The units of analysis used were communities
and organizations. To obtain balanced inputs,
respondents included locals, decision makers,
and experts that understand the CEK in this
volcanic river basin. The three sub-cases as representative of communities were selected based
on the post-2010 eruption and worst lahar damage report produced by the Serayu Opak River
Basin Organization (BBWS SO 2014) and
Disaster Management Agency of Yogyakarta
Special Region (BPBD DIY). The selection criteria for the organizations represented in this
research were based on the administrative
boundary, activities of the organizations, and
involvement in managing the volcanic river
basin, which originated from national, regional,
and municipal governments.
The research used qualitative approaches,
inspired by ethnographic intentions (Emerson
et al. 2011; Falzon 2012; Crang and Cook 2007).
The primary data were gathered through
2 months of fieldwork in summer 2016, with
observations of daily activities and 47 in-depth
interviews using the snowballing sampling
method (Flick 2008) for key persons (hamlet
chiefs, community leaders, and wise persons) of
the three villages, experts on water and culture,
and representatives of organizations. Each interview lasted about one to two hours in Bahasa
(national language) and Javanese (the first author
is a native speaker of both languages). The
observations (photographs, videos, and field
notes) were taken for at least six hours per day in
each village focusing on daily activities during a
two-month period. All of the interviews were
recorded, either in audio or video forms. After
the rounds of interviews in each village, at the
end of the observation period, a focus group was
gathered, involving earlier respondents. The
interviews used open-ended questions focusing
on the operationalization of the CEK main elements: historical experiences, mechanism of
transfer, and five-senses wisdom. The questions
asked in the interviews with the focus group were
as follows:
1. What kind of water-related extreme conditions occurs in this volcanic river basin and
when? Hence, the historical experience indicator is used.
2. What is the form of the communities’ institutionalized structures and what are the
dynamics? The answers help to group type of
communities and how they organize CEK.
3. What forms of CEK in water–lahar–volcano
management are used and how? The forms
are also known as the mechanisms of transfer.
4. What kind of local five-sense wisdom related
to water–lahar–volcano management is used
and how? It is answered by recognizing fivesenses usage in managing water-lahar-and
volcano.
5. What are the relations among historical
experiences, the mechanism of transfer, and
five-senses wisdom? The answer should wrap
this paper, as it stands to relate the relations
between the indicators of CEK.
In addition, as secondary data, this study used
ancient literary from the Mataram Kingdom
(Babads and Serats) and available works by
several scientific disciplines (volcanologists,
sociologists, anthropologists, and archeologists),
policy briefs, reports, and planning documents.
These secondary data were used to enhance and
support the empirical findings and as an entry
point to identify the CEK indicators.
After the interviews, we performed a coding
process using Atlas.ti software (Friese 2019;
Muhr 1991) to the dataset derived from the
transcribed interviews. The software enables
transparency and flexibility in the coding process, and also theory building from the dataset.
The dataset was analyzed using pre-determined
codes from the initial conceptual framework’s
variables and indicators, which later developed
into axial codes. Later on, we developed patterns
of interrelations between CEK and in the river
basin management. These interrelations were
found when two or three codes were used in the
same quote derived from the interview
The Potential Contribution of Cultural Ecological …
189
and organizations. To obtain balanced inputs,
respondents included locals, decision makers,
and experts that understand the CEK in this
volcanic river basin. The three sub-cases as representative of communities were selected based
on the post-2010 eruption and worst lahar damage report produced by the Serayu Opak River
Basin Organization (BBWS SO 2014) and
Disaster Management Agency of Yogyakarta
Special Region (BPBD DIY). The selection criteria for the organizations represented in this
research were based on the administrative
boundary, activities of the organizations, and
involvement in managing the volcanic river
basin, which originated from national, regional,
and municipal governments.
The research used qualitative approaches,
inspired by ethnographic intentions (Emerson
et al. 2011; Falzon 2012; Crang and Cook 2007).
The primary data were gathered through
2 months of fieldwork in summer 2016, with
observations of daily activities and 47 in-depth
interviews using the snowballing sampling
method (Flick 2008) for key persons (hamlet
chiefs, community leaders, and wise persons) of
the three villages, experts on water and culture,
and representatives of organizations. Each interview lasted about one to two hours in Bahasa
(national language) and Javanese (the first author
is a native speaker of both languages). The
observations (photographs, videos, and field
notes) were taken for at least six hours per day in
each village focusing on daily activities during a
two-month period. All of the interviews were
recorded, either in audio or video forms. After
the rounds of interviews in each village, at the
end of the observation period, a focus group was
gathered, involving earlier respondents. The
interviews used open-ended questions focusing
on the operationalization of the CEK main elements: historical experiences, mechanism of
transfer, and five-senses wisdom. The questions
asked in the interviews with the focus group were
as follows:
1. What kind of water-related extreme conditions occurs in this volcanic river basin and
when? Hence, the historical experience indicator is used.
2. What is the form of the communities’ institutionalized structures and what are the
dynamics? The answers help to group type of
communities and how they organize CEK.
3. What forms of CEK in water–lahar–volcano
management are used and how? The forms
are also known as the mechanisms of transfer.
4. What kind of local five-sense wisdom related
to water–lahar–volcano management is used
and how? It is answered by recognizing fivesenses usage in managing water-lahar-and
volcano.
5. What are the relations among historical
experiences, the mechanism of transfer, and
five-senses wisdom? The answer should wrap
this paper, as it stands to relate the relations
between the indicators of CEK.
In addition, as secondary data, this study used
ancient literary from the Mataram Kingdom
(Babads and Serats) and available works by
several scientific disciplines (volcanologists,
sociologists, anthropologists, and archeologists),
policy briefs, reports, and planning documents.
These secondary data were used to enhance and
support the empirical findings and as an entry
point to identify the CEK indicators.
After the interviews, we performed a coding
process using Atlas.ti software (Friese 2019;
Muhr 1991) to the dataset derived from the
transcribed interviews. The software enables
transparency and flexibility in the coding process, and also theory building from the dataset.
The dataset was analyzed using pre-determined
codes from the initial conceptual framework’s
variables and indicators, which later developed
into axial codes. Later on, we developed patterns
of interrelations between CEK and in the river
basin management. These interrelations were
found when two or three codes were used in the
same quote derived from the interview
The Potential Contribution of Cultural Ecological …
189