Scholarly article on topic 'Coastal land use changes around the Ulee Lheue Bay of Aceh during the 10-year 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami recovery process'

Coastal land use changes around the Ulee Lheue Bay of Aceh during the 10-year 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami recovery process Academic research paper on "Earth and related environmental sciences"

CC BY-NC-ND
0
0
Share paper
Keywords
{Spatio-temporal / Tsunami / Recovery / "Land use" / Erosion / Pond}

Abstract of research paper on Earth and related environmental sciences, author of scientific article — Syamsidik, Mirza Fahmi, Eldina Fatimah, Afri Fitrayansyah

Abstract The sudden changes in coastal land use around the Ulee Lheue Bay of Aceh due to the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami have greatly impacted the affected communities. Ten years of the tsunami recovery process, with assistance from international donors and the government of Indonesia, have also produced a number of learnings. This research is aimed at monitoring the recovery of coastal land use during 10 years of the recovery process and at investigating the influence of the recovery process on the community livelihood. After the completion of the formal rehabilitation and reconstruction process led by Aceh-Nias Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Agency (BRR Aceh-Nias), there has been no systematic process for monitoring the recovery process. Therefore, this paper is considered important for filling the gaps in understanding the mid-term recovery process. Spatio-temporal analysis and in-depth interviews were employed in this study. Quantum GIS was used to analyze eight satellite images of the coastal area around the Ulee Lheue Bay of Aceh. Twelve key respondents were interviewed and triangulated to understand the relation between the coastal land use changes and the community's livelihood. We found satisfactory recovery process rates for houses and paddy field areas. Meanwhile, ponds only recovered by about 19% during the 10-year recovery process. We also identify the need to immediately formulate Integrated Coastal Zone Management in the next phase of the recovery process.

Academic research paper on topic "Coastal land use changes around the Ulee Lheue Bay of Aceh during the 10-year 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami recovery process"

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction xxx (xxxx) xxx-xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdrr

Coastal land use changes around the Ulee Lheue Bay of Aceh during the 10-year 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami recovery process

Syamsidika,b,*, Mirza Fahmia,c,d, Eldina Fatimaha,b, Afri Fitrayansyaha,d

a Tsunami and Disaster Mitigation Research Center (TDMRC), Syiah Kuala University, Jl Prof. Dr. Ibrahim Hasan, Gampong Pie, Banda Aceh 23233, Indonesia b Civil Engineering Department, Syiah Kuala University, Jl Syeh Abdurrauf No.7, Banda Aceh 23111, Indonesia c Civil Engineering Department, Almuslim University, Jl Almuslim, Matang Glumpang Dua, Bireuen 24261, Indonesia

d Student at Civil Engineering Master Program, Syiah Kuala University, Jl Syeh Abdurrauf No. 7, Darussalam-Banda Aceh 23111, Indonesia

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords:

Spatio-temporal

Tsunami

Recovery

Land use

Erosion

The sudden changes in coastal land use around the Ulee Lheue Bay of Aceh due to the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami have greatly impacted the affected communities. Ten years of the tsunami recovery process, with assistance from international donors and the government of Indonesia, have also produced a number of learnings. This research is aimed at monitoring the recovery of coastal land use during 10 years of the recovery process and at investigating the influence of the recovery process on the community livelihood. After the completion of the formal rehabilitation and reconstruction process led by Aceh-Nias Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Agency (BRR Aceh-Nias), there has been no systematic process for monitoring the recovery process. Therefore, this paper is considered important for filling the gaps in understanding the mid-term recovery process. Spatio-temporal analysis and in-depth interviews were employed in this study. Quantum GIS was used to analyze eight satellite images of the coastal area around the Ulee Lheue Bay of Aceh. Twelve key respondents were interviewed and triangulated to understand the relation between the coastal land use changes and the community's livelihood. We found satisfactory recovery process rates for houses and paddy field areas. Meanwhile, ponds only recovered by about 19% during the 10-year recovery process. We also identify the need to immediately formulate Integrated Coastal Zone Management in the next phase of the recovery process.

1. Introduction

During the 10 years following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, a massive reconstruction process was introduced in Aceh and Nias of Indonesia. The two regions were severely damaged by the tsunami. Land use recovery processes after an extreme event may reflect the recovery process of the affected community's livelihood. Sudden changes in environmental factors in the area could severely degrade the economic productivity of the area. The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami eroded about 400 m of coastline in Banda Aceh and even created an island due to severe erosion, Ujong Seuden in Aceh [2,14]. Drastic changes in the environment after the extreme event forced a number of communities to seek temporary shelters or be relocated to different places. The number of people displaced internally after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami was about 635,000 [31]. Within one year after the tsunami, some of them decided to move back to the coastal area where the resettlement construction was still underway. Some of the resettlement programs were located in the same coastal area as that before

the 2004 tsunami [30].

One of the cases is the resettlement program for affected communities in the Ulee Lheue Bay of Aceh. The bay is situated between Banda Aceh and Aceh Besar District. The initial plan of the resettlement program to relocate the affected communities far from the coastal area was introduced by the government of Indonesia during the first phase of the reconstruction process. However, it failed due to the demands of the affected communities who did not want to go far away from their original place for several reasons [13]. The return migration rate of the tsunami-affected communities was, therefore, high [32].

