Rindrasih Erda

PhD candidate Faculty of Geoscience, Department of Human Geography and Planning, Utrecht University Nederland

ABSTRACT

Tourist destinations are increasingly challenged by environmental disasters brought by natural events such as earthquake, floods, drought, windstorms, volcano eruption, typhoon, etc. The differences between destination management types create the various debates on the effectiveness of management type in dealing with disaster. The community based tourism destination have interesting aspect to be examined which distinct from government or private based destination. The contribution of this article are: (1) to establish an assessment framework for the community based tourism management capacity in dealing with natural disaster, and (2) to investigate the community based tourism crisis management following the disaster lifecycle in Candirejo tourism village including emergency, recover and prevention. The selection of Candirejo is based on its impact from Merapi Eruption at 2010 which also one of community based tourism. The study applied qualitative analysis through interview toward stakeholders and villagers in the field survey activity conducted at 2011 and 2014. The research resulted the examination of community-based management in emergency case, recovery and preparation in the village that becomes a tourism area. Several notions have been drawn based on the key assessment framework including: individual and community level responses, livelihood alternative beside tourism, uneven access to economic capital and insurance, lack of disaster awareness and preparedness, tourism recovery policies, resilient market and clientele and effectivity of community based tourism disaster management.

Key Words: resident, disaster, tourist, destination, and preparedness

1. INTRODUCTION

Tourism is one of the largest industries in the world in terms of both number of employment and revenue. International tourism pushed ahead in 2014 as the number of international tourists (overnight visitors) grew 4.4% with an additional 48 million more than in 2013, to reach a new record total of 1,135 million. This caps five consecutive years of above average growth since the global economic crisis of 2009. In term of tourism contribution to trade, International tourism share 30% of the world’s exports of services and 6% of total exports. This contribution is similar for both developed and emerging economies. Moreover as an export category, it ranks fourth worldwide, after fuels, chemicals and food, but notably ahead of automotive products. Compared to fuels, earnings from international tourism benefit a large number of exporters and the sector also tends to create more employment (UNWTO, 2014).

Travel and tourism industry is a significant part of the employment structures of advanced industrial nations and lesser-developed countries. The growth potential of the tourism industry means more opportunities for investment in the future. Tourism industry has become a highly dynamic spatial network of production and consumption. There are such implication in some of the critical theoretical issues of current concern to economic geographers; globalization of capital and firms, deindustrialization and regional economic restructuring, increased significance of strategic alliance networks, spatial division of labour, urban revitalization, the growth of economic-based information technology service, evolution of advanced services and creation of postmodern/post-industrial/post-Fordist landscape (Ioannides & Debbage, 1998).

Each and every tourism development context whether local, regional, or national, is unique. Not only are destinations defined by a particular combination of environment resources, natural or man-made but also the robustness or fragility of those resources. Furthermore, the types of attraction, which influence the tourism experience, scale, scope, character, and stage of development of the tourism sector define the destination. It generally represents parameters within which the tourism-environment interface may be perceived, and consequently appropriate policies for the management and development of tourism are considered.

The tourism literature classifies five factors why some destinations are vulnerable to shocks: (1) the place-specific nature of tourist activity (Richter & Waugh, 1986; Sönmez, Apostolopoulos, & Tarlow, 1999), (2) the fragility of destination images to negative perceptions of risk (Huan, Beaman, & Shelby, 2004; Richter & Waugh, 1986; Sönmez et al., 1999), (3) a high dependency on tourism as a primary livelihood (Knox & Marston, 2004; Ritchie, 2004), (4) a heavy reliance on the marketing strategies of international tour operators (Knox & Marston, 2004), and (5) high levels of seasonality (Meheux & Parker, 2006). In addition, in assessing the vulnerability in risk prone location framework, there are a lot of issues that provide that such as climate change, disaster management and food security, however the approaches have not provide the understanding of assessing vulnerability in tourism destination. The study conducted by Nankenrvis (2000) explain about an industry specific vulnerability framework focus on all tourism business stakeholders operating at the global to local scales only which not completely explain at the community level (Nankervis, 2000). In the absence of a suitable framework, this paper presents the framework to assess the community management tourism destination in dealing with disaster. Furthermore, it develops a framework for analysing the multiple causal factors that contribute to the vulnerability of tourism communities. Through those understanding, I deem it essential to investigate how the community based tourism can be sustained in the face of risk and vulnerability by assessing the case study areas about its disaster risk management.

The debate on community based planning is abundant, however the discussion the community based disaster reduction is very limited, in particular, the debate about distribution of authority across multiple institutions in practice. The question is raising to what extend does the community have power to conduct the community based disaster reduction in tourism destination, because the community based tourism itself is debatable in term of profitability, who speak for the community, and barrier of local participation (Blackstock, 2005).

In October 2010 the Merapi Vulcano erupted and impacted to physical aspect, civilization and economic aspect. After that, Kelud volcano erupted in February 2014. The volcano is lied in Central Java Provinces and Yogyakarta Special Region and in four districts (Boyolali, Magelang and Klaten districts under the administrative of Central Java Province and Sleman district under the administrative of Yogyakarta Special Region). It has been four years from Merapi eruption and one year of Kelud eruption meaning that there is sufficient time to analyse three stages of disaster lifecycle in term of tourism crisis management through community based. The location of the study is the village of Candirejo, as the representative of the community surrounding the area of heritage site Borobudur that is located in the Regency of Magelang, the Province of Central Java. This paper investigates the community based tourism crisis management following the disaster lifecycle in Candirejo tourism village, which includes emergency, recovery and prevention phase. Finally the paper discusses the issues related community based tourism in dealing with disaster and calling future research which could contribute to better understanding, planning and management of crisis and disaster in the tourism based on community management.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Tourism Disaster Management

In tourism management, the term of crisis is currently well known. In order to understand the disaster event with the relation to tourist destination we need to consider the concept of disaster lifecycle and destination lifecycle. The disaster lifecycle is introduced by Baker et.al (2014). Disaster as a cycle illustrations no clear beginning or ending point that means each phase influencing the next (Baker, Cormier, & Cormier, 2014). They argue that the intervention intersecting at any point in the cycle will influence the entire chain. Besides, the National Response Framework from FEMA (2013) introduces five areas of cycle including prevention, preparedness, responses, recovery and mitigation.

