Jurnal

Teknologi
Full Paper

THE IDENTIFICATION OF RISK AND THE Article history

Received
DETERMINATION OF THE CHOICE OF THE 28 Februari 2016

FINANCING DISASTER ON INDONESIA’S STATE-

Received in revised form
13 October 2016
OWNED BUILDING IN EARTHQUAKE- PRONE Accepted

AREAS.
2016

Helvita Dorojatun¹ and Rachmat Kurniawan² Corresponding author

¹ helvitdjkn@gmail.com
Directorate General of State Asset Management, Ministry of ² rachqory2@gmail.com
Finance of Republic of Indonesia

Abstract
Indonesia is a country with two to four Billion USD losses cost for building and
infrastructure in every earthquake. Government covers these damage with
insurance as risk financing solution through Act No.24/2007. In contrast, the budget
for insurance cost cannot cover vast amount of state asset. The aim of this paper is
to find the best option of risk financing to cover state asset losses from earthquake
disaster. The method of this research is “vulnerability and exposure analysis”
through damage valuation. This study was conducted in Bantul District of
Jogjakarta Province which is a disaster-prone areas with massive damage in the
earthquake of 2006. The results show that there are two groups of Public Building
with different earthquake damage ratio. The first group needs to choose insurance
and another group is better using self-retention than insurance. In conclusion, the
risk financing solution in earthquake prone area is not only insurance but also it can
use self-retention through determine damage ratio.

Keywords: Damage Valuation, Vulnerability Analysis, Exposure Analysis, Risk

financing

Abstrak
Indonesia adalah sebuah negara yang sering mengalami kerusakan akibat
gempa bumi dengan kerugian diantara dua hingga empat Billion USD setiap
kejadian yang meliputi bangunan dan infrastruktur. Kerajaan membiayai
kerosakan ini dengan insurans sebagai penyelesaian pembiayaan risiko melalui
Akta No.24 / 2007. Sebaliknya, bajet untuk kos insurans tidak boleh menampung
jumlah besar aset negeri . Tujuan kajian ini adalah untuk mencari pilihan terbaik
pembiayaan risiko untuk menampung kerugian aset negara daripada bencana
gempa bumi. Kaedah kajian ini berdasarkan "analisis kerentanan dan
pendedahan" melalui penilaian kerosakan. Kajian ini dijalankan di daerah Bantul
Wilayah Jogjakarta yang merupakan kawasan yang sering dilanda bencana
dengan kerosakan besar-besaran dalam gempa bumi pada tahun 2006. Hasil
kajian menunjukkan bahawa terdapat dua kumpulan bangunan awam dengan
nisbah kerosakan gempa bumi yang berbeza. Kumpulan pertama perlu memilih
insurans dan kumpulan lain adalah lebih baik menggunakan pengekalan diri
daripada insurans. Kesimpulannya, penyelesaian pembiayaan risiko akibat
gempa bumi terhadap kawasan terlibat bukan sahaja melalui insurans tetapi juga
ia boleh melalui pengekalan diri yang ditentukan dengan nisbah kerosakan

