THE FARMER COMMUNITY BEHAVIOR IN THE FACE OF THE

FLOOD IN THE SIDOBUNDER VILLAGE SUBDISTRICT PURING OF

KEBUMEN REGENCY
Meita Eka Fitrianingrum, Dina Ruslanjari, Elva Yunita
Master of Disaster Management
The Graduate School of Universitas Gadjah Mada
Email: meita.ef@gmail.com; dienarus@ugm.ac.id; elva1achmad@yahoo.com

Abstract
Flooding in the agricultural sector can have an impact on the life of the community
especially as horseshoe farmers. The behavior of the community in the form of adaptation
strategy is needed in order to survive in disaster-prone areas flood. Sidobunder Villages
located in Puring Sub-district of Kebumen Regency is a regular flood disaster, while the
majority of the community works as farmers. This research aims to analyze the behavior of
the farmers in the Sidobunder village in dealing with the flood based on the region high
cartilage and Moderate cartilage.
The method used in this research using the observation, in-depth interview and
questionnaire. The method of observation and Indepth Interview used to know the behavior of
the community in an effort to adapt to the flood disaster in their agricultural land. The results
obtained 6 behavior forms in the field of agriculture which is then used as the questions in the
questionnaire, i.e. have production results in addition rice/harvest crops; have side
occupation; change with the type of rice plants other plants; farms processed again after the
flood; do rotation crops; using fertilizer and the giving of that right. Classification of the end
of the behavior of the community using high category (> 5 forms of adaptation), moderate (3-
4 form adaptation), and low ( 2 forms of adaptation). The results of this research showed
that the behavior of the community including in the moderate category and adaptation
strategy in the face of the flood with how to have the results of the production of other than
the rice/crops, using fertilizer and the giving of the right and agricultural land mingled back
after the flood. Factors that affect the behavior of the farmers are the income and agricultural
extension. There is a significant difference between the farmer community behavior in the
region and high cartilage and moderate cartilage is caused by the farmer community in high
cartilage areas have social and economic characteristics that better.

Key Words: the community behavior, the farmer community, Adaptation Strategy, Flood
Disaster
INTRODUCTION
The Flood in the Sidobunder village
Sidobunder village in the Puring sub-district of Kebumen Regency is one of the flood
disaster areas and is the epic most severe when flood occurence 2001 (Satlak PB,
2001; http://www.suaramerdeka.com). Spills the flood resulted in 515 houses underwater, as
many as 2048 soul villagers of Sidobunder evacuated, and damage to the agricultural land
area of 255 hectares (Profile Destana, 2013: 55). Flood occurence which also makes the
society in the Sidobunder village losses which happens 2013. The floods caused 255 hectares
of rice fields that have been planted with paddy crop failure. The Sidobunder villagers has
done 4 times crops rice but only 1 times the harvest of the season. Flood occurence that
occurred in the Sidobunder village not only threatens the life, but also threaten the livelihood
of the community. This is because the majority of the people in the Sidobunder village work
as farmers. Genesis flood always struck in agricultural areas that cause the community losses
caused in one planting season must perform 3-4 times garden rice. In addition to add the cost
of the seed or rice seeds and hire workers, harvest season also will be delayed. This problem
should not happen when the Sidobunder villagers have knowledge about the Flood and how
the steps that needs to be done in the flood disaster mitigation efforts. Based on these
problems, then there is a need to research on the behavior of the farmers in the Sidobunder
village in the face of a flood disaster and what factors influence. This can later be used to
draw up a strategy especially on nonstructural policy in improving community-based flood
disaster management.

