## 4 Results
### Flood Resilience Assessment Based on the Modified UNDRR Indicators  
To answer the second research question, flood resilience analysis was performed by using the modified UNDRR indicators (Table 4). Based on the experts' viewpoints, ensuring an effective flood disaster emergency response (0.189), identifying flood risk scenarios (0.151), and strengthening societal capacity for flood disaster resilience (0.150) had the highest AHP values. This means that creating a flood emergency response plan, determining high flood probability areas, and building institutional capacity for enhancing community resilience to flood disasters are key factors in disaster management. Meanwhile, building resilience in urban design and development (0.062), strengthening institutional capacities for flood risk reduction (0.052), and establishing natural buffers to enhance flood resiliency in their communities (0.040) have the lowest AHP values among the factors of flood resilience assessment defined by the UNDRR. Considering the significance of each resilience indicator, the existence of flood hazard assessment data and flood emergency response plans for Provincial Disaster Prevention and Mitigation as well as province-wide disaster management plans have the highest scores in the AHP-pairwise comparison of 0.126, 0.125, and 0.107, respectively. The experts also agree that financial planning (0.097), effective support from the community network in coping with a flood disaster, and post-disaster recovery plans (0.080) were important factors in strengthening a city's resilience to \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient**} & **Flood** & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Flood** \\ **Preardness** \\ **Action** \\ \end{tabular} } & **Flood Warning** & \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **Flood Relief** \\ **Mapping** \\ \end{tabular} } & **Flood Relief** & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Flood** \\ **Payments** \\ \end{tabular} } & **Access to** \\  & & & & & & **Emergency** \\  & & & & & & **Health Services** \\ \hline Flood preparedness action & 1.00 & 0.017 & 0.394 ** & 0.056 & 0.019 & 0.035 \\ Flood hazard mapping & - & 1.00 & 0.124 ** & 0.241 ** & 0.428 ** & 0.452 ** \\ Flood warning information & - & - & 1.00 & \(-\)0.140 ** & \(-\)0.089 * & \(-\)0.029 \\ Flood relief payments & - & - & - & 1.00 & 0.489 ** & 0.483 ** \\ Flood training & - & - & - & - & 1.00 & 0.538 ** \\ Access to emergency health services & - & - & - & - & 1.00 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* _p-value_ < 0.05, **_p-value_ < 0.01.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Results of [PERSON]’s correlation coefficient between flood management strategies and preparedness actions. floods. These viewpoints are in alignment with those of [PERSON] et al. [48], who highlighted that the empowerment of local communities to actively engage in planning and decision making by combining top-down and bottom-up approaches for disaster risk management can enhance community resilience and the ability to deal with disasters. Moreover, the inclusiveness of all multi-stakeholder bodies in disaster planning processes also creates public trust, which is vital for organizing cohesive action to manage the consequences of natural disasters.