Journal of Natural Disaster Science, Volume 31, Number 2, 2009, pp13-20

A Study of Life Recovery and Social Capital regarding Disaster Victims– A Case Study of Indian Ocean Tsunami and Central Java Earthquake Recovery –Mayumi SAKAMOTO*
Katsuya YAMORI*** Disaster Reduction and Human Renovation Institution**Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, Japan(Received for 20 Apr., 2010 and in revised from 1 Jun., 2010)
ABSTRACTThis paper aims to determine the critical factors associated with life recovery fordisaster victims. Huge disasters undoubtedly impact and change lives. Life recovery is asubjective issue that differs from social values, living conditions, loss, etc. Although theimportance of life recovery has been previously addressed, international assistance forvictims in disaster-affected areas continues to be directed toward conventional needs suchas housing reconstruction and livelihood development, often failing to fully consider life
recovery. In this paper, we try to explore the critical factors associated with life recovery
through a case study of Indonesia, which has recently experienced two massive natural
disasters—the Indian Ocean Tsunami on December 26, 2004, and the Central Java
Earthquake on May 27, 2006. By conducting field studies, we highlight and examine thecritical factors relating to life recovery in Indonesia. Thereafter, we analyze the results
according to the societal background of each community, especially as it relates to social
capital.
Keyword: life recovery, social capital, disaster, Indian Ocean Tsunami, Central Java
Earthquake

study in Indonesia, which has recently experienced
two enormous natural disasters—the Indian Ocean
Tsunami of December 26, 2004, and the Central Java
Earthquake of May 27, 2006. Not only were hugeamounts of international assistance provided in bothcases, almost all donors came to believe that the challenges had been effectively addressed, many leaving
the country assured that matters were under control.
A 2007 study conducted in both affected areas showed that the people in the Special Region of
Nanggroe Aceh and Darussalam, suffering the Indian
Ocean Tsunami, considered their lives recovered toonly 40~50% of pre-disaster levels. [１ ] Interestingly,

I. Introduction
The aim of this study is to determine the criticalfactors associated with life recovery for disaster victims in developing countries. There is no doubt thatmassive disasters influence and change lives. Some
disaster victims may be able to return to a pre-disasterexistence in a timely manner, but others are unable to
do so due to loss of family, home, or health. Life recovery is a subjective issue that differing from social
values, living conditions, loss, and so on.
In the present study, we try to identify the criticalfactors relating to life recovery by conducting a case13

M.SAKAMOTO, K.YAMORI

the people in the Special Region of Yogyakarta, besetby the Central Java Earthquake, considered their lives
almost totally recovered. In reality, life recovery assistance, e.g., housing reconstruction and livelihood
improvement, was similar in both areas. Althoughsuch assistance was considered essential for life recovery, other kinds of conventional support may havewarranted closer examination.
Accordingly, the study on life recovery for thevictims of the Kobe earthquake, which hit the city ofKobe, Japan, and its suburbs on January 17, 1995,
provides a frame of reference for the present research.
The study highlights the existence of seven criticalfactors, each relating to life recovery. On a long-termbasis, the most important factor was characterized by
the term “social ties,” specifically referring to human
networks.
Generally, life has many distinct components.
When life recovery is examined, a variety of factors
has to be taken into account. Consequently, if adequate assistance is directed toward the most criticallife recovery factor, the entire recovery process will
advance more effectively.

“Housing” followed by “Community Rebuilding” and“Preparedness.” However, “Housing” declined its importance in the 2003 workshop, instead, “Social Ties”
became the top priority, followed by “Community
Rebuilding” and “Preparedness.”
The most important factor in the long run was“Social Ties,” being articulated in opinions such as
the following: “I have been helped,” “Understanding and empathy through ties,” “New relationships
emerged,” as well as “Self-governance and solidarity
are key to developing closer ties.”
Tamura, using quantitative data, has also verified
the results. Regarding social ties, the people who felt
self-governed and expressed solidarity with others feltthat they had recovered more fully. [４]Tatsuki has discussed these results in terms ofdamage alleviation and event evaluation. [３] In the
short term, issues such as housing and income, as well
as physical and psychological health management,
support life recovery, directly alleviating damages. On
the other hand, social ties facilitate event evaluation,i.e., establishing the meaning of the experience. Inturn, event evaluation is influenced by social ties via
community rebuilding empowerment and/or opportunity enrichment, both due to encountering significant
person capable of providing assistance.
The importance of social ties was reflected in
the recommendations by the Discussion on Kobe
City’s Disaster Recovery and Activation as “the creation of social capital through horizontal and open
networks.” [５]Such social capital is associated with theories
relating to human networks. Putman has defined social capital as “connections among individuals–social
networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them.” [６] Although there arevarious social networks, those in which members
are connected by means of strong ties and the normsof reciprocity arise only by means of bonding social
capital, not only benefiting members but also leading
to higher functional levels. In particular, members ofsuch networks are often homogeneous and know eachother very well, information flow being exclusively
confined to members. Further, bonding social capitalis more easily observed in rural areas where neighbors are together in daily life, not only attending thesame school but often working and spending holidays
together as well.

II. Previous Studies on Life Recovery
A long-term detailed study on life recovery was
conducted after the Kobe earthquake. In 1999, five
years after the disaster, a series of grassroots, stakeholder assessment workshops was conducted by the
Kobe City Research Committee on Disaster Recovery, with the participation of not only disaster victims,
but academicians and local government officials as
well, in order to identify life recovery determinants.
Overall, 269 people participated in a total of 12 workshops, 1,623 opinion cards being collected in the process. The cards were carefully studied and classified
into the following seven factors: [２]a ) Housingb ) Social Tiesc ) Community Rebuildingd ) Physical and Psychological Healthe ) Preparednessf ) Economic and Financial Situationg ) Relation to Government
Such factors were continuously examined during
the 2001, 2003, and 2005 workshops. [３] In particular, the most critical factor in the 1999 workshop was
14

A STUDY OF LIFE RECOVERY AND SOCIAL CAPITAL REGARDING DISASTER VICTIMS

was heavily damaged by the Indian Ocean Tsunami,
and the cities in the Special Region of Yogyakarta(hereafter Yogyakarta), which was damaged by theCentral Java Earthquake. In each area, we selected
places where people were reconstructing their housesin the same place as before the disaster, Meurduati in
Aceh and Patalan in Yogyakarta and newly constructed relocated villages where they have to reconstructtheir life in a completely different situation, Tzu-Chi
in Aceh and New Nglepen in Yogyakarta.

On the other hand, in urban areas, people generally live in the suburbs and commute by train or car,significantly broadening their living boundaries. Naturally, if people spend more time in the office, they
will likely communicate less with neighbors. However, they belong to offices, schools, hobby clubs, sports
clubs, and other such communities and thus, they easily establish social bridges. A study by Wellman has
resulted in an analysis of social network characteristics in urban areas through a case study in East York,
Toronto, Canada. [７] East Yorkers established social
networks with their close family (children, parents,
brothers, etc), despite some residents living far fromtheir family members. Regardless of the close family
ties, it was difficult to request assistance during emergencies due to the distance between family members.
Moreover, requesting help was problematic if there
had been no contact had existed among residents.
For the sake of comparison, Kobe is also urban
area with almost 1.5 million residents. Contact amongneighbors was relatively weak. As the damage due tothe quake was enormous, all transportation ceased,
communication and lifelines were cut off. Further,governmental and close-tie assistance was not immediately accessible. People had to survive by means ofindividual effort and skill, stirring them to realize theimportance of neighborly mutual help. In fact, social
networks among neighbors functioned as importantsocial capital for the life recovery of disaster victims.
The critical life recovery factors model associated with Kobe earthquake victims is considered tobe applicable to other areas as it had been applied inseveral life recovery studies including a study on the
September 11 attack on the World Trade Center, New
York. [８]Photo 1 Meurduati

Photo 2 Tzu-Chi

Meurduati, located in the Kuta Raja district ofAceh, was one of the areas heavily impacted by thedevastating tsunami (photo 1). Almost 75% of the
20,217 people living in the district were killed or ended up missing. Housing reconstruction was conductedbased on pre-disaster housing criteria for residents asfollows: household members losing their houses andland, owners of irreparable houses in need of new
construction, tenants losing rented accommodation,and squatters losing temporary shelter. [９] Those losing houses received 36 m2 sized houses from international donors such as the UNDP and ADB, regardlessof previous housing conditions. In general, not onlypre- but some post-disaster residents were involved in
the process, including some newcomers and relativesof the pre-disaster residents.
For those who had completely lost their houses
and land or even rented accommodation, newly relocated villages were constructed in Neuheun, Aceh
Besar Province, 14 km north of Aceh (photo 2).
Although the Indonesian government had started
development in the mountainous area, several donororganizations completed the residential development.
Specifically, Buda Tzu-Chi represented one of thelargest villages developed by the NGO, the Tzu-Chi
Foundation. They built 3,700 houses in the area withwide roads and public facilities including mosques.
Houses were constructed according to a complex
style (connected semi-detached), each house with two

