COMMUNITY CAPACITY BUILDING IN POST DISASTER ACTIVITY

(The Case of Pangandaran, Indonesia)

By Mizan Bustanul Fuady1

This paper covers descriptive study of community capacity building happened from post disaster
activities from Pangandaran Tsunami in 2006. The aims of this research itself was to shows the best
practices in community capacity building from a post disaster activity and define a new form of
approach for a more holistic community capacity building inside the disaster management cycle
activities.

Community capacity in this context related to the concept of a resilience community, which consist of
the capacity to absorb stress/disaster impact, capacity to retain certain basic functions during
emergency condition, and capacity to bounce-back after disastrous event. Several aspect which
dynamically influence those three capacity are also being considered, such as leadership within
community, organizing capacity, networking, access to resources, and technical capacity. In-depth
interview, group discussion, field observation, and live in activities has been done for compiling as
well as analyzing data and information related to the issue. On this occasion, community organizer
and the beneficiaries have share their experience and thought which they believed have improved the
community capacity related to disaster risk.

From the research activities, it believed that post disaster activities have impacted to community
capacity. Those impacts are not only related to bounce-back capacity after disaster event which
initiated the activities, but also to capacity in strengthening resilience related to future risk and
improvement in basic functions that important for emergency conditions. We can also learn that there
are several factors that determined the scale of community capacity building in one case to another.
Those factors related to leadership in the community, local government response and involvement,
disaster risk knowledge and experience among community, and also normal condition within the
community before the disaster.

1) Graduate Student, Regional and City Planning, Institut Teknologi Bandung.

