Character of community response to volcanic crises at Sinabung and Kelud volcanoes

Abstract Volcano disaster mitigation is a priority in Indonesia's national development plan due to the large number of active volcanoes, high frequency of eruptions and dense population within volcanic hazards zones. As a consequence of these factors and the many decades of experience in mitigation of volcanic risk, Indonesia demonstrates that effective community response is critical to avoid disasters. Understanding of hazards, risks and early-warning systems are the main factors in building an effective community response. The level of understanding of these factors is proportional to a community's independence in taking appropriate actions and is reflected in the community's preparedness. Further, the experience gained from responses to the eruptions of Sinabung and Kelud as well as from other Indonesian volcanoes shows that a local leader plays an important role in mobilizing a community. Such a leader utilizes knowledge of local culture (local wisdom) and an understanding of the community's character to encourage community members to participate and empower themselves. Sharing of information and the formulation of a disaster mitigation plan by government and community also results in a shared commitment to increase participation and community empowerment. Indonesia uses four volcano alert levels to activate community mitigation plans. In order of increasing criticality, these are: Normal, Advisory (Waspada), Watch (Siaga) and Warning (Awas). Implementation of policies, strategies and actions are tied to each level. In addition, mandatory actions by certain stakeholders are required at certain alert levels. These mandatory actions increase the effectiveness of disaster mitigation by both government and community. A comparison of the crisis responses of the Sinabung and Kelud communities is carried out here in order to better understand problems, learn lessons and improve the process of Indonesia's community mitigation policies. Local culture, the start time of community involvement (in normal versus crisis time), degree and level of government involvement, roles of local leaders, local perception of hazards, and political intervention are all factors that influence a community's response at the time of eruption. We stress that an understanding of the “community character,” which includes a number of cultural, social and knowledge parameters is essential for effective crisis management. The responses of Sinabung and Kelud illustrate both the key role of community in disaster mitigation and the synergy that can result from close coordination and collaboration between government and community.

[1]  R. Wolpert,et al.  The longevity of lava dome eruptions , 2015, 1512.08495.

[2]  R. Tilling.  The critical role of volcano monitoring in risk reduction , 2008 .

[3]  S. Andreastuti,et al.  Integrating Social and Physical Perspectives of Mitigation Policy and Practice in Indonesia , 2017 .

[4]  David J. Schneider,et al.  Merapi 2010 eruption—Chronology and extrusion rates monitored with satellite radar and used in eruption forecasting , 2013 .

[5]  A. Donovan,et al.  Science, policy and place in volcanic disasters: Insights from Montserrat , 2014 .

[6]  Dennis S. Mileti,et al.  Citizen Participation in Emergency Response Following the Loma Prieta Earthquake , 1992, International Journal of Mass Emergencies & Disasters.

[7]  Surono,et al.  The 2010 explosive eruption of Java's Merapi volcano—A ‘100-year’ event , 2012 .

[8]  S. Kalaycioglu,et al.  Integrated Natural Disaster Risk Assessment: The Socio-Economic Dimension of Earthquake Risk in the Urban Area , 2006 .

[9]  Tamsin A. Mather,et al.  Living with volcanoes : The sustainable livelihoods approach for volcano-related opportunities , 2008 .

[10]  James L. Sell,et al.  Warning and Response to the Mount St. Helens Eruption , 1985 .

[11]  F. Beauducel,et al.  Overview of the 2006 eruption of Mt. Merapi , 2013 .

[12]  David Johnston,et al.  Uncertainty and decision making: Volcanic crisis scenarios , 2014 .

[13]  Mathew P. White,et al.  Risk interpretation and action: A conceptual framework for responses to natural hazards , 2012 .

[14]  Guðrún Gísladóttir,et al.  Different communities, different perspectives: issues affecting residents’ response to a volcanic eruption in southern Iceland , 2011 .

[15]  G. Giordano,et al.  Toward IAVCEI guidelines on the roles and responsibilities of scientists involved in volcanic hazard evaluation, risk mitigation, and crisis response , 2016, Bulletin of Volcanology.

[16]  Douglas Paton,et al.  Risk perception and volcanic hazard mitigation: Individual and social perspectives , 2008 .

[17]  S. Cronin,et al.  Participatory methods of incorporating scientific with traditional knowledge for volcanic hazard management on Ambae Island, Vanuatu , 2004 .

[18]  Syamsidik,et al.  Process for integrating local and indigenous knowledge with science for hydro-meteorological disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in coastal and small island communities , 2014 .

[19]  Franck Lavigne,et al.  Influence of the institutional and socio-economic context for responding to disasters: case study of the 1994 and 2006 eruptions of the Merapi Volcano, Indonesia , 2012 .

[20]  David K. Chester,et al.  Theology and disaster studies: The need for dialogue , 2005 .

[21]  Iavcei Task Group on Crisis Protocols.  Toward IAVCEI guidelines on the roles and responsibilities of scientists involved in volcanic hazard evaluation, risk mitigation, and crisis response , 2016 .

[22]  Nicholas Frank Pidgeon,et al.  The issue of trust and its influence on risk communication during a volcanic crisis , 2008 .

[23]  D. Mileti,et al.  The Causal Sequence of Risk Communication in the Parkfield Earthquake Prediction Experiment , 1992 .

[24]  Tom Simkin,et al.  Volcanoes of the World , 2011 .

[25]  Tadjudin Noer Effendi.  Budaya Gotong Royong Masyarakat Dalam Perubahan Sosial Saat Ini , 2016 .

[26]  R. Warren,et al.  The community in America , 1964 .