Age-Based Community Resilience Assessment Using Flood Resilience Index Approach: Inference from the Gyor City, Hungary

Abstract

Floods represent a significant threat to the livelihoods of individuals and pose challenges to global development prospects. An individual’s age is an essential predictor for adopting flood preparedness measures. In this context, the present study aims to identify community resilience based on age. Two age groups were considered for analysis, i.e., young group (age less than 24 years) and adult group (age over 24 years), using the Flood Resilience Index (FRI) approach through five dimensions of resilience, i.e., the natural, physical, economic, social, and institutional. The data analysis included 200 respondents, with each compromise equaling 100 from both age groups. A total of 34 structured questions were analyzed based on FRI dimensions. The survey results show that the overall resilience in both groups is low, but the adults are relatively more flood-resilient than the young group. Moreover, results of all dimensions show differences between the two groups, with the adult group appearing more resilient than the young group. The study shows that the local authorities and flood protection bodies should focus more on the community’s youth regarding risks and preparedness for flooding.

1. Introduction

Flood disasters are increasingly prevalent and have severe consequences for urban areas across the globe [1]. Rapid urbanization and the increase in extreme rainfall due to climate change are fundamental to the rise in flooding [2,3]. Consequently, they can have catastrophic effects on communities, leading to loss of life and injuries while adversely affecting the economy and overall quality of life [4,5].

The rising number of individuals impacted by flooding greatly harms the physical environment and urban communities [6,7]. As the population ages rapidly and the need for caregiving services increases, an important yet overlooked issue is the impact of individuals’ age on their preparedness for disasters [8,9]. Urbanization and population expansion frequently result in more individuals residing in hazardous environments and inadequate housing, including vulnerable residential sites and structurally unsound buildings [10].

Historically, the most prevalent natural hazard in Europe is floods, with an increase in more intense extreme events [11]. The Historical Analysis of Natural Hazards in Europe (HANZE) database highlights the overall recorded flood data of flash floods in Europe, showing a total of 1564 flood events from 1870 to 2018, of which flash floods (floods lasting less than 24 hours) account for more than half of total events, i.e., 879 (56%), followed by riverine floods, i.e., 606 (39%); coastal floods with 56 (4%) and compound floods (caused by two or more than two flood drivers) contain the remaining events, i.e., 23 (1.5%) [12].

The central theme of resilience is recovering from natural hazard events. Community resilience has been extensively studied in the expanding literature on flood resilience across multiple disciplines [13]. It can be defined as the ability of a community to bounce back from a calamity or endure new, continuous hardships while maintaining sustainability [14]. The frequency of disasters and other threats is rising, particularly by urbanization, increasing globalization, and climate change [15]. About 85 percent of the world’s population has experienced weather events exacerbated by human-induced climate change. Furthermore, the fact that not all populations are impacted equally becomes more evident as we begin to observe detrimental effects [16].

Various studies have shown different approaches to community resilience. The authors of [17] conducted a study to evaluate the community’s flood resilience, particularly emphasizing gender considerations. The study indicates that female community members exhibit lower levels of disaster resilience than their male counterparts. Still, little attention was given to how the age factor works in this matter. Similarly, another study [18] highlights the impact of personal experience and sociodemographic factors on varying degrees of natural disaster readiness among residents of the Chilean coastline. The study fell short of discussing the disaster readiness of the minors, as they play an essential role in the sociodemographic components.

Hungary is situated in the Carpathian Basin, one of the closest basins on Earth. The majority of the country is lowland, with 84% of its territory lying below an altitude of 200 m. The country’s climate is strongly influenced by its continental location, significantly impacting its meteorological and hydrological conditions. Across the country, an increase in flood levels has been observed in the rivers in recent times, which increases the risk of floods [19]. In June 2013, the highest flood event was recorded all along the Hungarian Danube section, in which the Danube inundated 47,285 hectares of the area. However, 1570 people were evacuated due to the direct danger posed by the flood, and no casualties were reported. This is expected to continue due to changes in natural processes and the effects of human interventions.

