Strategic Resilience of Local Government in Mitigating Landslide Disasters in Sawahlunto City

Indonesia is ranked as the second most disaster-prone country in the world due to various geological, geographical, and climatic factors [1]. It is located on the pacific ring of fire, an area of high seismic and volcanic activity due to the meeting of several large plates, including the Indo-Australian, Eurasian, and Pacific plates [2]. In addition, Indonesia’s diverse topography, including mountains, plateaus, and valleys, as well as its tropical climate with high rainfall, increases the risk of landslides and floods, especially during the rainy season [3]. In addition to natural factors, human activities such as deforestation and unplanned development also reduce the water absorption capacity of the soil and cause erosion, increasing the risk of natural disasters [4]. Global climate change also affects weather patterns in Indonesia [5]. Therefore, damming and prevention efforts are essential to mitigate its impact. In addition, disasters are also difficult to predict when exactly they will occur [6]. Table 1 describes the impact and damage that occurred in Indonesia due to disasters in the time span from January 2021 to May 2024.

Previous studies on landslide risk have emphasized the importance of physical and environmental drivers such as steep slopes, rainfall intensity, soil instability, land-use change, and environmental degradation [7]. However, these studies tend to focus primarily on biophysical causation and risk identification, with limited attention to how such knowledge is translated into actionable strategies within local governance systems. Studies on disaster governance have highlighted the importance of institutional coordination, planning capacity, and the role of local government agencies in disaster risk reduction [8], [9]. While this body of literature provides important insights into formal governance structures, it often assumes relatively stable institutional capacity and does not sufficiently address the challenges faced by local governments operating under resource constraints and uneven implementation conditions.

Research on community-based disaster mitigation has shown that local participation, preparedness, and collective action are critical for improving resilience [10], [11]. Nevertheless, existing studies rarely examine how community-based initiatives interact with formal government strategies in complex urban contexts characterized by steep terrain, post-mining landscapes, and recurring landslide hazards. Taken together, these strands of literature indicate that while the drivers of landslides, governance structures, and community-based approaches have been widely studied, there remains a gap in understanding how these elements are integrated at the local level into coherent and implementable mitigation strategies, particularly in resource-constrained and environmentally fragile urban settings.

The province located on the west coast of the island of Sumatra is West Sumatra, which is one of the regions in Indonesia that is very vulnerable to natural disasters [12]. This vulnerability is due to West Sumatra being located on the Pacific Ring of Fire, which is an area of high tectonic activity [13]. West Sumatra Province also has several active volcanoes, such as Mount Marapi and Mount Talang [14]. Volcanic activity from these mountains can cause dangerous eruptions, releasing volcanic ash, toxic gases, and lava flows that can damage the surrounding environment and threaten human life [15]. The topography of West Sumatra consisting of hills and mountains makes the area prone to landslides, especially during the rainy season [16].

Sawahlunto City is located between the Bukit Barisan range. With an altitude between 250 m and 650 m above sea level, Sawahlunto City has a varied landscape, consisting of steep hills, slopes, and plains [17]. For areas located in the east and south, the topography is relatively steep (with a slope of more than 40%). In Sawahlunto City, landslides are not only a disaster management issue but also an environmental governance challenge, as they are closely linked to land stability, post-mining land conditions, settlement safety, and long-term ecological sustainability. Recurrent landslides may accelerate land degradation, disrupt land-use stability, and increase environmental pressure in already fragile areas. Therefore, landslide mitigation in this context must be understood as part of broader environmental governance, particularly in regulating land use, managing slopes, and protecting vulnerable settlements. The following is the index of potential Disaster Risk Assessment (Kajian Risiko Bencana, KRB) in Sawahlunto City.

Table 2 shows that the hazard classes of all potential disasters in Sawahlunto City vary, with some falling into the high and medium classes. Sawahlunto City also has a Regional Resilience Indicator (IKD) for disaster management that is still at a moderate level, as shown in Table 3.

Sawahlunto City, with its steep topography, active geological history, former mines, and high rainfall, makes it an area prone to natural disasters, especially landslides, floods, and earthquakes. The impact can be in the form of casualties, infrastructure damage, economic losses, displacement, and psychological trauma. This is evidenced by the disasters that always occur in West Sumatra and can be seen in Table 4.

Based on Table 4, it can be concluded that Sawahlunto City is the most frequent area for landslides, which as of 2017 there have been 126 landslides. The 2017 dataset is retained in this study because it represents the validated comparative dataset available for districts and cities in West Sumatra. Its function in this paper is to provide a regional baseline showing the relative intensity of landslide occurrences in Sawahlunto compared with other districts/cities, rather than to describe the most recent annual condition. To reflect more current local conditions, this comparative dataset is complemented by local data on landslide events in Sawahlunto City for 2018–2019 and updated hazard information from the 2024 local disaster assessment.

Sawahlunto City has hilly contours and land slope conditions from 45°, 50° to 75°, this has the potential to cause landslides in Sawahlunto City if hit by continuous rain. Landslide prone areas in Sawahlunto City include all villages in Silungkang Sub-district, all villages in Fresh Valley Sub-district, all villages in Barangin Sub-district except Kolok Mudik and Kolok Nan Tuo, and several areas in Talawi Sub-district except Salak Village, Talawi Mudik, Talawi Hilir and Rantih. This is also evidenced by the number of landslides in Sawahlunto City from 20−2019 in Table 5.

In Table 5, it can be seen that the most disaster events in Sawahlunto City are landslides, as many as 259 landslide events occurred during the span of 2018−2019 this is due to the topography of this city which is a hilly area with undulating contours. Sawahlunto City recently also experienced floods and landslides which resulted in losses totaling 6 billion rupiah. Dedi Ardona, acting head of the Regional Disaster Management Agency (Badan Penanggulangan Bencana Daerah, BPBD) of Sawahlunto City, said that the total loss was calculated from the agriculture, fisheries, houses/settlements, schools, roads and irrigation sectors. Based on the data found by researchers, Table 6 is a list of villages with high landslide potential in Sawahlunto City.

