ORI GIN AL PA PER

Assessing the resilience of Delhi to climate-relateddisasters: a comprehensive approach

Sunil Prashar • Rajib Shaw • Yukiko Takeuchi

Received: 18 January 2011 / Accepted: 27 July 2012 / Published online: 10 August 2012� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract The study addresses disaster risks in Delhi through a resilience approach. It utilizes

the Climate Disaster Resilience Index (CDRI) tool, which assesses disaster resilience from five

dimensions: physical, social, economic, institutional, and natural. Each dimension comprises 5

parameters, and each parameter consists of 5 variables. The study is carried out in the nine

revenue districts of Delhi and reveals that East Delhi is least resilient and New Delhi is most

resilient. The CDRI analysis in East Delhi points out the urgent need to focus on key

parameters such as housing and land use, population, intensity and frequency of natural

hazards, ecosystem services, and land use in natural terms. On the other hand, New Delhi is the

most resilient due to all five dimensions, where most significant parameters responsible for its

high resilience are housing and land use, population, income, employment, intensity and

frequency of natural hazards, ecosystem services, and land use in natural terms. In addition, the

overall results of all nine districts show an inverse relationship between resilience score and

population density. For example, districts with higher population density show low resilience

and vice versa. Moreover, districts located on hazard-prone areas show low resilience. For

example, East Delhi and North East Delhi scored low resilience because they both are situated

on the Yamuna flood catchment areas. The study further develops key suggestions that are

required to address disaster risk in all nine districts of Delhi and discusses future implications

of CDRI to address city’s vulnerability. The approach’s distinctness is reflected through its

consideration of micro-level diversities and presents some implications to resilience.

Keywords Risk assessment � Climate-related hazards � Disaster risk � Resilience

1 Introduction

India is one of the most important countries in the world with regard to the impact of

hydrometeorologial disasters such as floods, storms, mass movements (wet), extreme

S. Prashar (&) � R. Shaw � Y. TakeuchiGraduate School of Global Environmental Studies, Kyoto University, Yoshida Honmachi,Sakyo-Ku, Kyoto 6068501, Japane-mail: sunilparashar111@gmail.com

123

Nat Hazards (2012) 64:1609–1624DOI 10.1007/s11069-012-0320-4

temperatures, droughts, and wild fires. Between 1980 and 2010, more than 400 disasters

have occurred in India and most of them are hydrometeorological in nature, affecting

millions of people through the loss of lives, injuries, and damage to infrastructure. The

Centre for research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (EM-DAT 2010) noted that 54.2 %

of the total people were killed from hydrometeorological disasters, 34.8 % from geo-

physical, and the remaining 10.8 % were reported killed from biological disasters.

Impact of hydrometeorological disasters is increasing in urban areas of India, especially

due to the floods that occurred recently in several megacities of India. For example, in

2010, floods occurred in Delhi, Guwahati, Ahmedabad, and Mumbai (National Disaster

Management Authority 2010). Similarly, in 2008, Jamshedpur, Mumbai, and Hyderabad

were worst affected cities in India. On one hand, these cities are the major economic

centers with large international operation, and on the other hand, they encountered higher

economic loss due to floods than other disasters (National Disaster Management Authority

2010). Moreover, these cities create a complex dynamic system as a result of concentration

of people, resources, and information (Chatterjee 2010).

Disasters are the interaction of shocks (natural hazards) and stresses (Wisner et al.

2004). Wisner et al. (2004) defines this interaction through ‘‘Pressure and Release’’ model

and develops linkage to disasters. In context of urban areas of India, some of the urban

stresses are urban poverty, basic urban services, loss of urban green spaces, disrupted

ecosystems, exhausted institutions, and unplanned development. These stresses can further

exacerbate the impact of disasters in the complex urban environment. For instance,

Mumbai flood of 2005 is a classic example that shows disaster impact as a result of

interaction between shocks (floods) and stresses (urban poverty, unplanned development,

and loss of urban green space, among others) (Government of Maharashtra 2005).

Moreover, flood affected over thousands of people as a result of unprecedented rainfall,

causing extensive loss and damage to infrastructure, settlements, and services. Most

affected groups were urban poor, who were living in slums without proper access to basic

infrastructure and services. In addition, not all urban poor were equally affected. A study

by Chatterjee (2010) on slum dwellers’ response to flooding events in the megacities of

India shows that during the Mumbai flood of 2005, new residents (less than 10 years) and

old residents (more than 20 years) living in slums were more vulnerable than medial

residents (10–20 years). Medial residents had greater access to social networks during the

flood which helped in their quick rehabilitation and recovery. The above example shows

that slums dwellers are not equally vulnerable due to ‘‘different exposure, sensitivity, and

adaptive capacity’’ (Adger 2006). Furthermore, their ‘‘ability to re-organize, change, and

learn in response to a threat’’ (Cutter et al. 2008) shows their different level of resilience.

In the context of urban areas, Adger (2000) defines resilience as the ability of human

beings living in built environment to cope with external stress is shaped by economic,

institutional, and natural aspects. Moench et al. (2011) emphasize building resilience as

cyclical process where different systems are interdependent. These definitions stress on the

‘‘dynamic’’ characteristics of urban resilience. Thus, urban resilience is dynamic in nature.

Moreover, it is a complex function of physical, social, economic, and institutional issues in

natural environment (Joerin 2012).

This study addresses disaster issues of Delhi through resilience approach. The first step

to enhance disaster resilience is its assessment. Thus, the study develops and utilizes CDRI

tool to assess disaster resilience of Delhi. The paper first describes the disaster risks in

Delhi and the CDRI tool. The next section analyzes the results of the study and examines

the two selected districts, New Delhi and East Delhi in depth. Finally, implications of the

CDRI results to address city’s vulnerability are presented.

