Hubbry Logo
Mount MerapiMount MerapiMain
Open search
Mount Merapi
Community hub
Mount Merapi
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Mount Merapi
Mount Merapi
Mount Merapi
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Mount Merapi, colour lithograph, Junghuhn and Mieling, 1853–1854

Key Information

Mount Merapi (Indonesian: Gunung Merapi; Javanese: ꦒꦸꦤꦸꦁ​ꦩꦼꦫꦥꦶ, romanized: gunung měrapi, lit. 'Fire Mountain') is an active stratovolcano located on the border between the province of Central Java and the Special Region of Yogyakarta, Indonesia. It is the most active volcano in Indonesia and has erupted regularly since 1548. It is located approximately 28 km (17 mi) north of Yogyakarta city which has a population of 2.4 million. Thousands of people live on the flanks of the volcano, with villages as high as 1,700 m (5,577 ft) above sea level.

Smoke can often be seen rising from the mountaintop, and several eruptions have caused fatalities. A pyroclastic flow from a large explosion killed 27 people on 22 November 1994, mostly in the town of Muntilan, west of the volcano.[3] Another large eruption occurred in 2006, shortly before the Yogyakarta earthquake. In light of the hazards that Merapi poses to populated areas, it was designated as one of the Decade Volcanoes, which are considered worthy of particular study in light of their history of large, destructive eruptions and proximity to densely populated areas.

On the afternoon of 25 October 2010, Merapi erupted on its southern and southeastern slopes.[4] A total of 353 people were killed over the next month, while 350,000 were forced to flee their homes;[5] most of the damage was done by pyroclastic flows, while heavy rain on 4 November created lahars which caused further damage. Most of the fissures had ceased erupting by 30 November, and four days later the official threat level was lowered.[6] Merapi's characteristic shape was changed during the eruptions, with its height lowered 38 m (125 ft) to 2,930 m (9,613 ft).[2]

Since 2010, Merapi had experienced several smaller eruptions, most noticeably two phreatic eruptions which occurred on 18 November 2013 and 11 May 2018. The first and larger of these, caused by a combination of rainfall and internal activity, saw smoke issued up to a height of 2,000 m (6,562 ft).[7] There have been several small eruptions since the beginning of 2020,[a] which are of great interest to volcanologists.

Etymology

[edit]

The name Merapi is a compound of Sanskrit Meru meaning "mountain"[13] with Javanese api which means "fire".[citation needed] Thus Merapi can be loosely translated as "Mountain of Fire" or "Fire Mountain".

According to Mahdi (2005), the name of the volcano "Merapi" is derived from an Old Malay affixation of the Old Malay word api (fire) with the prefix, mər- which is believed to be an ancestor of the ber- prefix of modern Malay and Indonesian. He also believes that the same applies to the name of the volcano, Mount Marapi of West Sumatra.[14] If mər- is indeed the ancestor of modern Malay and Indonesian ber-, then that would make the name of the volcano morphologically identical to the Malay and Indonesian word berapi (to spew out fire) which, combined with the word, gunung (mountain), would make up the modern Malay and Indonesian word for "volcano", gunung berapi.[15][16]

History

[edit]

Geological history

[edit]
Mount Merapi viewed from 9th-century Prambanan Hindu temple, built during Mataram Kingdom era

Merapi is the youngest in a group of volcanoes in southern Java. It is situated at a subduction zone, where the Indo-Australian plate is subducting under the Sunda plate. It is one of at least 129 active volcanoes in Indonesia, part of the volcano is located in the Southeastern part of the Pacific Ring of Fire—a section of fault lines stretching from the Western Hemisphere through Japan and South East Asia.[17] Stratigraphic analysis reveals that eruptions in the Merapi area began about 400,000 years ago, and from then until about 10,000 years ago, eruptions were typically effusive, and the out flowing lava emitted was basaltic. Since then, eruptions have become more explosive, with viscous andesitic lavas often generating lava domes. Dome collapse has often generated pyroclastic flows, and larger explosions, which have resulted in eruption columns, have also generated pyroclastic flows through column collapse.[18]

Typically, small eruptions occur every two to three years, and larger ones every 10–15 years or so. Notable eruptions, often causing many deaths, have occurred in 1006, 1786, 1822, 1872, and 1930. Thirteen villages were destroyed in the latter one, and 1,400 people were killed by pyroclastic flows.

Merapi in 1930

The very large eruption in 1006 is claimed to have covered all of central Java with ash. The volcanic devastation is claimed to have led to the collapse of the Hindu Kingdom of Mataram; however, the evidence from that era is insufficient for this to be substantiated.

2006 eruption

[edit]

In April, increased seismicity at more regular intervals and a detected bulge in the volcano's cone indicated that fresh eruptions were imminent. Authorities put the volcano's neighboring villages on high alert and local residents prepared for a likely evacuation. On 19 April smoke from the crater reached a height of 400 m (1,300 ft), compared to 75 m (246 ft) the previous day. On 23 April, after nine surface tremors and some 156 multifaced quakes signalled movements of magma, some 600 elderly and infant residents of the slopes were evacuated.[19]

By early May, active lava flows had begun. On 11 May, with lava flow beginning to be constant, some 17,000 people were ordered to be evacuated from the area[20] and on 13 May, Indonesian authorities raised the alert status to the highest level, ordering the immediate evacuation of all residents on the mountain.[21] Many villagers defied the dangers posed by the volcano and returned to their villages, fearing that their livestock and crops would be vulnerable to theft.[17] Activity calmed by the middle of May.[22]

On 27 May, a 6.3 magnitude earthquake struck roughly 50 km (31 mi) southwest of Merapi,[23] killing at least 5,000 and leaving at least 200,000 people homeless in the Yogyakarta region, heightening fears that Merapi would "blow".[24] The quake did not appear to be a long-period oscillation, a seismic disturbance class that is increasingly associated with major volcanic eruptions. A further 11,000 villagers were evacuated on 6 June as lava and superheated clouds of gas poured repeatedly down its upper slopes towards Kaliadem,[25] a location that was located southeast of Mt. Merapi.[26] The pyroclastic flows are known locally as "wedhus gembel" (Javanese for "shaggy goat"). There were two fatalities as the result of the eruption.

2010 eruption

[edit]
Main article: 2010 eruptions of Mount Merapi
Destroyed house in Cangkringan Village after the 2010 eruptions

In late October, the Center for Volcanology and Geological Hazard Mitigation, Geological Agency (CVGHM), (Indonesian language—Pusat Vulkanologi & Mitigasi Bencana Geologi, Badan Geologi-PVMBG), reported that a pattern of increasing seismicity from Merapi had begun to emerge in early September.

Observers at Babadan 7 km (4.3 mi) west and Kaliurang 8 km (5.0 mi) south of the mountain reported hearing an avalanche on 12 September. On 13 September, white plumes were observed rising 800 m (2,600 ft) above the crater. Lava dome inflation, detected since March, increased from background levels of 0.1 mm (0.0039 in) to 0.3 mm (0.012 in) per day to a rate of 11 mm (0.43 in) per day on 16 September. On 19 September, earthquakes continued to be numerous, and the next day CVGHM raised the Alert Level to 2 (on a scale of 1–4).[27] Lava from Mount Merapi in Central Java began flowing down the Gendol River on 23–24 October signalling the likelihood of an imminent eruption.[28]

On 25 October, the Indonesian government raised the alert for Mount Merapi to its highest level (4) and warned villagers in threatened areas to move to safer ground. People living within a 10 km (6.2 mi) zone were told to evacuate. The evacuation orders affected at least 19,000 people; however, the number that complied at the time remained unclear to authorities.[29] Officials said about 500 volcanic earthquakes had been recorded on the mountain over the weekend of 23–24 October, and that the magma had risen to about 1 km (3,300 ft) below the surface due to the seismic activity.[30]

After a period of multiple eruptions considered to exceed the intensity and duration of those in 1872[31] on 10 November 2010 the intensity and frequency of eruptions was noticed to subside.[32] By this time, 153 people had been reported to have been killed and 320,000 were displaced.[33] Later the eruptive activities again increased requiring a continuation of the Level 4 alert and continued provision of exclusion zones around the volcano.[34][35] By 18 November the death toll had increased to 275.[36] The toll had risen to 324 by 24 November and Syamsul Maarif, head of the National Disaster Mitigation Agency (BNPB) explained that the death toll had risen after a number of victims succumbed to severe burns and more bodies were found on the volcano's slopes.[37]

In the aftermath of the more intensive eruptive activities in late November, Yogyakarta's Disaster Management Agency reported that there were about 500 reported cases of eruption survivors in Sleman district suffering from minor to severe psychological problems, and about 300 cases in Magelang.[37] By 3 December the death toll had risen to 353.[38]

On 3 December, the head of the National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB), Dr. Syamsul Maarif, M. Si, accompanied by the head of the Centre for Volcanology and Geological Hazard Mitigation CVGHM (PVMBG), Dr. Surono made a joint press release at the BNPB Command Post in Yogyakarta. At 09.00 am that day, the CVGHM (PVMBG) lowered the status of Mount Merapi to the level of Caution Alert (Level III). They clarified that with this alert level the potential of hot ash clouds and projected incandescent material remained. The Geological Agency provided several recommendations including that there would be no community activities in the disaster prone areas and proclaimed an ongoing exclusion zone of 2.5 km (1.6 mi) radius.[39]

2018 eruption

[edit]

A phreatic eruption began on the morning of 11 May, prompting the evacuation of areas within a 5 km (3.1 mi) radius of the volcano. Adisutjipto International Airport in Yogyakarta was closed due to the eruption's ash plume. This eruption initiated a new phase of dome growth. It led to new evacuations at Merapi in November 2020. The danger of pyroclastic flows was increasing and expanding.[40][41][42][43]

2021 eruption

[edit]

Eruptions started on 4 January causing evacuations of the Yogyakarta region.[44] The geological authority had invoked the second-highest alert level in November after sensors picked up increasing activity warning the situation could become more unstable.[45] On 27 March, another small eruption occurred, spewing lava and creating pyroclastic flows.[46] Merapi began erupting once again on 8 August 2021, sending new lava flows down the slope of the volcano.[11] On 16 August, the volcano erupted again, belching a cloud of ash into the air as lava flowed down its crater. The explosions spewed clouds as far as 3.5 kilometres (2 miles) from the rumbling volcano, blanketing local communities in grey ash.[12]

On 9 December, a pyroclastic flow traveled along the Bebeng River for a distance of 2.2 km.[47] This comes just as Mount Semeru erupted in an unrelated event, killing at least 43 people.

2023 eruption

[edit]

An eruption started on 11 March at around 12 p.m. local time (Western Indonesia Time, GMT+7). A lava flow up to 7 kilometers long and a column of hot cloud rising up to 100 meters high were observed. Local authorities advised residents living in Merapi's slope to stay at least 7 kilometers away from the crater.[48][49]

2024 eruption

[edit]

An eruption occurred on 19 January starting at 6:59 a.m. local time, with six pyroclastic flows reaching up to 2 kilometers being recorded.[50] On 21 January, the volcano emitted a lava flow up to 2 kilometers long and a column of hot cloud rising up to 100 meters. Authorities advised residents living in Merapi's slope to stay at least 7 kilometers away from the crater.[51]

Monitoring

[edit]
This image shows some of the instruments deployed by the Deep Carbon Degassing Project in the vicinity of Mount Merapi in 2014.

Mount Merapi is the site of a very active volcano monitoring program. Seismic monitoring began in 1924, with some of the volcano monitoring stations lasting until the present. The Babadan (northwest location), Selo (in the saddle between Merbabu and Merapi), and Plawangan monitoring stations have been updated with equipment over the decades since establishment. During the 1950s and early 1960s some of the stations were starved of equipment and funds, but after the 1970s considerable improvement occurred with the supply of new equipment. Some of the pre-1930 observation posts were destroyed by the 1930 eruption, and newer posts were re-located. Similarly after the 1994 eruption, the Plawangan post and equipment were moved into Kaliurang as a response to the threat of danger to the volcanological personnel at the higher point. This volcano is monitored by the Deep Earth Carbon Degassing Project.

The eruption of 1930 was found to have been preceded by a large earthquake swarm. The network of eight seismographs currently around the volcano allow volcanologists to accurately pinpoint the hypocentres of tremors and quakes.

A zone in which no quakes originate is found about 1.5 km below the summit, and is thought to be the location of the magma reservoir which feeds the eruptions.

Other measurements taken on the volcano include magnetic measurements and tilt measurements. Small changes in the local magnetic field have been found to coincide with eruptions, and tilt measurements reveal the inflation of the volcano caused when the magma chambers beneath it is filling up.

Lahars (a type of mudflow of pyroclastic material and water) are an important hazard on the mountain, and are caused by rain remobilizing pyroclastic flow deposits. Lahars can be detected seismically, as they cause a high-frequency seismic signal. Observations have found that about 50 mm of rain per hour is the threshold above which lahars are often generated.

Check dam

[edit]

There are about 90 units (30 percent) from the total 258 units of sand barriers (sabo) were damaged. The cost for recovery is about Rp 1 trillion ($116 million).[52]

Sterile zone

[edit]

Following the 2010 eruption, three Indonesian government departments declared a prohibited zone in which nobody can permanently stay and no infrastructure is allowed in nine villages (dusun): Palemsari, Pangukrejo, Kaliadem, Jambu, Kopeng, Petung, Kalitengah Lor, Kalitengah Kidul and Srunen, all in Cangkringan district.[53]

National park

[edit]
The peak of Merapi seen from Klangon

In 2004, an area of 6,410 hectares around Mount Merapi was established as a national park. The decision of the Ministry of Forestry to declare the park has been subsequently challenged in court by The Indonesian Forum for Environment, on grounds of lack of consultation with local residents.[54] During the 2006 eruption of the volcano it was reported that many residents were reluctant to leave because they feared their residences would be confiscated for expansion of the national park, meaning they would not have a house.[55]

Museum

[edit]
  • Merapi Museum Center, Kaliurang Street Kilometer 25.7, Pakem subdistrict, Sleman, Yogyakarta. A replica of Merapi's Post 2010 eruption has been created and Indonesian student visits to the museum has increased 30 percent since the latest eruption.[56]

Mythology

[edit]
Merapi in July 2005. The constant smoke from its summit is said to come from two sacred armourers living under the mountain.

Merapi is very important to the Javanese people, especially those living around its crater. As such, there are many myths and beliefs attached to Merapi.[57]

Creation

[edit]

Although most nearby villages have their own myths about the creation of Mount Merapi, they have numerous commonalities. It is believed that when the gods had just created the Earth, Java was unbalanced because of the placement of Mount Jamurdipo on the west end of the island. In order to assure balance, the gods (generally represented by Batara Guru) ordered the mountain to be moved to the centre of Java. However, two armourers, Empu Rama and Empu Permadi, were already forging a sacred keris at the site where Mount Jamurdipo was to be moved. The gods warned them that they would be moving a mountain there, and that they should leave; Empu Rama and Empu Permadi ignored that warning. In anger, the gods buried Empu Rama and Empu Permadi under Mount Jamurdipo; their spirits later became the rulers of all mystical beings in the area. In memory of them, Mount Jamurdipo was later renamed Mount Merapi, which means "fire of Rama and Permadi."[58] [better source needed]

Spirit Kraton of Merapi

[edit]

The Javanese believe that the Earth is not only populated by human beings, but also by spirits (makhluk halus). Villages near Merapi believe that one of the palaces (in Javanese kraton) used by the rulers of the spirit kingdom lies inside Merapi, ruled by Empu Rama and Empu Permadi. This palace is said to be a spiritual counterpart to the Yogyakarta Sultanate, complete with roads, soldiers, princes, vehicles, and domesticated animals. Besides the rulers, the palace is said to also be populated by the spirits of ancestors who died as righteous people. The spirits of these ancestors are said to live in the palace as royal servants (abdi dalem), occasionally visiting their descendants in dreams to give prophecies or warnings.[59]

Spirits of Merapi

[edit]

To keep the volcano quiet and to appease the spirits of the mountain, the Javanese regularly take offerings on the anniversary of the sultan of Yogyakarta's coronation.[60] For the Yogyakarta Sultanate, Merapi holds a significant cosmological symbolism, because it forms a sacred north–south axis line between Merapi's peak and the Indian Ocean, referred by locals as the Southern Ocean. The sacred axis is signified by Merapi peak in the north, the Tugu Yogyakarta monument near Yogyakarta main train station, the axis runs along Malioboro street to Northern Alun-alun (square) across Keraton Yogyakarta (sultan's palace), Southern Alun-alun, all the way to Bantul and finally reaching Samas and Parangkusumo beach on the estuary of Opak river and the Indian Ocean.[61] This sacred axis connected the hyangs or spirits of mountain revered since ancient times—often identified as "Mbah Petruk" by Javanese people—The Sultan of Yogyakarta as the leader of the Javanese kingdom, and Nyi Roro Kidul as the queen of the Southern Ocean, the female ocean deity revered by Javanese people and also mythical consort of Javanese kings.[62]

See also

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Mount Merapi

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Mount Merapi is an active situated on the border between province and the , , with a summit elevation of 2,911 meters. Positioned approximately 30 kilometers north of , a densely populated city, the poses significant hazards to surrounding communities due to its proximity and frequent eruptive activity. Merapi is characterized by the growth and collapse of summit lava domes, which generate pyroclastic flows, incandescent avalanches, and ash plumes during eruptions. The volcano has recorded at least 68 historical eruptions since 1548, occurring on average every 5 to 10 years, making it Indonesia's most consistently active . Eruptive styles range from low explosivity (VEI) 1-2 events roughly every six years to rarer VEI 3 blasts every few decades, with major historical outbursts like the 2010 eruption causing hundreds of fatalities through pyroclastic surges and infrastructure destruction. An ongoing eruption phase that began in late December 2020 continues to produce intermittent ash emissions and lava avalanches as of 2025. Intensive monitoring efforts, including seismic networks and observations, track Merapi's activity to mitigate risks, given its amid agricultural lands and urban peripheries supporting millions. The 's andesitic composition and zone setting drive its persistent dome-building behavior, underscoring the causal link between tectonic plate convergence and recurrent magmatic unrest.

Geography and Physical Features

Location and Regional Context

Mount Merapi is an active stratovolcano located on the border between Central Java province and the Special Region of Yogyakarta, Indonesia, approximately 28 kilometers north of Yogyakarta city. Its summit lies at coordinates 7°32′S 110°27′E, rising to an elevation of about 2,910 meters above sea level. The volcano occupies a position in the densely populated central Java region, where fertile volcanic soils support agriculture and human settlements extending onto its lower flanks. Geologically, Merapi forms part of the Sunda volcanic arc, situated along the where the Indo-Australian Plate subducts beneath the Eurasian Plate at a rate of approximately 7 centimeters per year. This tectonic setting contributes to its frequent activity within Indonesia's broader , a zone encompassing over 150 active volcanoes across the archipelago. The surrounding landscape includes river valleys and plateaus that channel pyroclastic flows toward nearby regencies such as Sleman, , and Boyolali during eruptions. Yogyakarta, with its population exceeding one million residents, lies in the volcano's potential hazard zone, underscoring the interplay between Merapi's location and regional human geography. This proximity has historically influenced settlement patterns, with communities adapting to periodic volcanic threats through traditional monitoring practices alongside modern geophysical networks.

Topography and Morphology


Mount Merapi exhibits the classic conical form of a stratovolcano, rising steeply to a summit elevation of 2,910 meters above sea level at coordinates 7.54°S, 110.446°E. Its topography is defined by alternating layers of andesitic lavas and pyroclastic deposits, producing rugged slopes that average 25-35 degrees in inclination on the upper flanks, facilitating frequent pyroclastic flows and lahars. The volcano's base spans approximately 10-15 kilometers in diameter, anchoring it within the volcanic arc of central Java, with radial drainage patterns carving deep valleys such as the Bebeng and Krasak that channel eruptive products downslope. The summit morphology centers on a breached , roughly 500 meters in , which frequently hosts an active , particularly in its southwestern sector. This dome undergoes episodic growth via viscous lava extrusion, reaching volumes of up to several million cubic meters before partial collapses reshape the rim and deposit talus aprons. Such dynamic features contribute to Merapi's asymmetric profile, with the southwestern flank showing more pronounced scarring from historical dome failures compared to the eastern side. The 2010 eruption notably modified the summit, excavating a significant depression and reducing the peak height by about 38 meters through explosive removal of the pre-eruption dome and wall material. Overall, Merapi's morphology reflects ongoing constructional and destructural processes, with the stratovolcanic edifice built atop older pyroclastic fans dating to the , resulting in a composite structure prone to sector collapses and flank instabilities. Steep topographic gradients from the to elevations as low as 2,000 meters amplify hazard potential by directing hot into adjacent river systems.

Surrounding Human Settlements

Mount Merapi's flanks, particularly the southern and southwestern slopes, feature dense human settlements in , Special Region, with villages such as Cangkringan, Kepuharjo, Kaliurang, Pakem, and Turgo situated at elevations ranging from 400 to 1,700 meters above . These communities, numbering in the tens of thousands, rely heavily on —cultivating , , and cash crops on fertile volcanic soils enriched by past eruptions—and increasingly on volcano tourism, including attractions like river trekking and cultural performances. The volcano lies about 28 kilometers north of Yogyakarta city, home to over 3 million residents in the metropolitan area, exposing a vast population to secondary hazards like lahars channeled through river valleys toward the urban center. On the flanks themselves, population estimates indicate over 50,000 inhabitants across multiple villages within 20 kilometers of the summit, spanning regencies including Sleman, Magelang, and Boyolali. Agricultural dependence persists despite risks, as volcanic ash deposits enhance soil productivity, supporting livelihoods in an otherwise densely populated Java island region. Indonesian hazard mapping designates Kawasan Rawan Bencana (KRB) zones around Merapi, with KRB III (highest risk) prohibiting permanent structures within roughly 10 kilometers of the crater, though informal farming and occasional habitation occur; KRB II and I encompass most slope villages, mandating evacuations during alerts. The 2010 eruption destroyed over 2,000 homes in Cangkringan and nearby areas, displacing around 350,000 people temporarily and leading to government-built relocation settlements, such as those occupied since 2012, though many residents have resettled closer to the volcano for economic reasons. Monitoring by the enables preemptive evacuations, reducing fatalities in recent events compared to historical eruptions.

Geological Formation

Stratigraphic History

Mount Merapi's stratigraphic record reveals a complex buildup through multiple volcanic edifices, primarily composed of lavas and pyroclastic deposits, with evidence of sector collapses shaping its morphology. The volcano's history is divided into three main evolutionary stages: Proto-Merapi, Old Merapi, and New Merapi, distinguished by stratigraphic units, , and geochemical shifts from medium-K to high-K magmas in later phases. Proto-Merapi represents the earliest stage, dating back to less than 170 ka, with basaltic lavas forming peripheral cones such as Gunung Bibi (109 ± 60 ka), Gunung Turgo, Gunung Plawangan (138 ± 3 ka and 135 ± 3 ka), and Gunung Medjing. These units (stratigraphic Units 1 and 2) consist of older basaltic flows, potentially disrupted by early sector collapses around 115 ka. Overlying these are the deposits of Old Merapi, which began growing more than 30.3 ± 1.0 ka and persisted until less than 4.8 ± 1.5 ka , building a through intercalated lavas (Unit 3, Somma-Merapi flows) and pyroclastic rocks. This edifice experienced multiple sector collapses, including one exceeding 31,430 ± 2,070 14C y , culminating in a major and caldera-forming collapse around 2 ka that removed much of the upper structure. The modern New Merapi stage initiated approximately 1,900 14C y BP (~1.7 ka cal BP) within the collapse scar, marked by younger lava flows (Unit 6, <4.8 ka) and pyroclastic series (Units 4/5, <11,792 ± 90 14C y BP), transitioning to high-K basaltic andesites with subordinate basalts and andesites. Recent units (7 and 8) include historical pyroclastic deposits and lava domes emplaced since AD 1786, reflecting ongoing dome-building activity interspersed with pyroclastic flows from fountain , a recurrent process evident throughout the record. A minor sector affected New Merapi around 1,130 ± 50 14C y BP, further modifying the edifice. Overall, the underscores Merapi's persistent activity, with an average eruption recurrence of about 15.9 years over the last 2,000 years, driven by subduction-related .

Magma Composition and Volcanic Type

Mount Merapi is a , featuring a steep-sided constructed from alternating layers of viscous lava flows, pyroclastic deposits, and , which contribute to its propensity for eruptions interspersed with dome-building events. This morphology aligns with subduction-related , where ascent is hindered by high , leading to pressure buildup and frequent pyroclastic flows. The volcano's magma is predominantly , classified within the calc-alkaline series with medium- to high-K affinities, reflecting derivation from mantle wedge partial melting modified by fluids and crustal interactions. Whole-rock geochemical analyses of eruptive products indicate SiO₂ contents ranging from 51.5 to 56.1 wt% (volatile-free), with systematic variations observed in prehistoric pyroclastic flows that suggest cyclic differentiation processes including fractional and assimilation of carbonate-rich crust. These compositions yield viscous, crystal-rich magmas prone to stalling as lava domes at the summit, as evidenced by persistent dome extrusion throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. Mineral assemblages in Merapi lavas typically include , , and phenocrysts set in a groundmass dominated by microlites, supporting a petrogenesis involving recharge, mixing, and in shallow reservoirs at depths of 2–8 km. Oxygen isotope data from inclusions further indicate contamination by local , enhancing and explosivity through calc-silicate reactions. Such geochemical traits distinguish Merapi from more Hawaiian-style volcanoes, underscoring its role as a type example of andesitic arc volcanism driven by Indo-Australian plate .

