_______________________________________________________________________

INTEGRATED COASTAL VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT MODEL FOR BALI ISLAND

D.M.Sulaiman 1), R. W. Triweko 2), D. Yudianto3) Civil Engineering Graduate Program, 2Professor, Civil Engineering Graduate Program 3Lecture, Civil Engineering Graduate Program Parahyangan Catholic University Jalan Merdeka 30 Bandung 40117 INDONESIA Email : dedems@ymail.com, triweko@home.unpar.ac.id, doddi_yd@home.unpar.ac.id
1Ph.D Student,

ABSTRACT
Vulnerability is defined as the extent to which a population or an ecosystem is liable to be affected by a hazard event . A Numerical assessment measures the probability of physical changes based on analysis of physical and human-interference variables. The approach model attempts to combine susceptibility with the ability of the system to adapt and to cope with these problems. Vulnerability indexes provide a measurement of vulnerability potential effected by natural and human induced sea level rise that likewise may contribute to or trigger an increasingly vulnerability. This study shall provide a more realistic vulnerability assessment model that shall not only illustrate physical vulnerability but also the threat to socio-economic and environment development. The vulnerability assessment method integrating two variables, namely physical and human influence variables that include also the influence of culture and traditional wisdom is expected to be a more integrated assessment model for the estimation of coast vulnerability. By including human induced activity into the vulnerability assessment model, more objective vulnerability indexes to improve management in coping with affected sea level rise, and preparation of strategy, anticipation and adaptation to climate change will be resulted . The application of the coastal vulnerability assessment model in Bali showed that both physical and human-interference variables had affected the coastal vulnerability of the island. Keywords: vulnerability assessment, coastal vulnerability indexes, physical variables, human interference variables, Bali Island

INTRODUCTION
Indonesia as an island nation and with a coast line of approximately 95.181 km, the fourth longest in the world (Rompas 2010), is extremely vulnerable to be affected by sea level rise (UNEP 2006). The vulnerability is aggravated by the population residing these coastal areas, i.e. approx imately 60% of the total population lives at a radius of 50 km within the beach line (Idris 2002). Sea level rise in Indonesia reaches an average of 5-10 mm per annum (MMAF 2009). This sea level rise is relatively small, but in the long range this increase will be of high significance causing serious impact to beach destruction. When adaptation attempts are not carried out and population growth not controlled, the scenario of one meter sea level rise in a time span of 100 years ahead may cause erosion and a beach retreat of 50 m (IPCC 2007). This serious condition of erosion may decrease coastal areas in Indonesia by approximately 4.759 ha per year, and millions of people have to be evacuated to higher grounds (MMAF 2009). Sea level rise and other related effects are estimated to cause serious impact to coastal areas along the north coast of Java, small islands like Bali, east coast of Sumatera, south coast of Kalimantan, southwest coast of Sulawesi, some coastal areas in West Papua (Kabupaten and Kota Sorong, Teluk Bintuni/Bentuni Bay and Merauke) (ADB 2001).

___________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________
Sea level rise as impact of global warming has become a serious threat to coastal communities, infrastructure and eco-system (Kaiser, 2007), and exacerbate to coastal areas (1) beach erosion, (2) inundated coastal plains, (3) tidal flooding, (4) salt intrusion into groundwater layer (Kana et al, 2004; Leatherman, 1989), (5) increase of flood frequency and intensity, (6) change of sea current and destruction of mangrove forests, and (7) disappearance of small islands (Gornitz, 2000). Other induced impacts are the decrease of productive agricultural land and the slow down of industrial and business activities due to damaged infrastructure (MMAF 2009). Coastal zones are therefore the most vulnerable areas to sea level rise (IPCC 2001). This study intends to put forth a model of vulnerability assessment to sea level rise and was tested on beach vulnerability in Bali. It is expected that this study may come out with a more realistic assessment model that shall not only illustrate physical vulnerability but also socio-economic and environmental vulnerability. Development of this model may result (1) coastal vulnerability maps depicting areas of high vulnerability for reference of policy makers, planners and stake-holders in anticipating impacts of climate change, and in preparing strategy, anticipation and adaptation to these impacts of change, (2) priority in coping with impact in accordance with area vulnerability, and (3) most vulnerable and dominant parameter used in the adaptation plan to impact of sea level rise.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Coastal vulnerability is defined as : (1) the extent to which a population or an ecosystem is liable to be affected by a hazard event and be capable of coping with the hazard (UNEP, 2006); (2) the sensitivity of an eco-system and coastal community, individually or as a group to disaster, a condition triggered by a social-economic and environmental system, implies the capability of adaptation in coping with disaster in terms of carrying out preventive measures (Kaiser, 2007); and (3) sensitivity of a community and eco-system to susceptibility of loss and the capability of recovery (Kim et al, 2009). A hazard can maintain a hazard or become more dangerous changing into a disaster. Such depending on the level of vulnerability, particularly if hazard event interacts with human-interfered activity (Kim et al, 2009). Vulnerability has not only become the main concept in understanding the impact of climate change and natural disasters but is also the management tool in strategy development of coastal damage risk management. Several approaches were applied in the assessment of vulnerability of various coastal areas in the world (Nicholls et al, 2007). This assessment of coastal vulnerability is very substantial in determining high risk areas, why these areas are of high risk, and what measures are to be taken to mitigate these risks. Many methods of coastal vulnerability assessment were developed since 1991 and started first with development of the Common Methodology for Vulnerability Assessment by IPCC. In the concise method of adaptation and coastal vulnerability assessment, Kay and Travers (2008) collected at least 15 (fifteen) assessment methods comprising (1) IPCC Common Method, which includes seven steps of approach using monetary assessment in estimating vulnerability to sea level rise; (2) UNEP Method, provides a mind-set in responding to the problem of sea level rise and its impact; (3) Bruun Rule, estimates the responds to change of coastal profile because of sea level rise; (4) Shoreline Management Planning; (5) Coastal Vulnerability Indexes/CVI; (6) SPIM; (7) RamCo and Island Model; (8) SURVAS; (9) COSMO; (10) Community Vulnerability Assessment Tool/CVAT; (11)Dynamic Interactive Vulnerability Assessment / DIVA; (12) CoastClim and SimClim; (13) Reef Resilience Toolkit; (14) Smartline; and (15) CV & A. Almost all of these assessment methods stresses upon physical aspects only causing a separation between physical and socio-economic aspects (Nicholls and Small, 2002), and for a long time vulnerability assessment had particularly discussed the physical aspects. However, in recent years some studies had resulted more integrated vulnerability assessment methods that considered both physical and socio-economic/human-interference aspects. These combined variables produced an integrated and complete vulnerability index system (Boruff et al, 2005). Indicators are defined as the value obtained from several parameters that provides information and the illustration of a phenomena or the environment (OECD, 2003 following Kim et al, 2009). Indicator based vulnerability assessment provides a probability of explaining confusing and intangible reality in one single value. This can be done by reducing these confusing and intangible parameters or application of statistical analysis by a panel of experts (Kim et al, 2009).

