See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/336600703

Green and grey infrastructures approaches in flood reduction

Article  in  International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment · October 2019

DOI: 10.1108/IJDRBE-03-2019-0010

CITATIONS READS

0 128

2 authors:

Adjie Pamungkas Santika Purwitaningsih

Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember Universitas Gadjah Mada
37 PUBLICATIONS   77 CITATIONS    3 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Landuse Scenario to Reduce Flooding in Kedurus Catchment Area Using SWAT View project

Flood mitigation strategies in agropolitan area of Bagelen sub-district, Purworejo, Indonesia View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Santika Purwitaningsih on 27 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1759-5908.htm

Flood
Green and grey infrastructures reduction
approaches in flood reduction
Adjie Pamungkas
Department of Urban and Regional Planning,
Sepuluh Nopember Institute of Technology, Surabaya, Indonesia, and 343
Santika Purwitaningsih Received 11 March 2019
Revised 5 September 2019
DIFI (Development Initiative for Indonesia), Surabaya, Indonesia 10 September 2019
Accepted 11 September 2019

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to advance the idea of sustainable flood reduction. Flood reduction through the
use of the drainage system is considered an unsustainable approach that decreases the use of water. In
contrast, the Water Sensitive City is a sustainable concept aimed at increasing the value of water for human
needs and reduce flooding.
Design/methodology/approach – The current approach of relying on drainage systems is ineffective
and must be combined with green infrastructures to reduce flooding. Green infrastructures can increase
infiltration rates or facilitate rain harvesting. The study developed four scenarios that combine green and
grey infrastructures and used the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model to select the most effective
scenario based on the remaining amount of flood volume in every scenario.
Findings – Green infrastructures that are related to increased infiltration and rain-harvesting instruments
reduced flooding by 22.3 and 27.7 per cent, respectively. Furthermore, a combination of the two types of green
infrastructures reduced flooding up to 45.5 per cent. Conversely, applying only grey infrastructures (by
increasing drainage capacity) to reduce the flooding to zero is unfeasible, as this requires more than double the
current capacity. Therefore, a combination of green and grey infrastructures can significantly reduce flooding
in a water sensitive and feasible manner.
Originality/value – Applying a combination of green and grey infrastructures is a new and effective
approach to reduce flooding in the Kedurus Catchment Area.
Keywords Green infrastructure, Grey infrastructure, Flooding, Water sensitive city, Infiltration,
SWAT model, Development, Infrastructure, Resilience, Sustainable, WSC
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Flooding is one of the most frequent disasters in Indonesia which causes significant impacts
and losses (Indonesian National Disaster Board, 2019). From a hydrological point of view,
flooding occurs because the run-off volume is greater than the current river and drainage
capacity. Increased run-off may amplify flooding and affect more areas and a greater
number of inhabitants. Increased run-off can be caused by deforestation, the conversion of
open space to the built-up areas, the limited capacity of rivers, and insufficient flood-related
infrastructures such as drainage systems. Current approaches to minimise floods include
grey infrastructures (Francois et al., 2019); green infrastructures (Schubert et al., 2017;
International Journal of Disaster
Resilience in the Built
The authors express their gratitude to Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember (ITS) – Surabaya for Environment
funding this research under the scheme of International Research Cooperation with Australia –
Vol. 10 No. 5, 2019
pp. 343-362
Indonesia Centre (AIC). The authors also thank Prof. Deden Rukmana from Alabama A&M © Emerald Publishing Limited
1759-5908
University for his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. DOI 10.1108/IJDRBE-03-2019-0010
IJDRBE Gunnell et al., 2019); a combination between green and grey infrastructures (Alves et al.,
10,5 2019); an urban systems approach (Lowe et al.,2017; Bertilsson et al., 2019); and economic
approaches (Daigneault et al., 2016). Grey infrastructures refer to hard engineering
structures aimed at discharging water in the sea. Meanwhile, green infrastructure refers to
measures such as retention ponds, detention ponds, and vegetated filter strips that help
reduce run-off without discharging water to the sea directly. The common Indonesian flood
344 reduction approach is by protecting urban areas through structural measures such as
drainage system, dams, dikes and levees (Restemeyer et al., 2015; Scott, 2013; Jansen, 2003;
Thomas, 2017). The use of this approach will lead to new challenges because these drainage
systems are vulnerable to uncertain urbanisation patterns and climate change (Dong et al.,
2017).
Global climate change has intensified the probability of flooding in Indonesia (Bappenas,
2010) and other areas such as Australia (Floyd et al., 2014). Brown et al. (2009) have
proposed the Water Sensitive City (WSC) concept in which cities seek to manage water in
adaptive and multi-functional ways to ensure intergenerational equity and to achieve
climate change resilience. The strength of this concept is that it does not merely minimise
the probability of flooding (like the structural or grey infrastructures approaches) but also
enriches the use of water for various human activities with flexibility of plans
(Radhakrishnan et al., 2018). The combination of the two objectives will optimise the utility
of water for city dwellers.
Combining grey and green infrastructures can help achieve the objectives of the WSC
(Newumann et al., 2019). This new approach is required for current challenges in terms of its
measurement on the effectiveness of flood risk management. Advancement on measuring
the combination of both infrastructures rarely found as a package of government policy for
urban water use and flood risk management (De Groot et al., 2010; Andersson et al., 2014;
Schuch et al., 2017). This paper assesses both types of infrastructure to optimise the
effectiveness of flood risk management in the Kedurus Sub-Catchment Area as well as to
provide source of water for the residents.
The Kedurus Sub-Catchment Area, which is part of the Brantas River Catchment Area in
East Java Province, Indonesia, often experiences flooding (Figure 1). In 2016, a flood reached
a height of 70 cm in the upstream area of Driyorejo, Gresik Municipality (Perdana, 2016).
Meanwhile, the worst flood in Surabaya City occurred in the downstream Wiyung District
reaching 1 metre (Sugiharto, 2016). The Kedurus River inundated a total area of more than
100 ha in 2016 (Sugiharto, 2016). These kinds of flooding have been annual events for both
administrations. Besides flood-related challenges, the availability of freshwater has also
been a major concern in this area, particularly in the dry seasons. Pamungkas et al. (2017a,
2017b) highlighted flooding and freshwater scarcity as Surabaya’s two main water-related
problems which have significantly impacted the community.
The WSC concept reinforces water sensitive values and behaviour in optimising the use
of water. For example, the use of a drainage system to discharge water is considered as
suboptimal use of water since it only protects the city from flooding. The WSC concept seeks
to improve such approach to make water more useful for the community before it discharges
into the sea. The objective of decreasing the run-off and re-using water for other purposes is
only scarcely used in Surabaya and the most common approach to flooding is the use of grey
infrastructures to discharge water into the sea (Lascow, 2017; Muggah, 2019). Currently,
applying grey infrastructures that do not decrease the run-off but only discharge it to lower
areas is perceived as the most effective solution. This is because despite grey infrastructures
offer a short-term solution and are relatively easy to construct. These are two main
reasons for many local governments to use grey infrastructures rather than green
 Flood
reduction

