International review for spatial planning and sustainable development A: Planning Strategies and Design

Concepts, Vol 11 No.2 (2023), 99-113

ISSN: 2187-3666 (online)
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14246/irspsd.11.2_99

Copyright@SPSD Press from 2010, SPSD Press, Kanazawa

Social Vulnerability Level Appraisal at Tidal Flood

Areas
The Case of A Coastal Settlement in Indonesia

Nany Yuliastuti1* , Sariffudin1, and Syafrudin2

1 Urban and Regional Planning, Diponegoro University
2 Environmental Engineering, Diponegoro University
* Corresponding Author, Email: [email protected]

Received: Nov 11, 2022;Revised: Nov 24, 2022; Accepted: Jan 18, 2023

Keywords: Coastal Settlement, Slum Settlement, Social Vulnerability

Abstract: Coastal areas play a vital role by providing some people with their source of
livelihood. Coastal areas are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, such
as sea-level rise (SLR), which could damage infrastructure and threaten the
socio-economic conditions of communities, thus making the regions vulnerable.
Semarang City located in a coastal zone, and one of the coastal settlements in
Semarang City experiencing the impacts of climate change is Tambak Lorok in
North Semarang District. Adaptive capacity is needed for solutions to climate
change vulnerability. This study aims to determine the level of vulnerability due
to tidal flood disasters resulting from climate change in coastal settlements. In
this initial stage, this study assesses the level of vulnerability and uses a
quantitative approach. Through lessons learned by comparing the conditions of
vulnerability in Bilu Village, Banjarmasin City, differences in capacity
vulnerability were obtained. Tambak Lorok has a low level of social
vulnerability, while Bilu Village has a medium level of vulnerability.
Assessments related to social vulnerability are identified through individual and
community capacity indicators measured at the household and community
levels. Differences in the conditions of coastal areas and the impacts of climate
change that occur affect the level of vulnerability of these areas.

1. INTRODUCTION

There is a growing concern for urban scholars that population growth has
a significant contribution to the increased risk of coastal flooding. Wolff,
Nikoletopoulos et al. (2020) even emphasised that uncontrolled urbanization
in developing countries has become a new exposure that increases
vulnerability. The interaction between humans and their environment is
increasing due to global climate change. For example, the occurrence of sea-
level rise (SLR) in some areas can cause a substantially increased flood risk
@ Liscensee SPSD Press
(Bronstert, 2003). There is an urgent need to understand, both physically and
economically, the relationship between humans and natural hazards as well as This open access article is published under a
Creative Commons [Attribution-
the suffering that humans experience (Mileti and Peek-Gottschlich, 2001).
NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0
Hazard events and conditions are included in the risk level factors that International] license.
contribute to social vulnerability in the locations where hazard events occur. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

99
100 IRSPSDA International, Vol 11 No.2 (2023), 99-113

Coastal areas are very vulnerable to natural hazards (Kron, 2013), and this
vulnerability will increase as a result of SLR caused by climate change and its
related impacts, such as flooding, erosion, permanent inundation, and
seawater intrusion (Nicholls and Cazenave, 2010). Therefore, people in
coastal areas are required to adapt to changes and natural phenomena that
occur (Faustino and Jr, 2009). Adaptive behaviours could be affected by
internal awareness of disaster, risk communication mechanisms and the
external environment (Hu, Pai et al., 2018). According to Tsai, Song et al.
(2021), people who face environmental pressures will more likely to increase
their awareness in building a strong community. Coastal communities can
barely cope with the impacts of climate change such as tidal floods which
require more adaptive livelihood systems (Rudiarto and Pamungkas, 2020).
These coastal conditions are causing surrounding residential areas to
experience a deterioration in the quality of the environment, and as a result,
they are becoming informal settlements. The term slum refers to when the
conditions of informal settlements and human life are below standards (UN‐
Habitat, 2004). To define informal settlements, several different criteria can
be used, namely, spatial, physical, behavioural, and social factors.
Additionally, there is an increased vulnerability of poor individuals to the
disaster risk of flooding due to poor housing standards, and building materials
and poor locations such as those near rivers can also increase the vulnerability
of residents (Yuliastuti, Rahdriawan et al., 2016). Some impact of floods in
coastal slums according to Owusu and Nursey-Bray (2018) are damage to
fishing infrastructure, lack of clean water, contamination of freshwater which
results in the spread of diseases (such as cholera), damage to houses, damage
to wastewater disposal sites, psychological trauma, and increasing community
vulnerability to violence/crime.
One solution to reduce the level of damage from natural disasters is to
reduce social vulnerability, namely by intervening in policies and planning
(Bui, Kawamura et al., 2018). Vulnerability is a person's relationship with the
environment, cultural values, and the strengths and social institutions that
support or oppose it (Comfort, Wisner et al., 1999; Cutter, 1996; Wisner,
Blaikie et al., 2014). Social vulnerability in a community or society is a
concept that refers to the social level, and it includes political and economic
vulnerability (Wisner, Blaikie et al., 2014). Social vulnerability could also be
a sign that social conditions also influence the loss of the area due to flood
(Wang and Shaw, 2018).
The theoretical framework provided by the concept of vulnerability
includes multidimensional disasters by combining several elements in various
proportions, such as environmental, community, and cultural aspects
(Comfort, Wisner et al., 1999; Cutter, 1996; Wisner, Blaikie et al., 2014).
Social vulnerability is influenced by many factors, namely, geographical,
community, organizational or institutional factors, as well as the individuals
in households (Dwyer, Zoppou et al., 2004). Moreover, the level of
vulnerability is determined by the response of the system and the capacity for
adaptation. According to Adger and Vincent (2005), the ability to adapt is very
local and is influenced by economic conditions, experience, and education.
The subsequent research by Dintwa, Letamo et al. (2019) states that one of
the factors that increases social vulnerability is a low level of education.
The interaction between people and their environment, as a social-
ecological system, will form local capital that determines the level of
vulnerability. People categorized as poor tend to be more vulnerable to natural
disasters, because of their inability to face disasters and recover themselves
from disasters that occur (Etinay, Egbu et al., 2018). In developing countries,
 Yuliastuti, Sariffudin & Syafrudin 101

population growth, poverty, and the marginalization of some groups in society

are the most easily understood hazards of social vulnerability. People who live
in substandard housing tend to have limited access when a disaster occurs due
to the lack of physicality in their environment.
Semarang City and Banjarmasin City are experiencing such conditions,
primarily those related to the dangers of floods, which still happen in some
area of informal housing areas in the northern parts of these cities. The threat
of tidal floods in the Semarang coastal settlement also impacts individuals,
communities, and households simultaneously (Marfai, King et al., 2008).
Community characteristics in the form of community capacity, which is how
communities anticipate recovering from the impacts of hazards, provide
definitions of vulnerability that are suitable for this research. The level of
vulnerability can be observed based on the level of resilience when floods
occur (Isa, Sugiyanto et al., 2018). The life of people vulnerable to hazards
can be threatened; in addition, their livelihoods, economic productivity,
infrastructure, and natural resources will be threatened.
To deal with the risk of community vulnerability, an adaptation response
is needed. Government and local institutions have the same role in dealing
with responses to hazards and managing vulnerability. New hazard research
practices have been reflected in public policies related to hazard management.
Some studies have made significant contributions, and the current research
continues in this vein, focusing on mitigation, preparedness, response, and
recovery (Jones and Preston, 2011). However, most of the previous research
focuses more on the vulnerability assessment rather than the community
coping with the disaster. In fact, governing social vulnerability plays
important role in the form of social resilience. Recent study by Usamah,
Handmer et al. (2014) concluded that social capital could help vulnerable
people be resilient in the Philippines. It means that social governing in the
social capital could be understood in the future disaster management.
Based on the statements above, the research question is follows: "What is
the capacity of communities for dealing with vulnerability, and how do people
overcome shocks that occur in the form of floods?" Therefore, this article aims
determine the level of vulnerability due to tidal flood disasters resulting from
climate change in coastal settlements. This article compared the vulnerability
characteristic in two groups (Tambak Lorok & Bilu Village) and investigated
how social governing take place. The following section will explain the
research methodology. The finding and discussion will take place in the end
of article.

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 Case Study

Administratively, Tambak Lorok area located in Tanjung Mas Village in

several part of area called Rukun Warga (RW), which are RW XII to RW XVI
area, North Semarang Sub-district, Semarang City, and it has an area of 46.8
ha. Located in north-eastern Tanjung Mas Village, the Tambak Lorok area is
directly adjacent to the sea and Kemijen Village. The Tambak Lorok area
consists of 5 parts of RW Tanjung Mas Village, namely, RW XII, RW XIII,
RW XIV, RW XV, and RW XVI (see Figure 1).
102 IRSPSDA International, Vol 11 No.2 (2023), 99-113