___________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

METHODOLOGY 1. Vulnerability Assessment Typology

The indicator based coastal vulnerability assessment model attempts to account for resulting an index of coastal vulnerability to assess and estimate the risk of coastal area to hazards and its capability of coping with these hazards. From the many models of vulnerability assessment and the indexes resulted as shown on Table 1, vulnerability indexes can be divided into three types: (1) based on physical parameters ; (2) based on combined physical and social parameters ; and (3) based on combined physical, socio-economic , and environmental parameters . The first type initiated the currently used coastal vulnerability indexes as publicized by Gornitzt et al (1991), and the model of vulnerability assessment putting forth physical parameters is used as reference in other types of coastal vulnerability assessment model.

1)

Physical Vulnerability

Physical vulnerability is measured based on six physical parameters comp rising coastal geomorphology, beach line accretion, beach slope, sea level rise, significant wave height, and tidal range. This vulnerability index is commonly used in the United States, Canada, Australia, Greece, India, Malaysia and some other countries. The vulnerability index applied in Australia (Abuodha and Woodroffe, 2007), had developed it into 9 (nine) physical parameters with detailed geo morphological parameters according to type of rock, barrier, and slope. Although known as Coastal Sensitivity Index/CSI, and using different physical parameters, its method of assessment is similar with the model carried out by Gornitzt et al (1991). The Coastal Vulnerability Index/CVI as presented by Pendleton et al (2010), illustrates a series of coastal vulnerability divided into five levels of vulnerability , from lowest to very high, that may indicate the potential of vulnerability to physical changes when a change of sea level occurs. The CVI focuses on six parameters that directly influences the coastal change, i.e. geo-morphology, erosion or beach line accretion, beach slope, sea level rise, average significant wave height, and average tidal range. These parameters were selected to represent the coastal cha racteristics and physical process that influences beach condition without human interference. Two major variables in the assessment of coastal vulnerability, the geological and hydro-dynamics variables (see table 2), are the common standards applied in th determination of the coastal e vulnerability indexes by sea level rise. Whereas, from the six parameters used in determining these indexes, four of them are dominant and influencing parameters (Pendleton et al, 2010), namely geo-morphology, beach slope, sea level rise, and significant wave height. The two other parameters, tidal range and change of beach line are of no influence if these indexes are measured for an extensive beach (millions of kilometres). In order to maintain accuracy of the measurement of indexes, this study had used a relatively shorter beach segmentation method. Abuodha and Woodroffe (2010), had applied the same method for the southeast beaches in Australia. The physical variable based coastal vulnerability assessment method is related with the segmentation method ranking coastal segments according to semi-quantitative index. The Coastal Vulnerability Index is an example of one of the vulnerability assessment methods only concerned with physical influence. This method measures and ranks indexes based on parameters such as geo-morphology, beach slope, sea level rise, erosion or accretion of coastline, tidal waves, and average wave height. This vulnerability index was developed by the United States Geological Survey (Thieler and Hammer-Klose,1999). On the contrary, vulnerability assessment based on the human-interference variable uses socio-economic variables as its main component of analysis. Resulted index represents the total score of the social vulnerability index/ SoVI. Other methods that are based on social aspects is the Community Vulnerability Assessment Tool/CVAT which combines coastal socio-economic and environmental data, and the Dynamic Interactive Vulnerability Assessment/DIVA that analyzes a series of mitigation and adaptation scenarios. Geo-morphology is related with the landscape, characteristics, and process that shape the earth surface, above as well as below the sea surface, emphasizing on its genesis and future development and its context to the environment (Vestappen, 1983). The morphological parameter reflects the natural coastal landscape and its resilience to erosion (Thieller and Hammer-Klose, 1999). These parameters consist of steep beach slopes, medium beach slopes, sand dunes, gravel beaches, sand beaches or muddy beaches. The physical parameter of beach slopes gives an illustration and evaluation of possible erosion and flood potential. Relatively flat sloping coastal areas are more likely to be inundated by tidal

