







































 | 1  
 

         Geoplanning 
   Vol 7, No 1, 2020, 1-16                                                                                                                                                            Journal of Geomatics and Planning 

                                                                                                 E-ISSN: 2355-6544 
http://ejournal.undip.ac.id/index.php/geoplanning  

doi: 10.14710/geoplanning.7.1.1-16 

Spatial Analysis for Fire Risk Reduction in Kampung Ampel Cultural 
Heritage Area, Surabaya  

F. Hudantia, T. Okubob         , P. N. Indradjatic*   

a East Java Provincial Government Inspectorate, Indonesia 
b Department of Civil Engineering, College of Science and Engineering, Ritsumeikan University, Japan 
c School of Architecture, Planning, and Policy Development, Bandung Institute of Technology, Indonesia 
 

Abstract: The objective of the research is to improve fire risk reduction in Kampung 
Ampel Surabaya through [1] identifying the current firefighting system in Surabaya; [2] 
identifying the characteristics and conditions of Kampung Ampel; [3] identifying the 
structure of the problem; [4] proposing strategies for fire risk reduction in Kampung 
Ampel. The analysis will focus on determining the risks and resources of Kampung 
Ampel to fire hazards using Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis. Risk and 
resources are combined to find out the areas that have the highest risk of fire hazard. 
The results of the analyses consist of challenges and possible solutions. The challenges 
can be concluded as follow: [1] resources for firefighting cannot cover the entire area of 
Kampung Ampel; [2] resources for evacuation cannot accommodate all the population 
and visitors. The proposed solutions for those challenges are [1] reactivation of inactive 
fire wells; [2] utilization of source of water in Ampel Mosque; [3] proposing wider road 
to connect roads which are wider than 3.5 meters but are blocked by narrower roads; 
[4] the purchase of adapters to connect different types of fire hoses; [5] adding the 
number of fire hoses brought to the site; [6] remodeling the vulnerable buildings using 
inflammable materials with keeping the value of cultural landscape; [7] keeping 
portable fire pump in Ampel Mosque to facilitate the fire handling by residents; and [8] 
preparing evacuation route to the closest open space areas. The application of those 
solutions can reduce the high-risk area from 26.6% to 0.2%. 
 

Copyright © 2020 GJGP-UNDIP  
This open access article is distributed under a  

Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY-NC-SA) 4.0 International license. 

How to cite (APA 6th Style): 
Hudanti, F., Okubo, T., & Indradjati, P. (2020). Spatial Analysis for Fire Risk Reduction in Kampung Ampel Cultural Heritage Area, Surabaya. 
Geoplanning: Journal of Geomatics and Planning, 7(1), 1-16. doi: 10.14710/geoplanning.7.1.1-16 

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Fire can be defined as a thermo-chemical reaction caused by three factors: oxygen, fuel, and heat, which 
will lead to fires that generate heat, flames, smoke, and gas. A fire incident is the existence of an unwanted 
fire. Fire events begin with burning, then the fire is out of control and threatens life and property (Mantra, 
2005; Suprapto, 2008). A fire event has several processes until the fire is extinguished. The developmental 
process has several stage, i.e., (1) Ignition/ explosion phase: This stage is characterized by the emergence of 
fire caused by the heat energy of the material in space; (2) Fire growth phase: Fire has begun to develop by 
the quantity of fuel available. This phase is the best stage for evacuation. In this phase, fire sensors and 
extinguishers must have started working; (3) Flashover phase: A phase transition from the growth phase to 
the full combustion phase. This stage is high-speed, with the temperature usually ranges between 300º C 
and 600º C; (4) Full combustion phase: At this stage, the release's heat is the greatest because the fire has 
spread to the entire space, the temperature can reach 1200ºC; (5) Receding phase: at this point, all 
material was burned, and the temperature has begun to fall, and the firing rate also declined (Mantra, 
2005). 

A disaster occurs when a hazard strikes a vulnerable community. Thus it is a result of the interaction 
between hazards and vulnerability (Setiawan & Wiguna, 2012). However, vulnerability, a community, will 

Article Info: 
Received: 4 April 2018 
in revised form: January 2019 
Accepted: January 2020 
Available Online:  7 July 2020 
 

Keywords:  
Ampel, fire risk reduction, GIS-based 
spatial analysis 
 

*Corresponding Author: 
Petrus N. Indradjati 
School of Architecture, Planning, and 
Policy Development, Bandung 
Institute of Technology, Indonesia 
Email: natalivan@sappk.itb.ac.id  

OPEN ACCESS 

http://ejournal.undip.ac.id/index.php/geoplanning
https://doi.org/10.14710/geoplanning.7.1.1-16


 
Hudanti, Okubo, and Indradjati / Geoplanning: Journal of Geomatics and Planning, Vol 7, No 1, 2020, 1-16 
doi: 10.14710/geoplanning.7.1.1-16 

2 | 
 

also have capacities or strengths that help reduce the impact of the hazard. Therefore, in every disaster 
prevention effort, the three factors of hazard, vulnerability, and capacity are the assessment's main points. 
In terms of fire hazards, the factors that influence fire vulnerability are building density, population density, 
population activities, building material, number of stories, and building condition. Meanwhile, the factors 
that influence the capacity of an area include the availability of fire stations, firefighting infrastructure 
including water resources, road width, and availability of open space (Rijanto, 2010; Miadinar, 2009; Rusli, 
2011; Sujatmiko, 2012; Adi et al., 2013; Latifah & Pamungkas, 2013; Rahman et al., 2015). 

