Indicators for Qualitative Risk Identification Process

Sry Handini Puteri
2 min readApr 6, 2022

In quantifying the risk, there are multiple approach that can be used. One of the methodology is using a Preliminary Risk Assessment. I would like to share one of the methodology that is used by AHA Center to determine the cities that are at ‘most-risk’ in the ASEAN region. The article will focus on what indicator that are used to filter out the cities that are ‘at-risk’ and ‘not at-risk’. Kindly note that this article was mainly cited by the ASEAN Risk Monitor and Disaster Management Review (ARMOR) — 1st Edition that was released in 2019.

Criteria used to filter the city-at-risk

A. Historical hazards

“Representative of natural hazards in the region that have frequently impacted cities and considerably damaged socio-economic conditions. However, it should be noted that the considered types of natural hazards are limited to natural hazards that directly affect people and assets of cities, and excluded uncountable hazard damages, both physically and spatially (e.g. forest fire, drought, etc).”

B. Replicability

“Replicability to apply pilot project to similar cities in ASEAN Member States (AMS), where cities with small and medium-sized population form a large percentage of urban areas.”

C. Sustainability

“Sustainability and preparedness for an effective demonstration of the project in terms of capacity and experience on disaster risk reduction and management, and the likelihood of the demonstration project to become good practice which might influence other cities.”

D. Economic cluster

“Significance of economic exposure, such as clustered industrial areas in cities, to be protected from hazard risks (i.e. national and sub-national economic assets and activities that were historically subject to natural hazards).”

E. Data availability

“Others, such as data availability of socio-economic status, hazards and records, development plans and land use plans, presence of hazard management organizations, and national and regional significance in conjunction with policies of respective AMS.”

What’s lacking from this report is “Why” the indicator was chosen. The indicator and criteria might be added with the reference to justify the used indicators.




Sry Handini Puteri

Personal learning space ; A Geoenthusiast ; Interested in Disaster Risk Management