Age is one of the critical components of a community, as is how people respond to disasters. Analyzing how age groups in the community perceive the disaster is beneficial. Therefore, despite numerous studies, there is a lack of detailed analysis of how age plays a role in disaster management, which we address in this study through various dimensions of flood response. This study aims to identify the overall age-based response to floods in an aging society, categorizing the responses between two groups using the Flood Resilience Index (FRI).

2. Literature Review

Enhancing communities’ resilience helps government agencies, businesses, disaster planners, and community members by reducing the likelihood of disasters and making preparedness activities more accessible [20]. The primary objective of community resilience is to facilitate and promote the diverse systems that contribute to the community’s overall well-being.

Among several aspects of the community, age has been identified as a significant variable in accounting for variations in readiness levels among individuals, as demonstrated in prior research [21]. Individuals’ age may impact their readiness to engage in preparedness measures. Some research indicates that older individuals are more likely to implement preparedness strategies, primarily due to their past exposure to and experience with natural disasters [22]. However, other studies argue that there is no significant correlation between age and adopting preparedness measures [23]. However, as communities across the globe become aging societies, the discourse about the importance of demography in disaster-related literature will become more pronounced.

Globally, the demographic of older adults is expected to expand at an extraordinary pace; by the late 2070s, it is anticipated that the global population of individuals aged 65 and older will increase to 2.2 billion, surpassing the number of those under 18 [24]. A significant proportion of this trend is observed in Europe, as population growth has remained consistently low during the latter half of the twentieth century and into the early twenty-first century, primarily influenced by reduced fertility rates [25]. As a result, the percentage of individuals aged 50 and above is higher in Europe, approximately 38%, than in any other region globally [26]. This will make Europe the most affected region by population aging [27].

Similarly, Hungary has undergone an aging population and a distortion in its age distribution [28]. Along with the decline in population figures, the trend of an aging demographic has continued over the past 28 years. In 1990, 13% of the population was aged 65 and older, and by 2017, this percentage had risen to 18.7% [29]. This aging is key in disaster readiness as it indicates an individual’s encounter with the event and the time since it happened [30].

This demographic transition into an older society will impact the community’s response to disasters. One critical aspect often associated with resilience is how well households have equipped themselves for short-term and long-term effects [31]. It can be related to age, and it is crucial, as past experiences with disasters serve as a valuable resource, enabling individuals to understand natural hazards and their potential impacts [32]. Studies have indicated that older adults are more likely to prepare their properties and plan for disaster events [33]. One reason is that past encounters with disasters are valuable in helping people understand natural hazards and their potential effects. In conclusion, research indicates that people’s experience with an event and the time since it happened are critical factors in determining preparedness [34].

3. Study Area

The city of Gyor serves as both the capital and the most significant urban center of Gyor-Moson-Sopron County, located in the Western Transdanubia region. It is situated on a relatively flat topography that has historically experienced frequent flooding, with the latest occurrence noted in 2013. Its geographical location is from 17°30′35″ to 17°47′40″ east longitude and from 47°44′48″ to 47°38′7″ north latitude. The city is administratively organized into 18 settlement districts. As the city is situated at the confluence of four significant local rivers: Mosoni-Danube, Raba, Rabca, and Marcal (Figure 1), water plays a very significant role both in the formation of natural geographical foundations and in the development of urban life. The most important river in Gyor is the Mosoni-Danube, which separates the individual districts from each other. The river system plays a decisive role in the life of the city and its surroundings. The Great Danube River runs just 10 km away from the city center. The hydrological framework of the city has undergone a persistent transformation. The city’s river levels have increased by approximately 3.5 m on average over the last 200 years, rising 7.5 m above the average depth of 3.5 m [35]. This situation has necessitated the governing bodies ongoing elevation of flood defenses.

Demographically, the city’s population grew rapidly, reaching 100,000 in 1960 and now stands at 128,000. The city’s society is continuously changing, and even today, a noticeable restructuring can be observed due to incoming migration driven by the attraction of economic resources. This growth has been accompanied by the emergence of “metropolitan syndromes” and a decline in the city’s livability from increasing environmental load to traffic congestion and declining green spaces. Floods have historically impacted the study area in 1954, 1959, 1963, 1965, 1975, and 1991, and more recently in 2013, when the flooding occurred due to a rise in water level in the Danube River on 7 June, due to which 5000 people were impacted in 17 settlements in the study area [36].

4. Material and Methods

4.1. Methodology

The sample size was determined using Yamane (1967) [37] equation:

n = N/1 + (N × e²)

where n = the sample size, N = the population of the study, and e = the margin of error in the calculation. The margin of error was 0.7%, with a confidence level of 95%.

N = 128,000/1 + (128,000 × (0.7))²

N = 200

The survey consists of 206 participants, of which 200 were selected as total participants based on purpose sampling. A field survey was conducted based on random sampling. The survey of respondents was divided into two groups, i.e., young and adults. The survey includes a proportion of both groups according to the recent census in 2022, i.e., 95 respondents from the young category and 105 from the adult category (Figure 2). The young group comprises respondents below 24 years of age, including children and young adults. Most respondents in the young age group were in the 18–24 age category. This benefits the survey as they experienced the 2013 and 2024 floods in the study area. Similarly, the adult group comprises adults and seniors aged 25 and above. The adult group is broadly composed of young adults (25–40 years), adults (41–60 years), and senior populations (61 years+). Similarly, the survey focused on the responses of the age group of 30–60, as physical fitness was also considered an essential factor, as studies suggest a direct association between physical fitness and resilience [38,39]. The more aged group’s resilience is impacted by generally weak fitness, as moderate and vigorous physical activity levels are linked to higher resilience levels [40].

The survey questionnaire structure was based on both qualitative and quantitative strategies. Using a quantitative research strategy, the study focuses on one or two straightforward research questions and employs methodically developed data collection and analysis tools to present the findings [41]. Similarly, the questionnaire comprised both open-ended and closed-ended questions, as well as a Likert scale. The open-ended questions were mainly qualitative, while the closed ones were quantitative. Similarly, the Likert scale questions primarily focused on the institutional dimension. The survey questionnaire was designed based on the five themes of the Flood Resilience Index. A total of 34 questionnaires were designed to assess the overall flood resilience (Figure 3).

The majority of the survey respondents were based on the districts instead of the district-wise population number, as our study focused mainly on the perception of the respondents that are present on the riverbanks, specifically rivers Mosoni and Danube, from where the discharge is high and mainly responsible for flooding in the past (Figure 4).

4.2. Flood Resilience Index

The methodology is based on the Flood Resilience Index (FRI) developed by [42] under the CORFU (Collaborative Research on Flood Resilience in Urban Areas) project. In the FRI, the urban system is analyzed based on five dimensions: natural, physical, economic, social, and institutional. For each dimension, key indicators are identified to get the scaling value. The Min-Max Normalization method was used instead of the Weighted Mean Index (WMI) to achieve scaling values. We prefer to assign scales based on the respondent’s response rather than weights (assigned for each indicator), which are based on assigning importance to each dimension. Additionally, the selection of 200 respondents was carefully arranged, as no outliers were present that could impact the statistical results. Min-Max Scaling is also one of the simplest methods, where the values are scaled to a fixed range. The FRI value is obtained using the formula below.

$$\mathrm{FRI} = \frac{{\sum }_{i=1}^{n}Ii}{{\sum }_1^n}$$

where n is the sum of all indicators for the given dimension, and I is an indicator’s value within each dimension.

The FRI rating scales have assigned numbers ranging from 1 to 5, corresponding to very low, low, medium, high, and very high resilience scales. The scale explanation is presented in the table below:

Scales for Flood Resilience Index

4.2.1. Very Low (0–1)

There is a lack of comprehensive flood risk management with almost no public awareness about flood mitigation and an absence of a clear and coherent approach towards comprehensive flood risk management. Less than 20% of the population is aware of flood risks.

4.2.2. Low (1–2)

There is some awareness among the community about the problem, and the drive to tackle it is present. The development of human resources remains somewhat limited. The ability to act has seen significant improvement. Solutions are being developed and implemented.

4.2.3. Medium (2–3)

The community and local authorities are integrating and implementing solutions at a higher level, but there is still a lack of sustainable and adaptable solutions.

4.2.4. High (3–4)

The concept of resilience to disaster is almost incorporated into all local policies, plans, practices, attitudes, and behavior.

4.2.5. Very High (4–5)

A resilient system with strong institutional foundations, ongoing monitoring, integrated flood management measures, and active community participation. Flood risk reduction is integrated into everyday planning.

5. Results

5.1. Sociodemographic Characteristics:

The majority of adults show a higher gross income than the young group. Most of the younger group consists of students (72%), while only 1.3% are pensioners. Similarly, most adults are employed (31%) and entrepreneurs (30.7%). The student contributes most to the young group (78.2%) (

Table 1. Sociodemographic Characteristics of Respondents.

	Categories	Young (Below 24)	Adults (Above 24)
Gender	Male	43.6%	25.3%
	Female	54.5%	69.5%
Monthly Gross income (Ft)	0–300,000	25.7%	9.5%
	300,000–600,000	27.7%	30.5%
	600,000–100,000	14.9%	22.1%
	Over 1,000,000	10.9%	18.9%
Number of people living in one household	1	3.3%	6.3%
	2	8.3%	35.8%
	3–4	66.7%	47.4%
	5–6	18.3%	8.4%
	Above 6	3.3%	2.1%
Education	Basic education	14.9%	2.1%
	High school Graduate	12.9%	16.8%
	Graduate	64.4%	67.4%
	Postgraduate	1%	3.2%
Employment	Student	78.2%	3.2%
	Entrepreneur	3%	36.8%
	Unemployed	5%	2.1%
	Employer	9.9%	35.8%
	Pensioner	1%	3%
Property Ownership	Owner	80.2%	70.5%
	Rent	16.8%	18.9%
	Municipal Rent	1%	3.2%

).

5.2. Flood Resilience Assessment

Resilience assessment involves a comprehensive evaluation of urban systems, typically at the city or district level, focusing on their natural, physical, economic, social, and institutional aspects. Each aspect is vital in determining the flood resilience index for the specific urban system.

The FRI indicates the overall resilience of urban systems to flooding at various scales. When assessing FRI at the parcel and block level, the emphasis is placed on the buildings and their functions. In contrast, for larger scales, such as city or district levels, FRI is evaluated through five dimensions: natural, physical, economic, social, and institutional (

Table 2. FRI Rating of Resilience Dimensions.

Dimension	S.No.	Variables	Young	Adult	t-Test Value (p < 0.05)
Natural Property related danger, etc.)	1.	Flooding associated with climate change	3.71	3.68	0.114 (p-value 0.911)
	2.	The area is at risk of flooding	2.84	2.13
	3.	Source of a possible flood in the city	3.61	3.78
	4.	Flood protection measures spoil the natural environment of the city	2.08	2.18
	5.	Personal experience with flooding before	4.11	4.21
	6.	Property exposure to immediate danger from flooding	4.26	4.25
	7.	Flood protection measures consider the protection of natural habitats	2.61	2.61
			3.33	3.27
Physical (house-built structure, etc.)	8.	Availability of first aid kits at home (bandages, canned food, medicines) in case of a flood	2.43	2.72	−0.135 (p-value 0.903)
	9.	Making your home flood-proof yourself (sandbags, mobile barrier, etc.)	0.295	0.42
	10	Communication channel preference in a flood protection emergency	4.51	4.37
	11	Design of the house	3.32	3.63
	12	Experienced a flood that affected your neighborhood but not your property	4.16	3.95
	13	Age of house	0.44	0.48
	14	House construction type	1.34	1.69
			2.34	2.46
Economic (Flood damages cost, etc.)	15	Insurance besides home insurance	2.78	3.21	−0.792 (p-value 0.444)
	16	Do you have flood insurance?	0.99	1.53
	17	Average monthly gross income per person of your household	1.61	2.53
	18	Flood insurance affordability	3.03	3.75
	19	Property ownership	4.09	3.94
	20	City’s ability to restore the provision of essential services after a disaster?	3.22	3.21
	21	Availability of first aid kit at home (cost perspective)	2.43	2.74
			2.60	2.98
Social (community preparedness, etc.)	22	Information on how well the early warning systems work in the city?	1.69	1.42	0.005 (p-value 0.996)
	23	Participation in flood protection volunteer work?	0.60	1.32
	24	Willing to protect my home in the event of a flood	2.92	2.47
	25	Undertaking of voluntary work in the future	0.99	1.01
	26	Mutual community response in the event of a flood	3.96	3.84
	27	Information about potential flood hazards in my locality	2.63	2.71
			2.13	2.13
Institutional (local authority preparedness, etc.)	28	Can current flood protection systems handle extreme weather events?	3.39	3.34	−0.126 (p-value 0.728)
	29	Would local forces be able to withstand a flood effectively?	2.62	2.63
	30	Does the municipality comply with regulations (e.g., zoning law) preventing residential buildings and infrastructure construction in endangered areas?	3.90	3.91
	31	Does the municipality have sufficient defense infrastructure (e.g., dams, sea walls, avalanche barriers, etc.) to protect against disasters?	3.91	3.73
	32	Does the municipality do enough to reduce carbon dioxide emissions?	2.5	2.5
	33	Does the municipality organize awareness campaigns regarding fast-spreading epidemics in the flooding situation (e.g., HIV/AIDS, Ebola, yellow fever, etc.)?	3.95	4.1
	34	Is the population adequately informed about flood protection measures?	2.45	3.39
			3.24	3.37
Aggregate of all dimensions			2.728	2.842