During the 10-year recovery process, the area has undergone a number of interventions for rehabilitation using multi-sector development. The 10-year process has also brought new life into the communities. However, until now, there have been a limited number of studies that reveal the process and capture the challenges in managing coastal land use at the Ulee Lheue Bay of Aceh. Most of the published reports or articles have only investigated the process during the first five years after the tsunami [7,26-28]. During the period, massive interventions

* Corresponding author at: Tsunami and Disaster Mitigation Research Center (TDMRC), Syiah Kuala University, Jl. Prof. Dr. Ibrahim Hasan, Gampong Pie, Banda Aceh 23233, Indonesia.

E-mail address: syamsidik@tdmrc.org (Syamsidik). http://dx.doi.org/10.10167j.ijdrr.2017.07.014

Received 3 April 2017; Received in revised form 28 July 2017; Accepted 29 July 2017

2212-4209/ © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).

Please cite this article as: Syamsidik, S., International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction (2017), http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.07.014

were driven by external agents such as international donors and the Aceh-Nias Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Agency (BRR Aceh-Nias). After 2009, the lessons learned from the recovery process that specifically focused on land use recovery were not well documented or published.

The reconstruction process after a mega-disaster should be planned as mid-term as well as long-term processes. However, there are no formal documents after the closing of the BRR Aceh-Nias, in March 2009, that can be referred to for mid- and long-term reconstruction processes in Aceh. Although there was a new agency (Badan Kesinambungan Rekontruksi Aceh /BKRA) established to replace the BRR Aceh-Nias, the work of the new agency was neither well informed nor well integrated into other development sectors. The BKRA was expected to work under directives of the Aceh Governor. At the time of its establishment, it stirred confusions among government institutions on the operation of BKRA [25]. This caused difficulties in measuring the recovery process after the closing of the BRR Aceh-Nias. As demonstrated in other mega-disaster recovery processes, such as the 1995 Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake in Hyogo prefecture of Japan, the reconstruction process was planned for three periods: 5 years, 10 years, and 15 years [3]. Reconstruction of New Orleans after Hurricane Ka-trina had been monitored and planned for at least 11 years after the disaster. In this case, the recovery process was monitored to see economic factors, resettlement, and other livelihood factors [9].

In a global context, research on post-disaster reconstruction has gained momentum after several mega-disasters, such as the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, and the Wenchuan, China earthquake. Of about 122 reviewed journal papers published from 2002 until 2012 that focused on post-disaster reconstruction, about 26% investigated the stakeholder involvement in the process and about 23% discussed the reconstruction approach [19]. None of them reported land use changes during the reconstruction process.

Spatio-temporal changes in land use/cover (LUC) in Banda Aceh were reported between 2005 and 2009 [1]. This study and several available reports ended their observations during the BRR Aceh-Nias works that were completed in 2009. After 2009 until recently, the recovery process was difficult to monitor. This reveals minimal attention paid to the monitoring of the coastal LUC over a long period after being affected by the tsunami. Furthermore, a specific study to investigate the recovery process of the coastal land use and its relation to the community's life is scarce. Therefore, this study is considered an important contribution to identify gaps in studies regarding Aceh as the study area.

This study is aimed at monitoring the recovery of coastal land use during the 10-year recovery process and at investigating the influence of the recovery process on community livelihood. The study area is conducted around the Ulee Lheue Bay of Aceh, where the impact of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami was severe. Interestingly, some parts of the coastal areas around this bay recovered naturally. Spatial analysis was employed in this study coupled with in-depth interviews with key persons in the area to examine the correspondence between the coastal land use recovery and its impact on livelihood.

2. Study area

The Ulee Lheue Bay is situated at the northern tip of the Sumatra Island. This bay area is shared by Banda Aceh city and Aceh Besar district at their administrative border. The Ulee Lheue Bay has been famous for centuries as a safe area for international navigation, avoiding storm waves and extreme sea-weather generated around the Andaman Sea or in the Malacca Strait. Fig. 1 shows the location of this

study area. This study focused on the Ulee Lheue Bay in Aceh Besar District. Before 2004, this area was largely known for its aquaculture activities, namely, ponds. In the early 900 AC, there was a Hindu settlement in this area, and, at that time, the area was called "In-drapurwa." However, Acehnese historians learned that around 960 AC, there was a tsunami that demolished the settlement [21]. The source of the tsunami is unknown. The settlement was re-activated around mid period of the Aceh Darussalam Sultanate era in the 1600s. In the Aceh Darussalam Sultanate era, the bay functioned as an important commercial port as well as a part of the Sultanate protection zone, protecting the Sultanate from foreign attackers [22-24]. Considering the long history of the bay, we can understand the significance of the bay for the Aceh civilization. Until 2004, fishponds and mangrove areas dominated the land use of the coastal area around the bay.

