and knowledgeable (score 1 and
0.75 out of 0-1 where 1 performs as the highest) of the
related DM questions. Less than 10 percent stated that
they were less or not knowledgeable in answering the
knowledge variable questions. These percentages are
also supported by 70 percent of available evidence
(Table 5). A similar situation also applied to the
leadership variable, whereas around 85 percent of LPG
members were able to fulfill the evidence-based
questions and 80 percent were confident to give a
positive response to answering the perceptual-based
questions.
Disaster Advances Vol. 12 (5) May (2019)
32
Table 5
Comparison of the perceptual- and evidence-based questions
Variable
Explanation
Knowledge
• Evidence-Based. 69% of the LPGs had supporting
documents, such as Community Based Disaster Risk
Management (CBDRM) documents and a disaster risk
map at the Kelurahan level.
• Perceptual-Based. This consists of community
knowledge of disaster. Approximately 52% of LPGs
were knowledgeable and the other 21% of LPGs were
moderately knowledgeable.
A = Available
NA = Not Available
VK = Very
Knowledgeable
K = Knowledgeable
MK = Moderately
Knowledgeable
LK = Less
Knowledgeable
NK = Not
Knowledgeable
Skills
• Evidence-Based. Most LPGs (approximately 79%) had
scheduled disaster preparedness training and an early
warning system.
• Perceptual-Based. This consists of the community
ability in managing or mobilizing the current resources.
Approximately 43% of LPGs were moderately
proficient, while 33% of LPGs were proficient.
VP = Very Proficient
P = Proficient
MP = Moderately
Proficient
LP = Less Proficient
NP = Not Proficient
Communication and Collaboration
• Evidence-Based. Mostly, the LPGs’ (89%) activities
were supported by government/NGOs. They also
collaborated with other LPGs and took collective action
with LPGs and other local communities.
• Perceptual-Based. This consists of a networking system
and trust level between LPGs and other related
stakeholders. Around 41% of LPG members had a high
level of trust in the LPGs, while only 5% of LPGs had a
low level of trust.
VT = Very High Level
of Trust
HLT = High Level of
Trust
MLT = Moderately
Level of Trust
LL = Less Level of Trust
NT = Low level of
trust/no trust at all
Financial Resource
• Evidence-Based. Less than 20% of LPGs had financial
resources (from gov’t or others). Therefore, the
existence of self-funded activities, access to financial
resources and also a budget control mechanism were not
available most LPGs (82%).
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Evidence
Based
A
NA
Perceptual
Based
VK
K
MK
LK
NK
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Evidence
Based
A
NA
Perceptual
Based
VP
P
MP
LP
NP
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Evidence
Based
A
NA
Perceptual
Based
VLT
HLT
MLT
LLT
NT
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Evidence
Based
A
NA
Perceptual
Based
VAF
MAF
AF
LAF
NAF
Disaster Advances Vol. 12 (5) May (2019)
33
VAF = Very Adequate
Financial
MAF = Moderately
Adequate Financial
AF = Adequate Financial
LAF = Less Adequate
Financial
NAF = Not Adequate
Financial
• Perceptual-Based. 63% of LPGs had inadequate
financial capacity, while the other 33% of LPGs had less
than adequate financial capacity.
Leadership
• Evidence-Based. More than 85% of LPGs stated that
they had a local leader.
• Perceptual-Based. Approximately 53% of LPGs stated
that the commitment of the local (LPG) leader was
moderately influential, while only 3% stated that it was
less influential.
VI = Very Influential
MI = Moderately
Influential
I = Influential
LI = Less Influential
NI = Not Influential
Organizational System
• Evidence-Based. Almost 80% of LPGs had a routine
meeting and voluntarily activities coordinated by the
LPG management board.
• Perceptual-Based. 37% of LPG stated that the LPG
management board’s commitment to running the
organization was moderately active, while 20% stated
that it was very active.
VAC = Very Active
MAC = Moderately
Active
AC = Active
LAC = Less Active
NAC = Not Active
• Typology 2: higher evidence based compared to
perceptual based: Slightly different to the
knowledgeable variable, skill/capability had an
unbalanced performance between perceptual- and
evidence-based, with 80 percent of the required
evidence being fulfilled for the skill/capability variable,
but only 40 percent being confident (score 1 and 0.75
out of 0-1 where 1 performs as the highest) in having
proficiency in the related skill or capability on DM.
