Progress in Disaster Science 5 (2020) 100067

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Progress in Disaster Science

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate /pd isas

Regular Article

Measuring community resilience against coastal hazards: Case study inBaron Beach, Gunungkidul Regency

Arie Nurzaman a,⁎, Rajib Shaw a, Muhammad Sani Roychansyah b

a Graduate School of Media and Governance Keio University, 5322 Endo, Fujisawa 252-0822, Kanagawa, Japanb Department of Architecture & Planning, Faculty of Engineering, Gadjah Mada University, Jl. Grafika 2, Bulaksumur, Sleman, D.I. Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia

⁎ Corresponding author.E-mail address: arienz.81@gmail.com. (A. Nurzaman).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2020.1000672590-0617/© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is

A B S T R A C T

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:Received 24 October 2019Received in revised form 18 December 2019Accepted 4 January 2020Available online 13 January 2020

The impacts of natural disaster occurred in coastal area have pushed environmental damage and threatened its sustain-ability as well as the existence of community livelihood. Accelerating risks from coastal hazards add the disadvantagesfor communities living in coastal areas, especially those who are very dependent on natural resources. The objectivesof the research are the research is intended to measure the resilience of coastal community through collective resil-ience assessment and bottom-up approach in community level. Based on overall scores, mix-livelihood communityis categorized asmedium resiliencewith the score of (1.99), whereas fishery community (2.3) and tourism community(2.5) are categorized as high resilience score. The result of the participatory approach suggests that communities inBaron Beach are highly aware of the importance of the coastal environment especially within karst ecosystem. How-ever, their awareness does not in line with their action of managing the sustainability of the ecosystem. Their liveli-hood practices still neglect the principle of environment conservation. Environmental conservation efforts and long-term disaster mitigation practice are still behind economic fulfillment of the livelihood. Therefore, community partic-ipation is a crucial requirement for implementing this approach. This research proposed co-management practice inform of Adaptive Co-Management that can be defined as a partnership approach where government and resourceusers share the responsibility and authority for the management of a fishery or area, based on collaboration betweenthemselves and with other stakeholders.

© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Keywords:ResilienceCoastal areaGunungkidul RegencyCoastal communityParticipatory planning

1. Introduction

Experts have put forward concepts and frameworks for analyzing resil-ience, especially with regard to disasters. However, coastal ecosystems arecomplex ecosystems, so it is not enough just to address the elements of di-saster, but the relationship between the community and the ecosystem it-self. Coastal communities are very dependent on ecosystems, especially inrural areas, with livelihoods in the fisheries, agriculture, livestock, or for-estry sectors. In Gunungkidul coastal area, where nature-based tourism isemerging, it becomes an important part of people's livelihoods, showingthat the social-ecological relationship is increasingly evident. Uy et al. con-vinced that the degradation of coastal ecosystem services disfigures thecommunities' ability to respond to a shock.

In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on naturaland human systems on all continents and across the oceans. Climate changewill amplify existing risks and create new risks for natural and human sys-tems. Risks are unevenly distributed and generally greater for disadvan-taged people and communities in countries at all levels of development.

an open access article under the C

In Indonesia, climate change represents a major threat to the country,with especially severe ramifications for the approximately 65 percent ofIndonesians living in coastal areas. Rising sea level, increasing sea temper-ature, flooding, saltwater intrusion, and other hazards all threaten the live-lihoods and lives of coastal residents. Coastal livelihoods are extremelyvulnerable to climate change.

Environmental changes in coastal ecosystem also influence the lives ofpeople living in those areas. According toWahyudin, life of coastal commu-nities to be highly dependent on environmental conditions and are vulner-able to environmental damage, particularly pollution, due to industrialwaste and oil spills, for example, can shake the foundations of social andeconomic life of coastal communities. In other case, coastal developmentis often accompanied by increasing competition between different usersfor space for their activities within the coastal environment. With thesocio-economic conditions of the people who are relatively low in welfare,then in the long run, the pressure on coastal resources will be even greaterto meet the needs of coastal communities [1].

The exposure of disaster in coastal areas, more or less contribute to thevulnerability of the area. The deterioration of the area may becomeworsenbecause of the exploration from human activities. It is stated that the eco-nomic impact of three major disasters during 2004–2006, which are Aceh

C BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

A. Nurzaman et al. Progress in Disaster Science 5 (2020) 100067

earthquake and tsunami, Yogyakarta earthquake, and Lapindomudminingexplosion exceed to more than US 10.6 billion dollars. The impact of natu-ral disasters is currently exacerbated by the phenomenon of climate change.This is indicated by the changing pattern of some natural phenomena, suchas changing climate pattern, raising temperature, rainfall, and windpattern.

The role of coastal area as an ecosystem is important, not only for itsecological function, but also economic function. In terms of economic as-pect, this ecosystem has exposed of any kind of development, from theneed to support recreational activities, commercial activities, industry,and public infrastructure. Those have led to increased ecological pressureson coastal ecosystems. According to the OECD, oceans contribute $1.5 tril-lion annually in value-added to the overall economy. Fisheries and aquacul-ture assure the livelihoods of 10–12% of the world's population with>90%of those employed by capture fisheries working in small-scale operations indeveloping countries [2]. The products from fisheries activities is roughly167 million tons of fish and generated over US$148 billion in exports,while securing access to nutrition for billions of people and accountingfor 17% of total global animal protein, even more in poor countries [3].From the view of rural development, coastal areas play another importantpart to provide housing area of rural people and their livelihood. Butmore than that, it also gives the service of traditional resources-based activ-ities, such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries to a number of economic sec-tors, including tourism, commercial fisheries, salt, minerals, oil andconstruction [2,4].

The combination of rising economic activities and natural disaster oc-curred in coastal area have pushed environmental damage and threatenedits sustainability as well as the existence of community livelihood. So, it iscrucial to understand the concepts of resilience and how they relate to theway livelihoods affected by impacts of natural hazards to adapt and securein continuous way.

In general, ‘resilience’ is about the capacity of systems to adapt toshocks, recognizing that disturbance and change are integral componentsof complex systems. More formally, resilience analysis proposes to focusingon mechanisms and processes that help systems absorb perturbations andshocks, and cope with uncertainty and risks [5]. The resilience assessmenttool appears to simplify the complexity of measures and at local level, it canbe a confluence of rapid decision making tool [6]. Bene [5] argues four do-mains of resilience assessment tool, which are (a) natural system,(b) livelihood and people, (c) institutions and governance and(d) external drivers. The key argument is the importance of ‘scanning’,the system in order to gain a better appreciation of the true nature of driversand processes that affect its dynamics.