Morphologically, the bay is limited by a headland in its western part. The hillside of Bukit Barisan mountain is located in the southern part of the study area. One small island, Pulo Tuan island, is located about 3 km from the coastline of the Ulee Lheue. The Pulo Tuan island is a part of the marine conservation area, the rich biodiversity of which was destroyed by the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Recently, coral reefs around the small island have been partly recovered.

3. Methods

In this study, we used two main methods to capture the coastal land use changes, i.e., spatio-temporal analysis of land use units around the Ulee Lheue Bay and in-depth interviews, and understand the connection between the land use changes and the community's livelihood. The spatio-temporal analysis used data from 2003 (one year before the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami), representing the situation before the tsunami, until 2015. Nine series of satellite images were included in the analysis. Satellite images of the study area in 2003 and 2007 were obtained from IKONOS and Quickbird, respectively. Meanwhile, satellite images of the area captured in March 2005 (three months after the 2004 tsunami), 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, and 2015, were obtained from Landsat. Table 1 shows detailed information of the images included in the analysis, such as the time when the images were taken, their source, and, their resolution. All the images were digitized to study land uses. Land use delineation processes for four major types of land uses were manually conducted by digitizing the boundary of each land use type. This was made possible due to the sufficient resolution of the images used.

Four types of land uses were taken into analysis, namely, houses, paddy fields (Oryza sativa sp.), coastal forest, and ponds. Within an interval of 100 m from the coastal line to the land, the land use units were calculated and plotted accumulatively to the distance of the land use unit to coastal lines. Quantum GIS (QGIS) was used to digitize and analyze the spatial changes. A spatio-temporal analysis to observe the coastal morphological changes in Aceh was conducted by Liew et al. [11]. However, the study only managed to observe the first three years of the process, until 2009. Furthermore, the area selected in the study was not located in Banda Aceh or around the Ulee Lheue Bay of Aceh. Another recent study that used spatio-temporal analysis on coastal changes after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami (GEJET) was reported by Tappin et al. [15]. The study revealed a significant detail of coastal morphological changes after the GEJET, such as the destruction of coastal dunes, ridges, and embankments.

In-depth or semi-structured interviews were attempted by interviewers to obtain elicit information from respondents by addressing some key questions [34]. In-depth interviews give the researcher an advantage at dealing with complex issues involving various aspects of

95°14.4'E 95°15.6'E 95°16.8'E

Fig. 1. The Ulee Lheue Bay of Aceh. Dark gray area represents the land area of the bay.

Table 1

Information of the time, source, and resolution of the satellite images.

No Date of the Captured Image (Month/Day/Year) Data Source Resolution

1 10/01/2003 IKONOS 0.5 m

2 28/01/2005 Landsat 15 m

3 30/07/2007 QuickBird 0.5 m

4 23/02/2009 Landsat 15 m

5 08/07/2010 Landsat 15 m

6 28/05/2011 Landsat 15 m

7 08/05/2013 Landsat 15 m

8 29/10/2014 Landsat 15 m

9 14/08/2015 Landsat 15 m

research where the researcher could use probes and spontaneous questions to deepen the understanding and further clarify responses [35]. In-depth interviews have been used in several previous studies to examine the disaster recovery processes, such as in the case of the collapse of Toten Dam in the US in 1976 [6] and after the Marmara-Turkey earthquake in 1997, to record efforts that promoted building disaster-resilient communities [8]. The number of respondents for a qualitative research is based on the condition that the research ensures no contradictory results appear or no new information is obtained after a series of interviews have been conducted. Guest et al. suggested that twelve respondents suffice to obtain a validated result in a qualitative research [36]. In a research that uses Interpretative Phenomenological

Analysis (IPA), which is one of qualitative researches that applies an inductive approach, six respondents are considered sufficient [37].

In this study, in-depth interviews were conducted with twelve key persons in the study area. Three of them were the heads of the villages and were considered important community leaders in the area. The other nine persons were the owners of ponds and paddy fields. The key persons as respondents in this research were selected because of three reason, i.e., (1) the persons were tsunami survivors in this area, (2) worked in this area as pond owners or paddy field farmers, (3) continued to live in this area during the tsunami recovery process, in order to ensure that the respondents had knowledge on the land use recovery process. The interviews were conducted in early 2016. Six main questions that drove the interview process are as follows:

• What is the connection between the respondents and the land use in the study area? Do they use them to generate income or only to live on?

• How do the respondents compare the land use productivity to support their livelihood before and after the tsunami?

• What kinds of interventions were made to recover the coastal land use after severe destruction by the tsunami waves?

• What is their opinion of the effectiveness of the intervention to recover the land use?

• If the respondent thinks that the productivity of the paddy field or the ponds is low compared to the condition before the 2004 tsunami, what caused the decrease?

• Are there any job changes driven by the failure of the recovery? If they have changed their job, what is the reason?

Syamsidik et al.

95°14'E 95°16'E 95°17'E

Fig. 2. Land Use/Cover around the Ulee Lheue Bay in 2003, one year before the 2004 tsunami.

To validate the answers received from the key respondents, a triangulation process was conducted among the responses collected and presented. The triangulation method is a valid technique if the researchers have clear guidelines and remember the targeted findings

from an interview process conducted over a rather long period (see [4]). Our research team was in contact with the respondents for a rather long time (4-5 h per respondent), and repeated several questions to see the consistency of the responses.

Fig. 3. Sudden changes of land use/cover in the Ulee Lheue Bay due to the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Black dots represent the remains of houses in the area, which were mostly only the floor. There were no significant standing structures in the area in 2005.

95°16'E

Fig. 4. Land use of the Ulee Lheue Bay in 2007.

4. Results

4.1. Land use/Cover changes

Figs. 2 and 3 show the conditions of the coastal land use before the 2004 tsunami and just after the tsunami around the Ulee Lheue Bay,

respectively. A comparison of the two figures clearly shows the drastic changes of the coastal land use generated by the tsunami waves. There were no structures left standing in the area after the tsunami. Paddy fields and ponds were completely demolished. Most survivors were helped by the hills located about 1 km from the coastal line. The survivors were offered relocation farther inland by BRR Aceh-Nias, which

95°16'E

95°16'E

Fig. 6. Land use of the Ulee Lheue Bay in 2010.

was about 30 km from the initial location. They were temporarily given shelters during the first year after the tsunami, but they only stayed in the shelters for about one year after the tsunami. However, later, many of the survivors demanded that the resettlement houses be built around

the same location as that before the tsunami. The changes of the resettlement approaches made by the BRR Aceh-Nias allowed the survivors to return to the coastal area. Gradually, starting in 2006, people returned to the area when the resettlement houses were completed.

95°16'E

95°1б'Е

Fig. 8. Land use of the Ulee Lheue Bay in 2013.

Figs. 4-9 show the LUC changes in the study area in 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2014, and 2015, respectively. In 2007, a number of resettlement houses were completed and used by the communities. The return communities started to build ponds and paddy fields three years after the 2004 tsunami. A significant area of ponds was created around

the center of the area. However, later, these ponds failed to continue to support the economic life of the communities. Coastal forest (Casuarina sp.) was first grown in the area in 2009. About 1 ha area of Casuarina sp. was planted in the central part of the area. In 2010, mangroves were reintroduced in the area through several government-driven projects. In

95°16'E

95°14'E 95°16'E 95°17'E

Fig. 10. Land use of the Ulee Lheue Bay in 2015.

Table 2

Progress of land use change in Ulee Lheue from 2003 until 2015.

Year Houses (ha) Ponds (ha) Coastal forest (ha) Paddy field (ha)

2015 23.06 31.64 27.73 136.70

2014 22.95 31.56 20.78 137.66

2013 22.92 31.16 11.99 130.06

2011 23.75 29.57 9.15 133.45

2010 23.70 31.81 7.19 99.39

2009 22.97 32.19 1.98 78.83

2007 10.12 14.75 0.00 71.57

2005 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00

2003 25.33 157.32 17.72 219.30

2015, the coastal area in the Ulee Lheue Bay was dominated by mangroves and Casuarina sp. Progress in the land use change for every year under analysis is shown in Table 2.

The cumulative area of each land use unit was analyzed to observe the rate of the tsunami recovery process. Fig. 11(a) shows the cumulative change in fishponds around the Ulee Lheue Bay. The figure clearly shows that the large areas of fishponds in this bay could not be recovered despite 10 years of the tsunami recovery process. Only 19% of the fishponds could be rehabilitated and made productive. The recovery rate of the paddy field area was not high (see Fig. 11(b)). Only about 80% of the paddy field area could be successfully recovered. There was better performance of the paddy field recovery as part of the completion of a small dam that supplied irrigation water to the paddy fields. Interestingly, the recovery of the houses was high. The total area of the houses in this area was about 91%— almost the same as that before the 2004 tsunami (Fig. 12(a)). However, since the eroded coastal line could not be fully recovered, the locations of the houses were closer to the coastal line, as we can see in Fig. 12(a). In contrast, the recovery

of coastal forest exceeded the condition of this area before the 2004 tsunami (Fig. 12(b)). However, it should be noted that the type of coastal forest had changed. Before the 2004 tsunami, this area was dominated by mangrove coastal forest. Since 2010, the coastal forest in this area has been dominated by Casuarina sp. In the next section, the connection between the communities and the type of land use cover that supports the communities' livelihood is discussed.

4.2. Community's livelihood in connection with LUC changes

The coastal land use changes in the area were related to the economic activities of the communities. Fishponds and paddy fields were the two main land use types rehabilitated to support the communities' livelihood. As revealed through the in-depth interviews, the communities felt that the productivity of the ponds was better before the 2004 tsunami. A summary of responses from respondents during the in-depth interview is provided in the Appendix. Before the 2004 tsunami, there were two types of aquaculture activities here, namely, fish and shrimp ponds. Due to the tsunami, all the ponds were destroyed and polluted by saline intrusion. In early 2007, some ponds were seen in the area; however, they failed to deliver a significant harvest of fish or shrimp. The ponds' owners noted that the polluted soil could not be rehabilitated by a natural process (by means of rainfall). Mechanical processes, involving excavating the soil contaminated due to the salinity, were introduced by many donors, such as the Asian Development Bank (ADB), USAID, and UNDP. Significant increases in the pond area began in 2011 after many interventions. However, most of the aquaculture comprises fishponds.