1610 Nat Hazards (2012) 64:1609–1624

123

2 Disaster risks in Delhi

Delhi, also called National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi, occupies an area of 1,483 sq.

km. The total population as per the 2011 census is over 16 million, making it one of the

nation’s most densely populated areas. It comprises nine revenue districts—Central Delhi,

North Delhi, South Delhi, East Delhi, North East Delhi, South West Delhi, New Delhi,

North West Delhi, and West Delhi (Prashar et al. 2012; Parvin et al. 2011). Moreover,

Delhi has a unique and complex structure of governance due to the existence and func-

tioning of the two governments—Union Government and Government of NCT of Delhi

(Prashar et al. 2012; Government of India 2009). It is ranked the 10th largest among

world’s most populated cities (Prashar et al. 2012; Government of National Capital Ter-

ritory of Delhi 2006). The city has experienced very fast population growth between 1991

and 2001, expected to reach 28.41 million by 2026 (Census of India 2001).

With rapid population growth, the city is getting highly urbanized and becoming prone

to floods, heat and cold waves, earthquakes, fires, epidemics, and terrorist attacks. The city

vulnerability is increasing due to urban stresses such as rapid urbanization, environment

degradation, infrastructure pressure, housing shortage, and slums and squatters settlements.

To understand city vulnerability, it is essential to understand the key vulnerability

parameters: exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity (Adger 2006) in context of Delhi.

For example, unplanned settlements with dense and dilapidated housing structures in Delhi

are sensitive and exposed to floods and other hazards (DDMA 2009). Similarly, the

adaptive capacity to accommodate natural hazards is low among the poor due to lack of

preparedness. Moreover, adaptive capacity can also be understood in terms of resilience, as

Gallopin (2006) describes adaptive capacity as ‘‘capacity to adapt,’’ which means com-

munity or people learn and improve their capacity before or after disasters. This reflects the

resilience aspects. In Delhi, adaptive capacity in context of resilience can be understood as

system and community preparedness before and after disasters.

2.1 Rapid urbanization

Delhi is experiencing rapid urbanization due to concentration of people and industries.

According to the 2001 census, 93 % of Delhi’s population lives in urban areas (Ministry of

Health and Family Welfare 2007). The population increased from 0.7 million in 1947 to

13.7 million in 2001. It is expected to double by 2026 (Ministry of Health and Family

Welfare 2007). With the rapid increase in urban population growth, the city has experi-

enced rapid increase in small-scale industries since 1951 when there were 8,160 small-

scale industries, which increased to 129,000 in 2001 (Government of Delhi 2006). The

rapid increase in industry and population brought massive changes in the city’s land use

(Fig. 1).

The change in land use in the city has greatly affected very fertile lands in terms of

productivity. Natural lands including water bodies, flood plain regions, and small lakes

have been converted into built-up areas. Agricultural land has also been converted into

urban areas. This process has led to the loss of ecosystem services such as water recharge,

bioremediation, nutrient cycling, waste management, and climatic regulation (Kumar

2009). Agricultural land is traditionally used as a percolation zone, and now it is contin-

uously being reduced (Pareva 2006; Fig. 1). The net agricultural area sown in 1950–1951

was 97,067 hectares and decreased to 25000 hectares by 2005–2006 (Pareva 2006). The

use of agricultural land has rapidly decreased after 1999. The pressure of urbanization has

resulted in the increase in urban land usage (Kumar 2009).

Nat Hazards (2012) 64:1609–1624 1611

123

2.2 Environment degradation

The environmental conditions are relatively poor in Delhi. The last three decades have led

to changes in the land-use pattern (Rahman and Netzband 2007). In particular, there has

been an increase in the built-up area. In 1990–1991, the built-up area was 742 sq. km,

50 % of the geographical area of Delhi that increased to 897 sq. km (60.5 %) by

2000–2001 (Government of Delhi 2006). Huge expansion of industries, reduction in

agriculture areas, and rapid population growth caused this change. Expansion of industries

as well as rapid population growth created huge demand for natural resources and services,

which degraded environmental conditions in the city. Some of the examples of environ-

mental degradation include the following: explicit use of ground water, discharge of waste

effluents in the river, and water, air and noise pollution. The city represents 2 % of the

Yamuna catchment area and is 80 % polluted. The Yamuna is considered as one of the

most polluted rivers in the world (Rahman and Netzband 2007), which is a result of

municipal waste water discharged into the river from nine drains. In addition, the city

produces 200 million liters of untreated sewage (Government of Delhi 2006).

2.3 Climate-related hazards

The city is vulnerable to climate-related hazards such as floods, heat waves, cold waves,

and hydrological droughts and water scarcities (Panda 2011). In the recent past, Delhi has

experienced major floods. Since 1900, floods took place in 1924, 1947, 1967, 1971, 1975,

1976, 1978, 1988, 1993, 1995, and 1998 (DDMA 2009). High-magnitude floods occurred

in 1977, 1978, 1988, and 1995 (DDMA 2009). The Yamuna River produced most of the

major floods and experts believe that the flooding in the city has many explanations: heavy

rainfall, urbanization, unauthorized colonies, trespassing on storm water drains, siltation of

drains, siltation of water bodies, choked water carriers, poor water and sewerage man-

agement, deficiencies in the drainage system, failure of pumping installation, and multiple

authorities with no responsibility (Pareva 2006). In addition, heat waves and cold waves in

the past have caused enormous human discomfort in northern India including Delhi. For

example, between April and June 2007, 72 deaths were recorded in north and northwestern

India due to heat waves (SAARC 2009). Many places witnessed high temperature close to

50 �C. Similarly, between December and January 2007, around 137 deaths were recorded

in northern India. The minimum recorded temperature in several cities was between 0 and

5 �C (SAARC 2009). Several studies have noted the occurrence of heat waves and cold

Fig. 1 Trend of land-use change in Delhi. Source: Kumar (2009)

1612 Nat Hazards (2012) 64:1609–1624

123

waves conditions in Delhi (Dube and Rao 2005; Mohanty et al. 1997). The city receives

extreme lowest temperature during December and highest temperature during May

(Mohanty et al. 1997).

2.4 Infrastructure pressure

The city is experiencing huge infrastructure pressure. In recent decades, three major

development activities created infrastructure pressure in Delhi: one is rapid industrial

expansion, the second, relocation of informal units, and the third, inflow of migrants

(Government of Delhi 2006). The rapid population growth creates serious implications in

terms of gaps in water and energy demand, problems in housing shortages, inadequate

water and sanitation services, poor solid waste management, pressure on public trans-

portation, and power failures. For example, recent data from Delhi indicate changes

between 1977 and 1991. The housing shortage in 1977 was 14,500 units, and it went to

257,000 units in 1991 (Government of Delhi 2006). A large number of the population lives

in the city without shelter. Approximately 50,000–70,000 persons are homeless (Gov-

ernment of Delhi 2006). A large portion of households live in slums. There are 1,080

Jugghies and Jopries (informal settlements) that accommodate 3 million people or 22 % of

the Delhi population (Government of Delhi 2006). Similarly, there is a huge pressure on

basic services. Out of 690,000 households in the slum area, 16 % of the households receive

less than 25 liters per capita daily water and 71 % of the households receive 25–50 l per

capita daily water (Government of Delhi 2006). Almost 45 % of the Delhi population has

no sewerage service. These conditions have exacerbated in recent years.

2.5 Increase in slums, squatters, and migrant population

The Slum Area Act of 1956 defines ‘‘slums’’ as ‘‘regions where buildings are unfit for

human habitation for reasons such as dilapidation, overcrowding, and a lack of ventilation,

light, and sanitary facilities’’ (Jha et al. 2005). In 1951, the slum population was 12,749 and

increased to over 3 million by 2005 (Government of Delhi 2006). The number of housing

units is 0.6 million accommodating 3 million of the population. This means that more than

three persons live in one room. Living conditions in slums are very poor; basic services

such as street light, sanitation, water, and road networks are lacking. However, not all

slums are equally poor and vulnerable due to social, economic, and political dimensions.

For example, Jha et al. 2005 notes that newly established slums in Delhi are more vul-

nerable than old established slums. The risks include constant threat of demolition, fire,

theft, and uncertain property rights. In old established slums, the Pradhan (community

leader) has greater access to politicians, bureaucrats, and police officers. Moreover, they

also benefit from the various development schemes of the Government of NCT of Delhi

such as Sanjha Prayas (collective action) and also called a scheme launched to promote

effective participation of poor people in governance (Prashar and Shaw 2012). SanjhaPrayas focuses on slum development and works mainly in three core areas: water, elec-

tricity, and sanitation-solid waste disposal (Prashar and Shaw 2012). Similarly, social and

economic dimensions also play important roles in defining the vulnerability of people

living in slums. A study by Kumar and Aggarwal (2003) on patterns of consumption and

poverty in Delhi slums noted that women are disadvantageous than men in terms of their

economic status. Unemployment rate for men (15 years and over) is 21.85 %, whereas for

women as high as 91.40 %. In addition, caste divisions in India are another important

factor that determines vulnerability in slums. Kumar and Mitra (2001) conducted a study in

Nat Hazards (2012) 64:1609–1624 1613

123

Delhi slums to understand the extent to which cast divisions in India coincide with

socioeconomic divisions such as literacy, jobs, and income and food expenditure, among

others. The survey was conducted with four groups of households in Delhi slums: HinduSchedule Caste (SCs), Hindu Other Backward Caste (OBCs), General Hindu, and Muslims.

The study indicates that SCs non-workers in total population are more dependent (73 %)

than OBCs (62 %), General Hindu (65 %), and Muslims (66 %). In terms of literacy, most

SCs (65 %) are illiterate than OBCs (63 %), Muslims (59 %), and General Hindu (50 %).

Thus, SCs household in Delhi slums need more attention from Government of NCT of

Delhi in terms of reducing illiteracy and unemployment condition.

2.6 Existing approaches of disaster risk reduction in Delhi

The National Disaster Management Act of 2005 provides a constitution for establishing

disaster management authority at national, state, and district levels. The Delhi Disaster

Management Authority (DDMA) was constituted after 2005. Subsequently, the District

Disaster Management Authority was established in all nine districts of Delhi. The authority

follows the holistic approach toward disaster management, focusing on prevention, miti-

gation, and preparedness measures. Disaster Management Plans of Delhi and nine districts

highlight civic authorities’ roles in disaster situation. For instance, action plans for

emergency support functions for all relevant civic bodies are developed, and disaster mock

drills are conducted regularly to sensitize and aware general public. Similarly, booklets,

reading and audio visual materials are disseminated to spread awareness among the people.

The authority circulates Information Education and Communication materials on disasters

in all districts including schools, communities, markets, and offices. In addition, the

incorporation of disaster risk reduction measures is successfully mainstreamed into the

school curriculum, whereas it is hardly or rarely incorporated into the Delhi development

plans or transportation plans, etc. The existing approach toward disaster management in

Delhi is weak in terms of several aspects. For example, risk reduction measures are not or

less integrated into the city development plan. Investment in terms of human and infra-

structure planning for disaster risk reduction is also low in the relevant sectors. Finally,

there is lack of capacity of local authorities to implement disaster risk reduction measures.

