Journal Pre-proofs

Translation of International Frameworks and National Policies on Climate

Change, Land Degradation, and Biodiversity to Develop Integrated Risk As‐
sessment for Watershed Management in Indonesia

Perdinan, Raden Eliasar Prabowo Tjahjono, Delta Yova Dwi Infrawan,

Suvany Aprilia, Ryco Farysca Adi, Rizki Abdul Basit, Arif Wibowo,
Kardono, Koko Wijanarko

PII: S2589-4714(23)00021-9
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsee.2023.10.001
Reference: WSEE 60

To appear in: Watershed Ecology and the Environment

Received Date: 31 December 2022

Revised Date: 24 June 2023
Accepted Date: 7 October 2023

Please cite this article as: Perdinan, R.E.P. Tjahjono, D.Y.D. Infrawan, S. Aprilia, R.F. Adi, R.A. Basit, A.
Wibowo, Kardono, K. Wijanarko, Translation of International Frameworks and National Policies on Climate
Change, Land Degradation, and Biodiversity to Develop Integrated Risk Assessment for Watershed Management
in Indonesia, Watershed Ecology and the Environment (2023), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsee.2023.10.001

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover
page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version
will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are
providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors
may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Watershed Ecology and the Environment

Translation of International Frameworks and National Policies on

Climate Change, Land Degradation, and Biodiversity to Develop
Integrated Risk Assessment for Watershed Management in
Indonesia
Perdinan1*, Raden Eliasar Prabowo Tjahjono2, Delta Yova Dwi Infrawan2, Suvany
Aprilia2, Ryco Farysca Adi2, Rizki Abdul Basit2, Arif Wibowo3, Kardono3, Koko
Wijanarko3
1
Department of Geophysics and Meteorology, IPB University, Bogor, Indonesia
2
PIAREA, Bogor, Indonesia
3
Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Directorate of Climate Change Adaptation

*Correspondence:
Corresponding Author
perdinan@apps.ipb.ac.id

Abstract
The international conventions on environments, i.e., biodiversity (United Nations Convention on Biodiversity - UNCBD), land
degradation (United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification - UNCCD), and climate change (United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change - UNFCCC) stipulates country-level policies, programs, and actions in sustaining environmental
well-being. This study attempts to connect the three conventions ratified into national regulations in Indonesia. The connection is
framed to develop indicators and their attributes for measuring health or risk levels of watershed functions and services to the
present challenges. The risk assessment is formulated based on a set of risk components and indicators developed with referring to
Ministry of Forestry Regulation No. 60/2014 about the classification of watershed health conditions, Ministry of Forestry
Regulation No. 29/2009 about biodiversity, and Ministry of Environment and Forestry Regulation No. 7/2018 about climate change
risk assessment. The formulation grouped the risk indicators into biophysical, socio-economic, and governance. The risk
assessment is applied to the Way Khilau watershed of Lampung, Indonesia, to measure the risk levels and identify the contributing
indicators that should be considered for designing adaptation options. Under the current conditions, the Way Khilau watershed has
a score of about 123.25 or 0.77, which will be exacerbated by future climate change. The risk level can reach a score of 138 or
0.89, nearly approaching the upper threshold. This risk level urges the policymakers and stakeholders to take adaptation actions to
maintain the functions and services of the Why Khilau watershed.

Keywords: climate change, convention, biodiversity, adaptation, land degradation, watershed

1 Introduction

The watershed ecosystem provides functions and services (Lalika et al., 2015) to support human livelihoods.
Present challenges associated with climate change (Qiu et al., 2019), land degradation (Bhan, 2013; Gisladottir &
Stocking, 2005; Reed & Stringer, 2016), and biodiversity loss (Reid & Swiderska, 2008) may contribute to
diminishing the watershed functions and services. A recent review (Miralles-Wilhelm et al., 2023) justified that the
capacity of a watershed to respond to any disruptions or disturbances resulting from the present challenges
(i.e., Watershed Resilience) is considerably limited. The sustainability of a watershed depends on the community's
behavior patterns, socioeconomic conditions, and the management level associated with the institutional organization
(Mtibaa et al., 2018). The international communities across sectors and regions already paid attention to watershed
resilience as part of water resource policy, management, practice, and decision-making process (Grantham et al., 2019;
Miralles-Wilhelm et al., 2023; Qiu et al., 2019; Rockström et al., 2014; Rodina, 2019). This situation urges the need
to advocate and promote substantial efforts to sustain the watershed functions and services in anticipating the pressures
of environmental challenges.
The international communities have recognized the three environmental challenges, i.e., climate change, land
degradation, and biodiversity loss. Three "Rio Conventions," i.e., the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) 1992, the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) 1994, and
the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD) 1996, have been released about three decades ago.
The three conventions reflect a shared commitment among nations to tackle the interrelated challenges of climate
change, the deterioration of land resources, and the loss of biodiversity (Stringer et al., 2009). The challenges are
associated with climate change causing far-reaching impacts, land degradation threatening ecosystems and
livelihoods, and biodiversity loss endangering the planet's ecological balance. Roy et al. (2022) emphasized that the
three "Rio Conventions" should be operationalized to promote land-based adaptation to climate change and sustainable
development. However, the major challenge is the connection and the operationalization of the three conventions into
national regulations for managing functions and services of an ecosystem such as a watershed.
Operationalization of the three conventions (i.e., UNFCCC, UNCCD, UNCBD) into national regulations and
practical implementation to develop an integrated risk assessment for watersheds requires a systematic approach. The
national priorities and goals related to watershed management and sustainable development should be identified,
aligning them with the conventions' objectives. The Government of Indonesia (GoI) has demonstrated its commitment
to addressing environmental challenges by adopting the three conventions into its national regulations. The GoI
ratified the three conventions by issuing: 1) Law No. 5/1994 on the ratification United Nations Convention on
Biological Diversity, 2) Law No. 6/1994 on the ratification United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, 3) Presidential Decree No. 135/1998 on ratification of The United Nations Conventions to Combat
Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought or Desertification. The convention on biodiversity
in Indonesia articulated in Presidential Decree 135/1998 covers all biodiversity, including ecosystems, all types, and
genetics of animals, plants, and microorganisms.
This study aims to develop an integrated risk assessment to evaluate the watershed health or risk levels to the
combined pressures of climate change, land degradation, and biodiversity stressors. As a part of Indonesia's regional
development, watershed governance often faces various problems, such as weak integration between sectors, agencies,
and regions (Basuki et al., 2022; Narendra et al., 2021). Besides, community participation could be more optimal, so
watershed sustainability worsens ([BAPPENAS] National Development Planning Agency, 2015). Indonesia has
already issued Government Regulation No. 37/2012 about Watershed Management and Integrated Watershed
Management Plan (IWMP). However, the performance of action plans in IWMP could be more optimal due to the
lack of local government roles (Pambudi, 2019). In addition, watershed management still uses the old rules or
procedures for planning, organizing, monitoring, and evaluation, so a breakthrough or innovation is needed to improve
watershed management plans. The innovative approach is particularly needed concerning the old rules and procedures
that have yet to consider the combined effects of climate change, land degradation, and biodiversity stressors on
designing strategies and practices for watershed management.
This study focuses on translating the international frameworks and the associated national regulations to formulate
an integrated risk assessment technique to measure watershed healthy or risk levels. Assessing the watershed health
and ecological security is required for designing sustainable land management efficiently and effectively (Sadeghi et
al., 2022). The watershed health is controlled by components grouped into anthropogenic, climatic, hydrological,
geological, soil, and vegetation factors. Several studies already proposed approaches and indicators to assess the
watershed risks to the controlling stressors. The index-based approach is the most widely applied for watershed
assessment (e.g., Giri et al., 2019; Jun et al., 2011; Woznicki et al., 2016). The index-based approaches based on
multiple factors are preferred over single factors, as multiple factors can capture different aspects in a complex
connection of human and natural systems such as those designed for capturing social dimension (e.g., Geetha et al.,

