ASCOT Research International Journal, Volume 3, December 2010

Possibility of implementing Natural Coastal Fortress in Sulawesi Island Due to Tsunami Impact Achmad Yasir Baeda1 and Karuniawan Puji Wicaksono ABSTRACT Sulawesi Island which surrounded by several large tectonic plates and several small ones, has been struck 270 times by earthquakes with magnitude more than 5.0 over the past 33 years. This number of earthquake occurrences tends to become higher due to the rising activity of Sunda fault after the big earthquake on December 26th 2004. The goal of this study is to analyze the possibility of implementing natural coastal forest as a fortress on Sulawesi Island to mitigate tsunami impact. Data was collected from Global CMT and several previous research projects. Method used for the analysis was based on intersection of both hazards characteristics, which were earthquakes and tsunami, with coastal forest as the most possible countermeasures. The authors suggest that the connection function for the possibility analysis of implementation would be strongly correlated with dimension of the coastal forest, especially the length of the shore line. In the case of Sulawesi Island, the authors found that there still a small percentage of coastal forest existed with the width minimum. It means that there was a possibility of implementing natural coastal forest as fortresses from tsunami impact, basic on the existing forest; but will not cover all the tsunami prone areas in the island, without any strong efforts of extending reforestation activities. Keywords: earthquake, tsunami, coastal forest INTRODUCTION Situated in the South East Asia tectonic regimen, Indonesia is well known as the most seismically active country in the world (Aydan, 2008). It surrounded by Indo-Australian plate in the southern part which subduct beneath the Eurasian plate, with five big islands and several peninsulas, Indonesia has experienced thousands of earthquakes and hundreds of tsunamis over the past four hundred years. Sumatera and Jawa are two of the most vulnerable islands due to tsunami impact since their position which directly in front of the subduction zone of IndoAustralian Plate. Papua and Sulawesi had also experienced several tsunamis, even though were not as often as those first two. But in the case of potential area for
1

ASCOT Research International Journal, Volume 3, December 2010

earthquake and tsunami occurrence, Sulawesi is in the most susceptible to all. Not only because of its complex faults system but also because these last few years there were very small amount of sea quakes occurred in the region, making it the most potential area of earthquakes and tsunamis occurrences after Jawa and Sumatera. Geographically, Sulawesi Island lays on 5.36N-7.48S and 117.02125.74E is one of the most secure islands of ocean hazards in Indonesian archipelago due to its indirect position from two oceans, the Pacific and the Indian. Sulawesi which divided into six provinces has several small archipelagos, making it one of the big islands in Indonesian archipelago that had very long shoreline. Unfortunately, this also means that Sulawesi is vulnerable to sea hazards events, such as big waves or tsunami. Thus, Sulawesi urgently needs some kind of prevention for protecting its coast. There are several options for protection scheme, i.e. early warning system, sea walls, breakwaters and coastal forest. In the case of natural environment issues, the most reasonable scheme is to establish coastal forest. But before it was implemented, there should be a prior analysis of it. The goal of this study is finding the main reason and why the coastal forest can be implemented as protection against tsunami on Sulawesis coasts. MATERIALS AND METHODS For the analysis, several data sources were utilized, i.e. Sulawesis fault system, earthquakes and tsunami records, coastal vegetations, and others. All of the data will be taken into account for reaching the goal. Overview of Sulawesis Fault System Geologically, in the beginning, Miocene era Sulawesi was formed from two islands, one lied at magmatic arc of Mindanao and the other was at the subduction zone of Caroline Plate to Eurasian Plate. From that era until this time, the first island was forming North and South Arm (Fig. 1). Meanwhile, the other one from the subduction zone was forming Southeastern Arm and East Arm. Since then until late Pliocene era, the Pacific plate pushed them towards Kalimantan Island, making them joined together in central part of Sulawesi. But at Quartenary until now, the forming island drifted away from Kalimantan Island due to sea-floor that spreading along the east-west Paternoster fault. This formation process makes Sulawesi as an island that had a complicated fault
2

