Journal of Contemporary Governance and Public Policy, 6 .
October 2025, 157-188 ISSN: 2722-3981 (Prin.
ISSN: 2722-3973 (Onlin.
Available Online at https://journal.
org/index.
php/jcgpp Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Twin-Track Approach:
Institutional Weaknesses and Promising Practices for Post-Eruption Recovery in Lumajang.
Indonesia Tri Yumarni1* 1 Department of Public Administration.
Universitas Brawijaya.
Indonesia *Corresponding Author Email: triyumarni@ub.
Received: 17 June 2025.
Revised: 31 August 2025.
Accepted: 10 September 2025 Abstract This study examines the operationalisation of Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) principles in post-disaster mitigation following the 2021 Mount Semeru eruption in Lumajang.
Indonesia.
Inadequate GESI integration undermines progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG.
, notably SDG 5 (Gender Equalit.
SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalitie.
, and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communitie.
We ask: how are GESI principles incorporated into disaster planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation, and what factors shape their application? Using a qualitative singlecase design, we conducted 17 semi-structured interviews with government officials.
NGO representatives, community leaders, and marginalised groups, and undertook thematic analysis in NVivo 14.
Findings indicate that, contrary to policy commitments.
GESI integration was fragmented, tokenistic, and overly reliant on civil-society actors rather than embedded within governance systems.
Targeted initiativesAisuch as womenAos leadership training and disability-accessible information channelsAishowed short-term promise but lacked sustainability, were weakly connected to formal decision-making, and failed to address structural inequalities.
Disaster plans were largely gender-blind, monitoring frameworks omitted disaggregated data, and evaluation processes overlooked equity indicators.
To our knowledge, this is the first empirical analysis of the GESI twin-track approach in a Global South disaster context, illuminating the gap between policy rhetoric and lived realities.
The study advances an analytical framework and context-specific evidence to inform the institutionalisation of GESI in disaster governance, offering practical pathways towards more equitable and sustainable Keywords: Disaster Mitigation.
Disaster Risk Reduction.
Gender Equality Copyright A 2025 by the Author.
Published by the Pusat Penelitian Ilmu Sosial dan Humaniora Kontemporer.
Indonesia.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BYSA Licence .
ttps://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by-sa/4.
How to Cite: Yumarni.
Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Twin-Track Approach: Institutional Weaknesses and Promising Practices for Post-Eruption Recovery in Lumajang.
Indonesia.
Journal of Contemporary Governance and Public Policy, 6.
, 157-188.
https://doi.
org/10.
46507/jcgpp.
Permalink/DOI: https://doi.
org/10.
46507/jcgpp.
Introduction Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) has emerged as a critical framework for disaster risk reduction (DRR) to ensure that all social groups benefit equitably from disaster planning, response, and recovery (Cabello et al.
, 2021.
Dev, 2025.
Lee et al.
, 2022.
Zaidi & Fordham, 2.
The approach addresses structural inequalities that systematically marginalise women, persons with disabilities, older people, children, and other disadvantaged groups (Bradley et al.
, 2023.
Cocina-Dyaz et al.
, 2025.
Dev, 2.
disaster contexts, the absence of GESI considerations not only perpetuates historical exclusion but also undermines the fairness, effectiveness, and sustainability of DRR interventions (Cocina-Dyaz et al.
, 2025.
Dai & Azhar, 2.
The literature consistently shows that disasters exacerbate pre-existing inequalities, with marginalised groups facing greater barriers to evacuation, access to information, and participation in decision-making (Cocina-Dyaz et al.
, 2025.
Rushton.
Yu et al.
, 2.
For example, women are often excluded from local disaster committees, while shelters may lack facilities that ensure privacy and dignity for women, girls, and persons with disabilities (Rushton, 2025.
Yadav et al.
, 2.
Research in gender and development links these disparities to entrenched sociocultural norms and institutional discrimination that constrain political representation, access to livelihoods, and participation in governance (Couto et al.
, 2025.
Mohammed & Laki, 2.
Scholars have proposed various pathways for integrating GESI into DRR, notably the GESI twin-track approachAimainstreaming inclusion across all DRR phases alongside targeted initiatives for vulnerable groups (Bhattacharya & Mukherjee, 2025.
Lan et al.
Oktari et al.
, 2.
International frameworks, including the Sendai Framework and the Sustainable Development Goals, explicitly promote gender- and inclusionsensitive disaster governance.
Yet much of the literature remains normative and prescriptive: studies often emphasise policy rhetoric, high-level frameworks, or singleissue interventions, with limited empirical evidence of how GESI is operationalised at subnational or community levels (Alston et al.
, 2025.
Hill, 2.
Evidence from Nepal, the Philippines, and Fiji indicates that successful GESI integration hinges on local institutional capacity, sustained political commitment, and community engagement (Mapedza et al.
, 2022.
McMichael et al.
, 2025.
Neupane & Rai.
Sharan & Gaillard, 2.
In the Global SouthAiparticularly in resourceconstrained and decentralised governance contexts such as IndonesiaAiimplementation challenges are acute.
Gaps in policy enforcement, weak data systems, and persistent patriarchal norms frequently hinder the translation of GESI commitments into practice (Ngcamu, 2023.
Prakash et al.
, 2025.
Udo et al.
, 2.
Despite growing global attention, there remains a paucity of empirical research on how GESI principles are translated from policy commitments into practice at the local level, especially in resource-constrained contexts such as Indonesia (Anjum & Aziz, 2025.
Prakash et al.
, 2025.
Udo et al.
, 2.
Much of the literature focuses on normative frameworks, policy guidelines, or high-level programme evaluations, often assuming that adopting GESI language equates to meaningful inclusion (Bellanthudawa et al.
, 2025.
Volume 6 Issue 2 October 2025 Mohammed & Laki, 2.
Consequently, we know little about the institutional, sociocultural, and operational dynamics that enable or impede the embedding of GESI within DRR processes.
Studies rarely examine, in an integrated manner, whether inclusion is systematically incorporated across planning, preparedness, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation, nor do they consistently assess both components of the twintrack approachAimainstreaming and targeted measures for marginalised groups (Anjum & Aziz, 2025.
Bellanthudawa et al.
, 2025.
Prakash et al.
, 2.
This gap constrains the evidence base for contextually relevant interventions capable of dismantling structural inequalities in disaster governance.
This study addresses that gap through a grounded, empirical analysis of the GESI twin-track approach during post-disaster mitigation following the 2021 Mount Semeru eruption in Lumajang Regency.
East Java.
Figure 1 presents gender-disaggregated data on natural-disaster victims in Indonesia, with a particular focus on the 2021 Mount Semeru eruption.
Nationally, the data show a recurring pattern of heightened vulnerability among women, highlighting the disproportionate impacts of natural hazards on female populations.
In the Semeru case, women constituted a significant proportion of casualties and displaced persons.
This gendered pattern reflects broader structural inequalities in access to resources, information, and mobility, which place women at greater risk during both the onset and aftermath of disasters.
In rural communities around Semeru, caregiving roles, limited decision-making power, and restricted access to early warning systems further compounded womenAos vulnerability.
Female Male Female Male Female Male Death Injured Indonesia Missing Semeru Figure 1.
Gender-Disaggregated Disaster Victims in Indonesia and Semeru 2021 Source: Processed by the author .
Accordingly, this study investigates how GESI principles are embedded across multiple DRR phasesAievacuation planning, emergency shelter management, community preparedness, and livelihood recoveryAiwithin a specific local context.
Using a qualitative single-case study, it examines both the breadth of integration across DRR phases and the depth of institutional and community practices that support inclusion.
Journal of Contemporary Governance and Public Policy The central research question is: In what ways are gender-responsive and socially inclusive principles operationalised within evacuation planning, emergency shelter management, community preparedness, and livelihood recovery, and what factors shape their implementation in the context studied? Theoretically, the study contributes to inclusive governance by situating its findings within gender-transformative DRR (Grech & Weber, 2.
and institutional capacity theory (Osei-Amponsah et al.
, 2025.
Singh & Naz, 2025.
Taylor et al.
, 2.
The former emphasises addressing the root causes of exclusion rather than merely increasing the latter highlights how resource constraints, organisational culture, and leadership commitment shape implementation.
By linking empirical evidence to these frameworks, the study advances understanding of how structural and institutional factors interact to influence GESI outcomes in DRR.
Rather than treating GESI as an addon, it positions inclusion as central to equitable and sustainable resilience, offering evidence-based recommendations grounded in lived experience and institutional It reinforces the argument that resilience cannot be achieved without equity and that inclusive disaster governance is essential to safeguarding all communities, particularly the most vulnerable.
In doing so, the study supports Sustainable Development Goals (SDG.
5, 10, and 11, which call for adopting and strengthening sound policies and enforceable legislation to promote gender equality and empower all women and girls at all levels (Chugh, 2020.
Ricciardelli et al.
, 2.
By analysing how GESI is institutionalised within local disaster governance, it identifies practical pathways for realising these global commitments in disaster-prone, resource-constrained contexts.
The novelty of this research lies in its empirical, ground-level analysis of GESI implementation in a Global South setting where decentralisation and resource limitations intersect with national equality commitments, enabling a critical assessment of the gap between policy rhetoric and lived experience and yielding context-specific recommendations for institutionalising GESI in disaster governance.
Research Methods Study Design and Rationale A single-case study was used to examine implementation of the GESI twin-track approach in post-disaster mitigation following the 2021 Mount Semeru eruption in East Java.
The case provides a critical, illustrative example, yielding insights into how GESI principles were translated into practice through both mainstream disaster responses and targeted support for marginalised groups.
Focusing intensively on this context enabled analysis of mechanisms, challenges, and enabling factors shaping GESI integration across stages of the disaster response, alongside close examination of stakeholder interactionsAigovernment agencies.
NGOs, and affected communitiesAihighlighting institutional capacities and power dynamics.
In doing so, the study generates contextspecific lessons for more inclusive, responsive disaster governance (Kekeya, 2021.
Nickels et al.
, 2022.
Shakibaei et al.
, 2.
Figure 2 outlines the step-by-step process of Volume 6 Issue 2 October 2025 the single-case study and the thematic analysis approach used to examine implementation of the GESI twin-track framework in post-disaster mitigation following the 2021 Mount Semeru eruption in East Java.
Figure 2.
Single-Case Study Process for GESI Integration after the Semeru Eruption Source: Processed by the author .
The study commenced with a clear definition of the case and research objectives, focusing on how mainstreamed and targeted GESI principles were integrated across key DRR phasesAiplanning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation.
A thematic framework, based on five core components of the GESI twin-track approachAigender and inclusion analysis, participation of marginalised groups, inclusive planning, targeted support, and GESI-sensitive evaluationAiguided a semi-structured interview protocol that was piloted for contextual relevance and clarity.
Data were coded using deductive strategies .
redefined GESI component.
and inductive strategies .
apturing emergent insights from participantsAo narrative.
Thematic analysis identified key patterns, structural barriers, and enabling factors related to GESI integration across DRR stages.
These insights informed practical, evidence-based recommendations for embedding GESI within disaster governance structures, underscoring the importance of institutionalising inclusive practices to strengthen equitable resilience.
While a single-case design affords rich, context-specific insights, it carries inherent Findings from Lumajang should not be assumed to represent all disaster contexts in Indonesia or the Global South, given variations in governance capacity, sociocultural norms, and resource availability.
The aim is analytic generalisationAi identifying patterns, mechanisms, and conditions that inform theory-building and guide application in comparable settingsAirather than broad statistical generalisation (Kekeya.
Journal of Contemporary Governance and Public Policy Sampling Strategy A purposive sampling strategy ensured inclusion of diverse perspectives from key stakeholder groups directly involved in or affected by the response (Bouncken et al.
Informants were selected for their roles, expertise, and lived experience relevant to GESI in disaster governance.
Table 1.
Characteristics of Informants Source: Processed by the author .
Informant
Age
Sex
Education Institution Occupation Undergraduate Regional Disaster Management Agency The Head of Disaster Risk Reduction Unit
Undergraduate Regional Disaster Management Agency Disaster Risk
Reduction Operational Staff
Undergraduate Regency Development Planning Women
Empowerment Staff
Postgraduate Regency Development Planning Planning Staff
Undergraduate Local Non-Government Organisation Program Staff
Postgraduate Local Non-Government Organisation Gender Specialist
Undergraduate Women Organisation Gender Specialist
Undergraduate Women Organisation Disaster Risk
Reduction Specialist
Undergraduate Community Leaders Member of Parliament
I10
Undergraduate Community Leaders Member of Parliament
I11
Undergraduate Community Leaders Religious Leader
I12
Undergraduate Community Leaders Women Leader
I13
Undergraduate Community Leaders Women Leader
I14
Elementary Resident Of DisasterAffected Communities Farmer
I15
Elementary Resident Of DisasterAffected Communities Farmer
I16
Elementary Resident Of DisasterAffected Communities Farmer
I17
Elementary Resident Of DisasterAffected Communities Farmer Volume 6 Issue 2 October 2025 The sample comprised 17 participants, including government officials from disaster management and development planning agencies, local NGO staff, womenAos organisation representatives, community leaders, and members of marginalised groups .
omen, persons with disabilities, and older peopl.
(Table .
This heterogeneity captured institutional and grassroots viewpoints and facilitated triangulation across data sources.
Recruitment continued until information-rich cases were obtained and thematic saturation was approached, maximising depth and diversity of insights (Wild et al.
, 2.
Data Collection and Analysis Primary data were collected through semi-structured interviews, selected for their capacity to elicit both comparable information and rich, in-depth accounts (Ahmed, 2025.
Lloyd & Gifford, 2.
The interview guide was grounded in the five GESI componentsAi gender and inclusion analysis, participation of marginalised groups, inclusive planning, targeted support, and GESI-sensitive evaluation (Mapedza et al.
, 2.
Aiensuring coverage of key conceptual domains while allowing flexibility to probe participantspecific contexts.
The guide was piloted with two informants outside the final sample to assess clarity, cultural appropriateness, and alignment with objectives.
adjustments were made to question wording and sequencing.
Researchers used adaptive probing to encourage elaboration, clarify ambiguities, and pursue emergent themes beyond the predefined framework, enabling capture of unanticipated insights on marginalisation, institutional decision-making, and informal coping within affected communities.
Interviews were conducted in Bahasa Indonesia, either face to face at convenient, safe locations .
, community centres, government offices, participantsAo home.
or remotely via secure online platforms where in-person meetings were not feasible for geographical or logistical reasons.
Mode of delivery accommodated participantsAo preferences and accessibility needs, especially for persons with disabilities and older informants.
Sessions lasted 45Ae90 minutes, balancing depth with respect for participantsAo time and comfort.
All interviews were audio-recorded with informed consent, following a detailed explanation of the studyAos purpose, procedures, and confidentiality measures.
Where recording was declined, detailed contemporaneous field notes were taken.
Recordings were transcribed verbatim, and transcripts were cross-checked for accuracy.
Original Bahasa Indonesia transcripts were preserved.
excerpts used in the study were translated into English by bilingual researchers, with back-translation employed for key quotations to maintain semantic accuracy.
The integration of a predefined conceptual framework with responsive, participantled inquiry strengthened the credibility and validity of data collection, ensuring comprehensive coverage of core GESI domains while remaining attentive to participantsAo perspectives and emergent contextual realities.
