II. LITERATURE REVIEW
1. Vulnerability Analysis
When the areas vulnerable to the identified hazards have been delineated and mapped, the subcommittee is then positioned to identify the extent of the communitys potential vulnerability to each
hazard. A judgment regarding the risk of a specific type of event will be an important tool for used later in prioritizing mitigation initiatives as they are developed from the vulnerability assessment results.
Vulnerability is concerned with the qualitative or quantitative examination of the exposure of some component of society, economy or the environment to natural hazards.
2.
Spatial Multi-Criteria Decision Making
Spatial multi-criteria decision making MCDM is a process where geographical data is combined and transformed into a decision. In the case of spatial MCDM, geographical data were used as input to the
decision making. Spatial MCDM is more complex and difficult in contrast to conventional MCDM, as large numbers of factors need to be identified and considered, with high correlated relationships among the factors
Malczewski 1999. 3.
Fuzzy AHP
To overcome the inability of AHP Analytical Hierarchy Process to handle imprecision and subjective-ness in pairwise comparison process has been extended Saaty’s AHP by Buckley and Laarhoven
and Pedricz Deng, 1999. Jeganathan 2003 has modified the methodology that that create simple, improved, and sophisticated approach using fuzzy logic.
Fuzzy AHP use a range of value to incorporate decision maker’s uncertainty. From this range decision maker can select the values that reflect their confidence and also can specify the attitude like
optimistic, pessimistic or moderate Jeganathan 2003 in Kuswandari 2004. Optimistic attitude is represented by the highest value range, moderate attitude is represented by the middle value of range and pessimistic
attitude is represented by the lowest value of range.
Triangular or trapezoidal fuzzy number is used to express the decision maker’s assessment on alternatives with respect to each criterion. After the criteria are weighted, the overall utilities of alternatives
represented by fuzzy number are aggregated by fuzzy arithmetic using Simple Additive Weighting method. To prioritize the alternatives, their fuzzy utilities need to be compared and ranked.
4.
Previous Related-Research
The study about hazard assessment and vulnerable analysis has been performed by some researchers. Yalcin, et al 2002 integrated GIS and Multi-criteria Decision Analysis MCDA to generate a
composite map for decision makers by using some effective factors causing flood. The analysis compared Boolean Approach, Ranking Method, Pairwise Comparison Method PCM and Ordered
Weighted Averaging OWA Method including fuzzy concept on standardization of the criterion values. The study stated that using fuzzy logic reduced the error due to the standardization and classification
of the value, but the application of fuzzy measures in Multi Criteria Evaluation in general and OWA in particular require further research.
Rashed and John Weeks 2003 present a methodology to assess urban vulnerability to earthquakes into a GIS framework that combines elements from the techniques of spatial multi-criteria analysis and fuzzy
logic. The results suggest that the proposed methodology may provide a new approach for analysing vulnerability that can add to understanding of humanhazards interaction.
As consequently of mud volcano in Sidoarjo, numerous identification and analysis about impacts of the mud flow was conducted. Awad 2006 gives a qualitative analysis of the types of risk associated with the
discharge of the mud to the sea, and the marine resources under threat. Pohl 2007 present some identification and analysis about the efforts to stop the mud flows, some impacts caused by the continuing
unstopped mudflow, cost and compensation payment for victims and demands to the responsible companies and the Indonesian government. UN 2006 provides technical assistance to the environmental authorities
with the identification of environmental impacts of the mud, and based on the outcomes, provide recommendations for mitigation. The other survey and research base on geological characteristic also
conducted by centre of environmental geology department Pusat Lingkungan Geologi, 2007 and Rumbudi, 2007.
2
III. METHODOLOGY
Kategori