III. Methods
1. Study Areas
In order to identify the critical factors associatedwith life recovery in developing countries, we focusedon Indonesia, because it has recently experienced two
massive natural disasters—the Indian Ocean Tsunami
of December 26, 2004, and the Central Java Earthquake of May 27, 2006.
In Indonesia, we selected two different areas andsituations. As for the area, we focused on the city ofBanda Aceh and its suburbs (hereafter, Aceh), which
15

M.SAKAMOTO, K.YAMORI

bedrooms and a living room. As housing applications
were sorted by foundation or government representatives, determining who was to live in which house,
people from different locales in Aceh gathered accordingly.

Photo 3 Patalan

problems relating to land ownership persisted. In particular, although residents could use the land without
payment for three years, they had to decide whether
to rent or purchase their homes after this time.
2. Study Methods
In order to implement a framework in which to
conduct a study, we focused on critical life recovery
factors related to the Kobe earthquake. Initially, we
verified the validity of such factors in relation to Indonesia. The pilot study, based on seven critical life
recovery factors, was conducted in the newly constructed, relocated village of Neuhuen, Aceh Besar
Province, similar to the research area in population
distribution and residential setting. The researcher
interviewed 11 people, taking into consideration age,gender and village position. As a result, the following
critical issues were illuminated.
Firstly, the accepted definition of community,
at times encompassing neighbors, school friends,
religious groups, political groups, etc., varied among
subjects. Further, the existence of the local residential
and administrative system, desa, has influenced theviews of communities in Indonesia. Desa was originally a Java Island tradition, but with the enactmentof Law No.5, 1979, it spread throughout the country
as the main local administrative system. In particular,
desa-based activity was quite robust in Yogyakarta,
located in the center of Java Island.
In Aceh, a new regulation called gampong, enacted to strengthen such a traditional administrative
system, took effect in 2003. [10] Further, there was alsoa religious unit, mukim, consisting of three to four
small prayer houses called meunasah, which included
the people living in the society adjacent to the meunasah. Although there are no discernable boundaries exist between the mukim and gampong, many traditional
activities were conducted in the mukim. [11] Finally,in the pilot area, an additional residential unit, blok,
has been constructed. Around 12 families live in each
blok, the leaders of which are selected by the residents.
Considering these varieties, we decided to focus
on the community as a basis for daily life. During theinterviews, all the subjects referred to contact withneighbors. Some complained that their pre-disaster
relationships with neighbors were stronger than theircurrent relationships. Specifically, there used to be

Photo 4 New Nglepen

Patalan, in the Jetis district of Bantul Province,
Yogyakarta, was heavily impacted by the earthquakeof May 27, 2006 (photo 3). Of 40 families living in
the area, 10 people were killed and all houses totally
destroyed. Houses were constructed primarily byfunds from the Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Program (RR), a joint program of the Indonesian government, the World Bank, and the Java Reconstruction
Fund (JRF) as well as several other donors funded by
the EU and additional countries. Each community wasable to determine for themselves from which assistance to chose based on discussion during community
committee meetings, pokmas.
Houses in Nglepen, located in the Prambanan
district of Sleman Province, completely collapsed due
to earthquake landslides. Three months after the earthquake, the government announced that the village
was not safe enough to inhabit, based on the results ofa geological survey. Residents had two alternatives:to prepare houses for habitation on their own, or toapply for housing reconstruction funds. Although thegovernment had not determined housing reconstruction fund amounts at the time, NGO assistance could
be utilized for habitation purposes. With regard to thevillagers of Nglepen, 34 families agreed to receive
dome-style houses provided by an American NGO.
Others refused the dome houses citing their small size
and unfamiliar shape. The new village, New Nglepen,
was completed at the end of 2006 (photo 4). Specifically, 71 houses were constructed, all dome houses,
11-12 houses in each unit, or blok. Residents from
Nglepen and the villages of Bantuk, Sengir, and Delapan moved to New Nglepen. Despite people livingin the area being satisfied with their situation, current
16

