Bandung
Kecamatan Profile
Climate and Disaster Resilience
Sukasari, Sukajadi, Cicendo, Andir, Cidadap, Coblong
Bandung Wetan, Sumur Bandung, Cibeunying Kaler
Cibeunying Kidul, Astanaanyar, Bojongloa Kaler
Babakan Ciparay, Bojongloa Kidul, Bandung Kulon
Regol, Lengkong, Batununggal, Kiaracondong, Arcamanik
Cibiru, Antapani, Ujung Berung, Rancasari, Buahbatu
Bandung Kidul, Panyileukan, Cinambo, Mandalajati, Gedebage
International Environment andDisaster Management Laboratory
Graduate School of
Global Environmental Studies
KYOTO UNIVERSITY
Yoshida Honmachi, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto
606-8501, JAPANhttp://www.iedm.ges.kyoto-u.ac.jp

Bandung City Government
Wastukancana No. 2
Bandung, 40132
Jawa Barat, Indonesia
http://www.bandung.go.id

Institut Teknologi Bandung
Ganesha No. 10
Bandung, 40132
Jawa Barat, Indonesia
http://www.itb.ac.id

printed in 2012

Foreword
Dada Rosada / Mayor of Bandung2

MessageProf. Dr. Wawan Gunawan A. Kadir, MS
Vice-Rector of Research and Innovation,
Institut Teknologi Bandung

ITB in its mission to become a World Class University has set the strategic agenda in its research andcommunity services activities. In line with this mission, all research and community services programs of
ITB have been managed to be competitive and accountable, aiming at excellent product withinternational standard. In 2011, ITB has executed priority research programs in seven fields: 1)
Infrastructure, Disaster Mitigation, and Territorial, 2) Energy, 3) Information and Communication
Technology, 4) Food, Health, and Medicine, 5) Cultural Products and Environment, 6) Nano and Quantum
Technology, 7) Biotechnology. These priority researches have been carried out by the Institute for
Research and Community Services, in coordination with varieties of research groups in faculties/schools
and centers. In line with this, one of the centers, namely “Disaster Mitigation Research Center” hasconducted international research collaboration with Kyoto University in the Human Security Engineering
for Asian Megacities.
This report compiles a study of an attempt to measure the resilience of Bandung to climate-related
disasters (flood, cyclones, heat waves, droughts, etc.) by taking a truly multi-sectoral and developmental
approach. Based on five dimensions (physical, social, economic, institutional, and natural), the focus inthis study is to understand the capability and condition of the thirty sub-districts of Bandung to cope withsuch events. In this approach, we believe that micro-level analysis is best in addressing urban disasterrisks adequately and comprehensively in order to build resilience. The report provides basic informationthat can help to build such resilience through taking appropriate actions. At it is known, urban risks andclimate change are currently few of the biggest challenges that many cities faced by the consequences oflarge population growth rates, economic growth, and greenhouse gas emissions. Those are also about
the concern on how the cities in Indonesia are prepared and aware in a changing environment which are
likely to become more susceptible to increase and more frequent natural hazards.
We are grateful for the support and partnership that the Bandung City Government provided in
facilitating this study to its successful completion. We are highly appreciated support from Bandung City
Planning and Development Agency which was crucial in implementing the approach and ensuring a
fruitful engagement with the participating sub-districts, and the thirty Leaders of sub-district. The Kyoto
University, an active partner of our bilateral Memorandum of Understanding, has developed thismethodology and we are grateful to them for having shared it and guiding the data collection andanalysis of results. We are particularly grateful to Rajib Shaw, Yukiko Takeuchi and Farah Mulyasari of
Kyoto University’s Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies. I also gratefully acknowledge thesupport of Disaster
ResearchCenter and the guidance and support provided by my colleagues
ResearchMitigation
Center for Disaster
Mitigation
Dr. Krishna S. Pribadi and Dr. I Wayan Sengara and their research assistants towards the conduct of thisstudy.
In this opportunity as the Vice Rector for Research and Innovation of Institut Teknologi Bandung, allow
me to acknowledge that our research collaboration is serving the people and communities, especially of
the city of Bandung. I sincere hope that Government of Bandung City finds this report useful, and use it
for their future work in developing Bandung as a disaster resilient city.
November 2011

Prof.Dr. Wawan Gunawan A. Kadir, MS
Vice Rector for Research and Innovation
Head of the Institute for Research and Community Services
Institut Teknologi Bandung

LPPM-ITB, Rector Building 5th Floor, Jl. Tamansari No. 65,
Bandung 40116, West Java, Indonesia, Tel/Fax: +62-22-2511215,
Email: lppm@lppm.itb.ac.id3

Message
Yuzuru Matsuoka

Professor, Kyoto University

4Introduction
Climate and Disaster Resilience Index for Kecamatan in Bandung
Bandung City is the capital of West Java province in Indonesia, and the country's third largest city, and 2nd largest
metropolitan area with a total population of 2,393,633 people and an area size of 167.67 km2, according to the2010 preliminary Census. After the Indonesian independence in 1945, the city experienced rapid development andurbanization, which has transformed Bandung from an idyllic town into a densely populated urban area with anaverage population density of 14,275.9 people/km2. Bandung City is located at 768m above sea level and thus, due
to its elevation the climate is cooler than in most Indonesian cities. It is classiﬁed as humid with an average yearlytemperature of 23.1 °C (Bandung Station of Meteorology Geophysics Agency in Bandung, 2008). The averageannual rainfall ranges from 1,000 millimeters in the central and southeast regions to 3,500 millimeters in the northof the city. The wet season is from November to April. The city lies in a river basin and is surrounded by up to 2,400
m volcanic mountains.
The 400 km² ﬂat of central Bandung plain is situated in the middle of 2,340.88 km² wide of the Bandung Basin. The
basin comprises Bandung, the Cimahi city, part of Bandung Regency, part of West Bandung Regency, and part of
Sumedang Regency. The basin's main river is the Citarum; one of its branches, the Cikapundung, divides Bandungfrom north to south before it merges with Citarum again in Dayeuhkolot. The Bandung Basin is an importantsource of water for drinking water, irrigation and ﬁsheries, and its 6,147 million m³ of groundwater is a major
reservoir for the city. Based on Bandung City Region Regulation No.6/2008, the city administration is divided into
30 sub-districts (Kecamatan) and 151 wards (Kelurahan). A mayor (Walikota) leads the city administration. Since
2008, the city residents directly voted for a mayor, while previously mayors were nominated and selected by thecity council members or known as the Regional People's Representative Council (DPRD).
The combination of densely populated areas in Bandung and increasing risks of climate-related hazards makes thecity particularly vulnerable to disasters. Therefore, the study, shown in this publication, aims to assess theresilience of the currently existing 30 sub-districts of Bandung to climate-related disaster (e.g. ﬂoods, storms,
droughts/water scarcity).

Scope
In this publication (consultation version) results are shown from 30 Kecamatans regarding their resilience toclimate-related disasters.

Concept of Resilience
Resilience to climate-related disasters applied in an urban area, and at micro-level (Kecamatan), tries to disclose on
one hand the capacity of a city’s urban infrastructure and services against disasters, and on the other, howcommunities and institutions are expected to deal with such an event. The questions are basically how resilient is aparticular Kecamatan today and how is the city going to absorb, maintain, and recover (bounce back) from ahazard leading to a disaster.
In order to assess this resilience ﬁve dimensions are identiﬁed (physical, social, economic, institutional, andnatural) which may provide an appropriate picture of a city’s current condition. Thus, this concept of resilience ispeople-centered (communities), includes institutional dynamics and interactions of the physical and naturalenvironment to climate-related disasters.

5

Methodology
This study is based on a questionnaire covering ﬁve dimensions in which every dimension consists of another ﬁve parametersdeﬁning it in more details. Each of the ﬁve parameters is then again represented by another ﬁve variables. Accordingly, 125
variables deﬁne the overall resilience of a city (see table 1 for content of questionnaire). Using a simple arithmetic function,
named weighted mean scores for variables, parameters, and dimensions are calculated.

PhysicalSocialEconomic

Institutional

NaturalElectricity (access, availability, supply capacity, alternative capacity)
Water (access, availability, supply capacity, alternative capacity)
Sanitation and solid waste disposal (access to sanitation, collection of waste: treated, recycled, collectionof solid waste after a disaster)Accessibility of roads (% of land transportation network, paved roads, accessibility during ﬂooding, status
of interruption after intense rainfall, roadside covered drain)
Housing and land-use (building code, buildings with non-permanent structure, buildings above water
logging,ownership, population living in proximity to polluted industries)
Population (population growth, population under 14 and above 64, population informal settlers,
population density at day and night)
Health (population suﬀer from waterborne/vector-borne diseases, pop. suﬀer from waterborne diseases
after a disaster, access to primary health facilities, capacity of health facilities during a disaster)
Education and awareness (literacy rate, population’s awareness about disasters, availability of publicawareness programs/disaster drills, access to internet, functionality of schools after disaster)Social Capital (population participating in community activities/clubs, acceptance level of community
leader (in ward), ability of communities to build consensus and to participate in city’s decision-making
process (level of democracy), level of ethnic segregation
Community preparedness during a disaster (preparedness (logistics, materials, and management),
provision of shelter for aﬀected people, support from NGOs/CBOs, population evacuating voluntarily,
population participating in relief works)
Income (population below poverty line, number of income sources per household, income derived in
informal sector, % of households have reduced income due to a disaster)
Employment (formal sector: % of labor unemployed, % of youth unemployed, % of women employed, % of
employees come from outside the city; % of child labor in sub-district)
Household assets (households have: television, mobile phone, motorized vehicle, non-motorized vehicle,
basic furniture)
Finance and savings (availability of credit facility to prevent disaster, accessibility to credits, accessibility
to credits for urban poor, saving practice of households, household’s properties insured)
Budget and subsidy (funding of DRM, budget for DRR suﬃcient, availability of subsidies/incentives forresidents to rebuild houses, alternative livelihood, health care after a disaster)
Mainstreaming of DRR and CCA (mainstreaming of CCA and DRR in: zone’s development plans, ability(manpower) and capacity (technical) to produce development plans, extent of community participation indevelopment plan preparation process, implementation of disaster management plan)Eﬀectiveness of sub-district’s crisis management framework (existence and eﬀectiveness of an
emergency team during a disaster: leadership, availability of evacuation centers, eﬃciency of trained
emergency workers during a disaster, existence of alternative decision-making personnel)
Knowledge dissemination and Management (eﬀectiveness to learn from previous disasters, availabilityof disaster training programs for emergency workers, existence of disaster awareness programs forcommunities, capacity (books, leaﬂets, etc.) to disseminate disaster awareness programs (disastereducation), extent of community satisfaction from disaster awareness programs)
Institutional collaboration with other organizations and stakeholders, during a disaster (sub-district’s
dependency to external institutions/support, collaboration and interconnectedness with neighboring
sub-districts, sub-district’s cooperation (support) with central corporation department for emergency
management, cooperation sub-district’s ward oﬃcials for emergency management, sub-district’s
institutional collaboration with NGOs and private organizations)
Good governance (eﬀectiveness of early warning systems, existence of disaster drills, promptness of subdistrict body to disseminate emergency information during a disaster to communities and transparency of
sub-district body to to disseminate accurate emergency, capability of sub-district body to lead recovery
process)
Intensity/severity of natural hazards (ﬂoods, cyclones, heat waves, droughts (water scarcity), tornados)
Frequency of natural hazards (ﬂoods, cyclones, heat waves, droughts (water scarcity), tornados)
Ecosystem services (quality of city’s: biodiversity, soils, air, water bodies, urban salinity)
Land-use in natural terms (area vulnerable to climate-related hazards, urban morphology, settlements on
hazardous ground, amount of Urban Green Space (UGS), loss of UGS)
Environmental policies (use of sub-district level hazard maps in development activities, extent ofenvironmental conservation regulations reﬂected in development plans, extent of implementation ofenvironmental conservation policies, implementation of eﬃcient waste management system (RRR),
implementation of mitigation policies to reduce air pollution)
Table1: Parameters (bold) and variables of CDRI
6

Accordingly, the respondents (Kecamatan) of the questionnaire were requested to choose a score between 1 and 5 for eachquestion according to the city’s performance in this particular matter (see ﬁgure 2 for the parameter of electricity)

4
3
3
3
1
3

5

4

2

1
Figure 2: Electricity (ﬁlling-out)

Approach
In this study all the 30 administrative Kecamatan of Bandung participated in the short introductory workshop, co-hosted
by City Development and Planning Agency (Bappeda Kota Bandung) for ﬁlling-out trial before the mentioned extensive
questionnaire to measure their resilience to climate-related disasters. The particular respondents were representative oﬃcers
from Kecamatan. The period of data collection was between November and mid December 2010.

Results
The following pages show the results for each of the 30 Kecamatans in form of a detailed report and maps (spiders) providing
a visual idea about the current condition of a particular Kecamatan. A graphic line crossing the line of a dimension/parameter(spider diagrams) closer to 1 means the city has a low resilience in this aspect. A result approaching the score of 5 is showing
high resilience.

7

Physical Resilience

PhysicalElectricity

Housing andLand-Use

Water

Ⅴ

Ⅰ

Sanitation and
Solid Waste
DisposalAccessibility of
Roads

Ⅱ

Ⅵ
Ⅸ

Ⅲ

XXIII

IV

VIII

XII

XXII

XVIII

XI

XV

XXIX

Ⅹ

Ⅶ

XX

XIX
XVI

XXI
XXVIII
<3
XXVII

XVII

3-3.5

XIII
XIV

XXV

XXIV

3.5-4
XXX
4-4.5

XXVI

N
3km

In overall the physical resilience levels distribute homogenously among the sub-districts. The lowest physical resilience is foundin sub-district XXI (Cibiru), which has the resilience value of lower than 3 (2.9). The highest resilience value is recorded in subdistrict VIII (Sumur Bandung), which has the resilience value of 4.25. The parameters that underline the diﬀerence between thelowest and highest physical resilience values are the sanitation and solid waste disposal as well as housing and land-use.
The amount of collected solid waste produced per day is only limited up to 50%, meaning not all the solid waste could becollected by the city, evaluated by the particular sub-district representative. For the housing and land-use issue, the amountof buildings that are constructed following the building code is less than 10%. There is a gap in term of solid waste service
provision and the accessibility of roads in term of paved road. The lowest resilience can be found typically on the urban fringe
and the highest resilience is located in the city centre, where the “golden triangle” (government, economy, and businessoﬃces) of Bandung can be marked. Electricity service is provided from a central supplier (State Electricity Company/PLN) for all
sub-districts equally and therefore no diﬀerentiation in this parameter.
The water service is also provided centrally by Bandung Water Company (PDAM Bandung) and therefore all sub-districts areaﬀected by similar or regular supply hours of water, which are usually available up to 6-10 hours/day and is capable to provide
76-100% of the sub-district water demand.
No correlation can be found with other type of resilience.

8

Social Resilience
SocialPopulation

Community
Preparedness

Ⅴ

Ⅰ

Health

Education andAwareness

Social Capital

Ⅱ

Ⅵ
Ⅸ

Ⅲ

XXIII

IV

VIII

XII

XXII

XVIII

XI

XV

XXIX

Ⅹ

Ⅶ

XX

XIX
XVI

XXI
XXVIII
XXVII

XVII

XIII
XIV

XXV

XXIV

XXX

XXVI

N
3km

The social resilience levels show that the population and health has the highest values among all social resilience parameters.
The upper map indicates that to some extent, the northern and southern part of the city has lower social resilience values
than the central part of the city. The lowest social resilience is found in the sub-district V (Cidadap), which has the resiliencevalue of lower than 3 (2.79). And the highest resilience value is noted in the sub-district XXX (Gedebage), which has theresilience value of higher than 4 (4.31). The factors that contribute to the diﬀerence in values are coming from the social
resilience’s parameters, such as the population and community preparedness during a disaster. It is noted in the lowest value,
the population of the particular sub-district under the age 14 and over 64 years is range between 40-46% of total sub-district
population, meaning almost 50% of the population is consisted from the vulnerable groups (children and elderly). And in termof community preparedness during a disaster, the scores are poor for the extent of households that are prepared for a disasterin the provision of logistics, materials, and management. It highlights as well the poor score for the extent of support from
NGOs/CSOs or religious organizations after a disaster. On the contrary, the sub-district that scores high is the youngest subdistrict among all and the elderly people have not yet settled in that sub-district and they are equipped with new logistics;
therefore it has high score for the population and community preparedness during a disaster. In addition it has a high score
for the health and social capital, which is showing that particular sub-district, is not susceptible to diseases and has tight
relationship among the community members and their leaders.

9Economic Resilience
Economic
IncomeBudget and Subsidy

Employment

Ⅴ

Ⅰ

Finance and Savings

Ⅱ

Household Assets

Ⅵ
Ⅸ

Ⅲ

XXIII

IV

VIII

XII

XXII

XVIII

XI

XV

XXIX

Ⅹ

Ⅶ

XX

XIX
XVI

XXI
XXVIII
XXVII

XVII

XIII
XIV

XXV

XXIV

XXX

XXVI

N
3km

The economic resilience levels on the above map show that particularly sub-districts in northern and middle-south part have
low economic resilience compare to the central and some of upper-west and south-eastern sub-districts. The highest economic
resilience values are found in particular high-end sub-districts, of which those residents have high economy in terms of income,
employment, as well as ﬁnance and savings. Surprisingly, the youngest sub-district has the highest score in economy resilience
for the income parameter. The average number of sources of income per household of more than three (3) sources has
contributed to the high resilience value. In term of the budget and subsidy parameter, that particular sub-district has theavailability of providing subsidies or incentives for its residents to rebuild their houses after a disaster and to provide incentives
for the health care, although the amount of funds are not distinguished high. Following by the sub-district, of which the “golden
triangle” is located in sub-district VIII (Sumur Bandung), has slightly less resilience value compare to the youngest
sub-district (sub-district XXX = Gedebage).
So far for the correlation analysis, it cannot be found any correlation with other type of resilience, except it has quite highcorrelation coeﬃcient with the institutional resilience (r = 0,65). A slight correlation is marked between one of the economy
parameters (budget and subsidy) and institutional parameters (mainstreaming of DRR and CCA, eﬀectiveness of sub-district’s
crisis management framework, knowledge dissemination and management, institutional collaboration, and good governance).

