Governing urban floods in an emerging capital region: a social-ecological-technological systems policy analysis of Samarinda City, Indonesia

Introduction

Urban flooding is increasingly shaped by interactions among land-use change, social vulnerability, ecological degradation, and the capacity of infrastructure and institutions. Conventional responses that focus primarily on drainage enlargement, embankments, or emergency action may reduce specific hazards, but they often fail to address the feedbacks that reproduce flood risk over time. Urban resilience therefore depends on the combined performance of social institutions, ecological processes, and technological systems rather than on a single category of intervention (Liao, 2012; Meerow et al., 2016; Chang et al., 2021).

Samarinda, the capital of East Kalimantan Province, is located along the Mahakam River and is affected by riverine, pluvial, and drainage-related flooding. Flood risk is intensified by rapid urban development, sedimentation, land conversion, development in water-retention areas, and uneven drainage performance. Local studies have also identified managerial, institutional, environmental, and technical constraints in flood mitigation (Effendy, 2022; Khaerani, 2022). BPS reported that 31 urban villages were affected by flooding in 2024 and 53 in 2025. These observations indicate that flood impacts remain geographically widespread, but the year-to-year difference should not be interpreted as a long-term trend or a direct measure of governance performance because rainfall, event severity, and reporting conditions may vary between years (BPS-Statistics of Samarinda Municipality, 2026).

The policy significance of Samarinda has expanded with the establishment of Ibu Kota Nusantara (IKN). IKN was legally established through Law No. 3 of 2022, subsequently amended by Law No. 21 of 2023, while its masterplan and spatial-planning framework were detailed in Presidential Regulations No. 63 and No. 64 of 2022. In 2025, the Nusantara Capital Authority initiated the Tri-City Development Plan to integrate IKN, Samarinda, and Balikpapan through regional planning covering infrastructure, environmental systems, and social development (Government of Indonesia, 2022a, 2022b, 2022c, 2023; Nusantara Capital Authority, 2025). Samarinda is therefore no longer only a municipal flood-risk case; it is an established city within an emerging capital-region system.

This regional transformation creates both opportunities and risks. New transport corridors, housing demand, economic activity, and service infrastructure can strengthen regional development, but they may also accelerate land conversion, increase impervious surfaces, alter runoff pathways, and place additional pressure on water, drainage, and ecosystem services. Research on land-use transition in the IKN area has already highlighted rapid urban expansion and the need for inclusive governance and environmental safeguards (Syaban and Appiah-Opoku, 2024). These processes do not imply that IKN directly causes flooding in Samarinda. Rather, they demonstrate why future flood governance must account for cumulative development pressures, interconnected watersheds, cross-boundary infrastructure, and institutional coordination across the wider capital region.

The Social-Ecological-Technological Systems (SETS) framework provides an appropriate basis for examining this challenge because it treats cities as coupled systems. Social components include laws, institutions, participation, preparedness, knowledge, and financing; ecological components include conservation, green infrastructure, and hydrological functions; and technological components include design standards, engineered infrastructure, maintenance, monitoring, and early-warning systems. Earlier research applying SETS to Samarinda and Balikpapan showed that flood governance in cities surrounding the new capital tended to privilege structural and technological interventions, while social and ecological integration remained incomplete (Ariyaningsih and Shaw, 2022). This apparent contrast is partly methodological rather than substantive. The present codebook classifies regulation, institutional responsibility, preparedness, and emergency management as social strategies, so a numerically dominant social domain does not necessarily indicate participatory or community-centred governance and can coexist with a broader policy orientation toward structural and technological intervention However, a systematic policy-level assessment of the relative representation of individual SETS components in Samarinda remains limited.

This study addresses two questions: (1) How are flood-related strategies in Samarinda distributed across the social, ecological, and technological domains? and (2) Which SETS categories are comparatively below the corpus mean in the existing policy corpus? The study contributes by combining a transparent document-coding procedure with an interpretation of what the identified gaps mean for Samarinda's role in the emerging Nusantara capital region. The IKN context is used as a governance and planning lens; it is not treated as an independent causal variable.

Literature Review

Urban flood governance: from flood control to integrated governance

Urban flood governance has increasingly shifted from conventional flood-control approaches toward integrated governance that considers institutional capacity, stakeholder participation, ecological processes, and infrastructure systems (Kim and Kim, 2025; Rözer et al., 2022). This shift reflects the recognition that flood resilience is shaped not only by engineered protection but also by the interaction between governance institutions, environmental functions, and technological systems (Liao, 2012; Meerow et al., 2016; Chang et al., 2021). Accordingly, integrated frameworks are increasingly needed to evaluate whether flood-related policies address these interconnected dimensions.