The Behavior
Human behavior is the result of all kinds of experience and human interaction with the
environment is realized in the form of knowledge, attitudes and actions. Process that
constituted by the knowledge of awareness and positive attitude, then such behavior will be
happy. Rather when such behavior is not backed by the knowledge and awareness and will
not last long (Notoatmodjo, 2003: 121). Skinner (1938) in Notoadmodjo (2003: 114) stated
that the behavior is the response or reactions against the stimulus package (stimuli from
outside).
Carl Rogers in O'Neill (2008: 49) mentioned in the behavior theory there are three basic
behaviors, namely:
1. Konatif behavior is behavior that is implied a purpose, but not consciously such an aim;
2. Konatif Volisional behavior is behavior that is realized in the sense that individuals
really have no purpose in his mind;
3. The Normative behavior is behavior that is directed by implied or clearly by certain
ideas (concepts of abstract or point of view) related with what is generally considered
good or he wills.
Other theory that delivered Fishbein (1975) stated that the behavior is a function of the
attitudes and behavior closely related with the intention, while the intention is determined by
the attitude and the attitude could not explain directly against the behavior (Zamroni, 1988 in
Hadi, 2014: 30). Fishbein theory is described in the picture 1.
 Attitude

Intention Behavior

Subjective Norm

Picture1. Fishbein theory about the Behavior

Source: Zamroni, 1988 in Hadi, 2014: 31

According to the Rogers (1974) in Efendi and Makhfudli (2009: 101-102) revealed that
before adopt new behavior in the sequential process occurs, namely:
1. Awareness (Kesadaran), i.e. the person realizes the meaning of know in advance against
the stimulus package (object).
2. Interest (Tertarik), i.e. the person start interested on stimulus package.
3. Evaluation (Evaluasi), i.e. the intentions of good and whether or not the stimulus for
himself. This means that the attitudes of respondents are better.
4. Trial (Mencoba), i.e. the person decided to start trying new behaviors.
5. Adoption (Adaptasi), i.e. The person has behaved in accordance with the new
knowledge, consciousness and his attitude toward the stimulus package.
According to Lawrence Green (1980) in Notoatmodjo (2003: 164), behavior factors
determined or formed by:
1. Predisposing Factor (Faktor predisposisi), manifested in knowledge, attitudes, trust,
confidence, values, and so on.
2. Enabling Factor (Faktor pendukung), embodied in the physical environment, is available
or not the availability of the facilities or the means for disaster risk reduction.
3. Reinforcing Factor (Faktor pendorong) that exists in the attitudes and behavior of other
communities, which is the reference group from the behavior of the community.

The Method
This research research is a combination of mixed model (concurrent mixed
methods) using the model of the concurrent triangulation strategy. According to Creswell
(2015: 320) in this model researchers using quantitative methods and qualitative research
together, both in data collection and analytical. The weight of the quantitative method in this
research is greater than the weight of the qualitative method. Qualitative method used to
obtain supplemental data from the results of the questionnaire.
The research location was done in the Sidobunder village, Puring Sub-district,
Kebumen. The selection of the location based on the consideration that the Sidobunder
Village passed by 6 river, the average height of the region of 6 meters above sea level
and including areas prone to flood disaster high category and is (Profile Destana, 2013: 88).
Sampling techniques in this research using purposive sampling techniques.
Respondents selected 62 samples is the head of the household who live in the location of the
flood-prone high category and Moderate, and working as farmers that their agricultural land
is located in the Sidobunder village with research variable namely, economic, structural and
cultural. The primary data collection technique in this study is obtained by way of
observation, Indepth Interview and questionnaire. The method of observation and Indepth
Interview to key informants (village head and chairman of the farmer groups) used to know
the behavior of the community in an effort to adapt to the flood disaster in their agricultural
land. The results obtained 6 behavior forms in the field of agriculture which is then used as
the questions in the questionnaire, namely:
1. Have the production outcomes in addition/rice harvest crops;
2. Have a side occupation;
3. Change the type of rice plants with other plants;
4. Agricultural land mingled back after the flood;
5. Do rotation crops;
6. Use of fertilizer and the giving of that right.
The behavior of the community are analyzed based on the theory of behavior changes
according to the Rogers (1974). The behavior based on the theory is categorized in 5 levels of
sequential process of awareness, interested, evaluation, try and receive/adaptation. Each type
of the statement consists of 5 choice answers in the form of multiple choice that represents
the level of the process of behavior changes. The answer on the levelevels
ls of the highest behavior
(adaptation) was given a score 5 to lowest level (awareness) was given a score
1. Categorization on the end result of this research is high, Moderate and low using hipotetik
scores can be seen in table 1.
Table 1. The level of the farmers behavior in the face of the Flood
No The Number of Adapatsi Category
1 X5 High
2 3X<5 Moderate
3 X>3 Low
Source: Analysis Researchers, 2016

