Sie können Operatoren mit Ihrer Suchanfrage kombinieren, um diese noch präziser einzugrenzen. Klicken Sie auf den Suchoperator, um eine Erklärung seiner Funktionsweise anzuzeigen.
Findet Dokumente, in denen beide Begriffe in beliebiger Reihenfolge innerhalb von maximal n Worten zueinander stehen. Empfehlung: Wählen Sie zwischen 15 und 30 als maximale Wortanzahl (z.B. NEAR(hybrid, antrieb, 20)).
Findet Dokumente, in denen der Begriff in Wortvarianten vorkommt, wobei diese VOR, HINTER oder VOR und HINTER dem Suchbegriff anschließen können (z.B., leichtbau*, *leichtbau, *leichtbau*).
Der Artikel geht auf die Umsetzung des Destana-Rahmenwerks zur Bewertung der Widerstandsfähigkeit von Gemeinschaften auf der Insel Ternate, Indonesien, ein. Darin werden die wichtigsten Variablen und Parameter untersucht, die zur Resilienz beitragen, darunter Qualität und Zugang zu grundlegenden Dienstleistungen, Katastrophenmanagementsysteme, Maßnahmen zur Risikominderung, Notfallvorsorge und Vorsorge für den Wiederaufbau. Die Studie zeigt, dass einige Dörfer zwar erhebliche Fortschritte bei der Katastrophenvorsorge und der Beteiligung der Gemeinden gemacht haben, aber vielen noch immer an umfassenden Katastrophenmanagementplänen und Wiederaufbaustrategien fehlen. Die Ergebnisse unterstreichen die Notwendigkeit verbesserter rechtlicher Rahmenbedingungen, der Einbeziehung der Gemeinden und externer Unterstützung, um die Widerstandsfähigkeit der Dörfer zu stärken. Der Artikel schließt mit der Betonung der Bedeutung kontinuierlicher Bemühungen beim Aufbau widerstandsfähiger Gemeinschaften und schlägt weitere Bewertungen zur Bewertung regionaler Widerstandskapazitäten vor.
KI-Generiert
Diese Zusammenfassung des Fachinhalts wurde mit Hilfe von KI generiert.
Abstract
The Indonesia Disaster Village Resilience (Destana) Program has five primary objectives, one of which is to systematically conduct disaster risk assessments. This objective involves evaluating hazards, vulnerabilities, capacities, and risks through the community’s participation for the benefit of those same communities. It has been integrated and formalized within local governance structures. Nevertheless, there is a notable lack of systematic research regarding the adoption and utilization of the standard in guiding and structuring community-driven disaster and climate risk assessments. This study is one of the first systematic efforts to adopt the ‘Destana Standard’ as a ‘formal resilience measure’ to assess risk and vulnerability at the village level. The research conducted surveyed 60 villages in the small but densely populated Ternate Island, Eastern Indonesia. The findings identify parameters that highlight strengths and weaknesses in building resilience among villages, such as access to basic services, disaster management systems, risk reduction actions, and emergency and recovery preparedness. The findings also indicate that the ‘Destana Standard’ can serve as an index to develop village resilience. The research contributes to highlighting gaps and opportunities for the village resilience measure and offers a reflection on how to complement existing risk assessment for improving village resilience and strengthening the capacity of local governments to deal with mitigation and adaptation effectively to achieve the target of the Sustainable Development Goals, in particular the targets 11 (sustainable cities and communities) and 13 (climate action).
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Introduction
The Indonesian government has formally committed to reducing disaster risk as a response to the fact that Indonesia is a country prone to geological and climatological hazard-induced disasters (Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana, 2023). Furthermore, Indonesia’s commitment to implementing the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) across national, provincial, district, and village levels is expected to help reduce fatalities from disasters, lower the number of affected individuals, minimize economic losses and damage to essential infrastructure, and significantly lessen interruptions to basic services such as health and education facilities (Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana, 2018). Additionally, it seeks to enhance community access to multi-hazard early warning systems and disaster risk information and assessments (Hadi, 2020). At the sub-national levels, the progress includes establishing structures of local disaster management offices in more than 500 districts and cities, followed by obligations for the sub-national governments to ensure minimum quality service standards are in place (Cook et al., 2025).
Since 2012, the National Disaster Management Authority (BNPB) has implemented a program at the community level called Destana, or Disaster Resilience Village (DRV). The Destana serves as a policy framework and tool that directs community-based risk management initiatives, ensuring that communities are active participants in the processes of reviewing, analyzing, managing, monitoring, and evaluating disaster risk reduction efforts in their localities by optimizing available local assets (Badan Nasional Penaggulangan Bencana, 2012; Badan Standarisasi Nasional, 2017). The Destana program was established based on the Regulation of the Head of the National Disaster Management Agency Number 1/2012, namely, the General Guidelines for Disaster Resilient Villages (Badan Nasional Penaggulangan Bencana, 2012). Destana seeks to reduce disaster risk at the village level, considering the high incidence of disaster victims in Indonesia. These villages are expected to identify regional disasters and efficiently mobilize community resources to reduce vulnerability and improve capacity in managing disaster risks (Muryani et al., 2021).
Anzeige
Destana has developed a conceptual and institutional framework suitable for the assessment, planning, and institutionalization of community-based disaster risk reduction agendas. Destana operates under the premise that villages, as both a governance unit and a community, possess the capacity to independently adapt to and address potential losses and damages, as well as to recover rapidly from the negative impacts of disasters induced by natural hazards and extreme climate events (Fadhilah et al., 2022; Ningtyas et al., 2021). The objectives of Destana framework include: 1) To protect communities living in disaster-prone areas from the negative impacts of disasters; 2) To increase community participation, especially among vulnerable groups, in resource management to reduce disaster risk; 3) To enhance community institutional capacity in resource management and maintain local wisdom for disaster risk reduction; 4) To strengthen government capacity in providing resources and technical support for disaster risk reduction; 5) To foster cooperation between stakeholders in disaster risk reduction, including local governments, the private sector, universities, NGOs, community organizations, and other related groups (Deasy et al., 2023).
The initial operational guidelines, created in 2017, were formulated by the National Standardization Agency (BSN) to assist subnational governments in preparing for Destana implementation (Badan Standarisasi Nasional, 2020). Despite its best intentions, one of the complexities lies in adapting to the diverse geographical and demographic characteristics of both large and small islands throughout the nation, encompassing coastal areas and the 6,000 inhabited islands. The Destana assessment was created to offer detailed insights into the resilience levels within a specific local context. The Destana framework pertains to the international resilient community framework established by the Hyogo Framework for Action. For example, the Destana framework encompasses governance, risk assessment, enhancement of disaster knowledge and education, risk management and vulnerability reduction, and elements of disaster preparedness and response. Based on Destana assessment, targeted recommendations and policy strategies are proposed to improve regional resilience and contribute to risk reduction and adaptation (Deasy et al., 2023; Dewa et al., 2023).
Currently, there need to be systematic efforts to implement the Destana framework as a tool for risk and vulnerability assessment in community resilience evaluations. Given the limited body of peer-reviewed research on this topic, this study presents a systematic approach to integrating the Destana framework into resilience assessments. The Destana framework is translated into a Village Resilience Index to provide detailed insights into resilience levels within specific local contexts. This paper explores the question of how the parameters from Destana can be adopted into a tool that can be used to measure community resilience to natural and climate-related hazards at the village level in the context of a small island population.
