EXPLORING PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS: FIELD DATA ON DISASTER AWARENESS

Dewayany Sutrisno1, Yatin Suwarno1, Ati Rahadiati1, Muhammad Iqbal Habibie1, Prabu Kresna Putra1,
Hari Prayogi1, Amien Widodo2, Fathia Zulfati Sabrina3, and Ahmad Kosasih4
1 Geospatial Research Center, Nasional Research and Innovation Agency, Jalan Raya Jakarta Bogor KM 46 Cibinong 16911,
Indonesia e-mail: dewayany@brin.go.id, yatin.suwarno@brin.go.id, ati.rahadiati@brin.go.id,
muhammad.iqbal.habibie@brin.go.id, prab003@brin.go.id, hari038@brin.go.id
2 Department of Geophysics, Faculty of Civil Planning and Geo Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh November, ITS

Campus, Keputih, Kec. Sukolilo, Kota SBY, Jawa Timur 60111 e-mail: amienwidodo@geofisika.its.ac.id
3 Directorate of Disaster Risk Mapping and Evaluation, National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB), Graha BNPB - Jl.

Pramuka Kav.38 Jakarta Timur 13120 e-mail: fathia.zulfati@bnpb.go.id

4 Center for Management and Geospatial Information Dissemination, Geospatial information Agency, Jalan Raya Jakarta

Bogor KM 46 Cibinong 16911 e-mail: ahmad.kosasih@big.go.id

Abstract: This study explores data on the perception and response of communities to earthquake
disasters, highlighting the importance of public awareness and preparedness. A survey was conducted
to gauge public awareness and to understand the behaviors and preparations taken in response to
potential earthquakes. Field data were collected from communities affected by the Cianjur earthquake
on November 21, 2022. The survey design included a structured questionnaire, sample size of more
than 97 respondents, and ethical considerations. The data analysis revealed that the highest score was
attributed to the disaster-affected population's desire to construct or refurbish their homes to earthquake-
resistant standards, whereas the lowest score reflected the absence of adequate training, education, or
effective knowledge dissemination regarding disaster preparedness. This study may become the input
to governments, NGOs, and community leaders in developing effective disaster preparedness and
response programs.
Keywords: Communities awareness, Surveys, Respondents, Earthquake, Disaster prepardness
Introduction:
In an ever-changing world where earthquake disasters are a persistent threat, public awareness and
preparedness play a crucial role in mitigating their impact. Understanding how communities perceive
and respond to these threats is an essential step in disaster risk reduction and resilience-building efforts
(Clark-Ginsberg, 2020). This article, "Exploring Public Perceptions: Field Data on Disaster Awareness,"
embarks on a journey to uncover the intricacies of how individuals, families, and communities perceive
disasters, and the measures they take to protect themselves and their loved ones.
As we delve into this exploration, we will navigate through the latest findings and trends emerging from
on-the-ground observations, shedding light on varying degrees of disaster awareness across people
within a community. The objective of this survey was to measure the level of public awareness regarding
earthquake disasters and to understand the behaviors and preparations they undertake in response to
potential earthquakes. Insights derived from the field data were collected directly from communities
impacted by earthquakes. The focus of our survey is the Cianjur destructive earthquake disaster (Mw
5.6) that occurred in November 21, 2022 (Supendi et al., 2023), and we are conducting our survey in
the areas most affected by the earthquake.
By bringing to the forefront the voices and experiences of those directly affected by disasters, we aim
to foster a deeper understanding of the critical role that public perceptions play in building a safer and
more resilient world (Opdyke & Wang, 2021). The article exclusively provides data that may serve as
a basis for future research endeavors or as valuable input for any stakeholders, guiding them toward
more effective disaster preparedness and response programs
Metode:
1. Survey Design
Questionnaire: The survey utilized a structured questionnaire consisting of predefined questions. The
questionnaire covered aspects such as knowledge about earthquakes, risk perception, and preparedness
actions.
2. Sample Population: The target population included residents living in earthquake-prone areas. Based
on the population size of approximately 500 residents in the affected area, the normal distribution
algorithm method was used to calculate the appropriate number of respondents, with a 95% confidence
level and a margin of error of 0.10. The minimum number of respondents based on this calculation was
97.
3. Field Preparation: Research teams will be trained in survey questionnaires, check their validity and
correlation, and apply for research ethics to the Ethics Commission of the National Research and
Innovation Agency.
4. Field data exploration: The collection of data in the field was carried out within the regions affected
by the Cianjur earthquake, with a primary focus on the populations that experienced the effects of the
earthquake.
5. Research Ethics: During the survey, research ethics were maintained by ensuring that respondent
participation was voluntary, privacy and confidentiality were upheld, and survey results were used for
legitimate research purposes.
6. Data processing: Collected data were aggregated according to community groups' views on seismic
disasters, with the intention of utilizing it for future study purposes.
RESULTS:
Confidentiality of the respondents’ information was ensured. Upon obtaining the respondents’ consent
to express their viewpoint, they were granted permission to complete the questionnaire. The following
is a list of questions presented to the respondents:
1. Are you aware that you reside in an earthquake-prone area?
□ Highly aware □ Aware □ Slightly aware □ Not aware.
2. Do you have knowledge about earthquakes and the associated threats?
□ Highly acknowledge □ Have knowledge and understand □ Understand □ Do not
understand at all.
3. Do you know how to safely evacuate during an earthquake?
□ Know very well □ Know □ Know a little □ Do not know.
4. Do you have a specific family emergency plan for dealing with earthquakes?
□ Have a plan and share with the entire family □ Aware, but no plan □ Have a little plan and
not shared with the family □ No plan
5. Are you aware of mitigation measures that can be taken to reduce vulnerability to
earthquakes?
□ Highly aware □ Aware □ Slightly aware □ Not aware.
6. Have you ever participated in disaster awareness training or programs related to earthquakes?
□ Often □ Have one □ No notification of training □ Not interested
7. Do you actively follow information and early warnings related to earthquakes from reliable
sources?
□ Active □ Rarely □ Passively participate □ Not care.
8. What is the condition of your house after the earthquake?
□ Severely damaged □ Moderately damaged □ Minor damage □ No damage
 9. What is the type of building/house where you reside?
□ Wooden house/traditional wooden house □ Concrete house □ Combination of wood and
concrete or not concrete house □ Brick house without concrete frame
10. Do you know or have you seen earthquake-resistant buildings/houses?
□ Know very well □ Know □ Know a little □ Do not know
11. Are you aware that earthquake-resistant buildings must meet specific construction technical
requirements?
□ Highly aware □Aware □ Slightly aware □ Not aware
12. If you already owned a house, would you consider implementing earthquake-resistant
building development in the future when making improvements?
□ Very willing □ Willing □ Uncertain □ Unwilling
13. Are you aware that earthquake-resistant houses can be constructed using locally available
materials, such as bamboo and wood?
□ Highly aware □ Aware □ Slightly aware □ Not aware
14. If your location was not suitable for rebuilding as a settlement, would you be willing to move
to a relocation site that has been prepared for you?
□ Very willing □ Willing □ Uncertain □ Unwilling
15. Are there any facilities for gathering points in your area?
□ In every neighborhood unit □ There are some □ Under construction □Not available
16. Are there evacuation route facilities in your area?
□ In every neighborhood unit □There are some □ Under construction □ Not available
17. Are there evacuation center facilities in your area?
□ In every neighborhood unit □There are some □ Under construction □ Not available
18. Are there healthcare facilities in your area?
□ Available within the neighborhood unit □ Available but distant □ Under construction □ Not
available
19. Is there any disaster response infrastructure built by the government at the central, regional,
and village levels in your area?
□ Available within the neighborhood unit □ Available but distant □ Under construction □ Not
available
20. Are there disaster information facilities in your area?
□ Available within the neighborhood unit □ Available but distant □ Under construction □ Not
available
21. Is disaster infrastructure built through community self-reliance in your area?
□ Yes, all of them □Yes, some of them □ Under construction □ Not available.
The findings obtained from the field survey are presented in Table 1, and the overall scores are
displayed in Table 2.
The analysis revealed that the desire of the disaster-affected population to construct or refurbish their
homes according to earthquake-resistant standards exhibited the highest score. In contrast, the lowest
score was attributed to the absence of sufficient training, education, or the effective dissemination of
knowledge pertaining to disaster preparedness. Furthermore, the validity test shows this questionnaire
is valid (Table 3) and reliable (Table 4) and valid.
Table 1. Matrix of Survey Respondent Data Recapitulation

Issues Ct Respondent's ∑
Realizing that residing HA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 45
in an earthquake-prone A 0
environment SA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 40
NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16
Knowledge about HA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 31
earthquakes and their A 0
associated risks SA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 40
NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 43
Knowledge about HA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13
evacuation A 0
SA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 75
NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 30
knowledge of family HA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13
emergency A 0
SA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 37
NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 48
knowledge of HA 1 1 2
earthquake disaster A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14
mitigation SA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 51
NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 51
Training for disaster HA 1 1 2
emergency A 0
SA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 33
NA 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 83
Engaged in monitoring HA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 26
earthquake updates A 0
SA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 44
NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 45

The destruction of HA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 35
residential structures A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28
resulting from seismic SA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 37
activity.
NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19
 Issues Ct Respondent's ∑
Type of houses HA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 89
SA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
Acknowledge HA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16
earthquake-resistant A 0
housing criteria SA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 71
NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 31
Recognizing HA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
earthquake-resistant A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 40
houses SA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 30
NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 38
Willingness to build HA 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 103
earthquake resistant A 0
houses SA 1 1 1 1 4
NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
Knowledge of HA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
earthquake-resistant A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 68
housing design and SA 0
reconstruction utilizing
local materials. NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 39
Willingness to relocate HA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 33
if the previous location A 0
cannot be rebuilt. SA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 29
NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 56

Muster points A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 47
PA 0
BA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 62
Evacuation zone A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 41
PA 0
BA 1 1 1 1 1 5
NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 70
Shelter A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 56
 Issues Ct Respondent's ∑
PA 0
BA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 54
healthcare facilities A 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 87
PA 0
BA 1 1 1 1 4
NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 26
emergency response A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 41
center PA 0
BA 1 1 1 1 1 5
NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 70
Disaster information A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 42
facilities. PA 0
BA 1 1 1 1 1 5
NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 71
Communities self-manage A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
disaster facilities and PA 0
infrastructure.
BA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 63
NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 44

Noted:
1. Ct = Category
2. HA = Highly aware, A= aware, SA=slightly aware, NA = not aware
3. A = available, PA = partly available, BA = slightly available, NA = not available.
4. The matrix has a constraint of 50 columns; hence, in cases where the number of respondents who answer a certain category surpasses 50, their totals are aggregated, typically in groups of two or three.
Subsequently, a score was assigned to each category, followed by the computation of the cumulative score for subsequent analysis. In the present scenario, the minimum and maximum scores were 1 and 4, respectively
(Table 2).
Table 2. Matrix of Scored of Survey Respondent Data Recapitulation

Issues HA A SA NA Score/ total categories Total

HA A SA NA Score
Realizing that residing in an earthquake-
prone environmen 45 40 16 180 0 80 16 276
Knowledge about earthquakes and their
associated risks 31 40 43 124 0 80 43 247
Knowledge about evacuation 13 75 30 52 0 150 30 232
knowledge of family emergency 13 37 48 52 0 74 48 174
knowledge of earthquke disaster
mitigation 2 14 51 51 8 42 102 51 203
Training for disaster emergency 2 33 83 8 0 66 83 157
Engaged in monitoring earthquake updates 26 44 45 104 0 88 45 237
The destruction of residential structures
resulting from seismic activity. 35 28 37 19 140 84 74 19 317
Type of houses 8 89 10 9 32 267 20 9 252
Acknowledge earthquake-resistant
housing criteria 16 71 31 64 0 142 31 237
Recognizing earthquake-resistant houses 9 40 30 38 36 120 60 38 328
Willingness to build earthquake resistant
houses 103 4 9 412 0 8 420
Knowledge of earthquake-resistant
housing design and reconstruction
utilizing local materials. 8 68 39 32 204 0 236
Willingness to relocate if the previous
location cannot be rebuilt. 33 29 56 132 0 58 56 246
Muster points 47 7 62 188 0 14 62 264
Evacuation zone 41 5 70 164 0 10 70 244
Shelter 56 7 54 224 0 14 54 292
healthcare facilities 87 4 26 348 0 8 26 382
emergency response center 41 5 70 164 0 10 70 244
Disaster information facilities. 42 5 71 168 0 10 71 249
Communities self-manage disaster
facilities and infrastructure. 9 63 44 36 0 126 44 206
Noted : HA/A = 4, A/PA = 3, SA/BA = 2, NA = 1
Tabel 3. Validity Test

RESPS VARIABLE ∑
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
HA 180 124 52 52 8 8 104 140 284 64 36 412 32 132 188 164 224 348 164 168 36 2920
A 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 84 93 0 120 0 204 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 543
SA 80 80 150 74 102 66 88 74 0,79 142 60 8 0 58 14 10 14 8 10 10 126 1175
NA 16 43 30 48 51 83 45 19 9 31 38 0 0 56 62 70 54 26 70 71 44 866
0,98 0,91 0,17 0,41 -0,6 -0,3 0,81 0,77 0,85 0,28 -0,6 0,97 -0,4 0,95 0,94 0,9 0,96 0,97 0,9 0,9 0,05

Noted:
1. The test based on scored (Table 2)
2. Resps = respondents
The Variability and reliability of this questionnaire was assessed using Cronbach's alpha method
(Barbera, 2020), the corresponding results are presented in Table 3 and Table 4
Table 4. Reability Test.
Variable Total Survety result/ categories ∑ Var2
HA A SA NA
1 45 40 16 101
2 31 40 43 114
3 13 75 30 118
4 13 37 48 98
5 2 14 51 51 118
6 2 33 83 118
7 26 44 45 115
8 35 28 37 19 119
9 8 89 10 9 116
10 16 71 31 118
11 9 40 30 38 117
12 103 4 9 116
13 8 68 39 115
14 33 29 56 118
15 47 7 62 116
16 41 5 70 116
17 56 7 54 117
18 87 4 26 117
19 41 5 70 116
20 42 5 71 118
21 9 63 44 116
var hit 716.5905 925.2 548.6605 442.0619 2632.513 6930124
var tot 28.69048 823.1434
Reability 0.942001
Cronbach's Alpha Value 0.662

Based on a coefficient value exceeding 0.60, it can be asserted that this questionnaire has a high level
of reliability.
Acknowledgement:
We express our sincere appreciation to the National Research and Innovation Agency and Lembaga
Pengelola Dana Pendidikan (LPDP) for their kind financial assistance in facilitating the implementation
of this field survey. We would like to extend our gratitude to the diverse stakeholders in the disaster-
affected areas of Cianjur Regency who provided essential support in facilitating the implementation of
the survey. The success of this research endeavor was greatly facilitated by collaboration and
cooperation.
Contributorships: All authors actively engaged in the process of conducting surveys, gathering field
data and processing the data. This questionnaire was developed by Dewayany Sutrisno and Prabu
Kresna Putra, the draft article is written by Dewayany Sutrisno.
Conflict of Interest: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Data: All relevant data are within the paper
References:
Barbera, J., Naibert, N., Komperda, R., & Pentecost, T. C. (2020). Clarity on Cronbach’s Alpha Use.
Journal of Chemical Education, 98(2), 257–258. doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00183
Clark-Ginsberg, A., McCaul, B., Bremaud, I., Cáceres, G., Mpanje, D., Patel, S., & Patel, R. (2020).
Practitioner approaches to measuring community resilience: The analysis of the resilience of
communities to disasters toolkit. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 50, 101714.
doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101714
Opdyke, A., & Wang, Z. (2021). Prioritising build back safer messages for humanitarian shelter.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 64, 102475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2
Supendi, P., Winder, T., Rawlinson, N., Bacon, C.A., Palgunadi, K.H., Simanjuntak, A.,
Kurniawan,A., Widiyantoro, S., Nugrah, A.D., Shiddiqih, H.A., Daryono, A., Adi, S.P., Karnawati,
D., Priyobudi, Marliyani, G.I., Imran, I., and Jatnikam, J. A conjugate fault was revealed by the
destructive Mw 5.6 (November 21, 2022) Cianjur earthquake, West Java, Indonesia. Journal of Asian
Earth Sciences 257 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2023.105830.