Community preparedness for earthquake disasters: A preliminary assessment of awareness and disaster infrastructure response in Cianjur, West Java-Indonesia

Dewayany Sutrisno; Yatin Suwarno; Ati Rahadiati; Muhammad Iqbal Habibie; Prabu Kresna Putra; Hari Prayogi; Amien Widodo; Fathia Zulfati Sabrina; Ahmad Kosasih

doi:10.12688/f1000research.143577.1

Home Browse Community preparedness for earthquake disasters: A preliminary assessment...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Brief Report

Community preparedness for earthquake disasters: A preliminary assessment of awareness and disaster infrastructure response in Cianjur, West Java-Indonesia

[version 1; peer review: 1 not approved]

Dewayany Sutrisno ¹, Yatin Suwarno¹, Ati Rahadiati¹, [...] Muhammad Iqbal Habibie¹, Prabu Kresna Putra¹, Hari Prayogi¹, Amien Widodo², Fathia Zulfati Sabrina³, Ahmad Kosasih⁴

Dewayany Sutrisno ¹, Yatin Suwarno¹, [...] Ati Rahadiati¹, Muhammad Iqbal Habibie¹, Prabu Kresna Putra¹, Hari Prayogi¹, Amien Widodo², Fathia Zulfati Sabrina³, Ahmad Kosasih⁴

PUBLISHED 08 Apr 2024

Author details Author details

¹ National Research and Innovation Agency, Cibinong, Cibinong, 16911, Indonesia
² Department of Geophysics, Faculty of Civil Planning and Geo Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh November, Surabaya, East Java, 60111, Indonesia
³ Directorate of Disaster Risk Mapping and Evaluation, National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB), East Jakarta, Special Capital Region of Jakarta, 13120, Indonesia
⁴ Center for Management and Geospatial Information Dissemination, Geospatial Information Agency, Cibinong, West Java, 16911, Indonesia

Dewayany Sutrisno
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Yatin Suwarno
Roles: Data Curation, Investigation

Ati Rahadiati
Roles: Data Curation, Project Administration, Writing – Review & Editing

Muhammad Iqbal Habibie
Roles: Data Curation, Investigation

Prabu Kresna Putra
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation

Hari Prayogi
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation

Amien Widodo
Roles: Data Curation, Investigation

Fathia Zulfati Sabrina
Roles: Data Curation, Investigation

Ahmad Kosasih
Roles: Data Curation

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background

The danger of earthquakes poses a serious threat to people worldwide. One of the most significant challenges is preparing communities to cope effectively with this disaster. Therefore, understanding earthquake hazards is critically important for preparedness, mitigation, and an effective response to this threat. This report aims to observe and conduct a preliminary assessment of the degree to which community preparedness for earthquake disasters has been implemented.

Methods

Empirical data were obtained from survey respondents and interviews. The respondents were members of a community affected by the Cianjur earthquake, which occurred on November 21, 2022. The data were analysed using the mean range approach, based on Likert scales. Additionally, the Spearman correlation method was employed to indicate the relationship between community awareness and infrastructure readiness.

Result

Based on empirical evidence and preliminary analysis, it is evident that the preparedness of the community to respond effectively to earthquake catastrophes is inadequate. An apparent lack of readiness is observed in the inadequate construction of housing that fails to meet disaster standards, and the absence of disaster response facilities is notable.

Conclusions

Based on our initial assumption, it appears that knowledge related to disaster resilience in this area has not been adequately disseminated or socialized. However, this premise requires further investigation.

Keywords

Earthquake, community awareness, respondent’s survey, earthquake-resistant houses, Cianjur, Indonesia, disaster response, infrastructure

Corresponding author: Dewayany Sutrisno

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: This study was funded by the Deputy for Facilitation of Research and Innovation - National Research and Innovation Agency and Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan/ Education Fund Management Agency (LPDP) with decree Number 82/Ii.7/Hk/2022 Concerning Recipients of the Research and Innovation Program for Advanced Indonesia.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2024 Sutrisno D et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Sutrisno D, Suwarno Y, Rahadiati A et al. Community preparedness for earthquake disasters: A preliminary assessment of awareness and disaster infrastructure response in Cianjur, West Java-Indonesia [version 1; peer review: 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2024, 13:256 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.143577.1) First published: 08 Apr 2024, 13:256 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.143577.1) Latest published: 20 Feb 2025, 13:256 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.143577.3)

Introduction

The implementation of earthquake disaster risk reduction activities involving communities presents formidable challenges in numerous countries (Hosseini et al., 2014). Hence, implementing disaster preparedness measures is imperative for populations living in locations prone to earthquake hazards. However, ensuring earthquake safety cannot be guaranteed unless every member of the community possesses an in-depth awareness of the ramifications of earthquakes and has the knowledge to handle such situations (Siawsh et al., 2023). Indonesia, renowned for its high incidence of seismic activity worldwide scale (Parwanto and Oyama, 2014), bears significant responsibility in the realm of earthquake prevention and mitigation. Consequently, evaluating community knowledge pertaining to earthquake hazards is a pivotal measure in the establishment of efficient policies for disaster preparedness and mitigation.

This report aims to observe and conduct a preliminary assessment of the degree to which community preparedness for earthquake disasters has been implemented. The report focuses on the community’s awareness of earthquake disasters and their relationship with the preparedness of the environment in which they reside, including housing and disaster response facilities. The earthquake discussed in this report was the Cianjur earthquake that occurred in West Java, Indonesia (Figure 1). This seismic event took place on November 21st, 2022, with a magnitude of 5.6 (Supendi et al., 2023). The seismic event was characterized as a shallow or near-surface earthquake, and its destructive potential was not necessarily contingent on its magnitude. Instead, the seismic event not only resulted in the destruction of various structures, residences, and public facilities but also tragically led to the loss of at least 334 lives, injuries to 583 individuals, and the sudden displacement of 114,683 individuals who found themselves in a state of destitution (BNPB, 2022; Antara news, 2022).

Figure 1. Location Cianjur’s November 2022 earthquake zones.

Note: The red outlined area represents the most affected area, indicates the survey location

After a period of ten months following the occurrence, it is evident that the resolution of social issues and infrastructure difficulties remains incomplete. Many individuals continue to reside in temporary shelters including emergency tents and improvised educational facilities. The government has implemented housing initiatives to accommodate those living in regions affected by earthquakes, which are characterized by significant devastation. The extent of the success of this initiative will also be a part of this observation, as it is a crucial component of infrastructure disaster awareness.

Methods

In this report, the hypothesis to be addressed is the level of disaster awareness and its influence on disaster preparedness infrastructure. Therefore, community awareness was investigated through respondent surveys and interviews.

The survey was conducted by disseminating questionnaires to residents in earthquake-affected areas, while interviews were exclusively conducted with officials from the four most severely impacted sub-districts, namely Rancagoong, Nagrak, Cibeureum, and Ciputri (Figure 1). These sub-districts were identified as the most severely impacted by the Meteorology, Climatology, and Geophysical Agency (BMKG) in 2022. Both surveys and interviews were using the exact same sets of questions, and the results are processed in the same database and repository. The quantification of survey and interview participants is outlined in the subsequent subsection.

The steps of its implementation are as follows:

Determining the eligibility of the respondents

The eligibility criteria for respondents include individuals residing in areas directly impacted by earthquake disasters, aged at least 20 years, proficient in the Indonesian language, from diverse professional backgrounds spanning from farmers to office workers, possessing a minimum educational level of high school, and willing and capable of participating as respondents in this research project.

Determining the number of respondents

We employed a normal distribution algorithm to calculate the appropriate number of respondents, based on their respective proportions within the total population. We used 95% confidence level and a margin of error of 0.10. The algorithm is described as follows.

(1)

n = \frac{z^{2} . p (1 - p)}{E^{2}}

where, n is the sample size, z is the confidence level, p is the population, and E is the error margin.

With the numbers of population being 500, the minimum number of respondents based on this calculation was 97.

Ethical considerations

Before conducting the survey, ethical considerations regarding the participants were carried out. All participants were fully briefed about the purpose and nature of the research, including the assurance of confidentiality. Prior to conducting the surveys, informed consent was obtained from both the respondents and interview participants. This was accomplished by providing them with the option to either check a box or sign their assent on the first page of the questionnaire, which was utilized for both surveys and interviews.

