Chapter 2

Data and Method

2.1 Natural Disaster Resilience

2.1.1 Natural Disaster Definition

Hazard is a harmful condition that threatens or has a potential to cause injury to life
or loss to property or environment. Process of natural event that continuously takes
place on earth can generate natural hazard (Nelson, 2014). Natural hazard is hazard
that is caused by natural phenomena, namely meteorogical, geological, or biological
phenomena. The combination of hazard, vulnerability, and inadequate capacity to
reduce the potential of risk results a disaster. In the absence of proper mitigation
system, natural hazard have a potential to generate natural disaster (Amaya, 2007).

The term disaster comes from a word “Desastre”, a French word that consists of two
words ‘des’ meaning bad and ‘aster’ meaning star so that the term means ‘Bad or
Evil star’. Disaster can be defined as a serious disturbance in the functioning of a
community that causes wide spread material, economic, social or environmental
damages that surpass the ability of the affected community to cope using its own
resources. Whereas Fritz (1961) defines disaster as an event concentrated in time and
space, in which a community or one of its subdivisions undergoes physical hazard
and social disturbance, such that all or some essential functions of the community or
subdivisions are impaired. According to CRED (2010), a disaster is a sudden and
unforeseen situation or event that causes great damage, disruption, and human
suffering, necessitating a request to a national or international level for external
assistance. CRED also classifies disaster into two categories, i.e. natural and
technological disaster. Natural disaster then be classified into five subcategories
described in Table 2.1.

9
 Table 2.1 Natural Disaster Subcategories (CRED, 2010)

Subcategory Definition Event

Geophysical Events that come from solid earth Earthquake, Volcano,
Mass movement (dry)
Meteorogical Events resulted from short-lived or small Storm
to meso-scale atmospheric processes
Hydrological Events resulted from deviation in the Flood, Mass movement
normal water cycle and/or overflow of (wet)
bodies of water caused by wind set-up
Climatological Events resulted from long-lived or meso to Extreme temperature,
macro-scale processes Drought or Wildfire
Biological Disaster resulted from the exposure of Epidemic, Insect
living organisms to germs and toxic infestation, Animal
substances stampede

2.1.2 Natural Disaster Resilience Definition

Resilience is, as a concept, applied in more than one disciplines, namely ecology,
hazard, sociology, geography, psychology, psychiatry, and public health (Klein et al,
2003; Manyena, 2006; Norriz et al, 2008). Resilience has been defined in several
ways depending on the disciplines. However, the main focus of this research is
resilience on the concept of hazard and disaster. In the concept of hazard and
disaster, the first one who proposed the definition of resilience is Timmerman
(1981), using climate change as an example in his paper entitled “Vulnerability,
Resilience, and the Collapse of Societies” (Clark et al., 1981; Klein et al., 2003).
Timmerman (1981) connected resilience to hazard vulnerability and defined it as the
measure of a system’s or part of system’s capacity to absorb and recover from an
occurrence of hazardous event. After that, many experts seemed to have proposed
their own definition of resilience in the concept of hazard and disaster, as it is
described in Table 2.2.

10
 Table 2.2 Definitions of resilience in the concept of hazard and disaster (Mayunga,
2009)
Author Definition
Timmerman Resilience is the measure of a system’s or sub-system’s capacity to
(1981) absorb and recover from a hazardous event.
Mileti Local resiliency in the field of disaster means that a locale is capable
(1999) of withstanding an extreme natural event without suffering shattering
losses, damage, reduced productivity, or quality of life without a large
amount of help from outside the community.
Comfort et Resilience is described as the capacity to adapt on available resources
al (1999) and skills to new systems and operating condition.
Paton et al Resilience is an active process of self-righting, learned resourcefulness
(2000) and growth the ability to function psychologically at a level greater
than expected given the individual’s aptitude and prior experiences.
Adger Social resilience is the ability of communities to withstand external
(2000) stresses and disruptions as a result of social, political, and
environmental changes.
Pelling Resilience in the field of hazard and disaster is the ability of an actor
(2003) to adapt or cope with hazard stress.
Godschalk A resilient city consists of a sustainable network of physical systems
(2003) and human communities.
UN/ISDR Resilience can be defined as the capacity of a system, community, or
(2005) society potentially exposed to hazards to adapt, by resisting or
changing in order to reach and maintain an acceptable level of
functioning and structure. This is determined by the degree to which
the social system is able to organize itself to increase this capacity for
learning from past disasters for better future protection and to improve
risk reduction measures.
Paton & Resilience in the field of hazard and disaster is a measure of how well
Johnston people and communities can adapt to a changed reality and capitalize
(2006) on the new probabilities offered.

Even though every author has different ways in proposing disaster resilience
definition, all of the definitions actually have similar properties and generally, there
are some key points that can be obtained from those described in Table 2.2. The key
points are first, resilience is defined as the function of a system and its dynamics and
self reorganizing capacity after a disruption caused by disaster. Second, some authors
tend to express resilience in a long term perspective, that can be connected to the
notion of bouncing back. Some of the definitions describe resilience as a long-term
recovery process after an occurrence of a disaster. Third, there is the notion of
resistance in the definition of the resilience which implies that the system or sub-

11
system will be capable of absorbing, deflecting, lessening or modifying impacts or
the consequences of the potential impacts. Fourth, some definitions describe about
the notion of adaptive capacity that implies the ability of a community to adapt to
new environment following a disaster and the capacity to learn from the prior
disasters. Fifth, some authors connect the definition of resilience to the concept of
sustainability. Sixth, there is the notion of disaster resilience as the opposite of
vulnerability that implies when the vulnerability is high, the resilience tend to be low
and vice versa.

