Index

ABSTRACT

Bantul Regency is the area that has a high disaster potential. This regency ranked 22, which was potentially catastrophic districts In Indonesia. Therefore, Disaster Risk Reduction efforts in this area need to be conducted systematically and sustainably by involving all stakeholders. This research aimed to develop the integration model of Disaster Risk Reduction by using a Living Values Education approach in thematic learning in primary school. The developed model has been tested in two elementary schools in Bantul Regency by using the pre-experimental design of one group Pretest-Postest. The population in this study was school principals and teachers from the Aisyiyah top primary schools of Bantul, and Muhammadiyah primary school of Bantul City. Sampling used the purposive sampling approach with the sample selection process that was gained by 20 teachers and two school principals as research samples. The data collection technique was through a questionnaire sheet using Likert’s Scale guidelines scales from 1 to 5. Data analysis techniques used non-parametric tests with the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test technique because the data used was not a normal distribution. The results of the test showed the value of Sig. 0.000 < 0.05, furthermore, it can be concluded that the integration model of Disaster Risk Reduction by the Living Values Education approach was effective in developing the knowledge, attitudes, and skills of the principal and teachers. These research findings could be considered for policy stakeholders to plan and develop teacher competencies in integrating Disaster Risk Reduction programs in primary school learning.

Keywords: Integration, Disaster, Risk reduction, Living values education, Thematic learning, Primary school.

DOI: 10.20448/804.5.2.141.151

Citation | Dholina Inang Pambudi; Suyatno; Laila Fatmawati (2020). The Effectiveness of Integration Model of Disaster Risk Reduction with the Living Values Education Approach in Thematic Learning in Primary School. American Journal of Education and Learning, 5(2): 141-151.

Copyright: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

Funding : This study received no specific financial support.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

History : Received: 5 August 2020 / Revised: 9 September 2020 / Accepted: 24 September 2020 / Published: 7 October 2020.

Publisher: Online Science Publishing

1. INTRODUCTION

Since the earthquake and Tsunami of Aceh happened in 2006, almost all parts of Indonesia become a disaster subscription, such as earthquakes with a tsunami, flash floods, landslides, eruptions, and forest fires. The increasing world population is likely to increase the frequency of major disasters (Tillman, 2004). The condition is worsened by the lack of public awareness about Disaster Risk Reduction so that there are always many victims, both wealth and soul (Mechler et al., 2014). In addition, the fall of victims, both treasure and life are caused by many things, such as Institutional failures (Ahrens & Rudolph, 2006) the absence of a functioning partnership among stakeholders (Khan & Rahman, 2007) disaster laws have not significantly shifted from danger to vulnerability and durability focus (Manyena, Mavhura, Muzenda, & Mabaso, 2013) and failure to assign the person to handle disasters efficiently and effectively (Rolland, Patterson, Ward, & Dodin, 2010). Although many natural disasters are out of human’s control and power, the human being has a role in conducting Disaster Risk Reduction (Jennings-Sanders, 2004). Therefore, Disaster Risk Reduction management is a challenging domain because of the varied dynamic characteristics inherent in that domain (Tingsanchali, 2012).
Disaster Risk Reduction exists during this time, mainly responding in a reactive to existing disaster situations (emergency response and recovery). Reactive responses should be transformed into proactive responses to improve the effectiveness of management and reduce the victim’s fall. Proactive disaster management requires more participation from various institutions like government, non-government and private institutions, and public participation (Comfort, 2005). Unfortunately, so far, the programs that have been developed are not much integrated into the school programs. Therefore, the program is needed to build a network that has a continuous commitment (Tsai & Chen, 2010). Predecessors have also held some programs. O'sullivan, Kuziemsky, Toal-Sullivan, and Corneil (2013) for instance, strives to provide practical mechanisms for assessment and disaster risk management with a focus on insurance and prevention. It is related to the importance of hardware and software(Tseng & Chen, 2012). The participation of the local community is also crucial to the success the disaster mitigation (Kunz, Reiner, & Gold, 2014). Educational institutions are the most enabling rides as a place to develop a systematic and sustainable, structured Disaster Risk Reduction program. The school data in Indonesia shows that 75% of school location is in disaster-prone areas (https://bnpb.go.id/bnpb-kenalkan-integrasi-data-sekolah-dan kebencanaan- melalui-inarisk-di-ASEAN).