Integrated flood management combines control, ecosystem-based, and stakeholder involvement paradigms under a single umbrella, seeking the most suitable solution depending on regional conditions (Halbe et al., 2018). Nature-based solutions for flood risk management can deliver both social and ecological co-benefits, though gaps remain in resilience thinking, environmental change consideration, and collaborative trade-off management (Zhou et al., 2024). Contemporary governance frameworks increasingly recognize that community engagement must extend beyond consultation toward genuine inclusion addressing procedural, social, and environmental justice (Watkins and Collins, 2024). In addition, Community-level flood resilience depends on socio-cultural and income factors, with larger, older, and wealthier households adopting more adaptation measures (Mashi et al., 2020). The evolution from structural control to integrated governance is well-established across the literature, yet the evidence consistently shows that implementation lags behind conceptual advancement, fragmented institutions, weak community inclusion, and inadequate cross-scale coordination remain the defining challenges of this ongoing transition.

The Social–Ecological–Technological Systems (SETS) framework and its application

The Social–Ecological–Technological Systems (SETS) framework conceptualizes cities as interconnected systems in which urban resilience emerges from interactions among social institutions, ecological processes, and technological infrastructures (Kim et al., 2021; Chang et al., 2021).The social dimension includes governance, regulation, preparedness, participation, knowledge exchange, and financing. The ecological dimension concerns conservation, green infrastructure, ecosystem services, and hydrological functions. The technological dimension includes design standards, engineered infrastructure, operation and maintenance, monitoring, and early-warning systems (Kim et al., 2021; Chang et al., 2021). SETS is particularly relevant to urban flood governance because flood risk cannot be addressed effectively through infrastructure alone; it also depends on institutional coordination, ecological functioning, and long-term management.

Within the SETS framework, the social dimension (S) represents the political, cultural, institutional, and economic aspects that influence decision-making and adaptation capacity. This dimension includes governance mechanisms, stakeholder collaboration, public awareness, information systems, economic instruments, legal frameworks, and institutional arrangements. Kim et al. categorize social strategies into several components, including social safety nets (S1), education and knowledge transfer (S2), information and risk communication (S3), behavioral adaptation (S4), economic mechanisms (S5), legal instruments (S6), and institutional coordination (S7). In the context of spatial planning, the social dimension highlights the importance of coordination among governments, communities, and other stakeholders to ensure that spatial decisions are legitimate, inclusive, and adaptive (Kim et al., 2021; Chang et al., 2021; Ariyaningsih and Shaw, 2022).

The ecological dimension (E) focuses on natural systems, ecosystem processes, and environmental functions that contribute to resilience. According to Kim et al., (2021) ecological strategies include ecosystem-based adaptation (E1), green infrastructure (E2), and ecosystem management practices (E3). These strategies emphasize the role of natural systems, such as wetlands, forests, rivers, coastal ecosystems, and green spaces, in reducing climate risks and supporting sustainable development. Within spatial planning, this dimension is particularly relevant because land-use decisions directly influence ecosystem services, hydrological functions, biodiversity conservation, and environmental sustainability.

The technological dimension (T) represents the built environment and engineered systems that mediate interactions between society and ecosystems (Kim et al., 2021; Chang et al., 2021; Ariyaningsih and Shaw, 2022). This dimension includes planning and design standards (T1), engineered infrastructure (T2), infrastructure operation and maintenance (T3), and technological innovation (T4). Examples include drainage systems, flood protection infrastructure, transportation networks, monitoring systems, and early warning technologies. However, the SETS perspective emphasizes that technological interventions should be integrated with social and ecological considerations rather than implemented as isolated engineering solutions.

Previous SETS studies have examined urban resilience, climate adaptation, and flood vulnerability across different urban contexts (Chang et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2021). In Indonesia, Ariyaningsih and Shaw (2022) applied SETS to examine flood resilience in cities surrounding the new capital. However, less attention has been given to how individual SETS components are represented within formal municipal policy portfolios. This study addresses this gap by combining SETS-based policy classification with qualitative interpretation of flood-related policy provisions in Samarinda.

