Pemetaan Risiko Tsunami terhadap Bangunan secara Kuantitatif

Totok Wahyu Wibowo; Djati Mardiatno; Sunarto Sunarto

doi:10.22146/mgi.28044

Pemetaan Risiko Tsunami terhadap Bangunan secara Kuantitatif

https://doi.org/10.22146/mgi.28044

Totok Wahyu Wibowo^(1*), Djati Mardiatno⁽²⁾, Sunarto Sunarto⁽³⁾

(1) Fakultas Geografi, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta
(2) Fakultas Geografi, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia
(3) Fakultas Geografi, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract

ABSTRAK

Tsunami merupakan bencana alam yang sebagian besar kejadiannya dipicu oleh gempabumi dasar laut. Dampak kerugian tsunami terhadap lingkungan pesisir antara lain rusaknya properti, struktur bangunan, infrastruktur dan dapat mengakibatkan gangguan ekonomi. Bencana tsunami memiliki keunikan dibandingkan bencana lainnya, karena memiliki kemungkinan sangat kecil tetapi dengan ancaman yang tinggi. Paradigma Pengurangan Risiko Bencana (PRB) yang berkembang dalam beberapa tahun terakhir yang menekankan bahwa risiko merupakan hal utama dalam penentuan strategi terhadap bencana. Kelurahan Ploso, merupakan salah satu lokasi di Kabupaten Pacitan yang berpotensi terkena bencana tsunami. Pemetaan risiko bangunan dilakukan dengan metode kuantitatif, yang mana disusun atas peta kerentanan dan peta harga bangunan. Papathoma Tsunami Vulnerability 3 (PTVA-3) diadopsi untuk pemetaan kerentanan. Data harga bangunan diperoleh dari kombinasi kerja lapangan dan analisis Sistem Informasi Geografis (SIG). Hasil pemetaan risiko menunjukkan bahwa Lingkungan Barehan memiliki risiko kerugian paling tinggi diantara semua lingkungan di Kelurahan Ploso. Hasil ini dapat dijadikan sebagai acuan untuk penentuan strategi pengurangan risiko bencana di Kelurahan Ploso.

ABSTRACT

Tsunami is a natural disaster whose occurrences are mostly triggered by submarine earthquakes. The impact of tsunami on coastal environment includes damages to properties, building structures, and infrastructures as well as economic disruptions. Compared to other disasters, tsunamis are deemed unique because they have a very small occurrence probability but with a very high threat. The paradigm of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) that has developed in the last few years stresses risk as the primary factor to determine disaster strategies. Ploso Sub-district, an area in Pacitan Regency, is potentially affected by tsunamis. The risk mapping of the buildings in this sub-district was created using a quantitative method based on maps of vulnerability and building’s cost. This research used Papathoma Tsunami Vulnerability 3 (PTVA-3) for vulnerability mapping. The cost of the buildings was obtained from a combination of fieldwork and Geographic Information System (GIS). The results of risk mapping showed that the Barehan Environment had the highest risk of loss among the other environments in Ploso Sub-district. These findings, thereby, can be used as a reference for determining DRR strategy in Ploso Sub-district.

Keywords

Building’s risk, tsunami, PTVA-3, Pacitan

Full Text:

PDF

References

BPS. (2011). Kecamatan Pacitan dalam Angka 2010. Pacitan: BPS Kabupaten Pacitan, Jawa Timur.

Dall’Osso, F., Gonella, M., Gabbianelli, G., Withycombe, G. & Dominey-Howes, D. (2009). A Revised (PTVA) Model for Assessing the Vulnerability of Buildings to Tsunami Damage. Natural Hazards Earth System Science, 9, 1557-1565.

Latief, H., Puspito, N., & Imamura, F., (2000), Tsunami Catalog and Zones in Indonesia. Journal of Natural Disaster Science, 22(1), 25-43.

Mardiatno, D. (2008). Tsunami Risk Assessment Using Scenario-Based Approach, Geomorphological Analysis and Geographic Information System: A Case Study in South Coastal Areas of Java Island-Indonesia. Disertasi. Innsbruck: Austria: Faculty of Geo-and Atmospheric Sciences. University of Innsbruck.

Mardiatno, D. (2013). A Proposal for Tsunami Mitigation by Using Coastal Vegetation: Some Findings from Southern Coastal Area of Central Java, Indonesia. Journal of Natural Resources and Development, 3, 85-95.

Marfai, M.A., King, L., Singh, L.P., Mardiatno, D., Sartohadi, J., Hadmoko, D.S. & Dewi, A. (2008). Natural hazards in Central Java Province, Indonesia: an Overview, Environmental Geology, 56, 335–351.

National Geophysical Data Center/ World Data Center (NGDC/WDC). (2011). Historical Tsunami Database, Boulder, CO, USA. dapat diakses di http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/hazard/tsu_db.shtml

Okal, E.A. & Synolakis, C.E. (2008). Far-field Tsunami Hazard from Mega-Thrust Earthquakes in the Indian Ocean, Geophysics Journal Int., 172(3), 995–1015.

Ramroth, W.G. (2007). Planning for Disasters: How Natural and Man-Made Disasters Shape The Built Environment. New York: Kaplan Publishing.

Reese, S., Cousins, W.J., Power, W.L., Palmer, N.G., Tejakusuma, I.G. & Nugrahadi, S. (2007). Tsunami Vulnerability of Buildings and People in South Java – Field Observations After the July 2006 Java tsunami. Natural Hazards Earth System Science, 7, 573-589.

Ronald, A. (1997). Ciri-ciri Karya Budaya di Balik Tabir Keagungan Rumah Jawa. Yogyakarta: Penerbitan Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta.

Sunarto & Rahayu, L. (2006). Model Prevensi Gempabumi dan Tsunami pada Lowland di Wilayah Teluk Pacitan. Yogyakarta: Pusat Studi Bencana Universitas Gadjah Mada.

Smith, K. & Petley, D.N. (2008). Environmental Hazards: Assessing Risk and Reducing Disaster (5th Edition). New York: Routledge.

UNDP. (2004). Reducing Disaster Risk: A Challenge for Development. New York: John S. Swift Co.

Warnitchai, P. (2005). The 26 December 2004 Tsunami Disaster in Thailand: Experience and Lesson Learned. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on New Technologies for Urban Safety of Mega Cities in Asia. Singapore, 18–19 October, 2005.

Westen, C., Kingma, N., & Montoya, L., (2009). Multi Hazard Risk Assessment, Educational Guide Book Session 4: Elements at Risk, diedit oleh Cees van Westen. Enschede, The Netherlands: ITC.

Widianto, A. & Damen, M. (2014). Determination of Coastal Belt in the Disaster Prone Area: A Case Study in the Coastal Area of Bantul Regency, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, Indonesian Journal of Geography, 46(2), 125-137.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/mgi.28044