Research Assistant, Regional and Rural Research Group, School of Architecture Planning and Policy Development,
Institut Teknologi Bandung. Contact: brownies.inoel@gmail.com or +628170202491
I. Introduction
After a disastrous event, we often will see
different effect felt by one community to
another. One maybe show resilient ways of
action in order to bounce back, but on the other
hand we also may find community that so
much desperate and unable to came back to a
normal state. Disaster itself, as commonly
know now, is a set of relating factors between
natural hazards and vulnerability also capacity
of a community or an area. As Asian Disaster
Preparedness Center (2005) defined, disaster is
a serious disruption of the functioning of a
community or a society causing widespread
human, material, economic, or environmental
losses which exceed the ability of the affected
community or society to cope using it own
resources. On the other hand disaster was also
defined as a risk event that overwhelms the
capacity of local community to cope with the
results of that event (Murphy and Dolan,
2003).
After a disaster occurred, due to the general
concept of disaster management cycle, we will
find post disaster activities which stretched
from emergency response, recovery,
rehabilitation or reconstruction. Type of
activities and its scale will be differing from
one disaster event to another as well as its time
during its impact. As Buckle (In Paton and
Johston, 2006, P 93 – 94) noted; “There are
many post-disaster examples of groups of
people, ... providing support to particular
individuals and families, In many cases whole
communities come together, often for many
weeks or months, to work together in
communal project where the output is owned
by no one but shared by anyone”.
Those activities may taken account by various
actors, it might be local government,
provincial government, central government,
Non Government Organization (NGO),
political parties, community based
organization (CBO), intergovernmental
organization, and so on. However, during
emergency response or reconstruction events
we seldom also found that community by their
own capacity undertake such actions. “Even
more interesting are emergent groups that arise
apparently spontaneously after events to
provide mutual aid to their members,
Predicting when and how these groups will
arise, and what stimulates their occurrence is
very difficult but has something to do with
communities that are stable, have a sense of
identity, and have no substantial splits or
enmities within them”. (Buckle in Paton and
Johnston, 2006, P.94).
This paper covers descriptive study of post
disaster activity which being held prior to
Pangandaran Tsunami in 2006. The post
disaster activity studied here only being
limited to the enactment of Community
Settlement Plan which was a part of Java
Reconstruction Fund (JRF), specifically
named Community-based Settlement
Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Project
(CSRRP) GRANT TF 090014-IND.
The aims of this research itself was to shows
the best practices in community capacity
building from a post disaster activity and
define a new form of approach for a more
holistic community capacity building inside
the disaster management cycle activities. Thus,
the well captured community capacity building
results then being relate to the concept of
community resilience. As Twigg (2007)
defined that community with adequate
resilience level to disaster risk may have
capacities as follows: capacity to absorb
stress/disaster impact, capacity to retain certain
basic functions during emergency condition,
and capacity to bounce-back after disastrous
event. On the other hand, Buckle (2001)
provided several elements that support
resilience and also related to community
capacity as follows : shared community
values, aspirations, and goals; established
social infrastructure; positive social and
economic trends; sustainability of social and
economic life; partnerships; communities of
interest; established networks; as well as
resources and skills.
Community capacity, in an instant, can be
defined as “the interaction of human capital,
organizational resources, and social capital
existing within a given community that can be
leveraged to solve collective problems and
maintain or improve the well-being of that
community. It may operate through informal
social process and/or organized efforts by
individuals, organizations, and social networks
that exist among them and between them and
the larger systems of which the community is a
part” (Chaskin, 2001). As for community
capacity building itself can be defined as
“Activities, resources and support that
strengthen the skills and abilities of people and
community groups to take effective action and
leading roles in the development of their
communities.” (National Occupational
Standards for Community Development
Work).
In general we may classified community
capacity building activities into three types
