Socio-economic vulnerability level in the Jeneberang watershed in Gowa Regency, South Sulawesi Province, Indonesia

doi:10.1016/j.regsus.2024.03.007

Abstract

Abstract:

Jeneberang watershed is vital, particularly for people living in Gowa Regency (South Sulawesi Province, Indonesia), who benefit from its many advantages. Landslides and floods occur every year in the Jeneberang watershed, so it is imperative to understand the socio-economic vulnerability of this region. This research aims to identify the vulnerability level of the Jeneberang watershed so that the government can prioritize areas with high vulnerability level and formulate effective strategies to reduce these the vulnerability. Specifically, this study was conducted in 12 districts located in the Jeneberang watershed. The primary data were collected from questionnaires completed by community members, community leaders, and various stakeholders, and the secondary data were from the Landsat satellite imagery in 2020, the Badan Push Statistic of Gowa Regency, and some governmental agencies. The socio-economic vulnerability variables were determined using the Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) method, and each variable was weighted and analyzed using the Geographical Information System (GIS). The study reveals that the levels of socio-economic vulnerability are affected by variables such as population density, vulnerable groups (disabled people, elderly people, and young people), road network and settlement, percentage of poor people, and productive land area in the Jeneberang watershed. Moreover, all of the 12 districts in the Jeneberang watershed are included in the medium vulnerability level, with the mean percentage of socio-economic vulnerability around 50.92%. The socio-economic vulnerability of Bajeng, Pallangga, and Somba Opu districts is categorized at high level, the socio-economic vulnerability of Bungaya, Parangloe, and Tombolo Pao districts is classified as medium level, and the remaining 6 districts (Barombong, Bontolempangan, Bontomarannu, Manuju, Parigi, and Tinggimoncong) are ranked as low socio-economic vulnerability. This study can help policy-makers to formulate strategy that contributes to the protection of biodiversity and sustainable development of the Jeneberang watershed, while improving disaster resilience and preparedness of the watershed.

Key words: Socio vulnerability, Economic, Vulnerability, Population density, Vulnerable groups, Road network and settlement, Productive land area, Jeneberang watershed

Andi Rachmat ARFADLY, Hazairin ZUBAIR, MAHYUDDIN, Andang Suryana SOMA. Socio-economic vulnerability level in the Jeneberang watershed in Gowa Regency, South Sulawesi Province, Indonesia[J]. Regional Sustainability, 2024, 5(1): 100113.

Figures/Tables 13

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

Table 9

Table 10

Fig. 3.