Mitigation measures aim to save the life of the human and reduce the loss of property and reduce the 
adverse consequences of economic and social activities. If mitigation sources are limited, mitigation actions 
can be targeted to the most effective elements that greatly impact their community activities. Vulnerability 
assessment is an important aspect of effective mitigation planning. Indirect vulnerabilities include 
vulnerability to physical damage, economic damage, and lack of resources for recovery from disasters 
(Sagala et al., 2013) 

Protection against disaster threats can be achieved by eliminating the causes of the threat (reducing 
hazards) or by reducing the effects of threats if threats emerge. In other words, mitigation can be prepared 
by reducing vulnerability or increasing risky elements' capacity potential. Mitigation planning is a strategy 
developed to reduce disasters' impact on communities, facilities, regions, cities, or countries (Coburn et al., 
1994; Moga, 2002).  

In terms of fire mitigation, regarding the amount of water that should be available on-site, there are 
three firefighting phases (Okubo, 2003): [1] the first phase is that of a small fire, handled by citizens with 
small amounts of water. Water accessibility is most important in this phase; [2] the second phase is 
deemed a standard house scale fire, fought by professional firemen. The amount of water must be 
sufficient for professional use; [3] the third phase is block scale fire, grappled with by various support teams 
for fire fighting, usually from other cities. Continuous and ample amounts of water are needed, particularly 
in this last phase. 

Previous research discusses fire risk reduction in densely populated areas such as cities (Price & 
Bradstock, 2014), industrial areas (Azad et al., 2018), residential and commercial areas (Sivakumar et al., 
2018), low-income and informal settlements (Twigg et al., 2017). However, there are still a few studies that 
take case studies in cultural heritage areas. Furthermore, this study fills that gap by selecting study areas 
that have distinctive cultures.  

The objective of the study is to improve fire risk reduction in Kampung Ampel Surabaya. The research 
will be conducted to determine the study area's spatial characteristics, including the current firefighting 
systems and cultural heritage buildings' characteristics. To address the objective, several steps will be 
conducted as follow: (1) To identify the current firefighting system in Surabaya; (2) To identify the 
characteristics and condition of the cultural heritage area in Kampung Ampel Surabaya; (3) To identify the 
structure of the problem based on the characteristics and conditions of Kampung Ampel area and the fire 
system of Surabaya city; (4) To propose strategies for fire risk reduction in Kampung Ampel. This study is 
important because it is conducted regarding the development plan of a valuable cultural heritage area 
prone to a fire disaster. In Kampung Ampel, besides the cultural heritage buildings that have been existed 
since the 15th century, there are also cultural nuance and activities of the Arab community that has been 
inherited by generations. Therefore, they need to be preserved due to the historical values that can give a 
city character or identity. 

The study area covers the whole area of Kampung Ampel, Semampir sub-district, Surabaya, Indonesia, 
with approximately 40 ha, consisting of 17 RW. As the second-largest city in Indonesia after Jakarta, 
Surabaya, with a total area of 326,81 km2, is considered a highly dense area. In 2013, the population of 
Surabaya accounted for 3,2 million, with the density reached 9,793 people/km2. Due to the high density, 
Surabaya becomes vulnerable to fire. During 2005-2014, many fires that occurred in Surabaya accounted 
for 3,611 incidents with a loss of 280,475 million rupiahs or USD 21 million (BPS, 2015). Kampung Ampel, 
located in the Semampir sub-district in Surabaya, is a part of Kota Lama Surabaya (Old City of Surabaya), an 
important Cultural Heritage Area. Kampung Ampel is famous as a kampung inhabited by many Arab 
ethnicities for generations. During the era of Walisongo –The Nine Saints, known as the propagator of Islam 



 
Hudanti, Okubo, and Indradjati / Geoplanning: Journal of Geomatics and Planning, Vol 7, No 1, 2020, 1-16 

doi: 10.14710/geoplanning.7.1.1-16 
                                                              

 | 3  
 

in Java Island in the 15th century– Kampung Ampel was known as the center for the spread of Islam in Java 
(Silas et al., 2012). In Kampung Ampel, several cultural heritage buildings are assigned by the Surabaya City 
Government, such as the Great Mosque and Tomb of Sunan Ampel, Tomb of Habib Muhammad bin Idrus 
Alhabsyi, etc. (Bappeko 2012). Therefore, up to now, Kampung Ampel attracts thousands of visitors from 
within and outside Surabaya. However, according to Surabaya Spatial Plan 2014-2034, Kampung Ampel is 
an area prone to fire. During the last ten years, several fire incidents occurred. These incidents potentially 
harm cultural heritage buildings in the Kampung Ampel region. 

 

2. DATA AND METHODS 

This research will use descriptive analysis and GIS-based analysis to deal with data related to the 
physical condition of the study objects and the area. The GIS-based analysis will also provide some 
suggestions on how to develop the existing firefighting measures. The research will be started by 
conducting problem identification. After that, the literature review will be carried out to determine the 
aspects that need to be considered in developing the area regarding fire prevention. Data collection, 
including both spatial and non-spatial data, will be done afterward. Finally, spatial analysis using GIS will be 
conducted to provide development strategies for fire mitigation in the study area. The spatial analysis will 
be conducted according to Figure 1. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1. Spatial Analysis to be conducted 

 

A disaster occurs when a hazard strikes a vulnerable community. However, vulnerability, a community, 
will also have capacities or strengths that help reduce the impact of the hazard. Therefore, in every disaster 
prevention effort, the three factors of hazard, vulnerability, and capacity are the assessment's main points. 
In this case, the hazard to be mitigated is urban fire. Furthermore, vulnerability and capacity factors to fire 
hazards need to be examined. 

Risk management is all the efforts to understand and deal with possible negative impacts on the 
objectives. It includes identifying, analyzing, and prioritizing/evaluating risk (Pedersoli Jr & Michalski, 2016). 
Risk identification is to verify hazard factors from the cultural heritages and historical surrounding buildings 

strategies for fire 

risk reduction 



 
Hudanti, Okubo, and Indradjati / Geoplanning: Journal of Geomatics and Planning, Vol 7, No 1, 2020, 1-16 
doi: 10.14710/geoplanning.7.1.1-16 

4 | 
 

to take responses and protective measures. To evaluate potential disaster risk in cultural heritage and 
historical buildings, there are six key principles, i.e., (1) Assess not only the main and visible factors but also 
potential hazard factors; (2) Consider the hazards resulting from the facility interior factors and the 
environment surrounding factors; (3) Establish the intent relationship between mitigation, preparedness, 
response, and recovery stage; (4) Establish an advanced risk management and assessment program to 
protect the value of cultural heritages; (5) Use traditional knowledge, engineering, and methods to achieve 
the purpose of mitigation; (6) Connect disaster risk management and preservation maintenance plan tightly 
in every stage (Jigyasu & Arora, 2014). 

The objective of undertaking risk assessment of cultural heritage sites is to prioritize risk reduction 
strategies and decisions on mitigation. Risk identification and analysis may be undertaken at [1] heritage 
site level, [2] individual heritage building level, and [3] urban level. In this case, risk identification of 
Kampung Ampel will be carried out at the heritage site level. 

Risk identification and analysis includes the following aspects, i.e., (1) Establishing the values and 
significance of the site (heritage value assessment); (2) Listing all the natural and human-induced hazards 
that could potentially have an adverse impact on cultural heritage; (3) When combined with potential 
hazards, identifying the issues could cause a disaster risk to the site. These may be issues of site 
management, physical conditions of the site and/ or buildings and movable objects, underlying social and 
economic issues, etc; (4) Analyzing the cause-effect relationships between various primary hazards and 
underlying risk factors increases the vulnerability and exposes it to disaster risk (Jigyasu & Arora, 2014). 

The major planning framework for risk-preparedness for cultural heritage properties (Stovel, 1998) 
consists of three major phases, preparedness, response, and recovery. Preparedness phase includes 
reducing risk at source, reinforcing the ability of a property to resist or contain the consequences of the 
disaster, providing adequate warning of impending disaster, developing emergency response plans. 
Response phase includes ensuring the availability of the response plan and mobilizing the conservation 
team. Recovery phase consists of efforts to mitigate the negative consequences of the disaster, efforts to 
rebuild the physical components of the property and the social structure of using the property and its 
community, efforts to reinstate and enhance preparedness measures.   

To determine the most important location and the most vulnerable to fire, fire vulnerability factors will 
be studied. The factors that mostly affect the vulnerability to the fire include: [1] building density; [2] 
population density; [3] population activities/ building activity; [4] number of stories; [5] building 
construction/ construction material type/ percentage of the non-permanent building; and [6] building 
condition/ building quality (Adi et al., 2013; Latifah & Pamungkas, 2013; Miadinar, 2009; Rijanto, 2010; 
Sujatmiko, 2012; Rahman et al., 2015). 

In addition to the vulnerability factor, to conduct a disaster risk assessment, it is also necessary to 
understand the capacity factors. The capacity factor reflects the ability to overcome or prevent the 
occurrence of hazards. Simply put, capacity factors can be defined as the positive aspects of the situation. 
In fire hazards, capacity factors include [1] availability of fire station; [2] firefighting infrastructure including 
water resource/ water supply/ hydrant; [3] road width/ road network/ accessibility; [4] fire prevention 
facilities including vehicles, personnel, equipment; and [5] availability of open space (Adi et al., 2013; Rusli, 
2011; Latifah & Pamungkas, 2013; Rijanto, 2010; Sujatmiko, 2012; Rahman et al., 2015). 

From the abovementioned variables, most of the variables are suitable for the study area and used in 
the analysis process. Also, because Kampung Ampel is a cultural heritage area often visited by tourists, 
tourist arrivals and cultural heritage buildings should also be considered. Because both cultural heritage 
buildings and tourists are objects that need to be protected during a fire event, then both fall into the 
category of vulnerability factor. After obtaining variables to be used in the analyses, it is necessary to 
specify each variable's parameters. These parameters will then be used to score each map as a basis for 
further analysis. Consequently, the variables and parameters that will be used in the analysis are displayed 
in Table 1. 

 

 



 
Hudanti, Okubo, and Indradjati / Geoplanning: Journal of Geomatics and Planning, Vol 7, No 1, 2020, 1-16 

doi: 10.14710/geoplanning.7.1.1-16 
                                                              

 | 5  
 

Table 1. Variables and parameters to be used in the analyses 

 

Factor Variable Parameter 

Basic Medium High Very High 

V
u

ln
er

ab
ili

ty
 

Population 
density 

<150 people/ha 151-200 
people /ha 

201-400 people /ha > 400 
people/ha 

Building density 11-22 building/ha 23-45 
building/ha 

> 45 building/ha - 

Flammable 
material 

<20% 20-30% 31-40% - 

Cultural heritage 
value 

Outside the buffer - Inside the buffer - 

Building 
importance 

Housing - Public facilities, 
commercial, restaurant, 
shop house 

- 

Distribution of 
visitors 

Outside the buffer - Inside the buffer - 

C
ap

ac
it

y 

Accessibility Areas within the 
range of fire hoses 

- Areas that are not within 
the range of fire hoses 

- 

Fire 
infrastructure  

Areas covered by 
water resources 

- Areas that are not covered 
by water resources 

- 

Availability of 
open space 

- - - - 

 

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

3.1. Kampung Ampel Cultural Heritage Area 

In 2017, the total population in the area accounted for 21,766 persons (Kelurahan Ampel 2017). This 
kampung is dominated by Arab ethnicities (60%), and the density reached 577 people/ha. Due to the high 
density and high building density, Kampung Ampel is considered an area vulnerable to fire. Table 2 shows 
the incidents of fires in Kampung Ampel from 2008-2016. Kampung Ampel is a cultural heritage area that 
exists since the 15th century. Thus, in this region, several cultural heritage objects have many cultural and 
historical values that can give Surabaya character or identity, particularly for the Kampung Ampel itself.  

