Community based disaster management (CBDM) empowers communities to be actively engaged and be pro-active in disaster management. The involvement of the community is one of the keys to success in disaster management, especially considering the values embraced by the community itself such as religious values and local wisdom. This study aimed to create and implement a CBDM model based on religious and local wisdom of Minangkabau people in West Sumatra, Indonesia. By using Research and Development (R&D) design with a generic adaptive model of Creswell from Gall and Borg, the researchers created, implemented and evaluated a CBDM model based on religion and local wisdom of some of the nagari (villages) in West Sumatra that are prone to natural hazards. The findings of the research at the model formulation stage have been conducted, elaborated and developed incorporating the local values such as rituals and ceremonies, together with customary laws that govern behaviour, and strengthen social cohesion in order to be more applicative, practical and effective in disaster management. Furthermore, quantitative tests were conducted so that this model had the value of practicality and effectiveness to be applied to other communities in any disaster area.
West Sumatra is one of the disaster-prone areas in Indonesia. It is because the geographical and geological location of this area is close to the Australian plate; and it has 31 mountains spread across seven districts which at any time can cause earthquakes and other disasters (National Board for Disaster Management Team
Studies on the dynamics of the natural disaster management in West Sumatra have been widely carried out and documented (Efendi
The community with its local potential in managing disasters is in a very decisive position in addition to government functions (ADPC
In particular, this study wanted to uncover the application of religious values and local wisdom of Minangkabau indigenous community, a majority ethnic group in West Sumatra, in disaster management. In principle, the Minangkabau people have strong local wisdom through religion-social system, government system, and local wisdom values in facing life and even disasters (Efendi
In this study, we created and implemented a CBDM model, with a focus on designing a disaster management model, implementing and evaluating the application of that model for Minangkabau people of West Sumatra. This model was formulated with the actualisation and transformation of the religious values and local wisdom of the
In general, disaster studies have focused a lot on community involvement in disaster management such as Oktari et al. (
Community-based disaster management as a structured model in involving the community specifically has been studied by researchers and their teams such as Pribadi et al. (
However, to build local participation and potential in disaster management is incomplete if it does not utilise religious values and local wisdom or local indigenous knowledge of the community. The studies conducted by Kelman, Mercer and Gaillard (
In addition, the failure in understanding and applying religion and local wisdom also results in the unsustainability of disaster management at the grassroots level. Such models are generally incompatible with the socio-cultural conditions of the community itself. This was because disaster management agendas were not born from the awareness and priorities of the community itself. In several studies of disaster history and disaster anthropology, there were many interesting cases that were worth studying such as how the institutionalisation of knowledge about mitigation has been hundreds of years old, and has been used as a community tradition (Syafwina
Therefore, CBDM based on religion and local wisdom values was expected to be able to exploit the local potential in the process of disaster management. Although this model was often considered similar to CBDM, the difference was in an approach that encouraged grassroots communities. As a result, it was necessary to study and develop the application of CBDM model based on religious values and local wisdom so that this community participation model was more contextual and the local values are more applicative.
The research method used was a Research and Development (R&D) with a generic adaptive model of Borg and Gall (
The research implementation of the CDBM model was conducted on five communities of disaster victims in West Sumatra as informants and target groups. This study conducted two types of tests, namely practicality test and effectiveness test. In practicality tests, the researchers used structured questionnaires as data collection techniques, which were distributed to five Minangkabau indigenous communities as the owners of religious values and local wisdom. The sampling study consisted of 25 respondents who were selected by purposive sampling. The data analysis in this practicality test used the average formula to test whether the results were practical or not.
As for the effectiveness test, this study used two data collection techniques, namely questionnaires and interviews. The questionnaire was used for quasi-experimental quantitative techniques by testing this model on two groups: experiment group (trial group) and control group (comparison group or model pilot). The informants consist of 41 people for the experimental group and 39 people for the control group. This data was then analysed using T-Test to measure which hypothesis was rejected and accepted. Furthermore, the researchers also used interview as data collection technique for the effectiveness test. This was conducted to obtain the qualitative data on the response and opinion of informants whether this model was effective or not which cannot be obtained by using questionnaires. The qualitative techniques were also used to analyse and compare with quantitative data that has been done.
Nowadays, it is rare to find studies that seriously discuss about the local CBDM model in West Sumatra, except for a few reports and the implementation of general models from organisations such as PMI, BNPB, BPBD (regional agency for disaster countermeasure) as well as international donor agencies working in West Sumatra. Meanwhile, this region which holds firmly its traditional and religious order is losing on the optimal implementation of disaster management by not utilising human resources with the values of its local wisdom.
The CBDM model through the transformation of
Based on the theoretical concepts regarding CBDM, the researchers formulated a conceptual model at the research stage. This conceptual model was born based on an in-depth study of religious values and local wisdom of the Minangkabau community in disaster management. These rich values which are inherited from generation to generation are identified, modified and structured into the operational steps and can be applied as the model of operational steps in the disaster management system in West Sumatra (see
Local wisdom in West Sumatra local community.
Variable | Sub-variables | Indicators |
---|---|---|
The transformation of local wisdom values in natural hazards management in West Sumatra | The philosophical content of |
|
The purpose and meaning | ||
The operational target | ||
The meaning and purpose | ||
The steps | ||
The impacts | ||
The meaning and purpose | ||
The steps | ||
The impacts |
Source: Rozi, S.,
The three local values, based on
Furthermore, this model was developed in a model module format in the form of stages and steps for implementing disaster management based on the religion and local wisdom. This implementation step based on the community participation had a sequence of learning that began with identifying, gathering information, reviewing problem solving, proposing problem solving, displaying the cycle of community empowerment.
A research with R&D method requires the researchers to develop a valid and reliable model. This means that the model developed must be truly capable of solving problems encountered whenever and wherever the model is implemented. The general and applicable model that has been formulated in the local Minangkabau case should be applicable to local communities throughout Indonesia. Generally, people have common values and principles that have similarities, but the terms and the operational mechanism are different.
To answer this challenge, in the R&D method phase, the researchers are required to be able to try out the model they have developed in other groups in different situations and conditions. A limited trial or a practicality test is trial conducted on a small group of people to prove whether the developed model is effective enough to overcome the problem. If the limited trial obtains the results that the developed model is concluded to be practical in overcoming problems or achieving certain goals, the next step is planning to carry out an extensive trial. The assumptions from extensive trial prove that the resulted model can be implemented for anyone outside the limited trial group. In addition, the extensive trial is used to improve the practices that were imperfect when the limited trial was conducted. A model would be judged to have a high level of reliability when the results are consistently seen from the perspective of effectiveness between the limited trial and the extensive trial.
The analysis of practicality test for the model of disaster management based on local wisdom was one of the trials conducted to test whether this pre-determined model had practicality value. This trial was determined from the results of a simple questionnaire that was used and understood in the implementation of disaster management. The general target of the question was whether this model was easy to be used and understood by the facilitators and community members (Borg & Gall
Where:
The average results of all aspects of the practicality of the model are analysed using the following criteria:
If the average is > 3.20, it is categorised as very practical;
If 2.40 < average ≤ 3.20, it is categorised as practical;
If 1.60 < average ≤ 2.40, it is considered quite practical;
If 0.80 < average ≤ 1.60 is categorised as less practical;
If the average is ≤ 0.80, it is categorised as not practical.
For the development of this analysis, a model is said to be practical if the average value of the practitioner has enough practical value. The prototype practicality questionnaire is described by data frequency analysis techniques using the formula in
The results of practicality test on local wisdom-based disaster management.
Number | Statements | Amount | Average |
Category | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
% | |||||
1 | The developed module has elements that can attract the attention of the community. | 23 | 3.8 | 92 | VP |
2 | The use of images or matrices can help the community in understanding the module. | 21 | 3.5 | 84 | VP |
3 | The simulation activities in the module can facilitate the community in knowing religious, |
20 | 3.3 | 80 | VP |
4 | The need assessment activities in the module can facilitate the community in understanding the module. | 23 | 3.8 | 92 | VP |
5 | The planning activities in the module can facilitate the community in understanding the module. | 23 | 3.8 | 92 | VP |
6 | The activities and participation cycles of the community in the module are easy to understand | 23 | 3.8 | 92 | VP |
7 | The developed module contains religious values that are practical and operational in disaster management. | 21 | 3.5 | 84 | VP |
8 | The developed module contains the values of local wisdom that are practical and operational in disaster management. | 23 | 3.8 | 92 | VP |
9 | The use of module can help the facilitator to improve the community capacity. | 20 | 3.3 | 80 | VP |
10 | The use of language, font size and font in the module makes it easier for the facilitator and the community. | 21 | 3.5 | 84 | VP |
VP, very practical.
Based on
After the practicality test, the next trial was the effectiveness test which was to test the effectiveness of a resulting model. In this case, qualitative and quantitative data were used. The qualitative data such as observations and interviews (in this case such as community reactions, community learning activities, activities and creativity) were analysed qualitatively. The quantitative data were obtained using quasi-experiment model by comparing test results in the experimental group with the control group. The questionnaires were distributed to 41 respondents of the experiment group and 39 respondents of the control group. Furthermore, the results of this test were analysed by using T-test to test hypotheses H1 and H0. The true status of H1 if T-count > T-table, shows there is a significant difference. Or the true status of H0 if T-count < T-table, shows there is no significant difference.
To test the effectiveness, the experiment was carried out by conducting the implementation of disaster management model based on the religion and local wisdom in the experimental group and compared it with the control community. The experiment was carried out in two KSB (
The descriptive statistics of the experiment group and the control group.
Variable | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Standard deviation | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pre-test experiment | 41 | 3 | 15 | 7.56 | 3.171 |
Post-test experiment | 41 | 10 | 20 | 14.37 | 2.395 |
Pre-test control | 39 | 3 | 12 | 7.21 | 2.386 |
Post-test control | 39 | 9 | 16 | 11.21 | 2.226 |
Valid |
39 | - | - | - | - |
Based on
The next test was the analysis compare means paired-sample T-Test. This test was conducted to test the significant difference in the effectiveness of the model in the post-test of the experimental group and the post-test of the control group. However, before testing the analysis, normality test is needed to prove whether the variables from the data obtained are normal. Thus, each variable is first tested for normality by using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test statistical test with the help of the SPSS Version 18.00 programme. With a significant level of 0.05, the data is declared normally distributed if the significance is greater than 0.05.
One-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test.
Item | Variable | Value |
---|---|---|
Post-test experiment group | 41 | |
Normal parameters | Mean | 14.37 |
Standard deviation | 2.395 | |
Most extreme differences | Absolute | 0.195 |
Positive | 0.195 | |
Negative | −0.98 | |
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z |
- | 1.248 |
Asymp. significance (2-tailed) | - | 0.089 |
, Test distribution is normal.
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test.
Item | Variable | Value |
---|---|---|
Post-test control group | 39 | |
Normal parameters | Mean | 11.21 |
Standard deviation | 2.226 | |
Most extreme differences | Absolute | 0.193 |
Positive | 0.193 | |
Negative | −0.161 | |
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z |
- | 1.205 |
Asymp. Significance (2-tailed) | - | 0.109 |
, Test distribution is normal.
The test results as presented in
The result of analysis compare means paired-sample T-test.
Groups | Tcount | Ttable | Significance | Description | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Post-test experimental group: post-test control group | 6.039 | 78 | 2.64 | 0.01 (1%) | There was a very significant difference |
Based on the result in
In addition, the research with the use of qualitative method in several stages of data collection through Focus Group Discussions (FGD), in-depth interviews and observations found several problems and phenomena in the implementation of religious and local wisdom value in disaster management model based on the religion and local wisdom including social construction, social security and community participation management. Based on the observations conducted by the researchers in several KSBs (
The purpose of the research on designing and implementing the model of ‘community-based disaster management’ based on religious values and local wisdom was to reconstruct and increase the capacity of local communities with local values through disaster management mechanisms. Ideally, this mechanism was carried out actively by the elements of society such as families, social organisations and surrounding communities before, during and after a disaster.
However, the application of religious values and local wisdom must be done in a systematical and structured way. The rich local values owned by the local community were still traditional and indigenous, and were even claimed by many circles of people as values that are old and not updated with the current developments. Therefore, adaptation and modification of these values were needed in order to be accommodating and flexible in answering the needs of the community in disaster management. Therefore, a systemic model was needed to make these values more applicative in disaster management.
The study of the implementation of the ‘community based disaster management’ model based on religious values and local wisdom has answered the issue of the application of these local values. At the stage of model formulation, it was necessary to deepen the local values such as rituals and ceremonies, together with customary laws that govern behaviour, and strengthen social cohesion. These traditional values must be elaborated and developed by determining the indicators and efforts to be more applicative, practical and effective in disaster management.
To know whether this model has practical value and can be applied to different communities, it was necessary to test the practicality of the model. Furthermore, to know whether this model was effective in addressing community problems, the effectiveness test was also required. In practicality term, this model was practical. However, to achieve an effective level, it takes a long time and this model needs to be continuously tested and developed.
Finally, the model was considered to be good as it was able to facilitate and stimulate the potential of disaster preparedness groups so that it became a competency that can be used to build its environment in the global era. The model must be able to produce a disaster community that is creative and innovative and able to lift its potential. In addition, the model of disaster management based on religion and local wisdom also accommodates elements in community learning, even of course by considering existing models issued by relevant agencies such as national and international disaster agencies.
After conducting the research in implementing the ‘community-based disaster management’ model through the transformation of religious values and local wisdom in disaster preparedness in West Sumatra it was concluded that: (1) The local wisdom values of the Minangkabau community were local or indigenous knowledge in the form of the knowledge of the indigenous people who lived in certain geographical locations, which had different cultural and belief systems from the modern intellectual world knowledge system. It was a collection of knowledge created by a group of people from generation to generation that lived united and in harmony with nature. (2) The formulation of an
Therefore, the ‘community-based disaster management’ model through the transformation of religious values and local wisdom enabled the community to be more pro-active in the problem of disaster. In principle, people had better knowledge of disasters than the state because they were the ones who knew better about the real conditions of their respective environments Kelman et al. (
The authors thank the local community in disaster management, communities and disaster survivors who gave their perspectives on local community-based disaster management.
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
S.R. prepared the manuscript; gathered, edited, analysed and presented the data; and did the final revision of the article. A.R. and J.J. supervised the research project, and edited and reviewed the article.
The authors confirm that ethical clearance was not needed. This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated agency of the authors.
, 1957–2021.