## 4 Results
### Flood Resilience Assessment Based on the Modified UNDRR Indicators
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt}} \hline \hline
**Flood Resilience Aspects** & **Flood Resilience Indicators** & **Indicative Measurement** & **AHP Weights** & **Ranking** \\ \hline Organize flood disaster resilience (0.107) & \(\bullet\) & Disaster risk consideration in city planning & \(\bullet\) & Local plans, including a range of actions and priorities for directly responding to current and forecasted disaster risks. & 0.107 & 3 \\ \hline Identify, understand, and use flood risk scenarios (0.151) & \(\bullet\) & Flood hazard assessment/knowledge of hazard/Hazard maps & \(\bullet\) & Existence of recent flood hazards or presence of flood hazard maps. & 0.126 & 1 \\ \hline Strengthen financial capacity for flood disaster resilience (0.097) & \(\bullet\) & Adequacy of financial planning for all actions necessary to achieve disaster resilience resilience & \(\bullet\) & Presence of financial plans with a set of priorities based on flood disaster resilience. & 0.097 & 4 \\ \hline Pursue resilient urban development and design (0.062) & \(\bullet\) & Land use zoning (i.e., potential population displacement and agricultural land at risk) & \(\bullet\) & Database on percentage of population and agricultural land at risk of displacement due to flood. & 0.062 & 9 \\ \hline Safeguard natural butfers to enhance the protective functions offered by natural capital (0.040) & \(\bullet\) & Contribution of ecosystem services to the city’s flood disaster resilience & \(\bullet\) & Ecosystem services (i.e., coastal wetlands, forestation, and watertables) are identified and managed. & 0.040 & 12 \\ \hline Strengthen institutional capacity for flood resilience (0.052) & \(\bullet\) & Availability of skills and resilience—risk identification, mitigation, planning, response, and post-event response & \(\bullet\) & Availability of key skills, experience, and knowledge of city flood resilience (i.e., land planning, environmental, sanitation, water, and structural engineering). & 0.052 & 10 \\ \hline Understand and strengthen societal capacity for resilience (0.150) & \(\bullet\) & Effectiveness of community network engagement of vulnerable groups in the population & \(\bullet\) & Frequency of organizational meetings at community level. & 0.080 & 5 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Results of the AHP flood resilience assessment based on the modified UNDRR. Engaging vulnerable groups in flood preparedness and mitigation, the existence of early flood warning mechanisms, availability of databases on land use zoning, and, in particular, the percentage of the population and agricultural land at flood risk had exhibited relatively low AHP scores and were ranked seventh, eighth, and ninth, respectively. The factors with lower scores were the availability of key skills, the experience and knowledge of local authorities on city flood resilience (i.e., environmental, sanitation, water, and structural engineering), road accessibility during floods, and ecosystem services, all major components of flood risk prevention. Similarly, in Pakistan, [PERSON] et al. [49] investigated the role of institutions and human resources as an indicator in assessing disaster preparedness and risk reduction. To achieve a substantial reduction in disaster risk, the aforementioned study suggests that the government develop deeper linkages among all institutions actively engaged in disaster risk reduction, especially at the local level. In this study, regarding building a flood-resilient city, the experts assigned the lowest priorities to the existence of databases on scenarios, setting out city-wide flood exposure and vulnerability (0.025), designated critical asset service days (i.e., service to hospitals) at risk of loss due to failure in the city's water and sanitation services (0.020), and loss of water or sanitation services in the case of severe floods (0.009).