Figure 1. Tambak Lorok Map

The topographic conditions in Tambak Lorok area include sloping, with a

slope of 0-2°because the area is located in a coastal area; thus, it can avoid
landslides but is prone to tidal floods. Tidal flood water often hits the Tambak
Lorok area because it is at an altitude of 0.5-1 m above sea level. The rainfall
in Tambak Lorok, which is 27.7-34.8 mm/year, falls under the medium to high
categories. Additionally, this area is affected by the tides of Java Sea water
because of its location between the mouths of two large rivers. The Tambak
Lorok area is also prone to land subsidence, which can reach 9-10 cm/year.
To respond to flood disasters, the Tambak Lorok area is included in the
disaster area of the North Semarang Sub-district. The area of the Tambak
Lorok area is 46.8 ha, and the land use is divided into settlements (32.4 ha),
ponds (11.2 ha), and the port (3.2 ha).
Tambak Lorok has enormous potential, especially in the production of
marine products. In the village, there is a fish market where many people from
outside Tambak Lorok come to buy seafood. In 2009, the fish market had a
production amount of 74,037 kg, with a production value of IDR
198,183,700.00; then, in 2010, there was an increase in the production value
to IDR 271,668,500.00, and the production amount was 50,052 kg (Fisheries
Agency Semarang, 2011).
In 2015, the Tambak Lorok area had 1,551 households, and the population
was 9,503 people. The male population amounted to 4,373 people, and there
were 5,130 female residents. At present, the occupations of Tambak Lorok
residents can be grouped into fishers and non-fishers. Fishers are categorized
into 3 categories: fishing fishers, fisher workers, and fisher boat rental service
providers. Based on data from the fisheries agency of Semarang City, in 2014,
more than 50% of the total number of fishers in Semarang City, i.e., 897
 Yuliastuti, Sariffudin & Syafrudin 103

people, were in the Tambak Lorok area. The non-fisher group consists of
workers, employees, and traders.

2.2 Conceptual Framework

Vulnerability cannot be considered to be adequately demonstrated by a

conceptual framework consisting of multiple structures without copying and
management capacity. Wisner, Blaikie et al. (2014) define vulnerability in
terms of the characteristics of people or groups related to the ability to
anticipate, overcome, fight, and recover from the effects of natural hazards.
The framework of local communities and institutions channels the aspirations
of citizens and mobilizes residents to form a proposal based on real needs
(Yuliastuti and Widiastomo, 2015). Bohle, Downing et al. (1994) define
vulnerability as a multidimensional social space determined by the ability of
determination, people's institutions, the economy, and the politics in a
particular time and place. Vulnerability implies a risk for people in the form
of internal and external dimensions (Brklacich and Bohle, 2006).
Moreover, a social network's ability to cope with the exposure has been
understood as human cooperation (Rand, Arbesman et al., 2011). It enables
social culture to develop self-organization ability in technology, social
movement, and individual response. Therefore, personal support and
community support for disaster are the feedback form for the self-organization
in emergency response. Briefly, the social movement in response to the
disaster can be viewed as an embryo of the downstream approach to be
resilient. Therefore, it is better to consider this approach complements the
upstream system from the government.

Figure 2. Conceptual Framework

The creation of tools for analysing causes and solutions in vulnerability

research is the next step that must be performed (Birkmann, 2006). Moreover,
to explain and deal with the complex interactions among engineering, natural
systems, and social systems, it is necessary to focus on analytic (empirical
models) or social dynamics (Cutter, Emrich et al., 2009). Conceptual
framework could be seen at Figure 2.

2.3 Research Design

The total number of respondents in this study was 50 people each for
Tambak Lorok and Bilu Village. The questionnaire is divided into open-
ended and closed-ended questions. Open-ended questions are necessary to
directly obtain a respondent’s view of a problem. Additionally, interviews
104 IRSPSDA International, Vol 11 No.2 (2023), 99-113

with the key informants in the study area are necessary to determine
vulnerability at the household and community levels. The average interview
at the household level lasted 45 minutes.
In the interviews, the key informants who were needed were religious
leaders, community heads, and traders. In addition, interviews were conducted
with people involved in local decision making, communities engaged in local
non-governmental organizations, and flood management in the city of
Semarang.
To understand the form of interaction based on the community at the
household and environmental levels and to improve the sense of place,
observation of community activities is necessary. Among them, this study
examines some indicators related to households and the local environment.
These indicators serve as benchmarks for observing people’s sense of place
and communication. Finally, comparisons are made between two locations,
namely, Tambak Lorok and Bilu Village.
The selection of communities in the slums in this study is based on the fact
that people who are continuously affected by floods incur a risk of suffering.
Furthermore, it is based on the frequent involvement of the community in
mitigation actions. The focus of this research is the community, which is
analysed in a more subjective manner because if the community is taken in a
larger sense, then there will also be a variety of management strategies.
Tambak Lorok is one of the fishing villages located on the coastline of the
Java Sea. The village is situated just on the outskirts of Semarang City and
directly adjacent to the waters of the Java Sea. This area is affected by the
tides of the Java Sea, which often cause tidal floods. Meanwhile, Bilu Village
is a slum area located right on the Martapura River in Banjarmasin City. As a
result of this area’s being situated on the banks of the river, it has become
vulnerable to floods. The similarity of this condition underlies the selection of
Bilu Village as a study area to observe the level of vulnerability in a location
other than Tambak Lorok.
Other elements that are also considered in this study are the level of
flooding in the environment, the initiatives and activities that the community
carries out with regard to vulnerability, and the type of economic activity.
When applying these criteria, the characteristics of society will provide much
diversity. The main objective of this research is to determine the level of social
vulnerability to flooding faced by communities by examining the contextual
differences viewed from several perspectives, not to compare the perspective
of the two communities.