Bantul regency is an area that has high disaster potential. This regency ranked 22, which was potentially catastrophic districts In Indonesia. Out of 15 disaster threats scattered throughout Indonesia, there are nine threats in Bantul (https://bpbd.bantulkab.go.id/peta-bencana/peta-gis/). The number shows that Bantul is one of the disaster-prone districts in Indonesia. With a huge threat level, Bantul Regency needs to conduct disaster mitigation continuously. Disaster Risk Reduction needs to be done to give the awareness of disaster preparedness in every citizen at an early age. The integration of Disaster Risk Reduction is precisely applied to primary school level students. Bantul District has hundreds of primary schools that need to conduct training and assistance of disaster risk reduction. Below is Table 1of both state and private primary school data in the Bantul Regency.

According to the interview of Regional Disaster Management Agency (BPBD) of Bantul (August 27, 2019), from the number of the entire schools in Bantul regency, there were only seven primary schools that become Disaster Alert School (SekolahSiagaBencana/ SSB) which are state primary school of Kretek, top primary school of Aisyiyah, state primary school of Trirenggo, integrated Islamic primary school of Ar-Rayhan, Muhammadiyah primary school of Bodon, Muhammadiyah primary school of Blawong, Muhammadiyah primary school of Bantul City. Furthermore, the schools that have received training and socialization from the BPBD of Bantul were Muhammadiyah primary school of Bodon, InsanKreatif Muhammadiyah primary school of Kembaran, Muhamamdiyah primary school of Poncosari, Muhamamdiyah primary school of Blawong, Muhammadiyah primary school of Dahromo, Muhamamdiyah primary school of Bantul City, top primary school of Aisyiyah. During this time, BPBD of Bantul Regency has conducted training and assistance of Disaster Alert School (SekolahSiagaBencana/ SSB) since 2017, however, in its implementation, it still faces various constraints that is the lack of budget from local government, in where the budget only funded two schools in a year. For all of the primary schools to have been touched by the training and assistance of Disaster Alert School (SSB), it is needed to cooperate with other institutions related to funding and resources.

Aisyiyah primary top schools of Bantul (SDU Aisyiyah Bantul) and Muhammadiyah primary school of Bantul City (SD Mubata) are two schools located in Bantul Regency, which become a pioneering school of  Disaster Alert School (SSB). Both schools were chosen as a partner due to top and favorite school in Bantul Regency, also become a pioneer and “school model” of Disaster Alert School (SekolahSiagaBencana/ SSB) for other primary schools. In addition, both schools also got mentoring from Muhammadiyah Disaster Management Center (MDMC) of Muhammadiyah Central Board, but still meet some problems. The most fundamental obstacle is the implementation of the third Pillar of Satuan Pendidikan Aman Bencana (Disaster Safe Education Unit/ SPAB). The third Pillar is related to preventive education and Disaster Risk Reduction, especially in integrating thematic learning of curriculum 2013 in primary education level.

According to interview results with SD Mubata on August 27, 2019, based on the results of an interview with the head of Muhammadiyah primary school of Bantul City on August 27, 2019, it was obtained that the teachers who have received SPAB training are still struggling to integrate the values of Disaster Risk Reduction into the curriculum 2013. The teachers are also less skilled in developing learning administration and learning media that support Disaster Risk Reduction. In addition, it has not yet found the appropriate approach to integrate Disaster Risk Reduction in elementary school students who are still at a concrete operational thinking stage.

A training program of Disaster Risk Reduction developed in training uses the Living Values Education approach. Living Values Education approach is appropriate to use because it will be formed a network and participation of the entire school residents in conducting Disaster Risk Reduction. In addition, the Living Values Education approach will grow the awareness of the teachers about the importance of the integration program of Disaster Risk Reduction (Suyatno, Jumintono, Pambudi, & Mardati, 2017). Therefore, it can change the teacher’s mindset on the importance of responsive learning toward Disaster Risk Reduction (Pambudi & Ashari, 2019). However, in reality, the teachers are still lack of understanding of the Living Values Education approach.

1.1. Research Hypothesis

1. There is a difference between pretest and posttest results in knowledge aspects, which means that there is the effectiveness of the integration model of Disaster Risk Reduction with the Living Values Education approach in the knowledge aspects.
2. There is a difference between pretest and posttest results in attitude aspects, which means that there is the effectiveness of the integration model of Disaster Risk Reduction with the Living Values Education approach in the attitude aspects.
3. There is a difference between pretest and posttest results in skill aspects, which means that there is the effectiveness of the integration model of Disaster Risk Reduction with the Living Values Education approach in the skill aspects.
4. There is a difference between pretest and posttest results in all of the aspects, which means that there is the effectiveness of the integration model of Disaster Risk Reduction with the Living Values Education approach in learning.

