Modelling public social values of flood-prone land use using the GIS application SolVES

Abstract Social values of land use are often excluded when undertaking integrated flood management as they are harder to quantify. To fill this research gap, a geographic information system application called Social Values for Ecosystem Services was used to assess, map and quantify the perceived soc...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of hydroinformatics Vol. 26; no. 1; pp. 20 - 32
Main Authors Zahidi, Izni, Yau, Mun Ee, Lechner, Alex, Lourdes, Karen
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published IWA Publishing 01.01.2024
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Abstract Social values of land use are often excluded when undertaking integrated flood management as they are harder to quantify. To fill this research gap, a geographic information system application called Social Values for Ecosystem Services was used to assess, map and quantify the perceived social values of flood-prone land use in Kuala Selangor, Malaysia. This approach was based on a non-monetary value index (VI) calculated from responses to a quantitative social survey on the public's attitude and preference towards flood management across different land uses. The study outcome is the geospatial representation of flood-prone land use with their social values, which local communities perceive as crucial for flood management. The VI was influenced by elevation and slope, with lower elevations and flatter slopes associated with higher values. Farmland is highly favoured by the local community for flood management, whereas oil palm and rubber plantations are opposed. Tourism received the highest monetary allocations from survey respondents, with the popular firefly park consistently associated with the highest social values. This practical framework contributes to integrated flood management in facilitating decision-makers to evaluate land-use trade-offs by considering their social values when prioritising flood mitigation measures or investments.
ISSN:1464-7141
1465-1734
DOI:10.2166/hydro.2023.010