Author(s): Annisak Laila Rakhmawati
Linked Author(s): Annisak Laila Rakhmawati
Keywords: Flood risk land use socio-economic
Abstract: Flood risk assessments play a pivotal role in crafting effective disaster management strategies, particularly in regions vulnerable to compound flooding. This study conducts a comprehensive comparison between present land-use (spatial) flood risk and socio-economic (social) flood risk across multiple flood hazard scenarios, revealing significant divergences in their spatial distribution and impact. The findings underscore the importance of analyzing these risks separately rather than integrating them into a single assessment, as they stem from distinct data sources, metrics, and spatial scales. Land-use flood risk is primarily influenced by physical attributes, such as the extent of industrial, agricultural, and infrastructural zones, while socio-economic flood risk is shaped by population density, income levels, and community resilience. Detailed scenario analysis demonstrates critical patterns. For example, in the extreme flood scenario, the no-risk category shows a land-use risk area larger by 5.2 km2, predominantly affecting expansive agricultural or industrial zones prone to flooding. However, in the low-risk category, the socio-economic risk area exceeds the land-use risk area by 13.3 km2, highlighting vulnerabilities in densely populated residential areas where flood protection measures are often inadequate. In the medium-risk category, the land-use risk area is only slightly larger by 0.3 km2, while in the high-risk and very-high-risk categories, land-use risk areas exceed socio-economic areas by 5.7 km2 and 1.4 km2, respectively. These results suggest that while physical vulnerabilities dominate high-risk zones, low-risk zones require interventions tailored to socio-economic conditions. The study also highlights the challenges of integrating these assessments due to differences in spatial resolution and the multifaceted interactions between land use and socio-economic factors. For instance, high-income areas with poor land-use planning might exhibit physical vulnerabilities, while lower-income areas may lack resilience despite better land-use strategies. By comparing these risks rather than attempting to combine them, this research provides policymakers with actionable insights. Structural measures, such as improved drainage systems and flood barriers, should target high-risk land-use zones, while socio-economic programs, such as community education and improved housing resilience, are crucial for low-risk socio-economic areas. This nuanced, dual-approach strategy ensures that interventions address both physical and community vulnerabilities, fostering more robust and equitable flood risk management solutions.
Year: 2025