The cultural heritage objects in Kampung Ampel are; (1) Great Mosque and Tomb of Sunan Ampel. 
Ampel Mosque is an ancient mosque built in 1421 by Sunan Ampel. The area accounts for 120x180 square 
meters. Ampel Mosque also has a 50-meter high minaret. The Tomb of Sunan Ampel is also located in the 
vicinity. It is a cemetery complex of Sunan Ampel, his wife, five of his relatives, his students, and 182 other 
Muslims who died during pilgrimage to Mecca (IS, 2014; Mappaturi, 2015). Towards the area of Great 
Mosque and Tomb of Sunan Ampel, there are five gapura/ gates which symbolize the five pillars of Islam 
such as (a) Gapura Paneksen This gate symbolizes the first pillar of Islam, shahada, or the declaration of 
faith. When deciding to be a Muslim, the first thing one is obliged to do is to recite the shahada as a 
declaration of faith. (b) Gapura Madhep symbolizes the second pillar of Islam, salat, or five daily prayers. 
After declaring the faith, a Muslim is obliged to perform five daily prayers. (c) Gapura Ngamal symbolizes 
the third pillar of Islam, zakat, which means compulsory charitable giving according to each person's 
amount of property and income. (d) Gapura Poso symbolizes the fourth pillar of Islam, fasting in the month 
of Ramadhan. During the Ramadhan month, Muslims are obliged to do fasting, increase worship, and good 



 
Hudanti, Okubo, and Indradjati / Geoplanning: Journal of Geomatics and Planning, Vol 7, No 1, 2020, 1-16 
doi: 10.14710/geoplanning.7.1.1-16 

6 | 
 

deeds. (e) Gapura Munggah symbolizes the fifth pillar of Islam, namely the hajj. Hajj is a pilgrimage to 
Mecca, the holy city for Muslims located in Saudi Arabia. 

Furthermore, the other several symbols illustrate the heritage such as (1) Tomb of Habib Muhammad 
bin Idrus Alhabsyi. Tomb of Habib Muhammad bin Idrus Alhabsyi is a family cemetery complex built in the 
18th century. Habib Muhammad bin Idrus Alhabsyi settled in Surabaya in the mid of 20th century. He was a 
great scholar and died in Surabaya in 1917 (Sulistiowati, 2000). (2) Al-Irsyad Hospital. Al-Irsyad Hospital 
used to be a residential house of 2,600 m2 built by the Baswedan family. In 1973, most of the building was 
donated to Al-Irsyad Foundation for future development activities in north Surabaya. Since 2002, expansion 
is done by gradually increasing the building floor, but the main building parts are still maintained and 
preserved as a cultural heritage building (surabaya.go.id, 2015; Al-Irsyad, 2016). (3) House of Oesman 
Nabhan Family. The building, built-in 1915, was owned by the Dutch and was functioned as Elementary 
School for the Arab community. The size of this building is 40x30m. During the Japanese colonial period 
(1942-1945), it functioned as a military brigade headquarters of the Army/8 Brawijaya Regional Military 
Command. Bought by the family in 1974, the building currently belongs to Oesman Nabhan family (Akasah, 
2011). (4) Kemajuan Hotel. Kemajuan Hotel was built in 1928. The two-story building is owned by Al-Irsyad 
Foundation Surabaya. One of the objectives of this hotel's development is to fund a school run by Al-Irsyad 
Foundation. From the construction until today, the building is relatively unchanged. This hotel's area 
accounts for around 740 m2 (realita.co., 2014; surabaya.go.id, 2015). 

 

Table 2. Fire incidents in Kampung Ampel in 2008-2016 (Surabaya Fire Department, 2017) 

 

Date Time Location Victims/ Lost Description 

14 July 2008 09:30 Jl. Ampel Sawahan Gg. 
II No. 17  

Warehouse Causes: short circuit 

Effort: 4 units of fire truck were 
deployed to the scene 

13 Nov 2012 07:55 Jl. Nyamplungan No. 
95 

Household 
appliances 

Causes: burning mattress 

Effort: 1 unit fire truck was 
deployed to the scene 

6 Sept 2014 08:15 Pegirian RT 04 RW 13  6 houses Causes: a gas stove explosion 

Effort: 17 units of fire trucks were 
deployed to the scene 

7 Nov 2015 19:20 Jl. Pertukangan B 
(Baru) No. 22E 

1 bedroom Causes: short circuit 

 Effort: 1 unit fire truck was 
deployed to the scene 

4 Jan 2016 04:26 Jl.Nyamplungan Gg.VII 1 big tree (d=50cm; 
h=3m) owned by 
local government 

Causes: open flame1 

Effort: 1 unit fire truck was 
deployed to the scene 

19 Agt 2016 09.50 Jl. Nyamplungan IX/49 Rice stall 
(3x3=9m2) 

Causes: open flame 

Effort: 1 unit fire truck was 
deployed to the scene 

 

 

 
1 According to Surabaya Firefighting Department, open flame includes fire caused by a cigarette butt, people who burn garbage 

(usually in the field/ open space), and LPG explosion 



 
Hudanti, Okubo, and Indradjati / Geoplanning: Journal of Geomatics and Planning, Vol 7, No 1, 2020, 1-16 

doi: 10.14710/geoplanning.7.1.1-16 
                                                              

 | 7  
 

3.2. Disaster Risk Assessment of Kampung Ampel 

Before beginning the spatial analysis discussion, it is necessary to identify general disaster risk in the 
study site. Identifying all the risks that threaten the heritage building, monument, or site is necessary to 
propose effective risk reduction strategies and decisions. The spatial analysis will be conducted afterward 
to present evidence for the disaster risk assessment entries. To begin with, the following hazards, 
vulnerability, and capacity are factors that necessary to be considered. Vulnerability factors affect the 
vulnerability to fire hazards and determine whether the fire hazard will cause greater damage or not. On 
the other hand, capacity refers to all the strengths, qualities, and resources available within a community or 
society to manage and reduce disaster risks (Jigyasu & Arora, 2014). The disaster risk assessment will be 
identified using these three tools of hazard, vulnerability, and capacity (Table 3). After conducting spatial 
analyses on risks and resources in Kampung Ampel, there are several highlights as presented in Table 4.  