which are: 1) The development of skills -
learning and training opportunities for
individuals and groups, and sharing through
networks and mutual support, to develop skills,
knowledge and confidence; 2) The
development of structures or organizational
structures and strengths of community groups,
communities of interest and networks; 3) The
development of support or availability of
practical support to enable the development of
skills and structures.
Adapting the National Occupational Standards
for Community Development , there are some
indicative pin points for a good community
capacity building as follows : 1) reflect the
values of community development; 2) be
driven by the communities’ priorities; 3) take
the existing strengths and talents within
communities as the starting point; for
development; 4) be of benefit to the
individuals directly involved and to their own
wider community; 5) empower people to act
on behalf of their community; 6) learn from
best practice in other communities; 7) establish
and strengthen new and existing networks.
Thus, this framework being used in this paper
was about the structured description of
community capacity building that fulfill the
good community capacity building indicators
above as well as gave indication that it was
also fulfill the characteristic of a resilient
community. In short, the approach being used
basically was the qualitative research
approach. As a qualitative research, this will
follow the systematical process of qualitative
research which covers data reduction, data
analysis, and conclusion drawing (Miles and
Huberman, 1994). The data reduction,
analysis, and reduction corresponds with the
substance of the framework.
II. Study Area
Pangandaran Village is one of the coastal
villages in southern part of Ciamis Regency,
West Java, Indonesia. The total area of
Pangandaran Village stretched out until 67,87
hectar, located in 108o38’53.17” –
o o
108 40’42.07” East and 7 41’03.21”–
7o43’50.69” South. It contains three sub
villages (dusun) which are East Pangandaran,
West Pangandaran, and Parapat; with a total 45
neighborhood (RT) and 9 groups of
neighborhoods (RW).
Due to its geographical location, Pangandaran
Village is one part of the coastal area in
southern Java Island which located in
subduction zone between Indo-Australia Plate
and Eurasian Plate. The Indo-Australia Plate
moves in a velocity of 50 – 70 mm per year to
the north in which will hit the Eurasian Plate.
Therefore, it may created earthquake which
also may result in collateral hazard such as
tsunami (Natawidjaja, 2007). The high level
risk to earthquake and tsunami event also
combined with high density building in the
village for settlements and tourism facilities.
Pangandaran Village is a place for its 8.942
population. It consist of 2.497 families, 4.251
male (50,54%), and 4.159female (49,46%).
The density level in the study area was 13
persons / hectare. It was also being known that
1.488 persons (48,72%) works as fishermen,
35,72% as merchant, 7,59% as government
official, etc.
Figure 1. Study Area
Figure 2. Impact of Tsunami 2006 in Pangandaran
III. Pangandaran Tsunami in 2006 At
Glance
Pangandaran Tsunami struck after an
earthquake in July 17th year 2006, in 15:19:22
local time. The magnitude of the earthquake
was 6,8 Richter Scale and the epicenter located
in southern part of Java Island, approximately
in Indian Ocean at 9,46 south – 107,19 east.
The effect itself was being felt until Bandung
Municipality as well as the Central Java
Province. The tsunami then appeared in
Pangandaran Beach (Ciamis Regency),
Cipatujah Beach (Tasikmalaya Regency),
Pameungpeuk Beach (Garut Regency), and up
until Samas Beach (Yogyakarta).
According to Ciamis Regency Government, it
was noted that as the effect of Tsunami, 429
persons as dead, 621 injured, 32 missing, and
3.739 lost their shelters. On the other hand,
lots of infrastructures and source of livelihood
also broken like roads, bridges, public
facilities, hotels, fishery facility, and so on.
Thus, it was such a big amount of loss to the
regency as well as the people.
Other source claimed that the earthquake
actually was on 7,2 Richter (USGS, 2006) with
the loss of life until 500 persons with total
lifelines destruction and material loss until 70
billion rupiah (Pribadi in Abriansyah, 2006).
Source : Fuady, 2009
IV. Post Disaster Activities : The
Enactment of Pangandaran Village –
Community Settlement Plan
After the Tsunami, many emergency response
activities being conducted by various actors.
Mainly they were giving health support,
emergency aid, and so on (Carter, 1991). After
the emergency response period, then it came
the rehabilitation and reconstruction activities.
Several efforts have been done; in example
direct grand from the local government for the
people to rebuild their house. This grant
classified the type of house destruction which
will implies to the amount of grant; it was 5
million rupiah for light destruction, 7,5 million
rupiah for kiosk, and 15 million rupiah for
