Discussions of disaster scenarios and risks in this era tend to be complex, even as the nature of disasters themselves becomes increasingly complex. The concepts and mindset of most people remain limited to a “single hazard” perspective or in other words, they still view disasters as a cause-and-effect relationship. This cause-and-effect approach contrasts with the “multi-hazard” concept, which offers a more dynamic framework for mapping disasters. Indonesia, located in the Pacific Ring of Fire, is classified as having a high potential for disasters year after year; this is supported by data from the National Disaster Management Agency, which shows that disasters are predominantly hydrometeorological in nature. Therefore, the concept of multi-hazard has emerged as a well-established paradigm for understanding the relationships between disasters and all their triggering factors. This approach also distinguishes between different types of hazards and associated vulnerabilities, which can be identified as early as possible. However, a major challenge that significantly hinders disaster mitigation is the still-limited development of public awareness and understanding. Several theories supporting the multi-hazard approach conclude that disaster management requires reconstruction and mapping, particularly during the initial identification stage, governance, environmental interactions, and information dissemination. Research findings indicate that disaster mapping in Indonesia remains weak and tends to fall short of the multi-hazard concept. This is evidenced by the continued high number of fatalities and losses in every disaster. 

Keywords – Disaster, Multi-Hazard, Image, Identification, Mitigation.