Tectonic Setting

Mount Merapi occupies a position within the , a volcanic chain extending along the southern margin of the Sunda Plate, resulting from the oblique subduction of the Indo-Australian Plate beneath the Eurasian Plate. This subduction zone, part of the broader circum-Pacific , drives the region's intense volcanic activity through the descent of oceanic lithosphere into the mantle, where dehydration and of the subducting slab generate magmas that ascend to form stratovolcanoes like Merapi. The subduction along the Java segment occurs at a convergence rate of approximately 6 cm per year in the north-northeast direction, with the Indo-Australian Plate descending beneath the Sunda margin at angles typically ranging from 30° to 45° in the upper 100-200 km. Merapi's location in central Java places it above a relatively steep Benioff zone, contributing to frequent magma replenishment and explosive eruptions characteristic of calc-alkaline andesitic systems in this tectonic regime. Seismic evidence from local earthquake tomography reveals a pronounced low-velocity zone beneath the volcano, indicative of fluid-rich mantle wedge altered by slab-derived volatiles. Regional tectonics also involve back-arc thrusting and extensional features in the depression, where Merapi is situated between the Southern Mountains Zone to the south and the Kendeng-Rembang fold-thrust belt to the north, influencing the volcano's edifice stability and eruption dynamics through inherited crustal weaknesses. This setting underscores Merapi's vulnerability to tectonic triggering of eruptions, as observed in correlations between regional earthquakes and increased volcanic unrest.

Etymology

Origin and Linguistic Roots

The name Merapi derives from Old Javanese, combining the prefix mer-, which denotes agency or the possession of a quality (as in "one that performs" or "giver of"), with api (also spelled apuy or apwi), meaning "fire." This etymological structure yields a literal translation of "the one that makes/gives fire" or "fiery one," directly alluding to the volcano's frequent eruptive activity and luminous lava flows. An alternative interpretation incorporates influence, prevalent in ancient Javanese due to historical Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms, positing mer- from Meru, the mythical cosmic mountain symbolizing centrality and stability in , paired with Javanese api for "." This yields "mountain of fire," emphasizing both and , though linguistic analyses prioritize the indigenous Javanese construction over pure borrowing. The term's application extends beyond this specific volcano; Merapi is a descriptive archetype for fire-associated features in Austronesian languages of the region, appearing in names like the Merapi in East Java's Ijen complex, underscoring a cultural recognition of pyroclastic and magmatic phenomena predating modern geology. Local Javanese oral traditions further embed the name in animistic views of the mountain as a living entity capable of "breathing" fire, influencing hazard perception and ritual practices around eruptions.

Eruptive History

Prehistoric and Holocene Activity

Mount Merapi's Holocene volcanic activity commenced with explosive eruptions dating back to at least 11,792 ± 90 radiocarbon years (14C y BP), as evidenced by the base of the Pyroclastic Series overlain by a palaeosol in proximal sections. The volcano's evolution during this period includes the terminal phase of Old Merapi, which built up through lava extrusion and explosive events from approximately 30 ka to around 4.8 ± 1.5 ka BP, culminating in a major sector that transitioned to the New Merapi phase. Stratigraphic deposits from this early interval, such as those dated to 9,630 ± 60 14C y BP, consist primarily of pyroclastic flows, surges, and fallback breccias resulting from Vulcanian to subplinian explosions and dome collapses. Mid-Holocene activity featured recurrent moderate eruptions, with pyroclastic density currents generated via collapse mechanisms extending several kilometers downflank, as preserved in widespread block-and-ash flow deposits and associated surge beds. Pumiceous fallout layers indicate subplinian events of (VEI) 3–4, which produced volumes exceeding those of most historical eruptions except the 1872 CE and 2010 CE events. These prehistoric eruptions, predating written records around the CE, demonstrate Merapi's capacity for significant plinian-scale explosivity, contrasting with the more frequent but smaller effusive dome-building phases observed later. A compositional shift to high-potassium (high-K) calc-alkaline magmas occurred approximately 1,900 14C y (~100–200 CE), coinciding with the post-collapse growth of New Merapi's modern cone following a debris that removed much of Old Merapi's southeastern flank. Deposits from this late phase, such as those in the Kali Batang at 2,260 ± 30 14C y BP, reflect continued dome extrusion interrupted by partial collapses yielding hot and fine ash, with persistent activity averaging one eruption every 15.9 years over the subsequent two millennia. Overall, stratigraphy underscores Merapi's andesitic nature, with prehistoric output dominated by explosive products rather than extensive lava flows.

Pre-20th Century Eruptions

Historical records of Mount Merapi's pre-20th century eruptions derive primarily from Dutch colonial observations starting in the late , documenting frequent cycles of extrusion followed by collapses that generated pyroclastic flows (nuées ardentes), surges, and associated lahars. These events typically affected drainages on the volcano's southwestern and western flanks, with impacts including village destruction, agricultural losses, and fatalities from hot flows and secondary flooding. (VEI) estimates for larger events range from 3 to 4, indicating sub-Plinian to Plinian scales with broad dispersal. Earlier activity, prior to systematic European recording, includes sparse Javanese chronicles attributing a major eruption in 1006 to Merapi, which deposited ash across and coincided with the collapse of the Medang Kingdom (Mataram). Stratigraphic evidence supports recurrent explosive eruptions throughout the , with deposits indicating VEI 4-5 events that buried or damaged ancient temples like and influenced regional settlement patterns, though precise dating for pre-1768 historical events remains uncertain due to reliance on oral traditions and limited instrumentation. From 1768 to 1898, over 20 eruptive episodes occurred, many minor (VEI 1-2) involving steam explosions, rockfalls, and dome growth with negligible distant impacts, but punctuated by several hazardous events:
  • 1822–1823: Explosive eruption with fountain-collapse pyroclastic flows directed into multiple sectors (including Blongkeng, Krasak, and Bebeng), forming a 600 m wide crater; destroyed 8 villages and caused ~50 deaths from flows and hot lahars; VEI 3 (possibly 4).
  • 1846–1848: Dome collapse triggered VEI 3 explosion, generating pyroclastic flows into Woro and Gendol drainages up to several kilometers, with hot lahars; produced a 200 m crater but limited reported fatalities.
  • 1849: Strong VEI 3 explosion formed a 400 × 250 m crater, with pyroclastic flows down Blongkeng reaching ~7 km; ashfall extended 25 km, destroying 800 houses and 500,000 coffee trees; no direct fatalities noted.
  • 1872–1873: The period's most intense VEI 4 event, involving massive dome destruction and fountain-collapse flows that devastated villages above 1,000 m elevation across broad sectors; formed a 600 × 480 m crater with widespread tephra.
These eruptions underscore Merapi's causal mechanism of viscous andesitic stalling at shallow depths, leading to buildup and directed blasts upon dome failure, a pattern consistent with its morphology and subduction-zone setting. Smaller events, such as dome growth in , , and explosions in 1888, caused localized rockfalls and minor burns but rarely exceeded a few kilometers in hazard reach.

20th Century Eruptions

Mount Merapi's activity in the was dominated by effusive eruptions involving the extrusion of viscous andesitic lava domes, often followed by gravitational collapses that generated pyroclastic flows known as nuées ardentes. This style contrasted with the more explosive events (up to VEI 4) of the , with production occurring at a relatively constant rate of approximately 0.4–0.6 million cubic meters per month since 1890. Systematic monitoring commenced in under the East Indian Volcanological Survey, later continued by Indonesia's Volcanological Survey. While many eruptions involved lava flows and minor explosions with limited impacts, several produced significant pyroclastic flows, leading to fatalities in at least a dozen instances. The most devastating event was the 1930 eruption, classified as VEI 3, which featured explosive activity, lava extrusion, and extensive pyroclastic flows that destroyed villages and killed approximately 1,300 people. Earlier minor activity included lava flows in 1902, accompanied by pyroclastic flows, and subsequent flows in 1906 and 1910 with no reported major impacts.
YearKey ActivityImpacts and Casualties
1969Nuées ardentes in January traveling 11–12 km down SW flank; lava avalanches in February; explosion ejecting eruption cloud and avalanches.60 homes destroyed, 3 missing; 2,000 homeless; upper lava dome partially destroyed, no direct fatalities reported.
1972Summit explosion on 6 producing ash cloud rising 3 km and sand showers.No casualties reported.
1976Dome growth with nuées ardentes (up to 6 km in March, 2.5 km in November); ash clouds to 3 km; avalanches and incandescent material.Dome collapse of 400,000 m³; ash deposits to 37.5 km; forest fires; no fatalities per primary records, though some accounts report 28 deaths.
1994Lava dome growth followed by explosive eruption on 22 November generating pyroclastic flows.At least 64 fatalities from pyroclastic flows; evacuations prevented higher toll.
Other eruptions, such as those in 1935, 1942, 1948, 1954, 1961, 1984, 1992, and minor dome-building phases in 1977, primarily involved lava flows and with negligible human impacts due to their localized nature. Increased around the heightened vulnerability, underscoring the need for improved hazard assessment by century's end.

2006 Eruption

The 2006 eruption of Mount Merapi began with increased and fumarolic activity in late , when rockslides from the were recorded and emissions rose 400 meters above the . initiated around early May, accompanied by incandescent avalanches extending up to 100 meters down the flanks, prompting the Indonesian Center for and Geological Hazard Mitigation (CVGHM) to raise the alert level to 3 on May 11. By mid-May, a hot gas-and-ash plume was observed on , marking the onset of more intense activity, though plume heights remained modest compared to later phases. Activity escalated in late May, with the alert level elevated to 4—the maximum—due to persistent dome growth, multiphase earthquakes, and plumes detected daily via satellite. Pyroclastic flows generated by dome collapse traveled up to 6 kilometers southeast toward the Kaliadem area, with notable events on producing ashfall 5 kilometers away. The eruption, classified as (VEI) 2–3, involved predominantly effusive dome-building with intermittent surges and avalanches rather than highly explosive blasts, continuing intermittently through July and August with plumes reaching 6.1 kilometers altitude. Impacts were limited relative to Merapi's historical events, with pyroclastic flows destroying vegetation and infrastructure within the 7-kilometer but causing only two fatalities: two men who perished in a near Kaliadem after aiding evacuations. Lahars triggered by heavy rains mobilized deposits, affecting rivers and farmlands, though no widespread agricultural devastation was reported beyond the immediate flanks. Evacuations displaced thousands from southern villages, supported by monitoring data that allowed timely warnings despite challenges from a concurrent M6.4 earthquake on May 27, which complicated regional response efforts. Monitoring relied on seismic networks established since the , visual observations from observatories, and gas flux measurements, which detected elevated SO2 emissions correlating with dome instability. CVGHM's real-time data on frequency and plume dynamics informed mapping, emphasizing risks in predefined danger zones. The eruption subsided by late 2006, with dome remnants stabilizing, though minor activity persisted into , underscoring Merapi's pattern of frequent, moderate-effusion cycles.

2010 Eruption

The commenced with heightened and gas emissions in late , culminating in the first events on , marking the onset of a major eruptive phase that persisted until early December. This activity involved rapid growth of a followed by repeated collapses, generating pyroclastic density currents (PDCs) that extended up to 16 kilometers down the southern and southeastern flanks, devastating agricultural lands and villages. The eruption's (VEI) reached 4, classifying it as moderately large, with ash plumes rising to altitudes exceeding 15 kilometers, leading to widespread fallout and disruptions across . A chronology of key events included initial explosions on October 25–26 that prompted evacuations within a 10-kilometer radius, expanding to 20 kilometers by late October as PDCs intensified. The most vigorous phase occurred from October 26 to November 7, with dome extrusion rates peaking at over 100 cubic meters per second, fueling multiple PDC events; a particularly destructive surge on November 5 traveled 15 kilometers, incinerating structures in areas like Kinahrejo. Cumulative impacts encompassed the destruction of over 2,000 homes and burial of approximately 22 square kilometers under PDC deposits, with lahar activity triggered by heavy rains mobilizing volcanic debris and causing additional flooding downstream. Official tallies reported 386 fatalities, predominantly from burns and of hot ash during PDC incursions into populated zones, alongside 577 injuries, though some residents defied evacuation orders, contributing to higher losses in proximal villages. Evacuation efforts displaced more than 300,000 individuals, with timely warnings from the Center for and Geological Hazard Mitigation (CVGHM) and international collaborators credited for averting 10,000 to 20,000 additional deaths by enforcing buffer zones based on seismic, deformation, and monitoring . Post-eruption assessments highlighted the role of accurate forecasting in mitigating human toll, despite challenges from rapid event progression and community reluctance in high-risk areas.

2018 Eruption

The 2018 activity at Mount Merapi began with a on May 11 at approximately 19:40 local time, producing a seismic signal lasting about 5 minutes and an ash plume rising 5.5 km above the summit. The event prompted the temporary closure of , canceling eight flights, and was accompanied by elevated levels measured at 2.0 Dobson Units. Ashfall affected areas up to 15 km downwind, though no immediate casualties or significant structural damage were reported. Subsequent phreatic explosions occurred on May 21, with three events: the first at 01:25 lasting 19 minutes and generating a plume to 700 m that drifted west; the second at 09:38 producing a plume to 1.2 km; and the third at 17:50 of unknown plume height. Additional explosions followed on May 23 at 03:31 (lasting 4 minutes, plume to 2 km), May 24 (two events with plumes to 6 km and 1.5 km), and (three events with plumes reaching 6 km, 2.5 km, and 1 km). included volcano-tectonic earthquakes at depths around 3 km below the and continuous tremors, prompting the Balai Penyelidikan dan Pengembangan Teknologi Kebencanaan Geologi (BPPTKG) to raise the alert level to II (Siaga, or "wary") on May 21 and recommend a 3 km by May 24. The phase, characterized by steam-driven explosions without new involvement, reflected interaction between and hot volcanic gases or rocks, following a period of quiescence since 2016. BPPTKG's monitoring via seismometers and visual observations detected no deep magmatic signals initially, classifying the activity as minor. By , however, the status shifted to indicate a major eruption phase with the formation of a , marking the onset of effusive activity that continued into 2019, though this dome growth was distinct from the earlier explosive events. No fatalities occurred during the 2018 sequence, underscoring its relatively low hazard compared to Merapi's historical magmatic eruptions.

2020–Ongoing Eruption Cycle

The 2020–ongoing eruption cycle at Mount Merapi initiated on 31 December 2020, following precursory activity noted from October 2019, and has persisted through October 2025 with continuous extrusion of lava at the summit and southwestern (SW) lava domes. This phase features episodic dome growth, frequent incandescent lava avalanches extending up to 2-5 km in drainages such as Bebeng, Krasak, Sat, and Putih, pyroclastic density currents reaching 2-5 km southeastward, and intermittent ash emissions rising 1-6 km above the summit. The Pusat Vulkanologi dan Mitigasi Bencana Geologi (PVMBG) and Balai Penyelidikan dan Pengembangan Teknologi Kegiatan Gunungapi (BPPTKG) elevated the alert level to 3 (Siaga, or standby) on 5 November 2020, maintaining a prohibited zone of 3-7 km from the crater rim due to hazards from collapses and flows. Early activity in 2020-2021 included explosive events, such as a large blast on 27 January 2021 generating 71 pyroclastic flows and ashfall, alongside dome volumes expanding to approximately 1.88 million cubic meters at the SW rim and 2.817 million cubic meters at the by 2021. Ash plumes reached notable heights, including 3 km on 10 2020 and 6 km on 21 2020, prompting evacuations of 537 residents on 3 February 2021. By August 2021, ashfall affected 19 villages, while monitoring via seismometers, electronic distance measurement (EDM) instruments, and drones revealed and morphological changes in the SW dome. Subsequent years saw recurrent dome collapses and flows, including a major event on 9 March 2022 with pyroclastic currents traveling 5 km southeast, leading to the evacuation of 50 people and deposits in and Selo areas. In 2023, activity intensified with 68 pyroclastic flows during 10-16 March (extending up to 4 km), major surges on 11-12 March impacting multiple districts with , and 254 lava during 21-27 July; the SW dome volume measured 3.348 million cubic meters by 16 November 2023. A 2.5 km occurred on 17 2023, and plumes reached 3.7 km on 19 July 2023. The cycle continued into 2024 with a 1 km plume on 21 January, and in 2025, features included a 2 km on 17 September, 88 lava during 24-30 September (up to 2 km in multiple drainages), and minor in villages like Tunggularum and Ngori on 9 July. Monitoring by BPPTKG has documented persistent , including volcanic earthquakes and continuous tremors, alongside minor dome and collapses as of 23 October 2025, with no large-scale evacuations reported recently but ongoing risks from sudden surges confined within the . This cycle aligns with Merapi's historical pattern of andesitic dome-building eruptions every 5-10 years, driven by ascent in a subduction-related tectonic setting, though prolonged activity has heightened local vigilance without major fatalities since 2010.

Volcanic Hazards

Pyroclastic Flows and Surges

Pyroclastic flows at Mount Merapi, often termed nuée ardentes, consist of dense avalanches of hot volcanic fragments, ash, and gases generated primarily by the of growing lava domes or explosive disruptions during eruptions. These block-and-ash flows, characteristic of Merapi's andesitic composition, travel along steep ravines on the volcano's flanks, incorporating entrained material and maintaining high momentum. Accompanying pyroclastic surges form as dilute, turbulent ash-clouds detached from the denser flow base, capable of overriding topographic barriers due to their lower and greater mobility. Flows and surges at Merapi typically reach velocities exceeding 50 meters per second, with temperatures ranging from 200°C to 700°C, enabling rapid and burial of structures and . Emplacement temperatures of deposits, as measured in the nuée ardente, varied from under 200°C near Kaliurang to around 300°C in Turgo areas, reflecting partial cooling during transit. Historical records indicate flows extending 7-16 kilometers from the summit, confined largely to southern and western drainages like the Boyong, Bebeng, and Krasak rivers. The 2010 eruption exemplified these hazards, with pyroclastic flows traveling up to 16 kilometers southward, destroying over 2,000 homes and contributing to 341 fatalities through direct thermal and mechanical impacts. Surges during this event extended beyond flow channels, exacerbating damage in peripheral villages. Earlier activity reveals recurrent fountain-collapse flows, underscoring Merapi's predisposition to such phenomena over millennia. These currents pose immediate threats due to their speed and heat, rendering evasion difficult even within established danger zones.

Lahars and Flooding

Lahars, rapidly flowing mixtures of volcanic debris, water, and mud, pose a significant secondary hazard at Mount Merapi, exacerbated by the volcano's steep slopes, frequent eruptive deposits of loose pyroclastic material, and intense rainfall. These events typically originate from remobilization of fresh eruption deposits or saturated older materials in drainages such as the Bebeng, Krasak, Putih, and Boyong rivers, traveling distances up to 30-40 km downstream. Since the mid-1500s, at least 23 of Merapi's 61 documented eruptions have generated source deposits leading to lahars, with cumulative deposits spanning approximately 286 km² across the southern and eastern flanks. Lahars are predominantly rain-triggered, requiring intensities of around 40 mm per 2 hours to initiate significant flows, with peak activity during the November-to-April . Historical records indicate at least 35 events since the early , resulting in 76 fatalities, destruction of thousands of houses, and damage to tens of bridges and kilometers of roads. While primary eruption fatalities at Merapi are often attributed to pyroclastic flows, lahars have amplified long-term risks by altering river morphologies and burying agricultural lands under meters-thick layers, reducing and necessitating repeated evacuations. Following smaller eruptions like that in , which deposited limited pyroclastic volumes, lahars still threatened downstream floodplains during heavy rains, impacting infrastructure and farmland through infilling and channel avulsions. The 2010 VEI 4 eruption markedly intensified activity, depositing roughly ten times more pyroclastic material than the 1994 or 2006 events, which fueled an unprecedented 240 rain-triggered s during the 2010-2011 rainy season (October 2010 to May 2011). By June 2011, at least 15 major s had occurred since November 2010, with the most severe on , 2011, along the Putih , where flows eroded banks and inundated distal areas previously unaffected for decades. These events reached speeds up to 60 mph (100 km/h), displacing thousands, destroying homes and bridges in districts like , and burying villages under hot mudflows that continued into subsequent seasons due to persistent loose deposits. No direct fatalities were reported from these post-2010 s, reflecting improved warnings, but economic losses from agricultural disruption and repair exceeded millions of dollars. hazards have since recurred in cycles tied to rainfall and residual 2010 sediments, underscoring Merapi's capacity for prolonged fluvial threats beyond immediate eruptive phases.

Ashfall and Gas Emissions

Ashfall from arises during explosive eruptions and lava dome collapses, generating plumes that deposit fine over distances of 10–60 km depending on wind direction and plume height. In the 2010 eruption, plumes reached 18.3 km altitude, producing 4 thick ash layers west-southwest toward (30 km SSW) and west-northwest, causing roof damage, agricultural losses, and airport closures at Adisucipto International Airport. Accumulations of 1–5 , common in proximal villages like Selo (6 km NNW) and Cangkringan, have led to structural failures and contamination of water sources, while finer distal deposits disrupt aviation and farming. In the 2020–ongoing cycle, ashfall has affected areas up to 40 km southeast, as seen on January 21, 2024, in Jelok Village, with plumes to 1 km drifting southeast. Inhalation of respirable ash fractions (PM₂.₅ and PM₁₀) from Merapi poses respiratory hazards due to high content, a bio-reactive crystalline silica inducing and symptoms like , , and chest tightness. Post-2010 assessments link exposure to exacerbated and , with particle bioreactivity exceeding typical urban particulates despite coarser grain sizes (PM₂.₅:PM₁₀ ratio ~0.23). Chronic effects may include silicosis-like lung damage, though acute morbidity dominates in densely populated flanks. Volcanic gases, primarily SO₂, CO₂, H₂S, and H₂O, emanate from fumaroles and plumes, with fluxes spiking pre- and during eruptions signaling ascent. SO₂ emissions measured 95 tons/day in January 2001 and 80 tons/day in October 2001; a 2006 pulse reached 175 metric tons on April 22. The 2010 event released 0.44 Tg SO₂ total, peaking November 4 with injections to 17 km, detected via (AIRS) and enabling long-range transport to the by February 2011. These gases irritate mucous membranes, causing and , while SO₂ forms aerosols exacerbating ash-related respiratory distress and contributing to that corrodes infrastructure and harms vegetation. Elevated CO₂/SO₂ ratios, as observed in fumaroles, correlate with unrest but pose asphyxiation risks in confined summit areas.

Long-Term Risks and Probabilistic Modeling

Mount Merapi's long-term risks stem from its persistent magmatic activity, driven by subduction-related volcanism in the , resulting in recurrent dome-building episodes prone to and explosive events. Historical records indicate hazardous eruptions—characterized by pyroclastic flows—occur approximately every 5-10 years, with smaller effusive phases more frequent but major explosive eruptions ( [VEI] 3 or higher) recurring every few decades to a century. For instance, VEI 3 events occurred in 1822 and 1849, while a VEI 4 eruption took place in 1872, highlighting the potential for escalating intensity beyond typical dome- hazards. Over centuries, these patterns suggest a baseline of significant pyroclastic density current (PDC) incursions into proximal drainages, with ashfall and lahars extending impacts regionally, compounded by Java's dense near the . Probabilistic modeling employs statistical frameworks to quantify these risks, often using Bayesian Event Trees (BET) that integrate historical eruption catalogs, monitoring precursors, and geophysical data to estimate conditional probabilities of unrest and escalation. In a 2018 BET application to Merapi, the probability of volcanic unrest was calculated at 0.822, with a 0.549 likelihood of progression to a VEI 2 eruption given unrest, based on volcano-tectonic signals and extrusion rates. These models assume Poisson-like processes for eruption timing but condition on observables like seismicity and deformation, enabling forecasts over 1-50 year horizons; for PDCs specifically, multivolcano assessments project a non-negligible probability of invasion in southern Java drainages within 50 years, informed by Merapi's empirical runout distributions. Further statistical analyses of VEI sequences reveal characteristic patterns, where most events cluster at VEI 2 but exhibit fat-tailed distributions for higher magnitudes, implying underestimation risks in exponential models without tail adjustments. Recurrence intervals for VEI 4+ events remain uncertain due to sparse —potentially 100-200 years—but simulations incorporating historical and dome volumes support hazard maps delineating 20-30 km PDC zones with annual exceedance probabilities around 0.1-0.2 for moderate flows. Long-term modeling thus emphasizes scenario-based event trees, prioritizing empirical validation against pre-2010 records to mitigate biases from recent activity, while acknowledging epistemic uncertainties in supply rates that could amplify risks under sustained unrest.

Monitoring and Scientific Assessment

Observatories and Instrumentation

Mount Merapi's monitoring is primarily conducted by the Balai Penyelidikan dan Pengembangan Teknologi Kebencanaan Geologi (BPPTKG), Indonesia's dedicated research and technology development center for the , established to provide on activity. BPPTKG operates a network of five observation posts situated on the 's slopes: Selo to the north, Jrakah to the northwest, Babadan to the west, and additional posts at Ngepos and other strategic locations for comprehensive coverage. These posts house personnel and equipment, enabling both and on-site visual observations, with data transmitted to the central BPPTKG facility in . The instrumentation network includes a dense of seismometers deployed across the to detect microearthquakes, volcanic tremors, and signals, with monitoring originating from seismic stations installed as early as during the Dutch colonial era. Geodetic instruments comprise multiple GPS stations—up to eight in some configurations—positioned around the flanks and a reference station at the Observatory to measure ground deformation and baseline lengthening indicative of intrusion. Tiltmeters, such as AGI-722 models installed at depths of 3-4 meters in concrete casings, monitor subtle changes in ground slope at summit-area stations, often paired with GPS and weather sensors for correlated analysis. Gas emissions are tracked using correlation spectrometers (COSPEC) for remote measurement of SO2 flux via ultraviolet spectroscopy from fixed distances, supplemented by multi-gas sensors for real-time plume composition. Additional tools include infrasound sensors for detecting low-frequency pressure waves from eruptions, webcams for visual dome growth observation, rain gauges and for lahar risk assessment, and integration of satellite data like interferometry for cloud-penetrating deformation mapping. This multi-parameter system, enhanced by international collaborations such as USGS Assistance Program inputs, supports continuous 24/7 and rapid response to precursory signals.