heavy destruction. On the other hand there was
also aid for fisherman housing from
Indonesian Ministry of Marine Affairs and
Fisheries. However, those two only support in
a form of aid without further improvement
related to village development.
As it was stated before, the post disaster
activity which will be studied further is the
Community Settlement Plan which was a part
of Java Reconstruction Fund (JRF),
specifically named Community-based
Settlement Rehabilitation and Reconstruction
Project (CSRRP) GRANT TF 090014-IND. In
general this settlement rehabilitation and
reconstruction project was based on
community empowerment with emphasize on
people – centered development. The project
itself was a part of Indonesian Ministry of
Public Works rehabilitations program which
then executed by the Pangandaran Disaster
Mangement Centre (DMC Pangandaran). The
CSRRP project started in late 2007 and
projected to be finish in late 2010.
Community Settlement Plan (CSP) is a village
development plan for five years length which
being enacted through community aspiration,
needs, and goals for improving the village
environment and the community preparedness
due to disaster risk. The CSP dedicated as a
learning process for local government and
local community to strengthen their bottom up
planning process. Therefore the output then
can be proposed at higher level of planning
and development process (Musrenbang) or to
the future Ciamis Regency Disaster
Management Plan.
The baseline approach for enacting the CSP
was collaboration between Participatory Rural
Appraisal (PRA) and the Community Based
Disaster Management (CBDRM). Thus, it was
believed that such collaboration of approach
will accommodate the community needs due to
disaster management prior to the future
disaster risk. The substance of CSP then
became the baseline for community / village
infrastructure development or rehabilitation
funded by the JRF. This includes the types like
roads, bridge, sewerage, evacuation signage,
and so on.
Figure 3. The Steps of CSP Enactment
Source : DMC Pangandaran Office
According to discussion with local officer at
the DMC Pangandaran, the steps of CSP
enactment as follows :
1) Socialization, introduction, as well as
legal administrative preparation of the
CSRRP to the local government.
2) Socialization of the CSP enactment at sub
– village (dusun) level, this was meant to
be a introduction as well as preparation
for the community.
3) Community meeting (called “rembug
desa”) to assure that everyone will accept
the enacment process of CSP.
4) Three paralel Focus Group Discussion
(FGD) which joint by the community
member. Those three as follows : 1) FGD
on disaster theme which aim to identify
Pangandaran Village disaster risk; 2)
FGD on institutions theme which aim to
discuss whether the existing institutions
can be functioned for future institutions
whom will enact the CSP as well
coordinate the CSRPP project; 3) FGD on
leadership theme which focus to identify
the criteria of leadership aspect for the
election of Badan Keswadayaan
Masyarakat (BKM / community
representative) whom will lead the
enactment of CSP.
5) The election and selection of Tim Inti
Perencana (TIP / Core Planner Team)
which will lead the village planning
include the transect activity and so on.
The TIP member joint by 17 persons and
they have been gave adequate training
from the DMC Pangandaran.
6) The election for BKM member started
from Rukun Tetangga (RT / Regency. This part basically for
neighborhood) level, Rukun Warga (RW /
groups of neighborhood) level, and
village level. In each level the community
will elect 3 (three) members.
7) Transect activity (participatory mapping)
which leads by The TIP and questionnaire
distribution with 5 samples in each RT.
Figure 4. Activities on The Enactment of Pangandaran Village Community Settlement Plan
The transect activity include social matter
(health and education), economy matter
(livelihood and so on), environmental
matter, and so on.
8) Socialization and discourse due to the
result of transect activity. This also
includes female groups discussion to
overcome the limitation of female
involvement in general discussion.
9) Discussion for transect result which
resulted the vision, mission, programs,
and actions will be conducted in
Pangandaran Village.
10) The socialization of vision, mission,
programs, and actions reviewed on two
Village Discussions (Musyawarah Desa).
This also include the decision making
process for those substance mentioned
earlier.
11) Result from the 1st and 2nd then being
published through printed materials
(poster) which spread out across village
with adequate space for the people to
comment directly on that poster.
12) Public consultation with all the people,
other villages that enacted the similar
CSP, and the local government of Ciamis
legitimated the CSP.
13) The last step was the Village Meeting for
deciding the community participation and
community resource allocation in
executing the CSP substance.

