Next Article in Journal
Uncertain Box–Cox Regression for Modeling the Spatial Coupling of Extreme Weather Events and Economic Impacts in the Chengdu-Chongqing Region
Previous Article in Journal
Locating Urban Area Heat Waves by Combining Thermal Comfort Index and Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations: The Optimal Placement of Climate Change Infrastructure in a Korean City
Previous Article in Special Issue
Future Projections of Clouds and Precipitation Patterns in South Asia: Insights from CMIP6 Multi-Model Ensemble Under SSP5 Scenarios
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Climate
Volume 13
Issue 6
10.3390/cli13060114
climate-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Towards the Conceptual Framing of Inclusive Urban Flood Resilience

by
Dwayne Shorlon Renville
1,2,*,
Netra Chhetri
1,
Chingwen Cheng
3,
Linda Francois
2 and
Ruijie Zeng
4
1
School for the Future of Innovation in Society, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85281, USA
2
Department of Mathematics, Physics and Statistics, University of Guyana, Turkeyen Campus, Georgetown P.O. Box 101110, Guyana
3
Stuckeman School, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
4
School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85281, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Climate 2025, 13(6), 114; https://doi.org/10.3390/cli13060114
Submission received: 1 March 2025 / Revised: 13 May 2025 / Accepted: 14 May 2025 / Published: 1 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Coping with Flooding and Drought)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The governance of cities in low-elevation zones faces many challenges. Notable among these are losses associated with regular pluvial floods and, more so, the threat of impending extreme floods due to climate change and their impacts on residents, especially amongst socially vulnerable groups. This is exacerbated by the reliance on traditionally exclusive approaches to governance. This paper discusses the flood resilience aspect of urban planning by examining the extent of emphasis on inclusiveness in urban flood resilience literature. We relied on the synthesis of inclusive development and flood resilience literature. The findings suggest that, while inclusive development is a burgeoning aspect of development research, and studies on evaluating urban flood resilience are commonplace, the concept of inclusive urban flood resilience is still in its infancy. Furthermore, we found that while inclusive development is neither static nor finite to allow for measuring it in absolute terms, it can be applied or assessed through any or all of its guiding principles. Consequently, together with the well-established methods of implementing and assessing urban flood resilience, we present a preliminary framework for inclusive urban flood resilience as a guide for future scholarly contributions to this composite field. Scholars and practitioners of urban planning in low-elevation zones are encouraged to move away from top–down siloed approaches that result in exclusions and rely more on integrated, inclusive, and socio-ecological pathways to preserve the integrity of cities.

1. Introduction

Flood disasters persistently result in socio-economic losses and endanger millions of lives in low-elevation zones globally [1,2]. This situation is expected to be intensified with the changing climate [3]. In response to the escalating flooding risks, urban scholars and planners have relied on diverse strategies. These range from traditional flood prevention measures, such as levees, to the more recent notion of urban flood resilience. The latter refers to a city’s competence in navigating flood events without compromising its internal systems. Flood resilience has emerged as a holistic tool for managing the city’s existence as a social-ecological system [4]. However, despite increasing efforts, such as budget allocations for flood resilience, a persistent gap exists between academic theory and practical implementation.
Urban flood resilience theory underscores a shift in two key areas. First, from a focus on merely resisting floods to embracing transformational adaptation and living with floods. This is essential for harmonious existence in the face of fluctuating flood conditions [5,6,7]. Second, from relying on isolated flood management strategies to the adoption of data-driven, integrated socio-ecological approaches [8,9]. Stakeholder engagement is an underlying requirement for both areas as flood disasters do not discriminate. Notwithstanding the noble intentions of the theory, flood resilience plans and actions exist within a less ideal world characterized by poverty, socio-economic inequality, and various forms of exclusions. Therefore, the extent of success of urban flood resilience hinges on how well flood resilience scholars and practitioners navigate these barriers.
The principles of inclusive development provide much guidance on stakeholder engagement. It promotes the active participation of all stakeholders and advocates for equity in access to opportunities, resources, and services [10]. Inclusive development began attracting attention in the 1990s as it served as a counterpoint to the traditional development paradigms that were inadequate in tackling the underlying factors of poverty and inequality [11,12,13]. Conventional development models prioritized economic growth as the ultimate goal [13,14,15]. However, they often neglect marginalized and vulnerable communities, contradicting the theory that economic growth inherently would have brought about social betterment. By the year 2000, a multitude of development models existed [10] with each new one adding a different perspective to the new multifaceted approach to development [16,17]. The more proximate UNDP millennium development goals and the sustainable development goals of 2015 set targets that bring inclusiveness and sustainability within reachable distances. However, despite the fancy rhetoric, economic growth continues to be prioritized [18,19,20].
Despite this background, inclusive development emerged to captivate the attention of development scholars. On the one hand, it emphasizes a response to the atrocities it seeks to address—social and economic exclusions [21,22]. These exclusions vary in type and extent and make inclusive development a dynamic cycle of processes and outcomes of development [11]. On the other hand, while its origins are in national and global governance, it is flexible enough to be applied to management at the local level. This allows for its application in a bottom–up manner where groups, departments, institutions, organizations, and geographic districts, such as cities, may adopt its principles. Inclusive development has transcended the development field and has been applied to various disciplines and fields. There are the concepts of inclusive education and inclusive universities that apply themes of inclusive development to the learning environment [23]. Similarly, an inclusive workplace integrates the properties of inclusive development towards promoting and protecting workplace diversity [24,25]. Other areas include inclusive leadership [26], inclusive banking and finance [27], and inclusive innovation [28].
If applied to urban flood resilience, inclusive development would require a shift from employing top–down management strategies that often result in social exclusions. Instead, urban flood resilience initiatives would adopt more inclusive approaches that involve and prioritize the most flood-affected communities in resilience planning and action, ensuring that these initiatives are equitable and effective [9,29,30]. Unfortunately, reaching these states can be marred by entrenched disparities, for example, if the communities most vulnerable to flooding have minimal influence over resilience planning and implementation, or if those with power are vested in maintaining existing inequalities [31]. Furthermore, without embracing inclusive development and despite its obvious positive goals, flood resilience initiatives run the risk of engendering new forms of social inequality, injustice, and exclusion. Moreover, considering the fact that disasters and climate change affect every societal dimension and social class, urban flood resilience efforts must prioritize justice, equity, inclusion, transformation, and synergy [32,33,34,35]. It must take on an evolutionary perspective, continuously learning and adjusting to new forms of exclusions and fluctuating flood risks [29,35,36].
This paper aims to provide a synthesis of literature on inclusive development and urban flood resilience. To accomplish this, we highlight the general thrust of both fields and explore the benefits of their fusion, namely inclusive urban flood resilience. A preliminary conceptual framework for achieving and assessing inclusive urban flood resilience is proposed. It is envisioned to provide scholars and practitioners with some guidance on integrating inclusive development core values into flood resilience plans and actions. Specifically, this paper aims to obtain answers to three questions critical to the conceptual framing of inclusive urban flood resilience. What are the core values of inclusive development? What are the primary constructs in assessing urban flood resilience? What does inclusive urban flood resilience look like?

2. Methods

This paper employs the integrative review methodology to formulate a conceptual framework for understanding and assessing the emerging concept of inclusive urban flood resilience [37]. The integrative review is suitable for assessing and synthesizing sample literature in an integrated manner, resulting in new frameworks and perspectives on a topic [38]. Furthermore, it allows for examining relationships and combining insights from two fields, in this case, inclusive development and urban flood resilience. It is, therefore, a basis for future research in this field. The suitability of this methodology is evident in its similar application to emerging concepts in other fields [39,40,41].
A purposive saturation sampling [42] of representative articles was used to understand the general thrust of the two fields: their conceptualizations, the ‘how’ and ‘where’ of their practice, and their assessment strategies. In the case of the practice of urban flood resilience, attention was placed on the extent to which the tenets of inclusive development are inherent.
The search terms “inclusive development”, “flood resilience”, “flood resilient”, and “inclusive flood resilience” were applied to various databases, where the only restriction was that the language be English. The inclusive development literature was sourced from Scopus and Google Scholar (sample size, n = 843) and captured all publications up to the time of data collection in 2022. Their bibliographies were used to generate descriptive statistics of the frequency of publications that explicitly use the term ‘inclusive development’. This provided fundamental insights into the growth of scholarly contributions to the field. Subsequently, the flood resilience literature was sourced from Scopus ( n = 888), Taylor and Francis ( n = 338), and EBSCO ( n = 254). The literature of both fields was further examined to provide answers to the three questions given above.
To be included in the study, a publication was required to provide valuable insights on the nature and practice of inclusive development, urban flood resilience, or the inclusiveness/exclusiveness of flood resilience. A sequential search of the titles, abstracts, and contents allowed for the questions relating to inclusive development to be addressed by a saturation sample of 19 publications, and that of flood resilience with a saturation sample of 33 publications. These provided comprehensive insights about the general thrust of these fields. First, attention is paid to themes that the literature considers fundamental to what constitutes inclusive development. Second, we present the current state of urban flood resilience, emphasizing the extent of inherent inclusiveness and exclusions in its application.

3. Results

3.1. Inclusive Development

Inclusive development emerged as a response to conventional development models that emphasized aggregated growth at the expense of non-economic dimensions [12,21,43,44]. Based on the bibliographic data, we find that the use of the term ‘inclusive development’ has increased rapidly over time. The line graphs in Figure 1 illustrate this growth. The term was barely used prior to the year 2000 but then saw substantial continuous increases in its use afterwards and especially from about the year 2015, the year of the establishment of the sustainable development goals. Such growth in the use of the term presents evidence of the increasing scholarly contribution to the field.
At its core, inclusive development emphasizes the inclusion of all stakeholders in the discourse and benefits of development [10,45,46]. The literature points to five key pillars of inclusive development that are grounded in equity.
  • Active participation. Equity lies in active participation where citizens are empowered with capabilities to move beyond observer status and actively participate in the full spectrum of planning and actions [45,47,48]. This is best demonstrated in leaders who listen to the citizens and act accordingly.
  • Equitable distribution of benefits. Equity resides in the distribution of benefits of development [11,44]. This is visible when social and economic benefits are equitably distributed to all citizens of any socio-economic classification [47,49] and may otherwise require an overhaul of the status quo [21,50,51].
  • Improved well-being for all. Equity results in improved well-being for all [52] and is guided by the principle of gaining improved outcomes in individual happiness, capabilities, functioning, achievements, and access to goods and services [43,44,45,53].
  • Environmental equity. Equity in environmental stewardship is emphasized in inclusive development, which facilitates cities becoming sustainable ecosystems, integrating safety and security for the spaces and people [10,54,55,56]. Moreover, inclusive development bestows citizens with the power to determine how their respective environments are shaped.
  • Synergy. Equity is achieved with synergy among societal dimensions, ensuring they flourish holistically [8] and that improvements in one dimension leads to similar degrees of progress in other dimensions [10,43,44,48].
While this development concept has stirred the curiosity of both scholars and practitioners, it has remained nuanced by various conceptualizations [45,57]. Additionally, while it has been applied to specific disciplines, such as inclusive education or inclusive leadership, at the national and international levels, its excitement has only materialized into soft laws and a buzzword for leaders [12]. There have been numerous attempts at constructing indices for inclusive development, but genuine attempts at evaluating its application to include these pillars are scarce [45].