The distribution of landslide hazards in Sawahlunto City is uneven spatially, as seen in Figure 1, with higher concentrations in several sub-districts, such as Talawi, Barangin, and Silungkang. This pattern reflects not only disaster exposure but also underlying environmental vulnerability related to steep slopes, unstable soil conditions, and the legacy of former mining activities. These conditions indicate that landslide risk is closely associated with environmental instability and land-use pressures, reinforcing the need for spatially differentiated and environmentally sensitive mitigation strategies.

According to Law No. 24/2007, disaster mitigation is a series of efforts to reduce disaster risk through physical development as well as increasing awareness and ability in facing disaster threats [18]. The BPBD of Sawahlunto City has an important role in landslide mitigation efforts. BPBD is responsible for planning, coordinating, and implementing various mitigation strategies aimed at minimizing disaster risks [19], [20]. This study aims to examine how the local government of Sawahlunto City formulates and implements landslide disaster mitigation strategies through the dimensions of goals, policies, and programs. Building on the identified gap in the literature, this study contributes by providing an integrated analysis of how formal planning instruments, inter-agency coordination, and community-based initiatives interact within a local governance context characterized by environmental vulnerability and limited institutional capacity. Unlike previous studies that tend to examine these aspects separately, this research highlights the dynamic relationship between policy design and implementation practices in a landslide-prone, post-mining urban area. Furthermore, the study contributes to the discussion on environmental governance by demonstrating how disaster mitigation strategies are linked to land-use control, slope management, and the sustainability of environmentally fragile areas.

This study employs a qualitative descriptive approach to examine local government strategy in landslide disaster mitigation in Sawahlunto City. The qualitative approach was selected because it allows the researchers to explore institutional practices, coordination patterns, and community-based mitigation efforts in their real context [21], [22]. Data were collected through interviews with selected informants, field observation in landslide-prone areas, and document analysis of disaster-related planning documents, institutional reports, and supporting records [23]. Primary data were obtained from interviews and direct observations, while secondary data were derived from official documents such as the KRB, Disaster Management Plan (Rencana Penanggulangan Bencana, RPB), contingency planning documents, annual reports, and other related records [24], [25].

This study involved 15 main informants selected through purposive sampling, consisting of key actors from BPBD Sawahlunto City, regional apparatus organizations (Organisasi Perangkat Daerah, OPD), sub-district institutions, and village-level representatives. The main informants included the Acting Regional Secretary of Sawahlunto City, the Head of BPBD, the BPBD Secretary, heads of divisions and section heads in prevention and preparedness, emergency and logistics, and rehabilitation and reconstruction, as well as representatives from Perkim, Regional Financial and Asset Management Agency (Badan Pengelolaan Keuangan dan Aset Daerah, BPKAD), Social Services, and Ministry of Public Works and Public Housing (Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum dan Perumahan Rakyat, PUPR). In addition, the study involved village-level actors from Silungkang Oso, Lumindai, Taratak Bancah, Aur Mulyo, and Tumpuak Tangah. To strengthen data validity, triangulation was conducted with five additional actors, namely Destana, Tagana, Tsunami Alert Community (Komunitas Siaga Tsunami, KOGAMI), Jemari Sakato of West Sumatra Province, and BPBD of West Sumatra Province.

Informants were selected purposively based on their institutional role, direct involvement, and practical knowledge relevant to landslide mitigation in Sawahlunto City. This selection covered both policy-level and implementation-level actors so that the study could capture how mitigation strategies were formulated at the institutional level and how they were implemented in practice in disaster-prone areas. The triangulation actors were included to provide complementary perspectives from community-based organizations, volunteers, civil society groups, and provincial disaster management institutions.

The interview stage was carried out during December 2024 and January 2025. Based on the research process recorded in the thesis, interviews with BPBD officials were conducted on 9–13 December 2024; interviews with sub-districts, villages, Destana, and Tagana were conducted on 10–20 December 2024; interviews with the Regional Secretary, Perkim, BPKAD, Social Services, and PUPR were conducted on 10–17 December 2024; interviews with KOGAMI and Jemari Sakato were conducted on 2 January 2025; and the interview with BPBD of West Sumatra Province was conducted on 6 January 2025. The interviews were conducted in an in-depth and semi-structured format, allowing the researchers to use a prepared set of guiding questions while still exploring emerging issues relevant to the study.

Field observation was carried out by directly visiting the research locations, namely the local government offices of Sawahlunto City, BPBD Sawahlunto City, and other related agencies, as well as disaster-prone villages relevant to the study. Observation was used not merely as a supplementary technique, but as a way to confirm and clarify information obtained from interviews and documents, particularly regarding coordination practices, mitigation activities, and the physical context of landslide-prone areas. Document analysis covered official records and supporting materials relevant to the three analytical dimensions used in this study. These included KRB documents, RPB documents, contingency planning documents, BPBD strategic plans, disaster map albums, regional decrees related to rehabilitation assistance, and budget-related records. Documents were used not only to describe the formal framework of disaster mitigation, but also to compare official plans with field evidence and implementation conditions.

Interview results, field observations, and documentary materials were first organized according to their relevance to the research focus. The analytical process then involved data reduction, categorization of key issues, and thematic interpretation based on the strategic dimensions adopted in this study, namely goals, policies, and programs. This procedure was used to identify recurring themes related to mitigation priorities, institutional coordination, implementation constraints, and community participation. Triangulation was applied by comparing interview data, field observations, and documentary evidence in order to strengthen the validity and consistency of the findings.

More specifically, the analytical process was conducted in several stages. First, raw interview notes, observation records, and documentary materials were organized by source and by institutional relevance. Second, the data were reduced by selecting information directly related to the study focus, namely local government strategy in landslide mitigation. Third, the selected data were coded into recurring issues such as mitigation priorities, hazard mapping, inter-agency coordination, budget limitation, human resource constraints, community participation, and implementation barriers. Fourth, these codes were grouped into broader categories and interpreted thematically using the three dimensions of James Brian Quinn’s strategy framework: goals, policies, and programs. In this way, the findings presented in the results section were derived not merely from descriptive reporting, but from a process of categorizing and interpreting raw data into analytically meaningful themes.