10Institutional Resilience
Institutional
Mainstreaming

Good GovernanceⅤ

Ⅰ

Crisis Management

Knowledge
Dissemination andManagement

Institutional
Collaboration

Ⅱ

Ⅵ
Ⅸ

Ⅲ

XXIII

IV

VIII

XII

XXII

XVIII

XI

XV

XXIX

Ⅹ

Ⅶ

XX

XIX
XVI

XXI
XXVIII
XXVII

XVII

XIII
XIV

XXV

XXIV

XXX

XXVI

N
3km

The institutional resilience shows in the above map is not bound to physical resilience parameters, such as electricity and water
services, housing and land-use, and natural characteristics nor to social resilience parameter, such as population density. The
institutional resilience conﬁrms major parts the administrative purpose of the sub-districts to act on behalf the decision takenby the city government, since the sub-district leader or head is appointed by the mayor. The overall institutional resilience value
varies from 2.5 to 4.5 and has the average score of 3.52. Meaning that the there is room for improvement in any institutional
resilience parameters, such as in mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation, eﬀectiveness of
subdistrict’s crisis management framework, knowledge dissemination and management, institutional collaboration with otherorganizations and stakeholders, as well as good governance. The highest score of social resilience value is contributed by theyoungest sub-district, which might has scored good in eﬀectiveness of crisis management framework in terms of the existence
in of emergency teams during adisaster and alternative decision making personnel during a disaster.
There is a slight correlation between social and institutional resilience with a coeﬃcient of 0.68, which detects slight relation
between the social parameters (in term of community preparedness, such as the extent of sub-district’s population dealing
during a disaster) and institutional parameter (in term of the eﬀectiveness of sub-district’s crisis management and in good
governance).

11

Natural Resilience
NaturalIntensity/ Severityof Hazards

Environmental
Policies

Frequency ofHazards

Ⅴ

Ⅰ

Land-Use in
Natural Terms

Ⅱ

Ecosystem Services

Ⅵ
Ⅸ

Ⅲ

XXIII

IV

VIII

XII

XXII

XVIII

XI

XV

XXIX

Ⅹ

Ⅶ

XX

XIX
XVI

XXI
XXVIII
XXVII

XVII

XIII
XIV

XXV

XXIV

XXX

XXVI

N
3km

The natural resilience values show in the above map among the sub-districts are varying and mix from north to south and west
to east. The lowest natural resilience values can be found in the northern and central-west of the city due to high climaterelated hazards frequency that threatening those sub-districts, such as inundations due to high rainfall intensity. In addition,
major factors that contribute to the low resilience in natural dimension in almost all sub-districts are poor implementation ofenvironmental policies and land-use or ecosystem services. The variations of the value ranges from 2.3 until 3.97, with small
indiﬀerences possibly due to rather small spatial areas of each sub-districts and located adjacent to one another.
Strong correlation of natural resilience with other type of resilience is not found.

12

Overall Resilience
Overall Resilience
Physical54Natural3Social2
1

Ⅴ

Ⅰ

InstitutionalⅡ

Economic

Ⅵ
Ⅸ

Ⅲ

XXIII

IV

VIII

XII

XXII

XVIII

XI

XV

XXIX

Ⅹ

Ⅶ

XX

XIX
XVI

XXI
XXVIII
XXVII

XVII

XIII
XIV

XXV

XXIV

XXX

XXVI

N
3km

The overall CDRI values of the sub-districts are shown in the map. The lowest resilience values are scored by the poor areas
as well as socially disadvantaged, speciﬁcally in the economic resilience indicates by budget and subsidy for disaster risk
management and reduction and in the natural resilience indicates by the frequency of natural hazards. The highest resiliencevalues are marked for the social resilience indicates in the health sector; the physical resilience by electricity, water, andaccessibility of roads; and for the institutional resilience indicates by institutional collaboration with other organizations andstakeholders during a disaster.
The rest of the majority sub-districts have similar middle-class resilience values, of which the variations of the scores are verysmall. Nevertheless, all the resilience values show in the diagrams pointed out to have similar values to each other, a potential
opportunity to improve at the same starting point of development take-oﬀ and grow collectively towards the enhancement ofBandung climate-related disaster resilience is possible.
The next page shows the diagrams of the average resilience of the sub-districts in Bandung compared to the city’s resilience.

13

Overall Resilience
PhysicalElectricity

Sub-district’s average

5

City

4
3

Housingand Land-Use

Water

2
1

Accessibilityof Roads

Sanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

NaturalSocialIntensity / Severity of Hazards

Population

5

5

4

Environmental
Policies3
23Community
Preparedness

5

2

4

1

Land-Usein Natural Terms

4

PhysicalFrequencyof Hazards

Ecosystem
Services

3

NaturalSocial2

Economic

Institutional

Economic

Mainstreaming

Income
5

5

4

4
3
2

CrisisManagement

Budgetand Subsidy

Knowledge Disseminationand Management

Parameter
HealthElectricity
Social Capital
Water
Institutional Collaboration
Population
Accessibility of Roads
Housing and Land-Use
Crisis Management
Mainstreaming
IncomeGood GovernanceCommunity Preparedness
Employment
Education and AwarenessHousehold Assets
Environmental Policies
Land-Use in Natural Terms
Knowledge Dissemination and Management
Intensity / Severity of Hazards
Sanitation and Solid Waste Disposal
Ecosystem Services
Finance and Savings
Frequency of Hazards
Budget and Subsidy

3
2

Employment

11Institutional
Collaboration

Education
and AwarenessSocial Capital

1

Institutional

Good
Governance

Health1

CDRI Score
4.31
4.24
4.07
3.88
3.72
3.69
3.62
3.6
3.58
3.54
3.52
3.5
3.42
3.35
3.31
3.25
3.16
3.15
3.12
3.11
2.93
2.81
2.49
2.49
2.26

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsTable 2 ranks the average value of the sub-districts’
CBDRI scores, from the highest to the lowest, with
Health parameter being the highest. Sanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal, Ecosystem services, Financeand Savings, Frequency of Hazards, and Budget andSubsidy are parameters with the lowest scores;
conﬁrming the need of actions for the concerned
sectors.

Table 2: CDRI Scores of Parameters
14Kecamatan 1

Sukasari
Kecamatan, Sukasari
Physical543NaturalSocial2
1

Institutional

Economic

PhysicalElectricity
5
4

Housingand Land-Use

3
2

Water

1

Accessibilityof Roads

Sanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

SocialKecamatan Sukasari, has 4 wards and is located at the highland on northern-and western endof Bandung City with an area size of 6.27 km2 and a population of around 77,218 in 2008. The
population density is 12,315.47/km2, which is quite dense compared to other sub-districts.
This area is characterized by a main river (Cikapundung) ﬂowing at its eastern border. A
prominent private university is located in this area, where as the majority of the houses areused as dormitories for students, even a high stories apartment is built next to the university.
But less than 10% of the buildings are constructed following the building code. The overall
resilience indicates in the diagram is below the average, distinguished from the economic
and natural dimension.
Up to 100% of the households have access to electricity and up to 95% have access topotable water supply. Up to 75% of the population has access to sanitation, but up to 25%of the solid waste is treated before dumping and up to 50% of the solid waste is recycled;
both in formal and informal ways. More than 20% of the area’s land is used as transportation
network. Only 70% of the area is accessible by paved road. A slightly more than half ofroads remained accessible during normal ﬂooding in aﬀected areas, but only up to 45%of the roads have roadside covered drain. Less than 10% of the houses are built with nonpermanent structure, however less than 10% of the buildings are constructed following thebuilding code. This area is not a hazardous area, whereas none of the population are living in
the proximity to polluted industries or dumping grounds.

Population
5
4

Community
Preparedness

3
2

Health1

Education
and AwarenessSocial Capital

Economic
Income5

The population growth is less than 0.9%, however this area is occupied by 77,218 people witha density of 12.315 people live on one sq/km. A slightly above one third of its population isunder age 14 or over 64 years old. There are almost no population suﬀer from neither waternor vector borne diseases every year and up to 90% of the population has access to primary
health care facility. In case of emergency and before disaster, the health facilities are wellprovided and able to serve the community. Less than 50% of the people are illiterate andsub-district authority organizes once a year a disaster drill. Almost half of the population isparticipated in community activities; however they might face some diﬃculties in the social
ethnic integration. Although the people are prepared for a disaster (logistics, materials, andmanagement), there is no support from the NGOs/CSOs after a disaster.

4

Budgetand Subsidy

3
2

Employment

1

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsInstitutional
Mainstreaming
5
4

Good
Governance32

CrisisManagement

1

Institutional
Collaboration

Knowledge Disseminationand Management

NaturalIntensity / Severity of Hazards
54

Environmental
Policies

3
2

Frequencyof Hazards

1

Land-Usein Natural Terms

15

Ecosystem
Services

Less than 11% of the population lives below the poverty line, but the income only camefrom one source. Unemployment in the formal sector is up to 18%, which is the same
percentage for the youth employed as well. Almost all the population have television andtelecommunication device, however less than 50% of the households has furniture to secure
the key items (money, important documents, etc.) during disaster. Although more than 50%of the people are practicing saving, only up to 10% of the households are under any sort of
insurance scheme. There is no support or access of credit facility during disaster for urban
poor or low-income groups. And there is no available annual budget targeting disaster risk
management, no availability of subsidies/incentives for residents to receive an alternative
livelihood and health care during a disaster.
Although this area has a good mainstreaming of DRR and CCA and community participationin their development plans and preparation process, as well as the promptness of the subdistrict’s body in disseminating emergency information during a disaster; there is no capacity
for dissemination of disaster awareness programs (books, leaﬂets, manpower, and campaigns
for disaster education).
Since this sub-district is bordered by the main river; during and after a heavy rainfall, asevere riverine ﬂoods are occurring in this area. And since this area has hilly and steep slope
morphology, almost half of settlement is exposed to vulnerable zones. The amount of green
spaces and the use of sub-district level hazard maps in development activities are up to 10%
as well as poor in the implementation of mitigation policies to reduce air pollution (e.g. CO2
from traﬃc or household emissions).

Kecamatan 2

Sukajadi
Kecamatan, Sukajadi
Physical543NaturalSocial2
1

Institutional

Economic

PhysicalElectricity
5
4

Housingand Land-Use

3
2

Water

1

Accessibilityof Roads

Sanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

SocialPopulation
5
4

Community
Preparedness

3
2

Health1

Education
and AwarenessSocial Capital

Economic
Income54Budgetand Subsidy

3
2

Employment

1

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsInstitutional
Mainstreaming

Kecamatan Sukajadi, has 5 wards and is located at the north-west of Bandung City with anarea size of 4.23 km2 and a population of around 101, 065 in 2008. The population density
is 23,503.49/km2, which is quite dense compared to other sub-districts. This sub-district iscomposed mainly for residential with a slightly mix of service and commercial purposes. Oneof the service purposes that could be distinguished in this sub-district is a well-known public
hospital. The overall resilience indicates in the diagram is slightly above the average, mainlyin the physical, social, and institutional dimension.
Up to 100% of the households have access to electricity and up to 95% have access to potablewater supply. Up to 75% of the population has access to sanitation, but only up to 25% of thesolid waste is treated before dumping and recycled; both in formal and informal ways. Morethan 20% of the area’s land is used as transportation network and almost 100% of the area
is accessible by paved road. More than 70% of roads remained are accessible during normal
ﬂooding in aﬀected areas, but only up to 45% of the roads have roadside covered drain. Less
than 10% of the houses are built with non-permanent structure and more than 50% of thebuildings are constructed following the building code. Although this area is not a hazardous
area, almost a quarter of the population is living in the proximity to dumping grounds.
The population growth is ranged between 1-1.9%, however this area is occupied by 101.065
people with a density of 23,503.49 people is living on one sq/km. Less than 25% of the
population is under age 14 or over 64 years old. There are almost no population suﬀer fromneither water-nor vector borne diseases every year and up to 100% of the population has
access to primary health care facility. In case of emergency and before disaster, the healthfacilities are very well provided and able to serve the community. The literacy rate is ranged
between 80-100% and sub-district authority organizes once a year a disaster drill. Up to 40%of the population is participated in community activities and they could blend well with otherethnics for social integration. The people are prepared for a disaster (in terms of logistics,
materials, and management) and have a support from the NGOs/CSOs after a disaster.
The majority of the population lives below the poverty line and have 3 sources of income,only less than 25% of the households depend on only one source of income. Unemployment
in the formal sector is up to 18%, same as for the youth employed as well. Female labor
is noted up to 65% in this sub-district. Almost all the population have television andtelecommunication device as well as motorized vehicle. One third of community has nonmotorized vehicle. However, less than 50% of the households have furniture to secure thekey items (money, important documents, etc.) for during disaster. Although up to 50% of
the people are practicing saving, only up to 16% of the households are under any sort of
insurance scheme. There is a support or access of credit facility during disaster for urban
poor or low-income groups. However, annual budget targeting disaster risk management,
subsidies/incentives for residents to receive an alternative livelihood and health care during
a disaster are not available.

5
4

Good
Governance32

CrisisManagement

1

Institutional
Collaboration

Knowledge Disseminationand Management

NaturalIntensity / Severity of Hazards
54

Environmental
Policies

3
2

Frequencyof Hazards

1

Land-Usein Natural Terms

Although this area has a good community participation in their development plans andpreparation process, as well as incorporation of disaster management plan; the eﬀectivenessof emergency team during a disaster (in terms of leadership and competence) is poor. This is
not reﬂected in their institutional collaboration with other organizations and stakeholders.
Since the main river ﬂows from north to south; during and after a heavy rainfall, a severe
riverine ﬂoods are occurring in this area. The frequency of the inundations, riverine ﬂoods,
as well as rainfall-induced landslides and storms, are occurring more than once per year. And
the natural condition become worse as the average of urban water quality in lakes, rivers ispoor in line with almost 90% of the average intensity of land-use/urban morphology area isbuilt-up. That is why the amount of green spaces is up to 15%. Regarding the environmental
policies, the implementation of eﬃcient waste management system (reduce, reuse, andrecycle) is poor in this area.

Ecosystem
Services

16

Kecamatan 3

CicendoKecamatan, Cicendo
Physical543NaturalSocial2
1

Institutional

Economic

PhysicalElectricity
5
4

Housingand Land-Use

3
2

Water

1

Accessibilityof Roads

Sanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

Sub-district 3, Cicendo is consisted from 6 wards and located at the western end of Bandung
City with an area size of 6.86 km2 and a population of around 103,353 in 2008. The population
density is 15,092.49/km2, which is quite dense compared to other sub-districts. Two rivers(Citepus and Ciwaruga) are ﬂowing through. This area is characterized by mixed land-use, aninternational airport is marked and serves as service purposes for the whole city. The overall
resilience indicates in the diagram is below the average, mainly in the economic and natural
the dimension.

Although up to 40% of the area is aﬀected by interruption, up to 100% of the households
have access to electricity and up to 95% have access to potable water supply. Up to 60% of
the population has access to sanitation, but up to 25% of the solid waste is treated before
dumping and up to only 10% of the solid waste is recycled; both in formal and informal ways.
More than 20% of the area’s land is used as transportation network. And 100% of the area isaccessible by paved road and more than 71% of roads remained are accessible during normal
ﬂooding in aﬀected areas, but only up to 60% of the roads have roadside covered drain. Up
to 19% of the houses are built with non-permanent structure, however less than 10% of thebuildings are constructed following the building code. This area is not a hazardous area asnone of the population are living in the proximity to polluted industries or dumping grounds.

SocialPopulation
5
4

Community
Preparedness

3
2

Health1

Education
and AwarenessSocial Capital

Economic
IncomeThe population growth is less than 0.9%, however this area is occupied by 103,353 people
with a density of 15,092 people is living on one sq/km. More than 45% its population is underage 14 or over 64 years old. There is a chance that up to 11% of the population suﬀer fromwater-and vector borne diseases every year and up to 90% of the population has access toprimary health care facility. In case of emergency and before disaster, the health facilities arewell provided and able to serve the community. Less than 50% of the people are illiterate andthe sub-district authority organizes once a year a disaster drills. Almost half of the population
is participated in community activities; and among diﬀerent ethnics the blending process
is well and has a good social integration. The people are prepared for a disaster (logistics,
materials, and management), there is a good support from the NGOs/CSOs after a disaster.

5
4

Budgetand Subsidy

3
2

Employment

1

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsInstitutional
Mainstreaming
5
4

Good
Governance32

CrisisManagement

1

Institutional
Collaboration

Knowledge Disseminationand Management

NaturalIntensity / Severity of Hazards
54

Environmental
Policies

3
2

Frequencyof Hazards

1

Land-Usein Natural Terms

17

Less than 11% of the population lives below the poverty line, but the income is only
came from one source. Unemployment in the formal sector is only up 7%, although
the youth unemployment is up to 24%. Almost all the population have television andtelecommunication device, motorized vehicle, and more than 80% of the households has
furniture to secure the key items (money, important documents, etc.) for during disaster.
More than 50% of the people are practicing saving, only up to 10% of the households areunder any sort of insurance scheme. There is no support or access of credit facility during
disaster for urban poor or low-income groups. And there are no available annual budget
targeting disaster risk management, no availability of subsidies/incentives for residents toreceive an alternative livelihood and health care during a disaster.