___________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________
floods or eroded than steep sloping areas (Pilkey and Davis, 1987). Other parameters include change of beach line, namely the retreat or progress of beach line to a fixed reference point on beach, usually a bench marking. The change of beach line is commonly episodic, seasonal, decennial or cennential. Beach erosion or accretion can be identified by comparing maps and aerial photos of former times. Sea level rise is a physical parameter decided by the average annual increase and decrease of sea level in a certain period of time observed at the tidal station. Global sea level rise ranges between 5-10 mm per year according to IPCC calculation ( 2007). The tidal range shows the difference between highest water level at high tide and lowest sea level at ebb. High tidal range is of low vulnerability, whereas on the contrary low tidal range has a high vulnerability (Thieler and Hammar-Klose, 1999). This opinion is based on the probability potential of extreme water level due to storms. In micro-tidal coastal areas, namely areas with a tidal range less than 2m, the probability of tidal floods is higher because of extreme water level exceeding highest water level in the coastal area. On the contrary, in macro-tidal areas with tidal range greater than 2m, the probability of inundation is very small because extreme water level during storm is lower than highest water level. Another physical parameter is the wave height which is a very substantial physical variable in determining coastal vulnerability. Wave attack may cause beach erosion, the higher waves the greater the erosion force, where wave energy approaching the coast is approximately the root of the ratio of high wave.

2)

Socio-economic Vulnerability

The socio-economic vulnerability index assesses coastal vulnerability according to socio-economic parameters, however with physical parameters still as the main factor. This social index was among others introduced by Boruff at al (2005) and applied in the assessment of coastal vulnerability to erosion in coastal villages throughout the United States. This socio-economic vulnerability index was also used in some South Pacific countries (Yamada et al, 1995), and South Africa (Hughes and Brundrit, 1992). The growth of population residing coastal areas and their economic development are important factors of contribution to coastal vulnerability, and these socio-economic parameters should therefore to be considered in the vulnerability assessment.

3) Socio-economic and Environmental Vulnerability

This vulnerability index combining physical, socio-economic and environmental parameters is a more complete and reliable model complying with the definition of vulnerability that includes the sensitivity to disaster and capability of eco-system or community in coping with this disaster. This model was implemented in countries like Germany (Kaiser, 2007), South Pacific (Yamada et al, 1995), and Turkey (Ozyurt et al, 2008). Various impacts triggered by sea level rise such as the extension of eroded beaches and inundated areas are natural factors aggravating the coastal vulnerability. On the other hand, in coastal areas where pressure of socio-economic conditions have become more intense, excessive exploitation of coastal areas has rendered damage of the coastal eco-system. Coastal areas are not only been threatening by natural hazards due to climate change but also by humaninterference, uncontrolled development, conversion of coastal areas, and deforestation.

4)

Integrated Vulnerability Model

The vulnerability model involving all influential factors of coastal vulnerability, namely physical, socio-economic and environmental variables, is presently considered as the most complete model. By including the cultural parameter, this model is regarded as an integrated vulnerability assessment model and the conceptual coastal vulnerability assessment model used in this study. In particular natural conditions, coastal areas may have a moderate level of vulnerability. However, due to human-interference, like for example the construction of a port or sediment controller in the upstream, coastal areas have become more vulnerable. Beach erosion in coastal areas is exacerbated by the construction of these structures. On the contrary, vulnerability of coastal areas can be reduced by beach protection structures like groins, revetment or wave breaker. Apart from the physical parameters used in the vulnerability model by Gomitzt and Kanchiruk (1989), socioeconomic, environmental and cultural variables of human-induced activities are also used. The seven parameters proposed in the vulnerability assessment concept include: (1) coastal

___________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________
protection structure, (2) sediment controller, (3) coastal vegetation, (4) land-use, (5) groundwater consumption, (6) population rate, and (7) local tradition, see Table3.