2. RESEARCH METHOD

2.1. Research Type

This research method is Quantitative with a pre-experimental type using one group, pretest-postest design. Data collection techniques using questionnaires consist of pretests and posttests with three aspects consisting of knowledge, attitudes, and skills in each of the pretest and posttest questionnaires. The questionnaire uses Likert’s scale guidelines with a scale of 1 to 5. Data analysis techniques use a parametric test with a t-test paired sample technique or t-test pairs with normal distribution data requirements. However, if the distribution data is not normal, there will be a non-parametric test. A non-parametric test in this study used the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test to measure the significance of the differences between the two groups’ in normal distribution data.

The developed model was the integration of Disaster Risk Reduction with Living Value Education. The syntax of the learning model can be seen in Table 2.

2.2. Research Sample

The sampling was a purposive sampling approach using the selection process sample. Sample in this research were 20 teachers and two school principals of Aisyiyah primary top school of Bantul and Muhammadiyah primary school of Bantul City. The research sample consisted of 10 men and 12 females with learning experience 1-15 years.

2.3. Data Collection Procedure and Measure

The consideration in data collection procedures is to collect objective and primary quantitative data, then used a structured questionnaire. The questionnaire used consists of pretests and posttests by referring three aspects consisting of knowledge, attitude, and skill aspects in each of the pretests and posttest questionnaires. The questionnaire uses Likert scale guidelines with a scale of 1 to 5.

2.4. Data Analisys Technique

The research method was Quantitative with a pre-experimental type using one group pretest-postest design. This study did not use comparative classes but already used preliminary tests. In this research, the research subjects first gave a pretest to know how far the teacher readiness in integrating Disaster Risk Reduction in learning that further gave posttest after implementing the integration model of Disaster Risk Reduction with Living Values Education approach in learning. The collected data further analyzed using a t-test paired sample or t-test paired sample of the parametric test. The technique of testing was done by SPSS 24.0. The effect of the integration model of Disaster Risk Reduction using Living Values Education in learning would be tested by different tests of two averages by Sig. . If the result of Sig. , then  rejected and  accepted. If the result of Sig. , then  accepted and  rejected. If the model in the research had normal distribution data, then the test would be conducted using a non-parametric test. If the data was not normal, then the test used a non-parametric test. Non-parametric test in this research used the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test to measure the significance of the difference between the two groups paired data, but it was not a normal distribution. Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test is the alternative of the t-test paired sample.

3. FINDINGS

3.1. The results of the Descriptive Statistical Test

The results of this study obtained the data of pretest and posttest, with each result consisted of knowledge, attitude, and skill aspects. The results of the pretest and posttest served by descriptive statistics in Table 3.

Table 3shows the results of range, minimum, maximum, total, and averages in every aspect from pretest and posttest results. The results of knowledge, attitude, and skill aspects show that the posttest produces higher results than pretest in the number of results.

3.2. The Results of Normality Test

Through a descriptive statistics test, it continued to test the normal data distribution. The results of the normality test shown in Table 4.

Note: *.This is a lower bound of the true significance.
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction.

Table 4is the normality test result of the pretest and posttest included the technique of Kolmogorov-Smirnov dan Shapiro-Wilk test. Based on the sample results used in less than 30 samples or only 22 samples, the test technique used is Shapiro-Wilk. The result of Sig. Shapiro-Wilk is only two results that fulfill the normality with the results is  i.e., pretests in aspects of knowledge and posttest in aspects of the skills. Therefore, out of 6 aspects tested the normality, based on pretest and posttest, only two aspects did it fulfill normal distribution. A parametric test can not continue the results of the normal distribution with a t-test paired sample due to unfulfilled normal data distribution conditions. Moreover, the data of this finding results tested using non-parametric tests with the technique of the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test.

3.3. Hypothesis Test 1 (Knowledge Aspect)

Hypothesis filed in the knowledge aspects is that there were differences between the pretest result and posttest result. It means that there is the effectiveness of the integration model of Disaster Risk Reduction using the Living Values Education approach in the knowledge aspects. The results of non-parametric tests with the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test technique with a significance rating of 0.05 for knowledge aspects shown in Table 5.

Note: a. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
b. Based on negative ranks.