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

The Society behavior in Agriculture
The behavior of society toward a flood disaster in the field of agriculture are analyzed
based on the economic components of the results of the production apart from the rice
harvest/crops and side occupation
occupationwork; structural/ the technology change rice plants with
other plants and the processing of agricultural land after the flood; and cultural components
of the rotation crops and the use of fertilizer analysis results obtained that the behavior of the
society in the field of agriculture including in the Moderate category (48,39%) with 3
adaptation strategy has the results of the production apart from the rice/crops, using fertilizer
and the giving of the right and agricultural land mingled back after the flood and the
percentage of information can be seen on the pie chart Picture 2.

19.35% High
32.26%
Being
48.39% Low

Picture 2. The Level of Community Behavior in Agriculture

Source: Analysis Results, 2017
Based on spatial conditions disaster
disaster-prone
prone level and the results of the test analysis
comparison using t tests it is known that there are differences that convince (0.001 < 0.05)
between the level of community behavior in prone areas to high and prone Moderate in
the face of a flood disaster
er in the field of agriculture. t-test results obtained the average score
(mean)) areas prone to high (22,13) is higher than the region vulnerable (18,03), it can be
concluded that the region is prone to have high adaptatio
adaptation strategy is better than a region of
cartilage is. The complete results can be seen in table 2.
 Table 2. The Distribution of Community behavior in Agriculture
Category High cartilage Moderate Cartilage
High 48,39 16,13
Moderate 38,71 58,06
Low 12,90 25,81
Number (%) 100,00 100,00
The amount (n) 31 31
Mean 22,13 18,03
T-Test t ratio = 3,491; Sig. = 0.001
Source: analysis results, 2017
The community in the high level prone areas is dominated by the level behavior of high
categories namely equal 48,39% with 5-6 adaptation strategy, followed the level behavior of
Moderate category of 38,71% which have 3-4 adaptation strategy, then behavior level of low
category of 12,90% with 0-2 adaptation strategy, while in the area of Moderate cartilage more
dominated by the level behavior of Moderate category of 58,06%, followed behavior level of
low category 25,81%, and only a small part of society (16,13%) included in the behavioral
level of high category. The difference between the behavior of the people in the region of
high cartilage and Moderate cartilage possible the existence of the influence of social
and economic characteristics.
The analysis results if seen based on the distribution of the behavior of society
toward the flood in the field of agriculture can be seen through the radar chart in Figure 3.

Have the results of the

production in
100.00
80.00
Use of fertilizer and the 60.00 61,29%
99,68% Have a marginal work
giving of that right 40.00 47,42%
20.00
0.00
51,94%
Change the type of rice
Do rotation crops 82,90%
58,39% plants other plants