2
2017; Nguyen et al., 2017; Sathyan et al., 2018) and specifically focussed ecosystems (e.g., Blasiak et al., 2017;
Okpara et al., 2017; Serafum et al., 2019). The existing literature provides an excellent opportunity to identify
challenges for developing the integrated assessment for measuring the watershed healthy or risk levels that consider
the three UN conventions and the associated national regulations, treated as compilers for deriving Indonesia's risk
components and indicators.
The risk assessment is formulated based on a set of risk components and indicators following the associated
regulations adopted by the International frameworks, namely: the Ministry of Forestry Regulation No. 60/2014 about
the classification of watershed health conditions, the Ministry of Forestry Regulation No. 29/2009 about biodiversity,
and the Ministry of Environment and Forestry Regulation No. 7/2018 about climate change risk assessment. The
developed risk assessment is applied to the Way Khilau watershed in Lampung Province of Indonesia. The Way
Khilau watershed has vital functions and services for the people of Lampung Province. The functions and services of
the watershed include food sources, water sources, air quality control, water management, and habitat for various flora
and fauna. The risk assessment applied for the Way Khilau provides information on contributing factors that controlled
the healthy watershed condition. This assessment also helps to identify indicators that should be intervened to maintain
the functions and services of the watershed.
The proposed risk assessment method is expected to provide a valuable tool for policymakers and stakeholders to
gauge the state of healthy watershed conditions and identify priorities for designing feasible interventions. By
connecting the three conventions and the associated national regulations, this study attempts to formulate a
comprehensive framework for integrating the principles and objectives of the three conventions to be operationalized.
This elaboration of connecting policy, science, and practice is also expected to enhance our understanding and capacity
to address the complex challenges of climate change, land degradation, and biodiversity loss.

2 Materials and Methods

2.1 Development of the Risk Assessment

2.1.1 Connecting the policies

The global commitments in responding to the environmental problems, i.e., land degradation, biodiversity
stressors, and climate change, pose a complex challenge as the three environmental problems are cross-cutting and
principally connected. The UNCBD (1996) was developed to conserve the existence of biodiversity, the UNCCD
(1994) tried to solve land degradation that leads to critical land, and the UNFCCC (1992) brought the climate change
issue that exacerbated land degradation and biodiversity loss—concerning the important implications of the three UN
conventions for managing ecosystems and sustainable development (Roy et al., 2022).
The risk assessment development starts by elaborating on the connection between three UN conventions within
the watershed functions and services framework. The watershed provides functions and services (Fig 1, top panel) to
support human livelihoods and economic activities. On the other hand, human activities that require land utilization
may cause land degradation of the watershed resulting from converting vegetation areas to other economic uses. This
pressure will eventually challenge the watershed functions and services, affecting the ecosystem's biodiversity. This
complex interaction already shows the connectivity of the three UN conventions.
Understanding that global commitments have been adopted into national regulations in Indonesia, the next step
is to connect the three UN conventions and their associated national regulations for formulating the integrated risk
assessment (Fig 1, bottom panel). The GoI accommodated the global commitments to national watershed health,
biodiversity conservation, and climate change assessment regulations. The regulations are 1) MoEF No. 60/2014,
concerned with the classification of watershed health; 2) MoEF No. 29/2009, concerned with biodiversity
conservation; and 3) MoEF No.7/2018, concerned with climate change risk assessment.
Furthermore, the three regulations are elaborated to identify components and their contributing indicators to
develop the integrated risk assessment for measuring watershed health or risk levels. The three regulations also offer

3
considered indicators for developing the risk assessment. The indicators are grouped into risk components, e.g.,
hazard, vulnerability, and exposure. The indicators are then plotted into each risk component. This mapping of the
risk component and its contributed indicators are employed to elaborate required data further to measure each risk
component's required indicators in the next section.

Fig. 1. The connectivity of the three UN Conventions, i.e., UNCBD (1996), UNCCD (1994) and UNFCCC (1992), within the framework of
watershed functions and services (top panel) and the associated national regulations employed as a base for constructing components and their
contributed indicators for developing the integrated watershed risk assessment in Indonesia.

2.1.2 Constructed Indicators and Data

4
 The elaboration of three national regulations allows mapping of the critical factors included in the three
regulations (Table 1). Each regulation has a specific primary outcome responding to environmental issues. The
identified factors (i.e., biophysics, social economy, and governance) are also completed with constructed variables.
The variables for biophysics consist of land cover and its degraded proportion, topography, physiography, watershed
condition, water resources, soil and geology, climate indicators (air temperature and rainfall), and biodiversity. The
social-economy variables are built with well-being, infrastructure, education, livelihood, demography, and existence
and law enforcement. Meanwhile, the governance variable is assessed with the institutional condition.

Table 1. Identification of variables and indicators derived from the three related policies

Factor Variables Included in Variables Included in Variables Included in

MoEF Regulation MoEF Regulation MoEF Regulation
No. 7 of 2018 No. 60 of 2014 No. 29 of 2009

Land cover Percentage of degraded land Topography

Air temperature Percentage of vegetation cover Physiography

 Watershed condition
Biophysics  Water resources
 Soil
Rainfall Erosion index
 Geology
 Climate
 Biodiversity

 Well-being Infrastructure  Population welfare level

Social-  Education  Population pressure
-
Economy  Social  Existence and law
 Livelihoods enforcement

Governance Institutional Institutional Institutional

The primary Watershed classification:

Level of climate change risk Profile biodiversity
outcome preserved and restored

The identified factors from the regulations are detailed into variable, indicator, and constructed data. The exploration
of constructed data is proposed considering the rationale of their contribution to watershed dynamics, supported by
relevant references (Table 2). The variables mainly contribute to the water system, such as water availability, flow
rates, surface runoff, water quality, and water discharge, whereas the water system controls the watershed ecosystem
health. The watershed vulnerability and risks are also triggered by biodiversity and human social variables, as
biodiversity and human activity affect the level of ecosystem services.