References 31

[1]	Abdullah, M.N., Munir, A., Lyas, S.A., 2003. Land-use based GIS-modelling for sedimentation reduction at Bili-Bili Dam, Indonesia. In: De Boer, D., (ed.). Erosion Prediction in Ungauged Basins:Integrating Methods and Techniques. Sapporo: IAHS-AISH Publication, 180-187.
[2]	Ackerl, T., Weldemariam, L.F., Nyasimi, M., 2023. Climate change risk, resilience, and adaptation among rural farmers in East Africa: A literature review. Regional Sustainability. 4(2), 185-193. doi: 10.1016/j.regsus.2023.05.004
[3]	Ahn, S.R., Kim, S.J., 2019. Assessment of watershed health, vulnerability and resilience for determining protection and restoration Priorities. Environ. Modell. Softw. 122, 103926, doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.03.014.
[4]	Alexander, D.E., 2014. Conclusion:Assessing Vulnerability in Europe and the World, Assessment of Vulnerability to Natural Hazards:A European Perspective. London: Elsevier Inccorporated, 209-210.
[5]	Alsabhan, A.H., Singh, K., Sharma, A., et al., 2022. Landslide susceptibility assessment in the Himalayan range based along Kasauli-Parwanoo road corridor using weight of evidence, information value, and frequency ratio. J. King Saud Univ. Sci. 34(2), 101759, doi: 10.1016/j.jksus.2021.101759.
[6]	Arifah, Salman, D., Yassi, A., et al., 2022. Livelihood vulnerability of smallholder farmers to climate change: A comparative analysis based on irrigation access in South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Regional Sustainability. 3(3), 244-253. doi: 10.1016/j.regsus.2022.10.002
[7]	Arfadly, A.R., Zubair, H., Mahyuddin, M., et al., 2023. Effect Landslide Hazard Mitigation Using an Integrated of Analytical Hierarchy Process and Multi Criteria Evaluation:A Case Study the Jeneberang watershed. Les Ulis: Edition Diffusion Press (EDP) Sciences.
[8]	Arriagada, L., Rojas, O., Arumí, J.L., et al., 2019. A new method to evaluate the vulnerability of watersheds facing several stressors: A case study in mediterranean Chile. Sci. Total Environ. 651, 1517-1533.
[9]	Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana, 2008. Peraturan Kepala BNPB Nomor 4 Tahun 2008. [2023-01-01]. https://bnpb.go.id/berita/peraturan-4-2008.
[10]	Badan Push Statistic of Gowa Regency, 2022. Gowa Regency in Figure 2022. [2023-01-01]. https://gowakab.bps.go.id/.
[11]	Barkey, R.A., Soma, A.S., Nursaputra, M., et al., 2019. Modeling of climate change impact on water availability in Metropolitan Mamminasata, Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 280(1), 012011, doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/280/1/012011.
[12]	Chan, S.W., Abid, S.K., Sulaiman, N., et al., 2022. A systematic review of the flood vulnerability using geographic information system. Heliyon. 8(3), e09075, doi: 10.1016/J.HELIYON.2022.E09075.
[13]	Chen, L., Xu, J.J., Wang, G.B., et al., 2019. Comparison of the multiple imputation approaches for imputing rainfall data series and their applications to watershed models. J. Hydrol. 572, 449-460.
[14]	Desalegn, H., Mulu, A., 2021. Flood vulnerability assessment using GIS at Fetam watershed, upper Abbay basin, Ethiopia. Heliyon. 7(1), e05865, doi: 10.1016/J.HELIYON.2020.E05865.
[15]	Efiong, J., Eni, D.I., Obiefuna., J.N., et al., 2021. Geospatial modelling of landslide susceptibility in Cross River State of Nigeria. Sci. Afr. 14, e01032, doi: 10.1016/J.SCIAF.2021.E01032.
[16]	El Jazouli, A., Barakat, A., Khellouk, R., 2019. GIS-multicriteria evaluation using AHP for landslide susceptibility mapping in Oum Er Rbia high basin (Morocco). Geoenviron. Disasters. 6(1), 1-12. doi: 10.1186/s40677-018-0117-1
[17]	Iglesias-Pascual, R., Benassi, F., Hurtado-Rodríguez, C., 2023. Social infrastructures and socio-economic vulnerability: A socio-territorial integration study in Spanish urban contexts. Cities. 132, 104109, doi: 10.1016/J.CITIES.2022.104109.
[18]	IPCC Intergovernamental Panel on Climate Change, 2022. Climate Change 2022:Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Working Group II Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernamental Panel on Climate Change. [2023-01-01]. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FrontMatter.pdf.
[19]	Jamshidi, O., Asadi, A., Kalantari, K., et al., 2019. Vulnerability to climate change of smallholder farmers in the Hamadan province, Iran. CLIM. RISK MANAG. 23, 146-159.
[20]	Neissi, L., Albaji, M., Boroomand Nasab, S.B., 2020. Combination of GIS and AHP for site selection of pressurized irrigation systems in the Izeh plain, Iran. Agric. Water Manage. 231, 106004, doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106004.
[21]	Nguyen, A.K., Liou, Y.A, Li, M.H., et al., 2016. Zoning eco-environmental vulnerability for environmental management and protection. Ecol. Indic. 69, 100-117.
[22]	Nguyen, H.H., Recknagel, F., Meyer, W., 2019. Effects of projected urbanization and climate change on flow and nutrient loads of a Mediterranean catchment in South Australia. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 19(2), 279-288. doi: 10.1016/j.ecohyd.2018.10.001
[23]	Nguyen, K.A., Liou, Y.A., 2019. Global mapping of eco-environmental vulnerability from human and nature disturbances. Sci. Total Environ. 664, 995-1004.. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.407
[24]	Okuda, K., Kawasaki, A., 2022. Effects of disaster risk reduction on socio-economic development and poverty reduction. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 80, 103241, doi: 10.1016/J.IJDRR.2022.103241.
[25]	Pandey, R., Jha, S.K., Alatalo, J.M., et al., 2017. Sustainable livelihood framework-based indicators for assessing climate change vulnerability and adaptation for Himalayan communities. Ecol. Indic. 79, 338-346.
[26]	Raufirad, V., Heidari, Q., Hunter, R., et al., 2018. Relationship between socioeconomic vulnerability and ecological sustainability: The case of Aran-V-Bidgol’s rangelands, Iran. Ecol. Indic. 85, 613-623.
[27]	Richardson, C.P., Amankwatia, K., 2019. Assessing watershed vulnerability in Bernalillo County, New Mexico using GIS-based fuzzy Inference. Journal of Water Resource and Protection. 11(2), 99-121. doi: 10.4236/jwarp.2019.112007
[28]	Saaty, T.L., 1988. What is the Analytic Hiersrchy Process? Heidelberg: Springer, 110.
[29]	Soma, A.S., Kubota, T., 2018. Landslide susceptibility map using certainty factor for hazard mitigation in mountainous areas of ujung-loe watershed in South Sulawesi. For. Soc. 2(1), 79-91. doi: 10.1177/003803856800200106
[30]	Taye, M.A., 2021. Agro-ecosystem sensitivity to climate change over the Ethiopian highlands in a watershed of Lake Tana sub-basin. Heliyon. 7(7), e07454, doi: 10.1016/J.HELIYON.2021.E07454.
[31]	Wang, X., Li, R., Tian, Y., et al., 2021. Watershed-scale water environmental capacity estimation assisted by machine learning. J. Hydrol. 597, doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126310.

Variable			Description	Reference
Social vulnerability	Population density		The higher the population density, the higher the vulnerability.	Nguyen et al. (2016); Pandey et al. (2017); Nguyen and Liou (2019)
	Vulnerable groups	Disabled people	The higher the number of disabled people, the higher the vulnerability.	Nguyen et al. (2016); Nguyen and Liou (2019); Nguyen et al. (2019)
		Elderly people (above 65 years old)	The higher the elderly people, the higher the vulnerability.	Nguyen et al. (2016); Nguyen and Liou (2019)
		Young people (0-14 years old)	The higher the number of young people, the higher the vulnerability.	Nguyen et al. (2016); Nguyen and Liou (2019)
	Road network and settlement		The closer the watershed to the settlement, the higher the vulnerability.	Nguyen et al. (2016); Pandey et al. (2017); Nguyen and Liou (2019)
Economic vulnerability	Percentage of poor people		The higher the percentage of poor people, the higher the vulnerability.	Pandey et al. (2017); Raufirad et al. (2018)
Economic vulnerability	Productive land area		The more productive land area, the higher the vulnerability.	Nguyen et al. (2016); Soma and Kubota (2018)

Variable	Class	Weight
Population density	Low (<1000 persons/hm²)	1
	Medium (1000-2000 persons/hm²)	2
	High (>2000 persons/hm²)	3
Percentage of vulnerable groups (disabled people, elderly people, and young people)	Low (<5.00%)	1
	Medium (5.00%-10.00%)	2
	High (>10.00%)	3
Road network and settlement	Low (<75 km)	1
	Medium (75-150 km)	2
	High (>150 km)	3

Population density	Economic structure
Population density	Agriculture	Industry	Service
Low (<1000 persons/hm²)	3	2	1
Medium (1000-2000 persons/hm²)	4	3	2
High (>2000 persons/hm²)	5	4	3

District	Number of disabled people (persons)	Number of elderly people (persons)	Number of young people (persons)	Total vulnerable group (persons)	Weight
Bajeng	272	1724	6895	8891	1
Barombong	125	2219	12,386	14,730	1
Bontolempangan	91	1161	2910	4162	1
Bontomarannu	83	2287	11,038	13,408	1
Bungaya	118	1095	3503	4716	1
Manuju	33	1204	3160	4397	1
Pallangga	309	6307	33,522	40,138	3
Parangloe	78	1210	5843	5843	1
Parigi	109	1473	2487	2487	1
Somba Opu	222	2980	18,837	22,039	2
Tinggimoncong	70	1855	5208	7133	1
Tombolo Pao	161	1997	7985	10,143	1

District	Road network (km)	Weight	Settlement	Weight
Bajeng	150.55	3	20,785	2
Barombong	68.62	1	10,745	1
Bontolempangan	103.14	1	5506	1
Bontomarannu	108.75	1	8942	1
Bungaya	115.03	2	5379	1
Manuju	103.14	1	4257	1
Pallangga	136.62	2	28,988	3
Parangloe	166.31	3	4598	1
Parigi	78.34	1	4021	1
Somba Opu	122.95	2	26,570	3
Tinggimoncong	153.40	3	6293	1
Tombolo Pao	190.67	3	7517	1