JDR Vol.14 No.9 pp. 1346-1352
doi: 10.20965/jdr.2019.p1346


Identifying Criteria for Designing Risk Communication System in Palu, Sulawesi, Indonesia

Juhri Selamet

Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado Boulder
1333 Grandview Avenue, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA

Corresponding author

June 17, 2019
October 4, 2019
December 1, 2019
earthquake, Indonesia, multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), risk communication, tsunami

The 2018 Sulawesi earthquake and tsunami in Indonesia signaled the failure of a risk communication system, causing Indonesia to be accused of mishandling the natural disaster. Many criticisms focused on allegations that the country’s meteorology and geophysics agency canceled the tsunami alert too early and misinformed public, that the sirens weren’t operable to warn local people, the tidal buoys did not work to send the tsunami signal, consequently, causing casualties. Improving the risk communication system raises the following question: what are the criteria for designing a risk communication system for areas in the disaster-prone zone? This paper employs multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) as a framework that is integrated with the combination of technical and cultural risk communication to provide such an answer. As for the findings, this study includes sixteen indicators that are distributed among nine criteria of a risk communication system within two types of measurement: qualitative and quantitative. It suggests that a risk communication system shall work better on a two-way process. Stakeholders’ and decision-makers’ involvement and public participation are required to make better decisions because it leads to better awareness of risks and greater acceptance of risk management strategies that are jointly agreed upon.

