Unveiling Transboundary Challenges in River Flood Risk Management: Learning from the Ciliwung River Basin

To cope with massive development, many urban and surrounding rural areas were agglomerated into Greater Metropolitan area aiming for regional economic development. Many of these metropolitans experienced dramatic increase of impacted area and economic loss from annual flooding. The issues and challenges emerged from transboundary river flood risk management have become major concerned for metropolitan area with long river basin crossing several administrative jurisdictions. 15 Previous studies addressed the challenges of flood risk, but they have tended to overlook transboundary issues and power sharing. To tackle future flood events, this paper aims to unveil transboundary challenges and power sharing for flood management, learning from Ciliwung river. As the longest river basin crossing cities and regencies of Greater Jakarta, complexity of Ciliwung flood risk management was driven by flood variables triggered not only by natural, physical, and socio-economic factors, but also by transboundary challenges and power sharing. About 13 significant transboundary flood 20 drivers were identified from literature, policy, and practices. Using MICMAC, a power-dependency model, several strategic key flood drivers were further recognized based on key stakeholders' perspectives obtained from in-depth interviews and FGD. Findings of the study show that a lack of control of spatial plans and weak stakeholder coordination-cooperation are found to be the priority key flood drivers for risk reduction intervention. Finally, this study contributes to the literature on governance of flood risk management by emphasizing the need for a coordinated and integrated approach to mitigate flood risks that extend 25 beyond administrative boundaries, enhancing the overall resilience and


Introduction
Due to massive urbanization and development, urban growth often forces the spatial expansion of cities to form an urban agglomeration (metropolitan), which is not only strengthening regional economic development but also reveals the complexity of effective governance in transboundary river flood management.Transboundary rivers basins are those that crossing political and administrative jurisdiction borders between countries, provinces, or cities/regencies.In the past two decades, urban agglomerations are becoming a vital geographic unit for nations to sustain economic growth.The 40 largest urban agglomerations cover 18% of the world population, 66% of global economic activities, and approximately 85% of technological innovations (UN Habitat, 2016).By 2022, about 56% of the world population lives in urban area and expected to increase to 68% by 2050 (United Nations, 2022).However, the integration of multiple cities in urban agglomerations not only creates a complex, dynamic, and huge system (Müller, 2013), but also blurs the boundaries between cities and its peripheral regions, as well as its administrative system that will impact the governance of transboundary river flood risk management.
Several works have attempted to solve challenges related with the governance of transboundary river management.For example, the use of ecology-water-energy-food nexus' evolutionary game model to understand and mapping the complex and dynamic interrelationship among transboundary challenges (Guo et al., 2024), as well as an advancement of classical game theory to solve the non-dynamic transboundary challenges and actors (Zhang et al., 2024).However, policy makers and river managements authorities have often been exposed to the challenges of managing complex spatial and temporal cause effect relationships when attempting to reduce river flood risk, and also faced conflicting transboundary interests (Lorenz et al., 2001).Further, harmonizing the horizontal and vertical coordination among stakeholders/actors in integrated flood risk management plays important role in reducing the exposure risk (Clegg et al., 2023;Lorenz et al., 2001).
Meanwhile, extensive growth of urbanization severely impacted on environmental challenges, i.e. climate change, environmental degradation, and disaster (Lin et al., 2020), with flood hazard as the most significantly destructive and frequent threat to the built-environment and human being globally.For example, Indonesian natural disaster profile from 1815 to 2023 shows that flood is the highest frequency events with 13,915 events with 30,671 fatalities (National Disaster Management Agency -BNPB), 2024).The occurrence of urban flood in China often affected extensive regions, such as urban agglomeration, revealing risk associated with complex environmental attributes, social economic attributes, physical attributes, and economic structures (Wang et al., 2023).In fact, many coastal urban agglomerations in developing countries, such as in Indonesia and Chile, are threatened by a range of hydrometeorological hazards, climate induced extreme events, climate change impacts, and anthropogenic threats which lead to the increase of urban flood -a combination of fluvial flood, pluvial flood, and coastal flood (Texier, 2008a;Rahayu and Nasu, 2010;Ariyani et al., 2022;Khoirunisa and Yuwono, 2023;Müller, 2013).
The complexity of urban flood is triggered by risk factors and its collateral, which is in this study called as flood risk challenges.
For example, the increase of population growth will lead to several challenges, such as the increase of population density, demographic profiles, assets, and infrastructures to support population growth, land use change of the river basin, land subsidence due to the excessive use of ground water, low awareness, slump area, and waste/trash which decreased the river and drainage capacity (Rahayu, 2022a).Several physical and natural factors significantly influenced the urban flood are tidal surge, extreme intensity, river physiography, erosion, sedimentation, and inappropriate flood control structure (Rahayu, 2022b).
Several quantitative studies on flood risks assessment at the scale of urban agglomerations revealed a significant gap between subregions within large-scale regions from the perspectives of spatial temporal issues, i.e. land cover characteristics, topography, and water networks (Liu et al., 2021).However, many of them only focus at small scale of urban agglomeration, such as the city level (Pandey et al., 2023;Wang et al., 2022Wang et al., , 2023)).Meanwhile, a qualitative study using absorptive capacity, adaptive capacity, and transformative capacity approach has attempted to identify transboundary flood resilient challenges, for the case of Narayani and Mahakali basins in Nepal (Pandey, 2023).They are early warning system, communication system, disaster risk reduction institutions, and community capitals-safety nets as absorptive capacity; meanwhile crops-livelihoods, infrastructures, and income diversification as adaptive capacity; while public, private, and civil society initiatives and partnerships as transformative capacity.
From the governance perspective, a multi-level transboundary authority of flood risk management shows several challenges, such as silo jurisdiction which is silo in coordination among transboundary administrative regions due to ego sectoral, hegemony of actors and dynamic perceived power between various actors (Polese et al., 2024).A study using Flood Risk Management FRM approach also found several multiple transboundary challenges in reducing the flood impacts, i.e. land-use change, climate change, infrastructure management, and institutional capacity (Mehta and Warner, 2022).Thus, harmonizing or synergizing those challenges arising from the performing of transboundary flood risk reduction and management is critically necessary.
Until now, the most critical issue for transboundary flood risk management has not been deeply studied, i.e. prioritizing the transboundary flood risk challenges for the purpose of disaster risk reduction intervention actions.Prioritizing challenges is very important in the development of collective action plan for transboundary flood risk management both horizontally among the same level of cities/regencies or provincial administrative jurisdiction and vertically among cities/regencies with provincial and/or national administrative jurisdictions.To untangle the complexity of the river flood risk, we must "dig at the roots instead of just hacking at the leaves", we must fully understand "What are the main transboundary challenges to managing river flood?" and "What are the most strategic intervention for reducing the transboundary flood challenges?".Up until recently, these questions remain unsolved.
Therefore, this study aims to recognize the actual condition of the challenges of transboundary flood risk reduction called driving variables, and then to develop a model for prioritizing the transboundary challenges, which is importantly needed to structure collective transboundary flood risk reduction actions.This will be achieved using Matriced' Impacts Croisés Appliquée á un Classement (MICMAC) analysis, learning from Ciliwung River Basin.Holistic data acquisition of transboundary challenges of flood risk obtained through documents reviews, in-depth interviews, observation survey, and FGDs.The resulting MICMAC model maps the interrelationships among those flood driving variables using the degree of power and dependency criteria.This can enable understanding how cross-border cooperation and local/regional/national level policies can be used to synergize and structure those collective action to reduce and manage flood risk effectively.
In general, recognizing the transboundary flood risk drivers and the priority strategic countermeasures to reduce and manage the key flood drivers, this study will enrich the area of flood disaster risk management, water resource management, environmental disaster science and governance of transboundary river management.This study is particularly relevant for areas of research involving the management of shared water resources, the impact of regional development on flood risk, and strategies to reduce economic losses from flooding.With research emphasises on the cross-border administrative characteristics such as in the Ciliwung watershed, this study offers a unique perspective on the challenges and solutions associated with flood risk management in a region involving several administrative jurisdiction regions.This paper is divided into three main parts.The first, materials and methods, covers in-depth literature and document reviews for recognizing transboundary flood risk drivers/challenges and the governance of transboundary flood reduction and management.Then using MICMAC model analysis is for the prioritizing transboundary challenges of flood risk reduction and management using power dependence relationship.The second part exemplifies these theoretical considerations by using Ciliwung river basin in Metropolitan Jakarta as the case study.The final discussion recaps the key challenges of transboundary flood risk reduction and management as the findings of MICMAC analysis model, as well as its interaction in the disaster risk reduction collective actions.