3 Approach adopted in the current study

CDRI is an integral component of Climate Disaster Resilience Initiative, a planning tool

that aims at sustainable development through increasing disaster resilience of cities. Cli-

mate Disaster Resilience Initiative goes beyond vulnerability assessment and focuses on

enhancing resilience. This initiative originated when resilience was greatly emphasized by

researchers in the field of disaster management. For instance, the prime goal of the Hyogo

Framework for Action (2005–2015) is to reduce vulnerabilities through five priorities of

actions for disaster risk reduction. This framework was adopted by 168 countries in 2005 to

address disaster risk. Later, the resilience concept was applied more to urban areas (Joerin

and Shaw 2011). For example, researchers started using ‘‘Resilient Cities’’ to define

‘‘sustainable network of systems and communities’’ (Godschalk 2003). World Bank (2009)

defines a resilient city as being ‘‘able to sustain itself through its systems by dealing with

issues and events that threaten, damage, or destroy it’’ (World Bank 2009). These defi-

nitions stress more on ‘‘system.’’ Thus, systems need to be well prepared before disaster

challenges various aspects of the city. For instance, an adequate system of basic services

1614 Nat Hazards (2012) 64:1609–1624

123

such as water, electricity, solid waste, and transportation can help in quick recovery of a

city from disaster (Joerin and Shaw 2011). However, before cities’ resilience can be

enhanced, understanding of their current level of resilience is necessary.

The CDRI methodology is unique because it incorporates the micro-level diversities of

a city. Several studies in the past have been carried out to address the different aspects of

cities’ resilience and vulnerability to climate-related disasters. They often neglected local

level issues (Parvin et al. 2011). Moreover, local level issues are key information required

for a well-governed city. The CDRI methodology and its results can help in understanding

the complexity of a city and its services (Parvin et al. 2011). It can also be utilized in

strategic planning or policy formulation and can guide the process of budget allocation in

the city. Moreover, CDRI can be also linked to ‘‘a guide for implementing Hyogo

Framework for Action (HFA).’’ This guide consists of 22 tasks for local/city government to

build the resilience of nation and communities (Matsuoka and Shaw 2012).

3.1 CDRI methodology

CDRI is developed from five resilience dimensions: physical, social, economic, institu-

tional, and natural. Each dimension consists of five parameters, and each parameter

carries 25 variables as shown in Table 1. All in all, CDRI analyzes disaster resilience on

125 (5 9 5 9 5) key quantifiable variables. For the purpose of data collection, a CDRI

questionnaire survey is developed and utilized in the study area. Each parameter is

evaluated on five choices between (1 = poor) and (5 = best). The respondent is requested

to provide a choice between poor and best. In addition, each variable under a specific

parameter is required to be ranked or weighted on a scale of (1 = not important) and

(5 = very important). All collected data are analyzed using Weighted Mean Index (WMI)

and Aggregate Weighted Mean Index (AWMI) formula. WMI provides the resilience

score for all parameters. Similarly, AWMI provides resilience score for all dimensions.

The calculated value of AWMI of one dimension is the CDRI of that dimension. The

CDRI scores vary from 1 to 5, where (1 = very poor, 2 = poor, 3 = moderate,

4 = good, and 5 = best). Higher CDRI values are equivalent to higher preparedness to

cope with climate-related disasters. The quality of results depends on the knowledge of

respondents. Needless to say, the results presented are not absolute values but can serve as

policy guidance.

The study was conducted in nine revenue districts of Delhi. The CDRI questionnaire

was answered by the District Project Officers and Project Coordinators, who are respon-

sible for disaster management activities in their respective districts. Some of the short-

coming observed in the study was the quality of data. The respondents were fairly equipped

with the knowledge of all five dimensions. However, they were much informed about the

institutional dimension. This shortcoming was improved with the help of secondary data

related to other dimensions.

3.2 Disaster resilience of Delhi

The results show an inverse relationship between resilience score and population density of

districts. Districts that are densely populated show low resilience score and vice versa.

Central Delhi, East Delhi, and North East Delhi show low resilient and high population

density. Their density is above 20,000 persons per sq. km. (Table 2) and contains popu-

lation above 1 million except Central Delhi. These districts are completely urbanized, and

Nat Hazards (2012) 64:1609–1624 1615

123

most of their areas are covered by residential or commercial areas (Table 2). They are

highly populated with no space for further urbanization (Table 2).

Figure 2 shows the climate disaster resilience scores of all nine districts. The overall

map shows moderate resilience scores in all nine districts (Fig. 3). The resilience scores are

above 3 with the exception of East Delhi (2.90) (Fig. 2). The natural and institutional

dimensions show an interesting relationship with the overall resilience (Fig. 2). Natural

resilience contributes to the decrease in the overall resilience due to parameters such as

land use in natural terms, ecosystem services, and environmental policy and security

(Table 1). In addition, frequency of natural hazards differs from place to place. For

Table 1 Dimensions and variables of Climate Disaster Resilience Index (CDRI)

Dimension Physical Social Economic Institutional Natural

Parameter Electricity Population Income Mainstreaming ofDRR and CCA

Intensity/severityof naturalhazards

Water Health Employment Crisis management Frequency ofnatural hazards

Sanitation &solid wastedisposal

Education andawareness

Householdassets

Knowledgedissemination &management

Ecosystemservices

Accessibilityof roads

Social capital Finance andsavings

Institutionalcollaboration

Land use

Housing andland use

Communitypreparedness

Budget andsubsidy

Good governance Environmentalpolicies

Table 2 Demographic profile and key characteristics of the nine districts of Delhi

Districts Populationa Densitya Key characteristicsb

Central 578,671 23,147 Major part of the district is institutional area having governmentoffices/courts

North 883,418 14,973 Major part of district have residential areas and urbanizable land

South 2,733,752 10,935 Major part of the district has residential areas, urbanizable areas, cityforest, and ridge/regional parks

Only a few areas have industries

East 1,707,725 26,683 Major part is covered by residential areasVery few have commercial areas and industries

NorthEast

2,240,749 37,346 Major part is covered by residential areas and city parks

SouthWest

2,292,363 5,445 Major part is covered by green belt and urbanizable areaSome parts cover residential areas, airport, and government land

NewDelhi

133,713 3,820 Major part of the district covers commercial areas, president estate &parliament house, and city parks and forest

NorthWest

3,651,261 8,298 Major part covers residential areas, green belt/urbanizable area, andindustries

West 2,531,583 19,625 Major part covers residential areas, city parks, and urbanizable area

Sources: a Census 2011, b DDA (Delhi Development Authority) 2007

1616 Nat Hazards (2012) 64:1609–1624

123

example, the natural resilience score of East Delhi (2.18) and North East Delhi (2.56) is

poor, and both often get affected by river flood during monsoon due to their location,

which is inside the Yamuna flood catchment area. Thus, districts score differs according to

their land use. Moreover, the authorities can utilize these findings in the Delhi Urban

Environment and Infrastructure Improvement project—21, which aims at making Delhi a

sustainable city. For example, the results can be effectively used in developing action

programs for environment management by the Government of NCT of Delhi (Planning

Department 2001). Analysis of natural dimensions can be incorporated in developing

information systems for environment management. This information system will provide

key information on CDRI results to decision makers and stakeholders.

