Rapid Assessment for Emergency Infrastructures in Responding Flood related to Mining Activity: Case Study of Banjarasri and Kedungbanteng Flood, Sidoarjo, Indonesia

. Flooding has become the most frequent and impactful disaster events in the Indonesian cities. The Indonesian disaster board also noted that flood events has increasing pattern for today and future time. One of the strategic ways to decrease the impact of flooding is delivering the emergency infrastructures to the needs immediately. The faster delivery makes less impact of disaster events. Therefore, this paper synthesizes a rapid model of assessment from the full assessment of emergency infrastructure need in Sidoarjo Flooding 2020. During the synthesize, the model can reduce duration of assessment from 148 days to four days only. Within the time, eight main steps include finding relevant emergency infrastructures, determining emergency infrastructures needed, assessing emergency infrastructures needed and confirming the actual emergency infrastructure needed. Those eight steps should be taken by encouraging more FGD and in-depth interviews for key relevant stakeholders, guided by specific checklist and filling the gap forms. Strict forms and guidelines provided to help the process in achieving four days assessment period. Consequently, the authorities can use the output assessment for emergency infrastructure program delivery starting from the fifth days after the events.


Background
Flooding is part of the global disaster event including in Indonesia.Floods have affected 1.8 billion of people in recent decades [1,2].Such large-scale flood events, [3] explained that the effects cover extensive regions, encompassing several thousand square kilometres and numerous watersheds, resulting in significant direct impacts at both the national and regional levels.Furthermore, flood is the most frequent type of disaster, 43% of all recorded hydrological, meteorological, climatological, and geophysical events with reported flood losses amounting to 661 billion USD [4].Disaster Database of Indonesia (DIBI) [5] also noted that the 598 number of flood events with 9.462 victims were evacuated, and a total of 83.613 people were affected by the flood disaster during 2022.Moreover, a changing global climate exacerbates the flooding and its impacts [6]- [8].To some cases, the flooding is simple due to poor drainage system such as in Sarawak, Malaysia [9] and Ogun, Nigeria [10] or unpredicted volume of rainfall such as in Attica, Greece [11] and Mar Menor, Spain [12].Especially for the case of Banjarasri and Kedungbanteng in Sidoarjo-Indonesia, the flood is caused by the land subsidence due to mining activities [13].Areas exhibiting concerning levels of ground deformation, indicating they are "at-risk," are located around the Lapindo region and extend towards the northern part of Sidoarjo.[14].
Sidoarjo Municipality located in southern part of Surabaya, the capital city of East Java Province.The development of Sidarjo accommodate the spill over of Surabaya development causing a high pressure of land use change to build up areas for about 37,977% in 2020 where in the period 2009 -2020 the conversion of green land into growth occurred of 6,032,694 Ha [15].Other core economic activity is oil and gas mining that has contribute 156.799.810.000Rupiahs or 0,11 % of the total Sidoarjo's gross domestic product (GDP) [16].In 2006, an industrial accident from Lapindo Mining ltd.occurred, causing a mud volcano that, to this day, has submerged 19 villages spread across 3 districts, with the estimated affected area reaching 1.143,3 hectares [17].A further impact on Lapindo Mud Vulcano is a vulnerable land subsidence in Surrounding areas including in Banjarasri dan Kedungbanteng [18].Banjarasri and Kedungbanteng is located around 2-4 km from the Lapindo Mud Volcano to the northeast.The land subsidence in those two villages occurs 2017-2021 for about 200 mm/year.The land subsidence has caused a changing on water flow in drainage and irrigation systems causing flooding [13].The flooding in the two villages has 30-50 cm depth with two months duration.The flooding occurs only after the land subsidence starting at 2019 [19].
Regional Board for Disaster Management (BPBD) Sidoarjo [20] has also calculated the losses of flooding for about IDR 99.4 billion covering the damage to various facilities, both infrastructures built by the government and those owned by residents, economic losses, and other sectors.Damage and losses borne individually in the economic and residential sectors amounted to IDR 65 billion (65 percent), where each family bore a loss of IDR 130 million.The long duration and high intensity of flooding has also caused a disruption the villagers' daily activity.To cope with the daily activities, the villagers need emergency infrastructures.A rapid assessment of the emergency infrastructures is needed to make sure that their livelihood can be still fulfilled during the flood situation.At this stage, there is no standard assessment on emergency infrastructures causing a lack of providing emergency infrastructures to the victims.The government has a Pengkajian Kebutuhan Pasca Bencana (JITUPASNA) standard that calculates the impact of flood for the recovery process.Therefore, this paper aims to formulate a rapid assessment model as part of emergency responses after the disaster event.

Method
In formulating the rapid assessment, five key steps reflect the full assessment to be the main steps.Figure 1 shows how the methods in this study work, which initially, the literature review identifies potential infrastructures needed during emergencies.An in-depth interviews justify the relevancy of all potential infrastructures for the case study.Content analysis (CA) then assesses the operational status of these infrastructures during flood conditions.
Observations and in-depth interviews provide empirical data on the current state and effectiveness of these infrastructures.Finally, focus group discussions (FGD) integrate all these insights, facilitating a collaborative platform to confirm and refine the findings.This integrative approach ensures that the conclusions are not only based on theoretical knowledge but also grounded in practical realities and stakeholder perspectives, leading to well-informed recommendations for emergency infrastructure provision and management.

Literature review
Literature review method involves an extensive examination of existing literature, encompassing key academic papers, government policies, standards, and documented best practices relevant to these concepts [21].The purpose of this meticulous review is to gather, analyze, and synthesize information on potential infrastructures for flood emergencies.The literature are from two main concepts that are residential housing and flood risk management.

In-depth interview
In-depth interview involves conducting detailed, focused conversations with a select group of respondents, identified through purposive sampling combined with stakeholder analysis, to accommodate the constraints of limited time and access [22].These questions aim to investigate respondents' perceptions and experiences, providing deep insights on the relevant emergency infrastructures [23].In this study, the in-depth interview applies to limited respondents based on purposive sampling methods.The output of interview provides perceptions and preferences of stakeholders on the conditions and problems identified about the flood emergency infrastructures.

Content Analysis (CA)
The method of CA is used to uncover the insight from the in-depth interview.It directs to differentiate between disrupted and well-operating infrastructures during emergency situations, particularly flooding.This analytical approach involves a thorough examination of various infrastructure elements to assess their operational status under emergency conditions [24].In this study, by scrutinizing the data and information related to the status of condition for every related infrastructure.

Observation
This method involves a detailed comparison of the current infrastructure conditions against established minimum standards as outlined in relevant guidelines.By doing so, it helps in identifying the gaps.Moreover, the observations gathered are integrated with insights obtained from in-depth interviews, enhancing the understanding of both potential and existing problems [25].

Focus Group Discussion (FGD)
FGD method is utilized as a crucial step in determining key aspects of implementing the identified emergency infrastructure solutions.Specifically, FGDs are conducted to collaboratively decide on the implementation time component, identify the subjects responsible for the implementation, and determine the sources of funding [26].This method involves bringing together key stakeholders, including representatives from relevant government bodies, affected communities, and other pertinent entities, to engage in structured discussions [27].This collaborative approach ensures that the final plan for infrastructure implementation is well-informed, realistic, and enjoys a broad base of support from all involved parties.

Finding potential infrastructures needed
The literature review analysis was conducted from two main concepts that are settlements/residential housing infrastructures and flood risk emergency management infrastructures.Within those two concepts, we highlight some key literatures, government policies and standards, and best practices.Table 1 shows the potential emergency disaster infrastructure during the flood events.Those infrastructures are potentially to be a long list of emergency infrastructure for general cases.A further assessment need for a more contextual study to justify the relevant emergency infrastructures for a specific case study.

Determining relevant emergency infrastructures for case study
The purposive sampling is conducted to the Head of Village of Kedungbanteng and Banjarasri), and the Head of affected neighbourhood unit (RT) to reflect 1.606 civilians.In terms of the questionnaires, we highlight the condition each infrastructure through an indepth interview.Later, the result of the in-depth interview analysed using the content analysis to evaluate the condition of every relevant emergency infrastructure.

In-depth interview
In this case, 10 respondents were purposefully selected to represent two distinct categories: government-level representatives and affected civilians.The list of respondents based on category and their availability in this study is shown in Table 2.The purposive sampling is conducted to the lowest government-level of representatives (the Head of Village of Kedungbanteng and Banjarasri) and to the affected civilians represented by the head of RT.The inclusion of the Head of Kedungbanteng Village, Secretary of Banjarasri Village, Village cooperation agency (BKD) of Kedungbanteng Village, and Village Consultative Body (BPD) of Banjarasri Village ensures a comprehensive understanding of governmental perspectives.Simultaneously, the inclusion of civilians from both Kedungbanteng and Banjarasri Villages provides valuable insights into the perspectives of those directly impacted by the flood at hand.

Content Analysis (CA)
In the study, infrastructures are categorized into two groups based on their operational status during flooding.Disrupted infrastructures include transportation, clean water and potable water, flood control infrastructures, sanitation, waste management, health infrastructures, public service infrastructures (such as community kitchens), emergency operation posts, and shelters.These are the infrastructures that face operational challenges during flood conditions, impacting their ability to serve the community effectively.
On the other hand, infrastructures that continue to operate well during flooding are fire protection, green open spaces, educational infrastructures, commercial facilities, electricity, and telecommunication.These infrastructures maintain their functionality despite flood conditions, thereby continuing to provide essential services.Figure 2 shows the infrastructures that are disrupted and operating well during flooding.

Assessing relevant emergency infrastructures
The relevant emergency infrastructures are assessed through two main steps: in-depth interviews and observation.

In-depth interview
The first process of identifying the condition of emergency infrastructure was carried out with in-depth interviews with interviewees were 10 stakeholders involved in the previous process.Questions in this process are developed from the keywords listed in Table 3.In general, all indicators have similarities related to the source of infrastructure provision, the condition and availability of infrastructure during flood emergencies, and the availability of alternative solutions.

Observation
The results of these observations are then juxtaposed with the identification of potential and problems obtained from the in-depth interview process to formulate the types of activity recommendations and the points of implementation of the recommendations accordingly.The implementation of these observations refers to the observation guidelines shown in Table 4.The table above presents a comprehensive analysis of real-world situations observed during flood emergencies.This analysis is derived from a combination of in-depth interviews and observations, and it categorizes these findings into their relevant impact groups.This tabulation is used as the basis for the preparation of recommendations for flood risk reduction actions.

Recommendation for formulation
The following are the results of an analysis that results in action recommendations based on criteria or guidelines based on existing conditions in the field.The solution given in the tabulation above is in the form of the number of emergency infrastructure provision needs to meet the needs of victims affected by floods in Kedungbanteng and Banjarasri Villages.These recommendations need to be confirmed to stakeholders to accommodate aspirations.

Confirming the actual infrastructures 4.1 Reporting the result of assessment
After formulating alternative solutions formed from a combination of potential and problems from the results of in-depth interviews with minimum standard needs from observations and calculations, it is necessary to report a list of alternative solutions simply.The report can be in the form of tabulations of alternative solutions containing information such as solution descriptions, quantification of the number/frequency of solution implementation, to indications of the location of solution implementation to provide a complete picture.

FGD to confirm the actual infrastructures
Alternative solution reports are then communicated to key stakeholders to verify and select alternative solutions that can be adopted through FGD activities.In this process, the results of identifying potentials, problems, and solutions processed by the team need to be corrected by stakeholders so that there is no misunderstanding of the problem so that the most appropriate solution can be formulated and selected.

Strategies to provide the actual infrastructures
The list of alternative solutions in section 4.2 should be planned related to the implementation time component, the subject in charge of implementation, to the source of funding by the team.The results of the formation of this plan can then be submitted to the competent authority in the implementation of the solution following its area of expertise.The long list of alternatives produced by the research team is then processed into one simple report as material reported to local governments.

Arranging rapid assessment model
In the existing process, it takes 7 days because the report is formulated in the form of a complete report document so that there needs to be a modification of the document form into a simple tabulation so that it can be completed within 1 day.

7
FGD to confirm the actual infrastructure 30 1 The list of alternatives that have been prepared needs to be followed up to agree on a list of relevant solution activities to respond to flood conditions through FGDs.The realization of the implementation of this stage has a duration of 30 days for the confirmation process and an additional 7 days to map the person responsible per solution activity.This process is prolonged because the implementation is offline which is difficult to find a date agreement.With the teleconference media, obstacles from distance and time can be overcome so that this stage can be held for 1 day only.The process of carrying out a full assessment takes a very long time, which is 148 days, even though during an emergency, a quick assessment is needed to be able to deal with problems quickly to ensure residents can live a comfortable life during a flood emergency.It is undeniable that this full assessment process has a long duration because the development of assessment tools is carried out first, such as: (1) literature study for the type of emergency infrastructure; (2) creation of interview guidelines; and (3) the creation of observation guidelines.To accommodate the need for rapid provision during flood emergencies, a rapid assessment model is proposed which is a simplification of the assessment process and tools from the results of the full assessment study so that the needs assessment can be completed in just 4 days.

Finding potential infrastructures needed
By adopting full assessment output on literature study, the rapid assessment can bypass the need for an extensive literature review, relying instead on the established results as a reference point.Thereby, the here is the list of potential infrastructures needed that's shown in Table 8.

Determining relevant emergency infrastructures for case study
The revised method now employs a rapid assessment using a checklist method, expedited by stakeholders filling out the checklist, thereby enhancing efficiency and responsiveness in evaluating the research site's infrastructure challenges.Table 9 shows on How the checklist method works and collect the data on the status of emergency infrastructures.

Assessing relevant emergency infrastructures via in-depth interview
Rapid assessment model can significantly reduce implementation time by increasing survey personnel and adopting pre-developed questionnaires from the full assessment.Tables 10 shows a checklist and filling the form methods to simplify the process.This adjustment not only accelerates the evaluation process but also ensures a more inclusive and participatory approach to identifying and addressing challenges in emergency infrastructures.

Assessing relevant emergency infrastructures via observation
The method transitioned from a comprehensive assessment reliant on observations to a more rapid evaluation facilitated by the adoption of a checklist method.In this streamlined process, surveyors promptly fill out the checklist in a more efficient and responsive assessment of emergency infrastructures as shown in Table 10.
Table 10.Assessing relevant emergency infrastructures via observation in rapid assessment process

Recommendation Formulation
The rapid assessment approach uses a structured form designed to streamline the process.This form plays a pivotal role as it consolidates data gathered from preceding forms, conducts a comparative analysis with relevant indicators, and synthesizes the information to draw conclusive insights for subsequent actions as it shows in The form comprises key categories, including infrastructures, standard guidance, minimum standard, current condition (based on the results of assessments, particularly focusing on impacts and notes), recommendation (potential strategy), potential person in charge (PIC), and potential funding.by incorporating these elements, the method ensures a comprehensive and organized framework, expediting the generation of alternative recommendations and fostering a more efficient decision-making process in emergency infrastructure planning and improvement initiatives.

Reporting the result of assessment
Table 13 shows the revised reporting method for rapid assessment model that involves the creation of a reporting form based on the outcomes of follow-up activities.This form provides key elements such as infrastructures, current condition (derived from assessment results), and recommendations (including potential strategy, potential PIC, and potential funding).This modification will not only speed up the reporting timeline but also ensures a concise and accessible presentation of critical information.

FGD to confirm the actual infrastructures
The rapid assessment method can involves the creation of a structured form capturing the outcomes of FGD meetings, encompassing key elements such as recommendation (potential strategy, potential PIC, potential funding), approval (approved, approved with revision, rejected), and pertinent notes (Table 14).This adaptive approach not only accelerates the decision-making process but also overcomes logistical hurdles, ensuring a swift and effective response to flood conditions.

Strategies to provide the actual infrastructures
For rapid assessment, Table 15 is meticulously designed to align with the recommendations, encapsulating crucial details such as potential strategy, potential PIC, potential funding, and the anticipated date of delivery.By streamlining this information into a comprehensive and structured format, the mapping of responsible parties becomes more efficient.

Conclusion
Assessing emergency infrastructures in responding to flood event should be carried out in an effective and timely manner.Current full assessment has reflected a long process (148 days) resulting ineffective to response on the emergency situation.Therefore, a rapid assessment is proposed that can fasten up the process into only four days of assessment.
To make a rapid assessment on emergency infrastructures after disaster events, a systematically process should be agreed among stakeholders.This paper proposed to have eight steps of rapid assessment namely (1) finding potential infrastructures needed; (2) determining relevant emergency infrastructures for case study; (3) assessing relevant emergency infrastructures via in-depth interview; (4) assessing relevant emergency infrastructures via observation; (5) recommendation formulation; (6) reporting the result of assessment; (7) FGD to confirm the actual infrastructure; and (8) strategies to provide the actual infrastructures, guided by the specific forms for relevant stakeholders.The forms can be advanced by using a google form to have a more efficient and effective ways of assessments.Within the every form, this paper proposes the key substance to direct the assessment process.Since the rapid assessment model relevant for the value of emergency, the rapid assessment can be adopted as the Indonesian standard in providing emergency infrastructure after a disaster event.

Fig. 2 .
Fig. 2. Determining the relevant emergency infrastructures for the case study

,Fig. 3 .
Fig. 3. Report the results of the study on the full assessment process

Table 2 .
List of respondents

Table 3 .
Keywords for in-depth interview questionnaire

Table 4 .
Example for instrument of observation regarding transportation indicatorThe results of the interview and observation process are used to map actual problems in the field and existing potential.These findings were categorized into four classes based on their

Table 5 .
List of actual condition, impact category, and potential for emergency infrastructure

Table 6 .
List of alternatives formulated by the research team

Table 7 .
Comparison of the duration of existing model implementation and expected duration

Table 8 .
Flood risk emergency infrastructures that are used in rapid assessment model

Table 9 .
Determining relevant emergency infrastructures in rapid assessment model

Table 10 .
Assessing relevant emergency infrastructures via in-depth interview in rapid assessment process

Table 12 .
Recommendation formulation in rapid assessment model *Current condition based on the results of assessment on relevant emergency infrastructures particularly on the column impacts and notes

Table 13 .
Reporting the result of assessment in rapid assessment model

Table 14 .
FGD to confirm the actual infrastructures in rapid assessment model

Table 15 .
Strategies to provide the actual infrastructures in rapid assessment model