3.2. Urban Flood Resilience

The term resilience has been used to refer to the ability of an ecological system to maintain its state in the presence of disturbance [58,59]. The concept has taken on discipline-specific definitions such as that of psychological resilience, engineering resilience, ecological resilience, and social-ecological resilience [60]. The latter includes urban resilience, for which its literature has been synthesized and its conceptualizations redefined as “the ability of an urban system—and all its constituent socio-ecological and socio-technical networks across temporal and spatial scales—to maintain or rapidly return to desired functions in the face of a disturbance, to adapt to change, and to quickly transform systems that limit current or future adaptive capacity” ([61], p. 45). Urban flood resilience has emerged as a pertinent holistic socio-ecological approach for assessing and managing the city’s readiness to live with floods [62,63]. The concept has attracted global attention of both scholars and practitioners, and has become a concern, a necessary reality, and an end goal for many cities [63,64]. Consequently, and notwithstanding the fact that resilience is difficult to evaluate in absolute terms [65], scholars have relied on customized and contextualized flood resilience indexes (FRIs) [66]. These are based on constructs that take on two types of classifications: those based on societal dimensions, and those based on resilience parameters [67,68,69].
There are various characterizations of the societal dimensions [69,70,71,72]; however, five stand out as popular constructs: natural, physical, social, economic, and institutional [62,63,73,74,75]. First, the natural dimension refers to the climatic, ecological, and geophysical features of the environment where the urban community settled. Second, the physical dimension, also known as the built environment, refers to the structures created by humans and integrated into the natural environment. Third, the social dimension relates to human communal systems, services, and interactions. Fourth, the economic dimension refers to money and material resources. Fifth, the institutional dimension relates to the public plans, policies, and laws that govern the interactions of these dimensions. This disaggregated approach allows for estimating FRIs within each dimension and as a more global value when these are combined. In a similar way, there are variations in the resilience parameters and their associated and composite FRIs. Some scholars use the 5R approach [75,76], consisting of reflect, relief, resist, response, and recovery. Another set use the RAAAR framework [4] representing resist, absorb, accommodate, adapt, and recover. Other scholars who employ other terminologies and constructs such as resistance, coping, recovery, and adaptability [77,78]. However, while variations in the conceptualizations of the constructs and the indices are mainly due to context, what remains constant is that scholars have agreed that flood resilience is measurable. These are commonly used to distinguish the state of resilience among geographic areas such as cities, communities, and households [75,79,80].

3.3. Exclusions in Urban Flood Resilience

Flood resilience is not without trouble. We found that the constructs of both the societal dimensions and the resilience parameters are not inherently inclusive. Furthermore, while their assessment metrics and indices provide insights into the extent of flood resilience, they do not provide insights into how inclusive or exclusive the flood resilience plans and actions are [81].
We also found that resilience plans and actions may inherit the various forms of inequalities existing within societies [82,83,84] that are likely to be perpetuated by those with power who are also vested in maintaining the exclusionary status quo [31]. Additionally, new forms of inequalities—resilience inequalities—are created [30] and draw criticisms and questions of how resilience planning and actions are undertaken (strategy), who undertakes them (process), and whose interests is prioritized (outcome) [85]. Firstly, to what extent are resilience efforts performed in silos and without ensuring that fundamental human rights, equity, and justice are advanced [32] Secondly, to what extent do resilience planning and actions disproportionately reflect ordinary people’s knowledge, ideas, and participation [83] Such inequalities are exacerbated when the needs and interests of the oppressed groups are represented by those who benefit from their oppression and operate within legal frameworks that make it difficult for ordinary citizens to transcend entrenched bureaucracy and become active participants and direct beneficiaries of development [31,84,86].
Thirdly, how equitable is the distribution of the benefits of resilience actions? This refers to climate inequality, which occurs when climate efforts and resources almost exclusively benefit a particular social group [87]. For example, a study in the Huron River Watershed, Michigan, USA, found that areas experiencing climate injustice spatially correlated with regions lacking green infrastructure interventions [88]. Disproportionate exposure to hazards is another form of resilience inequality that coincides with the concept of environmental justice [36,89,90], where those from low-income groups are more exposed as they lack the capacity to recover from flood hazards. The literature also points to physical, social, and economic inequities associated with disproportionate access to education, health services, and resources [82,91].
The combined effect of the various inequalities has the potential to result in the systematic exclusions of certain groups by numerous hurdles and needs uncatered to [86]. These include finance, distrust for the government, education, short public engagement, and understanding of the dominant language. Notwithstanding these challenges, scholars argue that, while difficult to achieve, inclusive urban flood resilience sparks curiosity, is attainable, is worth pursuing, and should be pursued [81,83,84,85].

3.4. Conceptual Framework for Inclusive Urban Flood Resilience

The literature is rich in publications on both inclusive development and urban flood resilience, but there are limited publications on inclusive flood resilience [4,64,68]. Even scarier is the scholarly work on inclusive urban flood resilience. This research relies on the literature to develop a preliminary conceptual framework for inclusive urban flood resilience as a fusion of the concepts of inclusive development and urban flood resilience. Figure 2 illustrates this framework as a two-dimensional relation where measures of urban flood resilience and inclusive development are depicted on the horizontal and vertical axes, respectively. The proposed framework retains urban flood resilience as measured with indices of its constructs and their sub-constructs. Societal dimensions include the natural, physical (built environment), social, economic, and institutional dimensions. The resilience parameters capture the constructs such as those associated with the RAAAR framework: resist, absorb, accommodate, adapt, and recover. Likewise, inclusive development is depicted as measured by indices of constructs such as the five pillars established in this study: active participation, distribution of benefits, environmental stewardship, improved well-being, and synergy. As a preliminary framework, this study proposes the concept of a composite index that captures the constructs of urban flood resilience and inclusive development. Such an index would provide insights into how resilient the city is against floods and the extent of inclusiveness in the flood resilience initiatives.
Inclusive development is not static to allow for absolute measurements. However, similar to flood resilience, it can be evaluated by indices that provide measures relative to city-specific contexts and based on construct, indicators, and sub-indicators [45]. For example, the active participation construct may be assessed by evaluating the quality of participation of all stakeholders at each stage of the resilient development cycle: resilience planning, decision making, resilience actions, evaluation, and so on. A composite inclusive development index that captures all five constructs is considered ideal. However, scholars and practitioners may employ a combination of constructs or a single construct to obtain a relative understanding of the inclusive state of the city’s resilience plans and actions. Other inclusive development constructs may be added as cities adopt more inclusive, resilient practices.
Using a color scheme of yellow for inclusive development and blue for urban flood resilience, the framework shows that measures of inclusive urban flood resilience reside at the intersections of the various levels of inclusive development and urban flood resilience. Such measures can be obtained by composite indices that account for both axes. A composite index showing high resilience scores but low inclusive development scores will fall in the blue region, and corresponds to the kinds of resilience inequalities mentioned in the literature. Similarly, an overemphasis on inclusive development without much resilience planning and actions will produce a composite index value in the yellow region. Stronger correlations between improvements in inclusive development and urban flood resilience are considered ideal and will produce composite index scores within the shades of green in the framework. Moreover, considering that both inclusive development and urban flood resilience are dynamic processes [10,84], this framework likewise positions inclusive urban flood resilience as a dynamic process and outcome of development.