For ethics approval, our institution requires that all decisions be formally sanctioned. The study has obtained ethical clearance approval under the reference Number 353/KE.01/SK/06/2023, issued on June 5, 2023, by the National Research and Innovation Agency of the Republic of Indonesia. Indeed, the authors have agreed to questionnaire’s content.

Collecting the data

The survey and interview were based on three categories: individual’s awareness, building construction awareness, and disaster facilities and infrastructure. These categories were meticulously outlined in a questionnaire that employed uniform content and structure across both survey respondents and interview participants. The data collection was conducted from July 11th to July 13th, 2023, in the most earthquake-affected area of Cianjur Regency (see Figure 1). The questionnaire was disseminated to the community by village officials within the earthquake-affected areas, and the gathered responses were then returned to us by the village officials. Concurrently, the process of data collection for interviews was conducted face-to-face with the officials of the four affected sub-districts, i.e., Rancagoong, Nagrak, Cibeureum, and Ciputri. The questions are:

Individual’s awareness

• Knowing you live in a seismically active location
• Understanding earthquake risk, including residence collapse and landslides
• Understanding the safely evacuate during an earthquake
• Having an earthquake emergency plan for the family
• Conversant with earthquake mitigation measures such as increasing awareness of potential household hazards, improving home conditions and emergency communication
• Have attended earthquake disaster awareness training or programs
• Monitoring earthquake information and warnings from credible sources

Building criteria awareness

• The destruction of residential structures resulting from seismic activity.
• Type of houses
• House typology in seismic context
• Acknowledge earthquake-resistant housing criteria
• Willingness to build earthquake resistant houses
• Knowledge of earthquake-resistant housing design and reconstruction utilizing local material
• Willingness to relocate if the previous location cannot be rebuilt.

Disaster’s facilities and infrastructure

• Muster points
• Evacuation zone
• Shelter
• healthcare facilities
• emergency response center
• Disaster information facilities.
• Communities self-manage disaster facilities and infrastructure.

Analysis of the data

For the data analysis process, we used Microsoft Excel software from Office 2020. We utilized the following weighting scoring method:

(2)

{ws}_{i} = w_{i} (s_{i_{1}} + s_{i_{2}} + \dots s_{i_{n}})

where ws_i is the total weighted score of variable i,

w_{i}

the weights assigned to values of variable i and

s_{i_{1}}

s_{i_{n}}

are the score’s values of classes of variable i within the dataset.

As a new development, we transformed the weighted score value onto a Likert-4 scale utilizing the following formula:

(3)

s_{i} = (({wx}_{i} - {wx}_{r}) * (\frac{l - 1}{{sc}_{t} - {sc}_{r}})) + 1

where

s_{i}

is the value of the transformed

{wx}_{i}

{wx}_{r}

is the lowest value of

{wx}_{i}

{sc}_{r}

is the lowest score calculated from the low Likert scale (1) to the total number of

n

l

is the Likert scale (4),

{sc}_{t}

is the highest score calculated from the highest Likert scale to the total number of n.

We then modified the concept of Dacanay et al. (2018) to determine the community’s level of earthquake awareness and evaluate risk reduction infrastructure awareness (Table 1).

Table 1.

Level of awareness (modified from Dacanay et al., 2018).

Scale	Median range	Categories
4	3.51–4.00	Highly aware	All available
3	2.51–3.50	Aware	Partly available
2	1.51–2.50	Slightly aware	A bit available
1	1.00 –1.50	Not aware	Not available

Correlation testing

To assess the correlation between disaster awareness and disaster preparedness infrastructure (houses and facilities), we used the Spearman’s correlation algorithm (Spearman, 1904), there is:

(4)

r_{xy} = \frac{\sum x^{2} + \sum y^{2} - \sum d^{2}}{2 \sqrt{\sum x^{2}} \sum y^{2}}

where x represents the disaster awareness level, y represents infrastructure, Σd (BNPB, 2022) is the sum of the squared differences between the ranks of the corresponding pairs of data points. In the event of duplicate data, the computations for variables x and y can be determined as follows.

(5)

\sum x^{2} = \frac{n (n^{2}) - 1}{12} - \frac{t (t^{2} - 1)}{12}

(6)

\sum y^{2} = \frac{n (n^{2}) - 1}{12} - \frac{t (t^{2} - 1)}{12}

Variable n represents the total number of data points, and t denotes the count of duplicate numbers.

A correlation coefficient > $r_{table 0.05}$ indicates a positive relationship between the variables. A significance level of 0.05 is employed as a statistical tool to ascertain the statistical significance of the Spearman correlation coefficient (r) between two variables within a dataset (Zar, 1972).

The questionnaire was also subjected to validation and reliability testing using Cronbach’s alpha. If the calculated value of r was greater than 0.7, it was considered valid. The majority of validity values were > 0.7, indicating that it is valid, while the reliability value was 0.942, indicating that it is reliable (Sutrisno, 2023).

Results

The field survey data and its corresponding weighting can be seen on Open Science Framework (Sutrisno, 2023).

The results of the data revealed that the majority of the community possessed a limited understanding of earthquake disasters and their impacts (Table 2). This is indicated by issues related to knowing that they live in a seismically active location, understanding earthquake risk, knowing how to safely evacuate during an earthquake, monitoring earthquake information and warnings from credible sources, having an earthquake emergency plan for their family, being conversant with earthquake mitigation measures, and attending earthquake disaster awareness training.

Table 2.

Respondents’ level of awareness on earthquake.

Issues of community awareness	Mean value	Categories
Individual’s awareness
Knowing you live in a seismically active location	2.01	Slightly aware
Understanding earthquake risk, including residence collapse and landslides	1.76	Slightly aware
Understanding the safely evacuate during an earthquake	1.64	Slightly aware
Having an earthquake emergency plan for the family	1.14	Not aware
Conversant with earthquake mitigation measures such as increasing awareness of potential household hazards, improving home conditions and emergency communication	1.39	Not aware
Have attended earthquake disaster awareness training or programs	1.00	Not aware
Monitoring earthquake information and warnings from credible sources	1.68	Slightly aware
Building criteria awareness
The destruction of residential structures resulting from seismic activity	2.36	Slightly aware
Type of houses	1.81	Slightly aware
House typology in seismic context	1.82	Slightly aware
Acknowledge earthquake-resistant housing criteria	1.68	Slightly aware
Willingness to build earthquake resistant houses	3.23	Aware
Knowledge of earthquake-resistant housing design and reconstruction utilizing local material	1.67	Slightly aware
Willingness to relocate if the previous location cannot be rebuilt	1.75	Slightly aware
Disaster’s facilities and infrastructure
Muster points	1.91	A bit available
Evacuation zone	1.74	A bit available
Shelter	2.14	A bit available
Healthcare facilities	2.91	Partly available
Emergency response center	1.74	A bit available
Disaster information facilities	1.78	A bit available
Communities self-manage disaster facilities and infrastructure	1.42	Not available

We observed that a substantial number of participants exhibited a limited level of awareness regarding earthquake-resistant structures. Nevertheless, there exists a significant inclination towards constructing houses that can withstand earthquakes, which conflicts with the reluctance to relocate while inhabiting a region susceptible to earthquake hazards.

The Spearman analysis results demonstrated a correlation between the lack of awareness of earthquake disasters and the condition of settlements and readiness of infrastructure in their residential areas. The aforementioned calculations yield a Spearman coefficient of $r_{xy}$ = 0.978 for the level of awareness pertaining to earthquake-resistant structures and a coefficient of $r_{xy}$ = 0.962 for the level of preparation for disaster response facilities. The $r_{table 0.05}$ for a confidence level of 0.05, Spearman’s rank is 0.714. In this case, the of $r_{xy}$ > r_table0.05; thus, it can be observed that there is a strong correlation between disaster awareness and earthquake-resistant houses and limitations in completing disaster resilience facilities.

A lack of public awareness of earthquake disasters and the condition of the buildings in which they reside can also be observed at the level of building damage, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. The extent of residential damage claimed by the respondents.

The results show that only 16% of the houses remained undamaged, while the rest experienced damage ranging from minor (31%), moderate (24%), to severe (29%) (Figure 2). The observed phenomenon can be ascribed to the inherent heterogeneity in the construction quality of buildings with regard to their capacity to satisfy the earthquake-resistant criteria.

Discussion

The results mentioned above indicate a positive association between the population’s inadequate knowledge of earthquake hazards and standards of earthquake-resistant housing and disaster response facilities. We also see two possibilities related to our previous findings: knowledge related to disaster resilience in this area has not been well disseminated or socialized, or they are unaware that they reside in earthquake-prone locations. This is evidenced by several issues such as the absence of sufficient planning for mitigating disasters, insufficient public education on appropriate measures to be performed during earthquakes, limitations in comprehending and equipping disaster resilience infrastructure, and a lack of understanding related to earthquake-resistant housing. Understanding earthquake infrastructure is crucial because the fatalities of earthquakes are commonly caused by building collapse (Markušic et al., 2020).

The period of 10 months following the catastrophe has proven to be a significant educational opportunity for all individuals involved. The government has initiated the process of providing guidance to the community to facilitate the reconstruction of their homes in alignment with the prescribed criteria (World Bank, 2021; BSN, 2019). This was demonstrated by the level of public awareness of the construction of earthquake-resistant housing, particularly in light of the accessibility of financial assistance and the provision of guidance by the local housing authority. Regrettably, the provision of aid is not accompanied by educational initiatives pertaining to disaster preparedness or building infrastructure for disaster response.

A limitation of this study was the absence of in-depth interviews regarding sociocultural issues. Disaster-affected areas are characterized by features of agricultural and mountainous tourism. We assume that an agrarian society’s strong attachment to farming practices contributes to their reluctance to relocate far from agricultural land. The potential impact of tourism on the limited availability of traditional Sundanesse wooden houses in this area is also considered. These wooden houses were designed to withstand local natural phenomena and exhibit earthquake resistance (Dutu, 2021). Another limitation is that socio-culture is a periodic public awareness campaign, the provision of training programs for disaster preparation, the incorporation of earthquake education into the school curriculum, and the active involvement of local populations in disaster simulations and drills. We believe that these aspects require further research.

Data availability

Underlying data

Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/UJ68Z (Sutrisno, 2023).

The project contains the following underlying data:

- Recapitulation of surveys_rw.csv (Raw data from questionnaire and interviews)
- Matrix of Scored Analysis.csv (Analysed data)
- Reability Test_analysis.csv (Analysed data)
- Validity Test_analysis.csv (Analysed data)

Extended data

Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/UJ68Z (Sutrisno, 2023).

The project contains the following extended data:

- Quisitionnaire_CC awarness2023.pdf (Questionnaire)

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Acknowledgements

We express our gratitude to the National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Education Fund Management Agency (LPDP), National Agency for Disaster Management (BNPB) and stakeholders at the disaster site in Cianjur Regency who assisted in conducting the survey.

References

Antara news: Gempa-cianjur-korban-meninggal-bertambah-menjadi-334-orang.2022. Accessed 3 December 2022. Reference Source
BNPB: [UPDATE]. 327 Orang Meninggal Dunia Pasca Gempa Cianjur.2022. Accessed 7 July 2023. Reference Source
BSN (Badan Standarisasi Nasional). Standar Nasional Indonesia (SNI 1726): Tata cara perencanaan ketahanan gempa untuk struktur bangunan gedung dan nongedung. Jakarta: BSN; 2019.
Dacanay JM, Mauro MGB, Sandoval JA, et al.: Community awareness on earthquake and assessment on earthquake risk reduction practices in a Philippine municipality. Int. J. Appl. Sci. 2018; 1(2):77–83. Publisher Full Text
Dutu: Chapter 14 - An engineering view of traditional timber frames with infills in Romania. Masonry Construction in Active Seismic Regions Woodhead Publishing Series in Civil and Structural Engineering.2021; 2021: 277–420. Publisher Full Text
Hosseini KAKA, Hosseini M, Izadkhah YO, et al.: Main challenges on community-based approaches in earthquake risk reduction: Case study of Tehran, Iran. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2014; 8: 114–124. Publisher Full Text
Markušic S, Stanko D, Korbar T, et al.: The Zagreb (Croatia) M5.5 earthquake on 22 March 2020. Geosciences. 2020; 10(7): 252. Publisher Full Text
Parwanto NB, Oyama T: Statistical analysis and comparison of historical earthquakes and tsunami disasters in Japan and Indonesia. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2014; 7: 122–141. Publisher Full Text
Siawsh N, Peszynski K, Vo-Tran H, et al.: Toward the creation of disaster-resilient communities: The Machizukuri initiative – The 2011 Tōhoku Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2023; 96: 103961. Publisher Full Text
Supendi P, Winder T, Rawlinson N, et al.: A conjugate fault was revealed by the destructive Mw 5.6 (November 21, 2022) Cianjur earthquake, West Java, Indonesia. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2023; 257: 105830. Publisher Full Text
Spearman C: Proof and measurement of the association between two things. Am. J. Psychol. 1904; 15(1): 72–101. Publisher Full Text
Sutrisno D: Community perception on disasters. [Dataset]. Open Science Framework. 2023. Publisher Full Text
World Bank: Building Indonesia’s Resilience to Disaster: Experiences from Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction in Indonesia Program. A report for the implementation of P122240 – Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction in Indonesia Phase II Programmatic Advisory Services Analytics. Jakarta: World Bank; 2021. Reference Source
Zar JH: Significance Testing of the Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1972; 67(339):578–580. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 08 Apr 2024

Author details Author details

Dewayany Sutrisno
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Yatin Suwarno
Roles: Data Curation, Investigation

Ati Rahadiati
Roles: Data Curation, Project Administration, Writing – Review & Editing

Muhammad Iqbal Habibie
Roles: Data Curation, Investigation

Prabu Kresna Putra
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation

Hari Prayogi
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation

Amien Widodo
Roles: Data Curation, Investigation

Fathia Zulfati Sabrina
Roles: Data Curation, Investigation

Ahmad Kosasih
Roles: Data Curation

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

This study was funded by the Deputy for Facilitation of Research and Innovation - National Research and Innovation Agency and Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan/ Education Fund Management Agency (LPDP) with decree Number 82/Ii.7/Hk/2022 Concerning Recipients of the Research and Innovation Program for Advanced Indonesia.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (3)

version 3

Revised

Published: 20 Feb 2025, 13:256

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.143577.3

version 2

Revised

Published: 05 Aug 2024, 13:256

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.143577.2

version 1

Published: 08 Apr 2024, 13:256

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.143577.1

© 2024 Sutrisno D et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Sutrisno D, Suwarno Y, Rahadiati A et al. Community preparedness for earthquake disasters: A preliminary assessment of awareness and disaster infrastructure response in Cianjur, West Java-Indonesia [version 1; peer review: 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2024, 13:256 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.143577.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 08 Apr 2024

Views

Reviewer Report 04 Jul 2024

Ayse Nuray Karanci, TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi, Ankara, Turkey

Not Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.157253.r297088

Although this is an interesting study of a population exposed to a recent earthquake there are important weaknesses in the manuscript. These are as follows:
Introduction:
Concept of awareness not only on earthquake hazards but also on adaptive behaviors needs to be discussed. There are numerous theoretical models linking awareness to adaptive behaviors. The introduction fails to discuss these theories.
The terms used like disaster preparedness infrastructure needs to be specified.
The hypothesis of the study needs to be more clearly given.

Method: This section needs to be organized as sample (for the questionnaire and interviews) Instruments used and procedure.
Sample : Number of participants, the sociodemographic characteristics of the survey and interview participants need to be given in a table (age gender education etc.)
Participants: Minimum of high school education was chosen. The authors need to explain the reason behind this.
Survey instrument: Information on how it was developed the response format for the questions and the time frame to which the questions address, and the psychometric properties like Cronbach alpha values needs to be given.
Procedure: For data collection needs to be given. The authors have done some interviews but no information is given on the results and the procedure.
Results:
Due to a lack of specific hypothesis the results and the analysis does not seem clear. A multiple regression analysis for adaptive behavior predictors may make the results more comprehensible.
Discussion: Needs to be extended after considering all the above points. As it stands it is not clear how the authors reached these conclusions and their recommendations .