345

Figure 1.
Orientation of the
Kedurus Sub-
Catchment Area in
Indonesia (A), East
Java Province (B) and
the Brantas
Catchment Area (C)
IJDRBE infrastructures as their flood reduction approach. The key concern in this paper is to narrow
10,5 the gap between applying grey and green infrastructures; therefore, this paper proposes a
combination of the two approaches.
Following the urban water management characteristics as proposed by Brown et al.
(2009), the Kedurus Area can be classified as a combination of a “water supply city” and
“drained city”. In addition, the issue of flooding receives significant concern from the
346 communities, government, and private sector compared to other issues related to urban
water management. Notably, the Medium-Term Development Plans of Surabaya and Gresik
(RPJMD Gresik Municipality 2016-2021 and RPJMD Surabaya 2016-2021) have highlighted
flooding as one of the major disasters in both administrations.
The current flood reduction approach of both administrations is to increase the capacity
of the drainage system. This is carried out through regular river clean-ups, particularly from
sedimentation (Environment Agency, 2010). This is important because major erosion in the
upstream Brantas River has caused a high volume of sediment transport, which reduced the
river’s capacity downstream (Saud, 2009). To some extent, Surabaya and Gresik can
increase the river capacity by enlarging the river’s dimensions (Environment Agency, 2010).
However, this approach generally faces many challenges such as budget limitations, land
availability, and social conflict (Environment Agency, 2010; Riski, 2015). These two actions
fall under the category of grey infrastructures. Yet, grey infrastructures will not achieve
WSC’s objectives since this approach does not optimise water usage. Notably, the main
purpose of the drainage system is discharging water into the sea as fast as possible, while in
WSC, water is used for various activities, e.g. as a freshwater supply for the surrounding
communities, securing groundwater balance, and increasing the use of water for social
amenities (boating, recreation, etc.).
By approaching the problem of flooding via grey infrastructure, the municipalities have
neglected the region’s other main problem of freshwater supply. Currently, the inhabitants
of the areas fulfil their needs for water by individually extracting groundwater or relying on
the Local Water Utility (PDAM) or other private companies to process surface water.
Uncontrolled groundwater extraction may cause the emptying of groundwater channels
and, in the long run, can lead to land subsidence. Consequently, the Surabaya local
government has prohibited residents to use groundwater for their freshwater supply.
Applying grey infrastructure will hinder the recharging of groundwater and the optimal use
of surface water. This situation decreases the availability of freshwater in the area.
Consequently, the communities in the sub-catchment area will continue to face difficulties in
accessing water for their daily needs.
The Kedurus Sub-Catchment Area faces complex water-related problems in the long run.
The region has seen a drastic land conversion from open areas to built-up areas; 37.2 per
cent of the open areas have been converted between 2001 and 2015 (Zulkarnain, 2016). This
land conversion will increase water run-off and lower the infiltration rate. The increased
run-off may also cause a greater flood volume that has to be accommodated by the river. In
the current situation of relying on the drainage system for flood reduction, the increased run-
off will most likely aggravate the risk of flooding in the Kedurus Sub-Catchment Area.
Moreover, climate change leads to more complex future water-related problems. Hidayat
et al. (2008), Santoso and Forner (2006), and Pamungkas (2013) have indicated that climate
change has affected the area on the meso-level; climate change is believed to increase the
number of days with extreme rainfall, causing a greater water volume on the ground.
Consequently, the flooding in the sub-catchment area is expected to increase significantly.
Based on the issues above, this paper will discuss a sustainable approach to flood
reduction to achieve WSC’s ultimate goals. Reducing flooding under the WSC concept
involves managing water rather than merely decreasing flood volume while ensuring the Flood
availability of water for communities; both for social amenities and for daily needs (Wong reduction
and Brown, 2009). Hence, WSC is a promising concept to overcome the problems of flooding
and water availability simultaneously. To achieve this objective, this study uses the Soil and
Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) to assess the effectiveness of the conventional approach of
relying on the drainage system for flood reduction. Furthermore, the study develops a
sustainable scenario by applying a combination of green infrastructures and regulating land
use to decrease flooding. The use of green infrastructures is important in reducing the run- 347
off but also in increasing infiltration (American Rivers, American Society of Landscape
Architects, ECONorthwest, and Water Environment Federation, 2012). Therefore, this
scenario is believed to also be a solution to the problem of water availability.

2. Material and methods

This study uses the SWAT model to assess the application of various flood decreasing
measures. The model is relevant for areas with few developments and more than fifty
percent impermeable land cover (built up area) (Kuhn, 2014). SWAT is a comprehensive
hydrological model that can simulate watersheds at various scales. It analyses the
characteristics of the hydrological model including soil, vegetation, water, climate and
management components of the watershed. SWAT can simulate hydrological processes
such as streamflow, surface run-off, groundwater, and evapotranspiration but can also
model water quality such as sedimentation and nutrient transport, and vegetation growth
by utilising vegetation and climate parameters. SWAT is a complex system, so ignoring
certain parameters will result in a less accurate model. Furthermore, SWAT needs field data
of water discharge. As such, conducting the analysis requires expertise, time, and cost
(Francesconi et al., 2016; Glavan and Pintar, 2012).
SWAT can be used for the purpose of watershed ecosystem planning and for evaluating
existing watershed policies. Sun et al. (2017) used SWAT to assess the long-term effects of
land use change on surface run-off patterns and food production, while, Xu et al. (2017)
evaluated the impact of climate change on flood risk in a watershed that is thirty percent
urban. Tsetkova and Randhir (2019) used SWAT to analyse the hydrological processes in
watersheds based on climate change scenarios.
The model is built using ArcSWAT software, a downloadable version can be found at
https://swat.tamu.edu/software/arcswat/. First, the SWAT model re-delineated the
catchment area as explained in Purwitaningsih and Pamungkas (2017) (Figure 2). The re-
delineation process produced 27 sub-sub-catchment areas for the Kedurus Sub-Catchment
Area. Subsequently, the land area of the sub-sub-catchment areas is divided into hydrologic
response units (HRU) that contain information such as land use, soil type, and slope. After
defining the HRU, a climate generator is created using data from the Global Weather
Database for SWAT by selecting the measurement location at Perak Station II in 2004-2013.
Afterwards, a database was built to conduct SWAT simulations for the year 2016 with
water discharge data (streamflow) as output.
Using SWAT, the final run-off was calculated for the sub-sub-catchment areas. This run-
off can be converted into flood volume with four hours of maximum rainfall duration in the
area (Andini and Putturuhu, 2016). The river capacity in every sub-sub-catchment area must
be able to accommodate this flood volume. If the flood volume is higher than the river
capacity, then the gap of flood volume will inundate the surrounding areas causing floods.
In 2017, the river capacity is determined through a primary survey as seen in Figure 3.
Purwitaningsih (2017) and Purwitaningsih and Pamungkas (2017) explained the urban
water model in the Kedurus Sub-Catchment Area. Based on the main characteristics of
IJDRBE
10,5

348

Figure 2.
Delineation of the
sub-sub-catchment
areas

Figure 3.
River capacity in
fourteen locations

urban water in the Kedurus Sub-Catchment Area as described in these papers, this study
assessed four main scenarios to uncover the most effective and sustainable way of flood
reduction. The scenarios were designed based on the outputs of a sensitivity analysis in
Purwitaningsih (2017) and (Rahmasari, 2017). Furthermore, the scenarios were also
designed to compare green and grey infrastructures. The sensitivity analysis was conducted Flood
by making 6 10 per cent changes on each potential green infrastructure after finalising the reduction
urban model. The sensitive variables are the key variables of the scenario. This paper
compares and discusses the four scenarios for the current urban model in decreasing the
probability of flooding, namely:
(1) Scenario 1 focuses on increasing infiltration to minimise run-off. Retention ponds,
detention ponds, and vegetated filter strips are examples of green infrastructures 349
related to this. In addition, land use regulations such as floor average ratio (FAR),
green average ratio (GAR), and land use control are relevant to this scheme.
(2) Scenario 2 focuses on accommodating rainfall using rain barrels to minimise the run-off.
(3) Scenario 3 focuses on increasing the capacity of the drainage system. This
increased drainage capacity can extend the volume of accommodated run-off.
(4) Scenario 4 is a combination of scenarios 1, 2, and 3.

3. Results and discussion

3.1 Current urban water model
The key inputs variables for the current urban water model via SWAT are:

Climate data from 2004 to 2013, consisting of rainfall, temperature, humidity, wind
speed, and solar radiation as presented in Figure 4. The lowest rainfall occurred in
August (12.73 mm), while the highest rainfall occurred in February (305.92 mm).
The maximum daily average temperature ranges from 31.84°C to 37.03°C, while the
minimum daily average temperature ranges from 22.46°C (July and August) to
24.58°C (November). The lowest average daily humidity occurred in September
(51per cent) and the highest average daily humidity occurred in February (81 per
cent). The daily average wind speed ranges between 1.37 and 2.47 m/s; the lowest
wind speed occurred in December while the highest wind speed occurred in August.
The average daily solar radiation is around 20.02 MJ/m2/day and this amount of
solar radiation in Surabaya is relatively similar every month.

Current land cover, consisting of various land cover types in 2016 such as
residential areas, paddy fields, bare land, and rivers. The sub-catchment area was
dominated by residential areas (42.48 per cent), paddy fields (36.46 per cent) and
bare land (10.22 per cent) in 2016 (Figure 5). The land cover indicates the
development process in the region. The intense housing developments happen
around the downstream area of the sub-catchment area. The downstream area is
part of Surabaya, one of the fast-growing cities in Indonesia. In this case, the land
cover is important to assess the infiltration rate. The infiltration depends on the land
cover type, the slope, and soil characteristics (Chow et al., 1988).

