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

Volcano disaster mitigation is a priority in Indonesia's national development plan due to the large number of active volcanoes, high frequency of eruptions and dense population within volcanic hazards zones. As a consequence of these factors and the many decades of experience in mitigation of volcanic risk, Indonesia demonstrates that effective community response is critical to avoid disasters.

Understanding of hazards, risks and early-warning systems are the main factors in building an effective community response. The level of understanding of these factors is proportional to a community's independence in taking appropriate actions and is reflected in the community's preparedness. Further, the experience gained from responses to the eruptions of Sinabung and Kelud as well as from other Indonesian volcanoes shows that a local leader plays an important role in mobilizing a community. Such a leader utilizes knowledge of local culture (local wisdom) and an understanding of the community's character to encourage community members to participate and empower themselves. Sharing of information and the formulation of a disaster mitigation plan by government and community also results in a shared commitment to increase participation and community empowerment.

Indonesia uses four volcano alert levels to activate community mitigation plans. In order of increasing criticality, these are: Normal, Advisory (Waspada), Watch (Siaga) and Warning (Awas). Implementation of policies, strategies and actions are tied to each level. In addition, mandatory actions by certain stakeholders are required at certain alert levels. These mandatory actions increase the effectiveness of disaster mitigation by both government and community.

A comparison of the crisis responses of the Sinabung and Kelud communities is carried out here in order to better understand problems, learn lessons and improve the process of Indonesia's community mitigation policies. Local culture, the start time of community involvement (in normal versus crisis time), degree and level of government involvement, roles of local leaders, local perception of hazards, and political intervention are all factors that influence a community's response at the time of eruption. We stress that an understanding of the “community character,” which includes a number of cultural, social and knowledge parameters is essential for effective crisis management. The responses of Sinabung and Kelud illustrate both the key role of community in disaster mitigation and the synergy that can result from close coordination and collaboration between government and community.