THE ROLES OF HIA IN FLOOD MANAGEMENT:

VIEW FROM INDONESIA

Dr. Muh Aris Marfai M.Sc and Dr. Danang Sri Hadmoko, M.Sc

Faculty of Geography, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, 55281 IndonesiaEmail: arismarfai@yahoo.com

Input paper

the 2nd HIA for ASEAN Workshop in Bangkok 4-6 October 2012

1

I. INTRODUCTION TO DISASTER MANAGEMENT IN INDONESIA

Indonesian archipelago, as a country with 1,904,569 km2 extent area and about 230

million inhabitants, is very vulnerable to natural hazard. The threatening event of natural hazard

is the main source of damages to human environment. Although various natural hazards are

continuously emerging in worldwide scale, the impact is higher in developing countries, such as

Indonesia (Marfai et al. 2008a). In addition to high magnitude and intensity of natural hazards

occurred in Indonesia, socio-economic aspects often produce higher risk. The hazards occurrence

in Indonesia is continuously increasing. This condition is not only caused by physical process,

but also combined by unsustainable human activities, especially due to inappropriate land use

management (Marfai and King 2008a).

Various natural hazards occur in Indonesia each year. This condition mainly related to the

geographic position of Indonesia, which located in very active tectonic plates. Tectonic setting of

Indonesia in general is located on the collision of three major tectonic plates, namely Eurasian,

Indian-Australian, and Pacific Plates. The movement of each plate makes the location to be very

susceptible to volcanic eruption, earthquake, and tsunami (GFDRR 2009; Sutikno 2007).

Detailed tectonic setting of Indonesia, as explained by Hall (2009), is shown in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1. Tectonic setting of Indonesian Archipelago. Red arrows indicate the movement

relative to each other: IND-EUR (Indian to Eurasian plate), PSP-EUR (Philippine Sea Plate to

Eurasian plate), and AUS-PAC (Australian to Pacific Plate). Source: Hall 2009

2

Besides the hazards generated by active tectonic movement, hazards due to other natural-

environmental condition also exist. Worse disaster events are currently increasing due to

environmental degradation, as produced by unsustainable development. As summarized by

Marfai et al (2008a), Marfai and King (2008a), Marfai (2011a), Sartohadi et al (2009), and Ward

et al (2011), coastal erosion and inundation, river flooding, land subsidence, and landslide also

have been identified in many places. The hazards of coastal erosion, coastal inundation, river

flooding, and land subsidence are now threatening major urban coastal cities in Indonesia,

especially Jakarta and Semarang (Marfai and King 2007; Marfai and King 2008a; Marfai and

King 2008b; Marfai et al. 2008b; Ward et al. 2011). Indonesia also becomes highly prone area to

climatic hazards, such as drought and cyclone. Increasing extreme climatic condition, as driven

by climate change phenomena (IPCC 2007), is predicted cause higher magnitude and intensity of

drought and flood (Naylor 2007). Various natural hazards affecting Indonesian archipelago is

summarized in Figure 1.2. These hazards led Indonesia suffered many losses. One of the

important impacts of disaster is health sector. This chapter is intended to provide basic

understanding of Health Impact Assessment (HIA) in disaster management in Indonesia,

particularly in flood management.

Figure 1.2. Various natural hazards affecting Indonesian archipelago (adopted from Marfai

2011a)

3

1.1. Indonesia: Facing with Various Disaster Events.

Indonesia is very prone to natural disaster events. Disaster events become is regularly

occurred and cannot be avoided by Indonesian communities. Historical record during 1907-2004

has shown that 55,418 people were totally killed and 12,688,833 people affected due to disaster

events in Indonesia. With considering the number of people killed, earthquake and tsunami is the

most dangerous hazard in Indonesia, following by volcanic eruption, drought, flood, and cyclone

(EM-DAT 2004). Large disaster events during 2004-2007, as summarized by Bappenas (2010),

took thousands of human live and economic losses. The total economic losses reached up to

almost 10 trillion rupiah (about 1 billion US dollars) (Table 1.1).

Table 1.1. Large disaster events during 2004-2007 and its impact

Type of Disaster

Location Date Impact Property Losses

Earthquake and tsunami

Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam

Dec 2004 165,708 people death Rp. 4.45 trillion

Earthquake Yogyakarta and Central Java

May 2006 5,667 people death Rp. 3.134 trillion

Earthquake and tsunami

Pangandaran July 2006 658 people death Rp. 967 billion

Flooding Jakarta Feb 2007 145,774 houses inundated

Rp. 967 billion

Source: Bappenas 2010

Almost all regions in Indonesia are susceptible to earthquake and tsunami. The area with

high susceptibility is generally located in which plate tectonic subduction zone taken place.

Highly susceptible areas are including Southwestern part of Sumatra, Southern part of Java, Bali,

and Nusa Tenggara, entire area of Moluccas, Eastern part of Celebes, and Northern part of Papua

(Bakosurtanal 2006) (Figure 1.3). Those areas are also known as Indonesian “ring of fires”, in

which consist of more than 400 volcanoes. About 130 active volcanoes are found in this zone,

threatening the local community from volcanic explosion. Among those active volcanoes, a

volcano called Merapi Volcano-Central Java, is categorized as one of the most active volcano in

the world (Lavigne 2000; Gertisser 2012). Merapi eruption is one of the most devastating

4

eruptions throughout the country. Since mid of 1500s, 61 reported eruption of Merapi volcano

killed about 7,000 people (Thouret et al. 2000)

Figure 1.3. Tsunami vulnerability map of Indonesia (Bakosurtanal 2006, with modification from

Marfai 2008a)

Although highest disaster victims are produced from earthquake and tsunami, the

occurrence is infrequent. In fact, 40% of disaster events in Indonesia are generated from flooding

(EM-DAT 2004; Dewi 2007). In addition to flooding due to overflowing water from the river,

flooding due to high tides is also common in the coastal area (Marfai et al 2008b). The flood

hazard is higher in west part of Indonesia, especially in Java Island (National Board of Disaster

Management/BNPB 2010). The map of flood hazard intensity in Indonesia is shown in Figure

1.4.