A STUDY OF LIFE RECOVERY AND SOCIAL CAPITAL REGARDING DISASTER VICTIMS

many activities among neighbors, like marriage or
funeral ceremonies, festivals, mutual collaboration
activities (gotong rhoyong) such as cleaning, or activities related to the Women’s Family Welfare Movement (Pembinaan Kesejahteraan Keluarga, PKK).
These results revealed that networks between neighbors were critical for life recovery.
Secondly, the concept of “social ties” is interpreted differently by Japanese and Indonesians. Although
the Japanese mentioned relations with neighbors, theIndonesians talked in terms of who had provided support for life recovery and what support had been provided.
Finally, religion, which had not emerged in previous studies, appeared as an important factor in our
research. During interviews, many people mentioned
religion as having supported recovery in a variety ofways, providing meaning to their experiences. Aceh isa region with a strong Islamic influence, and religion
is a part of the people’s lives.
The results of the pilot study were discussed withprofessors at Syiah Kuala University in Aceh with thefollowing eight factors selected for closer examination. Indonesian translations have been included.
a ) Housing (Perumahan)b ) Social Ties (Hubungan social)c ) Neighbors (Tetangga)d ) Physical and Psychological Health (Trauma fisik
atau mental)e ) Preparedness (Persiapan untuk bencana)f ) Economic and Financial Situation (Situasi
ekonomi dan keunagan)g ) Relation to Government (Hubungan dengan
pemrintah)h ) Religion (Agama)
Based on these factors, we decided to conduct
the field study using a semi-structured interview
method, emphasizing the content of each interview.
Each interview started with a question related to recovery feelings: “To what extent do you feel your life
has recovered? (1signifying the least and 10, the mostrecovered)” Referring to the eight factors, the interviewer then asked in detail what had influenced their
feelings associated with life recovery. If more factors were involved, the interviewer would ask moredetailed questions. At the end of the interview, theinterviewees were requested to rate recovery levels
for each factor (1 representing the lowest and 10, thehighest score) as well as rating the importance of eachof the eight factors (1 standing for the most importantand 8, the least).
The field study was conducted from December
15, 2008 to January 5, 2009 by Indonesian researchers. Each researcher used questionnaires, filling themout by him/herself, and all interviews were recorded.
Researchers interviewed 10 people according to eachhighlighted area. Researchers visited each house andinitially asked about the interviewees’ disaster experience, age, gender, profession, etc., followed by
the primary interview with the person agreeing to beinterviewed. Each interview took approximately 1~2
hours.
IV. RESULTS
A summary of the interview is shown in Table 1.
The most discussed factor throughout the interviews
was “neighbors.”
In Yogyakarta, people mentioned many neighborly activities such as community meetings (pokmas),community works (gotong rhoyong), and fund raising(arisan). Such activities had been generally conductedunder the desa (Patalan) or blok (New Nglepen) system with the participation of the residents. Conversely, in Aceh, activities between neighbors were less active in the desa system and more active in meunasah.
In Meurduati, after Saturday’s final prayer at the meunasah, people gathered and discussed the activities inwhich they could participate, such as gotong rhoyong,events, and sports. In fact, they performed the activities together the following day. In the relocated areaof Tzu-Chi, many people complained that they had nocontact with their neighbors because they had beensorted and then directed where to live without their
input. They also mentioned that each resident’s degreeof damage was so different that they were hesitant totalk to each other. Further, all of them mentioned thata number of activities such as gotong rhoyong had existed at their pre-tsunami residences.
Discrepancies regarding activities and neighborly communication were also reflected during prioritization of the eight critical factors associated with life
recovery (Table 2). People in Yogyakarta consideredthat “neighbors” or “social ties” were important forlife recovery, whereas people in Tzu-chi evaluatedthese as being less important.
17

M.SAKAMOTO, K.YAMORI

on the vertical axes represent levels of recovery, 1
standing for “not recovered” and 10, for “totally recovered.”
The result shows that people in the relocated village of New Nglepen, Yogyakarta considered theirlives almost recovered, whereas people in Tzu-Chi
of Aceh felt lower degree of recovery. Many factors
might have influenced the results: differences in the
degree of hazards, damage, quality of reconstructedhouses, social background, etc. Moreover, factors
such as “neighbors” or “social ties” were closely
linked to human networks.