The collected qualitative data were organized according to source and relevance, then reduced, categorized, and interpreted thematically based on the strategic dimensions used in this study, namely goals, policies, and programs. This analytical procedure was used to identify recurring issues related to mitigation priorities, institutional coordination, implementation constraints, and community participation. Triangulation was applied by comparing interview data, field observations, and documentary evidence in order to strengthen the validity of the findings [26].

Triangulation in this study was applied in two forms. First, source triangulation was conducted by comparing information from BPBD officials, OPD representatives, sub-district and village actors, and external triangulation actors. Second, method triangulation was carried out by comparing information obtained from interviews, observations, and official documents. This process was intended to identify consistency, clarify discrepancies, and ensure that the conclusions were supported by more than one source of evidence.

This research uses purposive sampling technique used as an informant selection technique. Purposive is a data subject that is selected based on certain considerations and objectives, where the research subject is considered to know exactly the information needed in the research process [27]. The purpose of using this technique is to facilitate researchers in obtaining the right information through the selection of people (informants) who are considered capable of answering the research conducted.

The informants in Table 7 were purposively selected based on their institutional roles, direct involvement, and practical knowledge relevant to landslide mitigation in Sawahlunto City. The selection covered not only key actors from BPBD and related regional apparatus organizations, but also subdistrict and village representatives whose roles are directly connected to local disaster response and mitigation coordination. This selection strategy was intended to capture both policy-level and implementation-level perspectives. In addition, community-level and non-governmental perspectives were strengthened through triangulation with actors such as Destana, Tagana, KOGAMI, Jemari Sakato, and BPBD of West Sumatra Province, so that the analysis reflects both institutional and community dimensions of disaster mitigation.

In conducting research, it is a must to pay attention to the truth and validity of the data. Therefore, to prove the truth and validity of data can be done with various techniques. In this study, the technique used to verify the accuracy and validity of the data was triangulation, as shown in Table 8.

The unit of analysis in this study is the local government of Sawahlunto City as an institutional actor in landslide disaster mitigation. This means that the analysis does not focus on individuals as isolated subjects, but on how local government institutions formulate objectives, develop policies, coordinate across agencies, and implement mitigation programs in practice. Accordingly, the selected informants served as strategic entry points for understanding institutional processes, rather than as stand-alone personal narratives. To maintain clarity between contextual background and empirical findings, the methodological design explicitly treated policy documents and institutional records as contextual data, while interviews and field observations were treated as the primary basis for identifying how mitigation strategies operated in practice. As a result, the results and discussion section prioritizes evidence from field interviews and observations, while documentary materials are used mainly to clarify formal policy context and support interpretation.

The use of James Brian Quinn’s framework in this study was not limited to descriptive classification. Rather, the framework functioned as an analytical lens to interpret how local government strategy was articulated through objectives, translated into policies, and operationalized through programs. This approach made it possible to compare formal institutional intentions with actual implementation conditions, and to identify gaps between planning, coordination, and practice. Within this methodological design, environmental relevance was integrated into the analysis by treating landslide mitigation not only as an administrative or disaster-management issue, but also as a problem of land stability, spatial vulnerability, and environmental governance. Therefore, both documentary and field data were interpreted in relation to how local institutions addressed hazard zoning, land-use sensitivity, slope conditions, and the environmental implications of post-mining landscapes in Sawahlunto City.

Clarity of landslide mitigation objectives in Sawahlunto City is a fundamental element in ensuring the successful implementation of disaster management strategies. Clear objectives provide a foundation for local governments to develop policies, design programs, and allocate resources effectively [28]. In this context, BPBD Sawahlunto City has shown significant efforts by developing a number of strategic planning documents, such as the KRB, RPB, Contingency Plan (Rencana Kontinjensi, Recon), and Budget Activity Plan (Rencana Kerja dan Anggaran, RKA). These documents are concrete evidence that the local government has a clear vision and direction in landslide mitigation. One strategic step taken is the mapping of disaster-prone areas by the BPBD, as shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3. This mapping not only helps identify areas at high risk of landslides, but also serves as the basis for determining policy priorities and budget allocations.

In addition, the KRB document provides a detailed picture of the potential hazards, vulnerabilities and capacity of the region to deal with disasters. This KRB serves as a reference in preparing the RPB, which contains strategic measures to prevent, respond to and recover from the impact of disasters. The Recon, on the other hand, is designed to deal with worst-case scenarios, ensuring the preparedness of the government and community in emergency situations. All these documents reflect a systematic and planned approach, supported by a RKA to ensure the availability of required resources.

Field findings indicate that although these planning documents clearly define mitigation objectives at the formal level, their implementation is not equally strong across institutions. Interviews with BPBD and related agencies show that the translation of these objectives into preventive action is still constrained by limited budget, human resources, and uneven institutional commitment. This suggests that clarity of objectives in Sawahlunto is institutionally established, but operational clarity remains fragmented, indicating a gap between formal planning and implementation capacity. From an environmental governance perspective, these objectives are not only related to disaster reduction but also to managing land instability, slope conditions, and environmental vulnerability in post-mining areas, making mitigation closely linked to ecological sustainability.

The alignment of landslide mitigation objectives with existing risks in Sawahlunto City is also an important element that determines the effectiveness of mitigation strategies. Sawahlunto City, which is highly vulnerable to landslides, has made efforts to align mitigation objectives with the needs on the ground. Based on interviews with BPBD and relevant DPOs, it was found that various steps have been taken to ensure that the mitigation objectives set are able to address the existing risks and challenges.

Efforts to align mitigation objectives with risks can be seen in the monthly coordination meetings held by BPBD Sawahlunto City. These meetings not only serve as a forum to evaluate ongoing programs, but also to discuss new needs and strategies relevant to the situation on the ground. In an emergency, BPBD acts as the leading sector, working closely with other DPOs to ensure a rapid and coordinated response.

In addition, the existence of a Forum Group Discussion (FGD) with stakeholders and experts is a strategic step taken to prepare important documents such as the RKA and RPB. This FGD process ensures that mitigation objectives are not only based on technical data, but also supported by inputs from various parties who understand the conditions on the ground.

The commitment to align goals with risks is also evident in the steps taken by the Social Affairs Office, which prepares both material assistance and psychological support for disaster victims. Interview findings show that alignment is not only reflected in planning documents but also in local practices, such as village-level mitigation activities (tree planting, gotong royong, and hazard mapping) that directly respond to landslide risk conditions. The alignment of objectives between BPBD Sawahlunto City and BPBD West Sumatra Province is also one of the indicators that support the effectiveness of disaster mitigation. The similarity of data between RPB documents, KRB, and mapping results shows that coordination between government levels has gone well.

However, differences remain across agencies. The PUPR Office tends to adopt a reactive approach focused on post-disaster infrastructure repair, while preventive alignment with risk conditions is still limited. The Social Service focuses on social assistance and recovery aspects. This variation indicates that alignment of objectives is uneven across institutions, where BPBD demonstrates a preventive orientation, while other agencies remain more reactive. This reflects a structural issue in local disaster governance, where cross-sectoral integration of risk-based objectives is not yet fully achieved.

At the village level, mitigation objectives are strongly influenced by local conditions. Silungkang, Taratak Bancah, Aur Mulyo, and Kubang Tangah villages demonstrate context-specific mitigation practices, including community-based preparedness and environmental management. These local practices show that mitigation objectives are closely tied to environmental realities such as slope instability, land degradation, and settlement exposure, reinforcing the role of environmental factors in shaping local mitigation strategies. Thus, the alignment of landslide mitigation objectives in Sawahlunto City with real risks has been pursued, but coordination between agencies still needs to be improved. Overall, the findings indicate that while risk-based planning is already recognized, its implementation remains uneven, highlighting a gap between strategic intent and operational execution in local disaster governance.

Effective communication to the community is the key to successful disaster mitigation [6]. Sawahlunto City through BPBD and related agencies and villages tried to convey the mitigation objectives clearly and directed to the community, especially those living in landslide-prone areas.

One form of communication carried out is disaster simulation involving various community groups. This program is welcomed by the community because it provides practical experience in dealing with disaster situations. BPBD also collaborates with the Education Office through the Disaster Safe Education Unit (Satuan Pendidikan Aman Bencana, SPAB) program. This program is designed to instill the value of preparedness from an early age to students Field data indicate that communication is more effective in areas where simulations and training are conducted regularly, particularly in villages with active Destana programs. However, challenges remain in ensuring that the community fully understands and applies the information provided. This suggests that communication effectiveness depends not only on information delivery, but also on the continuity of engagement, institutional support, and local participation. Effective communication is also important for increasing community awareness of environmental risks, particularly in managing land use and settlement safety in landslide-prone areas.

Sawahlunto City has a number of regulations that serve as references in the implementation of disaster mitigation. Furthermore, clear procedures are outlined in the Recon document, which contains detailed disaster mitigation and response steps, as well as the Sawahlunto City Disaster Emergency Response Command Organizational Structure, as shown in Figure 4. This shows that the legal basis and procedural guidelines for disaster mitigation in Sawahlunto City are available.

Structuring disaster management planning begins with the preparation of a KRB. The results of the KRB are expected to be a technocratic reference in determining the direction of policies and strategies at each stage of disaster management. The RPB is prepared based on the results of the KRB so as to provide objectivity to the direction of disaster management policies in the region. The need for a RPB is also very much realized by all parties involved, so it is mandated in Law Number 24 of 2007 concerning Disaster Management in articles 35 and 36 that each region in disaster management efforts, has management planning.

As a medium-term planning document, 5 years, the RPB is equivalent to the Regional Medium-Term Development Plan (Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Daerah, RPJMD). In its technical preparation, the policy directions, strategies and strategic programs of both documents are integrated. Sawahlunto City RPB 2023−2027 is a 5-year document prepared with reference to the following legal basis:

1. Law Number 25 of 2004 concerning the National Development Planning System (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 2004 Number 104, Supplement to State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4421);

2. Law Number 23 of 2014 concerning Regional Government (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 2014 Number 244, Supplement to State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5587);

3. Law No. 17/2007 on the National Long-Term Development Plan 2005−2015 (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia 2007 No. 33, Supplement to State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia No. 4700);

4. Law Number 24 Year 2007 on Disaster Management (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Year 2007 Number 66, Supplement to State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4723);

5. Law Number 27 Year 2007 on the Management of Coastal Areas and Small Islands (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Year 2007 Number 84, Supplement to State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4739);

6. Government Regulation Number 39 of 2006 on the Procedures for Controlling and Evaluating the Implementation of Development Plans (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia 2006 Number 96, Supplement to State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4663);

7. Government Regulation No. 38/2007 on the Division of Government Affairs between the Government, Provincial Regional Government, and Provincial/Municipal Regional Government (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Year 2007 Number 82, Supplement to State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4737);

8. Government Regulation Number 8 of 2008 concerning Stages, Procedures for the Preparation, Control and Evaluation of the Implementation of Regional Development Plans (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 2008 Number 21, Supplement to State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4817);

9. Government Regulation Number 21 of 2008 concerning the Implementation of Disaster Management (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 2008 Number 42, Supplement to State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4828);

10. Government Regulation Number 2 of 2018 concerning Minimum Service Standards (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 2018 Number 2, Supplement to State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 6178);

11. Presidential Regulation Number 87 of 2020 concerning the 2020−2044 Disaster Management Master Plan (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 2020 Number 204);

12. Regulation of the Head of the National Disaster Management Agency Number 4 of 2008 concerning Guidelines for the Preparation of Disaster Management Plans;

13. Regulation of the Head of the National Disaster Management Agency Number 3 of 2010 on the National Disaster Management Plan;

14. Regulation of the Minister of Home Affairs Number 54 of 2010 on the Implementation of Government Regulation Number 8 of 2008 on Procedures for Preparing, Controlling and Evaluating the Implementation of Regional Development Plans;

15. Minister of Home Affairs Regulation No. 101/2018 on Basic Technical Standards on SPM for District/Municipal Disaster Sub-Ministries;

16. Regulation of the Head of the National Disaster Management Agency Number 2 of 2012 concerning General Guidelines for KRB;

17. Regulation of the Head of the National Disaster Management Agency Number 3 of 2012 concerning Guidelines for Assessing Regional Capacity in Disaster Management;

18. Decree of the Minister of Home Affairs No. 050-145 of 2022 concerning the Provision and Updating of Codes, Data on Government Administration Areas and Islands in 2021;

19. Disaster Management Master Plan (Rencana Induk Penanggulangan Bencana, RIPB) Year 2022−2024;

20. National Disaster Management Plan (Rencana Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana, RENAS PB) 2020−2024.

