Building a Resilient City through Sustainable Flood Risk Management: The Flood-Prone Area of Phra Nakhon Sri Ayutthaya, Thailand

Abstract

Resilience has gained significant prominence in the management of climate-related shocks and the minimization of disaster risks. Assessing flood resilience is, therefore, crucial in identifying areas lacking support and opportunities for development. Comprehensive risk assessments are urgently required, especially in areas prone to floods. By applying the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), stakeholder meetings, and keyword analysis, this study aims to assess the flood resilience of Phra Nakhon Sri Ayutthaya Province (PNSAP) in Thailand, an area at high risk of flooding and home to a UNESCO World Heritage Site. According to the Arup and Rockefeller Foundation’s City Resilience indicators, the key elements for building resilience in PNSAP include effective emergency response services, comprehensive hazard monitoring and risk assessment, and emergency medical care. In addition, the focus group discussions and keyword analysis identified the following critical components for strengthening flood resilience: “financial aspects”, “community awareness and preparedness”, “multi-stakeholder collaboration”, “citizen engagement”, and “urban flood monitoring and data management.” Moreover, to gain insight into the perceptions of people in local communities, the results of a household survey (n = 552) indicated that approximately one-third of the respondents had never engaged in flood preparedness activities. Neither the gender nor the education level of the respondents significantly influenced their engagement in flood preparedness. The respondents also perceived that infrastructure flexibility, affordable transport networks, flood monitoring and data management, the adequate provision of critical services, and reliable communication systems in building resilience were important during a flood disaster. These results provide valuable insight into the community’s perception of the effectiveness of disaster risk reduction mechanisms for building flood resilience in PNSAP and can serve as a useful guide for future resilience-building initiatives. By addressing these factors, PNSAP could enhance its resilience to the impacts of flooding and contribute to the global field of flood management and resilience building.

1. Introduction

Climate risk, associated with an increase in temperature of 1.5 °C, could potentially raise the probability of disaster occurrence while posing multiple risks to both humans and ecosystems. Between 1995 and 2015, the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) and the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) [1] reported that the tendency toward weather-related disasters has accelerated over this period mainly due to an increase in storm and flood events. Globally, flooding alone accounts for almost half (47%) of all weather-related events. Floods have also affected approximately 2.3 billion people, most of whom (95%) live in Asia. This is possibly due to the significant diversity of the continent (i.e., multiple river basins, flood plains, and a high level of natural risk), together with a rapid increase in population density [1]. More specifically, Southeast Asia (SEA) is regarded as one of the most disaster-prone regions in the world. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Disaster Information Network (ADInet) reported a total of approximately 1899 disaster events in the ten ASEAN Member States from 2012 to 2020, affecting 147 million people and displacing more than 18 million, causing damage valued at USD 17 billion [2]. Thailand is ranked sixth among the ten ASEAN Member States in terms of multi-hazard risk and eighth in the world on the Climate Risk Index from 1999 to 2018 [3]. As a result of climate change, Thailand is at higher risk of intensive disaster. Commonly, severe floods and droughts have consistently accounted for 90% of annual disasters [3]. In 2011, massive flooding affected 12.8 million people, while the total damage and loss amounted to THB 1.43 trillion (USD 46.5 billion), with losses accounting for 56% of the total. The World Bank estimated the cost of recovery and reconstruction to be THB 1.49 trillion (USD 50 billion) [4]. As mentioned above, it is perhaps more important to strengthen flood resilience and sustainable risk management in vulnerable areas. The World Bank [5] assessed the progress of 168 countries adopting the global blueprint for disaster risk reduction, namely the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA). Disaster risk reduction progress was scored from 1 (worst) to 5 (best or most progress). The assessment results indicated that only a few countries made significant progress, achieving scores of 4.5 or higher, whereas more than half showed little progress. Thailand needs to invest more in resilience building, as its mean score was 2.92 out of 5 [6].

Fundamentally, the assessment of local governance on flood resilience is considered the key driver to successful crisis management. Globally, flood resilience building and assessment have been studied by many scholars. For instance, Prashar et al. [7] conducted a systematic literature review on the urban flood resilience assessment, finding that the discourse of urban resilience emphasizes three principles: engineering resilience (i.e., the ability to normalize conditions by focusing more on preparedness and response), ecological, and socio-ecological principles (i.e., governance, social and financial capacity, and institutional aspects). The evaluation of flood resilience involves five essential phases: (i) preparedness, (ii) response, (iii) recovery, (iv) adaptation, and (v) transformability [7]. Hosseini et al. [8] classified “resilience” into four dimensions: engineering, organizational, social, and economic. Bulti et al. [9] categorized community flood resilience into eight dimensions: environmental, physical, financial, human, social/cultural, community competence, institutional, and organizational. Additionally, to inform 100 Resilient Cities, a study by Martin-Breen [10] focused on the importance of three frameworks: engineering resilience (common sense resilience), systems resilience (robustness in economics), and resilience in complex adaptive systems. Interestingly, the global focus shifted toward establishing a connection between “resilience” and “disaster risk reduction” following the implementation of the New Urban Agenda in 2015 and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015–2030) [7]. Most of the existing literature focuses on both physical and social categories in urban flood resilience assessment (i.e., buildings infrastructure, community, and the urban system) [11]. In practical terms, Sharifi [12] conducted a critical review of 36 selected tools for community resilience assessment and found that an effective resilience assessment tool should address the following criteria: multiple dimensions of resilience, cross-scale interactions, temporal dynamism, capturing the uncertainties, stakeholder collaboration, and developing action plans.

Table 1. Methods and indicators used for the disaster resilience assessment.

Assessment Framework	Country Case (Year)	Index/Indicators	References
Flood Resilience Assessment	Australia (2023)	- Motor vehicle density - Index of Economic Resources - Unemployment rate - Tertiary qualification rate - Community service workers - Internet access - Median personal income - Flood project density	[13]
Flood Resilience Assessment	India (2023)	- Physical resilience - Social resilience - Economic resilience - Institutional resilience	[14]
Household Flood Resilience Index (HFRI): Composite Indicator Method	Indonesia (2023)	- Economic - Home environment - Communication and information - Social capital - Institution - Risk perception	[15]
Natural Disaster Resilience Index	24 developed and 67 developing countries (2022)	- Economic stability - Human capital - Emergency workforce - Agricultural development - Infrastructure - Digitalization - Governance - Social capital - Woman empowerment	[16]
Disaster Resilience Index	86 countries (2008)	- Macroeconomic stability sub-index: unemployment rate, inflation, GDP - Microeconomic efficiency index - Governance index - Social development index	[17]
Community Resilience Framework to Disasters (CRDSA): Delphi and AHP Approach	Saudi Arabia (2015)	- Social - Physical and environmental - Economic - Health and well-being - Governance - Information and communication	[18]
Community Disaster Resilience Index (CDRI)	Korea (2015)	- Human - Social - Economic - Environmental - Institutional factors	[19]
Community-Based Resilience Analysis (CoBRA)	Global (UNDP, 2014)	- Physical - Human - Financial - Natural - Social	[20]
Disaster Resilience Indicator	US (2010)	- Social - Economic - Institutional - Infrastructure - Community capital	[21]

shows an overview of the approach used in disaster resilience assessment from the relevant global research topics.

Despite the existence of many studies on resilience assessment, more research is needed to provide practical guidance for use at the local scale [22]. In Thailand, there is a lack of empirical studies on how to evaluate city resilience, and more focus should be placed on sustainable flood risk management in flood-prone areas. In addition, little is known about the connection between resilience research and actual urban development strategies [8]. The Rockefeller Foundation pioneered 100 Resilient Cities to help cities worldwide become more resilient. Thus far, a City Resilience Index (CRI) has been developed under the support provided by the Rockefeller Foundation to the Arup International Development. Therefore, this research aims to (i) investigate the perceptions and opinions of the local community toward the flood resilience building effectiveness and (ii) assess the current state of resilience building in PNSAP, Thailand, by integrating the two global city resilience assessment frameworks of the Ten Essentials for Making Cities Resilient according to the Arup and Rockefeller Foundation’s CRI. The outcomes of this study are expected to assist local governments in monitoring the progress and challenges faced by the implementation of the Sendai Framework and facilitate the development of local disaster risk reduction strategies and resilience action plans. The results of the city resilience analysis, based on the CRI concept, can also arm cities with a way to track their current-day resilience and progress toward a more resilient future.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Site

This study selected Phra Nakhon Sri Ayutthaya Province (PNSAP) as the case study area (Figure 1) because it is one of UNESCO’s World Heritage Sites. PNSAP, located at the confluence of the Chao Phraya, Pa Sak, and Lopburi rivers and downstream of the lower Chao Phraya River Basin, forms one of the major flood plains in Thailand.

2.2. Perceptions and Opinions toward the Effectiveness of Flood Resilience Building: Stakeholder Meeting and Questionnaire Survey

2.2.1. Focus Group Discussion and Content Analysis

To ensure the relevance and inclusiveness of the proposed indicators used in this study, primary data collection consisted of fieldwork, stakeholder meetings, and a focus group discussion. The study included a focus group discussion with key stakeholders who are experts in city resilience and sustainable flood risk management (n = 25): (i) international officers, (ii) academia, (iii) provincial government, (iv) local government, and (v) local communities (

Table 2. Focus group participants.

Area of Responsibilities	Stakeholders	Sectors	Number of Participants	Male	Female
International Officers	Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF)	Non-Profit Organization	2	1	1
Academia	Academic Staff	Expert in Flood Risk Management	3		3
Regional Government	Office of the NBTC (National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission) Region 15	Government	2	1	1
Provincial Government	PNSAP Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Office	Government	3	1	2
	PNSAP Irrigation Office	Government	2	2
	PNSAP Public Health Office	Government	3	1	2
	PNSAP Police Office	Government	4	3	1
	PNSAP Farmers Council Office	Government	1	1
	PNSAP Chamber of Commerce	Private Sector	1		1
Local Government	Bang Ban Subdistrict Municipality	Government	2	1	1
	Hua Wiang Subdistrict Municipality	Government	2		2

). The objective of the focus group was to elicit the perspectives of stakeholders regarding the progress of flood resilience building in the province and assess the relevance and effectiveness of the identified indicators. During the focus group discussion, the participants were given the opportunity to provide feedback, raise concerns, and suggest modifications where necessary. The feedback received from the stakeholders was then subject to keyword frequency analysis using the Cloud computing platform (i.e., all keywords from the focus group discussion provided by all stakeholders were counted, analyzed, and prioritized) [23,24] and finally incorporated into the potential recommendations for driving flood resilience in PNSAP, Thailand. Details of the focus group questions are provided in

Table 3. Key questions for the focus group discussion.

Section	Specific Questions	Purpose	Expected Insights
Relevance of flood resilience indicators	Which flood resilience indicators do you believe are most relevant to PNSAP?	To identify which indicators are seen as most pertinent based on stakeholders’ expertise and experiences.	Stakeholders prioritize specific indicators they find crucial, considering local factors like geography, socio-economics, and environment.
Role of indicators in building flood resilience	In what ways do these indicators significantly contribute to enhancing flood resilience in PNSAP?	To explore how the indicators enhance the region’s resilience to floods through practical applications.	Participants provide examples and scenarios showing how indicators improve flood resilience, such as through infrastructure, community preparedness, and institutional capacities.
Prioritization and attention to indicators	Are there any indicators that should be prioritized or given more attention in the context of PNSAP?	To determine which indicators need immediate or heightened focus for effective flood resilience.	Discussions on which indicators are under addressed or have high impact potential, leading to strategic recommendations for resource allocation and policy adjustments.
Challenges in implementing indicators	What are the potential challenges in implementing these indicators in PNSAP?	To identify obstacles that may hinder the successful application of the indicators.	Insights into practical difficulties like funding, technical expertise, and community resistance, crucial for developing feasible flood resilience strategies.
Additional insights and recommendations	Do you have any additional insights or recommendations regarding the flood resilience indicators?	To capture any further thoughts or suggestions not covered by the structured questions.	Innovative ideas, new indicators, or modifications to existing ones. Unique local knowledge or practices for enhancing flood resilience.

.

2.2.2. Community Survey and Data Analysis

To consider the local community’s perspectives on flood risk management in PNSAP, a questionnaire survey was conducted with the area’s local people (n = 552) through random sampling. As presented in

Table 4. Selected goals for assessing the city’s resilience with an emphasis on sustainable flood risk management in PNSAP, Thailand, modified based on the Arup and Rockefeller Foundation’s City Resilience framework [25].

Selected Goals	Related Indicators	Justification for Each Phase of Sustainable Flood Risk Management
Minimal human vulnerability	▪ Effective sanitation	Response
Effective safeguards for human health and life	▪ Effective emergency response services ▪ Emergency medical care	Response
Collective identity and community support	▪ Local community support ▪ Active engagement in flood preparedness	Preparedness
Effective provision of critical services	▪ Flexible infrastructure services ▪ Adequate continuity for critical assets and services	Response
Reliable mobility and communications	▪ Diverse and affordable transport networks ▪ Reliable communications technology	Preparedness/Response
Effective leadership and management	▪ Proactive multi-stakeholder collaboration ▪ Comprehensive hazard monitoring and risk assessment	Preparedness/Rehabilitation
Empowered stakeholders	▪ Widespread community awareness and preparedness ▪ Effective mechanisms for communities to engage with government	Preparedness/Rehabilitation
Integrated development planning	▪ Comprehensive city monitoring and data management ▪ Appropriate land use and zoning	Preparedness/Rehabilitation

, survey questions associated with sustainable flood risk management in PNSAP based on the city resilience indicators of the Arup and Rockefeller Foundation’s City Resilience framework were designed and distributed to the local respondents. This study also computed Spearman’s correlation coefficient to determine the relationships between all proposed indicators and the dependent variable, i.e., respondents’ engagement in flood management. The Mann–Whitney U Test and Kruskal–Wallis Test were carried out to determine whether any differences existed in the responses towards the dependent variable by gender or education level.

2.3. Evaluation of Sustainable Flood Risk Management

2.3.1. Indicator Selection

To assess the resilience of PNSAP in Thailand with an emphasis on sustainable flood risk management, all related indicators were developed based on the key components of city resilience defined by the Arup and Rockefeller Foundation’s City Resilience framework [25]. These components include the role of governance, planning and disaster preparation, disaster response and post-event recovery, health and well-being, economy and society, infrastructure and environment, and leadership and management. The identification of the relevant variables is a critical step in assessing the level of sustainable flood risk management in the study area. To ensure the selection of high-quality variables, a comprehensive literature review was conducted, and experts involved in the province’s disaster management mechanism were consulted. Finally, the 15 most relevant indicators were selected, as presented in Table 4.

2.3.2. AHP Weighting

The weighting of the proposed indicators was determined through expert pairwise comparison utilizing the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). Five experts from the Office of the Ayutthaya Municipality, PNSAP Office for Natural Resources and Environment, Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Office in PNSAP, Royal Irrigation Department, and PNSAP Public Health Office in Thailand (n = 5) were asked to compare, pairwise, each indicator on a nine-point scale, ranging from 1 to 9 in order of importance, with 9 being the most important and 1 the least important. This pairwise comparison and computation process was reiterated for several rounds until answers related to sustainable flood risk management converged. Finally, the raw data were transformed into meaningful absolute values and normalized weights (Equation (1)) [26]. To ensure consistency in the pairwise analysis, the consistency index (CI) and consistency ratio (CR) were calculated.

$$\mathrm{A}=\left[aij\right]=\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}1& aij\dots & a1n\\ 1/aij& 1& a2n\\ 1/a1n& 1/a2n& 1\end{array}\right\}$$

(1)

Here, A is the pairwise comparison matrix of expert judgment on each indicator related to city resilience and sustainable flood risk management over alternative a_ij and all comparisons i, j = 1, 2, …, n.

$$CI={\displaystyle \frac{\mathsf{\lambda }\max -n}{n-1}}$$

(2)

Here, λmax is the largest eigenvalue of the pairwise matrix and n is the number of indicators associated with city resilience and sustainable flood risk management.

$$CR={\displaystyle \frac{CI}{RI}}$$

(3)

Here, CI is the consistency index, and RI is the random consistency index.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Perspective of Local Respondents toward the Effectiveness of Flood Resilience Building in PNSAP

3.1.1. Focus Group Discussion and Keyword Analysis

Giving deeper insight into the effectiveness of flood resilience building in PNSAP, the results of the focus group discussion and keyword analysis revealed that the top five keywords provided by all stakeholders were “financial aspects”, “community awareness and preparedness”, “multi-stakeholder collaboration”, “citizen engagement”, and “urban flood monitoring and data management” (

Table 5. Keyword analysis from the focus group discussion.

Keywords Associated with Indicators	Frequency	%
Financial aspects	44	12.26
Widespread community awareness and preparedness	42	11.70
Proactive multi-stakeholder collaboration	38	10.58
Active engagement in flood preparedness	37	10.31
Comprehensive city monitoring and data management	28	7.80
Diverse and affordable transport networks	27	7.52
Effective sanitation	22	6.13
Effective emergency response services	21	5.85
Flexible infrastructure services	21	5.85
Reliable communications technology	20	5.57
Appropriate land use and zoning	18	5.01
Comprehensive hazard monitoring and risk assessment	15	4.18
Emergency medical care	8	2.23
Local community support	8	2.23
Effective mechanisms for communities to engage with government	8	2.23
Adequate continuity for critical assets and services	2	0.56

). First and foremost, most of the respondents emphasized the need for financial support in community flood risk management. An effective budget planning and preparation system for both structural and non-structural flood risk mitigation is essential. This means that without adequate resources, it is difficult to implement effective flood risk mitigation measures. Another keyword emerging from the analysis was community awareness. The experts recognized the importance of community engagement and awareness in strengthening flood resilience. Most of them emphasized the need to educate and empower communities to take proactive measures and adopt appropriate behaviors to reduce their vulnerability to flooding. Thus, community engagement and education are critical to promoting resilience. Meanwhile, proactive collaboration among various stakeholders in disaster risk reduction (i.e., government agencies, non-governmental organizations, local communities, and other relevant parties) is also urgently needed in the community to help build more effective flood resilience. Flood disaster monitoring in the city and data management are also required. Unfortunately, there is a lack of up-to-date information on flooding and real-time assessments of flood-related risks in PNSAP. Some experts also identified key areas for improvement in the current disaster risk reduction measures. One of the areas highlighted was effective sanitation. Improving sanitation infrastructure and practices can minimize health risks, thus increasing overall resilience. However, stakeholder respondents underscored the importance of addressing sanitation issues and providing adequate continuity for critical assets and services to strengthen flood resilience.

3.1.2. Community Survey Results

Local Community’s Opinions toward Flood Risk Management in PNSAP

As mentioned, a community survey was conducted in PNSAP using questionnaires to gather insight into the perceptions of people toward flood resilience and the measures taken to build it. The results provided valuable information on the effectiveness of flood resilience building from the perspectives of those directly impacted by flooding and can inform decision-making to develop more effective resilience-building strategies. The mean score analysis was employed to determine the average rate of the respondents’ perception regarding the effectiveness of flood resilience building in PNSAP. From Figure 2, it can be seen that flexible infrastructure services, diverse and affordable transport networks, complete city monitoring and data management, the sufficient continuity of critical assets and services, and a reliable communication system during flooding are rated as the five most important factors of community flood risk management and resilience. The respondents of this study indeed realized the necessity of developing resilient infrastructure design that can withstand the impacts of flooding events. In this context, another study conducted by Bahadur et al. [27] found that responsive services related to infrastructure are committed to disaster risk resilience in an urban setup. The study argued that flexible infrastructure systems can increase the extent to which urban areas can respond to disaster events. This is especially relevant for developing countries, where it is common to find infrastructure systems rather inadequate or sometimes totally absent. It is indeed established that these studies have clarified that communities with flexible designs in their infrastructures recover better in the context of disaster events and were more successful in avoiding long-term disruptions to infrastructure and services while reinforcing their importance in building resilience to floods. Inherent flexible infrastructure systems that allow adaptation when circumstances change can help a community mitigate flood impacts and reduce potential losses due to flood events. As part of the flood communication system, implementing and combining digital twin platforms with active citizen participation can empower relevant policymakers to make more informed decisions, leading to improved community resilience against flooding [28].

The communities ranked the following as low priorities for flood risk management in PNSAP: local community support, community awareness and preparedness, and adequate sanitation. A study by Fonseca et al. [29] reported that adequate sanitation was one of the factors responsible for reducing waterborne disease incidence during and after flooding. Another study in Thailand also highlighted that the availability of adequate sanitation facilities could greatly enhance the resilience of communities to flood events [30]. The present study places particular emphasis on ensuring proper sanitation facilities for communities in the post-event period when the availability of both water and sanitation infrastructure can be disrupted or destroyed. Effective sanitation is an important factor in building flood resilience since it can help reduce the risk of waterborne diseases, promote public health, and ensure communities recover more quickly from the impacts of flooding. Considering the significance of community awareness in disaster preparedness and response, a research study by El Naggar et al. [31] found that the local respondents identified a worrying gap within the community in terms of the understanding of flood risks and necessary response measures. This lack of information is an obstacle to correct disaster management. Most of the people are not even aware of the flood risk within their areas. Lacking this vital information, they are unprepared to take action as a flood happens. This information gap also spreads in matters of emergency preparedness. There is a mutual lack of knowledge in the existing community concerning the emergency evacuation procedures, with many not knowing the proper procedures that should be followed to protect their families and themselves during floods. Evidently, a lack of information also influences perceptions of the importance of having emergency supplies and an emergency plan.

Respondents’ Engagement in Flood Preparedness in PNSAP

There are clear indications that PNSAP lacks active contribution to flood preparedness. According to the survey, nearly one-third of respondents had never engaged in flood preparedness efforts (Figure 3). Interestingly, considering their socio-demographic factors, the Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis Test results revealed that neither gender nor education level significantly influenced respondents’ engagement in flood preparedness in PNSAP. As shown in

Table 6. Mann–Whitney U Test results according to the gender of respondents.

Mann–Whitney U Tests	n	Mean Rank	U	Z	Asymp. Sig.
Male	155	277.79	30,567.5	−0.123	0.902
Female	397	276.00

, there was no significant difference between male and female respondents on mean flood preparedness. Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences between respondents’ engagement in flood preparedness and their education levels (

Table 7. Kruskal–Wallis Test results according to the education level of respondents.