Materials and methods

Research design and study area

The study used directed qualitative content analysis supported by descriptive frequency analysis. Samarinda was selected as a single case because it combines persistent urban flood risk, a multi-level policy environment, and an increasingly strategic role within the IKN–Samarinda–Balikpapan urban system. The city is administratively surrounded by Kutai Kartanegara Regency and is connected to the wider Mahakam River system, making flood governance dependent on both municipal action and coordination with institutions operating at provincial, river-basin, and national levels. The analysis proceeded through four stages: document identification and screening, extraction of flood-related policy statements, SETS coding, and comparative interpretation of code frequencies. The empirical analysis was based exclusively on publicly available policy and planning documents, however, stakeholder interviews or primary qualitative interviews were conducted as part of this study to support the empirical analysis.

Coding was conducted by the first author. Co-authors validation involved reviewing the codebook, examining selected ambiguous examples, and checking aggregated tables, but it did not constitute independent duplicate coding. Therefore, an inter-coder agreement statistic was not available. Although ambiguity was resolved through documented discussions, reliance on a single primary coder may have introduced interpretive bias. In addition, each statement was assigned one primary code to preserve additive totals. Where a provision contained multiple independently actionable clauses, it was segmented before coding. Where a unit remained multi-dimensional, the primary code was determined by its explicit policy objective, mandated output, and principal implementation mechanism. Secondary or anticipated co-benefits were not counted in the primary frequency analysis. Figure 1 shows the location of Samarinda City.

Document sampling

The population of active legal and policy documents recorded in the Samarinda City Legal Documentation and Information Network (JDIH) comprised 983 items at the time of collection, including mayoral regulations, regional regulations, academic manuscripts, council regulations, decrees, legal books, and legal articles on 20th November 2025. Searches were conducted in Bahasa Indonesia using the exact terms “banjir”, “manajemen lingkungan”, “kajian limgkungan”, “sumber air”, and “bencana” (In English, those terms are “flood,” “environmental management,” “environmental assessment,” “water resources,” and “disaster.”). After removing 219 duplicates, 764 records were screened by title and metadata, of which 484 were excluded as unrelated to flood risk, drainage, water resources, disaster management, spatial control, environmental protection, or urban infrastructure. In addition, 280 documents were retained when they: (1) contained provisions directly relevant to flooding, drainage, river management, spatial control, disaster management, environmental protection, or urban infrastructure; (2) could be classified within a policy-plan-program typology; (3) were legally or operationally applicable to Samarinda; and (4) represented a relevant municipal, provincial, or national scale. Finally, full texts of 11 documents were assessed. Eleven documents met these criteria (Table 1). Including documents from several levels of government was necessary because flood-risk drivers and implementation authority extend beyond the municipal boundary.

Table 1. Sampled flood-related policy and planning documents.

Source: Samarinda City Legal Documentation and Information Network (JDIH) (2026).

Unit of analysis and SETS codebook

The unit of analysis was a distinct policy statement, regulatory provision, program, action, or strategic direction that had a direct relationship to flood-risk reduction or water management. A total of 314 units were identified. Each unit was assigned to one primary SETS domain and one primary code so that category totals remained additive. Social codes captured preparedness and emergency management, law and regulation, participation, risk communication, and economic mechanisms. Ecological codes captured conservation and restoration, green infrastructure and ecological engineering, and ecosystem services or hydrological functions. Technological codes captured design standards, engineered infrastructure, operation and maintenance, and early-warning or communication technology. The codebook was adapted from the SETS classification used by Ariyaningsih and Shaw (2022) and is summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. SETS codebook used for content analysis.

Source: modified from Ariyaningsih and Shaw (2022), Kim et al. (2021).

Analytical procedure and representation benchmark

To describe the distribution of attention within the corpus, the total number of coded units was divided by 12 to obtain an arithmetic mean per code. The analysis reports each code’s signed deviation from this mean. The mean is used only as a descriptive reference: it is not an external adequacy threshold, and the number of categories below it is not interpreted as an independent statistical finding. Because the categories differ in conceptual breadth, frequencies are interpreted alongside deviation magnitude, rank, category definition, and substantive policy context.

Analytical boundary of the IKN interpretation

The document corpus was designed to evaluate Samarinda's flood-policy structure. The study did not code changes caused by IKN, model future urban growth, or test causal relationships between capital-city development and flood occurrence. The IKN and Tri-City context is introduced in the discussion to assess the strategic relevance of the policy gaps for a rapidly integrating urban region. Accordingly, the study evaluates policy readiness and governance implications rather than the direct hydrological impact of IKN development.