This study focuses on Ternate, a small volcanic island, with the objectives of 1) turning the Destana framework to understand village resilience in multiple communities, 2) assessing village resilience level using this community resilience index tool, and 3) identifying parameters that highlight strengths and weaknesses in building resilience among villages. This study is expected to contribute to providing significant insights into how communities and villages contribute to strengthening their resilience capacity. By offering formal methodological insights, this study supports local decision-makers in understanding the relative levels of community resilience in a small island 0governance. It enables them to identify vulnerable areas within community systems that require targeted interventions, particularly in small island and coastal settings. Ultimately, the study aims to assist local governments in effectively formulating mitigation and adaptation policies to foster resilient communities.
Anzeige
Variables and Parameters of Destana Framework
Village or community resilience can be interpreted as the ability of the system, including the community, to prepare and prevent, absorb, respond to, and recover from various hazards while causing minimal losses to public safety, the economy, and regional security (Agustianingsih et al., 2023). The fundamental concept of Destana revolves around empowering the community and enhancing the function of village governance by leveraging local knowledge, enabling the community to achieve independence in managing disasters at the village level (Deasy et al., 2023). Therefore, community participation, encouraged by the local government as a key aspect of community readiness, holds significant importance within Destana framework (Arifin et al., 2021).
Destana variables and parameters (Table 1) provide a framework for analyzing community disaster resilience and can identify components that boost or diminish resilience. However, the author suggests assessing this framework to incorporate local perceptions into risk and vulnerability assessment. This allows us to comprehend community characteristics, community involvement in disaster management, and resilience strengthening.
Table 1
Variables and parameters of Destana framework
Variables
No
Parameters
Quality and Access to Basic Services
(9 parameters)
1
Education
2
Health
3
Transportation
4
Public facilities
5
Information services
6
Good governance
7
Environmental protection
8
Culture and spiritual activity
9
Safety and security
Basic of Disaster Management System
(7 parameters)
10
DRR Policy support at the village level
11
Disaster regulation in an area
12
Existence of village risk assessment measures
13
Disaster Management plan
14
External support and networks
15
Mutual Assistance with neighbouring village
16
DRR Forum
Risk Reduction Actions
(2 parameters)
17
Integrated action in DRR
18
Capacity development
Emergency Preparedness
(8 parameters)
19
Early detection of disasters
20
Access to warning
21
Warning dissemination system
22
Community evacuation maps
23
Evacuation measures (Sites)
24
Evacuation measures (signs and routes)
25
Drills and simulation
26
Village disaster volunteers
Recovery Preparedness
(2 parameters)
27
Damage & Loss for Early Recovery
28
Existence of Village recovery planning
Quality and Access to Basic Services
Quality and access to basic services are essential parameters in community resilience. Basic services include educational facilities, health, transportation, information systems, and public services such as electricity, drinking water, markets, fields, recreational parks, etc. (Lessy et al., 2026). Other services include environmental protection and management programs in the community, as well as support and protection provided by the village government to carry out cultural and spiritual activities and community security programs.
Education equips individuals and communities with the tools to understand, interpret, and respond to challenges (Rico, 2019). In the context of facing disasters, education can act as a foundation for communities to build resilience, instill a sense of preparedness, foster a culture of proactive response, and catalyze community development efforts (Fu & Zhang, 2024). Extensive knowledge and understanding of disaster risk reduction is a good predictor of the capacity to reduce disaster losses and increase resilience (Amri et al., 2017).
Moreover, the availability of health services for accessing psychosocial support, healthcare, childcare, adult education and training, social assistance, and recreational facilities is crucial for community resilience. These services significantly contribute to the effectiveness of medical responses to disasters, whether they arise from natural events or human actions (Alshehri et al., 2015; Burton, 2015). Communities that possess a greater number of health workers and robust health infrastructure are likely to exhibit enhanced levels of disaster resilience (Abramson et al., 2015; Al Rifat & Liu, 2020). Similarly, communities that have enhanced access to information systems, communication networks, transportation, and essential life-support systems (such as electricity, clean water, air, critical infrastructures, and commerce) will exhibit improved preparedness and response capabilities before and during disasters (Al Rifat & Liu, 2020; Aldrich & Meyer, 2014; Alshehri et al., 2015; Gillespie-Marthaler et al., 2019). Furthermore, the availability of services and support for implementing cultural and spiritual activities at the village level is essential. Against community security, protection services are included. The effectiveness of this service can be enhanced by the presence of social and religious organizations within the community. According to Aldrich and Meyer (2014), Aldunce et al. (2016), and Al Rifat and Liu (2020) social and religious organizations can be sources of social capital of the community as they facilitate connections among communities, thereby increasing their resilience to disasters.
Basic of Disaster Management System
The variables of a basic disaster management system encompass the presence of policies that facilitate disaster risk management within the village, the execution of disaster risk assessments, and the possible effects of climate change. The presence of a village disaster management plan is crucial within the broader context of the planning process. It is essential to have external institutional support for disaster risk management, ensuring that disaster management plans are aligned with climate change adaptation efforts across villages. Moreover, effective engagement in the village disaster risk management forum is crucial for the successful execution of village development plans.
Disaster management policies, hazard mitigation, planning, and disaster preparedness represent essential elements of institutional resilience (Béné et al., 2016; Burton, 2015). These policies adopt a proactive and anticipatory approach, emphasizing risk assessment, prevention, mitigation, and preparedness to enhance resilience (Danish et al., 2023). Disaster regulations can structure projects and programs aimed at reducing risk from natural hazards (Venkateswaran & MacClune, 2020).
Integrating disaster risk reduction policies into the overall development plan is a part of systematic disaster risk governance to anticipate and adapt to risks (Abenir et al., 2022). While, in Indonesia, disaster regulations often emphasize more on disaster response by enhancing the capacity of communities in disaster-prone regions (Ayuningtyas et al., 2021; Yuniarti et al., 2024). Moreover, a productive disaster management system should be collaboratively nurtured where every stakeholder engages, performs actions, and comprehends the interconnections to attain the desired outcomes (Keating, 2020; Yuniarti et al., 2024). NGOs, for instance, can play several DRR roles under the Sendai Framework, including promoting private sector investment, facilitating risk assessments that involve marginalized groups such as individuals with disabilities, and enhancing local capacity to monitor disaster risks. Encouraging cooperation among global and regional institutions for the execution of disaster risk reduction (Lassa, 2018).
Risk Reduction Actions
The Destana framework also emphasizes the disaster risk reduction action. These action parameters focus on actions to reduce losses due to disasters involving surrounding villages and developing community capacity through training, socialization, or dissemination activities (Suryotomo et al., 2019). An effective disaster risk reduction system requires an understanding of root causes of risk at all levels to formulate accurate disaster risk reduction intervention programs (Adiyoso & Kanegae, 2018). This attribute builds the resilience of communities that are geographically, politically, or affinity bound to strengthen their vulnerability to disasters and mitigate traumatic events (Abramson et al., 2015).
A better understanding of potential disasters through training, socialization, or information sharing strengthens community capacity and contributes to reducing vulnerability (Aka et al., 2017). Disaster education for vulnerable communities aims to provide knowledge, skills, and motivation to individuals and groups to take action to reduce their vulnerability to disasters (Torani et al., 2019). Information capital can connect affected communities with external resources, such as humanitarian assistance for disaster response, strengthening the resilience of communities to face crisis (Ayuningtyas et al., 2021).