2.1.3 Natural Disaster Resilience Conceptual Linkage

The key elements of the concept of disaster resilience definition in the field of hazard
and disaster which are mostly used by experts are adaptive capacity and vulnerability
(Nafishoh, 2016). According to Burton et al (2002), adaptive capacity is the ability of
a system to adjust to change, moderate the effects, and withstand the disruption.
Whereas, vulnerability in the term of hazard and disaster is defined as a threat or
exposure to hazard, or as the degree of potential of loss, or situation that put people
at risk (Mitchel 1989; Downing 1991; Alexander 1993; Cutter 1996; Cutter et al
2003; Burton 2012). The concept of disaster resilience is defined in many ways by
many experts. Table 2.3 shows the conceptual linkage between resilience, adaptive
capacity, and vulnerability according to some authors.

12
 Table 2.3 The conceptual linkage between resilience, adaptive capacity, and
vulnerability (Yoon and Kang, 2013; Cutter et al., 2008)

Themes Type of Conceptual Linkages

Resilience (a) (b)
vs.
Vulnerability Vulnerability

Vulnera- Resilience
Resilience
bility

(Manyena, 2006) (Cutter et al., 2008)

Resilience (c) (d)
vs. Adaptive
Capacity Adaptive Resilience
Capacity

Resilience Adaptive
Capacity

(Adger, 2006; Birkman, 2006; (Bruneau et al., 2003; Paton and

Folke, 2006) Johnston, 2006; Tiemey and
Bruneau, 2007)
(e) (f)
Resilience
vs. Vulnerability
Vulnerability Adaptive
vs. Adaptive Resilience Vulnera- Capacity Resilience
Capacity
Adaptive bility
Capacity

(Engle, 2011)
(Turner et al., 2003; Gallopin,
2006)

From Table 2.3 (a), it is known that Manyena (2006) describes that the whole part of
resilience is included to vulnerability and that vulnerability is a wider concept than
resilience. Whereas, Cutter et al., (2008) describes the linkage between vulnerability
and resilience as two separate things but connected to each other, as it is seen in
Table 2.3 (b). From Table 2.3 (c), it is known that some authors describe that
adaptive capacity is a wider concept than resilience and the whole part of resilience
is included to adaptive capacity. Whereas, some other authors have a different

13
thought as it is seen in Table 2.3 (d). They describe that resilience is a wider concept
than adaptive capacity and the whole part of adaptive capacity inlcudes to resilience
concept. Table 2.3 (e), however, shows another thought on the linkage of resilience,
vulnerability, and adaptive capacity. It describes that vulnerability is the widest
concept of all, resilience is the second widest concept, while adaptive capacity is the
least one. Whole part of adaptive capacity is included to resilience, and the whole
part of resilience is included to vulnerability. Evolving Cutter et al., (2008)’s
thought, Engle (2011), as shown in Table 2.3 (f), describes the linkage as the
separation of vulnerability and resilience but connected by adaptive capacity.

2.1.4 Natural Disaster Resilience Measurement Method

Baseline Resilience Indicators for Communities (BRIC), which is developed by

Cutter et al (2010), is one of methods to measure disaster resilience index of a
community. BRIC consists of set of indicators and methodology to measure baseline
characteristics of communities that improve the natural disaster resilience. Baseline
characteristics are the antecedent conditions in a community before any programs,
policies, and interventions that improve resilience are implemented (Burton, 2012).
BRIC consists of six indicators; they are social, economic, community, institution,
infrastructure, and environment resilience. BRIC gives comparison between
indicators so it could identify which aspects or indicators that need to be improved to
increase the natural disaster resilience (Cutter et al., 2010). However, the method that
is used to measure the natural disaster resilience in this research is CDRI. CDRI
consists of different indicators from BRIC and it can also give comparison between
indicators. In addition, CDRI not only comprises of capital indicators, but also is
integrated with natural disaster management phases’ activities.

2.1.5 Community Disaster Resilience Index (CDRI)

According to Mayunga (2009), CDRF consists of two main components, they are
disaster management phase’ activities (mitigation, preparedness, response, and
recovery) and community capitals (social, economic, physical, and human), as it
describes in Figure 2.1.

14

Community
Capitals:
• Social capital
• Economic capital
• Physical capital
• Human capital
Disaster
Management
Phases' Activities:
• Hazard mitigation
• Disaster
preparedness
• Disaster response
• Disaster recovery

Community Disaster
Resilience

Figure 2.1 Community Disaster Resilience Framework (Mayunga, 2009)

To create a platform on which disaster resilience indicators can be developed, the

CDRF integrates the community capital and the disaster management phases’
activities. These indicators will then be used to measure the overall community
disaster resilience. Through assessing the major forms of community capital in every
disaster management phases’ activity, the community disaster resilience can be
measured. The framework describes that successful implementation of activities of
each disaster phase depends on the four community capitals (Mayunga, 2009). Figure
2.2 illustrate the relationships between community capitals and disaster phases’
activities.