Prevention. Although not every disaster can be prevented by the occurrence of disaster that might be predicted. Prevention capabilities, being able to prevent an event from happening, are in a constant state of development as more have learned about disaster aetiology (Baker et al., 2014). It is therefore, understanding the technology especially on meteorological system and weather tracking greatly improves the capabilities in preventing from disaster. Improved national and local securities enable the targeted prevention of man-made disasters such as bombing and acts of terrorism that have influenced the occurrence of events.

Preparedness. The next phase in the disaster life cycle is preparedness. Preparedness consists of individuals, families and community anticipating personal needs. This identification is conducted in the event of a disaster and maxing on ways to meet those needs by increasing awareness, establishing a plan; obtaining physical supplies such as food, water and health related items, and identifying shelter options. Ideally, personal preparedness builds response capacity helping individuals to meet their own needs without the assistance of external resources. Hence plans and preparation activities conducted past to an event allow for a more efficient use of resources post-event, and contribute to saving lives and property (Baker et al., 2014).

Response. Disaster response involves post event activities aimed to limit loss of life and property, assisting a population in regaining a pre-event level of functioning (Baker et al., 2014). The scale of the response varies greatly but is in direct proportion to magnitude of the disaster, geographic and population vulnerability of the region, and the availability of resources. Immediate response efforts centre on providing crisis intervention service and stabilizing the community. General public oftentimes confuses response activities with longer phase work that occurs in recovery. While there is some overlap, the goal of response is stabilization of opposed to restoration of pre-event functioning, the goal of recovery.

Recovery and mitigation are also important parts on the disaster life cycle. However recovery activities commonly receive less attention in the media even though such activities can take place months or years after the event, depending on the level of devastation. The recovery period includes damage and risk assessment by authorities, resulting in plans for mitigation, or actions taken in order to lessen the effect of future events. Recovery and mitigation go hand in hand as efforts made to restore communities involve changes that make areas less vulnerable to future risk (Baker et al., 2014).

The disaster lifecycle would be very useful to be linked with the destination lifecycle ideas. Butler (1980) wrote about the basic idea of Butler’s Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC) model that a destination begins from exploration – involvement - development – stagnation – rejuvenation – decline. The first cycle is exploration as a relatively unknown and visitors initially come in small number restricted by lack of access, facilities, and local knowledge, which is labelled as Exploration. When people discover the destination, the information about it is spread which spurs the increased attraction, amenities and better facilities and infrastructure; this is called the development stage. In this stage the number of tourist arrivals begins to grow rapidly (Butler, 1980). When the tourist arrivals grow rapidly the issue that comes up is carrying capacity. There are a limited number of tourists who can visit the destination area without causing negative impact. The concept of carrying capacity applies for amenities, accommodation, and facilities. When the number of visitors is over the limit, the stage is called stagnation; meaning if the number of tourist increases then there will be lower of satisfaction. The rise from exploration to stagnation often happens very fast, this is an implication of the exponential nature of growth curve.

Tourist destination is defined by a particular combination of environmental resources both natural and man-made. It also includes the factor of robustness or fragility of those resources, the significance or centrality to the tourism experience, and the scale, scope, character and stage of development of the tourism sector more generally represent parameters within which the tourism-environment interface may be perceived. It should be supported by appropriate policies for the management and development of tourism considered.

Tourism development is facing the challenge of natural disaster. Managing the tourism is not only merely about managing its development but also managing the condition during crisis. There is very little literature discussing about how to manage tourism sector in crisis especially in crisis due to natural disaster. According to (Ritchie, 2009), there are three main stages in managing such incidents on tourism; 1) prevention and planning; 2) implementation; 3) evaluation and feedback. This stage mostly follows the disaster lifecycle introduced by Baker et.al (2004). Moreover, there are visible similarities between the lifecycle of crisis/disaster and the strategic planning or management framework.

The phase in disaster process introduced by Ritchie (2009) is included in six phases. The first stage is pre event, when action can be taken to prevent or mitigate the effects of potential disaster. This stage is precursors which the element including set up the destination management team; identify the agencies and institution relevant with the cases; establish the framework of cooperation; develop the disaster management strategy; educate of stakeholder, industry, employees, customers and communities; and provide agreement between actors. The second phase is prodromal, when the event is obvious imminent. In this step, the important elements management is a warning system, disaster management command centre, and secures facilities. The third phase is emergency, when the action is very necessary to protect people and property. The element of emergency in this phase is action such as rescue/evacuation procedures, emergency accommodation and food supply, medical/health services and monitoring and communication systems. The fourth phase is immediate, a point where the short-term needs of people to restore services and make it normal live. The next phase is recovery in long-term process. It includes the repair of damaged infrastructure, rehabilitation of environmentally damage areas, and trauma centre for victims, and new strategy to promote the area. The last phase is resolution means routine activities to improve the establishment (Ritchie, 2009).

2.2. Community Based Tourism Dealing with Disaster

In the late twentieth century, the term of community based disaster management has risen. In fact, government in many countries has used citizen participation for disaster response. The government has promoted the community-based disaster management concept to their citizen through different programs. Community based disaster management approaches can be built through physical support and psychological support. The physical support means by providing the facilities and infrastructure that are needed for the community related to disaster prevention. Hence the psychological support can be provided by developing the local resources, providing training and capacity building, upgrading the local structure and institution (Arora & Arora, 2013). In term of developing the community based disaster management approaches government intervention is much known rather than community initiative.

Management destination is different between community based tourism, government based tourism and private sector based tourism. CBT mostly concern on the involvement of the host community in planning and maintaining tourism development in order to create a more sustainable industry (Hall, 1991). The tourism industry is based on the participation of local residents, for example they role as employees, local entrepreneurs, guides and on resident friendliness towards tourists. The tourism literature mostly mentioned that the tourism would be more success when the residents support (Blackstock, 2005). The statement is also reinforced by many scholars that CBT would create sustainability, contribute to social justice, values for empowerment, open access for community to control the political and economic process in their environment, develop emancipatory collective responses to local issues (Gilchrist, 2003; Ife, 1995).