Seismicity and Deformation Tracking

![A selection of instruments used for monitoring volcanoes.jpg][float-right] Seismicity at Mount Merapi is monitored through a dense network of seismic stations operated by the Center for Research and Development of Geological Disaster Technology (BPPTKG), in collaboration with the Geological Agency of Indonesia (PVMBG). This network includes broadband and short-period seismometers deployed across the volcano's flanks, enabling real-time detection of volcanic earthquakes classified as deep Type-A (VT-A) events associated with brittle failure at depth, shallow Type-B (VT-B) events linked to fluid movement, hybrid earthquakes, and low-frequency tremors indicative of magma dynamics. The DOMERAPI array, comprising 46 broadband seismometers, facilitates precise hypocenter location and supports advanced analysis such as probabilistic correlation of seismic patterns with lava extrusion phases. Real-time seismic amplitude measurement (RSAM) tracks energy release trends, with notable peaks such as 407 hybrid earthquakes recorded on September 2, 2023, signaling heightened unrest. Ground deformation is tracked using continuous GPS stations and satellite-based (InSAR) techniques to quantify , , and lateral displacements driven by intrusion or dome . BPPTKG maintains multiple GPS receivers around Merapi, providing millimeter-precision data on vertical and horizontal movements; for instance, low-cost kinematic GPS has been validated for detecting pre-eruptive swelling. InSAR processing of data generates displacement maps and digital elevation models (DEMs), revealing deformation during dome growth, as applied in post-2010 monitoring to map rates up to several cubic meters per second. Persistent Scatterer InSAR (PSInSAR) cross-validated against GPS measurements enhances detection of subtle pre-eruptive signals, such as those preceding the 2020-ongoing cycle. Integration of seismic and deformation data allows of subsurface processes; for example, correlated increases in VT-B events and GPS-detected often precede dome or pyroclastic flows, as observed in the lead-up to elevated activity in September 2025, when seismic surges prompted maintenance of Alert Level III. These metrics feed into probabilistic models for unrest progression, prioritizing empirical patterns over speculative interpretations.

Eruption Forecasting Methods

Eruption for Mount Merapi integrates real-time monitoring of precursory geophysical and geochemical signals with probabilistic models to estimate eruption likelihood, timing, location, and magnitude. Key precursors include elevated seismic energy from earthquakes and tremor, rapid summit deformation, increased extrusion rates, and heightened emissions of (SO2) and (CO2), which indicate ascent of gas-rich . These signals, observed through networks maintained by Indonesia's Center for and Mitigation (CVGHM), enabled accurate predictions during the 2010 eruption, where alerts were raised on October 25 based on intensifying activity, leading to evacuations that saved thousands of lives. Seismic monitoring plays a central role, utilizing techniques such as real-time seismic monitoring (RSAM) to track increasing energy and Bayesian Online Changepoint Detection (BOCPD) on magnitude to identify abrupt shifts signaling unrest. BOCPD, optimized with parameters like hazard rate and hyperparameters tuned to data from 2012–2018, detected changepoints preceding eruptions, such as those in 2013 and 2018, with lags of up to 235 days in testing scenarios, aligning with ascent timescales. Additionally, the Materials Failure Forecast Method (FFM) applies to accelerating seismic energy release, modeling it as material failure to forecast eruption times deterministically, as tested on Merapi's multiphase and s from 1993 onward. Geodetic and methods complement by measuring ground deformation via tiltmeters, electronic distance meters (EDM), and GPS, revealing or patterns, while satellite radar tracks summit morphology changes even under cloud cover, as during the event. Geochemical analysis of gas plumes quantifies SO2 flux via , with surges preceding explosive phases. Probabilistic frameworks like the Bayesian Event Tree for Eruption Forecasting (BET_EF) synthesize these inputs— including swarm rates, deformation, gas content, and historical data from 1961–—yielding unrest probabilities (e.g., 0.822), likely eruption sites at the main (0.938 probability), and sizes (VEI 2 at 0.549 probability). This event-tree approach propagates uncertainties through nodes representing sequential volcanic processes, aiding zoning for districts like Cangkringan.

Historical Accuracy of Predictions

Forecasting eruptions at Mount Merapi has relied on integrated monitoring of seismic activity, ground deformation, gas emissions, and since the establishment of dedicated observatories in the mid-20th century. Methods such as the Material Failure Forecast Method (MFFM), which analyzes accelerating patterns in seismic or deformation rates assuming material failure, have been applied retrospectively and in real-time to predict eruption onsets. Probabilistic approaches like the Bayesian Event Tree () incorporate historical unrest from 1961 to 2010, where 146 unrest episodes included 55 magmatic unrests and 46 eruptions, to estimate probabilities such as 0.822 for unrest and 0.549 for VEI 2 events. The MFFM demonstrated 36% success in real-time forecasting across 64 pre-eruptive sequences at Merapi and other volcanoes, rising to 83% when strict reliability criteria—such as clear power-law acceleration—were satisfied, with 62% of sequences deemed suitable for the method. This Bayesian-enhanced MFFM highlights the method's utility for effusive and explosive events but notes limitations in physical justification for certain long-period seismic signals and dependency on data quality. BET models align forecasts with Merapi's eruptive cycles of 3-5 years for minor events and 30-40 years for larger ones, though they provide probabilities rather than deterministic timings, reflecting inherent uncertainties in volcanic processes. In the 2010 eruption, forecasts proved effective despite challenges in magnitude prediction; the alert level was elevated to the highest ("Awas") on October 25, 2010, based on precursors like increased , deformation, and gas emissions, preceding the onset on October 26 by hours. This prompted evacuation of approximately 40,000 people initially within 10 km, expanding to 20 km and displacing over 350,000, averting 10,000 to 20,000 potential deaths amid 341 fatalities, primarily from pyroclastic flows. Retrospective analyses confirm that while onsets were anticipated accurately, distinguishing between effusive dome-building and highly phases remains difficult without advanced composition insights. Overall, historical forecasting accuracy at Merapi has improved with enhanced and , reducing relative casualties compared to pre-1980 eruptions like 1930 (68 deaths) versus modern events, though probabilistic nature limits pinpoint precision and underscores the value of conservative alert thresholds.

Mitigation Strategies

Alert Levels and Evacuation Protocols

The Indonesian alert system for Mount Merapi, managed by the Center for Volcanology and Geological Hazard Mitigation (PVMBG) through its dedicated Merapi Volcano Research and Development Center (BPPTKG), utilizes a four-tier scale to signal escalating unrest and guide risk mitigation. Level I (Normal) reflects routine volcanic activity with stable parameters, permitting unrestricted access beyond basic monitoring zones while maintaining continuous seismic and visual surveillance. Level II (Waspada, or Vigilance) denotes moderate increases in earthquakes, gas flux, or deformation, typically restricting public approach to within 3 kilometers of the to avert direct exposure to potential ejections. Level III (Siaga, or Standby), Merapi's status since November 2020 as of September 2025, indicates pronounced activity such as accelerating or pyroclastic avalanches, enforcing dynamic exclusion radii of 3-7 kilometers tailored to topographic flow paths and mandating community readiness for displacement. Level IV (Awas, or Warning), the apex, signifies eruption onset or imminence with vigorous and surface manifestations, triggering compulsory clearance of expanded zones up to 20 kilometers. Evacuation protocols integrate real-time geophysical data with predefined hazard simulations, prioritizing zones vulnerable to nuée ardente surges along southern and western flanks, corridors in drainages like the Bebeng and Krasak Rivers, and dispersion patterns. Activation escalates with alert thresholds: at Level III, high-risk settlements receive pre-evacuation notices via radio broadcasts, alerts, and village assemblies, enabling self-directed relocation to designated bunkers or assembly halls; Level IV enforces mandatory exodus using coordinated transport from local disaster agencies (BPBD) and assets, with sirens and megaphones signaling immediacy. The 2010 VEI-4 eruption exemplified protocol efficacy when BPPTKG extended the red zone from 15 to 20 kilometers on October 25 amid surging , displacing over 400,000 individuals to 31 camps and averting 10,000-20,000 fatalities from pyroclastic incursions that reached 17 kilometers. Subsequent refinements, informed by 2010 post-event analyses, incorporate community-driven mutual aid (gotong royong) for asset evacuation—such as livestock herding and crop safeguarding—and compulsory drills under the Wajib Latih framework, fostering 80-90% compliance rates in simulations. During the 2020-2023 dome-building phase at persistent Level III, protocols shifted toward proactive thinning of at-risk populations, evacuating 500-2,000 from proximal hamlets like Kinahrejo during avalanche spikes, with shelters stocked for 7-14 days based on supply chain models. Coordination via BNPB's national command ensures logistical support, including medical triage and psychological debriefing, though bottlenecks in rural access and farmer reluctance—rooted in economic dependence on fertile slopes—necessitate ongoing behavioral interventions. Empirical outcomes affirm causal linkages: timely zoning expansions correlate directly with minimized casualties, as 2010's death toll of 353 contrasted sharply with negligible losses in analogous 2021 surges despite similar plume heights exceeding 15 kilometers.

Engineering Controls (Check Dams and Barriers)

Engineering controls for lahar mitigation at Mount Merapi primarily consist of sabo dams, known internationally as check dams, which are low transverse structures built across river channels to intercept volcanic , dissipate flow energy, and prevent downstream or . These permeable or semi-permeable barriers, often constructed from , gabions, or cribs with spillways, trap coarse while allowing finer material and water to pass, thereby reducing lahar peak discharge and velocity. Sabo dams have been deployed in key drainage systems such as the Putih, Gendol, Opak, and Krasak rivers, which channel pyroclastic deposits from the volcano's flanks during heavy rainfall. Construction of these structures intensified after significant eruptions, with sediment control facilities initiated following the event to address post-eruptive . In the Putih River watershed alone, 20 sabo dams were documented as of surveys around 2020, alongside other infrastructure like ground sills. Post-2010 eruption rehabilitation efforts included the installation of six additional sabo dams—three each in the Gendol and Opak rivers—through international aid projects focused on urgent debris flow countermeasures. However, these dams proved vulnerable; lahars in the Putih River following the 2010 eruption damaged 19 sabo dams and destroyed 14 others across affected channels, highlighting the need for reinforced designs and periodic reconstruction. Effectiveness of sabo dams depends on proper spacing, , and capacity relative to lahar volume; they successfully filter contaminants and stabilize channels during moderate events by reducing , but large-volume flows can overtop or breach them, leading to avulsion where divert from confined paths. models assess structural integrity, rates, and hydraulic capacity, with indices indicating variable success in containing pyroclastic material post-eruption. Simulations of flows in the demonstrate that arrays of sabo dams can attenuate impacts by distributing loads, though full efficacy requires integration with upstream controls. Complementary barriers include reinforced s and dikes along channels like the Krasak River, featuring facings (30-40 cm thick) and walls to resist overtopping, alongside baffles— velocity reducers—and diversion channels to redirect flows away from populated areas. Channel widening and gradient flattening further support these measures by lowering inherent flow energies, with ongoing essential to prevent clogging and repurpose trapped debris for levee augmentation. Despite these interventions, structural failures during intense rainy seasons underscore that engineering alone cannot fully eliminate risks without coupled land-use restrictions and early warning systems.

Sterile Zones and Land-Use Restrictions

Following the major 2010 eruption of Mount Merapi, which killed 353 people and displaced over 350,000, the Indonesian Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, along with the National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB) and local governments, designated a prohibited or "sterile" zone within approximately 8-10 km of the summit where permanent is banned to mitigate risks from pyroclastic flows, surges, and dome collapses. This zone aligns with the highest-risk Kawasan Rawan Bencana (KRB III), typically extending 3-7 km from the crater in vulnerable directions like the south and southeast flanks, where land-use regulations strictly limit new residential construction and encourage relocation of existing communities to safer areas outside the 10 km radius. Agricultural activities are permitted in limited forms within buffer areas (5-7 km), but settlement is prohibited, with concepts designating inner zones as national park-like forbidden areas for occupancy to preserve natural barriers against hazards. The KRB system, mapped by the Center for Volcanology and Geological Hazard Mitigation (PVMBG), divides the volcano's surroundings into three tiers: KRB III for direct eruption threats (prohibiting dwellings and prioritizing evacuation routes), KRB II for medium risks like ashfall and secondary lahars (allowing restricted farming but no expansion), and KRB I for lahar-prone riverine areas (permitting elevated structures with precautions). Post-2010 mapping efforts reassigned land use in southern regions, converting high-risk farmlands to non-residential buffers and designating relocation sites, though over 1 million people remain within the 10 km high-risk perimeter due to historical habitation. Enforcement of these restrictions has been inconsistent, with lax oversight allowing informal returns and new builds in prohibited zones, exacerbating as seen in subsequent alerts where temporary no-go radii (3-7 km at Level III) overlap with permanent KRB III areas. PVMBG and BPPTKG maintain ongoing prohibitions on climbing and non-essential access within these zones during normal operations, restricting entry to authorized personnel only, while provincial plans aim to integrate KRB maps into spatial development to prevent settlement creep. Despite these measures, resistance from local communities, who rely on volcanic soils for , has hindered full compliance, leading to hybrid land uses that balance risk reduction with economic needs.

