Next Article in Journal
Teleconnections Between the Pacific and Indian Ocean SSTs and the Tropical Cyclone Activity over the Arabian Sea
Previous Article in Journal
The Impacts of Changes in Near-Term Climate Forcers on East Asia’s Climate
 
 
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 9
10.3390/cli13090192
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:
Systematic Review

Systematic Review of Multidimensional Assessment of Coastal Infrastructure Resilience to Climate-Induced Flooding: Integrating Structural Vulnerability, System Capacity, and Organizational Preparedness

by
Nokulunga Xolile Mashwama
1 and
Mbulelo Phesa
2,*
1
Department of Built Environment, Walter Sisulu University, East London 5201, South Africa
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Walter Sisulu University, East London 5201, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Climate 2025, 13(9), 192; https://doi.org/10.3390/cli13090192
Submission received: 3 July 2025 / Revised: 13 September 2025 / Accepted: 14 September 2025 / Published: 16 September 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

This study investigates the multifaceted factors influencing the success of government-funded construction projects and addresses the challenges posed by climate-induced flooding, proposing integrated solutions encompassing structural vulnerability, system capacity, and organizational preparedness. By examining the challenges faced by coastal infrastructure, such as aging infrastructure, sea-level rise, and extreme weather events, this research seeks to identify strategies that enhance resilience and minimize the impact of flooding on coastal communities. The study presents a systematic review of 80 scholarly articles integrating quantitative and qualitative findings. Utilizing the PRISMA guidelines, the review highlights structural analysis, hydraulic modeling, and organizational surveys, to assess the resilience of coastal infrastructure systems. The results of this study offer actionable insights for policymakers, infrastructure managers, and coastal communities, facilitating informed decision-making and promoting climate-resilient development. Coastal regions around the world are increasingly vulnerable to climate-induced hazards such as sea level rise, storm surges, and intense flooding events. Among the most at-risk assets are transport infrastructure and buildings, which serve as the backbone of urban and regional functionality. This research paper presents a multidimensional assessment framework that integrates structural vulnerability, system capacity, and organizational preparedness to evaluate the resilience of coastal infrastructure. Drawing upon principles of resilience such as robustness, redundancy, safe-to-fail design, and change-readiness, the study critically reviews and synthesizes existing literature, identifies gaps in current assessment models, and proposes a comprehensive methodology for resilience evaluation. By focusing on both transport systems and building infrastructure, the research aims to inform adaptive strategies and policy interventions that enhance infrastructure performance and continuity under future climate stressors.

1. Introduction

Coastal zones are home to over 40% of the global population and encompass some of the most economically and strategically significant urban centers. However, these regions are increasingly threatened by climate-induced events such as rising sea levels, hurricanes, and flooding. Infrastructure in these areas particularly buildings and transportation systems is especially vulnerable, with damage to these systems often resulting in widespread social and economic disruption. As climate change intensifies, ensuring the resilience of coastal infrastructure becomes an urgent priority. Despite a growing body of research, there remains a gap in understanding the combined effects of structural vulnerabilities and organizational weaknesses on infrastructure resilience. Existing frameworks often assess resilience in either technical or administrative silos, lacking a holistic view. Therefore, this paper addresses the need for an integrated approach that evaluates resilience climate across both structural and institutional dimensions, providing actionable insights for governments and planners.
Coastal regions, vital hubs for economic activity, population centers, and ecological diversity, are facing escalating threats from climate change, particularly the increased frequency and intensity of flooding events [1]. The intricate interplay of rising sea levels, extreme weather patterns, and human development is exacerbating the vulnerability of coastal infrastructure, demanding a comprehensive and integrated approach to resilience assessment [2]. Traditional methods of evaluating infrastructure resilience often focus narrowly on structural integrity, overlooking the critical roles of system capacity and organizational preparedness in mitigating the impacts of climate-induced flooding. A holistic understanding of resilience necessitates the integration of these three dimensions, enabling a more accurate and nuanced assessment of the ability of coastal communities to withstand, adapt to, and recover from flooding events. Failure to account for the interconnectedness of these dimensions can lead to underestimation of risk, misallocation of resources, and ultimately, increased vulnerability to climate change impacts [3,4,5].
Addressing these challenges requires a paradigm shift towards a multidimensional framework that considers the complex interactions between structural vulnerability, system capacity, and organizational preparedness, paving the way for more effective and sustainable strategies for enhancing coastal infrastructure resilience [6]. The impact of disasters has a multifaceted nature, making it essential to adequately assess the vulnerabilities of cultural heritage assets and design effective risk reduction strategies in different hazard scenarios [7]. This study employs a systematic review of the literature (SRL) to synthesize a broad spectrum of research on the evolution of an integrated approach for evaluating infrastructure resilience to climate change across both structural and institutional dimensions. This methodology facilitates a comprehensive analysis of existing scholarship, identifying critical gaps and areas for further inquiry. Unlike previous studies, this research consolidates extensive insights from diverse sources, thereby offering valuable contributions to academic institutions, policymakers, and society as a whole.
Addressing the urgent need for an integrated framework, this paper focuses on resilience climate assessment that simultaneously considers structural vulnerabilities and institutional capacities, providing actionable insights for governments and urban planners. The continuous evolution of climate change highlights the imperative for ongoing adaptation and innovation. As emerging technologies and novel approaches develop, the field must remain dynamic and agile to foster a future-proof society and built environment.
Furthermore, this paper introduces a comprehensive systematic literature review methodology for the multidimensional assessment of coastal infrastructure resilience to climate-induced flooding. It integrates evaluations of structural vulnerabilities, system capacities, and organizational preparedness. By examining the complex interconnections between physical infrastructure and social systems, this approach equips decision-makers with crucial information to effectively manage risks in an increasingly uncertain environment. Emphasizing iterative, nested, collaborative, and participatory processes, the methodology aims to enhance resilience through adaptive and inclusive governance.
This research aims to develop a comprehensive framework for evaluating the resilience of coastal infrastructure including buildings, bridges, and transportation networks against climate-related hazards such as flooding and extreme weather events. The study combined technical assessments of structural integrity with organizational dimensions of resilience, including leadership, preparedness, and rapid recovery capacity. It also examined how principles such as robustness, redundancy, and cost-effectiveness are currently applied in resilience planning.