Ecosystem
Services

The mainstreaming of DRR and CCA, the eﬀectiveness of sub-district’s crisis management
framework, and the institutional collaboration with other organizations and stakeholders aregood and slightly eﬀective. But there is no eﬀectiveness in learning from previous disasters
and heavily dependent on external institutions or support during a disaster.
Since this sub-district has 2 rivers ﬂowing through it; during and after a heavy rainfall, asevere riverine ﬂoods are occurring in this area. The frequency of the ﬂoods is more thanonce per year during the rainy season and suﬀers from water scarcity more than once per
year as well. The ecosystem service, particular in this area, such as the average of urban
air quality during the day and water, are poor. It reﬂects in the poor implementation of
mitigation policies to reduce air pollution (e.g. CO2 from traﬃc or household emissions).

Kecamatan 4

Andir
Kecamatan, Andir
Physical543NaturalSocial2
1

Institutional

Economic

PhysicalElectricity
5
4

Housingand Land-Use

3
2

Water

1

Accessibilityof Roads

Sanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

SocialPopulation
5
4

Community
Preparedness

3
2

Health1

Education
and AwarenessSocial Capital

Economic

Sub-district 4, Andir has 6 wards and is located at western end of Bandung City with anarea size of 3, 71 km2 and a population of around 106,201 in 2008. The population density
is 28,625.61/km2, which is very dense regarding its small size of the area. More than 50% of
the area is occupied for commercial purposes, where lots of shops and trading markets canbe found. The water level rose about 200cm of the river Cibeureum and marked as the worst
riverine ﬂood case in year 2010. The overall resilience indicates in the diagram is below theaverage, with social and natural dimension are marked the weakest.
Up to 100% of the households have access to electricity and up to 95% have access topotable water supply. Up to 60% of the population has access to sanitation, but up to 25%of the solid waste is treated before dumping and recycled; both in formal and informal
ways. More than 20% of the area’s land is used as transportation network. All of the area isaccessible by paved road and only up to 50% of roads remained are accessible during normal
ﬂooding in aﬀected areas, but only up to 45% of the roads have roadside covered drain. Up
to 29% of the houses are built with non-permanent structure, and more than 50% of thebuildings are constructed following the building code. This area is not a hazardous area,
however, up to 49% of the population are living in the proximity to polluted areas (due toeveryday heavy traﬃc ﬂow).

The population growth is quite high, up to 3.9%, however, slightly above one third of its
population is under age 14 or over 64 years old. Almost 17% of its population suﬀer fromwater-and vector borne diseases every year and up to 90% of the population has access toprimary health care facility. In case of emergency and before disaster, the health facilities arequite moderate provided and able to serve the community. Less than 50% of the people areilliterate and sub-district authority organizes more than once per year a disaster drill. Almost
half of the population is participated in community activities; and among diﬀerent ethnics,
the social integration process runs quite smoothly. The people are prepared for a disaster(logistics, materials, and management) and there is a quite few support from the NGOs/CSOs
after a disaster.

Income54Budgetand Subsidy

3
2

Employment

1

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsInstitutional
Mainstreaming
5
4

Good
Governance32

CrisisManagement

1

Institutional
Collaboration

Up to 30% of the population lives below the poverty line and the income comes fromtwo sources. Unemployment in the formal sector is more than 25%, which is the same
percentage for the youth unemployment as well. Up to 70% of the population have televisionand telecommunication device, however only up to 50% of the households has furniture tosecure the key items (money, important documents, etc.) for during disaster. More than 50%of the people are practicing saving and more than 33% of the households are under any sortof insurance scheme. There is some support or access of credit facility during disaster for
urban poor or low-income groups. And more than 3% of the budget is available for disasterrisk management. There is availability of subsidies/incentives for residents to receive analternative livelihood and health care during a disaster, although the sum is quite small.

Knowledge Disseminationand Management

This area has a good mainstreaming of DRR and CCA and community participation in theirdevelopment plans and preparation process, as well as the promptness of the sub-district’sbody in disseminating emergency information during a disaster. The cooperation of subdistrict’s ward oﬃcials for emergency management and institutional collaboration with NGOs
as well as private organizations during a disaster are at its best.

NaturalIntensity / Severity of Hazards
54

Environmental
Policies

3
2

Frequencyof Hazards

1

Land-Usein Natural Terms

The intensity and severity of the ﬂoods are severe and occurring more than once per year
in this area. In term of the ecosystem service; the average of urban water quality is poor.
Almost 70% of this area is built-up, where the loss of green spaces is up to 20%, thus theimplementation of the environmental policies is quite poor for this area.

Ecosystem
Services18Kecamatan 5

Cidadap
Kecamatan, Cidadap
Physical543NaturalSocial2
1

Institutional

Economic

PhysicalElectricity
5
4

Housingand Land-Use

3
2

Water

1

Accessibilityof Roads

Sanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

SocialPopulation
5
4

Community
Preparedness

3
2

Health1

Education
and AwarenessSocial Capital

Economic
Income54Budgetand Subsidy

3
2

Employment

1

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsSub-district 5, Cidadap has only 3 wards and is located at the highland on northern-andwestern end of Bandung City with an area size of 6,11 km2 and a population of around 53,934
in 2008. The population density is 8,827.17/km2, which is not dense at all compared to othersub-districts. Almost half of the total area is occupied by green spaces and forest, where amajor river (Cipaganti) is ﬂowing through this sub-district. The overall resilience indicatesin the diagram is below the average, marked for the economic, institutional and naturaldimension.
Up to 100% of the households have access to electricity and up to 88% have access topotable water supply. Up to 75% of the population has access to sanitation, but up to 25%of the solid waste is treated before dumping and up to 50% of the solid waste is recycled;
both in formal and informal ways. Only up to 15% of the area’s land is used as transportation
network. Only 70% of the area is accessible by paved road and remained accessible during
normal ﬂooding in aﬀected areas, and more than 60% of the roads have roadside covereddrain. Up to 19% of the houses are built with non-permanent structure, however less than
10% of the buildings are constructed following the building code. This area is not a hazardous
area, whereas none of the population are living in the proximity to polluted industries or
dumping grounds.
The population growth is ranged between 1-1.9%, however this area is occupied up to 46%
by under age 14 or over 64 years old. Up to 11% of the population suﬀer from water-and
vector borne diseases every year and up to 90% of the population has access to primary
health care facility. But in case of emergency and before disaster, the health facilities arepoorly provided and able to serve the community. Less than 50% of the people are illiterate
and the sub-district authority organizes once in two year a disaster drill. Up to 40% of the
population is participated in community activities and could integrate well with each other(between ethnics). The households are not prepared for a disaster (logistics, materials, andmanagement) and the support from the NGOs/CSOs after a disaster is quite small.
Less than 11% of the population lives below the poverty line, but the income is only camefrom one source. Unemployment in the formal sector is up to 18%, which is the same
percentage for the youth unemployment as well. Almost all the population have televisionand telecommunication device, however less than 50% of the households has furniture tosecure the key items (money, important documents, etc.) for during disaster. Only up to 20%of the people are practicing saving and only up to 10% of the households are under any sortof insurance scheme. There is no support or access of credit facility during disaster for urban
poor or low-income groups. And there are no available annual budget targeting disaster risk
management. The availability of subsidies/incentives for residents to receive an alternative
livelihood and health care during a disaster is poor.

Institutional
Mainstreaming
5
4

Good
Governance32

CrisisManagement

1

Institutional
Collaboration

Knowledge Disseminationand Management

NaturalIntensity / Severity of Hazards
54

Environmental
Policies

3
2

Frequencyof Hazards

1

Land-Usein Natural Terms

19

Ecosystem
Services

Although this area has a good mainstreaming of DRR and CCA and community participation in
their development plans and preparation process, but the inclusion of disaster management
into development planning is poor, as well as the existence of emergency team during adisaster. There is no existence of disaster awareness programs (disaster education) forthe communities. The extent of institutional collaboration with other organizations andstakeholders is heavily dependent and in case of an emergency; the network with other subdistricts is poor.
Since a major river is ﬂowing through this area, during and after a heavy rainfall, a severe
riverine ﬂoods are occurring. And since this area has hilly and steep slope morphology, therainfall-induced landslides are occurring once per year. Although the amount of green spaces
are half of the total area, the urban biodiversity, average urban soil, air and water quality arepoor. It is reﬂected in poor implementation of mitigation policies to reduce air pollution (e.g
CO2 from traﬃc and household emissions).

Kecamatan 6

Coblong
Kecamatan, Coblong
Physical543NaturalSocial2
1

Institutional

Economic

PhysicalElectricity
5
4

Housingand Land-Use

3
2

Water

1

Accessibilityof Roads

Sanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

Sub-district 6, Coblong has 6 wards and is located at the highland on northern part ofBandung City with an area size of 7.35 km2 and a population of around 126,450 in 2008. The
population density is 17,204.08/km2, which is quite dense compared to other sub-districts.
This area is well known for the best state institute of technology in country, many factories
fashion outlets, famous culinary places, as well as high-end residential areas. The overall
resilience indicates in the diagram is slightly above the average, especially in the physical andinstitutional dimension.
Up to 100% of the households have access to electricity, but only up to 50% have access topotable water supply. Up to 60% of the population has access to sanitation, but up to 50%of the solid waste is treated before dumping and up to 75% of the solid waste is recycled;
both in formal and informal ways. Only up to 10% of the area’s land is used as transportation
network, and up to 60% of the area is accessible by paved road. More than 71% of roads
remained are accessible during normal ﬂooding in aﬀected areas, but only up to 30% of theroads have roadside covered drain. Up to 19% of the houses are built with non-permanent
structure, however less than 20% of the buildings are constructed following the building
code. This area is not a hazardous area, whereas none of the population are living in theproximity to polluted industries or dumping grounds.

SocialPopulation
5
4

Community
Preparedness

3
2

Health1

Education
and AwarenessSocial Capital

The population growth is ranged between 1-1.9% and less than 25% of the population isunder age 14 or over 64 years old. There are almost no population suﬀer from neither waternor vector borne diseases every year and up to 75% of the population has access to primary
health care facility. In case of emergency and before disaster, the health facilities are wellprovided and able to serve the community. Less than 50% of the people are illiterate and the
sub-district authority organizes once a year a disaster drills. Almost half of the population
is participated in community activities; and could integrate nicely among diﬀerent ethnics.
The people are prepared for a disaster (logistics, materials, and management), there is few
support from the NGOs/CSOs after a disaster.

Economic
Income54Budgetand Subsidy

3
2

Employment

1

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsInstitutional
Mainstreaming
5

Less than 11% of the population lives below the poverty line and it comes only from one
source. Unemployment in the formal sector is up to 12%, which is the same percentage
for the youth unemployment as well. Almost all the population have television andtelecommunication device, however less than 50% of the households has furniture to secure
the key items (money, important documents, etc.) for during disaster. Although 30% of
the people are practicing saving, only up to 32% of the households are under any sort of
insurance scheme. There is no support or access of credit facility during disaster for urban
poor or low-income groups, but more than 5% is available for annual budget targeting
disaster risk management. Subsidies/incentives of small amount are available for residents toreceive an alternative livelihood and health care during a disaster.

4

Good
Governance32

CrisisManagement

1

Institutional
Collaboration

Knowledge Disseminationand Management

Although this area has a good mainstreaming of DRR and CCA and community participationin their development plans and preparation process, as well as the promptness of the subdistrict’s body in disseminating emergency information during a disaster; the eﬃciencyof trained emergency workers during a disaster is quite fair. This area is independent on
external institutions/support during a disaster.

NaturalIntensity / Severity of Hazards
54

Environmental
Policies

3
2

Frequencyof Hazards

1

Land-Usein Natural Terms

In terms of intensity and frequency of natural disasters, severe ﬂoods are occurring less than
5 years. The ecosystem service, such as urban water quality is mainly poor as it reﬂected
the 20% total area of urban green space, of which the environmental policies are quite wellenforced.

Ecosystem
Services20Kecamatan 7

Bandung Wetan
Kecamatan, Bandung Wetan
Physical543NaturalSocial2
1

Institutional

Economic

PhysicalElectricity
5
4

Housingand Land-Use

3
2

Water

1

Accessibilityof Roads

Sanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

SocialPopulation
5
4

Community
Preparedness

3
2

Health1

Education
and AwarenessSocial Capital

Economic

Sub-district 7, Bandung Wetan is consisted of 3 wards an located at the heart of Bandung
City with an area size of 3.39 km2 and a population of around 31,741 in 2008. The population
density is 9,363.13/km2, which is not dense compared to other sub-districts. This area ischaracterized by mix land-use of settlement, governmental oﬃces, and services. A majorriver (Cikapundung) is ﬂowing through this area. The overall resilience indicates in the
diagram is slightly below the average, especially in the social, economic, institutional
dimension.
Up to 100% of the households have access to electricity and potable water supply. Up to
75% of the population has access to sanitation, but up to 25% of the solid waste is treated
before dumping and up to 75% of the solid waste is recycled; both in formal and informal
ways. More than 20% of the area’s land is used as transportation network. Whole area isaccessible by paved road and accessible during normal ﬂooding in aﬀected areas, but only up
to 60% of the roads have roadside covered drain. Less than 10% of the houses are built with
non-permanent structure and more than 50% of the buildings are constructed following thebuilding code. This area is not a hazardous area, whereas none of the population are living in
the proximity to polluted industries or dumping grounds.

The population growth is ranged between 1-1.9%, with up to 32% of its population is underage 14 or over 64 years old. There are almost no population suﬀer from neither water-nor
vector borne diseases every year and up to 90% of the population has access to primary
health care facility. In case of emergency and before disaster, the health facilities are wellprovided and able to serve the community. Less than 50% of the people are illiterate, but the
sub-district authority has not yet organizes disaster drill so far. Almost half of the population
is participated in community activities and could integrate well with other ethnic groups. The
people are prepared for a disaster (logistics, materials, and management) and there is some
support from the NGOs/CSOs after a disaster.

Income54Budgetand Subsidy

3
2

Employment

1

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsInstitutional
Mainstreaming

Less than 11% of the population lives below the poverty line with 2 sources of income.
Unemployment in the formal sector is up to 12%, which is the same percentage forthe youth unemployment rate as well. Almost all the population have television andtelecommunication device, however less than 50% of the households has furniture to secure
the key items (money, important documents, etc.) for during disaster. Although more than
50% of the people are practicing saving, only up to 10% of the households are under any
sort of insurance scheme. There is no support or access of credit facility during disaster for
urban poor or low-income groups. Annual budget targeting disaster risk management isavailable up to 3%, and some small amount of subsidies/incentives for residents to receive analternative livelihood and health care during a disaster is provided.

5
4

Good
Governance32

CrisisManagement

1

Institutional
Collaboration

Knowledge Disseminationand Management

NaturalIntensity / Severity of Hazards
54

Environmental
Policies

3
2

Frequencyof Hazards

1

Land-Usein Natural Terms

21

Ecosystem
Services

Although this area has a good mainstreaming of DRR and CCA and community participationin their development plans and preparation process, as well as the promptness of the subdistrict’s body in disseminating emergency information during a disaster; the eﬃciency of
trained emergency workers during disaster is poor. The same applies for good governanceissues. The eﬀectiveness of early warning systems led by sub-district body and the existenceof disaster drills could not be found so far.
Since a major river is ﬂowing through this area (Cikapundung), a riverine ﬂoods occurs morethan once every year, and during the dry season some water scarcity is experienced in thisarea. From the environmental perspective, the average intensity of land-use or built up area
is up to 90%, this in turn gives a loss of green space almost up to 40%. One major issue thathas not been solved yet is the poor implementation of eﬃcient waste management system(reduce, reuse, recycle).

Kecamatan 8

Sumur Bandung
Kecamatan, Sumur Bandung
Physical543NaturalSocial2
1

Institutional

Economic

PhysicalElectricity
5
4

Housingand Land-Use

3
2

Water

1

Accessibilityof Roads

Sanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

Sub-district 8, Sumur Bandung is consisted of 4 wards and located at the heart of Bandung
City with an area size of 3.40 km2 and a population of around 40,035 in 2008. The population
density is 11,755.00/km2, which is quite dense compared to other sub-districts. This
area is composed mainly for commercial, governmental oﬃces, and services. Important
governmental oﬃces such as city hall and a national level military based are located in thisarea. The overall resilience indicates in the diagram is above the average with a good score
for almost all dimensions, except for the natural one.
Up to 100% of the households have access to electricity and up to 95% have access topotable water supply. Up to 75% of the population has access to sanitation, but up to 25% of
the solid waste is treated before dumping but only up to 10% of the solid waste is recycled;
both in formal and informal ways. Up to 20% of the area’s land is used as transportation
network. Only 70% of the area is accessible by paved road. A slightly more than half oftotal roads remain accessible during normal ﬂooding in aﬀected areas, but only up to 45%of the roads have roadside covered drain. Less than 10% of the houses are built with nonpermanent structure, and up to 50% of the buildings are constructed following the building
code. Although this area is not a hazardous area, but 25% of the population are living in theproximity to polluted dumping grounds, which is reﬂected in the small amount of treatedwaste before dumping.

SocialPopulation
5
4

Community
Preparedness

3
2

Health1

Education
and AwarenessSocial Capital

The population growth is between 1-1.9%, with less than 45% of its population is under age
14 or over 64 years old. There are almost no population suﬀer from neither water-nor vector
borne diseases every year and up to 90% of the population has access to primary healthcare facility. In case of emergency and before disaster, the health facilities are well provided
and able to serve the community. Less than 50% of the people are illiterate and sub-districtauthority organizes once every two years disaster drills. Almost half of the population
is participated in community activities; however they might face some diﬃculties in thesocial ethnic integration. The people are prepared for a disaster (logistics, materials, andmanagement) and there is some support from the NGOs/CSOs after a disaster.