Disaster Management Policies in Sawahlunto City are regulated in several local regulations related to disaster management, including.

1. Regional Regulation Number 6 of 2021 concerning Amendments to Regional Regulation Number 5 of 2019 concerning RPJMD of Sawahlunto City 2018−2023;

2. RTRW of Sawahlunto City;

3. Decree of the Mayor of Sawahlunto Number 188.45/249/wako-swl/2021 on the Establishment of Disaster Risk Reduction Forum in Sawahlunto City;

4. Decree of the Mayor of Sawahlunto No. 188.45/230/WAKO-SWL/2021 on the Establishment of the Management of the Disaster Preparedness Cadet Forum of Sawahlunto City for the 2021−2024 Period;

5. Decree of the Mayor of Sawahlunto No. 188.45/242/WAKO-SWL/2021 on the Establishment of Integrated Disaster Management Task Force in Sawahlunto City.

The regulations above are presented as the formal legal and institutional framework for disaster mitigation in Sawahlunto City. The analysis in this study, however, focuses on how these regulatory provisions are translated into actual mitigation practice and inter-agency coordination in the field. As a master plan, the RPB is expected to be able to optimize the implementation of disaster management so that it is more planned, integrated and systematic, and becomes one of the main issues in the implementation of development at national and regional levels. This effort can be started through synchronizing the RPB with the RPJMD as well as with cross-sectoral thematic plans in the regions.

In general, the use of village funds for disaster management activities is regulated in legislation at the national level. For example, the Minister of Home Affairs Regulation No. 20/2018 on Village Financial Management states that village funds can be allocated for natural disaster management activities and other emergencies. In addition, the Minister of Villages, Disadvantaged Regions and Transmigration Regulation No. 11/2019 on Priorities for the Use of Village Funds in 2020 also confirms that village funds can be used for disaster mitigation and management activities.

In order to handle the victims caused by landslides, it is necessary to take several policies so that all victims can be helped immediately and various facilities and infrastructure can be repaired. So that later all community activities can run normally again. These policies and strategies are based on Universal Norms, Constitution, Legislation, Regulations, Culture, Customary Norms, and Religion.

Some important policies that must be taken are:

1. Establish an emergency response period through a Decree of the Mayor of Sawahlunto for 7 days.

2. Mobilize all available resources to be used in disaster management.

3. Coordinate disaster management activities carried out by various government, private and volunteer organizations.

4. Ensure all victims (in this case humans), can be helped immediately.

5. Injured victims were given medical treatment and victims who lost their homes were accommodated in evacuation centers. Those who died were immediately buried.

6. If the intensity of the disaster is large enough, it is necessary to coordinate with international institutions through BNPB.

7. Monitor and report on losses caused by disasters, both property and lives.

8. Ensure that aid can reach isolated refugee areas by mobilizing the entire transportation fleet.

9. Manage both domestic and foreign aid transparently in accordance with applicable regulations.

10. Prioritize the protection of vulnerable communities.

As for realizing the goals set above, it needs to be operationalized in several strategies, namely:

1. Conduct studies related to landslides.

2. Improve community knowledge and understanding of landslides so that people are encouraged to evacuate independently.

3. Develop and disseminate agreed evacuation procedures and assembly points to make it easier for the community to evacuate independently.

4. Distribute evacuation orders/directions to communities at risk, as a result of landslide early warnings provided by the Pusdalops or BMKG.

5. Coordinate stakeholders to play a role in accordance with their during Emergency Response Operations by mobilizing all available resources.

6. Provide data and information related to landslide disaster events that occur.

7. Mobilize all resources to fulfill emergency response needs.

8 Provide basic needs services for refugees, including casualty care facilities.

9. Provide health services for the injured and funeral services for the deceased.

10. Provide protection, protection, security and law enforcement services in disaster areas.

Perkim plays a vital role in disaster management in Sawahlunto City, especially in rebuilding disaster-damaged houses. Focusing on the technical aspects and feasibility of the construction site, Perkim works closely with BPBD to ensure that the rebuilt houses are safe and up to standard. Data on damaged houses is also well recorded by Perkim, with photo documentation of repairs. Although the regulatory and procedural basis in Sawahlunto is formally available, field findings indicate that the existence of regulations does not automatically ensure consistent implementation. Interviews with relevant agencies suggest that the practical challenge lies in translating these formal rules into coordinated preventive action in the field.

This indicates that the strength of Sawahlunto’s policy dimension lies more in formal institutional preparedness than in implementation consistency. In other words, the issue is not the absence of procedural guidance, but the incomplete conversion of that guidance into cross-sectoral preventive practice. This issue is environmentally significant because regulations and procedures are closely linked to hazard zoning, land-use control, and slope-related risk management. Weak implementation of such procedures may allow environmentally fragile and landslide-prone areas to remain exposed to continued pressure.

The existing policy system in Sawahlunto City has generally supported the implementation of disaster mitigation, but there are still a number of significant barriers in its implementation. One of the main obstacles is the limited budget for disaster management. This very minimal budget is a major challenge in supporting the implementation of various disaster mitigation programs, such as the construction of monitoring facilities or the provision of early warning tools.

The disaster management cycle, which includes three stages, serves as a framework for the preparation of this RPB Document in Sawahlunto City, as seen in Figure 5. In addition, other important documents such as KRB documents and also development planning and work plans of each government agency are references in compiling each part of this document until the explanation of the action plan.

The current policy framework also shows collaboration across OPD. The Social Affairs Office collaborates with BPBD to handle social assistance aspects in disasters, while the PUPR has a role in post-disaster infrastructure repair. However, there is no overall structured mitigation policy at the OPD level, especially in supporting holistic landslide risk prevention.

To understand the barriers faced in the implementation of landslide mitigation policies, further studies are needed, including case studies on the implementation of existing policies. This aims to identify remaining gaps and ensure that the implemented policy is truly able to minimize disaster risk in Sawahlunto City. Field-based findings suggest that the policy framework in Sawahlunto is formally adequate but operationally uneven. While strategic planning documents and coordination mechanisms are available, interviews indicate that preventive mitigation is not yet uniformly internalized across OPDs.

