Flooding is a major natural hazard threatening the socio-economic sustainability of rural communities. Rural flood vulnerability is shaped not only by hazard exposure but also by socio-economic conditions and the capacities to cope with, adapt to, and recover from flood events. This study examines the relationships among socio-economic drivers, adaptive capacities, and flood-vulnerability outcomes in rural communities of Eastern Alamut District, Qazvin Province, Iran. The research was applied in purpose and descriptive-analytical in method. Data were collected through a structured questionnaire from 380 households across 32 flood-prone villages selected using purposive sampling and analyzed using structural equation modeling (SEM) in SmartPLS. The model comprised 40 indicators representing socio-economic drivers, coping, adaptation and recovery capacities, and flood-vulnerability outcomes. The results revealed a strong and statistically significant relationship between socio-economic drivers—including economic and livelihood conditions, social capital, and risk perception and awareness—and adaptive capacities (β = 0.845). Socio-economic drivers were also strongly associated with flood-vulnerability outcomes (β = 0.803), while adaptive capacities had a positive and statistically significant, but comparatively weaker, relationship with these outcomes (β = 0.123). The model explained 89.4% of the variance in adaptive capacities and 84.7% in flood-vulnerability outcomes. These findings highlight the importance of addressing underlying socio-economic conditions alongside capacity-building measures in rural flood risk management. Policy priorities include livelihood diversification, strengthening social networks, improving risk communication, and expanding household and community recovery support through locally tailored interventions.



Introduction

Flooding is one of the most significant natural hazards in the contemporary world. Its simultaneous links with climate change, the expansion of settlements in high-risk areas, land-use change, and weaknesses in risk management systems have turned it into a complex and multidimensional phenomenon (Akhlaghi Pirposhteh et al., 2026; IPCC, 2022; Pörtner et al., 2022). In the hazards literature, flooding is not regarded merely as a hydrological event; rather, it is understood as the outcome of interactions among hazard, exposure, social sensitivity, and communities’ adaptive capacity (Birkmann et al., 2022). From this perspective, the severity of flood damage depends not only on the amount of rainfall or river discharge, but also on the social, economic, institutional, spatial, and livelihood characteristics of populations at risk (Cutter et al., 2003; Wisner et al., 2004). Therefore, understanding flood vulnerability requires moving beyond purely physical approaches and examining the mechanisms that make some households and settlements more vulnerable than others to the consequences of flooding (Cutter et al., 2003; Hosseinpour et al., 2026; Wisner et al., 2004).

To explain this issue, the present study understands flood vulnerability through the interplay of three theoretical perspectives: social vulnerability, livelihood capitals and adaptive capacity, and risk perception and protective behaviors. Social vulnerability theory suggests that groups and settlements experience different levels of vulnerability to the same hazard because of differences in resources, assets, access to services, social status, housing quality, and response capacity (Cutter et al., 2003; Wisner et al., 2004). Complementing this perspective, the sustainable livelihoods approach explains that rural households differ in their ability to prevent, cope with, and recover from floods depending on their access to economic, human, social, physical, and institutional capital (Chambers & Conway, 1992; DFID, 1999). Protection Motivation Theory and the Protective Action Decision Model further emphasize that risk awareness, prior experience, perceived hazard severity, assessment of coping ability, and confidence in the effectiveness of protective measures can influence household preparedness and the adoption of risk-reduction behaviors (Rogers, 1975; Lindell & Perry, 2012). Accordingly, the present study considers flood vulnerability a socioeconomic and multilevel phenomenon that, at the household and rural community levels, is influenced by economic and livelihood conditions, social capital, institutional support, risk perception, recovery capacity, and the economic and social consequences of flooding.

Socioeconomic vulnerability refers to the range of conditions that either constrain or strengthen the capacity of households and communities to prevent, cope with, adapt to, and recover from hazardous events (Biswas & Nautiyal, 2023). Within this framework, factors such as income, educational attainment, employment, asset ownership, access to services, social capital, prior flood experience, risk awareness, and institutional trust play a decisive role in shaping different patterns of vulnerability (Rufat et al., 2015). Low-income households generally have less capacity to reduce losses and rebuild their lives after floods because of limited savings, restricted access to insurance, poor housing quality, and greater dependence on local livelihood resources (Fothergill & Peek, 2004; Davlasheridze & Miao, 2021). Education, risk awareness, and prior flood experience can also influence risk perception, preventive decisions, and the adoption of preparedness measures, thereby explaining some of the behavioral differences among households (Kuhlicke et al., 2011; Tierney, 2025).

This issue is particularly significant in rural communities, where livelihoods, housing, and natural resources are often more directly dependent on the surrounding environment (Rolfe et al., 2020). In many villages, agriculture, livestock farming, horticulture, and household-based livelihood activities are vulnerable to flooding, and damage to land, livestock, crops, production tools, and access routes can simultaneously disrupt household life, livelihoods, and economic security (Ahmadi et al., 2022). Furthermore, the spatial dispersion of rural settlements, inadequate communication infrastructure, limited emergency services, and distance from decision-making centers reduce the capacity of these communities to respond and recover (Mester et al., 2025). Rural vulnerability to flooding should therefore be understood as a multidimensional phenomenon shaped by the combination of location, social structure, economic conditions, institutional capacity, risk awareness, and households’ recovery capacity (Shah et al., 2026).