Economic
Income54Budgetand Subsidy

3
2

Employment

1

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsInstitutional
Mainstreaming
5

Less than 11% of the population lives below the poverty line with more than 3 sources ofincome. Unemployment in the formal sector is less than 6%, which is the same percentage
for the youth unemployment as well. Almost all the population have television andtelecommunication device, and up to 80% of the households has furniture to secure the key
items (money, important documents, etc.) for during disaster. Up to 50% of the people arepracticing saving, and up to 32% of the households are under any sort of insurance scheme.
There is some support or access of credit facility during disaster for urban poor or lowincome groups, but no annual budget targeting disaster risk management available. There
are some subsidies/incentives for residents to receive an alternative livelihood and healthcare during a disaster.

4

Good
Governance32

CrisisManagement

1

Institutional
Collaboration

Knowledge Disseminationand Management

NaturalIntensity / Severity of Hazards
54

Environmental
Policies

3
2

Frequencyof Hazards

1

Land-Usein Natural Terms

In overall, the institutional issues, such as mainstreaming of DRR and CCA, eﬀectiveness of
sub-district’s crisis management framework, knowledge dissemination and management,
institutional collaboration with other organizations and stakeholders, and good governanceare scored best for this area. Though, they weighted the institutional collaboration is themost important issue for the institutionalization of climate-disaster resilience eﬀorts.
In natural term, this area has not faced any diﬃculties in coping with climate-related hazards,
even the riverine ﬂoods occur more than once during the rainy season. Since this area isdensely populated, some informal settlements can be found near the river bank and gives
a poor average for the urban water quality. Almost 90% of the land is built up, but they
maintain the green space up to 70% to increase city oxygen.

Ecosystem
Services22Kecamatan 9

Cibeunying Kaler
Kecamatan, Cibeunying Kaler
Physical543NaturalSocial2
1

Institutional

Economic

PhysicalElectricity
5
4

Housingand Land-Use

3
2

Water

1

Accessibilityof Roads

Sanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

SocialPopulation
5
4

Community
Preparedness

3
2

Health1

Education
and AwarenessSocial Capital

Economic

Sub-district 9, Cibeunying Kaler is consisted of 4 wards and located at the northern part ofBandung City with an area size of 4.50 km2 and a population of around 69,011 in 2008. The
population density is 15,355.78/km2, which is quite dense compared to other sub-districts.
This area is composed mainly of residential areas with one private prominent university
and a large compound of national hero cemetery. Two rivers are identiﬁed (Cidurian andCikapayang), which are ﬂowing through this area. The overall resilience indicates in the
diagram is slightly above the average, except for the natural dimension.

Up to 100% of the households have access to electricity and potable water supply. Up to 75%of the population has access to sanitation, but up to 25% of the solid waste is treated before
dumping and up and recycled; both in formal and informal ways. More than 20% of thearea’s land is used as transportation network. Only 60% of the area is accessible by paved
road during normal ﬂooding in aﬀected areas, but only up to 45% of the roads have roadsidecovered drain. Less than 10% of the houses are built with non-permanent structure, howeverless than 10% of the buildings are constructed following the building code. This area is nota hazardous area, whereas none of the population are living in the proximity to polluted
industries or dumping grounds.

The population growth is fast compared to other sub-district, which is more than 6%,
with up to32% of its population is under age 14 or over 64 years old. There are almost no
population suﬀer from neither water-nor vector borne diseases every year and up to 90% of
the population has access to primary health care facility. In case of emergency and before
disaster, the health facilities are well provided and able to serve the community. Less than
50% of the people are illiterate and sub-district authority organizes once in every two years
disaster drills. Almost half of the population is participated in community activities andthey could integrate well with other ethnic groups. The people are prepared for a disaster(logistics, materials, and management) and there is some support from the NGOs/CSOs aftera disaster.

Income54Budgetand Subsidy

3
2

Employment

1

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsInstitutional
Mainstreaming
5
4

Good
Governance3
2

Up to 30% of the population lives below the poverty line, with three sources of income.
Unemployment in the formal sector is less than 6%, which is the same percentage forthe youth unemployment rate as well. Almost all the population have television andtelecommunication device, however less than 50% of the households has furniture to secure
the key items (money, important documents, etc.) for during disaster. More than 50% of thepeople are practicing saving, and only up to 32% of the households are under any sort of
insurance scheme. There is some support or access of credit facility during disaster for urban
poor or low-income groups. And they have more than 3% annual budget targeting disasterrisk management available. In addition, there some subsidies/incentives for residents toreceive an alternative livelihood and health care during a disaster.

CrisisManagement

1

Institutional
Collaboration

Knowledge Disseminationand Management

Natural

In overall, the institutional issues, such as mainstreaming of DRR and CCA, eﬀectiveness of
sub-district’s crisis management framework, knowledge dissemination and management,
institutional collaboration with other organizations and stakeholders, and good governanceare scored best for this area. Though, they weighted the mainstreaming of DRR and CCA is
most important as an eﬀort towards climate-related disasters in their area.

Intensity / Severity of Hazards
54

Environmental
Policies

3
2

Frequencyof Hazards

1

Land-Usein Natural Terms

23

Ecosystem
Services

In natural term, the most aﬀected natural hazards are riverine ﬂoods and rainfall-induced
landslides. They are occurring more than once or once per year, however signiﬁcant loss is
not recorded, although up to 50% land of this area is located in prone areas.

Kecamatan 10

Cibeunying Kidul
Kecamatan, Cibeunying Kidul
Physical543NaturalSocial2
1

Institutional

Economic

PhysicalElectricity
5
4

Housingand Land-Use

3
2

Water

1

Accessibilityof Roads

Sanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

SocialPopulation
5
4

Community
Preparedness

3
2

Health1

Education
and AwarenessSocial Capital

Economic
Income54Budgetand Subsidy

3
2

Employment

1

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsSub-district 10, Cibeunying Kidul is consisted of 6 wards and located at the northern partof Bandung City with an area size of 5.25 km2 and a population of around 111,094 in 2008.
The population density is 21,160.76/km2, which is quite dense compared to other subdistricts. This area is composed mainly of residential areas and some governmental oﬃces
and services. A military training camp or institution is located as well in this area. The
overall resilience indicates in the diagram is below the average, especially in the economic,
institutional and natural dimension.
Up to 95% of the households have access to electricity and up to 80% have access to potablewater supply. Up to 75% of the population has access to sanitation, but up to 25% of thesolid waste is treated before dumping and up to 10% of the solid waste is recycled; both informal and informal ways. Up to 20% of the area’s land is used as transportation network.
Only 70% of the area is accessible by paved road. A slightly more than half of roads remained
are accessible during normal ﬂooding in aﬀected areas, and up to 60% of the roads haveroadside covered drain. Less than 10% of the houses are built with non-permanent structure,
however up to 20% of the buildings are constructed following the building code. This area is
not a hazardous area, whereas none of the population are living in the proximity to polluted
industries or dumping grounds.
The population growth is less than 0.9%, with more than 45% of its population is under age
14 or over 64 years old. There are almost no population suﬀer from neither water-nor vector
borne diseases every year and up to 90% of the population has access to primary healthcare facility. In case of emergency and before disaster, the health facilities are well provided
and able to serve the community. Less than 50% of the people are illiterate and sub-districtauthority organizes once a year a disaster drill. Almost half of the population is participatedin community activities and they could integrate well with other ethnic groups. The people
are prepared for a disaster (logistics, materials, and management) and there is some support
from the NGOs/CSOs after a disaster.
Up to 30% of the population lives below the poverty line, with two sources of income.
Unemployment in the formal sector is up to 24%, which is more than the percentage forthe youth unemployment rate (up to 18%). Almost all the population have television andtelecommunication device, however less than 50% of the households has furniture to secure
the key items (money, important documents, etc.) for during disaster. Up to 50% of thepeople are practicing saving, and only up to 16% of the households are under any sort of
insurance scheme. There is some support or access of credit facility during disaster for urban
poor or low-income groups. And there is available annual budget targeting disaster risk
management for less than 2%. However, no availability of subsidies/incentives for residents
to receive an alternative livelihood and health care during a disaster.

Institutional
Mainstreaming
5
4

Good
Governance32

CrisisManagement

1

Institutional
Collaboration

Knowledge Disseminationand Management

NaturalIntensity / Severity of Hazards
54

Environmental
Policies

3
2

Frequencyof Hazards

1

Land-Usein Natural Terms

Although this area has a good mainstreaming of DRR and CCA and institutional collaboration
with other organizations and stakeholders; this area has not yet have the eﬃciency trained
emergency workers during a disaster and the readiness of alternative decision making
personnel during a disaster. In term of knowledge dissemination and management;
there is no regular disaster training programs for emergency workers and no capacity fordissemination of disaster awareness programs. For the good governance issue; the early
warning systems are not yet established and they do not have the capability yet to lead therecovery process.
In natural term, this area experienced ﬂoods (inundated and riverine) more than once per
year. And during the dry season, water scarcity occurred more than once per year as well.
Additionally, this area is still weak in enforcing the environmental policies, such as poor in
implementation of environmental conservation policies, waste management system, andin mitigation policies to reduce air pollution(CO2 from traﬃc emission), especially when aregional-bus terminal is located in this area.

Ecosystem
Services24Kecamatan 11

Astanaanyar
Kecamatan, Astanaanyar
Physical543NaturalSocial2
1

Institutional

Economic

PhysicalElectricity
5
4

Housingand Land-Use

3
2

Water

1

Accessibilityof Roads

Sanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

SocialPopulation
5
4

Community
Preparedness

3
2

Health1

Education
and AwarenessSocial Capital

Economic

Sub-district 11, Astanaanyar is consisted of 6 wards and located at the lowland of westernpart Bandung City with an area size of 2.89 km2 and a population of around 70,554 in 2008.
The population density is 24,409.69/km2, which are the fourth most dense sub-districts. This
area is currently purposed for the commercial use, where shops and markets are located.
Some residential areas could be spotted with high population density. Three tributaries are
ﬂowing through this area (Citepus, Cikakal, and Ciroyom). The overall resilience indicatesin the diagram is below the average, mainly in the economic, institutional and naturaldimension.
Up to 100% of the households have access to electricity and only up to 95% have access topotable water supply. Up to 75% of the population has access to sanitation and only up to
25% of solid waste is treated before dumping and almost all of the solid waste is recycled;
both in formal and informal ways. More than 20% of the area’s land is used as transportation
network, and up to 80% of the area is accessible by paved road. More than half of roads
remained are accessible during normal ﬂooding in aﬀected areas and up to 60% of the roads
have roadside covered drain. Less than 10% of the houses are built with non-permanent
structure and more than 50% of the buildings are constructed following the building code.
This area is not a hazardous, thus none of the population are living in the proximity topolluted industries or dumping grounds.
The population growth is the highest (more than 6%) and up to 39% of the population isunder age 14 or over 64 years old. There are almost no population suﬀer from neither waternor vector borne diseases every year and up to 90% of the population has access to primary
health care facility. In case of emergency and before disaster, the health facilities are wellprovided and able to serve the community. Less than 50% of the people are illiterate andthere is no awareness or knowledge of population about the threat and impacts of disasters,
thus the sub-district authority organizes once a year a disaster drills. Almost half of the
population is participated in community activities and they have good social integration
among diﬀerent ethnic groups. The people are prepared for a disaster (logistics, materials,
and management) and there is some support from the NGOs/CSOs after a disaster.

Income54Budgetand Subsidy

3
2

Employment

1

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsInstitutional
Mainstreaming
5
4

Good
Governance32

CrisisManagement

1

Institutional
Collaboration

Knowledge Disseminationand Management

NaturalLess than 11% of the population lives below the poverty line and the majority of the people
have only 1 source of income. The unemployment rate in the formal sector is less than 6%%,
which is the same for the percentage for the youth unemployment as well. The women who
are working in the formal sector are just a few (less than 20%). Almost all the population
have television and telecommunication device, however less than 50% of the households
does not has furniture to secure the key items (money, important documents, etc.) for during
disaster. Although more than 50% of the people are practicing saving, only up to 10% of thehouseholds are under any sort of insurance scheme. There is no support or access of credit
facility during disaster for urban poor or low-income groups, neither sub-district’s annual
budget targeting disaster risk management available. Subsidies/incentives for residents toreceive an alternative livelihood and health care during a disaster are not available.
The eﬀectiveness of sub-district’s crisis management framework, knowledge disseminationand management, as well as good governance is running properly in this area. Except for themainstreaming of DRR and CCA; there no capacity yet in this area to produce development
plans (logistics, materials/technical). In addition, for the institutional collaboration withother organizations and stakeholders; this area is heavily dependent on external institutions/
support during a disaster.

Intensity / Severity of Hazards
54

Environmental
Policies

3
2

Frequencyof Hazards

1

Land-Usein Natural Terms

25

Ecosystem
Services

The ﬂoods, both inundated and riverine have severe impacts to this area and are occurring
frequently (more than once per year). The land-use in natural terms, especially in the averageintensity of land-use-urban morphology (built area) has occupied almost up to 90% of thisarea.

Kecamatan 12

Bojongloa Kaler
Kecamatan, Bojongloa Kaler
Physical543NaturalSocial2
1

Institutional

Economic

PhysicalElectricity
5
4

Housingand Land-Use

3
2

Water

1

Accessibilityof Roads

Sanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

SocialPopulation
5
4

Community
Preparedness

3
2

Health1

Education
and AwarenessSocial Capital

Sub-district 12, Bojongloa Kaler is consisted of 5 wards and located at the south- westernend of Bandung City with an area size of 3.03 km2 and a population of around 120,894 in
2008. The population density is 39,899.01/km2, which is the most dense sub-districts among
Bandung City. This area is well-known for its settlement areas. Almost 90% of the land is
occupied for the residential purpose. Some shops could be found along the major roads. The
overall resilience indicates in the diagram is slightly below the average, particularly in theeconomic and natural dimension.
Up to 100% of the households have access to electricity and potable water supply. Only
up to 60% of the population has access to sanitation and only up to 25% of solid waste istreated before dumping and only up to 10% of the solid waste is recycled; both in formal andinformal ways. More than 20% of the area’s land is used as transportation network, and up
to 80% of the area is accessible by paved road. Up to 70% of roads remained are accessible
during normal ﬂooding in aﬀected areas and only up to 45% of the roads have roadsidecovered drain. Up to 19% of the houses are built with non-permanent structure and morethan 50% of the buildings are constructed following the building code. This area is not ahazardous, thus none of the population are living in the proximity to polluted industries or
dumping grounds.
The population growth is ranged between 1-1.9% and more than 25% of the population isunder age 14 or over 64 years old. There are almost no population suﬀer from neither waternor vector borne diseases every year and up to 90% of the population has access to primary
health care facility. In case of emergency and before disaster, the health facilities are wellprovided and able to serve the community. Less than 50% of the people are illiterate andthere is a good awareness or knowledge of the population about the threat and impacts ofdisasters and the sub-district authority organizes once in every two years a disaster drills.
Almost half of the population is participated in community activities and they are trying tointegrate socially among diﬀerent ethnic groups. The people put an eﬀort to be prepared fora disaster (logistics, materials, and management) and some support from the NGOs/CSOs
after a disaster is available.

Economic
Income54Budgetand Subsidy

3
2

Employment

1

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsInstitutional
Mainstreaming
5
4

Good
Governance32

CrisisManagement

1

Institutional
Collaboration

Knowledge Disseminationand Management

NaturalIntensity / Severity of Hazards
54

Environmental
Policies

3
2

Frequencyof Hazards

1

Land-Usein Natural Terms

The population lives below the poverty line is ranged between 21-30% and the majorityof the people have only 1 source of income. The unemployment rate in the formal sector
is more than 25%, more than youth unemployment rate (19-24%). The women who are
working in the formal sector are up to 50% and almost all the population have televisionand telecommunication devices; however only up to 60% of the households does not has
furniture to secure the key items (money, important documents, etc.) for during disaster.
Only up to 20% of the people are practicing saving and only up to 10% of the households areunder any sort of insurance scheme. There is some support or access of credit facility during
disaster for urban poor or low-income groups and sub-district’s annual budget targeting
disaster risk management is available for less than 1%. There are no subsidies/incentives forresidents to receive an alternative livelihood after disaster; however subsidies and support
for a health care after a disaster is provided.
The institutional issues such as mainstreaming DRR and CCA, eﬀectiveness of sub-district’s
crisis management framework are running well in this area. However for the knowledge
dissemination and management, the regular disaster training programs for emergency
workers is not yet available as well as the disaster awareness programs for communities.
Therefore, the community is not satisﬁed yet with the disaster awareness programs, such as
disaster education in the sub-district. Additionally, in term of good governance, the disaster
drills at sub-district level is not yet existed.
The frequency of ﬂoods (inundated and riverine) in this area is more than once every year
and cause severe impacts to the area, such as causing the poor average of urban water
quality. For the land-use in natural term issue, more than 90% of the land is built and left
only up to 5% for urban green spaces.

Ecosystem
Services26

Kecamatan 13

Babakan Ciparay
Kecamatan, Babakan Ciparay
Physical543NaturalSocial2
1

Institutional

Economic

PhysicalElectricity
5
4

Housingand Land-Use

3
2

Water

1

Accessibilityof Roads

Sanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

SocialPopulation
5
4

Community
Preparedness

Sub-district 13, Babakan Ciparay has 6 wards and is located at the south- western end ofBandung City with an area size of 7.45 km2 and a population of around 142,309 in 2008. The
population density is about 19,101.88/km2, which is quite dense compared to other subdistricts. This area is mainly composed of residential areas and industries, which are mostly
textile industries, such as garments. The overall resilience indicates in the diagram is above
the average, except for the economic dimension.

