BASELINE SURVEY REPORT

THE GREATER JAKARTA URBAN DISASTER RISK REDUCTION

AND CLIMATE RISK MANAGEMENT PROJECT













Final
Submitted by
Wahyu Cahyono (Lead Consultant)
Whinda Yustisia
Mira Caliandra

July, 2013
1

Table of Contents



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6
1. INTRODUCTION 8
1.1. Background 8
1.2. Baseline Survey Objectives 8

2. METHODOLOGY FOR BASELINE SURVEY 10
2.1. Approach 10
2.2. Sampling Design 10
2.3. Respondent Criteria 11
2.4. Baseline Survey Main Activities 11
1. Preparation 11
2. Enumerator and Supervisor Selection Process 11
3. Training of Enumerator and Supervisor 11
2.5. Data Collection 12
2.6. Data Quality Management 12
2.7. Data Entry and Processing 13

3. FINDINGS 14
3.1. Brief Description of Framework of Analysis 14
1. Descriptive Analysis 14
2. Inferential Analysis 15
3. Barrier Analysis 15
3.2. Specific Objective of Baseline Survey 16
3.3. Demographic Information 20
3.4. Risk Perceptions 21
1. Perception of Disasters Likelihood 21
2. Perception of Disasters Consequences 22
3.5. Disaster Experiences 23
1. General Disaster Experiences 23
2. Flood Related Experiences 24
3.6. Disaster Preparedness 26
1. Disaster Preparedness at the Household Level 26
2. Disaster preparedness at the Community Level 27
3.7. Solid Waste Management 28
1. Waste Management at the Community Level 28
2. Waste Management at the Household Level 29
3.8. Social Capital 31
1. Social Network 31
2. Why do People Throw Waste into the River and How to Promote Pro-
environmental Behavior?
32
3. Why do People Engage in Disaster Preparedness? 33
2

4. The Role of Demographic Characteristics 34

4. CONCLUSION 35

Annexes
Annex 1. TOR Baseline Survey
Annex 2. Barrier Analysis Result
Annex 3. Data Collection Summary
Annex 4. Survey Questionnaire
Annex 5. FGD Guide - Barrier Analysis
Annex 6. Interview Guide - Barrier Analysis

3

List of Tables


Table 2.1 Distribution of household survey respondents
Table 2.2 FDG and interview data collection
Table 3.1 Variables analyzed with descriptive analysis
Table 3.2 Specific objective of baseline survey
Table 3.3 Demographic information
Table 3.4 Potential disaster perceptions
Table 3.5 Perceptions of disasters consequences
Table 3.6 Climate change knowledge
Table 3.7 Type of disasters that have occurred in the last one year
Table 3.8 Flood responses
Table 3.9 Tools that family prepared for disaster
Table 3.10 Information sources related disaster
Table 3.11 River cleaning activities
Table 3.12 Waste management at the household level
Table 3.13 How to reduce household waste
Table 3.14 Case study of community based waste management
Table 3.15 Exchanges of information about flooding with neighbors
Table 3.16 Correlation between social norm and environmental behavior
Table 3.17 Correlation between place attachment and disaster preparedness;
correlation between place attachment and environmental
behavior

Table 3.18 Correlation between demographic characteristic and disaster
preparedness; correlation between demographic characteristic
and environmental behavior


4

List of Figures


Figure 3.1 Inferential analyses schema
Figure 3.2 Respondents on area of baseline survey
Figure 3.3 Perception of disaster likelihood in the next one year
Figure 3.4 Perception of disaster trends in recent years
Figure 3.5 Disaster impact experienced
Figure 3.6 Action that would be done when faced with a disaster
Figure 3.7 Disaster preparedness at the community level
5

Acronyms and Abbreviations


ARC American Red Cross
Bakornas PB Badan Koordinasi Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana / National Coordinator
Agency of Disaster Management
Bappenas Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional / National Development
Planning Agency
BNPB Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana / National Agency of Disaster
Management
CRM Climate Risk Management
DRR Disaster Risk Reduction
EWS Early Warning System
FGD Focus Group Discussion
IDR Indonesian Rupiah
NHQ National Head Quarters
PMI Palang Merah Indonesia / Indonesia Red Cross
RT Rukun Tetangga / Neighborhood Association
RW Rukun Warga / Community Association (Consist of some RT)





6


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


The Greater Jakarta Urban Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Risk Management Project
will be implemented by PMI with support from ARC. This project aims to contribute to
reducing deaths, injuries, and socio-economic issues caused by climate related disasters and
environmental degradation. This project will target 11 selected villages within three Districts
across Ciliwung river, and will benefit approximately 36,549 beneficiaries directly and
553,535 indirectly. Therefore, to ensure that the implementation of the project was based
on valid data and information, at the beginning of the project the American Red Cross (ARC)
conducted a baseline survey. The results of the baseline were used to establish key
indicators so that the project progress could be measured and that realistic targets could be
set. The result of the baseline was used to adjust strategies and interventions.

Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used in the study. Multistage random
sampling techniques were used to select 636 households from project areas and a
structured questionnaire was developed for the household survey. Barrier analysis was done
trough FGD and interviews to identify barriers associated with solid waste management
through composting. This process involved both those that do and do not report themselves
as actively composting.

The findings of the study are presented sequentially in the report. Following the
methodology, the first section summarizes the key findings of main objectives in this
baseline study. The second section explores and analyzes respondents perceptions of the
likelihood of disasters occurring and the damages caused by disasters. The third section
describes disaster experiences and, specifically, flood related experiences; the third focuses
on existing disaster preparedness at both the household and community levels. The fourth
section analyses waste management responses from the survey and FGDs; and the final
section explores existing social capital that could be utilized to enhance program success.

One of the main findings was that almost of the respondents were not active in disaster
preparedness either at the households or community levels. In the household level 68.3%
of respondents have not discussed about actions that would be done in case of disasters
with family members and 94.8%of them did not know or have not known their personal
role and responsibilities. In the community level 83.0% respondents have no defined
community roles and responsibilities to face disaster and 68.6% said the absence of
community volunteer. Early warning system also had not been developed well, it is looked
from 76.4% respondents indicated that there have no early warning systems yet and there
were only 28.7%who ever get warning information before a disaster occurs.

Although most of respondents had not engaged in disaster preparedness, in general they
have knowledge and awareness about the importance of waste management. Its look from
78.7% respondents said it is necessary to sort waste. They indicated that they already knew
that they should not throw waste into the river, by the fact that 3.6%of them reported
throwing their own waste into the river. From the qualitative study they believed that the
waste in the river did not belong to the communities surround the river, but from people
7

who lived in different areas away from the river. Despite respondents awareness of where
to leave waste, 20.1% reported not sorting or composting. They felt that sorting and
composting waste was difficult to do because of individual or lack of support reasons.

Analysis on social capital variables revealed that we could modify social norms to reduce the
likelihood of throwing waste in to river, another. In particular, it could be done by modify
anti-environmental descriptive norms to be more pro-environmental (i.e., correcting
residents perception about what most their neighbor do: most their neighbor: DO NOT,
instead of DO, throw waste into their river). Meanwhile, to encourage communities involve
in cleaning up the river activities, injunctive norms should be a concern (i.e., their neighbor
expect them to join cleaning up the river activities instead of opinions that their neighbor
are fine with their careless to the river). Meanwhile, to motivate engagement in disaster
preparedness, sense of community should be strengthened. Finally, to enhance the success
of any programs that are aimed to encourage residents doing disaster preparedness and
waste management, religious activity and arisan
1
could be potential existing structures that
can be involved as agents in community. This is because the residents attached highly to
these two groups. In this way, opinions and behavior of people within these groups would
be more likely to be heard and followed. Moreover, demographic characteristics could also
necessary to be considered.