Table 1 Vulnerability Indexes in Some Countries and Parameters Used

No. 1 Name of Index Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) Country USA Parameter Used Relief, type of rock, morphology, relative sea level, change of beach line, tidal wave, maximum wave height Relief, type of rock, morphology, relative sea level, change of beach line, tidal wave, maximum wave height Location, infrastructure, hazard Natural vulnerability, tradition, institution, infrastructure, economic and human factors. Relief, type of rock, morphology, relative sea level, change of beach line, tidal wave, maximum wave height Geo-morphology, erosion/accretion, beach slope, relative sea level, average wave height and tidal waves Frequency of disturbances, relief SI plus exposure surge level , beach slope Analysis of social data census main components Combination of CVI and SoVI Reference Gornitz and Kanchiruk (1989) Gornitz et al (1991) Hughes and Brundrit (1992) Yamada et al (1995) Shaw et al (1998)

Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) Risk Matrix Sustainable Capacity Index (SCI) Sensitivity Index (SI)

USA South Africa South Pacific Canada

3 4

Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI)

USA

Thieler and Hammer-Klose (2000) Petrick and Crooks (2000) Forbes et al (2003) Boruff et al (2005) Boruff et al (2005) Dukakis (2005)

7 8 9 10

Vulnerability Index Erosion Hazard Index Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI) Coastal Social Vulnerability Index (CSoVI) Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) Total Vulnerability Index Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) Vulnerability Index

UK Canada USA USA Greece

11

12 13 14

Germany Turkey Malaysia

15

Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) Coastal Sensitivity Index (CSI)

India

16

Australia

Geomorphology, erosion/accretion , beach slope, relative sea level, average wave height and tidal waves Socio-economic and environmental vulnerability Physical (erosion, tidal flood, inundation, salt water intrusion) and human interference Geomorphology, erosion/accretion, beach slope, relative sea level, average wave height and tidal waves Geomorphology, erosion/accretion, beach slope, relative sea level, average wave height and tidal waves Geomorphology, erosion/accretion, beach slope, relative sea level, average wave height and tidal waves

Kaiser (2007) Ozyurt et al (2008) Zakaria(2008)

Nageswara et al (2008) Aboudha and Woodroffe (2009)

The application of a coastal vulnerability assessment method that combines physical factors and human-interference variables, is expected to result a more integrated and realistic assessment

___________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________
method. The human-interference factors in the assessment model shall provide more objective indexes and improve coastal management in coping with the impacts of sea level rise and adaptation to climate change.

Table 2 Variable and Range of Indicator used in Deciding the Vulnerability Index No. 1. Variable
Geomorphology

Very low
Steep slope >2 > 1.2 < 1.8 > 6.0 <1.1

Low
Medium slope 1.0 2.0 1,2 - 0.9 1.81 2.5 4.0- 6.0 1.1 2.0

Moderate
Sand dune

High
Rock and gravel beach -2.0 - -1,0 0.6 0.3 3.01 3.4 1.0 2.0 2.26 2.60

Very High
Sand, coral, mud beach, delta, and mangrove < -2.0 < 0.3 >3.4 <1.0 >2.60

2 3 4. 5. 6.

Change of coast line Beach slope Sea level rise Tidal Range Wave height

-1.0 1.0 0.9 - 0.6 2.51 3.0 2.0 4.0 2.01 2.25

Source : Pendleton et al (2010) Table 3 Variable of Human Interference in deciding coastal vulnerability No. Variable
Human Interference Beach protection Sediment controller Coastal vegetation Land-use

Very Low
>50 % < 20% >50 % Protected forest <20% <100 >5

Low

Moderate

High

Very High

1. 2 3 4. 5. 6. 7

30-50% 20-40% 30-50% Un-used land 20-30% 100-500 3-5

20-30 % 40-60% 20-30 % settlement

5-20% 60-80% 5-20% Agriculture, fishery 40-50% 1000-5000 1-2

< 5% >80% < 5% Tourism

Groundwater consumption Population rate Local Culture

30-40% 500-1000 2-3

>50% >5000 <1

Adapted from Oyzurt et al (2008)

2. Measurement of Coastal Vulnerability Index

The index is a value derived from several parameters that shall provide information or an illustration of a phenomena or the environment of certain area (Kim et al, 2009). The Coastal Vulnerability Index/CVI used in this study is the same index used by Thieler and Hammar-Klose (1999), Gornitz et al (1994), and Pendleton et al (2010), and is the standard assessment model that includes only geological variables and physical processes. One difference of the coastal vulnerability index used in Bali is the insertion of human-interference parameters as socioeconomic and environmental indicators as introduced by Kaiser (2007). The proposed humaninterference variables consist of 7 (seven) elements, namely sediment reduction structure, beach vegetation, land-use, groundwater consumption, coastal community organization, and population. Whereas, the three variables used in deciding the vulnerability index, i.e. geological variable, physical process and hydrodynamics, and human -interference activity shall indicate the characteristics and vulnerability of a coastal area. From the socio-economic perspective, vulnerability indexes resulted according to the socio-economic vulnerability indicator (Kim et al, 2008), shall indicate the development growth, typical traditions, social characteristics and economic conditions of a particular area