2.4 Analysis Method

The methods used to analyse the results of the information obtained from
the questionnaires, interviews, and observations are qualitative and
quantitative. The dimensions of exposure, implications, resource capacity, and
response can be explored based on social vulnerability. The proportion of
exposure to flooding can be examined based on settlement factors, slums,
demographic characteristics, and infrastructure status. However, the
dimension of resource capacity has been studied based on institutional
political and economic factors, awareness and knowledge, and the role of
social capital. In this research, the case study area adopted refers to the local
Rukun Warga (RW) institution.
To obtain people's opinions about constraints and problems as well as
desired expectations, it is necessary to conduct comparative analysis between
management capacity and exposure at the household level in various slum
 Yuliastuti, Sariffudin & Syafrudin 105

communities. In addition to the results of the information from observations,

surveys and questionnaires, ethnographic methods are applied to evaluate and
understand resources, lifestyles, people's attitudes towards vulnerability in
slums, the risk of recurrence of floods, and community perceptions regarding
the responsibility for and causes of loss. The comparative analysis of Tambak
Lorok and Bilu Village will be discussed at the end of this paper.
Analysis of the level of social vulnerability was carried out using
weighting analysis, which consists of assigning a weight to each
predetermined indicator. The determination of this weight is adjusted in regard
to the criteria for the community’s level of social vulnerability. To obtain the
level of social vulnerability, the variables needed are individual capabilities,
households, local institutions, facilities and infrastructure, and safety (Tables
1 to 5).

Table 1. Individual Capability Weighting Criteria

Weight Value
Variable Indicator High Medium
Low Vulnerability
Vulnerability Vulnerability
(1)
(3) (2)
Individual Education The head of The head of The head of
Capabilities household is an household is a household who is an
S1/D3 graduate junior/senior elementary school
and has better high school graduate or has had
ability and graduate and no schooling and
knowledge; has sufficient has low ability and
thus, the capacity and knowledge; thus,
expectancy to expertise to there is no
move is higher move expectancy or
courage to move
Mode of The head of The head of The head of
Transporta household uses household uses household uses the
tion public a motorcycle to mode of
transportation/ travel to work transportation of
a bus/a walking/bicycling
motorcycle/a
taxi to travel to
work
Amount of Does not obtain The amount of The amount of
Income income when income income does not
tidal floods decreases when decrease when there
occur tidal floods are tidal floods
occur
Source: Kelly and Adger (2000); Adger and Vincent (2005); Social Vulnerability Index
(2020)
106 IRSPSDA International, Vol 11 No.2 (2023), 99-113

Table 2. Household Weighting Criteria

Weight Value
Variable Indicator High Medium
Low Vulnerability
Vulnerability Vulnerability
(1)
(3) (2)
Household House Houses with the Homes with Houses with property
Status status of lease or building usufruct rights
contract rights status
Length of Families with a Families with a Families with more
Stay range of stay range of stay of 2- extended stays of
under two years 8 years more than eight years
Place of Families that are - Families that are
Origin not native native
Expectancy Families that - Families that do not
to Move want to move want to move

Source: Social Vulnerability Index (2020)

Table 3. Local Institution Weighting Criteria

Weight Value
Variable Indicator High Medium
Low Vulnerability
Vulnerability Vulnerability
(1)
(3) (2)
Local Involved in The community - The community is
Institution Local is not involved involved in local
Institutions in local institutions
institutions
Local Local Local institutional Optimal local
Institutional institutional performance is institutional
Performance performance is not maximal performance
not optimal
Involved in Never Sometimes Always participates
Community participates in participates in in community
Service community community service
service service
The Intensity Never Sometimes Once a month or
of Community less
Service
Involved in There are no Only part of the All community
Maintaining residents community is members are
Facilities involved in involved in involved in
maintaining maintaining maintaining public
public facilities public facilities facilities
Source: Bohle, Downing et al. (1994)

Table 4. Facilities and Infrastructure Weighting Criteria

Weight Value
Variable Indicator High Medium Low
Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability
(3) (2) (1)
Facilities and Distance from Distance> 5 km Distance of 2-5 Distance <2 km
Infrastructure Home to km
Work Place
Distance from Distance> 5 km Distance of 2-5 Distance <2 km
Home to km
Market
Distance from Distance> 5 km Distance of 2-5 Distance <2 km
Home to km
Educational
Facilities
 Yuliastuti, Sariffudin & Syafrudin 107

Weight Value
Variable Indicator High Medium Low
Vulnerability Vulnerability Vulnerability
(3) (2) (1)
Distance from Distance> 5 km Distance of 2-5 Distance <2 km
Home to km
Health
Facilities
Environmental Unpaved roads, Perforated roads Roads in good
Infrastructure broken, often and flooded by condition, not
Conditions flooded with tidal floods damaged, not
tidal floods flooded by tidal
floods
Source: Owusu and Nursey-Bray (2018)