At the first stage of the recovery of ponds, Grouper (Epinephelinae sp.) or Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus sp.) were stocked in the ponds but with a low rate of income. Later, Milkfish (Chanos chanos sp.) were chosen by the farmers to replace the shrimp and had a better harvest

rate than the other two types of fish. Stocking shrimp in the ponds was met with a low success rate compared to fish. However, fishponds generated a lower income for the community than the shrimp for two reasons: (1) it took longer to harvest a fishpond, about 5-6 months, and (2) it was difficult to sell the Milkfish in nearby markets (Banda Aceh and Aceh Besar areas). The area of shrimp ponds was never recovered for two reasons: (1) shrimp seeds were expensive, and (2) farmers were unwilling to take high risks due to previous experiences where shrimp ponds failed.

Despite the massive rehabilitation process undertaken by international donors and the government of Indonesia, the recovery rate of ponds was significantly low, or about 19%, as identified previously. Thus, the pond farmers took up jobs in other sectors, such as becoming paddy field farmers, fishermen, or merchants. Some of the pond farmers

had a second job to support their livelihood. Unlike before the 2004 tsunami, ponds were no longer the dominant income source for the communities.

A significant recovery rate is shown in terms of paddy field land use. Recovery processes of the paddy fields were supported by USAID, UNDP, and the government of Indonesia. Mainly, the paddy fields in this area were rain-fed. After the completion of a small dam (Embung Lambadeuk) in 2007, about 4 ha of the paddy fields could be supported by an irrigation system from the dam. However, the small dam was designed to provide tap water to the community and not to fully support the paddy fields. Therefore, the paddy fields were still mainly supported by the rain. Paddy farmers mainly had two jobs: as farmers and as fishermen. There were no significant job changes for the farmers. The irrigated paddy fields could be harvested twice a year. Meanwhile,

Fig. 12. (a) cumulative changes of houses and (b) cumulative changes of the coastal forest area.

about 97% of other paddy fields, which were rain-fed, could only be harvested once a year. At the end of 2015, about 73% of the paddy field area was rehabilitated and made productive. Now, the total of the paddy fields in this area had reached about 137 ha.

5. Discussion

Coastal land use changes around the Ulee Lheue Bay after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami show interesting results. The return of coastal resettlement in this area has reached levels that are similar to those before the 2004 tsunami. The return communities have influenced the other land use types in this area, such as coastal forest, ponds, and paddy fields. The high return migration rate represented by the return settlement in the coastal area was driven by two factors: (1) the strong

connection between the affected communities and land uses, and (2) the strong social capital and social homogeneity within the communities. The factor of strong social capital and the social homogeneity have also been proven to be the case of the Nepal earthquake recovery process [12]. All the land use types have important connections with the community's livelihood.

In early stages of the recovery process, interventions from external organizations were required. We learned that the communities' efforts to recover the ponds were not satisfactory due to several issues. The Drivers-Pressure-State Changes-Impacts-Response (DPSIR) framework as proposed by Turner in 1998 has successfully explained the connection between an extreme event and socio-economic changes among the affected communities [16]. Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) that was proposed to be included in the 2004 tsunami recovery

process in Aceh was never seriously considered because the connection between the communities' livelihood and the environmental management was not thoroughly discussed and implemented in the area [10,18]. According to Aceh Besar District spatial planning for 2012-2032, land use of this area is designated to paddy fields, houses, ponds, and farmland [38]. This conforms the existing condition of the land use in this area.

Re-creating land barriers and the mixing process of fresh water and saline water are two activities that were missing during the rehabilitation of the ponds. Although this process was undertaken for some parts of the pond area, the overall pond recovery process did not include channeling fresh water from the Embung Lambadeuk dam to the pond areas. Land barriers that could protect the ponds from direct wave attacks were not created for some parts of the area. This made it difficult to rehabilitate the ponds. Furthermore, the condition had a strong influence on the community's livelihood. The same findings were also revealed in the case of the Banda Aceh coastal area where the low rate of recovery of ponds drove the community to adapt to the new economic pressures [7]. The adaptation was in terms of changes in jobs, diversification of income sources, and converting the land use to other types of uses. The latter was found mostly in the case of failed ponds. Another study also proved that the fishery-based livelihood of the tsunami-affected communities in Aceh no longer existed in some areas due to the degradation of the fishery resource base [5].

The resettlement houses built on the same locations as before the 2004 tsunami were interpreted as the re-creation of tsunami risk in this area. This triggered other land use changes in the area. Failed ponds not only caused the community to change jobs but also changed the ecological conditions in the area. Some farmlands on the hillside of the area could be seen in early 2015. Although the area was still about 10 ha, expanding deforestation was within reach. This could become an impending ecological problem in the area if no immediate prevention measure was put in place.