Agricultural land
mingled back after

Picture 3. Distribution of Community Adaptation behavior in Agriculture

Source: Analysis Results, 2017
Picture 3. Shows that the shape of the adaptation behavior using fertilizer and the
giving of that right has the highest percentage of 99,68%, while the behavior have side
occupation to obtain the percentage of most low 43,23%. The explanation of the behavior
form of society toward a flood disaster in the agriculture field is explained as follows.
a. Have the results of the production besides rice/harvest crops
According to the Chamber (in Adhimahardja 1999: 3) farmers is a man that
creative and innovative and have the rich knowledge, detail, and adaptive toward the
state of the environment of his life. Based on the results of the analysis of the form of the
behavior in the field of agriculture to have the results of the production in addition/rice
harvest crops have the percentage of 61,29%. Most of the community (48,39%) has
adapted to have the results of the production besides rice/harvest crops. The results of the
production come from plantations water spinach, cassava, and plantation such as coconut
and bananas are shown in Picture 4.
 Picture 4. Banana and Coconut Plantations
Source: Personal Documentation, 2016
As much as 41,94% society has only behavior at the level of consciousness. Age is
one of the factors that influence the behavior of the society in has output besides rice/
plants secondary crops. Most of the th community that is elderly does not feel the need to
have the results of the production apart from the rice/crops. As much as 6,45% have
already started to interested and only 3.23% community that is considering whether the
poor have the production
ction apart from the rice/harvest
rice crops.
b. Have a Side Occupation
The form of the community behavior in the face of the flood one only has a
marginal work outside the main work as farmers with the percentage of 47,42%. Only a
small part of society (22, 58%) who has adapted has side occupation of the main work as
farmers. The side occupation among others as traders, iron processing,processing carpenter,
stonemasons, rice collector, electronics service appliance, or sell Bangkok chicken, and
others. This is in line with the Setiawan research (2014) which stated that the strategy
survive community farmers in Karanganyar, Tawangmangu in the face Landslide
disaster one of them is by doing side occupation outside utside the main job as farmers, for
example the Flower merchant or build a simple store that sell household needs. This is
done if during the time of the disaster that befell the farming communities, they still have
income from other business.
Most of the community (46,77%) has behavior at the level of consciousness to
have a side occupation and as many as 16, 13% have behavior at the interested levels.
This is because some people have no other skills beside to be farmer.. This is in line with
the RPJM Indonesia (in Muta'ali, 2013: 8) that one of its problems in rural areas is the
low quality of human resources in rural areas of mostly low skilled.. As much as 12,90%
society have been considered to have a side occupation, consideration is one of them
because they have children who are still small and only a small part of the Society began
to try to have a side occupation with become workers.