To analyse the data, all interview transcripts were imported into NVivo 14.
0 to support systematic data management, enhance transparency, and maintain a verifiable audit trail of analytical decisions (Bakla, 2024.
Beekhuyzen & Bazeley, 2.
The Journal of Contemporary Governance and Public Policy analysis employed a hybrid coding approach, combining deductive and inductive strategies to balance theoretical alignment with openness to new insights.
First, deductive coding was guided by the predefined GESI twin-track framework, ensuring conceptual consistency with the study objectives .
, a parent code Aoparticipation of marginalised groupsAo with subcodes such as Aoinvolvement in decisionmaking forumsAo and Aoconsultation on recovery prioritiesA.
Second, inductive coding captured unanticipated issues emerging from participantsAo narratives .
, informal womenAos support networks for sharing disaster informatio.
, which were incorporated into the coding schema to reflect context-specific realities.
Third, codes were iteratively refined through continuous review and peer debriefing, merging overlaps, splitting broad categories, and sharpening conceptual clarity .
Aocommunication barriersAo differentiated into Aotechnological barriersAoAisuch as the lack of mobile devices for disabled womenAiand Aolanguage barriersAoAisuch as the absence of sign-language interpreters during community meeting.
Fourth, thematic development followed DeJonckheere et al.
Aos .
six-phase approach, organising related codes into broader themes .
, institutional responses, barriers to participation, gendered leadership dynamics, and inclusion/exclusion pattern.
For instance, under barriers to participation, a female community leader observed.
AuWe were invited to meetings, but the topics were already decided, and our input was never followed up,Ay exemplifying recurrent tokenistic inclusion.
Finally, cross-phase analysis examined patterns within and across DRR stagesAiplanning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluationAirevealing, for example, accessible information dissemination during early warning but weaker inclusivity in long-term recovery planning.
By integrating deductive and inductive coding within a structured.
NVivosupported process, the analysis remained theoretically grounded yet responsive to participant-driven insights, strengthening credibility, contextual validity, and rigour while providing a nuanced account of how GESI principles were operationalised in postdisaster mitigation.
Trustworthiness To enhance trustworthiness, several strategies were applied throughout (Adler.
Bingham, 2.
Credibility was addressed through data-source triangulation across government officials.
NGO representatives, community leaders, and marginalised groups .
omen, persons with disabilities, older peopl.
, and through prolonged engagement .
ollow-up visits and iterative discussions with local researcher.
to validate interpretations and clarify ambiguities.
Transferability was supported by thick description of the Mount Semeru contextAigeography, sociopolitical environment, disaster impacts, and DRR arrangementsAienabling readers to judge applicability to other disaster-affected or resource-limited contexts.
Dependability was reinforced via a comprehensive audit trail .
ecurely stored field notes, coding memos documenting category refinements, and dated records of analytical decision.
Confirmability was strengthened through reflexive practices: regular memo-writing on assumptions and positionality, shared during peer debriefing.
For example, when interpreting narratives Volume 6 Issue 2 October 2025 about Autokenistic inclusion,Ay the team examined whether advocacy for GESI might shape emphasis and adjusted interpretations to remain grounded in participantsAo accounts.
Collectively, triangulation, prolonged engagement, thick description, audit trails, and reflexivity contributed to methodological rigour and analytical transparency (Adler.
Bingham, 2.
Ethical Considerations Ethical approval was granted by the Universitas Brawijaya Research Ethics Commission (No.
B/81/UN16.
D/PT.
00/2.
All participants provided informed consent and were assured anonymity and confidentiality.
pseudonyms were assigned and sensitive information removed from transcripts.
Recognising power imbalances in research with marginalised groups, the study prioritised participantsAo voices by using accessible, non-technical language.
conducting interviews in familiar, safe settings at convenient times.
offering opportunities for clarification and cross-checking to ensure and incorporating direct quotations to preserve perspectives.
Methodological limitations were explicitly acknowledged, with reflexive engagement and robust ethical safeguards to balance contextual depth and analytical rigour.
Researcher Positionality and Bias Mitigation The research team comprised scholars with extensive DRR and GESI experience in Indonesia across local and national contexts.
While this insider knowledge supported rapport and nuanced understanding, it posed risks of confirmation bias.
Mitigation included reflexive memo-writing to interrogate assumptions and positionality.
teambased coding with independent coding followed by reconciliation to minimise triangulation across stakeholder groups to identify convergences and and peer debriefing with external colleagues not involved in data collection to review coding frameworks and thematic outputs and to challenge potential bias.
Results and Discussion Implementation of the GESI Twin-Track Approach Disaster Mitigation Planning and Design The integration of GESI principles within disaster mitigation planning in Lumajang Regency reveals entrenched institutional biases and asymmetrical power relations that structurally privilege technical over social considerations.
Thematic analysis of stakeholder interviews indicates that disaster management programmes are framed predominantly through a technocratic lens, with infrastructure development, earlywarning systems, and evacuation logistics receiving disproportionate priority.
This technical dominance is not a neutral choice.
it is embedded in bureaucratic cultures and decision-making hierarchies that valorise engineering expertise over community knowledge and social equity (Bradshaw, 2024.
Prakash et al.
, 2025.
Zaidi & Fordham.
Journal of Contemporary Governance and Public Policy 2.
From a critical institutionalist perspective, this reflects path-dependent governance arrangements in which existing institutional logicsAireinforced by professional norms and budgetary structuresAisystematically marginalise non-technical voices (Banerjee, 2022.
Risi et al.
, 2.
As a result, the perspectives of women, persons with disabilities, older people, and other marginalised groups are filtered through a narrow technical paradigm, limiting the scope for transformative inclusion.
Key themes illustrating GESI implementation within mitigation planning and design are presented in Table 2.
Table 2.
Key Themes in Disaster Mitigation Planning and Design Source: Processed by the author .
Key Themes N (Informant.
Technical Dominance over Inclusive Planning Tokenistic Approach to GESI Systematic Exclusion of Marginalised Groups Inadequate and Unsafe Shelter Design Reactive Rather than Proactive Inclusion Recognition without Implementation Need for Capacity Building The persistence of tokenistic GESI approaches underscores how institutional compliance with inclusion mandates often serves more to legitimise existing governance arrangements than to challenge them.
For example, while GESI language appears in planning documents, it is frequently symbolicAideployed to satisfy donor or national reporting requirementsAiwithout substantive integration into vulnerability assessments or budget allocations.
This performative inclusion mirrors critiques in feminist disaster scholarship that identify how gender mainstreaming in DRR often operates as a tick-box exercise, failing to address structural power imbalances or intersecting vulnerabilities (Bradley et al.
, 2023.
Bradshaw, 2024.
Prakash et al.
, 2.
Intersectionality is particularly instructive here (Chisty et al.
, 2021.
Drolet, 2.
, illuminating how disaster governance overlooks compounded risks faced by those positioned at multiple axes of disadvantageAifor example, women with disabilities or older women from low-income householdsAithereby reproducing inequality even within ostensibly inclusive systems.
This undermines progress towards SDG 5 (Gender Equalit.
and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalitie.
, which require dismantlingAirather than merely accommodatingAi systemic barriers.
Structural exclusion is further evident in shelter design, where decisions are dominated by engineering standards and cost-efficiency metrics rather than gendersensitive or accessibility considerations.
Shelters frequently lack designated safe spaces for women and children, provide inadequate sanitation and privacy, and remain Volume 6 Issue 2 October 2025 inaccessible to people with mobility impairments.
This reflects not simply oversight but an entrenched undervaluing of social infrastructure as a core component of resilienceAi an omission that compromises SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communitie.
by failing to ensure safety, inclusivity, and accessibility in public facilities.