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

No
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

No
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

No
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

No

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Disaster prepaparedness

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 05 Aug 2024

Dewayany Sutrisno, National Research and Innovation Agency, Cibinong, 16911, Indonesia

05 Aug 2024

Author Response
Author Response to THE REVIEWER -

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Although this is an interesting study of a population exposed to a recent earthquake there are important weaknesses in the ... Continue reading
Author Response to THE REVIEWER -

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Although this is an interesting study of a population exposed to a recent earthquake there are important weaknesses in the manuscript. These are as follows:

Introduction:

Concept of awareness not only on earthquake hazards but also on adaptive behaviors needs to be discussed. There are numerous theoretical models linking awareness to adaptive behaviors. The introduction fails to discuss these theories.
--------------------------------

Author Response:
Thank you for your feedback. Indeed, there are some sentences in this paper that may have led to misunderstandings. This paper is part of a study aimed at understanding community perceptions regarding earthquake-resistant houses promoted by the Indonesian government, by considering that casualties from earthquakes are generally caused by building collapses. It is indicated by the title, “Community preparedness for earthquake disasters: A preliminary assessment of awareness and disaster infrastructure response in Cianjur, West Java-Indonesia". We apologize, but in this paper, we focus more on raising community awareness about living in earthquake-prone areas, as well as the need for understanding earthquake-resistant houses and related infrastructure as part of community preparedness. Therefore, we did not conduct research related to community adaptability, as this would be more aligned with studies on community resilience.
Regarding earthquake-resistant buildings, their ancestors had local wisdom by constructing traditional wooden houses in response to disaster-related concerns. However, the modernization of housing has altered the community's patterns, leading to limited knowledge about earthquake-resistant housing and other disaster preparedness facilities. This is a common issue in various earthquake-prone villages in Indonesia.

Following your feedback, the revisions can be seen in the Introduction, paragraphs 1 and 3."
“ …….Consequently, evaluating community knowledge pertaining to earthquake hazards is a pivotal measure in the establishment of efficient policies for disaster preparedness and mitigation, such as the awareness of living on the earthquake prone area, earthquake-resistant housing and its related infrastructures”
and
…..” The extent of the success of this initiative will also be a part of this observation, as it is a crucial component of infrastructure disaster awareness. Since most of the casualties in an earthquake have been determined to be deaths caused by buildings collapsing (Sutrisno et al, 2024)…”

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
The terms used like disaster preparedness infrastructure needs to be specified.
--------------------------------
Author Response:
Thank you for your feedback. The term 'disaster preparedness infrastructure' that we refer to is specified as

Earthquake-Resistant Buildings: Structures designed to withstand the shocks and damage caused by earthquakes.

Evacuation Facilities: Safe and organized locations for evacuating residents during disasters, including evacuation routes and temporary shelters

disaster facilities: such as health care facilities and emergency respond center.

Training and Education: Programs that train and educate the community on how to respond correctly and effectively to disasters

See the Sub chapter of instruments used and the questionnaire
And
the last paragraph of the introduction
“….The disaster infrastructure referred to in this article includes buildings, particularly earthquake-resistant houses, as well as evacuation facilities such as evacuation roads, muster points, health facilities, and community training programs.”

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
The hypothesis of the study needs to be more clearly given.
--------------------------------
Author Response:
The hypothesis to be tested in this study is that the level of disaster awareness has a significant influence on disaster preparedness infrastructure. To clarify, the details of this hypothesis are as follows:

Level of Disaster Awareness: This refers to the extent to which individuals or communities understand and recognize the risks and hazards associated with earthquakes in their living environment.

Disaster Preparedness Infrastructure: This encompasses all facilities, systems, and equipment prepared to deal with disasters, including earthquake-resistant buildings, early warning systems, evacuation facilities, emergency supply storage, and community training programs.

This hypothesis posits that the higher the level of disaster awareness in a community, the better and more comprehensive the available disaster preparedness infrastructure.

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Method:
This section needs to be organized as sample (for the questionnaire and interviews) Instruments used and procedure.
Sample : Number of participants, the sociodemographic characteristics of the survey and interview participants need to be given in a table (age gender education etc.)
--------------------------------
Author Response:
Thank you for your feedback. We have restructured the methodology, as can be seen in the Methods chapter of this paper. In accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions, this section is divided into three subsections: samples, instruments used, and procedures.
Regarding the data, the tables can be accessed by clicking the link provided in the Data Availability chapter of this paper (Repository Data).

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Participants: Minimum of high school education was chosen. The authors need to explain the reason behind this.
--------------------------------
Author Response:
Thank you for your feedback. Some word is missing, which we have corrected in the samples sub-chapter.
“……..The eligibility criteria for respondents include individuals residing in areas directly impacted by earthquake disasters, aged at least 20 years, proficient in the Indonesian language, from diverse professional backgrounds spanning from farmers to office workers, possessing a minimum educational level of high school for village’s officials and any level of educations for respondents, and willing and capable of participating as respondents in this research project….”

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Survey instrument: Information on how it was developed the response format for the questions and the time frame to which the questions address, and the psychometric properties like Cronbach alpha values needs to be given.
--------------------------------
Author Response:
Thank you for your feedback. The methodology has been restructured according to the reviewers' suggestions.
Development of Response Format:
The response format for the questions was developed based on a literature review and discussions with experts in the field. We used a 4-point Likert scale to measure respondents' readiness for earthquake disasters. The questions in the questionnaire were designed to cover the respondents' experiences and knowledge from the period before the disaster up to ten months after the disaster. This was done to ensure that the data collected is relevant and current. To measure the internal consistency of the questionnaire, we calculated Cronbach's alpha values for each section of the questionnaire, aiming for values > 0.7 to establish validity. These values indicate that the questionnaire has good internal consistency and is reliable for measuring the intended research objectives.

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Procedure: For data collection needs to be given. The authors have done some interviews but no information is given on the results and the procedure.
--------------------------------
Author Response:
Thank you for the feedback. The interviews used the same format as the respondent survey. We have made corrections in the data collection subsection
“…..Concurrently, the process of data collection for interviews was conducted face-to-face with the officials of the four affected sub-districts, i.e., Rancagoong, Nagrak, Cibeureum, and Ciputri. As previously explained in the Ethics Clearance chapter, the research background was first explained, followed by obtaining consent to participate, and then proceeding with the interview process…”

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Results:

Due to a lack of specific hypothesis the results and the analysis does not seem clear. A multiple regression analysis for adaptive behavior predictors may make the results more comprehensible.
--------------------------------
Author Response:
Thank you for your feedback. We recognize that the lack of specific hypotheses can make the results and analysis appear unclear. As we mentioned earlier, this research focuses on community preparedness for earthquake disasters, specifically to assess awareness of living in the prone zone, the importance of earthquake-resistant houses and its supporting infrastructure. Therefore, we did not conduct an analysis of adaptive behaviour.

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Discussion:

Needs to be extended after considering all the above points. As it stands it is not clear how the authors reached these conclusions and their recommendations.
--------------------------------
Author Response:
Thank you for your feedback. We have completed and revised it according to the objectives of this research.
Author Response to THE REVIEWER -

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Although this is an interesting study of a population exposed to a recent earthquake there are important weaknesses in the manuscript. These are as follows:

Introduction:

Concept of awareness not only on earthquake hazards but also on adaptive behaviors needs to be discussed. There are numerous theoretical models linking awareness to adaptive behaviors. The introduction fails to discuss these theories.
--------------------------------

Author Response:
Thank you for your feedback. Indeed, there are some sentences in this paper that may have led to misunderstandings. This paper is part of a study aimed at understanding community perceptions regarding earthquake-resistant houses promoted by the Indonesian government, by considering that casualties from earthquakes are generally caused by building collapses. It is indicated by the title, “Community preparedness for earthquake disasters: A preliminary assessment of awareness and disaster infrastructure response in Cianjur, West Java-Indonesia". We apologize, but in this paper, we focus more on raising community awareness about living in earthquake-prone areas, as well as the need for understanding earthquake-resistant houses and related infrastructure as part of community preparedness. Therefore, we did not conduct research related to community adaptability, as this would be more aligned with studies on community resilience.
Regarding earthquake-resistant buildings, their ancestors had local wisdom by constructing traditional wooden houses in response to disaster-related concerns. However, the modernization of housing has altered the community's patterns, leading to limited knowledge about earthquake-resistant housing and other disaster preparedness facilities. This is a common issue in various earthquake-prone villages in Indonesia.