ASCOT Research International Journal, Volume 3, December 2010

system, with several types of faults connected with each other literally and sometimes can produce big quakes (Katili, 1978).
Fig. 1. Sulawesi Island with four parts Fig. 2. The 7 faults attached in Sulawesi along with all the epicenter of earthquakes from 1976-2009

There are at least 7 faults which actively interact to each other in Sulawesi (Fig. 2), i.e. Paternoster, Walanae, Palu-Koro A and B, Matano A and B, Balantak and several small faults from small plates (Guntoro, 1999). The earthquakes also produce by the movement of several small thrust, especially from east to west part. In a contrary, there are also movements from three spreading-center at Makassar Basin; two in the North part and the other in the South part (Prasetya et al, 2001). The Paternoster fault which divides Makassar Basin into South and North part is a strike-slip Figure 3.Simplified geological sketh transform fault. It also an extension of the Walanae map (Villeneuve et al) faults. Meanwhile, Walanae started at the south end of South Arm and goes up until it reached Rantekambolas peak at Toraja, where it met the Paternoster fault. Even though these faults are strikeslips which have small percentage of producing big quakes, statistically Paternoster and Walanae have produced more tsunami than other fault in Sulawesi geologic system. It means that Paternoster and
3

ASCOT Research International Journal, Volume 3, December 2010

Walanae still have to be taking in to account, regarding earthquakes and tsunamis. The Palu-Koro fault, which is also transform fault, contains two sub-fault; A and B. Palu-Koro A goes from the center of the island straight to the west (to Kalimantan) and divides Kutai Basin into two part. Palu-Koro B goes from the center of the island up to the north and divides Palu. Meanwhile, the Matano A goes from the edge of Southeast Arm until it reaches the center of Sulawesi. Little to the south, there is Matano B, which also known as the Hamilton fault, goes to the same point as Matano A. These two sets of faults combined with the North Sulawesi Subduction Zone and spreading center at North Makassar Basin, have also generated several earthquakes which had produced several tsunamis. At the upper east part of Sulawesi, there is the Balantak fault, with several subduction zones. It goes west from Halmahera Arc and Sorong fault, and then after reaching the end of East Arm, goes straight up to the North Arm and parallel with the Palu-Koro B (Guntoro, 1999, and Prasetya et al, 2001). There are also several small faults, such as Batui, Sula, Ampana and Toli; and trenches such as Sangihe and Tolo. Meanwhile the boundary of each geological block of Sulawesi, especially the boundary of South (1) and Center (2) is rapidly making movements; with the highest values occurred on the Gulf of Bone and the Gulf of Gorontalo (Fig. 3). Earthquakes and Tsunami in Sulawesi All the big plates that surrounds Indonesia such as Indo-Australian, Pacific, Caroline and Eurasia, are connected and attached to all of the 7 faults on Sulawesi that mentioned earlier. This condition makes Sulawesi very vulnerable of rapidly quakes, even though probably it would not produce a strong one. From Global CMT, there are records of 270 earthquakes that occurred and produced from these 7 faults during July 1976 to October 2009, with magnitude more than 5.0. Figure 4 shows that during all three periods from 1976 to 2009, it almost has a linier trend of increasing total of occurrences. From the 1st period (19761987) increased 100% in the 2nd period (1988-1998), and increased again to almost 64% in the 3rd period (1999-2009). But in terms of the epicenter location, which divided into land and sea, the trends are not being linier. The data showed that the percentage of sea epicenter was increased almost 28% until late 2nd period, but decreased about 9.45% at the end of 3 rd period. For the land epicenter, it has the same pattern, but in the opposite value.

