Dr' Christina Bollin, Ria HidajatMeasuring Vulnerability2324 January 2005, Kobe, Japan

1
Community Based Disaster Risk Index-
Experiences from Indonesia based on the study
Comprehensive Risk Management by Communities
and Local Governments conducted by the
Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ)
for the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB),
2003The Disaster Risk Index was applied in
Indonesia 2004 by a cooperation project of GTZ
and the Federal Institute of Geosciences and
Natural Resources (BGR)
2

• Objective of the indicator system
• Conceptual framework
• Methodology
• Experiences from Indonesia
• Lessons learnt and challenges

3
Objectives of the Indicator System

• the improvement of the capacity of decision
  makers at the local and national level to measure
  key elements of disaster risk and vulnerabilities
  of communities,
• to identify the major deficiencies in confronting
  natural disasters and thus indicate possible
  areas of intervention,
• to provide comparative parameters to monitor
  changes in disaster risk, as a measure of
  evaluation of effects of policies and investments
  in disaster management,
• systemize and harmonize the presentation of risk
  information at the community level.

4
Conceptual Framework

• For the conceptual framework, those main factors
  were identified that are believed to determine
  disaster risk at commune level.
• These are Hazard, Exposure, Vulnerability and
  Capacity Measures
• The underlying understanding is that in order to
  manage risk, decision makers and local
  communities need to understand the
• threat posed by a hazard,
• the magnitude of lives and values exposed to the
  threat,
• the specific susceptibility towards hazards
  through present vulnerabilities,
• and the range of capacities measures to protect
  against risk.

5

• These four factors are suggested to form a
  conceptual framework that subsequently provides
  the rational for the choice of indicators to be
  included in the risk analysis

R H E V C
R Risk Index H Hazard E Exposure V
Vulnerability C Capacity Measures
6

• Towards a Community Based Disaster Risk Index

1. Step The different measurement of the
indicators has to be made comparable by scaling
Value of 1,2,3 in accordance of the categories
low, medium, high. 2. Step Indicators have
different meaning for specific hazard gt hazard
specific weight has been identified and
applied. 3. Since all four factors are believed
to contribute equally to the overall risk index
the weights were chosen in a way to allow each
factor index range between 0 100. By a uniform
weight of 0.33 the risk index can never exceed
100 and not get negative.
7

• Examples for indicators following the
  questionnaire

Main Factor Vulnerability Indicator name
Access to basic service (V4) Question How is
the access to basic health centres (health
centres means e.g. community health centre,
midwife centre, clinic, doctor)? a.) Health
centres are available and can be reach easily by
car. Low 1 b.) Health centres are available
but not easy to reach only on foot. (X) Middle
2 c.) There is no health centre to
reach. High 3 Hazard specific weight for
landslide 2 Factor Score 4
Main Factor Capacity and Measures Indicator
name Land use planning (C1) Question Are
disaster risk reduction aspects considered in
land use planning? Yes (X) No 0 If yes how
is the implementation a.) comprehensive
implementation High 3 b.) partly
implemented Middle 2 c.) not
implemented (X) Low 1 Hazard specific weight
for volcanic eruption 3 Factor score 3
8
Application of the indicator system at the local
level

• Adaptation of the questionnaire by a national
  expert group. The indicators are chosen for data
  scarce situations. It is designed for the local
  level, but can be adapted for district an
  national level (up scaling)
• Application of the questionnaire in local or
  regional workshops with participation of local
  stakeholders such as local government, local
  disaster preparedness organizations, NGOs,
  Research Centers, Universities, informal and
  religious leaders from the villages at risk
• Data collection at the local level with community
  participation and scientific support if necessary
• Data processing and presentation/discussion of
  the results in the communities at risk

9
Experiences from Indonesia GTZ/BGR Cooperation
project - Urban Quality/Georisk

• Implemented in 4 communities of the province
  Yogyakarta - district Kulon Pogo and district
  Sleman, Central Java
• Well developed region on the main island Java
• Densely populated, good infrastructure and high
  economic activity
• Prone to landslides, and volcanic eruption

• Implemented in 6 communities of the district
  Sikka on Flores, province east Indonesia
• Remote island in east Indonesia
• Economic activity only at the district capital
  city
• Mostly agriculturally used area
• Prone to earthquake, tsunami and volcanic
  eruption

Volcano Merapi near Yogyakarta
10
The overall risk index allows to

• compare different communities across the country,
  
• recognize for each community the determining
  factors behind the existing risk,
• distinguish the different possible magnitudes of
  damages through the exposure score,
• monitor progress towards a reduction of risk.

11
Disaster Risk Index of a community in Kulon
Progo district, in Central-Java. Prone to
landslides.
Vulnerability and Capacity factor break down To
get more detailed information for planning out of
the total risk index a factor break down into the
components helps the decision makers to identify
major deficiencies.
12
Comparison of 2 communities from the Sikka
district and Kulon Progo district
1992 an earthquake triggered an tsunami and
killed 87 persons, a complete village was
destroyed. the cultural habits of a community can
expose the population towards a hazard and make
them extremely vulnerable.
13
Lessons learnt and Challenges

• The indicator system is a good tool to sensitise
  and create awareness within the national and
  local stakeholders for disaster risk forces and
  its complexity.
• The set of indicators will help to design
  appropriate countermeasures in the more social
  and management part for local disaster
  mitigation.
• However, for comprehensive DRM additional
  specific risk analysis and participatory planning
  is needed.
• The more diverse the group of knowledge people
  is, the more representative and reliable is the
  outcome.

14

• To deal with vulnerability and capacity apart
  turned out to be very motivating.
• For data collection the indicators of the
  questionnaire should be assorted thematically and
  not related to H, E, V and C categories.
• The indicator system and questionnaire have to be
  adapted to political and cultural conditions.
• The cut-off points of the indicator value (high,
  middle, low) have to be verified. The more
  precise they are, the more significant the Index
  is.

15

• The new method has to be tested in more regions
  to validate the system for the weighting and
  scaling.
• For the disaster index a standardised
  benchmarking has to be developed to interpret the
  index system and derive recommendations for risk
  reduction measures.
• A pilot database to compile the raw data from the
  questionnaire has been created and has to be
  actualised continuously like the indicator system
  itself.