Flood Risk Drivers Framework
Globally, floods have emerged as one of society's most dangerous risks (Beese et al., 1999), and the most frequent disaster faced by many urban areas in Indonesia (Rahayu and Nasu, 2010).There has been a significant increase in damages caused by catastrophic urban flooding over the past 50 years (Munich Re Group, 2004).The flood risk is created by the combination of flood hazards and vulnerabilities (Beese et al., 1999;UNISDR, 2009), and it refers to the likelihood and exposure of elements to flood hazards.
As discussed in the introduction, many approaches have been used to define a flood risk drivers, mainly they used a hazard, vulnerability and capacity HVC approach (Müller, 2013;Collalti et al., 2024;Ariyani et al., 2022), using an exposure risk approach (Wang et al., 2023), using a resilient component approach, i.e. absorptive capacity, adaptive capacity and transformative capacity (Pandey et al., 2023), using the integration of a CCA and DRR approach (Booth et al., 2020), and using Integrated Water Resource Management -IWRM (Zeitoun et al., 2013).
To have better understanding of flood risk reduction intervention action, the flood risk drivers are defined as an event that can change the condition of a flooding system and are characterized by using the source-pathway-receptor (SPR) paradigm (Evans et al., 2006).A flood source is determined as any event or condition that may cause flooding due to hydrometeorological conditions (e.g., extreme rainfall, sea level rise), while pathways is a mechanism to transfer floodwaters to the locations where they may impact receptors, and receptors are people and built environments that may be impacted by flooding.
Based on the previous works (Evans et al., 2008;O'Donnell and Thorne, 2020), a source-pathway-receptor (SPR) river flood driver framework is shown in Table 1.There are five drivers identified as flood sources, such as temperature, precipitation, sea-level rise, storm surges, and waves.Nine flood drivers are categorized as flood pathway, they are river morphology, river vegetation, sediment supply, groundwater flooding, sewer conveyance, urbanization, land-use change, environmental regulation, and stakeholder behaviours.The other five drivers are defined as flood receptor, i.e., urban impact, buildings, infrastructure impact, economic impact, and social impact.Extreme precipitation is known to significantly affect floods in many metropolitan areas of Indonesia, including floods in Greater Jakarta (Mishra et al., 2018).Sudden changes of extreme precipitation in a short duration, which leads to an increase of water volume, intensity, duration, and location, may cause severe flooding (O'Donnell and Thorne, 2020).The issue of transboundary river flood is that flood occur not only by upstream precipitation but also due to downstream rainfall.In many cases, according to rainfall spatial distribution data, most of the metropolitan floods, including Greater Jakarta floods, were caused by evenly distributed rainfall along the Ciliwung River Basin (Farid et al., 2021).It is understood that fluvial floods occur when rivers do not have sufficient capacity to pass flow rates from upstream to downstream (Asdak, 1995).The narrowing of the river capacity is mainly due to sedimentation and waste, as well as the construction of settlements on uncontrolled riverbanks.Reducing river sedimentation have been done by lowering upstream and midstream river erosion through lowering river flow rate by constructing a man-made lake, dam, and canal.For example, several man-made lake and dam have been constructed in upstream area of Ciliwung river, such as Bogor Regency and Depok City area, to control flood peak discharge in mid-stream and downstream areas of the Ciliwung River Basin (Nugraheni et al., 2020).
To have better visualisation, this study has preliminarily attempted to describe the S-P-R flood risk driver framework in a fishbone diagram, see Figure 1 (Rahayu et al, 2022).This diagram was developed by integrating hazard, vulnerability, and capacity approach into SPR.The source is defined as flood hazard, i.e. extreme precipitation, climate change impact, pathway is defined as drainage and absorption capacity, while receptor is defined as social and physical vulnerabilities, as well as community and government capacities.Then the top 20% population is believed to have influence on the 80% population of attributes (Grosfeld-Nir et al., 2007).
Meanwhile, Pareto efficiency has been used for climate trade policies and border tax adjustments (Keen and Kotsogiannis, 2014).The weakness of these approach is when the Pareto chart of the data having almost flat distribution.The Pareto approach will be very useful if we have a steep descendent curve distribution, where 20% -80% can be allocated based on the frequency distribution.Others have used power-interest matrix, a new approach for prioritizing role-based stakeholders' engagement (Hourton, 2014, andDutta 2020), mapping the variables in four quadrants.First quadrant is the key players with high power and high interest.Second quadrant is the keep informed with low power but high interest.Third quadrant is the minimal effort with low power and low interest.The fourth quadrant is the keep satisfied with high power and low interest.
However, several studies have used power-dependence approach, a very simple and useful approach for classification and structuring the priority of flood drivers.To identify driving power (influential) and dependence power (influenced), a quantitative method called Matriced' Impacts Croisés Appliquée á un Classement (MICMAC) is a powerful tool.Both Attri et al. (2013) and Saxena et al. (1990) are agreed that MICMAC analysis is a significant tool for an in-depth analysis of a system.
The method defines the level of power and dependency by analysing the interrelation among the drivers.MICMAC analysis is carried out to scrutinize the impact of driving power and dependency power of the factors (Ansari et al., 2013).Putting the driving power along X-axis and dependency power along Y axis, the factors are classified into four quadrants (group), i.e.
The independent group consists of drivers with strong driving power but low dependence power.These driving variables often called key driving variables, are rarely influenced by other drivers, but strongly influence other groups.While the linkage group consists of the driving variables characterised by both high driving and high dependency power.Variables within the linkage group both influence other groups as well as being influenced by them.This group, called relay variables, represents variables that have strong interconnections and mutual dependencies with variables in other quadrants.Meanwhile, the autonomous group, often called autonomous variables, consists of driving variables characterised by extremely low driving power while also having low dependency power on factors in other groups.They are self-contained and do not significantly drive or depend on other quadrants.Then, the dependent group, called as dependent variables, consists of driving variables characterised by low driving ability but high reliance power on other groups.These drivers rely heavily on other drivers, and any action taken by other drivers will have an impact on the dependent drivers.
In disaster risk reduction, MICMAC analysis was previously used to discover important factors of resilient humanitarian supply chain that emerge during post-disasters (Singh et al., 2018).The study's findings will help government agencies and policymakers make proper strategic decisions to increase resilience.Further, it assists emerging countries in minimizing massive losses and improving economic growth for the benefit of society.However, up to these days, there is only few published studies in discovering key flood drivers using the MICMAC method.For example, (Ariyani et al., 2022) have used MICMAC model to identify the contributing factors influencing flood disaster in Ciliwung watershed using influencedependence criteria.The factors were identified using hazard vulnerability capacity framework; however, the targeted respondent was very limited and not comprehensively represented by flood related institutions of transboundary administrative jurisdiction.Just showing one Jakarta Provincial Government, two national institutions and the rest are experts.
Meanwhile, Sharma 2019, attempted to conduct identification and prioritization of flood conditioning factors using ISM and MICMAC technique.About 11 flood conditioning factors are identified based on literature review and Deplhi Method for expert judgment.The credibility information of the study will depend on the selected experts.
To improve the deficiency of the above studies, this study uses the MICMAC analysis model in prioritizing the flood risk drivers to obtain the key flood drivers, which will be very useful for the development of action plan of collective action of disaster risk reduction intervention among transboundary stakeholders.Detail of study is described in the methodology section below.

Research Methodology
This study emphasized on recognizing transboundary flood risk drivers and classifying those drivers to gain insight into the priorities of drivers for structuring the priority of disaster risk reduction intervention.To exemplify this theoretical consideration the study used the Ciliwung River basin as the study location.
To have more realistic transboundary flood risk drivers / challenges, preliminary identification of all transboundary challenges was obtained through literature and documents review which were combined by field observation, from the perspective of upstream, midstream, and downstream flood issues and challenges.These challenges are also called as flood risk drivers in this study, which are then used interchangeably according to the context of discussion.Results of preliminary identification is structured in a Source-Pathway-Receptor framework shown in Table 1 as well as in a Fish Bone diagram shown in Figure 1.
To develop a realistic flood risk driver's framework, a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) among transboundary stakeholders/government institutions involved in Ciliwung river management was conducted.
With about 13 actors/stakeholders from national and transboundary provinces, cities and regencies of the Ciliwung River basin have actively participated in the FGD, the name of stakeholder's institutions can be seen also Table 2. Result of FGD showed the final improved framework with 13 important flood drivers, as also shown in Table 3 below.This framework is then used as the basis for in-depth interview using four key questions below: • What are the significant issues related with each driver?
• How is the relationship of influence and dependence criteria between drivers from the perspective of flood disaster risk reduction intervention?
• Who are involved in implementing the flood disaster risk reduction intervention for each driver?
• What are the potential effects with dependence criteria of each driver?

SSIM and IRM Matrix for MICMAC Analysis
To recognize the challenges and complexity of the transboundary management in flood risk reduction, this study involves a qualitative and quantitative approach using primary data from stakeholder focus group discussion, in-depth interviews, and field observations.The 2019 Focus Group Discussion on "Mitigating Hydrometeorological Hazard Impacts Through Transboundary River Management in the Ciliwung River Basin" aims for sensitisation of stakeholders regarding the issues of transboundary challenges in flood risk management, which has helped to build trust and forge a potential pathway to impact through river basin management policy.The interviews and field observation were conducted from September until December 2020; while amidst that period, there were several Ciliwung flood events that occurred in Greater Jakarta, making the obtained data more relevant and up to date.Face-to-face and online interviews are used for the interview methods as the consequence of Indonesia's Large Scale Social Restriction due to the Covid-19 Pandemic.Both kinds of interview methods perform the same quality of content.
To have reliable results in a case of transboundary river management, the interviews included multi-level governments, i.e., national, provincial, and city/regency governments, along Ciliwung River Basin.The role of river basin-related institutions could be divided as follows (Dewi and Ast, 2017): first is the institution with main role in the planning process at each of the national, provincial, and city/regency levels; second is the institutions responsible for the implementation process of flood management projects, also at each of the national, provincial, and city/regency levels; institutions that have the power of coordination.Based on these two criteria, the thirteen experts related to Ciliwung river flood from different levels and regions are selected as the target respondents, see also Table 2.
Given the final set of flood risk drivers as presented in Table 3, all experts as listed in Table 2 were asked to identify the key flood risk drivers of the Ciliwung River flood and its interrelations with justifications.They were also asked to explain the actual condition of each driver based on their empirical knowledge and scope of work.Grounded theory, as the qualitative method, is then used to interpret experts' statements into codes.The grounded theory method involves gathering and analysing data to generate a middle-range theory (Charmaz, 1995).Analytic processes consist of data coding, developing, checking, and integrating theoretical categories, and constructing analytic narratives (Glaser and Strauss, 2017).
Through these in-depth interviews to targeted stakeholders, the "experts' judgements" are used to establish a conceptual link among the drivers, where these drivers could also be impactful to each other.The drivers' relative responses were obtained by calculating the collected opinion in the interviews.The expert judgement assists in depicting the suitable interaction between these drivers.These variables' conceptual link is characterized using a pair-wise relationship as either "influencing" other drivers or being "influenced" by other drivers.Using VAXO symbols, four symbols which have been defined to demonstrate the linkage between i and j drivers, the expert judgment matrix called Structural Self Interaction Matrix (SSIM) were mapped to associate with 13 drivers.
3. Learning from the Ciliwung River Basin, Jakarta Indonesia 280