3
2

Health1

Education
and AwarenessSocial Capital

Up to 100% of the households have access to electricity and potable water supply.
Additionally, up to 75% of the population has access to sanitation, but up to 25% of the solid
waste is treated before dumping and recycled; both in formal and informal ways. Up to 15%of the area’s land is used as transportation network and almost whole area is accessible bypaved road, but only less than 40% of roads remained accessible during normal ﬂooding inaﬀected areas. Additionally, up to 60% of the roads have roadside covered drain. There is
only 10% of the houses are built with non-permanent structure, but only up to 30% of thebuildings are constructed following the building code. Although quite amount of garment
industries are located in this area, none of the population are living in the proximity topolluted industries or dumping grounds.
The population growth in this area is only up to 0.9% and less than 25% of the population isunder age 14 or over 64 years old. There are almost no population suﬀer from neither waternor vector borne diseases every year and up to 75% of the population has access to primary
health care facility. In case of emergency and before disaster, the health facilities are wellprovided and able to serve the community. Less than 50% of the people are illiterate andthe sub-district authority organizes once a year disaster drill. However, the schools could not
be used or have a function after a disaster. Almost half of the population is participated incommunity activities; and they could integrate well in term of the social ethnics. People areprepared for a disaster (logistics, materials, and management) and there is some support
from the NGOs/CSOs after a disaster.

Economic
Income54Budgetand Subsidy

3
2

Employment

1

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsInstitutional

Less than 11% of the population lives below the poverty line and having more than threesources of income. Unemployment in the formal sector is less than 6%, which is the same
percentage for the youth unemployment rate as well. Almost all the population has televisionand telecommunication device, however only up to 60% of the households has furniture tosecure the key items (money, important documents, etc.) for during disaster. There is only
up to 30% of the people are practicing saving and only less than 10% of the households areunder any sort of insurance scheme. There is some support or access of credit facility during
disaster for urban poor or low-income groups, but there is no annual budget available intargeting disaster risk management. In addition, there are no subsidies/incentives available
for residents to receive an alternative livelihood and health care during a disaster as well.

Mainstreaming
5
4

Good
Governance32

CrisisManagement

1

Institutional
Collaboration

Knowledge Disseminationand Management

NaturalIntensity / Severity of Hazards
54

Environmental
Policies

3
2

Frequencyof Hazards

1

Land-Usein Natural Terms

27

Ecosystem
Services

Almost all institutional issues, such as: mainstreaming the DRR and CCA, eﬀectiveness of
sub-district’s crisis management framework, knowledge dissemination and management,
institutional collaboration with other organizations and stakeholders as well as good
governance; are fulﬁlled by this sub-district.
The natural hazards that frequently struck this area are mostly riverine ﬂoods, which occur
once a year, especially during the rainy season. The loss of the urban green space due todevelopment of infrastructure is up to 20%. Although some industries are settled in this subdistrict, the implementation of eﬃcient waste management system and mitigation policies
to reduce air pollution (mostly due to CO2 traﬃc emissions) are moderate, no harm violation
is so far reported. It reﬂects in their good implementation of environmental conservation
policies

Kecamatan 14

Bojongloa Kidul
Kecamatan, Bojongloa Kidul
Physical543NaturalSocial2
1

Institutional

Economic

PhysicalElectricity
5
4

Housingand Land-Use

3
2

Water

1

Accessibilityof Roads

Sanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

SocialPopulation
5
4

Community
Preparedness

3
2

Health1

Education
and AwarenessSocial Capital

Sub-district 14, Bojongloa Kidul has 6 wards and is located at the southern- west end ofBandung City with an area size of 6.26 km2 and a population of around 81,045 in 2008. The
population density is 12,946.49/km2, which is quite dense compared to other sub-districts.
Only settlements could be found in this area, with some shops along the major roads. Famous
national shoes industries are located in this area and being a landmark as well as sourceof income for this area. Unfortunately, this area is located on the lowland and some of the
major roads are subsided, during the rainy season, most of the roads are heavily inundated.
The overall resilience indicates in the diagram is above the average, of which less resilient
can be distinguished in the economic and natural dimension.
Almost all of the households have access to electricity and potable water supply. Up to 75%of the population has access to sanitation, but up to 25% of the solid waste is treated before
dumping and up to 75% are recycled; both in formal and informal ways. Up to 20% of thearea’s land is used as transportation network and more than 80% of the area is accessible
by paved road. Up to 70% of roads remained accessible during normal ﬂooding in aﬀectedareas, but less than 15% of the roads have roadside covered drain. There is only 10% of thehouses are built with non-permanent structure and more than 50% of the buildings areconstructed following the building code. This area is not a hazardous area, whereas none ofthe population are living in the proximity to polluted industries or dumping grounds.
The population growth is ranged between 4-5.9% and less than 25% of the population isunder age 14 or over 64 years old. There are almost no population suﬀer from neither waternor vector borne diseases every year and up to 90% of the population has access to primary
health care facility. In case of emergency and before disaster, the health facilities are wellprovided and able to serve the community. Less than 50% of the people are illiterate andthe sub-district authority organizes once a year disaster drill. Almost half of the population
is participated in community activities; and they could integrate well in term of the social
ethnics. People are prepared for a disaster (logistics, materials, and management) and there
is some support from the NGOs/CSOs after a disaster.

Economic
Income54Budgetand Subsidy

3
2

Employment

1

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsInstitutional
Mainstreaming
5

Less than 11% of the population lives below the poverty line with only one source of income.
Unemployment in the formal sector is less than 16%, which is lesser than the percentage
for the youth unemployment rate (ranged between 19-24%). Almost all the population has
television and telecommunication device, however only up to 10% of the households has
furniture to secure the key items (money, important documents, etc.) for during disaster.
Up to 50% of the people are practicing saving but only up to 32%of the households areunder any sort of insurance scheme. There is some support or access of credit facility during
disaster for urban poor or low-income groups. And there is small budget available lessthan 1% of the annual budget targeting disaster risk management. There are no subsidies/
incentives available for residents to receive an alternative livelihood but they provide some
support for a health care after a disaster.

4

Good
Governance32

CrisisManagement

1

Institutional
Collaboration

Knowledge Disseminationand Management

NaturalIntensity / Severity of Hazards
54

Environmental
Policies

3
2

Frequencyof Hazards

1

Land-Usein Natural Terms

In term of institutional issues such as: mainstreaming the DRR and CCA, eﬀectiveness of
sub-district’s crisis management, knowledge dissemination and management, institutional
collaboration with other organizations and stakeholders, as well as good governance; thissub-district has applied and covered those issues. In particular, the capability of sub-district
body to lead recovery process (relief work, reconstruction, and rehabilitation) after a disasteris at its best.
During the rainy season, this area experiences inundation more than once a year and during
the dry season, water scarcity is occurring once in a year. Rainfall-induced landslides at theriver banks (Citepus) are occurring once a year as well. Due to heavy traﬃc ﬂow, the averageof urban air quality is poor. In addition, poor implementations of eﬃcient waste management
system (reduce, reuse, and recycle) hamper the sound of environmental policies.

Ecosystem
Services28

Kecamatan 15

Bandung Kulon
Kecamatan, Bandung Kulon
Physical543NaturalSocial2
1

Institutional

Economic

PhysicalElectricity
5
4

Housingand Land-Use

3
2

Water

1

Accessibilityof Roads

Sanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

SocialPopulation
5
4

Community
Preparedness

3
2

Health1

Education
and AwarenessSocial Capital

Economic
Income54Budgetand Subsidy

3
2

Employment

1

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsInstitutional
Mainstreaming
5
4

Good
Governance32

CrisisManagement

1

Institutional
Collaboration

Knowledge Disseminationand Management

NaturalIntensity / Severity of Hazards
54

Environmental
Policies

3
2

Frequencyof Hazards

1

Land-Usein Natural Terms

29

Ecosystem
Services

Sub-district 15, Bandung Kulon has the most wards (8 wards) and is located at the westernend of Bandung City, bordered with Cimahi, with an area size of 6.46 km2 and a population ofaround 123,350 in 2008. The population density is 19,404.02/km2, which is dense comparedto other sub-districts. This area is characterized mostly by the settlements and industries.
The overall resilience indicates in the diagram is below the average, of which all ﬁve
dimensions have low resilience index score.
Up to 95% of the households have access to electricity and up to 80% to potable watersupply. Only up to 75% of the population has access to sanitation, but only up to 25% of
the solid waste is treated before dumping and 50% of them are recycled; both in formal
and informal ways. Almost 20% of the area’s land is used as transportation network. But
only up to 60% of the area is accessible by paved road and less than 40% of roads remained
accessible during normal ﬂooding in aﬀected areas and up to 30% of the roads have roadsidecovered drain. More than 30% of the houses are built with non-permanent structure and up
to 30% of the buildings are constructed following the building code. Seeing they are living
between the industrial areas, almost 49% of the population lives on the hazardous area
(industry pollutions).
The population growth is less than 0.9%, with less than 25% of its population is under age 14
or over 64 years old. There are almost no population suﬀer from neither water-nor vector
borne diseases every year and only up to 95% of the population has access to primary healthcare facility. In case of emergency and before disaster, the health facilities are quite provided
and able to serve the community. Less than 50% of the people are illiterate and sub-districtauthority organizes once every two years a disasters drills. Almost half of the population isparticipated in community activities and they could integrate well with other ethnic groups.
The people are quite prepared for a disaster (logistics, materials, and management) there islimited support from the NGOs/CSOs after a disaster.
Less than 11% of the population lives below the poverty line with 2 (two) income
sources. Unemployment in the formal sector is up to 24%, which is more than the youth
unemployment rate as well. Almost all the population has television and telecommunication
device, however only up to 60% of the households has furniture to secure the key items(money, important documents, etc.) for during disaster. Only up to 20% of the people arepracticing saving and only up to 10% of the households are under any sort of insurance
scheme. There is some support or access of credit facility during disaster for urban pooror low-income groups; however they do not have an annual budget targeting disaster risk
management available up. There are some subsidies/incentives available for residents toreceive an alternative livelihood but they do not provide it for the health care during adisaster.
In term of institutional issues, this area has a quite good performance on the eﬀectiveness of
sub-district’s crisis management and the institutional collaboration with other organizations
and stakeholders. However, on the mainstreaming the DRR and CCA aspect, this area
has a poor capacity (logistics, materials/technical issues) to produce development plans.
Additionally, on the knowledge dissemination and management aspect, this area has a poor
capacity (books, leaﬂets, manpower, and campaigns) for dissemination of disaster awarenessprograms (disaster education). In addition, on the good governance aspect, the transparencyof sub-district body to lead recovery process (relief work, reconstruction, and rehabilitation)is poor as well.
Floods (inundated as well as riverine type) occur often, which count more than once a yearand give a severe impact to the people and environment. Other climate-related hazards
that threatened this area once a year are rainfall-induced landslides, storms, and water
scarcity (during the dry season). These are reﬂected on its ecosystem service, such asvery poor average of urban water quality and poor urban air quality during the day. These
factors are existed due to poor implementation of environmental conservation policies andenvironmental conservation regulations reﬂected in development plans.

Kecamatan 16

Regol
Kecamatan, Regol
Physical543NaturalSocial2
1

Institutional

Economic

Sub-district 16, Regol has 7 wards and is located at the lowland on southern-west of Bandung
City with an area size of 4.30 km2 and a population of around 86,500 in 2008. The population
density is 20, 116,29 /km2, which dense compared to other sub-districts. This area waspreviously be the center of the City and marked with the city garden and mosque. A historicalbuilding back from Dutch colonialism heritage can be found, which currently has thefunction of holding International Conferences, such as the Non-Align Asia-Africa Movement.
Beside the historical buildings and city green space services, international and local banking
buildings are existed. A major river (Cikapundung) is ﬂowing through this area as well. The
overall resilience indicates in the diagram is above the average, particularly in the physical,
social, and institutional dimension.

PhysicalElectricity
5
4

Housingand Land-Use

3
2

Water

1

Accessibilityof Roads

Sanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

SocialUp to 100% of the households have access to electricity and potable water supply. Up to
75% of the population has access to sanitation, but up to 25% of the solid waste is treated
before dumping and recycled; both in formal and informal ways. Up to 15% of the area’s
land is used as transportation network and more than 80% of the area is accessible bypaved road. More than 71%of roads remained accessible during normal ﬂooding in aﬀectedareas, but only up to 45% of the roads have roadside covered drain. There is only 10% of thehouses are built with non-permanent structure, however less than 20% of the buildings areconstructed following the building code. This area is not a hazardous area, whereas none ofthe population are living in the proximity to polluted industries or dumping grounds.

Population
5
4

Community
Preparedness

3
2

Health1

Education
and AwarenessSocial Capital

Economic

The population growth is up to 5.9%, much more compare to other sub-districts and lessthan 25% of the population is under age 14 or over 64 years old. There are almost no
population suﬀer from neither water-nor vector borne diseases every year and up to 90% of
the population has access to primary health care facility. In case of emergency and before
disaster, the health facilities are well provided and able to serve the community. Less than
50% of the people are illiterate and the sub-district authority organizes once a year disaster
drill. Almost half of the population is participated in community activities; and they could
integrate well in term of the social ethnics. People are prepared for a disaster (logistics,
materials, and management) and there is some support from the NGOs/CSOs after a disaster.

Income54Budgetand Subsidy

3
2

Employment

1

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsInstitutional
Mainstreaming
5

Less than 11% of the population lives below the poverty line and the income come from twosources. Unemployment in the formal sector is up to 24%, which is the same percentage
for the youth unemployment as well. Almost all the population have television andtelecommunication device, however less than 50% of the households has furniture to secure
the key items (money, important documents, etc.) for during disaster. There is only up to
30% of the people are practicing saving and the same percentage of the households is under
any sort of insurance scheme. There is no support or access of credit facility during disasterfor urban poor or low-income groups. And there is small budget available up to 3% for annual
budget targeting disaster risk management. There are no subsidies/incentives available forresidents to receive an alternative livelihood and health care during a disaster.

4

Good
Governance32

CrisisManagement

1

Institutional
Collaboration

Knowledge Disseminationand Management

Although this area has a good mainstreaming of DRR and CCA and community participationin their development plans and preparation process, as well as the inclusion of disastermanagement plan into development planning; the frequency of regular disaster training
programs for emergency workers is less than once in every two years. Additionally, this area
is dependent on external institutions/support during a disaster and the existence of disaster
drills at sub-district level is as well less than one in every two years.

NaturalIntensity / Severity of Hazards
54

Environmental
Policies

3
2

Frequencyof Hazards

1

Land-Usein Natural Terms

Even this sub-district has a major river (Cikapundung) ﬂowing through it, the intensity andthe severity of the ﬂoods have not heavily impacted the area and people. The averageintensity of land-use-urban morphology (built area) is up to 90% and they implement
mitigation policies to reduce air pollution (mainly CO2 from the traﬃc emissions).

Ecosystem
Services30

Kecamatan 17

Lengkong
Kecamatan, Lengkong
Physical543NaturalSocial2
1

Institutional

Economic

PhysicalElectricity
5
4

Housingand Land-Use

3
2

Water

1

Accessibilityof Roads

Sanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

SocialPopulation
5
4

Community
Preparedness

3
2

Health1

Education
and AwarenessSocial Capital

Economic
IncomeSub-district 17, Lengkong has 7 wards and is located at the highland at the central part ofBandung City with an area size of 5.90 km2 and a population of around 71,983 in 2008. The
population density is 12,200.51/km2, which is quite dense compared to other sub-districts.
This area is characterized by a main river (Cikapundung) ﬂowing from north to south andtwo other tributaries channels. This area is mainly composed from residential areas. The
overall resilience indicates in the diagram is below the average, marked for the economic andnatural dimension.
Up to 100% of the households have access to electricity and potable water supply. However,the sub-district’s water supply authority is only capable to provide water supply up to 10%
of its demand. Up to 75% of the population has access to sanitation, and only half of thecollected solid waste is treated before dumping and recycled; both in formal and informal
ways. More than 20% of the area’s land is used as transportation network and 100% of thearea is accessible by paved road. A slightly more than half of roads remained are accessible
during normal ﬂooding in aﬀected areas, but only less than 15% of the roads have roadsidecovered drain. Less than 10% of the houses are built with non-permanent structure, howeverless than 10% of the buildings are constructed following the building code. This area is nota hazardous area, whereas none of the population are living in the proximity to polluted
industries or dumping grounds.
The population growth is less than 0.9%, and less than 25% of the population is under age
14 or over 64 years old. There are almost no population suﬀer from neither water-nor vector
borne diseases every year , but only up to 75% of the population has access to primary healthcare facility. In case of emergency and before disaster, the health facilities are quite goodequipped and able to serve the community. Less than 50% of the people are illiterate and the
sub-district authority organizes once a year a disaster drills. Almost half of the population
is participated in community activities and could blend well with other social ethnic groups.
However, the level of democracy, which the sub-district’s community has the opportunity toparticipate in the sub-district’s decision making process, is poor. The people are prepared fora disaster (logistics, materials, and management) and there is little support from the NGOs/
CSOs after a disaster.

5
4

Budgetand Subsidy

3
2

Employment

1

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsInstitutional
Mainstreaming
5
4

Good
Governance32

CrisisManagement

1

Institutional
Collaboration

Knowledge Disseminationand Management

NaturalIntensity / Severity of Hazards
54

Environmental
Policies

3
2

Frequencyof Hazards

1

Land-Usein Natural Terms

31

Up to 20% of the population lives below the poverty line, but the income is only come fromone source. Unemployment in the formal sector is up to 18%, which it accounts more forthe youth employment rate (less than 25%). Almost all the population have television andtelecommunication device, however less than 50% of the households has furniture to secure
the key items (money, important documents, etc.) for during disaster. Although more than
50% of the people are practicing saving, only up to 16% of the households are under any sortof insurance scheme. There is no support or access of credit facility during disaster for urban
poor or low-income groups. Additionally, the available annual budget targeting disaster risk
management is up to 3%, but no availability of subsidies/incentives for residents to receive
an alternative livelihood.

Ecosystem
Services

Although this area is quite good in mainstreaming of DRR and CCA and community
participation in their development plans and preparation process, as well as the eﬃciency of
trained emergency workers during a disaster; in term of good governance, the sub-districtauthority organizes disaster drills at this level only less than once every two years.

In term of intensity and frequency of the natural hazards, this area is most suﬀered from theimpacts of ﬂoods, storms and water scarcity (during dry season). Those can be occurred morethan once per year. The ecosystem service in this sub-district has scored less in the averageof urban air quality during the day and water quality. It is reﬂected in poor implementationof mitigation policies to reduce air pollution (mostly CO2 from the traﬃc emissions).

Kecamatan 18

Batununggal
Kecamatan, Batununggal
Physical543NaturalSocial2
1

Institutional

Economic

PhysicalElectricity
5
4

Housingand Land-Use

3
2

Water

1

Accessibilityof Roads

Sanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

SocialPopulation
5
4

Community
Preparedness

3
2

Health1

Education
and AwarenessSocial Capital

Economic
Income54Budgetand Subsidy

3
2

Employment

1

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsSub-district 18, Batununggal has the most wards of all (8) and is located at the central partof Bandung City with an area size of 5.03 km2 and a population of around 123,392 in 2008.
The population density is 24,531.21/km2, which very dense compared to other sub-districts.
This area is mainly for residential purposes with some commercial and service functions in
between. A military-academy compound is well-known for this area. Initially, 40 years ago,
this area was an agricultural ﬁeld. The overall resilience indicates in the diagram is below theaverage, especially in the economic and natural dimension.
Up to 100% of the households have access to electricity and potable water supply. Up to 75%of the population has access to sanitation, but up to 25% of the solid waste is treated before
dumping and up to 75% of the solid waste is recycled; both in formal and informal ways.
More than 20% of the area’s land is used as transportation network. Only 70% of the area isaccessible by paved road and more than half of roads remained are accessible during normal
ﬂooding in aﬀected areas. Almost all the roads have roadside covered drain. Less than 10% of
the houses are built with non-permanent structure, however less than 10% of the buildings
are constructed following the building code. This area is not a hazardous area, whereas noneof the population are living in the proximity to polluted industries or dumping grounds.
The population growth is ranged between 1-1.9%, and less than 25% of its population isunder age 14 or over 64 years old. There are almost no population suﬀer from neither waternor vector borne diseases every year and up to 90% of the population has access to primary
health care facility. In case of emergency and before disaster, the health facilities are wellprovided and able to serve the community. Less than 50% of the people are illiterate andsub-district authority organizes once a year a disaster drill. Almost half of the population
is participated in community activities and could blend well with other ethnic groups. The
people are prepared for a disaster (logistics, materials, and management) and there is
support from the NGOs/CSOs after a disaster.
Up to 20% of the population lives below the poverty line, but the income is only comefrom one source. Unemployment in the formal sector is less than 6%, which is the same
percentage for the youth unemployment rate as well. Almost all the population has
television but only up to 60% has the telecommunication devices. However, less than 50% of
the households have furniture to secure the key items (money, important documents, etc.)
for during disaster. Only up to 10% of the people are practicing saving and only up to 10% of
the households are under any sort of insurance scheme. There is few support or access ofcredit facility during disaster for urban poor or low-income group. There is no annual budget
available targeting disaster risk management, neither subsidies/incentives for residents toreceive an alternative livelihood and health care that are available during a disaster.

Institutional
Mainstreaming
5
4

Good
Governance32

CrisisManagement

1

Institutional
Collaboration

Knowledge Disseminationand Management

NaturalIntensity / Severity of Hazards
54

Environmental
Policies

3
2

Frequencyof Hazards

1

Land-Usein Natural Terms

The mainstreaming of DRR and CCA in this area is not yet established, the same applies forthe community participation in their development plans and preparation process, as well as
the inclusion of disaster management plan into their development planning. Additionally,
the capacity for dissemination of disaster awareness programs (books, leaﬂets, manpower,
campaigns, etc. for disaster education) is poor. This sub-district depends on external
institutions/support during a disaster.
The natural aspects of this area are focusing on the frequency of occurring natural hazards,
although it was not severe according to the records. The ﬂoods are occurring more thanonce per year. Due to maximum urban population density at day time and the occupationof motorized vehicles, the average of urban air quality is poor. It was reﬂected in the poor
environmental conservations regulations reﬂected in development plans, eﬃcient waste
management system, as well as poor implementation of mitigation policies to reduce air
pollution (mainly CO2 from the traﬃc emissions).

Ecosystem
Services32

Kecamatan 19

Kiaracondong
Kecamatan, Kiaracondong
Physical543NaturalSocial2
1

Institutional

Economic

PhysicalElectricity
5
4

Housingand Land-Use

Sub-district 19, Kiaracondong has 6 wards and is located at the central part of Bandung City
with an area size of 6.12 km2 and a population of around 129,623 in 2008. The population
density is 21,180.23/km2, which is dense compared to other sub-districts. Although thisarea is mainly for settlements purpose, however a large gun industry for military purpose isestablished since two decades ago. The overall resilience indicates in the diagram is above
the average, mainly in the social dimension.

3
2

Water

1

Accessibilityof Roads

Sanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

Up to 100% of the households have access to electricity and up to 95% have access topotable water supply. Up to 60% of the population has access to sanitation, but up to 25%of the solid waste is treated before dumping and up to 50% of the solid waste is recycled;
both in formal and informal ways. More than 20% of the area’s land is used as transportation
network. Only 70% of the area is accessible by paved road. A slightly more than half of roads
remained are accessible during normal ﬂooding in aﬀected areas, but only up to 45% of theroads have roadside covered drain. Up to 29% of the houses are built with non-permanent
structure, however only up to 20% of the buildings are constructed following the building
code. Since a large gun industry is existed in this area and all the population is living in theproximity to polluted industry and dumping ground, thus they are exposed to hazardous
substances.

SocialPopulation
5
4

Community
Preparedness

3
2

Health1

Education
and AwarenessSocial Capital

The population growth is quite high, up to 3.9% and up to 46% of the population is under age
14 or over 64 years old. On the contrary, there are almost no population suﬀer from neither
water-nor vector borne diseases every year and up to 90% of the population has access toprimary health care facility. In case of emergency and before disaster, the health facilities
are well provided and able to serve the community. Less than 50% of the people are illiterateand sub-district authority organizes once a year a disaster drill. Almost half of the population
is participated in community activities and could blend well with other ethnic groups. The
people are prepared for a disaster (logistics, materials, and management) and there is some
support from the NGOs/CSOs after a disaster.

Economic
Income54Budgetand Subsidy

3
2

Employment

1

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsInstitutional
Mainstreaming

Less than 11% of the population lives below the poverty line and they have more than 3sources of income. Unemployment in the formal sector is up to 18%, which is the same
percentage for the youth unemployment rate as well. Almost all the population havetelevision and telecommunication device, and up to 80% of the households has furniture tosecure the key items (money, important documents, etc.) for during disaster. More than 50%of the people are practicing saving and half of households are under any sort of insurance
scheme. There is some support or access of credit facility during disaster for urban poor or
low-income groups. And there is some annual budget targeting disaster risk management
available up to 3%. In addition, some subsidies/incentives for residents to receive analternative livelihood and health care are available during a disaster.

5
4

Good
Governance32

CrisisManagement

1

Institutional
Collaboration

Knowledge Disseminationand Management

The institutional issues; such as mainstreaming DRR and CCA, eﬀectiveness of sub-district’s
crisis management framework, knowledge dissemination and management, as well as
institutional collaboration with other organizations and stakeholders, and good governanceare running properly. Except the availability and frequency of regular disaster training
programs for emergency workers is not available. In addition, the existence of disaster drills
at the sub-district’s level is only held less than once every two years.

NaturalIntensity / Severity of Hazards
54

Environmental
Policies

3
2

Frequencyof Hazards

1

Land-Usein Natural Terms

33

Ecosystem
Services

The frequencies of the natural hazards, such as ﬂoods are occurring more than once per
year. The ecosystem service of this area, such as the average of urban water quality is poor,
although the implementation of mitigation policies to reduce air pollution (such as CO2 fromthe traﬃc emissions) is good.

Kecamatan 20

Arcamanik
Kecamatan, Arcamanik
Physical543NaturalSocial2
1

Institutional

Economic

PhysicalElectricity
5
4

Housingand Land-Use

3
2

Water

1

Accessibilityof Roads

Sanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

SocialPopulation
5
4

Community
Preparedness

3
2

Health1

Education
and AwarenessSocial Capital

Sub-district 20, Arcamanik is consisted from 4 wards and located at the eastern part ofBandung City with an area size of 5.87 km2 and a population of around 57,869 in 2008. The
population density is 9,858.43/km2, which is not dense compared to other sub-districts. This
area is mainly composed for residential purpose, with green spaces in between. This area
could be distinguished from the large horse racing tracks in the city and a large compound ofstate prisoner facilities. The overall resilience indicates in the diagram is below the average,
mainly in the physical, economic, and natural dimension.
Up to 95% of the households have access to electricity and only up to 50% have access topotable water supply. Up to 75% of the population has access to sanitation and the solid
waste is not treated at all before dumping and only up to 25% of the solid waste is recycled;
both in formal and informal ways. More than 20% of the area’s land is used as transportation
network. Only up to 60% of the area is accessible by paved road. A half of roads remained
are accessible during normal ﬂooding in aﬀected areas, but only up to 30% of the roads haveroadside covered drain. Less than 10% of the houses are built with non-permanent structure,
however up to 30% of the buildings are constructed following the building code. Although
this area is not a hazardous area, up to 12.5% of the population are living in the proximity topolluted industries or dumping grounds.
The population growth is quite high, up to 5.9 and up to 32% of the population is under age
14 or over 64 years old. There are almost no population suﬀer from neither water-nor vector
borne diseases every year and up to 90% of the population has access to primary healthcare facility. In case of emergency and before disaster, the health facilities are well provided
and able to serve the community. Less than 50% of the people are illiterate and sub-districtauthority organizes once a year a disaster drill. Almost half of the population is participatedin community activities and they have good social integration among diﬀerent ethnic groups.
The people are prepared for a disaster (logistics, materials, and management) and there issome support from the NGOs/CSOs after a disaster.

Economic
Income54Budgetand Subsidy

3
2

Employment

1

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsInstitutional
Mainstreaming
5

Less than 11% of the population lives below the poverty line and the majority of the people
have 2 sources of income. The unemployment rate in the formal sector is less than 6%%,
which is less than the percentage for the youth unemployment (up to 12%). The women who
are working in the formal sector are just a few (less than 20%). Almost all the population
have television and telecommunication device, however less than 50% of the households
has furniture to secure the key items (money, important documents, etc.) for during
disaster. Although more than 50% of the people are practicing saving, only up to 10% of
the households are under any sort of insurance scheme. There is some support or access ofcredit facility during disaster for urban poor or low-income groups. And there is also annual
budget targeting disaster risk management available less than 1%. Subsidies/incentives forresidents to receive an alternative livelihood and health care during a disaster are uncertain.

4

Good
Governance32

CrisisManagement

1

Institutional
Collaboration

Knowledge Disseminationand Management

The institutional issues; such as mainstreaming DRR and CCA, eﬀectiveness of sub-district’s
crisis management framework, knowledge dissemination and management, as well as
institutional collaboration with other organizations and stakeholders, and good governanceare running properly. Except when it comes to a disaster, this sub-district is still dependent
on external institutions/support.

NaturalIntensity / Severity of Hazards
54

Environmental
Policies

3
2

Frequencyof Hazards

1

Land-Usein Natural Terms

The ﬂoods, both inundated and riverine as well as storms and drought or water scarcity(during the dry season) occurred frequently (more than once per year). The ecosystemservices, such as the average of urban air and water quality as well as urban groundwater are
in poor condition. It is reﬂected in the large loss of urban green spaces due to developmentof infrastructure and housing over the last 50 years.

Ecosystem
Services34

Kecamatan 21

CibiruKecamatan, Cibiru
Physical543NaturalSocial2
1

Institutional

Economic

PhysicalElectricity
5
4

Housingand Land-Use

3
2

Water

1

Accessibilityof Roads

Sanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

SocialPopulation
5
4

Community
Preparedness

3
2

Health1

Education
and AwarenessSocial Capital

Sub-district 21, Cibiru is consisted of 4 wards and located at the eastern end and forms aborder of Bandung City with an area size of 6.32 km2 and a population of around 60,001
in 2008. The population density is 9,394.82/km2, which is not dense compared to othersub-districts. This area is located on the slope of a mountain (Manglayang) and is prone tolandslides. The landuse is mostly composed by settlement with a provincial largest Islamicstate university mix within the area. The overall resilience indicates in the diagram is below
the average, particularly in the institutional, economic and natural dimension.
Up to 100% of the households have access to electricity and up to 95% have access topotable water supply. Up to 75% of the population has access to sanitation, but up to 25% of
the solid waste is treated before dumping and only up to 10% of the solid waste is recycled;
both in formal and informal ways. Up to 20% of the area’s land is used as transportation
network. Only 60% of the area is accessible by paved road. A slightly more than half ofroads remained are accessible during normal ﬂooding in aﬀected areas, but only up to 30%of the roads have roadside covered drain. Less than 19% of the houses are built with nonpermanent structure, however less than 10% of the buildings are constructed following thebuilding code. Although this area is not a hazardous area, up to a quarter of the population
are living in the proximity to polluted industries or dumping grounds.
The population growth is ranged between 2-3.9% and less than 25% of the population isunder age 14 or over 64 years old. Up to population 17% suﬀer from water-and vector
borne diseases every year and up to 90% of the population has access to primary healthcare facility. In case of emergency and before disaster, the health facilities are well provided
and able to serve the community. Less than 50% of the people are illiterate and subdistrict authority organizes once a year a disaster drill. Only up to 30% of the population isparticipated in community activities and they could blend among diﬀerent ethnic groups. The
people are poor in preparing disaster preparedness (logistics, materials, and management),
although there is some support from the NGOs/CSOs after a disaster.

Economic
Income54Budgetand Subsidy

3
2

Employment

1

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsInstitutional

Up to 30% of the population lives below the poverty line, although the income comes fromtwo sources. Unemployment in the formal sector is more than 25%, which is the same
percentage for the youth unemployment as well. Almost all the population have televisionand telecommunication device, and up to 70% of the households has furniture to secure
the key items (money, important documents, etc.) for during disaster. Although up to 20%of the people are practicing saving, only up to 10% of the households are under any sort of
insurance scheme. There is some support or access of credit facility during disaster for urban
poor or low-income groups. And there is annual budget targeting disaster risk management
available for less than 1%. But there are no funds for climate change related DRR measures.

Mainstreaming
5
4

Good
Governance32

CrisisManagement

1

Institutional
Collaboration

Knowledge Disseminationand Management

Natural

Up to 30% of the population lives below the poverty line, although the income comes fromtwo sources. Unemployment in the formal sector is more than 25%, which is the same
percentage for the youth unemployment as well. Almost all the population have televisionand telecommunication device, and up to 70% of the households has furniture to secure
the key items (money, important documents, etc.) for during disaster. Although up to 20%of the people are practicing saving, only up to 10% of the households are under any sort of
insurance scheme. There is some support or access of credit facility during disaster for urban
poor or low-income groups. And there is annual budget targeting disaster risk management
available for less than 1%. But there are no funds for climate change related DRR measures.

Intensity / Severity of Hazards
54

Environmental
Policies

3
2

Frequencyof Hazards

1

Land-Usein Natural Terms

35

Ecosystem
Services

There is no signiﬁcant intensity and frequency from the natural hazards, such as ﬂoods,
only the drought or water scarcity occurred often, mostly more than once per year. The
ecosystem service for this area scored a quite good condition.

Kecamatan 22

Antapani
Kecamatan, Antapani
Physical543NaturalSocial2
1

Institutional

Economic

PhysicalElectricity
5
4

Housingand Land-Use

3
2

Water

1

Accessibilityof Roads

Sanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

SocialPopulation
5
4

Community
Preparedness

Sub-district 22, Antapani is consisted from 4 wards and located at the central part ofBandung City with an area size of 3.79 km2 and a population of around 59,929 in 2008. The
population density is 15,812.40/km2, which is quite dense compared to other sub-districts.
This area is mainly a residential area only, with some area is used for commercial purpose,such as shopping mall and shops. The overall resilience indicates in the diagram is above theaverage, although in the economic dimension, this sub-district tends weaker as the other.

3
2

Health1

Education
and AwarenessSocial Capital

Up to 100% of the households have access to electricity and potable water supply. Up to 75%of the population has access to sanitation, but the solid waste is not treated at all before
dumping and only up to 10% of the solid waste is recycled; both in formal and informal ways.
Up to 15% of the area’s land is used as transportation network. All the area is accessible bypaved road and up to 70% of roads remained accessible during normal ﬂooding in aﬀectedareas. But only up to 45% of the roads have roadside covered drain. More than 30% of thehouses are built with non-permanent structure, however only up to 20% of the buildings areconstructed following the building code. This area is not a hazardous area, whereas none ofthe population are living in the proximity to polluted industries or dumping grounds.

The population growth is less than 0.9%, and more than 45% of the population is under age
14 or over 64 years old. There are almost no population suﬀer from neither water-nor vector
borne diseases every year and up to 90% of the population has access to primary healthcare facility. In case of emergency and before disaster, the health facilities are well provided
and able to serve the community. Less than 50% of the people are illiterate and sub-districtauthority organizes once in every 5 years disaster drill. Almost half of the population isparticipated in community activities and the social ethnic integration runs smoothly. The
people are prepared for a disaster (logistics, materials, and management) and there is some
support from the NGOs/CSOs after a disaster.

Economic
Income54Budgetand Subsidy

3
2

Employment

1

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsInstitutional
Mainstreaming

Less than 11% of the population lives below the poverty line and the income is coming from
2 sources. Unemployment in the formal sector is up to 24%, which is the same percentage
for the youth unemployment rate as well. Almost all the population have television andtelecommunication device, however less than 50% of the households has furniture tosecure the key items (money, important documents, etc.) for during disaster. Only 30% of
the people are practicing saving and up to 24% of the households are under any sort of
insurance scheme. There is no support or access of credit facility during disaster for urban
poor or low-income groups. And there are no available annual budget targeting disasterrisk management, nor the availability of subsidies/incentives for residents to receive analternative livelihood and health care during a disaster.

5
4

Good
Governance32

CrisisManagement

1

Institutional
Collaboration

Knowledge Disseminationand Management

NaturalIntensity / Severity of Hazards
54

Environmental
Policies

3
2

Frequencyof Hazards

1

Land-Usein Natural Terms

Although this area has a good mainstreaming of DRR and CCA and community participationin their development plans and preparation process, as well as the promptness of the subdistrict’s body in disseminating emergency information during a disaster; the capacity(logistics, materials/technical issues) to produce development plans is poor.

From the natural dimension point of view, signiﬁcant eﬀects on the intensity and frequencyof the natural hazards are not available. The ecosystem service and environmental policies
are in good condition. However, for the land-use in natural term, the average intensity ofland-use-urban morphology (built area) has consumed up to 90% of land. This is in line withthe 40% loss of urban green spaces.

Ecosystem
Services36Kecamatan 23

Ujung Berung
Kecamatan, Ujung Berung
Physical543NaturalSocial2
1

Institutional

Economic

PhysicalElectricity
5
4

Housingand Land-Use

3
2

Water

1

Accessibilityof Roads

Sanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

SocialPopulation
5
4

Community
Preparedness

Sub-district 23, Ujung Berung is consisted of 5 wards and is located at the north-east ofBandung City with an area size of 6,40 km2 and a population of around 61,579 in 2008. The
population density is 9,621.72/km2, which is not dense compared to other sub-districts. This
area is lying on the foot of a mountain (Manglayang), the same as for the sub-district no.
21 (Cibiru). This area is for residential purpose only. The overall resilience indicates in the
diagram is below the average, especially in the economic and natural dimension.

3
2

Health1

Education
and AwarenessSocial Capital

Up to 100% of the households have access to electricity and potable water supply. Up to 75%of the population has access to sanitation, but the solid waste is not treated at all before
dumping and up to 75% of the solid waste is recycled; both in formal and informal ways.
Only up to 10% of the area’s land is used as transportation network and 80% of the area isaccessible by paved road. Less than 40% of roads remained accessible during normal ﬂooding
in aﬀected areas, but only up to 45% of the roads have roadside covered drain. Up to 29% of
the houses are built with non-permanent structure, however less than 10% of the buildings
are constructed following the building code. This area is not a hazardous area, whereas noneof the population are living in the proximity to polluted industries or dumping grounds.

The population growth is less than 0.9% and less than 25% of the population is under age 14
or over 64 years old. There are almost no population suﬀer from neither water-nor vector
borne diseases every year and up to 90% of the population has access to primary healthcare facility. In case of emergency and before disaster, the health facilities are well provided
and able to serve the community. Less than 50% of the people are illiterate and subdistrict authority organizes once in every two years a disaster drills. Only up to 30% of the
population is participated in community activities; however they might face some diﬃculties
in the social ethnic integration. The people are prepared for a disaster (logistics, materials,
and management) and there is some support from the NGOs/CSOs after a disaster.

Economic
Income54Budgetand Subsidy

3
2

Employment

1

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsInstitutional
Mainstreaming
5

Less than 11% of the population lives below the poverty line, but the income is only camefrom one source. Unemployment in the formal sector is more than 25%, which is the same
percentage for the youth unemployment rate as well. Almost all the population havetelevision and telecommunication device, however less than 50% of the households has
furniture to secure the key items (money, important documents, etc.) for during disaster.
Only up to 20% of the people are practicing saving and only up to 10% of the households areunder any sort of insurance scheme. There is some support or access of credit facility during
disaster for urban poor or low-income groups. In addition, there is annual budget targeting
disaster risk management available less than 1%. But there are no subsidies/incentives
available for residents to receive an alternative livelihood and house renovation incentives
after a disaster.

4

Good
Governance32

CrisisManagement

1

Institutional
Collaboration

Knowledge Disseminationand Management

The institutional issues; such as mainstreaming DRR and CCA, eﬀectiveness of subdistrict’s crisis management framework, institutional collaboration with other organizations
and stakeholders, and good governance are running properly. Except when it comes toknowledge dissemination and management; a disaster training programs for emergency
workers is not available yet.

NaturalIntensity / Severity of Hazards
54

Environmental
Policies

3
2

Frequencyof Hazards

1

Land-Usein Natural Terms

37

Ecosystem
Services

Since this area is lying on the mountain’s foot, it is prone to rainfall-induced landslides, which
occurs more than once a year. The ecosystem service, such as the average of urban water
quality is poor and up to 90% of the land is built up. It caused a huge amount loss (40%) of
green spaces in this area.

Kecamatan 24

Rancasari
Kecamatan, Rancasari
Physical543NaturalSocial2
1

Institutional

Economic

PhysicalElectricity
5
4

Housingand Land-Use

3
2

Water

1

Accessibilityof Roads

Sanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

SocialPopulation
5
4

Community
Preparedness

3
2

Health1

Education
and AwarenessSocial Capital

Sub-district 24, Rancasari is consisted from 4 wards and located at the south-east of Bandung
City with an area size of 7.33 km2 and a population of around 68,864 in 2008. The population
density is 9,394.82/km2, which is not dense compared to other sub-districts. There are
two rivers ﬂowing through this area (Cidurian and Cipamokolan). This area was previously
agricultural land and since more than 2 decades ago changed it functions to residential areawith health and shopping facilities. The overall resilience indicates in the diagram is below
the average, mainly in the economic and natural dimension.
Up to 100% of the households have access to electricity and potable water supply. Up to 75%of the population has access to sanitation, but up to 25% of the solid waste is treated before
dumping and up to 100% of the solid waste is recycled; both in formal and informal ways.
More than 20% of the area’s land is used as transportation network, with up to 80% of thearea is accessible by paved road. However, less than 40% of roads remained accessible during
normal ﬂooding in aﬀected areas, and up to 60% of the roads have roadside covered drain.
More than 30% of the houses are built with non-permanent structure, however less than
10% of the buildings are constructed following the building code. This area is not a hazardous
area, whereas none of the population are living in the proximity to polluted industries or
dumping grounds.
The population growth is up to 5.9% with up to 32% of the population is under age 14 orover 64 years old. There are almost no population suﬀer from neither water-nor vector
borne diseases every year and up to 90% of the population has access to primary healthcare facility. In case of emergency and before disaster, the health facilities are well provided
and able to serve the community. Less than 50% of the people are illiterate and sub-districtauthority has not yet organizes disaster drills until now. Almost half of the population
is participated in community activities and does not face diﬃculties in the social ethnic
integration. The people are prepared for a disaster (logistics, materials, and management)
and there is some support from the NGOs/CSOs after a disaster.

Economic
Income54Budgetand Subsidy

3
2

Employment

1

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsInstitutional
Mainstreaming
5
4

Good
Governance32

CrisisManagement

1

Institutional
Collaboration

Up to 30% of the population lives below the poverty line, with one source of income only.
Unemployment in the formal sector is up to 18%, which less in percentage compared to
the youth unemployment rate (up to 24%). Almost all the population have television andtelecommunication device, however less than 50% of the households has furniture to secure
the key items (money, important documents, etc.) for during disaster. Although more than
50% of the people are practicing saving, only up to 10% of the households are under any
sort of insurance scheme. Although there is no credit facility in the sub-district’s ﬁnancial
institutions to prevent or face disaster, some support or access of credit facility during
disaster for urban poor or low-income groups is available. But there is no available annual
budget targeting disaster risk management. However, there are some subsidies/incentives
available for residents to receive an alternative livelihood and health care during a disaster.

Knowledge Disseminationand Management

The institutional issues; such as mainstreaming DRR and CCA, eﬀectiveness of subdistrict’s crisis management framework, institutional collaboration with other organizations
and stakeholders, and good governance are running properly. Except when it comes toknowledge dissemination and management; a disaster training programs for emergency
workers is not available yet. The same applies for disaster drills at the sub-district’s level.

NaturalIntensity / Severity of Hazards
54

Environmental
Policies

3
2

Frequencyof Hazards

1

Land-Usein Natural Terms

The frequency of natural hazards, such as ﬂoods (inundated and riverine ﬂoods) is occurring
more than once year, as the intensities become severe. All the ecosystem services, such as
the average of qualities of urban biodiversity, soil, air, water and groundwater are poor. In
addition, more than 50% of the settlements are located on ﬂood prone areas. It is reﬂectedin the minimum usage of sub-district level hazard maps in development activities.

Ecosystem
Services38Kecamatan 25

Buahbatu
Kecamatan, Buahbatu
Physical543NaturalSocial2
1

Institutional

Economic

PhysicalElectricity
5
4

Housingand Land-Use

3
2

Water

1

Accessibilityof Roads

Sanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

SocialPopulation
5
4

Community
Preparedness

Sub-district 25, Buahbatu is consisted of 4 wards and located at the southern part ofBandung City with an area size of 7.93 km2 and a population of around 95,256 in 2008. The
population density is 12,012.11/km2, which is quite dense compared to other sub-districts.
This area is fully settlements area for middle and low income families. The overall resilience
indicates in the diagram is below the average, particularly in the economic, institutional andnatural dimension.

3
2

Health1

Education
and AwarenessSocial Capital

Up to 100% of the households have access to electricity and potable water supply. Up to
75% of the population has access to sanitation, but up to 25% of the solid waste is treated
before dumping recycled; both in formal and informal ways. Up to 15% of the area’s land isused as transportation network and less than 50% of the area is accessible by paved roadas well as remained accessible during normal ﬂooding in aﬀected areas. But only up to 30%of the roads have roadside covered drain. Less than 10% of the houses are built with nonpermanent structure with more than 50% of the buildings are constructed following thebuilding code. This area is not a hazardous area, whereas none of the population are living in
the proximity to polluted industries or dumping grounds.

The population growth is up to 5.9%, with less than 25% of its population is under age 14
or over 64 years old. There are almost no population suﬀers from neither water-nor vector
borne diseases every year and up to 90% of the population has access to primary healthcare facility. In case of emergency and before disaster, the health facilities are well provided
and able to serve the community. Less than 50% of the people are illiterate and sub-districtauthority organizes once a year a disaster drill. Almost half of the population is participatedin community activities; however they might face some diﬃculties in the social ethnic
integration. The people are prepared for a disaster (logistics, materials, and management).

Economic
Income54Budgetand Subsidy

3
2

Employment

1

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsInstitutional

Less than 11% of the population lives below the poverty line, with the income coming from
2 sources. Unemployment in the formal sector is up to 18%, which is the same percentage
for the youth unemployment rate as well. Almost all the population have television andtelecommunication device, however less than 50% of the households has furniture tosecure the key items (money, important documents, etc.) for during disaster. Although up
to 30% of the people are practicing saving, only up to 24% of the households are under any
sort of insurance scheme. There is no support or access of credit facility during disasterfor urban poor or low-income groups. And there is no annual budget targeting disaster risk
management available, nor availability of subsidies/incentives for residents to receive analternative livelihood and health care during a disaster.

Mainstreaming
5
4

Good
Governance32

CrisisManagement

1

Institutional
Collaboration

Knowledge Disseminationand Management

NaturalThe institutional issues; such as mainstreaming DRR and CCA, eﬀectiveness of subdistrict’s crisis management framework, institutional collaboration with other organizations
and stakeholders, and good governance are running properly. Except when it comes toknowledge dissemination, there is no capacity for carrying the disaster education programs;
because there is no feedback on the satisfaction level of disaster awareness programs fromthe community. In addition, there are no evacuation centers available, since this area has notbeen yet experienced disasters.

Intensity / Severity of Hazards
54

Environmental
Policies

3
2

Frequencyof Hazards

1

Land-Usein Natural Terms

39

Ecosystem
Services

In term of natural dimension, the intensity/severity and frequency of natural hazards
have not signiﬁcantly aﬀected this area. Only in the environmental policies, especially theminimum usage of sub-district level hazard maps in sub-district development activities.

Kecamatan 26

Bandung Kidul
Kecamatan, Bandung Kidul
Physical543NaturalSocial2
1

Institutional

Economic

PhysicalElectricity
5
4

Housingand Land-Use

3
2

Water

1

Accessibilityof Roads

Sanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

SocialPopulation
5
4

Community
Preparedness

3
2

Health1

Education
and AwarenessSocial Capital

Sub-district 26, Bandung Kidul is consisted of 4 wards and located at the southern part ofBandung City with an area size of 6.06 km2 and a population of around 51,968 in 2008. The
population density is 8,575.58/km2, which is not dense compared to other sub-districts. This
area was previously agricultural land and swamps back 20 years ago and turn recently into
settlement areas for middle and low income families. One main river (Cikapundung) and twoothers (Cikapundung Kolot and Citepus) are ﬂowing through this area. The overall resilience
indicates in the diagram is below the average, mainly in the economic, institutional andnatural dimension.
Up to 100% of the households have access to electricity and up to 80% have access topotable water supply. Up to 60% of the population has access to sanitation, but up to 25%of the solid waste is treated before dumping and up to 10% of the solid waste is recycled;
both in formal and informal ways. More than 20% of the area’s land is used as transportation
network. Only 70% of the area is accessible by paved road. A slightly more than half of roads
remained are accessible during normal ﬂooding in aﬀected areas, but only up to 45% of theroads have roadside covered drain. Up to 29% of the houses are built with non-permanent
structure and more than 50% of houses are constructed following the building code. This
area is not a hazardous area, whereas none of the population are living in the proximity topolluted industries or dumping grounds.
The population growth is ranged between 2-3.9%, with less than 25% of its populationis under age 14 or over 64 years old. Up to 11% of the population suﬀer from water-and
vector borne diseases every year and up to 90% of the population has access to primary
health care facility. In case of emergency and before disaster, the health facilities are wellprovided and able to serve the community. Less than 50% of the people are illiterate andsub-district authority organizes once in two years disaster drill. Almost half of the population
is participated in community activities and could blend well with other ethnic groups. The
people are not yet prepared for a disaster (logistics, materials, and management), but there
is some support from the NGOs/CSOs in case of a disaster.

Economic
Income54Budgetand Subsidy

3
2

Employment

1

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsInstitutional
Mainstreaming

Up to 20% of the population lives below the poverty line, with the 2 sources of income.
Unemployment in the formal sector is up to 24%, which is the same percentage for the youth
unemployment rate as well. Almost all the population have television and telecommunication
device, only up to 70% of the households has furniture to secure the key items (money,
important documents, etc.) for during disaster. More than 50% of the people are practicing
saving and up to 24% of the households are under any sort of insurance scheme. Thereis some support or access of credit facility during disaster for urban poor or low-income
groups. And there is no annual budget targeting disaster risk management and no subsidies/
incentives for residents to receive an alternative. However, there are some incentives forhealth care during a disaster.

5
4

Good
Governance32

CrisisManagement

1

Institutional
Collaboration

Knowledge Disseminationand Management

Although this area has a good mainstreaming of DRR and CCA and community participationin their development plans and preparation process, as well as the promptness of the subdistrict’s body in disseminating emergency information during a disaster; the emergency
team during disaster is poor. In addition, the dissemination of knowledge and management
issues is poor as well (disaster education programs and sub-district’s capacity). The same
applies for the institutional collaboration with other organizations and stakeholders; the subdistrict is heavily dependent on external institutions/support during a disaster.

NaturalIntensity / Severity of Hazards
54

Environmental
Policies

3
2

Frequencyof Hazards

1

Land-Usein Natural Terms

In term of natural hazard, this area suﬀers from rainfall-induced landslides and storms,
which are occurring more than once per year. In addition, the impacts of riverine ﬂoods
and landslides are severe, making this sub-district vulnerable to disasters. This leads topoor average of urban water quality, adding up that the implementation of eﬃcient waste
management system (reduce, reuse, recycle) is poor as well.

Ecosystem
Services40Kecamatan 27

Panyileukan
Kecamatan, Panyileukan
Physical543NaturalSocial2
1

Institutional

Economic

PhysicalElectricity
5
4

Housingand Land-Use

3
2

Water

1

Accessibilityof Roads

Sanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

SocialSub-district 27, Panyileukan is consisted of 4 wards and located at the eastern of Bandung
City with an area size of 5.10 km2 and a population of around 34,621 in 2008. The population
density is 6,788.43/km2, which is not dense compared to other sub-districts. Four rivers
are ﬂowing through this area. In addition, this area is the expansion of the settlement area,of which the city government intended to distribute the residential areas equally throughBandung City. Previously, this area was a large agricultural land, where some parts arestill visible and cultivated. The overall resilience indicates in the diagram is slightly above
the average, especially marked by the high score in the physical, social, and institutional
dimension.
Up to 100% of the households have access to electricity and up to 80% have access topotable water supply. Up to 75% of the population has access to sanitation, but up to 25%of the solid waste is treated before dumping and up to 75% of the solid waste is recycled;
both in formal and informal ways. More than 20% of the area’s land is used as transportation
network and up to 80% of the area is accessible by paved road. A slightly more than halfof roads remained accessible during normal ﬂooding in aﬀected areas and more than 60%of the roads have roadside covered drain. Up to 19% of the houses are built with nonpermanent structure, however less than 10% of the buildings are constructed following thebuilding code. This area is not a hazardous area, whereas none of the population are living in
the proximity to polluted industries or dumping grounds.

Population
5
4

Community
Preparedness

3
2

Health1

Education
and AwarenessSocial Capital

Economic
IncomeThe population growth is ranged between 2-3.9%, with less than 45% of its population isunder age 14 or over 64 years old. There are almost no population suﬀer from neither waternor vector borne diseases every year and up to 90% of the population has access to primary
health care facility. In case of emergency and before disaster, the health facilities are wellprovided and able to serve the community. Less than 50% of the people are illiterate andsub-district authority organizes once a year a disaster drill. Almost half of the population isparticipated in community activities and they integrated well with diﬀerent ethnic groups.
The people are prepared for a disaster (logistics, materials, and management) and there issome support from the NGOs/CSOs after a disaster.

