JTUS, Vol. 02, No. 4 April 2024
E-ISSN: 2984-7435, P-ISSN: 2984-7427
|
|
Mitigation
of Landslide Disaster Management in Senggigi Tourism Area in West Lombok
Regency
Sayfuddin
Al-Azhar Islamic University, Mataram, West Nusa
Tenggara, Indonesia
Email: [email protected]
|
Abstract Landslides are a frequent occurrence in the wet tropics, particularly
in the Senggigi area of West Lombok Regency. Following landslide incidents on
February 6, 2021, near the Sheraton Hotel, Alberto Restaurant, and a road in
Senggigi on November 12, 2021, mitigation efforts have become imperative.
This research aims to identify the causal and influencing factors, assess
their impacts, and propose mitigation strategies. Data is collected through
questionnaires and interviews, followed by validity and reliability testing.
Results indicate that soil type (20.945%) and high rainfall (23.776%) are
significant factors contributing to landslides. Consequently, specialized
attention from relevant agencies is needed to address soil issues in Senggigi
effectively. Keywords: Disaster, Landslide,
Mitigation. |
INTRODUCTION
Indonesia is one of the countries that has a
vulnerability to hydrometeorological disasters, namely disasters caused by
climate change and weather
Landslides
pose a significant threat in tropical regions like the Senggigi tourist area.
They not only result in loss of infrastructure, agricultural land, and human
lives but also indirectly impede development and economic activities in the
affected area and its vicinity
So
far, spatial and regional development have not paid attention to landslide
disasters. The consequence is that the impact will continue to be sustainable
if efforts are not made to minimize the risk of disasters
The Senggigi Tourism Area, located in West Lombok
Regency, is characterized by its hilly terrain and steep slopes. While numerous
initiatives have been undertaken by local governments, including collaboration
with government agencies and universities, to minimize and prevent landslides,
there is still a need for further research and innovation in this area. To
advance risk reduction efforts and promote sustainable, safe development
planning, conducting a comprehensive disaster risk analysis is imperative, particularly
in disaster-prone regions like Senggigi. This research aims to identify causal
factors of landslides, assess their impacts, and develop effective strategies
to mitigate future risks and enhance resilience in the area.
METHODS
Data Analysis
This data processing
is carried out by processing validation data (validity) and reality and determining
the impact and disaster mitigation on research results.
1. Analysis of Dominant Factors Causes
and influences
This
test is carried out by determining 1 most dominant factor from the causal
factor variable from 18 variables and 1 most dominant factor from the influence
factor variable from 5 variables that have been determined or from the results
of processing respondent questionnaire data. As for how to determine it with
the testing below:
a. Validity
Test
This
test is done by determining the values (Rxy, Rtable, and Validity Status). Where to determine Rxy by the CORREL Formula (average X1; average (Total)).
For Rtotal in this study using 25 respondents with a
formula where with a population of 20% value (N = 0.396)
After
determining the average of 18 cause variables and 5 influence variables,
researchers will take the highest average value, namely 1 cause variable and 1
influence variable. To determine the population of respondents, researchers
took 25 respondents because it was known that population data on stakeholders
in Lombok were:
1) Contractors 91 at 20% = 12
Respondents
2) Consultants 40 at 20% = 8 Respondents
3) Owner 23 at 20% = 5 Respondents
And
if totaled from the stakeholder population, where 25
populations are found at 20%. To determine its Validity by comparing the value
of N with the value of Rxy to find out its
"Valid and Invalid."
b.
Reliability Test
This
test is carried out to determine the comparison between causal and influencing
factors. If the causal factors outweigh the influence, then the study is said
to be significant and vice versa.
This
test is carried out by determining the values (Item Variance, Number of Item
Variance, Total Variance, r11, and Reality). Where to determine the grain
variant and the number of item variants. Where is the variant of the item with
the formula (VAR block value X1) and for the number of grain variants that is
(SUM block the average variance of the grain variant). And to determine the
variance can be calculated by means (SUM average value (total)).
To
determine "r11" that is by means ((number of questions/number of
questions-1) multiplied (1- (number of item variances / total variance)). To
determine Reliability by comparing the value of "r11" with the
category of reliability coefficient.
c. Impact
Caused by Landslides
The impact of
this landslide can be determined after determining the causal factors. The
impact caused by landslides in the research area can be determined by
collecting data directly from the research location (the impact of landslides
in the Senggigi area), which I will survey directly.
d. Disaster
Management Mitigation
After testing
or test results of validity and reliability, we can take 1 cause and 1 of the
most dominant influences from the questionnaire that has been determined and
has been processed. These 2 factors become a reference for disaster management
or landslide disaster mitigation. After determining the mitigation, we can find
out what factors cause landslides.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Resource Person Data
Data collection in
this study was obtained through the distribution of questionnaires to resource
persons to obtain secondary data to be processed according to the purpose of
the study. Secondary data distributed questionnaires to 35 (thirty-five) resource
persons in accordance with the research objectives in which researchers took 35
respondents from a population of 20%, namely (contractors 110 in 20% = 21
respondents, Consultancy 40 in 20% = 8 respondents and 23 in 20% = 6
respondents) in which a total of 35 respondents in the population of 20%.