2. Methodology

This study employed a systematic review methodology to comprehensively analyses multidimensional assessments of coastal infrastructure resilience to climate-induced flooding. The review integrates evaluations spanning structural vulnerabilities, systemic capacities, and organizational preparedness, reflecting the complex, interconnected challenges facing coastal built environments under climate stressors.

2.1. Research Approach and Framework

Guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework [8], a qualitative research approach was adopted to rigorously identify, classify, and synthesize existing literature on coastal infrastructure resilience and climate-induced flood risks. This structured method enables the detection of emerging patterns and knowledge gaps across diverse studies within the built environment and infrastructure resilience fields.

2.2. Search Strategy and Data Sources

An extensive and systematic search was conducted across three prominent academic databases: Scopus, Google Scholar, and Elsevier’s ScienceDirect. The search utilized a curated set of keywords reflecting key themes in climate change and coastal resilience, including: “climate change,” “floods,” “disaster management,” “sea level change,” “hazard assessments,” “adaptive management,” “vulnerability assessment,” and “coastal zones.” The initial query yielded 528 articles. After removing 140 duplicates, 388 articles underwent relevance screening based on titles and abstracts, resulting in the exclusion of 252 articles unrelated to the study’s focus. This process narrowed the corpus to 136 articles, which were subjected to abstract screening against specific inclusion criteria tied to the research objectives. A further 45 were excluded for insufficient alignment, leaving 91 articles for full-text retrieval. Ultimately, 80 peer-reviewed articles were accessible and deemed eligible for detailed analysis.

2.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Adherence to PRISMA guidelines ensured a transparent and reproducible selection process. Inclusion criteria mandated peer-reviewed journal articles published in English, with a minimum threshold of three citations to ensure scholarly impact and quality. Exclusions encompassed gray literature, non-research articles, ongoing works, and papers unrelated to climate-induced flooding resilience of coastal infrastructure. Figure 1 provides a visual overview of the screening process and criteria applied.

2.4. Data Extraction and Quality Assurance

Data extraction captured comprehensive bibliographic information—author affiliations, journal titles, and publication years—and involved a careful review of the selected articles’ content. This process was managed by one lead author and double-checked by a second reviewer to ensure accuracy and consistency. Any disagreements were resolved through consensus discussion, thereby optimizing reliability and minimizing bias. The extraction template was adapted from established systematic review checklists to better align with the engineering and built environment research domains. The refined checklist, comprising 18 key assessment points, evaluated dimensions ranging from the technical robustness and redundancy of structures (e.g., buildings, bridges, transport networks) to organizational resilience factors such as leadership effectiveness, preparedness strategies, and rapid recovery capacities.

2.5. Analytical Scope and Integration

The study uniquely combines technical assessments of structural resilience with organizational and socio-technical factors, thereby providing a holistic perspective on coastal infrastructure resilience. Attention was given to principles including robustness, redundancy, adaptability, and cost-effectiveness as applied in current resilience planning and disaster risk management frameworks.

2.6. Review of Selected Articles

This section presents the key findings derived from the systematic review of literature focusing on the resilience of coastal infrastructure including buildings, bridges, and transportation networks against climate-related hazards such as flooding and extreme weather events.

2.7. Literature Selection Overview

As described in the methodology, a comprehensive search was conducted across multiple databases using targeted keywords related to climate-induced hazards and coastal infrastructure resilience. Figure 1 illustrates the PRISMA flow diagram, detailing the stepwise screening and selection process that culminated in the final set of articles analyzed. The selected articles were systematically examined to extract relevant data on resilience dimensions across coastal infrastructure components. An analysis of publication trends over the review period (2015–2025) revealed a notable growth in research output. As shown in Figure 2, the number of published studies has steadily increased, with a pronounced surge occurring between 2020 and 2024. This trend underscores a rising global awareness and scientific interest in addressing the vulnerabilities of coastal infrastructure under escalating climate risks.
The reviewed literature collectively highlights the critical importance of enhancing the resilience of coastal infrastructure against flooding and extreme weather-related hazards. Buildings, bridges, and transportation networks represent essential lifelines whose failure can precipitate severe social, economic, and environmental consequences. The exponential growth in publications during recent years signals a timely and urgent response by the research community; however, our findings also identify ongoing gaps that necessitate further investigation. Enhanced multidisciplinary approaches are particularly needed to integrate technical, organizational, and socio-economic resilience factors comprehensively.
Analysis of Keyword Interconnectedness: Insights from the VOSviewer Map (1.6.20) (Figure 3). Figure 3 vividly illustrates the complex and multidisciplinary tapestry of climate change research through a VOSviewer keyword co-occurrence network. This visualization offers a compelling bird’s-eye view of how diverse fields converge, emphasizing the dynamic interplay among technical assessments, coastal impacts, ecosystem vulnerabilities, and adaptation strategies.

2.8. Interconnectedness Across Disciplines

At the core of the map lies “climate change”, acting as the central hub around which a rich web of themes revolves, underscoring its pivotal role in contemporary environmental scholarship. The network reveals how climate change scholarship is inherently integrative, bridging traditionally siloed domains such as geospatial technology, hydrodynamics, ecosystem services, and social adaptation. This reflected interconnectedness points to an essential truth: addressing climate challenges demands collaborative, cross-sectoral approaches that combine environmental science, built environment, engineering, and social science perspectives.

2.9. Central Challenges: Coastal Zones and Sea Levels

The dominant prominence of keywords linked to coastal zones and sea level changes highlights physical geography’s fundamental importance in the climate change discourse. Coastal regions emerge as critical focal points not only due to their exposure to flooding and erosion but also because of their dense human settlements and vital infrastructure. This central cluster drives attention towards developing robust assessment methods and management strategies to safeguard vulnerable coastal systems.