4. Discussion

This study positions inclusive development as applicable to the theory and practice of urban flood resilience. Our findings point to the growth of the scholarly contributions to inclusive development, establishing it as a pertinent development alternative that has captured the attention of development scholars and practitioners globally. The literature demonstrates how this expansion of contributions has been punctuated by its successful adoption and practical applications in many fields [92,93,94]. However, we find that, while participation is emphasized in fields such as education, innovation, and so on, the other core values of inclusive development are seldom applied. Scholars argue that while participation is a necessary component of inclusive development, it is not, per se, inclusive development. Therefore, inclusive resilience is not synonymous with participatory resilience.
We also find a scarcity of literature on inclusive resilience. There are sections of literature that focus on participatory and community resilience. However, as with other fields mentioned above, inclusive urban flood resilience is more than participation, especially if it takes the form of superficial public consultations where those with power dictate the terms of resilience efforts. The literature confirms various exclusions in flood resilience, some inherited, some manufactured by resilience actors. This can potentially result in climate injustice, where resilience efforts are misdirected to benefit those with power. Additionally, flood resilience at smaller scales such as at the community or household scale will likely adjust disproportionately. That is, the communities or households most affected by floods may not experience improvement in their ability to withstand and live with floods. Moreover, if urban flood resilience is to escape the entrenched systemic and new forms of inequalities—resilience inequalities—then it must adopt other core values of the inclusive development approach. This would require (a) empowering stakeholders to meaningfully engage in the resilience discourse and actions, (b) equitably distributing resources committed to flood resilience, (c) improving the well-being of the communities, especially those most affected by floods, (d) giving more freedom of environmental stewardship to the people who live and dwell within those environments, and (e) promoting synergistic improvements among the constructs involved.
The conceptual framework of inclusive urban flood resilience provides a pathway to this future. One that will engage ordinary people and those most affected by floods in the resilience discourse, as they possess many new and valuable insights [67]. A pathway that ensures that resilience actions are equitably implemented to reduce forms of resilience inequality. While resilience assessment emphasizes the need for improvement in the natural environment [35], inclusive urban flood resilience caters to the needs of those who live within and depend on the environment. It ensures that improvement in other dimensions, such as the built environment, does not adversely affect such people and their environment. By extension, inclusive urban flood resilience recognizes that all societal dimensions of flood resilience are equally important and therefore it promotes synergistic improvements. Moreover, this framework guarantees equity in the well-being of the environment and all citizens regardless of gender, race, social class, political affiliation, religion, or any other distinguishing characteristics. It serves to smoothly facilitate resilience efforts moving beyond the coping pathway of resilience towards transformational adaptation [5] while minimizing exclusions.
A future of inclusive urban flood resilience would require certain adjustments. The concept of green infrastructure should guide improvements along the physical dimension and thereby reduce its impact on the natural dimension. As is the case with the economic and social dimensions, where data are usually readily available [34,95], cities must become proactive in data collection, management, and accessibility for all other dimensions [66,96]. Crowdsourcing [97] and citizen-science programs [98] are both inexpensive ways of data collection and opportunities for engaging communities. Consideration must also be given to the hindering factors inherited from its component parts. For example, urban flood resilience is adversely affected by politics and cultures [33], levels of vulnerability [99], and climatic and hydrologic states [100].
Notwithstanding these anticipated challenges, inclusive urban flood resilience presents an excellent opportunity for holistic improvements. As a preliminary framework, its development and practical application would require more scholarly contributions. The following recommendations serve to facilitate the theoretical and practical thrust of inclusive urban flood resilience:
(a)
Cities are encouraged to set up inclusive flood resilience planning committee(s) tasked with fashioning a framework and policy document for an inclusive flood-resilient city. These may detail the existing state of inclusive resilience, desirable future states, suitable pathways to achieve these, and the societal (education, culture, economic, laws, and so on) adjustments needed to facilitate such pathways. Alongside current city planners, these committees may comprise a pool of suitably dedicated, experienced, interested, and qualified persons representing the interests of each of the city’s dimensions.
(b)
Anticipate the adaptive and dynamic nature of inclusive urban flood resilience, considering that it is not a one-size-fits-all concept. The planning committee may define a sequence of inclusive flood resilience targets to be achieved over a long period. For example, a city may start by addressing synergy and successively infusing the other pillars of inclusive development into its framework.
(c)
Consider that any attempt at assessing inclusive urban flood resilience will not yield absolute results. Cities new to flood resilience may make a modest start by not attempting to use all the constructs of inclusive development and urban flood resilience; additional constructs can be added sequentially. Cities already engaged in flood resilience planning and actions are urged to include inclusive development constructs to the resilience assessment and practice.
(d)
Institute and strengthen legislation for the oversight of and building an inclusive flood resilience city, as guided by the desired societal adjustments and recommended by the inclusive flood resilience planning committee(s). Such legislative framing may be incrementally implemented as it intertwines with the work of the inclusive resilience planning committees.
(e)
Build the capacity of city planners in inclusive urban flood resilience through training, workshops, scholarship, and collaboration with relevant academic researchers on city projects.
(f)
Regularly evaluate how resilient the city is to flooding and the inclusiveness of the resilience approach.
(g)
Scholars are encouraged to interrogate and fine-tune the concept, constructing new and improved indices to capture all its constructs in a unified manner.
Inclusive urban flood resilience creates an opportunity for significant improvements in the flood resilience of the city. It reduces systemic inequalities and exclusions and thereby increases the number of resilience actors. This allows for equitable improvement in resilience states for the entire urban district and subsequently leads to city-wide uniformity in flood resilience. Inclusive urban flood resilience also increases the chances of communities and individuals taking ownership of resilience plans and actions. This results in improved participation, greater contribution of knowledge, and a greater chance of success at planning and implementing resilience initiatives. The adoption of this framework by scholars and practitioners is likely to lead to formulating composite indices that capture inclusive urban flood resilience. With such a tool, the city will benefit from new insights derived from the inclusive development constructs. Conventional flood resilience indices address what geographic areas, dimension, or parameters can be improved. The inclusive aspect of the composite index will provide better insights on how to achieve these improvements. Inclusive urban flood resilience encapsulates a more comprehensive understanding of flood resilience and is proposed as the future of flood resilience efforts for cities that embrace inclusivity.
The adoption of inclusive urban flood resilience would require future scholarly contributions to the field. First, there is the need for research that elaborates the inclusive development constructs by developing lists of sub-constructs, their indicators, and sub-indicators. Second, the concept will benefit from efforts that formulate and apply indices based on these constructs of inclusive development. Third, there is scope for future research into composite indices that capture inclusive urban flood resilience. We believe that, with sufficient zeal from scholars and practitioners, this research will be a springboard for advancing inclusive urban flood resilience.

5. Conclusions

This study investigated the general trust of inclusive development and urban flood resilience by employing a purposive saturation methodology that provided insights into what might constitute inclusive urban flood resilience. The findings suggest that while the two fields are growing independently, their intersection is lacking. Inclusive development promotes equity in active participation, the distribution of resources, improved well-being, environmental stewardship, and synergy in society. Urban flood resilience is concerned with how well the city can strive with or without disaster. While inclusive development in its entirety has not gained much traction, some fields have adopted its participatory aspect. Urban flood resilience has attracted global attention in theory and practice. However, inclusive development is not found to be intrinsic to urban flood resilience. Relying on the synthesis of the literature of both fields, the study developed an initial conceptual framework for inclusive urban flood resilience. Whereas the concept has received minimal attention in the literature, its framing and approaches to assessment provided in this study present opportunities for more advanced contributions from scholars and its practical application by practitioners. As is the case with its component parts, cities must make necessary adjustments to facilitate the smooth application of inclusive urban flood resilience. We encourage scholars, urban planners and policy makers to engage this framework in designing inclusive flood resilience strategies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.S.R., N.C., C.C. and R.Z.; methodology, D.S.R. and L.F.; software, D.S.R. and L.F.; validation, D.S.R., N.C., C.C., L.F. and R.Z.; formal analysis, D.S.R. and L.F.; investigation, D.S.R., N.C., C.C., L.F. and R.Z.; resources, D.S.R., N.C. and C.C.; data curation, D.S.R. and L.F.; writing—original draft preparation, D.S.R.; writing—review and editing, D.S.R., N.C., C.C., L.F. and R.Z.; visualization, D.S.R.; supervision, N.C. and C.C.; project administration, D.S.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. McGranahan, G.; Balk, D.; Anderson, B. The rising tide: Assessing the risks of climate change and human settlements in low elevation coastal zones. Environ. Urban. 2007, 19, 17–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Merkens, J.-L.; Reimann, L.; Hinkel, J.; Vafeidis, A.T. Gridded population projections for the coastal zone under the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Glob. Planet. Chang. 2016, 145, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kulp, S.A.; Strauss, B.H. New elevation data triple estimates of global vulnerability to sea-level rise and coastal flooding. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 4844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kulshrestha, M.; Pathak, S.D. Assessment of flood resilience using RAAAR framework: The case of Narmada River Basin, India. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 2021, 20, 1263–1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Chhetri, N.; Stuhlmacher, M.; Ishtiaque, A. Nested pathways to adaptation. Environ. Res. Commun. 2019, 1, 015001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mannucci, S.; Rosso, F.; D’amico, A.; Bernardini, G.; Morganti, M. Flood Resilience and Adaptation in the Built Environment: How Far along Are We? Sustainability 2022, 14, 4096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wang, L.; Cui, S.; Li, Y.; Huang, H.; Manandhar, B.; Nitivattananon, V.; Fang, X.; Huang, W. A review of the flood management: From flood control to flood resilience. Heliyon 2022, 8, e11763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. McPhearson, T.; Cook, E.M.; Berbés-Blázquez, M.; Cheng, C.; Grimm, N.B.; Andersson, E.; Barbosa, O.; Chandler, D.G.; Chang, H.; Chester, M.V.; et al. A social-ecological-technological systems framework for urban ecosystem services. One Earth 2022, 5, 505–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Morrison, A.; Westbrook, C.; Noble, B. A review of the flood risk management governance and resilience literature. J. Flood Risk Manag. 2017, 11, 291–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Gupta, J.; Pouw, N.R.M.; Ros-Tonen, M.A.F. Towards an Elaborated Theory of Inclusive Development. Eur. J. Dev. Res. 2015, 27, 541–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sen, A. Devleopment as Freedom; Alfred A. Knopf: New York, NY, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  12. Van Gent, S. Beyond Buzzwords: What is ‘Inclusive Development’? 2017. Available online: https://includeplatform.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Beyond-buzzwords.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2022).
  13. Rauniyar, G.; Kanbur, R. Inclusive Development: Two Papers on Conceptiualization, Appliation, and the ADB Perspective; Asian Development Bank: Mandaluyong, Philippines, 2010; pp. 1–48. Available online: http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6553370.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2022).
  14. Martinussen, J. Society, State and Market: A Guide to Competing Theories of Development; Zed Books: London, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  15. Arndt, H.W. The “Trickle-Down” Myth. Econ. Dev. Cult. 1983, 32, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hartwick, J.M.; Olewiler, N.D. The Economics of Natural Resource Use, 4th ed.; Pearson: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  17. Krugman, P.; Obstfield, M.; Melitz, M.J. International Economics: Theory and Policy, 10th ed.; Pearson: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  18. Perkins, D.H.; Radelet, S.; Lindauer, D.L.; Block, S.A. Economics of Development, 8th ed.; W. W. Norton & Company: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  19. Saad-Filho, A.; Morais, L. The Routledge Handbook of Marxist Development Economics; Routledge: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  20. Eisenmenger, N.; Pichler, M.; Krenmayr, N.; Noll, D.; Plank, B.; Schalmann, E.; Wandl, M.-T.; Gingrich, S. The Sustainable Development Goals prioritize economic growth over sustainable resource use: A critical reflection on the SDGs from a socio-ecological perspective. Sustain. Sci. 2020, 15, 1101–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Johnson, B.; Andersen, A.D. Learning, Innovation and Inclusive Development New Perspectives on Economic Development; Aalborg Universitetsforlag: Aalborg, Denmark, 2012; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272795954_Learning_Innovation_and_Inclusive_Development_-_New_perspectives_on_economic_development_strategy_and_development_aid (accessed on 15 February 2022).