The
resource persons in this study are those who are directly involved in the
implementation of the procurement process of government construction goods/services
and communities who have experience in the failure of the Senggigi landslide.
Work
Experience
From the
questionnaires that have been answered and collected, it can
be seen that of the 35 respondents directly related to landslide
disasters, they have experience or years of work in the following table:
Table
1. Respondent's Experience/Work Period
|
Experience |
Total |
% |
|
5-10 Years |
5 |
14,29 |
|
11-20 Years |
7 |
20,00 |
|
21-30 Years |
15 |
42,86 |
|
31 Years and Above |
8 |
22,86 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
35 |
100 |
Education
Level
From the questionnaires that have been answered and
collected, it can be seen that from 35 respondents,
respondents who are directly related to landslide disasters with the following
education levels, whose education level is Bachelor Starta
one (S1) is 60% (21 people). The level of high school education is 40% (14
people) with the level of education as shown below.
|
Table 2. Respondent
Education |
||
|
Education |
Total |
% |
|
SMA |
14 |
40 |
|
S1 |
21 |
60 |
|
Total |
35 |
100 |
Education Level
From the
questionnaires that have been answered and collected, it can
be seen that of the 35 respondents, respondents who were directly
related to the landslide disaster had the following educational levels, with
60% (21 people) having a bachelor's degree (S1) and 40 having a high school
education level. % (14 people) With education level as shown in the picture
below.
Table
3. Respondent's Education
|
Education |
Total |
% |
|
Senior High School |
14 |
40 |
|
Bachelor |
21 |
60 |
|
Total |
35 |
100 |
Job (job title on the
project)
From the
questionnaires that have been answered and collected, it can
be seen that of the 35 respondents who were directly related to the
landslide disaster, they worked as CONTRACTORS (10) 28,57%, PUPR STAFF (12) 34,29%,
CONSULTANTS (6) 17,14%, BASARNAS (4) 11,43%, and PSDA (3) 8,57%.
Table
4. Respondent's Occupation/Position
|
Respondents |
Total |
% |
|
Contractor |
10 |
28,57 |
|
PUPR Staff |
12 |
34,29 |
|
Consultant |
6 |
17,14 |
|
Basarna |
4 |
11,43 |
|
PSDA PU |
3 |
8,57 |
|
Total |
35 |
100 |
Validity Test
To test whether the
variable used is valid or not with the validity test, pearson
compares the calculated r value with the table r. if the value of the r count
is more than the r table, then it is declared 'valid', and if the value of the
r count is less than the r table, then it is declared 'invalid'. Where N = 25
at 5% significance in the distribution of the r value of the significance
table, the table r value is 0.396.
Reliability Test
In
reliability testing, Cronbach's Alpha value of the cause of the landslide was
obtained at 1.04, and
the effect of the landslide was obtained at 0.01. Where the value is greater than 0.01, the research instrument used is declared feasible so
that the data obtained can be used in factor analysis.
Factor
Analysis of the Causes and Effects of the Senggigi Landslide
Using
descriptive statistical method analysis, the results of the analysis are used
to determine the most dominant cause and influence factors.
Based
on the results of the analysis of the causes and influence factors of landslide
disasters, the percentage of each variable is calculated, and researchers take
the 5 highest cause variables and 1 highest influence variable. The researchers
explained the results of 5 causative factors and 1 of the most dominant
influence factors.
Causative Factors
The type of soil obtained a percentage of 20.945% of the total assessment score from
respondents. Factors
in carrying out work can affect work productivity. Of
the 25 respondents stated were 8 very influential. 13 respondents stated very
influential, 2 stated medium influence, and 2 stated little influence.
The use of wrong land planning
(irregular) obtained a percentage of 20.534% of the
total assessment score from respondents in carrying out work can affect work
productivity. Of the 25 respondents, 6 were very influential. As many as 14
respondents stated very influential, 4 respondents stated medium influence, and
1 respondent stated little influence.
The additional burden on the slope obtained a percentage of 20.329% of the total assessment score from
respondents in carrying out work can affect work productivity. Of the 25
respondents stated, 11 were very influential. As many as 7 respondents stated
very influential, 3 stated medium influence and 4 stated little influence.
Erosion or erosion on the soil obtained a percentage of 19.302% of the total assessment score from
respondents in carrying out work can affect work productivity. Of the 25
respondents stated, 7 were very influential. As many as 10 respondents stated
very influential, 4 stated medium influence and 4 stated little influence.
Forest burning obtained a percentage of 18.891% of the total assessment score from
respondents in carrying out work, which can affect work productivity. Of the 25
respondents, 7 were very influential. As many as 8 respondents stated very
influential, 5 stated medium influence and 5 stated little influence.