3. METHOD

The study applied the qualitative analysis through interview toward stakeholders and villagers. Library research and recording through audio and visual were also used for this study. Since quantification and categorization of data in tourism studies have been criticized as a tedious attempt to refine what is already known rather than creating knowledge along new frontiers (Coalter, 1999). The data collecting and analysis were carried out gradually as follows: library research, observation, photography, tapping and interpreting and in-depth interview.

Moreover, since the study of tourism is considered a social process the deeply understanding are important. For this study, qualitative methods are well suited. Several methods are used in the study in order to obtain the data and information from various related sources. The data collecting and analysis are carried out gradually as follows:

• Library Research is carried out the previous study. This method also examines the secondary data and its relation to macro and micro context of development that influence to environment and tourism. The study materials used are various sources of reference, such as books, scientific articles, and research reports.
• Observation is the method to collect the data of objects, products, and services related to the study area. Field survey was conducted in the Candirejo Village. It is an effective method of field survey in gathering the data of observed object behaviour. The observation was documented visually by using camera for two and three dimension of visualization.
• Photography, tapping and interpreting have conducted to capture the pictures and video of the objects. The document would be very important to support the report, presentation and for the publication purpose. Moreover, the process editing the video would be completed as part of the phase of the activities.
• In-depth interview is conducted to obtain more specific and explanative information of the study. It selected several informants for in-depth interview (n = 15). The information becomes the materials to complete the data. To help procuring the accurate information and to guarantee a systematic data structure, the interview guidelines, which has been arranged, are used. Its aim is to facilitate the researchers to crosscheck the data to the data gained by other instruments.

The cases study is applied in this research. The author examined the Candirejo village tourism as the case study area. The village tourism was impacted by the natural disaster, Merapi volcano eruption in 2010. This village is selected because it has the interesting root of community-based tourism, as the pioneer and most successful in Borobudur temple surrounding area. The interview was conducted at December 2013, however researcher observed the study case location since 2010 to 2013. The respondents for interview were selected based on snowball system. The first respondent was the community leader in Candirejo. After that, researcher went to the management of Village Tourism Coop and conducted interview with the people in charge, interview the tour guides and homestay owner were also conducted. Author interview the Tourism Board in the Regency of Magelang for clarification and data resources. Researcher joined the tourism package acted as tourists to experience as the tourist in the area. Author stayed in the village for three days joined the tourism package. Moreover, the analysis method used in this study is qualitative descriptive analysis. The data are analysed by interpreting the tendency and the concentration of the informants’ statements on the raised issue (in data collecting instrument). The location of Candirejo village tourism can be seen in the pictures below:

Fig 1: Several villages surround Borobudur

Source: Google map with modification, 2015

Fig 2: Land Use in Candirejo Village Tourism

Source: JSPS UGM and Ritsumeikan University Report, 2013

The research is expected to result the examination of community-based management in emergency case, recovery and preparation in the village that becomes a tourism area. It using the seven key parameters follows the disaster lifecycle phases by Baker. Several notions have been drawn based on the key assessment framework including: individual and community level responses, livelihood alternative beside tourism, uneven access to economic capital and insurance, lack of disaster awareness and preparedness, tourism recovery policies, resilient market and clientele and effectivity of community based tourism disaster management. The selected key parameters are related to the chronological occurrence of the disaster, which then being applied to the fact in the field.

Table 1. Key assessment framework

4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Case Study Findings: CBT disaster management of Candirejo village

Geographically, Indonesia is located at the ring of fire, which is rich of the active volcanoes, the subject to frequent eruption. It put the country in the up position in much volcano statistic rank. It has 147 active volcanoes. Indonesia has the largest number of historically active volcanoes (76), its total of 1,171 dates eruptions (Volcano discovery, 2014). Indonesia volcanoes mostly part of the Sunda Volcanic arc, which stretches over 3,000 km from northwest Sumatera to the Banda Sea. Furthermore, the volcanic arc is resulted from the subduction of Indian Ocean crust beneath the Asian Plate.

Overview of Candirejo Tourism Village

The Candirejo Village is located in the Regency of Magelang, which is one among villages in the surrounding area of Borobudur Temple World Heritage Site. Administratively, Candirejo Village is located in Borobudur Sub-district, about three km south east of Borobudur Temple. This village is now known as one of village’s tourism in Borobudur area. With the area of 366.25 hectares, the number of population is 4,133 people (1,153 households) scattered in 14 hamlets, which are: Kedungombo, Sangen, Brangkal, Kaliduren, Butuh, Wonosari, Ngaglik, Judahan, Kerten, Cikal, Palihan, Mangundadi, Pucungan, and Kerekan.

Candirejo Village is an agricultural based village, with the village people mostly work as farmers. With the topographic character, alluvium type of soil and tropical climate, Candirejo Village has fertile land. The land is mostly used as settlement and agriculture farming, including paddy field, dries field, and plantation. Paddy field is a wet farming that uses irrigation water, whereas dry field and plantation depend on rainwater. Mostly chilli, tobacco, cassava are planted in the dry field, and plantation is mostly papaya, rambutan, and various productive trees.

Since 1999, the government of Magelang has been promoting Candirejo as the tourist destination based on village attraction. Afterward, Candirejo have been visited by hundreds of tourist every year. The main attraction of Candirejo is the living culture. It provides unique package for tourist to get high value of experiencing the Javanese local culture, include enjoying the landscape, traditional transportation vehicle, traditional housing, local culinary, and performance. Community is trained to serve the different niche and types of attraction for tourists. They organizes 50 local houses as homestays that open for visitors at any time, both include in package or separate order. Community also provides the cultural workshop package such as cooking classes, batik classes, performance and others. In addition, the destination is supported by the facilities such as transportation, telecommunication, medical centre and accommodation. They are selling the home industry products such as bracelet, wood fan that mainly used as souvenir for tourists. Furthermore, the Candirejo village has been known as the tourist village destination, and currently the tourism activities influence the variation of local people income (Dwipayana, 2013).