Table 5shows the result of the statistic test. It is known that asymp.Sig. (2-tailed) has an outcome of 0.000. Those results are smaller than , it can be concluded that the hypothesis is accepted. It means that there are differences in pretests and posttest results so that it can be concluded that there is the effectiveness of the integration model of Disaster Risk Reduction with the Living Values Education approach in knowledge aspects. To know the results of the pretest-posttest aspects of more complex knowledge are presented in Table 6.

Note: a. Posttest of knowledge aspect < Pretest of knowledge aspect.
b. Posttest of knowledge aspect > Pretest of knowledge aspect.
c. Posttest of knowledge aspect = Pretest of knowledge aspect.

Table 6shows the output Ranks of knowledge aspects. The results of negative ranks obtained 0 at N result, Mean Rank, and Sum of Rank, it means that 0 indicates no decrease (reduction) from pretest result to Posttest result. Meanwhile, from the positive ranks in the pretests and posttests in knowledge aspects, there are 22 positive data (N), which means that there is an increase from pretests results to Posttest results of 22 respondents. The average increase was 11.50, while the number of positive rankings was 253.00. The Ties result is a similarity of pretests and posttest results, the results of Ties test Table 5of 0 so that it is indicated that there is no similar result between Pretests and Posttest.

3.4. Hypothesis Test 2 (Attitude Aspects)

Hypothesis filed in the attitude aspects is that there were differences between the pretest result and posttest result. It means that there is the effectiveness of the integration model of Disaster Risk Reduction using the Living Values Education approach in the attitude aspects. The results of the non-parametric test with the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test technique with a significance rating of 0.05 for knowledge aspects shown in Table 7.

Note: a. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test.
b. Based on negative ranks.

Table 7shows the result of the statistic test. It is known that asymp.Sig. (2-tailed) has an outcome of 0.000. Those results are smaller than<0.05, it can be concluded that the hypothesis is accepted.

Table-8. Output ranks of attitude aspects.

Note: a. Posttest of Affection Aspect < Pretest of Affection Aspect.
b. Posttest of Affection Aspect > Pretest of Affection Aspect.
c. Posttest of Affection Aspect = Pretest of Affection Aspect.

It means that there are differences in pretests and posttest results so that it can be concluded that there is the effectiveness of the integration model of Disaster Risk Reduction with the Living Values Education approach in attitude aspects. To know the results of the pretest-posttest in attitude aspects are presented in Table 8.

Table 8shows the output Ranks of attitude aspects more complex. The results of negative ranks obtained 0 at N result, Mean Rank, and Sum of Rank. It means that 0 indicates no decrease (reduction) from pretest result to Posttest result in attitude aspects. Meanwhile, from the positive ranks in the pretests and posttests in knowledge aspects, there are 21 positive data (N), which means that there is an increase from pretests results to Posttest results of 21 respondents. The average increase was 11.00, while the number of positive rankings was 231.00. The Ties result is a similarity of pretests and posttest results, the results of Ties test Table 8 of 1 so that it is indicated that there is an equal result between Pretests and Posttest of a respondent.

3.5. Hypothesis Test 3 (Skill Aspects)

Hypothesis filed in the skill aspects is that there were differences between the pretest result and posttest result. It means that there is the effectiveness of the integration model of Disaster Risk Reduction using the Living Values Education approach in the attitude aspects. The results of the non-parametric test with the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test technique with a significance rating of 0.05 for knowledge aspects shown in Table 9.

Note: a. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
b. Based on negative ranks.

Table 9shows the result of the statistic test. It is known that asymp.Sig. (2-tailed) has an outcome of 0.000. Those results are smaller than , it can be concluded that the hypothesis is accepted. It means that there are differences in pretests and posttest results so that it can be concluded that there is the effectiveness of the integration model of Disaster Risk Reduction with the Living Values Education approach in attitude aspects. To know the results of the pretest-posttest in skill aspects is presented in Table 10.

Table-10. Output ranks of skill aspects.

Note: a. Posttest of skill aspect < Pretest of skill aspect.
b. Posttest of skill aspect > Pretest of skill aspect.
c. Posttest of skill aspect = Pretest of skill aspect.