TABLE I. Summary of Interview)DFWRUV

6XPPDU\RI,QWHUYLHZ+RXVLQJ

3HRSOHWDONHGDERXWKRZWKH\KDGWKHLUKRXVHVUHFRQVWUXFWHGRUVDWLVIDFWLRQZLWKWKHLUQHZKRXVHV
5HVLGHQWVLQ  7]X&KL $FHK ZHUHGLVFRQWHQWZLWKWKHLU
KRXVHVEHFDXVHRIWKHLUTXDOLW\5HVLGHQWVLQ1HZ
1JOHSHQ <RJ\DNDUWD ZHUHVDWLVILHGZLWKWKHLUKRXVHVUHJDUGOHVVRIWKHLUGRPHVW\OHGVKDSH

6RFLDOWLHV)DPLO\IULHQGVRUQHLJKERUVKDGVXSSRUWHGWKHLUOLIHDIWHUGLVDVWHUSURYLGLQJIRRGFORWKHVSODFHVWRVWD\ PDLQO\LQ$FHK HQFRXUDJHPHQWVHWF

1HLJKERUV

5HODWLRQVZLWKQHLJKERUVZHUHUHODWLYHO\JRRGLQ<RJ\DNDUWDEXWWKHUHZHUHQRUHODWLRQVDWDOOLQ7]X&KL
$FWLYLWLHVZLWKQHLJKERUVVXFKDVJRWRQJUKR\RQJ DULVDQ 
FRPPXQLW\PHHWLQJVPDUULDJHRUIXQHUDOFHOHPRQLHVZHUH
YHU\DFWLYHLQ<RJ\DNDUWD  7KHUHZDVQRDFWLYLW\ZLWKQHLJKERUVLQ7]X&KL

3K\VLF3V\FKR 0DQ\SHRSOHZHUHVWLOODIUDLGRIELJVRXQGVDQG+HDOWK
SV\FKRORJLFDOO\WUDXPDWL]HGLQERWKDUHDV3UHSDUHGQHVV(FRQRPLFVLWXDWLRQ5XQZDVDFRPPRQDQVZHULQ$FHK(YDFXDWHWKHKRXVH
LPPHGLDWHO\ZDVFRPPRQDQVZHULQ<RJ\DNDUWD0DQ\
SHRSOHLQ<RJ\DNDUWDDWWHQGHGGLVDVWHUSUHSDUHGQHVVWUDLQLQJFRQGXFWHGE\1*2VDIWHUWKHGLVDVWHU1098'DLO\H[SHQVHVLQFUHDVHGLQ7]X&KLDVPDQ\RIWKHP
FRPPXWHWR%DQGD$FHK&LW\,QFRPHLQFUHDVHGLQ1HZ
1JOHSHQDVWRXULVWVSXUFKDVHGIURPWKHLUVWDQGVDWWKH
VDPHWLPHWKHLUH[SHQGLWXUHDOVRLQFUHDVHG

7

6
5
4

3

,Q$FHKDOOSHRSOHPHQWLRQHGWKDWWKH\KDGQRVSHFLILF
5HODWLRQWRJRY UHODWLRQZLWKWKHJRYHUQPHQW0DQ\SHRSOHUHFHLYHGVXSSRUWIURPWKHJRYHUQHPQWLQWKHUHFRYHU\SURFHVVLQ<RJ\DNDUWD

5HOLJLRQ

2
1

Meurdua(n=10)

5HOLJLRQZDVDYHU\LPSRUWDQWIDFWRUHVSHFLDOO\LQ$FHK
5HOLJLRQVXSSRUWHGP\OLIHUHFRYHU\'LVDVWHUZDVDWULDO
IURP*RGDQG5HOLJLRQLVRXULGHQWLW\

Tzu-Chi(relocated)(n=10)

Aceh(n=20)

Patalan(n=10)New Nglepen(relocated)(n=10)

Yogyakarta(n=20)FIGURE I. Recovery Feelings of Victims
The result also showed that “religion” appearedas the top priority in Aceh and Patalan, Yogyakarta. In
the interview, many people mentioned the importanceof religion during recovery as follows: “For me, religion was important in recovering from the disaster.
The disaster was a trial (cobaan) from God.” (TzuChi, female, 31) “Religion played a big role in the rehabilitation process, besides working hard.” (Patalan,female, 30)

V. Discussion
In this section, we focus on specific human networks prevalent within the research area as it wasconsidered to be one of the most important factors
influencing life recovery, and discuss the results fromthe perspective of social capital theory, i.e., considering human networks as capital.
The study revealed that communities that identified with such human networks varied greatly. In Yogyakarta, people primarily discussed and conductedactivities such as pokmas, gotong rhoyong, and arisan
in desa. Desa existed in Aceh as well, but as an administrative unit. In addition, people conducted similar activities to those in Yogyakarta in the meunasah.
In Tzu-Chi, no such networks existed among neighbors, which resulted in resident complaints.
Within networks, norms of reciprocity wereobserved in arisan, which is the traditional fundraising system of local communities in Java Island.
In Nglepen and Pantul, Yogyakarta, once or twicea month, according to the Java calendar, people
gathered in members’ houses living in same desa to

TABLE II. Priorities in Critical Life Recovery Factors
3UL
RULW
\









$FHK Q <RJ\DNDUWD Q 

1HZ1JOHSHQ
7]X &KL
3DWDODQ
UHORFDWHGUHORFDWHG
Q 
Q 
Q 
5HOLJLRQ
5HOLJLRQ
5HOLJLRQ1HLJKERUV+RXVLQJ(FRQRPLFVLWXDWLRQ
6RFLDOWLHV
6RFLDOWLHV
6RFLDOWLHV+RXVLQJ1HLJKERUV
5HOLJLRQ
3K\VLF3V\FKHDOWK
6RFLDOWLHV(FRQRPLFVLWXDWLRQ+RXVLQJ(FRQRPLFVLWXDWLRQ
5HODWLRQWRJRY
+RXVLQJ(FRQRPLFVLWXDWLRQ
1HLJKERUV1HLJKERUV
3K\VLF3V\FKHDOWK
5HODWLRQWRJRY
5HODWLRQWRJRY
3K\VLF3V\FKHDOWK
5HODWLRQWRJRY
3K\VLF3V\FKHDOWK3UHSDUHGQHVV
3UHSDUHGQHVV
3UHSDUHGQHVV
3UHSDUHGQHVV
0HXUGXDWLQ Figure 1 shows the results of the inquiry, according to the designated areas, into victims’ feelings
regarding recovery based on the question, “To what
extent do you feel your life has recovered?” Numbers
18

A STUDY OF LIFE RECOVERY AND SOCIAL CAPITAL REGARDING DISASTER VICTIMS

discuss community activities like gotong rhoyong or
how to care for community property. At the end ofeach meeting, residents conducted arisan, each member contributing 10,000~25,000 rupiah (approximately
US$1~2.5). Then a lottery was held, the total amountbeing offered to the winner who, in turn, hosts thesubsequent meeting. The winnings were used primarily to organize meetings or to fund additional local
activities. People in Aceh also gathered for arisan,
however, the meetings were held among friends andthe corresponding funds were used to purchase private
goods. There were no obligations imposed for joining
arisan, nor was punishment exacted for those runningaway with funds. Thus, reciprocity and trustworthiness among members were requisites for participatingin arisan. The case in Yogyakarta revealed that normsof reciprocity were in operation among members ofdesa, and with arisan activities leading to network
strengthening.
The decision-making process involved in housing reconstruction in Meurduati, Aceh, revealed a discernible village network structure. In particular, village leaders played a key role in the entire decisionmaking process. The housing committee (kavling) was
organized by members who had in turn been selectedby village leaders. Detailed negotiations for housing
reconstruction were executed by means of discussion
between village leaders and donor institutions. Thus,
networks were enacted vertically beginning withvillage leaders. In Yogyakarta, residents organizedcommunity committees (pokmas) to discuss housing
reconstruction, all decisions being made based onthese discussions. Further, representatives from eachfamily, regardless of gender or age, participated in
pokmas. Thus, networks among community members
were enacted horizontally, strongly uniting members.
Social capital varied by area. In Yogyakarta,
the community was structured around the residential desa. Members were strongly tied to each otherthrough community activities, and horizontal participation defined operation of the network. The samekind of network was observed in the relocated villageof New Nglepen. Further, in terms of residentialbased communities, Yogyakarta was distinguishedby its high degree of social capital. In Aceh, social
capital flourished in the meunasah, functioning as not
only a religious center but also a community center
facilitating various activities. In the relocated village,

there was a mosque but no place such as a meunasah
operated as a kind of community center, rendering thecreation of human networks difficult.
Such results showed that human networks were
multi-functional despite some functions being indiscernible. For example, the meunasah not only facilitated religious-based activities, it also functioned
as a place to promote mutual collaboration amongneighbors, ethical education for children, etc. Suchbenefits, derived from the existence of the meunasah,might affect life recovery in many ways. To come tothe point, the existence of rich social capital could
empower life recovery.
VI. Recommendation for Life Recovery AssistanceIn the present study, we discussed what constitutes life recovery regarding disaster victims using a
critical life recovery factor model based on researchfrom the Kobe earthquake. The corresponding results
highlighted eight critical factors including religion,
which had not been previously emerged. Of the eightfactors, network between neighbors was considered
the most critical.
When we looked in detail at the human networks
surveyed, we realized social capital varied according
to each particular area. Life recovery assistance fromdonors, who did not take such differences into account, brought about the segmentation of existing social networks, rendering life recovery difficult. Thus,
effective life recovery assistance, which enriches existing social capital, was manifestly required.
Conversely, social capital was not just embeddedin daily life; it was obscured by it. In order to provide
effective assistance for social capital, a better understanding of local human relations, as well as the establishment of mutual trust and collaboration between
donors and recipients, is essential.
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to
all those who helped me to complete this study. Firstof all, I would like to thank all of our friends in the
Tsunami and Disaster Mitigation Research Center(TDMRC) of Syiah Kuala University in Aceh. A debt
of gratitude is owed to Dr. Muhammad Dirhamsyah,
Dr. M. Ridha, Dr. Khairul Munadi, Dr. Agus Sabti and
19

M.SAKAMOTO, K.YAMORI

ence, No 3, 2001, pp.33-40.

Mr. Imam Munadar, all of whom supported me fromthe outset. I would also like to thank Ms. Kana Naoki,
and Ms. Tri Lindawati for supporting the surveys; Dr.
Shigeo Tatsuki for providing detailed advice during
the study design phase, and Ms. Shafwina for always
supporting and advising me. Without all of your help
this study would never have been completed.

[５]

S. Tastuki, “Social Capital and Community Building,”
Urban Policy, No. 127, Kobe Institute on Urban Research, 2007, pp.4-19. (in Japanese)[６]

R. Putnum, “Bowling Alone,” Simon and Schuster Paperbacks, New York, 2000.

[７]

B. Wellman, “The Community Question: The Intimate
Networks of East Yorkers,” American Journal of Sociology, 84, pp.1201-1231.

References[８][１]

M. Sakamoto, Y. Kawata, Y. Okumura and K. Yamori,Disaster Victims,” in a report presented by H. Hayashi,“A Study on International Cooperation for Disaster Re-

Detailed Report of a Study: A Generic Framework forcovery in Developing Countries (1): “A Case Study on

Crisis Management Suitable for Japan, 2006, pp.85-

the Disaster Recovery Process of Indonesia,” Journal

94. (in Japanese)[９]of Social Safety Science, No 10, 2008, pp.243-251.
[２]

K. Tamura, S. Tatsuki and H. Hayashi, “The External[10]

Based on an internal report by the International Development Law Organization, IDLO.

among Disaster Victims of the Great Hanshin-Awaji[11]

Earthquake,” Journal of Social Safety Science, No 2,

Selo, Soemardjan, Kennnon, Breazeale, Cultural

2000, pp.25-32.

Change in Rural Indonesia, Impact of Village Devel-

S. Tatsuki, “Long-term Life Recovery Processes

opment, Sebelas Maret University Press, Surakarta,
1993．

among Survivors of the 1995 Kobe Earthquake: 1999,[12]

2001, 2003, and 2005 Life Recovery Social Survey
Results,” Journal of Disaster Research, Vol. 2, No 6,

BRR, Enriching the Construction of the RecoveryAnnual Report, BRR, 200

2007, pp.484-501.
[４]

BRR, Aceh and Nias Two Years after the Tsunami,
2006, Progress Report 2, BRR, 2006

Validity of Life Recovery Tasks and their Structure[３]

S. Tatsuki, “The Principles for Providing Assistance to

K. Tamura, “A Quantitative Verification of the Seven
Elements Model of Socio-Economic Recovery fromthe Kobe Earthquake,” Journal of Social Safety Sci-

20