Other approach delivered by Jacobson & Chanseng [7] propose a con-cepts of community resilience that consider the resources a communityhas to addressmultiple stresses and the processes used tomobilize or accessthose resources. They developed a tool for rapid assessment of communityresilience and adaptation option identification. Assessments of communityresilience can identify communities that have sufficient resources (assets,knowledge, skills, resources, plans and governance) for adaptation and de-velopment, and communities that require assistance to develop them. Thisassessment tool is structured around four key community development out-comes, which are:

1. quality livelihoods and environment,2. adequate infrastructure,3. community self-reliance and4. responsiveness to climate and disaster impacts.

DasGupta and Shaw [8] developed an indicator of resilience measure-ment related to natural disaster and climate change impacts, which wasalso formed based on several previous concepts and indicators by severalliteratures [6,9]. In this research, one of the dimensions, coastal zone man-agement, is considered to represent the location of the study. The main rea-son of putting coastal zonemanagement is that it is represent the nature andsustainability of human-environment relations in coastal areas, while at the

2

same time, it also translate the ecological capacity of the coupled human-environment system [8]

Under this background, the research is intended to measure the resil-ience of coastal community through collective resilience assessment andbottom-up approach in community level. The objectives of the researchare to measure the level of resilience of coastal community, identify factorscontribute to community resilience, and participatory planning and actionfrom the perspective of local community.

2. Description of study area

2.1. Gunungkidul coastal area

Gunungkidul Regency, whose capital is inWonosari, is one of the regen-cies in the Special Province of Yogyakarta. The area of Gunungkidul Re-gency is 1485.36 km2 or about 46.63% of the total area of DIY Province.It is divided into 18 Subdistricts and 144 villages. The city of Wonosari islocated southeast of the city of Yogyakarta (the Capital of DIY Province),with a distance of 39 km [10].

According to Van Bemmelen (1949) in [11], based on the division ofphysiographic zones on Java Island, regional territory of Gunungkidul Re-gency belongs to the physiographic zone of the Southern Mountains ofwestern East Java. The topography of Gunungkidul Regency is form in rug-ged mountains, half of the area has a slope of >15%, that is in the northernzone (Baturagung Mountains) and the western, southern and eastern zones(ThousandMountains). Only themiddle zone is relatively flat in the form ofa plumb/plateau called Ledok Wonosari, covering the areas of Wonosari,Playen, Semanu and parts of Paliyan. The elevation of the area variesfrom 0 m above sea level (asl) in the coastal area, 100–400 m asl in thekarst zone of the Thousand Mountains, 100–200 m asl in the LedokWonosari zone and 400–800 m asl in the Baturagung Mountains zone[12] (Fig. 1).

The coastal area of Gunungkidul Regency are in the southern part of theregion, where predominantly occupied by karst formation. It has an area of1023.10 km2 with sea border area of 4 miles and towards land to theboundary of the sub-district which has coastline. This region consists of 6sub-districts namely Purwosari, Panggang, Saptosari, Tanjungsari, Tepus,and Girisubo. The coastal area of Gunungkidul has a coastal border cover-ing approximately 770 (seven hundred and seventy) hectares locatedalong the plain of the south coast of Gunungkidul with an area of514 km2 consisting of 6 sub-districts, 36 villages, and 373 hamlets. Thepopulation in those 6 sub-districts is 166,692 people or 23.6% of the popu-lation of Gunungkidul Regency, with an average density of 316 people/km2. Saptosari Sub-district has the highest density among other coastal dis-tricts, with 406 people/km2. The average number of people in the family inGunungkidul Regency is 3.5 people/household, while for coastal area, it is3.6 people/household [14].

Baron Beach, as the main research site is located in Kemadang Village,Tanjungsari Sub-district. It is a narrow beach with black sands, surroundedby cliffs and part of karst ecosystem. There are two communities, fisheryand tourism, who have establish local-level organization to facilitate theirown activities. Based on Statistical Report of Marine and Fishery ofGunungkidul, marine-capture fishery productivity in Gunungkidul Regencyin 2013 was 1.25 tons/unit, then rose to 2.54 tons/unit a year later. In2015, the number of productivity plummeted to 0.94 tons/unit. From tour-ism sector, the number of visitors has clearly rised in significant numbers, re-flects from Tourism Statistical report. In 2012 tourists visited coastal tourismdestination was 1,279,065 visitors and this number has rocketed to3,479,890 visitors in 2016.Most community living in the coastal area dependon natural resources for their livelihoods and are characterized by their lowadaptive capacity, especially those who relate in fishery sector (Table 1).

2.2. Research site profile

There are two main economic activities in Baron beach, which are fish-ery and tourism. Both are occupied the shoreline and near-shore water and

Table 1Regional economic growth rate in Yogyakarta Province 2013–2017.

Name of Regency 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Mean 2013–2017

Kulon Progo 4.87 4.67 4.62 4.76 5.97 4.98Bantul 5.46 5.04 4.97 5.06 5.10 5.04Gunungkidul 4.97 4.54 4.82 4.89 5.00 4.81Sleman 5.89 5.30 5.18 5.25 5.35 5.27Kota Yogyakarta 5.47 5.28 5.09 5.11 5.24 5.18

Fig. 1.Map of study area.(Source: [13].)

A. Nurzaman et al. Progress in Disaster Science 5 (2020) 100067

there is no specific segregation between those communities. At the begin-ning of the development of baron Beach in 1980's, the fishery sector areplaying more role in occupying the area, but since 1990's the tourism activ-ities began to established. Since then, this two communities grew togetherto form the local livelihood of Baron coastal area. It lies in a strategic loca-tion for visitors so they can easily access from two road corridors. Public fa-cilities are also available such as parking lots, places of worship, and publichall for community meeting and gathering. The tourism facilities such as

Fig. 2. Activities in(Source: Author.)

3

small hotels, guesthouses, and restaurants are also available. The develop-ment of Southern Road Network (JJLS) has also triggered rapid develop-ment in the southern region of Gunungkidul as the spatial mobility andthe distribution of goods and services between districts are increase. Thisis in accordance with the purpose of establishing JJLS as a link betweenthe southern region of Java as well as increasing regional economic activi-ties and also reducing inequality between regions. The existence of thisroad had increases the number of tourists visiting Baron beach (Fig. 2).

Baron Beach also has an underground streamwhich its outlet form an es-tuarine located at the west side of the beach. The existence of this estuarine isnot surprising because it is located in an underground stream that is commonin the karst region. In a view of Geomorphology and Hydrology, the karst re-gion is an area formed by the process of dissolving rocks by water and atmo-spheric carbon dioxide. The Karst pores facilitate percolation of surfacewater, which joins the underground streams. This dissolution process thenproduces a distinctive appearance in the form of karst hills on the surface ofthe land, and the aisles of caves and underground rivers at the bottom ofthe land surface. Water that enters the karst aquifer system will be flowedthrough the drainage channel in the form of a cave or underground river

Baron Beach.