ASCOT Research International Journal, Volume 3, December 2010

Fig. 4. Trend of number of earthquakes occurrences during 1976-2009

These data give two possibilities of reoccurrence trend. First, in the next period, 2010-2020, the number of seismic activity will tend to increase almost 26.1%. Secondly, there is 50% chances that total number of sea epicenter will become higher again, since the last period tend to go down. This assumption has to be proven in detail at future research, since there are not enough data to use at this present time. Seismic prone areas are also founded from the Global CMT data. The author classified seismic prone areas into three big areas (Fig. 5). They are: 1. Region A; bounded from North Sulawesi trench in the north and the East Arm in the south. It showed that the northern sea of North Arm, which also called Celebes Sea, was the most active area. This area had a subduction zone, where small plates being pushed below the Eurasian Plate by Philippines, Caroline, Bismarck and Indo-Australia Plate, making the North Sulawesi Trench. Below the North Arm, there is the Gulf of Gorontalo, which contains the Una-una archipelago. These two areas,
5

ASCOT Research International Journal, Volume 3, December 2010

produced almost 60% of the total earthquakes occurred during all the three periods. All of these earthquakes are produced by Palu-Koro fault, North Sulawesi Trench, Balantak fault, Sangihe trench and several other small faults near the area. 2. Region B; bounded from East Arm in the north to the Southeastern Arm. Earthquakes on this area were influenced from several faults, i.e. Balantak fault, Sorong fault, Sula trust, South Sula-Sorong trust, Matano (A & B) fault and Tolo trench. This region produced second largest amount of earthquakes during the three periods. 3. Region C; bounded from the edge of the east side of Southeastern Arm up to Palu and covered all West Sulawesi and South Sulawesi Province. Earthquakes at this area were influenced by the Paternoster, Walanae, Matano B and Palu-Koro A. Even though this region had produced small amounts of earthquakes comparing the two previous regions, but unfortunately records three of tsunami events.
Fig. 5. Sulawesi Seismic Prone Areas Fig. 6. Sulawesi Seismic Gaps

Based on these seismic prone areas, it will also show the seismic gap of the entire area. Seismic gap is an area within a known active earthquake region or zone which no significant earthquakes have been recorded. Figure 6 shows three of the possible seismic gap, SG. They are: 1. SG A, positioning at the East Coast of North Arm. This area did not have any record of earthquakes even though it situated just right at the Sangihe Trench. 2. SG B; positioning at the West Coast of South Arm. This area did not have any record of earthquakes even though it bound between Paternoster fault
6

ASCOT Research International Journal, Volume 3, December 2010

and Palu-Koro B fault and also strongly affected by the two spreading centers in the North Makassar Basin. 3. SG C; positioning at the West, South and and East Coast of the southern part of the South Arm. This area also did not have any record of earthquakes even though it situated just right at Walanae fault and the spreading center at blocks boundary of (1) and (2). These three areas are well known to be potential area of seaquakes. There are also evidence that even though the area had just strike-slip faults, still capable to generate enough magnitude to produce tsunami. Since its complexity, a special attention has to be conduct in Region A. Table 1 shows the average focal depth of the quakes, magnitude, and number of occurrences in two part of sea in Region A. The first part is the Celebes Sea and the second one is the Gulf of Gorontalo. At the first part, even though in the third period (2001-2009) the number of event due to total occurrences in the relevant periods and their magnitudes tend to go down comparing to other periods, the Celebes Sea still having a high potential of strong quakes due to south and southeast movement of Eurasian plate at the subduction zone on North Sulawesi trench. At the second part, there is significant increasing on the number of event due to the occurrences in the relevant periods, even though magnitudes tend to go down slowly. But because of a lot of faults affecting the area from several directions, as the first part, there is also a big potential of strong quakes can be produce in this area.
Table. 1. Tsunami generated by earthquakes in Sulawesi Epicenter Depth # Location Date (km) Lat. Lon. 1 Makassar Strait 12/1/1927 -0.75 119.7 NA 2 Makassar Strait 4/11/1967 -3.3 119.4 20 3 Celebes Sea 8/14/1968 0.7 119.8 25 4 Makassar Strait 2/23/1969 -3.1 118.5 13 5 Makassar Strait 1/8/1984 -2.77 118.72 14.8 6 Celebes Sea 1/1/1996 0.74 119.93 15 7 Peleng Island 5/4/2000 -1.29 123.59 18.6 Max Run Up (m) 15 (app) 8 (app) 10 10 NA 3.4 6