Emergency Preparedness
Destana framework variables related to emergency response preparedness involve the availability of emergency response tools, drills and simulations, and disaster response volunteers. Emergency response tools, including the presence of an early warning system, mechanisms for receiving and disseminating early warnings, evacuation orders, established evacuation plans, designated evacuation sites, and relevant symbols and signs for evacuation. Chen et al. (2022) reviewed that the presence of an early warning system and evacuation signs significantly aid individuals in finding a safe location during evacuation. Meanwhile, Suryotomo et al. (2019) added that community evacuation requires comprehensive evacuation planning with the support of evacuation maps, evacuation signs and routes, and temporary evacuation sites. Thus, the dissemination of these disaster preparedness attributes is essential for effectively mitigating hazard risks to all residents (Anasco et al., 2021).
Strengthening community capacity through regular disaster preparedness exercises and simulations should be imperative. Evacuation exercises for disaster preparedness serve to practice evacuations from risk areas through planned scenarios replicating actual hazardous situations (Chen et al., 2022). These exercises offer participants field-based learning experiences that enhance community preparedness for future disaster responses (Zavar & Nelan, 2020). Village disaster response volunteers are a vital parameter to adequately manage local emergencies (Suryotomo et al., 2019). In emergency situations, the presence of local volunteers is crucial as they are the first to be on the ground. They are assigned specific roles, including identifying safe locations, assisting individuals in evacuating affected areas, and providing first aid to those in need (Anand et al., 2023).
Recovery Preparedness
Recovery refers to the process of restoring communities, environments, and public services impacted by a disaster through rehabilitation (Suryotomo et al., 2019). Disaster recovery planning represents one of the four traditional phases of emergency management, focusing on future resilience and the assessment of rebuilding and land use modifications (Meyer et al., 2024). Disaster recovery necessitates a coordinated and cooperative effort among all stakeholders, as the reconstruction of critical infrastructure stands out as one of the most complex and challenging elements for recovery planners due to the aftermath of a disaster posing considerable challenges for numerous nations, necessitating substantial funding, cutting-edge technology, and sufficient resources (Alexander, 2015). Therefore, it is essential to document knowledge and lessons learned from disaster recovery to mitigate losses in future disasters (Chan et al., 2019). The disaster recovery plan document may function as an independent entity, a segment of an emergency operations plan, or an element of a localized recovery plan (Berke et al., 2015). In short, a comprehensive approach to stakeholder collaboration is essential for developing a more effective and efficient recovery plan (Meyer et al., 2024).
Methodology
Study Location
This study was based on a survey in 60 villages on Ternate Island, North Maluku Province, Indonesia (Fig. 1), involving the community and the village government representatives. The villages are divided into five sub-districts: North Ternate Sub-district includes 14 villages, Central Ternate Sub-district includes 16 villages, South Ternate Sub-district includes 17 villages, West Ternate Sub-district includes 7 villages, and Ternate Island Sub-district includes 6 villages.
Ternate Island covers an area of 98.67 km² and exhibiting a population density of 2,033 individuals per km². The geological and geographical conditions of the area are detrimental, rendering it highly vulnerable to natural hazards (Lessy et al., 2024). Research notes from various experts indicate that Ternate Island has experienced several disasters, including a tsunami in 1859 and 1994 (Yudhicara & Lukman, 2024), earthquake since 1858 (Sulaeman & Cipta, 2012), coastal abrasion during 2010 - 2012 (Angkotasan et al., 2012; Lessy & Abdullah, 2021), volcanic eruption since 1510 (Hidayat et al., 2022), flash flood in 2011,2012, and 2024 (Nagu et al., 2025), landslides in 2009 (Ikqra et al., 2012), and extreme weather in 2021 (Sabrina et al., 2021). These disasters interact to generate multi-hazard events (Lessy et al., 2024).
Questionnaire and Respondents
This study applied a qualitative and quantitative approach by utilizing primary data collected through village surveys using semi-structured interviews. Semi-structured interviews were chosen to explore the topic thoroughly and gather detailed insights from informants about the condition of village communities and the readiness of local governments to improve disaster resilience. This study involved 60 respondents (heads of the villages and staff offices).
The questionnaire designed to evaluate community resilience level at the village level includes 5 variables and 28 parameters. Every indicator consists of 4 questions. The first question outlines the initiatives that the village has implemented for each indicator; the second question specifies the expected results or achievements for each indicator; the third question clarifies the function of the achievement; and the fourth question assesses whether there has been a significant change in the functioning of the achievement.
The participants were purposefully selected from village offices. Each village nominated one respondent. Each head of the village assigned one respondent (can be himself/herself) to participate in the study. To ensure the reliability of the research findings, criteria provided by the researchers to the village include possessing authority, expertise, and accountability in their specific fields, comprehending the disaster context in their locality, and being available to participate in the interview by signing a consent form.
Data Collection Procedures and Analysis
The procedure for collecting data for the disaster-resilient village assessment involved face-to-face interviews conducted by the principal investigator in the local language, aiming to reduce interviewer variability as a possible source of error in data collection. Before the interview, a written consent form was provided to ensure and confirm that each participant was aware their involvement in the study was voluntary. Participants were made aware that they had the option to withdraw at any moment without any concern for repercussions. Participants were requested to respond to questions on the questionnaire form to evaluate village resilience to disasters and pinpoint local hazards. Participants had the chance to respond to questions and offer suggestions for enhancing disaster resilience. The interview process took approximately 30 to 45 minutes.
Content analysis was utilized to gather narratives about what each community possesses and their involvement, as well as what the village government is doing to build up resilience to natural hazards and climate change based on Destana variables and parameters. For content analysis, NVivo 12 software was used and validation mechanisms such as triangulation and cross-verification among villages were used to enhance data reliability (Edwards-Jones, 2014). Moreover, in qualitative approach, we calculate respondents’ answers to determine the resilience index. Responses were provided with “yes” represented as 1 and “no” as 0. The overall score for each question will be calculated based on the formula:
The score of each variable is then calculated as a percentage to obtain the classification of the Destana index category. Three groups based on the assessment scores obtained: Pratama/beginner ( < 35), Madya/intermediate (35 – 50), and Utama/advanced ( > 50).
Results
Respondent’s Response toDestanaVariables and Parameters
Content analysis results permit systematic coding and pattern identification of respondents’ responses. The following paragraphs describe the analysis results narratively based on Destana variables. The content analysis result with NVivo triangulation pattern for each variable is shown in the supplementary material.
Quality and access to basic services
All respondents affirmed the existence of both formal and non-formal educational facilities in every village. Formal educational institutions comprise kindergartens in 45 villages, elementary schools in 52 villages, junior high schools in 21 villages, senior high schools in 18 villages, as well as diploma programs and universities in three sub-districts. Non-formal educational institutions include art studios, Qur’an study venues, and various courses. Seventy percent of respondents, representing 42 villages, have implemented programs aimed at strengthening educational facilities. Additionally, fifty-eight percent (58%) of respondents are engaged in evaluation and participation initiatives to enhance these facilities. Furthermore, in response to inquiries regarding health facility availability, all participants reported the existence of 159 maternity and child service posts across each village, 8 community health centers in all sub-districts, and 7 hospitals distributed among three sub-districts. A total of 22 pharmacies is distributed across 18 villages. Ternate City is served by 37 doctors, including specialists, general practitioners, and dentists, alongside 326 midwives. Seventy percent (70%) of respondents have implemented the evaluation and improvement program for health services.
