Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
The Socioeconomic Vulnerability of Coastal Communities to Abrasion In Samas, Bantul Regency, Indonesia Cover

The Socioeconomic Vulnerability of Coastal Communities to Abrasion In Samas, Bantul Regency, Indonesia

Open Access
|Sep 2018

Figures & Tables

Table 1

Research variables.

ObjectivesFactorsVariablesDescriptions
VulnerabilityPhysicalNumber of housesThe higher, the more vulnerable
Distance to shorelineThe closer to shoreline, the more vulnerable
House typesNon-permanent house is more vulnerable than the permanent one
SocialPopulation sizeThe higher, the more vulnerable
SexWomen are more vulnerable than men
AgeElderly and children cause more vulnerability
EducationThe higher, the less vulnerable
Number of disabled peopleThe higher, the more vulnerable
EconomicJobPeople with professional jobs are less vulnerable
UnemploymentThe higher, the more vulnerable
Number of poor householdThe higher, the more vulnerable
Economic facilitiesThe higher, the more vulnerable
Community capacityKnowledge of abrasionAbrasionThe more the knowledge, the less vulnerable
The cause of abrasionThe more the knowledge, the less vulnerable
The impact of abrasionThe more the knowledge, the less vulnerable
The countermeasures of abrasionThe more the knowledge, the less vulnerable
Abrasion risk reduction measuresThe more the knowledge, the less vulnerable
Gadingsari Village:
395 / 1,108 × 56 = 20 households,
Srigading Village:
713 / 1,108 × 56 = 36 households,
     Total = 56 households.
Fig. 1

Harry King’s nomogram acc. to Setyaningrum, Giyarsih (2012).

Table 2

The classification of capacity levels.

ClassesTotal scoresDescriptions
Low6–13Lack of capacity to implement disaster risk reduction
Medium14–22Adequate capacity to implement disaster risk reduction
High23–30High capacity to implement disaster risk reduction
Fig. 2

The erosion susceptibility map of Samas Coast by Choirunnisa (2016).

Table 3

The extent of susceptible area to coastal erosion based on land use.

Land useVulnerability classesArea (ha)
Beach sandsMedium12.08
Beach sandsMedium13.39
Beach sandsMedium16.40
Beach sandsHigh23.07
Beach sandsHigh6.07
Beach sandsHigh43.14
SettlementHigh6.09
GrassHigh2.14
Irrigated rice fieldMedium4.46
Irrigated rice fieldHigh27.06
Irrigated rice fieldHigh6.43
Dry landMedium2.25
Dry landMedium1.91
Dry landHigh0.30
Dry landHigh3.64
Water bodyHigh22.71
Water bodyHigh9.51
Fig. 3

Maps of physical, social, and economic vulnerability by Choirunnisa (2016).

Fig. 4

Maps of total vulnerability with physical, socioeconomic, and equal scenarios by Choirunnisa (2016).

Table 4

Contingency coefficients.

Symmetric MeasurescValueApprox. Sig.
Nominal by NominalPhi0.3350.180
Cramer’s V0.2370.180
Contingency coefficient0.3170.180
N of valid cases56
Table 5

Number of respondents in Srigading and Gadingsari based on capacity level and distance between houses and shoreline.

Capacity levelsDistance between Houses and Shoreline
SrigadingGadingsari
NearModerateFarTotal%NearModerateFarTotal%
Low013411.1100000
Medium41092363.8900131365
High630925.00007735
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/quageo-2018-0029 | Journal eISSN: 2081-6383 | Journal ISSN: 2082-2103 (formerly 0137-477X)
Language: English
Page range: 115 - 126
Submitted on: Nov 29, 2017
Published on: Sep 6, 2018
Published by: Adam Mickiewicz University
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Related subjects:

© 2018 Audi Karina Choirunnisa, Sri Rum Giyarsih, published by Adam Mickiewicz University
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.