SOCIAL RESILIENCE ASSESSMENT IN

REDUCING POTENTIAL RISK OF

EARTHQUAKE IN SURABAYA
Myrna Augusta Aditya Dewi 1
Mohammad Arif Rohman 2
Eko Budi Santoso 3

Department of Technology Management, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh November, Surabaya, Indonesia1

Department of Civil Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh November, Surabaya, Indonesia2
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh November, Surabaya, Indonesia3

e-mail: myrna.plan@gmail.com1
e-mail: arif@ce.its.ac.id2
e-mail: eko_budi@urplan.its.ac.id3

Abstract
Surabaya has a strategic role in trade and service activities, yet it has a potential risk of earthquakes, refer to the
2017 Indonesian Earthquake Source and Hazard Map issued by the National Center for Earthquake Studies
(PUSGEN). Earthquake has a significant impact on various aspects, so it is important to assess the social resilience
to find out the current capacity of communities in responding to earthquake risk. The research scope is the area with
potentially high seismic hazard, which is located near the Surabaya Fault line, consisting of 8 districts and 23 sub-
districts. By doing a literature review and expert judgment, 22 variables were obtained, that are 11 variables for social
vulnerability and 11 variables for preparedness. Data collection is carried out through distributing questionnaires to
116 respondents, the head of neighbourhood units, selected by simple random sampling. We analyze these variables
using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and process data using descriptive statistics and Geographic Information
Systems (GIS)-based mapping. Based on CFA, there are 7 valid variables of social vulnerability and 10 variables of
preparedness for index assessment. The social resilience index is assessed as the ratio of preparedness and social
vulnerability index. The result shows that both of these indicators are in the low-to-medium category. The
social vulnerability indicator has an index value of 2,27, while preparedness has an index value
of 1,99. By comparing these two indicators, Surabaya has an index value of 0,88 for social resilience or categorized
as less resilient in responding to the earthquake risk.

Keywords― resilience, social vulnerability, preparedness, CFA .

1. Introduction
Based on the 2017 Indonesian Earthquake Source and Hazard Map issued by the National Center for Earthquake Studies
(PUSGEN) Ministry of Public Works and Public Housing, Surabaya City has just been identified as having the potential
for earthquake due to be passed by 2 Kendeng faults, namely the Surabaya Fault and the Waru Fault. The Surabaya
Fault and the Waru Fault have movement characteristics with a speed of 0.05 mm/year and have the potential to cause
an earthquake of 6 ,5 SR (Meilano, 2012). In addition, historical data showed Surabaya earthquake ever have the
potential risk of an earthquake with a scale between VI-VII MMI though was the epicenter was not in
Surabaya (Daryono, 2016) . The nearest epicenter was in Sidayu with a scale of VI MMI in 1902 and in Mojokerto with
a scale of VI-VII MMI in 1937.
The city of Surabaya has a strategic location which makes it one of the important cities for trade in Southeast
Asia. As the second largest city in Indonesia after the city of Jakarta, the city is aggressively carrying out development
in the context of economic development in the service and trade sectors (Pamungkas et al., 2019). The population growth
of Surabaya City has increased significantly in the past dozen years. Referring to the city of Surabaya in figures for
2002-2018, the population of the city of Surabaya in 2001 was 2.57 million. In 2017 the population reached 3.07 people
or experienced a population increase of 506,531 people or 16.3% for 17 years. This population development is followed
by significant land use changes to respond to the demand for housing and settlements. According to Firmansyah et
al. (2018) the growth of Surabaya City settlements in 2001 to 2015 was high with an increase of around 25% in 15 years
or a growth of around 1.67% per year.
As a large city that has a fairly large population growth, Surabaya City needs to have good disaster risk
management. Disaster risk management aims to minimize the impact of disasters through the optimization of resources
including planning of development practices in an area (Simarmata & Suryandaru, 2015; Healey, 1997). Disaster risk
reduction through the creation of resilient cities has become a challenge for cities around the world. This is one of the
results of the 2015-2030 Sendai Disaster Risk Reduction Framework adopted by the United Nations (UN) member
countries at the Third World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in Sendai, Japan, on March 18, 2015, with the point
"strengthening resilience" as the goal (UNISDR, 2015). The 9th World Urban Forum activity held in Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia on 7-13 February 2018 also emphasized resilience as a priority issue in accordance with the theme of "building
inclusive, resilient, and sustainable cities and communities for all."
This research wants to know the level of vulnerability and community preparedness is currently in earthquake risk
reduction in Surabaya. This is intended to find out what level of social resilience the city of Surabaya currently has in
responding to the earthquake and what efforts can be done in order to reduce the risk of earthquake in
Surabaya. Identifying the level of resilience of a city helps the Government determine effective risk management
policies to reduce the potential impact of an earthquake

2. Methods
According to the fault map released by PUSGEN and being further studied by BMKG , Surabaya City is traversed by 2
active faults namely the Surabaya Fault and the Waru Fault (Figure 1) . The scope of this research area is the area of the
surrounding villages that are crossed by the Surabaya Fault line, consisting of 8 Districts and 23 Sub District.