The institutional dimension shows high resilience scores in all nine districts (Fig. 2).

The resilience scores of most districts are close to 4 (Fig. 2). Institutional parameters

mentioned in Table 1 such as effectiveness of district’s crisis management framework,

knowledge dissemination and management, institutional collaboration with other organi-

zations and stakeholders during a disaster, and good governance have high resilience score

in all nine districts. However, resilience score for mainstreaming of DRR and CCA is low

and needs more consideration in the near future. Furthermore, key CDRI finding of

institutional dimension can be incorporated into Government of India-United Nations

Development Programme (GOI-UNDP) (2009–2012), which aims at mainstreaming DRR

into ongoing development projects of the Indian Government (HP State Disaster Man-

agement Authority 2009). For example, CDRI results can provide key information in terms

of current level of progress in mainstreaming DRR into development plans of Delhi, ability

to produce development plans, incorporation of disaster management plan, and community

participation in development plans. The current level of DRR incorporation can guide

GOI-UNDP programs in terms of developing a plan of action.

Overall

1

2

3

4

5Central Delhi

North Delhi

South Delhi

East Delhi

North East DelhiSouth West Delhi

New Delhi

North West Delhi

West Delhi

Physical

12345

Central Delhi

North Delhi

South Delhi

East Delhi

North East DelhiSouth West Delhi

New Delhi

North West Delhi

West Delhi

Social

12345

Central Delhi

North Delhi

South Delhi

East Delhi

North East DelhiSouth West Delhi

New Delhi

North West Delhi

West Delhi

Natural

12345

Central Delhi

North Delhi

South Delhi

East Delhi

North East DelhiSouth West Delhi

New Delhi

North West Delhi

West Delhi

Institutional

12345

Central Delhi

North Delhi

South Delhi

East Delhi

North East DelhiSouth West Delhi

New Delhi

North West Delhi

West Delhi

Economic

12345

Central Delhi

North Delhi

South Delhi

East Delhi

North East DelhiSouth West Delhi

New Delhi

North West Delhi

West Delhi

Fig. 2 CDRI resilience scores of all nine districts in Delhi

Nat Hazards (2012) 64:1609–1624 1617

123

3.3 Contrasting level of risk of New Delhi and East Delhi

The following section discusses the results in two districts: East Delhi and New Delhi

(Figs. 4, 5). East Delhi is selected mainly due to its low resilience score. The analysis will

provide the key factors responsible for its low resilience. Further, it will also give the scope

for improvement. New Delhi is mainly selected due to its high resilience score. The

analysis will reflect the key factors for its high resilience.

East Delhi has an area of 64 sq. km covering 4.31 % of the total area of Delhi. As per

2011 census, the total population is 1.7 million with a population density of 26,683 persons

per sq. km., the third highest population density in Delhi. However, the annual population

growth is lower than Delhi between 2001 and 2011. For example, the population growth of

East Delhi is 1.55 %, which is lower than Delhi (i.e., 1.92 %). The population factor also

affects the CDRI resilience level in the social dimension. It is estimated that by 2015, Delhi

population may reach around 20 million (United Nations 2002) due to natural increase and

migration. It is thus necessary to control population growth in the city.

Population growth brings tremendous stress on land, housing, infrastructure facilities,

and services. The same can be seen in East Delhi. The physical resilience of the district is

low due to all five parameters as mentioned in Table 1. However, housing and land use

scored very poor due to buildings with non-permanent structure and populations living in

close proximity to polluted industries. The district consists of different kinds of settlements

including planned settlements, unauthorized colonies, and urban villages. Moreover,

unauthorized colonies are characterized by poor structural conditions of buildings, inad-

equate infrastructure services, congestion, poor urban form, and lack of community

Fig. 3 Resilience map of all nine districts in Delhi. Central Delhi (C), North Delhi (N), South Delhi (S),East Delhi (E), North East Delhi (NE), South West Delhi (SW), New Delhi, North West Delhi (NW), andWest Delhi (W)

1618 Nat Hazards (2012) 64:1609–1624

123

facilities (Fig. 4; DDA 2010). Around 69 unauthorized residential areas exist in this dis-

trict. Moreover, 70–80 slums clusters are situated along the Pusta (low-lying area)

(DDMP-E 2008). In addition, 21 urban villages currently exist in East Delhi. The problems

are much severe in unauthorized and slums areas, making physical resilience score below 2

(Fig. 5).

The natural dimension score is below 3 (Fig. 5) due to the intensity and severity of

natural hazards, which is high in comparison with other districts. Most settlements along

the Yamuna River are situated along the hazard-prone area. A study on ‘‘Urban Flooding

and its Management’’ by the Irrigation and Flood Control, Government of NCT of Delhi

identified East Delhi under the flood plain region and vulnerable to floods (Pareva 2006).

During the monsoon, low-lying areas adjacent to Yamuna receive floods. Recently, Delhi

was flooded in September 2010. Most of the areas along the Yamuna River were flooded,

and a heavy damage to life and property was recorded. Hundreds of informal settlements

were submerged under water, and 169 relief camps were set up by the Delhi Government to

tackle the flood in the capital city. In one incident, a five-story building collapsed in East

Delhi, which killed around 66 people and injured 77 people (BBC News, 16 Nov 2010). In

addition, ecosystem services are poor due to the low quality of district’s characteristics in

terms of soil, air, water bodies, and biodiversity. For example, the land department of DDA

has identified six water bodies in this district that need greater consideration in the Master

East Delhi New Delhi

Fig. 4 Settlements in East Delhi (left) and New Delhi (right)

Fig. 5 Resilience levels of East Delhi and New Delhi

Nat Hazards (2012) 64:1609–1624 1619

123

Plan of Delhi (MPD)—2021 due to lack of green area. The river bed in this region is

considered as the city’s life sustaining need for ground water recharge. It has suddenly

changed in the late 1990s and 2000s (Yamuna Jiye Abhiyaan 2007). The construction of

Metro Depot, New Railway Bridge, Nizamuddin Bridge, Akshardham Temple, and

Common Wealth Games Village obstruct the safe passage of flood water (Yamuna Jiye

Abhiyaan 2007). In addition, land use in natural term is poor due to loss of urban green

space. A major part of East district is covered by residential areas (Table 2). It is deficient

in terms of recreational areas. In MPD 2021, Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has

planned to develop recreational areas in this district. The plan includes the development of

Sanjay Lake, district parks, and historical monuments, among others.

New Delhi falls under Zone D of the Master Plan of Delhi—2001. It comprises Lutyens

Garden City and extension. As per 2011 census, the total population is around 0.13 million

and has a population density of around 3,820 persons per sq. km. New Delhi is the most

resilient district due to its physical, social, economic, and institutional dimensions (Fig. 5).

Between 1912 and 1930, Sir Lutyens planned New Delhi in a triangular shape, ‘‘which had

three functions at its apex, viz. commercial, governmental, and recreational’’ (DDA 1999).

Thus, the district is specially planned and consists mainly of residential areas, commercial

areas, recreational, transportation, governmental, and public and semi-public facilities

(DDA 1999).

The physical resilience of New Delhi is high mainly due to all five parameters men-

tioned in Table 1. However, housing and land use scored high on resilience. The residential

areas comprise government bungalows, private-leased bungalows, group housing, gov-

ernment housing areas, and plotted areas (Fig. 4; DDA 1999). The New Delhi Municipal

Corporation is a separate municipal authority that provides basic services and other

facilities to this district. This authority is mainly established to improve the quality of basic

services. A detailed study on basic services as per Master Plan standards shows that there is

hardly any deficiency (DDA 1999). Thus, the physical resilience score is above 4 (Fig. 5).

The social resilience score is above 4 (Fig. 5) due to population and health parameters

mentioned in Table 1. The district population is 0.80 % of the total population of Delhi and

shares 3 % of total area of NCT of Delhi. Moreover, the district has well-functioning and

efficient social and health facilities like schools and hospitals. The facilities are adequate

due to major employment centers located in this district (DDA 1999). Like basic services,

the commercial facilities and social infrastructure of New Delhi are adequate as per the

norms of Master Plan Standards (DDA 1999). In addition, economic resilience score is

above 4 due to better income and employment opportunities. The income and employment

levels are high as major employment centers are located here. Most of the district residents

live in bungalows are employees of the Centre and State government. The district also has

enterprises including finance, insurance, real estate, and business services; community,

personal services, and others (DES 2008). However, the budget and subsidy for disaster

risk reduction-related activities have not received proper attention. It includes activities

that are focused on capacity building at all levels. In natural dimension, the resilience score

is below 4 (Fig. 5) due to low intensity and frequency of climate-related hazards, and better

ecosystem and land use than other districts. In recent past, the district has not received any

major floods. However, heat waves, droughts, and local flooding are common in the district

but not major concern due to low intensity and frequency (DDMP-ND 2008).

The overall results of CDRI could also be useful in developing knowledge and

awareness of the city authorities such as DDMA, DDA, local level development initiators,

partners, and policy makers. DDMA can effectively utilize the study results in identifying

areas that could be targeted for disaster preparedness in future. Similarly, the results can be

1620 Nat Hazards (2012) 64:1609–1624

123

also useful to DDA in developing MPD—21, which also focuses on enhancing the disaster

preparedness. For instance, in planning for retrofitting activity, the authority can utilize

CDRI result in assessing the existing housing and land-use situation at micro-level.

4 Discussion

Over the last few decades, urban areas are increasingly getting affected by climate-related

disasters, which have resulted in increase in economic losses and deaths (Munich Re Group

2009). Typically, in urban areas, impacts of disasters depend upon several factors including

intensity and frequency of natural hazards, climate change, and urban stresses, among

others. However, it is also widely assumed that resilient cities can effectively address urban

stresses and impact of climate change. To build a resilient city, it is essential to assess their

resilience level.

In this context, CDRI analysis of Delhi shows resilience level of all nine districts, where

East Delhi is least resilient and New Delhi is most resilient district. Overall, Delhi’s

resilience level is moderate, and the most crucial parameters such as population, land use

in natural terms, ecosystem services, and environmental policy and security show some

common findings in all nine districts. For instance, the study found an inverse relationship

between population density and resilience scores. In the East Delhi, North East Delhi, and

Central Delhi districts, the resilience score ranges from 2.91 to 3.13 out of 5, and their

population density are above 20,000 persons per sq. km. On the other hand, in New Delhi,

South Delhi, and North West Delhi, resilience score ranges from 3.35 to 4.07 out of 5, and

their population density is less than 10,000 persons per sq. km.

The results of the study also support the notion that disaster risks are typically higher in

hazard-prone areas such as low-lying areas, or near coast line. For example, districts such

as East Delhi and North East Delhi are situated in the hazard-prone area (i.e., Yamuna

flood catchment areas) and scored lower resilience than other districts. Both districts are

annually affected by river floods during monsoon. Thus, districts with unsafe location

scored low on resilience and vice versa.