Figure 1.4. Flood hazard occurrence of Indonesia during 1979-2009 (Source: BNPB 2010)

5

Flood occurrence

1.2 The role of the Indonesian government on the disaster management

Disaster risk reduction activities in Indonesia basically refer to international consensus of

Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) for 2005-2015. HFA, as created by United Nations

International Strategy for Disaster in 2005, is intended to improve resilience of the nations and

communities. Improvement on disaster risk reduction activities, including its planning,

implementation, and evaluation is the main focus of ten years global HFA strategies (Djalante et

al. 2012). Evaluation of HFA implementation by UNISDR (2011) placed Indonesia in lower

middle position with score of 2.8 from the scale of 5 (Figure 1.5).

Figure 1.5. Indonesian position on implementing HFA (UNISDR 2011 with modification from

Djalante 2012)

Various organization, including local government, international agency, and non-

government organization (NGO), are involved in present disaster management in Indonesia. In

2008, more than 600 stakeholders working on disaster risk reduction in Indonesia (including

government, NGO, and agencies) were listed in UN Office of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)

database (UNTWG-DRR 2008). In order to manage various stakeholders involved, national

coordination is taken by National Board of Disaster Management (BNPB). New structural

organization of BNPB on national level and BPBD in local/provincial level has been introduced

6

in 2008 (BNPB 2011). National coordination disaster management is now refers on this

structure, which is divided from local, provincial, and national level.

National regulation on disaster risk reduction is ruled through Law Number 27/2007 on

disaster risk reduction program. Following this regulation and HFA framework, several action

plans have been developed. The most recent is National Action Plan on Disaster Risk Reduction

(NAD-DRR) 2010-2012. NAP-DRR is the elaboration of Disaster Management Plan (RPB)

within the framework of national development plan. The plan is including Long Term National

Development Plan (RPJPN) and Medium Term National Development Plan (RPJMN) (Bappenas

2010). This framework can be separated into three different level, including regency/municipal

level, provincial level, and national level. Development plan on each level (RPJP/RPJPN) must

refer to Spatial Development Planning document (RTRW), in which the hazards has been

identified and mapped. Detailed structure of this framework is shown in Figure 1.6.

Figure 1.6. Disaster Management Planning Coordination Framework (Bappenas 2010)

7

1.3 Flood Disaster management in Indonesia

The impact of flooding is considered as destructive and devastating to the human live and

its environment (Marfai et al. 2008b; Nicholls 2004; Nicholls et al. 2008). Serious impact

generated by flooding is not only suffered by Indonesian communities. Fact that more than 1,800

events from total 2,654 hazard events recorded in 1993-2002 were generated by flooding and

windstorm, flooding therefore becomes serious problem that must be faced throughout the world

(Sivakumar 2005). In Asian countries, Indonesia places the third rank in the term of flood hazard

occurrence. This position is slightly lower than China and India (Dewi 2007). Detailed

information is shown in Figure 1.7.

Figure 1.7. Asian countries with highest flood occurrence (Dewi 2007)

As summarized by BNPB (2010), there were 2509 large flood hazard during period of

1979-2009. The number is even bigger if minor flood hazard is included, in which the annual

average of flood hazards in Indonesia is about 297 cases per year. Although the number of

people death due to flooding is lower, but the number of total casualties (including people moved

and evacuated) is the highest. Almost 94% of total casualties generated by natural hazards in

Indonesia are caused by flooding. During single year of 2009, 311 inhabitants were death and

5,232,081 inhabitants were evacuated due to flooding (BNPB 2009). Sorted by province, Jawa

Tengah (Central Java Province), Jawa Timur (East Java Province), and Jawa Barat (West Java

Province) are the province with highest flood hazard occurrence (Figure 1.8). In these provinces,

more than 200 large flood hazards occurred during 1979-2009.

8

Figure 1.8. Number of large flood hazard occurred in Indonesian Province during 1979-2009

(Modified from BNPB 2010)

Because the flood occurrence is highest in Java Island, in which more than 60%

Indonesian population live, flood hazard is considered to be very problematic. In Java, flooding

not only becomes major threat to the area alongside the riverbank, but also on lowland delta and

coastal area. Due to the dynamic of geomorphological processes on low and flat topography,

coastal area and lowland delta in the north part of Java Island is the most affected by flooding

(Bird and Ongkosongo 1980; Sunarto 2004).

In the term of urban coastal cities and megacities, Jakarta and Semarang, as located in

north part of Java, are the most affected by flooding. In addition to the threat of river flooding,

coastal flooding due to high tide also exists. In Jakarta, increasing coastal inundation due to sea

level rise is predicted to cause 14,900 - 15,100 ha losses of land and corresponding damage

between 20.8 to 21 billion USD (Ward et al. 2011). In Semarang, the scenario of increasing

coastal flooding of 120 cm and 180 cm high tide developed by Marfai and King (2008a), is

predicted to cause 4,567 – 5594 ha losses of land. Moreover, the economic losses due to

increasing coastal flooding in Semarang are predicted to range between 2.2 to 2.9 billion USD.

In reducing the impact of flooding, several adaptive response and mitigation actions have

been implemented by local government. As explained by The US Army Corps of

9

Engineering/USACE (2002) and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/IPCC (2001), the

actions are including; (1) accommodation strategy, (2) protection strategy, and (3) retreat

strategy. Accommodation strategy is intended to make some adjustment so the community could

continue his/her daily activities in flood prone area. Protection strategy aims to build defense

system the prone area, mainly by implementing hard structures –e.g., dikes, pumping station, and

retention area. Retreat strategy is focused on the evacuation of the people from the hazard prone

area. Most of the effort on flood management in Indonesia is now based on protection strategies

(Texier 2008).

With the new regulation of decentralization, in Indonesia, the prior task of disaster

management is now must be held by local government (district and/or provincial level).

Therefore, local government must pay particular attention about the most important issues on the

impact of hazards, especially flood hazard (Marfai and King 2008a). Jakarta and Semarang can

provide brief example of the flood management taken. In addition to the main structural

measures against flooding in Semarang (e.g. floodway, dike, and drainage system), the local

government has improved the spatial planning and land use management (Public Works

Department/PWD 2000; Development Planning Board/DPB 2000). Similar to Semarang,

physical measures is also the most common in Jakarta. The measures are not only including

floodway, dike and drainage system built by local government. Private adaptations by local

communities were also exist, especially by elevating the house level and built small dike from

sandbags (Caljouw et al. 2005). Moreover, Jakarta spatial planning to year 2030 provides more

clear direction in reducing the flood hazard in Jakarta (Ward et al. 2012).

