## 1 Introduction
When resilience is insufficient, the consequences can be catastrophic, as demonstrated by the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. In this case, inadequate preparedness and systemic vulnerabilities resulted in widespread and prolonged inundation, tragic loss of life, significant population displacement, and severe environmen \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l} \hline \hline
**Measure/Policy** & **Description** & **Reference** \\ \hline Elevated structures & Raising buildings above flood levels & [6] \\ Green infrastructure & Permeable pavements, retention basins & [4] \\ Flood-resistant & Using durable materials in construction & [7] \\ \multirow{2}{*}{Decentralized utilities} & Local power/water systems to & [8] \\  & reduce dependency & \\ Improved drainage & Enhanced urban drainage to reduce runoff & [9] \\ systems & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: The key measures and policies proven effective in mitigating flood impacts. tal degradation [13]. This tragic example underscores the importance of proactive planning and resilient design to reduce the long-term impacts of flood events. The concept of community resilience is often expressed and quantified in terms of performance, quality, or functionality over time, as illustrated conceptually in Figure 1. This temporal perspective highlights the dynamic nature of resilience, reflecting not only the immediate impacts of a hazard but also the trajectory of recovery and adaptation. By capturing this evolving process, resilience assessments can provide critical insights into the effectiveness of preparedness strategies and inform the development of policies and interventions to strengthen community systems against future hazards. As shown in Figure 1, community-level resilience is fundamentally associated with two main parameters: reliability and recovery [14]. Reliability refers to the capacity of a community to maintain a baseline level of functionality during and after a disruptive event, while recovery denotes the ability to restore functionality within a reasonable timeframe. These parameters are influenced by four critical attributes. Robustness represents the ability to withstand an extreme event and deliver a certain level of service even as the event unfolds. Rapidity reflects the speed at which a system can recover and restore its desired functionality. Redundancy describes the extent to which critical components of a system can be substituted by others to sustain essential functions. Resourcefulness, on the other hand, pertains to the capacity to identify problems, establish priorities, and mobilize resources effectively in response to extreme events. In this paper, the focus is placed on assessing the impact of flooding on a community by evaluating both the immediate damage and the resulting loss of functionality. To appropriately measure community resilience, it is crucial to define the concept of \"community\". Traditionally, a community is understood as an assemblage of individuals living within a shared geographical area, supported by interconnected infrastructure that includes essential systems such as residential, commercial, and industrial structures [15]. These physical systems are typically governed by existing building codes and construction practices, which prioritize life safety as the primary objective. However, such infrastructure often remains vulnerable to significant disruptions and losses in the aftermath of disasters, revealing the limitations of conventional design approaches. This underscores the urgent need to transition toward the construction of resilient infrastructure, a paradigm that extends beyond ensuring life safety to focus on the sustained viability and functionality of the community fabric [16]. Resilience in this context demands infrastructure systems that can absorb shocks, adapt to evolving conditions, and support rapid recovery. However, capturing the complex  
Figure 1: Schematic description of community-level resilience.