DAMPAK PERUBAHAN IKLIM TERHADAP KENAIKAN MUKA AIR LAUT DI WILAYAH PESISIR PANGANDARAN
Abstract
Salah satu dampak paling signifikan dari perubahan iklim adalah kenaikan permukaan laut. Wilayah pesisir Pangandaran yang terletak di Selatan Jawa Samudra Hindia secara langsung memiliki risiko banjir lebih tinggi akibat kenaikan permukaan laut (SLR) dibandingkan dengan wilayah pesisir di Utara Jawa. Dampak langsung dari kenaikan muka laut, pada umumnya, diukur berdasarkan besarnya kerusakan fisik maupun kerugian ekonomi. Dalam kajian ini, kerusakan fisik dinotasikan sebagai persentase penyusutan atau perubahan penggunaan/tutupan lahan yang terpapar oleh banjir air laut. Kerugian ekonomi didekati dengan biaya kerusakan tiap jenis penggunaan lahan yang terpapar oleh banjir air laut. Satuan biaya (unit cost) tiap jenis penggunaan/tutupan lahan yang terusakkan dapat diperoleh dari hasil survei kuesioner, diskusi kelompok mendalam (focus group discussion, FGD), dan riset terdahulu. Hasil analisis SLR menunjukkan bahwa sementara penurunan tanah mencapai lebih dari 85 ha. Sementara itu, kerugian permanen akibat SLR pada 2025 dan 2050 hampir sama yaitu sekitar 40 ha, meskipun SLR meningkat lebih dari 0,24 meter menjadi 0,50 meter (skenario rendah) atau dari 0,30 meter hingga 0,64 meter (skenario tinggi). Ini bisa dimengerti karena elevasi Pantai Pangandaran cukup tinggi. Selain kerugian fisik, jenis kerugian lain yang disebabkan oleh SLR rusak atau hilang sebagian dari penggunaan lahan. Hasil analisis menunjukkan bahwa kerugian tertinggi terjadi di sektor permukiman dibandingkan dengan sektor pertanian, dan permukiman yang terkena dampak SLR lebih luas dengan meningkatnya periode proyeksi.
Metrics
Downloads
References
Carton, J., Giese, B.and Grodsky, S. 2005. Sea level rise and the warming of the oceans in the simple ocean data assimilation (soda) ocean reanalysis. J. Geophys. Res, 110. DOI 10.1029/2004JC002817.
IPCC. 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Physical Science Basis. (eds.) J. T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P. J. van der Linden and D. Xiaosu. Working Group 1 Contribution to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Appendix II.3.11 on GHG forcing)Nicholls, R., 2003. Case study on sea-level rise impacts
IPCC. 2007. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, Bosch P.R., Dave, R., Meyer, L.A. (eds)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3- chapter9.pdf).
Nicholls, R., Hanson, S., Lowe, J., Warrick, R., Lu, X., Long, A., and Carter, T. 2011. Constructing sea-level scenarios for impact and adaptation assessment of coastal area: A guidance document. In: Supporting Material, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Task Group on Data and Scenario Support for Impact and Climate Analysis.
Snoussi, M., Ouchani, T.and Niazi, S. 2008. Vulnerability assessment of the impact of sea-level rise and flooding on the moroccan coast: The case of the mediterranean eastern zone. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 77(2): 206-213. DOI 10.1016/j.ecss.2007.09.024.
Yin, C., Li, Y. and Urich, P. 2013. Simclim 2013 data manual. C. Ltd (Ed.). New Zealand.
Copyright (c) 2022 RISALAH KEBIJAKAN PERTANIAN DAN LINGKUNGAN: Rumusan Kajian Strategis Bidang Pertanian dan Lingkungan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
PUBLICATION ETHICS
Jurnal Risalah Kebijakan Pembangunan Pertanian dan Lingkungan (JRKPL) is a peer-reviewed journal publishing original research to develop a coherent and respected network of landscape architecture knowledge. JRKPL committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics that clarifies ethical behavior of all parties involved in publishing a scientific article in JRKPL.
As publisher of JRKPL, PSP3-LPPM IPB and PERHEPI takes its duties of guardianship all stages of publishing process and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities.
Duties of Authors
An author should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal is unacceptable and constitutes unethical publishing behavior. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the manuscript and should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism are include passing off another paper as the author own paper, copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another paper (without attribution) and claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Plagiarism detected works will be banned for further publication procedure.
The authors acknowledge that they have disclosed all and any actual or potential conflicts of interest with their work or partial benefits associated with it. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.
Duties of the Editorial Board
Review Process
JRKPL is committed to objective and fair double-blind peer-review to prevent any actual or potential conflict of interests between the editorial and review personnel and the reviewed material. JRKPL chooses reviewers based on their expertise (whose most closely matches the topic of the paper). At least 2 reviewers are invited to evaluate a manuscript. In cases of controversy or disagreement regarding the merits of the work, an additional review will be solicited. The JRKPL editor mediates all interaction between authors and reviewers, and the review results owned by JRKPL.
Publication Decisions
The editor of a peer-reviewed JRKPL is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The final decision on article acceptance based on reviewer's opinions, suggestions, and comments. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
Fair Play
JRKPL evaluates manuscripts only based on the intellectual content. No race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophies of the authors are considered in the evaluation process.
Confidentiality
JRKPL assure the confidentially of the manuscripts, actors, and other related information on the publishing process. Only corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher are allows for the information.
Disclosure
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Duties of reviewers
(1) Objectivity: Reviewer should provide written and unbiased feedback to the authors, personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewer comments should be clearly with supporting arguments indicating whether the writing is concise and relevant
(2) Expertise: Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
(3) Acknowledgement of sources: Reviewer suggest relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors to improve the quality of the manuscript,
(4) Confidentiality: Reviewer should maintain the confidentiality of the review process. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
(5) Disclosure and conflict of interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer own research without the express written consent of the author. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