15
 •Social capital •Social capital
•Economic capital •Economic capital
•Physical capital •Physical capital
•Human capital •Human capital

Hazard Disaster
Mitigation Preparedness

Disaster Disaster
Recovery Response
•Social capital •Social capital
•Economic capital •Economic capital
•Physical capital •Physical capital
•Human capital •Human capital

Figure 2.2 Relationship between community capitals and disaster phases’

activities (Mayunga, 2009)

2.1.5.1 Disaster Management Phases’ Activities

There are four activities undertaken during disaster management phases, they are:
hazard mitigation, disaster preparedness, disaster response, and disaster recovery
(Mayunga, 2009). The first phase, hazard mitigation, can be defined as those advance
actions to minimize or dismiss the long term risk to both of human life and property
from natural hazards (Godschalk et al., 1999; Lindell & Perry, 1992). Preventing
disasters before their occurrence or reducing the likelihood of their occurence are
two focus of hazard mitigation. Such activities are termed either structural or
nonstructural depends on whether they affect land use or buildings (Godschalk et al.,
1999; Mileti, 1999). The activities include: strengthening infrastructure and bulidings
affected by hazards, avoiding the areas of hazard prone, and maintaining protective
features of the natural environment.

The second phase is disaster preparedness that can be defined as those activities
taken to protect human lives and properties from threats that cannot be controlled by
means of mitigation (Lindell & Perry, 1992). Those activities include: activities

16
which are related to warning the affected population and emergency managers, and
activities which enhance the effectiveness of emergency operation (Lindell & Perry,
1992).

The third phase is disaster response that can be defined as those activities that are
undertaken during the time period that begins with detection of the event and ends
with the situation following the impact (Lindell & Perry, 1992). According to Mileti
(1999), protecting the affected population, attempting to limit the damage from the
initial impact, and reducing damage from the secondary impact are the focus of the
disaster response activities.

The fourth phase is disaster recovery that can be defined as those activities taken to
repair, rebuild, and reconstruct properties that are damaged and restore disturbed
community social routines and economic activities (Tiemey et al., 2001). According
to Lindell & Perry (1992), disaster recovery activities begin after the disaster impact
has ben stabilized and extends until a community has returned to its normal
activities.

2.1.5.2 Community Capitals

The important factors in building community capacities to deal with disasters are the
major forms of capital, namely social, economic, physical, and human (Callaghan &
Colton, 2007; Dynes, 2002; Haque & Etkin, 2007; Walter, 2004). According to
Beeton (2006) and Walter (2004), a community’s ability to access and utilize the
major forms of capital influences the community’s sustainability and/or resilience.
The first major capital, social capital, can be defined as the features of social
organization such as network, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and
cooperation for mutual benefit (Putnam, 1995). Whereas, Walter (2004) has defined
it, in the context of community disaster resilience, as social cooperation or
community connectedness, that provides an informal safety net during disasters and
often assists people to access resources.

The second capital is economic capital that is defined as financial resources that
community use to support their livelihoods (DFID, 1999; Smith et al, 2001). The
economic capital includes income, savings, investments or business, and credit. The

17
importance of economic capital in building community disaster resilience is in the
sense that economic resources increase the capacity and ability of the communities to
absorb disaster impacts and speed up the recovery process (Mayunga, 2009).

The third capital is physical capital that can be defined as built environment, that
comprises residential housing, industrial and commercial buildings, and public
buildings (Mayunga, 2009). It includes lifelines, such as water, transportation,
electricity, telecommunication facilities, also critical facilities such as hospitals, fire,
police stations, school, and nursing homes (DFID, 1999; Walter, 2004). Walter
(2004) also suggests that physical infrastructure such as roads, bridge, and dams as
well as communication systems are essential element for proper functioning of a
community, therefore physical capital is one of the most important resource in
building a disaster-resilient community.

The fourth capital is human capital that can be defined as the capabilities embodied
in the working-age population that work productively with other forms of capital to
sustain the economic production (Smith et al., 2001). Knowledge and skills of people
on types of hazard, hazard history, and hazard risk in their community can be an
important asset in building community disaster resilience (Mayunga, 2009). An
individual’s level of disaster resilience can be more determined by human capital in a
form of knowledge, skills, health, and physical ability than other capitals (Walter,
2004).

2.1.6 Spatial Modeling in GIS

In the previous research that has been done by Mayunga (2009), the resilience index
that is resulted based on CDRI method is presented in a thematic map (choropleth
map) based on the administrative boundaries and it shows the spatial variation of
disaster resilience because of the diverse indices. Mayunga (2009) did not perform a
spatial modeling in measuring the resilience index as it is easily presented on a
choropleth map. This research, however, tried to conduct a spatial modeling of the
disaster resilience measurement based on CDRI method. This spatial modeling was
done by making use of distance analysis to the distribution of facilities object.

18
According to ESRI, a spatial modeling can be defined as a set of analytical
procedures or methodology to derive information about spatial relationship between
geographic phenomena. Whereas, Longley et al. (2005) suggest that spatial modeling
is techniques to analyze and stimulate dynamic process, and also analyze static
pattern with the making use of Geographic Information System (GIS). Longley et al.
(2005) also characterize spatial model in to two; they are variation that is across the
space being manipulated by the model and the results of modeling change when the
locations of objects change. The objective of spatial modeling is to derive a
meaningful representation of events, processes or occurrences by making use of
spatial analysis (Longley et al., 2005).