A. Nurzaman et al. Progress in Disaster Science 5 (2020) 100067

until it reaches the sea. Some of these streams appear before reaching the seasuch as Baron and Ngobaran Beaches, and some of them come out as springsin themiddle of the sea. The streamsmay be as deep as 100mbelow the landsurface and the inlet to the streams are caves (Fig. 3).

The outlet of underground stream in Baron is used as spring providingdrinking water for local residents. The water is taken by a giant generatorinside the cave and distribute through a set of installed pipe through vil-lages nearby. Since the location of the mouth cave is near the shore line,sometimes it has been struck by high waves or flood. For example, an inci-dent happened in July 2018, when high waves hit Baron Beach cause ero-sion and cracked some part of the pipe network. The other distractioncame from the overflow of underground stream that cause heavy flood.This kind of incident is getting worse as the severe rainfall pattern becomemore unpredictable. Some natural events that damage the facilities on thecoast of Baron have resulted in loss of both lives and assets. To anticipatethis, the Baron SAR Team made several efforts to mitigate it. One of themis by installing CCTV at 3 spots to monitor environmental changes thatmay be an indication of hazard appearance.

3. Methodology

In order to assess collective community resilience in Baron Beach, an in-stitutional surveywas conducted over 3 communities in this area. In this re-gard, the definition of community is describe as a group of people in ashared geographical spacewith diverse characteristics and priorities, linkedby social ties, interactions shaping local life, shared identity, collective ac-tion, and providing a means for accessing external resources [15]. Those3 communities are fishery community, tourism community, and mix-livelihood community. The last mentioned group is those who are engagedwith bothfishery and tourism activities. From those 3 communities, severalgroupmembers were chosen to answer a set of questionnaire. Three personwere chosen as the representative of community, i.e. chief of group, seniormember (become member of >6 years), and junior member (becomemem-ber of least than 6 years). Theywere asked to answer 3-point Likert Scale ofseries of question represents parameters, indicators, and dimension of com-munity resilience. Total of 125 questions were asked to describe collectivecommunity resilience.

The analysis is conducted by given the weighting scale for each of theanswer from respondent. Then, it is calculated through equation based on[8] as follows.

Scoreindicator ¼ w1v1þ w2v2þ w3v3þ w4v4þ w5v5w1þ w2þ w3þ w4þ w5

Fig. 3. Impact of coastal ha(Source: www.google.com

4

where wn(n =1–5) represents the assigned weightage of each variables,WHILE vn(n =1–5) represents the score of each variables. The scores ofeach dimensions is described by equation below.

Scoredimension ¼ w1i1þ w2i2þ w3i3þ w4i4þ w5i5w1þ w2þ w3þ w4þ w5

where wn(n =1–5) represents the assigned weightage of each indicators,while in(n =1–5) represents the score of each indicators. Finally, the scoreof composite resilience is calculated through similar equation as follow.

Scorecompositeresilience ¼ w1d1þ w2d2þ w3d3þ w4d4þ w5d5w1þ w2þ w3þ w4þ w5

where wn(n =1–5) represents the assigned weightage of each dimensions,while dn(n=1–5) represents the score of each dimensions.

The results obtained from institutional assessment depict the overall re-silience level of coastal community in Baron beach. To complete the assess-ment of the community resilience, qualitative method was conducted toconfirm the quantitative assessment with the actual condition. Therefore,FGD is carried out for 3 communities, and conducted separately for eachcommunity. The participants are the member of the community with com-bination of various experiences, duration of engagement with livelihood,gender. The number of participants for each community were around8–15 people, with the duration of the discussion is about 1 to 2.5 h. The ob-jective of this FGD is to understand specific problem of the community re-lated to resilience against coastal hazard. To enhance the resilience of thecommunity, they were encourage to find some solutions to those problem.These later were narrowed down to specific correcting measures from theperspective of local community (Fig. 4).

According to the result of FGD, the information then categorized into re-lated indicators and dimension of the Collective Community ResilienceIndex, so the output were the specific task and action to enhance commu-nity resilience. Next step of community resilience assessment is byconducting household questionnaire based on the FGD's result. Finally, byelaborating the result of FGD and related those corrective actions expressedby community, there are 14 tasks and 42 actions that are compiled into a setof prioritization. In accordance to that, the respondentswere asked to prior-itize actions under the 14 tasks in a 3-point Likert Scale. This also applies toactions, but they only need to prioritize 5 most important tasks. The ques-tionnaire later will be analyzed using Microsoft Excel. There are total of180 respondents from all community (48 respondents from fishery commu-nity, 81 from tourism community, and 51 frommix-livelihood community).

zards in Baron Beach..)

Fig. 4. Research flow.(Source: Author.)

A. Nurzaman et al. Progress in Disaster Science 5 (2020) 100067

4. Results

4.1. Collective community resilience score

The score of three communities shows an extensive variation. In thescale of 1 to 3, the resilience level is categorized as follows. The score <1shows low resilience, >1 to <2 means the status is medium resilience,and >2 is categorized as high resilience. Based on overall scores, mix-livelihood community is categorized as medium resilience with the scoreof (1.99), whereas fishery community (2.12) and tourism community(2.33) are categorized as high resilience score. None of three communitiesshows low resilience score (Table 2).

In general, it is observed that collective community resilience in Baronhas a close relationship with coastal exposure. This refer to the socio-ecological dynamic of coastal environment, the environmental change ofthe area in form of the amount of fish resources, coastal biodiversity, landoccupation, the exposure of coastal hazards, are seen to be important forthe sustainability of the livelihood. In socio-economic aspects, it is influ-enced by the business scale of the community, the number of visitors, andthe development of coastal tourism. Small-scale communities have eco-nomic limitations to reach business development opportunities, in additionto the background of relatively disadvantaged rural communities. In thearea of regional development, these coastal communities are the victimsof regional development inequality. Gunungkidul and Kulonprogo districtsare categorized as underdeveloped regions in the context of regional eco-nomic development with relatively low economic potential and lack of cen-ters of economic growth.

In natural aspect, since their proximity to coastal ecosystems, thechanges in coastal dynamics such as the coastal disasters, climatic condi-tions, and oceanography appear as the main factors hinder the resilienceof community. This is combined by their choice of coping strategies; sofar they use their indigenous resources to cope with the coastal hazard ex-posure. Mayunga [16] argued the notion of adaptation in the definition ofresilience, stressed to the term of process oriented. This means that a socialsystem can reorganize itself to maintain essential structure and process

Table 2Result of collective community resilience in Baron Beach.