Following your feedback, the revisions can be seen in the Introduction, paragraphs 1 and 3."
“ …….Consequently, evaluating community knowledge pertaining to earthquake hazards is a pivotal measure in the establishment of efficient policies for disaster preparedness and mitigation, such as the awareness of living on the earthquake prone area, earthquake-resistant housing and its related infrastructures”
and
…..” The extent of the success of this initiative will also be a part of this observation, as it is a crucial component of infrastructure disaster awareness. Since most of the casualties in an earthquake have been determined to be deaths caused by buildings collapsing (Sutrisno et al, 2024)…”

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
The terms used like disaster preparedness infrastructure needs to be specified.
--------------------------------
Author Response:
Thank you for your feedback. The term 'disaster preparedness infrastructure' that we refer to is specified as

Earthquake-Resistant Buildings: Structures designed to withstand the shocks and damage caused by earthquakes.

Evacuation Facilities: Safe and organized locations for evacuating residents during disasters, including evacuation routes and temporary shelters

disaster facilities: such as health care facilities and emergency respond center.

Training and Education: Programs that train and educate the community on how to respond correctly and effectively to disasters

See the Sub chapter of instruments used and the questionnaire
And
the last paragraph of the introduction
“….The disaster infrastructure referred to in this article includes buildings, particularly earthquake-resistant houses, as well as evacuation facilities such as evacuation roads, muster points, health facilities, and community training programs.”

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
The hypothesis of the study needs to be more clearly given.
--------------------------------
Author Response:
The hypothesis to be tested in this study is that the level of disaster awareness has a significant influence on disaster preparedness infrastructure. To clarify, the details of this hypothesis are as follows:

Level of Disaster Awareness: This refers to the extent to which individuals or communities understand and recognize the risks and hazards associated with earthquakes in their living environment.

Disaster Preparedness Infrastructure: This encompasses all facilities, systems, and equipment prepared to deal with disasters, including earthquake-resistant buildings, early warning systems, evacuation facilities, emergency supply storage, and community training programs.

This hypothesis posits that the higher the level of disaster awareness in a community, the better and more comprehensive the available disaster preparedness infrastructure.

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Method:
This section needs to be organized as sample (for the questionnaire and interviews) Instruments used and procedure.
Sample : Number of participants, the sociodemographic characteristics of the survey and interview participants need to be given in a table (age gender education etc.)
--------------------------------
Author Response:
Thank you for your feedback. We have restructured the methodology, as can be seen in the Methods chapter of this paper. In accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions, this section is divided into three subsections: samples, instruments used, and procedures.
Regarding the data, the tables can be accessed by clicking the link provided in the Data Availability chapter of this paper (Repository Data).

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Participants: Minimum of high school education was chosen. The authors need to explain the reason behind this.
--------------------------------
Author Response:
Thank you for your feedback. Some word is missing, which we have corrected in the samples sub-chapter.
“……..The eligibility criteria for respondents include individuals residing in areas directly impacted by earthquake disasters, aged at least 20 years, proficient in the Indonesian language, from diverse professional backgrounds spanning from farmers to office workers, possessing a minimum educational level of high school for village’s officials and any level of educations for respondents, and willing and capable of participating as respondents in this research project….”

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Survey instrument: Information on how it was developed the response format for the questions and the time frame to which the questions address, and the psychometric properties like Cronbach alpha values needs to be given.
--------------------------------
Author Response:
Thank you for your feedback. The methodology has been restructured according to the reviewers' suggestions.
Development of Response Format:
The response format for the questions was developed based on a literature review and discussions with experts in the field. We used a 4-point Likert scale to measure respondents' readiness for earthquake disasters. The questions in the questionnaire were designed to cover the respondents' experiences and knowledge from the period before the disaster up to ten months after the disaster. This was done to ensure that the data collected is relevant and current. To measure the internal consistency of the questionnaire, we calculated Cronbach's alpha values for each section of the questionnaire, aiming for values > 0.7 to establish validity. These values indicate that the questionnaire has good internal consistency and is reliable for measuring the intended research objectives.

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Procedure: For data collection needs to be given. The authors have done some interviews but no information is given on the results and the procedure.
--------------------------------
Author Response:
Thank you for the feedback. The interviews used the same format as the respondent survey. We have made corrections in the data collection subsection
“…..Concurrently, the process of data collection for interviews was conducted face-to-face with the officials of the four affected sub-districts, i.e., Rancagoong, Nagrak, Cibeureum, and Ciputri. As previously explained in the Ethics Clearance chapter, the research background was first explained, followed by obtaining consent to participate, and then proceeding with the interview process…”

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Results:

Due to a lack of specific hypothesis the results and the analysis does not seem clear. A multiple regression analysis for adaptive behavior predictors may make the results more comprehensible.
--------------------------------
Author Response:
Thank you for your feedback. We recognize that the lack of specific hypotheses can make the results and analysis appear unclear. As we mentioned earlier, this research focuses on community preparedness for earthquake disasters, specifically to assess awareness of living in the prone zone, the importance of earthquake-resistant houses and its supporting infrastructure. Therefore, we did not conduct an analysis of adaptive behaviour.

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Discussion:

Needs to be extended after considering all the above points. As it stands it is not clear how the authors reached these conclusions and their recommendations.
--------------------------------
Author Response:
Thank you for your feedback. We have completed and revised it according to the objectives of this research.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 05 Aug 2024

Dewayany Sutrisno, National Research and Innovation Agency, Cibinong, 16911, Indonesia

05 Aug 2024

Author Response
Author Response to THE REVIEWER -

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Although this is an interesting study of a population exposed to a recent earthquake there are important weaknesses in the ... Continue reading
Author Response to THE REVIEWER -

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Although this is an interesting study of a population exposed to a recent earthquake there are important weaknesses in the manuscript. These are as follows:

Introduction:

Concept of awareness not only on earthquake hazards but also on adaptive behaviors needs to be discussed. There are numerous theoretical models linking awareness to adaptive behaviors. The introduction fails to discuss these theories.
--------------------------------

Author Response:
Thank you for your feedback. Indeed, there are some sentences in this paper that may have led to misunderstandings. This paper is part of a study aimed at understanding community perceptions regarding earthquake-resistant houses promoted by the Indonesian government, by considering that casualties from earthquakes are generally caused by building collapses. It is indicated by the title, “Community preparedness for earthquake disasters: A preliminary assessment of awareness and disaster infrastructure response in Cianjur, West Java-Indonesia". We apologize, but in this paper, we focus more on raising community awareness about living in earthquake-prone areas, as well as the need for understanding earthquake-resistant houses and related infrastructure as part of community preparedness. Therefore, we did not conduct research related to community adaptability, as this would be more aligned with studies on community resilience.
Regarding earthquake-resistant buildings, their ancestors had local wisdom by constructing traditional wooden houses in response to disaster-related concerns. However, the modernization of housing has altered the community's patterns, leading to limited knowledge about earthquake-resistant housing and other disaster preparedness facilities. This is a common issue in various earthquake-prone villages in Indonesia.

Following your feedback, the revisions can be seen in the Introduction, paragraphs 1 and 3."
“ …….Consequently, evaluating community knowledge pertaining to earthquake hazards is a pivotal measure in the establishment of efficient policies for disaster preparedness and mitigation, such as the awareness of living on the earthquake prone area, earthquake-resistant housing and its related infrastructures”
and
…..” The extent of the success of this initiative will also be a part of this observation, as it is a crucial component of infrastructure disaster awareness. Since most of the casualties in an earthquake have been determined to be deaths caused by buildings collapsing (Sutrisno et al, 2024)…”

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
The terms used like disaster preparedness infrastructure needs to be specified.
--------------------------------
Author Response:
Thank you for your feedback. The term 'disaster preparedness infrastructure' that we refer to is specified as

Earthquake-Resistant Buildings: Structures designed to withstand the shocks and damage caused by earthquakes.

Evacuation Facilities: Safe and organized locations for evacuating residents during disasters, including evacuation routes and temporary shelters

disaster facilities: such as health care facilities and emergency respond center.

Training and Education: Programs that train and educate the community on how to respond correctly and effectively to disasters

See the Sub chapter of instruments used and the questionnaire
And
the last paragraph of the introduction
“….The disaster infrastructure referred to in this article includes buildings, particularly earthquake-resistant houses, as well as evacuation facilities such as evacuation roads, muster points, health facilities, and community training programs.”

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
The hypothesis of the study needs to be more clearly given.
--------------------------------
Author Response:
The hypothesis to be tested in this study is that the level of disaster awareness has a significant influence on disaster preparedness infrastructure. To clarify, the details of this hypothesis are as follows:

Level of Disaster Awareness: This refers to the extent to which individuals or communities understand and recognize the risks and hazards associated with earthquakes in their living environment.