Ciliwung River Basin and Jakarta Metropolitan Development
Jakarta Metropolitan Area, known as Greater Jakarta, is an agglomeration city of Jakarta-Bogor-Depok-Tangerang-Bekasi.
This metropolitan has been one of the most appealing locations for both domestic and foreign investment, with a large number of entrepreneurs and skilled laborers, as well as high access to decision-makers (Firman, 1998).To compare, as of 2023 Tokyo Metropolitan Area in Japan was the largest world urban agglomeration, with 36.57 million people living in 7,693 km 2 , while 285 Jakarta Metropolitan Area ranked the second with 34 million people living in 7,315 km 2 area (Global megacity populations 2023, 2023;Rahayu, 2022a).According to Euromonitor International, Jakarta Metropolitan will become the most prominent mega city globally, with estimated population of 35.6 million by 2030 (Dyvik, 2023).As defined by the UN, a megacity is city with more than 10 million population.
Jakarta Metropolitan is geographically crossed by 13 river systems, including Ciliwung river which has the longest and biggest river basin.According to Presidential Decree Number 12/2012, the determination of Ciliwung River Basin Area is 140 kilometres long with nearly 438 km 2 catchment area crossing Jakarta Province and three major cities and one regency in West Java Province, as shown in Figure 2a.Meanwhile Figure 2b shows the designated land use for Ciliwung river basin which is divided into three zones, i.e. upstream, midstream and downstream.Bogor Regency and Bogor City at the upstream zone are aiming for conservation and water resources area.While Depok City at the midstream is aiming for buffer zone and catchment area.Meanwhile Jakarta Province at the downstream is aiming for cultivation and coastal protection area.However, due to massive development of each city/regency and province, this land use zonation has often been violated.Being situated in a watershed, Greater Jakarta area is exposed to hydro-meteorological hazards, such as urban flood.Severe floods due to the Ciliwung River's overflow have been recorded in 1996, 2002, 2007, 2012, and 2013(Dewi and Ast, 2017), while the most severe took place in early 2020 due to both fluvial and pluvial flood.A total of 13 administrative units in Jakarta, Banten Provinces, and West Java Provinces were flooded, causing an estimation of loss around IDR 5.2 trillion during that 2020 event.The coastal region of Greater Jakarta is also exposed to frequent tidal flood.
From the flood vulnerability perspective, approximately 25 million people lives in the Ciliwung River Basin (CRB) with its growth rate around 1.4 percent.The flood-prone areas are primarily located in the densely populated Jakarta Province (DKI Jakarta), with about 28,818 households by 2009 (Rahayu and Nasu, 2010), and about 34,051 households by 2021 (DKI Housing and Building Department).
Several factors have been attributed to the increased magnitude of flood impacts in Greater Jakarta over the past few decades, including precipitations, land-use change, sea level rise and land subsidence (Budiyono et al., 2016).However, massive urbanization in Jakarta between 1995-2014 has significantly decreased runoff regulation, green spaces and bodies of water, as well as affected landscape pattern changes (Maheng et al., 2021), and has strongly influenced spatial characteristics, such as industrial parks, mixed-use new towns and large-scale residential areas, and shopping centres (Firman and Fahmi, 2017).As identified by a previous study (Silver, 2007), the Jakarta land use change was initiated in the early 1980s, where many agricultural and forest area in suburban Jakarta were transformed into large-scale subdivisions and new towns.More than 30 large new suburban towns and industrial parks were built in the peripheries of Jakarta City between 1990 and 2010, with average size from 500 to 30,000 hectares (Firman, 2014).As a consequence of these vast peri-urban development, massive conversion of water catchment area, wetland, and green areas have been occurred, which has also led to an increased flood threat to Jakarta.Further, the urbanization was clearly seen to increase not only the intensity and volume of inundations, but also the runoff, river flow discharges, which all lead to the increase of flood threat (Priyambodoho et al., 2022).Thus, identifying flood risk drivers must address spatial scales from the upstream to the downstream (Dawson et al., 2009).In the last two decades, several scholars have studied flood drivers in the Ciliwung River Basin.For instance, Texier (2008) identified the root causes of disaster vulnerability in Jakarta Province, Emam et al. (2016) studied the effect of climate and land use change in the Upper Ciliwung River, meanwhile both Asdak et al. (2018) and Texier (2008) have analysed problems in downstream flooding, and Sagala et al. (2013) highlighted Greater Jakarta flood vulnerability.Of those studies, however, no one discussed the issues of transboundary flood risk drivers, responsibility sharing, as well as mentioned which drivers are the most critical for the transboundary flood risk management.
Meanwhile, the Ciliwung River Basin Authority (BBWS-CC), under Ministry of Public Works, bears responsibility of the whole Ciliwung river basin management.However, the transboundary river flood itself becomes major disaster issues for all adjacent administrative jurisdiction, i.e.Jakarta province, West Java province, Depok city, Bogor city and Bogor regency.This leads to the complexity of transboundary flood risk drivers at those regions of the river basin with many aspects consequently as part of the megapolitan development.Flood risk managed by a single national authority is indeed complicated enough and becomes much more complex when dealing with the transboundary river.Meanwhile, to protect the people at risk toward disaster is under responsibility of local government (Law No. 24 / 2007Regarding Disaster Management, 2007;Law No. 23 / 2014Regarding Local Government, 2014).