No Name of community Dimension

Socio-economic Institutional Na

1 Fishery 1.93 2.43 2.22 Tourism 2.40 2.45 1.33 Mix-livelihood 1.87 1.88 1.8

5

within a coping and/or adaptation process. Thus the notion of adaptationis desirable because it increases capacity for learning and coping (Fig. 5).

Theymustmanage their finance between the period of input and outputof production (agriculture, livestock, and fishery), uncertainty about yields,and dependence on weather. This makes it important that they can ensuretheir consumption, to access credit and use strategies to deal with risk (Con-ning&Udry in [17]). This is the most rational choice since their limitationsmainly related to their livelihood scale.

4.1.1. Socio-economic resilience scoreAmong the five indicators used for this assessment, finance and eco-

nomic tools, and skills and training are the important concern for thosecommunities. Finance and economic tools indicator related to the lowlevel of income and the scale of the livelihood. For fishery community,this is due to the dependency of natural resources which is clearly inade-quate to support their proper living. Their livelihood scale restricts themto access financial capital provided by economic institution. Data fromIndonesian Central Bank (Bank Indonesia) in 2016 exhibit that >85% offisheries livelihood is categorized as micro and small scale fisheries busi-nesses, and only 7–10% of fishermen have access to banks and other finan-cial institutions. It is very low if compared to other business sectors [18].Small-scale fisheries, which generally still at the subsistence level- a stan-dard of living that provides only the bare necessities of life-is considereda speculative business and below the average income of other communitygroups.

According to Berkes in [19], a standard definition of subsistence fisher-ies is “local, non-commercial fisheries, oriented not primarily for recreationbut for the procurement of fish for consumption of the fishers, their fami-lies, and community”. An important factor that caused fishermen havelack access to financial capital in banking institutions was the assumptionthat fishermen were poor, ignorant, and unable to plan their own future.Added with the low and uncertain income, it is considered unable torepay loans regularly. Therefore, credit disbursement to fishermen is con-sidered to have high risks [20]. In addition, a gradual trend of depletingecosystem service such as low fish catch was also identified as the influence

Composite resilience

tural Physical Coastal zone management

5 2.38 1.96 2.125 2.59 2.28 2.337 2.33 2.09 1.99

Fig. 5. Composite resilience of three communities.

A. Nurzaman et al. Progress in Disaster Science 5 (2020) 100067

factor for fishery community. From this assessment, it is evident that lim-ited access tofinancial capital hinders the effort to improve their livelihoodscale.

Score of skills and training indicator showed below 2.0 and categorizedasmedium resilient. This does notmean that there is no training provide forthe community. In every fiscal year, local government has carried out manytraining programs. Several universities also play their part providing train-ing as a manifestation of community service. The problems are there werelack of variety of training, and less innovations in training both in theform of material and methods. The development of information and tech-nology should be anticipated by conducting technology-based training. Infishery sector, the use of open sourceweather applications has been popularamong fishermen. This at least helps them anticipate severe weather condi-tions in more detail information. So far, they have used weather informa-tion from official government websites that are not really up to date. Theother strategies that need to be developed are the combination of Global Po-sitioning System (GPS) and fish finder for small-scale fishers. According toAriffianto& Rusadi [21], there were at least 7 types of media used by fish-ermen in Southern Java. Two technologies, GPS and fish finder are stillused in a limited way by small fishermen. They also argue that ongoing re-generation of educated and knowledgeable youngfishermen could progressthe implementation of ICT for small-scale fishermen. Young fishermen aremore familiar with technology than the previous generation. In practice,the role of community group is imperative in the use of GPS and fish finderas communal agreement and not individual.

In the field of tourism, the application of new technology provideswider opportunities, for example the development of smartphone applica-tions that can display complete information of a tourist site. The specific in-formation such as coordinate of the location, tourist facilities,transportation access, accommodation, and others will give benefit forboth tourist and local community which engaged in tourism sector. Onlarger scale, it is argued that based on the integration of software and hard-ware platforms in the concept of smart city, smart tourism can be utilizedfor integrated tourism development, tourism services, government institu-tions, and private company services to promote tourism development.

4.1.2. Institutional resilience scoreFishery community reflects high resilience level with governance indi-

cator appears as the highest score. In contrast, coordination indicator andgovernance indicator become a main concern for tourism community andmix-livelihood community with both is categorized as medium resilience.Emergency response and adaptive capacity depicted high resilient for allcommunities. In general, this is related with the social capital within com-munity as a manifestation of indigenous knowledge. Good social capitalamong community can be a catalyst of good establishment of communityinstitution as stated by Kim [22] that social capital plays a role individualand community development. Dokhi et al. in [23] argue that inIndonesia, the concept of social capital is usually termed as gotong royong(mutual aid), It has been a kind of remedy for any community burdens

6

where any challenge could be solved, including harsh time during disasterrecovery.

The high governance indicator reflect by fishery community can be ar-gued that they are themost experienced community group in this area. Alsoin term of livelihood characteristic, their member, which all of them arefishermen; relatively has the same perspective to response some issues. Itslightly differs for tourism community, with the governance indicatorshowed medium score. This community consist of several sub-groupbased on the service provided for tourists. For example, the restaurantowners have its own sub-group. The case is the same for themotel or home-stay owners, souvenir outlets owners, and the other sub-group.POKDARWIS as the official institution of tourism community play role asthe host for those sub-group.

4.1.3. Natural resilience scoreAlthough categorized as medium resilience, tourism community has the

lowest score (1.33), while mix-livelihood community (1.87) is slightlyhigher. Fishery community reflects high resilience score in this dimensionwith 2.25 score respectively. Tourism community experienced low resil-ience score of climatic condition indicator and oceanography indicatorsare adjacent with their low response to these issues. Within this indicator,the rising sea level, high intensity rainfall, and extreme weather events in-evitably influence their livelihood. The tourists are reluctant to visit tour-ism area during bad weather condition, which means the revenue fromvisitors is decreased. In addition, major tourist activities occur in the baywith large sandy area. During high tide cause by severe storm, the sandyarea will be covered by ocean water and become harmful for tourism activ-ities. In addition, BPBD through SAR teamwill announce warning activitiesduring severe coastal disaster. In some cases, the area will strictly closed toprevent major accident or live lost.