Table 2 Data identification for constructing the indicators

Factor Variable Indicator Potential Constructed Data Rationale for Inclusion

Total of rainfall Daily rainfall

Intensity of Monthly rainfall
Climate Change Rainfall↑ = surface runoff ↑
Rainfall rainfall Annual rainfall
(Biophysics) (Prudhomme & Davies, 2009)
Number of wet Number of rainy day
day Seasonal rainfall

5
 Factor Variable Indicator Potential Constructed Data Rationale for Inclusion

Average
Daily Temperature
temperature
Monthly, seasonal, annual
Maximum Temperature↑ = Availability of
Temperature temperature averages
temperature water ↓ (Prasetiawan, 2015)
Maximum temperature, monthly
Minimum
average, seasonal, yearly
temperature

Soil type (area and location) Changes in land cover affect flow
Land cover Borderline rates (Romlah et al., 2018) and
Topography Land form biodiversity (Surtikanti et al.,
Geomorphology
Zoning Height 2016)
Geography Slope Topographic changes can cause
Extent of vegetation cover erosion (Zachar, 1982)

Discharge changes affect the

Biophysic Hydrology Runoff Flow watershed water balance (Romlah
Characteristics et al., 2018)

Tree↓ = flow↓, surface runoff ↑

(Romlah et al., 2018)
Population Number of population per species
Protected area ↓ biodiversity↓
Biodiversity Species Number of species
(Liang & Liu, 2017)
Habitat Number of different habitats
biodiversity ↓ Economy↓
(Perrings et al., 2009)

Population↑ = water quality↓

Total population (Liyanage & Yamada, 2017)
Population
Population density Poor people ↑ watershed
ecosystem quality ↓

Social Clean water

Medical facility Land built ↑ = water quality ↓
Educational facilities (Permatasari et al., 2016)
Infrastructure
Drainage Land built up ↑ = erosion and
Road network sedimentation ↑ (Sriyana, 2018)
Electrical energy

Green landscape differences ↑,

Human social water quality increases (Huang et
Total population by type of work al., 2013)
Livelihood Residents' income Deforestation ↑ Floods ↑
Economy
Land use The area of cultivation and non- (Junaedi et al., 2016)
cultivation Economic activity ↑ = watershed
water quality ↓ (Nelitz et al.,
2013; Poedjiastoeti et al., 2017)

Number of beneficiaries Beneficiaries ↑ social-economy

Government
Program capacity ↑ (Gandhi, 2008)
Existence and law
District institutional Institutional participation ↑
enforcement
Number of Environmental Management capacity ↑
Institutional (Pambudi, 2019)
organization (CSO)

2.2 Study Area

2.2.1 Location
The Way Khilau Sub-Watershed is located in Pesawaran Regency, Lampung Province, which is located at 5°32'40"
to 5°35'20" South Latitude and 104°57'40" to 105°0'20" East Longitude. Overall, the Way Khilau sub-watershed
covers an area of 1,824 ha, consisting of 2 (two) rivers, namely the Cong Kanan River, covering an area of 662 ha,

6
and the Cong Kiri River, 1,162 ha. The Way Khilau sub-watershed is included in the Register XXI Perintisan Baru
forest area, which is the KPH XI Pesawaran's working area. Meanwhile, the government administration is in Bayas
Jaya Village, Way Khilau Sub-District, Pesawaran Regency. Way Khilau Sub-watershed is located at an altitude of
213 - 1088 masl.
Land cover in the sub-watershed can be grouped into secondary dryland forest areas and mixed dry land
agriculture. A secondary dry forest is a forest growing on dry land habitat, which can be a lowland forest, hills and
mountains, high plains, or tropical forests that have undergone human intervention or land clearing. Meanwhile, mixed
dry land agriculture is land planted with various types of plants or not uniformly. The distribution of dry land
agriculture covers a wider mix of the secondary dry forest (Fig. 2., top panel). The mixed garden is dominated by
cocoa and coffee plants scattered around the Way Khilau Sub-watershed area. Soil types in the Way Khilau Sub-
watershed are dominated by soil types Chromic Luvisols and Humic Andosols. Soil-type Chromic Luvisols are soiled
with an argic horizon. They are alkaline saturation (NH4OAC) of more than 50% over the entire B horizon and are
usually located at a depth of less than 125 cm from the soil surface. Humic Andosols are the main material for volcanic
activity at the top to the upper slopes and have a thick solum, a dusty gel texture, and a loose consistency (FAO, 2014).

7
 Fig. 2. Geographical and topographical characteristics of the Way Khilau Sub-Watershed (Top), and Climate
characteristics of Pesawaran District (Bottom). Source: observational climate data is obtained from the Pesawaran
BMKG Climatology Station (1995-2019).

The Way Khilau sub-watershed area is located in the Pesawaran district; hence the closest climate observation
station is in the Pesawaran district, namely the Pesawaran Climatology BMKG station, which is 43 km from the Way
Khilau watershed area. Pesawaran District has two seasons, dry and rainy seasons. The average temperature for each
month is 27,5˚C with a minimum temperature of 26.9°C and a maximum temperature of 28°C (Fig. 2, bottom panel).
The rainfall pattern in Way Khilau Sub-watershed shows that the area is included in the equatorial rain type, which
tends to have two peaks of the rainy season in one year. The Way Khilau Sub-watershed is a monsoonal area
characterized by the peak of seasonal rain in January and December with a volume of 300-400 mm/month. The peak
of the dry season occurs from July to August, with rainfall ranging from 50 - 150 mm/month. Furthermore, the air
temperature from station data and climate model outputs ranges from 25 ˚C-28˚C.
Limitations of spatial information related to climate data provide an opportunity to use regional climate
information produced by WorldClim (Hijimans et al., 2005). Climate model outputs compiled in the WorldClim
database is an interpolation development of surface climate elements for global regions with a resolution of 1 km. The
climate elements developed are rainfall, minimum temperature, and maximum temperature.

2.2.2 Data Source

Assessing watershed healthy or risk levels of the Way Khilau requires data collected from various sources that are
available and accessible. The data are required in spatial format concerning the watershed coverage. The compiled
data include climate (i.e., rainfall and air temperature), biophysics (i.e., green space area, elevation, slope, and river
characteristics), and social economy (e.g., demography, institution, infrastructure). The spatial data for climate-related
variables (i.e., rainfall, air temperature, and climate extreme) are derived from Worldclim. The climate data are
prepared for the baseline (1991-2020) and future (2021-2050) period for allowing sensitivity analysis of the risk levels
against climate change scenarios. Data for biophysics are sourced from Indonesia Geospatial Information Agency
named in Bahasa Badan Informasi Geospatial (BIG). Data for related social economy variables are obtained from the
Indonesia Central Bureau of Statistics in Bahasa Badan Pusat Statistics (BPS). The compilation of data employed for
the study area is presented in Supplementary Materials: Appendix 1.