The study analysis showing an inverse relationship between population density and

resilience also supports the global understanding that population density is significantly

important for understanding urban disaster risk.

Kamanga et al. (2003) emphasizes the relevance of high population density to disaster

risks. For example, many provisions of disaster avoidance (e.g., thicker walls), response

(access of emergency vehicles during disasters), and reducing the disaster impacts (readily

available open space) are not possible in lower-income, densely populated areas (Kamanga

et al. 2003). Similarly, study analysis showing low resilient districts in hazard-prone areas

also supports the understanding that cities that are developed next to the river or on the

coast as ports means more risk of flooding (Kamanga et al. 2003). Furthermore, Fuchs

(2010) emphasizes that most Asian coastal megacities located in low-lying area are

increasingly getting vulnerable to flooding as a result of climate change and sea level rise.

The results facilitate local authorities to identify specific areas that need attention and

take actions for disaster risk reduction. Disaster Practitioners in the past have tried to link

CDRI with policies document such as HFA to develop action-oriented response to reduce

the impact of disasters (Matsuoka and Shaw 2011). As explained in Sect. 3, this document

consists of 22 tasks for implementation at local areas by local authorities (Matsuoka and

Shaw 2011). Furthermore, Matsuoka and Shaw (2011) emphasis that both HFA and CDRI

can be used simultaneously through developing a linkage matrix between CDRI parameters

Nat Hazards (2012) 64:1609–1624 1621

123

and HFA tasks to address the urban issues. The output provides an overall and holistic

assessment of the tasks required to implement HFA, which links to services like physical

resilience or social or economic resilience of CDRI (Matsuoka and Shaw 2011). Thus,

linkage between HFA and CDRI can facilitate local authorities to implement HFA tasks.

In the case of Delhi, the synergy between CDRI of Delhi and HFA can facilitate

Government of NCT of Delhi to take effective measures to address city vulnerabilities. For

example, physical dimension of East Delhi is low due to unplanned settlements with dense

and dilapidated housing. This is also reflected in the housing and land-use parameters of

CDRI study. To address this issue, the matrix suggests that Government can address this

issue through implementing task 12, ‘‘to incorporate DRR in environment management,’’

task 14, ‘‘physical planning: establishing measures to incorporate DRR in urban and land-

use planning,’’ and task 15, ‘‘strengthen mechanisms for improved building safety.’’

Similarly, the adaptive capacity of most poor to accommodate natural hazards is very low.

This can be improved by implementing task 13, ‘‘social needs: establishing mechanisms

for increasing resilience of the poor and the most vulnerable.’’ Thus, implications of

implementing these HFA tasks would address the major vulnerability of Delhi.

Acknowledgments The first author acknowledges the guidance and support of his supervisor in carryingout this study. He is thankful to the Japanese Government (Monbukagakusho: MEXT) for scholarshipsupport for the study in Delhi, India. In addition, the first author received support in India from Dr. AnshuSharma of SEEDS, India, and Ms. Abha Mishra of UNDP, India. The first author would also like to thankthe District Project Officers and Project Coordinators of Delhi Government for valuable contribution in datacollection. Finally, the first author acknowledges Kyoto University’s Environmental Management LeaderProgram (EML) under which the author is pursuing his doctoral course.

References

Adger WN (2000) Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Prog Hum Geogr 24(3):347–364Adger WN (2006) Vulnerability. Global Environ Change 16:268–281Census of India (2001) Population projections for India and states 2001–2026. Office of the Registrar

General & Census Commissioner, New DelhiChatterjee M (2010) Slum dwellers response to flooding events in the megacities of India. Mitig Adapt

Strateg Glob Change 15:337–353Cutter SL, Barnes L, Berry M, Burton C, Evans E, Tate E, Webb J (2008) A place based model for

understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global Environ Change 18:598–606DDA (Delhi Development Authority) (1999) Zone development plan (Divison-‘D’ New Delhi. Approved by

DDA for objection and suggestions. Delhi Development Authority, New DelhiDDA (Delhi Development Authority) (2007) Master plan for Delhi 2021. Delhi Development Authority,

New DelhiDDA (Delhi Development Authority) (2010) Zone development plan—East Delhi. Modified based on the

approval of Government of India. Delhi Development Authority, New DelhiDDMA (Delhi Disaster Management Authority) (2009) Chapter III: hazard and risk assessment. In Delhi

disaster management draft plan. http://www.delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/doit_dm/draft/plan.Accessed 28 May 2010

DDMP-E (District Disaster Management Plan—East) (2008) Office of the Deputy Commissioner (East),Government of NCT of Delhi

DDMP-ND (District Disaster Management Plan—New Delhi) (2008) Office of the Deputy Commissioner(New Delhi), Government of NCT of Delhi

DES (Directorate of Economics and Statistics) (2008) Report on fifth economic census 2005 in Delhi.Government of NCT of Delhi. www.delhi.gov.in/DoIT/DES/Economic_Census/es2005.pdf. Accessed26 Oct 2010

Dube US, De RK, Rao GSP (2005) Extreme weather events over India in the last 100 years. J Ind GeophysUnion 9(3):173–187

1622 Nat Hazards (2012) 64:1609–1624

123

EM-DAT (2010) India disaster statistics. The OFDA/CRED international disaster database. Centre forResearch on the Epidemiology of Disasters, University catholique de Louvain, Brussels

Fuchs (2010) Cities at Risk: Asia’s coastal cities in an age of climate change. Analysis from East-West Center no.96. http://www.apn-gcr.org/resources/archive/files/f8517fd6d7f894cdbf2140c7731a72e7.pdf Accessed on20 May 2012

Gallopin GC (2006) Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Global EnvironChange 16:293–303

