Harmonizing Seismic Vulnerability Data for Effective Seismic Risk Assessment: Expert Judgment Method and Findings from a Multi-Stakeholder Study in Indonesia

  • Adi Setiabudi Bawono Universiti Malaysia Pahang
  • Noram Irwan Ramli Universiti Malaysia Pahang
  • Mohamad Idris Ali Universiti Malaysia Pahang
Keywords: Seismic Risk Assessment, Expert Judgment, Damage State Variable, House


Seismic Risk Management (SRM) is crucial for mitigating the impact of earthquakes, encompassing earthquake preparedness, response planning, building design, and emergency management systems. The 2006 Yogyakarta earthquake in Indonesia resulted in significant loss of life, infrastructure damage, and economic impact, underscoring the importance of Seismic Risk Assessment (SRA) for effective risk reduction. Seismic vulnerability functions are commonly used for SRA, but data collection can be expensive and challenging, and results may be biased due to expert judgment. In Indonesia, variability in house damage state definitions among agencies poses challenges in harmonizing data. This study used expert judgment to harmonize differences in damage state variables resulting from variable references. Data on damage states from five (5) agencies were collected and harmonized through input from earthquake engineering experts via online questionnaires. The resulting data identified five (5) types of damage and reduced variables to nine through harmonization. Twenty (20) experts with diverse backgrounds, including academics, researchers, contractors, consultants, volunteers, and government stakeholders, participated in the study through online questionnaires, and the results were processed and analyzed. The expert judgment method successfully harmonized the differences in damage state variables, ensuring a consistent, reliable, and accurate assessment of building damage, particularly housing damage. The findings of this study underscore the crucial role of expert judgment in harmonizing data for seismic risk assessment. The survey gathered input from experts with diverse backgrounds, including government stakeholders and academics, enriched the study's findings and contributed to a comprehensive understanding of earthquake disaster management. Through expert judgment, the study successfully consolidated variables from different agencies into nine (9) harmonized variables for assessing building damage. Furthermore, experts proposed an additional fourteen (14) factors that need to be considered in residential house damage inspection forms, providing critical information for estimating the extent of damage and informing decisions about repairs or demolition. These variables can be categorized into Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) and observation in more detail, aiding in effective earthquake risk management. However, further validation through comparative literature and field analysis is needed to enhance accuracy and adaptability and explore the potential of incorporating soft computational algorithms in seismic vulnerability assessments as a promising approach.


NILIM, “Quick Inspection Manual of Damaged Reinforced Concrete Buildings due to Earthquakes Based on the Disaster of 1999 Kocaeli Earthquake in Turkey National Institute of Land and Infrastructure Management,” March 2022., vol. 1, T. K. N. Kumazawa;, Ed. Japan: National Institute of Land and Infrastructure Management, 2022.

FEMA 154, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards : a Handbook, 2nd ed., vol. FEMA 154, no. March. 2002.

The World Bank, “Why Do People Die in Earthquakes? The Costs , Benefits and Institutions of Disaster Risk Reduction in Developing Countries,” Policy Res. Work. Pap., vol. 4823, no. January, 2009.

S. Abeling et al., “Patterns of earthquake-related mortality at a whole-country level: New Zealand, 1840–2017,” Earthq. Spectra, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 138–163, 2020.

Bappenas, “Preliminary Damage and Loss Assessment Yogyakarta and Central Java Natural Disaster,” BAPPENAS, Yogyakarta, 2006.

P. KEMENPU, “Panduan Praktis Pemeriksaan Kerusakan Bangunan akibat Gempa Bumi,” Pusat Penelitian dan Pengembangan Perumahan Permukiman, 2019.

BNPB, “Standarisasi Data Kebencanaan,” BNPB RI, Jakarta, Indonesia, 2014.

D. Departemen Pekerjaan Umum, “Laporan penanganan bencana gempa bumi yogyakarta dan jawa tengah STATUS, MINGGU 4 JUNI 2006,” 2006.

D. P. dan Dikmas, Panduan Penilaian Kerusakan Bangunan/Ruang untuk PAUD &SPNF. Jakarta, Indonesia: Dirjend Jenderal PAUD dan Dikmas, 2019.

BBSG, “Bimbingan Teknis Gedung, Balai Bahan & Struktur Bangunan Gedung,” 2022.

Momentive, “SurveyMonkey Descriptive research: defining your respondents and drawing conclusions,” 2020. https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/descriptive-research/

L Radha and and Dr Mayank Trivedi, “Utilization of online survey tools for academic research: A practical approach tonsurvey monkey ,” TIJ’s Res. J. Sci. IT Manag. - RJSITM, vol. 04, no. 03, pp. 21–28, 2015

M. Abd Halim, C. F. Mohd Foozy, I. Rahmi, and A. Mustapha, “A Review of Live Survey Application : SurveyMonkey and SurveyGizmo,” Int. J. Informatics Vis., vol. 2, pp. 309–312, 2018

How to Cite
Setiabudi Bawono, A., Irwan Ramli, N., & Idris Ali, M. (2023). Harmonizing Seismic Vulnerability Data for Effective Seismic Risk Assessment: Expert Judgment Method and Findings from a Multi-Stakeholder Study in Indonesia. International Journal of Engineering Technology and Natural Sciences, 5(1), 89 - 98. https://doi.org/10.46923/ijets.v5i1.242