2.2.3 Calculation of Watershed Healthy or Risk level

The compiled data are employed to calculate the watershed healthy or risk levels. The watershed health is
calculated following the MoEF Regulation No. 60 of 2014. This regulation's identified components and indicators
are then modified to capture climate change and biodiversity regarding the MoEF Regulation No. 7 of 2018 and the
MoEF Regulation No. 29 of 2009 to calculate risk levels. The risk calculation is formulated following the approach
of (IPCC, 2014) that elaborates the risk (R) as a function of Hazard (H), Vulnerability (V) which is formed by
Sensitivity (S) and Adaptive Capacity (AC), and Exposure (E). These risk components are then calculated based on
the contributed indicators constructed for each risk component. Understanding the stressors that may affect the
watershed health or risk levels in the form of physical and biodiversity aspects of the watershed, the indicators
constructed for each risk component are grouped into physical aspects and biodiversity aspects (Fig 3).

8
 Fig. 3. The components and the constructed indicators developed for assessing the watershed risk levels

The indicators formed by each risk component are calculated using data constructed for each indicator detailed in
Supplementary Materials: Appendix 2. The varying data values need normalization to transform data values from zero
to one. The normalization employed a specific upper and lower threshold determined based on literature reviews, with
a rationale that the closest value to 1 implies the higher value to determine the risk levels. The determined thresholds
for each data are compiled in Supplementary Materials: Appendix 2. The equation for normalization is below:

𝐷𝑎𝑡𝑎 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝑇ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑(𝑀𝑖𝑛)

Data A (𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥) = If (Data Value ≤ 𝑇ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑(𝑚𝑖𝑛) ; 0 ; If (Data Value ≥ 𝑇ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑(𝑚𝑎𝑥) ; 1 ; ( )
𝑇ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑(𝑚𝑎𝑥) − 𝑇ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑(𝑀𝑖𝑛)

The newly transformed data are then aggregated into a sub-indicator using a specified weighting scale from 0 to
1. The total weighting for each sub-indicator is 1. The sub-indicators are then constructed as indicators.

Sub Indicator A (𝐷𝑎𝑡𝑎) = (𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝐷𝑎𝑡𝑎1 x 𝐷𝑎𝑡𝑎1 + 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝐷𝑎𝑡𝑎2 x 𝐷𝑎𝑡𝑎2 + . . . + 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝐷𝑎𝑡𝑎𝑛 x 𝐷𝑎𝑡𝑎𝑛 )

The indicator is a function of different sub-indicator aggregated by a specified weighting on each sub-indicator.
The total weighting for each indicator is 1. The aggregated formula is below:

Indicator A (𝑆𝑢𝑏 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟 ) = (𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑆𝑢𝑏 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟 1 x 𝑆𝑢𝑏 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟1 + 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑆𝑢𝑏 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟 2 x 𝑆𝑢𝑏 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟2 + . . . + 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑆𝑢𝑏 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑛 x 𝑆𝑢𝑏 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑛 )

The aggregation of indicators represents each component (i.e., capacity, sensitivity, exposure, and hazard) for
measuring the risk levels. The same technique applies to aggregate a set of indicators constructed as a risk component
as calculated using the following equation.

Component A (𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟) = weigtht x ( 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟1 + 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟2 + ⋯ + 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑛 )

The risk level is calculated by aggregating all components. The aggregation also uses the same principle of
weighting application to ensure the value is from 0 - 1. The formulation is presented below.

Risk (𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑡) = weigtht x (𝐻𝑎𝑧𝑎𝑟𝑑 + 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 + 𝑉𝑢𝑙𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦)

9
 Risk (𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑑) = 0.33 x Hazard + 0.33 x Exposure + 0.33 x Vulnerability

Please note that the vulnerability is composed of sensitivity and adaptive capacity. As indicated in Fig 3. the
vulnerability is differentiated for physical and biodiversity aspects. Thus, the indexes, valued from 0 to 1, are
combined into an integrated index using equal proportions between the physical and biodiversity aspects, as illustrated
below.

𝑆𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 (𝑏𝑖𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦) 𝑆𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦(𝑝ℎ𝑦𝑠𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙)

Vulnerability (𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑑) = (( )+( ))
𝐴𝑑𝑎𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 (𝑏𝑖𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦) 𝐴𝑑𝑎𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦(𝑝ℎ𝑦𝑠𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙)

Finally, the risk levels and the watershed health are classified following MoEF No. 7/2018 and MoEF No.
60/2014, respectively. The interpretation of the Watershed Health or Risk Levels follows the MoEF No. 60/2014
(Table 4).

Table 3. Criteria of Watershed Health and Risk Levels

Vulnerability and Risk Index Watershed Health Classification
Interpretation
(MoEF No.7/2018) (MoEF No.60/2014)

0.0 - 0.2 (Very Low) 50 - 70

<100
0.2 - 0.4 (Low) 71 - 90
Maintained watershed
0.4 - 0.6 (Moderate) 91 - 110

>100
0.6 - 0.8 (High) 111 - 130
Restored watershed
0.8 – 1.0 (Very High) 131 - 150

Furthermore, climate-related indicators are already included to measure the hazard component in the developed
risk assessment. This inclusion allows us to measure the sensitivity of the watershed risk levels under future climate
change scenarios. The Way Khilau watershed has the potential to experience a decrease in future rainfall by up to 25%
in June, July, and August. Increase rainfall by up to 25% in December, January, and February. The downstream areas
potentially decrease in maximum rainfall. The downstream areas potentially increase in maximum temperature of
3oC. The climate scenarios are derived from the baseline data (1991-2020) and projection (2021-2050) with RCP 4.5
and RCP 8.5 scenarios (Riahi et al., 2011) imposed for two climate models, i.e., CSIRO and MIROC. The details of
projected information are in Supplementary Materials: Appendix 4.

2.2.4 Utilization of the Risk Assessment

The developed risk assessment can be used to develop a strategy for managing the watershed. The strategy is
defined by considering the indicators that contribute to the risk levels. For example, by setting a minimum threshold
of 0.5 for capacity, sensitivity, exposure, and hazard, the priority can be determined as follows.