The result of Table 10shows the output Ranks of skill aspects more complex. The results of negative ranks obtained 0 at N result, Mean Rank, and Sum of Rank. It means that 0 indicates no decrease (reduction) from pretest result to Posttest result in attitude aspects. Meanwhile, from the positive ranks in the pretests and posttests in skill aspects, there are 21 positive data (N), which means that there is an increase from pretests results to Posttest results of 21 respondents. The average increase was 11.00, while the number of positive rankings was 231.00. The Ties result is a similarity of pretests and posttest results, the results of Ties test Table 10of 1 so that it is indicated that there is an equal result between Pretests and Posttest of a respondent.

3.6. Hypothesis Test 4 (Overal Pretest and Postest Results)

Hypothesis filed in the attitude aspects is that there were differences between the pretest result and posttest result. It means that there is the effectiveness of the integration model of Disaster Risk Reduction using the Living Values Education approach in the attitude aspects. The results of the non-parametric test with the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test technique with a significance rating of 0.05 for knowledge aspects shown in Table 11.

Note: a. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test.
b. Based on negative ranks.

Table 11shows the result of the statistic test that is known of asymp.Sig. (2-tailed) that has an outcome of 0.000. Those results are smaller than , it can be concluded that the hypothesis is accepted. It means that there are differences in pretests and posttest results so that it can be concluded that there is the effectiveness of the integration model of Disaster Risk Reduction with the Living Values Education approach in learning. To know the results of the overall pretest-posttest is presented in Table 12.

Table-12. Output ranks of overal pretest-postest.

Note: a. Results of Totally Posttest < Results of Totally Pretest.
b. Results of Totally Posttest > Results of Totally Pretest.
c. Results of Totally Posttest = Results of Totally Pretest.

The result of Table 12shows the output Ranks of knowledge aspects. The results of negative ranks obtained 0 at N result, Mean Rank, and Sum of Rank, it means that 0 indicates no decrease (reduction) from pretest result to Posttest result in overall. Meanwhile, from the positive ranks in the pretests and posttests in skill aspects, there are 22 positive data (N), which means that there is an increase from pretests results to Posttest results of 22 respondents. The average increase was 11.50, while the number of positive rankings was 253.00. The Ties result is a similarity of pretests and posttest results, the results of Ties test Table 12of 0 so that it is indicated that there is no similar result between overall Pretests and Posttest.

4. DISCUSSION

Data analysis results show that the applied training model is effective in improving teachers’ readiness in integrating Disaster Risk Reduction in the learning of knowledge, attitudes, and skills aspects. It is showed from statistic test’s result in the aspects of knowledge, attitude, and skill in which asymp.Sig. (2-tailed) has an outcome of 0.000. The result is  so that it concludes that all of the hypotheses are accepted. By this model, the teacher’s knowledge, attitude, and skill are increasingly effective. The integration model of Disaster Risk Reduction with the Living Values Education approach in thematic learning is a model that is developed in the effort of increasing teacher competence to conduct the learning of disaster consciousness.

Living Values Education develops this model. Living Values Education is an approach used to live the values of human beings that are first initiated by the teachers under the auspices of UNESCO. Living Values Education approach aimed to avoid overly verbal approaches. By Living Values Education approach, the learning begins with creating a value-based environment so that every child in the schools feel loved, understood, considered valuable, valued, and felt safe both physically and psychologically (Arifin, 2016; Suyatno., Mardati, & Wantini, 2019; Trim, 2004) . These results also strengthen the results of previous findings that Living Values Education in learning is successful in supporting the habitual program in the schools (Komalasari & Saripudin, 2017).

The main objective of this model development is to enhance the consciousness of the teachers in the aspects of knowledge, attitude, and skill to implement disaster-conscious learning. By increasing teacher’s competence in implementing disaster-conscious learning, the students in the schools have a sense of disaster. The chance of self-rescue potential and helping others when the disaster happened, moreover, is getting bigger. The model of Living Values Education on Disaster Risk Reduction is crucial to offer solutions in various gaps, even though there are no functional partnerships among stakeholders (Khan & Rahman, 2007). Also, the failure to assign the individual to handle the disaster effectively and efficiently (Rolland et al., 2010)also Disaster Risk Reduction is that merely responds reactively toward the situation in existing disaster (emergency response and recovery). By involving the schools, particularly in increasing the knowledge, attitude, and teacher’s competencies, the reactive responses change into the pro-active responses. Therefore, it can increase the effectiveness of the management and decrease the fall of victims. The pro-active disaster management needs more participation from various institutions, i.e., government, non-government and private institutions, and public participation as well(Comfort, 2005).

