ASSESSING SOCIO-ECONOMIC A CITY-LEVEL INDEX BASED APPROACH VULNERABILITY TO CLIMATE HAZARDS: Krishna Malakar Trupti Mishra

Transcription

1 ASSESSING SOCIO-ECONOMIC VULNERABILITY TO CLIMATE HAZARDS: A CITY-LEVEL INDEX BASED APPROACH Krishna Malakar Trupti Mishra IDP in Climate Studies Indian Institute of Technology Bombay Mumbai, India

2 WHAT IS VULNERABILITY? 2

3 WHY CITIES? 3

4 4

5 60% of the total GDP of India from urban areas (PRIA, 2013) 5

6 VULNERABILITY MORE DUE TO LACK OF 6

7 AND INEQUALITY 7

8 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Assessment constitutes understanding (quantitatively or qualitatively) Extent to which an area or a sector is susceptible to climate change And is likely to face difficulty to adapt or overcome climate change. 8

9 SOCIO-ECONOMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Assessment based on socio-economic status Quantifies vulnerability irrespective of any hazard Probable vulnerability Better the socio-economic status Lesser will the vulnerability Better and faster coping mechanism 9

10 CITIES SELECTED FROM EACH OF THE SIX BIO-CLIMATIC ZONES Bio-climatic Cities selected zones Hot and Dry Jaisalmer and Jodhpur Warm and Humid Mumbai and Chennai Moderate Pune and Bangalore Composite Delhi and Allahabad Cold and Cloudy Shimla and Shillong Cold and Sunny Leh (Ladakh) 10 10

11 SELECTION OF INDICATORS Chosen such that they can capture the socio-economic capability of a city to face a natural hazard Can denote lack of Access to resources Information and technology Physically limited individuals etc. 11

12 SUB-COMPONENTS OF VULNERABILITY INDEX Infrastructure Space Technology Vulnerability index Social Finance 12

13 INDICATORS Infrastructure Technology Financial Social Space % of dilapidated houses % of the households having television Total no. of hospital % of the households beds/per capita having internet Per capita expenditure % of the households in public amenities having telephone % of households with % of the households drinking water facility having mobile within premises % of households having electricity % of households having sanitation % of population having own (not rented) houses Per Capita Net District % of female headed Domestic Product (NDDP) households at Current Prices % of households having % of population in SC banking services category % of main workers % of population in ST category % of population below 6 yrs of age % above 60 years of age % of illiterates % disabled population % growth rate Population density % built-up area 13

14 VULNERABILITY INDEX CALCULATION Sub-components brought into relative terms/normalised using the same approach as in the Human Development Index s c s min indexs c s s Sub-components were then averaged to get the major component max min Overall Vulnerability Index = Weighted average of sub components Weights = no. of indicators in the sub-component Overall Vulnerability Index Index scales from 0 to 10 0=least vulnerable 10=most vulnerable c 5 i 1 5 i 1 W M W i M M i ci 14

15 JAISALMER AND JODHPUR Jaisalmer (6.5 ) more vulnerable than Jodhpur (5.1 ) Lowest access to electricity Low no. of hospital beds and public expenditure Lowest population density SPACE INFRASTRUCTURE Lowest access to internet, television and radio TECHNOLOGY Jaisalmer Jodhpur Highest level of illiteracy (Jaisalmer) SOCIAL FINANCE 15

16 MUMBAI AND CHENNAI Chennai (4.8) is more vulnerable than Mumbai (3.8) Highest pop density and built up area Lesser access to sanitation SPACE Large no. of female headed HH SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE Highest access to phone TECHNOLOGY Mumbai Chennai One of the highest NDDP 16

17 ALL CITIES CITY Overall Rank vulnerability Index Jaisalmer Jodhpur Chennai Shillong Allahabad Leh (Ladakh) Shimla Bangalore Delhi Mumbai Pune RANK Infrastructure Index Technology Index Finance Index Social Index Space Index 1 Jaisalmer Jaisalmer Jodhpur Chennai Chennai 2 Leh Shillong Allahabad Jodhpur Jodhpur 3 Mumbai Jodhpur Jaisalmer Jaisalmer Pune 4 Allahabad Shimla Chennai Allahabad Bangalore 5 Shillong Delhi Shillong Shillong Mumbai 6 Bangalore Leh Bangalore Delhi Shimla 7 Shimla Allahabad Delhi Leh Jaisalmer 8 Jodhpur Mumbai Shimla Bangalore Delhi 9 Chennai Bangalore Pune Pune Allahabad 10 Pune Chennai Leh Shimla Shillong 11 Delhi Pune Mumbai Mumbai Leh 17

18 RANGE OF INDICES Index Difference between the highest and the lowest Technology 5.98 Finance 5.53 Space 4.08 Infrastructure 3.51 Social 3.08 Overall Vulnerability

19 CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION Metropolitan cities (except Chennai) seem to be on the lower end of vulnerability Indices are relative in nature Indication of coping capacity irrespective of any climate hazard Indices can help strategize policies in different sectors in different cities and limitations 19

20 LIMITATIONS The process of assigning weights is subjective. Including more indicators or choosing different weights will give different results. Inclusion of climate variables (i.e. exposure) in the index might give more reliable results The same sub-components have been used for calculating the indices of all the cities. This is debatable. This is a macro-scale study. Micro-level study can help identify more indicators or nullify some of the indicators used in this study. and limitations 20

21 OVERVIEW OF IMAGE SOURCES Slide 2: Image source: Slide 4: Image source: Slide 5: Image source: Slide 6: Image sources: / / Art/Cartoon/Comical/black-and-white-cartoon-weight-lifter html / Slide 7: Image sources: / 21

22 SUMMARY Indices developed that indicate socio-economic vulnerability towards hazards 11 cities located in 6 climatic zones studied The indicators have been segregated into 5 components: Infrastructure Technology Finance Social Space Cities have been ranked according to Overall vulnerability index Component indices Jaisalmer is the most vulnerable Pune is the least vulnerable Metropolitan cities (except Chennai) seem to be on the lower end of vulnerability 22