Persepsi Resiko Bencana Alam Ditinjau dari Sentralitas Jaringan Informasi Kebencanaan

  • Sapta Widi Wusana Universitas Gadjah Mada
  • Rahmat Hidayat Universitas Gadjah Mada
DOI: https://doi.org/10.25077/jip.1.2.68-80.2017

Abstract

This research aims to understand the risk perception of Merapi disaster in hazardous community, based on social network centrality. Quantitative approach with psychology scale is used to reveal perceptions of volcanic risk of Merapi, collaborated with name generator to reveal index of social network centrality from 83 people. Result of this research proves that degree, betweeness, closeness, and eigenvector centrality all together are able to predict Merapi’s disaster risk perception, with 17% coefficient determination value (R2). Which means that the research hypothesis is convicted. Separately, betweenness, closeness and eigenvector centrality contribute negatively with perceptions of Merapi volcanic risk. Strong, influential and independent actors consider the potential danger of Merapi as predictable and avoidable. The availability of support, information and access further enhances confidence in the ability of the self to control the impact of Merapi exposure. Conversely, peripheral actors have concerns and more assumptions about the dangers of Merapi, which results from a lack of information, access, support that ultimately reduces his beliefs. 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aeker, D. A & Myer, J. G. (1987). Advertising Management. New Delhi: Prentice Hall.

Bakir, V. (2006). Policy Agenda Setting and Risk Communication. The International Journal of Press/Politics Summer, 11(3), 67-88.

Bateman, I.J., Georgiou, S., Day, R.J., & Langford, I.H. (2000). A cognitive social psychological model for predicting individual risk perceptions and preferences. CsergeWorking Paper 2000-9.
http://www.cserge.ac.uk/sites/default/files/gec_2000_09.pdf.

Borgatti, S.P. (2005). Centrality and Network Flow. Social Network, 27, 55-71.

Borgatti, S.P & Foster, P.C. (2003). The Network Paradigm in Organizational Research: A Review and Typology. Journal of Management, 29(6), 991–101.

Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G. & Freeman, L.C. (2002). Ucinet 6 for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Cambridge: Analytic Technologies.

Burt, R.S. (1987). Social contagion and innovation: Cohesion versus structural equivalence. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 1287–1335.

Carlino, S., Somma, R., & Mayberry, G.C. (2008). Volcanic risk perception of young people in the urban areas of Vesuvius: Comparisons with other volcanic areas and implications for emergency management. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 172: 229–243.

Field, J. (2005). Modal Sosial. Medan: Bina Media Perintis.

Freeman, L.C. (1979). Centrality in Social Network, Conceptual Clarification. Social Networks,1, 215-239.

Friedkin, N.E. (1991). Theoritical Foundation for Centrality Measures. AJS,96(6), 1478-1504.

Granovetter, M. (1983). The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201-233.

Gulliver, P & Begg, D. (2007). Personality factors as predictors of persistent risky driving behavior and crash involvement among young adults. Inj Prev, 13(6), 376–381.

Martin, F. (2003). Cultural Differences in Risk Perception: An Examination of USA and Ghanaian Perception of Risk Communication (Tesis Tidak Diterbitkan). Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia.

McCarty, C.,Eric, C. J., Albert, J.F, Arthur, D. M., Graham, A T., & Linda, M.W. (2013). Cross-Cultural and Site-Based

Influences on Demographic, Well-being, and Social Network Predictors of Risk Perception in Hazard and Disaster Settings in Ecuador and Mexico. Human Nature, 24, 5–32.

Mutter, B. A. (2009). Risk Perception, Social Networks, And Media Frames Associated With Human-Cormorant Interactions In The Great Lakes, (Tesistidak diterbitkan). Michigan State University.

Lange, D.D., Agneessens, F., & Waege, H. (2004). Asking Social Network Questions: A Quality Assessment of Different Measures. Metodološki zvezki, 1(2), 351-378.

Paton, D., Sagala, S., Okada, N. (2009). Predictors of Intention to Prepare for Volcanic Risks in Mt Merapi,
Indonesia. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 3 (2), 47 - 54

Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N., & Lorenzoni, I. (2006). Public Perceptions of Nuclear Power, Climate Change and Energy Options in Britain. Understanding Risk Working Paper06-02.

http://psych.cf.ac.uk/understandingrisk/docs/survey_2005.pdf.

Reed, M., Prell, C., & Hubacek, K. (2009). Stakeholder Analysis and Social Network Analysis in Natural Resource

Management. Societyand Natural Resources, 22, 501–518.

Rundmo, T ., Moen, B.E. & Sjöberg, L. (2004). Explaining risk perception. An evaluation of the psychometric paradigm in risk perception research. Norwegian University of Science and Technology: Department of Psychology.

Sjöberg, L. (1999). Risk Perception in Western Europe. Ambio, 28(6), 543-549.

Sjöberg, L. (2003). Risk perception is not what it seems: The psychometric paradigm revisited. Valdor,Values in Decisions on Risk, 35 (4), 14-29.

Sjoberg, L. (2007). Emotions and Risk Perception. Risk Management, 9(4), 223-237.

Slovic, P. (1992). Perception of risk: reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In S. Krimsky and D. Golding (Eds.). Social theories of risk. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Slovic, P., McDaniels, T., & Axelrod, L.J. (1999). Perceptions of ecological risk from natural hazards. Journal of Risk Research, 2(1), 31–53.

Stead, M.S., Polunin, N.V.V., & Turner, R. (2014). Social networks and fishers’ behavior: exploring the links between information flow and fishing success in the Northumberland lobster fishery. Ecology and Society, 19(2), 38-49.

Valente, T.W. &Costenbader, E. (2003). The stability of centrality measures when networks are sampled. Social Networks, 25, 283–307.

Walgito, B. (2004). Pengantar Psikologi Umum. Yogyakarta: Penerbit Fakultas Psikologi UGM.

Wasserman, S.S. & Faust, K. (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wogalter, M.S., DeJoy, D.M., & Laughery, K.R., (1999). Warnings and Risk Communication. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis.
Published
2018-02-20
How to Cite
WUSANA, Sapta Widi; HIDAYAT, Rahmat. Persepsi Resiko Bencana Alam Ditinjau dari Sentralitas Jaringan Informasi Kebencanaan. Jurnal Ilmu Perilaku, [S.l.], v. 1, n. 2, p. 68-80, feb. 2018. ISSN 2581-0421. Available at: <http://jip.fk.unand.ac.id/index.php/jip/article/view/34>. Date accessed: 26 apr. 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.25077/jip.1.2.68-80.2017.
Citation Formats
Issue
Vol 1 No 2 (2017): Jurnal Ilmu Perilaku
Section
Articles

The non-commercial use of the article is governed by the Creative Commons Attribution license as currently displayed on Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

JIP's spirit is to disseminate articles published are as free as possible. Under the Creative Commons license, JIP permits users to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work for non-commercial purposes only. Users will also need to attribute authors and JIP on distributing works in the journal.

Please find the rights and licenses in Jurnal Ilmu Perilaku (JIP).

  1. License

The non-commercial use of the article will be governed by the Creative Commons Attribution license as currently displayed on Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. 

  1. Author’s Warranties

The author warrants that the article is original, written by stated author(s), has not been published before, contains no unlawful statements, does not infringe the rights of others, is subject to copyright that is vested exclusively in the author and free of any third party rights, and that any necessary written permissions to quote from other sources have been obtained by the author(s).

  1. User Rights

JIP's spirit is to disseminate articles published are as free as possible. Under the Creative Commons license, JIP permits users to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work for non-commercial purposes only. Users will also need to attribute authors and JIP on distributing works in the journal.

  1. Rights of Authors

Authors retain the following rights:

  • Copyright, and other proprietary rights relating to the article, such as patent rights,
  • The right to use the substance of the article in future own works, including lectures and books,
  • The right to reproduce the article for own purposes, provided the copies are not offered for sale,
  • The right to self-archive the article.
  1. Co-Authorship

If the article was jointly prepared by other authors, the signatory of this form warrants that he/she has been authorized by all co-authors to sign this agreement on their behalf, and agrees to inform his/her co-authors of the terms of this agreement.

  1. Termination

This agreement can be terminated by the author or JIP upon two months’ notice where the other party has materially breached this agreement and failed to remedy such breach within a month of being given the terminating party’s notice requesting such breach to be remedied. No breach or violation of this agreement will cause this agreement or any license granted in it to terminate automatically or affect the definition of JIP. 

  1. Royalties

This agreement entitles the author to no royalties or other fees. To such extent as legally permissible, the author waives his or her right to collect royalties relative to the article in respect of any use of the article by JIP or its sublicensee.

  1. Miscellaneous

JIP will publish the article (or have it published) in the journal if the article’s editorial process is successfully completed and JIP or its sublicensee has become obligated to have the article published. JIP may conform the article to a style of punctuation, spelling, capitalization, referencing and usage that it deems appropriate. The author acknowledges that the article may be published so that it will be publicly accessible and such access will be free of charge for the readers.