5. CONCLUSION

This finding aims to measure the effectiveness of the integration model of Disaster Risk Reduction with Living Values Education approach in increasing knowledge, attitudes, and teacher’s competencies in implementing disaster-conscious learning. Data analysis results showed that the developed model is effective in increasing the aspects of knowledge, attitude, and skill that asymp. Sig (2-tailed) is  (Significance). Thus, the Disaster Risk Reduction with Living Values Education is highly recommended to be implemented in the schools to increase the knowledge, attitude, and teacher’s competencies in implementing disaster-conscious learning. The results of this research insist that schools are likely to be a place to develop the Disaster Risk Reduction program which are structured, systematic, and sustainable.

6. ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The researchers thank the Directorate of Research and Community Service of Ministry of Education and Culture of the Republic of Indonesia, who has funded this program in the form of Community Partnership Program Grants (PKM). Also, Thank Universitas Ahmad Dahlan, SDU Aisyiyah Bantul, and SD Mubata that have supported this research.

REFERENCES

Ahrens, J., & Rudolph, P. M. (2006). The importance of governance in risk reduction and disaster management. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 14(4), 207-220.

Arifin, S. (2016). Islamic religious education and radicalism in Indonesia: Strategy of de-radicalization through strengthening the living values education. Indonesian Journal, 6(1), 93-126.

Comfort, L. K. (2005). Risk, security, and disaster management. Annual Review of Political Science, 8(February), 335–356.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.081404.075608.

Jennings-Sanders, A. (2004). Teaching disaster nursing by utilizing the Jennings disaster nursing management model. Nurse Education in Practice, 4(1), 69-76.

Khan, M. R., & Rahman, M. A. (2007). Partnership approach to disaster management in Bangladesh: A critical policy assessment. Natural Hazards, 41(2), 359-378.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-006-9040-y.

Komalasari, K., & Saripudin, D. (2017). A model of living values education-based civic education textbooks in Indonesia. The New Educational Review, 47(1), 139-150.

Kunz, N., Reiner, G., & Gold, S. (2014). Investing in disaster management capabilities versus pre-positioning inventory: A new approach to disaster preparedness. International Journal of Production Economics, 157(1), 261-272.

Manyena, S. B., Mavhura, E., Muzenda, C., & Mabaso, E. (2013). Disaster risk reduction legislations: Is there a move from events to processes? Global Environmental Change, 23(6), 1786-1794.

Mechler, R., Bouwer, L. M., Linnerooth-Bayer, J., Hochrainer-Stigler, S., Aerts, J. C. J. H., Surminski, S., & Williges, K. (2014). Managing unnatural disaster risk from climate extremes. Nature Climate Change, 4(4), 235–237.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2137.

O'sullivan, T. L., Kuziemsky, C. E., Toal-Sullivan, D., & Corneil, W. (2013). Unraveling the complexities of disaster management: A framework for critical social infrastructure to promote population health and resilience. Social Science & Medicine, 93(1), 238-246.

Pambudi, D. I., & Ashari, A. (2019). Enhancing role of elementary school in developing sustainable disaster preparedness: A review with some examples from disaster-prone areas of Merapi. Paper presented at the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science.

Rolland, E., Patterson, R. A., Ward, K., & Dodin, B. (2010). Decision support for disaster management. Operations Management Research, 3(1), 68–79.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-010-0028-0.

Suyatno, M., Jumintono, M., Pambudi, D. I., & Mardati, A. (2017). esign of values education in school for adolescents. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Innovative Research Across Disciplines (ICIRAD 2017). Atlantis Press.

Suyatno., P. D. I., Mardati, A., & Wantini, N., E. Y. (2019). The education values of Indonesian teachers: Origin, importance, and its impact on their teaching. International Journal of Instruction, 12(3), 633-650.

Tillman, D. (2004). Living values: Activities for children ages 8 – 14. Jakarta: PT Gramedia Widiasarana Indonesia.

Tingsanchali, T. (2012). Urban flood disaster management. Procedia Engineering, 32, 25–37.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2012.01.1233.

Trim, P. R. J. (2004). An integrative approach to disaster management and planning. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 13(3), 218–225.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/09653560410541812.

Tsai, C. H., & Chen, C. W. (2010). An earthquake disaster management mechanism based on risk assessment information for the tourism industry-a case study from the island of Taiwan. Tourism Management, 31(4), 470–481.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.05.008.

Tseng, C. P., & Chen, C. W. (2012). Natural disaster management mechanisms for probabilistic earthquake loss. Natural Hazards, 60(3), 1055–1063.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-9889-2.