Forests, floods, people and wildlife on Borneo

A review of flooding and analysis of local perceptions of flooding frequencies and trends, and the roles of forests and deforestation in flood regimes, with a view to informing government decision-making on flood monitoring, forest management and biodiversity conservation .

A report to UNEP by:

Jessie A. Wells, Erik Meijaard, Nicola K. Abram, and Serge Wich

June 20, 2013

This study was funded by UNEP through the Satogaeri (Homecoming) Ink Jet Cartridge Recycling Project.

Photos on front page: Top left, flooding in Samarinda (photo by E. Meijaard). Bottom left, natural forest in interior Borneo, S. Kayaniut (PT Essam) (photo by Edi Sudiono). Right, flooding in upper Barito area (photo by R. Dennis).

Author affiliations: Jessie A. Wells. ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia. Erik Meijaard. Borneo Futures Project, People and Nature Consulting International, Ciputat, Jakarta, 15412, Indonesia AND Center for International Forestry Research, P.O. Box 0113 BOCBD, Bogor 16000, Indonesia AND School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia. Nicola K. Abram. Durrell Institute for Conservation and Ecology, School of Anthropology and Conservation, Marlowe Building, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, UK AND Hutan / Kinabatangan Orang-utan Conservation Programme, Sandakan, Sabah, Malaysia. Serge Wich. School of Natural Sciences & Psychology, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK.

ii

Summary
Context and Rationale for the Study
Tropical rainforests are among the most species-rich environments on earth and a major source of livelihoods for hundreds of millions of forest-dwelling people. These forests are, however, rapidly disappearing, threatening the survival of endangered wildlife, such as orangutans (Figure 1), and the livelihoods of many people. One of the main reasons for deforestation is that non-forest land uses, such as plantations, currently generate much higher revenues than forests, especially forests where past logging has extracted most commercial hard woods. This is a key motivation for global efforts to value the ecosystem services that forests provide beyond wood production, e.g., services such as carbon sequestration, clean water provision, or flood buffering. Demonstrating the social and economic values of these services enables communities, businesses and governments to see a fuller picture of what is gained and lost through deforestation, and allows decisions to be based on more than short-term financial gains. Understanding these values is also an essential step in developing mechanisms to reward actions that sustain them, for example through payments for ecosystem services. This study focuses specifically on the flood buffering role of forests on the island of Borneo. The role of forests in regulating water flow and decreasing the severity of floods has received much attention within emerging payment for water provision and regulation services schemes. On Borneo, however, the current knowledge of flood events is fragmented and highly incomplete. Event records are collected or collated using different methods and criteria by authorities at several levels of government, and internationally, and great scope exists for improved integration of monitoring and assessment of risks. For example, Indonesia's national methods for flood reporting and risk assessment are geared to prioritization of emergency response to the most extreme events affecting heavily populated areas, but have been based on highly incomplete time series and overlook many events that affect smaller populations but add up to large impacts over a region or time period. The resulting lack of understanding of the social and economic impacts of flooding, and how this relates to land use, prohibit effective integration of hydrological services in land use planning. Figure 1. Young orangutan in Lesan, East The present analysis aims to provide a framework for more extensive Kalimantan. Photo by Don Bason. studies of the hydrological functions of forests, especially with regard to flood buffering. Quantification of these functions and the effective incorporation of forest values into land use planning is a longer term goal, with which we ultimately want to achieve significant reductions in deforestation rates and long-term maintenance of endangered wildlife, including orangutans.

Analytical approach
We compiled information on flooding from three main sources: 1) we studied the perceptions of people in Borneo about forest ecosystem services, expressed in interview surveys in 548 villages; 2) we analysed newspaper reports about flood events Kalimantan to estimate total impacts and determine the social and environmental factors that were associated with reported flooding; and 3) we collected data from official government sources in Indonesia. Statistical analysis of these data provides insights into the role of forest ecosystems in flood regulation, and highlights need for further research.

iii

Key findings
This study is the first Borneo-wide assessment of flooding and a first attempt at quantifying impacts and understanding how these impacts relate to a range of environmental and social factors. Because of the incompleteness of datasets, each of the approaches we have taken has strengths and limitations in building a full picture of flooding and its causes and impacts. The nature of the study means that many of our findings are preliminary, indicating the importance of several factors that influence flood hazards and perceptions, and highlighting areas where further knowledge is urgently needed. Our review of existing sources of information on flood events, risks and river monitoring (section R1) showed that current data is highly fragmentary. We find significant discrepancies between government assessments of flood hazard and risk, compared to where floods occur and are locally perceived to be most severe. Government maps indicate that the majority of the land area of Kalimantan has no predicted hazard or risk level, and focus on risks of single major disasters but overlook more widespread and cumulatively large impacts. Our data show flood events to be far more widespread, significantly affecting inland communities, as well as coastal towns and cities. For governments to be better able to assess flooding threats and risks in Borneo, and possibly reduce impacts through changed land use practices, there is a need for greater integration of data from multiple sources. Analysis of extensive interview surveys (section R2) showed that many villages experience frequent floods (>0.5 per year on average in 65% of villages). Only 7.6% of the villages, mostly in higher elevation areas, reported no experience of flooding. Flood frequencies and trends are related to distance to rivers, elevation and rainfall, and also to landscape context, as shown in the importance of several land cover variables. Consistent with expectations, flooding frequency was highest for villages close to rivers, and at lower elevations. Higher frequencies were also associated with higher road Figure 2. Flooding in the Upper Mahakam in June 2006 forced people out of their density, and amount of rainfall of homes until water levels dropped. Photo by Godwin Limberg. the wettest month. We found tentative evidence that the proportion of watershed forested, and cover of severely degraded forest or oil palm plantations are important predictors of flooding. However, more data are needed to understand relationships between land cover and flooding, espeically to distinguish the influence of different forest types (e.g. degraded, logged, agroforest and regrowth), and concentrated land uses that may have large hydrological effects (especially roads and mining). Flood frequencies were reported to have increased over the past 30 years in 18% of villages, most of which located in the middle reaches of rivers. Our models predicted flood increases in coastal, eastern Sabah, the middle Mahakam area in East Kalimantan, the lower and middle reaches of the Barito, Kahayan, Sampit and Lamandau Rivers in South and Central Kalimantan, and the low-lying swamps around the Kapuas River in West Kalimantan. These are all areas with high human population densities and significant agricultural developments, indicating that future economic impacts of flooding could be significant. Villagers generally hold strong perceptions of forests as important for their health, and for regulation of flooding. Lower perceptions of the value of forest for flood protection were reported in areas close to iv

severely logged forest, suggesting that villagers view this forest as having low protection value. We also found a widespread view that large-scale deforestation negatively affects communities because of its environmental impacts, and this was highest in areas with more agroforest or regrowth cover. Newspaper reports of floods in four provinces indicate that at least 146 distinct flood events in the three years April 2010 - 2013. This record is not comprehensive (it does not include the majority of events experienced by individual villages), but gives a mininum estimate for flood events and impacts in three Provinces (West, East and South Kalimantan), and 3 districts of Central Kalimantan. These events flooded 197,000 houses (possibly as many as 360,000), displacing 776,000 people (possibly as many as 1.5 million), as well as damaging farmlands, plantations, infrastructure (roads and bridges) and many schools and health centres. The available data do not yet allow us to quantify total economic and social impacts of flooding on Borneo, but our analyses suggest that these impacts are high, affecting several major cities and 54% of villages each year on average. The newspaper reports of floods 2010-2013 and village interviews 2008-2011 showed strong spatial agreement for the areas where their coverages overlapped. Villages close to or downstream from sites of newspaper-reported floods all gave interviews saying that flood frequencies were moderate to high. Our statistical model showed a very clear separation between settlements that are vulnerable to floods and those that rarely or never experience them. Similar to the interview-based assessments, flooding reported in newspapers showed a strong decline over distance to major rivers and to severely logged forest, increased with impervious cover, settlement densities, and elevation. This time series is only brief, relative to variation in climate across years, and ideally time series of at least 20 years would be used to account for rarer events. However, such datasets do not yet exist, and the analysis highlights the value of statistical analysis of extensive datasets in relation to a wide range of social and environmental predictors, to draw on the strength of information from multiple sources. Alongside landscapelevel cover of different forest and other land use types, there is a strong need to further explore the hydrological impacts of intensive land uses, such as mining and roads. Our findings have relevance for wildlife conservation on Borneo. One of the aims of this study was to assess how recognition and understanding of the hydrological functions of Bornean forests could benefit the protection of endangered wildlife such as orangutans. The Governments of Indonesia and Malaysia have made official commitments to maintain all viable populations of orangutans in the wild. These commitments have been expressed in the national action plan for orangutan conservation in Indonesia and the Sabah State orangutan conservation plan. Orangutans (Pongo spp.) are essentially forest species that are severely threatened by habitat loss and hunting. As a result the Sumatran orangutan (P. abelii) is currently listed by the IUCN as critically endangered and the Bornean species (P. pygmaeus) as endangered. The decline of orangutan populations can largely be explained by two factors: 1) unsustainable hunting and killing of orangutans; and 2) habitat loss and degradation. The majority of viable populations on Borneo occur outside of the protected area network because only 22% of the current orangutan distribution on Borneo occurs in protected forest. Thus there is a strong need to include forest that falls under other land uses if the governments goals are to be achieved and develop spatial plans that reflect this. To obtain widespread societal support for the protection of forested lands it is important to demonstrate and communicate the benefits they provide such as their role in climate change, hydrology, pollination, fisheries, and other ecosystem services. We tentatively conclude that Bornean forests provide flood buffering services that are poorly quantified but likely to be large. This is especially the case for the more frequent forms of flooding that affect the majority of villages in Borneo. In the most extreme, basin-wide flood events that result from heavy and prolonged rainfall, forest and soil ecosystems may not substantially alter flood dynamics, or may slightly reduce peak flow velocities but have less effect on total volumes if storage capacities are completely overwhelmed. Quantification of the value of forests for both wildlife conservation and provision of hydrological services offers a strong motivation for their improved management. Regulation of flooding risks is a tangible benefit from sustainable land use that resonates strongly with local people and politicians, and therefore has an important role to play in raising awareness and increasing the weight given to the wider consequences of land use change. v

Hydrological services cannot be substituted by engineering or infrastructure solutions except in very particular small-scale situations, although the use of engineering principles to minimise negative impacts of future roads and other infrastructure is vital. Furthermore, the flood buffering benefits from forest and wetland ecosystems are one of many inter-related ecosystem services that contribute to both the quality of lives and livelihoods for local people, and the quality of habitat for orangutans and other biodiversity.

Key Recommendations
1. Follow up research is needed to better quantify hydrological functions of forests and their related social and economic importance. A stronger understanding of flooding occurrence and impacts and relationships with land use is essential to inform land use planning and reduction of disaster risks, and is likely to have a strong influence on how decision-makers view the importance of forests and ecosystem services, due to the strong resonance of flooding and freshwater issues with citizens and officials. 2. Community-monitoring of river flows and flood events, especially in rural areas, could simultaneously provide better long-term data and empower communities to influence local land use decisions that could affect flooding. There are clear needs for better understanding of how flooding affects livelihoods and wellbeing, and how impacts vary with predictability, suddenness and severity. Our perception studies indicate that there is high awareness among communities about possible relationships between land cover and flooding, and there may be significant interest in participating in community monitoring programs, especially if they can be designed collaboratively and promote local ownership (rather than just supplying data to external scientists or government). 3. Governments should invest in monitoring and the integration of several types of data to develop flood hazard and risk assessments. The ability of governments at local, regional or national level to spatially assess the risks of flooding is hampered by the availability of accurate and consistent data. Our study has identified existing sources of information and how they could be developed further to contribute to more integrated assessments, especially to understand impacts that occur through many smaller events, alongside rarer concentrated disasters, and to develop projections for future change with population growth and climate change. 4. Flood impacts and relationships to land use should be integrated into land use decision-making. Despite commitments by Malaysian and Indonesian governments to maintain about half of Borneos land area as natural forest, conversion of such forests to plantations is ongoing. Such decisions are based on a narrow perspective of economic gains to developers or governments, assuming that revenues from plantations or mines are significantly higher than those from once-logged forests over the timescale of planning decisions. This, however, does not incorporate costs of deforestation or ecosystem degradation, such as those potentially associated with increased flood frequency and severity that are borne by society. A better understanding of the relationships between land cover, terrain, flooding events, and economic impacts should help land use planners to make informed decisions, especially to identify where deforestation should be prevented to minimize impacts from flooding, and to enable spatial planning to optimize multiple objectives for social and economic benefits alongside biodiversity conservation.

vi

Contents

Summary ................................................................................................................................................................ iii Context and Rationale for the Study ................................................................................................................. iii Analytical approach ........................................................................................................................................... iii Key findings........................................................................................................................................................ iv Key Recommendations .......................................................................................................................................... vi Contents ............................................................................................................................................................... vii Abbreviations....................................................................................................................................................... viii Acknowledgements: ............................................................................................................................................ viii Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................1 Methods .................................................................................................................................................................4 1. Review of data sources on flooding, risk assessments and biophysical monitoring ......................................4 Comparison of existing data sources for flood frequency or individual events, and assessments of flooding hazards and risks ..............................................................................................................................4 2. Villagers' perceptions of flood frequencies, trends, and forest ecosystem services .....................................4 Interview surveys............................................................................................................................................4 Spatial predictor variables for modelling villager perceptions.......................................................................6 Spatial and statistical modelling of villager perceptions ................................................................................9 3. Newspaper reports of flood events and damages ...................................................................................... 10 Results ................................................................................................................................................................. 13 1. Existing sources of flood event data, risk assessments and biophysical monitoring .................................. 13 Biophysical monitoring of climate and rivers .............................................................................................. 13 Flood event records and Risk-mapping by the Indonesian Government .................................................... 14 2. Villager perceptions of flood frequencies, trends and forest ecosystem services ...................................... 17 2.1 Summary of interview datasets: ............................................................................................................ 17 2.2 Flooding frequency and trends.............................................................................................................. 18 Spatial analysis of flooding frequencies and trends: ................................................................................... 19 2.3 Villager perceptions of floods and forests ............................................................................................. 26 3. Newspaper reports of flood events and damages ...................................................................................... 29 Kalimantan newspaper reports of flooding, April 2010 2013 .................................................................. 29 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................................ 34 Implications for improved forest management, land use planning, and orangutan conservation in Borneo 37 Recommendations for future monitoring, modelling and prioritisation ........................................................ 39 References ........................................................................................................................................................... 42

vii

Abbreviations
BNPB BRT DiBi DRR GCM GIS HFA NGO Indonesia: National Disaster Management Agency Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana Boosted Regression Tree method for statistical modelling Indonesia: Disaster Loss Database Data dan Informasi Bencana Indonesia Disaster Risk Reduction Global Circulation Model, for climate simulation and analysis. Geographic Information System Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015, a global plan of action for disaster risk reduction. Non-governmental organization

Acknowledgements:
We thank the Satogaeri (Homecoming) Ink Jet Cartridge Recycling Project for funding this study through the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). We thank the many respondents who volunteered information in the interview surveys, and thank The Nature Conservancy as the owner of the dataset for allowing its continuing use. We are grateful to staff from CIFOR, the World Agroforestry Centre, and the River Basin Planning section of the Indonesian Government Ministry of Public Works, for discussing data sources and their current research on floods and forests. We also thank the Arcus Foundation for funding previous studies of community perceptions that enabled us to incorporate these analyses in the present study.

viii

Introduction
Borneo is one of the most important areas in the world for biodiversity conservation (de Bruyn et al. 2013). Its tropical rainforests, wetlands and river systems harbour a large diversity of terrestrial and aquatic species, including global conservation icons such as the orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus). These environments are a direct source of livelihood and many ecosystem services for millions of people. However, the island also has some of the highest rates of deforestation and forest degradation in the world (FAO 2011; Miettinen et al. 2011), leading to losses of both environmental services and species habitats. Conversion of forests to subsistence or commercial activities generates economic benefits, but current economic evaluations and land use planning do not adequately consider the values of ecosystem services and how these are impacted by or influence development. The present study is part of The Borneo Futures Project, which aims to advance our understanding of the social and environmental values of Borneo's landscapes, and to develop tools for land use decision-making to meet development aspirations, ensure viable ecosystems and maintain biodiversity including ecosystem services of such as flood regulation. This work aims to provide a set of compelling maps to decision makers to illustrate the long-term macro-economic, environmental and social impacts of different development scenarios, as well as their impact on orangutans and other species. It also provides a transparent method to examine trade-offs and interactions among objectives for biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services and economic development. Flooding is related to land use via changes in hydrological processes and stream morphology that affect the timing and magnitude of water flows, and via changes in human vulnerability due to settlement distributions and social capacities for mitigation or adaptation to floods. Borneo receives high levels of rainfall, varying from 1520 4820 mm per year across the island, while monthly rainfall varies between 80310 mm for the driest month and 160740 mm for the wettest month each year (averages from monthly data 1950-2000, Hijmans et al. 2005). Especially in eastern Borneo, rainfall shows pronounced seasonality (Figure 3), and much of the precipitation falls within the wet season, often between November and February. Dry months with <100 mm rainfall are generally rare, though drought conditions can occur, especially during strong El Nio events. Heavy rainfall can lead to localised flash flooding, especially in steep, mountainous areas, and large overland or Figure 3. Agroclimatic zones of the Indonesian part of Borneo subsurface flows into large rivers can cause (Oldeman et al. 1980). extensive floods, especially in coastal areas (Case et al. 2007). Floods of various forms are a natural part of Borneos ecological functioning, as indicated by observations and geographical studies in the 19th and early 20th century prior to human modification of major river basins (Schwaner 1854; Enthoven 1903; Schophuys 1936); however the impacts of flooding are expected to increase with growing human alterations of major river basins, and the intensification of water cycles and extreme rainfall with climate change. Due to increasing human populations in flood prone areas, the impact of floods will also be more severe in terms of humanitarian and economic impacts (Figure 4). 1

The national and regional governments on Borneo are aware that floods represent major economic and social costs, however data on flood occurrence remains rare and functional relationships between floods, forests, and climate change remain poorly understood. For example, Indonesias National Action Plan for Disaster Management 2010-12 does not include a detailed flood risk assessment, and laments the lack of flood information (Bappenas & BNPB 2010). The present study develops maps of reported flooding frequency and trends based on interviews in 354 villages in Borneo, and of perceptions of forest ecosystem services based on interviews in 548 villages, and links these perceptions to a range of social and environmental variables, thus allowing prediction of flood risk patterns for all of Borneo. This approach highlights the limitations of existing flood risk maps, which are coarse in spatial scale and lack a strong basis of data. Understanding relationships between forests and flood risks would provide a powerful tool to inform land use planning on Borneo, and adds another dimension to motivations for protection of orangutan habitats.