Results

Distribution across SETS domains

The 11 documents contained 314 flood-related strategies. Social strategies were the largest group, accounting for 131 entries (41.7%), followed by technological strategies with 105 entries (33.4%) and ecological strategies with 78 entries (24.8%) (Figure 2; Table 3). All 3 domains were present, but their distribution was uneven. The dominance of the social domain was driven largely by regulatory, institutional, preparedness, and disaster-management provisions rather than by participatory governance. The technological domain was concentrated in physical infrastructure and early-warning measures. Ecological strategies were consistently the least represented domain in 10 of the 11 documents.

Table 3. Distribution of identified strategies across SETS domains, by document.

Source: authors (2026).

The Samarinda Spatial Plan (RTRW) 2023–2042 was the only document with a near-balanced composition, containing 17 social, 20 ecological, and 19 technological strategies. This pattern indicates that comprehensive spatial plans may provide greater opportunity for integrating SETS domains than sector-specific or operational documents. Nevertheless, the presence of all three domains in a spatial plan does not by itself guarantee coordinated implementation.

Distribution across the twelve SETS codes

At the code level, S1 (emergency planning, preparedness, safety, management, and response) and S2 (law, regulation, and standards) each contained 33 strategies. E1 (conservation, protection, and restoration) was the most frequent code overall, with 41 strategies. T2 (engineered infrastructure) contained 33 strategies, while T4 (early-warning and communication technology) contained 28. These five categories met or exceeded the internal benchmark of 26.2 strategies per code (Figure 3; Table 4).

Table 4. SETS code-level representation relative to the internal benchmark of 26.2 strategies per code.

Seven codes fell below the within-corpus arithmetic mean, with substantially different deviation magnitudes. In the social domain, S3 (participation and collaboration) contained 19 strategies, while S4 (knowledge transfer and risk communication) and S5 (economic mechanisms) each contained 23. In the ecological domain, E2 (green infrastructure and ecological engineering) contained 20 strategies and E3 (ecosystem services and hydrological functions) contained 17, the lowest count in the dataset. In the technological domain, T1 (design codes and standards) contained 25 strategies and T3 (infrastructure operation and maintenance) contained 20. The results therefore reveal a policy portfolio that is comparatively strong in regulation, emergency management, conventional conservation, engineered infrastructure, and warning technology, but weaker in collaboration, ecological function, lifecycle management, and financing.

Policy profile relevant to capital-region readiness

The identified policy profile offers a partial foundation for Samarinda's role in the emerging Nusantara capital region. Existing strengths in regulation, emergency preparedness, infrastructure, and warning systems could support regional coordination. However, the below the corpus mean codes correspond to the capabilities most needed when flood risk crosses administrative boundaries: stakeholder collaboration, shared risk communication, joint financing, connected blue-green infrastructure, protection of hydrological functions, common technical standards, and sustained maintenance. This result does not demonstrate that regional integration has failed; rather, it identifies areas where current Samarinda policies provide limited explicit support for future intergovernmental flood governance.

Discussion

Interpreting the imbalance: more policy does not necessarily mean more resilience

The SETS distribution should be interpreted not only in terms of how frequently each category appears, but also in terms of what the coded provisions actually seek to regulate, deliver, or coordinate. The social domain is numerically the largest component of Samarinda's flood-policy corpus; however, this does not necessarily indicate strong participatory governance. Table 5 synthesizes the coded findings into three interconnected dimensions of flood-resilience governance: social, ecological, and technological. The domain totals show that Samarinda's flood governance is not exclusively technological. The below the corpus mean SETS components can be seen at Table 5. The social codes (S3–S5) indicate gaps in inter-jurisdictional collaboration, risk communication, and economic mechanisms, which may contribute to fragmented authority, inconsistent risk information, and limited cost-sharing across the capital region. Accordingly, stronger regional coordination, shared communication protocols, and joint or lifecycle financing mechanisms are needed. The code-level analysis shows that participatory processes, knowledge exchange, and economic instruments remain below the corpus mean. This distinction suggests that the social orientation of the policy corpus is predominantly administrative and regulatory rather than participatory and co-productive.

Table 5. Interpretation of below the corpus mean SETS components for Samarinda in the emerging Nusantara capital region.

A similar distinction is evident within the ecological domain. E1 is strongly represented through conservation, protection, and restoration provisions, while E2 and E3 receive comparatively less explicit attention. This suggests that ecological considerations are present in the policy corpus but are more frequently expressed through environmental protection than through the operational use of ecological functions for flood management. The ecological codes (E2–E3) highlight the limited incorporation of green infrastructure and explicit hydrological-function provisions. In a rapidly urbanizing capital region, such limitations may weaken the connectivity between retention areas, riparian corridors, natural drainage systems, and broader watershed functions. This finding supports the development of an integrated regional blue–green infrastructure network, accompanied by measurable runoff and retention targets and stronger protection of natural drainage pathways. The qualitative difference between protecting ecological areas and actively incorporating their hydrological functions into flood management is therefore more significant than the frequency difference alone.