 

Table 3. Disaster risk assessment of Kampung Ampel 

 

Hazard Vulnerability Capacity 

Fire High population density Availability of fire station near 
Kampung Ampel 

High building density 

Narrow passages 

The existence of cultural heritage objects Availability of active fire wells 

A large number of buildings are utilized as souvenir shops 
which sell flammable goods: clothing, snacks, accessories, 
books 

Located nearby Pegirian River 

Restaurants play a role in increasing the vulnerability of 
the area 

 

The high number of visitors, up to 20,000 in the peak 
season 

 

Lack of open space area allows for evacuation  

Building material (the usage of timber/ flammable 
materials) 

 

No firefighting infrastructures such as hydrant or fire 
alarm 

 

 

The aforementioned proposed solution can be illustrated as follow: 

1) Reactivation of inactive fire wells. 

Out of seven fire wells located in the vicinity of Kampung Ampel, four of them are inactive fire wells. 
There are several reasons why fire wells are inactive (see Table 4). If possible for reactivation, the coverage 
area of firefighting resources will be wider, thus increasing the safety in the area (see Figure 2). 

2) Utilization of source of water from Ampel Mosque. 

Ampel Mosque, located right in the middle of Kampung Ampel, has a water source that is believed to 
be the holy water that brings goodness to the drinker. The existence of that water source can be an 
alternative water resource to help secure the area (see Figure 3). The utilization of this water source can be 
an effective solution since the Ampel Mosque is one area that falls into the high-risk category (Rijanto, 
2010; Miadinar, 2009; Rusli, 2011; Sujatmiko, 2012; Adi et al., 2013; Latifah & Pamungkas, 2013; Rahman et 
al., 2015). However, since Surabaya City Fire Department does not own the water source, the water 



 
Hudanti, Okubo, and Indradjati / Geoplanning: Journal of Geomatics and Planning, Vol 7, No 1, 2020, 1-16 
doi: 10.14710/geoplanning.7.1.1-16 

8 | 
 

resources volume in this mosque is unknown. Also, it should be investigated whether it is possible to be 
utilized in the case of an emergency (see Figure 4). 

 

Table 4. Condition, challenges and possible solutions for fire risk reduction in Kampung Ampel 

 

No. Condition and challenges Possible solutions 

1 Resources for firefighting cannot cover 
the entire area of Kampung Ampel 

Reactivation of inactive fire wells 

Utilization on the source of water in Ampel Mosque 

Firefighting resources do not reach the 
buildings located in the middle of the 
Ampel region 

Propose a wider road to connect roads which are wider 
than 3.5 meters but are blocked by narrower roads 

The purchase of adapters to connect different types of 
fire hoses 

Adding the number of fire hoses brought to the site can 
be an alternative strategy 

Vulnerable buildings can be remodeling to make the 
building stronger using inflammable materials with 
keeping the value of the cultural landscape 

2 Resources for evacuation cannot 
accommodate all the population  

Preparing evacuation route to the closest open space 
areas 

The open space buffer does not cover the 
area on the north side 

Open space inside Kampung Ampel 
cannot accommodate all the population 

 

    

 

Figure 2. Comparison of fire resources buffer before and after reactivation of inactive fire wells 



 
Hudanti, Okubo, and Indradjati / Geoplanning: Journal of Geomatics and Planning, Vol 7, No 1, 2020, 1-16 

doi: 10.14710/geoplanning.7.1.1-16 
                                                              

 | 9  
 

 

     

 

Figure 3. Source of water inside Ampel Mosque area 

 

   

 

Figure 4. Comparison of fire resources buffer before and after the added source of water from 
Ampel Mosque and reactivation of inactive fire wells 

 

1) Propose a wider road to connect roads wider than 3.5 meters but are blocked by narrower roads. 

On the west side of Kampung Ampel, two roads' lines actually have a width of more than 3.5 meters 
(Jl. Petukangan Utara and Jl. Petukangan Tengah I). Still, they have not added buffers because smaller roads 
block the roads' entrance access from the main street. Therefore, if it is possible to propose a wider road, 
the buffer areas will be bigger, thus covering wider areas (Rijanto, 2010; Miadinar, 2009; Rusli, 2011; 
Sujatmiko, 2012; Adi et al., 2013; Latifah & Pamungkas, 2013; Rahman et al., 2015). The illustration of the 
buffer area after road widening is displayed in Figure 5 (the target of road widening is inside the black 
circles).  