Figure 4. Flood events are frequent and widespread throughout most of Borneo, causing increasing economic impacts with ongoing infrastructural development and increasing human population densities.

Floods and land use change Relationships between flooding and land use are not simple nor universal, but depend critically on how the vegetation and especially soils change through time (Bruijnzeel 2004), and the scale of the landscapes and flooding events considered. Recent reviews of forests and hydrological processes have moved on from earlier controversies over simplistic links between deforestation and major flood events, and give the following overview of land use impacts on flooding: Land use change can influence the generation of rainfall-induced floods through changes in interception losses (direct evaporation of rainfall intercepted by the canopy), infiltration into the soil, and/or capacities for retention of water within soils (van Dijk et al. 2009). Deforestation and forest degradation can increase the speed at which water runs off into rivers (and hence peak volumes) by decreasing the infiltration rates and water storage capacity of soils. Secondly, networks of roads or other linear disturbances and compaction of soils alter the paths and speed of water movement, often acting as direct conduits for run off to streams, and increasing peak volumes considerably. A further impact of land use on flooding regimes can occur through erosion, landslips and sedimentation which alter stream morphology (FAO, 2008). Rainfall events that involve very large and prolonged falls can overwhelm the storage capacities of soils and water bodies, and lead to major flooding, and such extreme events may show little influence of different land covers. However, ecosystems can play an important role in reducing flood peaks and velocities resulting from rainfall events that are smaller but occur more often than those causing massive disasters (Lusiana et al. 2008b; Wahyu et al. 2010; Bathurst et al. 2011). 2

Deforestation and conversion of wetlands to intensive land uses such as mining, croplands, infrastructure or industrial plantations may thus increase the frequency and severity of floods, at least for those of moderate magnitude that are the most frequent. Reforestation may improve hydrological services, depending on whether soil properties recover, and on the influences of river bed morphology, roads and impervious surfaces in the catchment. Perceptions that forests are important for flood regulation are shared by many people living in or close to Borneos forests (Meijaard et al. in review). This perception may be especially strong in Borneos urban areas, which are often located in the lower reaches of the islands major rivers. For example, Samarinda, the capital city of East Kalimantan Province, experienced 72 floods between 2007 and 2011 (Maimunah 2013), and the Provincial government spent Rp 605 billion on engineering flood defences in 2011-13 (Pemprov Kaltim 2013). Many people attribute the causes of flooding to the poorly regulated coal mining industry in East Kalimantan (Maimunah 2013). Quantitative information is scarce, but further understanding of flooding processes and impacts is urgently needed. Studies of wider hydrologic services in Borneo are rare, and have focussed on water quality (Rooswiadji et al. 2012) or erosion processes (Sidle et al. 2006; Walsh et al. 2011) in subcatchments, or have applied coarse deterministic analyses to erosion and freshwater provision at basin or island spatial scales and at annual temporal scales. For example, (1) simple linear weighted GIS layers have been used to estimate source values for prevention of floods, drought and landslides at the scale of Kinabalu National Park (753 km 2) (Phua & Minowa 2000); (2) WWF has applied InVEST software to estimate erosion vulnerability across the island based on the RUSLE method (revised universal soil loss equation) which only considers surface sheet erosion, not gully or stream erosion (Wulffraat et al. 2012); (3) and InVEST has been used to estimate annual water yield and nutrient export for three river basins in Indonesian Borneo, with no assessment of seasonal variation nor uncertainty in the deterministic outputs (Dean & Salim 2012). Climate change Climate change is likely to increase flooding hazards, primarily through acceleration of the water cycle and shifts in seasonal precipitation patterns, leading to higher frequencies of intense or extreme rainfall (Kunkel et al. 2013). Coastal flooding will be further influenced by interactions with sea level rise and storm surge hazards, though analysis of these issues is beyond the scope of this report). Increasing average temperatures and sea levels have already been observed in Borneo, while rainfall patterns show high variability, but inconsistent subregional trends of long-term increases or decreases (Johnson 2012). There is uncertainty in global emissions trajectories and the response of climate systems, but it is clear that temperatures will continue to rise (by > 1.5 Celsius above pre-industrial means by 2100) and that higher sea surface temperatures increase water vapour in the atmosphere, leading to more intense rainfall extremes over both oceans and land (based on both theoretical and empirical studies, Kunkel et al. 2013). It appears that tropical regions are especially sensitive to this amplification of rainfall extremes, with an estimated 5-12% increase in the intensity of the most extreme rainfalls over land for each 1 Celsius temperature rise (as the 99.9th percentile for rainfall, 5-12% for land, or 6-14% for oceans), although mechanisms for this higher sensitivity remain unclear (OGorman 2012). A further factor in projections for South East Asian rainfall is the multi-decadal intensification of the Pacific Walker Circulation since the 1950s towards a stronger Walker circulation in the Indonesian region (based on sea surface pressure time series), leading to conditions such as higher rainfall that resemble the La Nia phase of the El Nio Southern Oscillation that occurs on shorter timescales (LHeureux et al. 2013). Uncertainty remains over the continuation of this trend and its relationship with temperature rise, but it could lead to further increases in rainfall beyond current expectations from global circulation models. Future climate projections for Borneo exist in the form of regional or national studies that have applied downscaling methods to global circulation models (GCMs), but so far there has been insufficient comparison of results from alternative models and downscaling methods, or synthesis based on multi-model ensembles, to give a full picture of the likely changes and their uncertainties across the island (Johnson 2012). Existing climate variability and uncertainties in future changes make it even more important to build our 3

understanding of flooding processes and impacts, to support local-scale resilience, and to identify both precautionary and 'no regrets' options for development and land use planning.

Methods
1. Review of data sources on flooding, risk assessments and biophysical monitoring
Comparison of existing data sources for flood frequency or individual events, and assessments of flooding hazards and risks We searched government documents, academic and grey literature, and online databases and portals in English, Bahasa Indonesia or Bahasa Melayu, seeking information on flooding (events, monitoring, and response), river monitoring, and assessments of hazard or risks for Borneo, Kalimantan, Sabah, or Sarawak. Due to time constraints, we did not specifically search for information on Brunei.

2. Villagers' perceptions of flood frequencies, trends, and forest ecosystem services

Interview surveys Questionnaire surveys were conducted between 2008 and 2012 (Figure 5). Sampling of villages was concentrated in areas close to the known distribution of orangutan, and most villages were either close to forest or within forest areas. The first survey campaign was undertaken from April 2008 to September 2009 in Kalimantan by 19 local NGOs (who interviewed 6,983 respondents in 687 villages), and in Sabah by one NGO (56 respondents from 6 villages); selection of villages and respondents is described by Meijaard et al. (2011b). A second survey campaign occurred in 2011 and 2012 in West and East Kalimantan (236 respondents in 23 villages, either increasing sampling intensity in previously sampled regions, or in new regions) and in new areas of Sabah (145 respondents in 15 villages), in order to increase the geographic coverage of the sample and its representation of ethnic and religious diversity. Village head interviews: At the start of a set of surveys in a particular village, a set of questions was asked to the village head or village government official. For each village, we collected information on the history of the village (year of establishment), total population size, number of men, number of women, percentage of villagers who are Muslim, Christian or adhere to other religions, number of schools, presence of customary forest land, main sources of village income (oil palm, coconut, rice, rubber, cacao, pepper, vegetable, hunting, mining, fishing, and non-timber forest products), presence of industrial scale land uses (timber, plantations, mining), Figure 5. Interview surveys were conducted between 2008 and 2012 by 20 and questions on flooding and water different NGOs, and involved 7,420 respondents in 731 villages in Kalimantan quality (flooding frequency, any changes and Sabah, covering significant parts of the island. in flooding regimes over the past 30 years, sources of pollution, and changes in water quality over the past 30 years.) These were recorded as open text responses, and recoded by the project lead (EM) who had not been directly involved in the interviews. Each response was coded for the year of the last major floods (and preceding, if volunteered); reported frequency of flooding; reported flooding level (maximum water depth, often reported as above village main street level), trend in flooding frequency and

severity over the past 30 years; level of water pollution, and trend in water pollution over the past 30 years. Details of coding for questions analysed in this study are given below. Individual interviews: Within each village, the interview teams attempted to interview at least 10 respondents (final range: 711). These respondent-level interviews used a questionnaire comprising 32 questions and 34 optional sub-questions, divided into sections that focused on basic socio-demographic information, assessment of interviewee reliability, and questions on perceptions of forest values and wildlife. This study analyses responses to questions on whether forest is important for the health of the respondent and his/her family, and benefits or disadvantages of large-scale forest clearing. Full details of the questions analysed in this study are given below. Survey data management We assessed the quality of interview data based on the patterns of answers from each village and NGO, including lengths of the 'open' question responses. There was considerable heterogeneity across interview teams and NGOs in the depth of questioning and accuracy of recording, leading to the exclusion of interviews from any teams who recorded less detailed information (where open responses consistently had text lengths below approximately 100 characters), and any examples where text responses were not unique and so may have been copied from one village to another. This led to the exclusion of 20% of villages from the original dataset for individual surveys, leaving 548 of 687 villages, and a smaller set of 185 villages was identified as having the highest level of detail. A separate assessment was made for questions from the initial survey in each village with a village head or other official, identifying reliable interviews from 354 villages. Survey questions analysed: (1) Reported flood frequency, and trends in flooding and water quality over the past 30 years We analysed the following responses regarding flooding and water quality, coded from open text responses from the first interview in each village, with the village head or other official: 1. Reported frequency of flooding, which was coded on a power-function scale for N floods expected per year: NA no response; 0 No floods reported; 1 Floods rare, irregular or intervals >2 yr (approximately 0.1 per year); 2 Floods intermediate in frequency (approx. 0.5 per year); 3 Annual flooding, or 4 More than one flood per year. 2. Trend in flooding frequency and/or severity over the past 30 years, coded as NA No response; NA No floods reported; -1 Decline in frequency; 0 No change; 1 Increasing frequency. Flooding severity either increased along with frequency, or was not reported to have changed. (There were no examples of increasing frequency with declining severity, or mentions of changes in severity without changes in frequency). 3. Trend in water pollution over the past 30 years (NA no response; 0 no change; 1 Declining quality) Only one response involved improving quality, and so was not included in analyses. (2) Perceptions of forest ecosystem services, from individual interviews: Forest regulation of floods and natural disasters: Responses regarding the importance of forests for health due to prevention or regulation of floods or other natural disasters, were recorded following the initial multiple-choice question How important are forests for you and your familys health, with answers restricted to: very important; quite important; not important; and dont know, coded as 1, 0.5, 0 and 0 respectively (with dont know answers regarded as the same as insignificant). For those who said forests were 'very' or 'quite' important, this was followed by an open-ended question on 'why': what is the reason for this importance of the forest for health? A large range of responses were volunteered, and we identified a set of the most frequent responses for further coding. Each respondent's answers were then coded according to whether the respondent had volunteered a particular response (1 if present or 0 if absent). In this study, we analyse data for the specific responses that forests are important for health 'for prevention or regulation of floods', and 'for prevention of erosion, landslides or other natural disasters'. Responses from the individual surveys were summarised at the village level, as the average value across respondents. (Models 5

were also run using binary indicator of presence/absence in each village, however the performance of models using the continuous data was higher and so those results are presented here.) Environmental impacts of large-scale clearing: Perceptions of forest clearing come from an open-ended question asking whether forest clearing brings benefits or disadvantages for the respondent and their family. Responses were coded according to whether the response addressed clearing at fine or large scales and the types of advantages or disadvantages volunteered. This study analyses the response 'large scale clearing affects us negatively, because it has environmental impacts on floods, temperature and/or erosion'. The final index at the village-level was calculated as the average proportion of respondents who gave this response. Final datasets The final datasets analysed in this study consisted of: 1. Perceptions of forest ecosystem services: a dataset from interviews with 711 individuals in each of 548 villages in Kalimantan and Sabah; and a smaller dataset from 185 villages, comprising the subset with the highest level of detail recorded. 2. Floods and water quality: a dataset from initial interviews with village heads or other officials in 354 villages in Kalimantan. Responses regarding flood frequency, and flooding trends, and water quality were recorded for 295, 259, and 234 villages, respectively. If no response was recorded, we treated these values as unknown, and did not assume, for example, that absence of a response meant absence of flooding. Note on volunteered responses to open questions: Questions on flooding frequency and trends were asked directly and coded into simple categories, with direct interpretation of positive and negative responses. Other perceptions were coded from responses to open questions, where a recorded response means that a particular perception was volunteered by the respondent, and so gives a 'definite positive' for that perception. At the same time, the absence of a volunteered response does not necessarily mean the absence of that view, and therefore does not give us a 'definite negative'. Recording definite negatives would have required asking each respondent direct questions for each of a complete set of possible responses, requiring greater time and a priori definition of this set. For example, when responding to the open question 'are forests important for the health of you and your family, and if so, why', the perception of 'flood regulation' is definitely important to the people who gave this response. Those people who did not volunteer this answer may have either 1) thought it was not important, or 2) focused their answer on a different reason and did not make time for this particular response, or 3) included this in a broader response such as 'our life comes from the forest' or 'community welfare depends on the forest'. It is likely that an unvoiced perception is not as strong as if it had been volunteered, but we cannot be sure that it is absent. This issue is not a problem for statistical modelling of perceptions and their relative strength across Borneo (e.g. it seems unlikely that our dataset would have biased the distribution of volunteered responses, once accounting for variation across interview teams in their depth of recording), but rather it means we should interpret low observed or predicted values as relatively low perceptions, not as definitive absence. Spatial predictor variables for modelling villager perceptions Village locations were mapped within a Geographic Information System (ArcGIS 10.0), using the GPS (Global Positioning System) way point taken at the centre of each sampled village. Spatial predictor variables were calculated for each sampled village, and for all 1 x 1 km grid cells across Borneo (Projection: World Geodetic System 1984 Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 49 North). Predictor variables are summarised in Table 1, and detailed below. The predictors showed low correlations with one another. Correlation coefficients were < 0.32, except for the following moderate correlations (still showing large ranges of variation). Proportion of watershed forested was correlated with cover of agroforest/regrowth (positive, 0.39), and cover of oil palm plantations (negative, -0.58). Impervious cover shows a positive correlation with population density (0.58) and settlement density (0.48), but mainly due to association of the highest values of both, with very broad scatter at all other values. 6

Distance to all rivers was weakly positively correlated with path distance to major rivers (since the distance to all rivers sets the minimum possible for the distance to major rivers, but with wide variation above this floor).
Table 1. Summary of 27 spatial predictor variables for modelling of interview responses and newspaper reports of flooding in Borneo.

General class Land Use Land Cover

Predictor variables: Intact forest - S, m * Mangroves - m Logged forest - S Severely degraded logged forest - S, m Agroforest or forest regrowth - S, m Oil palm plantations - S, m Industrial timber plantations - m Other land cover - S, m Protected areas - S, m

Carbon Topography Climate

Carbon in above-ground biomass - S Elevation above sea level Temperature seasonality Precipitation seasonality Precipitation of the wettest month

Infrastructure

Road density within 5 km radius Impervious surfaces (% area) Settlement density within 10 km radius

Population Culture and Ethnicity

Population density, estimated 2007 Poverty index Proportion who identify as Muslim Proportion who identify as Christian Main ethnic group in the village or area

Hydrology

Path distance to All Rivers (catchment areas > 10 ha) Path distance to Major Rivers (catchment areas > 10,000 ha) Line density of rivers within 5 km radius (km km-2) Watershed size (area draining to the focal cell) % of the watershed under forest cover. Soil water storage capacity (mm / m) based on soil type (HWSD)

* S = summed cover in all cells within a radius of 10 km from the village or cell centre-point. m = distance in metres to the nearest example of the land cover, from the village or cell centre-point.

Land use and land cover variables Spatial data layers for Land use and land cover (LULC) variables consisted of summed cover and distance (from each village or grid cell) to each of eight LULC types, which can be viewed in Table 1: mangroves; intact natural forest; logged forest; severely degraded logged forest; agroforests/forest regrowth; industrial timber plantations; oil palm plantations; and 'other' land cover types (non-forest land covers including urban, mining, grasslands, shrublands and croplands). The LULC data were developed by integrating three datasets: (1) a SarVision PALSAR 2010 (50m resolution) land cover classification, where classes were used individually or aggregated to form the eight classes above; (2) a road density index layer was used to distinguish between intact, logged and degraded forests, and was developed using digitized 1990-2000-2010 logging road network data (indicating mechanized logging) transformed into a road density index (km/km2) for each 1 x 1 km grid cell (search radius 5km) using ArcGIS 10.0 (David Gaveau unpubl. data); and (3) digitised datasets of oil palm and industrial timber plantations, 7

developed by onscreen digitising (using ArcGIS 10.0) of >150 Landsat images from 1990-, 2000-, and 2010eras, downloaded from the Global Land Survey database (http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/) (for details of analysis, see: Wich et al. 2012a; Carlson et al. 2013). Carbon in aboveground biomass was estimated using LiDAR remote sensing (Baccini et al. 2012). We converted these estimates to units of Mg ha-1 and took the sum across cells in a 10 km radius, as an index of landscape-level carbon storage. LULC values for each village (and each 1 x 1 km cell across Borneo) were then calculated as: 1) Distance metrics, as the distance from each village (or cell centre-point) to the nearest instance of each land cover type; and 2) Summed cover metrics, calculated as the summed cover of each land cover type in neighbouring cells within a radius of 10 km from each village or cell centre-point (using the focal statistics tool in ArcGIS 10.0). Climate, elevation and hydrological variables We selected three climate variables with minimal correlations: temperature seasonality, precipitation seasonality, and precipitation of the wettest month. These climate variables were taken from the WorldClim, ver. 1.4 dataset (http://www.worldclim.org/) at 30 arc-seconds resolution, along with grid data for elevation above sea level. Additionally, we used a rugosity layer (ruggedness) generated from the elevation data using DEM Surface Tools (Jenness 2012). River and watershed variables were generated using the three arc-second Digital Elevation Model (DEM) from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (STRM) (Farr et al. 2007), projected using World Geodetic System 1984 Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 49 North, giving a cell size of approximately 91.67 x 91.67 m. We then hydrologically corrected this DEM, using the hydrology tools in ArcGIS10.0 (ESRI 2011), and calculated the flow accumulation (i.e. number of cells flowing to each cell), using the 'flow accumulation' tool. A layer for 'Major rivers' was generated by tracing all cells with flow accumulation > 1000 upcells (corresponding to a watershed of > 840.3 ha). 'All rivers' were defined by a flow accumulation > 100 upcells (a watershed > 84.0 ha). For each rivers layer, we calculated the path distance from each cell centre (or village location) to the nearest instance of a major river (Rivers - path distance to major rivers), or any river (Rivers - path distance to all rivers), where the path distance was calculated as the euclidian distance in all three physical dimensions. Watershed size was estimated for each 1 x 1 km cell as the total area of land from which water flows to reach that cell. (This is specifically the 'upstream' watershed for each cell, and not the total area of the larger river basin in which the cell occurs). This was calculated from the DEM data by identifying the highest flow accumulation for any subcell within 500 m from the centre-point of the 1 x 1 km cell (or from a village centrepoint), then multiplying this flow accumulation value (number of cells) by the cell area in the DEM (91.7 x 91.7m). This gives the area of the watershed in meters squared (finally expressed in hectares, or 10,000 m2). This watershed area therefore includes the land upstream along any river that is within 500 m. However, if a cell or settlement was flooded by water from a river > 500 m away, the watershed of that river would not be captured by this metric. A possible alternative would have been to calculate the watershed size of the river or major river that is nearest to each centre-point, or within 1 km, rather than calculating the watershed draining to each 1 x 1 km cell. At the time of calculating the metric, however, relationships between flooding and distances to rivers were unknown, and we did not have the computational resources to enable testing across a range of alternative metrics. The 'proportion of catchment forested' represents the proportion of the watershed draining to each 1 x 1 km cell, that is under forest cover. We defined forest as intact, logged or agroforest/regrowth based on 2010 SarVision data (Hoekman et al. 2010). The total watershed size was derived as above, and we also calculated the number of forested cells in the watershed, by weighting the flow accumulation tool by forest cover (1 = forest, 0= non-forest). This returned the number of cells in the watershed that were forested, and this area was then divided by the total watershed size to give the proportion of the watershed forested. Soil types were assigned from the Harmonized World Soil Database v.1.2, at 30 arc-second resolution (FAO et al. 2012), projected to the 1 x 1 km grid. Each location was assigned a value for 'available water storage 8

capacity' (AWC) of the soil in mm/m, as the AWC class of the dominant soil unit for that 1 x 1 km cell. The AWC classes are based on topsoil textural class and depth/volume limiting soil phases. Socio-economic variables Social, cultural, economic and infrastructure variables included human population density (estimated number of people per 1 km2) from LandScanTM 2007 (Bright et al. 2008); and percentage impervious surface area estimated from 2010 satellite data (Sutton et al. 2010). Settlement density was calculated from the LandScanTM 2007 data using a kernel density function for cells with 10 or more people per 1 x 1 km cell. Road density was estimated using a line density function from roads digitised from 1999 to 2002 satellite data (Wich et al. 2012b). To represent ethnic groups, we digitized a broad ethnic group map for Borneo (Sellato 1989), which includes: central-northern groups; Dusun and north-eastern groups; Iban and Ibanic groups; Kayan and Kenyah groups; land Dayak and western groups; Malay groups; Ngaju and Barito groups; Nomadic groups and an unknown category. Representation of major religions was included because religion was one of the strongest predictors of forest use and perceptions held by individuals in a concurrent study based on the wider interviews dataset (Meijaard et al., in review). Proportions of the population who were registered as Christian and Muslim were obtained at Province- or District-levels in Kalimantan from Government Statistical agencies, either from online sources (for Central Kalimantan, http://kalteng.bps.go.id/GIS.html) or published documents (BPS-KalSel 2009; BPS-KalBar 2011; BPS-KalTim 2011). Maps of BRT model predictions are shown for all settled areas of Borneo, with 'no prediction' shown for areas with an estimated 2007 population density of < 1 person per km2. (Many of Borneo's villages are located in areas that have an estimated 2007 population density of only 1 10 people per km2, and this number was selected to minimise exclusion of small villages, while not claiming to predict perceptions or experiences of flooding for areas that are not inhabited). Spatial and statistical modelling of villager perceptions Relationships between the village interview responses and the set of 27 social and environmental spatial predictor variables were examined using Boosted Regression Tree (BRT) analyses. BRT analysis is a boosted form of classification and regression trees (CART), similar to additive regression using trees (Elith et al. 2008). The key strengths of this method are in prediction of complex responses, especially in fitting non-linear relationships; naturally fitting interactions among predictor variables; handling data of several different data types and missing data for predictors; and avoiding over-fitting by employing cross-validation methods (Elith et al. 2008). Predictions are obtained as a weighted sum of many regression trees, selected to optimise the balance between bias and variance. These analyses serve the purposes of both 'explanation' and 'prediction', by enabling us to analyse responses in relation to landscape and socio-economic variables, and secondly to produce maps of the predictions as spatial layers across Borneo (for all populated areas). BRTs were fitted in R v. 3.0.0 (R Core Team 2013), using the functions gbm.step (version 2.9) from the 'dismo' package (Hijmans et al. 2013) to assess the optimal number of boosting trees using k-fold cross validation. Cross validation was performed using five subsets, and the optimal number of trees was assessed as the number that minimised the holdout residual deviance (as the optimal compromise between minimising bias and variance). Tree depth was set to 3, with almost identical results for models run with depths of 3 6. The learning rate parameter was 0.01 (weight applied to individual trees during gradient boosting), and bag fraction 0.5 (proportion of observations randomly selected for inclusion in each boosting step). The response variable was modelled as either Gaussian (for continuous responses) or Bernoulli (for presence/absence data). Variables with extremely skewed distributions were log10 transformed before analysis (size of watershed, population, and settlement density). For each analysis (i.e. response variable), models were initially fitted using the full set of 27 spatial predictor variables. The final models dropped any predictor variables that contributed < 2% of explained variance.

3. Newspaper reports of flood events and damages

A research assistant was employed to search online archives of six news publishers in Kalimantan (Tribun, Post, Kalimantan News, Detik News, Equator, and Radar), covering 16 local or regional newspapers (Tribun Kalteng, Tribun KalTim, and Tribun Pontianak, Balikpapan Post, Banjarmasin Post, Berau Post, Kalteng Pos, Kaltim Post, Samarinda Post, Kalimantan news.com, Detik News, Harian equator, Rakyat Kalbar, Radar Banjarmasin, Radar Tarakan, and Sampit Online. Archives were searched for reports during the period from 1 January 2010 to 29 April 2013 using the keyword 'banjir' (flood), and coding data from all articles that reported some quantitative indicators of flood height and/or damages (specifically, estimates of height above main roads, and damages to houses, schools or roads, numbers of people displaced, area of padi [= rice field] or plantations flooded). Similar searches were begun for Sarawak, Sabah and Brunei, giving 138 records as an initial minimal estimate of reported damages, from four publications over the period January 2010 February 2013. A larger search effort would produce further results for these areas, and so we present these results only as preliminary estimates, giving a minimum for the true number of flood events and resulting damages in Sarawak, Sabah and Brunei. For the purposes of this report, we focused on records from Kalimantan to enable a fuller search effort and exploration of the approach, and for comparison with government records for Indonesia. We collated 413 newspaper reports of 966 flooded settlements in Kalimantan over the period 20 April 2010 29 April 2013 (3 years). These records relate to 146 distinct flood events, many affecting multiple settlements. Of the total of 966 records, 388 could be georeferenced for spatial analysis. Many of the settlements that could not be georeferenced were from a single flood event in April 2010, affecting 430 villages in South Kalimantan. Depending on the scale of the event, we recorded events as either affecting a specific number of villages, or of kecamatan (subdistricts) if exact village numbers were unknown, and also separately recorded the number of city areas affected. Flooded settlements were georeferenced using Google Earth, based on named localities. We assigned spatial co-ordinates to each record as the centre of the main street of any named village, or, in the case of records only referenced to kecamatan level (subdistrict), a location within a settlement close to the nearest major river. Therefore, these co-ordinates are approximate, and likely to be accurate to within hundreds of metres for most records, or up to 1 km for less specific named locations for example within the cities of Samarinda or Banjarmasin. We realize that newspaper reporting may be significantly biased towards events that newspaper editors judge to be most relevant to their readers. It is likely that most readers of these regional newspapers live in the coastal cities of Borneo, which could result in relative over-reporting of urban flood events and underreporting of flood events in the interior of Borneo where relatively few people live. We therefore explored the effects of geographic location, population density and accessibility in our analysis of these records, and found that remote areas were rarely reported on (as is also apparent from the high percentage of villages that 10
Figure 6. We used newspaper reports as a quantitative tool to better understand where flood occurs and their impacts. This report from the Berau Post, 29 April 2013, reports on 1,991 people in 3 villages affected by floods.

reported flooding in our interview surveys, but do not appear in the newspaper reports). However, despite potential under-reporting, the majority of all reports still came from areas of low settlement density and population. Furthermore, the modelled relationships were very similar in analyses that excluded all areas with settlement density > 500 people per km2, or all areas above 220 m elevation. Spatial modelling of flood events reported in newspapers: Modelling of flood events in relation to social and environmental predictors employed Boosted Regression Trees, with similar methods to those described above for the interview datasets. The data was coded as a binary response, with 1 for occurrence of a flood in the settlement during the period sampled (388 records), and 0 for the absence of reported flood events. Two sets of alternative analyses employed different information on 'absences': In the first set, absences consisted of randomly selected 'background points' sampled from settlements throughout the kabupaten (districts) covered by the newspaper searches. The background points consisted of randomly selected settlements (areas with population > 1 person per km2 in 2007), that did not appear in newspaper reports of floods, or within 1 km from a reported flood, or within 3 km immediately upstream or 18 km downstream from a reported flood, where these distances were based on the distance-decay of similarity between flood frequencies in the village interviews. (These exclusions removed 9% of all randomly selected points). This gave 300 points in West Kalimantan, 300 in East Kalimantan, 240 in South Kalimantan, and 56 points from Central Kalimantan (from the three kabupaten covered in newspaper reports), for a total of 896 'background' points. These analyses were also replicated using only data from below 220 m elevation, to match the range of reported flood events. This analysis included 387 reports (omitting one from 340 m elevation), and 725 background points. An alternative set of analyses used absence values from 67 villages that reported no floods or very rare floods over the last 30 years in the village interviews conducted 2008-2012. (None of these villages were reported in newspapers to have experienced floods 2010-2013.) This was considered the best available direct information on the true absence of flooding (as distinct from absence of reporting in newspapers). In order to avoid reporting bias relating to population densities and to ensure a similar range of each predictor variable across flood and non-flood records, a final set of analyses excluded cities, and elevations > 340 m, giving a dataset of 407 records (344 floods, 63 absences, with ranges of values for impervious area 0-23%, elevation 0-340 m, population in 2007: 1 2000 people per km2). Estimation of flood impacts across all events: Reports usually gave between one and four numerical estimates of impacts, most often as numbers of households flooded, and less often as number of individuals, schools or other infrastructure affected, or areas of crops or plantations affected. If impacts were reported directly, these numbers were used in all calculations. (In 12 cases where a word was used, this was translated conservatively as dozens = 50, hundreds = 200, several hundred = 300, thousands = 2000.) Estimates for numbers that were not reported directly, were obtained either from other data within the record (e.g. N people affected from N houses flooded), or by applying median and high and low numbers of houses and people affected, as detailed below. N houses: Village Kecamatan City Median 120.5 200 437 10% 23 64.2 40 80% 300 396 5000
th th

Table 2. Number of houses flooded per settlement, as the median and 10 and 80 percentiles from the distribution of values reported in newspaper articles on 138 distinct flood events in Kalimantan.

11

If the number of houses per village, kecamatan or city was not reported, we applied low and high estimates based on the distribution of N houses per settlement for each type, taking the median, and the 10th and 80th percentiles of the distribution of reported values per settlement per event. These values are shown in Table 2, and an example of the distribution is shown for villages in Figure 7. To calculate number of people affected, the number of houses flooded was multiplied by the average household size for the Province in 2010 (BPS 2011), specifically 4.3 West, 3.9 Central, 3.7 South and 4.1 East Kalimantan. This considers only the flooding of houses, and does not consider impacts on people that occur via flooding of fields, workplaces or public facilities. Figure 8 provides an overview of the kind of impacts flooding has on the lives of people in Borneo.
10 N reports 0 0 2 4 6 8

100

300

500

N houses flooded per village

Figure 7. Number of houses reported per village, from 68 reports where a confirmed number from a local disaster th th management official was quoted. Median: 120.5 houses, 10 percentile: 23 houses, 80 percentile: 300 houses.

Figure 8. Photos clockwise starting top left. 1) 3 m floods inundated 150 houses in the upper Kapuas, West Kalimantan, Radar Nusantara, 15 February 2013. 2) 10,581 people were displaced by floods in South Kalimantan, SH News.co, 12 June 2012. 3) 6,316 people affected by floods in Samarinda, East Kalimantan, Tribunnews.com, 2 February 2013. 4) Floods in the north of East Kalimantan flooded 1,215 houses, Tribun KalTim, September 2011.

___________________________________________________________________________________

12

Results
1. Existing sources of flood event data, risk assessments and biophysical monitoring
Biophysical monitoring of climate and rivers Climate data Ground stations for recording of temperature, rainfall and ideally evaporation are essential for understanding fine scale and temporal variability, and for validating estimates from satellite-based measurements, interpolations or down-scaling methods. Ground stations require long-term investment in capacities for local recording and data transmission, or maintenance of automatic sensors. Rainfall is central to any biophysical modelling efforts, and often the largest source of uncertainty in hydrological modelling of surface flows. It can be measured accurately at local levels, but monitoring networks are currently poorly represented in many areas of Borneo. Satellite-based monitoring offers high spatial and temporal coverage, and it would be helpful to extend recent validation studies by further comparisons with ground station records. The recent comparison of satellitebased rainfall products for Indonesia showed very good performance for gridded TRMM products for six regions of Indonesia over the period 2003-2008 (Vernimmen et al. 2012), leading the authors to recommend TRMM for drought monitoring (requiring sensitivity to low rainfall), and the results also indicate strong potential for accurate estimation of rainfall across the range of intensity. River flows or stage data Data on flow rates or river stage (water level) measurements exists for many river systems on Borneo, however there are several challenges in collating this data into continuous time series or for extensive areas, either due to discontinuities in data collection, or because data have not been compiled in regional or national data bases. For Indonesia, hydrological data are held by differing authorities depending on the River Basin, and at least 13 institutions manage hydrological data in some form. Records from the period prior to decentralisation are held by the Bandung Hydrological Institute, while records from more recent years (post 2001) are held separately by river basin authorities and management organisations. In Indonesia, research has begun on advanced systems for flood forecasting based on satellite rainfall data and hydrological models of rainfall-runoff (IFAS), with pilot studies in three River Basins on the most populous island, Java (Balai Hidrologi dan Tata Air 2012). In Malaysian Borneo, there are three main sources of hydrological and flooding information: 1. National IWRM Information Repository, by the Department of Irrigation and Drainage Malaysia. This repository includes studies for the National Water Resources Study 2011 Sabah Volume 18, Sarawak Volume 20 2. Sistem Pengurusan Rangkaian Hidrologi Nasional: SPRHN has an extensive network of monitoring stations for river flow, water quality and climate monitoring. This system includes c. 40 river level and 49 rainfall stations in Sarawak, and 10 river level and 10 rainfall stations in Sabah (online 20 May 2013) 3. InfoBanjir flood real-time monitoring system, based on automatic sensors and transmission, with warning levels for rainfall and river height (but not an associated hydrometeorological model for rainfall prediction or river flows. Apart from data on current river levels on the public InfoBanjir site, the government of Malaysia does not publicly publish hydrological or flooding data. Data is available to Malaysian researchers and institutions. 13

Projections for future climate: Most data sources are limited by the coarse temporal resolution (usually monthly) and spatial resolution of Global Circulation Models (GCMs), requiring the use of down-scaling methods, although statistical downscaling does not consider any regional climate forcing involving land-surface moisture, energy and aerosol feedbacks (Wilby & Dawson 2012). Predicting shifts in flood dynamics will depend critically on understanding variability in rainfall (and to a lesser extent, temperature and radiation due to effects on evapotranspiration), and especially the shifts in the extremes of probability distributions (IPCC 2012), rather than annual or even monthly climatology. In cases of monthly temporal resolution, site-specific stochastic weather generators (e.g. LARS-WG, Semenov & Stratonovitch, 2010) can be used to generate variation with statistical properties of an observed series (for example enabling exploration of scenarios for more or less variation, but not direct prediction of the new variability).

Flood event records and Risk-mapping by the Indonesian Government The Indonesian government recognizes flooding as a significant economic, social and environmental risk. Alongside earthquakes and wildfires, floods are considered the most costly natural disasters that the country faces (BNPB 2012). Indonesia has recently developed institutions and frameworks for disaster management (risk reduction, preparedness and response), through the Law on Disaster Management in March 2007 (Law No. 24/2007), establishment of the multistakeholder Indonesian National Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction Planas-PRB in 2008 (though without a systematic workplan or budget, BNPB 2013), National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB) in 2008 and counterpart Province and District-level agencies (ongoing), development of a national disasters database DiBi (Data and Informasi Bencana Indonesia) in 2009 (UNDP 2009), and National Action Plan for Disaster Risk Reduction 2010-2012 (Bappenas & BNPB 2010). Although decentralised systems can enable disaster risk reduction to be more participative and effectively targeted, this requires strong support for communications, local capacity building, clear responsibilities and accountability (Scott & Tarazona Figure 9. Indonesian Government process to derive overall flood risk maps in Indonesia. Indeks Ancaman = Threat index, which 2011), which remain substantial challenges in assesses the likelihood of a threat such as major flooding occurring Indonesia (BNPB 2013a).
and results in a Threat or Hazard map (Peta Ancaman).

Flood Event records in Indonesia: The Disaster Loss Database managed by BNPB (DiBi Data dan informasi Bencana Indonesia) contains data on disasters for a range of differing time periods and levels of detail across Provinces. For Kalimantan, flood event records cover the period 16 April, 1998 25 December, 2012. The database is an excellent model of public access to records, and facilities for statistical summaries and mapping. However, the incomplete nature of this record and its underestimation of impacts is clear from comparisons with newspaper reports, which often quoted from local or Provincial disaster management officials. 14

The national database DiBi was queried on 2 June, 2013, for event records over the same period and extent as our newspaper search (for the period 20 April, 2010 29 April, 2013, in West Kalimantan, East Kalimantan, South Kalimantan, and 3 districts in Central Kalimantan). DiBi does not yet contain records for 2013, so we limit our comparisons to the period 20 April, 2010 25 December 2012. In terms of spatial patterns, DiBi and the newspaper reports both show a high frequency of events reported in the Mahakam River basin (East Kalimantan), in eastern Central Kalimantan, and large areas of South Kalimantan. However, the national database contains far fewer records in each area, and appears to lack coverage of events in West Kalimantan, especially in the north-west and east of the Province. Overall, 40 of the 82 large events (> 4 villages or 400 houses) reported in newspapers are missing from the national database. (Some of the events in the national database were not represented in newspaper articles, but it is not possible to tell their size, impacts or exact locations due to missing information on their event cards.) Secondly, where corresponding records do exist, newspaper articles often quote data on impacts given by disaster management officials from the District or Province, but these numbers are either missing, or far smaller, in the corresponding DiBi record. Examples are shown in Table 3. The single largest event in our newspaper survey was reported by provincial and district governments to have flooded 24,889 houses in 299 villages in South Kalimantan in April 2010, in eight districts along the Martapura River (Sources: head of South Kalimantan Disaster Management Agency and head of reporting for government information agency Humas HSU, Media Indonesia 2010b). The same disaster is recorded in the national database (13 April) as affecting 929 people, and causing 5 deaths.
Table 3. Examples of impacts quoted from disaster management officials, and reported in newspaper articles, that are missing or far smaller in national database records for the same event. Newspaper impacts give the reported number of houses flooded, and either a directly reported number of people displaced, or an estimate based on average household sizes in each province.

Event:
South Kalimantan, April 2010 Banjar, 3-6 May 2011 Kutai Kartanegara, 5-10 May 2011 Banjar, 4-5 January 2012 Tanah Bumbu, 11-13 July 2012

Newspaper reported impacts

24,889 houses in 8 districts, 92,250 people displaced. 2,966 houses, 10,970 displaced 2,703 houses, 15,083 people displaced 10,029 houses, 37,107 people displaced 2,802 houses,

DiBi national database record

929 suffered, 5 deaths 9 suffered, 14 education centres Record without data 3 people suffered 19 suffered, 855 evacuated

As a comparison of overall impacts estimated from the two datasets, estimates for the number of people affected are shown in Table 4. For all Provinces except Central Kalimantan, the number of people reported in the national database is 10 to 100 times smaller than that estimated from the newspaper records.
Table 4. Comparison between flood impacts in Kalimantan April 2010 December 2012, recorded in Indonesia's national disaster database (DiBi), or estimated from newspaper reports. Numbers in brackets show the low and high estimates for impacts, calculated th th from the 10 and 80 percentiles of the distribution of reported impacts per event.

DiBi National Database

Deaths Central Kalimantan (3 districts) East Kalimantan West Kalimantan South Kalimantan Total 0 10 60 2 72 Missing 0 0 22 0 22 Evacuated 0 686 2,238 2,706 5,630 Suffered 65,280 2,938 3,866 240 72,324

Newspaper Reports
People flooded 82,499 (74,450 95,600) 103,169 (69,970 225,600) 186,176 (113,900 499,100) 170,478 (156,500 194,800) 542,323 (414,900 1,015,100) Houses flooded 21,153 (19,000 24,500) 22,915 (14,800 52,800) 42,718 (25,500 117,900) 46,018 (42,200 52,600) 132,804 (101,700 247,800) N events 9 34 35 15 93

15

We do not advocate replacing disaster reporting mechanisms with newspaper surveys. These comparisons indicate the need to support consistent recording at the local level to match the strong efforts being made by agencies such as the South Kalimantan Disaster Management Agency (BPBD KalSel). Secondly, they indicate the scope for better communication of flood events and impacts among local and Provincial authorities and incorporation into the national database. Finally, comparing DiBi with village interview results, the government database does not include many of the largest events reported (where the village head gave a date for the most recent severe event). These floods may or may not have involved government disaster responses, but are frequent and widespread, affecting many people in total, but distributed over larger areas and time periods. Risk assessment: The government has assessed flood risks based on subdistrict-scale mapping of flood occurrence (estimated hazard), and indices of the vulnerability of society to potential impacts, and capacities to deal with these impacts through preparedness and response (Figure 10). For Flood Hazard, classes are defined by the height of floodwaters (above normal river levels) from the highest event in the national records: low <0.76 m, medium 0.7-1.5, high >1.5 m (BNPB 2012). For flood risk, the scale is a relative index from 0 to 1, calculated as Hazard * (Vulnerability index / Capacity index). The vulnerability and capacity indices only cover major settlements and agricultural areas, with a value of zero elsewhere. Calculations of the vulnerability include a component for environmental vulnerability (based on land area of hutan lindung, hutan alam, mangrove, bush, swamp), however the weight for this component is 0.1, and its influence on the final index is small. The resulting map (Figure 10) shows that the majority of the land area of Kalimantan has no predicted hazard or risk level. Values other than zero only occur in areas that meet both criteria: 1. a flood disaster has been recorded in the national database (within the period 1998-2010 for floods in Kalimantan), and 2. The area contains a major settlement or agricultural area (and so has a non-zero value in the vulnerability map). In conclusion, the BNPB hazard-vulnerability-risk mapping is based on short and incomplete time series for flood events from the national database, and emphasises concentrated risk (based on population density), giving apparently 'zero' risk in most areas of Kalimantan.

16

Figure 10. Flood Hazard (left) and Flood Risk (right) for Kalimantan in 2011, published online by the BNPB, October 2012, at http://geospasial.bnpb.go.id/category/rencana-nasional/peta-risiko

The national BNPB is aware of the need to perform or improve risk assessments at local scales, citing lack of local data, funding and capacities as key limitations in Indonesias national progress report on the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action (2011-2013), Oct 2012: "The key challenges on this aspect include the lack of technical capacity in most Local Disaster Management Agencies (BPBD) in conducting risk analysis; lack of financial resources and the limited availability of detailed data at the district/city level, particularly for regions in Eastern Indonesia. It is obvious that capacity development is greatly needed for risk analysis and mapping both for the national and local level stakeholders. Coordination among sectors needs to be enhanced to agree on and use a common risk analysis methodology." (BNPB 2013a) Current data collection and risk assessment methods do not involve disaggregation by age or gender to understand distribution of impacts across social groups (BNPB 2013a). Finally, risk assessments are based on records of past events, and assessments of future / projected risks have not been developed, although agencies are aware that hazards and vulnerability are expected to increase through time (BNPB 2013a). ___________________________________________________________________________________

2. Villager perceptions of flood frequencies, trends and forest ecosystem services

2.1 Summary of interview datasets: The final interviews dataset comprised data on flood frequency and trends from interviews with the village head or other official from 354 villages; and data on individual perceptions of forest ecosystem services from 548 villages. The spatial distribution of villages sampled in this study is shown in Figure 11, along with 2010 land cover. The reliable datasets contain relatively few interviews from East Kalimantan Province (55 villages in the dataset on individual perceptions, and 11 in the dataset on flood frequency and trends), or from Sabah (23 for individual perceptions, and none in the flood frequency and trends dataset). Therefore, our statistical and spatial modeling will be primarily driven by data from West and Central Kalimantan Provinces, and we present predictions across Borneo to show the results if similar relationships among spatial variables apply throughout the island.

Figure 11. Location of interview surveys in 548 villages in Kalimantan and Sabah, conducted 2008-2012, shown on a base map of 2010 land cover. (Eight land cover classes: red = oil palm plantations; blue = mangroves; darkest green = intact forest;17 mid green = logged forest; light green = severely degraded forest; khaki = agroforest/regrowth; brown = industrial timber plantations; pink = 'other' non-forest lands).

2.2 Flooding frequency and trends Flooding frequency was reported to be annual or more frequent in 175 villages (49.5%), almost annual in 48 (13.6%), and rare or irregular in 45 villages (15.0%) (Table 5). Twenty seven (7.6%) reported no experience of flooding, and 59 gave no response. Regarding trends in flooding over the last 30 years, 18.2% of villages reported that floods had become more frequent (with or without also becoming more severe), 46.3% reported no change, and 0.6% (two villages) said flooding frequency had declined (Table 5). It is not possible to separately quantify changes in flood severity in this dataset, but this aspect of flooding either increased along with frequency, or was not reported to change, and so the reported trends in frequency also represent the trend in total impacts. (Trend responses either involved increasing frequency, or increasing frequency combined with increasing severity. No responses involved declines in severity.) Of the two villages that reported a decline in flooding, one is in a small upland catchment where major logging ceased in the 1990s, and the other in the headwaters of a small lowland river.
Table 5. Left: Frequency of current flooding for 354 villages in Kalimantan, reported in interviews with village heads or other officials conducted 2008-2012. Right: Trends in flooding over the past 30 years for 354 villages in Kalimantan, reported in interviews with village heads or other officials conducted 2008-2012

Flood frequency
No response No floods reported Floods rare, irregular, or intervals > 2 years Floods almost annually

N villages 59 27 45 48

Percent 16.7 7.6 12.7 13.6

Flooding trend
No response No floods reported No change in flooding Increasing frequency (with or without increasing severity) Decreasing flood frequency Total

N villages 95 27 164 65

Percent 26.8 7.6 46.3 18.4

Annual flooding More than one flood per year Total

145 30 354

41.0 8.5 100.0

0.6

354

100.0

Perceived trends in flooding were weakly correlated with current flooding frequencies (r=0.19), as expected if an increase in frequency over the past 30 years has resulted in higher current frequencies, though the relationship is not strict. Increasing frequency was reported by 13% of villages that experience occasional floods, 48% of villages that experience less-than-annual floods, 24% with annual floods, and 59% of villages that currently experience more than one flood per year. Only two villages reported declining frequency of floods, and both have low current frequencies.
1.0 1 Flooding trend 0 -1
Figure 12. Comparison between reported frequency of current flooding, and trends in frequency over the past 30 years, as reported in interviews with the village head or other official in 231 villages in Kalimantan. Bar dimensions represent the proportion of villages in each class of flood frequency and trend. Flooding trends: -1 dark grey decline in frequency, 0 mid-grey no change, 1 grey increasing frequency. Flood frequency classes are on a power-law scale, 1 corresponds to approximately 0.1 floods per year, 2 = 0.5 floods, 3 = 1 flood, and 4 = 2 floods per year.

Current flooding frequency

18

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Regarding changes in water quality, 148 villages (42%) reported that water quality in local rivers has declined over the past 30 years, usually responding that water is polluted, cannot be drunk, or is turbid. A further 86 villages reported no change (24.3%), and 120 did not respond. Reasons were given for 69 of the 148 reported declines in water quality over the past 30 years: in 33 villages, the decline was attributed to mining (most often illegal gold mining within rivers); in 15 to agriculture (of these, 10 specifically named oil palm); and in 12 to logging or logging roads. Flood frequencies and trends were also associated with declines in water quality. In relation to the current frequency of floods, decreased water quality was reported by 40% of villages that experience rare or no floods, and 70-90% of villages with more frequent floods, including 11 of 12 villages with more than one flood per year (Figure 13). Declining water quality was also associated with increases in flood frequency over the past 30 years, with declines in water quality reported in 40% of villages with no or rare floods, 57% of villages that experience floods but reported no change frequency, and 87% of villages that reported increasing flood frequency. (High quality data exists for both responses from 149 villages. Flood frequency vs Decline in water quality: Chi-squared =8.99, p<0.03 with 3 df. Flood trend vs Decline in water quality: =14.6, p<0.001).

1.0

Change in water quality

Change in water quality

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

1 2

-1

Flood frequency class

Trend in flood frequency

Figure 13. Flood frequencies and trends are associated with declines in water quality over the last 30 years for villages in Kalimantan. Change in water quality: Grey = decreasing, White = no change. Left: Frequency of current flooding, Right: Trend in flood frequency. Bar dimensions show the proportion of villages in each class. Flood frequency classes are on a power-law scale, 1 corresponds to approximately 0.1 floods per year, 2 = 0.5 floods, 3 = 1 flood, and 4 = 2 floods per year). Flooding trends: -1 decline in frequency (2 villages), 0 no change, 1 increasing frequency. Data are from interviews in 149 villages in Kalimantan.
_______________________________________________________

Spatial analysis of flooding frequencies and trends: Flooding frequency Flooding frequencies were usually similar for villages that were near to one another along a river. These patterns of upstream-downstream similarity are not visible on island-scale maps, but become apparent at scales of 1:18,000 where village locations relative to smaller rivers become visible (Figure 14). An example is shown for Kapuas Kulu district, on the upper Kapuas River. ("Rivers" refer to all rivers draining a watershed of >10 ha, and so are quite fine scale, and based on flow accumulation values from the DEM at 91.7 x 91.7 m scale). Villages upstream (> 3.2 km) from villages that reported annual or more frequent flooding usually reported similar or lower flooding frequencies (mean difference between frequencies -0.24 floods per year, range 1 to -2). Villages directly downstream from areas with annual or more frequent flooding always reported 19

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

moderate or high frequencies (0.2 to 2 floods per year), with only two examples of villages directly downstream reporting only rare flooding, and at distances >18.2 km downstream from villages with annual flooding. Reported frequencies and trends in flooding across all sampled villages are mapped in Figure 15 and Figure 19 below, alongside maps of model predictions.

Figure 14. Flood frequencies reported in interviews in 39 villages in Kapuas Hulu, West Kalimantan, showing similarity of villages along reaches of each river, and rarity of floods in upper headwaters. White circles no floods; pale blue rare; light blue almost annual; blue annual; dark blue more than one flood per year. Rivers are shown in blue and elevation in grey shading (from 48 1620 m).

Modelling of flood frequencies Reported flooding frequencies were analysed in relation to 27 spatial land cover, climate and socioeconomic variables using Boosted Regression Tree (BRT) models. The set of 10 strongest predictor variables are shown in Table 6. These models of flooding frequency gave a correlation of 0.72 between observed and predicted values. Consistent with expectations, flooding frequency was highest for villages close to rivers (path-distance to all rivers, especially <1 km, accounting for 17% of explained variance, and major rivers < 2 km, 8%), and at lower elevations (17% of explained variance; frequency declines at 150-250 m above sea level, with no further change predicted for higher elevations), while distance from the coast (represented by larger values of 'distance to mangroves') showed higher frequencies in the middle reaches of rivers, with large variation in values predicted closer to the coastal outlets.

Figures overleaf

20

0m asl

Figure 15. Flooding frequency reported for 295 villages in Kalimantan, from interviews with village heads or other officials conducted 2008-2012.

Modelled flood frequency based on village interviews

Figure 16. Modelled flood frequencies for human settlements in Borneo. Predictions are shown from BRT modelling of flood frequencies reported in 354 village interviews in Kalimantan. Predictions: Low (frequency approx. 0.05 0.15 floods per year), Medium (0.15 0.3), High (0.3 0.6), Very high (0.6 2 floods per year). No predictions are shown for areas with <1 person per 2 km in 2007 (white areas).

21

Higher frequencies were also associated with higher cover of logged forest (7%) within a radius of 10 km from each village (primarily reflecting very high frequencies in logged forest on peatlands in Kapuas Hulu), and with higher road density (5%) and rainfall of the wettest month (4%). Size of watershed upstream from the village also contributed (4%), beyond the distinction already made by classifying major rivers. Impervious surface area showed a small positive influence on flood frequency, though most villages have very low levels (all <4%, and most <2% impervious cover), below the threshold of 10% often reported as having a strong influence on rainfall runoff (Sutton et al. 2010). Flood frequencies were also slightly higher in villages within 20 km from a oil palm plantation, or with the highest cover of oil palm in a 10 km radius (Figure 17, right). Villages close to severely degraded logged forest tended to report high flood frequencies (72% of 28 villages within 70 km), but this involves relatively few villages and contributed little to the overall model. The models did not show and association with classes for soil water storage capacity (mm/m), however this may reflect limitations of the soils dataset (FAO et al. 2012), especially regarding soil depths and the lack of information on soil condition or degradation. The proportion of watershed forested requires further investigation, as most villages in this dataset have very high proportion of watershed forested, giving low power to detect relationships. This variable quantifies the proportional area of forests in watersheds above the sampled villages, where 'forest' cover includes intact, logged and agroforest or forest regrowth. When we look at the 150 villages that were within 500 m of a river, shown in Figure 17 (as 500 m this was the search distance for identifying upstream watershed areas), we see that although the villages surveyed vary in cover from 0 to 100%, most villages have very high forest cover, and villages with high cover can have frequent floods. However, we also see that the 78 villages whose watersheds have less than 90% forest cover all experience floods, and most experience them frequently. Flooding frequencies in this group are shifted to higher frequencies compared to villages highly forested watersheds (two-tailed T test, p<0.05), but a larger sample of villages with low forest cover is needed to accurately model the form of this relationship.
Table 6. Influence of spatial predictors on flooding frequency in villages in Kalimantan, based on BRT analyses of interview responses from 295 villages. The 10 strongest predictors are shown, out of the 27 used in all analyses. Summed cover is calculated from all cells within a 10 km radius, m Distance gives the distance in metres to the nearest example of a land cover type.

Variable Rivers - path distance to all rivers Elevation Rivers - path distance to major rivers Logged forest - Summed cover Mangroves - m Distance Road density Precipitation of wettest month Size of watershed Settlement density Oilpalm m Distance

% of explained variance 17.2 16.8 8.4 6.8 5.6 4.6 4.0 3.6 3.5 3.5

22

Proportion of watershed forested

1.0

Oil palm summed cover

0.8

0.0

0
0

100

0.2

200

0.4

300

0.6

400

500

Flood frequency class

Flood frequency class

Figure 17. Flood frequencies reported by villages in Kalimantan, in relation to the proportion of the upstream watershed under forest cover (left), and oil palm cover within 10 km radius (right). Watershed data are shown for 150 villages within 500 m of a river, to match the search distance for calculation of upstreatm watersheds. Oil palm cover is shown for all 295 villages for which frequency data exist. Flood frequency classes follow a power-law scale, 1 corresponds to approximately 0.1 flood per year, 2 = 0.5 floods, 3 = 1 or more floods per year (higher frequencies were combined).

________________________________________ Trends in flood frequency Perceived trends in flooding (i.e. perceptions of change through time in the frequency of flooding over the last 30 years) showed some concentration within regions and along stretches of major rivers (Figure 19). Villages that reported increased flooding were most common in the Kapuas swamps area in West Kalimantan and in western Central Kalimantan (Figure 20). BRT models of reported trends (no change vs. increasing) correctly classified 93% of villages that reported 'no change' and 86% of villages that reported increasing frequency. The strongest predictor in these models is distance from mangroves (12%), acting as a proxy for distance from the coastline, showing high variability close to the coast, an increase in frequency 80150 km from the coast, and declining to a lower baseline 150200 km inland. This indicates that reports of increasing frequency are more common in the middle reaches of rivers. There was no correlation with elevation across most of its range, but the villages at high elevations in mountainous terrain did not report increasing frequency/severity of flooding. Other major predictors were increasing frequency in very remote villages with low road density (9%), areas with higher rainfall in the wettest month (> 300 mm, 8%), and closer to rivers (major rivers 8%, all rivers 5%, density 6%). Increasing trends were also more common in areas with very low or very high cover of agroforest /regrowth (8%), closer to severely logged forest (8%, with higher probabilities within 50 km), or with higher cover of oil palm plantations (> 200 ha of industrial plantations within 10 km radius, 7%). A trend of increasting flood frequency was predicted for all but 1 of 29 villages with > 100 ha summed cover of oil palm plantations within a 10 km radius. Agroforests and regrowth cannot be distinguished in the landcover dataset, due to their similar (though broad) ranges of aboveground biomass and canopy cover, but it would be valuable to further explore possible differences in hydrological services between these forest classes. Proportion of watershed forested had a relatively small influence (4%), once the cover and distance to particular forest types was accounted for, and few villages have a low proportion of forest in total. Nonetheless, the effect was seen as a higher probability of increasing flood frequency in villages with <60% forest cover (Figure 18). Similarly to the frequency analysis, we note that soil available water storage of the immediate area (1 x 1 km grid) did not appear as a significant predictor, but note the limitations of our soil dataset and the likelihood of soils as important over a larger spatial extent upstream from the focal point location. 23

Table 7. Influence of spatial predictors on the trend in flooding frequency over the past 30 years in villages in Kalimantan, based on BRT analyses of interview responses from 229 villages. The 10 strongest predictors are shown, out of the 27 used in a all analyses. Summed cover is calculated from all cells within a 10 km radius, m Distance gives the distance in metres to the nearest example of a land cover.

Variable Mangroves m Distance Road density Precipitation of wettest month Agroforest /regrowth Summed cover Severely logged forest m Distance Rivers - path distance to major rivers Oil palm Summed cover Logged forest m Distance Rivers line density within 5 km Rivers path distance to all rivers

% of explained variance 18.4 8.6 8.3 8.0 7.9 7.5 6.6 6.3 5.7 5.3

0.05

fitted function

-0.10

0.00

Figure 18. Influence of Proportion of watershed forested on predicted trend in flooding, in BRT analysis of trends from 229 villages in Kalimantan.

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Proportion of watershed forested (3.8%)

Figures overleaf

24

Figure 19. Flooding trends over the past 30 years, reported in interview surveys in 229 villages across Kalimantan.

Figure 20. Map of modelled trends in flood frequency over the last 30 years, based on BRT analysis of interviews in 229 villages in Kalimantan. No predictions are shown (white) for areas with a population density <1 person per km2 in 2007.

25

2.3 Villager perceptions of floods and forests Perceptions of the value of forest for flood regulation were common in villages across the full range of flood frequencies, with slightly higher responses in villages with higher flooding (Figure 21). 0-60% of villagers spontaneously volunteered this response in villages that experience no or rare floods (mean 0.12), and 0-90% of respondents in villages with annual or more frequent flooding (mean 0.15). This perception was equally common in villages that experienced an increase or no change in flood frequency over the past 30 years. This finding accords with the overall high importance of forests for health and wellbeing found in individuallevel (Meijaard et al. 2013) and village-level analyses (Abram et al. n.d.), with overall perceptions summarised in Figure 21 and Figure 22. For example, forests were viewed as important for health by 92% of respondents (67% very important, 25% quite), for cultural and spiritual significance (74%), and for environmental health benefits (65% of all respondents volunteered one or more benefits; all figures refer to the 'highest reliability' dataset from 185 villages). These surveys also found strong perceptions regarding forest loss: people often support clearing if it occurs on a small scale and for their own direct use (mostly farming, supported by 48% of respondents), whereas large scale clearing was seen as negative impacting wellbeing by 46% of respondents (and as beneficial by 0 1 2 3 4 25%). Perceptions of deforestation as Flood frequency class negative due to its environmental impacts Figure 21. Perceptions of forests as important for flood regulation, were equally common across current flood compared to reported frequency of flooding in each village . The Y axis frequencies, and trends in flooding.
% respondents
shows the percentage of respondents in each village who volunteered the response that forests were important for health because of regulating or protecting them from floods.

20

40

60

80

100

Level of importance/significance Very Quite

80

Percentage of Respondents

Don't know Not

20

40

60

80

Health

Cultural_Spiritual

Figure 22. Importance of Forests for Health and for Cultural or Spiritual wellbeing, for 1,837 respondents in 185 villages in Kalimantan and Sabah (highest interview quality dataset).
40 20

Percentage of Respondents

60

26

Flood protection as a reason for importance of forests for health Villagers' perceptions of forests and floods were analysed in relation to 27 spatial land cover, climate and socioeconomic variables using Boosted Regression Tree (BRT) models, similar to analyses reported earlier for the reported flood frequencies and trends. Perceptions of forests as important for health due to providing flood protection were generally high across villages (as explained above). However, lower perceptions were reported in areas close to severely logged forest (17% of explained variance, suggesting that villagers view this forest as having low protection value), and in areas with lower rainfall of the wettest month (6%). Perceptions were also slightly lower in a small set of very remote villages (with extremely low settlement density, showing no further change at higher densities), amid dense forests (high aboveground biomass carbon, 6%), or at elevations > 150 m (each 4-5%
Figure 23. Perceptions of forests as important for flood regulation. Predictions are shown for settlements across Borneo, from BRT modelling of village interview data from 548 villages in Kalimantan and Sabah. The scale is the proportion of villagers, from 0 to 1, who spontaneously volunteer this response when asked if forests are important for their and their family's health. No predictions are shown (white) for 2 areas with <1 person per km in 2007.

of variance). (BRT models of flood perceptions gave a correlation of 0.83 between observed and predicted values.)

Table 8. Influence of spatial predictors on perceptions of forests as important for flood regulation in villages in Kalimantan and Sabah, based on BRT analyses of interview responses from 548 villages. The 10 strongest predictors are shown, out of the 27 used in all analyses. Summed cover is calculated from all cells within a 10 km radius, m Distance gives the distance in metres to the nearest example of a land cover type.

Variable Severely logged m Distance Settlement density Carbon in aboveground biomass Precipitation of wettest month Christian % of population Elevation Mangroves m Distance Proportion of watershed forested Road density Oilpalm m Distance

% of explained variance 17.1 9.8 6.1 5.8 5.0 4.7 4.4 4.1 3.7 3.6

27

Perceptions: Deforestation affects us negatively, because of environmental impacts When asked whether forest clearance was beneficial for them and their families, respondents in 245 villages gave the response that large-scale forest clearance has negative effects, because of its environmental impacts on flooding, temperature and/or erosion. This perception was widespread, and present in villages across the full range from zero to 100% forest cover in the upstream watershed, and the range in cover of particular forest types. Higher proportions of villagers volunteered this response in villages with >60% forest cover in their watershed, and in areas with higher summed cover of agroforests or regrowth (8% of variance). This perception was more common at moderate settlement densities (with no further change at higher settlement densities, 12% of explained variance), at elevations above 100 m (8%), and at distances from protected areas of more than 40 km (7%, possibly Figure 24. Perceptions of large-scale deforestation as negative due to environmental greater perceived impacts. BRT model predictions are shown for all settled areas of Borneo, based on reflecting interview surveys in 548 villages in Kalimantan and Sabah. The scale is the proportion of threats from deforestation in villagers, from 0 to 1, who spontaneously volunteer this response when asked if forest areas further from protected clearance benefits them and their families. No predictions are shown (white) for areas areas). Higher perceptions were 2 with <1 person per km in 2007. also observed in areas >200 km from the coastline, and among villagers with Indigenous religious beliefs (<20% of the population following Islam and Christianity). BRT models had a correlation of 0.68 between observed and predicted values, mean total deviance 0.022, and mean residual deviance 0.015.
Table 9. Influence of spatial predictors on perceptions of deforestation as negative due to its environmental impacts, based on BRT analyses of interview responses from 548 villages in Kalimantan and Sabah. The 10 strongest predictors are shown, out of the 27 used in all analyses. Summed cover is calculated from all cells within a 10 km radius, m Distance gives the distance in metres to the nearest example of a land cover type.

Variable Settlement density Elevation Agroforest/regrowth Summed cover Protected areas m Distance Islam - % of population Mangroves m Distance Road density Rivers path distance to major rivers Rivers path distance to all rivers Severely logged m Distance

% of explained variance 11.9 7.9 7.7 6.7 6.5 6.3 5.4 5.1 5.1 3.7

28

3. Newspaper reports of flood events and damages

Kalimantan newspaper reports of flooding, April 2010 2013 Newspaper reports from a total of 146 distinct flood events were found in searches of six online archives (representing 16 local or regional newspapers). These events involved floods in at least 966 settlements, consisting of 32 areas within cities (flooded 51 times), 677 villages and 149 areas within subdistricts where the specific settlement name was not given (flooded 915 times, with 41 settlements experiencing multiple floods). Newspaper reports (mapped in Figure 25) showed high coverage of events in West Kalimantan (for all districts except Ketapang for which only one record was observed); East Kalimantan, and South Kalimantan. Reports in Central Kalimantan were scarce, except within the Kotawaringin Timur (10 events), Murang Raya (12) and Barito Utara Districts (8). The newspaper reports of floods 20102013 and village interviews 2008-2011 showed strong spatial agreement for the areas where their coverages overlapped (West Kalimantan, Kotawaringin Timur and Barito in Central Kalimantan, and areas of East Kalimantan that were sparsely sampled in the interview surveys), also shown in Figure 25. Villages close to or downstream from sites of newspaper-reported floods all gave Figure 25. Locations of newspaper-reported floods, and village interviews. interviews saying that flood frequencies Red crosses show 388 settlements flooded in events reported in newspaper articles in Kalimantan, over the period 20 April 2010 29 April 2013. Blue were moderate to high. Two newspapercircles show flood frequencies reported in village interviews in 354 villages. reported floods were near villages that The base map shows major rivers and elevation above sea level. had reported that flooding was rare or occasional, and one newspaper-reported flood occurred upstream from a village where the interview indicated no flooding.

BRT modelling of newspaper-reported flooding Boosted Regression Tree modelling related the reported flooding to social and environmental predictors, based on presence of floods in 388 newspaper reports, and randomly selected settlements without flood reports. BRT predictions were used to generate maps of the relative probability of flooding for all settled areas of Borneo, under conditions similar to the period April 20, 2010 April 29, 2013. Modelling showed a clear separation between settlements that are vulnerable to floods and those that rarely experience them. BRT models correctly classified 98% of 'non-flood' settlements and 99% of settlements with a reported flood (optimum cut-off probability: 0.34). Results are presented for analyses for elevations <220 m, as the range of 98% of floods reported in newspapers, however results were almost identical in analyses that included the one report (and background locations) from higher elevations. The key variables predicting reported floods were distance to major rivers, elevation, impervious cover, population and settlement density, and surrounding land cover.

29

Distance to major rivers was clearly the strongest predictor, showing a sharp decline in predicted flooding over distances of 0 to 2 km, and slower decline thereafter (43% of explained variance). Distance to smaller rivers accounted for a further 4% of variance. Elevation showed a strong decline in floods between sea level and 120 m elevation (similar to the effect seen in analyses of village interviews). Impervious surface cover shows a threshold relationship with predicted flooding, increasing sharply between 3 and 7 % and showing high flooding probability for all areas above this value. Predicted flooding was highest at both low and very high population density and settlement density in the surrounding 10 km radius. The newspaper reports did not appear to be biased to only reporting floods in populated areas, since the reports spanned the full range of population densities, 70% of reports were from rural areas with very low population density (Figure 27) and reports also covered areas 220 km from the coastline (predicted flood probabilities were highest at distances 5 100 km and 150 220 km). However, there appears to have been some bias away from reporting events in more remote settlements especially at higher elevations, which may have had both a lower probability of flooding but also lower probabilities of reporting. Newspaper reported floods all occurred at elevations > 340 m, however village interviews indicated that flooding is experienced in some higher altitude villages, and several villages that reported annual flooding in the village interviews, did not appear in any newspaper reports. Therefore we regard the newspaper record as incomplete, but still showing a high frequency and extent of flooding in areas with low population density. Areas with high population density appear to be highly exposed to flooding, consistent with their locations predominantly being close to major rivers, and with high impervious and low forest cover. Floods were reported in 89 highly populated areas in Kalimantan over this 3 year period, while high density areas were rare in the 'background' samples, which were > 1 km from reported floods but otherwise spatially random across all settled areas regardless of population size. In contrast, lower density settlements (<500 people per km2) were not over-represented in flood reports, relative to their 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 background frequency in the landscape. Population density 2007, estimated N per km2 In relation to land cover, flood probabilities were Figure 27. Distribution of population density for 387 highest in areas close to 'other' non-forest cover types, settlements reported flooded in newspaper articles in which include mining, urban and open croplands (up to Kalimantan. 20 km and especially <5 km). Flooding was highest at very low proportion of watershed forested (<20%) and declined slightly at the highest cover levels. Floods were rarely reported in settlements with more than 40% cover of intact or logged forest in a 10 km radius,
N newspaper reports 0 50 100 150 200
Figure 26. Flood probabilities predicted for settlements across Borneo from BRT modelling of 387 newspaper reports April 2010 2013, and 725 other settlements in Kalimantan. The scale is the predicted probability of flooding from 0 to 1, over a three year period with a similar climate to that observed. No predictions are shown (white) for 2 areas with <1 person per km in 2007.

30

however the effects of reporting bias away from remote settlements are hard to distinguish. Flood probabilities were higher close to severely logged forest (to a range of approximately 10 km), and were moderately high for any level of agroforest or forest regrowth cover, with slightly higher predictions at the highest cover. As discussed above, the ability to distinguish agroforest and regrowth would greatly benefit our understanding of their roles in hydrology and also the livelihood values of agroforests for local communities. The size of the watershed draining to the exact location of a settlement was less important than its distance to rivers and especially major rivers, which may drain a much larger area. (The size of a river's watershed is accounted for in its classification as 'major', if draining > 840 ha. However, this is not captured in our measurement of a settlement's watershed size unless a river was within 500 m of the settlement). The effects of individual spatial predictors, beyond the rapid decline with distance from major rivers, are shown graphically in Figure 28. Similarly to the village interview analyses, we note that estimated soil water storage capacity of the immediate area (1 x 1 km grid) did not appear as a significant predictor, but note the limitations of our soil dataset and the likelihood of soils as important over a larger spatial extent upstream from the focal point location.
Table 10. Influence of spatial variables on flooding probabilities in BRT analysis of newspaper reports in Kalimantan, 20 April 2010 29 April 2013. The 10 strongest predictors are shown, out of the 27 used in all analyses. Summed cover is calculated from all cells within a 10 km radius, m Distance gives the distance in metres to the nearest example of a land cover type.

Variable Rivers - path distance to major rivers Elevation Population density in 1 km Impervious surface area % Other land classes m Distance Rivers path distance to all rivers Carbon in aboveground biomass Mangroves m Distance Size of watershed
2

% of explained variance 43.0 8.9 8.5 8.2 8.1 5.3 4.0 2.9 2.6 2.4

Settlement density in 10 km radius

Similar results were obtained from an alternative analysis that included 'absence' points from the village interview surveys (i.e. villages that said they had experienced no or very rare floods), rather than the random background sample. This analysis correctly classified 99% of settlements, and predicted flooding showed a strong decline over distance to severely logged forest (accounting for 22.6% of explained variance), increased with impervious cover (with higher risk above a threshold of c. 4% impervious cover, 22.3% of variance), settlement densities (11.6% of variance), and elevation (highest below c.150 m, 7.4% of variance). We note the similarity in spatial predictions for models of flooding based on independent datasets, namely models of flood frequency experienced by villages (from the village interview surveys, Figure 16) and flooding probabilities based on newspaper reports and Figure 26). Note that the village map (Figure 16) models frequency on a scale from zero to a very high frequency of flooding (> 2 per year), whereas the newspaper map shows the relative probability of one or more floods in this 3 year period (Figure 26), and so shows more areas in darker grey. The main factors identified in these analyses are similar (distance to rivers, and elevation). Major rivers were the dominant influence in the newspaper-reported floods, while distance to all rivers was more important in the village datasets, but major rivers were still important. The newspaper dataset spans a much larger range of population densities, settlement densities, impervious cover, and 'other' land cover, giving much greater power to detect their influence in the newspapers analysis. 31

Overall, the predictions show similar spatial patterns, because of their similar relationships to rivers and elevation, and although some variables differ in the relative strengths of their influence between the two analyses (% of explained variance), they still show very similar directions or functional forms in both analyses.
1.0 1.0 Predicted Pr. flooding
0 20 40 60

Predicted Pr. flooding

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0.0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

50

100

150

200

Impervious surface area %

Elevation (m)

Forest types:
1.0 1.0 Predicted Pr. flooding
0 200 400 600 800

Predicted Pr. flooding

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0.0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

20

40

60

80

100

Logged forest - summed cover

Intact forest - summed cover

1.0

Predicted Pr. flooding

Predicted Pr. flooding

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0.0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

5000

15000

25000

35000

Distance to Severely logged forest (m)

Other non-forest land cover - distance (m)

Figure 28. Influence of spatial predictors on flooding probabilities, estimated in BRT models of 387 newspaper flood reports and 725 settlements without reported floods.

_________________________________ 32

Flood impacts reported The time series based on our newspaper searches is not complete, in the sense of covering all events, and the totals estimated here should be regarded as minimum values. The most frequently quantified impact was the number of houses flooded (enumerated in 130 of 422 records), while numbers of families or individuals affected were reported in only 41 records, cropland areas in 39, schools in 30, and health facilities in only 4 reports. Economic impacts were usually described but not quantified (e.g. residents could not work, all of the village businesses were flooded). Financial impacts were enumerated in only 9 reports, and summed to 3.3335 billion Rupiah (ca. USD 3.4 million). This clearly underestimates the total impacts, and is orders of magnitude smaller than the 605 billion Rupiah spent on floods in Samarinda district from 2011 2013, by the government of East Kalimantan, primarily for four systems of structural defences along the Mahakam River (Pemprov Kaltim 2013). A summary of impacts estimated as the number of houses flooded, and the number of people this directly affected, is given in Table 11. (See Table 4 for a direct comparison with the DiBi national flood events database for a subset of this period.)
Table 11. Newspaper reported flood events in Kalimantan, during 3 years, April 2010 2013. Estimates for each impact were based on directly reported numbers where available, or calculated using the median from the distribution of reported impacts per event. Low and High numbers in grey give estimates calculated from the 10th and 80th percentiles of impacts per event.

Province Central Kalimantan (3 districts) East Kalimantan West Kalimantan South Kalimantan Total

N events 10 71 39 26 146

Houses flooded Estimated N 22,299 50,372 46,607 78,025 197,303

Low
20,238 34,383 27,242 71,684 153,547

High
25,662 116,438 125,800 96,553 364,454

People flooded Estimated N 85,096 204,150 201,726 285,638 776,609

Low
77,056 138,596 120,119 262,176 597,948

High
98,211 475,021 531,715 354,192 1,459,138

33

Discussion
Flooding is a natural environmental process in many parts of the world with episodes of high rainfall, including Borneo. Such floods can have significant impacts on people, as is reflected in the wide-spread oral tradition of many Dayak groups about the occurrence of a great flood in the mythical past, suddenly covering the world, with the exceptions of some mountain peaks (Knapen 2001). People have traditionally adapted to occasional flooding events by living high off the ground (Figure 29). To a certain extent, flooding may even have been welcomed, for example because of beneficial side effects, such as nutrient input into alluvial areas. Still, the negative impacts of floods may have outweighed the benefits. An overview of disasters that occurred in Southeast Borneo between 1747 and 1891 listed 40 years (28% of the total) in which an over-abundance of rain (which interferes with the burning of swiddens) and flooding had severe impacts on food supplies or caused epidemic disease outbreaks, second only to the impact of small-pox outbreaks (Knapen 1997). Similar descriptions are available for various part of what is now West Kalimantan, where in the late 19 th century flooding events were strongly correlated to outbreaks of malaria and other epidemic diseases (Enthoven 1903). As indicated by the perceptions of interviewed people, the impact of flooding may be deviating from these historic patterns and becoming increasingly severe on Borneo, or their impacts are more keenly felt. Nearly half the villages visited for this study reported annual floods, with an additional 13.6% reporting near-annual floods, and in 18.4% of the villages inhabitants considered floods to become more frequent. We realize that such perceptions may be difficult to quantify in terms of real impact, because they are inherently subjective rather than measured empirically. Still, the various independently collected data in our study (government data, interviews, newspaper reports, and underlying statistical relationships) all point towards flooding becoming an increasingly social and economic problem in most low-lying parts of Borneo. The increasing impact of floods may be both because floods are becoming more frequent and affect larger areas, and because the density of human populations, buildings and infrastructure are increasing.

Figure 29. Traditional stilt house in the Barito River area (after Schwaner 1854).

We are not yet able to fully quantify the social and economic impacts of flooding on Borneo. Our estimates from newspaper reports, however, are indicative of the large scale of flooding impacts across the island. Our newspaper surveys give a minimum estimate of impacts for 146 flood events between 2000 and 2013 in three Provinces (West, East and South Kalimantan), and 3 districts of Central Kalimantan. These events flooded 197,000 houses (possibly as many as 360,000), directly displacing 776,000 people (possibly as many as 1.5 million), as well as damaging farmlands, plantations, infrastructure (roads and bridges) and many schools and health centres. These data, and the village interview surveys, indicate that floods affect several major cities and 54% of villages each year on average. These numbers underestimate the full magnitude and range of impacts, which would be larger if more comprehensive records were available, and accounting for impacts beyond houses flooding, to include effects on agriculture, education, business, healthcare and disease outbreaks. Government data on floods from

34

Malaysian Borneo and Brunei is not publicly available, but it seems clear from newspaper reports that flooding is also a major problem in all states. The crucial point is that flood impacts, and planning for mitigation and adaptation, are not currently given adequate priority by governments on Borneo. Current knowledge of flood events in Borneo is fragmented and highly incomplete. Event records are collected or collated using different methods and criteria by authorities at several levels of government, and internationally, and great scope exists for improved integration of monitoring and assessment of risks. For example, Indonesia's national methods for flood reporting and risk assessment are geared to prioritization of emergency response to intensive disasters (high impact events that affect large, spatially concentrated populations), but have been based on brief and incomplete time series of events, and need to better integrate the monitoring efforts of local and regional agencies. Secondly, they do not adequately assess or act on large cumulative risks from events that affect more spatially distributed populations, or occur at high frequency, and add up to large impacts over a region or time period. The importance of disasters of lower magnitude but high frequency has been highlighted in recent studies in Indonesia, Bolivia, Mexico, Mozambique, Nepal, the Philippines, and Vietnam showing negative impacts on childrens education, health, and access to services such as water and sanitation (UNISDR 2011). Relationships between flooding, vegetation and soils are complex, and oversimplifications have been the source of major contention (van Dijk et al. 2009). For example, if only a single distinction is made between 'intact vs. modified' land covers, this ignores differences among widely varying land uses or management, such as between intensive cropping and multi-story agroforests (van Noordwijk 2008). Secondly, it is clear that extremes of prolonged and heavy rainfall can overwhelm storage capacities of soils and aquifers, and lead to flooding whatever the dominant land cover. Acknowledging this complexity, recent hydrological studies have emphasised that forest ecosystems, especially those with intact soils and groundcover, can slow water movement and reduce flood peak volumes and velocities from rainfall events that are smaller but occur more often than those causing massive disasters (Lusiana et al. 2008b; Wahyu et al. 2010; Bathurst et al. 2011). Our analyses have found that flooding probabilities and reported trends are related to landscape features, especially settlement densities, impervious cover, and distance to or cover of land uses including intact or logged forests, severely degraded forests and oil palm plantations. Our findings are preliminary and call for further study, but are supported by similarities in results based on two independent data sets, showing similar functional forms of the relationships uncovered, and high spatial congruence of predictions, i.e., between flood frequencies reported in village interviews (Figure 16) and flooding probabilities modelled from newspaper reports (Figure 26). Villages with less than 60% cover of intact or logged forest had a higher probability of reporting increased flood frequency (see Figure 18), and the roles of degradation of vegetation and soils are suggested by high flood frequencies and increasing trends within severely degraded logged and burned forest in East Kalimantan, and also by assocations between flooding and declines in water quality. Village reports show strong associations between declines in water quality and both the current frequency of floods, and trends of increasing flooding (see Figure 13). Decreases in water quality over the last 30 years were predominantly due to higher turbidity (apart from three villages that reported chemical pollution from mining). This indicates soil degradation, erosion and/or landslides upstream from these villages, affecting regular water quality not only during flood events. As yet we do not know whether this arises from slopes, gullies or streambanks (Sidle et al. 2006), or the interplay of frequent flooding affecting soil erosion, and soil degradation affecting flooding hazards (Bruijnzeel 2004). However, the link is important, whether due to flooding itself or land degradation, and motivates further study of flood regulation alongside other watershed services of erosion regulation and water purification. It is clear that hydrological effects of land use change occur in large part through changes in soil physical properties and ground-level cover (Bruijnzeel 2004; Sidle et al. 2006; Zimmermann et al. 2010). Data on soil types is currently available at scales of 1:250,000 to 1:1 million (see recommendations), but is based on historical surveys without information on current soil condition. In our analyses, estimated classes for soil water storage capacity of the immediate area (1 km2) did not appear as a significant predictor, however the 35

soils data is limited especially in information on depth and current condition (affecting infiltrability, conductivity and network connectivity), and further work is needed to quantify the role of soil properties over a larger spatial extent upstream from the focal flood locations. We were not able to assess soil degradation other than by association with land cover classes, and although this association is generally strong, there are some land covers in which soil condition may vary widely (especially agroforest/regrowth). Many of the soil impacts associated with logging are expected to vary with road density (supported by the influence of road density in our analyses), but further information on the physical properties and status of soils is highly desirable (see recommendations). Finally, our analysis did not incorporate further information on peatlands, however Borneo's deep peats also have significant water retaining functions, slowing down release of rain into rivers (Andriesse 1988; Wetlands International 2011). Their ongoing conversion and drainage for plantation agriculture (Fuller et al. 2011; Koh et al. 2011) could also be a factor in increasing flood frequency and severity, for example in villages surveyed in eastern Central Kalimantan and among severely degraded forests on peatlands in East Kalimantan (see recommendations for further research). Although uncertainty remains over the functional relationships between land cover and flooding, the majority of people who are affected by these floods voice the view that such relationships exist. The village interview surveys revealed common perceptions of forests as important for regulation or protection from flooding, and perceptions of deforestation as negative due to its environmental impacts, and showed these perceptions were common in villages at any flooding frequency (and were slightly higher at higher frequencies). Newspaper articles from Indonesian Borneo were most often focused on events and emergency response, but links to land use and especially deforestation and mining were often made. Examples include articles from Pontianak in West Kalimantan, calling for integrated land use and protection in the Kapuas river basin (Suhendra 2012), from South Kalimantan, where disaster preparedness officials attributed floods to mining on mountain slopes (Media Indonesia 2010b), and from Samarinda and Kutai Kartanegara in East Kalimantan, where many reports attributed floods to damage to lands and rivers from coal mines (Maimunah 2013; Sabarini & Sulaiman 2013) that are either continuing extraction or have not been rehabilitated (Mattangkilang 2012a, 2012b). Mining, especially of coal, has undergone extremely rapid expansion in Kalimantan since 2004 (Lucarelli 2010). In our analysis, mine areas were included in a wider class of other non-forest land uses, and steps toward understanding the roles of small and large-scale mining on hydrology and river systems requires collation of data on small-scale, often informal operations, along with maps of mining concessions from each level of government, and mining scars. Our results suggest several important directions for future research on monitoring and modelling of functional relationships between land uses and flooding hazards and impacts. The perceptions results also indicate that this understanding is likely to have a strong influence on how decision-makers view the importance of forests and ecosystem services, due to the strong resonance of flooding and freshwater issues with citizens and officials. Floods and decision-makers: To date, Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei Darussalam, like many other countries reporting on the global Hyogo Framework for Action to reduce disaster risks, have made little progress on Priority 4: addressing the underlying sources of disaster risk, and its key components of environmental management and planning, alongside social vulnerability. Where they have been made, efforts to reduce flood hazards have primarily focused on engineering infrastructure in or near the most affected cities, for example the East Kalimantan government spent Rp 605 billion on engineering flood defences in Samarinda on the Mahakam River during 2011-2013 (Pemprov Kaltim 2013). Currently, "Risk knowledge is not or insufficiently used to inform land use and development planning" (UNDP 2009) in Indonesia (BNPB 2013a, 2013b), and similarly in Sabah and Sarawak (MKN 2012). It is vital that risk information should inform land use and development planning at the national level and within provincial or regional plans such as Indonesia's Regional Medium Term Development Plans (RPJMD), Regional 36

Development Work Plans (RKPD), and Regional Spatial Layout Plans (RTRW); and to further the concept of 'Desa Tangguh' or Resilient Village. For example, many RKPDs do not mention disasters or floods, or refer only to flood mitigation by engineering structures in cities (e.g. Berau RKPD 2013). Although needs for environmental protection or restoration are often acknowledged by local and provincial governments, these initiatives are often isolated from other planning and regulations, and are more often directed to climate mitigation than to climate adaptation or disaster reduction, for example in the KalTim Green program in East Kalimantan (KTTR & DNPI 2010). Regarding intensive infrastructure developments such as housing, roads and mining, assessments of potential impacts on disaster risk should be required, either within Environmental Impact Assessments for individual projects, or as part of multi-project Strategic Environmental Analysis (BNPB 2013a). Clearly there is a need, alongside emergency preparendess and response, to focus on the larger picture of adapting development plans to present and future flood risk (also with regard to rising sea levels), and acting to conserve ecosystems that store or slow floodwaters and provide a range of other ecosystem services. Within Malaysian Borneo, efforts to develop a 'green economy' generate new impetus and opportunities to integrate watershed ecosystem services into State planning processes; and in Kalimantan, the process of each major river basin developing a 'Pola' (water resources system overview) and then 'Rencana' (spatial plan) presents a major opportunity for more integrated assessment and planning for hydrological services including flood regulation. So far, the Kalimantan I river basin authority, covering the Kapuas , is the first to have started on the Rencana stage,

Implications for improved forest management, land use planning, and orangutan conservation in Borneo
Most orangutans currently live outside protected areas (Wich et al. 2012a), and it is clear that orangutan survival will depend on investing in protection and management of areas of core natural habitat, but will also depend critically on the management of forests in a range of multi-functional landscapes. There is hope that well-managed forestry areas, and even plantations, can provide habitat for orangutans, however, much more research is needed to understand orangutan survival and reproduction in these multi-functional landscapes (Ancrenaz et al. 2010; Meijaard et al. 2010; Campbell-Smith et al. 2011). For such landscapes to provide viable habitat for orangutans as well as people, a significant shift in perspective is needed among conservation groups, government, forest managers and local communities (CampbellSmith et al. 2010; Meijaard et al. 2012). It will require that we stop seeing conservation in black and white terms of unprotected and protected, or natural and unnatural (Sheil & Meijaard 2010; Dewi et al. 2013).
Figure 30. Photo of adult male orangutan in West Kalimantan. Photo by Nardiyono.

37

We expect that the future of orangutans will depend on the long-term security of large, strongly protected areas where illegal logging and hunting are effectively controlled, and orangutan populations are large enough to cope with potential catastrophic events such as fires or disease outbreaks (Meijaard et al. 2012). Also, these areas need to contain ecological gradients that allow orangutans and elements of their habitat to adapt to ongoing changes, such as those brought about by climate change. Clearly there is also a need to maintain connections from the core protected parts of the orangutan range to other forest areas. Beyond the core, forests that are also used for other purposes can be important both as habitat and as movement corridors. It appears that one subspecies of orangutan has sufficient ecological flexibility to survive in forests where commercial timber extraction occurs (Ancrenaz et al. 2010), and the conservation value of these areas should be considered, not as a substitute for, but a complement to undisturbed areas. Such an ecological network of protected areas, interconnected via forested watersheds could in turn be buffered by low intensity agroforests and plantations, such as trees for pulp and paper, and possibly also oil palm. This would then border on the high intensity use areas where most people live, where infrastructure such as roads is concentrated, and where small-scale agriculture and silviculture is concentrated. Such landscapes, as advocated for areas of Sumatra (Wich et al. 2011), would enable orangutans and other biodiversity to survive and adapt, at the same time providing sufficient space and resources for human development and the provision of local and global ecosystem services such as prevention of soil erosion, flood buffering, clean water provision, and storage of carbon. Our study on flood frequencies, trends and impacts indicates the need to better integrate hydrological functions into land use planning, and opportunities for the integration of strategies to improve the survival chances of wild orangutan populations. Most orangutans occur in lowland areas, with especially high densities in swamp forests. Comparison of the orangutan distribution range (Figure 31), reported flooding frequencies and trends from interviews (Figure 16) and modelled flood hazards from newspaper reports (Figure 26) indicate that many areas of orangutan habitat are close to settlements that experience flooding and/or report increasing flooding over Figure 31. Orangutan distribution on Borneo and its overlap with key land recent decades. If it is possible to use allocations. This map is based on Wich et al.s (2012) study with some demonstrate that further forest minor modifications of the orangutan's distribution in Sarawak, based on degradation and loss would lead to losses more recent consultations. of both watershed services and orangutan populations, this would provide a strong political and public incentive to better protect orangutan habitats, especially if the economic and social impacts could be quantified and compared to the potential revenues created from alternative land uses, such as plantations and open-cast mining. The above idealized picture of ecologically connected networks remains very far removed from the present paradigm of rapid economic development through exploitation of natural resources and conversion of forest landscapes to non-forest ones. The type of planning needed to retain or regain ecological connectivity on Borneo and Sumatra urgently requires that political decision makers recognize the value of forested landscapes for the long-term socio-economic future of these islands. For this, environmental values (economic, ethical, and legal) need to be considered and integrated much more strongly in the land use planning process. At local and Island-wide scales, planners need to develop alternative scenarios that directly acknowledge trade-offs between short-term economic gains from intensive land uses, and longer-term benefits from maintaining sustainably managed forest environments. Based on this, governments can make an informed choice on how they envisage the long-term development of Borneo and Sumatra. 38

The two most important groups involved in conservation on Borneo are the Governments of Indonesia and Malaysia, and a range of local and international non-governmental organizations. Governments are responsible for policy development, land use planning, law enforcement, and conservation management in protected areas. It is obvious that existing legislation and policy do not provide sufficient protection for orangutans. Governments need to develop much more holistic policies that not only target economic development, but that also balance that development with ecological and environmental sustainability. The Indonesian Government has expressed a commitment to such thinking in its national orangutan action plan and its low carbon growth objectives (Elson 2011), and at the province level, East Kalimantan has developed a Sustainable Development Strategy (KTTR & DNPI 2010), but this general commitment needs to be translated into new plans and new policies on land use that integrate protected area management with broader landscape-level management. Socio-ecological sustainability should become a general policy principle if the orangutans outside protected areas are to survive. Governments also need to recognize the spatial heterogeneity of threats and design area-specific plans to reduce these threats. This depends further on government law enforcement and protected area management, which are currently insufficient. Strengthening law enforcement will require training of police, judges, and conservation authorities, effectively combating corruption in government offices, and also ensuring that the public understand why these laws are now taken seriously. The latter requires effective campaigns informing the public, communicating both the law and its motivations. For example, in interview surveys in villages throughout the orangutan's range in Kalimantan, 27% of respondents did not know that orangutans are legally protected (Meijaard et al. 2011a). Regarding management of protected areas, the Indonesian government has voiced an intention to outsource the management of national parks to private companies and NGOs (Simamora 2011). Whether management is funded or implemented through government or the private sector, a full appreciation of the benefits these areas provide is vital for generating sufficient investment of conservation resources, for biodiversity and for provisioning, regulating and cultural ecosystem services.

Recommendations for future monitoring, modelling and prioritisation

We recommend investment in systems for reporting and monitoring that enable access to information at scales of local communities, regions and States, and consistent integration at each level. Exchange of data and joint modelling efforts among agencies in Sabah, Sarawak, Kalimantan and Brunei would also be extremely valuable, especially in cross-border river basins, but also for generating shared knowledge of climate and land use impacts on hydrology across the island. 1. Flood reporting: This study highlights needs for more comprehensive and consistent recording of flood events, and consideration of events affecting less populated areas if many distributed events add up to impacts on large numbers of people, and especially if those affected may be highly vulnerable or have fewer resources to respond to flooding threats (who due to remoteness, poverty or dependence on subsistence livelihoods). Systems for timely reporting of events, and integration at province and state or national levels, can build on existing datasets and reporting systems, and develop new networks for community monitoring. Improved reporting is essential both to gain a better understanding of flood patterns and impacts, and to enable records to be used for inputs or validation of modelling efforts. Key elements of reporting that would substantially increase the value of event records: georeferencing, ideally along with information on areal extent, depth relative to a clear reference (river height or main street), and duration; a set of consistent thresholds for event reporting, in terms of extent, duration or numbers of people affected, with finer resolution for province-level records (especially to better understand impacts that are distributed across many smaller events or settlements); and more consistent, quantitative reporting of impacts in terms of numbers of homes, schools and hospitals affected, and area of crop losses. Ideally reporting on numbers of people affected would be disaggregated, especially by gender, to enable better understanding of social vulnerability. 39

Our analyses and comparisons with Indonesia's national disasters database indicate the need to support consistent recording at the local level to match the strong efforts being made by some agencies such as the South Kalimantan Disaster Management Agency (BPBD KalSel). Secondly, they indicate the scope for better communication of flood events and impacts among local and Provincial authorities and incorporation into the national database. In addition to strengthening the existing databases held by each of Borneo's governments, records can be contributed to international databases such as EM-DAT International Disaster Database http://www.emdat.be (for all events seriously affecting >100 people, or involving >10 deaths or declaration of a state of emergency).

2. Risk mapping and assessments All governments in Borneo are signatories to the Hyogo Framework for Action, which includes key Priority 2 (assess and monitor risks) and Priority 4 (reduce risks including through land use and development planning). To met these priorities, assessments of risk need to be performed at finer spatial scales and to 1. incorporate better data on past events; 2. incorporate scenarios or projections for future changes in demographics, climate and land use, through statistical or process-based models; and 3. be clearly linked to decision processes for prioritization and allocation of resources for monitoring, disaster risk reduction and response, and broader land use planning for multiple objectives. One of the most effective ways to promote awareness and capacity for adaptation to disasters and climate change is to invest in community-based vulnerability assessments and mapping (UNDP 2009), particularly to reach remote areas and highly vulnerable groups, for example through networks of trained volunteers, community organizations and/or NGOs. Systems for community vulnerability assessments could integrate projections for climate and land use change into existing tools such as Oxfam's Participatory Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment, as adapted for Indonesia (Oxfam 2012), CARE's Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment (CARE International 2009), or the IFRC's Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment (IFRC 2013) as adapted by the Indonesian Red Cross Society and Malaysian Red Crescent Society. Initiatives could build on recent experience developed by the Asia Disaster Preparedness Centre in the Mekong Basin, and on village activities by district-level disaster agencies in Indonesia (BNPB 2013a), and Malaysia's Community-based Disaster Management Programme, which has involved facilitators working with communities to identify hazards, analyse capacities and design disaster management initiatives (MKN 2012). 3. Hydrological information systems monitoring, collation, validation and dissemination Systems for monitoring of river systems can integrate community-based monitoring, and may combine complementary methods such as manual recording and transmission, sensor arrays with automatic data loggers and/or transmission, and remote-sensing for rainfall or water surface detection. Community-based monitoring of river flows and flood events, especially in rural areas, could simultaneously provide better long-term data and empower communities to influence local land use decisions that could affect flooding. Our perception studies indicate that there is high awareness among communities about possible relationships between land cover and flooding, and there may be significant interest in participating in community monitoring programs, especially if they can be designed collaboratively and promote local ownership (rather than just supplying data to external scientists or government). Such a process could build on the methodology developed for integrating surveys and modelling in Rapid Hydrological Appraisals, as applied in Kapuas Hulu and Ketapang in Kalimantan (Lusiana et al. 2008a, 2008b), and water quality monitoring and interventions in Mendalam on the upper Kapuas (Rooswiadji et al. 2012). 40

Systems for province- and state-level monitoring and management of hydrological data can integrate community-based monitoring, and build on systems designed in provinces such as Nusa Tenggara Barat (BISDA-DPU-NTB 2012). Soils data is also essential for hydrological studies, though currently available data sources are limited in resolution, and in information on condition or degradation. Maps of soil type across the island are available (FAO et al. 2012), but are based on maps from 1968 at 1:500,000 for Sarawak (Directorate of National Mapping Malaysia 1968), 1974 at 1:250,000 for Sabah (Directorate of National Mapping Malaysia 1974) and during the early to mid 20th Century at 1:1,000,000 for Kalimantan (RePPProt 1990). Higher quality information on the physical and chemical characteristics of soils is currently being developed by Malaysian and Indonesian agencies and organizations, for example by the Indonesian Soil Research Institute and Malaysian Soil Science Society, with potential for cross-border collaboration via the Global Soil Map initiative (http://www.globalsoilmap.net/). The roles of peatlands in hydrology and especially regulation of flooding deserve strong focus in future research. Mapping of peat depths has been performed for Kalimantan at 1:250,000 scale by Wetlands International has recently been digitized (WRI & Sekala 2012). A stronger basis for further modelling of potential links to flooding will be given by new initiatives for mapping of peat lands (including depth) by the Indonesia Climate Change Center (ICCC 2012), and Universiti of Teknologi Malaysia based on groundpenetrating radar (Idi & Karamudiin 2010). Information on degraded lands in Kalimantan is available from government maps of four classes of 'Critical Lands' (Ministry of Forestry), and although each class combines many aspects of soil and vegetation (and the extent of estimation or observation is not clear), this source of information could be integrated with the present land cover dataset in future efforts to clarify the roles of soil disturbance. Understanding the roles of small and large-scale mining on hydrology and river systems requires collation of data on small-scale, often informal operations, along with maps of mining concessions from each level of government, and mining scars (which could be digitized from newly released Landsat 8 imagery http://landsat.usgs.gov/).

4. Spatial modeling of flood regulation as an ecosystem service The role of forest and wetland ecosystems in regulating water flow and reducing or slowing floodwaters has received recent attention within emerging systems of rewards for ecosystem services and from the perspective of co-benefits for conservation and livelihoods. However, current knowledge on these roles is very limited for many large forest areas. In terms of modelling to understand biophysical hazards, sufficient information for continuous or eventbased hydrological modelling exists for some of Borneo's major river basins, and extension of rapid hydrological appraisal methods for example to link a rainfall-runoff model to a hydrodynamic model (Daniel et al. 2011). Development of such models for a focal region, such as major river basins in Kalimantan, would give the opportunity to compare alternative approaches to broad and fine-scale assessment of flood regulation services. We recommend spatial modelling of flood regulation as an ecosystem service in the ARIES framework (Bagstad et al. 2013), in order to enable the use of both probabilistic and process-based models for the sources of floodwaters, their flows across the landscape, sink functions performed by ecosystems and infrastructure such as reservoirs, and potential impacts on specific settlements and lands. The ARIES platform enables probabilistic or process-based models to be employed in different parts of the landscape depending on process knowledge and data availability, and gives a transparent presentation of 41

uncertainty in resulting estimates, an ability that is severely lacking in most river basin modelling. This modelling effort is now possible, based on data reviewed in this study that can obtained as spatially consistent data layers across Borneo, for rainfall, land cover, soils, rivers, infrastructure and settlements. Illustrating scenarios and comparing consequences: These models could be run for the current land cover and climate, and for alternative scenarios for future land cover and climate change. For example, scenarios for future land use could be based on 'business as usual' development following existing land use allocations and national and provincial development plans, and contrasted with conservation focussed scenarios (conserving remaining forests and restoring riparian forests), and socially focussed scenarios (e.g. conserving forest cover close to and upstream from forest-dependent villages). Exploration of such alternative futures is vital for illustrating the consequences of land use decisions for ecosystem services and economic development. Decision-making for risk reduction and land use planning In any situation, effective prioritization requires the comparison of alternative actions in terms of their costs and outcomes in relation to clear objectives. This is essential in order to identify resource needs, and to achieve the most effective allocation of limited resources. In the case of objectives for disaster risk reduction and sustainable development, adequate assessments of flood hazards and vulnerabilities are an essential part of this, along with identifying the full range of potential actions for reducing floods or strengthening capacities for adaptation. We have identified needs for more data and understanding of key processes so that the roles of ecosystems in flood regulation can be quantified, however we also acknowledge that uncertainties will remain and emphasise that uncertainties are not a reason for inaction or omission from consideration. It is clear that Borneo's forests, agroforests and wetlands face unprecedented pressures from conversion to intensive land uses and mining, and conserving the benefits of these ecosystems for flood regulation should be seen as an important element in planning for socially and ecologically sustainable development. Outputs from ecosystem services modelling can be integrated into spatial optimizations for land use planning, for example using Marxan with Zones (Watts et al. 2009; Venter et al. 2012), enabling exploration of tradeoffs and complementarity among objectives and from the perspective of different stakeholders. Such an exercise can be performed at any spatial scale, and as part of planning processes involving participation of communities and governments, can help to optimize multiple objectives for social and economic benefits alongside biodiversity conservation. ___________________________________________________________________

References
Abram, N., Meijaard, E., Ancrenaz, M., Runting, R.K., Wells, J., Gaveau, D., et al. (n.d.). Spatially explicit perceptions of ecosystem services and land cover change in forested regions of Borneo. To be submitted. Ancrenaz, M., Ambu, L., Sunjoto, I., Ahmad, E., Manokaran, K., Meijaard, E., et al. (2010). Recent surveys in the forests of Ulu Segama Malua, Sabah, Malaysia, show that orang-utans (P. p. morio) can be maintained in slightly logged forests. PLoS ONE, 5, e11510. Andriesse, J.P. (1988). Andriesse, J. P. 1988. Nature and Management of Tropical Peat Soils. FAO Soils Bulletin, 59, 1165. Baccini, A., Goetz, S.J., Walker, W.S., Laporte, N.T., Sun, M., Sulla-Menashe, D., et al. (2012). Estimated carbon dioxide emissions from tropical deforestation improved by carbon-density maps. Nature Climate Change, 2, 182185. Bagstad, K.J., Johnson, G.W., Voigt, B. & Villa, F. (2013). Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: A comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services. Ecosystem Services, 4, 117125. Balai Hidrologi dan Tata Air. (2012). Penelitian Peramalan dan Peringatan Dini Banjir. Balai Hidrologi dan Tata Air, Puslitbang Sumber Daya Air, Bandung, Indonesia.

42

Bappenas & BNPB. (2010). National Action Plan for Disaster Risk Reduction 2010-2012. Government of the Republic of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia. Bathurst, J.C., Iroume, A., Cisneros, F., Fallas, J., Iturraspe, R., Gavino Novillo, M., et al. (2011). Forest impact on floods due to extreme rainfall and snowmelt in four Latin American environments 1: Field data analysis. Journal of Hydrology, 400, 281291. BISDA-DPU-NTB. (2012). Standar Operating Prosedure, Mutu Pengelolaan Hidrologi (Standard Operating Procedure, Quality Management Hydrology). Balai Informasi Sumber Daya Air, Dinas Pekerjaan Umum, Nusa Tenggara Barat. BNPB. (2012). Peraturan Nomor 02 Tahun 2012. Pedoman Umum Pengkajian Risiko Bencana. Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana (BNPB), Jakarta. Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana, Jakarta. BNPB. (2013a). Indonesia: National progress report on the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action (20112013). Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana (BNPB), Jakarta, Indonesia. BNPB. (2013b). Report from Indonesias National Consultation on HFA2 and Post -2015 Development Agenda, February 11, 2013. Indonesia National Agency for Disaster Management - BNPB, Jakarta, Indonesia. BPS. (2011). Trends of the Selected Socio-Economic Indicators of Indonesia Perkembangan Beberapa Indikator Utama Sosial-Ekonomi Indonesia, Nov 2011 Katalog BPS: 3101015. Badan Pusat Statistik BPS Statistics Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia. BPS-KalBar. (2011). Kalimantan Barat Dalam Angka. Kalimantan Barat in Figures 2011 . Badan Pusat Statistik Provinsi Kalimantan Barat, Pontianak, Indonesia. BPS-KalSel. (2009). Kalimantan Selatan Dalam Angka. Kalimantan Selatan in Figures 2009 . Badan Pusat Statistik Provinsi Kalimantan Selatan, Banjermasin, Indonesia. BPS-KalTim. (2011). Kalimantan Timur Dalam Angka. Kalimantan Timur in Figures 2011 . Badan Pusat Statistik Provinsi Kalimantan Timur, Samarinda, Indonesia. Bright, E.A., Coleman, P.R., King, A.L. & Rose, A.N. (2008). LandScan 2007. Oak Ridge National Laboratory SE, Oak Ridge, TN. Bruijnzeel, L. a. (2004). Hydrological functions of tropical forests: not seeing the soil for the trees? Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 104, 185228. De Bruyn, M., Stelbrink, B., Hall, R., Carvalho, G.R., Cannon, C., van den Bergh, G., et al. (2013). Borneo is a major evolutionary hotspot for Southeast Asian biodiversity. Current Biology, In Review. Campbell-Smith, G., Campbell-Smith, M., Singleton, I. & Linkie, M. (2011). Apes in space: Saving an imperilled Orangutan population in Sumatra. PLoS ONE, 6, e17210. Campbell-Smith, G., Simanjorang, H.V.P., Leader-Williams, N. & Linkie, M. (2010). Local attitudes and perceptions toward crop-raiding by Orangutans (Pongo abelii) and other nonhuman primates in Northern Sumatra, Indonesia. American Journal of Primatology, 72, 866876. CARE International. (2009). Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis Handbook . CARE International. Carlson, K.M., Curran, L.M., Asner, G.P., Pittman, A.M., Trigg, S.N. & Marion Adeney, J. (2013). Carbon emissions from forest conversion by Kalimantan oil palm plantations. Nature Climate Change, 3, 283287. Case, M., Ardiansyah, F. & Spector, E. (2007). Climate Change in Indonesia - Implications for Humans and Nature. WWF World Wildlife fund. Daniel, E.B., Camp, J.V., LeBoeuf, E.J., Penrod, J.R., Dobbins, J.P. & Abkowitz, M.D. (2011). Watershed Modeling and its Applications: A State-of-the-Art Review. The Open Hydrology Journal, 5, 2650.

43

Dean, A. & Salim, A. (2012). Heart of Borneo - Investing in Nature for a Green Economy. Technical Background Material. Kalimantan InVEST and LCM Modeling. WWF Heart of Borneo Global Initiative, www.hobgreeneconomy.org. Dewi, S., van Noordwijk, M., Ekadinata, A. & Pfund, J.-L. (2013). Protected areas within multifunctional landscapes: Squeezing out intermediate land use intensities in the tropics? Land Use Policy, 30, 3856. Van Dijk, A.I.J.M., van Noordwijk, M., Calder, I.R., Bruijnzeel, S.L.A., Schellekens, J. & Chappell, N.A. (2009). Forest-flood relation still tenuous - comment on Global evidence that deforestation amplifies flood risk and severity in the developing world by C. J. A. Bradshaw, NS Sodi, K. S.-H. Peh and BW Brook. Global Change Biology, 15, 110115. Directorate of National Mapping Malaysia. (1968). Soil Map of Sarawak. Malaysia Timor. Land and Survey Department, Sarawak, Malaysia. Directorate of National Mapping Malaysia. (1974). The Soils of Sabah. The British Governments Overseas Development Administration(Land Resources Division), United Kingdom. Elith, J., Leathwick, J.R. & Hastie, T. (2008). A working guide to boosted regression trees. Journal of Animal Ecology, 77, 802813. Elson, D. (2011). Cost-Benefit Analysis of a Shift to a Low Carbon Economy in the Land Use Sector in Indonesia . UK Climate Change Unit of the British Embassy, Jakarta, Indonesia. Enthoven, J.J.K. (1903). Bijdragen tot de geografie van Borneos Westerafdeeling. 2 Vols . E.J. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands. ESRI. (2011). ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. FAO. (2011). State of the Worlds Forests 2011. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, http://www.fao.org/forestry/sofo/en/. FAO, IIASA, ISRIC, ISSCAS & JRC. (2012). Harmonized World Soil Database (version 1.2). FAO, Rome, Italy and IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria. Farr, T., Rosen, P., Caro, E., Crippen, R., Duren, R., Hensley, S., et al. (2007). The Shuttle Radar Topography Mission. Reviews of Geophysics, 45, RG2004. Fuller, D.O., Hardiono, M. & Meijaard, E. (2011). Deforestation Projections for Carbon-Rich Peat Swamp Forests of Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Environmental Management, 48, 436447. Hijmans, R.J., Cameron, S.E., Parra, J.L., Jones, P.G. & Jarvis, A. (2005). Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. International Journal of Climatology, 25, 19651978. Hijmans, R.J., Phillips, S., Leathwick, J.R. & Elith, J. (2013). dismo v 08-11. CRAN - Comprehensive R Archive Network. Hoekman, D.H., Vissers, M.A.M. & Wielaard, N. (2010). PALSAR Wide-Area Mapping of Borneo: Methodology and Map Validation. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing , 3, 605617. ICCC. (2012). Policy Memo: Peatland Definition - From Uncertainty to Certainty. Indonesia Climate Change Center and National Council on Climate Change , Jakarta http://iccc-network.net/document/PM01_082012_EN.pdf. Idi, B.Y. & Karamudiin, M.N. (2010). Mapping and analysis of forest peatland with ground penetrating radar . Bulletin Geospatial (Terbitan MaCGDI), Universit of Teknologi Malaysia, Johor, Malaysia. IFRC. (2013). Vulnerability and Capacity Assesment (VCA) [WWW Document]. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. URL http://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/disaster-management/preparing-fordisaster/disaster-preparedness-tools1/

44

IPCC. (2012). Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA. Jenness, J. (2012). DEM Surface tools. Jenness Enterprises. Johnson, J.A. (2012). Assessing the Impact of Climate Change in Borneo . World Wildlife Fund. Knapen, H. (1997). Epidemics, droughts, and other uncertainties on Southeast Borneo during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In: Paper Landscapes. Explorations in the environmental history of Indonesia (eds. Boomgaard, P., Colombijn, F. & Henley, D.). KITLV Press, Leiden, pp. 121152. Knapen, H. (2001). Forests of fortune? The environmental history of Southeast Borneo, 1600-1880. , Leiden. KITLV Press, Leiden. Koh, L.P., Miettinen, J., Liew, S.C. & Ghazoul, J. (2011). Remotely sensed evidence of tropical peatland conversion to oil palm. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 108, 51275132. KTTR & DNPI. (2010). East Kalimantan Environmentally Sustainable Development Strategy - Draft. Provincial Government of East Kalimantan, and the National Council on Climate Change (Dewan Nasional Perubahan Iklim, DNPI). Kunkel, Kunkel, K.E., Karl, T.R., Easterling, D.R., Redmond, K., Young, J., et al. (2013). Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) and Climate Change. Geophysical Research Letters, 40, doi:10.1002/grl.50334. LHeureux, M.L., Lee, S. & Lyon, B. (2013). Recent multidecadal strengthening of the Walker circulation across the tropical Pacific. Nature Climate Change, 3, 571576. Lucarelli, B. (2010). The history and future of Indonesias coal industry: impact of politics and regulatory framework on industry structure and performance. Stanford. Program on Energy and Sustainable Development, Working Paper #93, Stanford University. Lusiana, B., Widodo, R., Mulyoutami, E., Nugroho, D.A. & van Noordwijk, M. (2008a). Assessing Hydrological Situation of Kapuas Hulu Basin, Kapuas Hulu Regency, West Kalimantan. Working Paper No. 57 . World Agroforestry Centre, Bogor, Indonesia. Lusiana, B., Widodo, R.H., Van Noordwijk, M., Mulyoutami, E. & Nugroho, D.A. (2008b). Rapid Hydrological Appraisal: two case studies in integrating knowledge of watershed functions in Indonesia . Maimunah, S. (2013). Banjir Dan Keselamatan Warga [WWW Document]. Indoprogress 4 Februari 2013. URL http://indoprogress.com/banjir-dan-keselamatan-warga/ Mattangkilang, T. (2012a). Miners Blamed for Flooding in East Kalimantan. The Jakarta Globe. Mattangkilang, T. (2012b). When the Mining Is Over, a Toxic Mess Remains. The Jakarta Globe. Media Indonesia. (2010a). Hampir Seluruh Kabupaten di Kalsel Dilanda Banjir. Kalimantan News. Media Indonesia. (2010b). Banjir Kalsel Meluas - Widespread flooding in South Kalimantan. Kalimantan News. Meijaard, E., Abram, N.K., Wells, J.A., Pellier, A.-S., Ancrenaz, M., Gaveau, D.L.A., et al. (2013). Peoples perceptions on the importance of forests on Borneo. PLoS ONE, In press. Meijaard, E., Albar, G., Rayadin, Y., Nardiyono, Ancrenaz, M. & Spehar, S. (2010). Unexpected ecological resilience in Bornean Orangutans and implications for pulp and paper plantation management. PLoS ONE, 5, e12813. Meijaard, E., Buchori, D., Hadiprakarsa, Y., Utami-Atmoko, S.S., Nurcahyo, A., Tjiu, A., et al. (2011a). Quantifying killing of orangutans and human-orangutan conflict in Kalimantan, Indonesia. PLoS ONE, 6, e27491.

45

Meijaard, E., Mengersen, K., Buchori, D., Nurcahyo, A., Ancrenaz, M., Wich, S., et al. (2011b). Why dont we ask? A complementary method for assessing the status of great apes. PLoS ONE, 6, e18008. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0018008. Meijaard, E., Wich, S., Ancrenaz, M. & Marshall, J. (2012). Not by science alone: Why orangutan conservationists must think outside the box. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1249, 2944. Miettinen, J., Shi, C., Tan, W.J. & Liew, S.C. (2011). 2010 land cover map of insular Southeast Asia in 250-m spatial resolution. Remote Sensing Letters, 3, 1120. MKN. (2012). Malaysia: National progress report on the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action (2011-2013) - interim. National Security Council of Malaysia - Majilis Keselamatan Negara, Putrajaya, Malaysia. Van Noordwijk, M. (2008). Rapid Hydrological Appraisal (RHA): An Integrated Approach to Assess Watershed Functions and Management Options. World Agroforestry Centre - ICRAF, SEA Regional Office, Bogor, Indonesia. OGorman, P.A. (2012). Sensitivity of tropical precipitation extremes to climate change. Nature Geoscience, 5, 697700. Oldeman, I.R., Las, I. & Muladi, S. (1980). The agroclimatic maps of Kalimantan, Maluku, Irian Jaya and Bali, West and East Nusa Tenggara. Contributions from the Central Research Institute for Agriculture Bogor , 60, 131. Oxfam. (2012). Analisis Kerentanan dan Kapasitas Partisipatif - Sebuah Pedoman Practisi. Oxfam in Indonesia, and Australia-Indonesia Facility for Disaster Reduction (AIFDR), Jakarta, Indonesia. Pemprov Kaltim. (2013). Bantuan Pemprov untuk Pananganan Banjir di Samarinda Rp605 Miliar. Phua, M.-H. & Minowa, M. (2000). Evaluation of environmental functions of tropical forest in Kinabalu Park, Sabah, Malaysia using GIS and remote sensing techniques: Implications to forest conservation planning. Journal of Forest Research, 5, 123131. R Core Team. (2013). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. RePPProt. (1990). The land resources of Indonesia, a national overview. Regional Physical Planning Program for Transmigration. Land Resources Department of the Overseas Development Administration (Government of U.K.) and Ministry of Transmigration (Government of Indonesia), Jakarta. Rooswiadji, T.A., Putera, M.H. & Tiju, A. (2012). Project Progress Report. Indonesia Equitable Payment for Watershed Services (EPWS) Programme. Mendalam Sub Catchments, Upper Kapuas Basin of West Kalimantan . WWFIndonesia. Sabarini, P. & Sulaiman, N. (2013). Samarinda floods blamed on mining. The Jakarta Post. Schophuys, H.J. (1936). Het stroomgebied van de Barito. Landbouwkundige kenschets en landbourvoorlichting. Doctoral Dissertation. Landbouw Hoogeschool, Wagengingen . H. Veenman & Zonen, Wageningen, the Netherlands. Schwaner, C.A.L.M. (1854). Borneo. Beschrijving van het stroomgebied van den Barito en reizen langs eenige voorname riveiren van het zuidoostelijke gedeelte van dat eiland in de jaren 1843 -1847. 2 Vols. van Kampen, Amsterdam. Scott, Z. & Tarazona, M. (2011). Decentralization and Disaster Risk Reduction. Study on disaster risk reduction, decentralization and political economy analysis for UNDP contribution to the 2011 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. UNISDR, Geneva, Switzerland. Sellato, B. (1989). Naga Dan Burung Enggang. Hornbill and Dragon. Kalimantan, Sarawak, Sabah, Brunei . Elf Aquitaine, Jakarta. Semenov, M.A. & Stratonovitch, P. (2010). Use of multi-model ensembles from global climate models for assessment of climate change impacts. Climate Research, 41, 114.

46

Sheil, D. & Meijaard, E. (2010). Purity and Prejudice: Deluding Ourselves About Biodiversity Conservation. Biotropica, 42, 566568. Sidle, R.C., Ziegler, A.D., Negishi, J.N., Nik, A.R., Siew, R. & Turkelboom, F. (2006). Erosion processes in steep terrain Truths, myths, and uncertainties related to forest management in Southeast Asia. Forest Ecology and Management, 224, 199225. Simamora, A.P. (2011). Government wants national parks to become profit centers. The Jakarta Post. Suhendra, Y. (2012). Elite Kalbar Masih Remehkan Banjir - KalBar elite still underestimate flood. Tribun Pontianak. Sutton, P., Elvidge, C., Tuttle, B., Ziskin, D., Baugh, K. & Ghosh, T. (2010). Impervious Surface Area of South East Asia. National Geophysical Data Centre, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, Colorado USA. UNDP. (2009). Indonesia: Institutional and Legislative Systems for Early Warning and Disaster Risk Reduction . Regional Programme on Capacity Building for Sustainable Recovery and Risk Reduction, United Nations Development Programme, New York. UNISDR. (2011). Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Geneva, Switzerland. Venter, O., Possingham, H.P., Hovani, L., Dewi, S., Griscom, B., Paoli, G.D., et al. (2012). Can we have our carbon and eat too? Using systematic conservation planning to minimize REDD+ conflict with agriculture and logging. In review. Vernimmen, R.R.E., Hooijer, A., Mamenun, Aldrian, E. & van Dijk, A.I.J.M. (2012). Evaluation and bias correction of satellite rainfall data for drought monitoring in Indonesia. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 16, 133146. Wahyu, A., Kuntoro, A.A. & Yamashita, T. (2010). Annual and Seasonal Discharge Responses to Forest / Land Cover Changes and Climate Variations in Kapuas River Basin , Indonesia. Journal of International Development and Cooperation, 16, 81100. Walsh, R.P.D., Nussbaum, R., Fowler, D., Weilenmann, M. & Hector, A. (2011). Conclusion: applying South East Asia Rainforest Research Programme science to land-use management policy and practice in a changing landscape and climate. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 366, 33543358. Watts, M.E., Ball, I.R., Stewart, R.S., Klein, C.J., Wilson, K., Steinback, C., et al. (2009). Marxan with Zones: Software for optimal conservation based land- and sea-use zoning. Environmental Modelling & Software, 24, 15131521. Wetlands International. (2011). Peatlands in Indonesias National REDD+ Strategy. Responding to the Public Consultation of the draft National REDD+ Strategy of Indonesia issued on August 18, 2011. Version 2 . Wich, S., Riswan, Jenson, J., Refisch, J. & Nellemann, C. (2011). Orangutans and the Economics of Sustainable Forest Development in Sumatra. Wich, S.A., Gaveau, D., Abram, N., Ancrenaz, M., Baccini, A., Brend, S., et al. (2012a). Understanding the Impacts of LandUse Policies on a Threatened Species: Is There a Future for the Bornean Orang-utan? PLoS ONE, 7, e49142. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049142. Wich, S.A., Gaveau, D., Abram, N., Ancrenaz, M., Baccini, A., Brend, S., et al. (2012b). Understanding the impacts of landuse policies on a threatened species: is there a future for the Bornean orang-utan? PLoS ONE, 7, e49142. Wilby, R.L. & Dawson, C.W. (2012). The Statistical DownScaling Model: insights from one decade of application. International Journal of Climatology, doi:10.1002/joc.3544. WRI & Sekala. (2012). Peatland depth in Kalimantan, spatial dataset digitized from maps at 1:250,000 scale by Wetlands International. World Resources Institute and Sekala.

47

Wulffraat, S., Morrison, J., Shapiro, A., Greenwood, C., Payne, J. & Burgi, A. (2012). The Environmental Status 2012 of the Heart of Borneo. WWF Heart of Borneo Global Initiative. Zimmermann, B., Papritz, A. & Elsenbeer, H. (2010). Asymmetric response to disturbance and recovery: Changes of soil permeability under forest-pasture-forest transitions. Geoderma, 159, 209215.

48