Urban pluvial flooding occurs persistently in many secondary cities in the Global South. While previous urban resilience research has generally highlighted hydrological modelling and infrastructure performance, institutional decision-making processes remain underexplored, particularly in identifying when and how governments intervene. This study employs an Institutional Decision-Gate perspective to explore how fragmented authority, strategic priority programs, and budgeting structures affect adaptive flood governance in Gowa Regency, Indonesia.
This study employs a qualitative case study approach grounded in semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders from the Public Works Department, Regional Disaster Management Department, Regional Development Planning Department, Environmental Department, and sub-district officials. The Annual Government Work Plan, Medium-Term Regional Development Plan, Work and Budget Plan, and Participatory Development Planning Forum Reports were reviewed for triangulation. The data were analyzed using thematic coding and process tracing to identify iterative decision thresholds and filtering mechanisms.
The analysis shows a three-phase Institutional Decision-Gate model of flood mitigation governance. The first gate represents a legitimacy threshold; responses are elicited not only by the hydraulic severity of an event but also by public visibility, disruption to strategic sectors, and leadership attention. The second gate reveals constraints imposed by sectoral budgeting and annual fiscal allocations. Despite the existence of technical knowledge and experience within departments, interventions are shaped around fixed maintenance and capital budgets that limit flexibility. Finally, strategic prioritization shapes decision-making, as drainage programs must compete with other sectoral priorities and be consistent with development visions.
By integrating urban flood resilience within institutional decision-making processes, this research shows that adaptive capacity in secondary cities is influenced less by infrastructure issues than by sectoral budgeting mechanisms and fragmented fiscal authority. The Decision-Gate framework shows how legitimacy, capacity constraints, and strategic prioritization function collectively to structure adaptive governance outcomes.