 
Hudanti, Okubo, and Indradjati / Geoplanning: Journal of Geomatics and Planning, Vol 7, No 1, 2020, 1-16 
doi: 10.14710/geoplanning.7.1.1-16 

10 | 
 

 

     

 

Figure 5. Comparison on fire hose range buffer before and after road widening 

 

Afterward, to see the comparison of risks and resources between before and after the application of 
proposed solutions above (Figure 6): 

 

     

 

 

Figure 6. Comparison of the map of risks and resources before and after proposed solutions 

Before: High-risk area 26.6% 

 

After: High-risk area 16.6% 

 



 
Hudanti, Okubo, and Indradjati / Geoplanning: Journal of Geomatics and Planning, Vol 7, No 1, 2020, 1-16 

doi: 10.14710/geoplanning.7.1.1-16 
                                                              

 | 11  
 

The above map was obtained by combining the risk of fire spreading with several recommendations: 
[1] reactivation of inactive fire wells; [2] utilization of water source from Ampel Mosque; [3] road widening 
to connect blocked road with the main road. The map shows that after some suggestions are applied to the 
study site, the areas that can be covered by firefighting resources are wider. Therefore, the high-risk area is 
decreasing from 26.6% to 16.6%. 

2) The purchase of adapters to connect different types of fire hoses 

According to Surabaya City Fire Department, in each fire fighting action, each fire truck carries 6 
outdoor hoses sized 2.5 inches and six indoor hoses sized 1.5 inches, each of which has a length of 20 
meters. To connect both types of fire hoses, the purchase of adapters can be an effective solution. After 
adapters connect both types of fire hoses, the calculation on the fire hose range will be as follow: 

Fire hose range = Length of fire hose = 240m 

 √2  √2 

 = 169.70m = 169m 

Thus, a buffer of 169m was created along the roads with a width of 3.5 meters and more. The 
comparison of fire hose range buffer before and after installing fire hose adapters shows a big difference in 
the coverage area, as shown in Figure 7. Because of the increased radius of fire hose range due to the 
installation of fire hose adapters, the same buffer will be applied to fire infrastructure elements, namely 
river and fire wells, including the inactive fire wells, with the assumption that the inactive fire wells will be 
reactivated. The map illustrates a significant difference between the before and after coverage areas (see 
Figure 8). 

     

 

Figure 7. Comparison of fire hose range buffer before and after the installation of the fire hose adapter 

 

Then, both maps of fire hose range buffer and fire infrastructure above will be overlaid with a map of 
risk of fire spreading to see the comparison of risks and resources between before and after installing fire 
hose adapters. The map shows that after some suggestions are applied, the high-risk area decreases from 
26.6% to 3.4%. (see Figure 9). Furthermore, to treat the remaining 3.4% high-risk area, the possible solution 
is to utilize the water source from Ampel Mosque. When the water source is utilized using fire hoses after 



 
Hudanti, Okubo, and Indradjati / Geoplanning: Journal of Geomatics and Planning, Vol 7, No 1, 2020, 1-16 
doi: 10.14710/geoplanning.7.1.1-16 

12 | 
 

installing adapters (a buffer of 169 meters will be added), the high-risk area decreases to 0.2% (see Figure 
10). 

 

     

 

Figure 8. Comparison of fire resources buffer before and after reactivation of inactive fire wells and 
installation of the fire hose adapter 

 

    

 

 

Figure 9. Comparison on the map of risks and resources before and after reactivation of inactive fire wells 
and installation of the fire hose adapter 

Before: High-risk area 26.6% 

 

After: High-risk area 3.4% 

 



 
Hudanti, Okubo, and Indradjati / Geoplanning: Journal of Geomatics and Planning, Vol 7, No 1, 2020, 1-16 

doi: 10.14710/geoplanning.7.1.1-16 
                                                              

 | 13  
 

    

 

 

Figure 10. Comparison on the map of risks and resources before and after reactivation of inactive fire wells, 
installation of fire hose adapter, and utilization of water source from Ampel Mosque 

 

3) Adding the number of fire hoses brought to the site can be an alternative strategy. 

As can be seen from the recommendation on the installation of the fire hose adapter above, a buffer 
of 169 meters was added. The result of this proposed solution shows that a large area categorized as high 
risk has decreased to lower levels. Only a few areas remain in the high-risk category. The total number of 
fire hoses brought by the Surabaya City Fire Department to the fire scene is 12 units. Therefore, to cover 
the entire area with firefighting resources, providing additional fire hoses can be an effective solution. 
However, to cover a wider area than 169 meters, the number of fire hoses must be above 12. 

4) Preparing the evacuation route to the closest open space area. 

Evacuation route is obtained from the most visited tourist area to the nearest open space. In this case, 
the most visited tourist area is the Mosque and Tomb of Sunan Ampel. There are four possible routes as 
follows (see Figure 11): 

a. From Mosque and Tomb of Sunan Ampel to Open Space 2 with a length of 415 meters (yellow line); 
b. From Mosque and Tomb of Sunan Ampel to Open Space 2 with a length of 423  meters (purple line); 
c. From Mosque and Tomb of Sunan Ampel to Open Space 3 with a length of 452 meters (red line); 
d. From Mosque and Tomb of Sunan Ampel to Open Space 4 with a length of 1068 meters (green line). 

The preparation of these evacuation routes illustrates which road is important for facilitation and 
maintenance to accelerate evacuation, especially for tourists. Facilitation can be done by providing signage, 
clearance path of illegal or non-permanent stalls, or route socialization.  

 

Before: High-risk area 26.6% 

 

After: High-risk area 0.2% 

 



 
Hudanti, Okubo, and Indradjati / Geoplanning: Journal of Geomatics and Planning, Vol 7, No 1, 2020, 1-16 
doi: 10.14710/geoplanning.7.1.1-16 

14 | 
 

 

Figure 11. Possible Evacuation Routes 

 

5) Keeping a portable fire pump in Ampel Mosque for a faster fire handling 

In Surabaya, the fire pump is carried to the location of fire only by the firefighters. Therefore, as Ampel 
Mosque is the most visited cultural heritage in Kampung Ampel, keeping the fire pump in Ampel Mosque 
can speed up the residents' fire handling before the firefighters reach the site considering that there are no 
major access routes to Ampel Mosque. 

The research conducted by Rahmawati et al. (2016) produces a fire risk map by taking into account 
three variables, namely fire hazard, vulnerability and capacity. This research not only produces fire risk 
maps but also fire disaster risk reduction scenarios that can be carried out to preserve cultural heritage. 

 

4. CONCLUSION 

Like the way we preserve our ancestors' treasure, cultural heritage has such sanctity and needs 
protection. It is essential to mitigate the risks of disasters, resulting in the loss of irreplaceable artistic and 
cultural assets. Kampung Ampel, as a cultural heritage area, has several cultural heritage objects that need 
to be preserved. The high number of fire incidents in the area becomes a challenge in preservation means. 
Therefore, spatial analyses to assess the risks and resources of the area to fire hazards need to be 
performed. The results of the analyses consist of challenges and possible solutions. The condition and 
challenges can be concluded as follow resources for firefighting cannot cover the entire area of Kampung 
Ampel. Resources for evacuation cannot accommodate all the population, including the visitors.  

Reactivation of inactive fire wells owned by Surabaya City Fire Department is an effective solution for 
fire risk reduction because out of seven fire wells located in the vicinity of the Ampel area, three are active, 
while four are inactive. The existence of holy water inside the Ampel Mosque can be an alternative water 
resource to secure the area. However, since the Fire Department does not own it, the water resource 
volume in this mosque is unknown. Besides, it should also be investigated whether it is possible to be 
utilized in an emergency. Proposing wider road to connect roads which are wider than 3.5 meters but are 
blocked by narrower roads facilitates the accessibility of fire engines to get deeper into the site, thus 



 
Hudanti, Okubo, and Indradjati / Geoplanning: Journal of Geomatics and Planning, Vol 7, No 1, 2020, 1-16 

doi: 10.14710/geoplanning.7.1.1-16 
                                                              

 | 15  
 

expanding the coverage area of firefighting resources. The purchase of adapters to connect different types 
of fire hoses can be a very effective solution because it can expand the firefighting resources' coverage 
area. Previously, the number of fire hoses is only six units, but the number can be doubled to twelve units 
with the installation of adapters. Adding the number of fire hoses brought to the site can be an alternative 
strategy. Similar to the installation of fire adapters, an addition to the number of fire hose will definitely 
expand the coverage area of firefighting resources. To cover a wider area than installing adapters, the 
number of fire hoses ideally more than twelve units. Vulnerable buildings can be remodeling to make the 
building stronger using inflammable materials by keeping the cultural landscape's value. Preparing 
evacuation routes to the closest open space areas will illustrate which road is important for facilitation and 
maintenance to accelerate evacuation, especially for tourists. Facilitation can be done by providing signage, 
clearance path of illegal or non-permanent stalls, or route socialization. 

The application of reactivation of inactive fire wells, utilization of water source from Ampel Mosque, and 
proposing wider roads for blocked roads can reduce the high-risk area from 26.6% (before application) to 
16.6% (after application). The installation of a fire hose adapter and reactivation of inactive fire wells can 
reduce the high-risk area from 26.6% (before application) to 3.4% (after application). The installation of a 
fire hose adapter, reactivation of inactive fire wells, and water source utilization from Ampel Mosque can 
reduce the high-risk area from 26.6% (before application) to 0.2% (after application). Keeping a portable 
fire pump in Ampel Mosque can speed up the fire handling, which can be done by the residents. 

 

5. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The author (s) would like to express the gratitude, especially to the State Ministry of National 
Development Planning/ National Development Planning Agency (BAPPENAS), for supporting this research.  

 

6. REFERENCES 

Adi, Wahyu, T. J., & Mirnayani. (2013). Probabilistic Modeling to Predict Fire Risk Using Hirid BBN-Kriging 
(219K). Konferensi Nasional Teknik Sipil 7 (KoNTekS 7). 

Akasah, U. H. (2011). Jejak Sejarah dan Budaya Kampung Arab (4). Retrieved from 
http://catatanakasah.blogspot.jp/2016/04/jejak-sejarah-dan-budaya-kampung-arab-4.html 

Al-Irsyad. (2016). Sejarah Rumah Sakit. Retrieved from http://rs-
alirsyadsurabaya.co.id/menu/konten/sejarah-rumah-sakit 

Azad, T. A., Hasan, I., & Saha, M. K. (2018). Risk of Fire Disaster : Consequences on Industry Sectors in 
Bangladesh. (January). 

BPS. (2015). Surabaya Dalam Angka Tahun 2015. Surabaya: BPS Kota Surabaya. 
Coburn, A. W., Spence, R. J. S., & Pomonis, A. (1994). Mitigasi Bencana Edisi II-Program Pelatihan 

Managemen Bencana. UNDP & DHA. 
IS. (2014). Masjid Sunan Ampel. Retrieved from http://inilahsurabaya.blogspot.jp/2014/04/masjid-sunan-

ampel.html 
Jigyasu, R., & Arora, V. (2014). Disaster risk management of cultural heritage in urban areas: a training 

guide: a training guide for conducting courses in disaster risk management for cultural heritage in 
urban areas. Kyoto, Japan: Research Center for Disaster Mitigation of Urban Cultural Heritage, 
Ritsumeikan University. 

Latifah, R. N., & Pamungkas, A. (2013). Identifikasi Faktor-Faktor Kerentanan terhadap Bencana Kebakaran 
Hutan dan Lahan di Kecamatan Liang Anggang Kota Banjarbaru. Jurnal Teknik POMITS. 

Mantra, I. B. G. . (2005). Kajian Penanggulangan Bahaya Kebakaran Pada Perumahan (Suatu Kajian 
Pendahuluan di Perumahan Sarijadi Bandung). Jurnal Permukiman, 3(61). 