2.10. Unpacking the Thematic Clusters

Central Cluster (Climate Change & Coastal Zone): The largest node, “climate change,” anchors this cluster, surrounded by keywords such as “coastal erosion,” “sea level rise,” and “flooding.” This illustrates concentrated scientific efforts to understand and quantify the direct impacts of climate variability on coastal environments. Human & Ecosystem Vulnerability (Red Cluster): This cluster coalesces around critical themes like “humans,” “vulnerability assessment,” “ecosystems,” “biodiversity,” and “water supply.” Its emphasis on socio-ecological systems captures how climate stressors affect not only natural habitats but also human livelihoods and resource security, exposing the multidimensional vulnerability inherent in coupled human–environment systems. Adaptation & Resilience (Blue Cluster): Keywords such as “adaptation,” “adaptive capacity,” “resilience,” and “social vulnerability” dominate this cluster, signaling strong engagement with strategies to enhance societal and ecological coping mechanisms. The inclusion of terms like “female,” “livelihood,” and “developing world” reveals an attentive focus on vulnerable populations and localized adaptation efforts, underscoring the social equity dimension of resilience.
Risk & Disaster Management (Yellow Cluster): This group clusters around “hazard assessment,” “disaster management,” and “risk analysis,” spotlighting the critical intersection between climate science and practical disaster risk reduction. It points to the growing integration of climate considerations into environmental planning and policy frameworks aimed at minimizing risk exposure. Geographic & Technological Methods (Green Cluster): Featuring terms such as “GIS,” “remote sensing,” “digital elevation model,” and “satellite imagery,” this cluster highlights the technological backbone supporting climate research. The widespread use of geospatial tools enables cutting-edge monitoring, modeling, and predictive capabilities that are vital for managing coastal and broader climate impacts effectively.

2.11. Synthesis and Implications

Together, these clusters demonstrate an evolving and increasingly sophisticated body of knowledge that transcends disciplinary boundaries. The keyword network encapsulates the multifaceted nature of climate change research linking scientific measurement, physical environmental impacts, socio-economic vulnerabilities, adaptive strategies, and technological innovations.
The VOSviewer map not only captures current research trajectories but also implicitly calls for enhanced interdisciplinary collaboration and integrative frameworks. By bridging the technical with the social and ecological, scholars and practitioners can better design holistic solutions that address the complexity of climate vulnerabilities, especially in coastal zones.
Figure 4 below reveals that 81.1% of documents used were journals, followed by conference proceedings at 7.9%, Review at 5.5%; Book chapters at 3.8% and lastly, Books at 0.2%. All the documents have been peer-reviewed.

3. Theoretical Framework

Coastal regions, vital hubs for economic activity, population centers, and ecological diversity, are facing escalating threats from climate change, particularly the increased frequency and intensity of flooding events [1]. The intricate interplay of rising sea levels, extreme weather patterns, and human development is exacerbating the vulnerability of coastal infrastructure, demanding a comprehensive and integrated approach to resilience assessment [2]. Traditional methods of evaluating infrastructure resilience often focus narrowly on structural integrity, overlooking the critical roles of system capacity, and infrastructure systems, crucial for societal and economic functions, are vulnerable to various hazards, necessitating resilience assessments to maintain their functionality [9]. Resilience quantification relies on loss and recovery models that incorporate the effects of climate change [10]. Assessing resilience for housing infrastructure against flood hazards is crucial for communities, revealing their capacity to resist and recover from disasters [11]. However, the available literature often overlooks uncertainty and incomplete information, highlighting the need for frameworks that address these limitations [11]. Moreover, most resilience assessment methods focus on a single asset or critical infrastructure system, primarily for protection against natural hazards [12]. The concept of resilience has evolved from its origins in ecology and engineering to become a central framework for understanding and addressing complex challenges across various disciplines, including disaster management, urban planning, and infrastructure design [13,14,15]. Resilience, in the context of coastal infrastructure, refers to the ability of a system to withstand and recover from the adverse effects of climate-induced flooding, maintaining essential functions and services while adapting to changing conditions [16]. More specifically, resilience encompasses not only the capacity to resist damage and disruption but also the ability to bounce back quickly, learn from experience, and transform in response to future challenges [13,17,18]. This adaptive capacity is crucial for ensuring the long-term sustainability and viability of coastal communities in the face of increasing climate uncertainty. Critical infrastructure’s well-functioning is becoming increasingly important, as is its significance in ensuring the sustainability of businesses, communities, and governments. Power systems, in particular, are acknowledged as intricate adaptive systems.

4. Systematic Literature Review

4.1. Different Challenges Affecting Infrastructure Projects

Lee and Kim [19] emphasized the necessity of comprehensive data on the vulnerability of various infrastructure types to climate-related hazards. Their work calls attention to the limited availability of detailed structural data on buildings, bridges, and essential services located in coastal areas. Additionally, Tachaudomdach, Arunotayanun [20] categorize resilience assessment methods into technical and organizational dimensions, highlighting the need for methodologies that can bridge both perspectives. The principles of resilience such as robustness, redundancy, safe-to-fail systems, and adaptability are crucial for the design and maintenance of critical infrastructure [20]. Sen, Dutta [11] reinforce that resilient infrastructure systems must withstand external shocks without significant loss of function, and they stress the importance of rapid recovery and change-readiness. Yet, existing assessment frameworks often fail to integrate these principles comprehensively. In transportation infrastructure, the focus has been largely on physical fortification raising roads or installing flood barriers while often neglecting governance mechanisms and institutional capacities. Similarly, resilience in building infrastructure has primarily centered on code compliance and structural retrofitting, with less emphasis on community preparedness and systemic recovery planning. This paper seeks to synthesize these perspectives into a unified framework.
Existing literature on infrastructure resilience assessment often concentrates on individual dimensions, such as structural vulnerability or system capacity, neglecting the critical interdependencies between them. For instance, studies on structural vulnerability typically employ engineering-based approaches to evaluate the physical resistance of infrastructure assets to flooding, focusing on factors such as material strength, design specifications, and exposure to flood hazards [20,21,22,23,24]. While these assessments provide valuable insights into the potential for physical damage, they often fail to account for the operational capacity of the system or the ability of organizations to respond effectively during and after a flooding event [25,26,27,28,29]. Similarly, research on system capacity may focus on the performance of infrastructure networks, such as transportation or energy systems, under stressed conditions, examining factors such as redundancy, connectivity, and flow capacity [30,31]. While these studies provide valuable information on the ability of systems to maintain functionality during flooding, they often overlook the vulnerability of individual components or the role of organizational factors in managing system performance [31,32]. Furthermore, assessments of organizational preparedness frequently focus on the development of emergency response plans, communication protocols, and training programs, neglecting the integration of these measures with structural and system-level considerations. The value of critical infrastructure lies in the services it provides, with electricity underpinning the operation of various sectors.
Government-funded construction projects often encounter challenges that hinder their successful completion, necessitating a comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing project outcomes. Delays, budget overruns, and even project abandonment are not uncommon, highlighting the need for effective planning and management strategies [33]. According to Shivambu [33] key indicators for construction project success include project management experience, team competence, technical capabilities, contractor experience, and project size. Factors such as contractor experience, maintaining healthy cash flow, efficient site management, prompt payment of contractor certificates, and securing sufficient funding from external sources are pivotal in shaping project success. Inadequate funding from clients has emerged as a primary obstacle to project success [33]. Furthermore, shortcomings in stakeholder investment and project monitoring can significantly impede the successful delivery of government-funded construction projects. Public engagement, while intended to foster inclusivity, can sometimes exacerbate conflicts due to the diverse interests and power dynamics of stakeholders [33]. The most important failure factors are leadership, management and administrative practices, resources and external forces [34]. The existing body of knowledge underscores the importance of integrating these dimensions to provide a more holistic and accurate assessment of coastal infrastructure resilience to climate-induced flooding.
Collaborating with stakeholders and devising contingency plans can help mitigate delays in project execution. Conflicts arising from competing priorities, limited resources, and inadequate communication can impede progress, potentially leading to project failure and broader societal implications [33]. Construction projects necessitate the integration of diverse skills and the collaboration of various stakeholders to navigate the inherent complexities and uncertainties. Effective risk management is crucial for construction projects, helping to mitigate potential difficulties and unanticipated events [34]. Large construction projects often grapple with uncertainties stemming from various factors, including planning intricacies, design complexities, the presence of diverse interest groups, resource availability, environmental considerations, and regulatory frameworks [35]. Disputes in construction projects can stem from various sources, including adversarial contracts, ineffective communication, and differing expectations among parties [36]. The lack of transparency and accountability in construction project business processes is widely recognized by researchers and practitioners [37]. Poor planning, ineffective communication, scope disruptions, insufficient resource allocation, and inadequate risk management are key contributors to project failure [38]. Addressing the multifaceted challenges of construction delays requires a holistic approach that considers technical, managerial, and external factors [39]. Clear communication and stakeholder engagement are vital for project success, aligning interests and promoting a harmonious working environment [33]. In order to formulate strategies to overcome delay and their impacts the analysis of the study gave considerable understandings to stakeholders of construction projects.

