the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 10 Jun 2025
Review article: Past and future climate–related hazards in Indonesia
Abstract. Indonesia, one of the most populous countries, ranked fifth globally for climate-related hazards and disasters in the past five years. This study aims to assess historical trends, future projections, and potential implications of climate-related hazards in Indonesia. We synthesize literature, analyze historical datasets, and examine CMIP projections to assess the trend of extreme climate events and their potential effects on climate hazards. Results show that current records and studies predominantly highlight floods as the most common hazard in the tropical–humid region, followed by landslides, droughts, extreme weather, and wildfires. Historical evidence indicates an increasing threat of flood by intensifying amplitude and frequency of rainfall extremes by around 25 %, especially in most northern parts of Indonesia (Kalimantan, northern Sumatera, parts of Sulawesi, and Papua), while the drought amplified by 60 % over the country across the dry regions from southern Sumatera, Java to Nusa Tenggara. These trends are projected to persist under future climate scenarios (SSPs or RCPs). We found that urban factors like land subsidence and landuse change, particularly in cities like Jakarta, may worsen flood impacts in the future. Future studies should also examine rainfall-induced landslides and flash floods in other vulnerable areas, such as steep areas. Additionally, drought, often overlooked in this country, requires comprehensive research given its unique slow onset and its agricultural and societal effects. Global teleconnection mechanisms (ENSO, IOD, MJO) have intensified wet and dry hazards in recent decades and must be considered. A more integrated approach, combining cascading process models, impact assessments, early warning systems, and adaptive land-use practices, is essential to enhance resilience against climate hazards in Indonesia.
- Preprint
(2275 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(179 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-584', Ali S Akanda, 21 Dec 2025
- This is a large and meticulous review of various climate related natural hazards in Indonesia. Previous review papers on this topic has highlighted the vulnerability of Indonesia in general terms - but this manuscript does a good job of categorizing and mapping them with appropriate climate extremes and geographical significance. On that note, this manuscript attempts to provide a type-by-type reviews of the many climate hazards faced by Indonesia, and as reported in current literature and IPCC publications. Lastly, the geographical representation of the hazards and a list including less discussed hazards in the context of Indonesia (droughts, wildfires, and storm surges) is appreciated.
- The manuscript performed an important task by including the effect of the global and regional teleconnections, ENSO/IOD/MJO, on the climate extremes. Most other reviews do not combine the effect of climate change and teleconnections when discussing extremes. This is an unique contribution of this paper.
- In the introduction section, the Greater Jakarta example should be expanded to include the issue of excessive groundwater withdrawal and land subsidence. This issue, although anthropogenic, combines with climate extremes to exacerbate flooding during the rainy season and water scarcity during the dry season (lower groundwater table due to excessive withdrawal and at the same time, reduced rate of recharge due to land cover conversion).
- The selection methodology for literature review has been explained well in the methods section. It is very important to understand the criteria and methodology employed in a review work with such a vast scope. Although the final tally of selected literature (35) was surprisingly low, the careful selection method starting with a much larger selection affirms that important publications were included.
- In Figure 1, should there be a connection between Extreme Precipitation and Storm Surge – do these two types coincide to cause more aggravated coastal damage?
- Are the Yearly Count or Number of Events reported in Figures 2 and 3 related? Are they supposed to be the same? Figure 2 says “cumulative” while Figure 3 does not, but the shapes of the curves are very similar.
- The opening sentence in Discussion: should it be a thorough “review?”
- The summary figure in the discussion (Figure 8) depicting the clustering phenomena is very helpful to bring the vast review and its contents in a concluding discussion. Similarly, Figures 4 and 6 are appreciated that show the different types of hazards and their geographic distributions and future projections.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-584-CC1 -
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-584', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Jan 2026
The abstract is unclear. It does not specify what the authors actually did: it mentions a search of bibliographic sources and models but does not indicate a precise methodology. Furthermore, a series of well-known issues are listed, but it is not explained how they were identified in this study.
The first part of the introduction discusses the effects of natural disasters, mixing case studies and literature definitions, but it does not clearly connect to the work carried out by the authors. It gives the impression of presenting their general perspective on disasters rather than introducing the study itself.
From lines 110 to 120, there is confusion: the definitions of the phenomena are approximate and inconsistent. Overall, the work is not well organized: the phenomena are listed in succession without providing unambiguous definitions and seem to change from one paragraph to another. It would be better to create a single, clear, and complete list of the studied phenomena, avoiding adding new items in different sections of the text.
At line 136, a temporal trend analysis based on a certain number of events is mentioned, but the number of events is not specified.
In the third paragraph, while discussing the literature review, climatic extremes of the study area are introduced. It is unclear whether these data come from the authors’ own analysis or from literature sources.
Figure 4 is rather picturesque, but it does not seem useful for understanding what the authors actually did: it merely lists disasters that affected their country, without providing new insights.
There is likely a lot of work behind this article, but the authors fail to clearly communicate what they actually did. It is not clear which statements are mere opinions, which results are drawn from the consulted literature, and which are the original findings derived from analyzing the disaster data of their country. In my opinion, the article needs to be completely rewritten to clarify its objectives, methodology, and results.
I apologize for the critical nature of this feedback; I hope it can help enhance the clarity of the article and that it may be resubmitted in a clearer and more suitable form.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-584-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-584', Anonymous Referee #2, 04 Feb 2026
An interesting paper but it does not live up to expectations. The topic addressed is appropriate, but the structure and content of the work need significant improvement. Please read below some specific comments:
Abstract: it contains a large amount of information but does not follow the traditional abstract structure, stating clearly aims, methods and results. Instead, there is a large description of results but some more details are needed regarding the objectives and methods.
Introduction: it is well-written but is unclear related to where? The first part (lines 25 to 57) do not describe clearly if it is a worldwide phenomenon or refers to effects at the continental level. Moreover, the Indonesia affectation description could be improved to be more clear for the reader.
Method: There are some issues in this section too:
Figure 1 is not a method description (line 98). The literature review ends in 2024 but when does start? It is not explained. Line 107 states that 25 papers were excluded but no further explanation regarding why. Then in line 109 another papers exclusion is indicated but again no reasons are given.
Section 2.2. The official data is compared with the literature review results?
Section 2.4. Lines 166-167 explain that the used datasets "have been widely used in previous studies and have been proved for their performance" but there are not examples of such use.
Results. Section 3.1 include a comment about a trend of publications starting in 2014. Does that mean that this is the missing information of the previous section? If so, why did you start your research in 2014? There were no papers published before about hazards in Indonesia?
Section 3.2. Line 203 refers to figure 3 that illustrates the trend of disaster occurrence from 2000 to 2024. The starting data of 2000 is because the information begins that year or it is a decision of the research team?
Figure 4 includes major disasters affecting the country. How did you decide which ones should be in the map? Moreover, the map is difficult to read as a large amount of information is included there.
Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 should be clearer when refering to historical and future projections, maybe using a) historical and b) projections but as it is written now it looks like a typing error.
Discussion: You wrote that your research reveal significant increases in the frequency and severity of hazards but such increase is related to your data. Are you confident that you have included in your paper all the available information regarding the climate hazards in Indonesia?
In line 503 you indicate that a K-means clustering method is used but it was not explained in your methods section. Even if you write later that details can be found in supplementary files, some previous comments would be appreciated.
References: the list is appropiated and includes significant references to the research topic.
In relation to the above comments, the paper, although it falls within the Journal's scope, needs to be improved as its scientific significance and overall quality does not allow acceptance as it is. I look forward to read an improved version of the manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-584-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2,927 | 1,966 | 47 | 4,940 | 88 | 70 | 86 |
- HTML: 2,927
- PDF: 1,966
- XML: 47
- Total: 4,940
- Supplement: 88
- BibTeX: 70
- EndNote: 86
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1