Priority 1: adaptive capacity is lower than 0.5 (AC < 0.5), and sensitivity or exposure is higher than 0.5 (S or E > 0.5)
Priority 2: adaptive capacity is lower than 0.5 (AC < 0.5), and sensitivity or exposure is lower than 0.5 (S or E < 0.5)
Priority 3: adaptive capacity is higher than 0.5 (AC > 0.5), and sensitivity or exposure is higher than 0.5 (S or E > 0.5)
Priority 4: adaptive capacity is higher than 0.5 (AC > 0.5), and sensitivity or exposure is lower than 0.5 (S or E < 0.5)

10
3 Results

3.1 The Risk Assessment

As mentioned in the method section, the relevant regulations for developing the risk assessment are the MoEF
Regulation No. 29/2009 about biodiversity, MoEF Regulation No. 60/2014 about land use or classifying watersheds,
and MoEF Regulation No. 7/2018 regarding climate change measures. These three regulations also provide indicators
for measuring the risk levels respected by the focussed subjects. The MoEF Regulation No. 7/2018 provides indicators
related to biophysics (e.g., land cover, air temperature, rainfall) and socio-economics (e.g., welfare, infrastructure,
education, social, and livelihoods) to assess climate change impacts and risks. The MoEF Regulation No. 60/2014
describes indicators related to biophysics (e.g., percentage of critical land, percentage of vegetation cover, erosion
index) and socio-economics (e.g., level of population welfare, population pressure, presence, and law enforcement)
for assessing the watershed healthy. The MoEF Regulation No. 29/2009 defines indicators related to biophysics (e.g.,
topography and physiography) for valuing biodiversity.
The identified indicators from each regulation are then classified into risk assessment components, i.e., climate
hazards, watershed exposure, and the vulnerability (sensitivity and capacity) of physical and biodiversity aspects of
the watershed. The constructed data for forming each indicator are identified. For example, the component of
watershed exposure contains indicators of Water System, Water Building Investment, Social Economy, and Land
Degradation (Fig 4, top panel). Sub-indicators of Annual Flow Coefficient, Flow Regime Coefficient, Water Use,
Flood Parameter, and Payload Sediment construct the indicator of the Water System. The sub-indicator of Water Use
is derived from data on Total Population, Catchment Area, and Rainfall Intensity. Please refer to Fig. 4 (bottom panel)
for other components, indicators, sub-indicators, and identified data for the developed risk assessment.

11
Fig. 4. The components and constructed indicators for the integrated risk assessment (top), and the required data for
measuring each indicator (bottom). Note: the same colours of the top and the bottom panel display associated data
described in the bottom panel that constructed an indicator described in the last circle of the top panel.

12
3.2 The Case Study

3.2.1 The Watershed Health or Risk Levels

The available data required for the indicators of the risk components (Fig. 4) calculated the Watershed Health and
Risk Levels of the Way Khilau. Based on only the MoEF watershed classification Regulation Number 60 of 2014, the
total score of the Way Khilau watershed is 123.25, which is corresponded to the risk score of 0.77. This score includes
the Way Khilau into the category of the restored watershed from the range of a Lowest total score of 50 and the highest
score of 150. Land conditions, especially the percentage of critical land, have the highest contribution value (8% of
the total score) to the total score of the DAS classification. The risk level is influenced by the contribution of climate
hazards, water exposure, watershed physical vulnerability, and vulnerability of watershed biodiversity. The future
climate change scenarios will exacerbate the watershed healthy or risk levels. The healthy watershed score is
increasing from 123 to 138, which is corresponded to the risk index of 0.77 to 0.89 (Fig. 5). This climate impact is
considerably incremental (about 0.12) concerning population pressure on land and human activities potentially
causing land degradation considered the major factors increasing the risk levels. Further identification of the
components measuring the risk levels, the indicators (Fig 4) constructed exposure (0.64), watershed capacity (0.73),
and watershed sensitivity (0.78) are considerably high. These findings suggested considering the constructed
indicators and their data for defining adaptation options.

Fig. 5. The Watershed Health and Risk for the Way Khilau of Lampung Indonesia for current and future scenario
3.2.2 The Utilization of the Assessment

Recommendation for adaptation is directed to prioritize programs and activities to manage the watershed properly.
The formulation requires the identification of factors contributing to the risk components (Fig 4). Identifying indicators
contributing to the risk component is displayed in a quadrant matrix (Fig. 6). The index values display in the range of
0 to 1. A closer value to 1 (one) for the component Exposure and Sensitivity means higher risk levels, on the contrary
condition for the Capacity component. The priority recommendations for adaptation action in response to watershed
health are shown in Fig. 6. The priority recommendations are divided into four quadrants:
a. Priority 1: Restore (low score of watershed health and high risk level)
b. Priority 2: Restoration priority (low score of watershed health and risk level)
c. Priority 3: Protection priority (high score of watershed health and risk level)
d. Priority 4: Protecte (high score of watershed health and low risk level)

13
Fig. 6. The matrix for classifying watershed scores into recommended priority actions. Note: EDAS, CDAS, CBIO,
SBIO, and SDAS are the risk components, i.e. exposure (E), capacity (C) and sensitivity (S), that should be
considered for defining adaptation options. Watershed is named in Bahasa Daerah Aliran Sungai (DAS).

The watershed capacity and sensitivity (Fig. 7, panel A) are the two dominant components that affect the risk
levels of the Way Khilau watershed. On the other hand, the hazard component and sensitivity of watershed biodiversity
are the less dominant components. The value of the adaptive capacity of watershed biodiversity is moderate compared
to other components. The value of the exposure component is considerably high (~0.64). Further identification is made
for the indicators (Fig. 7, panel B) and sub-indicators (Fig. 7, panel C).

14
 The sub-indicators highly contributed to the indicator of watershed physical sensitivity are critical land and
cultivated areas. The critical land and cultivated area contribute 0.92 and 0.80 to the indicator of land condition,
respectively. The main contributors to the indicator of watershed physical capacity are the welfare level and vegetation
cover. The main contributors to the indicator of the water system in the watershed exposure component are water use
(0.8) and sediment deposition (0.6). Climate stressors are dominantly affected by rainfall parameters. Therefore, the
designed interventions for managing the Way Khilau watershed should consider the mostly contributed indicators (Fig
7, panel B) and sub-indicators (Fig. 7, panel C) to the watershed risk levels, i.e., the indicators for the Capacity
component closest to zero and the Sensitivity, Exposure, and Hazard component closest to one should be identified.
For example, the interventions can address the sub-indicators of critical land and cultivated area, vegetation cover,
and welfare level.

Note
Flow Regime
WPS : Watershed Physical Sensitivity CL : Critical Land FRC :
Coefficients
Annual Flow
WPC : Watershed Physical capacity CA : Cultivation Area AFC :
Coefficient
Watershed Biodiversity
WBS : PP : Population Pressure CC : City Classification
Sensitivity
WBC : Watershed Biodiversity Capacity VC : Vegetation Cover RP : Rainfall Parameters
Air Temperature
WE : Watershed Exposure PA : Protected Area ATP :
Parameters
Biodiversity
WH : Watershed Hazard WL : Welfare Level BP :
Parameters
LC : Land condition LE : Law Enforcement EP : Ecosystem Parameter
SU : Space Utilization SL : Sediment Load HP : Habitat Parameter
SE : Social-Economy FP : Flood Parameters
WM : Water Management WU : Water Use
EI Erosion index
LD : Land Degradation

Fig. 7. Evaluation of contributing indicators to watershed risk levels for the Way Khilau of Lampung Indonesia.