Shifting towards more integrated flood management, especially in non-structural

mitigation, has been identified in several cities in Indonesia (Ward et al. 2012, Marfai and King

2008a). The shifting towards advanced flood management in Indonesia is including development

of non-structural measures framework. In general, organizational development in has been in

national, provincial, and local level in reducing the impact of disaster. In national level, disaster

coordination is taken by Bakornas-PBP. Local representative in provincial level taken by

Satkorlak-PBP, while in district level (kota/kabupaten) is taken by Satlak-PBP. The existence of

this institutional framework provides better support on mitigating the natural hazards in

Indonesia, especially on flood hazard (Marfai and King 2008a).

10

1.4 Flood Impact Assessment

Flooding is not considered to generating impact if there is no interaction with the human

environment. The impact only exists when the flooding is affecting natural and human made

environment. Thus, it generates negative state or condition towards human environment, such as

environmental damage, death, and disruption (Jha et al. 2012). Impact assessment is basically

part from disaster risk management cycle, in which consists of three phases. The phases consists

of before the hazard occurred (prevention), during the hazard (response/intervention), and after

the hazard occurred (recovery) (Bieri 2003). All of the phases construct the cycle as shown in

Figure 1.9. Related to disaster risk management cycle, impact assessment is positioned in the

prevention action. By knowing the potential impact of the hazard, future measures, including

development of technical and organizational measures, land use planning and emergency

planning can be implemented.

Figure 1.9. Disaster risk management cycle (Bieri 2003)

Impact assessment is slightly different than risk assessment. In technical setting, risk is

defined as the “potential losses” which is resulted from the probability of event (in this term we

refers to hazard event), and potential negative consequences of the event, as represents by

vulnerability. In assessing the risk, a methodology to determine the extent area affected by

hazard and the characteristic of area vulnerability is required (UNISDR 2009). Therefore, higher

risk is achieved if highly magnitude of hazard interacts with highly vulnerable area.

11

The term of impact assessment is more general than risk assessment. Impact assessment

is intended to identify potential damages and/or losses due to interaction of hazard with natural

and human made environment. Impact assessment defines the number of exposed people,

property, services, or everything related to the damages generated by hazard event. In order to

access the impact of flooding, Jha et al (2012), has classified the impact into two classes; consists

of direct and indirect impact of flooding. The direct impact is including impact towards people,

building and contents, animal and crops, etc. The indirect damage is including natural, Health,

environment, human and social impact, economic and financial impact, etc (Figure 1.10).

Figure 1.10. Example of direct and indirect impact of flooding (modified from Jha et al. 2012)

Health is one example of the indirect impact that is often emerging due to flooding

(Reacher et al. 2004; Jacubicka et al. 2010). In addition to immediate health impact of flooding

(e.g. drowning, injury, acute asthma, skin infection, gastroenteritis, and respiratory infection), the

health impact in the longer term (e.g. diarrhea, dysentery, and dengue fever) also exists (Noji

1991; Baxter et al. 2001; Howard et al. 1996). Regarding to the board range of health impact of

flooding, health impact assessment due to flooding is considered to be very important, especially

in developing countries. The low environmental quality that often found in developing countries,

such as Indonesia, might trigger higher health impact due to flooding. Therefore health impact

assessment towards Indonesian flood prone area provides significant value in the disaster risk

management cycle, in which become the basis for prevention action.

12

II. HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT IN FLOOD MANAGEMENT

2.1. Definition of Health Impact Assessment (HIA)

Health is a prime issue of human live. Health can determine of wealthy well-being.

Modern humanization in this century intensely takes concern of healthy. Secure and good

environment within unpolluted air, water and soil is a significant element to describe it. World

Health Organization (WHO) defines health as a condition of people complete in physical, mental

and social without disease of infirmity. Condition of surrounding environment affect the terms of

health. Health impacts are the entire direct or indirect effects of a policy, strategy, program or

project on the health of a population. Furthermore Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is a

combination of procedures, methods and tools by which a policy, program or project may be

judged as to its potential effects on the health of a population, and the distribution of those

effects within the population (Gothenburg 1999). Another definition comes from WHO defines

Health Impact Assessment (HIA) as a combination of procedures, methods and tools by which a

policy, project or hazard may be judged as to its potential effects on the health of a population,

and the distribution of those effects within the population.

Certain Direction of HIA is to maximize the positive health impacts and in reverse to

minimize the negative health impacts of proposed policies, programs or project. Characteristics

of HIA include a broad definition of health is including economic, social or environment of

affected stakeholders; exalt concerns about social justice and a commitment to transparency

(Quigley et al. 2006). The stages of HIA are mostly similar to other forms of impact assessment

(e.g., environmental, social, and strategic). Procedures of HIA include:

1. Screening

Assess the value, feasibility, and utility of the HIA in the decision-making process

2. Scooping

Determine potential significant health effects of the decision

Prioritize research questions with stakeholder and decision-maker input

Identify evidence and research methods

Establish roles for assessors, stakeholders, and decision-makers

Establish timeline for the process

13

3. Assessment of Health Effects

Mobilize evidence to characterize baseline health conditions

Characterize expected health effects

Evaluate uncertainty

4. Recommending Mitigations and Alternatives

Identify and evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of mitigations, design strategies,

or decision alternatives to promote and protect health

Prioritize recommendations with stakeholder input

Develop a health management and monitoring plan

5. Reporting and Communication

Document the process, findings, and recommendations

Solicit and respond to stakeholders comments

Communicate the HIA to decision-makers, decision proponents, and other

stakeholders

6. Monitoring

Monitor decision and mitigation implementation

Monitor health determinants and outcomes affected by decision

Some of the more common types of evidence and methods in HIA include:

1. Existing population demographic and health statistics (e.g., census, surveys, vital

statistics, surveillance programs, and agency reports) to profile health status and

health determinants

2. Environmental measures to assess hazardous physical agents, such as hazardous

substances or contaminants in air, soil, and water; noise; and radiation or hazardous

conditions, such as floods, fires, landslides, or injury hazards. Environmental

measures are also used to assess public health assets and resources, including water

bodies, land, farms, forest, and infrastructure, schools, and parks.

3. Maps of demographics, health statistics, or environmental measures to identify spatial

relationships between places, populations, and environmental conditions and “hot

spots” or spatial differences in the intensity of hazards.

14

4. Empirical research, particularly epidemiological research, to provide evidence to

characterize relationships between health determinants and health outcomes and to

quantify those relationships when possible

5. Qualitative methods, including focus groups and structured and unstructured

interviews, to help assessors access knowledge or perceptions about conditions,

vulnerabilities, day-to-day experiences of community members, and experienced and

perceived threats.

2.2. Health Impact Assessment in Disaster Management

Natural disasters have been a main factor of mortality. By the year of 2008, 321 disasters

killed over 235.000 people, affected the lives of more than 211 million victims and cost over

US$ 181 billion (UNISDR 2009). Disaster Management could be included to actions such as

adaptation and mitigation. In this case, Health impact assessment is additional to increase the

quality of disaster management. For additional, climate change seems to increase the number of

disadvantages of natural disasters. Climate change causes the increasing of natural disaster such

as flood due to sea level rise, drought, fire wild due to the warmer temperature, typhoon, and etc.

This makes health impact assessment as one of mitigation act is necessary needed. The

determinants of health and well-being are the condition of the surrounding live, such as political

factors, community, public services, livelihood, housing, health behavior and environment.

Furthermore, environment which affects health are air quality, soil contamination, noise, disease

vectors, water resources, food resources, and disasters. Figure 2.1 explains factors affected to

health, and natural disasters (such as flood and landslide hazard) are counted to be one of the

factors.

In addition, climate change as the hot global issues has already makes numerous

damaging on human lives. It is not only affection to ecosystems changes but also species live in

it. Increasing of temperatures averages and changing of climatic pattern caused impact on human

health. These causes spread infectious diseases, longer and hotter heat waves, and extreme

weather and take thousands of victims.

15

Figure 2.1. Factors Affected to Health (Bhatia 2011)

The health impacts of climate changes in Indonesia (Haryanto 2009) are as follows:

1. Cardiovascular respiratory mortality and heat stroke mortality

2. Allergic rhinitis

3. Respiratory and cardiovascular diseases and mortality

4. Death and injures caused by floods, landslides and windstorms

5. Infectious diseases and mental disorders because of disruption of water supply, sanitation

systems, etc

6. Starvation, malnutrition and diarrhea and respiratory diseases

7. Mosquito, tick-borne diseases and rodent-borne diseases because of warmer temperature

8. Malnutrition and undernutrition because of food supply decreasing.

9. Waterborne and foodborne diseases

Health Impact assessment of climate changes include:

An evaluation of the impact of climate variability and change in a range of areas and

populations, especially among vulnerable populations and, when possible, to determine

the attributable burden of weather and climate, including extreme events, to climate-

sensitive diseases

16

An evaluation of possible threshold effects

An evaluation of the effects of multiple stresses, including changes in socioeconomic

systems

An evaluation of uncertainty and its implications for risk management

An evaluation of the effects of reducing emissions, such as by comparing the impact

under scenarios with business-as-usual and stabilization of emissions

An evaluation of coping capacity, especially under different socioeconomic futures and in

the context of sustainable development

III. HEALTH IMPACT IN INDONESIA

3.1. Health Impact Assessment: Case Study of Jakarta City

Jakarta is capital city of Indonesia which has become a centre of politics and economics

in Indonesia. As a centre of economic, Jakarta contributed more than 17% to the national GDP. It

has high economic growth and high number of population. Geomorphologically, Jakarta is

susceptible to flooding. Jakarta is located in the northern part of Java which is directly bordered

to Java Sea and intersected by thirteen rivers (Figure 3.1). Most of area in Jakarta is located in a

flat-low lying areas and some of them is located below sea level. Jakarta has a complex history

of flood. Flood history of Jakarta was started since the 17 th century. However, flooding became

great problems for people in the end of 19th century. Historical data of river flood event in

Jakarta is shown in Table 3.1. There is no recorded data of flood events in year 1621, 1654 and

1876. Flood event in January 1932 inundated several houses in Dabang and Thamrin Streets.

Then, in 1st January 1932 flooding caused 200.000 people evacuated. During 1977 until 2008

have occurred 8 times big flood event. Flood event in 2007 is being the worst event in its

recorded data (Texier, 2008). It caused 150.000 people evacuated and approximately 60 % area

of Jakarta was inundated. Heavy rainfall occurred during in the beginning of February, detailed

rainfall data in 3 February 2007 is shown in Figure 3.2.

17

Fig

ure 3.1. Rivers intersected in Jakarta

Figure 3.2. Rainfall data from Ciliwung river recording stations (3 February 2007)

18

N

Source: BMKG in ADPC, 2010Table 3.1 Historical River Flood Hazard in Jakarta

Date Damage and risk due to flooding

1621, 1654, 1876 No recorded data

9 January 1932 Several houses in Dabang and Thamrin Streets were inundated

1 February 1976 More than 200000 people were evacuated

19 January 1977 About 100000 people were evacuated

8 January 1984About 291 neighborhood areas with 39729 inhabitants were inundated

13 February 1989 4400 families were evacuated

13 January 1997 745 houses and 2640 inhabitants were inundated

26 January 1999Flash flood occurred in Tangerang, Bekasi and Jakarta with 6 people died and 30000 people were evacuated.

29 January 2002Big flood occurred in Jakarta, Tangerang, and Bekasi caused 2 people died and 40000 people were evacuated

2-4 February 2007150000 inhabitants have been evacuated. 60% of Jakarta City was inundated

February 2008Flood occurred in Jakarta and Tangerang. 26000 houses were inundated and 1550 people were evacuated.

Source: Balai Besar Wilayah Sungai Ciliwung dan Cisadane, Department of Public Work (DPU) in Frenkel (2011) and Marfai et.al. (2012)

Flood event in Jakarta caused damages and losses in every aspects of human life, include

human health. Environmental problem due to flooding caused health problems. Waste disposal

and garbage along the river become serious problems in some area (Figure 3.3). Several diseases

can be transmitted by water inundation such as skin infections, respiratory infections, and

gastrointestinal infections. Flood inundation indirectly can be used as breeding places for

mosquitoes which can spread other diseases such as dengue fever and malaria. Harmful disease

arisen due to flooding is leptosirosis. It is caused by bacteria found in rat’s urine. During flood,

19

flood water mixed with various waste include rat’s urine. Figure 3.4 explains one condition of

inundations area in Jakarta City.

Figure 3.3. Garbage along the swampy area

Figure 3.4. Inundation in Jakarta City (Foto Courtesy: Marfai 2009)

Flood event in Jakarta has caused some problems in public health. Many people suffered

several diseases after flooding in Jakarta. For example is in flood event 2002. Diseases which

frequently occurred are diarrhoea, respiratory infections, gastrointestinal infections, pneumonia,

skins infections and eye infections (Figure 3.5). Based on data of Department of Health of

Jakarta, most of people suffered respiratory infections (44.8 % of all patients).

20

Figure 3.5. Proportion of patients due to flooding in 2002 (Jakarta Public Health Department,

2002)

Other diseases occurred are leptosirosis and dengue haemorrhagic fever. These diseases

appeared later and caused serious impact. Leptosirosis is more harmful than other because some

patients were died. Numbers of leptosirosis patients after flooding in 2002 are 70 patients and 17

of them were died (Department of Health, 2002). Leptosirosis found in 38 subdistricts in Jakarta

and the biggest case occurred in West Jakarta. Main cause of this disease is rat’s urine which

mixed in flood water. Flood water is contaminated by various wastes which can disrupt human

health.

Problems in public health didn’t reduce in line with receding of flood. Data indicated that

number of patients was increasing when flood started to recede (Figure 3.6). Flood always leave

trash and waste surrounding the settlement. It brings negative impact for human health. So many

bacteria and viruses transmitted from trash and waste. So, it is potential for spreading the

diseases after flooding.

21

Figure 3.6. Cumulative number of patients due to flooding in 2002

Most of patients due to flooding are children. Data in Figure 3.7 is shown that 17,6 % of

patients are infant, 25,8 % are children under 5 years and 56,7 % are children more than 5 years.

Most of them suffered diarrhoea. Infant and children are very vulnerable to diarrhoea. They

haven’t good immune system to protect their body from diseases. Environmental conditions

during flooding were bad, so it supported diarrhoea transmission.

Figure 3.7. Percentage of People suffered diarrhea (Jakarta Public Health Department, 2002))

22

3.2. Health Impact Assessment: Case Study of Semarang City

Semarang, as the capital of Central Java Province, is geographically located on the

northern part of the province (6°58’ S and 110°25’ E). As one of largest city in Indonesia, rapid

urbanization in Semarang has significantly increased the number of vulnerable community

towards flooding. At present, more than 1.5 million urban populations live in Semarang, with the

total area of only 373.7 km2 (BPS Semarang 2002). Since 1990, the coastal and low land areas in

the north of Semarang have been experiencing rapid growth of urban development (Marfai and

King 2008a). Rapid urban growth has become major source for environmental deterioration in

coastal and low land areas. Due to urban development, the local communities in North Semarang

are now suffering from various direct and indirect impacts of the environmental deterioration.

Basically, the topography of Semarang consists of two different reliefs. In the southern

part, it consists of hilly topographical area with mean elevation of 400 m and slope between 15-

40%. Flat topographical area with elevation less than 10 m can be found in the northern part of

Semarang (Figure 3.8). Due to the difference in topographical condition, long time sedimentation

from the rivers occurs in the coastal and low land areas. This sedimentation comes from several

major rivers, such as Garang River (East Floodway River), Blorong River, Beringin River,

Silandak River, Babon River, and East Floodway River. Besides the effect on sedimentation

process, most of the rivers are responsible to the threat of flooding in Semarang (Marfai and

King 2007).

Figure 3.8. Topographical condition of Semarang (Marfai and King 2007)

23

The geological condition of Semarang coastal area also brings higher exposure towards

coastal inundation. In general, coastal area of Semarang is composed of alluvial clay and sand

sedimentation. Identification by Kobayashi (2003) has revealed several micro regions at the

coastal area, namely (1) sand and clay material on the beach area, (2) alluvium sediment on tidal

area, (3) combination of alluvium-mud sediment on mangrove-forest area, and (4) reclamation

area on harbor and tourism area. According to Suhandini (1988), the rate of sedimentation at

coastal area is about 8-15 m per year. Since the age of sediment is only hundreds year old, the

material is not compacted yet. Thus, it triggers the phenomena of land subsidence in Semarang

(Soedarsono 2011). In addition to the material condition, excessive groundwater withdrawal and

increase of the load due to building construction is also considered as the major triggers (Public

Works Department of Semarang/PWD 2000).

Land subsidence is not “something new”- phenomena in Semarang. This city has

experiencing land subsidence for long time (Sutanta 2002; Kobayashi 2003, Marfai and King

2007). The subsidence varies from less than 10 cm per year to the maximum of higher than 20

cm per year (Soedarsono and Marfai 2012). Due to land subsidence, the ground elevation

becomes lower and is now exposed to coastal inundation. The height of inundation is now

reaching up to 60 cm from the ground (Soedarsono 1996; Kobayashi 2003). Sinking area below

the sea level due to land subsidence is now common. Sinking area is predicted to gradually

increase from 365 ha to 1,377.5 ha during 2010-2015 (Marfai and King 2007). The land

subsidence is mostly affecting the Northeast part of Semarang coastal area. Several villages are

now under the threat of higher coastal inundation due to subsidence (Table 3.2).

Table 3.2. Villages affected by higher coastal inundation due to land subsidence

Villages Area Inundated (Ha) Settlement inundated (house)

Tanjung-mas 6.28 4,528

Bandar-Harjo 41.52 4,216

Dadapsari 2.77 2,025

Kuningan 26.65 3,039

Total 77.22 13,808

Source: North Semarang Government (2002)

24

Massive damages and losses towards the property and infrastructure due to coastal inundation

has occurred in Semarang (Soedarsono1996; Yusup 1999; Kobayashi 2003; Marfai 2003; Marfai

2004; Dewi 2007; Marfai and King 2007). The efforts in reducing the impact of coastal inundation

have been taken. Although dike, pumping station, and polder system as physical measures has built

and installed, the flooding is continuously inundating the coastal area (Marfai and King 2008a;

Marfai et al. 2008b). The inundated settlements were increasing during period of 1996-2010.

Detailed changes on the area inundated are shown in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3. Changes of inundated area during 1996-2010

Villages Area Inundated (Ha)1996 2010 Changes

Tanjung-mas 44.02 48.55 4.53Bandar-Harjo 42.95 27.65 -15.3Dadapsari 8.36 25.57 17.21Kuningan 13.74 36.92 23.18Total 109.07 138.69 29.62

Source: Soedarsono 1997; Soedarsono 2011

Figure 3.9. Inundation on the coastal area; inundation on the road (a) and in the residential areas

(b,c) (Marfai and King 2007)

The serious impact of coastal inundation becomes higher because most of the inundated

areas are dense populated settlements (see Figure 3.9). The inundation on these areas is

potentially causing the damages on building. Non-permanent building, which is one of the

products of unmanaged development, is the most suffered from the inundation. Those buildings

were constructed from low quality material and formed un-uniform pattern between each other.

Poor environmental condition is also found in this area. Unstructured drainage channel with high

sediment load, combined with the complex environmental sanitation problems, is predicted to

higher health impact to the local community live in this area.

25

Severe impact of the inundation is not solely related to magnitude of the coastal

inundation itself. Regarding to this, Soedarsono (2011) has identified several factors that

generate higher impact. In addition to flat topographical condition in which resists the water to

back to the sea, the soil also saturated because it is often inundated. This condition makes the

water cannot well infiltrated to the ground. Shallow groundwater table also becomes the main

reason of this problem. The site location on the river outlets, in which has high magnitude of

land subsidence, produce higher inundation from year to year. Dense un-uniform settlement and

poor drainage makes longer flooding duration, as it requires several hours to the water level to be

decreased.

Water that inundates the settlement in Semarang is the main source for the diseases.

Worse condition found due to the poor environmental condition, in which solid waste pollution

and water pollution taken place. Solid waste pollution is common due to lack of solid waste

management. The source of water pollution mainly comes from household, including pollution

from detergent, feces, and urine. Although some of them can access clean water from the water

company pipe system, about 40% of them still use groundwater as the main source for daily

requirements. Therefore, diseases spreading in this area possibly come from two major sources.

In addition to the diseases that come from the water that inundates for long duration, the diseases

are also emerging from the water polluted by household waste. Several diseases that often found

in this area are shown in Table 3.4.

Table 3.4. Diseases related to environmental health and number of people suffered

Diseases Number of people suffered per year

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Respiratory Infection

16025 13467 10474 12829 13324 14775 12265 14166 16111 22597

Skin Infection

3231 2701 2654 2909 3868 2061 1527 1577 1647 2538

Diarrhea 2101 823 813 798 1106 1170 1254 1609 2117 2209Cholera and Dysentery

168 242 188 237 179 281 245 261 289 294

Dengue fever

137 146 15 114 118 122 158 133 184 196

Source: Bandar-harjo Health Clinic 2010, in Soedarsono 2011

26

Sanitation is the major problem on this area, in which not all of the inhabitants have

private toilet and septic tank on their house. Therefore, part of the inhabitants flow liquid

household waste directly to the open channel around the settlement. Due to flood inundation, the

household waste is often mixed with the water. Improper household waste management, which is

generated from low environmental health, is one of the main sources for the diseases.

Based on how the diseases are transmitted, the source can be classified to water borne

diseases and vector borne diseases. Water borne diseases is especially emerging due to poor

sanitation condition. Water borne diseases not only spread when the water is high, but also when

it gets lower. When the water elevation decreases, it left mud and residual on the ground surface.

The most disease emerging due to the combination of the inundation and poor sanitation is

Diarrhea (Table 3.5), in which it is mostly emerging due to unavailability of clean water and

exposed feces (Ahmad 2003). In addition to diarrhea, dysentery also emerging due to

contaminated groundwater.

Table 3.5. Water borne diseases in the inundated villages

Villages Typhoid Dysentery Diarrhea Others TotalKuningan 0 5 18 3 26Bandar-Harjo 0 2 8 1 11Dadapsari 1 5 25 7 38Tanjung-Mas 0 9 46 4 59Total 1 21 97 15 134

Source: Soedarsono 2011

Vector borne disease is mainly transmitted by animals, especially by mosquito and

mouse. Malaria and dengue fever, as the main diseases transmitted by mosquito, is the most

suffering the local community. 90 cases of malaria and dengue fever have been identified by

Soedarsono (2011). Leptospirosis, as transmitted by mouse, only occurred on one cases.

Unfortunately, due to the massive impact to the environment, it cannot be underestimated.

Vector borne diseases in the inundated villages are shown in Table 3.6.

27

Table 3.6. Vector borne diseases in the inundated villages

Villages Malaria Dengue fever

Leptospirosis Others Total

Kuningan 10 8 0 8 26Bandar-Harjo 4 5 0 2 11Dadapsari 12 10 0 16 38Tanjung-Mas 22 19 1 17 59Total 48 42 1 43 134

Source: Soedarsono 2011

IV. REMARK

Health Impact Assessment in Indonesia is rarely implemented especially for disaster

management. Nevertheless, in matter of fact Indonesia experiences natural disasters for the

geographic condition. Natural disaster could bring primary effect such as death and secondary

effect of diseases caused by the natural disaster. Health Impact Assessment could help to reduce

the risk of natural disaster impact in Indonesia. It is necessary to made socialization,

dissemination, and policies as an implementation of Health Impact Assessment in Indonesia for

future. As a mitigation act of natural disaster, Health Impact Assessment can be implemented to

reduce the health impact of the disaster occurs in Indonesia.

The primary reason of why the Health Impact Assessment is necessary needed in

Indonesia is because natural disaster frequently happens in this country. Flood, earthquake,

landslide, volcano eruption, and tsunami occur as the short period disaster and to be worst

climate change has added as the long period disaster. Health Impact Assessment will be as a tool

to help community to reduce the health impact of the natural disaster damaged such as injury,

respiratory infection, infectious disease, and even death. Health Impact Assessment will arrange

regulation to reduce the risk because policies can have a considerable influence on health and the

production or prevention of illness, disability or death. A high level of human health protection is

necessary to be ensured in the definition and implementation of all community policies and

activities. HIA will also can measure the possibility of disease happens in a natural disaster

events.

28

Health Impact Assessment should also be able to comprehensively reflect the real

conditions and real environmental problems, so it is necessary discussion of cross-sectoral

coordination. Organization partnerships take key action to develop Health Impact Assessment in

one community. In this case, Indonesia Government including the regional government could

work together with private sector and local community to be participated together in develop the

policies and to make sure the health impact assessment is implemented.

29

References:

ADPC (2010) Flood preparedness initiatives of high-risk communities of Jakarta. Safer Cities

27. June 2010.

Ahmad UF (2003) Guidelines for reducing leptospirosis in Indonesia. Public Health Department

of Indonesia. Jakarta.

Bakosurtanal (2006) Tsunami vulnerability map of Indonesia. Indonesia: National Agency for

Survey and Mapping(Bakosurtanal), available at <http://www.bakornaspbp.go.id/

html/tsunami.htm.>, last accessed 22 September 2012.

Bappenas (2010) National Action Plan for Disaster Risk Reduction 2010-2012. Indonesia:

National Agency of Development and Planning (Bappenas).

Baxter PJ, Moller I, Spencer T (2001) Coastal flooding and climate change. Chapter 4.6. In:

Health Effects of Climate Change in the UK: an expert review for comment. London:

Department of Health; 2001. p. 177-87, available at <http://www.doh.gov.uk/hef/airpol/

climatechange/ 177-187.pdf>, last accessed 22 September 2012.

Bhatia R (2011) Health Impact Assessment: A Guide for Practice. Oakland, CA: Human Impact

Partners.

Bieri S (2003) Disaster Risk Management and the Systems Approach. World Institute for

Disaster Risk Management (DRM).

Bird ECF and Ongkosongo OSR (1980) Environmental changes on The Coast of Indonesia. The

United Nations University: United Nations university press.

BNPB (2009) Flood hazard map of Indonesia during 1979-2009. Indonesia: National Agency for

Disaster Management (BNPB)

BNPB (2010) Analysis of Disaster Data: Data on Disaster in Indonesia 2009. Indonesia: National

Agency for Disaster Management (BNPB)

BNPB (2011) History of BNPB. Indonesia: National Agency for Disaster Management (BNPB),

available at <http:// www.bnpb.go.id / website/asp/ content.asp?id=2>, last accessed 22

September 2012.

BPS Semarang (2002) Semarang in Figures 2002, Bureau of Statistics (BPS) Semarang,

Indonesia.

Caljouw M, Nas PJM, Pratiwo (2005) Flooding in Jakarta. Towards a blue city with improved

water management. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde (BKI) 161:454–484.

30

Dewi A (2007) Community-based analysis of coping with urban flooding: A case study in

Semarang, Indonesia. M.Sc. thesis, International Institute for Geo-Information and Earth

Observation, ITC, Enschede, The Netherlands.

Development Planning Board (DPB). (2000). Profile of Semarang Coastal Area (In Indonesian).

Indonesia: Government of Semarang.

Djalante R, Thomalla F, Sinapoy MS, Carnegie M (2012) Building resilience to natural hazards

in Indonesia: progress and challenges in implementing the Hyogo Framework for Action.

Nat Hazards 62:779–803

EM-DAT (2004) EM-DAT Historical Disaster Information 1979-2004.

Fewtrell L, and Kay D. (2011) Carlisle Flooding: Health Impact Assessment, Health and

Flooding-Source and Receptor Factors. Aberystwyth University: FRMRC Research

Report SMP 3.1 April 2011. Project website: www.floodrisk.org.uk

Gertisser R, Charbonnier SJ, Keller J, Quidelleur X (2012) The geological evolution of Merapi

volcano, Central Java, Indonesia. Bull Volcanol 74:1213–1233

GFDRR (2009) Disaster risk management programs for priority countries East Asia and Pacific:

Indonesia. Global fund for disaster risk reduction.

Hall R (2009) Encyclopedia of Islands. In: Gillespie R & Clague D (eds). Berkeley California:

University of California Press p. 454-460.

Haryanto B (2009) Climate Change and Public Health in Indonesia Impacts and Adaptation.

Nautilus Institute Australia: Austral Policy Forum 09-05S.3 December 2009.

Howard MJ, Brillman JC, Burkle FM (1996) Infectious disease emergencies in disasters.

Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America 14: 413-28.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/IPCC (2001) Climate change 2001: impacts,

adaptation, and vulnerability. In: McCarthy JJ, Canziani OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ,

White KS (eds) Contribution of working group II to the third assessment report of the

intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, UK.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: impacts,

adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment

report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press,

UK.

31

Indonesia Public Health Department (DEPKES RI). (2002). Menanggulangi Masalah Kesehatan

Akibat Banjir: Pengalaman Menghadapi Bencana Banjir DKI Jakarta Tahun 2002.

Jakarta: Depkes.

Jakubicka T, Vos F, Phalkey R, Marx M (2010) Health impacts of floods in Europe: Data gaps

and information needs from a spatial perspective. Microdis.

Jha AK, Bloch R, Lamond J (2012) Cities and Flooding: A Guide to Integrated Urban Flood

Risk Management for the 21st Century. The World Bank. Washington DC.

Kobayashi H (2003) Vulnerability assessment and adaptation strategy to sea-level rise in

Indonesian coastal urban areas. National Institute for Land and Infrastructure

Management, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, Asahi-1, Tsukuba-city,

Japan.

Lavigne F (2000) Lahar hazard micro-zonation and risk assessment in Yogyakarta city,

Indonesia. GeoJournal 49: 173–183

Marfai MA and King L (2007) Monitoring land subsidence in Semarang, Indonesia. Env Geol

53:651–659.