4.2. Structural Vulnerability of Coastal Infrastructure

The structural vulnerability of coastal infrastructure refers to the susceptibility of physical assets to damage or failure due to external hazards, such as flooding, storm surge, and erosion [40]. Assessing structural vulnerability typically involves evaluating the physical characteristics of infrastructure components, including their materials, design, and construction, as well as their exposure to environmental stressors [41]. The assessment of structural vulnerability involves the examination of several key parameters that determine the capacity of coastal infrastructure to withstand flood-induced stresses. These parameters encompass material properties, design specifications, and construction quality, all of which play a crucial role in defining the structural integrity of buildings and infrastructure [42]. Buildings lacking long-term disaster planning in coastal areas exhibit significant vulnerability, necessitating thorough analysis that integrates diverse parameters and factors. A study underscores the importance of developing tools for quantitative vulnerability assessment, enabling informed decision-making and effective risk mitigation in the face of escalating flood hazards [33]. A comprehensive evaluation of structural vulnerability necessitates a thorough understanding of the hydrodynamic forces exerted by floodwaters on coastal infrastructure [43].
The analysis of structural vulnerability should also consider the influence of long-term environmental degradation, such as corrosion, weathering, and biofouling, which can compromise the structural integrity of coastal infrastructure over time. Geographical, physical, social, or economic aspects can be used to assess the vulnerability [44]. These factors can weaken structural components, reduce their load-bearing capacity, and increase the risk of failure during extreme weather events [2]. Evaluating the structural vulnerability of buildings to hydro-geomorphic hazards involves estimating damage probability based on physical vulnerability and hazard-related parameters, which helps to reduce uncertainty in determining descriptive parameters and their contributions to damage [22]. The evaluation of structural vulnerability necessitates a thorough understanding of the intricate interplay between the built environment and natural forces, enabling the development of targeted adaptation strategies aimed at enhancing the resilience of coastal communities [22].

4.3. System Capacity for Climate Resilience

System capacity, in the context of coastal infrastructure resilience, refers to the ability of interconnected systems and networks to maintain functionality and performance under stress [24]. This encompasses the capacity of infrastructure systems, such as transportation networks, water and wastewater systems, and energy grids, to absorb disturbances, adapt to changing conditions, and recover from disruptions caused by climate-induced flooding [45]. Evaluating system capacity involves assessing the redundancy, flexibility, and adaptability of critical infrastructure networks, as well as their ability to withstand cascading failures and maintain essential services during and after flood events. Flood risk management requires a comprehensive assessment of vulnerability, considering exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacities [46]. This includes evaluating the capacity of infrastructure systems to accommodate increased water levels, manage stormwater runoff, and maintain essential services during and after flood events. Effective strategies for enhancing system capacity often involve implementing redundant systems, diversifying energy sources, and developing robust communication networks that can facilitate coordination and information sharing among stakeholders. The importance of understanding flood risk is vital to identify vulnerable areas for sustainable development [3].

4.4. Organizational Preparedness and Response

Organizational preparedness encompasses the proactive measures and strategies implemented by government agencies, private sector entities, and community organizations to anticipate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from climate-induced flooding events [47,48]. This includes developing emergency management plans, conducting training exercises, establishing communication protocols, and coordinating resources to ensure effective response and recovery efforts. Flood resilience requires coordinated efforts, effective communication, and collaborative governance among stakeholders [49]. Organizational preparedness also involves fostering a culture of resilience within communities, empowering individuals to take proactive steps to protect themselves, their families, and their properties from the impacts of flooding [13,21]. The integration of organizational preparedness into coastal resilience strategies necessitates a holistic approach that considers the diverse needs and perspectives of stakeholders, promotes community engagement, and fosters a shared sense of responsibility for managing flood risks. Adding to this, emergency flood management plan should incorporate the four phases of the process starting with planning for flood mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery [50]. Effective organizational preparedness requires strong leadership, clear lines of authority, and well-defined roles and responsibilities for all stakeholders involved in flood management and response.
Operational flood management, including preventive measures during flood events, is crucial for reducing flood damage, especially in extreme cases. The operationalization and legitimacy of the combined role of spatial planning and flood risk management with stakeholder acceptance still remain implicit and weak [51]. Further research should address the role of stakeholders in these roles. A disaster management perspective highlighted referring to physical interventions and their related regulations allows physical changes and are both closely associated with spatial planning [52].

5. Results and Discussion

5.1. Structural Vulnerability

The study reveals stark variations in the resilience of coastal infrastructure, with older assets proving most vulnerable. Structures built before modern codes face heightened flood risks from material decay, poor design, and inadequate maintenance [53,54]. Additionally, infrastructure located in low-lying areas or adjacent to eroding coastlines are found to be at higher risk of damage due to increased exposure to flooding and erosion hazards. Furthermore, this study highlights key structural flaws weak foundations, degraded roofing, and absent floodproofing that heighten infrastructure vulnerability [55]. The findings stress the need for consistent inspection, maintenance, and rehabilitation to safeguard the integrity and resilience of coastal infrastructure. Continuous monitoring is essential to track time-dependent structural and hydraulic performance [33].

5.2. System Capacity

System capacity analysis reveals that infrastructure networks and their interdependencies are crucial determinants of resilience to climate-driven flooding [19]. Critical infrastructure must be robust and rapidly recoverable, as the failure of any component can compromise the entire system [56,57]. It is evident that limited drainage, weak pumping capacity, and aging water and wastewater facilities undermine coastal communities’ flood management. These deficiencies threaten the continuity of essential services during extreme events [58].
Furthermore, the study identifies critical bottlenecks and vulnerabilities within infrastructure networks, such as undersized culverts, damaged bridges, and unreliable power supply, that can exacerbate flooding impacts and disrupt essential services [59]. Addressing these system-level vulnerabilities requires a holistic approach that considers the interconnectedness of infrastructure assets and the potential cascading effects of failures [60]. The integrated models are capable of considering both the consequences of climate change and the influence of adaptation strategies. This holistic approach needs to consider the environmental, social, and economic impacts of infrastructure projects and policies [59,60].

5.3. Organizational Preparedness

In terms of organizational preparedness, significant variations in the level of preparedness and adaptive capacity among coastal communities and infrastructure management agencies have been revealed [54]. The study emphasizes that community engagement and robust emergency planning are essential, as gaps in response, communication, and resource allocation undermine effective disaster management [61,62].
Furthermore, this study underscores that effective climate-flood responses require strong collaboration among government, private sector, and community stakeholders [62]. The significance of integrating local knowledge and experience into disaster preparedness and resilience-building initiatives is emphasized.

5.4. Integrated Resilience

Combining structural, system capacity, and organizational assessments offers a holistic view of coastal infrastructure resilience to climate-driven flooding [63]. The integrated approach shows that resilience depends not only on infrastructure condition but also on the adaptive capacity of systems and organizations to respond to emergencies [19].
The analysis pinpoints key areas where targeted interventions can most effectively enhance resilience. A multidimensional approach considering physical, social, and institutional factors provides a comprehensive understanding to guide more effective strategies [20]. Lastly, an integrated approach reveals critical vulnerabilities and interdependencies, guiding targeted interventions to strengthen overall resilience.

5.5. Proposed Solutions for Government Adoption

  • Integrated Resilience Framework: Governments should adopt a framework that evaluates both structural integrity and organizational capacity, ensuring comprehensive resilience assessment. This includes pre-disaster risk analysis, resilience scoring systems, and real-time monitoring of infrastructure conditions.
  • Climate-Responsive Building Codes and Transport Standards: Update and enforce regulations that require all new and retrofitted infrastructure in coastal zones to account for future climate scenarios, including sea-level rise projections and intensified storm events.
  • Institutional Strengthening and Training: Develop capacity-building programs for local authorities, emergency services, and infrastructure managers to enhance preparedness, coordination, and response mechanisms during extreme weather events.
  • Public–Private Partnerships (PPPs): Encourage collaboration between government bodies and the private sector to fund and implement resilient infrastructure projects, leveraging shared risks and resources.
  • Resilience Audits and Retrofitting Programs: Implement routine resilience audits for critical infrastructure and prioritize retrofitting initiatives based on vulnerability assessments.
  • To enhance coastal infrastructure resilience to climate-induced flooding, several integrated solutions can be implemented, addressing structural vulnerabilities, system capacity limitations, and organizational preparedness gaps. By prioritizing comprehensive approaches, integrating technological advancements, and fostering collaborative governance structures, coastal communities can proactively mitigate flood risks and safeguard their infrastructure assets [1,64].

5.6. Structural Strengthening and Adoption

Prioritizing structural strengthening and retrofitting with flood-resistant designs is essential to enhance coastal infrastructure resilience [65]. Elevating critical infrastructure above projected flood levels can also prevent inundation and maintain functionality during extreme weather events. Implementing nature-based solutions, such as restoring coastal wetlands and dunes, can provide natural barriers against storm surges and reduce wave energy [66]. Additionally, integrating green infrastructure elements, such as permeable pavements and bioswales, can improve stormwater management and reduce runoff. The upgrade of existing coastal defense structures should be considered, where this strategy is technically and economically feasible [67]. Regular inspection and maintenance programs are crucial to identify and address structural weaknesses before they escalate into major problems.

5.7. Enhancing System Capacity and Redundancy

Enhancing system capacity and redundancy is crucial for ensuring the reliable operation of critical infrastructure during and after flooding events. Increasing drainage capacity through the construction of larger drainage systems or the installation of additional pumps can improve stormwater management [68]. Implementing backup power systems, such as generators or uninterruptible power supplies, can ensure the continuous operation of essential facilities during power outages. Establishing redundant communication networks can maintain connectivity and coordination among emergency responders and critical infrastructure operators [69]. Diversifying water supply sources can enhance water security and reduce reliance on vulnerable sources.