Transboundary flood risk driver framework for CRB
As the downstream area, Jakarta City experienced more severe floods compared to other regions due to its geographical condition.Despite extensive efforts by the Dutch and Indonesian governments, Jakarta is still prone to flooding since its location in a major river delta (Asdak et al., 2018).Due to land subsidence issues, about 40% of Jakarta City areas are a few meters below sea level, estimated to be 1 to 15 centimetres rates per year both spatially and temporally (Latief et al., 2018).
The existing Jakarta flood control system was developed based on Prof. H. Van Breen's (1973) concept, in which the overflow rainwater from outside Jakarta redirected via flood canals (West Flood canals and East Flood Canals) that circle Jakarta.Runoff within the city of Jakarta is discharged through local drainage system by gravity and discarded with a polder system, including water pump and pond retention in low areas (Kusuma et al., 2010).
Apart from natural causing factors, rapid urbanization and massive growth in population led to an increase in the susceptibility and vulnerability to Jakarta floods (Rahayu and Nasu, 2010).The rapid growth of urban sprawl (Maheng et al, 2021, Firman andFahmi, 2017) has caused massive land conversion from the catchment area to the built environment.A change in land use over time can have significant effects on run-off (Mishra et al., 2018).Uncontrolled land-use change due to poor spatial planning along the Ciliwung River Basin makes the flooding becoming more complicated to handle (Asdak et al., 2018).To control current developments and minimize future risks, strong governance with good long-term spatial planning is needed (Rahayu et al., 2019).It is expected that spatial planning will contribute to flood mitigation in floodplain areas (White & Howe, 2002;White & Richards, 2007) by regulating the land use types, spatial pattern, development scales, and physical structure designs.It can affect the likelihood of floods and its consequential damage (Neuvel & van den Brink, 2009;White & Richards, 2007).
The emergence of Law 23/2014 regarding Local Government resulted in the right and obligatory sharing between national and local government, known also as decentralization.Decentralization and power-sharing expanded disaster management responsibility at local levels with national policy impacting it (Sunarharum et al., 2021).Since Ciliwung River Basin flows along transboundary regions, therefore national, provincial as well as city/regency governments along Ciliwung River Basin are responsible for flood risk management as well.While governments may be able to mitigate flood risk, communities, especially those affected by floods, must be included in flood risk management decisions (Faulkner et al., 2007).However, as flood risk management involves various stakeholders (i.e., governments, communities, academics, media, and privates) and multiple objectives, conflicts may also arise.Up until recently, the coordination among stakeholders in the Ciliwung River Basin still meets many challenges and as a result, affects the decision-making (Sunarharum et al., 2021).
The Ministry of Public Works Regulation Number 13/PRT/M/2006 regarding River Management has defined that the Ciliwung River is a transboundary river that crosses two provinces and four cities/regencies, and is controlled by the National Government, i.e., Ciliwung-Cisadane River Basin Authority (BBWS CC), in collaboration with local stakeholders.
Understanding the transboundary management in flood risk reduction is very critical.
Based on input from the Stakeholders Focus Group Discussion (FGD) conducted by this study on 26 September 2019 under collaboration with National Planning Agency (Bappenas), the preliminary framewok of Ciliwung River flood drivers shown in Table 1 and combined with Figure 1 were refined with few modifications in terms from the dicussion and recommendation of FGD.The FGD was attended by 13 institutions directly and indirectly involved in Ciliwung Flood Management, from national, provincial, and local government.The result of improved Ciliwung flood risk driver's framework is shown in Table 3 with thirteen independent flood driver variables.

Result and Discussion
The result of MICMAC model is shown in Figure 4 diagram below.The 13 flood drivers are mapped into four quadrants, i.e., independent, linkage, autonomous, and dependent groups.Through this analysis, two flood drivers, i.e., Spatial Plan (A12) and Stakeholders Cooperation and Coordination (A10), are classified as independent drivers which are key flood risk drivers with the most powerful drivers in Ciliwung River Basin.The independent drivers are characterised by having the highest driving power and the lowest dependency power.They exert a significant influence on other drivers at the other two quadrants, both dependent and autonomous drivers.In overall system of transboundary Ciliwung river flood management, these two independent drivers will take important role, especially for collective actions in flood disaster risk reduction.The intervention on these two drivers will have the highest impact to the system.However, this study found no drivers fall in the linkage groups.The linkage drivers should play as the intermediate variables in the system, to link all drivers from the other quadrants.
This driver is basically a variable that has big impact on the system, but at the same time, it has also a high dependence on other drivers from other groups.Since there are no linkage variables found in the system, this means that all the stated variables in the system are stable.
Meanwhile seven flood drivers are classified as autonomous drivers.They are Extreme Rainfall (A1), Built Environment (A8), Growth Population (A6), Waste and Sedimentation (A2), Urbanization (A5), Ground Water Exploitation (A9), and Land Subsidence (A11).These seven autonomous drivers do not have any impact to other drivers.They are also characterised by extremely low driving power and low dependency to other drivers' group, and they are more self-contained.However, the Extreme Rainfall (A1) shows unique value.It is located closer to independent group; it has a relatively high driving power in its quadrant even though having low dependent power.Thus, this flood driver will be discussed further in the next section.
The rest of flood drivers which show the least driving ability and the high reliance on other groups, they are categorised in the dependent group.The dependent variable is a variable that depends a lot on other variables but has small impact on the other variables.The dependent flood drivers are drainage capacity (A3), catchment area (A7), flood control-structural mitigation (A13), river capacity (A4).These variables are the weakest drivers in the system, relying heavily on other drivers.Any action taken by other drivers will have an impact on these dependence drivers.River capacity appears as the most dependent drivers, indicating the end of the flood driver chain in the overall system of transboundary Ciliwung river flood management.Through MICMAC model analysis, this study has been able to unveil two significant key flood drivers, i.e., spatial planning and stakeholders' cooperation and coordination.These key flood drivers covers the critical issues and challenges of Ciliwung flood risk governance in reducing/managing the Ciliwung River flood risk as well as achieving sustainable catchment area.
Referring to Source-Pathway-Receptor model in Table 3, it is found that in the case of Ciliwung River flood risk management, both key "pathways", such as environmental regulation through spatial planning and stakeholder behaviour in collective action for flood disaster risk reduction give the main influence in the set of flood risk drivers.Surprisingly, this study also able to unveil that the most dependence drivers are found related with the catchment area and capacity to channel out the flood water, such as drainage capacity, river capacity and flood control.Any action taken on other drivers will give significant impact on these dependence drivers, especially intervention action on spatial planning and stakeholders' cooperation and coordination.Further, the two highest key flood drivers, i.e., spatial planning and stakeholders' cooperation and coordination, the moderate high key flood driver, i.e., extreme rainfall, as well as the most dependence flood drivers, i.e., flood controls, will be discussed.
Findings of this study could be as the inputs for other cities/metropolitan which has similar challenges related with transboundary river flood management.

Spatial Plan
A holistic approach is needed in the development of flood risk management, covering the upstream, midstream, and downstream.Controlling the river basin development through integrated spatial planning from upstream, midstream, and downstream are necessary to reduce flood risk in the river basin.Spatial planning is a system concerned with long-or mediumterm objectives and strategies for the regions development, and consists of planning processes, space utilization and control of space utilization.The spatial plan basically is composed of spatial structure and spatial pattern.The spatial structure arranges residential and business centres, and all supporting infrastructure networks and facilities for related socio-economic activities of the community.The spatial pattern distributes space allocation by considering protection functions as well as cultivation and/or development function.Since Ciliwung river is one of the longest river basins passing through 2 province and 5 regencies/cities, the role of integrated transboundary spatial planning become very critical from the perspective of harmonising ego sectoral as well as ego area jurisdiction, especially in enforcing the transboundary environmental regulations.This is in line with the findings of the study, that shows the spatial plan (A12) and stakeholder cooperation and coordination (A10) are the most critical flood risk driver in Ciliwung River Basin management.Both key flood drivers are independent drivers having the most powerful influence on other key flood drivers.
Most flood risk reduction regulations are included in each city/regency as well as provincial spatial plans, such as land use regulation, structural mitigation development, catchment area preservation, and river maintenance.The integration of these disaster risk reduction countermeasures into spatial planning regulation have studied by several works.For example, flood risk avoidance is often used for controlling spatial development in floodplain area including relocation plan (Kang et al., 2009) while flood risk defence is for preventing the region from flood water by building river dykes (Voorendt, 2017) Meanwhile flood risk mitigation is for reducing flood impact loss by structural mitigation or nature base solution for flood detention (Sayer et al, 2013), flood retention (Wingfield et al., 2019), and flood passages (Kang et al., 2009).Last but not least, the flood risk preparedness is used for evacuation plans and flood risk recovery is used for developing post recovery plan and critical infrastructure protection (Meng et al., 2022;Sayers et al., 2013).
In the case of Ciliwung river, these city/regency as well as provincial spatial plan often developed only to suit their own needs and objectives, without considering broader needs, such as for regional flood risk management.To bridge the transboundary issues and challenges of spatial planning as tools for flood risk management, the Ministry of Spatial Plan established the Greater Jakarta Spatial Plan in Government Law Number 60/2020 to incorporate all those related local and provincial spatial plans.This Greater Jakarta Spatial Plan is expected to function as transboundary spatial plan.However, until now, it is not fully enforced yet for water resource and flood risk river management.
Further, Ciliwung-Cisadane River Basin Agency has formulated a plan in the Ministry of Public Works Decree No 26/KPTS/M/2015 regarding integration of Ciliwung and Cisadane river basins, which means also combining both Ciliwung-Cisadane river management programs.During the FGD, the Ciliwung-Cisadane River Basin Authority (BBWS Ciliwung Cisadane) stated that "There were massive land use change at the upstream of river basin, where this became main flood driver.
However, the flood itself was worsened by the extreme rainfall".Ministry of Environment and Forestry (KLHK) -Agency for Citarum-Ciliwung River Basin Management (BPDAS -Balai Pengelolaan Daerah Aliran Sungai Citarum-Ciliwung) assumed that the land use and land cover change become primary contributor to Ciliwung River Basin flood.For example, the deforestation of the upstream Ciliwung River Basin may cause flooding on the midstream and the downstream.Thus, the spatial plan needs to consider the land use change as well as the flood risk reduction.While, National Planning and Development Agency (BAPPENAS) said that starting from 2010, average runoff coefficient has been recalculated due to land use change.
There was an increase up to 0.4 and 0.5 in 2014.Meanwhile, West Java Planning and Development Agency (Bappeda Jabar) assumed that the development in the catchment area should consider transboundary commitment for rehabilitation of conservation and protected area.The more land use change, the less water catchment area, which lead to flood.During FGD, several experts judge that development control in the Ciliwung River Basin appeared to be weak as land-use changes emerged at the upstream, midstream, and downstream.Urban and regional development is increasingly not considering catchment area provision over time due to economic pressure.Although spatial plans have been created on many levels, development control remains powerless to retain the catchment area.Some upstream regions have been turned into residences, hotels, villas, and restaurants, resulting in increased water run-off, but in Jakarta, new settlements are created without regard for spatial planning, affecting water absorption.
It appears from the results of the MICMAC model that spatial planning has significantly affected drainage capacity, river capacity, catchment area, built environment, stakeholder cooperation, and flood control development, thus improving, strengthening, and integrating the spatial plan related with Ciliwung river basin of Jakarta Province, Depok City, Bogor City and Bogor Regency is main priority in order to have better result of overall sustainable flood risk management.Land use plans are supposed to substantially impact the basin's development (S.Y. Wang et al., 2010).Therefore, spatial planning is a critical tool for reducing flood risk (Neuvel & van den Brink, 2009).Budiyono et al. (2016) investigated the great potential for urban planning to mitigate flood risk.It demonstrates that if Jakarta's land use follows the 2030 spatial plan, flood risk will be reduced by 12%.This highlights the great potential of land use planning for flood risk reduction.
Having a solid and integrated spatial plan is not enough to reduce flood risk unless followed by robust development control.
Strict development control must be applied at the basin level, which means not only in Jakarta Provincial but also in Depok City, Bogor City, and Bogor Regency as part of the Ciliwung River Basin regions.Development control regulation in the Ciliwung River basin may differ from upstream to downstream municipality depending on physical, environmental, and institutional characteristics.Development control in the upstream area mainly aims to preserve the catchment area, while in the downstream area, it primarily aims to prevent groundwater exploitation and higher physical vulnerability.The national government, along with the local government, must create tight instruments for development control, while the local government itself must carry out strict surveillance and give penalties for all development violations.
To strengthen development control in the Ciliwung River basin, a holistic regulation regarding development control (mechanism, instrument, zoning technique, and executor (i.e., task force)) in the Ciliwung River basin level must be legalized as a national policy.The President should make this a national priority program, considering the areas impacted and the number of losses that the Ciliwung River flood has generated.Up until recently, integrated development control policy in the Ciliwung river basin has not been developed yet, even though there has been the Greater Jakarta Spatial Plan (Law of President Number

Stakeholder Coordination and Cooperation
As the second critical key flood drivers, the stakeholder cooperation and coordination (A10) are playing important role in transboundary Ciliwung River Basin management.It is independent drivers which has the most powerful influence on other key flood drivers.A river basin sustainable development and management need to consider the basin as a whole, with multiple interactions of water-ecosystem-economy from the upstream, midstream, and downstream areas (Cheng et al., 2014).
Meanwhile, Lorenz et al (2001) defined sustainable river basin management through interaction model among social capital, human capital, natural capital, and man-made capital.This model generated laws, regulations, information flow for triple helix stakeholders, i.e., government, business, and community.
Based on the interviews in this study, the stakeholder cooperation and coordination among governments, communities, academics, lifelines, and business significantly affect other drivers, such as waste and sedimentation, river capacity, catchment area, built environment, groundwater exploitation, spatial and development plan, and flood controls.The imperative issue takes place in coordination and cooperation among governments.The transboundary governance forum for Ciliwung River Basin management has been reformed many times.Two previous forms are the Ciliwung River Basin Forum in 2007, led alternately by the Governor in the Ciliwung River Basin, and the Ciliwung Water Resource Management Coordination Team in 2011, led alternately by each of the Planning and Development Agency in the Ciliwung River Basin.According to experts' experience obtained during FGD, the reformation keeps occurring due to the ineffectiveness of the forum mechanism, the powerless leader, and the conflict of interest.There was no clear framework for the forum and no legal agreement about how coordination and cooperation among institutions should work.This eventually resulted in no clear action.Each institution merely understands its own jobs and pays attention to their interest or said as sectoral egos.Also, there was no strong figure who could lead the forum.
Meanwhile, the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (KLHK) -Agency for Citarum-Ciliwung River Basin Management (BPDAS -Balai Pengelolaan Daerah Aliran Sungai Citarum-Ciliwung) stated that Ciliwung river is very complex in its governance.Jakarta Provincial Government responsibility is at the downstream, while West Java Provincial Government responsibility is at the upstream only.The transboundary river management should have one leader.If the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (KLHK) take a lead, it will be difficult for managing the inter and cross sectoral issues.For example, good lesson learned from the management of Citarum River, which was assigned to Citarum Harum lead by National Military based on the presidential decree.Thus, the Ciliwung river management needs to have similar governance structure, since the existence of Coordinating Board for Jakarta Metropolitan Area Development (BKSP Badan Kerja Sama Pembangunan) has not been optimal and sustainable.
To compare with Brantas River Basin tranboundary governance in East Java Indonesia, crossing several area jurisdictions, there has been a good water governance of the basin development and management handled by the central government (Brantas River Basin Executing Agency-BRBEA, known as the Brantas Project-BP), collaborated with state own enterprises, i.e., PT Indra Karya and PT Brantas Abipraya, since its beginning of 1960s with massive constructing projects of 8 large dams, 6 barrages, and rubber dams along the Brantas river for Irrigation, hydropower, flood control, and recreation purposes (Roestamy & Fulazzaky, 2022).However, its main challenges are related with technical issues, institutional frameworks, and regulatory instruments to fulfil the needs of various stakeholders from various area jurisdiction.Water Resource Law 7/2004 has formalized the paradigm shift from project oriented to integrated river basin development, beside created, and empowered the institutional framework.Therefore by 2007, BRBEA has been fully taken over by national institutions in handling strategic issues of Brantas River Basin.
Meanwhile, National Planning and Development Agency (BAPPENAS) said that the transboundary coordination function for Ciliwung River could be managed by the Project Management Officer (PMO) of Jakarta Metropolitan Area (Greater Jakarta), which will be later substitute the Coordinating Board for Jakarta Metropolitan Area Development (BKSP) in coordinating the three provinces, i.e., Jakarta, West Java and Banten provinces.However, this seemed to be in effective since there is no involvement of national government.In the future, it is expected that there is coordinating body lead by Minister of Agrarian Affair and Spatial Planning with Minister of National Planning and Development Agency as the vice, with its think tank at the existing Coordinating Board for Jakarta Metropolitan Area Development (BKSP).
However, difficulties may arise in their management and governance when dealing with transboundary river management.
Several critical institutions are involved in flood risk reduction, i.e., Governments at national, sub-national, and local levels, utility companies, private businesses, and community groups (Jha et al., 2012).Coordination is required both between actors at different authority levels (vertical coordination) as well as among actors within administrative boundaries (horizontal coordination).
Meanwhile, as transboundary river basin governments have many flood drivers to overcome, it must meet concrete criteria to have an appropriate arrangement for river basin management.Firstly, clear roles and responsibility-sharing among river management institutions are essential for effective coordination (Jha et al., 2012).A negotiation procedure and coordination mechanism are required (Barbazza & Tello, 2014).Secondly, a coordination mechanism is also important to enhance information and data flows and coordinate decision-making and implementation.Thirdly, leadership and power to enforce coordination contribute to the fragmentation of the institutional arrangement (Brown, 2005).Therefore, an effort to make a governance forum in the Ciliwung River Basin must follow those three criteria to waive ineffectiveness.
According to Millington (2006), there are two types of river basin forum.Those are (1) the river basin coordinating committee and (2) the river basin commission.A river basin coordinating committee is formed for stable and mature river basin management.This model mainly relies on the fair cooperation and participation of its members.The committee has no executive authority and cannot override the member organization's tasks and operations.The coordinating committee would be made up of major water-related agencies from each of the basin's states.
Further, when problems happen frequently, a river basin committee is formed.A basin commission is a more formalized group than a committee.It would consist of a management board that would establish objectives, goals, policies, and strategic direction.The commission would be supported by a technical office of water, natural resource, socioeconomic planning, and management experts, many of whom would be drawn from existing agencies in the basin.To offer ultimate power, a Ministerial Council could lead the commission, and the basin commission would then focus on strategic natural resource management of the rivers and catchments.The fact that Ciliwung River Basin management still meets conflict and is not stable in management attests that the river basin commission might be the fittest model for Ciliwung river basin governance.

Extreme Rainfall
Even though, the extreme rainfall (A1) is acknowledged in this study as an autonomous driver with moderate driving power and lowest dependency power.It is supposed to be characterised by self-contained and do not significantly drive or depend on other drivers.However, the position the extreme rainfall in autonomous group is closer to independent group.It means that this driver has relatively moderate influence power to affect other drivers.For example, the extreme rainfall may cause flood due to insufficient drainage capacity, poor catchment area, inappropriate flood controls/structural mitigation, and poor river capacity due to illegal settlement at riverbanks, trash sedimentation at the river and several other drivers.
In the last few decades, the climate change has impacted to the pattern of rainy season, as well as to the occurrence many extreme precipitations which caused severe flood.The fact that climate change is likely a factor contributing to the heavy rainfall has been discussed by many scholars, i.e., intensified short duration heavy rainfall (Tamm et al., 2023).Compounded with vulnerability factors, such as socio-demographic, economic, physical and environment factors, this heavy rainfall will lead to the increase the flood risk.
Extreme precipitation is known to significantly affect Greater Jakarta floods (Mishra et al., 2018).Sudden changes of extreme precipitation in short-duration precipitation, which lead the water volume, intensity, duration, and location may cause severe flood (O'Donnell & Thorne, 2020).Ciliwung River Flood occurred not only by upstream precipitation but also due to downstream rainfall.According to rainfall spatial distribution data, most of the Jakarta floods were caused by evenly distributed rainfall along the Ciliwung River Basin (Farid et al., 2021).
Floods occur when rivers capacity (A4) and drainage system (A3) do not have sufficient capacity to pass flow rates from upstream to downstream (Asdak, 1995).The narrowing of the Ciliwung River's capacity is due to sedimentation and waste, as well as the construction of settlements on uncontrolled riverbanks.To decrease the flow rate, in a higher area, several infrastructures such as Situ (Lake) and Dams in Bogor Regency and Depok City, are built to control flood peak discharge in the up-stream and mid-stream areas of the Ciliwung River Basin (Nugraheni et al., 2020).
The impact and severity of these drivers are likely to increase, making changes in transboundary policy, planning, practice, and coordination among the responsible agencies imperative across jurisdiction.Several works on climate change adaptation and flood disaster risk reduction in Jakarta conducted were identified (Rahayu et al., 2020).

Flood Controls / Structural Mitigation
The study found that flood control and structural mitigation is a driving factor with lowest driving power but highly dependency power.This means that this driver is the weakest in the key flood driver mapping, relying on the influence of other drivers.It gets easily inclined by other strong drivers.The experts' judgments were only focused on structural flood control, such as building dams, levees, dykes/flood canals, reservoirs, polders, and pump system.
Unless the flood control/structural mitigation are mainstreamed in spatial planning, the sustainable flood risk management will not be achieved (Meng et al., 2022).However, Jakarta has the highest people living at flood risk area, i.e., flood plain area, riverbanks.Alerting those people at risk before flood is significantly important.The existing flood early warning system needs to me improved by adopting people centre early warning system (Rahayu et al., 2020), by having reliable the four components, The existing flood monitoring and detecting in most river in Jakarta including Ciliwung River relied on manual water level measurement at the flood gate or dams.The real time advance monitoring, detecting and well as real time impact-based flood model are ongoing process of development for Greater Metropolitan Jakarta area.Alerting the people need to be advanced from the existing sirens, CCTV, community-based alerting system (Rahayu & Nasu, 2010).The community response and readiness of the stakeholder toward flood warning should be improved and tested regularly.

Conclusion
This study addresses broader issues of key challenges in transboundary flood risk management.The Ciliwung river floods are very complex and influenced by tremendously development as a agglomeration metropolitan region.This development has contributed to complex water-resource issues, such as increased flooding.Since the previous Greater Jakarta flood impacts trillion IDR losses, it is essential to avoid future flood events by unveiling critical challenges among complex drivers.
Determining the degree of importance and degree of influence of all key flood drivers based on holistic document reviews, interviews, and FGDs sing, this study provides benefits in understanding how cross-border cooperation and regional/national level policies can be implemented to manage flood risk effectively.
Result of MICMAC analysis, it is found the spatial plan, and the stakeholder cooperation and coordination are key challenges in the transboundary flood risk management perspectives.While the former one brings issue in the lack of development control, the latter one carries issue in the failure of transboundary river governance arrangement."How to strengthen development control in the Ciliwung river basin?" and "What suitable form for transboundary river governance in Ciliwung river basin?".Concentrated efforts to address both challenges are paramount above others to reducing the flood risk.
Finally, to accelerate Ciliwung flood risk reduction, this study suggests a formulation of national policy regarding development control in the Ciliwung river basin and establishment of the Ciliwung river basin commission to improve governance of transboundary river flood management.Furthermore, to formulate an in-depth strategy, future research to deeply investigate development control problems in each region and transboundary institutions' interaction in the Ciliwung River Basin management are required.
To conclude, the research findings on the prioritising of key flood drivers is very important.They are able influence the entire flood risk management system.A proposal is given for a cross-border river basin governance model that can be adapted for flood risk management in other areas with similar characteristics.

Figure
Figure 1: Key flood drivers

Figure 3
below shows the rapid land use change of Ciliwung River Basin in two decades, from 2000 to 2017, with approximately 17.18% rate of change in two decades.Meanwhile the proportion of built-up area reaching 58.96% of the total basin by 2017.

Figure 4
Figure 4 MICMAC model result diagram 60/2020) is expected to be holistic transboundary spatial plan and Ciliwung-Cisadane River Basin management program (Ministry of Public Works Decree No 26/KPTS/M/2015).
i.e., Monitoring and Warning Service, Dissemination & Communication, Risk Knowledge, and Response Capability.The first one is part of upstream component, while the rest are downstream component.

Table 2 : Selected experts and their roles
5Jakarta Provincial Water Resource Agency (Dinas Sumber Daya Air Provinsi DKI Jakarta) Executes flood control development and maintenance in Jakarta Provincial 6 West Java Provincial Planning and Development Agency (Bappeda Provinsi Jawa Barat) Coordinates Development Planning and Financing in West Java Provincial

Table 4 :
SSIM and IRM value shows the VAXO symbols.Symbol V represents driver i influencing driver j, symbol A shows driver j influencing driver i, symbol X shows driver i and j influencing each other, and symbol O shows driver i and j are not associated.The Structural Self Interaction Matrix (SSIM) of expert's judgements developed can be seen in Table 5. Besides, Table 4 also shows the VAXO rule for converting SSIM values into IRM values to structure IRM Initial Reachability Matrix shown in Table 6, as the data set input for MICMAC model analysis.Then output of MICMAC analysis showing the classification of the drivers into four quadrants, i.e. independent, linkage, autonomous and dependents variables, see also Figure4.This is then followed with discussion using more information from the stakeholders during interviews.