The technological domain shows another internal contrast. Engineered infrastructure (T2) and early-warning and communication technology (T4) receive relatively strong attention, while design standards (T1) and operation and maintenance (T3) are less prominent. Meanwhile, the technological codes (T1–T3) reveal gaps in common infrastructure design standards and operation and maintenance provisions. Without compatible standards and clearly defined maintenance responsibilities, infrastructure developed across different jurisdictions may follow inconsistent resilience criteria and experience declining performance over time. Regional standardization, integrated asset inventories, and explicit allocation of maintenance responsibilities, budgets, and performance indicators are therefore important governance responses. The resulting pattern suggests a policy orientation that gives greater visibility to infrastructure provision than to the institutional arrangements required to maintain its performance over time.

Importantly, these differences should not be interpreted as direct evidence that governance functions are absent or ineffective in practice. The analysis concerns their explicit representation in the reviewed policy documents. Operational practices, informal coordination, budget execution, and implementation may differ from what is formally documented. The results therefore identify differences in documented policy attention rather than verified implementation deficits.

Samarinda as part of an emerging Nusantara capital region

The IKN and Tri-City context is used here solely to interpret the governance relevance of Samarinda’s documented policy profile. The analysis does not attribute current flooding in Samarinda to IKN, nor does it estimate future land-use, runoff, or hydrological effects. Rather, planned regional integration provides a wider institutional and planning context in which cross-jurisdictional coordination may become increasingly important (Nusantara Capital Authority, 2025). The current provincial spatial plan also seeks greater integration among urban centers and infrastructure systems in East Kalimantan (East Kalimantan Provincial Government, 2023). Consequently, urban growth, transport investment, housing demand, water supply, waste systems, and environmental pressures are likely to be increasingly interdependent.

The relatively balanced SETS composition of the Samarinda Spatial Plan 2023–2042 is important in this respect. Its combination of social, ecological, and technological provisions indicates that spatial planning provides an institutional arena in which otherwise sectoral flood-management functions can potentially be integrated. Nevertheless, representation across the three domains does not by itself demonstrate operational integration. The substantive question is whether spatial-planning provisions are translated into coordinated programs, budgets, technical requirements, implementation responsibilities, and monitoring mechanisms.

For flood governance, this implies that municipal drainage capacity cannot be treated in isolation from regional land-use change, watershed conditions, transport corridors, and upstream development. Samarinda's flood system is influenced by the Mahakam River and tributary catchments that extend beyond its administrative authority. The policy challenge is therefore not only to strengthen Samarinda's internal programs, but also to establish mechanisms through which the city, the Nusantara Capital Authority, the East Kalimantan Provincial Government, neighboring regencies, river-basin agencies, and sectoral institutions can coordinate decisions. The underrepresentation of S3, S4, and S5 is particularly significant in this context because metropolitan resilience depends on collaboration, shared information, and durable financing arrangements.

The gaps identified in this study are gaps in explicit documentary attention, not direct evidence that the corresponding activities are absent in practice. Policy documents may be aspirational, implementation may occur through instruments outside the sampled corpus, and informal coordination may not be recorded. Accordingly, the results require triangulation before they can be interpreted as operational governance deficits. Participation and risk communication are best assessed through stakeholder evidence and institutional records; financing through budget tracing; ecological measures through spatial and implementation data; and design and maintenance through technical standards, asset registers, expenditure, and performance audits.

This interpretation also supports a precautionary approach. Studies of IKN land-use transition have identified rapid built-up expansion and social–ecological conflict, while legal scholarship emphasizes the importance of spatial planning, enforcement, and continuous environmental monitoring (Syaban and Appiah-Opoku, 2024; Ardani et al., 2024). These findings do not establish a direct flood effect on Samarinda, but they reinforce the need to evaluate cumulative regional impacts before urban expansion locks in new exposure and runoff patterns.

Flood governance in Samarinda involves not only municipal drainage and emergency management but also watershed processes, land-use decisions, infrastructure networks, and environmental systems extending beyond administrative boundaries. Consequently, the policy issue identified by the SETS analysis is not simply whether more strategies are required, but whether existing strategies establish mechanisms capable of connecting decisions across sectors and jurisdictions.

Social and institutional priorities for regional flood governance

The comparatively limited documented attention to S3, S4, and S5 points to three related governance challenges: collaboration, information exchange, and financing. Their importance lies not simply in their lower frequencies but in the functions, they perform within an integrated flood-governance system. Participation and collaboration (S3) should be strengthened beyond consultation at the project level. This has been validated through stakeholder interviews that the current condition in Samarinda has limited coordination among other stakeholders. A capital-region approach requires regular coordination among government agencies, communities, universities, businesses, and civil-society organizations. This can be operationalized through a multi-jurisdictional flood-resilience forum that links spatial planning, water resources, disaster management, environmental management, and infrastructure agencies. The forum should have a defined mandate to review cross-boundary projects, identify cumulative risks, and reconcile municipal and regional priorities.

The qualitative content of S3 should be examined according to the form of participation provided in the policy corpus. Where participation is primarily expressed as consultation, coordination, or community involvement in individual activities, the policy architecture may provide fewer explicit mechanisms for sustained co-production or cross-jurisdictional decision-making. This distinction supports strengthening institutionalized collaboration rather than simply increasing the number of participatory statements.

Knowledge transfer and risk communication (S4) should evolve from one-way socialization toward interoperable risk information. Samarinda and adjacent jurisdictions need compatible rainfall, river-level, drainage, land-use, and warning data; common terminology for warning levels; and protocols for communicating uncertainty to residents and infrastructure operators. To support this evidence, condition related to risk communication has been validated through warning protocols. S4 should be interpreted alongside the relatively stronger T4 category. Samarinda's policy corpus contains a visible technological foundation for monitoring, communication, and early-warning systems, yet comparatively fewer provisions are coded as knowledge transfer and risk communication. This combination is analytically important. It suggests that technological capacity and communicative governance should not be treated as equivalent. A warning system may generate information, but effective risk governance also requires institutional arrangements for sharing, interpreting, and communicating that information among agencies and communities.

S5 highlights the financial dimension of continuity. If financing provisions are predominantly general budget commitments rather than explicit mechanisms for shared investment, maintenance, or long-term financing, this limits the extent to which cross-sectoral flood programs can be institutionalized over their lifecycle. Consequently, the governance implication concerns not merely additional funding but mechanisms that connect investment decisions with operation, maintenance, ecological management, and intergovernmental responsibilities. Taken together, S3–S5 indicate that the principal social challenge is not an absence of institutions. Samarinda already has substantial regulatory and preparedness content. Rather, the qualitative imbalance lies between a relatively developed administrative architecture and less explicit mechanisms for collaborative, communicative, and financially sustained governance.

Ecological and technological priorities

The relationship between E1, E2, and E3 indicates a similar distinction between the presence of ecological policy and its operational integration into flood governance. Conservation and protection are relatively visible, but green infrastructure, ecological engineering, ecosystem services, and explicit hydrological functions receive less documented attention. The low representation of E2 and E3 indicates that ecological measures are not yet framed as a connected flood-management system. In a rapidly urbanizing capital region, isolated parks or green-open-space targets are insufficient. Policies should protect and reconnect headwaters, riparian corridors, wetlands, flood-storage areas, urban forests, and neighborhood-scale infiltration spaces as a regional blue-green network. Hydrological functions should be expressed through measurable planning requirements, including retention capacity, runoff limits, riparian continuity, and protection of natural drainage pathways. Such measures would align flood mitigation with biodiversity, heat reduction, public space, and water-quality objectives.

This distinction matters because an integrated SETS perspective treats ecological systems as functional components of flood resilience rather than as environmental categories operating parallel to engineered infrastructure. The findings therefore support stronger connections between conservation policy, spatial planning, and blue-green infrastructure. In the capital-region context, this implies considering how retention areas, riparian corridors, wetlands, natural drainage pathways, and other hydrological functions can be maintained as connected systems rather than isolated interventions. This remains a governance and planning implication derived from documented policy content, not evidence that existing ecological measures are ineffective in practice.

The technological results reveal a comparable lifecycle issue. The relatively stronger representation of T2 indicates substantial policy attention to engineered infrastructure, whereas T1 and T3 receive less explicit attention. The technological gaps in T1 and T3 are equally consequential. Increased development intensity can expose inconsistencies in drainage design criteria, road elevation, culvert capacity, detention requirements, and data standards. Common or mutually compatible design standards should therefore be developed across the emerging urban region, while allowing site-specific adaptation. Operation and maintenance must be treated as a governance function rather than a residual technical task. Asset inventories, inspection schedules, sediment-removal targets, maintenance responsibilities, and publicly reported service indicators would help ensure that drainage, pumps, retention facilities, sensors, and communication systems remain functional after construction.