From a feminist political economy perspective, such omissions align with broader gendered patterns of public resource allocation, in which hard infrastructure is privileged over soft social protection The tendency towards reactive, rather than proactive, inclusion further illustrates how institutional priorities are shaped by short-term crisis management imperatives rather than long-term equity goals.
Intersectional risk assessments are seldom conducted in advance.
inclusive measures are often introduced only after visible inequities emerge during the response phase.
This crisis-driven orientation aligns with global critiques that DRR systems are designed to address immediate hazards rather than the underlying social vulnerabilities that amplify disaster impacts (Abad et al.
, 2020.
Arvind, 2021.
Bajracharya et al.
, 2022.
Bhattacharya & Mukherjee, 2.
The absence of gender, age, and disability disaggregated data is not merely a technical gap but a manifestation of epistemic bias that undervalues certain types of evidence, thereby limiting the capacity to design interventions aligned with SDG monitoring indicators.
Recognition without implementationAiwhere GESI is formally acknowledged but not operationalisedAihighlights the need to interrogate institutional capacity and leadership commitment.
Critical institutionalism points to the importance of institutional bricolage (Charmakar et al.
, 2024.
Ramadhan et al.
, 2.
, whereby transformative change requires creative adaptation of formal rules and informal norms to embed equity in everyday practice.
In Lumajang, however, planning committees are dominated by a narrow set of actors, and decision-making authority remains concentrated in technical agencies, leaving little space for such adaptive practices.
Moving towards inclusive disaster governance requires a paradigmatic shift that challenges technocratic bias in institutional logics.
Priorities include embedding intersectional GESI analysis in all stages of vulnerability assessment.
rebalancing budgets to prioritise inclusive shelter design and social infrastructure.
and diversifying the composition of planning committees to reflect the full spectrum of affected communities.
Capacity-building for planners and local officials should emphasise not only technical competence but also power-sensitive facilitation for genuinely participatory decisionmaking (Crawford et al.
, 2.
Such measures are essential to realising the Sendai FrameworkAos leave no one behind commitment and accelerating progress across SDG 5.
SDG 10, and SDG 11.
Disaster Mitigation Implementation The implementation of disaster mitigation strategies in Lumajang Regency shows mixed progress alongside persistent institutional and structural barriers that impede full integration of GESI principles.
Although formal policies nominally endorse inclusion, the operationalisation of these commitments remains uneven and is heavily contingent on civil society organisations (CSO.
and international partners, rather than being Journal of Contemporary Governance and Public Policy embedded within government-led interventions.
This reliance reflects a broader institutional pattern in which state agencies defer inclusive responsibilities to nongovernmental actorsAioften due to bureaucratic inertia, fragmented mandates, and a technocratic orientation that privileges engineering solutions over social equity considerations (Bose & Nanthini, 2023.
Chetry, 2024.
Couto et al.
, 2.
Key themes regarding GESI in disaster mitigation implementation are presented in Table 3.
Table 3.
Key Themes in Disaster Mitigation Implementation Source: Processed by the author .
Key Themes N (Informant.
Role of Civil Society and NGOs in GESI Implementation Gender-Responsive Shelter Management Exclusion of Women and Marginalised Groups from Leadership and Decision-Making Barriers to WomenAos Leadership and Empowerment Gradual but Uneven Progress in WomenAos Leadership A core illustration of these dynamics is the technical dominance over inclusive Disaster governance in Lumajang often prioritised physical infrastructure and engineering standardsAisuch as rapid construction timelines, structural integrity benchmarks, and budget efficiencyAiover socially responsive design.
In practice, this technocratic bias is sustained by hierarchical bureaucratic cultures that centralise decision-making in technical departments, marginalising input from social development units and community representatives.
Through the lens of critical institutionalism, such prioritisation is not accidental.
it emerges from deeply embedded rules, norms, and incentive structures within state institutions that value measurable, technical outputs over more complex, relational outcomes such as empowerment and equity (Couto et al.
Within this context, the creation of gender-responsive sheltersAifor example, separate spaces for women and childrenAimarks an important but partial achievement.
These initiatives, often driven by NGOs, improved safety, dignity, and accessibility for women and girls, aligning with SDG 5 (Gender Equalit.
and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communitie.
However, the absence of institutionalised design standards meant that government-managed shelters frequently lacked separate sanitary facilities, adequate lighting, and security arrangements.
This reveals the limits of project-based interventions without formal policy mandates and budgetary allocationsAia challenge also documented in South Asia and Latin America (Bellanthudawa et al.
, 2025.
Bradley et , 2023.
Bradshaw, 2024.
Bradshaw et al.
, 2022.
Quesada-Romyn, 2.
Beyond infrastructure, the continued exclusion of women and marginalised groups from leadership and decision-making underscores entrenched gendered power relations.
Volume 6 Issue 2 October 2025 Drawing on intersectionality (Chisty et al.
, 2.
, exclusion operates not only along gender lines but also intersects with class, age, and geographic marginality.
WomenAi particularly those from rural and low-income backgroundsAiwere routinely confined to logistical and caregiving roles, reinforcing the publicAeprivate divide emphasised in feminist disaster studies (Alston et al.
, 2025.
Anjum & Aziz, 2.
This division curtails their influence over strategic priorities, resource allocation, and long-term resilience Empowerment programmes initiated by CSOsAisuch as leadership training and womenAos advocacy forumsAicreated important opportunities to enhance participation, consistent with SDG 16 (Peace.
Justice and Strong Institution.
and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalitie.
Yet without structural reform, these gains remain fragile.
Patriarchal norms, limited institutional follow-through, and competing domestic responsibilities borne disproportionately by women restrict the translation of individual capacity into systemic influence (Bajracharya et al.
, 2022.
Prakash et al.
, 2.
Feminist theory emphasises that empowerment requires shifts in both agency and structure.
in Lumajang, the structural transformation needed to sustain GESI integration remains incomplete.
In sum, the Lumajang case demonstrates that inclusive disaster governance cannot be achieved through ad hoc, externally driven initiatives alone.
It requires dismantling institutional biases, reconfiguring bureaucratic priorities to value social equity alongside technical efficiency, and embedding inclusive standards within legal, procedural, and budgetary frameworks.
Only through such systemic changes can mitigation efforts fully realise the transformative ambitions of SDG 5.
SDG 10.
SDG 11, and SDG 16, ensuring that resilience is defined not merely by infrastructure robustness but also by equitable power relations and social justice.
Disaster Mitigation Monitoring Monitoring of disaster mitigation in Lumajang Regency following the Mount Semeru eruption reveals a deep-seated institutional bias towards technical and infrastructural outputsAisuch as the number of shelters built or roads repairedAiat the expense of tracking equity and inclusion outcomes.
This technical dominance reflects bureaucratic structures and decision-making logics that privilege engineering solutions and measurable outputs over socially transformative processes.
From a critical institutionalism perspective (Bremer et al.
, 2021.
Charmakar et al.
, 2.
, the emphasis on tangible deliverables is not neutral.
it is embedded in institutional cultures that valorise technocratic expertise while marginalising social knowledge, particularly the lived experiences of women, persons with disabilities, and older people.
These dynamics reproduce what feminist disaster scholars term the masculinisation of disaster governance (Alston et al.
, 2025.
Anjum & Aziz, 2.
, whereby decision-making spaces and monitoring tools are constructed in ways that systematically exclude marginalised Key themes regarding GESI in disaster mitigation monitoring are presented in Table 4.
The absence of GESI-informed monitoring frameworks and disaggregated data is not merely an administrative oversightAiit is a structural mechanism that sustains Journal of Contemporary Governance and Public Policy inequities.
Intersectionality underscores how gender, age, and disability intersect to create layered vulnerabilities during disasters (Chisty et al.
, 2021.
Drolet, 2.
Without disaggregated data, these disadvantages remain invisible, impeding targeted interventions and masking the uneven distribution of impacts (Alston et al.