After almost a year of participatory activities
with the community, The Pangandaran Village
CSP Plan finally finished for year 2009 until
2013 period. In general it covered the
community vision, mission, program, and
actions for settlement rehabilitation and
reconstruction as well as village spatial plan
with several disaster mitigation aspects. In
addition, due to the lack of midterm
Source : DMC Pangandaran Office
development plan, it was believed by the
community organizer (DMC Pangandaran) and
the village leader that CSP may suits to fulfill
that necessity.
At first, it was stated at the early part of
Pangandaran Village CSP that the vision
shaped by community was “to develop
Pangandaran Village as a tourism village
which supported by human and natural
resource as well as resilient settlement and
infrastructures due to future disaster risk”
(Pangandaran Village CSP, 2008). From the
vision, we may inferred that such disaster
awareness have been arise within community.
This also supported with related community
mission as follows :
1) Developing a world class tourism
destination
2) Developing the human resources quality
3) Natural resource optimization
4) Developing a clean and healthy
infrastructure and settlement
5) Developing a prepared village due to
disaster risk.
In order to have proper actions in the future,
after the vision – mission statement then
Pangandaran Village CSP also have the list of
development strategy as follows :
1) Social Strategy : mainly to cope the
condition of high cost education, therefore
the BKM with Village Government
designated to propose aid for child whom
being victim prior to the tsunami, propose
aid for school buildings, and propose an
addition for teacher.
2) Health Strategy : mainly to cope the lack of
community awareness to healthy behavior,
therefore the BKM alongside Village
Government will conduct a social – health
security for the poor, propose for
continuous campaign due to healthy
behavior, and improvement on local health
service.
3) Economic Strategy : mainly to cope the
condition that fisherman lack of capital and
knowledge, therefore the BKM alongside
Village Government will propose grant for
the fishermen, continuous capacity building
for fishermen, propose grant for fishermen
tools, propose grant for fishermen’s
cooperation development, and collective
works in improving drainage so that it
won’t risk the cropland with flood.
4) Environmental Strategy: mainly to cope the
condition that the village lack of quality in
clean water, sanitary, and pollutant,
therefore basically the strategy was
designated to develop adequate
infrastructures for all that necessity as well
as to change the behavior of the
community.
Following that general part of Pangandaran
Village CSP which covered the vision,
mission, principal, and strategy; then the rest
of CSP substance covers the main part which
contains the village infrastructure development
plan and village mitigation plan and
emergency response. It should be noted that all
of those three parts, prefaced by adequate
reporting part of analysis which came from the
participatory activities covers all of the village
aspects include the built and natural
environmental aspect, social, and economy.
The infrastructure development plan which
included in The CSP is as follows : land use
plan, road system, drainage system, electricity,
clean water, sanitation, and waste. Through a
participatory manner, the community only can
resulting land use plan which only divide into
simple division : preserve and utility area. The
preserve area then covers the designation for
areas which are local preserve functions such
as the land arrangement for Pangandaran west
and east coast, preservation for local river
banks, and also the commitment to preserve
The Cagar Alam Pananjung (Pananjung
Conservation Area). As the utilization area, it
divided by the community to be four function
as follows; farming area, business, tourism,
and settlement area. Even though the land use
plan was not a detail one, like it should be in
zoning plan or so, the land use plan quite
endorse the community to be more aware in
looking after land use in their village.
The CSP as it stated earlier provide the
community plan to develop their road as well
as the drainage. Community then improves
twenty one main roads within the village and
also five evacuation roads. The improvement
of the roads system also underwent in a
togetherness manner known as gotong royong.
The decisions to use concrete rather then
ashpalt for the roads also have a meaning so
that community was able to work on it
together. For drainage, community planned to
improve ten drainage ways in the main roads
and four drainages in the evacuation roads.
The construction financial support for roads
and drainage improvement came from The
JRF as it was purposed to do so. On the other
hand, the substance for electricity, sewerage,
waste, and clean water development basically
were an addition so that the CSP substance
may became a baseline for the community to
raise their voice in other or larger scale of
planning process (such as Ciamis Regency
Spatial/Development Plan) or for their
aspiration at related development initiative.
Figure 5. Roads Development Plan in The CSP
Document
Source : Pangandaran Village CSP Document
Figure 6. Drainage Development Plan in The
CSP Document
Source : Pangandaran Village CSP Document
The last fundamental aspect in Pangandaran
Village CSP Document was the mitigation
aspect prior to future disaster risk. In order to
develop an appropriate disaster mitigation
plan, the community organizer alongside with
the community members tried to absorb
aspiration related to disaster. The mapping
covers the community response experience in
2006 tsunami, expected community early
warning system, expected services for future
emergency response, expected future
evacuation facilities, and expected institutions
for delivering disaster management services.
From the mapping related to community
response prior to an earthquake or tsunami, it
was known that basically they have basic
knowledge; in example they knew that they
should avoid buildings and ran to higher
ground in a tsunami event, etc. However, they
don’t have detailed knowledge in responding
to earthquake and tsunami event. On the other
hand, for community early warning system
they expected an improvement on siren system
and local tool (known as kentongan which
made from bamboo). The siren system then
already installed which provided by the
government and ran by the local coastal guard.
As for future emergency response service, the
communities expect a better clean water and
sanitation in the refugee camp. In addition they
also hope for better emergency support such as
foods, temporary shelter, medicines, health
services, and so on.
In order to improve institutions base for
disaster management, the community expects
two institutions to held this main role which
are the existed Badan Permasyarakatan Desa
(BPD / Village Council) and Lembaga
Pemberdayaan Masyarakat (LPM /
Community Empowerment Institutions). The
community expect BPD to atain instutional
matters as well as coordination with higher
level of government in disaster management;
as for LPM, the community expect them
develop community based disaster
management and actions. In addition, the
community expects the Karang Taruna (Youth
Group) for involving more in disaster issues
and also hoping for establishing a local
emergency volunteer.
Lastly, in the Pangandaran Village CSP
Document community develop plan for
improving their evacuation route, evacuation
building, and evacuation signage. The
community then agreed four evacuation routes
from the west coast and six routes from the
east coast. All of the routes have had
construction improvement, include pavement
and lighting equipment for night time
evacuation. The evacuation signages were able
to be found in form of evacuation maps (seven
huge maps) and direction signage (forty one
points) which also easy to understand during
night time evacuation. On the other hand,
community have agreed criteria’s for
evacuation building which were a place that
able to contain 1000 people, height above 25
meters above sea level, and located 1 km from
the shoreline. Therefore they were planning to
have three new escape buildings in three
different places as well as three existed hotels
which able to be used as escape buildings
during tsunami event.
Figure 7. Pangandaran Village Evacuation
Route and Escape Buildings Map
Source : Pangandaran Village CSP Document
Table 1. Community Capacity Building and Its Impact on Community Resilience
Community Activities / Type of Capacity
Consensus Buildings
Figure 8. Pangandaran Village Evacuation
Signage Map
Source : Pangandaran Village CSP Document
V. Community Capacity Building and Its
Relation With Community Resilience
The Pangandaran Village CSP, alongside with
other activities conducted after the tsunami in
2006 basically have enhance the level of
community resilience at all eight aspect of
resilience in Pangandaran Village prior to
future earthquake and tsunami risk (Fuady,
2010). Those eight aspect of resilience covers
the governance aspect, social and economy,
coastal management resource, land use and
structural design, risk knowledge, early
warning and evacuation, emergency response,
and recovery aspect. However, it doesn’t mean
that the CSP was the only factor in enhancing
the resilience as there were also several post
disaster activities conducted back then.
In this part, the Author would like to arrange
the relation between type of community
capacity building, the implementation of good
principle within those activities, and its impact
to community resilience in term of which
capacity then being enhanced; as it already
stated at the early part of this paper.
Impact on
Good Principles Used
Community
in Capacity Buildings
Resilience