Figure 1 Surabaya Fault and Waru Fault Line Map Figure 2 Area of Study
Source: PUSGEN, 2017 Source : Result of Analysis, 2019

Table 1 Areas of Study Scope

No. District Sub District
1 Benowo Kandangan
Sememi
2 Pakal Babat Jerawat
Benowo
Pakal
3 Sambikerep Lontar
4 Sawahan Banyuurip
Putat Jaya
Kupang Krajan
Pakis
5 Sukomanunggal Simomulyo
Simomulyo Baru
Sukomanunggal
Tanjungsari
6 Tandes Balongsari
Banjar Sugihan
Karangpoh
Manukan Kulon
Manukan Wetan
Tandes
7 Tegalsari Dr. Soetomo
Wonorejo
8 Wonokromo Darmo
Source: Results of Analysis, 2019

According to Mayunga (2007), disaster resilience is defined as the capacity or ability of the community to anticipate,
prepare, respond, and recover quickly from the impact of disasters. A high level of resilience will potentially reduce the
impact of the earthquake both in terms of number of victims and material losses. According to UNISDR (2004),
resilience refers to the level of the ability of social systems in organizing themselves in increasing their capacity to learn
from past disasters, better protection in the future, and increasing disaster risk reduction efforts.
There’s close connection between the concept of resilience/resiliency and vulnerability (vulnerability ) in disaster risk
management (Pamungkas et al., 2013). Resilience is a theoretical framework and social process that tries to explain how
society reduces the level of vulnerability in the future through adaptation . The community is one of the important
elements in assessing the risk of a disaster (Setyaningrum & Giyarsih, 2012). High or low risk of the community due to
the earthquake is influenced by the level of community vulnerability. Vulnerability is a set of conditions and/or a result
of conditions that adversely affect disaster prevention and management efforts (Bakornas PB, 2009). If a hazard is a
phenomenon or condition that is difficult to change, the relative vulnerability of the community can be changed.
Preparedness is an effort carried out to anticipate the possibility of a disaster in order to avoid casualties, property losses,
and changes in people's lives in the future (Gregg et al., 2004; Perry & Lindell, 2008 ; Sutton & Tierney, 2006). Disaster
preparedness indicates the ability of the community both individually and in groups to anticipate the possibility of future
disasters.
The theoretical approaches used in previous studies differ. Research Kusumastuti et al. (2014) conducted an assessment
of social security based on the ratio of preparedness and social vulnerability. For the type of seismic disaster and the
subject approach used, this theoretical approach is considered more appropriate for this research. Kusumastuti, et
al. (2014) explains that resilience is a ratio of preparedness and vulnerability, referring to Simpson's (2006)
view. Preparedness refers to capacity in dealing with disasters, while vulnerability is defined as potential losses due to
disasters. In this concept, the higher the level of preparedness, the higher the level of resilience. Thus to assess the
resilience of an area in addition to the aspect of vulnerability also need to look at aspects of preparedness. A more
appropriate theoretical approach applied in assessing the resilience illustrated in Figure 3. The research uses an
assessment of the existing vulnerability condition and the existing preparedness condition to measure the level of
resistance. This is because earthquake disasters have not yet occurred in the study area, so the concept of adaptation
cannot be measured yet.

Figure 3: Linkages between Vulnerability, Preparedness and Resilience Concepts in Disaster Risk Management
Source: Analysis Results from Simpson (2006) and Kusumastuti et . al. (2014)

Based on the results of the synthesis of the literature review, 20 relevant research variables were produced which were
then conducted by an expert judgment to validate the variables used. Variable descriptions can be seen in Table 2.