, 2025.
Bradley et al.
, 2.
In Lumajang, this invisibility meant that post-eruption policies and resource allocation relied on aggregated statistics, overlooking how recovery trajectories differed for, for example, an older woman with mobility limitations compared to a young male labourer.
Table 4.
Key Themes in Disaster Mitigation Monitoring Source: Processed by the author .
Key Themes N (Informant.
Lack of GESI-Informed Monitoring Absence of Disaggregated Data Exclusion of Community-Based and NGO Assessments Overlooked Social Vulnerabilities Lack of Institutional Mechanisms for Inclusion Consequences of Non-Inclusive Monitoring Stakeholder Recognition of Systemic Gaps The exclusion of community-based and NGO assessments from formal monitoring further entrenches institutional gatekeeping.
This pattern, also documented in Nepal and the Philippines, shows participatory feedback frequently sidelined in favour of government-led technical reporting (Alston et al.
, 2025.
Bradley et al.
, 2023.
Yumagulova et al.
, 2.
From a feminist institutionalist lens, such exclusion reveals power asymmetries in knowledge production: local narratives and qualitative insightsAioften centred on dignity, safety, and psychosocial well-beingAiare subordinated to ostensibly objective metrics aligned with donor or bureaucratic preferences.
This dynamic undermines SDG 5 (Gender Equalit.
by silencing womenAos leadership in recovery and weakens SDG 16 (Peace.
Justice and Strong Institution.
by reducing transparency and Similarly, overlooked social vulnerabilities in official monitoring contradict the Sendai FrameworkAos call for inclusive, disaggregated data and community engagement.
Evidence indicates that embedding community feedback loops into monitoring systems improves trust, accountability, and adaptive capacity (Crawford et al.
, 2.
Lumajang, however, reliance on ad hoc NGO reports and informal networksAiwithout institutionalised integration into government monitoringAiproduced fragmented knowledge, reduced the stateAos ability to identify mid-course corrections, and hindered progress towards SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalitie.
by perpetuating structural exclusion.
Volume 6 Issue 2 October 2025 Ultimately, the lack of institutional mechanisms for inclusion in monitoring reflects a governance culture that equates recovery success with physical reconstruction rather than social transformation.
Reform requires more than adding GESI indicators: it demands reconfiguring institutional power relations so that participatory, intersectional monitoring is valued as equally legitimate as technical reporting.
This entails embedding GESI-sensitive metrics in monitoring frameworks, mandating integration of NGO/community assessments into decision-making, and establishing accountability structures that prioritise the voices of those most affected.
Only through such reforms can disaster governance align with international DRR standards and the equity imperatives of the SDGs.
Disaster Mitigation Evaluation The post-eruption evaluation of disaster mitigation in Lumajang Regency following the 2021 Mount Semeru eruption revealed entrenched institutional and power structures that systematically constrained the integration of GESI principles.
While official government assessments meticulously quantified physical recoveryAisuch as the number of homes rebuilt, infrastructure restored, and economic losses calculatedAithey largely omitted social equity metrics.
This omission is not merely a technical oversight.
reflects deeper bureaucratic norms and decision-making hierarchies that privilege engineering and economic indicators over the lived realities of women, persons with disabilities, and other marginalised groups.
This form of technical dominance is emblematic of what critical institutionalism describes as the path dependency of bureaucratic systems, where established routines and professional cultures resist the integration of transformative equity measures (Anjum & Aziz, 2025.
Bradley et al.
, 2023.
Dev, 2.
Key themes regarding GESI within disaster mitigation evaluation are presented in Table 5.
Table 5.
Key Themes in Disaster Mitigation Evaluation Source: Processed by the author .
Key Themes N (Informant.
Narrow Focus of Official Assessments Marginalisation of Vulnerable Groups Disconnect between Civil Society and Government Monitoring Lack of Feedback and Learning Mechanisms Symbolic Inclusion without Structural Impact Consequences of Exclusion Stakeholder Recognition of Systemic Gaps From an intersectional perspective (Crenshaw, 1.
, the neglect of GESI-sensitive indicators compounded vulnerabilities by failing to account for how gender, disability.
Journal of Contemporary Governance and Public Policy socio-economic status, and geographic marginalisation intersect to shape recovery Feminist disaster scholarship highlights that evaluations devoid of such lenses inadvertently perpetuate patriarchal and exclusionary governance (Bradley et al.
, 2023.
Bradshaw, 2.
The symbolic acknowledgement of marginalised groupsAiwithout translating their inputs into institutional decisionsAireflects a pattern of tokenistic participation that feminist theory critiques for reinforcing existing hierarchies rather than dismantling them.
The disconnect between civil societyAeled gender audits and official government evaluations further exposes power asymmetries in knowledge validation.
Civil society organisations documented exclusion in aid distribution, inequitable service accessibility, and barriers to participation, yet these findings were not integrated into state-led evaluation frameworksAian instance of institutional gatekeeping that privileges AoofficialAo technical data over qualitative, community-driven evidence.
This marginalisation of alternative knowledge systems parallels findings from the Philippines and Nepal, where post-disaster evaluations have been constrained by elite control over decision-making and limited participatory spaces (Crawford et al.
, 2023.
Rosencranz et al.
, 2.
The absence of GESI-responsive indicators undermines progress towards multiple SDGs.
For SDG 5 (Gender Equalit.
, the lack of gender-disaggregated data in evaluations obscures inequities in access to resources and participation in recovery.
For SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalitie.
, failing to measure differentiated impacts on marginalised groups entrenches disparities.
For SDG 16 (Peace.
Justice and Strong Institution.
, the exclusion of inclusive monitoring mechanisms weakens institutional legitimacy and accountability.
The cumulative effect is a recovery process that prioritises Auwhat was rebuiltAy rather than critically assessing Aufor whom and howAy recovery was achievedAidiminishing the transformative potential of disaster governance.
Furthermore, the evaluation phase lacked feedback loops and institutionalised learning mechanisms.
In the absence of iterative reflection, recovery strategies risk reproducing pre-disaster vulnerabilities rather than fostering resilience.
Critical institutionalism reminds us that, without structural reforms to embed inclusivity as a core performance metric, disaster governance will remain locked in a cycle of reactive, infrastructure-centric responses (Bremer et al.
, 2021.
Charmakar et al.
, 2.
The Sendai FrameworkAos call for participatory, inclusive, and disaggregated-data-driven evaluations remains aspirational in LumajangAos caseAian aspiration hindered by bureaucratic inertia and elite control over evaluative criteria (Yumagulova et al.
, 2.
The absence of GESI-sensitive indicators in LumajangAos post-eruption evaluation is not a neutral omissionAiit systematically obscures inequities and allows recovery processes to proceed without confronting their exclusionary impacts.
By measuring only what is easy to quantifyAisuch as infrastructure rebuilt or economic output restoredAi evaluation frameworks fail to capture who benefits, who is left behind, and how intersecting vulnerabilities shape these outcomes.
As feminist institutionalism argues, evaluation criteria are themselves political artefacts, reflecting power relations and value hierarchies embedded in governance systems (Udo et al.
, 2025.
Yadav et al.
, 2.
Without intentional reform, evaluation will continue to privilege the perspectives of Volume 6 Issue 2 October 2025 technical and political elites over the lived experiences of women, persons with disabilities, and other marginalised groups.
A reformed evaluation process must integrate GESI-sensitive indicators at every stageAifrom baseline data collection to monitoring and final assessmentAiensuring that metrics explicitly capture disparities in access, participation, decision-making power, and long-term wellbeing.
Indicators should be disaggregated by gender, age, disability, and socio-economic status, enabling evaluators to map recovery trajectories across groups.
Crucially, indicator development should be co-designed with representatives from marginalised communities and civil society organisations, ensuring that their priorities and definitions of Ausuccessful recoveryAy are institutionalised rather than relegated to parallel, unofficial reports (Udo et al.