Effectiveness and Cost-Benefit Analysis

The alert level system and evacuation protocols implemented by Indonesia's Center for Volcanology and Geological Hazard Mitigation (CVGHM) have demonstrated high effectiveness in reducing fatalities during major eruptions, as evidenced by the event where extending the evacuation radius from 15 km to 20 km averted an estimated 10,000 to 20,000 deaths from pyroclastic flows. In that eruption, over 350,000 people were evacuated, with only 353 confirmed fatalities, primarily among those who ignored orders or returned prematurely to retrieve assets, underscoring the protocols' success in prioritizing human life despite logistical strains from the eruption's rapid escalation. Cost-benefit analyses of such evacuations frame decisions around break-even probabilities, where the economic costs of temporary displacement (e.g., , , and lost livelihoods) are weighed against expected mortality and property losses; for Merapi, these favor proactive evacuation given historical speeds exceeding 100 km/h and lethal radii up to 17 km. Engineering controls, including check dams (sabo structures) and barriers, have moderately mitigated and risks by redirecting s and reducing downstream inundation, with 272 sabo dam units operational around Merapi by recent assessments, capturing volcanic material post-eruption. Since the , investments in over 50 check dams, 101 consolidation dams, and 12 km of dikes have curtailed lahar-induced disasters, though effectiveness is limited by high volumes—lahars at Merapi often triggered by 40 mm/h rainfall carry millions of cubic meters of material, overwhelming structures during peak rainy seasons. These measures' cost-benefit ratio remains positive for infrastructure protection, as they avert annual damages estimated in billions of rupiah while costs per unit (typically under $1 million for mid-scale sabo dams) yield returns through preserved agricultural lands and reduced relocation expenses, though burdens and partial failures during extreme events (e.g., post-2010 lahars breaching some dams) necessitate ongoing reinforcements. Sterile zones and land-use restrictions, enforcing no-build buffers within 5-10 km radii, have constrained in high-hazard areas, minimizing baseline exposure to surges and ashfalls, but enforcement challenges persist due to fertile volcanic soils incentivizing informal farming and habitation encroachments. Their effectiveness is evident in lower casualty rates in zoned versus peripheral areas during eruptions like and , yet incomplete compliance erodes benefits, with post-event resettlements often reverting to risk zones for economic reasons. From a cost-benefit perspective, these restrictions impose opportunity costs on (Merapi's slopes support high-value crops yielding up to Rp 50 million/ annually) but deliver net savings by avoiding reconstruction expenses, which exceeded Rp 7.1 trillion ($781 million) in total eruption damages including non-mitigated assets. Overall, Merapi's integrated mitigation portfolio yields a favorable long-term cost-benefit by prioritizing lives over —evacuations alone prevented catastrophe-scale losses in 2010—but gaps in controls and adherence highlight needs for adaptive investments, such as probabilistic modeling to refine break-even thresholds amid frequent activity (eruptions every 4-6 years). Empirical from 1994-2010 events affirm that early warning and structural interventions reduce expected losses by 70-90% in compliant scenarios, though socioeconomic factors like poverty-driven risk tolerance demand hybrid approaches blending enforcement with incentives.

Human Impacts and Responses

Casualties and Demographic Effects

![Destroyed house in Cangkringan Village after the 2010 eruptions][float-right] Mount Merapi's eruptions have caused significant loss of life historically, with fatalities primarily resulting from pyroclastic flows, lahars, and ash falls. Of its 67 documented historic eruptions, 11 involved deadly nuée ardentes, leading to deaths concentrated in densely populated slopes. The eruption stands as one of the deadliest in recent decades, claiming approximately 353 lives through pyroclastic surges that extended up to 15 km from the summit, alongside over 500 injuries. Earlier events, such as the eruption, resulted in 28 fatalities and displaced 1,176 individuals due to similar hazards. Demographic effects include massive temporary displacements, with the event forcing nearly 400,000 residents—predominantly from rural farming communities within 20 km of the —into evacuation for over a month, straining local resources and capacities. Permanent impacts affected around 2,200 families whose homes were destroyed, prompting resettlement programs that altered local population distributions and agricultural livelihoods. Vulnerable groups, including children, experienced reduced enrollment rates post-eruption, exacerbating long-term educational disparities in affected areas. Recent eruptions, bolstered by improved monitoring, have minimized ; for instance, the activity reported no deaths despite evacuations of nearly 2,000 people from high-risk zones. Overall, while acute mortality has declined, recurrent threats contribute to ongoing migration patterns and stresses, interacting with high population densities to amplify scale.

Economic and Agricultural Consequences

The 2010 eruption of Mount Merapi caused extensive damage to agricultural infrastructure and production in surrounding regions of and , with over 1,000 homes destroyed alongside farmland, leading to immediate paralysis of farming activities and losses exceeding 2,500 and tens of thousands of . and pyroclastic flows buried crops such as , fruits, and across thousands of hectares, resulting in estimated agricultural economic losses of approximately £13 million from destroyed harvests and reduced yields. Overall damages to the agricultural sector exceeded $100 million, exacerbating food insecurity for subsistence farmers reliant on rain-fed paddies and smallholder plots. Rice production in affected districts like Klaten and Sleman declined by 32,941 tons in 2011 due to ash-induced and burial of fields, which prevented planting and caused puddling that hindered root penetration and water infiltration. Lahars—volcanic mudflows—further eroded channels and farmlands, disrupting perennial crops like and , while deaths compounded income losses for dairy and beef producers in the fertile volcanic slopes. These impacts disproportionately affected small-scale farmers, whose economic activities are tightly linked to annual cycles, leading to heightened vulnerability from combined risks of fallout, input price volatility, and post-eruption market disruptions. In the medium term, while volcanic ash deposits enrich soils with minerals such as and magnesium, enabling fertility recovery and supporting Java's high productivity, initial consequences include multi-year yield reductions and relocation costs for farmers in hazard-prone areas. Eruptions like those in thus impose recurrent economic burdens on densely populated volcanic regions, where contributes significantly to local GDP, though adaptive practices such as have mitigated some long-term risks by diversifying income sources.

Recovery Efforts and Resilience Factors

Following the major eruptions of October-November 2010, which displaced over 350,000 people and caused 353 confirmed deaths, Indonesian recovery efforts prioritized relocation from high-risk zones to reduce future exposure to pyroclastic flows and s. By March 2013, authorities had resettled 2,500 families into purpose-built housing in safer upland areas across and provinces, with additional plans to relocate 668 families amid ongoing threats from rain-remobilized ash deposits. These initiatives were complemented by cash grant distributions managed through state entities like PT Pos , alongside community mobilization programs to facilitate rapid aid delivery to affected households. International aid supported immediate post-eruption , including the International Organization for Migration's provision of for non-food items to approximately 290,000 evacuees in regencies such as Sleman, , and Klaten. Reconstruction strategies incorporated structural lessons from the 2006 earthquake, emphasizing durable housing and infrastructure upgrades to withstand seismic and volcanic stresses, though evaluations highlight mixed outcomes in achieving "build back better" due to persistent socioeconomic disruptions like livelihood losses in agriculture-dependent villages. Community resilience around Merapi stems from adaptive social structures and empirical , with studies identifying 13 out of 16 key indicators—such as robust local networks, resource access, and collective response capacities—in villages like Kaliadem, Jambu, and Petung, enabling quicker recovery through self-organized rebuilding post-2010. Farmers exhibit particular tenacity, leveraging the volcano's nutrient-rich andesitic ash for high-yield crops like and , which replenishes via periodic eruptions, though this necessitates ongoing hazard monitoring to balance economic gains against relapse risks. Resistance to full relocation in some areas, driven by cultural ties to ancestral lands and proven short-term via temporary shelters, underscores a causal : while reducing mortality, enforced moves can erode informal resilience built from generations of eruption cycles, as seen in initial pushback from communities like Pelemsari before partial compliance. Enhanced preparedness through local training and stakeholder coordination has bolstered capacities, with factors like risk knowledge, socioeconomic buffers, and community cohesion directly correlating to lower in empirical assessments of Merapi's flanks. These elements, rooted in observable patterns of survival rather than external impositions, have contributed to declining per-eruption fatalities over decades, from thousands in pre-20th-century events to hundreds in modern ones, reflecting iterative learning from causal eruption dynamics like dome collapse and flank instability.

Controversies in Crisis Management

During the , faced significant challenges due to villagers' reluctance to evacuate, often prioritizing and agricultural assets over official warnings. Approximately 10,000 individuals initially ignored evacuation orders, citing the need to tend to and crops, which constituted their primary economic resources; this defiance contributed to at least some of the 353 confirmed fatalities, as returning were caught in pyroclastic flows. The Indonesian Center for and Geological Hazard Mitigation (CVGHM), led by chief Surono, had escalated alerts to the highest level on , 2010, and extended the danger zone to 20 km from the summit by November 4, yet enforcement relied heavily on voluntary compliance, with military and police assisting but not compelling departures in all cases. A prominent controversy arose from the influence of traditional spiritual practices, particularly the actions of Mbah Maridjan, the appointed spiritual guardian (abdi dalem) of Merapi by the Sultan of . Maridjan refused to evacuate despite repeated scientific advisories, asserting his duty to perform rituals appeasing the volcano's spirits (roh-roh gunung); he perished on October 26, 2010, in his home near Kinahrejo village, found in a prostrating position amid pyroclastic deposits. His stance, echoed in prior events like the 2006 unrest, reportedly encouraged followers to delay departures, exacerbating risks in a region where cultural beliefs in oversight coexist with modern monitoring; critics argued this undermined CVGHM's data-driven forecasts, which accurately predicted escalating activity based on seismic and gas emission data. While government protocols integrated traditional consultations—such as pre-eruption selamatan ceremonies—the episode highlighted causal tensions: empirical evidence from and ashfall patterns favored prompt relocation, yet unverified spiritual claims delayed for dozens of households. Livestock management emerged as another focal point of debate, with inadequate provisions for animal evacuation leading to high losses—around 2,800 perished in 2010, representing 12.4% of regional herds—and indirectly endangering human lives as owners returned to feed or retrieve . Post-event analyses criticized the absence of dedicated shelters or subsidies for relocating herds, noting that cultural attachments to as status symbols and income sources (e.g., and for farming) outweighed perceived risks, despite historical precedents like the 1930 eruption killing thousands. Authorities' reliance on ad-hoc transport for proved insufficient during the rapid escalation, prompting calls for integrated agro-volcanic protocols; however, economic data indicated that full compliance could have averted most livestock deaths without human casualties, underscoring individual risk calculus over systemic failure. Local government coordination drew scrutiny for delayed information dissemination and resource constraints, with some reports noting sluggish activation of shelters relative to the eruption's pace—peaking at nearly 400,000 evacuees by mid-November. While national agencies like the National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB) facilitated aid, polycentric overlaps between Yogyakarta's special administrative status and Central Java's complicated unified command, leading to uneven enforcement; nonetheless, retrospective assessments affirmed that timely zoning expansions averted 10,000–20,000 potential deaths, attributing residual controversies to behavioral factors rather than predictive errors. These events informed subsequent refinements, such as enhanced livestock evacuation drills, but persistent cultural-economic barriers reveal ongoing causal disconnects in balancing empirical hazard modeling with community incentives.

Cultural and Traditional Perspectives

Mythological Narratives

In Javanese folklore, the origin of Mount Merapi is attributed to the defiance of two master blacksmiths, Empu and Empu Pamadi, whose forges occupied the site selected by the gods to place a mountain for balancing the island of , which was tilting due to an existing peak called Jamurdipa on its western end. When commanded to relocate, the smiths refused, prompting the gods to bury them alive beneath ; their unquenched forge transformed into the volcano's fiery crater, with their restless spirits fueling its eruptions as a perpetual reminder of mortal against divine order. Merapi occupies a pivotal role in Javanese cosmology as part of a sacred north-south axis linking the volcano's spirits to the Kraton palace and the southern domain of , the Queen of the , forming a spiritual equilibrium that locals interpret as influencing seismic and eruptive events through interactions between mountain-dwelling entities and oceanic forces. Central to these narratives is Mbah Petruk, a guardian spirit or spirit king residing in the crater, often visualized as a shadow puppet appearing in clouds prior to eruptions, believed to mediate volcanic fury and deliver omens to human caretakers. Additional figures include Nyi Gadung Melati, a nurturing spirit associated with Merapi's fertile slopes, embodying themes of destruction and renewal in the volcano's cycle. These oral traditions, preserved through local rituals and , underscore a where volcanic activity reflects agency rather than solely geological processes.

Role of Spiritual Guardians

The spiritual guardians of Mount Merapi, referred to as juru kunci (key holders) or abdi dalem (royal servants), are traditional custodians appointed by the Sultan of to maintain spiritual harmony between the volcano, the Kraton palace, and local communities. These figures, often selected from local families with hereditary ties to the mountain, interpret omens such as animal behaviors or dreams as signs from ancestral spirits believed to reside within Merapi, advising on rituals to placate potentially disruptive forces. Their authority derives from Javanese cosmological traditions linking the volcano to protective entities, including guardian spirits (danyang) that demand respect to avert calamity. Central to their duties are periodic labuhan offerings, ceremonial presentations of , flowers, fruits, and symbolic items like or effigies, transported to Merapi's slopes or crater edges by processions from the Kraton. These rituals, conducted annually or in response to seismic activity—such as on May 14, , when villagers offered a mound shaped like a —aim to "feed" or honor the mountain's spiritual inhabitants, drawing from pre-Islamic Javanese animist practices blended with Islamic elements. Guardians lead selamatan feasts involving communal prayers and sometimes ascetic displays, like processions of unclothed men in , to beseech calm during heightened unrest. The Labuhan Merapi specifically prohibits resource extraction during ceremonies, reinforcing taboos against to preserve the as a conduit for spiritual exchange. Notable guardians include Mbah Maridjan, appointed in 1982 by Sultan , who conducted crater-side dispersals of offerings and communicated warnings via dreams, refusing evacuation during the October 2010 eruption and perishing in a prayer posture amid pyroclastic flows that killed 353 people. His successor, Mbah Asih (appointed post-2010), continues these traditions, emphasizing ancestral mediation to foster amid scientific monitoring. While empirical evidence attributes Merapi's activity to tectonic processes rather than appeasement failures, these roles persist as cultural mechanisms for interpreting uncertainty, with guardians collaborating selectively with volcanologists during crises like the 2010 events.

Tensions Between Tradition and Science

In Javanese cosmology, Mount Merapi is regarded as a sacred entity animated by spirits, including the Spirit King and other supernatural forces, whose unrest manifests as eruptions; traditional guardians, or abdi dalem, appointed by the of , perform rituals such as offerings of rice, flowers, and livestock at sites like the crater rim to mediate and placate these entities, believing such acts can avert or mitigate disasters. These practices, rooted in centuries-old oral traditions, frame volcanic activity as interpersonal spiritual dynamics rather than geophysical processes driven by magma dynamics and tectonic pressures. Modern volcanology, advanced by Indonesia's Center for Volcanology and Geological Hazard Mitigation (PVMBG), employs seismic sensors, tiltmeters, and SO2 gas flux measurements to detect precursors like increased seismicity and deformation, enabling alerts and evacuations based on quantitative thresholds, as during the 2010 eruption when pre-eruptive signals prompted zoning up to 20 km. Tensions arise when traditional interpretations conflict with these empirical methods; for instance, locals may prioritize omens like unusual animal behavior or dreams—deemed spiritual warnings—over instrumental data, leading to delayed responses, as evidenced by villagers' "domestication" of hazards through habitual risk acceptance rather than relocation. The 2010 eruption highlighted acute friction: spiritual guardian Mbah Maridjan, custodian since 1982, rejected full evacuation despite PVMBG alerts, insisting on ritual mediation to "cool" the volcano's anger, resulting in his death from pyroclastic flows on October 25 and 35 initial fatalities among followers who heeded his stance over scientific orders. This episode pitted geologists' causal models—linking eruptions to pressure buildup in the conduit—against guardians' , with Maridjan's circle criticizing scientific predictions as incomplete without spiritual insight, while authorities viewed ritual adherence as endangering lives. Post-2010, successors like Mbah Sri Marijan have attempted hybrid approaches, incorporating PVMBG seismic bulletins into rituals while upholding traditions, yet resistance persists; surveys indicate some communities discount alerts if traditional signs (e.g., spirit "events" like tremors interpreted cosmologically) contradict them, complicating enforcement of sterile zones and amplifying in densely populated slopes. Empirical analyses of evacuation efficacy underscore that cultural entwinement with Merapi—viewing eruptions as regenerative for fertile soils—fosters non-compliance, though scientific forecasting has reduced overall mortality by enabling preemptive actions when heeded.

Conservation and Ecology

Merapi National Park

![The peak of Mount Merapi seen from Klangon][float-right] Gunung Merapi National Park (Taman Nasional Gunung Merapi, TNGM), established in 2004, encompasses approximately 6,410 hectares of forested slopes surrounding the volcano, spanning the Special Region and provinces across Sleman, , Boyolali, and Klaten districts. The park's creation aimed to conserve the unique volcanic ecosystem, protect water sources, and preserve biodiversity despite frequent eruptions, with a later ministerial decree in 2014 adjusting the area to 6,607.52 hectares. The park is divided into core, wilderness, and utilization zones to balance protection and sustainable use, including areas for ecotourism and environmental services like water provision. Elevations range from 600 to 2,968 meters above sea level, featuring tropical montane forests that support diverse vegetation, from pioneer species on lava flows to mature woodlands. Biodiversity includes lichens serving as air quality bioindicators in sanctuary zones like Gunung Bibi Forest, various terrestrial mammals affected by disturbances, and plant species adapted to periodic volcanic resets. Conservation efforts face challenges from Merapi's activity, such as the 2010 eruption that destroyed up to 2,800 hectares of , necessitating regeneration monitoring and invasive species control like . Local communities depend on the park for resources, leading to conflicts over , grass harvesting, and land access, compounded by historical resistance to park designation that restricted traditional farming. Despite these, the park's fertile volcanic soils enhance regional and support through natural recolonization post-eruption.

Biodiversity and Soil Fertility Benefits

The volcanic eruptions of Mount Merapi periodically deposit ash layers rich in essential minerals such as , , and trace elements, which enhance in surrounding areas. This acts as a natural by replenishing nutrient-depleted soils, improving , and promoting microbial activity that aids nutrient cycling. Studies on post-eruption landscapes indicate that Merapi's increases buffering and water retention, leading to higher crop yields in regrowth phases; for instance, applications of Merapi combined with have been shown to boost plant height and biomass in experimental plots. In the context of Mount Merapi National Park, these fertile volcanic soils support a diverse array of , including that rapidly colonize ash-covered terrains and mature forests on older deposits. Vegetation surveys within the park reveal high plant diversity, with 45 species recorded in the Cangkringan Resort area alone, encompassing plants from 13 families that thrive due to the nutrient influx. This enhanced primary productivity sustains habitats for fauna, including bird species such as the (Todiramphus chloris) and (Oriolus chinensis), as well as endemic mountainous flora adapted to periodic disturbances. The ecological benefits extend to , as volcanic ash's high surface area absorbs atmospheric CO₂, contributing to buildup over time and fostering resilient ecosystems. However, these advantages manifest primarily in the medium to long term following eruptions, after initial disruptions subside, underscoring the volcano's role in maintaining dynamic, nutrient-driven hotspots despite short-term hazards.

Conflicts Over Resource Use

Local communities in the regions surrounding Mount Merapi have engaged in protracted disputes with authorities over access to forest and volcanic resources, primarily stemming from the 2004 establishment of (MMNP). The park, decreed on May 4, 2004, and spanning 8,655 hectares across (DIY) and , aimed to conserve and watersheds but restricted traditional uses such as for food, medicines, and timber, affecting approximately one million residents reliant on these resources for livelihoods. Opposition intensified from the planning phase in 2001, with locals decrying exclusion from decision-making and violations of Indonesia's 1999 regional autonomy law, which prioritizes community rights over centralized control. These tensions escalated during the November 2010 eruption, when villagers resisted mandatory evacuations, suspecting them as pretexts for land seizure to enforce park boundaries—a distrust rooted in historical precedents of resource confiscation under the regime (1967–1998). Slogans like "I prefer to die on the mountain" encapsulated local defiance against zoning regulations that curtailed small-scale collection of non-timber forest products while permitting large-scale concessions granted to local governments, which extracted up to 3.5 million cubic meters annually and degraded springs, forests, and soil fertility. Such disparities highlighted causal inequities: conservation policies imposed ecological limits on subsistence users but overlooked industrial exploitation's environmental toll, including and habitat loss. Inter-provincial frictions compound these issues, particularly between DIY and communities asserting generational customary rights to Merapi's forests, often clashing over overlapping claims amid ambiguous regulations that frame locals as encroachers rather than stewards. Post-eruption has fueled further disputes, with governors and regents in adjacent jurisdictions circumventing national licensing to capture revenues from Merapi's volcanic deposits, undermining coordinated and exacerbating downstream in rivers used for and . Resolution efforts, including mediated partnerships and consensus-building, seek to reconcile conservation with access but frequently falter due to power imbalances favoring state and business interests over indigenous practices.

Educational and Commemorative Institutions

Volcano Museum and Exhibits

The , located at Jl. Kaliurang Km. 22 in , Hargobinangun, Pakem, , Daerah Istimewa , , serves as a primary educational institution dedicated to the study and public understanding of Mount Merapi's volcanic history and hazards. Established following the destructive eruption, which caused over 350 fatalities and widespread damage, the museum aims to commemorate the event while promoting scientific awareness of volcanic risks among local communities and visitors. Housed in a modern angular building approximately 5 kilometers from Kaliurang village, it operates under the 's cultural department and features exhibits emphasizing empirical geological data and eruption monitoring. Exhibits focus on Mount Merapi's eruptive chronology, including a detailed scale model illustrating major events from the onward, such as the 1930 and eruptions, and their morphological impacts on the volcano's cone. Interactive displays cover volcanic , lava flow dynamics, and ash dispersal patterns, drawing from seismographic and satellite data to demonstrate causal mechanisms of eruptions. Comparative sections highlight other active volcanoes like Mount Sinabung and international examples, underscoring Merapi's status as one of the world's most frequently erupting stratovolcanoes, with over 100 documented events since 1548. The second floor hosts multimedia presentations, including the documentary Mahaguru Merapi, which analyzes the eruption's socioeconomic effects based on eyewitness accounts and geophysical records, alongside films depicting historical visits by Indonesian national figures. Artifact collections preserve items damaged in recent eruptions (e.g., , 2018, 2021), such as vehicles and household goods, to illustrate velocities exceeding 100 km/h and deposition thicknesses up to several meters. These elements prioritize mitigation education, with guided tours explaining early warning systems reliant on seismic, , and gas emission sensors deployed by Indonesia's Center for Volcanology and Geological Mitigation. Admission costs Rp 5,000 for Indonesian nationals and Rp 10,000 for foreigners, with operating hours from 08:00 to 15:30 Tuesday through Sunday (closing at 14:30 on Fridays and fully closed Mondays), facilitating accessibility for school groups and researchers. The museum's design integrates site-specific data to foster resilience, though some critiques note limited updates on post-2021 activity despite ongoing monitoring.