Godschalk DR (2003) Urban hazard mitigation: creating resilience cities. Nat Hazard Rev 4(3):143–236Government of Delhi (2006) Delhi human development report 2006. Oxford University Press, New DelhiGovernment of India (2009) State and district administration—fifteenth report. Second Administrative

Reforms Commission, New Delhi, p 310Government of Maharashtra (2005) Status report—Maharashtra floods 2005. http://mdmu.maharashtra.gov.

in/pdf/Flood/statusreport.pdf. Accessed 23 May 2010Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (2006) Delhi human development report 2006. Uni-

versity Press, OxfordHP State Disaster Management Authority (2009). State level advocacy workshop on planning and main-

streaming of disaster risk reduction. Government of India-UNDP Disaster Risk Reduction Programme(2009–2012), State Disaster Management Authority, Himachal Pradesh

Jha S, Rao V, Woolcock M (2005) Governance in the gullies: Democratic responsiveness and leadership inDelhi’s slums. Q-Squared Working Paper no. 5. Centre for International Studies, University of Tor-onto, Canada

Joerin J (2012) Enhancing climate-related disaster resilience of urban communities in Chennai, India.Dissertation, Kyoto University, Japan

Joerin J, Shaw R (2011) Mapping climate and disaster resilience in cities. In: Shaw R, Sharma A (eds)Climate and disaster resilience in cities. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, UK, pp 47–61

Kamanga LB, Diagne K, Lavell A, Leon E, Lerise F, MacGregor H, Maskrey A, Meshack D, Pelling M,Reid H, Satterthwaite D, Songsore J, Westgate K, Yitambe A (2003) From everyday hazards todisasters: the accumulation of risk in urban areas. Environ Urbaniz 15(1):193–204

Kumar P (2009) Assessment of economic drivers of land use change in urban ecosystems of Delhi, India.Ambio 38(1), Feb 2009

Kumar N, Aggarwal SC (2003) Pattern of consumption and poverty in Delhi slums. Econom Political Wkl5294–5300

Kumar N, Mitra A (2001) Social and economic dualism: caste, employment and poverty in Delhi slums.Delhi University, Institute of Economic Growth

Matsuoka Y, Shaw R (2011) Linking resilience planning to Hyogo framework for action in cities. In: ShawR, Sharma A (eds) Climate and disaster resilience in cities. Community, environment and disaster riskmanagement, vol 6. Emerald Group, UK, pp 129–147

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (2007) State of urban health in Delhi. www.uhrc.in/name-CmodsDownload-index-req-getit-lid-63.html. Accessed 27 May 2010

Moench M, Tyler S, Lage J (2011) Catalyzing urban climate resilience. Applying resilience concepts toplanning practice in the ACCCRN program (2009–2011). Institute of Social and EnvironmentalTransition (ISET), International. ISET, Boulder

Mohanty UC, Ravi N, Madan OP, Paliwal (1997) Forecasting minimum temperature during winter andmaximum temperature during summer at Delhi. Meteorol Appl 4:37–48

Munich Re Group (2009) Natural catastrophes 2008: analysis, assessments, positions. Munich Re, MunichNational Disaster Management Authority (2010) National disaster management guidelines: management of

urban flooding. Government of India, New Delhi. http://ndma.gov.in/ndma/guidelines/Management_Urban_Flooding.pdf. Accessed 20 April 2012

Panda A (2011) Climate change risks & adaptation: Indian mega cities. The India Economy Review 2011,New Delhi, pp 26–33

Pareva M (2006) Urban flooding and its management. First Disaster Management Congress. http://nidm.gov.in/idmc/Proceedings/Flood/B2%20-%2036.pdf. Accessed 26 Sept 2010

Parvin AG, Joerin J, Prashar S, Shaw R (2011) Climate and disaster resilience mapping at microlevel ofcities. In: Shaw R, Sharma A (eds) Climate and disaster resilience in cities. Community, environmentand disaster risk management, vol 6. Emerald Group, UK, pp 103–127

Planning Department (2001) Delhi urban environment and infrastructure improvement project (DUIIP)Delhi—21. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India, New Delhi

Prashar S, Shaw R (2012) Disaster resilience of slums in Delhi through appropriate risk communication.Asian J Environ Disaster Manag 4(1):575–593

Nat Hazards (2012) 64:1609–1624 1623

123

Prashar S, Shaw R, Takeuchi Y (2012) Community action planning in East Delhi: a participatory approachto build urban disaster resilience. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change. SpringerScience. doi:10.1007/s11027-012-9368-4

Rahman A, Netzband M (2007) An assessment of urban environmental issues using remote sensing and GIStechniques an integrated approach: a case study: Delhi, India’. In: De Sherbinin, A, Rahman A,Barbieri, A, Fosto, J C, and Zhu Y (eds) Urban population-environment dynamics in the developingworld: case studies an lessons learned. International Cooperation in National Research in demography(CICRED), Paris (Working paper). www.ciesin.columbia.edu/repository/pern/papers/urban_pde_rahman_etal.pdf-2009-12-04. Accessed 28 May 2010

SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) (2009) South Asian disaster report 2008,SAARC Disaster Management Centre. Mac Millan Publishers India Ltd., New Delhi

United Nations (2002) World urbanization prospects: The 2001 revision data tables and highlights. http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wup2001/wup2001dh.pdf. Accessed on 13 April 2012

Wisner B, Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I (2004) At risk: natural hazards. People’s vulnerability and disasters.MIT Press, Cambridge

World Bank (2009) Climate resilient cities: a primer on reducing vulnerabilities to disasters. The WorldBank, Washington

Yamuna Jiye Abhiyaan (2007) Yamuna flood plains under siege in Delhi. A report by Yamuna JiyeAbhiyaan. http://www.peaceinst.org/publication/book-let/Yamuna%20under%20siege-20in%20Delhi.pdf.Accessed on 25 April 2012

1624 Nat Hazards (2012) 64:1609–1624

123