4.1.4. Physical resilience scoreAmong five indicators, clean water supply and public facilities are im-

portant points for physical dimension. One of the main problems inGunungkidul coastal area is the provision of water supply. As mentionedearlier that this area is predominantly karst area that are porous and cannotcatch water in longer period. This has been an obstacle for coastal commu-nity to get continuous water supply during awhole year. During dry season,they are struggling to obtain drinking water and not often have to buywater from the truck from private provider. It means they have to spendcertain amount of money that effects on their expenditure. The distributionof water through pipe has been provided by public-owned water companyfrom the outlet of underground stream inBaronBeach. It serves several sub-districts in coastal areas, including local community in study area. Theproblem is that flood from underground stream often damage pipe con-struction. Local community takes water manually by bucket or waterpump in that case.

A. Nurzaman et al. Progress in Disaster Science 5 (2020) 100067

4.1.5. Coastal zone management resilience scoreIn particular, specific indicators under this dimension have close rela-

tion with ecological performance of karst ecosystem within study area. Re-sult of the study unveiled that CZM resilience score of mix-livelihood andtourism community represent high resilience, while the score of fisherycommunity depicted medium resilience with the score 1.99 respectively.Among five indicators, coastline protection, waste management, and karstecosystem management indicators are important points to be addressed.

Coastline protection is important since the number of coastal disasterhas been damaging its structure. Massive strike from the ocean waves hasdeteriorates concrete structure of the embankment. In addition, latest dam-age was contributed from the massive stream from underground river thathas never been experience before. Nothing to say that despite the need ofreinforcement on the embankment construction, the spatial planning ofBaron coastal area is also need some attention. So far, the implementationof coastal zone planning is not done yet.

There is no adequate treatment of waste produced from economic activ-ities in the study area. With the characteristic of Baron beach, the ocean isthe only victim of waste discharge, inevitably effect the quality of the eco-system itself. The untreatedwaste creates bad smells, which can disturb vis-itors. In addition, the possibility of diseases can arise from a dirtyenvironment. Zahedi [24] stated that a number of factors increasinglythreaten the environmental quality of the coastal area and such as poor sew-age disposal, beach erosion, destruction of wildlife habitat, over-crowding,treatment of solid waste, etc. hence the sustainability of the tourism indus-try. The other example comes from Thailand that over-development on KoPhi Phi is starving the coral reefs of sunlight and smothering the surface inpollutants [25]. In Goa, India a five-star hotel consuming as much water asfive local villages and one five-star tourist consuming 28 times more elec-tricity per day than a local people, local discontent over resource-use is un-derstandable [24].

Karst ecosystem management takes bigger role in coastal managementin the study area since the recognition of Baron coastal area withinGunungsewu Global Geopark. The obligation to maintain the sustainabilityof karst ecosystem is greater because of the official recognition of thisgeopark status. Local community has not been realized the critical role ofkarst ecosystem to support their lives. In term of tourism activities, theseecosystems becomemore important because the damage caused by tourismactivities will directly reflect the poor management of both karts ecosystemand tourism management.

4.2. Participatory action planning

4.2.1. Prioritization of tasksBased on the participatory approach, the tasks and action prioritization

were address differently by each community. Some tasks are seen to be im-minent for a community, and less important for the other communities. Incontrast, some commonalities also appear, for example Task 1 (Protectionof business assets and revenue from disasters), Task 3 (Improvement of

Fig. 6. Prioritization of Task

7

business skills), Task 11 (Improvement of coastline/riparian protection)and Task 14 (Management of the karst area) that show as clear-cut promi-nent tasks for them (Fig. 6).

In short, the result of the participatory approach suggests that commu-nities in Baron Beach are highly aware of the importance of the coastal en-vironment especially within karst ecosystem. However, their awarenessdoes not in line with their action of managing the sustainability of the eco-system. Their livelihood practices still neglect the principle of environmentconservation. Environmental conservation efforts and long-term disastermitigation practice are still behind economic fulfillment of the livelihood.They take advantage of short-term momentum in form of tourism develop-ment in coastal areas. Kusumastuti [26] stated that based on the social, eco-logical, and physical carrying capacity threshold analysis, the actual visitorsin Baron Beach is 10,666 visitors/day, above the ideal tolerable capacitywhich is 6302 visitors/day. A community's tourism carrying capacity de-fines the upper limit to an acceptable tourist population within which sus-tainability is maintained [27]. As mentioned above that short-term gainoften take priority over long-term sustainability may lead to the over-exploited resources and the vulnerability of the community livelihood.

4.2.2. Prioritization of actionsThe questionnaire also elaborates the prioritization of actions under

each task. The respondents were asked to choose among three specific ac-tions within the 14 listed tasks. Regarding to this, the discussion will befocus on the top 5 prioritized tasks displayed by three communities. Thecategorization of three specific actions (A1, A2, A3) within one task donot represent the level of urgency of implementation compare to theother task, for example A1 in protection of business assets and revenue from di-sasters (SE01) task do notmean it ismore urgent than A3 in environment con-servation (N05) task. Therefore, each community express in different waydepend on their understanding and relatively narrow related with theirlivelihood scale (Fig. 7).

For fishery community, within socio-economic dimension, provision ofcalamity funds during disaster (A1) of SE01 is the foremost prioritized ac-tions with almost 80% of the respondents point it out. They argue thatlocal government is the most responsible institution of covering their liveli-hood sustainability since they are categorized as small-scale fishermen. Interm of this issue, an alternative covering mechanism has been deployedby the initiation of assets insurance (A3), but the details insurance schemeis still inappropriate for small-scale fishermen. Another interesting resultis that training for youngfishermen (A1) and implementation of ICT-based train-ing (A3) within SE03 task are seemingly important with both obtainedaround 40%. The rapid penetration of technology has extended to therural areas, so they realize the importance of improving technology forsmall-scale fishermen. This can be an opportunity for the government torecognize this propose action.

In case of task coastline/riparian protection (CZM01), fishermen signifythat construction of wave retaining embankments (A1) is more crucial ratherthan arrangement of buildings within shoreline (A2) or tree plantation along the

s by three communities.

Fig. 7. Prioritization of actions by fishery community.

A. Nurzaman et al. Progress in Disaster Science 5 (2020) 100067

shoreline (A3). It corresponds with their strong attachment with riparianzone as the place to put their fishing boats. During severe storm or tidalflood, the deteriorate embankment is not strong enough to hold them soit damage their fishing boats. Mustafa & Yudhicara [28] stated the mor-phology of Baron beach is categorized medium to high relief, with rela-tively wide slope. In this area, the buildings and fishing boat are veryclose to the coastline, so it will be easy to crash when waves come, whilevegetation closes on the beach is very rare, so the risk of damage due tothe blow objects will be even greater. For management of karst area(CZM05), utilization of the karst ecosystem according to its capacity (A3) isthe most important action to be taken than the other two proposed actions(Fig. 8).