Very low (0–1), Low (1–2), Medium (2–3), High (3–4), Very High (4–5).

). The proposed approach enhances flood risk management by integrating the 5R concept, which emphasizes resilience through reflection, resistance, response, recovery, and relief [42]. This framework involves a comprehensive analysis of urban systems, typically at the city or district level, examining their natural, physical, economic, social and institutional dimensions. Each of these dimensions plays a crucial role in assessing the flood resilience index for the specific urban system. The dimensions comprise various underlying variables.

These dimensions illustrate the physical and social characteristics of urban systems. A key objective criterion to assess is whether the urban community can endure and recover from specific disturbances. Five dimensions were further expanded into predefined variables to evaluate the FRI. The variables that best defined the dimensions of the FRI were identified.

5.2.1. Natural Dimension

Nature is one of the primary aspects of resilience, as it outlines the characteristics of the area where the urban environment is situated [43,44]. These include various factors such as water bodies, the proportion of sloped versus flat terrains, the density of drainage systems, the length of rainfall events, and the current watershed conditions. The survey of natural dimensions includes information about the participants’ perception of physiography that directly impacts the flooding. There were visible differences in viewing the natural phenomenon between young and adult groups as the mean score is higher in the young group compared to the adults (Figure 5a). The perception of climate relation with the flood was more pronounced in the young group than in the adult group, which can be attributed to a connection between a pro-environmental mindset and favorable nature experiences during childhood due to education and more media exposure, along with a growing global awareness of climate change issues and their potentially fatal consequences sparked by youth movements and nongovernmental organizations [45]. As experience matters, the adult age group was more aware of the sources of floods than the young [46].

5.2.2. Physical Dimension

The accessibility of the variable is assessed based on structural measures such as protection, communication networks (telephone, internet, transportation, etc.), human safety (for example, emergency shelters), equipment for services, and the availability of networks at the building’s location [47]. The survey of physical dimensions mainly reflects personal preparedness and safety for flooding. Adults show more resilience in preparing their homes to be floodproof through readily available safety aid kits and barriers to reduce the impact of flooding. This indicates that adults are more aware of the possible harmful impacts of floods and the countermeasures to floods. Similarly, adults are more aware of communication channels in flood emergencies and have more experience than young group. Age matters here; therefore, the young group shows less understanding of the impact of flooding in their neighborhood than adults. Adults also show more resilience in terms of residential structure and built-up time. The mean average physical dimension variable shows a high score for adults to be more resilient, specifically in home protection and emergency assistance in a flood disaster (Figure 5b).