A large coastal area that was eroded due to the 2004 tsunami was not recovered until 2015 in the western part of the coast (compare Fig. 2 to Fig. 10). The community that lived in the eroded area was forced to change jobs and seek other income sources, including becoming fishermen or cultivating a farm on the hillside. Up to this time, there had been no plans to recover the eroded coastal land. A number of technologies could be used as alternatives for recovering the eroded land. One of them was hybrid engineering to mitigate the impact of coastal erosion, which was introduced in the case of Demak of Central Java [17]. The hybrid engineering structure allowed a temporary shoreline that trapped muddy sediment, which was important for planting mangroves [20]. This could provide opportunities for the eroded shoreline to re-create natural barriers, such as allowing mangrove trees to grow.

Tsunami-affected coastal communities' livelihood needed to be rehabilitated beyond reinstating the same conditions as those existing before the disaster [29]. The process needed to explore opportunities to develop the affected areas with more advanced technologies. In the case

Appendix

of Ulee Lheue area, the intervention of recovering the affected area by introducing advance techniques for ponds or aquaculture was not found. Although sustainability is a broad term, we could identify that the recovery process needed to be in line with the persistence of the social and economic living conditions in relation to post-disaster measures and to align the proposed measures with basic environmental aspects [33]. Here, the opportunities to re-align the recovery process could be made by following the two suggestions in regard to sustain-ability disaster recovery.

6. Conclusions

This paper discussed coastal land use changes around the Ulee Lheue Bay of Aceh, which was severely destroyed by the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. A spatio-temporal analysis using a series of satellite images was employed to see the coastal land use changes between 2003 and 2015. Four types of land use units were analyzed, namely, houses, ponds, paddy fields, and coastal forests. The highest recovery rate was for the houses. The resettlement program from 2005 until 2009 had successfully recovered the housing area by about 91%. This then drove other coastal land-use changes. However, the area for ponds could only be recovered by about 19% compared to its condition before the tsunami. The low recovery rate of the ponds forced the pond owners to seek other sources of income, including starting new agricultural farming on the hillside of the area. This caused new ecological concerns because the hillside was an important forest reserve area, which was also an important fresh water source. The paddy field area had been recovered by about 73% compared to that before the 2004 tsunami. Interventions made by donors and by the government of Indonesia successfully helped the paddy field farmers to operate their fields. The 10-year recovery process in this area had not included the concept of ICZM. A short period of the recovery process conducted between 2005 and 2009 forced many donors to speed-up the programs in the area without properly taking into account the ICZM concept. Eroded coastal land in the western part of the Ulee Lheue Bay has yet to receive sufficient attention to recover the land. Future challenges in this area can include ecological balance and economic pressure.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the Partnership Enhanced Engagement in Research (PEER) Cycle 5 promoted by the United States Agencies for International Development (USAID) and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS), under Sponsor Grant Award Number: AID-0AA-A-11-00012 and sub-Grant Number PGA-2000007546 with the title of the research project #5-395: 'Incorporating climate change induced sea level rise information into coastal cities' preparedness toward coastal hazards'. Proofreading processes were financed by PUI-PT 2017 Program for TDMRC Unsyiah and PEER Cycle 5. The authors would also like to thank the Peukan Bada communities who were very supportive during the research.

See Table A1

Table A1

Table of Summary of in-depth Interview with respondents in Ulee Lheue Bay on Paddy Field and Ponds Recovery Process.

Respondent's name, gender, and age

Connection to the Land use productivity comparison Interventions made to recover the land

land use between before tsunami and the present

situation

What have caused the decrease of the productivity?

Has the respondent change his/her job after tsunami?

Respondent #01, male, 45

Respondent #02, male, 49

Respondent #03, male, 36

Respondent #04, male, 50

- Head of village

- Owner of pond and paddy field

- Head of village

- Owner of pond and paddy field

- Head of village

- Owner of pond and paddy field

- Owner of pond and paddy field

Respondent #05, male, - Owner of paddy

60 field

Respondent #06, male, - Owner of paddy

36 field

Respondent #07, male, - Owner of ponds

Respondent #08, male, - Owner of paddy

55 field

Respondent #09, - Owner of paddy

female, 40 field

Respondent #10, - Owner of paddy

female, 50 field

Respondent #11, 35 - Owner of pond

Respondent #12, male, - Owner of pond

The ponds area and paddy field area become smaller after the 2004 tsunami. Interestingly, the paddy harvest per hectare increased slightly.

The pond and paddy field area decreased after tsunami. However, the paddy harvest rate (ton/hectare) increased.

Pond and paddy field area decreased due to erosion.

The area of ponds and paddy field decreased after the 2004 tsunami.

Paddy field area became smaller. Paddy field area became smaller. In total, paddy field area became smaller.

In total, paddy field area decreased

In total, paddy field area decreased

In total, paddy field area decreased

Only few hectares of ponds are left after tsunami

The remaining ponds are significantly small compared to before the tsunami.

Dredging and embankments development Productivity of paddy field was increased. One of the Yes.

Paddy field and pond clean-up were performed to remove tsunami debris. Furthermore, dredging to re-create pond's embankments was done. Embankment development, dredging, and, Lam Badeuk dam construction for fresh water supply.