5
4

Budgetand Subsidy

3
2

Employment

1

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsInstitutional
Mainstreaming
5

Less than 11% of the population lives below the poverty line, with the income coming from4 sources. Unemployment in the formal sector is up to 18%, more than the percentageof youth unemployment rate (up to 12%). Almost all the population have television andtelecommunication device, however less than 50% of the households has furniture to secure
the key items (money, important documents, etc.) for during disaster. Only up to 20% of thepeople are practicing saving and up to 32% of the households are under any sort of insurance
scheme. There is no support or access of credit facility during disaster for urban poor or
low-income groups as well as an annual budget targeting disaster risk management andsubsidies/incentives for residents to receive an alternative livelihood, but there are somesubsidies for health care during a disaster.

4

Good
Governance32

CrisisManagement

1

Institutional
Collaboration

Knowledge Disseminationand Management

NaturalAlthough this area has a good mainstreaming of DRR and CCA and community participationin their development plans and preparation process, as well as the promptness of the subdistrict’s body in disseminating emergency information during a disaster; but there is no
network yet established for a collaboration with neighboring sub-district, in case a disasteroccurs, which make them heavily dependent on external institutions/support during adisaster.

Intensity / Severity of Hazards
54

Environmental
Policies

3
2

Frequencyof Hazards

1

Land-Usein Natural Terms

41

Ecosystem
Services

Since many rivers are ﬂowing through this area, ﬂoods (inundation and riverine) are occurring
more than once per year, with severe impacts. This reﬂects in the poor average of urban
water and groundwater quality. Additionally, the land-use in natural term has shifted, such aslarge loss of green spaces due to intensive use of built area.

Kecamatan 28

CinamboKecamatan, Cinambo
Physical543NaturalSocial2
1

Institutional

Economic

PhysicalElectricity
5
4

Housingand Land-Use

3
2

Water

1

Accessibilityof Roads

Sanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

SocialPopulation
5
4

Community
Preparedness

Sub-district 28, Cinambo is consisted of 4 wards and located at the eastern part of Bandung
City with an area size of 3.68 km2 and a population of around 23,695 in 2008. The population
density is 6,438.86/km2, which is not dense compared to other sub-districts. This area ischaracterized by the existence of industries as well as storehouses and some containers
depot. The overall resilience indicates in the diagram is just on the average, of which all theresilience of the dimension could be equally enhanced.

3
2

Health1

Education
and AwarenessSocial Capital

Up to 100% of the households have access to electricity and potable water supply. Up to
60% of the population has access to sanitation, but none of the solid waste is treated before
dumping and only up to 50% of the solid waste is recycled; both in formal and informal ways.
More than 20% of the area’s land is used as transportation network. Only 10% of the area
is accessible by paved road. More than half of roads remained accessible during normal
ﬂooding in aﬀected areas, but only up to 60% of the roads have roadside covered drain. Up
to 19% of the houses are built with non-permanent structure, however less than 10% of thebuildings are constructed following the building code. Only up to 60% are built above theplinth level. It might due to industries, up to 25% of the population live on polluted grounds.

The population growth is up to 1.9%, with up to 39% of its population is under age 14 or over
64 years old. There are still people up to 49% are living in informal settlement. However,there are almost no population suﬀer from neither water-nor vector borne diseases every
year and up to 90% of the population has access to primary health care facility. In case of
emergency and before disaster, the health facilities are well provided and able to serve thecommunity. Less than 50% of the people are illiterate and sub-district authority organizes
once a year a disaster drill. Almost half of the population is participated in community
activities and they integrate very well with other ethnic groups. The people are prepared fora disaster (logistics, materials, and management) and there is some support from the NGOs/
CSOs after a disaster.

Economic
Income54Budgetand Subsidy

3
2

Employment

1

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsInstitutional
Mainstreaming
5

Up to 20% of the population lives below the poverty line, with 2 sources of income.
Unemployment in the formal sector is up to 18%, which is the same percentage for the youth
unemployment rate as well. Almost all the population has television and telecommunication
device, however up to 60% of the households has furniture to secure the key items (money,
important documents, etc.) for during disaster. Although more than 20% of the people arepracticing saving, only up to 16% of the households are under any sort of insurance scheme.
The support or access of credit facility during disaster for urban poor or low-income groups
is poor. But there are some available annual budget targeting disaster risk management up
to 1.2%. There are no subsidies/incentives available for residents to receive an alternative
livelihood but for subsidies health care during a disaster.

4

Good
Governance32

CrisisManagement

1

Institutional
Collaboration

Knowledge Disseminationand Management

Although this area has a good mainstreaming of DRR and CCA and community participationin their development plans and preparation process, as well as the promptness of the subdistrict’s body in disseminating emergency information during a disaster; there is limited
number of regular disaster training programs for emergency workers.

NaturalIntensity / Severity of Hazards
54

Environmental
Policies

3
2

Frequencyof Hazards

1

Land-Usein Natural Terms

Natural issue that is pointed out for this sub-district is the ecosystem service, of which theaverage of urban water and urban air quality and groundwater quality are very poor. The lossof the green space is almost 40% from the total land-use. In addition, the implementation ofeﬃcient waste management system (reduce, reuse, recycle) is poor.

Ecosystem
Services42

Kecamatan 29

Mandalajati
Kecamatan, Mandalajati
Physical543NaturalSocial2
1

Institutional

Economic

PhysicalElectricity
5
4

Housingand Land-Use

3
2

Water

1

Accessibilityof Roads

Sanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

SocialPopulation
5
4

Community
Preparedness

3
2

Health1

Education
and AwarenessSocial Capital

Economic
Income54Budgetand Subsidy

3
2

Employment

1

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsInstitutional

Sub-district 29, Mandalajati is consisted of 4 wards and located at the north-east of Bandung
City with an area size of 6.67 km2 and a population of around 57,265 in 2008. The population
density is 8,585.46/km2, which is not dense compared to other sub-districts. This area
is located on the highland and has 3 rivers ﬂowing through it (Cisanggarung, Cikilay, andCipamolakan). This area is located on the steep slope and mainly for settlement only. Some
small amount of land is deforested, thus is prone to ﬂoods and rainfall-induced landslides.
The overall resilience indicates in the diagram is below the average, mainly in the physical,
economic and natural dimension.
Up to 100% of the households have access to electricity and up to 80% have access topotable water supply. Up to 75% of the population has access to sanitation, but none of thesolid waste is treated before dumping and only up to 10% of the solid waste is recycled;
both in formal and informal ways. Up to 20% of the area’s land is used as transportation
network and less than 25% of the area is accessible by paved road. A slightly more than halfof roads remained accessible during normal ﬂooding in aﬀected areas, but only less than
15% of the roads have roadside covered drain. Less than 10% of the houses are built with
non-permanent, and up to 50% of the buildings are constructed following the building code.
Almost half of the population is living on hazardous ground (waste dumping ground).
The population growth is ranged between 1-1.9%, with up to 32% of its population is underage 14 or over 64 years old. There are up to 11% of the population suﬀer from waterand vector borne diseases every year, however, up to 90% of the population has access toprimary health care facility. In case of emergency and before disaster, the health facilities
are well provided and able to serve the community. Less than 50% of the people are illiterateand sub-district authority organizes once a year a disaster drill. Almost half of the population
is participated in community activities and blend very well with other ethnic groups. The
people are prepared for a disaster (logistics, materials, and management) and there is some
support from the NGOs/CSOs after a disaster.
Up to 20% of the population lives below the poverty line, but the income is only come fromone source. Unemployment in the formal sector is up to 18%, which is less compared to
the youth unemployment (more than 25%). Almost all the population have television andtelecommunication device, however less than 50% of the households has furniture to secure
the key items (money, important documents, etc.) for during disaster. Only 20% of the people
are practicing saving and only up to 10% of the households are under any sort of insurance
scheme. There is no support or access of credit facility during disaster for urban poor or lowincome groups. But there is annual budget targeting disaster risk management available up
to 3%. There are no subsidies/incentives available for residents to receive an alternative
livelihood; however, there are some incentives for health care during a disaster.

Mainstreaming
5
4

Good
Governance32

CrisisManagement

1

Institutional
Collaboration

Knowledge Disseminationand Management

Although this area has a good mainstreaming of DRR and CCA and community participationin their development plans and preparation process, as well as the promptness of the subdistrict’s body in disseminating emergency information during a disaster; there capacity
for dissemination of disaster awareness programs (books, leaﬂets, manpower, andcampaigns for disaster education) is poor. In addition, there is no regular disaster training
programs for emergency workers. In addition, in term of institutional collaboration withother organizations and stakeholders, this sub-district is heavily dependent on external
institutions/supports during a disaster.

NaturalIntensity / Severity of Hazards
54

Environmental
Policies

3
2

Frequencyof Hazards

1

Land-Usein Natural Terms

43

Ecosystem
Services

This area suﬀers from severe rainfall-induced landslides and storms, where they occur atleast once a year. During the dry season, water scarcity is occurring. In term of ecosystemservice, the average of urban water and groundwater quality of this sub-district is poor andexperiences almost 40% land loss of the green spaces.

Kecamatan 30

Gedebage
Kecamatan, Gedebage
Physical543NaturalSocial2
1

Institutional

Economic

PhysicalElectricity
5
4

Housingand Land-Use

3
2

Water

1

Accessibilityof Roads

Sanitation and
Solid Waste Disposal

Sub-district 30, Gedebage is the youngest sub-district among all, consisted of 4 wards andlocated at south-eastern end of Bandung City with an area size of 9.58 km2 and a populationof around 31,230 in 2008. The population density is 3,259.92/km2, which is not dense
compared to other sub-districts. This area entails 70% of land for agricultural activities andthe rest is divided into the settlement and containers depot. A main by-pass road heading
west-east is through this area, making more accessible for shipping goods to and outside
Bandung City. The overall resilience indicates in the diagram is above the average, especiallyin the social, economic, and institutional dimension.

Up to 100% of the households have access to electricity and potable water supply. Up to
75% of the population has access to sanitation, but none of the solid waste is treated before
dumping and recycled; both in formal and informal ways. More than 20% of the area’s land
is used as transportation network. But less than 50% of the area is accessible by paved roadand less than 40% of roads remained accessible during normal ﬂooding in aﬀected areas,
but less than 15% of the roads have roadside covered drain. More than 30% of the houses
are built with non-permanent structure and more than 50% of the buildings are constructedfollowing the building code. And more than half of the sub-district population lives on thehazardous area (dumping ground).

SocialPopulation
5
4

Community
Preparedness

3
2

Health1

Education
and AwarenessSocial Capital

Economic

The population growth is ranged between 1-1.9%, with less than 25% of its population isunder age 14 or over 64 years old. There are almost no population suﬀer from neither waternor vector borne diseases every year and up to 90% of the population has access to primary
health care facility. In case of emergency and before disaster, the health facilities are wellprovided and able to serve the community. Less than 50% of the people are illiterate andsub-district authority organizes once every two years a disasters drills. Almost half of the
population is participated in community activities and they could integrate well with otherethnic groups. The people are prepared for a disaster (logistics, materials, and management)
there is some support from the NGOs/CSOs after a disaster.

Income54Budgetand Subsidy

3
2

Employment

1

Financeand Savings

Household
AssetsInstitutional
Mainstreaming
5
4

Good
Governance3
2

Less than 11% of the population lives below the poverty line with 3 income sources.
Unemployment in the formal sector is up to 12%, which is the same percentage for the youth
unemployment as well. Almost all the population has television and telecommunication
device, however only up to 70% of the households has furniture to secure the key items(money, important documents, etc.) for during disaster. Although up to 30% of the people
are practicing saving, only up to 10% of the households are under any sort of insurance
scheme. There is some support or access of credit facility during disaster for urban poor or
low-income groups. And there are some annual budget targeting disaster risk management
available up to 1.2%. There are subsidies/incentives available for residents to receive analternative livelihood and health care during a disaster.

CrisisManagement

1

Institutional
Collaboration

Knowledge Disseminationand Management

This area has a good mainstreaming of DRR and CCA and community participation in theirdevelopment plans and preparation process, as well as the promptness of the sub-district’sbody in disseminating emergency information during a disaster. In addition, the good
governance and the institutional collaboration with other organizations and stakeholders arein good shape.

NaturalIntensity / Severity of Hazards
54

Environmental
Policies

3
2

Frequencyof Hazards

1

Land-Usein Natural Terms

In natural term, the frequency of the ﬂoods, storms and water scarcity (during dry season)
occurring more than once per year with sometimes severe impacts. It leads to poor averageof groundwater quality of this sub-district.

Ecosystem
Services44

Next Steps and Way Forward
The outcome of this study shall support the Government of Bandung City to address the sectors where improvement is needed
most to plan for future city development. The aim of this study is to enhance the resilience by targeting the sectors, among
physical, social, economic, institutional, and natural; which are least resilient.
As the results, CDRI serves as a planning tool for the Government of Bandung City and also for the future Bandung
Metropolitan development plan. Bandung City Development and Planning Agency as the lead Agency in Bandung City will also
take the results into account impacts from climate-related disasters into planning and policy decision-making processes. Thisinitiative study can also serve as the take oﬀ platform of Government of Bandung City’s main development priority for Bandungas a resilient city.
Currently, a study based on this Bandung Kecamatan CDRI Proﬁle, of eﬀective communication strategies for enhancing climaterelated disaster resilience in Bandung is carried out. The objective of this study is to develop an appropriate disaster risk
communication framework for Bandung communities. By engaging Community-Based Organizations (CBOs) such as Women
Welfare Associations, Youth Unions, and Faith-Based Groups, it is expected the community capacities to cope with climaterelated disasters through the CBOs resilience activities, will be enhanced.

Key References
・Bandung City Development and Planning Agency (2009) Bandung City Mid-Term Development Plan 2009-2013, Bandung.
・Bandung City Development and Planning Agency (2010) Bandung City Spatial Plan of 2013, Bandung.
・Bandung City Development and Planning Agency (2010) Bandung City Infrastructure and Spatial Planning Information andData Book Year 2010, Bandung.
・Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007) ‘Summary for Policymakers’ In: Climate Change 2007: The PhysicalScience Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press. Cambridge.

45About the Initiative

About the Organization

The Climate and Disaster Resilience Initiative (CDRI) is an umbrella of Kyoto University, funded by the Global
Center of Excellence (GCOE) Program “Human Security Engineering for Asian Megacities” , which has research,education, training, and implementation components. The current program was developed in cooperation with
the Government of Bandung City, City Development and Planning Agency (Bappeda Kota Bandung) and Institut
Teknologi Bandung. The Sub-districts data were collected through questionnaire survey. The cooperation andinputs from all the sub-districts listed here are highly appreciated.

Bandung City Government
In 1906, Bandung was given the status of gemeente (municipality) and then later as stadsgemeente (citymunicipality) in 1926. The city area in 1906 was 19.22 sq. kilometers and by 1987 it was 167.2965 km² The cityadministration is divided into 30 sub-districts (Kecamatan) and 155 wards (Kelurahan). A mayor (Walikota) leads
the city administration. Since 2008, the city residents directly voted for a mayor, while previously mayors were
nominated and selected by the city council members or known as the Regional People's Representative Council(DPRD). After the Indonesian Independence in 1945, Bandung was determined as the capital of West Java
province and the country's third largest city. After Indonesian independence, from 1945 onwards, the city
experienced a rapid development and urbanization that has transformed Bandung from a town into a dense
14,275/km² city area, a living space for over 2 million people. The government of Bandung City has been taking
eﬀorts to establish a “safe” place to live for its citizen.

Institut Teknologi Bandung
In 1920, Technische Hogeschool (TH) was established in Bandung, which for a short time, in the middle forties,
became Kogyo Daigaku. Later time, on 2nd March 1959, the present lnstitut Teknologi Bandung or Institute ofTechnology Bandung was founded by the Indonesian government as an institution of higher learning of science,

Team Members

Kyoto University
Rajib Shaw
Yukiko Takeuchi
Farah Mulyasaritechnology, and ﬁne arts, with a mission of education, research, and service to the community. The present ITB

Institut Teknologi Bandung
Krishna S. Pribadi

Bandung City Government

main campus is as well the site of earlier engineering schools in Indonesia. Carrying its mission, ITB shall guide

Bappeda Kota Bandungdevelopment and changes and be responsive to global development and local challenges through innovative andquality education, research and community services. With the support of Research Center for Disaster Mitigation,
ITB contributes in creating safer Indonesian communities.

Acknowledgements
Head of Bappeda Kota Bandung, Secretary of Bappeda Kota Bandung, Head of Sub-division Facilities andInfrastructures of Bappeda Kota Bandung, and Head of 30 Kecamatan (Sub-districts) of Bandung City.

Contact Details
Rajib Shaw
Associate Professor
International Environment and Disaster Management Laboratory
Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies
KYOTO UNIVERSITY
Yoshida Honmachi, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501, JAPAN
Telefax: +81-75-753-5708
shaw@global.mbox.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp
http://www.iedm.ges.kyoto-u.ac.jp

Kyoto University
International Environment and Disaster Management Laboratory of Kyoto University Graduate School of Global

Krishna S. Pribadi
Associate Professor
Research Center for Disaster Mitigation
INSTITUT TEKNOLOGI BANDUNGPAU building, 8th Floor
Ganesha 10, Bandung 40132, INDONESIA
Tel: +62-22-93373751
http://ppmb.itb.ac.id

Environmental Studies targets to reduce the gap between knowledge and practice through pro-active ﬁeld level,
community based project implementation in the ﬁeld of environment and disaster risk management. Key
research areas: climate change adaptation, urban risk reduction, environment and disaster education. GCOE
program of Kyoto University targets education and research excellence of Human Security Engineering in Asian
Megacities, with focus to city governance, infrastructure management, health risk management and disaster risk
management.