Factors
of influence
High
rainfall obtained a percentage of 23.776% of the
total assessment score from respondents in carrying out work, which can affect
work productivity. Of the 25 respondents stated there were 6 very influential. 16
respondents stated very influential, 2 stated medium influence and 1 stated
little influence.
CONCLUSION
The research report on the causal factors
influencing landslide disasters in Senggigi highlights significant findings.
Analysis using EXEL software revealed that soil type and high rainfall are
primary factors contributing to landslides in the Senggigi tourism area, with
soil type accounting for 20.945% and high rainfall for 23.776% of the
occurrences. These factors have direct impacts on local communities and
infrastructure, necessitating mitigation measures. Recommendations include
increased awareness and regulation regarding building on susceptible soil types
and implementing strategies such as reforestation to mitigate the effects of
high rainfall, emphasizing the importance of proactive measures in disaster
preparedness and management.
REFERENCES
Alcántara-Ayala,
I. (2021). Integrated landslide disaster risk management (ILDRiM):
the challenge to avoid the construction of new disaster risk. Environmental
Hazards, 20(3), 323–344.
Erien, S. W. (2020). Strategi Pemerintah Kota Padang Dalam Pengembangan Pariwisata Berbasis Mitigasi Bencana.
Fan, X., Xu, Q., Liu, J., Subramanian, S. S., He, C., Zhu, X., & Zhou, L. (2019). Successful early warning and emergency response of a disastrous rockslide in Guizhou province, China. Landslides, 16, 2445–2457.
Guzzetti, F. (2021). On the prediction of landslides and their consequences. Understanding and Reducing Landslide Disaster Risk: Volume 1 Sendai Landslide Partnerships and Kyoto Landslide Commitment 5th, 3–32.
Guzzetti, F., Gariano, S. L., Peruccacci, S., Brunetti, M. T., Marchesini, I., Rossi, M., & Melillo, M. (2020). Geographical landslide early warning systems. Earth-Science Reviews, 200, 102973.
Hidayat, R., Sutanto, S. J., Hidayah, A., Ridwan, B., & Mulyana, A. (2019). Development of a landslide early warning system in Indonesia. Geosciences, 9(10), 451.
Isnaini, R. (2019). Analisis bencana tanah longsor di wilayah Jawa Tengah. Islamic Management and Empowerment Journal, 1(2), 144–145.
Jakob, M. (2022). Landslides in a changing climate. In Landslide hazards, risks, and disasters (pp. 505–579). Elsevier.
Marengo, J. A., Alves, L. M., Ambrizzi, T., Young, A., Barreto, N. J. C., & Ramos, A. M. (2020). Trends in extreme rainfall and hydrogeometeorological disasters in the Metropolitan Area of São Paulo: a review. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1472(1), 5–20.
Nurwidyaningrum, D., Sari, T. W., Sudardja, H., & binti Impak, S. (2022). Analisis Jenis Longsoran Pada Daerah Wisata Berlereng Tajam, Banten. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Teknik Sipil, 2, 1–8.
Pecoraro, G., Calvello, M., & Piciullo, L. (2019). Monitoring strategies for local landslide early warning systems. Landslides, 16, 213–231.
Perera, E. N. C., Jayawardana, D. T., Jayasinghe, P., Bandara, R. M. S., & Alahakoon, N. (2018). Direct impacts of landslides on socio-economic systems: a case study from Aranayake, Sri Lanka. Geoenvironmental Disasters, 5, 1–12.
Rosyida, A., & Nurmasari, R. (2019). Analisis Perbandingan Dampak Kejadian Bencana Hidrometeorologi dan Geologi di Indonesia Dilihat Dari Jumlah Korban (Studi: Data Kejadian Bencana Indonesia 2018). Jurnal Dialog Dan Penanggulangan Bencana, 10(1), 12–21.
Turner, A. K. (2018). Social and environmental impacts of landslides. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions, 3, 1–25.
Uddin, M. S., Haque, C. E., Khan, M. N., Doberstein, B., & Cox, R. S. (2021). “Disasters threaten livelihoods, and people cope, adapt and make transformational changes”: Community resilience and livelihoods reconstruction in coastal communities of Bangladesh. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 63, 102444.
Ullah, S., Khan, M. U., & Rehman, G. (2020). A brief review of the slope stability analysis methods. Geol. Behav, 4(2), 73–77.
Zhang, J., Tang, H., Li, C., Gong, W., Zhou, B., & Zhang, Y. (2024). Deformation stage division and early warning of landslides based on the statistical characteristics of landslide kinematic features. Landslides, 1–19.
Zhang, X., Song, J., Peng, J., & Wu, J. (2019). Landslides-oriented urban disaster resilience assessment—A case study in ShenZhen, China. Science of the Total Environment, 661, 95–106.
|
Copyright holder: Sayfuddin (2024) |
|
First publication right: Journal
Transnational Universal Studies (JTUS) |
|
This article is licensed
under:
|