This finding suggests that Sawahlunto already possesses a relatively adequate formal policy framework for disaster mitigation, but the main challenge lies in operational integration across agencies. In other words, the issue is not the absence of regulatory instruments, but the limited capacity to translate them into coordinated preventive action. This reflects a broader governance pattern in which formal planning is stronger than implementation capacity. From an environmental governance perspective, the policy framework is important because it determines how hazard zoning, land-use control, and slope-related risk management are incorporated into local planning and implementation. The findings from Sawahlunto show that although policy instruments are available, their practical effect on environmentally vulnerable areas remains constrained by budget limitations, uneven institutional capacity, and incomplete preventive integration across sectors.

The implementation of disaster mitigation policy in Sawahlunto City is measured through the extent to which the policy is successfully implemented in the field and its impact on the community. Based on interviews with various interviewees, disaster mitigation policies have been implemented by directly involving the community, especially through flagship programs such as Disaster Resilient Village (Destana). The Destana program covers various landslide-prone villages in Sawahlunto City and aims to increase community awareness and preparedness in facing disasters.

However, the implementation of the Destana program also faces challenges, such as budget limitations and the difficulty of recruiting volunteers who have a long-term commitment. Even so, the program is considered quite effective in raising community awareness of the importance of disaster mitigation. On the other hand, the implementation of mitigation policies in OPD such as PUPR and Social Services tend to focus more on post-disaster management. PUPR, for example, plays a role in repairing infrastructure damaged by landslides, while the Social Service is tasked with providing assistance to affected communities and conducting trauma healing. However, there is no clear preventive mitigation policy in each OPD. This shows that disaster mitigation policies in Sawahlunto City still need better coordination between DPOs to cover preventive efforts as a whole.

The implementation of disaster mitigation policies in the field is reflected in various efforts made by each village and sub-district. Aur Mulyo Village, for example, follows the Disaster Preparedness Groups (Kampung Siaga Bencana, KSB) policy set by the city and provincial governments and utilizes the DAK budget for rehabilitation of infrastructure damaged by disasters. Tumpuak Tangah Village, although it does not yet have an effective Destana, still relies on gotong royong and active community participation for disaster mitigation. Meanwhile, Kubang Tangah Village developed policies to increase the budget capacity of the Destana program and improve emergency communication using Handy Talky. The implementation of these policies shows that despite challenges in terms of budget and resources, disaster mitigation policies are still implemented by actively involving the community at all levels.

Jemari Sakato, an organization engaged in policy advocacy, research, action, and development of community participation facilitation methodologies, since 2018 has increasingly focused on the issue of disaster risk reduction. In an interview, the Director of Jemari Sakato, Anggun Mustika Yanti, said that most of their activities have been focused on responding when disasters occur, such as the distribution of non-food aid and emergency needs. One of Jemari Sakato's main focus areas is Agam Regency, especially on disability issues, given the high number of people with disabilities there. Meanwhile, funding from Arbeiter-Samariter-Bund (ASB) International is also used to support various community capacity building activities to deal with disasters.

However, Anggun revealed that until now Jemari Sakato has not taken any disaster mitigation measures in Sawahlunto. This is due to regulations from donors who still prioritize emergency response. “For Sawahlunto, so far Jemari has not taken any action, because the regulation from ASB focuses more on emergency management,” she explained. However, Anggun adds that this regulation is starting to be changed to broaden the scope of activities, especially after the floods in Padang which, although not causing many casualties, had a huge impact on environmental and housing damage. With this change, Jemari Sakato plans to provide more structured and sustainable assistance in disaster-prone areas, including in Sawahlunto.

The field evidence indicates that policy implementation in Sawahlunto is visible, but selective and uneven. Community-based implementation is more evident in villages that already have active local structures, while preventive policy integration at the broader inter-agency level remains incomplete. This distinction is important because it separates documentary commitments from actual implementation conditions observed in the field. Overall, the findings show that disaster mitigation policy implementation in Sawahlunto is partially institutionalized but still uneven in practice. BPBD has played a central coordinating role, yet preventive mitigation remains less consistently embedded across other agencies, many of which still emphasize post-disaster response. This indicates a gap between formal strategic commitment and the operational capacity required for preventive, cross-sectoral disaster governance. This uneven implementation also has environmental implications. Where preventive coordination is weak, local institutions are less able to address slope instability, land degradation, and settlement vulnerability in environmentally fragile and landslide-prone areas.

The implementation of disaster mitigation programs by BPBD Sawahlunto City includes various strategic efforts to reduce the impact of disasters, especially landslides, which are one of the main threats in the region. One indicator of the success of this program is the number of active Destana. To date, out of a total of 27 villages in Sawahlunto City, there are only 5 active Destana. Among them are Destana Lumindai, Destana Silungkang Oso, Destana Rantih, Destana Kubang Tangah and one independent Destana Silungkang Tigo. Destana is a flagship program because it aims to form villages that are better prepared for disasters through mitigation training, disaster simulation, and risk management. Although this achievement shows a positive first step, the coverage is still limited so it needs to be expanded so that the benefits of the Destana program are more evenly distributed throughout the region.

Another indicator is the implementation of the SPAB program that aims to improve preparedness in schools. Through coordination with the Education Office and KOGAMI’s support as a facilitator, the program involves disaster training and simulations for students and educators. The aim is to instill mitigation awareness early on while ensuring the readiness of the educational environment in the face of disasters. In addition, community socialization and education activities through various media, such as billboards, banners and information boards, are also an important part of the mitigation program implementation indicators. Although these activities are still constrained by limited budget and human resources, BPBD continues to strive to deliver disaster preparedness messages to the community.

The implementation of disaster mitigation programs by BPBD Sawahlunto City includes various strategic efforts aimed at reducing the impact of disasters, especially landslides, which are one of the main risks in the region. The programs involve various parties and are focused on community capacity building and strengthening mitigation infrastructure. One of the flagship programs is Destana, which is designed to establish villages that are better prepared for disasters through mitigation and risk management training. To date, out of a total of 27 villages in Sawahlunto City, there are only 5 active Destana. This shows that although the Destana program has been running, its coverage is still limited, so it needs to be expanded to other villages so that the benefits are more evenly distributed.