References

  1. http://volcanolive.com/merapi.html
  2. https://volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=263250
  3. https://volcano.oregonstate.edu/merapi
  4. https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/merapi.html
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6135845/
  6. https://www.usgs.gov/observatories/hvo/news/volcano-watch-indonesia-pays-heavy-price-proximity-plate-boundary
  7. https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vdap/merapi.html
  8. https://www.latlong.net/place/mount-merapi-selo-boyolali-regency-central-java-indonesia-25553.html
  9. https://www.mindat.org/loc-221582.html
  10. https://www.livescience.com/11081-faq-mount-merapi.html
  11. https://www.vulkane.net/en/volcanoes/merapi/merapi.html
  12. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Mt-Merapi-Indonesia-Located-in-Central-Java-province-and-the-Regency-of-Sleman-within_fig1_334807207
  13. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0377027300001359
  14. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257428333_The_geological_evolution_of_Merapi_volcano_Central_Java_Indonesia
  15. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0377027317302123
  16. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S037702731200234X
  17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420916303715
  18. https://indonesia.travel/gb/en/explore-indonesia/java/yogyakarta/yogyakarta---kaliurang/
  19. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/d53b222fe5d44a7bb37074d4b2d6ed11
  20. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12421521/
  21. https://volcano.oregonstate.edu/sites/volcano.oregonstate.edu/files/vwdocs/volc_images/southeast_asia/merapi_hazard.html
  22. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/6521/mount-merapi-indonesia
  23. https://reliefweb.int/map/indonesia/mt-merapi-population-breakdown-village-within-20-km-crater-08-november-2010
  24. https://geographical.co.uk/culture/the-people-living-dangerously-near-indonesian-volcanoes
  25. https://iconarp.ktun.edu.tr/index.php/iconarp/article/view/1060/507
  26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0377027300001529
  27. https://www.usgs.gov/observatories/hvo/news/volcano-watch-thousands-saved-accurate-eruption-forecasts-mount-merapi
  28. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15040-1_6
  29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-012-0618-1
  30. https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/geo_facpub/603/
  31. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0377027303000258
  32. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016gc006442
  33. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0377027312003253
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1367912019301312
  35. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006GL028710
  36. https://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/the-geodynamic-setting-and-geological-context-of-merapi-volcano-i
  37. https://www.gunungbagging.com/merapi/
  38. https://factsanddetails.com/indonesia/Nature_Science_Animals/sub6_8b/entry-4085.html
  39. https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/311755333/978_3_031_15040_1_6.pdf
  40. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0377027300001323
  41. https://blogs.dickinson.edu/vapetrushevsky/files/2017/01/Voight_2000_HistoricalMerapi_JVGR.pdf
  42. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70022519
  43. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0377027300001347
  44. https://www.usgs.gov/news/volcano-watch-mount-merapi-has-lessons-kilauea
  45. https://volcano.si.edu/showreport.cfm?doi=10.5479/si.GVP.BGVN200605-263250
  46. https://volcano.si.edu/showreport.cfm?wvar=GVP.WVAR20060517-263250
  47. https://volcano.si.edu/showreport.cfm?wvar=GVP.WVAR20060531-263250
  48. https://volcano.si.edu/gallery/ShowImage.cfm?photo=GVP-11969
  49. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0377027313000954
  50. https://volcano.si.edu/showreport.cfm?wvar=GVP.WVAR20060802-263250
  51. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0034425710001161
  52. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007GC001810
  53. https://www.internetgeography.net/topics/the-2010-eruption-of-mount-merapi/
  54. https://reliefweb.int/report/indonesia/aha-centre-flash-update-2-merapi-volcano-phreatic-eruption-central-java-province
  55. https://volcano.si.edu/showreport.cfm?doi=10.5479/si.GVP.BGVN201807-263250
  56. https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2018/05/23/merapi-phreatic-eruptions-continue-on-wednesday.html
  57. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7810&context=libphilprac
  58. https://www.britannica.com/place/Mount-Merapi
  59. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JB013981
  60. https://www.geo.umass.edu/courses/volcanology/Pyroclastic%25202.pdf
  61. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/hazards-pyroclastic-flows/
  62. https://www.usgs.gov/publications/emplacement-temperatures-november-22-1994-nuee-ardente-deposits-merapi-volcano-java
  63. https://volcano.si.edu/showreport.cfm?doi=10.5479/si.GVP.BGVN201105-263250
  64. https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02805541v1/document
  65. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0377027300001505
  66. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Lahar-related-disasters-at-Merapi-volcano-At-least-35-lahar-events-caused-damage-on-the_tbl1_226829108
  67. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/29487372_Impacts_of_the_2006_eruption_of_Merapi_volcano_Indonesia_on_agriculture_and_infrastructure
  68. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0377027313000280
  69. https://www.livescience.com/29866-merapi-mudflows-101203.html
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7334379/
  71. https://insu.hal.science/insu-00723412v1/document
  72. https://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/1.5047352/14164946/020067_1_online.pdf
  73. https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/206/1/221/2606517
  74. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JB014890
  75. https://www.matec-conferences.org/articles/matecconf/pdf/2018/13/matecconf_icet4sd2018_01050.pdf
  76. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323449529_Predicting_the_probability_of_Mount_Merapi_eruption_using_Bayesian_Event_Tree_Eruption_Forecasting
  77. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377027322000683
  78. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326496843_Probabilistic_and_statistical_analysis_of_historical_activity_of_Merapi_volcano_Indonesia
  79. http://digitalcollections.sit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4188&context=isp_collection
  80. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367972638_The_Merapi_Volcano_Monitoring_System
  81. http://repository.uin-malang.ac.id/7471/1/7471.pdf
  82. https://www.ipgp.fr/~beaudu/vsi/monitor.html
  83. https://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU21/EGU21-10392.html
  84. https://www.usgs.gov/news/revolutionizing-volcano-monitoring-indonesia
  85. http://download.garuda.kemdikbud.go.id/article.php?article=3195758&val=28108&title=Classification%2520of%2520Types%2520A%2520and%2520B%2520Volcanic%2520Earthquakes%2520using%2520Neural%2520Network%2520for%2520Monitoring%2520Mount%2520Merapi%2520Activities
  86. https://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/1.4915015/13088198/030007_1_online.pdf
  87. https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5114/sir2008-5114.pdf
  88. https://www.volcanoes.de/2023/09/05/the-seismicity-at-mount-merapi-is-reaching-new-peak-values/
  89. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0377027301003122
  90. https://media.neliti.com/media/publications/224774-monitoring-of-merapi-volcano-deformation-0fc8362e.pdf
  91. https://appliedvolc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13617-018-0071-3
  92. https://en.antaranews.com/news/382929/indonesias-mt-merapi-shows-rising-activity-bnpb-issues-warning
  93. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8327501/
  94. https://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article/1658/1/050006/802426/Seismic-energy-data-analysis-of-Merapi-volcano-to
  95. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0377027316303791
  96. https://magma.vsi.esdm.go.id/
  97. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256980412_Lessons_learned_from_the_2010_evacuations_at_Merapi_volcano
  98. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0377027313000863
  99. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/13/8110
  100. https://reliefweb.int/report/indonesia/indonesia-volcanic-eruption-mount-merapi-yogyakarta-and-central-java-9-mar-2022
  101. https://chss.kipmi.or.id/journal/article/download/38/24
  102. https://appliedvolc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13617-014-0016-4
  103. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/qjegh/pdf-lookup/18/1/79
  104. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ijece/3/1/3_1_43/_pdf/-char/ja
  105. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/426/1/012009/pdf
  106. https://openjicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/1000037151.pdf
  107. https://www.academia.edu/128346128/Post_eruptive_lahars_at_Kali_Putih_following_the_2010_eruption_of_Merapi_volcano_Indonesia_occurrences_and_impacts
  108. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350495913_Sabo_Dam_Infrastructure_System_Performance_Index_Model_in_Mount_Merapi
  109. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/930/1/012034
  110. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1983/0596/report.pdf
  111. http://library.jsce.or.jp/jsce/open/00074/2011/55-04-0015.pdf
  112. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387569921_Updating_Risk_Level_on_Housing_Resettlements_of_Mount_Merapi_Using_a_Visual_Chart_Examination
  113. https://www.preventionweb.net/news/reducing-volcano-risk-indonesia
  114. https://www.environmentandsociety.org/arcadia/i-prefer-die-mountain-local-resistance-national-park-development-mount-merapi
  115. https://appliedvolc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13617-023-00133-6
  116. https://www.e3s-conferences.org/articles/e3sconf/pdf/2025/04/e3sconf_icdm2024_13004.pdf
  117. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/1438/1/012016/pdf
  118. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236342275_Influence_of_the_Institutional_and_Socio-Economic_Context_for_Responding_to_Disasters_Case_Study_of_the_1994_and_2006_Eruptions_of_the_Merapi_Volcano_Indonesia
  119. https://reliefweb.int/report/indonesia/indonesia-merapi-eruptions-cost-indonesia-rp-71t
  120. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377027319302379
  121. https://www.geo.mtu.edu/volcanoes/merapi/updates/info04.html
  122. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042816307686
  123. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272775725000421
  124. https://www.npr.org/2021/01/27/961066060/indonesias-most-active-volcano-erupts
  125. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6696464/
  126. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333241258_Land_Management_for_Agriculture_After_The_2010_Merapi_Eruption
  127. https://reliefweb.int/report/indonesia/fao-gives-cows-goats-merapi-farmers
  128. https://www.vaia.com/en-us/explanations/geography/dynamic-landscapes/mount-merapi-eruption-2010/
  129. https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2010-11-19/mt-merapi-eruptions-damage-farmland/6193600
  130. https://www.academia.edu/93463611/The_Impact_of_Merapi_Mountain_Eruption_on_the_Community_Economy
  131. https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.5555/20210276467
  132. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878029613000121
  133. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/opag-2022-0122/html?lang=en
  134. https://smujo.id/biodiv/article/download/8505/4908/43638
  135. https://adventure.com/indonesia-volcanoes-rural-life-java-tourism/
  136. https://jurnal.uns.ac.id/carakatani/article/download/72390/41320
  137. https://reliefweb.int/report/indonesia/indonesian-volcano-survivors-relocated-better-prepared
  138. https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/emergency-resp-merapi-final-report-ipm.pdf
  139. https://www.iom.int/news/iom-supports-government-response-merapi-eruption
  140. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2010/12/29/first-step-towards-post-merapi-reconstruction
  141. https://www.preventionweb.net/news/building-back-better-what-lessons-indonesia-after-volcanic-eruptions
  142. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305889028_Community_Resilience_Learning_from_Mt_Merapi_Eruption_2010
  143. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381902075_Developing_Farmers%27_Community_Resilience_in_the_Volcanic_Area_of_Mount_Merapi_Indonesia
  144. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420923003783
  145. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/4/2215
  146. https://www.abacademies.org/articles/Strengthening-community-resilience-at-Balerante-village-Klaten-regency-Central-Java-province-Study-case-Merapi-volcano-hazard-1532-5806-25-3-154.pdf
  147. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12505861/
  148. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-11633213
  149. https://www.fao.org/indonesia/news/detail/Livestock-Evacuation-Saves-Humans-from-the-Impacts-of-Volcanic-Disasters/en
  150. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-11634824
  151. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/15/merapi-volcano-spirit-guardian-tradition
  152. https://www.voanews.com/a/indonesian-fuses-myth-science-volcano-disaster-management/4193915.html
  153. https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/resources/ajem-july-2021-cultural-factors-in-livestock-emergency-management/
  154. https://appliedvolc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2191-5040-1-2
  155. https://journal.uii.ac.id/Unisia/article/view/20702
  156. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7564765/
  157. https://indonesianfolklore.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-legend-of-merapi-mountain.html
  158. https://folkloreforkids.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-origin-of-mount-merapi.html
  159. https://www.scribd.com/document/854895603/The-Legend-of-Mount-Merapi
  160. https://steemit.com/story/%40stmc/legend-asal-mula-gunung-merapi
  161. https://voi.id/en/memori/21757
  162. https://vrtroll.com/onewebmedia/Ancient%2520oral%2520tradition%2520describes%2520volcano%2520earthquake%2520interaction%2520at%2520merapi%2520volcano%2520indonesia.pdf
  163. https://en.antaranews.com/news/68103/the-myth-surrounding-mt-merapi-eruptions
  164. https://mountmerapi.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/myths-and-mysticism-surrounding-merapi-central-java-indonesia/
  165. https://putri2wotan.wordpress.com/2023/12/31/queen-of-earth-giver-of-fruits-from-middle-earth-to-merapi/
  166. https://www.irci.jp/wp_files/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/10_Thufail_Proceedings_ICH_Disaster-Workshop.pdf
  167. https://journals.openedition.org/rga/2281
  168. https://media.neliti.com/media/publications/168892-EN-community-rituals-in-facing-volcanic-eru.pdf
  169. https://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/may/15/indonesians_make_offerings_keep_volcano_erupting/
  170. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna12872126
  171. https://en.tempo.co/read/2057221/how-indonesias-labuhan-merapi-tradition-helps-preserve-forest-ecosystem
  172. https://www.easternstandardtimes.com/episode/docs-volcano-guardian
  173. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0377027307004246
  174. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/science-mysticism-meld-in-predicting-mount-merapis-deadly-eruptions
  175. https://resources.environment.yale.edu/files/biblio/YaleFES-00000373.pdf
  176. https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4188&context=isp_collection
  177. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254230049_Mapping_cultural_vulnerability_in_volcanic_regions_The_practical_application_of_social_volcanology_at_Mt_Merapi_Indonesia
  178. https://ksdae.or.id/album/17/72.html
  179. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374563470_Assessing_Indigenous_Forest_Management_in_Mount_Merapi_National_Park_Based_on_Ostrom%27s_Design_Principles
  180. https://geoparkjogja.jogjaprov.go.id/location/taman-nasional-gunung-merapi-tngm-
  181. https://journal.biotrop.org/index.php/biotropia/article/view/2470
  182. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10603758/
  183. https://smujo.id/biodiv/article/view/10264
  184. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340305544_Direct_economic_benefits_and_human_dependence_toward_Gunung_Merapi_National_Park_Indonesia
  185. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/11/3072
  186. https://journalfkipunipa.org/index.php/ibej/article/view/335
  187. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667006221000034
  188. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/1098/1/012033
  189. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Study-Area-Mount-Merapi-National-Park_fig1_333780989
  190. https://fkh.ugm.ac.id/student-activity/9950/
  191. https://doaj.org/article/101f2e91ba9b4101972136bb15ea01e6
  192. https://www.wrm.org.uy/bulletin-articles/indonesia-a-national-park-its-failure-and-impact-on-livelihoods
  193. https://iaeme.com/MasterAdmin/Journal_uploads/IJCIET/VOLUME_9_ISSUE_4/IJCIET_09_04_101.pdf
  194. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24694452.2021.1914539
  195. https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g2304080-d3280310-Reviews-Mount_Merapi_Museum-Sleman_Sleman_District_Yogyakarta_Region_Java.html
  196. https://www.dark-tourism.com/index.php/1011-merapi
  197. https://wanderlog.com/place/details/80802/merapi-volcano-museum
  198. https://kebudayaan.slemankab.go.id/post/museum-gunung-merapi-salah-satu-daya-tarik-wisata-liburan-idul-fitri-1438-h
  199. https://www.lonelyplanet.com/indonesia/kaliurang-kaliadem/attractions/merapi-volcano-museum/a/poi-sig/1312049/1318613
  200. https://forevervacation.com/yogyakarta/merapi-volcano-museum
  201. https://mindtrip.ai/attraction/banteng-java/merapi-volcano-museum/at-cgqf10Qy
  202. https://www.indonesia.travel/gb/en/travel-ideas/climb-majestic-mt-merapi-volcano-at-the-center-of-java/
  203. https://www.yogyes.com/id/yogyakarta-tourism-object/other/museum-gunung-api-merapi/
  204. https://mgm.slemankab.go.id/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.