Land characteristics, including slopes, rivers, and soil types are the geomorphologic
features of the sub-catchment area. Slopes and river characteristics are important in
understanding the direction of run-off. In addition, soil types are important in
defining the rate of infiltration. Figure 6 illustrates that the run-off flows from the
northern and southern parts to the centre of the area and accumulates in the river.
The river then discharges the water from west to east. Pamungkas et al. (2017a,
2017b) illustrated that the water of the Kedurus River will flow into the Surabaya
River and is then diverted into two main rivers flowing to the sea (Kali Jagir in the
east and Kali Mas in the north) (Figures 4 to 6).
IJDRBE Mothly average of rainfall data 2004-2013
10,5 350.00
304.31 305.92 298.14
300.00
255.75
250.00

200.00 171.31
350 132.89
150.00
94.67
100.00
40.66 48.87
50.00 19.07 26.18
12.73
0.00

Daily average of wind speed data 2004-2013

3.00
2.47 2.43
2.50 2.30
2.16
2.01
2.00 1.75
1.68 1.60 1.63
1.53
1.39 1.37
1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00

Daily average of relave humidity data 2004-2013

0.90 0.81 0.80
0.78 0.78 0.75
0.80 0.73
0.68
0.70 0.62 0.62
0.56 0.53
0.60 0.51
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

Figure 4.
Climate Data for the
Kedurus area
(continued)
 Daily average of solar radiaon 2004-2013 Flood
30.00 reduction
24.08 23.28
25.00 22.85 22.60
21.44
20.44 20.89 21.10 21.35 20.32 20.02 20.99
20.00

15.00
351
10.00

5.00

0.00

Daily average of maximum temperature data

2004-2013
38.00 37.03
36.66
37.00 36.11
36.00 35.04
35.00 34.04 33.95
34.00 33.05 33.24
33.00
32.68 32.43 32.71
31.84
32.00
31.00
30.00
29.00

Daily average of minimum temperature data

2004-2013
25.00 24.58
24.42
24.50
23.85
24.00 23.57 23.50
23.50 23.30 23.30 23.31 23.43
22.91
23.00
22.46 22.46
22.50
22.00
21.50
21.00

Figure 4.
Source: Global Weather Data for SWAT
IJDRBE
10,5

352

Figure 5.
Land cover in the
Kedurus Sub-
Catchment Area
which is dominated
by residential areas
(yellow), bare land
(brown) and green
open space (green)

Figure 6.
Landscape profile of
the area
After entering all input variables in the SWAT model for the 2016 case study, the model Flood
showed that the sub-sub-catchment areas 8, 15, and 24 experience flooding. The total reduction
predicted flooding for the four areas is around 90,144 m3. Figure 7 shows the locations of the
sub-sub-catchment areas with potential flooding in 2016. Since both authorities (Surabaya
City and Gresik Municipality) do not have a complete flood map of the sub-catchment areas,
it is impossible to fully compare the flood characteristics of real events and model outputs.
Therefore, the information on the flood events originates from open-source data such as
newspapers. Most data confirmed the predicted model outputs that flooding will most likely
353
occur in sub-sub-catchment areas 8, 15, and 24.
Some information from major newspapers in East Java Province confirms the flood
events in those sub-sub-catchment areas:

Surya news: flooding occurred on Jalan Raya Wiyung (sub-sub-catchment 24) with a
depth of about 10 to 50 cm (Lestari, 2016).

Jawa Pos: flooding occurred in Bangkingan Urban Village (sub-sub-catchment 15)
up to an adult’s waist (Jawa Pos, 2016).

3.2 Scenario 1
The main cause of flooding in the region is that the catchment area cannot accommodate the
run-off. A greater infiltration rate can reduce flooding by decreasing run-off. Several
approaches are used for this purpose, i.e. applying green infrastructures and regulating land
use to minimise the percentage of built-up areas. Some potential green infrastructures that
can increase the infiltration rate are filter media, permeable paving, sediment basin,
constructed wetlands, detention ponds, retention ponds, bio-retention, sand filters, filter
strips, vegetated filter strips and long storage (American Rivers, American Society of
Landscape Architects, ECONorthwest, and Water Environment Federation, 2012). Among
those green infrastructures, Rahmasari (2017) has selected the most effective and applicable
green infrastructures for increasing the infiltration rate in the Kedurus case study, namely
retention ponds, detention ponds and vegetated filter strips. For these three green
infrastructures, Rahmasari and Pamungkas (2017) conducted an overlay analysis in GIS by
following the criteria for every green infrastructure. The retention pond should be
3,670.47 ha, the detention pond 3,041.86 ha, and the vegetated filter strip 1,259.12 ha.
This scenario emphasises the need for land use regulations to allocate land for these three
green infrastructures. Floor average ratio (FAR), green average ratio (GAR), and land use

Figure 7.
Predicted flooded
sub-sub-catchment
based on the current
model
IJDRBE changes are relevant land use schemes (Arnold and Gibbons, 1996). FAR and GAR ensure
10,5 that an adequate portion of land is allocated for green open space. According to Indonesian
regulations, private plots should comprise 10 per cent green open space. Furthermore, the
public area within the city in various levels of neighbourhood units should provide at least
20 per cent green open space. In total, the percentage of green open space in an area should
be at least 30 per cent.
354 The Kedurus Sub-Catchment Area accommodates many communities. Densely
populated residential areas lack green open space, both on private and public land
(Figure 8), while some high-income residential areas have very tidy and adequate green open
space on both private and public land (Figure 9). Meanwhile, other areas are in between
these two types of residential areas. With these characteristics of residential areas in mind,
this paper assumes that 10 per cent of the residential areas will be changed to vegetated
filters strips. This measure will provide an additional 308.87 ha of green infrastructure. The
changes in the current land use to provide the three green infrastructures will follow the
overlay analysis’ output in Rahmasari (2017).
Using the arrangement above, the first scenario simulated the flooding in the sub-
catchment area. As an aggregate, the flood volume has decreased from 90,144 m3 to
70,070.40 m3 or 22.3 per cent. Scenario 1 particularly addresses flooding in sub-sub-
catchment area 24, while the 8 and 15 still experience flooding. Figure 10 illustrates the
decreases in flood volume for every sub-sub-catchment area based on scenario 1.

Figure 8.
A densely populated
residential area

Figure 9.
A high-income
residential area
3.3 Scenario 2 Flood
Since floods still occur in scenario 1, another option for decreasing run-off is by using rain reduction
harvesting (Kowalsky and Thomason, 2010). Placing rain barrels on every plot or
neighbourhood unit is a potential solution for reducing floods. The Surabaya Government
has regulated the use of long storage to store two hours of rainfall on a parcel of land. This
regulation is applied only for high-rise buildings (high-rise building assessment form for
SKRK – an official note for legalising land use change from the government). Another case
is in Glintung Kampung, which has long storage under the roads to accommodate and
355
recycle greywater from houses. Moreover, providing communal greywater treatment in
kampong/neighbourhood units is more feasible than treating greywater in every individual
home because of land size and costs (Plate 1). These two best practices indicate the potential
of rain harvesting on the sub-catchment scale. Therefore, this scenario assumes the

Figure 10.
Sub-catchment map
with existing flood
data and scenario 1

Plate 1.
The greywater
treatment plant in
Glintung Kampung,
Malang
Municipality – East
Java Province
IJDRBE availability of at least 1 m3 of rain barrels for every 100 m2 that can store rainfall for two
10,5 hours.
Scenario 2 will influence the flood characteristics in every sub-sub-catchment area and
can decrease the flood volume from 90,144 m3 to 65,104.65 m3 or 27.8 per cent. The output of
scenario 2 is similar to scenario 1 for sub-sub-catchment flood characteristics. It can secure
sub-sub-catchment 24 but the flooding in 8 and 15 sub-sub-catchment areas still exists with
356 a lower volume compared to scenario 1.

3.4 Scenario 3
The scenario of increasing the infiltration rate and accommodating rainfall via green
infrastructures as presented in Scenario 1 (Figure 10) and Scenario 2 (Figure 11) is still
insufficient to stop flooding in all sub-sub-catchment areas. Therefore, applying a
conventional approach of grey infrastructures can be an effective solution. The third
scenario increases the capacity of grey infrastructures such as the drainage system to
accommodate the run-off and discharging it into the sea. The required increased capacity of
the drainage system in every sub-sub-catchment area varies based on current river
dimensions.
The modified river capacity for scenario 3 has a capacity that is higher than the current
run-off. This is to ensure the reliability of the river capacity while lowering the risk of future
intense rainfall leading to collapsed embankments. The current run-off debit should be a
maximum of eighty percent of the modified river capacity. Table I provides the data of the
river’s changing dimensions from the current situation to scenario 3 in every sub-sub-
catchment area. The river capacity in sub-sub-catchment areas 8 and 15 must be increased
dramatically by 101.42 per cent and 168.77 per cent respectively. In conclusion, the river
must be twice its current capacity to secure the areas from flooding.
The main challenges in increasing river capacity can be categorised in social, natural,
and financial aspects. From the social aspect, increasing river capacity often involves social
conflicts due to land ownership disputes (Riski, 2015). To some extent, inhabitants own the
land classified as riverbank areas legally and illegally. Therefore, land acquisition is
necessary if the government would increase the river capacity by widening the river. Land
acquisition is one of the greatest challenges in Indonesian infrastructure projects, which
makes the project of increasing the river capacity less feasible. From a natural aspect, the
sedimentation process upstream of the Brantas River has a high potential of decreasing the

Figure 11.
Sub-catchment map
with existing flood
data and for
scenario 2
No. of sub- Current
Flood
sub- river Current Current Current River capacity River reduction
vatchment Current river capacity run-off flooding flood based scenario Capacity
area dimension (m) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s) volume (m3) 3 (m3/s) Increase (%)
1 b = 3.3; h = 1.7 50.76 0.69 0.00 0.00 50.76 0.00
2 b = 24.6; h = 2.13 699.00 15.48 0.00 0.00 699.00 0.00
3
4
b = 2.4; h = 1.05
b = 5.9; h = 1.9
2.46
43.71
2.28
2.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.46
43.71
0.00
0.00
357
5 b = 1.6; h = 1.5 6.75 0.25 0.00 0.00 6.75 0.00
6 b = 1.6; h = 1.7 18.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 18.00 0.00
7 b = 5.9; h = 1.9 30.76 3.09 0.00 0.00 30.76 0.00
8 b = 6.5; h = 2.44 3.62 5.83 2.21 31,867.20 7.29 101.42
9 b = 9.6; h = 2.52 436.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 436.00 0.00
10 b = 9.2; h = 4 756.00 6.54 0.00 0.00 756.00 0.00
11 b = 1.6; h = 1.2 22.71 0.58 0.00 0.00 22.71 0.00
12 b = 15.7; h = 3 8.45 3.38 0.00 0.00 8.45 0.00
13 b = 36.4; h = 3.3 17.96 4.04 0.00 0.00 17.96 0.00
14 b = 15; h = 2.25 295.20 14.59 0.00 0.00 295.20 0.00
15 b = 15.7; h = 1.93 3.51 7.55 4.04 58,132.80 9.43 168.77
16 b = 9.6; h = 2.52 432.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 432.00 0.00
17 b = 15.7; h = 1.43 64.25 7.91 0.00 0.00 64.25 0.00
18 b = 9.6; h = 2.26 795.00 1.38 0.00 0.00 795.00 0.00
19 b = 25.1; h = 2.65 308.60 9.52 0.00 0.00 308.60 0.00
20 b = 4.6; h = 2.89 96.24 0.72 0.00 0.00 96.24 0.00
21 b = 37; h = 2.65 415.70 14.72 0.00 0.00 415.70 0.00
22 b = 2.6; h = 1.17 12.94 1.33 0.00 0.00 12.94 0.00
23 b = 1.6; h = 1.2 32.86 0.52 0.00 0.00 32.86 0.00 Table I.
24 b = 29.7; h = 2.11 13.40 13.41 0.01 144.00 16.76 25.09 Assessing additional
25 b = 9.6; h = 3 436.00 0.69 0.00 0.00 436.00 0.00 river capacity to
26 b = 25.9; h = 2.36 502.79 0.86 0.00 0.00 502.79 0.00
27 b = 1.05; h = 1.41 3.50 0.39 0.00 0.00 3.50 0.00 accommodate current
TOTAL – – – – 90,144.00 – – flood volume