Even though the difference is not very significant, a
similar situation also occurred with two other variables,
communication/collaboration and organizational
system. There is a discrepancy up to around 20 percent
between the perceptual-based and the evidence-based
performance for both variables.
• Typology 3 - lower evidence - compared to
perceptual-based: Financial resources can be regarded
as the worst performing variable, as it only fulfilled 20
percent of the required evidence and 40 percent of the
perceptual-based. The latter, however, had a higher
percentage even though it was still very low compared
to other variables. Consistent with the result of the first
analysis, funding was regarded as the biggest challenge
in ensuring a sustained and improved capacity of the
LPGs.
Discussion
Community resilience, within the context of DM, has been
emphasized as the adaptive capacity that is leveraged
through organizational work resulting from a collective
learning process.14,20 According to Chaskin7, a community’s
adaptive capacity is very much dependent on human capital
(regarded as a variable of knowledge and skill in table 5),
social capital (regarded as a communication variable in table
5) and organizational capital (regarded as an organizational
system and leadership in table 5).
From a different perspective, Norris et al20 believe that
“wellness” at both the individual level and community level
will significantly influence the ability of the community to
solve the emerging disturbance, either individually or
collectively. Indeed, community resilience is very much
closely related to population wellness which refers to the
existence of good behaviour, proper functioning and
sufficient quality of life in a particular community setting.
Thus, what we are discussing for a resilient community in
Semarang is to what extent the human, social and
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Evidence
Based
A
NA
Perceptu
al Based
VI
MI
I
LI
NI
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Evidence
Based
A
NA
Percetual
Based
VAC
MAC
AC
LAC
NAC
Disaster Advances Vol. 12 (5) May (2019)
34
organizational capital, as well as wellness have been
invested in through the existence of the LPGs.
The findings show a very positive result mostly for
knowledge and leadership, reflecting that there is in general
sufficient human, social and organizational capital to
acknowledge that the LPGs have a potential role as the agent
of change to further promote community-based disaster
management. It was found that the greatest challenge was
funding resources which is not in fact surprising. Most of the
people who live in disaster-prone areas are vulnerable, in
addition to the fact that the government allocates only a very
low budget for community empowerment12.
LPGs provide the means for the community to have a
stronger position to promote collective action. Generally, the
vulnerable are likely to have limited capabilities in utilizing
resources, but with a good leadership they can increase their
capacity by generating a collective response. Septiarani and
Handayani11 investigated the dynamics of governance at the
community level lead by the local leader in some disaster-
prone areas in Semarang and found that the leadership
provided a very positive influence on the management of the
collective initiatives potentially taken at the community
level. This is very substantial as most of the people living in
a disaster-prone area in Semarang City are likely to stay
rather then move to other places5,11.
LPGs, thus, also function for social sustainability to
encourage more people participation through committed
leadership and this has resulted in improving their capacity
to manage their limited resources. Good leadership at the
local level and proficient ability to develop communication
and collaboration, as shown in the analysis, results in a very
substantial social capital that should be regarded as a worthy
investment. Rapaport et al29 differentiated urban and rural
communities to illustrate the different value of relations at
the community level. Urban people who live in kampong are
still able to maintain social relationships. It should be
regarded as a good indication that communication/
collaboration and organization systems have higher
perceptual- compared to evidence-based values indicating
good sensitivity to social ties and relationships, very much
likely with rural communities.
Social learning is one key feature to magnifying adaptive
capacity. Lopez-Marrero and Tschakert14 define social
learning as a process to recognizing existing local
knowledge/skill and generating new knowledge/skill by
means of the participation of the local people/stakeholders
in the process. Therefore, there will be a common
understanding and awareness of the basis for taking action.
The process of social learning is very important to robust
adaptive capacity. A higher level of evidence-based value
for skill and capability in the analysis result may clearly
indicate that the support from different sources to improve
LPG capability has not been effective enough. As a matter
of fact, the most suitable capability should appear from
within and be derived from local knowledge rather than
dependent on support from external resources that may not
be sustainable14.
Conclusion
This study has provided a comparative assessment of
perceptual and evidence-based questions to examine the
capacity of LPGs. Based on the comparison result, we have
further identified the effectiveness of the intervention
executed by government, as well as other institutions, to
leverage community participation through the role of LPGs.
The institutionalization of community engagement in DM
through the establishment of LPGs is expected to perform as
the agent of change to achieve a resilient community to face
various disaster events.