Furthermore, all respondents indicated that road and bridge access for land transportation is in good condition and accessible in all villages. This enables individuals to utilize both public and private transportation alternatives. Seven out of sixty village heads reported that they regularly collaborate with the public works department to monitor road conditions and recommend repairs when damage occurs. Moreover, sea transportation is readily available, particularly in coastal villages. Sea transportation encompasses fishing boats, ships, and ferries that facilitate connections between villages and islands.
Regarding public facilities, all participants acknowledged the presence of adequate public facilities in the village. These facilities encompass places of worship, fields, parks, markets, and village halls. Regarding the enhancement of public facilities, 68% of participants (41 out of 60) have undertaken initiatives to strengthen these infrastructures for resilience, 45% (27 out of 60) have participated in efforts to reinforce the facilities, and 23% (14 out of 60) have submitted proposals to the government aimed at improving the quality of these services. Furthermore, all respondents reported that their villages have access to electricity and internet services, indicating the presence of information systems. Most individuals possess communication devices such as mobile phones, televisions, and radios, which improve access to information and strengthen community connections. Seventy-one percent of participants (43 out of 60) recognized their role in the development of information system programs, whereas 30% (18 participants) indicated their involvement in the evaluation of these systems. Furthermore, 27% of respondents (17 participants) proposed improvements to information systems.
In the implementation of good governance practices, a significant majority of participants (59 out of 60) recognized the objective of improving human resource quality, whereas 23 out of 60 villages participated in evaluations and advocacy initiatives focused on governance enhancement in collaboration with local governments. Furthermore, regarding environmental protection, all participants reported involvement in actions pertaining to environmental management, including practices related to waste management. Seventeen villages have initiated reforestation and land resource conservation efforts. Out of 60 villages, 18 have successfully implemented infiltration wells, and 17 have established rainwater harvesting systems, enabling their utilization at any time.
All respondents confirmed that the village plays a role in safeguarding and facilitating community cultural and spiritual activities by providing protection and support for these initiatives. Half of the respondents, precisely 50%, are actively pursuing increased support for community cultural and spiritual activities, whereas 33% are advocating for local government assistance for these initiatives. The activities include the performance of traditional ceremonies, participation in community religious practices, and the advancement of a culture focused on mutual cooperation. In the realm of community security, all stakeholders have collaborated with law enforcement and military personnel to guarantee the safety of the community.
Basic disaster management system
In response to enquiries about the presence of a disaster risk management policy in the village, only 42% of participants affirmed its existence, as evidenced by regulations or decrees from the village head. Furthermore, 28% of participants reported that the policy promotes improved efforts to reduce disaster risk. Regarding collaborative agreements with adjacent villages for disaster risk management, 5% of respondents reported having established partnerships with neighboring villages, which were effective in reducing disaster risk among the communities. An investigation into the village has revealed disaster-prone areas, with 93% of respondents acknowledging awareness of potential disaster sites. Only 27% of villages have performed an assessment of the potential impacts of disasters and have used this assessment as a basis for formulating village development plans. In relation to the disaster management plan documents, 6% of participants currently have a disaster management plan that is incorporated as a strategic component of the village development plan. This document aligns with the disaster management plan of adjacent villages.
Regarding support and networking with external parties, 37 out of 60 villages have engaged in collaboration with diverse entities, such as the private sector, NGOs, and universities, underscoring the significance of inter-organizational support and networking. The partnership has resulted in an increased budget for activities and actions focused on disaster risk reduction in 24 villages. Furthermore, 10% of participants (10 villages) reported the existence of a village-level disaster risk reduction forum supported by local policies. This forum involves all pertinent stakeholders and undergoes an annual assessment.
Risk reduction actions
Risk reduction action includes examining the primary causes of losses from various disasters and the measures implemented to mitigate these losses. The result found that 85% (51 village) representatives possessed knowledge of the causes of disaster-related losses, where 47% (28 villages) have undertaken actions to address these causes, and 28% (17 villages) initiatives involve collaboration with adjacent villages. Implementing these actions can substantially reduce the likelihood of disaster.
Additionally, regarding capacity enhancement via training, socialization, and disaster education, 55% (33 out of 60) respondents acknowledged the implementation of these measures, equipping them with essential knowledge and skills for disaster preparedness. Simultaneously, 43% (26 villages) have implemented this knowledge and these skills in their daily activities.
Emergency preparedness
In response to the enquiry regarding the presence of a community group in the village tasked with identifying potential disaster threats, 35% (21 out of 60) of the villages reported that such a group exists and is authorized to disseminate information concerning potential disasters. The community may contact this team at any time. Meanwhile, regarding access to early warning systems, 29 respondents confirmed that the danger warnings issued by the government are available to the community. The village’s warning system conveys this alert to the community. Furthermore, 33 villages have implemented a system for disseminating evacuation information that guarantees accessibility for all communities, including individuals with disabilities and other at-risk populations.
Of the 60 villages, 27 reported having a community evacuation plan map. This resource can be utilized by the community to conduct simulations and implement evacuations during a disaster in the village. Seventeen of sixty villages reported endorsement of the evacuation plan map in alignment with village policies. In the context of temporary evacuation locations, 22 villages have provided them, and 14 villages confirmed that these sites were used in simulations and the execution of evacuations during disaster scenarios. Eleven villagers acknowledged that the temporary evacuation site was equipped with facilities and infrastructure that met minimum standards. This minimum standards refer to meeting the technical and normative criteria used, referring to national guidelines and best international practices, including safety from further risk, environmental friendliness, local cultural appropriateness, access to services, and climate appropriateness (Palang Merah Indonesia, 2019). Furthermore, regarding evacuation signs and routes, 36 villages reported the establishment of such signs and routes, with 20 villages employing them for simulations and the implementation of evacuations during disasters. Additionally, 14 villages indicated that these measures had been codified in local policies.
Additionally, 60% of respondents reported participation in disaster preparedness training (simulation) organized by their community, with nearly half (36 out of 60) noting that all stakeholders were involved and actively engaged in these activities. Simultaneously, only 14 villages reported that this training occurred in conjunction with neighboring villages. Seventeen villages reported the establishment of disaster volunteer groups within their communities, indicating that they possess the requisite skills to provide first aid during emergencies. Unfortunately, merely 12 villages participated in ongoing volunteer training programs.
Recovery preparedness
All respondents recognized the lack of a mechanism for independently evaluating post-disaster damage and losses to housing, transportation facilities, and other infrastructure when questioned about recovery preparedness. All respondents similarly indicated a deficiency in a sustainable village recovery plan.
Disaster Resilience Village Index
The analysis of the Destana index across sixty villages in five sub-districts indicates that 20% of the villages (12 out of 60) are classified as advanced, 18% (11 out of 60) as intermediate, and 62% (37 out of 60) as beginners. The calculation results for each Destana score derived from variables across the villages in the study location are shown on Fig. 2, and a map of Destana index categories for all villages is shown on Fig. 3.
In the North Ternate sub-district, the findings reveal that the score for the quality and access to basic services variable ranges from 39.5% to 81.6%, with Sango and Dufa-Dufa villages showing the highest scores. The disaster management system variable ranges from 0 to 37.9%, with Kasturian village exhibiting the highest value. The score range for risk reduction actions is from 0% to 100%, with Dufa-Dufa village achieving the highest score. The variable for emergency preparedness ranges from 2.7% to 100%, with Tubo village displaying the highest score. The recovery preparedness variable records a score of zero in all villages. According to the Destana categories, the North Ternate sub-district indicates that 71% (10 of 14 villages) are classified as beginner level, whereas 29% (4 of 14 villages) are categorized as intermediate level.
Regarding the Central Ternate sub-district, the quality and access to basic services variable score ranges from 34.2% to 86.8%, with the highest score observed in Marikurubu village. The score for the basic disaster management system varies from 0 to 51.7%, with Marikurubu village achieving a notably high score. The variable score for risk reduction actions ranges from 0.0% to 100%, with Marikurubu and Moya villages exhibiting high scores. The emergency preparedness variable ranges from 0.0% to 73.0%, with the highest score recorded in Maliaro village. All villages in this sub-district received a score of zero in the recovery preparedness variable. In summary, the village resilience index classification reveals that 81% (13 of 16 villages) fall within the beginner category, while 1 village is categorized as intermediate and 2 villages as advanced.
In the South Ternate sub-district, the quality and access to basic services show a variable score range of 47.4% to 94.7%, with the highest scores recorded in Bastiong Talangame and Fitu villages. The disaster management system variable ranged from 3.4% to 65.5%, with Kayu Merah village achieving the highest score. The risk reduction actions variable exhibits a score range from 0.0% to 100%, with Bastiong Karance and Toboko villages showing higher scores. The emergency preparedness variable ranged from 0.0% to 97.3%, with Gambesi village achieving a very high score. Meanwhile, the recovery preparedness variable registered a score of zero across all villages. The village resilience index for this sub-district shows that 64% (11 of 17 villages) fall within the beginner category, 17% (3 of 17 villages) are classified as intermediate, and 3 villages are categorized as advanced.
The West Ternate sub-district reported that the quality and access to basic services variable score ranged from 57.9% to 89.5%, with Loto and Takome villages achieving the highest scores. The variable for the disaster management system ranges from 6.9% to 34.5% in Loto and Takome villages, indicating a high score. The variable for risk reduction actions ranges from 50.0% to 100%, with Bula, Kulaba, Sulamadaha, and Togafo villages achieving the highest scores. The emergency preparedness variable ranged from 37.8% to 91.9%, with Takome village achieving a notably high score. Additionally, the recovery preparedness variable was not recorded in every village. The village resilience index in this sub-district is classified as 72% (5 out of 7 villages) are classified as advanced; 1 village is categorized as beginner, and another village is designated as intermediate level.
The Pulau Ternate sub-district exhibits a range score for the quality and access to basic services variable between 68.4% and 92.1%, with Rua and Afe-Taduma villages achieving high scores. The disaster management system variable exhibited scores ranging from 10.3% to 27.6%, with Afe-Taduma village achieving the highest score. The score for risk reduction actions varies from 0.0% to 87.50%, with the highest score observed in Rua and Afe-Taduma villages. The emergency preparedness variable ranged from 0.0% to 97.3%, with Jambula village exhibiting the highest score. The recovery preparedness variable was consistently recorded as zero in all villages. In the sub-district, the resilience index categories 33.3% (2 out of 6) as advanced villages. 33.3% (2 villages) are classified as beginner level, while 33.3% (2 villages) are classified as intermediate level.
Discussion
Building community resilience is incremental and yet must be a continuous effort involving proactive local governments to lead/facilitate/invest and communities to participate in it (Abramson et al., 2015; Ashmawy, 2021). The resilience concept emphasizes the ability of communities to enhance their preparedness and address their susceptibility to disasters (Elysia & Wihadanto, 2018; Fadhilah et al., 2022). Therefore, community disaster preparedness might lead to the formal resilience of the villages. This study identified variables and parameters that strengthen and require improvement by village and local governments in building village resilience in the study area.
The Destana assessment tool aims to evaluate directed village apparatuses and village institutions’ capacity to manage disasters (Arifin et al., 2021; Fajria et al., 2023; Hermawan & Pramono, 2021). Consequently, prioritizing the enhancement of the variables is essential. Unfortunately, our study revealed that the basic disaster management system variable score was 19%, indicating that the parameters in this variable required strengthening by the village and local government. Deasy et al. (2023) noted that villages resilient to disasters necessitate a legal basis regarding disaster risk reduction, manifested through village regulations and/or village head decree. The emphasis on the importance of available legal sources aligns with findings by Hermawan and Pramono (2021), indicating that the implementation of the disaster-resilient village program in Tinjomoyo Village, Semarang City, has not reached its full potential due to the absence of a legal framework for establishing a disaster village program. Additionally, the institutional framework of disaster-resilient villages necessitates the formulation of village regulations and disaster risk reduction documents to assess hazard threats and vulnerabilities (Hariani et al., 2022). These documents represent a systematic and practical method for identifying, assessing, and mitigating risks associated with disaster events; nonetheless, they remain mostly unavailable in almost all villages.
The findings of this study indicate that the establishment of disaster risk reduction forums and support from external institutions at the village level remains constrained. In fact, creating a forum for disaster risk reduction at the village level, which includes all stakeholders, is subsequently outlined in the village regulations (Deasy et al., 2023; Dewa et al., 2023; Fajria et al., 2023). In line with previous research, Dewa et al. (2023) noted that Panusupan Village in the Banyumas region has emerged as a successful case study, demonstrating the community’s active involvement in disaster risk reduction, the development of disaster response strategies, and the establishment of a forum for discussions and preparedness teams related to disaster risk reduction. Conversely, Danar et al. (2021) highlighted the shortcomings of the local government in achieving community resilience due to insufficient community involvement and limited support from the private sector. Similarly, Budiman et al. (2024) stated that the formation of a disaster preparedness team in Central Lombok Regency was constrained by the number of personnel, lack of equipment and supporting infrastructure.
Quality and access to basic services are predictors of resilience. The local government has provided a range of facilities and services, such as education, health care, transportation, and information systems, as well as public services, such as electricity, drinking water, markets, recreational parks, and more. Sufficient educational facilities create beneficial environments for both teachers and students to enhance education in disaster preparedness and promote collaboration and knowledge sharing (Fu & Zhang, 2024). Community health facilities are crucial in bolstering community resilience in the health field (Fortnam et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2022). Health resource, staff allocation, and infrastructure type/density contribute to regional resilience (Liu et al., 2022). Furthermore, the availability of both transport systems and information systems is crucial for effective disaster preparedness and resilience. Transportation networks serve as the crucial infrastructure in disaster operations, encompassing pre-disaster, emergency response, and post-disaster phases, as well as in fostering community resilience (Aghababaei et al., 2021; Cimellaro et al., 2021). Access to information regarding emergencies and disasters significantly aids communities in their preparation efforts prior to a disaster. Information access facilitates the transfer of knowledge and experience between grassroots communities and stakeholders in disaster response (Ahangama & Prasanna, 2021) (Aldrich & Meyer, 2014).
Moreover, the presence of public services like electricity, drinking water, markets, recreational parks, and essential services related to environmental protection and management within the community, along with support for cultural and spiritual activities and community security programs, are elements that enhance resilience (Rose & Krausmann, 2013). Communities with more equitable resources and diverse economic stability are better equipped to endure the impacts of disasters. As stated by Abenayake et al. (2018), effective environmental protection practices create indicators for the resilience of ecological systems to protect communities from hazards. Paripurno et al. (2024) stated that villages that comprehend their physical landscape and carrying capacity of local environment are more likely to engage in DRR.
Training, education, and socialization activities are crucial in enhancing community awareness and skills, as well as promoting effective disaster risk reduction (Heksama et al., 2018). As carried out in the Destana program in Bojonegoro Regency since 2017, socialization was provided to locals and Destana coordinators in each village to encourage residents to consider disaster risk information in their community. These activities improve community knowledge and abilities (Ningtyas et al., 2021). Respondents at the study site, however, claimed that awareness campaign, drill, and training were conducted incidentally. Disaster drills and the integration of disaster education into school curriculum help communities in Japan become more resilient to disasters (Abdulharis et al., 2022).
Furthermore, this finding shows that the emergency response preparedness variable at the study location is 39% (all island average). 36 (out of 60) villages reported having evacuation plan maps, evacuation signs, symbols and temporary shelters. Unfortunately, these evacuation facilities are only applicable in the event of a tsunami or volcanic eruption; they are not presently available for other disaster types. In fact, according to Lessy et al. (2024), Ternate Island may be vulnerable to a variety of geological and hydrometeorological risks. Therefore, emergency response preparedness variable and its parameters in the context of disaster risk reduction must be considered. In line with the findings of Abdulharis et al. (2022) and Viverita et al. (2014), early warning systems, evacuation routes, mitigation methods, and complete disaster response plans are crucial components in assessing community resilience in the event of disasters. Moreover, Aka et al. (2017) state that access to temporary shelters, an early warning system, designated evacuation routes and signage, and a thorough disaster risk analysis are all necessary for effective disaster preparedness.
The recovery preparedness variable warrants further consideration. The findings of the study indicated that none of the participants had established a framework for early disaster recovery initiatives at the village level, nor did they possess a long-term recovery strategy for critical assets and properties that are particularly vulnerable to disaster-related damage. Participants delegated the responsibility for asset and property recovery following disasters to the city government, citing limitations in funding as a significant constraint. Chan et al. (2019) argue that post-disaster recovery presents significant challenges for numerous countries, necessitating substantial funding, advanced technology, and adequate resources. For example, the Malaysian government’s expenditure for rescue and relief operations, as well as post-flood recovery, amounted to RM 5.166 billion. A recent study by Sobhaninia (2024) highlights the significance of internal factors, such as social cohesion, community engagement, and local leadership, alongside external factors, including available resources, stakeholder participation, and comprehensive planning, in fostering resilient disaster recovery.
The findings indicate that Destana in the study location is classified under the advanced (Utama) category and encompasses 12 villages, 11 villages in the intermediary (Madya) category, and 37 villages in the beginner (Pratama) category. Arifin et al. (2021); Badan Nasional Penaggulangan Bencana (2012) suggest that the Destana criteria demonstrate the resilience efforts of each village, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2
Achievements of Destana based on categories
Destana Categories
Achievement
Advanced (Utama)
⊠ having a DRR policy outlined in village regulations.
having disaster management planning documents as outlined in the Village Medium Term Development Plan and detailed in the Village Development Activity Plan.
⊠ having a DRR forum consisting of community representatives, including women and vulnerable groups and village government representatives.
⊠ having a volunteer team of disaster management.
⊠ having a system of disaster risk assessment, risk management and vulnerability reduction, including productive economic activities to reduce the risk of vulnerability.
⊠ having a system to increase disaster preparedness and response capacity
Intermediate (Madya)
⊠ a draft DRR policy developed.
⊠ having disaster management planning documents but not integrated into the village medium-term development plan.
⊠ having a DRR forum but not yet active
⊠ having a volunteer team of disaster management, but not yet fully functional and active.
⊠ disaster risk assessment and disaster management systems all prepared exist but have not yet been tested for reliability.
⊠ capacity-building efforts
Beginner (Pratama)
⊠ have an initial initiative to develop DRR policy.
⊠ efforts to draw up DRR planning documents.
⊠ an effort made to form a village volunteer team.
⊠ an effort made to form a DRR forum
⊠ initiatives conducting disaster risk assessments and risk management and vulnerability reduction are in place.
⊠ initial efforts to increase disaster preparedness and response capacity
Conclusion and Future Work
This paper demonstrates one of the first systematic efforts to adopt Destana as a framework to assess community resilience in a remote yet highly populated island district of Ternate, North Maluku province. The study represents the first quantitative evaluation of resilience for the small island of Ternate. This finding indicates a village resilience category dominated by a beginner (Pratama) level. Villages in the beginner resilience category indicate that there have been initial efforts to establish disaster risk reduction policies. These efforts include preparing DRR planning documents, forming village volunteer teams, creating DRR forums, conducting disaster risk assessments, managing risks, and reducing vulnerabilities.
The results of this study identify parameters that highlight strengths and weaknesses in building resilience among villages. The resilience assessment parameters outlined in this paper serve as practical planning resources for local governments to guide villages and communities in addressing identified gaps. These assessment parameters can assist in programming and resource mobilization to implement disaster-resilient village initiatives, improve community preparedness, and provide instruments to assess and monitor progress in resilience at the grassroots level.
Finally, this assessment framework can be used to measure community (or village) level resilience to reduce disaster risk in small island contexts and beyond. Therefore, resilience assessment should incorporate the idea of village capacity and community adaptability. This article emphasizes that the basic structure of community-based disaster management is focused on improving community preparedness, village resilience, and strengthening the capacity of local governments to deal with disasters effectively. Involving local communities in disaster management is essential because they know their living conditions and have insight into the opportunities and challenges associated with identifying and addressing disaster vulnerability issues.
In alignment with the principles outlined in the Indonesian national disaster management master plan aimed at fostering disaster-resilient regions and areas, which are systematically organized through coordinated and synergistic efforts among stakeholders (Hadi, 2020), the author proposes that further evaluations be undertaken to assess the capabilities of local governments and the roles of each stakeholder in enhancing resilience and preparedness. The next study needs deeper analysis on gender and marginalized groups in community participation, as it does not well reflect how Destana will be measuring the outcomes. This aims to acquire a thorough understanding of the extent of regional resilience capabilities.
This research was conducted as part of a PhD project supported by Charles Darwin University and supported by an Australian Award Scholarship. We extend our sincere thanks to all respondents in all the villages in Ternate Island and all parties who provided their valuable support.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Consent to participate
All participants in this study have declared that they consent to participate.
Ethics
The study was conducted in accordance with the Approval Committee of Human Research Ethics Committee, Research Integrity and Ethics, Research and Innovation, Charles Darwin University (Protocol code H23043/June 29, 2023) and research recommendation letter from the Ternate City government No 070/470/BKBP/2023.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Abdulharis, R., Handayani, A. P., Isouchi, C. & Meilano, I. (2022). Developing Community Disaster Resilience in the Lembang Fault Area, Indonesia: Lessons Learned from Japanese Experience. Applied Sciences, 12(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/app12031271
Abenayake CC, Mikami Y, Matsuda Y, Jayasinghe A (2018) Ecosystem services-based composite indicator for assessing community resilience to floods. Environ Dev 27:34–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2018.08.002.CrossRef
Abenir MAD, Manzanero LIO, Bollettino V (2022) Community-based leadership in disaster resilience: The case of small island community in Hagonoy, Bulacan, Philippines. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 71: 102797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.102797 Article.CrossRef
Abramson DM, Grattan LM, Mayer B, Colten CE, Arosemena FA, Bedimo-Rung A, Lichtveld M (2015) The resilience activation framework: a conceptual model of how access to social resources promotes adaptation and rapid recovery in post-disaster settings. J Behav Health Serv Res 42(1):42–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-014-9410-2.CrossRef
Adiyoso, W. & Kanegae, H. (2018). Tsunami-Resilient Preparedness Index (TRPI) as a Key Step for Effective Disaster Reduction Intervention. In Sustainable Future for Human Security (pp. 369-384). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5433-4_25
Aghababaei, M. T., Costello, S. B. & Ranjitkar, P. (2021). Measures to evaluate post-disaster trip resilience on road networks. Journal of Transport Geography, 95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103154
Agustianingsih DP, Ariyaningsih, Shaw R (2023) Community disaster resilience using multi-hazard assessment during Covid-19: The case of Denpasar, Indonesia. Nat Hazards Res 3(3):572–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nhres.2023.04.006.CrossRef
Ahangama, N. & Prasanna, R. (2021). Micro-theory on knowledge transfer to foster disaster resilience: A grounded theory approach. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102569
Aka FT, Buh GW, Fantong WY, Issa, Zouh IT, Djomou SLB, Ghogomu RT, Gibson T, Marmol del M-A, Sigha LN, Ohba T, Kusakabe M, Yoshida Y, Tanyileke G, Nnange JM, Hell JV (2017) Disaster prevention, disaster preparedness and local community resilience within the context of disaster risk management in Cameroon. Nat Hazards 86(1):57–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2674-5.CrossRef
Aldunce P, Beilin R, Handmer J, Howden M (2016) Stakeholder participation in building resilience to disasters in a changing climate. Environ Hazards 15(1):58–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2015.1134427.CrossRef
Alshehri SA, Rezgui Y, Li H (2015) Disaster community resilience assessment method: a consensus-based Delphi and AHP approach. Nat Hazards 78(1):395–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1719-5.CrossRef
Amri A, Bird DK, Ronan K, Haynes K, Towers B (2017) Disaster risk reduction education in Indonesia: challenges and recommendations for scaling up. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 17(4):595–612. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-595-2017.CrossRef
Anand, S., Raj, D., Sai, A. M. A., Rao, S. N. & Vinodini Ramesh, M. (2023). Techno-Social Synergy for Disaster Resilience in Coastal Communities : A Sustainable Approach.
Anasco CP, Monteclaro HM, Catedrilla LC, Lizada JC, Baylon CC (2021) Measuring Small Island Disaster Resilience Towards Sustainable Coastal and Fisheries Tourism: The Case of Guimaras, Philippines. Hum Ecol 49(4):467–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-021-00241-0.CrossRef
Angkotasan, A. M., Nurjaya, I. W. & Natih, N. M. N. (2012). Analisis Perubahan Garis pantai di Pantai Barat Daya Pulau Ternate, Provinsi Maluku Utara. Jurnal Teknologi Perikanan dan Kelautan, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.24319/jtpk.3.11-22
Arifin S, Wicaksono SS, Sumarto S, Martitah M, Sulistianingsih D (2021) Disaster resilient village-based approach to disaster risk reduction policy in Indonesia: A regulatory analysis. Jamba 13(1):1021. https://doi.org/10.4102/jamba.v13i1.1021.CrossRef
Ayuningtyas D, Windiarti S, Hadi MS, Fasrini UU, Barinda S (2021) Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation in Indonesia: A Narrative Review. Iran J Public Health 50(8):1536–1546. https://doi.org/10.18502/ijph.v50i8.6799.CrossRef
Badan Nasional Penaggulangan Bencana. (2012). Peraturan Kepala BNPB No 1/2012 tentang Pedoman Umum Desa/Kelurahan Tangguh Bencana. 1/2012.
Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana. (2018). Rencana Induk Penanggulangan Bencana 2015-2045 (Blueprint of Disaster Management Plan 2015-2045) (R. Jati, Ed.). BAPPENAS, Republik Indonesia.
Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana. (2023). Mid-Term Review of the Implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 in Indonesia.
Badan Standarisasi Nasional. (2017). Desa dan kelurahan tangguh bencana. In SNI:8375:2017 (pp. 19). Indonesia: Badan Standardiasi Nasional Indonesia
Badan Standarisasi Nasional. (2020). Panduan Penerapan SNI 8357:2017 Desa dan Kelurahan Tangguh Bencana. In. Jakarta: Badan Standardisasi Nasional Indonesia.
Béné C, Al-Hassan RM, Amarasinghe O, Fong P, Ocran J, Onumah E, Ratuniata R, Tuyen TV, McGregor JA, Mills DJ (2016) Is resilience socially constructed? Empirical evidence from Fiji, Ghana, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam. Glob Environ Change 38:153–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.03.005.CrossRef
Berke P, Cooper J, Aminto M, Grabich S, Horney J (2015) Adaptive Planning for Disaster Recovery and Resiliency: An Evaluation of 87 Local Recovery Plans in Eight States. J Am Plan Assoc 80(4):310–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2014.976585.CrossRef
Burton CG (2015) A Validation of Metrics for Community Resilience to Natural Hazards and Disasters Using the Recovery from Hurricane Katrina as a Case Study. Annalls Assoc Am Geographers 105(1):67–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2014.960039.CrossRef
Cook, A. D. B., Lassa, J. & Caballero-Anthony, M. (2025). Missing targets: reforming disaster policy in Southeast Asia. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.17512024.12448036.
Danar, O. R., Anggriawan, T., Suzuki, A., Novita, A. A. & Pratama, M. R. (2021). Lack of Collaborative Governance in Building Community Disaster Resilience. DiA: Jurnal Administrasi Publik, 19(2). https://doi.org/10.30996/dia.v19i2.5323
Danish, S., Umar, M. A., Khaver, A., Ahmad, S. M. & Rehmat, A. (2023). Disaster Risk Reduction Policy Implementation in Pakistan in line with Sendai Framework. Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI).
Deasy A, Hastuti KP, Putro HPN (2023) Disaster-resilient villages: strengthening community capacity in flood disasters managing in wetland areas. Disaster Adv 16(4):1–7. https://doi.org/10.25303/1604da01007.CrossRef
Dewa, H. P. N., Muthi’, I., Suwarno, & Nirwansyah, A. W. (2024). Engaging Rural Communities for Disaster Resilience: Overview of Destana Initiation in Panusupan, Central Java The 6th International Geography Seminar (IGEOS 2023),
Elysia, V. & Wihadanto, A. (2018). The Sister Village Program: Promoting Community Resilience after Merapi Eruption. The Indonesian Journal of Planning and Development, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.14710/ijpd.3.1.32-43
Fadhilah SN, Putera RE, Aromatica D, Hasyimi E (2022) Disaster Resilient Village in Padang City: How Padang City Efforts to Define the Disaster. Sawala : J Administrasi Negara 10(2):196–206. https://doi.org/10.30656/sawala.v10i2.5510.CrossRef
Fajria, R., Putera, R. E. & Ariany, R. (2023). An evaluation of the implementation of the disaster resilient village program in Padang Pariaman regency E3S Web of Conferences,
Fortnam, M., Hailey, P., Witter, S. & Balfour, N. (2024). Resilience in interconnected community and formal health (and connected) systems. SSM - Health Systems, 3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmhs.2024.100027
Fu Q, Zhang X (2024) Promoting community resilience through disaster education: Review of community-based interventions with a focus on teacher resilience and well-being. PLoS One 19(1):e0296393. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0296393.CrossRef
Gillespie-Marthaler L, Nelson K, Baroud H, Abkowitz M (2019) Selecting Indicators for Assessing Community Sustainable Resilience. Risk Anal 39(11):2479–2498. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13344.CrossRef
Hadi S (2020) Disaster Management in the Implementation of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals in Indonesia. J Indones Sustain Dev Plan 1(1):105–111. https://doi.org/10.46456/jisdep.v1i1.49.CrossRef
Hariani RR, Arisuma N, Rahayu E (2022) Implementation of the Sukatendel Village Regulation Policy No 01 of 2019 concerning Disaster Resilience Village Program. Morfai J; Multidiciplinary Output Res Actual Int Issue 2(3):519–530. https://doi.org/10.54443/morfai.v2i3.408.CrossRef
Heksama S, Prayoga D, Lailiyah SU, Sari JDE (2018) Capacity Building Peran Serta masyarakat dalam Penanggulangan Bencana di daerah wisata Kabupaten Banyuwangi dalam rangka mendukung Desa/Kelurahan Tangguh Bencana (Destana) tahun 2017. J Layanan Masy Universitas Airlangga 2(2):72–77. https://doi.org/10.20473/jlm.v2i2.2018.72-77.CrossRef
Hermawan A, Pramono B (2021) The Implementation of Disaster Resilient Village Program (Study in Tinjomoyo Village, Semarang City). Public Policy Adm Res 11(2):7–13. https://doi.org/10.7176/ppar/11-2-02.CrossRef
Hidayat A, Marfai MA, Hadmoko DS (2022) The 2015 eruption of Gamalama volcano (Ternate Island–Indonesia): precursor, crisis management, and community response. GeoJournal 87(1):1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-020-10237-w.CrossRef
Ikqra, Tjahjono B, Sunarti E (2012) Geomorphological Study of Ternate Island and Landslide Hazard Assessment. J Ilmu Tanah Lingkung 14(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.29244/jitl.14.1.1-6.CrossRef
Keating, A. (2020). Measuring and Building Community Disaster Resilience: Essential for Achieving Sendai. In M. Yokomatsu & S. Hochrainer-Stigler (Eds.), Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience (Vol. 1, pp. 169-190). Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4320-3
Lessy, M. R., Lassa, J. & Zander, K. K. (2026). The adaptable community resilience assessment framework for small islands and coastal communities (SICC): A scoping review. Ocean & Coastal Management, 271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2025.107949
Lessy MR, Abdullah RM (2021) Forecasting of Significant Wave Height and Period at Western Waters of Ternate Island, North Maluku. Techno J Penelit 10(1):17–26. https://doi.org/10.33387/tjp.v10i1.3026.CrossRef
Lessy, M. R., Lassa, J. & Zander, K. K. (2024). Understanding Multi-Hazard Interactions and Impacts on Small-Island Communities: Insights from the Active Volcano Island of Ternate, Indonesia. Sustainability, 16(16). https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166894
Liu Z, Ma R, Wang H (2022) Assessing urban resilience to public health disaster using the rough analytic hierarchy process method: A regional study in China. J Saf Sci Resil 3(2):93–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnlssr.2021.12.003.CrossRef
Meyer, M. A., Yu, S., Semien, J., Van Zandt, S. & Burke, S. (2024). Planning for Disaster Recovery: Planner Perspectives and Experiences. Journal of the American Planning Association, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2024.2367031
Muryani, C., Koesuma, S. & Yusup, Y. (2021). The Readiness of villages in Surakarta City Toward The Disaster Resilient Village International Geography Seminar
Nagu N, Lessy MR, Nur K (2025) Disaster Management on Small Islands; Lessons from Flash Flood Disaster in Rua Village, Ternate Island, Indonesia. J Ilmu Lingkung 23(3):730–741. https://doi.org/10.14710/jil.23.3.730-741.CrossRef
Ningtyas T, Larasati E, Warsono H, Purnaweni H (2021) Optimization of Destana policies (Resilience Disaster Village) to improve community preparedness for flood disaster in Bojonegoro District, Indonesia. Manag entrepreneurship: trends Dev 1(15):113–126. https://doi.org/10.26661/2522-1566/2021-1/15-08.CrossRef
Paripurno, E. T., Mahojwala, G., Putra, W., Sulistiyowati, I., Widi, M. W., Sukiyani, Nugroho, A. R. B. & Martono, B. (2024). Urgency of disaster resilient village-geosite program: unveiling the critical need for strengthening connections between geosites and village communities. The 2nd International Conference on Disaster Management and Climate Change, 1314. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1314/1/012033
Rico GCS (2019) School-Community Collaboration: Disaster Preparedness Towards Building Resilient Communities. Int J Disaster Risk Manag 1(2):45–59. https://doi.org/10.18485/ijdrm.2019.1.2.4.CrossRef
Rifat SAA, Liu W (2020) Measuring community disaster resilience in the conterminous coastal United States [Article]. ISPRS Int J Geo-Inf 9(8):469. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9080469 Article.CrossRef
Sulaeman C, Cipta A (2012) Model intensitas gempa bumi di Maluku Utara Earthquake Intensity Model in North Maluku. J Lingkung dan Bencana Geol 3(2):79–88. https://doi.org/10.34126/jlbg.v3i2.38.CrossRef
Suryotomo, P., Paripurno, E. T., Sumino, Jefrizal, R. & Yunus, R. (2019). Penilaian Ketangguhan Bencana Desa/Kelurahan (R. Putra, H. Siregar, Masudi, M. Ardi & E. Sumardi, Eds.). Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana
Torani S, Majd PM, Maroufi SS, Dowlati M, Sheikhi RA (2019) The importance of education on disasters and emergencies: A review article. J Educ Health Promot 8:85. https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_262_18.CrossRef
Venkateswaran, K. & MacClune, K. (2020). Building the Evidence Base to Achieve the Sendai Framework for DRR Goals. In M. Yokomatsu & S. Hochrainer-Stigler (Eds.), Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience (Vol. 1, pp. 191-212). Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4320-3
Viverita V, Kusumastuti RD, Husodo ZA, Suardi L, Dinarsari DN (2014) Households Perceptions on Factors Affecting Resilience Towards Natural Disasters in Indonesia. South East Asian J Manag 8(1):13–28. https://doi.org/10.21002/seam.v8i1.3099.CrossRef
Wang F, Fang Y, Deng H, Wei F (2022) How community medical facilities can promote resilient community constructions under the background of pandemics. Indoor Built Environ 31(4):1018–1027. https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326X211048537.CrossRef
Yuniarti, Y., Respati, T., Januarita, R. & Irasanti, S. N. (2024). Policy Constraints on Local Governance for Community Resilience: Qualitative Insights from Stakeholders in Disaster-prone Areas. KnE Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v9i24.16824