Kata kunci: Penilaian Kerosakan, Analisa Kerentanan, Analisa Pendedahan,

Pembiayaan Risiko

© 2016 Penerbit UTM Press. All rights reserved

(2016) 1-7 | www.jurnalteknologi.utm.my | eISSN 2180-3722|

2 Helvita Dorojatun & Rachmat Kurniawan/Jurnal Teknologi (Sciences & Engineering) (2016) 1–7
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Indonesia is a country which has huge region that is
5,1 million Km2 and has 254,9 million of inhabitants. In
order to serve Indonesian, Indonesian government
builds infrastructure continuously. Nowadays, state-
owned property which is scattered in 71 ministries
and Government agencies of the Republic of
Indonesia on 31 December 2015 is 1949 trillion Rupiah
[1]. The state wealth from those state owned
property is going to increase each year but the
development of total assets over time will be
accompanied with the increase of the risk [2]. The risk
of such assets of one is the risk of natural disasters.
Indonesia geography condition on the ‘Ring of
fire’ causes this country in the damage of threat of
volcanic eruptions and earthquake tectonics. The
magnitude of the damage and loss due to
earthquake disaster in Indonesia In the last ten years
is two until four billion US dollar losses for every event
[3] [4]. The number of the losses which should be
borne by the Government when disasters, initiate the
establishment of Act No. 24 of 2007 is about disaster
relief. Through this Act the old paradigm in the form
of a passive nature disaster management was
changed to disaster relief which is active [5]. Based
on those acts, the Government pursued a variety of
measures risk reduction include them risk financing
option.
The large amount of assets which needs to be
protected by Indonesian government makes them
consider the types and ways of efficient funding.
There are five rows of funding, which is taken based
on the quantity of disaster that will be solved those
are 1) reserve fund; 2) credit contingent; 3)
insurance/reinsurance; 4) insurance in the form of
securities; and, 5) foreign aid [6]. The first and second
layer is part of risk retention, while the third and fourth
layer is risk transfer.
Layers of this disaster showed that funding for
smaller disaster risk can be covered by risk retention
[6]. This subsequently motivates us to investigate Do
all Buildings on the earthquake prone area need to
be insured? The location of this research was in
Bantul district, which is a disaster-prone area in the
province of Yogyakarta. In 2006, when an
earthquake attacked Yogyakarta, it caused losses of
up to 3.1 billion dollars, Bantul are the regency with
the worst damage [7]. Peak Ground Acceleration in
Bantul regency is 0,3 – 0,4 g with the threat of
earthquakes originating from Opak Fault, which is
only 12 km from city center [8]. In this district there are
55 locations of buildings complex spread on an area
of 508 km2 [9].
State building which is used as research object is
the building of central government. The reasons in
choosing that buildings were caused by those two
factors are the buildings have standard rules of
building materials and have similar code building.
The exceptions of this research are building which is
operated by local government and strategic assets
belonging to the Indonesian armed forces and
police.
Insurance disaster in Indonesia originates from the
Ministry of Finance issued a circular letter No. SE-
1505/LK/2002, it regards the formation of the joint
efforts to cover earthquake risk through the
establishment of specialist insurance company of
natural disaster risk. The government through the
letter also initiates General Insurance Association of
Indonesia (AAUI) to create team of national
insurance company and joint venture. PT. Asuransi
Maipark as insurance special company was built on
23 December 2003 with shareholders is the whole
insurance company losses and reinsurance company
in Indonesia. Nowadays, PT. Asuransi Maipark
Indonesia has turned into a catastrophe reinsurance
company became a guideline for the determination
of the price of the disaster in Indonesia [10].
Earthquake insurance in Indonesia protects all
matters related to the occurrence of an earthquake
that is: 1) Earthquake, 2) Volcanic eruptions, 3) Fires
or explosions due to earthquakes, and 4) Tsunami
[11]. This insurance is still voluntary and it covers
damage to buildings and their contents. The plan of
Indonesian government plans to buy catastrophic
insurance products are still waiting for the existence
of regulations proponents, however, when
regulations have existed, the insurance step will be
done sooner.
In contrast with central government, some
regional governments in Indonesia have been token
earthquake insurance. It can be seen in Padang. The
government of Padang province has been token
earthquake insurance since 2007. It is part of firing
insurance. That insurance covers risk of government
buildings, and other assets. In the earthquake of
2009, they asked USD 2 million for insurance claim.
Since 2003, Yogyakarta province government has
been insuring some local government assets. In the
earthquake of 2006, that regional government got
USD 340.000 as payment. Until now, insurance for
Yogyakarta government assets is taken with limited
fund from provincial budget [4]. In the same place
the central government assets is still looking for the
most appropriate disaster financing.
The earthquake that occurred in Yogyakarta on
May 27, 2006 has the power of 6.3 MW, but the future
earthquakes are caused by Fault Opak could reach
6.8 MW power [8]. Java Island has three potential
sources of earthquake namely: 1) The shallow
earthquake along a fault plane with the magnitude
of 6.0-6.5 MW; 2) Earthquake in subduction zone with
magnitude 7.0-7.5 MW; and, 3) Earthquake with a
very big segment with magnitude >8.0 MW [12]. The
seismic activity in the area of Yogyakarta is
dominated by shallow earthquakes (depth < 60 Km)
and medium-sized earthquakes (depth 60-300 Km)
[12].
State buildings in Indonesia must be subject to
some regulations to make sure that the buildings are
intended to withstand the largest seismic threat that
is likely to occur at their location. The building code
3 Helvita Dorojatun & Rachmat Kurniawan/Jurnal Teknologi (Sciences & Engineering) (2016) 1–7
and standard, namely the regulation of the Minister
of Public Works No. 45/PRT/M year 2007, SNI 03-1726-
2012 about The planning of earthquake resistance for
Building and, SNI 03-2847-2002 about the calculation
way of concrete building. However this standard and
the existing building code refer to 2002 earthquake
map. Based on the study, this map is incompatible
with the threat of an earthquake in Bantul district [12]
[13] [14] [15]. The old earthquake map may cause
the building to be vulnerable. Although it has been
updated in 2010, it is still uneconomic and ineffective
when the existed building should customize it
because the building is an asset that is less adaptive.
Although state building construction is based on
the same standards, the building damage of an
Yogyakarta earthquake have differences. The
damage of an earthquake in Bantul is distributed
unevenly, where patterns of such damages is
controlled by fault opak, differences in the thickness
of the sediments, reliefs, and moisture content of
each layer below the surface [16]. The location of
the earthquake disaster vulnerability needs to be
identified by looking at the pattern of the
earthquake damage which has ever occurred. That
severe damage wrapped the area of Northeast-
Southwest direction [17]. This information indicates
that not all of the buildings need to be insured.
The risk financing of disaster depends on the
magnitude of the impact and frequency of disasters.
The greatest frequency of disasters and the impact of
smaller is supported with funds budgeted or
contingent funds, medium frequency with high
impact can be financed with credit light while low
frequency and large impact is financed with
insurance disaster [18]. Self-retention is better than
insurance if the risk of damage is small [19]. Disaster
risk was first formulated by United Nation Disaster
Relief Organization (UNDRO) in 1979 as the result of
three elements that is:
Disaster x Vulnerability x Elements Exposed
Through this equation can be noted that the risk
damage will increase with the magnitude of the
disaster, the magnitude of the vulnerability and the
greater number of elements exposed.
2.0 RESEARCH METHOD
The rational framework for the analysis of risk
management is done with a few steps, namely: 1)
identifying major natural disasters, 2) making the
direct economic exposure to the similarity, 3)
analyzing the costs and benefits of risk management
efforts and, 4) determining seriousness of the
Government commitment [20]. The framework in this
study is based on measures of points 1 to 3.
Identification of earthquake risk in this study was
done based on the mapping technique of
earthquake mikrozonation which has been done by
Karnawati, et al. 2008 year in Bantul. This technique
takes into account some of the significant
parameters that control the distribution and levels of
intensity of earthquake surface response those are:
1) the intensity and spread of ground amplification;
2) the spread of ground water table; and 3) the
distance to the epicenter of an earthquake.
The results of the analysis of this vulnerability are a
vulnerability index. The vulnerability index is obtained
by composing the third parameter of each level
based on their significance and are classified into 4
tiers of score The score from all three parameters are
then summed up after previously given weights
based on the most influential parameter. The intensity
and spread of ground amplification was given
greater weighting that is 2 (two) while the other
parameters of 1 (one) [see 14]. The formula used is:
∑
n
S = W i Si
i = 1-3
S is the vulnerability indek (total score), W is the
weighting and S is score based on the parameters.
The intensity and spread of ground amplification
controlled by thick sediment and heavy types. The
score on the parameters of surface amplification
refers to research conducted Karnawati, et al. That is
the zone of very high amplification (score 4), zone
high amplification (score 3), medium (score 2), and
low (score 1) [see 14]. The depth of the groundwater
is a the second significant parameter. The shallow
groundwater correlated with likuifikasi at the time of
the quake causing subsidence. Dissemination of the
groundwater table is done using groundwater table
maps compiled by Hartantyo, et al. [21]. The ground
water table is less than 5 meters was given a score
of 4, groundwater table in depth 6-10 meter score 3,
groundwater table 11-15 meter score 2, and score of
1 for groundwater table > 15 meters.
The third significant parameter that is the distance
from the epicenter of the earthquake was an
influential factor in the magnitude of the
earthquake's strength at a given location. The power
source of a large earthquake, but is approximately
that much then the perceived small shocks because
the process of spread of the earthquake during the
crossroads in general would make the earthquake
waves (amplitude) is becoming increasingly small
[23]. We drew up a map of the distance to epicenter
using peak ground acceleration line source model
because the epicenter of Bantul Earthquake is a
long plank of fault [22]. This parameter is divided into
4 levels based on the distance from the epicenter of
the trend in Sesar Opak: less than 10 km to score 4, 10
– 20 Km score 3, 21 – 30 km score 2 and while more
than 30 km score 1.
Landslide and active fault are additional threats that
are triggered by earthquakes. Based on inspection
and discussions with building user, we know that
landslides does not become a threat to state
4 Helvita Dorojatun & Rachmat Kurniawan/Jurnal Teknologi (Sciences & Engineering) (2016) 1–7

building in Bantul because aerial geomorphology. Sampling of building damage valuation was done
According to them, there is a shift in the ground as a by using a strata sampling method. This method is
manifestation of the fault which caused the damage suitable for heterogeneous samples between
to the state building. The fault is located in a zone of different strata and homogeneous between items in
10 km from Opak Fault, so it is considered that have the strata where the stratum in this paper is the
been represented by Map of Ground Motion vulnerability index. The number of sample which was
Amplification and Map of The Distance to taken is 23 from 46 building locations that was exist
Epicenter. before the earthquake in Yogyakarta 2006.

420000 430000 440000

Figure 1 Research Framework

The magnitude of the damage on each zone Remembering the damage that will be estimated
then vulnerability index is measured by calculating which will happen in 2006; then to reduce the
the ratio of damage caused by the earthquake in occurrence of asymmetry of information in this
2006 that was projected to the year 2015. The goal is research; it is done a few stages as shown below.
to determine the potential damage in the event of
catastrophic earthquakes in years of research. The Take Up Take Up Data by Acount the
value of the damage in the measure refers to the Secondary Data Site Visit Damage
definition of The Value of Rebuilding, which is the
cost to repair, replace, or rebuild property to a similar
1.Level of 1.Reconstruction 1.Building
condition [24] [25].
Damage Data Document Component
The Value of Rebuilding by New Replacement Cost
Weights Table
Method it has its advantages, namely: the lack of a (for School) [26]
2.Damage Record
subjective element, it is suitable for the assets
replaced parts and very flexible. The weakness of this 2.Reconstruction
Cost Data 3.Reconstruction 2.List Material
method is the value that is above the market value
Method Component for
[26] [19] [27]. However, despite the higher these Building
costs remain lower than the actual losses due to Construction
indirect impacts which are not counted [19]. 4.Material
(for Office) [4]

Figure 2 The Stage of Damage Valuation

5 Helvita Dorojatun & Rachmat Kurniawan/Jurnal Teknologi (Sciences & Engineering) (2016) 1–7
The early data is the level of damage and
reconstruction cost from Indonesian Regional Body
For Planning And Development {see 7]. A site visit is
needed to confirm rebuild property method and
material. The result of site visit is the basis of damage
valuation. The tools for damage valuation is a table
component for school and list material for office [29]
[30].
The steps of risk identification are followed by
making direct economic exposure to state building.
Exposure is the spatial distribution of public assets and
their values. The analysis of exposure is done by
mapping the location of state building and
valuation. State building appraisal. This step is
intended to obtain information in general about the
value of the buildings that are exposed to the risk of
earthquakes in the future. The information value of
the buildings that are exposed to is very necessary to
understand the magnitude of the likely losses
incurred when the earthquake occurred.
Building valuation is done by calculating the
value of the New replacement cost of the building of
the country. This approach separates the valuation
between the land and the building so that it is
suitable for the purpose of insurance, which requires
the separation of the insured objects with which are
not [28].
After an evaluation of the potential losses is
arranged, the next step is to choose an appropriate
mechanism to cover with loss [26]. A various
financing tool for disaster risk reduction is depend
on severity and frequency. Self-Retention can be
adopted for low severity disaster. Risk transfer
mechanism like insurance is optimal for high severity.
420000 430000
Figure 3 Earthquake Vulnerability Map of Bantul
Standard Indonesian Earthquake Insurance Policy
was set about deductibles value at 2.5 percent of
the total sum insured [11] [10]. The deductible is the
amount of earthquake loss that must be paid by the
property owner before an insurer will pay any
expenses [10]. The magnitude of deductible (2.5
percent) is the limit for the selection to take risk
financing mechanism. The building with the damage
is greater than deductible value will take insurance.
The premium calculation is done using the new
reproduction cost (NRC) rather than using the value
of the building or the NRC which has depreciated.
The use of NRC as a reference calculation is
intended so that the repair costs in case of the
earthquake incurred worth new buildings. This
consideration is based on the increase in the cost of
building in the Bantul area during the last 10 years
which is known to increase on average by 6.68
percent annually [31]
3.0 RESULT AND DISCUSION
3.1 Analysis of Vulnerability
Based on the results of compilation the three maps
we can obtain vulnerability zone. The greatest score
of vulnerability index is 16, while the smallest is an
index score of 7 and the public building is at score 14
to 7. Vulnerability of score 16 and 15 is the area
around the river and the allocation fields is
agriculture.
440000
6 Helvita Dorojatun & Rachmat Kurniawan/Jurnal Teknologi (Sciences & Engineering) (2016) 1–7
Damage ratio calculation shows that vulnerability
index 14 has 39.2% damage in simple building with
total damage on the roof and the wall of the
building. The response of an office building cannot
be measured because it is not contained in this
score. Ratio of simple building damage of
vulnerability index 13 is 32.86 – 17, 61%, while for office
buildings is 5.9 – 2.6%. There are 2 office buildings that
suffered severe damage to this vulnerability index
[12], both of these buildings were built before 1990
and using maps earthquake in 1983 [see 9].
The vulnerability index of 12 has a ratio of
damage 35.2% of simple building and there are no
office buildings at this location. The vulnerability index
of 11 which is the most extensive area is represented
by 7 samples. Sample North and South have a ratio
of 0% damage to simple buildings while the sample in
the center is 0.012 – 1.1%, but there is 1 sample with a
ratio of 11 percent damage. We need more
investigating for this local damage.
Four samples which taken in the vulnerability
Index in 10 until 7 showing no damaged of state
building. A damage valuation carried out on
samples of each zone indicate that the ratio of
damage to buildings in general has a direct
relationship is in line with the increase in the risk index.
3.2 Analysis of Exposure
The total value of all building in the area of Bantul
based on Map of Building Exposure is USD 66,54
Billion. The ratio of state building damage on
vulnerability index 14-12 that exceeds the deductible
Figure 4 Map of Buildings Exposure in Earthquake Prone Area in Bantul
value (2.5 percent), it has been an indicator of the
need for insurance measures taken.
We have limited geology information in southeast
Bantul and Two buildings are exposed In this area.
Consider the location of the building is very close to
the epicenter this building are included in
vulnerability index 14 -12. The exposure value of state
building on the vulnerability index group 14 – 12 is 83
percent of the total value.
3.3 Insurance
Based on the analysis result of vulnerability and
exposure, it can be seen that there are 83 percent of
state buildings which are needed to be covered with
insurance. The insurance premiums which should be
given as funding risk are USD 104.077 per year or
more less 17% if all buildings take insurance. The
amount of insurance premium on building state is
calculated using the rates 1.9 permil from the total
sum insured. The premium calculation is done based
on value of New Reproduction Cost (NRC) buildings.
3.4 Self Retention
Earthquake vulnerability map shows damage ratio
state building on a vulnerability index score 11 until 7
is smaller than the deductible value. The state
buildings in this vulnerability index need to prepare
self-retention if there is an earthquake. Self retention
in Indonesia can be done by government savings
form maintenance cost of building.
USD.536.769
7 Helvita Dorojatun & Rachmat Kurniawan/Jurnal Teknologi (Sciences & Engineering) (2016) 1–7
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
The results show that there are two groups of
vulnerability indices with different earthquake
damage ratio. Not all of existing public building in an
earthquake prone area must be insured. Based on
the vulnerability analysis, it can be determined which
buildings should be insured.
For earthquake damaged area in Bantul, 17
percent of buildings is not efficient if it takes
insurance option. This means that in the Bantul district
disaster financing option is a combination of disaster
insurance and self retention (government savings).
The combination of the two methods of disaster
financing will reduce the cost of insurance premium.
By considering direct relation between
vulnerability indexes with the level of the damaged
building, the government needs to have information
of disaster vulnerability in every place of the disaster
prone area. The vulnerability information in every
area is useful to count the necessity of efficient public
building insurance and it becomes a consideration
for state building plan. If in Bantul District a disaster
prone area, not all buildings are needed to be
insured, consequently, in the another district which
has smaller earthquake damaged will have more
buildings unnecessary to insure.
Acknowledgement
We would like to say thank you to:
1. Directorate General of State Asset
Management, Ministry of Finance of Republic of
Indonesia, which was given data and big
support for this research.
2. Mrs. Karnawati Dwikorita et al and Mr. Hartantyo
et al for the use of data in this research.
3. PT Asuransi Maipark Indonesia for data and
information about earthquake insurance in
Indonesia.
References
[1] Berita Media DJKN, Awal 2015, Aset Infrastruktur
Pemerintah Tembus 1949 T, retrieved November 20, 2016
from https://www.djkn.kemenkeu.go.id/.
[2] Davidson, R. A., Shah, and Haresh C. 1997. AN Urban
Earthquake Disaster Risk Index, The John A. Blume
Earthquake Engineering Center. Departemen Of Civil And
Environmental Engineering Standford University.
[3] Nugroho. S.P. Kapusdatin BNPB. Dampak Bencana
Terhadap Ekonomi Indonesia. [Online] From:
http://www.majalahglobalreview.com/ opini/8-opini/25-
dampak-bencana-terhadap-ekonomi-indonesia.html.
[Acessed on 5 September 2013].
[4] No Name. 2012. Indonesia Advancing a National Disaster
Risk Financing Strategy-Options for Consideration, Global
Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery. Washington
D.C. : The World Bank.
[5] No Name. 2007. Undang-undang No 24 tahun 2007
tentang Penanggulangan Bencana. Jakarta:
Government of The Republic of Indonesia.
[6] Ghesquiere. F. and Mahul. O. 2010. Financial Protection of
the State against Natural Disasters. Policy Research
Working Paper. Latin American and the Caribbean
Region Finance and Private Sector development
Sustainable Development Network. World Bank.
[7] No Name. 2007. Laporan Perkembangan Monitoring dan
Evaluasi kegiatan rehabilitasi dan rekontruksi Kabupaten
Bantul. Yogyakarta: Indonesian Regional Body For
Planning And Development Yogyakarta Province, Bantul
District and United Nation Development Programme.
[8] Irsyam. M. Sengara. I.W. Aldiamar. F. Widiyantoro. S.
Triyoso. W. Natawidjaja. D.H. Kertapati. E. Meilano. I.
Suhardjono. Asrurifak. M. Ridwan. M. 2010. Ringkasan Hasil
Studi Tim Revisi Peta Gempa Indonesia tahun 2010.
Bandung.
[9] No Name. 2013. Data Sistem Manajemen Akuntansi
Barang Milik Negara Satuan Kerja Pemerintah Pusat di
Yogyakarta. Yogyakarta: Directorate General of State
Asset Management.
[10] Wisnu. B., P.T. Asuransi Maipark Indonesia, Email to Helvita
Dorojatun, retrieved, 26 November 2013, 08.47 PM.
[11] No Name. 2007. Polis Standar Asuransi Gempa bumi
Indonesia. Jakarta: Asosiasi Asuransi Umum Indonesia.
[12] Elnashai. A. S. Kim. S.J.. Yun. G.J.. Sidarta. D. 2007. The
Yogyakarta Earthquake of May 27. 2006. Mid-America
Earthquake Center Report No. 07-02. Urbana –
Champaign: University of Illinois.
[13] Fathani. T.F. Adi. A.D. Pramumijoyo. S. Karnawati. D. 2008.
The Determination of Peak Ground Acceleration at Bantul
Regency, Yogyakarta Province, Indonesia. The
Yogyakarta Earthquake of May 27. 2008. Belmont: Star
Publishing Company. INC. ISBN 978-0-89863-304-7.12.
[14] Karnawati. D. Husein. S. Pramumijoyo. S. Ratdomopurbo.
A. Watanabe. K. Anderson. R. 2008. Earthquake
Microzonation and Hazard Maps of the Bantul Area,
Yogyakarta, Indonesia. The Yogyakarta Earthquake of
May 27. 2008. Belmont: Star Publishing Company. INC.
ISBN 978-0-89863-304-7.7.
[15] Kawase. H. Nakamura. S. Pramitasari. D. 2008. Strong
Motion Levels Based on Damage Survey and Site
Characteristics Based on Microtremors in the Epicentral
Area. The Yogyakarta Earthquake of May 27. 2008.
Belmont: Star Publishing Company. INC. ISBN 978-0-89863-
304-7.7.
[16] Nurwihastuti. D.W. 2013. Geomorphological Analysis On
The Earthquake Damage Pattern: A Case Study Of 2006
Earthquake In Bantul District of Yogyakarta Province. A
PhD dissertation. Yogyakarta: Universitas Gajah Mada.
[17] Sucipto, D. 2009. Local Site effect of Graben Bantul Using
Microtremor Measurement, International Conference on
Geoinformation Technology for Natural Disaster
Management and Rehabilitation, 2009, Bangkok,
Thailand. 30-31 Januari 2009.
[18] Mahul. O. and Boudreau. L. 2012. Advancing Risk
Assessment for Financial Applications. Proceedings from
the 2012 UR Forum. Cape Town, South Africa from 2-6 July
2012. 13 – 18.
[19] Hanafi. M. M. 2006. Manajemen Risiko. Yogyakarta: Unit
Penerbit dan Percetakan STIM YKPN.
[20] Andersen. T. J. 2005. Applications of Risk Financing
Techniques to Manage Economic Exposures to Natural
Hazards. Technical paper series. Washington D.C.: IADB.
[21] Hartantyo. E, Brotopuspito. S, Sismanto, dan Waluyo. 2013.
Korelasi muka air tanah dangkal dengan kejadian
liquefaction gempa Yogya Mei 2006 di sedimen volkanik-
klastik bagian selatan area Yogyakarta. Prosiding
Pertemuan Ilmiah HFI XXVIII Jateng-DIY. Solo, Indonesia. 23
Maret 2013. ISSN : 0853-0823.3.
[22] Sucipto.D. 2011. Indeks Kerentanan Seismik Berdasarkan
Mikrotremor Pada Setiap Satuan Bentuklahan di Zona
Graben Bantul Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta. A PhD
dissertation. Yogyakarta: Universitas Gajah Mada.
[23] Natawidjaja, D.H. 2008. Evaluasi Bahaya Patahan Aktif,
Tsunami dan Goncangan Gempa, Publikasi Laboratorium
Riset Bencana Alam, Geoteknologi, LIPI.
[24] No Name. 2008. The Appraisal of Real Estate. 13th Edition.
Chicago: Appraisal Institute.
[25] No Name. 2007. Standard Penilaian Indonesia. Jakarta:
Komite Penyusun SPI.
[26] Djojosoedarso. S. 2003. Prinsip-prinsip Manajemen Risiko
Edisi Revisi. Jakarta: Salemba Empat.
[27] William, C.A.Jr., Smith, M.L., and Young, P.C. 1998. Risk
Management and Insurance. 8th Edition. Singapore: Mc
Graw-Hill Book Co.
[28] Prawoto, A. 2010. Teori dan Praktek Penilaian Properti.
Yogyakarta: Badan Penerbitan Fakultas Ekonomi.
[29] No Name. 2013. Daftar Komponen Penilaian Bangunan.
Jakarta: Directorate General of State Asset Management.
[30] No Name. 2010. Pedoman Teknis Bangunan Sekolah
Tahan Gempa. Jakarta: Ministry of National Education of
Republic of Indonesia.
[31] No name. 2014. Consumer price indexs for construction
goods and services in Bantul 2006 – 2014. Bantul:
Indonesia Bureau of Statistics.