, 2025.
Yadav et al.
, 2.
A comprehensive reform agenda is pivotal to dismantling structural exclusion in disaster mitigation evaluation (Alston, 2013.
Alston et al.
, 2025.
Anjum & Aziz, 2025.
Bradley et al.
, 2023.
Udo et al.
, 2025.
Yadav et al.
, 2.
First, disaster management regulations should mandate GESI-sensitive indicators in all official evaluation frameworks, backed by binding accountability mechanisms rather than aspirational commitments (Abad et al.
, 2.
Second, these indicators should be co-created through multi-stakeholder working groups that meaningfully involve womenAos organisations, disability advocates, and grassroots leaders, ensuring equity metrics reflect lived realities (Alston et al.
, 2025.
Anjum & Aziz, 2.
Third, targeted capacity-building for evaluatorsAigovernmental and non-governmentalAimust strengthen skills in intersectional analysis and participatory methodologies to counter technocratic bias.
Fourth, qualitative evidence .
ommunity-generated data, testimonies, gender audit.
should be systematically integrated into official assessments to elevate lived experience to the same evidentiary status as quantitative measures.
Finally, public transparency should be institutionalised through publishing disaggregated findings and establishing accessible, community-led review forums that enable affected groups to contest and influence evaluation outcomes (Bajracharya et al.
, 2022.
Bhattacharya & Mukherjee.
Embedding these practices would align disaster mitigation evaluation with the Sendai FrameworkAos emphasis on inclusive, participatory, and disaggregated data systems, while directly advancing SDG 5.
SDG 10, and SDG 16.
By redefining what counts as AusuccessAy in recovery.
GESI-sensitive evaluation can shift disaster governance from merely restoring the status quo to dismantling the inequities that make communities vulnerable in the first place.
In sum, the Lumajang case illustrates that barriers to GESI integration in disaster mitigation evaluation are rooted not only in technical limitations but also in entrenched institutional cultures, hierarchical decision-making processes, and the undervaluing of community-generated evidence.
To move towards truly inclusive disaster governance, evaluation frameworks must be re-engineered to institutionalise intersectional analysis, legitimise diverse knowledge sources, and embed equity as a non-negotiable criterion for effectivenessAithereby aligning practice with the equity imperatives of the SDGs and the Sendai Framework.
Journal of Contemporary Governance and Public Policy Targeted GESI Initiatives in Disaster Mitigation WomenAos Leadership Development Programme The womenAos leadership development programme in Lumajang, implemented after the 2021 Mount Semeru eruption, was designed as a targeted GESI intervention to address the chronic under-representation of women in disaster governance.
Delivered by a coalition of local NGOs and development partners, the initiative focused on strengthening competencies in risk communication, negotiation, and disaster While the programme achieved notable short-term gainsAiboosting participantsAo confidence, public visibility, and engagement in community-level preparednessAideeper institutional analysis indicates that its transformative potential was curtailed by entrenched structural and cultural barriers.
Key themes within the programme are presented in Table 6.
Table 6.
Key Themes within the WomenAos Leadership Development Programme Source: Processed by the author .
Key Themes N (Informant.
Capacity Building and Skills Development Empowerment and Increased Participation Persistent Gender Norms and Societal Barriers Exclusion from Formal Governance Structures Lack of Institutional and Structural Support Need for Systemic Change and Policy Reform From a critical institutionalism perspective, disaster governance in Lumajang remained embedded in hierarchical, male-dominated bureaucracies that prioritised technical expertise and formal credentials over inclusive, community-informed This technical dominance operated as technocratic gatekeeping, reproducing exclusionary norms repeatedly identified in feminist disaster scholarship (Bradley et al.
Bradshaw, 2024.
Prakash et al.
, 2.
These structures limited the extent to which trained women could access decision-making arenas, with many relegated to auxiliary or operational roles rather than strategic leadership positions.
Evaluation of the programmeAos tangible outcomes shows that, although several participants gained informal influence at community level, there was minimal measurable change in womenAos formal representation within disaster governance bodies.
In the absence of gender quotas, binding policy directives, or formalised pathways to leadership, the translation of skills into institutional power remained largely symbolic.
An intersectional lens further reveals that younger women, widows, and those from lowincome households faced compounded barriersAiencountering gender bias alongside class, age, and marital status based exclusions.
These intersecting constraints Volume 6 Issue 2 October 2025 undermined their capacity to convert training into sustained influence, echoing findings from other post-disaster contexts where capacity-building does not penetrate entrenched social hierarchies (Muluk et al.
, 2025.
Rushton, 2025.
Ruszczyk et al.
, 2.
Programme sustainability was further weakened by the absence of follow-up mechanisms, mentoring systems, and institutional safeguards.
Without formal recognition, post-training support networks, or dedicated budget allocations, many gains risked erosion over time.
Feminist institutionalism highlights such institutional stickiness as a key reason progressive initiatives dissipate once external project cycles end (Rushton, 2025.
Ruszczyk et al.
, 2.
In this case, the misalignment between shortterm capacity-building and long-term policy reform meant that womenAos empowerment was not operationalised within DRR governance systems.
Each thematic result maps directly onto the SDGs and exposes systemic barriers.
While capacity building and skills development (SDG 4.
SDG .
expanded technical competencies, these gains did not translate into proportional leadership representation due to institutional gatekeeping that restricts access to decision-making.
Initiatives framed as empowerment and participation (SDG 5.
SDG .
too often yielded tokenistic inclusion, where women are present but lack substantive authority over governance Persistent gender norms and societal expectations (SDG 5.
SDG .
continue to confine women to domestic roles, limiting their availability and perceived legitimacy as leaders.
Exclusion from formal governance structures (SDG 5.
SDG .
is reinforced by male-dominated hierarchies that obstruct entry and advancement.
The absence of institutional and structural supportAisuch as quotas, enforceable mandates, and dedicated resourcing (SDG 5.
SDG .
Aifurther erodes prospects for climate-resilient, gender-inclusive governance.
Addressing these deficits requires not incremental adjustments but transformative policy reforms (SDG 5.
SDG 13.
SDG .
that institutionalise legal protections, establish clear accountability, and embed representation targetsAiensuring gender equity is not aspirational but embedded in Aligned with the Sendai FrameworkAos emphasis on inclusive governance, shifting from short-term empowerment to structural transformation requires embedding womenAos leadership into formal DRR systems through enforceable representation quotas, gender-responsive policies, long-term mentorship, and resourced institutional Without such systemic integration, leadership development programmes risk becoming episodic interventions that raise capacity yet fail to dismantle the institutionalised inequities that perpetuate womenAos marginalisation in disaster Accessible Information Dissemination Tailored for Persons with Disabilities The Mount Semeru response illustrates how institutional and power dynamics shape the dissemination of accessible information to persons with disabilities (PWD.
Although humanitarian organisations, local government bodies, and advocacy groups provided sign-language interpretation.
Braille materials, and SMS alerts, these measures were largely reactive, short term, and reliant on ad hoc volunteer networks.
Such reliance Journal of Contemporary Governance and Public Policy reflects what critical institutionalism identifies as the dominance of informal, temporary arrangements over formalised governance mechanisms, undermining sustainability and accountability (Bremer et al.
, 2021.
Charmakar et al.
, 2.
In practice, disabilityinclusive communication was not embedded in disaster risk reduction (DRR) frameworks but appended as an auxiliary measure, echoing Risi et al.
Aos .
observation that disability considerations often remain peripheral in emergency Key themes are presented in Table 7.
Table 7.
Key Themes in Accessible Information for Persons with Disabilities Source: Processed by the author .
Key Themes N (Informant.
