{"paper_id":"278bc56f-d894-43fd-81d5-be9579576b20","body_text":"Connecting perceived flood risk and resilience in Auckland, New Zealand | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Connecting perceived flood risk and resilience in Auckland, New Zealand Stacy Vallis, Imelda Piri, Andrew Burgess, Priscila Besen, Ann Morrison This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7547469/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract New Zealand cities are shaped by a history of natural hazards. Climate change has dramatically increased these risks, making flooding more frequent, intense, and destructive. Notably, the damage resulting from Cyclone Gabrielle and the 2023 Auckland Anniversary Weekend floods was experienced nationwide. Utilising anonymous cross-sectional survey and network analysis, this study provides novel insights on the interrelationships between the perceptions of flood risk and resilience for selected residential suburbs in Auckland, New Zealand. We find many associations monotonically connected perceived flood risk and resilience, specifically, perception of safety from flooding, trust in local authorities, rainfall worry, distance from flooding source, perceived sufficiency in emergency response, and provision of assistance during flooding. We characterised a Flood Resilience Perception cluster, revealing that factors such as gender, age, residential status, and dwelling type were not found to be significant. Connecting perceived flood risk and resilience enables informed policymaking and effective implementation, aligned with urban resident needs and expectations. Earth and environmental sciences/Natural hazards Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences/Climate-change impacts/Governance Climate Change Flood Risk Perception Resilience Neighbourhoods Aotearoa New Zealand Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction Urban neighbourhoods worldwide continue to face multiple risks exacerbated by climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) outlines risk as “the potential for adverse consequences for human or ecological systems…[and] results from dynamic interactions between climate-related hazards with the exposure and vulnerability of the affected human or ecological system”. 1 In comparison, resilience is defined as “the capacity of interconnected social, economic and ecological systems to cope with a hazardous event, trend or disturbance, responding or reorganizing in ways that maintain their essential function, identity and structure. Resilience is a positive attribute when it maintains capacity for adaptation, learning and/or transformation.” 1 Recent research conducted by the IPCC and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) observe changes in atmospheric extremes including tropical cyclones and heavy precipitation where variations to the global hydrological cycle are attributed to climate change. These changes are disproportionately felt by vulnerable groups, where the increased risk to urban populations is ascribed to greater urbanisation and settlement in floodplains. 2–6 In response, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 11 promotes the enhancement of inclusion, safety, resilience, and sustainability for cities and human settlements. 7 Seminal guidelines including the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015), the Hyogo Framework for Action, and 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development collectively advocate for the reduction of risk of disasters that underpins sustainable development. 8–10 Historical records demonstrate that earthquakes, flood, and fire have shaped the national story of New Zealand since the colonial era. 11 Although the damage incurred by earthquakes garnered national and global attention in recent years, the risk posed by flooding has resulted in major impacts for urban communities across the country. The Auckland Anniversary Weekend floods and Cyclone Gabrielle that occurred in February 2023 wreaked destruction across the country’s North Island including Auckland. Heavy rainfall, wind, and flooding following the preceding Auckland Anniversary Weekend flood led to the declaration of a national state of emergency. 12 Reports by the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission identify the January 2023 Auckland Anniversary weekend storm as an extreme rainfall event and highlight critical linkages between stormwater management and land-use planning, noting interdependencies between water, telecommunications, waste, and transport infrastructure networks that contribute to resilience. 13 The city received 160 mm of rain in six hours and approximately 245mm of rainfall in 24 hours, exceeding the previous 24-hour rainfall record of 161 mm set in 1985. Four deaths occurred as a result of the storm and flooding, while thousands of homes were damaged from flooding and landslides. The Auckland Flood Response Review (2023) outlines the immediate aftermath of the flood that saw major transport and infrastructure disruption, mass evacuation, and loss of life and property. 14 The report highlights broad challenges in managing extreme weather patterns, particularly that advance warnings of prospective flash flooding may only be provided a few hours or minutes before the event, while variation in local geology and scale of urban development results in greater presence of soils with limited natural storage capacity and impervious surfaces. Commonly, vulnerable communities are unable to cover the costs of their own flood protection measures, while experiencing a more frequent combination of climate change weather patterns. More centralised emergency planning and localised implementation is needed, focusing on flood and superstorm events to enhance community safety. 14 The city of Auckland is the country’s most populous centre, with approximately 1,571,718 people (2018), and is situated on an isthmus between the Waitemata Harbour and the Manukau Harbour, in the North Island of New Zealand ( Figure 1 ). 15 Mount Eden and New Lynn are residential suburbs within the Territorial Authority of Auckland. Both suburbs were impacted by the Auckland Anniversary Floods in 2023 and contain flood risk zones. 16,17 This study employed an anonymous survey questionnaire to investigate: (i) interconnections between flood risk perception (FRP) and perceived neighbourhood flood resilience for residential neighbourhoods in Auckland New Zealand following the 2023 Auckland Anniversary Weekend floods, and (ii) needs and expectations of residential communities for enhancing neighbourhood flood resilience. Earlier studies investigating the factors underpinning community flood risk perception acknowledge that FRP does not necessarily reflect true flood risk. 18,19 Flood risk perception is commonly defined as “assessment of the probability of hazard and the probability of the results (most often – the negative consequences” as perceived by communities and constitutes a vital element of flood risk management (FRM). 18,20 While environmental phenomena influence flood events, human perception is strongly shaped by age, flooding frequency, distance to flood source, availability of flood risk information, and financial provisions. 19,21–23 These findings draw attention to the ineffectiveness of solely focusing on structural measures (e.g. flood walls, embankments) that can result in maladaptation, whereas non-structural measures based on public participation are urgently required. Understanding flood risk perception is important to address common misconceptions, whereas resilience perception can reveal risk tolerance and willingness to pay for risk reduction. 24,25 Investigating the linkages between perceived risk and resilience can reveal the role of sociocultural and demographic factors to ultimately inform targeted and context-specific decision-making. Results Two of the most severely impacted neighbourhoods were New Lynn and Mount Eden. A total of 2,500 survey invitations were distributed across both neighbourhoods, with 1,500 survey invitations in New Lynn and 1,000 survey invitations in Mount Eden. The survey contained questions that relate to their personal flood risk perception, neighbourhood resilience, and common confounding variables (Table S1) . Mailbox distribution of survey invitations was supported by advertisement on the Community Waitakere Facebook page and posters in local businesses. The survey yielded a response rate of 4.0% in New Lynn and 7.3% in Mount Eden, with an overall response rate of 5.3%. A total of 40 out of 133 responses (30.1%) were excluded from the survey where no age range or zone was selected in the survey responses as per the exclusion criteria. The majority (54.84%) of respondents out of 93 were in the 35-54 age range, and the survey respondents were not biased by the respondents’ identified gender (proportion test, effect size, p-value), with respondents identifying as male (n=36), female (n=47), and another gender (n=2) ( Table 1 ) . Of the respondents, there were New Zealand European (69.89%), Asian (4.30%), Māori (2.15%), Pacific (1.08%), and Other (15.05%). Most respondents reported owning their home (63.4%) and living in a detached dwelling (75.3%). The average household size was 3.03 individuals (± 1.16 SD). Across both neighbourhoods, 72.0% of respondents (67/93) reported experiencing or observing flood-related damage to their own property, neighbouring homes, or nearby community infrastructure (e.g. shops, community centres). When asked about the participants’ FRP, on a scale of 1-10, perception of safety on average was 6.37 ± 2.97, while the average reported neighbourhood flood resilience was 4.92, ± 2.64. A total of 27/93 (29.0%) of respondents reported feeling ‘partly worried’ about rainfall and potential future neighbourhood flooding, while 14/93 (15.1%) reported feeling ‘very worried’, and 25/92 (26.9%) reported feeling ‘not worried’. Significant associations between FRP and perceived neighbourhood resilience arose through perceived safety from flooding, rainfall worry, reported levels of trust in local government authorities to manage flooding, distance from flooding source, perceived sufficiency of emergency flooding response, and residents reporting providing or receiving assistance during flooding. Table 1 : Summary statisticsof survey responses (n=93) Question Response Count/Percentage of Total Sample What were the causes of the Auckland Anniversary Weekend flooding in 2023? - Selected Choice Unanswered 8/93 (8.6%) Heavy rainfall 83/93 (89.2%) Other (please specify) 62/93 (66.7%) Building on floodplains 63/93 (67.7%) Overflowing waterways 67/93 (72.0%) Did you make, or are you planning to make any changes to your home after the Auckland Anniversary Weekend floods in 2023? Please indicate if applicable: - Selected Choice Unanswered 34/93 (36.6%) Clearing rain gutters 31/93 (33.3%) Reducing paved areas/impermeable surfaces 7/93 (7.5%) Other (please specify): 34/93 (36.6%) Adding stormwater tanks 6/93 (6.5%) What is your age range? 18-34 15/93 (16.13) 35-54 51/93 (54.84) 55-74 24/93 (25.81) 75-84 3/93 (3.23) Was your property, neighbouring properties or nearby community facilities (e.g. shops, community centre) affected by the Auckland Anniversary Weekend floods in 2023? Yes 67/93 (72.04) No 18/93 (19.35) Unsure 7/93 (7.53) Unanswered 1/93 (1.08) Did you assist friends or neighbours in recent flooding, or were you assisted by friends of neighbours? Yes 41/93 (44.09) No 46/93 (49.46) Unsure 1/93 (1.08) Unanswered 5/93 (5.38) In your opinion, was there a sufficient emergency flooding response in your neighbourhood? Yes 28/93 (30.11) No 36/93 (38.71) Unsure 25/93 (26.88) Unanswered 4/93 (4.30) How worried do you feel about rainfall and any potential future flooding in your neighbourhood? Not Worried 25/93 (26.88) Partly Worried 27/93 (29.03) Worried 21/93 (22.58) Very Worried 14/93 (15.05) Unanswered 6/93 (6.45) How urgent do you think government organisations perceive flood risk in your neighbourhood? Not Urgent 41/93 (44.09) Somewhat urgent 31/93 (33.33) Moderately Urgent 12/93 (12.90) Very urgent 3/93 (3.23) Unanswered 6/93 (6.45) Are you aware of any digital tools or technologies that are used to monitor, record or respond to flood risk in your neighbourhood? Yes 22/93 (23.66) No 63/93 (67.74) Unsure 2/93 (2.15) Unanswered 6/93 (6.45) Have you previously tried to access to information on flood risk in your neighbourhood? Yes 48/93 (51.61) No 39/93 (41.94) Unanswered 6/93 (6.45) Which of the following gender categories best describes how you self-identify? Male/Tāne 36/93 (38.71) Female/Wahine 47/93 (50.54) Another Gender/ He ira kē anō 2/93 (2.15) Unanswered 8/93 (8.60) What is your ethnicity? - Selected Choice New Zealand European 65/93 (69.89) Māori 2/93 (2.15) Pacific 1/93 (1.08) Asian 4/93 (4.30) Other (Please state) 14/93 (15.05) Unanswered 7/93 (7.53) What kind of home do you live in? A (e.g. Apartment) 3/93 (3.23) B (e.g. Row/Terrace home) 13/93 (13.98) C (e.g. Detached house) 70/93 (75.27) Unanswered 7/93 (7.53) Do you live on the ground floor or higher? Unsure 2/93 (2.15) Ground Floor 71/93 (76.34) Higher than Ground Floor 12/93 (12.90) Unanswered 8/93 (8.60) What is your residential status? - Selected Choice Homeowner 59/93 (63.44) Renter 18/93 (19.35) Family Home 8/93 (8.60) Unanswered 8/93 (8.60) How long have you lived at your current residence? Less than 1 year 2/93 (2.15) 1-5 years 29/93 (31.18) 6-10 years 14/93 (15.05) 11-15 years 10/93 (10.75) 16-20 years 9/93 (9.68) 20 years+ 22/93 (23.66) Unanswered 7/93 (7.53) Site New Lynn 38/93 (40.86) Mount Eden 55/93 (59.14) On a scale of 1-10, how safe do you feel from the risk of flooding in your neighbourhood (with 1 being least safe and 10 being very safe)? Mean (SD) 6.37 (2.97) What is the approximate distance between your residence and the source of the flooding (with 1 being close and 5 being far?) Mean (SD) 2.20 (1.14) On a scale of 1-10, how much do you trust local authorities and emergency management organisations to mitigate flood risk (1 being low trust and 10 being high trust). Mean (SD) 3.93 (2.22) How would you rank your neighbourhood flood resilience (1 being Low Resilience and 10 being High Resilience) Mean (SD) 4.92 (2.64) How many people live in your household (including you)? Mean (SD) 3.03 (1.16) To identify the relationships between responses within the survey, we employed a network analysis approach where each node represents one of the 18 quantitative survey questions and each edge represents a significant relationship between the survey question responses (Chi-squared, Spearman, and Kruskall-Wallis tests for categorical-categorical, numeric-numeric, and numeric-categorical associations respectively) ( Figure 2 , Table S2) . Of the 210 pairwise comparisons between the twenty-one survey quantitative questions that had categorical or numeric format answers and one site variable (New Lynn or Mount Eden), there were thirty-four significant relationships ( Figure 2 , Table S2) . Two response groups emerged from the network. A cluster containing factors such as Age (Q1), Gender (Q13), Number of People in Household (Q25) or Type of Home (Q22) was named the ‘Demographic cluster’. The second cluster was highly interconnected and contained factors that were flooding resilience, named the ‘Resilience cluster’. Amongst nodes in the Resilience Cluster are Neighbourhood Flood Resilience (Q13) with Flooding Assistance (Q8), Rainfall Worry (Q10), Flood Risk (Q3), Perceived Sufficient Neighbourhood Flood Response (Q9), Distance from Flooding Source (Q7), followed by Trust in Local Authorities to Manage Flooding (Q12). Experiencing impacts of past flooding is associated with Flooding Assistance (Q8), Rainfall Worry (Q10), and Flood Risk (Q3). Awareness of Digital Technologies for Reporting, Responding to Flood Risk (Q14) is associated with Flooding Assistance Q8) (Cramer’s V= 0.52, Chi squared p < 1.47E-9). Interestingly, there was no significance found between perceived neighbourhood resilience and type of dwelling (Q22), time lived at residence (Q26), residential status (Q24), age (Q1) or gender (Q18). We next sought to investigate the relationships within the Resilience cluster between FRP factors and perceived Neighbourhood flood resilience (Figure 3) . Perceived neighbourhood flood resilience had the second highest number of connections, or degree ( n = 6), of any question revealing its collinearity with many individual survey question responses. In order of significance, these relationships with perceived neighbourhood flood resilience included perceived safety from flooding (Spearman rho=0.75, 1.32E-16), trust in local authorities to manage flooding (Spearman rho=0.64, 2.40E-11), rainfall worry (Kruskall-Walls, p=2.85E-09), distance from flooding source (Spearman rho=0.49, 7.50E-5), perceived sufficiency in flooding response (Kruskall-Wallis, p=4.32E-4), provided or received assistance during flooding (Kruskall-Wallis, p=4.6E-3). Survey participant observations indicate flood impacts and damage occurring on residential properties and affecting whole neighbourhoods including disruption to arterial streets, roads, and to local businesses ( Table 2 ) . Direct quotes encapsulating these impacts included: “Houses down the road from us were completely flooded out and needed full renovations”, and “Neighbours, school and nearby shops were flooded with water soaking belongings and requiring repairs.” Participants report no planned or pending actions following flooding, due to existing compliance with local government flood risk management strategies, in addition to cost, renter status, and no flood damage. Recommendations for neighbourhood flood risk preparedness ranged from specific or individual property interventions to neighbourhood scale actions ( Table 2 ) . Neighbourhood improvement and maintenance measures were identified, while penalties for non-compliant residential development were suggested to improve neighbourhood flood preparedness. The uneven impacts of flooding were highlighted, including emotional trauma as a result of significant impact on some residents and resident concerns regarding the affordability of emergency supplies. Current residents across both neighbourhoods acknowledged surrounding landscape and geology as consideration for flood mitigation, together with potential impacts from prospective high-density housing developments and the consequential loss of green spaces. Of 93 survey responses, 48/93 (51.61%) recorded ‘Yes’ to having previously accessed information on neighbourhood flood risk, while 39/93 (41.94%) recorded ‘No’, and 6/93 (6.45%) did not provide a response ( Table 1 ) . Of those respondents who reported previous attempts at accessing this information, a variety of information sources are included ( Table 2 ). Government organisations (local and national) constituted a common source of information, where commonly consulted resources were existing residential property records and the Auckland Council Flood Viewer tool. Historical records, word of mouth, and media (including web searchers, news and social media channels) were also cited as sources of information for neighbourhood flood risk. Advice was also sought from building industry professionals and international companies. Table 2 : Thematic coding for open-ended responses Question number Question Response code Frequency Q17: In the context of “Question 16: Have you previously tried to access to information on flood risk in your neighbourhood?”, “If you responded yes to the previous question, please indicate where you may access information on flood risk in Auckland?” Property File Documents E.g. Land Information Memorandum 7/93 Local Government Website including GIS and Flood Risk Viewer 26/93 General Web Sources 3/93 Word of Mouth 1/93 Local Government 4/93 General Flood Maps 3/93 National Sources E.g. Civil Defence or Natural Hazards Commission 5/93 International Companies 1/93 Historical Record 1/93 Media including News and Social Media Channels 2/93 Professional Advice 1/93 Community Welfare and Support Organisations 1/93 Q7: In the context of \"Question 6: Was your property, neighbouring properties or nearby community facilities (e.g. shops, community centre) affected by the Auckland Anniversary Weekend floods in 2023\" , \"if you responded yes to the previous question, could you specify the type of damage that has occurred and has this been resolved since the flooding?” General damage to neighbouring properties 25/93 General damage to roads and streets 6/93 Residential damage to backyard or front yard 9/93 Residential damage to garages 9/93 Residential damage to basements 6/93 Residential damage to home 10/93 Damage to personal belongings 5/93 Damage to community facilities e.g. public places or shops or businesses 12/93 Drains overflowing 6/93 Fallen tree 2/93 Damage Resolved 15/93 Damage Unresolved 1/93 Resolution Statues Unclear 6/93 Q22: In the context of Question 21: \"Did you make, or are you planning to make any changes to your home after the Auckland Anniversary Weekend floods in 2023?” , “Please indicate if applicable: - Other (please specify): - Text” Acquire Pumps 2/93 Add Stormwater Tanks 3/93 Adding or Amending Planting 2/93 Alter Boundary Fence 1/93 Clear Drain 4/93 Clearing Garden 1/93 Clearing Gutters 29/93 Community Collaboration 1/93 Contacted Local Authority for Assistance 1/93 Dig Water Hole 2/93 Ensure Sufficient Overland Flow Paths 1/93 Install Boundary Fencing 1/93 Install Raingarden 1/93 Installing New Drainage System 3/93 Moving Storage of Household Items 4/93 Reconsider Planned Renovation 1/93 Reduce Impermeable Surfaces 6/93 No Changes Planned 5/93 Replace Household Components or Fixing Damage 4/93 Unable to Make Changes 2/93 Stocking Emergency Kit 2/93 Tree Maintenance 1/93 Q27 “Are there any improvements that you like to see for improving flood risk preparedness in your neighbourhood? If yes, please give examples Better management of local waterways 4/93 More considered urban intensification eg do not build at ground level 8/93 Community drain clearing and maintenance 3/93 Flood mitigation or adaptation measures for vulnerable homes 2/93 Footpath slops 1/93 Improved drainage infrastructure eg better rubbish and waste management 31/93 More detention and retention tanks 1/93 More information eg current risk assessment or emergency meeting points 8/93 More local neighbourhood interaction and planning 1/93 More native planting on berms 1/93 More rain gardens or wetland areas 3/93 More soakage pits in streets 1/93 More trees and improved tree maintenance 4/93 Penalties for non-compliant development 1/93 Scorer holes 1/93 Less Concrete 1/93 Street maintenance eg sweeping litter and leaves 2/93 Q28: “Is there any additional information you would like to share?” Improved Stormwater Drainage 4/93 More Neighbourhood Planting 3/93 More Research and Dissemination 2/93 Lacking Communication to Residents 3/93 Insufficient Planning and Maintenance 1/93 Emotional Trauma 2/93 Affordability of Emergency Supplies 1/93 More Community Collaboration 2/93 Trust based on Local Community Effort 1/93 Local Geology and Landscape Advantages and Impacts 3/93 Lacking Public Awareness 1/93 Lacking General Actions 6/93 Uneven Impacts of Flooding 2/93 Individual Residential Preparedness 1/93 Flood Risk Interventions Working Well 1/93 Flood Impacts from High Density Housing and Loss of Green Spaces 1/93 Considerations for Potential Residential Property Buyers 1/93 Responsible Recycling and Litter Management 1/93 Discussion Underestimating flood risk is a growing challenge for flood risk management. 20,26 Previous studies identify a need for greater scholarly attention to address associations between perceptions of flood risk and resilience leading to enhanced flood-risk management. 18,20,27–29 While flood risk perception can indicate willingness to take precautionary actions against external threats based on worry, awareness, and preparedness, resilience encompasses the capacity for recovery and adaptation and comprises a global priority for disaster risk reduction initiatives. 8,30–34 Investigating perceived risk and perceived resilience can highlight discrepancies between perception and reality, and consequently informs the development and uptake of context-specific risk management policies and communication strategies. Our study offers insights by linking urban residents’ perceived flood risk (or FRP) and perceived resilience, considering cognitive, behavioural, sociocultural or contextual, and geographic mediators using quantitative and qualitative analyses. This study presents a sample of responses using cross-sectional survey; hence it is important not to make hasty generalisations about other neighbourhoods and potential changes in FRP over time. Previous research has shown that ambiguities concerning the significance of demographic and geographic factors with FRP can arise, especially concerning gender, age, home ownership, and distance from flooding source, hence cultural contextualisation is important to further understand these relationships. 20 In the reported study, gender, age, and home ownership did not display significant associations with the perception of resilience ( Figure 3 a ). The sample is majority homeowners (Mount Eden 68.5%, 64.7% New Lynn) as is consistent with 2023 census data, residing in detached dwellings and reporting New Zealand European ethnicity. 35,36 Perceived Flood Risk and Resilience through the lens of Worry, Awareness, Preparedness There is a need to investigate contextual or sociocultural influences in conjunction with cognitive, behavioural, socioeconomic and demographic, informational, and geographic factors that shape FRP. 19,20,37–39 To achieve this, we applied network analysis to understand the relationships between all quantitative survey responses associating perceived flood risk with perceived resilience ( Figure 2 ). The resulting network revealed two distinct clusters, one capturing perceived resilience-related factors (resilience perception cluster), and the other comprising demographic characteristics. From the risk perception cluster classified, we employed a qualitative analysis of the text-based responses to the survey questions 7,17, 22, 27, 28. Our analysis reveals that the central node (i.e. perceived neighbourhood resilience) is linked to six other nodes. These nodes are ranked based on their significant relationships with the central node, in the following order by significance: perception of safety from flooding (Q3), trust in local authorities to manage flooding (Q12), rainfall worry (Q10), distance from flooding source (Q7), perceived sufficiency in flooding response (Q9), provided or received assistance during flooding (Q8) ( Figure 3 ). Both selected study areas experienced flooding during the Auckland Anniversary Weekend floods in 2023, and a majority of survey respondents (67/93, 72.04%) reported impacts to their properties, neighbouring properties or community facilities ( Table 1 ). This finding aligns with existing literature where perceptions of safety from flooding and rainfall worry informing FRP are also highly likely to shape perceptions of neighbourhood flood resilience, where past experiences of flooding strongly contribute. 18,40,41 Sociocultural influences such as trust in local authorities and emergency management services, providing or receiving assistance during flooding, and residents’ perceived sufficiency of emergency flooding response that traditionally define FRP, also here connect FRP with perceived neighbourhood flood resilience. Sociocultural factors such as social ties with people, communications networks, level of trust in local authorities, and public protection mechanisms moderate FRP. 18,20 This effect is evident through previous studies where trust in local authorities is shown to be significant where there is low individual knowledge levels of the flood threat. 40 The survey sought to investigate relationships between worry levels with informational factors such as awareness of flooding causes, previous access to flood risk information, and awareness of digital tools for managing flood risk (e.g. considering digital tools for monitoring, recording or responding to flooding). Our study found a significant connection between perceived neighbourhood flood resilience and trust in local authorities and emergency management organisations to mitigate flood risks (Q12). A more indirect relationship is observed between awareness of digital tools for recording and responding to flood risk and perceived flood resilience. Only half of the respondents reported previously attempted to access information on neighbourhood flood risk (48/93, 51.61%) and the majority were unaware of digital tools or technologies used to monitor, record, or respond to neighbourhood flood risk (63/93, 67.74%) ( Table 1 ). However, respondents reported use of the local government geospatial maps and flood risk viewer tool to understand local flood risk, indicated in the open-ended Question 17 ( Table 2 ). We have shown that perceived resilience was associated with six FRP factors ordered by significance: perceived safety, trust in local authorities, rainfall worry, distance from flooding, perceived sufficiency in emergency flooding response ( Figure 3 ). As expected, perceived neighbourhood flood resilience (Q13) was positively associated with perceived safety from flooding (Q3)(Spearman, rho=0.745, p=1.32E-16). Positive associations are also evident between the former factor and reported levels of trust in local authorities to manage flooding (Q12) (Spearman, rho=0.64, 2.40E-11), and with perceived sufficiency in flooding response (Q9) (Kruskall-Wallis, H=2.74, 4.3E-4). Reported distance from flooding source (Q7) also generated a positive association with perceived neighbourhood flood resilience (Q13) (Spearman, rho=0.49, 7.49521E-05). In comparison, there are negative associations between perceived neighbourhood resilience (Q13) and reported rainfall worry (Q10) (Kruskall-Wallis, H=3.75, 2.86E-09), as well as between responses reporting providing or receiving assistance from neighbours during flooding (Q8) and perceived neighbourhood resilience (Q13) (Kruskall-Wallis, H=2.38, 4.6E-3). Policy Implications of Perceived FRP and Resilience The urban resilience framework is conceived using five pillars: natural, economic, social, physical, and institutional resilience. 42 Acknowledging the multifaceted nature of resilience encompassing adaptation, transformation, and recovery, a deeper understanding of FRP factors shaping perceived resilience can inform more aligned, context-specific, and equitable policy development and implementation. 1,42–44 Our findings support a need for greater dialogue between residents and local authorities, for example relating to emergency meeting points or easily accessible, up-to-date guidance for flood risk management. For neighbourhood residents, greater dialogue can further moderate current levels of perceived safety from flooding, rainfall anxiety, and perceived sufficiency of emergency flooding response, in keeping with the realities of the current flood risk. Closely aligning levels of real flood risk and resilience and perceived flood risk and resilience enriches public awareness of environmental realities, prompting willingness to act to prepare for, and during potential future recovery scenarios, followed by participation in adaptation efforts. Improved and more sustainable emergency resource allocation and management can also arise as a result of managing public expectation and reliance on local authorities during future flooding. 7 This study investigated the interconnections between perceived flood risk and resilience for residential neighbourhoods in Auckland New Zealand, following the 2023 Auckland Anniversary Weekend floods. Specific emphasis was placed on understanding the needs and expectations of residential communities for enhancing neighbourhood flood resilience. Both quantitative and qualitative data analysis were employed to investigate the sociospatial implications emerging from the intersection of perceived flood risk and resilience within the selected residential suburbs in Auckland, New Zealand. Key findings include: (i) many associations were monotonically connected between perceived flood risk and resilience, specifically perception of safety from flooding, trust in local authorities, rainfall worry, distance from flooding source, perceived sufficiency in emergency flooding response, and provision of assistance during flooding; (ii) we characterised a flood risk and resilience perception cluster containing a combination of cognitive, behavioural, socioeconomic, demographic, and geographic factors (iii) Demographic factors such as gender, age, residential status, dwelling type were not found to be significant. Understanding these variable factors can drive the development of relevant public initiatives to address existing misconceptions regarding flood resilience and resilience of vulnerable residential suburbs. Future research could include developing and administering longitudinal surveys prior and following flooding events in neighbourhoods across different regions. Additionally, a survey of decision-makers and neighbourhood stakeholders such as local authorities, emergency response teams, and community organisations would be valuable to compare with the needs and expectations expressed by neighbourhood residents Methods We employed online survey questionnaire to gather primary data on perceived floor risk and resilience across the selected study areas. To analyse the study’s contextual and sociospatial dimensions, the strategies for data analysis entailed quantitative and qualitative data analysis methods. Survey Design The study was designed as a cross-sectional survey, targeting two flood-prone suburbs in Auckland, namely Mount Eden and New Lynn. Survey invitations were distributed by mailbox drop to the residents and contained a QR-code link to the online questionnaire. Community organisations were also contacted and assisted in the circulation of survey invitations via social media pages. Study areas within the residential suburbs were selected based on: (i) previous impact from Cyclone Gabrielle and the Auckland Anniversary floods in 2023 (ii) identified as currently facing flood hazard using flood hazard maps; and (iii) containing residential dwellings in urban areas of Auckland. Exclusion criteria for participants were age (i.e. participants were required to be 18 years of age and over to participate in the online survey). Surveys were administered online through the Qualtrics platform (Qualtrics: 03, 2024, 2025). Survey questions were designed to evaluate the interrelationships between cognitive, socioeconomic and demographic, geographic, informational, and contextual factors, using themes of: themes of: past experiences (e.g. occurrence of flooding, emergency response and support), future flood risk (e.g. perception of safety from flood risk, awareness of publicly available information for flood preparedness), recommended improvements for enhancing flood risk response and resilience, in addition to demographic data (e.g. gender, age, ethnicity, residency status, dwelling type and number of inhabitants). Survey questions offered multiple-choice responses including Likert scale ranking and open-ended response fields to enable qualitative responses. Participants had the opportunity to enter a random prize draw upon completion of the survey. Survey Data Collection The survey was distributed to participants during June 2024 and September 2024. Participants were informed of the study purpose using a survey invitation and participation information sheet before commencing the survey. The approximate time required to complete the survey was 15 minutes. Ethics, Consent, Data Protection Ethics approval was received for facilitating simultaneous distribution of invitations for anonymous, online neighbourhood survey questionnaires within two selected neighbourhood suburbs in Auckland, New Zealand. The study was approved by the Auckland University of Technology Ethics Committee (AUTEC) with approval number 24/141.Before commencing the survey, all participants were required to read the participation information sheet where they were informed that survey responses indicated their consent. The participation information sheet included the study aims, methods of data collection, and the right to withdraw at any time without incurring any penalties. The participation information sheet also informed participants that survey responses would remain confidential and anonymous. Survey responses were anonymised before data analysis to protect participant identities. Statistics and Reproducibility Data analysis and plots were undertaken using Python (version 3.9.19; Python Software Foundation 2025). Summary and descriptive statistics were calculated to evaluate survey responses. To assess the associations between all pairwise combinations of responses, a series of statistical tests were employed, including the Kruskal-Wallis H test was used nominal-numeric comparisons, Cramér’s V was used for nominal-nominal comparisons (with significance determined using the Chi-squared test), and Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (rho) was used for numeric-numeric comparisons. For all tests, significance was defined as a q-value of less than 0.05, with multiple comparisons applied using the Benhamini-Hochberg technique 45,46 . Network Analysis Significant associations between features described above were explored using a network analysis approach whereby survey questions were represented as nodes with significant associations between them as edges. Networks were saved as graphml format and visualised using Cytoscape 3_10_3 software. 47 Statistical significance was determined through chi-square tests of independence, using a significance level of 0.05. This threshold ensured that identified relationships were unlikely to have occurred by chance. The combination of correlation strength and statistical significance provided a robust framework for identifying meaningful relationships within the data. Qualitative Data Analysis of Open-Ended Questions NVivo 15 software was used to analyse responses to analyse five open-ended survey questions. 48,49 Individual responses to the open-ended survey questions were classified using keyword codes using a grounded theory approach. These codes were subsequently sorted into thematic categories in order to extract commonalities and differences across the survey responses. (i) Question 6: “Was your property, neighbouring properties or nearby community facilities (e.g. shops, community centre) affected by the Auckland Anniversary Weekend floods in 2023?” and “if you responded yes to the previous question, could you specify the type of damage that has occurred and has this been resolved since the flooding?” (ii) Question 16: “Have you previously tried to access to information on flood risk in your neighbourhood?” and “If you responded yes to the previous question, please indicate where you may access information on flood risk in Auckland?” (ii) Question 21: Did you make, or are you planning to make any changes to your home after the Auckland Anniversary Weekend floods in 2023?” and “Please indicate if applicable: - Other (please specify): - Text” (iii) Question 27 “Are there any improvements that you like to see for improving flood risk preparedness in your neighbourhood? If yes, please give examples” and; (iv) Question 28 “Is there any additional information you would like to share?” Declarations Data Availability Data is available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author. Code Availability All analysis code is freely available on GitHub at https://github.com/stacyvallis/flood_survey Acknowledgements We thank the School of Future Environments at Auckland University of Technology and survey participants for supporting this project. This research was funded by the School of Future Environments Contestable Funding Round 2024. We would like to acknowledge Carrig Conservation Limited for their guidance. Competing Interests The authors declare no competing interests. Author Contributions: All authors conceived and designed the study. S.V., I.P., P.B., and A.M. performed the field research activities. S.V. analysed the data. S.V. and A.B. contributed materials/analysis tools. S.V. wrote the paper, and I.P., P.B., and A.M. reviewed the paper. References Reisinger, A. et al. Annex I: Glossary, Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . (2023) doi:10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647.002. IPCC, Lee, H. & Romero, J. Summary for Policymakers, Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . (2023). Tabari, H. Climate change impact on flood and extreme precipitation increases with water availability. Sci Rep 10 , 13768 (2020). Yu, D. et al. Disruption of emergency response to vulnerable populations during floods. Nat Sustain 3 , 728–736 (2020). Wasko, C. et al. Incorporating climate change in flood estimation guidance. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 379 , 20190548 (2021). Tellman, B. et al. Satellite imaging reveals increased proportion of population exposed to floods. Nature 596 , 80–86 (2021). United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 11 Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal11. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR). The Sendai Framework Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. ‘Disaster risk reduction’. https://www.undrr.org/terminology/disaster-risk-reduction (2017). United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR). Hyogo Framework for Action. https://www.preventionweb.net/publication/hyogo-framework-action-2005-2015-building-resilience-nations-and-communities-disasters#downloads (2007). United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Sustainable Development. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda (2015). Manatū Taonga — Ministry for Culture and Heritage. New Zealand disasters timeline. https://nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/new-zealand-disasters/timeline (2025). Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, New Zealand Trade and Enterprise & Ministry for Primary Industries. Cyclone Gabrielle’s Impact on the New Zealand Economy and Exports - March 2023 . https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/trade/mfat-market-reports/cyclone-gabrielles-impact-on-the-new-zealand-economy-and-exports-march-2023#bookmark6 (2023). New Zealand Infrastructure Commission Te Waihanga. The 2023 Auckland Anniversary Weekend Storm: An Initial Assessment and Implications for the Infrastructure System . https://tewaihanga.govt.nz/our-work/research-insights/the-2023-auckland-anniversary-weekend-storm (2024). Bush International Consulting. Auckland Flood Response Review; Independent, External Review of Events, January 27-29, 2023 . (2023). Encyclopaedia Britannica. Auckland New Zealand. (2025). Auckland Council. Auckland Council Flood Viewer. (2025). Knox, C. & Gabel, J. Auckland floods - interactive map: How hard was your suburb hit? The New Zealand Herald (2023). Lechowska, E. What determines flood risk perception? A review of factors of flood risk perception and relations between its basic elements. Natural Hazards 94 , 1341–1366 (2018). Birkholz, S., Muro, M., Jeffrey, P. & Smith, H. M. Rethinking the relationship between flood risk perception and flood management. Science of The Total Environment 478 , 12–20 (2014). Lechowska, E. Approaches in research on flood risk perception and their importance in flood risk management: a review. Natural Hazards 111 , 2343–2378 (2022). Auliagisni, W., Wilkinson, S. & Elkharboutly, M. E. Flood risk management in New Zealand: A case study of the Northland urban community. in IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci (IOP Publishing Ltd, 2022). Macquarie University. Flood-threatened communities provide key insights to help reduce future risk. (2023). Baan, P. J. A. & and Klijn, F. Flood risk perception and implications for flood risk management in the Netherlands. International Journal of River Basin Management 2 , 113–122 (2004). Mehryar, S. & Surminski, S. Investigating flood resilience perceptions and supporting collective decision-making through fuzzy cognitive mapping. Science of The Total Environment 837 , 155854 (2022). Auliagisni, W., Wilkinson, S. & Elkharboutly, M. Learning from Floods—How a Community Develops Future Resilience. Water (Basel) 14 , (2022). Mol, J. M., Botzen, W. J. W., Blasch, J. E. & de Moel, H. Insights into Flood Risk Misperceptions of Homeowners in the Dutch River Delta. Risk Analysis 40 , 1450–1468 (2020). Bradford, R. A. et al. Risk perception – issues for flood management in Europe. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 12 , 2299–2309 (2012). de Bruijn, K. M. et al. Flood risk management through a resilience lens. Commun Earth Environ 3 , 285 (2022). O’Neill Eoin, Brereton, F., Shahumyan, H. & Clinch, J. P. The Impact of Perceived Flood Exposure on Flood-Risk Perception: The Role of Distance. Risk Anal. 36 , (2016). Dhar, T., Bornstein, L., Lizarralde, G. & Nazimuddin, S. M. Risk perception—A lens for understanding adaptive behaviour in the age of climate change? Narratives from the Global South. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 95 , 103886 (2023). Siegrist, M. & Árvai, J. Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research. Risk Analysis 40 , 2191–2206 (2020). Savari, M., Jafari, A. & Sheheytavi, A. Determining factors affecting flood risk perception among local communities in Iran. Sci Rep 15 , 4076 (2025). Chen, J., Chen, W. & Huang, G. Assessing urban pluvial flood resilience based on a novel grid-based quantification method that considers human risk perceptions. J Hydrol (Amst) 601 , 126601 (2021). Elum, Z. A. & Lawal, O. Flood risk perception, disaster preparedness and response in flood-prone urban communities of Rivers State. Jamba 14 , 1303 (2022). Stats NZ. Place and ethnic group summaries Mount Eden. https://tools.summaries.stats.govt.nz/places/SA3/mount-eden (2025). Stats NZ. Place and ethnic group summaries New Lynn. https://tools.summaries.stats.govt.nz/places/SA3/new-lynn (2025). Bodoque, J. M. et al. Improvement of resilience of urban areas by integrating social perception in flash-flood risk management. J Hydrol (Amst) 541 , 665–676 (2016). Chowdhooree, I., Sloan, M. & Dawes, L. Community perceptions of flood resilience as represented in cognitive maps. J Flood Risk Manag 12 , e12478 (2019). Mehryar, S. & Surminski, S. Investigating flood resilience perceptions and supporting collective decision-making through fuzzy cognitive mapping. Science of The Total Environment 837 , 155854 (2022). Wachinger, G., Renn, O., Begg, C. & Kuhlicke, C. The Risk Perception Paradox—Implications for Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards. Risk Analysis 33 , 1049–1065 (2013). Terpstra, T. Emotions, Trust, and Perceived Risk: Affective and Cognitive Routes to Flood Preparedness Behavior. Risk Analysis 31 , 1658–1675 (2011). Ribeiro, P. J. G. & Pena Jardim Gonçalves, L. A. Urban resilience: A conceptual framework. Sustain Cities Soc 50 , 101625 (2019). United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR). Sendai Framework Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction, Definition: Resilience. (2017). Bubeck, P., Botzen, W. J. W., Kreibich, H. & Aerts, J. C. J. H. Detailed insights into the influence of flood-coping appraisals on mitigation behaviour. Global Environmental Change 23 , 1327–1338 (2013). Yoav, B. & Yosef, H. Controlling the False Discovery Rate: a Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: series B (Methodological) 57 , 289–300 (1995). Hagberg, A., Swart, P. J. & Schult, D. A. Exploring network structure, dynamics, and function using NetworkX. in (United States, 2008). Shannon, P. et al. Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks. Genome Res 13 , 2498–2504 (2003). Braun, V. & and Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3 , 77–101 (2006). Maher, Carmel, Hadfield, Mark, Hutchings, Maggie & de Eyto, Adam. Ensuring Rigor in Qualitative Data Analysis: A Design Research Approach to Coding Combining NVivo With Traditional Material Methods. Int J Qual Methods 17 , 1609406918786362 (2018). Additional Declarations There is NO Competing Interest. Supplementary Files SupplementaryTables.xlsx Supplementary Data Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {\"props\":{\"pageProps\":{\"initialData\":{\"identity\":\"rs-7547469\",\"acceptedTermsAndConditions\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":true,\"archivedVersions\":[],\"articleType\":\"Article\",\"associatedPublications\":[],\"authors\":[{\"id\":510997281,\"identity\":\"b2261416-fc92-4863-b2c4-61e6c6fb6a8f\",\"order_by\":0,\"name\":\"Stacy Vallis\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8449-5260\",\"institution\":\"Auckland University of Technology\",\"correspondingAuthor\":true,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Stacy\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Vallis\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":510997282,\"identity\":\"d0609ddf-3e04-4cb2-8a8d-ea6325d543f2\",\"order_by\":1,\"name\":\"Imelda Piri\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Auckland University of Technology\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Imelda\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Piri\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":510997283,\"identity\":\"b2a1760a-a019-48c1-88a1-6e8a554bf377\",\"order_by\":2,\"name\":\"Andrew Burgess\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Auckland University of Technology\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Andrew\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Burgess\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":510997284,\"identity\":\"cba67768-457a-45a9-b5aa-1fbe47483d0a\",\"order_by\":3,\"name\":\"Priscila Besen\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Auckland University of Technology\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Priscila\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Besen\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":510997285,\"identity\":\"1f0a6222-25f7-41db-8949-69184abc5176\",\"order_by\":4,\"name\":\"Ann Morrison\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Auckland University of Technology\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Ann\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Morrison\",\"suffix\":\"\"}],\"badges\":[],\"createdAt\":\"2025-09-06 00:20:07\",\"currentVersionCode\":1,\"declarations\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7547469/v1\",\"doiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7547469/v1\",\"draftVersion\":[],\"editorialEvents\":[],\"editorialNote\":\"\",\"failedWorkflow\":false,\"files\":[{\"id\":90964801,\"identity\":\"dda1764f-e44d-43a9-81d2-37874e7d93b6\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-09-10 06:09:14\",\"extension\":\"jpeg\",\"order_by\":1,\"title\":\"Figure 1\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":572715,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eContextual mapping of flood prone survey area in Auckland, New Zealand. Mapping regions are (a) Auckland Isthmus, and the two survey neighbourhoods, (b) New Lynn, and (c) Mount Eden. Flood prone regions are annotated with blue shading with Flood plain and Flood prone areas coloured dark blue and light blue respectively. Dotted red outlined areas represent survey boundaries. Flooding data from the Auckland Council Open Data, last updated 2025.