Table 2. The number of foreign visitors to Candirejo village 2003 – 2011

Source: Candirejo Village Tourism Coop report, 2011

In term of tourist attraction element, Candirejo has strong natural and cultural aspects that are important to develop a tourism activity. In addition, this village is easily accessible as it is only three km from Borobudur Temple or about 1,5 hours from Jogjakarta by car. According to Fatimah (2012), the tourism development phases of Candirejo can be divided into four phases. First was in 1980 – 1990 as agriculture development. It was characterized with the cleaning activities by cutting unnecessary and overcrowded trees (i.e. bamboo, coconut, jackfruit, etc.) inside their settlement area and replaced them with more productive trees (i.e rambutan and papaya). The second phase was cultural improvement and community empowerment in 1991 – 1998. After the vegetation replacement program had done, some improvement programs on nonphysical aspects such as managerial skill, art, craft, and home industry were also carried out. The third phase started in 1999 – 2003, called tourism formation. The villager contacted the PATRA –PALA Foundation and then supported by JICA in 2001 – 2004 they got assistance from PATRA-PALA Foundation whose project was called NRM-LCE. During the assistance program, they developed the concept of “Community Based Ecotourism”. The last phase started from 2003 up to now which is called as independent phase. Candirejo Village was then designated as village tourism in 2003 by Ministry of Culture and Tourism Indonesia. Since then, the number of visitors has been increasing especially foreign visitors (FATIMAH & KANKI, 2012).

Since Candirejo declared as tourism village, the activities in the village have been cultured with the tourism activities. The role of institution is very important in term of Candirejo village development. The community members of Candirejo established the Tourism Village Coop (Koperasi Desa Wisata), as the local institution to manage the tourism activities for the village. In this program they manage village tour packages such as village tour by bicycle, walking or andong (traditional horse carriage), sun rise trekking to Watu Kending Site in the top of Menoreh Hills, cooking lesson, lunch in traditional house, homestay, etc. The tourism activities provide the opportunities for local community as the business actors. However, it is noted that the number of people taking the opportunities are limited, the majority of people remain working in agriculture sector.

Although Candirejo offers a lot of unique attractions, in term of tourism the main attraction to this area is the existence of Borobudur temple. Consequently Candirejo is very dependent on Borobudur temple. It has been a magnet for tourist to visit the complex of the temples, which include Mendut, Pawon, Ngawen, Canggal temple, Gunungwukir, Selogriyo, Gunungsari, Lumbung, Pendem and Asu and there is a Museum called Senirupa Museum as a part of the tourist destinations in the complex of Borobudur.

Disaster Risk in Candirejo Tourism Village

Candirejo Village is situated on the foot of Menoreh Hills in the south side, while the north side is bordered by Progo River. A small river called Sileng River flows in the middle of the village. With this location, topographically this village has two types of land topography, hilly area on the south side and plain area on the north side, with the land height ranges from 100-600 meters above sea level. This combination of physical characteristic follows the natural disaster risk. The types of disaster experienced by Candirejo Village are volcanic eruption, storm and erosion. The storm or angin ribut (in Javanese language) have been remembered that it usually occurs during the rainy season. Furthermore, according to one of the respondent the last storm was in March 2013. The storm swept Butuh Hamlet, broke seven houses and caused two houses completely collapsed. Storm mostly happens in the mid-season, between dry and rainy season called pancaroba. Another type of disaster in Candirejo Village is erosion or landslide (longsor – in Javanese language) that has been experienced by the hilly areas in the southern part of the village, and areas in the riverbank that have steep slopes.

In October 2010 the Merapi Vulcano in the Province of Yogyakarta and Central Java erupted and gave its impact to physical aspect, civilization and economic changes. Historically, Merapi volcano was recorded that in 1006 there was a huge eruption made the volcanic ashes and materials covered Borobudur area including the Borobudur temple. The eruption of Merapi Volcano actually happened many times before that time (van der Zwan, Froukje M, Chadwick, & Troll, 2013) mentioning that from 1050 BC to 10 BC, there were two times of mass eruption of Merapi Volcano with the maximum pyroclastic volume up to 370 million meter³, with volcano explosion Index (VEI) was 4. From 10 BC to 300, there were two time eruptions; in 1170 there were eight eruptions; and in 1950 there were nine eruptions with VEI 3 and 4. One can be drawn that massive Merapi eruptions happen in every 150 to 500 years with the average of 400 years. Those Merapi eruptions have influenced the character of geology, landform, soil type, and hydrology of the area. Those eruptions also became one of the reasons that Old Mataram Kingdom in Central Java moved to saver place in East Java in 10 Century. In 1584 it was also recorded a big earthquake hitting Borobudur area that changed the landscape of the area. In 14 February 2014, the Kelud volcano erupted. Kelud volcano is located in the Province of East Java for about 200 km from Candirejo village. However, the ashes of Kelud volcano reached the village including Borobudur area and surrounding temples such as Pawon and Mendut. Due to the ashes from Kelud eruption Borobudur should be closed for tourists. Although the Kelud eruption was not in peak season, it was reported that a lot number of tourists postpone their visitation to Candirejo.

4.2. Community reactions toward Merapi volcano Eruption

Emergency Phase

Candirejo area is considered as a safe and stable area from disaster. In 2010, when Mount Merapi erupted, the ash covered the whole area including the Borobudur Temple up to three cm. Even though the village and surrounding area experienced the impact from Merapi ashes, and it was mentioned that 2010 eruption was the biggest Merapi eruption in the last 100 years, there were no human victims reported in Candirejo. The sign of eruption had been detected by BPPTK (Balai Penyelidikan dan Pengembangan Teknologi Kegunungapian) the Office of Volcanology Research and Development, and it had been informed to the community. In September 2010 Merapi showed a lot of physical changes and the eruption signs increased. Finally, on 28^th of October 2010 Merapi erupted by outpouring of lava and spraying of volcanic ash. The eruption that happened for about three weeks destroyed 76 villages in two provinces, Yogyakarta and Central Java. Due to the high volume of ashes, the Borobudur temple should be closed for visitors. Closing Borobudur created problems for Candirejo, which was the beginning of crisis. The number of tourists visiting Candirejo dropped significantly and even there was no tourist visit, it was only several researchers of government officer visiting the village to check the condition of the people.

Merapi eruption at 2010 impacted negatively to the villager’s activities. The loss from Merapi eruption 2010 was reported in Rp 4,23 trillion or USD 430 billion, which 39% loss was settlement, 13% of water and irrigation, 43% is agriculture, and 12% was industry and small medium enterprise industry. In agriculture sector, the ashes covered the vegetation including the paddy field and others crops. It was reported that there was silica, quarts, cristobalite or tridimit, chemical substances that harmed the vegetation (Supriyati, 2010). After one day covered by the substances, the vegetation became dry and dies. Moreover, the crafts, home industries and tourism were reported dropped. Figure 3 shows the Merapi ashes covering the street and vegetation.

Figure 3: Merapi Ashes covered street and vegetation

Source: JSPS UGM Risumeikan report, 2014

Emergency response requires reliable communication, coordination and delivery of service. Based on the interview in the case of Merapi volcano eruption 2010 the community had very limited knowledge on how to do something with the ashes. Since the previous eruption in 2006 did not reach Candirejo. The community did not pay attention to the risk of eruption at 2010 because they thought that the ashes would not harm Candirejo. Government through the BPPTK informed the community to prepare for the worse case for people living in the closest area to Merapi especially in the 5 km zone from the cone of volcano but not for Candirejo.

Figure 4. Volcanic ash covered the temple and surrounding area; cleaning the temple

Source: JSPS UGM Risumeikan report, 2014

Hand in hand, the local community and PRB worked together to help those victims. PRB looked for the help from Badan Penanggulangan Bencana Daerah/BPBD (Local Disaster Reduction Board) Magelang in the forms of food materials and basic needs (rice, sugar, oil, etc). The local community, then, voluntarily helped to rebuild the collapsed houses. They collected money and building materials such as bamboo, timber, stone, and so on. In the construction process, the men voluntarily worked as construction workers, and the women (wives) prepared food and drink during that time. This is the type of swadaya and gotong-royong (community self-help with local resources and mutual cooperation).

It was reported that number of tourists groups cancelled the tour package to Candirejo. Some of them were postpone until the condition was getting better, and some of them were cancel due to the force major. At that time villagers used the spare time to clean the house and environment from ashes. The condition in the village was not only the main reason. The airport of Adi Sutjipto Yogyakarta was closed for two weeks in respond to the eruption. It was reported that the ashes could endanger the plane engine and created major disruption, it forced 2,467 flights were cancelled (Mei et al., 2013). Therefore, automatically a lot of tourism packages were cancelled or postponed.

Recovery Phase

Recovery process of tourism activities in Candirejo could not be separated from the recovery process of Borobudur heritage sites. When the Borobudur Temple was covered by volcanic ash from the Merapi eruption, the local community of Candirejo and PRB voluntarily involved in the temple cleaning activity. The volunteers were from Buddhist organization members, hotel employees, tourist guides, vendor sellers, students, tourists and community surrounding areas. The cleaning itself was not the simple task. There was certain meticulous process of cleaning the detailed of the temple. The steps were to clean the dust by sweeping the surface and to do wet cleaning using water in each pores of the temple. In the process of cleaning as part of recovery, the management opened voluntary action from the community including Candirejo community. Their sense of belonging that Borobudur Temple is a part of their life encouraged the people to save the temple from the disaster. They left their works for a couple of days, and hand-by-hand cleaned the temple stones from the ash without payment. The cleaning process was focused on the temple that was done by the government and community.

Figure 6. The cleaning process of Borobudur area

Source: JSPS UGM Risumeikan report, 2014

Prevention Phase

In Candirejo, there is a community groups called PRB (Pengurangan Resiko Bencana). The organization is basically developed by the national government under the programs from BNPB[1] (National Board of Disaster Preparedness). The BNPB has established local community groups in order to strengthen the community preparedness in the area including Candirejo as study area. The village residents have a regular community forum called selapanan in which they discuss any problems occurred in their village. This meeting is also called rembug desa, which means ‘village meeting’. The forum is held every 35 days, either in village level as well as in the hamlet level. Actually there are other meetings such as arisan and pengajian; those also become gathering moments in smaller group such as in level RT[2] or RW. There are several main organizations (LSD/LPMD, BPD, PKK, POKJA) that form the institutional framework of Candirejo’s community system.

Establishment of local groups, communities and council helps to empower local communities politically in term of disaster management. Based on the data from the Village Office in 2013, the number of population in the Candirejo was 4,618 people that consisted of 2,326 male and 2,293 female, with 1,384 households. In addition, there were 584 people unemployment and the rest were working in public sector or private sector. The education level of the villager mostly dominated by the elementary school, and the second dominant was junior high school level. Hence, there were 1,446 people who never got education. They were mostly some senior citizen and kids.

The existence of PRB enhances the information access to locals, which contributes to social and political empowerment. The PRB regularly updates and publishes information in various forms including pamphlets, resource maps, etc. They disseminate the information to the general public, tourists in the village and visitors. Furthermore, information can be obtained from various individuals and organizations upon request. Information directly or indirectly helps to create awareness of the importance of disaster preparedness in the tourism area, and helps to maintain creativity. There are some specific awareness activities mainly focused on the disaster preparedness such as mitigation education, evacuation road information, street sign and several disaster simulations.

The involvement of NGO had been reported in prevention phase. REKOMPAK an organization funded by Japan Relief Foundation (JRF) the World Bank supported the community in disaster risk preparedness. Three Borobudur villages (Candirejo, Wanurejo, and Borobudur) were chosen as villages considered to be able to have a community’s organization in disaster risk reduction and preparedness, based on their high community awareness in disaster risk preparedness. REKOMPAK gave training to a number of people from those three villages in 2010, and 50 people from Candirejo Village involved in that training. After the training, a community-based organization in each village was set up formally, called a Disaster Risk Reduction Team (Tim Penanggulangan Resiko Bencana/PRB). At this time, Mr. Suphadi, a village office staff, leads PRB Candirejo with 50 trained members from 15 hamlets in Candirejo Village. One month after the Merapi eruption in 2010, PRB conducted a simulation on disaster evacuation for all the households of the village community, with the support funding from REKOMPAK. In the disaster evacuation simulation, the village community showed their enthusiasm in every activity. The high community awareness in disaster risk preparedness and evacuation was also seen in this simulation. This simulation is very important for improving the understanding and awareness of the village community in disaster risk reduction, disaster risk preparedness, and disaster evacuation.