Table 5. Safety Weighting Criteria

Weight Value
Variable Indicator High Medium Low Vulnerability
Vulnerability (3) Vulnerability (2) (1)
Safety Sick Because Family members Family members Family members are
of Tidal are sick and are sick and sick but do not seek
Floods receive treatment receive treatment treatment
> 5 times/month 2-5 times/month

Security Criminal acts Criminal acts There has never

regarding often occur have occurred been a crime
Criminal several times
Acts
Tidal Floods The surrounding The surrounding The surrounding
environment often environment has environment has
has tidal flooding had tidal flooding never had a tidal
several times flood
Source: Owusu and Nursey-Bray (2018)

The average weight value was analysed by calculating the weight in each
data point. This value was calculated to determine the level of vulnerability
that occurs for each indicator in the variables that affect the level of social
vulnerability in Tambak Lorok and Bilu Village. The calculation of the
average weight value is performed as follows:

Average Weight Value = (∑R x High Weight) + (∑R x Medium Weight) + (∑R x Low Weight)
High Weight + Medium Weight + Low Weight …….… (1)

Information:
∑R = Number of Respondents
High weight = High weight determined is 3; the level of vulnerability
is higher
Medium weight = Medium weight determined is 2; the level of a
vulnerability is medium
Low weight = Low weight determined is 1; the level of a vulnerability
is lower
After calculating the average weight value of each indicator, it is
necessary to group the categories of vulnerability. The number of classes
needed is divided into three, which are categorized as high vulnerability,
medium vulnerability, and low vulnerability. The interval formula is as
follows:
108 IRSPSDA International, Vol 11 No.2 (2023), 99-113

Long Interval = Highest average weight value – Lower average weight value
Number of Categories ……...…………….…....... (2)

The total number of respondents in this study was 50 people each for Tambak
Lorok and Bilu Village. From the formula above, we obtain the average
weight value for each indicator for Tambak Lorok, Semarang City, and Bilu
Village, Banjarmasin City, as follows:
Low vulnerability level = 8.3 – 30.5
Medium vulnerability level = 30.6 – 52.8
High vulnerability level = 52.9 – 75.0

3. RESULTS

An interesting finding from this research is that most people living in

coastal flood areas accept tidal inundation. From the deep interview, we
concluded that there is place attachment. They feel that the place is land of
their bird. They have subjective memory to that place. This finding support
previous research by Usamah, Handmer et al. (2014) which concluded that
vulnerable people can be resilience in Phillipines. The social relations within
the community through local institutions make residents socialize and feel that
they are not alone in facing tidal flood disasters. A similar feeling of facing
disasters forces residents to share the risk and make connections between
them. This is also support Rand, Arbesman et al. (2011) which investigated
the role of dynamic social network.
Moreover, home elevation activities are a common way in which Tambak
Lorok community members make connections; thus, residents feel that this
activity is enough to allow them to survive when a tidal flood comes. They
tend not to question the costs they incur each time they raise a house, and they
maintain the land where they live, which is one of their assets. Low levels of
education indirectly influence their decision making. In addition, the ease of
access to health and education facilities is one reason why people in Tambak
Lorok have low social vulnerability. The reason is that they feel that they have
enough with what they have been given due to being born in a place where
people can have a livelihood as fishers; thus, they do not know any choice of
occupation other than that of becoming fishers.
Statistically, the average final weight value of Tambak Lorok is 25.6,
which falls into the low vulnerability category. This result is based on the
weighting carried out for each indicator. Some aspects reinforce the social
viability of the Tambak Lorok community; thus, the Tambak Lorok
community has a low level of social vulnerability. This low level of
vulnerability indicates that the social bond and cohesion of community
members with their place of residence are strong enough to be a reason for
community members to “accept” the existence of tidal floods in their
environment. With the average ability of people with a low level of education,
the modest housing conditions, and the tidal flood conditions, the community
is in a condition of low vulnerability. This result is due to the level of
involvement in local community institutions and the infrastructure conditions
of Tambak Lorok’s environment, which is improving, making the Tambak
Lorok community able to adapt to the dangers of tidal floods.
The average final weight value of Bilu Village is 31.9, which falls into the
category of medium vulnerability. This result is based on the weighting carried
out for each indicator. Some aspects reinforce the social viability of the Bilu
Village community so that the Bilu Village community has a medium level of
 Yuliastuti, Sariffudin & Syafrudin 109