5.2.3. Economic Dimension

Flooding intensifies economic disparity, hitting the underprivileged in areas vulnerable to floods the hardest while wealthier individuals in regions less affected continue to thrive [48]. The rise in the number of households corresponds with the population growth rates. Employment is closely connected to the region’s economic development and catalyzes urban expansion. This suggests that the long-term advantages of planning strategies, disaster management, and mitigation initiatives are vital for enhancing resilience and minimizing losses. Flood insurance is essential to the economic response as it helps with faster financial recovery after floodwater recedes, in which the adults show a clear advantage of higher insurance than the young group. The insurance schemes are low, as several requirements must be fulfilled for insurance plans to be effective, which is not always the case for all disaster risks and in all nations [49]. Very high insurance penetration rates are generally related to the government’s direct participation in the system. If the home is in a high-risk flood zone, private insurance firms may decline to pay the insurance in the event of a flood [50]. Overall, the mean score shows a higher resilience in adults than in the young group (Figure 5c).

5.2.4. Social Dimension

Social (or community) resilience is linked to a rise in local capacity, social support, resources, reduced risks, misunderstandings, and trauma [51]. The social dimension examines existing resources, well-being conditions, understanding, adaptability, and relationships within the community. The social survey was focused on the response factor to flood disasters. Both groups had low overall social dimension resilience (Figure 5d). The early warning system is essential in alerting the community before a disaster occurs [52]. However, respondents in both groups had a less positive response to the early warning system, which can be attributed to the low active involvement of the local community in existing early warning systems. Although residents and private individuals may have access to early warning systems, not all operators make their alerts publicly available, limiting their benefit. Activities about volunteering in flood protection activities showed that adults were more willing to do practical work. Similarly, volunteering in future disaster-related activities was low in both groups, showing a lack of interest in fieldwork.

5.2.5. Institutional Dimension

The institutional adaptive capacity of the urban system plays a significant role in the recovery process [53]. The dimension focuses on flood management strategies, policies, regulations, and evacuation plans. The trust in the local municipality to protect against extreme flooding was high in both groups but more visible in the young group compared to adults (Figure 5e). Similarly, confidence in institutions mitigating the adverse impacts of floods was also high and equally highlighted in both groups, as the effort made by the municipality in recent floodings through communication during the flood protection and restoration was continuous and highly intensive. Similarly, citizens can access information about floods at any time of the day. The municipality uses various means of communication to inform the population about flooding through up-to-date information on the internet, television and radio channels, and in the columns of printed newspapers.

The view about the flood defensive structure was also positively high in both groups as the city municipality has built numerous flood protection embankments in recent years. The view about the efforts to reduce climate-related emissions that enhance flooding was low and equally shared in both groups. The campaigns about the epidemics were seen very highly by both groups, showing the efforts of the local institutions. The information about flood protection measures is essential in protecting the population, and it was viewed differently by the two groups, as a low positive response was noted among the young group compared to adults, which shows that the adult group is more aware of protection measures than the young group.

6. Discussion

The FRI value of each dimension shows variability in perceiving the various factors of resilience. Both age groups show different approaches to resilience perception, indicating a difference in viewing the flood disaster and its impacts. The FRI results show that adults have a higher resilience rating than the young group. The results show that overall resilience is in the moderate category of FRI, i.e., a score of 2–3 in both age groups, which shows there is a need for more sustainable and adaptable solutions to flood mitigation. The second approach shows that the value of FRI for adults exceeds that of young group, which shows that they are more aware of and prepared for the flood response. The results coincide with previous studies where enhanced preparedness among adults is attributed to their prior experiences with significant disasters, contributing to a greater understanding of the associated risks and consequences [54,55].

This increased awareness leads to higher threat appraisal, reflecting perceived risk and potential impacts [56]. Furthermore, these experiences help in coping capability, demonstrating improved self-effectiveness in preparing adequately for a flood disaster. The significant difference occurs in the economic dimension of FRI (Figure 6), showing that adults have more financial resources to help them manage disasters better. Socially, the young group shows a more resilient nature that highlights their social well-being and more capacity building of human resources. Adults show more trust in the institutional capacity of the system than young ones due to their experience with local authorities’ measures against floods. Another important finding of the survey is the observed difference in the economic dimension of FRI, where both groups’ responses show a moderate FRI score. However, adults have better economic ratings than the young group. One of the reasons for this is that, unlike adults, the young group is mainly composed of students who have yet to enter professional life and have less exposure to financial matters.

Another significant aspect of the personal experience with floods is that there was a high response from young respondents about the individual experience with floods compared to the older group, which also correlates with the idea of maturation theory; older adults tend to focus more on positive emotions than younger ones do when faced with disaster [57]. Regarding social capacity to be resilient during a flood disaster, both young and adult groups show an equal and moderate FRI score that highlights mutual consent as a community in facing disaster.

It should be noted that adults 65 or older represent a highly vulnerable demographic and face more significant obstacles with disaster preparation [58] because this group of elderly individuals tends to experience poorer health and financial hardship as they age, which limits the resources and creates obstacles for them in disaster preparedness [59]. The disaster-related preparedness mechanism differs among the adult age group. Previous studies have highlighted the diversity within the older adult population, indicating that individuals between 65 and above may be classified as separate age groups [60]. Therefore, this study also focused more on the response of individuals under the 65 age group. Additionally, a few respondents chose not to answer specific aspects of the questionnaires, specifically the sociodemographic questions, showing their sensitivity to personal information.

The disaster preparedness campaigns and educational programs that align with existing policies can enhance the overall effectiveness of flood management. The previous experience with floods influences risk awareness directly and indirectly through the knowledge gained from that experience [61]. This information is beneficial in understanding the effects of natural disasters, allowing us to acquire valuable lessons from the past concerning flood extent and water flow pathways and assess the negative repercussions they produced in both physical and economic terms [62]. Furthermore, it is essential to recognize and address the vulnerabilities that the young age group faces in the context of disaster preparedness at the policy level. A comprehensive disaster management curriculum emphasizing rescue techniques is essential for universities across all disciplines to make the young more resilient. By encouraging an environment of preparedness and resilience, educational institutions can play a crucial role in shaping a generation that is informed about disaster risks and actively develop solutions to enhance community safety. The relevant local authorities, particularly the ‘North-Transdanubian Water Directorate’ that deals with the water management of the study area should be more active in providing approaches, methods, and tools to enhance the capacity of the local community in managing the flood disaster with appropriate backup support and guidance. Ultimately, such initiatives will empower the community individuals to take proactive steps in disaster risk reduction, contributing to a more resilient society capable of facing the challenges posed by climate change and natural disasters.

7. Conclusions

Disasters are frequently unpredictable and possess the potential to cause significant damage to social and professional infrastructures, affecting various groups within society. This study is an attempt to analyze community resilience with a focus on the demographic age in the population. The study’s two-way approach analyzes the resilience between young and adult groups and between each other. The results show that the overall community resilience is low. Adults show a better resilience rating compared to the young group, indicating better preparation. Various previous studies also mentioned the sociodemographic factor of flood; however, our research theme is to analyze the demographic factor in flood resilience response with the various dimensions related to flood response in detail. This study’s results show the different resilience aspects in the broader demographic groups of young and adults, with adults showing more resilience scores than the young group.

Various mitigation measures can be recommended to reduce the impact of flooding and raise awareness in different community groups, such as more education about disaster-related activities, as education could decrease the number of casualties and mitigate the potential damage caused by natural hazards [63]. Building community resilience requires acknowledging the demographic groups’ perspectives and abilities, particularly young group [64]. A deeper understanding of how children are affected by flooding and other disasters, as well as how to incorporate their perspectives into recovery strategies, can lead to more effective policies, increased resilience, and reduced impacts of future crises.

The study’s limitations include the age group studied based on two broader age groups, which could be expanded into multiple heterogeneous groups to provide detailed response analysis. The study also fell short in addressing the older age group, particularly people above 65 years, which can also impact demographic-related factors in flood resilience. Additionally, the population of the study area is relatively small. A more comprehensive analysis of an area with large demographic groups will assist researchers in detecting anomalies in data and offer reduced margins of error. Additionally, considering the varying age patterns and diversity within the older adult population, there should be an increase in research and intervention initiatives to enhance disaster preparedness among individuals across different age categories.