## 1 Introduction  
Community disaster resilience (CDR) has been defined differently based on various points of view of researchers, namely an ongoing process of adaptation, the absence of negative effects, the presence of a range of positive attributes, or a mixture of the mentioned types of definition [1]. The first type of definition mainly refers to a process of the attainment of positive outcomes at individual, family, and community levels despite adversity [1; 2] using shared and unique capacities to manage and adaptively respond to the extraordinary demands on resources and the losses associated with disaster [1; 3; 4; 5] to be able to have a positive trajectory of functioning and adaptation in constituent populations after a disturbance [1; 4]. The second type of definition deals with the expected outcome of keeping functioning [1]. This includes psychological and physical functioning for the individual level [1; 4; 6], as well as evidence on the capability of an organization to contend with uncertainty [1; 7]. The third type of definition describes positive attributes of a CDR [1]. Those attributes are responsiveness and the existence of collective action of local support [1; 8]; community's capacities, skills, and knowledge [1; 4]; and household relationships, the level of education and literacy, employment-seeking behaviors, social support networks, the ability to seek support services, a sense of communal safety and hope, and physical security measures [1; 9]. Despite the nonexistence of a common definition on CDR, there are common elements that are best to represent CDR, which affects the way to measure it [1]. Most importantly, enhancement of the community to be a resilient one through a paradigm shift and a new culture of disaster resilience is what matters most [10]. Nonetheless, community disaster resilience (CDR) is pivotal to disaster risk management (DRM). DRM is described as a systematic process of using administrative directives, organizations, and operational skills and capacities to implement strategies, policies, and improved coping capacities in order to lessen the adverse impact of hazards and the possibility of disaster [11]. Although DRM covers activities on prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery from disaster, it is dominated by response and recovery activities [12]. On the other hand, CDR focuses on mitigation and preparedness activities, as well as recovery processes [13]. Moreover, CDR emphasizes the need to reduce impacts of disaster [12; 14]. Thus, CDR becomes an important part of DRM. The degrees of DRM and CDR in Indonesia are arguably low. Having experienced large-scale disasters caused by earthquakes and tsunamis between 2004 and 2006, the number of fatalities caused by other large-scale disasters in 2018 in Indonesia were still high. Such facts have created uneasiness to the people of Indonesia as the number of natural hazards had been increasing between 2015 and 2020. See Figure 1 for details. On the other hand, DRM and CDR development in Japan have been continuously improved. Due to the lessons learned from Typhoon Ise Bay in 1959, the Japanese government enacted the Disaster Countermeasure Basic Act. The act was revised in 2011 as the Great East Japan Earthquake still caused more than 20,000 casualties. In recent years, non-structural measures on DRM, such as disaster education and planning, have become more important. This is primarily because public sector was also damaged due to the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake. DRM has been incorporated into elementary school curriculum across the board. Such measures include participation of the private and community sector. In addition, there are some examples of joint disaster prevention mapping and disaster drills with residents. Above all, structural measures that include the construction of protective facilities are still being performed. CDR has also been studied in Indonesia.