Marfai MA and King L (2008a) Potential vulnerability implications of coastal inundation due to

sea level rise for the coastal zone of Semarang city, Indonesia. Environ Geo 54:1235–

1245.

Marfai MA and King L (2008b) Tidal inundation mapping under enhanced land subsidence in

Semarang, Central Java Indonesia. Nat Hazards 44:93–109.

Marfai MA, Almohammad H, Dey S, Susanto B, King L (2008a) Coastal dynamic and shoreline

mapping: multi-sources spatial data analysis in Semarang Indonesia. Environ Monit

Assess 142:297–308

Marfai MA, King, Sartohadi J, Sudrajat, Budiani SR, Yulianto F (2008b) The impact of tidal

flooding on a coastal community in Semarang, Indonesia. Environmentalist 28:237–248.

Marfai MA (2011a) The hazards of coastal erosion in Central Java, Indonesia: An overview.

Geografia Online Malaysian Journal of Society and Space 7:1-9.

Naylor RL (2007) Assessing risks of climate variability and climate change for Indonesian rice

agriculture, PNAS journal 104:7752-7757.

Nicholls RJ (2004) Coastal flooding and wetland loss in the 21st century: changes under the

SRES climate and socio-economic scenarios. Global Environ Chang 14:69–89.

32

Nicholls RJ, Hanson S, Herweijer C, Patmore N, Hallegatte S, Corfee-Morlot J, Chaˆteau J,

Muir-Wood R (2008) Ranking port cities with high exposure and vulnerability to climate

extremes: exposure estimates. Paris-France: OECD environment working papers No. 1,

ENV/WKP(2007).

Noji E (1991) Natural disasters. Critical Care Clinics 7: 271-92

North Semarang Government (2002) North Semarang monographic data. Government of

Semarang.

Public Works Department of Semarang (PWD). (2000). Semarang urban drainage master plan

project. Semarang, Indonesia: Public Works Department.

Quigley R, den Broeder L, Furu P, Bond A, Cave B, and Bos R (2006) Health Impact

Assessment. International Association for Impact Assessment. International Best Practice

Principles. Special publication series No. 5 2006, available at

<http;//www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/special-publications/SP5.pdf>, last accessed 22

September 2012.

Reacher M, McKenzie K, Lane C, Nichols T, Kedge I, Iversen A, Hepple P, Walter T, Laxton C,

Simpson J. 2004. Health impacts of flooding in Lewes: a comparison of reported

gastrointestinal and other illness and mental health in flooded and non-flooded

households. Commun Dis Public Health 7(1):1-8

Sartohadi J, Marfai MA, Mardiatno D (2009) Coastal zone management due to abrasion along

the Coastal Area of Tegal, Central Java, Indonesia. International conference on coastal

environment and management-for the future of human lives on the coastal regions. 23rd –

24th February. Shima, Southern Mie Prefecture, Central Japan.

Sivakumar MVK (2005) Impacts of natural disasters in agriculture, rangeland and forestry: an

overview. In: Sivakumar MVK, Motha RP, Das HP (eds) Natural disasters and extreme

events in agriculture, impacts and mitigation. World Meteorological Organization,

Geneva.

Soedarsono S (1996) Impact of flood inundation due to sea level rise on the settlement area in

Semarang City, (in Indonesian). Master Thesis, Geography Faculty, Gadjah Mada

University, Indonesia.

Soedarsono (1997) The impact of coastal flooding due to high tide towards settlement along the

Semarang river outlets. Pasca Sarjana UGM. Yogyakarta.

33

Soedarsono S (2011) The impact of land subsidence to Settlement Area in Semarang alluvial.

PhD dissertation, Geography Faculty, Gadjah Mada University, Indonesia.

Soedarsono, Marfai MA (2012) Monitoring the change of land subsidence in the nothern of

semarang due to change of landuse on alluvial plain. Analele UniversităŃii din Oradea –

Seria Geografie. Year XXII, no. 1/2012: 54 - 65

Suhandini P (1988) Urban settlement development and its impact to distribution of inundation in

Semarang (in Indonesian). Master thesis, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta.

Sunarto (2004) Geomorphic Changes in Coastal Area Surround Muria Volcano. PhD

dissertation, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

Sutanta H (2002) Spatial modeling of the impact of land subsidence and sea level rise in a

coastal urbansetting, case study: Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia. M.Sc. thesis,

International Institute for Geo-Information and Earth Observation, ITC, Enschede, The

Netherlands.

Sutikno S (2007) Eartquake disaster of Yogyakarta and Central Java, and disaster reduction,

Indonesia. Forum Geogr 21(1):1–16

Texier P (2008) Floods in Jakarta: when the extreme reveals daily structural constraints and

mismanagement. Disaster Management and Prevention 17:358-372.

Thouret JC, Lavigne F, Kelfoun K, Bronto S (2000) Toward a revised hazard assessment at

Merapi volcano, Central Java. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 100:479–502

UNISDR (2009) Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. United Nations.

UNISDR (2011) Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction: revealing risk, redefining

Development. Geneva.

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction/UNISDR (2008) Deaths and

economic losses jump in 2008.22 January 2009, available at:

<www.unisdr.org/eng/media-room/press-release/2009/pr-2009-01-disaster-figures-

2008.pdf>, last accessed 22 September 2012.

UNTWG-DRR (2008) Data of organisations for DRR in Indonesia up to 2008, available at:

<http://3w.unocha.org/WhoWhatWhere/contactDirListing.php>, last accessed 22

September 2012.

US Army Corps of Engineering/USACE (2002) Coastal engineering manual. Engineer manual

1110-2-1100 (in 6 vols). Washington DC: US Army Corps of Engineers

34

Ward PJ, Marfai MA, Yulianto D, Hizbaron DR, Aerts JCJH (2011) Coastal inundation and

damage exposure estimation: a case study for Jakarta. Nat Hazards 56:899–916.

Ward PJ, Pauw WP, van-Buurend MW, Marfai MA (2012) Governance of flood risk

management in a time of climate change: the cases of Jakarta and Rotterdam.

Environmental Politics 2012:1–19

World Health Organization/WHO (1999) Health Impact Assessment: Main Concepts and

Suggested Approach: Gothenburg consensus paper. Brussels: European Center for Health

Policy.

35