Prahasta (2009) characterizes spatial analysis in to three; set of technique to analyze

spatial data, set of technique whose result depends on the location of the object, and
set of technique to access the location of the object and/or their attribute. There are
twelve categories of spatial analysis function according to Prahasta (2014), they are
Query Database, Measurement, Proximity, Digital Surface Model, Buffer,
Reclassify, Spatial Feature Editing, Thematic Layer Analysis, Geocoding, Digital
Imagery Process, and Network.

2.2 Data

This sub-chapter describes about data used in this research. The data used are
categorized in to two types; they are spatial data and non-spatial data. Spatial data
can be defined as data that have spatial reference that are used to do spatial modeling
while non-spatial data can be defined as data that describe about the characteristic of
geographical feature in spatial data and are used to calculate the resilience indices.

2.2.1 Non-spatial Data

Non-spatial data in this research are used to calculate or constructing the natural
disaster resilience indices. The non-spatial data consists of statistic data of the
population in the sub-districts in West Bandung District, Bandung City, and Cimahi
City obtained from 2010 inhabitant census done by Indonesian Central Statistic
Bureau (Badan Pusat Statistic or BPS Indonesia) and 2011 village potential from the

19
database of Indonesian Disaster Data Information of National Agency for Disaster
Management (Data dan Informasi Bencana Indonesia Badan Nasional
Penanggulangan Bencana or DIBI BNPB). According to DIBI BNPB (2011), there
are 15 sub-districts in West Bandung District, 26 sub-districts in Bandung City, and 3
sub-districts in Cimahi City. However, this research only uses 24 sub-ditricts in
Bandung City due to the absence of the non-spatial data of Margacinta and Cicadas
sub-district.

The non-spatial data are composed from statistic data based on the natural disaster
resilience indicators from CDRI, developed by Joseph Mayunga (2009), that have
been modified according to the availability of the data. The CDRI that is used in this
research are CDRI-1 that consists of four sub-indices (social capital, economic
capital, physical capital, and human capital), CDRI-2 that consists of four sub-
indices (mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery). These indicators may
have impact on resilience that can be positive or negative. The positive impact means
that the higher the number of the indicator, the higher the level of the disaster
resilience, and vice versa. Based on the modified CDRI indicators, there are 30
indicators to measure the disaster resilience index as they are shown in Table 2.4.
Table 2.4 Modified indicators used to construct the CDRI (Mayunga, 2009)
Sub- Disaster Phase
Indicators
index Mitigation Preparedness Response Recovery
Registered voters 1 1 1 1
Civic and political organizations 1 1 1 1
Social Religious organizations 1 1 1 1
capital
Owner-occupied housing units 1 1 1 1
indicators
Professional organizations 1 1 1 1
Business organizations 1 1 1 1
Employed civilian population 1 1 1 1
Economic Business establishments 1 1 1 1
capital
Bank 1 1 1 1
indicators
Convenience store 1 1 1 1
Highway, street, and bridge construction
1 0 0 0
establishments
Physical Colleges, Universities, and Professional
0 1 0 0
capital schools
indicators Housing units 0 0 1 0
Hospitals 0 0 1 0
Hotels and motels 0 0 1 0

20
 Table 2.4 Modified indicators used to construct the CDRI (Mayunga, 2009) cont.
Sub- Disaster Phase
Indicators
index Mitigation Preparedness Response Recovery
Owner-occupied housing units with
0 0 1 0
telephone service
Newspaper publishers 0 0 1 0
Radio stations 0 0 1 0
Physical Television broadcasting 0 0 1 0
capital Schools 0 0 1 0
indicators Health facilities 0 0 1 0
Drugstore 0 0 1 0
Housing units with internet 0 0 1 0
Housing units with electric 0 0 1 0
Early warning system 1 0 0 0
Population with more than high school
1 1 1 1
education
Health care support workers 1 0 0 0
Human Colleges, universities, and professional
0 1 0 0
capital schools employees
indicators Population that cannot speak indonesian
0 1 1 1
language
Population employed in special need
0 0 1 0
transportation services

Based on the Table 2.4, the source of the data that are used to construct CDRI as well
as their impact on resilience and source are listed on Table 2.5 below.
Table 2.5 Modified indicators used to construct the CDRI (Mayunga, 2009)
Effect on
Sub-index Indicators Source
Resilience
Registered voters Positive KPU 2014
Civic and political organizations Positive DIBI 2011
Social capital Religious organizations Positive DIBI 2011
indicators Owner-occupied housing units Positive BPS 2010
Professional organizations Positive DIBI 2011
Business organizations Positive DIBI 2011
Employed civilian population Positive BPS 2010
Economic capital Business establishments Positive DIBI 2011
indicators Bank Positive DIBI 2011
Convenience store Positive DIBI 2011
Highway, street, and bridge construction
Positive DIBI 2011
establishments
Colleges, Universities, and Professional schools Positive DIBI 2011
Housing units Positive BPS 2010
Hospitals Positive DIBI 2011
Hotels and motels Positive DIBI 2011
Physical capital Owner-occupied housing units with telephone
Positive BPS 2010
indicators service
Newspaper publishers Positive dewanpers.or.id
ditpolkom.bappena
Radio stations Positive
s.go.id
Television broadcasting Positive dewanpers.or.id
Schools Positive DIBI 2011
Health facilities Positive DIBI 2011