Seen together, E2–E3 and T1–T3 indicate that the principal challenge is not a choice between ecological and engineered solutions. Rather, the SETS perspective highlights the need to connect ecological functions and technological assets through common planning requirements, performance standards, maintenance responsibilities, and long-term management arrangements. Such integration would shift flood governance from a collection of projects toward a system-oriented and lifecycle approach.

Toward a SETS-informed capital-region flood governance model

The five governance elements proposed below are derived directly from the combined quantitative and qualitative findings. The regional coordination platform responds primarily to S3–S5; shared flood-data arrangements connect S4 with the existing T4 foundation; the blue-green infrastructure network responds to E2–E3; lifecycle standards and maintenance mechanisms address T1, T3, and S5; and strengthened stakeholder participation responds to S3–S4. The model therefore synthesizes the principal policy areas receiving comparatively limited documented attention rather than introducing an independent set of recommendations.

The findings support a governance model with five connected elements. First, a regional coordination platform should align spatial planning, watershed management, infrastructure investment, and disaster preparedness across Samarinda, IKN, Balikpapan, and relevant surrounding regencies. The evidence supports a regional coordination platform that links spatial planning, watershed governance, investment decisions, and preparedness across jurisdictions rather than treating them as separate policy tracks (Sapountzaki et al., 2011). Watershed studies reach the same conclusion: flood and water management cross political borders, so plans need basin-scale coordination and explicit synchronization between water-resource plans and regional spatial plans (Lamana, 2021). In addition, preparedness works best when coordination bodies are inclusive, permanent, and resourced before crises rather than activated only during emergencies (Gooding et al., 2022). Digital and cartographic platforms help, but the evidence warns that data integration alone is insufficient unless the platform also aligns sectoral policies, authority, and implementation rules across levels of government (Wang et al., 2025; Kourkouridis and Salepaki, 2026). In summary, A regional coordination platform should therefore align spatial planning, watershed management, infrastructure investment, and disaster preparedness through one shared territorial framework, cooperative investment rules, and standing multi-level preparedness institutions.

Second, agencies should establish a shared flood-data architecture and interoperable early-warning protocols. A shared flood-data architecture and interoperable early-warning protocols are strongly supported by the literature because flood warning systems depend on integrating hydrometeorological, hydraulic, geospatial, and impact data across agencies, then moving that information quickly into alerts and response (Filippis et al., 2022; Byaruhanga et al., 2024). In addition, flood early warning systems need multi-source integration, not single-agency datasets (Gong et al., 2025). Shared architectures also improve response speed because rapid data availability and coordination between service providers reduce delays in warning operations. The evidence also highlights important caveats. Low-cost sensor networks can suffer outages unless agencies assign maintenance capacity and clear operational responsibility (Adesina et al., 2023). In Niger, open-source interoperable services supported three years of flood warning operations tailored to local users, and the system was iteratively improved with stakeholder feedback (Filippis et al., 2022). In summary, agencies should therefore establish a shared flood-data architecture and interoperable early-warning protocols, with common standards, real-time services, impact-based triggers, fail-safe communications, and formal interagency governance.

Third, regional planning should define a blue-green infrastructure network that protects hydrological functions across administrative boundaries. The previous research supports defining blue-green infrastructure at regional and watershed scales, because hydrological processes and ecological corridors routinely cross administrative borders that local plans fragment (Huang et al., 2022; Feng et al., 2025; Budoni and Ricci, 2020). Futhermore, cross-regional blue-green ecological networks are presented as essential for integrated ecological management because administrative-boundary planning limits spatial continuity and regional coordination (Feng et al., 2025). So, it is not just adding parks or drainage features, but organizing water bodies, wetlands, corridors, and connected green space as a spatial network that structures urban growth, flood management, and ecosystem protection (Battemarco et al., 2021; Budoni, 2020).

Fourth, infrastructure programs should include common performance standards, lifecycle budgets, and transparent operation-and-maintenance responsibilities. Flood asset programs need explicit performance requirements that connect strategic goals to asset-level inspection, design, and maintenance (Vonk et al., 2020). Those requirements can include acceptable risk, reliability targets, and co-function criteria, not just capital delivery (Kurth et al., 2024). In addition, Several studies identify unclear organizational roles as a recurring barrier to sustainable flood governance and to reliable green infrastructure performance (Takin et al., 2023; Green et al., 2021). Across these three facets, infrastructure programs in flood management should include common performance standards, life-cycle budgets, and transparent O&M responsibilities because long-term resilience depends as much on governance and upkeep as on initial construction.

