This study began with a bibliometric analysis to map research trends and identify gaps in NATECH studies related to geohazards in Indonesia. Using VOSviewer (Jan van Eck & Waltman 2020) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematics reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework (Page et al. 2021), publications were retrieved from Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) in the period of 2007 until 2025 for further systematically reviewed from Scopus and Web of Science (2007–2025) were systematically reviewed. The search covered keywords on NATECH, cascading disasters, geohazards (earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, landslides, volcanic eruptions) and industrial risk. Figure 2-A1 in Appendix 1 depicts the structured Boolean logic and query results, following the PRISMA logic framework. The screening stage of Scopus and Web of Science database between 2007 and 2025 yielded 167 publications, of which 57 were duplicates. Further elaboration of the 110 articles resulted in only five articles significantly relevant to this study. Bibliometric analysis using VOSviewer produced co-occurrence revealing research patterns and country contributions. The results show limited attention to NATECH risks in Indonesia, highlighting the need for stronger geohazard mapping and policy frameworks tailored to local contexts. To strengthen this study, we added four articles to serve as a basis for the literature review we conducted prior to this study (Mesa-Gomes, Casal & Muñoz 2020; Naderpour et al. 2019; Suarez-Paba et al. 2019; Valente, Ricci & Cozzani 2025), and 38 publicly available sources, resulting in 47 articles were analysed for this study.

Given the lack of standardised NATECH reporting system in Indonesia, a multisource approach, combining literature review, disaster databases, for example, National Agency for Disaster Management (BNPB), Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT), government reports and expert consultation, was used to compile a record of Indonesia’s geohazard-induced technological accidents. Events were identified through targeted keywords (see Figure 2-A1, Appendix 1) such as ‘earthquake-induced industrial accident’ and ‘tsunami-related technological disaster’. This process covers both major and lesser-known cases, including the 2004 Aceh tsunami-induced oil facility failure and the 2018 Palu liquefaction that hampered energy distribution and humanitarian logistics. Data were triangulated across independent sources to ensure reliability. Despite persistent issues such as under-reporting and non-standardised NATECH classification, this database establishes a baseline for understanding Indonesia’s exposure and institutional readiness.

The spatial intersection of geohazard and industrial assets was analysed using GIS-based overlay techniques (Burrough & McDonnell 1998) to identify where geohazards threaten industrial facilities. We utilised national datasets from the National Disaster Management Authority of Indonesia (BNPB) through the InaRISK web portal (http://inarisk.bnpb.go.id; BNPB 2025), National Seismic Source and Hazards Map for the National Center for Earthquake Studies (PuSGen 2017), Geological Agency (Badan Geologi 2023) and the Agency for Meteorology Climatology and Geophysics (BMKG 2025). Hazards that were analysed include seismic hazard probability map with occurrence period of 10% in 50 years for earthquakes, tsunami inundation map, active volcanoes, floods inundation, landslides and extreme weather.

Hazard datasets were standardised, classified into risk levels (low, medium, high) and spatially overlaid with economic zones’ location data to assess exposure. The resulting multihazard NATECH exposure maps visualise zones where technological systems intersect with natural hazard risks, supporting data-driven planning for disaster preparedness and mitigation.

The final phase involved the synthesis of empirical findings into a NATECH risk governance framework in Indonesia, drawing from bibliometric literature findings and geohazard NATECH exposure mapping. The framework addresses regulatory gaps and promotes integration of NATECH considerations into disaster risk reduction (DRR) and spatial planning policies.

Furthermore, a content analysis was undertaken to assess the extent to which these regulatory instruments: (1) explicitly reference NATECH or cascading disaster scenarios; (2) mandate the implementation of multihazard risk assessments within industrial sectors; and (3) establish provisions for cross-agency coordination and the integration of early warning systems. This analysis aims to identify regulatory gaps and opportunities for strengthening resilience against complex and interlinked disaster risks.

This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.

The bibliometric review revealed that NATECH research in Indonesia remains limited, fragmented and often incorporated within broader DRR studies rather than addressed as a distinct research field. The existing literature reiterates that NATECH studies in Indonesia have focused more on post-disaster response, while pre-disaster planning, industrial risk assessment and mitigation strategies for technological accidents triggered by geohazards have received minimal attention. There is a marked deficit in studies concerning pre-disaster diagnostic tools, such as industrial fragility curves and predictive simulation for geohazard-induced technological failures. Literature reviews, generally conducted in developed industrial countries, emphasise case-based analysis, vulnerability assessment and simulation models for complex technological systems. These methodologies are still less applicable in Indonesia, where industrial characteristics and geohazards differ significantly. Thematic grouping of global studies reveals five dominant areas: (1) integration of NATECH into the broader disaster risk discourse, (2) mitigation and risk reduction strategies, (3) accident prevention mechanisms, (4) vulnerability and exposure analysis, and (5) governance and regulatory frameworks. While developed industrial economies prioritised high-fidelity simulation and complex system modelling, these methodologies show low translatability to the Indonesian context. The bibliometric mapping confirms a significant institutional decoupling between industrial disaster preparedness and national DRR frameworks. Industrial sectors such as oil and gas, mining and chemical processing, which are most vulnerable to cascading impacts, have not been systematically integrated into national hazard governance. Furthermore, cross-sectoral coordination between environmental, industrial and disaster management institutions remains limited, reducing the effectiveness of preparedness and early warning systems. Internationally recognised frameworks, such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Chemical Accident Programme (OECD 2023) and the EU Seveso Directive (EU Commission 2012) provide essential benchmarks for NATECH prevention and mitigation. However, amid the likelihood of cascade effects from every NATECH event (Girgin et al. 2019), Indonesia urgently needs an intervention that takes into account relevant institutional and regulatory frameworks in addition to regionally contextualised risk management and industrial safety standards.

Another key finding from the literature is the absence of measurable indicators for industrial resilience in hazard-prone areas. Data limitations and restricted access to industrial risk information hinder both academic and policy progress. Global guidance documents from OECD, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) and the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) provide valuable conceptual direction but lack operational metrics or legal enforcement mechanisms applicable to national contexts.

Overall, this review underscores the urgent need for a coherent NATECH governance framework in Indonesia, one that bridges scientific understanding, industrial regulation and disaster management practices. Strengthening institutional collaboration, establishing early warning linkages with high-risk industries and embedding NATECH indicators within DRR policy instruments are critical steps towards building industrial resilience in the face of geohazard-triggered disasters.

Indonesia’s diverse geological setting exposes industrial systems to recurrent geohazard-induced technological disruptions. The documented cases illustrate how floods, landslides, land subsidence, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and tsunamis have triggered cascading effects that disrupted industrial operations and revealed systemic regulatory and governance gaps.

The impacts of geohazards on industrial systems extend beyond direct physical damage, triggering cascading failures across infrastructure networks, supply chains and essential services. These systemic effects define the NATECH phenomenon, where natural hazards initiate technological disruptions with long-term socio-economic and environmental consequences (Gill & Malamud 2014; Krausmann et al. 2017). Comparative global events, such as Hurricane Katrina (2005) and the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake, demonstrate how geohazards can cause industrial shutdowns, energy supply interruptions and hazardous material releases, leading to multi-billion-dollar losses (Cruz & Krausmann 2009; World Bank 2023). In Indonesia, similar conditions prevail in regions where rapid industrialisation overlaps with high seismic, volcanic and hydrometeorological exposure zones. The geospatial hazard-exposure overlay analysis reveals extensive overlaps between high-hazards zones of earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruption, landslides, extreme-weather and flood-prone places and major industrial hubs (Figure 1a to f). Furthermore, Figure 2 summarises the multihazard exposures across Indonesia’s SEZs.

Earthquakes and tsunamis pose the highest risks, while floods and extreme weather have recurrent impacts on industrial operations. The chart highlights that nearly all SEZs experience exposure to more than one geohazard type, underscoring the need for integrated multihazard assessment and risk-informed planning in industrial development. Approximately, one-third of SEZs are situated within moderate to high earthquake-risk areas, particularly in North Sumatra, West Java, Central Sulawesi and Maluku, while coastal SEZs in Banten, East Java, Bali and North Sulawesi are directly exposed to tsunami threats. Flooding and extreme weather hazards pose the most frequent risks, affecting SEZs in Central and West Java, South Kalimantan and Riau. Volcanic and landslide hazards, although less frequent, threaten industrial logistics and transport corridors in mountainous regions such as West Sumatra and Sulawesi. These findings demonstrate that Indonesia’s industrial development is increasingly concentrated in multihazard environments, thereby amplifying systemic vulnerability and cascading risk potential. The analysis demonstrates that nearly all SEZs are multihazard-exposed, amplifying the potential for cascading failures that may disrupt national supply chains and essential infrastructure. Industrial shutdowns, material leakage or power interruptions in these zones can propagate rapidly through interconnected systems, compounding economic losses. Mitigation strategies should prioritise early warning integration, risk-informed land-use planning and hazard-resilient design standards. Industrial operators in high-risk areas must incorporate real-time monitoring, contingency planning and cross-sectoral communication protocols to minimise operational downtime and prevent technological accidents.

In summary, this assessment reveals that Indonesia’s current industrial expansion strategy lacks comprehensive hazard-informed planning. The clustering of critical industries within seismically and hydro-meteorologically active zones heightens the probability of NATECH events. Proactive risk governance, anchored in integrated hazard assessment and institutional accountability, is therefore essential to prevent cascading industrial disasters. The next section examines the existing regulatory landscape and identifies critical policy gaps in addressing NATECH governance in Indonesia.

Indonesia’s regulatory landscape for managing NATECH risks is broad but fragmented, with relevant provisions dispersed across disaster management, environmental protection, industrial safety, spatial planning and early warning systems. Although Indonesia has established a strong foundation in multihazard disaster governance, these frameworks do not yet integrate natural hazard triggers with technological accident prevention in a systematic manner. This fragmentation reflects a broader structural limitation in disaster risk governance, where hazard-specific regulations and industrial safety standards operate in parallel rather than within an integrated multihazard and cascading risk framework (OECD 2023; UNDRR 2022).

The subsequent subsections present the findings of: (1) an assessment of pertinent Indonesian regulations (Table 1-A1 in Appendix 1), (2) a comparative analysis against international best practices (Table 2-A1 in Appendix 1), and (3) a synthesis of identified deficiencies via the NATECH gap matrix. This analysis is conducted to prioritise regulatory strengthening and address the previously identified gaps.

The bibliometric analysis (‘Bibliometric literature study’ in the ‘Results’ section) demonstrates that research on NATECH in Indonesia remains sparse, fragmented and largely descriptive. Despite the country’s high exposure to multihazard risks, there is no consolidated body of knowledge that systematically integrates geohazard science with technological risk management. This gap in the academic landscape is mirrored in documented NATECH events (‘Geohazard-driven natural hazards triggering technological accident events in Indonesia’ section), where floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions and landslides have repeatedly disrupted industrial operations, causing casualties, environmental contamination and major economic losses. These incidents highlight the systemic vulnerability of industrial zones, especially SEZs situated along coastlines and tectonic corridors. The ‘Risk assessment’ section further shows that many SEZs are located in areas of overlapping hazard exposure. Earthquakes and tsunamis represent the most acute threats, while floods and extreme weather events create recurrent disruptive pressures. Industrial facilities within these zones often lack standardised risk assessments that incorporate cascading geohazard–technological interactions. This situation aligns with recent findings regarding the so-called ‘compound and cascading risk environments’, the tendency in which multiple hazards interact with exposed systems and amplify the risk scale beyond the assumption of a single hazard (De Ruiter et al. 2019; Sulfikkar Ahamed et al. 2023).

‘Regulatory assessment and framework development’ section reveals that Indonesia’s regulatory framework, although comprehensive in disaster management and environmental protection, does not yet incorporate NATECH-specific requirements. Table 1-A1 in Appendix 1 shows that existing regulations address hazards and technological risks separately. Table 2-A1 in Appendix 1 synthesises the gaps, showing that Indonesia lacks mandatory external hazard scenario modelling, industrial EWS integration, cross-sector inspections, unified incident reporting and standardised preparedness indicators. Collectively, these findings indicate that Indonesia’s current approach to managing NATECH risk is reactive rather than anticipatory, sectoral rather than integrated and hazard-focused rather than cascade-oriented (De Ruiter et al. 2019; Sulfikkar Ahamed et al. 2023; UNDRR 2022).

From a theoretical perspective, this study reinforces the argument that NATECH risks must be conceptualised as cross-boundary phenomena, transcending traditional divides between natural hazard science and technological risk management. Indonesia’s experience confirms the inadequacy of siloed disaster and industrial governance models in multihazard environments. The findings align with global best practices that emphasise the importance of systems thinking, multihazard modelling and cascade analysis.

Practically, the results demonstrate that industrial safety in geohazard-prone regions cannot rely solely on structural engineering or facility-level emergency planning. Instead, industrial resilience requires alignment between hazard monitoring agencies, environmental regulators, industrial authorities, spatial planners and SEZ administrators (OECD 2023; OECD & UN-HABITAT 2026). Without such coordination, even well-engineered facilities remain vulnerable to cascading failures triggered by earthquakes, tsunamis or floods.

The gap analysis (Table 2-A1, Appendix 1) provides a strong foundation for policy reform. Four policy implications emerge:

These policy directions align with international frameworks and reflect the minimum requirements for effective NATECH governance (Table 2-A1, Appendix 1)

This study is constrained by the limited availability of documented NATECH incidents in Indonesia, reflecting under-reporting at national and industrial levels.

Future research should prioritise, among others:

These areas will strengthen the empirical foundation for NATECH policy development. Furthermore, the above discussion demonstrates that Indonesia is at a critical juncture. While exposure to geohazards will continue to increase, industrial expansion into hazard-prone areas is accelerating.

Without systemic regulatory reform, cascading NATECH events are likely to become more frequent and severe. By aligning national regulations with international best practices and adopting integrated, multihazard approaches, Indonesia can significantly enhance the safety and resilience of its industrial systems.

Based on the gaps identified, five priority policy recommendations are proposed:

Implementing NATECH-sensitive regulations will strengthen industrial resilience and reduce losses during future disasters. Integrating hazard information into industrial licensing and spatial planning will help prevent dangerous clustering of high-risk facilities in vulnerable zones.

Moreover, linking early warning systems to industrial operations enhances preparedness and minimises cascade effects during earthquake or tsunami emergencies. Collectively, these measures will yield multilevel benefits, strengthening community safety, protecting supply chains and safeguarding national economic stability.

The study identifies several areas where further research is essential:

Indonesia stands at a strategic crossroads. While its industrial development is accelerating, geohazard exposure continues to intensify. Without targeted reforms, the likelihood and severity of NATECH events will increase. By adopting integrated, multihazard-informed and internationally aligned governance frameworks, Indonesia can significantly enhance the resilience, safety and sustainability of its industries. The findings and recommendations presented in this study offer a practical roadmap for achieving that goal.