21
 Table 2.5 Modified indicators used to construct the CDRI (Mayunga, 2009) cont.
Effect on
Sub-index Indicators Source
Resilience
Drugstore Positive DIBI 2011
Physical capital Housing units with internet Positive BPS 2010
indicators Housing units with electric Positive BPS 2010
Early warning system Positive DIBI 2011
Population with more than high school education Positive BPS 2010
Health care support workers Positive DIBI 2011
Colleges, universities, and professional schools
Human capital Positive BPS 2010
employees
indicators
Population that cannot speak indonesian language Negative BPS 2010
Population employed in special need
Negative BPS 2010
transportation services

2.2.2 Spatial Data

Spatial data used in this research consists of district or city and sub-district
administrative boundary data of West Bandung District, Cimahi City, and Bandung
City, and also data of facility object distribution in those regions. All those data are
in the form of shapefile format (.shp) that have spatial reference in Geographic
Coordinat System WGS 1984 and Datum World Geodetic System (WGS) 1984.
They can be obtained from Open Street Map and Geospatial Information Agency
(Badan Informasi Geospatial-BIG). The data of administrative boundary are used as
a base map to visualize the natural disaster resilience index. The smallest spatial unit
of the administrative boundary is sub-district region. The data can be seen in Figure
2.3.

Figure 2.3 Sub-district administrative boundary in the region of West Bandung

District, Cimahi City, and Bandung City

22
The data of the facility object distribution in the region of West Bandung District,
Cimahi City, and Bandung City are used to do the spatial modeling of the natural
disaster resilience. There are nine facility objects used for the spatial modeling; they
are hospital, drugstore, health facility, bank, supermarket, convenience store,
shopping facility, education facility, and road. These data are shown in Table 2.6.
Table 2.6 Facility object distribution
No. Spatial Data Data Source
1 Hospital Open Street Map
2 Drugstore Open Street Map
3 Another health facility BIG
4 Bank Open Street Map
5 Supermarket Open Street Map
6 Convenience store Open Street Map
7 Shopping facility BIG
8 Education facility BIG
9 Road BIG

2.3 Data Processing

2.3.1 Measuring Natural Disaster Resilience Index

There are four steps employed to calculate the CDRI and the sub-index score. The
four steps are: data standardization, internal consistency assessment, creation of sub-
indices, and creation of CDRI. The sequences of calculating natural disaster index
based on CDRI is shown in Figure 2.4.

23
 Start A

Sub-index calculation
Non-spatial data
(statistic data)
Index calculation

Classified into CDRI-1

Natural disaster
and CDRI-2
resilience index
based on CDRI 1 and
2
Standardization

Reliability Assessment
End

Figure 2.4 The sequences of calculating natural disaster index based on CDRI

2.3.1.1 Data Standardization

Data that are used to calculate the index come from different sources and are in
different forms of unit, such as number of people, number of organizations, and
number of housing units. Those raw data containing various scales or units need to
be transformed into equal units or scale using standardization (Cutter et al., 2010). It
is essential to do the standardization to avoid the problems in comparing
measurement units or scales (Cutter et al., 2010). The raw data are standardized in
order to provide a way to compare them that includes consideration of their
distribution (Abdi, 2007). According to Malczweski (1999), the most commonly
used method to standardize raw data is linear scale transformation. The method used
to standardize the raw data in this research is maximum score from linear scale
transformation. The standardization is done by dividing each raw data value by the

24
maximum value for a given dimension of variables (Malczweski, 1999), that is
shown in Formula 2.1 as follows:
𝑥𝑥 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖′ = (2.1)
𝑥𝑥 𝑗𝑗𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚

where 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖′ is the standaridized score for the ith sub-district row data and the jth
variable’s column, 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 is the sub-district raw data, and 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 is the maximum score
for the jth column. Equation 2.1 is applied when the criterion is to be maximized, or
in other word, the larger the score, the better the performance. This kind of criterion
is called benefit criterion (Malczweski, 1999). This transformation method converts
the raw data to scale with the highest value is 1. The advantage of this method is that
the standardized scores’ magnitude’s relative order remains equal or it is referred to
as a proportional (linear) transformation of the raw data (Malczweski, 1999).

2.3.1.2 Internal Consistency Assessment

The second step is assessing the internal consistency of the individual indicators by
using reliability test of a Cronbach’s Alpha. In general, reliability is about the
consistency of a set of measuring instruments (Babbie, 2005; Carmines & Zeller,
1979). This step is used to examine the internal consistency of the indicators, the
precision of the indicators, and to facilitate the selection of the indicators (Mayunga,
2009). Cronbach’s alpha reliability test needs a single test administration to provide a
unique estimation of the reliability for the given test (Gliem and Gliem, 2003). The
basic equation of Cronbach’s alpha reliability test can be seen in Formula 2.2 below:
𝜅𝜅 ∑ 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 (2.2)
𝛼𝛼 = �1 − �
𝜅𝜅−1 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣

where 𝛼𝛼 is the Cronbach’s alpha score, 𝜅𝜅 is the number of items or indicators,

∑ 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 is the sum of the item variances, and 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 is the total
variances of overall scores on the entire indicators. The Cronbach’s alpha score
ranges from 0 to 1. The closer the Cronbach’s alpha to one, the more reliable or
consistent the measurement scales (indicators) are. The classification of the
reliability of Cronbach’s alpha based on Hair et al (2010) is shown in Table 2.7.

25
 Table 2.7 Cronbach’s alpha classification of reliability level (Hair et al 2010)
Level of reliability
Cronbach’s alpha score
classification
0.80-1.00 Very Reliable
0.60-0.80 Reliable
0.40-0.60 Adequate Reliable
0.20-0.40 Rather Reliable
0.00-0.20 Less Reliable

According to the Table 2.7, if the Cronbach’s alpha test of the indicators results score
less than 0.6, then indicators are not reliable, so there must be indicators that have to
be eliminated. The assessment of the reliability can be done by using a statistical
software.

2.3.1.3 Creation of Sub-Indices

The initial step to produce the CDRI is combining the indicators to produce sub-
indices (Mayunga, 2009). Based on Mayunga (2009), from the capital domain and
the disaster management phases’ activity, the CDRI can be created by three
approaches that consist of total 18 sub-indices. The approaches and the sub-indices
are shown in Table 2.8. Approach one consists of 4 capital domain sub-indices,
approach two consists of 10 sub-indices (capital domain/disaster phase), and
approach three consists of 4 sub-indices (disaster phase). Eventhough there are three
approaches in creating CDRI, this research is only focused on approach one and two.
Table 2.8 Sub-indices used to create CDRI (Mayunga, 2009)
Approach Sub-indices
CDRI-1 (Capital Social capital
domain) Economic capital
Physical capital
Human capital
CDRI-2 (Disaster Hazard mitigation
phases) Disaster preparedness
Disaster response
Disaster recovery

2.3.1.4 Creation of CDRI

To calculate the final index score, there are some mathematical aggregation methods
that have been suggested in by some literature (Chakraborty et al, 2005: Vincent,

26
2004). According to Mayunga (2009), calculating the final CDRI would be best to
use averaging method based on equally weighted indicators because of these reasons:
(i) If it is using linear summation method (the indicators are added together), the
final index tend to be highly influenced by the sub-indices with the highest
numbers of indicators.
(ii) The average method is using equal weights among the sub-indices because
there is no theoretical reason that says that any capital domains or disaster
management phases’ activities are more important than the other.
a) Sub-index score calculation

All indicators in each sub-index are aggregated by calculating an arithmetic mean

score to produce a score for each sub-index (Mayunga, 2009). The arithmetic mean
score equation can be seen in equation 2.3 as follows:
∑𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖=1 𝑥𝑥 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖′ (2.3)
SI =
𝑛𝑛

where SI is the sub-index score, 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖′ is the standardized score of an indicator, and n is
the number of indicators in a sub-index.

b) Overall CDRI score calculation

Based on approach one and two, the CDRI can be calculated as follows:

i Approach 1: Capital based approach

For this capital based approach in this research, there are four capitals that consist of
30 total indicators that are listed in Table 2.9. The indicators are selected according
to the condition of the study areas and the availability of the data. The equation used
to create CDRI-1 is as follows:
CDRI-1 = (SC+EC+PC+HC)/4 (2.4)
where CDRI-1 is the final index, SC is social capital sub-index, EC is economic
capital sub-index, PC is physical capital sub-index, and HC is human capital sub-
index.

27
 Table 2.9 Total number of indicators within a sub-index (Mayunga, 2009)
Number Capital based sub-index Number of indicators
1 Social capital 6
2 Economic capital 4
3 Physical capital 15
4 Human capital 5
Total 30

ii Approach 2: Disaster phase approach

In this research, CDRI-2 is calculated based on four disaster phases’ sub-indices as

shown in Table 2.11 with a total of 65 indicators. The indicators were counted more
than once in every sub-indices; depends on the relevance of an individual indicator to
the disaster phases’ activities (Mayunga, 2009). This approach was calculated using
equation 2.6 below.
CDRI-2 = [(SC+EC+PC+HC) + (SC+EC+PC+HC) +
(SC+EC+PC+HC) + (SC+EC+PC+HC)] (2.5)
where CDRI-3 is the final index, SC is social capital sub-index, EC is economic
capital sub-index, PC is physical capital sub-index, and HC is human capital sub-
index. The first (SC+EC+PC+HC) is from hazard mitigation phase, the second one is
from disaster preparedness phase, the third one is from disaster response phase, and
the last one is from disaster recovery phase.
Table 2.10 Total number of indicators within a sub-index (Mayunga, 2009)
No. Capital based Mitigation Preparedness Response Recovery
1 Social capital 6 6 6 6
2 Economic capital 4 4 4 4
3 Physical capital 2 1 12 0
4 Human capital 2 3 3 2
Total 14 14 25 12

2.3.2 Spatial Modeling of Natural Disaster Resilience Index based on BRIC

Nafishoh (2016) conducted a spatial modeling of natural disaster resilience based on

BRIC that uses a distance analysis with multiple ring distance. The main idea is that
the more facility or vital objects which are in an area, the higher the resilience of the
area will be and vice versa (Nafishoh, 2016). The facility objects that are used to do
the spatial modeling are based on BRIC indicators, they are health facility, education

28
facility, government facility, police office, shopping center, worship facility, and
road. Those facility objects are then buffered in a certain radius of resilience distance
criteria that shows the level of natural disaster resilience in an area around the facility
objects. The distance criteria are shown in Table 2.12.

Table 2.11 Buffer distance criteria that shows resilience level (Nafishoh, 2016)
Buffer distance criteria (km)
Spatial Data
High resilience Moderate Resilience Low resilience
Health facility 1.25 3.75 >3.75
Education facility 0.5 2.5 >2.5
Government center 1.25 3.75 >3.75
Police office 1.25 3.75 >3.75
Worship facility 0.5 2.5 >2.5
Shopping facility 2.5 5 >5
Road 0.5 2.5 >2.5

The numbers of the buffer distance in Table 2.11 are based on the assumption of the
accessibility of people to reach a place with no vehicle or on foot. The average speed
of pedestrians is 0.93 m/second or as long as 558 m in less than 10 minutes
(Widjajanti, 1986). Besides, this assumption is also based on the availability and
distribution of the facility objects in the sub-district area. The distance criteria is than
scored according to the level; the most resilient distance gets the highest score and
the lowest resilient distance gets the lowest score.

2.3.3 Spatial Modeling of Natural Disaster Resilience Index based on CDRI

In order to give a detailed and real representation of the natural disaster resilience
index, this research will conduct a spatial modeling of the natural disaster resilience
by making use of spatial analysis process. The main idea of the spatial modeling is
the closer an area to facility objects, the higher its resilience will be. According to the
main idea, the spatial modeling used distance analysis (multiple ring buffer) from a
GIS software. The sequence of this process is shown in Figure 2.5 below.

29
 Start

Spatial data

Multiple ring
buffer

Scoring or
weighting

Overlay analysis
union

Sub-district
boundary

Spatial analysis
intersect

Figure 2.5 The sequence of the spatial modeling

30
 A

Resilience CDRI resilience

indicators based on indicator in each
buffer score sub-district

Joined and
aggregated

Resilience index
based on spatial
modeling

End

Figure 2.5 The sequence of the spatial modeling (cont)

The first step of the spatial modeling of natural disaster based on CDRI is doing a
distance analysis with multiple ring buffer. Based on the main idea or the main
concept of this spatial modeling process, i.e. the closer an area to facility objects, the
higher its resilience will be, multiple ring buffer spatial analysis is used. According
to Prahasta (2014), buffer is an operation of creating a specified distance around
specific features in a layer and the specific distance is formed in to a new data set of
polygon. The input feature can be points, polyline, or polygon. In this research, the
input features are the distribution of the object facility which is in the form of point
and polyline.

31
The buffering process is applied to the facility objects based on the criteria of the
natural disaster resilience level in an area according to the distance from the facility
objects (the closest distance, the highest resilience). There are three levels of
resilience that are used in this research; high resilience, medium or moderate
resilience, and low resilience. Each of the object facility is given several buffers with
specific radius based on the main concept of the spatial modeling. Each of the buffer
radius is given a weight where the closer radius will get a bigger weight than the
distant one. The distance applied to the facility objects was based on the assumption
of the accessibility of people to reach a place with no vehicle or on foot. The average
speed of pedestrians is 0.93 m/second or as long as 558 m in less than 10 minutes
(Widjajanti, 1986). If the time traveled to reach a facility object from an area is less
than 30 minutes (less than 1.7 km in distance), then the area is considered to have a
high resilience index. Whereas, the time traveled to reach a facility object from an
area is more than 60 minutes (more than 3.4 km in distance), the area is considered to
have low resilience index. The distance or the buffer radius applied to the facility
objects are shown in Table 2.13 below.
Table 2.12 Radius of the buffer applied to facility objects
Radius (km)
Facility Objects
High Resilience Moderate Resilience Low Resilience
Hospital <1.7 1.7 – 3.4 >3.4
Drugstore <1.7 1.7 – 3.4 >3.4
Another health facility <1.7 1.7 – 3.4 >3.4
Bank <1.7 1.7 – 3.4 >3.4
Supermarket <1.7 1.7 – 3.4 >3.4
Convenience store <1.7 1.7 – 3.4 >3.4
Shopping facility <1.7 1.7 – 3.4 >3.4
Education facility <1.7 1.7 – 3.4 >3.4
Road <1.7 1.7 – 3.4 >3.4

The buffer is then given score (weighting) according to the resilience level. The
weighting method that is used in this research is rank sum method (weight is given
based on the rank). The buffer radius of the high resilience will get the first rank and
the buffer radius of the low resilience will get the last rank. The rank sum method
formula can be shown in equation 2.6 below:
𝑛𝑛−𝑟𝑟 𝑗𝑗 + 1 (2.6)
𝜔𝜔𝑖𝑖 =
∑(𝑛𝑛− 𝑟𝑟 𝑘𝑘 + 1)

32
where 𝜔𝜔𝑖𝑖 is the normalized weight of jth variable, n is the total number of variables,
𝑟𝑟𝑘𝑘 is variable, and 𝑟𝑟𝑗𝑗 is the variable’s rank. From the rank method above, the
weighting of the buffer radius is shown in Table 2.12. For the Low Resilience,
however, it will not be buffered because the maximum distance is unlimited and it
depends on the district and city boundary. It is considered to be an area that has zero
score or zero weight.
Table 2.13 Weighting of the resilience level
Rank Sum
Resilience Level Straight Rank
Weight Normalized Weight
High Resilience 1 ((2-1)+1)=2 0.667
Medium Resilience 2 ((2-2)+1)=1 0.333
Total 3 1

The next step of the spatial modeling process is doing union spatial analysis. Beside
the distance criteria, the resilience of a region is also influenced by the number of the
facility objects that are located in that region. It can be assumed that the more facility
objects in a region, the higher the natural disaster resilience index of the region. To
apply this concept in this spatial model, the union spatial analysis is used. According
to Prahasta (2011), the combination of more than one feature classes can be
conducted by using union spatial analysis that produces the combination in the form
of a new feature class. The mathematical operation of union can be expressed in
equation 2.7 is as follows:
C = A ∪ B = { x || x ∈ A or x ∈ B } (2.7).
By this union spatial analysis, the new features that are produced consist of new data
set and as well as overlap features. The overlap features indicate in a region indicate
that the region has more numbers of facility objects so that the region has a high
resilience index. This result of the union are then joined with the resulted indicators
from the previous process of CDRI calculation. From the weighting that has been
done to the buffer and the index from the CDRI calculation, each of the feature will
have a score. All of the scores of the feature is aggregated by using average method.
The aggregated score of the weighted buffer and CDRI score represents the final
score of the natural disaster resilience in a region based on the spatial modeling.

33
2.3.4 Visualization

The result of the CDRI calculation and the resilience score from the spatial modeling
are in the form of quantitative, so that they can be presented in a thematic map,
namely choropleth map. Quantitative distribution in a defined areas can be presented
in a choropleth thematic map (Soendjojo and Riqqi, 2012). Another type of data that
is needed to do the visualization is a sub-district administrative boundary. The index
that is resulted from CDRI calculation is presented in the smallest spatial unit of sub-
district, so each sub-district will contain one resilience index value. Whereas, the
result of the spatial modeling is presented in more detailed visualization than the
CDRI calculation visualization. In the visualization of the spatial modeling, the
smallest spatial unit is smaller than sub-district, it means that in a sub-district region,
there might be different values of resilience index or in other words, there are
variations of resilience index in a sub-district region.

Due to the diversity of the resulted resilience indices, they are impossible to be
represented all one by one. Therefore, they need to be generalized in to some
resilience level classifications so that they will be easily visualized and understood
by other users. According to Mulligan (2015), features in the same category can be
presented in a different way from different categories to distinguish each other. In
this visualization of resilience index, the resilience indices are categorized or
grouped in to different classes of resilience level and then every class of resilience
level has a unique color to present their resilience level.

The number of classes or the classification method that will be used to classify the
resilience index is decided based on the data distribution. The data distribution can
be seen through the data histogram. The form of the histogram can be evenly
distributed across the range of data values, unevenly distributed, or skewed
distributed. In an evenly distributed data, quantile method classification is best used.
While in an unevenly distributed data, the best classification method is natural
breaks. Normal and evenly distribution data can be presented in an equal interval
classification method since it has identical range of data values in each class. To any

34
kind of distributed data, it can be used geometrical interval classification method
since it integrates natural breaks and quantile method.

2.3.5 Validation Assessment

This research has a hypothesis where the region of high resilience index will have a
less property damage caused by natural disaster due to their capacity to withstand the
disaster event. Based on Yoon and Kang (2013), the higher the CDRI of a region, the
less the number of property damage caused by natural disaster in that region. Due to
this hypothesis, the result of the natural disaster index can be validated by
determining the relationship between the resilience index and the number of property
damages in the same region. Validation can be conducted using statistical analysis
correlation.

According to Jothikumar (2005), correlation can be defined as the measurement and

analysis of the degree to which the two variables fluctuate with reference to each
other. Therefore, correlation only sees the fluctuation of the variables based on other
variables, but not the causality relationship. It can be said that when variable A
increases, variable B increases as well, but it does not mean that variable A increases
because variable B increases. The correlation method used in this research is
Pearson’s correlation coefficient to measure the linear relationship between resilience
index and the number of property damage. The formula of the Pearson’s correlation
coefficient is shown in equation 2.8 below:
∑(𝑥𝑥 𝑖𝑖 −𝑥𝑥)(𝑦𝑦 𝑖𝑖 −𝑦𝑦) (2.8)
r=
�∑(𝑥𝑥 𝑖𝑖 −𝑥𝑥)2 ∑(𝑦𝑦 𝑖𝑖 −𝑦𝑦)2

where r is Pearson’s correlation coefficient, x is mean value of independent variable

and y is mean value of the dependent variable. Table 2.15 below describes the
classification of the correlation based on Gerstman (2003).
Table 2.15 Classification of the correlation based on Gerstman (2003)
Coefficient Correlation Coefficient Characteristic
1 > r > 0.7 Strong positive
0.7 > r > 0.3 Moderate positive
0.3 > r > 0 Weak positive

35
 Table 2.15 Classification of the correlation based on Gerstman (2003) cont.
Coefficient Correlation Coefficient Characteristic
0 > r > -0.3 Weak negative
-0.3 > r > -0.7 Moderate negative
-0.7 > r > -1 Strong negative

However, the validation can only be done to the natural disaster resilience index on
mitigation and preparedness phase. It indicates that the higher resilience in an area, it
means the area has capacity to withstand the disaster so the damaged property will be
less. It means that if the resilience indices of the mitigation and preparedness phases
are high, the total damaged properties will be less. The validation of the overall
CDRI and/or other indicators and phases cannot be done because it needs another
parameters to conduct the validation. The parameters such as the total damaged
buildings or properties that have been repaired or the economic and social condition
of the area after a natural disaster. Those parameters are not available in this research
so the validation cannot be conducted.

36