  22. Sachs, I. Inclusive development and decent work for all. Int. Labour Rev. 2004, 143, 161–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Arocena, R.; Göransson, B.; Sutz, J. Knowledge policies and universities in developing countries: Inclusive development and the “developmental university”. Technol. Soc. 2015, 41, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Samašonok, K.; Kamienas, E.; Gegužienė, V.; Valentukevičiūtė, R.; Šimkienė, A. Creating an inclusive and diverse workplace environment: Current realities and trends for improvement. Entrep. Sustain. Issues 2023, 10, 184–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Igboanugo, S.; Yang, J.; Bigelow, P. Diversio Diversity and Inclusion Survey—Framework and Psychometric properties. Int. J. Inf. Divers. Incl. (IJIDI) 2022, 6, 52–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ryan, J. Inclusive leadership: A review. J. Educ. Adm. Found. 2007, 18, 92–125. [Google Scholar]
  27. Asongu, S.A.; Nwachukwu, J.C. Mobile phone penetration, mobile banking and inclusive development in Africa. African Financ. J. 2016, 18, 34–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Santiago, F. Innovation for Inclusive Development. Innov. Dev. 2014, 4, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mehryar, S.; Surminski, S. Investigating flood resilience perceptions and supporting collective decision-making through fuzzy cognitive mapping. Sci. Total. Environ. 2022, 837, 155854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Forrest, S.A.; Trell, E.-M.; Woltjer, J. Socio-spatial inequalities in flood resilience: Rainfall flooding in the city of Arnhem. Cities 2020, 105, 102843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Pelling, M. Adaptation to Climate Change: From Resilience to Transformation; Routledge: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  32. Henly-Shepard, S.E. Forgotten beacons: Restoring human rights in the risk reduction, resilience & adaptation agendas. In Proceedings of the 5th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC DAVOS, Davos, Switzerland, 24–28 August 2014; pp. 314–317. [Google Scholar]
  33. Esteban, T.A.O.; Edelenbos, J. The politics of urban flood resilience: The case of Malabon city. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2023, 88, 103604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Satour, N.; Benyacoub, B.; El Mahrad, B.; Kacimi, I. KPCA over PCA to assess urban resilience to floods. E3S Web Conf. 2021, 314, 03005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wang, P.; Li, Y.; Zhang, Y. An urban system perspective on urban flood resilience using SEM: Evidence from Nanjing city, China. Nat. Hazards 2021, 109, 2575–2599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Chang, H.; Pallathadka, A.; Sauer, J.; Grimm, N.B.; Zimmerman, R.; Cheng, C.; Iwaniec, D.M.; Kim, Y.; Lloyd, R.; McPhearson, T.; et al. Assessment of urban flood vulnerability using the social-ecological-technological systems framework in six US cities. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 68, 102786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Snyder, H. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 104, 333–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Torraco, R.J. Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2005, 4, 356–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Benzaghta, M.A.; Elwalda, A.; Mousa, M.; Erkan, I.; Rahman, M. SWOT analysis applications: An integrative literature review. J. Glob. Bus. Insights 2021, 6, 55–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Alcayaga, A.; Wiener, M.; Hansen, E.G. Towards a framework of smart-circular systems: An integrative literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 221, 622–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Smith, K.B.; Profetto-McGrath, J.; Cummings, G.G. Emotional intelligence and nursing: An integrative literature review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2009, 46, 1624–1636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. van Rijnsoever, F. (I Can’t Get No) Saturation: A Simulation and Guidelines for Sample Sizes in Qualitative Research. Acad. Manag. Proc. 2016, 2016, 12040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kanbur, R.; Rauniyar, G. Conceptualizing inclusive development: With applications to rural infrastructure and development assistance. J. Asia Pac. Econ. 2010, 15, 437–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hickey, S.; Sen, K.; Bukenya, B. The Politics of Inclusive Development: Interrogating the Evidence; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  45. Dörffel, C.; Schuhmann, S. What is Inclusive Development? Introducing the Multidimensional Inclusiveness Index. Soc. Indic. Res. 2022, 162, 1117–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Stawska, J.; Jabłońska, M. Determinants of Inclusive Growth in the Context of the Theory of Sustainable Finance in the European Union Countries. Sustainability 2021, 14, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Nurlanova, N.K.; Satybaldin, A.A.; Brimbetova, N.Z.; Kireyeva, A.A. Reduction of Economic Disparities in the Regions of Kazakhstan Based on Inclusive Development. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2019, 6, 299–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Musahara, H. African Emergence, Inclusive and Sustainable Development and the Role of Social Science Research with Special Reference to Eastern Africa. In Economic Integration, Currency Union, and Sustainable and Inclusive Growth in East Africa. Advances in African Economic, Social and Political Development; Heshmati, A., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 171–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kebede, G.F. Entrepreneurship and the Promises of Inclusive Urban Development in Ethiopia. Urban Forum 2022, 34, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hollander, S.; Dekker, M.; Miroro, O.; van Kesteren, F.; Bossuyt, J.; de Tollenaere, M. Strategic Actors Productive Employment Strategic Actors for Inclusive Development in Africa; Synthesis Report Series; 2018. Available online: https://includeplatform.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Strategic_actors_synthesis.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2022).
  51. Casadella, V.; Uzunidis, D. Innovation capacities as a prerequisite for forming a national innovation system. In Collective Innovation Processes: Principles and Practices; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 177–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gupta, J.; Vegelin, C. Sustainable development goals and inclusive development. In International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; Volume 16, pp. 433–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Teichman, J.A. The Politics of Inclusive Development: Policy, State Capacity, and Coalition Building; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  54. Lisovskyi, S.; Maruniak, E.; Gukalova, I.; Mozgovyi, A.; Pokliatzkyi, S. Inclusiveness and Environmental Priorities of Urban Development as Components of Quality of Life (Case Cities Examples). Ukr. Geogr. J. 2019, 2019, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Hutorov, A.; Lupenko, Y.; Zakharchuk, O.; Hutorova, O.; Dorokhov, O. Inclusive Development of the Ukrainian Economy. TEM J. 2020, 9, 296–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Warsilah, H. Resilience of Coastal Cities in Facing Climate Change: Reclamation Case of Benoa Bay Bali and North Jakarta Bay. In Climate Change Research, Policy and Actions in Indonesia; Djalante, R., Jupesta, J., Aldrian, E., Eds.; Springer Climate: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 121–147. [Google Scholar]
  57. Pouw, N.; Gupta, J. Inclusive development: A multi-disciplinary approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2017, 24, 104–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Khirfan, L.; El-Shayeb, H. Urban climate resilience through socio-ecological planning: A case study in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. J. Urban. Int. Res. Placemaking Urban Sustain. 2020, 13, 187–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Holling, C.S. Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1973, 4, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Disse, M.; Johnson, T.; Leandro, J.; Hartmann, T. Exploring the relation between flood risk management and flood resilience. Water Secur. 2020, 9, 100059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Meerow, S.; Newell, J.P.; Stults, M. Defining urban resilience: A review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 147, 38–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kotzee, I.; Reyers, B. Piloting a social-ecological index for measuring flood resilience: A composite index approach. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 60, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ayub, M.; Rahman, A.-U.; Khan, A. Extent and evaluation of flood resilience in Muzaffarabad City, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan. J. Himal. Earth Sci. 2021, 54, 14–27. [Google Scholar]
  64. Gao, M.; Wang, Z.; Yang, H. Review of Urban Flood Resilience: Insights from Scientometric and Systematic Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 8837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Bertilsson, L.; Wiklund, K.; Tebaldi, I.d.M.; Rezende, O.M.; Veról, A.P.; Miguez, M.G. Urban flood resilience—A multi-criteria index to integrate flood resilience into urban planning. J. Hydrol. 2019, 573, 970–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Satour, N.; Raji, O.; El Moçayd, N.; Kacimi, I.; Kassou, N. Spatialized flood resilience measurement in rapidly urbanized coastal areas with a complex semi-arid environment in northern Morocco. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2021, 21, 1101–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Batica, J.; Gourbesville, P.; Hu, F.-Y. Methodology for Flood Resilience Index. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Flood Resilience Experiences in Asia and Europe–ICFR, Exeter, UK, 5–7 September 2013. [Google Scholar]
  68. Leandro, J.; Chen, K.-F.; Wood, R.R.; Ludwig, R. A scalable flood-resilience-index for measuring climate change adaptation: Munich city. Water Res. 2020, 173, 115502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Khatooni, K.; Hooshyaripor, F.; MalekMohammadi, B.; Noori, R. A combined qualitative–quantitative fuzzy method for urban flood resilience assessment in Karaj City, Iran. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Kammouh, O.; Noori, A.Z.; Cimellaro, G.P.; Mahin, S.A. Resilience Assessment of Urban Communities. ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertain. Eng. Syst. Part A Civ. Eng. 2019, 5, 04019002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Cao, F.; Xu, X.; Zhang, C.; Kong, W. Evaluation of urban flood resilience and its Space-Time Evolution: A case study of Zhejiang Province, China. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 154, 110643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Chen, X.; Guo, Z.; Zhou, H.; Qian, X.; Zhang, X. Urban Flood Resilience Assessment Based on VIKOR-GRA: A Case Study in Chongqing, China. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2022, 26, 4178–4194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Moghadas, M.; Asadzadeh, A.; Vafeidis, A.; Fekete, A.; Kötter, T. A multi-criteria approach for assessing urban flood resilience in Tehran, Iran. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2019, 35, 101069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Parvin, G.A.; Ahsan, S.M.R.; Yusop, A.Y.B.M.; Gordon, J.A.; Abedin, A.; Ahmad, M.H. Kampung (village) flood resilience: An empirical analysis in Malaysia. Environ. Hazards 2021, 20, 550–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Batica, J.; Gourbesville, P. Resilience in Flood Risk Management—A New Communication Tool. Procedia Eng. 2016, 154, 811–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Batica, J.; Gourbesville, P. Flood Resilience Index-Methodology And Application How does access to this work benefit you? Let us know! In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Hydroinformatics HIC, New York, NY, USA, 17–21 August 2014. [Google Scholar]
  77. Jiang, F.; Xie, Z.; Xu, J.; Yang, S.; Zheng, D.; Liang, Y.; Hou, Z.; Wang, J. Spatial and component analysis of urban flood Resiliency of Kunming city in China. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2023, 93, 103759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Li, Z.; Zhang, X.; Ma, Y.; Feng, C.; Hajiyev, A. A multi-criteria decision making method for urban flood resilience evaluation with hybrid uncertainties. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2019, 36, 101140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Cheng, Y.; Liu, J. Evaluation of urban resilience in the post-COVID-19 period: A case study of the Yangtze delta city group in China. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2023, 97, 104028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Zhang, H.; Yang, J.; Li, L.; Shen, D.; Wei, G.; Khan, H.U.R.; Dong, S. Measuring the resilience to floods: A comparative analysis of key flood control cities in China. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021, 59, 102248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Mahajan, S.; Hausladen, C.I.; Sánchez-Vaquerizo, J.A.; Korecki, M.; Helbing, D. Participatory resilience: Surviving, recovering and improving together. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2022, 83, 103942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Hudson, P.; Pham, M.; Hagedoorn, L.; Thieken, A.; Lasage, R.; Bubeck, P. Self-stated recovery from flooding: Empirical results from a survey in Central Vietnam. J. Flood Risk Manag. 2021, 14, e12680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Borie, M.; Ziervogel, G.; Taylor, F.E.; Millington, J.D.; Sitas, R.; Pelling, M. Mapping (for) resilience across city scales: An opportunity to open-up conversations for more inclusive resilience policy? Environ. Sci. Policy 2019, 99, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Hardoy, J.; Gencer, E.; Winograd, M. Participatory planning for climate resilient and inclusive urban development in Dosquebradas, Santa Ana and Santa Tomé. Environ. Urban. 2019, 31, 33–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Laeni, N.; Brink, M.v.D.; Arts, J. Is Bangkok becoming more resilient to flooding? A framing analysis of Bangkok’s flood resilience policy combining insights from both insiders and outsiders. Cities 2019, 90, 157–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Fitzgibbons, J.; Mitchell, C.L. Inclusive resilience: Examining a case study of equity-centred strategic planning in Toronto, Canada. Cities 2021, 108, 102997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Jurjonas, M.; Seekamp, E.; Rivers, L.; Cutts, B. Uncovering climate (in)justice with an adaptive capacity assessment: A multiple case study in rural coastal North Carolina. Land Use Policy 2020, 94, 104547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Cheng, C. Spatial Climate Justice and Green Infrastructure Assessment: A case study for the Huron River watershed, Michigan, USA. GI_Forum 2016, 4, 176–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Andal, A.G. Children’s spaces in coastal cities: Challenges to conventional urban understandings and prospects for child-friendly blue urbanism. Child. Geogr. 2021, 20, 688–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. de Albuquerque, J.P.; Anderson, L.; Calvillo, N.; Cattino, M.; Clarke, A.; Cunha, M.A.; Degrossi, L.C.; Garde-Hansen, J.; Klonner, C.; Lima-Silva, F.; et al. Dialogic data innovations for sustainability transformations and flood resilience: The case for waterproofing data. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2023, 82, 102730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Long, N.; Cornut, P.; Kolb, V. Strategies for adapting to hazards and environmental inequalities in coastal urban areas: What kind of resilience for these territories? Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2021, 21, 1087–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Lal, T. Measuring impact of financial inclusion on rural development through cooperatives. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 2019, 46, 352–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Cretu, D.M.; Morandau, F. Initial Teacher Education for Inclusive Education: A Bibliometric Analysis of Educational Research. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Asongu, S.A.; Nwachukwu, J.C. Recent finance advances in information technology for inclusive development: A systematic review. NETNOMICS Econ. Res. Electron. Netw. 2018, 19, 65–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Abdrabo, K.I.; Kantoush, S.A.; Esmaiel, A.; Saber, M.; Sumi, T.; Almamari, M.; Elboshy, B.; Ghoniem, S. An integrated indicator-based approach for constructing an urban flood vulnerability index as an urban decision-making tool using the PCA and AHP techniques: A case study of Alexandria, Egypt. Urban Clim. 2023, 48, 101426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Zhang, Z.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, Y.; Yan, J. Urban Flood Resilience Evaluation Based on GIS and Multi-Source Data: A Case Study of Changchun City. Remote. Sens. 2023, 15, 1872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Chen, A.B.; Goodall, J.L.; Chen, T.D.; Zhang, Z. Flood resilience through crowdsourced rainfall data collection: Growing engagement faces non-uniform spatial adoption. J. Hydrol. 2022, 609, 127724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Pudifoot, B.; Cárdenas, M.L.; Buytaert, W.; Paul, J.D.; Narraway, C.L.; Loiselle, S. When It Rains, It Pours: Integrating Citizen Science Methods to Understand Resilience of Urban Green Spaces. Front. Water 2021, 3, 654493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Xu, W.; Yu, Q.; Proverbs, D. Evaluation of Factors Found to Influence Urban Flood Resilience in China. Water 2023, 15, 1887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Munpa, P.; Kittipongvises, S.; Phetrak, A.; Sirichokchatchawan, W.; Taneepanichskul, N.; Lohwacharin, J.; Polprasert, C. Climatic and Hydrological Factors Affecting the Assessment of Flood Hazards and Resilience Using Modified UNDRR Indicators: Ayutthaya, Thailand. Water 2022, 14, 1603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Climate 13 00114 g001
Figure 1. The growth of the number of publications featuring the term ‘inclusive development’.
Figure 1. The growth of the number of publications featuring the term ‘inclusive development’.
Climate 13 00114 g001
Climate 13 00114 g002
Figure 2. A preliminary conceptual framework for inclusive urban flood resilience.
Figure 2. A preliminary conceptual framework for inclusive urban flood resilience.
Climate 13 00114 g002
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Renville, D.S.; Chhetri, N.; Cheng, C.; Francois, L.; Zeng, R. Towards the Conceptual Framing of Inclusive Urban Flood Resilience. Climate 2025, 13, 114. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli13060114

AMA Style

Renville DS, Chhetri N, Cheng C, Francois L, Zeng R. Towards the Conceptual Framing of Inclusive Urban Flood Resilience. Climate. 2025; 13(6):114. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli13060114

Chicago/Turabian Style

Renville, Dwayne Shorlon, Netra Chhetri, Chingwen Cheng, Linda Francois, and Ruijie Zeng. 2025. "Towards the Conceptual Framing of Inclusive Urban Flood Resilience" Climate 13, no. 6: 114. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli13060114

APA Style

Renville, D. S., Chhetri, N., Cheng, C., Francois, L., & Zeng, R. (2025). Towards the Conceptual Framing of Inclusive Urban Flood Resilience. Climate, 13(6), 114. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli13060114

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop