Disaster risk assessment based on the community’s vulnerability, capacity, and responses in facing an earthquake in the Special Region of Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Bantul is one of the regencies in the Special Region of Yogyakarta (DIY) that are prone to earthquakes. In 2006, Yogyakarta was hit by a tectonic earthquake with a magnitude of 5.9 on the Richter scale, resulting in a death toll of 6,234 people, with 1,754 severely injured (e.g., spinal injuries) and in need of paraplegia rehabilitation. The high number of casualties indicates a high disaster risk, which means high disaster vulnerability and low disaster management capacity. The research aims to assess disaster risks based on the community’s vulnerability and capacity in facing the 2006 earthquake disaster in DIY. This study uses a mixed method, consisting of a survey with 44 disaster victims suffering from injuries that result in disabilities (paraplegia) and in-depth interviews with ten family members of the victims. The results show that disaster vulnerability will likely result in a physical risk, i.e., disaster injuries that leave the victims with paraplegia. Such vulnerability is caused by the community’s low capacity and poor response to disasters, including the 2006 earthquake. Another physical risk is the collapsing houses, which lead to economic risk as the community suffers losses of between 30 and 91 million rupiah. Meanwhile, the social risk is a change in the status of the victims from people without disabilities to people with disabilities. That said, social relations increase because the disaster victims with paraplegia have become active members of an organization.


Introduction
Developing countries prone to disasters and climate change adopt structural measures to reduce disaster risks, such as sustainable development and disaster risk reduction.These two measures are interconnected at many levels, with two-way links.Disasters bring negative impacts and risks to society and communities, including death tolls, financial losses, destruction of infrastructure, environmental damage, and obstruction of sustainable development [1].Effective disaster risk management is needed to mitigate the impacts, which requires the identification of areas of social vulnerability to earthquake disasters and factors that contribute to social vulnerability [2].Vulnerability is a fundamental concept in a disaster's theoretical and practical dimensions.This concept and its application have transformed throughout history.Academics, practitioners, and policymakers now focus on how structural vulnerability can inform disaster theory and practice and emphasize the relational characteristics [3].As such, assessing community vulnerability and capacity to deal with disasters is essential to develop efficient disaster risk mitigation strategies.Research on disaster risk and adaptation has shown that risks, vulnerability, and capacity are interrelated and interdependent [4].Identification of risks and vulnerability factors is essential for analyzing and devising strategies to overcome and adapt to disaster situations.Therefore, this paper aims to identify indicators of disaster risks and community socio-economic and cultural vulnerability [5].
Research on disaster risk assessment, vulnerability, and capacity has been carried out using various indicators.Several studies found variables that reduce vulnerability and risks and increase capacity, such as strong social cohesion, perceiving (and accepting) disasters as part of life, and government awareness of the validity (and the risks) of informal settlements [6][7][8][9].
Other research on vulnerability assessment uses a composite index, providing important information for policymakers about why certain regions are more affected than other regions.In this way, policies can be developed based on the different levels of vulnerability and the estimation of future vulnerability [10].For example, research in China shows that the more developed the urban economy and the higher the population density, the higher the disaster risk.Research has also shown that disaster prevention capability is related to economic development-the more developed the urban economy, the stronger the disaster prevention capability is [11].
Relationships between vulnerability and adaptive capacity of a system are highly dependent on the nature of the hazard.A system's adaptive capacity may be hampered by variables originating outside the system.Therefore, it is important to consider the external barriers to adaptation and the interrelationships between scales in assessing adaptive capacity [12,13].In addition to external barriers, vulnerability factors include unsafe construction practices, poor drainage systems, unregulated solid waste disposal, institutional incompetence, insufficient land, settlement in high-risk areas, deforestation, river silting, and national disaster risk reduction policies that overlook the urban areas [14].
Other research investigates the relationship between disaster risk, poverty, and vulnerabilities of households and communities.The results show that households are highly dependent on natural resources for their livelihoods, and low-income households suffer greater losses from floods and droughts than high-income households [15].
Previous research has shown that social factors are one of the main causes of disaster vulnerability [16].This research uses bibliographies, citation databases, and other available records to determine valid indicators of social vulnerability in a disaster.It examined 43 peer-reviewed English and Persian journals.The initial search found 32 indicators and 150 variables.They were subsequently grouped into several social vulnerability indicators: gender, public health conditions, public infrastructure, and migration.These are the top five categories of social vulnerability that are most useful in the Iranian context.It is important to note that past research is limited to measuring the social vulnerability index in natural disaster situations [16].The analysis of physical vulnerability to hazards in a disaster-prone area has received little attention despite its significance in disaster risk reduction and mitigation [17].Examining vulnerability is essential to improve disaster risk management, which plays an important role in protecting people's welfare and maintaining state governance [18].
The current research examines the vulnerability in Bantul Regency, DIY.The earthquake occurred on Saturday, 26 May 2006, at 05:55:03 (GMT +7) for 57 seconds.The magnitude was 5.9 on the Richter Scale, with a depth of 11.3 km.The earthquake hit the DIY and parts of Central Java.Bantul Regency had the worst damage and the highest number of deaths and casualties.Bantul Regency is close to the epicenter of the earthquake.The number of deaths was 6,234, injured victims 1,754, and damaged houses 143,135 [19].Victims who suffered severe injuries and needed rehabilitation totaled 1,754, including those who suffered spinal injuries.The high numbers of deaths and casualties indicate high vulnerability in dealing with disasters and low capacity, which means high disaster risks.
Considering the background above, this research aims to assess risks based on the community's vulnerability and capacity to face the 2006 earthquake disaster in DIY.Data was collected using a mixed method, i.e., a survey of 44 people injured in the earthquake and became people with disabilities and indepth interviews with ten family members of victims with paraplegia.The research results show that paraplegia is a physical risk due to high community vulnerability, low capacity, and poor response to earthquakes.Another physical risk is the collapsed houses.The economic risk that the community suffered from was a loss of between 30 and 91 million rupiah.Meanwhile, the social risk of a change in the status of the victims from people without disabilities to people with disabilities.Lastly, the social relations increase because all people with paraplegia are active members of the organization.

Theoretical Framework
Developing countries are the most vulnerable to natural disasters and climate change.The United Nations World Risk Index, which measures exposure to natural hazards and the capacity to cope with these events in 171 countries, ranks developing countries at the top [20].In addition to their limited capacity to respond to natural disasters, these countries experience extreme weather events more frequently than larger nations, also with a greater average economic loss.This vulnerability to natural disasters poses more challenges for policymakers in allocating spending to promote infrastructure growth or resilience, reduce vulnerability, and allocate financial support before or after a disaster [20].
The physical impacts of natural disasters include casualties and property damage.Guha-Sapir, Hoyois, and Below (2013) estimate that natural disasters caused around 107 death tolls per year between 2002 and 2012 [21].During the same period, natural disasters affected 268 million people annually, resulting in an estimated annual economic loss of USD 143 billion [21].The World Bank (2010) estimates that the total damage caused by all hazards between 1970 and 2008 was approximately USD 2,300 billion (in 2008 dollars) [21].The impact of natural disasters on households depends on the household and community's resilience to natural disasters [22].
In the coming decades, the impact of natural disasters is likely to increase due to changes in the occurrence and severity of disasters and the vulnerability of communities to natural hazards.Meanwhile, the uncertainty of future threats and the complexity of integrated social, technical, and economic systems increase the challenges in conducting disaster risk analysis, especially in dense urban environments [22].
Disaster risk is a function of threat and vulnerability, which capabilities can change.Using this formula, when there are no vulnerabilities and threats, the resulting risk value is 0. On the other hand, if an area has a disaster risk value of more than 100, this means that the area has a high disaster risk.

Disaster Risk (R) =
Threat (A) X Vulnerability (K) Capacity (M) Source: National Agency for Disaster Countermeasures, 2015 Using the methods above, the relationship between threats, vulnerability, and capacity can be calculated.Disaster risks will be greater if threats meet vulnerability without capabilities.Conversely, disaster risks will be smaller if the value of capabilities is greater than threats and vulnerabilities.
Vulnerability has emerged as a central concept in understanding a system's condition or susceptibility to hazards [23].Generally, system vulnerability is its capacity to withstand external threats (European Commission, 2011).Vulnerability is a function of exposure to stressors, effects (also termed sensitivity or potential impact), and potential recovery [23].Vulnerability is not a straightforward concept, with no consensus on its precise meaning [24].
Indicator-based vulnerability analysis quantitatively represents and assesses crucial attributes of communities contributing to their potential losses.This encompasses aspects like population size, highly vulnerable socio-demographic groups, income, and building stock characteristics indicating what is at risk (exposure) and its vulnerability to loss [9].This framework usually spans a broad array of 1313 (2024) 012029 IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1313/1/0120294 community assets and capacities, referred to as capital-social, economic, and built environment capital [9].
The framework of sustainable livelihoods views vulnerability in terms of assets owned by individuals in a community for their livelihoods, categorized as human, social, financial, physical, and natural assets [4].Human assets include skills, knowledge, health, and physical abilities that a community's workforce possesses to implement livelihood strategies [4].
Social assets pertain to social networks, affiliations, and associations subcontracted by individuals for livelihood fulfillment [4].Economic assets within a community encompass the "capital base," comprising insurance, credit and debt, cash ownership, and savings that play a critical role in successful livelihood attainment.Natural and environmental assets comprise natural resource reserves and environmental services.Lastly, physical assets refer to infrastructure, production equipment, and technology used by communities for livelihood attainment vulnerable to external hazards.
Capacity is defined as "the ability of individuals, organizations, and communities as a whole to manage their affairs successfully" [25].Capacity development is understood as "a locally driven process through which individuals, organizations, and institutions acquire, strengthen, retain, and adapt their capacity to set and achieve their own development goals over time and learn from their efforts," adapted from the World Bank Institute and UNDP [25].
Capacity stands as a key factor in comprehending a system's vulnerability to external hazards [4].Adaptive capacity refers to the strength influencing a system's ability to adapt to external stimuli, in other words, capacity is a system's ability to adjust to potential or anticipated damage, seize opportunities, or respond to consequences [4].
Capacity development interventions at all scales can relate to various capacity elements: material resources (access to equipment and technology), human resources (skills, knowledge, awareness), structures (organizations and policies), processes (decision-making, coordination, delivery), and supporting mechanisms (political support, advocacy, staff incentives) [26].
According to Oetomo (2007), there are several opinions on the factors influencing capacity within an environment, including (1) Regional ability in terms of completeness of physical infrastructure, (2) Completeness of facilities and utilities, and (3) Availability of trained human resources.
UNDP defines risk as "the likelihood of harmful consequences or casualties, injuries, property, livelihoods, disrupted economic activities (environmental damage) resulting from the interaction between natural or human-induced hazards caused by vulnerable conditions" [27].Disaster risk management should be based on understanding disaster risk across dimensions of vulnerability, capacity, exposure of individuals and assets, hazard characteristics, and the environment, which can be used for risk assessment, prevention, mitigation, preparedness, and response [28].
Disaster risk is the interaction between the vulnerability of an area and the existing threat hazards [28].The level of vulnerability in an area can be reduced, thus enhancing the capacity to face these threats [29].The magnitude of disaster risk can be expressed in the amount of loss (property, lives, injuries) for a specific event magnitude [30].Disaster risk assessment is an approach to illustrate the potential negative impact that may arise due to a potential disaster striking.

Research Methods
A total of six districts (out of seventeen) in Bantul Regency were selected for this study, namely Pundong, Piyungan, Sewon, Jetis, Pleret, and Bambanglipuro.These locations were selected based on the highest number of earthquake victims who suffered spinal cord injuries and have become people with disabilities.
The total population of people with disabilities in these six districts reached 124, including those who rely on wheelchairs, modified motorcycles, and bicycles for daily mobility.Respondents in this study are divided into two groups: people with disabilities and family members of people with disabilities.Information from people with disabilities was collected using questionnaires, while information from family members was collected through in-depth interviews.The survey focuses on the vulnerability, capacity, and risk disaster victims experienced during the earthquakes.The in-depth interviews aim to corroborate the survey's data and gain insight into the family members' perspectives on the victims' lives after becoming people with disabilities.
In this study, the sample size is 44 people with disabilities, which is 30% of the total people with disabilities population in the six sampled districts.We used a descriptive research method using a random sampling technique, following the procedure from Gay and Diehl (1992), including the sample number that should cover at least 10 % of the total population.Respondents were selected randomly through simple random sampling, where individuals have an equal chance of being selected.The representative sample data is shown in Table 1 This study is aided by key informants who were also part of the research subjects and thoroughly understood the research location and community.The key informants in this study were the head of the Collective Recovery Union (PBB) and the Secretary of the Collective Recovery Union (PBB), the head of the Yogyakarta Paraplegic Society (P3Y).These key informants helped identify where people with disabilities lived, the appropriate times for interviews, and the times when they engaged in organizational activities.
In-depth interviews were conducted with ten family members, i.e., the spouses of the people with disabilities.The interviews aimed to corroborate data from the survey and obtain information about the adjustment and acceptance and family support after the disaster victims became people with disabilities.These interviews were conducted without the presence of the people with disabilities to ensure that the informants provided accurate and unbiased information.The results were analyzed using frequency description analysis to determine the percentage of each answer from the respondents.Cross-tab analysis was conducted after the frequency analysis to see the percentage relationship between threat, vulnerability, and capacity variables.The threat, vulnerability, and capacity were subsequently categorized based on the assessment levels, as shown in Table 3.
The results of the analysis describe (1) the percentage of respondents' answers to each question item, (2) the risk analysis based on the assessment of vulnerability, capacity, and response variables, and (3) the categorization of each variable's assessment based on the respondent's answers The vulnerability of individuals who now have disabilities post-disaster is assessed using three indicators, i.e., physical, social, and economic vulnerability.Physical vulnerability is related to house construction, the distance between houses, and the building density in the area.Economic vulnerability covers employment status and assets owned.Social vulnerability deals with social relationships/connections. Table 4 presents the survey results.The survey results with people with disabilities show that the earthquake resulted in severe damage to houses and public facilities in the six districts.The interviews with family members of the people with disabilities confirm this, as shown in the following excerpts.
"Almost every house and office in my village were severely damaged, reduced to rubbles."(Interview with Mr. Y, 10 March 2020, 3:30 PM, at Mr. Y's house, Jetis District) "Our house could not withstand the earthquake because it had no steel reinforcement, only bricks, wood, and cement.The strong earthquake made it collapse right away.In my village, the buildings that did not collapse were the strong and sturdy ones."(Interview with Mr. S, 5 February 2020, 10:15 AM, at Mr. S's house, Piyungan District) "Our house is completely destroyed to the ground, Miss.The building construction is of a low quality, with no steel reinforcement, so it is not surprising to collapse when an earthquake hits.The houses that did not collapse are those owned by the hamlet's chief, the village head, and other wealthy people."(Interview with Mr. T, 18 March 2020, 3:45 PM, at Mr. T's house, Pleret District).
Based on the interview and survey data, the houses and public facilities are damaged because they are not constructed to resist earthquakes.The houses of people with a lower economic status were damaged severely or completely destroyed since they lacked steel reinforcement.Meanwhile, houses of people with a higher economic status did not suffer severe damage because they had proper earthquakeresistant construction.
Based on the survey results, the physical vulnerability indicator significantly contributes to paraplegia.For example, house building materials did not meet earthquake-resistant standards.Additionally, the houses were situated closely together, making it difficult to find evacuation routes during a disaster.While open land was available for evacuation, its distance from the houses was relatively far for sudden disaster occurrences.Economically, nearly all respondents were in a favorable conditionemployed and possessing assets.
The vulnerability referred to is during the 2006 earthquake.The number of highly vulnerable paraplegic individuals was 7, moderately vulnerable was 26, and less vulnerable was 10.The vulnerability categories based on data analysis results can be seen in Table 5.Based on the map of the vulnerability levels developed by the Center for Disaster Studies, Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM), the distribution is as follows.(1) High vulnerability is located in Bambanglipuro district in an area categorized as vulnerable; Pundong district in an area categorized as highly vulnerable; Sewon district in an area categorized as vulnerable; Pleret district in an area categorized as vulnerable; and Piyungan district in an area categorized as less vulnerable.(2) Moderate vulnerability is found in Bambanglipuro district in an area categorized as vulnerable; Pundong district in an area categorized as highly vulnerable; Jetis district in an area categorized as highly vulnerable; Pleret district in an area categorized as vulnerable; and Piyungan district in an area categorized as highly vulnerable.(3) Low vulnerability is located in Jetis district in an area categorized as vulnerable and Piyungan district in an area categorized as highly vulnerable.

Figure 1. The Distribution of Vulnerability Levels of Persons with Paraplegia in Bantul
Most people with disabilities individuals faced moderate and high vulnerability in the 2006 earthquake.This high vulnerability level is distributed across areas that are highly and moderately vulnerable.Only one paraplegic individual faces high vulnerability but resides in an area that is less vulnerable.Given the high threat and moderate to high vulnerability levels, the risk is also high.

Capacity
The capacity of people with paraplegia prior to the 2006 earthquake is measured using two indicators, i.e., physical and social capacity, which encompasses several indicators, as shown in Table 6.
Table 6 The survey results indicate that the community's capacity to mitigate disaster risks remains inadequate.In all research areas, there were no warning sirens for disasters, evacuation routes, or evacuation places.Moreover, community knowledge of disaster preparedness remains very limited.A possible explanation for this is that previous earthquake disasters did not result in fatalities or severe injuries and disabilities.This is reflected in the interviews conducted with the family members of people with disabilities, as follows: "What is available is a clacking device to indicate that there is a danger, but when the earthquake hit, nobody used it because it happened so suddenly."(in Javanese).(Interview with Mr. W, 14 February 2020, 1:00 PM, at Mr. W's house, Pleret district) "There is no disaster warning siren, only the clacking device.But when an earthquake happened, it was so sudden.No one had the time to hit the clacking device.People were too busy saving themselves."(Interview with Mr. L, 3 March 2020, 6:30 PM, at Mr. L's house, Sewon Sub-district) "Almost everyone here does not know how to save themselves from an earthquake disaster.In my village, Bawuran, many died because they had no means to save themselves, so they mistakenly went inside their houses."(Interview with Mr. D, 18 April 2020, 4:05 PM, at Mr. D's house, Pleret Sub-district) "There had been no disaster mitigation training, ma'am, as it only came after the earthquake happened.There had been none before."(Interview with Ms. N, 18 April 2020, 1:40 PM, at Ms. N's house, Pleret Sub-district).
Based on the interviews and surveys, all the sub-districts included in the study lack modern disaster warning equipment such as sirens.Villages only have clacking devices to warn about the danger.In the case of earthquakes, this does not function at all due to the sudden occurrence.In addition, the community lacks self-rescue measures in the case of an earthquake due to the absence of disaster mitigation training prior to the 2006 earthquake.Disaster mitigation training only began after the 2006 earthquake.
An analysis of the capacity level categorization based on respondents' answers resulted in high, moderate, and low-capacity levels, as shown in Table 7.The spatial distribution map of the paraplegic individuals' capacity levels on the earthquake disaster vulnerability map reveals the following information.(1) High capacity is present in Pleret Subdistrict in an area categorized as vulnerable, Jetis district in an area categorized as vulnerable, Sewon Sub-district in an area categorized as vulnerable, and Bambanglipuro Sub-district in an area categorized as vulnerable.(2) Moderate capacity is found in Pundong Sub-district in an area categorized as highly vulnerable, Bambanglipuro Sub-district in an area categorized as highly vulnerable, Pleret Sub-district in an area categorized as vulnerable, Piyungan Sub-district in areas categorized as highly vulnerable and vulnerable, and Sewon Sub-district in an area categorized as vulnerable.(3) Low capacity is located in Bambanglipuro Sub-district in an area categorized as highly vulnerable and Pundong Sub-district in an area categorized as highly vulnerable.The majority of paraplegic individuals' capacity levels are moderate.Meanwhile, the number of paraplegic individuals with high and low-capacity levels is nearly the same.Moderate and high capacities are present in very vulnerable and vulnerable areas, whereas low capacity is present in highly vulnerable areas.Although paraplegic individuals are categorized as highly or moderately capable, they still face high risks from the high threat level.

Responses to Earthquakes
Observing people's activities when the earthquake hit can also reveal the causes of paraplegia.The indicators are the activities, the rescue measures, the exit routes from the house, the injured body parts, the material that fell on them, the wait time to receive help, the first aid, and whether they receive treatment.Table 8 summarizes of the activities when the earthquake hit and the responses to the emergency.When the disaster occurred, most victims were sleeping, which may have inhibited the self-rescue.The survey also shows that the participants ran towards the front door even though they were doing the activities at the back.The confusion and time taken to reach a safe location caused the victims to be crushed by the rubble of houses.This is confirmed by the interview results with family members, as captured in the following excerpts.
"When the earthquake hit, my wife was in the kitchen.When I reached the kitchen, the wood structure already hit her at the spine."(Interview with Mr. S, 8 February 2017, 16.30 WIB) "I was outside to make a barn for the cows, and suddenly, there was an earthquake.I chased my child, who was running to get into the house.My child survived, but my wife was crushed by the wall of my sister's house.(Interview with Mr. B, 8 February 2020, at 19.30 WIB) "At the time of the earthquake, I was sweeping the yard, and my wife was cooking.I was shocked by an earthquake, so I went into the house to look for my wife and children.Before I entered the house, the building of my house collapsed.When the earthquake subsided, I looked for my family.My children were in their room, and my wife was in the kitchen.My son broke his leg and recovered, but a wooden structure hit my wife and broke her back.She is people with disabilities to this day."(Interview with Mr. F, 28 March 2020, at 16.20 WIB, at Mr. F's house, Bambanglipuro District).
The findings show that the victims who became people with disabilities and their families were at home, e.g., in the kitchen and bedroom.When the earthquake hit, many people who did not know how to save themselves ran into their houses instead of out of their houses.This caused them to be hit by the rubble of their houses and neighbors' houses.

Risks
This study discusses the risks based on the survey results with the paraplegic individuals.Risks are divided into physical, social, and economic.Physical risks are examined based on the number of fatalities and injuries (minor, moderate, and severe).Other aspects of physical risks are determined by the severity of building and public facility damage.In this context, physical risks refer to the physical losses suffered by people with disabilities.Meanwhile, economic risks are the financial loss and the risk of losing jobs.Social risks are observed in the changes to social status and relationships.Table 8 shows the survey results regarding physical, social, and economic risks.
In terms of physical losses, 23% of the victims who became people with disabilities lost a family member, such as spouses, children, or parents, and the remaining 77% did not.All people with disabilities who were earthquake disaster victims sustained severe injuries and became people with disabilities, a condition that persists today.Their houses also suffered severe damage above 95%.
The injuries and death tolls in people with disabilities victims' households correlate with the level of building damage.The severe damage to the houses of people with disabilities occurred because they were unaware that their houses were built in an earthquake-prone area.Due to this lack of knowledge, the structures of the houses, lacking iron reinforcements, could not withstand earthquakes, resulting in collapse.
Social risks experienced by people with disabilities include changes in social status and relationships.All paraplegic individuals affected by the earthquake experienced a social status change, transitioning from people without disabilities to people with disabilities.This altered their lives from being physically independent to requiring assistance from others during their initial adaptation period.They take a relatively long time to become self-sufficient and adapt to their new conditions.Social relations of people with disabilities who were earthquake victims underwent a 100% change.The change in social relations has been positive, with broader relationships in various settings, including the community, government, and NGOs.Since the 2006 earthquake, the government, community, and NGOs have collaborated to aid earthquake victims in their recovery, addressing physical, social, and psychological aspects.With this recovery effort, the paraplegic individuals became acquainted with numerous stakeholders who assisted them.They also became actively involved in organizations since then.
The government and NGOs that support people with disabilities established support groups to provide a community for interaction and capacity enhancement.Organizations formed post-earthquake as platforms for people with disabilities include Difable People Organization (DPO) in 17 sub-districts, Forum for Caring for the people with disabilities in Bantul (Forum Peduli Difabel Bantul/FPDB) at the district level, Association of Paraplegics, Yogyakarta (Paguyuban Penyandang Paraplegia Yogyakarta/P3Y), and Collective Recovery Union (Persatuan Bangkit Bersama/PBB).All people with disabilities participate in organizations established by and for them.
These organizations aim to serve as forums for communication, information dissemination, and empowerment.Activities organized by these groups include monthly spiritual sessions and gatherings, skill enhancement training for people with disabilities, and an annual recreational event.Enhancing people with disabilities skills and abilities is carried out in collaboration with the government, NGOs, and universities.These organizations broaden their social relations and enhance their ability to recover from the disaster impacts.
Economic risks experienced by people with disabilities include asset loss, such as livelihoods, and the loss of material assets, like household items that were damaged, buried in debris, and rendered unusable.Ninety-eight percent of paraplegic individuals lost their livelihoods after they became people with disabilities.Those who worked in the public sector (government agencies) as farmers, itinerant traders, and market vendors could no longer work.Only 2% did not lose their livelihoods as they operated businesses from home, such as running small shops with financial assistance from social services.All respondents lost household items due to house damage.
The financial losses suffered by paraplegic individuals range from 30 million to over 90 million rupiah.The highest financial losses were in the range of 71 million to 90 million (36%), followed by 51 million to 70 million (35%), over 90 million (15%), and finally 30 million to 50 million (14%).Respondents calculated these losses based on the extent of the housing collapse and the value of the damaged assets that could not be used any longer.Based on the survey results, the risks can be categorized into high, moderate, and low, as shown in Table 10.Based on the spatial distribution map of disaster risk levels on the earthquake disaster vulnerability map, the following is observed.(1) High risk is present in Bambanglipuro sub-district in an area categorized as vulnerable, Pundong sub-district in an area categorized as highly vulnerable, Jetis sub-district in an area categorized as highly vulnerable, Pleret sub-district in an area categorized as vulnerable, Piyungan sub-district in an area categorized as highly vulnerable, and Sewon sub-district in an area categorized as vulnerable.(2) Moderate risk is found in Bambanglipuro sub-district in an area categorized as vulnerable, Pundong sub-district in an area categorized as highly vulnerable, Sewon subdistrict in an area categorized as vulnerable, Pleret Sub-district in an area categorized as highly vulnerable and vulnerable.(3) Low risk is located in Bambanglipuro Sub-district in an area categorized IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1313/1/01202915 as vulnerable, Pundong sub-district in an area categorized as highly vulnerable, Sewon Sub-district in an area categorized as vulnerable, and Pleret sub-district in an area categorized as vulnerable.