___________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________
The coastal vulnerability index for physical and human-interference parameters is measured by the assessment model following Gornitz et al (1994), Thieler and Hammar-Klose (1999), Doukakis (2005), Oyzurt et al (2008), and Pendleton et al (2010). First step of this measurement includes the determination of the weighting value as shown on Table 4. The vulnerability value of each parameter indicates influence of respective parameter from range 1 (lowest vulnerability rate) to range 5 (highest vulnerability rate). Table 4 Parameter Value to Vulnerability Rate No.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Affect of Parameter to Vulnerability Very Low Low Moderate High Very High Value 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-

The Coastal Vulnerability Index/CVI is measured based on geometric average as shown by the Equations (1) and (2) below: CVI =  or CVI = where CVI : : :      ..(2) (1)

Coastal vulnerability index i- parameter number of parameters

xi
n

Coastal Vulnerability Index for the physical factor (CVIP) is calculated based on the number of parameters n = 6, namely X1 = beach geo-morphology, X2 = rate of beach line change, X3 = beach slope, X4 = rate of sea level rise, X5 = average tidal range, and X6 = average wave height. Similar method is used to calculate the coastal vulnerability index for human-interference factor (CVIH) based on the number of parameter n=7, in this case X1= beach protection, X2=sediment controller, X3= beach vegetation, X4= land-use, X5 = groundwater consumption, X6= population rate, and X7= tradition. Computation of the Coastal Vulnerability Index in Equation (1) and (2) is the modification of the vulnerability index calculation used to recent time following Gornitzt et al (1991) and Pendleton et al (2010), and calculated as root of the total of each vulnerability parameter multiplication divided by the number of parameters or as presented in Equation (3): CVI (3)

where a = beach geo-morphology, b = rate of beach line change, c = beach slope, d = rate of sea level rise, e = average tidal range, f = average wave height , and n = number of parameter = 6. The vulnerability index resulted by Equation (3) shows a large range of indexes of a long data elaboration. Therefore, Equation (1) and (2) are then used for further index calculation. Results of vulnerability index calculation show a rate between 0 and 5, indicating a vulnerability rate from the

___________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________
lowest to the highest for each river segment. A coastal area with CVI 5 is considered as very vulnerable to sea level rise and is depicted on Table 5 below: Table 5 Index rate and Level of Vulnerability
No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Coastal Vulnerability Level Very Low Low Moderate High Very High Vulnerability Index Rate 1 2 3 4

STUDY RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 1. Data

The island of Bali has a coastline of 430 km, and is situated between the Bali and Lombok Strait. The north coast front towards the Java Sea and is of relatively calm hydro-oceanographic condition. On the contrary, the south coast facing the Indian Ocean is of more extreme condition with larger tidal waves, current and waves than at the north coast. The beach geo-morphology of Bali varies between steep slopes, gravel/rock beaches, to coral, sand and mud beaches (Soeharjono and Budiana, 2002). Geographically, and in the perspective of regional development, the island of Bali (see Figure 1) is divided into the north and south coast. South Bali is a fertile developed area , a prime tourist destination, center of government, and a point of populaton i concentration. The north coast, on the other hand is very dry and backward compared with the south. With such contrary conditions, this vulnerability assessment concept is being applied in order to indicate to what extend site vulnerability is complying with the results of this integrated vulnerability assessment model. Data of physical and human-induced variables are collected from various sources such as the Research Center for Water Resources/RCWR (2006), Bali Beach Conservation Project (2004), Japan International Cooperation Agency/JICA (1988), Biro Pusat Statistik Propinsi Bali/Bureau of Statistics (2005,2006, 2007), and Bappeda Provinsi Bali (2010). This study has selected 4 (four) beach segments in south Bali, i.e. Sanur and Nusa Dua beaches on the east side, and Kuta and Tanah Lot on the west side. Another 4 (four) beach segments were selected in north Bali namely on the west side the beaches Pemutaran and Lovina, and on the east side the Tejakula and Tulambem beaches.

2. Analysis and Discussion

Assessment of this integrated model is based on the rating as depicted in Table 5. Results of the assessment for south Bali are shown in Table 6, and for north Bali in Table 7. The summarized coastal vulnerability indexes for south and north Bali are shown in Table 8.

1) Vulnerability in South Bali

The four beach segments, Sanur, Nusa Dua, Kuta and Tanah Lot, included in prime tourist destinations, describe the physical characteristics, socio-economic , environmental and cultural conditions of the coastal area in south Bali. The beaches Sanur and Nusa Dua, with flat white sandy beaches and waves of medium height describe the characteristics of the east coast of south Bali. Whereas, Kuta and Tanah Lot, represent beaches west of south Bali with Kuta as most densely populated area and Tanah Lot a steep area with high waves. The combinatio of physical n and human-interference variables show a very significant contribution to the vulnerability rate of respective beach segment. The beach segment at Sanur as depicted in Table 6, resulted the CVI and CVIH rates, of P respectively 3.12 and 2.65. These high indexes indicate the high vulnerability rate with physical factor more dominant than the human-interference factor. The sandy and sloping beach geomorphology of Sanur Beach contributes highly to the coastal vulnerability. Moreover, vulnerability