Disaster Preparedness Infrastructure: This encompasses all facilities, systems, and equipment prepared to deal with disasters, including earthquake-resistant buildings, early warning systems, evacuation facilities, emergency supply storage, and community training programs.

This hypothesis posits that the higher the level of disaster awareness in a community, the better and more comprehensive the available disaster preparedness infrastructure.

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Method:
This section needs to be organized as sample (for the questionnaire and interviews) Instruments used and procedure.
Sample : Number of participants, the sociodemographic characteristics of the survey and interview participants need to be given in a table (age gender education etc.)
--------------------------------
Author Response:
Thank you for your feedback. We have restructured the methodology, as can be seen in the Methods chapter of this paper. In accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions, this section is divided into three subsections: samples, instruments used, and procedures.
Regarding the data, the tables can be accessed by clicking the link provided in the Data Availability chapter of this paper (Repository Data).

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Participants: Minimum of high school education was chosen. The authors need to explain the reason behind this.
--------------------------------
Author Response:
Thank you for your feedback. Some word is missing, which we have corrected in the samples sub-chapter.
“……..The eligibility criteria for respondents include individuals residing in areas directly impacted by earthquake disasters, aged at least 20 years, proficient in the Indonesian language, from diverse professional backgrounds spanning from farmers to office workers, possessing a minimum educational level of high school for village’s officials and any level of educations for respondents, and willing and capable of participating as respondents in this research project….”

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Survey instrument: Information on how it was developed the response format for the questions and the time frame to which the questions address, and the psychometric properties like Cronbach alpha values needs to be given.
--------------------------------
Author Response:
Thank you for your feedback. The methodology has been restructured according to the reviewers' suggestions.
Development of Response Format:
The response format for the questions was developed based on a literature review and discussions with experts in the field. We used a 4-point Likert scale to measure respondents' readiness for earthquake disasters. The questions in the questionnaire were designed to cover the respondents' experiences and knowledge from the period before the disaster up to ten months after the disaster. This was done to ensure that the data collected is relevant and current. To measure the internal consistency of the questionnaire, we calculated Cronbach's alpha values for each section of the questionnaire, aiming for values > 0.7 to establish validity. These values indicate that the questionnaire has good internal consistency and is reliable for measuring the intended research objectives.

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Procedure: For data collection needs to be given. The authors have done some interviews but no information is given on the results and the procedure.
--------------------------------
Author Response:
Thank you for the feedback. The interviews used the same format as the respondent survey. We have made corrections in the data collection subsection
“…..Concurrently, the process of data collection for interviews was conducted face-to-face with the officials of the four affected sub-districts, i.e., Rancagoong, Nagrak, Cibeureum, and Ciputri. As previously explained in the Ethics Clearance chapter, the research background was first explained, followed by obtaining consent to participate, and then proceeding with the interview process…”

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Results:

Due to a lack of specific hypothesis the results and the analysis does not seem clear. A multiple regression analysis for adaptive behavior predictors may make the results more comprehensible.
--------------------------------
Author Response:
Thank you for your feedback. We recognize that the lack of specific hypotheses can make the results and analysis appear unclear. As we mentioned earlier, this research focuses on community preparedness for earthquake disasters, specifically to assess awareness of living in the prone zone, the importance of earthquake-resistant houses and its supporting infrastructure. Therefore, we did not conduct an analysis of adaptive behaviour.

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Discussion:

Needs to be extended after considering all the above points. As it stands it is not clear how the authors reached these conclusions and their recommendations.
--------------------------------
Author Response:
Thank you for your feedback. We have completed and revised it according to the objectives of this research.
Author Response to THE REVIEWER -

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Although this is an interesting study of a population exposed to a recent earthquake there are important weaknesses in the manuscript. These are as follows:

Introduction:

Concept of awareness not only on earthquake hazards but also on adaptive behaviors needs to be discussed. There are numerous theoretical models linking awareness to adaptive behaviors. The introduction fails to discuss these theories.
--------------------------------

Author Response:
Thank you for your feedback. Indeed, there are some sentences in this paper that may have led to misunderstandings. This paper is part of a study aimed at understanding community perceptions regarding earthquake-resistant houses promoted by the Indonesian government, by considering that casualties from earthquakes are generally caused by building collapses. It is indicated by the title, “Community preparedness for earthquake disasters: A preliminary assessment of awareness and disaster infrastructure response in Cianjur, West Java-Indonesia". We apologize, but in this paper, we focus more on raising community awareness about living in earthquake-prone areas, as well as the need for understanding earthquake-resistant houses and related infrastructure as part of community preparedness. Therefore, we did not conduct research related to community adaptability, as this would be more aligned with studies on community resilience.
Regarding earthquake-resistant buildings, their ancestors had local wisdom by constructing traditional wooden houses in response to disaster-related concerns. However, the modernization of housing has altered the community's patterns, leading to limited knowledge about earthquake-resistant housing and other disaster preparedness facilities. This is a common issue in various earthquake-prone villages in Indonesia.

Following your feedback, the revisions can be seen in the Introduction, paragraphs 1 and 3."
“ …….Consequently, evaluating community knowledge pertaining to earthquake hazards is a pivotal measure in the establishment of efficient policies for disaster preparedness and mitigation, such as the awareness of living on the earthquake prone area, earthquake-resistant housing and its related infrastructures”
and
…..” The extent of the success of this initiative will also be a part of this observation, as it is a crucial component of infrastructure disaster awareness. Since most of the casualties in an earthquake have been determined to be deaths caused by buildings collapsing (Sutrisno et al, 2024)…”

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
The terms used like disaster preparedness infrastructure needs to be specified.
--------------------------------
Author Response:
Thank you for your feedback. The term 'disaster preparedness infrastructure' that we refer to is specified as

Earthquake-Resistant Buildings: Structures designed to withstand the shocks and damage caused by earthquakes.

Evacuation Facilities: Safe and organized locations for evacuating residents during disasters, including evacuation routes and temporary shelters

disaster facilities: such as health care facilities and emergency respond center.

Training and Education: Programs that train and educate the community on how to respond correctly and effectively to disasters

See the Sub chapter of instruments used and the questionnaire
And
the last paragraph of the introduction
“….The disaster infrastructure referred to in this article includes buildings, particularly earthquake-resistant houses, as well as evacuation facilities such as evacuation roads, muster points, health facilities, and community training programs.”

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
The hypothesis of the study needs to be more clearly given.
--------------------------------
Author Response:
The hypothesis to be tested in this study is that the level of disaster awareness has a significant influence on disaster preparedness infrastructure. To clarify, the details of this hypothesis are as follows:

Level of Disaster Awareness: This refers to the extent to which individuals or communities understand and recognize the risks and hazards associated with earthquakes in their living environment.

Disaster Preparedness Infrastructure: This encompasses all facilities, systems, and equipment prepared to deal with disasters, including earthquake-resistant buildings, early warning systems, evacuation facilities, emergency supply storage, and community training programs.

This hypothesis posits that the higher the level of disaster awareness in a community, the better and more comprehensive the available disaster preparedness infrastructure.

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Method:
This section needs to be organized as sample (for the questionnaire and interviews) Instruments used and procedure.
Sample : Number of participants, the sociodemographic characteristics of the survey and interview participants need to be given in a table (age gender education etc.)
--------------------------------
Author Response:
Thank you for your feedback. We have restructured the methodology, as can be seen in the Methods chapter of this paper. In accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions, this section is divided into three subsections: samples, instruments used, and procedures.
Regarding the data, the tables can be accessed by clicking the link provided in the Data Availability chapter of this paper (Repository Data).

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Participants: Minimum of high school education was chosen. The authors need to explain the reason behind this.
--------------------------------
Author Response:
Thank you for your feedback. Some word is missing, which we have corrected in the samples sub-chapter.
“……..The eligibility criteria for respondents include individuals residing in areas directly impacted by earthquake disasters, aged at least 20 years, proficient in the Indonesian language, from diverse professional backgrounds spanning from farmers to office workers, possessing a minimum educational level of high school for village’s officials and any level of educations for respondents, and willing and capable of participating as respondents in this research project….”