c. Change the rice plants with Other Plants type

Based on the analysis of the behavior form the change the type of rice plants with
other plants has the percentage of 51, 94%. As much as 35, 48% society have adapted
with such behavior by changing the rice plants with water spinach. This is shown by
Figure 5.
 Picture 5. Agricultural Land is planted with water spinach
Source: Personal Documentation, 2016
Most of the Sidobunder villagers (54, 84%) have behavior at the level of
consciousness. The Age factor (elderly) became one of affecting toward toward community
behavior in the change with the rice plants type with other plants. Community that is
elderly tends to not want to change their agricultural lands with the types of other plants.
According to Kartasapoetra (1991:55) farmers that age was about more than 50 years
usually zealots of tradition and it is difficult to be given understanding that can change
the way of thinking, how to work and way of life. Other effect factors namely a lack of
agricultural land which they have so that people prefer their agricultural land used for
rice/crops only.
As much as 3.23% community began to try to change the rice plants with other
plants. This is done after seeing the harvest obtained their neighbors. As much as 4.84%4.84
have behavior at the levels of interested and only a small part of society (1.61%) have
behavior at the evaluation
aluation level by considering both good or bad replace rice with other
plants. According to them, if one of their agricultural lands used to grow water spinach
then will have an additional income, but also every day must go to the rice fields to treat
plants their water spinach.. Different things if they only have the results of the production
of the rice / harvest crops they do not need every day to go to the rice fields, but the
concern is when the flood occurred and pest attacks can make the harvest is not no a
maximum of can even experience crop failure. The same research done by Purba (2014)
that some people in the Munte village of Karo District to replace the rice to the other
plants types that caused by natural disturbances (flood), then compounded by irr irrigation
canals that collapsed in July 2008. Farmers usually change rice plants with plants that are
easy how to maintain. The type of plants that are corn, chili, chocolate
chocolate, bitter herbs, and
various other plants that according to the farmers more easily how to treat and manage it.
d. Agricultural land uncultivated back after the Flood
The form of public behavior with uncultivated back their agricultural land after the
floodd has the percentage of 58, 39%. As much as 45, 16% Sidobunder village
communities have behavior at the adaptation level with uncultivated back agricultural
land after the flood, but some people (50,00%) has only behavior at the level of
consciousness. More people choose directly plant their agriculturall lands after the flood
have subsided with the reason for the land has been processed before the flood subsided.
Another reason for the efficiency of the time as well as the limitations of capital owned
by to rent the tractor. As much as 3.23 % communities have the behavior at the
evaluation level that means we have to consider and a small part of society (1.61%)
began to try to prepare the agricultural land after the flood on several previous rice
planting period. The difference between communities that ha have
ve adapted with
communities that have behavior at the awareness level demonstrated through Picture 6.
 (a) Land Uncultivated Back (b) Land Directly Planted
Picture 6. The Condition of agricultural land Sidobunder Village after the Flood
Source: Personal Documentation, 2016
Based on the Picture 6. Can be seen that in the picture (a) farms processed again
after the flood subsided. The reason for the community to Uncultivated Back Back, even
before the flood has been processed is agricultural land
land has been submerged in water for
3 weeks up to 1 months. Different from the picture (b), agricultural land directly planted
after floods recede, visible garbage and leaves still scattered on the agricultural land that
is being planted. The results of this research in line with the research of Nuraini (2005)
mentioning that as much as 41.9% communities in Kretek sub district of Bantul Regency
has been doing the processing after the flood with how to give fertilizer and cultivate
back of agricultural land to plant new crops.
e. Doing Rotation Crops
Based on the analysis result known that the shape of the behavior doing rotation
crops has the percentage of 82,90%. As much as 32, 26% society has adapted to perform
the rotation crops on agricultural
gricultural land. The rotation crops are done namely 2 times
planting rice and 1 times planting plants secondary crops such as green beans. The plant
is done simultaneously based on the time that has been agreed in the farmer groups or
combination of farmerr groups. Different with research results of Nuraini (2005) which
stated that the rotation crops in Kretek sub district of Bantul in a year only 1 times the
rice planting and 2 times plants secondary crops such as onion and chili. This is related
to the needs of the water still is a problem in the area.
Most of the Sidobunder villagers (59, 68%) have the behavior of the rotation crops
on the trying levels.. According to the information most of the village community
com new
Sidobunder do rotation crops between rice with green beans for 22-33 this year, previously
only citizens let alone their agricultural lands in during the dry season. Only a small part
of society (1.61%) who have behavior at the level of consciousness
consciousness and as many as 6,
45% society behaves on the levels of interested to perform the rotation crops.
f. Use of fertilizer and the giving of that right
The form of the behavior of using fertilizer and the time of the right giving has the
percentage of 99,68%. Almost all the Sidobunder villagers (98,39%) have adapted to the
flood disaster in the field of agriculture with the use of fertilizer and the right giving and
only around 1.61% society that behaves on the trying levels.. According to the citizen,
before performing fertilizer, fertilizer selection needs to be known in advance to know
the type and number of hara element contained therein. The fertilizer type which is used
to be used by the Sidobunder villagers namely urea, Phonska, and SP 36.. Urea fertilizer
which is required used, while Phonska or SP 36 as complement. Most people use the
comparison 2:1 for the mixing of Urea fertilizer and SP 36 with dose adjusts the land.
This is based on the results of their experience for many years to farmers.
fa
 Fertilizer consumption must be adjusted with the needs of the plants. According to
citizen information, excessive fertilizer consumption thus will make rice production
decreases because it affects the phase developed on its reproduction or free saplings rice.
In addition, if enclosing excessive force will abel to cause pollution of the agricultural
land. The time of the giving of fertilizer is done on the condition is not stagnant water
because it can cause lost fertilizer from agriculture/carried by the water. The fertilizer
time first done when the rice aged 7-10 days after planting, the second fertilizer when the
rice aged 22-25 days after planting, and the third fertilizer given when the rice aged 40-
45 days after the crops.