Figure 7. Community Meeting in house of community leader (left) and in sub-district office (right)

Source: JSPS UGM Risumeikan report, 2014

PRB has a routine activity, which is to socialize to the village community about how to handle the risk of the disaster, how to reduce and prepare those risks, and how to evacuate when the disaster happens. PRB actively gathers the village households twice a year to give that socialization, and actively attends the community meetings once a month for the same thing. PRB with the help of the community also has already prepared the evacuation route map and some evacuation signs to be put in several places. It would enable the community to be aware of hazard mitigation, strengthen their capability to resist natural disasters, and develop an organization in order to carry out sustainable risk reduction actions.

Figure 8. Evacuation Route Sign and Community Gathering Place which first was purposed to disaster evacuation

Source: JSPS UGM Risumeikan report, 2014

The last program of the government implemented in villages is the provision of the final disaster evacuation place, in the form of an evacuation building. Three final evacuation buildings were built in Candirejo, Borobudur, and Wanurejo Villages with the funding from Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana/BNPB (National Disaster Reduction Board). This two-storey building is for evacuation of the community when there is a disaster. The location of the building is accessible for the village community, easy to reach from every direction of the village area. In Candirejo Village, the location of this evacuation building is on the side of the main village road. The village prepared the site and it was administratively the village land. Since it is a public building, village people can use the building for public activities, such as village meetings and various social activities. It is therefore, when the disaster does not strike the village the building is not useless because villagers can use it for community gathering purposes such as weeding, meeting, and party.

Based on the interview and observation, which was conducted in December 2013, the result showed that the village community had strong awareness in disaster risk prevention, particularly after the big Merapi Vulcano eruption in 2010. This was proved by their strong knowledge of disaster. However, in term of organizing the awareness into the more formal organisation, the government has supported the villager. Government influences the local leader to establish the organisation, which is not directly linked with the tourism village organisation. The government intervention can be seen from the funding support to build the evacuation place and to conduct the simulation and training. Although the village communities have strong awareness, they are lack of right action on how to prepare themselves from the environmental disasters.

Due to the lack of linked between disaster preparedness organisation and village tourism coop in Candirejo, the information and preparedness for tourist have been neglected. There is almost no direct program to the tourists such as giving the knowledge for tourists about the risk and how to deal with the risk. It is however; tourists could see a lot of signs in the village environment, which then they can initiate to ask to the tourist guides.

4.3. Assessment of capacity of CBT dealing with crises

Individual and community level responses

The immediate occurrence of the disaster community responses might take one of several broader courses; to protect (prevent or modify disasters), to accommodate (change human uses system to suit disaster), to retreat (resettlement elsewhere) and to do nothing. The capacity of the community influences the responses (Weng Chan, 1995). Granot (1995) assessing the community’s resilience which came up with the result that a more than appropriate level of relief involves wastage and the unnecessary straining of resources, while insufficient external support will exacerbate the effects of the disaster (Granot, 1995). Moreover (Geipel, 1982) develop ranking of community impact as below:

• communities which have not suffered and therefore have the capacity to support other which have
• communities which escape with only limited loss of life and property, community system remain largely intact and normal built – in elasticity of resources permits self-recovery
• communities that sustain so much damage that they can only recover with outside help. With such help their own systems are capable of coping and ultimate recovery
• communities that are devastated so much that community system collapse

In understanding the responses of the community, we can make categorization based on the level of responses, such as individual level responses and collective responses. According to Booth (1993), in sociological concept the immediate responses to a disaster shock have been observed as including several phases: (1) sense of helplessness and disorientation. The community may responses the shock by disorientation and helplessness, which motivate them to do not accept the condition, (2) denial or defensive retreat. This response would push community both individual and collective action to evacuate themselves from the affected area, (3) community accepts the reality and the condition of changes, and (4) community adapted and learn from the shock, which then create and build a new method to deal with the disaster in the future. In the case of Candirejo village the community mostly accepted the reality and condition of changes. About five to ten families left the area just for evading the event in several days, and back to the village after the situation get better. There was not families have to move because of the Merapi volcano. Furthermore, phases four which community adapted and learn from the shock which then create and build a new ways to prevent from disaster can be seen in the Candirejo village. With the communal ways, they gathered themselves to build the group of ‘Team Penanggulangan Resiko Bencana / PRB’, team to minimize the impact of disaster which then being supported by the government, as mentioned earlier in the section 4.2.

Livelihood alternative beside tourism

One of the strategies to deal with tourism vulnerability is having the alternative livelihood. In Candirejo village, tourism is meaning as alternative compare to agriculture, which the main population is working on agriculture based such as paddy field, papaya, rambutan and cassava in dry field plantation. Even though tourism created new opportunities for people to start up business that provided jobs, the agriculture sectors should not be dismissed because the other option is important in dealing with crises. As the option, agriculture is facing challenges by the number of land use changes from agriculture to human settlement. Which this challenges are not only reduce the number of paddy field and opportunities as escaping ways from tourism vulnerability, but also increase the risk due to the decreasing attraction. The Candirejo village is known because of its living culture as agriculture based livelihood.

Uneven access to economic capital and insurance

For the whole Indonesia the insurance is not being emphasis as main program, especially at the time when the volcano eruption happen at Yogyakarta and Central Java. State managed insurance is provided for civil servant only, which for non-civil servants are the market for private insurance. However, the insurance provided mostly for health insurance not the business insurance. The community-based tourism is very vulnerable to the risk, which even more risk because there is lack of familiarity of insurance. Larger tourism business may access to outside financial backing and the benefit of insurance policies but for the small business the access for outside financial is limited. In addition, the worker, such as local tour guides, homestay owner, horse rent who have no land as alternative, faces the impact. For the homestay owner, they have to expend extra fund to clean and rebuild the house if it necessary.

Lack of disaster awareness and preparedness

In Candirejo village CBT, the community through cooperation organization as form that selected by the community manages the tourism. The community capability to predict and assess the risk of disaster is very limited. Although the cooperation organization tries to develop the rules, which provide the right and obligation of the member, it forgets about the research and mitigation toward the risk of disaster. It is therefore, community have lack of disaster awareness and preparedness. The information of the intensity of Merapi volcano activities has been reported by the government, however the necessary action was not being taken by the tourism cooperation organization. This demonstrates that although there is warning but awareness was very low and does not follow by preparedness in term of individual level and communal level.

Tourism recovery policies

Following the 2010 Merapi Eruption, the government of Yogyakarta and Central Java conducted several promotion programs to get the tourists back. The Province of Yogyakarta worked together with the Ministry of Culture and Tourism help media conference request the media to help recover the image of tourism in Yogyakarta. According to Haryadi, Mayor of the City of Yogyakarta, there was potential loss about 2,7 billion rupiah due to eruption in tourism sector. Opening of the airport two week after eruption helped the recovery process for the whole province. The private sector called back their clientele and informed that the situation was getting better. Government promoted Yogyakarta by launched a program ‘Ayo ke Jogja lagi’ means, “Come back to Jogja Again”. The effort gain the success which I agree to the statement from Oliver and Smith (1996) that disaster outcomes can also create opportunities for political reorganisation, solidarity and activism, and social transformation (Oliver-Smith, 1996). In the community of Candirejo, much of Candirejo resilience is based on the strength, self-organization and adaptive capabilities of local groups.

Resilient markets and clientele

The Candirejo market is strongly influenced by the existence of Borobudur heritage site. The opening Borobudur heritage site means open the gate of tourists to visit Candirejo. Although the mostly domestic tourists as market but international tourists slowly starting increase after the disaster. Previous clientele such as group trip of companies were coming back in the next year after the disaster and continuously increase. In addition, the tourists were interested to see the impact of Merapi Eruption in this area, which then become new attraction.

How effective of Community Based Tourism Disaster Management

Research about Indonesian communication linkage around Merapi conducted by D.Bakkour et al mentioned that the administrative levels and the communication chain in the area of Mt. Merapi is connecting scientist, government administrations, private organizations and the public (Bakkour et al., 2015). According to the Law of the Republic of Indonesia, no. 24/2007 the risk mitigation as well as funding sources for disaster management is placed under the supervision of the President of the Republic in order to manage all types of natural and manmade disaster. The president directs the power and legitimacy to the National Board for Disaster Management (BNPB), which is represented by local agencies name BPBD (Local Disaster Management Agency). It is however the BNPB would not working separately with other institution, it cooperate with National Army, the National Police, Basarnas (Indonesian Search and Rescue) and PMI (Indonesian Red Cross). It cooperates with Ministry of Social Affairs for manage displaced persons. In term of mapping the risk areas, it works together with BIG (National Bureau of Spatial Information) and departments and agencies to deal with special risk. BNPB cooperate with the Ministry of Energy and Mineral sources to provide the early warning system in case of disaster, and BMKG (Meteorogical, Climatology and Geophysics Agency) for the warning from geological risks, the Ministry of Public Works, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Forestry, LAPAN (National Space Agency) for hydro-meteorogical hazards, supported by researches conducted by the Ministry of Research and Technology, LIPI (Institute of Science) and universities. Furthermore, in term of disaster risk reduction education purposes, the BNPB collaborate with the Ministry of National Education, Ministry of Religious Affairs and the Ministry of Communication and Media (Bakkour et al., 2015).

Community based tourism concept have been introducing by many scholars with many positive views. However the limitation and the strength of the community based tourism in disaster response is limited to be discussed. There is a mix sometimes when discussing about the disaster management in tourism areas, between government-based destination, private based destination and community-based destination. In community-based tourism, the characteristic is very different with the other management scheme. The bottom up planning in tourism development have seen as the right ways to do the planning, however in the disaster situation the bottom up planning is questioned in term of effectively, empowerment and who get most benefits. There are some critiques of community based tourism wrote by many scholars. For example the CBT literature is focused on sustaining the tourism industry, unlike community development commitment to social justice and empowerment. Another critique is that the proponent do not asking the development of a tourism industry but try to find the ways to make tourism belong to local residents, which the residents who reject tourism development are counted as ignorance (Blank, 1989).

The literature on CBT has three major failing from a community development perspective. Firstly, it tends to treat to take a functional approach to community involvement, secondly, it tend to treat the host community as a homogeneous bloc, and thirdly it neglects the structural constrains to local control of the tourism industry. Attention to these issues could contribute to a more sustainable and equitable industry. Community has an important role to play in community-based tourism. However, community-based conservation as a panacea, like government-based conservation as a panacea, ignores the necessity of managing commons at multiple levels, with vertical and horizontal interplay among institutions.

Based on the interview, the community believed that local community initiatives are supreme in developing the tourism. They mentioned that the higher participation of the community in tourism development would increase the change to success. This statement is followed by the understanding that in disaster management, the community participation is not enough, they need support from external factor and higher level of involvement such as from neither local government nor national government. The initiation of Candirejo development come from the government push by developing the village, giving the support funding, providing capacity building, investing facilities and infrastructure, and open network with private tour operator. Moreover, it is evident that Candirejo village tourism has been driven solely by government intervention with supported by various organisation that play role in development. Blackstock (2005) mentioned that the support organisations should conduct appropriate methodologies for instance PRA or rapid rural appraisal (RRA) to map out the strategy to cope with disaster. It helps the community to define their needs and develop the priority. Moreover the results of this agenda mostly success when these several factors are achieved such as awareness, sensitisation, community empowerment, leadership, capacity building and an appropriate policy framework (Blackstock, 2005). Similar with the development of CBT itself, the disaster management is part of the CBT development, therefore local communities and their leaders need to be adequately sensitised and empowered.

5. Conclusion

A natural disaster can affect to the local tourism industry in numerous ways. In order to understand the disaster event with relation to tourist destination, consideration of the concept of disaster lifecycle and destination lifecycle including prevention, preparedness, responses, recovery and mitigation is important. The disaster event that brings impact to the damage facilities and infrastructure triggers negative impact toward media stories, which have long time influence to the tourism market. The community-based tourism (CBT) faces challenges in order to deal with the natural disaster. Community has an important role to play in community-based tourism. Community-based conservation as a panacea, like government-based conservation as a panacea, ignores the necessity of managing commons at multiple levels, with vertical and horizontal interplay among institutions.

The research shows that community has local knowledge in the mitigation of natural disaster however the local knowledge has a limitation regarding on the exact time to take an action, which mostly waiting from the government instruction. Some village-based tourism, which mainly managed by the communal activities, tends to wait from the government help. While the village community has strong awareness, they are lack of knowledge and understanding on how to prepare themselves from the environmental disasters. Safety and evacuation systems in the village have not been developed yet. The insufficient community-based disaster management knowledge, guidelines and materials still become significant problem though. The lack of sustained support from government makes the community based disaster management concept hard to put into action.