Magnitude 6.3 6.3 7.4 6.1 6.7 7.9 7.5

ASCOT Research International Journal, Volume 3, December 2010

Table. 2. Numbers and location of tsunami generated by earthquakes in Sulawesi every 33years Period 1910-1942 1943-1975 1976-2009 events 1 3 3 Locations Makassar Strait (1927) Two at Makassar Strait (1967,1969) and one at Celebes Sea (1968) One at Makassar Strait (1984), one at Celebes Sea (1996) and one at Peleng Strait (2000)

During the last four hundred years (1692-2000), Sulawesi had been struck 24 times by tsunami (Latief et al, 2000, and Lander et al, 2003). Unfortunately, not all of these data has been proven and connected with historical data of earthquakes that generated them. From those 24 data, there were only 7 data of tsunami impact can be retrieve and truly connected with the earthquake events as shown in Table 2. These 7 events had several strong connection to each other, they are: All were generated by shallow earthquakes, the focal depths (vertical distance from hypocenter to epicenter) not more than 25km. Even though the 1927 event did not have any record of depth, most of the experts said that it definitely a shallow one. Moment magnitudes of the quakes were moderate to large with magnitude of 6.1 to 7.9. The magnitudes level was based on Scawthorn (2003) categorization. The entire epicenters were very close to the shore line; it measured not more than 50km. But besides those strong connections, these 7 events also contain several unusual facts, they are: Three of them were situated on the center of Makassar Strait, which is also on the lowest seismic prone area (Region C). They are 1967, 1969 and 1984 event. All of them were generated by shallow quakes produced by Paternoster fault and spreading center at the Makassar Basin, with depth below 20km. Only two of them were on the Region A, which is the highest seismic prone area. All happens in 1968 and 1996 event. All of them are also

ASCOT Research International Journal, Volume 3, December 2010

generated by shallow quakes produced by Palu-Koro fault and North Sulawesi trench, with depth below 25km. Peleng Island event on 2000 was the only tsunami event that occurred in Region B, which is the second high seismic prone area. It was generated by shallow quakes produced by Balantak fault and Sorong fault, with depth of approximately 18.6km. Six of them were occurred in the West Coast, four in Makassar Strait and only one in East Coast, near Peleng Strait.

Based on those facts, it shows the trend of movement of tsunami areas; from the West Coast to the East Coast of Sulawesi. Also producers of the quakes that can generate tsunami tend to move from Walanae-Paternoster fault to Palu-KoroMatano fault, Balantak fault and all other faults in eastern part. Simulation of newest Tsunami in Sulawesi To find out the approximate effected area and time of impact, simulation of selected tsunami event have to be carry out. The events have to be the representation of the three seismic prone areas. Based on that reason and completeness of seismic parametric data, the three event chosen are the 1984 event for Region C, the 1996 event for Region A and the 2000 event for Region B (Fig. 7). The simulations were done by SiTPros v.1.2 (Chui-Aree, 2007), with basic grid data from ETOPO2 and seismic parameter data from Global CMT. The simulation of 1984 event The main shock with magnitude of 6.7 was occurred on January 8th 1984, 15.24 at local time on 2.77S 118.72E at the west coast of Mamuju district, West Sulawesi Province (use to be South Sulawesi Province). The fault dimension was 59km in length and 34km in width. The epicenter was 4.32km from the closest beach. Simulation results showed that first wave will hit the closest beach less than 2minutes after main shock, continued by the second one 2minutes later. In 20minutes it will reached around 192km
9
Figure 7. Site of simulation.