Factors that affect the behavior in Agriculture

Some of the factors that assumed affect the community behavior toward the flood
disaster in the field of agriculture namely predisposing factors embodied in the knowledge,
farming experience, and trust; the supporting factors are income and ownership of agriculture
appliance; and also urging factors that exist in agricultural extension. These factors then
called independent variables, while the society behavior in the field of agriculture is
dependent variable. Step before doing the analysis influence factors the first done correlation
analysis using Correlation Tests Pearson Product Moment to measure of relationship
between independent variables with the dependent variables. The test analysis results can be
seen in table 3.
Table 3 The Correlation Analysis of the Society Behavior in the Agriculture Field
No. Independent variable r Count Description
1 Knowledge 0,156 Very weak correlation
2 The Farmer experience -0,313* Enough correlation
3 Trust 0,051 Very weak correlation
4 The income 0,517** Strong correlation
5 Agriculture Ownership Appliance 0,217 Very weak correlation
6 Agricultural Extension 0,400* Enough correlation
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Source: 2017 Analysis Results
Based on the Table 3. It is known that the independent variables farming experience
and agricultural extension have enough of relationship with the society behavior in the field
of agriculture, while income have strong of relationship with the level of Sidobunder village
communities behavior in the field of agriculture. The relationship between each independent
variable with the society behavior in the field of agriculture explained through Table 4.
Table 4. Correlations of Independent Variable with the Society Behavior in Agriculture
The Agriculture Behavior
The Percentage of (%)
High Moderate Low
High 25,81 40,32 16,13
Knowledge Moderate 3.23 8.06 1.61
Low 3.23 0.00 1.61
61 0.00 3.23 1.61
46 - 60 1.61 4.84 6,45
The Farming
31 - 45 14,52 17,74 6,45
Experience
16 - 30 9,68 17,74 3.23
15 6,45 4.84 1.61
High 11, 29 11, 29 3.23
Trust
Moderate 20.97 37.10 16,13
 The Agriculture Behavior
The Percentage of (%)
High Moderate Low
Low 0.00 0.00 0.00
Rp 3.000.000,00 0.00 1.61 0.00
Rp 1.325.000,00 - Rp
The income 20.97 14,52 0.00
2.999.999,00
Rp 1.324.999,00 11, 29 32,26 19,35
4 6,45 4.84 0.00
agriculture
3 9,68 14,52 4.84
appliance
2 8.06 14,52 6,45
Ownership
1 8.06 14,52 8.06
High 14,52 11, 29 0.00
Agricultural
Moderate 6,45 14,52 3.23
extension
Low 11, 29 22,58 16,13
Source: 2017 Analysis Results
The next step is doing a multiple Linier Regression Test to know the factors that
significantly influence toward the behavior level of the society in the field of agriculture. The
results of the test analysis Mutiple Linier Regression can be seen in table 5.
Table 5. The assumption of influence factors of the Society behavior in the Agriculture
The assumption of factors
No. t B Sig. Sig. < 0.05
influence
1 Knowledge 0,084 0,494 0,623 No significant effect
2 The Farming experience -1,110 -1,949 0,056 No significant effect
3 Trust -0,270 -1,688 0,097 No significant effect
4 The income 4,110 3,409 0.001 Significant Effect
5 Agriculture Appliance Ownership 0,739 1,432 0,158 No significant effect
6 Agricultural extension 1.098 2,406 0,020 Significant Effect
* t table = 2,004
Source: Analysis Results, 2017
Based on the results of multiple regression analysis in Table 5. can be known that the
income and agricultural extension have a tangible impact/convince as much as 49 % against
the Sidobunder villagers behavior in the field of agriculture. Most of the Sidobunder
villagers (51,61%) is still considered in the type III (three) i.e. income and the society
behavior in the field of agriculture including low - Moderate category, so that one of the
efforts to improve the society behavior in the field of agriculture is by strengthening the
economy of village communities Sidobunder to increase income. Agricultural extension
provides the influence of 25.7 % against the society behavior in the field of agriculture. Most
of the Sidobunder villagers (41,94%) including in the type III (three) i.e. agricultural
extension and the behavior of the society in the field of agriculture including low - Moderate
category. Thus there is a need to increase efforts to improve agricultural extension
community behavior in the field of agriculture. Through dissemination of agriculture, the
community armed with knowledge, skills introduction technology, a new innovation in the
field of agriculture and the other. According to Zakaria (2006, in Hidayati, 2014: 76)
agricultural dissemination has the purpose of the short term i.e. grown the changes that are
more focused on a farmer business includes: knowledge, skill, attitudes and the farmers
actions and their families and is expected to manage their farming busines with more
productive, effective and efficient. In other words, dissemination activities do not stop on the
dissemination of information/innovation and provide an explanation, but is a process which is
done continuously until the changes in behavior that is indicated by the beneficiaries
dissemination in this case is the farmers community.

