Social resilience to floods, a critical component of disaster management, is explored through key

dimensions in literatures. Aldrich (2012) emphasizes the foundational role of social capital, including
strong community networks and trust, in post-disaster recovery. Effective communication, cooperation,
and collective action during and after floods highlight the critical role of social elements in enhancing
resilience. Social resilience, defined as the ability to navigate risks amid environmental, social, or
political changes (Adger, 2000) while sustaining one's lifestyle (Adger et al., 2005), relies on robust social
networks for support during shocks and stresses (Tippens, 2016).

Varied social resilience scores in flood contexts reflect communities' preparedness and adaptability. A
high score signals well-prepared communities with strong networks, effective communication, and
adaptive governance. This facilitates efficient collaboration during flood emergencies (Aldrich, 2012).
Conversely, a low score indicates challenges in coordination, weaker networks, and limited early
warning systems, leading to increased vulnerability and slower recovery (Birkmann, 2006). These scores
are crucial for tailoring interventions and strategies to enhance community resilience by identifying
areas needing improvement and understanding factors influencing a community's ability to cope with
and recover from floods. Factors such as past flood experience, household head literacy, absence of
disabilities, and access to resources like vehicles, health insurance, and social networks contribute to
higher social resilience (Shah et al., 2018). Education and literacy levels, in particular, enhance personal
resilience and the ability to cope with disaster risks.

Economic resilience to floods hinges on a community's capacity to absorb, adapt, and recover from
economic impacts. This resilience denotes the capacity of a system or individual to maintain regular
operations after a disruptive event, involving efficient resource allocation in response to potential
disaster threats (Rose, 2004). Resilient infrastructure, emphasized by Cutter et al. (2008), plays a pivotal
role in minimizing damage and expediting economic recovery. Effective insurance mechanisms, as
highlighted by Botzen and Van den Bergh (2008), alleviate financial burdens, promoting faster recovery
and maintaining economic stability. Another is the economic diversification as advocated by Kreibich et
al. (2017), enables communities to absorb shocks by relying on varied industries. Lastly, an adaptive
economic planning is crucial according to Aerts et al. (2018), involves flexible strategies to minimize
losses and enhance overall economic stability.

Key factors influencing household economic resilience to floods encompass household heads'
employment status (Tierney et al., 2002; Poussin et al., 2014), property ownership, and multiple income
sources (Motosholapheko et al., 2012). Employment reduces poverty and enhances financial readiness
to address disaster risks, while homeownership promotes investment in flood-resistant structures,
increasing overall resilience and encouraging the adoption of preventive measures (Norris et al., 2008;
Cutter et al., 2008).

Economic resilience scores in flood contexts signify communities' varying abilities to navigate and
recover from economic impacts. High scores indicate preparedness with resilient infrastructure,
effective insurance, economic diversification, and adaptive planning, facilitating swift recovery. Cutter et
al. (2008) stress resilient infrastructure's critical role. Low scores suggest challenges in rebounding,
attributed to weak infrastructure, inadequate insurance, limited economic diversification, and lack of
adaptive planning. Botzen and Van den Bergh (2008) emphasize effective insurance in reducing financial
burden, promoting faster recovery, and maintaining economic stability after floods.

Institutional resilience to floods involves the capacity of governing bodies, organizations, and systems to
endure, adapt to, and recover from flooding impacts. Institutional resilience refers to the existence of
zoning and building code standards (Cutter et al., 2008) and the access that household heads have to
hazard reduction programs (Burby et al., 2000; Godschalk, 2007), flood warning (Bohensky and Leitch,
2014), credit, humanitarian assistance (Tulane University, 2011), first aid training, water, sanitation and
hygiene related capacity- building training (PHAST), and livelihood restoration on programs.

A study by Aerts et al. (2018) highlights the role of adaptive governance, ensuring flexibility and
transparency to address changing flood risks and minimize vulnerabilities. It is also crucial to have an
effecient coordination and communication for institutional resilience (Cutter et al., 2010). The
establishment of robust legal and policy frameworks, as emphasized by Birkmann (2006), supports
adaptive responses and provides a foundation for effective disaster risk reduction within institutions.
According to Pelling et al. (2015), effective resource allocation and strategic planning significantly
contribute to institutional resilience. Proactive planning ensures efficient resource use and measures to
reduce vulnerability, enhancing overall resilience.

High institutional resilience to floods signifies the robust capacity of governing bodies and organizations
to endure, adapt, and recover from flooding impacts. According to Aerts et al. (2018) involves adaptive
governance structures, emphasizing flexibility and transparency in addressing evolving flood risks. A
well-established coordination and communication mechanisms within institutions enable timely
responses and streamlined collaboration during flood events (Cutter et al., 2010). An effective resource
allocation and strategic planning contribute significantly to a high institutional resilience, ensuring
efficient resource use and proactive measures to reduce vulnerability (Pelling et al., 2015). Conversely,
low institutional resilience indicates challenges for governing bodies and organizations in coping with
flood-induced impacts. The insufficient coordination and communication mechanisms may hinder timely
responses and collaboration during flood events, contributing to overall vulnerability (Cutter et al.,
2010). According to Birkmann (2006) the lack of robust legal and policy frameworks may limit adaptive
responses and hinder effective disaster risk reduction within institutions. In cases of low institutional
resilience, inadequate resource allocation and strategic planning may increase vulnerability and pose
challenges in recovering from flood impacts (Pelling et al., 2015). Low institutional resilience is also
caused by the absence of zoning regulations, building code requirements, and preparations for restoring
livelihoods (Shah et al., 2018).