6. Conclusions

This research highlights the urgent need for a multidimensional approach to strengthening the resilience of coastal infrastructure against escalating climate-driven flooding. By combining structural vulnerability assessments, system capacity evaluations, and organizational preparedness analyses, it offers a holistic framework for understanding the interrelated factors that shape resilience. Addressing these challenges demands a comprehensive strategy—encompassing structural upgrades, stronger system capacity, improved organizational readiness, and effective governance. The persistent flood risks facing vulnerable coastal communities in South Africa underscore the critical importance of targeted resilience and recovery measures [70]. Strong financial planning and effective governance are critical to the success of government-funded construction projects. Integrating accurate cost estimation and sound costing practices into project management is essential to prevent budget constraints and cost overruns [33]. Construction project outcomes are heavily influenced by political factors, regulatory shifts, and government budget limitations [33].
Future research should refine and validate the resilience framework through real-world case studies while advancing nature-based and green infrastructure solutions. Translating findings into actionable policies and scalable mitigation strategies is crucial for building climate-resilient coastal communities [71]. Integrating risk management into flood management fosters resilience and sustainability by enabling informed decisions that minimize disaster impacts [72]. Ongoing monitoring, evaluation, and adaptation are vital for sustaining effective resilience-building, guiding policymakers, managers, and communities in safeguarding assets from climate-driven flooding. Equally, fair procurement practices and strong political will are critical to ensuring financial compliance and project success.
As climate risks intensify, resilient transport and building infrastructure are essential for economic stability and public safety. This study presents a multidimensional framework that unites engineering and governance, offering policymakers a roadmap to strengthen infrastructure and adaptive capacity.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.X.M. and M.P.; methodology, N.X.M.; formal analysis, N.X.M.; investigation, N.X.M. and M.P.; resources, N.X.M. and M.P.; writing—original draft preparation, N.X.M.; writing—review and editing, N.X.M. and M.P.; supervision, N.X.M.; project administration, M.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors are grateful to the Faculty of Engineering, Built Environment and Information Technology (FEBEIT), and Walter Sisulu University (WSU) for financial support.