___________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________
of this beach segment is aggravated by the parameters of human-interference, land-use for tourism, population rate, and groundwater consumption, although local tradition and beach vegetation are contributing largely to the reduce of coastal vulnerability at Sanur. The Nusa Dua Beach with CVI P and CVIH respectively 3.13 and 2.70, show a coastal vulnerability higher than at Sanur. These indexes are resulted by the geo -morphological conditions, beach slope and tidal range. However, the parameter of human-interference is quite similar with the parameter at Sanur Beach. On the contrary, land-use at Nusa Dua shows a higher contribution to coastal vulnerability than at Sanur Beach. The Kuta Beach show vulnerability indexes exceeding the indexes of Sanur as well as Nusa Dua, namely with CVI P and CVIH showing 3.25 and 3.13. Although the geo-morphology and tidal range is the same with Sanur Beach, beach slope at Kuta is flatter than at Sanur and Nusa Dua. Wave height at Kuta Beach is also higher and increases the vulnerability rate. The high rate of CVIH at Kuta Beach, particularly caused by the densely population, land-use, groundwater consumption, scare beach vegetation, existence of Ngurah Rai landing strip, and other types of beach protection contributes highly to the coastal vulnerability. These beach protection at Kuta are causing negative impact to the beach condition. Human-interference is very dominant at Kuta and much higher than the physical influence. Coastal vulnerability at Kuta is thus more due to human interference. Table 6 Coastal Vulnerability Index in South Bali
Parameter Sanur Beach Physical Parameter Geomorphology Beach line change Beach slope Sea level rise Tidal range Wave height Physical CVI Human Interference Parameter Beach protection Sediment controller Beach vegetation Land-use Groundwater consumption Population rate Culture Human Interference CVI Integrated CVI South Coast of Bali Nusa Dua Kuta Beach Beach 4.5 3.5 4, 2.5 4 1.5 3.13 4.5 3 5 2.5 3.5 2 3.25

Tanah Lot Beach 1.5 2.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 3.5 2.35

4.5 3.5 4.5 2.5 3.5 1.5 3.12

1.5 2.5 2.5 4.0 3.5 3,5 2.0 2.65 2.87

1.5 2.5 2.5 4.5 3,5 3.5 2.0 2.70 2.91

2.5 2.5 3.0 4.0 3,5 4.5 2.0 3.03 3.13

1.5 2.5 2.5 4.0 1,5 2.5 2.0 2.23 2.29

On the contrary, the beach segment at Tanah Lot shows CVIP and CVIH rates of respectively 2.35 and 2.23 that indicate moderate vulnerability and the lowest among the other beach segments of south Bali. The steep geo-morphology and beach slope are contributing highly to the reduce of coastal vulnerability, and therefore in overall the beach at Tanah Lot is much more reliable to global sea level rise. The larger and higher waves than at the other beach segments are of no influence to its coastal vulnerability. Additionally, human-interference vulnerability index at Tanah Lot is very low which is due to the scare population, low groundwater consumption and the intense cultural contribution. Thus, these parameters are increasing the resilience to impacts of sea level rise.

___________________________________________________________________________

      "    4" #  $    )           %   '  "             "   (   $  '  $' "   '%    '  '  (  '  #'  11 0 7 0 # $" ' @ 1 % "  "  5 "  2 1 0 # $ '   4    #  $    )  "   #' " 5 ! #$ !                  ( " % " 4   %    % " #  $         ' '  "  )"  ! #  $ 4"  " # $ '   '    "  # ')  "   #' % 0 2 "  #      #  $   !      @  "   5  "  5 '      '      #     !   $   "  $   & %    $   "      '    $     "  A      !    # '  " # '   $  !  0  "  " #$       #    4     @ 5 " & " "   !  " #$   9  '    )     $  $   #     3 1   8 7 6 #  4 #  $ "  " " % " 5   !  !     '   "  # ')  "   #    )     "               ''  "   0      ! !( #3  1    !    '   "     ' 2           "    '  ! !  " " "    $  "   #"  "  "    ( # $ "   '  '   !  $  # '  ) '   $       $  (  #        %     #      '  % "  ( "           " "  !    '  $& "     "    %    "  "     % #  $   # "    "   !   
i u ali Isla d

t B li. i l iti f t l l i lit i , l VIP 2. 2 ti f t ,t i t f VI t f .28; l t l i lit i i t i t li t t l i ti l i i t t i B i i l l l t t t t i t ti l 2.56 2. . i i t i f l i lit , i l i lit i . j l l i l i t f l 2. , VI ti l . 5 t ti ti t l . f l t i t t i ti t t i t f B li.

_______________________________________________________________________

2) V l

___________________________________________________________________________
it l t. l l ll i P i tli

ilit i

t i .P i l t i l f l i ll t t i , li i i t ti , t t f 25 K , K t K l ti i l ill t ti ft

ti i

t B li

t i

B li

ti l iti . t Si j , l i lit l iti ft l

t i lit

t t t ti

f t

ilit i l t t i t . i

iti ti .