social vulnerability. The fact that the weight value belongs to the medium
category indicates that the level of social ties and cohesion of residents in Bilu
Village with their place of residence are not yet strong enough to be a reason
for community members to understand the conditions of their environment.
The lives of people of Bilu Village, who are close to the river, force them
to be able to adapt to the environment. Moreover, the people in Bilu Village
are dominated by natives because they have been living in that location for
generations. However, even though they have been living there from one
generation to the next, there are still some residents who do not have rights to
the land that they currently occupy. This situation will make the community
vulnerable to relocation from this location because there is no guarantee for
the land that community members currently occupy.
The lack of involvement in and intensity of community service activities
can also influence social vulnerability within the Bilu Village community. The
conditions for the social relations of the community are worse because of the
lack of a sense of interaction and concern for the environment among fellow
citizens. Some facilities such as education, health, and trade facilities in the
form of markets that are close to settlements make it easier for people to reach
them and make it easier for people to meet their daily needs. This convenience
is an important aspect of why people want to remain in Bilu Village.

Table 6. Comparison of the Levels of Social Vulnerability

Average Weight Value
Variable
Tambak Lorok Bilu Village
Individual Capabilities 37.7 44.3
Households 32.4 36.9
Local Institutions 20.8 33.7
Facilities and Infrastructure 10.6 11.6
Safety 26.4 33.3
Average 25.6 31.9
Category Low Vulnerability Medium Vulnerability

The results of the calculation for the value of social vulnerability in the
two research locations (Tambak Lorok and Bilu Village) have different final
values. Based on the table below (Table 6), Tambak Lorok has a final
vulnerability value that is included in the low category, with a final value of
25.6, while Bilu Village has a vulnerability value of 31.9, which is included
in the category of medium vulnerability.

4. DISCUSSION

Based on comparative analysis, the level of vulnerability of Tambak Lorok

is in the low category, while that of Bilu Village is in the medium category.
The strength of family ties and the sense of belonging to the environment
make people in Tambak Lorok tend to be more comfortable with the land of
their birth, which is also the place of residence for the Tambak Lorok
community and many other migrants. In addition, the reach of facilities and
infrastructure is adequate; thus, it is also a reason for the strong ties between
community members and the environment in which they live. Of course, it is
also accompanied by a low level of public education. Therefore, community
110 IRSPSDA International, Vol 11 No.2 (2023), 99-113

members feel that there is not enough capital to start a new life outside
Tambak Lorok; thus, they have tended to accept the conditions in their area.
People who face environmental pressures will more likely to increase their
awareness in building a strong community (Tsai, Song et al., 2021). Various
community activities in Tambak Lorok related to local community RW
institutions are still taking place effectively, and there is still community
participation in such activities. An activity consists of a place where people
gather and socialize; thus, it creates a sense of cohesion in the face of the tidal
flood disasters that often occur. This aspect is one of the differences in social
vulnerability between Tambak Lorok and Bilu Village.
Social vulnerability in Bilu Village belongs to the medium category due to
the low level of social activities among the people of Bilu Village. The social
cohesion in Bilu Village is not good enough and the land occupied by people
in Bilu Village is not their private property. Therefore, when tidal floods
become a problem that continuously occurs in Bilu Village, the community
can only surrender if evictions are carried out at any time. In contrast, in
Tambak Lorok, people tend not to move because the houses they occupy are
based on their property rights; thus, they defend the land that is their property.
Additionally, the educational level of residents in Bilu Village tends to be
better because most people are junior high school graduates, while the
majority of people in Tambak Lorok have only the lowest level of education,
i.e., an elementary school level, and some to not even have any education.
This condition against Dintwa, Letamo et al. (2019) opinion that states one of
the factors that increases social vulnerability is a low level of education.
Apparently, lower education does not increase social vulnerability if it is
balanced with high social cohesion.
Individual capabilities have a high value because the weighting for the
variable of individual capabilities is the highest. The reason is that the abilities
that individuals have, in terms of the lowest level of education and changes in
income when tidal floods occur, very directly influence the social
vulnerability faced. Additionally, the value of the individual ability to
represent the community is related to vulnerability when the area is affected
by tidal flood disasters.
Hence, to the extent that the variables above have a role in a social
vulnerability in the community, they also have an impact on community
members’ decision to survive in the midst of a location that is prone to tidal
flood disasters or, in contrast, their choose to move and start a new life in
another region. Therefore, social aspects are essential because they can change
and have a direct impact on people's lives.
The differences between Bilu Village and Tambak Lorok are due to
difference in the quality of education, the type of work, the participation of
community members in maintaining the environment, community members’
concern for the housing environment, and the role of the city government.
Compared to Bilu Village, all of these factors will lead to low vulnerability
for Tambak Lorok because the indicator values above for Tambak Lorok are
better than those for Bilu Village. This result is consistent with Adger and
Vincent (2005) view that people's adaptive abilities strongly influence the
condition of vulnerability.
Moreover, we identified that the vulnerability is not only from external
factor but also internal factor. The serial response of the local people to the
environmental disturbance exhibits their ability coping the problem.
Experience which is represented by the age of stay shows positive effect to
the coping capacity. It is also support Adger and Vincent (2005) that explained
that experience, education and finance are the main factors of social
 Yuliastuti, Sariffudin & Syafrudin 111

vulnerability. We also concluded that the situation in Phillipines (Usamah,

Handmer et al., 2014) also identified in our research areas. Social capital plays
essential role in the disaster communication and then governing the social
vulnerability.