Inclusive Communication as a Life-Saving Priority Tailoured Interventions for Different Disability Groups Empowerment through Access UrbanAeRural Disparities in Access Coordination Challenges between Stakeholders Sustainability and Systemic Integration Gaps Call for Institutionalised.
Long-Term Solutions The dynamic of technical dominance over inclusive planning was evident in bureaucratic decision-making that prioritised rapid technical fixesAisuch as standardised early-warning messagesAiover socially equitable solutions co-designed with PWD communities.
This technocratic bias, rooted in hierarchical governance structures, mirrors feminist critiques of disaster governance in which marginalised voices are subordinated to expert-led agendas (Bradley et al.
, 2023.
Bradshaw, 2.
intersectional lens further shows how disability status intersects with geography, gender, and poverty, producing compounded disadvantagesAiparticularly for women with disabilities in rural LumajangAiwho often received information too late to act.
The urbanAerural divide in communication access thus reflects not only infrastructural inequality but also entrenched socio-political exclusion, challenging commitments under SDG 5 (Gender Equalit.
SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalitie.
, and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communitie.
A further institutional weakness is the absence of structured feedback mechanisms:
PWDs lacked formal channels to assess and shape information delivery.
Without participatory governance in DRR communication systems, interventions risk becoming tokenistic, meeting the form but not the substance of SDG 16 (Peace.
Justice and Strong Institution.
, which calls for inclusive decision-making.
Feminist institutionalism suggests these gaps persist because prevailing norms and rules are shaped by dominant actors who have limited incentives to decentralise authority or resources (Udo et al.
Yadav et al.
, 2.
Volume 6 Issue 2 October 2025 Moving beyond description, three systemic reforms are indicated.
First, institutionalise PWD participation at all stages of planning and implementationAibacked by legal mandates .
, representation quota.
to counter entrenched exclusion.
Second, embed budgets for inclusive communication infrastructure .
, multi-format earlywarning system.
within DRR financing, aligning with Sendai Framework priorities.
Third, establish cross-sectoral coordination platforms that connect government.
NGOs, and Disabled PersonsAo Organisations (DPO.
to couple technical capacity with social legitimacy in disaster communication (Udo et al.
, 2025.
Yadav et al.
, 2.
Ultimately, disability-inclusive communication cannot be an optional add-on.
Aligning with the SDGsAo transformative vision requires a shift from episodic, charitable interventions to sustained, rights-based governance.
That shift demands confronting institutionalised power imbalances that limit PWDsAo agency and ensuring that accessible information systems are both technically robust and socially equitable.
Only then can disaster governance move from symbolic compliance towards genuine resilience and Livelihood Recovery Schemes for Vulnerable Households The livelihood recovery schemes implemented after the Mount Semeru eruption reflected growing recognition of the disproportionate economic vulnerabilities faced by women-headed households, persons with disabilities, and older peopleAigroups often excluded from mainstream economic rehabilitation programmes.
While interventions such as seed grants, vocational training, and small-scale livelihood restoration in domestic industries and agriculture addressed immediate needs (Dai & Azhar, 2024.
Yadav et al.
, 2021.
Zaidi & Fordham, 2021.
Zaidi et al.
, 2.
, their design and execution revealed deeper institutional and power asymmetries that undermined sustainable Key themes are presented in Table 8.
Table 8.
Key Themes in Livelihood Recovery Schemes for Vulnerable Households Source: Processed by the author .
Key Themes N (Informant.
Targeted Support for Marginalised Groups Skill Development and Seed Funding Challenges in Sustainability and Market Integration Structural and Socio-Cultural Barriers Lack of Collective Approaches Need for Community-Centred and Integrated Recovery Models A core dynamic was technical dominance over inclusive planning, whereby programme design was led by technocratic and bureaucratic actors who prioritised rapid, output-oriented interventions over participatory, equity-focused strategies.
This Journal of Contemporary Governance and Public Policy mirrors patterns highlighted by critical institutionalism, in which formal rules and organisational routines override the informal practices and social relations that shape real-world outcomes (Bremer et al.
, 2021.
Charmakar et al.
, 2.
By privileging technical efficiency over social empowerment, the recovery framework reinforced existing hierarchiesAiparticularly male-dominated decision-making structuresAi thereby limiting the ability of marginalised groups to influence programme direction.
From an intersectionality perspective, barriers faced by women, older adults, and persons with disabilities were not merely additive but mutually reinforcing (Chisty et al.
Gender norms, ageism, and ableism intersected to produce compounded exclusions: restricted mobility, limited market access, and exclusion from formal business networks.
Similar patterns have been observed in post-disaster contexts in Nepal and Bangladesh, where socio-cultural norms and institutional gatekeeping constrained womenAos economic reintegration despite targeted aid (Alston et al.
, 2025.
Anjum & Aziz, 2.
This structural exclusion directly impedes progress towards SDG 5 (Gender Equalit.
and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growt.
, which call for universal access to productive resources and full economic participation.
Although vocational training in accessible sectorsAisuch as food processing, handicrafts, and tailoringAienabled some micro-enterprise creation, the programmesAo short-term orientation .
acking business development services, market integration, or access to financ.
meant that gains were often temporary.
Without institutional mechanisms linking these initiatives to broader economic systems, they remained dependent on project cycles, echoing critiques of micro-enterprise recovery models (Crawford et al.
, 2.
The absence of sustained institutional support jeopardises alignment with SDG 1 (No Povert.
and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalitie.
, which require structural transformation rather than isolated interventions.
Another significant constraint was the individualised nature of recovery schemes.
Despite receiving tools and training, beneficiaries had few opportunities for collective organisation, peer learning, or cooperative enterprise development.
This neglect of social-capital building contradicts evidence that group-based recovery modelsAisuch as womenAos self-help groups or social cooperativesAiare more resilient and sustainable (Karso et al.
, 2025.
Yadav et al.
, 2021.
Yumarni & Amaratunga, 2.
In feminist theory terms, the absence of collective platforms weakened womenAos collective agency, reinforcing the atomisation of marginalised actors and diminishing their bargaining power in local governance arenas.
Finally, most livelihood programmes were detached from long-term disaster governance and development frameworks, reflecting what Aitsi-Selmi et al.
describe as siloed recovery planning.
Without integration into formal policies, budgetary commitments, and cross-sectoral partnerships, these schemes risk perpetuating dependency and cyclical vulnerability.
Embedding livelihood recovery within national disaster management systemsAicoupled with affirmative measures such as quotas for womenAos representation in decision-making bodiesAiwould address both the practical and strategic needs of marginalised groups.
Volume 6 Issue 2 October 2025 In sum, while post-eruption livelihood programmes in Lumajang provided critical relief, their limited institutional integration, technocratic bias, and neglect of collective empowerment constrained their transformative potential.
Achieving the ambitions of SDG 1.
SDG 5.
SDG 8.
SDG 10, and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communitie.
requires a shift from short-term, individualised assistance towards systemic, community-driven resilience strategies that dismantle structural barriers, redistribute decision-making power, and embed equity within disaster governance.
Policy and Implementation Implications The findings have direct relevance for national and local policy reforms aimed at embedding GESI within DRR governance.
At the national level, reforms should mandate the use of GESI-sensitive indicators in DRR monitoring frameworks, introduce quota systems to guarantee the representation of women and marginalised groups in disaster governance bodies, and allocate ring-fenced budgets for inclusive infrastructure and At the local level, disaster preparedness and recovery plans should incorporate these provisions into operational guidelines, ensuring that inclusion is not treated as optional or ad hoc.
Institutionalising these changes within IndonesiaAos decentralised governance system requires aligning national mandates with local implementation capacity.
Drawing on lessons from the PhilippinesAo gender-budgeting framework in DRR and NepalAos GESI policy mandates, reforms should be supported by regulatory instruments, dedicated budget lines, and clear accountability mechanisms (Bajracharya et al.