15
4 Discussion

This study developed watershed risk assessment by combining the indicators described in the MoEF Regulation
No. 29/2009, MoEF Regulation No. 60/2014, and MoEF Regulation No. 7/2018, with the logical framework of
watershed vulnerability developed by Nelitz et al. (2013). Watersheds integrate all features of the environment –
climate, terrain, land use and land cover, human activities, human communities, and biota – across upslope, riparian-
floodplain, and channel subsystems. The three categories of approaches for assessing the sensitivity of watersheds
include 1) Indicators of watershed condition or function, 2) Biological indicators (bioindicators), and 3) Coupled or
integrated watershed models ( Nelitz et al., 2013).
Examples of the use of indicators to assess watershed conditions in response to climate change vary widely. In
this study, we used the indicators derived from related regulations and the UN conventions. The UNFCCC contributes
to the indicators of MoEF Regulation No. 7/2018, such as land cover, rainfall, and air temperature. The UNCBD
contributed to preparing biodiversity indicators defined by the MoEF Regulation No. 29/2009, such as topography,
physiography, watershed conditions, water resources, soil, geology, and biota diversity. The UNCCD contributed to
the indicators of land condition and socio-economic conditions, such as the percentage of critical land, erosion, and
the level of welfare of the population represented by MoEF Regulation No. 60/2014. However, not all indicators
defined by the regulations are used due to data limitations.
Integrated watershed management considers a range of factors that influence the health and functioning of the
watershed (Duan et al., 2022). These factors include land use practices, water availability, water quality, ecological
processes, socio-economic considerations, and the overall ecological balance within the watershed (Oppenheimer &
Petsonk, 2003, 2005; Smith, 2001). Adding climate change, biodiversity, and land degradation indicators to the risk
assessment improves the development of integrated risk assessment for measuring the watershed risk levels. By
integrating the indicators into the assessment process, policymakers can identify priority areas for action, develop
targeted conservation and restoration strategies, and implement adaptive management practices (Nelitz et al., 2013).
Furthermore, including these indicators helps monitor the effectiveness of management interventions, facilitates
evidence-based decision-making, and promotes sustainable practices that enhance the resilience and long-term
viability of the watershed ecosystem.
Developing an integrated risk assessment is crucial to a comprehensive watershed management policy. The
assessment can be utilized to ensure the sustainability of watershed functions and services. The integrated risk
assessment incorporates various indicators from government regulations concerning biodiversity, climate change, and
land degradation. These indicators not only reflect state policies but also enable the operationalization of these policies.
One of the challenges in implementing policies lies in the effectiveness of policy operationalization (Basuki et al.,
2022; Narendra et al., 2021). Many watershed management operations suffer damage due to limited measurement
indicators that must align with a policy direction. However, the developed risk method can bridge this gap and
effectively reflect the implemented policies. Strategic directions can be easily identified by operationalizing
government regulations using appropriate indicators. The integrated risk method can strengthen the planning and
implementation of government policies on climate change, biodiversity, and land degradation, particularly in
sustainable watershed management.
The assessment of watershed health has been conducted through various methods and indicators in scientific
literature. One common approach is the utilization of vulnerability indices that encompass key factors, including
social, economic, biological, and geographical systems, and the analysis of risks, consequences, and vulnerabilities.
The assessment of watershed health considers components such as ecosystem vitality, ecosystem services, and
governance and stakeholders (Corfee-Morlot & Hohne, 2003; Hitz & Smith, 2004; Leemans & Eickhout, 2004;
Oppenheimer & Petsonk, 2003, 2005; Smith, 2001). These identified components align with the indicators constructed
for the integrated risk assessment in this study: water quality, biodiversity, habitat condition, and ecosystem services.
The developed risk method adds indicators based on environmental conditions. The indicators can be modified
elsewhere by changing the sub-indicators constructed with available data. This result allows for flexibility in specific
environmental contexts, enhancing the robustness and applicability of the assessment framework.
The watershed vulnerability of the Way Khilau has increased from 123.25 (0.77) to 138 (0.89) due to climate
change. Adaptation actions are recommended to address specific indicators and sub-indicators that cause the increase
in the vulnerability index. The indicators that will be interfered with are determined using a particular threshold. For
example, using a defined threshold of 0.5 applied to Fig 7., several indicators and sub-indicators should be considered
when devising adaptation actions. The indicators and sub-indicators are a) socio-economic (urban classification and
level of welfare, population pressure on land, and existence and enforcement of regulations), b) land degradation
(percentage of critical land), c) water governance (water use index, flow regime coefficient, and sediment load), d)

16
biodiversity (ecosystem and biodiversity), e) spatial use (protected areas, cultivated areas) and f) land conditions
(erosion index, and percentage of critical land). If we apply the threshold of 0.7, the contributing indicators and sub-
indicators include a) land degradation (essential percentage of land), b) socio-economic (water use index, presence
and enforcement of regulations), c) spatial use (cultivation area), d) land conditions (percentage of critical land, and
erosion index) and e) biodiversity (ecosystems and biodiversity).
Considering the findings, this study engaged stakeholders to validate the risk assessment for the Way Khilau
watershed. The stakeholders' engagement was performed through Virtual Meetings (May and July 2020) and
validation workshops (August 2020). The participants were from Universities, Central Management of Regional River
Flow named in Bahasa Badan Pengelola Daerah Aliran Sungai (BPDAS), the Ministry of Environmental and
Forestry, Regional Environmental Services, the City Planner, and the Center for Climate Change and Forest and Land
Fire Control. The engagement is documented in Supplementary Materials: Appendix 5. Discussing the study results,
the stakeholders recommended several options to manage the Way Khilau watershed. The options are described
below.
 Development of community institutions in upstream areas for information dissemination, financing
mechanisms, and financial institutions.
 Promotion of the benefits of sustainable agroforestry in maintaining water catchment areas in the upstream
areas.
 Value-added economic businesses of agricultural products/home industries across the watershed.
 Development of incentives for the growth of upstream and downstream industries through home industry
training and local product-based creative industries.
 Development of Agro-Edu tourism, which involves the management by women's groups and housewives
 An integrated system for climate change adaptation and conservation in upstream and downstream water
catchment areas
 Water management is based on regional and climatic conditions for various community needs: agriculture,
industry, and households.
 Evaluation and realignment of spatial planning with consideration of the potential impacts of climate change
through regulations and policies at the local level.

