{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018030513176144243, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0027739251040221915, 'mean_word_length': 5.6192660550458715, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Identifying Criteria for Designing Risk Communication System in Palu, Sulawesi, Indonesia

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