Mappaturi. (2015). Konstruksi Ekologis Arsitektur Mesjid Ziarah Nusantara, Studi kasus: Mesjid Ziarah 
Ampel Surabaya. Jurnal RUAS, 13(1), 14–25. [Crossref] 

Miadinar, A. (2009). Wilayah Rawan Kebakaran di Kota Yogyakarta tahun 2008. Universitas Indonesia. 
Moga, J. (2002). Disaster mitigation planning: the growth of local partnerships for disaster reduction. 

Regional Workshop on Best Practices in Disaster Mitigation--Lessons Learned from the Asian Urban 
Disaster Mitigation Program and Other Initiatives, 24–26. 

https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.ruas.2015.013.01.2


 
Hudanti, Okubo, and Indradjati / Geoplanning: Journal of Geomatics and Planning, Vol 7, No 1, 2020, 1-16 
doi: 10.14710/geoplanning.7.1.1-16 

16 | 
 

Okubo, T. (2003). Proposal: Environmental Water Supply System (EWSS) for Protection of Cultural Heritage 
from Earthquake Fire. Water and Cultural Diversity, 103–112. Kyoto, Japan: United Nations 
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. 

Pedersoli Jr, J. L., & Michalski, S. (2016). A Guide to Risk Management of Cultural Heritage. Canada: 
ICCROM. 

Price, O., & Bradstock, R. (2014). Landscape and Urban Planning Countervailing effects of urbanization and 
vegetation extent on fire frequency on the Wildland Urban Interface : Disentangling fuel and ignition 
effects. Landscape and Urban Planning, 130, 81–88. [Crossref]  

Rahman, N., Ansary, M. A., & Islam, I. (2015). GIS Based Mapping of Vulnerability to Earthquake and Fire 
Hazard in Dhaka City, Bangladesh. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 13, 291–300. 
[Crossref] 

Rahmawati, D., Pamungkas, A., Aulia, B. U., Larasati, K. D., Rahadyan, G. A., & Dito, A. H. (2016). 
Participatory Mapping for Urban Fire Risk Reduction in High-density Urban Settlement. Procedia - 
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 227(November 2015), 395–401. [Crossref]  

realita.co. (2014). Di Ampel, Ada Hotel Kuno Rp 75 Ribu/Malam. Retrieved from http://www.realita.co/di-
ampel-ada-hotel-kuno-rp-75-ribumalam 

Rijanto, B. (2010). Fire and Building Planning. Jakarta: Mitra Wacana Media. 
Rusli. (2011). Faktor-Faktor Penentu dalam Analisis Sistem Proteksi Kebakaran dalam Suatu Kawasan (Studi 

Kasus: Kota Parigi) – [Determinants in The Analysis of Fire Protection Systems in An Area – Study Case: 
Parigi City]. Jurnal SMARTek, Vol. 9(No. 3), 196–211. 

Sagala, S., Adhitama, P., & Sianturi, D. G. (2013). Analisis Upaya Pencegahan Bencana Kebakaran di 
Permukiman Padat Perkotaan Kota Bandung, Studi Kasus Kelurahan Sukahaji. Resilience Development 
Initiative. 

Setiawan, B., & Wiguna, A. (2012). Analisa Potensi Ancaman Kebakaran di Kawasan Permukiman Pesisir 
Kota Tarakan. Online),(http://digilib. its. ac. id/public/ITS-Master-21737-chapter1pdf~…. 

Silas, J., Setyawan, W., Ernawati, R., & Okitasari, M. (2012). Kampung Surabaya Menuju Abad 21 - Kajian 
Penataan dan Revitalisasi Kampung di Surabaya [The Kampungs of Surabaya Entering The 21st 
Century - Planning and Revitalization of Kampungs in Surabaya]. Surabaya: Badan Perencanaan 
Pembangunan Kota - Pemerintah Kota Surabaya. 

Sivakumar, C., Malathy, R., & Sivaprakash, P. (2018). A Study on Fire Safety on Residential and Commercial 
Construction Sites. Archives of Civil Engineering, 64(2), 161–174. [Crossref]  

Stovel, H. (1998). Risk Preparedness: A Management Manual for World Cultural Heritage. Via di San 
Michele 13, 00153, Rome, Italy: ICCROM. 

Sujatmiko, R. (2012). Kejadian Kebakaran Permukiman Kota Bekasi Tahun 2010. Universitas Indonesia. 
Sulistiowati, T. E. (2000). Tinjauan Eksistensi Standar-Standar Proteksi Kebakaran Dan Penerapannya Dalam 

Mendukung Implementasi Peraturan Keselamatan Bangunan. Retrieved from 
http://www.triekosulistiowati.com/2016/11/makam-muhammad-bin-idrus-alhabyi.html# 

Suprapto. (2008). Tinjauan Eksistensi Standar-Standar Proteksi Kebakaran Dan Penerapannya Dalam 
Mendukung Implementasi Peraturan Keselamatan Bangunan. Bandung: Departemen Pekerjaan 
Umum. 

surabaya.go.id. (2015). Kunjungi Tempat Bersejarah, Peserta Ampels Heritage Walk 2015 Kenakan Kostum 
Pejuang. Retrieved from http://www.surabaya.go.id/pemerintahan/7299-kunjungi-tempat-
bersejarah,-peserta-ampels-heritage-walk-2015-kenakan-kostum-pejuang 

Twigg, J., Christie, N., Haworth, J., Osuteye, E., & Skarlatidou, A. (2017). Improved Methods for Fire Risk 
Assessment in Low-Income and Informal Settlements. (February). [Crossref]  

 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.06.013
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.07.003
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.06.091
https://doi.org/10.2478/ace-2018-0022
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14020139