Learning from the baseline study, the focus of intervention must be on building on, and
strengthening existing structure and use positive attribute that they have practices on DRR.
Efforts should be made towards supporting and institutionalizing the existing community
knowledge and creating effective mechanisms for dissemination and information-sharing.

1
Arisan is regular social gathering in community level
8

1. INTRODUCTION


1.1. Background
Climate-related disasters are exacerbating a number of environmental and social pressures
in Indonesia and threatening the countrys socio-economic development and environment.
During the period between 2003-2005 there were 1,429 disasters in Indonesia, and 53,3% of
them were related to hydro-climatic hazards (Bappenas and Bakornas PB, 2006). Flooding
was the most frequent disaster (34%), followed by landslides (16%). Greater Jakarta is home
to more than 22 million people, making it the worlds fourth largest metropolitan area
(Demographia-World Urban Areas 7th Edition, April 2011). Located in the coastal delta
lowlands, 40% of which lies below sea level at high tide, Jakarta is crossed by 13 rivers and
many more intersecting canals. Making Jakarta and its surrounding cities vulnerable to
flooding and tidal surges, a problem that climate change will exacerbate, particularly
through more intense rainfall and rising sea levels (hereafter referred to as rob).

Based on the above context, the American Red Cross Greater Jakarta Urban Disaster Risk
Reduction (DRR) and Climate Risk Management (CRM) Project aims to contribute to
reducing deaths, injuries, and socio-economics problems caused by climate related disasters
and environmental degradation in the Greater Jakarta area by fostering more resilient
communities and a stronger Red Cross National Society in the Palang Merah Indonesia
(PMI). This project will target eleven selected villages in 3 districts across Ciliwung, and will
benefit 36,549 beneficiaries directly and 553,535 indirectly (including: community members,
village volunteers, village committees, PMI Provinces and Branches, as well as PMIs NHQ).
The Greater Jakarta Urban DRR and CRM Project was funded and supported by the
American Red Cross (ARC). The PMI NHQ, DKI Jakarta, West Java Chapter, Jakarta Utara
Branch, Kota Depok Branch and Kabupaten Bogor Branch have been conducting ongoing
activities in the area beginning in from April 1st, 2012 and will be finished in December
2014.

To ensure that the implementation of the project is based on valid data and information, at
the beginning of the project the ARC conduct baseline survey. The results of the baseline
have been used to establish key indicators so that the project progress can be measured and
that realistic targets can be set. The results of the baseline have also been used to adjust
strategies and interventions to ensure that project activities address gaps and issues are
identified.


1.2. Baseline Survey Objectives
General objectives of this baseline survey are:
1. Gathering quantitative data on knowledge and behavior of residents in relation to
disaster risk reduction and climate change, disaster preparedness, early warning
system, disaster responses (including evacuation), and solid waster management;
2. Gathering qualitative data on barrier factors for community to engage in activities of
disaster risk and climate change reduction.

9

The specific objectives of this baseline survey are:
1. Gathering demographic information related to the project:
A. Occupation
B. Education
C. The length of stay in project area
2. Gathering information related to risk perception, vulnerability, and capacity of the
community:
A. Respondents who could mention at least two about potential disasters they
could experience
B. Percentages of respondents who perceive they were vulnerable to disasters in
the future
C. Percentages of respondents who concern to disasters' impacts
D. Percentages of respondents who ever experience impacts of disasters
E. Percentages of respondents who have capacity in response potential disasters in
their living areas
3. Gathering information related disaster preparedness in household level:
A. Percentages of respondents who ever attend disaster risk reduction activities
B. Percentages of respondents who have and prepare tools needed when disasters
C. Percentages of respondent who access disaster related information from various
resources
D. Type of disaster informations resources that could be accessed by respondents
4. Gathering information related disaster preparedness in community level:
A. Percentages of respondents who said that there have been agreed evacuation
areas
B. Percentages of respondents who said that there has been early warning system
in their living areas
C. Percentages of respondents who participate in disaster risk reduction activities in
their villages
5. Gathering information related knowledge and capacity to respond disasters:
A. Percentages of respondents could mention at least two way what they should do
when heard early warning system
B. Percentages of respondents could mention where are evacuation areas
C. Percentages of respondents who know when they should evacuate
6. Gathering information related knowledge and behavior on climate change:
A. Percentages of respondents who could mention at least two impacts of climate
change
B. Percentages of respondents who could mention at least two actions could be
done to reduce climate change
7. Gathering information waste management:
A. Percentages of respondents who disposed waste in a place
B. Percentages of respondents who sorted organic and an-organic
C. Percentages of respondents who have solid waste management system in their
area
8. Gathering information related to barrier from community for composting



10

2. METHODOLOGY FOR BASELINE SURVEY


2.1. Approach
This survey employs both quantitative and qualitative method. The household survey was
used to capture information from community related to project indicator. This survey was
used as a questionnaire to facilitate an interview with each respondent. The qualitative
method included: barrier analysis, used to identify barriers; key messages; and, activities
related to managing household waste into compost. This process involved both those that
do and do not compost, through both FGDs and interviews.


2.2. SamplingDesign
Sample is drawn using probability random sampling method. In probability random
sampling, every individual in the population of survey has equal chance to be selected as
survey respondent. The sample was selected using multi-stage cluster sampling techniques
in which samples are clustered into districts and sub-districts.

Sampling selection procedure for household survey:
Calculate minimum sample size
2


Minimum Sample Required

n =D [(Z +Z)
2
x (P
1
(1 - P
1
) +P2 (1 - P
2
)) /(P
2
- P
1
)
2
]
=2 [(1.64 +0.842)
2
x (0.45 (1 0.45) +0.55(1 0.55))/(0.55 0.45)
2
]
=612

With finite population correction
n =612/(1+(612/14.830))
= 588

P(1) Hypothesized true proportion for 1st population
P(2) Hypothesized true proportion for 2nd population
Power Probability of rejecting a false null hypothesis (80%)

The minimum difference between P1 and P2 that you want to detect (0.10)
C.L. Desired confidence level (95%)
Test
One- or two-sided test (1)
Z()
Statistic calculated from statistical tables
Z()
Statistic calculated from statistical tables


Proportionate number of household respondents in village, based on the proportion
of the population in each district.

2
Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. 1989. Statistical Methods, Eighth Edition. Iowa State University Press.
Ames, Iowa.
11

Develop of the respondent list was based on randomly selected household
respondents in selected villages, with equal distribution between genders (Odd list
number for male and even list number for female to each household)
Respondents were interviewed based on the list. When households did not fit the
criteria then the enumerators will be moved to the house on the right - left - front or
back and then move to the next list through verification from supervisor.


2.3. Respondent Criteria
This baseline survey targeted households. Criteria for household respondents included:
Head of household: Adult (aged over 18 years), who make decisions related to family
issues.
Individuals that live in the project area
3
(spend time at least 4 days a week in the
area).

Respondents for the qualitative study were selected purposively in target community. There
were 6 FGDs and 6 interviews. Participant for FGD for each group:
Adults with relatively the same age level (to improve active discussion between
participants)
Informative and can communicate their opinion.
Involve both doers and not doers in composting.

Participants for Key Informant Interviews from each district:
Community key members that have knowledge of composting activities in their area.
Community key members from non-doers area.


2.4. Baseline Survey Main Activities
2.4.1. Preparation
There are 4 activities involved in this stage: (1) preparation meeting, (2) document review,
(3) tool development, and (4) pilot study to test the questionnaires.

2.4.2. Enumerator and Supervisor Selection Process
Consultant conducts selection process on 19 March 2013. There were 16 enumerators and 3
supervisors selected from 27 candidates from PMI volunteers. The reason of involving PMI
volunteers because they know the area and community.

2.4.3. Trainingof Enumerators and Supervisor
In close collaboration with ARC, the consultant conducted 3 day training for enumerators
and supervisors (24-25 March and 28 March 2013). The curriculum for the training covered:
Brief of the Greater Jakarta Urban DRR and CRM project.
The survey methodology and sampling selection.
Interviewing technique (do and dont).
Baseline survey questionnaire.

3
Program: Greater Jakarta Urban Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Risk Management targeting households
who live along the Ciliwung river.
12

Research ethic (the importance of safety, privacy, and maintaining confidentiality)
Survey procedure
Mock survey
Team deployment and data collection plan


2.5. Data Collection
Data collection was conducted on 2 April through 11 April 2013. In the data collection
process consultant is supported by the supervisor in each district to manage the data
collection process. At the time of data collection, the consultant facilitated the following
activities
Lead and guide data collection process
Consultant and the field supervisor conduct questionnaire spot check.
Evaluate and make necessary change related to data collection.
Conducted FGD and interview on barrier analysis.

District Sub District Village #n Move HH* Next List**
Bogor Cibinong Keradenan - RW 1 55 7 1
Sukahati - RW 4 47 11 -
Pondok Rajeg - RW 4 71 9 1
Bojong Gede Waringin Jaya - RW 2 34 7 -
Bojong Baru - RW 8 84 7 -
Depok Beji Pondok Cina - RW 9 64 21 1
Kemiri Muka - RW 14 39 19 1
Sukmajaya Tirta Jaya - RW 2 18 4 1
North Jakarta Pademangan Ancol - RW 1 67 20 9
Pademangan Barat - RW 13 64 31 10
Penjaringan Penjaringan - RW 4 93 35 5
636 171 29
636
Table 2.1 Distribution of the household survey respondents

Data collection notes:
*Enumerators move to the right/left/in front/back of the original household when
respondents didn't fit the criteria

**After move to the right/left/in front/back of the original household and respondents still
didn't fit the criteria the enumerator move to the next respondents list with the same rule

The number of respondents who moved into the next household or next list in North Jakarta
and Depok relatively high. It might be the both relatively urban area and high mobility
compare with Bogor that relatively rural.



13

District Respondent FGD Interview
Doer Ancol RW 1 (7 person) Ancol RW 1
Non-Doer RW 13 Pademangan Barat (5 person) Penjaringan RW 4
North Jakarta
Doer Abadi Jaya (8 person) Abadi Jaya
Non-Doer RW 02 Tirta Jaya (6 person) Tirta Jaya RW 03
Depok

Doer Bojong Baru RW 12 (4 person) Bojong Baru RW 12 Bogor
Non-Doer Pondok Rajeg RW 1 (7 person)

Pondok Rajeg RW 1
Table 2.2 FGD and Interview Data Collection


2.6. Data Quality Management
Before data collection the consultant develop the respondent list for each district, to make
sure enumerator interviews the randomly selected people

During the baseline survey data collection, for data quality assurance will be held through:
Conducted random spot-checks on about 5%-10%from total respondents by visiting
respondents who had been interviewed by enumerators.

In a qualitative study, the role of the researcher is important for enhancing the quality of
data by checking the consistency of findings generated by different data collection process,
or triangulations:
Validating information obtained through interview and observations by checking
program documents and other written evidence.
Comparing interview data with observational data.
Comparing the perspective of the people from different point of view.

2.7. Data Entry and Processing
Data entry processes conducted on 17 20 April 2013 involved 7 people for data entry and
2 to double check. The data entry program was designed using SPSS 18.0. The data entry
processes the following activities:
Briefing for data entry team (16 April 2013)
Conducted double check and double entry, about 10%, from total respondents to
ensure quality of data entry.
Data cleaning to refine the data
Data processing using SPSS 18.0

Data analysis in this report didnt use design sample weight. Weights primarily adjust means
and proportions. It is good for descriptive data but may adversely affect inferential data and
standard errors
4
. Since this baseline survey will compare with end line survey in evaluation
then it not necessary to be done.

4
David R. Johnson. November 2008. Using Weights in the Analysis of Survey Data. Population Research
Institute. The Pennsylvania State University.
14

3. FINDINGS


3.1. Brief Description of Framework of Analysis
Data from the survey was processed through two types of analysis: descriptive and
inferential analysis.

3.1.1. Descriptive analysis
Descriptive analysis is conducted to summarize and organize data gathered in the survey.
This section shows a summary of the specific objective of the baseline survey.

Domain Variables
Knowledge and risk perception Type of disasters that potentially occur in present areas
Perception of disaster likelihood in the next 5 years
Disaster risk perception
Hazard exposure Type of disasters that they had experienced
Impacts that they had experienced
Disaster preparedness in
family level
Preparing tools at home that are ready to used once
disaster occurs
Any specific preparations for disaster readiness
Public awareness Engagement in disaster preparedness related activities
Sources of information about disaster
Disaster preparedness in
community level
Availability of emergency response groups and plans,
early warning systems, trained individuals to provide
help in emergency situations
Early warning system Regular information about flooding
Sources of information
Disaster Responses Knowledge about what they should do once a flood
alarm heard
Knowledge about how to stay healthy and clean during
flooding occurs
Evacuation Willingness to evacuate
Knowledge about when, where, and how to evacuate
Climate change Knowledge about climate changes symptoms and how
to reduce it
Solid waste management in
community level
How the community manages their solid waste
Engagement in river clean-up activities
Solid waste management in
family level
Current situation of where family put their solid waste
Experience and attitude of waste sorting
Knowledge about waste pollution and how to reduce it
Social networks Engagement in social/ group activities
Exchanging information about flooding among people in
communities
Sense of community Social ties to neighborhood in communities
Place dependence Perception about dependency level of future in present
areas
15

Social norms Perception about what others do (i.e., whether people
are perceived throw rubbish into the river) and what
people expect to do (i.e., perception about neighbors
opinion on others who throwing rubbish into the river)
Demographic information Gender, age, educational level, income, home ownership
Table 3.1 Variables analyzed with descriptive analysis


3.1.2. Inferential analysis
Inferential analysis was conducted to compare data between the variables. Inferential
analysis was also conducted to gather answers about relationship between variables or
indicators as an attempt to understand the factors that may contribute to the disaster
preparedness and preventions behavior. Accordingly, inferential analysis will examine the
effects of demographic information, hazard exposure, and climate changes knowledge.
Some social factors that are predicted have important roles in explaining disaster risk
reduction behavior (i.e., social networks, place dependence, sense of community, and social
norms) is also examined in the analysis.























Figure 3.1 Inferential analyses schema








Where to put waste

Disaster Related Experiences
Place Dependence
Sense of Community
Social Norms
Demographic
Information
Evacuation Behavior
Early Warning System
Flood Responses
Cleaning up the river
activities

Household and Community
Disaster Preparedness
Environmental Behavior
16

3.1.3. Barrier Analysis
Barrier Analysis
5
use to identify behavioral determinants associated with a particular
behavior. These behavioral determinants are identified so that more effective behavior
change communication messages, strategies and supporting activities can be developed.
Specific behavior that will be addressed in this project is to manage household waste into
compost. There are 7 determinants that explored: perceived susceptibility, perceived
severity, perceived action efficacy, perceived social acceptability, perceived self-efficacy,
cues for action, and positive and negative attributes of the action.