Fifth, communities and vulnerable groups should be involved in risk assessment, design review, monitoring, and evaluation. These elements correspond directly to the below the corpus mean SETS codes and would convert the current policy portfolio from a collection of sectoral measures into a more integrated resilience system. Participatory risk assessment appears to improve flood planning by combining technical analysis with local knowledge, stakeholder priorities, and community-defined assets (Ismael et al., 2024; Vamvakeridou-Lyroudia et al., 2019). This matters especially for vulnerable groups, because socially marginalized communities are often both more exposed and less included in formal planning (Watkins and Collins, 2024; Ismael et al., 2024). Participation also appears to build the social efficacy and community capital needed for long-term governance, not just one-off consultation (Lin, 2025; McEwen et al., 2018; Houanyé et al., 2025).

The balanced profile of the Samarinda RTRW 2023–2042 provides an important institutional entry point. Spatial planning can connect land-use control, environmental protection, infrastructure, and social development. However, the RTRW needs to be translated into sectoral plans, budgets, permits, design standards, and monitoring indicators. The formation of the Nusantara capital region creates an opportunity to make this translation through coordinated regional planning rather than through separate municipal projects. Planning systems work better when plans are treated as a data system connected to implementation tools, so decision-makers can track how plan provisions become permits, authorizations, and sanctions (Yılmaz et al., 2023). Accordingly, the Nusantara capital region provides a strong rationale for coordinated regional planning rather than isolated municipal projects because spatial-governance challenges increasingly cross administrative boundaries and require collective governance capacity (Nur et al., 2026; Kiessling and Pütz, 2020). Regional coordination is most needed where land use, transport, environmental protection, and infrastructure must be aligned across scales, yet evidence shows these capacities are often mixed rather than automatic.

Limitations and future research

This study has four limitations. First, frequency indicates policy attention but not the quality, legal strength, budget allocation, implementation, or outcomes of a strategy. Second, the internal mean benchmark is descriptive and should not be interpreted as a universal threshold of adequacy. Third, the analysis is based on publicly available documents and may not capture unpublished operational guidance or informal coordination. Fourth, the IKN discussion is interpretive; the study does not estimate the hydrological or causal effects of capital-city development. In addition, because the main analysis used one primary code per unit, hybrid strategies may be “below-mean” in categories that commonly function as secondary dimensions, including participation, financing, ecological functions, and operation and maintenance. The resulting frequencies should therefore be interpreted as the dominant documentary emphasis of each unit rather than the full range of SETS linkages contained in the policy corpus. Future research should triangulate the document-based findings through stakeholder interviews, budget tracing, implementation audits, and institutional process analysis. Such approaches would help determine whether the patterns of documented policy attention identified in this study correspond to actual governance practices.

Conclusion

This study identified 314 flood-related strategies in 11 Samarinda policy and planning documents. Social strategies represented 41.7% of the corpus, technological strategies 33.4%, and ecological strategies 24.8%. At the code level, emergency management, regulation, conservation, engineered infrastructure, and early-warning technology were above the corpus mean, whereas participation and collaboration, risk communication, economic mechanisms, green infrastructure, ecosystem services, design standards, and operation and maintenance were below the corpus mean. The results indicate that Samarinda has a substantial administrative and infrastructure-oriented policy base, but its flood-governance portfolio remains incomplete.

The gaps become more important as Samarinda is integrated into the emerging Nusantara capital region. Flood resilience will increasingly depend on coordination across jurisdictions, connected ecological systems, compatible infrastructure standards, shared information, and sustained lifecycle financing. A SETS-informed approach can help prevent the regional development agenda from reproducing fragmented, project-based flood management. The principal policy implication is not simply to add more strategies, but to strengthen the couplings among social institutions, ecological functions, and technological systems through a formal capital-region governance framework.

The principal contribution of this study is to operationalize the SETS framework as a policy-analysis approach that combines the distribution and substantive content of flood-governance provisions. Empirically, the study provides a structured assessment of Samarinda's documented flood-governance portfolio; conceptually, it demonstrates how social, ecological, and technological policy functions can be examined as interconnected components rather than isolated intervention sectors. In the emerging Nusantara capital-region context, this approach provides a basis for identifying where existing municipal policy foundations may require stronger cross-jurisdictional coordination, ecological connectivity, lifecycle governance, and participatory mechanisms.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Amalia Zucaro, Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA), Italy

Reviewed by: Sonia Roitman, The University of Queensland, Australia

Syarifah Aini Dalimunthe, National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Indonesia