The Differences in the community behavior level in areas prone moderate and high
Cartilage
Based on the analysis results there is a significant difference between the
farmers community behavior in areas prone to high more that have adapted to their
agricultural land than in the area of moderae cartilage. Differences in the community
behavior level that obtained based on the analysis results can be seen in picture 7.

Differences in the community behavior

High Prone Region Moderate Prone Region

1. Settlement
a. Most of the community has
been adapted in the form of
gotong royong, elevate the
foundations of the house, not
throwing trash in the ditch/river
and has been friendly with the
flood.
b. part of society have garbage
disposal
1. Settlement
a. Most of the community has
been adapted in the form of
gotong royong, elevate the
foundations of the house and
has been friendly with the
flood.
b. garbage disposal ownership the
threa the garbage is still very
low

2. Agriculture 2. Agriculture
Most of the community has been Most of the community has been
adapting to have the results of the coping with the use of fertilizer and
production apart from the the giving of a precise and
rice/crops, replace the rice with the agricultural land mingled back after
types of other plants and the use of the flood.
fertilizer and the giving of that
right.

Picture 7. Differences in the Community behavior

Source: Analysis Results, 2017

CONCLUSION
The farmers Community behavior in the Sidobunder village including in the moderate
category (48,39%) with adaptation strategy with how to have the results of the production
apart from the rice/crops, using fertilizer and the giving of the right and agricultural land
mingled back after the flood. The factors that influence of the farmers behavior affected by
the earnings factors 49% and agricultural extension 25.7%. The community behavior in the
high cartilage region is better than moderate cartilage because in the high cartilage region
have social, economic and environmental settlement characteristic better.
REFERENCES
Adhimahardja, Kusnaka, 1999, Petani Merajut Tradisi Era Globalisasi, Bandung:
Humaniora Utama Press Bandung.
Creswell, John W., 2015, Research Design: Pendekatan Kualitatif, Kuantitatif, dan Mixed,
Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Efendi, Ferry, dan Makhfudli, 2009, Keperawatan Kesehatan Komunitas: Teori dan Praktek
dalam Keperawatan, Jakarta: Salemba Medika.
Hadi, Yulianto, 2014, Pendidikan sebagai Wahana Pembentukan Karakter, Seminar
Nasional dan Temu Alumni Peran Pendidikan dalam Pembangunan Karakter
Bangsa, ISBN: 978-602-96172-6-9, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta:
Asosiasi Alumni dan Mahasiswa Program Pascasarjana Universitas Negeri
Yogyakarta.
Hidayati, P.A., 2014, Penyuluhan dan Komunikasi, Malang: Universitas Kanjuruhan Malang.
Kartasapoetra, A.G., 1991, Teknologi Penyuluhan Pertanian, Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
Mutaali, 2013, Pengembangan Wilayah Perdesaan (Perspektif Keruangan), Yogyakarta:
Badan Penerbit Fakultas Geografi.
Notoatmodjo, Soekidjo, 2003, Pendidikan dan Perilaku Kesehatan, Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Nuraini, Tri Astuti, 2005, Adaptasi Petani dalam Menanggulangi Akibat Banjir pada Lahan
Pertanian di Kecamatan Kretek Kabupaten Bantul, Thesis: Universitas Gadjah Mada.
ONeill, 2008, Intercultural Competence Development: ICTBased Intercultural Teaching and
Learning for Public Schools in the U.S. and Korea, University of Virginia: Center for
International Virtual Schooling.
Setiawan, Heru, 2014, Analisis Tingkat Kapasitas dan Strategi Coping Masyarakat Lokal
dalam Menghadapi Bencana Longsor Studi Kasus Di Tawangmangu, Karanganyar,
Jawa Tengah, Jurnal Penelitian Sosial Dan Ekonomi Kehutanan, 11 (1) hal 70 80.
Suara Merdeka, 2001, 9000 Warga Mengungsi, < http://www.suaramerdeka.com/
harian/0110/25/nas3.htm> (diakses 24 Maret 2016).
Tim Penyusun, 2013, Forum Desa Tangguh Bencana Anugrah, Kebumen: Desa
Sidobunder.