Cite this article as:
J. Selamet, “Identifying Criteria for Designing Risk Communication System in Palu, Sulawesi, Indonesia,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.14 No.9, pp. 1346-1352, 2019.
Data files:
  1. [1] R. Cox and P. C. Pezzullo, “Environmental communication and the public sphere,” 4th edition, SAGE Publications, Inc., 2016.
  2. [2] A. Muhari, F. Imamura, T. Arikawa, A. Hakim, and B. Afriyanto, “Solving the Puzzle of the September 2018 Palu, Indonesia, Tsunami Mystery: Clues from the Tsunami Waveform and the Initial Field Survey Data,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.13, Sci. Comm., sc20181108, 2018.
  3. [3] B. Wilkinson, CNN, “Indonesian government accused of mishandling tsunami warnings,” [accessed December 17, 2018]
  4. [4] BBC, “Indonesia earthquake and tsunami: How warning system failed the victims,” [accessed December 20, 2018]
  5. [5] SBS News, “Indonesia denies accusations it mishandled tsunami warnings,” [accessed December 17, 2018]
  6. [6] A. Singhvi, B. Saget, and J. C. Lee, “What Went Wrong With Indonesia’s Tsunami Early Warning System,” The New York Times, [accessed December 20, 2018]
  7. [7] “Indonesia’s geophysics agency under fire for lifting tsunami warning,” The Guardian World News, [accessed December 20, 2018]
  8. [8] D. B. Clark, “Why the Tsunami in Indonesia Struck Without Warning,” The New Yorker, [accessed December 20, 2018]
  9. [9] T. Folger, “Will Indonesia Be Ready for the Next Tsunami?,” National Geographic, [accessed December 18, 2018]
  10. [10] Associated Press, “Why Indonesia still lacks an adequate tsunami warning system,” The Telegraph, [accessed December 18, 2018]
  11. [11] G. Suroyo and F. Ungku, “No siren, no warning: Indonesians caught unawares by devastating tsunami,” Reuters, [accessed December 18, 2018]
  12. [12] J. Murjaya, “Tsunami Early Warning Service Guidebook for InaTEWS,” Badan Meteorologi, Klimatologi, dan Geofisika (BMKG), 2012.
  13. [13] “Trends in Risk Communication Policies and Practices,” Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), [accessed November 22, 2018]
  14. [14] P. Slovic, “Informing and educating the public about risk,” Risk Anal., Vol.6, No.4, pp. 403-415, 1986.
  15. [15] National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program, “About the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program (NTHMP),” [accessed December 17, 2018]
  16. [16] The United States Congress, “S.53 – Tsunami Warning, Education, and Research Act of 2017,” 115th Congress (2017–2018), [accessed November 22, 2018]
  17. [17] Badan Meteorologi, Klimatologi, dan Geofisika (BMKG), “Buku Pedoman Pelayanan Peringatan Dini Tsunami – Edisi Kedua,” 2012 (in Indonesian).
  18. [18] “Masterplan Pengurangan Risiko Bencana Tsunami - Indonesian National Board for Disaster Management-Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana,” Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana (BNPB), 2012 (in Indonesian).
  19. [19] G. Strunz et al., “Tsunami risk assessment in Indonesia,” Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, Vol.11, No.1, pp. 67-82, 2011.
  20. [20] “Awareness and Education Materials’ Guidebooks,” Indian Ocean Tsunami Information Center, UNESCO, [accessed November 22, 2018]
  21. [21] Performance, Risk and Social Science Office (PRSS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), “Risk Communication,” [accessed November 21, 2018]
  22. [22] J.-C. Gaillard et al., “Ethnic groups’ response to the 26 December 2004 earthquake and tsunami in Aceh, Indonesia,” Natural Hazards: J. of the Int. Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Vol.47, No.1, pp. 17-38, 2008.
  23. [23] Badan Pusat Statistik, “Kota Palu Dalam Angka 2016,” BPS Prov Sulawesi Tengah, 2016 (in Indonesian).
  24. [24] NASA Earth Observatory, “Earthquake in Sulawesi,” January 30, 2005, [accessed November 22, 2018]
  25. [25] F. Ungku and K. Kapoor, “Desperate Indonesians flee quake zone, with scale of disaster unclear,” Reuters, [accessed November 22, 2018]
  26. [26] “Tasks and Functions of BNPB,” Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana, [accessed January 17, 2019]
  27. [27] G. S. Taylor, “Anggaran Dipangkas Rp133 Miliar, BNPB Cukup-cukupkan Dana,” (in Indonesian) [accessed January 17, 2019]
  28. [28] A. T. de la Poterie and M.-A. Baudoin, “From Yokohama to Sendai: Approaches to Participation in International Disaster Risk Reduction Frameworks,” Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci., Vol.6, No.2, pp. 128-139, 2015.
  29. [29] N. Tromp and R. Baltussen, “Mapping of multiple criteria for priority setting of health interventions: an aid for decision makers,” BMC Health Services Research, Vol.12, No.1, Article No.454, 2012.
  30. [30] V. Fontana et al., “Comparing land-use alternatives: Using the ecosystem services concept to define a multi-criteria decision analysis,” Ecological Economics, Vol.93, pp. 128-136, 2013.
  31. [31] V. Belton and T. Stewart, “Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach,” Springer Science & Business Media, 2002.
  32. [32] G. Munda, “Social multi-criteria evaluation: Methodological foundations and operational consequences,” European J. of Operational Research, Vol.158, No.3, pp. 662-677, 2004.
  33. [33] J. Langemeyer, E. Gómez-Baggethun, D. Haase, S. Scheuer, and T. Elmqvist, “Bridging the gap between ecosystem service assessments and land-use planning through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA),” Environmental Science & Policy, Vol.62, pp. 45-56, 2016.
  34. [34] H. Saarikoski et al., “Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and Cost-Benefit Analysis: Comparing alternative frameworks for integrated valuation of ecosystem services,” Ecosystem Services, Vol.22, Part B, pp. 238-249, 2016.
  35. [35] M. C. Brondum, Z. A. Collier, C. S. Luke, B. L. Goatcher, and I. Linkov, “Selection of invasive wild pig countermeasures using multicriteria decision analysis,” Sci. Total Environ., Vol.574, pp. 1164-1173, 2017.
  36. [36] S. R. Veil, T. Buehner, and M. J. Palenchar, “A Work-In-Process Literature Review: Incorporating Social Media in Risk and Crisis Communication,” J. of Contingencies and Crisis Management, Vol.19, No.2, pp. 110-122, 2011.
  37. [37] A. Wiltshire, “Developing early warning systems: a checklist,” Proc. of 3rd Int. Conf. on Early Warning (EWC), pp. 27-19, 2016.
  38. [38] “Community Engagement and Accountability toolkit,” International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, [accessed November 23, 2018]
  39. [39] World Health Organization (WHO), “Communicating Risk in Public Health Emergencies,” A WHO guideline for emergency risk communication (ERC) policy and practice, 2017.
  40. [40] S. Hall et al., “Awareness of tsunami natural warning signs and intended evacuation behaviors in Java, Indonesia,” Natural Hazards, Vol.89, No.1, pp. 473-496, 2017.
  41. [41] B. Fischhoff and A. L. Davis, “Communicating scientific uncertainty,” Proc. of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), Vol.111, No.Supplement 4, pp. 13664-13671, 2014.
  42. [42] S. B. Holmgaard, “The role of religion in local perceptions of disasters: the case of post-tsunami religious and social change in Samoa,” Environmental Hazards, Vol.18, No.4, pp. 311-325, 2018.
  43. [43] H. Affan, “Gempa Palu: Antara ‘hukuman Tuhan’ dan penjelasan ilmu pengetahuan,” BBC News Indonesia, October 19, 2018 (in Indonesian).
  44. [44] Y. Cowan, E. O’Brien, and N. Rakotomalala-Rakotondrandria, “Community-based early warning systems: key practices for DRR implementers,” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2014.
  45. [45] J. S. Dodgson, M. Spackman, A. Pearman, and L. D. Phillips, “Multi-criteria analysis: a manual,” Department for Communities and Local Government, 2009.
  46. [46] N. Favretto et al., “Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to identify dryland ecosystem service trade-offs under different rangeland land uses,” Ecosystem Services, Vol.17, pp. 142-151, 2016.
  47. [47] J. Lahr and L. Kooistra, “Environmental risk mapping of pollutants: state of the art and communication aspects,” Sci. Total Environ., Vol.408, No.18, pp. 3899-3907, 2010.

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, Opera.

Last updated on Jul. 23, 2024