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Survey instrument: Information on how it was developed the response format for the questions and the time frame to which the questions address, and the psychometric properties like Cronbach alpha values needs to be given.
--------------------------------
Author Response:
Thank you for your feedback. The methodology has been restructured according to the reviewers' suggestions.
Development of Response Format:
The response format for the questions was developed based on a literature review and discussions with experts in the field. We used a 4-point Likert scale to measure respondents' readiness for earthquake disasters. The questions in the questionnaire were designed to cover the respondents' experiences and knowledge from the period before the disaster up to ten months after the disaster. This was done to ensure that the data collected is relevant and current. To measure the internal consistency of the questionnaire, we calculated Cronbach's alpha values for each section of the questionnaire, aiming for values > 0.7 to establish validity. These values indicate that the questionnaire has good internal consistency and is reliable for measuring the intended research objectives.

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Procedure: For data collection needs to be given. The authors have done some interviews but no information is given on the results and the procedure.
--------------------------------
Author Response:
Thank you for the feedback. The interviews used the same format as the respondent survey. We have made corrections in the data collection subsection
“…..Concurrently, the process of data collection for interviews was conducted face-to-face with the officials of the four affected sub-districts, i.e., Rancagoong, Nagrak, Cibeureum, and Ciputri. As previously explained in the Ethics Clearance chapter, the research background was first explained, followed by obtaining consent to participate, and then proceeding with the interview process…”

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Results:

Due to a lack of specific hypothesis the results and the analysis does not seem clear. A multiple regression analysis for adaptive behavior predictors may make the results more comprehensible.
--------------------------------
Author Response:
Thank you for your feedback. We recognize that the lack of specific hypotheses can make the results and analysis appear unclear. As we mentioned earlier, this research focuses on community preparedness for earthquake disasters, specifically to assess awareness of living in the prone zone, the importance of earthquake-resistant houses and its supporting infrastructure. Therefore, we did not conduct an analysis of adaptive behaviour.

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Discussion:

Needs to be extended after considering all the above points. As it stands it is not clear how the authors reached these conclusions and their recommendations.
--------------------------------
Author Response:
Thank you for your feedback. We have completed and revised it according to the objectives of this research.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 08 Apr 2024

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 3 (revision) 20 Feb 25		read
Version 2 (revision) 05 Aug 24	read	read
Version 1 08 Apr 24	read

Ayse Nuray Karanci, TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi, Ankara, Turkey
Totok Doyo Pamungkas, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung, Indonesia

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

2 Views

10 Mar 2025 | for Version 3

Totok Doyo Pamungkas, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung, West Java, Indonesia

2 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

No further comments

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

geography education, disaster preparedness, geology and geophysics, sustainable development

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

12 Views

26 Dec 2024 | for Version 2

Totok Doyo Pamungkas, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung, West Java, Indonesia

12 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

1. This paper needs more or less ten references about community preparedness for earthquake disasters, especially in West Java, with the same characteristic
2. Study design needs more clarity such as workflow
3. Indicator of individual awareness measurement based on reference or by the researcher?, where do the following aspects:
1) knowledge; 2) attitude; 3) behavior. has been add
4. The characteristics of respondents must show and clearly explain about experience/ years of living in the area is one of the important indicator
5. The conclusions drawn are not based on the final results but tend to argue and assume based on researchers

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

No
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

No
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

No

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

geography education, disaster preparedness, geology and geophysics, sustainable development

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

02 Jan 2025

Dewayany Sutrisno, National Research and Innovation Agency, Cibinong, 16911, Indonesia

RESPOND TO THE REVIEWER:

This paper needs more or less ten references about community preparedness for earthquake disasters, especially in West Java, with the same characteristic:

Thank you for your feedback. Ten references related to community preparedness for earthquake disasters, with the majority focusing on locations in West Java, have been incorporated into the chapter Instruments Used: Questionnaire and Discussion and supplemented with appropriate references

Study design needs more clarity such as workflow:

Thank you for your suggestion. The workflow study design has been included in the Methods chapter as Figure 2.

Indicator of individual awareness measurement based on reference or by the researcher?, where do the following aspects:
1) knowledge; 2) attitude; 3) behavior.

Thank you for the feedback. Indicators of individual awareness are based on measurable criteria. The aspects of 1) knowledge, 2) attitude, and 3) behavior have been incorporated into the three main sections: individual awareness, building construction awareness, and disaster facilities and infrastructure. These are elaborated as follows:

Individual awareness relates to the knowledge a community possesses about earthquakes and their associated impacts, as well as the extent to which earthquake disaster mitigation efforts are understood by the population.
Building construction awareness refers to residents' attitudes toward the construction of housing structures that can protect them from the impacts of earthquake disasters (Hariyanto et al., 2020; Putranesa et al., 2023).
Disaster facilities and infrastructure pertain to the behavior of a community in responding to disasters, including their efforts in preparing earthquake-resilient infrastructure independently (Willar et al., 2022).

This has been included in the chapter Instruments: Questionnaire."

The characteristics of respondents must show and clearly explain about experience/ years of living in the area is one of the important indicator

Thank you for your suggestion. The author has enhanced the description of respondent characteristics in the Samples chapter by adding the following statement:
The eligibility criteria for respondents include individuals residing in areas directly impacted by earthquake disasters, particularly those who are native residents with ancestral ties to the area, aged at least 20 years, proficient in the Indonesian language, from diverse professional backgrounds spanning from farmers to office workers, possessing a minimum educational level of high school for village officials and any level of education for common survey respondents, and willing and capable of participating as respondents in this research project

The conclusions drawn are not based on the final results but tend to argue and assume based on researchers: Thank you for your suggestion. A conclusion chapter has been added to the manuscript, which was previously absent. The initial omission of the conclusion chapter was due to our adherence to the existing report format guidelines.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?; The author has incorporated recent literature, with 16 out of 24 references being articles published after 2020
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? The workflow study design has been included in the Methods chapter as Figure 2.
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?The method has been supplemented with a workflow and its corresponding explanation
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?In accordance with the journal's guidelines, the data is stored in a repository with the link provided in the manuscript.
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? A conclusion chapter has been added to the manuscript, which was previously absent. The initial omission of the conclusion chapter was due to our adherence to the existing report format guidelines.

View more View less

Competing Interests

The authors declare that there are no competing interests related to this manuscript.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

4 Views

10 Sep 2024 | for Version 2

Ayse Nuray Karanci, TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi, Ankara, Turkey

4 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

The revised version of this paper is acceptable the authors have answered my queries and have revised the paper accordingly. Therefore I approve this version to be indexed.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Disaster prepaparedness

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

18 Views

04 Jul 2024 | for Version 1

Ayse Nuray Karanci, TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi, Ankara, Turkey

18 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Not Approved

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

No
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

No
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

No
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

No

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Disaster prepaparedness

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

05 Aug 2024

Dewayany Sutrisno, National Research and Innovation Agency, Cibinong, 16911, Indonesia

Author Response to THE REVIEWER -

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Although this is an interesting study of a population exposed to a recent earthquake there are important weaknesses in the manuscript. These are as follows:

Introduction:

Concept of awareness not only on earthquake hazards but also on adaptive behaviors needs to be discussed. There are numerous theoretical models linking awareness to adaptive behaviors. The introduction fails to discuss these theories.
--------------------------------

Author Response:
Thank you for your feedback. Indeed, there are some sentences in this paper that may have led to misunderstandings. This paper is part of a study aimed at understanding community perceptions regarding earthquake-resistant houses promoted by the Indonesian government, by considering that casualties from earthquakes are generally caused by building collapses. It is indicated by the title, “Community preparedness for earthquake disasters: A preliminary assessment of awareness and disaster infrastructure response in Cianjur, West Java-Indonesia". We apologize, but in this paper, we focus more on raising community awareness about living in earthquake-prone areas, as well as the need for understanding earthquake-resistant houses and related infrastructure as part of community preparedness. Therefore, we did not conduct research related to community adaptability, as this would be more aligned with studies on community resilience.
Regarding earthquake-resistant buildings, their ancestors had local wisdom by constructing traditional wooden houses in response to disaster-related concerns. However, the modernization of housing has altered the community's patterns, leading to limited knowledge about earthquake-resistant housing and other disaster preparedness facilities. This is a common issue in various earthquake-prone villages in Indonesia.