5. CONCLUSIONS

The result shows that Tambak Lorok has a low level of social vulnerability,
while Bilu Village has a medium level of vulnerability. Tambak Lorok has
stronger community ties and stronger environmental ties than Kampung Bilu,
which makes the level of vulnerability in Kampung Bilu higher than in
Tambak Lorok.
This study revealed that vulnerability concerns not only the people who
live in informal settlements such as those in Tambak Lorok, which are at risk
of flooding, but also conditions that continue to change through spatial and
structural changes in urban areas. Therefore, the conclusions of this study are
that vulnerability is a phenomenon that appears and flows in response to a
series of pressures from external and internal factors.
The internal pressure is a social and environmental force in regard to
housing, a force that changes and can affect people's lives. Tambak Lorok
community can overcome its conditions. The external pressure is the influence
of policies related to improving the informal housing environment
implemented by the government and non-governmental organizations. The
better adaptability of the community supports this situation and this internal
force.
This mechanism for reducing risk and strengthening the safety net has been
designed based on the characteristics of slum communities and is a strategy
offered to the inhabitants of the Tambak Lorok slum area. To strengthen and
increase community resilience, support is needed. In addition, it is necessary
to strengthen social networks because the relationships between residents in
slums are incorporated in the economy and socio-culture.
Another important aspect involves identifying and supporting local
institutions that are needed to create innovative networks so that they can be
stronger. A vibrant civil society and network with local institutions as
members should generate different methods of integrating the community
itself. The new clusters of a community, such as local RW institutions and
private and state institutions, collaborate and are initiated in urban society,
adding safety based on diverse approaches to generate adaptation systems and
hazard mitigation in the Tambak Lorok coastal area.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Conceptualization, N.Y. and S.; methodology, S. and S.; investigation,

N.Y. and S.; writing—original draft preparation, N.Y.; writing—review and
editing, S. and S.; supervision, N.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
112 IRSPSDA International, Vol 11 No.2 (2023), 99-113

ETHICS DECLARATION

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest regarding the
publication of the paper.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would like to thank Diponegoro University for supporting and
funding the research. The authors would also like to acknowledge the
contribution of Tambak Lorok community for their assistance in gathering
information.

FUNDING

This research was funded by Diponegoro University.

REDERENCES
Adger, W. N. and Vincent, K. (2005). "Uncertainty in Adaptive Capacity". Comptes Rendus
Geoscience, 337(4), 399-410. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crte.2004.11.004.
Birkmann, J. (2006). "Measuring Vulnerability to Promote Disaster-Resilient Societies".
Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards: Towards disaster resilient societies, 1, 9-54.
Bohle, H. G., Downing, T. E., et al. (1994). "Climate Change and Social Vulnerability: Toward
a Sociology and Geography of Food Insecurity". Global environmental change, 4(1), 37-48.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-3780(94)90020-5.
Brklacich, M. and Bohle, H.-G. (2006). "Assessing Human Vulnerability to Global Climatic
Change". Earth system science in the anthropocene, 51-61. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-
540-26590-2_7
Bronstert, A. (2003). "Floods and Climate Change: Interactions and Impacts". Risk Analysis:
An International Journal, 23(3), 545-557. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1539-6924.00335.
Bui, N. T., Kawamura, A., et al. (2018). "Social Sustainability Assessment of Groundwater
Resources: A Case Study of Hanoi, Vietnam". Ecological indicators, 93, 1034-1042. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.06.005
Comfort, L., Wisner, B., et al. (1999). "Reframing Disaster Policy: The Global Evolution of
Vulnerable Communities". Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards,
1(1), 39-44. doi: https://doi.org/10.3763/ehaz.1999.0105.
Cutter, S. L. (1996). "Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards". Progress in human geography,
20(4), 529-539. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/030913259602000407.
Cutter, S. L., Emrich, C. T., et al. (2009). "Social Vulnerability to Climate Variability Hazards:
A Review of the Literature". Final Report to Oxfam America, 5, 1-44.
Dintwa, K. F., Letamo, G., et al. (2019). "Measuring Social Vulnerability to Natural Hazards
at the District Level in Botswana". Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 11(1), 1-11.
doi: https://doi.org/10.4102/jamba.v11i1.447.
Dwyer, A., Zoppou, C., et al. (2004). Quantifying Social Vulnerability: A Methodology for
Identifying Those at Risk to Natural Hazards. Commonwealth, Australia.
Etinay, N., Egbu, C., et al. (2018). "Building Urban Resilience for Disaster Risk Management
and Disaster Risk Reduction". Procedia engineering, 212(2017), 575-582. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2018.01.074
Faustino, R. and Jr, M. S. (2009). "Vulnerability and Adaptation of Coastal Communities to
Climate Variability and Sea-Level Rise: Their Implications for Integrated Coastal
Management in Cavite City, Philippines". Ocean and Coastal Management, 52(7), 395-404.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2009.04.007
Fisheries Agency Semarang. (2011). Perikanan Dalam Angka Kota Semarang [Fisheries in
Numbers Semarang City]. Badan Pusat Statistik, Semarang.
Hu, D., Pai, J.-T., et al. (2018). "A Study of Flood Disaster Risk Communication Model and
Adaptive Behaviours for River-Watershed Residents in Taiwan". International Review for
 Yuliastuti, Sariffudin & Syafrudin 113

Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development, 6(4), 128-147. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.14246/irspsda.6.4_128.
Isa, M., Sugiyanto, F. X., et al. (2018). "Community Resilience to Floods in the Coastal Zone
for Disaster Risk Reduction". Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 10(1), 1-7. doi:
https://doi.org/10.4102/jamba.v10i1.356.
Jones, R. N. and Preston, B. L. (2011). "Adaptation and Risk Management". Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2(2), 296-308. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.97.
Kelly, P. M. and Adger, W. N. (2000). "Theory and Practice in Assessing Vulnerability to
Climate Change Andfacilitating Adaptation". Climatic change, 47(4), 325-352. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1005627828199
Kron, W. (2013). "Coasts: The High-Risk Areas of the World". Natural hazards, 66(3), 1363-
1382. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0215-4.
Marfai, M. A., King, L., et al. (2008). "The Impact of Tidal Flooding on a Coastal Community
in Semarang, Indonesia". The Environmentalist, 28, 237-248. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-007-9134-4
Mileti, D. S. and Peek-Gottschlich, L. (2001). "Hazards and Sustainable Development in the
United States". Risk Management, 3(1), 61-70. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.rm.8240077.
Nicholls, R. J. and Cazenave, A. (2010). "Sea-Level Rise and Its Impact on Coastal Zones".
American Association for the Advancement of Science, 328(5985), 1517-1520. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1185782
Owusu, M. and Nursey-Bray, M. (2018). "Socio-Economic and Institutional Drivers of
Vulnerability to Climate Change in Urban Slums: The Case of Accra, Ghana". Climate and
Development, 11(8), 687-698. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2018.1532870
Rand, D. G., Arbesman, S., et al. (2011). "Dynamic Social Networks Promote Cooperation in
Experiments with Humans". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(48),
19193-19198. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1108243108.
Rudiarto, I. and Pamungkas, D. (2020). "Spatial Exposure and Livelihood Vulnerability to
Climate-Related Disasters in the North Coast of Tegal City, Indonesia". International
Review for Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development, 8(3), 34-53. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.14246/irspsd.8.3_34.
Social-Vulnerability-Index. (2020). "Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2020".
Retrieved from https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/placeandhealth/svi/index.html |on May 18,
2022.
Tsai, C.-H. C., Song, L.-Y., et al. (2021). "Discussion on the Influence of Community Planners
on Building Resilient Communities Taking “Changji Corner” as an Example". International
Review for Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development, 9(1), 47-63. doi:
https://doi.org/10.14246/irspsd.9.1_47
UN‐Habitat. (2004). "The Challenge of Slums: Global Report on Human Settlements 2003".
Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 15(3), 337-338. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1108/meq.2004.15.3.337.3.
Usamah, M., Handmer, J., et al. (2014). "Can the Vulnerable Be Resilient? Co-Existence of
Vulnerability and Disaster Resilience: Informal Settlements in the Philippines".
International journal of disaster risk reduction, 10, 178-189. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJDRR.2014.08.007.
Wang, Y. and Shaw, D. (2018). "The Complexity of High-Density Neighbourhood
Development in China: Intensification, Deregulation and Social Sustainability Challenges".
Sustainable Cities and Society, 43, 578-586. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.08.024
Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., et al. (2014). At Risk: Natural Hazards, People's Vulnerability and
Disasters. Routledge.
Wolff, C., Nikoletopoulos, T., et al. (2020). "Future Urban Development Exacerbates Coastal
Exposure in the Mediterranean". Scientific reports, 10(1), 1-11. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-70928-9
Yuliastuti, N., Rahdriawan, M., et al. (2016). "Community Resilience in Overcoming
Untidiness Due to the Flood in the Kemijen Village Semarang". Editorial Board, 13.
Yuliastuti, N. and Widiastomo, Y. (2015). "Towards Better Social Housing Policy Based on
Residents' Satisfaction: A Case Study at Sendangmulyo, Semarang, Indonesia". Journal of
Sustainable Development, 8(2), 149. doi: https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v8n2p149.