Kruskal–Wallis Test	n	Mean Rank	Kruskal–Wallis H	Asymp. Sig.
No education	32	243.45	5.410	0.248
Primary School	248	271.72
Secondary School	155	295.77
Diploma	42	263.00
Bachelor’s degree or above	75	257.77

)

The Arup and Rockefeller Foundation’s City Resilience Indicators and the Respondents’ Preparedness for Floods in PNSAP

The result of Spearman’s correlation coefficient analysis revealed positive correlations among all the Arup and Rockefeller Foundation’s City Resilience indicators (Figure 2 and

Table 8. Spearman’s correlation coefficient analysis of the Arup and Rockefeller Foundation’s City Resilience indicators affecting the respondents’ preparedness for floods in PNSAP.

Indicators	AEC	EM MC	EM CEG	ES	EERS	CH MRA	PMC	LCS	WC AP	CCMDM	AL UZ	FIS	AC CAS	RCT	DA TN
AEC	1.000	0.370 **	0.220 **	0.307 **	0.131 **	0.291 **	0.238 **	0.259 **	0.254 **	0.248 **	0.091 *	0.082 *	0.172 **	0.088 *	0.176 **
EMMC	-	1.000	0.397 **	0.367 **	0.277 **	0.449 **	0.394 **	0.304 **	0.363 **	0.433 **	0.328 **	0.227 **	0.235 **	0.322 **	0.296 **
EMCEG	-	-	1.000	0.314 **	0.425 **	0.542 **	0.358 **	0.393 **	0.391 **	0.396 **	0.241 **	0.242 **	0.091 *	0.275 **	0.240 **
ES	-	-		1.000	0.225 **	0.367 **	0.295 **	0.369 **	0.371 **	0.293 **	0.176 **	0.127 **	0.204 **	0.206 **	0.238 **
EERS	-	-	-	-	1.000	0.435 **	0.265 **	0.270 **	0.279 **	0.266 **	0.159 **	0.199 **	0.090 *	0.199 **	0.166 **
CHMRA	-	-	-	-		1.000	0.540 **	0.472 **	0.486 **	0.469 **	0.338 **	0.203 **	0.152 **	0.253 **	0.282 **
PMC	-	-	-	-	-	-	1.000	0.330 **	0.403 **	0.428 **	0.248 **	0.083 *	0.143 **	0.233 **	0.264 **
LCS	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1.000	0.581 **	0.370 **	0.253 **	0.184 **	0.140 **	0.237 **	0.260 **
WCAP	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1.000	0.416 **	0.329 **	0.191 **	0.075 *	0.232 **	0.218 **
CCMDM	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1.000	0.503 **	0.158 **	0.202 **	0.288 **	0.162 **
ALUZ	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1.000	0.150 **	0.181 **	0.298 **	0.289 **
FIS	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1.000	0.189 **	0.295 **	0.174 **
ACCAS	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1.000	0.390 **	0.313 **
RTC	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1.000	0.462 **
DATN	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1.000

* = p < 0.05 and ** = p < 0.01.

) and respondents’ preparedness for floods in PNSAP. A moderately strong positive correlation was found between the respondents’ engagement in flood preparedness and the following indicators: emergency medical care (EMMC) (r = 0.370, p < 0.01), effective sanitation (ES) (r = 0.307, p < 0.01), comprehensive hazard monitoring and risk assessment (CHMRA) (r = 0.291, p < 0.01), widespread community awareness and preparedness (WCAP) (r = 0.254, p < 0.01), comprehensive city monitoring and data management (CCMDM) (r = 0.248, p < 0.01). It can be implied that both engineering and organizational factors are the key drivers of effective flood risk management in PNSAP. In practical terms, combining insights from the community with those from various stakeholders and experts leads to a more holistic approach toward resilience. This integration ensures that resilience strategies are not only comprehensive but also tailored to the unique needs and strengths of the community. Proactive programs and outreach initiatives help ensure services are effectively utilized by community members, fostering a culture of preparedness and resilience. Collaborative networks allow stakeholders to share best practices, make informed decisions, and monitor progress in resilience building. At the proactive stage, representatives from different sectors actively participate in these networks to identify and share lessons learned, make decisions, and oversee the resilience initiatives. This involvement is crucial for ensuring that the community is well prepared and can recover swiftly from disruptions.

3.2. Assessment of City Resilience with an Emphasis on Sustainable Flood Risk Management: AHP Analysis

3.2.1. Effective Emergency Response, Hazard Monitoring, and Critical Assets and Services

The flood resilience analysis of PNSAP was performed by considering the Arup and Rockefeller Foundation’s City Resilience framework. According to the AHP method depicted in Figure 2 and

Table 9. Indicators used for AHP flood resilience analysis of PNSAP.

No.	Indicators	AHP Weight
1	Effective emergency response services	0.146444
2	Comprehensive hazard monitoring and risk assessment	0.112373
3	Emergency medical care	0.096363
4	Adequate continuity for critical assets and services	0.093169
5	Comprehensive city monitoring and data management	0.086655
6	Flexible infrastructure services	0.072484
7	Diverse and affordable transport networks	0.064500
8	Reliable communications technology	0.056687
9	Local community support	0.053811
10	Active engagement in flood preparedness	0.050659
11	Proactive multi-stakeholder collaboration	0.038932
12	Effective mechanisms for communities to engage with government	0.038923
13	Widespread community awareness and preparedness	0.034313
14	Appropriate land use and zoning	0.028506
15	Effective sanitation	0.026181

, the results of the experts’ subjective pairwise comparison revealed that effective emergency response services, comprehensive hazard monitoring and risk assessment, emergency medical care, adequate continuity for critical assets and services, and comprehensive city monitoring and data management received the five highest AHP scores for their effect on sustainable flood risk management in PNSAP (0.086655–0.146444 of weighted scores). Overall, it is important to note that the findings from the focus group interviews are consistent with those of the AHP used in the study. The consistency between the qualitative findings from the interviews and the quantitative analysis through the AHP confirms the importance of the areas identified for improvement to increase flood resilience in the province. To elaborate, the majority of local Thai respondents affected by flooding were unable to access effective emergency response services and medical care during flood events in their communities [32]. This study demonstrates that the lack of an evacuation schedule and flood response program and a delay in the flood communication system continue to be major concerns for sustainable flood risk management in flood-prone areas of Thailand. Therefore, it should be highlighted that effective and accessible emergency disaster response services play a significant role in building flood resilience through effective flood risk management. In this context, the interdependence of infrastructure networks and vulnerability is also crucial to understanding the impacts of floods on emergency response services. For instance, in the UK, Coles et al. [33] investigated the accessibility of emergency services and highlighted their vulnerability to flood events by considering the spatial coverage from emergency nodes and emergency response times for vulnerable care homes/sheltered accommodation. Both scenario-based evaluations of flood emergency preparedness and real-time forecasting are urgently required to guide decision-makers in managing the risk of flooding during disaster events. Moreover, innovative flood evacuation procedures must be developed and implemented in flood-prone areas such as PNSAP. For instance, in Australia, Yazdani et al. [34] proposed a hospital evacuation model (a combination of a flood simulator and a mathematic model) that could potentially facilitate the optimal scheduling and sequencing of flood evacuation as one of the key disaster response strategies. Furthermore, Samany et al. [35] supported the idea that flood emergency evacuation is considered crucial to reducing flood losses and refining social resilience for long-term disaster recovery. To enhance a city’s resilience to flood disasters, a critical task involves systematically identifying safe zones within the urban environment, considering evacuation transportation steps and multimodal transportation options, and pinpointing crucial links within urban traffic networks to minimize evacuation times. In this context, the optimal response time for emergency response centers to address the needs of affected individuals is ideally around 10 min following a flooding event [36].

3.2.2. Flood Hazard Monitoring and Reliable Communications Technology

The results of this research indicate that comprehensive city monitoring and flood data management are positioned fifth in the AHP ranking according to both experts and the community (AHP score = 0.086). This indicator demonstrates the ability of the community to monitor and assess flood hazards and risks, enabling the development of effective flood risk management strategies. Meanwhile, communicating the flood hazard risk is a valuable way to foster sustainable city and flood risk management. According to the study analysis, local communities in PNSAP still lack proper communication mechanisms and adequate flood emergency response plans, with an AHP score of 0.056. Similarly, in Thailand, some studies [37,38] also reported that ineffective flood warnings (i.e., lack of updated mapping of flood hazards) and flood risk communication continue to be major threats despite the great flood of 2011. Research conducted by Kittipongvises and Mino [38] found that most respondents received neither flood forecasting nor early warning before the flood arrived. Flood risk literacy is considered one of the greatest challenges for building sustainable flood risk management in the context of Thailand. To support this, Chandhit et al. [38] distributed 736 questionnaires to assess flood preparedness literacy in Thailand’s capital, Bangkok, and found that the majority of the vulnerable population (75% of elderly respondents) had neither accessed online applications nor information on flood hazards via online platforms either before or during a flood event. Overall, to create a flood-resilient city and minimize flood risk, the provision of timely and effective flood preparedness information is urgently required in flood-prone areas such as PNSAP. Khan et al. [39] also highlighted the importance of involving local communities in flood monitoring and risk assessment since they are the most vulnerable to natural disasters. The study found that community-based approaches can be effective in disseminating early warning systems and reducing flood risk. The study emphasizes the importance of establishing an interface between the issuing authorities and vulnerable communities, ensuring effective early warnings from the authorities to the communities. To address these knowledge gaps, Shrestha et al. [40] suggested that relevant stakeholders develop strategies to help the most vulnerable access information on flood monitoring and forecasting. The social, economic, and political experiences of the most vulnerable in the community should be taken into account in the process of flood risk communication.

3.2.3. Community Support for Flood Resiliency

Community support is crucial for building flood resilience in PNSAP, as confirmed by experts and local community leaders (AHP score = 0.053811). The survey respondents stated that leaders can both directly and indirectly influence flood risk management and communication in their local communities. However, during the focus group discussion, the experts pointed out that encouraging community leaders and city authorities to become fully and actively involved in the formulation of a flood risk management strategy is one of the key challenges. In New Zealand, Blake et al. [41] stressed the significance of community support in enhancing flood resilience by emphasizing how community spirit and social ties provided practical, psychological, and emotional support during a flood event in 2020. This study also confirmed that community-centered approaches (i.e., community spirit, championing community-led response, and recovery practices) contribute significantly to effective flood risk management. Moreover, a study by Ro et al. [42] emphasized the need for multi-directional interaction across various actors in flood risk management, including community members, government officials, and local public organizations. Through such interaction, community members can provide valuable feedback and input on the effectiveness of flood risk management measures. It is important to underline that community support can take many forms, such as community-based disaster risk reduction and management programs, participatory planning processes, and community engagement in flood mapping and early warning systems. Community support can also be enhanced through policies and programs that promote sustainable development and reduce vulnerability to flood hazards [43].

3.2.4. Multi-Level Stakeholder and Active Citizen Engagement in Flood Risk Management

Proactive multi-stakeholder collaboration is key to creating a flood-resilient city. However, in this research, the experts indicated that the lack of cooperation across levels of government in flood risk communication and management is one of the main barriers to addressing sustainable flood risk in PNSAP. Accordingly, this indicator received a relatively low score from the experts (AHP = 0.038932). Active citizen engagement in flood resilience building, such as participating in meetings, training, and awareness campaigns, is vital for community ownership and flood risk management. However, it should be noted that over-professionalization can hinder inclusivity and heighten inequality. Therefore, to foster active citizenship, all relevant stakeholders must balance professionalization with inclusivity, focusing on marginalized communities and providing capacity-building programs [44]. From a holistic perspective, the participatory approach is a key element of flood disaster management. For instance, de Bruijn et al. [45] highlight the importance of the following mechanisms: (i) active stakeholder engagement, (ii) vulnerability assessments, (iii) scenario-based discussions, and (iv) the analysis of adaptation measures to enhance resilience. These approaches facilitate the identification of infrastructure vulnerabilities and inform the design of adaptation measures to enhance flood resilience in local communities.

3.3. Comparison of the Community Survey and AHP Results

3.3.1. Comprehensive City Monitoring and Adequate Continuity for Critical Assets and Services

From the perspective of community members and various stakeholders, comprehensive city monitoring, data management, and the continuity of essential services are crucial in building PNSAP resilience. Our results are consistent with those reported previously. For instance, studies conducted by Ampratwum et al. [46], Egli et al. [47], Wrede et al. [48], and Trucco et al. [49] found that comprehensive city monitoring and effective data management are essential requirements for resilience building. Specifically, the monitoring of many essential aspects of the city, including infrastructure and utilities, enables real-time disaster monitoring and management. Cities require functioning, effective data management systems that track, analyze, and share big data, churning out insights for the building of tailor-made mitigation strategies that anchor on building resilience. Of note, resilience regards the continuity of critical assets and services even if faced with severe disruptions [46,50]. This means that essential services, including communication lines, modes of transport, water services, and emergency services, must run in times of emergencies for the well-being of the people. Continuity planning, the preparation of backup systems, and strategies to reduce downtime with the objective of the quick restoration of services tend to lower the effects arising from the disruptions and restore public confidence.

3.3.2. Flexible Infrastructure Services, Affordable Transport Networks, Effective Emergency Response Services, Comprehensive Hazard Monitoring and Risk Assessment

In PNSAP, the community and experts alike identified flexible infrastructure and affordable, diversified networks of transport as the two most critical desirable infrastructure features in building resilience. This study reported a mean rating of 3.16 out of a possible 5 on flexible infrastructure services by the community, which resonated with the prior study by Ampratwum et al. [46]. Moreover, comprehensive hazard monitoring and risk assessment, scoring 0.112373 on the AHP scale, is another critical point. The continuous tracking of natural and human-made hazard information is helpful for early warning and proactive risk mitigation [51]. Proper risk assessment helps assess the potential impacts, vulnerabilities, and strengths of communities, thus guiding priorities in utilizing resilience efforts and resource allocation in reducing vulnerabilities and enhancing disaster resilience [52].

3.3.3. Appropriate Land Use and Zoning

The opinions diverge between the community and the experts on the role of appropriate land use and zoning in building resilience. To be specific, the community views land use and zoning as an important factor, with a mean AHP score of 2.91, reflecting concern about how land within their locality is managed. Based on the experts’ view, land use and zoning was ranked 14th, or very low, among all resilience indicators. This result could reflect the different ways in which each group views resilience. The community members look more at the immediate, tangible impacts of land-use policies that affect their everyday lives and surrounding environments. They define strategic land use and zoning as key to maintaining the quality of their landscape, environmental conservation, and sustainable development for the future [53]. This also emphasizes the intensification of land use that has not traditionally been used for agriculture but can be put to other economic use, either with higher-value or supplemental income sources [54]. The same could be said in a study performed by Huang et al. [55]. Proper land use and zoning set the pace for how good flood resilience can be. In contrast, the experts in PNSAP engage a much broader perspective regarding systemic factors that are critical in determining the level of resilience within a province or nation. They focus on properly integrating land-use policy within comprehensive disaster risk management frameworks and ensuring the maintenance of critical infrastructure and services.

3.3.4. Effective Mechanisms for Communities to Engage with Government

In the context of building resilience in PNSAP, local communities considering effective mechanisms for their engagement with the government is vital as it has been ranked 7th among the 15 resilience indicators. On the other hand, the experts ranked it as the 12th priority. The fact that the community and the experts rank the indicators differently outlines how, currently, dialogue and collaboration are essential in ensuring that resilience strategies satisfy localized priorities as much as they would expert perspectives. Khan et al. [16] reported that community engagement and the development of social capital are essential to coping with natural disasters. Community involvement includes understanding disaster risks, participating in voluntary activities, and engaging in development programs. A study by Kapucu et al. [51] holds that the collaborative and inclusive governance of networks is crucial in helping government communities engage better. Their study emphasized the inclusion of, in policies and plans for resilience, inputs from the multi-diversity of stakeholders that include different levels of government, businesses, and not-for-profit organizations. Such multi-level, multi-sectoral collaboration allows communities to take advantage of local knowledge and resources while they work with government agencies toward increased resilience. Effective engagement mechanisms such as that proposed by Monteil et al. [56] include trust-building mechanisms between the government and community members to strengthen governance political networks and call upon the engagement of community leaders in decision-making circles. In being a form of multi-level engagement, the insights borne from the community level will find expression in the broader disaster management plans and engender more robust and adaptive strategies of resilience.

3.3.5. Widespread Community Awareness and Preparedness

In PNSAP, community awareness and preparedness are the critical components of resilience but are focused on less. In this case, the community ranked widespread community awareness at 2.37, preparedness at 2.11, and adequate sanitation at 0.78, the lowest under any vital form. These aspects of resilience building among people must be promoted urgently. Interestingly, the AHP weight among the experts showed the lowest priority to these variables, with AHP weights of 0.034313 and 0.026181, respectively. Social capital is crucial for disaster preparedness and resilience. It includes the networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit. Higher levels of social capital are associated with better preparedness, awareness, and response to disasters [56].

3.4. Application of Proposed Indicators, Limitations, and Future Research

Building flood resilience is a complex and long-term process that needs to consider multiple factors, such as rapid population growth, climate stress, and land use change. In this study, a resilience assessment was conducted based on AHP with weighted expert judgments, focus group discussion, and a questionnaire survey using the proposed 15 urban resilience indicators modified by the Arup and Rockefeller Foundation. The main purpose of applying the global indicators is to establish baselines of flood risk management in PNSAP, potentially making the area better prepared for flood disasters and more resilient to them. Compared to the global literature on flood resilience [9] (

Table 10. Community flood resilience dimensions and the Arup and Rockefeller Foundation urban resilience indicators (modified by [9]).

Resilience Dimensions	Proposed Indicators (This Study)
Physical	- Emergency medical care - Adequate continuity for critical assets and services - Flexible infrastructure services - Diverse and affordable transport networks - Appropriate land use and zoning - Effective sanitation
Human	- Active engagement in flood preparedness
Social/cultural capital	- Local community support
Community competence	- Effective mechanisms for communities to engage with government - Widespread community awareness and preparedness
Institutional/organizational	- Comprehensive city monitoring and data management - Proactive multi-stakeholder collaboration
Technical	- Effective emergency response services - Comprehensive hazard monitoring and risk assessment - Reliable communications technology
Environmental	-
Financial	-

), this implies that physical and technical factors gained higher AHP scores than others. The survey analysis found that human and community competence presented constant challenges in building flood resilience in PNSAP. It should also be noted that environmental and financial factors were not included in the proposed resilience indicators in this research. However, the results of the keyword analysis found that “financial issue” was one of the most popular keywords shared by the focus group participants. Therefore, further studies should be conducted to integrate financial aspects into urban and flood resilience. Notably, this research was conducted within a specific timeframe, which may not have fully captured the long-term trends and evolving dynamics of flood resilience, particularly in the face of rapid climate change and socio-economic development. Moreover, the focus on PNSAP may limit the generalizability of the findings to other regions with different geographical, socio-economic, and cultural contexts. Therefore, future studies should include a detailed comparative analysis of flood resilience in urban versus rural contexts within PNSAP. This should take into account the unique challenges and resources of each setting, recognizing that urban and rural areas may require different strategies and interventions to enhance their flood resilience capabilities. The analysis process for flood resilience assessment should be considered and include all vulnerable groups in the province. It is crucial that this process not only involves these groups but also ensures gender equality, providing equitable opportunities for all to contribute to and benefit from the flood resilience strategies developed. Lastly, it should be noted that this study relied mainly on experts’ judgments through the AHP, which can introduce bias and limit the objectivity of the research findings [57]. A holistic evaluation framework for flood resilience assessment (i.e., the VIKOR multi-criteria decision and Gray Relational Analysis (GRA) method, Pressure–State–Response Model, and Social–Economic–Natural Complex Ecosystem theory) [58,59] should be further conducted in the context of Thailand.

4. Conclusions

This study provides valuable insight into the effectiveness of disaster risk reduction mechanisms for building flood resilience in PNSAP from the perspectives of both experts and members of the local community. The findings show that despite alignment between expert and community assessments in some areas, there are also discrepancies, indicating the importance of incorporating the perspectives of the community when developing resilience-building strategies. The study highlights the importance of a comprehensive approach to flood resilience that includes effective emergency response services, hazard monitoring and risk assessment, flexible infrastructure services, diverse and affordable transport networks, and effective communication systems. The findings also emphasize the need for improvement in community awareness and preparedness and effective sanitation. Based on the analysis of Spearman’s correlation coefficient, positive correlations were found among all the Arup and Rockefeller Foundation’s City Resilience indicators and respondents’ preparedness for floods in PNSAP. Overall, human and community competence and financial issues are considered challenges to building flood resilience in PNSAP. By addressing these factors, PNSAP can enhance its resilience to the impacts of flooding and promote the well-being of its communities. This study can serve as a guide for policymakers and practitioners seeking to enhance flood resilience in vulnerable areas, highlighting the need for a collaborative and participatory approach that integrates the perspectives of the community into resilience-building initiatives. Overall, the following resilience strategies are proposed for PNSAP:

(i)

Engage local communities in the decision-making process over flood risk management and explore alternative financing mechanisms through cooperation with international agencies, NGOs, and research institutions to access further funding sources and expertise. The investments should be designed for multiple budget cycles to ensure continuity and long-term resilience building and its monitoring and evaluation.

(ii)

Establish multi-stakeholder groups at the community level, which will sustain flood resilience, with cross-district coordination mechanisms responsible for recommending effective resource use and well-integrated resilience efforts. Joint committees with representatives from the provinces and all stakeholder sectors hold relevance for improving cooperation and overall effectiveness in flood resilience strategies.

(iii)

Improve the communication systems by providing periodic flood alerts and updates through various channels with educational material, hence ensuring access for all members of the community and increasing risk awareness through educational campaigns and public awareness programs.

(iv)

Enhance community preparedness by conducting practical training among local respondents regarding the response to a flood disaster, particularly evacuation, and preparing their respective homes for appropriate safety.

(v)

Ensure access to essential services in case of flooding, such as high-level water stations, emergency medical camps, and adequate sanitation facilities. Build resilience through flexible infrastructure designs, raised roadways, floodwalls, or flood gates to make transport networks resilient and enhance resilience by implementing building redundancy within systems.

(vi)

The base collaborative approach towards PNSAP’s increased flood resilience on forming formal cooperative agreements for shared flood management and emergency response under the framework of disaster risk management

(vii)

A well-thought-out plan with clear timelines, responsibilities, and measurable objectives is necessary for the successful implementation and monitoring of these recommendations. Afterward, regular reviews of progress and evaluation should be conducted to determine the effectiveness of the strategized works and make suitable adjustments. With these, the community members will become more transparent in the monitoring and be assured that the interventions will indeed answer to their needs. Additionally, a feedback mechanism allows for continuous improvement with real-time data and experiences so that it will systematically help assess the long-term impacts and sustainability of a resilience-building mechanism in PNSAP.