Figure 3. The Map of Earthquake Disaster Risks in Bantul District
The majority of paraplegic individuals face high and moderate risks.High-risk areas are distributed in sub-districts with high vulnerability, i.e., highly vulnerable and vulnerable areas.When considering the spatial distribution of threat levels, vulnerability levels, and capacity levels of paraplegic individuals, this aligns with the level of risk they experienced.Paraplegic individuals facing a high risk also face high threat and vulnerability levels.They also have moderate to low capacity levels.These findings confirm the risk value calculation formula developed by the National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB).

Conclusion
Physical vulnerability is the main cause of disaster victims becoming people with disabilities.Based on the research findings, physical vulnerability consists of (a) non-standard earthquake-resistant housing and (b) a lack of evacuation routes and open spaces for shelter.In disaster-resilient countries like Japan and New Zealand, research on earthquakes, strict building regulations, and disaster preparedness have saved thousands of lives [31].Enforcing earthquake-resistant building codes can be a way to reduce risk [32].Similarly, research assessing flood vulnerability in an urban area highlights that unsafe construction practices are a major contributor to the flood impact [14].
Studies on communities' physical and social vulnerability in the face of storm disasters indicate that the most environmentally vulnerable communities are not necessarily the most socially vulnerable.Overall, storm disaster vulnerability is more closely correlated with environmental (physical) indicators than social ones, particularly among the most vulnerable communities [33].Research has developed a framework to assess disaster-prone regions in Indonesia's resilience to natural disasters, defining indices encompassing social, economic, community capacity, institutional, and infrastructure readiness [34].The infrastructure needed includes evacuation routes and gathering points.
Thirdly, the capacity encompasses physical and social aspects.In this study, the low physical capacity involves the absence of disaster warning sirens and evacuation routes.The low social capacity includes a lack of earthquake mitigation training.A study in Japan reveals that government and private joint mitigation efforts effectively reduce total damage caused by natural disasters [35].A study in Brazil indicates that enhancing community capacity can minimize flood risk [36].
Fourth, the responses during earthquakes show that communities were not capable of taking selfrescue steps due to a lack of earthquake mitigation training.Most escaped their houses through the front door even when they did their activities at the back of their homes, such as cooking, sleeping, watching TV, or bathing.The findings emphasize the importance of understanding community response and behavior during disasters to reduce disaster risks [37].This research underscores that risks in the context of natural hazards always involve an interaction between natural (physical) factors and human behavior.Decision-making under uncertainty is not well-explained by the traditional 'rational choice' model.Instead, attention must be given to how individuals interpret risk based on their experiences, feelings, personal values, cultural beliefs, interpersonal dynamics, and societal influences [37].
Becoming a paraplegic is a physical risk resulting from these four factors.Other physical risks include collapsed homes.The economic risks include community losses ranging from 30 to less than  91 million Indonesian rupiahs.The social risk is a change in status from people without disabilities to people with disabilities.However, there are also increased social relations among paraplegic individuals due to active involvement in organizations.

Acknowledgment
We appreciate everyone who participated in this research, especially respondents who have assisted with the data collection needed for this research.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Map of the Persons with Paraplegia's Capacity to Deal with Earthquakes in Bantul District

Table 1 .
: Population and sample size for each district

Table 2 .
Parameters used in this study

Table 3 .
Disability Vulnerability Assessment by Category

Table 4 .
Vulnerability of the People with Paraplegia before the Earthquake in 2006

Table 5 .
Vulnerability of People with Paraplegia before the Earthquake in 2006

Table 7 .
Capacity of people with disabilities in Facing Earthquake Disasters

Table 8 .
Summary of the activities when the earthquake hit and the responses to the emergency

Table 9 .
Risks Arising from the 2006 Earthquake Disaster

Table 10 .
Risks Arising from the 2006 Earthquake Disaster