3.2. Specific Objective of Baseline Survey

No. Objective Result Question Remark
1 Demographic information related to the project
A. Occupation

Informal sector=36.1%
Private employee =33.3%
Labor =16.1%
Government officer =7.1%
Farmer =1.4%
Other =6.0%
P. 13
B. Education

Senior high school =38.5%
Elementary school =28.2%
Junior high school =19.6%
Undergraduate or higher =5.2%
Diploma =3.2%
Not finished elementary school =5.4%
P. 12



C. The length of
stay in the project
area

>15 years =54.7%
6-10 years =15.9%
10-15 years =14.8%
1-5 years =14.5%

P. 10


2 Risk perception, vulnerability, and capacity of community
A. Respondents
who could mention
at least two
potential disasters
in their area
Yes =24.5% Q1
B. Percentages of
respondents who
perceive they were
vulnerable to
disasters in the
future
Yes =21.6%
No =39.8%
Probably =22.8%
Do not Know =15.7%
Q2




5
Davis Jr., Thomas P., (2004). Barrier Analysis Facilitators Guide: A Tool for Improving Behaviour Change
Communication in Child Survival and Community Development Programs
17

C. Percentages of
respondents who
concern to
disasters' impacts

Evacuated =83.0%
Death =88.0%
Injury =87.4%
Property damages =86.1%
Loss of business or livelihood =88.4%
Health Problems =91.2%
Q3



Yes =32.7% D. Percentages of
respondents who
ever experience
impacts of disasters

Health Problems =77.6%
Property Damages =13.2%
Loss of business and livelihood =11.3%
Evacuation =4.1%
Q8, Q9

33.8%have prepared tools needed in
case of disasters, tools they prepared:
Q10
Emergency lights =93.0%
Helm =1 1.6%
Tools (e.g., hoe, chopper) =8.4%
Money =6.9%
Fire extinguisher =3.7%
Live vest=2.8%

E. Percentages of
respondents who
have capacity in
response potential
disasters in their
living areas
68.3%have not discussed actions to be
done in case of disasters
Q11
3 Disaster preparedness in household level
A. Percentages of
respondents who
ever attend
disaster risk
reduction activities
Yes =7.8% Q13
Yes =31.7% Q12 B. Percentages of
respondents who
have and prepare
tools needed when
disasters
Preparing important stuff =56.4%
Preparing evacuation plan =46.5%
Preparing important phone numbers =1.9%
Answer were
reported base on
the weight of
importance from
project team

C. Percentages of
respondent who
access disaster
related information
from various
resources
Yes =34.4% Q14 Minimum answers
was when
respondent could
report two or
more major
resources
18

D. Type of disaster
informations
resources that
could be accessed
by respondents
TV =77.7%
Newspaper =16.6%
Government officer =9.6%
Radio =7.7%
Community leader =7.1%
Internet =6.1%
Mobile phone =3.6%
Brochure =0.6%
Home visit =0.5%
Others =13.6%
Q14 Respondent
answer might be
more than 1
4 Disaster preparedness in community level Q18,Q19
Yes =22.4% A. Percentages of
respondents who
said that there
have been agreed
evacuation areas
Mosque =8.8%
Commercial building=4.5%
Unoccupied ground=3.5%
Local government building=3.5%

B. Percentages of
respondents who
said that there has
been early warning
system in their
living areas
Yes =15.6% Q20
C. Percentages of
respondents who
participate in
disaster risk
reduction activities
in their villages
First aid training =0.6%
Disaster responses simulation =4.9%
Disaster preparedness meetings =2.2%
None =92.2%
Q13 Answer were
reported base on
the weight of
importance from
project team
5 Knowledge and capacity to respond disasters
A. Percentages of
respondents who
could mention at
least two way what
they should do
when heard early
warning system
Yes =11.1% Q23
Bringing important documents =43.8%
Elevating places to put stuff =24.4%
Spreading information to others=20.2%
Assisting children, pregnant women,
elder and disable people reach
evacuation areas =11.6%
Bringing medicine =5.3%
Answer were
reported base on
the weight of
importance from
project team
19

B. Percentages of
respondents who
could mention
where are
evacuation areas

Arranged evacuation areas =41.4%
Relative's houses =45.4%
Q28 No further
information about
where the
arranged
evacuation areas

C. Percentages of
respondents who
know when they
should evacuate
After water reach certain level =52.7%
After flood warning =37.5%
After certain periods =5.7%
After electricity is turned off =3.5%
Q27
6 Knowledge and behavior on climate change
A. Percentages of
respondents who
could mention at
least two impacts
of climate change
Yes =6.1% Q31
B. Percentages of
respondents who
could mention at
least two actions
could be done to
reduce climate
change
Yes =10.7% Q32
7 Waste management
A. Percentages of
respondents who
disposed waste in a
place
Trash-can in front of house =74.3%
Dumpsite areas =17.6%

Q36
B. Percentages of
respondents who
sorted organic and
an-organic
Yes =21.2% Q32
C. Percentages of
respondents who
have solid waste
management
system in their area
Yes =65.5% Q33
Table 3.2 Specific objective of baseline survey






20

3.3. Demographic Information
Total number of respondents were 636, consist of 291 respondents (45.8%) from Bogor, 121
respondents (19.0%) from Depok, and 224 respondents (35.2%) from North Jakarta.


Figure 3.2 Respondents on area of baseline survey (N=636).


Demographic Information n %
Age
19-24 24 3.8
25-55 506 79.7
>55 105 16.5
N=635 100.0
Size of household
1-4 people 362 58.2%
5-8 people 225 36.2%
>8 people 35 5.6%
N=622 100.0%
Ownership of Current Residence
Own house 407 64.0%
Parents house 121 19.0%
Rent house 90 14.2%
Staying with others 14 2.2%
Home office 4 0.6%
N=636 100.0%
Table 3.3 Demographic information

From 636 respondents, there were 317 male (49.8%) and 319 female (50.2%). Age of
respondents was ranging from 19 years old to 85 years old with age average was 43 years
old. This average age of respondents indicates that respondents are still in their productive
age; therefore they are able to participate actively in this project. Other findings is size of
21

respondents households was 4-5 people, it is relatively modest. The size of household is can
be used to predict quantity waste that they produce.

Moreover, most of respondents lived in their own house (64.0%). It arise assumption that
majority of respondents will stay for longer time in their house so they will get benefit of
this project. In addition, because of mostly respondents lived in their house, supposed to be
they have stronger willingness to do activities related to disaster risk reduction activities.

3.4. Risk Perceptions

3.4.1 Perception of Disasters Likelihood
Risk perceptions were understood by measuring how respondents perceive the likelihood
and consequences of disasters. There was 59.7 % respondents in North Jakarta who
perceived disasters would occur in next one year (yes 48.0% and probably 11.7%) followed
by Bogor and Depok. There was 39.8% respondents in Bogor (yes 7.2% and probably 32.6%)
and 32.2% in Depok (yes 7.4% and probably 24.8%). It might be related with the frequency
of disaster, where in North Jakarta have more frequent disasters especially floods (see table
3.7)


Figure 3.3 Perception of disaster likelihood in the next one year (N =636)

Specifically, it was found that flooding, fires, and rob were perceived as the three most
potential disasters that might occur by respondents in North Jakarta (94.7%, 56%, and
12.0% respectively). For those in Bogor perceived wind, flooding, and hail were the most
potential disaster to occur (37.7%, 13.7%, and 12.0%respectively). Meanwhile, respondents
in Depok perceived flooding, wind, and fire would be more likely to occur (27.3%, 24%, and
19% respectively). Further analysis indicated that there were 24.5%respondents who aware
about two or more potential disasters.
Bogor Depok North Jakarta Total
n % n % n % N %
Flooding 40 13.7 33 27.3 213 94.7 286 44.9
Rob 1 0.3 0 0 27 12.0 28 4.4
22

Erosion 8 2.7 0 0 1 0.4 18 2.8
Fire 6 2.1 23 19.0 126 56.0 155 24.3
Earthquake 11 3.8 11 9.1 1 0.4 23 3.6
Wind 111 37.7 29 24.0 1 0.4 140 22.5
Hail 35 12.0 0 0 0 0 35 5.5
Nothing 85 29.2 36 29.8 0 0 121 19.0
Do not Know 19 6.5 6 5.0 0 0 25 3.9
Table 3.4 Potential disaster perceptions *Multiple Response

3.4.2 Perception of Disasters Consequences
In relation to perception of disasters consequences, overall, respondents had high concerns
on all the listed consequences (see table 3.5 for details information).

No Concern Little Concern Very Concern Total
n % n % n % N %
Evacuated 56 8.8% 52 8.2% 529 83.0 636 100.0
Death 35 5.5% 39 6.1% 558 88.3 632 100.0
Injury 31 4.9% 49 7.7% 554 87.4 634 100.0
Property damages 32 5.0% 55 8.6% 548 86.3 635 100.0
Loss of livelihood 35 5.5% 39 6.1% 562 88.4 636 100.0
Health Problems 20 3.1% 36 5.7% 580 91.2 636 100.0
Table 3.5 Perception of disasters consequences

It was also measured how respondents perceived risk of climate changes impacts. Analysis
revealed that most of respondents perceived climate change causing health related
problems (52.4%).There were only very few of respondents who attributed disasters they
experienced to climate change (3.9%). Most of respondents also indicated the uncertain
rainy or dry seasons are a symptom of climate change (51.6%), followed by rain with
unusual strong wind (12.6%). To mitigate climate change, most of respondents thought they
should plant trees (28.7%); 24.5% of them reported did not know what should be done (see
table 3.7 for more details).
Have you heard about climate change N %
Yes 412 64.8
Symptoms of climate change n*
Rainy/dry seasons are uncertain 329 51.6
Prolonged dry seasons 68 10.7
Rain with unusual strong wind 80 12.6
Hotter weather 45 8.0
Others 26 4.2
Do not know

25

4.0

N
Experienced Impacts n*
Health problems 334 52.4
Disruption of livelihood 37 5.8
Affected from climate related disaster 25 3.9
23

Not experienced any impacts 18 2.8
Others 24 3.8
Do not know 26 4.1
Ways to mitigate climate change n*
Plant trees 183 28.7
Saving electricity/energy 79 12.4
Recycling waste 32 5.0
Reducing plastic waste 23 3.6
Keep clean environment 14 2.2
Reduce the use of private vehicles 10 1.6
Others 35 5.5
Do not know 156 24.5
Table 3.6 Climate change knowledge (N=636) * Multiple Response


3.5. Disaster Experiences
3.5.1 General Disaster Experiences
Number of respondents who reported their living areas had been affected by disaster or
never in last one year was not significantly different (48%vs. 51.8%). In average, those in
North Jakarta reported more frequent disaster in their living areas in last one year (M=1.36,
SD=2.46), followed by Bogor (M=0.33, SD=0.66) and Depok (M=0.24, SD=0.55). From these
experiences, overall, 56.3% concluded that likelihood of disaster increased in recent years.
In particular, there were 70.8%respondents in Depok who perceived it increased 54.0%
respondents in North Jakarta, and 52.1% respondents in Bogor. It was significantly different
(F(2,631)=5.917, p=.003).


Figure 3.4 Perception of disaster trends in recent years (N =633)

Table 3.7 presents type of disaster that had occurred in last one year as reported by
respondents for each district. There are 12.4% respondents in Bogor reported wind
occurred in last one year (12.4%). In Depok, respondents reported it was flooding (10.7%).
Respondents in North Jakarta also mainly reported flooding as a disaster that had occurred
24

in last one year (86.2%). These findings were consistent with BNPB reports that indicated
that such disasters occurred in 2010 in Bogor and Depok, but just occurred in North Jakarta
in 2012
6
.

Bogor Depok North Jakarta Total
n % n % n % N %
Flooding 19 6.5 13 10.7 194 86.2 226 35.6
Rob 0 0 0 0 23 10.2 23 3.6
Erosion 3 1.0 4 3.3 0 0 7 1.1
Fire 0 0 3 2.5 37 16.4 40 6.3
Wind 37 12.4 5 4.1 1 0.4 43 6.8
Hail 27 9.3 0 0 0 0 27 4.2
Table 3.7 Type of disaster that had occurred in last one year

Some disasters had occurred in some living areas, but it was found that there were only
32.7% of respondents and or their families that have been affected by disaster, where 84.1%
of respondents live in North Jakarta. The tops 4 of damages that have been experienced by
respondents can be seen in figure 3.5.


Figure 3.5 Disaster impact experienced (N=636) * Multiple Response


3.5.2 Flood Related Experiences
To understand disaster preparedness behavior, it was also measured respondents
experiences in facing flooding. Specifically, six questions were asked: what they will do when
they heard early warning information; what they did to prevent diseases; what they know
about retaining clean water when flooding; when they decide to evacuate; reasons not to
evacuate; and where they will evacuate if flood occurs. Below is the summary of the
findings:

6
http://dibi.bnpb.go.id/DesInventar/simple_results.jsp
25


Have you experienced flooding n %
Yes 226 35.6
What will you do when heard flood warning n
Bringing important documents 113 43.8
Elevating places to put stuff at home 63 24.4
Spreading information to others 52 20.2
Assisting children, pregnant women, elder and disable
people reach evacuation areas. 30 11.6
Bringing medicine 4 5.3
What to do to prevent diseases when flooding n
Using clean water for drinking, cooking, and MCK 310 48.7
Washing hand before eating 143 22.4
Cleaning house 132 22.5
Not eat stall food 67 10.5
What to do to retain clean water n
Buying clean water 308 48.4
Gathering rain water 301 47.3
Elevating water tank 29 4.6
Using water purifying 26 4.1
When will decide to evacuate n
After water reaches certain level 335 52.7
After hearing a flood warning 239 37.5
After electricity power is turned off 22 3.5
After the flood occurs in certain periods 33 5.7
Do not to evacuate 66 10.4
Reasons not evacuate n
Having house with two levels 36 6.5
Difficult/uncomfortable 7 1.4
Where to evacuate n
Relatives houses 289 45.4
Arranged evacuation areas 264 41.4
Higher land 86 14.6
Going back to home village 13 2.2
Mosque 8 1.6
Table 3.8 Flood responses (N=636) * Multiple Response

The data showed that there were 35.6% of respondents who ever experienced flooding
where most of them or 91.1%live in North Jakarta. There were 43.8% of them mentioned
would bringing important documents when heard early warning information of the flooding,
24.4% would elevating places to put stuff at home, and 20.2%spreading information to
others. Further analysis indicated there were only 11.1% of respondent that could
mentioned at least two actions that would be done when heard early warning information.