The fact that there is good self-confidence, as indicated by
typology 1 and typology 3 in the comparative analyses,
should be regarded as an optimistic sign and opportunity to
improve the role of the LPGs in the future. Acknowledgment
of existing knowledge and social cohesiveness among the
LPG members, as well as between LPGs and the wider
community, are important human, social and organizational
capitals that need to be sustained and carefully maintained.
However, there is still a challenge to have better strategy for
improving LPG skills and capability (typology 2) as the
current approach has not yet led to good confidence for LPG
members. Nevertheless, a resilient community will only be
achieved through a continuous social learning process.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by Faculty of Engineering –
Diponegoro University and Z Zurich Foundation. We would
also like to thank the Government of Semarang and Mercy
Corps Indonesia for supporting the Focus Group Discussion
and shared information they provided during the survey
period.
References
1. Allen K., Community-based disaster preparedness and climate
adaptation: local capacity building in the Philippines, Disasters,
30(1), 81–101 (2006)
2. Atreya A., Czajkowski J., Botzen W., Bustamante G., Campbell
K., Collier B. and Montgomery M., Adoption of flood
preparedness actions: A household level study in rural
communities in Tabasco, Mexico, International Journal of
Disaster Risk Reduction, 24, 428–438 (2017)
3. Bankoff G., Lahat para sa lahat (everything to everybody):
Consensual leadership, social capital and disaster risk reduction in
a Filipino community Greg, Disaster Prevention and
Management: An International Journal, 24(4), 430–447 (2015)
4. BNPB, Peraturan Kepala BNPB No. 1 Tahun 2012 tentang
Pedoman Umum Desa / Kelurahan Tangguh Bencana, Jakarta
(2012)
5. Buchori I., Pramitasari A., Sugiri A., Maryono M., Basuki Y.
and Sejati A.W., Adaptation to coastal flooding and inundation:
Disaster Advances Vol. 12 (5) May (2019)
35
Mitigations and migration pattern in Semarang City, Indonesia,
Ocean and Coastal Management, 163, 445–455 (2018)
6. Chaskin R.J., Building Community Capacity: A Definitional
Framework and Case Studies from a Comprehensive Community
Initiative, Urban Affairs Review, 36(3), 291–323 (2001)
7. Chaskin R.J., Resilience, community and resilient communities:
Conditioning contexts and collective action, Child Care in
Practice, 14(1), 65–74 (2008)
8. DMB, [Online] Available from: http://bpbd.semarangkota.go.id/
pages/daerah-rawan-bencana (Accessed 27 February 2019) (2018)
9. Gibson T. and Wisner B., “Lets talk about you …:” Opening
space for local experience, action and learning in disaster risk
reduction, Disaster Prevention and Management: An International
Journal, 25(5), 664–684 (2016)
10. Gultom D.I., Community-based disaster communication: how
does it become trustworthy?, Disaster Prevention and
Management: An International Journal, 25(4), 478–491 (2016)
11. Handayani W. and Kumalasari N.R., Migration as Future
Adaptive Capacity: The Case of Java — Indonesia, In Hillmann
F., Pahl M., Rafflenbeul B. and Sterly H., eds., Environmental
Change, Adaptation and Migration, Palgrave Macmillan, UK,
London, 117-138 (2015)
12. Handayani W., Fisher M.R., Rudiarto I., Sih Setyono J. and
Foley D., Operationalizing resilience: A content analysis of flood
disaster planning in two coastal cities in Central Java, Indonesia,
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 35, 101073
(2019)
13. INBDM, [Online] Available from: https://bnpb.go.id//potensi-
bencana (Accessed 27 February 2019) (2019)
14. López-Marrero T. and Tschakert P., From theory to practice:
Building more resilient communities in flood-prone areas,
Environment and Urbanization, 23(1), 229–249 (2011)
15. Madan A. and Routray J.K., Institutional framework for
preparedness and response of disaster management institutions
from national to local level in India with focus on Delhi,
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 14, 545–555
(2015)
16. Magis K., Community resilience: An indicator of social
sustainability, Society and Natural Resources, 23(5), 401–416
(2010)
17. Manyena S.B., The Concept of Resilience Revisited, Disasters,
30, 433-450 (2006)
18. Misra A., Panchabikesan K., Ayyasamy E. and Ramalingam
V., Sustainability and Environmental Management: Emissions
Accounting for Ports, Strategic Planning for Energy and the
Environment, 37(1), 8-26 (2017)
19. Mojtahedi M. and Oo B.L., Critical attributes for proactive
engagement of stakeholders in disaster risk management,
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 21, 35–43 (2017)
20. Norris F.H., Stevens S.P., Pfefferbaum B., Wyche K.F. and
Pfefferbaum R.L., Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set
of capacities and strategy for disaster readiness, American Journal
of Community Psychology, 41(1–2), 127–150 (2008)
21. Nurromansyah A.N. and Setyono J.S., Perubahan
Kesiapsiagaan Masyarakat DAS Beringin Kota Semarang dalam
Menghadapi Banjir Bandang, Jurnal Wilayah dan Lingkungan,
2(3), 231-244 (2014)
22. Onuma H., Shin K.J. and Managi S., Household preparedness
for natural disasters: Impact of disaster experience and
implications for future disaster risks in Japan, International
Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 21, 148–158 (2017)
23. Pearce L., Disaster management and community planning and
public participation: How to achieve sustainable hazard mitigation,
Natural Hazards, 28(2–3), 211–228 (2003)
24. Persada Y.B., Rengga A. and Maesaroh, Implementasi
Program Pengendalian Banjir Sub Komponen C di Kota Semarang,
Journal of Public Policy and Management Review, 4(3), 1–13
(2015)
25. Pfefferbaum B., Pfefferbaum R.L. and Van Horn R.L.,
Community Resilience Interventions, American Behavioral
Scientist, 59(2), 238–253 (2014)
26. Platt S., Brown D. and Hughes M., Measuring resilience and
recovery, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 19,
447–460 (2016)
27. PPN/Bappenas K. and BKNPB, Rencana Aksi Nasional
Pengurangan Resiko Bencana 2006-2009, Perum Percetakan
Negara RI, Jakarta (2006)
28. Priyanto E.H. and Nawiyanto, Banjir Bandang di Kodya
Semarang Tahun 1990 (The Municipally of Semarang in 1990),
Artikel Ilmiah Mahasiswa, 2(3), 9–17 (2014)
29. Rapaport C., Hornik-Lurie T., Cohen O., Lahad M., Leykin D.
and Aharonson-Daniel L., The relationship between community
type and community resilience, International Journal of Disaster
Risk Reduction, 31, 470–477 (2018)
30. Republik Indonesia, Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2007
tentang Penanggulangan Bencana, Sekretariat Negara, Jakarta
(2007)
31. Rogers P., Lawry J.B., Dragisic J. and Mills C., Collaboration
and communication Building a research agenda and way of
working towards community disaster resilience, Disaster
Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 25(1), 75–
90 (2016)
32. Septiarani B. and Handayani W., The Role of Local Champion
in Community - Based Adaptation in Semarang Coastal Area,
Jurnal Pembangunan Wilayah & Kota, 12(3), 263 (2018)
33. Shah M.A.R., Rahman A. and Chowdhury S.H., Sustainability
assessment of flood mitigation projects: An innovative decision
support framework, International Journal of Disaster Risk
Reduction, 23, 53–6 (2017)
Disaster Advances Vol. 12 (5) May (2019)
36
34. Singkran N., Flood risk management in Thailand: Shifting from
a passive to a progressive paradigm, International Journal of
Disaster Risk Reduction, 25, 92–100 (2017)
35. Tingsanchali T., Urban flood disaster management, Procedia
Engineering, 32, 25–37 (2012)
36. Tzionas M.D.P., Community based social partnerships in crisis
resilience: a case example in Greece, Disaster Prevention and
Management: An International Journal, 26(2), 16–23 (2017)
37. UNDP, [Online] Avaiable from: http://www.id.undp.org
/content/dam/indonesia/Project%20Docs/DRRA/06%20LL%20C
BDRR%20%20Experience%20from%20Aceh.pdf (Accessed 27
February 2019) (2012)
38. Zulqa I., Herawati R. and Hardjanto U., Pelaksanaan Tugas
Badan Penanggulangan Bencana Daerah Kota Semarang
Berdasarkan Peraturan Daerah Nomor 12 Tahun 2010 tentang
Organisasi dan Tata Kerja Badan Penanggulangan Bencana Daerah
Kota Semarang, Diponegoro Law Journal, 6(4), 1-16 (2017).
(Received 30th March 2019, accepted 18th April 2019)