In addition to Destana, BPBD also implements the SPAB program which aims to improve disaster preparedness in schools. This program is conducted in coordination with the Education Office and involves KOGAMI as a facilitator. KOGAMI helps facilitate disaster training and simulations in the school environment so that students and educators can understand the steps to be taken in the event of a disaster. This effort also aims to instill awareness of the importance of disaster mitigation from an early age. Field findings indicate that the implementation of mitigation programs is strongest in locations where BPBD facilitation is accompanied by active local participation. In villages with active Destana structures, preparedness activities are more visible and sustained. In contrast, communities outside these program areas tend to have less structured preparedness mechanisms.

This suggests that program implementation is not determined solely by the existence of formal initiatives, but by the interaction between institutional support, budget availability, and local community capacity. Consequently, implementation remains uneven across the region rather than systemic at the city level.

This limitation is also environmentally relevant because restricted program coverage means that many landslide-prone settlements and unstable land areas remain outside structured preparedness interventions, reducing the potential for broader environmental risk reduction.

The effectiveness of disaster mitigation programs in Sawahlunto City, such as Disaster Resilient Village (Destana), SPAB, and other programs, is a major concern in assessing the success of mitigation efforts that have been carried out. Each program is designed to improve community preparedness and reduce the impact of disasters, especially landslides which are a major risk in this area. The Destana program is one of the important initiatives in improving the capacity of village communities in facing disasters. Based on data from BPBD Sawahlunto City, communities involved in the program showed faster response and better understanding of disaster risks. Limited budget is one of the main obstacles in expanding the program to other villages. As a result, Destana program coverage has not been optimal in reaching all at-risk areas in Sawahlunto.

In terms of effectiveness, the Destana program has shown a positive impact in building community preparedness, especially in villages that have been involved. Communities incorporated in Destana have a better level of understanding and emergency response compared to communities that are not incorporated. However, the overall effectiveness has not been maximized due to the limited area coverage and the lack of budget that hampers the replication of this program to other villages. The SPAB program is designed to improve preparedness in educational environments through disaster training and simulation. The program is implemented in collaboration with the Education Office and involves KOGAMI as the main facilitator. SPAB targets schools in Sawahlunto so that students, teachers and education personnel have knowledge of mitigation and evacuation measures. This collaboration has shown positive results, especially in raising awareness of the importance of disaster preparedness among the younger generation.

However, budget constraints are also a challenge in expanding the SPAB program to all schools in Sawahlunto. In addition, lack of active involvement from some schools that have not made disaster mitigation a priority is also an obstacle. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the SPAB program can be done through surveys in schools to measure the extent to which students' and teachers' understanding has improved after attending the training. BPBD also conducts socialization and education programs for the community through media such as billboards, banners and information boards. This program aims to increase community awareness about disaster risks and mitigation measures. Although this program is quite effective in reaching the general public, its effectiveness is limited due to the lack of budget to provide more comprehensive and attractive educational materials. In addition, this activity is still less than optimal in building active community participation in mitigation activities, such as disaster simulations and training.

In addition to programs that directly target the community, several related OPDs, such as the PUPR Office and the Social Service, also contribute to disaster mitigation. The PUPR Office carries out infrastructure improvements, such as strengthening slopes and roads in landslide-prone areas, while the Social Service provides social assistance and trauma healing for disaster-affected communities. This program has a real impact in supporting post-disaster recovery, but its effectiveness is still limited due to budget limitations and coordination constraints between OPDs.

These findings indicate that the effectiveness of mitigation programs in Sawahlunto is real but limited in scope. Programs such as Destana and SPAB have contributed positively to preparedness in the areas where they operate, but their overall impact remains constrained by limited coverage, budget shortages, and uneven institutional support. This suggests that program effectiveness in local disaster mitigation depends not only on program design, but also on the ability of local government to scale up implementation and sustain cross-sectoral support. The effectiveness of mitigation programs is therefore relevant not only for disaster preparedness, but also for reducing longer-term environmental pressure in hazard-prone settlements and unstable land areas. Where preparedness programs remain limited, both disaster risk and environmental vulnerability tend to persist.

The level of collaboration and participation of the community in disaster mitigation programs greatly affects the effectiveness of the program. BPBD Sawahlunto City has involved various elements of the community, including KSB. BPBD also coordinates with various related DPOs, such as the Education Office, which supports the SPAB program, and the PUPR Office, which focuses on infrastructure improvements. Collaboration between these DPOs is quite visible, but more active and direct collaboration with the community in mitigation programs has not been fully realized. Nevertheless, BPBD continues to improve this collaboration by organizing disaster training and simulations, although community participation in these programs still needs to be improved.

Collaboration between various parties, both government and community, plays a key role in achieving the effectiveness of disaster mitigation programs. BPBD Sawahlunto City involves various elements of the community, including Destana and KSB in disaster mitigation efforts. In addition, BPBD also coordinates with various related DPOs, such as the Education Office and PUPR Office, to optimize disaster mitigation programs. Although there is already visible collaboration between OPDs, community involvement in this collaboration is still limited, especially in programs that require active participation.

In Silungkang Oso Village, the community is involved in Destana activities and tree planting programs that are carried out in mutual cooperation. Meanwhile, Lumindai Village relies on gotong royong as an integral part of disaster mitigation, and Taratak Bancah Village also involves all residents in gotong royong activities to reduce the impact of disasters. However, BPBD still faces obstacles in maximizing community participation, mainly due to limited budget and resources.

In Kubang Tangah Village, the establishment of a Disaster Risk Reduction Forum (FPRB) and the procurement of communication tools such as Handy Talky to overcome signal interference during disasters demonstrate efforts to strengthen communication and community involvement in disaster mitigation. With better collaboration between the government, community, and related institutions, as well as increased active participation from the community, disaster mitigation programs can run more effectively and have a significant impact on disaster risk reduction in the area.

The case also supports discussions in community-based disaster risk reduction literature, which emphasize that local resilience depends not only on the presence of policy frameworks, but also on the extent to which communities are actively involved in preparedness and mitigation practices. In Sawahlunto, community-based mitigation appears more effective in areas where local participation is continuously supported by institutional coordination, facilitation, and village-level initiative.

