Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The intensity and frequency of urban flooding have been increasing due to climate change and the expansion of impervious surfaces. Enhancing urban flood resilience then becomes a priority for the government and researchers. However, urban flood resilience is conceptualized differently across the literature, and its indicators vary. Engineering approaches define it as the capacity of an urban system to withstand and recover from flooding, while non-engineering studies emphasize socio-ecological capacities. Flood resilience management is also considered complex as it is influenced by interactions among multiple sectors. Integrated frameworks, such as the Resource Nexus approach, have not been broadly explored in this context. Following the PRISMA guidelines, this study conducted a systematic review of 67 peer-reviewed papers to identify and categorize urban flood resilience indicators from a spatio-temporal perspective and to examine their interconnections with environmental resources under the Resource Nexus lens. The review synthesizes a unified understanding of urban flood resilience as the capacity of an urban system to manage flood risks, resist, recover from, and adapt to flooding within interconnected infrastructural, environmental, social, economic, and institutional dimensions. Thirteen of the 19 identified indicators are connected to at least one of the environmental resources, primarily water (9) and food (5), as well as climate, land, soil, biota (4 each), waste (3), and energy (2). These results reveal that urban flood resilience and environmental resources are interconnected across multiple indicators, suggesting the need for cross-sectoral, integrated approaches to urban flood resilience planning.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Barace et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: