See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226829108

Lahar hazard micro-zonation and risk

assessment in Yogyakarta city, Indonesia
Article in GeoJournal January 1999
DOI: 10.1023/A:1007035612681

CITATIONS

READS

21

151

1 author:
Franck Lavigne
Universit de Paris 1 Panthon-Sorbonne
174 PUBLICATIONS 1,811 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Franck Lavigne on 28 January 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.

GeoJournal 49: 173183, 1999.

2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

173

Lahar hazard micro-zonation and risk assessment in Yogyakarta city, Indonesia

Franck Lavigne
Universite Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne, Institut de Geographie, 191 rue St.-Jacques, 75005 Paris, France and Laboratoire
de Geographie Physique, CNRS URA 141, 1 place Aristide Briand, 92190 Meudon, France, e-mail: lavigne@univ-paris1.fr)
Received 18 January 1999; accepted in revised form 6 March 1999

Key words: hazard-zone mapping, Indonesia, Java, lahar, Merapi, risk assessment, vulnerability, Yogyakarta

Abstract
Yogyakarta urban area (500,000 inhab.) is located in Central Java on the fluvio-volcanic plain beside Merapi volcano, one
of the most active of the world. Since the last eruption of Merapi in November 1994, the Code river, which goes across
this city, is particularly threatened by lahars (volcanic debris flows). Until now, no accurate hazard map exists and no risk
assessment has been done. Therefore, we drew a detailed hazard map (1/2,000 scale), based on morphometric surveys of the
Code channel and on four scenarios of discharge. An additional risk assessment revealed that about 13,000 people live at
risk along this river, and that the approximate value of likely loss is US $ 52 millions. However, the risk level varies between
the urban suburbs.

Introduction

to appreciate the social and cultural factors which reduce or

amplify the effects of a natural phenomenon (Drabek, 1986;
Thouret and DErcole, 1996).

Terminology
The term lahar, of Javanese origin, is a rapidly flowing mixture of rock debris and water (other than normal streamflow)
from a volcano (Smith and Fritz, 1989). The flow behaviour
exhibited by lahars may be complex, and includes a debris
flow phase, where sediment concentration is in excess of
60% by volume. Additionally, there are also precursor and
waning stage hyperconcentrated-streamflow phases, where
sediment concentration ranges from 20 to 60% by volume
(Beverage and Culbertson, 1964).
According to the terminology adopted by United Nations
Disaster Relief Organization (UNDRO), a natural hazard
is the probability of occurrence, within a specific period
of time in a given area, of a potentially damaging natural
phenomenon. Hazard appraisal is obtained by the following
equation:
Hazard = extension frequency
magnitude of the events.
The risk is the expected number of lives lost, persons
injured, damage to property and disruption of economic activity due to a natural phenomenon. It can be defined as the
product of hazard by vulnerability (Slaymaker, 1996; Blaikie
et al., 1997), whereas some authors add the elements at
risk (UNDRO, 1979) or georesources (Nossin and Javelosa,
1996) as a third component.
Vulnerability is a complex concept, commonly appreciated from a quantitative approach. It is defined as the degree
of loss to a given element at risk, expressed on a scale from 0
(no damage) to 1 (total loss) (UNDRO, 1979; Smith, 1992).
However, a new approach, developed more recently, aims

Yogyakarta city
Yogyakarta urban area is located on the highly populated,
(>1000/km2), fluvio-volcanic plain beside Merapi volcano
(2961 m) in Central Java (Figure 1). The city is the political,
economic, social and cultural center of the special Province
of Yogyakarta. For 50 years, this city of 500,000 inhabitants has attracted people from the surrounding overcrowded
rural areas. In order to preserve the productive tilled lands
and irrigation networks around the city, the government has
attempted to control the urban growth. The guidelines in
the present master plan (19852005), limit northern extension of the city between Magelang street and Gadjahwong
river, and western and southern extension is allowed only
along five main roads, leading to Wates, Godean, Bantul,
Parangtritis and Imogiri (Figure 2). However for the last 20
years, thousands of migrants have settled within areas prone
to floods and lahars along the Code river. Thus, vulnerability
has increased greatly in Yogyakarta.
Lahars at Mt Merapi
Lahar generation is complex, resulting from a combination
of volcanic and climatic processes. At Mt Merapi, lahar is
triggered by two main processes (Lavigne et al., 1998b):
(1) eruption-induced lahars or primary lahars from the admixing of pyroclastic flows, or less frequently, from debris
avalanches, with running water; (2) rain-triggered lahars or
secondary lahars from heavy rainfall upon recently erupted
volcaniclastics, usually during the rainy season (from November to April). Rain-triggered lahars can be occasionnaly

174

Figure 1. Sketch map of the basic geographic context and geological features of Merapi volcano and the Yogyakarta area (after Thouret et al., 2000).

syn-eruptive, e.g., lahars along 9 rivers between Pabelan

River and Woro River on 19 December 1930 and on 7-8
January 1969 (Figure 1). Average frequency of such events
is one every 30 years, whereas frequency of post-eruptive
lahars is almost one or two years in some channels of Merapi (Lavigne et al., 2000a). This frequency depends upon
rainfall characteristics and on the total volume and grain
size distribution of fresh pyroclastic deposits in source areas.
Rain lahars occur periodically for about 4 years following

small-to medium-scale eruptions (Jitousono et al., 1995;

Shimokawa et al., 1995).
According to the Volcanological Survey of Indonesia
(VSI), lahars are generated from rainfall exceeding 40 mm
in 2 h. In fact, thresholds vary widely over space (elevation
above sea level, exposure of the volcano flank), time, and the
type of the rainfall (SW monsoon rain or convection rain)
concerned (Lavigne et al., 2000b).
Lahars at Merapi are predominantly brief events related
to rainfalls that commonly last 1 or 2 hours. The lahars are

175

Figure 2. Settlement density of the Yogyakarta Urban Area (after Sabari Yunus, 1991, modified).

usually characterized by only 1 or 2 main pulses, which may

result from the variation of intensity during a storm, variable
distribution of rainfall over the drainage basin, inherent flow
instability or natural self-damming and rapid release.
Lahar velocity and discharge can be high. A maximum
of 15 m/s has been measured in 1995 in Boyong river at
7 km from the summit, where the channel gradient was 4.1
(Lavigne et al., 2000a). Recorded peak discharges reached
2,000 m3 /s in 1985 (Putih River) and peak discharge per unit
drainage area is 131 m3 /s/km2 (VSTC, 1990).
Downstream dilution of Merapi lahars is usually very
fast. Within a few kilometers, lahars transform from debris
flow to hyperconcentrated streamflow and then to normal
streamflow. Since the end-1970s, this dilution has become
faster downstream from Sabo-dam structures (e.g., check
dams, sand-pockets), which slow down the lahars. These
transition flows can go much further than the coarse debris flows and easily reach Yogyakarta city, only thirty
kilometers downstream from the crater of Merapi volcano
(Figure 1).

Rain-generated lahars can cause a serious hazard at any

time during the monsoon season (Table 1). In the Krasak
River, 9 people were killed by rain lahars on 22 October 1974, and 29 more on 25 November 1976. This last
disaster was influenced by the large volume of the lahar
(1.2 106 m3 ) and the high level of rainfall (220 mm in
8 h at Ngepos) concerned.

Previous lahar hazard zonation and goals of the study

The VSI hazard map of Merapi (Figure 3) identifies three
hazard zones, including a lahar zone termed the second
danger zone (Pardyanto et al., 1978). This hazard map
has 3 main flaws. First, although valleys most prone to lahars are identified, the scale of the map (1/100,000) is not
large enough to delimit accurately lahar inundation in specific channels. Second, valleys on the eastern and northern
slopes of the volcano, which were not affected by historical
lahars, are not included in the lahar hazard zone even though

176
Table 1. Lahar-related disasters at Merapi volcano. At least 35 lahar events caused damage on the slopes
of Merapi since the early 1900s. 76 people died and thousand of houses were destroyed, as well as tens of
bridges
Lahar
occurrence

Valley

Casualties

Damages of Property

28 Dec. 1822a
25 Dec. 1832 a
Nov. 1846
5 Oct. 1888
12 Oct. 1920a
1920 Dec. 1930a

Se, Pa, Bl, La, Wo

Bl
Wo
Tr, Se
Se, Bl, Ba
Se, Pa
Bl
La, Pu
Bo, Ku, Wo

about 100
32

35

Ge
West and SW
West and SW
West and SW
Ba
Se, Pa, La, Bl, Ba
Ba
Se, Bl, Ba
Se, pa
Bl, Pu
Be, Kr
Bo, Co
Ku
Ge
Wo
Be
Pu, oth
Pu
Bl
Se, Pu, Be, Kr
Pu
Be, Kr
Be
Be
S
Pu, Be, Kr, Bo, Ku
Pu, Be, Kr, Bo, Ku
Kr
Kr
K. Krasak
Pu, Be, Kr
Pu
Be
Kr
Be
Be
Be
Bo
Bo

4 villages
?
50 ha TL
1 village
1 village
1 bridge, 70 ha ricefield
1 bridge, TL
irrigation system
water supply system of
Kaliurang and Yogyakarta
277 ha coffee plantation
TL, 1 bridge
TL
TL
1 bridge
TL
1 village, 2 bridges
5 villages, 95 houses, 1 bridge
2 villages, 38 houses, 25 ha TL
4 villages, 15 houses, 25 ha TL, 3 bridges
6 villages, 239 houses, 103 ha TL, 2 bridges
2 villages, 51 ha TL, 1 bridge
2 villages, 1 bridge
9 villages, 390 houses, > 270 ha TL, 2 bridges
6 villages,1 bridge
12 houses
tens of houses, 2 bridges
15 houses, 1 bridge
3 houses
tens of houses
39 houses
houses, 1 road
3 houses
9 houses
6 houses
several houses
43 houses, several shops, 25 ha TL
14 houses
102 houses
12 houses
5 villages, 20 houses, 30 ha TL, 1 bridge
3 villages, 2.3 ha TL, 2 bridges
17 houses,17 ha TL
306 houses, 4 buildings, 330 ha TL, 3 bridges
2 trucks
3 trucks
8 trucks
1 bridge
14 trucks

2 Jan. 1931
11 Jan. 1931
14 Jan. 1931
27 Apr. 1931
17 Feb. 1932
7 Apr. 1932
2728 Nov. 1961a

78 Jan. 1969a

19 Jan. 1969
20 Jan. 1969
22 Jan. 1969
23 Jan. 1969
26 Feb. 1969
5 Apr. 1969
21 Nov. 1969
22 Sep. 1973
26 Jan. 1974
22 Oct. 1974
21 Nov. 1974
22 Nov. 1974
6 Dec. 1974
5 Mar. 1975
22 Mar. 1975
4 Oct. 1975
25 Nov. 1976
11 Dec. 1994
2 Feb. 1995
20 May 1995
3 Mar. 1995
5 Dec. 1996

29

a Syn-eruptive lahar.

TL: Tilled land; KR: Kedaulatan Rakyat (local newspaper); MVO: Merapi Volcano Observatory; Se: Senowo;
Tr: Trising; Pa: Pabelan; La: Lamat; Bl: Blongkeng; Pu: Putih; Ba: Batang; Be: Bebeng; Kr: Krasak; Bo:
Boyong; Co: Code; ku: Kuning; Ge: Gendol; Wo: Woro; oth: others;

177

Figure 3. Volcanic hazard map of Merapi (VSI, 1995) showing the volcanic
hazard-zones delineated by Pardyanto et al. (1978) at 1/100,000 scale. On
this map, the lahar hazards correspond to the second danger zone, which
covers an area of 99.6 km2 .

older lahar deposits commonly outcrop along the channels

on these slopes. Third, the 1978 map is nearly 20 years
old, and so the hazard map does not account for the present
morphology of the channels, or for the presence of the Sabo
structures.
JICA (1980) suggests that the maximum extent of the
lahar-prone areas for the worst case of a cataclysmic eruption is about 290 km2, and that for a medium- or large-scale
eruption, the probable lahar-related hazard area without
Sabo facilities is 135 km2 . In the latter case, the main
drainage channels affected are the Woro (45 km2), and the
western valleys of Krasak, Batang, and Putih (15 to 20 km2
each). Topographical analyses, numerical simulations and
distribution of historical lahar deposits suggest that the lahar
inundation areas proposed by JICA is more accurate than the
second danger zone of the VSI map. The JICA map is useful
for long-range lahar hazard assessment, although, due to its
small scale (1/250,000), of no use for immediate warning.
The hazard map of Maruyama et al. (1980) (1/25,000
scale), is based on an analysis of the 1975 and 1976 lahar
disasters, and on air-photo interpretation of landforms. This
map categorizes 5 qualitative hazard classes based on the
height of the channel bank. A lahar or flood hazard is considered to be very high when the bank height ranges 0 to
5 m, high when 5 to 10 m, intermediate when 10 to 20 m,
low when 20 to 30 m, and very low when <30 m. Obviously, as this method does not take into account hydrological
characteristics, such as the flow discharge, it only provides

a map which marks indefinitly the hazardous zones around

Merapi volcano.
In the same study, the authors investigated hazard zonation for lahar using another method based on computer
simulation. This simulation model uses several factors, such
as cross-section, slope of the river course and hydraulic
parameters, and furthermore, has been tested along two
channels: Putih and Bebeng/Krasak. Although this method
is much better than the former one and provides interesting results, it can still be criticised, predominantly because
it is based entirely on photogrametrical techniques and
theoretical models, without any kind of field work.
Until now, no accurate hazard map exists for lahar and
flooding around Merapi volcano, and especially for Yogyakarta city. The scales of the previous maps are too small
to delimit precisely the lahar-related hazards zones. Therefore, the actual warning system is based only on assumptions
and upon knowledge of past events. Furthermore, any study
of vulnerability and risk has never been undertaken within
Yogyakartas hazardous areas.
On the 22 November 1994, a part of the Merapi summit
lava dome collapsed, generating dozens of nues ardentes.
As a consequence of these events, a complex assemblage of
channelled and veneer block-and-ash pyroclastic flows were
initiated on the southern flank (Bourdier and Abdurachman,
2000). In contrast to the prior eruptions of this century
which produced deposits towards the west and southwest,
sediment-delivery systems capable of generating lahars were
formed in the Boyong/Code river. The catchment area of
2
the river is 76 km , stream length 37 km, mean channel
gradient 8%, and volume of material deposited by the 1994
pyroclastic flows is estimated at 2.5 106 m3 , cutting across
Yogyakarta.
Thus, the goals of our study were to produce a detailed
hazard map at 1/2,000 for Yogyakarta city coupled with
a vulnerability appraisal to assess social lives, economic
estates, and urban activities in jeopardy. This assessment
aimed to delineate hazardous areas which are prone to risk.
This study was undertaken in summer 1995, six months after the 22 November (1994) eruption of Merapi volcano. It
was funded by the French Embassy in Indonesia (Jakarta),
in cooperation with the staff of the Volcanological Survey of Indonesia (VSI, Bandung) and the Merapi Volcano
Observatory (MVO, Yogyakarta).

Methods
Combined geomorphological investigation, lahar flow simulation and enquiries were used to delineate areas at risk in
Yogyakarta.
Micro-zonation of lahar and flooding hazards
The mapping of potential disaster areas (Figure 4) was
carried out in four stages.
The first stage was to research past cases of sediment
movement, in order to assess the location, frequency and
scale of the past events. According to scientific reports and

178

Figure 4. Method for micro-zonation of lahar and flooding.

newspaper articles, lahars occurred only once in the Code

river between 1930 and 1994, on 8 January, 1969. Its deposits, which covered an area of 51 ha, were drawn a few
month after the event on a 1/10,000 scale topographic map
(Siswowidjojo, 1971).
The second stage of the study consisted of determining
the conditions for computer simulation in measuring the
channels geometry and assessing hydraulic conditions for
flooding or lahar overflow occurrence. To measure the crosssections of the Boyong-Code system, we used a set of 55
topographic maps at 1/2,000 scale (1 m interval contour),
drawn by the Mt Merapi Project in 1984. Field checking
confirmed the assumption that no significant morphological
changes occurred for the last 10 years in the river bed. Therefore, 282 profiles were drawn along this river between 457 m
and 36 m elevation, including several in Yogyakarta city. For
each cross-section, we computed its elevation, distance from
crater and from the previous section, and mean gradient.
Then, we assumed 5 m/s mean velocity as a rule, based
on visual observations of lahar, during the 1994-1995 rainy
season and also on past recorded data from the slopes of
Merapi volcano. However, we weighted this mean velocity,
using four parameters: Mannings coefficient (used only for
flood hazard), Froude number, degree of meandering and
Sabo dams. For each coefficient, we increased or reduced the
assumed velocity by 1 or 2 m/s (Table 2). The inital assumed
velocity has been reduced under conditions: high roughness
coefficient n > 1.5, weak gravitational effects F < 1 (flow
in a subcritical state), and severe degree of meandering (ratio
of the meander length to the straight length of the channel
greater than 1.5) as defined by Chow (1959). Sabo dams,
when already filled by lahar deposits (typically 105 m3 of
sediment), also reduce lahar and streamflow velocity when
the height of the fall is greater than 2 m, corresponding to
the actual state of former dams built before the 1980s.
The third stage was the calculation of maximum flow discharge before flowing over the banks in a particular section,

as the product of the weighted velocity and the cross-section

area. The capacity of each section to pass the total flow
volume was computed to determine the location of probable
overflow points for a given discharge. No hydraulical model
for lahar is available for Merapi, because (1) lahars are too
unsteady and transient, due to sediment concentration variations during the flows (Lavigne, 1998) and (2) there is no
direct correlation between hourly rainfall intensity, a parameter which is often used for flood simulation, and lahar
discharge at Merapi (Lavigne et al., 2000b). Thus, discharge
values used for lahar flow and flood simulation is based
on hydrological scenarios: four discharge categories corresponding to four lahar-prone areas (area 1 = 200 m3 /s,
area 2 = 200300 m3 /s, area 3 = 300500 m3 /s, area 4 =
500700 m3 /s) help to delineate the micro-zonation.
The last stage of the method was to carry out a detailed
geomorphological study of each cross-section, so as (1) to
assess possible areas of material deposition during the lahar
flow and possibility of riverbed rising, and (2) to map the
flow course in case of overflow. Overflow discharge between
two sections gives the estimated scale of the endangered
area.
Vulnerability assessment within hazardous areas
Social lives, economic estates and activities which are in
jeopardy in Yogyakarta city were assessed, using a set of
SPOT orthoimage (1987) at 1/2,000 scale and field enquiries
(Figure 5) in 30 suburbs along the Code river.
Survey of the elements at risk, including people, housing,
public buildings (e.g., mosques, schools), infrastructures and
tilled land (Table 3), gave an estimation of the approximate
value of likely loss for each scenario. However, indirect loss
induced by the disruption of economic activities or cost of
reconstruction was not assessed.
Additional survey information included technical or
functional factors which render people more or less vulnera-

179
Table 2. Parameters and weighting procedure for hydraulical modelling of flood and lahar hazard.
Assumed
velocity
(m/s)

Level-headedness
value of velocity
(m/s)

Mannings
coefficienta
(n)

Froude
numberb
(F)

Degree of
meandering

Brake slope
due to a Sabo dam
(m)

+2
+1
0
1
2

< 0.5
0.51
11.5
1,52
>2

>2
1,52
11.5
0.51
< 0.5

straight
sinuosity
meandering

<2 m
24 m
>4m

a Mannings n or roughness coefficient is a function of the mean velocity V, the riverbed gradient
(S) and the hydraulic radius R, which characterize the channel morphology (R = A/P where A is
the cross-section area and P is the wetted perimeter).
b Froude number correlates the mean velocity (V) with the hydraulic depth (D) and the gravity
acceleration g.

Figure 5. Flowchart of vulnerability assessment study within lahar-related hazard zones.

Figure 6. Aerial photograph of the Code river in Yogyakarta city. Settlements in the central suburbs (in the foreground) cover 60% of the area and the
population density is about 8,000/km2 (Photo courtesy: JICA).