ASCOT Research International Journal, Volume 3, December 2010

shoreline length of the west coast. In 40minutes, around 300km and after an hour it reached around 393km (Fig. 8.a). This simulation showed that the 1984 event took place in very shallow water because of the period was very short with quit high celerity. It also showed a long shoreline effect, even though the run up tend not to be so high. The simulation of 1996 event The main shock with magnitude of 7.9 was occurred on January 1st 1996, at approximately 16.05 hours in the place with bearing 0.74N 119.93E at the west coast of Toli-Toli district, Central Sulawesi. The fault dimension was 65km in length and 26km in width. The epicenter was 10.2km from the closest beach. Simulation occurs 6.2 minutes after the first and main shocking wave struck the closest beach around, followed by the second one after 8 minutes later. At about 20 minutes time it reaches the 273km shoreline length of the west coast. In just 40 minutes, around 450 km and after an hour it reaches Gorontalos coast at north east and almost reached West Sulawesis coast (Fig. 8.b). This simulation showed that this event was typically happened in the vicinity near to the field, even a local tsunami, which tends to reach the beaches less than 30 minutes after the main shock. It was reported that the run ups reached maximum around 3.4m at Tonggolobibi which is situated about 12.1km south of the epicenter (Pelinovsky et al, 1997). The simulation of 2000 event The main shock with magnitude of 7.5 was occurred on the 4th of May 2000, at about 4.21in a place with corresponding bearing of 1.105S 123.05E at the Peleng Strait of Luwuk Banggai district, Central Sulawesi. The fault dimension was 71km in length and 35.5km in width. The epicenter was 7.5km from the closest beach. Simulation results showed that first wave hits the closest beach less than 2minutes after the main shock, another one followed after a minute later and several more just a few minutes. Because of the epicenter was situated in the Peleng Strait, the waves did not go out from that archipelagic area (Fig. 8.c). This makes the run ups reached the maximum of 6 meters in Luwuk coastal areas and devastated several coastal beaches of Peleng Island (Lander et al, 2003). This simulation showed that this event was typically a local tsunami trapped on small area which was generated by earthquake within that small strait. Unfortunately, this situation tends to make the run ups higher.
10

ASCOT Research International Journal, Volume 3, December 2010

Based on these simulations, the three events definitely point out the same results. First, all of these were called local tsunami. Second, since they generated near or at coastal areas, there were very short time (less than 10min) from generation until it reached the shoreline. And thirdly, the possibility of implementing a local or regional early warning system at Sulawesi Island is definitely reduced, making the possibility of using coastal fortress increased.
Fig. 8. Simulation results of (a) 1984 event, (b) 1996 event, (c) 2000 event

11

ASCOT Research International Journal, Volume 3, December 2010

Coastal vegetation in Sulawesi Because of its long shorelines and position to the open sea, Sulawesi has three major beach types, sandy, rocky and muddy beaches. The portion of West (Makassar Strait) and North coast (Celebes Sea) are typically sandy and rocky beaches; at the Gulf of Bone and Gulf of Gorontalo are muddy and sandy, while the others are mostly sandy. Coastal vegetation in Sulawesi beaches also differs due to its habitats for example, at sandy beaches there are Coconut (Cocos nucifera), Kembang Sepatu (Hibiscus tiliaceus) and Screwpine (Pandanus sp); or for muddy beaches there are Nipah (Nypa fruticans) and several types of Mangroves, like Rhizophora apiculata, Sonneratia alba and Avicennia marina (Nurkin, 1994). All of them can be found at all Sulawesi coastal areas, Figure 9. Mangrove distribution map of South even in several rocky beaches, like on Sulawesi Province. Bira beach at South coast. Though there are still covered beaches, several researches indicates that their population are decreasing rapidly due to the establishment of water ponds by villagers. For example, according to Nurkin (1994); ADB (1993), Whitton et al (2002), the mangroves were degraded until almost 75% from 1950 until 1990 by all means of disappearance scheme in South Sulawesi Province (Fig. 9). Same cases happened in other province, even though their degradation is not as much as in South Sulawesi Province. Due to that problem, the government and several community-based organizations, from almost three decades are trying to rehabilitate the loosing areas through reforestation; but did not always succeed (ADB, 1993). It also mentions that there was small percentage of coastal forest which width exceeds more than 200m located at Sulawesi Island.

12

ASCOT Research International Journal, Volume 3, December 2010

RESULTS Based on previous explanation, the analysis was done by making an integrated plot of advantages and disadvantages of each part of materials, i.e. earthquakes data, tsunami data and vegetation data. From earthquakes and other geological data, we found out: 1. Moderate to large earthquakes (Mw>5.0) in Sulawesi were tending to shift to east part of the island due to actively spreading centers in Makassar Strait, Paternoster and Palu-Koro fault. For all that matters, the potential area that reasonable for quakes were Celebes Sea, Gulf of Gorontalo, Gulf of Bone, Banggai archipelago, Sangihe, Matano and Sula archipelago; which automatically made the associated beaches as tsunami prone areas. 2. Geological marks that can eventually be the epicenters were the North Sulawesi trench, Sangihe trench, Tolo trench, Balantak fault, Matano fault, Sorong fault, South Sula-Sorong fault, Batui trust, Sula trust and several small faults at Center Sulawesi Province. From tsunami, we found out: 1. All tsunami in Sulawesi Island were tending to be local with moderate run-up high, between 0.1m until 6m. 2. Due to its generating area and beach morphology, all the tsunami in Sulawesi Island could reach nearest beach below 10 minutes after the main shock and rapidly impacting in two or three successive waves. 3. The impacting shoreline could cover as much as it could be, below an hour or so; making the large possibility of affecting area at beaches. From coastal vegetation, we found out: 1. There were several coastal plants that can be found all in West and East coast of Sulawesi Island. They were Coconut (Cocos nucifera), Kembang Sepatu (Hibiscus tiliaceus), Screwpine (Pandanus sp), Nipah (Nypa fruticans) and several types of Mangroves, like Rhizophora apiculata, Sonneratia alba and Avicennia marina. 2. There were degradation of those coastal plants, especially Mangroves due to the opening of water pond (for fishing and desalinitation) and cultivation made by the villagers. 3. Reforestation of mangroves and other coastal plant are still ongoing, even though sometimes ends with no forest at all. The next step is finding the intersection between three of them, beginning on earthquake and tsunami, which were:

13

ASCOT Research International Journal, Volume 3, December 2010

Characteristics of earthquakes which could generated tsunami, basic on records, were: o Focal depth less than 20km o Mw > 6.0 o Epicenter near the shore line Corresponding movement at trenches, subduction zones, transform faults and spreading center. But most of all, subduction zones and trenches, which narrowed to Celebes Sea, Gulf of Gorontalo, Sangihe trench, Banggai archipelago and Gulf of Gorontalo Characteristics of tsunami generated, basic on records, were: o Local tsunami; time impact shorter than 10 minutes after main shock o Maximum run up height not exceed 6 meter o Successive until three ( ( waves, making it much more b constant in run up height a The intersection between tsunami and ) ) coastal vegetation, which were: Area that have to be supported with coastal vegetation were: o North and South coast of the ( North Arm (Gorontalo c Province and North Fig. 10. Relationship between earthquakes, tsunami and coastal forest as tools for) Sulawesi Province) possibility analysis o North and South coast of (a) With relatively small covered reduced Center Sulawesi Province, impact area, poor research and including Una-una and reforestation scheme Banggai archipelago (b) With reduced impact area covered all impact area, generated by earthquakeo East coast of South arm tsunami (South Sulawesi Profince) (c) With reduced impact area covered all A coastal vegetation structure was impact area, generated not only by based on dominant crown zones, earthquake-tsunami But also other for example at mangrove forest
causes, such as landslides and volcanic eruption

14

ASCOT Research International Journal, Volume 3, December 2010

beginning from zone Avicennia-Sonneratia, Rhizophora-Sonneratia and last Rhizophora-Bruguiera. Not only with mangroves class, but also above mean tidal zone; until it reaches trees, such as Coconut. Width of each zone was based on physical experiments results; which beginning to be effective from 200m until 400m (Harada and Imamura, 2005).

DISCUSSION Interpretation of all the result was done by combining these two kinds of intersections and founded by using simple geometrical function of equilateral triangle; of earthquake, tsunami and coastal forest (Fig. 10). If all research corresponding to the tsunami-mangrove dynamic interaction result can be implemented with full force and directly goes to implementation of reforestation of coastal vegetation, then the capability of reducing the impact will depend on the value of L, as side length of the equilateral triangle of the intersection. The implementation of natural coastal forest as fortress is depend on the force that pushed the triangle of coastal forest to its proper position which will cover all the intersection of earthquake and tsunami, but with OA line as fixed plane. = 2 . . 2 . , with ACF as area of Coastal Forest Triangle and L as length side of the equilateral triangle. The increasing value of L at Coastal Forest Triangle will make the intersection of reduced impact area become bigger and beginning to cover the intersection of Earthquake Triangle and Tsunami Triangle which represent the non reduced impact area. Furthermore, if this can still be improved, the Coastal Forest Triangle will cover all the Tsunami Triangle and even become bigger. This means, all of the tsunami area will be reducing, not only that generated by earthquakes but also other causes, such as landslides or volcanic eruption. If it directly connected with the actual area and based on limitation of the effective width of coastal forest suggested in some previous research, the value of L will automatically correspond to the length of shore line. In the case of Sulawesi Island, there is still a small percentage of coastal forest with the width minimum purposed by Harada and Imamura (2005). It means that there is a possibility of implementing natural coastal forest as fortresses from tsunami impact, based on
1 3

15

ASCOT Research International Journal, Volume 3, December 2010

the existing forest; but will not cover all the tsunami prone areas mention earlier, without any exerting extra efforts. Due to this condition, future researches had to be conducted to find out the relation between dimensions of the actual Coastal Forest Area in the selected tsunami prone areas. Research regarding of finding the possible schemes of coastal vegetation structure to increase the dissipated wave energy when it inundated the coastal zone, will also be helpful. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors are indebted to anonymous reviewers and for Dr Hamzah Latief of his 400years tsunami data. REFERENCES Anonimus. (1993). Mangrove Rehabilitation and Management Project in Sulawesi. ADB Report and Recommendation. Aydan, O. (2008). Seismic and Tsunami Hazard Potential in Indonesia with a special emphasis on Sumatra Island. Journal of The School of Marine Science and Technology. Tokai University. Vol. 6 No. 3: 19-38. Chuai-Aree,S. and Kanbua, W. (2007). SiTProS: Fast and Real-Time Simulation of Tsunami Propagation. First Asia International Conference on Modelling & Simulation (AMS'07). Ams. pp.490495. Guntoro, A. (1999). The formation of the Makassar Strait and the separation between SE Kalimantan and SW Sulawesi. Asian Earth Sciences 17: 79-98. Harada, K. & Imamura, F. (2005). Effects of Coastal Forest on Tsunami Hazard Mitigation - A Preliminary Investigation. Advanced in Natural & Technological Hazards Research, Satake, K. (ed.). Springer. pp: 279-292. Katili, J.A. (1978). Past and Present Geotectonic Position of Sulawesi Indonesia. Tectonophysics 45: 289-322.
16

ASCOT Research International Journal, Volume 3, December 2010

Lander, J.F., Whiteside, L.S., Lockridge, P.A. (2003). Two Decades of Global Tsunamis 1982-2002. Science of Tsunami Hazards. Volume 21. Number 1: 3-88. Latief, H., N.T. Puspito and F. Imamura. (2000). Tsunami catalog and zones in Indonesia. Natural Disaster Science. Volume 22. Number 1. pp. 25-43. Nurkin, B. (1994). Degradation of mangrove forests in South Sulawesi Indonesia. Hydrobiologia 285: 271-276. Pelinovsky, E., Yuliadi, D., Prasetya, G.S. and Rahman Hidayat. (1997). The 1996 Sulawesi Tsunami. Natural Hazards 16: 29-38. Prasetya, G.S., De Lange, W.P. and T.R. Healy. (2001). The Makassar Strait Tsunamigenic Region Indonesia. Natural Hazards 24: 295-307. Scawthorn, C. (2003). Earthquakes: Seismogenesis, Measurement, and Distribution. Chapter 4 on Earthquake Engineering Handbook. Chen, W.F. and Scawthorn, C. (eds.). CRC Press LLC pp: 4-1 440. Villeneuve, M., Gunawan, W., Cornee, J.J. and Olivier Vidal. (2002). Geology of the central Sulawesi belt (eastern Indonesia): constraints for geodynamic models. International Journal of Earth Science 91: 524-537 Whitton, T., Henderson, G.S., Mustafa, M. (2002). The Ecology of Sulawesi, Periplus. pp 116-140.

17