Field findings show that collaboration and participation are already present as important components of mitigation strategy, but they remain uneven across locations. Villages with active local structures such as Destana, KSB, or FPRB demonstrate stronger collaboration, while in other areas participation remains limited. This helps distinguish the actual field condition from the broader policy expectation of community involvement. The Sawahlunto case therefore suggests that community-based disaster mitigation can be effective, but only when it is continuously supported by institutional coordination, local facilitation, and sufficient resources. This reinforces broader discussions in disaster governance that community resilience is produced through sustained interaction between formal institutions and local actors, rather than through community participation alone.

From an environmental governance perspective, stronger community participation contributes not only to preparedness but also to better local management of environmental risks, particularly through activities such as tree planting, slope maintenance, and collective protection of settlements in landslide-prone areas. Overall, BPBD Sawahlunto City has developed various mitigation programs that are relatively structured, although their implementation and effectiveness still face significant challenges. The findings show that collaboration and participation are already present in Sawahlunto’s mitigation strategy, but their strength varies across villages depending on local initiative, institutional support, and available resources. This also supports previous work arguing that community-based disaster risk reduction becomes more effective when supported by institutional coordination and sustained local participation. Therefore, the effectiveness of community-based mitigation in Sawahlunto depends not only on the presence of local groups such as Destana or KSB, but also on continuous facilitation, cross-sectoral support, and long-term engagement from both government and community actors.

Sawahlunto City is highly vulnerable to landslides, due to a combination of steep topography, unstable soils, and the presence of former mines that affect land stability. This situation makes landslide mitigation a top priority in local government policies and strategies. In dealing with this risk, the mitigation strategy implemented involves various aspects, including clarity of mitigation objectives, compatibility of objectives with existing risks, and program implementation in collaboration with various stakeholders. In terms of clarity of objectives, BPBD Sawahlunto City has shown its commitment by preparing various strategic documents, such as KRB, RPB, Recon, and RKA. These documents serve as the main foundation for local governments in designing measurable and result-oriented mitigation programs. However, although these documents have provided clear guidance, implementation in the field is often constrained by the lack of human resources and available budget. As a result, the implementation of mitigation programs is uneven across the region, especially in remote villages that have a high risk of landslides.

The alignment of mitigation objectives with existing risks shows that the government has understood the challenges on the ground through measures such as mapping disaster-prone areas, regular coordination meetings, and FGDs with stakeholders and experts. Programs such as Destana, SPAB, and gotong royong activities are clear examples of how mitigation objectives are adapted to local conditions. However, community participation, especially in remote villages, still needs to be increased to ensure that all elements of the community have adequate understanding and preparedness in facing disaster risks. The implementation of mitigation programs in Sawahlunto City has had a significant impact on improving community preparedness. The Destana program, for example, has helped communities in five villages to better understand disaster risks and how to handle them. However, of the 27 villages in Sawahlunto City, only five have active Destana, indicating the need to expand the scope of the program so that the benefits can be felt more evenly. Other programs, such as SPAB, have also shown positive results by improving the readiness of students and educators through mitigation simulations and training. However, limited budget and human resources are still a major challenge in the implementation of these programs.

In terms of regulations, Sawahlunto City has a legal framework that supports mitigation, such as regulations governing development in disaster-prone areas. However, the enforcement of this regulation is still an issue that must be addressed immediately. For example, in Silungkang Oso Village, many houses are still built on hillsides with steep slopes, despite regulations prohibiting construction in these areas. Weak supervision and lack of public awareness are the main obstacles in ensuring the regulation can be effectively implemented. In addition, technological limitations, such as the unavailability of early warning systems, are also factors that hinder the optimal implementation of mitigation. In addition to regulations, collaboration between agencies and stakeholders is also an important element in the mitigation strategy. BPBD has attempted to establish coordination with various parties, including other DPOs such as the PUPR, Perkim, and Social Services, as well as non-governmental organizations such as KOGAMI and Jemari Sakato. Although this coordination has been going quite well, there is a need to improve synergy, especially in terms of providing funds, strengthening capacity, and increasing community participation in mitigation programs. More integrated collaboration is expected to accelerate the achievement of overall disaster mitigation goals.

Overall, the findings show that disaster mitigation strategies in Sawahlunto have developed institutionally, but their effectiveness remains shaped by a persistent gap between formal planning and implementation capacity. The study demonstrates that the main challenge is not the absence of planning instruments, but the uneven translation of objectives, policies, and programs into coordinated preventive action across agencies and local communities. In this sense, the Sawahlunto case reflects a broader issue in local disaster governance, where strategic commitment is visible at the policy level, but operational integration remains incomplete. The case of Sawahlunto also demonstrates that landslide mitigation should be understood as part of environmental governance, since it involves the protection of land stability, settlement safety, and the sustainability of environmentally fragile post-mining areas. The findings indicate that mitigation is more effective when it is linked to hazard zoning, land-use control, slope management, and local environmental vulnerability, rather than being treated solely as an emergency response issue.

This study therefore concludes that effective landslide mitigation in Sawahlunto requires more than the preparation of formal planning documents. It depends on stronger cross-sectoral coordination, more even program coverage, adequate institutional resources, and sustained community participation. The findings also show that local disaster governance becomes more effective when preventive strategies are supported not only by institutional planning, but also by local implementation capacity and area-specific mitigation measures.

For regions characterized by steep terrain, unstable land, and former mining landscapes, disaster mitigation and environmental protection are closely interconnected. Strengthening mitigation in such areas can contribute not only to reducing disaster losses, but also to limiting land degradation and improving the long-term sustainability of vulnerable settlements. These findings offer useful lessons for other regions facing similar geological and institutional conditions, especially areas with recurring landslide risk and limited local resources for disaster management. In particular, the Sawahlunto case suggests that local resilience is strengthened when strategic planning, environmental risk awareness, and community-based preparedness are integrated into a coherent governance approach. Future research may further explore how digital early warning systems, geospatial monitoring, and participatory governance models can enhance the integration of environmental management and disaster mitigation in similar contexts.