Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study aims to improve disaster preparedness evaluation in Indonesia by using a simple and measurable quantitative approach. Data from five sample regions were analysed using a linear method, focusing on five critical aspects: knowledge, policy, preparedness plans, disaster warning systems, and resource mobilisation. Preparedness levels were categorised into basic (0–49), growing (50–69), developing (70–89), and independent (90–100). The results show that only one region achieved a high level of preparedness with a score of 4.68 points, while the other four regions fell into the basic and growing categories, with scores ranging from 0.68 to 2.73 points. The study identifies challenges such as limited community involvement, difficulty in assessing non-physical disaster impacts, and resource constraints. These findings underscore the need for targeted strategies to strengthen community engagement, refine non-physical impact assessments, and allocate resources more effectively. By providing a straightforward evaluation framework, this study offers practical recommendations to enhance the Disaster Preparedness Area program and support broader disaster risk reduction efforts in Indonesia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Prasetyo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: