Persepsi Resiko Bencana Alam Ditinjau dari Sentralitas Jaringan Informasi Kebencanaan

  • Sapta Widi Wusana Universitas Gadjah Mada
  • Rahmat Hidayat Universitas Gadjah Mada


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. 


Download data is not yet available.


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.

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.

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.
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: <>. Date accessed: 20 aug. 2018. doi: