Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3774
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3774
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
17 Feb 2025
| 17 Feb 2025
Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS).
Indigenous Wisdom in Flash Flood Adaptation and Mitigation: Insights from the Gayo Highlands, Indonesia
Abstract. Flash floods rank among the most catastrophic hydrometeorological disasters, profoundly affecting human lives, infrastructure, and ecosystems. As climate change intensifies their frequency and severity, locally tailored adaptation and mitigation strategies are essential, particularly in regions with limited access to advanced technologies. This study investigates the role of indigenous wisdom in mitigating flash flood risks, focusing on the socio-ecological challenges of the Gayo Highlands in Aceh, Indonesia. The region’s steep terrain, high rainfall, and shifting land use contribute to its vulnerability, making community-driven strategies, such as river patrolling, reforestation, and adaptive stilt house construction, vital for disaster mitigation. Using a mixed-methods approach, the research identifies these practices as integrative solutions that blend ecological knowledge with cultural traditions. The findings reveal that these grassroots efforts have successfully prevented major floods over the past nine years, enhancing both ecological stability and societal resilience. Nationally recognized through the Kalpataru Award in 2023 and internationally acclaimed for their innovative community-based approaches, these practices underscore the critical role of traditional knowledge in disaster risk management. However, contextual adaptation is crucial, as such strategies must be tailored to fit diverse socio-ecological conditions in other regions. This research emphasizes the necessity of integrating indigenous wisdom with ecosystem-based frameworks and modern advancements, such as early warning systems and digital mapping tools, to develop scalable and globally relevant mitigation models, offering a practical framework for replication in other disaster-prone regions.
How to cite. Azizah, C., Lizar, C. A., Robo, S., Zuraihan, Arsyani, I., Iqbal, M., Muharramsyah, R., and Ismahadi: Indigenous Wisdom in Flash Flood Adaptation and Mitigation: Insights from the Gayo Highlands, Indonesia, EGUsphere [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3774, 2025.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.
Download & links
Download & links
- Preprint
(1167 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 31 Mar 2025)
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor
| : Report abuse
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3774', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Feb 2025
reply
A Review to Copernicus – Natural Hazards and Earth System Science
Indigenous Wisdom in Flash Flood Adaptation and Mitigation: Insights from the Gayo Highlands, Indonesia
General Comments.
This article has presented a very interesting context of disaster risk reduction, it has very specific spatial form that cause the hazards. However, this article has not yet described the understanding of natural hazard in concise structure, and put more attention to the description of indigenous wisdom. The method is not clearly identify the parameter use in the research, therefore the scientific discussion left without any strong correspondence coined by the theoretical overview. The result should at least relate between the option of indigenous wisdom with the natural hazard characteristics, which is considerably missing in the article.
- The methods employed in the research is absence in the abstracts. The only explanation of using mixed method is there, however, little information shown to describe how the data collection, data analytics etc.
- In the scope of natural hazards and earth system science, the importance to indicate physical characteristics of Gayo Highland is important.
- Why the area exposed to flash flood, it is a highlands right, so a geomorphological or hydrometeorological reasoning will be an beneficiary to the reader?
- What are the main cause of the flash flood? This will be much related to the option of adaptation and mitigation strategy.
- The relevance between the physical characteristics and the existing potential local wisdom should also be elaborated further.
- Study Area.
- The line 80 – 85 has elaborated the reason of several landslide occurs in the area, that induce increase risk of flash flood at Wih Gile sub-watershed. Where is the Wih Gile Sub-Watershed?
- The Figure 1 need to be updated with the bigger scale so that it is easier to understand the spatial context of the research area.
- The Figure 1b need to describe in specific where are the hazard map for the flash flood?
- The deforestation has been stated as the fundamental cause for any potential hazards, however, it has limited support of data to relate the deforestation and number of hydrometeorological related disaster occurrence in the area.
- How is the land cover change in the area?
- Materials and methods.
- Why the research decide 20 interviews? How to justify the number of interview with the accuracy of the collected information?
- Why the FGD involve 10 – 15 participants? The questions came from the population representation or how things is formulated within the FGD?
- How the 94 respondents came to light? Is it quantitative sampling mechanism? What is the total number of the population for the research area?
- During interview, FGD and questionnaire, what are the fundamental questions and what are the type of the key questions?
- Results and Discussions.
- It is interesting discussion, however, this article need to communicate between the theoretical context provided to be implemented in the methodological section, i.e. parameter selection, and translate the finding in a structured manner.
- Figure 4 is interesting, however it is also crucial to link the land condition with the hazard map so that it has significant discussion whether the land condition at risk area is worsened/not.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Cut Azizah, 20 Feb 2025
reply
Thank you for your valuable comments and feedback on this manuscript. We greatly appreciate your efforts in providing constructive suggestions to enhance the quality of our research. Below, we provide detailed and data-driven responses to each comment, ensuring that all promised revisions will be incorporated into the revised version of the manuscript.
- We will revise the abstract to include information about the mixed-methods approach, the number of interviews (20 informants), FGDs (3 sessions, 10–15 participants), questionnaire surveys (94 respondents), and data analysis using thematic methods, descriptive statistics, and overlay maps to visualize land cover changes.
- The explanation of why the Gayo Highlands are prone to flash floods due to geomorphological and hydrometeorological factors has been outlined in the introduction (lines 39–45). However, we will provide a more detailed explanation to enhance understanding of this issue. Naturally, this explanation will also relate to the local wisdom developed by the community as an adaptation to their natural environment.
- The location of the Wih Gile Sub-watershed has been described in the caption of Figure 1 as part of the Peusangan Watershed, situated in Aceh Province, Sumatra Island. This information provides spatial context regarding the study area. To enhance readers' understanding, we will update Figure 1 with a larger scale to provide a clearer spatial context of the study area. Additionally, in Figure 1b, we will include a flood hazard map specifically indicating hazard areas where flash floods have impacted the local population. Regarding the relationship between deforestation and hydrometeorological disasters, we have explained that forest conversion into coffee plantations has increased by 10% over the past decade, resulting in the loss of 5,000 hectares of forest cover. This has contributed to the ecosystem's reduced capacity to absorb rainfall and stabilize soil, thereby increasing the risk of flash floods and landslides. However, we acknowledge that quantitative data directly linking deforestation to the frequency of disasters is still limited. Therefore, we will strengthen this discussion with additional references and available secondary data. The analysis of land cover changes in the area will be conducted in two periods. The pre-2016 period will be analyzed to provide context regarding land conditions before the revegetation program, while the 2016–2024 period is presented in Figure 4, which illustrates an 18% increase in forest cover following the implementation of the revegetation program.
- The number of interviews, FGD participants, and survey respondents has been explained in the Materials and Methods section. Below is a more detailed explanation to address the reviewer's questions. A total of 20 informants were selected based on the principle of data saturation in qualitative research, where additional interviews no longer provided new significant information. The informants were chosen from various groups, including traditional leaders, LPHK members, affected community members, and local government representatives to ensure diverse perspectives. Each FGD session involved 10–15 participants to maintain effective discussion dynamics. The participants were selected to represent community groups directly involved in flash flood mitigation, such as farmers, LPHK members, women's groups, and youth. The questions aimed to explore collective understanding of flood risks, experiences during flood events, and adaptation and mitigation practices. The 94 survey respondents were selected using purposive sampling and snowball sampling to ensure that they had direct experience with flash floods and local wisdom-based mitigation strategies. With a total population of 771 individuals and approximately 150–190 households in the study area, the sample of 94 respondents is considered sufficient to gain comprehensive insights into community perceptions and mitigation practices. Key questions during interviews and FGDs focused on the causes of flash floods, natural signs observed before floods, experiences during flood events, and the role of local wisdom in risk mitigation. The questionnaire covered respondents' identities, knowledge of flash floods, hydrometeorological signs, preparedness actions before and during floods, and participation in community activities related to disaster mitigation. We will clarify the Materials and Methods section in the revised manuscript to ensure that the selection of interviewees, FGD participants, and survey respondents is clearly understood by readers.
- We recognize the importance of connecting the theoretical context presented with the research methods applied. In the revised manuscript, we will further clarify this connection. The main point of this map is to demonstrate that the mitigation efforts carried out by Mpu Uteun over the past nine years have been successful, as evidenced by the land use analysis. In line with theoretical understanding, forest land use plays a crucial role in preventing landslides that can cause river damming, which ultimately poses a risk of triggering flash floods.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3774-AC1
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3774', Anonymous Referee #2, 12 Mar 2025
reply
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The topic of this research—examining the role of indigenous knowledge in disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation—is highly relevant and timely. However, while the case study presents potentially interesting findings, the paper in its current form lacks the necessary conceptual, methodological, and writing rigor to meet the standards required for publication in Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences. I therefore recommend rejection in its current form, with significant revisions required before resubmission. My primary concerns are as follows:
Conceptual Issues: Limited Engagement with Relevant Literature
- Lack of a Clear Definition of Indigenous Wisdom: The paper centers on the concept of ‘indigenous wisdom’ but does not engage with the extensive existing literature on this topic. Furthermore, the terms ‘traditional knowledge’ and ‘local knowledge’ are used interchangeably, despite their distinct conceptual and analytical differences. The authors must provide a clear working definition and align it with appropriate academic discourse.
- Theoretical Engagement is Insufficient: Beyond defining the concept, there is a need for deeper theoretical engagement. Indigenous, local, and traditional knowledge systems have specific characteristics, such as their spatio-temporal confinement, replicability, local embedment, and transferability. The paper does not critically examine these aspects or their implications for DRR.
- Lack of Critical Perspective on the Role of Indigenous Knowledge in DRR: The manuscript presents indigenous knowledge as inherently beneficial without acknowledging its limitations, particularly in the context of climate change and evolving hazard profiles. A more balanced discussion, engaging with existing critiques in the literature, is necessary.
- Use of Terminology: The term ‘natural disaster’ is outdated and widely criticized. Disasters result from the interaction of hazards with vulnerability and exposure; they are not ‘natural.’ The authors should revise their terminology accordingly.
Methodological Weaknesses
The methodological section lacks sufficient detail and does not justify the research design. Key issues include:
- Case Study Justification: The authors do not explain why a case study approach was appropriate for this research.
- Sampling Strategy: There is no discussion on how participants for the qualitative and quantitative components were selected. What criteria were used? How was representativeness ensured?
- Research Instruments and Data Collection: There is little information on what was asked during Key Informant Interviews (KIIs), Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), and surveys. How were these questions designed? How were participants approached?
- Missing Descriptive Statistics: The manuscript references descriptive statistics, but these are not presented.
- Lack of Detail on Qualitative Analysis: The paper states that thematic analysis was used, but this is neither referenced nor explained. What were the identified themes, and how were they derived?
Writing and Presentation Issues
- Unclear Distinction Between Findings and Literature: In the results section, it is often unclear what findings stem from the research itself and what is drawn from the broader literature. This lack of clarity weakens the paper’s contribution.
- Data Source Ambiguity: There is no clear differentiation between findings from interviews, FGDs, and survey data. This omission makes it difficult to assess the validity of the results.
- Absence of Qualitative Data Quotes: Despite apparently having a rich qualitative dataset, no participant quotes are included. These would enhance credibility and provide direct insight into the research findings.
- Integrated Discussion and Results: While integrating discussion with results is an acceptable approach, in this case, it obscures the paper’s broader contributions. The manuscript needs a clearer articulation of its significance for the wider academic discourse.
In its current form, the manuscript lacks the conceptual depth, methodological rigor, and clarity necessary for publication. The issues outlined above mean that, at best, the paper reads as a collection of anecdotal examples rather than a robust scholarly contribution. While the topic is undoubtedly important, substantial revisions are required to bring the manuscript up to the standard.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3774-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Cut Azizah, 14 Mar 2025
reply
We sincerely appreciate the thorough review and valuable feedback provided to enhance the quality of our manuscript. We acknowledge that certain aspects need further clarification and improvement.
Below, we provide our responses to each comment, referring to sections in the manuscript that already address the concerns or outlining the revisions we will make.
Conceptual Issues: Limited Engagement with Relevant Literature
- Lack of a Clear Definition of Indigenous Wisdom
We acknowledge that the definition of indigenous wisdom in our manuscript has not been explicitly stated. In the revised version, we will provide a more detailed definition in the Introduction, referencing relevant literature to distinguish between indigenous wisdom, local knowledge, and traditional knowledge. - Insufficient Theoretical Engagement
Most discussions on the characteristics and limitations of indigenous knowledge have been included in the Introduction (lines 50–69). However, we will further expand this discussion by incorporating a more critical analysis of the limitations and transferability of indigenous knowledge in disaster risk reduction (DRR). - Lack of a Critical Perspective on the Role of Indigenous Knowledge in DRR
We understand the importance of maintaining a balanced perspective when discussing the benefits and limitations of indigenous knowledge in disaster risk reduction. However, we believe that indigenous knowledge still plays a crucial role in DRR, particularly in areas with limited access to modern technology, as we have stated in the Introduction. In the revised manuscript, we will further enrich the discussion by highlighting how the integration of indigenous knowledge and modern technology can enhance disaster mitigation effectiveness. We have already referenced Montz & Gruntfest (2002), which emphasizes that effective flash flood mitigation requires a combination of technology and community involvement.
- Inappropriate Use of the Term “Natural Disaster”
We have reviewed our manuscript and found that while the term "natural disaster" is not explicitly used, some sections tend to describe flash floods as purely natural phenomena without emphasizing their occurrence as a result of the interaction between hazards, vulnerability, and exposure. In the revised version, we will address this issue to ensure more accurate terminology.
Methodological Weaknesses
- Justification of the Case Study
In the manuscript, the rationale for selecting the Gayo Highlands as a case study has been explained in the Study Area section (lines 70–90). However, we will further clarify the scientific justification for choosing this location in the revised version. - Sampling Strategy
We acknowledge that the sampling methodology has not been described in sufficient detail. We will enhance the Methodology section (lines 96–111) by providing a more detailed explanation of how interview, FGD, and survey participants were selected, including the inclusion and exclusion criteria used. - Research Instruments and Data Collection
The manuscript states that data were collected through in-depth interviews, FGDs, and participatory observation (lines 99–111). However, we will add a more detailed description of the questions used in interviews and FGDs to enhance methodological transparency. - Lack of Descriptive Statistics
Upon review, we recognize that while descriptive statistical analysis was conducted, its presentation was not entirely explicit. In the revised version, we will provide a more detailed narrative explanation of the descriptive statistical results obtained. - Qualitative Analysis Method
We have used thematic analysis to analyze qualitative data (lines 114–116), but the explanation remains insufficiently detailed. In the revised manuscript, we will include references to support this method and describe the step-by-step process involved in the analysis.
Writing and Presentation Issues
- Unclear Distinction Between Findings and Literature
We recognize that in some sections, particularly in the Discussion, the distinction between our research findings and referenced literature is not entirely clear. In the revised version, we will ensure that our findings are more explicitly distinguished from the cited literature. - Unclear Data Sources
While we have described data collection methods in the Methodology section (lines 95–116), we have not explicitly indicated the source of each finding in the Results and Discussion In the revision, we will clarify whether a particular finding is derived from interviews, FGDs, or surveys. - Absence of Qualitative Data Quotes
We will revise the manuscript to include direct quotes from interviews and FGDs in the Results section, reinforcing our qualitative findings. - Integration of Results and Discussion That Obscures the Study’s Contribution
In the revised manuscript, we will more clearly emphasize the study’s primary contributions and ensure that results and discussions are presented more distinctly. Additionally, we will strengthen the conclusion to highlight how our study contributes to the literature on indigenous knowledge in DRR.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3774-AC2 - Lack of a Clear Definition of Indigenous Wisdom
Viewed
Total article views: 258 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Cumulative views and downloads
(calculated since 17 Feb 2025)
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 187 | 66 | 5 | 258 | 4 | 4 |
- HTML: 187
- PDF: 66
- XML: 5
- Total: 258
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Total article views: 271 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Thereof 271 with geography defined
and 0 with unknown origin.
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
1
Latest update: 22 Mar 2025
Environmental and Natural Resources Management Master Program, Almuslim University, Bireuen, 24252, Indonesia
Civil Engineering Program, Almuslim University, Bireuen, 24252, Indonesia
Cut Ayu Lizar
Environmental Science Program, Almuslim University, Bireuen, 24252, Indonesia
Sarif Robo
Soil Science Program, Khairun Gambesi University, South Ternate, 97711, Indonesia
Zuraihan
Architecture Program, Almuslim University, Bireuen, 24252, Indonesia
Isma Arsyani
Civil Engineering Program, Almuslim University, Bireuen, 24252, Indonesia
Muhammad Iqbal
Social Science Education Program, Almuslim University, Bireuen, 24252, Indonesia
Rambang Muharramsyah
Social Science Education Program, Almuslim University, Bireuen, 24252, Indonesia
Ismahadi
Environmental and Natural Resources Management Master Program, Almuslim University, Bireuen, 24252, Indonesia
Short summary
This study examines the Gayo community’s strategies for adapting to and mitigating flash floods in Indonesia. Using field observations, interviews, and GIS analysis, it highlights practices like river patrolling, reforestation, and stilt house construction. Integrated with modern tools like early warning systems, these methods have prevented flash floods for nearly a decade, emphasizing the importance of combining local wisdom with scientific methods for scalable disaster mitigation.
This study examines the Gayo community’s strategies for adapting to and mitigating flash floods...