5 Conclusion

Climate change and land degradation compounding with the destructive and exploitation behavior of human
civilizations, may cause a decrease in the function and carrying capacity of a watershed in providing environmental
services, which may eventually impact the biodiversity's existence. Furthermore, the disruption of ecosystem functions
will reduce the quality of environmental services in meeting the needs of human livelihoods, encouraging the demand
to develop proper plans and substantial efforts to sustain the function and carrying capacity of the watersheds.
Developing climate change adaptation in the Way Khilau watershed refers to the UN conventions and their
associated regulations in Indonesia. The essence of formulating adaptation options is to consider the results of the
integrated risk assessment. The Way Khilau watershed is already degraded and categorized as a protection priority.
The future climate change scenarios will amplify the risk levels (score of 138), nearly approaching the upper threshold
of the watershed healthy, with a score ranging from 0 to 150. This result alarms the need for restoration. The challenges
of climate change, combined with population pressure on land and human activities, which impact land degradation,
are significant factors in increasing the risk of the Way Khilau watershed. These higher risks demand anticipatory
steps to overcome the increased risk levels in the Way Khilau Sub watershed area.
This study contributes to the context of watershed risk assessment by offering a set of components and constructed
indicators to measure watershed health, distinguishing the incremental impacts of climate change, and providing an
example to design proper adaptation actions for sustaining watershed functions and services.

6 Acknowledgements

This research article was made possible through the support from the Cross-Cutting Capacity Development (CCD)
Project. Finally, our appreciation to all stakeholders, i.e., key informants, respondents, local interviewer, and officers
and partners, i.e., PIAREA.co.id and KRESA.id. Special thanks to Raynaldi Rachmat for technical assistance in
illustrating the manuscript.

17
7 References

[BAPPENAS] National Development Planning Agency. (2015). Buku Rekalkulasi Penutupan Lahan Indonesia
Tahun 2014. National Development Planning Agency.
[FAO] Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. (2014). World reference base for soil resources
2014.
[IPCC] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution
of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0248(00)00575-3
Basuki, T. M., Nugroho, H. Y. S. H., Indrajaya, Y., Pramono, I. B., Nugroho, N. P., Supangat, A. B., Indrawati, D.
R., Savitri, E., Wahyuningrum, N., Purwanto, Cahyono, S. A., Putra, P. B., Adi, R. N., Nugroho, A. W.,
Auliyani, D., Wuryanta, A., Riyanto, H. D., Harjadi, B., Yudilastyantoro, C., … Simarmata, D. P. (2022).
Improvement of Integrated Watershed Management in Indonesia for Mitigation and Adaptation to Climate
Change: A Review. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(16), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14169997
Bhan, S. (2013). Land degradation and integrated watershed management in India. International Soil and Water
Conservation Research, 1(1), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-6339(15)30049-6
Blasiak, R., Spijkers, J., Tokunaga, K., Pittman, J., Yagi, N., & Osterblom, H. (2017). Climate change and marine
fisheries: Least developed countries top global index of vulnerability. Journal PLoS ONE, 12(6).
Corfee-Morlot, J., & Hohne, N. (2003). Climate change: long-termtargets and shortterm commitments. Global
Environment Change, 13, 277–293.
Duan, T., Feng, J., Chang, X., & Li, Y. (2022). Watershed health assessment using the coupled integrated
multistatistic analyses and PSIR framework. Science of The Total Environment, 847, 157523.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157523
Gandhi, J. M. (2008). CAPACITY BUILDING IN WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT : 005, 1–7.
Geetha, R., Kizhakudan, S. J., Divipala, I., Salim, S. S., & Zacharia, P. U. (2017). Vulnerability index and climate
change: an analysis in Cuddalore district of Tamil Nadu, India. Indian Journal of Fish, 64(2), 96–104.
Giri, S., Lathrop, R. G., & Obropta, C. C. (2019). Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation
Strategies through Best Management Practices. Journal of Hydroplogy, 580.
Gisladottir, G., & Stocking, M. (2005). Land degradation control and its global environmental benefits. Land
Degradation and Development, 16(2), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.687
Grantham, T. E., Matthews, J. H., & Bledsoe, B. P. (2019). Shifting currents: Managing freshwater systems for
ecological resilience in a changing climate. Water Security, 8(October), 100049.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasec.2019.100049
Hijimans, 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(15), 1965–1978.
Hitz, S., & Smith, J. B. (2004). Estimating global impacts from climate change. Global Environment Change, 14,
201–218.
Huang, J., Zhan, J., Yan, H., & Wu, F. (2013). Evaluation of the Impacts of Land Use on Water Quality: A Case
Study in The Chaohu Lake Basin. The Scientific World Journal, 2013(1), 1–7.
Jun, K. S., Chung, E., Sung, J., & Lee, K. S. (2011). Development of spatial water resources vulnerability index
considering climate change impacts. Science of the Total Environment, 409, 5228–5242.
Junaedi, E., Siarudin, M., Indrajaya, Y., & Widiyanto, A. (2016). The impact land use change to the hydrological
condition of Balanga Tieng watershed. Jurnal Teknik Hidraulik, 7(1).

18
Lalika, M. C. S., Meire, P., Ngaga, Y. M., & Chang’a, L. (2015). Understanding watershed dynamics and impacts of
climate change and variability in the Pangani River Basin, Tanzania. Ecohydrology and Hydrobiology, 15(1),
26–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecohyd.2014.11.002
Leemans, R., & Eickhout, B. (2004). Another reason for concern: regional and global impacts on ecosystems for
different levels of climate change. Global Environment Change, 14, 219–228.
Liang, Y., & Liu, L. (2017). Simulating land-use change and its effect on biodiversity conservation in a watershed in
Northwest China. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability, 3(5).
Liyanage, C. P., & Yamada, K. (2017). Impact of population growth on te water quality of natural water bodies.
Sustainability, 9(8), 1–14.
Miralles-Wilhelm, F., Matthews, J. H., Karres, N., Abell, R., Dalton, J., Kang, S. T., Liu, J., Maendly, R., Matthews,
N., McDonald, R., Muñoz-Castillo, R., Ochoa-Tocachi, B. F., Pradhan, N., Rodriguez, D., Vigerstøl, K., &
van Wesenbeeck, B. (2023). Emerging themes and future directions in watershed resilience research. Water
Security, 18(March 2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasec.2022.100132
Mtibaa, S., Hotta, N., & Irie, M. (2018). Analysis of the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of best management
practices for controlling sediment yield: A case study of the Joumine Watershed, Tunisia. Science of the Total
Environment, 16(1), 616–617.
Narendra, B. H., Siregar, C. A., Dharmawan, I. W. S., Sukmana, A., Pratiwi, Pramono, I. B., Basuki, T. M.,
Nugroho, H. Y. S. H., Supangat, A. B., Purwanto, Setiawan, O., Nandini, R., Ulya, N. A., Arifanti, V. B., &
Yuwati, T. W. (2021). A review on sustainability of watershed management in Indonesia. Sustainability
(Switzerland), 13(19), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131911125
Nelitz, M., Samantha, B., & Russell-Smith, J. (2013). Tools For Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments For
Watershed.
Nguyen, C. V, Horne, R., Fien, J., & Cheong, F. (2017). Assessment of social vulnerability to climate change at the
local scale : development and application of a social vulnerability index. Climate Change, 143, 355–370.
Okpara, U. T., Stringer, L. C., & Dougill, A. J. (2017). Using a novel climate –water conflict vulnerability index to
capture double exposures in lake Chad. Regional Environmental Change, 17, 351–366.
Oppenheimer, M., & Petsonk, A. (2003). Global warming: the intersection of longtermgoals and near-termpolicy
(D. Michel (ed.); Climate Po). Center for Transatlantic Relations, Johns Hopkins University.
Oppenheimer, M., & Petsonk, A. (2005). Article 2 of the UNFCCC: historical origins, recent interpretations.
Climate Change, 73, 195–226.
Pambudi, A. S. (2019). Watershed management in Indonesia: A regulation, institution, and policy review.
Indonesian Journal of Development Planning, 3(2), 185–202.
Permatasari, P. A., Setiawan, Y., Khairiah, R. N., & Effendi, H. (2016). The effect of land use change on water
quality: A case study in Ciliwung Watershed. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 54.
Perrings, C., Baumgartner, S., Brock, W. A., & Chopra, K. (2009). Chapter 17: The economics of biodiversity and
ecosystem services. Biodiversity, Ecosystem Functioning, and Human Wellbeing.
Poedjiastoeti, H., Sudarmadji, Sunarto, & Suprayogi, S. (2017). Assessment of Surface Water Vulnerability to
Pollution in the Garang Hilir Sub-watershed Based on Multi-Index. Jurnal Wilayah Dan Lingkungan, 5(3),
168–180.
Prasetiawan, T. (2015). The Impact of Climate Change on Raw Water Supply of PDAM Kabupaten Lebak. Jurnal
Masalah-Masalah Sosial, 5(1), 77–92.
Prudhomme, C., & Davies, H. (2009). Assessing uncertainties in climate change impact analyses on the river flow
regimes in UK part 2: climate change. Climate Change, 93, 197–222.

19
Qiu, J., Shen, Z., Leng, G., Xie, H., Hou, X., & Wei, G. (2019). Impacts of climate change on watershed systems
and potential adaptation through BMPs in a drinking water source area. Journal of Hydrology, 573(March),
123–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.03.074
Reed, M. S., & Stringer, L. C. (2016). Land degradation, desertification and climate change: Anticipating,
assessing and adapting to future change. Routledge.
Reid, H., & Swiderska, K. (2008). An IIED Briefing Biodiversity , climate change and poverty : exploring the links.
International Institute for Environment and Development, February, 6. http://pubs.iied.org/17034IIED.html
Riahi, K., Rao, S., Krey, V., Cho, C., Chirkov, V., Fischer, G., Kindermann, G., Nakicenovic, N., & Rafaj, P.
(2011). RCP 8.5-A skenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions. Climate Change, 109(1), 33–57.
Rockström, J., Falkenmark, M., Allan, T., Folke, C., Gordon, L., Jägerskog, A., Kummu, M., Lannerstad, M.,
Meybeck, M., Molden, D., Postel, S., Savenije, H. H. G., Svedin, U., Turton, A., & Varis, O. (2014). The
unfolding water drama in the Anthropocene: towards a resilience-based perspective on water for global
sustainability. Ecohydrology, 7(5), 1249–1261. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.1562
Rockström, J., Falkenmark, M., Folke, C., Lannerstad, M., Barron, J., Enfors, E., Gordon, L., Heinke, J., Hoff, H., &
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2014). Water resilience for human prosperity. Cambridge University Press.
Rodina, L. (2019). Defining “water resilience”: Debates, concepts, approaches, and gaps. Wiley Interdisciplinary
Reviews: Water, 6(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/WAT2.1334
Romlah, D. R., Yuwono, S. B., Hilmanto, R., & Banuwa, I. S. (2018). The Effect of Changes in Forest Cover on the
Discharge of Way Seputih Hulu. Jurnal Hutan Tropis, 6(2), 197–204.
Roy, P., Pal, S. C., Chakrabortty, R., Saha, A., & Chowdhuri, I. (2022). A systematic review on climate change and
geo-environmental factors induced land degradation: Processes, policy-practice gap and its management
strategies. Geological Journal, n/a(n/a), 1–28. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/gj.4649
Sadeghi, S. H., Vafakhah, M., Moosavi, V., Pourfallah Asadabadi, S., Sadeghi, P. S., Khaledi Darvishan, A.,
Bagheri Fahraji, R., Mosavinia, S. H., Majidnia, A., Gharemahmudli, S., & Rekabdarkolaei, H. M. (2022).
Assessing the health and ecological security of a human induced watershed in central iran. Ecosystem Health
and Sustainability, 8(1), 2090447. https://doi.org/10.1080/20964129.2022.2090447
Sathyan, A. R., Funk, C., Aenis, T., Winker, P., & Breuer, L. (2018). Sensitivity analysis of a climate vulnerability
index - a case study from Indian watershed development programmes. Climate Change Responses, 5, 1–14.
Serafum, M. B., Siegle, E., Corsi, A. C., & Bonetti, J. (2019). Coastal vulnerability to wave impacts using a
multicriteria index: Santa Catarina(Brazil). Journal of Environmental Management, 230, 21–32.
Smith, J. B. (2001). Vulnerability to climate change and reasons for concern: a synthesis, Climate Change 2001:
Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (J. J. McCarthy, O. F. Canziani, N. A. Leary, D. J. Dokken, & K. S.
White (eds.)). Cambridge University Press.
Sriyana, I. (2018). Evaluation of watershed carrying capacity for watershed management (a case study on Bodri
watershed, Central Java, Indonesia). MATEC Web of Conference 195.
Stringer, L. C., Scrieciu, S. S., & Reed, M. S. (2009). Biodiversity, land degradation, and climate change:
Participatory planning in Romania. Applied Geography, 29(1), 77–90.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2008.07.008
Surtikanti, H. K., Surakusumah, W., Nilawati, T. S., & Irawan, A. (2016). Reflection of Land Functions on Plant
Biodiversity in the Cilaja River Basin, Ujung Berung. Jurnal Biodjati, 1(1), 59.
Woznicki, S. A., Nejadhashemi, A. P., Tang, Y., & Wang, L. (2016). Large scale climate change vulnerability
assessment of stream health. Ecological Indicators, 69, 578–594.
Zachar, D. (1982). Soil erosion. Developments in Soil Science 10. Elsevier Scientific.

20
21
Highlights
 Connection of Rio Conventions on biodiversity, land degradation, and climate change
with the ratified national policies to assess watershed vulnerability.
 Development of risk assessment method derived from the connection policies on climate
change risk, biodiversity, and watershed health in Indonesia.
 The method contains indicators to measure the risk level (i.e., maintained or restored) of
a watershed, applied to a study area of Way Khilau Watershed of Lampung, Indonesia.
 Future climate change will increase the risk level of the Way Khilau watershed, which
urges the needs for devising adaptations to sustain watershed functions and services.
 Adaptation options can be formulated by considering the contributing indicators and sub-
indicators determining the watershed vulnerability.

22