Data Availability Statement

The dataset used in this manuscript is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors Xolile Nokulunga Mashwama and Mbulelo Phesa declare no conflicts of interest. Furthermore, the funders had no role in the design of the study, in the collection, analysis or interpretation of the data, in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Marra, J.; Allen, T.; Easterling, D.; Fauver, S.; Karl, T.; Levinson, D.; Marcy, D.; Payne, J.; Pietrafesa, L.; Shea, E. An integrating architecture for coastal inundation and erosion program planning and product development. Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 2007, 41, 62–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Oloyede, M.O.; Benson, N.U.; Williams, A.B. Climate change and coastal vulnerability assessment methods: A review. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Energy and Sustainable Environment, Ota, Nigeria, 23–25 June 2020; p. 012069. [Google Scholar]
  3. Apollonio, C.; Bruno, M.F.; Iemmolo, G.; Molfetta, M.G.; Pellicani, R. Flood risk evaluation in ungauged coastal areas: The case study of Ippocampo (Southern Italy). Water 2020, 12, 1466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bukvic, A.; Rohat, G.; Apotsos, A.; de Sherbinin, A. A systematic review of coastal vulnerability mapping. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Conner, D.B. The Infrastructure Imperative of Climate Change: Risk-Based Climate Adaptation of Infrastructure. In Climate Change-Research and Technology for Adaptation and Mitigation; IntechOpen: Norderstedt, Germany, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  6. McCullough, M.; Kareem, A. A framework for performance-based engineering in multi-hazard coastal environments. In Proceedings of the Structures Congress 2011, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 14–16 April 2011; pp. 1961–1972. [Google Scholar]
  7. Jigyasu, R.; Murthy, M.; Boccardi, G.; Marrion, C.E.; Douglas, D.; King, J.; O’Brien, G.; Dolcemascolo, G.; Kim, Y.; Albrito, P. Heritage and Resilience: Issues and Opportunities for Reducing Disaster Risks; Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction; UNISDR: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  8. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Moher, D. Mapping of reporting guidance for systematic reviews and meta-analyses generated a comprehensive item bank for future reporting guidelines. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2020, 118, 60–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Argyroudis, S.A.; Mitoulis, S.A.; Hofer, L.; Zanini, M.A.; Tubaldi, E.; Frangopol, D.M. Resilience assessment framework for critical infrastructure in a multi-hazard environment: Case study on transport assets. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 714, 136854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Forcellini, D. The role of climate change in the assessment of the seismic resilience of infrastructures. Infrastructures 2021, 6, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sen, M.K.; Dutta, S.; Kabir, G. Development of flood resilience framework for housing infrastructure system: Integration of best-worst method with evidence theory. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 290, 125197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fuggini, C.; Solari, C.; De Stefano, R.; Bolletta, F.; De Maio, F.V. Assessing resilience at different scales: From single assets to complex systems. Environ. Syst. Decis. 2023, 43, 693–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Boswell, M.R.; Greve, A.I.; Seale, T.L.; Boswell, M.R.; Greve, A.I.; Seale, T.L. Strategies for Creating Resilient Communities. In Climate Action Planning: A Guide to Creating Low-Carbon, Resilient Communities; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2019; pp. 192–223. [Google Scholar]
  14. Chelleri, L.; Waters, J.J.; Olazabal, M.; Minucci, G. Resilience trade-offs: Addressing multiple scales and temporal aspects of urban resilience. Environ. Urban. 2015, 27, 181–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cinner, J.E.; Barnes, M.L. Social dimensions of resilience in social-ecological systems. One Earth 2019, 1, 51–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. El-Maissi, A.M.; Kassem, M.M.; Nazri, F.M. Resilient critical infrastructures: An innovative methodological perspective for critical infrastructure (CI) integrated assessment models by inducing digital technologies during multi-hazard incidents. MethodsX 2024, 12, 102561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hollnagel, E. Resilience engineering and the built environment. Build. Res. Inf. 2014, 42, 221–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Raghunathan, S.; Darshan Singh, A.; Sharma, B. Study of resilience in learning environments during the Covid-19 pandemic. In Frontiers in Education; Frontiers Media SA: Lausanne, Switzerland, 2022; p. 677625. [Google Scholar]
  19. Lee, E.H.; Kim, J.H. Development of resilience index based on flooding damage in urban areas. Water 2017, 9, 428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Tachaudomdach, S.; Arunotayanun, K.; Upayokin, A. A systematic review of the resilience of transportation infrastructures affected by flooding. In Proceedings of the Asia-Pacific Conference on Intelligent Medical 2018 & International Conference on Transportation and Traffic Engineering, Beijing, China, 21–23 December 2018; pp. 176–182. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ardiansyah, M.; Mirandah, E.; Suyatno, A.; Faqih, M.; Muazzinah, M. Disaster Management and Emergency Response: Improving Coordination and Preparedness. Glob. Int. J. Innov. Res. 2024, 2, 831–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ettinger, S.; Mounaud, L.; Magill, C.; Yao-Lafourcade, A.-F.; Thouret, J.-C.; Manville, V.; Negulescu, C.; Zuccaro, G.; De Gregorio, D.; Nardone, S. Building vulnerability to hydro-geomorphic hazards: Estimating damage probability from qualitative vulnerability assessment using logistic regression. J. Hydrol. 2016, 541, 563–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mazzorana, B.; Levaggi, L.; Formaggioni, O.; Volcan, C. Physical vulnerability assessment based on fluid and classical mechanics to support cost-benefit analysis of flood risk mitigation strategies. Water 2012, 4, 196–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Müller, A.; Reiter, J.; Weiland, U. Assessment of urban vulnerability towards floods using an indicator-based approach–a case study for Santiago de Chile. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2011, 11, 2107–2123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Armenakis, C.; Du, E.X.; Natesan, S.; Persad, R.A.; Zhang, Y. Flood risk assessment in urban areas based on spatial analytics and social factors. Geosciences 2017, 7, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Arrighi, C.; Pregnolato, M.; Dawson, R.; Castelli, F. Preparedness against mobility disruption by floods. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 654, 1010–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Davis, M.; Naumann, S. Making the case for sustainable urban drainage systems as a nature-based solution to urban flooding. In Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas: Linkages between Science, Policy and Practice; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 123–137. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kilgore, R.; Herrmann, G.R.; Thomas, W.O., Jr.; Thompson, D.B. HEC-17: Highways in the River Environment—Floodplains, Extreme Events, Risk, and Resilience. In Engineering Methods for Precipitation under a Changing Climate; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  29. Tung, Y.-K. Flood defense systems design by risk-based approaches. Water Int. 2005, 30, 50–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bambara, G.; Peyras, L.; Felix, H.; Serre, D. Developing a functional model for cities impacted by a natural hazard: Application to a city affected by flooding. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2015, 15, 603–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Murdock, H.J.; De Bruijn, K.M.; Gersonius, B. Assessment of critical infrastructure resilience to flooding using a response curve approach. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Jin, C.; Li, R.; Kang, R. Maximum flow-based resilience analysis: From component to system. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0177668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Shivambu, H. Assessing the Factors that Influence the Success of Government-Funded Construction Projects in South Africa; University of Johannesburg: Johannesburg, South Africa, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  34. Damoah, I.S.; Kumi, D.K. Causes of government construction projects failure in an emerging economy: Evidence from Ghana. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2018, 11, 558–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Iqbal, S.; Choudhry, R.M.; Holschemacher, K.; Ali, A.; Tamošaitienė, J. Risk management in construction projects. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2015, 21, 65–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Alaloul, W.S.; Hasaniyah, M.W.; Tayeh, B.A. A comprehensive review of disputes prevention and resolution in construction projects. In MATEC Web of Conferences, Proceedings of the The 2nd Conference for Civil Engineering Research Networks (ConCERN-2 2018), Bandung, Indonesia, 27–29 November 2018; EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2019; p. 05012. [Google Scholar]
  37. Yang, R.; Wakefield, R.; Lyu, S.; Jayasuriya, S.; Han, F.; Yi, X.; Yang, X.; Amarasinghe, G.; Chen, S. Public and private blockchain in construction business process and information integration. Autom. Constr. 2020, 118, 103276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Shabbir, R.; Naveed, S.; Cheema, S.M. Evaluation of the factors behind the failure of project management practices. J. Dev. Soc. Sci. 2023, 4, 490–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Fashina, A.A.; Omar, M.A.; Sheikh, A.A.; Fakunle, F.F. Exploring the significant factors that influence delays in construction projects in Hargeisa. Heliyon 2021, 7, e06826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cabral, R.; de Azevedo, R.C.; Jungles, A.E.; Ensslin, L. A review of risk management in construction: Opportunities for improvement. Mod. Econ. 2014, 5, 367–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Oduoza, C.; Odimabo, O.O.; Suresh, S. An Insight into the Process, Tools and Techniques for Construction Risk Management. In Risk Management Treatise for Engineering Practitioners; Intech Open Limited: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  42. Mhini, S.; Mashwama, N.; Thwala, D.; Aigbavboa, C. Learning curve for improved productivity in the South African construction industry. In Proceedings of the Creative Construction e-Conference, Opatija, Croatia, 28 June–1 July 2020; p. 034. [Google Scholar]
  43. Tomiczek, T.; Webbmartin, B.; Scyphers, S.; O’Donnell, K.; Furman, K. Interconnectivities between hazard, damage, and shoreline type: Lessons learned from hurricane irma’s impact on the florida keys. Coast. Eng. Proc. 2018, 1, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Narendra, B.H.; Siringoringo, H.H.; Siregar, C.A. GIS based flood hazard and vulnerability mapping: A Case study of tidal and river floods in downstream of Ciasem Watershed, Subang-West Java. Indones. J. For. Res. 2017, 4, 37–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Borg, R.P.; Indirli, M.; Romagnoli, F.; Rochas, C.; Kuzņecova, T. The ANDROID case study; Venice and its territory: Vulnerability and resilience in multi-hazard scenarios. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2014, 18, 825–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. An, T.T.; Raghavan, V.; Long, N.V.; Izuru, S.; Tsutsumida, N. A GIS-based approach for flood vulnerability assessment in Hoa Vang District, Danang City, Vietnam. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Proceedings of the International Conference on Environment, Resources and Earth Sciences, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, 1–5 December 2020; IOP Publishing Ltd.: Bristol, UK, 2020; p. 012003. [Google Scholar]
  47. Monteil, C.; Foulquier, P.; Defossez, S.; Péroche, M.; Vinet, F. Rethinking the share of responsibilities in disaster preparedness to encourage individual preparedness for flash floods in urban areas. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2022, 67, 102663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sinay, L.; Carter, R. Climate change adaptation options for coastal communities and local governments. Climate 2020, 8, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Takin, M.; Cilliers, E.J.; Ghosh, S. Advancing flood resilience: The nexus between flood risk management, green infrastructure, and resilience. Front. Sustain. Cities 2023, 5, 1186885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Gomeseria, R. Flood Control Management in Built Environment. 2021. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3926560 (accessed on 13 May 2025).
  51. Herath, H.; Wijesekera, N. A state-of-the-art review of flood risk assessment in urban area. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Proceedings of the 2019 3rd International Conference on Environmental and Energy Engineering (IC3E 2019), Shanghai, China, 14–16 March 2019; IOP Publishing Ltd.: Bristol, UK, 2019; p. 012029. [Google Scholar]
  52. Meng, M.; Dabrowski, M.; Stead, D. Enhancing flood resilience and climate adaptation: The state of the art and new directions for spatial planning. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kim, H.; Lee, D.-K.; Sung, S. Effect of urban green spaces and flooded area type on flooding probability. Sustainability 2016, 8, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sadiq, R.; Nahiduzzaman, K.M.; Hewage, K. Infrastructure at the crossroads–beyond sustainability. Front. Sustain. Cities 2020, 2, 593908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kita, S.M. Urban vulnerability, disaster risk reduction and resettlement in Mzuzu city, Malawi. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2017, 22, 158–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Matthews, J.C.; Piratla, K.; Matthews, E. Disaster resilience of drinking water infrastructure systems to multiple hazards. In Proceedings of the Structures Congress 2014, Boston, MA, USA, 3–5 April 2014; pp. 2312–2317. [Google Scholar]
  57. Yadav, N.; Chatterjee, S.; Ganguly, A.R. Resilience of urban transport network-of-networks under intense flood hazards exacerbated by targeted attacks. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 10350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Tawfik, M.; Badawy, A.; Ali, M.; Amdar, N.; Elmahdi, A. Urban flash floods mitigations: Enhancing the link between water, sanitation and energy services in urban settings in the MENA region. Adv. Civ. Eng. Technol. 2020, 4, ACET.000582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Pregnolato, M.; Ford, A.; Wilkinson, S.M.; Dawson, R.J. The impact of flooding on road transport: A depth-disruption function. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2017, 55, 67–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Fekete, A. Critical infrastructure and flood resilience: Cascading effects beyond water. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 2019, 6, e1370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Davoudi, S.; Brooks, E.; Mehmood, A. Evolutionary resilience and strategies for climate adaptation. Plan. Pract. Res. 2013, 28, 307–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Madrigano, J.; Chandra, A.; Costigan, T.; Acosta, J.D. Beyond disaster preparedness: Building a resilience-oriented workforce for the future. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Steven, A.; Addo, K.A.; Llewellyn, G.; Ca, V.T.; Boateng, I.; Bustamante, R.; Doropoulos, C.; Gillies, C.; Hemer, M.; Lopes, P. Coastal development: Resilience, restoration and infrastructure requirements. In The Blue Compendium: From Knowledge to Action for a Sustainable Ocean Economy; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023; pp. 213–277. [Google Scholar]
  64. McEligot, K.; Brouse, P. System Engineering Strategies for Coastal Flooding Mitigation. In Proceedings of the INCOSE International Symposium, Washington, DC, USA, 7–12 July 2018; Wiley Online Library: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 1508–1518. [Google Scholar]
  65. Karamouz, M.; Taheri, M.; Khalili, P.; Chen, X. Building infrastructure resilience in coastal flood risk management. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2019, 145, 04019004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. do Carmo, J.S.A. Coastal Adaptation: Past Behaviors, Contemporary Management, and Future Options. In Coastal and Marine Environments-Physical Processes and Numerical Modelling; IntechOpen: Norderstedt, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  67. Foti, E.; Musumeci, R.E.; Stagnitti, M. Coastal defence techniques and climate change: A review. Rend. Lincei. Sci. Fis. Nat. 2020, 31, 123–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Yerri, S.R.; Piratla, K.R.; Ross, B.E.; Harrison, D.M. Synthesis of water infrastructure adaptation practices in US coastal regions. In Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress 2018, New Orleans, LA, USA, 2–4 April 2018; pp. 516–528. [Google Scholar]
  69. Hick, J.L.; Rubinson, L.; O’Laughlin, D.T.; Farmer, J.C. Clinical review: Allocating ventilators during large-scale disasters–problems, planning, and process. Crit. Care 2007, 11, R114. [Google Scholar]
  70. Govender, I.H.; Reddy, M.; Pillay, R.P. A Review of Residual Flood Risks in South African-Vulnerable Coastal Communities: Opportunities to Influence Policy; IntechOpen: Norderstedt, Germany, 2025; p. 143. [Google Scholar]
  71. Genovese, E.; Thaler, T. The benefits of flood mitigation strategies: Effectiveness of integrated protection measures. AIMS Geosci. 2020, 6, 459–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. 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]
Climate 13 00192 g001
Figure 1. The PRISMA diagram.
Figure 1. The PRISMA diagram.
Climate 13 00192 g001
Climate 13 00192 g002
Figure 2. Documents by year.
Figure 2. Documents by year.
Climate 13 00192 g002
Climate 13 00192 g003
Figure 3. Bibliometric keywords.
Figure 3. Bibliometric keywords.
Climate 13 00192 g003
Climate 13 00192 g004
Figure 4. Document source.
Figure 4. Document source.
Climate 13 00192 g004
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

Mashwama, N.X.; Phesa, M. Systematic Review of Multidimensional Assessment of Coastal Infrastructure Resilience to Climate-Induced Flooding: Integrating Structural Vulnerability, System Capacity, and Organizational Preparedness. Climate 2025, 13, 192. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli13090192

AMA Style

Mashwama NX, Phesa M. Systematic Review of Multidimensional Assessment of Coastal Infrastructure Resilience to Climate-Induced Flooding: Integrating Structural Vulnerability, System Capacity, and Organizational Preparedness. Climate. 2025; 13(9):192. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli13090192

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mashwama, Nokulunga Xolile, and Mbulelo Phesa. 2025. "Systematic Review of Multidimensional Assessment of Coastal Infrastructure Resilience to Climate-Induced Flooding: Integrating Structural Vulnerability, System Capacity, and Organizational Preparedness" Climate 13, no. 9: 192. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli13090192

APA Style

Mashwama, N. X., & Phesa, M. (2025). Systematic Review of Multidimensional Assessment of Coastal Infrastructure Resilience to Climate-Induced Flooding: Integrating Structural Vulnerability, System Capacity, and Organizational Preparedness. Climate, 13(9), 192. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli13090192

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