Figure 7. Orthoimage (A) and sketch map (B) of the Suryatmajan suburb in Yogyakarta city, showing the comprehensive hazard microzonation for lahar and flood, evacuation roads and refuges buildings.

180

181
Table 3. Vulnerability assessment along the Code river, including Yogyakarta city
Level of hazard

Lahar maximum discharge (m3 /s)

< 200

200300

300500

500700

Area (ha)

38

144

674

Threatened villages

12

23

30

PHYSICAL
VULNERABILITY
OF PEOPLE

Population 1995 (people)

Growth rate 19901995 (%)
Density (people/km2 )a

12,828
10.7
5685

TECHNICAL
VULNERABILITY

Houses

stone
wood
bamboo
Total

3110
55
40
3205

Public buildings

Schools
Mosques
Prayer houses

27
23
19

Infrastructure
equipment

stores
market
warehouses
asphalt roads
bridges

65
4
59
23
28

Tilled land (ha)

ricefields
dry fields
Total

87
0.5
87.5

ECONOMIC
VULNERABILITY

Approximate value of likely lossb

(US $ millions)

52

a Population density of the whole threatened villages, not especially within the lahar-prone
areas
b Based on the average value per unit of each element at risk

ble, e.g., construction quality of houses, local disaster relief

organizations, and specific countermeasures for civil defense
(observation posts, evacuation roads, hospitals, and first aid
stations).

Results
Combined geomorphological investigation and lahar flow
simulation appear to be a good way to accurately delineate
hazardous zones, and to produce a detailed hazard map at
1/2,000 in highly populated areas as Yogyakarta city.
Along the Code river, 144 ha are prone to lahar or flood
hazard within area 3 (300500 m3 /s), and 674 ha are threatened within area 4 (500700 m3 /s). About 13,000 people
live at risk along the river, where population density exceeds
5,600/km2. Population growth is 2% a year, partly due to
urban migration from the Merapi countryside. The approximate value of likely loss for the upper level of hazard is
52 106 US $, mainly due to the high density of houses
(Table 3).
The first overflow can occur in the southern suburbs of
Yogyakarta at 90 m elevation. In this area, about 20% of
the land has been built upon. Further upstream, where the
Code river is 15 m deep, lahar simulation did not reveal any

overflow point. However, more than 60% of the lahar and

flooding prone areas have been built upon (Figure 6).
Three types of suburbs were identified, based on four
parameters: level of hazard, population density, properties
at risk, countermeasures for civil defense: (1) Suburbs at
high risk, located in the center of the city, are threatened by
small-scale floods or lahars (200300 m3 /s), and are very
vulnerable. Population density is very high (43,000/km2
at Prawirodirjan; 15,000/km2 at Ngupasan) and population
growth ranged between 2 and 3% per year from 1990 to
1995. In these suburbs, countermeasures for civil defense
are absent or limited. (2) Suburbs at medium risk, such as
Gowongan or Suryatmajan, in the center of the city also, are
as densely populated as in the previous case (23,000/km2
and 16,000/km2, respectively). However, these areas are
prone to bigger lahars and some countermeasures exist to
reduce the vulnerability of the people: a warning system is
based upon 4 or 5 observation posts per suburb, and shelter and evacuation roads are well known by the residents
(Figure 7). (3) Risk is low in the northern suburbs, such as
Cokrodiningratan, Terban or Kota Baru, where hazardous
areas are restricted to a few meters from the river. Population density is less (9,000/km2) and the warning system
as efficient as in the previous cases. The southern suburbs

182
(e.g., Keparakan, Wirogunan) are also at low risk, because
the population density is much less than further upstream.

comprehensive hazard and risk maps at 1/2000 scale, which

are available at the Merapi Volcano Observatory, can be used
by civil authorities for emergency planning and future urban
planning.

Discussion
An accurate method to assess lahar and flood hazard and risk
within urban area is micro-zonation (Thouret and Laforge,
1994), based on morphometric investigations and scenarios
of discharge. Construction of a range of scenarios is more
accurate than hydraulical modelling because of the great
variations of some parameters during the lahar flows (e.g.,
sediment concentration).
A great advantage of the micro-zonation method is that
it provides detailed hazard maps, which can be directly used
by scientists and decision makers (local and regional authorities). The maps are also clearly understandable by the public,
because the 1/2,000 scale allows people to see their own
houses and shuts, and thereby increases their risk perception.
The micro-zonation method have several limits. (1) The
scenarios were based on the available database for the
Code river, which provides data only on small-scale lahar events (Q < 700 m3 /s). However, large-scale events
(>2,000 m3 /s), have already occurred in some neighborough
valleys (e.g., Krasak river en 1976, Putih river in 1985). (2)
The flow simulations we used were based on assumptions
open to criticism, e.g., assuming initial flow velocity as constant before the weighting procedure. (3) Risk appraisal is
incomplete, because it does not include social and sociocultural factors of vulnerabiliy: e.g., social origin and schooling
level of the residents and their knowledge and consciousness
of the risk. Therefore, peoples behaviour before, during and
after an emergency is still unforeseeable.

Conclusion
A large number of big cities are growing around active
volcanoes resulting in large populations being exposed to
volcanic hazards. Located 25 km south of Mount Merapi,
one of the most active volcanoes of the world, Yogyakarta
city (> 500,000 people) is one such centre at risk.
Four factors indicate progressively increasing risk for
this city. (1) The summit dome of Merapi has continuously
grown since 1984 to a volume estimated at 11 106 m3
(VSI, 1995). (2) Southwest- and northeast-trending fractures
render the upper south flank potentially unstable, which
could result in debris avalanche toward the Boyong river.
(3) Pyroclastic flow deposits emplaced during and after the
1994 dome-collapse provides large source material for lahars, which are actually flowing towards the Boyong/Code
river. (4) The growth rate of the population at risk in Yogyakarta is as much as 2% per year, and properties likely to
be damaged are also increasing in acreage.
Therefore, we undertook a micro-zonation for lahar
and flood hazards, coupled with a vulnerability assessment
within the hazardous areas. This study has shown that about
13,000 people live at risk in Yogyakarta, and that the approximate value of likely loss is US $ 52 million. The

Acknowledgements
I am indebted to the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
the French Embassy in Jakarta for financial support. I am
also grateful for the cooperation and help extended to us
by VSI and MVO, and particularly K. Sukhyar, Mas Atje
Purbawinata and R. Bacharudin. I also thank the staff of
Sabo Technical Center (STC) for their help and kindness.
The advice and help of J.-C. Thouret, A. Gupta, and J.-P.
Bravard are acknowledged.

References
Beverage J.P. and Culbertson J.K., 1964: Hyperconcentrations of suspended
sediment. Journal of the Hydraulics Division, America Society of Civil
Engineering 90: HY6: 117126.
Blaikie P., Cannon T., Davis I. and Wisner B., 1997: At Risk: Peoples
Vulnerability and Disasters. Routledge, London.
Bourdier J.-L. and Abdurachman E.K., 2000: Observations of the distribution and field characteristics of the 22 November 1994 pyroclastic-flow
deposits, Merapi volcano. In: Voight B. (ed.), Merapi Volcano, Java.
Journal of Volcanological and Geothermal Research (in press).
Chow V.T., 1959: Open-Channel Hydraulics. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
Drabek T.E., 1986: Human Response to Disaster: an Inventory of Sociological Findings. Springer-Verlag, New York.
J.I.C.A, (Japan International Cooperation Agency), 1980: Master Plan
for Land Conservation and Volcanic Debris Control in the Area of Mt
Merapi. Jakarta.
Jitousono T., Shimokawa E., Tsuchiya S., Haryanto and Djamal H., 1995:
Debris flow following the 1984 eruption with pyroclastic flows in
Merapi volcano, Indonesia. Proceedings Workshop on Erosion Control
through Volcanic Hydrological Approach (WECVHA), January 1011.
Sabo Technical Center, Yogyakarta: 131149.
Lavigne F., 1998: Les lahars du volcan Merapi, Java Central, Indonsie:
dclenchement, budget sdimentaire, dynamique et zonage des risques
associs (Lahars of Merapi volcano: initiation, sediment budget, dynamics, and related risk zonation). Thse de Doctorat (PhD Diss.), Universit
Blaise Pascal, Clermont-Ferrand.
Lavigne F., Thouret J.C., Voight B., Suwa H. and Sumaryono A., 2000a:
Lahar at Merapi volcano: an overview. In: Voight B. (ed.), Merapi Volcano, Central Java. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research
(in press).
Lavigne F., Thouret J.C., Suwa H., Voight B., Young K., Lahusen R., Marso
J., Sumaryono A., Dejean M., Sayudi D.S. et Moch, 2000b: Instrumental
lahar monitoring at Merapi volcano, Central Java, Indonesia. In: Voight
B. (ed.), Merapi Volcano, Central Java. Journal of Volcanology and
Geothermal Research (in press).
Maruyama Y., Ikeda K., Higurashi M. and Kitani Y., 1980: Applied study
of geomorphological land classification on debris control planning in the
area of Mt Merapi in central Java, Indonesia. Second poster session, 141,
10th International Conference of the International Cooperation Agency,
Tokyo.
Nossin J.J. and R.S. Javelosa, 1996: Geomorphic Risk Zonation related
to June 1991 eruptions of Mt Pinatubo, Luzon, Philippines. In: O.
Slaymaker (ed.), Geomorphic Hazards. J. Wiley and Sons, New York,
pp. 6995.
Pardyanto L., Reksowigoro L.D., Mitromartono F.X.S., Hardjowarsito S.
and Kusumadinata, 1978 (reed. 1982): Volcanic Hazard Map, Merapi
Volcano, Central Java (1/100,000). Geological Survey of Indonesia,
Bandung, II, p. 14.

183
Sabari Yunus H., 1991: The evolving urban planning. The case of the city
of Yogyakarta. The Indonesian Journal of Geography, 21 (61): 114.
Shimokawa E., Jitousono T., Tsuchiya S., Djamal H. and Haryanto 1995.
Sediment yield from the 1984 pyroclastic flow deposits covered hillslopes in Merapi volcano, Indonesia. Proceedings Workshop on Erosion
Control through Volcanic Hydrological Approach (WECVHA), January
1011, Sabo Tecnical Center, Yogyakarta, pp. 150162.
Siswowidjojo S., 1971: Laporan Letusan G. Merapi 78 Januari 1969.
Dinas Volkanologi, Seksi Pengawasan Gunungapi, Bandung.
Slaymaker O., 1996: Introduction to geomorphic hazards. In: Slaymaker O.
(ed.), Geomorphic Hazards. Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 17.
Smith K., 1992: Environmental Hazards: Assessing Risk and Reducing
Disaster. Routledge, London.
Smith G.A., and Fritz W.J., 1989: Penrose Conference report: Volcanic
influences on terrestrial sedimentation. Geology 17: 376.
Thouret J.-C. and DErcole R., 1996: Vulnrabilit et risques naturels en
milieu urbain: effets, facteurs et rponses sociales. Cahiers des Sciences
Humaines 32 (2): 407422.

View publication stats

Thouret J.-C and Laforge C., 1994: Hazard appraisal and hazard-zone mapping of flooding and debris flowage in the Rio Combeima valley and
Ibagu city, Tolima department, Colombia. Geojournal 34 (4): 407413.
Thouret J.-C., Lavigne F., Kelfoun K. and Bronto S., 2000: Toward a
revised hazard assessment at Merapi volcano, Central Java. In: Voight
B. (ed.), Merapi Volcano, Central Java. Journal of Volcanological and
Geothermal Research (in press).
UNDRO (United Nation Disaster Relief Organization), 1979: Prvention
et attnuation des catastrophes. Aspects conomiques, Vol. 7. UNDRO,
Genve.
VSI (Volcanological Survey of Indonesia), 1995: A guide Book for Merapi
Volcano. Bandung.
VSTC (Volcanic Sabo Technical Center), 1990: Supporting Report of Technical Development Activities. 6: Mudflows Forecasting and Warning
System, Yogyakarta.