). t t

t f B li i i l it tli i i

t f i t l f t ti t

ft

it l f t t

t P t i t B li i . l t ll i t

t t

l l

ti

ti ,t ti t l l ti ti t f

B li l VI ti l . 6 P t li t l i l i i t t l i i t t i ft t t f t B li i i f i K t f K . , iti ft t l , l ,i iti ti t t l B t l i i t l i l t VIP t i j i lit . l i t i t t B l l i t ti l i VI i t t i l i , t

_______________________________________________________________________
Table 7 : Coastal Vulnerability Index of beaches in North Bali
Parameter Pemuteran Beach Physical Parameter Geo-morphology Beach line change Beach slope Sea level rise Tidal range Wave height Physical CVI Human Interference Parameter Beach protection Sediment controller Beach vegetation Land-use Groundwater consumption Population rate Culture Human Interference CVI Integrated CVI 4.0 1.5 3.0 2.5 3.5 1.0 2.32 North Coast of Bali Lovina/SGR Tejakula Beach Beach 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.5 3.5 1.0 2.56 1.5 1.0 1.5 2.5 3.5 1.5 1.76

Tulamben Beach 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.5 3.5 1.5 2.07

2.5 1.5 1 1 1 1.5 1.0 1.28 1.31

2.0 1.5 1.5 4.0 1.5 2.5 2.0 2.01 1.51

1.5 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 2.5 1.35 1.24

4.0 1.0 1.5 4.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.77 1.91

3)

Vulnerability of the Bali Island

According to the application of the integrated vulnerability assessment model as depicted on Table 8, coastal vulnerability in south Bali is much higher than in the north of Bali. Considering the physical and human interference factors, the high coastal vulnerability in south Bali is quite understandable and supported by actual field conditions. The parameters of geo-morphology, beach slope, tidal range and high waves are causing this high vulnerability index. On the contrary, the human-interference parameter causing negative or positive impact to coastal conditions may be dominant in aggravating or reducing the coastal vulnerability index rate. Table 8 : Summary of Coastal Vulnerability Index of Bali Island
CVI Physical Human interference Integrated Bali Island North Coast South Coast 2.16 2.96 1.57 2.64 1.36 2.80

DISCUSSION
The application of the vulnerability assessment model in the case study of north and south Bali, with respectively four beach segments, can certainly not represent the overall condition of coastal vulnerability in Bali. However, the vulnerability indexes resulted by this assessment model can at least give an illustration of the vulnerability index of both physical and human-interference factors of each beach segment. The index or numerical sum calculated based on this assessment model is an indicator of information on the rate and span of coastal vulnerability. The CVIP and CVIH rates resulted from the eight study areas show a conformity with the logical estimated assessment. The case studies in north and south Bali show a relationship between physical and human-interference parameters. For south Bali, the indicator of high physical vulnerability involves also a high vulnerability of human-interference. On the contrary, for north Bali, the index of physical vulnerability is much larger than the indicator of human interference. A more int nsive e

___________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________
analysis to be implemented in future, shall concentrate on the determination of dominant variables by linear regression analysis and main component analysis. Various coastal vulnerability and disaster risk assessment methods have been developed and applied throughout the world, from the simplest to the most complicated. The application of one of the models in Indonesia, particularly in Bali, encounters many constraints among others incomplete data availability and shortage of references. For information on coastal vulnerability , one has to refer to neighbor countries like Australia, Malaysia, and the Philippines. Methods used are mostly based on geological aspects and hydrodynamics only, whereas socio -economic and environmental aspects are often neglected and not included in the calculation model. The study of putting forth this coastal vulnerability assessment model to sea level rise has accommodated the socio-economic and environmental aspects of the human-interference parameter into the assessment, and by this method coastal vulnerability assessment has been more realistic, not only illustrating physical vulnerability but also socio-economic and environmental vulnerability of coastal areas.

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION CONCLUSION

The integrated vulnerability assessment model that combines the physical factor with human interference depicts the interaction between human interference and the natural physical system that causes vulnerability. The case study of coastal vulnerability in Bali concluded into the following: 1) Physical and human-interference indicators representing the impact of the interaction between man and the environment that aggravate or reduce coastal vulnerability. 2) Physical and human-interference factors which simultaneously may influence and increase the coastal vulnerability at the Sanur, Nusa Dua, and Kuta Beaches. 3) The human-interference vulnerability indicator of Kuta Beach exceeding its physical vulnerability indicator. The parameters of population and the landing strip at Ngurah Rai are aggravating the vulnerability of Kuta Beach. 4) Coastal vulnerability due to sea level rise in south Bali is higher than the vulnerability in north Bali. 5) The low coastal vulnerability in north Bali is mainly due to its coastal environment and dominant local tradition compared to similar condition in south Bali.

SUGGESTION
Coastal vulnerability assessment in Indonesia is an urgent matter and needs to be anticipated in order to reduce negative impact of sea level rise as cause of climate change. Some attempts need immediate implementation such as: 1) Intensification of the preparation of a coastal data base that shall not only collect physical data, but also data on socio-economic and environmental aspects as input of coastal vulnerability assessment. 2) Elaborate base data into information useful for coastal vulnerability assessment. The Water Resources GIS for coastal area, is a data source essential in coastal vulnerability assessment which gradually is to be improved by supplementing information on coastal vulnerability and its level of destruction . 3) Programs of step-wise research and development of coastal vulnerability assessment for Java, Bali, and other islands are to be set up immediately, so that in certain time period, maps on coastal vulnerability are established and used by planners, coastal management and stakeholders as reference.

___________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The writer likes to thank all persons and institutions for their help in providing data, information and other material for this paper to be made possible. Thanks also to all parties for their kind help and assistance.

REFERENCES
1) Abuodha, P.A., and C.D. Woodroffe, 2006. Assessing vulnerability of coasts to climate change: A review of approaches and their application to the Australian coasts. Faculty of Science Papers, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, pp. 458 . Asian Development Bank. 2001. Climate change in Asia: Indonesia Country Report On Socioeconomic Impacts of Climate Change and a National Response Strategy, p. 3 [Table no. 1-1]. Manila: Asian Development Bank Australian Government, 2010. Climate change risk to Australian coasts.Department of Climate Change. www.climatechange.gov.au Boruff, B.J., C.Emrich, and S.L.Cutter, 2005. Erosion Hazard vulnerability of U.S. Coastal Counties, Journal of Coastal Research, 21(5): 932-942. Dharma Putera, K.G., 2009. Strategi Rekayasa Budaya Sebagai Implementasi Pengelolaan Wilayah Pantai Terpadu di Bali. The East Asia Seas Congress, Putrajaya, Malaysia Doukakis, E. , 2005. Coastal vulnerability and Risk Parameters. European Water 11/12: 3-7. Farrel,.G.J, 2009. Climate change impacts on coastal areas. Proceedings of Workshop on Ireland at Risk. Science Direct. 1-6. Gornitz, V. and P. Kanciruk, 1989. Assessment of global coastal hazards from sea-level Rise. Proceedings of the 6th Symposium on Coastal and Ocean management ASCE, Charleston, , SC. Gornitz, V., 1991. Global coastal hazards from future sea level rise. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, vol 89, pp 379-398. Gornitz, V.M., White, T.W. and Cushman, R.M., 1991. Vulnerability of the US to future sea level rise, Coastal Zone '91, Proceedings of the 7th Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 1345-1359. Gornitzt, 2000. Sea Level Rise and Coastal Hazards. Climate Change and Global City: an Assessment of the Metropolitan East Coast (MEC) Region.J.Coast. Res. Spec Issue 17, p.155. Idris, I., 2002. Pokok-Pokok Pikiran Naskah Akademik dan Rancangan Undang Undang Pengelolaan Wilayah Pesisir, Departemen Kelautan dan Perikanan, Presentasi ke pada Lembaga Sumber daya Masyarakat (LSM). Hotel Millenium, Jakarta Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. A Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), Climate Change 2007 : The Physical Science Basis. Summary for Policy Makers, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Paris, February 2007. http://www.ipcc.ch/, 2007. Kaiser, C., 2007. Coastal Vulnerability to Climate Change and Natural Hazards. Forum DKKV/CEDIM: Disaster Reduction in Climate Change. Karlsruhe University, Kiel. Kay, R.C. and A.Travers, 2008. Coastal Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessment: Conpedium of Coastal Resources: Tool and Methodologies, University of Wolloongong, Australia. Kim, S., C.A. Arrowsmith, and J.Handmer, 2009. Assessment of Socioeconomic Vulnerability of Coastal Areas from an Indicator Based Approach, Journal of Coastal Research, 21(5): 942-952 Lowe, J., 2006. Impacts of climate change on coastal flooding.Climate Dynamics 18(3 -4), 179-188

2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10)

11)

12)

13)

14)

15) 16)

17)

18)

___________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________
19) Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF), 2009. Adaptation and Mitigation Measures in Coastal and Small Islands. Directorate General of Marine, Coast, and Small Island Affairs, in cooperation with Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), Jakarta. 20) Nicholls, R.J.; Wong, P.P.; Burkett, V.R.; Codignotto, J.O.; Hay, J.E.; McLean, R.F.; Ragoonaden, S., and Woodroffe, C.D., 2007. Coastal systems and low-lying areas. In: Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F.; Palutikof, J.P.; van der Linden, P.J., and Hanson, C.E. (eds.), Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Parry. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, pp. 315356. 21) Ozyurt, G., Ergin, A., and Esen, M., 2008. Indicator Based Vulnerability Assessment Model to Sea Level Rise. Proceedings of 7 th Coastal and Port Engineering in Developing Countries, Dubai, UAE. 22) Pendleton, E.A., Thieler, E.R., and Williem, S.J., 2010. Imp ortance of coastal change variables in determining vulnerability to sea- and lake-level change. Journal of Coastal Research, 26(1), 176-183. West Palm Beach (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208. 23) Rompas, R.M., 2010. Garis Pantai Indonesia: http://www.dekin.dkp.go.id 24) Thieler, E.R. and Hammar-Klose, E.S., 1999. National Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to sea level rise, US Atlantic Coast: USGS, Open File Report 99-593, Online. 25) United Nations Environment Programme, 2006. Assessing Coastal Vulnerability: Developing Global Index for Measuring Risk, New York.

___________________________________________________________________________