Most of respondents were aware about the time to evacuate. It was showed by findings
that 52.7%of respondent said that they would evacuate after water reaches certain level
and 37.5% mentioned after hearing flood warning information. There were only few
26

respondents who mentioned would evacuate after flood occurs in certain periods (5.7%)
and after electricity power is turned off (3.5%). Data also indicated that respondents would
evacuate to arranged evacuation areas (41.4%) and relatives house (45.4%). Unfortunately,
there was no further information about the arranged evacuation areas that respondents
meant. Meanwhile, there were 10.4% who mentioned would not evacuate because they
have had house with two levels (6.5%) and perceived evacuation was uncomfortable and
difficult (1.4%).

3.6. Disaster Preparedness
To understand how community has been involved in disaster preparedness, preparedness
activities in household and community level were identified. Overall, the data showed that
community in present study areas have not actively prepared any actions that needed to
face disaster. Following sections will discuss it in details.

3.6.1 Disaster Preparedness at the Household Level
There questions were asked to know disaster preparedness in household level: whether
they have tools that could be used once disaster occur, whether they have talked about
what they will do once disaster occur, and what actions they will do in that situation. The
data indicates that most of respondents have not engaged in any disaster preparedness
activities in last 6 months (92.2%). There were only 4.9% respondents who attending
disaster responses simulation, 2.2% who attending disaster related preparedness meetings,
and 0.6% who joining first aid trainings. It was also found that majority of respondents have
not prepared any tools yet (66.1%). There were only 33.8% who have done it. List of the
tools they prepared are presented in table 3.9.

Tools that family prepared for disaster N* %
Emergency lights 200 93.0
Helm 25 11.6
Tools (e.g., hoe, chopper) 18 8.4
Money 15 6.9
Fire extinguisher 8 3.7
Live vest 6 2.8
Table 3.9 Tools that family prepared for disaster (N=278, i.e.: respondents who mentioned
they prepared tools needed for disaster) *Multiple Response

Most of respondents also have not discussed about actions that would be done in case of
disasters (68.3%). Among those who have discussed it reported doing following actions:
preparing stuff that would be brought when they have to be evacuated (56.4%; e.g.,
important documents, medicine), preparing evacuation plan for family members (46.5%),
and preparing lists of important phone numbers (1.9%). Most of respondents could mention
one action plan (21.7%) while there were only 5.8% could be mention two action plans.

27


Figure 3.6 Action that would be done when faced with a disaster (N=636)* Multiple
Response

The data shown that, respondents obtained disaster related information mainly from
following sources:

Information sources related disaster* n %
TV 495 77.7
Newspaper 106 16.6
Government officer 61 9.6
Radio 49 7.7
Community leaders 45 7.1
Internet 39 6.1
Mobile phone (call/sms) 23 3.6
Brochure 4 0.6
Home visit from volunteer 3 0.5
Others 80 13.7
Table 3.10 Information sources related disaster (N=636) *Multiple Response

It seems that respondents were more exposed to media like TV, newspaper, or radio. In
other hand government officer or community leader still be a source of important
information.


3.6.2 Disaster Preparedness at the Community Level
Disaster preparedness in community was also still low. It was indicated by the absence of
community volunteer (68.6%), no defined community roles and responsibilities to face
disaster (83%), and even most of respondents reported that they did not know or have not
known their personal role and responsibilities (94.8%) as reported by respondent, see figure
3.7 for more details.

28


Figure 3.7 Disaster preparedness at the community level (N=636)

Most of respondents have not agreed where they have to evacuate when disaster (71.7%).
Only 22.4% of respondents that have agreed evacuation points: mosques (8.8%),
commercial building (4.5%), unoccupied ground (3.5%), local government building (3.5%),
and rail (2.0%). Further, the project team need to look if the mentioned evacuation point is
truly safe or not. As a function of districts, it was found that amount of respondents who
have known where to evacuate was much greater in North Jakarta (65.0%) compared to
those in Depok (23.1%) and Bogor (11.9%).

Early Warning System
Most of respondents indicated that there have no early warning systems yet (76.4%). Only
15.6% of them who reported it have existed in their living areas. There were only 28.7% who
ever get warning information before a disaster occurs. In particular, there were more
respondents in Bogor who reported never had early warning (55.1%) in comparison to those
in Depok (20.9%) and North Jakarta (24%). The early warning information mainly retrieved
from television (17.9%), local government officers (8.2%), and neighbor (5.5%).


3.7. Solid Waste Management
In this section solid waste management are explored at the community and household level.
Data elaborated from the survey, interview from community key member, and focus group
discussion on both doers and non-doers on composting.

3.7.1 Waste Management in Community Level
Majority of the respondent answer there are solid waste management system in their
community. It is looked from 65.5%of respondents said that the system already exist in
their community, while 33.5%said no, and 1.0%did not know. The condition is relatively
same in urban situation both in North Jakarta (90.9%) and Depok (81.6%). In program area
at Bogor, in which the condition is relatively rural only 42.6%of respondents said there are
waste collection system in their community.

29

Respondents from the FGD and interview also mentioned information related waste
collection system in their community:
The system manage by RT, usually there are community members or volunteers that
carries the waste from house to house. They get paid from community contributions.
This contribution is included in the monthly dues, where the average allocation for
waste collection varies from 5.000 to 10.000 IDR per month.
Regularly (1 or 2 days there will be people who pick up waste from house to house.
The waste is usually transported by wagon to be taken to the dumpsite or temporary
landfill and then transported by trucks from municipal to the landfill.
Schedule of transportation from municipal relative irregular, sometimes RT or village
staff must contact first. Usually RT staff gives incentive to the municipal waste
collector after transported the waste, in average 100.000 IDR per transport.
Respondents can mention where dumpsites in their area but they cannot answer
where the location of the landfill and didn't know how the municipal in managing
their waste there. This shows that respondent are aware about the waste problem in
their community, but they do not care where and how their waste is managed.

Since the program area is located near by the river, respondent also asked about river
cleaning activities. Only 31.9% said that there are river cleaning activities in their community
and varies from 1x a week and 3 month at once.

River Cleaning Activities N %
1x a week 49 24.1
1x a month 87 42.9
>3 month 41 20.2
Never 26 12.8
Table 3.11 River Cleaning Activities (N =203 from respondent said that there are river
cleaning activities)


3.7.2 Waste Management in Household Level
In household level, respondents usually put their waste in trash can in front of their house,
in the dumpsite area or burn it. Only a few answer that they throw into the river.

Waste management in household n %
Put in waste bag or trash can in front the house 472 74.3
Disposed in the dumpsite area 112 17.6
Burning 86 13.6
Throw into the river 23 3.6
Table 3.12 Waste management in household level (N =636)* Multiple Response

In general they have knowledge and awareness about the importance of waste
management. Its look from majority, 78.7%of the respondents answer it is necessary to sort
wet and dry waste but only 21.2% doing this. That result relative same for North Jakarta,
Depok, and Bogor. Some ways to reduce household waste are through composting,
recycling, sorting, re-use plastic and burning it. They also know that impacts from throwing
waste into the river are flood, disease, environmental degradation, or swallowing river.
30


How to reduce household waste n %
Composting 139 21.9
Recycling 127 20.0
Sorting wet and dry waste 125 19.7
Re-use plastic bag 109 17.1
Burning 86 13.6
Perceived impact from throwing waste into the river n
Flood 593 93.2
Disease 277 43.6
Environmental degradation 170 26.7
Swallowing river 82 12.9
Table 3.13 How to reduce household waste (N =636,) * Multiple Response

This means that the knowledge and perceptions related to waste management are good but
in practice to sort waste and composting still low. This is consistent with the barrier analysis.
Determinant that related to knowledge, awareness, or attitude be perceived relative same
both on doer composting and non-doer respondent. Both of them perceive can get smell of
pollution or disease-related hygiene if they didnt manage their household waste. They also
believe if they are doing composting it can reduce the volume of waste that must be
disposed and then the negative impact was reduced.

The determinant that be consider as barrier are perceived self-efficacy and cues for action.
The barrier such as do not have time, do not have space, do not have equipment, do not
have knowledge and skill, relatively difficult to remember the process, and laziness. This
barrier can be overcome with the positive attribute from composting such as:
Composting is easy to do and can be done by everyone
Can reduce volume of household waste
Compost can be used by their self
Compost have economic value

Related to the barrier analysis there some activities that need to be done to support
composting:
Advocacy to local authority, village, or district to support composting activities
Demonstrate the process of composting
Supervision after socialization or training, this is important so that participants feel
get the attention and evaluating the result of making compost.
Make a tips for composting trough communication media like sticker or poster and
then put in their kitchen

Respondents from FGD and interview also mentioned some message that can be used to
promote composting:
Sampah Sumber Penyakit (Trash source of disease)
Sampah Sumber Bencana (Trash source of disaster)
Ingat, Bersih itu Sehat (Clean is Healthy)
Sampah itu Uang (Waste is Money)
31

Mengurangi Sampah, Menambah Uang Belanja! (Reduce Your Waste, Increase
Spending Money)

There is a good model for community based waste management from one women group at
Depok. From FGD with them it seems that the key to success of their activities there is the
role model and commitment of members. FGD participant said that they keep continue
except already feel the benefits the also have strong role model. The leader of the group is
can be trusted, can give an example and give attention to all members. It is important to
the program to develop the role model first in the community. With a strong role model
would increase the possibility of program sustainability. Although they consider a lack of
concrete support from the government, their activities continued to grow until now.

Case Study: Poklili Experience

Poklili or Kelompok Peduli Lingkungan (Environment Care Group) is women group from RT 3
RW 24 Griya Lembah Depok. Their initiatives are started from waste problem in their
residence, especially dumpsite near their residence and transport of waste that is not
routinely cause smell of pollution.

Their first activity is making craft from trash and then composting. At first some people who
become initiator see the exhibit, attend seminars and trainings. They tried to practice in
their community and invite others. For the busy household they invite the house assistant.
Now they manage the garbage bank. Garbage bank activity is growing rapidly with about
500 people because benefits more visible and can be fell directly. The key success is they
have the role model that has a strong commitment, their activities sustain until now.

Table 3.14 Case study of community based waste management


3.8. Social Capital
This section will explore existing social capitals of respondents in present study areas. There
were four kinds of social capitals that were measured: social network, social norms, place
dependence and sense of community. Furthers, there was also an analysis to understand
the role of demographic characteristics in explaining variable of interests (i.e., disaster
preparedness and environmental behavior).

3.8.1 Social Network
In society or community there is social structure will be form
7
. Someone in the community
will be connected and depend each other. Therefore it becomes important to understand
the relationship or bond that is formed, especially if we want to do a program in the
community.


7
The Use of Social Network Analysis Tools in the Evaluation of Social Change Communication. Dr Rick Davies,
April. 2009
32

In context of the baseline study will be identified: What organizations that have regular
activities in the community? Who is the most they hear their opinions regarding the flood
and why?

There is 49.5% respondent said they are joining an association in their community and some
people can join in more than 1 association. From those who involved in the association the
most followed are pengajian or religious activity 75.2% (included majelis taklim) and
arisan 44.1%. Both religious activity and arisan has relatively routine activities. When
explored further which one that they feel more belong to, 66.0% respondent said religious
activity and 19.7%said arisan.

In the context preparedness or mitigation, almost respondents rarely and never exchange
information about flooding with their neighbors.

Exchange information about flooding with the neighbors n %
Never 359 56.4
Seldom 178 28.0
Often 86 13.5
Always 12 1.9
Table 3.15 Exchanges of information about flooding with neighbors (N =635)

Further, they are who exchange information they most heard are the head of RT/RW (5.7%)
and neighbor (6.4%). The reason are they can be trusted because the get information from
official sources and they also have positive personal attribute (close, friendly, responsible,
and familiar). It will be more effective if the program can improve exchange information
between neighborhoods with involve the existing structure or association like religious
activity and arisan in the process.


3.8.2 Why People Throw Waste into the River and How to Promote Pro-environmental
Behavior?
A correlation analysis was performed to understand what factors that might correlate with
anti and pro-environment behavior. Social norms were measured to find its relationship
with environmental behavior. Prior to present the findings, it is necessary to explain
definition of social norms. Social norms are the unwritten rules guide people behavior.
There are two kinds of social norms: injunctive norms that reflect what most people expect
to do and descriptive norms that reflect what most people do
8
. Due to social norms
specifically measured waste management related norms, the analysis only attempted to find
the correlation with environmental behavior.





8
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct:
Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 58(6), 10151026.
33


Injunctive Descriptive
Throwing rubbish into the river -0.048 .113*
Frequency of involvement in
cleaning up the river activities .091* .05
Table 3.16 Correlation between social norm and environmental behavior

Analysis revealed that people who were exposed to anti environmental descriptive norms
(i.e., perception that most of people throw rubbish into the river) would be more likely to do
the same anti environmental behavior (r=.113, p=.004). However, interestingly, it did not
correlated with injunctive norms. That is, people would still throw rubbish into the river or
not, regardless what people expect on them in relation to environmental behavior. In
contrast, for pro-environmental behavior (cleaning up the river activities) were more
significantly correlated with injunctive norms (r=.091, p=.22). These findings indicated that
to reduce the anti environmental behavior, it might be more useful to transform the
negative descriptive norms to be more positive (i.e., correcting residents perception about
what most their neighbor do: most of their neighbor DO NOT, instead of DO, throw waste
into their river). Meanwhile, to increase involvement in pro-environmental behavior, it
might be more useful to modify the injunctive norms (i.e., correcting residents ideas about
what most their neighbor expect on them: disapprove, instead of approve, those who
throwing rubbish into the river).


3.8.3 Why do People Engage in Disaster Preparedness?
Place attachment was measured to understand disaster preparedness behavior. It refers to
people-place bonding that could affect how people thereat their place
9
. It is suggested that
place attachment comprises of place dependence and sense of community. Whilst place
dependence related to functional or goal-directed connections to a setting, such as the
degree to which the physical setting provides conditions to support an intended use, sense
of community refers to feelings of belongingness or membership to a group of people, such
as friends and family.

Analysis indicated that place dependence and sense of community did not have any
significant correlations with environmental behavior. As indicated earlier, the environmental
behavior was more related with social norms. However, it was found place identity and
social norms correlated with disaster preparedness behavior in quite various ways. That is,
place dependence and sense of community were found correlated with whether community
have had agreement on where evacuation point (r=0.123, p=.002; r=-1.32, p=.001).
Meanwhile, for the variables of whether respondents discuss about action plans in case of
disaster with family and whether community have defined roles and responsibility in case of
disaster among community members only correlated with sense of community (r=-.124,
p=.002; r=-.09, p=.023 respectively), but not place dependence (r=-.050, p=.211; r=.-.012,

9
Bonaiuto, M., Carrus, G., Martorella, H., & Bonnes, M. (2002). Local identity processes and
environmental attitudes in land use changes: The case of natural protected areas. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 23.
34

p=.63). Thus, it seems that sense of community was more important than place dependence
in explaining disaster preparedness behavior.

Place dependence Sense of Community
Disaster Preparedness
Discussing with family about they will
do when disaster -0.05 -1.23**
Agreement on where to evacuate -0.12** -1.32**
Defined role and responsibilities -0.01 -0.09
Having individual role and
responsibilities -0.025 -0.067
Having tools that can be used in case of
disasters 0.001 0.069
Environmental Behavior
Throwing rubbish into the river -0.014 -0.023
Cleaning up the river activities -0.004 0.01
Table 3.17 Correlation between place attachment and disaster preparedness; correlation
between place attachment and environmental behavior

3.8.4 The Role of Demographic Characteristics
Present study also wants to know how demographic characteristics of respondents correlate
with variables of interest. Analysis revealed that those who lived in their own house were
more likely to discuss about what they will do when disasters (r=-.08, p=.045), the older
respondents were more likely to prepare tools that can be used in case of disasters (r=.08,
p=.044), women were more likely to have individual role and responsibilities in assigned
disaster related groups (r=.09, p=.020). In relation to environmental behavior, data showed
that respondents with greater amount of family members (r=.18, p<.001), longer staying at
current living area (r=.09, p=.020), and have own house were more frequent to involve in
cleaning up the river activities (r=.17, p<.001). Those findings have implications on selecting
key agents in disaster preparedness and pro-environmental activities. None of demographic
variables correlated with anti-environmental past behavior (throwing waste into the river)

Gender Amount of Family
Members
Length
of Stay
Age Home
Status
Disaster Preparedness
Discussing with family about
they will do when disaster -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 -0.01 -0.08*
Having individual role and
responsibilities 0.09* -0.02 0.0 0.01 0.03
Having tools that can be used
in case of disasters 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.08* 0.03
Environmental Behavior
Throwing waste into the river 0.03 .00 -0.02 -0.01 -0.07
Cleaning up the river activities
-0.03 0.18** 0.09* 0.04
.166*
*
Table 3.18 Correlation between demographic characteristic and disaster preparedness;
correlation between demographic characteristic and environmental behavior
35

Conclusion


Some areas in Jakarta and its surrounding areas have been recently affected by climate
related disasters (Greater Jakarta Urban Disaster Risk Reduction Project, ARC-PMI
Document, 2012). The disasters have caused deaths, injuries, and socio-economic issues for
residents. As was evident from the baseline survey, perceptions of a disasters likelihood
was low, though respondents had reported experiencing disasters in the past. Respondents
were highly concerned with the likelihood of future disasters potential impacts. It also was
clear that engagements in disaster preparedness were low, but respondents did display
good knowledge and behaviors indicating that they knew how to response disasters (i.e.,
flooding). From the qualitative study, it became clear that respondents did have good
practices in regards to placing their daily waste in appropriate places, but they were not yet
practicing not yet sorting their waste.

Analysis on perceptions of disasters likelihood of occurring locally showed that respondents
perceived disasters were less likely to occur in the next year (39.8%). There were 24.5%
respondents who were correctly able to identify at least two potential disasters that their
living areas were vulnerable to. However, most of respondents were highly concerned about
potential disasters damages; particularly those residing in Depok. Only 32.7% of the
respondents reported having experienced disaster damages in the past.

The low engagement in disaster preparedness was concluded from the percentage of
respondents who reported that: they did not have any tools needed in case of a disaster
(66.1%); had little participation in disaster preparedness activities (91.2%); or, had little
discussion with family members about actions that should be taken in case of a disaster
(68.3%). This was also the case at the community level: most of the respondents reported
they had no community disaster volunteers (68.6%); no defined community roles in case of
a disaster occurrence (83.0%); or, had no defined responsibilities, personally, in preparation
for a disaster (94.9%; some cases community have defined it, but not sure most of
respondents did not their personal role and responsibilities). Moreover, only 11.1%
respondents reported that their living areas had early warning systems. However, some
respondents reported that they had agreed upon evacuation areas; particularly in North
Jakarta (65.0%).

Regarding the districts, Bogor seemed to need special consideration because they are
exposed to more varied and frequent disasters (compared to Depok). Simultaneously, they
collectively had a lower general perception of disaster consequences (18.37, SD=3.05) and a
lower awareness of where to evacuate (11.9%) compared to North Jakarta (65.0%) and
Depok (23.1%). The lower perception of consequences might be attributed to their
disasters frequency in the area (with respondents being more used to disasters). To some
extent, this could have a negative impact as it could diminish willingness to participate in
disaster preparedness. This idea was made clear by the fact that did not have previously
designated evacuation areas. Inferential analysis revealed that involvement in disaster
preparedness could be increased by reinforcing their sense of community. On the other
hand, respondents in Depok were less likely to predict that disasters would occur but, at the
36

same time, they seemed highly concerned about potential disasters damages. This could be
a good entry point to begin engaging residents in disaster preparedness activities.

To know how respondents respond to disasters, their experience with floods was measured.
Data showed that 11.4% of respondents correctly mentioned actions that could be taken
when they heard early warning information. Respondents showed a strong amount of
knowledge about when to evacuate: after water reaches a certain level (52.7%); or, after
hearing flood warning information (37.5%). There were very few respondents who would
evacuate after certain periods (5.7%) or after electricity was turned off (3.5%). In relation to
flood related experiences, most of respondents knew what to do to prevent diseases and
what to do to retain clean water after and during flooding.

In relation to solid waste management, data showed that communities had a good level of
awareness regarding whether or not throw waste into the river (96.4%). Most of
respondents (78.7%) also agreed that it was necessary to sort wet and dry waste, but only
20.1% reported doing this. To understand what we could do to reduce the likelihood of
individuals throwing waste in to river, other variables were measured (i.e., social norms).
Analysis revealed that to diminish the habit of throwing waste into the river, anti-
environmental descriptive norms should be modified to be more pro-environmental. This
could be done by cleaning the rivers so that residents would not want to put their waste in
the river. Or this could be done through announcements and messaging, for example
through posters indicating that the river had just recently been cleaned by residents.
Residents might in turn feel guilty which could reduce individuals willingness to throw
waste into the river. To encourage communities to get involved in river clean-up activities,
injunctive norms should be a concern. Which could be done by correcting peoples opinions
about what their neighbors really want them to do (i.e., join river clean-up activities instead
of assuming their neighbors are fine with their disregard for the condition of the river)
through community meetings or announcements, using multiple communication channels.

Although most of people reported that they managed their waste by collecting them in a
waste can in front of their house, they did not sort and compost their waste (20.1%). Barrier
analysis indicated that residents felt it was difficult to do so for two sets of reasons. The first
sets were personal reasons: they perceived sorting and composting are time consuming;
laziness; waste did not smell good and was disgusting; or, lack of knowledge and skills. The
second sets were structural: no space; or lack of equipment. These barriers do not appear to
be too difficult to reduce because residents seem to already know the benefits of waste
management.

Finally, to enhance the success of any programs seeking to encourage residents to engage in
disaster preparedness and waste management, religious activity and arisan should be
existing structures that can be involved as conveners and agents to support change in
community because residents widely participated in these two groups. Using these two
vehicles, the opinions and behavior of people that take part in these groups would be more
likely to be heard and followed.