## 3 Theory
### Community Disaster Resilience  
Comprehensive assessment of CDR has been mainly carried out by considering social, economic, institutional, infrastructural, and environmental domains [1, 26, 34, 35]. An assessment framework was proposed based on several literatures by considering local risks, vulnerabilities and the scale of the anticipated disaster [34], while another framework was developed based on several resilience indexes, namely Baseline Resilience Index for Communities, Climate Disaster Resilience Index and Community Disaster Resilience Index [12]. On the other hand, suggestions from government agencies, NGOs, community leaders, and business communities were collected for developing such a framework [26]. Social domain comprises subcategories on demography, as well as social capital and cultural characteristics [1, 26, 34, 35]. Demography subcategory comprises of assessment on proportion of population's age, diffiability, gender, educational level, and wealth, while social capital and cultural characteristics are defined by the quality of relationships among individuals and at the community level that contribute to community resilience, particularly concerning bonding among people and community with similar characteristics, bridging between people and community with different characteristics, and linking people and community to institutions at the higher level [34]. Risk knowledge is considered as another important factor that should be considered [1, 26, 35, 36, 37]. Risk knowledge comprises of knowledge on types and levels of hazard and indigenous knowledge [1, 26, 35]. Addition  
Figure 6: Methodology of the research. ally, past disaster experience [36; 37] and the level of training and education on DRM [1] are considerably important for enhancing the preparedness to face natural hazards. Furthermore, it is also proposed that people capacity on DRM should be included as an assessment parameter in this domain [1; 13; 35]. In addition, it is suggested that participation [1; 26] and health [1] are to be included on the assessment of this domain [1; 26]. From the perspective of institutional domain, the institutional capacity on DRM, namely the existence of policy, regulation, and procedures on warning and evacuation; responding and recovering from disaster [26; 34; 35]; as well as mitigation plans [26], are proposed to assess CDR. Additionally, participation and cooperation among government institution, NGOs, and the community [26], as well as organized governmental services [35], are also pivotal to assess CDR in this domain. On the economic domain, the means of individual livelihood and local economy are substantially important to be assessed, while transportation infrastructure is noticeably important among the vital subcategories on infrastructural domain [26; 34; 35]. Disaster management infrastructure, land use, and structural design are also considered as parameters on the assessment of CDR from the infrastructural perspective [35]. For the environmental domain, there are several important assessment parameters. These parameters include the condition of the natural environment [26; 34; 35], the condition of the built environment [34], and types of disaster and their levels of hazard [26]. Last but not least, the research that is highlighted in this paper also analyzed the importance of data on developing CDR in the scope of DRM. This is mainly triggered by [PERSON] and colleagues [38], as well as [PERSON] and colleagues [39], who found correlations among sound data management, DRM, and CDR.