Community-scale flood-resilience planning: design, implementation, and evaluation in a riverine city

Thesis Abstract

This study addresses the increasing flood risk faced by riverine communities and the need for scalable, community-driven resilience strategies that integrate physical, social, and governance dimensions to reduce vulnerability and accelerate recovery. The aim is to design, implement, and evaluate a comprehensive community-scale flood-resilience plan for a mid-sized riverine city, with specific objectives (1) diagnose current exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity through multi-hazard risk assessment; (2) develop an integrative resilience framework combining green-grey infrastructure, early warning, and governance mechanisms; (3) implement a pilot of the framework in two pilot neighborhoods; (4) evaluate effectiveness in reducing inundation impact, response times, and recovery duration; (5) translate findings into scalable policy guidance for similar urban contexts. The study employs a mixed-methods design anchored in the socio-ecological resilience and risk governance theories, notably the Social-Ecological Systems (SES) framework and the Multi-Level Governance theory, to illuminate feedbacks between infrastructure, community behavior, and institutional arrangements. A sequential exploratory approach begins with a quantitative risk assessment using LiDAR-derived flood mapping, hydrological modeling, and vulnerability indices, followed by qualitative inquiry to capture local knowledge and social dynamics through 40 in-depth interviews and four focus group discussions with residents, business owners, and local authorities. The population comprises residents (n?6,500), business stakeholders (n?1,200), and municipal functionaries (n?120) within the riverine city. A stratified random sample of 1,000 residents and 200 households will be surveyed to quantify exposure, preparedness, and adaptive capacity. Instrument development includes a structured survey validated through a pilot (n=60) and semi-structured interview guides informed by initial risk mapping. Validity and reliability are established through content validity checks with an expert panel and test–retest reliability (Cronbach’s alpha >0.80 for key scales). Data analysis begins with GIS-based flood exposure and risk modeling to identify high-risk zones, followed by statistical tests including multiple regression to determine predictors of preparedness, and cluster analysis to segment neighborhoods by vulnerability profiles. The qualitative component will utilize thematic analysis to extract core themes related to governance, social capital, and community-led adaptation, complemented by process tracing to evaluate the implementation pathway. An integrative evaluation will apply a logic model and a cost–benefit framework to compare pre- and post-implementation performance across indicators such as inundation extent, evacuation time, shelter utilization, and time to economic recovery. Expected findings include evidence that the co-designed resilience framework reduces inundation losses by 20–35% in pilot areas, shortens evacuation and relief response times by 15–25%, and enhances household recovery rates within 9–12 months. The study anticipates identifying critical mediators of resilience, including social capital, credible risk communication, and institutional co-management between municipal agencies and local communities. The contribution to knowledge comprises (i) an empirically tested design and governance model for community-scale flood resilience that integrates nature-based and grey infrastructure, risk communication, and participatory governance; (ii) a transferable methodological blueprint combining GIS-based risk assessment with participatory urban planning to evaluate implementation effectiveness; and (iii) context-rich insights into how socio-political factors influence resilience outcomes in riverine cities. The main conclusion is that community-driven, co-produced resilience planning—embedded within formal governance structures and supported by scalable nature-based solutions—yields measurable reductions in risk and more rapid recovery, provided that continuous and inclusive stakeholder engagement is sustained. Recommendations include institutionalizing participatory risk assessment in municipal planning, expanding green-blue corridor investments guided by local knowledge, and establishing routine performance audits with transparent reporting to foster resilience finance and adaptive governance. Further studies are suggested to test the framework in different hydro-climatic regimes and to examine long-term sustainability and equity outcomes across diverse urban settings.