Similar to fishery community, tourism community denote that provisionof calamity funds during disaster (A1) of SE01 is the most prioritized actioncompare to the other two actions. The reason behind this is quite similarsince they consider as low-level business group, so the local authorityhave the compulsory task to protect them with social safety mechanism.Another significant observation comes from clean water supply indicator(PH04) that demonstrates distribution of water supply through pipe (A3) is rel-atively crucial. The reason is that they need a continuous water supply toguarantee the provision of water for tourist, especially for those who ownguesthouse or motels.

In term of supervision on land use (CZM04), tourism community ad-dress that prohibition of build construction in disaster-prone locations (A2) isrelatively important followed by developing coastal areas that pay attentionon disaster mitigation (A1), and group involvement in monitoring land use

Fig. 8. Prioritization of action

8

(A3). The other interesting finding is on the management karst area(CZM05). Provision of sanctions for those who carry out activities that damagekarst ecosystem (A2) appears as the clear cut action needs to be taken.They argue that big investors who build resort or hotel within Baron coastalarea aremore possible giving damage to the karst ecosystem. Itmakes sensesince the construction of large hotel or resort involves heavy equipment tocrush limestone hills. Data from Statistical Bureau of Gunungkidul (BPS)shows that within 2 years the number of hotel in Tanjungsari sub-districthas increased from 9 units in 2015 rose to 56 in 2017 [29] (Fig. 9).

Similar from previous communities, mix-livelihood community, withinprotection of assets during disaster task (SE01), provision of calamity fundsduring disaster (A1) of SE01 is the most stands out actions with slightlyover 60%of the respondents point it out. Regarding improvement of coastalconservation effort (N05) task, nearly 40% of respondents in this commu-nity distinct the importance of restockingfishery resources (A2). Another inter-esting result is that there is disperse statement on improvement of adaptivecapacity to climate change and disasters through information and technol-ogy (IN04) in which dissemination, socialization, and campaign (A1), procure-ment of enhance early warning system (A2), and provision of sign boards forevacuation (A3) have a slight difference percentage.

In case of task coastline/riparian protection (CZM01), mix-livelihoodcommunity point out that tree plantation along the shoreline (A3) is more criti-cal than construction of wave retaining embankments (A1) and arrangement ofbuildings within shoreline (A2). It opposes with the statement of fishery com-munity in which corresponds that the most important action within thistask is construction of wave retaining embankments. In their opinion, the

s by tourism community.

Fig. 9. Prioritization of actions by mix-livelihood community.

A. Nurzaman et al. Progress in Disaster Science 5 (2020) 100067

tree plantation can givemany benefits. For instance, it can contribute to thebeautification of coastal area and can attract more tourists to visit.

5. Discussion

In general, it is observed that collective community resilience in Baronhas a close relationship with coastal exposure. This refer to the socio-ecological dynamic of coastal environment, the environmental change ofthe area in form of the amount of fish resources, coastal biodiversity, landoccupation, the exposure of coastal hazards, are seen to be important forthe sustainability of the livelihood. In socio-economic aspects, it is influ-enced by the business scale of the community, the number of visitors, andthe development of coastal tourism. Small-scale communities have eco-nomic limitations to reach business development opportunities, in additionto the background of relatively disadvantaged rural communities. In the

Fig. 10. Conceptual framework for e

9

area of regional development, these coastal communities are the victimsof regional development inequality. Gunungkidul and Kulonprogo districtsare categorized as underdeveloped regions in the context of regional eco-nomic development with relatively low economic potential and lack of cen-ters of economic growth (Yuliadi, 2014; BAPPEDA DIY, 2018).

In natural aspect, since their proximity to coastal ecosystems, thechanges in coastal dynamics such as the coastal disasters, climatic condi-tions, and oceanography appear as the main factors hinder the resilienceof community. This is combined by their choice of coping strategies; sofar they use their indigenous resources to cope with the coastal hazard ex-posure. Mayunga [16] argued the notion of adaptation in the definition ofresilience, stressed to the term of process oriented. This means that a socialsystem can reorganize itself to maintain essential structure and processwithin a coping and/or adaptation process. Thus the notion of adaptationis desirable because it increases capacity for learning and coping. They

nhancing community resilience.

A. Nurzaman et al. Progress in Disaster Science 5 (2020) 100067

must manage their finance between the period of input and output of pro-duction (agriculture, livestock, and fishery), uncertainty about yields, anddependence on weather. This makes it important that they can ensuretheir consumption, to access credit and use strategies to deal with risk (Con-ning&Udry in [17]). This is the most rational choice since their limitationsmainly related to their livelihood scale.

Based on the participatory approach, the tasks and action prioritizationwere address differently by each community. Some tasks are seen to be im-minent for a community, and less important for the other communities. Incontrast, some commonalities also appear, for example Task 1 (Protectionof business assets and revenue from disasters), Task 3 (Improvement ofbusiness skills), Task 11 (Improvement of coastline/riparian protection)and Task 14 (Management of the karst area) that show as clear-cut promi-nent tasks for them. This can be importantly notified that the scale or ur-gency of the problem were undeniable, therefore the consequence to thecommunities and the coastal area is pertinent. According to the prioritiza-tion of actions, following the above mentioned tasks, this research also ob-served the same pattern on how the community addressing the prioritizeactions.

In short, the result of the participatory approach suggests that commu-nities in Baron Beach are highly aware of the importance of the coastal en-vironment especially within karst ecosystem. However, their awarenessdoes not in line with their action of managing the sustainability of the eco-system. Their livelihood practices still neglect the principle of environmentconservation. Environmental conservation efforts and long-term disastermitigation practice are still behind economic fulfillment of the livelihood.They take advantage of short-term momentum in form of tourism develop-ment in coastal areas. Kusumastuti [26] stated that based on the social, eco-logical, and physical carrying capacity threshold analysis, the actual visitorsin Baron Beach is 10,666 visitors/day, above the ideal tolerable capacitywhich is 6302 visitors/day. A community's tourism carrying capacity de-fines the upper limit to an acceptable tourist population within which sus-tainability is maintained [27]. As mentioned above that short-term gainoften take priority over long-term sustainability may lead to the over-exploited resources and the vulnerability of the community livelihood.

Over the previous years, disaster risk management and coastal manage-ment has put community as an important successful actors within its con-cept. However, this concept is a long-term approach integrating human,environment, and development components. Therefore, community partic-ipation is a crucial requirement for implementing this approach. One of thecommon terms of governing socio-ecological systems is the co-managementconcept, which couple and establish based on adaptive ecosystem-basedmanagement and collaborative management.