Clean-up the tsunami debris from ponds and paddy field. The pond area was dredged.

Dredging and tsunami debris clean-up were performed

Dredged some area and cleaned up tsunami debris

Dredged some area and cleaned up tsunami debris

Tsunami debris clean-up and dredging. Some activities continue until the present. Tsunami debris clean-up

Tsunami debris clean-up and dredging. Some activities continue until the present. Remaining pond area after the tsunami was dredged to rehabilitate the ponds

Remaining pond area after the tsunami was dredged to rehabilitate the ponds.

reasons was the fresh water contribution from Lam Badeuk Irrigation system. The reason behind failure of the ponds was not clearly identified. Previous investigations of soil quality did not show any negative results.

Large area of his pond was eroded by the tsunami wave and had not been recovered since the tsunami.

The ponds could be recovered due to severe erosion.

Not known

There were farmers who did not want to activate their ponds again after tsunami Some paddy field owners changed their paddy field into farm land

The soil condition of the pond was never recovered and, there were limited financial resources available for them to re-activate the ponds Some paddy field turned to settlement area

Some paddy field owners changed their land into

farmland and housing complex.

Some paddy field owners changed their land into

farmland and housing complex.

Large area of ponds could not be recovered due to

severe erosion during the tsunami.

Large area of ponds could not be recovered due to severe erosion during the tsunami.

Now, this respondent focuses on agriculture and selling small goods, instead of being a pond owner.

The respondent has changed his job to a fisherman and farmer.

Now, he works as a farmer only (previously worked on ponds and paddy field). Yes.

The respondent only works as a farmer. Previously He had a double job as a paddy field farmer and a pond owner No

Now the respondent changed his job to become a paddy field farmer. No

Now, the respondent has become a

farmer

The respondent now simultaneously works as a construction worker and a farmer.

References

[1] A. Ahmad, S. Hasyim, B. Dahlan, D.N. Aulia, Modeling of urban growth in tsunami-prone city using logistic regression: analysis of Banda Aceh, Indonesia, Appl. Geogr. 62 (2015) 237-246.

[2] M. Al'ala, Syamsidik, T.M. Rasyif, M. Fahmi, Numerical simulation of Ujong Seudeun land separation caused by 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, Aceh-Indones., Sci. Tsunami Hazard 34 (3) (2015) 159-172.

[3] City of Kobe. Comprehensive strategy for recovery from the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake. <http://www.city.kobe.lg.jp/safety/hanshinawaji/revival/promote/ img/English.pdf> (Accessed 10 November 2015).

[4] S. Dootson, An in-depth study of triangulation, JAN 22 (1) (1995) 183-187.

[5] L.R. Garces, M.D. Pido, R.S. Pomeroy, S. Koeshendrajana, B.I. Prisantoso,

N.A. Fatan, D. Adhuri, T. Raiful, S. Rizal, A. Tewfik, M. Dey, Rapid needs assessment of community in Aceh Province, Indonesia, Ocean Coast. Manag. 53 (2010) 69-79.

[6] J.A. Golec, A Conceptual approach to the social psychological study of disaster recovery, Int. J. Mass Emerg. Disasters 1 (2) (1983) 255-276.

[7] C. Griffin, D. Ellis, S. Beavis, D. Zoleta-Nantes, Coastal resources, livelihoods and the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami in Aceh, Indonesia, Ocean Coast. Manag. 71 (2013) 176-186.

[8] N.A. Karanci, B. Askit, Building disaster-resilient communities: Lessons learned from Past earthquakes in Turkey and suggestions for future, International, J. Mass Emerg. Disast. 18 (3) (2000) 403-416.

[9] R.W. Kates, C.E. Colten, S. Laska, S.P. Leatherman, Reconstruction of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina: a research perspective, PNAS 103 (40) (2006) 14653-14660.

[10] R. Kay, Tsunami update: coastal zone management challenges in the tsunami response, Coast. Soc. Bull. 24 (2) (2005) 1-7.

[11] S.L. Liew, A. Gupta, P.P. Wong, L.K. Kwoh, Recovery from a large tsunami mapped over time: the Aceh coast, Sumatra, Geomorphology 114 (2010) 520-529.

[12] A. Mishra, R. Ghate, A. Maharjan, J. Gurung, G. Pathak, A.N. Upraity, Building ex ante resilience of disaster-exposed mountain communities: drawing insights from the Nepal earthquake recovery, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. (2017), http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.03.008.

[13] Syamsidik, F.Fikri, The Indian Ocean Tsunami and Land Use Changes in Indonesia, Land Use Management in Disaster Risk Reduction (Eds: Banba and Shaw) 297-310, 2017.

[14] Syamsidik, Tursina, A. Meutia, M. Al'ala, M. Fahmi, E. Meilianda, Numerical simulations of impacts of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami on coastal morphological changes around the Ulee Lheue Bay of Aceh, Indonesia, J. Earthq. Tsunami 11 (2017) 1740005, http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S179343111740005X.

[15] D.R. Tappin, H.M. Evans, C.J. Jordan, B. Richmond, D. Sugawara, K. Goto, Coastal changes in the Sendai area from the impact of the 2011 Tohoku-oki tsunami: interpretations of time series satellite images, helicopter-borne video footage and field observations, Sediment. Geol. 282 (2012) 151-174.

[16] R.K. Turner, I. Lorenzoni, N. Beaumont, I.J. Bateman, I.H. Langford, A.L. McDonald, Coastal management for sustainable development: analyzing environmental and socio-economic changes on the UK coast, Geogr. J. 164 (1998) 269-281.

[17] H. Winterwerp, B. van Wesenbeeck, J. van Dalfsen, F. Tonneijck, A. Astra, S. Verschure, P. van Eijk, A sustainable solution for massive coastal erosion in Central Java, Toward Regional Scale Application of Hybrid Engineering-Discussion Paper, Deltares, the Netherlands, 2014.

[18] P.P. Wong, Rethinking post-tsunami integrated coastal management for Asia-Pacific, Ocean Coast. Manag. 52 (2009) 405-410.

[19] H. Yi, J. Yang, Research trends of post disaster reconstruction: the Past and the future, Habitat Int. 42 (2014) 21-29.

[20] A.E. Sutton-Grier, K. Wowk, H. Bamford, Future of our coasts: the potential for natural and hybrid infrastructure to enhance the resilience of our coastal communities, economies and ecosystem, Environ. Sci. Policy 51 (2015) 137-148.

[21] K.A. Arif, Ragam Citra Kota Banda Aceh: interpretasi sejarah, memori kolektif, dan arketipe arsitekturnya (in Bahasa Indonesia), Pustaka Bustanussalatin, Banda Aceh, 2008.

[22] K.A. Arif Various, Images of Banda Aceh interpretation of its history, collective memory and architectural archetypes, Conference On Technology & Sustainability in the Built of Environment, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia, 2010, pp. 257-278.

[23] T. Iskandar, Aceh as crucible of Muslim- Malay literature. Mapping of the Achenese past(editors: Feener et al.). KITLV Press, Leiden 39-64, 2011.

[24] E.E. McKinnon, Beyond Serandib: A Note on Lambri at the Northern Tip of Acheh. <http://www.sabrizain.org/malaya/library/lambri.pdf>. (Accessed 10 May 2015).

[25] BRR Aceh Nias, STORY: feat of the Daunting Launchs, MDF-UNDP, Banda Aceh-Indonesia, 2010.

[26] T. Steinberg, Housing reconstruction and rehabilitation in Aceh and Nias, Indonesia-Rebuilding lives, Habitat Int. 31 (1) (2007) 150-166.

[27] Rachmalia, U. Hatthakit, A. Chaowalit, Tsunami preparedness of people living in affected and non-affected areas: a comparative study in coastal area in Aceh, Indonesia, Aust. Emerg. Nurs. J. 14 (1) (2011) 17-25.

[28] R. Matsumaru, K. Nagami, K. Takeya, Reconstruction of the Aceh region following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami disaster: a transportation perspective, IATSS Res. 35 (2012) 11-19.

[29] R.S. Pomeroy, B.D. Ratner, S.J. Hall, J. Pilmoljinda, V. Vivekanandan, Coping with disaster: rehabilitating coastal livelihoods and communities, Mar. Policy 30 (2006) 786-793.

[30] Syamsidik, T.M. Rasyif, S. Kato, Development of accurate tsunami estimated times of arrival for tsunami-prone cities in Aceh-Indonesia, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 14 (4) (2015) 403-410.

[31] The Government of Aceh. Aceh reconstruction continuation actions plan 2010-2012. <http://perpustakaan.bappenas.go.id/lontar/file?File = digital/ 112703-%5B_Konten_%5D-Konten%20C7524.pdf>. (Accessed 5 October 2016).

[32] Syamsidik, R.S. Oktari, K. Munadi, S. Arief, I.Z. Fajri, Changes of coastal land use and reasons for selecting places to live in Banda Aceh ten years after the Indian Ocean tsunami, Nat. Hazards (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-2930-3.

[33] C. Stephan, C. Norf, A. Fekete, How "Sustainable" are post-disaster measures? Lessons to be learned a decade after the 2004 tsunami in the Indian ocean, Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 8 (2017) 33-45.

[34] R. Longhurst, Interviews: in-depth, semi structured, Int. Encycl. Human. Geogr. (2009) 580-584.

[35] C. Wilson, Chapter 2. Semi-structured Interviews, Interview Techniques for UX Practitioners, 2014, pp. 23-41, <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-410393-1. 00002-8>.

[36] G. Guest, A. Bunce, L. Johnson, How many interviews are enough?: an experiment with data saturation and variability, Field Methods 18 (2008) 59-82.

[37] K. Reid, P. Flowers, M. Larkin, Exploring lived experience: an introduction to interpretative phenomenological analysis, Psychologist 18 (1) (2005) 20-23.

[38] Government of Aceh Besar District, Qanun No. 4 Year 2013 on Spatial Planning of Aceh Besar District 2012-2032, (in Indonesian Language) Jantho-Aceh Besar, 2013.