International Journal of Erosion Control Engineering, Vol.3, No.

1, 2010

Original Article

Sediment Disaster and Resource Management in the Mount Merapi Area, Indonesia
Jazaul IKHSAN1, Masaharu FUJITA2, and Hiroshi TAKEBAYASHI2
1 Dept. of Civil and Earth Resources Eng., Graduate School of Engineering, Kyoto University (Nishikyo-ku, Kyoto, Kyoto 650-8540, Japan) 2 Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University (Gokasho, Uji, Kyoto 611-0011, Japan)

Mount Merapi is one of the most active volcanoes in Indonesia. Its eruptions have produced large amounts of sediment that have caused disasters in downstream areas. Sediment disaster mitigation has been introduced in the last 30 years to provide a high level of safety for local residents. Even so, some problems such as riverbank cutting have occurred, which have negative impacts on ecology. As a positive aspect, the deposited sediment has been widely used as a natural resource by local inhabitants. People tend to use the sediment as much as possible to support regional development. However, sediment mining can also have negative impacts on ecosystems and reduce the safety of river regulation efforts. Sediment disaster management using sabo works and sediment resource management through sustainable sand mining management are proposed for the upper mountain slopes taking into account the socioeconomic conditions, regional development, disaster reduction, and ecological issues. Sediment management using consolidation works is proposed for the downstream area as a countermeasure for riverbed degradation.

1. INTRODUCTION
Indonesia is located between Asia and Australia, touching both the Indian and Pacific oceans, and resting on the edges of the Pacific, Eurasian, and Australian tectonic plates. Due to its location, Indonesia has high rainfall, ranging from 700 to 7000 mm per year with a mean of 2800 mm [Hargono, 2002]. Earthquakes occur frequently and cause many landslides. Volcanic activity also occurs. Between January 1900 and March 2009, the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) recorded 93 events involving earthquakes, which caused more than 28,700 deaths (excluding those killed by tsunamis), and directly affected the lives of 5,621,023 others. The economic damage due to earthquakes was about US$ 4,672,476,000 [CRED, 2009]. Although the most common natural disaster in Indonesia is landslides, these events are rarely reported very widely [Legono, 2005]. CRED recorded 41 landslide events during the period of January 1900 to March 2009, which resulted in 2236 deaths, affected 393,652 other people, and had a negative economic impact of about US$ 121,745,000. Of Indonesias volcanoes, 129 are active and volcanic slopes have been densely populated for thousands of years [Lavigne et al., 2008]. These volcanoes produce pyroclastic flows, debris flows, and mudflows that cause severe damage in surrounding areas. CREDs Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT) lists 48 43

disasters associated with volcanic eruptions between January 1900 and March 2009. These events caused 17,945 deaths and had a negative economic impact estimated at US$ 344,390,000 [CRED, 2009]. Millions of other Indonesians were directly or indirectly affected by volcanic eruptions. In fact, the numbers of earthquakes, landslides, and volcano eruptions are much greater than what is recorded in the CRED database because CRED only lists large events. However, people still like volcanoes and tolerate them as long as the volcanoes supply resources such as fertile soil. Earthquake, landslide, and volcanic activities often produce large amounts of sediment, either directly or indirectly. At the same time, Indonesias growing population has consequences for land use related to logging, farming, and land clearing for settlements. Such high levels of human activity have resulted in a significant increase in erosion, leading to problems such as reservoir sedimentation and flash floods. Indonesia is thus recognized as a country that produces a large amount of sediment. Because sediment can increase the risk of disaster, sediment management is very important. However, sediment disaster management sometimes leads to other problems such as riverbank cutting or sediment trapping. In other words, management itself can have a negative impact on the environment. At the same time, sediment also provides benefits

International Journal of Erosion Control Engineering, Vol.3, No.1, 2010

such as fertile soil and construction material. Sediment can be used to support people economically and increase their standard of living. However, people often ignore sustainability when they use sediment as a resource. This situation has a negative impact on the environment and threatens public infrastructure such as bridges and water intakes. Thus, balancing the management of sediment to reduce the risk it poses with the use of sediment as resource is crucial. This paper discusses sediment disasters and resource management in the Mount Merapi area by considering the reduction of disasters and sediment use. The proposed sediment management plan achieves a balance among regional development, disaster mitigation, and environmental sustainability.

mountainous areas and to use the land and other resources including the deposited sand. A survey by the Japan International Cooperation Agency [JICA, 2004] showed that almost half of the respondents were worried about debris flows prior to project implementation. After project implementation, however, none of the respondents worried about debris flows, and 65% reported that they had no fears and could live in the area peacefully. In addition, at least 70% said that they had attractive employment opportunities in gravel mining during the agricultural off season. Moreover, the use of agricultural land increased in areas near sabo dams equipped with irrigation intakes.
Mt.Merbabu
0m 200

2. SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS NEAR MOUNT MERAPI

Sediment management programs must be designed based not only on technical and scientific issues, but also considering social and economic issues [Heise et al., 2007]. Local residents have an important stake in achieving effective sediment management. Therefore, their perceptions of sediment-related problems as well as socioeconomic conditions must be considered. This section discusses the socioeconomic conditions in the Mount Merapi area. 2.1 General conditions The population density in the Mount Merapi area ranges from 558 to 1045 people/km2 [Public Work Agency, 2005] with the lowest density in Cangkringan [Ikhsan et al., 2009b]. The average annual growth of population in the area ranges from 0.7 to 1.3% per year [DGWR, 2001c]. Figure 1 shows the locations of selected sub-districts surrounding Mount Merapi and the conditions in those sub-districts. Figure 2 presents the population growth of selected sub-districts in Sleman, illustrating that the temporal change of population in the mountainous area is larger than in other areas. The population growth in the mountainous area increased significantly after 2000. There are definite reasons for this pattern. One reason is the development provided by sabo works such as transportation access, irrigation, and a sense of safety. The sabo works in the Mount Merapi area serve not only as sediment disaster countermeasures, but also have regional development functions such as construction of bridges or water irrigation intakes. These aspects have encouraged people to move to

Magelang

1000 m

Mt.Merapi Boyolali

Turi Tempel

Pakem Cangkringan Ngemplak

Fig. 1 Location of selected sub-districts and conditions in the Mount Merapi area (modified from Lavigne et al. [2002])

Population growth (%)

Fig. 2 Population growth in selected sub-districts of the Sleman district

O OG PR

Andesitic lava flow Sediment deposit

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 1980 1985

R.

Sleman

Klaten

Yogyakarta
11020E 200km 11030E

Merapi Java Yogyakarta

Turi Pakem Cangkringan Tempel Sleman Ngemplak

1990

Year

1995

2000

2005

44

International Journal of Erosion Control Engineering, Vol.3, No.1, 2010

Table 1 Respondent and location

Upper area River Respondents: Female Male Location: Sub district Village Sub village Gendol R. 44 69 2 2 7

Middle area Opak R. 14 31 1 2 5

Lower area Opak R. 15 47 1 3 9 Progo R. 11 49 2 2 10

Local government Opak and Gendol R. 2 18 2 4 8

Total

86 214 6 9 31

Another factor is that most inhabitants have no desire to move. Members of approximately 7962 households in villages near danger zones were interviewed after the 1994 eruption. Less than 1% expressed any interest in moving to another area. This is understandable because Mount Merapi provides fertile soil and opportunities for work in the agricultural, mining, and tourism industries. Residents of the Mount Merapi area have adapted the very basis of their daily life to the volcanic environment. Furthermore, they have developed a system of religious belief that views eruptions as agents of change that often lead to changes for the good [Dove, 2008] The inhabitants of the Merapi area are generally farmers who cultivate maize and tubers, herders who graze their cattle on open rangelands, or sand miners. Income from agriculture is generally very low due because of the small field size that 91% of the farmers cultivate. Therefore, poverty is widespread. In the sub-districts around Mount Merapi, 17.5% to 82.5% of households are considered poor [DGWR, 2001c]. The heads of most households have second jobs as sand miners or other occupations just to make ends meet. Recently however, economic conditions have improved. Whereas farmers had previously cultivated annual food crops for their own consumption, they now produce products for market sale. These include different types of grass, fruit, fuel, wood, milk, meat, and volcanic sand. The increased income is evident in improvements to houses, which are now equipped with glass windows, masonry, flooring, and electricity [Dove, 2008]. 2.2 Survey A survey was conducted between April and June 2008 to understand the socioeconomic conditions in the Mount Merapi area. As shown in Figure 3, the survey included six sub-districts, nine villages, and 31 sub-villages. In the region of the upper slopes of Mount Merapi, the survey included the area around the Gendol River and the Cangkringan and Ngemplak 45

sub-districts. The Kalasan sub-district located near the Opak River was representative of the middle slopes. Three sub-districts, Kretek on the Opak River and Srandakan and Galur on the Progo River, were representative of the lower slopes. There were 113, 45, and 122 survey respondents in the upper (rural), middle (urban), and lower (rural) areas, respectively. In addition, 20 responses were received from members of local village and sub-village governments, including sub-village heads. Table 1 presents a summary of the respondents and survey locations. The survey aim was to evaluate peoples perceptions and awareness of sediment-related problems as well as to study their socioeconomic conditions. Table 2 describes the questions that were used in the survey. The following subsections present the survey results. 2.2.1 Socioeconomic conditions of the local people The socioeconomic condition of local residents was explored through questions related to education, household job, and family income. As shown in Figure 4, the percentages of respondents with less than senior high school education were 45.75%,
n ela Pab

MERAPI R VOLCANO

Java

Merapi
200km

ng R Kuning R

ro Wo

R tih k R Pu a as Kr
Boyo

Yogyakarta
R

U 0 5 10 15Km

R.

PROGO

YOGYAKARTA CITY

Gendol R

OYO R. OPAK R.
IND ON ES IA

Upper area (rural) Middle area (urban) Lower area (rural)

SE A

Fig. 3 Survey locations

International Journal of Erosion Control Engineering, Vol.3, No.1, 2010

Table 2 Survey questions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. What is your highest level of education? What is the main occupation of the head of your household? What additional occupations does the head of your household perform? What is your monthly family income (million rupiah)? What is your opinion about the role of sand mining as an economic factor in this village? What is the Mount Merapi hazard that has caused the most damage? Do you agree that the eruption of Mount Merapi constitutes a disaster for human beings? Do you agree that eruption of Mount Merapi has advantages for human beings? If a Mount Merapi eruption or another disaster occurred, would you evacuate from this village? Once a Mount Merapi eruption or another disaster has finished, would you return to this village? Do you want to move away from this village? In your opinion, what is the main function of a river? What has been the greatest physical change to the river in your village? Have sediment disaster prevention structures functioned as facilities for society, such as a bridge or a water intake for irrigation? 15. Have the existing sediment disaster prevention structures provided protection to inhabitants from debris and pyroclastic flows threats in the Merapi volcanic area?

53.2%, and 62.7% in the lower, middle, and upper slope areas, respectively. The level of education was low, especially on the upper slopes. This has an impact on the inhabitants perception of sediment-related problems, as will be discussed later. Figure 5 shows the principal and secondary occupations of householders. Agriculture is still the primary occupation on the lower slopes; about 51.6% of households included farmers. In the middle and upper slope areas, 17.7% and 19.4%, respectively, were farmers. In the middle area, agriculture did not predominate due to the limited size of fields. Due to low agricultural income, only 19.4% of the households in the upper area chose agriculture as the principal occupation and about 21.2% responded that agriculture was becoming the secondary occupation. Figure 6 lists the monthly incomes of the respondents. Inhabitants of the upper slopes had the lowest income of all three areas. The average household incomes were 1.07, 1.17, and 0.8 million rupiah in the lower, middle, and upper areas, respectively. This is one reason why sand mining is more widespread in the upper area. People in urban areas have higher incomes than those in rural areas. 2.2.2 Local perceptions of sediment-related problems The survey also explored local peoples opinions of sediment-related problems, e.g., their opinion about sand mining and its impact. Figure 7 shows that 87.50% and 91.93% of respondents in upper and lower areas, respectively, thought that sand mining was important for supporting the local economy. In the middle area, only 22.22% of respondents said that 46

100 90 80 Respondent (%) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Lower Progo

Elementary Sc. Senior H. Sc.

Junior H.Sc Under Grad.

Lower Opak

M iddle Opak

Gendol

Local Gov.

Fig. 4 Educational background of respondents

100 90 80 Respondent (%) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Lower Progo
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Farmer Sand miner Others

[a]

Lower Opak

Middle Opak

Gendol

Farmer

Sand miner

Others

Respondent (%)

[b]

Lower Progo

Lower Opak Middle Opak

Gendol

Fig. 5 (a) Household primary and (b) secondary occupations

International Journal of Erosion Control Engineering, Vol.3, No.1, 2010

100 90 80 R esp on d ent (% ) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Lower Progo Lower Opak Middle Opak
Fig. 6 Monthly household incomes

x<0.5 1.25<x<2

0.5<x<0.75 x>2

0.75<x<1.25
100 90 80 Respondent (%) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Lower Progo Lower Opak Middle Opak Gendol Local Gov.

Gendol

sand mining was important for the local economy. Thus, sand mining is an important activity for the inhabitants of the upper and lower slopes. Figure 8 shows the perceptions of the inhabitants and the local government related to Merapi eruptions. More inhabitants and local government officials on the upper slopes believed that Mount Merapi eruptions provide resources rather than constitute disaster. This result was in line with the findings of Dove [2008]. Figure 9 shows that the inhabitants of the Mount Merapi area as well as local governments thought that sediment-related disasters caused serious damage. Figure 10 describes the response of respondents to a disaster. Although sediment-related disasters commonly occur on the upper slopes, residents there generally do not want to move elsewhere. Only about 1.7% of respondents said they would move. Figure 11 presents the opinions of the respondents about river functions. People on the upper (51.6%) and lower (38.05%) slopes believed that the river was a source of sand resources. Sand mining is very active in both areas, although inhabitants also recognize that riverbed degradation occurred, especially on the lower slopes as shown in Figure 12. Figure 13 indicates that 64.6% of inhabitants in the upper area believed that sabo works were useful for social purposes. The percentage of local government respondents with the same opinion was 85%. Figure 13 also shows that sabo works have the advantage of providing protection from debris and pyroclastic flows. This indicates that people have a good awareness of sabo works and that these works are still required for disaster mitigation and supporting regional development.

Fig. 7 Opinions about sand mining

100 90 80 Respondent (%) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Lower Progo

Disaster

Resources

Lower Opak

Middle Opak

Gendol

Local Gov.

Fig. 8 Opinions about Mount Merapi eruptions

100 90 80
Respondent (%)
Pyroclastic f. Debris f. Others

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Lower Progo Lower Opak Middle Opak Gendol Local Gov.

Fig. 9 Opinions about Mount Merapi disasters that caused the largest damage

47

International Journal of Erosion Control Engineering, Vol.3, No.1, 2010

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

If disaster occures, evacuate After disaster, come back Want to move

3. DISASTER MANAGEMENT IN THE MOUNT MERAPI AREA

Mount Merapi is one of the most active volcanoes in Indonesia. It is 2968 m high and is located on the island of Java at 73226.99S 1102641.34E on the border between Central Java and Yogyakarta Special Region. 3.1 Volcanic activities at Mount Merapi Mount Merapi has erupted 41 times in the last 200 years including 15 major eruptions. It generally erupts every 3 years with a major eruption every 9 years. Its eruptions have produced large amounts of volcanic material as ash falls, lava, and pyroclastic flows. Volcanic activity occurred on the western slope during 18301870 and on the northwestern slope at the end of the 1800s. During 1903 and 1904, the volcanic activities moved to the eastern slope, then to the southeastern slope during 1905 and 1906, and then to the northwestern slope during 19091913. In the period from 19401994, volcanic activities were confined mainly to the southwestern slope, except for a brief period on the northern slope during 19541956. During 19992001, volcanic activities moved from the southwestern slope to the western slope. The most recent eruption occurred in June 2006 on the southeastern slope. Mount Merapi produced approximately 766106 m3 or 0.51106 m3/month of magma during 18251945 [DGWR, 2001d]. The rate of lava outflow from Mount Merapi varies widely. For instance, the rate during November and December 1930 averaged 300,000 m3/day. In 1940, 1942, and 1943, the rate of lava flow ranged from 12,00015,000 m3/day on average and 30,000 m3/day as the maximum. Siswowidjoyo et al. [1995] compiled lava production data since 1890. The production rates of individual eruptive events have varied widely. However, the cumulative volume has increased nearly linearly at 0.1106 m3/month [Voight et al., 2000]. 3.2. Sediment-related disaters on Mount Merapi A characteristic occurrence at Mount Merapi is a pyroclastic flow accompanied by a glowing cloud. A lava dome collapse or an eruption causes pyroclastic flows at Mount Merapi. During the last eruption, pyroclastic material flowed in every direction of the tributaries surrounding the Mount Merapi area. However, during a 37-year period (19611997), the direction of pyroclastic flows remained almost the same toward the southwestern slope in the direction of the Bebeng and Putih rivers. The direction of 48

Respondent (%)

Lower Progo Lower Opak Middle Opak

Gendol

Fig. 10 Disaster responses

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Water resources Drainage Others Sand resources A lahar channel

Respondent (%)

Lower Progo

Lower Opak

M iddle Opak

Gendol

Local Gov.

Fig. 11 Opinions about river function

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Lower Progo Lower Opak Middle Opak Gendol Local Gov.
Riverbank damage Riverbed degradation Others River flow change Water surface degradation

Fig. 12 Opinions about the biggest damage to the river

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Lower Progo
As a protection from debris flow As a social facility

Respondent (%)

Respondent (%)

Lower Opak

Middle Opak

Gendol

Local Gov.

Fig. 13 Opinions about sabo works

International Journal of Erosion Control Engineering, Vol.3, No.1, 2010

pyroclastic flows changed to the western slope during 19982001 toward the basins of the Putih and Senowo rivers. However, during the last eruption in 2006, the pyroclastic flow moved to the southeastern slope toward the Gendol and Woro rivers. In the last 100 years, pyroclastic flows have caused more than 1440 casualties. During or immediately after an eruption, a large amount of volcanic material is deposited on the slopes of the volcano. A debris flow disaster is caused by loose sediment and heavy rainfall. In the Mount Merapi area, the debris flow starts on the upper slopes at elevations of 10002000 m. Debris flows have normally occurred very soon after eruptions because pyroclastic flows deposit an enormous quantity of loose sediment and ash in river basins around the volcano. More than 500 debris flows were recorded during 19311996 [DGWR, 2001b]. The numbers of debris flows associated with major events were as follows: a) 212 debris flows after the eruption in November 1930, occurring in almost all rivers but especially in the Batang River, during the period December 1930April 1932; b) 247 debris flows after the eruption of 1969, occurring in many rivers during 19691978; and c) 103 debris flows during 19851996, mainly in the Putih, Bebeng, and Boyong rivers after the eruption of 1984. Damage due to debris flow has occurred from the upper slopes to the hamlets and agricultural zone of the middle slopes. Debris flows also damage irrigation facilities. 3.3. Disaster countermeasures Disaster mitigation is becoming very important and also quite difficult due to the high activity level and increased frequency of eruption. A sediment disaster mitigation plan has been implemented in the last 30 years. After the large eruption in 1969, sediment control facilities were constructed to prevent sediment flooding and sediment problems such as blockage of irrigation water intakes caused by sedimentation. By 2001, 50 check dams, 101 consolidation dams, and 12 km of dikes had been built. Debris flows have been recorded 64 times since 1981, but disasters occurred only twice. This indicates that the sabo facilities have been effective in mitigating sediment disasters and have increased safety. However, other problems have occurred including bank cutting or morphological changes; these produce negative effects on the ecology and on river structures in downstream areas, including pier collapse and water intake blockage. 49

4. SEDIMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN THE MOUNT MERAPI AREA

Mount Merapi eruptions have resulted in large sediment deposits on the slopes. As shown in Fig. 1, the deposited sediment covers 286 km2 of the area surrounding the volcano [Lavigne et al., 2002]. The specific gravity of the deposited sediment is between 2.65 and 2.70 and the silt content is 0.06% to 1.40%. This makes the sediment quite suitable for construction material [Sutikno et al., 2003]. Thus while sediment flow can cause disaster, the deposited sediment is also mined by local residents as a natural resource. These mining activities have become an important source of alternative income. 4.1 Sand mining and its socioeconomic impacts Sand mining has a positive socioeconomic impact in the Mount Merapi area. First, the activity has provided job opportunities for local people and provided additional income from gravel mining and sales during the agricultural off-season. In the foothills of Mount Merapi and the lower Progo River, approximately 21,022 and 1235 people per day work in mining, respectively [Sutiarno, 2006]. The daily income of a sand miner is in the range 600036,000 rupiah [Aisyah, 2008]. Sand mining has also provided additional income for local governments in the form of tax. Table 3 shows the sand mining income tax imposed by local governments. This sand mining tax is significant for the Magelang district, but not in the Klaten district. Most volcanic activities have historically occurred in Magelang, providing that district with more deposited sediment than other districts. 4.2 Government policies on sand mining Laws 22/1999 (Administration of Regional Government) and 25/1999 (Financial Balance between Central and Regional) have provided regional governments with much more financial autonomy. In accordance with these laws, the proportion of tax income allocation between the central and regional governments is 20% and 80%, respectively [Amri, 2000]. This is one reason why local governments were motivated to increase tax incomes generally as well as sand mining tax income specifically. For example, the ratio of sand mining tax to total tax for districts in the Mount Merapi area was 0.46% to 9.81% in fiscal year 1999/00. Nevertheless, in fiscal year 2007/08, the ratio of sand mining tax to total tax increased to 1.43% to 13.09%

International Journal of Erosion Control Engineering, Vol.3, No.1, 2010

(Table 3). The Sleman district had mining tax revenues of 63 and 600 million rupiah in fiscal years 1999 and 2007, respectively. This shows that from the sediment resource management perspective, people tend to take as much sediment as possible to support regional development. However, this has a negative effect on the environment and reduces the effectiveness of disaster prevention measures.

5. PROPOSED SABO AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MEASURES

Sand mining activities on the upper slopes have become quite widespread, with the volume of sand mined at approximately 56 million m3/year [DGWR, 2001c]. This is three to four times the annual average sediment production in the Merapi area of only 1.44 million m3/year [Ikhsan et al., 2009a]. Sabo works were constructed on slopes of the volcano after the large eruption in 1969 as a part of the sediment disaster mitigation plan. The mining and sabo works mean that there is no sediment supply to the lower Progo River, resulting in bed degradation. A sediment management model that considers sediment disasters and resources will be developed using one-dimensional riverbed deformation analysis. 5.1 Sediment management Model The basic model equations for one-dimensional bed deformation analysis are presented below, based on those of the standard and frequently used one-dimensional bed deformation model. The mass and momentum equations of water are given as
A Q + =0 t x

5.2 Hydraulic conditions The hydraulic conditions are as follows. The water discharge is the annual average discharge (83.1m3/s); the river width is the average river width (200 m); the initial slope is 0.0015, and the initial grain size of bed material is that reported by the DGWR [2001a]. The calculation length is 30 km. In Case 1, the bed variation was simulated under natural conditions, i.e., without management or sand mining. The sediment management by sand mining activity was considered in Case 2. In Case 2a, the volume of sand mined was the same as the annual average sediment production volume. In Case 2b, the volume of sand mined was 50% of the annual average sediment production volume. The variation in the riverbed was simulated considering the installation of channel works (groundsills) and sand mining in Case 3. The height of each groundsill was 2.7 m, and the longitudinal interval between groundsills was 9 km. In Cases 3a and 3b, 100% and 50% of the annual average sediment production volumes were mined, respectively. 5.3 Result and Discussion The results under the conditions of no management are shown in Figure 14(a). Under these circumstances, riverbed aggradation occurred. At the upper boundary, the aggradation depth reached 4 m in 10 years. The condition agrees with that in the lower Progo River before sediment disaster management was applied. Four irrigation intakes and two bridges on the Progo River were affected by debris flow. These structures were rehabilitated so that they function properly [Sumaryono et al., 1996]. However, bed aggradation will become severe if the sediment supply is greater than the annual average sediment production such as occurred after a huge eruption in 1930. This indicates that sediment management is required in the upper area to control sediment discharge. Figure 14(b) shows the results for Cases 2a and 2b; degradation of the riverbed occurred in both. Over a 10-year period, the degradation depths at the upper boundary were estimated to be 1.5 m and 0.8 m for Cases 2a and 2b, respectively. Figure 15 shows the relationship between the ratio of sand mining volume to sediment production and the riverbed variation at the upper boundary for Cases 1, 2a, and 2b. Equilibrium is maintained at the upper boundary if the sand mining volume is about 39% of the sediment production. However, much more sediment is required due to the actual sand consumption. The volume of sand mined in the lower Progo River was estimated to be 1.07 million m3/year, which caused riverbed degradation of 0.178 m/year. Therefore, the 50

(1) (2)

Q Q 2 z + = gA gAI e + ( A xx ) t x A x x

where t is the time, x is the coordinate along the longitudinal direction, A is the cross-section area of water, Q is the water discharge in the main channel, g is the accelration due to gravity, is the water density, z is the water surface elevation, Ie is the energy slope, and xx is the turbulence stress. Ashida and Michiues formula is used to estimate the sediment transport rate. The equation of continuity of the sediment discharge is where, Bw is the channel width, is the porosity of bed material, and zb is the riverbed elevation.
Bw zb 1 Qb + =0 t 1 x

(3)

International Journal of Erosion Control Engineering, Vol.3, No.1, 2010

riverbed degradation in the lower Progo River was estimated to be 0.150.328 m/year. The result is similar to that reported by the DGWR [2001a] which estimated bed degradations of 0.100.30 m/year in the lower reaches of the Progo River since 1970. Figure 14(c) shows the results for Cases 3a and 3b. Bed degradation occurs if 100% of the sediment production is consumed by sand mining (Case 3a), even if groundsills are installed. If the sand mining volume is 50% of the sediment production (Case 3b), the riverbed degradation is suppressed by the installed groundsills. The result shows that sand mining activity must be controlled and that installed groundsills are important for stabilizing the bed of the lower Progo River. The effect of sediment management on the socioeconomic conditions in the upper area was analyzed using 1999 data [DGWR, 2001c] as the initial data. In Case 1, if all production sediments flow downstream, sand mining should be totally prohibited. This condition would cause the loss of job opportunities for about 21,022 people. Moreover, local governments would lose annual tax income of 1,014 million rupiah every year. 5.4 Proposed sediment management Based on considerations of the socioeconomic conditions, regional development, disaster reduction, and ecological issues, the proposed sediment management policy can be summarized as follows: a) Mount Merapi is still active and produces a large amount of sediment, causing pyroclastic and debris flows as explained in Section 3.1. Thus, providing dams of sufficient capacity to control the sediment discharge is always necessary. At the same time, the excessive volume of sand removed by mining needs to be managed and controlled. The appropriate volume of mined sand is half the annual sediment production. Under this condition, sand mining still provides economic advantages to local residents and local governments, and mining can be used to maintain the capacity of sabo dams. b) To reduce the present degradation of the Progo River bed, based on the result of Case 3b, sediment should be allowed to flow down through the rivers tributaries. On the occasions when large amounts of sediment would flow downstream as a result of debris flows, the sediment must be captured in the upstream area using sand pockets. c) Consolidation works should be installed to stabilize the bed and counter the bed degradation on the lower Progo River based on the result of Case 3b. Sand mining should be banned in the lower Progo River to protect the installed groundsills. 51

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 0

E le v a tio n f r o m th e d a tu m ( m )

Initial Case 1

[a
10 20 30

Distance from downstream end (km)

Initial Case 2b Case 2a

E lev atio n fro m th e d atu m (m )

[b
5 10 15 20 25 30 Distance from downstream end (km)

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 0

E lev atio n fro m th e d atu m (m )

Initial Case 3b

Case 3a

[c
5

10

15

20

25

30

Distance from downstream end (km)

Fig. 14 Riverbed variation over a 10-year period for Cases 1, 2, and 3

River bed variation (m)
4 2 0 0 -2 20 40 60 80 100

Equilibrium

Percentage of sand mining volume to sediment production (%)

Fig. 15 Relationship between sand mining volume and riverbed Variation

6. CONCLUSION
Two management techniques have been proposed for the upper slopes: sediment disaster management using sabo works such as sand pockets, and sediment resource management through sustainable sand mining management. Sediment management using consolidation works is proposed downstream to solve sediment-related problems,

International Journal of Erosion Control Engineering, Vol.3, No.1, 2010

especially to counter riverbed degradation.

REFERENCES
Amri, P.D. (2000): Economic and politic influences of law number 22/1999 and 25/1999 about autonomy of regional government, Economic Working Paper Series, http://www.csis.or.id/papers/wpe054 (in Indonesian) Aisyah, S. (2008): Economic potential of sandmining on the Gendol River, Thesis presented to Gadjah Mada University (in Indonesian) Center for Research on Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) (2009): CRED international disaster database, Universite` Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, http://www.cred.be/emdat DGWR, Republic of Indonesia (2001a): Review master plan study on Mount Merapi, main report DGWR, Republic of Indonesia (2001b): Review master plan study on Mount Merapi, supporting report [B] volcanic disaster mitigation plan DGWR, Republic of Indonesia (2001c): Review master plan study on Mount Merapi, supporting report [C] regional development and sustainable sand mining DGWR, Republic of Indonesia (2001d): Review master plan study on Mount Merapi, supporting report [E] geology and volcanology Djoko, L. (2005): Important issues on sediment related disaster management in Indonesia, International Symposium on Fluvial and Coastal Disaster, Kyoto University, Japan Dove, M.R. (2008): Perception of volcanic eruptions as agent of change on Merapi volcano, Central Java, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2007.12.037 Hargono, B. (2002): Sabo, sediment control strategy in Indonesial, http://www.nilim.go.jp/lab/bcg/seryou/tnn/ tnn0156 pdf/ks0156015.pdf, pp 73-78 Heise, S., and Apitz, S.(2007): The role of risk management and communication in sustainable sediment management, Sustainable Management of Sediment Resources Vol. 3, Elsevier B.V, pp 1-8 Ikhsan, J., Fujita, M., and Takebayashi, H. (2009a): Concept on sustainable sand mining management in merapi area, Annual Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, JSCE, Vol. 53, pp 151-156 Ikhsan, J., Fujita M., and Takebayashi, H. (2009b): Sand mining impacts on socio-economic inhabitant and river bed variation in merapi area, JSECE Publication No.52, pp 50-51 JICA, (2004): Mt. Merapi and Mt. semeru volcanic disaster countermeasures Project (2) http://www.jica.go.jp/english/ operations/evaluation/oda_loan/post/2004/pdf/2-14_smry.pdf Lavigne, F., and Thouret, J.C. (2002): Sediment transportation and deposition by rain triggered lahars at Merapi Volcano, Central Java, Indonesia, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, vol. 49, pp. 45-69 Lavigne, F., Coster, B.D., Juvin, N., Flohic, F., Gaillard, J.C., Texier, P., Morin, J., and Sartohadi, J. (2008): Peoples behaviour in the face of volcanic hazards: perspectives from Javanese communities, Indonesia, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, vol. 172, pp. 273-287 Public Work Agency of Indonesia, (2005): Statistic Online, http://www.pu.somee.com/ (in Indonesian) Siswowidjoyo, S., Suryo, I., and Yokoyama, I. (1995): Magma eruption rates of Merapi volcano, Central Java, Indonesia, during one century (1890-1992), Bulletin Volcanology,

Vol.57, pp.111-116 Sumaryono, A., Churiyah, and Artha, I.G.M. (1996): Geomorphological changes of Kali Progo caused by lahar flow from Mt. Merapi, Proceedings of workshop on disasters caused by floods and geomorphological changes and their mitigations, pp. 198-209 Sutiarno, H. (2006): Analysis of sediment movement and its impact on degradation of Progo River, Thesis presented to Gadjah Mada University (in Indonesian) Sutikno, H.S., Djamal, H., Suprijatin, and Satriyatni (2003): Investigation of sand mining impact on water structure safety in volcanic deposition area, Research and Development Division of Water Resources, Ministry of Settlement and Regional Infrastucture (in Indonesian) Voight, B., Constantine, E.K., Siswowidjoyo, S., and Torley, R. (2000): Historical eruptions of Merapi volcano, Central Java, Indonesia, 1768-1998, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, vol. 100, pp. 69-138

52