river capacity. However, increasing the river capacity by deepening the river results in high
annual maintenance costs.
Although in scenario 3 the flooding completely, the challenges of applying this solution
are great, particularly in sub-sub catchments 8 and 15. There are two other problems related
to increasing the river capacity;
(1) Rainfall patterns have become unpredictable due to climate change. Pamungkas
(2013) highlighted that increasing the capacity of the drainage system is not
feasible under the climate change scenario due to additional extreme rainfall. Other
literature such as Bergsma, 2019; Radhakrishnan et al., 2018; Schuch et al., 2017
also highlighted that the changing rainfall pattern due to climate change will cause
higher with uncertainty potential risk and cost of flooding compared to a future
without climate change.
(2) Increasing the river capacity is not in line with the WSC concept since the main
objective of the drainage system is to discharge the water into the sea. Discharging
water into the sea will decrease the utility of water. The WSC concept urges to
optimise water usage before it reaches the sea. For example, recycling water,
harvesting water for daily needs, increasing the beauty of the landscape, and using
water for recreation purposes.

In conclusion, scenario 3 has limited feasibility based on the challenges and other problems
above.
IJDRBE 3.5 Scenario 4
10,5 Scenario 4 combines all three approaches to ensure the entire sub-catchment area is safe
from flooding since there are still flooded sub-sub-catchment areas in the first two scenarios
and an unfeasible solution in scenario 3. Scenario 4 first combines scenario 1 and scenario 2
into the model, which results in a decrease in flooding up to 44,058.86 m3 or 48.87 per cent.
Similar to the previous model, the sub-sub-catchment areas 8 and 15 still experience
358 flooding. Therefore, increasing grey infrastructure in those two sub-sub-catchment areas is
unavoidable. To provide a drainage system that accommodates the flood volume in those
two sub-sub-catchments, the flood volume is converted into a water debit unit using the
following formula:
Additional river debit ¼ flood volume=4 hours rainfall duration in seconds

Ideal river debit ¼ current river debit þ additional river debit

Ideas for additional river depth ¼ a trial and error of river depth until it reaches the ideal river debit

Table II shows the required additional river capacity based on the formula above. Sub-sub-
catchment area 8 requires an additional depth of 0.06 m while sub-sub-catchment area 15
requires an additional river depth of 0.74 m. The total river depth for both sub-sub-
catchment areas 8 and 15 is 2.50 m and 2.67 m respectively. These additional depths are still
reasonable since the average river depth along the river is 2.26 m.

4. Conclusion
Flooding is one of the main problems in the Kedurus Sub-Catchment Area. The current
approach of implementing grey infrastructures using the drainage system cannot reduce
floods completely. Moreover, discharging water into the sea is not water sensitive and
results in sub-optimal water use in the area. Consequently, a new approach is needed that
can reduce flooding while simultaneously improving the use of water particularly before
discharging the water into the sea. Implementing green infrastructures is a promising
strategy, particularly in reducing floods and increasing the use of water for water supply,
recreation, and improving environmental quality.
Green infrastructures can have two main functions, i.e. increasing the infiltration rate
and temporarily storing water. A simulation in this study showed that a combination of
both types of green infrastructures can decrease flooding in the Kedurus Sub-Catchment
area up to forty-eight percent. Relying only on grey infrastructures for flood reduction is
unfeasible, as the current capacity of the drainage system must be doubled. This is difficult
to implement, particularly due to financial and social constraints. Meanwhile, combining
green and grey infrastructure is a feasible strategy to reduce floods through increasing river
capacity, increasing infiltration and temporarily storing water. Furthermore, applying green

Items Sub-sub-catchment 8 Sub-sub-catchment 15

Table II.
Current flood volume 2.479.79 m3 43,605.65 m3
Additional river Additional river debit 0.17 m3/s 3.03 m3/s
capacity to ensure no Ideal river debit 3.79 m3/s 6.54 m3/s
flooding in all sub- Ideas for addition river depth þ0.06 m þ0.74 m
sub-catchment area Total river depth 2.50 m 2.67 m
infrastructures helps the administrations in the catchment area to achieve the values of Flood
sustainability and water sensitivity. reduction

References
Andersson, E., Barthel, S., Borgström, S., Colding, J., Elmqvist, T., Folke, C. and Gren, Å. (2014),
“Reconnecting cities to the biosphere: stewardship of green infrastructure and urban ecosystem
services”, AMBIO, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 445-453. 359
Alves, A., Gersonius, B., Kapelan, Z., Vojinovic, Z. and Sanchez, A. (2019), “Assessing the co-benefits of
green-blue-grey infrastructure for sustainable urban flood risk management”, Journal of
Environmental Management, Vol. 239, pp. 244-254.
American Rivers, American Society of Landscape Architects, ECONorthwest, and Water Environment
Federation (2012), Banking on Green: A Look at How Green Infrastructure Can save
Municipalities Money and Provide Economic Benefits Community-Wide, Government of City of
Lincoln and Lancaster County, Lincoln.
Andini, A.P. and Putturuhu, B. (2016), Perencanaan Underpass Mayjend Sungkono Surabaya – Jawa
Timur, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya.
Arnold, C.L. and Gibbons, C.J. (1996), “Impervious surface coverage the emergence of a key
environmental indicator”, Journal of the American Planning Association Spring, Vol. 62 No. 2,
pp. 243-258.
Bappenas (Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional) (2010), Indonesia Climate Change Sectoral
Roadmap, Bappenas, Jakarta.
Bergsma, E. (2019), “The development of flood risk management in the United States”, Environmental
Science and Policy, Vol. 101, pp. 32-37.
Bertilsson, L., Wiklund, K., Tebaldi, I.D.M., Rezende, O.M., Verol, A.P. and Miguez, M.G. (2019), “Urban
flood resilience: a multi-criteria index to integrate flood resilience into urban planning”, Journal
of Hydrology, Vol. 573, pp. 970-982.
Brown, R., Keath, N. and Wong, T. (2009), “Urban water management in cities: historical, current and
future regimes”, Water Science and Technology, Vol. 1
Chow, V.T., Maidment, D.R. and Mays, L.W. (1988), Applied Hydrology, McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
Daigneault, A., Brown, P. and Gawith, D. (2016), “Dredging versus hedging: Comparing hard
infrastructure to ecosystem-based adaptation to flooding”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 122,
pp. 25-35.
De Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L. and Willemen, L. (2010), “challenges in integrating the
concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning”, Ecological Complexity, Vol. 7
No. 3, pp. 260-272.
Dong, X., Guo, G. and Zeng, S. (2017), “Enhancing future resilience in urban drainage system: green
versus grey infrastructure”, Water Research, Vol. 124, pp. 280-289.
Environment Agency (2010), “Fluvial design guide – chapter 8”, available at: http://evidence.environment-
agency.gov.uk/FCERM/en/FluvialDesignGuide/Chapter8.aspx?pagenum=2 (accessed 27 May
2017)
Floyd, J., Iaquinto, B.I., Ison, R. and Collins, K. (2014), “Managing complexity in Australian urban water
governance: transitioning Sydney to a water sensitive city”, Futures, Vol. 61, pp. 1-12.
Francesconi, W., Srinivasan, R., Minana, E.P., Willcock, S. and Quintero, M. (2016), “Using the soil and
water assessment tool (SWAT) to model ecosystem services: a systematic review”, Journal of
Hydrology, Vol. 535, pp. 625-636.
Francois, B., Schlef, K.E., Wi, S. and Brown, C.M. (2019), “Design considerations for riverine floods in a
changing climate: a review”, Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 574, pp. 557-573.
IJDRBE Glavan, M. and Pintar, M. (2012), “Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of catchment
modelling with soil and water assessment tool (SWAT) model, water resources
10,5 management and modeling, purna nayak, IntechOpen”, doi: 10.5772/34539, available at:
www.intechopen.com/books/water-resources-management-and-modeling/strengths-weaknesses-
opportunities-and-threats-of-catchment-modelling-with-soil-and-water-assessment (accessed at 23
August 2019)
Gunnell, K., Mulligan, M., Francis, R.A. and Hole, D.G. (2019), “Evaluating natural infrastructure for
360 flood management within the watersheds of selected global cities”, Science of the Total
Environment, Vol. 670, pp. 411-424.
Hidayat, F., Sungguh, H.M. and Harianto (2008), “Impact of climate change on floods in Bengawan Solo
and Brantas River Basins, Indonesia”, Paper presented at River Symposium.
Indonesian National Disaster Board (2019), “Tren kejadian bencana 10 tahun terakhir”, Disaster
events trend for the last 10 years, available at: http://bnpb.cloud/dibi/ (accessed 20 August
2019).
Jansen, R.B. (2003), “Dams, dikes, and levees”, Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, Vol. 1,
pp. 171-190.
Jawa Pos (2016), “Tahun ini tambah boezem”, Jawa Pos, Surabaya.
Kowalsky, G. and Thomason, K. (2010), Rainwater Harvesting and Re-Use: A Tool for Stormwater Run-
off Reduction, CONTECH Construction Products, Philippines.
Kuhn, C. (2014), “Modelling rainfall-run-off using SWAT in a small urban wetland. Retrieved from
hixon center for urban ecology”, available at: https://hixon.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/
report/kuhn_finalreport_fes724.pdf (accessed at 06 June 2017).
Lascow, S. (2017), “New orleans has been using the same technology to drain the city since the 1910s”,
Atlas Obscura, available at: www.atlasobscura.com/articles/new-orleans-wood-screw-pumps-
history-power-drainage-flooding-infrastructure (accessed 23 August 2019).
Lestari, S.H. (2016), “Jalan raya wiyung banjir, kemacetan tidak terhindarkan, termasuk
kawasan citraland”, available at: http://surabaya.tribunnews.com/2016/02/24/jalan-raya-
wiyung-banjir-kemacetan-tidak-terhindarkan-termasuk-kawasan-citraland (accessed 22
May 2017).
Lowe, R., Urich, C., Domingo, N.S., Mark, O., Deletic, A. and Nielsen, K.A. (2017), “Assessment of urban
pluvial flood risk and efficiency of adaptation option through simulations: a new generation of
urban planning tools”, Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 550, pp. 355-367.
Muggah, R. (2019), “How china’s sponge cities are preparing for sea-level rise”, available at: www.
weforum.org/agenda/2019/06/how-china-s-sponge-cities-are-preparing-for-sea-level-rise/ (accessed
at 23 August 2019).
Newumann, S.S., Renouf, M.A., Morgan, E., Kenway, S.J. and Choy, D.L. (2019), “Urban water
metabolism information for planning water sensitive city-regions”, Land Use Policy, Vol. 88,
pp. 104-144.
Pamungkas, A. (2013), “Vulnerability assessment for disaster risk management: a case study of floods
in Centini village, Indonesia, “A Ph.D. thesis submitted, RMIT University.
Pamungkas, A., Bekessy, S. and Lane, R. (2017a), “Adaptations assessment on the impact of flooding
under current condition and climate change scenario, case study: Centini village, Indonesia”,
TATALOKA, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 163-174.
Pamungkas, A., Tucunan, K.P., Navastara, A., Idajati, H. and Pratomoatmojo, N.A. (2017b), “A
conceptual model for water sensitive city in Surabaya”, IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science, p. 79.
Perdana, D. (2016), “Banjir di driyorejo semakin tinggi, belum ada bantuan BPBD”, available at: http://
kelanakota.suarasurabaya.net/news/2016/167128-Banjir-di-Driyorejo-Semakin-Tinggi,Belum-Ada-
Bantuan-BPBD (accessed 27 May 2017).
Purwitaningsih, S. (2017), Skenario Pengurangan Banjir Berdasarkan Tata Guna Lahan di Daerah Flood
Aliran Sungai Kedurus Menggunakan Model SWAT, Student Final Project under Pamungkas’
Supervision, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya.
reduction
Purwitaningsih, S. and Pamungkas, A. (2017), “Analisis kondisi hidrologi daerah aliran sungai kedurus
untuk mengurangi banjir menggunakan model hidrologi SWAT”, Publikasi Online Mahasiswa
ITS, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. C-107-C-111.
Radhakrishnan, M., Pathirana, A., Ashley, R.M., Gersonius, B. and Zevenbergen, C. (2018), “Flexible
adaptation planning for water sensitive cities”, Cities, Vol. 78, pp. 87-95. 361
Rahmasari, H.F. (2017), Penentuan Potensi Penerapan Infrastruktur Hijau Dalam Mengurangi
Genangan di Daerah Aliran Sungai Kedurus, Student Final Project under Pamungkas’
Supervision, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya.
Rahmasari, H.F. and Pamungkas, A. (2017), “Penentuan penerapan jenis infrastruktur hijau di daerah
aliran sungai kedurus berdasarkan karakteristik fisik kawasan”, Publikasi Online Mahasiswa
ITS.
Restemeyer, B., Woltjer, J. and van den Brink, M. (2015), “A strategy-based framework for assessing the
flood resilience of cities – a Hamburg case study”, Planning Theory and Practice, Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 45-62.
Riski, P. (2015), “Revitalisasi sungai solusi penanganan banjir di Jawa Timur. Benarkah?”, available
at: www.mongabay.co.id/2015/02/13/revitalisasi-sungai-solusi-penanganan-banjir-di-jawa-
timur-benarkah/ (accessed 08 June 2017).
Santoso, H. and Forner, C. (2006), “Climate change projections for Indonesia. Backgroud document for
the Southeast Asia kick-off meeting of the project tropical forests and climate change adaptation
(TroFCCA)”, Bogor.
Saud, I. (2009), “Prediksi sedimentasi kali mas surabaya”, Jurnal Aplikasi, Vol. 1, pp. 20-26.
Schubert, J.E., Burns, M.J., Fletcher, T.D. and Sanders, B.F. (2017), “A framework for the case-specific
assessment of green infrastructure in mitigating urban flood hazards”, Advances in Water
Resources, Vol. 108, pp. 55-68.
Schuch, G., Neumann, S.S., Morgan, E. and Choy, D.L. (2017), “Water in the city: green open spaces,
land use planning and floodd Management- an Autralian case stydy”, Land Use Policy, Vol. 63,
pp. 539-550.
Scott, M. (2013), “Living with flood risk”, Planning Theory and Practice, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 103-133.
Sugiharto, B. (2016), “Risma dari jakarta langsung terjun pantau banjir di wiyung”, available at: http://
news.detik.com/berita-jawa-timur/3150468/risma-dari-jakarta-langsung-terjun-pantau-banjir-di-
wiyung (accessed 27 May 2017).
Sun, Z., Lotz, T. and Chang, N.B. (2017), “Assessing the long-term effects of land use changes on runoff
patterns and food production in a large lake watershed with policy implication”, Journal of
Environmental Management, Vol. 204, pp. 92-101.
Surabaya, Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Kota (Bappeko) (2014), Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah
Kota Surabaya, Pemerintah Kota Surabaya, Surabaya.
Thomas, G.A. (2017), “Chapter 21 - Managing infrastructure to maintain natural functions in developed
Rivers”, Water for the Environment, pp. 483-518.
Tsetkova, O. and Randhir, T.O. (2019), “Spatial and temporal uncertainty in climatic impacts on
watershed systems”, Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 1, pp. 618-633.
Wong, T. and Brown, R.R. (2009), “The water sensitive city: principles for practices”, Water Science and
Technology, Vol. 60, pp. 673-682.
Xu, X., Wang, Y.C., Kalcic, M., Muenich, R.L., Yang, Y.C.E. and Scavia, E. (2017), “Evaluating the
impact of climate change on fluvial flood risk in a mixed-use watershed”, Environmental
Modelling and Software, Vol. 1, pp. 1-11.
IJDRBE Zulkarnain, R.C. (2016), “Pengaruh perubahan tutupan lahan terhadap perubahan suhu permukaan di
kota surabaya”, Student Final Project under Pamungkas’ Supervision, Institut Teknologi
10,5 Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya.

Further reading
Kabupaten Gresik (2019), “Rencana pembangunan jangka menengah kabupaten gresik (RPJMD) 2016-
2021”.
362
Kota Surabaya (2016), “Peraturan daerah kota surabaya no. 10 tahun 2016”, Tentang Rencana
Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Daerah (RPJMD) Kota Surabaya Tahun 2016-2021.

Corresponding author
Adjie Pamungkas can be contacted at: adjie.difi@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

View publication stats