, 2022.
Bradley et , 2023.
Sharan & Gaillard, 2.
Embedding these policies in regional disaster management regulations can ensure consistency across diverse provincial and district contexts while still allowing for local adaptation.
However, several practical challenges may impede implementation.
Limited political will, weak institutional capacity, entrenched socio-cultural norms, and fragmented funding streams remain significant barriers (Nugroho, 2.
Furthermore, disparities between urban and rural governance capacity, alongside differences in policy enforcement between central and local governments, risk producing uneven outcomes.
Addressing these barriers calls for phased, adaptive strategies.
Priority actions include targeted capacity-building programmes for local DRR officials on GESI integration, legislative reforms that embed GESI provisions in disaster management laws, and cross-sector partnerships with civil society organisations (CSO.
and the private sector to mobilise resources.
Institutionalising community-led monitoring using participatory tools can strengthen accountability, ensuring that inclusion commitments translate into tangible benefits for marginalised groups (Djalante et al.
, 2017.
Djalante et , 2.
Examples from other Global South contexts demonstrate the feasibility of these BangladeshAos cyclone preparedness programme has successfully integrated women into leadership roles, resulting in improved evacuation outcomes and community Similarly.
FijiAos disability-inclusive early-warning systemsAideveloped in partnership with disabled personsAo organisationsAihave enhanced communication and Journal of Contemporary Governance and Public Policy response for at-risk populations.
These experiences highlight the value of context-specific yet scalable solutions.
Finally, a long-term research and evaluation agenda is critical to track policy uptake and measure on-the-ground implementation.
Follow-up studies should monitor progress using longitudinal, sex, age, and disability disaggregated data, complemented by participatory evaluation methods.
Such an approach will enable policymakers and practitioners to assess sustained change, identify persistent gaps, and refine strategies to ensure that GESI integration in DRR becomes systemic, durable, and impactful.
Limitations First, while this study offers valuable, novel insights into the operationalisation of GESI within post-disaster governance, its scope is inherently bounded by a single-case designAithe Mount Semeru eruption.
Although the in-depth focus enables contextually grounded analysis, it may limit the extent to which findings can be generalised to other disaster contexts with different socio-political dynamics, institutional architectures, or cultural settings.
In addition, reliance on qualitative data from purposively selected key informants risks omitting marginalised voices that are less visible or less engaged in formal governance processes, thereby tilting the narrative towards perspectives that are more institutionally connected and potentially under-representing dissenting or alternative experiences (Adler, 2022.
Bingham, 2023.
Burney et al.
, 2023.
Dahal et al.
Second, the studyAos emphasis on institutional arrangements, policy frameworks, and governance mechanismsAiwhile critical for understanding systemic barriers and enablersAimeans that micro-level socio-economic and psychosocial outcomes for individuals and households were not systematically examined.
As a result, the causal linkages between institutional inclusivity and lived experiences remain inferential rather than empirically established (Dahal et al.
, 2.
Future research that directly couples institutional analysis with household-level indicators would strengthen claims about pathways from inclusive governance to equitable recovery.
Third, logistical constraints common in post-disaster researchAiincluding disrupted infrastructure, shifting community priorities, and participant availabilityAi imposed practical limits on the breadth and diversity of data collected.
These constraints underscore the need for complementary longitudinal and mixed-methods designs to triangulate institutional findings with sex, age, and disability disaggregated household data, thereby enhancing transferability and yielding a more comprehensive understanding of how inclusive governance translates into equitable recovery outcomes.
Conclusion This study has shown that applying the GESI double-track approach in the aftermath of the Mount Semeru eruption generated promising practicesAitargeted livelihood recovery, accessible risk communication, and inclusive leadership developmentAiwhile simultaneously exposing deep-rooted institutional and structural Volume 6 Issue 2 October 2025 constraints.
The findings confirm the central claim advanced in the Introduction:
resilience cannot be achieved without equity, and inclusion must be treated as a core design principle rather than an add-on.
Yet, in practice.
GESI integration across the DRR cycle remained uneven, revealing governance gaps that weaken both effectiveness and Across planning and design, a technocratic bias privileged engineering outputs over social outcomes, reproducing path-dependent routines and narrowing opportunities for transformative inclusion.
During implementation, progress often depended on civil society organisations and development partners, with gender-responsive shelters, disability-inclusive communication, and womenAos leadership initiatives emerging as partialAisometimes exemplaryAiadvances.
However, these were frequently projectbound, under-resourced, and insufficiently embedded in state systems.
In monitoring, the lack of sex-, age-, and disability-disaggregated data, sidelining of community and NGO assessments, and absence of feedback loops obscured inequities and limited mid-course In evaluation, success was still equated with what was rebuilt rather than for whom and how recovery benefits accrued, muting lived experience and reinforcing existing hierarchies.
Theoretically, the study advances gender-transformative DRR and critical institutionalism by demonstrating how organisational culture, incentive structures, and power asymmetries mediate the translation of GESI commitments into practice.
The twin-track perspectiveAimainstreaming inclusion across the DRR system while delivering targeted measures for those most at riskAiproved analytically useful for diagnosing where and why inclusion falters.
The single-case, post-disaster setting in Indonesia contributes ground-level evidence from a decentralised, resource-constrained context, adding nuance to global debates that too often remain normative or prescriptive.
Substantively, the results underscore several non-negotiables for institutional First.
GESI must be institutionalised through binding rules, standards, and budgets, not merely strategy language.
Second, data systems must require disaggregation by sex, age, and disability and value qualitative, community-generated evidence alongside administrative indicators.
Third, governance forumsAifrom planning committees to coordination platformsAimust include formal representation of womenAos organisations, disability advocates, and other marginalised groups, with clear decision rights rather than consultative roles alone.
Fourth, capacity building should pair technical competence with power-sensitive facilitation and accountability for inclusive outcomes.
Operationally, the study identifies scalable pathways already visible in the Lumajang experience: institutionalising gender-responsive shelter standards.
disability-inclusive, multi-format early-warning systems.
and converting womenAos leadership training from episodic projects into pipeline programmes with mentoring, role quotas, and budget lines.
Livelihood support should shift from short-term grants and training towards market integration, business development services, and cooperative or group-based models that strengthen collective agency.
These measures align with the Sendai FrameworkAos call for inclusive risk governance and advance SDG 5 (Gender Equalit.
SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalitie.
, and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Journal of Contemporary Governance and Public Policy Communitie.
Aiwith spillovers to SDG 16 (Peace.
Justice and Strong Institution.
through transparency and accountability gains.
At the system level, a rights-based, participatory monitoring regime is essential.
Embedding community-led and CSO assessments into official monitoring.
disaggregated indicators.
and instituting grievance, review, and learning mechanisms would make inequities visible, enable timely course correction, and elevate lived experience to the same evidentiary status as technical metrics.
In decentralised settings, vertical alignment matters: national mandates .
tandards, financing, oversigh.
must be matched with local capability and autonomy to adapt, ensuring that policy ambition survives contact with implementation realities.
Finally, the study offers a forward agenda.
For practice, prioritise the co-design of indicators with marginalised constituencies, the codification of inclusion requirements in procurement and facility standards, and the creation of enduring cross-sector coalitions that outlast project cycles.
For research, extend the twin-track framework through multicase, longitudinal, and mixed-methods designs that connect institutional change to household-level wellbeing and power shifts.
Taken together, these pathways embed equity at the heart of disaster governance, moving recovery beyond physical reconstruction to the social transformation required to ensure that no one is left behind in future crises.
Acknowledgements The author acknowledges financial support from the Faculty of Administrative Science.
Universitas Brawijaya, through the Faculty Research Grant Scheme.
The content is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily reflect the official views of the funder.
The author also thanks the research manager and field researchers for their administrative and technical support.
References