Following your feedback, the revisions can be seen in the Introduction, paragraphs 1 and 3."
“ …….Consequently, evaluating community knowledge pertaining to earthquake hazards is a pivotal measure in the establishment of efficient policies for disaster preparedness and mitigation, such as the awareness of living on the earthquake prone area, earthquake-resistant housing and its related infrastructures”
and
…..” The extent of the success of this initiative will also be a part of this observation, as it is a crucial component of infrastructure disaster awareness. Since most of the casualties in an earthquake have been determined to be deaths caused by buildings collapsing (Sutrisno et al, 2024)…”

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
The terms used like disaster preparedness infrastructure needs to be specified.
--------------------------------
Author Response:
Thank you for your feedback. The term 'disaster preparedness infrastructure' that we refer to is specified as

Earthquake-Resistant Buildings: Structures designed to withstand the shocks and damage caused by earthquakes.
Evacuation Facilities: Safe and organized locations for evacuating residents during disasters, including evacuation routes and temporary shelters
disaster facilities: such as health care facilities and emergency respond center.
Training and Education: Programs that train and educate the community on how to respond correctly and effectively to disasters

See the Sub chapter of instruments used and the questionnaire
And
the last paragraph of the introduction
“….The disaster infrastructure referred to in this article includes buildings, particularly earthquake-resistant houses, as well as evacuation facilities such as evacuation roads, muster points, health facilities, and community training programs.”

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
The hypothesis of the study needs to be more clearly given.
--------------------------------
Author Response:
The hypothesis to be tested in this study is that the level of disaster awareness has a significant influence on disaster preparedness infrastructure. To clarify, the details of this hypothesis are as follows:

Level of Disaster Awareness: This refers to the extent to which individuals or communities understand and recognize the risks and hazards associated with earthquakes in their living environment.
Disaster Preparedness Infrastructure: This encompasses all facilities, systems, and equipment prepared to deal with disasters, including earthquake-resistant buildings, early warning systems, evacuation facilities, emergency supply storage, and community training programs.

This hypothesis posits that the higher the level of disaster awareness in a community, the better and more comprehensive the available disaster preparedness infrastructure.

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Method:
This section needs to be organized as sample (for the questionnaire and interviews) Instruments used and procedure.
Sample : Number of participants, the sociodemographic characteristics of the survey and interview participants need to be given in a table (age gender education etc.)
--------------------------------
Author Response:
Thank you for your feedback. We have restructured the methodology, as can be seen in the Methods chapter of this paper. In accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions, this section is divided into three subsections: samples, instruments used, and procedures.
Regarding the data, the tables can be accessed by clicking the link provided in the Data Availability chapter of this paper (Repository Data).

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Participants: Minimum of high school education was chosen. The authors need to explain the reason behind this.
--------------------------------
Author Response:
Thank you for your feedback. Some word is missing, which we have corrected in the samples sub-chapter.
“……..The eligibility criteria for respondents include individuals residing in areas directly impacted by earthquake disasters, aged at least 20 years, proficient in the Indonesian language, from diverse professional backgrounds spanning from farmers to office workers, possessing a minimum educational level of high school for village’s officials and any level of educations for respondents, and willing and capable of participating as respondents in this research project….”

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Survey instrument: Information on how it was developed the response format for the questions and the time frame to which the questions address, and the psychometric properties like Cronbach alpha values needs to be given.
--------------------------------
Author Response:
Thank you for your feedback. The methodology has been restructured according to the reviewers' suggestions.
Development of Response Format:
The response format for the questions was developed based on a literature review and discussions with experts in the field. We used a 4-point Likert scale to measure respondents' readiness for earthquake disasters. The questions in the questionnaire were designed to cover the respondents' experiences and knowledge from the period before the disaster up to ten months after the disaster. This was done to ensure that the data collected is relevant and current. To measure the internal consistency of the questionnaire, we calculated Cronbach's alpha values for each section of the questionnaire, aiming for values > 0.7 to establish validity. These values indicate that the questionnaire has good internal consistency and is reliable for measuring the intended research objectives.

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Procedure: For data collection needs to be given. The authors have done some interviews but no information is given on the results and the procedure.
--------------------------------
Author Response:
Thank you for the feedback. The interviews used the same format as the respondent survey. We have made corrections in the data collection subsection
“…..Concurrently, the process of data collection for interviews was conducted face-to-face with the officials of the four affected sub-districts, i.e., Rancagoong, Nagrak, Cibeureum, and Ciputri. As previously explained in the Ethics Clearance chapter, the research background was first explained, followed by obtaining consent to participate, and then proceeding with the interview process…”

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Results:

Due to a lack of specific hypothesis the results and the analysis does not seem clear. A multiple regression analysis for adaptive behavior predictors may make the results more comprehensible.
--------------------------------
Author Response:
Thank you for your feedback. We recognize that the lack of specific hypotheses can make the results and analysis appear unclear. As we mentioned earlier, this research focuses on community preparedness for earthquake disasters, specifically to assess awareness of living in the prone zone, the importance of earthquake-resistant houses and its supporting infrastructure. Therefore, we did not conduct an analysis of adaptive behaviour.

Reviewer Comment:
--------------------------------
Discussion:

Needs to be extended after considering all the above points. As it stands it is not clear how the authors reached these conclusions and their recommendations.
--------------------------------
Author Response:
Thank you for your feedback. We have completed and revised it according to the objectives of this research.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] Antara news: Gempa-cianjur-korban-meninggal-bertambah-menjadi-334-orang.2022. Accessed 3 December 2022. Reference Source

[2] BNPB: [UPDATE]. 327 Orang Meninggal Dunia Pasca Gempa Cianjur.2022. Accessed 7 July 2023. Reference Source

[3] BSN (Badan Standarisasi Nasional). Standar Nasional Indonesia (SNI 1726): Tata cara perencanaan ketahanan gempa untuk struktur bangunan gedung dan nongedung. Jakarta: BSN; 2019.

[4] Dacanay JM, Mauro MGB, Sandoval JA, et al.: Community awareness on earthquake and assessment on earthquake risk reduction practices in a Philippine municipality. Int. J. Appl. Sci. 2018; 1(2):77–83. Publisher Full Text

[5] Dutu: Chapter 14 - An engineering view of traditional timber frames with infills in Romania. Masonry Construction in Active Seismic Regions Woodhead Publishing Series in Civil and Structural Engineering.2021; 2021: 277–420. Publisher Full Text

[6] Hosseini KAKA, Hosseini M, Izadkhah YO, et al.: Main challenges on community-based approaches in earthquake risk reduction: Case study of Tehran, Iran. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2014; 8: 114–124. Publisher Full Text

[7] Markušic S, Stanko D, Korbar T, et al.: The Zagreb (Croatia) M5.5 earthquake on 22 March 2020. Geosciences. 2020; 10(7): 252. Publisher Full Text

[8] Parwanto NB, Oyama T: Statistical analysis and comparison of historical earthquakes and tsunami disasters in Japan and Indonesia. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2014; 7: 122–141. Publisher Full Text

[9] Siawsh N, Peszynski K, Vo-Tran H, et al.: Toward the creation of disaster-resilient communities: The Machizukuri initiative – The 2011 Tōhoku Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2023; 96: 103961. Publisher Full Text

[10] Supendi P, Winder T, Rawlinson N, et al.: A conjugate fault was revealed by the destructive Mw 5.6 (November 21, 2022) Cianjur earthquake, West Java, Indonesia. J. Asian Earth Sci. 2023; 257: 105830. Publisher Full Text

[11] Spearman C: Proof and measurement of the association between two things. Am. J. Psychol. 1904; 15(1): 72–101. Publisher Full Text

[12] Sutrisno D: Community perception on disasters. [Dataset]. Open Science Framework. 2023. Publisher Full Text

[13] World Bank: Building Indonesia’s Resilience to Disaster: Experiences from Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction in Indonesia Program. A report for the implementation of P122240 – Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction in Indonesia Phase II Programmatic Advisory Services Analytics. Jakarta: World Bank; 2021. Reference Source

[14] Zar JH: Significance Testing of the Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1972; 67(339):578–580. Publisher Full Text

Community preparedness for earthquake disasters: A preliminary assessment of awareness and disaster infrastructure response in Cianjur, West Java-Indonesia

Abstract

Background

Methods

Result

Conclusions

Keywords

Introduction

Figure 1. Location Cianjur’s November 2022 earthquake zones.

Methods

Determining the eligibility of the respondents

Determining the number of respondents

(1)

Ethical considerations

Collecting the data

Analysis of the data

(2)

(3)

Table 1.

Correlation testing

(4)

(5)

(6)

Results

Table 2.

Figure 2. The extent of residential damage claimed by the respondents.

Discussion

Data availability

Underlying data

Extended data

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated