ArticleJamba (Potchefstroom, South Africa)2024
Disaster risk financing and insurance for earthquake-prone state buildings in Indonesia.
Article in Jamba (Potchefstroom, South Africa), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing school preparedness for disaster resilience: Integrating Gender, Disability, and Social Inclusion (GEDSI) in the safe school programme.Jamba (Potchefstroom, South Africa) · 2026Article
- The integration of local stilt house architecture in natural disaster mitigation education in South Sumatra, Indonesia.Jamba (Potchefstroom, South Africa) · 2026Review
- Evolution of disaster preparedness studies: A bibliometric approach to exploring research trends and directions.Jamba (Potchefstroom, South Africa) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Indonesia situated within the volatile Ring of Fire, faces recurring and devastating earthquakes that pose significant economic threats. The Government of Indonesia (GoI) has initiated a disaster risk financing strategy to address these challenges. However, the implementation of disaster insurance within this strategy remains limited. This study examined the GoI's disaster risk financing methods, assessed the effectiveness of existing disaster insurance practices, and proposed strategies for improving disaster risk reduction (DRR). Literature review was used to analyse disaster fund and insurance implementation. A building vulnerability simulation, based on Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) P-154 rapid visual screening, determined the appropriate financing strategy. State buildings were assessed using nine vulnerability factors and categorised by seismicity. The research found that disaster financing mostly relied on national funds to cover all disaster damages. Existing disaster insurance lacked clarity in defining insurable buildings, resulting in broad inclusion. Vulnerability assessments showed that each building type exhibited different potential earthquake damage levels. Consequently, insurance coverage is recommended for high-damage categories but discouraged for low to moderately vulnerable buildings. Contribution: This study offered insights into Indonesia's current disaster risk financing and insurance landscape, and provides a strategic framework for optimising these mechanisms to better protect state buildings from earthquake-related risks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.