Table 2 Descriptions of Social Vulnerability and Preparedness Variables

No. Variable
1 Population density
2 The existence of semi-permanent
and non-permanent settlements
3 Low-income population (MBR)
4 Population based on vulnerable
age under 14 years (children)
5 Population based on age
vulnerable above 60 years
(elderly)
6 Female population
7 Population with disabilities
8 Number of social conflicts and
criminal incidents over the past
15 years
Operational definition Source
Social Vulnerability Aspects
Comparison of the number of population with the
area based on a certain unit of area, indicated by the Sharma & Shaw (2011); Hastuti & Priyono
number of population or assuming population density (2017); Gautam (2017);
based on the density of buildings (people/km2) Kusumastuti et al. (2014)
Percentage of population living in settlements with Sharma & Shaw (2011)
characteristic structural construction (%):
- Semi-permanent: zinc or asbestos roofing material,
wood or bamboo wall material, cement flooring
material
- Non permanent: wood or asbestos roofing material,
bamboo or bamboo wall material, ground floor
material
Percentage of people who have limited purchasing Kusumastuti et al. (2014); Yucel & Arun
power so they need government support to obtain (2012)
housing (%)
Percentage of total population who are not of Sharma & Shaw (2011); Yucel & Arun
productive age, under 14 years old (children) refers to (2012); Hastuti & Priyono (2017); Gautam
the BPS standard (%) (2017)
Percentage of total population who are not of Sharma & Shaw (2011); Yucel & Arun
productive age, aged over 60 years (elderly) refers to (2012); Hastuti & Priyono (2017); Gautam
the BPS standard (%) (2017)
The number of female population is compared to the Hastuti & Priyono (2017); Gautam (2017)
male population
Percentage of total population with special needs so it Kusumastuti et. al. (2014); Gautam (2017)
is assumed that it will experience difficulties during
evacuation (blind, deaf, disabled) (%)
Number of physical, land or ethnic social conflicts Kusumastuti et al. (2014)
and criminal incidents (vulnerable to robbery, theft,
murder) during the last 15 years that created
disharmony in the community
 No. Variable Operational definition Source
9 Populations that have access Percentage of people who have access to emergency Sharma & Shaw (2011); Gautam (2017)
to emergency communication communication tools, including accessing the
tools internet, listening to information from the radio, or
communicating using Handy Talky (HT)
10 Populations that have insurance The percentage of people registered with insurance is Kusumastuti et al. (2014)
services good
health, life and property insurance (%)
11 A population of people who Percentage of people who have expertise in Expert Judgment
have expertise in emergencies emergencies, including doctors, nurses, medical
personnel, TNI, Police Officer, volunteers (%)

The Preparedness Aspect

1 Community satisfaction index
for leaders
2 The ability to socialize between
communities
3 Community activity in
participating in disaster
management activities
4 Availability of community
awareness programs and disaster
simulations
5 Community's ability to
understand seismic threats
6 Community's ability to
understand emergency response
instructions
7 The ability of the community
towards the basics of first aid
8 The ability to plan emergency
response information
9 Understanding of the city's
emergency response
communication system
10 Evacuation route readiness and
evacuation gathering point
11 Logistics, material and disaster
emergency preparedness
Source: Analysis Results
The level of community satisfaction with the Sharma & Shaw (2011)
performance of Citizen Association heads (RW), and
Lurah, especially in terms of responding to disaster
issues
Percentage of people who have good socialization Kusumastuti et al., 2014; Sutton & Tierney
skills with each other and indicate mutual cooperation (2006)
or mutual assistance between communities
Percentage of people who joined the community (for Sharma & Shaw (2011)
example: active in the Alert School, Tagana (disaster
prepared cadets), SWA, Kelurahan Tangguh, etc.)
Availability of disaster awareness programs or Sharma & Shaw (2011)
training along with simulations conducted by the
Government and other institutions
Efforts to increase the knowledge and understanding Enders (2002); Sutton & Tierney
of the community that the area where they live has (2006); Sharma & Shaw
seismic potential (2011); Lam et al. (2017); Kusumastuti et
al. (2014)
Efforts to increase understanding of emergency Enders (2002); Sutton & Tierney (2006)
response instructions through posters, stickers, or
information (offline or online)
Efforts to increase public understanding of the basics Expert Judgment
of first aid (first aid training, self-rescue, etc.)
Efforts to improve the ability of emergency response Sharma & Shaw (2011); Lam et al. (2017)
information planning or warning systems, for example
in the use of mosque TOA, HT, kentongan, alarm etc.
Efforts to increase public understanding of the city's Sutton & Tierney
emergency response communication system (2006); Lam et al. (2017)
(Command Center 112, ISYANA application)
Efforts to increase community evacuation plan Sutton & Tierney (2006)
readiness for disasters, including evacuation routes
and evacuation gathering points of the area along with
physical markers and evacuation SOPs
Efforts to improve logistics, material and disaster Sharma & Shaw (2011)
emergency facilities

Object in this study is the social vulnerability and preparedness of the seismicity in the scope of the area around the fault
Surabaya. The subjects in this study were community perceptions (RT heads) living in the area around the Surabaya
fault and perceptions of interested parties in terms of building earthquake resistance in the city of Surabaya. Sampling
in this study uses two types of methods, namely probability sampling through simple random sampling and non-
probability sampling methods through stakeholder analysis. Simple random sampling was used to assess the
vulnerability and preparedness. The population of this study was the head of RT from 23 Sub District that became the
subject of the study of 1,457 people (Institutional Chairperson Data, 2020-2022). Through sampling calculations using
the Slovin formula with a standard error of 0,1 or 10%, the samples obtained were 94 samples. The selected
stakeholders consist of institutions in the Surabaya City Government that have the main tasks and functions related to
planning and implementing disaster management, as well as from the community represented by universities and
organizations engaged in the field of disaster with content analysis methods.

Assessment of social vulnerability and preparedness is done by calculating the values and weights obtained from
the loading factor value of the CFA analysis, so that each index can be calculated with the following equation.
Index value:
∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑤𝑖 𝑥𝑖 (𝑤1 × 𝑥1 ) + (𝑤2 × 𝑥2 ) + (𝑤3 × 𝑥3 ) + ⋯ + (𝑤𝑛 × 𝑥𝑛 )
=
∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑤𝑖 𝑤1 + 𝑤2 + 𝑤3 + ⋯ + 𝑤𝑛
Information:
w 1 = weight 1 x 1 = variable value 1
w 2 = weight 2 x 2 = variable value 2
w 3 = weight 3 x 3 = variable value 3
w n = weight n x n = variable value n
The definition of social vulnerability index is as follows:
Index 1 = very low
Index 2 = low
Index 3 = moderate
Index 4 = high
Index 5 = very high

Ratings resilience social to earthquakes in this study is calculated by calculating the results of vulnerability assessment
and preparedness assessment results, expressed in the following formula (Simpson, 2006):
Ps
𝑅𝑠 = Vs
with :
Rs = Resiliency (social resilience)
Ps = Preparedness (preparedness)
Vs = Vulnerability (social vulnerability)

The ratio of preparedness and vulnerability of <1 indicates that the region is less resilient (less resilient) for preparedness
level lower than the level of vulnerability. Conversely, if the ratio is> 1, it means the region can be said to be more
resilient because it has sufficient preparedness to respond to its vulnerability to earthquakes.

3. Results And Discussion

Based on the results of identification of 116 respondent data (from a minimum sample of 94) in the study area
obtained by distributing questionnaires, identification of the level of social vulnerability and preparedness using CFA
was carried out with the normal multivariate test, validity and reliability, CFA modeling, model compatibility, index
calculation and mapping . CFA test was carried out using AMOS software.
3.1 Social Vulnerability Assessment
Based on 11 variables tested for validity and reliability, there are 7 significant variables to represent social vulnerability
namely population density, the existence of settlements of semi-permanent and non-permanent, the population of low-
income communities (MBR), population by age vulnerable under 14 years, populations based on vulnerable ages over
60 years, populations of people with special needs/disabilities, and the number of social conflicts and criminal incidents
over the past 15 years. Based on the loading factor value, the variable with the greatest influence in indicating social
vulnerability is the disability population and the number of social conflicts and criminal incidents during the last 15
years.

The calculation of the value of social vulnerability is based on the accumulated value of selected respondents through
questionnaires that have been distributed. The value of social vulnerability in the study area is 2.32 and can be seen per
variable in Figure 4.

Figure 4 Graph of Social Vulnerability Values

Source: Results of Analysis, 2020

The assessment of social vulnerability index in the study area uses the calculation of the results of questionnaire
processing and the weight of variables that have been tested for significance based on CFA testing. The total weight of
the overall vulnerability variable is 2.943 and total weights result multiplied by the value of each variable is 6.687.

Social Vulnerability index value :

∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑤𝑖 𝑥𝑖 6,687
=
∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑤𝑖 2,943
= 2,27
The Social Vulnerability Index in the study area is 2.27 or in the low to moderate category.
3.2 Assessment of Preparedness
Significant variables to represent preparedness are the community satisfaction index for leaders, community activity in
participating in disaster management activities , the availability of community awareness programs and disaster
simulations , people's ability to understand seismic threats, the ability of the community to understand emergency
response instructions, the ability of the community to basic first aid, the ability to plan emergency response information,
understanding of the city's emergency response communication system, evacuation route readiness and evacuation
gathering point, and logistical, material and disaster emergency facilities. The variables that had the greatest influence
in indicating preparedness were evacuation route readiness and evacuation gathering points as well as logistical,
material, and disaster emergency facilities. Calculation of preparedness value is based on the accumulated value of
selected respondents through questionnaires that have been distributed . The preparedness value in the study area is 2,16
and can be seen per variable in Figure 5.

Figure 5 Graph of Preparedness Value

Source: Results of Analysis, 2020

The assessment of preparedness index in the study area uses the calculation of the results of questionnaire processing
and the weight of variables that have been tested for significance based on CFA testing. The total weight of the overall
preparedness variable is 6,276 and the total weighted result multiplied by the value of each variable is 12.468.
Preparedness index value :
∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑤𝑖 𝑥𝑖 12,468
=
∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑤𝑖 6,276
= 1,99
The Preparedness Index in the study area is 1,99 or in the very low to low category.

3.3 Social Resilience

Through the calculation of the index, it was found the results of social vulnerability index of 2.27 (low to moderate
category) and preparedness index of 1.99 (very low to low category). Then the Social Resilience index is obtained from
the comparison of social preparedness and vulnerability that is equal to 0.88.
1,99
𝑅𝑠 =
2,27
= 0.88
Social resilience index is valued <1 or can be concluded that the level of resistance against earthquakes Surabaya based
on a sample selected, in a state of less resilient. Even so, when looking at the distribution per kelurahan, some kelurahan
have a social resilience index> 1 or are categorized as more resilient as seen in Table 3 and visualized in Figure 6.

Table 3 Distribution of Social Resilience Index per Sub District

District Sub District Vs Ps Rs Conclusion
Benowo Kandangan 2.17 2.35 1.08 More resilient
Sememi 2.28 1.93 0.85 Less resilient
Pakal Babat Jerawat 1.87 2.18 1.16 More resilient
Benowo 2.43 3.07 1.26 More resilient
Pakal 2.68 2.10 0.78 Less resilient
Sambikerep Lontar 2.41 1.77 0.74 Less resilient
Sawahan Banyu urip 2.65 1.53 0.58 Less resilient
Putat Jaya 2.18 1.57 0.72 Less resilient
Kupang Krajan 2.49 2.04 0.82 Less resilient
Pakis 2.10 1.82 0.87 Less resilient
Sukomanunggal Simomulyo 2.28 1.97 0.86 Less resilient
Simomulyo Baru 2.34 2.39 1.02 More resilient
Sukomanunggal 2.52 1.56 0.62 Less resilient
Tanjungsari 1.89 2.01 1.06 More resilient
 District Sub District Vs Ps Rs Conclusion
Tandes Balongsari 1.98 2.30 1.16 More resilient
Banjar Sugihan 2.03 2.13 1.05 More resilient
Karangpoh 2.21 1.54 0.69 Less resilient
Manukan Kulon 2.32 1.80 0.77 Less resilient
Manukan Wetan 1.92 2.49 1.29 More resilient
Tandes 1.98 2.04 1.03 More resilient
Tegalsari Dr. Soetomo 2.80 2.20 0.78 Less resilient
Wonorejo 2.70 1.05 0.39 Less resilient
Wonokromo Darmo 2.02 1.86 0.92 Less resilient
Source: Results of Analysis, 2020

Figure 6 Map of the Study Area Social Resilience Index

Source: Results of Analysis, 2020

3.4 Formulation of Efforts to Increase Social Resilience in the context of Earthquake Risk Reduction

The formulation of efforts to improve social resilience is carried out through a literature review which is further
confirmed the existence and relevance of using content analysis. Content analysis was conducted with interview
transcript input from the six selected respondents and processed with Nvivo 11 Plus software . The results of this
analysis are the discovery of selected efforts to increase social resilience that are relevant for earthquake risk reduction
in the city of Surabaya . The 6 (six) respondents involved in the content analysis formulation of increasing social
resilience in the context of earthquake risk reduction are as follows: Surabaya City Development Planning
Agency, Department of Public Housing and Settlement Area - Cipta Karya and Spatial Planning of Surabaya
City , Disaster Management and Community Protection Agency Surabaya City , Surabaya City Social
Service , Masyarakat Tangguh Indonesia (MTI) Community, and ITS Research Center of Mitigation and Climate
Change (MKPI).

The results of the analysis using Nvivo 11 Plus produce Hierarchy charts function to see the comparison of the number
of encodings in each node (keywords) often discussed by the six respondents. The wider box in the hierarchy
chart shows the more often the node (keyword) is discussed/mentioned. Figure 8 shows that the keywords most
frequently discussed by the six respondents were Training with Number of Coding References of 52 or 13.10% ,
Emergency Facilities with Number of Coding References of 39 or 9.82%, and Organizing with Number of Coding
References by 33 or 8.31% . Instead the keywords that were least discussed were Hospital Preparedness with a Number
of Coding References of 4 or 1, 01 %.

Figure 7 Visualisasi Hierarchy Chart Figure 8 Graph of Number of Iterations Formulation of Efforts to
Source: Results of Analysis, 2020 Increase Social Security
Source: Results of Analysis, 2020
In addition to knowing what efforts were discussed more by respondents, a qualitative study was carried out further on
the existence or relevance of each formulation of efforts to improve social security. There are 25 efforts to increase
social resilience from the results of the literature that confirmed the existence and relevance and carried out discussions
related to the condition of the city of Surabaya. Of these 25 efforts, there are two unconfirmed efforts, namely land
management, land acquisition for the fault area and determination of high taxes in the fault area.

Based on the results of the discussion of the existence and relevance of each of the efforts to increase social resilience,
it can be obtained the results of directives in accordance with the study area. These directives are then grouped into
4 phases of disaster risk reduction namely mitigation, preparedness, response and rehabilitation and are grouped into 3
main characteristics of resilience, namely the ability to withstand changes and pressure (absorb shock), the ability of the
system to return to the state before the disaster (bounce back), and the ability of the system to learn and adapt (learning
and adaptation). Efforts at the mitigation and preparedness stages are efforts to increase the ability of the system
to withstand changes and pressures (absorb shock) and to learn and adapt (learning and adaptation). Response
phase efforts are efforts to withstand changes and stresses (absorb shock). While efforts at rehabilitation and
reconstruction an effort to return to the state system before the disaster (bounce back). The analysis results are shown in
the following table 4.
Table 4 Directions for Improving Social Resilience in the context of Earthquake Risk Reduction
No. Direction for Increasing Social Resilience DRR phase Resilience Character
1 Resettlement of residents in areas prone to earthquakes / fault lines Mitigation Learning and Adaptation
2 Promote life or asset insurance Mitigation Bounce back
3 Providing assistance to repair community houses that meet earthquake resistant Mitigation Absorb Shock
building standards
Providing assistance to repair community houses in the context of recovery Rehabilitation and Bounce back
Reconstruction
4 Provision of financial assistance or basic needs The response Absorb Shock
5 Social, economic, cultural recovery including psychology Rehabilitation and Bounce back
Reconstruction
6 Protection of vulnerable groups (children, women, parents, MBR, disability) Mitigation Learning and Adaptation
through training
Protection of vulnerable groups of low-income people through economic Mitigation Bounce back
empowerment
Protection of vulnerable groups (children, women, parents, disabilities) Rehabilitation and Bounce back
through trauma healing Reconstruction
7 Increased affordability of health services, in the form of facilities, Mitigation Absorb Shock
infrastructure and access to health services
8 Planning for issue and hoaks management Preparedness Absorb Shock
9 Reconciliation and conflict resolution during emergencies The response Absorb Shock
10 Inventory of resources related to disaster: Mitigation Absorb Shock
a. Disaster management community / volunteers (Scouts, PMI, Orari,
Disaster/Tagana Cadets, SAR, etc.)
b. Disaster alert posts with all the supporting elements
c. Skilled and expert personnel for environmental scale preparedness
(doctors, nurses, TNI, POLRI)
d. Emergency support resources (car facilities, toilets, rescue cars , emergency
sanitation facilities, and other facilities as needed)
11 Contingency planning that includes the role and Standard Operating Preparedness Absorb Shock
Procedures (SOP), which is integrated in the guidelines aspect of
volunteers, emergency response plans, early warning systems
earthquake, communication systems, system evacuation , health , safety,
logistical, and so on
12 Assessment / analysis of earthquake risk, earthquake prone maps and Mitigation Learning and Adaptation
socialization to the community related to seismic risk in the area
13 Standby / simulation/rehearsal/technical training for each disaster Preparedness Learning and Adaptation
management sector :
a. basic training in disaster management for officials
b. providing earthquake disaster evacuation drills at public facilities and
school buildings (such as ducking, head protection, hiding under desks)
c. procurement of earthquake disaster evacuation drills in residential areas
(including vertical housing)
d. basic community first aid training , including CPR, first aid bleeding, first
aid victims of broken bones, fire victims, and so on
14 Organizing: Preparedness Learning and Adaptation
a. the formation of organizations or disaster task force units
b. activation of disaster alert posts with all its supporting elements
c. the empowerment of the Tangguh Disaster Village
15 Communication system planning: Preparedness Absorb Shock
a. early warning sirens
b. early warning based on local wisdom, by hitting kentongan, electricity
poles of church bells or loudspeakers in mosques
c. setting up alternative family communication tools (Radio / HT)
d. broadcast warning via SMS
Communication system activation: The response Absorb Shock
a. early warning sirens
 No. Direction for Increasing Social Resilience DRR phase Resilience Character
b. early warning based on local wisdom, by hitting kentongan, electricity
poles of church bells or loudspeakers in mosques
c. setting up alternative family communication tools (Radio/HT)
d. broadcast warning via SMS
16 Integrated city communication system: The response Learning and Adaptation
a. socialization of list of important numbers of parties related to earthquake
management
b. socialization and operation of the city's emergency response
communication system ( Command Centers 112 and Isyana)
c. upgrade Command Center 112 as an information system and resource
mobilization during the emergency phase
17 Evacuation system planning: Preparedness Absorb Shock
a. the agrrement of mapping and evacuation pathways and communal areas
/ assembly point when earthquakes
b. procurement of signs and evacuation information boards
c. planning the locations where the evacuation/shelter ( shelter )
18 Management means of emergency ( emergency facilities ): Preparedness Bounce back
a. provision of first aid kits/essential medicines for family first aid and public
facilities
b. setting up communication networks alternatives such as satellite
telephone case of failure of the main communication channel during
disasters
c. preparation of support and mobilization of resources/logistics and
distribution of assistance to victims
d. socialization and procurement of disaster prepared bags (TSB), bags
prepared by family members in case of emergencies, containing important
papers, clothing, durable food, drinking water, medicines, cellphones,
lighting aids, money, whistles, masks and toiletries
19 Pre-disaster media campaign : Preparedness Learning and Adaptation
a. making brochures/leaflets/posters/pocket books/earthquake alert stickers
(offline or online)
b. broadcasting disaster dissemination on various media (radio, television,
online media, or other official sources)
Media campaigns during disasters through broadcasting disaster information The response Learning and Adaptation
on various media (radio, television, online media, or other official sources)
20 Strengthen community contributions through DRR forums with communities, Preparedness Learning and Adaptation
institutions, professional associations, and so on
21 Application of incentives and regulations regarding private sector Mitigation Absorb Shock
participation in risk reduction through city contributions (eg building code
standards, submission of PSUs, etc.)
22. Internalization of disaster management in curriculum, subjects, or Mitigation Learning and Adaptation
extracurricular content in schools and college safety briefings
23. Development of hospital preparedness plans and management of mass Preparedness Absorb Shock
casualties (drugs, medical personnel, equipment/ambulances)
Source: Results of Analysis, 2020

4. Conclusion
Based on the results that have been carried out in the analysis and discussion, the following research conclusions can be
obtained:
1. The results of the social vulnerability index assessment are 2, 27 or are in the low to moderate category, while the
results of the preparedness index assessment are 1.99 or are in the very low to low category . Based on this, the index
of social reilience that is obtained from the comparison preparedness and social vulnerability can be calculated that at
0, 88 ( <1) so that the level of earthquake resistance is at less resilient condition (less resilient).
2. Social resilience improvement is carried out through the following efforts :
a. Mitigation through population relocation, insurance, economic empowerment, health services, resource
inventory, risk studies, application of incentives as a contribution to the private sector, and internalization of
earthquake response in curriculum content, subjects, extracurricular activities, and safety briefings .
b. Preparedness through hoax planning and issues management, contingency planning, disaster management
training, organizing, communication system planning, system planning evacuation, emergency facilities
management, media campaign pre-disaster, strengthening DRR forums, and hospital preparedness planning.
c. Response through financial assistance , reconciliation and conflict resolution during emergencies, activation of
communication systems, implementation of integrated communication systems, and media campaigns during
disasters.
d. Rehabilitation and Reconstruction through the assistance of home improvement, social, economic, cultural, and
psychological recovery.

5. Acknowledgments
The results of this research can be input and reference by the Surabaya City Government in preparing contingency plans
and earthquake emergency response operations plans. This research only focuses on assessment and efforts to increase
 resilience from the social dimension. Further research is still needed by considering other dimensions of resilience,
namely the physical, economic, and institutional dimensions so that the recommended characteristics and direction
of city resilience can represent and answer problems correctly.

6. Reference
[1] Bakornas PB. “Pengenalan Karakteristik Bencana dan Upaya Mitigasinya di Indonesia”. S. Triutomo, B.W. Widjaja & M. R. Amri, Eds. 2007.
Jakarta: Direktorat Mitigasi Lahar BAKORNAS PB.
[2] Daryono. “Aktivitas Gempa Bumi di Jawa Timur”. Materi Diskusi Sumber Gempa di Jawa Timur. 2016. ITS Surabaya.
[3] Enders, J. “Measuring Community Awareness and Preparedness for Emergencies”. Australian Journal of Emergency Management. 2002.
Vol 16, No 3, pp.
[4] Firmansyah, F., Pamungkas, A., & Larasati, KD. “Spatial Pattern Analysis Using Spatial Metrics: A Case Study in Surabaya, Indonesia”. IOP
Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 202 012018. 2017. doi :10.1088/1755-1315/202/1/012018.
[5] Gautam, D. “Assessment of Social Vulnerability to Natural Hazards in Nepal. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science”. 2017. Sci., 17, 2313–
2320, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-2313-2017.
[6] Gregg, C.E., Houghton, B.F., Johnston, D.M., Paton, D. & Swanson, D.A. “The Perception of Volcanic Risk in Kona Communities from Mauna
Loa and Hualalai Volcanoes, Hawaiki”. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 2004. 130: 179-196.
[7] Hastuti, D.P. & Priyono, K.D. “Analisis Kerentanan Sosial Gempa Bumi di Kecamatan Gantiwarno Kabupaten Klaten”. Prosiding Seminar
Nasional Geografi UMS 2017. Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Wilayah Berkelanjutan. 2017. ISBN: 978–602–361–072-3.
[8] Healey, P. “Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies”. 1997. UBC Press.
[9] Kusumastuti, R.D., Viverita, Husodo, Z.A., Suardi, L, dan Danarsari, D.N. “Developing a Resilience Index towards Natural Disaster” in 2014
327–340. Science Diresct. www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdrr.
[10] Lam R.P.K., Leung, L.P., Balsari, S., Hsiao, K.H., Newmham, E., Patrick, K., Pham, P., & Leaning, J. “Urban Disaster Preparedness of Hong
Kong Residents: A Territory-Wide Survey”. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. Vol. 23, August 2017, pages 62-69. Elsevier
Science Direct. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.04.008.
[11] Mayunga, JS. “Understanding and Applying the Concept of Community Disaster Rresilience: A Capital-Based Approach”. A draft working paper
prepared for the summer academy for social vulnerability and resilience building, Munich, Germany, 22–28 July 2007.
[12] Meilano, I., Susilo, Gunawan, E., Sarsito, D., Abidin, H. Z., & Kaolali. “An Evidence of Kendeng Thrust Activity from Geodetic Observation”.
Diskusi sumber gempa di Jawa Timur. 2016. Kampus ITS.
[13] Pamungkas, A., Bekessy, S., & Lane, R. “Vulnerability Modelling to Improve Assessment Process on Community Vulnerability”. Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2013.
[14] Pamungkas, A., Iranata, D., Yuwono, J., & Jaelani, LM. “An Insight on Surabaya DevelopmentL Pre-Colonials, Colonial, Post-Colonial and
Current Era”. IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 340 012002. 2019. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/340/1/012002.
[15] Perry, R.W. & Lindell, M.K. “Volcanic Risk Perception and Adjustment in a Multi-hazard Environment”. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal
Research. 2008. 172, 170-178.
[16] Setyaningrum, P. dan Giyarsih, S.R. “Identifikasi Tingkat Kerentanan Sosial Ekonomi Penduduk Bantaran Sungai Code Kota Yogyakarta
terhadap Bencana Lahar Merapi”. Jurnal Bumi Indonesia 2012. Vol. 1 No. 3.
[17] Sharma, A., & Shaw, R. “Climate and Disaster Resilience in Cities”. 2011. Emerald: Bingley.
[18] Simarmata, H. A., & Suryandaru, R. W. “Institutions and Planning: A Reflection from Disaster Management Planning in Indonesia.” In Global
Sustainability: Cultural Perspectives and Challenges for Transdisciplinary Integrated Research (pp. 239–265). 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-319-16477-9_13.
[19] Simpson, D. M. “Indicator Issues and Proposed Framework for a Disaster Preparedness Index (DPi)”. Draft Report Version 1.0, 2006. Center for
Hazards Research and Policy Development University of Louisville.
[20] Sutton, J., & Tierney, K. “Disaster Preparedness: Concepts, Guidance and Research”. 2006. Colorado: University of Colorado.
[21] UNISDR. “Living with Risk: A Global Review of Disaster Reduction Initiatives”. 2004. Geneva: United Nations Publications
[22] UNISDR. “Sendai Framework for Disaster Reduction 2015-2030”. 2015. United Nation Publications.
[23] Yucel, G. & Arun, G. “Earthquake dan Physical and Social Vulnerability Assessment for Settlements: Case Study Avcilar District”. 15 WCEE
USBOA 2012.