Co-management can be defined as a partnership approach where gov-ernment and resource users share the responsibility and authority for themanagement of a fishery or area, based on collaboration between them-selves and with other stakeholders. Co-management depends on fourmain pillars: supporting legislation and policies, empowered communities,good linkages between players, and finance and capacity [30]. In theory, itenables faster andmore appropriate responses to system change, as it drawson the capacities and competencies of a diverse set of actors, while contin-uously improving practices in a learning-by-doing process. In addition to of-fering a suite of ideas or prescriptions about how desirable environmentalgovernance may be accomplished. Particularly striking is the diversity ofsituations (e.g., forestry, fisheries, wildlife, waterscapes, parks andprotected areas, climate change, settlement) and geographical distributionin which ACM has been documented (Huitema et al. in [31]) (Fig. 10).

Actors are the involved stakeholders by building strong and cohesive re-lation and it is define as a sustainable connection and engagement. The ex-planation of each role is described as follows:

a. Government

The authority provides legal aspects and state budget, also contributingof public awareness through legal and regulation enforcement. They deliverpolicy and program and perform as the initiator among state institutions.

10

b. Civil society

Social cohesion and inclusiveness should maintain among people in ac-cordance to the shifting paradigm of community's role. The awareness of di-saster risk, climate change, and sustainable environment should fosterwithin society.

c. Academe

The role of university as educational and learning entity is essential be-cause it can be the engine of change through science and knowledge. Scien-tific invention and practical knowledge could be beneficial for communityand their livelihood.

d. Private sector

The contribution could arise from their interest in specific sector. Manycommunities have great ideas and consistent activities among their mem-bers, such as those who concern to the preservation of karst ecosystem, orgo-green activists who empowering public about sustainable environmentor waste management. Private sectors also play an essential role by contrib-uting their corporate social responsibility through various actions.

Two prominent terms in the process section are collaboration and learn-ing. Argyris & Schon in [31] define learning as a social process of iterativereflection that takes place when experiences, ideas, and environments areshared. Multi-stakeholder groups play an important role in holding localgovernments accountable to their commitments, while at the same timegenerating debate and ideas about emerging issues that related to themain issue. Mechanisms and tools for knowledge exchange and dissemina-tion of best practice are needed which could provide benchmarking. Ac-cording to Plummer et al. [31], output coming about from adaptive co-management is accordingly considered as to results and effects. Resultsare products (tangible and intangible) arising from the process. Whereas re-sults capture what comes about, effects entail their consequences. Contribu-tions from this proposed framework in this regard are appraised withconsideration to ecological sustainability and human livelihoods.

6. Conclusion & recommendation

6.1. Conclusion

There are several concluding points that could be gathered from the dis-cussion of measuring community resilience in Baron Beach, such as follow:

1. Based on overall scores, mix-livelihood community is categorized as me-dium resilience with the score of (1.99), whereas fishery community(2.3) and tourism community (2.5) are categorized as high resiliencescore. None of three communities shows low resilience score.

2. The changes in coastal dynamics in form of the coastal disasters, climaticconditions, and oceanography appear as the main factors hinder the re-silience of community since their proximity with coastal exposure.

3. Based on the participatory approach, the tasks and action prioritizationwere address differently by each community. Some tasks are seen to beimminent for a community, and less important for the other communi-ties.

4. Environmental conservation efforts and long-term disaster mitigationpractice are still behind economic fulfillment of the livelihood althoughthe result of the participatory approach suggests that communities arehighly aware of the importance of the coastal environment especiallywithin karst ecosystem.

6.2. Recommendation

Based on the analysis and discussion, there are several recommenda-tions that can be addressed from this research:

1. Establishing a comprehensive policy in coastal area through integratedcoastal zone management. Adaptive Co-Management framework is pro-posed, which is a combination of ecosystem-basedmanagement and col-laborative management.

(

E

E

W

S

W

L

A. Nurzaman et al. Progress in Disaster Science 5 (2020) 100067

2. Promoting a more intensive collaboration within stakeholders. The es-sential part of environmental governance approach is on the inter-relation mechanism among the four pillars; government, communityand private sector, and academe.

3. In term of addressing the need of communities, a proper policy regard-ing the socio-economic background of the small-scale communities inform of covering asset insurance is prominent.

Author contributions

Conceptualization, A.N.; R.S. Data curation, A.N. Formal analysis, A.N.Funding acquisition, A.N.; R.S.; M.S.RMethodology, A.N.; R.S. Supervision,R.S.; M.S.R. Writing–original draft, A.N. Writing–review and editing, R.S.;M.S.R.

Funding

This research received financial support provided by PusbindiklatrenBappenas forMaster Linkage Programof the Professional HumanResourcesDepartment IV (PHRD IV) and by Keio University.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to fellow research scholars at Keio Universityand Universitas Gadjah mada for their valuable suggestions,

Appendix A. Tasks and actions identified from FGD

Correspondingindicators

Fi

Li

Sk

C

E

A

P

Proposed tasks

Possible corrective actions

nance &economictools (SE01)

Protection of business assetsand revenue from disasters

A1

Provision of calamity fundsduring disaster

A2

Development of group savings K A3 Procurement assets insurance

during disaster for groupmembers

velihood(SE02)

Development of alternativelivelihoods

A1

Development of Ecotourism A2 Establishment of a special

institution for managingecotourism

A3

Providing financial capital forsmall-scale enterprise

ills &training(SE03)

Improvement of business skills

A1 Training for youth A2 Business training for women A3 Information technology-based

training

oordination(IN01)

Improvement of coordinationbetween stakeholders in thecoastal area

A1

Regular meetings A2 Formation of a joint forum A3 Use of social media

(Facebook, WhatsApp) toimprove coordination

mergencyresponse(IN02)

Improvement of post-disasteremergency response activities

A1

Training for communitygroups

A2

Improvement of equipmentand vehicle (ambulance,heavy equipment, etc.)

A3

Transparency in aiddistribution

daptiveaction (IN04)

Improvement of adaptationcapacity to climate change anddisasters through informationand technology

A1

Dissemination, socialization,and campaign

A2

Procurement of more enhanceearly warning system

A3

Provision of sign boards forevacuation

ollution (N04)

Reduction of pollution in A1 Reducing the use of plastic

11

continued)

Correspondingindicators

Proposed tasks

Possible corrective actions

coastal areas

and other pollutants materials A2 Use of environmentally

friendly materials

A3 Provision of sanctions and

punishment for those whocarry out environmentalpollution

nvironmentconservation(N05)

Improvement of coastalconservation effort

A1

Increased resource monitoringactivities

A2

Restocking of fisheryresources

A3

Procurement of informationboards

lectricity(PH02)

Improvement of electricityservices

A1

Increased duration ofelectricity

A2

Addition of lighting facilities A3 Reducing the frequency of

power outages

ater supply(PH04)

Provision of clean watersupply

A1

Making springs (wells, ponds) A2 Provision of water through

tanker trucks

A3 Distribution of water through

pipes

horelineprotection(CZM01)

Improvement ofcoastline/riparian protection

A1

Construction of waveretaining embankments

A2

Arrangement of buildings inthe coastal border

A3

Tree plantation alongcoastline

astemanagement(CZM03)

Management of wasteoriginating from communityactivities

A1

Construction of wastetreatment facilities

A2

Provision of adequate garbagebins

A3

Dissemination and training onwaste management

and use(CZM04)

Supervision of land use

A1 Structuring coastal areas thatpay attention to aspects ofdisaster mitigation

A2

Prohibition of construction ofbuildings in disaster-pronelocations

A3

Group involvement inmonitoring land use

arstmanagement(CZM05)

Management of the karst area

A1 Socialization to communitygroups and visitors

A2

Provision of sanctions forthose who carry out activitiesthat damage the karstecosystem

A3

Utilization of the karstecosystem according to itscapacity

References

[1] Nasution AB. Isu-Isu Kelautan dari Kemiskinan Hingga Bajak Laut. Yogyakarta: PustakaPelajar; 2005.

[2] Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture2016. Opportunities and challenges. Rome; 2014.

[3] Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture2016. Contributing to food security and nutrition for all. Rome, Italy; 2016.

[4] Martínez ML, et al. The coasts of our world: ecological, economic and social importance.Ecol Econ 2007;63(2–3).

[5] Bene C. Understanding resilience in small-scale fishery communities. CGIAR ChallengeProgram on Water and Food 2013;V2(Mar 20):1–8.

[6] Cutter SL, et al. A place-based model for understanding community resilience to naturaldisasters. Glob Environ Chang 2008;18(4):598–606 (October 2008).

[7] Jacobson C, Chanseng N. Community resilience assessment and climate change adapta-tion planning, a guidebook. The University of the Sunshine Coast, the University ofBattambang; 2016.

[8] DasGupta R, Shaw R. An indicator based approach to assess coastal communities’ resil-ience against climate related disasters in Indian Sundarban. J Coast Conserv 2014 (Oc-tober 2014).

[9] Joerin J, Shaw R. Mapping climate and disaster resilience in cities in community, envi-ronment and disaster risk management. UK: Emerald Publications; 2011; 47–61.

[10] Gunungkidul in numbers 2017. Gunungkidul Regency Statistical Bureau; 2017.

A. Nurzaman et al. Progress in Disaster Science 5 (2020) 100067

[11] Marfai MA, et al. Typology, dynamic, and the potential disaster in the coastal area Dis-trict Karts Gunungkidul. Forum Geografi 2013;27(2) (Desember 2013).

[12] Gunungkidul B. Rencana pembangunan jangka Menengah daerah KabupatenGunungkidul; 2015 [Wonosari].

[13] Gunungkidul B. Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Kabupaten Gunungkidul; 2016[Wonosari].

[14] Gunungkidul in numbers 2016. Gunungkidul Regency Statistical Bureau; 2016.[15] Murphy BL. Locating social capital in resilient community-level emergency manage-

ment. Nat Hazards 2007;41:297–315.[16] Mayunga JS. Understanding and applying the concept of community disaster resilience:

a capital-based approach. http://www.ehs.unu.edu/file/get/3761; 2007, Accessed date:12 June 2019.

[17] Ksoll C, et al. Impact of village savings and loan associations: evidence from a clusterrandomized trial. J Dev Econ 2016:120 (May 2016).

[18] Hamdani. Penyaluran KUR Sektor Kelautan dan Perikanan Masih Rendah. Availablefrom https://www.kompasiana.com/cangkoiburong/5b36f1bb16835f43bc58bf74/penyaluran-kur-sektor-kelautan-dan-perikanan-masih-rendah; 2018, Accessed date: 10June 2019.

[19] Schumann S, Macinko S. Subsistence in coastal fisheries policy: what’s in a word? MarPolicy 2007;31(6):706–18.

[20] Masyhuri. The fishery finance and the social mobility of fisherman. Jurnal Masyarakat& Budaya 2014;16(1) (Tahun 2014).

[21] Ariffianto S, Rusadi U. Empowerment of traditional fishermen through of communica-tion media and technology in South Coast of Java. Jurnal Masyarakat Telematika danInformasi 2013;4(1) (Juni 2013).

12

[22] Kim HY. Assessing the role of social capital in the community development: a multi-level analysis; 2006 (A. P.Hd thesis. Athena. Georgia).

[23] Djalante R, et al. Disaster risk reduction in Indonesia progress, challenges, and issues.Switzerland: Springer; 2017.

[24] Zahedi S. Tourism impact on coastal environment. In environmental problems in coastalregion. WIT transactions on the built environment. , 99WIT Press; 2008 2008 www.witpress.com (ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)).

[25] UKEssays. The economic, social and environmental impacts of tourism in Thailand [on-line]. Available from: https://www.ukessays.com/essays/tourism/tourism-in-thailand.php?vref=1; November 2018, Accessed date: 13 June 2019.

[26] Kusumastuti AH. Pengukuran Skala Pengembangan Wisata Bahari Berdasarkan AspekDaya Dukung Lingkungan Pada Pantai Baron, Kabupaten Gunungkidul, Yogyakarta. Su-rabaya: Tugas Akhir. Institute Teknologi Sepuluh November; 2017.

[27] Ghosh T. Sustainable coastal tourism: problems and management option. J Geogr Geol2012;4(March 2012).

[28] Mustafa MA, Yudhicara. Karakteristik Pantai Dan Resiko Tsunami Di Kawasan PantaiSelatan Yogyakarta. 2007;5(3) (December 2007).

[29] Gunungkidul in numbers 2018. Gunungkidul Regency Statistical Bureau; 2018.[30] MacFadyen B, et al. Policy and legislative frameworks for co-management paper pre-

pared for the APFIC regional workshop on mainstreaming fisheries co-management inAsia Pacific. Siem Reap, Cambodia, 9–12 August 2005. Global Partnership for Respon-sible Fisheries (FishCode). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations;2005.

[31] Plummer R, et al. Diagnosing adaptive comanagement across multiple cases. Ecol Soc2017;22(3):19.