Introduction of CSRRP and
learning activity prior to
previous tsunami
The foundation of TIP and
its acitivities
The foundation of BKM
and its acitivities
Female focus group
discussion
Transect, community
mapping, and survey
FGD, Rembug Desa, and
other meetings
Public consultation with
Ciamis Regency
Government and other
villages that enacted CSP
Document
The enactment of
community vision –
mission - strategies
Concensus over land use in
Pangandaran Village
Community program and
construction of village road
system
Community program and
construction of village
drainage system
1) The development of
skills - learning and
training opportunities for
individuals and groups,
and sharing through
networks and mutual
support, to develop skills,
knowledge and
confidence; 2) The
development of structures
or organisational
structures and strengths of
community groups,
communities of interest
and networks; 3) The
development of support or
availability of practical
support to enable the
development of skills and
structures.
Capacity Building Type 1
Capacity Building Type 2
Capacity Building Type 2
Capacity Building Type 1
Capacity Building Type 1
Capacity Building Type 1
Capacity Building Type 3
Capacity Building Type 2
Capacity Building Type 1
Capacity Building Type 1
Capacity Building Type 1
1) reflect the values of
community
development; 2) be
driven by the
communities’
priorities;
1) Capacity to
3) take the existing
absorb
strengths and talents
stress/disaster
within communities as
impact,
the starting point; for
2) Capacity to
development;
retain certain
4) be of benefit to the
basic functions
individuals directly
during
involved and to their
emergency
own wider
condition,
community;
3) Capacity to
5) empower people to
bounce-back
act on behalf of their
after disastrous
community;
event.
6) learn from best
practice in other
communities;
7) establish and
strengthen new and
existing networks.
Resilience Capacity
Principle 7
Number 1 and 3
Resilience Capacity
Principle 1 and 3
Number 1 and 3
Resilience Capacity
Principle 1 and 3
Number 1 and 3
Resilience Capacity
Principle 1, 2, and 3
Number 1 and 3
Resilience Capacity
Principle 2, 3, and 5
Number 1 and 3
Resilience Capacity
Principle 1, 2, 3, and 5
Number 1 and 3
Resilience Capacity
Principle 3,4, and 7
Number 1 and 3
Resilience Capacity
Principle 1 and 2
Number 1, 2, and 3
Resilience Capacity
Principle 2 and 4
Number 1
Resilience Capacity
Principle 2, 3, and 4
Number 2
Resilience Capacity
Principle 2, 3, and 4
Number 2
 Community concensus and
program over Village
sewerage, waste, and clean
water infrastructure.
Community program and
actions in constructing
evacuation maps and
signage
Community program and
actions in over early
warning system
Community concensus and
program over evacuation
location and escape
building
Community concensus
over institutions that
responsible for village’s
disaster management action
Community concensus
over economic recovery
strategy and program
Resilience Capacity
Capacity Building Type 3 Principle 2, 3, and 7
Number 2
Resilience Capacity
Capacity Building Type 1 Principle 2, 3, and 4
Number 2
Resilience Capacity
Capacity Building Type 1 Principle 2, 3, and 4
Number 2
Resilience Capacity
Capacity Building Type 1 Principle 2, 3, and 4
Number 2
Resilience Capacity
Capacity Building Type 2 Principle 2, 3, and 7
Number 3
Resilience Capacity
Capacity Building Type 3 Principle 2, 3, and 7
Number 3