\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"image1.jpeg\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7547469/v1/8eb0ac04848e8ad771180f84.jpeg\"},{\"id\":90964800,\"identity\":\"7bbe6852-9472-40fe-a7f3-70d65da858ae\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-09-10 06:09:14\",\"extension\":\"jpeg\",\"order_by\":2,\"title\":\"Figure 2\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":149956,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eSignificant relationships between survey question responses. Network nodes are survey questions and edges are monotonic significant associations between them pairwise (Kruskal-Wallis, chi-squared, or Spearman, q\\u0026lt;0.05). Shorthand questions are presented, and full question are available in supplementary data.\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"image2.jpeg\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7547469/v1/dc00d811199650ea1973d846.jpeg\"},{\"id\":90964803,\"identity\":\"0d0fec13-fcf2-4373-8bb1-a6663b9876b3\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-09-10 06:09:14\",\"extension\":\"jpeg\",\"order_by\":3,\"title\":\"Figure 3\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":350519,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003ePerception of neighbourhood flood resilience is strongly associated with FRP factors. (a) Bar plot of significance of survey questions with neighbourhood flood resilience (Q13) adjusted for false discovery rate (FDR). Numeric-numeric comparisons were measured using Spearman correlation and bars coloured blue. Numeric-categorical comparison were measured using Kruskal-Wallis and bars coloured green. Vertical grey line represents significance (q\\u0026lt;0.05). Scatter plot with fitted linear regression line between flood resilience (Q13) and Q3, Q1, and Q7 shown in b, c, and e respectively. Points represent individual observations. The solid line denotes the ordinary least squares (OLS) regression fit, and the shaded area indicates the 95% confidence interval. Boxplot showing the distribution of flood resilience (Q13) across Q10, Q9, and Q8 shown in d, f, and g respectively. Each box represents the interquartile range (IQR) with the line inside indicating the median. Whiskers extend to 1.5 times the IQR and points represent individual observations.\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"image3.jpeg\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7547469/v1/ed4812435286bc79235fd705.jpeg\"},{\"id\":91529486,\"identity\":\"df4dd17e-cdfc-485a-b1cf-51c53795ed39\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-09-17 11:39:06\",\"extension\":\"pdf\",\"order_by\":0,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"manuscript-pdf\",\"size\":1989497,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"manuscript.pdf\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7547469/v1/d47d84a3-9ec4-4ee8-a02e-7e0794d650e8.pdf\"},{\"id\":90964799,\"identity\":\"add1331f-1ebd-4827-bcc1-93b8c8ae33a4\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-09-10 06:09:13\",\"extension\":\"xlsx\",\"order_by\":1,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"supplement\",\"size\":40112,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"Supplementary Data\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"SupplementaryTables.xlsx\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7547469/v1/116c586622c51524bef6efdf.xlsx\"}],\"financialInterests\":\"There is \\u003cb\\u003eNO\\u003c/b\\u003e Competing Interest.\",\"formattedTitle\":\"Connecting perceived flood risk and resilience in Auckland, New Zealand\",\"fulltext\":[{\"header\":\"Introduction\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eUrban neighbourhoods worldwide continue to face multiple risks exacerbated by climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) outlines risk as “the potential for adverse consequences for human or ecological systems…[and] results from dynamic interactions between climate-related hazards with the exposure and vulnerability of the affected human or ecological system”.\\u003csup\\u003e1\\u003c/sup\\u003e In comparison, resilience is defined as “the capacity of interconnected social, economic and ecological systems to cope with a hazardous event, trend or disturbance, responding or reorganizing in ways that maintain their essential function, identity and structure. Resilience is a positive attribute when it maintains capacity for adaptation, learning and/or transformation.”\\u003csup\\u003e1\\u003c/sup\\u003e Recent research conducted by the IPCC and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) observe changes in atmospheric extremes including tropical cyclones and heavy precipitation where variations to the global hydrological cycle are attributed to climate change. These changes are disproportionately felt by vulnerable groups, where the increased risk to urban populations is ascribed to greater urbanisation and settlement in floodplains.\\u003csup\\u003e2–6\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/sup\\u003eIn response, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 11 promotes the enhancement of inclusion, safety, resilience, and sustainability for cities and human settlements.\\u003csup\\u003e7\\u003c/sup\\u003e Seminal guidelines including the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015), the Hyogo Framework for Action, and 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development collectively advocate for the reduction of risk of disasters that underpins sustainable development.\\u003csup\\u003e8–10\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eHistorical records demonstrate that earthquakes, flood, and fire have shaped the national story of New Zealand since the colonial era.\\u003csup\\u003e11\\u003c/sup\\u003e Although the damage incurred by earthquakes garnered national and global attention in recent years, the risk posed by flooding has resulted in major impacts for urban communities across the country. The Auckland Anniversary Weekend floods and Cyclone Gabrielle that occurred in February 2023 wreaked destruction across the country’s North Island including Auckland. Heavy rainfall, wind, and flooding following the preceding Auckland Anniversary Weekend flood led to the declaration of a national state of emergency.\\u003csup\\u003e12\\u003c/sup\\u003e Reports by the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission identify the January 2023 Auckland Anniversary weekend storm as an extreme rainfall event and highlight critical linkages between stormwater management and land-use planning, noting interdependencies between water, telecommunications, waste, and transport infrastructure networks that contribute to resilience.\\u003csup\\u003e13 \\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/sup\\u003eThe city received 160 mm of rain in six hours and approximately 245mm of rainfall in 24 hours, exceeding the previous 24-hour rainfall record of 161 mm set in 1985. Four deaths occurred as a result of the storm and flooding, while thousands of homes were damaged from flooding and landslides. \\u0026nbsp;The Auckland Flood Response Review (2023) outlines the immediate aftermath of the flood that saw major transport and infrastructure disruption, mass evacuation, and loss of life and property.\\u003csup\\u003e14\\u003c/sup\\u003e The report highlights broad challenges in managing extreme weather patterns, particularly that advance warnings of prospective flash flooding may only be provided a few hours or minutes before the event, while variation in local geology and scale of urban development results in greater presence of soils with limited natural storage capacity and impervious surfaces. Commonly, vulnerable communities are unable to cover the costs of their own flood protection measures, while experiencing a more frequent combination of climate change weather patterns. More centralised emergency planning and localised implementation is needed, focusing on flood and superstorm events to enhance community safety.\\u003csup\\u003e14\\u003c/sup\\u003e The city of Auckland is the country’s most populous centre, with approximately 1,571,718 people (2018), and is situated on an isthmus between the Waitemata Harbour and the Manukau Harbour, in the North Island of New Zealand (\\u003cstrong\\u003eFigure 1\\u003c/strong\\u003e).\\u003csup\\u003e15\\u003c/sup\\u003e Mount Eden and New Lynn are residential suburbs within the Territorial Authority of Auckland. Both suburbs were impacted by the Auckland Anniversary Floods in 2023 and contain flood risk zones.\\u003csup\\u003e16,17\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThis study employed an anonymous survey questionnaire to investigate: (i) interconnections between flood risk perception (FRP) and perceived neighbourhood flood resilience for residential neighbourhoods in Auckland New Zealand following the 2023 Auckland Anniversary Weekend floods, and (ii) needs and expectations of residential communities for enhancing neighbourhood flood resilience. Earlier studies investigating the factors underpinning community flood risk perception acknowledge that FRP does not necessarily reflect true flood risk.\\u003csup\\u003e18,19\\u003c/sup\\u003e Flood risk perception is commonly defined as “assessment of the probability of hazard and the probability of the results (most often – the negative consequences” as perceived by communities and constitutes a vital element of flood risk management (FRM).\\u0026nbsp;\\u003csup\\u003e18,20\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u0026nbsp; While environmental phenomena influence flood events, human perception is strongly shaped by age, flooding frequency, distance to flood source, availability of flood risk information, and financial provisions.\\u003csup\\u003e19,21–23\\u003c/sup\\u003e These findings draw attention to the ineffectiveness of solely focusing on structural measures (e.g. flood walls, embankments) that can result in maladaptation, whereas non-structural measures based on public participation are urgently required. Understanding flood risk perception is important to address common misconceptions, whereas resilience perception can reveal risk tolerance and willingness to pay for risk reduction.\\u003csup\\u003e24,25\\u003c/sup\\u003e Investigating the linkages between perceived risk and resilience can reveal the role of sociocultural and demographic factors to ultimately inform targeted and context-specific decision-making.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Results\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eTwo of the most severely impacted neighbourhoods were New Lynn and Mount Eden. A total of 2,500 survey invitations were distributed across both neighbourhoods, with 1,500 survey invitations in New Lynn and 1,000 survey invitations in Mount Eden. The survey contained questions that relate to their personal flood risk perception, neighbourhood resilience, and common confounding variables \\u003cstrong\\u003e(Table S1)\\u003c/strong\\u003e. Mailbox distribution of survey invitations was supported by advertisement on the Community Waitakere Facebook page and posters in local businesses. The survey yielded a response rate of 4.0% in New Lynn and 7.3% in Mount Eden, with an overall response rate of 5.3%. A total of 40 out of 133 responses (30.1%) were excluded from the survey where no age range or zone was selected in the survey responses as per the exclusion criteria. The majority (54.84%) of respondents out of 93 were in the 35-54 age range, and the survey respondents were not biased by the respondents’ identified gender (proportion test, effect size, p-value), with respondents identifying as male (n=36), female (n=47), and another gender (n=2) \\u003cstrong\\u003e(\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eTable 1\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e)\\u003c/strong\\u003e. Of the respondents, there were New Zealand European (69.89%), Asian (4.30%), Māori (2.15%), Pacific (1.08%), and Other (15.05%). Most respondents reported owning their home (63.4%) and living in a detached dwelling (75.3%). The average household size was 3.03 individuals (± 1.16 SD). Across both neighbourhoods, 72.0% of respondents (67/93) reported experiencing or observing flood-related damage to their own property, neighbouring homes, or nearby community infrastructure (e.g. shops, community centres).\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eWhen asked about the participants’ FRP, on a scale of 1-10, perception of safety on average was 6.37 ± 2.97, while the average reported neighbourhood flood resilience was 4.92, ± 2.64. A total of 27/93 (29.0%) of respondents reported feeling ‘partly worried’ about rainfall and potential future neighbourhood flooding, while 14/93 (15.1%) reported feeling ‘very worried’, and 25/92 (26.9%) reported feeling ‘not worried’.\\u0026nbsp;Significant associations between FRP and perceived neighbourhood resilience arose through perceived safety from flooding, rainfall worry, reported levels of trust in local government authorities to manage flooding, distance from flooding source, perceived sufficiency of emergency flooding response, and residents reporting providing or receiving assistance during flooding.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eTable\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e1\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e:\\u003c/strong\\u003e Summary statisticsof survey responses (n=93)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ctable border=\\\"0\\\" cellspacing=\\\"0\\\" cellpadding=\\\"0\\\" width=\\\"635\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003ctbody\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eQuestion\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eResponse\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eCount/Percentage of Total Sample\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eWhat were the causes of the Auckland Anniversary Weekend flooding in 2023? - Selected Choice\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eUnanswered\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e8/93 (8.6%)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eHeavy rainfall\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e83/93 (89.2%)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eOther (please specify)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e62/93 (66.7%)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eBuilding on floodplains\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e63/93 (67.7%)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eOverflowing waterways\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e67/93 (72.0%)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eDid you make, or are you planning to make any changes to your home after the Auckland Anniversary Weekend floods in 2023? Please indicate if applicable: - Selected Choice\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eUnanswered\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e34/93 (36.6%)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eClearing rain gutters\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e31/93 (33.3%)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eReducing paved areas/impermeable surfaces\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e7/93 (7.5%)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eOther (please specify):\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e34/93 (36.6%)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eAdding stormwater tanks\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e6/93 (6.5%)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eWhat is your age range?\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e18-34\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e15/93 (16.13)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e35-54\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e51/93 (54.84)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e55-74\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e24/93 (25.81)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e75-84\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e3/93 (3.23)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eWas your property, neighbouring properties or nearby community facilities (e.g. shops, community centre) affected by the Auckland Anniversary Weekend floods in 2023?\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eYes\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e67/93 (72.04)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eNo\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e18/93 (19.35)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eUnsure\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e7/93 (7.53)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eUnanswered\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1/93 (1.08)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eDid you assist friends or neighbours in recent flooding, or were you assisted by friends of neighbours?\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eYes\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e41/93 (44.09)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eNo\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e46/93 (49.46)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eUnsure\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1/93 (1.08)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eUnanswered\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e5/93 (5.38)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eIn your opinion, was there a sufficient emergency flooding response in your neighbourhood?\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eYes\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e28/93 (30.11)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eNo\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e36/93 (38.71)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eUnsure\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e25/93 (26.88)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eUnanswered\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e4/93 (4.30)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eHow worried do you feel about rainfall and any potential future flooding in your neighbourhood?\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eNot Worried\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e25/93 (26.88)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003ePartly Worried\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e27/93 (29.03)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eWorried\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e21/93 (22.58)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eVery Worried\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e14/93 (15.05)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eUnanswered\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e6/93 (6.45)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eHow urgent do you think government organisations perceive flood risk in your neighbourhood?\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eNot Urgent\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e41/93 (44.09)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eSomewhat urgent\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e31/93 (33.33)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eModerately Urgent\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e12/93 (12.90)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eVery urgent\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e3/93 (3.23)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eUnanswered\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e6/93 (6.45)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eAre you aware of any digital tools or technologies that are used to monitor, record or respond to flood risk in your neighbourhood?\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eYes\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e22/93 (23.66)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eNo\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e63/93 (67.74)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eUnsure\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2/93 (2.15)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eUnanswered\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e6/93 (6.45)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eHave you previously tried to access to information on flood risk in your neighbourhood?\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eYes\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e48/93 (51.61)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eNo\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e39/93 (41.94)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eUnanswered\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e6/93 (6.45)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eWhich of the following gender categories best describes how you self-identify?\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eMale/Tāne\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e36/93 (38.71)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eFemale/Wahine\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e47/93 (50.54)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eAnother Gender/ He ira kē anō\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2/93 (2.15)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eUnanswered\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e8/93 (8.60)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eWhat is your ethnicity? - Selected Choice\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eNew Zealand European\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e65/93 (69.89)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eMāori\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2/93 (2.15)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003ePacific\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1/93 (1.08)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eAsian\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e4/93 (4.30)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eOther (Please state)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e14/93 (15.05)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eUnanswered\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e7/93 (7.53)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eWhat kind of home do you live in?\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eA (e.g. Apartment)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e3/93 (3.23)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eB (e.g. Row/Terrace home)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e13/93 (13.98)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eC (e.g. Detached house)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e70/93 (75.27)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eUnanswered\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e7/93 (7.53)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eDo you live on the ground floor or higher?\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eUnsure\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2/93 (2.15)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eGround Floor\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e71/93 (76.34)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eHigher than Ground Floor\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e12/93 (12.90)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eUnanswered\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e8/93 (8.60)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eWhat is your residential status? - Selected Choice\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eHomeowner\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e59/93 (63.44)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eRenter\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e18/93 (19.35)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eFamily Home\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e8/93 (8.60)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eUnanswered\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e8/93 (8.60)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eHow long have you lived at your current residence?\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eLess than 1 year\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2/93 (2.15)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1-5 years\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e29/93 (31.18)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e6-10 years\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e14/93 (15.05)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e11-15 years\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e10/93 (10.75)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e16-20 years\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e9/93 (9.68)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e20 years+\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e22/93 (23.66)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eUnanswered\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e7/93 (7.53)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eSite\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eNew Lynn\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e38/93 (40.86)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eMount Eden\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e55/93 (59.14)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eOn a scale of 1-10, how safe do you feel from the risk of flooding in your neighbourhood (with 1 being least safe and 10 being very safe)?\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eMean (SD)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e6.37 (2.97)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eWhat is the approximate distance between your residence and the source of the flooding (with 1 being close and 5 being far?)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eMean (SD)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2.20 (1.14)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eOn a scale of 1-10, how much do you trust local authorities and emergency management organisations to mitigate flood risk (1 being low trust and 10 being high trust).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eMean (SD)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e3.93 (2.22)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eHow would you rank your neighbourhood flood resilience (1 being Low Resilience and 10 being High Resilience)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eMean (SD)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e4.92 (2.64)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eHow many people live in your household (including you)?\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eMean (SD)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e3.03 (1.16)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tbody\\u003e\\n\\u003c/table\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eTo identify the relationships between responses within the survey, we employed a network analysis approach where each node represents one of the 18 quantitative survey questions and each edge represents a significant relationship between the survey question responses (Chi-squared, Spearman, and Kruskall-Wallis tests for categorical-categorical, numeric-numeric, and numeric-categorical associations respectively) \\u003cstrong\\u003e(\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eFigure 2\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e, Table S2)\\u003c/strong\\u003e. Of the 210 pairwise comparisons between the twenty-one survey quantitative questions that had categorical or numeric format answers and one site variable (New Lynn or Mount Eden), there were thirty-four significant relationships (\\u003cstrong\\u003eFigure 2\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e, Table S2)\\u003c/strong\\u003e.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eTwo response groups emerged from the network. A cluster containing factors such as Age (Q1), Gender (Q13), Number of People in Household (Q25) or Type of Home (Q22) was named the ‘Demographic cluster’. The second cluster was highly interconnected and contained factors that were flooding resilience, named the ‘Resilience cluster’. Amongst nodes in the Resilience Cluster are Neighbourhood Flood Resilience (Q13) with Flooding Assistance (Q8), Rainfall Worry (Q10), Flood Risk (Q3), Perceived Sufficient Neighbourhood Flood Response (Q9), Distance from Flooding Source (Q7), followed by Trust in Local Authorities to Manage Flooding (Q12). Experiencing impacts of past flooding is associated with Flooding Assistance (Q8), Rainfall Worry (Q10), and Flood Risk (Q3). Awareness of Digital Technologies for Reporting, Responding to Flood Risk (Q14) is associated with Flooding Assistance Q8) (Cramer’s V= 0.52, Chi squared p \\u0026lt; 1.47E-9). Interestingly, there was no significance found between perceived neighbourhood resilience and type of dwelling (Q22), time lived at residence (Q26), residential status (Q24), age (Q1) or gender (Q18).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eWe next sought to investigate the relationships within the Resilience cluster between FRP factors and perceived Neighbourhood flood resilience \\u003cstrong\\u003e(Figure 3)\\u003c/strong\\u003e. Perceived neighbourhood flood resilience had the second highest number of connections, or degree (\\u003cem\\u003en\\u003c/em\\u003e = 6), of any question revealing its collinearity with many individual survey question responses.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eIn order of significance, these relationships with perceived neighbourhood flood resilience included perceived safety from flooding (Spearman rho=0.75, 1.32E-16), trust in local authorities to manage flooding (Spearman rho=0.64, 2.40E-11), rainfall worry (Kruskall-Walls, p=2.85E-09), distance from flooding source (Spearman rho=0.49, 7.50E-5), perceived sufficiency in flooding response (Kruskall-Wallis, p=4.32E-4), provided or received assistance during flooding (Kruskall-Wallis, p=4.6E-3).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eSurvey participant observations indicate flood impacts and damage occurring on residential properties and affecting whole neighbourhoods including disruption to arterial streets, roads, and to local businesses \\u003cstrong\\u003e(\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eTable 2\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e)\\u003c/strong\\u003e. Direct quotes encapsulating these impacts included: “Houses down the road from us were completely flooded out and needed full renovations”, and “Neighbours, school and nearby shops were flooded with water soaking belongings and requiring repairs.” Participants report no planned or pending actions following flooding, due to existing compliance with local government flood risk management strategies, in addition to cost, renter status, and no flood damage. Recommendations for neighbourhood flood risk preparedness ranged from specific or individual property interventions to neighbourhood scale actions \\u003cstrong\\u003e(\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eTable 2\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e)\\u003c/strong\\u003e. Neighbourhood improvement and maintenance measures were identified, while penalties for non-compliant residential development were suggested to improve neighbourhood flood preparedness. The uneven impacts of flooding were highlighted, including emotional trauma as a result of significant impact on some residents and resident concerns regarding the affordability of emergency supplies. Current residents across both neighbourhoods acknowledged surrounding landscape and geology as consideration for flood mitigation, together with potential impacts from prospective high-density housing developments and the consequential loss of green spaces.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eOf 93 survey responses, 48/93 (51.61%) recorded ‘Yes’ to having previously accessed information on neighbourhood flood risk, while 39/93 (41.94%) recorded ‘No’, and 6/93 (6.45%) did not provide a response \\u003cstrong\\u003e(\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eTable 1\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e)\\u003c/strong\\u003e. \\u0026nbsp;Of those respondents who reported previous attempts at accessing this information, a variety of information sources are included (\\u003cstrong\\u003eTable 2\\u003c/strong\\u003e). Government organisations (local and national) constituted a common source of information, where commonly consulted resources were existing residential property records and the Auckland Council Flood Viewer tool. Historical records, word of mouth, and media (including web searchers, news and social media channels) were also cited as sources of information for neighbourhood flood risk. Advice was also sought from building industry professionals and international companies. \\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eTable\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e2\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003e: Thematic coding for open-ended responses\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ctable border=\\\"0\\\" cellspacing=\\\"0\\\" cellpadding=\\\"0\\\" width=\\\"602\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003ctbody\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eQuestion number\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eQuestion\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eResponse code\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eFrequency\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd rowspan=\\\"12\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eQ17:\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd rowspan=\\\"12\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eIn the context of “Question 16: Have you previously tried to access to information on flood risk in your neighbourhood?”, “If you responded yes to the previous question, please indicate where you may access information on flood risk in Auckland?”\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eProperty File Documents E.g. Land Information Memorandum\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e7/93\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eLocal Government Website including GIS and Flood Risk Viewer\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e26/93\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eGeneral Web Sources\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e3/93\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eWord of Mouth\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1/93\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eLocal Government\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e4/93\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eGeneral Flood Maps\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e3/93\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eNational Sources E.g. Civil Defence or Natural Hazards Commission\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e5/93\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eInternational Companies\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1/93\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eHistorical Record\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1/93\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eMedia including News and Social Media Channels\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eProfessional Advice\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1/93\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eCommunity Welfare and Support Organisations\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd rowspan=\\\"13\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eQ7:\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd rowspan=\\\"13\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eIn the context of \\\"Question 6: Was your property, neighbouring properties or nearby community facilities (e.g. shops, community centre) affected by the Auckland Anniversary Weekend floods in 2023\\\" , \\\"if you responded yes to the previous question, could you specify the type of damage that has occurred and has this been resolved since the flooding?”\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eGeneral damage to neighbouring properties\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e25/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eGeneral damage to roads and streets\\u0026nbsp;\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e6/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eResidential damage to backyard or front yard\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e9/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eResidential damage to garages\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e9/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eResidential damage to basements\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e6/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eResidential damage to home\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e10/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eDamage to personal belongings\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e5/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eDamage to community facilities e.g. public places or shops or businesses\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e12/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eDrains overflowing\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e6/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eFallen tree\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eDamage Resolved\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e15/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eDamage Unresolved\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eResolution Statues Unclear\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e6/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd rowspan=\\\"22\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eQ22:\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd rowspan=\\\"22\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eIn the context of Question 21: \\\"Did you make, or are you planning to make any changes to your home after the Auckland Anniversary Weekend floods in 2023?” , “Please indicate if applicable: - Other (please specify): - Text”\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eAcquire Pumps\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eAdd Stormwater Tanks\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e3/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eAdding or Amending Planting\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eAlter Boundary Fence\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eClear Drain\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e4/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eClearing Garden\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eClearing Gutters\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e29/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eCommunity Collaboration\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eContacted Local Authority for Assistance\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eDig Water Hole\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eEnsure Sufficient Overland Flow Paths\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eInstall Boundary Fencing\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eInstall Raingarden\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eInstalling New Drainage System\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e3/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eMoving Storage of Household Items\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e4/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eReconsider Planned Renovation\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eReduce Impermeable Surfaces\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e6/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eNo Changes Planned\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e5/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eReplace Household Components or Fixing Damage\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e4/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eUnable to Make Changes\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eStocking Emergency Kit\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eTree Maintenance\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd rowspan=\\\"17\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eQ27\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd rowspan=\\\"17\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e“Are there any improvements that you like to see for improving flood risk preparedness in your neighbourhood? If yes, please give examples\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eBetter management of local waterways\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e4/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eMore considered urban intensification \\u0026nbsp;eg do not build at ground level\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e8/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eCommunity drain clearing and maintenance\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e3/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eFlood mitigation or adaptation measures for vulnerable homes\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eFootpath slops\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eImproved drainage infrastructure eg better rubbish and waste management\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e31/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eMore detention and retention tanks\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eMore information eg current risk assessment or emergency meeting points\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e8/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eMore local neighbourhood interaction and planning\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eMore native planting on berms\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eMore rain gardens or wetland areas\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e3/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eMore soakage pits in streets\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eMore trees and improved tree maintenance\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e4/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003ePenalties for non-compliant development\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eScorer holes\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eLess Concrete\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eStreet maintenance eg sweeping litter and leaves\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd rowspan=\\\"18\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eQ28:\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd rowspan=\\\"18\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e“Is there any additional information you would like to share?”\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eImproved Stormwater Drainage\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e4/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eMore Neighbourhood Planting\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e3/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eMore Research and Dissemination\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eLacking Communication to Residents\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e3/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eInsufficient Planning and Maintenance\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eEmotional Trauma\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eAffordability of Emergency Supplies\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eMore Community Collaboration\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eTrust based on Local Community Effort\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eLocal Geology and Landscape Advantages and Impacts\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e3/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eLacking Public Awareness\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eLacking General Actions\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e6/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eUneven Impacts of Flooding\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e2/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eIndividual Residential Preparedness\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eFlood Risk Interventions Working Well\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eFlood Impacts from High Density Housing and Loss of Green Spaces\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eConsiderations for Potential Residential Property Buyers\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctr\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003eResponsible Recycling and Litter Management\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003ctd valign=\\\"bottom\\\"\\u003e\\n \\u003cp\\u003e1/93\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n \\u003c/td\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tr\\u003e\\n \\u003c/tbody\\u003e\\n\\u003c/table\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Discussion\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eUnderestimating flood risk is a growing challenge for flood risk management.\\u003csup\\u003e20,26\\u003c/sup\\u003e Previous studies identify a need for greater scholarly attention to address associations between perceptions of flood risk and resilience leading to enhanced flood-risk management.\\u003csup\\u003e18,20,27–29\\u003c/sup\\u003e While flood risk perception can indicate willingness to take precautionary actions against external threats based on worry, awareness, and preparedness, resilience encompasses the capacity for recovery and adaptation and comprises a global priority for disaster risk reduction initiatives.\\u003csup\\u003e8,30–34\\u003c/sup\\u003e Investigating perceived risk and perceived resilience can highlight discrepancies between perception and reality, and consequently informs the development and uptake of context-specific risk management policies and communication strategies. Our study offers insights by linking urban residents’ perceived flood risk (or FRP) and perceived resilience, considering cognitive, behavioural, sociocultural or contextual, and geographic mediators using quantitative and qualitative analyses.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThis study presents a sample of responses using cross-sectional survey; hence it is important not to make hasty generalisations about other neighbourhoods and potential changes in FRP over time. Previous research has shown that ambiguities concerning the significance of demographic and geographic factors with FRP can arise, especially concerning gender, age, home ownership, and distance from flooding source, hence cultural contextualisation is important to further understand these relationships.\\u003csup\\u003e20\\u003c/sup\\u003e In the reported study, gender, age, and home ownership did not display significant associations with the perception of resilience (\\u003cstrong\\u003eFigure 3\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003ea\\u003c/strong\\u003e). The sample is majority homeowners (Mount Eden 68.5%, 64.7% New Lynn) as is consistent with 2023 census data, residing in detached dwellings and reporting New Zealand European ethnicity.\\u003csup\\u003e35,36\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003ePerceived Flood Risk and Resilience through the lens of Worry, Awareness, Preparedness\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThere is a need to investigate contextual or sociocultural influences in conjunction with cognitive, behavioural, socioeconomic and demographic, informational, and geographic factors that shape FRP.\\u003csup\\u003e19,20,37–39\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u0026nbsp; To achieve this, we applied network analysis to understand the relationships between all quantitative survey responses associating perceived flood risk with perceived resilience (\\u003cstrong\\u003eFigure 2\\u003c/strong\\u003e). The resulting network revealed two distinct clusters, one capturing perceived resilience-related factors (resilience perception cluster), and the other comprising demographic characteristics. From the risk perception cluster classified, we employed a qualitative analysis of the text-based responses to the survey questions 7,17, 22, 27, 28.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eOur analysis reveals that the central node (i.e. perceived neighbourhood resilience) is linked to six other nodes. These nodes are ranked based on their significant relationships with the central node, in the following order by significance: perception of safety from flooding (Q3), trust in local authorities to manage flooding (Q12), rainfall worry (Q10), distance from flooding source (Q7), perceived sufficiency in flooding response (Q9), provided or received assistance during flooding (Q8) (\\u003cstrong\\u003eFigure 3\\u003c/strong\\u003e). Both selected study areas experienced flooding during the Auckland Anniversary Weekend floods in 2023, and a majority of survey respondents (67/93, 72.04%) reported impacts to their properties, neighbouring properties or community facilities (\\u003cstrong\\u003eTable 1\\u003c/strong\\u003e). This finding aligns with existing literature where perceptions of safety from flooding and rainfall worry informing FRP are also highly likely to shape perceptions of neighbourhood flood resilience, where past experiences of flooding strongly contribute.\\u003csup\\u003e18,40,41\\u003c/sup\\u003e Sociocultural influences such as trust in local authorities and emergency management services, providing or receiving assistance during flooding, and residents’ perceived sufficiency of emergency flooding response that traditionally define FRP, also here connect FRP with perceived neighbourhood flood resilience. Sociocultural factors such as social ties with people, communications networks, level of trust in local authorities, and public protection mechanisms moderate FRP.\\u003csup\\u003e18,20\\u003c/sup\\u003e This effect is evident through previous studies where trust in local authorities is shown to be significant where there is low individual knowledge levels of the flood threat. \\u003csup\\u003e40\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe survey sought to investigate relationships between worry levels with informational factors such as awareness of flooding causes, previous access to flood risk information, and awareness of digital tools for managing flood risk (e.g. considering digital tools for monitoring, recording or responding to flooding). Our study found a significant connection between perceived neighbourhood flood resilience and trust in local authorities and emergency management organisations to mitigate flood risks (Q12). A more indirect relationship is observed between awareness of digital tools for recording and responding to flood risk and perceived flood resilience. Only half of the respondents reported previously attempted to access information on neighbourhood flood risk (48/93, 51.61%) and the majority were unaware of digital tools or technologies used to monitor, record, or respond to neighbourhood flood risk (63/93, 67.74%) (\\u003cstrong\\u003eTable 1\\u003c/strong\\u003e). However, respondents reported use of the local government geospatial maps and flood risk viewer tool to understand local flood risk, indicated in the open-ended Question 17 (\\u003cstrong\\u003eTable 2\\u003c/strong\\u003e).\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eWe have shown that perceived resilience was associated with six FRP factors ordered by significance: perceived safety, trust in local authorities, rainfall worry, distance from flooding, perceived sufficiency in emergency flooding response (\\u003cstrong\\u003eFigure 3\\u003c/strong\\u003e). As expected, perceived neighbourhood flood resilience (Q13) was positively associated with perceived safety from flooding (Q3)(Spearman, rho=0.745, p=1.32E-16). Positive associations are also evident between the former factor and reported levels of trust in local authorities to manage flooding (Q12) (Spearman, rho=0.64, 2.40E-11), and with perceived sufficiency in flooding response (Q9) (Kruskall-Wallis, H=2.74, 4.3E-4). Reported distance from flooding source (Q7) also generated a positive association with perceived neighbourhood flood resilience (Q13) (Spearman, rho=0.49, 7.49521E-05). In comparison, there are negative associations between perceived neighbourhood resilience (Q13) and reported rainfall worry (Q10) (Kruskall-Wallis, H=3.75, 2.86E-09), as well as between responses reporting providing or receiving assistance from neighbours during flooding (Q8) and perceived neighbourhood resilience (Q13) (Kruskall-Wallis, H=2.38, 4.6E-3).\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003ePolicy Implications\\u003c/em\\u003e of \\u003cem\\u003ePerceived FRP and Resilience\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe urban resilience framework is conceived using five pillars: natural, economic, social, physical, and institutional resilience.\\u003csup\\u003e42\\u003c/sup\\u003e Acknowledging the multifaceted nature of resilience encompassing adaptation, transformation, and recovery, a deeper understanding of FRP factors shaping perceived resilience can inform more aligned, context-specific, and equitable policy development and implementation.\\u003csup\\u003e1,42–44\\u003c/sup\\u003e Our findings support a need for greater\\u0026nbsp;dialogue between residents and local authorities, for example relating to emergency meeting points or easily accessible, up-to-date guidance for flood risk management. For neighbourhood residents, greater dialogue can further moderate current levels of perceived safety from flooding, rainfall anxiety, and perceived sufficiency of emergency flooding response, in keeping with the realities of the current flood risk. Closely aligning levels of real flood risk and resilience and perceived flood risk and resilience enriches public awareness of environmental realities, prompting willingness to act to prepare for, and during potential future recovery scenarios, followed by participation in adaptation efforts. Improved and more sustainable emergency resource allocation and management can also arise as a result of managing public expectation and reliance on local authorities during future flooding.\\u003csup\\u003e7\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThis study investigated the interconnections between perceived flood risk and resilience for residential neighbourhoods in Auckland New Zealand, following the 2023 Auckland Anniversary Weekend floods. Specific emphasis was placed on understanding the needs and expectations of residential communities for enhancing neighbourhood flood resilience. Both quantitative and qualitative data analysis were employed to investigate the sociospatial implications emerging from the intersection of perceived flood risk and resilience within the selected residential suburbs in Auckland, New Zealand. Key findings include: (i) many associations were monotonically connected between perceived flood risk and resilience, specifically perception of safety from flooding, trust in local authorities, rainfall worry, distance from flooding source, perceived sufficiency in emergency flooding response, and provision of assistance during flooding; (ii) we characterised a flood risk and resilience perception cluster containing a combination of cognitive, behavioural, socioeconomic, demographic, and geographic factors (iii) Demographic factors such as gender, age, residential status, dwelling type were not found to be significant. Understanding these variable factors can drive the development of relevant public initiatives to address existing misconceptions regarding flood resilience and resilience of vulnerable residential suburbs. Future research could include developing and administering longitudinal surveys prior and following flooding events in neighbourhoods across different regions. Additionally, a survey of decision-makers and neighbourhood stakeholders such as local authorities, emergency response teams, and community organisations would be valuable to compare with the needs and expectations expressed by neighbourhood residents\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Methods\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eWe employed online survey questionnaire to gather primary data on perceived floor risk and resilience across the selected study areas. To analyse the study’s contextual and sociospatial dimensions, the strategies for data analysis entailed quantitative and qualitative data analysis methods.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eSurvey Design\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe study was designed as a cross-sectional survey, targeting two flood-prone suburbs in Auckland, namely Mount Eden and New Lynn. Survey invitations were distributed by mailbox drop to the residents and contained a QR-code link to the online questionnaire. Community organisations were also contacted and assisted in the circulation of survey invitations via social media pages. Study areas within the residential suburbs were selected based on: (i) previous impact from Cyclone Gabrielle and the Auckland Anniversary floods in 2023 (ii) identified as currently facing flood hazard using flood hazard maps; and (iii) containing residential dwellings in urban areas of Auckland. Exclusion criteria for participants were age (i.e. participants were required to be 18 years of age and over to participate in the online survey).\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eSurveys were administered online through the Qualtrics platform (Qualtrics: 03, 2024, 2025). Survey questions were designed to evaluate the interrelationships between cognitive, socioeconomic and demographic, geographic, informational, and contextual factors, using themes of: themes of: past experiences (e.g. occurrence of flooding, emergency response and support), future flood risk (e.g. perception of safety from flood risk, awareness of publicly available information for flood preparedness), recommended improvements for enhancing flood risk response and resilience, in addition to demographic data (e.g. gender, age, ethnicity, residency status, dwelling type and number of inhabitants). Survey questions offered multiple-choice responses including Likert scale ranking and open-ended response fields to enable qualitative responses. Participants had the opportunity to enter a random prize draw upon completion of the survey.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eSurvey Data Collection\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe survey was distributed to participants during June 2024 and September 2024. Participants were informed of the study purpose using a survey invitation and participation information sheet before commencing the survey. The approximate time required to complete the survey was 15 minutes.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eEthics, Consent, Data Protection\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eEthics approval was received for facilitating simultaneous distribution of invitations for anonymous, online neighbourhood survey questionnaires within two selected neighbourhood suburbs in Auckland, New Zealand. The study was approved by the Auckland University of Technology Ethics Committee (AUTEC) with approval number 24/141.Before commencing the survey, all participants were required to read the participation information sheet where they were informed that survey responses indicated their consent. The participation information sheet included the study aims, methods of data collection, and the right to withdraw at any time without incurring any penalties. The participation information sheet also informed participants that survey responses would remain confidential and anonymous. Survey responses were anonymised before data analysis to protect participant identities.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eStatistics and Reproducibility\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eData analysis and plots were undertaken using Python (version 3.9.19; Python Software Foundation 2025). Summary and descriptive statistics were calculated to evaluate survey responses. To assess the associations between all pairwise combinations of responses, a series of statistical tests were employed, including the Kruskal-Wallis H test was used nominal-numeric comparisons, Cramér’s V was used for nominal-nominal comparisons (with significance determined using the Chi-squared test), and Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (rho) was used for numeric-numeric comparisons. For all tests, significance was defined as a q-value of less than 0.05, with multiple comparisons applied using the Benhamini-Hochberg technique \\u003csup\\u003e45,46\\u003c/sup\\u003e .\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eNetwork Analysis\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eSignificant associations between features described above were explored using a network analysis approach whereby survey questions were represented as nodes with significant associations between them as edges. Networks were saved as graphml format and visualised using Cytoscape 3_10_3 software.\\u003csup\\u003e47\\u003c/sup\\u003e Statistical significance was determined through chi-square tests of independence, using a significance level of 0.05. This threshold ensured that identified relationships were unlikely to have occurred by chance. The combination of correlation strength and statistical significance provided a robust framework for identifying meaningful relationships within the data.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eQualitative Data Analysis of Open-Ended Questions\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eNVivo 15 software was used to analyse responses to analyse five open-ended survey questions.\\u003csup\\u003e48,49\\u003c/sup\\u003e Individual responses to the open-ended survey questions were classified using keyword codes using a grounded theory approach. These codes were subsequently sorted into thematic categories in order to extract commonalities and differences across the survey responses.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e(i) Question 6: “Was your property, neighbouring properties or nearby community facilities (e.g. shops, community centre) affected by the Auckland Anniversary Weekend floods in 2023?” and “if you responded yes to the previous question, could you specify the type of damage that has occurred and has this been resolved since the flooding?”\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e(ii) Question 16: “Have you previously tried to access to information on flood risk in your neighbourhood?” and “If you responded yes to the previous question, please indicate where you may access information on flood risk in Auckland?”\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e(ii) Question 21: Did you make, or are you planning to make any changes to your home after the Auckland Anniversary Weekend floods in 2023?” and “Please indicate if applicable: - Other (please specify): - Text”\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e(iii) Question 27 “Are there any improvements that you like to see for improving flood risk preparedness in your neighbourhood? If yes, please give examples” and;\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e(iv) Question 28 “Is there any additional information you would like to share?”\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Declarations\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eData Availability\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eData is available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eCode Availability\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eAll analysis code is freely available on GitHub at https://github.com/stacyvallis/flood_survey\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eAcknowledgements\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eWe thank the School of Future Environments at Auckland University of Technology and survey participants for supporting this project. This research was funded by the School of Future Environments Contestable Funding Round 2024. We would like to acknowledge Carrig Conservation Limited for their guidance.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eCompeting Interests\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eAuthor Contributions:\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eAll authors conceived and designed the study. S.V., I.P., P.B., and A.M. performed the field research activities. S.V. analysed the data. S.V. and A.B. contributed materials/analysis tools. S.V. wrote the paper, and I.P., P.B., and A.M. reviewed the paper.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"References\",\"content\":\"\\u003col\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eReisinger, A. \\u003cem\\u003eet al.\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cem\\u003eAnnex I: Glossary, Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change\\u003c/em\\u003e. (2023) doi:10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647.002.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eIPCC, Lee, H. \\u0026amp; Romero, J. \\u003cem\\u003eSummary for Policymakers, Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change\\u003c/em\\u003e. (2023).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eTabari, H. Climate change impact on flood and extreme precipitation increases with water availability. \\u003cem\\u003eSci Rep\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e10\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 13768 (2020).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eYu, D. \\u003cem\\u003eet al.\\u003c/em\\u003e Disruption of emergency response to vulnerable populations during floods. \\u003cem\\u003eNat Sustain\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e3\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 728\\u0026ndash;736 (2020).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eWasko, C. \\u003cem\\u003eet al.\\u003c/em\\u003e Incorporating climate change in flood estimation guidance. \\u003cem\\u003ePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e379\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 20190548 (2021).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eTellman, B. \\u003cem\\u003eet al.\\u003c/em\\u003e Satellite imaging reveals increased proportion of population exposed to floods. \\u003cem\\u003eNature\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e596\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 80\\u0026ndash;86 (2021).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eUnited Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 11 Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal11.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eUnited Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR). The Sendai Framework Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. \\u0026lsquo;Disaster risk reduction\\u0026rsquo;. https://www.undrr.org/terminology/disaster-risk-reduction (2017).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eUnited Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR). Hyogo Framework for Action. https://www.preventionweb.net/publication/hyogo-framework-action-2005-2015-building-resilience-nations-and-communities-disasters#downloads (2007).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eUnited Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Sustainable Development. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda (2015).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eManatū Taonga \\u0026mdash; Ministry for Culture and Heritage. New Zealand disasters timeline. https://nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/new-zealand-disasters/timeline (2025).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMinistry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, New Zealand Trade and Enterprise \\u0026amp; Ministry for Primary Industries. \\u003cem\\u003eCyclone Gabrielle\\u0026rsquo;s Impact on the New Zealand Economy and Exports - March 2023\\u003c/em\\u003e. https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/trade/mfat-market-reports/cyclone-gabrielles-impact-on-the-new-zealand-economy-and-exports-march-2023#bookmark6 (2023).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eNew Zealand Infrastructure Commission Te Waihanga. \\u003cem\\u003eThe 2023 Auckland Anniversary Weekend Storm: An Initial Assessment and Implications for the Infrastructure System\\u003c/em\\u003e. https://tewaihanga.govt.nz/our-work/research-insights/the-2023-auckland-anniversary-weekend-storm (2024).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBush International Consulting. \\u003cem\\u003eAuckland Flood Response Review; Independent, External Review of Events, January 27-29, 2023\\u003c/em\\u003e. (2023).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eEncyclopaedia Britannica. Auckland New Zealand. (2025).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eAuckland Council. Auckland Council Flood Viewer. (2025).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eKnox, C. \\u0026amp; Gabel, J. Auckland floods - interactive map: How hard was your suburb hit? \\u003cem\\u003eThe New Zealand Herald\\u003c/em\\u003e (2023).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eLechowska, E. What determines flood risk perception? A review of factors of flood risk perception and relations between its basic elements. \\u003cem\\u003eNatural Hazards\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e94\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 1341\\u0026ndash;1366 (2018).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBirkholz, S., Muro, M., Jeffrey, P. \\u0026amp; Smith, H. M. Rethinking the relationship between flood risk perception and flood management. \\u003cem\\u003eScience of The Total Environment\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e478\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 12\\u0026ndash;20 (2014).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eLechowska, E. Approaches in research on flood risk perception and their importance in flood risk management: a review. \\u003cem\\u003eNatural Hazards\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e111\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 2343\\u0026ndash;2378 (2022).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eAuliagisni, W., Wilkinson, S. \\u0026amp; Elkharboutly, M. E. Flood risk management in New Zealand: A case study of the Northland urban community. in \\u003cem\\u003eIOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci\\u003c/em\\u003e (IOP Publishing Ltd, 2022).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMacquarie University. Flood-threatened communities provide key insights to help reduce future risk. (2023).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBaan, P. J. A. \\u0026amp; and Klijn, F. Flood risk perception and implications for flood risk management in the Netherlands. \\u003cem\\u003eInternational Journal of River Basin Management\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e2\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 113\\u0026ndash;122 (2004).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMehryar, S. \\u0026amp; Surminski, S. Investigating flood resilience perceptions and supporting collective decision-making through fuzzy cognitive mapping. \\u003cem\\u003eScience of The Total Environment\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e837\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 155854 (2022).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eAuliagisni, W., Wilkinson, S. \\u0026amp; Elkharboutly, M. Learning from Floods\\u0026mdash;How a Community Develops Future Resilience. \\u003cem\\u003eWater (Basel)\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e14\\u003c/strong\\u003e, (2022).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMol, J. M., Botzen, W. J. W., Blasch, J. E. \\u0026amp; de Moel, H. Insights into Flood Risk Misperceptions of Homeowners in the Dutch River Delta. \\u003cem\\u003eRisk Analysis\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e40\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 1450\\u0026ndash;1468 (2020).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBradford, R. A. \\u003cem\\u003eet al.\\u003c/em\\u003e Risk perception \\u0026ndash; issues for flood management in Europe. \\u003cem\\u003eNatural Hazards and Earth System Sciences\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e12\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 2299\\u0026ndash;2309 (2012).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003ede Bruijn, K. M. \\u003cem\\u003eet al.\\u003c/em\\u003e Flood risk management through a resilience lens. \\u003cem\\u003eCommun Earth Environ\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e3\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 285 (2022).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eO\\u0026rsquo;Neill Eoin, Brereton, F., Shahumyan, H. \\u0026amp; Clinch, J. P. The Impact of Perceived Flood Exposure on Flood-Risk Perception: The Role of Distance. \\u003cem\\u003eRisk Anal.\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e36\\u003c/strong\\u003e, (2016).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eDhar, T., Bornstein, L., Lizarralde, G. \\u0026amp; Nazimuddin, S. M. Risk perception\\u0026mdash;A lens for understanding adaptive behaviour in the age of climate change? Narratives from the Global South. \\u003cem\\u003eInternational Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e95\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 103886 (2023).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSiegrist, M. \\u0026amp; \\u0026Aacute;rvai, J. Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research. \\u003cem\\u003eRisk Analysis\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e40\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 2191\\u0026ndash;2206 (2020).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSavari, M., Jafari, A. \\u0026amp; Sheheytavi, A. Determining factors affecting flood risk perception among local communities in Iran. \\u003cem\\u003eSci Rep\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e15\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 4076 (2025).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eChen, J., Chen, W. \\u0026amp; Huang, G. Assessing urban pluvial flood resilience based on a novel grid-based quantification method that considers human risk perceptions. \\u003cem\\u003eJ Hydrol (Amst)\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e601\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 126601 (2021).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eElum, Z. A. \\u0026amp; Lawal, O. Flood risk perception, disaster preparedness and response in flood-prone urban communities of Rivers State. \\u003cem\\u003eJamba\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e14\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 1303 (2022).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eStats NZ. Place and ethnic group summaries Mount Eden. https://tools.summaries.stats.govt.nz/places/SA3/mount-eden (2025).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eStats NZ. Place and ethnic group summaries New Lynn. https://tools.summaries.stats.govt.nz/places/SA3/new-lynn (2025).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBodoque, J. M. \\u003cem\\u003eet al.\\u003c/em\\u003e Improvement of resilience of urban areas by integrating social perception in flash-flood risk management. \\u003cem\\u003eJ Hydrol (Amst)\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e541\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 665\\u0026ndash;676 (2016).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eChowdhooree, I., Sloan, M. \\u0026amp; Dawes, L. Community perceptions of flood resilience as represented in cognitive maps. \\u003cem\\u003eJ Flood Risk Manag\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e12\\u003c/strong\\u003e, e12478 (2019).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMehryar, S. \\u0026amp; Surminski, S. Investigating flood resilience perceptions and supporting collective decision-making through fuzzy cognitive mapping. \\u003cem\\u003eScience of The Total Environment\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e837\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 155854 (2022).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eWachinger, G., Renn, O., Begg, C. \\u0026amp; Kuhlicke, C. The Risk Perception Paradox\\u0026mdash;Implications for Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards. \\u003cem\\u003eRisk Analysis\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e33\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 1049\\u0026ndash;1065 (2013).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eTerpstra, T. Emotions, Trust, and Perceived Risk: Affective and Cognitive Routes to Flood Preparedness Behavior. \\u003cem\\u003eRisk Analysis\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e31\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 1658\\u0026ndash;1675 (2011).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eRibeiro, P. J. G. \\u0026amp; Pena Jardim Gon\\u0026ccedil;alves, L. A. Urban resilience: A conceptual framework. \\u003cem\\u003eSustain Cities Soc\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e50\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 101625 (2019).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eUnited Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR). Sendai Framework Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction, Definition: Resilience. (2017).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBubeck, P., Botzen, W. J. W., Kreibich, H. \\u0026amp; Aerts, J. C. J. H. Detailed insights into the influence of flood-coping appraisals on mitigation behaviour. \\u003cem\\u003eGlobal Environmental Change\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e23\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 1327\\u0026ndash;1338 (2013).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eYoav, B. \\u0026amp; Yosef, H. Controlling the False Discovery Rate: a Practical and Powerful\\u0026nbsp; Approach to Multiple Testing. \\u003cem\\u003eJournal of the Royal Statistical Society: series B (Methodological)\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e57\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 289\\u0026ndash;300 (1995).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eHagberg, A., Swart, P. J. \\u0026amp; Schult, D. A. Exploring network structure, dynamics, and function using NetworkX. in (United States, 2008).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eShannon, P. \\u003cem\\u003eet al.\\u003c/em\\u003e Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks. \\u003cem\\u003eGenome Res\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e13\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 2498\\u0026ndash;2504 (2003).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBraun, V. \\u0026amp; and Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. \\u003cem\\u003eQual Res Psychol\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e3\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 77\\u0026ndash;101 (2006).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMaher, \\u0026nbsp;Carmel, Hadfield, \\u0026nbsp;Mark, Hutchings, \\u0026nbsp;Maggie \\u0026amp; de Eyto, \\u0026nbsp;Adam. Ensuring Rigor in Qualitative Data Analysis: A Design Research Approach to Coding Combining NVivo With Traditional Material Methods. \\u003cem\\u003eInt J Qual Methods\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003e17\\u003c/strong\\u003e, 1609406918786362 (2018).\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003c/ol\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\"}],\"fulltextSource\":\"\",\"fullText\":\"\",\"funders\":[],\"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow\":false,\"hasManuscriptDocX\":true,\"hasOptedInToPreprint\":true,\"hasPassedJournalQc\":\"\",\"hasAnyPriority\":true,\"hideJournal\":true,\"highlight\":\"\",\"institution\":\"\",\"isAcceptedByJournal\":false,\"isAuthorSuppliedPdf\":false,\"isDeskRejected\":\"\",\"isHiddenFromSearch\":false,\"isInQc\":false,\"isInWorkflow\":false,\"isPdf\":false,\"isPdfUpToDate\":true,\"isWithdrawnOrRetracted\":false,\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"researchsquare\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":true,\"externalIdentity\":\"\",\"sideBox\":\"\",\"snPcode\":\"\",\"submissionUrl\":\"/submission\",\"title\":\"Research Square\",\"twitterHandle\":\"researchsquare\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":false,\"editorialSystem\":\"\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"\",\"inReviewEnabled\":false,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":true},\"keywords\":\"Climate Change, Flood Risk Perception, Resilience, Neighbourhoods, Aotearoa New Zealand\",\"lastPublishedDoi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7547469/v1\",\"lastPublishedDoiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7547469/v1\",\"license\":{\"name\":\"CC BY 4.0\",\"url\":\"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/\"},\"manuscriptAbstract\":\"New Zealand cities are shaped by a history of natural hazards. Climate change has dramatically increased these risks, making flooding more frequent, intense, and destructive. Notably, the damage resulting from Cyclone Gabrielle and the 2023 Auckland Anniversary Weekend floods was experienced nationwide. Utilising anonymous cross-sectional survey and network analysis, this study provides novel insights on the interrelationships between the perceptions of flood risk and resilience for selected residential suburbs in Auckland, New Zealand. We find many associations monotonically connected perceived flood risk and resilience, specifically, perception of safety from flooding, trust in local authorities, rainfall worry, distance from flooding source, perceived sufficiency in emergency response, and provision of assistance during flooding. We characterised a Flood Resilience Perception cluster, revealing that factors such as gender, age, residential status, and dwelling type were not found to be significant. Connecting perceived flood risk and resilience enables informed policymaking and effective implementation, aligned with urban resident needs and expectations.\",\"manuscriptTitle\":\"Connecting perceived flood risk and resilience in Auckland, New Zealand\",\"msid\":\"\",\"msnumber\":\"\",\"nonDraftVersions\":[{\"code\":1,\"date\":\"2025-09-10 06:09:09\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7547469/v1\",\"editorialEvents\":[{\"type\":\"communityComments\",\"content\":0}],\"status\":\"published\",\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"researchsquare\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":true,\"externalIdentity\":\"\",\"sideBox\":\"\",\"snPcode\":\"\",\"submissionUrl\":\"/submission\",\"title\":\"Research Square\",\"twitterHandle\":\"researchsquare\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":false,\"editorialSystem\":\"\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"\",\"inReviewEnabled\":false,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":true}}],\"origin\":\"\",\"ownerIdentity\":\"934d0247-3e91-40c8-93c1-b6defa7bc17b\",\"owner\":[],\"postedDate\":\"September 10th, 2025\",\"published\":true,\"recentEditorialEvents\":[],\"rejectedJournal\":[],\"revision\":\"\",\"amendment\":\"\",\"status\":\"posted\",\"subjectAreas\":[{\"id\":54282790,\"name\":\"Earth and environmental sciences/Natural hazards\"},{\"id\":54282791,\"name\":\"Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences/Climate-change impacts/Governance\"}],\"tags\":[],\"updatedAt\":\"2025-09-17T11:30:59+00:00\",\"versionOfRecord\":[],\"versionCreatedAt\":\"2025-09-10 06:09:09\",\"video\":\"\",\"vorDoi\":\"\",\"vorDoiUrl\":\"\",\"workflowStages\":[]},\"version\":\"v1\",\"identity\":\"rs-7547469\",\"journalConfig\":\"researchsquare\"},\"__N_SSP\":true},\"page\":\"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]\",\"query\":{\"redirect\":\"/article/rs-7547469\",\"identity\":\"rs-7547469\",\"version\":[\"v1\"]},\"buildId\":\"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd\",\"isFallback\":false,\"isExperimentalCompile\":false,\"dynamicIds\":[84888],\"gssp\":true,\"scriptLoader\":[]}","source_license":"CC-BY-4.0","license_restricted":false}