DISASTER RISK GOVERNANCE AND SOCIO-ECOLOGICAL VULNERABILITY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF REMPANG ISLAND

Diga Putri Oktaviane; Yustina Yustina

doi:10.62567/micjo.v3i3.2681

Authors

Diga Putri Oktaviane Universitas Negeri Riau
Yustina Yustina Universitas Negeri Riau

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62567/micjo.v3i3.2681

Keywords:

Disaster Risk Governance, Socio-Ecological Vulnerability, Rempang Island, Coastal Development, Public Policy

Abstract

The development of Rempang Island through the Rempang Eco-City project has become one of Indonesia’s strategic initiatives to promote investment, industrialization, and regional economic growth in coastal areas. While the project is expected to strengthen economic competitiveness and attract large-scale investment, its implementation has generated significant social, environmental, and governance challenges. Existing studies on Rempang have primarily focused on land disputes, relocation issues, and agrarian conflicts, with limited attention given to disaster risk governance and socio-ecological vulnerability perspectives. This study aims to analyze the development of Rempang Island through the lens of Disaster Risk Governance (DRG) and socio-ecological vulnerability to understand how development policies, environmental change, and governance arrangements interact in shaping risks within coastal regions. This study employs a qualitative approach using literature review and policy analysis. Data were collected from government regulations, official reports, public policy documents, human rights reports, academic publications, and other credible secondary sources. The analytical framework integrates disaster risk governance, socio-ecological vulnerability, and public policy theories. The findings indicate that the Rempang conflict should not be understood solely as an agrarian dispute or community resistance to relocation. Instead, it reflects broader governance challenges associated with integrating disaster risk considerations into coastal development policies. The project has the potential to generate socio-ecological vulnerabilities related to land tenure uncertainty, livelihood transformation, cultural identity concerns, environmental pressures, and limited stakeholder participation. The study argues that sustainable coastal development depends not only on economic investment but also on the capacity of governance systems to manage emerging risks through collaborative, adaptive, and inclusive approaches. The article contributes to the literature by positioning the Rempang case as a governance-of-risk issue and highlighting the need to integrate economic development, environmental sustainability, and disaster risk reduction within coastal governance frameworks.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Adger, W. N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 268–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006

Alongi, D. M. (2015). The impact of climate change on mangrove forests. Current Climate Change Reports, 1(1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-015-0002-x

Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032

Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Sage Publications.

Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.

Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J., & Shirley, W. L. (2003). Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 84(2), 242–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.8402002

Dunn, W. N. (2018). Public policy analysis: An integrated approach (6th ed.). Routledge.

Dye, T. R. (2017). Understanding public policy (15th ed.). Pearson.

Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 441–473. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2023). Climate change 2023: Synthesis report. IPCC.

Ombudsman Republik Indonesia. (2024). Laporan hasil pemeriksaan pengembangan kawasan Rempang Eco-City. Ombudsman Republik Indonesia.

Osborne, S. P. (Ed.). (2010). The new public governance? Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance. Routledge.

Renn, O. (2008). Risk governance: Coping with uncertainty in a complex world. Earthscan.

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.2307/258788

Tierney, K. (2012). Disaster governance: Social, political, and economic dimensions. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37, 341–363. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-020911-095618

Turner, B. L., Kasperson, R. E., Matson, P. A., McCarthy, J. J., Corell, R. W., Christensen, L., Eckley, N., Kasperson, J. X., Luers, A., Martello, M. L., Polsky, C., Pulsipher, A., & Schiller, A. (2003). A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(14), 8074–8079. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231335100

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. (2015). Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030. United Nations.