VI. Conclusions Although the activity being studied here didn’t

From this post disaster activity that taken place
after the Pangandaran tsunami in 2006, we
may learn that the capacity building for local
community happened as positive impacts
which strengthen their resilience due to future
disaster risk. As the main important impact is
the development of community knowledge
about disaster risk and their willingness to
prepare a more resilient way of life in their
village through physical and non physical
development agenda to be taken account at
their village. For a successful yet sustainable
post disaster activity, we then should learn
from the community participation on this case.
Moreover, as a humanitarian act we surely
hope that after a post disaster activity the
community may be able to strengthen them in
overcoming possible future disaster risk. The
better the incorporation of local social capital,
local capacity, as well as local wisdom or
indigenous knowledge should gives positive
yet productive impact. This will benefited the
several of community capacity building type
that can be developed.
incorporate local potential perfectly, basically
it was felt enough by the community to move
on and carry on the activity’s result in their
daily life. In addition, the community felt that
the product was important for reconstruction
the platform of their village activity. This can
only happened because basic capital like
leadership, local institution, and vulnerable
groups involvement was given enough space to
influence the process as well as the substance
of the activity. Appreciations also should be
given to the community organizer and the
scheme of the program which long enough to
accommodate such capital. Another positive
factor in this community capacity building
process was the fact that Pangandaran Village
as a tourism destination have already
commonly accept involvement of people from
outside of the community. Basic livelihood
presence also gave capacity for the community
to absorb advance idea offered by the activity.
However, the product itself basically didn’t
provide full solutions or changes in the root
cause of vulnerability, if we connect it with the
of disaster risk pressure – release model. There
was also a recognition given by the community
organizer that the balance between PRA
approach, CBDRM concept, and spatial
planning process taken account on the activity
basically still developing and its gave so much
learning about the balance in building
capacities inside community. The capacity
building for community happened in this
activity also has taken benefit due to other post
disaster activities, where the community may
find and relate the connection among the
activities. Finally, the most important thing
was to provide the community many chance in
building their own capacity in various
dimension so that they may enhance the
resilience to disaster risk with their own
adjusted yet better point of view.
References
---------- . 2005 . Disaster Risk Management in
Asia . Bangkok : Asian Disaster Preparedness
Center
---------- . 2007 . Arahan Pemanfaatan Ruang
Pantai Selatan Jawa Bagian Barat . Jakarta :
Indonesian Ministry of Public Works
Fuady, Mizan Bustanul . 2010 . The Study of
Community Resilience in Pangandaran
Village due To Earthquake and Tsunami Risk .
Insitut Teknologi Bandung : undergraduate
theses
Miles, Mathew B . Huberman, A. Michael .
1994 . Qualitative Data Analysis, California :
Sage Publications
Murphy, Brenda . Dolan, Holly . 2003 . Social
Capital and Disaster Management : Building
Community Capacity . Wilfrid Laurier
University
Natawidjaja . 2007 . Bencana di Indonesia dan
Penanggulangannya
Paton, Douglas . Johnston, David . 2006 .
Disaster Resilience : An Integrated Approach .
Illinois : Charles C Thomas Publisher, LTD
Twigg, John . 2007 . Characteristics of A
Disaster – Resilient Community : A Guidance
Note . DFID Disaster Risk Reduction
Interagency Coordination Group

---------- . 2008 . Pangandaran Village

Community Settlement Plan . Pangandaran :
DMC Pangandaran Office

---------- . 2002 . National Occupational

Standard in Community Development Work.
Paulo and The Community Work Forum

Abriansyah, Taufik . Sind, Enton Supriatna .

2007 . Tsunami Pangandaran . Bandung :
Penerbit Semenanjung

Buckle, Philip . 2001 . New Approaches to

Assessing Vulnerability and Resilience .
Victoria : Department of Human Services

Carter, Nick W . 1991 . Disaster

Management : A Disaster Manager’s
Handbook . Manila : ADB

Chaskin, Robert J . 2001 . Building

Community Capacity . New York : Walter de
Gruyter’