In post disaster phase, the role of government and NGO was bigger than the community. Several programs have been established to Candirejo as a respond to decreasing numbers of tourist. Government and NGO have also introduced the number of capacity building program during the recovery action. However, the actions are included as a program based that means the program does not conducted regularly. Residents who have been experience the damage tend to join the activities however the other residents have less concern about natural hazard because it is something not necessary.

I found that it is important to provide regular education on natural hazards, and steps that can be taken before, during and after disaster event as well as follow up training in order to raise or maintain public awareness, skills and knowledge. The development of specific educational materials targeted at different community characteristics is also necessary as well as the need of advisory team to guide the Candirejo. Combining the disaster management program with community development plan in order to keep public interest in hazard mitigation also becomes a significant matter. Moreover, the future research is recommended to look for the opportunities to incorporate disaster management concepts and community empowerment into sustainable development.

Acknowledgment

The author would like to thank LPDP The Institution of Education Endowment Fund Republic of Indonesia that fully supports this research.

References

Arora, R., & Arora, P. (2013). Disaster management: Medical preparedness, response and homeland security. CABI.

Baker, L., Cormier, L. A., & Cormier, L. (2014). Disasters and vulnerable populations: Evidence-based practice for the helping professions Springer Publishing Company.

Bakkour, D., Enjolras, G., Thouret, J., Kast, R., Mei, E. T. W., & Prihatminingtyas, B. (2015). The adaptive governance of natural disaster systems: Insights from the 2010 mount merapi eruption in indonesia. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction,

Blackstock, K. (2005). A critical look at community based tourism. Community Development Journal, 40(1), 39-49.

Blank, U. (1989). Community tourism industry imperative: The necessity, the opportunities, its potential. Community Tourism Industry Imperative: The Necessity, the Opportunities, its Potential.,

Butler, R. W. (1980). The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications for management of resources. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien, 24(1), 5-12.

Coalter, F. (1999). Leisure sciences and leisure studies: The challenge of meaning. Leisure Studies: Prospects for the Twenty-First Century, , 507-519.

Dwipayana, A. A. (2013). PENGEMBANGAN DESA WISATA BERBASIS COMMUNITY BASED TOURISM (Studi Di Desa Wisata Candirejo Kecamatan Borobudur Kabupaten Magelang Provinsi Jawa Tengah),

FATIMAH, T., & KANKI, K. (2012). EVALUATION OF RURAL TOURISM INITIATIVES IN BOROBUDUR SUB-DISTRICT, INDONESIA A study on rural tourism activities for cultural landscape conservation.

Geipel, R. (1982). Disaster and reconstruction: The friuli, italy, earthquakes of 1976 London; Boston: Allen & Unwin.

Gilchrist, A. (2003). Community development in the UK--possibilities and paradoxes. Community Development Journal, 38(1), 16-25.

Granot, H. (1995). Proposed scaling of the communal consequences of disaster. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 4(3), 5-13.

Hall, C. M. (1991). Introduction to tourism in australia: Impacts, planning and development. Longman Cheshire.

Huan, T., Beaman, J., & Shelby, L. (2004). No-escape natural disaster: Mitigating impacts on tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 255-273.

Ife, J. W. (1995). Community development: Creating community alternatives-vision, analysis and practice Longman Australia.

Ioannides, D., & Debbage, K. G. (1998). The economic geography of the tourist industry: A supply-side analysis Psychology Press.

Knox, P. L., & Marston, S. A. (2004). Human geography.

Meheux, K., & Parker, E. (2006). Tourist sector perceptions of natural hazards in vanuatu and the implications for a small island developing state. Tourism Management, 27(1), 69-85.

Mei, E. T. W., Lavigne, F., Picquout, A., de Bélizal, E., Brunstein, D., Grancher, D., . . . Vidal, C. (2013). Lessons learned from the 2010 evacuations at merapi volcano. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 261, 348-365.

Nankervis, A. (2000). Dreams and realities: Vulnerability and the tourism industry in southeast asia: A framework for analyzing and adapting tourism management toward 2000. Tourism in Southeast Asia: A New Direction, , 49-63.

Oliver-Smith, A. (1996). Anthropological research on hazards and disasters. Annual Review of Anthropology, , 303-328.

Richter, L. K., & Waugh, W. L. (1986). Terrorism and tourism as logical companions. Tourism Management, 7(4), 230-238.

Ritchie, B. W. (2004). Chaos, crises and disasters: A strategic approach to crisis management in the tourism industry. Tourism Management, 25(6), 669-683.

Ritchie, B. W. (2009). Crisis and disaster management for tourism Channel View Publications Bristol.

Sönmez, S. F., Apostolopoulos, Y., & Tarlow, P. (1999). Tourism in crisis: Managing the effects of terrorism. Journal of Travel Research, 38(1), 13-18.

Supriyati. (2010). Dasar Dasar Gunung Api Indonesia. Retrived from http://www.vsi.esdm.go.id/ at 10 June 2015

UNWTO, UNEP, & WMO. (2008). Climate change and tourism - Responding to global challenges. Madrid: United Nations World Tourism Organization.

UNWTO. (2013). UNWTO tourism barometer. Retrieved at 13.08.2014 from http://dtxtq4w60xqpw.cloudfront.net/sites/all/files/pdf/unwto_barom13_05_oct_excerpt_0.pdf

UNWTO. (2014). UNWTO Annual Report 2014. Retrieved from http://www2.unwto.org/ at 29 June 2015

van der Zwan, Froukje M, Chadwick, J. P., & Troll, V. R. (2013). Textural history of recent basaltic-andesites and plutonic inclusions from merapi volcano. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 166(1), 43-63.

World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) (2003). “Blueprint for New Tourism.” Retrieved March 31, 2009 from: http://www.wttc.org/bin/pdf/temp/blueprintfnt03.html.

Weng Chan, N. (1995). Flood disaster management in malaysia: An evaluation of the effectiveness of government resettlement schemes. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 4(4), 22-29.